[Bert Dicou] Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist(Book4You)

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENTSUPPLEMENT SERIES

169

EditorsDavid J.A. ClinesPhilip R. Davies

Executive EditorJohn Jarick

Editorial BoardRichard J. Coggins, Alan Cooper, Tamara C. Eskenazi,

J. Cheryl Exum, Robert P. Gordon, Norman K. Gottwald,Andrew D.H. Mayes, Carol Meyers, Patrick D. Miller

JSOT PressSheffield

This page intentionally left blank

Edom, Israel's Brotherand Antagonist

The Role of Edom in BiblicalProphecy and Story

Bert Dicou

Journal for the Study of the Old TestamentSupplement Series 169

Copyright © 1994 Sheffield Academic Press

Published by JSOT PressJSOT Press is an imprint of

Sheffield Academic Press Ltd343 Fulwood RoadSheffield S10 3BP

England

Typeset by Sheffield Academic Pressand

Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britainby Bookcraft

Midsomer Norton, Somerset

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is availablefrom the British Library

ISBN 1-85075-458-6

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments 9Abbreviations 10Introduction 13

Part IOBADIAH AND OTHER PROPHETIC TEXTS ON EDOM

Chapter 1OBADIAH AND EDOM 20

1. Introduction 202. Translation 203. Structure and Theme; Edom's Role 25

Chapter 2OBADIAH AS A PART OF THE BOOK OF THE TWELVE 32

1. Introduction 322. Joel 333. Amos 364. Joel, Amos and Obadiah 405. Conclusion 42

Chapter 3EDOM AND THE NATIONS: ANOTHER EXAMPLE,

EZEKIEL35.1-36.15 431. Introduction 432. Synchronic Analysis 433. Diachronic Analysis 49

6 Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

Chapter 4PARALLELS: 1. OBADIAH AND THE ORACLES AGAINST EDOMIN JEREMIAH 49.7-22 AND EZEKIEL 35-36 58

1. Introduction 582. Obadiah 1-6 and Jeremiah 49.14-16, 9-10a 593. Obadiah 7-8 and Jeremiah 49.7 674. Obadiah 16 and Jeremiah 49.12 695. Obadiah and Ezekiel 706. Conclusion 73

Chapter 5PARALLELS: 2. OBADIAH AND JOEL/AMOS 74

1. Introduction 742. Joel 743. Amos 824. Joel 4, Amos 1 and Obadiah 855. Summary 866. Conclusion 87

Chapter 6LITERARY HISTORY 88

1. Introduction 882. The Oracle against Edom in Jeremiah 49.7-22 883. Obadiah 984. Conclusion 104

Chapter 7THE FOUR LONG ORACLES AGAINST EDOM (ISAIAH 34,JEREMIAH 49.7-22, EZEKIEL 35, OBADIAH) 105

1. Introduction 1052. Isaiah 34 and the Other Long Oracles against Edom 1053. The Four Long Oracles 1094. Obadiah's Function within the Book of the Twelve 111

Contents

Part IIGENESIS

Chapter 8EDOM AS ISRAEL' s BROTHER AND OPPONENT IN GENESIS 25-36 116

1. Introduction 1162. Jacob and Esau, Israel and Edom 1173. Conclusion 125

Chapter 9EDOM's ROLE IN GENESIS 126

1. Introduction 1262. Genesis 25.19-37.1 and the Structure and Theme of the

Book of Genesis 1263. The Middle of Genesis 25.19-37.1: Jacob's Stay with

Laban, Genesis 29-311 1294. Brothers and Nations 1315. Edom's Specific Role 134

Chapter 10DIACHRONIC OBSERVATIONS 137

1. Introduction 1372. Genesis 25-36: The Edom/Seir Element 1373. Edom as Representative of the Nations 1504. Conclusion 153

EXCURSUSHosea 12.4-5 and the Date of the Genesis Stories 154

Part IIITHE ORIGIN OF EDOM's ROLE AS A TYPE

Chapter 11EDOM's ROLE IN GENESIS AND THE PROPHETIC BOOKS 158

1. Introduction 1582. Edom's Role in Genesis Compared to that in the

Prophetic Books 158

7


3. The Origin Histories Compared 1604. Genesis and the Prophetic Books 1635. Conclusion 166

Chapter 12EDOM AND ISRAEL TWIN BROTHERS 167

1. Introduction 1672. The Prophets 1683. Other Old Testament Books 1704. Evaluation. Consequences for the Date of the

Genesis Stories 1715. History 1736. Religion 1767. Conclusion 180

Chapter 13EDOM' s HOSTILITY 182

1. Introduction 1822. Conflicts between Israel and Edom 1823. Edom and the Lamentation Cult 1884. Conclusion 196

Chapter 14CONCLUSIONS. RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE ORACLESAGAINST EDOM AND THE JACOB-ESAU STORIES 198

1. Introduction 1982. Origin and Development of Edom's Role as a Type 1983. The Difference between the Jacob-Esau Stories and the

Oracles against Edom 202

Bibliography 205Index of References 216Index of Authors 225

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to express my gratitude to Professors Karel A. Deurloo andKlaas A.D. Smelik for their support and skilful advice during myEdomite years. Their critical comments on the early stages of thisbook have been very helpful.

The investigations were supported by the Foundation for Research inthe field of Theology and the science of Religions in the Netherlands,which is subsidized by the Netherlands Organization for ScientificResearch (NWO).

ABBREVIATIONS

ÄAT Ägypten und Altes TestamentAB Anchor BibleACEBT Amsterdamse Cahiers voor exegese en bijbelse theologieADPV Abhandlungen des Deutschen PalaslinavereinsATD Das Alte Testament DeutschATSAT Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alien TestamentBOB F. Brown, S.R. Driver, C.A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English

Lexicon of the Old TestamentBEATAJ Beilrage zur Erforschung des Alien Testamenl und des anliken

JudentumsBETL Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum LovaniensiumBHS Biblia Hebraica StuttgartensiaBib BiblicaBibOr Biblica et OrientaliaBKAT Biblischer Kommentar: Alles TeslamentBLS Bible and Literature SeriesBN Biblische NotizenBWANT Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alien und Neuen TeslamenlBZAW Beihefle zur Zeitschrifl fiir die altteslamentliche WissenschaflConBOT Conieclanea Biblica, Old Teslament SeriesCOT Commeniaar op hel Oude TeslamenlCTJ Calvin Theological JournalDBAT Dielheimer Blatter zum Alten TestamentEF Ertrage der ForschungEvT Evangelische TheologieFRLANT Forschung zur Religion und Lileratur des Allen und Neuen

TesiamentsFZB Forschung zur BibelHALAT W. Baumgartner et al., Hebraisches undaramdisches Lexikon

zum Alien TestamentHAT Handbuch zum Alten TestamenlHKAT Handkommenlar zum Alten TeslamenlHSM Harvard Semitic MonographsHUCA Hebrew Union College AnnualICC International Critical CommentaryITC International Theological Commentary

Abbreviations 11

ITS Indian Theological StudiesJBL Journal of Biblical LiteratureJEA Journal of Egyptian ArcheologyJEOL Jaarbericht... ex oriente luxJESHO Journal of Economic and Social History of the OrientJJS Journal of Jewish StudiesJSOT Journal for the Study of the Old TestamentJSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement SeriesJSS Journal of Semitic StudiesJTS Journal of Theological StudiesKAT Kommentar zum Alien TestamentKHAT Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alien TestamentNCBC New Century Bible CommentaryNTT Nederlands Theologisch TijdschriftOBO Orbis Biblicus et OrienlalisOIL Old Teslament LibraryOTS Oudteslamentische StudienPEF Palestine Exploration FundPEQ Palestine Exploration QuarterlyPJ Preussische JahrbiicherPOT Prediking van het Oude TestamentRB Revue BibliqueREB Revised English BibleRHJE Revue de I'histoire juive en EgypteRHPR Revue d'Histoire et de Philosophie ReligieusesSBLDS Society of Biblical Literature, Dissertation SeriesSEL Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente AnticoSOTSMS Society for Old Testamenl Studies, Monograph SeriesSS Semeia SupplementsS SN Sludia Semitica NeerlandicaTBii Theologische BiichereiTHAT E. Jenni and C. Westermann (eds.), Theologisches

Handworterbuch zum Alien TestamentTZ Theologische ZeitschriftTSAJ Texte und Studien zum Antiken JudentumUF Ugarit-ForschungenVT Vetus TestamentumWMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen

TeslameniWZLeipzig Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Karl-Marx- Universitdt

Leipzig. Gesellschafliche und Sprachwissenschaftliche ReiheZA W Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft


INTRODUCTION

For a long time, Edom's extraordinary position in the propheticliterature (compared to the other nations) has attracted scholarlyattention. M. Mailer's article 'Edom im Urteil der Propheten' is thefirst systematic study on this issue.1 Haller observes that Edom is,more than other nations, the object of hate. Two sets of texts can bedistinguished. In the first set, the condemnation of Edom is related toits behaviour at the time of Judah's ruin and the destruction ofJerusalem (e.g. Jer. 49.7-22; Ezek. 25.12-14, 35; Obadiah). Thesecond set consists of eschatological texts, in which Edom's guilt is ofno importance: the name Edom has a symbolical function (e.g. Isa. 34;63.1-6). In both sets, the various texts are literarily interrelated.

In A. Mailland's dissertation, devoted to Isaiah 34 and 35, we find aseparate section on the oracles against Edom in general.2 In severaloracles, he concludes, Edom is Tennemi principal', the type of theadversary nation. He discusses particularly the way this notion func-tions in the antithetical diptychs Isaiah 34-35 and Ezek. 35.1-36.15.In the first panel Edom is annihilated, in the second Israel restored. InIsaiah 34 and 63.1-6 and in Obadiah, Edom and the nations are treatedas equivalents.

The second part of B.C. Cresson's dissertation 'Israel and Edom'considers the 'theology' of the oracles against Edom.3 Cresson posits

1. M. Haller, 'Edom im Urteil der propheten', in K. Budde (ed.), Vom AltenTestament (FS K. Marti; BZAW, 41; Giessen, 1925), pp. 109-17.

2. A. Mailland, 'La 'petite apocalypse' d'lsai'e. Etude sur les chapitres XXXIVet XXXV du livre d'lsaie' (dissertation, Lyons, 1956), pp. 75-90.

3. B.C. Cresson, 'Israel and Edom: A Study of the Anti-Edom Bias in OldTestament Religion' (PhD dissertation, Duke University, 1963; Ann Arbor:University Microfilms), pp. 49-99. Cf. Cresson, The Condemnation of Edom inPost-Exilic Judaism', in J.M. Efird (ed.), The Use of the Old Testament in the Newand Other Essays (FS W.F. Stinespring; Durham, NC, 1972), pp. 125-48, in whichsome important results of his dissertation are summarized.


the existence of a 'Damn-Edom Theology'. In his view, two opposingdirections in the thinking on the relation Israel-nations can be detectedin post-exilic Judaism: the philosophy that the nations must be des-troyed when Israel is to be restored, and the philosophy that allowsfor the conversion of the nations. Within the first philosophy, 'Edom'acts as the representative of the nations; initially as Israel's inimicalneighbour, later as a symbol.1

M.H. Woudstra, in his article 'Edom and Israel in Ezekiel', con-siders Edom's representative role in the book of Ezekiel.2

Furthermore, he compares the oracle against Edom in Ezekiel 35 withthe collection of oracles against the nations in Ezekiel 25-32. Bothserve as a prelude to texts that promise salvation to Israel, respectivelyEzek. 36.1-15 and the last part of the book in general.

The subject of I. Miiller's dissertation is the estimation of Israel'sneighbouring peoples in the prophetic oracles against the nations.3

One of her conclusions is that some of these peoples come by a rolethat surpasses their historical existence.4 They come to function as'Typ einer gottfeindlichen Macht'. The nation that most frequentlyplays this role is Edom.

One section in H. Simian's study on Ezekiel 6, 35 and 36 is devotedto the oracles against Edom in general.5 Simian concludes that none ofthese texts can be looked upon as a straight oracle against Israel'sneighbour. Often, the oracle is connected with a message of salvationfor Israel. 'Edom' is a symbolic name for Israel's enemies, whosedefeat is the triumph of Israel. 'Edom miisste also in der prophetis-chen Literatur vor allem als ein theologischer Begriff betrachtetwerden.'6 An indication of Edom's typical role is the existence of

1. For a more comprehensive discussion of the views of Haller, Mailland, andCresson, see Kellermann, Israel und Edom. Studien zum Edomhass Israels in 6.-4.Jahrhundert v. Chr. (Habil.Schr.; Minister i. Westf, 1975), pp. 2-9.

2. M.H. Woudstra, 'Edom and Israel in Ezekiel', C77 3 (1968), pp. 21-35.3. I. Miiller, 'Die Wertung der Nachbarvolker Israels Edom, Moab, Ammon,

Philistaa und Tyrus/Sidon nach den gegen sie gerichteten Drohspriichen derPropheten' (dissertation, Miinster i. Westf, 1970).

4. Miiller, Die Wertung der Nachbarvolker Israels, pp. 148-50.5. H. Simian, Die theologische Nachgeschichte der Prophetie Ezechiels. Form-

und traditionskritische Untersuchung zu Ez 6; 35; 36 (FZB, 14; Wiirzburg, 1974),pp. 290-324.

6. Simian, Die theologische Nachgeschichte der Prophetie Ezechiels, p. 323.

Introduction 15

many idiomatic similarities between the various oracles.1

The subject of U. Kellermann's 'Habilitationsschrift' is the Sitz imLeben of the extraordinary hatred against the Edomites in theprophetic books.2 Long after Edom had disappeared from the histori-cal scene, the Edomites remained the object of fiery oracles againstthem, in which they were associated with the enemy nations in generaland with Babylon in particular. Kellermann contends that this phe-nomenon has its root in the liturgical use of the name 'Edom' in thecultic laments held after 587 BCE.3

B. Hartberger's study on Psalm 137 contains an extensive chapteron the oracles against Edom.4 Hartberger notices that the texts inwhich Edom occurs are often related to one another, either idiomati-cally or as regards their contents. She provides a synopsis of therelevant texts.5

J.R. Bartlett's book on Edom, which is primarily a historical study,gives a short discussion of 'Post-exilic Views of Edom'.6 He toostresses the 'symbolic status' that Edom acquires in the propheticwritings of that time.

Three recent articles by B. Gosse discuss Isaiah 34—35, Isa. 63.1-6and Ezekiel 35-36.7 Gosse demonstrates that these oracles all transferthe doom earlier prophesied against Israel to Edom and the nations.The second and largest part of the present writer's dissertation dis-cusses, using synchronic literary methods, the themes of the fourmajor oracles against Edom (Isa. 34; Jer. 49.7-22; Ezek. 35; Obadiah)

1. Simian, Die theologische Nachgeschichte der Prophetic Ezechiels, pp. 319-21.

2. Kellermann, Israel und Edom.3. B. Kellermann's theory will be discussed in Chapter 13, section 3.4. B. Hartberger, 'An den Wassern von Babylon... '. Psalm 137 auf den

Hintergrund von Jeremia 51, der biblischen Edom-Traditionen und babylonischenOriginalquellen (BBB, 63; Frankfurt am Main, 1986), pp. 134-204.

5. Hartberger, 'An den Wassern von Babylon...', pp. 168-80.6. J.R. Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites (JSOTSup, 77; JSOT/PEF Monograph

Series, 1; Sheffield: JSOT Press), pp. 184-86.7. B. Gosse, 'Isai'e 34-35. Le chatiment d'Edom et des nations, salut pour Sion.

Contribution a 1'dtude de la redaction du livre d'Isaie', ZAW 102 (1990), pp. 396-404; 'Detournement de la vengeance du Seigneur centre Edom et les nations en Isa63, 1-6', ZAW 102 (1990), pp. 105-10; and 'Ezechiel 35-36, 1-15 etEz^chiel 6: Ladesolation de la montagne de Sdir et le renouveau des montagnes d'Israel', RB 96(1989), pp. 511-17 respectively.


and (in the first three cases) the function of these texts in their respec-tive prophetic books.1

Edom also appears in the book of Genesis (Gen. 25-36). Jacob'sbrother Esau is the patriarch of the Edomites and Esau himself iscalled Edom as well. At first sight, these texts on Edom are quitedifferent from those in the prophetic books. Here, there is no suchnegative estimation of Edom as in the prophecies. Esau is Jacob's twinbrother. Not he, but Jacob is guilty of doing his brother wrong. In theprophetic books, doom is called down on Edom; it is Edom's annihi-lation that guarantees Israel's restoration. In Genesis, the seriousconflict between the two (caused by Jacob's behaviour!) is resolved byEsau's forgiveness.

The thesis of my dissertation is that the two sets of texts are relatedto each other, despite the appearance of the opposite. It is argued thatthey have the same theological background: in Genesis Edom, just asin the prophetic books, represents the nations, and serves as Israel'sopponent.

The present book, completed in 1991, may be regarded as a sequelto my dissertation.2 Once again, the subject is the theme of Edom inthe Old Testament. However, whereas in my dissertation exclusivelysynchronic literary questions were asked, and only synchronic literarymethods were employed, the central interest of the present study isdiachronic: it is about the origin and the development of Edom'sexceptional role. Each time, a synchronic discussion of the texts andthe connections between them is followed by diachronicinvestigations.3

The first of the three parts of this study concentrates on Obadiah,the only one of the four major oracles against Edom in which Edom iscalled Israel's brother. In connection with Obadiah, the other longoracles against Edom will be considered: Jer. 49.7-22, which is partlyparallel with Obadiah, Ezekiel 35, which shares its themes with

1. A. Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom. Israel tegenover de volken in deverhalen over Jakob en Esau in Genesis en in de grote profetieen over Edom(Voorburg, 1990), p. 61-175.

2. For the sake of convenience, some main results have been recapitulated in thepresent study. The Chapters 1, 8 and 9 and the sections 2 in Chapter 3 and 2.1 inChapter 6 consist of summarized and adapted material from the dissertation.

3. The English translation used for quotations is the Revised Standard Version.Deviations are indicated.

Introduction 17

Obadiah, and finally Isaiah 34, which is another striking example ofEdom's role as the representative of the nations and Israel's antago-nist. Special attention will be paid to the context of Obadiah in theBook of the Twelve. The second part of the book concentrates onGenesis. Edom's role will be analysed both from a literary and aliterary-historical point of view. In the third and last part, the con-ceptions shared by Obadiah and Genesis (Edom as Israel's brother,Edom as Israel's antagonist, and Edom as the representative of thenations) will be analysed as regards their possible historical back-ground and their role in Old Testament literature.

Finally, the results of the study will be used for an attempt to assessthe connections between Genesis and the prophetic literature. Can thesimilarities in Edom's role be explained by assuming the same histori-cal background for the two sets of texts? If so, why do the majororacles against Edom and the Jacob-Esau stories in Genesis differcompletely in their appreciation of Edom?


Part I

OBADIAH AND OTHER PROPHETIC TEXTS ON EDOM

Chapter 1

OBADIAH AND EDOM

1. Introduction

Part I of the present study examines the development of Edom's rolein the prophetic literature. The book of Obadiah appears to be acentral text in this development. In it, we find both the theme ofEdom's brotherhood and Edom's role as the representative of thenations. What is more, the entire book (although it consists of onlyone chapter) is devoted to the relation between Israel and Edom.

The present chapter contains an annotated translation of Obadiah,based upon the RSV translation (section 2), and some general remarkson the structure and theme of the book and on Edom's role (section 3).

2. Translation

1 The vision of Obadiah.

Thus says the Lord GOD concerning Edom:We have heard tidings from the LORD,and a messenger has been sent among the nations:'Rise up! let us rise against her for battle!'

2 Behold, I will make you small among the nations,you shall be utterly despised.

3 The pride of your heart has deceived you,you who live in the clefts of the rock,whose dwelling is high,who say in your heart,'Who will bring me down to the ground?'

4 Though you soar aloft like the eagle,though your nest is set among the stars,thence I will bring you down,says the LORD.

5 If thieves came to you,if plunderers by night -

1. Obadiah and Edom 21

how you have been destroyed! -would they not steal only enough for themselves?If grape gatherers came to you,would they not leave gleanings?

6 How Esau has been pillaged,his treasures sought out!

7 All your allies have driven you to the border;your confederates have deceived you and prevailed against you;1

your trusted friends have set a trap under you -there is no understanding in it.2

8 Will I not on that day, says the LORD,destroy the wise men out of Edom,and understanding out of Mount Esau?

9 And your mighty men shall be dismayed, O Teman,so that every man from Mount Esau will be cut off by slaughter.

10 For the violence done to your brother Jacob,shame shall cover you,and you shall be cut off for ever.

11 On the day that you stood aloof,on the day that strangers carried off his wealth,

1. This translation follows the Masoretic punctuation (like NEB and REB; see alsothe typography in BHS). The RSV reads: 'All your allies have deceived you; theyhave driven you to the border; your confederates have prevailed against you'; cf.J.D.W. Watts, Obadiah. A Critical Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids, 1969),p. 34; H.W. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 3. Obadja und Jona (BKAT 14, 3;Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1977), pp. 14-15, 17 (note a to v. 7); P. Weimar, 'Obadja.Eine redaktionskritische Analyse', BN 27 (1985), p. 48 n. 40, who argue that thealternative punctuation yields a better structure. However, the Masoretic divisionprovides an equally elegant structure. When v. 7a is taken together with thefollowing v. 7ba, there are six cola (in three bicola), which all end with "J-. In everybicolon, one colon contains the verb or verbs, the other the subject of the verb (eachtime: Edom's unfaithful friends or allies). Cf. J. Wehrle, Prophetic und Textanalyse.Die Komposition Obadja 1-21, interpretiert auf der Basis textlinguistischer undsemiotischer Konzeptionen (ATSAT, 28; St Ottilien, 1987), pp. 245-50, 313-14,who also points to the 'kunstvolle Aufbau' of the Masoretic version. Therefore, thereseems to be no need to deviate from the Masoretic punctuation. This conclusion iscorroborated by the fact that v. 7a|3 ('your confederates have deceived you and pre-vailed against you') also appears in another text (Jer. 38.22) and there clearlyconstitutes a bicolon.

2. Namely in Edom. Cf. e.g. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 3, p. 33. RSV: 'there isno understanding of it'.


and foreigners entered his gates and cast lots for Jerusalem,you were like one of them.

12 Do not gloat over the day of your brother1

in the day of his misfortune;do not rejoice over the people of Judahin the day of their ruin;do not boastin the day of distress.

13 Do not enter the gate of my peoplein the day of his calamity;do not gloat over his disasterin the day of his calamity;do not loot his goodsin the day of his calamity.

14 Do not stand at the parting of waysto cut off his fugitives;do not deliver up his survivorsin the day of distress.

15 For the day of the LORD is near upon all the nations.As you have done, it shall be done to you,your deed2 shall return on your own head.

16 For as you have drunk upon my holy mountain,all the nations shall drink continually;3

thay shall drink, and stagger,and shall be as though they had not been.

17 But in Mount Zion there shall be those that escape,and it shall be holy;and the house of Jacob shall possess their own possessions.4

1. Instead of the RSV translation 'you should not have gloated' (and the othercases of 'y°u should have' in vv. 12-14), a translation with a negative imperativewas chosen (which seems to be the more natural rendering of the prohibitive impera-tive, Hin-'TKi etc.), as in the NEB and REB. Cf. below, Chapter 13, section 2.

2. -pen; RSV: 'deeds'.3. 'Continually': following the BHS Masoretic Text (Ton); cf. NEB. RSV:

'round about', n'30, following other manuscripts. Cf. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 3,pp. 40-41.

4. The RSV translation 'their own possessions' is based upon the Masoretic text(QTBhiD). NEB and REB ('those that dispossessed them') follow other versions,which read Drrtfmo (0v hif. pt.); cf. e.g. LXX; the Vulgate; Wolff,Dodekapropheton 3, pp.40, 41; R.J. Coggins, 'Judgment between Brothers. ACommentary on the Book of Obadiah', in R.J. Coggins, S.P. Re'emi, Israel amongthe Nations. A Commentary on the Books ofNahum and Obadiah, and Esther (ITC;Grand Rapids & Edinburgh), p. 93; Wehrle, Prophetic und Textanalyse, p. 287;


18 The house of Jacob shall be a fire,and the house of Joseph a flame,and the house of Esau stubble;they shall burn them and consume them,and there shall be no survivor to the house of Esau;for the LORD has spoken.

19 They shall possess the Negeb, Mount Esau,and the Shephelah, the land of the Philistines;they shall possess the land of Ephraim and the land of Samariaand Benjamin, Gilead.1

HAL s.v. BHS. Since the text itself provides no reason for this emendation, othershave defended the MT reading; cf. e.g. Watts, Obadiah, p. 60; Weimar, 'Obadja',p. 64 n. 91; Hartberger, 'An den Wassern von Babylon', p. 194 with n. 300.Although the word BJTO is not common (it occurs twice), the feminine variant nehinis well known. Significant is the occurrence of ntf-iin in Ezek. 26.2, 3, 5; there, it isused in the same context as here; land taken from the Israelites by the neighbouringnations will be returned (cf. Ezek. 36.8-12). For connections between Ezek. 35-36and the book of Obadiah cf. below, Chapter 4, section 5.

1. At first sight, it is unclear in this verse whether 'the Negeb' and 'theShephelah' are the subjects or the objects of the verb. They are not preceded by n«(nota ace.). The RSV reads them as subjects: Those of the Negeb shall possessMount Esau, and those of the Shephelah the land of the Philistines'; cf. e.g. LXX, theVulgate; G.C. Aalders, Obadja en Jona (COT; Kampen, 1958), p. 50; Watts,Obadiah, p. 62; Kellermann, Israel und Edom, p. 21. NEB and REB read them asobjects; cf. e.g. K. Marti, Das Dodekapropheton (KHAT, 13; Tubingen, 1904), p.239; Wolff, Dodekapropheton 3, pp. 40-41; G. Fohrer, 'Die Spriiche Obadjas', inStudien zu alttestamentlichen Texten und Themen (1966-1972) (BZAW, 153; Berlin& New York, 1981), p. 78; Weimar, 'Obadja', pp. 67 n. 99, 74, 90. A difficultywith the latter translation (the one chosen here) is that 'Mount Esau' and 'thePhilistines' are preceded by DN (nota ace.), so there seems to be a difference with theother terms. However, this problem disappears when 'Mount Esau' and 'thePhilistines' are read as appositions to 'the Negeb' and 'the Shephela' respectively; cf.J.A. Bewer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Obadiah and Joel (ICC;Edinburgh, 3rd edn, 1948), p. 44; Weimar, 'Obadja', p. 67; Wehrle, Prophetie undTextanalyse, p. 97. Wehrle (Prophetie und Textanalyse) states that constructions inwhich there is no complete concord between a word and its apposition, are 'keinesingularen Erscheinungen im Hebraischen'. The context seems to support the chosenrendering. For example, when the phrase 'they shall possess' ("Ofi) is used for thesecond time in this verse (v. 19ap), there is also no explicit subject. Verse 19 can beread as the continuation of v. 17, 'and the house of Jacob shall possess their ownpossessions'. We find there the same 10-n as in v. 19; probably, 'the house ofJacob' together with 'the house of Joseph' (v. 18) is the implicit subject of v. 19; cf.e.g. Marti, Das Dodekapropheton, p. 239; Bewer, Obadiah and Joel, p. 44; Wolff,


20 The exiles of this army1 of the people of Israelshall possess Phoenicia ('the Canaanites')2 as far as Zarephath;

Dodekapropheton 3, p. 41. Further, in v. 20 'the Negeb' is clearly the object of theverb 0T: 'and the exiles of Jerusalem... shall possess (uzh') the cities of the Negeb'.Another argument for the proposed rendering is provided by Wehrle's semanticanalysis of v. 19. 'Es ist bemerkenswert, dass die Lexeme 333 und rr?BBJ in keinemText die Stelle von Subjekten einnehemen, sondern sie sind durchweg als Objektemil oder ohne Proposition konstruiert'—Wehrle, Prophetic und Textanalyse, p. 294;cf. p. 97 n. 153. The last part of v. 19 (19b; in our translation: 'and Benjamin,Gilead') has the same construction and the same difficulty as v. 19a. 'Gilead' ispreceded by by the particle nn (nota ace.), 'Benjamin' is not. The RSV translates:'and Benjamin shall possess Gilead'. In view of the analogy with v. 19a, we mayconclude that 'Benjamin' is the object (note that the verb is not repeated in v. 19b)and 'Gilead' is an apposition; cf. Weimar, 'Obadja', p. 67; Wehrle, Prophetic undTextanalyse, pp. 297-98. According to Marti, Das Dodekapropheton, p. 239; Wolff(1977a), p. 41; Weimar, 'Obadja', p. 67, the three appositions in v. 19 aresecondary.

As regards content, there is a difficulty with the RSV translation: the subjects (theNegeb, the Shephelah and Benjamin) all belong to the Southern Kingdom, but theterritories they will possess belong (apart from 'Mount Esau' and 'the land of thePhilistines') to the land of the bygone Northern Kingdom: 'the land of Ephraim andthe land of Samaria', and 'Gilead'. Why would the returning southern exiles takepossession of these regions? In my view, it is more likely that both the three southernregions (Negeb, Shephelah, Benjamin) and the three northern ones (Ephraim,Samaria, Gilead) are taken possession of: presumably, the former by the southernexiles, 'the house of Jacob', and the latter by the northern exiles, 'the house ofJoseph' (cf. v. 20); cf. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 3, p. 41. The two lands, bothsymbolized in three names, will both be possessed again by their former inhabitatns.

The appositions 'Mount Esau' and 'the land of the Philistines' show that in thedays of the author of Obad. 19 Edom and the Philistines had become associated withformer Judaean regions. Edom's interest in southern Judaean land is well knownfrom both scriptural and archaeological evidence; cf. below, Chapter 12, section 5,and Chapter 13, section 2. 2 Chron. 28.18 records a successful Philistine attempt toconquer parts of the Shephelah (and the Negeb!). (I am grateful to Drs Hanna Blokfor discussing these matters with me).

1. Following the MT (taking 'jnn to derive from "rn); RSV: 'in Halah'. Severaltranslations and emendations have been proposed; cf. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 3,p. 41-42; Wehrle, Prophetic und Textanalyse, p. 302 ('Die Schwierigkeiten desAusdrucks... sind unbestritten, die angebotenen Losungsmoglichkeiten dement-sprechend vielfaltig').

2. There is little doubt that with the 'Canaanites' (D'3M3) the land of Phoenicia ismeant; this is supported by the use of the Phoenician city name 'Zarephath' (cf.1 Kgs 17.9-10); cf. e.g. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 3, p. 48.


and the exiles of Jerusalem who are in Sepharadshall possess the cities of the Negeb.

21 Saviors shall go up to Mount Zion1

to judge2 Mount Esau;and the kingdom shall be the LORD'S.

3. Structure and Theme; Edom's Role

The 21 verses of the book of Obadiah can be divided into three partswhich are different as regards content.3 The first part of the book

1. BHS and several commentators have proposed emending the MTbjbhjbh('saviors', as in the RSV) to D'tfeJu (nif. pt.; 'those who are saved'; cf. LXXoeowuevov), or to read it as the hof. pt.—cf. W. Rudolph, 'Obadja', ZAW 49(1931), pp. 223, 226; Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 21-22; Wolff,Dodekapropheton 3, pp. 40, 42; Fohrer, 'Die Spriiche Obadjas', p. 79; Wehrle,Prophetie und Textanalyse, p. 307 with n. 634; in their view, this term is to be con-nected with the following )VX ~ra; cf. NEB: Those who find safety on Mount Zion'.However, the context seems to support the MT. The verb BB0, 'to judge', used inv. 2lap, designates a typical activity of a 'savior'; cf. e.g. Judg. 3.9-10(conversely, a 'judge', oatf, 'saves', sfr hif.; cf. Judg. 2.16-18); cf. Watts,Obadiah, p. 65 (The two ideas are very close'). A ireiia we find in Judg. 3.9, 15;Isa. 19.20; 2 Kgs 13.5 (cf. Judg. 12.3; 1 Sam. 11.3); in plural in Neh. 9.27. God is'savior' in Isa. 43.11; 45.15, 21; 63.8; Hos. 13.4. The two places where sti* nif. pt.is used (Ps. 33.16 and Zech. 9.9) are of little relevance, whereas s& hof. pt. (andthe hof. at large) is unknown in the Old Testament.

If |V3* TQ is not read with the verb (as in the RSV), it is unclear whereto thesaviors or the save 'go up' (n"7J>). Wolff, Dodekapropheton 3, pp. 48-49 states thatthis verb refers to the summons to war in v. 1, with the argument that rfos 'das Wort(ist), das fur das Anriicken der Truppen in den Aufforderungen zum Kampf amhaufigsten verwendet wird'. This does not convince, firstly because v. 21, unlikev. 1, does not speak of war, secondly because v. 1 does not use the word r6u!Wehrle, Prophetie und Textanalyse, p. 307 n. 636 asserts that Tibs is not followedby 3 when it relates to ascending the Zion. This is not correct: cf. Ps. 24.3.

The idea that Mount Zion is the place where Mount Esau will be judged is notstrange—contra Marti, Das Dodekapropheton, pp. 239-40; Weimar, 'Obadja',p. 71. In this way, the opposition of the two 'Mounts' is emphasized for the lasttime in the book of Obadiah; cf. on this opposition below, section 3. Cf. for the Zionas a place of judgment Isa. 2.4; Mic.4.3.

2. RSV: 'to rule'. In the context of the book of Obadiah, 'to rule' may be toopositive a translation of Daeft; cf. below in section 3 on the interpretation of v. 21.Cf. previous note on the connection between 'saviors' and 'to judge'.

3. Cf. Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, p. 74 (discussion of otherproposed divisions: Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, p. 74 n. 224).


(vv. 1-7) is about Edom's relation with YHWH. Edom exhibits anintolerable arrogance towards YHWH, for which it will be punished.The second part (vv. 8-15) is about the reproachable attitude of Edomon the day of Israel's destruction. The third part (vv. 16-21) describesIsrael's subsequent restoration, on the occasion of which Edom will beannihilated.

In the first part of the book (to a large extent consisting of parallelswith Jer. 49.7-22), Israel is not mentioned. In the second part, Edomis Israel's enemy, or rather an ally to Israel's enemy. When'foreigners entered his gates and cast lots for Jerusalem, you were likeone of them' (v. 11). At the end of part II, Edom's role as the repre-sentative of the nations becomes apparent (v. 15). The retribution forthe inimical behaviour of the Edomites towards Israel takes place on'the day of YHWH upon all the nations' (v. 15a). Together with Edom,all nations will be judged. Likewise, the first verse of part III stressesthat all nations will have to 'drink', as had Israel before (v. 16).

In part HI Edom serves as the representative of the nations, Israel'sparticular opponent among the nations. While starting with the defeatof the nations in general at the time of Israel's restoration (vv. 16-17),the oracle continues with the opposition Israel-Edom: 'the house ofJacob' (together with 'the house of Joseph') will exterminate 'thehouse of Esau', as completely as fire burns stubble (v. 18). Accordingto vv. 19-21, the Israelites will recover their former territories inevery direction, but the first territory named is 'the Negeb, MountEsau' (v. 19). Moreover, these verses end with the opposition 'MountEsau'—'Mount Zion' (v. 21).

When the day of YHWH upon all the nations arrives, 'Mount Zion''shall be holy' (v. 17), and 'Saviors shall go up to Mount Zion tojudge Mount Esau; and the kingdom shall be the LORD'S' (v. 21). Inthe opposition between the two 'houses' (v. 18) and the two 'mounts'(vv. 19, 21; see also vv. 16-17) we find not just the two brotherpeoples (v. 10) Israel and Edom acting over against each other, butIsrael and (the representative of) the nations.

Part II concentrates on Edom's behaviour towards Israel; part IIIdescribes Israel's revenge. As is expressed in v. 15, the Edomites willbe hit in the same way as they hit Israel ('As you have done, it shall bedone to you, your deeds shall return on your own head'). Edom'scrimes are related in vv. 11-14. This section is introduced by vv. 8-10, which state that Edom 'shall be cut off for ever' as retribution for


its 'violence' against its brother (v. 10; cf. v. 9). The vv. 16-18 takeup and reverse the introduction in vv. 8-10. To 'Mount Esau' (vv. 8,9), which will be destroyed, 'Mount Zion' is opposed: it will be a safeplace (v. 17). The both 'mounts' are mentioned together in v. 21. Thenames Jacob and Esau were introduced in vv. 8-10; in vv. 17, 18 theyrecur. Esau's violence against Jacob (v. 10) is returned by Jacob andJoseph (v. 18).

These correspondences between II and III make it clear that theparts of the book should not be read as three completely freestandingsections. This is corroborated by a comparison of the borderingverses, which appear to connect just as much as divide the three parts.

Part I ends with a sentence on the absence of 'understanding' inEdom; the Edomites do not even realize that their end is near (v. 7).The first verse of II states that Edom's 'wise men' and its'understanding' will be destroyed by YHWH (v. 8). Whereas thereference to Edom's wisdom in v. 7 relates to the preceding verses,1

the reference in v. 8 points to the following part. The 'day' on whichYHWH destroys Edom's wisdom (v. 8)—the same as 'the day ofYHWH upon all the nations' (v. 15)—is the retaliation for the 'day' ofIsrael's doom (ten times in vv. 11-14), on which Edom betrayed itsbrother (cf. v. 10: 'For the violence done to your brother Jacob...')

As for vv. 15 (II) and 16 (III): both verses use the principle ofretaliation, as the repetitions of 'do' (ntotf) in v. 15b and of 'drink'(nntf) in v. 16 show. Both vv. 15b and 16 begin with an explanatoryconjunctive particle 'for' ('3) and both contain a comparison with 'as'(•itfio).2 Whereas 'As you have done, it shall be done to you...'(v. 15) concludes the reflection on Edom's behaviour in part II, v. 16'For as you have drunk upon my holy mountain, all the nations shalldrink continually' starts the description of the future fate of Israel andthe nations in part III. The element 'my holy mountain' returns as'Mount Zion' in vv. 17, 21.3

The present order in vv. 15-16 is rather awkward; it indicatesthat this part of the book of Obadiah was written by more than oneauthor. Verse 15b concludes the list of Edom's crimes in vv. 11-14

1. It can be read as an utterance of the treacherous alies. Furthermore, it is inaccordance (as regards content) with v. 3: 'The pride of your heart has deceivedyou'.

2. Cf. Wehrle, Prophetic und Textanalyse, pp. 86, 185, 350.3. 'Mount Zion' does not occur in Obadiah outside part III.


and therefore constitutes a link to the preceding verses, but v. 15a,with its mention of 'the nations', seems to be connected with v. 16.However, there seems to be no reason to emend this text and to changethe order of vv. 15a and 15b (as has often been proposed).1 Thepresent order may well be intentional.2 Some scholars have observedthat v. 15 as it stands serves as a bridge between parts n and III.3 Atthe end of part II, the prophecy includes the nations in general in thejudgment upon Edom. The 'day' of Edom's destruction (v. 8) appearsto be the same as 'the day of YHWH upon all the nations' (v. 15). PartIII continues this theme: both the nations and Edom are punished.Israel's land will be restored; this will be at the expense of severalnations, one of which is Edom.

A remarkable feature of the book of Obadiah is the repetition ofparticles and other elements, which gives the text a distinctive look. Inpart I (vv. 4-6), there are five sentences beginning with the particle DR(rendered 'though' or 'if'), around which other particles have beengrouped.4 The particle Ki^n ('not...?'), introducing a rhetoricalquestion, which is used twice in v. 5, returns as the first word of partII (v. 8). The next words in part II are Kinn m»3, 'on that day' (v. 8).The word nv, 'day', is used ten times in vv. 11-14, always in the formDV3, 'on the day that...' (status constructus). The last verse of II(v. 15) speaks of 'the day of the LORD'. All the eight sentences invv. 12-14 are prohibitive sentences, beginning with bto or *?K ('donot...') plus imperfectum.

The most characteristic structural feature of part III is a series of

1. Coggins, 'Judgment between Brothers', p. 89: 'Regarding v. 15, there iswide agreement that the two parts of this text are now in the wrong order'.

2. Contra Wolff, Dodekapropheton 3, pp. 5, 19 (p. 19: 'Die Umstellungerklart sich nur im Rahmen fehlerhafter schriftlicher Uberlieferung'); Coggins,'Judgment between Brothers', pp. 89-90 ('purely accidental', 'a copyist's error').

3. Cf. e.g. D. A. Schneider, The Unity of the Book of the Twelve' (dissertation,Yale University, 1979), p. 96; B.S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament asScripture (London, 2nd edn, 1983), pp. 414-15; Wehrle, Prophetic und Textanalyse,p. 350 (cf. n. 16 contra Wolff); R.B. Robinson, 'Levels of Naturalization inObadiah', JSOT 40 (1988), pp. 93-94 (p. 94: 'Placing the announcement of theeschatological day of the Lord before the last word in the particular accusation againstEsau draws the events described in the bill of particulars against Edom into the escha-tological period, yet without destroying their concreteness'; v. 15 'draws whatcritics would characterize as the two distinct sections of the vision together').

4. Cf. below, Chapter 4, section 2.4.


eleven perfecta consecutiva in vv. 17-21. Other striking repetitionsare rrn, 'the house of...', in vv. 17-18 (five times), and the particle(nota accusativi) in v. 19 (five times).

The book of Obadiah contains several references to Edom's'brotherhood'. The prophecy accuses Edom of crimes against 'yourbrother Jacob' (v. 10) or simply 'your brother' (v. 12). Israel is'Jacob' (v. 10) or 'the house of Jacob'(vv. 17, 18). Accordingly, Edomis 'Esau' (v. 6) and 'the house of Esau' (v. 18). The most commondesignation of Edom in Obadiah is 'Mount Esau' (vv. 8, 9, 19, 21).'Mount Zion' occurs in vv. 17, 21 (cf. v. 16 'my holy mountain').

Only a few times, the book uses names for Edom that do not referto the brotherhood: 'Edom' (vv. 1, 8) and Teman' (v. 9). Edom is the'brother' of the Southern Kingdom; at least, 'the violence done toyour brother Jacob' (v. 10) seems only to concern crimes against'Judah' (v. 12) and 'Jerusalem' (v. 11). In v. 18, however, 'the houseof Jacob' is in the company of 'the house of Joseph', which phraseclearly signifies the former Northern Kingdom.1 Probably, 'theexiles...of the people of Israel' and 'the exiles of Jerusalem' (v. 20)represent the same two groups (in reversed order).2

Obadiah 19-21 Positive for Edom?U. Kellermann has argued that the last verses of Obadiah (vv. 19-21)display a relatively positive attitude towards Edom (compared to therest of the book).3 He contends that the phrase 'to judge Mount Esau'(v. 21) is a moderate one: the verb D32J (in our translation: 'tojudge'),4 rendered by Kellermann 'beherrschen', only implies thatEdom (as a nation) will become part of the restored Israel. Therefore,this verse can even be regarded as a promise! In his opinion, the verbeh', 'to possess' (the returning exiles shall 'possess' 'Mount Esau') inv. 19 has the same sense. Both here and in Amos 9.12, which is simi-lar to Obad. 19-21, CJT, 'to possess', indicates not the annihilation ofthe nations concerned, but 'die Angliederung von Bevolkeringsteilen'.5

1. Cf. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 3, p. 45. Northern Israel is among the territo-ries to be recaptured: 'they shall possess the land of Ephraim and the land ofSamaria' (v. 19). Cf. above, section 2, the note to the translation of v. 19.

2. Cf. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 3, pp. 47-48.3. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 24-28.4. RSV: 'to rule'.5. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 26, 27, 52. Cf. idem, 'Der Amosschluss


The Edomites will be allowed to take part in Israel's restoration.H.W. Wolff quotes Kellermann in agreement.1 On the term

he says: 'Es meint keinenfalls Unterdruckung oder gar restloserVernichtung, wie es V. 18b ansagt, sondern allenfalls eineBeherrschung, die auch Unrecht suhnt, wenn nicht ein Einbeziehen inrettender Ordnung'.2 In my view, however, Kellermann's (andWolff's) interpretation should be rejected. Admittedly, words fromthe root oatf have different meanings in the prophetic literature, bothfavourable and unfavourable for the ones who are its object (althoughthe unfavourable meaning is by far the most frequent).3 But there areno indications in the text that the favourable one is to be chosen here.On the contrary, the context is unequivocally negative for Edom.Kellermann regards vv. 19-21 as a modifying 'Nachtrag', but a moresimple explanation seems to be an interpretation of the verb OB0 in itsmost usual meaning. As for Kellermann's argument that v. 21 andv. 19 must have a similar meaning:4 that is correct, but his interpre-tation of the verb eh', 'to possess', as positive for the ones 'possessed',does not convince. Certainly, 'Mount Esau' and the land of otherneighbouring nations will be integrated in the new kingdom, but thereis no reason to suppose that the nations concerned will live to tell it(cf. vv. 16-18). Kellermann speaks of the 'eigenartige Gebrauch vonEh' in Zusammenhang mit Volkerbezeichnungen statt Territorien' inAmos 9.12 and Obad. 19-21 (which would justify his uncommoninterpretation),5 but this combination is less unusual than he considersit to be; moreover, in such cases Eh' has a meaning which is absolutelynot positive for the objects.6

als Stimme deuteronomistischer Heilschoffnung', EvT29 (1969), p. 181 on Amos9.12 as 'ein besonnenes, positives Wort fur Edom'.

1. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 3, p. 49.2. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 3, p. 49; cf. his translation, p. 40. H. Niehr,

Herrschen und Richten. Die Wurzel spt im Alien Orient und im Alten Testament(FZB, 54; Wurzburg, 1986), p. 113 follows Wolff (see his nn. 149, 150).

3. G. Liedke, 'oatf', THAT, p. 1008: as Terminus der eschatologischen Heils-und Gerichtsankiindigung' it is found both as 'Inhalt der Ankiindigung rettenderOrdnung' and as 'Inhalt der Ankiindigung ausschliessenden und vernichtendenGerichts'. Occurrences of the latter outnumber occurrences of the former.

4. Cf. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, p. 25 n. 47.5. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, p. 52.6. E.g. in H.H. Schmid, 'tf-r', THAT, pp. 779-80, instances of this combina-

tion have been collected; eh' then means: 'vertreiben, aus dem Besitz verdrangen'.


It can be concluded that Kellermann's view is not accurate, and thatthe closing section of the book of Obadiah (like Amos 9.12) does notcontain a positive word for Edom. It expects Judah's restoration, butnot the Edomites' 'Integration in das neuentstehende Reich auf demZion'.1

1. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, p. 25.

Chapter 2

OBADIAH AS A PART OF THE BOOK OF THE TWELVE

1. Introduction

Recently, some studies have appeared in which it is emphasized thatthe Book of the Twelve is not a more or less coincidental collection ofsmaller prophetic books without much coherence.

In his dissertation, D.A. Schneider1 examines the origin history ofthe Book of the Twelve. At first, he concludes, the book containedonly three prophetic books (Hosea, Amos, Micah). In several times,other prophetic books (or collections of them) were added, not atrandom but each time with a deliberate purpose and at a well-con-sidered place in the collection.2 Although the motives for expandingthe collection differed each time, and therefore no 'overarchingsystematic principle'3 can be found for the Book of the Twelve as awhole, the way the book originated guarantees a certain unity.Schneider infers from this result 'that Biblical interpreters need to paymore attention to the larger context, not just to the individual book ofeach prophet'.4

P. Weimar has studied the redaction history of Amos 9 and Obadiah.5

Like Schneider, he too contends that the collectors of the MinorProphets intended to make a coherent book out of their collection. In

1. Schneider, 'Book of the Twelve'.2. In Schneider's view, Obadiah belongs to the third phase in the origin history

of the Book of the Twelve. In the first phase, Hosea, Amos and Micah wereassembled. The next phase added Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah to the collection.In the third period, Joel, Obadiah and Jonah were subsequently added. Afterwards,Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi completed the Book of the Twelve.

3. Schneider, 'Book of the Twelve', p. 242.4. Schneider, 'Book of the Twelve', p. 243.5. Weimar, 'Der Schluss des Amos-Buches. Bin Beitrag zur Redaktions-

geschichte des Amos-Buches', BN 16 (1981), pp. 60-100, on Amos 9; 'Obadja.Eine redaktionskritische Analyse', BN 27 (1985), pp. 35-99, on Obadiah.

2. Obadiah as a Part of the Book of the Twelve 33

his view, an early version of Obadiah was added to a collection of fiveMinor Prophets (Hosea, Amos, Jonah, Micah, Nahum). The last stagesin the redaction history of Obadiah (and Amos) were the work of theredactors of the Book of the Twelve (or of some previous version).They added new texts to, among others, the books of Amos andObadiah, in order to connect these books.1 A common redaction wasresponsible for the final form of the last chapter of Amos (i.e. ch. 9)and of the text following it, the book of Obadiah.

Whereas Schneider's and Weimar's studies are essentially diachron-ically directed, P.R. House's book The Unity of the Twelve2 takes asynchronic approach. It illustrates that the Twelve can very well beread as one book, one literary work. It is possible to indicate in theTwelve, as House shows, the book's genre, structure, plot, characters,and point of view. In this, it does not differ from other literaryworks.

In the present chapter, a (synchronic) survey will be given of theconnections Obadiah appears to have with Joel (section 2) and Amos(section 3), and with both of them (section 4). The diachronic impli-cations of these links will be considered in Chapters 5 and 6.

2. Joel

There is a great similarity in subject matter between Obadiah and Joel,particularly between Obad. 10-21 and Joel 4. As with Obad. 16, Joelspeaks of 'a day of YHWH', which is 'near' (Joel 4.14). On this day, asin Obadiah, 'the nations' in general are judged (Joel 4.2, 9; cf. 4.11,12, the nations 'round about'). Nevertheless, just as in Obadiah, onegroup in particular is called to account: 'Tyre and Sidon, and all theregions of Philistia' (Joel 4.4-8). Both Obadiah and Joel 4 contain acomplaint against the neighbouring nations because of their behaviourat the time of Judah's defeat (Obad. 10-14; Joel 4.2b-8);3 both

1. Weimar 'Obadja', pp. 88-89, 94-95, 95-99; cf. 'Der Schluss des Amos-Buches', p. 94.

2. P.R. House, The Unity of the Twelve (JSOTSup, 97, BLS 27; Sheffield:JSOT Press, 1990).

3. One of the accusations within Joel 4.4-8 against the incriminated nations isthat they 'have taken my silver and my gold, and have carried my rich treasures intoyour temples' (v. 5). Likewise, in Obad. 13 the Edomites are accused of looting thedefeated nation.


proclaim the execution of retribution for this (Obad. 10, 15b; Joel4.1-2a, 4, 7). The idea that the nations profiting from Israel's miserywill suffer what they have made Israel suffer, occurs in both Joel andObadiah.1

In addition to the similarity in subject matter, there are manytextual affinities between the two books.2 Most of them are found inObad. 15-18. A detailed comparison of this text with its parallels inJoel will be given below, in Chapter 5.

One striking example outside w. 15-18 is Obad. 11: on the day ofthe fall of Jerusalem, the enemies 'cast lots' Crm TT) for the city. Thesame expression is found in Joel 4.3, where it occurs in a similarcontext as in Obadiah. It is used in only one other text (Nah. 3.10),where it does not relate to Israel's fate but to Assur's.3

One verse in Joel in particular requires our attention: 4.19, inwhich Edom is mentioned.

Egypt shall become a desolation (rotf)and Edom a desolate wilderness (noDtf ino),for the violence done to the people of Judahbecause they have shed innocent blood in their land (4.19).

As in many of the other oracles against Edom, it is announced thatEdom's land will become 'desolate'. In contrast to these oracles, Edom

1. Joel 4.6 accuses the Philistines and Phoenicians of selling Judaeans to theGreeks (cf. Obad. 14). According to 4.8, the same fate will befall themselves.Obadiah explicitly states: 'As you have done, it shall be done to you, your deed shallreturn on your own head' (v. 15; cf. v. 16 and Joel 4.4, 7).

2. See S. Bergler, Joel als Schriftinterpret (BEATAJ, 16; Frankfurt am Main,1988), pp. 295-333 for an elaborate description of the parallels.

3. In my view, the similarity Bergler (Joel als Schriftinterpret, pp. 313-15)observes between Obad. 1 // Jer. 49.14 and Joel 4.9, 11-12 is not significant. The'summons to war' found in these verses occurs in many other places (cf. R. Bach,Die Aufforderungen zur Flucht und zum Kampf im alttestamentlichenProphetenspruch [WMANT, 9; Neukirchen, 1962], pp. 51-61), some of whichshow more similarity with Joel 4.9, 11-12; see e.g. Jer. 6.4-5; 51.27. As will beargued in Chapter 4, Jeremiah seems to have been a source for Obadiah, and it mayhave been so for Joel too. Bergler's view (p. 314) that the summons to war in Obad.1 originally was directed against Jerusalem (cf. Joel) does not convince; the striking'against her' (rrîO can be explained as derived from Jer. 6.4-5—cf. below, Chapter4, on Obad. 1 // Jer. 49.14. Furthermore, his view depends on an unnecessary andunlikely emendation in Obad. 16.


is accompanied by another nation, Egypt.1 Note that Edom's futurefate is twice as bad as Egypt's! The two nations are punished for theirbehaviour towards Judah. It is unclear to which event Egypt's'violence' refers. As for Edom, similar accusations as in Joel 4.19 arefound in other oracles against this nation. In Ezek. 35.6 Edom isaccused of shedding Israelite 'blood' (cf. Obad. 14). The phrase 'forthe violence' (onnn) is also used in Obad. 10. There too it refers toEdomite actions against Judah.2

Joel 4.19, the only verse in the book of Joel in which Edom ismentioned, is part of the section concluding the book, Joel 4.18-21.This section announces what will happen in the future, 'in that day'(»inn DV3, v. 18). Egypt and Edom become a 'desolation', i.e. anuninhabited land, one which is also unfit to be inhabited: a completelydry land, where no human life is possible. Judah's future is theopposite: 'the mountains shall drip sweet wine, and the hills shall flowwith milk, and all the streambed of Judah shall flow with water'(v. 18). Moreover, 'Judah shall be inhabited for ever, and Jerusalemto all generations' (v. 20). The vital water supply will be assuredforever by the presence of a 'fountain' in the temple (v. 18).

The meaning of the first part of v. 21 is obscure.3 Literally, itreads: 'I will hold innocent their blood—I have not held innocent' (cf.note in RSV)—TPpMi1? Dm »n»p3i. The verb is related to the 'innocent'(K'p]) in v. 19, so the 'blood' held innocent in v. 21 may be thought torefer to the 'innocent blood' shed in v. 19. In that case, v. 21 must bea statement on Judah: no longer will Judah be punished, no moreinnocent blood will be shed. 'Blood' in v. 21 must then be taken tomean 'blood guilt'. The translation would be 'I will not let gounpunished their blood guilt, which I [, up till now,] have not let gounpunished'. Others regard v. 21 a as another denunciation of thenations Egypt and Edom. 'Their blood guilt' does not refer to Judahand Jerusalem in the preceding verse, but to v. 19. The sentence canbe interpreted as a question plus an answer: 'Will I let their bloodguilt go unpunished? I will not let it go unpunished'.4 At first sight

1. Cf. Chapter 5, section 2, for a discussion of the joint occurrence of Edomand Egypt in Joel 4.19.

2. Cf. discussion in Chapter 5, section 2.3. Cf. the short review of proposed solutions in W.S. Prinsloo, The Theology

of the Book of Joel (BZAW, 163; Berlin and New York, 1985), pp. 113-14.4. Cf. e.g. W. Van der Meer, 'Oude woorden worden nieuw. De opbouw van


this is quite an attractive solution, the more so because the samequestion plus answer are found in Jer. 49.12, there also referring toEdom.1 However, in my opinion it should be rejected. The verb in the'answer' part of the sentence is a perfectum, so most probably we findhere a statement about the past.2

In Joel 4.18-21, Judah's future is highlighted, a future that is thepositive counterpart of the future of its enemies, 'Egypt' and 'Edom'.3

The same topic was the subject of 4.1-17. There, YHWH will gatherand judge the enemy nations 'in those days and at that time (cf. v. 18),when I restore Judah and Jerusalem' (v. 1; cf. v. 20). The two sections4.1-17 and 4.18-21 end in the same way: with the declaration thatYHWH 'dwells in Zion' (vv. 18 and 21).4 In a certain sense, vv. 18-21repeat vv. 1-17. The difference is that the latter section is directedagainst the nations in general, while the former deals with two typicalenemy nations.

