Dwight R. Daniels, Is There a »?rophetic Lawsuit« Genre? 339

Trockenzeit als to t gilt (vgl. KTU 1.5 VI: 24 ؛ 1.6 111:1م Z ur Kontroverse, die mit den Stichworten »Getreide, W ein^, ö l« , dem Reichtum Kanaans (Dtn 8,8 U . Ö . ) , als Gabe ]ahwes oder Baals verbunden ist, vergleiche besonders Hos 2 ,7 — 15.

So vollzieht die D ürreerz^ lung die Auseinandersetzung mit Baal zw ar ohne offensichtliche ?olemik, dafür auf der £bene der Bilder, Anspielungen und Assoziationen, die um so tiefer wirkt. Sie ist damit ein großartiges Zeugnis des spannungsreichen Prozesses, in dem »Israel die ordnenden, Leben spendenden und entziehenden £igenschaften der Landesgötter auf seinen einen, allen Kräften der N atur gebietenden G ott übertrug«68.

Non redactioni posteriori demum et ptobabiliter deutetonomisticae (1 Reg 17,2-5 a .8 s .16.2 4 b 1 ,؛ 8 laßyb) thema pluviae 17,(7).14b est ttibuendum, sed principio iam narrationis Sarepthae scripto. Vasorum vacantium ttopus 17,12a.14a*.(16a), ٩uه fabulae traditio formatur, testimonio analogiae KTU 1.16 111: 13 — 16 probante commodus est siccitatibus in oriente antiquo describendis. Siccitatis narratio praedeuteronomistica 1 Reg 17$.٠ his quoque de causis vere probata paganismo Chananeo ibidem negando demonstrat vires naturae a Deo perlecte imperatas esse intellegendas (cf. Am 4,7s. etal.).

Is There a »Prophetie Lawsuit« Genre?*

By Dwight R. Daniels

(Langenhorner Ch. 60, Hamburg 63)

£ver since H erm ann Gunkel spoke of the possibility of the prophets »clothing their reproaches in the form of Yahweh’s lawsuit against Israel«أ the genre »prophetic lawsuit« (prophetische Gerichtsrede) has enjoyed currency in OT form -^iticism . This is not to say that a broad consensus was quickly reached and has since prevailed. On the contrary, the nature of the prophetic lawsuit, especially its origin, is a matter of some dispute, w ith three different origins having been proposed. Gunkel

66 Vgl. Fcnsham, 232.67 An die Armut der Witwe wird gedacht sein, wenn in 1 Reg 17,12 ff. aus der geprägten

Trias (vgl. oben Anm. 56) der nicht lebensnotwendige, teure (Jes 55,1) Wein fehlt.68 Kaiser, 40.٠ Dieser Aufsatz wurde Klaus Koch zum 60. Geburtstag überreicht in Dankbarkeit für

das Gelernte.١ H. Gunkel in the introduction to H. Schmidt, Die Großen Propheten, SAT 2/2, 1 2 3 ,و

1X 111

س3- Dwight R .Daniels, Is There a »Prophetic Lawsuit« Genre?

h؛msel£ saw the prophetic lawsuit as deriving £rom the realm o£ secular legal practice (see above quotation). E. W ürthwein sought its origin in the cult, in which Yahweh’s judgment against foreign nations and against Israel itsel£ was dramatically enacted by cuh-prophets^. The third line o£ investigation, first indicated by ri. B. Hu££mon and vigorously pursued by j . Harvey, seeks the origin in the realm o£ international treaty forms which are held to have strongly influenced Israel’s covenant £orms^. Reviews o£ the history o£ research are generally available, so that a more detailed presentation may be dispensed w ith here*.

In a recent article M. de Roche has mounted a form idable case for abandoning the term »prophetic lawsuit«^. He argues that »lawsuit« is a modern term re£erring to a specific trilateral means o£ resolving a dispute. Only when two disputants seek resolution £rom a third, authoritative, and independent person or body can one speak o£ a lawsuit. Since none o£ the »prophetic lawsuits« are trilateral, none fits the definition and hence is truly a lawsuit. M oreover, the H ebrew root ב רי does not mean »lawsuit« or »to bring suit« as is sometimes maintai- ned, but rather more broadly »contention« or »to contend«.

De Roche has certainly made some excellent points, yet even he speaks o£ the »r־^؛oracles« as a special group. Is this in £act the case? Do the prophetic oracles commonly grouped together under the rubric »prophetic lawsuit« constitute a separate genre? It is the thesis o£ this essay that this is not the case.

Preliminary Considerations

In order to determine whether a genre exists, it is desirable to have a clear idea o£ w hat a genre is. Unfortunately, there is no generally accepted definition o£ genre. Nevertheless, the variables structure, con- tent, and setting are the primary £actors involved in determ ining a genre, although the role played by each may vary £rom genre to genre. One

2 E. Würthwein, Der Ursprung der prophetischen Gerichtsrede, ZThK 49 (1952), 1 - 1 6 = Wort und Existenz, 1 126؛ و7م, 111- cf. also F. Hesse, Wurzelt die prophetische Gerichtsrede im israelitischen Ruit? ZAW NF 65 (1953), 4 5 -5 3 .

3 H. B. Huftmon, The Covenant Lawsuits in the Prophets, JBL 78 (1959), 2 8 5 -2 9 5 ؛ر . Harvey, Le >rib־pattern<, réquisitoire prophétique sur la rupture de l’alliance, Bib. 43 (1962), 1 7 2 -1 9 idem ؛6 , Le Plaidoyer prophétique contre Israël après la rupture de l’alliance, Studia 22, 1967.

4 See the introductions of E. von Waldow, Der traditions^schichtliche Hintergrund der prophetischen Gerichtsreden, BZAW 85, 1963؛ K. Nielsen, Yahweh as Prosecutor and Judge: An Investigation of the Prophetic Lawsuit (Rib Pattern), JSOT Sup. 9, 1978؛ and j. Harvey, Rib-Pattern, 17 2 -1 7 7 .

5 M. de Roche, Yahweh’s rfb Against Israel: A Reassessment of the So-Galled »Prophetic Lawsuit« in the Preexilic Prophets, JBL 1574 — 563 ,(1983) 2م .

341Dwight R. Daniels, Is Thete a »Prophetic Lawsuit« Gente?

factor may for a given genre be constitutive, for another genre a combina- tion of ٢١٧^ or all three^. Discussion of the »prophetic lawsuit« has focused on structure and content when identifying the genre and then in a second step sought an original setting from which the prophets could have adopted it. Investigation of the content has concentrated on w ord studies and the motif of an appeal to natural phenomena, especially heaven and earth. While reexamining these arguments, we will also seek to extend consideration beyond particular words to the general vocabulary employed.

As regards structure as a determining factor, it may be noted that a genre is an abstraction. It does not exist in and of itself but only as it finds expression in particular texts, be they oral or written. In such instances it is a (question of a unique set of structural elements, and those texts belong to a common genre which display a common set of structural elements which distinguishes them from texts of other genres. These structural elements fall into two categories, those belonging to the surface structure and those belonging to the deeper structure of a text. £lem ents of surface structure may include fixed phrases or formulas, (transitional) particles, shifts in grammatical construction (e.g. »tense«), and the like. M ethodologically, these features must first be identified before proceeding to an examination of the deeper structure because the elements of surface structure are more readily identifiable and also indicate where the various elements of deeper structure may be found. T hat is to say, they often demarcate the elements of deeper structure and serve as transitions between them. In this way they alert the reader/ listener to the shift from one element to another and so prepare him to receive and interpret the elements in the proper manner. Defining the surface structure is thus usually a matter of concrete observation, where- as defining the deeper structure requires abstraction because contentual factors play a greater role. Here the inherent nature of a portion of text and its function with the text as a whole are of primary concern. This must be understood for each element of deeper structure (occasionally also for elements of surface structure) before they can be accurately defined and labeled. At this point the difficulty of a strict distinction between structure and content can be feit when one seeks to define the structure meaningfully.

