Divination : Relics in the Deuteronomistic History and the Birth or the End of Mosaic Prophecy

Semitica 56, 2014, p. 291-312.

Divination: Relics in the Deuteronomistic History and the

Birth or the End of Mosaic Prophecy Stéphanie Anthonioz

Faculté de Théologie de Lille, UMR 7192

Résumé. La prophétie appartient de plein droit au monde divinatoire ancien. Cela appa-raît clairement dans les sources mésopotamiennes. Cependant, la lecture des Prophètes antérieurs ou encore de l’histoire deutéronomiste se caractérise par le manque sur-prenant de références divinatoires. Cette caractéristique est-elle le fruit des rédactions successives de ces textes prophétiques ? C’est l’objet de l’article de montrer comment la construction de l’histoire deutéronomiste s’accompagne également de la construction d’un prophétisme idéal et mosaïque. Ce dernier, défini à l’aune de la révélation mosaïque, est alors sorti de la sphère culturelle, sociale et religieuse, auquel il appartient par défini-tion, pour devenir non seulement légal mais aussi une institution majeure du passé reconstruit d’Israël prenant le pas sur la royauté même. Cette construction d’un prophé-tisme idéal est visible, d’une part, à travers l’analyse des « vestiges » divinatoires et, d’autre part, à travers l’analyse de la figure de Samuel, sur lesquels l’article se concentre.

It is usually agreed that the so-called Deuteronomistic History condemns idolatry and divination as idolatry. We call Deuteron-omistic History the literary and theological project assembling diverse sources and traditions (from the book of Deuteronomy to the end of Kings) in order to give an account of the past of Israel1.

1 Since the thesis of Martin Noth, the following discourses: Deut 1–30, Josh 1,

23, Judg 2,6–3,6, 1 Sam 12, 1 Kgs 8, 2 Kgs 17 and 25 have been considered the great pillars of the Deuteronomistic History which gives an account of the past and origins of Israel through cyclic crises leading to the final exile (Noth 1981). It is not my purpose here to reconsider such a hypothesis. As a whole I consider this hypothesis relevant in producing a model and even more a construction of the past of Israel: different materials have been arranged together at one point

292 Stéphanie Anthonioz

This history is a judgement on Israel or a theodicy rather than a history in the modern sense. And idolatry in this theodicy can be considered one of the main causes of the final fall of Judah, the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and the end of the monar-chy with the exile (Römer 2005, 40). If the condemnation of idola-try is evident, I would like in this paper to consider the place of divination in this condemnation. What is the role played by divi-nation in the books from Deuteronomy to 2 Kings? I would like also to remind that in the ancient Near East prophecy too is part of divination. This point has been recently made clear (Kitz 2003, 23-24; Nissinen 2010, 341-351; 2000, 101-102). Divination can be defined broadly as communication between men and gods involv-ing a set of rituals and practices in order to know the divine will or word. And different techniques have been identified to serve that aim, let us only mention astrology (Rochberg-Halton 2006, 337-348) and hepatoscopy (signs in animal’s liver, Jeffers 1996, 155)2 for the most famous in the ancient Near East but also li-banomancy (signs in the smoke)3, hydromancy (signs in the wa-ter)4 or cleromancy (lots casting)5. So this paper is the occasion to show how the condemnation of divination (as part of a wider condemnation against idolatry) becomes the means of redefining an ideal prophecy no longer divinatory but in accord with the law of Moses. By ideal prophecy, I mean that the prophet receives and communicates the divine word through his mouth without re-course to any ritualistic process. Moreover we’ll see how this Biblical ideal definition of the (true) prophet is linked to a literary

and according to a particular theology. See Römer 2005; R. F. Person, The Deuter-onomic School: History, Social Setting, and Literature (Atlanta: SBL, 2002); Th. Römer (éd.), The Future of the Deuteronomistic History (Leuven: The University Press, 2000); Pakkala 2007, 159-178.

2 A. Jeffers proposes with others that the Biblical rite of lobus caudatus (Exod 29:13.22; Lev 3:3–4:15; 7:4; 8:16.25; 9:10.19) could have been intended in order to put an end to extispicy. See also Hurowitz 2002, 182-193.

3 Finkel 1983-84, 50-54; Biggs 1969, 73-74; Pettinato 1966, 303-327. 4 See Jeffers 1996, 160 and in the Bible Gen 14:7; 44:5-15; Num 5:11-28; Eze

36:25). 5 Arnold 2004, 199-213; Kitz 2000a, 207-214.

Divination: Relics in the Deuteronomistic History and the Birth or the End of Mosaic Prophecy

293

and ideological movement. Therefore this paper will also show how a later literary stratum has turned from divination to ideal and word prophecy or Mosaic prophecy. The time of the exile or even later appears as the best period for such an evolution when kingship itself has fallen apart and when, as a consequence, pre-exilic institutions are under heavy criticism.

The foundation of the condemnation of divination is laid out in Deut 18:9-22 composed of two main parts and placed at the centre of the Deuteronomic law in Deut 12–26 (Nihan 2007). Deut 18:9-13 give a list of ritual and divinatory practices to be con-demned. Here is a chart reviewing the meaning and the different locations of these practices:

Function / Corpus Tora Neviʾim “The one who makes his son or daughter pass through the fire” מעביר בנו־ובתו ) 6(באש

Lev 18:21 (asso-ciated with Melek)7

(2 Kgs 3:26-27); 2 Kgs 16:3; 17:17; 21:6; 23:10 (associated with Melek and Tophet)8 Jer 7:31 (associated with Tophet); 32:35 (associated with Melek) Eze 20:31

“The one who practices divina-tion” (קסם קסמים) or “diviner” (קסם) or “divination” 9(קסם)

Num 22:7 ( קסמים-asso) 23:23 ;(בידםciated with omen observation); Deut 18:14 (diviners associated with

Jos 13:22 (death of Balaam); 1 Sam 15:23 (sin of divination); 28:8 -verbal stem in the im ,קסמי־נא)perative); 2 Kgs 17:17 ( ויקסמו Qal verbal root associated ,קסמיםwith observing omen); Isa 3:2

6 Child sacrifices in first place among a list of divinatory practices is very in-

teresting. The link of such a practice with divination may signify that it was used to obtain help in case of great danger (Römer 2010, 78; Jeffers 1996, 123).