3. Amos

The book preceding Obadiah in the Twelve is Amos. There are somestriking similarities between the two. The book of Amos opens with aseries of oracles against the nations. One of them is directed againstEdom (Amos 1.11-12). As in Obadiah, Edom is condemned becauseof its violence against its 'brother' Israel. The last chapter of Amos—the one directly preceding the book of Obadiah—shows a great deal ofcorrespondence with Obadiah.

In this section we shall have a closer look at Amos 1.11-12 andAmos 9.

Amos 1.11-12

Thus says the LORD:Tor three transgressions of Edom,and for four, I will not revoke the punishment;

het boek Joel' (dissertation, Kampen, 1989), pp. 244-48.1. Cf. Bergler, Joel als Schriftinterpret, pp. 312-13.2. But cf. the LXX interpretation, which seems to point to a Hebrew

imperfection; cf. note in BHS.3. Cf. H.W. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 2. Joel und Amos (BKAT, 14.2;

Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1969), p. 101.4. Cf. e.g. Prinsloo, Book of Joel, p. 117; Van der Meer, 'Oude woorden

worden nieuw', p. 248.


because he pursued his brother with the sword,and cast off all pity,and his anger tore perpetually,and he kept his wrath for ever.So I will send a fire upon Teman,and it shall devour the strongholds of Bozrah' (1.11-12).

YHWH punishes Edom with fire for its persistent enmity against its'brother'. 'Perpetually' and 'for ever' this brother could be victimizedby Edom's 'anger' and 'wrath'. This non-specified brother can be noother than Israel.1

This prophecy is part of a series of seven short oracles againstIsrael's neighbouring nations (1.3-2.5), among which we find, at theend, Judah (2.4-5). The others are directed against Damascus (1.3-5),the Philistines (1.6-8), Tyre (1.9-10), Ammon (1.13-15), and Moab(2.1-3). The series is followed by one longer oracle, which is directedagainst Israel itself. This is in agreement with the first verse of thebook: Amos prophesies against Israel (1.1).

The construction 'I will send a fire upon...and it shall devour...'also occurs in the other short oracles. Instead of 'Teman' and 'thestrongholds of Bozrah', respectively, the other oracles read: 'thehouse of Hazael' and 'the strongholds of Ben-hadad' (1.4), 'the wall ofGaza' and 'her strongholds' (1.7), 'the wall of Tyre' and 'herstrongholds' (1.10), 'the wall of Rabbah' and 'her strongholds' (1.14),'Moab' and 'the strongholds of Kerioth' (2.1), and 'Judah' and 'thestrongholds of Jerusalem' (2.5). It is only absent in the last oracle, thelonger oracle against Israel.

The construction with the two sentences 'For three transgressions...and for four' is present in all of the oracles (1.3, 6, 9, 11, 13; 2.1, 4,6). In all oracles, subsequently, the nature of the 'transgression' isdisclosed in a third sentence (cf. the same verses). These sentencesbegin with *?i>, 'because'.

The oracles are connected with each other, as S.M. Paul has shown,in 'a concatenous literary pattern': each oracle uses one element fromthe preceding one.2 R. Gordis has demonstrated that 'a regular

1. Cf. J. Barton, Amos's Oracles against the Nations. A Study of Amos 1.3-2.5(SOTSMS, 6; Cambridge, 1980), p. 21.

2. S.M. Paul, 'Amos 1:3—2:3: A Concatenous Literary Pattern', JBL 90,1971), pp. 397-403.


pattern' can also be detected in the presence or absence of a closingformula ('says [1DK] YHWH').1

Edom occurs in some of the other oracles as well; strikingly, bothas victim and as co-offender. Edom is the victim in the oracle againstMoab. Moab 'burned to lime the bones of the king of Edom' (2.1).Edom is implicated in the Philistines' and Tyre's crimes: those nations'carried into exile a whole people to deliver them up to Edom' (1.6;cf. 1.9). It should be noted that the oracles against the Philistines andTyre directly precede the oracle against Edom. This suggests that weshould read these three oracles, in all of which Edom plays a role,together. Then, the exiles in 1.6, 9 (like the 'pursued brother' in 1.11)can be identified as Israelites. In 1.6, 9 too Edom is guilty of crimesagainst its brother nation.2

In this connection, Tyre is blamed for not remembering the'covenant of brotherhood' (1.9). It is a moot point whether this refersto the brotherhood of Israel and Edom3 or to a covenant betweenIsrael and Tyre.4

1. R. Gordis, 'Edom, Israel and Amos—An Unrecognized Source for EdomiteHistory', in A.I. Katsh and L. Nemoy (eds.), Essays on the Occasion of the SeventiethAnniversary of the Dropsie University (1909-1979) (Philadelphia, 1979), p. 122.

2. Gordis, 'Edom, Israel and Amos', pp. 123-32 proposes anotherinterpretation. In his view, in all three texts Edom is the victim; the *? in DllR1? is alamed accusativus. He rejects the usual interpretation for two reasons: 1. the facts arenot in accordance with the historical situation at the time of the prophet Amos; 2. it isstrange that the identity of the exiles is not named, while the ('relativelyunimportant') identity of the slave traders is named. In his opinion, the texts refer tothe situation after Edom's crushing defeat against Amaziah of Judah (2 Kgs 14.7).The neighbouring nations seized the opportunity to profit from Edom's defeat.Consequently, Amos 1.11-12 requires another interpreation; Gordis believes thathere domestic troubles in Edom are described, which, as he argues, must have beencaused by the defeat against Judah. In my view, however, this reasoning lacksconviction. His first objection against the usual interpretation is not compelling, sinceAmos 1.11-12 need not necessarily be dated to the time of the prophet Amos. As forhis second objection, it may be considered that, apparently, the identity of the co-offender in these texts was more important for the author, and, besides, that in aprophetic text non-specified exiles most probably are Israelite exiles. The rest of histhesis, notably the supposition of Amos 1.11-12 referring to a civil war in Edomafter the defeat related in 2 Kgs 14.7, is too speculative to be plausible.

3. Cf. e.g. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 2, p. 194.4. Cf. e.g. J. Priest, The Covenant of Brothers', JBL 84 (1965), pp. 402-405;

Kellermann, Israel und Edom, p. 42.


Amos 9After all the doom announced to Israel in Amos, the book ends withwords of hope and promise (9.11-15). In the introduction of thissection, Edom is named.

In that day I will raise up the booth of David that is fallenand repair its breaches,and raise up its ruins,and rebuild it as in the days of old;that they may possess the remnant of Edomand all the nations who are called by my name. . . (9.11-12).

There is no more left of Edom than a 'remnant'. Apparently Edomtoo has experienced ruin. The phrase 'who are called by my [YHWH's]name' expresses that these nations are the possession of YHWH.1 TheIsraelites will possess the nations that are the possession of YHWH.What is meant is probably that Palestine, the land owned by YHWH, isat the moment the possession of Edom and other nations, but will 'inthat day' once again be Israel's possession.2 The same idea was foundin Obad. 17, 19-20; there, the nations to be conquered were Edom('Mount Esau'), the Philistines and the Phoenicians ('the Canaanites').

In v. 11, the restoration of the old Davidic empire is implied. Invv. 13-15 some more details are given on the restoration. 'Days arecoming' in which agriculture will flourish once again (v. 13). Theruined cities will be rebuilt and inhabited. The Israelites will neveragain be 'plucked up out of the land which I have given them' (v. 15).

Not only the end of Amos 9, but also its beginning reminds one ofObadiah. Obad. 4-6 contains a series of five sentences with n». Thesame form is found in Amos 9.2-4 (and nowhere else in the OldTestament). Besides, the two passages have the same theme'.nothing/no one can be hidden from YHWH.3 Therefore, it can beassumed that there is some literary connection between the two texts.

1. Cf. BOB, s.v. mp, nif. 2.d.4.2. Cf. Ezek. 35-36, especially 35.10; 36.5 on Edom and 36.3, 4, 5 on 'the

remnant of the nations'.3. Cf. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 3, p. 31; Weimar, 'Obadja', pp. 89 n. 157,

94-95.


4. Joel, Amos and Obadiah

The observed correspondence between Obadiah and the concludingsections of Joel and Amos, the two books preceding Obadiah, suggestsa certain literary coherence in this part of the Twelve. We shall nowhighlight two issues: firstly, the resemblance between the accusationsagainst the neighbouring nations in the three books; secondly, thesimilarities in the depiction of the future.

AccusationsThe collection of oracles against the nations in Amos 1-2 is anexceptional one. In most of these collections, the accusation against theneighbouring nations is 'mythological' rather than 'cultural' (i.e.historical), as J.B. Geyer says. Unlike these collections, in whichhistorical elements play only a very secondary role, Amos 1-2exclusively mentions detailed historical accusations.1

In that context, it is striking that in Joel A—which is not a collectionof oracles against the nations—we do find indictments against Israel'sneighbours, and also historical allusions. Likewise, the central part ofObadiah is a full-scale depiction of Edom's crimes against Judah.

While in Joel 4 the Phoenician cities Tyre and Sidon and thePhilistines are addressed, and in Obadiah Edom, in Amos 1 all threegroups are mentioned: vv. 6-8 are directed against the Philistines,vv. 9-10 against Tyre, and vv. 11-12 against Edom.

Above, it was observed that Edom played a role in Amos's oraclesagainst the Philistines and Tyre. The latter nations 'carried into exile awhole people to deliver them up to Edom', respectively 'delivered upa whole people to Edom'. It is interesting to see that they are accusedof the same crime, and, moreover, that this crime does not differ verymuch from the one in the indictment against them in Joel 4. There, itis said that they 'have sold the people of Jerusalem to the Greeks,removing them far from from their own border' (v. 6). In short, bothJoel 4 and Amos 1 associate the Philistines and the Phoenicians, and in

1. J.B. Geyer, 'Mythology and Culture in the Oracles against the Nations', VT36 (1986), pp. 129-45. Only in Ezek. 25.1-26.6, a part of Ezekiel's collection oforacles against the nations, the same type as in Amos 1-2 is found. The compositionof Ezek. 25-26 and Amos 1-2 may be connected in some way; cf. Chapter 4, section5 (in the same section, the links between Ezek. 25-26, 35 and Obadiah will beexamined).


both texts they are accused of the same crimes. A further relevantcorrespondence is that the verb 'to deliver up' ("UO hif.) is used inObadiah as well, there with Edom as its subject: 'you should not havedelivered up his survivors in the day of distress' (v. 14). In theprophetic books, the verb "00 hif. only occurs in the discussed verses(Amos 1.6, 9; Obad. 14) and in another verse in Amos (6.8). In Obad.19-20 Philistines, Phoenicians and Edomites appear together as nationswhose land the returning Israelites will possess.1

As for the indictment against Edom, it was observed that both Joel4.19 and Obad. 10 use the phrase 'for the violence' (onriD) to designateEdom's crime, and that in Amos, like in Obadiah, Edom is regardedas Israel's 'brother' (riR). The latter fact is significant, because in theprophetic books Edom is only called a 'brother' in these two placesand in one other text in the Book of the Twelve (Mai. 1.2-5).2

The FutureThe books of Joel, Amos and Obadiah conclude in the same way (Joel4.9-21; Amos 9.11-15; Obad. 15a, 16-21). Their closing sections allexpect Israel's restoration (Joel 4.16-21; Amos 9.11-15; Obad. 17-21),which will take place at the same time as the annihilation of the othernations (Joel 4.9-15, 19; Amos 9.12; Obad. 15a, 16, 18, 19-21).Among the nations, whose destruction is apparently necessary forIsrael's salvation, particularly Israel's neigbours are important (Joel4.11, 12, 19; Amos 9.12; Obad. 15a, 16, 18, 19-20).3 All three textsexpressly mention Edom (Joel 4.19; Amos 9.12; Obad. 18, 19-21).4 InObadiah the opposition Edom-Israel is the most central feature of thetext, and in Joel the desolation Edom's and Egypt's lands will turn into(4.19) mirrors the prosperous situation of Israel's land (4.18, 20).

Israel's glory and the other nations' ruin will be realized on a

1. Philistines and Edom are also associated in Ezek. 25 (in contrast to thecollections of oracles against the nations in Isaiah and Jeremiah). This chapterconsists of two sets of two mutually reflecting oracles; the oracles against theEdomites and the Philistines constitute the second set. Cf. previous notes on linksbetween Ezek. 25-26 and Amos 1-2.

2. On Mai. 1.2-5 cf. below, Chapter 7, section 4.3. Cf. previous section on the nations occurring in Obad. 19-20.4. According to U. Kellermann, Amos 9.12 and Obad. 19-21 give a positive

view on the relation between Israel and Edom ('Der Amosschluss', p. 181; Israelund Edom, pp. 24-28, 52, 53, 54). This hypothesis was discussed (and rejected) inChapter 1, section 3.


certain future 'day': according to Joel (4.14) and Obadiah (15a) on the'day of the LORD' (nvr DV), according to Amos 'in that day'9.11; cf. 9.13: 'the days are coming...').

Whereas the closing section of Amos concentrates on Judah's fate,Joel and Obadiah devote quite a large part to the fate of the nations, atleast, as far as that is related to Israel's future. Both Joel and Obadiahadd that on the 'day' of judgment on the nations, Israel will be safe(Joel 4.16-17; Obad. 17), due to the presence of YHWH in Zion (Joel4.17, 21; Obad. 17, cf. v. 21); the Zion will be a 'holy' place (Joel4.17; Obad. 16, 17).1 Amos (9.12) and Obadiah (v. 17; cf. vv. 19-20)agree on the view that Israel will regain its possessions—land that isnow the possession of other nations.

Both in Joel 4.18a and in Amos 9.13, the future fertility of the landis described with the lines: 'the mountains shall drip sweet wine, andthe hills shall flow'2 (Joel: 'with milk'; Amos: 'all the hills').3 In addi-tion to this verse at the end of Amos, the last part of Joel has a parallelwith the first prophetic word in Amos: 'The LORD roars from Zion,and utters his voice from Jerusalem' is found in both Amos 1.2 andJoel 4.16.

5. Conclusion

We have found that Obadiah shares its special treatment of Edom withthe preceding books in the Book of the Twelve. It is striking thatwhile Edom is the representative of the nations in the last chapter ofAmos, it is Israel's brother in Amos 1. Besides, we have detectedseveral thematic and idiomatic links between Joel, Amos and Obadiah.These will be discussed in Chapters 5 and 6. We shall return toObadiah's position in the Book of the Twelve in Chapter 7.

1. On textual affinities between Joel 4 and Obad. 15-21, cf. Chapter 5.2. Joel: ~pn-, Amos: fln hitpal.3. The idea of fertilizing water coming forth from the temple in the second half

of Joel 4.18 is also found in Ezek. 47.1-12. Cf. Van der Meer, 'Oude woordenworden nieuw', pp. 239-41.

Chapter 3

EDOM AND THE NATIONS: ANOTHER EXAMPLE,EZEKIEL35.1-36.15

1. Introduction

In Obadiah Edom appears as Israel's enemy, taking advantage of itsdownfall. At the same time, Edom represents the other nations, andparticularly Israel's neighbours. All of them are destroyed by God,which event is considered to be the beginning of a new future forIsrael.

In this chapter, Ezek. 35.1-36.15 will be discussed. These chapterspresent Edom (called 'Mount Seir') in much the same way as Obadiahdoes. Besides, Ezekiel 35-36 has some striking idiomatic similaritieswith Obadiah. The links with Obadiah will be discussed in our nextchapter.1 The present chapter concentrates on the Ezekiel texts. First,a synchronic analysis will be given (section 2). Next, the texts will beexamined from a diachronic point of view (section 3).

2. Synchronic Analysis

1. Ezekiel 35 and Ezekiel 36.1-15In the book of Ezekiel, the oracles against the nations are foundtogether in chs. 25-32, the central part of the book. Edom is one ofthe nations that YHWH threatens to destroy (25.12-14). Once more inchs. 25-32, Edom is mentioned: in 32.29, Edom is in company withthe great nations of the earth—in the underworld.

In ch. 35, outside the collection of the oracles against the nations,we meet Edom as 'Mount Seir'. This chapter consists of four oracles(vv. 1-4, 5-9, 10-13, 14-15), all of which announce the devastation ofMount Seir. This land is turned into 'a desolation and a waste' (vv. 3,

1. Chapter 4, section 5. 5.


1 [v.l.]; cf. vv. 4, 9, 14, 15). The fact that after chs. 25-32 theEdomites are once more the subject of oracles of doom is, just liketheir surprising reappearance in 32.29, an indication of their specialrole. The function of ch. 35 becomes more clear when it is read in itscontext: not the oracles against the nations (chs. 25-32), the secondpart of the book of Ezekiel, but the last part of the book (chs. 33-48).Compared to the first part (chs. 1-24), here the emphasis has shiftedfrom Israel's doom to Israel's restoration. The destruction of MountSeir is linked in some way with Israel's new future.

There is a special connection between ch. 35 and 36.1-15. Takentogether, they make up one prophetic 'word', introduced by 35.1:'The word of the LORD came to me'. The unit ends in 36.15; theintroductory formula from 35.1 appears again in 36.16. Both halvesof 35.1-36.15 begin with YHWH's order to the 'son of man' to'prophesy' (35.2; 36.1). Now, the subject of the second half of thisunit is the restoration of life to Israel's 'mountains'. In the same wayas ch. 35 is a prophecy of doom on 'Mount Seir' (35.2; cf. vv. 3, 7,15), 36.1-15 is a prophecy of hope for the 'mountains of Israel' (36.1;cf. vv. 4, 8). The two halves are related to each other as regards con-tents and language. Both texts are prophecies about the relationbetween a nation (ch. 35) or the nations (ch. 36) and Israel after thedestruction of the 'mountains of Israel' (cf. 35.12). 'Mount Seir' aswell as the surrounding nations in general (among which only Edomis mentioned separately, 36.5) have declared their happiness aboutIsrael's ruin and their wish to take possession of its country (35.10,12, 14-15; 36.2-5). In ch. 35 YHWH puts an end to life on Mount Seir;it will be a desolation (vv. 3, 4, 7-9, 14-15). In ch. 36 the oppositehappens to the mountains of Israel: YHWH will restore life unto them(vv. 8-12). As for the language, it is interesting to see that severalwords occur in both chapters.1 The most remarkable common featureis the recurrence of the 'mountains, hills, valleys, ravines' of 35.8 in36.4, 6 (as 'mountains, hills, ravines, valleys'). In 35.8 the phrase isused for Mount Seir, which will be deprived of life, whilst in 36.4, 6it is used for the mountains of Israel, which, having become adesolation, will once more be inhabited.

The prophecy of the destruction of Seir is the prelude to theprophecy of Israel's return to its country. Edom and the othersurrounding nations have laid claim to the deserted land, which,

1. Cf. Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, pp. 144-47.

3. Edom and the Nations: Another Example 45

however, still belongs to YHWH (35.10). He will make his own peoplereturn to it, and put the nations to shame. In ch. 35 Mount Seir playsthe same role as the nations in general do in ch. 36. There is onedifference: in ch. 35 not only is the attitude after Israel's fall a subjectof reproach, but also the attitude 'at the time of their [= Israel's]calamity' (see 35.5-6).

For an accurate appreciation of Edom's role in 35.1-36.15, it isnecessary to have a closer look at the background of this text in thebook. We shall consider three topics: (1) the connection this text haswith the prophecy against the 'mountains of Israel' in ch. 6; (2) theconnection with the oracles against the nations in chs. 25-32; (3) theopposition between 'Israel' and 'the nations' in the book of Ezekieland the position of 35.1-36.15 in the book.

2. Ezekiel 35-36 and Ezekiel 6Ezekiel 6 has the same introduction as 35.1-36.15.

The word of the LORD came to me: The word of the LORD came to me:'Son of man, set your face toward 'Son of man, set your face againstthe mountains of Israel, and pro- Mount Seir, and prophesy againstphesy against them...' (6.1-2). it...' (35.1-2).

Both Ezekiel 6 and Ezekiel 35 prophesy doom on the 'mountains' ofthe nation concerned:

and say, You mountains of Israel, and say to it, Thus says the Lordhear the word of the Lord GOD! GOD: Behold, I am against you,Behold I, even I, will bring a sword Mount Seir, and I will stretch outupon you... (6.3). my hands against you (35.3).

Besides, there is a connection between Ezekiel 6 and 36.1-15. Ezekiel36.1-15 continues the message of ch. 6 about 'the mountains of Israel'.The former chapter forecasts their devastation, in the latter they aredevastated.

Son of man, set your face toward And you, son of man, prophesy tothe mountains of Israel, and pro- the mountains of Israel, and say, Ophesy against them, and say, You mountains of Israel, hear the wordmountains of Israel, hear the word of the LORD (36.1).of the Lord GOD! (6.2,3).

But these chapters are each other's opposites. In ch. 6 there is only


doom for 'the mountains of Israel'; in 36.1-15 their restoration isannounced.1

3. Ezekiel 35-36 and Ezekiel 25-32Ezek. 25.12-14 announces doom for Edom, because this nation 'actedrevengefully against the house of Judah' (v. 12). An inimical attitudetowards Judah is also reported from Israel's other neighbours—see25.3, 6, 8, 15; 26.2. The enmity of these nations constitutes the reasonfor their annihilation. The oracles against the nations in 25.1-26.6have exactly the same form as the second and the third oracles of ch.35 (vv. 5-9/10-13).

The reason for the judgment is given in a sentence with ]ir,'because'. The judgment itself is in a sentence with p1?, 'therefore'.The oracle is concluded with the line: 'Then you (etc.) will know thatI am the LORD' ('Erweiswort').2 The three elements occur in the bookof Ezekiel—in the same order—in: 13.8, 8, 9; 13.22, 23, 23; 25.3, 4,5; 25.6, 7, 7; 25.8, 9, 11; 25.12, 13, 14; 25.15, 16, 17; 26.2, 3, 6;35.5, 6, 9; 35.10, 11, 12.3 Eight out of ten occurrences appear inchs. 25-26 and 35.4 So, both in reason for judgment and in form, ch.35 shows affinity with 25.1-26.6.

It turns out that the various charges that in chs. 25-26 are broughtagainst the nations around Israel appear together in 35.1-36.15.Compare 25.3, 8, 26.2 with 35.10, 12, 36.2, (3,) 13 ('saying' hatefulthings) (cf. 36.6, 7, 15, 'reproach'); 25.3, 12, 15, 26.2 with 35.10-13,36.2, 4, 5 (taking advantage of Israel's ruin); 25.6 with 35.15, 36.5('gladness'—being satisfied with Israel's ruin); 25.15 with 35.5

1. See further on the connections between Ezek. 6 and 35.1-36.15 and theirfunction in the book of Ezekiel: L. Boadt, 'Rhetorical Strategies in Ezekiel's Oraclesof Judgment', in J. Lust (ed.), Ezekiel and his Book. Textual and Literary Criticismand their Interrelation (BETL, 74; Leuven, 1986), pp. 190-93; Gosse, 'Ezechiel 35-36,1-15 et Ezechiel 6'; Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, pp. 148-51, 157-58,160.

2. Cf. W. Zimmerli, 'Erkenntnis Gottes nach dem Buche Ezechiel', in idem,Gottes Offenbarung. Gesammelte Aufsatze zum Alten Testament, I (TBii, 19;Miinchen, 1963), pp. 41-119; and idem, 'Das Wort des gottlichen Selbsterweises(Erweiswort), eine prophetische Gattung', in Gottes Offenbarung, pp. 120-32.

3. In 35.10-13 the 'concluding line', v. 12 is followed by a commentaryremark; cf. Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, p. 70.

4. A variant form, in which the JJP and the p1? change places, we find in 5.11,11, 13; 22.19, 19, 22; 34.20, 21, 27; an irregular version in 29.8-10.


('perpetual enmity'). As for ch. 36, it is not surprising that hereseveral of the separate charges of chs. 25-26 occur together, becausein it all the surrounding nations (at least, their 'rest', 36.3, 4, 5) areaccused. In the case of ch. 35—the prophecy against 'Mount Seir'—itis quite remarkable.

In one passage in the oracles against the nations in chs. 25-32,Israel's future (in relation to the nations) is discussed: 28.20-26. Thisoracle starts off as an oracle against Sidon, but it soon becomes clearthat all the neighbouring nations are in view (v. 24). Verses 24-26 havethe same theme as ch. 36: the former inhabitants of Israel will regainpossession of the land, the contemptuous neighbours will be judged.

The first half of this text, 28.20-23, has the same style as 35.1-4: itis a very general oracle which does not give full particulars and isstated in formulaic language.1 It gives the impression of primarilybeing a theological statement.

Just like 35.1-36.15, 28.20-26 combines an oracle against one ofIsrael's neighbours with a condemnation of the neighbouring nationsin general and with a message of hope and restoration for Israel.

The oracle against Edom in 25.12-14 opposes Israel and the nationconcerned in yet another way: it is the only oracle in chs. 25-32 inwhich Israel is the agent of God's wrath (25.14).

4. 'Israel' and 'the Nations' in the Book ofEzekielThe main concern of 36.1-15 is not, as it was in ch. 6, the relationshipbetween YHWH and Israel, but the relationship between Israel andYHWH on the one hand and the nations on the other. YHWH restoreshis land, 'the mountains of Israel', to put an end to the contemptuousbehaviour of the nations. See the beginning and the end of theprophecy:

Because the enemy said of you, 'Aha!' and, 'The ancient heights havebecome our possession' (36.2).

and I will not let you hear any more the reproach of the nations, and youshall no longer bear the disgrace of the peoples (36.15).

As a result of YHWH's acts, 'the nations that are around you shallthemselves suffer reproach' (v. 7). The oracle 36.33-36 stresses theeffect that YHWH's rebuilding of Israel has on 'the nations that are left

1. Cf. Simian, Die theologische Nachgeschichte, pp. 185-89.


round about you' (v. 36): they will come to acknowledge the power ofYHWH.

The first part of the book of Ezekiel (chs. 1-24) sees Israel's annihi-lation drawing near. One recurring theme is that YHWH will destroyIsrael 'in the sight of the nations' (D»ian va1?: 5.8 [cf. vv. 14-15];22.16). Israel will have to endure reproach from the surroundingnations, 16.44-58 (vv. 52, 54, 58; cf. 36.6, 7, 15). Time after time,YHWH had refrained from punishing Israel lest his name be profaned'in the sight of the nations' (20.9, 14, 22). At last, he did destroyIsrael but for the sake of his name he decides to restore it (cf. 36.22-27). He promises to bring back the people, and 'I will manifest myholiness among you in the sight of the nations' (20.41; cf. 28.24-26;36.22-23). In the third part of the book (chs. 33-48), YHWH sidesagainst the nations and with the Israelites. He had delivered Israel tothe scorn of the nations but he now puts an end to that shamefulsituation (34.29; 36.15).

As for the opposition 'mountains of Israel'—'Mount Seir', the posi-tion of 35.1-36.15 in the book is noteworthy.1 The discussed ch. 6 isthe first chapter in which a threat is uttered against 'the mountains ofIsrael'. It prophesies doom upon them. The threat is repeated in33.28, in the first chapter of the third part of the book. The messageof Jerusalem's fall has been delivered (33.21-22). Those who havesurvived, claim the country to be theirs (cf. 35.10!) but YHWH willagain destroy their land—the already desolated 'mountains ofIsrael'—because of their sins (33.23-29). He will make the land 'adesolation and a waste' (33.28)—the same expression as used in 6.14and 35.3, 7 (and nowhere else in Ezekiel). This is the last time thatdoom is called down upon the mountains of Israel. In ch. 34 YHWHleads his people back to the 'mountains of Israel' (vv. 13, 14), as ashepherd would his sheep.

The themes of 35.1-36.15 have a distinct function in this context:the shepherd cannot 'feed' his sheep 'with good pasture' as long asothers are in possession (35.10-12; 36.2-5) of 'the mountains of Israel'(35.12) nor as long as these mountains are a desolation. So, YHWH

1. Cf. Gosse, 'Le recueil d'oracles centre les nations d'Ez£chiel XXV-XXXIIdans la redaction du livre d'Ezechiel', RB 93 (1986), pp. 544-47; 'Ezechiel 35-36,1-15 et Ezechiel 6', and 'Oracles centre les nations et structures comparers des livresd'Isaie et d'Eze"chiel', BN 54 (1990), pp. 19-21; Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel enEdom, pp. 155-58.


condemns the nations in question, represented in 'Mount Seir'(ch. 35), and furthermore promises to bring back life to the'mountains of Israel' (36.8-11). The returning to life of the utterlydead is also the subject of the next chapter (37): dry bones cometogether and live again. This event is expressly connected with thereturn of the exiles (37.11-14). In chs. 38-39 the 'mountains of Israel'are the places where the ultimate enemy, Gog from Magog, will bedefeated (38.8; 39.2, 4, 17).

5. ConclusionIn 35.1-36.15—a text on the attitude of Israel's surrounding nationsboth in the past and in the future—Edom is the only nation mentionedby name. In ch. 36, only Edom's name is mentioned (v. 5), and ch. 35is in its totality a chapter on 'Mount Seir'. Mount Seir represents theinimical neighbouring nations. In ch. 35, as observed, the accusationsagainst the nations from 25.1-26.6 are assembled and repeated withSeir as their object. The opposition between 'the mountains of Israel'and 'Mount Seir' is in reality the opposition between Israel and itsneighbours. 'Mount Seir' is a symbolic name for the nation or groupof nations that welcomed and took profit of Israel annihilation and thatnow obstruct YHWH's plans for Israel's restoration. When YHWH hasexecuted his judgment on Israel (ch. 33) and has begun his new futurewith his people (ch. 34), the time for the nations has come.

It should be noted that the other 'enemy' in the third part of the bookis also a symbolic one: 'Gog' from 'Magog' represents the nationsfrom the North, the nations that threaten Israel after its restoration.

3. Diachronic Analysis

1. TheoriesEzek. 35.1-36.15 provides us with an oracle against 'Mount Seir'(ch. 35) alongside an oracle on the 'mountains' of Israel (36.1-15). Inthe latter, Israel's neighbours—including Edom—are denounced fortheir attitude towards the destroyed Israel; Israel will be restored. Inthe former, Edom is annihilated because of its attitude towards thedestroyed Israel. In this way, 'Mount Seir', representing the nations,and 'the mountains of Israel' are opposed.

It is in the framework of the two oracles joined together that theconception of Edom ('Mount Seir') as representative of the nations


and at the same time Israel's antagonist is visible.Our aim in the present study is to search for the origin and

development of this conception. Therefore, we shall now discuss theliterary history of the composition 35.1-36.15. When did it achieve itspresent form? The conception is clearly present in the text as it stands,but was it also in an earlier form?

We find important observations on these matters in two studieswhich were published at nearly the same time (their authors had noknowledge of each other's work). One is H. Simian's study Die theo-logische Nachgeschichte der Prophetic Ezechiels. Form- und tradi-tionskritische Untersuchung zu Ez 6; 35; 36 (1974), the otherU. Kellermann's Israel und Edom (1975).1 Simian concludes that thechs. 6, 35 and 36 in their present form are the result of a long pro-cess of growing. In the course of time, many writers contributed tothese chapters.2 As regards the origin of Edom's role as a type,Simian argues that already in the oldest part of Ezek. 35, in his viewvv. 1-4, 'Seir' is a theological term. In this oldest part, Mount Seir,Edom, is the personification of Israel's enemies. The subject of 35.1-4is the annihilation of these enemies, which simultaneously opens thepossibility of Israel's restoration.3 Simian argues that this oracle is notdirected against the actual people of the Edomites.4

As for the interdependence between chs. (6), 35 and 36, Simianconcludes that 36.1-11 is the oldest part. 'Sowohl Ez 36,16-32 wieauch 35,1-4, mil weniger Sicherheit Ez 6, selbstverstandlich aber dieerganzenden Einheiten Ez 36,33-36.37-38 setzen Ez 36,1-11 voraus'.5

The expansions in 35.5-6, 10-11 came into being under the influenceof 36.1-11, especially the additions in vv. 3, 4, 5.6 The name of Edomwas added to 36.1-15 (v. 5) under the influence of ch. 35. Accordingto Simian,7 the theme of 36.1-11 shows affinity with that of2 Chronicles 20, so the oracle probably stems from the same period as2 Chronicles (fourth-third century BCE). The use of the name 'Seir'

1. Simian, Die theologische Nachgeschichte; Kellermann, Israel und Edom.2. Cf. Simian, Die theologische Nachgeschichte, pp. 356-57.3. Simian, Die theologische Nachgeschichte, pp. 324-25.4. Simian, Die theologische Nachgeschichte, pp. 188-89.5. Simian, Die theologische Nachgeschichte, p. 355.6. Simian, Die theologische Nachgeschichte, pp. 351-52.7. Simian, Die theologische Nachgeschichte, p. 355; cf. pp. 330-37.


in 35.1-4 seems also to point to the time of the Chronicler.1 IfSimian's analysis is accurate, the conception of Edom as Israel'sopponent is already present in the first stage of Ezekiel 35.

The literary-critical analysis given in Kellermann's book2 is at firstsight rather different from Simian's. Kellermann argues that vv. 5-6,9 constitute the oldest part of Ezekiel 35. But at other points, theirresults are more in agreement. Like Simian, Kellermann concludes thata separate ch. 35 never existed3 and holds on to an 'urspriinglichenVerbundenheit von Ez. 35 und 36 (im Grundbestand) bei der erstenZusammenstellung dieser Kapitel'.4 In his opinion, the oldest part ofthe oracle was written by Ezekiel; vv. 7-8 and 10-12 are additions toEzekiel's words, which originated in the exilic community.5

Subsequently, the exilic material (vv. 5-12) was brought to Palestine,where it was further edited. There, vv. 5-9 and 10-12 were broughtinto a composition which opposed 'Mount Seir' and 'the mountains ofIsrael': Ezek. 35.1-36.15 in its original form (35.1-12, 14-15; 36.1-2,[6], 7-9, 11). This redaction has to be dated to the beginning of thesecond half of the sixth century BCE.

A relevant mutual conclusion of the two studies is that no texts fromthe time of the prophet Ezekiel show any signs of the conception ofEdom as the representative of the nations. In Simian's view, there areno texts from Ezekiel in ch. 35. The oldest part according toKellermann (vv. 5-6, 9) does not present Edom as a type. Both Simianand Kellermann assume that this conception only appears in some lateredition of the book of Ezekiel. They differ, however, greatly in theirdating of this edition.

2. EvaluationSimian gives a detailed literary-critical analysis of Ezekiel 35.6 Heconcludes, as said, that 35.1-4 is (with the disordered vv. 14-15) theonly 'kleine Einheit' in the oracle and, therefore, must be the oldestpart. The other verses are fragments, which have accumulated upon

1. Simian, Die theologische Nachgeschichte, pp. 327-28.2. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 65-92.3. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, p. 67.4. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, p. 68.5. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 104-106.6. Simian, Die theologische Nachgeschichte, pp. 104-16.


this old core. Simian does, however, not observe1 that vv. 5-9 andvv. 10-13 (at least, their cores) must be 'kleine Einheite' as well:these parts are in their basic form 'Erweisworte' exactly like those inEzek. 25.1-26.6.2 We will now have a closer look at these texts.

25.12 Because Edom acted revenge- 35.5 Because you cherished perpetualfully against the house of Judah and enmity, and gave over the people ofhas grievously offended in taking Israel to the power of the sword...vengeance upon them,13 therefore thus says the Lord 6 therefore, as I live, says the LordGOD, I will stretch out my hand GOD, I will prepare you for blood...against Edom, 7 I will make Mount Seir a waste andand cut off from it man and beast; a desolation; and I will cut off from itand I will make it desolate; all who come and go.from Teman even to Dedan they 8 And I will fill your mountains withshall fall by the sword. the slain; on your hills and in your

valleys and in your ravines thoseslain with the sword shall fall.

14 And I will lay my vengeance 91 will make you a perpetualupon Edom by the hand of my desolation...people Israel... and they shall know Then you will know that I am themy vengeance, says the Lord GOD. LORD.

Both oracles reflect inimical Edomite actions against Israel. In bothcases, this is answered by YHWH's turning the Edomite land into adesolation. He pays the Edomites back in the same coin: they 'actedrevengefully' against Israel, YHWH shall let Israel 'take vengeance' onEdom (ch. 25); the Edomites killed Israelites with the 'sword', withthe 'sword' they will be slain themselves (ch. 35). In both oracles, theeffect is that the Edomites will 'know' YHWH.3

Some of the other oracles in chs. 25-26 refer quite explicitly to theevent of Judah's annihilation mentioned in 35.5 ('the time of theircalamity', 'the time of their final punishment'). See 25.3: YHWH's'sanctuary' was 'profaned' and 'the land of Israel. . . made desolate',

1. Cf. Simian, Die theologische Nachgeschichte, pp. 258-59.2. Cf. above, section 2.3.3. The reading of 35.6 in the RSV 'because you are guilty of blood' follows an

emendation of the Hebrew text inspired by the version of the LXX (MT nwef, 'youhave hated' > nneto). However, the superiority of the LXX reading is disputed; seee.g. H. Reventlow, Wdchter fiber Israel. Ezechiel und seine Tradition (BZAW, 82;Berlin, 1962), p. 144; Kellermann, Israel und Edom, p. 73; Hartberger, 'An denWassern von Babylon', p. 149.


'the house of Judah...went into exile'; 26.2: 'the gate of the peoples(= Jerusalem) is broken'. The element 'perpetual enmity' from 35.5does not occur in 25.12-14, but does so in 25.15.

Like 35.5-9, the unit 35.10-12 (13) shares not only its structure, butalso its style and content with ch. 25 and 26.1-6. Whereas 35.5-9focuses upon reproachable deeds (killing Judaeans), 35.10-13 concen-trates itself on Seir's attitude, its 'saying' (in») hateful things.

Because you said, 'These two nations and these two countries shall bemine, and we will take possession of them' (35.10).

(I) have heard all the revilings which you uttered ("OR) against the moun-tains of Israel, saying, 'They are laid desolate, they are given us todevour' (35.12).

The theme of 'saying' hateful things as a reaction to Israel's ruin isvery common in the oracles against the nations in chs. 25-26: see 25.3on Ammon, 25.8 on Moab, and 26.2 on Tyre. It is absent in the oracleagainst Edom. The surrounding nations had thought, like Seir in35.10, 12, that they would be able to profit from Israel's downfall; see25.3, 12, 15; 26.2.

Some elements from 25.12-14 that do not appear in 35.5-9 or 10-13do so in 35.1-4. 'I will stretch out my hand against Edom', 25.13, isalso found in 35.3. YHWH's making the land rain, 'desolate'/'waste',occurs in 25.13 as well as 35.4.

The last part of ch. 35 too has a parallel within chs. 25-26. LikeSeir (35.15; cf. 36.5), the Ammonites 'rejoiced' (nnto) over the devas-tation of Israel (25.6).

In view of the many links between 25.1-26.6 and ch. 35, bothstructural and idiomatical, we can conclude that these chapters are notindependent of each other. The second and third oracles in ch. 35seem to be modelled after the oracles in chs. 25-26. The second oracle(35.5-9) shares its theme with the oracle against Edom in 25.12-14and may have been inspired by it.

As for Kellermann's view: Kellermann sees 35.5-6, 9 as the oldestpart of Ezekiel 35-36. He attributes these verses to the prophetEzekiel. The vv. 35.7-8 he regards as an accretion to the olderverses.1 The resulting text (together with still other texts) served as

1. Section 3.1; see also Kellermann, Israel und Edom, p. 74. Cf. further e.g.J.W. Wevers, Ezekiel (NCBC; London, repr. 1982 [1969]), p. 186; J.R. Bartlett,'Edom and the Fall of Jerusalem, 587 B.C.', PEQ 114 (1982), pp. 19-20; idem,


the basis for the composition Ezekiel 35-36. Now, a closer look at thetext seems to substantiate the idea that in these chapters older materialwas used as the basis of a new composition.

The supposed secondary vv. 35.7-8 show a considerable similarityto ch. 6: the 'mountains, hills, valleys, ravines' of 35.8 appear also in6.3 ('mountains, hills, ravines, valleys'; also in 36.4, 6); there 'thoseslain with the sword shall fall', according to 35.8—cf. 6.7 and 6.13;both in 35.7 and 6.14 we find the expression 'I will make (MountSeir/the land) a waste and a desolation' (in 35.7 varia lectio nneta forthe second nnntf; cf. also 35.3). This is particularly interesting sincethere is another striking correspondence with ch. 6. As discussed,1 theintroduction of the oracles against 'Mount' Seir in Ezekiel 35 is thesame as the introduction of the oracles against the 'mountains' ofIsrael in Ezekiel 6.

Since ch. 35 constitutes a coherent composition together with theother oracle in the book of Ezekiel on the 'mountains' of Israel,namely 36.1-15, it can be suspected that vv. 7-8 (regarded assecondary by Kellermann and others on literary-critical grounds)were added to vv. 5-9, together with vv. 1-4, in order to link it upwith ch. 6.

The place and function in the book of Ezek. 35.1-36.15 stronglysuggest that these chapters are a redactional composition: it looks as ifthey were written with a view to the composition of the whole book.2

The term 'Mount Seir' for Edom in Ezekiel 35 must have been chosenbecause of the composition, as counterpart to the 'mountains of Israel'in chs. 6 and 36. The story of the 'mountains of Israel' has reached aturning-point just before ch. 35. At this point (as expounded above),3

a prophecy on 'Mount Seir', representing the nations, has a clearfunction.4

Edom and the Edomites, p. 153. Simian, Die theologische Nachgeschichte, p. 113regards vv. 7-8a as a later addition.

1. Section 2.2.2. Cf. above, section 2.4, and Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 67-68.3. Section 2.4.4. Cf. Simian, Die theologische Nachgeschichte, pp. 357-58 on the possibility

that the various texts on the 'mountains of Israel' belong to a 'theologischeBearbeitung' of the book of Ezekiel.


3. DateWe have concluded that Ezekiel 35 is a redactional chapter, inspiredby Ezek. 25.1-26.6. The view that chs. 35-36 were written with aneye to the composition of the book has consequences for the date ofthe first appearance of the conception under discussion. The intro-duction of the conception has to date from the time of the compositionof the book, that is from some time after the prophet Ezekiel.Unfortunately, the date of the composition of the book as it stands is amoot point. Although the majority of the scholars agree that the bookwas composed during the exilic period,1 there is still a possibility, asin Simian's view, that in later periods new editions of the bookappeared, which added to the earlier versions.

As far as ch. 35 is concerned, we have the clue that the terminuspost quern for the composition of this chapter, if it indeed depends onchs. 25-26, is the composition date of the latter text.2 But the date ofchs. 25-26 is also a moot point. Possibly, this text is itself a redac-tional composition as well.3 It may have been written in order to makeup a collection of oracles on seven nations.4 On the other hand,Kellermann defends the authenticity of 25.12-14 in its original form(25.12-13).5 In any case, 25.12-14 cannot be dated earlier than the fallof Jerusalem, 587 BCE.

Singular in chs. 25-32 (and also in the entire book of Ezekiel) isIsrael's acting as a revenger, in 25.14. According to Kellermann,v. 14 is a later addition.6 The remarkable appearance of Edom in32.29 is also thought to be a late feature.7

1. See Wevers, Ezekiel, p. 29; R.E. Clements, 'The Chronology of Redactionin Ezekiel 1-24', in Lust (ed.), Ezekiel and his Book, pp. 284, 294; cf. Kellermann,Israel und Edom, pp. 104-106 on chs. 35-36.

2. Another observation which indicates that Ezek. 35 is more recent than Ezek.25-26 is that Ezek. 25.12-14 does not seem to present Edom as the representative ofthe nations, while ch. 35 does.

3. Cf. e.g. Wevers, Ezekiel, p. 144.4. Cf. L. Boadt, Ezekiel's Oracles against Egypt. A Literary and Philological

Study of Ezekiel 29-32 (BibOr, 37; Rome, 1980), p. 9; Geyer, 'Mythology andCulture', p. 141.

5. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 56-62.6. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, p. 57.7. Cf. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 62-65; M. Nobile, 'Beziehung

zwischen Ez 32,17-32 und der Gog-Perikope (Ez 38-39) im Lichte derEndredaktion', in Lust (ed.), Ezekiel and his Book, pp. 255-59.


The conception of Edom as representative of the nations only entersthe book of Ezekiel after 587 BCE. But has its date actually to be post-poned to the time of the Chronicler, as is argued by Simian? We willhave a closer look at his arguments.

Simian says about the oldest part of 35.1-36.15 (in his view 36.1-11): 'Wenn unsere Gattungsbestimmung und Traditionskritik von Ez36.1-11 zutrifft, dann muss akzeptiert werden, dass diese KleineEinheit nicht friiher als in der Zeit des 2.Chr angesetzt werden kann'.1

The result of his 'Gattungsbestimmung', however, is that he concludesthat the oracle must have originated in the last years of the exile: itpoints to 'eine Situation, in der die Riickkehr schon als gesichert odervielleicht sogar als geschehene betrachtet wird'.2 Therefore, it must bethe Traditionskritik' which provides the late dating.3 Simian discussesa text in 2 Chronicles (ch. 20) that indeed shares its theme (thesurrounding nations that try to take possession of the land that YHWHhas given to Israel) with Ezek. 36.1-11. However, he also shows thatthis theme is already present in Judg. 11.12ff, a text considered to bequite old.

Concerning Ezekiel 35, Simian contends that the name 'Seir' for theEdomites provides a relevant fact for its dating. Within the oraclesagainst Edom (not counting Isa. 21.11-12),4 only here is the name'Seir' used. Conversely, in Chronicles Seir is the usual name forEdom. Simian suggests the choice of the name Seir in Ezek. 35.1-4may have been inspired by Chronicles.5 However, he discusses alsosome other possible grounds for this choice, one of which seems atleast equally convincing. It is the possibility that 'Mount Seir' waschosen in order to create an opposition to the 'mountains of Israel' inch. 36 and in the rest of the book (cf. above). As Simian notices, thename Seir (including 'Mount Seir') is often used in the Hexateuch,mainly in texts he considers to be deuteronomistic.6 This means that inthe sixth century the name Seir was known and in use. The writer ofEzek. 35.1-4 need not have known the book of Chronicles.

In conclusion: Simian's evidence for dating (the oldest version of)

1. Simian, Die theologische Nachgeschichte, p. 355.2. Simian, Die theologische Nachgeschichte, pp. 154-55.3. Simian, Die theologische Nachgeschichte, pp. 330-37.4. Simian, Die theologische Nachgeschichte, pp. 281-82.5. Simian, Die theologische Nachgeschichte, p. 328.6. Simian, Die theologische Nachgeschichte, pp. 277-79.


Ezek. 35.1-36.15 in the time of the Chronicler is not very convincingand in any case does not prove to be decisive. So far, I do not see anygrounds for a date after the sixth century BCE. It seems to me that thetheme of the conflict with the neighbouring nations is also relevantduring the sixth century and particularly at the end of the exilicperiod.1 Ezekiel 35 reflects the hostile attitude of Israel's neighbours,both at the time of Judah's fall and afterwards. The exiles, hoping forand later planning for the return to their land, had to face the hostilityof these nations, especially of those that had claimed a part of Israel'sformer land. The land the exiles were to return to had partly beenclaimed by other nations.

The most likely date for the composition of Ezekiel 35-36, there-fore, seems to be the period shortly before or after the end of theexile (539 BCE).

1. Cf. Simian, Die theologische Nachgeschichte, pp. 154-55.

Chapter 4

PARALLELS: 1.OBADIAH AND THE ORACLES AGAINST EDOM

IN JEREMIAH 49.7-22 AND EZEKIEL 35-36

1. Introduction

The book of Obadiah has many parallels with other prophetic books.The most striking are the ones with the oracle against Edom inJer. 49.7-22. Sections 2-4 are devoted to a detailed examination of theparallel verses. There has been much discussion on the questionwhether the writer of Obad. 1 -8 used Jeremiah or whether it was theother way round.1 A third possibility is that both in Jeremiah andObadiah an existing oracle against Edom was used.

It is at the same time quite generally agreed that the collection oforacles against the nations in Jeremiah 46-51 originally must havecontained an oracle against Edom, which may have been composed bythe prophet Jeremiah. Therefore, some verses of Jer. 49.7-22 musthave been part of the original collection. The analysis in the presentchapter will enable us to assess these issues.

Reading Obadiah, one notes not only the parallels with Jer. 49.7-22,but also a certain resemblance to the prophecy on 'Mount Seir' and'the mountains of Israel' in Ezek. 35.1-36.15. While the corres-pondence with Jeremiah is mainly confined to the first eight verses ofObadiah, the similarities with Ezekiel are found in the other parts ofthe text, vv. 9-21. In section 5, these similarities will be assessed.

1. See Wehrle, Prophetic und Textanalyse, pp. 12-13 for a survey of theresearch history on this issue.

4. Parallels: 1. Obadiah and the Oracles against Edom 59

2. Obadiah 1-6 and Jeremiah 49.14-16, 9-10a

1. The TextsThe first four verses of Obadiah are parallel with Jer. 49.14-16.

Obadiah Jeremiah 49

1... We have heard tidings from theLORD,and a messenger has been sent amongthe nations:

'Rise up! let us rise against her forbattle!'2 Behold, I will make you small amongthe nations,you shall be utterly despised.3 The pride of your heart has deceivedyou,

you who live in the clefts of the rock,whose dwelling is high,who say in your heart,'Who will bring me down to theground?'4 Though you soar aloft like the eagle,

though your nest is set among the stars,thence I will bring you down,says the LORD.

141 have heard tidings from the LORD,

and a messenger has been sent amongthe nations:'Gather yourself together and comeagainst her,and rise up for battle!'15 For behold, I will make you smallamong the nations,despised among men.16 The horror you inspire has deceivedyou,and the pride of your heart,you who live in the clefts of the rock,who hold the height of the hill.

Though you make your nest as high asthe eagle's,

I will bring you down from there,says the LORD.

The next verses in Obadiah (5-6) are parallel with Jer. 49.9-lOa.

Obadiah Jeremiah 49

5 If thieves came to you,if plunderers by night -how you have been destroyed! -would they not steal only enough forthemselves?If grape gatherers came to you,would they not leave gleanings?6 How Esau has been pillaged,his treasures sought out!

9 If grape-gatherers came to you,would they not leave gleanings?If thieves came by night,would they not destroy only enough forthemselves?

lOa But I have stripped Esau bare,I have uncovered his hiding places,and he is not able to conceal himself.


2. VocabularySeveral words and phrases the two texts have in common are typicalfor the book of Jeremiah. Moreover, even some of the words whichare only used in the Obadiah version of the parallels belong to theJeremianic idiom.

Obadiah 1 andJer. 49.14a. uaotf mnD0 On- in Jer. 49.14): cf. for the expression 'to heartidings' in Jeremiah: 49.23; with Jtotf: 6.24; with aati: 37.5 and 50.43.In all cases, it refers to the tidings of an army preparing for war.Verses 49.23-24 and 50.43 are based on 6.24. Verse 6.24 reads, justlike Obadiah 1, 'we have heard tidings'. With the other (writing)prophets1 the expression is found only in Isa. 37.7 with the samemeaning (the tidings of an army).2 This verse, however, is probablybased on Jer. 37.5.3 In Jeremiah, there are three more occurrences ofthe word rwiDEJ: 10.22 and 51.46 (2 x). In 10.22, as in 6.24, it refersto an approaching army from 'the north country' (6.22; cf. 51.48).

In this context, the observation of J. Wehrle on Obad. 1 isimportant: 'Das Lexem ninotf gehort keineswegs ausschliesslich in denBereich der Kriegsterminologie. Das diirfte im Gegenteil sogar derAusnahmefall sein'.4 In Jeremiah it is used exclusively in this sphere.

b. The form ('Gattung') 'summons to war' ('Aufforderung zumKampf, R. Bach)5 occurs frequently in the book of Jeremiah (15times, 13 of which in the oracles against the nations, chs. 46-51) andonly occasionally in other prophetic books (8 times, in 5 books).

c. The phrase 0*133, 'among the nations', occurs in two other placesin connection with a summons to war, one of which in Jeremiah(Jer. 51.27; Joel 4.9). Cf. 50.2, in which, as in 49.14, a message issent 'among the nations'.

d.'inip: Dip imp. m. pi. occurs 9 times within the prophets, 6 timesin the book of Jeremiah—5 of which occur within a summons to war(6.4, 5; 49.14, 28, 31). Outside Jeremiah (and Obad. 1) it does notoccur in a summons to war.

1. Here and afterwards the term 'prophets' or 'prophetic books' is used for the'Later Prophets', Isaiah-Malachi.

2. To hear tidings' not referring to an army is found in Nah. 3.19 and Hab. 3.2.3. Cf. S. de Jong, 'Hizkia en Zedekia. Over de verhouding van 2 Kon. 18.17-

19.37/ Jes. 36-37 tot Jer. 37.1-10', ACEBT 5 (1984), pp. 135-46.4. Wehrle, Prophetic und Textanalyse, p. 214.5. Bach, Aufforderungen, pp. 51 -91.


e. nonô1?: This phrase ('for battle') occurs 10 times within theprophetic books, 5 in the book of Jeremiah. In a summons to war:46.3 and 49.14; differently: 6.23; 48.14; 50.24. Outside Jeremiah andObad. 1 it does not occur in a summons to war.

Obad. 2andJer. 49.157nru: |ru 1 impf. with suff. 2 m. sg. (22 times in the Old Testament) isspecific both for Jeremiah (7 times) and for Ezekiel (8 times).

Obad. 3-4 andJer. 49.16a. pit: This word ('pride') is infrequent within the prophetic books:outside these verses, it occurs 3 times, Jer. 50.31, 32; Ezek. 7.10. Inthe prophetic books, the verb TIT is only used in Jer. 50.29.

b. R'tfn: The hif. of Rtfa, 'deceive', occurs 15 times in the OldTestament, 5 in Jeremiah, 2 in Obadiah, and 4 in verses that may bedependent on Jeremiah (Jer. 4.10[2 x]; 29.8; 37.9; 49.16; Obad. 3, 7;Isa. 36.14 = 2 Kgs 18.29 and Isa. 37.10 = 2 Kgs 19.10— probablydependent on Jer. 37.9 and its context).1 Apart from these places, itonly occurs outside the prophetic books.

c. *]3tf: 'You who live': ptf part. cs. sg. ending on * is infrequent inthe Old Testament (5 times), but is used once more in Jeremiah:51.13. In this verse it is used to characterize the nation concerned, justlike in 49.16 and Obad. 3.

d. D#D: The phrase 'thence', 'from there', is characteristic ofJeremiah. It occurs 9 times in the book of Jeremiah. Cf. the otherprophetic books: Isaiah 1, Hosea 1, Amos 6 (5 in one text, Amos 9.2-4, which is a parallel to Obad. 4-6),2 Obadiah 1, Micah 1. The combi-nation of this phrase with 1 impf. (or 1 pf.) only occurs in one placeoutside our two verses (and Amos 9.2-4): in Jeremiah (22.24).

Obad. 5 and Jer. 49.9a. DK: These verses share two sentences with 'if (Obad. 5 has a thirdsentence with 'if). This combination of two conditional sentencesconstitutes a double simile; in the next verse follows the 'real' situa-tion (Obad. 6; Jer. 49.10). In Jeremiah, the actual situation is intro-duced by a sentence with 'D. The same form (o. . .DR . . .D«) is found in

1. De Jong, 'Hizkia en Zedekia'; cf. above on Obad. 1 and Jer. 49.14.2. See Chapter 2, section 3; cf. below, section 2.4 and Chapter 5, section 3.