Genre was defined above as a unique set of structural elements. The term »set« is used to indicate that the structural elements stand in a certain relationship to one another. This may express itself in a fixed order of the structural elements, or only of certain elements with respect

6 Cf. R. Knierim, Old Testament Form Criticism Reconsidered, Interp. 27 (1973),

342 Dwight R. Daniels, Is There a »Prophetic Lawsuit« Genre?

to each other. But variation is possible only inso£ar as the relationships among the elements, which reflect the nature o£ the genre, are not disrupted. Also, not all elements have the same im portance. Some are constitutive and hence essential elements, whereas others are non-essen- tial and may be omitted. Thus, for example, in a prophecy (o£ disaster) the messenger formula is somewhat mobile and the concluding characte- rization is optional, but all complete texts o£ a prophecy have a situatio- nal re£erence and a prediction^. Similarly, in a lam entation the invocation and introductory petition are fixed, reflecting the im portance o£ the beginning o£ a text in indicating the genre, whereas in the rem ainder o£ the lam entation greater flexibility in the order o£ the elements is possible. Yet the variation within these genres is not so great as to blur the contours which define them and set them apart £rom one another and other genres.

A remark concerning terminology is also in order. Unfortunately, not all scholars employ the term »prophetic lawsuit« in the same manner. Some use it to re£er to a genre in its own right and so seek to define its characteristic structure (Hu££mon, Harvey). Others, especially German speaking scholars, use it as an umbrella term {Sammelbezeichnung) which must be more closely specified, e.g. as a speech £٠٢ the de£ense or prosecution, before it has any real form-critical value؟. The difference in approach derives in part £rom the modern terms used to characterize the genre. The German Gerichtsrede re£ers to any speech in a court o£ law and hence is relatively imprecise in comparison to the £ngl؛sh »lawsuit« which has a concrete legal process in view and is more nearly e ^ iv a le n t to the German Gerichtsverhandlung or Gerichtsverfahren9. A lawsuit is o£ course a composite genre composed o£ several com ponent genres so that both approaches are valid, but it is im portant to be aware o£ the level at which one is operating.

Full agreement as to which texts belong to the »prophetic lawsuit« genre does not exist, owing in part to the differences just discussed.

7 It should be emphasized that prophecy as a genre, also referred to as a judgment against the nation (C. Westermann, basic Forms of Frophetic Speech, 1967, 1 6 9 - 176) or a prophecy of disaster (differing ffom a prophecy of salvation only in content, K. Koch, The Growth of the Biblical Tradition, 1969, 191 — 194, 2208 م7 — ), not as a phenomenon is under discussion here. The nomenclature employed in this article follows that of K. Koch with minor adaptations.

8 First emphasized by ر. Begrich, Studien zu Deuterojesaja, 1938, 19 = TB 20, 1963, 26إ cf. also H. ر . Boecker, Anklagereden und ^Verteidigungsreden im Alten Testament, £ E. von Waldow, Hintergrund, 10 أ400 ,(1960) 20 ١١̂٧ ث ر . Jeremias, Kultprophetie und Gerictosverkündigung in der späten Königszeit Israels, W M ANT 35, 1970, 153.

Lawsuit« may also refer to the papers filed to initiate legal proceedings, but this is« وan extended usage and plays no role in the discussion of the prophetic lawsuit or of legal procedure in Israel.

343Dwight R. Daniels, Is Thete a »Prophetic Lawsuit« Genre?

However, certain texts are regularly found in treatments ٠؛ this genre. These are !sa 1,2 — 3. 18 - 20 M ؛Jer 2,4 — 13 أ0؛ i 6,1 - 8; and less fo^uently Hos 4,1 —3. We now turn to an examination of these texts.

]er 2 ,4 -1 34 H ear foe word of Yahweh, o house of Jacob,

and all the clans of the house of Israel!5 Thus said Yahweh:

»What wrong did your fathers find in me that they distanced themselves from me,

and went after vanity and became vain؛

6 and did not say, >where is Yahweh,who brought us up from the land of Egypt,

who led us in the wilderness, in a land of steppes and pits,

in a land of drought and shadowy death, in a land through which no one passes,

and no human being dwells there?<7 1 brought you to the land of plenty

to eat of its fruit and goodness.And you came and defiled my land,

and my heritage you made into an abom ination.8 The priests did not say, >where is Yahweh?<

The handlers of the torah did not know me, and the shepherds transgressed against me.

The prophets prophesied by Baal,and w ent after (things) that do not profit.

,»with you ריב Therefore, I will continue to و(is) the utterance of Yahweh,

»and with your children’s children I will ב רי .10 For cross to foe islands of Kittim and see,

Send to Kedar and examine carefully!See if ever there was foe likes of this:

11 Has ever a nation changed its gods,although they are not gods?

But my people have exchanged their glory for that which does not profit.«

12 >Be appalled, ه heavens, because of this,and be shocked, be utterly desolate«,

(is) the utterance of Yahweh,

١٠ 1. Harvey, Plaiduyer prophétique, 3 6 - 4 2 (cf. the table ou p. 54), combiues Isa 1 ,2 -3 and 1 ,1 0 -2 0 as a single unit, but this is hardly defensible.

Dwight R. Daniels, Is There a »Prophetie Lawsuit« Genre?34 4

13 »For two evils have my people committed:They forsook me, (the) fountain of living waters,

to hew for themselves cisterns, broken cisterns

which cannot hold water«.

The structure of this text may he analyzed as follows. The unit begins with an appeal for attention directed at the house of Jacob/Israel (v. 4) followed by the messenger formula (v. 5) introducing Yahweh’s speech. The first section of Yahweh’s speech extends through ٧٠ 8 as indicated by the particle כן ל »therefore« ( ٧٠ و ), which often signals the transition from the situational reference to the prediction of a prophecy (of disaster), and by the phrase יהוה נאם »utterance of Yahweh«. This division is supported by the prevalence of »past tense« verbal forms (perfect and consecutive imperfect) in V . 5 - 8 as opposed to the imper- fects of ٧. 9 which point to future action. The particle כי »for« at the beginning of ٧. 10 and the shift to imperative verbal forms suggest that a new section begins with this verse. There is no reason to separate ٧٠ 11 from ٧٠ 10, but in ٧٠ 12 there is at least formally a new addressee, the heavens. ٧ . 12 also contains the phrase »utterance of Yahweh«, which not only reinforces the division between ٧٠ 11 and ٧٠ 12 but also between ٧٠ 12 and ٧٠ 13. Here again we find the particle כי at the beginning of the verse, as well as a shift in verbal forms, this time from imperatives (٧٠ 12) to perfects in the primary clauses (٧٠ 13). Given the new addressee in ٧٠ 12, it is conceivable that ٧٠ 12—13 should be assigned to a new literary unit. But this is unlikely. The phrase »because of this« (٧٠ 12) most probably refers back to the preceding section where it recalls the similar phrase »the likes of fois« (٧٠ 10). Also, in ٧٠ 13 Israel is referred to in the plural as in v .4 - 1 1 , whereas in ٧٠ 1 4 -1 9 Israel is consistently referred to in the singular (although the person changes)11.