7 Other references to Melek, the “abomination of the sons of Ammon” are Lev 20:2-5; 1 Kgs 11:7; 2 Kgs 23:10; Jer 32:35; Am 5:26.

8 Other references to Tophet are Isa 30:33; Jer 7:31.32; 19:6.11-14. About the role of the Tophet as cultic place for sacrificing children, see Dearman 1996, 59-71.

9 The Arabic root means cutting wood into pieces and, by extension, casting lots with arrows. But besides Eze 21:26-27 no biblical reference can lead to that


those who predict) (diviner associated with the prophet); Jer 14:14 (divination associated with lying prophets); 27:9 (diviners associated with prophets, dreamers, those who predict and sorcerers); Eze 12:24 divination associated with ,מקסם)empty visions); 13:6 (lying divina-tion associated with empty visions and prophecy); 13:23; 21:26-28 (divination associated with arrows and Teraphim); Mic 3:6 (divination and vision associated with proph-ets)

“The one who predicts” (מעונן)10

Lev 19:26 (תעוננו, poel); Deut 18:14 (those who predict associated with diviners)

Judg 9:37 (name of a road); 2 Kgs 21:6 (עונן, poel associated with other condemned practices); Isa 2:6 (those who predict like the Philistines); 57:3 (בנה עננה, son of the woman who predicts); Jer 27:9 (those who predict associated with diviners, prophets, dreamers and sorcerers); Mic 5:11 (those who predict associated with sorcery)

“The one who observes and interprets omen” 11(מנחש)

Lev 19:26 (תנחשו, piel verbal root associated with predicting); Num

2 Kgs 17:17 (וינחשו, piel associated with divination); 21:6 (נחש, piel associated with other condemned practices)

precise meaning. Jeffers proposes, on her part, to translate by “one who obtains an oracle by drawing lots”, see Jeffers 1996, 96).

10 All references to those who predict in the Bible are connected with foreign practices linked to observation of natural phenomena. See Jeffers 1996, 78. I. Fischer considers, on her part, that it means interpreting the clouds and re-minds of the great role of clouds in biblical theophany. See Fischer 2009, 64.

11 The verb naḥaš seems to refer to the quest of natural signs and omen. This entails a wide range of different techniques. See Jeffers 1996, 74 and 78.


295

-asso ,נחש) 23:23ciated with divina-tion)

“sorcerer” (מכשף)12 “sorcery” (כשף)

Exod 7:11 (sorcerers associated with Egyptian sages)

2 Kgs 9:22 (sorceries associated with Jezabel’s prostitutions); Isa 47:9.12 (sorceries associated with Babylon’s charms); Jer 27:9 (sor-cerers associated with prophets, diviners, dreamers and those who predict); Mic 5:11 (כשפים, sorceries associated with those who pre-dict); Mal 3:5 (against sorcerers and adultery); Dan 2:2 (sorcerers associated with Chaldeans)

“charmer” ( חבר 13(חבר

Isa 47:9.12 (charms associated with Babylon sorcery)

“The one who inquires of a spirit of an elder or of a dead who knows” (ושאל אוב וידעני)

Lev 19:31 ( האבת-condemna ,והידעניםtion linked to the keeping of purity); 20:6 ( דעניםהאבת והי , condemned as prostitutes); ,אוב וידעני) 20:27condemned to death).

1 Sam 28:3.7.9 (Saul and the wom-an of En-Dor); 2 Kgs 21:6 ( אוב עשה ,האבות והידענים) 23:24 ;(וידעניםassociated with Teraphim and other idols); Isa 8:19; 19:3 ( האבות-condemned and asso ,והידעניםciated with Egypt in the last refe-rence)

“The one who inquires of the dead” (ודרש אל־

12 In Exod 22:17 one finds the feminine participate. The Septuagint and the

Vulgate have translated that function respectively by φαρμακος and incantator adding the idea of herboristry to that of incantation. This is consistent with the Ugaritic verbal stem. See Jeffers 1996, 65; Fischer 2009, 65.

13 The ḥbr is someone belonging to a group or a company bound by oath and whose activity could be to cast spells and charms and bind others by his power. See Jeffers 1996, 32-35.


(המתים

From the references of this chart, it appears that these techniques are never described as such and mostly condemned14. They are moreover no longer known and their translation is often difficult and tentative. Their condemnation has undoubtedly entailed this absence of any description. Moreover their references appear to be very few and located in main and symbolical chapters of con-demnation. In Deuteronomy it seems clear that such a condemna-tion serves the purpose of opposing true prophecy.

Deut 18:14-22 oppose to these condemned diviners the only and true prophet revealed and sent by Yhwh, in the image of Moses. The place of this definition is important in regard of the preceding condemnation, but it is even more if we consider the place and definition of the other institutions. Because contrary to the law concerning the Levites (Deut 18:1-8) or the city judges (16:18-20), the prophet is singular not plural. And moreover the final position of Deut 18:9-22 concluding the larger collection on Israelite institutions (Deut 16:18–18:22) bears witness to the supe-riority of prophecy over all the other offices. As defined by Deut 18:14-22 prophecy becomes the only form of legal communication with the divine. Even more, it becomes the only form of media-tion in Israel if one considers that the king has been somehow dethroned in Deut 17:18-20 and turned into a good scribe copying the book of the law. The prophet is therefore the one to mediate the law (not merely copy it) in the image of Moses who received it. The picture is thus clearly royal for it is a royal attribute in the ancient Near East to edict the law. And so it bears witness to the fact that prophecy is built up into a political institution of primal importance (before even kingship). We can witness here the transformation of prophecy from what it is in the ancient Near East—a socio- and religious-cultural phenomenon belonging to the world of divination and attached to the temple rather than the court—to what it becomes according to Dtr ideology, an ideal

14 The same could be said from an overview of all the material from the Dead

Sea Scrolls. See Brooke 2003, 66-84.