Jer. 14.18.1 The combination of two sentences with DM in one verse isquite common in the book of Jeremiah: see 4.1; 5.1; 7.5; 15.19; 27.18;38.16; cf. two times M1? DM: 15.11; 49.20; 50.45.

b. D'-raa: In the Old Testament, the participle of "1X3 occurs outsideour two verses only once: in the book of Jeremiah (6.9); there, like inour verses, used in a simile, meaning 'to search out thoroughly'.

c. D»3M: The word 'thief is also used in a simile in two other placesin the book of Jeremiah: 2.26; 48.27 (not with the same meaning).

Obad. 6 and Jer. 49.10aV3BSD (Obad. 6) // innoa (Jer. 49.10a): the word used in Obad. 6('treasures') is a hapax. The verb ]3S, which it is connected with,occurs 28 times in the Old Testament, but only two times in theprophetic books: Jer. 16.17; Hos. 13.12. Jer. 16.17 is important,because it has the same theme as Jer. 49.9-10a and Obad. 5-6:nothing/no one can be hidden from YHWH ('For my eyes are upon alltheir ways; they are not hid for me, nor is their iniquity concealedfrom my eyes'). In parallellism with the verb ]a^ ('concealed'),Jer. 16.17 uses the verb "ino ('hid')—this verb is connected with the'hiding places' (vinon) of Jer. 49.10a. Comparable with the simileswith thieves and grape gatherers in Obad. 4-5 // Jer. 49.9 is themetaphoric use of fishers and hunters in the verse precedingJer. 16.17. Cf. for the 'hiding places': Jer. 13.17; 23.24 (in the entireOld Testament: 10 times). Like 16.17, 23.24 shows that the theme ofObad. 6 // Jer. 49.10a is a Jeremianic theme: 'Can a man hide himselfin secret places so that I cannot see him? says the LORD'.

The evidence up till now strongly suggests that the parallel verseswere originally part of the book of Jeremiah; they may have beenwritten by the prophet Jeremiah. The vocabulary of the text, both inthe Obadiah version and in the Jeremiah version, betrays a Jeremianicbackground.2

1. Cf. De Jong, 'Hizkia en Zedekia', p. 148.2. Cf. my analysis of the background of the semantic fields and individual

phrases of Jer. 49.7-22 in the collection of oracles against the nations in Jer. 46-51in Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, pp. 125-32, 254-70.


3. DifferencesOften, the answer to the question which oracle is dependent on theother is sought for in an analysis of the differences between the twotexts. An important example of this approach are the sections devotedto Obadiah and Jer. 49.7-22 in B. Hartberger's study 'An den Wassernvon Babylon...'. Psalm 137 aufden Hintergrund von Jeremia 51, derbiblischen Edom-Traditionen und babylonischen Originalquellen.1 InHartberger's opinion, the differences indicate the priority of theObadiah text. In my view, this is not necessarily so. We shall herediscuss the most significant variants in parallel verses.

Obad. 1 and Jer. 49.14

We have heard tidings from the LORD' (Obad.) // 'I have heard tidingsfrom the LORD' (Jer.). 'Rise up! let us rise' (Obad.) // 'rise up! (Jer.).

Obad. 1 contains two forms with 1 pi., while Jer. 49.14 lacks both ofthem. Above, we noted that the same 'we have heard tidings' as inObad. 1 appears in Jer. 6.24. Here, we can add that in the samechapter in Jeremiah we find two occasions of the extra 'let us...', afterthe imp. 'rise up!' (Jer. 6.4, 5), both in a 'summons to war', as inObad. 1. Cf. also Jer. 31.6, in another context. The writer of Obadiahseems to have known other material in the book of Jeremiah (which isalso indicated by other data, cf. below).

Furthermore the difference in position of the phrase 'We/I haveheard tidings from the LORD' is striking. In Jer. 49.14 there is nodifficulty. In Obadiah, however, this phrase follows the line 'Thussays the Lord GOD concerning Edom'—after which an utterance ofthe audience ('we have heard...') comes unexpectedly. The associationof the two lines is illogical. Besides, the content is duplicated (thethings 'said' by God—his 'tidings'). The difficulty can be explained ifit is accepted that Obad. 1 is later than Jer. 49.14: the present form ofObad. 1 results from the combination of a necessary opening line forthe book of Obadiah with an already existing oracle.2

1. Hartberger, 'An den Wassern von Babylon', pp. 181-84 and 201-202.2. Cf. Weimar, 'Obadja', pp. 82-83.


Obad.2andJer.49.15

You shall be utterly ("mo anK) despised (Obadiah) // 'despised amongmen (m«3)' (Jeremiah).

Hartberger contends that the Obadiah version must be the originalone, but therefore has to assume a defective text, an accidental changeof consonants, and a later correction.1 In my view, the difference canmore easily be explained as literary variation (as e.g. in v. 1; cf. alsothe inversion in the order of the two similes in Obad. 5 and Jer.49.9). 2 This point of dissimilarity does not allow a conclusion on thedirection of the dependence.

Obad. 3 and Jer. 49.1 6a'The horror you inspire' ("jrix^sn)' is lacking in Obadiah. n^Dn is ahapax, the meaning of which is unclear. The fact that it is not used inObad. 3 might indicate that the writer of Obadiah consciously left itout.

'(You) who say in your heart, "Who will bring me down to theground?'" (Obad. 3) is lacking in\Jer. 49.16. This part of the verseshows, however, a remarkable resemblance with one of the otheroracles in Jer. 49: 49.4, against Ammon. It reads: '...saying: "Whowill come against me?'". Both are rhetorical questions, expressing the(false) feeling of confidence of the threatened nation. This specificform of a 'Hoffartsmonologe',3 the rhetorical question using 'who?',is unique among the oracles against the nations from the OldTestament for these two verses. This coincidence can be explainedwhen it is assumed that the writer of Obadiah used the oracle againstEdom in Jeremiah: then he is likely to have known the immediatecontext of that oracle as well.

1. Hartberger, 'An den Wassern von Babylon', p. 181.2. On inversion as a stylistic device when using other texts see, for example,

P.C. Beentjes, 'Jesus Sirach en Tenach' (dissertation, Nieuwegein, 1981), pp. 60-87 and idem, 'Inverted Quotations in the Bible. A Neglected Stylistic Pattern', Bib63 (1982), pp. 506-23; R.E. Friedman, The Exile and Biblical Narrative: TheFormation of the Deuteronomistic and Priestly Works (HSM, 22; Chico, CA:Scholars Press, 1981), p. 73.

3. P. Hoffken, 'Untersuchungen zu den Begriindungselementen derVolkerorakel des Alien Testaments' (dissertation, Bonn, 1977), pp. 206-43.


Obad. 4 and Jer. 49.16b

Though you soar aloft like the eagle, though your nest is set among thestars (Obadiah) // Though you make your nest as high as the eagle's(Jeremiah).

The RSV translation does not betray that the verse in Obadiah has acontrived construction. A more literal translation, however, doesshow that: 'Though you make high like the eagle, though among thestars is set—your nest'. 'Your nest' seems to belong both to theformer and to the latter half, first as object and then as subject.1

Several authors consider the second part to be an accretion.2 A simpleexplanation of this 'accretion' is that here, as in v. 3, Obadiah adds tothe Jeremiah version.

Hartberger sees an 'aberratio oculi' as the possible cause of themissing line in Jeremiah, or even 'eine gezielte Bearbeitung' inJeremiah.3 There is, however, no evidence to support this view.

Obad. 5 and Jer. 49.9The order of the two similes (grape gatherers and thieves) is differentin both texts. Nothing can be deduced from this for the question of thepriority. 'If thieves came to you, if plunderers by night—how youhave been destroyed!—would they not steal only enough forthemselves?' (Obadiah) // 'If thieves came by night, would they notdestroy only enough for themselves?' (Jeremiah).

The Obadiah version of this verse is longer than that of Jeremiah.In Obadiah, to the element 'by night' a sentence on its own is attached,and the same is the case with the element 'destroy' (note, however,that in Jer. 49.9 'destroy' is the translation of the verb nntf, hif., andin Obad. 5 of the verb noi, nif.). Parallel to the 'thieves', 'plunderers'(better, 'destroyers': Gmtf) appear. The Obadiah version has onemore line with D», 'if, and an extra sentence with "p», 'how'.P. Weimar (a.o.) regards these two lines as 'redaktionelle Bildung',because the preceding line and the following line together seem toconstitute a logical unity.4 In Obad. 5 in its present state, this unity isbroken.

1. Cf. Wehrle, Prophetic und Textanalyse, pp. 224-28.2. See, for example, Kellermann, Israel und Edom, p. 11; Wolff,

Dodekapropheton 3, p. 16; Weimar, 'Obadja', p. 46.3. Hartberger, 'An den Wassem von Babylon', p. 182.4. Weimar, 'Obadja', p. 47.


When it is seen on the one hand that Obad. 5(a) probably onceexisted in a shorter form, and that on the other hand that shorter formis also represented in Jer. 49.9, the most natural conclusion, in myopinion, is that the writer of Obad. 5 revised Jer. 49.9.

We see here the same type of extension as in Obad. 4: between two wordsof one sentence an addition has been put, creating a new sentence. 'Ifthieves (came) (/) by night' (Jer.) became: 'If thieves came/ if plunderersby night' (Obad.). In Obad. 4 is 'Though you make high like the eagle,/though among the stars is set—your nest' an extension from 'Though youmake high like the eagle (/) your nest' (Jer.) (literal translations).

Once again, the vocabulary indicates that the writer of Obad. 1-6worked within the Jeremianic tradition. The 'plunderers' (Dmtf) aretypical for the book of Jeremiah: see 12.12; 51.48, 53. In all casestheir 'coming' (»u) is foretold. Outside Jeremiah and Obadiah'plunderers' (pi.) only occur in Job 12.6. The 'coming' of one'plunderer' (pt. sg.) is the subject of Jer. 6.26; 48.8; 51.56 (outsideJeremiah: only in Job 15.21). Cf. in Jeremiah 15.8; 48.18, 32 for one'plunderer' without the 'coming' element.

The exclamation with "p», 'how', in Obad. 5 is paired with anotherexclamation with -pR in Obad. 6. The double exclamation with (twotimes) -p», 'how', is a form that only occurs in the book of Jeremiah,in the oracles against the nations: 48.39; 50.23; 51.41.

Obad. 6 and Jer. 49.10a

How Esau has been pillaged, his treasures sought out! (Obadiah) // But Ihave stripped Esau bare, I have uncovered his hiding places (Jeremiah).

The same idea—Edom ransacked—is expressed with other words.Above, we discussed the Jeremianic background of these lines. Theverbs 'to pillage', toan, and 'to strip bare', ^ton, are evidence ofliterary variation: they differ only in the order of their consonants.There is an obvious difference in meaning. It is interesting to see thatin both cases the second colon of the bicolon ties in with the meaningof the first colon. 'To uncover' (rfa) 'hiding places' (vinon) combineswith 'to strip bare'; in Jeremiah, Esau himself is found out. 'To seekout' (nm) 'treasures' (vjssn) fits in better with 'to pillage'; inObadiah, the emphasis is on Esau's possessions.


Here, we reach the end of the common part. The last part ofJer. 49.10a 'and he is not able to conceal himself is lacking inObadiah, as well as the rest of v. 10.

Against Hartberger, I do not think that the differences betweenObad. 1-6 and Jer. 49.14-16, 9-10 are to be explained as accidental,the result of an imperfect copying of the oracle. The evidencestrongly suggests a free and creative use of the original text for com-posing a new text. Indeed we can find examples of 'Varianz einzelnerWorter unter Verwendung qualitativ ahnlicher Radikale',1 but thesecan also—and easier—be explained as conscious literary variation.

4. Formal AspectsObad. 5-6 consists of three sentences with DM ('if'), two with Ml^n('not...?'), and two with "p» ('how...?'), arranged in this pattern: 1.DM + DM + -pM + Mi^n / 2. DM + Mibn + ~pK. The Mi^n returns in v. 8.Compare the Jeremiah parallel (49.9-10a): 1. DM + »6 / 2. DM / 3. »3.

In Obad. 1-6 the verses 4-5 contain a series of five sentences withDM ('though' or 'if'). The parallel verses in Jer. 49.16, nine containonly two sentences with DM (49.9; cf. the conditional o in 49.16).

Jeremiah 49 has a far less structured text. Now it seems to me thatgiving an existing text a more rigid structure is quite an understand-able procedure. Less understandable is the reverse procedure: whywould a writer remove most of the structural elements? It is equallyimprobable that these would have been left out accidentally.

A series of five sentences with DM is also found in Amos 9 (vv. 2-4).2 This is particularly relevant since in the Masoretic version of theBook of the Twelve, Amos 9 precedes Obadiah. In Chapter 5, section3, it will be argued that the author of Obadiah depended here onAmos.

3. Obadiah 7-8 and Jeremiah 49.7

While with Obad. 1-6 it is very clear that there must be some connec-tion with Jer. 49.7-22, this is much less so with Obad. 7-8, whichverses only vaguely resemble Jer. 49.7.

1. Hartberger, 'An den Wassem von Babylon', p. 201.2. Cf. Chapter 2, section 3.


Obadiah Jeremiah 497d... there is no understanding in it. 7 Thus says the LORD of hosts:8 Will I not on that day, says the 'Is wisdom no more in Teman?LORD, destroy the wise men out of Has counsel perished from the sonsEdom, [RSV: prudent]?and understanding out of Mount Has their wisdom vanished?'Esau?

At a closer inspection, it is seen that both texts follow the samepattern. Jer. 49.7 consists of three cola describing the end of Edom'swisdom. Taken together, the last colon of Obad. 7 and Obad. 8 showalso three sentences, with the same theme. Even the prepositions usedare the same. In both texts, the second sentence uses another word forwisdom/wise than the first sentence, while the third sentence repeatsthe word used the first.

The saying in Jer. 49.7 seems to be the original context of theshared elements. The combination of the three rhetorical questions ina unity must be original. The three questions in Jer. 49.7 open theoracle against Edom. In the same way the preceding oracle in ch. 49opens (see 49.1). In 48.2, the same theme as in 49.7 is found at thebeginning of the oracle against Moab (the end of the nation's positiveattributes: 'the renown of Moab is no more [TID ]>»]' — cf. 49.7). InObadiah, the elements are divided over two separate verses. The firstquestion of the three serves (as an affirmative sentence) as the conclu-sion of v. 7 and indeed of vv. 1-7, the other two are the introductionof vv. 8-10(8-15).

In an article on Jer. 49.7 // Obad. 7-8 I examined the idiom, con-nection with the immediate context, and theme of both texts, andevaluated the differences between them.1 The results confirm the con-clusion reached here, viz. that Jer. 49.7 must be the original version,

1. A. Dicou, 'Geen wijsheid meer in Edom. Jeremia 49,7 en Obadja 7-8',ACEBT9(19W, pp. 90-96.

1.

2.

Jer. 49.7 Obad. 7 Obad. 8

3.


and that this verse was used by the writer of Obadiah.The first part of Obad. 7 (a-c) resembles Jer. 38.22 and also in this

case the most likely explanation is that the writer of Obadiah knewand used Jeremiah texts.1

4. Obadiah 16 and Jeremiah 49.12

Both Obad. 16 and Jer. 49.12 use the topic: the forced drinking of(the cup of) God's wrath.

Obadiah Jeremiah 4916 For as you have drunk upon my 12 If those who did not deserve toholy mountain, drink the cup must drink it, will youall the nations shall drink continually go unpunished? You shall not go

unpunished, but you must drink.

Although the wording in both verses is different, the corres-pondence is of relevance, because this general prophetic topic is onlyin these two verses connected with an oracle against Edom (but cf.Lam. 4.21, also concerning Edom).

Can we assume that one of the verses is dependent on the other?First, it can be observed that Jer. 49.12 was modelled after Jer. 25.28-29. The two passages are highly parallel.2 In 49.12, the remarks inch. 25 on 'the nation that refuses to drink' have been applied toEdom.3

Then, there is a similarity between Obad. 16 and Jer. 25.15-29: inboth texts, all nations will have to drink—like Judah before them (seeespecially Jer. 25.29). This too is a conception that is not found out-side Obadiah and Jeremiah. It is likely that the author of Obadiahborrowed it from Jeremiah 25.

How is the evidence to be interpreted? One possibility is that thewriter of Obadiah knew both Jer. 25.15-29 and 49.12, the other, thatthe application of Jer. 25.28-29 to Edom, in Jer. 49.12, was inspiredby Obad. 16—a verse in which Jer. 25.28-29 had been made to servein a prophecy on Edom. Since in this chapter the author of Obadiahhas been proven to have used Jer. 49.7-22 as well as other Jeremiah

1. Cf., for example, Bewer, Obadiah and Joel, p. 24; differently, Wehrle,Prophetic und Textanalyse, p. 249 n. 277.

2. Cf. below, Chapter 6, section 2.1.3. Cf. e.g. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 127-30; Dicou, Jakob en Esau,

Israel en Edom, pp. 138-39.


texts, it seems most natural to choose the first possibility, and to acceptthat Obad. 16 is later that Jer. 49.12.

5. Obadiah andEzekiel

A general correspondence between the two oracles is that both give adetailed description of Edom's reprovable behaviour at the time ofIsrael's annihilation by the hands of its enemies (Ezek. 35.5, 10-15;Obad. 10-14). Both in Ezekiel and Obadiah, the main reasons for thejudgment are Edom's joy over Israel's downfall (Ezek. 35.15; Obad.12) and its taking sides with the enemy in order to profit from thesituation. This in contrast to the other two major oracles against Edom(Isa. 34; Jer. 49.7-22), which do not mention Edomite hostilitiesagainst Israel.

Besides, both Ezekiel (36.1-15) and Obadiah (vv. 17-21) discussIsrael's restoration, which comes after YHWH has administered hispunishment to Edom. Both elaborate on the issue of the restoration ofIsrael's land (which was in danger of being appropriated by othernations) as the dwelling place of the returning Israelites. In Obadiahthe verb 'to possess' (eh') is used in vv. 17, 18, 19 and 20: the exiles(southern as well as northern) will regain possession of their land;other nations will be taken possession of themselves (see vv. 19, 20;cf. v. 17: 'possession', ehin). In Ezek. 35.10 we find Israel's opponents('Mount Seir') as the subjects of the verb: they have taken possessionof the land (both parts; cf. Obad. 18, 19).1 In the same context thenoun nehin is used in 36.2, 3, 5, there not only with respect to Edombut also to the other nations 'round about'. In Ezek. 36.12 it ispromised that the Israelites will return to their land and possess it.

There are also some striking idiomatic links between Obadiah andEzekiel 35 (and 36.1-15).

1. The expression 'magnify (oneself with) one's mouth' ("ru hif.+ ns) is shared by Obad. 12 (RSV: 'boast') and Ezek. 35.13.In the Old Testament, 'magnify' C?ia hif.) is linked with'mouth' (ns) only in these two verses. It would be quiteremarkable if two oracles against Edom both contained thisuncommon expression without there being a literary relation.

1. On the Northern and the Southern Kingdom in Obad. 18, 19-20 cf. above,Chapter 1, section 3.


2. 'In the day of their/his calamity' (ITK/DTK nva) occurs threetimes in Obad. 13; cf. Ezek. 35.5: 'at the time of theircalamity' (DTK run). Both are referring to the time ofIsrael's ruin. In the prophetic books, the word 'calamity'(TK) is used, besides Obad. 13 and Ezek. 35.5, only in thebook of Jeremiah (five times). Once again, it is ratherimprobable that two writers of an oracle against Edomindependently used the same infrequent expression.

3. Four times, Obadiah uses, instead of the name 'Edom','Mount Esau' (itoi> "in; vv. 8, 9, 19, 21). In Ezek. 35 Edom isalmost exclusively called 'Mount Seir' CVJ>(D in; vv. 2, 3, 7,15). In both oracles, these phrases function in an opposition:with 'Mount Zion' and 'the mountains of Israel' respectively(Obad. [16], 17, 21 and Ezek. 35.12; 36.1, 4, 6, 8). In theprophetic books, the land of Edom is only here indicated as a'Mount', while 'Mount Esau' does not occur outside theprophetic books either. Here too we can suspect that one textinfluenced the writer of the other.

The correspondence between the two texts and especially theidiomatic links prove that one of them must have been used by theother. The direction of the dependence is more difficult to assess. BothObadiah and Ezekiel speak of 'the time/day of their calamity' whilereferring to Israel's catastrophe. Jer. 17.18 reads, exactly like Obad.13, 'in the day of their calamity' (DTK Dm), referring to the sameevent.

In view of the fact that the writer of Obadiah also in other parts ofhis book proves to know his way around Jeremiah texts (or theJeremiah tradition), it is possible that the phrase concerned was origi-nally found in Obadiah, and later copied to Ezekiel. The writer ofEzekiel 35 is known to have used other oracles as well.1 In v. 5 thephrase 'perpetual enmity' goes back to Ezek. 25.15; 'the time of theirfinal punishment' also occurs in Ezek. 21.30, 34. He may have chosen'the time of their calamity' (instead of Obadiah's 'day'), because hehad already decided to use 'the time of their final punishment' fromEzekiel 21. On the other hand, the affinity of language and themes ofEzekiel's book with the book of Jeremiah has often been noticed,2 so it

1. Cf. above, Chapter 3, section 3.2.2. M. Burrows, The Literary Relations of Ezekiel (New Haven, 1925), pp. 3-


is not at all surprising to find a Jeremianic expression in an Ezekieltext.

Other evidence seems to point to Obadiah's dependence on Ezekiel35. As regards the 'Mount/mountains' correspondence, one of thetexts must have provided the writer of the other with the idea ofopposing the two nations as two 'mountains'. In Chapter 3, it wassuggested that the choice for 'Mount Seir' was inspired by the use of'mountains of Israel' in other parts of the book of Ezekiel. This wouldexplain the use of an expression for Edom's land which only occursoutside the prophetic books. Moreover, if it were accepted thatEzekiel influenced Obadiah, the otherwise singular use of 'MountEsau' in Obadiah could be explained. The author of Obadiah may havewanted to use both the 'mountain' phrase (for his opposition ofEdom's land and 'Mount Zion') and the name 'Esau'. (From otherparts of his book it can be seen that the author wanted to presentEdom as 'Esau', Israel's 'brother'; see e.g. v. 10.)

The way the judgment is motivated is another indication that thedirection of influence was from Ezekiel to Obadiah. In the oraclesagainst the nations, judgment is usually not based on specific actions.Most of them mention only such general sins as pride or confidence inown force as the reason for YHWH to destroy the nation concerned.Such a motivation as in Obad. 10-14 and Ezekiel 35 is exceptional. Itoccurs, however, also in Ezek. 25.1-26.6.'

A surprising part of the oracle against Edom in Ezek. 25.12-14 isthat YHWH is going to allow Israel to take revenge on Edom. Thisprocedure is very unusual in the oracles against the nations, but it isalso implied in Obad. 18. There, the Israelites will be the 'fire' and'flame' that set the 'stubble' of the house of Esau afire. The thesis ofObadiah's dependence on Ezekiel would explain the connection.

A last observation, but not an unimportant one, is that the links

15 and 44-47; J.W. Miller, Das Verhdltnis Jeremias und Hesekiels, sprachlich undtheologisch untersucht (Assen, 1955); S. Herrmann, Die prophetischen Heilser-wartungen im Alien Testament. Ursprung und Gestaltwandel (BWANT, 85;Stuttgart, 1965), pp. 284-85 and idem, 'Die Bewaltigung der Krise Israels.Bemerkungen zur Interpretation des Buches Jeremiah', in H. Conner et al. (eds.),Beitrage zur alttestamentlichen Theologie (Fs W. Zimmerli; Gottingen, 1977),pp. 164-65; T.M. Raitt, A Theology of Exile. Judgment/Deliverance in Jeremiah andEzekiel (Philadelphia, 1977).

1. Cf. Chapter 2, section 4. See also Chapter 5, section 4. Cf. Geyer,'Mythology and Culture'; Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, pp. 90-92.


between Ezekiel 35 and Obadiah were found both in the supposedolder parts of Ezekiel 35 (e.g. v. 5) and the supposed secondary parts(e.g. v. 13).1 Obadiah appears to depend on the composition Ezekiel35-36, not on some earlier version of the text.

6. Conclusion

The findings of this chapter can be summarized as follows: the writerof Obadiah copied and refashioned the oracle against Edom that hehad found in (some version of) the book of Jeremiah; he used Jer.49.9-lOa, 14-16 without changing much of the text; he gave a freeinterpretation of Jer. 49.7; he was probably inspired by v. 12; theoracle against Mount Seir in Ezek. 35 too served as a source,especially for the second part of the book (Obad. 8-15).

The discussion on the relationship between Obadiah and Jer. 49.7-22 will be continued in Chapter 6, there within the scope of theliterary history of the book of Obadiah.

1. Cf. Chapter 3, section 2.3.

Chapter 5

PARALLELS: 2. OBADIAH AND JOEL/AMOS

1. Introduction

In Chapter 2, correspondences with other books in the Book of theTwelve were discussed. This chapter attempts to arrive at somediachronic conclusions.

2. Joel

Most of the parallels with the book of Joel are found in Obad. 15a,16-18. The formula 'For the day of the LORD is near' (Obad. 15a)appears several times in Joel, and once, as in Obadiah, with referenceto the nations (Joel 4.14). The coming of the 'day of the LORD' is alsomentioned in Joel 1.15 (in the same words as in 4.14 and Obad. 15);2.1 ('for the day of the LORD is coming, it is near'); 2.II.1 Obadiah ismore specific than Joel: Joel has a general 'day of the LORD', whereasObadiah speaks of the 'day of the LORD upon all the nations'.

Obad. 16-18 has parallels with Joel 4.17; 3.5; 2.3, 5; 4.8. An elabo-rate description of the parallels is given in S. Bergler's dissertation onJoel.2 The majority of the scholars commenting on the relationshipbetween Obadiah and Joel hold that the Obadiah version is the originalone.3 In my opinion, however, the evidence seems to support thepriority of Joel.4

1. On the use and the background of the formula 'the day of the LORD is near',cf. H. Irsigler, Gottesgericht und Jahwetag. Die Komposition Zef 1,1-2,31, unter-sucht aufder Grundlage der Literarkritik des Zefanjabuches (ATSAT, 3; St Ottilien,1977), pp. 319-47.

2. Bergler, Joel als Schrlftinterpret, pp. 295-333.3. See, for example, the survey in Wehrle, Prophetie und Textanalyse, p. 14;

cf. Bergler, Joel als Schriftinterpret, pp. 295-96.4. Cf. W. Rudolph, Joel-Amos-Obadja-Jona (KAT, XIII.2; Gutersloh, 1971),

p. 297.

5. Parallels: 2. Obadiah and Joel/Amos 75

We shall first have a closer look at the parallel texts.

Obad. 16-17 Joel16 For as you have drunk upon my 4.17 (cf. 2.1)... in Zion/holy mountain... (on) my holy mountain...17 But in Mount Zion 3.5... for in Mount Zion and inthere shall be those that escape Jerusalem shall be those who escape(no''?*) rrnn |vs inm), (nD'ba rrnn...iv*-Tm '3),and it shall be holy; 4.17 And Jerusalem shall be holy...and the house of Jacob shallpossess their own possessions.

The contents of the two distinct verses Joel 4.17 and 3.5 appeartogether in Obad. 16-17. As for Joel 4.17, the use of 'my holymountain' ('tfnp "in) would not be enough to infer that a literaryrelationship exists, although it is a phrase of limited occurrence.1 Butthe expression: Mount Zion/Jerusalem 'shall be holy' (Bhp rpm/nrrm)—which is found in the same verse—is unique for Obad. 17 andJoel 4.17. These verses must be related.2

Obad. 17a and Joel 3.5b are very similar; Joel only contains an extra'in Jerusalem'. Since Joel continues with 'as the LORD has said', manyscholars think that the author here explicitly quotes Obad. 17. How-ever, this view has not gone undisputed. Below, we shall discuss why.

Obadiah 18 Joel18 The house of Jacob shall be a 2.3 Fire devours (*»K) before them,fire, and the house of Joseph a and behind them a flame burns,flame, 2.5... like the crackling of a flameand the house of Esau stubble; of fire devouring the stubble...they shall burn them and consume(•»*) them,and there shall be no survivor 2.3... and nothing escapes(Tito rrir-RVi) to the house of Esau; (nrrn-K1? no^-DJi) them,for the LORD has spoken. 4.8... for the LORD has spoken.

In Joel 2.3 and 2.5 the image of a fire is used to describe theonrushing troops of the enemy nation which appear on 'the day of theLORD' (2.1). In 1.19-20 it occurs in another sense. In Obadiah thisimage is used for 'the house of Jacob' taking its possessions (see the

1. Outside Joel and Obadiah: Isa. 11.9 // 65.25; 56.7; 57.13; 65.11; 66.20;Ezek. 20.40; Zeph. 3.11; Ps. 2.6.

2. See for the conception of Jerusalem as a 'holy city' e.g. Isa. 48.2; 52.1; cf.Coggins, 'Judgment between Brothers', pp. 92-93.


last sentence of v. 17, and cf. vv. 19-20). The words for 'fire', 'flame','stubble', 'consume/devour' are the same in both books"PDR).1 The detail that no one will escape the fire is also shared; cf. thesimilar sentence structures.2 The sentence Obad. 18 concludes with(which is also found in Joel) is not very common. In the propheticbooks, ITI nirr »3 only occurs in four other places (Isa. 1.2; 22.25;25.8; Jer. 13.15).

Interesting is the use of 'survivor' (into) instead of the 'escape'(nerâ) from Joel. Joel 3.5, the parallel of Obad. 17, mentions both'survivors' and 'escape'; it may have inspired the variation.

In Obadiah the remark on the absence of any survivors of the fire(v. 18 // Joel 2.3) has been made to reflect directly the possibility ofescape on Mount Zion (v. 17 // Joel 3.5). While the house of Jacobwill be restored after the day of judgment, the house of Esauexpressly will not. The two separate verses Joel 2.3 and 3.5 are here,in Obad. 17-18, connected, and, what is more, placed in the service ofthe opposition that determines Obad. 8-21. Together, they reflectv. 14, in which it is said that 'those who escaped' (D'D>l?a RSV:'fugitives') and the 'survivors' (nnnto) in the 'day' of Israel's'distress' become the victims of the Edomites. On the 'day of theLORD' Israelite fugitives, once in fear of being killed or delivered upby Edomites, will be safe on Mount Zion, while no one of theEdomites, now when they are the threatened ones, will escape.3

As stated above, the use of 'as the LORD has said' in Joel 3.5b, in averse that is quite similar to Obad. 17a, has often led to the supposi-tion that in the former verse, the latter is being quoted.4 It is, how-

1. Although the image of burning stubble is quite frequent, the four words usedin Obad. 18 and Joel 2.3, five occur together only in one other text (Isa. 5.24),which proves that we find here a real parallel. This is confirmed by the fact that onlyin Obadiah and Joel is the image used for the confrontation between nations. InExod. 15.7; Isa. 5.24; 47.14; Nah. 1.10; Mai. 3.19; Ps. 83.14-15, the confrontationis between YHWH and the nation (or persons) concerned.

2. This detail with the image of burning stubble (cf. previous note) is specificfor Obadiah and Joel.

3. Cf. Coggins, 'Judgment between Brothers', p. 94.4. See, for example, U. Masing, Der Prophet Obadja. I: Einleitung in das Buch

des Propheten Obadja (Tartu, 1937), pp. 128-30 (with review preceding literature);Wolff, Dodekapropheton 2, p. 81; J. Day, 'Prophecy', in D.A. Carson andH.G.M. Williamson (eds.), It is Written. Scripture Citing Scripture (Fs B. Lindars;Cambridge, 1988), p. 49.


ever, rather unusual in the prophetic literature—although it is verycommon to use other prophets' words—that quotations are marked.This would be the only instance.1 Why would the fact that the authorquoted another text have been stated explicitly exactly here? 'As theLORD has said' can also be taken to mean that the preceding sentencebelongs to a well-known general prophetic tradition, which the earlyreaders must have recognized.2 Another possibility is that thissentence does not serve to indicate a quotation, but to link up with theconcluding verses of the preceding chapter (2.26-27), which alsoproclaimed that YHWH's nation ('my nation', 2.26, 27; 'all who callupon the name of the LORD', 3.5) will further be safe.3 The same ideais expressed in 4.16b-17. Above, the correspondence between 3.5,4.17, and Obad. 17 was observed. Joel 3.5 and 4.16b-17 share, inaddition to the idea of YHWH's protection of Israel at the time ofdoom (cf. 3.4 and 4.15), the significant combination of 'Zion' and'Jerusalem'.4 Joel 3.5 might, therefore, even be regarded as a'quotation' of 4.16b-17 (at least, it may have been regarded as such bythe one who wrote 'as the LORD has said'5).

Apart from this intriguing little sentence, a comparison suggests thepriority of Joel.

1. Obad. 16-17 is a logical unity. 'Mount Zion' (v. 17), designatedbefore as 'my holy mountain' (v. 16), is going to be a safe place whenYHWH will make the nations drink his cup; as such, it will be 'holy'.If the author of Joel had been the one who used the other prophet'sbook, he would have had to deconstruct Obad. 16-17 in a ratherradical way. The most important part, the 'drinking' of the nations,was not used, and what was left, he divided over two places. It is morelikely that the author of Obadiah took the two verses from Joel inorder to combine them. The more so because the idea of the nationsdrinking the cup after Israel has drunk it, was probably borrowed

1. Not counting the prophetic narrative in Jer. 26, in which 'certain of the eldersof the land' (v. 17) quote an oracle of 'Micah of Moresheth' (v. 18).

2. Cf. van der Meer, 'Oude woorden worden nieuw', pp. 201-202. See e.g.Isa. 37.22 // 2 Kgs 19.31; cf. Schneider, 'Book of the Twelve', p. 77.

3. Cf. Rudolph, Joel-Amos-Obadja-Jona, pp. 73-74, whose view is followedby Schneider, 'Book of the Twelve', pp. 96-97; Prinsloo, Book of Joel, p. 90 (andcf. p. 89 n. 48).

4. Cf. van der Meer, 'Oude woorden worden nieuw', pp. 201-202.5. According to Prinsloo, Book of Joel, p. 89 n. 48, this sentence is possibly a

'redactional addition'.


from the book of Jeremiah.1 It seems that here the author of Obadiahassembled several texts from other prophetic books, creativelystringing them together into a new unity.

2. In Obad. 18 the fire/flame/stubble simile is woven into a textwhich connects it with Obadiah's main theme, the retribution forEsau's mistreating his brother. This seems to point to the priority ofthe Joel version. Otherwise, the author of Joel would have had toloosen the image out of all the references to the Jacob-Esau opposi-tion. However, if the direction of influence is as we presume, theauthor of Obadiah did not need to change texts in this way. In Joelthere are no details connected with the image which had to beremoved. The author of Obadiah had only to apply the image to histheme.

The most striking feature of Obad. 18 is the fourfold use of 'houseof...': 'house of Jacob' (also used in the preceding verse), 'house ofJoseph', and twice 'house of Esau'. It is more likely that the author ofObadiah added these names and phrases to texts from Joel than that theauthor of Joel made a general text out of this specific one. And onceagain, the author of Obadiah seems to have been inspired by otherprophetic texts as well. While 'house of Esau' is his own invention (cf.'Mount Esau', vv. 8, 9, 19, 21), the other two 'houses' may derivefrom Amos.

As discussed in Chapter 22 (and cf. below), there appears to exist arelationship between Amos 9 and Obadiah. Now, 'house of Jacob',which is further not at all frequent in the prophetic literature, alsooccurs in Amos 9.8 (and in 3.13).3 The first time this phrase occurs inObadiah is in v. 17: 'and the house of Jacob shall possess their ownpossessions'. Edom is the first victim (v. 18; cf. vv. 19-20). Comparewith this Amos 9.12: 'that they [the restored Israel, BD] may possessthe remnant of Edom and all the nations who are called by my name'.4

'House of Joseph' too is an infrequent phrase, which is found, though,in the book of Amos (5.6; cf. 5.15; 6.6 'Joseph').5 The evidence

1. As was argued above, Chapter 4, section 4.2. Sections 3 and 4.3. Further: Isa. 2.5, 6; 8.17; 10.20; 14.1; 29.22; 46.3; 48.1; 58.1; Jer. 2.4.;

5.20; Ezek. 20.5; Mic. 2.7; 3.9.4. Cf. Weimar, 'Obadja', p. 94.5. In prophetic literature it occurs in one other place only (Zech. 10.6); else-

where 10 times. Cf. Weimar, 'Obadja', p. 95; Wehrle, Prophetic und Textanalyse,

5. Parallels: 2. Obadiah and JoeUAmos 79

strongly suggests that the author of Obadiah knew the book of Amos,just as he appears to have known the books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel.

It can be concluded that the sentence 'and the house of Jacob shallpossess their own possessions' at the end of Obad. 17 was inspired byAmos, and that the expressions 'house of Jacob' and 'house of Joseph'in Obad. 18 too derive from the book that precedes Obadiah in theTwelve.

In itself, this dependence on Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Amos does notnecessarily mean that Obadiah is dependent on Joel as well. Whatpleads in favour of this, however, is that the parts Obad. 15-18 has incommon with Jeremiah and Amos, are all absent in Joel. It is not easyto explain, if one accepts that Joel is the dependent one, why every-thing in Obad. 15-18 is used, except for the parts that are related toJeremiah and Amos. It is far more likely that the parts in commonderive from Joel. They were used in Obadiah along the material takenfrom the other prophets.

This general argument appears to confirm the conclusion reachedon the basis of the detailed comparison of the individual verses. Theevidence considered so far suggests the priority of Joel.

There is, however, a complicating factor. In Chapter 2, we dis-cussed the theories of P. Weimar and D.A. Schneider on the origin ofthe Book of the Twelve.1 In Weimar's view, Obadiah was written byseveral subsequent authors and editors. If he is right, one couldassume that during that history the direction of influence alternated.Schneider's theory too would account for mutual dependence; if theprophetic books now in the Book of the Twelve were all added to thegrowing collection shortly after their composition, mutual borrowingscould have occurred. Weimar accepts that Obadiah had become a partof the Book of the Twelve before it attained its present form; hepoints to signs of mutual dependence and redactional links between thevarious books within the Twelve (e.g. between Joel and Obadiah, andAmos and Obadiah).2

Therefore, we must investigate whether there is evidence of Joelborrowing from Obadiah. At least in one instance, Joel appears to

pp. 287-89. Although it occurs elsewhere as well (e.g. Jer. 31), the idea that northernIsrael will be restored together with Judah may be another example of Ezekiel'sinfluence on Obadiah—see Ezek. 37.15-28; cf. 35.10.

1. Weimar, 'Obadja'; Schneider, 'Book of the Twelve'; Chapter 2, section 1.2. Weimar, 'Obadja', pp. 88-89, 94-95, 95-99.


depend on Obadiah. In Joel 4.19 Edom is told that it will turn into adesolation 'for the violence (onnn) done to the people of Judah'. oonnwith genitivus obiectivus occurs also in Obad. 10, and, what is more:only there.1 As in Joel, the violence was directed against Israel ('Forthe violence done to your brother Jacob. . . '; Joel's phrase 'people ofJudah' appears in Obad. 12). It is evident that the verses are related.

Probably, the Obadiah version is the original one. In Obadiah, thefollowing verses make it clear what kind of violence is thought of:Edom's hostility in the day of the fall of Jerusalem. In Joel, the readeris supposed to know what the remark refers to, for no details aregiven. Now, Joel 4.19 belongs to the parts in ch. 4 which are oftenthought of as a later addition to the book of Joel, vv. 4-8 and 18-21.2

If our observation on Obad. 10 // Joel 4.19 is correct, the author ofthe later parts in Joel must have known the book of Obadiah. The des-cription in Joel 4.4-8 of the crimes of Judah's neighbours and theretribution was probably inspired by a similar section in Obadiah(with respect to Edom; vv. 10-14, 15b).3

One element from Obad. 10-14, 15b is found twice in the secondaryparts of Joel 4:

Obadiah Joel15bp... your deed shall return (2TE) 4.4, 7 I will requite (meJ hif.) yourqal) on your own head. deed upon your own head.

The correspondence in terminology is significant: the combination'return/requite' (310) + 'deed' CPIDJ) + 'head' (tfri) only occurs in thesethree texts.4 This indicates that we find here a quotation from thebook of Obadiah. The parallel of Joel 4.8 with Obad. 18 we discussedabove ('for the LORD has spoken') can also be regarded as a quotationfrom Obadiah.

As for the older parts of the book of Joel, if we are right in posingthat the author of Obadiah knew and used these, their composition

1. Cf. Bergler, Joel ah Schriftinterpret, pp. 310-11. .2. Cf. for a recent defence of this view: van der Meer, 'Oude woorden worden

nieuw', pp. 210-12, 234-37, 262, 266-67. Van der Meer arrives at his conclusion onthe basis of an extensive formal analysis of the entire book of Joel (pp. 40-129).Even Bergler, Joel als Schriftinterpret, who argues for unity of the book of Joel,considers the possibility of these parts being secondary (p. 323).

3. Joel 4.4-8 is quite similar to Obad. 10-14, 15b: cf. above, Chapter 4, section2.

4. Cf. Wehrle, Prophetic und Textanalyse, p. 281.


date provides us with a terminus a quo for the date of Obadiah.Unfortunately, even the century in which Joel's work has to besituated is a moot point. Proposals vary from the ninth to the secondcentury BCE.1

However, the 'later parts' in Joel suggest that both Joel and Obadiahin their present forms were probably not written very long after theexilic period, since both Joel 4.4-8, 18-21 and its source in Obad. 10-14, 15b concentrate on the fall of Jerusalem and the ensuing con-frontation with the nations around Judah.2

The joint occurrence of Egypt and Edom in Joel 4.19 has beenvariously explained. Some maintain that these nations are the typicalenemies in texts on the 'day of YHWH'.3 Others argue that the mentionof Egypt together with Edom has historical roots: both nations aban-doned Judah unexpectedly when Nebuchadnezzar came to destroy it.Before, they had posed as allies (cf. Jer. 27; Ezek. 29).4

In Chapter 2 (section 4), we compared the last verses of Joel (4.18-21) and those of Obadiah (vv. 19-21). Here, we can add that Obadiah'sending, like Joel's, is generally regarded as a later appendage. It isnoteworthy that in Obad. 19-20 the Edomites, the Philistines and thePhoenicians appear together—all of these nations are present in thelater parts in Joel, 4.4-8, 19-21. In both cases the action againstIsrael's neighbours takes place in the context of Israel's return to itsland (Obad. 19-20; Joel 4.7, 20).5

1. Cf. overview in Prinsloo, Book of Joel, pp. 5-8. Two recent studies:Bergler, Joel als Schriftinterpret, pp. 363-65: fourth century BCE; van der Meer,'Oude woorden worden nieuw', pp. 265-66: end seventh/beginning sixth centuryBCE.

2. Cf. on Joel: van der Meer, 'Oude woorden worden nieuw', pp. 214-16,236-37; on Obadiah: Wehrle, Prophetic und Textanalyse, p. 362 (with most of thepresent-day scholars; cf. survey pp. 9-12).

3. Cf. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 2, p. 101, who mentions Ezek. 30.3ff; Jer.46.2ff, 10; Isa. 34.6-7, 8; Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 208-209. Bergler, Joelals Schriftinterpret, pp. 327-333 advocates a typological reading, derived from hisinterpretation of the book of Joel (exodus-typology).

4. Cf. Hartberger, 'An den Wassern von Babylon', pp. 161-62 (in n. 259 shediscusses and rejects Wolffs view [cf. my previous note]), pp. 200-201; van derMeer, 'Oude woorden worden nieuw', pp. 241-42. Rudolph, Joel-Amos-Obadja-Jona, pp. 74-79 and Schneider, 'Book of the Twelve', pp. 75-76 assert that thecombination of Edom and Egypt makes sense in late pre-exilic times.

5. Cf. Bergler, Joel als Schriftinterpret, pp. 316-18.


We may infer from the correspondence that both texts stem fromabout the same time.1 If our considerations on the date of Joel 4.4-8,18-21 are accurate, this means that the Obadiah appendage too musthave been written in the sixth century BCE, or at least, not long after-wards. The Amos appendage (9.13-15), in which one verse (9.13) isparallel to a verse in the Joel appendage (4.18), may stem from thesame time as the other two. Possibly the three appendages were com-posed together, in the context of a common edition of the threeprophetic books.

3. Amos

Above, in the section on Joel, data were discussed which pointed todependence of Obad. 15-18 on texts in Amos 9 and other parts of thebook of Amos. Here, the diachronic implications of the corres-pondence (discussed in Chapter 2) between Obad. 4-6 and Amos 9.2-4will be considered.

Like Obad. 4-5, Amos 9.2-4 uses a series of five sentences with DM,which form is found nowhere else. Furthermore, the two texts have asimilar theme (and use partly the same words): if YHWH is after hisenemies, it will be impossible for them to hide and be safe.'If'/'though' (DK) one tries to flee or to hide himself somewhere,YHWH will get him 'from there' (Dtfa, also five times; cf. Obad. 4 //Jer. 49.16).

Amos 9.2b, 3 in particular are similar to Obad. 4-5 and its parallelsin Jer. 49.9-lOa, 16. Amos 9.2b: 'though they climb up to heaven,from there I will bring them down' (cf. Obad. 4 // Jer. 49.16). Amos9.3: 'Though they hide themselves (Rnn, cf. Jer. 49.10)...and thoughthey hide ("ino, cf. Jer. 49.10) from my sight...' The use of the verbtoan, 'to search out', in Amos 9.3 is significant too. It is found inObad. 6 (RSV: 'to pillage') and further in only one other place in theprophetic books.

It is clear that between the two texts some connection exists. Did theauthor of Obadiah use Amos, or was it the other way round? Weimarcontends that the last phases in the origin history of Obadiah tookplace within the Book of the Twelve, and asserts that its last redactorslinked it with Amos 9. In his view, one of the ways in which they

1. Cf. Bergler, Joel ah Schriftinterpret, pp. 316-17.


pursued this goal was adapting the form and content of Amos 9.2-4 toObadiah.1

In my view, however, the opposite is more likely. As for theparallels of Obad. 4-6 with Jeremiah, we have concluded thatJeremiah contains the original version, which was used by the writerof Obadiah. Now, the Obadiah version is the longer one. It containstwo extra conditional clauses compared to Jeremiah: 'though your nestis set among the stars' (v. 4), and 'if plunderers by night' (v. 5), bothbeginning with DR. These clauses do not add new information, butmore or less repeat the preceding lines—the one parallelled inJeremiah ('Though you soar aloft like the eagle', and 'If thieves cameto you' respectively). The thesis of Obadiah's dependence on Amosprovides an answer to the question why the Jeremiah version wasextended in this way: the author of Obadiah wanted to build a series offive sentences with DM like in Amos 9.2-4. (The Jeremiah version con-tained only three conditional sentences.) This would also explain thechange of the conditional '3 of Jer. 49.16 in DK in Obad. 4.

Secondly, the choice for the infrequent verb tosn, 'to pillage', inObad. 6 can be explained as induced by the use of the same word inAmos 9.3 (RSV: 'to search out'). The author of Obadiah used this verbinstead of the similar-looking verb ^fon—which, however, has a quitedifferent meaning ('to lay bare')—in Jer. 49.10a.2

We have just mentioned the similarity in vocabulary between Jer.49.10a and Amos 9.3. The words for 'hide'/'hiding place' correspond(Jer. 49.10: "inon, nan; Amos 9.3: nan, nno). Strikingly, these wordsare not used in Obad. 6. But their occurrence in Amos 9.3, within apassage with a similar theme as Obad. 4-6 // Jer. 49.16, 9-10, mayhave been the motivation for the author of Obadiah to adapt the oracleto Amos 9.2-4.

To sum up: the differences in form, length and vocabulary betweenObadiah and Jeremiah in these verses can be explained as ensuingfrom the effort of the author of Obadiah to conform his text—orrather Jeremiah's text—to Amos 9.2-4. Consequently, it can beinferred that the prophecy of Obadiah was written with an eye to itsinclusion within the Book of the Twelve (or some earlier version ofthat).

If we are right in assuming that Obadiah is secondary compared to

1. Weimar, 'Obadja', p. 89 with n. 157; pp. 94-95.2. Cf. above, Chapter 4, section 2.3.


Amos 9, the composition date of the latter will provide the terminus aquo for the former. But when was Amos 9 composed?

It has often been recognized that Amos's language bears greatresemblance to Jeremiah's language. The meaning of this fact, how-ever, has been variously interpreted. Most scholars think that Amospreceded Jeremiah. On the other hand, at least the last part of Amos 9(vv. 11-15) is generally considered to be late. Besides, one of theresults of Weimar's detailed literary- and redaction-critical analysis ofAmos 9 is that vv. 2 and 3-4a belong to the last, post-exilic, stages ofthe origin history of this chapter.1

In my opinion, our finding that both the theme of Amos 9.2-4 andthe repeated phrase 'from there' (Dtfn) are characteristic for the bookof Jeremiah,2 indicates that this passage depends on Jeremiah. Themore so because the phrasing of the theme in Amos 9.3 is quite simi-lar to that in Jer. 16.17 and 23.24.3 Amos 9.2-4 betrays a writer whois at home in the Jeremiah material and in the Jeremianic language—just like the writer of Obadiah.4

Unfortunately, this does not help us much further. What it boilsdown to is that, because Amos 9 in its present form originated underthe influence of Jeremiah, Obadiah must also be later than Jeremiah.

1. Weimar, 'Obadja', pp. 63-67, 77-78, 92-93; cf. I. Willi-Plein, Vorformender Schriftexegese innerhalb des Alien Testaments. Untersuchungen zum liter-arischen Werden der auf Amos, Hosea und Micha zuriickgehenden Biicher imhebrdischen Zwolfprophetenbuch (BZAW, 123; Berlin & New York, 1971),pp. 52-54.

2. Cf. Chapter 4, section 2, ad Obad. 3-4 // Jer. 49.16, and ad Obad. 6 //Jer. 49.10a.

3. Amos 9.3: 'though they hide from my eyes (RSV: sight)' /Jer. 16.17: 'they are not hid (rincM) from me, nor is their iniquity concealed from myeyes ('r» nan)'. Jer. 23.24: 'If (DK) a man hides himself (ino') in hiding places,would I not see him?' (RSV: 'Can a man hide himself in secret places so that I cannotsee him?').

4. Cf. J.M. Berridge, 'Jeremia und die Prophetic des Amos', TZ 35 (1979),pp. 327-28 on Amos 9.1-4; W.L. Holladay, 'Prototype and Copies. A NewApproach to the Poetry-Prose Problem in the Book of Jeremiah', JBL 79 (1960),p. 364 and W. Beyerlin, Reflexe der Amosvisionen im Jeremiabuch (OBO, 93;Freiburg [Schweiz] & Gottingen, 1989), p. 89 on Amos 9.4b. They, however, pre-sume that Amos 9.(l-)4 was Jeremiah's source, and not the other way round.


4. Joel 4, Amos 1 and Obadiah

Our next topic is the connection that appears to exist between theaccusations against Israel's neighbours in Joel 4.4-8, Amos 1 andObad. 10-15. In our discussion of these texts in Chapter 2, it wasremarked that in an oracle against a foreign nation realistic indict-ments are unusual, and it was shown that the use of these realistichistorical details is one of the issues connecting Joel 4, Amos 1-2 andObadiah.1 Not only the genre, but also the contents appeared to bepartly parallel.

In Chapter 4, it was argued that the use of realistic indictments inObadiah is probably due to influence from the book of Ezekiel.2

Combining this conclusion with our findings on the connectionsbetween Amos 1-2 and Obadiah, the most obvious inference seems tobe that the form of Amos 1-2 too was inspired by Ezekiel. A similarview is advocated by J.B. Geyer, who underscores the links betweenEzekiel 25-26 and Amos 1-2, and suggests that the composition of thetwo texts has the same background. That background may be that aneditor wanted to complement the book with oracles against the nations(or, with more oracles); in both cases, a collection of seven oraclesagainst the nations was formed.3 Outside Ezekiel 25-26 and Amos 1-2, this type of oracle is not found in the various prophetic collectionsof oracles against the nations.

As Geyer argues, we find here specimens of a new direction in thegenre. Apparently, Ezekiel functioned as a source book. The book ofEzekiel or the tradents of the Ezekiel material appear to haveadvanced the composition of new texts, and also the interpretation ofexisting prophetic books. Ezekiel served as a source for Obadiah, andit may also have influenced the composition of Amos 1 and Joel 4. Allthese texts accuse the nation concerned in the same way. They mahave been composed in each other's vicinity, possibly at about thesame time.

Besides the type of accusation, we observed a similarity in subjectmatter in Joel 4.4-8, Amos 1 and Obad. 10-15, as well as some

1. Chapter 2, section 4.2. Cf. Chapter 4, section 5.3. Cf. Geyer, 'Mythology and Culture', particularly pp. 138-41.


striking details all three passages share.1 As to Joel 4.4-8, it wasestablished that this passage is dependent on Obad. 10-15.2 Animportant difference between Joel and Obadiah is that Joel accuses notEdom but the Phoenicians and the Philistines (nations also occurringin the Obadiah appendage, vv. 19-20). As to Amos 1, it was shownthat in this text the Phoenicians and the Philistines are accused of thesame crime, which is, moreover, none other than the one mentionedin Joel 4.4-8.3 In Amos 1.6, 9 Edom is the accomplice of thesenations. The choice in Joel 4.4-8 for exactly these two nations mayhave been inspired by Amos 1 (it should be noted that Amos 1 andJoel 4 have another striking parallel: Amos 1.2a recurs literally inJoel 4.16). This is the more likely if Joel had already acquired itsplace in the canon, that is, before Amos.

The correspondences suggest that at some time the books of Joel,Amos and Obadiah were combined, and geared to each other with theaid of existing and new texts.4

5. Summary

In addition to the links between Obadiah and Amos 9, the chapterpreceding it in the canon, Obadiah appeared to be related to Amos'sfirst chapter as well, and also to the chapter preceding Amos 1, that isto say, Joel 4. Amos 1 and Joel 4 were seen to be related as well.Connections appeared to exist between the accusations against Israel'sneighbours in Joel, Amos and Obadiah, and also between their depic-tions of the 'future day', on which YHWH will restore Israel and judgethe nations. Moreover, both in Amos's oracle against Edom (1.11-12)and in Obadiah, Edom is called Israel's brother. In Joel 4, Edom(together with Egypt) is thought of as worthy of special attention asIsrael's typical enemy, just as in Obadiah. Amos 9.2-4 and otherdetails in Amos 9 were used by the author of Obadiah. It seems prob-able that at least parts of Joel, Amos and Obadiah did not originateindependently. As we have seen, the similarities between these bookscan partly be explained as quotations, but there are also signs of

1. Cf. Chapter 2, section 4.2. Above, section 2. Joel 4.19, like Joel 4.4-8 belonging to the secondary parts

of the book, appeared to betray knowledge of Obad. 10.3. Cf. Chapter 2, section 4.4. Cf. the conclusion of section 2.


mutual dependence, and data which indicate that editors linked thebooks.

Probably, Joel 4, Amos 1 and 9, and Obadiah in their present formswere composed in about the same period, not long after the composi-tion of Ezekiel 25-26 and 35, that is at the end of the exile (cf.Chapter 3).1

6. Conclusion

The findings of this chapter can be summarized as follows: (a) in thethird part of the book of Obadiah (vv. 15a, 16-21), Joel served as asource; (b) to a lesser degree, there is evidence of influence in theopposite direction (viz. Obad. 10-15 > Joel 4.4-8, 18-21) and ofredactional links between Joel 4 and Obadiah (Joel 4.4-8, 18-21;Obad. 19-20); these connections are found in the supposed secondaryparts of Joel; (c) ideas and forms from Amos 9 were used in Obad. 4-6 and 17, 18, 19-20 (cf. Amos 9.2-4, 8, 12); (d) the correspondence intype and theme between the indictments against Israel's neighbours inJoel 4, Amos 1 and Obadiah are partly due to the influence of thebook of Ezekiel, partly to Joel's dependence on Amos and Obadiah;and (e) the examples of mutual dependence mentioned thus farindicate that Joel, Amos and Obadiah were joined together beforetheir composition had been completed. The closing sections of thethree books may have been written at the same time, in the context ofa redaction of the Book of the Twelve.

