LIBRARY OF HEBREW BIBLE/OLD TESTAMENT STUDIES

449Formerly Journal for (he Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series

EditorsClaudia V. Camp, Texas Christian UniversityAndrew Mein, Westcott House, Cambridge

Founding EditorsDavid J. A. Clines, Phil ip R. Davies and David M. Gunn

Editorial BoardRichard J. Coggins, Alan Cooper, John Goldingay,

Robert P. Gordon, Norman K. Gottwald, John Jarick,Andrew D. H. Mayes, Carol Meyers, Patrick D. Miller

This page intentionally left blank

SACRED DAN

Religious Tradition and Cultic Practice in Judges 17-18

Jason S. Bray

N E W Y O R K • L O N D O N

t&t clark

Copyright © 2006 by Jason S. Bray

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, ortransmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, including photocopying,recording, or otherwise, without the written permission of the publisher, T & T ClarkInternational.

T & T Clark International, 80 Maiden Lane, New York, NY 10038

T & T Clark International, The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX

T & T Clark International is a Continuum imprint.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataBray, Jason S. (Jason Stephen)

Sacred Dan : religious tradition and cultic practice in Judges 17-18 / Jason S. Bray.p. cm. -- (Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament studies ; 449)

Based on the author's thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Cambridge, originally presentedunder the title: The Danite cultic legend in its ancient Near Eastern context.

Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 0-567-02712-0 (hardcover : alk. paper)

1. Bible. O.T. Judges XVII-XVIII--Criticism, interpretation, etc. I. Title. II. Series.BS1305.52.B73 2006222'.3206--dc22

2006007652

Printed in the United States of America

0607080910 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments • ixAbbreviations xi

INTRODUCTION 11. The Case of Dan: Judges 17-18 32. History of Research 43. Historical and Textual Issues 16

a. Judges 17-18 and the History of the Danites 16b. Judges 17:7 19c. Judges 18:30-31 21d. Redactional History 23

Part ISACRED TRADITION IN JUDGES 17-18

Chapter 1INTERPRETING JUDGES 17-18 31

1. Rhetorical-Critical Study 31a. Judges 17:1-6 32b. Judges 17:7-18:la 33c. Judges 18: lb-6 35d. Judges 18:7-10 36e. Judges 18:11-26 38f. Judges 18:27-31 39g. Summary 41

2. Form-Critical Analysis of the Danite Story 423. Cultic Aetiologies in the Hebrew Bible 43

a. Genesis 12:6-8 43b. Genesis 16:7-14 44c. Genesis 22 44d. Genesis 28:10-22 44e. Genesis 32:23-33 44f. Genesis 33:18-20 45g. Genesis 35:1-7 45h. Genesis 35:9-15 45

4. The Cultic Foundation Story in the Hebrew Bible 46

vi Sacred Dan

5. The Danite Story and the Jerusalem Stories 476. The Cultic Foundation Story in Judges 50

a. Judges 6:11-24 51b. Judges 13:2-23 51

7. Summary 528. Cultic Foundation Stories in the Ancient Near East 529. Cultic Foundation Stories from Other Cultures 54

10. Conclusions 58

Part IICULTIC PRACTICE IN JUDGES 17-18

Chapter 2IMAGE WORSHIP IN THE DANITE STORY 63

1. The Image in the Danite Story 632. The Term rDDQI ^DS 643. The bDS in the Hebrew Bible 664. The ^DS of Micah and the Bull Image of Royal Dan 685. The Image of Royal Dan 716. The Origins of Bull Iconography 73

Excursus: Bull Imagery in Ugaritic and Hebrew Texts 74

7. Image Worship in the Ancient Near East 808. The Cultic Image among the Hebrews

and in the Ancient Near East 849. Image Worship and the Archaeology of Tel Dan 86

10. Conclusions 88

Chapter 3PRIESTS IN THE DANITE STORY 89

1. Priests in the Danite Legend 892. The Initiation Rites of the Priests in the Danite Story 903. The Priestly Functions in the Hebrew Bible 944. The Danite Priesthood and the Ancient Near East 99

a. Aramean and Phoenician Priests 99b. Priests from Northern Syria 101c. Assyrian and Babylonian Priests 103d. Egyptian Priests 106e. Hittite Priests 108f. Pre-Islamic Arabian Priests 108

5. The Priests of Dan in their Near Eastern Context:Conclusions 109

Contents vii

Chapter 4DIVINATION IN THE DANITE STORY 111

1. Divination in the Danite Story 1112. Ephods as Divinatory Devices 112

a. The High-Priestly Ephod 112b. The Linen Ephod 113c. The Oracular Priestly Ephod 114d. Gideon's Ephod 115e. The Ephod in the Ancient Near East 117

3. TheTeraphim 118a. Genesis 31 119b. 1 Samuel 15:23 121c. 1 Samuel 19 121d. 2 Kings 23:24 122e. Ezekiel21:36 122f. Hosea3:4 122g. Zechariah 10:2 122

4. The Shrine of Dan as an Oracular Centre 1235. The Oracle to the Danites in Judges 18:5-6 1256. The btW Oracle as Extispicy 1297. The Danite Oracle in its Ancient Near Eastern Context 1318. The Danite Oracle as a Private Oracle 1339. Conclusions 137

CONCLUSION: CULTIC LIFE AT DAN 138

AppendixTHE DANITE STORY AND THE HISTORY OF THE LEVITES 142

1. What Does "Levite" Mean? 1422. Was There a Secular Tribe of Levi? 1433. Were Levites Necessarily Priests? 1444. The Question of the Secular Tribe of Levi 1455. Proposed Reconstruction of the History of Levi

in the Light of Judges 17-18 1476. The Levitical Priesthood of Dan 1497. Conclusions 149

Bibliography 151

Index of References 161Index of Authors 167

This page intentionally left blank

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study has its origins in a Ph.D. dissertation accepted by the University ofCambridge under the title "The Danite Cultic Legend in its Ancient Near EasternContext: A Study of Judges 17-18." I am immensely grateful to ProfessorGraham Davies who supervised my work, and to the Reverend Professor JohnEmerton who acted as my supervisor for a term. The Reverend Dr Tony Gelstonof Durham has given me much encouragement and friendship during this project.I am also grateful to my examiners for their useful advice, among them in par-ticular to Professor Robert Gordon of Cambridge for his guidance. Much of theoriginal work was done at the excellent research library of Tyndale House inCambridge.

The revisions have been completed while I have been trying to juggle familycommitments, parochial ministry, training responsibilities in the Diocese of Mon-mouth and a large amount of teaching mainly at St Michael's College in Cardiff.I therefore owe a huge amount to so many people: to the folk of the Parish ofBlaenavon with Capel Newydd who have ensured that I have not needed to usemuch imagination to envisage the life of an incense-burning cultic priest (truly,the house is often filled with smoke!); to colleagues and students for their supportand interest (my students have over the years enjoyed playing "spot the refer-ence to Dan"); to my former bishop, the Most Reverend Rowan Williams forhis encouragement and advice, and to my present bishop the Right ReverendDominic Walker OGS for his interest; to Dr Andrew Mein the current series co-editor for answering all sorts of silly questions, and helping me see the woodfrom the trees; to Dr Duncan Burns for his care with my manuscript; to myparents Pamela and Frederick Bray for their support and love; to my sonsThomas and Benedict for their constant interruptions and ebullient love; andmost of all to my wife, Laura, whose love is the great constant in my life. To her,I dedicate this book.

This page intentionally left blank

ABBREVIATIONS

AB Anchor BibleABD The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. Garden

City,N.Y.: Doubleday, 1992ABRL Anchor Bible Reference LibraryAfO Archivfiir OrientforschungAHI G. I. Davies. Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1991AHw W. von Soden. Akkadishes Handworterbuch. 3 vols: Wiesdaben: Harrassowitz,

1958-81AJBA A ustralian Journal of Biblical ArchaeologyAJSL American Journal of the Semitic LanguagesAnBib Analecta BiblicaANEP The Ancient Near East in Pictures. Edited by J. B. Pritchard. Princeton, N.J.:

Princeton University Press, 1954ANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Edited by J. B.

Pritchard. 3d ed. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1969AOAT Alter Orient und Altes TestamentARM A. Parrot and G. Dossin. Archives Royales de Mart. Paris: Guethner, 1950-ASTI Annual of the Swedish Theological InstituteATD Alt Testament DeutschBAR Biblical Archaeology ReviewBASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental ResearchBDB F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the

Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1907BUS Biblia hebraica stuttgartensiaBKAT Biblischer Kommentar: Altes TestamentBZAW Beihefte zur ZA WCAD The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956-CBQ Catholic Biblical QuarterlyCML J. C. L. Gibson. Canaanite Myths and Legends. 2d ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,

1978ConB Coniectania BiblicaDBI A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation. Edited by R. J. Coggins and J. L.

Houlden. London: SCM Press, 1990DBSup Supplement au dictionnaire de la bible. Edited by L. Pirot et al. Paris: Letouzey et

Ane, 1928-EncJud Encyclopaedia Judaica. Edited by C. Roth et al. 16 vols. Jerusalem:

Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1972EvQ Evangelical Quarterly

xii Sacred Dan

ExpTim Expository TimesFRLANT Forschung zur Religion and Literatur des Alten und Neuen TestamentsGK Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar Edited and Enlarged by E. Kautzsch. Translated by

A. E. Cowley. 2d ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1910HKAT Handkommentar zum Alten TestamentHSM Harvard Semitic MonographsHUCA Hebrew Union College AnnualICC International Critical CommentaryIEJ Israel Exploration JournalJBL Journal of Biblical LiteratureJNES Journal of Near Eastern StudiesJQR NS Jewish Quarterly Review, New SeriesJSOT Journal for the Study of the Old TestamentJSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement SeriesJTS NS Journal of Theological Studies, New SeriesKAI H. Donner and W. Rollig. Kanaandische und Aramdische Inscriften. Wiesbaden:

Harrassowitz, 1962-64KAT Kommentar zum Alten TestamentKTU Die keilalphatbetischen Texte aus Ugarit. Vol. 1. Transkription. Edited by M.

Dietrich, O. Lorenz, and J. Samartin. AOAT 24.1. Neukirchen-Vluyn:Neukirchener Verlag, 1976

LCL Loeb Classical LibraryNCB New Century BibleOTL Old Testament LibraryOTS Oudtestamentische StudienPEQ Palestinian Exploration QuarterlyPRU C. Virolleaud et al. Palais Royal d'Ugarit. Vol. 2. Textes alphabetiques des

archives est, ouest et centrals. Mission de Ras Shamra 8. Paris: Missionarcheologique de Ras Shamra, 1957

RB Revue BibliqueSBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation SeriesSBLMS Society of Biblical Literature Monograph SeriesSBT Studies in Biblical TheologySJOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old TestamentSOTSMS Society for Old Testament Study Monograph SeriesST Studio theologicaSVT Supplements to VTTDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H.

Ringgren. Translated by J. T. Willis, G. W. Bromiley, and D. E. Green. 8 vols.Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974

TSSI J. C. L. Gibson. Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. Vol. 3. PhoenicianInscriptions. Oxford: Clarendon, 1982

ThWAT Theologisches Worterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck andH. Ringgren. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1970-

VT Vetus TestamentumWMANT Wissenschaftlische Monographien zum Alten und Neuen TestamentZA W Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentlische WissenschaftZDPV Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina- Vereins

INTRODUCTION

Reading the Bible can warp your sense of perspective, at least, that is, in terms ofhistory. For example, because of the New Testament, the history of a couple ofsmall provinces in the backyard of the great Roman Empire has taken on muchmore significance than most of its inhabitants at the time could ever haveimagined possible. The time from the beginning of the common era to a datearound thirty years later is seen under a historical magnifying glass: what washappening in the "Kingdom" of Galilee and the Roman Province of Judea at thattime becomes more significant than any event happening in Imperial Rome, orthe "far-flung" corners of the world, the Chinese Empire, the Indian Sub-Conti-nent, pre-Columbian America—for those thirty years or so all these historiesseem to stop, as if nothing much happened in the rest of the world. All becomesfocused on one single lifetime. The Christian sees these things with the perspec-tive of faith, and the Western historical perspective, skewed by its Christianinheritance, plays along with it. For non-Western historians things are surelydifferent. For Muslim historians the time around 570-632 CE surely takes on thesame significance, and Arabia too is viewed under the same magnifying glass.But Western history, caught up with the history of the Barbarian migrations andthe "Dark Ages"—and for a few benighted isles in the Atlantic, the last gasp ofthe "Age of the Saints"—has barely noticed the events of Arabia. For Western-ers, the Bible as no other book warps their sense of perspective.

But the time of Jesus is not the only example of a case where this happens toreaders of the Bible. In the history of the ancient Near East, the history of whatwe have traditionally called "Israel" stands out in stark relief from other lessinteresting histories. Who wants to know about the great civilisation of Egyptwith its four thousand years of history, or the possibly even longer traditions ofthe people who inhabited what we now call Iraq—the Sumerians, the Babyloni-ans and the Assyrians? Who wants to know about these people, when you have"Israel"? This attitude has had a great effect on academic biblical studies, wherethe vast majority of scholars have treated ancient "Israel" as if it existed in avacuum, rather than at the centre (geographically, if not culturally) of the ancientNear East, a much larger entity in every sense.

Furthermore, in this history of what the majority of people still refer to as"Israel," it is the history and traditions of one city which dominate the collectivehistorical perspective: Jerusalem more than any other factor dominates thehistory of "Israel." But this is hardly unexpected. What we now know as theHebrew Bible was compiled and redacted in Jerusalem, and naturally tells the

2 Sacred Dan

story from the point of view of Jerusalem. However, there is more than simplythe natural bias of civic pride: the story itself has been skewed deliberately sothat we are led to assume that the Jerusalemite traditions are the only traditionsthat matter. All other traditions are recorded in the Hebrew Bible to enhance thepre-eminence of Jerusalem in some form or other; any Hebrew tradition that didnot have Jerusalem as its focus was simply not recorded at all. And if this is trueof secular history, it is even more true of religious history, for the Hebrew Bibleis not a book of secular history, it is a book of religious history written by and forthe religious functionaries of the Temple in Jerusalem. If the secular traditions ofthe surrounding areas are subsumed by Jerusalem, their religious traditions are allbut obliterated.

We know, for example, that there were many shrines and temples in the terri-tory Jerusalem claims to have governed, to the extent that Lev 17:1-9 (part of theHoliness Code, a Jerusalemite text) assumes that each settlement will have itsown temple where all animals for food would be slaughtered (otherwise thosewho lived away from Jerusalem would never have eaten meat). Despite the largenumber of shrines which must have existed, virtually nothing of their traditionsand history is recorded in the Hebrew Bible, with the exception of those Southernshrines mentioned in Genesis which we will discuss later.

If this general picture of bias towards Jerusalem is true of the South, thenwhen we turn to the North, the picture is even more biased, especially with regardto the so-called monarchical period from ca. 1000 BCE. The Northern Kingdom(the Kingdom of Israel, and incidentally, the only real political entity ever tohave been called by that name in the ancient world) is always portrayed in thetexts of the Hebrew Bible as a lesser entity than the Southern Kingdom of Judah.The North's history is only really recorded when it impacts on that of Judah andJerusalem, or can be used to illustrate it (as in the case of the Elijah and Elishacycles). Classically this is the case with the books of Chronicles, which barelyallude to the existence of the Northern Kingdom, but it is true of all of the Jerusa-lem texts to some extent or other. And, of course, if it is true of the secular texts,it is much more the case with the religious texts. Largely, the religious traditionsof the Northern Kingdom are mentioned only to be condemned. The reason forthis is that the religion of the Northern Kingdom was given as the reason for thefall of the Kingdom to the Assyrians in 721 BCE in 2 Kgs 17. Here in a Southerntext, the religion of the North is characterised as wholesale apostasy. The peopleturned away from Yahweh their God, and worshipped idols. In particular theofficial state religion of the North, with its worship of the "golden calves," issingled out for condemnation (v. 16), and indeed the whole of the HebrewBible's history of the Northern Kingdom is marred by this continuation of the"sin of Jeroboam son of Nebat" as described in 1 Kgs 12:25-33.

However, the texts are transparently partisan. We know, for example, that theNorthern Kingdom, far from being the provincial backwater depicted in theHebrew Bible, was in fact one of the richest and most powerful states in theLevant of its time. It was certainly more prosperous and politically significantthan its Southern neighbour whose continued political independence was due to

Introduction 3

its lack of importance in any significant sphere rather than to any other factor.We also know that Yahweh was as much the God of the North as he was of theSouth, and that, for example, the Moses tradition was stronger there than inJerusalem. Despite the fact that all this is well known, the Southern bias is perva-sive even in modern scholarly literature, where the religion of the North which isstill seen basically as the Deuteronomistic Historians described it—at best hetero-dox, at worst idolatrous.

1. The Case of Dan: Judges 17-18

This general state of affairs is no more the case than for Judg 17-18, one of thefew authentic Northern religious texts. It tells the story of the foundation of theshrine of Dan, a shrine which would become of the official cultic centres for theNorthern Kingdom under Jeroboam I, and appears to shed more light on thenature of Northern religion than any other Hebrew text. Despite this, presumablybecause it is Northern, it has been quite startlingly overlooked by biblicalscholars.

Therefore, in this study I propose to examine Judg 17-18 in detail to deter-mine exactly what it has to say about the religion of Dan, following which I shallthen compare that information with similar information from the Hebrew Bibleitself, and then with the ancient Near Eastern sources. In so doing, I hope toelucidate the nature of the religion of the North as it was perceived in one of themajor Northern cultic centres, and, at the same time, to clarify some issues withregard to the Hebrew religion in general with regard to its broader context.

After an introductory section which deals with the history of research and afew other issues, such as the composition and redactional history of the text, thebulk of the work falls into two parts. Part I is an in-depth study of the text of Judg17—18 itself from several angles. In the first instance, the text is examined as itstands from a literary-critical point of view. Although this has been attemptedseveral times in recent years, in my view, all these attempts have been unsatisfac-tory, and the conclusions reached in the present study are radically different fromother literary critics. The text is then examined using more traditional form-criti-cal methods. Part II then deals with the three issues relating to the cult mentionedin the text: image worship, priesthood and divination. There are, of course, manyother aspects of the religion of Dan that could have be covered. However, sincevirtually the only information we have about the shrine of Dan comes from thetext of Judg 17-18 we have limited ourselves to the issues mentioned in it. So,for example, while it is almost certainly the case that there would have been asacrificial cult at Dan, these is no actual evidence for it, and therefore, importantthough it might be, it falls outside the scope of this book. After the generalConclusion, an Appendix deals with what the story may tell us about the historyof the Levites. Although, again, this is not strictly within the parameters of thework, I have covered this aspect of the text since it is one which has occupiedmany scholars in the past, and it is also a question to which I feel I can make acontribution.

4 Sacred Dan

Perhaps a word should be said at this stage about the critical stance of thisstudy. Essentially, I, as author, see myself as a historian of religion who stands,quite naturally, in the historical-critical tradition. Yet I am more than happy touse the insights of more recent scholarship such as literary-critical studies wherethey prove useful. None of the results of this scholarship, however, will beaccepted unquestioningly.

2. History of Research

In scholarly terms, Judg 17-18 is one of the most unusual pericopes in theHebrew Bible: first, it is one of the most neglected for reasons the present writerhas never fully understood, and secondly, there is in fact no overall scholarlyagreement as to what the story is "about." It has to be said that there is often agrudging aspect to the scholarly study of these chapters, as if those scholars whohave engaged with the text have done so because they have had to, but notbecause they want to. So, for example, most writers on Judges seem to have loststeam after the excitement of Samson pulling the temple of Dagon down on thePhilistines in Judg 16—a hard act to follow from any perspective. On the otherhand, writers on the history of Hebrew religion, as I have suggested, seem tohave been much more interested in Jerusalem, and only mention Dan in passing,if at all. Perhaps it is not surprising that this has led to apparently slipshodinterpretation, as if the chapters' very unfamiliarity and the scholarly writers'lack of interest has given them permission to subject the story to ill-thought-outtheories. Furthermore, for most interpreters, once they have imposed their theoryon the text, they have apparently felt that there is nothing else to say. It is,perhaps, symptomatic that even the sort of critical theory being imposed on themhas changed according to scholarly fashion. In other words, few scholars havestarted with the text itself, and their interpretations have been affected by a hostof factors which have little in fact to do with it.

So, in the early period of critical research into the chapters, most scholarswere convinced that source criticism was the key to understanding the book ofJudges, and so although they often noted in passing that these chapters weresignificant in terms of what they recorded about the history of the cult, and thatthis aspect of them needed in-depth studying, they left this to subsequent scholar-ship. But such a study has not been forthcoming, at least until now.

For the majority of later scholars, it became fashionable to see the story ashaving been wholly fabricated by the enemies of one or other of the successivecultic regimes at Dan, and thus as containing no accurate historical information.Thus, scholars of this generation felt no particular need .to examine what Judg17-18 can tell us about the Hebrew cult. An added complication in the scholarlyliterature was the question whether or not the chapters formed part of the Deu-teronomistic History, and this also attracted much attention away from a discus-sion of the cult.

A further factor has come into play more recently. This has been the increasein interest in the literary aspects of the text, a development which has enabled

Introduction 5

scholars seemingly legitimately (and probably thankfully) to ignore any of thehistorical questions.

To my mind, however, there is simply no question that the story is one of themost significant in terms of what it can tell us about the history of Hebrew relig-ion, because, more than anything else, the story appears to be "about" the cult,and so it is all the more surprising that, as far as it has been possible to ascertain,no full-length study and very few briefer studies have been made of this centralaspect of the story.

That the cultic aspects of Judg 17-18 have been virtually ignored in the his-tory of research can be seen quite clearly from the overview that follows.Whereas it may have been thought desirable to treat the material topic by topic,given the fact that those works which do mention the cultic issues at stake in thestory tend do so in general terms, for our purposes it is easier at least initially tocover the material chronologically, so as, in effect, to demonstrate that we beginour investigation with what is effectively a tabula rasa. Where previous scholar-ship has had something significant to say about the various topics covered in laterchapters, its insights will be brought into play there.

a. 1835-1957This period, as I have noted, was dominated by source-critical studies to the det-riment of other aspects of the text. Scholars were therefore not by and largeinterested in cultic issues, and, as is also the case with the subsequent eras, noone was concerned to place the text in its ancient Near Eastern context, even inthis age which saw such great advances in the field of Oriental studies. Therewas, however, in contrast with some more modern studies during this period, ageneral acceptance that the story contained at least some reliable historicalinformation.

The modern study of these chapters can be said to begin—following initialforays by Studer (1835,1842) and Vatke (1835)—with the work of Julius Well-hausen. He regarded Micah's shrine and the status of the Levite as a normal stateof affairs, at least more normal than the position of Eli at Shiloh.1 He noted thatthe Danites' actions are "natural to the verge of absolute shamelessness,"2 andthat the chapters contain many cultic acts forbidden by the law. He suggested,however, that the storyteller relates them as if they were inoffensive since hisconcern is to show the origins of the cult of one of the great shrines of theHebrews.3 Wellhausen thus presumably saw the narrative as describing practicesthat were later condemned by the Torah, but that were perfectly acceptable at thetime of writing. Although originally Wellhausen regarded the text as a unit, helater changed his mind in the face of the arguments of Moore and others.4

1. J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel (Edinburgh, 1885), 129.2. Ibid., 235.3. Ibid., 236.4. J. Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bucher des Alten

Testaments (2d ed.; Berlin, 1889), 232-33. Cf., however, J. Bewer, "The Composition of Judges,Chaps. 17,18," AJSL 29 (1912-13): 261-83 (216), who argues that Judg 17-18 has only one source.

6 Sacred Dan

Typical of the commentaries of Wellhausen's contemporaries is perhaps thesecond edition of Bertheau's careful and detailed work. Like Wellhausen, hedetected no great amount of polemic in the story5 which he saw as tribal history,and as being of paramount importance for the history of the cult.6 Like the major-ity of earlier commentators, he regarded the text as having two ancient parallelsources, fixed into a much later editorial framework.7 On the other hand, hiscontemporary Kuenen tended towards the view that the text was a unity withnegative redactional interpolations at 17:2-4; 18:14, 17-18, 20.8

Surprisingly, Robertson Smith's only reference to Judg 17-18 came as part ofa discussion on the swearing of oaths.9 He did, however, discuss Semiticsanctuaries in general, suggesting that sanctuaries were set up in places that a godwas known to frequent, and that "the greatest and holiest sanctuaries were thosewhich according to undisputed tradition, he [a deity] had been known to frequentfrom time immemorial."10 He went on to say that "we find that new sanctuariescan be formed and new altars or temples erected, only where the godhead hasgiven unmistakable evidence of his presence."11

Smith did note that sanctuaries were usually in places like Laish where therewas an abundance of fertile land, or where there was a spring. To the desertnomads these places would have seemed to be places where the divine and thehuman could meet.12 Of Mount Hermon, Smith commented that the name itselfimplies holiness,13 but he had nothing to say about Dan.

In his magisterial commentary, Moore viewed the narrative as being com-posed of (at least) two different sources,14 both of which were ancient and ofgreat historical value.15 The first he thought of as being a Danite narrative whoseauthor's sympathies "are on the side of the spoilers,"16 and the second as con-cerned with the cultic image, explaining that "It was a ex voto for the recovery ofthe money."17 Although much of Moore's study of these chapters consists of adetailed exposition of the sources he had isolated, I will refer to this commentaryin my later discussion, since it is in many ways the most satisfactory of the olderworks.

5. E. Bertheau, Das Buck der Richter undRuth (2d ed.; Leipzig, 1883), xi.6. Ibid., 239-40.7. Ibid., xxv-xxvii; cf. also pp. 238^0.8. A. Kuenen, Historisch-kritische Einleitung in die Bticher des alten Testaments, Part 2, vol. 2

(2d ed.; Leipzig, 1890), 28-29.9. W. R. Smith, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites (3d ed.; London: A. & C. Black, 1927),

164.10. Ibid., 115.11. Ibid., 115.12. Ibid., 136.13. Ibid., 155.14. G. F. Moore, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges (ICC, Edinburgh, 1895),

167. Cf. idem, Judges ((Polychrome Bible; London, 1898), 33-35.15. Moore, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges, 370.16. Ibid., 370.17. Ibid., 370.

Introduction 1

Budde's commentary is in many ways similar to Moore's. He stated that theaim of Judg 17-18 was to describe the foundation of the shrine of Dan.18 How-ever, unlike Moore, he did regard one of the two sources as having some negativematerial.19 A very similar approach was taken by Nowack, writing some fiveyears later.20

Von Gall also discussed the shrine of Dan and its foundation story. His mostsignificant comment is that Jeroboam I replaced a very primitive image with hisgolden calf.21

Arnold, in his monograph on the Ark, dealt briefly with the redaction andinterpretation of Judg 17-18. Unlike most of his contemporaries he saw the storyas being derived from a single ancient source composed by the same writer as thebooks of Samuel,22 but containing a series of glosses.23

Burney's stance, by contrast, was closer to Moore's, except that, by this stage,he did not even feel the need to argue for the composite nature of the narrativesince he thought it to be so obvious.24 For Burney, there were two narrativestrands, both ancient and very similar, which can together be seen as "one of themost ancient and valuable historical sources which we possess.. ,"25 For Burney,as for other earlier commentators, nothing pejorative is said of either Micah orhis sanctuary, other than 17:2-4.26

Eissfeldt, in his monograph on the composition of Judges, also upheld the thencurrent source-critical approach. He divided the chapters into two independent,but very similar stories one of which he attributed to L (= Laienschrift, an ancientnarrative strand from the Pentateuch consisting of passages which could not beattributed to one of the other sources), and the other to the traditional Penta-teuchal source J (= Yah wist).27

In the face of the consensus which viewed the chapters as composite,Fernandez was concerned to argue the literary unity of Judg 17-18. He alsoexplained the reasons for Micah's possession of a shrine, the fact that the Levitecame from Bethlehem, and various other issues. Like his contemporaries, he sawJudg 17-18 as a text without polemical intent: "The author recounts the facts asif they were the most natural thing in the world, and without the least criticism ofMicah or the Levite."28

18. K. Budde, Das Buck der Richter (Freiburg, 1897), 111.19. Ibid., 112. Cf., also idem, Die Bucher der Richter und Samuel, ihre Quellen und ihr Aufbau

(Giessen, 1890), 138ff.20. W. Nowack, Richter, Ruth und Bucher Samuelis (HKAT; Gottingen, 1902), x and 140.21. A. F. von Gall, A Itisraelitische Kultstatten (BZAW 3: Giessen, 1898), 137.22. W. R. Arnold, EphodandArk (Harvard Theological Studies 3; Cambridge, Mass., 1917), 99.23. Ibid., 105.24. C. F. Burney, The Book Of Judges (2d ed.; London, 1920), 408.25. Ibid., The Book of Judges, 416.26. Ibid., The Book of Judges, 416.27. O. Eissfeldt, Die Quellen des Richterbuches (Leipzig, 1925), ad he.28. A. Fernandez, '"El santuario de Dan. Estudio critico-exegetico sobre Jud. 17-18," Biblica 15

(1934): 237-64 (261): "El autor narra los hechos como la cosa mas natural, y sin la menor censuracontra Mica o el levita" (my translation above).

8 Sacred Dan

Pedersen, in a work on the history of Hebrew religion, also sees Judg 17-18 asDanite material.29 He discusses the cultic objects, noting that no altar is men-tioned, and thus, "It is the images which make the house a sacred house."30 ^DS,he suggests, is the general term for idol, but it also implies that the object was awork of art in its own right.31 Finally he suggests that Micah's shrine differedfrom others in that it was not an open-air Canaanite sanctuary with a sacred rockor spring, but a house which was sacred because of its oracular devices.32 As faras the later cult of Dan is concerned, Pedersen links it with Canaanite practice,but says little else.33

Eerdmans regards the graven and molten image as being one object whichlater stood in the temple at Dan. This was the calf image which was institutional-ized by Jeroboam.34 Later, Eerdmans suggests inconsistently that it was made byJeroboam.35 He sees the image of Judg 17-18 as an image of the thunder-godJahu who was worshipped by Micah.36 He does not discuss the royal shrine ofJeroboam in any detail.

In his Introduction to the Old Testament, Pfeiffer, following Arnold,37 seesJudg 17-18 as "an ancient narrative, a late commentary incorporated into the text,and scattered glosses" deriving from the same author as the books of Samuel.38

For him, the story is primarily concerned with "the origin of the sanctuary andclergy at Dan, and incidentally the migration of the Danites."39 He says that itwas probably preserved by the priests of Dan, and is thus of "inestimable valuehistorically, and presents the earliest information on the priesthood in ancientIsrael."40

Hauret also sees Judg 17-18 as a piece of reliable ancient tradition,41 and hasno difficulties interpreting it positively, noting that, although the events are notfor Christian sensibilities, in the context of the ancient world the actions of theLevite and the Danites were perfectly acceptable, even heroic.42 Hauret thusemphasizes the beneficial influence of the Levite on the Danites.43 Hauret arguesthat there is no "overt blame" directed at the events, only "discreet blame," and

29. J. Pedersen, Israel: Its Life and Culture (London, 1940), 150-51.30. Ibid., 222.31. Ibid., 224.32. Ibid., 225-26.33. Ibid., 173-74.34. B. D. Eerdmans, The Religion of Israel (Leiden, 1947), 47.35. Ibid., 75.36. Ibid., 47.37. Arnold, EphodandArk, 95-117.38. R. H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament (rev. ed.; London, 1948), 321.39. Ibid., 321.40. Ibid., 322.41. C. Hauret, "Aux origines du sacerdoce danite," in Melanges bibliques rediges en I 'honneur

de Andre Robert (Travaux de 1' Institute Catholique de Paris 4; Paris 1957), 103-13 (113, cf. also108).

42. Ibid., 111.43. Ibid., 109.

Introduction 9

that this is due exclusively to the redactional comments.44 He sees no evidence ofapostasy, noting that it is Yahweh, and Yahweh alone, who is the God of thesechapters. Further, rather than being influenced by the Canaanites, the Yahwisticshrine of Dan actually replaces a Canaanite shrine. Hauret goes on to say, "Thisfoundation presents an act of recognition of the God who 'has given the land intothe hands' of his faithful servants."45

Source criticism was taken to its extreme towards the end of this period bySimpson46 and Murtonen:47 the latter of whom found as many as three sources inthe narrative.

b. 1957-1987In the 1950s a change occurred in the way in which scholars thought of the chap-ters. This was due to the increasing influence of Noth's theory that Judges formedpart of the Deuteronomistic History, and thus was not composed of the Penta-teuchal sources. Despite this, Noth excluded Judg 17-18 from the History.48 Thechapters were now frequently seen as a whole which had been redacted at asubsequent date. However, there was no agreement as to the provenance of thesingle source which was increasingly being seen as having polemical intent.

For Vincent, on one hand, while the story is incontestably ancient, it is notoriginal Danite material, but gives a good idea of the anarchy which was preva-lent at the time. He argues, like Robertson Smith, that the Semites needed atheophany to found a sanctuary. Since one is not mentioned, the narrative mustbe a polemic against Micah's shrine, and thus, indirectly, against Jeroboam'sroyal sanctuary. Taking the appendix as a whole, he notes that it is discreetlyhostile to the Northern monarchy, and in favour of the Davidic kings.49 Vincentoffers no justification for his views.

Taubler, on the other hand, sees Judg 17-18 as having been written not longafter the event by either the Levite of the story or one of his successors at theshrine of Dan.50 Polemic could only have arisen later, in the form of the redac-tional comments of 17:6 etc.51 Much of his work is concerned with an elaborateexoneration of Micah, a explanation as to why the silver had not technically beenstolen, and a detailed discussion of the "curse" uttered by Micah's mother and itsimplications.52 Most of this consists all too clearly in illegitimate special pleading.

Hertzberg, like Vincent, regards the narrative as having been written withpolemic intent, and without any Danite material.53

44. Ibid., 110.45. Ibid., I l l : "Cette fondation equivaut aun acte de reconnaissence 1'egard de Dieuqui 'a livre

le pays entre les mains' (18:10) de ses devots serviteurs" (my translation above).46. C. A. Simpson, The Composition of the Book of Judges (Oxford, 1957).47. A. Murtonen, "Some Thoughts on Judges xvii sq," VT 1 (1951): 223-24.48. M.Noth, The Deuteronomistic History (2AsA.\ JSOTSup 15; Sheffield, 1991), 77.Cf. A.D.

H. Mayes, The Story of Israel Between Settlement and Exile (London, 1983), 79-80.49. A. Vincent, Le livre des Juges. Le livre de Ruth (Paris, 1958), 116.50. E. Taubler, Biblische Studien: Die Epoche der Richter (Tubingen, 1958), 52.51. Ibid., 53-54.52. Ibid., Biblische Studien: Die Epoche der Richter, pp. 47-52.53. H. W. Hertzberg, Die BucherJosua, Richter, Ruth (2d ed.; ATD; Gottingen, 1959), 239ff.

10 Sacred Dan

Like his work on the Deuteronomistic History, Noth's study of Judg 17-1854

has been very influential. He saw that the narrative had a pejorative tone at oddswith an original Danite story,55 and went on to look at the "pejorative" elementsin detail.56 Noth then pointed out that the—for him—accurate 1 Kgs 12 hadpreserved details which disagree with Judg 17-18.57 He, therefore, assumed thatJudg 17-18 could not be a polemic against the royal sanctuary of Jeroboam.58 Heargued that the comments of 17:6 and 18:la were original to the text, becauseredactors tended to add things at the beginnings and ends of sections, but not inthe middle, and also because whoever inserted them knew the work so well thathe must have been its author.59 Furthermore, the comments must come from themonarchical period, because this was the only time when a king's influence inthe cult was evaluated so positively.60 This points to a date at the time of Jero-boam I.61 So, Noth concluded that Judg 17-18 came "from the circle of the royalIsraelite sanctuary of Dan which was established by Jeroboam I."62 This explainedwhy the Danite shrine is almost the opposite of that in the 1 Kgs 12 account: thesilver image over against the golden calf, tribal sanctuary and royal sanctuary,"the 'vagabond' Levite" priesthood and the royally commissioned one.63 Thenarrative is, therefore, a polemic against the still extant Danite tribal shrine whichJeroboam sought to suppress.64 Noth ended his study with a discussion of thefinal verses of ch. 18, where, in contrast to his caution about the excision of 17:6and 18:la, he saw a series of redactional additions in 18:30 and 18:31b.65

Penna's view, on the other hand, is that the chapters represent a traditionwhich was preserved at Dan,66 but later redacted by a devotee of the temple atJerusalem who was convinced of the truth of Jerusalem's claim to be the soleYahwistic sanctuary.67 Nevertheless, owing to the state of the text he refuses tobe drawn further on the question of its redactional history.68 Penna links the ^DSof Micah with the golden bull of Jeroboam.69

In the 1960s there was remarkably little discussion of the cultic aspects ofthe narrative. Ringgren, for example, simply notes that Judg 17-18 contains the

54. M. Noth, "The Background of Judges 17-18," in Israel's Prophetic Heritage: Essays inHonor of James Muilenberg (ed. B. W. Anderson and W. Harrelson; London, 1962), 68-85. Cf. A. D.H. Mayes, Israel in the Period of the Judges (SBT 2d Series 29; London, 1974), 45-46, and H. M.Niemann, Die Daniten (FRLANT 135; GQttingen, 1985), 131-33.

55. Noth, "The Background of Judges 17-18," 71.56. Ibid., 72-76.57. Ibid., 77-78.58. Ibid., 78.59. Ibid., 79.60. Ibid., 80.61. Ibid., 81.62. Ibid., 81-82.63. Ibid., 82.64. Ibid., 82.65. Ibid., 83-85.66. A. Penna, Giudici e Rut (La sacra bibbia; Rome, 1963), 24.67. Ibid., 215.68. Ibid., 215.69. Ibid., 217, 226.

Introduction 11

earliest mention of priests, and regards the chapters as evidence for the view thatearly in the history of the Hebrews Levites were being viewed as cultic special-ists, and thus for the idea that the priesthood developed gradually.70 He deals laterwith the question of whether they were a tribe or merely a priestly caste. Of thepre-monarchical priesthood as pictured in Judg 17, he says: "The priest appearsas the attendant of a sanctuary and a giver of oracles. Micah builds a shrine inEphraim, installing as priest first his son and then a Levite, to care for the shrineand its image."71 Royal Dan is dismissed in an almost cursory fashion.72

Vriezen's view is that the story is the foundation legend of the shrine of thetribe of Dan which has been marred by later hands.73 He suggests that the picturewe are given may be typical for the period of the Judges, where it seems likelythat there would have been one Yahwistic shrine in each tribal territory. He saysthat the reason Levites were obviously in demand was because they were seen asbeing Moses' descendants.74 In dealing with the bull at Dan, he notes that it was apotent symbol, and was associated with Yahweh as a fertility God, but also apowerful link with the patriarchal period.75

In their works on the priesthood, Gunneweg and Cody both discuss the narra-tive. Both seem to regard it as authentic ancient tradition, but their interpretationsare different. Interest naturally centres for both on the question of the origin ofthe priest, and the exact meaning of 17:7. Gunneweg takes it to suggest that theLevite was a member of the tribe of Judah, seeing no problems with the fact thathis position was that of a resident alien.76 Cody, however, states that he did notbelong to the tribe of Judah.77

Anderson's discussion is very brief. His only insight is that it suggests thatwhile priesthood was not confined to Levites, it was conferred on them in prefer-ence.78 As far as royal Dan is concerned, he suggests that the bull was a pedestal,and little else.79

Fohrer, like Ringgren, focuses on the question of priests and Levites. He pointsout that only in Dan is there evidence of Levites as permanent priests in a Hebrewshrine.80 But his remark that "Dan" may have been the title of a Canaanite deityis unfounded,81 and his treatment of later Dan is exceptionally brief.82 Of themaking of images he comments that it is an example of Canaanite influence onYahwistic religion.83

70. H. Ringgren, Israelite Religion (London, 1966), 51-52.71. Ibid., 205.72. Ibid., 164.73. T. C. Vriezen, The Religion of Ancient Israel (London, 1967), 174.74. Ibid., 175.75. Ibid., 43, 186-88.76. A. H. J. Gunneweg, Leviten und Priester (FRLANT 89; Gottingen, 1965), 23.77. A. Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood (AnBib 35; Rome, 1969), 54.78. G. W. Anderson, The History and Religion of Israel (Oxford, 1966), 78.79. Ibid., 88.80. G. Fohrer, History of Israelite Religion (London, 1973), 115.81. Ibid., 64-65 (probably following Ringgren, Israelite Religion, 21).82. Fohrer, History of Israelite Religion, 132-133.83. Ibid., 82.

12 Sacred Dan

In his commentary, as is also the case with many of the more recent commen-taries, Boling's treatment of the cultic aspects of the story is disappointing. Forthe cultic objects he does little more than offer a list of parallel references.84 Heregards the narrative itself as a conflation of two Micah stories which were subse-quently redacted by the Deuteronomistic Historian.85 The origins of the narrativehe dates to "a very early (premonarchical) period."86 Martin in his commentarysuggests that the story was a polemic against the sanctuary of Jeroboam,87 but heis limited by the scope of his work.

Goulder's work on the Psalms of the sons of Korah to some extent redressesthe balance in that he focuses firmly on the pre-exilic cult of Dan. These Psalms(42-49; 84-88, to which Goulder attaches 8988) are a unit and must be read assuch.89 He regards them as Northern: they refer to Mount Hermon, and seem toenvisage a different climate from that of Jerusalem, among other reasons.90 Thefact that many of them refer to water in abundance leads him to think of Dan astheir place of origin, for it is close to Hermon and at one of the sources of theJordan.91 On this basis Goulder reconstructs the festival of Tabernacles as itwould have been celebrated at Dan, assuming that the Psalms are to be read inorder and were used at that festival. The later group would have formed a sort ofsupplement, the earlier the actual liturgy itself.92

Goulder argues that Dan was the only royal sanctuary in Northern Israel, andthat Bethel was its substitute when Dan was occupied by a foreign power. Hequotes Deut 12 to support this argument, on the basis that it is both ancient andNorthern, and suggests that the archaeology lends support to his argument.93 Asto the central cultic icon of Dan, Goulder argues that this would have been the(one and only) ephod and teraphim, since for him the calves were restricted toBethel. The ephod was taken south during the supposed Philistine crisis, butreturned to Dan when David favoured the ark, or when Jeroboam rebelled. Laterthe teraphim—also called Urim and Thummim—found their way to Jerusalemwith the Korahites, where they were placed in the high priest's ephod. This is notthe same ephod, because the Danite one would have been destroyed on arrival atJerusalem since it would have been regarded as too suspect.94 At Jerusalem theKorahites redacted their Psalms into their present form, replacing references toDan with Jerusalem.95 Later they became involved in a tit-for-tat textual battle

84. R. G. Boling, Judges (AB 6A; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1975), 256.85. Ibid., 258-59.86. Ibid., 259.87. J. D. Martin, The Book of Judges -(Cambridge Bible Commentary; Cambridge, 1975),

182-83.88. M. D. Goulder, The Psalms of the Sons of Korah (JSOTSup 20; Sheffield, 1982), 2.89. Ibid., 2-7.90. Ibid., 13-14.91. Ibid., 14.92. Ibid., 17-18.93. Ibid., 61-62.94. Ibid., 64.95. Ibid., 64.

Introduction 13

with the Zadokites,96 and then went on to become the Chroniclers,97 and the finalredactors of the Pentateuch.98

Of Judg 17-18 Goulder says very little. He regards it as the "tatters of theoriginal sanctuary legend at Dan, heavily overlaid with pejorative embellishmentof its blackest enemies, the D-historians."99 He argues that all that remains of theoriginal is the fact that the priest who founded the shrine was Jonathan of the lineof Moses, that he came from Bethlehem and that "the ephod" was associatedwith the shrine.100

There is little evidence for any of Goulder's views, and some of that which heoffers is not acceptable. For example, Deuteronomy is now regarded neither asNorthern nor as particularly ancient, probably coming from the Judah of Josiah,101

and in any case, making it allude to Dan seems forced. Another difficulty is thatGoulder seems to place Dan actually on Mount Hermon.102 This is not the case: itin fact stands at the foot of Hermon on the rift valley floor. It is even impossibleto see its peak from Dan, since the view is obscured by a mountain ridge. Theemphasis of the Psalms of Korah is on the fact that the city of God is actually ona high mountain. Of course Mount Zion is not as high as the Mount of Olives,but it is at the very top of the Judean hills, and to get there from anywhere otherthan Bethany one has to climb. Jerusalem is thus a more suitable candidate forthe "city of God." The Psalms—especially 46 and 48—are also full of the theol-ogy of the City's inviolability.103 Since Dan spent so much of its history in thehands of the Arameans,104 surely not even its most partisan citizen would invent atheology of its inviolability! Day points to several features which also indicate acomposition in Jerusalem: among others, he includes the reference to Elyon(46:4), a deity not usually associated with Dan,105 although Goulder does try toargue that his residence is in the North, i.e. Hermon.106

The more recent commentaries follow more traditional lines. Gray asserts thatJudg 17—18 was compiled by the Levitical priesthood of Dan, possibly in Bethelafter 734.l07 He suggests that the variants arose from the divergent traditionsof the Levitical priests of Dan and the non-Levitical priesthood of Jeroboam'sroyal sanctuary, which, following Noth, he sees as existing side by side.108 It is,

96. Ibid., 69-77.97. Ibid., 82.98. Ibid., 83.99. Ibid., 53.100. Ibid., 55-56.101. Cf. R. E. Clements, Deuteronomy (Old Testament Guides; Sheffield, 1989), 69-83.102. Goulder, The Psalms of the Sons of Korah, 27: "Dan stands...on the slopes of Mount

Hermon."103. J. Day, Psalms (Old Testament Guides; Sheffield, 1990), 115-16.104. Cf. the inscription published in A. Biran and J. Naveh, "An Aramaic Stele Fragment from

Tel Dan," IEJ 43 (1993): 81-98.105. Day, Psalms, 116-17.106. Goulder, The Psalms of the Sons of Korah, 142.107. J. Gray, Joshua, Judges and Ruth (2d ed.; NCB; Basingstoke, 1986), 338.108. Ibid.,223.

14 Sacred Dan

however, unlikely that the Levitical priests would have combined their sacredtradition with the version of the royal priests which set out to mock their shrine.

Soggin, in one of the best of the recent commentaries, views the text as apolemical re-fashioning of Danite tradition, which attempts to explain why thissanctuary, which boasted a Mosaic priesthood, was destroyed by the Assyrians. Itthus dates to a little before Josiah's reform.109 For Soggin, therefore, it hasbecome "a kind of hieros logos of the overthrow."110 Once more there is noattempt to interact with the ancient Near Eastern material or the cultic issuesraised by the chapters.

An exception to the general lack of interest in the cult during this period isHaran, who in his Temples and Temple Service111 discusses many aspects of theHebrew cult in great detail. We shall return to look at some of his ideas later inthis work, but for our purposes here, it is worth noting that he does discuss Judg17-18 albeit somewhat briefly, and evidently does regard it as preserving valu-able ancient material.'l2 Elsewhere, however, he states that the "ironical attitude"of the story was due not to a redactor, but to the original (southern) author.113

c. 1987 to the Present DayRecent interpretation of Judges has been dominated by the literary-critical school.Such works do not normally deal with historical issues, and those that have dealtwith Judg 17-18 have been no exception.114 As is normally the case, they alsotake the text as it stands, and thus, in so far as they deal with the religiouspractices described, agree with the negative assessment of the Deuteronomisticschool on the religion of the North.

Amit's view115 that the narrative is a "hidden polemic" against, not Dan, butBethel is unsatisfactory, suffering from an over-subtlety of interpretation. Thefact that she can regard a story about Dan as being "really" about Bethel typifiesthe lack of scholarly interest in Dan, which has for too long been overshadowedby interest in Bethel and other shrines.

Albertz, in his History of Religion, adds little to the arguments put forward byRinggren and Fohrer. Like them, he focuses on the history of the Levites, regard-

109. J. A. Soggin, Judges (2d ed.; OTL: London, 1987), 269.110. Ibid., 278.111. M. Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel (Oxford, 1978).112. Haran discusses Bethel and Dan together in Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel,

28-31. The bulk of his discussion is taken up by a footnote on the images at Dan (p. 29 n. 28).113. Haran, Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel, 38 n. 46.114. B.C. Webb, The Book of Judges: An Integrated Reading (JSOTSup 46; Sheffield, 1987);

L. R. Klein, The Triumph of Irony in the Book of Judges (JSOTSup 68; Sheffield, 1988); D. I. Block,"The Period of the Judges: Religious Disintegration Under Tribal Rule," in Israel's Apostasy andRestoration: Essays in Honor of Roland K. Harrison (ed. A. Gileadi; Grand Rapids, 1988), 39-57; P.E. Satterthwaite, " 'No King in Israel': Narrative Criticism and Judges 17-21," Tyndale Bulletin 44(1993): 75-88; cf. idem, "Narrative Artistry and the Composition of Judges 17-21" (Ph.D. diss.;Manchester, 1989); R. H. O'Connell, "The Rhetorical Purpose of the Book of Judges" (Ph.D. diss.;Cambridge, 1992).

115. Y. Amit, "Hidden Polemic in the Conquest of Dan," VT40 (1990): 4-20.

Introduction 15

ing them as itinerant cultic officials,116 in agreement with those scholars whoregard Levites as a non-tribal group of religious functionaries.117 Despite theobvious fact that the Levite was not already a priest, Albertz does not exactly saywhat the role of a non-priestly cultic official might have been. His discussion ofthe royal cult at Dan is also brief,118 and concentrates on a discussion of theorigins of the bull. All in all, for our purposes, this work is disappointing. Albertzhas little discussion of the Northern cult, or for that matter of the Southern cult,but focuses mainly on the sociological aspects of religion.

Toews, in a historical-critical study of the religious institutions of Jeroboam I,sees Judg 17-18 as a unit.119 He dates it to the late monarchical period, linking itwith the Deuteronomists.120 In this he appears to be following Ahlstrom whosuggested that it was included as a preparation for the rejection of Jeroboam'scult in 1 Kgs 12.121 Toews, however, thinks that it was written after Dan fell tothe Assyrians to explain the reasons for this event. It did, nevertheless, incorpo-rate traditional Danite material.122 Toews is one of the few scholars to havestudied the religion of the North in any detail.

A new generation of "Histories of Israelite Religion" is represented byMillers's The Religion of Ancient Israel. Here at last was a general textbook onHebrew religion which showed an interest in cultic matters (unlike, e.g., Ring-gren he cites Leviticus more frequently than Amos).123 He is, nevertheless, lessinterested in Dan. He comments that the priesthood may have been establishedby Jeroboam I, although he does not discount an ancient Mosaic priesthood. Likemany others, he implies that Jeroboam made the cultic image (in the form of abull), but seems to see the cult as Yahwistic from its inception.124

The most recent work to discuss Judg 17-18 in detail is Bartusch's Under-standing Dan, which I will discuss in detail below.

In conclusion, an overview of the literature has shown that a study such as thepresent one is long overdue. Judges 17—18 feels like a text that has been leftbehind. The golden ages of historical-critical study have seemingly come andgone without the production of a full-length study of the text. And although therehave been more recent studies which have dealt with some of the religious issuesraised by the text, these have proved unsatisfactory, in the main because theyappear to have started with a theory, and then fitted the text to suit it. Not one ofthese studies has started with the text, and allowed it to speak for itself, as thepresent work hopes to do.

116. R. Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period (2 vols.; London,1994), 1:58-59.

117. Ibid. 1:58.118. Ibid. 1:140-46.119. W. I. Toews, Monarchy and Religious Institution in Israel Under Jeroboam (Lund, 1963).120. Ibid., 121.121. G. W. Ahlstrom, Aspects of Syncretism in Israelite Religion (Lund, 1963), 26-27.122. Toews, Monarchy and Religious Institution, 123.123. See J. S. Bray, review of P.O. Miller, The Religion of Ancient Israel, JTS NS 53 (2002):

126-29.124. P. D. Miller, The Religion of Ancient Israel (Louisville, 2000), 251-52 n. 190; cf. also

93-94.

16 Sacred Dan

3. Historical and Textual Issues

Before we begin to examine the text itself, there are a few issues arising from theliterature that we need to deal with here. The first of these is a brief discussion ofthe place of Judg 17-18 in the more general history of the tribe of Dan, and ofthe material remains that have been found on the site. We then turn to look at thetwo most important textual issues from the text: the translation of 17:7 and theinterpretation of 18:30-31. Both of these will have a bearing on our more generalinterpretation. Finally, we turn to the broader question of the redactional historyof the text.

a. Judges 17-18 and the History of the DanitesSeveral scholars have been interested in the issue of Judg 17-18 and its place inthe more general history of the Danites.

Gordon, in a paper about the perceived connections between the Classicalworld and the world of the Hebrew Bible, suggested a comparison between theHomeric heroes and the Hebrew Judges.125 He asserted that both cultures weredeeply rooted in a common Western Semitic world which was dominated in mostspheres by the Semitic Phoenicians. He noted that the Phoenician Danaos con-quered the Argolid and became one of the forefathers of the Greek people whoafterwards proudly called themselves "Danaoi."126

Moving on from this, Gordon stated, "Judges 5:17 informs us that Dan was asea people, dwelling in ships."127 For him, Dan, Danuna and Danaoi were all co-terminous: "It is quite possible that the tribe of Dan was a segment of that greatsea people which got a foot-hold in Palestine and was later accepted into thetribal system."128 This process is apparently reflected in Gen 49:16 where Dan isaccepted as one of the full members of the tribal unity.

Gordon's arguments were reiterated, seemingly independently, by Yadin, whodiscusses the saying about Dan in the Song of Deborah. Yadin agrees withGordon's assessment of Gen 49:16,129 viewing Josh 19:47 as a later reconstruc-tion. The tribe was nomadic since there are two references to a Mahaneh Dan,one between Zorah and Eshtaol (Judg 13:25), and the other west of QiryathYearim (Judg 18:12). Yadin suggests that pressure was brought to bear on themmainly from the Amorites, and not the Philistines (cf. Judg 1:34-35).130 He arguesthat Judg 17-18 may hint at a change in the religion of the tribe,131 although itspresent context is wholly Yahwistic. The passage in Judg 5 is, nevertheless, aproblem, since neither the Southern nor the Northern holding is actually on the

125. C. H. Gordon, The Mediterranean Factor in the Old Testament: Congress Volume, Bonn1962 (SVT 9: Leiden, 1963), 19.

126. Ibid., 20.127. Ibid., 21.128. Ibid., 21.129. Y. Yadin, "'And Dan, Why Did He Remain with His Ships?, '"AJBA 1 (1968): 9-23(10).130. Ibid., 11.131. Ibid., 12.

Introduction 17

coast.132 For Yadin, despite this, it must refer to a time when the tribe was on thecoast.133 He analyzes the Samson material, concluding that "all the contacts pre-ceding his acts of vengeance against the Philistines indicate that there werenormal and family relations between the Danites and the Philistines."134

Yadin notes that the Sea Peoples were divided into three groups, the Philis-tines, the Tjeker (who settled in Northern Sharon) and the Dene or Danuna.135

Yadin says that there is a degree of identity between the Danuna, the GreekDanaoi and also the Anatolian Danunites. Yadin reviews much of the legendarymaterial, noting many points of comparison with the Hebrew texts.136

Yadin speculates that the Danuna lived between the Philistines and the Tjeker,that is, between Dor and Joppa. He studies the archaeology of the nearby TelQasila, coming to the conclusion that it was a city of the Sea Peoples, foundedunusually in the mid-twelfth century, changing hands at the destruction ofStratum XII.137 This was at about the time when Sidon was particularly weak.138

There may be some link here with the history of the Danites, who may have beenpushed out of their territory by the Philistines, from whence they moved to Laishwhere the weak state of Sidon meant that they could not come to the rescue ofthat city.139 Like those of Gordon, Yadin's views are plausible, although stillspeculative.

These theories have been countered by Niemann, who suggests that the evi-dence of the Hebrew texts argues against both these views140 and that Yadin'sreconstruction is historically implausible.141 Niemann makes very substantialcriticisms of Yadin and Gordon, noting, among other things, that the traditionswhich link Dan with the Mediterranean seaboard are probably to be dated to thetime of Solomon.142

Niemann offers his own reconstruction which is, however, supported by verylittle evidence. The Danites originated in southern Transjordan, and then movedin around 1200 BCE into territory controlled by the Amorites, as described inJudg 1:34-3 5 a.143 At around this time they settled in the region southwest of Jeru-salem. It was there that they got to know the Levite later employed by Micah,144

and from there that the migration of a small part of the tribe to the North started—not from Zorah and Eshtaol as Judg 18 states. By the time of the Song of

132. See N. Na'aman, Borders and Districts in Biblical Historiography (Jerusalem BiblicalStudies 4; Jerusalem, 1986), 112-13 for the borders of the southern holding.