297

and political institution. This moreover can be seen through the evolution and construction of the Dtr history. To show this, we shall look into what we can call, from a historical and redactional point of view, the relics of divination in the Dtr history and the construction of the focal figure of Samuel, priest prophet and king.

As often stated, exile in the Dtr conception is connected with the collapse of kingship but also with the failure of prophecy (Lam 4:12-13; Jer 23:9-40; 27–29). And if it is clear that prophecy did not end (Zech 13:2-6), so one has to admit its crisis. And this failure seems to have become the very cradle of its transfor-mation and ideal reconstruction in Dtr milieux. The revision of prophecy is therefore part of biblical collecting and editing from the exilic period on and is consequently linked to the editing of the Torah. Deut 34:10-12 insisting on the fact that never again in Israel arose a prophet like Moses is a hint at the closure of revela-tion. All has been revealed and any subsequent prophecy has to be in accordance with that of Moses. Somehow prophecy is no longer prophetic since nothing is to be revealed if all has already been revealed.

However many hints at divination in the Dtr history witness to the fact that in transforming “prophecy” the Dtrs were not able to eradicate divination. I will call these hints “relics” and proceed to their analysis. An overview of the books from Deut to 2 Kings shows that divination is part and parcel of ancient Israelite histo-ry (Sasson 2008, 149-168). Different punctual remarks can be made. Concerning the vocabulary of consultation in the process of divine communication, two verbs are recurring: “asking” (שאל, Jos 9:14, Judg 1:1-3, 18:5-6, 20:18, 1 Sam 10:22, 14:36-42, 22:10-15, 23:2, 28:6, 30:8, 2 Sam 2:1, 5:19.23, 16:23)15 and “seeking” (דרש, 1 Sam 9:9, 1 Kgs 22:5, 2 Kgs 1:2, 3:11-19, 8:8-13, 22:13, 2 ,בקש Sam 21:1 and 2 ,בקר Kgs 16:15) which is clearly in accordance with ancient divination as can be observed in Mesopotamian sources: asking a question to the divinity in order to get an answer usually

15 The Akkadian verb šaʾālu/šâlu is the verb used in oracular proceedings. See

the references in the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary.


given on a binary mode (yes or no, see Huffmon 1983, 356). As a clear example, let us quote the episode of Jonathan’s violation of Saul’s oath not to take food until final victory over the Philistines in the first book of Samuel:

Then Saul said, ‘Let us go down after the Philistines by night and plunder them until the morning light; let us not leave a man of them.’ And they said, ‘Do whatever seems good to you.’ But the priest said, ‘Let us draw near to God here.’ 37And Saul inquired of God, ‘Shall I go down after the Philistines? Will you give them into the hand of Israel?’ But he did not answer him that day. 38And Saul said, ‘Come here, all you leaders of the people, and know and see how this sin has arisen today. 39For as the Lord lives who saves Israel, though it be in Jonathan my son, he shall surely die.’ But there was not a man among all the people who answered him. 40Then he said to all Israel, ‘You shall be on one side, and I and Jonathan my son will be on the other side.’ And the people said to Saul, ‘Do what seems good to you.’ 41Therefore Saul said, ‘O Lord God of Israel, why have you not answered your servant this day? If this guilt is in me or in Jonathan my son, O Lord, God of Israel, give Urim. But if this guilt is in your people Israel, give Thummim.’ And Jonathan and Saul were taken, but the people escaped. 42Then Saul said, ‘Cast the lot between me and my son Jonathan.’ And Jonathan was taken. (1 Sam 14:36-42)16

Moreover some oracles are sometimes confirmed by second con-sultation, a phenomenon also widely attested at Mari (see for instance Judg 20; 1 Sam 23:4). The verb “to chose” ( כדל ) some-times used in the Nifal or the Qal with Yhwh as subject also indi-cates oracular context though the precise means of divination are not recorded. Most often it seems to be about lots casting (Jos 7:13-18; 1 Sam 10:17-22; 1 Sam 10:17-22). So we can conclude that divination as a whole in these sources functions on a binary mode even when the divinatory mean is lost, erased or simply not rec-orded (Jos 7:13-18; Judg 1:1-3; 18:5-6; 1 Sam 23:1-4.9-12; 30:7-8;

16 All Biblical quotations are taken from the English Standard Version (2001).


299

2 Sam 2:1; 5:19.23; 2 Kgs 3:8). The ephod17, Urim and Tummim as in the passage quoted18 along with lots (בגורל)19 appear most common. Here is another chart giving the definition and location of the main divinatory practices in the books of the Dtr History:

Practices / Corpus

Deut Jos Judg Sam Kings

Ephod Urim ,20(אפוד) and (אורים)Tummim 21(תמים)

33:8 1 Sam 14:18 (LXX, ephod); 23:9-12 (ephod); 28:6 (Urim); 30:7-8 (ephod)

Cleromancy: lots (גורל)22,

7:13-18 [2] ;

1:3; 20:9 1 Sam 10:17-22 [2]; 14:41-42 [2]

17 See 1 Sam 14:18 LXX; 23:9-12; 30:7-8 and also Scherer 2003, 589-604. 18 See Deut 33:8; 1 Sam 14:41; 28:6 and Hurowitz 1998, 263-274; Kitz 1997, 401-

410; Van Dam 1997. 19 See Jos 14:1-2; 16:1; 18:3-10.11; 19:1.10.17.24.32.40.51; 21:1-8; Judg 20:9;