1. The discussion on the date of Amos 1 will be resumed in Chapter 12.

Chapter 6

LITERARY HISTORY

1. Introduction

Important for an assessment of the literary history of the book ofObadiah is its relation with the oracle against Edom in Jer. 49.7-22.Though the author of Obadiah appears to have known and used otherprophetic texts as well, none of the parallels are as close as those withJeremiah.

Precisely because Obadiah and Jeremiah have several parallelverses, it is striking that entire parts of their oracles against Edom arenot parallel. One possible explanation for this situation is, that at onetime the Jeremianic oracle contained no more than the verses nowparallelled in Obadiah. An original, small, Jeremianic oracle againstEdom may have been worked out both by the author of Obadiah andthe editors of the Jeremiah material. In this chapter, we shall discussthe evidence for such an explanation.

After the examination of Jer. 49.7-22 and its connections withObadiah (section 2), an attempt can be made to establish the originhistory and development of the book of Obadiah (section 3).

2. The Oracle against Edom in Jeremiah 49.7-22

1. Edom's Role in Jeremiah 49.7-22In Chapter 1, we considered Edom's role as a type in the book ofObadiah. It was found that in the last part of the book, vv. 16-21,Edom acts as Israel's typical enemy, the nation that represents theother enemy nations. As will be seen, in Jer. 49.7-22 too Edom's roleis that of a type.

Unlike the oracles against Edom in Isaiah 34, Ezekiel 35 andObadiah, which are all situated outside existing collections oracles

6. Literary History 89

against the nations, Jer. 49.7-22 does not have an unusual position. Itis one of the oracles against the nations in chs. 46-51. Nevertheless,there are some indications that the estimation for Edom is not thesame as that for the other nations.1

The chs. 46-51 discuss the downfall of the nations in the vicinity ofIsrael. The reason for their downfall can be found in 25.1-11: YHWHhas decided to condemn his people for their sins. The Babyloniansserve as executors of his judgment. They will devastate the land ofIsrael—and, strikingly, the countries 'round about' (25.9). WhenYHWH judges and condemns even his own people, the other nationscannot keep out of harm's way (cf. 25.28-29). They will be annihi-lated as well. The following passage lists the nations concerned(25.15-29). Even Babylon itself will suffer this fate (25.12-14, 26; cf.chs. 50-51). All nations will have to drink YHWH's 'cup of the wineof wrath' (25.15, cf. vv. 27-28).

The theme of the cup appears in chs. 46-51 in two of the oraclesagainst the nations: those against Babylon (chs. 50-51) and Edom. In51.7-8 the situation is contemplated that the 'golden cup in the LORD'Shand, making all the earth drunken', which Babylon once was, nowhas been broken. In 49.12 Edom is shown as a nation that is told todrink this cup just like the other nations:

If those who did not deserve to drink the cup must drink it, will you gounpunished? You shall not go unpunished, but you must drink.

It is unclear who are 'those who did not deserve to drink the cup',but it is evident that here Edom plays the role of the nation thatrefuses to drink the cup from ch. 25. See 25.28-29:

And if they refuse to accept the cup from your hand to drink, then youshall say to them, 'Thus says the Lord of hosts: You must drink! Forbehold, I begin to work evil at the city which is called by my name, andshall you go unpunished? You shall not go unpunished'.

Not only v. 12, but also v. 13 points to ch. 25. For Israel, the effectof drinking the cup will be that it turns into 'a desolation and a waste,a hissing and a curse' (25.18); Edom will become 'a horror, a taunt, awaste, and a curse' (49.13). Such series of curse terms are quitefrequent outside chs. 46-51, but within them they only occur here and

1. Cf. Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, pp. 123-43.


in the oracles against Babylon (51.37; cf. v. 43).1 It should be notedthat vv. 12-13 stand apart in their context: they are in prose, whereasthe verses in the sections vv. 7-11 and 14-16 have a poetic structure.

An analysis of the vocabulary of Jer. 49.7-22 and its context (as Ihave carried out elsewhere) shows that 49.7-22 treats Edom on theone hand as just one of the nations, and on the other hand as rather anexceptional one.2 Some parts make the oracle fit very well in its con-text (namely, ch. 49).3 Other parts link it with oracles against Israeland, at the same time, the oracles against Babylon. An illustrativeexample is the above-mentioned v. 13. The various curse terms ontheir own as well as the expressions 'For I have sworn by myself and'be perpetual wastes' are all known from the oracles against Israel;within chs. 46-51 they only occur in the oracles against Babylon inchs. 50-51.4

The vv. 49.17, 18, 19-21 have doublets in ch. 50: 49.17 // 50.149.18 // 50.40; 49.19-21 // 50.44-46. As for the language of thesecommon verses, it is remarkable that their words, phrases and imagesoccur within the oracles against the nations almost exclusively inchs. 50-51, whereas in the rest of the book they quite frequentlyappear in oracles against Israel.5

This leads to the conclusion that Edom, Babylon and Israel have aparticular relation. As regards Babylon and Israel, this is hardlysurprising, given Babylon's role in the rest of the book. In chs. 50-51Babylon's doom is explicitly linked with its actions against Israel andwith Israel's restoration.

Because Edom's oracle is connected, by parallels and idiomaticcorrespondence, with the oracles against Babylon, Edom's fate toobecomes related to that of Israel. Babylon is YHWH's destroyer ofboth Israel and the nations. After the sentence on Israel has been

1. Cf. Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, pp. 139-40.2. Cf. Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, pp. 125-29, 262-70.3. Cf. Dicou, 'De Structuur van de verzameling profetieen over de volken in

Jeremia 46-51', ACEBT 10 (1989), pp. 84-87, and Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom,pp. 122-25, 128-29.

4. Cf. Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, p. 140.5. Cf. A. Marx, 'A propos des doublets du livre de Je're'mie. Reflexions sur la

formation d'un livre prophe'tique', in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Prophecy (Fs G. Fohrer;BZAW, 150; Berlin, 1980), pp. 117-18; Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom,pp. 126-27.


executed YHWH and Israel can start anew, but not before Babylon—and Edom as well—have been annihilated. Only when the last nationhas been destroyed, the nation that refuses to 'drink the cup', Israel'snew future can begin.

On the one hand, Edom represents the nations in general, whichmust be annihilated before Israel's restoration; on the other hand it isconnected with the nation that serves as YHWH's instrument for theannihilation of Israel and the nations.

In Obadiah, parts II (vv. 8-15) and III (vv. 16-21) stress theantagonism between Edom and Israel ('Mount Esau' and 'MountZion'). Moreover, in part III Edom's fate is explicitly linked with thefate of the nations in general. The opposition between Israel andEdom is the opposition between Israel and the representative of thenations.

In Jeremiah, the opposition between Israel and Edom is only veryindirectly visible. Accordingly, Edom's role as a type is much moreimplicit than in Obadiah. It is present only in parts of the oracle in49.7-22: viz. in the vv. 12-13, 17-21. Apart from Obad. 16, whichshares its topic 'drinking the cup' with Jer. 49.12, there is no trace ofthese verses in the book of Obadiah.

2. Literary History of Jeremiah 49.7-22The verses which provide Edom with its special status are eitherdoublets or contain expressions that are highly parallel with otheroracles (viz. oracles against Israel and Babylon). One can presumethat they are a later feature in this text. The secondarily of Jer. 49.12,13, 17, 18-22 is quite generally acknowledged.1 The doublets in49.17-21 were borrowed from the oracles against Babylon. A simpleexplanation for their absence in Obadiah would be that the incorpora-tion of the Jeremiah material in the book of Obadiah took place beforethe oracle in Jeremiah had been extended with the Babylon texts andhad attained its present form. Indeed, this is quite probable, since theoracles against Babylon themselves must be a later part of the book of

1. Cf. e.g. L.C. Hay, 'The Oracles against the Foreign Nations in Jeremiah 46-51' (dissertation, Nashville, 1960), pp. 153-55; W. Rudolph, Jeremia (HAT 1,12;Tubingen, 3rd edn, 1968), pp. 291-93; R.P. Carroll, Jeremiah. A Commentary(OTL; London, 1986), p. 805; W. Werner, Studien zur alttestamentlichen Vorstel-lung vom Plan Jahwes (BZAW, 173; Berlin & New York, 1988), pp. 161-63 (onvv. 19-21).


Jeremiah. Their quotation in the oracle against Edom must berelatively late.

As for Jer. 49.12-13, it was established that the author of Obadiahmay have known the use of the topic 'drinking the cup' in v. 12.1

Now, it looks as if vv. 12 and 13 belong together. As discussed in theprevious section, both relate to Jer. 25.15-29. The destruction ofEdom's land, which will turn into a desolation after Edom's drinkingthe cup, is the same fate as will befall Israel and the other nations afterdrinking the cup of God's wrath (see 25.17-18). The author ofObadiah may be assumed, if it is right that he knew Jer. 49.12, to haveknown Jer. 49.13 too.

On the grounds of the above observations, it can be argued that theoriginal Jeremianic oracle against Edom underwent (at least) twoexpansions. The last expansion, with which the author of Obadiah wasnot acquainted, was based on quotations from the oracles againstBabylon. The first expansion, with which this author was acquainted,connected the oracle with Jeremiah 25. It contained at least Jer. 49.12-13. Jer. 49.17, the first verse of the second expansion, links up withthe first one by taking up theme (the land turning into a desolation)and vocabulary ('horror', nntf) of v. 13.

In this context, the observed difference between the quotations inObad. 1-6 (from Jer. 49.14-16 and 9-10) and the one in Obad. 7-8may be of relevance. It was noticed that in the former verses Jeremiahis quoted rather literally, whereas the latter give a free interpretation.Jer. 49.12 is given a similar free interpretation in Obad. 16. This mayindicate that Jer. 49.7, like Jer. 49.12, is secondary in the oracle.Another indication of this is that Jer. 49.7 shows a striking resem-blance to 49.1, the first verse of the preceding oracle (against Ammon):both verses consist of three rhetorical questions, the first with n andp*. Furthermore, both verses speak about 'sons', Dm.2 And while theintroductory verse of the oracle against Ammon actually introduces itssubject, the first verse of the oracle against Edom does not do so. Itscontent is not related to the following verse (8), nor to vv. 9-10. Tosum up: Jer. 49.7 looks like a secondary introduction verse, borrowed,as far as its form is concerned, from the preceding oracle.

1. Cf. Chapter 4, section 4.2. In 49.7, RSV ('the prudent') and many translations interpret D'n as a form of

the verb ]'3. This interpretation, however, has to be rejected; cf. Dicou, Jakob enEsau, Israel en Edom, p. 238 (note 9).


In addition to the prose section vv. 12-13 and the doublets withchs. 50-51 in vv. 17-21, which are clearly secondary, some otherverses from Jer. 49.7-22 too are missing in Obadiah. While most ofthe (poetic) sections vv. 7-11, 14-16 was quoted, the vv. 8, lOb and 11were not. Possibly, this can be explained by supposing that theseverses, with vv. 7, 12-13, belong to the first expansion of the oracle,the verses of which they are adjacent to. The first expansion would thenconsist of the two blocks vv. 7-8 and 10b-13. Is there any evidence forvv. 8, lOb and 11 being secondary as well? In fact, there is.

As for Jer. 49.8, the first half of this verse (8a) is found also in49.30 (with small differences), while its second half (8b) correspondswith 46.21c. In the sentence preceding 46.21c, that is to say 46.21b,the same combination of the verbs 013 ('flee') and ma hif./hof. ('turn,turn back') occurs. Finally, 'For I will bring the calamity of Esauupon him' (49.8b) corresponds with 'and I will bring their calamity'in 49.32. 'Calamity' (TR) is not very frequent in Jeremiah: besides46.21, 49.8, 32 it only occurs two times in the book (18.17; 48.16).Jer. 49.8 gives the impression of being assembled from sentences andphrases of 46.21, 49.30 and 49.32.

When looking at Jer. 49.10b, 11, one notices the similarity in con-tent and form of these verses with 49.8. These verses may well havebeen composed together. Consequently, 49.1 Ob, 11 must be secondarytoo. In 49.8 Edom's neighbouring people the Dedanites are warned toflee because Edom will be destroyed ('Flee, turn back, dwell in thedepths...'). Jer. 49.10b confirms that 'neighbours' are in danger too.Like 49.8, 49.11 contains a sentence in the imperative relating to thesaving of life from the complete destruction which befalls Edom:'Leave your fatherless children, I will keep them alive; and let yourwidows trust in me'. Although at first sight 49.11 seems to be a posi-tive note, this verse only stresses the completeness of Edom's termi-nation. The implication is that no men are left to care for the childrenand the women: all fathers and husbands have been killed (cf. v. lOb:'His seed1 is destroyed, and his brothers, and his neighbours, and he isno more.').

As for the combination of v. 7 and vv. 8, 10b-ll, there is an inter-esting parallel with Jer. 10.20-21.2 In 10.20 we find, as in 49.10b, asentence with "ntf ('destroy') pu. pf., ending in ]'«i with suffix.

1. 1uni;RSV:'children'.2. Cf. Dicou, 'Geen wijsheid meer in Edom', p. 93.


Besides that, 10.20 contains a sentence with ]»K and TII> ('no one...again'), just like 49.7 ('no more...'). Moreover, the theme of 49.7 isfound in 10.21. The subject of both verses is: 'the wise men have notbeen wise'.

On the basis of the considerations above, it can be concluded thatthe original oracle contained 49.9-lOa and 14-16—the verses paral-leled in Obad. 1-6. In a first expansion, the poetic verses 7-8, 10b-lland the prose verses 12-13 were added. The former were partly takenfrom other oracles against the nations in Jeremiah 46-51, the latterrefer to Jeremiah 25. A second expansion added vv. 17-21, whichverses were inspired by and partly borrowed from the oracles againstBabylon in Jeremiah 50-51.

One verse still has to be discussed: Jer. 49.22, the last verse of theoracle against Edom. This verse is found divided in two parts in theoracle against Moab: 48.40, 41b. In ch. 48, it is probably secondary.1

In a sense, Jer. 49.22 repeats 49.19, the first verse of the precedingsection (49.19-21 // 50.44-46). Both verses open with 'Behold, likea...he comes up' (n*7i>\..D ran): like an animal (v. 19: a lion; v. 22: aneagle) the enemy approaches.2 This suggests that v. 22 was composedas a continuation of (or a comment on) the preceding verses.

The verses which have a parallel in Obad. 1-6 we have concluded toconstitute the original Jeremianic oracle against Edom, so this oracleconsisted of Jer. 49.9-lOa and 49.14-16. The order of the two parts isdifferent in Jeremiah and Obadiah: the former is quoted in Obad. 5-6,and the latter in Obad. 1-4. Did Jeremiah or did Obadiah preserve theoriginal order? In my view, Obadiah.

First, a verse like Jer. 49.14 // Obad. 1 opens other oracles againstthe nations in the book of Jeremiah as well. A 'summons to war' as in49.14 is also found at the beginning of the oracle against Egypt (46.3)and the oracle against Kedar and Hazor (49.28; there, as in 49.14,with Dip imp., 'rise up!').3 To 'hear' 'tidings' (nmoti untf) occurs atthe beginning of the oracle against Damascus (49.23). As in 49.14, the

1. Cf. J.G. Janzen, Studies in the Text of Jeremiah (HSM, 6; Cambridge, MA,1973), pp. 94-95, who arrives at this conclusion after a comparison with the LXXversion, in which the two parts are absent.

2. Unfortunately, RSV translates nîr differently in vv. 19 and 22: 'coming up'and 'he mounts up' respectively.

3. Cf. Bach, Die Aufforderungen zur Flucht, pp. 51-61. Outside Jer. 46-51 atthe beginning of an oracle: Isa. 13.2.


'tidings' are of approaching doom. Compare also the beginning of theoracles against Babylon, 'Declare among the nations and proclaim(j>Dtf hif.)' (50.2).l Conversely, Jer. 49.9 // Obad. 5 'can hardly havestood at the head of the poem', as T.H. Robinson contends.2 (Robinsoncontinues: 'it is necessary to assume a deliberate dislocation inJeremiah, where the poem has been woven in with other matter'.)

Then, the ending of Jer. 49.14-16 seems to be linked in a way withJer. 49.9-10, which points to the originality of the order: vv. 14-16—9-10a. The last sentence in Jer. 49.14-16 is 'Though you make yournest as high as the eagle's, I will bring you down from there, says theLORD' (49.16c). Like 49.9, it is a conditional sentence (in Obad. 4, 5-6, these verses have been made to correspond to each other formallyas well, in sentences with D»).3 Moreover, there is a certain thematiccorrespondence between 49.16 and 49.9-10—both express the impos-sibility of escaping YHWH. This is confirmed by the fact that in Amos9.2-4, a passage highly related to Obad. 4-6, the same combination isfound of 'go up/bring down' and 'impossible hiding' as in Obad. 3-4and 5-6 // Jer. 49.16 and 9-10a (in Amos 9.2 and 3). Apparently, thesemotifs belong together. This proves that 49.9 should follow 49.16. Wemay, therefore, conclude that the original verse order is the one inObadiah.

The original Jeremianic oracle against Edom was Jer. 49.14-16, 9-lOa. The coherent unity these verses constituted was later broken up.The text became divided in two fragments, which were complementedwith other texts. These other texts provided a sort of comment on theoriginal oracle. Jer. 49.8, 10b-ll emphasized that the calamity willcompletely ruin Edom (even its neighbours are in danger), as hadalready been expressed in vv. 9-10. The prose part vv. 12-13 madeEdom the typical nation (of ch. 25) and at the same time Israel'scounterpart among the nations.

The original opening verse (49.14) being moved to the middle partof the oracle, a new introductory verse had to be composed: Jer. 49.7.It was inspired by the opening verse of the preceding oracle (49.1; cf.also 48.2: 'the renown of Moab is no more', Titf j'K, like in 49.7).

1. The same sentence is used at the beginning of the second oracle againstEgypt, in 46.14. Cf. Dicou, 'De Structuur', p. 85.

2. T.H. Robinson, 'The Structure of the Book of Obadiah', JTS 17 (1916),p. 404.

3. Cf. Chapter 4, section 2.4.


The second expansion (vv. 17-22) too was an exegetical one: itequated Edom and Israel's other typical adversary, Babylon. Its firstverse serves to connect the extra parts with the preceding oracle bytaking up theme and vocabulary of the last verse of the first proseexpansion (v. 13). The last verse of the text that obtains (v. 22) givesan elaboration of the quotations from the oracles against Babylon.

Elsewhere, I have maintained that within the oracles against thenations in Jeremiah 46-51, 49.1-33 is to be seen as a smaller unity.1

This compositional unit is a quartet of prophecies which are comple-mentary with regard to the places of residence they refer to. Theoracle against Ammon (49.1-6) is about a low country, with 'valleys'(49.4). In contrast, the oracle against Edom (49.7-22) is about anation that 'lives in the clefts of the rock' and 'holds the height of thehill' (49.16). The oracle against Damascus (49.23-27) concentrates onthe 'city' (49.25; cf. vv. 23, 26, 27), whereas the oracle against Kedarand Razor (49.28-33) names 'tents' and 'camels' (49.29), a nationwhich 'has no gates or bars' (49.31).

The quartet of relatively short oracles concludes the first of the twosections within chs. 46-51 (46.1-49.33). The last oracle in ch. 49, theone against Elam (49.34-39), is the first of the second section (49.34-51.64).2 If the secondary parts are left out, the four oracles are ofabout the same length. In 49.7-22, five verses were established to beoriginal (49.14-16, 9-10a). In the other oracles too there aresecondary parts: 49.6 in the oracle against Ammon, 49.33 in theoracle against the Arab peoples.3 The result is that all of the fouroracles count five verses. In my view, this confirms our analysis at leastas far as the size of the original oracle against Edom is concerned.

Although there are no clear references to historical events, it seemspossible to say something on the composition dates of the three stagesin the origin history of Jer. 49.7-22.

The original oracle may have been composed together with theother oracles in 49.1-33 by the prophet Jeremiah himself (if it isaccepted that he composed any oracles against the nations), presum-ably some time before the end of the state Judah. The references to

1. Dicou, 'De Structuur', pp. 85-86 and Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom,pp. 124-25, 128-29.

2. Dicou, 'De Structuur', pp. 84-85; Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, pp. 123-24.

3. Cf. Carroll, Jeremiah, pp. 799 and 810 respectively.


'Nebuchadrezzar' in 49.28, 30 may be secondary.1

The first expansion probably supposes Nebuchadnezzar's campaignsagainst Israel and its neighbours. From 49.12 ('others' have drunk thecup—Edom has not yet) it can be inferred that these nations havealready fallen victim to the Babylonians. In 582 BCE Moab andAmmon had to share Judah's fate.2 If the nation that 'did not deserveto drink the cup' (but still has drunk it) is Judah, as some commenta-tors think,3 Jer. 49.12 and the rest of the first expansion will have tobe dated after 587 BCE. The other element in Jer. 49.12 is that Edomhas not yet drunk the cup, but certainly will have to. Now, the end ofthe kingdom of Edom probably took place in 552 BCE, during thecampaign of the Babylonian king Nabonidus against northern Arabia.4

The destruction of Edom may well have been the reason for com-posing a second version of the oracle. At last, Edom too had to 'drinkthe cup'. Evidence for the connection of the expanded version withNabonidus's campaign may be found in the remarkable combinationof 'Teman' and 'Dedan' in the secondary verses 49.7 and 8 respec-tively. Teman is a region in Edom. Dedan is a northern Arabian cityquite far to the southeast of Edom. In the oracle against Edom, Ezek.25.12-14, it is said that the Edomites 'shall fall by the sword', 'fromTeman even to Dedan' (v. 13).5 Nabonidus's campaign was initiallydirected against Teima (not to be confused with Teman); Dedan wasone the cities conquered afterwards.6

The addition of the Babylon material must of course date fromsome time after the composition of the oracles against Babylon. Thesewere probably written before 539 BCE (the fall of Babylon), even

1. Cf. Carroll, Jeremiah, pp. 810-11.2. M. Vogelstein, 'Nebuchadnezzar's Reconquest of Phoenicia and Palestine

and the Oracles of Ezekiel', HUCA 23 (1950-51), pp. 207-208; cf. Bartlett, Edomand the Edomites, p. 157.

3. Cf. e.g. Carroll, Jeremiah, pp. 758, 806.4. J. Lindsay, The Babylonian Kings and Edom, 605-550 B.C.', PEQ 108

(1976), pp. 32-39; cf. I. Eph'al, The Ancient Arabs. Nomads on the Borders of theFertile Crescent 9th-5th Centuries B.C. (Jerusalem, 1982), pp. 185-88;E.A. Knauf, 'Supplementa Ismaelitica, 13. Edom und Arabien', BN 45 (1988),p. 75; Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites, pp. 157-61. Critical notes: Hartberger, 'Anden Wassern von Babylon', p. 139.

5. Cf. Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites, p. 160.6. E.A. Knauf, Ismael. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Paldstinas und

Nordarabiens im 1. Jahrtausend v.Chr. (ADPV; Wiesbaden, 1985), pp. 74-75.


before 550 (the year in which the Medes—see 51.11—were defeateddecisively).1 Consequently, the year 550 BCE can be established as theterminus a quo for the second expansion of the oracle against Edom.2

It is harder to decide when this expansion actually took place.

3. Obadiah

Much of the literary history of the book of Obadiah has beenestablished in the preceding chapters (4 and 5). The examination ofverses, parts of verses and phrases that Obadiah has in common withother prophetic books has made it clear that its author composed histext mainly by compiling and combining elements from other texts.He appeared to have known and used not only the oracle against Edomin the book of Jeremiah (Jer. 49.7-22), but also the oracle againstMount Seir in Ezek. 35 and the last chapter of Joel (Joel 4). Thesethree texts appeared to have served as the basis of the first, the secondand the last part of the book respectively (Obad. 1-7, 8-15, 16-21).Besides, there is evidence of other texts from the book of Jeremiahbeing used, as well as texts from the book of Amos.

The analysis of the parallels provided another element of the liter-ary history of Obadiah: after the book of Obadiah had been includedin (an early version of) the Book of the Twelve, it was worked out bythe editors of the Twelve. They added texts to Joel, Amos andObadiah in order to gear these books to each other.

Quite another picture of Obadiah's literary history is painted byWeimar,3 although he too assumes a common redaction of variousprophetic books within the Twelve. Weimar gives a detailed literary-and redaction-critical analysis of the book of Obadiah. He discerns sixstages. One can ask, however, if Weimar's model of several successivestages is necessary in order to explain the sometimes awkwardconnections between and within verses. If it is accepted that the textconsists mainly of quotations, images and phrases from otherprophetic books, this fact seems to explain the not too smooth internal

1. Cf. J. Bright, Jeremiah. A New Translation with Introduction andCommentary (AB, 21; Garden City, NY, 1965), p. 360; K.A.D. Smelik, 'Defunctie van Jeremia 50 en 51 binnen het boek Jeremia', NTT41 (1987), p. 277.

2. Which does not help us much further, since above 552 BCE was suggested asterminus a quo for the first expansion of the oracle.

3. Weimar, 'Obadja'. Cf. above, Chapter 2, section 1.


organization equally well, and one does not have to surmise varioussubsequent redactions.

Weimar insists that only after the literary-critical analysis has beencompleted can questions about the direction of dependence amongparallel texts be answered.1 In my view, the opposite is true.2 First,the character of the text must be established. If a text is a compilationof other texts, literary-critical arguments will be of little value. In thatcase, a smaller or bigger break in the text need not indicate redac-tional work within the prophecy concerned.

For instance: we have seen that the author of Obadiah in vv. 1-8used the Jeremianic oracle against Edom and extended it at someplaces (viz. in Obad. 3, 4, 5 and 7). It is, then, quite natural that thejoin is visible where the quoted verse ends and the extension begins,the more so since other texts were used for these extensions as well.Weimar, however, is able to discover four different layers in this partof the text.3

Admittedly, at some places in the text there are signs which indicatethat more than one writer was engaged in the composition of the bookof Obadiah in its present form. A first indication of this is the combi-nation of a 'nations' oracle (vv. 15a, 16-18) with the Edom material.Many scholars have held that the original book of Obadiah only con-tained vv. 1-14, 15b, possibly with v. 21 as the original conclusion.The last part of the oracle (vv. 16-20 [21], together with v. 15a) isconsidered to have been added later, in two or more stages.4

Obad. 15b ('As you have done, it shall be done to you, your deedshall return on your own head')5 is indeed a kind of verse that canconclude an oracle or a part of an oracle: cf. Ezek. 35.14 (noteEzekiel's influence on Obadiah), Joel 4.V-8.6 It should be noticed, how-ever, that Obad. 15a, 16-18 has a very clear compository function:

1. Weimar, 'Obadja', pp. 76-77 n. 124: 'Methodisch 1st jedoch der unmittel-bare Vergleich des Obadja- und Jeremia-Textes, wie er allgemein praktiziert wird,nicht unproblematisch. Erst dan, wenn beide Textfassungen jeweils in sich (literar-)kritisch analysiert sind, kann eine vergleichende Analyse einsetzen.'

2. Cf. the critique on Weimar's theory in Hartberger, 'An den Wassern vonBabylon', p. 263 (note 277).

3. Weimar, 'Obadja', pp. 42-53, 72-73.4. Cf. e.g. Bewer, Obadiah and Joel, pp. 3-5; Wolff, Dodekapropheton 3,

pp. 5-6; Wehrle, Prophetic und Textanalyse, pp. 362-64.5. Cf. Chapter 5, section 2 for the similarity in vocabulary with Joel 4.4, 7.6. Cf. also Lam. 4.21; 4.22 opposes, like Obad. 21, Zion and Edom.


with vv. 8-10, it frames vv. 11-14, 15b, the section on Israel's ruin.1

It opposes 'Mount Zion' (v. 17; cf. vv. 16, 21) to the earliermentioned 'Mount Esau' (vv. 8, 9), and the 'day' on which Edom/thenations will be destroyed (v. 15a; cf. v. 8) to the 'day' of Israel'scalamity (vv. 11-14). From vv. 8-10, the names Jacob and Esau return(vv. 17, 18), now not with Jacob as Esau's victim (cf. v. 10), but withJacob and Joseph as the agents of Esau's annihilation (v. 18).

In view of the compository function of vv. 15a, 16-18, we probablycould best follow Weimar, who argues that these verses were writtenwith an eye to the preceding text.2 This is supported by the similarityin structure between vv. 15b and 16 we have observed.3

With Weimar, many authors have noted the different character (asto content) of vv. 15a, 16-18 compared to the preceding verses. Forinstance, H.W. Wolff states that if it was the same author who com-posed vv. 1-14, 15a and vv. 15a, 16-18, he must have done it atdifferent times.4

Our analysis of Obadiah's relationships with other prophetic books5

can be adduced to illustrate the differing character of vv. 15a, 16ff.Verses 15a, 16-18 are mainly a compilation of Joel and Amos phrases.Obad. 1-14, 15b may be characterized as an Ezekiel-based interpreta-tion of the Jeremianic oracle against Edom. The last part of the bookof Obadiah links it up more closely with the books preceding it in thecanon, Joel and Amos.

It has often been remarked that the order of the various parts invv. 15-16 is rather awkward.6 Equally often it has been maintainedthat the present order within vv. 15-16 must be the result of anaccident.7

On the other hand, in Chapter 1 the functional value of the text as itstands was stressed.8 Therefore, Weimar's model is more satisfactory.If he is right in supposing that vv. 15a, 16ff are an editorial addition,

1. Cf. above, Chapter 1, section 3.2. Weimar, 'Obadja', pp. 60-63, 65-66.3. Chapter 1, section 3; cf. Weimar, 'Obadja', pp. 62-63.4. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 3, p. 43; cf. p. 19.5. Chapters 4 and 5.6. Cf. Chapter 1, section 3.7. Cf. e.g. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 3, pp. 5, 19, 43; Coggins, 'Judgment

between Brothers', pp. 89-90.8. Cf. Robinson, 'Levels of Naturalization', pp. 93-94.


the present order may well be intentional. The same view is advocatedby U. Kellermann, who, however, asserts that one author (in hisopinion, the prophet Obadiah) composed both vv. 1-14, 15b andvv. 15a, 16-18.1

There is general agreement on the secondary nature of the prosesection vv. 19-20, which gives some interesting details on the territorythe Israelites will regain possession of.2 Its composition and insertionin the book may have been triggered by the phrase 'and the house ofJacob shall possess their own possessions' (v. 17). It is probable thatvv. 19-20 themselves did not originate in one go; after their intro-duction in the book, they appear to have been edited and expanded.3

The status of v. 21 is uncertain: it may belong to the secondary partvv. 19-20, but some have argued, as stated above, that it once was theconclusion of an earlier version of the book of Obadiah. It may havecome after v. 15b.4

Summing up, we can follow Weimar's analysis at two points: first,the redactional extension of Obad. 1-14, 15b, (21) with vv. 15a, 16-18; second, the still later addition to the resulting text of vv. 19-20 (or19ff). Contrary to Weimar, I have argued that the other irregularitiescan best be understood as resulting from the use of existing prophetictexts. Verses 1-14, 15b, (21) seem to constitute the original oracle. Itcannot be excluded that at some places in this text verses or parts ofverses have been added or existing verses have been edited later on,although I doubt if Weimar's confidence in finding 'mb'glicheHinweise auf die literarische Schichtung des Textes'5 is appropriate.

The author of the first version of Obadiah (1-14, 15b) used, as dis-cussed above, the original oracle against Edom of the book ofJeremiah for an oracle in the spirit of the book of Ezekiel. He alsoused vocabulary and ideas from Ezekiel 25-26 and 35-36. He appearsto have known the first expansion of Jeremiah's oracle against Edom

1. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, p. 19.2. Cf. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 22-23; Wolff, Dodekapropheton 3,

p. 6; Coggins, 'Judgment between Brothers', pp. 94-95; Weimar, 'Obadja', p. 74;Wehrle, Prophetic und Textanalyse, p. 363.

3. Cf. e.g. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 3, p. 42; on Obad. 19, cf. above, Chapter1, section 2, the note to the translation of this verse.

4. Cf. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 3, p. 6; Weimar, 'Obadja', p. 73; Wehrle,Prophetie und Textanalyse, pp. 363-64.

5. Weimar, 'Obadja', pp. 56-57 on Obad. 12-14.


as well (Jer. 49.7-8, 10b-ll, 12-13), but at the same time he wasshown to be well aware of the difference. The verses of the originaloracle were quoted quite literally, the secondary Jer. 49.7 wasemployed more freely.

Jeremiah's oracle appeared to have been adapted to Amos 9.2-4,which seems to indicate that the author of Obadiah wanted hisprophecy to follow the book of Amos.1 There are also connectionswith Joel (e.g. between Obad. 11 and Joel 4.3).2

The second version of Obadiah (the one including vv. 15a, 16-18)links up the book more closely with Amos and the book precedingAmos in the canon, Joel. Whereas the theme of the first version was acombination of Jeremiah's idea of Edom's excessive pride which willbe ashamed and Ezekiel's emphasis on Edom's crimes on the day ofIsrael's ruin, in vv. 15a, 16-18 Edom is the representative of thenations.3

The last additions to the book of Obadiah (vv. 19-20) were prob-ably the work of redactors who also composed the secondary endingsof Joel (4.18-21) and Amos (9.13-15). In this way, they connected thethree books still more strongly. Regarding the date of the originalversion of the book of Obadiah and of the assumed additions, a termi-nus a quo is provided by the comparison of Obadiah with Jeremiahand Ezekiel.4

It has been inferred that the secondary verse Jer. 49.7 is quoted inObad. 7-8:5 the author of the first version of Obadiah appears to haveknown both the original oracle and the first expansion of Jer. 49.7-22.If we are right in supposing that the first extended version of Jer. 49was composed in reaction to the end of the kingdom of Edom, 552BCE,6 Obadiah's first version must have been written after this date.

Such a date is in accordance with the present day communis opiniothat Obad. 11-14 refers to the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE.7 Theargument that these verses must have been written shortly after 587

1. Cf. Chapter 5, section 3.2. Cf. above, Chapter 2, section 2.3. Cf. Chapter 1, section 3.4. Cf. Chapter 4.5. Chapter 4, section 3.6. Cf. above, section 2.2.7. Cf. overview in Wehrle, Prophetic und Textanalyse, pp. 9-10.


BCE, because of the vividness of the description,1 is not compelling.As J.R. Bartlett rightly states, this part of the oracle may only revealthe vivid imagination of its author.2

Since we have also argued that Obadiah is dependent on Ezekiel 35-36, a date near the end of the exilic period will be more accurate.3

The comparison with Jer. 49.7-22 supplies not only a terminus aquo but also a terminus ante quern for Obadiah, though a ratheruncertain one. It was argued that the writer of Obadiah probably didnot know the parts of the oracle that link it up with the oracles againstBabylon chs. 50-51. Therefore, the first version of Obadiah musthave been completed before the addition of the extra verses (Jer.49.17-21).4

As to the first expansion, I think that there was only very littletime—maybe only a few years—between the completion of vv. 1-14,15b and the addition of vv. 15a, 16-18: these texts are partly based onthe same material. Above, it was asserted that Obad. 1-14, 15b was anEzekiel-inspired prophecy based on Jeremiah material. The expansiontoo appeared to have been inspired by Ezekiel.5 It is in this part of thebook that Edom appears as the representative of the nations, just as inEzekiel 35-36. In both texts, the end of Edom (representing the otherneighbouring nations) goes along with the restoration of Israel; Israelwill take back the land it lost to the other nations. As for Jeremiah:Jeremiah texts formed the starting point of the expansion (Jer. 25.27-29; 49.12, used in Obad. 16), as they did for the first version ofObadiah.

The date of the second expansion (vv. 19-20) is a moot point.Proposals vary from the early post-exilic period to Maccabean times.6

1. Cf. e.g. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, p. 17, and see the overview inWehrle, Prophetie und Textanalyse, p. 10.

2. Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites, pp. 154-55. Bartlett suggests (Edom andthe Edomites, p. 159) that the book of Obadiah may reflect Nabonidus's 552 BCEcampaign against Edom and northern Arabia (especially v. 7: 'All your allies havedriven you to the border; your confederates have deceived you and prevailed againstyou', etc.).

3. Cf. Chapter 3, section 3.3.4. In the previous section, the year 550 BCE was mentioned as a terminus a quo

for this addition. But there was no indication whether or not it took place shortly after550.

5. Cf. Chapter 4, section 5.6. Cf. Wehrle, Prophetie und Textanalyse, p. 11.


In my opinion, the former alternative is the better one, since (as wasargued in the previous chapter) the appendages of Joel, Amos andObadiah were probably composed together, possibly still in the sixthcentury BCE.1

4. Conclusion

In both Jer. 49.7-22 and Obadiah the original Jeremianic oracleagainst Edom became the starting point for a prophecy on Edom asthe typical enemy of Israel. Important for our subject (the origin anddevelopment of the conception of Edom as a type) is that this role wasconcluded to be secondary in both texts. In Jeremiah's original oracle,Edom stood at the same level as the other neighbouring nations in49.1-33. Edom's role as Israel's opponent and 'typical nation' onlycomes up in the first expansion. The second expansion makes Edom'srole still bigger by connecting Edom's fate with Babylon's. In the firstversion of Obadiah Edom is Israel's enemy, but only in the expansionsdoes it become Israel's typical enemy, the representative of thenations. This probably has to be attributed to influence from the bookof Ezekiel.

1. Chapter 5, section 2.

Chapter 7

THE FOUR LONG ORACLES AGAINST EDOM(ISAIAH 34, JEREMIAH 49.7-22, EZEKIEL 35, OBADIAH)

1. Introduction

In the chapters up to this one, various aspects were studied of Edom'srole as a type in the prophetic books. Edom's special role shows upmost clearly in Obadiah, a little book completely devoted to thisnation. The oracles in Jer. 49.7-22 and Ezekiel 35-36 too have beendemonstrated to present Edom as a typical figure.

In this chapter attention shall be paid to Isaiah 34, the fourth of thelong oracles against Edom (section 2). This text appears to be relatedto the other three oracles at several points.

Next, a survey can be given of the development of Edom's rolewithin the four long oracles against this nation (section 3). When wasEdom depicted as Israel's typical opponent and the representative ofthe nations for the first time? How did this role develop?

Finally, Obadiah's place in the Book of the Twelve will be discussed(section 4). The position of this prophecy in its book appears to besimilar to the position of Isaiah 34 and Ezekiel 35 in their books.

2. Isaiah 34 and the Other Long Oracles against Edom

Isaiah 34 integrates several aspects of the other three long oraclesagainst Edom. Like Jer. 49.7-22, it appears to be linked with an oracleagainst Babylon. Additionally, there is some kind of similarity intheme, position in the book and literary function of Isaiah 34 withEzekiel 35. Finally, both in Obadiah and Isaiah the end of Edom isconnected with the condemnation of the nations on a 'day of YHWH'.In this section the various links will be examined.


Isaiah 34 and Jeremiah 49.7-22The oracles Isaiah 34 and Jer. 49.7-22 are indirectly connected: theyare both linked with the oracles against Babylon in their books, which,in their turn, are interrelated themselves. One motif connects the fourtexts: the change of the nation's land into a desolation like Sodom andGomorrah, a land where there is no place for human population.

Jer. 49.18: As when Sodom and Gomorrah and their neighbor cities wereoverthrown, says the LORD, no man shall dwell there, no son of man1

shall sojourn in her.

Jer. 50.39-40:... she shall be peopled no more for ever, nor inhabited forall generations. As when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah and theirneighbor cities, says the LORD, no2 man shall dwell there, no son of manshall sojourn in her.

Isa. 13.19-20: And Babylon... will be like Sodom and Gomorrah whenGod overthrew them. It will never be inhabited or dwelt in for allgenerations...

Isa. 34.9-10:... shall be turned into pitch... brimstone...; her land shallbecome burning pitch. Night and day it shall not be quenched; its smokeshall go up for ever. From generation to generation it shall lie waste; noneshall pass through it for ever and ever.

Isa. 34.9-10 has a deviating version: it does not mention Sodom andGomorrah, but instead gives the details of the overthrow of thesecities (cf. Gen. 19.24, 25, 28; Deut. 29.22; Amos 4.11).3

In Isaiah 13 and 34 and in Jeremiah 50, the motif that in this landno human being will live is connected with the motif that it will be thedwelling place of desert animals and demons (Isa. 13.21-22; 34.11-17;Jer. 50.39). The 'wild beasts', 'hyenas' and 'ostriches' of Jer. 50.39recur in Isa. 13.21-22 and Isa. 34.13-14.

As the expansions in the Edom oracle Jer. 49.18-21 are dependenton Jer. 50.40, 44-46,4 and those in the Edom oracle in Isa. 34.9-17 onIsa. 13.19-21,5 there is no direct connection between Isaiah 34 and

1. RSV: 'no man'.2. RSV: 'so no'.3. Cf. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 187-88; Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel

en Edom, pp. 64, 103-104, 174.4. Cf. Chapter 6, section 2.2.5. Cf. B. Dicou, 'Literary Function and Literary History of Isaiah 34', BN 58

(1991), pp. 37-38.

7. The Four Long Oracles against Edom 107

Jer. 49.7-22. It is, nevertheless, remarkable that twice, in twoprophetic books, the same motif was taken from an oracle againstBabylon to be used in an oracle against Edom. This may point to acoordinated edition of Isaiah and Jeremiah. In this context, it is inter-esting that J. Vermeylen has found evidence of an earlier commonredaction of Isaiah and Jeremiah: one that provided the oracles againstthe nations in both books with an eschatological frame (Isa. 13-14 and24, Jer. 25.13b-38 and 50-51).1 B. Gosse has argued that in bothIsaiah 13 and Jeremiah 50-51 Jeremianic material has been workedout.2 Here, it can be added that the writer of Isaiah 34 too wasacquainted with texts from the book of Jeremiah: compare Isa. 34.6, 8with Jer. 46.10.3

Isaiah 34 and EzekielIn Isaiah, as in the book of Ezekiel,4 a long oracle against Edom isfound outside the collection oracles against the nations (Isa. 13-23). Inboth books, the oracle against Edom is followed by an oracle onIsrael's salvation, which mirrors language and imagery of the pre-ceding oracle. In both, Edom's doom is linked up with Israel's happierfate: the one mirrors the other. Isaiah 35 makes Israel's desertblossom, after Edom's land has turned into a desolation. Vocabularyand imagery of Isaiah 34 are repeated in Isaiah 35.5

The oracle against Edom in Ezekiel 35 appeared to have beenwritten with an eye to the composition of the prophetic book as awhole. In a chapter on the confrontation between Israel and thenations—which are symbolized by Edom—the transition is made from

1. J. Vermeylen, 'L'Unite" du livre d'Isaie', in J. Vermeylen (ed.), The Book ofIsaiah/Le livre d'Isaie. Les oracles et leurs relectures. Unite et complexite deI'ouvrage (BETL, 81; Leuven, 1989), pp. 28-34.

2. B. Gosse, 'La malediction contre Babylone de Je're'mie 51, 59-64 et lesredactions du livre de Je're'mie', ZAW 98 (1986), pp. 396-99; Isdie 13,1—14,23.Dans la tradition litteraire du livre d'Isaie et dans la tradition des oracles contre lesnations (OBO, 78; Freiburg [Schweiz] and Gottingen, 1988), pp. 158-63.

3. Cf. Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, p. 168; see pp. 171-72 onthematic correspondences between Isa. 34.2-8 and the oracles against Babylon inJer. 50-51.

4. Cf. Chapter 3.5. Cf. Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, pp. 96-98; 'Literary Function',

pp. 31, 36.


Israel's doom (the main subject of the first part of the book) to Israel'ssalvation (the main subject of the third part).1 Isaiah 34 has the samefunction. It is one of the last chapters of Proto-Isaiah, whichconcentrates on Israel's failure and ruin. The second part of the book,Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah, continues with Israel's restoration.

Even more explicitly than in Ezek. 35.1-36.15, Isaiah 34 showsEdom's fate to be an exemplification of the fate of 'the nations': vv. 2-4 relate the 'slaughter' (coo) of the nations, vv. 5-7 the 'slaughter' ofEdom. Although Isaiah 34 itself is not very specific about the reasonfor the annihilation of the nations, it can be gathered from phraseslike 'a day of vengeance' and 'a year of recompense for the cause ofZion' (v. 8) that this oracle is about the nations which had participatedin bringing about Israel's doom.2 In Ezekiel 35, Edom represents thenations that had taken advantage of Israel's ruin.

In sum: it comes out that the literary function of the oracles againstEdom in Isaiah and Ezekiel is much the same.3 Edom's role is that ofthe representative of the nations, Israel's antagonist among, and onbehalf of, the nations.

Since there are also other links between the oracles against thenations of Isaiah and Ezekiel, the similarity between Isaiah 34 andEzekiel 35 is not very surprising.4 Likewise as other oracles, thesetwo texts share some motifs and vocabulary; U. Kellermann supposesthat the writer of Isaiah 34 was acquainted with Ezek. 35.6-9.5 Isaiah34 not only appears to be similar to or dependent on Ezekiel 35, butalso to be related to Ezekiel 38-39 (the oracles against Gog fromMagog).6

1. Cf. above, Chapter 3, section 2.1.2. Cf. Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, pp. 114-20; 'Literary Function',

pp. 32-35, 37.3. Cf. Gosse, 'Oracles contre les nations', pp. 19-20.4. Cf. Burrows, The Literary Relations of Ezekiel, pp. 39-44; Boadt, Ezekiel's

Oracles against Egypt, pp. 174-75; Gosse, 'Un texte pre"-apocalyptique', pp. 208-10and Isaie 13,1—14,23, p. 199.

5. Kellermann, Israel undEdom, pp. 188-89.6. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, p. 181; H.-M. Lutz, Jahwe, Jerusalem und

die Volker. Zur Vorgeschichte von Sack 12,1-8 und 14,1-5 (WMANT, 27;Neukirchen, 1968), pp. 88-90.


Isaiah 34 and ObadiahIn Obad. 15, the judgment on Edom takes place on a 'day' whichYHWH holds to judge and condemn 'all the nations' (cf. v. 16).Isa. 34.8 sees the destruction of Edom, which is an example of thedestruction of '(all) the nations' (vv. 1, 2), as the result of a 'day ofvengeance' 'for the LORD'. Both use the idea of retribution for thewrong done to Israel. Isa. 34.8: 'a year of recompense for the cause ofZion'; Obad. 15: 'As you have done [viz. Edom, acting with hostilityagainst Israel], it shall be done to you, your deeds shall return on yourown head' (cf. v. 16).

In Jer. 49.7-22 nor in Ezek. 35 is Edom's condemnation linked witha 'day of judgment'. Moreover, only in Obadiah and Isaiah 34 is thejudgment on Edom an example of the judgment on 'the nations' ingeneral (although in Ezek. 36.1-15, the neighbouring nations ingeneral appear).

3. The Four Long Oracles

The oracles against Edom in Jer. 49.7-22, Ezekiel 35-36 and Obadiahappeared to be based on older texts. As regards the partly paralleloracles in Jer. 49.7-22 and Obadiah, the oldest part is exactly thematerial that Jer. 49.7-22 and the book of Obadiah have in common.The oracles that constitute the old core of Ezekiel 35, oracles againstEdom in the style of Ezekiel 25, are probably also relatively old.

These old parts do not depict Edom as a type. In Jeremiah, this roleis present only in the later parts of the oracle, in 49.12-13, 17-21.Most of the remaining verses are parallel with verses in the first partof the book of Obadiah (vv. 1-8). We concluded that both in Jer. 49.7-22 and in Obadiah a short Jeremianic oracle against Edom, which didnot depict this nation as a type, was extended with texts that trans-formed the oracle into prophecies against Edom as the typical oppo-nent of Israel and the representative of the nations. In Ezekiel, Edom'sspecial role appeared when chs. 35-36 were composed. In Obadiah, afirst version consisting of vv. 1-14, 15b, which depicted Edom asIsrael's enemy, became extended with verses that linked Edom's doomwith the fate of the nations in general.

It is, therefore, only in the augmented versions of the old oraclesthat Edom appeared as a type. In the later versions of the oracles, thejudgment upon Edom became related to the judgment upon the other


nations. In general, but especially the nations that threatened Israel(meaning Judah), the nations that acted against it when God destroyedit through Babylon. In Ezekiel 35-36 the name 'Edom'/'Mount Seir' isa symbolic name for Israel's opponents. In Obadiah the condemnationof Edom illustrates the judgment on all the nations (particularlyvv. 15a, 16-21). In Jer. 49.7-22 Edom and Babylon becomeassociated.

Two roles can be distinguished. First, Edom is the nation that turneditself against Israel at the time of its ruin (and the representative of theother nations which did so). Secondly, it is the symbol of the adversenations in general, especially associated with Babylon. The formerrole is played in Ezekiel 35-36 and Obadiah, the latter in Isaiah 34and Jer. 49.7-22. The original Jeremiah oracle was part of a composi-tion with three other oracles against the nations in Jeremiah 49.Obadiah transformed it into a prophecy in the style of Ezekiel (i.e. ajudgment based on specific deeds). The same Jeremiah oracle got intoquite a different context of interpretation through its expansionswithin the book of Jeremiah. These helped to bring it into the line ofthought represented in Isaiah 34 (and cf. Ps. 137.7-9): the equivalenceof Edom and Babylon.

In all four oracles, Edom is the representative of the nations, and,as such, Israel's antagonist. It serves to illustrate the relation betweenIsrael and the nations. Only in Obadiah is the positive side of theirrelationship mentioned: the 'brotherhood' of Israel and Edom.

Isaiah 34 not only resembles Jer. 49.7-22 but also Ezekiel 35-36.Like Jer. 49.7-22 (and unlike Ezek. 35-36 and Obadiah), it does notmention any crime Edom is guilty of. Both texts indirectly associateEdom with Babylon. With Ezekiel 35-36, on the other hand, it sharesits place and function in its prophetic book. Isaiah 34 gives us theimpression of being a late example of the genre, combining several ofits features.1

In Chapters 3-6 we tried to date the oracles against Edom and theirparts. Here, the results will be summarized. The oldest parts of thefour texts can be dated in late pre-exilic or early exilic times(Jer. 49.9-10a, 14-16 and Ezek. 35.5-6, 9 respectively). Not only theextended version of Obadiah but its oldest parts (vv. 1-14, 15b)appeared to depend on the later versions of Jer. 49.7-22 (viz. Jer.

1. Cf. Kellermann, Israel and Edom, pp. 197-99, 213-14; Hartberger, 'An denWassern von Babylon...', p. 201.


49.7-16) and Ezekiel 35-36. The latter, therefore, are the first clearexamples of oracles against Edom as the representative of the nationsand Israel's special opponent. Jeremiah's first expansion was composedafter the destruction of Edom by Nabonidus (552 BCE). The presentversion of Ezekiel 35-36 we have dated to the end of the exilic period.

Both the first version of Obadiah and its first expansion (vv. 15a,16-18) may have been composed shortly after the composition ofEzekiel 35-36. For the second addition to the book of Obadiah, the'Obadiah appendage' (vv. 19-21), a date at or shortly after the end ofthe sixth century was considered as plausible.

The use of Babylon material in Jeremiah's second expansion(Jer. 49.17-22) has as its terminus a quo 550 BCE (the supposed com-position date of the oracles against Babylon). Above, in section 2, itwas stated that the use of Babylon material in Isaiah 34 is related tothat in Jeremiah. Elsewhere, I have maintained that Isaiah 34, which Iregard as a literary unity,1 probably depends on Isa. 63.1-6.2 If bothsuppositions are correct, the second Jeremiah expansion and Isa. 34have as terminus a quo the—uncertain—composition date of Trito-Isaiah.

4. Obadiah's Function within the Book of the Twelve

A similarity between the oracles against Edom in Ezekiel and Isaiahand the one in Obadiah is their position in their context.3 Like Isaiah34 and Ezekiel 35, Obadiah is a freestanding prophecy, found outsideany collection of oracles against the nations. The Book of the Twelvecontains two such collections: Amos 1-2 and Zephaniah 2. Anothersimilarity is that in Obadiah, like in Isaiah 34-35 and Ezekiel 35-36,the message of doom for Edom is linked with the promise of salvationand restoration for Israel. This is another feature that distinguishesObadiah from the oracles in the collections of oracles against thenations.4 Neither do most of these explicitly connect the condemnation

1. Dicou, 'Literary Function', pp. 39-40.2. Dicou, 'Literary Function', pp. 42-44; cf. Gosse, 'Isai'e 34-35', p. 397. Cf.

on Isa. 63.1-6 below, Chapter 13, section 3; further e.g. Dicou, Jakob en Esau,Israel en Edom, pp. 109-13; Gosse, 'Detournement de la vengeance du Seigneur'.

3. I am grateful to Drs Hanna Blok for pointing out to me the importance ofreading Obadiah in its context, the Book of the Twelve.

4. With the exception of the oracles against 'the enemy from the north' (Babylon


of the nation concerned with the condemnation of the nations at large,as Isaiah 34-35, Ezekiel 35-36 and Obadiah do.

It should be noted that we have concluded the authors of Obadiah(versions 1 and 2) to have been influenced by Ezekiel 35-36.Furthermore, we have found influence from the book of Ezekiel inother books of the Twelve as well (Joel 4 and Amos 1-2).

In view of the evidence, the correspondence in position betweenEzekiel 35-36 and Obadiah can be considered intentional. The com-parison of the two texts suggests that Obadiah was given its place inthe Book of the Twelve in order to imitate the book of Ezekiel. Theeditors of the Book of the Twelve included Obadiah as their versionof a freestanding oracle against Edom and the nations.

As several scholars have demonstrated, the Book of the Twelve ismore than just a collection of twelve independent books.1 Our owninvestigations of the lines between Obadiah and Joel and Amos haveconfirmed this. It seems not unreasonable to suppose that the editorsof the Book of the Twelve (or of some earlier version) wanted tocompose a book resembling the (other) major prophetic books. Likethese, the Book of the Twelve contains oracles in which Israel is con-demned for having been unfaithful to God and God announces hispunishment, oracles against the nations (put together in a collection),oracles proclaiming Israel's restoration after the punishment, andnarratives about the prophet.2

Once again, Ezekiel especially appears to have been influential. Asin Ezekiel, in the Twelve a collection of oracles against the nations(Amos 1-2), in which also an oracle against Edom is found (Amos1.11-12), precedes the long oracle against Edom. In both books, thelong oracle portrays Edom as the representative of the nations,whereas in the earlier short one, Edom's role does not differ from

in Isa. 13-14 and Jer. 50-51, and Gog and Magog in Ezek. 38-39), whosedestruction warrants the possibility of a new future for Israel. Cf. Dicou, Jakob enEsau, Israel en Edom, pp. 91-92, 107-108, 157.

1. Cf. Chapter 2, section 1.2. Cf. House, The Unity of the Twelve, p. 56: 'Clearly the content of the minor

prophets presents a unified portrait of prophecy that closely parallels the subjectmatter of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel. All the main elements of the propheticmessage are present in the Twelve'. According to House (pp. 56-57), 'the tendencyof some of the books to exhibit only one or a few traits of the prophetic genre pointsto the possibility that the books may be in their present configuration in order to offera complete literary treatment of the meaning of prophecy'.


that of the other nations. Moreover, like Ezekiel 25-26, Amos 1-2 isa composition of highly interconnected short oracles. Just as inEzekiel, in the Book of the Twelve the long oracle against Edom andthe nations in its turn precedes prophecies against the enemy from thenorth (viz. Assyria in Nahum and the Chaldaeans in Habakkuk; cf.Ezek. 38-39).

I have argued that Obadiah may have been written to be placedbehind Amos 9.1 If this view is correct, the remarkable phenomenonof a book consisting of only one chapter would find a simple explana-tion: this chapter was intended to be the long oracle against Edom ofthe Book of the Twelve.2 In any case, the second version of Obadiah,which was composed shortly after the first version (maybe even by thesame author), clearly links up with Joel and Amos.3 Its author sawObadiah as a part of the Book of the Twelve. He either found orplaced Obadiah there.