133. Yadin, '"And Dan, why did he remain with his ships?,'" 14.134. Ibid., 15 (italics in original).135. Ibid., 17.136. Ibid., 18-19.137. Ibid., 20.138. Ibid., 21.139. Ibid., 22.140. Niemann, Die Daniten, 290-91.141. Ibid., 281-90.142. Ibid., 281, cf. also 28 and 55.143. Ibid., 35.144. Ibid., 293.

18 Sacred Dan

Deborah, which describes events Niemann dates to between 1160 and 1130,145

they are already in Laish.146

As far as Judg 17-18 are concerned, Niemann is more concerned to prove thepoint of his theory than to give a detailed interpretation of the text. However, henotes that the story's basic point is to show how the Danites came upon the ^DS,and the Levitical priest.147 For Niemann, the historical situation is as follows: inthe hills northwest of Jerusalem, after their failure at Aijalon some time after1210 BCE, the Amorites took up arms against the Danites, and this pressureforced them to move out. As far as he is concerned, they were settled in MahanehDan for a long time during this period since this would explain the continued useof that place-name.148 It is to this "camp of Dan" that the spies return with thenews about Laish, and from where a more adventurous part of the tribe moves offwith them.149

Niemann's thesis, however, seems to be based on a selective reading of thetexts (cf. his treatment of Judg 17-18 below), and an over-confidence in theirdating. Despite Niemann's reservations over alternative views of the origin of thetribe of Dan, there is still something to be said for the idea that the Danites werein some way connected with the Sea Peoples, especially given the ancient tradi-tions that at some time they were based on the coastal plain (pace Niemann).This linking of Dan with the Sea Peoples has become accepted in recent years, asthe work of, among others, Spina150 and Sandars151 testifies. Recently both Dothanand Mazar have denied any connection between the Danuna and Tell Qasila.152

Dothan does, however, accept the general link between the Danites and theDanuna, noting that this finds support from the find of "Philistine" pottery foundat Tel Dan.153 She notes that this find "points to the common cultural backgroundof the Sea Peoples."154 Nevertheless, in view of the highly speculative nature ofthe arguments, the question of any link between Danites and Danuna must remainopen.

Bartusch, in his recent work Under standing Dan, has also discussed the issueof Dan and the Sea Peoples, coming to the conclusion that the connection isnot at all proven.155 Since his work is concerned with the redactional history of

145. Ibid., 48.146. Ibid., 59.147. Ibid., 143.148. Ibid., 144.149. Ibid., 145.150. F. A. Spina, "The Danite Story Historically Reconsidered," JSOT4 (1977): 60-71 (62).151. N. K. Sandars, The Sea Peoples (London, 1978), 163-64.152. T. Dothan, The Philistines and Their Material Culture (Jerusalem, 1982), 57. A. Mazar,

Archaeology of the Land of the Bible (2d ed.; ABRL; Garden City, 1992), 311. Mazar associates itwith the Philistines themselves.

153. Dothan, The Philistines and their Material Culture, 84. M. Dothan and T. Dothan, "AnArchaeological Romance," BAR (September/October 1993): 40-53 (45-46).

154. Dothan, The Philistines and their Material Culture, 84; A. Biran, Biblical Dan (Jerusalem,1994), 141-42. Biran himself refused to comment on any links between the Danites and other groups.

155. M. W. Bartusch, Understanding Dan: An Exegetical Study of a Biblical City, Tribe andAncestor (JSOTSup 379; London, 2003), 36.

Introduction 19

Judg 17-18, we shall discuss it in the next section. But with regard to the ques-tion of our text and the history of the tribe of Dan, he regards it as problematicsince it is the only significant tradition which places the Danites (as opposed tothe city of Dan) in the North.156

Of greater importance for this study are the extensive excavations of Biran atTel Dan (Tell el Qadi).157 This is without doubt the site of the shrine with whichwe are concerned.158 It is situated, as we have noted, at the foot of Mount Hermon,at one of the sources of the Jordan. The site was first inhabited in the PotteryNeolithic in the fifth millenium, but continuously only from the Early Bronze II(thirtieth century BCE) down to Roman times (fourth century CE). Owing to itsperpetual water-source and its abundant vegetation, which contrast greatly withthe rest of Canaan, it was probably a sacred site from very early times.

The tell is surrounded by a massive Middle Bronze Age rampart, to which hasbeen added an enormous Iron Age gate complex. Items of Mycenaean potteryhave been found as grave goods in a tomb found dug into the ramparts whichcontains the remains of several "non-Canaanite" people, although the excavatorssee no link with the Sea Peoples.159 From the Early Iron Age there are storagesilos suggesting a population which was not fully settled, and this fits in with thepicture given in Judg 17-18. For much of its early history, Dan was a centre formetalworking. This is true of both the "Canaanite" and "Israelite" periods,although the industry appears to have declined in the monarchical period.

A site which Biran interpreted as the sacred precinct is near the spring at thefarthest end of the mound from the gateway, with a paved road which led fromthe gate to it. Biran unearthed what he claimed was the "bamah" of Jeroboam I,although others have disputed this identification.160 The site appears to have beenregarded as sacred down to Roman times, when Dan entered its terminal decline.

b. Judges 17:7A standard translation of this verse reads: "Now there was a young man fromBethlehem in Judah, of the clan of Judah. He was a Levite residing there"(NRSV). The next verse goes on to make it clear that "there" refers to Bethlehem.There are two questions at issue: How could a Levite be a member of the "clan ofJudah?" And if he was a member of that clan, what does it mean that he was aresident alien (~U) in his own tribe?

There have been various solutions over the years. In regard to v. 7, Moorenotes that Theodoret came up with two answers: either "from the clan of Judah"refers to Bethlehem, or the Levite's mother was a Judahite, and he was a member

156. Ibid., 178.157. Biran, Biblical Dan.158. Cf. A Biran, "To the God Who is in Dan," in Temples and High Places in Biblical Times

(ed. A. Biran; Jerusalem, 1981), 142-51.159. Biran, Biblical Dan, 114-16.160. G. Barkay, "The Iron Age II-III," in The Archaeology of Ancient Israel (ed. A. Ben-Tor;

Yale, 1992), 302-73 (312). He argues that the structure was in fact the foundation podium for apalace rather than a cultic installation per se.

20 Sacred Dan

of the clan of Judah through her.161 Moore rejects both, and suggests that "Levite"implies a trade, and is not a tribal term. Thus, there is no difficulty with his com-ing from a Judahite family.162 He resolves the second difficulty with recourse tosource criticism, arguing that v. 8 comes from another source, so that "there"means in the hill country of Ephraim.163 Burney, however, suggests that theLevites were associated with the Judahites, but were not consanguineous withthem.164 This is possible, although there is little evidence. Fernandez, like Theo-doret, suggests that the problematic phrase refers to Bethlehem, and not theLevite.165 Cody takes a similar line to Burney: since the man was a resident alien,he could not have been a Judahite, though lived among them.166 Gunneweg takesit to mean that he was a member of the tribe of Judah,167 arguing that being a"resident alien" does not rule out consanguinity with the tribe in which onelived.168 More recently, Soggin would like to delete "of a Judahite family"169 (cf.fi//Snotel7:7a).

This seems to be the full range of possibilities if we use a traditional transla-tion. That nns&Q does means "clan" or "family" is asseverated by Zobel:"Mispahah does not refer to a regional or political entity, rather to an ethnic or aclose-knit human society."170 However, there is evidence which may suggest thatthis is not the whole story, and that nnS2D can sometimes mean "clansland" aswell as "clan."

In Judg 13:2 we find a usage at odds with the normal translation of the term.Here it describes not a "clan," but a whole tribe. It is possible that this is anexample of the general confusion between people and the territory they occupied.This is not, however, our clearest example.

The strongest evidence comes from Judg 17-18. In Judg 17.7, the Levite, aswe noted, comes "from Bethlehem of Judah, from the clan of Judah" where he isa resident alien. There are several points to be made about this. First, in theHebrew Bible the Levites always form a distinct tribal grouping, divided intotheir own clans like any other tribe, and to describe a Levite as being fromanother clan is unheard of. This tension was felt by the Peshitta and a Hebrewmanuscript which excise the reference (cf. BHS). Secondly, to say that this Leviteis a member of the tribe of Judah is ludicrous since he is a resident alien. Thesimple fact of the matter is that one could not be a resident alien in a tribe of

161. Moore, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges, 383.162. Ibid., 383.163. Ibid., 384.164. Bumey, The Book of Judges, 436-41.165. Fernandez, "El santuatio de Dan. Estudio crtico-exegetico sobre Jud. 17-18," 252.166. Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood, 54.167. Gunneweg, Leviten undPriester, 14-23.168. Ibid., 23.169. Soggin, Judges, 266. Cf., however, his An Introduction to the History of Israel and Judah

(London, 1993), 182, where he appears to agree with our rendering: "Terms like Bethlehem inJudah.. .thus indicate the region rather than the tribe."

170. H. J. Zobel, 'nnstBD', in ThWA75:86-93 (87): "Mispahah meint keine regionale oderpolitische GroBe, sondern eine ethnische oder engere menschliche Gemeinschaft" (my translationabove).

Introduction 21

which one was a member; the terms are mutually exclusive (pace Gunneweg).Further, Judah is always described as a full tribe, not as a clan or part of a tribe,so again there is a degree of tension in the text, which many of the commentatorshave ignored. However, if the translation "clansland" is introduced, all the diffi-culties are resolved.

Further on in the narrative, we find more evidence for nnS2JQ as a territorialunit. The Danite spies come "from their clan" (18:2). It is significant that the MThas a singular, but one would expect the tribe of Dan to be made up of more thanone "clan," a difficulty felt by the LXX and the Targum. The men are alsodescribed as coming "from their edges." This description has puzzled manycommentators, but the tension can be relieved if this again is taken as ageographical term and not as a demographic term: it is difficult to come from theedge of a family, but not from the edge of a territory. Again, at 18:11, we findthat such an understanding also helps in the interpretation, where we would thenhave four geographical references each qualifying the others: "from there, fromthe clansland of the Danites, from Zorah and from Eshtaol." The traditional ren-dering is made doubly difficult since we are told at v. 21 that it was in fact thewhole of the tribe which migrated, and not just a small part of it, whether thiswas actually historically the case or not.

There is some external evidence for this use of PiriSOD. Johnstone suggests thatits Ugaritic cognate is a technical term used in hereditary land tenure. He notesthat the Ugaritic word spt is found in PRU 5.62 (KTU 2.47) in association withthe term for "realm," and in Keret 2.24-25 (KTU 1.14.1.24-25) where it is foundin parallel ioyrt, "heir."171 Further evidence may come from the Samaria Ostracaas tabulated by Aharoni. Here, along with a number of usual geographical terms,Aharoni has noted seven names known from elsewhere to be the names of clansbelonging to the tribe of Manasseh which refer here to districts: Abiezer,Shemida, Helek, Asriel, Shechem, Hoglah and Noah.172 This is also noted byWright, who says that this shows that such terms were still current in later mon-archical periods,173 and thus it is possible that the tradents of the MT were stillaware of such a meaning. Thus, it seems more than possible that nriSCD could, attimes, have a wider meaning.

It is possible that the Danite dialect preserved this meaning, since all theexamples we have looked at come from Danite narratives, or alternatively thatthe meaning has only been preserved clearly in this ancient material. If we posit ameaning "clansland," many of the difficulties of, in particular, Judg 17-18 areresolved in a way which is more satisfactory than any other yet suggested.

c. Judges 18:30-31In these verses, the historical problems are somewhat different from those of17:7. A standard translation again will suffice to highlight the issues: "And the

171. Johnstone, "Old Testament Technical Expressions in Property Holding: Contributions fromUgarit," in Ugaritica 6 (Mission de Ras Shamra 17; Paris 1969), 313-14.

172. Y. Aharoni, The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography (2d ed.; Philadelphia, 1979),363.

173. C. J. H. Wright, God's People in God's Land (Exeter, 1990), 51.

22 Sacred Dan

Danites set up the idol for themselves; and Jonathan the son of Gershom, the sonof Moses [margin reads 'Manasseh'], and his sons were priests to the tribe ofDan until the day of the captivity of the land. So they set up Micah's gravenimage which he made, as long as the house of God was at Shiloh" (RSV).

One of the difficulties is easily resolved. The suspended nun is to be removedfrom the name of the priest's grandfather, thus transforming it from Manassehinto Moses (cf. also Babylonian Talmud Baba Bathra 109b). It was evidentlychanged at a late date in the transmission of the canon, and it may be part of acontinued polemic against Dan.

The other difficulty is that if the two verses are parallel to one another, theymust refer to the same time. However, the Exile happened much later than thedestruction of Shiloh, and so either "the exile of the land" does not mean theAssyrian Exile, or else Shiloh was destroyed much later.

Satterthwaite sees the two verses as parallel, noting their parallel structure,and suggests they refer to a destruction of Dan after the battle of Aphek.174 Henotes that "the exile of the land" is an anomalous expression. Usually il^J refersto people or names of countries.175 He does admit, however, that the phrase wouldhave been intelligible when used in connection with the Northern Kingdom.176

He suggests, albeit very tentatively, that it may be used figuratively to describethe situation envisaged by the first half of 1 Samuel.177 There is, however, nogood reason to assume that the phrase does not refer to Assyrian Exile.

O'Connell also argues that the verses are parallel to one another, and likeSatterthwaite sees this as implying the earlier of the possible dates rather than thelater.178 However, he alleviates the perceived difficulty of the phrase "exile of theland" by reading "exile of the ark" in its place.179 His reasons for this are, oncemore, that "exile of the land" is not attested elsewhere.180 He notes that ]1 ofpHNn, may have been altered mistakenly to f" of j*"INn,181 but he has not noticedthat in the Palaeo-Hebrew script the letterforms are different, and are less likelyto be confused in this case. Another of his arguments is that the phrase in the MTis ambiguous, since it could refer to the Assyrian Exile, the Babylonian Exile, orthe capture of Dan by Tiglath-pileser III in ca. 732.182 This is true, but cannot beused to justify a textual emendation, not even as part of a cumulative argument.O'Connell also points to some rhetorical reasons why the text should read "ark"and not "land"; for example, ark is a better parallel to ^DS, and it is also found inthe parallel passage of ch. 20 where the grandson of Aaron is mentioned.183 None

174. Satterthwaite, Narrative Artistry, 117.175. Ibid., 120 n. 153.176. Ibid., 120.177. Ibid., 120. Bertheau, Das Buck der Richter und Ruth, 253-54, notes that David Kimchi

made a similar suggestion.178. O'Connell, The Rhetorical Purpose of the Book of Judges, 284-85.179. Ibid., 350-51.180. Ibid., 350.181. Ibid., 350.182. Ibid., 350.183. Ibid., 351.

Introduction 23

of these arguments is convincing, and I see no reason to change a perfectly clearMT, especially when what would have to be a late corruption is not supported byany of the Versions. O'Connell's real reason for this change, one suspects, isbecause it does not fit his attempt to date Judges "ostensibly"—as he is alwayscareful to say—to the time of David's reign in Hebron.184

Of the commentators, Moore does not see any tension in these verses.185

Burney notes the difficulty, but resolves it by suggesting that v. 31 means that"the establishment of the sanctuary of Dan was of the same antiquity as theestablishment of the house of God at Shiloh."186 Soggin too sees no problem withthe text as it stands. He argues that it is not clear that Shiloh was in fact destroyedafter the time of the battle of Aphek, and it may well have survived to a laterdate.187 Day, on the other hand, takes the view that Shiloh was destroyed at thetime of the battle of Aphek, but notes that Judg 18:31 "does not necessarily implythat the sanctuary at Dan existed only as long as the house of God was at Shilohand no /owger."188

It appears that the best solution is to regard the final verses of the story as notbeing in strict parallelism. If one takes the two verses as coming from differentperiods, then v. 30 may be seen coming possibly from the hand of a Northernrefugee at the time of the Assyrian invasions. In fact, it may be the originalending to the story. Judges 18:31, on the other hand, is probably best regarded aspart of a later, hostile redaction made when the narrative was incorporated intoJudges, as we shall see below. It may well, in fact, have been modeled on v. 30.It contrasts the (illegitimate) sanctuary of Dan with the (legitimate) sanctuary ofShiloh. This cannot be dated earlier than the centralization of the cult at the timeof Josiah, since the assumption behind this verse would only have force if Shilohis seen as a precursor to Jerusalem qua central shrine. Furthermore, since thisassumption may only have become second nature after the Exile, we may proba-bly best date this verse to the post-exilic period. This fact, taken in conjunctionwith the simple literary observation that if both verses were meant to be taken asthe conclusion by their respective authors, the one that is now in the concludingposition must be have been added subsequently. This indicates that v. 31 mustbzlater, and therefore that v. 30 has to be the original conclusion.

d. Redactional HistoryThat Judg 17-18 shows traces of having been redacted is admitted by the major-ity of scholars who have worked with the text. However, the amount of redac-tional activity they see in it differs significantly from scholar to scholar.

Very few scholars today would accept the view that there are two or moreindependent strands running through the chapters. Nevertheless, many scholars

184. Cf., e.g., ibid., 284-85.185. Moore, A Critical andExegetical Commentary on Judges, 400-401.186. Burney, The Book of Judges, 436 (italics in original).187. Soggin, Judges, 276-77.188. J. Day, "The Destruction of the Shiloh Sanctuary and Jeremiah vii 12,14," in Studies in the

Historical Books of the OldTestament (ed. J. A. Emerton; SVT 30; Leiden, 1979), 87-94 (93, italicsin original).

24 Sacred Dan

have discerned what may not be independent sources, but large sections whichhave been added by various redactors to the original material. This, for example,is the case with Veijola who sees Judg 17-18 as an integral part of the Deuter-onomistic History. He suggests that the pattern found in Judg 1-16 in which thepeople sin, are punished and are delivered is also found on a larger scale acrossJudg 17-21 and into 1 Samuel, where in ch. 4 the people are punished for themisdeeds of the final chapters of Judges.189 He argues that the chapters showsigns of redaction by what he calls DtrG, a pro-monarchist redactor. Thus, in chs.17-18 the pro-monarchical comments are DtrG because they show similaritieswith Deut 12:8,190 and because they are similar to Deuteronomistic usage in thebooks of Kings.191 Other DtrG redactional elements are the emphasis on Levitesas Dna (17:7b; 18:30b!),192 18:lb, which glosses nnSK2 with the more charac-teristically Deuteronomistic ED^,193 and 17:5 and 18:31b, because they haveparallel occurrences of DTI^N 5T3.194 None of these, nor the general theme ofdisobedience—not in itself peculiar to the Deuteronomist—is convincing.

Niemann, on the other hand, finds evidence for three redactions of the originalDanite material. The first he dates to the time of Jeroboam I—following Noth'sthesis.195 This comprised 17:2-4 (without the references to ilDDD), the pro-monarchical comments of 17:6 and 18: la, 17 (again without ilDDQ), and finally18:30a and 31b. This redaction was undertaken to make the cultic changes ofJeroboam I more acceptable,196 and 18:17 was added to exonerate the priest.197 Asecond redaction some time after 733 may be characterized as "pre-Deuterono-mistic."198 This was the negative redaction which added all references to i"DDft,and also made some other additions: 18: Ib, the list of cultic objects which followsthe ^DS in 18:18a, and in 18:19, the words "to a tribe and...in Israel." Thisredactor also added 18:30b-31a, an addition which included the suspended nunin the name of the priest's ancestor.199 There then followed the Deuteronomisticredaction200 which added references to Zorah and Eshtaol in 18:2, 8, 11, thewhole of 18:12 and Dm in 18:13, all of 18:27 fromDIT1?!; toTUrTTIN inclusive,and possibly 18:29a. Judges 17:8 (only mins Dn^rpno), lOb; 18:2b|3,10aa,b, 14(only ET^), 15 (only "house of Micah"), 20 (only ^DSHTIN) and 29b are all fromanother unknown source.201 Niemann's division into sources often rests on the

189. T. Veijola, Das Konigtum in der Beurteilung der Deuteronomistischen Historiographie(Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae 198; Helsinki, 1997), 27-29. Cf. also G. E. Gerbrandt,Kingship According to the Deuteronomistic History (SBLDS 87; Atlanta, 1986), 137-38.

190. Veijola, Das Konigtum, 15-16. Veijola regards Deut 12:8 as a Deuteronomistic addition.191. Ibid., 16 n. 8.192. Ibid., 18-20.193. Ibid., 24-25.194. Ibid., 25-26195. Niemann, Die Daniten, 131-33.196. Ibid., 145.197. Ibid., 146.198. Ibid., 133-34.199. Ibid., 122, cf. 146-47.200. Ibid., 134-37.201. Ibid., 137.

Introduction 25

flimsiest of criteria. Thus, for example, he assigns the references to Zorah andEshtaol to the Deuteronomist because they are cumbersome, were not held by theDanites and have come in because of the Samson stories.202 However, thisassumes a higher than likely degree of interest on the part of the Deuteronomistin the early history of the Danites, and probably has more to do with Niemann'stheory of the origin of the Danites than any real concern for the Deuteronomisticredaction.

Becker uses a similar approach to Niemann, even though they do not alwaysagree on the details. Becker, who is mainly concerned with the redaction of thebook of Judges, is content to regard a good many of the features of the chaptersas redactional.203 Often, again, the reasons given are arbitrary. He sees the chap-ters as having had a Deuteronomistic (DtrH) formulation, but he looks mainly toDtrN for the hostile redaction, having discerned a "nomistischen Tendenz" inthem.204 This redactor has transformed the text into "a negative aetiology of theDanite cult,"205 which also has polemic against the Danites.206 The monarchicalcomments he views as coming from the post-exilic period, and as being acorrective to the idealistic Deuteronomistic conception of the Judges period—atime of near theocracy, when divinely appointed saviours ruled the people, asopposed to the later view which idealized the monarchy.207

O'Connell has also proposed a reconstruction of the redactional history of thechapters. He writes that "the Book has been compiled with the purpose of dem-onstrating how Israel's leadership had fallen short of tribal-political anddeuteronomic ideals exemplified by a king in Israel."208 One of the central ideasof his thesis is that chs. 17-21 are crucial to the understanding of Judges in thatthey point to the idealized monarchy of David.209 The sections added by the"compiler" were 17:6, 7ap-b(3,8afc 18:1,12 (except 1^1)-13a, 28a£, 29b, 30a£to the end.210 O'Connell offers little defence of his views on the "compiler's"additions. To my mind, furthermore, it is improbable that Judges was composedas a whole. It is possible, however, that O'Connell is correct in his assessment ofthe chapters' present function between Judges and Samuel, in that they do appearto be supporting an idealized monarch.

Most recently, Bartusch offers two hypotheses for the origin of the text. Thefirst is that (other than 17:6 and 18:la) we have an original Danite text whichdescribed the migration of part of the tribe to the North.21' This was then used byJeroboam I to further his political interests. If this is the case, the text is ancientand "reads as a neutral reflection of life in general, and of domestic life in par-

202. Ibid., 81-82.203. Cf. U. Becker, Richterzeit undKonigtum (BZAW 192; Berlin, 1990), 253.204. Ibid., 255.205. Ibid., 253: "eine negative Atiologie des danitischen Kultes" (my translation above).206. Ibid., 253-54.207. Ibid., 295-96.208. O'Connell, The Rhetorical Purpose of the Book of Judges, 218.209. Ibid., 261.210. Ibid., Appendix 1, 347-51.211. Bartusch, Understanding Dan, 181-85. In this Bartusch is following Moore and Burney.

26 Sacred Dan

ticular, in the period before the monarchy in Israel."212 Bartusch's secondhypothesis213 is that the text was originally an aetiology which explained whythere was a tribe of Dan in the South and a city of Dan in the North. This originaltext consisted mainly of ch. 18 and was composed at the time of the UnitedMonarchy when Dan came into Hebrew hands.214 The second layer of text wasformulated by the circle of Jeroboam I to defend his choice of Dan, and many ofthe cultic details were added at this time. Because Biran has not found any traceof a sanctuary older than Jeroboam, Bartusch argues that it did not exist, and thatthe cultic traditions contained in Judg 17-18 including the tradition of a Mosaicpriesthood were invented by Jeroboam.215 The third level was directed at Jero-boam's sanctuary by a writer in the late tenth or early ninth century and includesthe ironic full name of Micayahu, the tradition that the cultic objects were "animage and a molten image" and the fact that the cultic object were stolen twice.216

Also Bartusch argues that the venal Levite was introduced into the story at thisstage. One of the major difficulties with the second hypothesis proposed byBartusch is that works on the assumption that because Biran has failed to findany trace of it, there could not have been a shrine before that of Jeroboam I. Thefact is that the whole of the site has not been excavated, and since some of it isvery close to one of the sources of the Jordan, and therefore has a very high watertable, it is unlikely that the site will ever reveal all its secrets. Indeed, it is entirelypossible, given the fact that there is a natural spring adjacent to the site, that theoriginal shrine was close to it, and so will never be found. Whatever the case,Bartusch's second hypothesis rests very heavily on an argumentumesilentio. Hisfirst hypothesis, however, is to my mind at least much more promising, althoughI would dispute the date of the original text.

Therefore, despite Bartusch's first hypothesis, I find none of these views onthe redaction of the chapters wholly satisfactory. There is little evidence fromwhich to date the composition of the original text, although we may not be farwrong if we assume that it came from the pre-exilic period, although a post-exilicdate cannot be ruled out entirely.

Veijola has pointed to the fact that the final redaction of these chapters andtheir incorporation into the book of Judges must have been either at the time ofthe Deuteronomistic activity or afterwards. I would also accept his argument thatthe pro-monarchical comments are redactional, since they stand out so clearlyfrom the text, and to these I would add the occurrences of !"DDQ, and 18:31.Becker, as we noted above, has argued for a post-exilic date for this final redac-tion, and Fernandez suggested the same.217 There are several indicators pointingto this:

212. Ibid., 182.213. Ibid., 186-201.214. Ibid., 190.215. Ibid., 195-96.216. Ibid., 198.217. Fernandez, "El santuario de Dan. Estudio crttico-exegetico sobre Jud. 17-18," 261.

Introduction 27

1. The pro-monarchical comments treat the king idealistically, giving himresponsibility over cultic affairs. That this is the case is clear from thefact that they are used exclusively to underline cultic aberrations whichwould not have happened had there been a king. This assessment ofmonarchy seems to fit in most closely with the period in which theChronicler was writing, in whose work David and Solomon weredepicted as being extremely interested in the cult. This idealization is atodds with the monarchical period where all too often the shortcomingsof the kings were visible. It is possible that this might date from the timeof Josiah, but even in his time monarchy in general was not evaluatedquite as positively.

2. The tradition that the priests of Dan were descended from Moses wouldhave been a stumbling-block to the Deuteronomists and those who fol-lowed them (cf. the wholly negative Deuteronomistic 1 Kgs 12), andwould have continued to be so until the question of priesthood had beenresolved. This would point to a time when the Aaronide priesthood wasin the ascendancy at Jerusalem. Again, this would have been in the post-exilic period.

3. For most of the time that the Deuteronomists were active, Dan wouldhave been in foreign hands, having been captured by Tiglath-pileser IIIin 733-732. It is not mentioned in the account of Josiah's reform (2 Kgs23). Thus, it is probable that at the time of the Deuteronomists Dan wasnot considered a threat, and so attacking the shrine would have servedno purpose. It is more likely that such polemic would have been directedagainst the shrine in the post-exilic period when the continuing cult atDan may have shocked those who returned. It is clear that there wascontinued polemic against Dan in the Hebrew Bible, and many of thesepolemical elements are late.

4. The chapters are chronologically out of place in the book of Judges:their natural place would in fact have been at the beginning of the book,and not at the end, since they deal with a time two generations after theExodus. Thus, they appear to have been added a good deal later, cer-tainly after the final Deuteronomistic redaction which gave us chs. 1-16in their current form.

These arguments, coupled with those of Becker, point to the post-exilic period asthe most likely time for the final redaction of the text which consisted of theaddition of the pro-monarchical comments at 17:6; 18:1 (as well as 19:1 and21:25) and a new conclusion at 18:31. This would have formed part of a drive onthe part of the biblical writers to polemicize against the sanctuary of Dan which,despite all the odds, enjoyed a revival in the Hellenistic period, having survivedthe Babylonian and Persian periods.218

As we have noted, little can be said with any certainty about the authorship ofthe original text, other than that it almost certainly derived from the priesthood of

218. Biran, Biblical Dan, 214-15.

28 Sacred Dan

Dan—no one else, after all, would have been much interested in such an obscurepiece of tradition about a remote and now defunct tribal sanctuary. As far as itsdate is concerned, there are very few indications in the text. However, as I havesuggested, the balance of probability would suggest that it derives from the pre-exilic period. The narrative may have reached its final form after the Exile, but itis highly probable, as we have seen, that this process involved the redaction of anearlier—pre-exilic—material.219 Indeed, what the story tells us about the cult iswholly consistent with a pre-exilic date. So, for example, the ephod oracle hadfallen into complete disuse by the end of the exilic period, and was later misun-derstood, but Judg 17-18 appears to show accurate knowledge of its correct use(although it is possible—but unlikely—that since the shrine continued in usedown to the Roman period, such traditions survived in some form). On the otherhand, the comments of Judg 18:30-31 (whatever their provenance) seem to sug-gest that there was a complete disruption in cultic life at Dan, presumably at thetime of the Assyrian invasion. From this, we can surmise that the story wasoriginally written down in the aftermath of that event in an attempt to preservesome at least of the sacred traditions of Yahwistic Dan. It is significant that itdoes not mention Jeroboam I and the existence of the royal shrine. This is surelydeliberate: the story tells us that the shrine was older than Jeroboam's royal re-foundation, and could rely on its original traditions and its Mosaic priesthood forits prestige, not on a king who had failed to establish a lasting dynasty.

We have seen above that Judg 18:30 almost certainly forms the originalconclusion to the story, and have argued that in all probability the original storydates from the time immediately after the fall of Dan. This text was thensubjected to a redaction at some stage in the post-exilic period. This redactionconsisted simply of the addition of the pro-monarchical comments, the occur-rences of the word rODQ and a new and final conclusion in Judg 18:31. Given theways in which Hebrew religion had developed in the exilic period, no otheraddition was necessary to turn an ancient historical source into a polemic account.Nevertheless, it follows that the narrative can still be read as reflecting in someway the religious concerns of the pre-exilic shrine of Dan, and it is, therefore, ourmost valuable window onto the cult of the Northern Kingdom in this period.

219. Cf. also Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood, 53 n. 53, for a similar view. Ingeneral, most scholars agree that the original story is pre-exilic.

SACRED TRADITION IN JUDGES 17-18

Parti

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 1

INTERPRETING JUDGES 17-18

Judges 17-18 is, as we have seen, a text that is open to radically different inter-pretations. Some scholars would regard it as a piece of accurate ancient traditionwhich has been redacted to serve other purposes, whereas others would see it as anewly written piece of polemic which contains no authentically ancient material.There is also no overall agreement even over what the story is about: some, espe-cially older scholars, have regarded it as a story about the foundation of the cultat Dan, whereas for others, the main emphasis of the narrative appears to fallelsewhere, for example, as a description of social disintegration. Some, as weshall see, would regard it as an aetiological legend; others would deny that it evercould have been. Therefore before we move on to consider the exact nature ofJudg 17-18 in form-critical terms, it is necessary to subject the chapters to arhetorical-critical study, allowing the somewhat complex text to speak for itself.

1. Rhetorical-Critical Study

The Judg 17-18 narrative has recently been subjected several times to a literary-critical analysis.1 However, all these analyses have been concerned with the finalform of the text, and none has taken into account the fact that the text hasprobably been subjected to a later redaction. We will now, therefore, look at thetext afresh, attempting to take account of its literary history, while at the sametime noting the abundant literary features which go to make the narrative such agood story. A final post-exilic redactor was responsible for adding the negativecomments (17:6; 18:la), and these continue into the following narrative, beingfound also at 19:1 and 21:25.1 have dealt already with the provenance of thesecomments elsewhere, but it should be asseverated that since chs. 17-18 and 19-21 are patently not by the same author, even though they are framed by the sameredactional comments, it is clear that these comments are alien to both texts. Thisredactor also, as we have seen, added a second conclusion in 18:31.

1. Webb, The Book of Judges; Klein, The Triumph of Irony in the Book of Judges; Block, "ThePeriod of the Judges"; Satterthwaite," 'No King in Israel" '; cf. idem, Narrative Artistry; O'Connell,The Rhetorical Purpose of the Book of Judges. For this section, see also Hauret, "Aux origines dusacerdoce danite."

32 Sacred Dan

It is necessary to take the story a few verses at a time to analyze them in theirown right, and to follow the development of the themes which link them. I there-fore propose to deal with the narrative in the following sections:

a. 17:1-6b. 17:7-18:lac. 18:lb-6d. 18:7-10e. 18:11-26f. 18:27-31.

a. Judges 17:1-6The first section deals with Micah and his mother. 17:1 is one of three characterintroductions in the piece (the others being 17:7-8 where the Levite is intro-duced, and 18:1 where the Danites enter onto the scene). The style is very eco-nomical: we are told in one verse what we need to know, and no more—the manis called Micah, and he comes from the hill country of Ephraim. Then we arelaunched immediately into the dialogue, and, once more, we are told no morethan we need to know. It seems almost as if the theft is not described because itwould have taken up too much room. We are told the amount of silver, the factthat it was stolen, that the mother had sworn a vow2 which Micah had heard andthat Micah himself had stolen it—all this in 16 words: a more concise way ofgiving this information can scarcely be imagined. The mother then blesses Micah.He returns the silver, and his mother dedicates it to Yahweh. Part of it is thentaken to the silversmith, and part, one supposes, went to make the ephod and theteraphim and to set up the shrine.3 This enterprise must have been rather costly.In such a terse narrative as this, anything that is repeated is significant. A fewthings are highlighted in this way: the fact that there were 1100 pieces of silver,that they were dedicated to Yahweh and also that Micah returned them to hismother. The final set of repetitions may have arisen because of possible error intransmission,4 or because there were two versions of the same narrative current atthe time they were written down.5 It is unlikely that the returning of the silverwas described twice in the original story.6

The underlying theme of the chapters is adumbrated in this section, wherethere are several threads already present which will become more apparent laterin the piece. Micah starts the narrative on the wrong foot. He is a thief, and is,therefore, unworthy of the possession of the cultic objects. He only returns thestolen money when his mother makes an oath about it.7 This appears to mean thatshe dedicates it to Yahweh. What is of the utmost significance here is that the

2. Cf. Burney, The Book of Judges, 418.3. With Satterthwaite, Narrative Artistry and the Composition of Judges 17-21, 86.4. Cf. Soggin, Judges, 265, and Satterthwaite, Narrative Artistry, 85.5. Cf. Moore, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges, 372.6. Cf. Boling, Judges, 256.7. Webb, The Book of Judges, 183, suggests that the mother is a foil to show us just how bad

Micah is.

1. Interpreting Judges 17-18 33

silver has been transferred from the secular realm to that of the sacred: in effect,the silver has been given to Yahweh, and it is now his to use however he pleases.As the story continues, it becomes evident that Yahweh chooses to give it to theDanites. Also noteworthy is the fact that the deity has not been consulted in allthis. The mother and son presume that they are carrying out the divine will inwhat they do, whereas the relationship the narrative appears to be condoning isone where Yahweh is consulted. It is only when the deity is brought into a situa-tion that people can be sure that he will act for them. This is manifestly whatMicah and his mother fail to do. The narrator is evidently not interested in eitherMicah or his mother in themselves. It is only their actions and their fundamentalunworthiness that he bothers describing. Later in the story Micah will be used asa foil for the Danites.8

In this section, the way is being prepared for the Danites. The ^DS's onlyfunction in the story is as the centrepiece of the later shrine at Dan. Similarly, theoracular devices function in the story only to give a favourable answer when theDanites come to question Yahweh concerning his will. By mentioning them, thenarrator fills us with anticipation for the advent of the Danites. All that theDanites need for their cult has been made for them, and has been transferred intothe sacred sphere. The reference to Micah's son appears to be incidental, since,as the Levite comes from Bethlehem after the foundation of the private shrine,the shrine must have had a cultic attendant before his arrival,9 although it alsoserves to highlight the fact that Levites were considered to be better priests.

At the end of this first section we have the first of the redactional comments,"In those days there was no king in Israel, and everyone did what was right intheir own eyes." This jars somewhat—designedly so. It makes the reader lookback and reflect on what they have just read. From a later point of view the eventsnarrated are quite shocking. A private individual has his own shrine, and thenfurnishes it with stolen silver, and finally, to add insult to injury, he ordains anon-Levite to be his priest. The redactor adds the comment here to highlight whathe sees as the cultic abuses. The cult is the central concern of the original writeras it is also the major concern of the final redactor. Both are interested in the cult,but come at it from diametrically opposed angles: one simply relates whathappens, the other simply condemns.

b. Judges 17:7-18: laWhereas the first section dealt with the establishment of the shrine, the second isconcerned with the cultic personnel. The Levite is introduced in many morewords than is Micah. However, whereas one of the only things we know aboutMicah is his name, in complete contrast we are not yet told the name of theLevite.10 We know his place of origin, Bethlehem in Judah, a fact which thewriter has sought to emphasize. We are also told his position in life: he is a

8. Boling, Judges, 255, suggests that he is contrasted with the Levite. This too is possible.9. Moore, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges, 370.10. Contrast Satterthwaite, Narrative Artistry, 88, who regards him as an "opaque" character.

34 Sacred Dan

young noble (~lU]).n Also in contrast to the previous section, the writer allowshimself a good deal of repetition. The speech of the Levite in v. 9 is in effect asummary of all that we already know about him. It is evident, therefore, that thewriter is interested in the Levite, and finds what is said about him important. Thefact that we are not yet told his name is an exceptionally good example of narra-tive technique. Even though presumably the hearers of the original story wouldhave known exactly who this character was, the narrator keeps us in suspenseuntil the very end of the story.12

The narrative emphasizes the fact that the Levite is in the vicinity of Micah'shouse almost completely by chance, and that he is a landless ~U, a person towhom society has special responsibilities.13

There is an element of contrast to be found in the titles of "father" and "son."The Levite is obviously much younger than Micah, but the fact that he is of noblestock and that Micah treats him with a degree of respect, calling him "father," isprobably meant to have us wondering once again exactly who this priest ofMicah's really is. The reference to "father" could also be taken as a sign ofrespect for the priest. Thus, this section contains several pointers to the finalrevelation of the Levite's name in 18:30. It is of enormous significance to ourunderstanding of the cultic aspects of the story that the same words are used bothof Micah's son and of the Levite in their ordination,14 and that the Levite doesnot appear to have been a priest before whatever cultic action is envisaged astaking place (v. 12).

The way in which the central theme is worked out in this section is similar tothat of the previous. Once more, Yahweh is seen to be working through bothchance and Micah. The situation in which the characters find themselves isunusual: this is one of the only times in the Hebrew Bible that we hear of aprivate individual having his own sanctuary, although Moore compares Gideonand Ophrah.15 More than this, the fact that a Levite of noble stock is installed asa priest in this private shrine is exceptionally lucky for the Danites. The pointof the story would seem to be that this is not simply chance, this is an exampleof Yahweh using circumstances to his own ends. The same words ma THnTQ/liTD"^ are indeed used to describe both cultic image and priest in vv. 4 and12.16 Like the image, the Levite is both in the realm of the sacred, and in thehouse of Micah: both facts are later to help the Danites.

11. For this meaning, see J. Macdonald, "The Status and Role of the Na'ar in Israelite Society,"JNES 35 (1976): 147-70.

12. Cf. Satterthwaite, Narrative Artistry, 121, although he regards this a polemical element.13. Cf. R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (2d ed.; London, 1965), 74-76.

Klein, The Triumph of Irony in the Book of Judges, 152-53, suggests that the emphasis here is on thefact that he is away from his allotted territory.

14. Satterthwaite, Narrative Artistry, 92 suggests that this means that the Levite was about aslegitimate as the Ephraimite—in other words, not at all. We would, however, agree at least in part:both priests were equally legitimate!

15. Moore, A Critical andExegetical Commentary on Judges, 379.16. Cf. Satterthwaite, Narrative, 92.

1. Interpreting Judges 17-18 35

The chapter ends with the ironic account of the words of Micah who is certainthat Yahweh will bless him, since he now has a Levite as a priest.17 This high-lights the theme that Yahweh has to be brought into a situation before he isprepared to act. Micah is presuming upon the divine will, and is seeking to securea blessing without consulting the deity.

It seems that the purpose of ch. 17 is to prepare and to provide a foil for ch.18.18 In this former chapter, the Levite and the cultic objects are introduced. Theirpart in the story will be revealed in the next section as the Danites are broughtonto the scene, where they can be contrasted implicitly with Micah.

Between the chapters, the redactor has added another condemnatory comment.This serves to underline what has happened. Micah is convinced that Yahwehwill now bless him, but the redactor, like the original author, is not convinced.The difference in their approach is again highlighted. The narrator is very subtle:he uses irony to press home his point. On the other hand, the redactor is anythingbut subtle, hammering home the very same point. The redactor also prepares theway for the Danites to arrive on the scene. One may assume that his attitude tothem was hostile, but he does not condemn them during the course of the narra-tive: he appears to have been solely concerned with cultic matters.

c. Judges 18:lb-6The author announces the Danite heroes, and our sympathies for them are imme-diately engaged.19 In contrast to the complacent and settled life that Micah leads,the Danites' life is hard. They have no permanent holding in the land, despitebeing settled in a few towns. This fits in with the picture we are given of them inJudg 1:34, where they are described as being pressed hard by the Amorites. Oncemore, in contrast to the brief introduction that Micah receives, the spies aredescribed in some detail. We are even told the area they came from. These arestrong men, heroes even. The writer also lingers over the mission, in v. 2, allow-ing himself the rare luxury in this characteristically terse narrative of a pair ofsynonyms, ~lpn and ̂ "l.

The way the Danites are introduced is an excellent example of the narrativetechnique of the author of the text. Chapter 17 is virtually self-contained, and ch.18 starts as a total contrast, seemingly unrelated; it is only as the story progressesthat we are able to see the connections between the two, as the fates of Micah andthe Danites become inextricably linked. The jarring effect created is superb as ithighlights the differences between the comfortable and complacent Micah, andthe hard-done-by Danites.

The spies come by chance to the house of Micah, in exactly the same way asthe Levite in 17:8. Once again, by chance, they recognize his voice. It is not clearwhat this means. One possible explanation is that they had met him at some timein the past, and were surprised to meet him here.20 Another is that they might

17. Cf., e.g., Webb, The Book of Judges, 184.18. Cf. Hertzberg, Die Bucher Josua, Richter, Ruth, 242.19. Cf. Moore, A Critical andExegetical Commentary on Judges, 370.20. Bumey, The Book of Judges, 425; Soggin, Judges, 212; Klein, The Triumph of Irony in the

Book of Judges, 154.

36 Sacred Dan

have recognized his accent as being that of a highborn Levite, or possibly of aSoutherner.21 Given the sorts of questions that they ask him, the first is morelikely. It is, nevertheless, odd that the writer has chosen not to narrate a previousmeeting between the Danites and their future priest. In his answer to the ques-tions of the Danites, the Levite gives the salient details, that he is now a priest inthe service of Micah who has hired him to fill that position. The scene is now setfor the crucial oracle and the favourable answer which the Danites receive. Allevents so far have been leading up to this event, and it proves to be the turningpoint in the Danites' fortunes.

An underlying theme comes fully to the fore in this section. The Danites aloneof the people of Yahweh are in need of divine assistance. They had been given apromise of land, a part of the fertile land in Canaan, and up until this point theyhave not received it, despite the idealized Josh 19:40. The care that Yahweh hasfor all his people has not yet been manifested to them. Yahweh is here seen atwork through chance encounters, in the same way that he worked in ch. 17. Hebrings the five Danite spies to the place where he has chosen to reveal his will forthem, and there they recognize the Levite, the appointed agent of his divine will.

In ch. 17, we were told that oracular devices were made, but it is the Daniteswho ask the first question of the oracle in the narrative. In this way, they inviteYahweh into their situation. The question is of the alternative-type, which expectseither the answer "yes" or "no." As we will see, it is the nature of the priestlyoracle that the answer has to be either positive or negative. The only other optionis that no answer may be given at all. The answer the Danites receive is positive,in other words, the "yes" lot came out of the ephod. For this reason, in contrast tothe suggestions of some scholars,22 there can be no ambiguity at all about theanswer. However, the answer goes a lot further than the Danites expect. They aretold that their way is "before Yahweh." The implication of this is that, as we havesuggested, the writer sees all the events he has narrated up to this point asrevealing the hand of Yahweh at work. Yahweh intervenes in the events to helphis Danite people in their time of need. At this stage, the theme of Yahweh'sprovidential care for Israel becomes explicit, and he intervenes in all subsequentevents. In this way, the story reaches its turning point—from now on Yahwehwill be with them, will protect them, and will bring them to prosperity. After thispoint, the foundation of the shrine where they settle is simply a matter of course.

d. Judges 18:7-10It is in this section that the efforts of modern literary criticism seem to be leasthelpful. Verse 7 must be interpreted in context. It is a description of the city ofLaish, which the Danite spies view as an easy target.23 The people are compla-

21. E.g. Boling, Judges, 263; E. Nielsen, "The Levites in Ancient Israel," in Law, History andTradition (Copenhagen, 1983), 71-81 (76).

22. R. Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist (New York, 1980), 168; Satterthwaite, NarrativeArtistry, 99; Exum, 'The Centre Cannot Hold: Thematic and Textual Instabilities in Judges," CBQ 52(1990): 410-31 (427).

23. Moore, A Critical andExegetical Commentary on Judges, 389.

1. Interpreting Judges 17-18 37

cent, but the land is good. These two facts are emphasized several times duringthe course of the narrative. The original context suggests that it is so because ofGod's special care for the Danites.24 To fulfil his promise, he has made thingseasy for them. In context, there can be no other interpretation. There is signifi-cantly no redactional comment here, although it is possible that the redactor wasletting his readers make up their own minds. There is, of course, also thepossibility that the redactor in some sense condoned the actions of the Danites indestroying the enemy.

Once again, in this section the secondary theme of presuming trust is found.The people of Laish are described as being complacent (nCD3). In this way theycan be grouped with Micah of whom the same is also true. Yahweh uses thesepeople, in the narrator's eyes, as his pawns. He, in a sense, sacrifices them to hiswill, which is that the Danites should have a territory of their own.

This sacrifice may seem harsh to modern minds, but the Hebrew Bible is apiece of ancient literature: enemies are always enemies, and the Hebrews' ene-mies are Yahweh's enemies.25 The writers' sympathies are almost always on theside of the Hebrew heroes.26 The most horrendous atrocities are reported, andlittle condemnation is ever levelled at those responsible, unless, of course, theyare non-Hebrews. What is interesting is that much modern literary criticism hassingled out this story for condemnation. Because the verb nC33 often (butcertainly not always) has positive connotations of faith and trust, many literarycritics assume that the Danites must be thoroughly evil, and repugnant to Yahwehbecause they attack the FIED DU.27 In condemning the Danites here for this act,they are unwittingly condemning the entire Hebrew people. There are many actsof violence in the Hebrew Bible directed at non-Hebrews that are never regardedas problematic (cf. Josh 6), and so we must be careful not to say that this storyintends to show that the Danites were evil and violent simply because they putthe inhabitants of Laish to the sword. This is especially true given the context (cf.18:6 above).

In our narrative, the Danites are simply not condemned for what they did toLaish, even by the later hostile redactor as we noted above. That action wouldhave been considered quite normal in the Hebrew Bible and part of the divinescheme. It is solely the cultic practices and the attitude of Micah to the deity thatare condemned by the redactional comments. We must, therefore, always be onour guard against the anachronistic assumption that the Bible reflects the samevalues that we hold. (This is particularly true of the modern "reader response"approach of many literary critics.)

The action in this section now moves swiftly. The Danites view their God-given new home at Laish, and then return at once to their kinsfolk. It is there that

24. Bartusch, Understanding Dan, 183, "The Danite tradition.. .indicates explicitly that Laishwas delivered into the Danites's [sic] hands by God."

25. For an ancient Near Eastern example, cf. the heroic action of Si-nuhe in ANET, 20.26. Klein, The Triumph of Irony in the Book of Judges, 157, misses the point completely: she

fails to recognize that in the Hebrew Bible Yahweh is nearly always partisan.27. Webb, The Book of Judges, 186; Klein, The Triumph of Irony in the Book of Judges, 156;

Satterthwaite, Narrative Artistry, 100.

38 Sacred Dan

their haste becomes apparent. The narrator is not interested in charting their jour-ney at present, but relates what they say when they return. There are two expres-sions for "to hurry" found in conjunction with descriptions of the city. The effectachieved is quite brilliant in the way it conveys the initial excitement of the spies,and then their enthusiasm for what they have seen slowing them down into themore lyrical final phrases, until, at last, in v. 1 Ob, we have the longest single unitof their report. Perhaps we are to imagine them initially all speaking at the sametime, with each disjointed phrase said by a different man.

e. Judges 18:11-26Whereas the writer has not previously been concerned to give the itinerary of thejourney of the spies, now he begins to give more of the details. A possible expla-nation for this is that these are in fact historical memories of the time when theDanites were on the move. This is not quite as unlikely as it might at first seem.For example, some of the Bedouin tribes that still live in Palestine have preservedmemories dating back to at least the sixteenth century. They can still rememberwhere they first settled in the land, and, to a certain extent, the route taken, afterhaving been forced to leave their original territory by drought.28 The Danites intheir migration are described as being 600 men of war.29 This surely means thatthere were 600 families. Counting the men only was quite common in the ancientworld (cf. Exod 12:37 or Mark 6:44). The narrator in Judges finds time to mentionthe place Mahaneh Dan, which is only mentioned in Danite material (Judg 13:25).The assertion that it was still known by that name may probably best be seen as anarrative flourish on the part of the Danite narrator, and no historical accuracyneed be attached to it.30

It appears that it is, once again, by chance that the Danites happen to be in thevicinity of Micah's house.31 The spies draw attention to the fact that there arecultic objects in the place, otherwise the opportunity would have been missed.There was no reference to the shrine in the report given by the spies,32 and onlyvery obliquely was the oracle itself mentioned. The spies, presumably chosenoriginally for their initiative,33 now formulate a plan for the obtaining of thecultic objects.

Unfortunately, the next few verses are confused. Either there has been a gooddeal of textual corruption, or we have an example of two versions of an originalDanite legend preserved side by side.34 Such composite narratives are common in

28. B. Couroyer, "Histoired'unetribusemi-nomadede Palestine,"/?# 58 (1951): 75-91 (77);W. Lancaster, The Rwala Bedouin Today (Cambridge, 1981), 119-31 (127-29).

29. Bartusch, Understanding Dan, 179, notes that 600 is often a stock number in biblicalnarratives.

30. Against Boling, Judges, 264, who suggests that it was a late addition. Cf. also Niemann, DieDaniten, 145.

31. Cf. Klein, The Triumph of Irony in the Book of Judges, 158, but this is not clear.32. Satterthwaite, Narrative Artistry, 105.33. Ibid., 105.34. See ibid., 107 for an attempt to read these verses as a coherent whole.

\.InterpretingJndgesl7-18 39

the Hebrew Bible, the best example being the account of the Flood in Gen 6-8.For an example in Judges, one might mention the Gideon stories (chs. 6-8),where we seem to have narratives originally concerned with two separate charac-ters. Here, in one possible version, it is the five men who take the cultic objects,with the priest standing helpless at the door. In another, it appears that it was thepriest who actually removed the objects at the suggestion of the spies, but of hisown free will. Owing to the confusion, it is almost impossible to comment on theliterary features. It is clear, nevertheless, that the narrative slows down considera-bly at this juncture.35 This emphasizes the point where the Danites gain posses-sion of the cultic objects. Whatever the explanation, the element of the compositein the chapters appears to go back to an early date.36

When the narrative becomes clear again at v. 19,37 we find an echo of 17:10.The Danites ask the priest to be their "priest and father" in almost exactly thesame words as Micah. The extraordinary nature of Micah's shrine is highlightedby the rhetorical question of the Danites. The answer is that it is surely better forthe Levite to be a priest of a tribe and its territory than to be the priest of only oneman.38 It is worth noting that Jonathan is no longer called "the noble youngLevite," but is consistently called "the priest." It thus appears that it is now hispriestly status that was uppermost in the narrator's mind.

The episode where Micah runs after the Danites might be seen as providing alittle light relief. Micah's breathlessness is caught superbly in v. 24, as phrasestumbles over phrase, none more than three words long. The Danite warriorsindulge in some rather heavy wordplay in the next verse, where sibilants abound.The episode ends rather sadly with Micah forced to go home.

This does, nevertheless, have a serious side. It shows that Micah's attitude toYahweh is still entirely wrong. He thought that he could possess the deity, havinghis shrine and his cultic object, and having a Levite as a priest. Now his confi-dence is shown to have been unfounded. Once again, we are shown what happensto those who do not respond to Yahweh in the correct way.

f. Judges 18:27-31After the episode with Micah, the cultic objects are not enumerated as they havebeen before. They are simply described as "that which Micah made." Similarlythe priest is described as having been Micah's. This serves to highlight the suc-cess of the Danites over and against Micah, and, of course, in the context of thestory, this success is due to the fact that Yahweh has blessed them.

The conquest of the city is not dwelt upon in any great detail. The phrasesused to describe the fall of Laish are highly formulaic. This may well be a signthat the writer here is using a standard way of depicting the taking of a city39

35. Ibid., 107.36. Moore, A Critical andExegetical Commentary on Judges, 397. See also the discussion in H.

Schmoldt, "Der Uberfall auf Michas Haus (Jdc 18,13-18)," ZAW105 (1993): 92-98.37. Moore, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges, 396—97.38. Satterthwaite, Narrative Artistry, 110, disagrees.39. Ibid., 115.

40 Sacred Dan

whether the depiction is accurate or not. The most famous example of this type offormula is in Judg 1:8: "And the Judahites made war on Jerusalem, and they tookit and smote it with the edge of the sword, and they set the city on fire." Ofcourse, later on in the same chapter (1:21), the Jebusites are alive and well, andremain so until the city was taken by David. Thus, it would appear that what issaid here need not be taken entirely at face value.40 Further, since one of thetenets of literary criticism is that what is regarded as important is given a lot ofspace, the conquest obviously is not considered by the writer to be so—althoughfor some reason many modern critics who claim to use the rhetorical-criticalmethod seem to give it undue weight. What is important to him is the compla-cency of the people, and also the fact that they were so removed from anyoneelse that no one came to rescue them. The Danites are portrayed as having beengiven a very easy victory. This, once again, is the hand of Yahweh at work.

There then follows what is probably to be taken as a historical note that thecity that is now called Dan was originally Laish.41 The use of the name Israel forthe patriarchal father of Dan rather than Jacob may be a northern feature.

The story ends with a final rhetorical flourish as the writer at last reveals thename of the priest and his lineage, commenting that he and his sons served theshrine for as long as it was possible in Northern Israel. Effectively this is theclimax of the narrative. Throughout the story the priest has been called by ageneric term, as if he were anonymous, although this may well be seen as a liter-ary conceit: the author in the best traditions is keeping his audience guessing.42

But right at the end the narrator reveals his hand, the priest, far from beinganonymous, is none other than Jonathan the son of Gershom the son of Moses.The construction of the sentence at this point emphasizes this fact: Jonathan'sname is placed first in the sentence with his lineage almost as a separate clause.There is then a third person singular personal pronoun referring to him, and thenhis sons are mentioned, and then and only then do we have the verb. Jonathanand his sons were the priests of Dan down to the "exile of the land." There is asense of finality to the phraseology here. The story does not work without thisverse, the narrative has been building up to this point. It is therefore intrinsic tothe story, and is in fact the natural conclusion to the original narrative. It is thenfollowed by a second and historically later concluding sentence which in rhetori-cal terms is a doublet in the last verse, which tells us that Micah's image was inDan for all the time that there was a shrine at Shiloh.43

The very next verse (19:1) is another redactional comment. It is possible thatthis was originally intended as a final comment at the end of the Danite narrative.If this is the case, again we can see the redactor's interest in the cult, as he draws

40. Biran, Biblical Dan, 125-26, notes that there is a conflagration layer at the end of the LateBronze II, but that the evidence is ambiguous.