1 Sam 14:42 and Kitz 2000b, 601-618. 20 The ephod is the priestly garment with which the young Samuel is dressed

(1 Sam 2:18) as well as David when bringing the ark into Jerusalem (2 Sam 6:14). But this last reference is absent from the Septuagint. The priestly writing pre-scribes the wearing of the ephod (with Urim and Tummim) to the high priest (Exod 28:28-29; 35:27; 39). In some passages however, the significance of ephod is not clear (Judg 8:27 or 1 Sam 14:18 in which ark is translated by ephod in the Septuagint) and could refer to some kind of object similar to the teraphim (Judg 17:5; 18:14.17-18.20; 1 Sam 14:3.18-19; 23:9; 1 Kgs 2:26; Hos 3:4). See Scherer 2003, 589-604; Jeffers 1996, 197; Davies 1975, 82-87; Morgenstern 1943, 153-266.

21 Urim and Tummim are usually considered the sacral adaptation of lots. Urim and Tummim are placed in the ephod worn by the priest (Exod 28:30; Lev 8:8; Num 27:21). The etymology of Urim and Tummim is not ascertained, maybe “lights and perfections”, or simply the signs of the first and final letter of the alphabet. It could be, if one considers existing parallels in Akkadian and Hittite, that they were small stones marked with different colours. See Hurowitz 1998, 263-274; Kitz 1997, 401-410; Jeffers 1996, 209; Horowitz & Hurowitz 1992, 95-115; Houtman 1990, 229-232; Lipiński 1970, 495-496.

22 These are small stones that were thrown (Ob 11; Na 3:10), made to fall (Eze 24:6; Jon 1:7; Ne 10:3; 11:1; 1 Ch 24:31), shaken (Prov 16:33) or picked out (Num 33:54; Jos 19:1.17.24.32.40; 21:4; 1 Ch 24:7; 25:9; 26:14). The practice of lots was


or verb “choose” ( ([2] לכד

14:1-2; 16:1; 18:3-11; 19; 21:1-8

Verbs of consultation דרש ;[1] שאל) ([3] בקש ;[2]

9:14 [1] 1:1-3 [1]; 18:5-6 [1]; 20:18.23 [1]; 20:27-28 [1]

1 Sam 9:9 [2]; 10:22 [1]; 14:36-37 [1]; 22:10-15 [1]; 23:1-4 [1]; 28:6 [1]; 30:7-8 [1]; 2 Sam 2:1 [1]; 5:19.23 [1]; 6:23 [1]; 21:1 [3]

1 Kgs 22:5-8 [2]; 2 Kgs 1:2-16 [2]; 3:11-19 [2]; 8:8-13 [2]; 22:12-20 [3]

Oniromancy (חלום)

7:9-15 1 Sam 28:6 1 Kgs 3

Other prac-tices

6:36-40 גזת ) (הצמר

1 Sam 14:8-10 (cleronomancy); 2 Sam 20:18 (Abel?)

2 Kgs 16:15 (Bronze altar of Ahaz)

Practices condemned in Deut 18:10-11

1 Sam 28 (necro-mancy)

It seems therefore probable that cleromancy was the usual mode of divination in ancient Israel in order to obtain a divine re-sponse. But other means are at times recorded as the woolen fleece of Gideon (Judg 6:36-40), sound in the trees interpreted as divine sign (also called dendromancy, see 2 Sam 5:23), the bronze altar of king Ahaz (2 Kgs 16:15), dreams (Judg 7:9-15, 1 Sam 28:6, 1 Kgs 3), cleronomancy (or unexpected word, see 1 Sam 14:8-10), necromancy (1 Sam 28:7-10; 2 Sam 20:18). In all these references prophecy is not excluded, but literarily circumscribed to the his-tory of kingship in Israel (1 Sam 28:6; 2 Kgs 3:11-19; 8:8-13; 22:5-28). This fact alerts us to the prophetic ideology at work in the

simple necessitating no erudition. See Kitz 2000b, 601-618; 2000a, 207-214; Lind-blom 1962, 164-168.


301

construction of Dtr history as if before kingship arose there were no prophets in Israel.

Let us remark also that professionals of divination are not al-ways identified but are often “priests” (Mika in Judg 18:5-6, Ahimelech in 1 Sam 22:10, Abiathar in 1 Sam 23:9). The divinatory role of the priest is underlined by the fact that he himself wears the ephod and that he alone can consult, that is ask the question or inquire from the divinity (1 Sam 14:18, 23:9-12)23. Of course the professionals are never referred to by the names condemned in Deut 18 except for the woman of En-Dor (1 ,אשת בעלת־אוב Sam 28:7-10, cf. Deut 18:11).

From these punctual remarks, we can argue that according to Deut 18:9-13 different specialists have been condemned but different divinatory techniques are still at work elsewhere in the different literary strata of the Dtr History. But these divinatory techniques are most often in the state of textual relics, the pro-cess of divination not being recalled. Cleromancy seems to have been the current mode of divination in ancient Israel just as hepatoscopy was in Mesopotamia or astrology even more in the first millennium. Therefore the most obvious relic of divination remains the oracular literary form with its question and binary answer (yes/no). The relic is thus literary not technical.

The distribution of these relics in the Deuteronomistic history is also remarkable. Lots (גורל) are most common in the book of Joshua whereas the book of Judges displays the largest range of divinatory practices. The verb of consultation (שאל) is widely used except in the book of Kings where the verb is “seek” (דרש) and where prophecy as ideally and institutionally defined by the Dtrs takes precedence. In this sense, it could be argued that the books of Kings never existed apart from the Dtrs and was con-strued to expound their ideology and theodicy: the fall of king-

23 David also appears to be consulting but it is not clear if he always has re-

course to some professionals as in 1 Sam 22:10-15 and 1 Sam 23:9-12 (see 1 Sam 23:1-4; 2 Sam 2:1; 5:19-23; 21:1). And so is it with Saul (1 Sam 28:6). In 1 Sam 30: 7-8, David has the ephod clearly brought to him that he may himself consult Yhwh.


ship and the rise of ideal and institutional prophecy. Therefore the book of Samuel occupies a key place in this construction.