Although Obadiah was either composed or adapted to serve a clearfunction within the Book of the Twelve, it should be emphasized thatit can stand by itself as well, just like the other books in the Twelve.4

Like most of the other books, it addresses all the main issues of theprophetic literature: Israel's sin and punishment,5 the nations' sin andpunishment, Israel's restoration.

A closer inspection of Edom's role in the various prophetic booksof the Twelve corroborates our impression of coherence betweenthese books and of intentionality in the position of Obadiah. In Joel,Amos and Obadiah, three books standing together, Edom representsIsrael's neighbours who have taken advantage of its ruin, and who inan expected future 'day' will be punished by God.6 In all three books,the punishment marks a new era in Israel's history and God's relationwith Israel. It is striking and undoubtedly not accidental, that in three

1. Cf. Chapter 6, section 3.2. Another theory that would explain why Obadiah is a separate unity (to be

discussed in Chapter 13) is that originally Obadiah was a cultic text (as such, it mayhave existed separately).

3. Cf. above, Chapters 2 and 5.4. Cf. Schneider, 'Book of the Twelve', p. 249.5. Israel's sin is not the principal issue of Obadiah, but it is referred to in Obad.

16 ('as you have drunk upon my holy mountain...'). Obad. 11-14 is a reflectionupon Edom's reaction to Israel's punishment.

6. Cf. above, Chapter 2, section 4.


books of the Twelve Edom is called Israel's brother (Amos 1.11;Obad. 10; Mai. 1.2-5), whereas the Major Prophets do not mentionEdom's brotherhood.

When the Book of the Twelve is read as a continuing story, thebook of Malachi should contain the conclusion of the story. Asregards Israel and Edom, Mai. 1.2-5 indeed provides such a conclu-sion. At the end of the Twelve, the old antagonism between the twonations is considered for one more time. The passage discusses thedifference when God does and when he does not love a nation.

Is not Esau Jacob's brother?' says the LORD. 'Yet I have loved Jacob butI have hated Esau; I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage tojackals of the desert (vv. 2-3).

The destruction of Edom, announced in Joel, Amos and Obadiah, hasindeed taken place. Edom's ruin is definitive:

If Edom says, 'We are shattered but we will rebuild the ruins,' the LORDof hosts says, 'They may build, but I will tear down, till they are calledthe wicked country, the people with whom the LORD is angry for ever.'(v. 4).

Part II

GENESIS

Chapter 8

EDOM AS ISRAEL'S BROTHER AND OPPONENT IN GENESIS 25-36

1. Introduction

The narratives about Jacob and Esau are part of the section in Genesisheaded 'These are the descendants (nnbn nb«) of Isaac, Abraham'sson' (25.19). In this section, Jacob is the principal character. It endsin 35.29 with the death and burial of Isaac. The next section isGen. 36.1-37.1, titled These are the descendants of Esau (that is,Edom)' (36.1; cf. 36.9). It is about Esau's descendants in Canaan andSeir respectively (see 36.5 and 36.9), and about chiefs and kings inSeir and Edom. In Gen. 37.2 the last section of the book of Genesisbegins 'These are the descendants of Jacob'.1

The development of the narratives of Jacob and Esau is determinedby the fact that the brothers are twins, of whom, against the normalpattern, 'the elder shall serve the younger' (25.23), as YHWH tellsRebekah. The conflict that this situation will bring is forecasted by the'struggling' of the two brothers in Rebekah's womb (25.22).

The narratives are divided into two parts: those before and thoseafter Jacob's stay with Laban. Part 1 describes the birth of the twobrothers and the sale of the right of primogeniture (25.19-34) andsubsequently Jacob's attempt to let his father bless him and not Esau,the older brother (ch. 27), the result of which is that he has to leavehis family and his land (ch. 28). Part 2 describes Jacob's return andthe reconciliation with Esau (chs. 32-33). Genesis 35 has some morestories about Jacob after his return. Both parts contain a story aboutthe supporting actors: Jacob's parents in ch. 26, Jacob's children inch. 34. The structure of Gen. 25.19-35.29 is chiastic.2

1. RS V: 'This is the story of the family of Jacob'.2. Cf. M. Fishbane, 'Composition and Structure in the Jacob Cycle

(Gen. 25.19-35.22)', JJS 6 (1975), pp. 20-32; and idem, Text and Texture. Close

8. Edom as Israel's Brother and Opponent 117

The present chapter discusses various aspects of the opposition ofIsrael and Edom in the Jacob-Esau stories.

2. Jacob and Esau, Israel and Edom

Although Jacob and Esau act as persons and not as nations, there areseveral indications that the stories were looked upon as paradigmaticfor the relation between Israel and Edom. First, there are YHWH'swords to the worried Rebekah: 'Two nations are in your womb, andtwo peoples, born of you, shall be divided' (25.23). This sufficientlyexplains the unrest in Rebekah's womb. A little later (25.30), thereader is told what nation Esau is: Esau is famished and is evenwilling to sell his right of primogeniture for some 'red pottage' (mRnntn DiKn); he is therefore called 'Edom' (arm). Only much further inthe story do we hear what nation Jacob is: Israel (32.29).1 Jacobreceives this name after the fight at the Jabbok. At that moment, thebirth of Jacob's eleven sons, who bear the names of the Israelitetribes, has already been recounted (chs. 29-30).

Although Israel's name appears rather late in the story, before thatwe find several allusions to Jacob's role as a nation. Particularly theblessings reveal this role. In Isaac's first blessing of Jacob (whom hemistakes for Esau), he says: 'Let peoples serve you, and nations bowdown to you' (27.29). In 28.3, 14, Jacob, when leaving Canaan, ispromised that he will become a great nation in the land he is leaving.

In 35.9-12 (God blessing Jacob in Bethel after his return toCanaan), we find the first connection of the promise of the land withthe name 'Israel'. This confirms explicitly what 32.29 alreadyindicates: that the Jacob narratives are about the people of Israel andthe land of this people.

Genesis 36 links Esau with Edom more than once.2 Esau 'is' Edom

Readings of Selected Biblical Texts (New York, 1979), pp. 40-62; J.P. Fokkelman,Narrative Art in Genesis. Specimens of Stylistic and Structural Analysis (SSN, 17;Assen & Amsterdam, 1975), pp. 237, 239-41; J.G. Gammie, 'Theological Interpre-tation by Way of Literary and Tradition Analysis: Genesis 25-36', in M.J. Buss(ed.), Encounter with the Text. Form and History in the Hebrew Bible (SS, 8;Philadelphia, PA and Missoula, MT, 1979), pp. 120-24; Dicou, Jakob en Esau,Israel en Edom, pp. 10-11, 19-22.

1. In the present study, the Masoretic verse numbering of Gen. 32 is followed,not the RSV one (MT 32.2 = RSV 32.1).

2. On Gen. 36 cf. Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, pp. 32-37.


(36.1, 8, 19) or is the father of the Edomites (36.9, 43). This chapterdescribes the history of Esau's descendants as a nation. Gen. 36.15-19lists 'the chiefs of the sons of Esau' (36.15) 'in the land of Edom'(36.16, 17). Gen. 36.31-39 enumerates 'the kings that reigned in theland of Edom, before any king reigned over the Israelites' (36.31).

When Jacob returns from Laban, Esau appears to live in 'Seir, thecountry of Edom' (32.4; cf. 33.14, 16). According to another version(36.6-8), Esau initially still lived together with Jacob in the land ofCanaan, and moved later, when 'their possessions were too great forthem to dwell together' (36.7), to Seir. Jacob is the one to live 'in theland of his father's sojournings, in the land of Canaan' (37.1).

Genesis 27 tells the story of the theft of Isaac's deathbed blessing.Isaac wanted to give this blessing to his first-born son, Esau. Jacob had'bought' the right of primogeniture from Esau, and in this chapters hemoves to acquire the blessing meant for the first-born as well. Hesucceeds by presenting himself to Isaac as Esau, in Esau's cloths, andwith kid skins on his hands and neck to suggest Esau's hairy skin.

Inadvertently, Isaac now repeats to his youngest son what YHWHpredicted about that youngest son, when he was still unborn: nationswill serve him, he will be lord over his brothers (27.29). Compare thetwo texts:

27.29 25.23Let peoples serve you, Two nations are in your womb,and nations bow down to you. and two peoples, born of you, shall

be divided;Be lord over your brothers, the one shall be stronger than theand may your mother's sons bow other,down to you. the eldest shall serve the younger.

The blessing organizes the relationship between the brother nations.Besides, something is said about Jacob's land (27.28): Jacob will beable to profit from the gifts of the land.

After Jacob has been blessed, it is impossible for Esau to obtain thesame blessing. 'Behold, I have made him your lord, and all hisbrothers I have give to him for servants, and with grain and wine Ihave sustained him. What then can I do for you, my son?' (27.36).

But Esau begs Isaac for another blessing, and he gets one. Isaaccannot undo the fact that Jacob has been given the first position, but headds some softening words: '...you shall serve your brother; butwhen you break loose you shall break his yoke from your neck'


(27.40). The relation between Jacob and Esau (and between thenations they represent) is less fixed than it seemed.

Esau's blessing is partly the mirror image of Jacob's blessing.

27.28 (Jacob) 27.39-40 (Esau)May God give you of the dew of the 39 Behold, away from the fatnessheaven, of the earth shall your dwelling be,and of the fatness of the earth, and away from the dew of heaven

on high,and plenty of grain and wine. 40 By your sword you shall live...

There is very little difference between the two formulations. The'of in 'of the dew' and 'of the fatness' (27.28) is the rendering of thepreposition |n, which in 27.39 is translated 'away from'. The secondtime, the preposition is used to express the opposite meaning.1 Likethe two twin brothers,2 the twinned blessings are each other's opposites.

It appears that Isaac, using the same words, does not say more thanthat Esau does not obtain what Jacob has obtained. Esau's blessingrather seems to be a curse. However, for Esau, the hunter, dew andfat of the land are perhaps less important than for Jacob. The nextpart of the blessing, 'By your sword you shall live' also need notnecessarily be interpreted as a curse. While Jacob will be able to liveof 'plenty of grain and wine', Esau, whose land will not be very

1. According to I. Willi-Plein ('Genesis 27 als Rebekkageschichte. Zu einemhistoriographischen Kunstgriff der biblischen Vatergeschichten', TZ 45 [1989],pp. 320-22) there is no difference between the two blessings at this point. In heropinion, the second blessing says that Esau too will receive 'fatness of the earth' and'dew of heaven': 'vom fetten der Erde her wird dein Wohsitz sein und vom Tau desHimmels von oben' (p. 320). She denies that here )n can mean 'without' (as it doesin a few other cases), and argues that a translation should be given that is inaccordance with the 'direktionale Grundbedeutung' of p (p. 321). In my view, theRSV rendering 'away from' is in accordance with this 'Grundbedeutung'. Moreover,the RSV sounds quite logical, in contrast to Willi-Plein's suggestion, which soundsrather contrived. Finally, the difference between 27.28 and 27.39-40 seems tosuggest spatial distance between Esau and the fat land. Isaac says to Jacob: 'MayGod give you of the dew of the heaven (etc.)'; the ]n is clearly partitive. In Esau'sblessing, there is no mention of either 'giving' or 'receiving'; instead, Isaac talksabout Esau's 'dwelling' (attfin; a word not used in Jacob's blessing), which will bepRn 'Dntfn—in another place than the fat land that Isaac has asked God to give toJacob. The next part of Esau's blessing, 'By your sword you shall live' (27.40),corroborates this interpretation: not being able to live from the products of the land,Esau will have to live by his sword (cf. below).

2. Cf. 25.27-28; 27.11.


fertile, can make his living in another way.1 In the end, Esau indeedleaves the promised country (36.6-8; cf. 32.4; 33.14, 16).

Whereas in Isaac's first blessing of Jacob in 27.28-29 it was notexplicitly stated what land Jacob was going to inherit, his secondblessing of Jacob (28.3-4) is quite specific in this respect: 'May (God)give the blessing of Abraham to you and to your descendants withyou, that you may take possession of the land of your sojourningswhich God gave to Abraham!' (28.4; cf. God's promise in 28.13).

Upon closer examination, the Jacob-Esau narratives appear to befull of word-plays on ethnic names and toponyms. Puns on the namesJacob, Israel, Edom, Seir are important elements in several of thenarratives. Twice, Jacob's name is interpreted as indicating hisdetermination to be the first. First, it is suggested that Jacob (3pjr) gothis name because he held his brother's heel (3pJ>) when they wereborn (25.26). Then, when Esau discovers that his brother has stolenhis blessing, he says: 'Is he not rightly named Jacob? For he hassupplanted me ('33pm) these two times. He took away my birthright;and behold, now he has taken away my blessing' (27.36).2

There is no pun on the name Esau in the story of his birth, but thereis one on the names Edom (DTIR) and Seir (T^to): 'The first cameforth red 031DTK), all his body like a hairy (IDto) mantle' (25.25).Later, Esau sells his birthright for the 'red' (Dl«) stuff Jacob hascooked (25.30).

In ch. 27, Jacob, who himself is 'a smooth man' (27.11), uses kidskins to resemble his 'hairy' brother, in order to mislead his father.We find here not only an allusion to Esau's country, but also toJacob's. Esau's being 'hairy' (isto; 27.11, 23) is a pun on Seir (Tito).Jacob's being 'smooth' (p"?n) is a pun on Mount Halak (pbn), 'thatrises towards Seir' (Josh. 11.17; 12.7); Mount Halak denotes Israel'ssouthernmost part.3

1. Cf. Willi-Plein, 'Genesis 27', pp. 323-24.2. Note the very similar sound of Trori, 'my birthright', and TD"a, 'my

blessing'.3. E. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte (WMANT, 57; Neukirchen-

Vluyn, 1984), pp. 71 (n. 19) and 191; cf. F.M.Th. de Liagre Bohl, 'Wortspiele imAlten Testament', in Opera Minor a. Studies en bijdragen op Assyriologisch enoudtestamentisch terrein (Groningen, 1953), pp. 18-19; Fokkelman, Narrative Art inGenesis, pp. 199-200 n. 6; S. Gervitz, 'Of Patriarchs and Puns: Joseph at theFountain, Jacob at the Ford', HUCA 46 (1975), p. 48; Z. Kallai, 'The SouthernBorder of the Land of Israel—Pattern and Application', VT 37 (1987), p. 445 (and


Jacob's name is also employed in word-play in ch. 32. At the Jabbok(j?T), there is someone who wrestles (p3»') with Jacob (npi^); there,Jacob loses his old name and receives the name Israel, the name of thenation that is to live in the land of Canaan which Jacob is about to enter.Whereas the name Jacob denoted his rather unfair struggle with Esau,the name Israel has a more positive connotation. 'Your name shall nomore be called Jacob, but Israel (bfcofer), for you have striven withGod (Dvfrn-DD rnto) and men, and have prevailed' (32.29; cf. 35.10).

The descendants of Jacob/Israel are directly made a party to thestory: 'to this day the Israelites do not eat the sinew of the hip which isupon the hollow of the thigh, because he [= the 'man'] touched thehollow of Jacob's thigh on the sinew of the hip' (32.33; cf. 32.26).!

The stories of Jacob's voyage to Mesopotamia and his return toCanaan gave the author the opportunity to pun on a lot of Israeliteplace-names. In Bethel ('God's house'), where Jacob spends the nightbefore he leaves the promised land, he meets God for the first time(28.10-22; later, he will return there, 35.1-15). Bethel is the nameJacob gives the place (28.10; cf. 35.7, 15). Mahanaim and Pniel areplace-names invented by Jacob to denote what happened to him there.In Mahanaim (D'3nn)he found 'God's army (D»rf?K rnnn)' (32.3), inPniel (bins) he saw 'God face to face (D'ja-^K DMB DTibK)' (32.31).Words sounding like these place-names are constitutive elements ofchs. 32-33.2 Moreover, they connect the narrative of Jacob's fight atthe Jabbok (32.23-33) with the narrative of his encounter with Esau,which it interrupts.3 Succot (nso) is the place where Jacob built'booths' (TOO) for his cattle (33.17).

443); K. Luke, 'Esau's Marriage', ITS 25 (1988), p. 182.1. Cf. K.A. Deurloo, 'De naam en de namen (Genesis 32.23-33)', ACEBT 2

(1981), p. 38.2. Mahanaim (anna): Jacob's two 'companies' (nunD, 32.8, 9, 11), his

'present' (nrao) for Esau (32.14, 19, 21, 22; 33.10), the 'favour' (|n) Jacob hopes tofind in his brother's sight (32.6; 33.8, 10, 15; cf. pn 33.5, 11). Pniel CMTJD):Jacob's fear to see his brother's 'face' (nâ) (32.21; 33.10) and his face to faceencounter with God (32.31). Cf. Bohl, 'Wortspiele im Alten Testament', pp. 14-15,19-22; Fokkelman, Narrative Art in Genesis, pp. 197-231 (passim)', Gervitz, 'OfPatriarchs and Puns', pp. 50-51; Gammie, 'Theological Interpretation', pp. 124-25;Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, pp. 18-19, 27-28.

3. Cf. G. von Rad, Das erste Buch Mose. Genesis Kapitel 25,19-50,26 (ATD,4; Gottingen, 5th edn, 1967), pp. 283-84; Fokkelman, Narrative Art in Genesis,p. 220; Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, p. 28.


The difference between the nation that is destined to inherit thepromised land and the nation that is not is worked out in an interestingway in the story of Esau's marriages (26.34-35; cf. 27.46; 28.6-9).One reason for Jacob's voyage to Mesopotamia is Esau's threat to killhim; Esau wants revenge for his stolen blessing and Rebekah tellsJacob to stay temporarily with Laban (27.41-45). Another reason isthe one that Rebekah tells her husband: she does not want Jacob tomarry 'Hittite' (Canaanite) women (27.46).1 In Isaac's subsequentspeech to Jacob the blessing (the gift of the land of Canaan) isconnected with the assignment to marry 'one of the daughters ofLaban':2 exactly because he will inherit the land of Canaan, Jacobshould not marry a Canaanite woman (28.1-4).3 The inheritance of theland of Canaan cannot be the result of mixing with the inhabitants, butis God's free gift to his chosen people.

Not only by selling his birthright to his brother but also by hismarriages, Esau shows that he does not care to be the chosen one. Theinheritor of God's promise cannot marry women from the people stillliving in the promised land, as Esau does.

Already before ch. 27, Esau's marriages with two Hittite womenhave been recounted (26.34-35). The women 'made life bitter for Isaacand Rebekah' (26.35; cf. 27.46). After Jacob had been sent to Laban(28.5), Esau understood 'that the Canaanite women did not pleaseIsaac his father' (28.8). He tried to correct his mistake by marryingyet another woman: Mahalath, the daughter of Ishmael (28.9).4

As stated above, chs. 25-35 have a chiastic structure. This impliesthat there are two movements in the development of the narratives:progress, since the story goes on, and repetition, since in chiasticallyrelated chapters situations match each other. Sometimes, there is areversal in the repeated situation.

Progress is found in the Jacob-Esau stories in that Jacob eventuallysucceeds in realizing his blessing. As a wealthy man, he returns to the

1. In Genesis, 'Hittites' are regarded as Canaanites; cf. e.g. Gen. 36.1.2. After the motif that the youngest prevails, this is the second moving spirit

behind the Jacob narratives. It determines the stories of Jacob's stay with Laban andhis return.

3. Cf. Fokkelman, Narrative Art in Genesis, p. 112 n. 38.4. According to 36.2-3, Esau married, besides one Hittite and one Hivite

woman, Ishmael's daughter Basemath. In 26.34, Basemath is one of Esau's twoHittite wives.


promised land, where he can stay. Esau has left the country. Repetitionis found, for example, in 28.10-22 and ch. 32, the Bethel and theMahanaim/Peniel episodes, which respectively take place just beforeleaving the land and returning to the land.1 In both instances, Jacobmeets 'angels of God' (28.12; 32.2). In both, Jacob has a nightlyencounter with God. When Jacob leaves, the sun sets (28.11); when hereturns, the sun rises upon him (32.32).

The chiastic structure links ch. 33 with 27.1-28.9. In the latter,Jacob's relationship with Esau is broken; in the former, it is restored.Reversed is Jacob's attitude towards the blessing. He has striven to bethe first and to be master over his brother and has indeed acquired hisbrother's blessing, which included the promise of supremacy: 'Be lordover your brothers, and may your mother's sons bow down to you'(27.29). But this is reversed in ch. 33. It is Jacob who bows down toEsau (seven times, 33.3; after him, all his women and children toobow down, 33.6-7). Jacob presents himself as 'your servant' (33.5, 14;cf. 32.5, 19, 21) and calls Esau 'my lord' (33.8, 13, 14, 15; cf. 32.5,6, 19). In a sense, he even returns his blessing to his brother.2 Heoffers Esau a vast present, saying to him: 'Accept, I pray you, my giftthat is brought to you' (33.11). Now, the word rendered 'gift' is rD"Q,the usual word for 'blessing'.3

Esau has wanted to kill Jacob (27.41) and Jacob fears that the con-frontation with his brother will bring his death (32.8-9, 12). The'four hundred men' (32.7; 33.1) Esau is reported to have broughtwith him seem to promise little good. But when they meet, Esauappears to be very conciliatory; he is full of joy to see his brotheragain (33.4). This is the end of their conflict, and they part in peace(33.12-17).4

1. Cf. e.g. Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, pp. 10-11, 21, 251.2. Cf. M. Buber, 'Die Schrift und ihre Verdeutschung', in Werke 2. Schriften

zur Bibel (Miinchen and Heidelberg, 1964), p. 1141; Fishbane, 'Composition andStructure', p. 28; Fokkelman, Narrative Art in Genesis, pp. 227-28; Gammie,Theological Interpretation', pp. 123-24.

3. Cf. Gen. 27. In a few other cases, it has the meaning 'gift', as in Gen.33.11. Cf. HAL s.v., no. 4: 'mit Segenwunsch verbundenes Geschenk'.

4. Contra G.W. Coats, 'Strife without Reconciliation—A Narrative Theme inthe Jacob Traditions', in R. Albertz et al. (eds.), Werden und Wirken des AlienTestaments (Fs C. Westermann; Gottingen and Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1980), p. 103,who finds here another instance of the 'strife without reconciliation' motif in 'theJacob traditions'. Although Jacob does not go to Seir as he has told Esau (33.14-15),


From a literary point of view, the narratives could not have endedin Mesopotamia. The story of Jacob's exile with Laban expects hisreturn. The blessed son, whom the land has been promised to, has toreturn to Canaan. However, he can only return to the land afterhaving met his brother; it was the conflict with Esau that caused himto leave. His attempts to be lord over his brother resulted in his forceddeparture to Laban. He can only realize his blessed position through areconciliation with Esau.

In this context, another reversal is significant. At their birth, Jacobwas holding his brother's 'heel' (3ptf; 25.26). S.H. Smith1 has arguedthat this is an euphemism for Jacob's gripping Esau's genitals: Jacobtries to get hold of the first-born's procreative power. It is a(symbolic) attempt to become the true inheritor to the Abrahamicpromise. Now, this is reversed in the story of the fight at the Jabbok.There, the 'man' strikes Jacob upon 'the hollow of the thigh' (32.26),on 'the sinew of the hip' (32.33). These too appear to be euphemisticterms for the genitals.2 Jacob's procreative power has been hit.3

By striking Jacob, symbolically, upon his genitals God demonstrates thatonly he has the power to bring Jacob's aspirations to fruition: what he hasbestowed he can just as readily take away... (Jacob) can neither escape

there is no suggestion that Jacob did not want to go there. Moreover, the followingnarratives do not relate any more conflicts between the brothers (cf. 35.29; 36.6-8).Cf. T.L. Thompson, The Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel. I. The LiteraryFormation of Genesis and Exodus 1-23 (JSOTSup, 55; Sheffield: JSOT Press,1987), p. 111.

1. S.H. Smith, ' "Heel" and 'Thigh": The Concept of Sexuality in the Jacob-Esau Narratives', VT40 (1990), pp. 464-66, 471-72.

2. Smith, '"Heel" and "Thigh"', pp. 466-69, 472-73. Cf. P.A.H. de Boer,'Genesis XXXII 23-32. Some Remarks on Composition and Character of theStory', NTT 1 (1946^7), p. 159; Gervitz, 'Of Patriarchs and Puns', pp. 51-53;Deurloo, 'De naam en de namen', p. 38.

3. It should be noted that when Jacob returns to Canaan, eleven of his sons andhis daughter have already been born; moreover, Rachel may already have beenpregnant with Jacob's last child, Benjamin, whose birth is reported in 35.16-18.Rachel's words 'the way of women is upon me' (31.35) can be interpreted in thissense; cf. S.K. Sherwood, 'Had God Not Been on My Side.' An Examination of theNarrative Technique of the Story of Jacob and Laban—Gen. 29,1-32,2 (EuropeanUniversity Studies 23/400; Frankfurt am Main, 1990), pp. 328-39.


the feeling of guilt by which he is plagued, nor overcome his sense oftrepidation as he contemplates the re-encounter with his brother unless hefirst acknowledges God's power over his life.

3. Conclusion

In Jacob and Esau we meet the ancestors and the representatives oftwo nations, Israel and Edom. Although they are twins, they are quitedifferent. Essential is that Esau is the first-born, but does not showmuch understanding of the meaning of this fact. He is easily alluredinto giving away his birthright and does not hesitate to marry womenfrom the inhabitants of the promised land. Jacob, on the other hand,seizes every opportunity to become the first-born. He succeeds incheating his brother out of his blessing and birthright. With respect tohis marriages, he does what his brother should have done. Only one ofthem can receive God's special blessing.

Esau is depicted as one who at important moments makes the wrongdecision, and, therefore, is not suited for the position of the first-born.However, our judgment of Esau is moderated by the fact that alreadybefore his birth YHWH had made it clear that Esau would not be thechosen one. Besides, the narrative is critical towards Jacob rather thantowards Esau. Jacob's low-down manipulations to receive blessing areonly ostensibly successful: they result in years of exile far away fromthe land of the blessing. Esau, on the other hand, is not lacking ingood intentions. Without protest he adapts himself to his parents'wishes as regards his marriages. He plans to kill Jacob for the theft ofhis blessing, but when the opportunity for revenge arises, he makes upwith his brother right away. Jacob, who wanted to be lord over hisbrother, now calls himself Esau's servant; instead of accepting this,Esau then calls Jacob his 'brother' (33.9).

In the end, Esau takes up his residence in Seir. There, his descen-dants become the nation of Edom. Edom is the nation that is notchosen by YHWH as his own people, the people that he is going to giveCanaan to, Jacob, renamed Israel, returns to Canaan. With him, thestory goes on.

1. Smith, ' "Heel" and "Thigh"', pp. 472-73.

Chapter 9

EDOM'S ROLE IN GENESIS

1. Introduction

The present chapter discusses Edom's role in Genesis, notably by anexamination of the place and function of chs. 25-36 in the book ofGenesis. It will be argued that in Genesis (as in the Major Prophetsand Obadiah) Edom serves as the representative of the nations and asIsrael's particular opponent.

Section 2 is devoted to the structure and theme of the book ofGenesis. Section 3 examines the chapters in the middle of the concen-tric Jacob cycle. In section 4, there is a discussion of the other narra-tives in Genesis about 'brothers' who represent nations. Finally, insection 5, conclusions are drawn as to Edom's role in Genesis.

2. Genesis 25.19-37.1 and the Structure and Themeof the Book of Genesis

In Genesis, the story is told of the origin of Israel and the nations.That is its main theme. This is evident from the structure of the book.Genesis is divided into parts headed These are the Toledoth(rvnbn n*?»), "generations",1 of...'2 The Toledoth are recounted of

1. Regrettably, the RSV gives different renderings of the term in the variousplaces: 'generations' in Gen. 2.4; 5.1; 6.9; 10.1; 'descendants' in Gen. 11.10, 27;25.12, 19; 36.1, 9; 'the history of the family' in Gen. 37.2.

2. Cf. F.H. Breukelman, Bijbelse Theologie 1,1. Schrift-lezing (Kampen,1980), pp. 18, 105, 126-28; S. Tengstrom, Die Toledot-Formel und die literarischeStruktur der priesterlichen Erweiterungsschicht im Pentateuch (ConBOT, 17;Uppsala, 1981), pp. 17-59; Childs, Old Testament as Scripture, pp. 145-50;R. Rendtorff, Das Alte Testament. Eine Einfuhrung (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 2nd edn,1985), pp. 142, 147; Thompson, Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel, pp. 170-72(and 68-131 passim).

9. Edom's Role in Genesis 127

respectively: 'the heavens and the earth' (2.4); Adam (5.1); Noah (6.9);'the sons of Noah': Shem, Ham, and Japhet (10.1); Shem (11.10);Terah (11.27); Ishmael (25.12); Isaac (25.19); Esau (36.1, 9); Jacob(37.2). The title of the section Gen. 5.1-6.8 is also the title of thebook of Genesis as a whole; see 5.1: 'This is the book of thegenerations of Adam'.1

The history of humankind on earth is introduced by the narrative ofthe creation of heaven and earth in 1.1-2.3 and by the narrative of'the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created'(2.4-4.26; quotation from 2.4).2 Humankind is not 'generated' by theearth, it is God who 'formed man from dust of the ground' (2.7). Thecreation of heaven and earth ends in the creation of man in 1.26-28and in the 'generation' of man in 2.4-7. At the beginning of the 'bookof the generations of Adam' the creation of man is referred to (5.2).3

The 'generations of Adam' result in the generation of the nations onthe one hand (ch. 10), and the generation of Abraham, Israel'sancestor, on the other. Two series of 'generations' connect Adam andAbraham: ch. 5 (until Noah and his sons) and 11.10-26 (from Noah'sson Shem to Abraham's father Terah).

Each Toledoth section tells a part of the continuing history of theorigin of mankind and of Israel. In ch. 10, the nations of the worldare presented as the 'generations' of Noah's three sons. Gen. 10.1-11.9 concludes the first part of Genesis. All the seventy nations of theworld are present—except for Israel and its neighbours. The secondand largest part of Genesis is about the origin of these nations. Thesection 'Toledoth of Shem' (11.10-26; the genealogy from Shem tillTerah) constitutes the bridge between the two parts of the book.4

The line of Israel is a special one. From ch. 12 onward, all attentionis directed to the origin of Israel. God promises Abraham that he will

1. Cf. Thompson, Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel, p. 73 (cf. pp. 68-73,170); cf. Tengstrom, Die Toledot-Formel, pp. 58, 68; K.A. Deurloo, 'NarrativeGeography in the Abraham Cycle', in A.S. van der Woude (ed.), In Quest of thePast. Studies on Israelite Religion, Literature and Prophetism. Papers Read at theJoint British-Dutch Old Testament Conference, Held at Elspeet, 1988 (OTS, 26;Leiden, 1990), p. 49.

2. Cf. Childs, Old Testament as Scripture, pp. 146, 150.3. Cf. the allusions to the creation story in 5.3 (Adam becomes the father of a

son 'in his own likeness, after his image'; cf. 1.26-28).4. Cf. D.J.A. Clines, The Theme of the Pentateuch (JSOTSup, 10; Sheffield:

JSOT Press, 1978), pp. 77-78.


make his offspring a great nation, and that he will give this people theland where he will lead them (12.1-3). Time and again, God's promiseis repeated, to Abraham as well as to Isaac and Jacob.1

The special character of Israel's line is illustrated in chs. 12-36 bydepicting the origin of some other peoples as well, peoples closelyrelated to Israel. While the family history of Abraham continues inthe direction of Israel, 'brothers' (real or considered as such) appear,which represent the non-chosen line. They act as counterparts to theforefathers of Israel. Abraham's 'brother' is Lot. Lot becomes thefather of Ammon and Moab. Isaac's brother Ishmael is the father ofthe Arabian peoples. Jacob's brother is Esau, the ancestor of theEdomites.

After the narratives about Abraham (11.27-25.11), Toledoth on themain line and on the collateral lines alternate. First, the (literal)'generations' are given of the son who is not Israel's ancestor (agenealogy). Then follow the narrative Toledoth of the other son. Thenarrative 'Toledoth of X' always have the history of X's sons as theirsubject.

Abraham's sons are Ishmael and Isaac. Only one of them—Isaac—can stand in the line of God's promise. The section 'Toledoth ofIshmael' (25.12-18) is a short list of Ishmael's descendants; with the'Toledoth of Isaac' (25.19-35.29) the history of Israel's origin con-tinues. Likewise, the section 'Toledoth of Esau' (36.1-37.1), con-sisting of genealogies, concludes Esau's part of the history. The storygoes on with Jacob's sons, in the 'Toledoth of Jacob' (37.2-50.26).

The principal characters among the patriarchs are Abraham andJacob, in the 'Toledoth of Terah' (11.27-25.11) and the 'Toledoth ofIsaac' (25.19-35.29) respectively. The two sections have a similarsubject: the birth of two sons, and their relationship. In the firstsection, it is approached from the side of the father, in the second,from the side of the sons. Isaac is the 'son' of the first section, and the'father' of the second.

Genesis is about the origin of one special nation among the nationsof the world: Israel, the blessed nation. God undertook to bless allmankind (1.28; 5.2; 9.1-7), but his particular blessing is for that onenation.

1. Cf. Clines, Theme of the Pentateuch, pp. 29, 32-43, 45-46; J. Goldingay,"The Patriarchs in Scripture and History', in A.R. Millard and DJ. Wiseman (eds.),Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives (Leicester, 1980), pp. 11-23.

9. Edotn's Role in Genesis 129

Important for our subject is that this theme is brought to a conclu-sion in the stories of Jacob and Esau. The name of Israel is mentionedfor the first time in Genesis in the Jacob-Esau stories. It is the nameJacob receives as a blessing at the fight at the Jabbok, when he is aboutto re-enter the land of Canaan (32.29). Jacob enters Canaan, thepromised land, as Israel. In 35.9-15, Jacob is back in Bethel. In 35.10-12 the promise is repeated that the offspring of the patriarch shallbecome a great nation, a promise well known to the reader of theearlier parts of Genesis. Here, it is for the first time in Genesisconnected with the name this nation will bear: Israel (35.10). Directlyafterwards, on his way from Bethel to Ephrath, Jacob becomes thefather of the last of his twelve sons (35.16-18); these sons bear thenames of the twelve tribes of Israel (cf. the list in 35.22-26). It is inthe 'Toledoth of Isaac' that Israel originates; in Jacob and his sons, theline of Israel's ancestors reaches its end.

The other part of the Genesis theme, the origin of the nations, isalso concluded in the Jacob-Esau stories. Esau is the last in the line ofancestors of foreign nations. The line of the other nations ends here,with Edom. 'Israel' and 'the last nation' originate together, as twinbrothers.

In the light of the theme of Genesis, the most relevant distinctionbetween Jacob and Esau is their attitude towards the right of primo-geniture. The first-born will be the one called to stand in the line ofGod's promise, the line of Israel. Esau's careless attitude makes him atypical example of the non-chosen line.

3. The Middle of Genesis 25.19-37.1:Jacob's Stay with Laban, Genesis 29-31

The narratives in Genesis 29-31, the Jacob-Laban stories, mirror thesurrounding stories on Jacob and Esau in many ways: several situa-tions, themes, motifs, words and even phrases occur in both parts.1

Laban deceives Jacob in the same way as Jacob has deceived Esau: bypresenting to Jacob another daughter than Jacob wants: not theyoungest one, but the first-born. Moreover, Laban acts as Jacob's

1. Cf. e.g. Fokkelman, Narrative Art in Genesis, pp. 140-41; Dicou, Jakob enEsau, Israel en Edom, pp. 45-47; Sherwood, 'Had God Not Been on My Side',pp. 105-107 (p. 107: 'it seems clear that the author wants the reader to see in 29 therequital of Jacob's action in 27').


'brother' but makes Jacob 'serve' him (cf. e.g. 29.12, 15). This is areversal of Jacob's blessing: 'Let peoples serve you, and nations bowdown to you. Be lord over your brothers, and may your mother'ssons bow down to you' (27.29). (The same reversal we have found inthe narrative of Jacob's and Esau's reunion, ch. 33.)1

Genesis 29-31 relates a decisive part of the origin history of Israel.Central to these chapters (literally as well as figuratively) is the birthof Jacob's children. There, the foundation is laid for the origin ofIsrael. Together with the Jacob-Esau stories, the Jacob-Laban storiesconstitute the history of the beginning of the people of Israel and their(first) voyage to the promised land.

The peoples of Ammon, Moab, Ishmael and Edom are born withinthe part of the family of Terah that went to Canaan (11.27-12.5).Their birth has been told before chs. 29-31. The peoples surroundingIsrael are now present. In chs. 29-31, Jacob meets the other part ofTerah's family, the one that has stayed behind in Mesopotamia (cf.11.31). Laban and his sister Rebekah are children of Bethuel, the sonof Abraham's brother Nahor. Bethuel and Laban are Aramaeans:2

they live in Paddan-Aram (25.20; 24.10: 'Aram-Naharaim', i.e.northern Mesopotamia), in the vicinity of the city of Haran (27.43;28.10; 29.4).3

The separation from this part of the family, as depicted in chs. 29-31,4 is the last phase in the history of Israel's origin among thenations. Exactly in this phase, and partly parallel with it, Israel's sepa-ration from its twin brother Edom takes place. When Jacob and hisfamily return from Mesopotamia, Esau and his family have to leavethe land of Canaan. Gen. 31.17-18 and 36.6 illustrate that these areparallel movements:

1. Cf. Chapter 8, section 2.2. One of the descendants of Nahor and Milka, listed in 22.20-24, is called

Aram (22.21).3. Haran is the city where Terah and Abraham, moving from Ur of the

Chaldaeans towards Canaan, arrived and stayed (11.31-32).4. At the end of these narratives, Jacob and Laban, the representatives of Israel

and Aram, establish a border line between their nations (31.44-54). Their separationis permanent. In 31.47 it is emphasized that Jacob and Laban speak differentlanguages: Laban gives the heap of stones at the border an Aramaic name, Jacob aHebrew one.

9. Edam's Role in Genesis 131

31.17-18 36.6(Jacob) set his sons and his wives Then Esau took his wives, his sons,on camels; and he drove away all his daughters... his cattle, all hishis cattle, all his livestock which he beasts,had acquired (RSV: 'gained'), thecattle in his possession (T3'3p) which and all his property (trap) which hehe had acquired in Paddan-Aram, to had acquired in the land of Canaan;go to the land of Canaan to his and he went into a land away fromfather Isaac. his brother Jacob.

This is quite a significant parallel. A similar verse is found in twoother places: 12.5, where Abraham moves to Canaan, taking with himall he possesses, and 46.6, where Jacob and his family, taking all theirpossessions, leave the land for ever.1

Gen. 36.6 is the only place where this verse is applied to a nationother than Israel. However, as will be discussed in the followingsection, the fate of the nation chosen to conclude the line of the nationsin Genesis is illustrative of the fate of all the other nations.

4. Brothers and Nations

In the patriarchal narratives, there is always a member of the familywho acts as counterpart to the heir of God's promise to Abraham. Atfirst sight, they seem to be the most natural candidates for thisheritage, but in the end they appear not to be the elected ones.

Lot is the son of Abram's brother Haran (11.27; cf. 12.5; 14.12),and Abram calls Lot his 'brother' (13.8; cf. 14.14, 16). After Haranhas died, they travel together to Canaan. When they arrive there,Abram—whose wife is barren (11.30)—is promised that his descen-dants will inherit this land (12.7). When it appears that Lot andAbram have too many cattle to live together, they separate. Abrammay have hoped that Lot chose a part of the promised land (cf. 13.8-9), but Lot chooses a region outside Canaan (13.10-12).2 In this way,

1. Gen. 12.5, in its turn, parallels 11.31 (Terah moves in the direction ofCanaan); cf. Deurloo, 'Narrative Geography', p. 52. Cf. Blum, Die Kompositionder Vatergeschichte, p. 332 for a scheme with the five texts (11.31; 12.5; 31.17-18;36.6; 46.6).

2. As L.R. Helyer, The Separation of Abraham and Lot: Its Significance in thePatriarchal Narrative', JSOT 26 (1983), pp. 79-80, demonstrates, Gen. 13.12suggests a distinction between Canaan and the region Lot chose: 'Abram dwelt in theland of Canaan, while Lot dwelt among the cities of the valley...' In any case, the


Lot disqualifies himself as heir to the promise.1

Lot's land, the Jordan valley, is a very fertile region (13.10), butwill soon afterwards be turned into a dead country, because of thewickedness of its inhabitants (19.24-28; cf. 13.10, 13). Then, Lotbecomes the father of Ammon (Ben-Ammi) and Moab in a most dis-graceful manner: he begets children by his two daughters—unknowingly, since he has been made drunk (19.31-38). Lot became afather through incest, which stands in sharp contrast with the wayAbram and Sarai beget their son, namely through God's promise.Isaac is the ancestor of Israel, Lot is the father of Israel's easternneighbours.

But before Isaac is born, his half-brother Ishmael is born. Despairingof becoming parents, Abram and Sarai use Sarai's Egyptian servantHagar as surrogate mother (ch. 16). However, the son begotten in thisway, Ishmael, cannot be the heir of the promise, as God assuresAbram (17.18-19). In the end, Hagar and Ishmael depart to the desert(ch. 21). Ishmael becomes the father of the desert people; hisgenealogy lists several Arabian peoples (25.12-18).

Gen. 25.1-6 presents another collateral genealogy: the sons ofAbraham's concubine Keturah. These too are Arabian peoples. WhileIshmael's sons are located to the south of Israel (25.18), Keturah'ssons dwell in the east (25.6).

'Separation' is an important motif in the patriarchal narratives.Through separation, the various nations around Israel appear. Rebekahis told: 'Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples, born of you,shall be divided' (25.23). The verb translated 'be divided', Tia nif., isalso used in ch. 10, to indicate the origin of the various nations (10.5,32).2 It is used with some emphasis in the narrative of the separationof Abram and Lot (it is repeated three times: 13.9, 11, 14). Abram'sand Lot's descendants will be separate nations living in separate lands.

region that Lot chose is not part of the promised land. Soon afterwards, it is to bedestroyed (cf. already 13.10).

1. Cf. Helyer, 'Separation of Abraham and Lot', pp.80, 82-83, 85-86.According to Helyer (p. 82), the 'leading theme of the Abraham Cycle' is 'the prob-lem of an heir'. The reader of Genesis has been told before that Lot was not a seriouscandidate for the heritage: it is to Abraham's 'seed' (inr; 12.7), his descendants, thatthe land is promised.

2. The RSV rendering in 10.5, 32 is 'spread'.

9. Edam's Role in Genesis 133

The same reason is given as in the story of the separation of Jacob andEsau:

13.5-6 36.7And Lot, who went with Abram, For their possessions were tooalso had flocks and herds and tents, great for them to dwell together; theso that the land could not support land of their sojournings could notboth of them dwelling together; for support them because of their cattle,their possessions were so great thatthay could not dwell together...

Eventually, Lot, Ishmael and Esau all leave the land of Canaan.Likewise, the sons of Keturah (25.6).

We have seen that within the structure of Genesis 12-50, the sec-tions 'Toledoth of Ishmael' (25.12-18) and 'Toledoth of Esau' (36.1-37.1) serve the same function. They give the genealogies of the twomain collateral branches within the origin history of Israel. Ishmaeland Esau are the structural counterparts to Isaac and Jacob. TheirToledoth introduce the Toledoth of Isaac and Jacob.

There are sundry other correspondences between Ishmael and Esau.Both are born first, but neither can be the first-born, the heir of thepromise. In both cases, their fathers love them and want them to betheir heir (17.18; 25.28; 27.1-4); both times, they are opposed in thismatter both by God (17.19; 25.23) and their wives (21.10-12; 25.28;27.5-17). Neither Ishmael nor Esau can stay in the promised land, andboth of them come to live in less fertile regions. For both of them,this destiny is indicated in a saying:

27.39-40 (Esau) 16.12 (Ishmael)39 Behold, away from the fatness He shall be a wild ass of a man, hisof the earth shall your dwelling be, hand against every man and everyand away from the dew of heaven man's hand against him;on high.40 By your sword you shall live, and he shall dwell over against alland you shall serve your brother his brothers (RSV: kinsmen).

Corresponding elements are the reference to the dwelling-place andthe remark on the relation with the brother(s). With Ishmael, the twoelements are connected. Living 'over against' his brothers means thathe cannot live with them. The dwelling-place of the wild ass is thedesert, the place where no other human beings are found.1 Ishmael

1. Isa. 32.14; Jer. 2.24; Job 24.5; 39.5-8; cf. Jer. 14.6; Hos. 8.9.


cannot live in peace with his brothers, as is expressly stated in the firsthalf of 16.12. For Esau too, the arid constitution of his land isconsequential for his way of living, which will be violent.

On the other hand, the histories of both Isaac and Ishmael, andJacob and Esau end peacefully: together with their brothers, they burytheir fathers (25.9; 35.29). Likewise as with Esau, the fact thatIshmael is to live outside the promised land in rather desolate areasneed not be interpreted negatively.1 Both Ishmael and Esau becomefathers of prospering nations, as their genealogies illustrate. Edomeven develops faster than its brother; it has kings before Israel, 36.31.As for Ishmael, God himself promises to make him a great nation too(21.13, 18).

Besides the similarities between their roles, there is another con-nection between Ishmael and Esau: Esau marries a daughter ofIshmael, in order to please his parents and to follow Jacob's exampleof marrying within the family (28.6-9). The connection is significant:while he does marry within the family, Esau links himself with thecollateral branch and thus is confirmed in his role as the non-chosenson.

5. Edom's Specific Role

Our question is whether we can describe Edom's role in Genesis asthat of the representative of the nations and as Israel's particularopponent, as in the prophetic books. In the preceding sections we sawthat Edom is the last of the nations that originate together with Israel'sancestors, and besides, the nation that is there when Israel itselfappears, as its brother. But we have found as well that Genesis alsoelsewhere illustrates the difference between Israel and the othernations by giving the patriarchs a 'brother'. Therefore, it could beasked whether Edom really more than the other neighbours serves asIsrael's opponent on behalf of the nations. In my view, it does. Acloser comparison demonstrates that Esau's (Edom's) role differsfrom that of the other patriarchs of Israel's neighbours.

First, it appears that in none of the stories about Lot and Ishmael isthe opposition Israel-nation(s) as clearly portrayed as in the storiesabout Jacob and Esau. More than in the other narratives, in the Jacob-

1. It may even reflect the author's admiration that some peoples are able to livein an area where others could not survive.

9. Edom's Role in Genesis 135

Esau stories it is stressed that the two brothers represent nations. WithLot, it is only at the very end of his story that it becomes clear that heis the father of Ammon and Moab. Isaac and Ishmael, although bothof them are promised to become a nation,1 are never themselvesidentified with nations. Only in the Jacob-Esau stories is there anexplicit and direct connection between the patriarch and his nation:Jacob is Israel, Esau is Edom.2

There is a second point of difference which proves relevant. Unlikein the other narratives, in the Jacob-Esau stories the two brothers areopposed for themselves. Lot and Abraham are opposed as fathers—Abraham as the father by God's promise in contrast with Lot ascoincidental and moreover incestuous father.3 Isaac and Ishmael areopposed as children—the son according to God's promise and theother son.4 Jacob and Esau are opposed as brothers; their behaviourtoward each other is the constitutive element of their narratives. Inconsequence, it is only in the Jacob-Esau narratives that the relationbetween the two brothers is an important subject.5 In the other stories,the brotherhood of the two opponents has little thematic significance.Only in the Jacob-Esau stories the relation between Israel and theother nation(s) has been made a major theme. It is only in these storiesthat the theme of Genesis—the origin of Israel among the nations andthe relation between Israel and the nations—is fully worked out.

In Genesis 25-36, the two lines in the book of Genesis—Israel andthe nations—become as close as possible: Israel and Edom are twin

1. Cf. 17.1-8, 15-22; 21.12-13, 18.2. Cf. 25.23, 30; 27.29; 32.29; 35.10; 36.1, 8 and the discussion of these

verses in Chapter 8, section 2.3. Cf. Breukelman, Bijbelse Theologie 1,1, p. 127.4. The fact that Isaac and Ishmael are only opposed as children is connected

with the structure of the book of Genesis (cf. above, section 2). The 'Toledoth ofTerah' concentrate on Abraham and the birth of his sons, and there are no 'Toledothof Abraham' in which Abraham's son, Isaac, would have been the principal charac-ter. Accordingly, despite the similarities in the roles of Ishmael and Esau (as dis-cussed in the previous section), Ishmael cannot play the same role as Esau, that ofIsrael's opponent.

5. K.A. Deurloo, De mens als raadsel en geheim. Verhalende antropologie inGenesis 2-~4 (Baarn, 1988), pp. 101-102, 106, 149-50 points to similarities betweenthe Jacob-Esau stories and Gen. 4, the narrative of the first two human brothers. Cf.Willi-Plein, 'Genesis 27', p. 325 n. 38.


brothers.1 On the other hand, they are completely different. They areeach other's opposites in many ways: they differ in appearance, incharacter and in deeds. Their future fates are twinned in the sense thatthey mirror each other: the blessings they receive are each other'sopposites. Neither Abram and Lot, nor Isaac and Ishmael are placedopposite each other in a similar way.

Edom is not just Israel's southeastern neighbour; it also serves asthe representative of the nations. From the various nations, Edom wastaken by the writers of Genesis to illustrate the closeness but also thecomplete difference between Israel and the nations. There is only onechosen nation, and even Israel's older twin brother among the nationscannot receive God's special blessing: the exceptional relation that hehas entered into with Abraham and his descendants.

1. Lot is Abraham's nephew; Ishmael is the son of an Egyptian female servant

Chapter 10

DIACHRONIC OBSERVATIONS

1. Introduction

It is often held that the fact that Edom plays a role in the Jacob-Esaustories is due to a reinterpretation of the original stories. Only in arecent version, it is argued, did they become stories on the brother-hood of Israel and Edom. In this chapter (section 2), I will discusswhether the Edom/Seir element is a late feature of these stories, andwhen this element could have been introduced.

In Chapter 9 it was inferred that Edom served in Genesis as therepresentative of the nations. Section 3 discusses diachronic aspects ofEdom's role as representative.

The chapter is followed by an excursus on Hos. 12.4-5: the allusionsto the Jacob—Esau stories in these verses may be of relevance for thediachronic interpretation of Genesis 25-35.

2. Genesis 25-36: The Edom/Seir Element

There are three theories concerning the presence of Edom in theGenesis stories:

1. The Edom/Seir element is a later addition (e.g. E. Otto)2. The Edom/Seir element is not a later addition (e.g. E. Blum)3. Only the Edom element is a later addition (J.R. Bartlett).

I shall discuss the three theories by means of an examination of theviews of the three scholars mentioned above. They have all tried tofind out why exactly Edom was chosen to be Israel's older twinbrother and what date must be assigned to this choice. First, thearguments for and against an original identification of Esau and Edomare considered. Next, the historical background of this identificationwill be discussed.


The theory with the most support thus far is the one in which it isassumed that the original stories about Jacob and Esau contained noreferences to the nations Israel and Edom. These references are to beexplained as nationalizing additions. E. Otto discerns an 'Edomschicht'in Gen. 25-35, which consists of 25.22, 23, 25*, 30; 27.29aa, b, 39,40; 32.4b; the last words of 33.14, 161 When these verses are left out,the original story appears, which is a socio-cultural myth on thestruggle between the shepherd and the hunter.

E. Blum2 disputes the quite generally accepted opinion3 that Ottoadvocates. He points out that the texts themselves do not supplyevidence for the secondarily of the references to Edom's land andnation. He argues, moreover, that Jacob's and Esau's roles as repre-sentatives of Israel and Edom are essential to the stories in Genesis.The pun on Edom's name in 25.29-34 (v. 30), the story of the sale ofEsau's birthright for Jacob's 'red' pottage, is an integral part of thenarrative, as is the pun on Seir in ch. 27 (Esau's being 'hairy', ~U)fo;vv. 11, 23). Both puns are introduced in 25.25: 'The first came forthred, all his body like a hairy mantle; so they called his name Esau'.4

At the end of his study Blum concludes that all the stories in Genesis12-50 are primarily and originally stories about Israel's relation withthe surrounding nations.5

Blum's study is an important one for our subject, because he doesnot suppose that the Genesis stories were written at one time by oneauthor; in fact, he gives a very detailed analysis of the complicated(literary) tradition history ('Uberlieferungsgeschichte') of these stories.It is obvious that one who regards them as a composition written byone author, cannot but accept the 'nations' element as original.6

J.R. Bartlett, while granting that in the present text of Genesis Esauand Edom are connected, assumes that in some phase in the tradition

1. E. Otto, Jakob in Sichem. Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche, archdologische undterritorialgeschichtliche Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte Israels (BWANT, 110 =VI, 10; Stuttgart, 1979), pp. 25-27.

2. Blum, Die Komposition der Votergeschichte, pp. 69-79.3. Blum speaks of 'weitgehende Einigkeit' (Die Komposition der

Vatergeschichte, p. 69).4. Cf. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, p. 71 nn. 18, 19, 21;

p. 73 nn. 31, 34; p. 75 n. 45 contra Otto.5. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, pp. 479-91.6. See for instance G.A. Rendsburg, The Redaction of Genesis (Winona Lake,

IN, 1986), esp. the discussion of the 'nations' element on pp. 107-14.

10. Diachronic Observations 139

process only Esau and Seir were connected.1 The Seir element is muchmore firmly integrated in the Jacob-Esau stories than the Edomelement. Like Blum, Bartlett underscores that the puns on Seir areconstitutive for chs. 25 and 27, and that Esau's connection with Seir inchs. 32-33 and 36 must be original.

Following G. von Rad,2 Bartlett argues that the connection withEdom in Gen. 25-36 is rather loose. Only in 25.29-34 does theallusion to Edom belong to the story itself ('the red stuff); in otherplaces (25.25; 32.4; 36.1, 8, 9, 21) references to Edom appear to be(possibly later) asides, not indispensable elements of the story.3 Thesentences in which Esau is identified with Edom, or Esau is referredto as Edom's 'father', may well be secondary.

Evaluating the theories discussed above, we must conclude withBlum that no 'Edomschicht'—the portions referring to nations—canbe left out without destroying the stories themselves. Blum has con-vincingly pointed this out. On the other hand, Bartlett's observation iscertainly correct, that Seir has a much more prominent and essentialplace in Genesis 25-36 than Edom. This may be indicative of a stagein the tradition history in which Esau and Edom were not yetconnected.

Date and Historical BackgroundWhat date can be assigned to the presentation of Edom as Esau,Jacob's (Israel's) brother, in the book of Genesis, and what was itshistorical background? Remarkably, the three authors we have dis-cussed arrive at the same date: the period of the United Kingdom(David and Solomon). This does not mean, however, that we canregard the problem as solved. Other proposed datings appear to varyfrom early monarchic to Maccabean times. In the evaluation of theviews of Otto, Blum and Bartlett, some of these proposals will comeup. It is not my purpose to arrive here at one definite conclusion; I

1. J.R. Bartlett, The Land of Seir and the Brotherhood of Edom', JTS 20(1969), pp. 1-20; and Edom and the Edomites, pp. 41-44, 175-80.

2. Von Rad, Das erste Buch Mose, p. 240: 'Nun zeigt sich aber schnell, dasskeineswegs alle Jakob-Esau-Geschichte von der Gleichung Esau-Edom ausgehen,sondern dass diese Gleichung nur in Kap. 25 verwurzelt ist'.

3. In Gen. 36, vv. 31-39 mention Edom, but not Esau or Seir; vv. 15-19 and40-43 ('Edom': vv. 17, 19, 43) merely repeat other portions of this chapter (Bartlett,'Land of Seir', pp. 9-10).


think the questions concerned can only be answered after an examina-tion of the connections with the prophetic oracles against Edom. Here,only a critical survey of the various proposals is given, concentratingon some recent ones.