41. There is surely no element of irony here (pace Klein, The Triumph of Irony in the Book ofJudges, 159).

42. Haran, Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel, 77 n. 26, on the other hand, states that"the mention of the priest by name and genealogy.. .seems sudden and entirely unexpected."

43. See the Introduction for a discussion of the historical problems of this verse.

1. In terpreting Judges 17-18 41

a line beneath the reference to the, for him, heterodox shrine of Dan, and moveson to the next story.44

g. SummaryThe Danite narrative as a whole is marked out by its literary features as an excel-lent example of Hebrew narrative art. It uses language in a superb way, espe-cially in the dialogue, characterizing the people and their situation accurately andwith great skill. The subtle way in which information is withheld until the lastminute as well as the build-up to the oracle scene also marks the narrator as agreat storyteller. It is characteristically terse and restrained in the same way asthe famous Gen 22,45 and this story may be accounted worthy to stand in thattradition.

One thing that strikes the reader is that the text has a much stronger theologi-cal motivation than might at first be assumed. Judges 17-18 has been viewed as aparody,46 but it shares with much of the earlier narrative material of the HebrewBible a common theological purpose.

One of the themes of the original story is that of God's providential care forhis people, in this case the Danites. This theme in general informs much of theearlier parts of the Hebrew Bible taken in canonical order. It is important in thePatriarchal sagas, where God brings the forebears of Israel out of Mesopotamiaand reveals himself as active in their history, especially in the sanctuary legends(cf. Gen 12). Then he brings them to prosperity in Egypt, rescuing them fromfamine in Canaan. When this scheme seems to falter, he delivers them miracu-lously from Egypt. The same theme is found in Judg 1-16: when the people turnto him, he listens to them and rescues them, but first they have to be responsiveto him and seek his help, and then, and only then, will he rescue them. Yahweh isnot to be presumed upon.

This theme was clearly the most important in our narrative in its original form.The events were viewed exclusively and appropriately from the point of view ofthe Danites. But if the major theological concern of the original narrative is toshow that Yahweh cares for the Danites who are in distress, the working out ofthis care is the establishment of a tribal home which includes a shrine with anhereditary priesthood in a near ideal geographical position. The enemies ofYahweh and his Danite people, insofar as they come into the story, are—char-acteristically for a Hebrew narrative—never given any consideration.

The redactional comments seem to be concerned mainly with cultic affairs—which would fit in with the Chronicles-type redaction I have suggested.47 Theredactional framework is suspended over the story, as if the redactor wanted us tomake our own minds up when we read it. His comments certainly put a negative

44. Bartusch, Understanding Dan, 185, also argues that 19.1 a should be read with chs. 17-18 asa highlighting of cultic abominations.

45. Cf. E. Auerbach, Mimesis (Princeton, 1953), 7-23 (11-12).46. Cf. Soggin, Judges, 278.47. See Introduction, pp. 27-28.

42 Sacred Dan

slant on the whole account, and after they have been made, we can never be sureof the value of any of the judgments made by the original narrator. Fortunately,the redactional elements are easy to pick out, leaving us with a pristine account.In the remainder of this study, I will refer to this repristinated account by termssuch as "the Danite story," to be distinguished from "Judg 17-18," which I willuse for the redacted account of the Hebrew Bible.

2. Form-Critical Analysis of the Danite Story

We must now turn to examine the nature of the narrative from the point of viewof form criticism. As it stands today, Judg 17-18 is a polemic against the ancientshrine of Dan in Northern Israel which was still in operation down into Romantimes. However, if we discount the evidently redactional comments, the nature ofthe story changes.

The story is complex, and can appear to head in different directions at differ-ent stages. The Micah elements give it the appearance of a didactic story. Micahis guilty of theft, and no amount of cultic activity will make up for this. God pun-ishes Micah through the Danites. But while this is certainly a theme of the story,it is rarely prominent. In the foregoing discussion, I found pointers towards thisunderstanding, but many of these are very subtle, too subtle for this reading to dofull justice to the text. This is further suggested by the fact that Micah drops outof the narrative at the end of ch. 17, and only reappears briefly to have his prop-erty stolen.

Some scholars, including Malamat,48 view the narrative as a conquest story,parallel to the conquest stories in Joshua. Again, while this is an element in thestory, it does not seem to be the whole picture, for ch. 17 is not concerned withthe Danites at all, and even in ch. 18 the conquest element is not to the fore. Thetaking of the city is recounted in very few words, suggesting that the narrator wasnot interested in these details.

It is one of the central tenets of narratology that the most important elementsin any story are those which take up the most space. In our story the narratorlingers over such things as the making of the image in ch. 17, and the hiring ofthe priest, the oracle-taking session and its outworking, and then the taking of thecultic paraphernalia from Micah. These cultic elements are found throughout bothchapters, and are in fact the only reason that the chapters are linked together.This fact points very strongly to the conclusion that the redactor's reading of thetext, though opposed in its evaluation, was true to the concerns of the originalwriter. Hence the narrative which we have before us is in fact a legend whosepurpose is to explain how the shrine of Dan came to be where it was, and to clar-ify the exact provenance of its furniture and cultic personnel. If this is a piece ofDanite tradition, it is told from the perspective of the temple of Dan, rather thanthat of the tribe of Dan. This is also the view of Gressmann who states that, in his

48. A. Malamat, "The Danite Migration and the Pan Israelite Exodus-Conquest: A BiblicalNarrative Pattern," Biblica 51 (1970): 1-16.

1. Interpreting Judges 17-18 43

opinion, while the story is both Stammessage ("tribal legend") and Kultsage("cultic legend"), it is the latter, cultic element that is predominant.49

The later redactor has, therefore, not altered the original thrust of the narrative,simply redirected it slightly. The story is still about the shrine of Dan, and it stillreaches its climax when the image and its priest are installed. All the redactor hasdone is to cast doubts on the propriety of the shrine and its image which he evi-dently regarded as heterodox. Differences between the cultic practices describedand those of contemporary Judah and Jerusalem would have made his job veryeasy. With a few deft touches he has transformed the story completely.

Despite this evidence, there is still a strong strand of critical opinion thatwould deny that such a story can in fact be seen as an authentic cultic aetiology,mainly because it lacks what some scholars feel is the necessary theophany.50

This is true even of Long who notes that 18:12 contains an aetiological element,but states that it "appears at best as a minor element in the wider context."51 Inother words, Long fails to notice that the whole of the "wider context" is in factan aetiological legend, of which 18:12 is only a tiny part. It is therefore necessaryto examine the cultic aetiological stories afresh in the light of what we now knowabout Judg 17-18 in order to ascertain whether the Danite story can indeed beseen as a suitable cultic aetiology despite its lack of a theophany.

3. Cultic Aetiologies in the Hebrew Bible

The most famous group of stories which tell of the foundations of shrines in theHebrew Bible are the cultic stories of Genesis. These "legends" (in GermanSagen) explain the sanctity of many shrines for later generations of Israelites, andas such are obvious place to start when looking at Hebrew cultic aetiologies.

There are numerous examples of such stories in Genesis. The following listprobably contains the most important: 12:6-8; 16:7-14; 22; 28:10-22; 32:2,23-33; 33:18-20; 35:1-7,9-15 (cf. also 13:4). They are all stories of patriarchs visit-ing sites in Canaan and worshipping at them. In many cases we know that theseshrines pre-dated the patriarchs, although in the cultic aetiologies as they standthis is rarely explicit.

a. Genesis 12:6—8This is the cultic aetiological legend of Shechem. Abraham is in Shechem wherethere is an important tree. Yahweh appears to him, and promises his descendants

49. H. Gressmann, Die Anfange Israels (Gottingen, 1964). Cf. also the form critical discussionsin K.Koch, The Growth of the Biblical Tradition: The Form Critical Method (London, 1969), 196;B.O. Long, The Problem of Etiological Narrative in the Old Testament (BZAW 108; Berlin, 1968); J.A. Wilcoxen, "Narrative," in Old Testament Form Criticism (ed. J. H. Hayes; Trinity UniversityMonograph Series in Religion 2; San Antonio, 1974), 57-98 (94-95).

50. A. H. W. Curtis, "Aetiology," DBI, 8: "Cultic aetiologies account for some ritual or cere-mony; it is perhaps appropriate to include within such category stories (often involving a theophany)which explain why a particular place was a holy place and why a sanctuary was located there (some-times called sanctuary aetiologies)."

51. Long, The Problem of the Etiological Narrative in the Old Testament, 16.

44 Sacred Dan

the land. In response to the theophany, Abraham builds an altar to him. The treeis probably also mentioned in Gen 35:3; Deut 11:30; Josh 24:26 and Judg 9:6,37. Gunkel compares it to the oak of Zeus at Dodona.52 He comments that the"place" (DlpQ) may be a holy place, and compares Gen 22:3-4; 28:11,19; 2 Kgs5:1!(?); Jer 7:12, and the Greek of 3 Mace 1:9.53 It is, therefore, probable that theshrine was an already extant Canaanite shrine.

b. Genesis 16:7-14This is the cultic aetiology of an otherwise unknown shrine near the Egyptianborder. Hagar has fled from Sarah, and is met by the Angel of Yahweh at aspring. He tells her to return and submit to Sarah, that she will have manydescendants, and that she is pregnant. However, her son, whom she will callIshmael, will be stubborn and an outcast. Hagar invokes Yahweh by the name ofEl Roi. The well is then named Beer-Lahai-Roi in memory of Hagar's theophany.The title of the deity/messenger of Yahweh in v. 13 is almost impossible tounderstand. The name of the spring (v. 14) is equally difficult. That the culticaetiology of such a shrine should be found in the Hebrew Bible need not surpriseus, especially if we consider the diverse groups which made up Israel.

c. Genesis 22The Aqedah may once have been a cultic aetiology. Nevertheless, in its presentform the narrative is concerned with the theological dynamics of Yahweh's rela-tionship with Abraham. The cultic features, the arrival at a holy "place," thebuilding of the altar, the subsequent theophany and re-naming of the place are,nevertheless, typical of cultic aetiologies.

d. Genesis 28:10-22This is the famous cultic aetiology of Bethel. Jacob stops at a "place" (presuma-bly meaning "sanctuary') and stays the night there, using a stone as a pillow.54

Yahweh appears to him and promises him this land. Yahweh seems to be on a"ladder" on which his angels ascend and descend. For Westermann, the impor-tance of the ladder is that it is firmly positioned on the earth at Bethel, thusemphasizing the holiness of the ground.55 This is asseverated by the text itself invv. 16-17. Verses 18-22 describe the setting up of the standing stone (in somesense the foundation of the temple), its unction and what almost amounts to agentleman's agreement that if Yahweh brings Jacob back, then Jacob will wor-ship him, and will give him a tenth of all he has.

e. Genesis 32:23-33This is surely one of the strangest narratives in Genesis, or indeed the whole ofthe Hebrew Bible, and may originally have been the cultic aetiology of the shrineat Peniel/Penuel, but is not so any longer.

52. H. Gunkel, Genesis (2d ed.; HKAT; Gottingen, 1902), 147.53. Ibid., 147.54. For another view, see C. Westermann, Genesis 12-36: A Commentary (London, 1985), 454.55. Ibid., 454, and cf. also 242-44.

1. Interpreting Judges 17-18 45

f. Genesis 33:18-20In contrast, this is a true cult aetiology which is again associated with Shechem.At no other time in his career to date has Jacob been linked to Shechem. Thereasons for the building of the altar are obscure. It is possible that this is thecounterpart of Gen 28, but that here the narrative adopts a Shechemite setting, incontrast to the concern of the other narrative with Bethel. Here the returningJacob worships God at Shechem in the guise of El the God of Israel.

g. Genesis 35:1—7This is evidently the original continuation of the Gen 28 story. Jacob, havingreturned from Haran, is commanded by God to return to Bethel, and to build analtar there to the El (v. 1) who had appeared to him there. The narrative is evi-dently part of the cultic aetiology of Bethel.

h. Genesis 35:9-15This would appear to be a doublet to the previous narrative. It seems to be aliento its context, but may possibly be ascribed to P. It has been inserted into the textat an appropriate point, without regard for the fact that it is at variance with thenarrative with which it is juxtaposed. It does not assume any knowledge of thetradition that Jacob had seen Yahweh at Bethel when he was escaping from Esau,neither is any knowledge of Gen 32 presupposed, for here Jacob is renamedIsrael for a second time.

It, therefore, seems that there were two independent traditions of the origin ofboth the sanctuary of Bethel, as well as for the fact that Jacob had two names. Itis worth noting that in Gen 35:9-15 few of the mythological features of theprevious narratives are to be found. Here, by contrast, a theophany is introducedalmost as if Jacob casually met God on the road. Another possibly significantfeature of this narrative is the emphasis on the El aspect of Yahweh: he is intro-duced as El Shaddai (cf. 17:1 and 28:3, both P), but the place is later called BethEl, and its God El of Beth El.

In our survey of the aetiological legends of Genesis, we have found little tohelp us in our search for a parallel to the Danite story. Indeed there are severalpoints of contrast between the Genesis aetiologies on one hand, and the Danitenarrative on the other:

a. Whereas the Genesis stories may originally have had a similar purposeto the Judges story, the fact that they are patently stories dealing with theheroic pre-history of the people of Israel contrasts with the more obvi-ously historically based Danite story. Furthermore, the Genesis storiesrelate the shrines to an individual hero or ancestor, whereas the Danitestory has as its heroes the warriors of the whole tribe.

b. The majority of the Genesis stories are concerned to uphold the claimsof the Hebrews to the sanctuaries and the land. In the Danite story allthis is taken for granted.

c. The Genesis stories are concerned to describe why the Hebrewsworshipped in a particular place, usually because of a theophany. TheDanite narrative, by contrast, explains how the shrine came to be

46 Sacred Dan

founded, where its image and its priest came from, and why it is where itis. The Genesis stories show the Patriarchs worshipping at alreadyextant shrines, presumably in an attempt to enhance the antiquity of theshrines. The Danite narrative does not give any indication that there wasalready a shrine at Dan (even though it is often assumed that there wasone). Dan relies on its image, oracular devices and priesthood for itsprestige.

From this it would appear that the Danite narrative is a different kind of storyfrom the cultic aetiology of Genesis, and perhaps it is worthy of a new Gattunglabel. I will call this a "cultic foundation story," as opposed to the cultic aetiol-ogy found in Genesis. The former is an historical account describing the founda-tion of a shrine in realistic terms, the latter accounts for the sanctity of a shrine interms of a legendary past, but does not describe its actual foundation. Thisdistinction, I believe, is crucial to our understanding of the Danite story.

4. The Cultic Foundation Story in the Hebrew Bible

We must now turn to the wider Hebrew Bible to see if we can find any otherexamples of cultic foundation stories parallel to the Danite story where the actualfoundation of a shrine is described. Perhaps contrary to expectation in a bookwhich is so concerned with cultic matters, there are few stories that describe thefoundation of a shrine in historical terms in the Hebrew Bible. There are at leasttwo discernible reasons for this.

First, as we have seen, many of the shrines in the Bible are regarded as pre-dating the action of the story. So Gen 28 merely explains the reasons for thesanctity of the shrine of Bethel for later generations of Hebrews because Jacobreceived a theophany there, but it does not describe the setting-up of the cult atthat place. To take another example: Gen 14 can be described as a story thatexplains the significance of the sanctuary of El Elyon at Jerusalem because of itsconnection with Abraham. Nevertheless, it probably envisages a previouslyestablished cult since it refers to Melchizedek as priest.

Second, another possible reason for the lack of foundation stories is that theHebrew Bible as a whole is primarily concerned with the cult at Jerusalem, to theextent that all other shrines came to be regarded as heterodox. While it is truethat in Genesis there are narratives which describe the patriarchs frequentingother shrines, their time was probably regarded as an exception to a rule whichonly came into force with Moses and the book of Deuteronomy which he issupposed to have written.56 Given this editorial theology after the establishing ofJerusalem, we should, therefore, not expect any other shrine to be treated posi-tively in any way.

It would appear that many of the Hebrew cultic foundation stories other thanthat of Jerusalem, and the re-shaped Judg 17-18, have been suppressed. First

56. In general terms, cf. R. W. L. Moberly, The Old Testament of the Old Testament (Overturesto Biblical Theology: Minneapolis, 1992), 79-104.

1. Interpreting Judges 17-18 47

Kings 12:28-33 may also possibly be described as a foundation story, but sinceit is either an ancient account which has been very heavily re-worked by theDeuteronomistic school, or a free composition of the Deuteronomist, we maydiscount it as being of very little use for our purposes.

5. The Danite Story and the Jerusalem Stories

In contrast to the Danite legend, there is no unified cultic foundation story associ-ated with Jerusalem. Instead, we have a series of different accounts all of which,taken together, can be seen in some ways as the story of the foundation of its cult.

The first of these accounts, what one might call the cultic aetiological legendof Jerusalem, is Gen 14. In vv. 18-20, the shrine and its priest Melchizedek aretreated with great respect by Abraham. The narrative has caused much scholarlydebate. It does, nevertheless, seem clear that the verses which deal with the shrineat Salem are alien to their context.57 There is, after all, no reason for Melchizedekto be involved, and the story makes better sense without the insertion. If this iscorrect, the reference to "El Elyon maker of heaven and earth" in v. 22 is also aninsertion made to fit the context. The reasons for the additions are obvious: theyprovide the much needed legitimation for the shrine at Jerusalem,58 for, if it werenot for this story, any other of the sanctuaries in use at the time of David wouldhave had a much stronger claim to supremacy than Jerusalem. Significantly,while no other story in Genesis refers explicitly to any cultic activity other thanthat of the patriarchs, in Gen 14, Abraham is seen as providing legitimation to analready extant cult at Jerusalem, not just to the site where the later sanctuary willbe founded, as is often the case with the other patriarchal narratives. Anothersignificant feature is that there is no divine intervention in the situation: there isneither a theophany nor a divine oracle, but simply the blessing of a priest. It ispossible that, at the time of writing, given the presence in Jerusalem of the ark,the vehicle of Yahweh's presence, no such divine input would be considerednecessary.

The lack of divine action is even more apparent in the account of the taking ofJerusalem by David. At the various stages in his career, he has consulted thedeity through the ephod oracle, especially before the start of a military campaign.In complete contrast, here in 2 Sam 5:6-8, there is no oracle-taking: the men ofDavid take the city without any reference being made in the text to Yahweh. Thisis surprising. Surely the capture of Jerusalem, which was to become the centralsanctuary, was such a major event in the life of David that the account of anoracle-taking might have been thought a prerequisite. This was not, apparently,the case.

Such is also the case with the bringing of the ark to Jerusalem. The initiativeappears to have come directly from the king. He gathers the people together, and

57. Cf. J. A. Emerton, "Some Problems in Genesis xiv," in Studies in the Pentateuch (ed. J. A.Emerton; SVT 41; Leiden, 1990), 73-102.

58. Cf. Soggin, Judges, 101, who thinks in terms of the legitimation of titles.

48 Sacred Dan

they do his will (2 Sam 6:1-2). It is probable that it was David's shrewdness inrealizing the political precariousness of the position of his royal city of Jerusalemthat caused him to make this move.59 The writer surprisingly relates the events asthey happened, without making any reference to a divine sign.60 (AlthoughCampbell assumes that the blessing of the house of Obed-Edom is a divine sign,there is little evidence for this.61) It is interesting that the Ark Narrative as awhole, while it is concerned with a cultic object, is not really explicit abouttheological concerns. In fact, its theology may almost be regarded as ratherprimitive, especially in its portrayal of Yahweh's actions towards the enemies ofIsrael.62 Even the ark itself is a pawn in a political power struggle.

The temple-cult at Jerusalem is also founded without any apparent theologicalrationale. David in 2 Sam 7:1-2 tells Nathan the prophet that he wishes to build atemple to house the ark. Nathan, as well as being a prophet, is also a member ofDavid's court, and thus was probably the most natural person to ask.63 After hisinitial affirmative answer (v. 3), Yahweh tells the prophet in a dream that Davidis not to do as he had wished, but that, instead, Yahweh will build him a house.The text of Nathan's oracle is complex, but it is clear that it is chiefly concerned,not with the temple-cult of Jerusalem, but with the dynasty of David. It is in thecontext of David's continuing line that the Temple is mentioned. At v. 13, we aretold that the son of David will build a house for the name of Yahweh. The words"house for my name" suggest that this passage is an insertion of the Deuter-onomistic Historian, as a direct fulfilment of Deut 12:10-12:64 Jerusalem is theplace Yahweh has chosen. We might also suggest that there is an element of thepious fraud about this verse: it provides the only theological rationale for theTemple in Jerusalem. It is worth noting that there was, in fact, a sanctuary ofsorts in Jerusalem at the time of David (cf. 2 Sam 6:17; 7:2). This is alsosuggested by the presence of the ark, and further by the fact that priests formed apart of David's court.

The shrine motif only reappears in 2 Sam 24:15-25. Here, through the prophetGad, Yahweh commands David to build an altar to avert the plague caused by hiscensus. There is here what appears at first glance to be a theophany, with themention of an angel in v. 16. However, despite the fact that it is referred to as"the angel of Yahweh," it appears to be conceived of as a being other thanYahweh,65 in contrast to other places in the Hebrew Bible where the term is aperiphrasis for the deity himself. This is made clear by the fact that Yahwehaddresses the angel, ordering him to stop the plague in v. 16. Once more, this is

59. Cf. L. Rost, The Succession to the Throne of David (Historic Texts and Interpreters inBiblical Scholarship 1; Sheffield, 1982), 28.

60. S. Japhet, /andII Chronicles (OIL: London, 1993), 273.61. Rost, The Succession to the Throne of David, 28; A. F. Campbell, The Ark Narrative

(SBLDS 16; Missoula, Mont., 1975), 202.62. Rost, The Succession to the Throne of David, 31-32.63. P. K. McCarter, II Samuel (AB 9; Garden City 1984), 195-96.64. Ibid., 230.65. Ibid., 511.

1. Interpreting Judges 17-18 49

scarcely a "cultic foundation legend" as I have defined it above, but it doesrecord the first permanent Hebrew cultic place we know of in Jerusalem.McCarter notes that the fact that Yahweh was associated with plague makes itunlikely that we have here the vestiges of an ancient Jebusite cultic legend.66

The foundation of the shrine is described in 1 Kgs 5-8. First Kings 5:18-19refers to 2 Sam 7, which, as we have seen, provides the only theological motiva-tion for the building of the Temple. If it were not for this Deuteronomisticaddition, and the equally dubious 6:11-12 (which reflects the unmistakablephrasing of Deuteronomy), Solomon's Temple would seem to have been built forhis own glory. The account of the dedication (ch. 8), too, is heavily overlaid bythe Deuteronomist, if not composed by him.67

If we compare the accounts in Chronicles, however, we find a good deal moretheological input. In 1 Chr 13 (parallel to 2 Sam 6), we are told that Davidgathered the whole assembly of Israel, and, before he moves the ark from QiryathYearim, he tells them that he will do this thing only if it is pleasing to them andto Yahweh (v. 2). In the next verse he gathers the priests and the Levites together.The Chronicler has evidently noticed the lack of religious motivation behindDavid's actions in 2 Samuel, and has provided what he considers necessary in hisportrayal of David as the ideal king. The first section of this chapter (vv. 1-5)was composed by the Chronicler.68 There is no mention of how Yahweh's willwas determined, except by means of the people.69

More substantial theological additions are found in the account of the pur-chase of the threshing floor of Oman, as he is called in 1 Chr 21. Here, Satan putsDavid to the test, whereas in 2 Sam 24 this is done by Yahweh himself. When theplague is to be averted by the building of an altar, in Samuel it is Gad who ordersDavid to do this (vv. 18-19), but in Chronicles the impetus comes from theangel, and is then imparted to David by Gad (vv. 18-19). The change is subtle,but effective in emphasizing the divine motivation. Even the amount David paysis different. In Samuel, he gets the threshing floor and the oxen for fifty shekelsof silver, in Chronicles, he pays 600 gold shekels for the site alone (w. 24 and 25respectively). Whereas in the Deuteronomistic History that is the last we hear ofthe threshing floor of Araunah, in Chronicles it becomes the site of the Temple,70

as Yahweh has commanded (22:1). This is picked up again in 2 Chr 3:1. Indeed,1 Chr 21 reads like the account of a dedication prior to the formal festival held bySolomon. This is especially noticeable in the reference to Yahweh answeringwith fire from heaven in v. 26.71

It is evident that the Chronicler knows what a "cultic foundation story" shouldbe like. There is a good deal of divine involvement here, and at no time do wefeel that kings are acting on their own initiative. However, considering the nature

66. Ibid., 511.67. Cf. the discussion of Mayes, The Story of Israel, 109-13.68. Japhet, / and H Chronicles, 273.69. Ibid., 274.70. Ibid., 387.71. Ibid., 388.

50 Sacred Dan

of the Chronicler's account, we may be justified in regarding this as a pious fraud.The equally theologically minded Deuteronomist has not noticed the problem tothe same extent, and adds what he feels to be a suitable theological justificationwith regard solely to the Temple of Solomon, which he relates back to the bookof Deuteronomy.

Psalm 132 also provides a sustained theological rationale for the foundation ofthe Temple, and indeed the fact that vv. 2-6 are in narrative form suggests thatthis Psalm may be comparable in genre to the cultic foundation story. Verses 8-10 are also found in 2 Chr 6:41—42 as the conclusion to the dedication prayeroffered by Solomon. It appears in some ways to be a meditation on 2 Sam 7:12-14, unless—as is equally likely—2 Sam 7 contains a verbal allusion to thisfamous pilgrimage psalm. The Psalm is an expression of the "Zion Theology,"where Yahweh was seen to have chosen Jerusalem, which, for that reason, wasimpregnable (v. 18). Because of this, it is evidently later than Solomon,72 for sucha theology would have needed a lengthy period of political and military stabilityto become established. The emphasis placed on the descendants of Solomon(v. 12) also precludes an earlier date. All this, taken with the reference to the arkand to the "anointed one," would, nevertheless, suggest that it is pre-exilic. Ineffect, it makes up for the same theological lack which was noted by the laterbiblical writers, but, like the Deuteronomistic Historian, the psalmist concentrateson the building of the Temple and the assurance of an eternal dynasty that wentwith it. This promise is pictured mainly as a reward for the hardship endured byDavid (v. 1), and, as such, is part of a movement towards a hagiographicalportrayal of David which is, at times, very much at odds with the stark figure wefind in 2 Samuel, a figure who is so often presented acting on his own initiative incultic matters, and who rarely, if ever, consults the deity.

When we turn to the Danite legend after this, it seems rather different.Whereas, in the Jerusalem stories, any theological justification seems to havebeen added much later, in the Danite account, as we have seen, it occupies acentral place. We see this in the way the whole story hinges upon the giving ofthe oracle in Judg 18:6. As we have .seen, the narrative has been leading up tothis single event, and all subsequent actions of the Danites refer back to it. Here,unlike the ark at Jerusalem, the cultic objects themselves are not of ancient origin,their only value lies in the fact that they are dedicated to Yahweh; in this story itis the priest who has a high ancestry, and it is this which comes to the fore in thenarrative.

6. The Cultic Foundation Story in Judges

As well as the Jerusalem accounts, there are also two cultic stories in the book ofJudges which may shed some light on the Danite story. These are 6:11-24, partof the Gideon cycle, and 13:2-23, the beginning of the Samson cycle.

72. Cf. A. A. Anderson, Psalms (2 vols.; New Century Bible; London, 1972), 2:880.

1. Interpreting Judges 17-18 51

a. Judges 6:11-24This would appear to be the true cultic foundation story of the shrine of YahwehShalom at Ophrah. Gideon encounters the angel of Yahweh who is sitting undera tree. The angel commissions him to fight the Midianites. Gideon is sceptical,and asks for a sign—like in the days of old (cf. v. 13). The angel tells him tofetch an offering (nriDft), and when he has done so, Gideon places it upon a stone.The angel touches the offering with his staff, and it is consumed. Gideon isawestruck, and fears for his life, having seen God face to face, but Yahweh says,"Peace be with you. Do not fear, you shall not die." So Gideon calls the altarYahweh Shalom. The story ends with a note that the altar is there "to this day."

This is in effect both the aetiology and the foundation story of an otherwiseunknown shrine. Its major focus is, however, on Gideon, and so many of thedetails which the story may have contained of the cult's foundation have beenlost, although Soggin suggests the offering is a memory of the sacrifice made atthe institution of the sanctuary.73 If this is indeed the case, presumably the samewould also be true of Dan, although its legend does not mention sacrifice at all.The Judg 6 story is very much like the Genesis stories in that it deals with acountry shrine, and not with a civic shrine such as the one founded at Dan. Itdoes, nevertheless, provide the closest parallel we have yet found to the Danitelegend. In both we are in the semi-legendary past where the Israelites are inpossession of the land. In both the theme is of God's saving help for his people;and in both this culminates in the provision of a holy place, although in the caseof Gideon, his need is not as desperate as that of the Danites. Furthermore, otherthan the altar, in the Gideon account there is no mention of any of the apparatusor personnel connected with the cult. The Dan account, on the other hand, centresaround the cultic objects and the priest who will be associated with the shrinewhen it is founded. The Gideon story may once have been a true cultic founda-tion story as we have defined it, but it now lacks the wealth of detail which marksout the Danite legend.

b. Judges 13:2-23This is the story of the appearance of Yahweh to Manoah and his wife, theparents of Samson. It is rather similar to the Gideon story. Yahweh again mani-fests himself as "the angel of Yahweh," and again the humans are not certainwhether or not they are in fact dealing with the deity himself. Manoah wants togive the angel a meal, but the angel suggests a whole burnt offering to Yahweh.Manoah asks the angel's name, but the angel answers that it is (too) wonderful.Manoah places the offering on a rock altar (cf. v. 20), and offers it to "Yahwehthe Wonder-worker." While it is burning, the angel of Yahweh rises up in theflame. Manoah's reaction is very similar to that of Gideon, but his wife soonbrings him down to earth.

This is less helpful as a parallel to the Dan story, even though Manoah is infact a Danite. It is not clear whether this is, in fact, a cultic foundation story at all.

73. Soggin, Judges, 121.

52 Sacred Dan

There is a certain amount of wordplay on the words of the angel, and the name ofthe deity to whom the sacrifice was offered, even if the Hebrew is confused. Theemphasis here falls on the sacrifice, not on the inauguration of a new altar. If thestory had, at some stage, been a cultic foundation story, it is one no longer,having been wholly adapted into the Samson cycle.

7. Summary

It is, therefore, apparent that the Hebrew Bible can provide us with some help inour search for literary parallels which will elucidate the nature of the Danitelegend. Jerusalem and possibly the shrine of Yahweh Shalom are further exam-ples of Israelite sanctuaries which have, like Dan, an ancient historical accountexplaining exactly how and why Yahweh came to be worshipped in that particularplace. And significantly, like the Jerusalem accounts, the Danite story describesthe foundation of a shrine without an explicit theophany. With the Genesisaccounts, the Gideon story and the Chronicler's version of the Jerusalem story,however, the Danite story shares a central theme: that Yahweh responds to humanneeds, and that worship is, therefore, due to him. But we may also conclude thatfor the Hebrews it was possible to describe the foundation of an ancient and ven-erable shrine solely because it contained a significant sacred object (as at Jerusa-lem and Dan). The lack of a theophany did not affect the prestige of either shrine.

8. Cultic Foundation Stories in the Ancient Near East

We have found two similar stories from the Hebrew Bible both of which describethe foundation of a shrine, but neither of which contains an explicit theophany.This might appear to be an unusual state of affairs. The Danite story is obviouslya self-contained unit, but the Jerusalem stories are more disparate in nature. Forthis reason it may be argued by those scholars who are convinced that atheophany is necessary for the foundation of a shrine to be legitimate that theaccount of the theophany has simply dropped out from the Jerusalem complex,whereas, by contrast, it is clear that this element was always absent from the Danstory. We must therefore turn to the literature of the neighbours of the Hebrewsto see whether there are any parallels to such cultic foundation stories which lackan explicit theophany. However, where cultic foundation stories are concerned,we encounter a problem: there does not appear, at first glance, to be any compa-rable story from any of the parallel cultures. There are two major reasons for this:

a. Most of the material we have in the Phoenician, Aramaic and Canaanitelanguages is epigraphical. We have a vast number of victory stelae,epitaphs, building inscriptions and other such items, but few texts of aliterary nature.

b. As far as Egypt and Mesopotamia are concerned, sanctuaries were gen-erally regarded as having been in existence from time immemorial,74 and

74. The Memphite Cosmogony (ANET, 5) describes the foundation of the Egyptian shrines byPtah in mythological time.

1. Interpreting Judges 17-18 53

thus, the preservation of a foundation story describing in historical termsthe commencement of the worship of the gods in any one place wouldbe surprising in the extreme.

Even in ancient Near Eastern cultures whose literatures are not affected by eitherof these problems, for example Ugarit, the material which has been discovered isstrictly non-comparable with the Judges account on the literary level.

It is, nevertheless, possible that this scheme is a little too facile, and that theremay be—if not cultic foundation stories, as we have defined them—at least culticaetiologies to be found in the ancient Near Eastern material.

An example of a text that can be read in this way is the Babylonian Epic ofCreation, Enuma Elish. It can, in some senses, be viewed as an extended cultaetiology for Babylon, and for the shrine of Marduk there.75 This level of inter-pretation becomes apparent only late in the text, from Tablet 5 onwards. Mardukhas defeated the chaos monster Tiamat in his role as champion of the gods, andhas created the earth out of her carcass. He then declares his intention to build aglorious residence for himself, and, by implication, for the other gods, which willbe called Babylon, "the homes of the great gods" (line 129). In Tablet 6, thebuilding process is described, and the gods then feast in this "gate of the gods"(bab-ili, line 72).

The Epic of Creation has as its goal the ordering of the world, the acceptanceof Marduk (or Asshur in the Assyrian version) as king and his subsequentglorification. As a part of this goal, the establishment of the sanctuary as a homefor the gods is paramount. The story, used as part of the ritual at the New YearFestival, can be seen as a cult aetiology in that it purports to tell of the origin ofthis shrine. The major point of contrast between this story and the Hebrew storiesis that here we are very firmly in the realm of myth: the gods build their ownsanctuary, and they require no human agency. In the Hebrew stories, the shrine isestablished as a human response to a divine action, often a theophany, or in thecase of the Judges account, a divine reaction to the need of a faithful people. Tothis extent, the Mesopotamian material is of little use, other than to show that theMesopotamians, too, sometimes felt a need to explain the origins of their sanc-tuaries in terms of something other than pure human volition. Furthermore, it isimprobable that the Danite legend would have served any liturgical purpose inthe cult, since it bears none of the features usually associated with liturgical com-position. Well written it may be, poetry it is not. Enuma Elish is, therefore,probably better compared with psalmic material which contains similar mytho-logical resonances than with the Danite prose account. It is possible that a poeticaccount existed at Dan, but there is no evidence for it.

A similar story of the divine origin of a palace for a deity was told in Ugarit.Here, however, the mythical elements are even stronger, since the palace of Baalis built on Mount Zaphon, the sacred mountain of Ugarit, and there is scarcelymention of humanity at all (cf. KTU 1.4). In the Epic of Creation, at leasthumanity had access to the shrine.

75. Koch, The Growth of the Biblical Tradition, \ 96.

54 Sacred Dan

9. Cultic Foundation Stories from Other Cultures

It would seem from this survey of the ancient Near Eastern evidence that to findancient stories which are concerned with the foundation of sanctuaries we mustlook further afield. The most obvious place to which to turn is probably ClassicalEurope, especially Greece. This procedure might need some defence, since boththe time and the place are far removed from the setting of the Danite narrative. Itshould, however, be remembered that we are looking, in the main, for literaryparallels, and that these may, in some ways, be obtained from the literature of anycountry: if a foundation story is effective in, for example, Japan, such a legendmight also probably have been equally effective in pre-Columbian Mexico. (Anexample from the former culture76 tells of the goddess Amaterasu's instructionsabout her enthronement at Kawakami, where she first descended from heaven.)There is, however, the problem that what may be obvious to one people mightnot necessarily be obvious to another. Greece would, nevertheless, appear to be areasonable candidate, given the failure of the ancient Near Eastern material,because it was a civilisation which appears to have had contacts with the ancientNear East, both in trade and in culture.77

The ancient Greeks were often interested in the origins of their shrines. Anancient example of a cultic aetiology is in Hesiod's Theogony where in lines 176-206 we have the story of the castration of Ouranos. We are told that his severedgenitals eventually reached Cyprus, and from them rose the goddess Aphrodite.This is evidently an aetiology for the fact that the worship of Aphrodite wasprevalent in Cyprus. In lines 485-93, we find the story of the origin of the holystone at Delphi: it was given to Kronos to eat in place of the baby Zeus, but hesubsequently vomited it. Zeus later placed it in the sanctuary. Both these storiesare somewhat gruesome aetiologies, but the ancient Greeks evidently felt thatthis did not detract from the cults in question.

Herodotus also relates some cultic stories which are in fact true culticfoundation stories. When discussing Egypt, he mentions the oracle of Ammon(Amun)—whom he identifies with Zeus—in Libya, and relates a story which thepriests of (Egyptian) Thebes tell about its origins as well as those of the famousoracle of Zeus at Dodona in Greece which is mentioned in Homer. Two Thebanwomen were captured by the Phoenicians, one was taken to Libya, the other toDodona where they founded oracles. Herodotus mentions that the version told atDodona is different, in that two birds flew from Thebes, one to Libya and one toDodona where it alighted on an oak. The bird at Dodona spoke with a humanvoice, and told them to build an oracle there (11.54). Herodotus says the Egyptianversion of the story is probably more accurate.

Another story in IV. 15 relates how the people of Metapontum in Italy receiveda supernatural visit from Aristeas of Marmora who told them to build an altar toApollo, and place a statue of himself next to it, since they alone of the cities of

76. Nihongi 1.175-76, in M. Eliade, Essential Sacred Writings from around the World (NewYork, 1992), text 107.

77. Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 1-2.

1. In terpreting Judges 17-18 55

Italy had been visited by Apollo accompanied by Aristeas in the form of a raven.Aristeas then vanished. The people of Metapontum then sent to Delphi foradvice, and were told that they had better do as the vision suggested. This is, ofcourse, more obviously "legendary" than many foundation stories.

Herodotus in V.82 tells how the people of Epidauros asked the Delphic oraclefor advice when their crops failed. They were told to make statues of Damia andAuxesia out of olive wood. The best olive wood was in Attica, so they asked theAthenians, who granted their request, but only on condition that the people ofEpidauros made sacrifices to Erechtheus and Athene Polias.

Like the Danite story, the Herodotus legends are not always what one might atfirst expect of a cultic foundation story. The account of the founding of the greatoracle of Zeus at Dodona is surprising: it is mundane and admits that the oraclewas a foreign import, but this once again did not detract from its importance. TheMetapontum story is similar in some ways to the Genesis stories with itstheophany, whereas the Epidauros story, with its emphasis on the cult havingbeen founded by oracular command, is strikingly similar to the legend of Dan. Inboth the people are in a difficult position, and in both they ask an oracle for help.The net result in both cases is the foundation of a new cult. In neither case isthere a theophany: divine input comes solely from the oracle.

Our best source for the ancient Greek cultic foundation stories is not, however,Herodotus, but Pausanias. In his Guide to Greece, Pausanias's major interest is inthe shrines of his country, in their customs, rituals and temple furniture, and,most importantly for us, their histories. Herodotus, on the other hand, includescultic stories only as incidentals. There is one major caveat: Pausanias was writ-ing in the second century CE, that is, over a thousand years after the Danite storywas probably formulated. Nevertheless, while we should be aware of this, weshould remember that we are mainly looking for literary parallels. Furthermore,comparison with Herodotus shows that similar stories had been told in the Greekshrines for many centuries before Pausanias, so there is little doubt that many ofthe stories he relates are very ancient indeed. Another aspect which makes astudy of his work worthwhile is that Pausanias evidently believes many of thestories he relates, for, while, like Herodotus, he is sceptical about some of them,he seems to be a Classical pagan of the old school. However, while some of hiscultic legends are, like the Danite story, reasonably realistic descriptions of whatmight have happened, others are all too evidently legendary (in the negativesense), or mythological, relating that such and such a sanctuary was founded by agod or a demi-god (usually Heracles).

A good example is the account of the foundation of the shrine of Delphi (X.6).Pausanias relates that it may have been built by Parnassus, the son of a nymph,whose divine ancestry he doubts. At this place, Parnassus is said to have discov-ered divination by means of the flight of birds. During the time of Deucalion'sflood, the people, led to safety by the howling of wolves, called their cityLycoreia. Another explanation of the name is that Lycorus was Apollo's son.After several other irrelevant complications, Pausanias relates the better knownaccount of Apollo shooting a beast which died of gangrene (mjeaSai meaning "torot"), the beast (known from other sources as the Pytho) having been appointed

56 Sacred Dan

by Earth to guard the oracle. Alternatively, Apollo may have been called to rescuethe sanctuary from the son of Crius, lord of Euboia, who was about to pillage theshrine for the second time.

This story is confused, but it does show some features which we also find inthe Danite narrative. It explains, albeit in various ways, how the city got itspresent name, and what it was called before, and is also concerned to explain thearrival of its Classical patron deity. Interestingly, it admits that the sanctuary hadnot always been dedicated to Apollo, and that apparently his cult had arrived byforce. This is also borne out by Euripides inlphigenia in Tauris (lines 1244-50),and in the Homeric Hymn to Pythian Apollo (the latter having overtones ofEnuma Elish), thus demonstrating the antiquity of Pausanias's traditions. Thisaspect is also found in the Danite story, where it is evident that the Danites tookthe worship of Yahweh with them when they conquered Laish. It is possible,although unproven, that there was a Canaanite shrine at Laish. But if so, theDanite story ignores it.

To return to Greece, Pausanias recounts various stories told about the transferof cult statues around Greece, or to Greece from other places. An example of thelatter type is the (semi-mythological) story of Iphigenia's introduction of the cultof Artemis to Greece from Tauris. Pausanias refers to this in 1.33.1 with refer-ence to the city of Brauron whose foundation story suggested that this was theplace where Iphigenia had landed and left the statue. In his description ofLaconia, Pausanias, on the other hand, suggests that it is more likely that theSpartans have the statue, and that Orestes had brought it to the city when he wasking there (III. 16). These two foundation stories show that the Greeks weresometimes concerned to demonstrate that the image found in their city was animage of high antiquity. The variants show that they were not above inventingsuch stories when it suited their purposes. Another statue of Artemis with adubious origin is found in Patrae (VII. 18.6).

At Latrinoi, there was another statue of Artemis with an unedifying culticaetiology (VI.22.8-11): Alpheius had tried to rape the goddess, but she avoidedhim by means of a ruse. Because of this story, the people of the city call Artemisby the title Alpheiaea. However, the people of Elis, who were on friendly termswith those of Latrinoi, introduced the cult of Artemis Elaphiaea (Artemis of theDeer) to Latrinoi, and this cult took over from the original one. Once again wesee that the Greeks were happy to have foreign cults introduced, and that theywere also unconcerned with the propriety of their cultic stories.

Another unusual true cultic foundation story is found for the shrine at Celeaenear Corinth, where mysteries were held for the goddess Demeter, which thelocals freely admitted were copied from the more famous ones at Eleusis(II.14.1).

In Sparta they told another unusual cultic foundation story. There was a statueof Cnagian Artemis who was reputedly so called because of the Spartan Cnageuswho was captured in battle, and taken to Crete. In Crete there was a shrine ofArtemis. Cnageus eloped with its virgin priestess who took the statue which wasthen taken to Sparta. Pausanias does not believe the story, mainly because ofhistorical difficulties with the battle, but he does not comment on the origin of the

1. Interpreting Judges 17-18 57

statue (III. 18.4-5). At Thespiae, they told another unedifying cultic aetiology.Heracles slept with all fifty virgin daughters of Thestius except one, who refusedhim. He, therefore, made her his priestess in the temple he had built for himselfthere, which was then served by a single virgin priestess from that time on.Pausanias, suggesting that this was not in character for the son of Amphitryon,argues that this was probably another person called Heracles (IX.27.6-8). At thisstage, we need simply note that a shrine which had an immoral cultic legend wasin no way less of a shrine than one which was founded in high antiquity by a god.

The ancient Greeks had few qualms about stealing other people's culticobjects, and using them in their own sanctuaries. Pausanias records many suchstories, he even says that they had a saying for it: Sujjiayaoi v dAXorpiois TO 0EiovaEfJeaSai ("to worship the gods with other people's incense"). He gives variousexamples, including III. 14.4, where a statue of Thetis is taken from a capturedpriestess. A clearer example is in VII.20.4 where a statue of Artemis of the Lakeis reported to have been stolen from Sparta, and has found its way to Mesoawhere it was kept, the festival being held at Patrae. At Amphissa there was astatue of Athene which is reported to have come from Troy, although Pausaniasdoubts this (X.38.3). Pausanias gives some further examples in VTfl.46.2—4.

As a result of this survey, we can conclude several things about the Greekcultic foundation stories in relation to the Danite story:

First, a theophany was not considered necessary to enhance the credibility ofthe shrine. A divine oracle, or pure human motivation would suffice for thefoundation of a cultic place. The reputation of the shrine was in no way affected.As we have seen this is the case with both Epidauros and Dan.

Second, a cult did not have to be indigenous to any given place. Foreign cultsor the cults of neighbours were perfectly acceptable. This is the case in numerousGreek stories, and does not appear to have bothered the Danites who took the cultof Yahweh with them to their new home.

Third, the foundation story does not necessarily have to be edifying. TheGreeks appear to have been quite happy to report that a famous image was onethat was stolen, either in battle or because of romance, or for some other reason.The Danite cultic legend also fits into this mould. The warriors are never cen-sured for their actions. It should be remembered that the Danite legend is not theonly story we have in the Hebrew Bible of the forcible transfer of a cultic objectbetween different Yahwistic groups, for this is exactly what happens in the ArkNarrative in 2 Samuel. This was written from an entirely Davidic point of view,but it is interesting to speculate on what the people of Qiryath Yearim felt aboutthe removal of the Ark by the stronger power of the monarch. It is possible that,had the author chosen to record it, the inhabitants' reaction would not have beenwholly favourable78—not to speak of the reaction of the people of Shiloh.

Fourth, many of the Greek stories are not exclusively about figures from theheroic era, and the origins of a cult may be attributed to historical as well as

78. J. Blenkinsopp, Gibeon and Israel (SOTSMS 3; Cambridge, 1972), 65-83 (81-83), hypothe-sizes that it was Gibeon and not Qiryath Yearim where the ark was held, and goes on to look at theseissues from a Gibeonite point of view.

58 Sacred Dan

mythological people. Whereas many of the Genesis stories are about people whoare "legendary" (in the negative sense), the Danite story is about the warriors ofthe tribe, the ancestors of those who would have heard the story.

Fifth and finally, if a Greek cultic image is taken, it is usually taken expresslyto be worshipped in the city which receives it. This is in direct contrast toMesopotamian practice, where if a cultic object was taken into captivity it wasworshipped no more. For the Danite story, there is no doubt that the image wastreated with reverence since it formed the centrepiece of the Danites' new tribalsanctuary. For both Greeks and Danites it was simply a re-allocation of culticresources from those who did not really "need" them to those who did.

The fact that strikingly similar stories were told about the origins of other ancientshrines does not actually prove that what commentators have regarded asunsavoury elements were part of the original cultic foundation story, as we haveargued. It would, however, seem that since we do have very clear parallels to theDanite story from the ancient world, there would have been nothing inappropri-ate in our story having served exactly the same purpose as the more elevatedstories of Bethel and other cultic centres. That the cultic image was stolen andtaken to Dan with its priest and temple furnishings for the express purpose ofsetting up a new and more prestigious sanctuary, seems to have been the kind ofthing that was perfectly acceptable to the ancient mind, and would not havedetracted in any way from the prestige of the new shrine. Furthermore, the Greekstories prove that, for the Greeks at least (as apparently for the Hebrews in bothDan and Jerusalem), a theophany was not a prerequisite to the foundation of ashrine, and the fact that a sanctuary had been established without one certainlydid not affect its standing.

10. Conclusions

In conclusion, a good case can be made for seeing Judg 17-18 as a cultic founda-tion story. We saw from the literary-critical study that the story is manifestlyabout how the Danites came by their new home but, more importantly, their newshrine since the majority of the text as we have it deals with the manufacture andacquisition of the central cultic objects, as with the hiring of the priest. This is thecase both with the text as it stands, where a later redactor has attempted to dis-credit the shrine, and with the repristinated text which, we have argued, lies justbeneath the surface. There can be no doubt that the story's purpose is to explainhow the shrine came to be founded whether this is seen in a positive or negativelight. We have seen that if the (reconstructed) ancient text is read sympatheti-cally, and if the ancient historical and literary context is taken seriously, many ofthe difficulties which modern literary critics have noted simply vanish, and thestory is seen as a not inappropriate cultic foundation story despite its lack of atheophany.

This is significant, for this means that the Danite story is one of the few sur-viving such stories in the Hebrew Bible. It is a representative of a class of story

1. Interpreting Judges 17-18 59

which may have been told at all the ancient Israelite shrines, stories which told ofthe establishment of the cult of Yahweh at each individual place. As we haveseen, there are other narratives which have a similar purpose, especially in Gene-sis, but as we have noted, these are not directly comparable, and can best bedescribed as cultic aetiological legends, rather than historically based culticfoundation stories like this one. The Jerusalemite narratives, to a certain extent,go to the other extreme. They tell of the establishment of the shrine, but give noreal theological reason for this. Only the legend of Yahweh Shalom in Judg 6was once also a true cultic foundation story, but its association with the Gideonstory has obscured this element. The Danite legend, however, provides a theo-logical motivation for the foundation of the shrine, describing in historical termshow the cultic objects came to be made, and how they came into the hands of theDanites, and, by the motif of the providential care of Yahweh for his people, italso explains why they came by it. As we have seen in our look at the ancientGreek world, a cultic object did not necessarily have to have had an illustriouspast; rather, the fact that the image, or whatever it is, finds its way into the handsof people other than those that made it, could be regarded, even there, as part of adivine plan. This is especially so if, as in this story, the transfer of the objectfulfils a definite need among worshippers of the same god or goddess as thosewho originally possessed the object.

Thus, while some may regard the legend as being inappropriate from a mod-ern standpoint, we should remember that the ancients would not necessarily haveseen it in the same way. Further, looked at sensitively, the narrative may well beregarded as a minor masterpiece of the story-teller's art.

This page intentionally left blank

Part II

CULTIC PRACTICE IN JUDGES 17-18

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 2

IMAGE WORSHIP IN THE DANITE STORY

Having elucidated the nature of the Danite story, we now turn to look at thecultic issues raised by it. One of the most important of these is the question of theuse and nature of cultic images among the Hebrews and, in particular, the imagewhich formed the central focus of the cult at Dan. Fortunately, whereas moststories which mention cultic images do so to condemn them, the Danite legendcan be seen to speak of images in a neutral, almost positive way. As practices hadchanged a good deal between the formulation of the story and its final redaction,the redactor only had to make very small additions to the narrative to convert itinto a polemic account. The Danite story appears to be, however, an accurateaccount of pre-exilic cultic practices which, at a later date, became totallyunacceptable.

1. The Image in the Danite Story

The first thing that strikes the reader is the centrality of the ^DS to the story. It isclear that this object it is to be distinguished from at least the ephod andteraphim, if not the HDDQ. Von Rad, following an unpublished suggestion of Alt,regarded all four words as referring to the same image: "^DS" is the woodenfigure, riDDE the outer overlay of metal: in addition there was also the ~PSK, thecuirass-like case, and finally the D^STl, possibly a cultic mask."1 But this isunlikely, especially since the ephod and possibly also the teraphim were divina-tory devices, and not part of the cultic image.2 We will look at the place of the!"QDQ below.

The importance of the ^03 is asserted immediately. The story of its origins astold in the first few verses of ch. 17 probably, as Moore suggests, explains "howso costly and splendid an idol came to be in the possession of a private person; itwas an ex voto for the recovery of the money."3

Apart from the evident importance of Micah's image, we are told very littleelse about it, except that:

a. It is made out of consecrated silver.b. It stood in the shrine that was attached to Micah's house.

1. G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology (2 vols.; OTL; London, 1975), 1:216 n. 61.2. See Chapter 4, pp. 112-23.3. Moore, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges, 370.

64 Sacred Dan

c. It was probably the reason for the foundation of the shrine which seemsto have come into being only after the image has been made.

d. It could be referred to as a god/God (18:24)e. It became the central image of the shrine of Dan (18:30-31).

We may probably infer from the Danite story that the majority of ancient Israeliteshrines had some sort of cultic image, in common with shrines in the rest of theancient Near East. We may also say that such images were of considerable value,but that their value lies in something other than their origins, for this image inparticular had dubious origins. Their value rested in what they represented. Aswe have seen, this is true also of the Greek world where they told stories ofimages of lowly origins, but of enormous value for, as is probably true also inthis case, the deity represented was regarded as being in some way present in orthrough the image. In Greece the image was regarded as the vehicle of divinepresence, and it was that fact, not the origin of the image, that was of the greatestimportance.

2. The Term nDDDI ^DS

In three places the word ^DS is followed by rQDQl (17:3,4; 18:14). The singularverb Cm) in 17:4 indicates that only a single image was originally envisaged. Ithas been argued that both HDDD and ^DS appeared in the original text, referringto a single image by hendiadys.4 This is possible if these verses are taken alone.However, in 18:17-18 the two terms are separated by 113N and D^STin, so thathere the hendiadys explanation is impossible, and rQDQn HN1 must be a gloss. Itis then surely simplest to suppose that i~QDQl is also a gloss in 17:3-4 and 18:14.It is possible that the glosses were originally marginal, and were added inconsis-tently to the text we have today by later scribes. But why were those glossesadded? Moore suggests that the glossator added nDDQ, since he noticed that the^DS was made of silver, and thus the term "molten image" would have beenmore appropriate.5 This explanation is unlikely since in Isa 40:19; 44:10 and Jer10:14; 51:17 it is clear that a ^D2 could be made out of metal, the word implyingthat the image was hand-crafted rather than moulded, and also because it relieson the assumption that a i~QDQ was an image made by pouring molten metal intoa mould.6 Faur, on the other hand, suggests that it was an image consecrated bymeans of a libation.7 It seems more likely that the significance of this gloss is thatit was a deliberate element of polemic.

riDDQ is used most often in the Hebrew Bible to describe the calf that Aaronmade for the Israelites at Sinai, and the seemingly related calves of Bethel andDan associated with the royal cult of Jeroboam I: the connection between thestories of Exod 32 and 1 Kgs 12—the account of Jeroboam's cult—is well estab-lished. There are, nevertheless, difficulties in these narratives. When Aaron

4. Soggin, Judges, 265.5. Moore, A Critical andExegetical Commentary on Judges, 376.6. Cf. BOB, 650-51.7. J. Faur, "The Biblical Idea of Idolatry," JQR NS 69 (1978): 1-15 (12).

2. Image Worship in the Danite Story 65

makes a calf out of the earrings of the people8 in Exod 32:4, he makes one objectand presents it to the people with the words "JTI^K n^N, "These are your gods,"followed by a plural verb. This is paralleled in 1 Kgs 12:28 where PIDH is usedinstead of n^N. The most natural solution is that a common Deuteronomisticredactor of both passages sought to make this parallel more explicit by using theplural in both Exodus and Kings, the plural form being more natural in Kings.Moberly, however, objects, and argues that it is more likely that the 1 Kingspassage refers back to the earlier Exodus narrative.9 The rODQ is also condemnedin the "ritual decalogue" of Exod 34 (v. 17). Finally, it should be noted that theword rOQQ is not used in 1 Kgs 12; there the objects are referred to as "calves."

riDDO is, however, used in 1 Kgs 14:9. Here in the oracle of Ahijah of Shiloh,he mentions the DIDDID as the reason for Jeroboam's fall from grace. The calvesof Bethel and Dan are here regarded as (unspecified) foreign gods. This accusa-tion of idolatry is also present in 2 Kgs 17:16 where the Deuteronomist musesover the fall of the Northern Kingdom, and where the calves—here calledHDDQ—are one of the reasons for Yahweh's displeasure.