From the foregoing analysis it is apparent that the genre of ٧٠ 4 - 11 is a prophecy (of disaster). After the initial appeal for attention (٧٠ 4) and the messenger formula (٧٠ 5) comes the situational reference (٧. 5 - 8) followed by the prediction (٧٠ 9). Introduced by 11 - כי ٧٠ 10 , then further ground the prediction of ٧٠ 9. These verses occupy the position of the concluding characterization, which is often introduced by י כ ^ . They do not, however, merely summarize or restate, but further develop the theme of the situational reference^, exposing Israel’s sin in an especially pregnant and penetrating manner. With the concluding characterization

١١ Cf. 1. Bright, Jeremiah, AncB 21, 1965, 17.12 K. K©ch, Growth ٠؛ the Biblical Tradition, 193.״ This possible function of the concluding characterization has not been sufficiently

recognized.

Dwight R . Daniels, Is T h ere a »P rnp hetic I.aw sü if« G enre? 345

the prophecy is complete, which indicates th a t V . 12 — 13 did not consti- tute an original part of the prophecy in V . 4 — 11 but have been assigned their present position to function as a redactional link between V. 4 —11 and V cf. esp. »forsake« V) و1—14 . . 13.17.19 and »water(s)« V . 13.18)٣ ٠

The ٧٠ 1 2 -1 3 also serve to expand the concluding characterization in V ه —111 . . Their brevity complicates the determ ination of their original genre آل. is possible that they formed the initial address (v. 12), in which case »because of this« will originally have been proleptic, and concluding characterization (v. 13؛ note the כי at the beginning of the verse) of a ^ o p h ec y (of disaster), which would help explain why they were em- ployed to expand V . 10—11. But it is also possible that they were first composed as a redactional link. The question may remain open. Certain, however, is that the connection between ٧. 4 —11 and V . 12 — 13 is a secondary development, a point of significance since it means that for ]er 2 ,4 — 13 the connection between the root ב רי and an address to the heavens, often considered a sure sign of a »prophetic lawsuit«, is not original.

H o s 4 , l —31 H ear the w ord of Yahweh, o people of ¡srael,

for Yahweh has a ריב with the inhabitants of the land.2 Swearing, lying, killing, stealing, and adultery:

They have broken out,and blood(guilt) has followed blood(guilt).

3 B e c u e it is so, the land shall mourn,and all who dwell in it shall languish

with the beasts of the field and the birds of the air.

And even the fish of the sea shall be gathered (away).

Hosea’s oracles have been more thoroughly edited into a literary work than is true for other prophets, and this complicates the identifica- tion o؛ the original units. As the text now stands 4 ,4 - ه! are to be read in conjunction with V. 1 — 3 as indicated by the restrictive particle אך »yet« (v. 4). But this connection is the product of the literary stage of composition. The addressee of V. 4 ه1 — differs from that of V. 1 - 3 , and the latter verses do not give the impression of requiring a continuation. Moreover, V . 1 — 3 now serve as an introduction to Hos 4 — 11, designa- ting the fram ew ork in which the following texts are to be understood

٢ The term »redactional« must not he confused with »inauthentic«. To the extent that the prophets contributed to the gathering and arrangement of their prophecies (wh،chfor ]eremiah is beyond dispute) they were also redactors.

?Is There a >>?r،)phetÍ€ Lawsuit“ Genre ؛!;؛؛,Dwight R. Dan346

(cf. Isa 1 ,2 - ,Am 1 ؛3 2 2؛ —3, ؛ 1 Jer 2 ,1 - مئآر3 The oracle hegins with an appeal £٠٢ attention directed at the children o£ Israel, followed by the statement that Yahweh has a ב רי with the inhabitants ٠؛ the land. The remainder o£ the oracle is divided into two parts by the particle ל כן ע »because it is so« (٧٠ 3). The first section re؛er$ to present conditions by means o£ noun-clauses and perfect verbs, whereas the second section may re£er either to the present or £uture (c£. Isa 3 1 6, م ) and contains verbs in the imperfect and consecutive perfect. The shift in verbal forms suggests a shift in the ftame o£ re£erence, so that ٧. 3 should most probably be taken as announcing ؛uture events. The structure o£ this oracle thus corresponds to that o£ a prophecy (o£ disaster): appeal for attention (٧. la), situational re£erence (٧. l b - 2 ) , and prediction (v. 3). The messenger formula and a concluding characterization are lacking, but these are both non-essential elements o£ the genre.

The identification o£ Hos 4,1 - 3, and to a lesser extent Jer 2,4 - 13, as a »prophetic lawsuit« is usually based on two arguments: 1) the presence ٠؛ the root ב רי , but this rests on a too narrow interpretation o£ the roo t’s m eaning^؛ and 2) the view that ל כן ע and כן ל were used to introduce the pronouncem ent o£ sentence in legal proceedings. This, however, cannot be dem onstrated since neither is attested in the narrative depictions o£ legal proceedings. This view rests in £act on an assumption based on the interpretation o£ prophetic texts along (modern) legal lines (situational re؛erence = verdict؛ prediction = sentence), so that this argument is circular*?. Just how inappropriate the characterization »law- suit« can be may be seen from the flow o£ Hos 4,1 — 3. Yahweh has a ב רי with the inhabitants o£ the land because o£ the appalling lack o£ moral virtues in the land؛ therefore, the land and those who dwell in it

15 Similarly H. w. Wolff, Hosea, BK.AT14/1, 197683 , .F. 1. Andersen and D. N ;تFreedman, Hosea, AncB 24,1980, 331؛ j. Jeremias, Der Frophet Hosea, ATD 24/1, 1983, 59, who however, abandoning his previous interpretation of 4,3 as an announeement of punishment (Kultprophetie, 152), now considers the verse a later addition on the grounds that it refers to the current effects of guilt rather than announcing future punishment. But this interpretation is not the only one possible (see below). Neither does the continuation require that ٢٦^ be rendered »earth« rather than »land« (Jere- mias, Hosea, 62) so that there are no compelling reasons fer viewing V . 3 as secondary.

16 See below p. 13.17 See e.g. H. j. Boecker, Redeformen des Rechtslebens im Alten Testament, W M ANT

14, 1964, 1 4 3 -1 5 9 . The best support that Boecker can muster feom a non-prophetic text is 1 Reg 3,27 where, although כי and כן על are not present, their use to introduce the verdict and sentence, respectively, »would be quite conceivable« («ware ... gut vorstellbar«, 156). Cf. also the studies of D. A. McKenzie, Judicial Frocedure at the Town Gate, VT 14 (1964), 100—104 and c . Mabee, Jacob and Laban. The Structure of Judicial Proceedings (Genesis XXXI 2 5 -4 2 ) , 30 (1980), 1 9 2 -2 0 7 , who providessome necessary corrections to Boecker’s study.

34 7Dwight R. Daniels, Is There a »?rophetic Lawsuit« ^enre?

shall m ourn and languish. Both Yahweh’s ב רי and the mourning and languishing stem from the prevailing deplorable conditions so that it is not too much to say that Yahweh’s ריב expresses itself in the catastrophe which befalls the land and its inhabitants, not in a lawsuit which he brings against Israel in a court of law.

Isa 1 ,1 0 -2 010 H ear the w ord of Yahweh, you rulers of Sodom!

Give ear to the torah of our God, you people of Gomorrah!11 »What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices?«

says Yahweh.»I’ve had enough of burnt offerings of rams

and the fat of fed beasts.In the blood of bulls’* and goats

I do not delight.12 When you come to appear (before) my face

who seeks this from your hand?(It is) a tram pling of my courtyards!**

13 Do not continue to bring offerings of vanity؛incense is an abom ination to me.

New moon and sabbath, calling of assemblies —I cannot (bear) wickedness and solemn assembly.