In Otto's view, the Yahwist was the one who composed the'Edomschicht'.1 He did so in order to reinterpret the Jacob-Esaustories, which, in his opinion, were originally a sociocultural myth.Since the subjection of Edom which is mentioned in the added mate-rial (25.23; 27.39, 40) does not refer to any part of the story itself, ithas to refer to the historical situation at the time of the Yahwist:Edom's dependence on Judah/Israel after David's conquest of Edom(2 Sam. 8.13-14).2

Blum's theory is that Genesis 25/27 represent the old core of theJacob-Esau stories in Genesis 25-35.3 In its present form, ch. 27 pre-supposes 25.29-34, but originally both texts may have been uncon-nected, and have existed independently. They can be regarded asparallels. In both stories Jacob/Israel takes possession of Esau's/Edom's rights.

Further on in the tradition history, both stories were combined andprovided with an introduction (25.21-28).4 Then, they were given asequel: Jacob's flight to and stay with Laban (27.41-31), and Jacob'sreturn to Canaan (chs. 32-33). The present text of ch. 27 continuesthe story in the direction of Jacob's flight to Paddan-Aram. However,it does so only in its last part, vv. 41-45. Because the story in ch. 27could also have ended in v. 40, vv. 41-45 might be a later addition,written to build a transition to the Jacob-Laban stories.5 Although theprecise history of the chronologically preceding text-complexesremains in the dark,6 in the end a clearly distinct composition appears,to which the Jacob-Esau stories in Genesis 25/27 constitute theopening chapters. This composition (the 'Kompositionsschicht' or 'K-Schicht') comprises most of the material now in Genesis 25/27-33.7

1. Otto, Jakob in Sichem, pp. 27-28.2. In 2 Sam. 8.13 the MT reads 'Aram' (DIK) instead of 'Edom'( (QITK). There

is little doubt that the original text read 'Edom' (on*).3. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, pp. 86-88; cf. pp. 85-86.4. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, pp.171-72.5. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, pp. 87 and 171, 173-74.6. Cf. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, p. 174.7. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, pp. 168-71. Otto, Jakob in


So, Blum has two possible historical backgrounds to detect: one forthe stories in Genesis 25/27 and another for the composition as awhole. As for the 'K-Schicht', Blum argues that the place-names inGenesis 32-33 betray a northern origin: Mahanaim, Peniel, andSuccoth were important cities for the Northern Kingdom, especiallyin the time of Jeroboam I.1 That time too is the most natural date forthis composition.

The Jacob-Esau stories in Genesis 25/27 are dated by Blum to thetime of the Davidic-Solomonic empire,2 for the same reason as Otto.They have as terminus ante quern the time of Jeroboam (the date ofthe composition as a whole), and as terminus a quo David's conquestof Edom.

In a way, the 'K-Schicht' reverses the message of Genesis 25/27.While the latter reflect on Israel's supremacy over Edom, the formerseems to side with Edom—in chs. 32-33, there is nothing left ofJacob's supremacy. That would fit in well with the spirit ofJeroboam's kingdom, which had liberated itself from the imperialismof Jerusalem.3 The addition in 27.40b: ' ( ---you shall serve yourbrother;) but when you break loose you shall break his yoke fromyour neck', may have the same background.4

Some minor additions within chs. 25/27, 32-33 date from latertimes; they serve as ties with the other parts of Genesis (28.13b-14a:late pre-exilic;5 28.14b: exilic;6 28.15 and 32.10-13: T>'7). T' isresponsible for 27.46-2S.9.8

Although in his article 'The Land of Seir and the Brotherhood ofEdom'9 Bartlett took a different point of view (as will be discussedbelow), in later studies he contends that David's conquest of Edom was

Sichem, pp. 28-40, develops a comparable theory on the origin of Gen. 25-33. Inhis view, however, the development of the complex took place in the pre-literarystage (before the literary fixation in the documents J and E).

1. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, pp. 175-86.2. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, pp. 190-94.3. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, p. 185.4. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, pp. 193-94.5. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, pp. 290-91.6. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, pp. 354, 355-59.7. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, pp. 152-64.8. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, pp. 263-70.9. Bartlett, 'Land of Seir'.


the cause of the identification Esau=Edom.1 The subjected kingdom ofEdom—believed to be older than Israel's kingdom (Gen. 36.31)—became Israel's subdued older brother. Bartlett retains from hisearlier article that the identification was facilitated because Esau wassituated in Seir, which, like Edom's land, is a region to the south ofJudah. He argues that Gen. 27.40b probably refers to the Edomiterevolt against Judah under Jehoram of Judah (2 Kgs 8.20-22).Therefore, the story as it stands must have been composed after themid-ninth century BCE. If this verse is a later addition, the rest of thechapter may be a little older.

EvaluationHaving already concluded (with Blum) that Otto's view cannot becorrect, we do not need to review his theory once more. A theorycomparable with Otto's is the one advocated by S.H. Blank.2 LikeOtto, Blank believes that the original stories were not about nations;later, 'nationalizing additions' turned them into stories about Israeland Edom. However, he dates these additions not to the time of theDavidic-Solomonic empire, but to the early post-exilic period. In thattime, Blank argues, Judah hoped to be restored to its former mightyposition, and to be able, once again, to control the neighbouringnations.

As for Blum, we shall discuss three elements of this theory: (1) chs.32-33 as a later sequel to chs. 25/27; (2) the dating of chs. 25/27; and(3) the dating of chs. 32-33 (the use of place-names).

1. In Blum's view, Genesis 32-33 presents a modification of themessage of Genesis 25/27: the brotherhood is restored, the stolenblessing is shared, and there is a more positive attitude to Esau. This isin accordance with the results of our synchronic analysis: severalelements of chs. 25/27 are reversed in chs. 32-33. Although it ispromised Jacob that he will be 'served' by his brother, he now 'serves'Esau; Jacob has 'taken' his brother's blessing, and now 'gives' him the

1. See e.g. J.R. Bartlett, 'The Brotherhood of Edom', JSOT4 (1977), pp. 16-21; Edom and the Edomites, pp. 175-80; following V. Maag, 'Jakob-Esau-Edom',TZ 13 (1957), pp. 418-29; and G. Wallis, 'Die Tradition von den drei Ahnvatern',ZAW 81 (1969), pp. 18-40.

2. S.H. Blank, 'Studies in Post-Exilic Universalism', HUCA 11 (1936),pp. 174-84.


blessing, etc.1 In diachronic perspective, this modification couldindeed indicate a reinterpretation of the earlier stories (which mayhave existed independently).

Like Blum, B. Diebner and H. Schult assume that Genesis 33 isadjusting an earlier, negative, estimation of Edom (in the OldTestament texts on Edom in general).2 They, however, place thischapter in Maccabaean times, when Idumaea was made part of theHasmonaean empire.

G.A. Rendsburg maintains that the unity which the stories nowconstitute must be original.3 He argues that the way in which the vari-ous text-complexes in Genesis are structured precludes the proceduresupposed by the Documentary Hypothesis.4 Rendsburg shows that themain structural characteristic is the use of theme-words and catch-words in chiastically corresponding parts. The supposedly independent'documents' appear to be linked with one another by these words.

However, although these arguments may indeed preclude thepossibility of a combination of several independent documents assupposed in the Documentary Hypothesis, they do not seem to refuteBlum's theory, according to which existing stories were combined,made to relate to each other, and worked out.

2. Blum's argument for dating chs. 25/27 to the time of the UnitedKingdom is the Israelite supremacy over Edom which these chaptersexpress. Further, he states that one part of Jacob's blessing, that hewill 'be lord over his brothers' (27.29, 37), is in keeping with thesituation during David's and Solomon's reigns, when Edom and theother 'brother nations' were subordinate to Israel.5

As far as the former argument is concerned, it should be observedthat the Israelite supremacy over Edom, or at least the strife for suchsupremacy, continued until Jehoram of Judah (2 Kgs 8.20-22).Furthermore, it is not at all clear whether the short note on David's

1. Cf. above, Chapter 8. Cf. Maag, 'Jakob-Esau-Edom', pp. 418-20, whostresses the incongruity between the beginning of the story in 25.23, where 'theyounger' brother is promised to be served by 'the older' one, and the story itself,where no such 'serving' takes place.

2. B. Diebner and H. Schult, 'Edom in alttestamentlichen Texten derMakkabaerzeit', DBAT 8 (1975), p. 11.

3. Rendsburg, Redaction of Genesis.4. Rendsburg, Redaction of Genesis, pp. 99-106.5. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, p. 193.


conquest of Edom in 2 Sam. 8.13-14 is historically reliable. There isno archaeological evidence for any Israelite influence on Edom inDavid's (or Solomon's) time1. As for the latter argument, the refer-ence to other nations in Gen. 27.29, 37 seems to me too unspecific todraw any historical conclusions from.2

While as terminus a quo David's conquest of Edom can be accepted,there is insufficient evidence to posit the end of the United Kingdomas terminus ante quern. Moreover, in my opinion, the stories couldwell refer to the situation at the time of the United Kingdom withoutbelonging to that period. For example the books of Samuel and Kingsmight have been used as a source.

If Gen. 27.40b ('but when you break loose you shall break his yokefrom your neck') were indeed to be looked upon as an addition, itcould have been added in any period, by a writer who wanted toinclude another part of the Israelite-Edomite history.3 However,Blum's contention that it must be later because it is in prose, while27.39-40a is poetic,4 does not convince. It can be explained as an'addition' within the story: Isaac firstly gives Esau, in poetry, the

1. Knauf, 'Suppleraenta Ismaelitica', p. 69.2. K. Berge, Die Zeit des Jahwisten. Ein Beitrag zur Datierung jahwistischer

Vdtertexte (BZAW, 186; Berlin and New York, 1990), pp. 119-46 dates theblessing of Jacob in Gen. 27.27b-29 to the time of the United Kingdom (seepp. 143-46). The grounds for this proposal, however, are rather speculative. Heargues that the part 'Be lord over your brothers and may your mother's sons bowdown to you' (27.29) is a pre-monarchic blessing, referring to the predominancy ofone tribe over the others. It was reinterpreted by the Yahwist and made to refer to theother nations. That must have happened not too long after the tribal system had beenabolished, i.e. at the beginning of the monarchic period. In my view, this recon-struction is too hypothetical to be accepted.

3. Contra Blum, Die Komposition der Vdtergeschichte, p. 191 n. 5, where herejects Blank's thesis (cf. above). Like Blank, K.H. Keukens ('Der irregulareSterbesegen Isaaks. Bemerkungen zur Interpretation von Genesis 27,1-45', BN 19[1982], pp. 43-56) assigns a post-exilic date to Gen. 27. He shows that in this storyevery rule about giving a death bed blessing is disregarded, so that the blessing itselfbecomes invalid. This is confirmed by the other stories in Genesis: in these, none ofthe issues Jacob was blessed with is obtained. Keukens suggests that this story wastold in order to invalidate the false hope of Israel to prevail over Edom, and that it canbe looked upon as a reaction to the prophetic oracles against Edom, e.g. Mai. 1.2-5.In my view, a serious difficulty for this theory is the explicit promise of YHWH in25.23 that 'the elder shall serve the younger'.

4. Blum, Die Komposition der Vdtergeschichte, pp. 193-94.


blessing that only reflects Jacob's poetic blessing; after that, he(unexpectedly) adds a new element which is more favourable forEsau.

The argument that the time of Jeroboam was the date of the com-position as a whole (so that the stories in chs. 25/27 must be earlier),will be discussed below.

3. Blum uses the place-names in the Jacob-Esau stories to establishtheir date.1 In my view, this procedure is not without risk. A majorcomposition principle in the Jacob-Esau stories is the use of a selectedset of personal, geographical and national names in puns and allusions,which moreover do not stand on their own, but have been made torelate to each other.2 This system of meanings given to names hasbeen complemented with the repetition of and allusions to'catchwords', which indicate the theme(s) of the stories.3 All togetherthey constitute a story on the relation of the two chief characters ofthis part of Genesis: Jacob/Israel and Esau/Edom.

The question is: why were exactly these names chosen for thesestories? Was that necessarily because they were the names of impor-tant cities and regions in the time of the writer, as Blum supposes?Other, at least equally probable, reasons suggest themselves.

As regards the names Esau, Edom, Seir, Jacob, and Israel it is clear:the writer wanted to tell a story about precisely these figures. TheJabbok may well have been chosen because of the possible word-playwith Jacob, and his wrestling (combined with Israel, and hisstriving).4 Gen. 28.10-22 and 32.23-33 are structurally interrelated:they are each other's counterparts in the chiastic pattern of chs. 25-35.5 Therefore, the choices for Bethel and Peniel are likely to beinterrelated as well. The form of the two names speaks in favour of

1. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, pp. 175-84.2. Cf. above, Chapter 8, section 2; see further H. Gunkel, Genesis. Ubersetzt

und erklart (HKAT, 1; Gottingen, 2nd edn, 1902), p. 315 and 'Jakob', PJ 176(1919), p. 353 (on Gen. 32-33); cf. Deurloo, 'Narrative Geography' on theAbraham cycle.

3. Cf. e.g. Fishbane, 'Composition and Structure', p. 21; Dicou, Jakob en Esau,Israel en Esau, pp. 12-22; in general: Buber, 'Die Schrift und ihre Verdeutschung',pp.1131-1149.

4. Cf. above, Chapter 8, section 2. Blum, Die Komposition der Vdter-geschichte, p. 145, regards the aetiology of Israel's name as 'den iiberlieferungs-oder traditionsgeschichtlichen Nukleus' of the Jabbok episode.

5. Cf. above, Chapter 8, section 2.


this: both contain the element 'El' (God). Further, there may havebeen geographical reasons for the choice of Bethel and Peniel. Inch. 28, the writer wanted to compose a story on God's promise toJacob—who is leaving the (southern) land in the direction of Haran—that he will return. Therefore, the story had to be situated somewherenorth of Jacob's native region and also somewhere before thesymbolical border, the Jordan river (cf. 32.11). In ch. 32, the authorwanted to compose a story on God's encounter with Jacob, who isabout to return from Haran, via Gilead, to the (southern) land. So, hechose a location at the Gilead side of the symbolical border—moreover, in the neighbourhood of the Jabbok.1 In this way, he couldmake Jacob leave the promised land as Jacob, the deceiver, and returnto it as Israel. The fact that he chose two place-names that contain 'El',God, enabled the writer to tell the parts of the story in which Godacts. Other place-names in the neighbourhood of Peniel, east of theJordan, he could use as well: Mahanaim, Succoth.

In short: in ch. 28, the writer of the Jacob-Esau stories wanted tocompose a part of the story in which Jacob and God interrelate, andJacob has not yet left the country, but is already on his way to Paddan-Aram. Therefore, he chose a city that lay well north of Beersheba,contained an El-element, was known as a religious centre, and that hecould use for a pun (or that had a tradition in which the punfunctioned). The same applies, mutatis mutandis (Jacob has not yetentered the country by crossing the Jordan),2 to ch. 32.3

Whether all these puns are inventions of the writer or well-knowntraditions cannot be established any more. It seems not improbablethat in some cases the writer used existing traditions. The interpreta-tion of Bethel as 'God's house', for instance, may have originated in

1. The Jabbok itself can be regarded as a symbolical border as well; cf.N.H. Sarna, Genesis (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia, 1989), pp. 403-404:This river is otherwise mentioned in the Bible exclusively as a frontier of Israel, thelimit of Israel's first victory against the kingdoms east of the Jordan after it emergedfrom the desert wanderings'.

2. Cf. Gen. 33.18: 'And Jacob came safely to the city of Shechem, which is inthe land of Canaan'.

3. Contra Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, p. 176; 'Die raumlicheNa'he zu dem in den Tradition vorgegebenen Gebirge Gilead (Gen 31) allein geniigtnicht als Erklarung, hatte doch Jakobs Weg auch ins Westjordanland weitergefiihrtwerden konnen'. It is important that Jacob had not yet crossed the symbolical border,the Jordan River.


Bethel itself, since this city was an important religious centre.However, the choice of all of the place-names, including Bethel, fits inwith the framework of the story: Jacob's voyage from Beersheba toHaran and back. In view of the aim of the writer—to let Jacob returnto the promised land as Israel—he could not have made a better choicethan the Jabbok river (word-play on Jacob's name) and places nearthis river (Peniel episode as counterpart to the Bethel episode).

So, there is no need to conclude from the place-names used that thestories originated in the neighbourhood of these places (i.e. theNorthern Kingdom) or in the period when these places wereespecially important. Blum's interpretation is certainly possible, butthe considerations above show that it is not the only possible one. Theevidence for his theory is not conclusive.

The remark made above on the date of Genesis 25/27 can berepeated here: stories can refer to a certain historical situation,without themselves stemming from that period. Also for the writer ofchs. 32-33, the books of Samuel and Kings—or other historicalworks, or the historical tradition—might have served as a source.

For Blum, Josiah's destruction of the Bethel sanctuary provides aterminus ad quern for the 'K-Schicht'.1 The story of Gen. 28.10-22(the last verses of which are part of the 'K-Schicht') cannot have beencomposed after this date. 28.22 is a legitimation of the cult in Bethel(the giving of 'tenths'), which after the destruction of the sanctuarywould have been pointless.

An alternative view is that Gen. 28.10-22 looks like a legitimation,and indeed uses Bethel's cultic aetiology,2 but is in fact only alludingto the cult in Bethel. Such allusions can have been used in any timeafter the origin of the Bethel cult. Even long after the Josianicreformation we find allusions, most of them not at all unfavourable, toother cults than the one in Jerusalem.3 It must be emphasized that,strictly speaking, Gen. 28.10-22 is a story about Jacob promising togive tenths at a sanctuary in Bethel, not about the Israelites doing so.

It can be concluded that the evidence for the date proposed by Blumfor Genesis 32-33 is not decisive. Especially for his terminus ad quernthere is insufficient proof; the stories may also have been composed in

1. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, pp. 88-98 and 175-76.2. Cf. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, pp. 25-29.3. Cf. H. Vorlander, Die Entstehungszeit des jehowistischen Geschichtswerkes

(Europaische Hochschulschriften 23/109; Frankfurt am Main, 1978), pp. 288-90.


later times. In this context, it is of relevance to note that amongscholars who adhere to the Documentary Hypothesis (as Blum doesnot) the date of the Yahwist, to which much of the Jacob-Esau storiesis attributed, is a moot point. Traditionally, the Yahwist is dated to theperiod of the United Kingdom. A recent theory is that the Yahwist'swork belongs to the last period of the kingdom of Judah, or to theexilic or post-exilic period.1

In my opinion, Blum's observation that already the first version ofthe Jacob-Esau stories was a story about nations does not precludeBartlett's theory. The original nations concerned are then not Israeland Edom, but Israel and Seir. Then, however, the entire story inGen. 25.29-34, with the aetiology of Edom's name, is to be regardedas a later addition.2 Combining the observations of Blum and Bartlett,we can make the following reconstruction. The writer of Genesis mayhave used the existing Jacob-Esau/Seir-blessing story (now in ch. 27),and composed a Jacob-Esau/Edom-birthright story, while adapting thech. 27 material (and writing or revising 25.21-28 as an introductionfor both stories).

Blum too assumes that the material of ch. 27 was edited with an eyeto the composition of chs. 25/27, but he regards both chapters asoriginally independent parallels.3 However, in view of both theparallelism (in both stories Esau is deprived of his rights) and thedifference (the use of 'birthright' instead of 'blessing'), it seems morelikely that an author wanted to compose a variant to ch. 27. His reasonfor doing so may have been the intention to use Edom's name as well.Thus, he identified Esau (the Seirite) and Edom.

A similar development as supposed by Bartlett can be observed in theJacob-Laban stories. As Blum, following many other scholars, maintains,these stories were originally situated in the land of the 'sons of the east'(Gen. 29.1), the land of the eastern nomads, apparently in the neighbour-hood of Gilead (Gen. 31.21-54).4 A reinterpretation of the stories movedLaban's home to Haran (Gen. 27.43; 28.10; 29.4) in northernMesopotamia (Aram-Naharaim or Paddan-Aram). Both the introduction of

1. See for a recent survey of the discussion: Berge, Die Zeit des Jahwisten,pp. 1-7. Berge himself defends the traditional dating.

2. The element of the lentils—which are red—probably being original, theelement 'Edom', 'the red country' will also be original.

3. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, pp. 85-86, 87-88.4. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, pp. 164-67, 343-44 n. 11.


Haran and the supposed introduction of Edom placed the stories on ahigher international level: from the eastern nomads to Aram (northernMesopotamia) and from the Esau-clans to the state of Edom. The simi-larity between the two movements (which may have occurred simulta-neously) seems to support Bartlett's interpretation.

The next question that suggests itself is: when was Edom introducedinto the Jacob-Esau stories? Before or after they were continued inchs. 32-33, or at the same time? It is difficult to answer this questionwith any certainty. The name 'Edom' is used once in chs. 32-33, andthere it may or may not be a later addition (32.4: 'And Jacob sentmessengers before him to Esau his brother in the land of Seir, thecountry of Edom').

Blum has demonstrated, quite convincingly in my opinion, that thePeniel scene (32.23-33) is an integral part of chs. 32-33, not (as oftenassumed) an old story more or less accidentally placed at the end ofch. 32.l In this scene, Jacob is renamed 'Israel' (32.29). Here, thename of Israel is used for the first time in the Jacob-Esau stories. Itseems likely that the reinterpretation supposed by Bartlett (Esau fromSeir is linked with Edom) and the reinterpretation supposed by Blum(a sequel in which Jacob is explicitly linked with Israel) were in someway interconnected.

It is interesting to see that Bartlett and Blum (and also Otto!), inspite of their differing interpretations, agree on a main point: the con-nection Esau-Edom is well established in the early monarchic period,and the stories as they stand (except for P parts) were then composed.Blum saw the reign of Jeroboam as the background, Bartlett goesdown to the time of Jehoram of Judah.

Above, I mentioned that Bartlett in his 1969 article took a differentview to the date of the Esau-Edom identification. We shall examine ithere briefly.

Bartlett2 assumes that there were two independent 'brotherhood'-traditions. (1) The northern one, as expressed in Amos 1; Deut. 23.8;Num. 20.14 (= E). This brotherhood of Israel (the NorthernKingdom) and Edom had a political background. These two nationswere natural allies over against Judah. Only Edom is used as a name,

1. E. Blum, 'Die Komplexitat der Uberlieferung. Zur diachronen undsynchronen Auslegung von Gen. 32, 23-33', DBAT 15 (1980), pp. 2-55, and DieKomposition der Vatergeschichte, pp. 143-45.

2. Bartlett, 'Land of Seir'.


not Seir or Esau. (2) The Judaean one (based on the situation after theEdomites had moved to Seir in southern Judah): Gen. 25/27; Obadiah;Jer. 49.10; Malachi 1. Edom came to be identified with Esau fromSeir, 'because the Edomites gradually took over the land which hadonce belonged to the Esau clans'.1

Bartlett concludes:

the identifications are not made until the later editing of the Pentateuch andthe writings of Jeremiah, Obadiah, and Malachi. The possibility of anagreement between Israel and Edom explains the otherwise surprising factthat it is the northern tradition which first calls Edom 'brother', for thenorth could know nothing of the relationship between Edom and Esau,which only came into being in the south during the later centuries of thepre-exilic period.2

Concerning the first brotherhood-tradition assumed by Bartlett, Ihave my doubts. Neither the northern provenance nor the dating tothe period of the Northern Kingdom of these texts is undisputed.3 Asfor the second brotherhood-tradition, the thesis need perhaps not bediscarded as quickly as Bartlett himself does.4 The conclusion of thissection is that the narratives can also have been written after the earlymonarchic period.

3. Edom as Representative of the Nations

So far, the subject of our reflections has been when and how Edomcame to be regarded, in the Jacob-Esau stories, as Israel's brother. Tobe distinguished from Edom's 'brotherhood' is Edom's role as therepresentative of the nations, which is detected when the Jacob-Esaustories are read in the whole of the book of Genesis. It is in the con-text of the book that the Jacob-Esau stories appear as the climax of thedevelopment of the relation between the nations in general and Israel.

While the separation of two 'nations' belongs to the oldest part ofthe stories (Isaac's blessings of Jacob and Esau), their interpretation asthe last in a series of separations producing Israel and its neighbours

1. Bartlett, 'Land of Seir', p. 17.2. Bartlett, 'Land of Seir', p. 18.3. Bartlett, 'Brotherhood of Edom', pp. 5-16; Edom and the Edomites,

pp. 180-84.4. J.R. Bartlett, The Rise and Fall of the Kingdom of Edom', PEQ 104 (1972),

p. 26 n. 4; 'Brotherhood of Edom', p. 18 n. 68.


presupposes at least their combination with the stories about the othercounterparts to Israel's ancestors, especially Ishmael. (The storiesabout Ishmael present the opposition Israel-nations in the same way asthe Jacob-Esau stories.)

Now, Blum has argued that the stories on Ishmael are rather late inGenesis; presumably they were composed during the exile.1 It can beadded that the striking similarities between the stories of Isaac andIshmael and those of Jacob and Esau which we discussed in the pre-ceding chapter2 indicate some relation of interdependence: the formermay have been modelled after the latter, or, if the Jacob-Esau storiesare younger than Blum has proposed, these may have been composedtogether with the Isaac-Ishmael stories.

We have observed that the structure of the book of Genesis—theToledoth structure—highlights Edom's role as the representative ofthe nations.3 Within the context of the Toledoth structure the theme ofthe book of Genesis as we now have it—the origin of Israel among thenations—comes about fully. From Gen. 11.27 onward, the Toledothof the main line (consisting of stories) alternate with the Toledoth ofthe collateral line (consisting of genealogies). The former line headstowards the origin of Israel, the latter line shows the origin of theother nations in the region—both within the framework of the historyof man, the 'Toledoth of Adam', Gen. 5.1. Edom, as the last in theline of the nations in general, has been placed opposite Israel, the goalof the other line.

It is almost unanimously agreed that the Toledoth structure onlylater has been put over the stories.4 The Toledoth structure is gene-rally thought of as belonging to P, the priestly tradition. There seemsto be a growing consensus that the P elements are not the result of the

1. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, pp. 339-49: both Gen. 16 and21.8-21 are part of 'Vatergeschichte 2', the exilic edition of the stories on the patri-archs. Cf. Knauf, Ismael, p. 36: Gen. 16 'gehort einer alten Erganzungsschicht zurGrundschicht des Pentateuch an'; he situates it in the early seventh century BCE. Inhis view (p. 25), Gen. 21.8-21 is a younger text, since it is literarily dependent onGen. 16.

2. Section 4.3. Chapter 9, section 2.4. Only authors who hold that Genesis was composed by one single author

believe otherwise: cf. Rendsburg, Redaction of Genesis; R.N. Whybray, The Makingof the Pentateuch. A Methodological Study (JSOTSup, 53; Sheffield: JSOT Press,1987).


combination of an independent source of priestly materials with theother documents, but were composed or included in order to edit anearlier version of Genesis.1 The Toledoth structure seems to elaboratethe idea of the patriarchs and their families representing the originhistory of Israel and its neighbours. Already in the older version,Edom was the last in the series of nations originating and separatingfrom Israel, and it had, as the nation chosen as the antagonist of thepatriarch named Israel, a special role among the nations. The concep-tion of Edom as the representative of the nations, implicitly present inan older version of Genesis, was made explicit in the P version.

What date can be assigned to P/the Toledoth structure is a matter ofdebate. In general, the period around the exile is thought of.2 Twoother P portions within the Jacob-Esau stories prove relevant for thedating of P: Gen. 26.34-35 and 27.46-28.9, the stories on Esau's (andJacob's) wives. Esau married women 'of the land' (Canaanite women),an act that utterly displeased his parents; accordingly, Jacob is sentaway to find women from within his family. The background of thesestories may be similar problems with marriages outside the own circlein the post-exilic era.3

Parts of the P material may be older, for example, Esau's genealo-gies in Genesis 36. Probably, Edom's role in these genealogies is

1. See e.g. A. Jepsen, 'Zur Uberlieferungsgeschichte der Vatergestalten',WZLeipzig 2/3 (1953-54), p. 279; P.M. Cross, 'The Priestly Work', inP.M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Essays in the History of the Religionof Israel (Cambridge, MA, 1973), pp. 293-325; Tengstrom, Die Toledot-Formel;Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, pp. 424-27, 438-40 and Kompositiondes Pentateuch, pp. 229-85; Thompson, Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel, pp. 64-65; cf. Whybray, Making of the Pentateuch, pp. 125-26. Cf. K. Koch, T—keinRedaktor! Erinnerung an zwei Eckdaten der Quellenscheidung', VT 37 (1987),pp. 446-67 for a recent defence of the opposite view, and J.A. Emerton, 'ThePriestly Writer in Genesis', JTS 39 (1988), pp. 381-400 for an intermediary view.

2. Cross, 'Priestly Work', pp. 323-25: late exilic; Blum, Die Komposition derVatergeschichte, pp. 452-58: post-exilic (cf. Blum, Komposition des Pentateuch,p. 357); Thompson, Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel, pp. 191-94: early exilic orlate pre-exilic; cf. the different evaluation by Blum (Die Komposition derVatergeschichte, p. 453, n. 35 and Komposition des Pentateuch, p. 357 n. 87)and by Thompson (Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel, pp. 191, 194) of the linguisticevidence gathered by scholars like R. Polzin and A. Hurvitz.

3. Cf. Diebner and Schult, 'Die Ehen der Erzvater', DBAT 8 (1975), pp. 2-10:time of Ezra; Blank, 'Post-Exilic Universalism', pp. 170-71; Blum, DieKomposition der Vatergeschichte, p. 453; Luke, 'Esau's Marriage', pp. 185-89.


relatively late (cf. above), but the lists may contain quite old ideas onthe 'Esau clans' in the land of Seir. Similarities between Genesis 36and e.g. inner-Israelite genealogies in 1 Chronicles 2 and 4 (viz. thesame persons occurring in both sets of genealogies) show that therewere close links between the clans in south Judah and the Esau clans.1

In view of this, it is not at all surprising that in the Genesis storiesEsau came to perform as Jacob's brother. The Edomite king list inGen. 36.31-39 has been variously dated. Proposals vary from theeleventh to the fifth centuries BCE.2

4. Conclusion

In this chapter, we have reached the following conclusions. Theidentification of Edom and 'Esau from Seir' is probably secondary.Originally, there may have existed stories about Esau (not relating toEdom), and probably some genealogical material as well. At the basisof the present Jacob-Esau stories was the narrative of the strugglebetween the two brothers Jacob and Esau now contained in Genesis27. Later on, this story became part of a series of narratives in whichEsau represented Edom and Jacob represented Israel (Gen. 25; 27-33).

The exact date of this composition cannot here be determined. Inany case, the evidence for the quite common dating of Genesis 32-33to the early monarchic period is not conclusive. This period does,however, provide the terminus post quern for the origin of the stories:they must have been composed after Israel and Edom had come into

1. Cf. Bartlett, 'Land of Seir', pp. 2-5; idem, Edom and the Edomites, pp. 88,143; L.E. Axelsson, The Lord Rose up from Seir. Studies in the History andTraditions of the Negev and Southern Judah (ConBOT, 25; Lund, 1987), pp. 70-72;Knauf, 'Supplementa Ismaelitica', pp. 69-70. According to Knauf, the genealogiesin Gen. 36.10-14, 20-28 go back to material from the seventh century BCE.

2. Eleventh century: J.R. Bartlett, 'The Edomite Kinglist of GenesisXXXVI.31-39 and 1 Chron. 1.43-50', JTS 16 (1965), pp. 311-12; C. Westermann,Genesis II. Genesis 12-36 (BKAT, 1,2; Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1981), pp. 683-84;M. Weippert, 'Remarks on the History of Settlement in Southern Jordan during theEarly Iron Age', in A. Hadidi (ed.), Studies in the History and Archaeology ofJordan, I (Amman, 1982), p. 155; W. Zwickel, 'Rehobot-Nahar', BN 29 (1985),pp. 31-32; eighth century: Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites, pp. 100-101; cf.A. Lemaire, 'Hadad 1'Edomite ou Hadad I'Arame'en', BAT 43 (1988), p. 15; end ofsixth/beginning of fifth century: E.A. Knauf, 'Alter und Herkunft der edomitischenKonigsliste Gen 36,31-39', ZAW 97 (1985), pp. 245-53.


existence as states. Also in view of the present lack of consensus aboutthe dating of most of the narrative material (or the Yahwist) inGenesis, it seems expedient to leave several possibilities open. It seemslikely that the historical development of Edom's association with'Esau's land', Seir, stimulated the identification of Esau and Edom andthe narrative opposition of Israel and Edom as brothers.1

In a later version, Edom's role as the representative of the nations(apparent when the narratives in Genesis 25-33 are read in the contextof the other patriarchal narratives) was developed, particularly byputting the existing material in the Toledoth structure.

The terminus ante quern for the origin of Edom's brotherhood inGenesis is the date of the P version. The Toledoth structure stemsfrom the period around the exile—during the exile, or shortly beforeor after it. The stories about Esau's marriages point to the post-exilicperiod.

EXCURSUS

Hosea 12.4-5 and the Date of the Genesis StoriesHos. 12.4-5 contains some intriguing references to elements of the Jacob-Esaustories. However, their relation to the Genesis version of the stories is rather difficultto assess. It is not immediately clear whether or not these verses are evidence for theexistence of some version of the book of Genesis in the eighth century BCE, the timeof the prophet Hosea. The more so because even the meaning of the references is amatter of debate.

Hos. 12.4-5 alludes to Jacob's struggle with his brother and with God.2

4. In the womb he 'took his brother by the heel' (ape),and in his manhood he strove with God.

5. He strove (?) with the angel and prevailed,he wept and sought his favor.

Hosea 12.4 clearly corresponds with Genesis: with Gen. 25.24-26 (the birthstory, with the pun on Jacob's name) and Gen. 32.23-33 (the fight at the Jabbok)respectively. Unclear, however, is the meaning of 'he wept and sought his favor' (v.5aB): in the Genesis version, Jacob does not 'weep' in his fight with the 'man'(Hos.: 'angel'). And why does he weep and seek favour when he has prevailed overhis adversary?

1. Cf. further discussion of this issue in Chapter 12, section 5.2. Cf. Hos. 12.6, corresponding with the Bethel-stories in Gen. 28 and 35, and 12.13, a

reference to Jacob's stay with Laban.


W.L. Holladay has argued, therefore, that Jacob's weeping and seeking favourdoes not refer to the fight at the Jabbok, but to the next story in Genesis, Jacobmeeting Esau (ch. 33).! The brothers 'wept' (Gen. 33.4), Jacob desired to find'favor' in the eyes of his brother (Gen. 33.8,10, 15; cf. 32.6). Holladay's thesis hasmet both acceptance2 and (more often) rejection.3

If his proposal is not followed, and Jacob must be understood to have wept afteror even because of the fight, it becomes almost necessary to change the text and makeJacob the loser of the fight. It has often been suggested that the 'angel' CIH'PD) is agloss and that originally the subject of Hos. 12.5aa was *?R, 'God' (in the MT "PR isunderstood to be the preposition, 'with').4

Although the Hosea verses do refer to the Jacob-Esau stories, it is a moot pointwhether they refer to the Genesis version of them. Some authors assert that the writerof Hos. 12 must have been acquainted with the Genesis version.5 According tothem, the differences may be explained as the result of a reinterpretation (e.g. makingJacob the loser of the fight; note, however, that the supposed gloss ['angel'] returnedto Jacob his victory). Others argue that the writer appears to have based his text onJacob traditions which do not coincide completely with the ones contained inGenesis; at least, he cannot be proved to have known the written version of theJacob-Esau stories in Genesis (or JE).6 Recently, W.D. Whitt has argued that Hosea

1. Holladay, 'Chiasmus, the Key to Hosea XII 3-6', VT16 (1966), pp. 56-58.2. L.M. Eslinger, 'Hosea 12.5a and Genesis 32.29: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis',

JSOT 18 (1980), p. 92; S.L. McKenzie, 'The Jacob Tradition in Hosea XII 4-5', VT 36 (1986),pp. 315-16; J. Lust, 'Freud, Hosea and the murder of Moses: Hosea 12', ETL 65 (1989), p. 86with n. 19; Smith, '"Heel" and "Thigh"', p. 470. Apparently unaware of Holladay's article,F.I. Andersen and D.N. Freedman, Hosea. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary(AB, 24; Garden City, NY, 1980), p. 609, 613 mention the same idea as one of the possiblesolutions without mentioning Holladay.

3. L. Ruppert, 'Herkunft und Bedeutung der Jakob-Tradition bei Hosea', Bib 52 (1971), p.496 n. 3; J. Vollmer, Geschichtliche Rtickblicke und Motive in der Prophetie des Amos, Hosea undJesaja (BZAW, 119; Berlin, 1971), p. I l l n. 302; H. Gese, 'Jakob und Mose: Hosea 12:3-14 alseinheitlicher Text', in J.W. van Henten et al. (eds.), Tradition and Reinterpretation in Jewish andEarly Christian Literature (Fs J.C.H. Lebram, Studia Postbiblica, 36; Leiden, 1986), p. 42 n. 10;D.R. Daniels, 'Hosea and Salvation History. The Early Traditions of Israel in the Prophecy ofHosea' (dissertation, Hamburg, 1987), p. 69; W.D. Whitt, 'The Jacob Traditions in Hosea and theirRelation to Genesis', ZAW 103 (1991), pp. 24-25 n. 31.

4. Cf. e.g. M. Gertner, The Massorah and the Levites', VT 10 (1960), pp. 277, 280-81;H.W. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 1. Hosea (BKAT 14.1; Neukirchen, 1961), pp. 266, 267-68;W.L. Holladay, 'Chiasmus, the Key to Hosea XII 3-6', VT 16 (1966), p. 46; F. Diedrich, DieAnspielungen aufdie Jakob-Tradition in Hosea 12,1-13,3. Ein literaturwissenschafilicher Beitragzur Exegese frtther Prophetentexte (FZB, 27; Wurzburg, 1977), pp. 36-37; Eslinger, 'Hosea 12.5a',p. 93; Whitt, 'Jacob Traditions', p. 32.

5. Cf. e.g. R.E. Wolfe, The Editing of the Book of the Twelve', ZAW 53 (1935), p. 115;Gertner, 'Massorah and the Levites', p. 284; Holladay, 'Chiasmus'; Ruppert, 'Herkunft undBedeutung', pp. 503-504; R. Vuilleumier, 'Les Traditions d'Israel et la liberty du prophete: Os6e',RHPR 59 (1979), p. 492; H.-D. Neef, Die Heilstraditionen Israels in der Verktindigung desPropheten Hosea (BZAW, 169; Berlin and New York, 1987), pp. 45-47.

6. Cf. e.g. P.R. Ackroyd, 'Hosea and Jacob', VT 13 (1963), p. 259; E.M. Good, 'Hosea and


12 and Genesis are based on a common tradition; in his view, Hosea 12 reflects anearlier stage of that tradition, while Genesis gives a reinterpretation of it1

In the context of this excursus, we cannot try to solve these difficulties. We may,however, conclude that Hosea 12 does not provide a firm basis for dating the Jacob-Esau stories as a compositional unity in the book of Genesis. The more so becausethere is yet another problem.

Even if agreement could be reached as regards the question which versionpresupposes the other one (indeed, if it could be proved that one version presupposesthe other), it would be difficult to decide on the terminus ad quern or the terminuspost quern of the Genesis stories. Several data seem to indicate a post-exilic date forthe chapter as it stands, while it has been argued that at least vv. 5-7 may besecondary.2

Since, apparently, there is no unanimous agreement whether or not Hos. 12.4-5presupposes the Genesis version of the Jacob-Esau stories, and, besides, whether ornot these verses are original in their context and belong to the age of the prophetHosea, it is impossible to adduce Hosea 12 as evidence for the eighth century BCEexistence of the first extended version of the Jacob-Esau stories.

As regards the Esau-Edom identification, the situation is even more uncertain. Theauthor uses both the names Jacob and Israel, but it cannot be established whether theconnection of Esau with Edom was known to him.

The same pun on Jacob's name as in Gen. 27.36 (and 25.26) is found in Jer. 9.3:

Let everyone beware of his neighbor,and put no trust in any brother,for every brother is a supplanter (spy aipa),and every neighbor goes about as a slanderer.

As this reference is to one of the oldest parts of the Jacob-Esau stories, we do notlearn anything on the date of the extended version.

the Jacob Tradition', VT 16 (1966), p. 150; Vorlander, Die Entstehungszeit des jehowistischenGeschichtswerkes, pp. 70-71; Daniels, 'Hosea and Salvation History', pp. 74-75, 85-87, 214, 221;Day, 'Prophecy', pp. 43-44.

1. Whitt, 'Jacob Traditions'; cf. his p. 18 n. 2. Cf. H.A. McKay, 'Jacob Makes it Across theJabbok. An Attempt to Solve the Success/Failure Ambivalence in Israel's Self-consciousness',JSOT 38 (1987), pp. 5-6.

2. Verses 5-7 secondary: Vollmer, Geschichtliche Rttckblicke, pp. 106-107; G.A. YeeComposition and Tradition in the Book of Hosea. A Redaction Critical Investigation (SBLDS, 102;Atlanta, GA, 1987), pp. 231-37, 298. Verses 4-7 secondary: Wolfe, 'Editing of the Book ofTwelve', p. 115; Ackroyd, 'Hosea and Jacob', p. 253; Vorlander, Die Entstehungszeit des jehowis-tischen Geschichtswerkes, p. 71 (cf. other literature in p. 71 n. 5).

3. Hos. 12 does not mention Esau's name. As Whitt, 'Jacob Traditions', pp. 29-30, rightlyremarks, this even leaves open the possibility that 'Jacob's brother' had another name than 'Esau',or no name at all.

3

Part III

THE ORIGIN OF EDOM'S ROLE AS A TYPE

Chapter 11

EDOM'S ROLE IN GENESISAND THE PROPHETIC BOOKS

1. Introduction

In Part I of this book, Edom's role in Obadiah and other prophetictexts was examined. Part II concentrated on Edom's role in the bookof Genesis. Part III deals with the origin of Edom's role as a type. Asa first step, the present chapter will compare the two sets of texts dis-cussed in Parts I and II. Section 2 compares Genesis and the examinedprophetic texts as regards the way in which the image of Edom as therepresentative of the nations and Israel's opponent is used.1 Severalaspects of Edom's role in Genesis appear to correspond to Edom'srole in the three major prophetic books and in Obadiah. Section 3examines these correspondences from a diachronic point of view. Itgives a comparison of the origin histories of the oracles and theGenesis stories. Section 4, finally, briefly considers the generalcorrespondence between Genesis and the prophetic books.

2. Edom's Role in Genesis Compared to that in the Prophetic Books

Some striking similarities can be found in the way the conception ofEdom as Israel's particular antagonist functions in the context of therespective books. Of course, there are some important differences aswell.

Not only in Genesis but also in the prophecy of Obadiah, Edom isIsrael's 'brother' (Obad. 10, 12). In Isaiah 34 and 35, and in Ezekiel35 and 36, the fates of Edom and Israel are 'twinned' as completeopposites, just as in Genesis. In Genesis, Israel's blessing is Edom's

1. Cf. Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, pp. 177-89 for a more extensivecomparison.

11. Edam's Role in Genesis and the Prophetic Books 159

'curse': in accordance with Jacob's blessing (Gen. 27.27-29) andEsau's anti-blessing (Gen. 27.39-40), Edom has at last to leave theland of their father. Isaac's blessing of Jacob, repeated in Gen. 28.3-4,promises him the land of Canaan, the land which Israel will possess.In the prophetic books, Edom's curse is Israel's blessing, once againconcentrating on the land: Edom's land—the symbolic land of theadversary nations—is doomed and destroyed (just as and in the sameway as Israel's land before); only then can Israel return to its land andpossess it again (cf. Isa. 34 and 35, Ezek. 35 and 36, Obad. 16-21).

In Genesis, Israel and the representative of the nations originatetogether and start their common history. In the examined propheticbooks, the (temporary) end of this common history is reached. WhenIsrael, the special nation, elected by God, is destroyed by God, theother nations cannot survive. Once again, Israel and Edom meet eachother. Edom, representing the nations, is destroyed just like Israel.When that has happened, Israel can start anew.

Genesis is about the beginning of God's history with Israel and thenations, and the prophetic books are about its temporary end, with thedestruction of Jerusalem. In both, Edom is the representative of thenations and Israel's opponent. This conception is the basis of both thestories on Jacob and Esau and the four major oracles against Edom.

The essential difference between Genesis and the prophetic bookslies with their estimation of Edom. In Genesis, the land of Edom (orSeir) is estimated as a good land for Esau, a land in which Edom candevelop as a prospering nation, while with the prophets Edom's landis no more than the place of doom. In the prophetic books, Edom isassociated with the nations that threatened (or threaten) Israel. It isespecially associated with Babylon. The destruction of Edom is theend of that threat and the beginning of the new Israel. In Genesis too,Esau is a danger for Jacob. Both when he leaves Canaan and when hereturns, Jacob fears to be killed by his brother. The conflict, however,is resolved in a reconciliation. Esau shows his forgiveness.

Of the four oracles, Ezekiel 35-36 is the nearest to Genesis. InEzekiel 35-36, unlike Isaiah 34 and Jer. 49.7-22, Edom especiallyrepresents the neighbouring nations. In Genesis, Edom is the last ofthe nations around Israel to originate within Abraham's family. Isaiah34 and Jer. 49.7-22 associate Edom and Babylon; this association isfound neither in Genesis nor in Ezekiel 35-36. (As regards Obadiah:


v. 16 speaks of 'the nations' in general, vv. 19-20 are about Israel'sneighbours.)

Both in Genesis and Ezekiel, the opposition Edom-Israel, withEdom representing the nations, plays an essential role in the composi-tion of the book. Ezekiel 35-36 constitutes a turning point in the bookof Ezekiel (cf. Isa. 34-35). After all the doom called down on themountains of Israel, the destruction of Mount Seir, representing theother hostile nations around Israel, introduces the message of hopeand restoration for Israel. Genesis 25-36 constitute the part of theToledoth in which both Israel (the purpose of the Toledoth) and thelast of the other nations emerge. Strikingly, Ezekiel 35 is the only oneof the four long oracles that uses the designation of Seir as Edom'sland, like Genesis.

The possession of the land is an issue occurring in both Genesis andEzekiel 35-36. In Genesis, Jacob is promised that he will possess theland of Canaan (Gen. 28.4, 13). When returning to the land, Jacobfears that Esau may make his return impossible and might even killhim; he then reminds YHWH of his promise (Gen. 32.10-13). InEzekiel, Israel's land is in danger of being taken in possession by'Mount Seir' (Ezek. 35.10-12) and the other neighbouring nations(Ezek. 36.2, 3, 5). YHWH promises his nation that they are the oneswho will possess (again) the 'mountains of Israel' (Ezek. 36.12; cf.Obad. 16-21).

Although, therefore, Genesis appears to be especially related toEzekiel 35-36, the brotherhood of Jacob/Israel and Esau/Edom onlyappears in Obadiah. The name Esau only occurs in Jer. 49.7-22 andObadiah (cf. below).

3. The Origin Histories Compared

Edom's image and function in the two sets of texts are quite similar.Although there are differences, in both Genesis and the propheticbooks Edom is Israel's special opponent among the nations. Since thisconception is the basis of both the stories on Jacob and Esau and themajor oracles against Edom, it seems unlikely that these texts areindependent of each other. The question that has to be answered sub-sequently is how the detected relations can be explained.

As a first step, the origin histories of the two sets of texts will be

11. Edom's Role in Genesis and the Prophetic Books 161

compared. We have found that the development of the Genesis storiesknew several stages (cf. Chapter 10).

1. Probably the oldest part was a story about Jacob and his twinbrother Esau, and their struggle for the blessing of theirfather (Gen. 27). There was a geographical element in thisnarrative: Jacob was the one from the 'smooth' mountain,Mount Halak, Esau the one from the 'hairy' mountain, MountSeir.

2. The next stage connected Esau-Seir with Edom and Jacobwith Israel (either in one time or in more). Genesis 27, forexample, was extended with a sequel in Genesis 28-33. Thestory of Esau selling his right of primogeniture (Gen. 25.29-34) was composed as a variant to Genesis 27.

3. Here, it can be added that the promise that Israel will becomea great nation in the land of Canaan (Gen. 28.13-15; cf.32.10-13) has often been regarded as a still later element.1

4. Finally, the 'P' elements are generally considered to be themost recent parts of the story. These are for example: Gen.26.34-35; 27.46-28.9 (Esau's marriages, Jacob sent away tomarry) and 25.19-20; 36.1, 9 (formulas that frame thestories and make them a part of the Toledoth structure laidover the book of Genesis).

As regards the four long oracles against Edom, we have found thatthere were several stages as well (cf. Chapter 7).

1. The oldest parts did not treat Edom differently from theother nations.

2. Ezekiel 35-36 and, less explicitly, the first extended versionof Jeremiah 49 made Edom Israel's special opponent. Edomgot this role too in the first version of Obadiah, which wasbased on these two texts.

3. The same texts in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, particularly the onein Ezekiel, presented Edom as the representative of the

1. According to some, belonging to the exilic period. Cf. Blum, Die Komposi-tion der Vatergeschichte, pp. 158-61, 290-97, 354-55; survey of other literature onpp. 293-96. On 32.10-13: Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, pp. 154-58.Berge, Die Zeit des Jahwisten, discusses and partly rejects Blum's thesis (pp. 157-59, 175-77, 181, 258-59 n. 63); he only considers 28.15b and 32.11, 13 to besecondary.


nations. This was worked out in the second version ofObadiah. Both in Ezekiel and the second version of Obadiah(later on worked out in the final version of the book) the endof Edom and 'the nations' was a necessary condition forIsrael's restoration, the returning to life of Israel's mountains(Ezekiel), the return of the exiles (Obadiah).

4. The latter aspect was adopted in Isaiah 34 (cf. ch. 35): theannihilation of Edom precedes the blossoming of the desertthat Israel has become. This text, however, added a newelement: it linked up Edom with Babylon. The samehappened in the second expansion of Jeremiah 49.

The following scheme gives an overview of the corresponding ele-ments. (Gen-2/3/4: versions 2, 3, 4; cf. numbers used above. Jer. 49-1[etc.]: the first version of Jer. 49.7-22 [etc.]).1

Genesis: Prophetic books:

Esau unconnected with Edom Gen-1 (not)Edom as Esau: Gen-2 Jer49-lEdom in Seir: Gen-2 Ezek35-36Israel as Jacob: Gen-2 Obad-1/2Edom as brother: Gen-2 Obad-1/antagonist: Gen-2 Isa34, Jer49-2,

Ezek35-36, Obad-1/2Edom in the way of Israel'spossession of its land: Gen-2/3 Ezek35-36, Obad-2/3Opposition Israel-Edom/nationsas structuring element in the book: Gen-(2/3/)4 Isa34, Ezek35-36Edom as representative: Gen-2/4 Isa34, Jer49-2,

Ezek35-36, Obad-2Edom//Babylon (not) Isa34, Jer49-3

An interesting difference between Genesis and the oracles is that inthe oracles Edom and Esau were already associated in the oldest parts(viz. in Jer. 49.10a, in the first version of the Jeremianic oracleagainst Edom), whereas in Genesis the association of Esau and Edomis secondary. However, the connection with Seir made in Genesis isfirst found in (the present version of) Ezekiel 35-36.2 The brother-

1. Jer49-l: Jer. 49.9-10a, 14-16; Jer49-2: Jer. 49.7-16; Jer49-3: Jer. 49.7-22.Obad-1: Obad. 1-14, 15b; Obad-2: Obad. 1-18; Obad-3: Obad. 1-21.

2. 'Mount Seir' does not occur in the oldest part of Ezek. 35-36 (35.5-6, 9);


hood of Jacob/Israel and Esau/Edom appears still later, namely inObadiah.

In both Genesis and the oracles in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, Edom'srole as the representative of the nations appears to be a later element.In Genesis, it came about in the narrative opposition of Israel andEdom, seen in the perspective of the other patriarchal narratives. Itbecame more explicit in the context of the Toledoth structure.

The first prophetic evidence of Edom's role as representative isprobably Jer. 49.12-13, in the first expanded version of the oracle. Ihave suggested that the end of the kingdom of Edom (552 BCE)occasioned the edition and expansion of the original oracle. In theextended version, Edom's role remained rather implicit. It is moreexplicit in Ezekiel 35-36, which I have dated a little further in thesixth century (near the end of the exile).

The use of texts to link up the oracles against Edom with oraclesagainst Babylon, evidenced in Isaiah 34 and the third version of Jer.49.7-22, has been seen to be a relatively late development (cf. Chapter7). In Genesis, there is no trace of any linkage of Edom with Babylon.

As for the older versions of the Genesis stories, we have seen thattheir identification of Esau from Seir and Edom also played a role inthe composition of the oracles against Edom. On the other hand, it isstriking how little use has been made of the theme of Edom's brother-hood. Even Ezekiel 35-36, though it does connect (as the only one ofthe oracles) Edom with Seir, does not have a single reference toEdom's 'brotherhood'.

Edom is called Esau in Jer. 49.8, 10 and Obad. 6 (cf. Obad. 8, 9,18, 19, 21). Besides, as stated above, it is only in Obadiah that Edomis addressed as Israel's brother. The name Esau does not occur in theother major oracles against Edom, Isaiah 34 and Ezekiel 35.Apparently, the identification of Esau and Edom was not very wide-spread at this time. This suggests that the Genesis stories are youngeror at the least not much older than the oracles against Edom.

4. Genesis and the Prophetic Books

The idea that the Genesis stories and the oracles against Edom belongto about the same age might be confirmed by the following observa-

35.7 is part of the verses that are generally regarded as an accretion to this oldest part(cf. Chapter 3, section 3.2).


tion. There is a remarkable similarity between the pattern of the Jacobstories and the pattern of the Major Prophets.1 Jacob's life mirrorsIsrael's fate in the exilic period as depicted in the prophetic books.Jacob's/Israel's having to leave the country that YHWH has destinedfor him, to stay for many years in Mesopotamia, and his subsequentreturn under God's promise, are elements that occur not only inGenesis, but also in Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel.2 In all threeprophetic books, Israel's Babylonian exile is an important theme,including the theme of the expected and hoped for return from exileand restoration of Israel in its own land.

A look at the wider context, that is to say the book of Genesis,reinforces the impression of similarity. Abraham too comes fromMesopotamia to Canaan, being promised that his offspring will inheritthe land. Egypt, in the prophetic books Babylon's main opponent andIsrael's 'staff of reed' (Ezek. 29.6), is equally important in Genesis.Almost immediately after his arrival in Canaan, Abraham's voyage tothe promised land is in danger of ending up in Egypt (Gen. 12). Infact, Jacob and his offspring, at last becoming a nation, do end upthere.

In general, the patriarchs' moving between Mesopotamia and Egyptseems paradigmatic for the situation in the exilic period.3 Like the

1. Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, pp. 177-79; cf. Clines, Theme of thePentateuch, pp. 98-99; McKay, 'Jacob Makes it Across the Jabbok', pp. 10-11.

2. With respect to the book of Jeremiah, L.T. Brodie ('Jacob's Travail [Jer.30.1-13] and Jacob's Struggle [Gen. 32.22-32]: A Test Case for Measuring theInfluence of the Book of Jeremiah on the Present Text of Genesis', JSOT 19 [1981],pp. 31-60) holds a similar position. He asserts (p. 31) that 'the present patriarchalnarrative is largely a post-exilic literary retrojection which reinterprets the ancientworld in the light of prophetic theology'. Unfortunately, he fails to make a reason-able case for this. He sets out to prove that Gen. 27.30-33.20 is a verse to verse'rewriting' of Jer. 21.1-31.12, but his attempt is greatly unconvincing. Cf. Dicou,Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, p. 178 n. 596.