It is interesting in the light of the Deuteronomist's condemnation of the calvesthat the prophets and holy men of the Northern Kingdom were quite happy toaccept the existence of these images in the sanctuaries. So Elijah and Elishafrequent the shrine of Bethel without condemning its cult object. They must,therefore, have regarded the calf as legitimately Yahwistic (cf. 2 Kgs 2:1-2), anduntainted by the cult of "Baal" or any other god. Later Amos preached at Bethel,and whereas he attacked false notions of religion, he did not attack the cult of thecalves (cf. Amos 7:10-13). Amos does, nevertheless, mention Dan in a polemicalfashion at 8:14. Toews suggests that this is an attack on those who swear bydeities of well known cultic places,10 and thus it is not an explicit attack on theDan sanctuary.

The first and only northern condemnation of the m3DG comes from Hosea.The most explicit condemnation (13:2) will be discussed later. It also seems thathe is referring in part to the calves when he uses the word D^HiJU in 4:17, in 8:4where we find the word "calf in the next verse, again in 13:2, and in 14:9. It isimprobable that Hos 13:1-2 suggests that the calves were associated with Baalsince the two sins are distinguished."

In Ps 106:19 the word is again used to refer to Horeb and the calf which Aaronmade there.

It would thus seem that the word PODO is very firmly associated with the calfimages of both Aaron and Jeroboam, and in view of this, it seems possible thatthe redactor of Judg 17-18 wanted to connect the shrine of Dan from its originswith the calves, and thus added the word to make the link more explicit.12

8. For the significance of DTD, "earring," see pp. 115-16.9. R. W. L. Moberly, At the Mountain of God (JSOTSup 22; Sheffield, 1983), 164.10. Toews, Monarchy and Religious Institution, 73.11. G.I. Davies, Hosea (NCB; London, 1992), 286-87.12. Moore, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges, notes on p. 376 that this was

"possibly" a factor in the glossator's mind.

66 Sacred Dan

The redactor may also have been aware that he was making a literary allusionto Deut 27:15. This is the only other place in the Hebrew Bible where we find thephrase HDDQ1 ^DS. Here whoever makes either object is accursed, because whathe has made is an abomination to Yahweh.

3. The ^D2 in the Hebrew Bible

To obtain a clearer picture of the meaning and use of the *?DS of Dan, the onlycultic image of the original text, it is necessary to examine the evidence of theHebrew Bible as a whole on this subject.

In the vast majority of cases in the Hebrew Bible the word ^DS is the classicword for "idol." It is used in this sense by the Prophets, most notably in Deutero-Isaiah's great attacks on idols, idolaters and idol makers. However, in twoinstances from probably earlier material a neutral sense of the word may bediscerned.

(1) Surprisingly, one of these is in the Decalogue. Exodus 20:4 (paralleledpartially by Deut 5:6) reads ...D'OED "I0K n]lQn"b31 ^DS f "rntofln »"?, whichmay be rendered: "You shall not make for yourself an image or any likeness [ofanything] which is in heaven..."13 The problem for us is whether ^DS means"idol" in the classic sense of just "carving." Verse 5 continues, "You shall notworship them and not serve them" (the hophal may be translated "be made toserve").14 Since the word ^DS is parallel to H31QP, and as the latter word is notnecessarily negative, might it not follow that the former word is also not of itselfnegative? It appears that the same qualifications apply to both the "likeness" andthe "carving." From this, it seems that what is being prohibited by the command-ment is an image which has been made specifically to be worshipped, not neces-sarily images in general. It seems possible that *?DS only acquired its negativeconnotations because of this clause in the Decalogue, and subsequent interpreta-tion of it: interestingly, HDinn did not (cf. Num 12:8; Ps 17:15 where the transla-tion "a statue of you" may not be ruled out!).

The only difference in the Deuteronomy Decalogue is that ^DS here is in aconstruct relationship with n^Dir^S, and not parallel to it, at least this is so inCodex L (the Leningrad Codex, the oldest complete Hebrew Bible). Almost allthe other witnesses read the same as Exodus, which one might regard as a caseof assimilation. The Massorah Magna of Codex L has sought to preserve thedistinctive reading (BHS note 1082 records six differences between the two

13. Cf. P. Joiion and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (2 vols.; Subsidia Biblica 14;Rome, 1991), 2:216, §113m

14. It is not entirely clear what is the antecedent of "them" in v. 5.1 have taken it to be the imageitself, that is, the immediate antecedent in v. 4, although it is possible that "them" refers back to "othergods" in v. 3. To some extent, the view taken of the antecedent probably depends on the reader'sinterpretative tradition. In Christian tradition at least, vv. 3-6 are regarded in their entirety as the firstcommandment by Roman Catholics and Lutherans, whereas in Orthodox, Anglican and Reformedthought, the first commandment is v. 3, and the second consists of vv. 4-6. The latter appears to becloser to the Jewish tradition of interpretation, and so is the one that I have followed here. (The writeris, perhaps significantly, an Anglican priest!)

2. Image Worship in the Danite Story 67

versions15). It seems that in Deuteronomy, L's reading is preferable. The sense,however, is not greatly affected, although the Exodus wording may be regardedas being more comprehensive, but it is also possible that the Deuteronomy ver-sion dates from a time when the word ^DS normally had negative associations.

(2) The other instance of the term being used in at least a neutral sense is Judg3 where its irregular plural D^DS is used in vv. 19 and 26. Here it refers to afeature of the landscape near Gilgal where Ehud encounters Eglon king of Moab.The stones are first mentioned in Josh 4:20-24, where they are taken out of theJordan and set up as a reminder of the saving acts of Yahweh. That they werecarved, and thus called D' "TDS is significant, especially since the heavily redactedJoshua story does not mention this. There is a strong possibility that the stoneswere carved into the likenesses of witnessing deities, or, as seems a good deal lessprobable considering their role in Joshua, they may have been border markers.16

(3) Another fact that supports an original neutral meaning of ^DS is that itscognate verb is not used in a negative sense at all. In fact it is even used of thestone tablets on which the Decalogue itself was written (Exod 34:1,4). Does thismake them a "?DS of some description?17

Thus, despite the heavy preponderance of negative uses of the word it appears,nevertheless, that it is possible to trace a development in the semantic range ofthe word ^DS. The primary meaning appears to have been "carving," a neutralword for an object made in a particular way. It later became pejorative, probablythrough its use in the Decalogue, and came to be used to refer to images found inother religions. It is possible that it was first used in this way in the North, whereexternal influences were stronger. We might even tentatively suggest that theprohibition of images in general came into force only during the period of theDivided Monarchy in the North, possibly at the time of Hosea (hence his attackon the bull image of Samaria in Hos 8:4-5). At this stage the South appears notto have been unduly worried by the problem of images. It is possible that it wasonly at the time of the reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah that Southerners becameconcerned about the significance of their cultic images. It is interesting to notethat neither bDS nor D1 "TDB is ever used of any of the Southern cultic images suchas the cherubim or Nehushtan, which almost certainly could have been referredto in this way. Possibly the writers took care to avoid using the word. We mightcompare the development of the word HQD, originally a neutral word as in 1 Sam9:12, which later became the standard Deuteronomistic term for a heterodoxsanctuary, as in 1 Kgs 12:31.18

15. G. E. Weil, Massorah Gedolah: I (Catalogi) (Rome, 1971), 132.16. Soggin, Judges, 51. B. Lindars, Judges 1-5 (Edinburgh, 1995), 143, favours the view that

D11 *TDB is a well-known place-name, which would explain why there is no explanation offered for thenature of the objects.

17. Cf. R. P. Carroll, "The Aniconic God and the Cult of Images," 5T31 (1977): 51-64.18. P. H. Vaughan, The Meaning of "Bama " in the Old Testament (SOTSMS 3; Cambridge,

1974).

68 Sacred Dan

From this study we can see that the ^DS of Dan may have been regarded aslegitimate when the Danite story was written (i.e. some time in the later DividedMonarchy period), and only gained negative connotations later. However, it isdifficult to know anything further about the nature of the Hebrew cultic image,since most of the texts are polemical and cannot be used as accurate sources ofinformation. To gain a better understanding of the nature and function of theimage of Dan, we must look for other evidence relating to it among the Hebrewsand analogies from further afield.

4. The "?DS ofMicah and the Bull Image of Royal Dan

A first step is to note that the text was originally written at least in part to explainthe antiquity of the image of Dan which, according to the writer, came from theperiod of the Judges. However, 1 Kgs 12:28 states that Jeroboam I himself madethe calves for both the shrines of Bethel and Dan. This discrepancy has beenresolved in various ways.

(1) Satterthwaite suggests that Judg 18:30-31 were written originally to beparallel to one another—in other words, Dan and Shiloh were both destroyedafter the battle of Aphek. The writer of the story supposedly refers to thisdestruction figuratively as an "exile."19 This is unconvincing, for surely "exile ofthe land" must refer to the Assyrian Exile, when massive deportations occurred,and would not be a suitable metaphor for a Philistine raid, however severe.Satterthwaite cites 1 Sam 4, Jer 7:12; 26:6,9 and Ps 78:61-64 as evidence for thedestruction of Shiloh after the battle of Aphek, and says, "These passagesdescribe a devastation more widespread than 1 Sam 4-6 at first sight sug-gests..."20 This is not convincing. Jeremiah's point is that Shiloh is deserted inhis lifetime. He does not say that it was destroyed by an enemy, and he alsospeaks only of Shiloh. Neither does Ps 78 say that Shiloh was destroyed, it simplyrefers to the ark's removal and capture by the Philistines. Further, vv. 62-64probably refer solely to the actual battle of Aphek itself: here it is only the menwho are killed. Had it been making an allusion to the destruction of a city, surelythe text would not have contrasted the fate of males and females in such a way. Ifa city is destroyed, all suffer and die.21

As to the destruction of Dan, Satterthwaite admits that he is on less secureground.22 He notes that Tel Dan was destroyed in the second half of the eleventhcentury, at the same time as Shiloh, but his major reasons for denying that theoriginal shrine lasted until the time of the Exile are historical. It is not clearwhether there was a continuous priesthood at the shrine, and 1 Kgs 12:25-26 doesnot mention a pre-existent shrine: "The account would lead us, in the absence of

19. Satterthwaite, Narrative A rtistry, 117-18.20. Ibid., 118.21. Cf. Day, "The Destruction of the Shiloh Sanctuary."22. Satterthwaite, Narrative Artistry, 118.

2. Image Worship in the Danite Story 69

other evidence, to suppose that the original Danite sanctuary had vanished sometime previously."23

Other evidence does, however, exist. The Septuagint (including, significantly,Origen) reads KOU ev Aav in 2 Sam 20:18 after the reference to Abel bethMaacah.24 There is no reason why any scribe would add this to the text, but thereis a good reason for its omission at a relatively late date. Satterthwaite's idea thatthe Philistines reached as far north as Dan is also unlikely. It is true that Dan wasdestroyed at this period,25 but it is more likely that it was by the Arameans asthey frequently did in later periods.26 However, the fact that the city was soonrebuilt to exactly the same plan, right down to the position of the houses,27 takenwith the continuing oracular tradition would strongly suggest that cultic life tookup again largely unchanged. Whereas, as we have noted, it was usual for culticobjects to be seized, owing to the fact that life in Dan remained the same after thedestruction, it is likely that either the original image was restored to the shrine, orelse presumably surreptitiously replaced by a copy. Since polemic was stilldirected against the shrine and its (original) image at a much later date, thepossibility that the image was restored seems stronger.

(2) Toews suggests that Judg 18:30 is secondary: it names the priest tooabruptly.28 However, he does not deal with the text of Judg 17-18 in sufficientdetail, and seems to ignore its implication that Micah's image was also the calf ofthe royal sanctuary at Dan (18:30). Furthermore, a secondary antiquarian inser-tion by the Deuteronomistic redactor noting that the priestly house of Dan tracedits lineage to Moses, which is what Toews is seeming to suggest, appears highlyunlikely.

(3) Haran too discusses this issue. He suggests that there were two images atDan. First, Micah's image of Yahweh which resided in the inner part of thetemple, and which was effectively reserved for the priests, and then the goldencalf (also an image of Yahweh), which Jeroboam I placed in the open air as animage for public veneration,29 citing 1 Kgs 12:28 ("Behold, you gods...") toshow that it was on public display.30 To my mind, however, it seems inexplicable

23. Ibid., 120.24. Bartusch, Understanding Dan, 203, argues that the MT is preferable to the LXX at this point

on that basis that a favourable reference to Dan would not have been included in the DtrH. This ispossible, but Bartusch has no satisfactory explanation for its presence in the LXX. Also, given thestate of the MT in the books of Samuel in general, adopting an LXX reading is not as tendentious abusiness as he seems to imply. In addition, the fact that Origen reads with the LXX may be taken as anindication that the Hebrew text to which he had access contained the reference to Dan (cf. F. Field,ed., Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt [2 vols.; Oxford, 1875], 1:578).

25. Biran, Biblical Dan, 135-36.26. Cf. Biran and Naveh, "An Aramaic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan"; Biran, Biblical Dan,

274-78.27. Biran, Biblical Dan, 138-41.28. Toews, Monarchy and Religious Institution, 118.29. Haran, Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel, 29-30.30. Ibid., 30 n. 28. Bartusch, Understanding Dan, 183, also suggests that the two images may

have co-existed, although Bartusch, as we have seen, also believes that there were in fact two shrines,a royal one and a local one.

70 Sacred Dan

that there should have been two different cult images of Yahweh (with presuma-bly different iconography) in the same temple, both of which, according toHaran, would have been worshipped.

(4) It is much more plausible to resolve the difficulty by regarding 1 Kgs 12 aseither a total fabrication created by the Deuteronomistic Historian, or a verythorough reworking of earlier material. It describes the making of two "calves"and the consecration of two sanctuaries in Bethel and Dan, with a new priesthoodat least in Bethel (12:32), if not in Dan too. There are several suspicious featuresin this account:

(a) The images are described as "calves" presumably to belittle them.(b) We know that both Bethel and Dan were established ancient sanctuaries,

served by ancient priestly houses, and that it was in the interests of the Deuter-onomist to discredit both the shrines and their priests.

(c) The major emphasis of the cult of Jeroboam was, as far as we can tell, areturn to the older values of pre-monarchical Israel; thus his rallying cry is "Toyour tents, O Israel" (1 Kgs 12:16). Since according to the Danite story Danalready had a cultic image associated with Jonathan grandson of Moses, it wouldhave been counterproductive for Jeroboam to have replaced it. Moreover, whyelse would Jeroboam have picked Dan as a direct rival to Jerusalem if not for itsancient traditions. It was surely not for its strategic importance close to theborder with the barbarous Arameans!31 The discrepancy between Micah's silverbull mentioned in the Dan legend and the gold bull of Jeroboam seems bestresolved by the view that the statue was gilded because a gilded statue wouldhave been felt more suitable for a royal shrine. We know from Mesopotamia thatstatues were periodically re-gilded, and that at times the precious covering itselfcould be taken away as spoil.32

Whether Jeroboam in historical reality made an image for Bethel is not clear,although the use of "bull of Jacob" pplT TUN) as a cult-title for Yahweh maysuggest that the bull image was not an innovation there either, since there is alink between Jacob and Bethel. What is certain, nevertheless, is that the Deuter-onomistic Historian could not afford to present either Bethel or Dan as places ofancient cultic heritage. As far as he was concerned, any shrine apart from the arkshrine at Jerusalem was de facto illegitimate, and thus it would probably havesuited his purpose to portray them as innovations of an heretical king, especiallysince Jerusalem came into Hebrew hands late on, and was thus itself in danger ofbeing branded an innovation. Furthermore, in the context of the DeuteronomisticHistory as a whole, it is the very cult of Jeroboam I that was blamed for thecollapse of the Northern Kingdom in 2 Kgs 17. For this reason, it would be

31. Pace, for example, J. Bright, A History of Israel (3d ed.; London, 1981), 237; Bartusch,Understanding Dan, 194: "It is not surprising that a location of such strategic and political impor-tance should be associated with a religious center, and that Jeroboam would want to undergird theintegrity of the site in whatever way possible." A risky strategy indeed.

32. For the re-gilding of a statue, see the Myth ofErra 1.18-20 (S. Dalley, Myths from Meso-potamia [Oxford, 1989], 292-93); and for the removal of gilding, see T. Jacobsen, "The GravenImage," in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (ed. P. D. Miller, P. D.Hanson and S. D. McBride; Philadelphia, 1987), 15-33 (16).

2. Image Worship in the Danite Story 71

surprising if the story of the foundation of that sinful cult had not been at bestredacted to suit the purposes of the whole History. The likelihood is thereforethat the less heavily redacted Danite story is closer to historical reality, that therewas or had been an ancient silver image at Dan down to the Assyrian invasion.

5. The Image of Royal Dan

But what did this image represent? Once again, we must turn to parallel sourcesfor help.

The overwhelming evidence of the Hebrew Bible points to the fact that thebull image of Dan was considered to be an image of Yahweh. This is evensuggested by Judg 18:24, where Micah refers to one of the stolen cultic objects asTt^fc, "my gods/God" (there is never any question at all that the man calledMicahayu is not a Yahwist).

In the account of the setting up of Jeroboam's royal cult in 1 Kgs 12:28 theimplication is once again that the bulls themselves were regarded as images ofGod.33 While we have noted above that this is a highly polemical account, it ispossible that it may have preserved at least some accurate information. However,owing to its nature, while it may be used as part of a cumulative argument, itsbiased nature would suggest that it should be used with caution. The sameapplies to Exod 32:4.

Further evidence is, nevertheless, available from Hosea. Here we find aninvective against the bull of Samaria (i.e. that of Bethel, cf. 10:5) in 8:6. Theimplication of this is that the bull of Bethel (and thus presumably that of Dan)was regarded as a representation of God at least by some people. (Of course it isalso evidence that others—including Hosea himself—were convinced that it wasnot!) However, since Hosea is condemning the general attitudes of the NorthernKingdom, it is safe to assume that the majority of the people regarded the bull asin some way an image of God. Hosea also attacks the bull in 10:5-6, and 13:2,where the fact that people are kissing it would further suggest that it was arepresentation of Yahweh.

In the light of this it would be natural to take the cult title Up!)1 TDK (in theJoseph section of the Blessing of Jacob—Gen 49:24) as further evidence infavour of this view. If, as is likely, it does in fact mean "Bull of Jacob," thiswould imply that Yahweh could be pictured in taurine form.34

The textual evidence thus shows that the bulls were probably seen as repre-sentations of Yahweh, but until the time of Hosea they were not regarded asproblematic. It would appear that an aniconic element was becoming stronger inIsrael at this time. This was later to find full expression in the work of Deutero-Isaiah.

33. J. A. Emerton, "Abraham Kuenen and the Early Religion of Ancient Israel," in AbrahamKuenen (1828-1891): His Major Contributions to the Study of the Old Testament (ed. P. B. Dirksenand A. van der Kooij; OTS 29; Leiden, 1993), 8-28 (21).

34. Cf. M. Weippert, "Gott und Stier," ZDPV 11 (1961): 93-117 (105), and more recentlyBartusch, Understanding Dan, 183.

72 Sacred Dan

The evidence from Northern Israel's neighbours seems at first to point in asomewhat different direction. In Judah there appear to have been no direct imagesof Yahweh. In the temple he was represented by his mythical steeds, the cheru-bim. In the Hebrew Bible, these winged sphinxes are the normative bearers ofYahweh's presence. He is enthroned upon them in 1 Sam 4:4—part of the ArkNarrative—and also in its later stages in 2 Sam 6:2. In 2 Sam 22:8-16 (paralleledby Ps 18:7-15), Yahweh is depicted as a meteorological deity who rides on acherub (22:11). In Ps 80:2, part of a Northern lament, DmnDn 2CT is a formaltitle of Yahweh, as it is in Isa 37:16. A similar title is found in the Southern Ps99:1. The cherubim are also the vehicles of divine presence in Ezek 10. Thesecreatures are also found as guardians in both the Paradise Myths of the HebrewBible (Gen 3:24, and Ezek 28:14, 16). It is interesting that Ps 80 contains theonly Northern reference to the cherubim—the use of the tribal names Ephraim,Benjamin and Manasseh points to its Northern origin. This may be regarded asan example of Southern religious influence.35

Mettinger has gathered evidence from the cults of others of Israel's immediateneighbours.36 Unlike the Northern Kingdom, all of them apparently knew of whathe calls "empty space aniconism" which may also be used to describe the func-tion of the cherubim in the cult of Judah—they were in effect pedestals forYahweh. Despite the evidence cited above from the Hebrew Bible, this term hasalso been applied to the bulls of the Northern cult.

The idea that the bulls were pedestals for Yahweh was first suggested byObbink.37 Comparing the iconography of Hadad Ramman, who was representedby a man standing on a bull, Obbink hypothesized that Jeroboam took over thisiconography and transferred it to Yahweh, but since Yahweh apparently couldnot be represented, he made an empty throne for him. He went on to suggest thatone might compare the problematic 1 Kgs 12:28 with 1 Sam 4:6-7 where thePhilistines refer to the ark as a god.38 That Jeroboam borrowed the iconographyof a foreign deity is unlikely, in view of my arguments above about the conserva-tive nature of his religious policies.

The arguments of Obbink were taken up by Albright. He stated: "in presum-able reaction against the representation of Yahweh in the Temple of Solomon asan invisible deity enthroned above the two cherubim (winged sphinxes)...Jeroboam represented Yahweh as an invisible figure standing on a young bull."39

Albright drew much of his argument from figures found in northern Syria andAnatolia.

Morton Smith objected that there is no evidence of any important politicalconnection with northern Syria, still less with Anatolia.40 In my view, Smith's

35. Unless, of course Ps 80 is the lament of Northern exiles in the Temple of Jerusalem!36. T. N. D. Mettinger, No Graven Image? Israelite Aniconism in its Ancient Near Eastern

Context (CBOTS 42; Lund, 1995).37. H. T. Obbink, "Jahwebilder," ZAW'47 (1929): 264-74.38. Ibid., 268.39. W. F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity (2d ed.; New York, 1957), 299.40. M. Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament (2d ed.; London,

1987), 162n. 53.

2. Image Worship in the Danite Story 73

argument fails to prove anything, especially as a lack of political connectionsdoes not preclude cultural exchanges. There are traditions of Hittites having beenresident in Canaan, so it is possible that there may have been some sort of cross-cultural influence, if not specifically with the Hittites, with other northern peoples.It, therefore, seems not unreasonable that the image might have been a pedestalin the form of a bull whether it was "borrowed" from Anatolia or whether it wasan indigenous idea: bulls after all represent strength, and thus the ultimatestrength, i.e. deity, in many cultures.

However, given the nature of the direct evidence from the Hebrew Bible itwould appear that in this instance the cult of the Northern Kingdom differed fromthose of its immediate neighbours, and so the natural inclination of manyscholars to see in the bull a pedestal for Yahweh on the analogy of neighbouringcults is misguided.41 It would, therefore, appear that here a closer analogy shouldbe sought in the cults of ancient Near Eastern societies which were geographi-cally further away from the Northern Kingdom (e.g. Mesopotamia). First, how-ever, we will deal with possible origins for the bull iconography of Dan.

6. The Origins of Bull Iconography

Over the years various different places of origin have been suggested for the bulliconography of ancient Israel. Some of these suggestions are fanciful, but othershave found credence in the scholarly world. The most important are noted below.

(1) Oswalt finds the origins of the bull iconography in Egypt. He points outthat the closest parallel to the monotheism of Israel is the cult of Amun-Re, in theNew Kingdom the dynastic god of the Pharaohs, and thus god of all Egypt. Intime, the cult of this deity began to emphasize his exclusivity and his one-ness,all other gods being manifestations of the one.42 Oswalt points out that in manyof the extant prayers to Amun-Re, he is addressed as both the "bull" and as theinvisible god.43 Thus he argues that it seems likely that the people of Israel whohad been brought up in New Kingdom Egypt would have adopted this bulliconography as their own. When they wanted to portray their God, this wouldhave been the most natural tradition to build on. Oswalt also notes that Jeroboamthe son of Nebat spent some time in exile in Egypt, and, therefore, would havebecome "steeped in Egyptian thought."44

Several problems arise in the consideration of this view. Oswalt bases his viewon a study of the texts relating to Amun-Re, but not on Egyptian iconography. He

41. The same can also be said of Eissfeldt's theory that the bull images were effectively maceheads used by leaders; see O. Eissfeldt, '"Lade und Stierbild," in Kleine Schrifte //(Tubingen, 1963),282-305, repr. fromZAW58 (1940-41): 190-215.

42. J. N. Oswalt, "The Golden Calves and the Egyptian Concept of Deity," EvQ 45 (1973): 13-20(17). Cf. ̂ £7; 369, 371.

43. Oswalt, "The Golden Calves," 18. Cf. ANET, 365, 368.44. Ibid., 19. Oswalt in a later article also incorrectly associated that most illusive of Mesopota-

mian deities Asshur with a bull ("Golden Calves and the 'Bull of Jacob,'" in Gileadi, ed., Israel'sApostasy and Restoration, 9-20 [12]). For the correct iconography of Asshur, see J. Black and A.Green, Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia (London, 1992), 37-39.

74 Sacred Dan

is not comparing like with like. As anybody who has been to the temple complexof Amun-Re in present day Karnak-Luxor would know, the major iconographicemblem of the deity is not the bull, but the ram. Also, in a country such as Egypt,where different deities were the sole gods of their own cities (as Ptah was atMemphis), what was true of the educated priests of Amun-Re in Thebes may notnecessarily have been true of illiterate peasants in the Delta 400 miles away,which is where the Bible places the ancient Hebrews.

On the Israelite side, as we have noted above, it seems clear above all else thatJeroboam was attempting to return to the ancient traditions of the Hebrews whichhe felt to have been betrayed by the Davidic Dynasty. In view of this, it seemshighly improbable that he would have introduced what was, after all, whollyforeign iconography into his new royal cult. It is much more probable that heused elements of the Hebrew folk religion to gain himself support. So it seemsobvious that he would have avoided making large changes in the iconographyused at such an old established shrine as the one at Dan. Also, that he was"steeped in Egyptian thought" is highly debatable. Furthermore, Hahn, in hisdiscussion of possible Egyptian origins for the golden calves, further notes thatthe Hebrews would not have used an image of an Egyptian god as a representa-tion of Yahweh, the God of the Exodus.45

(2) Bailey, on the other hand, suggested that the god of the calves was to beassociated with the Mesopotamian moon-god Sin, who is often represented by abull, and was not Yahweh at all. He stated that the cult of this ancestral god hadbeen preserved in Northern Israel, until well after the time of Moses.46 Thisassociation of Sin with Israel he also used to explain the etymology of the nameSinai, as well as the names of various members of Abraham's family.47 Hahndismisses Bailey's views as having been based on speculation. He correctlypoints out that we simply do not know enough about what Hahn calls the "thepre-Canaanite history of the people of Israel."48

The vast majority of scholars, in contrast to Oswalt and Bailey, have soughtfor the origins of bull iconography in the mythological texts of Ugarit. Therefore,before we turn to discuss some of their views, we will deal with the Ugariticmaterial afresh.

Excursus: Bull Imagery in Ugaritic and Hebrew Texts

There are three Ugaritic words which can be translated "bull," as well as a cognate to the Hebrewword which is usually rendered "calf."

(1) Possibly the most important of the Ugaritic words for "bull" when one is dealing with theconcept of deity istr, which is cognate to the Hebrew TIE), and is one of the usual Ugaritic words forthe male of the cattle, used some 52 times in the corpus. Often, it means quite simply an animalwhich can be eaten (ATI/ 1.17.6.23, 1.12.1.31, 1.12.2.55 etc.), or one in a field (KTU 1.1.4.31,

45. J. Hahn, Das "Goldene Kalb ": Die Jahwe-Verehrung bei Stierbildern in der GeschichteIsraels (Europaische Hochschulschriften 23.154; Frankfurt, 1981), 324.

46. L. R. Bailey, "The Golden Calf," HUCA 42 (1972): 97-115 (114).47. Ibid., 114-15.48. Hahn, Das "Goldene Kalb," 337: "vor-kanaanaischen Geschichte des Volkes Israel."

2. Image Worship in the Danite Story 75

1.4.6.41, 1.22.2.12 etc.). However, in the majority of cases in the extant material, it is used as anepithet for the head of the Ugaritic pantheon, El, in 28 instances. On one single occasion (KTU1.12.2.55), it is used in a simile to describe the god Baal, who is described as falling to the groundlike atr, here parallel to 'ibr, a general word for "bull" or "ox." It should, however, be emphasized inthe strongest terms, that tr here is not used as an epithet for Baal. The best, and probably only way ofunderstanding the passage is to give it its literal meaning: the deity fell to the ground in the same waythat an ox does when it is killed. The only Ugaritic god who is specifically associated with a bull isEl. Also, it might be noted that of all the Ugaritic words for bull, tr is the only one which is ever usedas a divine epithet.

(2) The word 'ibr, as was just noted, seems to have been just an ordinary word for an "ox" (KTU1.4.7.56, 1.10.3.36, 1.14.120 etc.).

(3) Another word, which has aroused some scholarly interest, is r 'urn, since, when Baal and Motfight in KTU 1.6.6.18, they are described as goring each other like wild oxen, and thus they aredescribed as bulls, and thus we have evidence of bull iconography associated with Baal—at leastaccording to some scholars. This is, however, a poetic simile, and is quite an effective one at that,having been used independently since then.49 In another place in the Ugaritic texts (KTU 1.10.3.37),Anat the consort of Baal gives birth to a wild ox, but the context is difficult to determine because ofthe fragmentary nature of the tablet, which may have a connection to another obscure text, whereBaal is said to copulate with a heifer (KTU 1.5.5.18-22).

(4) Finally, 'gl has the same meaning as the Hebrew cognate ("calf), used to describe the bulls ofBethel and Dan. The word is never used in any simile to describe a god, but at KTU 1.3.3.41 we aretold about a calf of El, which may be some sort of pet or household animal. The same usage is alsofound in Ugaritica 5.2.1.11 (= KTU 1.113.1.11), and a similar one in KTU 1.22.2.13. Otherwise, theword is used to mean an animal that can be eaten, and is probably best translated "veal."

Since in the extant Ugaritic material only one word for bull is used to refer to a deity, and only onedeity is actually called a bull, a study of its Hebrew cognate might be of some use. The Hebrew word"125 is relatively common in the Bible, being used 78 times in all. Most of these refer to bulls assacrificial animals, seven times thus in Leviticus, for example, and in only two instances (exceptingthe difficult Hos 12:12), is there any degree of interest for the study in hand.

In Ps 106:20 it describes Aaron's calf image, and it is parallel to the word for "calf." The mostimportant issue in this passage is: Did the writer know of any connection between the word he wasusing and the head of the Semitic pantheon, or was it just a word he utilized to emphasize theridiculousness of the image, that of a bull which eats grass? It seems that the second of these optionsis more likely, taking into account the pattern of usage from the rest of the Hebrew Bible.

The other passage of possible interest is Judg 6:25-26, where Gideon is commanded by Yahweh tooffer "HEJmSTlN as an offering on the altar of Yahweh after he has torn down the altar of Baal. Thepoint at issue seems to be whether a specific bull of Yahweh as the divine "IE? is intended. Again, thisis unlikely since "12? probably does not refer to Yahweh at all here.

From this brief survey of the evidence available, it seems that, at least in the later stages of thedevelopment of the Hebrew Bible, the word "IE? had no significance as a divine epithet. This does notmean, however, that the bull could not be used to represent Yahweh. This is especially so since thereis a strong tradition linking Yahweh with El. Even though one would of course wish to repudiate anysuggestion that the Ugaritic folk were identical with the Canaanites of later times, the link betweenthe bull cult of Yahweh-El at Beth-El and the Ugaritic cult of Bull El is significant.

We now turn to discuss the views of three more recent scholars who have, indifferent ways, found the origin of bull imagery in the Ugaritic texts.

49. For example, Tasso in Canto 12.53 of his epic "Gerusalemme Liberata" describes the fight tothe death of the warrior maiden Clorinda and the Crusader Tancredi in the following terms: "e vansi aritrovar non altrimenti / che duo tori gelosi e d'ira ardenti." ("And they went forth to seek each otherout not unlike / two jealous bulls and burning with anger.")

76 Sacred Dan

(1) Despite the lack of evidence, Curtis has attempted, at least in part, to makeBaal the god who is particularly associated with the bull. Curtis suggests that itmay simply be chance that the extant Ugaritic texts do not mention Baal in con-nection with the bull.50 He then goes through the material surveyed above, andpicks out all the places where Baal is described as being like a bull, evidencewhich I discounted. Curtis accepts the basic conclusions of Oswalt (while ques-tioning some of his judgments), as well as those of Habel who argues that thenature of Aaron's crime was not simply replacement of iconography, but full-scale polytheism.51

Curtis goes on to cite Dussaud52 who argued that KTU1.10.2.9 refers to a bullcult at the head-waters of the Jordan, and that it was this cult that Jeroboam wascontinuing when he established his royal shrine at Dan.53 It should, however, bepointed out that KTU 1.10 is an exceptionally fragmentary tablet, and that anyarguments based exclusively on it must be treated with a good deal of caution.(Gibson, for example, feels unable to make sense of it, and, therefore, includes itin the appendix to his edition.54) Further, this suggestion also goes against thetraditions of the Danite story, and if the Deuteronomistic school had been able toget its hands on such a scandalous piece of information as that offered byDussaud, it would hardly have failed to mention it. Curtis also notes that thetown of Beth Anat is in the tribal holding of Naphtali (cf. Josh 19:38), and thusthat the consort of Baal must have been worshipped in the area.55 This does not,however, prove anything about worship at Dan.

In the term Dpi?"1 TDK, "bull of Jacob," Curtis sees another bull-god connec-tion, but this time it is El, and not Baal who is denoted: "The bull El became thebull-god of Jacob who was later identified with Yahweh."56 He also notes thevarious references to horns in the Hebrew Bible especially in Ps 132:17 and1 Sam 2: la, suggesting that they represent fertility, comparing KTU 1.10.2.20-35.57 He goes on to say that these can represent various aspects of deity—fertil-ity, strength or dignity—but not necessarily all at the same time. Finally, hesuggests that in Ugarit it was Baal who became the supreme god, whereas inIsrael, Yahweh became supreme by taking over the attributes of the storm god.58

50. A. H. W. Curtis, "Some Observations on the 'Bull' Terminology in the Ugaritic Texts andthe Old Testament," in In Quest of the Past (ed. A.S. van der Woude; OTS 26; Leiden, 1990), 17-31(17-18).

51. N. C. Habel, Yahweh Versus Baal: A Conflict of Religious Cultures (New York, 1964), 21.52. R. Dussaud, "Cultes canaaneens au sources du Jourdain d'apres les textes de Ras Shamra,"

Syria 18(1936): 283-95 (284-85). Dussaud identifies the place (smk) mentioned as being full of oxenin the legend (KTU 1.10.2.9) with Lake Huleh, which was called fcODDT JW in the Talmud and wasalso apparently famous for its oxen. This identification was in fact accepted by T. H. Gaster, "Ba'al isRisen," Iraq 6 (1939): 109-43 (110), and may in fact be correct. However, this proves nothing aboutthe existence of a shrine of Ugaritic Baal in Galilee.

53. Curtis, "Some Observations on the 'Bull' Terminology," 26.54. CM,, 31-32.55. Curtis, "Some Observations on the 'Bull' Terminology," 27.56. Ibid., 28.57. Ibid., 28-29.58. Ibid., 32.

2. Image Worship in the Danite Story 77

Whatever the truth of this, it does not settle the issue of the bull iconography. Onthe other hand, Curtis's idea that Yahweh and El became associated among theHebrews is quite likely—in contrast with his ideas about Baal. We know thatthere was no tension between such deities as El Shaddai, El Elyon, and El Betheland Yahweh the God of Israel.

(2) Wyatt, on the other hand, is not even prepared to admit that the calves ofBethel and Dan are in any way connected with the cult of Yahweh. He uses theDeuteronomistic school as evidence, wondering why it was so concerned todiscredit the alternative cult of Jeroboam, if his royal shrines were in fact Yah-wistic.59 The answer that eludes Wyatt is, of course, that one of the central tenetsof the faith of the Deuteronomists was that Yahweh had caused his name to dwellin only one place, and that all other sanctuaries were de facto apostate. Instead ofregarding the Northern Israelites as (heterodox?) Yahwists, Wyatt, however, seesthem as devotees of El who was not in this case associated with Yahweh.60

Wyatt builds up an impressive quantity of evidence, but not all of it impres-sive in quality. For example, when dealing with the announcement of Aaron inExod 32:4, 8, that these are the gods of Israel, Wyatt argues that the materlectionis in the word H^N is secondary, and thus produces the reading "El is yourgod, Israel." He suggests that this would have been acceptable to a Judahitescribe, because in the cult at Jerusalem El and Yahweh had become identical.The scribe seeing nothing wrong with the pronouncement, and thus feeling acertain tension in the text, added a he to make it into a plural demonstrativepronoun. As a direct consequence, Aaron became guilty of polytheism—at thescribe's time, the ultimate sin—rather than of trying to replace the cult of Yahwehwith that of El.61 From the Ugaritic texts Wyatt draws the only sensible conclu-sion, that there El is the bull-god, and from this infers that "El is.. .the bull-god ofthe northern cult";62 he has already discounted Yahweh since "Jeroboam's policywas specifically to discontinue the cult of Yahweh in the North"(!).63

Further evidence is obtained by taking God's introduction of himself to Mosesto mean "I am El your father," and all the other references to El as a personalname.64 There are several examples of El and bull imagery mentioned in conjunc-tion, as at Num 23:22; 24:8, which Wyatt regards as Davidic and Southern.Psalm 106:19-22, is, on the other hand, as far as Wyatt is concerned, part of anEl-exodus kerygma which has found its way into a much later composition.65

Hosea also provides Wyatt with a good deal of evidence: he states that "theentire book is a sustained attack on the cult of El."66 Thus in 8:4-6, he adopts anemendation favoured by Tur-Sinai and NEB, "who is the bull El?" (^N "12? 1Q),

59. N. Wyatt, "Of Calves and Kings: The Canaanite Dimension in the Religion of Israel," SJOT6 (1992): 68-91 (74).

60. Ibid., 82.61. Ibid., 79.62. Ibid., 82.63. Ibid., 82.64. Ibid., 83.65. Ibid., 84.66. Ibid., 85.

78 Sacred Dan

which he claims fits better into the context at that point.67 (The reading is signifi-cantly not found in the REB.) At 7:16 he reads "they have returned to El mosthigh," basing this on the assumption that bl? is an abbreviation for Elyon. Thisturning away from Yahweh whom Hosea sees as their saviour, is, according toWyatt, quite natural, as the people of the North naturally assumed that they wererescued from slavery by their old god, El.68

Wyatt excises the name Yahweh from Exod 18. He cites Noth as his onlyevidence. (Noth had excised the divine name because he thought that its presencewas an indication of a Yahwistic expansion in the middle of an Elohistic pas-sage.69) Once the divine name is removed, the sacrifice in the passage is describedas having been offered to Elohim. This title, Wyatt suggests, may simply beanother way of referring to the Northern god of the Exodus, El. So much so thatwhen the Priestly editor came to compose his account of the revelation of thedivine name, even he felt it necessary to refer to Yahweh as El Shaddai.70

Finally, Wyatt says that to call Israel one nation with one God is historicallymisleading. When David and his immediate successors attempted to impose onthe Northern Israelites their ideas about the God of Jerusalem, Yahweh(I), theybroke away and Jeroboam rehabilitated the cult of their original deity, El.71

There are various problems with Wyatt's thesis. Since many of them areobvious, we will not deal with most of them in any great detail. It must, neverthe-less, be pointed out that it is untrue to say that only in Jerusalem were Yahwehand El identified. There is evidence from Northern writings that this also tookplace there. The best example of this is in the Decalogue, whose Yahwistic ori-gins very few would deny, and which is usually regarded as having beenformulated in the North. At Exod 20:5, Yahweh says he is a "jealous God," whowill brook no equal. The Hebrew for this is NDp *?N, and surely no YahwisticHebrew writer who was aware of a continuing cult of El would have used thisterm as an epithet of Yahweh in this text of all texts.

Other such examples are found in Deut 4:24,31; 5:9; 6:15; 7:9,21 and 10:17,and a much more ancient reference is in 32:21; there are also several referencesin Hosea itself 2:1; 11:9; 12:1, and it is one of the regular names of God in Job,used no less than 56 times. The two terms are even found together in the name ofthe greatest Israelite holy man, Elijah, whose devotion to Yahweh is not inquestion.

Wyatt's whole thesis may be rejected as fanciful and without foundation, andappears at times to be nothing more than an exercise in seeing how far the textscan be made to fit an untenable theory. Despite this, he does take seriously thelink between the bull cult and El, even though he fails to recognize that the godrepresented by the bulls was Yahweh identified at an early stage with El.

67. Ibid., 85. Davies, Hosea, 202, finds this unconvincing.68. Wyatt, "Of Calves and Kings," 87.69. M. Noth, Exodus (OTL; London, 1962), 146.70. Wyatt, "Of Calves and Kings," 90.71. Ibid., 91.

2. Image Worship in the Danite Story 79

(3) Toews's thesis, by way of contrast, is much more careful. He rejects theidea that the bull was a direct representation of Yahweh, as several authoritieshave argued: "They support their claim using the dubious argument that such acry [1 Kgs 12:28] would not have been appropriate in reference to a merepedestal. If one argues in this way with regard to the calf images, one shouldargue similarly that when the Philistines referred to the ark of the covenant...[1 Sam 4:8] they saw in it a representation of Yahweh in the shape of a box!"72

Toews prefers to see the bull images as vehicles of the presence of the deitywhich had not been fully identified with him.73 He equates (Ugaritic) El withYahweh, and regards this composite deity as the god of the bull images.74

Whereas it is true that El is the only Ugaritic deity who is associated with thebull, and, to my mind, Toews's identification of Yahweh of the bull images andEl is correct, there are problems with this view.

In dealing with the Ugaritic material,75 Toews assumes that what is true ofUgaritic El is also true of Canaanite El = Yahweh, based on the facile equation ofUgarit with the Canaanites. For, while it is true that much can be learnt of the"Canaanites" from the Ugaritic material, a direct equation is not possible. Toewsnotes that it is Baal who is the Ugaritic storm-god, and not El. From this heassumes that Yahweh the God of Israel, since he is to be equated with "Canaan-ite" (i.e. Ugaritic) El, was not a storm-god.76 The Hebrew Bible, on the otherhand, suggests otherwise. Various ancient poems treat Yahweh as a meteorologi-cal deity: Exod 15; Judg 5; Pss 18 (parallel with 2 Sam 22); 29 (whatever itsorigins); 65; 68; 77; 93; 97; 104; 105; 107; 135; 144; 147, and so on. Therefore,it would appear that Yahweh in the guise of a bull cannot be equated directlyeither with Ugaritic El or with Ugaritic Baal since he has features in commonwith both. From this it can be seen that, in this case at least, a study of theUgaritic texts is liable to be misleading.

The most likely origin for the bull iconography associated with Yahweh is thatit was part of the general environment, and was not "borrowed" from any oneculture. It was appropriate for Yahweh in his guise as storm-God to be associatedwith a bull, just like some other storm-gods, for example, Adad in Mesopotamiaor Tessup the Hurrian storm-god.77 The same is also true of the Hittite weather-god.78 At Hazor a bull and a rider were found, dated to ca. 1250, as well as a verysimilar bull without a rider.79 Yadin states that "it must be Hadad the storm-god,"because of the bull and the emblem of a circle with rays,80 even though Hadad

72. Toews, Monarchy and Religious Institution, 54.73. Ibid., 54-55.74. Ibid., 52.75. Ibid., 55-68.76. Ibid., 54.77. G. Wilhelm, The Hurrians (Warminster, 1989), 50. The iconography of Tessub may have

been borrowed from earlier Anatolian cultures (according to Professor G. Wilhelm, oral communica-tion)

78. Weippert, "Gott und Stier," 99.79. Y. Yadin, Hazor (Schweich Lectures 1970; Oxford, 1972), 94-95.80. Ibid., 95.

80 Sacred Dan

was not usually represented by the emblem of a sun-god. So, although it isimpossible to be more accurate about the origins of the bull iconography, in viewof the general environment, it is fair to say that it is not inappropriate thatYahweh should be represented by a bull, the ultimate symbol of strength in manyancient Near Eastern cultures. Indeed Weippert lists six Mesopotamian deitieswho were actually called rimu, "wild bull": Ea, Enlil, Ninurta, Adad, Nergal andthe goddess Irini.81 Furthermore, in view of the ancient tradition that Yahweh wasa meteorological deity this is the iconography which one might in fact expect.

Toews, as was noted above, is concerned to show that the bull was not actu-ally regarded as Yahweh himself. Following Weippert,82 he states that the bull"did not become fully identified with the god it represented," but that it wasrather the case that it "secured and attested to" the presence of Yahweh in thesanctuary, in very much the same way as the ark in Jerusalem,83 even though thelatter was not a representation of the deity. Toews bases his views on a very briefand somewhat confused consideration of the theory of images in the ancient NearEast. Since the bull image of Dan appears to be analogous to these images, itfollows that to understand its function fully, we too must turn to the ancient NearEast afresh, especially in view of the fact that the texts which deal with theclosest Hebrew analogue—the cherubim in Jerusalem—appear to have been"demythologized" at a later date.

7. Image Worship in the Ancient Near East

In the ancient Near East most civilisations took image worship for granted, andhave left us ritual texts rather than texts which deal with the theology of imageworship. Further, many of the remaining texts are mythological, and it appearsthat there was often little correspondence between what was said about the god inmythology, and the way the image of the god was worshipped.

For various reasons we know more about image worship in ancient Mesopota-mia than in most of the other civilisations at the time. Here, it would appear thatthe image was regarded as an embodiment in some sense of the god, a repre-sentation of divine presence and potency. Oppenheim notes:

Fundamentally, the deity was considered present in its image if it showed certainspecific features and paraphernalia and was cared for in an appropriate manner, bothestablished and sanctified by the tradition of the sanctuary. The god moved with theimage when the latter was carried off—expressing thus his anger against his city or theentire country. Only on the mythological level were the deities thought to reside incosmic localities; the poetic diction of hymns and prayers either cleverly uses (forartistic purposes) or disregards this differentiation, which only matters to us.84

81. Weippert, "Gott und Stier," 102.82. Ibid., 107.83. Toews, Monarchy and Religious Institution, 54—55.84. A. L. Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization (2d ed.; Chicago,

1977), 184. For the theology of Mesopotamian images, see also Jacobsen, "The Graven Image," 22-23. For the pillaging of Human images, by the Hittites see Wilhelm, The Hurrians, 22.

2. Image Worship in the Danite Story 81

It was expected that a deity should have such a vehicle for his power. As Schmidtputs it, "A deity who could not be represented was.. .inconceivable in the ancientNear East, as for the Classical world, or at least unusual, for God was thought tobe present in the images which men served with holy rituals."85

Oppenheim provides a comprehensive picture of image worship, and thefollowing is a summary of his views. Essentially, images were made and repairedin special workshops in the temple. To become receptacles of divine presencethey were consecrated in secret nocturnal rituals. Their mouths and eyes were"opened" so that they could see and eat, and their mouths were washed to impartsanctity.86 The position of the image in the temple was analogous to that of theking in his palace. In the cella the image received visits from other deities andalso heard the prayers of the faithful. It is not, however, clear to what extent ifany the normal worshippers could have access to it.87 The image could, however,be viewed when it was carried in procession.88

During the day, the image was given two meals, morning and evening. Themeal was the same as would be given to the king and in proportions that wouldsatisfy a human. It was brought to the image with some water for washing. Afterthe meal, incense would be burnt to dispel the smell of the food while musiciansplayed.89 The food that had been presented to the god was then given to the kingwho alone was allowed to receive the blessing transferred by it. Other regularrituals included a meeting of the deity and his or her spouse at night.90

Bernhardt points out that even though an image was in a certain form, it wasnot regarded as a portrait of the deity, but was distinguished by certain icono-graphical features.91 Nevertheless, the statue was regarded as the body of the god,in Bernhardt's words: "On the contrary, it is a body which the divine essenceanimates."92 Thus to have the idol implied having control over the deity, althoughif the statue were destroyed, then the "gottische Fluidum" ("divine essence")would return to heaven,93 and the mythological understanding of the nature ofdeity would take over.

On the other hand, in Egypt each morning at the tending ritual (ANET, 325-26) it was thought that the god consented to vivify his image. This central cul-tic act was carried out in the darkest part of the Egyptian temple, completely

85. W. H. Schmidt, The Faith of the Old Testament (Oxford, 1983), 77.86. The Mesopotamian image dedication ritual ("the opening of the mouth") continually denies

that the image was made by human hands (Jacobsen, "The Graven Image," 23-28). A ritual of thesame name (wpt r) was also found in Egypt, and was used for the inauguration of a statue or mummy(A. Erman and H. Grapow, Worterbuch der Agyptischen Sprache [7 vols.; Berlin, 1926-63], 1:300).For the Hurrian dedication rites, see Wilhelm, The Hurrians, 73—74.

87. Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia, 186.88. Ibid., 187.89. Ibid., 188-189.90. Ibid., 193.91. K. H. Bernhardt, Gott und Bild (Theologische Arbeiten 2; Berlin, 1956), 67, cf. also 31.92. Ibid., 67: "Es ist vielmehr ein Korper, den das gottische Fluidum beseelt."93. Ibid., 68.

82 Sacred Dan

different from the Israelite temple. As Sauneron says, "This is not the placewhere the faithful go to pray for their god, it is not the building where peoplemeet to discuss spiritual questions.. .it is not even the place where a sacred ritualis performed by a practitioner before a congregation... the Egyptian temple is theplace on earth where the god, whose being is spread throughout the world, pos-sesses a statue in which, every morning, a little of his immaterial body ag es tobe 'incarnated.'"94

The contrast between Mesopotamia and Egypt is striking. In Egypt the godswere in total control, and would have to consent to be embodied every day. InMesopotamia, gods were embodied in the image for good or ill after the initialopening of the mouth, and thus they could, for example, be exiled against theirwill.

The Hittite shrines were similar to those of the other ancient Near Easterncivilisations. The temples at Hattusas had costly statues often made of preciousmetal or of plated wood. The statues themselves were stylized representations ofthe deities who held or were associated with various symbols. Interestingly, atsome local shrines of the weather-god, he is represented by a bull,95 like hisSemitic counterpart.

The Hittite gods in general were also fed and entertained. The temple was, asoften in the ancient Near East, regarded as the home of the god, the priests as hisdomestic staff (cf. ANET, 207). As well as the regular offerings, almost anythingcould be sacrificed to the local god (cf. ANET, 209). As is often the case withancient Near Eastern cultures, the theology of the image was taken for granted,and not described in the Hittite texts,96 although the ritual texts contain nothinglike the Egyptian daily rites of invocation, so Hittite theology appears to havebeen closer to the Mesopotamian than the Egyptian.

As far as the Ugaritic texts are concerned, there is little of direct relevance.Many of the texts are mythological, and thus not concerned with the practice ofimage worship. The ritual texts deal mainly with the offerings given to each ofthe gods, not with their images. A good example would be KTU 1.105: "In themonth of hyr, on the day of the new moon,/ a bull and a ram for Baalat of thetemples,/ on the fourteenth, Baal/ of the buildings,/ on the eighteenth, the kingwashes/ [and is] purified/ then a tzg offering in the sacrificial spring of Zaphon/an ingot of silver and [one] of gold as an offering, two rams for btbtl a bull and aram as a srp offering, a bull as a slmm offering/ for Baal, a bird for Zaphon/ nps

94. S. Sauneron, Lespretres de I'ancienneEgypte (Paris, 1957), 33: "Ce n'est pas le lieu ou lefidele va prier son dieu, ce n'est pas un edifice ou les hommes se reunissent pour trailer de questionsspirituelles.. .ce n'est pas non plus 1'endroit ou s'accomplit un rite sacre execute par un specialistedevant une foule recueillie.. ..le temple egyptien est le lieu de la terre ou le dieu, repandu de par lemonde, possede une statue en laquelle, chaque matin, un peu de son corps immateriel consent aVincarner" (my translation above). Cf. also ANET, 5 n. 5.

95. O.K. Gurney, The Hittites (rev. ed.; Harmondsworth, 1990), 123-24; idem, Some Aspects ofHittite Religion (The Schweich Lectures 1976; Oxford, 1977), 4,25-26, Plate III. Cf. the discussionof the Hurrian weather-god Tessub in Wilhelm, The Hurrians, 50.

96. Gurney, The Hittites, 124-25.

2. Image Worship in the Danite Story 83

and a ram for Rashap of Bibit/ two birds for ins ilm...."91 It is interesting thatamong the identifiable sacrificial victims the bull and the ram, both symbols ofdivine strength, are offered. It is also worth noting that the bull is not reserved forBaal.

There is also an interesting ritual of divine clothing (KTU1.43). Lines 22-23read:...ylbs/mlk.ylk.lqh.ilm. Xellatranslates"...indossa/vesteilre vaaprendere[le statue dejgli dei..." ("dressed, the king goes to collect [the statues o]f thegods.. .").98 On this de Tarragon comments, "The 'gods' ilm are the divine statu-ettes. The being approaches them, and carries them. One can deduce from thisthat they were not very big."99 A little later he further remarks, "On the subject ofclothing, it was probable that the rite was performed with a statue that wassufficiently anthropomorphic to permit it to be clothed. A divine symbol wouldlend itself less well to such an action."100

Ugarit probably had the same sort of cultic images as Mesopotamia and theHittites. As far as the Hittites and the Ugaritic folk are concerned, it is possiblethat they borrowed their concepts from the Akkadian-speaking peoples in thesame way that they borrowed the cuneiform writing system. However, at least inthe case of the Hittites, it appears that their local shrines were sufficiently free ofMesopotamian influence, being at base Haitian sanctuaries which had beenallowed to survive by the relatively liberal Hittite overlords.101 It is also possiblethat the cult at Ugarit, although no doubt affected by Mesopotamia, was indige-nous to the Western Semitic-speaking inhabitants.

The ancient inscriptions of the Phoenicians provide us with little material ofany substance. Of all the words for image in Semitic languages, the only onewhich occurs is HDDQ, which appear twice in the Karatepe inscription (KAI26—dated around 720 BCE). Here in line A III 1 we are told that king TinTK onfounding a city with a shrine to the local Baal deity offered sacrifices to all the"molten images." This is parallelled in the C version of the text line IV 3. Otherthan the fact that ilDDQ was not an invention of the Hebrew writers to describethe image made by Aaron, this tells us little about the use of the word in theHebrew Bible, and less about the theology of image worship. There is nothing ofinterest in the Aramaic epigraphic material, since all references to the words D^Uand HQ^iJ, which are also used in the Hebrew Bible to refer to cultic images,refer solely to effigies on tombs or statues of individuals, not to divine images.

97. P. Xd\a, I Testi Ritualidi Ugarit. Vo\. 1, Testi (Studi Semitici 54; Rome, 1981), 36. There isa rather similar list from Uruk in ANET, 343-45. For sacrifice at Ugarit, see Miller, "Aspects ofUgaritic Religion," in Miller, Hanson and McBride, eds., Ancient Israelite Religion, 53-66 (60-62).

98. Xella, I Testi Rituali di Ugarit, 1:88.99. J.M.de Tarragon, LeCulte a Ugarit (Cahiersde la Revue Biblique; Paris, 1980), 103:"Les

'divinites', ilm, sont les statuettes divines. Le roi s'approche d'elles et les porte. On peut en deduirequ'elles n'etaientpas de taille considerable" (my translation above).

100. Ibid., 105: "Comme il s'agit d'une veture, il est probable que le rite se faisait avec unestatue suffisamment anthropomorphe pour qu'on puisse la vetir. Un embleme divin sepreterait moinsbien a un tel geste" (my translation above).