14 Your new moons and your appointed feastsmy soul hates.

They have become a burden to me؛I have grown weary of bearing (them).

15 And/So when you spread forth your palms,I will hide my eyes from you.

Even if you multiply (your) prayer(s),I wdl not hear.

Your hands are full of blood.16 Wash yourselves clean!

Remove the evil of your deeds from before my eyes!Cease to do evil؛

17 learn to do good؛Seek justice؛

guide >the oppressed^؛^ d g e the o rphan ؛

ריב the widow.18 Come, let us be reconciled«,

says Yahweh.»Though your sins are like scarlet,

they shall become white like snow.^Though they are red like crimson,

they shall be like wool.،*

Dwight R. D aniels,ا Thete a »Prophetic Lawsuit« Genre?348 ء

19 If you agree and listen/obey,you shall eat the good of the land.

20 But if you refuse and rebel,you shall be eaten >by the sword<%

for the mouth of Yahweh has spoken«.

a Deleting וכבשים with LXX. b Taking חצרי רמס as a noun-clause. c ?ointing ץ .with the versions $מוd ٠ ٨ the rendering of these sentences see below. e Reading רב ח ב for ב ר ח .

Although ٧. 18 - 20 are usually separated from V . 10 - 17 and cons־؛ dered a prophetic lawsuit, the unity of this passage deserves reconsidera- tion. The passage as a whole displays a clear, well-ordered structure, and the speaker and addressee remain constant throughout. It begins with an appeal for attention introducing Yahweh’s speech, which is then sub-divided into two sections, V . 11 — 17 and V . 1 8 -2 0 , by the phrase »says Yahweh« (v. 11.18). Nevertheless, the unity of the passage is contested by many scholars^. It is conventionally maintained that »says Yahweh« introduces a new, separate unit in V . 18 — 20. T hat the phrase has introductory character cannot be denied, but it would be more accurate to speak of structural character. The phrase does not introduce independent units, but rather sub-sections within a single unit. Certainly it does not separate V . 11 - 17 from V . 10, and the same structural function is to be observed in Isa 33,10 , the only other occurrence of the phrase in ?roto-Isaiah (cf. also ?s 12,6). In Isa 40,1 its introductory nature comes to the fore, but in Isa 66,9 it concludes a section. All other occurrences lack formulaic character. In addition, V . 18a (for a defense of this rendering see below) presupposes a disturbed relationship and conse؟ uently is more suitable following a description of the disturbance than as an introduction to a completely separate unit. The connection with V . 1 0 - 17, which depict the disturbed relationship between Yahweh and his people, thus proves to be very close. This result has far-reaching repercussions for the determ ination of the genre of V . 18 — 20, and since it rests in good part on the meaning of נוכחה (v. 18), an exam ination of the root ח כ .is in order י

Given that the root occurs predominantly in the Hiphil it is best to begin here. Currently ח כי הו is generally understood as deriving originally

١٠ So. K. Marti, Das Buch Jesaja, KHC 10, 1900, 2؛ G. B. Gray, The Booh of Isaiah, ICC, 1912, 26؛ B. Duhm, Das Buch Jesaja, HK 3/1, 131؛ , و22م G. Fohrer, Das Buch Jesaja, ZBK 1966*, 3 2 -3 3 , 3 8 - 3 H. Wildberger, Jesaja 1 ؛9 - 1 2 , BK.AT10/1, 1972*, 3 4 - 3 5 ؛ه . Kaiser, Das Buch des Fropheten Jesaja, ATD 17, 1981*, 39.

349Dwight R. Daniels, Is Thete a »Prophetic Lawsuit« Genre?

from the legal sphere ٠؛ justice in the gate and is held to mean »establish w hat is correct« وآ . This meaning is acceptable as long as »establish« is not limited to intellectual activity. Though this is certainly included, it m ust be accompanied by concrete action aimed at achieving proper conditions. This is poignantly expressed in Prov 10,10, i£ ח מוכי יעשה ו is to be read with LXX, Syr20. Indeed, the focus of the verb is on ש^וםthe establishm ent of a proper relationship between persons regardless of the circumstances in which this takes place. This is demonstrated by the frequent use of the verb in non-legal contexts. Thus, God sees to it that Isaac receives the proper wife (Gen 24,14.44), and parents correct their children so they will develop a proper relationship to society, nature and God (Prov 3,1211 ؛ Sam 7,14). T hat the one being corrected does not always see the positive intent goes w ithout saying (Ps 6 ,3 3 8 but ,(؛ 2,the wise man profits from correction (Prov 1 2 ,119 and knows that (؛ 25,G od’s correction is an expression of his love (Prov 3,12). Applying these results to Isa 1,18, foe Niphal form would the mean »let us restore then proper relationship between us, let us be reconciled to one another« (cf. Lev 19,17). This interpretation also renders the continuation completely intelligible w ithout recourse to dubious grammatical assum ptions^. Yah- weh extends the offer of a renewed relationship with him, but for a proper relationship to exist, the sins of the people must be removed. This can only happen if his people are willing and obedient, but if they are, the renewed life with Yahweh will bring blessing upon them and they will eat abundantly of the fruit of the land. If they refuse, they shall themselves be eaten. Given this more fundamental meaning of יכח as bringing about the proper state of affairs, it becomes unnecessary, indeed arbitrary to insist on Israelite legal practice as the origin of the term, and in any event one cannot automatically assume a legal setting wherever it occurs22. In Isa 1,18 nothing speaks for a legal setting. The imagery of the verse derives from the cultic sphere of sin and atonement. Isaiah does not negate the possibility of cultic atonem ent ( ٠contra Wild- berger) but asserts the priority and necessity of an underlying attitude of obedience for these rites to be effective.

19 H ,ا 730؛ G. Liedke, THAT ؛Boecker, Redeformen, 45 .ل. G. Mayer, ThWAT 621 ,؛ ؛ا .20 C. H. Toy, The Book of ?roverbs, ICC, 1899, 204, 207؛ B. Gemser, Sprüche Salomos,

HAT 16, 1963, 50؛ H. Ringgren, Sprüche, ATO 16/1, 1962, 44؛ w. McKane, Proverbs, OTL, 1970, 418؛ but cf. the reservations of o. Plüger, Sprüche Salomos, BK.AT17, 1984, 121 -1 2 2 . 125.

21 Some interpret the apodoses as ؟ uestions, others as sarcastic challenges, but both views create a cleft between V. 18 and V. 1 9 - 2 ,B. Duhm ؛cf. K. Marti, ]esaja, 15 ؛0

22 Similarly G. B. Gray, Isaiah, 2 7 -2 8 .

Dwight R. Daniels, Is Th،-‘te ־ ه »Prophetic Lawsuit« Genre?350

In light ٠؛ the foregoing discussion V . 18 — 20 are not to be separated from V . 1 0 -1 7 . After the appeal for attention which identifies the passage as a torah (v. 10), V . 11 - 15 relate Yahweh’s rejection of Judah’s cultic practice, not because he rejects foe cult as such but because Judah’s hands are full of blood (v. 15b). This section alternates between ،questions (v. llaa.12) and statements (v. 1 1 1 5 - س.13أاةث ), with an anticipatory imperative (٧٠ 13aa). The instruction (torah) proper is found in the imperatives of V . 16 — 17. Yahweh instructs his people to cleanse themsel- ves and to lead a life consistent with their status as his people. In V . 1 8 -2 0 Yahweh then extends the offer of reconciliation, presumably through cultic rites of purification (v. 18b), if Judah will only (strive to) be obedient (v. 19). Otherwise, they are doomed to destruction (٧٠ 20).