The redactional critic in the books of Samuel is complex and it is not my aim to reconsider it here. But for the purpose of this demonstration and because it will prove mostly significant I will adopt the point of view of a double Dtr redaction24. The first Dtr exilic composition would thus have extended to 2 Sam 8 (1 Sam 1–3*, 4–6, (7:1), 9:1–10:16, 11, 13–14, 16(17)–2 Sam 8, see Nihan & Nocquet 2009), the second postexilic redaction adding the chap-ters concerned with the theological question on Israelite kingship (1 Sam 7, 8, 10:17-27, 12, 15:1–16:13), the so-called succession narrative (2 Sam 9–20 and 21–24). Seven main chapters (1 Sam 3, 7, 8, 12, 15, 16:1-13, 2 Sam 7) build up this history according to Dtr ideology.

Interestingly the first redaction displays a wide range of divin-atory practices which is no longer the case of the second redac-tion where prophecy becomes “pure” word (that is not connected to any technique, practice or ritual and in total accordance with Mosaic law). Let us quickly review the exilic edition. The Philis-tine interlude in 1 Sam 5 is a typical oracular consultation: in fear of the tumours caused by the hand of Yhwh among the people, the ark is successively displaced by officials after consultations until it is finally sent back. And in Shiloh prophecy is clearly di-vinatory and located in the sanctuary (1 Sam 1–3): rituals are frequent and connected with signs and sacrifices. For example, in 1 Sam 10 the royal oracle is preceded by a sacrifice and followed by the sign to be interpreted. In 1 Sam 13–14 the reign of Saul begins with the uprising of the Philistines: this is the occasion for Saul to falter: unable to wait for Samuel to offer the ritual sacri-fices, Saul is condemned. These sacrifices are in reality nothing but rituals for war and victory. Besides, this redaction does not criticize ecstasy. And so in 1 Sam 10:5-6 Samuel predicts to Saul

24 Let us recall here that the first neo-Assyrian edition according to the hy-

pothesis of Th. Römer covers 1 Sam 1; 9:1-10.16; 11:1-15; 13–14; 16–27; 29; 2 Sam 2–5 whereas the second from the Babylonian exilic period adds 1 Sam 1; 2:18-21; 3*; 4–6*; 7:5-17; 8–12*; 1 Sam 12–1 Kings 8*. Cf. Römer 2005, 97.


303

that he will meet a band of ecstatic prophets and become ecstatic himself under the power of the spirit of Yhwh. This spirit is even the sign of the royal oracle delivered. Saul is then invited by Sam-uel to come down to Gilgal and offer sacrifices with him. Seven days need to be counted before Samuel can learn the will of God. Sacrifices are thus clearly oracular. Finally in 1 Sam 19:20, is not Samuel himself at the head of a band of prophets?

The late redaction is commonly considered to be the Dtr contri-bution to the question on kingship. But alongside kingship, I wish to underline how prophecy too is put into question and conse-quently redefined. The “first” discourse of Samuel is symptomatic of the evolution of prophecy in this late redaction: idolatry is condemned in typical Dtr style:

And Samuel said to all the house of Israel, ‘If you are returning to the Lord with all your heart, then put away the foreign gods and the Ashtaroth from among you and direct your heart to the Lord and serve him only, and he will deliver you out of the hand of the Philis-tines.’ (1 Sam 7:3)

Moreover, the discourse of Samuel is no longer connected to the dynastic crisis at hand in the sanctuary of Shiloh and simply re-peats the Mosaic law against idolatry and “other gods”. In this sense the political discourse is ideally or literarily prophetic and no relic of divination can be identified. Samuel is really in the image of Moses as announced in Deut 18:18. Most of all this late redaction condemns divination radically:

And Samuel said, ‘Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams. 23For rebel-lion is as the sin of divination ( םחטאת־קס ), and presumption is as in-iquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has also rejected you from being king.’ (1 Sam 15:22-23)

From this evident evolution from one redaction to the other, let us now consider more specifically the construction of the figure


of Samuel and how he becomes the ideal Dtr prophet as opposed to the doomed king Saul. I will consider therefore that the opposi-tion is not so much between Saul and David the pious and ideal king as it is usually analysed, but between Saul the impious king (symbolizing kingship and its failure as an institution) and Samu-el the ideal prophet (and prophecy turned from divination and communication to mediation and being institutionalized in the first place before even kingship). The first chapters of the book of Samuel do not present him at once as prophet in Israel. Yet as every great prophet of the Bible and, most importantly, as every king in the ancient Near East (Seux 1967, 19), he is consecrated from the womb of his mother. Shiloh is the sanctuary of Yhwh where the child Samuel is brought and where Eli and his two sons Hophni and Phinehas officiate as priests (1 Sam 1:3). Therefore the child to grow is to become priest. He is also presented a nazir given to Yhwh on whose head no razor will ever pass (1 Sam 1:11)25. The given aetiology of the name of Samuel is that of Saul asked for Yhwh” in 1 Sam 1:28a with the repetition“ ,שאול ליהוה)of the verbal root seven times in verses 17-28). For many, this narrative of Samuel’s birth is originally none other than that of Saul (McKenzie 2006, 59-70; McCarter 1980, 63). From my point of view this only shows how Samuel is connected to a royal figure and moreover to an ideal one contrary to Saul who is to become the impious one. The linen ephod that Samuel wears (1 Sam 2:18) symbolizes his priestly function whereas the little garment that his mother brings over to him every year (1 ,מעיל Sam 2:19) in-vites one to consider besides the future priest26 the future proph-et hidden in the child (1 ,אדרת Kgs 19:19) but also the ideal king

25 The manuscript 4Q51 found in Qumran clearly mentions that Samuel is a

“nazir forever, every day [of his life]” (1 Sam 1:22). This plus allows one to draw a parallel between Samuel and Samson (Judg 13:4-8) who also was born of a sterile woman. But contrary to Samson, the Septuagint does not call Samuel a nazir but only dotos “given”.