101. Gurney, The Hittites, 109-11.

84 Sacred Dan

8. The Cultic Image among the Hebrewsand in the Ancient Near East

Despite the paucity of ancient Near Eastern material, there are several points ofcontact between the Hebrews and their neighbours, as well as some differences.Since we have very little direct information about the cult of Dan, we can onlyassume that its cult was similar to those Yahwistic centres we do know about—mainly Jerusalem. Points of similarity include the following:

(1) In Mesopotamia the deity was embodied in his or her statue; in IsraelYahweh was probably embodied in the bull image. Thus, when the statue of agod was removed from a city in the ancient Near East, the god was angry and hadtaken his/her presence away (cf. the "Sumerian Lamentation over the destructionof Ur" [ANET, 455-63])—this is also the case in Israel. The conqueror of aMesopotamian city had power over its god, and this was also probably thought tobe the case in Israel. The Ark Narrative appears to have been written partly as acorrective to this view, where in 1 Sam 5 humour is used to show that Yahwehwas still totally in control, even if the ordinary Israelite evidently thought other-wise (cf. 1 Sam 4:21). Perhaps it is as well to note that Dagon in v. 3 is on hisface before the ark where Yahweh was evidently seen to be present. It wouldappear that Yahweh dwelt in his ark very much in the same way as Marduk dweltin his image. For while it is true that on the mythological level deities generallyresided in heaven, for all practical purposes the house of a god was exactly that,and the priests were his domestic staff. In this context it is interesting to note thatekallum is always "palace" and never "temple" in Akkadian.102 When the Israel-ites borrowed the word they used it to mean the same thing. Since the king livedin his palace, it was appropriate for them to use the same word for Yahweh'spalace, the Temple.

(2) The extent to which the shrines of Dan and Bethel were analogous to thoseof Mesopotamia is uncertain. Hosea 13:2 would suggest that the calves were outin the open, for how else could they be kissed? However, given the evidence ofthe rest of the ancient Near East, including Jerusalem, and also Shiloh in 1 Sam3:3, this would appear unlikely. It is possible that Hosea is referring to smallerstatues like that found in the hills of northern Samaria in a twelfth-centurypossibly cultic setting.103 Little more can be said with any certainty. Biran in hisexcavations at Dan found a great many cultic remains, but admitted, "Whether atemple was also built or whether these are the remains of an open-air sanctuary isdifficult to say."104 However, from a study of other sanctuaries, a covered sanctu-ary area seems to have been most likely, as was also the case with Arad.

102. AHw, 1:191-92.103. A. Mazar, "The 'Bull Site': An Iron Age I Open Cultic Place,"BASOR 247 (1982): 27-42

(27-32). M. D. Coogan, in "Of Cults and Cultures: Reflections on the Interpretation of ArchaeologicalEvidence," PEQ 119 (1987): 1-8 (1), contested that the site was sacred, but A. Mazar convincinglydefended his position in "On Cult Places and Early Israelites: A Response to Michael Coogan," BAR14, no. 4 (1988): 45.

104. Biran, Biblical Dan, 181.

2. Image Worship in the Danite Story 85

(3) Most of the deities of the ancient Near East seem to have been taken out inprocession around their cities at one time or other. This is true of Mesopotamia,Egypt and the Hittites,105 and is probably true of Jerusalem. Many of the psalmsdepict processions, Ps 24 being one of the more obvious examples. We have noreason to assume that its language is totally figurative, despite the fact that thehistorical sources never refer to the occurrence of such processions. This may bebecause the pre-exilic writers did not often record things which happened regu-larly. Alternatively, after the Exile the loss of the ark may have been felt sokeenly that accounts of this nature were suppressed: we simply do not know. Theark was, however, taken into battle, so it is possible that the procession of the arkaround the city would have been seen as a ritualized battle, possibly against theforces of chaos (cf. possibly Ps 48:13).

If this was true of the rest of the ancient Near East, it was probably also true ofDan. Once again, there is little direct evidence for this. The excavations have,however, discovered a series of cultic sites from different dates at the gate of thecity,106 from which there was a processional way107 which went towards thesanctuary. It is possible that the bull image may have been taken outside the wallswhere the cosmic battle would have taken place, and then brought back inside intriumph, in a ritual like that of Ps 24 whose final verse uses the title YahwehSebaoth, often associated with Yahweh riding to battle on the cherubim.

(4) As with the feeding rituals of ancient Near Eastern gods, there is a vestigeof this rite in the "bread of the presence" mentioned for example in Lev 24:5-9.108

(5) In both Israel and the ancient Near East, oracles played an important partin the ritual of the sanctuary.109

(6) Although we do not know of anything in Israel akin to the "opening of themouth" rituals by which an ancient Near Eastern deity took possession of his orher image, since the bulls were representations of Yahweh, it is entirely possiblethat such rituals did in fact take place. Schmidt, for example, suggests that incensewas used in the inauguration rites.110 The closest we have is the dedication of theTemple in Jerusalem by Solomon in 1 Kgs 8. But here the Deuteronomisticeditor has overlaid the story, and any ritual which may have been described hasvanished. It would seem that the deity was called down to his temple by the kingacting as a high priest, offering sacrifices, and in this case, a cloud symbolizedthe presence of Yahweh. A similar event is narrated in 1 Kgs 12, but here the

105. For Mesopotamia, see ANET, 342-43, and for the Hittites, see Gurney, Some Aspects ofHittite Religion, 40.

106. Biran, Biblical Dan, 245. The fact that one of them at least comes from the Assyrian periodsuggests that the cult was continued virtually unchanged. J. A. Emerton, "'The High Places at theGates' in 2 Kings xxviii 8," FF44 (1994): 455-67, argues that there was a similar cultic place inJerusalem.

107. Biran, Biblical Dan, 249-50.108. See the discussion of J. Milgrom, Leviticus 23-27 (AB 3B; Garden City, N.Y., 2000),

2091-93.109. See Chapter 4.110. B. B. Schmidt, "The Aniconic Tradition," in The Triumph ofElohim (ed. D. V. Edelman;

Kampen, 1995), 75-105 (94-95).

86 Sacred Dan

Deuteronomistic redaction is of a different order. However, in view of thesimilarities with 1 Kgs 8, the fact that the king was responsible and that heoffered sacrifice may well be authentic. Sadly, Judg 17-18 does not mention howthe image was consecrated, nor does it describe the rituals of its transfer to Dan.

As well as these similarities between the ancient Near East and the shrine of Dan,the latter was in some respects different especially from Mesopotamia. Perhapsthe most obvious point of contrast is that as far as we know Israelite cultic imageswere not anthropomorphic. Of course, in Egypt images were often theriomorphic,but they were equally often at least partially anthropomorphic.

A second point of contrast is that, to the best of our knowledge, the Israelitesdid not worship a plethora of gods at the same shrine. It would appear thatshrines like Dan were exclusively Yahwistic. In Egypt and in Mesopotamia therewas a whole host of gods worshipped at the shrine of a dominant god. This doesnot appear to have been the case with Israel (cf. however, the Kuntillet 'Ajrudinscriptions111).

In conclusion, a study of the cults of ancient Near Eastern societies shows thatthere were numerous similarities between the Hebrews and their neighbours. Infact, it seems that Mesopotamia and other places provide closer analogies for theNorthern bull cult than Israel's more immediate neighbours.

9. Image Worship and the Archaeology of Tel Dan

When we turn to examine the evidence from Tel Dan, there at first appears to belittle of use to our study. However, Uehlinger claims that he has found evidencefor an anthropomorphic divine image at Dan. He examines fragments of figures/figurines which have been found in Area CD/T—the area where the cultic installa-tions were found. He notes that one of them, a terracotta fragment found in Room2311, could be either from the image of a king or a divinity, but owing to paral-lels from other Palestinian sites, especially Khirbet el-Mudeyyine, is probably adeity.112 Three of the others probably came to Dan at the time of the offensive ofPharaoh Shishak.113 One of them appears to be a royal statue.114 The remainingtwo may be part of the same statue,115 which must have been much bigger thanany other statue found at Dan. The fact that it was found in association with culticimplements suggests to Uehlinger that it may have been the recipient of sacrifice.

111. K. A. D. Smelik, Writings from Ancient Israel (Edinburgh, 1991), 155-60, and bibliogra-phy there. L. K. Handy, "The Appearance of Pantheon in Judah," 27-43, and Neihr, "The Rise ofYHWH in Judahite and Israelite Religion," 45-72, both in Edelman, ed., The Triumph ofElohim, arguefrom the texts that a pantheon may have existed in Israel, but provide no information about culticpractice.

112. C. Uehlinger, "Eine anthropomorphic Kultstatue des Gottes von Dan?," Biblische Notizen72 (1994): 85-100 (91).

113. Ibid., 95.114. Ibid., 95-96.115. Ibid., 92.

2. Image Worship in the Danite Story 87

Following on from this, it may be possible to see this image as the god of Dan inhis original tenth- to ninth-century guise. He suggests that it was then destroyed,and its pieces scattered in the destruction of Stratum IV. Of the god himself,Uehlinger suggests that he was a "Quellgott," the god of the spring, who may beassociated with the weather-god of Hermon, Hadad, in which he follows the ideaof Puech.116 Uehlinger says it is currently unproductive to speculate on the con-nection between this god and Yahweh or the ^DS of Micah, or the bull image, butthat the chances are that the god represented by the terracotta image was not theonly god worshipped at Dan.117

Many of Uehlinger's views are by his own admission conjectural. The ideathat the terracotta image is the original god of the shrine at Dan is possible,although it is improbable that such an important shrine would have had merely aterracotta image. Despite Uehlinger's reservations about speculating on its con-nections with the image of Micah, we know that Dan probably had a silver image,and I have argued that it was taurine. Also, according to the written sources atour disposal, the shrine appears to have been dedicated to Yahweh as the Godwho helped the Danites (Judg 17-18). That another god may have shared theshrine is just possible, and the most likely candidate would have been the citygod of Laish. An altogether more probable suggestion, however, is that the imageof the god of Laish was kept, but as if it were booty, the image of the vanquisheddeity. So, just in the same way that the image of the tutelary god of a conqueredMesopotamian city would have been taken away to be placed in the temple of thevictorious god, the god of Laish may have been kept in the temple of Yahweh atDan. Similarly, the ark is found in the temple of Dagon in 1 Sam 5, and in 2 Sam5:21 David and his men make a point of removing the Philistines' images. Weare not told what they did with them, although that they were dedicated toYahweh may be likely. Indeed, it may be argued in the case of Dan that onewould have expected the image of the former god to be in the sanctuary. In otherwords, just because the image was in the cultic area does not necessarily meanthat it was accorded any worship.

The identification with Hadad of Hermon is possible. Hadad was the god ofrain. Nevertheless, at least in Mesopotamia (and possibly also in Canaan) the godEa (= Enki) of the sweet waters under the earth which rose as springs (in HebrewDinn [cf. Deut 8:7], the Akkadian apsu) was distinct from Adad the god of thewaters above the heaven which included rain. Genesis 1 shows that the laterHebrews knew this distinction between waters above and below. Despite this,Puech notes that there is evidence that Hadad of Sikan and of Gozan at Ras el' Ain, Tell Fekheriyeh, was associated with both rain and spring water as a generalgod of fertility.118 Whether this was a localized exaltation of the local weather-god, or held true of the cult of Hadad in more general terms, is not certain.

116. E. Puech, "La stele arameenne de Dan: Bar Hadad II et la coalition des Omrides et de lamaison de David," RB 101 (1994): 215-41 (240).

117. Uehlinger, "Eine anthropomorphe Kultstatue des Gottes von Dan?," 96.118. Puech, "Le stele arameenne de Dan," 240.

88 Sacred Dan

Furthermore, as was noted above,'19 Yahweh too could be regarded as a meteoro-logical deity. So Puech's all too easy identification of the god of Dan as Hadad(whom he refers to as "le Ba'al par excellence tete du pantheon," confusingUgarit and Canaan120), may not be as simple as it appears—especially since hemakes it solely because Jeroboam worshipped a bull, associated with Hadad as aweather-god. This is despite the Hebrew Bible's insistence that the sin of Jero-boam, whatever else it may have involved, did not consist of the worship of Baal.Furthermore, since, after Jehu had totally eradicated the cult of Baal, he is stillcondemned by the Deuteronomist (2 Kgs 10:28-29) for continuing in the sin ofJeroboam, any link between the bulls and "Baal" is unlikely in the extreme. Thusthe suggestion of Puech has little to be said for it.

10. Conclusions

As we have seen, a very strong case can be made for the view that the ^DS ofMicah mentioned in Judg 17-18 remained as the central icon of the royal cult ofJeroboam at Dan. We have noted that Jeroboam's religious policy represented areturn to the values of an older Israel; he thus chose shrines such as Dan whichwere in fact older and more venerable than Jerusalem. These traditions wouldhave been preserved by the Dan priesthood.

We have argued that the bull was an image of Yahweh. In common with muchof the rest of the ancient Near East, the bull appears to have been an actual physi-cal embodiment of the deity or part of him. Thus, to capture the bull was tocapture the deity as it was in Mesopotamia. Ironically, this is probably exactlywhat the Assyrians did, taking the bull of Yahweh to enhance the temple ofAsshur. It is unlikely that the ancient Israelites actually thought Yahweh lookedlike the bull of Dan.

I have also suggested that the word "XDS used to describe the bull did notnecessarily have negative connotations until late in the pre-exilic period, and thatit was only later that the word itself became anathema. In fact, it is probably onlycoincidence that the cherubim of Jerusalem are not called D^DS.

As to the worship accorded the image, we know very little for certain. That theimage was highly venerated is shown by the fact that stories were told about it,and were considered worthy of preservation. However, a little about the cult canbe deduced from a comparison with the ancient Near Eastern and Jerusalemcults, the latter being—leaving aside the bull image—probably in many wayssimilar to that of Dan.

119. See above, p. 72.120. Puech, "Le stele arameenne de Dan," 240.

Chapter 3

PRIESTS IN THE DANITE STORY

1. Priests in the Danite Legend

An initial reading of Judg 17-18 gives us the following information about priests:a. The priest was appointed to serve at a particular sanctuary (17:5).

Micah's son is made the priest of the shrine after the cultic apparatus hasbeen made. It appears that the need was felt to have a priest at thesanctuary. The same is true of the Danites who take the priest with them(18:19), and install him in their sanctuary (18:30-31).

b. The priest does not have to be a member of the tribe of Levi. Micah andhis son appear to have been Ephraimites (17:1,5).

c. The priest is appointed by the "filling of the hand." This was a riteperformed, not by a priest, but by the father of the family (17:5, 12).

d. Suitable priests do not have to be aged, but could be young (17:7).e. Levites were preferred to members of other tribes (17:7).f. The priest was venerable because of his cultic function (17:10; 18:19).g. The priest's major function (at least in this story) is to be responsible for

the ephod oracle (18:5-6).h. The priest acted as the guardian of the shrine (18:18).i. Priesthood could be hereditary (18:30).

The relationship of the priesthood to the tribe of Levi will be dealt with in theAppendix, but further analysis needs to be made of the information relating to thefunction of priests from the Danite story.

The priest is basically a cult functionary. He is the guardian of a shrine, andthe manipulator of the ephod oracle. The priest probably performs this functionfirst for Micah, although presumably not exclusively (cf. 18:5), and later for theDanites when he becomes their priest. As oracular attendant, he is the normativechannel for approach to the divine which, at this stage, may have been limited tothe ephod oracle.1 The text does not say that the priest offered any sacrifices.However, there are no sacrifices in the text at all, so little can be made of this.2

1. Haran, Temples and Temple Service, 71-73, regards the "mantic" character of Hebrew priestsas being a feature of "early, pre-monarchical priesthood," although he also admits that the later highpriest would have had a mantic role (p. 213), even though he does not clarify how this worked.

2. In all likelihood the worship of the shrine of Dan was in common with most Hebrew shrinesmainly sacrificial in nature. However, we know of no sacrifices being offered at the shrine of Dan inthe extant sources. It is likely that the priests of Dan would have been involved in the sacrificial cult

90 Sacred Dan

Another of the functions of the priest that may be hinted at in this story is ateaching/counselling role. This is suggested by the reference to the priest as"father." It is not clear what this function may have involved. Budd sees it as arole that may have developed out of priestly words of encouragement like thosegiven in 18:5.3 The oracle of salvation apparently given to a worshipper in thetemple and enshrined in some psalms may have then developed out of this.4 It ismore probable, however, that the teaching function was of a more general nature,a passing on of the sacred traditions for which Auneau compares some "primi-tive" cultures.5 Another explanation for the word "father" is that the priest wasregarded as wise beyond his years, and recourse may have been made to him attimes of crisis. This would provide a link with the ephod oracle which wouldhave been consulted at such times.6

Other instances of "father" being used in the sense of counsellor include Gen45:8, where Joseph refers to himself as Pharaoh's "father," although the age gapbetween them in the context of the story is hardly wide. It is possible that this ispart of the Egyptian background to the story, since "father" was apparently usedin some contexts to denote an official or king or even giver of charity,7 in contrastto Hebrew where this meaning is rare (pace Ringgren and Redford8). In theElijah-Elisha complex in Kings (e.g. 2 Kgs 2:12; 8:9; 13:14), it may be a tech-nical term for the leader of a group ("sons") of prophets. Later the term is foundwith reverential connotations in Greek Esther 3:13 (= Vulgate 13:6), where thephrase SeuTepou rrarpos would mean something like "honoured counsellor." In1 Mace 2:65 Simeon is commended to his brothers as father in place of Matthias,and in 11:32 Demetrius writes to an honoured kinsman as "father." It thusappears that UN in Judg 17 is more likely to mean "counsellor" than "teacher,"although, of course, there would have been a good deal of overlap between thetwo. Phillips suggests that "father" refers to anyone "who possessed specialpowers of wisdom in being able to reveal information which was hidden toordinary men,"9 and links it possibly correctly with divinatory practices.10

2. The Initiation Rites of the Priests in the Danite Story

Another question which is raised by the text is the meaning of the phrase, "fill-ing the hand." The issue at stake is whether it is an "ordination" rite or an

in the same way as other Hebrew priests, offering daily sacrifices, while at times of pilgrimage, sacri-fices would have been offered by the worshippers. For details of the Hebrew sacrificial cult in generaland the role of priests in it, see Haran, Temples and Temple Service, 205-29, 289-316.

3. P. J. Budd, "Priestly Instruction in Pre-Exilic Israel," VT23 (1973): 1-14 (2-4).4. Ibid., 2-4.5. J. Auneau, "Sacerdoce," DBSup 10, cols. 1170-54 (1173).6. A. Phillips, "The Ecstatics' Father," in Words and Meanings: Essays Presented to David

Winton Thomas (ed. P. R. Ackroyd and B. Lindars; Cambridge, 1968), 183-94 (185-86).7. H. Ringgren, "3K," TDOT 1:2-3; cf., however, Erman and Grapow, Worterbuch der

dgyptischen Sprache, 1:14 I^t2, where such a meaning is not noted.8. D.B. Redford, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph (SVT 20; Leiden, 1970), 191.9. Phillips, "The Ecstatics' Father," 194.10. Ibid., 194.

3. Priests in the Danite Stoty 91

"induction" rite: Did the "filling of the hand" make a priest, or was the candidatea priest already?

Scholars have compared the Hebrew T K^Q to an Akkadian expression, anaqdti PNmullii. This is translated by CAD as "to hand over," by Von Soden as "tohand over or deliver over to someone."11 Snijders suggests also "to empower apriest" as one of its meanings, apparently quoting Von Soden.12 Von Soden, how-ever, does not use these words.13 Snijders notes that Judg 17:5, 12 is the oldestusage of the expression, but goes on to say that here it refers to the wages of theLevite whom Micah is hiring to be priest.14 This may be true of v. 12, but itcertainly is not true of v. 5, which quite clearly refers to Micah's son. This errorcolours much of Snijders' discussion, rendering it almost useless for our pur-poses. Subsequently he also misrepresents de Vaux's arguments.

Malamat compares the Hebrew phrase with an Akkadian expression fromMari.15 It occurs in ARM 11.13 line 17. The original transcription reads from theend of line 16: GAL-KUD (mes)/ a-na mi-el qdti(ti)-su-nu su-mu-di-im..., whichMalamat translates, "The 'majors'/ filled their hands full (of the booty).. ,"16 Hesuggests that this may have had a ritual significance since the booty in questionmay have been banned or consecrated.17 De Vaux also notes the Mari reference,and suggests that this may mean that the Hebrew priests had a right to revenuesaccruing to the sanctuary and a share in the sacrifices made there.18 This maywell fit in with the general evidence for Semitic priests receiving a small amountof the offerings. We must, however, sound a note of caution, for the Mari textsdate from the late eighteenth century BCE. They are, thus, around 700 years olderthan our earliest Hebrew example, and they do not deal with initiation to thepriesthood. We must, therefore, turn briefly to the Hebrew Bible in an attempt totry to establish a meaning from it.

In canonical order, the first occurrence is Exod 28:41, part of the PriestlyCode: "And you [Moses] will dress with them [the priestly robes] Aaron yourbrother, and his sons with him, and you will anoint them, and fill their hand(s),and you will consecrate them, and they will be priests to me." It is not certainwhat makes Aaron and his sons priests, but it may be a combination of theunction, the filling of the hands, and the formal "hallowing." The Versions pro-vide little help, but Targums use their characteristic paraphrase JT T~)pm]inmip, "and you will offer their offerings" for "fill their hands," which appearsto imply that they were already priests, although they may be harmonizing thistext with Lev 8:22-36.

11. CAD, M, 2:187; von Soden, AHw, 598: "in die Hand jemand iibergeben, ausliefern."12. L. A. Snijders, "N*?0," ThWAT 4:881: "einen zum Priestertum bevollmachtigen."13. Von Soden, AHw, 598.14. Snijders, ThWAT4:88\.15. A. Malamat, "The Ban in Mari and the Bible," in Mari and the Bible (2d ed.; Jerusalem,

1990), 52-61; cf. also idem, Mari and the Early Israelite Experience (The Schweich Lectures 1984;Oxford, 1989), 76.

16. Malamat, "The Ban in Mari and the Bible," 44 (56).17. Ibid., 48 n. 20 (p. 60)18. R. de Vaux," 'Levites' mineens et levites Israelites," in Lex tua veritas (ed. H. Gross and F.

Mussner; Trier, 1961), 347.

92 Sacred Dan

Exodus 29 is concerned with the installation of priests. The phrase is againfound in conjunction with the priestly vestments (v. 9): "And you will gird themwith a girdle—Aaron and his sons—and you will wrap them in turbans, and therewill be to them the priesthood of an eternal order; and you will fill the hand ofAaron, and the hand of his sons." Here, the filling of the hand appears to be moreof a rite of induction than one of ordination which comes after the ritual(?)washing (v. 4), and the anointing (v. 7), although there is perhaps an artificialdistinction between the two parts of the ceremony. Noth comments that it wasonly the high priest who was anointed according to the original custom, and onlylater were all priests anointed.19 It would thus appear that the filling of the handwas a rite that applied to all the priests; anointing came only when the high priesthad assumed quasi-royal status in the post-exilic period. Noth regards "filling thehand" as an institution rite.20 Despite Snijders' asseverations to the contrary,21

there is little of interest in the LXX rendering.In Exod 29:33, we are told that in order to "fill their hands," the priests eat the

atonement offering. From this we can establish that the phrase "to fill the hand"is not meant literally by the Priestly writer, neither does he understand its mean-ing, just that it refers in some way to the consecration or induction of priests. Asde Vaux rightly comments, "Unfortunately, these are late texts which are tryingto give an explanation of a phrase whose original meaning has been forgotten."22

It is difficult to ascertain the meaning of the sentence containing the phrase inExod 32:29: HD13 DTTT DD^U HH^l TTKC1 im ETN '3 miT*? DTTI D3T IN^Q.One rendering might be, "Fill your hand today for Yahweh, for each man isagainst his son and his brother, and to give a blessing upon you today." TheVersions shed some light on the matter. The LXX translates, "Fill your handstoday to the Lord, each one in his son or his brother, to give a blessing uponyou," a reading that omits the MT'S T3, and also omits the conjunction before theinfinitive. Targum Onkelos attempts to make sense of the Hebrew, "Let yourhands offer an offering today to the Lord, for each is against his son or hisbrother, and to bring a blessing upon you this day." Neophyti, however makesbetter sense: "for each one has struck his son and his brother." Pseudo-Jonathanis one step further removed from the Hebrew reading, "Offer the offering for theshedding of blood which is on your hands, and offer atonement for yourselves[this day] before the Lord, for each has struck his son and his brother..." All theTargums use their characteristic rendering of the idiom in question. The Peshittaand Vulgate appear to reflect the LXX reading.

It may be that in this verse we have some grim allusion to the fact that theLevites have filled their hands with swords. However, this appears to be anattempt to explain a phrase whose significance had been forgotten. The Hebrew

19. Noth, Exodus, 230.20. Ibid., 231.21. Snijders, ThWAT4:S82.22. De Vaux," 'Levites' mineens et levites israelites," 346. For a radically different view, see J.

Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16 (AB 3; Garden City, N. Y., 1991), 545-49 where he argues that the for himvery ancient Lev 8 is dependant on Exod 29.

3. Priests in the Danite Story 93

is difficult, and the Versions merely try to convey its lost meaning in their ownlanguages. Perhaps it is significant that the Levites do not become priests in thisstory, but are regarded simply as people who are zealous for Yahweh. It has beenargued that this narrative proves that there was never a tribe of Levi, since theLevites here attack their sons and their brothers. The story, however, makes itclear that all the sons of Levi (v. 26) are involved. The reference to sons andbrothers must, therefore, be figurative, and refer to fellow Israelites who are thesame age or younger than the Levites.

The ordination rites of Hebrew priests are in fact described in some detail inLev 8. Here in vv. 27-29 we see a quite literal filling of the hand with the "eleva-tion offering." Despite Milgrom's assertions to the contrary,23 it is difficult toknow whether these texts are very ancient indeed, or whether they derive in theirentirety from the post-exilic Jerusalem Temple as most scholars have usuallyassumed. Even if Milgrom is correct that these texts are pre-exilic (indeed pre-monarchical), from this text, for all its detail, it is still not entirely clear whetherthe rite described is one of ordination or induction for one who is alreadybasically a priest.

Turning to the Former Prophets, ignoring the Danite story for the present, wefind an occurrence of the phrase "to fill the hand" in 1 Kgs 13:33. This is in thecontext of the establishment of the shrines of Bethel and Dan by Jeroboam I:"And he made from the whole[?] of the people priests of the high places, he filledthe hand of any who wanted, and he became priests of the high places." There aredifficulties with the text, some of which are resolved by the Versions. LXX reads,"He made from the edges of the people priests of high places; he who wanted, hewould fill his hand (eTrXripou), and he became a priest of the high places." TheTargum translates in a similar fashion: "And he made from the end of the peoplepriests ("HOD) of the high place any who wanted, offering his offering, and theybecame priests of the high places." The Peshitta is similar to the Targum. Thus itappears that the Vorlage of the Versions was a text closely akin to the MT, sincethe Versions themselves are not decided on the number of priests in the finalclause. What is clear, nevertheless, is that the rite was one of ordination ratherthan induction. Before the ceremony of the filling of the hands, the people are notpriests; afterwards, they are priests of the high places. For the Deuteronomist,they were certainly not priests by right.

One further passage needs to be discussed, namely Ezek 43:26. This reads,"For seven days they will make atonement for the altar, and they will purify it,and fill its hand(s)" (cf. BHS note 26c). This would appear to be a consecrationrite, for the altar is a new altar that has never been used before. Thus it seems thatif the same phrase were used of a priest at the time of Ezekiel, this would meanthat a non-priest became a priest by this rite, whatever it entailed.

So, if we return to our text, we find that it fits in with the conclusions we havereached. It is clear in 17:5 that the rite of the filling of the hand was one ofordination, since there is no reason why Micah's Ephraimite son should already

23. Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 3-35.

94 Sacred Dan

be a priest. If this is true here, then the same must also be true of the Levite in17:12: he is made a priest by Micah in the same way. It may be significant thatlater in the story, when the Danites invite him to be their priest, we are not toldthat they filled his hand. The most probable explanation for this is that once one'shand had been filled, one was a priest for life. Once again, this points to ordina-tion rather than to induction.

3. The Priestly Functions in the Hebrew Bible

As was noted in the discussion of the Danite legend, once the priest is ordainedhis major functions as described are as guardian of the shrine and manipulator ofthe oracular devices. To ascertain whether this is an accurate picture of the pre-exilic Hebrew priest, and also, therefore, the priesthood of Dan, it is necessary toexamine the evidence from the other Hebrew texts.24 However, much of thismaterial adds very little to our general understanding. Priests crop up frequentlyin the Hebrew Bible, but most of the texts tell us little about them other than thefact that they were in some way connected with the cult, so it is perhaps better tofocus on some of the more significant texts.25

Most scholars base their theories of the functions of the priest on Deut 33:8-11, the passage in the Blessing of Moses that deals with the priestly tribe of Levi.The text is difficult, and I shall return to it when I deal with the tribe of Levi inthe Appendix. As a description of the priestly functions, the most important sec-tions are v. 8a(3, "Your Thummim and your Urim to your faithful one" (Ml), andv. 10, "They teach your statutes to Jacob and your law to Israel, they place smokein your nose and whole burnt offerings upon your altar" (MT).26 In both placesthere are some textual problems, but the general sense seems to be unaffected, atleast for our present purposes. It is apparent from here that the priestly tribe ofLevi was responsible for:

a. The manipulation of the sacred lots,b. The teaching of God's law to the people,c. The offering of sacrifices and (?) incense.

24. References to Hebrew priests (outside the main cultic legislation) can be found in Exod 19:6,22,24; 32; Deut 33:8-11; Josh 3-4; 20:6; 22:13,30-34; Judg20:28; 1 Sam 1-2; 4; 14:3;21:2; 2 Sam8:17-18; 15:24; 20:25-26; 1 Kgs 1-2; 4:2-5; 8; 13;2Kgs 10:11,19; 11-12; 16; 17:27-28; 19:2; 22;23:5, 8; 25:18; Isa 8:2; 24:2; 28:7; Hos 4:4-10; 5:1; 6:9; Amos 7:10; Mic 3:11. There are also somereferences to non-Hebrew priests in Gen 14:18-20; 41:45; Exod 2:16; 18:1; 1 Sam5:5;6:2.

25. Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood, is still probably the best guide to the textsthemselves from a historical angle. Like Cody and the majority of scholars, I have assumed that thePriestly texts are from the post-exilic period, but Milgrom has argued that the entirety of Leviticusand much of the rest of the Torah derives from the pre-exilic period. If he is correct, then somethinglike Lev 1-16 would have been in the possession of the priests of Dan, and indeed they would haveneeded something akin to it as a handbook for the intricacies of the sacrificial cult. Despite this, themain function of the priest in Judg 17-18 itself is as the giver of oracles, and this role is barely men-tioned in the Torah.

26. Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood, 115, regards v. 8 as the older part of thesection since, he notes, the taking of ^NEJ oracles by a priest is not mentioned in the texts he regardsas dating from monarchical times. For these oracles, see pp. 125-29.

3. Priests in the Danite Story 95

As far as the casting of the sacred lots is concerned, there is no dispute amongscholars. This is a feature of priests in the pre-monarchical period and (at least intheory, if not actually in practice) in the monarchical period too, and it is a func-tion that only priests could perform. Zimmerli points to Ezra 2:63 as evidence forthis.27 In the Danite legend it is the sole priestly action. The priests seem to haveabandoned this function at some time. Indeed, Ezra 2:63 hints that this was so atthat time, for the priests of dubious ancestry are told that they may not eat theholy things D^nbl Dm**1? pD IDE IS. The difficulty here is that the parallelpassage in Neh 7:65 has a definite article before ]I"O, which would suggest theywere waiting for a particular priest. It is certain, however, that by the time of theMaccabean campaigns priests had lost the ability to manipulate the oracle, for1 Mace 4:46 says that they put the altar stones aside until a prophet could tellthem what to do with them.

The second function in Deut 33 is that of priestly instruction with which wehave already dealt.

The next function is sacrifice. This does not appear to have been a duty pecu-liar to priests in all the texts,28 even though this text can be read as implying thatit was.

It is, nevertheless, possible that the oracle of Levi is a good deal later thansome of the other parts of the poem, and may have been composed by the com-piler of Deuteronomy as a summary of what he thought a priest ought to be at histime, to be placed on the authoritative lips of Moses.29

There are interesting parallels between the story about Shiloh in 1 Sam 1-2 andthe Danite story in that both purport to be set at in the same general period ofHebrew history, and both are about a local shrine which will rise to nationalimportance. Both also tell us a good deal about the priests who served at theshrines, even though the priests in both cases are not the protagonists. The firstthing of note in 1 Sam 1 is that it is Elkanah the Ephraimite father who offerssacrifice in v. 3. The priests, the sons of Eli, are also mentioned in this verse, butonly in an historical note linking them with the shrine. In the next verse, once hehas sacrificed, Elkanah himself apportions the sacrificial victim to the worship-pers. From this it appears that it is the place where the sacrifice was offered thatwas important, not the fact that there were priests in attendance at the sanctuary.The shrine is important because it is the place where God and humanity meet. Inthis case God is represented as being present through the ark. In v. 9, Eli, thecultic attendant, is sitting on a chair at the door of the temple. It is possible thatthis is the place where the priest would normally sit. In the conversation betweenHannah and Eli, there are several noteworthy features. In v. 15 Hannah addressesEli by the reverential title "'HN. He is obviously a man of high standing. This is

27. W. Zimmerli, £zefa'e//(Hermeneia; Philadelphia, 1979), 96. Cf. Wellhausen, Prolegomenato the History of Israel, 130; L. Sabourin, Priesthood: A Comparative Study (Leiden, 1973), 104-5.

28. Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood, 12.29. So Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood, dates the present form of the texts to the

first half of the eighth century.

96 Sacred Dan

even clearer at the end of the chapter, where she says ^Ttik ~[EJS] TT "'HN ̂ (1:26).Finally, in their conversation he acts as an oracular priest, "Go in peace, and theGod of Israel will give [you] your desire which you ask (^Nttf) of him" (1:17).The verb ^N2J here appears to have its non-technical meaning.30

In the next chapter, we learn (2:13) that the priests would get a portion of themeat from the sacrifice, even if they did not perform the sacrifice themselves. Itseems that there were certain parts of the victim to which they were entitled,31 butfirst it had to be offered to God, and the fat burnt off. Also here we have someevidence that priests lived off the bounty of others, since in 2:36 the descendantsof Eli are depicted as begging for silver and bread, and the right to one of themiro, the "priestly offices." Nevertheless, McCarter argues that this passagerefers to the replacement of the house of Eli and its final scion Abiathar by thehigh priest Zadok and his line, so that the begging imagery refers to the Elidesafter their loss of priestly status at the time of Josiah.32 This is also picked up in1 Kgs 2:27 where the Elides, while retaining their priesthood, are banished fromthe court of Solomon. Gordon33 also compares 2 Kgs 23:8-9 in the account of theJosianic reforms.

There are several features of the narrative which help us to obtain a cleareridea of the functions of the Hebrew priests:

a. Priests were attendants attached to a specific sanctuary. Here it was theshrine of the ark. At a countryside altar which was not part of an estab-lished sanctuary, priests would not have been necessary.

b. Priests could give oracles and speak in the name of Yahweh. Here theephod is not mentioned, but we may assume that there was one at theshrine.

c. Even in the larger sanctuaries, priests did not perform all the sacrifices;for example, in this case, this was left to the pilgrims who would alsodivide up the sacrificial portions.

d. Priests had a right to be fed their appointed portions by the pilgrims.34

This is consistent with the Danite story, where the priest lives off what he is givenby the (private) worshipper, and where his sole function is to act as an attendantfor the shrine, which includes the manipulation of the ephod. This of coursereflects the self-understanding of the pre-exilic royal shrine of Dan, but alsoreflects the fact that pilgrims, like Elkanah, would have gone there to sacrificefrom time immemorial.

30. See above (pp. 125-29) for the technical meaning used in contexts which refer to divination.31. Cf. the discussion of KAI69 below.32. P. K. McCarter, I Samuel (AB 8; Garden City, N.Y., 1980), 91-93.33. R. P. Gordon, 1 and 2 Samuel: A Commentary (Exeter, 1986), 88.34. For these conclusions, cf. also Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood, 69-72. Cody,

however goes further, concluding on p. 72, "Thus, the priesthood at Shiloh was a priesthood of sanc-tuary attendants, whose oracular consultation was perhaps developed into judicial lord, or beginningto develop into that kind oftord. They had no monopoly on sacrifice, for we know that Samuel'sfather Elkanah sacrificed as a pilgrim to the sanctuary they frequented (1 Sam. 1:3)."

3. Priests in the Danite Story 97

First Samuel 2:28 contains a brief description of the priest's functions:attendance at the altar, the burning of incense, the wearing of the ephod andsacrifice. This passage is Deuteronomistic in tone.

In 1 Sam 4 we see another of the functions of the priests of Shiloh: they wereattendants (like the boy Samuel who may have been a priest) who looked afterthe ark of Yahweh. The ark was a mobile sanctuary in its own right, since asYahweh is present with the ark, the place where it is to be found is the placewhere God and humanity meet. The Israelites are afraid of the Philistines, andsend off to Shiloh for the ark which is brought with the two sons of Eli in atten-dance. We are not told that they, the priests, carried the ark; in fact, the narrativesuggests that they did not: it was the men of Israel who brought it (4:4a). Thesecond half of the verse depicts Hophni and Phinehas in attendance on the ark.We do not know whether the priests of Dan would have taken the bull image intobattle as a sign of Yahweh's presence, but we have to remain open to the pos-sibility that they did.

The next reference of significance for us is in 1 Sam 14:3 where we find Ahijahalongside the Hebrew army at Migron near Gibeah. We are not told which shrinehe was from, but, by virtue of the fact that he was carrying an ephod, one of thenormal pieces of sacred furniture, we may assume that he came from one, sinceephods were housed in a sanctuary. It is possible that he and his family lived inNob, which is where the next priests in the narrative are based.35 Later on in thechapter he takes an oracle, putting his hand into the ephod (if we follow the LXX),but is asked to remove it when the Philistines threaten to attack (14:18-19).Davies, however, argues for the MT over the LXX, suggesting that the word ~n2Nwas substituted for ]1~1N throughout 1 Samuel, and a similar view was advancedby Arnold.36 These views are unlikely, as we shall see later.37 Ahijah's solefunction in the narrative is to take the oracle. There is no sacrifice involved (paceCryer38). Later on in the chapter (vv. 36-37), the priest is again referred to, and,again, he is seen only as an oracular attendant, suggesting to the king that anoracle should be taken. As far as analogies with Dan are concerned, we have nohistorical information as to whether its priests carried the ephod into battle, andconsulted it there, although since the evidence of the books of Samuel is that thiswas one of the major functions of the priest, it is possible that this too wouldhave been characteristic of the Danite priests.

In 21:2 we encounter Ahimelech, the priest of Nob. In v. 10 we are told thatGoliath's sword is kept behind the ephod. This again is evidence that each shrinehad a priest and an ephod. It appears from 22:13,15 that Ahimelech had taken anoracle for David, although this is not mentioned in ch. 21. Therefore, it seemslikely that whoever wrote the accounts assumed that the only reason for David's

35. For Elides at Nob, see D. G. Schley, Shiloh: A Biblical City in Tradition and History(JSOTSup 63; Sheffield, 1989), 148-50.

36. P. R. Davies, "Ark or Ephod in I Sam. XIV. 18?," J7SNS 26 (1975): 81-87 (86); cf. Arnold,Ephod and Ark, 16.

37. See below, p. 114.38. F. H. Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel and its Near Eastern Environment (JSOTSup 142;

Sheffield, 1994), 283.

98 Sacred Dan

having visited the shrine was to obtain an oracle, and that this is the priest'smajor function, as is also the case in 1 Sam 23.

As for the remainder of the Hebrew Bible, priests are mentioned mainly ascivil servants. And while it is true that they continued to have a very importantcultic role, this is barely mentioned in the texts as we have them,39 and this mate-rial provides next to nothing in our quest for parallels to what we have seen in theDanite story. The development of priests as effectively royal administrators,however, appears to have affected both the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. So inAmos 7:10-13 we see Amaziah the priest of Bethel as senior civil servant sendingmessages directly to the king. Similarly Hosea's blistering attacks on priests ascivic leaders in 4:4-10; 5:1; and 6:9 shows that they were heavily involved in thepolitics of the Northern Kingdom as its history drew to a close. If this was true in721, then it was almost certainly true of 732 when Dan itself fell to the Assyr-ians: its priests were surely also very senior royal administrators at one of thegreat national shrines.

Before we reach a conclusion, perhaps a word should be said about the epi-graphic evidence. Davies lists only four occurrences of the word fro in theHebrew inscriptions.40 These are a late eighth-century ivory pomegranate ofunknown provenance bearing the words D3!"D ETTp n[irr fl]^^, presumably as amark of ownership (99.001); two seals, again of unknown provenance (100.323and 100.734), the first of which is from the second half of the eighth century, andthe other from a few decades later; and a mid-fourth-century coin from Judahwith the inscription "Jonatha[n] the priest" (106.049). The pomegranate is thoughtto be a mace head, but we do not know its precise function. 100.323 reads ]HD"INT, which may provide us with further evidence for a priest being attached to aspecific place. In general, however, this evidence is disappointing and, short ofmore inscriptions from Tel Dan, must remain very much an indirect source ofinformation for cultic life at Dan through the ages.

In conclusion, we can say that there is strong evidence from the Hebrew textsto support the picture we have in the Danite legend. As for the Danite priesthood,we have found further evidence that can be used to help us understand theirfunctions. As well as the points listed above, it is possible that there was a devel-opment in their functions from the time in which the Danite legend (in the pre-monarchical period) is set to the time that it was written down (in the aftermathof the Assyrian invasions). With this in mind, we can conjecturally put forwardthe following points:

a. Whereas in the early period the priests of Dan were probably analogouswith the priesthood of Shiloh, where the priests were simply culticattendants, at later times they would have become royal functionaries,responsible directly to the king for the sanctuary, and members of theupper classes in the same way as those of Bethel or Jerusalem.

39. For details of the subsequent development of Hebrew priests, see Cody, A History of OldTestament Priesthood, 87-97.

40. AHI, 383.

3. Priests in the Danite Story 99

b. Like the priests of Shiloh who carried the ark, it is possible that at allperiods they may have carried the sacred bull image into battle as a sym-bol of the presence of Yahweh.

c. In common with other priests, they may well have been responsible fortaking oracles on the battlefield, or at least before a battle.

d. In early times they would probably not have been exclusively responsi-ble for sacrifice, but it seems likely that later this would have becomeone of their most important functions, and would eventually becomepeculiar to them. This process probably began with the influx of culticofficials which would almost certainly have accompanied the beginningof royal patronage of the shrine, and the gradual change in the tribal andsocial structures of Israel. This may also have been the case with Jerusa-lem.41

4. The Danite Priesthood and the Ancient Near East

We must now examine the material relating to non-Israelite priests to see whetherit can provide any evidence to show how typical the priests of Dan were whencompared with ancient Near Eastern priests in general.

a. Aramean and Phoenician PriestsThe Aramaic evidence is unhelpful. It is comprised solely of epitaphs (KAI225,226,228,239,246) that date from the seventh century BCE into the first centuriesof the Common Era. It thus contains little material which may be analogous tothe situation at royal Dan other than the fact that priests were of sufficiently highstatus to warrant expensive epitaphs.

The majority of the Punic and Phoenician references to priests are, like theAramaic references, found in the context of epitaphs. All we can ascertain fromthese is that kings were called "priests." We are, unfortunately, not told in whatway they were priests, whether they fulfilled specifically religious functionsanalogous to the kings of Israel, or whether this was simply a title which impliedthat the king was in a special relationship with his patron deity.

There is, however, evidence in the Phoenician and Punic material that thepriest was specifically responsible for his shrine. KAI 32, for example, from 341BCE Kition, is the dedication plaque of an altar endowed by a priest. Otherexamples include KA165, an undated Sardinian building inscription where twopriests, one of whom is a DDH3 D~l, and the other a priest from Sidon, are men-tioned. KAI72B, of uncertain date from Ibiza, refers to a building constructed asa vow by a priest. This shows that in Phoenician and Punic culture there existedthe same sort of close link between priest and sanctuary for which we foundevidence for the Hebrew Bible. Cody points out that the D]i"Q 3~l mentioned inboth KAI 65 and KAI 59—a third-century BCE epitaph—suggests that there was astructured priesthood with a high priest at the top.42 In the undated KAI 95 from

41. Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood, 12-13.42. Ibid., 21.

100 Sacred Dan

Carthage we even have a female high priest (DDHD D~l). Donner and Rollig com-ment that the title is masculine to avoid the form ro~l, the title of a goddess.43

Once again we can have an idea of the economic circumstances of the priest inthe West Semitic world, and presumably the priesthood of royal Dan would alsohave been sufficiently wealthy to support their sanctuary properly, as was alsothe case with Jerusalem. There is, however, little evidence for female priests inIsrael, at least in Yahwistic shrines like Dan, although this cannot be ruled outcompletely.

One of the most interesting inscriptions is the Punic tariff of fees for varioussacrifices, KAI69, from late third-century BCE Marseilles. This may provide agood analogy for the later royal shrine of Dan which, like Marseilles, would havebeen an important economic and religious centre. We are here told of a systemwhere the priests were paid a certain amount per offering.

Thus line 3 reads in»3 10mtD0'«pD DDmb bbD DbtDDN HU1H D« bbD *fx&,which one might render "In the case of an ox, for a whole burnt offering or a sinoffering [?] or an offering of substitution [?] to the priests ten pieces of silver foreach one." The next line goes on to tell us what the priests receive for each of theofferings in detail, and then has the words 1«en nrwi DQUSm cnbtOTl mun piFQTn bmb, "But the skin and the ribs [?] and the feet and the rest of the fleshbelong to the offerer." It is uncertain what the PQTn bin did during the course ofthe sacrifice. Was he the one who did the actual sacrifice like Elkanah in 1 Sam1:3—4, or was he simply the one on whose behalf the sacrifice was made? Thisproblem can be partially resolved by line 15, which contains instructions on theoffering of the poor, and includes the words bl mr 2?N mi bin. This impliesthat it was in fact the poor man who sacrificed for himself at the shrine, and theline goes on to say that the attendant priests were not entitled to any part of thesacrificed animal. Hoftijzer and Jongeling translate nmn bin as "person offeringthe sacrifice," as opposed to KAI 120.2 where niznn Dbty bin is probably the titleof a religious functionary.44 There is another reference to a sacrifice notperformed by a priest in line 16.

The cultic instructions from Marseilles are paralleled by a find of similar datefound in the ruins of Carthage (KAI 74). In line 8 of this inscription, some peoplehave found a reference to a priest carrying the offering to the deity, thus Rosen-thai: "[For any substitute offering whjich he shall have to carry to the God, thepriest shall have necks and shoulder joints" (ANET, 657). Despite this, however,the text is not really clear enough to be certain, p nb« HDD DQIT E?[K niriJt bin][...nblTJl n~l!ip frnb could just as easily have an impersonal subject, wherefrnb is merely a dative, and not the subject, thus: "For any substitute offeringwhich is offered [cf. KAI3.19] before the God, the priest receives...." Carthagealso would have been a royal cultic centre.

43. KAI 2:105.44. J. Hoftijzer and K. Jongeling, Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions (2 vols.;

Leiden, 1995), 1:183. An expression with the same meaning (EN.SISKUR = "lord of the offering")referring to the person on whose behalf the offering was made has been found as a Sumerogram inthe Hittite portion of Hittite-Hurrian bilingual texts from Boghazkoy (according to Professor G.Wilhelm, oral communication).

3. Priests in the Danite Story 101

In the Phoenician and Punic material there is also a set of references to a groupof "sacrificers." In KAI37, dated to the fourth to third century, there is mentionof two DFQT (A9) who are paid for their services, and there are some "youngwomen" mentioned in connection with a sacrifice (B9). Of the latter, Gibsonsuggests they were cultic prostitutes paralleling the male cultic prostitutes foundin the following line.45 Although Donner and Rollig fail to mention it whendealing with this inscription, there is some evidence that the idea of a sacrificerwas borrowed from the Roman idea of a "flamen." This is made explicit in thelater Punic and Latin bilingual inscriptions KAI 120,121,126. Donner and Rolligalso compare KAI 62, which is Punic only.46

Finally, there is the Karatepe inscription (KAI 26), dated ca. 720, which men-tions various sacrifices, but nowhere refers to a priest.

Thus, from the Phoenician and Punic epigraphic material we have a picturewhich complements that which we have found in the Hebrew Bible:47

1. Priests are not primarily associated with the offering of sacrifices.2. They were concerned for their shrines.3. They appear to have been attached to them.4. They had a right to parts of the sacrificial victims.5. They were wealthy members of the upper classes.

A word needs to be said about the use of Punic parallels to the ancient Hebrewtexts. Unlike Israel, the Phoenicians seem to have had few cultic upheavals. Thisis reflected in their cultic texts where a consistent picture emerges down to theperiod of Roman influence in Carthage, and continues to a certain degree afterthat. Their culture was also relatively homogeneous. All this, combined withthe conservative nature of religion in general, suggests that it is legitimate to usethe Punic material as long as care is taken not to base arguments exclusively onthe later texts where Roman influence, even in the cult, cannot be ruled outentirely.

Silius Italicus (ca. 26-101 CE) refers in Book 3 of his epic poemPunica to anoath taken by Hannibal to Hercules (Melqart) of Gades (now Cadiz). In so doing,he gives a description of the temple and its priesthood. The priests are dressed inlinen and are portrayed offering incense (lines 24-26). But it is not certain howaccurate his description was, or whether he had any first-hand knowledge ofSemitic sanctuaries.

b. Priests from Northern SyriaThe Ugaritic material, in contrast to the Phoenician, is of less use for our presentpurposes. Cody's treatment of the Ugaritic material48 is based on the views of

45. 7557,3:131.46. KAI2-.U1.47. Cf. B. Peckham, "Phoenicia and the Religion of Israel: The Epigraphic Evidence," in Miller,

Hanson and McBride, eds., Ancient Israelite Religion, 79-99 (88): "The religious traditions incorpo-rated in the inscriptions of the Phoenicians and their dominions are analogous to those preserved inthe Old Testament."

48. Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood, 19-20.

102 Sacred Dan

Gordon, which are at times conjectural in the extreme, and have not been borneout by subsequent research. In the ritual texts, priests, or at least khnm, are notmentioned at all. Most of the ritual texts consist of lists of offerings made tospecific deities, but we are simply never told how they were offered or whooffered them.

There are, nevertheless, cultic officials mentioned in the texts, the most com-mon among them being the ins Urn. De Tarragon comments that, "There is noexact translation for ins Urn. It simply refers to religious functionaries."49 It is notentirely clear what this class of religious functionary did. De Tarragon also goeson to mention the khnm. He says they are almost as common as the ins Urn, butthey are never mentioned in ritual texts. "Priests [sic] are mentioned in admin-istrative lists amongst other occupational categories which are far from beingreligious," and also, "Since the priests are not mentioned in any of the rituals, itis not possible to ascertain their role in the cult."50 Associated with the khnmwere the qdsm. De Tarragon51 suggests that they were called this because they areassociated with the sanctuary qds/mqds.

In the literary texts the only priest mentioned is Elimelek who is described(KTU 1.6.6.54-55) as rb /khnm rb nqdm. Scholars have noted that the wordnqdm may also appear in Amos 1:1,52 Tarragon suggests that this refers to a classof administrators.53

It is possible, however, that the Ugaritic texts give us information about thenon-cultic functions of the Hebrew priests of a royal sanctuary like Dan. Theywould have been involved in the teaching and handing down of the religioustradition of the city. However, whether there was any great literary tradition atthe sanctuary of Dan is uncertain, despite Goulder's protestations that most of theHebrew Bible was redacted by its priests.54 Nevertheless, it is almost certain thatif there was literary activity at Dan, the priests, like those of Ugarit or Jerusalem,would have had a hand in it.

At the installation of the priestess of Baal at Emar there are some indicationsthat sacrifices were made. It is not clear who sacrificed what, and even the detailsof the ritual are unclear: for example, we find the use of the rather nebulous verbsakanu ("to place") with an impersonal subject,55 although it is apparent that bothmeat and bread were offered.56 As in Ugarit, the writers were concerned to ensurethat the ritual was carried out in an orderly fashion, but were not writing for

49. De Tarragon, Le Culte a Ugarit, 132: "Aucune traduction precise ne peut etre donnee a inSUrn. II s'agit seulement de personnel du culte..." (my translation above).

50. Ibid., 134: "Des pretres [sic] sont nommes dans les listes administratives parmi d'autrescategories professionelles qui sont loin d'etre religieuses"; "Puisque les pretres ne sont mentionnesdans aucun rituel, il n'est pas possible de preciser leur role dans le culte" (my translation above).

51. Ibid., 141.52. Cf., e.g., CML, 81.53. De Tarragon, Le Culte a Ugarit, 135.54. See, for example, Goulder, The Psalms of the Sons ofKorah, 82-83.55. D. E. Fleming, The Installation of Baal's High Priestess at Emar (HSM; Atlanta, 1992),

10.4, 12.11, etc.56. Ibid., 138. Interestingly, Lev 8:22-29 also mentions sacrifices of both meat and bread.

3. Priests in the Danite Story \ 03

posterity. At Emar it should be noted that the priestess was, like the Hebrewpriests, attached to her shrine. She was in fact head of the divine household.57

As well as the epigraphic evidence, we also have secondary evidence for thecult in Syria from Classical authors.58 Lucian of Samosata (ca. 115-ca. 200 CE),in his De Syria Dea, describes the temple personnel in Hierapolis in paragraph42: "They appoint innumerable priests, some of whom slaughter the victims (TGOVoi UEV rot ipr)ia a<}>6c£ou5iv), and some bear the libations, and some are called fire-bearers and some altar priests. When I was there, more than three hundred wouldassemble for the sacrifice."59 Thus it does appear that priests would slay thevictims (although this may be an indication of Roman influence), but whether theSyrians would have regarded them as priests (D3!"D) is another matter entirely,especially since these cultic officials were divided into various different groups,all headed by a high priest.

c. Assyrian and Babylonian PriestsIn Mesopotamia the king was the most important cultic official. Since he was the"son" or "image" of the god, he was considered to be the mediator par excellencebetween humanity and the divine. For the entire duration of the Mesopotamiancivilisation, he retained certain cultic functions, although these were mainly atimportant occasions.60 As we have seen, this may also have been the case at Dan.

As well as the monarch there were other types of cultic official, some ofwhom may be referred to as priests. The classic Akkadian word for "priest" iss/sangu, but, as van Driel points out,61 it is not clear what such a priest did,although in the royal cult of Assyria he appears in attendance on the king whilethe latter was performing his sacred functions. It is possible that the sangu mayalso in normal circumstances have been in some senses a mediator between thedeity and worshipper. It is also possible that the sangu may have been an admin-istrative official, but once again this is not certain.62 (Von Soden, however, notesthat "In Old Assyrian documents we find instead of sangu the kummm."63) Therewere other classes of cultic official, at least in Babylon, who performed variousfunctions. As well as the scwgw-priests, there were officials responsible for theliturgy, purifiers, washers, anointers, singers, diviners, and so on.64 These postswere hereditary, and members of both sexes could be cultic officials.65

These texts are possibly analogous with royal Dan. When the king was inresidence at his royal sanctuary, it is likely that the priests would have servedmerely as his attendants (cf. 1 Kgs 8, where Solomon is the celebrant and the

57. Fleming, The Installation of Baal's High Priestess at Emar, 83, 192-93.58. I am grateful to Dr John Day for the Classical references.59. Cf. A. M. Harmon, ed., Lucian: "De Syria Dea," in Lucian: Works (8 vols.; LCL; Cam-

bridge, Mass., 1925), 4:396-97, §42.60. J. Bottero, La Religion Babylonienne (Mythes et Religions 30; Paris, 1952), 111.61. G. Van Driel, The Cult ofAssur (Leiden, 1969), 175.62. Ibid., 176.63. W. von Soden, The Ancient Orient (Grand Rapids, 1994), 194.64. Bottero, La Religion Babylonienne, 12.65. Ibid., 111.

104 Sacred Dan

priests have a very subsidiary role). As I noted above, the sangu's normal func-tion may have been as the mediator between the human and the divine, and at allstages of the Israelite cult this appears to have been the major function of theHebrew priests. As well as the royal priests of places like Dan and Bethel, atthese larger shrines it is possible that there would have been extra cultic function-aries who would have acted like the "levites" of later Jerusalem. I have alreadycommented that the priesthood of the greater shrines would have been hereditary,but of the lesser functionaries we know very little, although, if the analogy oflater Jerusalem holds true, the Levites at least passed their cultic functions downthe generations.