Comparison of the structure of Isa 1,10 — 20 w ith that of Mi 6,(1)2 —8 (see below) suggests the possibility that there may have been room between ٧. 17 and ٧. 18 for an in ^ i r y or statem ent by the audience, to which Yahweh then responds in ٧٠ 18 — 20. Yahweh rejects sacrifices, incense, festivals, assemblies and even prayer, but then calls upon his people to purify themselves of the effects of their evil deeds and to cease doing evil, ft therefore seems likely that between ٧. 17 and ٧. 18 Judah expressed their desire to cleanse themselves (or be cleansed) of their sins, perhaps coupled with an in ^ i ry as to the means. Yahweh then declares that he will honor their purification rites and so reestablish foe proper relationship between them, but also asserts the need for obedience. The entire passage is thus patterned after the priestly torah , as indicated by ٧٠ 10b and confirmed by the content23.

M i 6 ,1 - 8

1 H ear what Yahweh says:»Arise, ב רי (with?) the mountains,

that the hills hear your voice«.2 Hear, o m ountains, Yahweh’s ^١٦,

and foe enduring ones*, foundations of the earth!For Yahweh has a ריב with his people,

and with Israel shall he reconcile himself:3 »My people.

W hat did I do to you,and in what have ١ wearied you?

Answer me!

23 ٠٨ the priestly torah cf. 1. Begrich, Die priesterliche Tora, BZAW 66, 188 - 6 3 ,6 تو , esp. 7 3 - 7 6 = TB 21, 1964, 2 3 2 -2 6 0 , esp. 243 - 246.

351Dwight R. Daniels, ا ?Genre ״There a »Prophetic Lawsuit ء

4 For I brought you up £rom the land of Fgypt,and redeemed you from the house of bondage.

1 sent before you Moses,Aaron and M iriam >with him<k.

5 M y people,Rem em ber what Balak, king of M oab devised,

and w hat Balaam, son of Beor answered him.>Consider the crossing^ from Shittim to Gilgal

to know Yahweh’s righteous deeds«.6 »With w hat shall 1 come before Yahweh,

and bow myself before God on high?Shall 1 come before him with burnt offerings,

w ith calves a year old?7 Will Yahweh be pleased with thousands of rams,

with ten thousands of rivers of oil?Shall 1 give my first-born for my transgression,

the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?«ج 8 has shown you, o man, what is good.

And w hat does Yahweh require of you but to do justice and to love loyalty,

and to walk humbly with your God?

a Some emend to עו ראו »give ear«. b Restoring עמו lost through haplography. c Reading ר دم בו ע with Rudolph.

Mi 6 ,1 - 8 is regularly counted among the prophetic lawsuits^*. For present purposes the question as to whether V . 1 is a redactional introduction to Mi 6 —7 (Wolff) or M icah’s report that he ^vas commis- sioned by Yahweh (Rudolph) may be set to one side. Both agree that the primary speech begins with V. 2. The unit begins with an appeal for attention directed at the mountains and the foundations of the earth followed by the reason: Yahweh has a ב רי with his people. ٧ . 3 - 5 contain Yahweh’s speech, which is divided into two parts, V . 3 - 4 and V. 5, by the vocative »my people«. The first part is composed of two questions (v. 3a; cf. Isa l , l la a .l2 ) and a grounding statement (v. 4؛ cf. Isa l , l l a ß b . l3 a ß - 15). The second part consists of two imperatives (v. 5; cf. Isa 1,16 — 17). In V. 6 —7 a (fictitious?) member of the audience asks what type of sacrifice is required of him to approach Yahweh, and the prophet’s response then follows in V . 8 (cf. Isa 1 ,18-20).

This sketch of the passage shows a surprising structural similarity with Isa 1,10 - 20, whereas despite initial similarities the structure of the

14 Only K. Nielsen, Yahweh as Prosecutor and Judge, omits this passage.

352 D w ight R. D aniels, Is There a »Prophetic I.awsuit*< Genre?

current passage clearly d fers from that of the Jerem؛؛ iah and Hosea texts. In particular V . 6 - 8 deviate significantly from the conclusions of these latter texts. This is not accidental, but reflects the presence of a different genre, j . Begrich interpreted these verses as following the form of a priestly to rah ^ . Building in part on Begrich’s w ork and lending it greater precision, K. Koch was able to show that V . 6 —8 are patterned after the liturgies for adm ittance to the Tem ple^. We thus find ourselves not at the city gate but at the Temple gate. As a consequence. Mi 6, (1)2 — 8 can under no circumstances be considered a pure example of a prophetic lawsuit. It would have to be a mixed text, and only v . ( l )2 -5 could possibly be assigned to the legal genre. This is in fact the position of H. j . Boecker, who sees in V . 3 — 5 Yahweh’s defense against the charges brought against h im ^. But by Boecker’s own adm ission^ the determ ination of this passage as belonging to a law suit depends on the meaning attributed to ٢ ٦ here; hence, an exam ination of this root is in order.

As one might expect, the root is frequently held to derive from the legal sphere. Thus j . Begrich argued that it constitutes a technical term for court procedure, E. W ürthwein that it refers specifically to the (bringing of a) charge against the defendant^, j . Lim burg argues that the primary sense of the verb is »to accuse« and th a t it always refers to speech activity, thus coming close to W ürthw ein’s v iew ^. But his result derives more from the arbitrary selection of non-theological texts where the verb introduces direct speech than from a comprehensive exam ina־ tion of the root’s usage. The im probability of Lim burg’s analysis becomes especially apparent in his treatm ent of Ex 21,18. T he text reads, »When men בן רי and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist י...«, which he explains as »verbal disputing which erupts into physical violence«^. But it is far more natural to interpret here as referring to a physical struggle^. Hence the term cannot be limited to verbal

25 j. Begrich, Priesterliche Tora, 79 notes 117,127 = 240 - 250 notes 117,127.26 K. Koch, ^mpeleinlaßliturgien und Dekaloge, FS G. von Rad, 1961, 4 5 - 6 0 , or Mi؛

27 H. j. Boecker, Redeformen, 101 - 104. He is followed by H. w. Wolff, Micha, BK.AT14/

28 H. j. Boecker, Redeformen, 84 ٨٠ 1.29 j. Begrich, Studien zu Deuterojesaja, 31؛ Würthwein, Ursprung, 4 n. 1.30 1. Limburg, The Root ריב and the Prophetic Lawsuit Speeches, JBL 88 (1969), 291 - ؛304

cf. j. Harvey, Plaidoyer prophétique, 1 1 5 -1 1 8 , who seeks to determine the different shades of meaning inherent in the various prepositions used with the root, with less than convincing results.

31 j. Limburg, The Root 198 ,ריב n. 19 (emphasis original).32 Cf. G. Liedke, THAT II, ^ 2 . The commentaries do not directly address the issue.