3. Cf. Vorlander, Die Entstehungszeit des jehowistischen Geschichtswerkes,pp. 363-64; Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, pp. 344-46; K. Deurlooand B. Hemelsoet, Op her gen en in dalen. Bijbelse geografie: de plaats waargeschreven staat (Baarn, 1988), pp. 65-68; K.A.D. Smelik, 'Afdalen naar Egypt',in M.G.B. Harbers et al (eds.), Tussen Nijl en Herengracht (FS M.S.H.G. Heermavan Voss; Amsterdam, 1988); Deurloo, 'Narrative Geography'; Dicou, Jakob enEsau, Israel en Edom, p. 179. Cf. R.H. Moye, 'In the Beginning. Myth andHistory in Genesis and Exodus', JBL 109 (1990), pp. 594-95 on the 'exile andreturn' pattern in Genesis.


patriarchs, the Israelites sought help from Egypt, and, finally, some ofthem went there to stay. Their living in the promised land was nevercertain. Like Jacob/Israel, they were forced to leave it and to go toMesopotamia. Later, they heard the call to leave Mesopotamia for thepromised land, just like Jacob and Abram.

The use of the patriarchal narratives by exilic/post-exilic prophetsshows that these narratives were read as having relevance for theexilic and post-exilic community. In general, the purpose of the refer-ences seems to be the assurance that YHWH will support the exiles,just as he had supported Abraham and Jacob.1

It has been argued that the pattern of the stories about Jacob'serving' his uncle in Mesopotamia and leaving his uncle to return toCanaan is the same as that of the stories about Israel 'serving' in Egyptand being freed in the book of Exodus.2 On their turn, as has longbeen recognized, Exodus-themes and images illustrate the 'newexodus' in the prophetic books, the return from Babylon. One shouldnote that Mesopotamia as the place of the Jacob-Laban stories is prob-ably a later feature. The stories themselves may be older, but in theirpresent state they reflect the exilic pattern.3

1. Cf. C. Jeremias, 'Die Erzvater in der Verkiindigung der Propheten', inH. Donner et al. (eds.), Beitrage zur alttestamentlichen Theologie (Fs W. Zimmerli;GSttingen, 1977), pp. 206-22; Goldingay, 'Patriarchs in Scripture', pp. 33-35: 'Thepromise of blessing, of land, of increase, of God's own presence, of theacknowledgement of the nations, sealed by the covenant relationship, were not basedon the patriarchs' achievements but on the gracious initiative of Yahweh, and they arenot brought to an end by Israel's sins, because the divine commitment still stands.This is the basis for hope when the covenant is broken and the blessing gone, thepeople is decimated and the land lost, and when Yahweh has left them and they arethe laughing-stock of the nations'; cf. Vorlander, Die Entstehungszeit des jehowis-tischen Geschichtswerkes, pp. 354-58; Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte,pp. 290-96 and 356-59.

2. D. Daube, The Exodus Pattern in the Bible (London, 1963), pp. 62-72; cf.Diedrich, Die Anspielungen aufdie Jakob-Tradition, p. 153 n. 176.

3. Cf. Chapter 10, section 2. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte,pp. 343-44 n. 11, shows that the use of the name Haran points to either the time ofthe neo-Assyrian empire or the time of Nabonidus (when both Ur and Haran wereimportant). In his opinion, the former is the only possible one, 'da eine neueTraditionsbildung wahrend der Exilszeit die Vater sehr viel eher mit Babylonien alsdem nordlichen Mesopotamien in Beziehung gesetzt haben diirfte'. I do not considerthis argument to be compelling: the exilic editors may have chosen Haran for other,narrative reasons, e.g. the distance between Canaan and Ur. Of course, the memory


The theme of the conflict between Jacob/Israel and Esau/Edom,which is essentially a conflict on the possession of the land, is ofspecifically exilic relevance, as is demonstrated by the comparison,above (section 2), of Genesis 25-36 and Ezekiel 35-36. Ezekiel 35-36may be interpreted as a reflection on the situation that Israel's neigh-bours, and especially Edom, with their claim to the land, endangeredthe possibility of Israel's return and restoration. In Genesis, the satis-factory solution of Edom receiving its own land is found. There canbe no doubt about who will possess the promised land: according toGenesis, that can only be Israel. The same theme is prominent in thestories on Hagar and Ishmael: just like Esau, Ishmael has to leave theland.1

5. Conclusion

We have seen that both in Genesis and the prophetic books Edom'srole grew larger and larger. Israel's small neighbour came to play therole of its special opponent and the representative of the nations, andlater even came to be associated with the pre-eminent enemy nationBabylon.

In the following chapters, I shall discuss possible causes of thisremarkable development. First, I shall investigate the literary historyof the conception of Edom's brotherhood in the Old Testament, andask if the connection of Israel and Edom in this way can have hadhistorical roots (Chapter 12). The existence of a special relationbetween the two nations might help to explain Edom's role as Israel'sspecial opponent.

In Chapter 13, it will be asked if the prophetic treatment of Edomas the outstanding enemy among the neighbouring nations or even thenations at large can have been caused, as some have argued, byEdomite hostilities against Israel, or the cultic interpretation of thesehostilities.

of Haran's importance in earlier times may have played a role.1. Blum, Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte, p. 347 argues that the inclusion

of the Ishmael stories in the patriarchal narrative may be due to the sixth century BCEmigration of southern Arabs ('Ishmaelites') into former Judaean land.

Chapter 12

EDOM AND ISRAEL: TWIN BROTHERS

1. Introduction

In this chapter, I shall discuss the theme of Edom's brotherhood. Itwas suggested in the previous chapter that in the sixth century BCE theconnection Esau-Edom may not have been very old. The four majororacles against Edom do not make the impression of being very wellacquainted with Edom's role in Genesis. This conveys the idea thatEdom's 'brotherhood' is a literary and theological construction.

On the other hand, some elements of the common history of Israeland Edom indicate that it is not strange that Edom was chosen toperform as Israel's older twin brother. The choice of Edom may havehad historical roots. Further, it has been argued that in a way Edomand Israel were actually 'brother nations', namely with respect to theirreligion.

In this chapter, we shall try to find out if, in view of other OldTestament texts, it is plausible to suppose (1) that the literaryidentification of Esau and Edom was not yet very old in the sixthcentury BCE; and (2) that Edom's brotherhood is not only the result ofa literary choice but can also be related to historical facts.

We shall inquire if there is any pre-exilic evidence of either theidentification Esau-Edom or Edom's brotherhood (section 2: in theprophetic books; section 3: in other Old Testament texts), and contem-plate the consequences for the date of the Genesis stories (section 4).

Next, the historical grounds for the linking of Edom with Esau/Seirwill be discussed (section 5). Finally, the supposed religiousbackground of Edom's brotherhood will be considered (section 6).


2. The Prophets

In a few prophetic texts, allusions to the Jacob-Esau stories are found.The name 'Esau' is not very common in the prophetic books: apartfrom Jer. 49.8, 10 and several verses in Obadiah,1 it only occurs inMai. 1.2, 3. The name Esau does not occur in the other long oraclesagainst Edom, Isaiah 34 and Ezekiel 35. The connection of Edom andSeir is equally uncommon: the only prophetic evidence is Ezekiel 35.

The references in Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Obadiah show acquaintancewith the identification of Edom and Esau or the connection of Edomand Seir, but do not mention any other details found in the Genesisstories. Just one of the verses mentioning Esau in the oracles ispossibly pre-exilic: Jer. 49.10.2 The book of Malachi is clearly post-exilic. Amos and Obadiah are the only prophetic books in whichEdom is explicitly called 'brother'. Therefore, the only possible pre-exilic prophetic evidence of Edom's brotherhood is Amos 1.11-12.

Amos 1.11-12, the oracle against Edom in the collection of oraclesagainst the nations in Amos 1-2, condemns Edom 'because he pursuedhis brother with the sword, and cast off all pity'. This seems to be anallusion to Edom's brotherhood with Israel. We discussed this oraclein Chapter 2. In another place it was suggested, however, that Amos1.11-12 is not pre-exilic: it was posed that Amos 1-2, like Obadiah,was inspired by the book of Ezekiel.3 The use of a detailed and con-crete motivation in Ezekiel 25-26 and Amos 1-2 is rather exceptionaland probably has to be regarded as an innovation in the genre oforacles against the nations. We concluded, also in view of the connec-tions Amos 1-2 has with Joel 4 and Obadiah, that Amos 1-2 musthave been composed little later than Ezekiel 25-26 and 35, and there-fore has to be dated shortly after the end of the exilic period.4 Now, ithas often been argued that several parts of Amos 1-2 must be youngerthan the time of the prophet Amos. Amos 1.11-12, for instance, isconsidered by many authors to be an exilic or post-exilic text.5 On the

1. Obad. 6, 8,9, 18 (2x), 19,21.2. Cf. Chapter 6, section 2; Chapter 7, section 3; Chapter 11, section 3.3. Chapter 5, section 4.4. Cf. Chapter 5, section 5.5. Cf. already J. Wellhausen, Die kleinen Propheten. Vbersetzt und erkldrt

(Berlin, 4th edn, 1963), p. 70; Marti, Das Dodekapropheton, p. 162; later authorssuch as Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 40-43; G. Pfeifer, 'Denkformenanalyse

12. Edom and Israel: Twin Brothers 169

other hand, Amos 1-2 gives also the impression of being a literaryunity.1 A natural solution for this problem would be that Amos 1-2 asa whole is later than the time of the prophet.2 However that may be,our dating of Amos 1.11-12 is in accordance with the general view onthese verses.3

If, consequently, Amos 1.11-12 is not pre-exilic and not the firstprophetic evidence for Edom's brotherhood, it is the book of

als exegetische methode, erlautert an Amos 1,1-2,16', ZAW 88 (1976), pp. 56-71;Barton, Amos's Oracles against the Nations, pp. 22-24; P. Weimar, 'Der Schlussdes Amos-Buches. Bin Beitrag zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Amos-Buches', BN 16(1981), p. 98; Gosse, Isaie 13,1-14,23, p. 39 and idem, 'Le Recueil d'oraclescontre les nations du livre d'Amos et Thistoire deuteronomique"', VT 38 (1988),pp. 33-34, 37.

1. Cf. Paul, 'Amos 1.3-2.3'; discussion in Bartlett, 'Brotherhood of Edom',pp. 11-12.

2. Cf. Geyer, 'Mythology and Culture', pp. 138-41. V. Fritz ('Die Fremd-volkerspriiche des Amos', VT37 [1987], pp. 26-38) also disputes the authenticityof all of the oracles in Amos 1-2. We cannot discuss here the dating of the book ofAmos. In general, it might be considered that the connection of the oracles with aprophet Amos could be a purely literary one, moreover, that the biographical parts ofthe book (1.1; 7.10-17) need not necessarily be historically reliable. These partssituate Amos in the eighth century BCE, but they do not look very credible. Ashepherd who is at the same time a poet and a prophet is at the least quiteremarkable—cf. Gordis, 'Edom, Israel and Amos', p. 119: 'Displaying a remark-able knowledge of international affairs, the shepherd of Tekoa passes judgment onthe actions of Aram, the Philistines, Tyre, Edom, Ammon, Moab and Judah'.H.F. Fuhs ('Amos 1,1. Erwagungen zur Tradition und Redaktion des Amosbuches',in H.J. Fabry [ed.], Bausteine biblischer Theologie [Fs G.J. Botterweck; Koln andBonn, 1977], pp. 271-89) shows that several parts of 1.1 are late, e.g. 'who wasamong the shepherds of Tekoa': 'Berufsangaben treten in Uberschriften zuProphetenbiicher erst seit Jeremia auf (pp. 273-74; cf. note 6: YHWH taking Amos'from following the flock', Amos 7.15, is 'ein gepragtes literarisches Motiv'; cf.2 Sam. 7.8). B.J. Diebner, 'Berufe und Berufung des Amos (Am 1,1 und 7.14f)',DBAT 23-24 (1986-87), p. 120: 'Die geschilderte Situation von Am 7,10-17 ist"historisch" vollig undenkbar'.

3. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 14-15, 42, argues that 'brother' in Amos1.11-12 and Obad. 10 may have a political undertone; he takes these verses to referto Edom's betrayal, in 587 BCE, of a treaty with Israel against Babylon (cf. Jer.27.3). For the political use of the term 'brother' cf. Priest, 'Covenant of Brothers';M. Fishbane, The Treaty Background of Amos 1.11 and Related Matters', JBL 89(1970), pp. 313-18. Fishbane's assertion that 'brother' in Amos 1.11 means'vassal' and must refer to David's or Solomon's 'subjugation of Edom to vassaldom'(p. 315), was convincingly refuted in Bartlett, 'Brotherhood of Edom', pp. 13-16.


Jeremiah in which the concept of Edom as Esau, Jacob's/Israel'sbrother, was introduced in the prophetic literature (Jer. 49.10).

3. Other Old Testament Books

The evidence from the other Old Testament books confirms thepicture we get from the prophetic books. Edom's brotherhood as aliterary theme can hardly be much older than late pre-exilic times. Inother than prophetic texts Edom only appears as Israel's brother inNum. 20.14-21 and Deut. 23.8-9. Neither text mentions Esau or Seir.Deut. 2.1-8, which is a parallel of Num. 20.14-21, speaks of 'yourbrethren the sons of Esau, who live in Seir' (v. 4; cf. v. 8), but doesnot use the name Edom. The Numbers version is probably youngerthan the Deuteronomy one.1 If so, we find here another example ofthe transition 'Esau from Seir' to 'Edom' (as in Genesis). TheDeuteronomy version, in which the Israelites in the wilderness haveno difficulties travelling through the land of Esau, may be dated to theend of the seventh century BCE, when no enmity between Edom andJudah had yet occurred. The Numbers version, in which the Edomitesmeet the Israelites with hostility, probably follows the Edomite actionsnear the end of the state of Judah.2 Consequently, there is only onepossibly pre-exilic text calling Edom Israel's brother:3 Deut. 23.8-9.This is quite an interesting text, since it is one of the very few that hasa relatively positive view on Edom:

23.8 You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother...23.9 The children of the third generation that are born to them

may enter the assembly of the LORD.

The date of Deuteronomy 23 is a moot point. Some scholars think thatit contains very old traditions.4 Others recognize post-exilic elements.5

1. Cf. K.A.D. Smelik, ' "Een vuur gaat uit van Chesbon". Een onderzoek naarNumeri 20.14-21; 21.10-35 en parallelplaatsen', ACEBT 5 (1984), pp. 61-109,especially pp. 82-83, 96; Blum, Komposition des Pentateuch, pp. 120-121. Theopposite opinion has also been defended; cf. survey of discussion in Bartlett, Edomand the Edomites, pp. 90-93, 180-81.

2. Cf. Smelik'"Een vuur gaat uit van Chesbon"', p. 96.3. Not counting the Genesis stories.4. E.g. K. Galling, 'Das Gemeindegesetz in Deuteronomium 23', in

W. Baumgartner et al. (eds.), Festschrift fur A. Bertholet zur 80. Geburtstag(Tubingen, 1950), p. 185: eleventh century BCE; cf. discussion in Bartlett,


The evidence for the connection of Edom and Seir does not changethe picture. There are only two possibly pre-exilic texts in which thenames Edom and Seir occur together: Num. 24.18 and Judg. 5.4.1

Both are poetic texts, which use the two names in the two halves of aparallelism. This does not preclude that Edom and Seir are thought ofas identical, but it neither does necessarily imply it, as Bartlett rightlyremarks (cf. e.g. Deut. 33.2 with Judg. 5.4).2

Perhaps an important observation is that the name Seir is absentfrom 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings, but is commonly employedin 1 and 2 Chronicles.3 The older historiography uses the name Edom,the younger both Edom4 and Seir. For the Chronicler, the two namesare clearly synonymous: in 2 Chron. 25.11-20 (the parallel of 2 Kgs14.7-14), they are used indiscriminately.

4. Evaluation: Consequences for the Date of the Genesis Stories

In sum, an examination of the occurrence of the names Esau and Seirin connection with Edom and of texts on Edom's brotherhoodconfirms our impression that the theme of the Edomite-Israelitebrotherhood had not yet become very common at the beginning of thesixth century BCE.

The oldest evidence of the name Esau used for Edom is the late pre-exilic verse Jer. 49.10. The oldest reference to Edom as 'brother' iseither Deut. 23.8-9 (of uncertain date) or the early post-exilic accusa-tions against Edom in the books of Amos and Obadiah. The use of thename Seir to denote Edom is first attested in Ezekiel 35 (late exilic or

'Brotherhood of Edom', pp. 5-6. U. Kellermann, 'Erwagungen zumdeuteronomischen Gemeindegesetz Dt 23,2-9', BN 2 (1977), pp. 33-47 followsGalling (see pp. 37-38).

5. Diebner and Schult, 'Edom in alttestamentlichen Texten', p. 11; Knauf,'Supplementa Ismaelitica, 13', p. 70; C.J. Labuschagne, Deuteronomium, deel II(POT; Nijkerk, 1990), pp. 220-21. Labuschagne rejects Calling's view (cf.previous note) and asserts that in Deut. 23 an answer is given to 'een typischexilisch/na-exilisch probleem'.

1. Some think that Num. 24.18-19 is not an early text; cf. e.g. A. Marx, 'Apropos de Nombres XXIV: 19b', VT 37 (1987), pp. 100-103 (followingH. Rouillard): exilic or early post-exilic.

2. Bartlett, 'Land of Seir', pp. 8-9 and Edom and the Edomites, pp. 42-43.3. 1 Chron. 1.38; 4.42; 2 Chron. 20.10, 22, 23; 25.11, 14.4. 1 Chron. 1.43, 51, 54; 18.11, 12, 13; 2 Chron. 8.17; 21.8, 9, 10; 25.19,

20; cf. 'Edomites': 2 Chron. 25.14; 28.17.


early post-exilic). On the other hand, when Jer. 49.7-22 and Ezekiel35 can call Edom 'Esau' or 'Mount Seir' without any explanation, thisimplies that the readers were at that time acquainted with theidentification. Since (1) it was in the time of the prophet Jeremiahthat the name Esau was first used for Edom, (2) the identification thendoes not seem to have been very old, and (3) it was near the end of theexile (Ezek. 35) and after the composition of the deuteronomistichistory that Seir and Edom became associated in literature, it can beinferred that Edom came to be regarded as identical with 'Esau fromSeir' shortly before the time of the prophet Jeremiah. It must bestressed that the authors of the Old Testament literature need notnecessarily have been aware of the logical consequence, that is, thatEdom was Israel's brother. The first prophetic reference to Edom'sbrotherhood, through Esau, with Jacob/Israel, is post-exilic.

Is the identification of Esau and Edom a purely literary one? If so,then we must conclude that Jer. 49.10 and Ezekiel 35 presuppose theGenesis version which includes Edom. However, as remarked in theintroduction to this chapter (and as will be worked out in our nextsection), the connection of Edom with Esau and Seir may have beenthe result of a non-literary, historical development. In other words,not literary creativity but popular conception, interpreting history,may have provided the grounds for the connection. In that case, thefirst prophetic use of the name Esau to designate Edom does notprovide the ante quern date for the Genesis stories.

One of the outcomes of the comparison of the Jacob-Esau storieswith the oracles against Edom in Chapter 11 was that similarities inthe field of both theme and details are especially found between theGenesis stories and Ezekiel 35-36. The most natural explanation forthis fact seems to be that they were composed (or edited) in about thesame period. In view of the considerations above, there are noobjections against this supposition.

Whether the two texts were composed at the same time or theGenesis stories are older or younger than Ezekiel 35-36 cannot bedecided, although the absence of Edom's brotherhood as a theme inEzekiel 35-36 seems to suggest that the Genesis stories are younger.Later on, one may suspect after the Jacob-Esau stories had becomeIsrael-Edom stories and the brotherhood of the two nations hadbecome a theme (Gen. 32-33), Edom's brotherhood came to play arole in oracles against Edom (first Amos and Obadiah, later Malachi).


5. History

Our survey of Old Testament texts in which Seir and Edom occurconfirmed Bartlett's view that the identification of Edom's land withSeir is a relatively late development in the tradition. In the Jacob-Esaustories the Israelites had initially described their relationship with theSeirites, 'the descendants of Esau'. Later, these stories were inter-preted as describing the relation of Israel and Edom.

A first point to be considered when discussing this development isthe geographical position of Mount Seir. Here we meet withdifficulties: the location of Seir is uncertain.1 Some scholars believethat it must be situated in Edom's land, on the eastern side of the WadiArabah.2 Others, however, think that Mount Seir is located on thewestern side of the Arabah, to the south of Judah.3 To complete thepicture: it has also been brought forward4 that there may be morethan one Seir, one eastern and one western, and it has been suggested5

that the land of Seir covers two sides of the Arabah. We cannot herediscuss the arguments for the different locations of Seir; the importantthing for us to note is that the evidence seems to allow several possi-bilities. Our findings speak against the first view (the one that locatesSeir exclusively on the eastern side of the Arabah): there is no oldevidence of the identification of Edom's land and Seir. Moreover,whereas most of the texts are not very clear in this respect, some ofthem unmistakably situate Seir in the west.6 Our conclusion that

1. Cf. e.g. J. Negenman, Een geografie van Palestina (Palaestina Antiqua, 2;Kampen, 1982), p. 120.

2. E.g. M. Weippert, 'Edom. Studien und Materialien zur Geschichte derEdomiter auf Grand schriftlicher und archaeologischer Quellen' (dissertation,Tiibingen, 1971), pp. 388-94 (but cf. idem, 'Edom und Israel', in G. Kraus andG. Miiller [eds.], Theologische Realenzyklopddie, IX [Berlin and New York, 1982],p. 291); E.A. Knauf, Midian. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Paldstinas undNordarabiens am Ende des 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr. (ADPV; Wiesbaden, 1988),p. 51 and 'Supplementa Ismaelitica, 13', p. 63.

3. Bartlett, 'Land of Seir', and Edom and the Edomites, pp. 41-44 (followingF.-M. Abel); Axelsson, Lord Rose up from Seir, p. 70; cf. Kellermann, Israel undEdom, pp. 398-400 (p. 70 n. 56).

4. Knauf, 'Supplementa Ismaelitica, 13', pp. 63-64. Critique: M. Gorg, 'ZurIdentitatder"Seir-Lander'", BN 46 (1989), pp. 7-9.

5. Weippert, 'Edom und Israel', p. 291.6. Deut. 1.2, 44; 2.1; Josh. 11.17; 12.7; 1 Chron. 4.42: cf. Kellermann, Israel


Esau's land, Seir, and Edom's land were initially not identical goesalong with the other theories: it implies that at least one Seir, Esau's,was regarded as situated outside Edom proper, on the western side ofthe Arabah. Bartlett, while stressing that the evidence is limited andunsatisfactory, suggests:

Seir perhaps denoted the wilder, scrubby land south of Judah and MountHalak and between Kadesh and the Gulf of 'Aqaba. This region wasnever claimed by Judah as its own, and its borders were never clearlydefined. It belonged to the south, with Sinai and Paran (Deut. 33.2), lyingbetween them and Judah to the north, and Edom to the east1

The kingdom of Edom was situated in the mountainous region southof the Wadi el-Hesa (the Zered Brook) and east of the Arabah; forinstance the Edomite capital Bozrah lies there.2 It is possible thatEdom and Esau's land were identified for geographical reasons only—Edom and 'Esau' lived in neighbouring countries.3 But there isevidence that Edomites actually established themselves on the otherside of the Arabah as well, in other words, that Edom not only inIsrael's literature but also in fact became associated with Esau's land,Mount Seir. In this way, Esau could become the father of theEdomites, and Edom Israel's brother.4

A well-known event in the common history of Edom and Israel isthat in the course of time many Edomites migrated to the land west ofthe Arabah and even came to live in former Judaean territories.5 This

und Edom, pp. 399-400 (p. 70 n. 56); Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites, pp. 43-44.1. Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites, p. 44.2. Cf. e.g. Weippert, 'Edom', pp. 393-436; Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites,

pp. 33-54.3. Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites, p. 179: 'According to the tradition, Esau,

the brother of Jacob, was a fierce and hostile figure, whose clans belonged to thewilderness regions on the southern borders of Judah... It was an easy step to makesuch a figure, from the borders of Judah and Edom, the ancestor of the Edomites;and in this way, Edom became "brother" to the people of Judah'. Cf. Knauf,'Supplementa Ismaelitica, 13', p. 69: 'In der Filiation Esaus/Edoms und Jakobs vonIsaak, und damit in der Bruderschaft von Edom mit Jakob/Israel, liegt weiter nichtsals tin fait de geographie vor: Juda ist "Vater" des nordlichen anschliessenden Israelwie des sudlich anschliessenden Edom'.

4. Cf. Bartlett, 'Land of Seir', pp. 17-18.5. Two recent surveys: A. Kasher, Jews, Idumeans, and Ancient Arabs.

Relations of the Jews in Eretz-Israel with the Nations of the Frontier and the Desert


westward move seems to have started already in the eighth centuryBCE, and 'recent archeological discoveries have suggested that in theseventh and early sixth centuries BCE there was growing Edomiteinfluence and presence in the Negev of Judah' (Bartlett).1 The migra-tion of Edomites must have been facilitated and quickened by the ruinof the state of Judah.2 From the sixth century onwards, southern Judahgradually turned into an Edomite centre (in Hellenistic times, thename of the area was Idumaea3). In the same period, the ancientEdomite kingdom declined, and the exclusively Edomite character ofthe region east of the Arabah gradually disappeared.

Some verses in the oracles against Edom attest to Edom's interest inJudaean land. Ezek. 35.10 speaks of 'Mount Seir's' intention to takepossession of the land 'of YHWH'. Obadiah 19 promises that the

during the Hellenistic and Roman Era (332 BCE-70CE) (TSAJ, 18; Tubingen, 1988),pp. 1-6; Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites, pp. 140-43. Cf. C.C. Torrey, 'TheEdomites in Southern Judah', JBL 17 (1898), pp. 16-20; H.L. Ginsberg, 'Judahand the Transjordan States from 734 to 582 B.C.E.', in Alexander Marx JubileeVolume (New York, 1950), pp. 363-64; Bartlett, 'Land of Seir', pp. 15-17; idem,'Rise and Fall', pp. 34-35; idem; 'From Edomites to Nabateans: A Study inContinuity', PEQ 111 (1979), pp. 53-66; J.M. Myers, 'Edom and Judah inthe Sixth-Fifth Centuries B.C.', in H. Goedicke (ed), Near Eastern Studies(Fs W.F. Albright; Baltimore, MD and London, 1971), pp. 377-92; Lindsay,'Babylonian Kings and Edom', pp. 25-31; E. Stern, Material Culture of the Land ofthe Bible in the Persian Period 538-332 B.C. (Warminster, 1982), pp. 250-52;Weippert, 'Edom und Israel', pp. 295-96.

1. Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites, p. 141; cf. p. 143: 'by the end of theAssyrian period a number of Edomites, or people with Edomite affinities, weresettled among the population of the region roughly south of a line drawn from Aradto Beersheba'.

2. Cf. Kasher, Jews, Idumeans, and Ancient Arabs, p. 3. Kasher emphasizes,however, that the end of the kingdom of Judah 'did not serve as a marker indicativeof a new demographic phenomenon'; he speaks of 'a continuous and gradual processthat gained considerable impetus in the years 587-582 BCE'; 'It simply appears thatthe invaders succeeded at that time in gaining control of the regions which they hadentered long before and gave them a new political character, Edomite (or Idumaean)-Arabic, thereby filling the vacuum created in the wake of the national disasters whichhad befallen the Kingdom of Judah'. Cf. Bartlett, 'From Edomites to Nabateans' onthe similar development in the land of Edom (note the title of the article: 'FromEdomites to Nabateans: A Study in Continuity').

3. C.H.J. de Geus, 'Idumaea', JEOL 26 (1979-80), pp. 53-74 (seeparticularly p. 73): the name Idumaea may have been chosen for political reasonsand does not indicate that the region was inhabited by Edomites only.


Israelites will once possess 'the Negeb, Mount Esau' again, clearlyimplying that the Negeb is now occupied by Edom.1

We concluded above (section 4) on the basis of the Old Testamentevidence that Edom probably came to be regarded as identical withEsau/Seir shortly before the time of the prophet Jeremiah; theidentification became more common in the sixth century. Now, sincethese are exactly the times that witnessed an increase in the westwardmove of Edomites, it can be assumed that there is a connectionbetween the identification and the increasing migration.2

6. Religion

There is another theory that would substantiate the idea that thebrotherhood of Edom and Israel is not solely a literary construction.In this theory it is held that Israel and Edom were once co-religionists, which must have resulted in a feeling of 'brotherhood'between the two nations.

A problem within the religion history of Israel and its neighbours isthe puzzling absence of the most important Edomite god, Qos, in theOld Testament.3 Whereas the gods of the other neighbours are rejectedas well as mentioned by their names, neither happens to the Edomitegod or gods.4 There is just one, late, general reference to the worship-ping (by Amaziah) of the 'gods of the Seirites', the 'gods of Edom',after the defeat of the Edomites (2 Chron. 25.14, 20; in the parallelversion of the story, 2 Kgs 14.7ff, no such worshipping is mentioned;

1. Cf. Obad. 20: returning exiles from Jerusalem 'shall possess the cities of theNegeb'.

2. As Bartlett in his article 'Land of Seir' still holds (p. 17). In his most recentwork, Edom and the Edomites, this view does not recur. Cf. Blank, 'Post-ExilicUniversalism', pp. 182-83.

3. Cf. on Qos e.g. T.C. Vriezen, The Edomite Deity Qaus', OTS 14 (1965),pp. 330-53; Weippert, 'Edom', pp. 461-69; E.A. Knauf, 'Qaus', UF 16 (1984),pp. 93-95; J.R. Bartlett, 'The Moabites and Edomites', in D.J. Wiseman (ed.),Peoples of Old Testament Times (Oxford, 1973), p. 246; idem, Edom and theEdomites, pp. 200-207.

4. Cf. e.g. 1 Kgs 11.1-8, the story of Solomon's idolatry (discussed forexample in M. Rose, 'Yahweh in Israel—Qaus in Edom?', JSOT 4 [1977], p. 5):Solomon serves, following his 'foreign women', Ashtoret of Sidon, Milcom ofAmmon (11.5), Chemosh of Moab, and Molech of Ammon (11.7); cf. 11.33. HisEdomite women (11.1) do not seem to have tempted him into serving other gods.


the more extended version in 2 Chronicles is probably secondary).1

This can possibly be explained by assuming that Edom's Qos did notdiffer very much from Israel's YHWH—which must have made itdifficult to reject him. It has been asserted that there are importantcorrespondences between YHWH and Edom's god Qos. The names ofboth gods are probably Arabic. Qos is an Arabic name with themeaning 'bow'.2 E.A. Knauf has argued that YHWH is a northwestArabic name, meaning 'he blows'.3 According to Knauf (and others),YHWH and Qos are gods of the same type; both are 'Gestalten dersyrisch-arabischen Wettergottes, zu dessen Attributen der Bogengenauso gehort wie der Sturm'.4

Bartlett, in his article 'The Brotherhood of Edom', speaks of 'theessential similarity and close connection between the Edomite Qos andthe Israelite Yahweh'; he even uses the term 'co-religionists'.5

According to him, a feeling of religious affinity between the twonations may have been 'one contributory factor' in the identificationof Edom with Esau, Jacob's/Israel's brother.6

1. Cf. however Vriezen, 'Edomite Deity Qaus', pp. 345-52, who supposes thatthe incomprehensible Dlp"7R in Prov. 30.31 is a conscious corruption of oip'bK, 'thegod Qos'; in his view, Prov. 30-31.9 is an originally Edomite collection. Further,Vriezen ('Edomite Deity Qaus', pp. 332-33) asserts that the personal name Barkos inEzra 2.53 // Neh. 7.55 contains the name of the Edomite god.

2. Cf. Vriezen, 'Edomite Deity Qaus', pp. 334-35; Rose, 'Yahweh in Israel',pp. 29-30; Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites, pp. 201-202.

3. E.A. Knauf, 'Yahwe', VT 34 (1984), pp. 467-72 and Midian, pp. 43-46.Cf. A.J. Wensinck, 'De oorsprongen van het Jahwisme', in Semietische studien uitde nalatenschap van Prof. Dr A.J. Wensinck (Leiden, 1941), pp. 33-36.

4. Knauf, Midian, p. 77. Cf. Wensinck, 'De oorsprongen van het Jahwisme',pp. 33-36; Vriezen, 'Edomite Deity Qaus', p. 353 n. 1; Knauf, 'Qaus'; idem,'Yahwe', p. 469. Bartlett (Edom and the Edomites, p. 204) emphasizes, however,on the grounds of an examination of Edomite personal names, that Qos may notexclusively have been 'a war god or a storm god'; 'like the worshippers of Yahwehand of other gods', Qos's devotees 'might hope for his help and support in varioussituations, personal and domestic as well as national'.

5. Bartlett, 'Brotherhood of Edom', pp. 6-7. Cf. J. Gray, 'The Desert Sojournof the Hebrews and the Sinai-Horeb Tradition', VT 4 (1954), pp. 151-53;J.R. Bartlett, The Moabites and Edomites', in DJ. Wiseman (ed.), Peoples of theOld Testament Times (Oxford, 1973), p. 246; idem, 'Yahweh and Qaus: AResponse to Martin Rose (JSOT 4: 28-34)', JSOT 5 (1978), p. 33; Rose, 'Yahwehin Israel', p. 30.

6. Bartlett, 'Brotherhood of Edom', p. 21.


There is not only the evidence from the absence of critiques ofEdom's religion; one can also point to the positive, exceptional treat-ment of Edom as a 'brother' as regards religious affairs in Deut. 23.8-9 (although only 'the children of the third generation that are born tothem may enter the assembly of the LORD').1 Further, in the biblicaltheophany tradition YHWH was connected with southern and south-eastern places, among which are numbered Seir and Edom.2 YHWH issaid to come or have come from these places to the Israelites.

A second explanation has been brought forward by M. Rose.3 Rosemaintains that only in later times, namely the eighth or seventhcenturies BCE, did the god Qos, of Arabian origin, come to be knownin Edom. Nothing is known about the god who was worshipped beforeQos, but it is not unlikely that it was the same god as the one of theIsraelites, namely, 'YHW. Rose's article was written in reaction toBartlett's article mentioned above. Rose contends that 'much morepositively than J.R. Bartlett in his essay, the old common YHW-cw/fshould be taken as the origin and as the starting point of the"brotherhood" of Israel and Edom'.4

Bartlett, reacting to Rose's article, rejects the late introduction ofQos,5 but accepts as a possibility that the god YHWH of the Israelitesmay have been worshipped by the Edomites too.6 He stresses, how-ever, in view of the lack of unequivocal evidence, that 'ourspeculation must be cautious'.7

1. Rose, 'Yahweh in Israel', p. 31; Bartlett, 'Brotherhood of Edom', pp. 5-7;idem, Edom and the Edomites, pp. 184, 199.

2. Axelsson, Lord Rose up from Seir, pp. 48-55 discusses Deut. 33.2 (Seir);Judg. 5.4-5 (a.o. Seir, the region of Edom); Hab. 3.3 (Teman); Ps. 68.8-9, 18. Isa.63.1 must be added to the list (YHWH 'comes from Edom'); cf. Bartlett, 'Yahwehand Qaus', p. 33; idem, Edom and the Edomites, pp. 197-98; A. Dicou, 'JHWH enEdom in Amara en in Jesaja 63 vers 1', in M.G.B. Harbers et al. (eds.), Tussen Nijlen Herengracht (Fs M.S.H.G. Heerma van Voss; Amsterdam, 1988), pp. 17-26.

3. Rose, 'Yahweh in Israel'.4. Rose, 'Yahweh in Israel', p. 31. Cf. S. Kreuzer, Die Friihgeschichte Israels

in Bekenntnis und Verkiindigung des Alien Testaments (BZAW, 178; Berlin andNew York, 1989), pp. 130-31.

5. Bartlett, 'Yahweh and Qaus', pp. 29-32. Cf. Knauf, Midian, pp. 55-56.6. Bartlett, 'Yahweh and Qaus' (see especially pp. 32-34). Cf. Bartlett, Edom

and the Edomites, pp. 194-200.7. Bartlett, 'Yahweh and Qaus', p. 34 (cf. his opinion on the evidence, p. 32:

'the evidence, however, it must be admitted, is suggestive rather than conclusive');


Evidence for an old connection of YHWH with Edom can also befound in extra-biblical sources. Some inscriptions found in Kuntillet'Ajrud, mentioning the 'YHWH of Teman'1 besides a 'YHWH ofSamaria',2 may even be interpreted as suggesting that in Edom (atleast, in Teman) around 800 BCE (the time of the inscriptions) YHWHwas worshipped, since the expression 'YHWH of Samaria' clearlyrefers to YHWH as present in his cultic centre in Samaria. This is notto imply that YHWH is the most important or even one of the mostimportant Edomite gods, but nevertheless YHWH may have beenworshipped in 'Teman'. In any case, the existence of a southern formof the deity YHWH is manifest.3

Egyptian material seems to provide another link between YHWHand Edom. The toponym t3 s3sw yhw, 'YWH in the land of Shasu',found in Egyptian lists has often been interpreted as containing thename of the god of Israel.4 This is important, for more than

cf. Edom and the Edomites, pp. 184, 198-200.1. Teman is also mentioned in the theophany text Hab. 3.3; cf. above.2. Cf. e.g. J.M. Hadley, 'Some Drawings and Inscriptions on Two Pithoi from

Kuntillet 'Ajrud', VT37 (1987), pp. 180-211; see further her extensive bibliographyon Kuntillet 'Ajrud and its inscriptions (pp. 208-11).

3. Cf. e.g. M. Weinfeld, 'Kuntillet 'Ajrud inscriptions and Their Significance',SEL 1 (1984), p. 126; Axelsson, Lord Rose up from Seir, pp. 30, 62-63, 181;discussion in Hadley, 'Some Drawings and Inscriptions', p. 186.

4. Rameses II, temple Amarah-West, Sudan; R. Giveon, Les Bedouins Shosoudes documents egyptiens (Leiden, 1971), pp. 74-77 (Doc. 16a). Cf. B. Grdseloff,'Edom, d'apres les sources e"gyptiennes', RHJE 1 (1947), pp. 79-83; M.S.H.G.Heerma van Voss, 'Een nieuwe Phoenix: Amara-West (Soedan)', JEOL 4.11 (1949-50), pp. 22-24; S. Herrmann, 'Der alttestamentliche Gottesname', EvT26 (1966),pp. 282-83, 288-90; M. Gorg, 'Jahwe—ein Toponym?', BN 1 (1976), pp. 9-13;K.A. Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions. Historical and Biographical, II: 4 (Oxford,1979), p. 217 (inscription no. 56, places no. 92-97); E. Edel, 'Die Ortsnahmenlistenin den Tempeln von Aksha, Amarah und Soleb im Sudan', BN 11 (1980), pp. 68,78; Axelsson, Lord Rose up from Seir, pp. 59-60; Knauf, Midian, pp. 46-51.Another version of the list: Amenophis III, temple of Soleb, Sudan; Giveon,Bedouins, pp. 26-28 (Doc. 6a); cf. Herrmann, 'Alttestamentliche Gottesname',pp. 282-84. Cf. for a comparison of the Soleb and Amarah-West lists: Edel,'Ortsnahmenlisten'. Outside this list the name 'Shasu YHW' is found once more inSoleb;Giveon, Bedouins, pp. 27-28;cf. Herrmann, 'Alttestamentlichen Gottesname',pp. 284-85. Giveon also mentions some other texts in which the toponym YHWwould occur; Giveon, Bedouins, p. 27 with nn. 1-3. These toponyms are: Yhwyw(tomb of Akhtoy, end eleventh Dynasty; cf. A.H. Gardiner, 'The Tomb of a Much-


once the Shasu are connected with Edom or Seir.1

7. Conclusion

In sections 2-4,1 suggested that there is no pre-exilic literary evidencefor Edom's brotherhood (with the possible exception of Deut. 23.8-9).Edom's supposed religio-historical 'brotherhood', discussed in ourprevious section, did not play any role in pre-exilic Old Testamentliterature. Therefore, Bartlett's caution on Rose's confident statementthat 'the old common YHW-cw/f should be taken as the origin and asthe starting point of the "brotherhood" of Israel and Edom' seems

Travelled Theban Official', JEA 4 [1917], pp. 28-38, especially p. 36 and pi. IX)and Yh (lists of Rameses III; cf. J. Simons, Handbook for the Study of EgyptianTopographical Lists Relating to Western Asia [Leiden, 1937], p. 165 [list XXVII,Nr. 115] and 174 [list XXIX, no. 13], cf. Gorg, 'Jahwe', pp. 13-14). The value ofthe first toponym, however, is doubtful; cf. W.A. Ward, 'The Shasu "Bedouine"',JESHO 15 (1972), p. 50 n. 3 (a connection is 'phonetically unlikely'); Gorg,'Jahwe', pp. 7-9. YHW is a shorter form of YHWH, also known from other extra-biblical texts; possibly it is older than YHWH. See M. Rose, Jahwe. Zum Streit umden alttestamentlichen Gottesnamen (TS, 122; Zurich, 1978); cf. Herrmann,'Alttestamentliche Gottesname', pp. 286-88.

1. Cf. Grdseloff, 'Edom'; K.A. Kitchen, 'Some New Light on the Asiatic Warsof Ramesses IF, JEA 50 (1964), pp. 66-67; Giveon, Bedouins, passim (e.g.p. 236); H.W. Helck, Die Beziehungen Agyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2.Jahrtausend v. Chr. (Agyptische Abhandlungen 5; Wiesbaden, 2nd edn, 1971),p. 336; M. Weippert, 'Semitische Nomaden des zweiten Jahrtausends. Uber dieS3sw der agyptischen Quellen', Bib 55 (1974), pp. 270-71, 277-78; Bartlett, Edomand the Edomites, pp. 77-81. In one list, 'YHW in the land of Shasu' and 'Seir inthe land of Shasu' occur together: Giveon, Bedouins, pp. 74-77 (Doc. 16a,Rameses II, temple Amarah-West, Sudan). M.C. Astour ('Yahweh in EgyptianTopographic Lists', in M. Gorg and E. Pusch [eds.], Fs E. Edel [AAT, 1; Bamberg,1979], pp. 17-34), however, argues that the places in this list must be situated inLebanon and western Syria. Bartlett (Edom and the Edomites, p. 79) subsequentlyasserts that the 'speculation' on the connection of the biblical Seir and a toponymYHWH thus 'has been ended'. However, this is not quite correct. Astour's proposalhas not been generally accepted. Cf. e.g. Axelsson, Lord Rose up from Seir, p. 60with n. 81; Knauf, Midian, p. 50 with n. 251; Gorg, '"Seir-Lander"', pp. 10-11.Moreover, in Amarah-West another toponym in 'the land of Shasu' occurs whichpoints to southern regions: 'P3-wnw' or 'Pwnw' (Amarah-West nr. 45; cf. Edel,'Ortsnahmenlisten', pp. 73-74), which M. Gorg ('Punon—ein weiteres Distrikt derS3$w-Beduinen?', BN 19 [1982], pp. 15-21) argues to be 'Punon' at the easternside of the Arabah.


justified. However, it may be gathered that because Edom and Israelhad a special relation (religio-political), it was not a very surprisingmove to make Edom Israel's 'brother'. More important than thereligious background of the 'brotherhood' are probably the historicaldevelopments in the seventh and sixth centuries BCE. The historicalmovement that connected Edom with Seir, the westward migration ofEdomites, may have been the impetus for turning the Jacob-Esaustories into stories about Israel and Edom and, later, into stories aboutIsrael and the representative of the nations. In this way, the Jacob-Esau stories received a meaning relevant for the sixth century BCEsituation.1 Like Edom's introduction in the Jacob-Esau stories,Esau's/Seir's introduction in the oracles against Edom can be inter-preted as the result of an identification that was becoming morecommon.

1. Cf. Thompson, Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel, pp. 39-40 (on 'the origintradition of ancient Israel'): 'the biblical tradition is not a history at all. It asks, on thebasis of its ahistorical folk tradition, who Israel is and what Israel means among thenations of the world. Its questions are not the historical questions of how Israel cameto be. It is historiographical only in the aetiological sense of defining the Israel of itsown day in terms of traditions past'; the meaning of the Toledoth lies in 'the political,social, and religious ramifications of the world of its referent'. (Though heacknowledges the significance of the 'pentateuchal historiography' for the exilicperiod, Thompson holds on to an earlier date: the late seventh/early sixth centuriesBCE; Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel, pp. 193-94.)

Chapter 13

EDOM'S HOSTILITY

1. Introduction

We are discussing the possible reasons of the Old Testament authorsfor making Edom Israel's special opponent and the representative ofthe nations. The fact that Edom eventually (in Isaiah and Jeremiah)was placed on one line with the exemplary enemy nation Babylonseems indicative of an intense animosity.

Some suggest that Edom's exceptional position in the propheticbooks might be the result of an age-old excessive hostility betweenEdom and Israel. Others think that Edom contributed to the destruc-tion of Jerusalem and Judah, or afterwards took advantage of it. Theseviews will be considered in section 2.

Another type of solution is given in U. Kellermann's study 'Israelund Edom'.1 In his view, the exilic cult in Jerusalem, by including thecondemnation of some minor Edomite transgressions in the communallament liturgy, served as a motor for 'Edomhass'. His proposal (and asimilar one from G.S. Ogden) will be discussed in section 3.

2. Conflicts between Israel and Edom

Various events from the common history of Israel and Edom areconsidered to have contributed to Edom's exceptional role in the pro-phetic books. There is, however, no unanimous agreement on whichof this events was decisive. The oracles against Edom themselves seemto indicate that Edom sided with the Babylonians when the latter cameto destroy Judah and Jerusalem (589-587 BCE). In the book ofObadiah the Edomites are held responsible for Israel's ruin (vv. 8-15)and Ezekiel 35 can be interpreted in the same way (see vv. 5-6). Otherrelevant texts are: Ezek. 25.12 in its context (see 25.3); Joel 4.19;

1. Kellermann, Israel und Edom.

13. Edom's Hostility 183

Amos 1.11-12; Ps. 137.7; Lam. 4.21 in its context (see e.g. 1.21). Inall these cases, the texts are generally taken to refer to the disaster thatput an end to the kingdom of Judah.

The other event likely to have been a contributory factor is theEdomite incursion into southern Judaean regions, which we discussedin our previous chapter (section 5). This event is reflected upon inEzek. 35.10 and Obad. 19-20.

The problem is that the sources may be unreliable, since the OldTestament stories and oracles are not historical but theological texts.1

As regards the fall of Judah and Jerusalem, opinions vary as to whatactually happened. Some scholars maintain that the writer of thedetailed list of crimes ascribed to the Edomites in Obad. 8-15 gives oruses an eye-witness report and must have written shortly after 587BCE.2 However, apart from the vividness with which the Edomitecrimes are described (which is not a compelling argument),3 there isno evidence to support this view. Moreover, the results of our analysisof Obadiah's literary history disprove this possibility: the first versionof the book of Obadiah was probably composed at the end of the exilicperiod.

Others argue that Obad. 8-15 is primarily a literary text and doesnot give information on what actually happened.4 Verses 12-14 arepoetic in form: they consist of a series of prohibitive imperfects ('do

1. Having examined the oracles against Edom, Mailland, 'Petite apocalypse',p. 86, remarks: 'Les textes Studies nous renseignent-ils sur 1'histoire d'Edom a partirde la chute de Jerusalem? On reconnaitra des 1'abord que nos textes sont des t^moinshistoriques tres indirects. Leur but n'est pas de nous donner des renseignementsprecis sur 1'histoire. II faut plutot les comprendre comme des reflexions sur 1'histoired'Israel, reflexions qui interpretent le present et suscitent 1'avenir en s'appuyant surle fait constant de I'Election et de 1'Alliance: d'ou les griefs formules contre Edom et1'annonce de son chatiment defmitif dans 1'avenir'.

2. Cf. e.g. Hattberger, 'An den Wassem von Babylon', p. 199: 'Moglicherweiseliegen beiden Texten (= Lamentations and Obadiah, BD) originate Zeugnissezugrunde, so dass Spatdatierungen fraglich bleiben. Obadja wirkt daher wie eine sehrfriihe, unmittelbarere schriftliche Reaktion auf die Zerstorung Jerusalems'. Wehrle,Prophetic und Textanalyse, p. 10, even states that a date shortly after 587 BCE is thepresent day 'opinio communis'.

3. Cf. Chapter 6, section 3.4. Cf. Simian, Theologische Nachgeschichte, pp. 313-14, 316-17; Bartlett,

'Edom and the Fall of Jerusalem', pp. 20-21; idem, Edom and the Edomites,pp. 154-55; Robinson, 'Naturalization in Obadiah', pp. 83, 90-91.


not gloat' etc.).1 The historical interpretation of such a text requires avery cautious approach. It is not wise to regard it right away as adescription of Edom's behaviour in 587 BCE. Also in view of otherevidence (notably Jer. 40.11: Judaean refugees finding shelter inEdom), it can be argued that Edom did not behave as extraordinarilybadly in 587 as might be gathered from Obadiah and other oraclesagainst Edom.2

The standpoint that Obadiah and the other oracles are primarilyliterary texts is supported by our own investigation. Our analysis ofthe links between the various oracles against Edom has demonstratedthat the authors of these oracles borrowed from other oracles on alarge scale; this appeared to include the accusations against Edom.3

On the other hand, the various texts make it clear that Edom's con-duct was at least regarded as being very serious, even if, from ahistorical point of view, it was not. Because the Israelites regarded thebehaviour of Edomites as matching that of the Babylonians, they couldcome to envisage Edom as the typical enemy, the representative of theinimical nations. Later, Edom could even be accused of burning thetemple (1 Esd. 4.45).

Edom's fault may have consisted in not supporting Judah when theBabylonians came, and in welcoming or even helping them.4 Edomsurvived Nebuchadnezzar's campaign—probably because it did notoppose the Babylonians. Also in 582 BCE, when Judah's neighboursAmmon and Moab were destroyed, as had been prophesied, Edomsurvived; it was probably Nabonidus who put an end to the kingdomof Edom.5

The fact that Edom was the only nation to survive Nebuchad-

1. The RSV rendering: 'you should not have gloated' etc., which suggests thatEdom actually did behave in this way, is inaccurate; cf. Bartlett, Edom and theEdomites, p. 154, and above (Chapter 1, section 2), the note to the translation ofObad. 12.

2. Simian, Theologische Nachgeschichte, pp. 316-17; Bartlett, 'Edom and theFall of Jerusalem', pp. 18-23; idem, Edom and the Edomites, pp. 151-57.Kellermann, Israel und Edom, p. 228 speaks of 'das historisch unbedeutendePhanomen des Verhaltens der Edomiter anlasslich der Katastrophe von 587 v. Chr.'(which was later blown up out of all proportion). Cf. below, section 3.

3. Cf. Chapter 2, section 4; Chapter 4, section 5; Chapter 5, section 4 (alsosection 2).

4. Cf. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, p. 219.5. Cf. Chapter 6, section 2.2.

13. Edam's Hostility 185

nezzar's campaigns may have been important and perhaps evendecisive for the origin of Edom's role as a type.1 Merely by still beingthere, Edom provoked extra oracles. There was less need to writeoracles against nations that had already been destroyed. A verse suchas Jer. 49.12 speaks in favour of this theory: Edom does not want to'drink the cup' like the other nations, but will have to.2 Lam. 4.21-22reveals the same sentiment and, moreover, uses the same image.

Rejoice and be glad, O daughter of Edom...but to you also the cup shall pass...

The punishment of your iniquity, O daughter of Zion, is accomplished...but your iniquity, O daughter of Edom, he will punish...

According to I. Miiller, this is the earliest text in which Edomappears as a type, as Israel's typical enemy.3 If it has to be dated to thebeginning of the exilic period, as most commentators believe,4 thisassertion may well be right. The earliest part of the oracles againstEdom in which this nation has gained typical features is the firstexpanded version of Jer. 49.7-22, to be dated, roughly, half waythrough the sixth century.5 Strikingly, the only offence Edom is foundguilty of in these earliest proofs of Edom's role as a type (if'remaining unpunished' is not regarded as an offence) is its being gladof Israel's disaster (Lam. 4.21).

An interesting possibility sometimes suggested is that Edom wasexpected to behave like a 'brother', and did not. That may have beenthe reason for taking Edom's conduct in 587 so seriously.6 The liter-ary evidence, however, seems to disprove this explanation. It is onlyin the relatively late book of Obadiah that the theme of Edom'sbrotherhood comes up.7 In neither Jer. 49.7-22 nor Ezekiel 35-36

1. Cf. Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites, p. 157.2. Cf. Chapter 6, section 2.2.3. Miiller, 'Wertung der Nachbarvolker', pp. 150-51.4. Cf. e.g. Hartberger, 'An den Wassern von Babylon', p. 166 (with

discussion in n. 296). Cf. J. Renkema, ' "Misschien is er hoop". De theologischevooronderstellingen van het boek Klaagliederen' (dissertation, Franeker, 1983),pp. 43-59, for an overview of the discussion of the book of Lamentations ingeneral.

5. Cf. Chapter 6, section 2.2.6. H. Wildberger, Jesaja. II. Jesaja 13-27 (BKAT, 10.2; Neukirchen-Vluyn,

1978), p. 1339; Wehrle, Prophetic und Textanalyse, p. 343.7. Cf. Chapter 12, section 2.


there is a suggestion that Edom is condemned because of its havingacted in an 'unbrotherly' fashion.

The second proposed contribution to the origin of Edom's specialrole, the settlement of Edomites in the Negeb, has not remainedundisputed either. Some see it as the main cause. In fact, however,only very few texts mention it (Ezek. 35.10; Obad. 19-20; cf. Amos9.12). Others, therefore, have argued that it cannot have been a veryimportant factor and certainly is not the main cause.1 But, upon closerconsideration, the relevant verses in Ezekiel 35-36 and Obadiah mustbe concluded to be more significant than appears at first sight. InEzekiel, the issue 'who will live in the land of Israel?' is the centralproblem of the composition Ezekiel 35-36. Obad. 19-20 and Amos9.11-15 (and Joel 4.18-21) are reinterpreting, later appendages totheir books, and were probably composed together. The theme of bothEzekiel 35-36 and the appendages, all to be dated to the second half ofthe sixth century BCE, is the return of the Israelites and theirregaining possession of their land.2 The hope of the returning exilesof a restoration of their land and state in its former size was frustratedby neighbouring nations that had taken advantage of Judah's ruin bytaking parts of its land.3

Contrary to the theories discussed so far, some hold the positionthat the roots for the vehemence of the oracles against Edom must notbe sought for in the confrontations between Israel and Edom in thesixth century BCE, but in pre-exilic times. They insist that the rela-tionship between the two nations had been extraordinarily inimicalfrom earliest times onwards.4 In their view, this old enmity explainsEdom's role as a type.

We cannot here go into any detail as regards the pre-exilic commonhistory of Israel and Edom, but in my opinion this view is not

1. Mailland, 'Petite apocalypse', p. 86; Weippert, 'Edom und Israel', pp. 295-96; Kasher, Jews, Idumeans, and Ancient Arabs, p. 3.

2. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 6-7, 8; Hartberger, 'An den Wassern vonBabylon', p. 138.

3. Cf. Cresson, 'Israel and Edom', pp. 143, 145-46; idem, 'Condemnation ofEdom', p. 147; Wehrle, Prophetie und Textanalyse, pp. 344-45, 363 (on Obad. 19:'Die Angabe des wieder in Besitz genommenen Gebietes deckt sich [umgekehrt] mitden Tatsachlichen Verhaltnissen der Exilszeit').