Cody66 is interested in the bdru, a diviner. A man could be both a bdru and asangu at the same time, but the functions were kept separate. The bdru appears tohave been a clairvoyant whose messages are referred to as tertu (a formationfrom *taw'irtum, a verbal noun from the root wV), which Cody suggests(improbably) is cognate to the Hebrew i~mn. He suggests that the word may haveentered Hebrew from Canaan (where some Mesopotamian forms of divinationwere known), and came to be used in a new sense required by the Hebrews, sinceCody states that the primitive Hebrew priest did not practise this kind ofdivination. He concludes that the bdru was closer to the Hebrew nN~l or t^HD thanthe "priest," although in common with the ]rn, the Mesopotamian bdru was amember of the religious establishment.

Of the two major priestly activities which Bottero67 notes—prayer and thetending of the god—only the latter need concern us here. We have already lookedat the formal ritual tending of the god, and need not discuss it here. To the Baby-lonian mind the reason for human existence was to "Install the gods in a housewhich pleased their heart."68 A direct consequence of this was that sacrifices, incontrast to Israel, were seen as part of the act of tending the god (although cf. Ps50). An example may be found in the Myth of Erra, where Erra, the god of warand plague, is criticized by the other gods: "You have put to death the en-priestwho made the takllmu-offerings promptly."69 Von Soden in AHw translatestaklimu as "show-sacrifice" ("Schauopfer").70 The idea of sacrifice as food is alsofound in Gilgamesh 11.156, where Utnapishtim (who is not a priest) offerssacrifice and the gods are so pleased that they crowd around his offering likeflies.71 The concept of sacrifices as food of the gods was deeply rooted in theMesopotamian mind; as von Soden says, "It is notable that animal sacrifices werebrought on occasion as holocausts only in Assyria in the first millennium; other-wise, animal sacrifices were offered only for slaughter."72 Thus, as Bottero notes,when worshippers left some jewel or money or even food at the temples these

66. Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood, 23-25.67. Bottero, La Religion Babylonienne, 115.68. Quoted in Bottero, La Religion Babylonienne, 108.69. Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia, 302.70. AHw, 1307.71. ANET, 95; Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia, 11472. Von Soden, The Ancient Orient, 188.

3. Priests in the Danite Story 105

"sacrifices" were seen as being left for the personal use of the gods, and wereregarded as useful presents to them.73

On the other hand, while it is probable that the Hebrews did not appear toregard themselves as feeding Yahweh, one of the most important functions oftheir priests would have been to guard the sacred objects, like the bull image ofDan, and, as we have seen, there seems to have been little difference between thisand the anthropomorphic Mesopotamian statue—both were vehicles of divinepresence.

There are, nevertheless, rare accounts of expiation sacrifices from ancientMesopotamia.74 These appear to have been akin to substitution rites,75 where theanimal was sent to death in the place of the man on whose behalf the priest wasoffering the sacrifice. Such a rite is described in the Akitu festival rites fromBabylon written down in the Seleucid period.76 In this case, a lamb is used for thekuppuru ritual. At the climax of the ritual, the Akkadian reads: (amil)nas patriisassi-ma qaqqad immeri i-bat-taq-ma,11 "He [the masmasu priest] calls thecarrier of the knife, and he strikes off the head of the lamb." Here, as my transla-tion suggests, it is not the priest himself who sacrifices; rather, there is a specialofficial who wields the knife. However, as the text goes on to explain, both priestand sacrificer remain in the open country (ina sen}.

In another ritual (ANET, 339), this time from Uruk, and again written down, ifnot composed, in the Seleucid period, we are told of the rite of a propitiationoffering: arki-su2riksua-naili-su u (d)istari-su tar-kas (immer)niqutanaq-ki™"After this you will prepare two preparations for his god and his goddess, a(lamb) offering you shall offer." Once again, the text is not very clear, but appearsto be addressed to a priest. If this is so, this is one of the few pieces of directevidence that we have found so far for a Semitic priest sacrificing. The rite is,however, rare, and may be uncharacteristic of Mesopotamian religion. Indeed,Oppenheim suggests that one of the major differences that separates the conceptof sacrifice of the Hebrew and Mesopotamian cultures is that what he describesas the "blood consciousness" is missing from Mesopotamian thought.79

It is, of course, possible that the Akkadian-speakers borrowed their idea ofpriesthood from the Sumerians. We know little about the Sumerian priests otherthan their official names. The Sumerian word for the administrative head of a

73. Bottero, La Religion Babyhnienne, 118.74. Ibid., 118-19.75. Cf. also von Soden, The Ancient Orient, 189.76. Cf.ANET, 333.77. Text in F. Thureau-Dangin, Rituels accadiens (Paris, 1921), 140.353.78. Thureau-Dangin, Rituels accadiens, 36.17.79. Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia, 192. For the similar ideas of the Hittites, see Gurney,

Some Aspects of Hittite Religion, 28-30. W. W. Hallo, "The Origins of the Sacrificial Cult: NewEvidence from Mesopotamia and Israel," in Miller, Hanson and McBride, eds., Ancient IsraeliteReligion, 3-13 (10-11) suggests that in both Israel and Mesopotamia sacrifice was originally con-cerned with the sanctification of the eating process, but later diverged into the traditions we find in theextant texts.

106 Sacred Dan

temple was, however, sanga.*0 Von Soden even suggests the word was pre-Sumerian.81 Bottero points out that many of the other priestly titles were eitherSumerian or had been translated from Sumerian.82 Nevertheless, it appears thatthe Semitic Akkadian-speakers preserved some of their own cultic traditions, andindeed some of the functions of their priests were similar to those of Hebrewpriests:

1. The sangu's major function was to be a mediator between god andhumanity. In both Mesopotamia and Israel the king was probably theperson who fulfilled this role par excellence (cf. Ps 45), but ordinarypeople would have gained access to the deity through priests. It is prob-able that at Dan the king was involved in cultic events of nationalimportance (cf. 1 Kgs 13:1), but ordinary religious life would have beenleft to its priesthood.

2. Part of this function was the taking of oracles. As we have seen, this wasthe most characteristic function of the ancient Israelite priest, and, whileextispicy in Mesopotamia was a highly specialized art, there was someconnection between it and the priest.

3. In the extant texts, one of the most important functions of the sangu wasthat of an administrator. However, it should be noted that most of thesetexts are royal administrative documents, and so their importance asadministrators may have been exaggerated. Nevertheless, this was alsoan important function of the Danite priest at the time of the monarchy.

4. On the rare occasions when sacrifice was offered in Mesopotamia, priestsdid not generally perform the ritual of slaughter. It is possibly significantthat sacrifices are known mainly from Assyria which was less influencedby Sumer and which was, therefore, probably closer to ancient Semiticpractices.

d. Egyptian PriestsIn Egypt we find fewer analogies with the Danite priesthood. Egyptian societywas at least in theory based totally around the Pharaoh who was the representativeof the gods on earth, and as such he alone was responsible for the maintenance oftheir cults. Sauneron83 suggests that at a very early stage of the Egyptian culturewhen the Nile Valley was ruled by various different princes and clan leaders, itwould have been possible for the ruler to participate fully in religious ceremo-nies. However, after the conquest of the whole of Egypt, it was no longer possi-ble for the Pharaoh to perform all these religious duties himself. Morenz,commenting on this aspect of Egyptian religious life, says, "For this reason theEgyptian priesthood in theory only represented the deified king. In practice it

80. S. N. Kramer, The Sumerians (Chicago, 1963), 141.81. Von Soden, The Ancient Orient, 16.82. Bottero, La Religion Babylonienne, 111. For this issue see also H. W. F. Saggs, The Encoun-

ter with the Divine in Mesopotamia and Israel (The Jordan Lectures 1978, London, 1978), 26.83. Sauneron, Les pretres de I 'ancienne Egypte, 31; cf. also R. David, Religion and Magic in

Ancient Egypt (London, 2002), 199.

3. Priests in the Danite Story 107

developed as a result of a delegation by the king of his rights and duties."84 Thiscontrasts directly with the picture of religious life we have from both Mesopota-mia and Israel where the king continued to exercise cultic functions.85 Sauneroncomments that the ritual texts from the Egyptian temples fail to mention priests.86

As far as sacrifices were concerned, the major reason for these was to providefood for the tables of the gods. Sauneron87 suggests that there was some religioussymbolism in this, if only because the animals destined to be the food of the godshad to be chosen and killed in accordance with some religious norms. As wehave seen in the previous chapter, given the nature of the Egyptian cult whichinvolved the care of the image of the god, there was little reason for priests to beinvolved in a sacrificial cult like that of the Hebrews.88

It appears that there was not in most cases a permanent professional priest-hood in Egypt, but that priests even at the largest shrines served either in rotation,or on an ad hoc basis, and that most priests had another profession.89 But what-ever the case, all priests were in theory civil servants, performing the king'ssacral duties for him, just as others in society fulfilled other aspects of the king'sduties. This meant that despite the fact that priesthood was often hereditary, inmost cases there was no great conflict between palace and temple.90

This was, however, not the case in the Third Intermediate Period—the timewhich corresponds with the monarchical period of the Hebrews.91 At this time,owing to weakness on the part of the kings, and growing ambition on the part ofthe priests of Amun at Thebes, the priests were effectively able to claim kingshipin all but name in Upper Egypt, although they still acknowledged the formaloverlordship of the pharaoh. The situation was compounded by the fact that atthe same period, the high priesthood of Amun became a hereditary office. Thistension between the priesthood of Amun and the royal house was only resolvedwhen Pharaoh Smendes agreed that a daughter of the king would always marrythe high priest at Thebes, so that all subsequent high priests were descended fromthe royal house. Eventually a high priest became heir apparent, and ascended thethrone as Pharaoh Psusennes II (959-945), and so the theocracy of Thebes cameto an end.

84. S. Morenz, Egyptian Religion (London, 1973), 100.85. For the sacral duties of Hebrew kings, see Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood,

105-7.86. Sauneron, Les pretres de I 'ancienne Egypte, 31.87. Ibid., 70.88. There is some evidence that in earlier times sacrifice was known. In the archaic period there

is some evidence for human sacrifice, see David, Religion and Magic in Ancient Egypt, 75. And in theOld Kingdom period blood sacrifices were apparently offered in cult of the sun-god, but in laterperiods there is no evidence for the practice, see David, Religion and Magic in Ancient Egypt, 113. Itis not clear whether or in what way priests were involved in this sacrificial cult, but given the fact thatat every stage in Egypt's history priesthood went hand-in-hand with "secular" power, it is reasonableto assume that there was a "priestly" involvement in this cult.

89. David, Religion and Magic in Ancient Egypt, 199-200.90. Ibid., 200.91. For details see David, Religion and Magic in Ancient Egypt, 292-94.

108 Sacred Dan

Among the more significant parallels between the Egyptian and the Hebrewcult are the ways in which priests were regarded as servants of the king, to someextent responsible to him for the cult. It is likely, as we have seen, that, at leastduring the monarchical period, this would have been the case at Dan. But even inan earlier period, it is possible that the priest was seen as being responsible to thetribal leaders for the cult. However, there was among the Hebrews a dividing linebetween sacral and political leadership even if (as in Mediaeval Europe) thedifferences were not as clear-cut as they are today. By contrast with the situationin Egypt, it would appear that the Hebrews always had professional priests—ifthe Danite story is to be seen as having an ancient basis in fact, Jonathan benGershom is one such professional priest. Furthermore, the tendency for suchpriesthoods to become hereditary (or to be seen as hereditary) was more firmlyfixed in the Hebrew psyche than in the Egyptian. Egyptian and Hebrew priestswere of course both responsible for the general up-keep of the shrine, and in bothcases there was a form of divination associated with the temple in which thepriests would have participated. Although, whereas for Hebrew priests this wasapparently practised in the temple itself, in Egypt the practice was associatedwith the regular ritual processions that were a part of Egyptian religious life.

e. Hittite PriestsHittite religious life was an amalgam of different features: indigenous local cultsflourished, but there was also a centralized cult based near Hattusas. The king ofthe Hittites assumed the title of high priest of the whole realm, and, in an annualprogress around his kingdom, he himself celebrated the major festivals at themost important cultic centres.92 The priests were regarded as the servants of thegods and served them in their houses, the temples (ANET, 207). To this extent,they were similar to the priests of Mesopotamia,93 and were involved in sacrificein as much as they had access to the temple.94 As in Israel, there was an expectedlevel of ritual purity which a priest would have to attain (ANET, 207). As well asthe sacrifices for the food of the gods (cf. ANET, 358, where, unfortunately, thedetails are obscure), in contrast to the general picture of the cult in Mesopotamia,there were also propitiatory offerings, offerings of firstfruits and of yearlinganimals. Gurney comments, however, that it is difficult to distinguish these fromthe feeding sacrifices.95

f. Pre-hlamic Arabian PriestsOutside the time of ancient Israel, Cody compares two pre-Islamic Arabian culticofficials, the kdhin and the sddin96 (though he mentions neither date nor primarysources). He comments that, despite the linguistic similarity between the Arabic

92. Gurney, The Hittites, 109. Cf. also ANET, 394, where, in a negative confession, the Hittiteking denies that he favoured one sanctuary over another.

93. Ibid., 124.94. R. A. Labat et al., Les religions du Proche-Orient asiatiques (Le tresor spirituel de

1'humanite; Paris, 1970), 511.95. Gumey, The Hittites, 125.96. Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood, 14-18.

3. Priests in the Danite Story 109

kdhin and the Hebrew ]I~Q, kdhin proves to be something of a false friend forunderstanding the Hebrew. It refers to a soothsayer who was also a clan leaderand a wise man.97 It was rather the sddin who was the sanctuary attendant. Bothgroups, however, did accompany both the portable sanctuary and military expe-ditions.98 Neither was ordinarily responsible for sacrifice, which was normallyperformed by the head of the family, except at large gatherings where the sddinwas responsible for it. The sddin was even responsible for the arrow oracle, theArabic equivalent of the lot oracle.99

Cody sees no functional connection between the Arabic kdhin and the Hebrew]1"O, but he suggests that the Arabs may have borrowed the word, but not all theideas behind it, and applied it to a different cultic official.100 The sddin does pro-vide a parallel for the Israelite priests, even if the connections between the tworemain obscure. However, in Dan we are looking at a royal sanctuary, rather thanthe shrine of a permanently nomadic group. So, for this reason, there is no closeanalogy between the pre-Islamic Arabs and the Danites.

5. The Priests of Dan in theirNear Eastern Context: Conclusions

The priests of Dan no doubt were different in some respects from their con-temporaries in other cultures, but in general, we can make come comparisonsbetween them:

1. Sacrifice was not a function peculiar to most ancient Near Easternpriests, although they would in some way have been involved in thoseoffered at sanctuaries. In many cases, especially in the Western Semiticenvironment, it appears that the clan leader would sacrifice at majorfestivals. Routine "feeding" sacrifices, where offered, would probablyhave been the responsibility of the priest as sanctuary guardian. There isno reason to suppose that the same was not true of the priests of Dan.

2. Like their neighbours, the priests of Dan were firmly attached to theirhome shrine. Here one of their tasks would have been the guarding ofthe sacred image.

3. Divination was a feature of many ancient Near Eastern priests.4. In many cultures the priest seems to have been an intermediary between

the deity and humanity.5. In larger royal shrines like Dan, the priests were rich members of the

upper classes, administrators of their sanctuaries, responsible to theking, and probably valued members of the royal council.

97. For a detailed discussion of the role of the kdhin which firmly equates it with the Hebrewnabi', see J. Pedersen, "The Role Played by Inspired Persons Among the Israelites and the Arabs," inStudies in Old Testament Prophecy Presented to T. H. Robinson (ed. H. H. Rowley; Edinburgh,1950), 127-42(133-36).

98. Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood, 15.99. Ibid., 16.100. Ibid., 18.

110 Sacred Dan

6. In many cultures the priests had a significant role in teaching both sacredtradition and local knowledge, and again, there is not reason why thiswould not have been the case with Dan. Indeed, the one piece of litera-ture to have almost certainly come out of the royal shrine of Dan is infact Judg 17-18, which at least purports to preserve ancient Danitetraditions.

Chapter 4

DIVINATION IN THE DANITE STORY

We now have a clearer idea of the position of the priests of the shrine of Dan,and must next turn our attention to the sole function of the priest in our text:divination.

For the purposes of this discussion, "divination" means any mechanical formof obtaining an oracle. In such cases the initiative is on the part of the worship-per—this is in opposition to techniques such as prophecy where the divine inputis clearer. This is not to say that the worshipper may not have asked for someprophetic oracles, simply that the means of obtaining the answer differed.Methods of divination thus include the taking of lots, throwing of dice, theexamination of animal entrails, and so on. Dream oracles and oracles of thesumma alu type where natural phenomena or paranormal occurrences areinterpreted as omens,1 fall outside the parameters of this chapter.

The Hebrew words for "divination" are most often used in passages where itspractice is condemned, and are rarely found in unambiguously positive or neutralpassages. They are often rather obscure in meaning. Whereas Deuteronomy andthe Deuteronomistic editors regard such practices as "foreign," Cryer cites thefact that the terms are not used in the ancient inscriptional material of"neighbouring" languages, and comes to the conclusion that the practices wereindigenous to the Hebrews.2 However, the likelihood of finding a word like"necromancy" on an inscription is remote since such technical words are nor-mally to be found in later phases of the languages. This evidence Cryer disre-gards since he wishes to concentrate on the earlier period.3 Perhaps it should benoted that the Danite legend, like other Hebrew accounts, does not contain anyterm for "divination"—it simply describes what happened.

1. Divination in the Danite Story

The Danite Story itself is not overtly clear about the method used by the priest toobtain the oracle for the Danites. The account in 18:5-6 simply says, "And theysaid to him, 'Enquire of God please, so that we might know, will the course we

1. For the summa alu oracles, see Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel, 161-67; Oppenheim,Ancient Mesopotamia, 219-21; Saggs, Encounter with theDivine, 132—35.

2. Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel, 256-62.3. Ibid., 256.

112 Sacred Dan

are pursuing be successful?" And the priest said to them, 'Go in peace: the courseyou are pursuing is pleasing to Yahweh.'"4 It is evidently assumed that theaudience will be familiar with the technique used to take the oracle, so that in thistersest of narratives only the words used need be recorded. The narrator has,nevertheless, told us in advance what the oracular devices were. In 17:5 he hasbeen at pains to list the various cultic objects which were necessary for theshrine: the bull image, the ephod and the teraphim. As this is the case, it is onlynatural to assume that the ephod at least was used to take this oracle, if not theteraphim as well.5

2. Ephods as Divinatory Devices

Much has been written about the ephod, but I shall begin here with a clearsummary of the evidence from the Hebrew Bible itself. There are several differ-ent types of ephod, all of them associated in some way with the sanctuary, somespecifically with divination.

a. The High-Priestly EphodThis type is found exclusively in the Torah, and all references there are to thistype. It formed part of the high-priestly regalia. However, despite the detail givenin, for example, Exod 28, no very clear picture emerges of its appearance, or ofits significance. This may best be explained by the fact that everybody knewwhat the high priest's ephod was, so there was no need to describe it accurately.Exodus 28:30 mentions that the oracular Urim and Thummim were placed in apocket of the ephod. But by the time of the Priestly writer, responsible for thispart of Exodus, all priestly oracular functions had disappeared (cf. Ezra 2:63).The Tractate Sotah 48b of the Babylonian Talmud also has a reference to theUrim and Thummim, saying that their use stopped "when the first prophets died,"namely, David, Samuel and Solomon. Josephus describes the ephod at lengthin Ant. 3.162-230, but attributes the oracular function, not to the Urim andThummim, but to the precious stones which covered the breast-plate (Ant. 3.215-30). He does not say how he thought they might have been used.

A great deal of the discussion of the ephod has centred on the function andsignificance of the robe of the high priest. Meyers points out that the type ofmaterial from which the ephod was made was associated in the ancient Near Eastwith either divinities or high officials.6 Oppenheim sees a parallel with Assyrianculture where the ritual clothing of the gods, which had been an important part inearlier Mesopotamian religion, was taken over and used as part of the regalia ofthe human sovereign at the same time. These ritual robes were often made ofgold, but even if, as is the case with the Israelite high priest, they were not made

4. For this meaning of I"Q3, see BOB, 647, "under his eye and favourable regard." In this contextit must mean something favourable, even though it sometimes has a more sinister meaning.

5. Cf. also Soggin, Judges, 272.6. C. Meyers, "Ephod," ABD 2:550.

4. Divination in the Danite Story 113

entirely of gold, some was woven into the fabric.7 This, however, must remainsolely an analogy, since the Akkadian epattu* is not found to describe the robesin these Assyrian texts, which prefer the more general nalbasu. Cryer suggeststhat these ritual robes which would have remained empty might have representedthe deity at consultations (in this case extispicy).9 He goes on to suggest that thegold rosettes found at Megiddo, mentioned by Oppenheim,10 may have beensewn on to such an ephod." But in general, as far as the high-priestly ephod isconcerned, divination was linked with it only in the most formal of ways.

b. The Linen EphodSome of the texts of the Former Prophets mention another type of ephod. This isalso a priestly vestment, but, unlike the high-priestly robe, it is simple and madesolely of linen. The boy Samuel is depicted wearing one when he serves at theshrine of Shiloh in 1 Sam 2:18. It seems to have been something which was wornaround the waist, probably a loin-cloth. The term is contained in what appearsto be a technical phrase: 13 115N "lian 1U3, "young noble girded with a linenephod." This phrase has a deeper significance than at first appears. McCarter com-ments that the word 13 is used only of angelic or priestly vestments.12 Tidwelldescribes the ephod as the sole vestment of a priest of any age who was servingat the altar.13 Linen was the traditional fabric for priestly robes in various ancientNear Eastern cultures. In the Sumerian Lamentation over the Destruction ofUrfrom the Third Dynasty of Ur, the cultic officials are upbraided for not wearinglinen.14 In Enki and the World Order, the incantation priests are called "linenwearers."15

Second Samuel 6:14 describes the use of a linen ephod by the non-priestDavid (unless, that is, one regards David as priest-king like Melchizedek; cf. Ps110:4). Cryer tentatively connects the ephod David is depicted as wearing herewith his ideas about the similarity between the ephod and the Assyrian nalbasu,saying that this might be an example of the wearing of such a royal robe by anIsraelite.16 He ignores the word 13, "linen," and misses the point of the story.This suggestion can thus be safely discounted. In v. 20, we are given an indica-tion of how much of the priest the linen ephod was expected to cover. Presuma-bly, as a vestment, the more dignified movements of the priest would not makethis a problem; David's whirling dance is, however, another matter.

7. Cf. A. L. Oppenheim, "The Golden Garments of the Gods," JNES 8 (1949): 172-93 (172,176).

8. See below, pp. 117-18.9. Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel, 280. Cf. also J. S. Bray, Review of Cryer, Divination in

Ancient Israel and its Near Eastern Environment, FT 46 (1996): 566-67.10. Oppenheim, "The Golden Garments of the Gods," 188.11. Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel, 281.12. McCarter, / Samuel, 237.13. N. L. Tidwell, "The Linen Ephod," FT24 (1974): 505-7 (507).14. Kramer, The Sumerians, 143.15. Ibid., 177.16. Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel, 281.

114 Sacred Dan

c. The Oracular Priestly EphodSecond Samuel 2:28 is the first clear example of another type of ephod. In thisoracle directed against the house of Eli the word refers to something other than alinen loin-cloth like that of Samuel. We are told that one of the priest's functionswas to carry an ephod before Yahweh. The NRSV obscures this point by incor-rectly translating "to wear an ephod." NEQ is never used to mean "to wear." Itmeans rather "to lift," "to carry," or even "to take": its semantic range is not thesame as the French porter or the German tragen.17 Whereas the linen ephod wasnot the exclusive property of the most important priest, this seems to be the casehere. Here "PSN probably means a portable oracle small enough to be carried byone person. It should be noted that the Versions recognize that N2JD means "tobear." LXX here translating with cupeii/, "to lift," and transliterating the wordT1SN as it does also in 1 Sam 14.

The ephod as a portable oracle can be seen in 1 Sam 14:3. Here it is carriedinto battle by Ahijah, and that is the last we hear of it in the MT. However, in theLXX it re-appears twice at v. 18, where the MT mentions the ark. The firstoccurrence is common to all manuscripts. In the second it is replaced by the arkin Hebrew Manuscripts A dp q t and 74. McCarter18 and others accept the LXXhere, and it is certainly the most obvious reading. The ephod has been carriedinto the field by Ahijah, but in the MT he is asked to bring the ark which has notbeen mentioned at all and, in the context of the book, is in Qiryath Yearim (7:1).Admittedly, the MT has the lectio difficilior, but the sense of the LXX is muchbetter, and is, therefore, preferable, especially since this would be the sole refer-ence in the Hebrew Bible to the ark as an oracular device. If this emendation isaccepted, we have a hint at the use of the ephod: it is a receptacle for the sacredlots into which the priest puts his hand to draw out whichever his hand wasdirected to first. This is seen in practice in v. 41, where a choice between theleaders and the people is indicated by either Urim or Thummim.

Arnold disputes this. For him, there was more than one ark, not just the onementioned in the Ark Narrative.19 He sees this text as evidence for its use: it wasa box that was used for divination. He states that T1SN in fact refers exclusivelyto a garment, and is thus not appropriate in this context.20 In the majority of casesthe embarrassing "ark" was, according to this view, replaced by the word"ephod" since it was a central tenet of Deuteronomistic theology that there wasonly one ark. Arnold carefully goes through all the texts which mention the ark toprove that there were many of them. Unfortunately, he was too quick to regardanything inconvenient as a later gloss. For example, in his treatment of 2 Sam 6,which he regards as a test case, all verses which mention miT jTlK are excisedfor no good reason,21 and thus the case is not proven. Even the reference to the

17. S. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel (2d ed.;Oxford, 1913), 37: " 'to bear,—not, to wear,—the ephod before me.' So always."

18. McCarter, / Samuel, 237.19. Arnold, Ephod and Ark, 23.20. Ibid., 16.21. Ibid., 41-42.

4. Divination in the Danite Story 115

ephod in the Danite story is interpreted as referring to an ark;22 but surely theredactors would not have altered a text which contained a reference to aheterodox ark(!), and replaced it with a reference to a relatively harmless ephod.

Davies also disagrees with this emendation of 1 Sam 14:3, arguing that it isthe MT which is more likely and the LXX which is difficult to explain(!).23 Hesuggests rather that the ark has been replaced by the ephod, since the latterappears as soon as the ark leaves the story, and the two are only found in con-junction in this story. The similarities between the two which make him suspi-cious are that they are both in the possession of the priesthood of Shiloh, thatthey are both carried and that they are both used in battle: "There is nothingabout the ephod which would be out of place applied to the ark."24 The ark,nevertheless, is never used as a divinatory device, neither was it carried in thehand like the ephod (1 Sam 23:6).

Further references to "ephod" in 1 Samuel may be to this portable oracle.21:10 mentions an ephod (thus 4QSamb and possibly LXX) or the ephod (MT)behind which Goliath's sword had been placed at the shrine of Nob. Here a solidobject would be more appropriate to the context than a garment. In 22:18 wehave an occurrence of 1311SK NKE which appears to contradict what I have saidabove. The Versions, however, help to clarify the picture, "Q is missing in LXX(except Origen, A c x), and Old Latin manuscripts 93 and 94. It appears that thephrase in the MT has been assimilated to the usage in other places, and the bestsolution seems to be a deletion of ~Q from the MT. S. R. Driver is one of the fewcommentators who also makes this emendation.25 The difficulty is most notice-able with Origen whose insertion of "linen" forces him to translate the MTliterally as "those who lifted linen ephods"! My emendation is strongly supportedby the fact that in 23:6 Abiathar escapes from the carnage carrying an ephod inhis hand. This is promptly used to give an oracle (v. 9), as is also the case in 30:7.

Of the ephods we have discussed, it is this oracular ephod which seems to bethe one we find in the Danite story. However, Gideon's ephod in Judg 8 mustalso be taken into account before a final decision can be made.

d. Gideon's EphodIn Judg 8:27, Gideon, having defeated the Midianites, makes an ephod from theirgolden earrings. This he sets up in Ophrah. The narrative of Judg 8:24-35 is,nevertheless, not as straightforward as a preliminary reading might suggest.Earrings (D^QT]) are also mentioned in the story of Jacob's burying of culticobjects in Gen 35:4: "And they gave to Jacob all the foreign gods which were intheir hand, and the earrings which were in their ears, and Jacob buried themunder the terebinth which is near Shechem." This already implies that the ear-rings were cultic objects in their own right. Furthermore, Hallo has pointed outthat earrings were typical of cultic statues from neo-Sumerian times, and that an

22. Ibid., 105.23. Davies, "Ark or Ephod in I Sam. XIV. 18?," 82.24. Ibid., 86.25. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text, 182.

116 Sacred Dan

earring has been found with an inscription dedicating it to a goddess from thesame period.26

Whether the narrator of this story knew about the cultic significance of theearrings is uncertain, but it is possible that the editor's negative redaction isdirected not against the ephod per se, but at what it was made of. Such pagancultic objects were regarded as inappropriate even when melted down and incor-porated into Hebrew cultic paraphernalia. This also appears to be the implicationbehind Exod 32:2,3, where earrings go to make the golden calf—thus the imageis even more execrable. Genesis 35:4 and Exod 32:2, 3 are all traditionallyregarded as coming from the Northern Elohistic source, and Gideon too is aNortherner. Possibly the culturally more cosmopolitan Northerners knew thatearrings could be regarded as cultic objects, whereas no negative implication isever attached to them in Southern writings.

If we return to Judg 8, the narrative is not clear about exactly what the Israel-ites were worshipping: Was it the ephod (v. 27), or was it "the Baals" (v. 33)?Certain features of the ephod of Gideon, however, become clear from thisnarrative. It was made from gold and was quite heavy, Moore suggests aboutseventy pounds.27 It was a cultic object, and may have been an object of worship,although this is not clear from the text: the Deuteronomistic editor would nothave felt kindly disposed to this shrine, and an attack on its central cultic objectwould almost certainly be in order. Haran lists the ephod among the standardfixtures of a temple, making the distinction between the ephod and the ephodrobe.28 Soggin is exceptionally non-committal.29 Davies hypothesizes yet anothertype of ephod, of which he says, "It was not a garment, as its constituent materi-als show."30 He suggests that this was the type mentioned in the Danite legend.31

This is possible, although it would seem much more logical to link both theseobjects with the priestly oracular ephod of Samuel, even if, given its weight, itmight not seem quite as portable as other examples.

From this discussion, it would appear that we have three basic types ofephod—the linen ephod and the priestly oracular ephod in the pre-exilic texts,and the high-priestly ephod in the later texts. It is possible that there may havebeen a development from one to another. This may account for the differenttypes, at least in part. De Vaux suggests that the high priest's ephod was a laterand more elaborate form of the linen ephod.32 If this is correct, it might be thecase that the breast-plate of his ephod was a stylized survival of the older divina-tory ephod. If Ezra 2:63 is taken into account, we may infer that the later highpriests had forgotten how to obtain oracles using the sacred lots, or at least had

26. W. W. Hallo, "Cult Statue and Divine Image," in Scripture in Context II(ed. W. W. Hallo,J. C. Moyer and L. G. Perdue; Winona Lake, Ind., 1983), 1-17 (16-17).

27. Moore, A Critical andExegetical Commentary on Judges, 232.28. Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel, 371.29. Soggin, Judges, 159-60.30. Davies, "Ark or Ephod in I Sam. XIV. 18?," 84.31. Ibid., 84.32. De Vaux, Ancient Israel, 350.

4. Divination in the Danite Story 117

ceased to use them. From there it is an easy step to the jewel-encrusted breast-plate, which instead of being carried in the hand in front of the priest, hadbecome fixed to the robe worn underneath.

It is possible that the word T1SN originally meant "covering," since in Isa30:22 the feminine form mSN* is used in parallel to "IDiJ, which means "metalplating."33 This word might easily refer to both a simple covering for the priest—the "linen ephod"—and a covering or case for the oracular devices, which isalways (if my emendation of 1 Sam 22:18 is correct) called simply "the ephod."In the pre-exilic period there was, therefore, no confusion between them sincedifferent terminology was used for each. Confusion probably arose only after thereforms of Josiah and the Exile when simple country priests had ceased to exist,and the only ones who were left were the priests of the royal sanctuary. Theremay therefore have been an assimilation between the linen ephod and the oracu-lar ephod, both of which went into making the robes of the quasi-royal, post-exilic high priest.

e. The Ephod in the Ancient Near EastThere is a little evidence for the ephod in other ancient Near Eastern cultures, butit is not certain how much can be validly deduced from this. Albright claimed tohave found the word in the Ugaritic mythological texts at KTU1.5.1.5, where hethought there was a reference to the ephod of the goddess Anat: ttkh ttrp smm krs'ipdk, which he translated, "The heavens will tear away and will sag like thefastening of your ephod."34 Most modern scholars, however, prefer to take 'ipdkas a verb with a pronominal suffix, thus, "I will crush you in pieces," or, "I willtear thee into pieces."35

In another work, Albright finds further evidence in the Ugaritic material forhis translation, where he renders, "a woman's robe of hy[r]ax skin, an ephod,"which he explains as an outer garment somewhat like a sari wound around thebody leaving one arm free.36 Examination of the text (KTU4.215 = PRUll. 152),however, shows that little can deduced from it. It is described by Virolleaud as,"fragment of the inventory of a house or a residence: furniture and variousobjects" ("Fragment d'inventoire d'une maison ou d'un domaine: meubles etobjets divers..."). The word which precedes the object in question is theunknown mdtbn, the word after is destroyed, and the next clear word is mskbt,"bed." Thus, while the word may have been known in Ugarit, it sheds no light onthe Hebrew usage, unless, of course, it refers to a cover for a bed.

In Akkadian a word epattu is attested, and, since this means a costly garment,this may well be cognate with the Hebrew. Classical Syriac has a word pdyt',

33. BOB, 65-66; cf. also Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel, 281.34. W. F. Albright, "Are the Ephod and the Teraphim Mentioned in Ugaritic Literature?,"

BASOR 83 (1941): 38-42 (40).35. For example, CML, 68; J. A. Emerton, "A Difficult Part of Mot's Message to Baal in the

Ugaritic Texts (CTA 5.1.4-6)," AJBA 1 (1972): 50-71.36. W. F. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan (Jordan Lectures 1965; (London, 1968),

175.

118 Sacred Dan

which may be related, but we can make little of it, since it is mainly used totranslate the Hebrew T1SN, or the vestment of the Christian priest, akin to thechasuble of the Western Church. (There is very little Syriac material from beforethe conversion of Edessa to Christianity.) None of these has any discernibleconnection with divination, and may be safely ignored.

From this discussion, it is probable that the ephod mentioned in our text is theoracular priestly ephod which is also found in the books of Samuel. They wereapparently common in sanctuaries in the earlier pre-exilic period, and were usedfor giving oracles, possibly even as containers for the sacred lots especially if itstrue etymology is as a word for "cover." Their official use, in the Southern King-dom at least, appears to have died out at an early stage, and even in the North,where they were used as late as the time of Hosea (3:4), they may have beenreplaced in most cases by the prophetic oracle (cf. 1 Kgs 22). As with manyancient cultic objects, the use of oracular ephods may have declined as a result ofthe forces which shaped the Deuteronomistic reforms, forces which regardedalmost all cultic objects with a high degree of suspicion.

3. The Teraphim

Whereas it is almost certain that the ephod was used as a divinatory device in theDanite story, the role of the teraphim with which they are always mentioned inthe narrative is not nearly as clear.

Scholars have suggested a parallel between them and a custom from Nuzi,where the possession of the gods constituted "the title to the chief inheritanceportion and leadership of the family."37 This parallels the story of Rachel in Gen31, where she steals her father's teraphim, thus apparently securing the rights ofleadership for Jacob: at Nuzi, an adopted son could only inherit if the father hadno other sons. If he had sons, as in the case of Laban, the adopted son (Jacob)had to relinquish his rights to the chief-hood of the family. Greenberg, has, how-ever, suggested that the use of the Nuzi evidence may not be quite so straight-forward: it is not so much the possess ion of the teraphim which gave the son theright to be leader, but the fact that they had been given to him, and this is clearlynot the case with Jacob.38 Spanier has used the Nuzi parallels to show that thestory relates a symbolic beginning of the supremacy of the Rachel tribes over theLeah tribes.39 This fits in with Schunck who sees them as being mainly connectedwith the tribe of Benjamin: Rachel is the mother of Benjamin, Michal thedaughter of the Benjaminite Saul and Micah lives in the hill country of Ephraim

37. C. H. Gordon, "The Story of Jacob and Laban in the Light of the Nuzi Tablets," BASOR 66(1937): 25-27 (26); E. A. Speiser, Genesis (AB 1; Garden City, N.Y., 1964), 250. See K. Deller, "DieHausgb'tter der Familie Sukrija S. Huja," in Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and theHurrians in Honor of Ernest R. Lacheman (ed. M. A. Morrison and D. I. Owen; Winona Lake, Ind.,1981), 47-76, for the Akkadian texts from Nuzi.

38. M. Greenberg, "Another Look at Rachel's Theft of the Teraphim," JBL 81 (1962): 237^8(244).

39. K. Spanier, "Rachel's Theft of the Teraphim: Her Struggle for Family Supremacy," F742(1992): 404-12 (410).

4. Divination in the Danite Story 119

near the border with Benjamin. Schunck says that even Hosea may have been aBenjaminite, and that he was at least connected with the Rachel tribes.40 Schunckhas, of course, very little evidence for this.

Several suggestions have been made about the etymology of the word D"H5n.There may be a link with the 82"! root and its cognate D^S~l, "shades or ghosts,"and a connection with NS~l, "to heal," is accepted by Smith41 and Ackroyd.42

Other options include a link with "IflS, "to interpret," suggested by Labuschagne,who thought they were interpreters of dreams, becoming DHSH by deliberatemetathesis, since they were considered dangerous if mentioned by name.43 Thisseems unlikely. Hoffner has suggested a connection with the Hittite tarpis, mean-ing a spirit which is, on occasion, either protective or malevolent.44 This wordbecame DHSn, by losing its case ending (*tarpi), becoming a Semitic nomina-tive (*tarpu) and thus the Hebrew *terep, whose regular plural is the form withwhich we are familiar. This etymology is certainly plausible, and may well becorrect. Even if, for once, a correct etymology for an unusual word has beenfound, ironically, it adds little to our understanding of the Hebrew word in theBible, and tells us nothing about their use in divination.

Two ancient explanations are worth mentioning. The Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezardescribes the making of teraphim: "They slay a man, a first-born, and he is red(in colour)... And they pinch off his head, and salt it with salt, and they writeupon a golden plate the name of an unclean (spirit), and place it under his tongue,and they put it in the wall, and they kindle lamps before it, and bow down to it,and it speaks unto them."45 This somewhat fanciful view at least takes the con-nection with divination seriously. Greenberg, on the other hand, compares withGen 31 a story in Josephus (Ant. 18.9.5), where a Parthian woman took theancestral images of her gods into exile with her. Greenberg goes on to say thatthey were Laban's most treasured possessions which he might well have repro-duced for her, had she and her family not left in flight. He regards them as hearthgods which were associated with child-birth.46

The evidence of the Hebrew Bible is too disparate to be categorized, so wewill deal with it in canonical order.

a. Genesis 31The first occurrence of the teraphim is in Gen 31. Several things emerge fromthis narrative. Firstly, they are valued highly. Laban thinks it is worth pursuingJacob and his family for a week, from Haran to Gilead, to recover them. When he

40. K. D. Schunck, Benjamin (BZAW 86; Berlin, 1963), 11.41. S. Smith, "What Were the Teraphim?," JTS 33 (1932): 33-36 (36).42. P. R. Ackroyd, "The Teraphim," ExpTim 62 (1950-51): 378-80 (378).43. C. J. Labuschagne, "Teraphim: A Proposal for Its Etymology," VT 16 (1966): 115-17

(116-17).44. H. A. Hoffner, "Hittite Tarpis and Hebrew Teraphim," JNES 28 (1968): 61-68 (66-67).45. G. Friedlander, Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezar (London, 1916), 273-74. There is a possible parallel

between this account and the creation of man mAtrahasis where a god is slain, but his heart(?) is stillheard to beat (1.208-15, etc.).

46. Greenberg, "Another Look at Rachel's Theft of the Teraphim," 246-47.

120 Sacred Dan

arrives, Jacob knows their great significance: he pronounces the death penalty onanyone found with them. Laban and Jacob both refer to them as gods (vv. 30,32). Further, they are not exclusively Hebrew objects, as they are brought fromNorthern Mesopotamia.

The passage is difficult, and there is no reason given for the theft. Westermannsuggests that Laban has been unjust to Rachel, and she retaliates by stealing theobjects which she knows he values most. He compares the teraphim to thePenates which Aeneas takes with him from Troy in the Iliad (he probably meansAeneid), noting that, "the household gods confer protection and blessing."47 Vander Toorn, however, puts a different slant on the text, and on the word in general.He says that, when Laban calls them his "gods," he is using DTT^N in the sameway that it is used in 1 Sam 28:13, where it appears to mean "spirit."48 He sug-gests they were figures of ancestors used in soothsaying to convey messages, andcompares the role of saints in modern Catholicism.49 They were found in Micah'ssanctuary, and thus, according to this view, were not deities, but were used forobtaining oracles. They may have been kept in a receptacle, possibly the ephod.50

Another interpretation is that of Ackroyd, who sees them as figures of a mothergoddess who was imported by Rachel.51 This may, indeed, be borne out byarchaeological finds in Palestine, where mainly female figurines have beendiscovered. It should, however, be noted that the form of the noun is masculine.

It is perhaps worth noting, in view of Westermann's comments, that nowherein the Vulgate is the word D'HSH translated by the Latinpenates. This is interest-ing, since many scholars have attempted to draw a parallel between the Romanand the Hebrew phenomena. Presumably, had this occurred to the Latin transla-tors, one would have expected this connection to have been made in the text,unless, of course, there are specific reasons for avoiding such a translation. Thus,Jerome may have been aware that to translate a Hebrew term by a Latin one thatwas redolent of a pagan past may not have been entirely acceptable. Alternatively,the Latin translators may have been aware of some parallel, but the similaritywas not precise enough; or, most likely, the Latin translators were in the darkconcerning the nature of the teraphim.

In contrast with Gen 31, in the Danite story they are not inherited, but made(17:5). Does this imply that anyone could make teraphim at any time, or werethey "made" in the same way as the Mesopotamian image? Because of the Danitestory, and the fact that Rachel, as a woman, could not be admitted into ancestorworship(?), Smith argues that they are not to be understood as ancestral figures,since the men of Dan would not have needed them if they were.52 Nevertheless,if they were used for divination, the Danites may not have cared about their

47. Westermann, Genesis 12-36, 493.48. K. van der Toorn, "The Nature of the Biblical Teraphim in the Light of Cuneiform Evi-

dence," CBQ 52 (1990): 203-22 (210-11).49. Ibid., 215-16.50. Ibid., 213.51. Ackroyd, "The Teraphim," 379.52. Smith, "What Were the Teraphim?," 34.

4. Divination in the Danite Story 121

provenance, simply about their function. Also, the fact that they were of value ishinted at in 18:14, where the Danites think it is worth stealing them in the firstplace. Comparison with Gen 31 suggests that when, in 18:24, Micah refers to his"gods," he is referring to the teraphim. However, the context is too ambiguous tosay for certain, and also the sheer importance attached to the ^DS would suggestthat that is the object of which Micah speaks.

b. 1 Samuel 15:23This passage is reminiscent of the eighth-century Judahite prophets, and is alsoout of context. Sacrifice (v. 22) is not an issue in this time, only becoming centralin the work of Isaiah (cf. Isa 1:12 for the rejection of sacrifice, and Mic 6:8).Divination is not an important issue even in the time of Micah, where in 3:7, 11the diviners are attacked solely for being venal. The mention of the teraphim heredoes not clarify their function, although one might not like to go quite as far asMcCarter who says that the word is "here used as a generalized term for idols asin 2 Kgs 23:24."53 Here, the Peshitta translates with qsm', which means "divina-tion." It is possible that the Syriac translators here had some idea of the use andfunction of the teraphim.

c. / Samuel 19First Samuel 19 contains the famous story about the teraphim in the bed of David(vv. 12-16). Surprisingly, this tells us very little that is concrete about them,except that Michal had them in her house. We cannot deduce anything about theteraphim's size: it(?) may have been large, or it may have been small, in whichcase a large amount of goat's hair matting may have been placed in the bed toform the shape of the body. It may have been anthropomorphic, or perhaps not.The point of the story is not to tell us what the teraphim was, but that there wassomething in the bed which made it look occupied by the sick David, thus givinghim enough time to escape out of the window, and that whatever that "some-thing" was, it was the first thing that came to hand. That the teraphim was next tothe bed so that the man in it came under their healing protection (and thus theconnection with the KS~1 root54), seems excessively subtle, and does not takeaccount of any of the other evidence we have. Neither would the idea that theywere gods (masculine!) of child-birth, among other things, explain why theywere found in temples.

In this story, the LXX translates DHSH as TCC Kevora^ia55 which means "emptytomb." This seems to presuppose some sort of cult of the dead, common at timesin Israel's history,56 but unusual at this date. Are we to envisage a portable shrinefor the ancestral spirits? This translation, unfortunately, seems to raise morequestions than it solves.

53. McCarter, I Samuel, 268.54. Ackroyd, "The Teraphim," 378.55. Aquila reads Mop<j>co|jo<TO( at 19:13 and ou TTPOTOMOU ("upper part, or bust") at 19:16, and

Symmachus e'iScoAa in both passages. Theodotion simply transliterates the Hebrew.56. Cf. Bray, "Genesis 23," and bibliography there.

122 Sacred Dan

d. 2 Kings 23:24The next reference tells us that the teraphim were put away as abominations dur-ing Josiah's reforms. Nevertheless, there is no specific legislation against them inthe Torah.

e. Ezekiel 21:36This reference is more promising, since here the divination aspect is to the fore,as the teraphim are mentioned with lot-oracles and arrows, as well as extispicy,as means used by the king of Babylon for making a decision about his futurecourse. Zimmerli suggests that the teraphim may have been of Aramean origin,and were used in secular Israel as a method of divination.57 In the light of theDanite legend, we might like to question Zimmerli's emphasis on the secularaspect. Ezekiel does not tell us how they were used. The sole connection whichlinks all the objects is that they are methods of divination.

f. Ho sea 3:4Hosea mentions the teraphim in 3:4 in connection with the ephod as if theynormally went together. This is also the case in the Danite story. The gist of whatHosea says is clear—these are things the Ephraimites are going to have to dowithout—but his attitude to all the things mentioned is disputed. All we canglean from this passage is that these objects were used frequently. Wolff seemsto find a theological explanation, "Thus Yahweh will withdraw himself fromIsrael, together with every means of approaching him that had become an idol."He suggests that the teraphim were "divine images or face masks."58

The Versional evidence for this verse is interesting. The LXX translatorappears to re-interpret the original, with his use of the word SrjAcov, the word alsoused to translate "Urim," or the sacred lots in general in Num 27:21; Deut 33:8;1 Sam 14:41; 28:6, and Sir 45:10. It is possible that the translator was guessing,or he may have known of some connection between the teraphim and the Urimand Thummim of which we are not now aware. Such a connection may well bepresupposed by Hosea, and by the Danite writer in Judges. The Targum makesno such link, but has preserved the idea that these were divinatory devices in itsuse of'inQ, "(idolatrous) oracles." The Peshitta, which does not translate Cnsnhere, has misunderstood the passage, translating dl' Ibs 'p\vd\ "which is notclothed with an ephod." The Vulgate resorts to transliteration.

g. Zechariah 10:2Finally, the word DHSPl is found in Zech 10:2 in a passage that is evidently froma late period. The writer seems to be contrasting the lying teraphim with thegracious God of Israel. Here again there is a link with divination, but this timethe term is not found in tandem with the ephod, which by this time had becomeone of the high priest's sacred vestments. Another possibility is that the prophet

57. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 444.58. H. W. Wolff, Hosea (Hermeneia; Philadelphia, 1974), 62.

4. Divination in the Danite Story 123

is seeing Yahweh using the teraphim to his own ends, rather like he does with thefalse prophets in 1 Kgs 22:6, 12, 22-23. These have indeed been inspired by thedeity, but they do not speak the truth. Of the passage in Zechariah, Rudolphlamely comments that the people are turning to foreign gods, and not to the litur-gically correct Urim and Thummim which Yahweh has sanctioned,59 and which,one might add, were not used any more after the Exile (cf. Ezra 2:63). The LXXtranslates aTTo<J)0EyY6|jevoi, which means something akin to "soothsayer," andwhich, once more, highlights the background of divination. The Peshitta has asimilar translation to the Greek: ydw", "soothsayers." This might be explainedby reference to the fact that the Peshitta is, to some extent, dependent on theLXX.60

It seems difficult to draw any firm conclusions about the nature and function ofteraphim from the evidence of the Hebrew Bible. Parallels with other ancientNear Eastern cultures, such as they are, are, at best, vaguely interesting ratherthan enlightening. Perhaps the only things we can say about them are that theymay possibly have been of Aramean origin, although this is very uncertain; theywere probably relatively small; they were of considerable value, whether inthemselves or in what they represented; they were referred to as "gods," orpossibly "spirits"; and they were used in divination, mainly, it appears, in adomestic setting, but sometimes in the sanctuary. Historically, they disappeargradually in pre-exilic times, but were still known, to a certain extent, in theSouth after the Exile. Like many of the older features of Yahwism, they becameoutlawed at the time of Josiah's reforms along with sacred pillars, high-placesand sanctuaries other than Jerusalem. The fact that they were not condemned bythe Torah would suggest that they were either not considered worth mentioning,or were regarded as semi-legitimate, or they had become wholly legitimate in adifferent guise. It is possible that their association with the ephod caused them tobe associated with the Urim and Thummim, the sacred lots, if they were everproperly distinct. This must, however, remain hypothetical. As to the questionsraised by the Danite story, the answers must remain open. The balance of opiniondoes, however, favour the idea that the teraphim were used in divination, andthat, from that point of view, they were an integral part of the sanctuary furniture,and thus worthy of attention from the Danites.

4. The Shrine of Dan as an Oracular Centre

The reason the Danites approach the shrine of Micah is because they recognizethe voice of the priest. It is possible that for this reason they assumed that theshrine was an oracular centre, and that they went there because they wanted adivine oracle concerning their mission.

It appears that Israelite shrines in general could be regarded as oracular centresin ancient times. This is also the case with the sanctuaries of many other ancient

59. W. Rudolph, Haggai, Sacharja 1-8, Sacharja 9-14, Maleachi (KAT; Giitersloh, 1976), 191.60. A. Gelston, The Peshitta of the Twelve Prophets (Oxford, 1987), 162-66.

124 Sacred Dan

Near Eastern cultures, although in the vast majority of cases this is assumed bythe texts rather than stated explicitly.

As far as the shrine of Dan is concerned there is evidence for the assumptionthat this was, at least in part, a major oracular centre:

(1) The Dan legend itself presupposes this. While it is true that in the narrativethe most important cultic object is the ^DS, over whose making the tradents spentmuch time, the oracular ephod and teraphim are mentioned no less than fivetimes directly, once obliquely with the *7D5J as HITO TOU ~\&* PN (18:27), and arepresumably used in the oracle-taking. Thus one of the major concerns of thecultic legend is to account for the origins of the oracular devices as well as thecultic image and the Mosaic priesthood of Dan.

(2) Dan is mentioned in the LXX text of 2 Sam 20:18 with Abel beth Maacahas a celebrated oracular centre, "true to its hereditary character and nationality."61

Significantly, Field notes that Origen too read KOU EV Aav, preferring the tradi-tional LXX reading to the MT which does not mention Dan at all.62 The LXX read-ing is accepted by Driver albeit cautiously,63 and wholeheartedly by McCarter.64

A characteristic defence of the MT has been made by Barthelemy, arguing fromthe lectio difficilior principle.65 Of the mention of Dan, he remarks, "In v. 18 it isuseless to introduce Dan which is not an issue in this episode."66 He thinks it is amistake for the pi of the MT.67 While it is true that both places are mentionedtogether in 1 Kgs 15:20, this is not sufficient reason for the mistake here. On theother hand, McCarter points out various problems with the MT which make thelikelihood of the LXX having preserved the original reading a good dealstronger.68 This, combined with the fact that Origen, usually so careful to followthe MT, supports the LXX, suggests that the emendation is correct. Unfortunately,there is no extant reading from Qumran for this passage.

Thus we have evidence that Dan was regarded with some degree of esteem. Itis highly possible that in the seemingly irrelevant reference to Dan, the woman ofAbel beth Maacah may have been attempting to put her town on the same footingas the nearby great shrine, making the case for the preservation of her own citystronger: to destroy Abel would be like destroying Dan. Even if this is not theexplanation, we may discern from this story that Dan had a high reputation forpreserving old Israelite traditions. In this we may see the origins of the MTreading of this verse. We know that there was a shrine at Dan down to Romantimes. Because of this there appears to have been continuing polemic against theshrine and also against its traditions. For example, the suspended nun in the name

61. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text, 347.62. Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, 1:578.63. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text, 347.64. McCarter, IISamuel, 428-29.65. D. Barthelemy, "La qualite du Texte Massoretique de Samuel," in The Hebrew and Greek

Texts of Samuel (ed.E.Tov; Jerusalem, 1980), 1^44 (3). Cf. also Bartusch, Understanding Dan,2Q3.66. Barthelemy, "La qualite du Texte Massoretique de Samuel," 32: "Au vs 18, en effet, inutile

de faire intervenir Dan qui n'est pas en jeu dans cet episode" (my translation above).67. Ibid., 31.68. McCarter, II Samuel, 429.

4. Divination in the Danite Story 125

Moses in Judg 18:30 most probably comes from a time after the text had startedto become inviolate, otherwise it would just have been inserted. Thus it ispossible that the Hebrew was tampered with some time after the translation of theLXX and that, on the evidence of Origen, some manuscripts of the MT may havepreserved what we would regard as the original version. This appears to besufficient explanation for the text of both the MT and the LXX as we have them.Thus the words in question may have disappeared from the Hebrew for polemicreasons.

(3) The excavations of Biran at Tel Dan provide us with little informationabout the cultic life of Dan. The only find in the sanctuary area from the Hebrewperiod which may have something to do with divination is a die whose number-ing and appearance is surprisingly modern.69 Equally possibly, it was used forgambling. Dramatic evidence of the use of the shrine comes from a plaque fromthe first half of the second century BCE whose inscription reads: "To the god whois in Dan, vowed Zoilos a vow. Vowed Zilos to the god," where the first part isGreek, the second Aramaic.70 This, however, tells us nothing about divination,although it does prove the continuation of the name Dan and its name-less god,possibly Yahweh, whose name was not spoken at this time. The shrine continuedin use down to the end of the fourth century CE,71 but it is impossible to tellwhether divination was still practised there at this time.

The evidence we have reviewed seems to point to the fact that the Danitetribal sanctuary was an important oracular centre for much of its history. This fitsin with what we know of other shrines especially from 1 Samuel. At Shiloh, thepriesthood was known to carry the ephod (1 Sam 2:28). The anonymous seer ofch. 9, later identified with Samuel himself, is associated with a shrine. At theshrine of Nob there is an ephod 21:10, and it is there that David consults theoracle 22:9-10. We have seen above that the shrine of Ophrah (Judg 8) also hadwhat was probably an oracular ephod. At a later date, the cultic prophets gatheredat shrines, where they would in all likelihood have been asked for oracles.72 Itappears in general from the ancient world that the sanctuary was a place associ-ated with divination in all its forms, and since the importance of the shrine at Dancannot be denied, it seems likely that it was a great centre for the practice ofdivination.

5. The Oracle to the Danites in Judges 18:5-6

The description of the oracle in Judg 18:5-6 does not give us very much detailwith which to understand the theory and practice of divination. We have seenthat it is almost certain that the method used was the ephod oracle common inthe books of Samuel, but a close study of the text of the Danite account and a

69. Biran, Biblical Dan, \ 99.70. Ibid., 221-24; also Biran, "To the God Who is in Dan."71. Biran, Biblical Dan, 231.72. A. R. Johnson, The Cultic Prophet in Ancient Israel (2d ed.; Cardiff, 1962), 60-61, and

references there.

126

comparison with other accounts of divination may shed clearer light on thetheory behind oracles.

The word that the Danites use to refer to the action of the priest is ^NKJ. Thisappears to have a technical meaning in the accounts in the books of Samuel. Asecond important feature is the fact that the question is phrased in the "alterna-tive" manner—that is, the response is either "yes" or "no," which Cody associ-ates rightly or wrongly with the Urim and Thummim.73 This pattern is foundmany times in the Former Prophets, and is standard in accounts of divinationwhere priests are involved. Several points can be made about this type of oracle.