26 Meʿil designates the priestly ephod in Exod 28:4;31;34, 29:5, 39:22ff; Lev. 8:7; the military garment in 1 Sam 18:4 also the royal garment in 1 Sam 15:27 (as symbol), 24:5,12 and the prophetic one in 1 Sam 15:27, 28:14.


305

Through this initial portrait, one can see .(Kgs 11:29-33 1 ,שלמה)as in “filigrane” the focal figure that Samuel is: priest, prophet and king. And this is confirmed by the oracle of doom against the house of Eli at Shiloh by an anonymous “man of God”:

And this that shall come upon your two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, shall be the sign to you: both of them shall die on the same day. 35And I will raise up for myself a faithful priest, who shall do ac-cording to what is in my heart and in my mind. And I will build him a sure house, and he shall go in and out before my anointed forever. (1 Sam 2:34-35)

The oracle in its benediction is, not surprisingly, reminiscent of Yhwh’s promises to David and his house (2 Sam 7:8-17). Was not David after the heart of Yhwh and could he not, as a priest should, offer sacrifices and holocausts (2 Sam 6:17-18; 24:25). Therefore in the opening chapters of the Books of Samuel (who is to witness the political change from judges to kings), the two institutions, the priestly one and the royal one, are somewhat focalized on Samuel. It is quiet obvious then that historically speaking both institutions have failed and are reconstructed under the hegemo-ny of prophecy as defined by the Dtrs. It is only after the crisis in Shiloh and the war with the Philistines that Samuel becomes the prophet and his prophecy shines as typically legal that is in Dtr style:

And Samuel said to all the house of Israel, ‘If you are returning to the Lord with all your heart, then put away the foreign gods and the Ashtaroth from among you and direct your heart to the Lord and serve him only, and he will deliver you out of the hand of the Philis-tines.’ 4So the people of Israel put away the Baals and the Ashtaroth, and they served the Lord only. (1 Sam 7:3-4)

Samuel’s speech is truly in accordance with the Deuteronomic law: the other gods are they not the leitmotiv of this history and the cause of the final fall of Judah? In this sense Samuel’s speech is perfectly prophetic not as prophecy is in the ancient world but as prophecy is built up by the Dtrs. And Samuel therefore insti-


tutes in 1 Sam 8 a kingship that he himself symbolises ideally. As he takes his leave, does he not proclaim that he has been perfect in all his acting (1 Sam 12:1-5) somehow referring back to the right of the king exposed in 1 Sam 8:10-17 and in clear contradic-tion to it? Samuel even kills Amalek, which should have been done by Saul had he been obedient to the word of Yhwh (1 Sam 15:1-3.33). In face of such ideal and focalized figure, Saul can only appear as an impious figure, the perfect antithesis to the prophet according to the heart of Yhwh.

The reign of Saul begins as mentioned already with the upris-ing of the Philistines which is also the occasion for him to sin as he can not wait for Samuel to offer ritual sacrifices (1 Sam 13–14). And Saul’s kingship is just started that it is already condemned. It is clear here that Saul as king embodies neither priest nor proph-et. Otherwise why could he not offer the sacrifices himself as David will? Through the royal condemnation it is the ideal Dtr and Mosaic (not to say Samuelian) prophecy that is extolled. As already said Samuel will then act in the war against the Philis-tines as Saul should have and kill Amalek. Consequently as it is constructed by the Dtrs it is no longer strange that prophecy plays its part in the history of Kings only when kings are defi-cient. Good kings do without a prophet. And it is no less surpris-ing in this sense that Dtr prophets are in constant political con-tradiction announcing doom and therefore so different from prophets in the ancient Near East as usually attested in Mari or Nineveh where they most often, though not always, comfort power.

So David does without a prophet. He is anointed by the men of Judah (2 Sam 2:4)27. After the murder of Abner and Ishbaal, Jerusa-lem is taken and David once more anointed without a prophet by the elders of Israel. Finally after the ark has come to rest in Jeru-salem, David himself sacrifices ox and fatling (2 Sam 6:13). But the prophet will not delay in appearing as David’s figure undergoes criticism. And prophecy always reaffirms Yhwh’s kingship and

27 But he has first received the anointing from Samuel (1 Sam 16:13).


307

kings’ necessary obedience to the word of the law. And so Nathan reproaches the king when he wishes to build Yhwh a house (2 Sam 7) and when he goes with Bathsheba (2 Sam 11–12). An oracle of doom is consequently pronounced upon his house. Da-vid again falters in numbering his people and the prophet Gad, his seer, utters immediate punishment. Yet with David repenting he is allowed finally to offer himself holocausts and peace offer-ings (2 Sam 24:25).

The books of Kings display efficiently and systematically this ideology that the construction of the books of Samuel has now revealed. Concerning their redaction history the case is differ-ent28. Their structure is best understood as different cycles put together (McKenzie 1994), the “Annals” giving only factual infor-mation (1 Kgs 14:30, 15:16-17.20*-22; 2 Kgs 3:4-5, 11:1-4a.19-20) just as the “History of ancient kings” (1 Kgs 1–4*, 11:26-28.40, 12–16*, 2 Kgs 9–10*). The story of Solomon, the cycles of Elijah and Elisha, the episode of Ahiyah (1 Kgs 11:29) are probably all origi-nally independent. And as I said already regarding prophecy the books of Kings are in clear rupture with the preceding books. Whereas prophecy is evolving in the books of Samuel from one redaction to the other, prophecy in the books of Kings is no long-er divinatory but clearly a word of law, announcing doom and punishment for non-obedience. If this is so, it can be argued that the “prophetic” layer in the books of Kings is postexilic. Let us look into the books of Kings in more details.