353Dwight R. Daniels, [s There a »Prnphetic Lawsuit« Genre?

activity. Indeed, it was argued ab©ve ؛٠٢ Hos 4,1 — 3 that Yahweh’s ריב is to be seen in his causing the land to m ourn and the inhabitants to languish^. De R ^ h e has also examined several passages in which the root occurs and has shown that »a rib is a contention«, but unfortunately appears to see this as limited to verbal activity, »a grievance that one party brings against another«^. 1؛ this latter restriction is removed, then de R oche’s results become ؛ully acceptable. The verb may be rendered »to contend« and the noun »contention«. However, this represents* merely an attem pt to capture the meaning ٠؛ the Hebrew. M ore precisely the root re؛ers to activity, irrespective ٠؛ location, which disrupts or restores the proper order ٠؛ things or relationships among people, groups, or nations, i.e. which disrupts/restores שפט where fois proper ;מpositive order prevails, ב רי disrupts it; where it is lacking, ריב may serve to restore it. Thus, i؛ two men have a ב רי , they may come משפט ל א »into court« (Dtn 25,l ) 35. This also renders intelligible the call to ריב the widow (Isa 1,17), which certainly does not mean to bring charges against her but rather to contend on her behal؛ so that she may live in שפט מ . Especially instructive in this connection is Isa 51,17 — 23. Here the statem ent that Yahweh will ב רי his people (v. 22) is followed by a prophecy o£ salvation! Yahweh has removed the cup ٠؛ w rath ؛rom his people and will give it to their torm entors.

It is hoped th a t the foregoing discussion has dem onstrated that ריב cannot as a m atter ٥؛ course be equated with legal proceedings. This is not to deny th a t it may be used in such contexts, but this is a special ^ p lic a tio n o؛ its m ore general meaning. How then is it to be understood in Mi 6,2? The presence ٠؛ the root ח כ need not point to a legal יsetting. The Hithpael occurs only here and may reasonably be rendered »reconcile onesel؛, be reconciled (with)«. As we have seen, the root can also be employed in cultic settings (Isa 1,18). Certainly V . 6 —8 point to the cultic realm, and the similar structure in M i 6,2 — 5 and Isa 1 ,1 0 - 17, the latter unquestionably being (part o؛) a priestly torah, also points in this direction. O n the other hand corroborative evidence o a legal ؛usage could be found in the phrase בי ענה »answer me«, ؛؛ taken in a legal sense as »test؛؛y against me« (c؛. Num 35,30; I Sam 12,3؛ II Sam 1,16). However, the phrase is not confined to ؛ormal legal proceedings, although it retains legal overtones even in such instances (c؛. Gen 30,33; Ruth 1,21). But the composition ٥؛ the passage as a whole remains

33 c؛. also Jer 51, 3634 , ؛ 5م Yahweh’s ריב is best undetstood as his action.34 M. de Roche, Yahweh’s 569, citing Limbutg.35 The *court« is o f course a place (but not the only place, cf. 1 Sam 2 4 ,1625 where (؛ 39,

is not limited to legal ריב is restored. It is also clear from Dtn 25,1 that משססproceedings since it occurs prior to the entry into court. For furthers examples cf. M. de Roche, Yahweh’s rffc, 5 6 7 -5 6 9 .

25 Zeitschr. ؛. alttestamentl. W iss., Band وو

3 5 4 Dwight R. Daniels, Is There ه »Prophetic Lawsuit« Genre?

problem atic when V . 2 - 5 are interpreted legally. W hy should a legal indictment be followed by a priestly torah patterned after liturgies ؛or adm ittance to the Temple? Why the shift in imagery? d e r a i l then the contextual and structural evidence pointing to the cultic realm outweighs the ambiguous linguistic evidence which is in no sense inconsistent with a cultic interpretation. The structural similarity w ith Isa 1 ,1 0 -1 7 suggests that Mi 6 ,2 - 5 is also patterned after the priestly torah. The tw o texts bear little contentual similarity, but this no doubt results £rom the particular setting presupposed by Mi 6 ,2 -8 . A group of pilgrims has arrived at the entrance of a sanctuary and desires to know w hat Yahweh desires o؛ them (v. 6 - 7 ) . This presupposes tha t the pilgrims are aw are o؛ G od’s dissatis؛action^. Certainly V . 2 —5 com m unicate this dissatis؛action. Yahweh has a contention with his people. But he also seeks reconciliation and so it is only natural that, once the nature o؛ the contention has been stated, in ^ i r y be made concerning the means o؛ reconciliation and then an answer given^. Mi 6,(1)2 — 8 is thus patterned after a liturgy ؛or adm ittance to a sanctuary on some occasion other than the great ؛estivals and does not reflect in any o؛ its parts Israelite legal procedure.

Isa 1 ,2 -32 Hear, o heavens!

Give ear, ه earth!For Yahweh has spoken:»Children I have reared and brought up,

but they have transgressed against me.3 The ox knows its owner,

and the ass its m aster’s crib.Israel does not know؛

my people does not understand.«

The inclusion ٠؛ this passage among the prophetic lawsuits is particularly curious. The appeal ؛or attention does not belong in the context ٠؛ legal proceedings^؟, and the phrase »؛or Yahweh has spoken«

K. Koch, Tempeleinlaßliturgien, 5 ءد 4 -5 5 . Koch also correctly deduces ؛rom this ؛act that the occasion cannot he one o estivals since the sacrifices required on؛ the major ؛these occasions were well known.

37 Note again the connection between ריב (v. 2) and משפט (v. 8).38 H. j. Boecker, Rede؛ormen, 84 n. 1, sees an exception in Mi 6,2, but as demonstrated

above the context here is not legal. On this appeal in general c؛ . H. w . W ol؛؛, Hosea, 1 2 2 -1 2 3 , though his claim that the appeal has a special usage introducing legal instruction (Rechtsbelehrung) is misleading. Only Job may be adduced ؛or such a usage, but formal legal proceedings never take place in Job. They may be desired by the participants, but this stage is never reached.

35 5Dwight R. Daniels, Is There a »Prophetic Lawsuit« Genre?

may be synonym ous with the standard messenger formula of prophétie speeeh. Boecker therefore argues that the form, vocabulary, and theme of V . 2b —3 imply a lawsuit. The defendant is referred to in the third person as in an aceusation before the judges, and the argum entation also resembles a com m on pattern in the prosecution, i.e. the previous benefits shown to the defendant by the plaintiff followed by the charge. But this is such a common mode of argum entation that it cannot be seen as a clear indication of a legal speech by the prosecution. It could just as well be a situational reference whose prediction has not been preserved. This accords better with the introduction in V . 2a which is comprised of typically prophetic forms of speech^. In fact foe view that Isa 1 ,2 -3 is a prophetic lawsuit rests to a significant extent, if not exclusively, on the presence of a feature often considered a sure indication of this genre, an appeal to heaven and earth (or natural phenom ena, Mi 6,1 - 2 ) as witnesses or judges. We now turn to an examination of this feature.

Appeal هء Heaven and Earth

ft is fre^^uently argued that this appeal derives from Israel’s covenant tradition. Reference is made to the similarity between Israel’s covenant form ulations and H ittite vassal treaties. Since the latter invoked the gods and natural phenom ena as witnesses to the treaty, it is reasonable to assume that Israel, because of her exclusive worship of Yahweh, elimina- ted all references to other gods but retained those to the natural pheno- mena as witnesses to the covenant. Confirm ation of this view is then seen in D tn 4 , 2 6 3 1 , 2 8 ؛ 30,19؛ where in a covenant context heaven and earth are called upon as witnesses. Thus j . Harvey maintains th a t the appeal to heaven and earth entered Israel via the r ؛ ^ -genre of internafio־nal law tied to the treaty trad ition^. However, this position can be challenged on tw o grounds. Birst, clear evidence of heaven and earth as witnesses to a covenant in Israel is limited to the verses from R entero- nomy cited above, none of which belongs to the postulated Proto- Deuteronomy**. The supportive evidence is thus relatively late, and this does not appear to be an accident of transmission. When foshua made a covenant with the people at Shechem, he erected a stone as witness (Jos 2 4 ,2 5 -2 8 ). Similarly, the tradition of a covenant between Jacob and Laban know s of a (heap of) stone(s) as witness (Gen 31,44 — 54). This may also be the function of the twelve pillars erected by Moses for foe covenant ceremony recounted in Ex 24,3 — 8, although foe text is

؛ه eh the difficulty؛ j. Jeremias, Kulrprophetie, 152, has also ل9 identi؛ying Isa 1,2 — 3 as a prophetic lawsuit, n e sees it as a m©di؛ied lament.