(1) The *7NEJ oracle was normally consulted before a battle or other suchimportant event. Evidence for this is found in Judg 1:1, the first battle against theCanaanites; Judg 18, where the Danites are about to embark on a reconnaissancemission; Judg 20:18,23, the campaign against Benjamin; 1 Sam 10, where a kingis chosen; 1 Sam 14, before a battle with the Philistines; 1 Sam 22, whereAbiathar has been helping David with the oracle; 1 Sam 23, the campaign againstKeilah; 1 Sam 28:6, before Saul's final battle; 1 Sam 30:8, again in a militarycontext; 2 Sam 2:1, where Hebron is chosen as David's first capital; 5:19, anotherbattle against the Philistines. This is also regarded as standard by the late Num27:21, where Eleazar the priest is to enquire (by means of the Urim contained inthe ephod) for Joshua in the context of the military campaign.

Given the fact that it was used most often in a military context, this might wellexplain why Saul is so concerned over David's consultation of the priestly oraclein 1 Sam 22. It is possible that Saul assumes that any campaign David fights islikely to be against him. This story also suggests that this oracle was only used atimportant times, otherwise, if it had been available to most Israelites most of thetime, Saul's anger would not be comprehensible.

(2) The oracle was a way of making a decision with the benefit of the knowl-edge of the divine will, but was not necessary in any circumstance. The bestexample of this is the Danite story itself, where it is by chance that the Danitescome across the shrine. There is nothing to suggest that they would otherwisehave been at all concerned about consulting an oracle. First Samuel 14:18-23shows that in dire necessity the formality of divination could be dispensed with,in this case because the Philistines were thought to be attacking.

(3) The oracle was always taken by a priest. This was one of their mostimportant functions. Clear examples of priests taking oracles are found in Judg18; 20; 1 Sam 14; 22; 23;74 30.

73. Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood, 14.74. There are textual problems in the 1 Sam 23 passage. According to the MT of v. 4, the oracles

are taken before David goes to Keilah, but the priest only arrives with the oracular ephod after thebattle at v. 6. The text may be restored by using the LXX of Vaticanus (McCarter [I Samuel, 369]suggests that the MT suffered a haplography between two occurrences of name David), which may beread as a note by the original writer to the effect that Abiathar had gone down to Keilah with David,in this case, reading the Hebrew perfect as a pluperfect. At vv. 11-12, the text may be further restoredby 4QSamb, which reads, "And now will Saul come down as your servant has heard? Yahweh God ofIsrael tell your servant. And Yahweh said, He will come down. And David said, Will the lords ofKeilah deliver me and my men into the hand of Saul? And Yahweh said, They will deliver [you]." Cf.McCarter, I Samuel, 370.

Sacred Dan

4. Divination in the Danite Story 127

(4) The question asked was formulated in the "alternative " manner. There isevidence of this in the majority of cases. As is often the case in languages whichlack words for "yes" and "no," the affirmative answer is given simply by repeat-ing the verb. So, in the case above from 1 Sam 23, David asks "TlTI, and Yahwehresponds IT, and, in the second instance TrOTI is met by ''Dm.

In a few instances the questions are not formulated in an "alternative" manner.In Judg 1:1 the question is not "Shall Judah go up first?," but "Who will go upfor us...?" There are several possible explanations for this. Barucq, discussing asimilar passage in Josh 7 where we are not told about the method used, suggeststhat here the people might have been divided up into groups, finally comingdown to Judah, but, as he admits, we are not told exactly how this was done.75

More probable is that a later writer76 who did not understand the ^NEJ oracle hasconfused it with prophetic divination, where the answer to such a question mightreasonably be expected. This is paralleled by the account in Judg 20:18 whichSoggin regards as being even later than Judg 1:1.77 It is likely that both thesetexts come from a time after the hey-day of the ephod oracle, whose use, in theSouth at least, died out at a relatively early date. Other examples of the lot oracleare 1 Sam 10 and 14. Once more in the first case, it is not clear how the decisionwas reached, and it is possible that the material here may be from a late date.78 Inthe latter case, the choice of Jonathan is made by a series of alternative-typequestions, thus fitting in with established usage from other passages.

(5) It was almost always the military leader who asked the questions, thepriest was simply the channel for the divine answer. See Josh 7; 1 Sam 10; 14;23; 30; 2 Sam 2; 5 for evidence of this.

(6) Some amount of priestly interpretation was permitted, but this does notseem to have been the norm. Whence this came, whether from the imagination ofthe priest, or by means of a vision, our texts do not tell us. An example of priestlyinterpretation may be found in Judg 18, where, after the asking of the "alterna-tive" question, the priest does more than give an affirmative answer, he virtuallyblesses the Danites as well by telling them that their course has found favourwith Yahweh. That the answer had to be a clear "yes" or "no" demonstrates thatthere can be no question of ambiguity in the answer. Second Samuel 2:1, whereDavid asks which city is to be his capital, and the answer comes back that it willbe Hebron, is seen by Porter as another example of the priest speaking on behalfof Yahweh in an almost prophetic manner.79 This idea may also be behind 5:19.where Yahweh tells David when to attack.

(7) In certain cases, it was possible for an answer not to be given. This wasthen seen as a sign of divine wrath. This is the case in 1 Sam 28:6 where Saul hasbeen cast off by Yahweh who refuses to respond at a divination session before a

75. Barucq, "Oracle et divination," DBSup 6:778-79.76. Soggin, Judges, 20.77. Ibid., 293.78. Cf. McCarter, / Samuel, 194-96.79. J. R. Porter, "Ancient Israel," in Divination and Oracles (ed. M. Loewe and C. Blacker;

London, 1981), 191-214 (205-6).

128 Sacred Dan

military campaign. How this might have happened we do not know. It is possiblethat the priest was using his initiative and refused to do it, although no answerwas obtained from other orthodox means.

(8) When an answer is given, the recipient is assumed to be in a right relation-ship with Yahweh. The oracles are accurate. It is interesting that in 2 Sam 16:23,the counsel of Ahitophel is described as being "as if a man enquired ('?N27') of theword of God" (reading with the qere). This is an indication of the proverbialaccuracy of the oracle and also its currency.

(9) In the Southern Kingdom, at least, the ^NKJ oracle appears to have died outsometime after the division of the monarchy, to the extent that it does not seem tohave been understood by some later Southern redactors, for example those ofJoshua 9:14 and Judges 1 and 20. The evidence from the North, on the otherhand, is less clear-cut. In 1 Kgs 22 we have an account of a battle oracle wherethe ephod was not used, and the same is true of 2 Kgs 3 where Elisha is con-sulted. However, the ephod is later mentioned by Hosea who condemns it in 3:4along with other cultic and social institutions. This would suggest that it was stillan integral part of the cultic apparatus of the sanctuaries of the Northern King-dom, presumably including Dan. De Vaux's suggestion that here its use inconjunction with teraphim and rTOUQ may indicate that the ephod had becomeillegitimate80 has little so be said for it, as the list also includes leaders and sacri-fices. The fact that it is not mentioned in the two military contexts mentionedabove may be explained by the fact that in both cases prophets are the centralfigures in the narratives, and so we would not expect the mention of an oracle-taking priest. The evidence of Hosea indicates that it was still in use at his time,so there is no good reason for suggesting that its use was discontinued in theNorthern Kingdom.

The reasons for its decline in the South may be due to several factors. The riseof Jerusalem as a royal shrine seems to have changed the status of priests frommainly oracular officials in charge of local sanctuaries to royal functionarieswhose task was increasingly the upkeep of the sacrificial cult. The start of theprophetic movement on a major scale may also have aided the decline of the lessflexible ephod oracle. Cryer points out81 that there may have been little distinc-tion between priest and prophet, and it is not difficult to see that there may havebeen some connection between the priestly interpretation of the ephod oracle andthe oracle which was given by the prophet. Thus it is possible that the ephodoracle had become a mere formality which could eventually be dispensed with inits entirety.82

From this survey it is apparent that the Danite legend contains an accurateaccount of the use of the priestly ephod oracle. The context is typical of the mili-tary use, the question asked is phrased in the traditional manner and the verb used

80. De Vaux, Ancient Israel, 353.81. Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel, 249.82. De Vaux, Ancient Israel, 353.

4. Divination in the Danite Story 129

(^NEJ) is th orrect technical term for this type of oracle. The use of this type oforacle seems to be wholly consistent with Northern Israelite practice in the mon-archical period.

6. The bttE? Oracle as Extispicy

The evidence reviewed above has, however, been given a different interpretationby Cryer. He suggests that the accounts of divination are concerned to give sev-eral pieces of information—the location, the time, the cultic equipment, theprocedure, the personnel, the enquirers—and also include the same technicallanguage, that is, the use of the word ^KGi83 (It should, however, be noted that inboth Hebrew and Akkadian this verb also had a common non-technical usage.)Cryer notes the formal similarities between each of the narratives as well as "afew oblique and almost shy references to sacrifice."84 These are the references towhole burnt offerings and D^Q^E) in Judg 20:26, "stretching out the hand" in1 Sam 14:19 and possible references to sacrifice in 1 Sam 14:35-37.85

Of these, the first, Judg 20:26, may possibly be a reference to the killing of ananimal for extispicy, although the proximity of the "whole burnt offering" makesthis doubtful, for it appears that the two offerings were envisaged as being for thesame purpose (offerings to Yahweh), and a whole burnt offered lamb's extawould be difficult to examine! Further, if 1 Sam 9:22-24 is Cryer's only otherevidence of the D^Q^C as a divinatory sacrifice,86 we may safely ignore his sug-gestions here.

Cryer's treatment of "stretching out the hand" (cf. 1 Sam 14:19) as evidenceof extispicy is interesting. This phrase, he suggests, is the hypothetical converseof the expression "withdraw your hand," which is what is actually found in thepassage in question. "Stretching out the hand" was the standard Sumerian expres-sion for omen sacrifice (su.gid.gid), translated by the Akkadian lipit qati, "thetouch of the hand." Cryer claims this phrase has "many well-attested parallels" inthe Hebrew Bible; however, all of those he cites are occurrences of T ~[QD,where the priest touches the sacrificial victim (Exod 29:10, 15,19; Lev 1:4; 3:2,8, 13).87 To move from this to assume that 1 Sam 14:19 may be an example ofthe omen sacrifice88 is tenuous in the extreme, especially since he is therebyassuming direct influence of Sumerian on Hebrew.

Cryer's evidence from 1 Sam 14:35-37 is simply a juxtaposition of sacrifice(or simply slaughter) and oracle. In this case, the sacrifice has been made beforethe priest suggests the oracle should be taken. This is surely the reverse of thenormal procedure for extispicy as cited by Cryer.89

83. Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel, 299-300. For the phenomenon of extispicy, see alsoSaggs, Encounter with the Divine, 128-32.

84. Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel, 300.85. Ibid., 299-300.86. Ibid., 298-99.87. Ibid., 283.88. Ibid., 283.89. Ibid., 174,

130 Sacred Dan

Despite these weaknesses in his argument, Cryer assumes that there is a singleGattung which underlies the "rigidity" of the accounts of the Hebrew Bible.90

However, that the narrators were not wholly rigid in their accounts can be seenfrom the fact that only three of the accounts (Judg 20; 1 Sam 14; 30) have all thecharacteristics which he outlines, although he does admit that they have beenadapted for narrative purposes.91 He suggests that the source of this literary genreis to be found in the ancient Near Eastern diviners' protocols.92 However, Cryerthinks that for some reason the writers of the, for him, post-Deuteronomistic textswe are studying93 were unwilling to admit that the phenomenon of the ephodoracle was in fact extispicy.94 One of the major weaknesses of Cryer's work isthat he fails to tell us exactly why he thinks they were avoiding any mention ofextispicy, although he does give a reason to explain why, if it were ever practisedin Israel, extispicy disappeared: it was apparently too expensive to keep up in anon-monarchical environment.95

Extispicy was, nevertheless, practised in Bronze Age Palestine. Model "prac-tice" livers have been found in Hazor in a cultic setting.96 These appear to havecome from the Old Babylonian period, although Landsberger and Tadmor admitthat they may have come from as late as the Amarna period.97 Their importancefor the biblical period must not be overstated since the phenomenon wasprobably limited in time and place—Landsberger and Tadmor suggest that the artof extispicy came to the kingdom of Hazor from Mari.98 They go on to say thatthere is no evidence of a second wave of Babylonian influence after that time.99

The practice livers from Hazor are paralleled by the discovery of uninscribedlivers from thirteenth- to twelfth-century Megiddo.100 To date, despite the abun-dance of excavations and research, no further evidence of extispicy has beenfound in Palestine. Thus we may safely conclude that, while extispicy had beenknown at some stage in Palestine, by the biblical period it had almost certainlydied out. It may have existed once more as an isolated phenomenon in 2 Kgs16,101 but this is uncertain, and even if it were the case, there it was due to directpersonal influence of Mesopotamia on the king of Judah.

90. Ibid., 300-301.91. Ibid., 301.92. Ibid., 301.93. Ibid., 252.94. Ibid., 303.95. Ibid., 329.96. B. Landsberger and H. Tadmor, "Fragments of Clay Liver Models from Hazor," IEJ 14

(1964): 201-18 (217) (note by Yadin).97. Ibid., 216.98. Ibid., 216.99. Ibid., 216.100. Ibid., 216; cf. also G. I. Davies, Megiddo (Cities of the Biblical World; Cambridge, 1987),

63.101. Cf. especially the discussion in J. Gray, / and2 Kings (2d ed.; OIL; London, 1970), 636.

Not all scholars agree with him, however; cf. M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, 2 Kings (AB 11; GardenCity, N.Y., 1988), 189.

4. Divination in the Danite Story 131

7. The Danite Oracle in its Ancient Near Eastern Context

While we may rule out extispicy as the method of divination in the Danitestory, there are several points of contact between the narrative and its broadercontext.

(1) In almost all ancient Near Eastern cultures the "alternative" type questionis standard in divination. In the Assyrian queries to the sun-god—the traditionalgod of divination—the questions are almost always phrased in this manner. Thusin the Sargonid period all queries invariably started samas belu rabu sa asallukaanna kina apalanni, which we may translate "Shamash great lord, to what I askyou, answer me with firm 'yes'.. ."102 In contrast to the Hebrew texts, a time limitwas often set for the fulfilment of the oracle, and the answers would be obtainedby extispicy.103 (Cryer points to the use of salu[m] as further evidence for aconnection between Israel and Mesopotamia.104 Once again this seems tenuous.)Whereas in ordinary extispicy all of the entrails had to be examined, each provid-ing a partial "yes" or a partial "no" to propositions specified in the diviner'sprayer to Shamash,105 in the tamitu oracles a straight "yes" or "no" was all thatwas required, but it was not certain how it was obtained.106

This type of question was also found in the Egyptian divination rituals. Thesewere often posed to the god as he was carried in procession through the streets atregular festival times.107 Cerny provides the most useful discussion of Egyptianoracles, giving several examples of the type of question posed to the gods: "Is ithe who has stolen this mat?," "Shall one appoint Sety as priest?," "Shall I sailnorth, go and carry out the investiture?," "Will they mention me to the Vizier?"108

Most of the examples he quotes come from Deir-el-Medina on the western bankof the Nile opposite Thebes where workmen responsible for the royal tombsconsulted the oracles of local gods, the great temples of Thebes being closed tothem.109 The method used was often that of providing the god with two pieces ofsherd or stone on which were inscribed questions, one presumably phrased posi-tively like those above, the other negatively. The god would then "take" one ofthem, that is, the barque on which he was being carried probably moved towards

102. I. Starr, Queries to the Sungod (State Archives of Assyria 4; Helsinki, 1990), xvi. ForShamash as the patron god of extispicy, see also Saggs, Encounter with the Divine, 130-31. For theHuman sun-god Shimige as god of omens, see Wilhelm, The Hurrians, 53. By contrast, the Egyptiansun-god Re did not seem to be particularly associated with oracles, although, like Shamash, he wasthe god of justice (nb w't).

103. Starr, Queries to the Sungod, xvi.104. Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel, 302.105. Von Soden, The Ancient Orient, 154.106. W. G. Lambert, "The Tamitu Texts," in La Divination en Mesopotamie

Ancienne et dans les Regions Voisines (ed. J. Nougayrol; Paris, 1966), 119-23 (123).107. Sauneron, Lespretres de I'ancienne Egypte, 63; cf. Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel,

217-18.108. J. Cerny, "Egyptian Oracles," in A Saite Oracle Papyrus (ed. R. A. Parker; Brown

Egyptological Studies 4; Providence, R.I., 1962), 46.109. Ibid., 40.

132 Sacred Dan

one of them.1 lo At other times is appears that questions were simply asked of thegod on his barque, and an answer would be given there and then. Cerny suggeststhat this was done by moving backwards for a negative answer, and movingforwards for a positive one.111 This method is also described by Lucian ofSamosata in De Syria dea 36.'12 The Egyptian oracular practices continued downinto the Christian era, where questions in Coptic have been found on papyrus.113

(2) The Israelite military type of oracle is also paralleled in the ancient NearEast. In Assyria, for example, the haruspex (barit) was always on duty in theking's camp during campaigns.114 This is borne out by the fact that a large num-ber of the Assyrian extispicy queries from the reigns of Esarhaddon and Asshur-banipal come from the field of battle. The use of campaign oracles dates back atleast to the Old Babylonian period,115 and was also found among the Hittites.116

The Egyptians also employed military oracles, but, unlike the Mesopotamians,they did not make collections of this type.117 An example of an Aramaic militaryoracle can be found in KAI202 (also ANET, 655-56), where seers (pin) andprophets (]~ni?) tell the king the outcome of the battle without his having posed adirect question.118

(3) Properly qualified personnel were used in most cases. In Mesopotamia, thebarti was one of the best educated of all cultic officials,119 to the extent that manyscholars have written of divination as a science rather than as a form of"magic."120 That the priests of the Danite story were not highly educated butqualified to conduct oracular consultations solely by virtue of being priests, isalso further evidence that the highly complex practice of extispicy was not usedin Israel. Priests appear to have been in charge of some Egyptian oracles, but, byway of contrast, according to Cerny, when the god was paraded through thestreets, it was a group of purified lay men (we 'eb) who carried the barque onwhich the statue of the god was placed.121 A more usual translation of theEgyptian would, however, be "priest."122

There are, nevertheless, several points of contrast between Israel and othercultures in the ancient Near East.

110. Ibid., 46.111. Ibid., 44.112. Quoted in Cemy, "Egyptian Oracles," 45.113. Ibid., 47.114. Starr, Queries to the Sungod, xxx-xxxi.115. Cf. von Soden, The Ancient Orient, 154-55, and references there.116. Gurney, The Hittites, 132.117. Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel, 220.118. JCing Zakkur does, however, pray for deliverance, and the oracles are given in response to

this prayer. Cf. J. C. Greenfield, "Aspects of Aramean Religion," in Miller, Hanson and McBride,eds., Ancient Israelite Religion, 67-78 (73).

119. Von Soden, The Ancient Orient, 154.120. Cf, however (for example), Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel, 223-24.121. Cerny, "Egyptian Oracles," 36.122. See Erman and Grapow, Worterbuch der agyptischen Sprache, 1:282-83; A. Gardiner,

Egyptian Grammar (3d ed.; Oxford, 1957), 57,560; R. O. Faulkner, A Consise Dictionary of MiddleEgyptian (Oxford, 1962), 57, who all state that the meaning of w'b is "priest."

4. Divination in the Danite Story 133

(1) The methods used were different in Israel. In Mesopotamia they used theexamining of entrails, the oil oracle,123 the incense oracle124 and various types ofomen. There is no evidence in Israel for any of the first three types. The Hittitesused extispicy and watched the flight of birds.125 The Egyptian barque oracle alsois not strictly paralleled in Israel, although one of the other forms is. Cernyquotes the account of an Ethiopian(l) king who comes to Thebes to be chosen bythe god Amun-Re: "Then they laid down the royal brothers before the god, but hedid not select any of them... They laid down again the royal brother... Aspeltaand this god Amon-re',, lord of the Throne of the Two Lands, said, 'It is he whoshall be your king...'"126 The parallel with some of the accounts in the HebrewBible which describe the choice of one man out of many is striking. Anothersimilar Egyptian account, however, highlights another of the differences betweenIsrael and the rest of the ancient Near East.

(2) In Israel, Yahweh's word is final. In Egypt, and apparently elsewhere, if anunsatisfactory answer was received, another god might be asked. Cerny notes anextreme case where a felon is identified from a list of villagers which is read outbefore the god Amun of Pakheny. The accused then bribes Amun of Tashenyt,but is still accused of theft, and finally, after a third opinion, he confesses toAmun of Pakheny.127 Such appeal to a different oracle is unknown in Israel,although King Saul tried different methods of obtaining an answer in 1 Sam28:6—dreams, Urim (probably the ephod oracle) and prophets—before finallysettling on necromancy as a last resort. The three methods Saul tries first are alllegitimate ways of obtaining an oracle: the God of the oracle is in all casesYahweh.

8. The Danite Oracle as a Private Oracle

The present study of the ^Ntd oracle, which was used almost exclusively in amilitary context, has led to the conclusion that in the Danite story we have anexample of this phenomenon. However, we should not rule out the possibilitythat the oracle could equally well be regarded as a private oracle granted to thefive Danite spies as individuals rather than as military envoys. If this is how thestory is to be regarded, it is the sole example of a bN2? oracle being used byprivate individuals. The conclusions reached here suggest that divination wasused only at times of crisis. Nevertheless, most of the accounts recorded in theHebrew Bible are about Yahweh's dealings with the people as a whole, and arerarely concerned with ordinary individuals. Thus it is possible that the Danitestory provides us with evidence for the use of the priestly oracle for private ends.The fact that Micah has a private shrine may point in this direction.

123. For further details, see Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel, 145—47; G. Pettinato, DieOlwahrsagung bei der Babyloniern (2 vols.; Rome, 1966).

124. Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel, 130.125. Gurney, The Hittites, 132. Extispicy may have been conveyed to the Hittites by the Hurrians

(Wilhelm, The Hurrians, 68). For the Human divination rituals, see Wilhelm, The Hurrians, 68-70.126. Cerny, "Egyptian Oracles," 38.127. Ibid., 40-41.

134 Sacred Dan

There are other stories which may also point in this direction. First Samuel22:10 may be interpreted thus since David is not yet a true military leader.However, in this case, since David's actual position in relation to Saul remainsobscure, the evidence is ambiguous. With this may be set the evidence of theprevious chapter where David is alone with Ahimelech, and where the ephod isnot apparently used for divination, but is mentioned at 21:10 since Goliath'ssword is behind it. At v. 8 we are told that Doeg the Edomite is there "restrained"("1U173) before Yahweh, and it is he who reports Ahimelech to Saul (22:10).Driver comments that ~ll£iJ3 probably means "detained in the precincts of thesanctuary, and precluded from entering it, by some ceremonial impurity."128 It isnot, however, clear what Doeg is doing there, nor is it clear from the participlewhether he wanted to be there or not. Thus, we cannot rule out the possibility thatDoeg was pursuing his own ends when he reports David's consultation with thepriest of Nob to Saul, and that this report was not true. Much here rests on theinterpretation of the type of oracle: if it was a military type, then what Doeg isaccusing David of is tantamount to armed revolt, and Saul's anger would becomprehensible; on the other hand, one would not expect the report of a privateoracle to worry Saul unduly. A clearer picture of the nature of private oraclesmay help alleviate the difficulties.

(1) The standard way of obtaining a private oracle in the Hebrew Bible is toconsult a prophet. In contrast to the verb ^WD of the priestly oracle, here the mostcommon verb is ETn. Like ^NEJ, it too can be used in a non-technical sense, andcan also mean "to worship" as in Deut 12:5 or Amos 5:4-6.129 In the vast major-ity of the technical uses of the word, a prophetic mediator is envisaged.130 Thefirst instance of its use in connection with an oracle is in Gen 25:22, but there nointermediary is mentioned at all,131 and, in the context of the narrative, none isneeded: Rebekah speaks to God directly.

An example of the approaching of a prophet for an oracle is found in 1 Sam 9.Here Saul is looking for his father's donkeys, and is just about to turn back whenhis squire (1173) says that there is a "man of God" (DTI^N 2TN) in the town whomight be able to tell them where to find them (v. 6). There is a discussion aboutwhat they are to pay him, and then an explanatory note: "Formerly in Israel, aman who was going to consult (CTIIlb) God would say, 'Come, let us go to theseer (rwin),' for what is called a prophet (»'I33) today was formerly called aseer."132 "Man of God" is a phrase most often used of Elijah and Elisha, of whomMcCarter remarks, "[They] also prophesy, for the ability to know unseen things,whether past, present, or future, is also within the province of the man of God.But the designation 'man of God'...carries none of the special force of'prophet'."133 It seems that for McCarter the man of God was also found in

128. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and Topography of the Books of Samuel, 175.129. S. Wagner, "Daras," TDOT3:293-307 (298).130. Ibid., 302.131. Cf. ibid., 302.132. Reading with BHS.133. McCarter, I Samuel, 175; cf. D. L. Petersen, The Roles of Israel's Prophets (JSOTSup 17;

Sheffield, 1981), 43-50.

4. Divination in the Danite Story 135

neighbouring cultures regardless of his god or gods, and would have been con-sulted on any matters of concern.134 It would thus appear that the seer orprophet135 was ordinarily consulted, both at the time of the narrative and at thetime of its redaction.

Other examples of private consultation include 1 Kgs 14:5, where the wife ofJeroboam consults Ahijah of Shiloh, a story whose authenticity is not to bedenied, despite the Deuteronomistic flavour of the oracle.136 When Ahaziah sendsto consult Baal-Zebub about his injuries in 2 Kgs 1:3, again 2TI1 is used. Thisseems to imply a contrast with the ^Ntf) of the ephod oracle, but what form theoracle took is uncertain from our present text, although the question to be askedis phrased in the "alternative" manner. Second Kings 8:7-10 shows the problemsthat may be encountered when a prophet is consulted. The question asked is inthe "alternative" form, but Elisha responds in a way that no priest manipulatingthe ephod ever could.

At this stage it becomes uncertain where the prophetic oracle is private andwhere it has replaced the ephod oracle. In 2 Kgs 3, Elijah takes the place of theephod-carrying priest, and by 2 Kgs 22 a priest is sent to consult a prophetess,having lost all vestiges of divinatory power.137 The same is true of Jeremiah (ch.21; and cf. also ch. 37) and Ezekiel (ch. 20). Micah 3:5-11 (especially v. 11)highlights the divergence between the prophets, who give oracles, and the priests,who by this stage, at least in the South, are involved mainly in teaching. He doesnot mention the priestly oracle.

(2) It was also possible to consult God through dreams (1 Sam 28:6), but thismay be an example of prophets' having dreams (cf. Num 12:6; Deut 13:1). Cryersuggests that Mesopotamian dream interpretation was also found in Israel.138 Forthis he cites the evidence of Gen 37 and 40.139 While one might be sceptical ofCryer's brand of pan-Babylonianism, the evidence does point to the fact thatdreams could be interpreted for divinatory purposes, although the Genesis storiesmay suggest that the interpretation of dreams was not usual and was consideredmiraculous. In the case of Saul, it is unlikely that he had professional dreaminterpreters at court, and there is no evidence for the inducement of dreams withnarcotics that was found in Mesopotamia.140 It should also be noted that, accord-ing to Lambert, in Mesopotamia the mysterious tamitu oracles could be used forrelatively unimportant matters such as the control of horses, the inability to havemale offspring or even the correct etiquette for marriage arrangements.141

134. McCarter, I Samuel, 175.135. The terms are synonymous; cf. e.g. Soggin, Introduction to the Old Testament, 241.136. Cf. J. A. Montgomery and H. S. Gehman, The Books of Kings (ICC: Edinburgh, 1951), 266.137. Cf. Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood, 47.138. Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel, 267-72. For Mesopotamian dream oracles, see also

Saggs, The Encounter with the Divine in Mesopotamia and Israel, 132-35. For an Egyptian textwhich deals with the interpretation of dreams, see ANET, 495.

139. Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel, 268-71.140. According to Professor J. N. Postgate, oral communication.141. Lambert, "The Tamitu Texts," 122-23.

136 Sacred Dan

It is prophecy, therefore, which would probably have been the most commonmeans of obtaining a private oracle in the pre-exilic period. There are some par-allels in other Near Eastern cultures. Prophecy was of course known at Mari, butit appears that there the prophets were not consulted. The initiative came almostexclusively from the deity.142 Malamat, however, notes one example where QueenSibtu asked a man and a woman concerning the outcome of a militarycampaign.143 Here in ARMXA it is not clear whether they are diviners, prophetsor simply lay people. They are asked about matters concerning the two sides,Zimri-Lim, king of Mari, and Isme-Dagan, king of Assyria. For the first, theoutcome would be exceptionally favourable (ma-di-is da-mi-iq}, for the latter,unfavourable (u-ul da-mi-iq). This is, nevertheless, apparently quite a rare reportof a consultation. However, the casual way in which Sibtu describes the oraclefor the king might make one suspect that it was a more frequent occurrence thanthe other textual evidence suggests: "On the subject of the fate of the expeditionthat my lord is going to send, I have consulted the male and female divinersabout the signs: the augury for the lord is very favourable" (lines 2-6: "Au sujetdu sort de 1'expedition que mon seigneur va entreprendre, j'ai consulte [ds-ta-al-ma] sur les 'signes' les devins(?)...homme et femme: 1'augure pour monseigneur est extremement favorable"). Malamat interprets this as a type ofegerrum [s/c]-oracle, where the people were chosen at random, and, having beenplied with wine, speak at random. This is then taken as an oracle.144 It does notappear, however, that this sort of oracle was induced. Rather, it was prayed for,and then received by (divinely inspired) chance,145 so this may be a case of theconsultation of professional diviners.

By contrast with the Israelite situation, the prophets of Mari seem to be moreconcerned with placating the king than with accuracy. Malamat notes two oracleswhich he claims are "reminiscent of the biblical oracles 'against the nations,' "146

but may also be used as examples of gross inaccuracy on the part of the prophets.ARMXlll.23 reads that at a sacrifice to the god Dagan of Tuttul, the "repondant"([awil] a-ap-lu-u-urri) spoke of Babylon that it would be destroyed (?—textdamaged), and that its goods would come to the hands of Zimri-Lim. Some timelater Mari fell to Hammurabi, king of Babylon. Another text (ARMXlll. 114) alsoreassures Zimri-Lim about Babylon, given by the wife of a free man (assatawilim), an example of lay prophecy.

Oppenheim sees two examples of the egirru oracle in the Hebrew Bible. Thefirst is 1 Sam 14:8-13, where the decision whether to attack the Philistines is

142. For prophecy in Mari, see also the discussion in A. Malamat, "The Forerunner of BiblicalProphecy: The Mari Documents," in Miller, Hanson and McBride, eds., Ancient Israelite Religion,33-52.

143. Malamat, Mari and the Early Israelite Experience, 90-91144. Ibid., 91.145. Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel, 160; A. L. Oppenheim, "Sumerian: inim.gar, Akkadian:

egirru = Greek: kledon" AfO 17 (1954-56): 49-55 (53).146. Malamat, Mari and the Early Israelite Experience, 89—90.

4. Divination in the Danite Story 137

made on the basis of this sort of oracle. Jonathan and his squire wait for thePhilistines to speak. Then, when the latter say, "Come up to us, and we will letyou know something," Jonathan takes it as a sign, and he and his squire fall onthe Philistines.147 The other is less clear. In 1 Kgs 20:30-34, when Ben-Hadad isdefeated, his men go to the king of Israel who asks after his "brother." The menhave been waiting for this oracle, recognize it (l&n]1), and say that Ben-Hadad isthe king's brother, whereupon he is well treated, as the king realizes his wordswere put into his mouth by Yahweh.148 How often this was used as a means ofdetermining God's will in Israel is not certain. Neither is it clear whether thiscame from Mesopotamia or whether it was also indigenous to Israel, since it wasalso found in Classical Greece.149

From the evidence surveyed above, it is clear that the oracle of Judg 18 ismost likely to be interpreted as a military oracle rather than a private oracle, sinceit has none of the features of either Israelite or ancient Near Eastern private ora-cles, but much in common with the Hebrew military oracles which are alsoparalleled in other cultures.

9. Conclusions

The present examination has left us with quite a clear idea of the nature of theoracle in the Danite story. It is a good example of the characteristically Hebrewephod oracle, an oracle associated exclusively with the priesthood and whichappears to have died out in the Southern Kingdom, but was retained in the North.

There is little evidence from the ancient Near East for such an oracle. In Meso-potamia the dominant form of divination was extispicy, which was also foundamong the Hittites who probably borrowed it from their southern neighbours.This method was also used in Mari (part of Mesopotamia), and at Ugarit, whichwas influenced by the dominant Akkadian culture.150 There is evidence that itwas used in the Bronze Age in Palestine, but no evidence has been found of itsuse in Israel, or any of its direct neighbours. Neither has evidence of its use beenfound in Egypt, where the divine oracle dominated. From this it would appearthat Israel was not influenced by its more powerful neighbours. The ephodoracle, therefore, may well have been indigenous to Israel, although it had muchin common with the more widely spread lot oracle. However, whereas the ancientNear Eastern lot oracle was a relatively informal, almost homespun form ofdivination, in Israel, the ephod oracle was one of the most formal and important.This is seen in the fact that it is manipulated only by priests and is evidencedmainly on the field of battle, although it may have been manipulated for otherreasons.

147. Oppenheim, "Sumerian: inim.gar, Akkadian: egirru = Greek: kledon," 52.148. Ibid., 52-53. See Gen 24:12-14 for another possible example.149. Ibid., 51-55.150. P. Xella, "L'influence baylonienne a Ougarit d'apres les textes alphabetiques rituels et

divinatoires," in Mesopotamien undseine Nachbarn (ed. H. J. Nissen and J. Renger; Berlin, 1985),321-38(323).

CONCLUSION: CULTIC LIFE AT DAN

I have argued that the Danite story was probably formulated in the immediateaftermath of the Assyrian invasions of the Northern Kingdom as an attempt topreserve what were in all certainty ancient memories of the foundation of theshrine. As such, it almost certainly contains reliable information about cultic lifein the late pre-exilic period, that is, in the period prior to the fall of Dan. We havealso seen that the picture the text gives us is of a cult which is in many waystypical of the ancient Near East at that time, so by using other parallel texts tosupplement it, we can obtain a relatively clear picture of Hebrew cultic life atDan before its final fall to the Assyrians. The following tentative reconstructionis based on the conclusions reached in other chapters, but must remain hypotheti-cal since it is possible, although not altogether likely, that there were aspects ofcultic life at Dan which differed significantly from the rest of the ancient NearEast.

According to tradition, the shrine was staffed by a priesthood which not onlyclaimed to be genuinely Levitical, but was descended from none other than Jona-than, Moses' grandson (17:30). As we have seen, Judg 17-18 can be read tosuggest that all Levites were once secular figures like the members of any othertribe, but, like Jonathan, many of them naturally became priests.

The major functions of the Levitical priesthood at Dan would have been tolook after the temple and its sacred image (18:20), and the priests would havebeen responsible for the manipulation of the ephod oracle. A very clear exampleof this means of divination is given in Judg 18:5-6 which conforms wholly to thenormal pattern in the pre-monarchical Hebrew texts, and much of the ancientNear East in general. Because of the date and nature of this text, we know thatthe priests of Dan must have maintained this function down to the Exile. In otherHebrew settings, however, this function may well have been taken over by theprophet. The important shrine of Dan would have been a natural place for suchprophets to frequent, as was also the case with Bethel in 2 Kgs 2:3. Nevertheless,we cannot rule out the possibility that the priestly oracle was used only in casesof severe emergency, or on the battlefield (the evidence of Judg 17-18 is ambigu-ous here), and that cultic prophets were always responsible for the day-to-daygiving of oracles (cf. the old woman of Abel beth Maacah who may have had acultic function—2 Sam 20). Whoever was responsible for the taking of oracles,Dan was an important oracular centre for Israel in general (LXX 2 Sam 20:18),and for most of the year, the taking of oracles, the offering of incense and routinesacrifices would probably have been the major cultic activities at Dan.

Conclusion 139

However, things would have been very different at the time of the pilgrimagefestivals. In the earliest days the pilgrims who would have teemed in the streetsof the city would probably have been almost exclusively Danite since the shrineprobably started life as a local shrine, even though folk from neighbouring tribesmay have used Dan as their sanctuary too. We know that there was a network ofsuch local shrines throughout the territory of the Hebrews. In later times, whenDan was a royal shrine, more people would have attended from further afield.This may well have included the king. As at Jerusalem, it is probable that thekings of the Northern Kingdom would have had a sacral function in their tworoyal sanctuaries. We do not know what this was, whether the king was the highpriest par excellence, or whether he was a distinguished but non-sacral partici-pant at the festival (if the Hebrews in fact drew such distinctions). Neither do wehave any knowledge of how the system of having two royal sanctuaries workedin practice since our major source for these matters is the polemical account of1 Kgs 12. They may possibly have been used in rotation, or some festivals mayalways have been held at Dan, others at Bethel. It is unlikely that Dan was thesole royal sanctuary at any time. Bethel remained a royal sanctuary until the finalfall of the Northern Kingdom, and there is no reason why Dan should not haveenjoyed the same privileges while it was in Israelite hands.

At times of pilgrimage, as at Shiloh and other Semitic sanctuaries, it wouldprobably have been primarily the pilgrims themselves and not the priests whosacrificed. The type of sacrifice offered would almost certainly have been the"communion sacrifice" in which worshippers shared in a meal with their God.The priests at Dan, as in other sanctuaries, would have been entitled to a share inthis. It is also probable that the pilgrims provided gifts which would be spent onthe general upkeep of the shrine, as well as providing for the needs of the priests.At a later stage, when Dan was patronised by the king, the priests would havebeen royal officials, and would thus have been paid by him. As at Jerusalem andBethel, they therefore formed an ex officio part of the ruling elite of the kingdom,quite apart from their noble lineage.

As to the God who was worshipped at Dan, there can be no doubt that it wasYahweh. The Judg 17-18 account makes this plain (17:2; 18:6, 10). The cult ofDan was criticized for many things, but syncretism was not one of them. The bullimage was the central icon, the embodiment of Yahweh. At pilgrimage festivalsit may well have been paraded through the city, and may even have been takenoutside the walls. The bull may then have been placed in a temporary shrine nearthe gate, and finally brought back into the city in triumph. There is evidence forsome sort of canopied structure in the main gateway at Dan,1 and it is conceiv-able, as Biran notes, that this may have had a cultic function. Leading from thisto the supposed sacred precinct is a road along which the bull may have beencarried in procession. At other times, on the other hand, it would probably haveremained in the covered holy of holies. At times of battle, like the ark, it ispossible that it may have been carried before the army as a sort of ensign, avisible symbol of Yahweh's presence with his people.

1. Biran, Biblical Dan, 238-41.

140 Sacred Dan

Judges 18:30 notes that the Hebrew cult at Dan ceased at the time of theAssyrian invasions. The bull would either have been melted down or carried offto Nimrud where it could adorn the temple of the victorious Asshur. The priestsof the shrine, like the rest of the population, were probably carried off into exile(cf. ANET, 283-84), and may possibly have been used as an example to thepeople because of their elevated status. Whether any remained behind to staffthat shrine in the bitter years of Assyrian rule is not known. The continuing cultat Dan would suggest that this is possible, although it is not clear whether thishad anything in common with earlier Israelite Dan. Whatever the case, it is likelythat some of the priests escaped, enough at least to ensure that the traditions ofDan were kept alive in what we know have as Judg 17-18.

In nearly every respect the cult of Dan probably did not differ significantlyfrom Jerusalem and other Hebrew cultic centres. That the Hebrew Bible portraysDan as different from Jerusalem in both cultic practice and theology need not betaken entirely at face value: this is very much the thrust of the pro-JerusalemDeuteronomists who would stop at nothing to bolster the position of Jerusalem asthe one and only legitimate Hebrew sanctuary. Furthermore, we have foundevidence to suggest that neither the cult of Dan nor that of Jerusalem wassignificantly different from that of any other ancient Semitic sanctuary.

This study has sought to provide a clearer understanding of the nature of thecult practised at the sanctuary of Dan—in many ways a much more authenticallyHebrew shrine than Jerusalem—and to shed some much needed light on asignificant, although sorely neglected part of the history of Hebrew religion. Thetime is now ripe for a positive reassessment of the cult of the Northern Kingdom,which for too long has been regarded as a poor relation of the Jerusalem!te cultboth in material and theological terms. That this should not be the case isindicated by the fact that, for much of its history, the Northern Kingdom played amuch more significant part in the events of its time and was much wealthier andmore influential than its Southern neighbour, and that in some respects it wastheologically even more advanced than Judah. This was, after all, the homelandof Hosea, and many scholars would argue that the Moses traditions were formu-lated and preserved in a Northern context. Surely its cult must be investigated aspart of the Hebrew cultural inheritance alongside that of Jerusalem. However, alltoo often scholarship has been prepared to follow blindly the lead provided bythe pro-Jerusalemite redactors which would have us believe that it was theSouthern Kingdom which was politically prominent and theologically advanced,and that the Northern Kingdom was a primitive, provincial backwater, whereasthe historical reality was somewhat different. Since Judg 17-18 as we haveinterpreted it is one of the few texts that deal sympathetically with the Northerncult, it is of paramount importance in this regard.

At the same time, there is also a need for a far-reaching reassessment of theposition of the Hebrew cult in the context of the ancient Near East. For too longIsrael and especially Judah have been dealt with in a cultural vacuum especiallyin cultic and theological terms. This is again partly due to the emphasis of thepurist Deuteronomists who abhorred anything that they regarded as "foreign,"

Conclusion 141

whether it was or not (for example, the teraphim may even have been indigenousto the Hebrews). For this reason scholars have attempted to drive a wedgebetween the cult of Jerusalem and that of its neighbours. However, it is also partlydue to a feeling among the heirs of Jerusalem's cultural heritage that the Hebrewsreally ought to have been special and different from their cultural milieu, whetherthis reflects historical reality or not. Therefore, scholars have been too busyemphasizing the relatively small differences in cultic practice between theHebrews and their ancient Near Eastern neighbours to see the very striking simi-larities. Now, however, it is time to redress the balance, and for Israel and Judahto take their proper place in the ancient Near East.

Finally, it must be said that in matters pertaining to the Hebrew cult one cannotoverestimate the importance of the shrine of Dan which for so long has been soconsistently ignored, for while Dan has its feet firmly planted in the ancient NearEast, it is also wholly and authentically Israelite.

Appendix

THE DANITE STORY AND THE HISTORYOF THE LEVITES

One important aspect of the Danite narrative which remains to be dealt with isthe question whether there was ever a secular tribe of Levi, or whether the "tribeof Levi" was simply an artificial construction which had no historical foundation.The legend of Dan has been used as evidence to support both views. I do notpropose to discuss this issue in depth, as the arguments seem quite clear cut. Iwill, however, offer my own interpretation of some of the material.

1. What Does "Levite" Mean?

One of the classic approaches to the question is to devise an etymology for thename "Levi"; however, whereas etymologies can be interesting, they do notalways help to define words.1 To take an English example: The word "hearse"means "vehicle for carrying a coffin at a funeral"—this is its definition. Itsetymology is Middle English from Old French herse, "a harrow," from ClassicalLatin (h)irpex (via Mediaeval Latin and Romance), where it meant "large rake,"which came ultimately from the Samnite (h)irpus which meant "wolf."2 This maybe an extreme example, but it illustrates the point with some force. Thus, forexample, Albright's suggestion that "Levi" comes from a supposed *lawiyu,meaning "person pledged for a debt or vow,"3 may be safely ignored even if it ispossibly correct.

Another approach is that of comparative religion. This too tells us very littleabout the idea of Levite, unlike the concept of a priest. Kraus, for example, hascompared the ancient Minean 81 ̂ , and suggested from this that "Levi" was anold word for priest,4 even though it is not used in the oldest strata of the HebrewBible to mean this. This view has been refuted by de Vaux, who can find noparallel to Levites in any other non-Hebrew culture and goes as far as to suggest"'Levitism' remains an institution original to Israel."5 Previously in his article he

1. Cf. J. Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford, 1961), 105-6; idem, ComparativePhilology and the Text of the Old Testament (Oxford, 1968), 90.

2. Cf. Oxford English Dictionary, ad loc.3. W. F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (3d ed.; Baltimore, 1953), 109.4. H.-J. Kraus, Worship in Israel (Oxford, 1966), 96.5. De Vaux, "'Levites' mineens at levites israelites," 273: "le levitisme reste une institution

originale d'Israel."

Appendix 143

suggested that "Levi" is a personal name found in Egypt and Mari, a view sharedby Cody.6

The evidence of the Hebrew Bible suggests that in the early texts "Levite"means a member of the tribe of Levi, whether sacred or secular.

2. Was There a Secular Tribe of Levi?

The majority of scholarly debate on Levites has been focused on this issue.Gunneweg, who denies that there was a tribe of Levi, proposes that the Leviteswere amphictyonic officials who were resident aliens among the clans, and assuch were on the same level as those others who were in need of the support ofthe tribe, the widows and the orphans.7 He finds evidence for this in Deuteronomywhere he sees a polemic developing in favour of the Levites over against otherunacceptable cultic officials.8 That Levi as a caste and not a tribe is included inthe tribal lists, Gunneweg explains by suggesting that this emphasized their linkswith the Amphictyony, which is also aided by their use of their caste name as aneponym.9 However, he ignores the two earliest texts concerning Levi, Gen 34and 49, which offer us a picture of Levi as a secular tribe. Another major stum-bling-block is that nowadays very few scholars would accept his idea that therewas ever an Amphictyony let alone amphictyonic officials.10 In view of this,Gunneweg's views are untenable.

Nielsen also denies that there was a secular tribe of Levi. He regards chs. 29,34 and 49 of Genesis—the main texts which support the idea that Levi was asecular tribe—as being unreliable because they contradict Exod 32 and Deut 33,both of which he believes to be early.11 Because Nielsen can prove that some ofthe oracles in the Blessing of Moses can be dated quite early—an opinion withwhich I do not disagree—then all of them must come from the same early date.12

In this, Nielsen is naively ignoring the composite nature of the text. He furthershis belief by noting that in the Levi section, "Jacob" and "Israel" are used, butnot "Judah" or "Zion," a feature he regards as pointing to an early date.13 Nielsendoes not, however, point out that if we used this argument, we could date thewhole of Deuteronomy to an early date, for—outside Deut 33-34—"Judah"occurs only once in the book at 27:12, and Zion not at all!

Nielsen goes on to compare Deut 33 with Gen 49. The only point of agree-ment he notes is that in both the Levites are scattered.14 "But the oracle of Deut.33 considers this to fit well to the proper function of the Levites and thereforewishes God's help to the Levites against their enemies. Whereas the oracle of

6. Ibid., 268; Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood, 33.7. Gunneweg, Leviten undPriester, 78.8. Ibid., 81.9. Ibid., 79.10. See R. de Vaux, The Early History of Israel (2 vols.; London, 1978), 2:695-715.11. Nielsen, "The Levites in Ancient Israel," 71.12. Ibid., 73.13. Ibid., 73.14. Ibid., 75.

144 Sacred Dan

Gen 49 spoken in the name of a deity regards dispersion of the Levites as theeffects of a curse."15 It appears to Nielsen that the Levites have their enemiesbecause of their zeal for Yahweh, and Exod 32:25-29 suggests that disputes aroseover worship, which were resolved sometimes violently by the Levites. As far asNielsen is concerned, the anti-levitical Gen 49 which places Simeon and Levitogether is the only piece of evidence for a secular tribe of Levi, and this may bediscounted because of its bias.16 However, Nielsen does not feel it necessary tonote that Deuteronomy is notoriously biased towards the Levites, whereasGenesis has no discernible bias. Nielsen does not say why he believes Genesis tohave been anti-levitical; references to nebulous "enemies of the Levites" willsimply not suffice.

Of the Danite story Nielsen remarks that the Levite was a Judean, and wasfrom Bethlehem, so that when the Danites recognized him it was really his south-ern accent that they recognised. Nielsen appears to regard this as a significantpoint, but the exclamation mark at the end of this sentence only serves to high-light the weakness of his argument.17 Later, he dismisses these chapters withJudg 19-21 as a popular short story;18 the only reliable thing about them beingthe tradition that Micah appointed a Levite to be his priest.19

Nielsen's treatment of Judg 19-21, however, remains interesting. Since hethinks the most important thing about a Levite is his zeal for Yahweh,20 Nielsenremarks that the Levite brings condemnation down on himself: "The narrator mayhave intended to say that the cruel event which later happened was a punishmenton the Levite for his lack of remorseless zeal for the Lord."21 It is interesting, ifthis is indeed the case, that the Levite passes through the situation physicallyunharmed—it is his concubine and the Benjaminites who are the objects of the"cruel event." All in all, Nielsen's thesis fails on all counts to do justice to theevidence, ultimately because he does not admit that it is the sources that heregards as reliable that are in fact blatantly biased, whereas those that he regardsas partisan, do in fact, in my view, hold the key to the problem.

3. Were Levites Necessarily Priests?

We shall return to the "secular tribe of Levi" below. First, however, we must dealwith the issue of the extent to which Levites can be equated with priests. WhileHaran has examined the evidence carefully, his approach relies very heavily onsource-critical methods, fragmenting the texts to an extent no longer acceptable.There is also a certain inevitability about his conclusions. For example, he finds a"J" fragment in Exod 32:25-29. This turns out, conveniently, to be the only placethe "J" Editor states that he regarded Levites as the sole legitimate cultic

15. Ibid., 75-76.16. Ibid., 76.17. Ibid., 76.18. Ibid., 77.19. Ibid., 78.20. Ibid., 77.21. Ibid., 78.

Appendix 145

officials.22 Haran believes that there was a difference between what was accept-able at the local shrine, where anyone could sacrifice, and the Temple, whereonly established priestly (i.e. Levitical) families could sacrifice, for "all the [Pen-tateuchal] sources.. .admit that no priesthood exists outside the tribe of Levi.. .thepriesthood is carried out only by certain families of that tribe—by that of Aaron,or of Zadok, or by families who have attained the priesthood at the temple."23

(He regards the "J" narrative of Exod 19:6 as anachronistic.24)Haran goes on to deal with 2 Sam 8:18 and 20:26. For him the passages deal-

ing with David's sons and Ira the Jairite as priests must mean that they werepriests of the high places, because only Levites could be priests of the centralsanctuary. Furthermore, Eleazar's son in 1 Sam 7:1 was not a priest since he wasonly guarding the ark, and not carrying it. Zadok must also be a Levite: in 2 Sam15:24, we are told, "and behold also Zadok and all the Levites with him werecarrying the ark," of which Haran says, "This gives the impression that Zadok isconsidered to be one of them."25 For this, we might compare a hypothetical sen-tence from Genesis: "And behold Noah and all the animals with him were enter-ing the ark." Haran's views are unlikely in the extreme. He assumes that, sinceLevites were priests and priests were Levites in a later period, they must havebeen priests at an earlier period. It is significant that in the earlier portions of theHebrew Bible, nevertheless, there is no obvious correlation between priest andLevite, with the exception of th Danite legend itself.

4. The Question of the Secular Tribe of Levi

To return to the question of the secular Levite: Wellhausen suggested that therewas a secular tribe of Levi which, after the Shechem event related in Gen 34,26

was looking for a place in society, and as Moses had come from the tribe, itsmembers naturally assumed sacrificial duties (Wellhausen regarded priests pri-marily as sacrificers). Possibly, according to Wellhausen, the name Levite was atfirst only given to people descended from Moses, and was only later transferredto priests as a whole.27

Gray too has some valuable insights on the history of the tribe of Levi and itsrelation to the priesthood. With respect to the latter question, Gray said that theLevites had once been a secular tribe, as the sagas and the Blessing of Jacob inGenesis imply.28 Their "conversion" to a priestly tribe appears to have been anevent which was started, if not entirely completed, by Moses some time betweenthe Exodus and the Conquest.29 This process is hinted at in Exod 32:25-29, which

22. Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel, 66.23. Ibid., 71.24. Haran, "Priests and Priesthood," EncJud 13:1069-86 (1073).25. Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel, 77.26. Cf. also Moore, A Critical andExegetical Commentary on Judges, 384.27. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel, 145.28. G. B. Gray, Sacrifice in the Old Testament: Its Theory and Practice (Oxford, 1925), 245.29. Ibid., 248.

146 Sacred Dan

shows the zeal of the Levites for Yahweh. Gray notes that this shows the samecharacteristics as the Genesis narratives in that Levi here is portrayed as apriestly tribe in waiting, but is still at least partly secular. The ruthlessness whichcharacterized the tribe in Gen 49 is still apparent here, except that here the Leviteswere using their violence in righteousness.30 Gray suggests that Levi became asacred tribe over the course of the years, but that, as the Danite story shows, theywere not the only people to be able to fulfil priestly functions. After that time theexclusive claims of the Levites were gradually recognized.31 Gray does, neverthe-less, admit that it was possible that some priests who were not strictly Leviticalbecame Levites in the sense of cultic functionaries.32

Gray's views are quite plausible, although he tends to date the prose sectionsof the Pentateuch much earlier than the poetical sections. Thus he dates theblessing of Moses to ca. 550.33 In the legend of Dan he sees the Levite as alreadybeing a cultic functionary who found it difficult to find work at a shrine in thesouth, since there was a higher proportion of Levites there.34 The implication ofthe argument is that he assumes the Levite was in fact already a priest, sinceaccording to his theory, the Levites had been set apart for the priesthood at sometime during the lifetime of Moses.

Cody's hypothesis is that the Levites might have been late arriving in the land,and thus had no territory, or were not numerous enough to have been given one.Since they had no land, they were searching for a landless trade, and so theyreturned to professional priesthood which had been their traditional role in soci-ety. They were, nevertheless, not born priests, but became priests like the Leviteof Judg 18:3-4 who had to be asked by the Danites exactly what he was doing, towhich he responds that he is a priest.35 All these views have much to commendthem, but none seems to do complete justice to the evidence that we have at ourdisposal.

One avenue of approach is to ask: When we argue about whether there was asecular tribe of Levi or not, what exactly do we mean by the term "tribe"? Does itimply consanguinity, or is it something looser, or indeed a is it a territorial term?To take the example of the tribe about which, for various reasons, we know most:Judah. In Judah there were certainly diverse racial groups, for example, Calebites,possibly Kenites, Simeonites, at a later date Jebusites, as well as Judahites proper.While it is certain that they were not descended from a common ancestor—thepatriarch Judah—they are seen to act together as one unit, a tribe. Thus, whenDavid is asked to be king over all Judah (2 Sam 2:1-4), it is not surprising that hebecomes king in Hebron, the centre of the sub-tribe of Caleb. Soggin suggeststhat "Judah" was a territorial term, and not a demographic term.36

30. Ibid., 249.31. Ibid., 254.32. Ibid., 255.33. Ibid., 246.34. Ibid., 216-17.35. Cody, A History oj Old Testament Priesthood, 56-59.36. Soggin, Introduction to the History of Israel and Judah, 182.

Appendix 147

The idea of "tribe" as a geographical term is one which is becoming commonin the scholarly literature, and indeed makes a degree of sense. Just as Judah maybe a geographical term, so might Gad or Gilead—usually Gad is taken to be thename of the population, and Gilead the place where they lived, but it is obviouslynot as simple as that. There is, however, a problem with this in the Hebrew Bible,because whether or not in historical fact "tribe" was a geographical term, in theBible the term is used to refer to a population descended from a commonancestor.37 Thus in the accounts of the portioning out of land to the population, itis the tribes that occupy the territory. This is even more apparent when one takesthe tribe of Levi into account: whatever the historical truth of the matter, Levi isregarded as a tribe without a territory; it is, then, the exception that can be takenas proving the rule. Indeed, Gunneweg has pointed out that the Hebrew Biblegoes out of its way to asseverate that Levi is a part of the tribal system,38 in thesame way that, say, Judah is even though it did not have its own territory. Thus,whatever Levi's origins, we can equate membership of the tribal system with fulltribal status. This is regardless of whether the Levites felt they were descendedfrom the patriarch Levi, or indeed regardless of whether or not they ever had anyterritory. The status of the tribe of Levi is further enhanced by the fact that, likethe Davidic tribe of Judah, it is one of the Leah tribes. These are always men-tioned first in the tribal order, and to a certain extent are regarded as pre-eminent.Furthermore, the very fact that they were regarded as resident aliens in the othertribes suggests that they were felt to have an allegiance to another group, evi-dently to their own tribe of Levi.