As for David in Samuel, Solomon as wise king does without a prophet (1 Kgs 3–12). Yhwh even appears to him and Solomon himself is allowed to offer sacrifices to Yhwh. The building of the temple is decreed and no oracle of construction proclaimed but an oracle of benediction in typical Dtr style and logically at this point without any prophet:

28 For an overview of past research see Knoppers 2010, 69-88; McKenzie 1994,

281-307.


Now the word of the Lord came to Solomon, 12‘Concerning this house that you are building, if you will walk in my statutes and obey my rules and keep all my commandments and walk in them, then I will establish my word with you, which I spoke to David your father. 13And I will dwell among the children of Israel and will not forsake my people Israel.’ (1 Kgs 6:11-13)

At the end of the building and at the ceremony of dedication the king is sacrificing again to Yhwh this time with all Israel (1 Kgs 8:62). Yhwh appears another time to Solomon (1 Kgs 9:2). His word is one of obedience to the law in typical Dtr style. The ab-sence of any prophet does show at this stage how ideal Salomon is, priest prophet and king (even though the existence of the priests of Sadoq and the presence in the shadow of Nathan are not denied).

But as for David, the ideal king Solomon is soon to falter and have prophets interfere with his politics. The sin of Solomon is none other than that of the “other gods” (1 Kgs 11). The same sin will be repeated and finally put an end to kingship in Israel and then in Judah. With that sin of idolatry come war and the division of the kingdom with the revolt of Jeroboam (1 Kgs 11:26f). It is no wonder then that the prophet Ahiyah comes into play announc-ing the coming division by the sign of the torn cloak reminding of Saul’s kingship torn away from him by the same sign (1 Sam 15:22-23). And the prophet’s oracle is again clearly Dtr (1 Kgs 11:31-39).

Jeroboam too is no obedient king. And with his son’s sickness, he has his wife meet Ahiyah who discloses to her the condemna-tion of his kingship:

You have not been like my servant David, who kept my com-mandments and followed me with all his heart, doing only that which was right in my eyes, 9but you have done evil above all who were before you and have gone and made for yourself other gods and metal images, provoking me to anger, and have cast me behind your back, 10therefore behold, I will bring harm upon the house of Jeroboam and will cut off from Jeroboam every male, both bond and


309

free in Israel, and will burn up the house of Jeroboam, as a man burns up dung until it is all gone. (1 Kgs 14:8-10)

Once more the prophet is introduced for doom. More than proph-ets of contradiction, Kings’ prophets are really prophets of doom and of the impending judgement on Israel and Judah. The word of God is next pronounced against king Baasha of Israel by the prophet Jehu repeating almost word for word Ahiyah condemna-tion of Jeroboam (1 Kgs 16:1-4). Baasha’s house is put to death by Zimri according to the word of Yhwh delivered by Jehu (1 Kgs 16:12). And Elijah and Elisha offer different cycles but they are also built up into Dtr prophets and very much in the likeness of Moses. Elijah constantly offers contradiction and condemnation to the political affairs of his time whereas the figure of Elisha is more of counselling. At last, Isaiah comes into play not for con-demnation but for clear redactional link with the latter prophets. Therefore his function does not correspond to that of the other prophets in Kings. This overview of the prophetic role in the books of Kings is therefore very coherent and significant, in ac-cordance with the Mosaic law but also with the definition drawn from the focal figure of Samuel: priest, prophet and king. It can be argued that prophets come into play when kingship is failing.

It is time now to offer some conclusion. Deuteronomism in con-structing its history has also constructed its prophecy turning it from divination as a socio- and religious-cultural phenomenon into an institution central to Israel. And whereas ancient literary sources were used in to build up this Dtr ideology, divination could obviously not be systematically erased. Surely the profes-sionals condemned in Deut 18:10-11 are absent from the subse-quent Dtr history but not relics of divinatory techniques, practic-es and rituals. Moreover the obvious distribution of these relics through the different books and the construction of the focal figure of Samuel the ideal “first” prophet in the vein of Moses, priest, judge and king in opposition to Saul, the impious king, bear witness to the fact that Deuteronomism tends to replace the royal institution by a prophetic one but not any prophetic institu-tion: the only possible official and lasting prophecy, that is the


law. Prophecy as it is built up is no longer prophetic according to ancient Near-Eastern pattern, it has become ideal and therefore more of a literary phenomenon (that is not corresponding to any sociological phenomenon), reiterating the law of Moses, the blessing of obedience and the kingship of Yhwh. All that is to come has therefore already been revealed. And in this sense prophecy has also come to an end with Moses at least in the Deu-teronomistic History.

Arnold B. 2004. “Necromancy and Cleromancy in 1 and 2 Samuel,” (CBQ 66) 199-213. Barstad H. 2008. “Some Remarks on Prophets and Prophecy in ‘The

Deuteronomistic history’,” Houses Full of All Good Things (Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society) 300-315.

Biggs R. 1969. “À propos des textes de libanomancie,” (RA 6) 73-74. Brooke G. 2003. “Deuteronomy 18.9-14 in the Qumran Scrolls,” Magic in

the Biblical World : From the Rod of Aaron to the Ring of Solomon (Lon-don: T & T Clark) 66-84.

Carroll R. P. 1979. When Prophecy Failed: Reactions and Responses to Failure in the Old Testament Prophetic Traditions (London: SCM Press).

Davies P. 1975. “Ark or Ephod in I Sam. XIV.18 ? ,” Journal of Theological Studies 26) 82-87.

Dearman J. 1996. “The Tophet in Jerusalem : Archaeology and Cultural Profile,” (JNSL 22) 59-71.