40 j. Harvey, Plaidoyer prophétique, 88.41 Ps 50,4 may also attest such a connection, but the date o؛ this Psalm is not certain.

?Lawsuit« ^ eu te ¡؛،:is There a »Ptophe $,ةه!ا؛مح.Dwight R356

not explicit ٠٨ this point42. Thus, although the evidence is slim, it would seem that in the earlier period when witnesses to a covenant were needed, stone pillars performed this function in Israel.

Secondly, of the examples of foe international r^ -genre adduced by Harvey, none contains a com parable appeal to heaven and earth, or to any of the witnesses of the treaty. The closest parallel, even by H arvey’s account, is furnished by the Tukulti-N inurta epic^. Upon Kastilias’ breaking of the treaty, Tukulti-N inurta dispatches a message to him recounting the form er’s infidelity to the treaty in contrast with his own fidelity to the same. Tukulti-N inurta also states his intent to »read aloud the tablet of the treaty between us, and proclaim before the lord of heaven ...« (remainder of line lost)44. However, this does not constitute an appeal to the lord of heaven (and earth?)**, but at best a statem ent of intent to make such an appeal, ©ne may also infer that the appeal would be followed by ٠٢ take the form of a reading of the treaty document, which does not constitute an element of the internatio- nal r؛؛?-genre as defined by Harvey, ٨٠٢ of the »prophetic lawsuit«.

H. B. Huffmon interprets the appeal to heaven and earth (٠٢ to natural phenomena) as a com bination of covenant traditions and legal procedure. Heaven, earth, and the natural phenom ena derive from the covenant tradition, whereas the appeal as such reflects legal procedure at the city gate^ . But, as pointed out above, this appeal cannot be shown to have formed a part of legal procedure ؛٨ Israel42. A further difficulty of the derivation from legal procedure is that those appealed to never speak. As witnesses they never testify؛ as judges they never render a verdict.

Whence then the appeal to heaven and earth? As Harvey first pointed out, parallels may also be found outside the treaty context. The m ost frequently attested parallel is to be found ؛٨ incantations and is commonly referred to as the zi-pad formula: »Be adjured by the name of heaven, be adjured by the name of earth؟«** This incantation formula

42 So ١٧. Beyerlin, Herkunft und Geschichte der ¿ltesten Sinaitraditionen, 1961, 5 3 -5 4 .م؛ء For text and translation ل4 E. Ebeling, Bruchstücke eines politischen Fropagandagedich-

tes aus einer assyrischen Kanzlei, MAOG 12/2, 1938؛ w. G. Lambert, Three Un- published Fragments of the Tukulti-Ninurta Epic, A fo 18 (1957-58), 3 8 -5 1 ؛ ر . Harvey, Flaidoyer p ro p h étise , 170-172.

44 Column 111 9 according Harvey؛ IV 9 according to Ebeling.45 Identified as Shamash by j. Harvey, Flaidoyer p ro p h étise , 123.46 H. B. Huffmon, Covenant Lawsuits, 2 9 2 -2 9 3 .47 Of the works cited in n. 17 none views the appeal for attention as belonging to legal

procedure in Israel.48 Following the translation of E. Reiner, Surpu. A Collection of Sumerian and Akkadian

Incantations, AfO.B 11, 1958, Tablet V -V I line 5 8 - 5 9 = p. 31.

Dwight R. Daniels, Is There a »Prophetic Lawsuit« Genre? 35 7

originated with the Sumerians, made its way into the Akkadian incanta- tions, and £rom there into Canaanite incantations^. M ore directly paral- lei to the appeal to heaven and earth are perhaps the invocations ٥؛ tw o particular incantations. M aqlu ١, 6 1 -7 2 preserves an incantation intended to render ineffective the spells o£ (other) magicians. Following a legitim ation in which the asipu-priest communicates the source o£ his incantation, lines 6 3 -6 4 read, »What is in heaven pay attention! W hat is on earth hear! W hat is in the river pay attention! W hat is on dry land hear his (= Asari־lu־du, lord o£ the art o£ incantation) w ord!«^ Simi- larly, an incantation intended to obtain access to the royal palace begins, »What is in heaven pay attention! W hat is on earth hear my m outh!«^ In these incantations heaven and earth, as well as natural phenom ena, are perceived as living entities or as various realms o£ creation and are called upon to act on behal£ o£ the asipu-priest and his client. All creation is affected by or obligated to enforce the w ord spoken by the asipu- p riest^ .

The point here is not that the appeal to heaven and earth (and natural phenomena) derives ffom the incantations o£ the ancient N ear East and not £rom the treaties. Rather the point is that both the incantations and the treaties reflect a common conceptual background regarding the elements o£ creation which is not confined to either o£ them or to both o£ them. According to this view the universe is not composed o£ so many inanimate objects subject to the more or less predictable forces o£ natural laws, but is an intricate web o£ interrelated (living) entities. It is this conviction that heaven, earth, and the natural phenomena are affected by the behavior and deeds o£ mankind tha t lies behind the appeal to these entities. This can hardly be termed a legalistic mind-set, certainly not in the incantations and certainly not in the modern sense o£ the term. It is against this very same conceptual background that the appeal to natural phenomena in Israel should be understood. T hat natural phenomena were perceived in this way in Israel too, can hardly be doubted in light o£ texts such as Jos 24,27؛ Hos 2,23 — 24 (21—22). Hence, the heavens and earth may be called upon the »ascribe greatness to our God« (Dtn 32,3), to serve as the means o£ Yahweh’s »judging« his people (Fs 50,4), and foe heavens may be called

49 Cf. T. H. Gaster, A Canaanite Magical Text, Or. NS 11 (76- 41 , وا42ر . It also made its way into non-incantational contexts, cf. A. Falkenstein, Die Mauptformen der sumerischen Beschwdrung literarisch untersucht, LSSt NF 1, 1.35 ,1969 = 1 تو

٢٥ Cf. G. Meier, Die assyrische Beschwörungssammlung M aqlu neu bearbeitet, AfO.B 2, 1937 = 1967.

٢١ E. Ebeling, Aus dem Tagewerk eines assyrischen Zauberpriesters, MAOG 5/3, 1931 ء 1972, 32, 34.

؟ت Cf. G. Contenau, La Magie chez les Assyriens et les Babyloniens, 1947, 150—151.

Dwight R. D aniels,ءا There a »?™phetic Lawsuit« Lienre?358

upon ٢٠ »be appalled, $boe^ed, and utterly desolate« because ٥؛ Israel’s sin (Jer 2,12)53.