We may now return to the question whether this tribe was a secular tribe. Thisdoes not have to be answered on the basis of the important traditions of Gen 34and 49 alone. If we turn to the appendix of the book of Judges (chs. 17-21), wedo in fact find secular Levites. Jonathan ben Gershom was not a priest until Micahand, subsequently, the Danites appointed him—indeed Micah even has to suggestto him that he become a priest. There is also, as far as we know, nothing religiousabout the Levite of chs. 19-21! It seems that if we find any religious functioninherent in either of these men, it is because we are presupposing that Leviteswere inherently religious and not secular, and that we then reflect these presup-positions back on to a text which will not support them (pace Gunneweg).

5. Proposed Reconstruction of the History of Leviin the Light of Judges 17-18

It is now possible to offer our own historical reconstruction of the tribe of Levi.In Gen 49:5-7, Simeon and Levi (in that order!) are brothers. This appears tomean that they share a similar fate—dispersal. We are not entirely sure how thiscame about, although, like Wellhausen and Moore, we might like to speak of a

37. Whybray, for example, defines a tribe as "a territorial group of settled agricultural or evenurban people who claim a common ancestry"; see R. N. Whybray, "Tribe," in The Oxford Companionto the Bible (ed. B. M. Metzger and M. D. Coogan; New York: 1993), 778-79 (779).

38. Gunneweg, Leviten undPriester, 79.

148 Sacred Dan

Shechem event on the basis of Gen 34. This may have involved a similar inter-tribal action to that depicted in Judg 21, or a battle may have taken place wherethe tribes may have been severely weakened; the Genesis traditions are infuriat-ingly obscure on the point. After this "Shechem event," Simeon, at least, seemsto have been absorbed into Judah, losing its full tribal identity. Levi, sharing thesame fate, was also dispersed among the other tribes, and some at least of itsmembers were attached to Judah. This is where the similarity between the twotribes ends.

Levi did not suffer the same fate as its brother tribe Simeon: it was dispersed,but not wholly absorbed. Whereas Simeon became a clan of Judah, the Leviteswere always regarded as resident aliens, not wholly part of the host tribe. Whywas this? The most simple explanation is that, whereas it was not worth remem-bering that a family was Simeonite, possibly it was, on the other hand, worthremembering that it was Levitical.

The only reason that we know of that Levi would have had to be proud ofitself is that Moses was always regarded as a Levite. In view of the close associa-tion between them and the founder of the Yahwistic faith, it seems highlyprobable that Mosaic traditions were guarded and cherished by the Levites—inthe first place as tribal memories, and then as traditions important to all the tribes.Possibly, because of these traditions, people would have regarded them as beingcloser to God in some way, in the same way that Moses was closer to God. Thus,rather than the Levites choosing to associate themselves with sanctuaries, itseems more likely that they would have been asked to become associated withthe sanctuaries. This is exactly what happens in Judg 17: Micah asks Jonathan tobe his priest, and is then very pleased to have a Levite in his private shrine. Thisis a more likely scenario because of the highly conservative nature of religion ingeneral: Levites who were asked to serve in sanctuaries would be infinitely moreacceptable than Levites who chose of their own accord to do so. Cody's idea thatthe Levites did not have anything to do39 is unlikely since the tribe of Simeon didnot seem to have difficulties of this sort, and one would naturally expect the sameto be true of the Levites.

Let us return to Deut 33:8-11. Cody points out that vv. 8-9a and 11 are in thesingular, using "Levi" to refer to the whole tribe, while vv. 9b-10 are in theplural. He suggests that the passages must date from different times.40 The pas-sage in the singular he regards as older because it mentions the Urim and theThummim. However, since these were part of the high priest's regalia at a verylate date, even after they had ceased to be used for normal oracular consultation,it is not possible to suggest an early date for the passage simply from a referenceto them. So, whereas Cody sees the singular part as particularly ancient, and theplural part of a much more recent date, we do not necessarily take this view.

The whole blessing fits in exceptionally well with the general thrust of Deu-teronomy, which is particularly concerned with the needs of the tribe of Levi as a

39. Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood, 59.40. Ibid., 115-16.

Appendix 149

whole. A form-critical analysis of the opening verse is very revealing. If wefollow the LXX (cf. BHS n. 8a), what we have is not a blessing, nor a statement,but a prayer, an intercession, put significantly onto the validating lips of Moses.The request is that God might allow the whole of the tribe of Levi to serve aspriests because of their zeal for him, and that God might restore the group to itsfull tribal status. In view of this, it seems that the whole of this section maypossibly be regarded as having been composed as a unit by the compilers ofDeuteronomy. The alternation from singular to plural and back again is notunknown in Hebrew, especially in poetry, and, therefore, no objection to thisview. Even if this is not the case, it is still clear that the passage is an accuratereflection of the views of the compilers.

Thus I would suggest that, on balance, the majority—if not all—of the ancienttexts point to the idea that the tribe of Levi was not originally an exclusivelypriestly tribe, and, although they were preferred as priests, as at Dan, they did notalways function in this way. It is highly possible, however, that only thoseLevites who were priests at a later date retained the name "Levite," and that theothers, like the "twin" tribe of Simeon, were eventually absorbed into the tribesamong whom they lived. Thus, Levi, I would suggest, went from being a seculartribe like any other in the earlier texts to the priestly caste of the later strata of theHebrew Bible. Other priests who were not strictly of Levitical descent may alsohave been adopted into the tribe, in a similar fashion to the clans of the tribe ofJudah.

6. The Levitical Priesthood of Dan

The priesthood at Dan seems to have had particularly strong claims to Leviticaldescent—indeed, descent from Moses himself. This is despite the fact that 1 Kgs12:31 appears to discredit the priesthoods of both Bethel and Dan by claimingthey were non-Levitical. That the tradition of the Mosaic ancestry of the priestsof Dan was well known in Israel is shown by the fact that even when Judg 17-18were used as a polemic against the shrine, the redactors did not feel able legiti-mately to excise the name of Moses as the traditional ancestor of the prieststhere. Surely no one in later Israel would have invented such a tradition. Muchmore than this we do not know. That the shrine survived into Roman times wouldsuggest that Dan still had a priesthood at that stage, but whether it had a directconnection with the ancient Israelite priesthood or not, cannot at this remove beascertained.

7. Conclusions

The importance of Judg 17-18 for the study of the history of the tribe of Levi isinestimable. These chapters contain one of the only references to a Levite who isa priest. We noted earlier that the Levite has to be made a priest at the instigationof the patron of the shrine, but that he is preferable in this role to the Ephraimiteson of Micah. We have seen that the Hebrews also had non-Levitical priests, but

150 Sacred Dan

what may be unexpected in the chapters is that Levites were preferred as priestsat a relatively early date. This is in contrast to other sources which indicate thatthe tribal origin of priests was not an issue in pre-Josianic times, and that it wasonly with Josiah's reform that it became an important concern.

The Danite story may be seen as a crystallization of the historical processes bywhich Levites became priests. According to the legend they were invited to do sobecause of their tribal links with the founder of the Yahwistic faith, Moses. It,therefore, seems appropriate that the Levitical priest should be, not the grandsonof Moses' brother Aaron, but, according to tradition, the direct descendant ofMoses himself. This tradition—one of the most important for the shrine of Dan—was almost certainly treasured, so that by the time our present text was formu-lated in the period immediately following the fall of Dan to the Assyrians, itwould probably have been inconceivable to have omitted it.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources and Reference Works

Borger, R. Assyrisch-babylonische Zeichenliste. AOAT 33. Neukirchen-Vluyn: NeukirchenerVerlag, 1978.

Cagni, L. L 'Epopea di Erra. Studi Semitici 34. Rome: Institute di studi del vincio oriente,1969.

Cerboni Baiardi, G., ed. Tasso: Gerusalemme Liberata. Modena: Institute di studi rinas-cimentali, 1991.

Cohen, A. The Babylonian Talmud: Sotah. London: Soncino Press, 1985.Dalley, S. Myths from Mesopotamia. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.De Selincourt, A., and A. R. Burn (trans.). Herodotus: The Histories. Harmondsworth:

Penguin, 1972.Diez Macho, A. Neophyti 7. 6 vols. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificos,

1968-79.Dirksen, P. B. The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshitta Version. Part 2 fascicle 2.

Judges-Samuel. Leiden: Brill, 1978.Duff, J. D., ed. Silias Italicus: Punica. 1 vols. LCL. London: Heinemann, 1934.Eliade, M. Essential Sacred Writings from around the World. New York: HarperCollins, 1992.

Previously published as From Primitives to Zen. New York: Harper & Row, 1967.Erman, A., and H. Grapow. Worterbuch der Agyptischen Sprache. 1 vols. Berlin: Akademie-

Verlag, 1926-63.Evelyn-White, H. G., ed. Hesiod, The Homeric Hymns andHomerica. LCL. London: Heine-

mann, 1914.Field, F., ed. Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1875.Friedlander, G. Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer. London: Kegan Paul, 1916.Ginsburger, M. Pseudo-Jonathan. Berlin: Calvary, 1903.Harmon A. M., ed. Lucian: Works. 8 vols. LCL. London: Heinemann, 1925.Hoftijzer, J., and K. Jongeling. Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions. 2 vols.

Leiden: Brill, 1995.Jones, W. H. S., ed. Pausanias: Description of Greece. 4 vols. LCL. London: Heinemann, 1918.Joiion, P., and T. Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. 2 vols. SubsidiaBiblica 14. Rome:

Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1991.Labat, R., A. Cacquot, M. Sznycer and M. Vieyra. Les religions du Proche-Orient asiatique.

Le tresor spirituel de 1'humanite. Paris: Fayard-Denoel, 1970.Lambert, W. G., and A. R. Millard. Atra-hasis: The Babylonian Story of the Flood. Oxford:

Clarendon, 1969.Lambert, W. G., and S. B. Parker. Enuma Elis: The Babylonian Epic of Creation: The Cunei-

form Text. Oxford: Clarendon, 1966.Neusner, J. The Mishnah: A New Translation. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988.Simon, M., and I. W. Slotki. The Babylonian Talmud: Baba Bathra. 1 vols. London: Soncino,

1976.Smelik, K. A. D. Writings from Ancient Israel. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991. ET Behouden

Schrift. Baarn: Ten Have, 1984.

152 Sacred Dan

Starr, I. Queries to the Sungod. State Archives of Assyria 4. Helsinki: Helsinki UniversityPress, 1990.

Thackeray, H. St. J., ed. Josephus: Works. 9 vols. LCL. London: Heinemann, 1930.Thureau-Dangin, F. Rituels accadiens. Paris: Leroux, 1921.Way, A. S., ed. Euripides: Works. Vols. 1-4. LCL. London: Heinemann, 1912.Xella, P. / Testi Rituali di Ugarit. Vol. 1, Testi. Studi Semitici 54. Rome: Consiglio nazionale

delle ricerche, 1981.

Secondary Sources

Ackroyd, P. R. "The Teraphim." ExpTim 62 (1950-51): 378-80.Aharoni, Y. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. 2d ed. Philadelphia: Westminster,

1979.Ahlstro'm, G. W. Aspects of Syncretism in Israelite Religion. Lund: Gleerup, 1963.Albertz, R. A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period. 2 vols. London: SCM

Press, 1994. ET of Religionsgeschichte Israels. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,1992.

Albright, W. F. Archaeology and the Religion of Israel. 3d ed. Baltimore: The Johns HopkinsPress, 1953.

—"Are the Ephod and the Teraphim Mentioned in Ugaritic Literature?" BASOR 83 (1941):38^2.

—From the Stone Age to Christianity. 2d ed. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1957.—Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan. Jordan Lectures 1965. London: Athlone, 1968.Alt, A. "Joshua." Pages 176-92 in Kleine Schriften I. Munich: Beck, 1953.Alter, R. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, 1981.Amit, Y. "Hidden Polemic in the Conquest of Dan." JT40 (1990): 4-20.Anderson, A. A. Psalms. 2 vols. NCB. London: Oliphants, 1972.Anderson, G. W. The History and Religion of Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1966.Arnold, W. R. Ephod and Ark. Harvard Theological Studies 3. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard

University Press, 1917.Auerbach, E. Mimesis. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1953. ET of Mimesis. Berne:

Francke, 1946.Auneau, J. "Sacerdoce." DBSup 10, cols. 1170-54.Bailey, L. R. "The Golden Calf." HUCA 42 (1972): 97-115.Barkay, G. "The Iron Age II-III." Pages 302-73 in The Archaeology of Ancient Israel. Edited

by A. Ben-Tor. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992.Barr, J. Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1968.—The Semantics of Biblical Language. Oxford: Clarendon, 1961.Barthelemy, D. "La qualite du Texte Massoretique de Samuel." Pages 1-44 in The Hebrew and

Greek Texts of Samuel. Edited by E. Tov. Jerusalem: Academon, 1980.Bartusch, M. W. Understanding Dan: An Exegetical Study of a Biblical City, Tribe and

Ancestor. JSOTSup 379. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003.Barucq, A. "Oracle et divination." DBSup 6:752-88.Becker, U. Richterzeit und Konigtum. BZAW 192. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990.Bernhardt, K. H. Gott undBild. Theologische Arbeiten 2. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt,

1956.Bertheau, E. Das Buch der Richter und Ruth. 2nd ed. Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1883.Bewer, J. "The Composition of Judges, Chaps. 17,18." AJSL 29 (1912-13): 261-83.Biran, A. Biblical Dan. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College, 1994.

Bibliography 153

—"To the God Who is in Dan." Pages 142-51 in Temples and High Places in Biblical Times.Edited by A. Biran. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College, 1981.

Biran, A., and J. Naveh. "An Aramaic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan." 7E743 (1993): 81-98.Black, J., and A. Green. Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia. London: British

Museum Press, 1992.Blenkinsopp, J. Gibeon and Israel. SOTSMS 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972.Block, D. I. "The Period of the Judges: Religious Disintegration Under Tribal Rule." Pages

39-57 in Gileadi, ed., Israel's Apostasy and Restoration.Boling, R. G. Judges. AB 6A. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1975.Bottero, J. La Religion Babylonienne. Mythes et Religions 30. Paris: Presses universitaires de

France, 1952.Bray, J. S. "Genesis 23: A Priestly Paradigm for Burial." JSOT60 (1993): 69-73.—Review of F. H. Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel. VT46 (1996): 566-67.—Review of P. D. Miller, The Religion of Ancient Israel. J7SNS 53 (2002): 126-29.Bright, J. Early Israel in Recent Historical Writing. SBT 19. London: SCM Press, 1956.—A History of Israel. 3d ed. London: SCM Press, 1981.Budd, P. J. "Priestly Instruction in Pre-Exilic Israel." VT23 (1973): 1-14.Budde, K. Das Buck der Richter. Freiburg: Mohr, 1897.—Die Bucher der Richter und Samuel, ihre Quellen und ihr Aufbau. Giessen: J. Ricker, 1890.Burney, C. F. The Book of Judges. 2d edn. London: Rivingtons, 1920.Campbell, A. F. The Ark Narrative. SBLDS 16. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1975.Carroll, R. P. "The Aniconic God and the Cult of Images." 5731 (1977): 51-64.Cerny, J. "Egyptian Oracles." Pages 35-48 in A Saite Oracle Papyrus. Edited by R. A. Parker.

Brown Egyptological Studies 4. Providence, R.I.: Brown University Press, 1962.Childs, B. S. Exodus. OTL: London: SCM Press, 1974.—Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context. London: SCM Press, 1985.Clements, R. E. Isaiah 1-39. NCB. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1980.—Deuteronomy. Old Testament Guides. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989.Cody, A. A History of Old Testament Priesthood. AnBib 35. Rome: Pontifical Biblical

Institute, 1969.Cogan, M., and H. Tadmor. 2 Kings. AB 11. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1988.Coogan, M. D. "Of Cults and Cultures: Reflections on the Interpretation of Archaeological

Evidence." PEQ 119 (1987): 1-8.Couroyer, B. "Histoire d'une tribu semi-nomade de Palestine." RB 58 (1951): 75-91.Criisemann, F. Der Widerstand gegen das Konigtum. WMANT 49. Neukirchen-Vluyn:

Neukirchener Verlag, 1978.Cryer, F. H. Divination in Ancient Israel and its Near Eastern Environment. JSOTSup 142.

Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.Curtis, A. H. W. "Aetiology." DBI, 8.—"Some Observations on the 'Bull' Terminology in the Ugaritic Texts and the Old Testa-

ment." Pages 17-31 in In Quest of the Past. Edited by A. S. van der Woude. OTS 26.Leiden: Brill, 1990.

David, R. Religion and Magic in Ancient Egypt. London: Penguin, 2002.Davies, G. I. Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.—Hosea. NCB. London: Marshall Pickering, 1992.—Megiddo. Cities of the Biblical World. Cambridge: Lutterworth, 1987.Davies, P. R. "Ark or Ephod in I Sam. XIV. 18?" JTS NS 26 (1975): 81-87.Day, J. "The Destruction of the Shiloh Sanctuary and Jeremiah vii 12,14." Pages 87-94 in

Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament. Edited by J. A. Emerton. SVT 30.Leiden: Brill, 1979.

154 Sacred Dan

—Psalms. Old Testament Guides. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990.De Vaux, R. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. 2d ed. London, 1965. ET of Les

Institutions de I'Ancien Testament. 1 vols. Paris, 1958-60.—The Early History of Israel. 2 vols. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1978. ET ofHistoire

ancienne d'Israel. 2 vols. Paris: Lecoffre, 1971.—" 'Levites' mineens et levites Israelites." Pages 265-73 in Lex tua veritas. Edited by H. Gross

and F. Mussner. Trier: Paulinus, 1961.—"Sur 1'origine Kenite ou Madianite du Yahvisme." Eretz Israel 9 (W. F. Albright Volume)

(1969): 28-32.Deller, K. "Die Hausgotter der Familie Sukrija S. Huja." Pages 47-76 in Studies on the

Civilization and Culture ofNuzi and the Hurrians in Honor of Ernest R. Lacheman.Edited by M. A. Morrison and D. I. Owen. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1981.

Dothan, T. The Philistines and Their Material Culture. New Haven: Yale University Press,1982.

Dothan, M., and T. Dothan. "An Archaeological Romance." BAR (September/October 1993):40-53.

Dozeman, T. B. God on the Mountain. SBLMS 37. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989.Driver, S. R. Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel. 2d ed.

Oxford: Clarendon, 1913.Dussaud, R. "Cultes canaaneens au sources du Jourdain d'apres les textes de Ras Shamra."

Syria 18 (1936): 283-95.Edelman D. V., ed., The Triumph ofElohim. Kampen: Kok, 1995.Eerdmans, B. D. The Religion of Israel. Leiden: Universitaire Pers Leiden, 1947.Eissfeldt, O. Die Quellen des Richterbuches. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1925.—"Lade und Stierbild." Pages 282-305 in Kleine Schriften H. Tubingen: Mohr, 1963 (repr.

fromZW58 [1940-41]: 190-215).Emerton, J. A. "Abraham Kuenen and the Early Religion of Ancient Israel," Pages 8-28 in

Abraham Kuenen (1828-1891): His Major Contributions to the Study of the OldTestament. Edited by P. B. Dirksen and A. van der Kooij. OTS 29. Leiden: Brill 1993.

—"A Difficult Part of Mot's Message to Baal in the Ugaritic Texts (CTA 5 i 4-6)." AJBA 2(1972): 50-71.

—" 'The High Places at the Gates' in 2 Kings xxviii 8." VT44 (1994): 455-67.—"Some Problems in Genesis xiv." Pages 73-102 in Studies in the Pentateuch. Edited by J. A.

Emerton. SVT 41. Leiden: Brill, 1990.Exum, J. C. "The Centre Cannot Hold: Thematic and Textual Instabilities in Judges." CBQ 52

(1990): 410-31.Faulkner, R. O. A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian. Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1962.Faur, J. "The Biblical Idea of Idolatry." JQR NS 69 (1978): 1-15.Fernandez, A. "El santuario de Dan. Estudio critico-exegetico sobre Jud. 17-18." Biblica 15

(1934): 23 7-64.Fleming, D. E. The Installation of Baal's High Priestess at Emar. HSM. Atlanta: Scholars

Press, 1992.Fohrer, G. History of Israelite Religion. London, 1973. ET of Geschichte der Israelitischen

Religion. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1968.Gall, A. F. von. Altisraelitische Kultstatten. BZAW 3. Giessen: Ricker'sche Verlagsbuch-

handlung, 1898.Gardiner, A. Egyptian Grammar. 3d ed. Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1957.Caster, T. H. "Ba'al is Risen." Iraq 6 (1939): 109-43.Gelston, A. The Peshitta of the Twelve Prophets. Oxford: Clarendon, 1987.Gerbrandt, G. E. Kingship According to the Deuteronomistic History. SBLDS 87. Atlanta:

Scholars Press, 1986.

Bibliography 155

Gileadi, A., ed. Israel's Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Roland K. Harrison.Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.

Gordon, C. H. The Mediterranean Factor in the Old Testament: Congress Volume; Bonn,1962. SVT 9. Leiden: Brill 1963.

—"The Story of Jacob and Laban in the Light of the Nuzi Tablets." BASOR 66 (1937): 25-27.Gordon, R. P. 1 and 2 Samuel: A Commentary. Exeter: Paternoster, 1986.Goulder, M. D. The Psalms of the Sons ofKorah. JSOTSup 20. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic

Press, 1982.Grabbe, L. L. "Prophets, Priests, Diviners and Sages in Ancient Israel." Pages 43-62 in Of

Prophets' Visions and the Wisdom of Sages: Essays in Honour ofR. Norman Whybray onHis 70th Birthday. Edited by H. A. McKay and D. J. A. Clines. JSOTSup 16. Sheffield:Sheffield Academic Press, 1993.

Gray, G. B. Sacrifice in the Old Testament: Its Theory and Practice. Oxford: Clarendon, 1925.Gray, J. 1 and 2 Kings. 2d ed. OTL. London: SCM Press, 1970.—Joshua, Judges and Ruth. 2d ed. NCB. Basingstoke: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1986.Greenberg, M. "Another Look at Rachel's theft of the Teraphim." JBL 81 (1962): 237^8.Greenfield, J. C. "Aspects of Aramean Religion." Pages 67-78 in Miller, Hanson and McBride,

eds., Ancient Israelite Religion.Gressmann, H. Die Anfdnge Israels. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964.Gunneweg, A. H. J. Leviten undPriester. FRLANT 89. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,

1965.Gunkel, H. Genesis. 2d ed. HKAT. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1902.Gurney, O. R. The Hittites. Rev. ed. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1990.—Some Aspects of Hittite Religion. The Schweich Lectures 1976. Oxford: Clarendon, 1977.Gutmann, J. "The 'Second Commandment' and the Image in Judaism." HUCA 32 (1961):

161-74.Habel, N. C. Yahweh Versus Baal: A Conflict of Religious Cultures. New York: Bookman,

1964.Hahn, J. Das "Goldene Kalb": Die Jahwe-Verehning bei Stierbildern in der Geschichte

Israels. Europaische Hochschulschriften 23.154. Frankfurt: Lang, 1981.Hallo, W. W. "Cult Statue and Divine Image." Pages 1-17 in Scripture in Context II. Edited by

W. W. Hallo, J. C. Moyer and L. G. Perdue. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1983.—"The Origins of the Sacrificial Cult: New Evidence from Mesopotamia and Israel." Pages

3-13 in Miller, Hanson and McBride, eds., Ancient Israelite Religion.Handy, L. K. "The Appearance of Pantheon in Judah." Pages 27^43 in Edelman, ed., The

Triumph ofElohim.Haran, M. "Priests and Priesthood." EncJud 13:1069-86.—Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1978.Hauret, C. "Aux origines du sacerdoce danite." Pages 103-13 in Melanges bibliques rediges en

I 'honneur de Andre Robert. Travaux de 1' Institute Catholique de Paris 4. Paris: Bloud &Gay, 1957.

Hertzberg, H. W. Die BucherJosua, Richter, Ruth. 2d ed. ATD. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht, 1959.

Hoffner, H. A. "Hittite Tarpis and Hebrew Teraphim." JNES 28 (1968): 61-68.Jacobsen, T. "The Graven Image." Pages 15-33 in Miller, Hanson and McBride, eds., Ancient

Israelite Religion.Japhet, S. I and II Chronicles. OTL. London: SCM Press, 1993.Johnson, A. R. The Cultic Prophet in Ancient Israel. 2d ed. Cardiff: University of Wales Press,

1962.

156 Sacred Dan

Johnstone, W. "Old Testament Technical Expressions in Property Holding: Contributions fromUgarit." Page 313 in Ugaritica 6. Mission de Ras Shamra 17. Paris: MissionArcheologique de Ras Shamra, 1969.

Kaiser, O. Isaiah 13-39. OTL. London: SCM Press, 1974. ET of Der Prophet Jesaja Kap.13-39. ATD 18. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973.

Keel, O., and C. Uehlinger. Gottinnen, Cotter und Gottessymbole. Freiburg: Herder, 1992.Klein, L. R. The Triumph of Irony in the Book of Judges. JSOTSup 68. Sheffield: Sheffield

Academic Press, 1988.Koch, K. The Growth of the Biblical Tradition: The Form Critical Method. London: Black,

1969. ET of Was ist Formgeschichte? Neue Wege der Bibelexegese. 2d ed. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967.

Kramer, S. N. The Sumerians. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963.Kraus, H.-J. Worship in Israel. Oxford: Blackwell, 1966. ET of Gottesdienst in Israel. 2d ed.

Munich: Kaiser, 1962.Kuenen, A. Historisch-kritische Einleitung in die Bucher des alien Testaments. Part 1, vol. 2.

2d ed. Leipzig: Reisland, 1890.Labuschagne, C. J. "Teraphim: A Proposal for Its Etymology." VT 16 (1966): 115-17.Lambert, W. G. "The Tamitu Texts." Pages 119-23 in La Divination en Mesopotamie Ancienne

et dans les Regions Voisines. Edited by J. Nougayrol. Paris: Presses universitaires deFrance, 1966.

Lancaster, W. The Rwala Bedouin Today. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.Landsberger, B., and H. Tadmor. "Fragments of Clay Liver Models from Hazor." IEJ 14

(1964): 201-18.Lindars, B. Judges 1-5. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1995.Long, B. O. The Problem of Etiological Narrative in the Old Testament. BZAW 108. Berlin:

Topelmann, 1968.Macdonald, J. "The Status and Role of the Na'ar in Israelite Society." JNES 35 (1976): 147-70.Macintosh, A. A. "The Meaning of mklym in Judges xviii 7." VT35 (1985): 68-77.Malamat, A. "The Ban in Mari and the Bible." Pages 52-61 in Mari and the Bible. 2d ed.

Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1990.—"The Danite Migration and the Pan Israelite Exodus-Conquest: A Biblical Narrative

Pattern." Biblica 51 (1970): 1-16.—"The Forerunner of Biblical Prophecy: The Mari Documents." Pages 33-52 in Miller,

Hanson and McBride, eds., Ancient Israelite Religion.—Mari and the Early Israelite Experience. The Schweich Lectures 1984. Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 1989.Martin, J. D. The Book of Judges. Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1975.Mayes, A. D. H. Israel in the Period of the Judges. SBT 2d Series 29. London: SCM Press,

1974.—Judges. Old Testament Guides. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1985.—The Story of Israel Between Settlement and Exile. London: SCM Press, 1983.Mazar, A. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible. 2d ed. ABRL. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday,

1992.—"The 'Bull Site': An Iron Age I Open Cultic Place." BASOR 247 (1982): 27-42.—"On Cult Places and Early Israelites: A Response to Michael Coogan." BAR 14/4 (1988): 45.McCarter, P. K. I Samuel. AB 8. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1980.—II Samuel. AB 9. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1984.McEvenue, S. "A Return to the Sources in Genesis 28,10-22?." ZAW 106 (1994): 375-89.

Bibliography 157

Mettinger, T. N. D. No Graven Image? Israelite Aniconism in its Ancient Near EasternContext. CBOTS 42. Lund: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1995.

—"The Veto on Images and the Aniconic God." Pages 15-29 in Religious Symbols and TheirFunctions. Edited by H. Biezais. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1979.

Meyers, C. "Ephod." ABD 2:550.Milgrom, J. Leviticus 1-16. AB 3. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1991.—Leviticus 23-27. AB 3B. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 2000.Miller, P. D. "Aspects of Ugaritic Religion." Pages 53-66 in Miller, Hanson and McBride,

eds., Ancient Israelite Religion.—The Religion of Ancient Israel. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2000.Miller, P. D., P. D. Hanson and S. D. McBride, eds. Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in

Honor of Frank Moore Cross. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987.Moberly, R. W. L. At the Mountain of God. JSOTSup 22. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,

1983.—The Old Testament of the Old Testament. Overtures to Biblical Theology. Minneapolis:

Fortress, 1992.Montgomery, J. A., and H. S. Gehman. The Books of Kings. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,

1951.Moore, G. F. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T.

Clark, 1895.—Judges. Polychrome Bible. London: David Nutt, 1898.Morenz, S. Egyptian Religion. London: Methuen, 1973. ET of Agyptische Religion. Stuttgart:

Kohlhammer, 1960.Murtonen, A. "Some Thoughts on Judges xvii sq." VT 1 (1951): 223-24.Na'aman, N. Borders and Districts in Biblical Historiography. Jerusalem Biblical Studies 4.

Jerusalem: Simor, 1986.Neihr, H. "The Rise of YHWH in Judahite and Israelite Religion." Pages 45-72 in Edelman, ed.,

The Triumph ofElohim.Nielsen, E. "The Levites in Ancient Israel." Pages 71-81 in Law, History and Tradition.

Copenhagen: Gads Forlag, 1983. Repr. from ASTI3 (1964): 16-27.Niemann, H. M. Die Daniten. FRLANT 135. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985.Noth, M. "The Background of Judges 17-18." Pages 68-85 in Israel's Prophetic Heritage:

Essays in Honor of James Muilenberg. Edited by B. W. Anderson and W. Harrelson.London: SCM Press, 1962.

—TheDeuteronomistic History. 2d ed. JSOTSup 15. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991.ETof UberlieferungsgeschichtlicheStudien. 2d ed. Tubingen: Mohr, 1957.

—Exodus. OTL. London: SCM Press, 1962. ET of Das Zweite Buck Mose: Exodus. ATD 5.Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956.

Nowack, W. Richter, Ruth undBucherSamuelis. HKAT. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,1902.

Obbink, H. T. "Jahwebilder." ZAW41 (1929): 264-74.O'Connell, R. H. "The Rhetorical Purpose of the Book of Judges." Ph.D. diss. Cambridge

University, 1992.Oppenheim, A. L. Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization. 2d ed. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, 1977.—"The Golden Garments of the Gods." JNES 8 (1949): 172-93.—"Sumerian: inim.gar, Akkadian: egirru = Greek: kledon." AfO 17 (1954-56): 49-55.Oswalt, J. N. "Golden Calves and the 'Bull of Jacob.'" Pages 9-20 in Gileadi, ed., Israel's

Apostasy and Restoration.—"The Golden Calves and the Egyptian Concept of Deity." EvQ 45 (1973): 13-20.

158 Sacred Dan

Peckham, B. "Phoenicia and the Religion of Israel: The Epigraphic Evidence." Pages 79-99 inMiller, Hanson and McBride, eds., Ancient Israelite Religion.

Pedersen, J. Israel: Its Life and Culture. London: Oxford University Press, 1940.—"The Role Played by Inspired Persons Among the Israelites and the Arabs." Pages 127-42 in

Studies in Old Testament Prophecy Presented to T. H. Robinson. Edited by H. H.Rowley. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1950.

Penna, A. Giudici e Rut. La sacra bibbia. Rome: Unione Tipografico-Editrice, 1963.Petersen, D. L. The Roles of Israel's Prophets. JSOTSup 17. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic

Press, 1981.Pettinato, G. Die Olwahrsagung bei den Babyloniern. 2 vols. Rome: Institute di studi del

vicino oriente, 1966.Pfeiffer, R. H. Introduction to the Old Testament. Rev. ed. London: A. & C. Black, 1948.Phillips, A. "The Ecstatics' Father." Pages 183-94 in Words and Meanings: Essays Presented

to David Winton Thomas. Edited by P. R. Ackroyd and B. Lindars. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press, 1968.

Polzin, R. Moses and the Deuteronomist. New York: Seabury, 1980.Porter, J. R. "Ancient Israel." Pages 191-214 in Divination and Oracles. Edited by M. Loewe

and C. Blacker. London: Allen & Unwin, 1981.Puech, E. "La stele arameenne de Dan: Bar Hadad II et la coalition des Omrides et de la maison

de David." RB 101 (1994): 215-41.Rad, G. von. Deuteronomy. OTL. London: SCM Press, 1966. ET of Das Funfte Buch Mose:

Deuteronomium. ATD 8. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964.—Old Testament Theology. 2 vols. OTL. London: SCM Press, 1975. ETof Theologie des Alten

Testaments. Munich: Kaiser, 1957-60.Redford, D. B. A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph. SVT 20. Leiden: Brill, 1970.Ringgren, H. Israelite Religion. London: SPCK, 1966. ET of Israelitische Religion. Stuttgart:

Kohlhammer, 1963.Rost, L. The Succession to the Throne of David. Historic Texts and Interpreters in Biblical

Scholarship 1. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1982. ETof Die Uberlieferung desThronnachfolge Davids in Das kleine Credo und andere Studien zum Alten Testament.Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1965, 119-253.

Rudolph, W. Haggai, Sacharja 1-8, Sacharja 9-14, Maleachi. KAT. Giitersloh: GiitersloherVerlagshaus Mohn, 1976.

Sabourin, L. Priesthood: A Comparative Study. Leiden: Brill, 1973.Saggs, H. W. F. The Encounter with the Divine in Mesopotamia and Israel. The Jordan

Lectures 1978. London: Athlone, 1978.Sandars, N. K. The Sea Peoples. London: Thames & Hudson, 1978.Satterthwaite, P. E. "Narrative Artistry and the Composition of Judges 17-21." Ph.D. diss.

Manchester University, 1989.—"'No King in Israel': Narrative Criticism and Judges 17-21." Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1993):

75-88.Sauneron, S. Lespretres de I'ancienne Egypte. Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1957.Schley, D. G. Shiloh: A Biblical City in Tradition and History. JSOTSup 63. Sheffield:

Sheffield Academic Press, 1989.Schmidt, B. B. "The Aniconic Tradition." Pages 75-105 in Edelman, ed., The Triumph of

Elohim.Schmidt, W. H. The Faith of the Old Testament. Oxford: Blackwell, 1983. ET ofAlttestament-

licher Glaube in seiner Geschichte. 4th ed. Studienbiicher 6. Neukirchen-Vluyn:Neukirchener Verlag, 1982.

Schmoldt, H. "Der Uberfall auf Michas Haus (Jdc 18,13-18)." ZAW 105 (1993): 92-98.

Bibliography 159

Schunck, K. D. Benjamin. BZAW 86. Berlin: Topelmann, 1963.Simpson, C. A. The Composition of the Book of Judges. Oxford: Blackwell, 1957.Smith, M. Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament. 2d ed. London:

SCM Press, 1987.Smith, S. "What Were the Teraphim?" JTS 33 (1932): 33-36.Smith, W. Robertson. Lectures on the Religion of the Semites. 3d ed. London: A. & C. Black,

1927.Soden, W. von. The Ancient Orient. Leominster: Gracewing, 1994. ET of Einfuhrung in die

Altorientalistik. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1985.Soggin, J. A. An Introduction to the History of Israel andJudah. London: SCM Press, 1993. ET

of Introduzione allaStoria d'Israele e di Giuda. Brescia: Paideia Editrice, 1993.—Joshua. OTL. London: SCM Press, 1972. ET of Le livre dejosue. Neuchatel: Delachaux &

Niestle, 1970.—Judges. 2d ed. OTL. London: SCM Press, 1987. ET of Giudici. Brescia: Paideia Editrice,

1979.—Introduction to the Old Testament. 3d ed. OTL. London: SCM Press, 1989. ET of Intro-

duzione all'Antico Testamento. 4th ed. Brescia: Paideia Editrice, 1987.—The Prophet Amos. OTL. London: SCM Press, 1987. ETofllprofetaAmos. Brescia Paideia

Editrice, 1982.Spanier, K. "Rachel's Theft of the Teraphim: Her Struggle for Family Primacy." VT42 (1992):

404-12.Speiser, E. A. Genesis. AB 1. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1964.Spina, F. A. "The Danite Story Historically Reconsidered." JSOT4 (1977): 60-71.Starr, I. Queries to the Sungod. State Archives of Assyria 4; Helsinki, 1990.Sternberg, M. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985.Studer, G. L. Das Buch der Richter. 2d ed. Leipzig: Darp, 1842.Talmon, S. "In Those Days There was No "[ba." Pages 39-52 in King, Cult and Calendar in

Ancient Israel. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986.Tarragon, J. M. de. Le Culte a Ugarit. Cahiers de la Revue Biblique. Paris: Gabalda, 1980.Taubler, E. Biblische Studien: Die Epoche der Richter. Tubingen: Mohr, 1958.Tidwell, N. L. "The Linen Ephod." VT24 (1974): 505-7.Toews, W. I. Monarchy and Religious Institution in Israel Under Jeroboam I. SBLMS 47.

Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993.Uehlinger, C. "Eine anthropomorphe Kultstatue des Gottes von Dan?" Biblische Notizen 72

(1994): 85-100.Van der Toorn, K. "The Nature of the Biblical Teraphim in the Light of Cuneiform Evidence."

CBQ 52 (1990): 203-22.Van Driel, G. The Cult ofAssur. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1969.Vatke, J. K. W. Der Religion des Alien Testaments. Berlin: G. Bethge, 1835.Vaughan, P. H. The Meaning of "Bamd " in the Old Testament. SOTSMS 3. Cambridge: Cam-

bridge University Press, 1974.Veijola, T. Das Konigtum in der Beurteilung der Deuteronomistischen Historiographie.

Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae 198. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia,1997.

Vincent, A. Le livre des Juges. Le livre de Ruth. Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1958.Vriezen, T. C. The Religion of Ancient Israel. London: Lutterworth, 1967. ET ofDe gods-dienst

van Israel. Amsterdam: Zeis, 1963.Webb, B. G. The Book of Judges: An Integrated Reading. JSOTSup 46. Sheffield: JSOT Press,

1987.

160 Sacred Dan

Weil, G. E. Massorah Gedolah. Vol. 1. Catalogi. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum,1971.

Weippert, M. "Gott und Stier." ZDPV11 (1961): 93-117.Wellhausen, J. Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bucher des Alien

Testaments. 2d ed. Berlin: Reimer, 1889.—Prolegomena to the History of Israel. Edinburgh: Black, 1885. ET of Prolegomena zur

Geschichte Israels. Berlin: Reimer 1883. 1st ed. = Die Geschichte Israels I. Berlin:Reimer, 1878.

Westermann, C. "Types of Narrative in Genesis." Pages 1-94 in The Promises to the Fathers.Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980. ET of Verheissungen an die Voter. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht, 1976. Repr. from Forschung am Alien Testament. Theologische Biicherei24. Munich: Kaiser.

—Genesis 12-36: A Commentary. London: SPCK, 1985. ET of Genesis 12-36. BKAT 1/2.Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981.

—Genesis 37-50: A Commentary. London: SPCK, 1986. ET of Genesis 37-50. BKAT 1/3.Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982.

Whybray, R. N. "Tribe." Pages 778-89 in The Oxford Companion to the Bible. Edited by B. M.Metzger and M. D. Coogan. New York: Oxford University Press: 1993.

Wilcoxen, J. A. "Narrative." Pages 57-98 in Old Testament Form Criticism. Edited by J. H.Hayes. Trinity University Monograph Series in Religion 2. San Antonio: Trinity Univer-sity Press, 1974.

Wilhelm, G. The Hurrians. Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1989. ET of Grundziige der Geschichteund Kultur der Hurriter. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1982.

Wolff, H. W. Hosea. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974. ET ofDodekapropheton. Vol. 1.Hosea. BKAT 14/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965.

Wright, C. J. H. God's People in God's Land. Exeter: Paternoster, 1990.Wyatt, N. "Of Calves and Kings: The Canaanite Dimension in the Religion of Israel." SJOT6

(1992): 68-91.Xella, P. "L'influence babylonienne a Ougarit d'apres les textes alphabetiques rituels et

divinatoires." Pages 321-38 in Mesopotamien und seine Nachbarn. Edited by H. J. Nissenand J. Renger. Berlin: Reimer, 1985.

Yadin, Y. " 'And Dan, Why Did He Remain with His Ships?'" AJBA 1 (1968): 9-23.—Hazor. Schweich Lectures 1970. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972.Zimmerli, W. Ezekiel I. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress. ET of Ezechiel. BKAT 13/1.

Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969.

INDEXES

INDEX OF REFERENCES

Hebrew BibleGenesis13:246-81212:6-8128:1313:41414:18-2014:2216:7-1416:1316:1417:12222:3^t24:12-1425:222828:328:10-2228:1128:16-1728:18-2228:19293131:3031:323232:232:23-3333:18-2034

87723941431204346,4747,944743,4444444541,43,444413713445,464543,4444444444143118-21120120454343,4443,45143, 147,148

35:1-735:135:335:435:9-15374041:4549

49:5-749:1649:24

Exodus2:1612:371518:119:619:2219:2420:3-620:320:4-620:420:52828:3028:412929:429:729:929:1029:1529:19

43,454544115,11643,4513513594143, 144,146, 1471471671

9438799494, 14594946666666666,781121129192929292129129129

29:333232:232:332:432:832:25-2932:2632:293434:134:434:17

Leviticus1-161:43:23:83:1388:22-368:22-298:27-2917:1-924:5-9

Numbers12:512:823:2224:827:21

Deuteronomy4:244:31

9264, 94, 14311611665,71,7777144, 145939265676765

94129129129129939110293285

135667777122, 126

7878

162 Sacred Dan

Deuteronomy (cont.)5:65:96:157:97:218:79b-1010:1711:301212:512:812:10-1213:127:1533-343333:8-1 133:8-9a33:833:8a33:1033:11

Joshua3-44:20-24679:1419:3819:4020:622:1322:30-3424:26

Judges-16

1:11:8:21:34-35a1:34-351:34

66787878788714878441213424481356614395, 14394, 1481481229494148

946737127128763694949444

24,27,41128126, 1274040171635

33:193:2655:1766:11-246:136:25-268

8:24-358:278:339:69:3713:2-2313:213:2013:251617-2117-18

17

17:1-617:117:2-417:217:3-417:317:417:5

17:6

67676716,79165150,515175115,116,125115115,116116444450,51205116,38324, 25, 1473, 7-10, 13,15,16,18,19,21,23,24, 26, 28,31,41-43,46, 58, 65,69, 86-89,94, 110,138, 140,147, 14911,35,36,42, 63, 90,1483232,896, 7, 24138646434,6424,89,91,93, 112,12010, 24, 25,27,31

17:7-18:la17:7-817:7

17:7a17:7a-b17:7b17:817:8a17:917:1017:10b17:12

17:1617:1817:3018

18:118:la

18:lb18:lb-618:218:2b18:3-418:5-6

18:518:618:7-1018:718:818:1018:10a18:10b18:11-2618:1118:12-13a18:1218:1318:14

18:1518:17-18

32,333211,16, 19,8920252420, 24, 35253439,892434,89,91,9498913810,17,26,35, 42, 126,12725,2710, 24, 25,312432,3521,24,352414689,111,125, 1388937, 50, 13832,363624138242432,3821,242516,24,43246, 24, 64,121246

1

Index of References 163

18:17 24 2:18 113 22:13 9718:18 89 2:28 97,125 22:15 9718:18a 24 2:36 96 22:18 115,11718:19 24,39,89 3:3 84 23 98,126,18:20 6,24,138 4-6 68 12718:24 39,64,71, 4 24,68,94, 23:4 126

121 97 23:6 115,12618:27-31 32,39 4:4 72 23:9 11518:27 24,124 4:4a 97 23:11-12 12618:28a 25 4:6-7 72 28:6 122,126,18:29a 24 4:8 79 127, 133,18:29b 24,25 4:21 84 13518:30-31 16,21,28, 5 84,87 30 126,127,

64,68,89 5:3 84 13018:30 10,23,28, 5:5 94 30:7 115

34,69,89, 6:2 94 30:8 126125, 140 7:1 145

18:30a 24,25 9 125,134 2 Samuel18:30b 24 9:6 134 2 12718:30b-31a 24 9:12 67 2:1-4 14618:31 23,26-28, 9:22-24 129 2:1 126,127

31 10 126,127 2:28 11418:31b 10,24 14 114,126, 5 12719-21 31, 144, 127, 130 5:6-8 47

147 14:3 94,97,114, 5:19 126,12719:1 27,31,40 115 5:21 8719:la 41 14:8-13 136 6 49,11420 22,126, 14:18-19 97 6:1-2 48

128,130 14:18 114 6:2 7220:18 126,127 14:19 129 6:11-12 4920:23 126 14:35-37 129 6:14 11320:26 129 14:36-37 97 6:17 4820:28 94 14:41 114,122 6:20 11321 148 15:22 121 7 49,5021:25 27,31 15:23 121 7:1-2 48

19 121 7:1 501 Samuel 19:12-16 121 7:2 481-2 94,95 19:13 121 7:3 481 95 19:16 121 7:12-14 501:3-4 100 21 97 7:12 501:3 95,96 21:2 94,97 7:13 481:9 95 21:8 134 7:18 501:15 95 21:10 97,115, 8 491:17 96 125 8:17-18 941:26 96 22 126 8:18 1452:la 76 22:9-10 125 15:24 94,1452:13 96 22:10 134 16:23 128

164 Sacred Dan

2 Samuel (cont.) 2 Kings Ezekiel20 138 1:3 135 10 7220:18 69,124, 2:1-2 65 20 135

138 2:3 138 21:36 12220:25-26 94 2:12 90 28:14 7220:26 145 3 128, 135 28:16 7222 79 5:11 44 43:26 9322:8-16 72 8:7-10 13522:11 72 8:9 90 Hosea24 49 10:11 94 2:1 7824:15-25 48 10:19 94 3:4 118,122,24:16 48 10:28-29 88 12824:18-19 49 11-12 94 4:4-10 94,9824:24 49 13:14 90 4:17 65

16 94,130 5:1 94,981 Kings 17 2,70 6:9 94,981-2 94 17:16 2,65 7:16 782:27 96 17:27-28 94 8:4-6 774:2-5 94 19:2 94 8:4-5 675-8 49 22 94, 135 8:4 655:18-19 49 23 27 8:6 718 85,86,94, 23:5 94 10:5-6 71

103 23:8-9 96 10:5 7112 10,15,27, 23:24 121,122 11:9 78

64,65,70, 25:18 94 12:1 7885,138 12:12 75

12:16 70 Isaiah 13:1-2 6512:25-33 2 1:12 121 13:2 65,71,8412:25-26 68 8:2 94 14:9 6512:28-33 47 24:2 9412:28 65,69,71, 28:7 94 Amos

72,79 30:22 117 1:1 10212:31 67, 149 37:16 72 5:4-6 13412:32 70 40:19 64 7:10-13 65,9813 94 44:10 64 7:10 9413:1 106 8:14 6513:33 93 Jeremiah14:5 135 7:12 44,68 Micah14:9 65 10:14 64 3:5-11 13515:20 124 21 135 3:7 12120:30-34 137 26:6 68 3:11 94,121,22 118,128 26:9 68 13522:6 123 37 135 6:8 12122:12 123 51:17 6422:22-23 123 Zechariah

10:2 122

Index of References 165

Psalms17:151818:7-15242942^19454646:44848:13506568777878:61-6478:62-648080:284-88939799:1104105106:19-22106:19106:20107110:4132132:2-6132:8-10132:17135144147

Ezra2:63

Nehemiah7:65

6679728579121061313138510479797968686872721279797279797765757911350505076797979

95, 112,116, 123

95

/ Chronicles13 4913:1-5 4921 4921:18-19 4921:25 4921:26 4922: 1 49

2 Chronicles3:1 496:41-42 50

Apocrypha or Deutero-Canonical BooksGreek Esther3:13 90

Ecclesiasticus45:10 122

1 Maccabees2:65 904:46 9511:32 90

New TestamentMark6:44 38

Pseudepigrapha3 Maccabees1:9 44

Talmudsb. B. Bathra109b 22

b. Sotah48b 112

JosephusAntiquities18.9.5 1193.162-230 1123.215-230 112

Ancient Near EasternTextsEnuma Elish12972

KTU1.1.4.311.3.3.411.41.4.6.411.4.7.561.5.1.51.5.5.18-221.6.6.181.6.6.54-551.101.10.2.20-351.10.2.91.10.3.361.10.3.371.12.1.311.12.2.551.14.1.24-251.14.1201.17.6.231.22.2.121.22.2.131.431.43.22-231.1051.113.1.112.474.275

ClassicalEuripidesIphigenia in1244-50

HerodotusHistories11.54IV. 15V.82

5353

7475537575117757510276767675757474,7521757475758383827521117

Tauris56

545455

166 Sacred Dan

Hesiod VIII.46.2^ 57 65 99Theogony IX.27.6-8 57 69 96, 100176-206 54 X.6 55 69.3 100485-93 54 X.38.3 57 69.15 100

72B 99Lucian of Samosata Silius Italicus 74 100De Syria Dea Punica 74.8 10036 132 3.24-26 101 95 9942 103 120 101

Inscriptions 120.2 100Pausanias KAI 120.16 100Guide to Greece 3.19 100 121 1011.33.1 56 26 83 126 101II.14.1 56 26 A I I I 1 83 202 132III. 14.4 57 26 CIV 3 83 225 99III. 16 56 32 99 226 99III.18.4-5 57 37 101 228 99VI.22.8-11 56 37 A9 101 239 99VII. 18.6 56 37 B9 101 246 99VII.20.4 57 59 99

INDEX OF AUTHORS

Ackroyd, P. R. 119-21Aharoni, Y. 21Ahlstrom, G. W. 15Albertz, R. 15Albright, W. F. 72, 117, 142Amit, Y. 14Anderson, A. A. 50Anderson, G. W. 11Arnold, W. R. 7,8,97,114, 115Auerbach, E. 41Auneau, J. 90

Bailey, L. R. 74Barkay, G. 19Barr, J. 142Barthelemy, D. 124Bartusch, M. W. 18, 19, 25, 26, 37,

38,41,69,70, 124Barucq, A. 127Becker, U. 25Bernhardt, K. H. 81Bertheau, E. 6, 22Bewer, J. 5Biran, A. 13,18,19,27,40,69,84,

85, 125, 139Black,!. 73Blenkinsopp, J. 57Block, D.I. 14Boling, R. G. 12, 32, 33, 36, 38Bottero, J. 103-106Bray, J. S. 15, 113, 121Bright, J. S. 70Budd, P. J. 90Budde, K. 7Burney, C. F. 7, 20, 23, 32, 35

Cacquot, A. 108Campbell, A. F. 48Carroll, R. P. 67

Cerny, J. 131-33Clements, R. E. 13Cody, A. 11,28,94-96,98,99,101,

104, 107-9, 126, 135, 143, 146,148

Cogan, M. 130Coogan, M. D. 84Couroyer, B. 38Cryer, F. H. 97,111,113,117,128-

33, 135, 136Curtis, A. H. W. 43, 76

Dalley, S. 70, 104David, R. 106, 107, 115Davies, G. I. 65,78,98, 130Davies, P. R. 97, 116Day, J. 13,23,68De Vaux, R. 34, 91, 92, 116, 128,

142,143Deller, K. 118Dothan, M. 18Dothan, T. 18Driver, S. R. 114, 115, 124, 134Dussaud, R. 76

Eerdmans, O. 8Eissfeldt, O. 7,73Eliade, M. 54Emerton, J. A. 47, 71,85, 117Erman, A. 81,90,132Exum, J. C. 36

Faulkner, R. O. 132Faur, J. 64Fernandez, A. 7, 20, 26Field, F. 69, 124Fleming, D. E. 102, 103Fohrer, G. 11Friedlander, G. 119

168 Sacred Dan

Gall, A. F. von 7Gardiner, A. 132Gaster, T. H. 76Gehman, H. S. 135Gelston, A. 123Gerbrandt, G. E. 24Gordon, C. H. 16, 118Gordon, R. P. 96Goulder, M. D. 12, 13, 102Grapow, H. 81,90, 132Gray, G. B. 145, 146Gray,J. 13, 130Green, A. 73Greenberg, M. 118, 119Greenfield, J. C. 132Gressman, H. 43Gunkel, H. 44Gunneweg, A. H. J. 11, 20, 143, 147Gurney, O. R. 82, 83, 108, 132, 133

Habel,N. C. 76Hahn,J. 74Hallo, W. W. 105, 116Handy, L. K. 86Haran, M. 14, 40, 69, 89, 90, 116, 145Harmon, A.M. 103Hauret, C. 8,9,31Hertzberg, H. W. 9,35Hoffner, H. A. 119Hoftijzer, J. 100

Jacobsen, T. 70,80,81Japhet, S. 48, 49Johnson, A. R. 125Johnstone, W. 21Jongeling,K. 100Joiion, P. 66

Klein, L. R. 14,31,35,37,38,40Koch, K. 43,53Kramer, S. N. 106, 113Kraus, H.-J. 142Kuenen, A. 6

Labat, R. 108Labuschagne, C. J. 119

Lambert, W. G. 131, 135Lancaster, W. 38Landsberger, B. 130Lindars, B. 67Long, B. O. 43

Macdonald, J. 34Malamat, A. 42, 91, 136Martin, J. D. 12Mayes, A. D. H. 9,10,49Mazar, A. 18,54,84McCarter, P. K. 48, 49, 96, 113, 114,

121, 124, 126, 127, 134, 135Mettinger, T. N. D. 72Meyers, C. 112Milgrom, J. 85,92,93Miller, P.O. 15,83Moberly, R. W. L. 46, 65Montgomery, J. A. 135Moore, G. F. 6, 20, 23, 32-36, 39,

63-65,116, 145Morenz, S. 107Muraoka, T. 66Murtonen, A. 9

Na'aman, N. 17Naveh, J. 13,69Neihr, H. 86Nielsen, E. 36, 143, 144Niemann, H. M. 10, 17, 18, 24, 25Noth, M. 9, 10,78,92Nowack, W. 7

O'Connell, R. H. 14,22,23,25,31Obbink, H. T. 72Oppenheim, A. L. 80, 81, 105, 111,

113, 136, 137Oswalt,!. N. 73

Peckham, B. 101Pedersen, J. 8, 109Penna, A. 10Petersen, D. L. 134Pettinato, G. 133Pfeiffer, R. H. 8Phillips, A. 90

Index of Authors 169

Polzin, R. 36Porter, J. R. 127Puech, E. 87,88

Rad, G. von 63Redford,D. B. 90Ringgren, H. 11,90Rost, L. 48Rudolph, W. 123

Sabourin, L. 95Saggs, H. W. F. 106, 129, 131Sandars, N. K. 18Satterthwaite, P. E. 14,22,31-34,

36-39, 68, 69Sauneron, S. 82,106, 107,131Schley, D. G. 97Schmidt, B. B. 85Schmidt, W. H. 81Schmoldt,H. 39Schunck, K. D. 119Simpson, C. A. 9Smelik, K. A. D. 86Smith, M. 72Smith, S. 119, 120Smith, W. R. 6Snijders, L. A. 91,92Soden, W. von 91, 103-6, 131, 132Soggin, J. A. 14,20,23,32,35,41,

47,51,64,67, 112, 116,127,135,146

Spanier, K. 118Speiser, E. A. 118Spina, F. A. 18Starr, I. 131, 132Sznycer, M. 108

Taubler, E. 9Tadmor, H. 130Tarragon, J. M. de 83, 102Thureau-Dangin, F. 105Tidwell,N. L. 113Toews, W. I. 15,65,69,79,80

Uehlinger, C. 86,87

VanDriel, G. 103Van der Toorn, K. 120Vaughan, P. H. 67Veijola, T. 24Vieyra, M. 108Vincent, A. 9Vriezen, T. C. 11

Wagner, S. 134Webb, B. G. 14,31,32,35,37Weil, G. E. 67Weippert, M. 71,79,80Wellhausen, J. 5,95, 145Westermann, C. 44, 120Whybray, R. N. 147Wilcoxen, J. A. 43Wilhelm,G. 79-82,131, 133Wolff, H. W. 122Wright, C. J. H. 21Wyatt, N. 77,78

Xella,P. 83, 137

Yadin, Y. 16, 17,79

Zimmerli, W. 95, 122Zobel, H. J. 20