Finkel I. 1983-84. “A New Piece of Libanomancy,” (AfO 30) 50-54. Fischer I. 2009. Des femmes messagères de Dieu, le phénomène de la prophétie

et des prophétesses dans la Bible hébraïque : pour une interprétation respectueuse de la dualité sexuelle (Paris: Cerf, Lire la Bible 153), translated from Gotteskünderinnen: Zu einer geschlechterfairen Deu-tung des Phänomens der Prophetie und der Prophetinnen in der hebräischen Bibel (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 2002).

Fuhs H. 2004. “rāʾāh,” (TDOT 13) 208-242. Horowitz W. & Hurowitz V. 1992. “Urim and Thummim in Light of a

Psephomancy Ritual from Assur (LKA 137),” (JANES 21) 95-115. Houtman C. 1990. “The Urim and Thummim : A New Suggestion,” (VT

40) 229-232.


311

Huffmon H. 1983. “Priestly Divination in Israel,” The Word of the Lord Shall

Go Forth (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns) 355-359. Hurowitz V. 2002. “‘Blessing the Sacrifice’, I Samuel 9:13: An Overlooked

Allusion to Ancient Israelite Extispicy,” (Beer-Sheva 15) 182-193. 1998. “True Light on the Urim and Thummim,” (JQR 88) 263-274. Jeffers A. 1996. Magic and Divination in Ancient Palestine and Syria (Leiden:

Brill). Jepsen A. 1997. “chāzāh,” (TDOT 4) 280-290. Kitz A.-M. 2003. “Prophecy as Divination,” (CBQ) 23-24. 2000a. “The Hebrew Terminology of Lot Casting and Its Ancient

Near Eastern Context,” (CBQ 62) 207-214. 2000b. “Undivided Inheritance and Lot Casting in the Book of

Joshua,” (JBL 119) 601-618. 1997. “The Plural Form of Urîm and Tummîm,” (JBL 116) 401-410. Knoppers G. 2010. “Theories of the Redaction(s) of Kings,” The Books of

Kings (Leiden: Brill, SVT 129) 69-88. Lindblom J. 1962. “Lot-Casting in the Old Testament,” (VT 12) 164-178. Lipiński E. 1970. “ʾŪrīm and Tummīm,” (VT 20) 495-496. McCarter K. 1980. Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and

Commentary (New York: Doubleday). McKenzie S. 2006. “Saul in the Deuteronomistic History,” Saul in Story

and Tradition (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck) 59-70. 1994. “The Books of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History,” The

History of Israel’s Traditions: The Heritage of Martin Noth (Sheffield: The Academic Press) 281-307.

1991. The Trouble with Kings: The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History (Leiden: Brill, SVT 42).

Morgenstern J. 1943. “The Ark, the Ephod, and the Tent of Meeting,” (Hebrew Union College Annual 17) 153-266.

Nihan Ch. 2007. “‘Un prophète comme Moïse’ (Deutéronome 18,5): Genèse et relectures d’une construction deutéronomiste,” (Transeuphra-tène suppl. 13) 43-76.

Nihan Ch. & Nocquet D. 2009. “1-2 Samuel,” Introduction à l’Ancien Testa-ment (Genève: Labor et Fides) 358-383.

Nissinen M. 2010. “Prophecy and Omen Divination: Two Sides of the Same Coin,” Divination and Interpretation of Signs in the Ancient World (Chicago: The Oriental Institute, Oriental Institute Semi-nars 6) 341-351.


2000. “The Socioreligious Role of the Neo-Assyrian Prophets,” Writings and Speech in Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy (At-lanta: Society of Biblical Literature) 89-114.

Noth M. 1981. The Deuteronomistic History (Sheffield: JSOT Press) translat-ed from Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (Halle: Niemeyer, 1943).

Pakkala J. 2007. “The Monotheism of the Deuteronomistic History,” (SJOT 21) 159-178.

Pettinato G. 1966. “Libanomanzia presso i Babilonesi,” (RSO 41) 303-327. Rochberg-Halton F. 2006. “Old Babylonian Celestial Divination,” If a Man

Builds a Joyful House : Assyriological Studies in Honour of Erle Verdun Leichty (Leiden : Brill) 337-348.

Römer Th. 2010. “Les interdits des pratiques magiques et divinatoires dans le livre du Deutéronome (Dt 18,9-13),” Magie et divination dans les cultures de l’Orient (Paris: Maisonneuve) 73-85.

2005. The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical and Literary Introduction (London & New York: Clark).

Sasson J. 2008. “Oracle Inquiries in Judges,” Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism pre-sented to Shalom M. Paul on the occasion of his Seventieth Birthday (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns) 149-168.

Scherer A. 2003. “Das Ephod im alten Israel,” (UF 35) 589-604. Schmidt B. 2002. “Canaanite Magics vs. Israelite Religion: Deuteronomy

18 and the Taxonomy of Taboo,” Magic and Ritual in the Ancient World (Leiden: Brill) 242-259.

1994. Israel’s Beneficent Dead: Ancestor Cult and Necromancy in An-cient Israelite Religion and Tradition (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr).

Seux M.-J. 1967. Épithètes royales akkadiennes et sumériennes (Paris: Le-touzey & Ané).

Sommer B. 1996. “Did Prophecy Cease?: Evaluating a Reevaluation,” (JBL 115) 31-47.

Van Dam C. 1997. The Urim and Thummim: A Means of Revelation in Ancient Israel (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns).

Van Der Toorn K. 1987. “L’oracle de victoire comme expression prophé-tique au Proche-Orient ancien,” (RB 94) 63-97.

Divination : Relics in the Deuteronomistic History and the Birth or the End of Mosaic Prophecy

Documents

Transcript of Divination : Relics in the Deuteronomistic History and the Birth or the End of Mosaic Prophecy