In the prophetic texts under study then heaven and earth are called upon as entities directly affected by the people’s actions and not as judges or witnesses to a previous covenant. Stone pillars perform ed this function in early Israel, which means that at some point prior to the com position of Dtn 4 , 2 6 3 1 , 2 8 ؛ 30,19؛ a shift to heaven and earth as covenant witnesses occurred. Unless one assumes this to be a natural, internal development, it is likely that the shift came about under Assyrian influence, ?arallels may be found in the vassal treaties of £ sarhaddon^ . These treaties contain a list of the gods before whom the treaty was made, i.e. a special list of divine witnesses. This list ends w ith a general sum m ation, »all the gods dwelling in heaven and earth, the gods of Assyria, the gods of Sumer and Akkad, the gods of every (foreign) country«33. The vassal is then adjured by the gods listed, again with the same summation, though in a different order. Similarly, in the curse section of these vassal treaties, as well as in Esarhaddon’s treaty with Baal of Tyre^, »the great gods of heaven and earth« are invoked to carry out the treaty curses should the treaty be violated. Here also the phrase is a summary term encompassing all the gods. Application of fois aspect of the treaty form to the covenant in Israel would require that all references to other gods be purged. W hat better way to accom- plish this than to take the stock summary term and eliminate mention of the gods? This would also help explain why heaven and earth became witnesses to the covenant, whereas other natural phenom ena commonly listed along with heaven and earth in the earlier H ittite treaties did not.

When did the shift from stone pillars to heaven and earth as witnesses to the covenant occur in Israel? This will most likely have been a process rather than an instantaneous transfer, so that we can only expect to illuminate the probable time period in which this occurred. The examples cited above date from the reign of Esarhaddon ءرو66— 680) , but it is highly probable that these treaties reflect general Assyrian practice. Although the treaty between Ashur-nerari ٧ and

nuance, contra M. Delcor, Les Attaches ه rom testifying by more than؛ This differs د5littéraires, l’origine et la signification de l’express^n biblique »prendre a témoin le ciel et la terre«, VT 16 (120 , و66ر .

54 Translation in AN£T, 5 3 4 -5 4 1 .55 ANET, 534.56 Translation in ANET, 5 3 3 -5 3 4 .57 On the basis o؛ the colophon the vassal treaties may be dated to the year 672, c؛. R.

Frankena, The ^fassal-Treaties o£ Esarhaddon and the Dating o؛ Deuteronomy, OTS 14 (1134 - 133 , و65ر . D . ا . McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, AnBib 21a, 1113 - 8 1 ,112 ,وplaces the treaty with Baal o؛ Tyre in the year 677.

35 9Dwight R. Daniels, Is There a »?rophetic Lawsuit« Genre?

M ati’ilu of A rpad58 does not contain the summary phrase, the text is incom plete and hence no conclusions may he drawn from it, especially since the »seven warrior gods« with which the extant text ends precede the «(great) gods of heaven and earth« in the £sarhaddon treaties. It is therefore necessary to examine Israel’s history to see when her covenant tradition may have been influenced by the Assyrian treaty tradition. This may have begun as early as the reign of Jehu or Joash, but since Assyrian incursions at this time were temporary, it is more likely that Assyrian influence first became significant enough to bring about such a change during M enahem ’s reign. In the course of Tiglath־?ileser Ill’s western campaign in 738, M enahem willingly submitted and paid tribute in order to secure the Israelite throne (II Reg 15,وا ), presumably be- coming an Assyrian vassal. Thus the Assyrian treaty tradition would have found its way into the northern kingdom. Similarly, Ahaz’ appeal to Tiglath-Pileser III during the Syro־£phraim ite war and the resulting vassaldom ca. 733/32 afforded the Assyrian treaty tradition entry into Judah. It should be emphasized, however, that this represents the earliest possible date, and it is quite unlikely that the shift occurred this early and so quickly. The Assyrian treaty tradition will have been know n in Israel at this time in the form of an international treaty and in all probability was confined to the political sphere for some time. The conservative nature of religious practice and custom, not to m ention national pride, no doubt led to stiff resistance to an adaptation of the sovereign-vassal treaty to the covenant. Nevertheless, evidence of such an adaptation is provided by Proto-Deuteronomy, which is composed according to the treaty pattern^ . This is likely to have occurred in connection w ith Hezekiah’s reform and ultim ate rebellion against Assy- ria sometime after 705 when Sennacherib became king, the point being that Yahweh is the true and only sovereign of Israel, not the Assyrian king. Yet Proto-Deuteronom y does not invoke heaven and earth as witnesses, which is striking in light of its adaptation of the treaty form and suggests that heaven and earth were not yet employed as witnesses in Israel’s covenant tradition at this time. A reasonable terminus post quem for the shift to heaven and earth as covenant witnesses would thus be Sennacherib’s defeat of Hezekiah in 701. A date sometime during the long reign of M anasseh, when Assyrian influence reached a zenith, appears probable. If this line of reasoning is correct, then a dependence of Isa 1,2 (and Mi 6,2?) on a covenant tradition in which heaven and earth (and natural phenomena?) are invoked as witnesses to the covenant

؟٢ ^anslation in ANET, 5 3 2 -5 3 3 . The treaty dates to the year 754, cf. D. 1. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, ١١٠.

59 Cf. D. 1. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 1 5 7-187 .

360 Dwight R. Daniels, Is There a »?rophetic Lawsuit« Genre?

is pra€tically excluded, ©ne would not only have to date the text(s) to the last years of Hezekiah, which is possible, but also place the shift in the covenant tradition in these years, which is not very probable.

Conclusion

Looking back upon the results of the exam ination of the texts in light of the preliminary considerations concerning the nature of a genre, it becomes apparent that neither structurally nor contentually can these texts be considered examples of a single genre. Lspecially the structure argues decidedly against such a view. In each case (save Isa 1,2 — 3) it is not a m atter of a non-distinct structure such that one might suspect content (or setting) to be the determining factor. Each passage evidences a clearly defined structure which can be identified with the structure of a known genre, i.e. prophecy (of disaster) or priestly torah. N either does the content in any case negate the identification of the genre on structural grounds. If indeed content were the determining factor, one would expect some distinguishing contentual feature common to all. But such is not the case. No key word is common to all five texts, and the same must be said for the appeal to heaven and earth or natural phenomena and the reference to Yahweh’s saving acts of the Exodus and C o n g e s t (Jer 2,6 —7a؛ Mi 6 ,3 -5 ) , even if this is defined less precisely as a recollection of past benefits so as to be able to include Isa l,2ba. These latter features must therefore be interpreted as motifs and rhetorical techn؟؛ues which are not genre specific but could be utilized in a variety of genres. In the absence of structural and/or contentual features which group these texts together and distinguish them from other texts, not only should the term »prophetic lawsuit« be abandoned but also the underlying conception that these texts belong to a single genre.

The notion that the texts Isa 1,2 - 3 ث 18 - 20ث Jer 2,4 - - Mi 6,1 ؛13 and Hos 4 ث8 ,1 - 3 belong to a single gente, be it a ״ prophetic lawsuit« or a ״ rib-oracle«, should be abandoned since they display no distinguishing structural or contentual features common to all. Jer 2 ,4 Hos 4 ث11— ,1 - 3 are prophecies of disaster, Jer 2 ,1 2 -1 3 a redactional addition, and Isa 1,10- 2 ثم Mi 6, (1 )2 -8 are patterned after the priestly torah. Heaven and earth as witnesses to the covenant is a late development under Assyrian influence probably during the reign of Manasseh. An appeal to heaven and earth (or natural phenomena) therefore cannot be linked to a prophetic covenant lawsuit but is to be explained against the conceptual background of natural phenomena as (living) entities affected by man’s beha- vior.

آلمآورلم؛

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may priut, dow nload, or send artieles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international eopyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATT,AS subscriber agreement.

No eontent may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)’ express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS eollection with permission from the eopyright holder(s). The eopyright holder for an entire issue ٥۴ ajourna! typieally is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, tbe author ofthe article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use آس covered by the fair use provisions of tbe copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright hoider(s), please refer to the copyright iaformatioa in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initia؛ funding from Liiiy Endowment !)٦٥.

The design and final form ofthis electronic document is the property ofthe American Theological Library Association.