4. Miiller, 'Wertung der Nachbarvolker', p. 150; Bartlett, 'Edom and the Fallof Jerusalem', pp. 14-15, 23; idem, Edom and the Edomites, pp. 156-57.


warranted. When examining the references to Edom in Samuel andKings (and their parallels in Chronicles), one gets the impression thatthere is insufficient literary evidence to support the theory of Edom's'unentwegte und beharrlich durchgehaltene Feindseligkeit gegeniiberJuda', supposed to have taken place 'in alien Phasen der Geschichte'(Miiller).1 Bartlett states: 'Judah's conquest of Edom...and the sub-sequent rebellion had left a legacy in the Israelite tradition of Edomitebloodthirstiness and vindictiveness, a memory of Edom's readinesswith the sword',2 but this is not supported by the passages concerned.For instance, 2 Sam. 8.13-14 and 1 Kgs 11.15-16 are short notes onDavid's conquest of Edom which rather emphasize David'sbloodthirstiness.3 Edom's rebellion against Joram, in which it threwoff the yoke of Judah, is related in a very laconic and matter-of-factstory, in which there is no mention of Edom's 'vindictiveness' etc.(2 Kgs 8.20-22). With the exception of the old core of Jer. 49.7-22,there are no pre-exilic oracles against Edom. The original Jeremianicoracle is unspecific and does not picture Edom as a type or accuse it ofany crimes. Although according to 2 Kgs 16.6 Edomite aggressionplays a role in the international political affairs in the time of Ahaz,Isaiah 7, reflecting upon those affairs, does not even mention Edom.Prophetic words against Edomite aggression are not found until thesecond half of the sixth century BCE. As noticed above, Lam. 4.21-22,the first text in which Edom is Israel's typical opponent, does notindict Edom for any concrete hostilities but condemns it for itsrejoicing in Israel's devastation (cf. Ps. 137.7).4

Some authors have concluded that the phenomenon of the radicalcondemnation of Edom cannot be explained by historical develop-ments alone. They have argued that the particular position of Edomamong the nations is a theological construction rather than the result

1. Miiller, 'Wertung der Nachbarvolker', p. 150.2. Bartlett, 'Edom.and the Fall of Jerusalem', p. 15; cf. Edom and the Edomites,

p. 156.3. Vorlander, Die Entstehungszeit des jehowistischen Geschichtswerkes, p. 300,

and Knauf, 'Supplementa Ismaelitica, 13', p. 69 have doubts about the historicalvalue of these notes. Bartlett, 'Edom and the Fall of Jerusalem', pp. 104-107 is moreconfident.

4. Cf. Hartberger, 'An den Wassern von Babylon', pp. 223-24; Bartlett, Edomand the Edomites, pp. 153-54. According to Hartberger, Ps. 137 is also an earlyexilic text ('An den Wassern von Babylon', pp. 200, 218, 222, 226-27). Cf. below,section 3, for a further discussion of this psalm.


of a direct reflection on historical conflicts.B.C. Cresson states: 'The existence and expression of "Damn-Edom

Theology" is more than simply a problem of historical antecedents'.1

He argues that the oracles against Edom are theological texts, belong-ing to the particularistic line of thought in post-exilic Judaism (in hisview, particularistic and universalistic ideologies existed concurrentlyin post-exilic times).2

'Damn-Edom Theology' began as a natural historical reaction—the hatredof a people for a cruel and ruthless enemy—and became a concept ofeschatological significance expressing hope for and confidence in thedestruction of the enemies of the Chosen People.3

H. Simian too thinks that the oracles contain more theology thanhistory. An examination of the oracles against Edom leads him to theobservation that in these texts Edom serves a theological function.4

Die prophetischen Worte iiber/gegen Edom beziehen sich nicht aussch-liesslich und nicht hauptsachlich auf eine historische Auseinander-setzung... Die prophetischen Worte iiber/gegen Edom sind richtiger alsein Element innerhalb einer Heilszusage an Jerusalem/Juda/Israel oderinnerhalb einer Gerichtsankiindigung gegen alle Volker zu bezeichnen.5

3. Edom and the Lamentation Cult

In view of the apparent difficulty of reaching agreement onthe historical origin of Edom's role in the prophetic books,U. Kellermann has argued that another kind of explanation isneeded.6 Moreover, the undiminishing intensity of the oracles againstEdom long after the kingdom of Edom had ceased to exist requiresanother than an exclusively politico-historical explanation. The phe-nomenon can neither be explained, in his opinion, solely as a literarydevelopment.7 He claims that it is the cult and not the historical

1. Cresson, 'Israel and Edom', p. 147.2. Cresson, 'Israel and Edom', pp. 147-51 and passim in pp. 49-99; cf.

'Condemnation of Edom', pp. 144-45.3. Cresson, 'Israel and Edom', p. 151.4. Simian, Theologische Nachgeschichte, pp. 315-24, particularly p. 323.5. Simian, Theologische Nachgeschichte, p. 321.6. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 5-9.7. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 2-5, 214-18; against Haller, 'Edom im

Urteil'—cf. above, the Introduction to the book.


development that is behind the vehemence Edom is attacked with.Kellermann maintains that the liturgical use of the name 'Edom' is

the reason that long after the events of 587 BCE this nation is regardedas Israel's arch foe and serves as a symbol for the enemy nations ingeneral.1 The combination of three motifs: Israel restored, the nationspunished, Edom annihilated, is found in several oracles against Edom(Isa. 63.1-5, Mic. 7.7-10,2 Ezek. 35-36, Obad. 1-18, Lam. 4.21-22).Other oracles vary this standard pattern (Isa. 34-35, Amos 9.11-12,Obad. 19-21, Mai. 1.2-5). According to Kellermann, this 'Motivtrias'has as its background (Sitz im Leberi) the cultic meetings that wereheld to remember the fall of Judah and the destruction of Jerusalem.At these meetings 'Heilspropheten' answered the (cultic) lament of thepeople with an oracle of hope.

Der Motor des 'Edomhasses' liegt in der Institution der gottesdienstlicheKlage zum Zerstorung Jerusalems...Das historisch unbedeutendePhanomen des Verhaltens der Edomiter anlasslich der Katastrophe von587 v. Chr. wurde durch 'gottesdienstliche' Erinnerung zu einemGrundelement der Untergangs- und Hoffnungsgeschichte desGottesvolkes nach 587 v. Chr. 'hochgespielt'.3

The existence of an 'Institution der gottesdienstliche Klage zumZerstorung Jerusalems' has been postulated before. In several studieson the book of Lamentations, and on some psalms of lament, it isasserted that these texts have as setting the cultic meetings at thedestroyed temple, held to remember Judah's fall.4 The scripturalevidence, however, is not abundant. Only a few texts in Zechariah(7.3, 5; 8.19) mention, without any further details, fasts held tomourn Judah's downfall; 'prophets' seem to play some role (7.3). But

1. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 20-21, 30-35, 117-20, 161-62, 225-28and passim.

2. Interpreting 'my enemy', Mic. 7.8, 10 as Edom—Kellermann, Israel undEdom, p. 118, following H. Gunkel; cf. T. Lescow, 'RedaktionsgeschichtlicheAnalyse von Micha 6-7', TAW 84 (1972), p. 204.

3. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, p. 228.4. Cf. E. Janssen, Juda in der Exilszeit. Ein Beitrag zur Frage der Entstehung

des Judentums (FRLANT, 69; Gottingen, 1956), pp. 95, 101-102 and in generalpp. 94-103; P.R. Ackroyd, Israel under Babylon and Persia (Oxford, 1970),pp. 17-18; E. Gerstenberger, 'Der klagende Mensch. Anmerkungen zu denKlagegattungen in Israel', in H.W. Wolff (ed.), Probleme biblischer Theologie (FsG. von Rad; Miinchen, 1971), pp. 66-67; Renkema, '"Misschien is er hoop"',pp. 84-89, 152-54, 259-60; Rendtorff, Das Alte Testament, pp. 106-107.


it can be suspected that the Jewish 9th Ab commemoration of thedestruction of the temple, at which the book of Lamentations is read,has originated in cultic events like those mentioned in Zechariah.1

Besides, the keeping of fasts in cases of national disaster must havebeen quite common.2 Jer. 41.5 may be indicative of such a culticlament in Jerusalem in the very beginning of the exilic period.3

What data does Kellermann adduce to prove that the oracles againstEdom were linked with the cultic lamentation of exilic and post-exilictimes? His main argument is that some of the texts in which theobserved combination of motifs is present, have been recognized asbeing connected with the presumed cultic background, the communallament (viz. Mic. 7.7-10; Lam. 4.21-22).4

Kellermann insists that the similarities between the various oraclesagainst Edom have to be explained by common tradition and not byliterary interdependence; the texts differ too much for the latter, thesimilarity in motifs speaks in favour of the former. The combinationof the three motifs is present in several of the oracles against Edom.He emphasizes that he is not proposing the cultic lament as the Sitz imLeben of the oracles themselves, but of the 'Motivtrias'.5 The cultserves as the general source of inspiration for the writers of theoracles against Edom. Some of the oracles Kellermann supposes to beconnected with the cult, but most are free interpretations of the tradi-tional theme. 'Free interpretation' does not exclude that the writers of

1. Cf. Ackroyd, Israel under Babylon and Persia, p. 18; Kellermann, Israelund Edom, p. 30; idem, 'Psalm 137', ZAW 90 (1978), p. 54.

2. Cf. H. Gunkel, Einleitung in die Psalmen. Die Gattungen der religiosenLyrik Israels (Gottingen, 1933), pp. 117-21; J. Jeremias, Kultprophetie undGerichtsverkiindigung in der spaten Konigszeit Israels (WMANT, 35; Neukirchen,1970), p. 149.

3. Janssen, Juda in der Exilszeit, p. 102; W.C. Gwaltney, The Biblical Bookof Lamentations in the Context of Near Eastern Lament Literature', in W.W. Hallo etal. (eds.), Scripture in Context II, More Essays on the Comparative Method (WinonaLake, 1983), pp. 209-210; Renkema, '"Misschien is er hoop'", p. 153.

4. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 30-35 on Lam. 4.21-22; pp. 117-20 onMic. 7.7-10. Cf. above on Lamentations; see on Mic. 7.7-10 e.g. Gunkel, Einleitungin die Psalmen, pp. 117, 137-38; Janssen, Juda in der Exilszeit, p. 96; Lescow,'Micha 6-7', pp. 196-204.

5. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, p. 226.


these oracles may have been using older prophetic material or maysometimes be alluding to it.1

One of the oracles that in his opinion does have a direct connectionwith the cult is (the main part of) the book of Obadiah (vv. 1-18).H.W. Wolff, in his BKAT commentary on Obadiah, followsKellermann on this point.2 According to Kellermann, Obad. 15a, 16-18 contains 'verschiedene typische Traditionselemente der nationalenkultischen Heilsprophetie', like 'salvation on the Zion' and 'the cup ofwrath/of judgment'.3 It is particularly the similarity of this passage toIsa. 51.17-23 (an oracle of salvation following a communal lament)and Lam. 4.21-22 that provides the arguments for the proposed posi-tioning of Obadiah. Both passages use the motif of the 'cup' given tothe nations after Israel. Both texts, Kellermann argues, have thesupposed cultic background.4

This line of reasoning seems quite cogent. However, the picture isnot as clear as Kellermann presents it. The cultic background of Isaiah51 (and comparable texts in Deutero-Isaiah) is not undisputed.5

Lam. 4.21-22 is indeed considered to have a cultic function, but con-tains only two of the three motifs; the doom for the nations in generalmay only be found 'im Gesamtzusammenhang des Threnibuches'.6

Kellermann regards Isa. 63.1-5 (in his view v. 6, which nowbelongs to the poem, is a later addition) as another example of a culticoracle against Edom.7 In my opinion, however, one of the three

1. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 215-17. E.g. in Isa. 34 and Jer. 49.7-22Kellermann finds 'einer freien, jedoch literarisch neukonzipierenden Anlehnung analtere Edomtexte' (p. 216).

2. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 3, pp. 3, 24-25, 27-28. Cf. idem, 'Obadja—einKultprophet als Interpret', EvT 37 (1977), pp. 279-80 (note the title of this article).Schneider, 'Book of the Twelve', pp. 93-94 expresses his agreement with Wolffsview and gives some more details.

3. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, p. 19.4. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 19-20.5. Cf., for example, the discussion in H. Leene, De vroegere en de nieuwe

dingen bij Deuterojesaja (Amsterdam, 1987), pp. 126-27. Leene's point of view:'Zinspelingen op stereotiepe klaagliedformuleringen zijn in de genoemde groepteksten wel vaak aan te wijzen, maar een gemeenschappelijke "Sitz im Leben" voorde teksten zelf is daar niet zomaar uit af te leiden' (p. 127); cf. Jeremias,Kultprophetie, pp. 149-50 on Deutero-Isaiah's 'Heilsorakel'.

6. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, p. 35.7. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 161-62.


motifs (and indeed the most important one) is missing in this text,namely the annihilation of Edom. Strictly speaking, this is not anoracle against Edom; it is an oracle against 'the nations', which areannihilated in Edom (v. 1). Kellermann can only interpret it as anoracle against Edom by making Edom the object of v. 3, which doesnot seem the most natural reading, and by removing v. 6, in which thenations are mentioned explicitly.1

Although, therefore, the proposed direct connection of oracles withthe cult fails to convince, Kellermann may well be right in appointingthe Jerusalem lamentation cult as the 'motor' for the production oforacles against Edom. What seems to speak in favour of his theory isthat exactly in Lamentations we find an early example of Edom's roleas a type. According to our own analysis, Lam. 4.21-22 must be olderthan the earliest oracles in which Edom plays its role as Israel'santagonist.2

The theory of the cult as the motor of the production of oraclesagainst Edom would explain the links between Jer. 49.12 andLam. 4.21-22. The two passages share their motif (drinking the cup)and theme (Edom has to drink too). As a typically cultic text,Lamentations 4 is, may have been the source of inspiration for thecomposition of the first extended version of Jer. 49.7-22, that weconcluded to be the first oracle in which Edom performed as a type.The author of Lamentations 4 was the first to come up with the ideaof applying the motif of the cup the nations have to drink (found inJer. 25) to Edom. The cultic lament in Lamentations 4 may have pro-vided the editors of the Jeremianic material with the idea of editingthe old-style oracle against Edom in Jeremiah 49 accordingly.

Besides the discussed extensive study, Kellermann wrote twoarticles, on the cultic setting of Psalms 60 and 137.3 These psalmscombine a lamentation on the fall of Judah with a message of doomfor Edom. Kellermann considers Psalm 60 to be the first example of a'Volksklage' which portrays Edom as Israel's special opponent. In his

1. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 154,157-59; cf. (on v. 3) C. Westermann,Das Buck Jesaja. Kapitel 40-66. Ubersetzt und erkldrt (ATD, 19; Gottingen, 1966),p. 304. Cf. discussion in Dicou, 'JHWH in Edom', pp. 21-22.

2. Cf. above, section 2.3. U. Kellermann, 'Erwagungen zum historischen Ort von Psalm LX', VT28

(1978), pp. 56-65; 'Psalm 137', pp. 43-58; cf. Kellermann, Israel und Edom,pp. 232-27.


view, the psalm was written in the years 589-587 BCE, when theBabylonians had laid siege to Jerusalem. Shortly afterwards, after thefall of Jerusalem, this psalm became employed in the institutionalizednational communal lament on the ruin of Judah and Jerusalem.1 Thepsalm was directed against Edom for historical reasons: Edomdefected from Judah when its help was most needed; it did not supportJudah against the Babylonian armies. Although other nations are men-tioned (v. 10), Edom receives special attention in the psalm (v. 11).Moreover, the superscription (v. 2) unequivocally pictures Edom asthe main enemy, by connecting God's victory (vv. 8-11) with David'svictory over Edom.

If Kellermann is right in appointing the early exilic lamentation cultas the Sitz im Leben of Psalm 60,2 we have here another indicationthat the earliest examples of Edom's exceptional role are found incultic texts, in other words, that the conception of Edom as Israel'sforemost adversary and the representative of the nations, as present inthe Major Prophets, originated within the lamentation cult.

Psalm 137, too, Kellermann regards as connected with the cult. Inhis view, the author of this psalm 'responds to the cult prophets' con-demnation of Edom in the post-exilic laments for the destruction ofZion'.3 He dates it to the period between 521 and 445 BCE.4

Apparently unconscious of Kellermann's work, G.S. Ogden hasproposed a similar cultic background for two of the oracles againstEdom, Jer. 49.7-22 and Obadiah.5 In his opinion, these texts (as awhole) constitute prophetic answers to the cultic lamentation inPs. 137. He founds his thesis on remarks of J.H. Hayes in his article

1. Cf. Gunkel, Einleitung in die Psalmen, pp. 117, 138, 410-11: this psalm is acombination of a 'Volksklagelied' and an 'Orakel', which together constitute a'Liturgie'; cf. Jeremias, Kuhprophetie, p. 149.

2. Hartberger, 'An den Wassern von Babylon", p. 200 (cf. pp. 164-65, 192-93) thinks that the psalm was composed after the fall of Jerusalem, between 587 and583 BCE; arguments: p. 165 n. 386, p. 200).

3. Kellermann, 'Psalm 137', p. 58.4. Renkema, ' "Misschien is er hoop'", p.254 follows Kellermann. G.S. Ogden

('Prophetic Oracles against Foreign Nations and Psalms of Communcal Lament: TheRelationship of Psalm 137 to Jeremiah 49.7-22 and Obadiah', JSOT [1982], p. 89)supposes that the author was a returned exile. Hartberger ('An den Wassern vonBabylon', e.g. pp. 200, 218, 222) thinks that the psalm was composed by the exilesin Babylon not long after the fall of Jerusalem.

5. Ogden,'Prophetic Oracles'.


'The Usage of the Oracles against the Nations in Ancient Israel' aboutthe cultic lamentation as one of the possible original settings for theoracles against the nations. According to Hayes, 2 Kgs 19.21-28,Ps. 60.6-8 and Lam. 4.21-22 (cf. Kellermann) are examples of a pro-nouncement of judgment upon the nations within the context of alamentation ritual.1

Now, in Ogden's view, similarities in thought and vocabularybetween Jer. 49.7-22, Obadiah and Psalm 137 reveal that the twooracles were composed within the lamentation cult as answers to thepetition of doom for Edom in the psalm. Regrettably, the similaritieshe adduces to prove this supposition are not very convincing.

He analyses six examples.2

1. The phrase 'the day of Jerusalem' corresponds to the exten-sive use of the word 'day' in Obadiah to denote the time ofJerusalem's destruction. In both, the theme is Edomitebehaviour on that day. This is indeed an example of corres-pondence, but only in Obadiah, not in Jeremiah 49. InJeremiah, neither the 'day' of Jerusalem's end norJerusalem's end itself is mentioned.

2. The root "ntf appears in all three texts. This 'must also havesome significance because of its otherwise very limited use'.However, it is not, as Ogden states, 'a little used term'. Evenhis statement 'This particular root is little used outside Isaiahand Jeremiah, so with one or two isolated occurences in someof the minor prophets also, we cover almost all examples' isonly true for the Qal-form—which Ogden does not confinehimself to.

3. The verb *?a3 (v. 8) is also used in Obad. 15. It is, however,absent in Jeremiah 49.

4. 'Gleanings' (mVys) in Obad. 5 and Jer. 49.9 and 'your littlechildren' C^1?1 )̂ in Ps. 137.9 could, according to Ogden, 'infact all represent the one root concept': the root ^J), which

1. J.H. Hayes, 'The Usage of the Oracles against the Nations in Ancient Israel',JBL 87 (1968), pp. 87-89. Cf. Hayes, 'Oracles against the Nations', p. 92: 'Theorganization of the prophetical materials into a scheme of judgment upon theIsraelites—judgment upon the nations; salvation for Israel—is perhaps dependentupon the structure of the lamentation ritual in which the scheme of lamentation—judgment upon the enemy; salvation for Israel—predominated'.

2. Ogden, 'Prophetic Oracles', pp. 92-95.


is 'problematic, and thus its precise meaning must remaindubious'. This is of course a misconception, the root âbeing of no relevance for "p"?1?!), from the root *7ii>. Besides,neither of the roots is 'problematic'. In Ps. 137.9, any othermeaning than 'your little children' must be excluded (cf. alsoIsa. 13.16; Hos. 10.14; Nah. 3.10).

5. 'Rock' (abo) in Ps. 137.9 is, Ogden asserts, 'synonymouswith Edom itself'.1 Unfortunately, he provides no argumentsfor this assertion. The same word 'rock' occurs also in Obad.3 // Jer. 49.16. But does this point to 'a more than chanceassociation'2?

6. Both in Psalm 137 (v. 4) and in Obadiah (vv. 11, 12) the root"D] ('be strange' etc.) is used in connection with Babylon.Once again, this does not seem to be more than a chanceassociation; it is quite natural to describe the Babylonians asstrangers.

Only the first of these six examples comes from Ps. 137.7, the verseabout Edom. Ogden also discusses vv. 8-9, because he interprets'daughter of Babylon' in v. 8 as meaning 'Edom', 'the ally or con-federate of Babylon'.3 This interpretation, however, is very question-able; the usual interpetation (daughter of Babylon = Babylon) is farmore likely.4

Therefore, it is impossible for us to conclude with Ogden 'that theoracles are both responses to the psalm's petition'.5 We can go nofurther than assert that one of the oracles, the book of Obadiah, andthe psalm both belong to the tradition which combines the theme ofthe 'day' of Jerusalem's ruin with a condemnation of Edom'sbehaviour on that day. There is no evidence for an association ofPsalm 137 with Jer. 49.7-22.

Kellermann's explanation of the relationship between these textsappears to be preferable to Ogden's. Kellermann's thesis accounts fora more indirect relation: all oracles against Edom (and some psalms aswell) have the communal lament over Judah's destruction as source of

1. Ogden, 'Prophetic Oracles', p. 91.2. Ogden, 'Prophetic Oracles', p. 95.3. Ogden, 'Prophetic Oracles', p. 91.4. Cf. e.g. Hartberger, 'An den Wassern von Babylon', p. 210.5. Ogden, 'Prophetic Oracles', p. 95.


inspiration. Rightly, I believe, Kellermann differentiates between the(common) ' Verkiindigungsgeschichte' of the oracles against Edom andtheir (different) 'Sitze im Leben'.1 Many 'forms' exist in the variousoracles, so there are many 'settings'.

Although Ogden's demonstration of parallels between Psalm 137and Jer. 49.7-22/Obadiah is not very convincing, there does seem tobe a relationship between these texts. However, it is another one thanthat thought of by Ogden. The connection is Edom's association withBabylon: both in Jeremiah and in Psalm 137, Edom and Babylon arelinked. Jer. 49.18, 19-21 is also found in Jer. 50.40, 44-46 in theoracles against Babylon (a similar link exists between Isa. 13 and 34).Ps. 137.7-9 mentions first the Edomites and then Babylon.

In Chapter 11, it was seen that the connection with oracles againstBabylon is a relatively late development in the oracles against Edom.It cannot be established whether Psalm 137 is older or younger thanthe last versions of the oracles. In any case, these texts belong to thesame tradition. If Psalm 137 is older, this would be another exampleof cultic influence on the oracles against Edom.

Why was Edom connected with Babylon? One explanation is thatEdom unexpectedly took the side of the Babylonians when the latterlaid siege to Jerusalem (cf. above). Obad. 10, saying: 'you were likeone of them', explicitly ranks the Edomites with the Babylonians.Early texts like Lamentations 4 and Psalm 60, which concentrate onthe doom brought about by the Babylonians but only mention Edom,may be the precursors of the tradition that connected the two nations.

4. Conclusion

Having examined several proposals that offer an explanation forEdom's role as Israel's foremost adversary among the nations, I shallnow summarize the conclusions. The origin of this role was theimpression made by Edom's behaviour around the time of the fall ofJerusalem in 587 BCE on the one hand, and in the time thereafter onthe other hand, when it appears to have consolidated its settlement informer Judaean land. Edom's transgressions in 587 seem to havereceived a place in the lamentation cult, and this cult, subsequently,served as a motor for the production of oracles against Edom. In my

1. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 220-26.

13. Edam's Hostility 197

view, the Edomite settlement in the Negeb must have served the samefunction; it was more important than Kellermann, for example, allowsfor. Ezekiel 35-36 and the Obadiah appendage attest to the importanceof this factor: their main theme is the repossession of the land.

In any case, it is clear that Edom received its extraordinary positionamong the nations after 587 BCE. The thesis that the relationshipbetween Israel and Edom had always been exceptionally bad has beenfound unconvincing. The sixth century BCE has been concluded to bethe decisive era. This is in agreement with the development weobserved in the Chapters 7 and 10: in the sixth century BCE, theprophecies against Edom changed from unspecific oracles to oraclesagainst the representative of the nations, and the Genesis stories aboutJacob and Esau became stories on the relation of Israel and the nations.

Chapter 14

CONCLUSIONS:RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE ORACLES AGAINST EDOM

AND THE JACOB-ESAU STORIES

1. Introduction

Bringing together the results of the Chapters 11, 12 and 13 (andearlier chapters), we shall now be able to determine the origin of theconception of Edom as the representative of the nations and Israel'sspecial antagonist, and to describe its further development (section 2).Finally, we shall discuss reasons for the different appreciation ofEdom in Genesis and the prophetic books (section 3).

2. Origin and Development of Edom's Role as a Type

The Jacob-Esau stories and the oracles against Edom originated mostlyin the second half of the sixth century BCE, in a mutually influencingdevelopment. The oldest part of the Jacob-Esau story we have con-cluded to be Genesis 27, a story about the two brothers Jacob and 'Esaufrom Seir' (not relating to Edom). Later, an introduction (in Gen. 25)and an extensive sequel (Gen. 28-33) were written, in which Edom wasconnected with Esau. The moving spirit behind the identification musthave been the migration of Edomites to 'Esau's land', Seir (seventh-sixth centuries BCE). This movement may have caused a generalfeeling that Edom and Esau belonged together. When the writer(s) ofGenesis wanted to compose the story of Israel's origin among itsneighbours, he (they) could not but take Edom as Israel's counterpart.

There is very little pre-exilic evidence for either Edom's identifica-tion with Esau or its role as Israel's twin brother. The first text whichuses Esau as a name for Edom is Jer. 49.10 (late pre-exilic). The mostlikely date for the Jacob-Esau stories in their Israel-Edom versionseems to be the exilic period. Also from a thematic point of view(Jacob's 'exile' and return), this date seems to be correct.

14. Conclusions 199

The historical association of Edom with Seir caused both Edom'sintroduction into the Jacob-Esau stories and Esau's/Seir's introductionin the oracles against Edom. After Jer. 49.10, later in the sixth cen-tury, we find more occurrences of the names Esau and Seir in oraclesagainst Edom, as well as the motif of Edom as Israel's brother.

At the beginning of the exilic period, another significant develop-ment in the relation between the two nations took place. Edom aban-doned Judah when the Babylonians came to punish Judah for itsrebellion. Judah's disappointment in Edom around 587 BCE resulted inthe insertion of a condemnation of Edom in the lamentation cult inJerusalem. In this way, 'Edom' became a cultic theme, and later aprophetic-literary theme. Edom served as Israel's special opponentand the representative of the nations.

The migration of Edomites to the regions south of Judah and evento former Judaean land became serious when the state of Judah ceasedto exist. This too must have stimulated the production of prophetictexts against Edom. There are only very few pre-exilic or early exilicoracles against Edom (the old cores of Jer. 49.7-22; Ezek. 25.12-14;35); they were short oracles which did not differ from the otheroracles against the nations. Later, they were worked out into oraclesin which Edom served as a type.

We have seen that the Genesis stories are, with regard to contentsand theme, the most near to Ezekiel 35-36.l This suggests (asconcluded) that from the oracles against Edom the one in Ezekiel isthe most near in time to the Israel-Edom version of the Jacob-Esaustories. The Genesis theme of Edom's brotherhood being absent inEzekiel 35-36, but present in later texts (Amos 1.11-12; Obadiah;Mai. 1.2-5), Ezekiel 35-36 seems to precede Genesis. Obadiah andAmos, presenting Edom without comment as Israel's brother,presuppose Genesis.2

Ezekiel 35-36 too is the first oracle in which the conception ofEdom as the representative of the nations is worked out. In the firstexpanded version of Jer. 49.7-22 (which is older than Ezek. 35-36) itwas also present, but rather implicitly. Later oracles (Isa. 34-35,Obad. 15-21) follow Ezekiel in the way the fates of Israel, Edom andthe nations are combined.

1. Cf. Chapter 11, sections 2 and 4; Chapter 12, section 4.2. Cf. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 3, p. 34; Wehrle, Prophetic und Textanalyse,

pp. 341, 343.


In Genesis, Edom's role as the representative of the nations wasimplicitly present in the Israel-Edom version of the Jacob-Esaustories. Assuming that these stories were combined with the Abrahamand Isaac stories already, before the P edition of Genesis, it can beargued that Edom here too had a special role among the nations:Edom was the last of Israel's neighbours to be born in Abraham'sfamily and it served as the antagonist of the patriarch who wasrenamed Israel and became the father of the twelve tribes of Israel.

The notion of Edom as the the representative of the nations becamemore explicit in the P version of Genesis, notably within the contextof the Toledoth structure. In the Toledoth structure, Edom, Israel'sbrother, became Israel's counterpart, 'the last of the nations'. TheGenesis stories and the long oracles against Edom were both com-posed (both with the use of older material) upon the basic conceptionof Edom as Israel's antagonist and as the representative of the nations.Could this mean that the editors of the Israelite narratives and those ofthe prophetic traditions did not work independently? It seems notunreasonable to suppose that there was some kind of coordination. Ingeneral, there is evidence that the same groups worked on the editionof the prophetic books and Genesis.1 Both sets of texts appear to haveknown a deuteronomistic edition.2 As for the 'priestly school', it hasoften been observed3 that there are significant correspondencesbetween the book of Ezekiel and P.4

1. Cf. D.W. Thomas, 'The Sixth Century B.C.: A Creative Epoch in theHistory of Israel', JSS 6 (1961), pp. 33-46; H.-C. Schmitt, 'Redaktion desPentateuch im Geiste der Prophetic. Beobachtungen zur Bedeutung der "Glaubens"-Thematik innerhalb der Theologie des Pentateuch', VT 32 (1982), pp. 170-89,particularly pp. 170-71.

2. Cf. e.g. Blum, Komposition des Pentateuch, pp. 339-41, with survey ofliterature.

3. Cf. e.g. W. Zimmerli, Ezechiel (2 vols.; BKAT, 8; Neukirchen-Vluyn,1969), p. 79*.

4. One detail in Ezek. 35-36 may attest to the supposed link between the Pversion of Genesis and the book of Ezekiel. (Moreover, it corroborates the impres-sion of the special connection between Ezek. 35-36 and the Jacob-Esau stories; cf.above.) The detail is the use of the term Tito in, 'Mount Seir' (RSV in Genesis: 'thehill country of Seir'), in the two texts. It occurs in Gen. 36.8, 9 and in Ezek. 35.2,3, 7, 15. Since this term occurs nowhere else in the prophetic books, one maysuspect that there is a connection. The older parts of the Genesis stories do not use iteither (they use 'the land of Seir', 32.4, or just 'Seir', 33.14, 16). (Elsewhere: DeuL

In spite of the similarities, Genesis and the prophetic books sketchtwo entirely different pictures as regards Edom's future. The firstlong oracles (Jer. 49, second version; Ezek. 35-36) already pro-claimed as God's wish Edom's total destruction. Meanwhile, the pre-Pversion of Genesis describes a peaceful meeting of the brothers,resulting in Esau's going back to Seir and Jacob's return to thepromised land. In later development, the gap deepened still further.While Genesis developed itself towards a book on the peacefulorganization of the various nations (P/Toledoth structure), Edom'srole in the prophetic books became even more negative: Edom wasregarded as a nation of the same category as Babylon, and had tosuffer the same fate (Isa. 34; Jer. 49.17-21).

It could be asked whether it is possible to date the pre-P Genesisnarratives, which paint a relatively mild picture of Edom, to thesecond half of the sixth century BCE, the age of the fierce propheticdoom speeches against Edom. Yet, I do not think that the compositiondate that we have proposed is unlikely. Genesis provides a solution(albeit a peaceful one) for the same problem Ezekiel 35-36 broaches,namely the claim of Israel's neighbours to parts of the now ruinedcountry. Although the solution is different (every neighbouring nationreceives its own land), the result is the same: the claim is nothonoured. The other nations have to leave the land promised to Israel.This solution is found both in the older version of the Jacob-Esaustories (cf. Gen. 33.16) and the P version (cf. Gen. 36.6-8).*

Another argument against the view that the Genesis stories are toopositive on Edom to have been composed in the exilic period is that in

1.2; 2.1, 5; Josh. 24.4; 1 Chron. 4.42; 2 Chron. 20, 10, 22, 23.) In Chapter 3, itwas argued that the author of Ezek. 35 had good reasons for using this (apparently,rather uncommon) term. He appears to have employed it to create an opposition withthe 'mountains of Israel', with an eye to the composition of the book Ezekiel.Therefore, the use of 'Mount Seir' in Gen. 36.8-9 to indicate Edom's land may goback to Ezek. 35. (I am grateful to Prof. Dr P.C. Beentjes, Katholieke TheologischeUniversiteit Utrecht, for suggesting me the possible relevance of the parallel.)

1. The solution is not reached without any difficulty. McKay, 'Jacob Makes itacross the Jabbok', p. 10, states that the exiles'/Jacob's journey home in Gen. 32 'ispresented as being difficult, awkward and dangerous, with an eleventh hour hazardof the most tremendous kind which almost stops the Patriarch from getting home.And the anxiety about the need to make Israel acceptable to the present inhabitants ofthe land is expressed in the careful and detailed planning of the gifts sent ahead towin Esau's favour'.

14. Conclusions 201 201

a later period, when the conception of Edom as Israel's typical enemyhad become quite developed, the P version of Genesis appeared, inwhich Esau played an even less violent role. See e.g. Gen. 26.34-35,27.46-28.9: Esau hurts his parents by marrying Canaanite women, butwhen he understands that marrying a woman from the family isimportant for his parents, he does so, and follows his brother Jacob.

3. The Difference between the Jacob-Esau Stonesand the Oracles against Edom

If the Israel-Edom version of the Jacob-Esau stories has to be datedto the same era as the reinterpretation of the prophetic oracles againstEdom, some other questions suggest themselves. The most importantone is: what could be the reason for the completely different appre-ciation of Edom? How can the basic difference between Genesis andthe prophetic books, the relatively positive attitude towards Edom inGenesis over against the antagonistic position in the oracles, beexplained?

First, it should be observed that from a literary point of view, itwould have been very difficult to sketch in Genesis an equally blackpicture as in the prophetic books. The Genesis theme is the origin ofIsrael among the nations, not the destruction of either Israel or thenations. In Genesis, there is no room for the prophetic theme of theruin of the world, symbolized in the destruction of Edom. Israel'sneighbours, though excluded from YHWH's special promise toAbraham, all belong to Abraham's family; they all receive their ownland, where they may live and prosper. Genesis is not a book in whichto expect narratives about insoluble conflicts which can only end withthe annihilation of the enemy.1 But this literary argument does notexplain everything. Esau's part in Genesis 25-36 is not nearly as badas it could have been. He is dangerous and threatens to kill hisbrother, but instead of a 'perpetual enmity' (Ezek. 35.5), here we findthat Esau is willing to become reconciled with his brother.

Another possibility is that the author of the (pre-P) Jacob-Esaustories had his own opinion on the relation between Israel and Edom,which differed from the prophetic theology.

K.H. Keukens maintains that Genesis 27 should be understood as a

1. Of course, with the exception of the story of the extermination of mankind bythe flood, which, however, takes place before the origin of the nations and Israel.

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist202

modification of the prophetic view: it demonstrates that Israel's claimsto superiority over Edom rest on the weak basis of a badly performeddeathbed ritual.1 It is difficult to decide whether the Genesis storiesare really meant to take the edge off the prophetic point of view, asKeukens argues. However, it is clear that they do provide an alterna-tive way of looking at Edom, which in early post-exilic times musthave been regarded as very radical. Comparing Ezekiel 35-36 andGenesis 32-33, we have seen that Genesis 32-33 provides an alterna-tive to Ezekiel 35-36. There are indeed conflicts about the possessionof the land, but they are resolved peacefully. Even with the exemplaryenemy nation, guilty of complicity in Babylon's actions against Judahand of occupying Judaean land, reconciliation is possible.

U. Kellermann asserts that two differing attitudes can be found inOld Testament literature, one negative and one positive.2 The deutero-nomistic history is either neutral or positive on Edom.3 In Kellermann'sopinion, this attitude goes back to 'das Bewusstsein einer gemeinsamenFriihgeschichte und stammesmassigen Verbundenheit' as expressed inthe J and E versions of the Jacob-Esau stories.4 Although we cannotfollow the traditional dating of these stories to the early monarchicperiod, we can accept that a more positive understanding of the rela-tion between the two nations goes back to an old sense of congeniality.The positive view on Edom may be a remnant from a period when theEdomites were regarded as not too different from the Israelites,especially with respect to religion.5

More generally, it should be noted that there were both'universalistic' and 'particularistic' tendencies in Israel's hope for a newfuture after the Exile. B.C. Cresson has maintained (as discussed inChapter 13, section 2) that the oracles against Edom belong to theparticularistic line of thought. The Genesis stories could be regarded

1. K.H. Keukens, 'Der irregulare Sterbesegen Isaaks', p. 55. Cf. above,p. 144 n. 3.

2. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 213, 368-70.3. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, pp. 314-17. According to Kellermann, some

prophetic texts too are positive towards Edom; he mentions Isa. 21.11-12; Amos9.11-12; Obad. 19-21. However, Isa. 21.11-12 does not seem to be about Edom(Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, p. 108 with note 363) and Kellermann'sinterpretation of the other two texts does not hold, as was argued in Chapter 1.

4. Kellermann, Israel und Edom, p. 338 (quotation), pp. 362-67; 'Erwagungenzum deuteronomischen Gemeindegesetz', pp. 43-44.

5. Cf. Chapter 12, section 6.

14. Conclusions 203

as belonging to the opposite tendency. They show that it is possible forIsrael and its neighbours to live as brothers, each nation in its owncountry. They express the hope of living in peace with the nations.Meanwhile, it is implicitly stated that Israel cannot realize this futureas 'Jacob', the deceiver of his brother. The stories are as criticalof Israel's attitude towards its 'brothers' as the prophetic books (cf.Jer. 9.3).

The prophetic books describe the annihilation of Edom—the repre-sentative and the symbol of the enemy nations—as the necessarycondition for Israel's restoration. In this context, it is impossible tothink of a reconciliation between Israel and 'Edom'. However, thisdoes not mean that the universalistic perspective—Israel and thenations living in peace—is absent in the prophetic books.1 Sometimes,the expectations are just as radical as in Genesis. Isa. 19.23-25portrays a future in which even Assur, Israel's terrible enemy,together with Egypt will take part in the salvation promised to Israel.

The prophetic books and Genesis sketch two alternative pictures ofthe relationship Israel-Edom. In later ages, the differences disappearfrom sight. In the rabbinic literature, 'Edom' was used as a symbolfor 'the enemy', designating the Roman empire or, later, the church.2

The Jacob-Esau stories too came to be regarded as illustrative of'Edom's' particular enmity.3

1. Cf. Dicou, Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom, pp. 93, 119-20.2. Cf. e.g. G.D. Cohen, 'Esau as Symbol in Early Medieval Thought', in

A. Altmann (ed.), Jewish Medieval and Renaissance Studies (Cambridge, MA,1967), pp. 19-48;Kellerm&nn, Israel und Edom, pp. 371-72; J. Maier, '"Siehe, ichmach(t)e dich klein unter den VOlkern..." Zum rabbinischen Assoziationshorizontvon Obadja 2', in L. Ruppert et al. (eds.), Kiinder des Wortes. Beitr&ge zurTheologie der Propheten (Fs J. Schreiner; Wurzburg, 1982), pp. 203-15;G. Stemberger, Die romische Herrschaft im Urteil der Juden (EF, 195; Darmstadt,1983), passim (index s.v. Esau and s.v. Edom).

3. Cf. Fishbane, 'Composition and Structure', pp. 16-17; A. Butterweck,Jakobs Ringkampf am Jabbok. Gen. 32,4ff in der jiidischen Tradition bis zumFriihmittelalter (Judentum und Umwelt, 3; Frankfurt am Main and Bern, 1981),pp. 75-90; W. Reedijk, 'Jakob en Esau als spiegel voor joden en christenen. Enkelemiddeleeuwse joodse exegeten over Genesis 32', in S. Bellemakers et al. (eds.), Vanhoren en verstaan. Verklaring en gebruik van de Schrift (Fs P. Drijvers; Hilversum,1987), pp. 37-47; L.A. Snijders, 'Genesis 27, Het bedrog van Jakob', NTT 45(1991), p. 184; cf. R. Aharoni, 'Why Did Esau Spurn the Birthright? A Study inBiblical Interpretation', Judaism 29 (1980), pp. 323-31 about an unfavourable (asregards Esau) rabbinic interpretation of Gen. 25.29-34.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aalders, G.C., Obadja en Jona (COT; Kampen, 1958).Ackroyd, P.R., 'Hosea and Jacob', VT 13 (1963), pp. 245-49.—Israel under Babylon and Persia (Oxford, 1970).Aharoni, R., 'Why Did Esau Spurn the Birthright? A Study in Biblical Interpretation',

Judaism 29 (1980), pp. 323-31.Andersen, F.I., and D.N. Freedman, Hosea. A New Translation with Introduction and

Commentary (AB, 24; Garden City, NY, 1980).Astour, M.C., 'Yahweh in Egyptian Topographic Lists', in M. Gdrg and E. Pusch

(eds.), Fs E. Edel (AAT, 1; Bamberg, 1979), pp. 17-34.Axelsson, L.E., The Lord Rose up from Seir. Studies in the History and Traditions of the

Negev and Southern Judah (ConBOT, 25; Lund, 1987).Bach, R., Die Aufforderungen zur Flucht und zum Kampf im alttestamentlichen

Prophetenspruch (WMANT, 9; Neukirchen, 1962).Bartlett, J.R., 'The Edomite Kinglist of Genesis XXXVI.31-39 and 1 Chron. 1.43-50',

JTS 16 (1965), pp. 301-14.—'The Land of Seir and the Brotherhood of Edom', JTS 20 (1969), pp. 1-20.—"The Rise and Fall of the Kingdom of Edom', PEQ 104 (1972), pp. 26-37.—"The Moabites and Edomites', in D.J. Wiseman (ed.), Peoples of Old Testament

Times (Oxford, 1973), pp. 229-58.—'The Brotherhood of Edom', JSOT 4 (1977), pp. 2-27.—'Yahweh and Qaus: A Response to Martin Rose (JSOT 4: 28-34)', JSOT 5 (1978),

pp. 29-38.—'From Edomites to Nabateans: A Study in Continuity', PEQ 111 (1979), pp. 53-66.—'Edom and the Fall of Jerusalem, 587 B.C.', PEQ 114 (1982), pp. 13-24.—Edom and the Edomites (JSOTSup, 77; JSOT/PEF Monograph Series, 1; Sheffield:

JSOT Press, 1989).Barton, J., Amos's Oracles against the Nations. A Study of Amos 1.3-2.5 (SOTSMS, 6;

Cambridge, 1980).Beentjes, P.C., 'Jesus Sirach en Tenach' (dissertation, Nieuwegein, 1981).—'Inverted Quotations in the Bible. A Neglected Stylistic Pattern', Bib 63 (1982),

pp. 506-23.Berge, K., Die Zeit des Jahwisten. Ein Beitrag zur Datierung jahwistischer Vatertexte

(BZAW, 186; Berlin & New York, 1990).Bergler, S., Joel als Schriftinterpret (BEATAJ, 16; Frankfurt am Main, 1988).Berridge, J.M., 'Jeremia und die Prophetic des Amos', TZ 35 (1979), pp. 321-41.Bewer, J.A., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Obadiah and Joel (ICC;

Edinburgh, 3rd edn, 1948).

Beyerlin, W., Reflexe der Atnosvisionen im Jeremiabuch (OBO, 93; Freiburg [Schweiz]& GOttingen, 1989).

Blank, S.H., 'Studies in Post-Exilic Universalism', HUCA 11 (1936), pp. 159-91.Blum, E., 'Die Komplexita't der Uberlieferung. Zur diachronen und synchronen

Auslegung von Gen. 32,23-33', DBAT 15 (1980), pp. 2-55.—Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte (WMANT, 57; Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1980).—Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW, 189; Berlin & New York, 1990).Boadt, L., Ezekiel's Oracles against Egypt. A Literary and Philological Study of Ezekiel

29-32 (BibOr, 37; Rome, 1980).—'Rhetorical Strategies in Ezekiel's Oracles of Judgment', in J. Lust (ed.), Ezekiel and

his Book. Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation (BETL, 74;Leuven, 1986), pp. 182-200.

Boer, P.A.H. de, 'Genesis XXXII 23-32. Some Remarks on Composition and Characterof the Story', NTT 1 (1946^*7), pp. 149-63.

Bold, F.M.T. de Liagre, 'Wortspiele im Alien Testament', in Opera Minora. Studies enbijdragen op Assyriologisch en ondtestamentisch terrein (Groningen & Djakarta,1953), pp. 11-25.

Breukelman, F.H., Bijbelse Theologie 1,1. Schrift-lezing (Kampen, 1980).Bright, J., Jeremiah. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 21;

Garden City, NY, 1965).Brodie, L.T., 'Jacob's Travail (Jer 30.1-13) and Jacob's Struggle (Gen 32.22-32): A

Test Case for Measuring the Influence of the Book of Jeremiah on the PresentText of Genesis', JSOT 19 (1981), pp. 31-60.

Buber, M., 'Die Schrift und ihre Verdeutschung', in Werke 2. Schriften zur Bibel(Miinchen & Heidelberg, 1964), pp. 1183-1186.

Burrows, M., The Literary Relations of Ezekiel (New Haven, 1925).Butterweck, A., Jakobs Ringkampf am Jabbok. Gen. 32,4ff in der jiidischen Tradition

bis zum Friihmittelalter (Judentum und Umwelt 3; Frankfurt am Main & Bern,1981).

Carroll, R.P., Jeremiah. A Commentary (OTL; London, 1986).Childs, B.S., Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (London, 2nd edn, 1983).Clements, R.E., 'The Chronology of Redaction in Ezekiel 1-24', in J. Lust (ed.),

Ezekiel and his Book. Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation(BETL, 74; Leuven, 1986), pp. 283-94.

Clines, D.J.A., The Theme of the Pentateuch (JSOTSup, 10; Sheffield: JSOT Press,1978).

Coats, G.W., 'Strife without Reconciliation—A Narrative Theme in the JacobTraditions', in R. Albertz et al. (eds.), Werden und Wirken des Alten Testaments(Fs C. Westermann; Gottingen & Neukirchen-Vluyn), pp. 82-106.

Coggins, R.J., 'Judgment between Brothers. A Commentary on the Book of Obadiah',in R.J. Coggins and S.P. Re'emi, Israel among the Nations. A Commentary on theBooks of Nahum and Obadiah, and Esther (ITC; Grand Rapids & Edinburgh,1985), pp. 65-100.

Cohen, G.D., 'Esau as Symbol in Early Medieval Thought', in A. Altmann (ed.),Jewish Medieval and Renaissance Studies (Cambridge, MA, 1967), pp. 19-48.

Cresson, B.C., 'Israel and Edom: A Study of the Anti-Edom Bias in Old TestamentReligion' (dissertation, Duke University, 1963; microfilm, Ann Arbor, MI andLondon).


—'The Condemnation of Edom in Post-Exilic Judaism', in J.M. Efird (ed.), The Use ofthe Old Testament in the New and Other Essays (Fs W.F. Stinespring; Durham,NC, 1972), pp. 125-48.

Cross, P.M., 'The Priestly Work', in Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Essays in theHistory of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, MA, 1973), pp. 293-325.

Daniels, D.R., 'Hosea and Salvation History. The Early Traditions of Israel in theProphecy of Hosea' (dissertation, Hamburg, 1987).

Daube, D., The Exodus Pattern in the Bible (London, 1963).Day, J., 'Prophecy', in D.A. Carson and H.G.M. Williamson (eds.), It is Written.

Scripture Citing Scripture (Fs B. Lindars; Cambridge, 1988), pp. 39-55.Deurloo, K.A., 'De naam en de namen (Genesis 32.23-33)', ACEBT 2 (1981), pp. 35-

39.—De mens als raadsel en geheim. Verhalende antropologie in Genesis 2-4 (Baarn,

1988).—'Narrative Geography in the Abraham Cycle', in A.S. van der Woude (ed.), In Quest

of the Past. Studies on Israelite Religion, Literature and Prophetism. Papers readat the Joint British-Dutch Old Testament Conference, Held at Elspeet, 1988 (OTS26; Leiden, 1990), pp. 48-62.

Deurloo, K., and B. Hemelsoet, Op bergen en in dalen. Bijbelse geografie: de plaatswaar geschreven stoat (Baarn, 1988).

Dicou, A. (B.), 'Geen wijsheid meer in Edom. Jeremia 49,7 en Obadja 7-8', ACEBT 9(1988), pp. 90-96.

—'JHWH en Edom in Amara en in Jesaja 63 vers 1', in M.G.B. Harbers et al. (eds.),Tussen Nijl en Herengracht (Fs M.S.H.G. Heerma van Voss; Amsterdam, 1988),pp. 17-26.

—'De structuur van de verzameling profetieen over de volken in Jeremia 46—51',ACEBT 10 (1989), pp. 84-87.

—Jakob en Esau, Israel en Edom. Israel tegenover de volken in de verhalen overJakob en Esau in Genesis en in de grote profetieen over Edom (Voorburg, 1990).

—'Literary Function and Literary History of Isaiah 34', BN 58 (1991), pp. 30-45.Diebner, B.J., 'Berufe und Berufung des Amos (Am 1,1 und 7,14f)', DBAT 23-24

(1986-87), pp. 97-120.Diebner, B., and H. Schult, 'Edom in alttestamentlichen Texten der Makkabaerzeit',

DBA78 (1975), pp. 11-17.—'Die Ehen der Erzvater', DBAT 8 (1975), pp. 2-10.Diedrich, F., Die Anspielungen auf die Jakob-Tradition in Hosea 12,1—13,3. Ein

literaturwissenschaftlicher Beitrag zur Exegese friiher Prophetentexte (FZB 27;Wurzburg, 1977).

Edel, E., 'Die Ortsnahmenlisten in den Tempeln von Aksha, Amarah und Soleb imSudan', BN 11 (1980), pp. 63-79.

Emerton, J.A., 'The Priestly Writer in Genesis', JTS 39 (1988), pp. 381-400.Eph'al, I., The Ancient Arabs. Nomads on the Borders of the Fertile Crescent 9th-5th

Centuries B.C. (Jerusalem, 1982).Eslinger, L.M., 'Hosea 12.5a and Genesis 32.29: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis',

JSOT 18 (1980), pp. 91-99.Fishbane, M., 'The Treaty Background of Amos 1.11 and Related Matters', JBL 89

(1970), pp. 313-18.

Bibliography 207

—'Composition and Structure in the Jacob Cycle (Gen. 25:19-35:22)', 7/5 6 (1975),pp. 15-38.

—Text and Texture. Close Readings of Selected Biblical Texts (New York, 1979).Fohrer, G., 'Die Spriiche Obadjas', in Studien zu alttestamentlichen Texten und Themen

(1966-1972) (BZAW, 153; Berlin & New York, 1981), pp. 69-80.Fokkelman, J.P., Narrative An in Genesis. Specimens of Stylistic and Structural Analysis

(SSN, 17; Assen & Amsterdam, 1975).Friedman, R.E., The Exile and Biblical Narrative: The Formation of the Deuterono-

mistic and Priestly Works (HSM, 22; Chico, CA, 1981).Fritz, V., 'Die Fremdvolkerspriiche des Amos', VT 37 (1987), pp. 26-38.Funs, H.F., 'Amos 1,1. Erwa'gungen zur Tradition und Redaktion des Amosbuches', in

H.J. Fabry (ed.), Bausteine biblischer Theologie (Fs G.J. Botterweck; KOln andBonn, 1977), pp. 271-89.

Galling, K., 'Das Gemeindegesetz in Deuteronomium 23', in W. Baumgartner et al.(eds.), Festschrift fur A. Bertholet zum 80. Geburtstag (Tubingen, 1950), pp. 176-91.

Gammie, J.G., 'Theological Interpretation by Way of Literary and Tradition Analysis:Genesis 25-36', in M.J. Buss (ed.), Encounter with the Text. Form and History inthe Hebrew Bible (SS, 8; Philadelphia, PA and Missoula, MT, 1979), pp. 117-34.

Gardiner, A.H., 'The Tomb of a Much-Travelled Theban Official', JEA 4 (1917),pp. 28-38.

Gerstenberger, E., 'Der klagende Mensch. Anmerkungen zu den Klagegattungen inIsrael', in H.W. Wolff (ed.), Probleme biblischer Theologie (Fs G. von Rad;Munchen, 1971), pp. 64-72.

Gertner, M., 'The Massorah and the Levites', VT 10 (1960), pp. 241-84.Gervitz, S., 'Of Patriarchs and Puns: Joseph at the Fountain, Jacob at the Ford", HUCA

46 (1975), pp. 33-54.Gese, H., 'Jakob und Mose: Hosea 12:3-14 als einheitlicher Text', in J.W. van Henten

et al. (eds.), Tradition and Reinterpretation in Jewish and Early ChristianLiterature (Fs J.C.H. Lebram, Studia Postbiblica 36; Leiden, 1986), pp. 38-47.

Geus, C.H.J. de, 'Idumaea', JEOL 26 (1979-80), pp. 53-74.Geyer, J.B., 'Mythology and Culture in the Oracles against the Nations', VT 36 (1986),

pp. 129-45.Ginsberg, H.L., 'Judah and the Transjordan States from 734 to 582 B.C.E.', in

Alexander Marx Jubilee Volume, English Section (New York, 1950), pp. 347-68.Giveon, R., Les Bedouins Shosou des documents egyptiens (Leiden, 1971).Goldingay, J., 'The Patriarchs in Scripture and History', in A.R. Millard, D.J. Wiseman

(eds.), Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives (Leicester, 1980), pp. 11-42.Good, E.M., 'Hosea and the Jacob Tradition', VT 16 (1966), pp. 137-51.Gordis, R., 'Edom, Israel and Amos—An Unrecognized Source for Edomite History',

in A.I. Katsh and L. Nemoy (eds.), Essays on the Occasion of the SeventiethAnniversary of the Dropsie University (1909-1979) (Philadelphia, 1979), pp. 109-32.

Gorg, M., 'Jahwe—ein Toponym?', BN 1 (1976), pp. 7-14. = Beitrdge zurZeitgeschichte der Anfange Israels (AAT, 2; Wiesbaden, 1989), pp. 180-87.

—'Punon—ein weiteres Distrikt der S3s"w-Beduinen?', BN 19 (1982), pp. 15-21. =Beitrage, pp. 188-94.

—'Zur Identitat der "Seir-Lander"', BN 46 (1989), pp. 7-12 = Beitrdge, pp. 135-40.


Gosse, B., 'Un texte pr£-apocalyptique du regne de Darius: Isai'e XIII, 1—XIV,23', RB92 (1985), pp. 200-22.

—'La malediction centre Babylone de Jdrdmie 51,59-64 et les redactions du livre dejeremie', ZAW 98 (1986), pp. 383-99.

—'Le Recueil d'oracles centre les nations d'Eze'chiel XXV-XXXII dans la redactiondu livre d'Eze'chiel', RB 93 (1986), pp. 535-562.

—Isai'e 13,1—14,23. Dans la tradition litttraire du livre d'lsal'e et dans la tradition desoracles contre les nations (OBO, 78; Freiburg [Schweiz] and Gottingen, 1988).

—'Le Recueil d'oracles contre les nations du livre d'Amos et 1' "histoiredeuteronomique" ', VT 38 (1988), pp. 22-40.

—'Ezechiel 35-36,1-15 et Ezechiel 6: La desolation de la montagne de S6ir et lerenouveau des montagnes d'Israel', RB 96 (1989), pp. 511-17.

—'Detournement de la vengeance du Seigneur contre Edom et les nations en Isa 63,1-6', ZAW 102 (1990), pp. 105-10.

—'Isai'e 34-35. Le cbltiment d'Edom et des nations, salut pour Sion. Contribution a1'etude de la redaction du livre d'Isai'e', ZAW 102 (1990), pp. 396-404.

—'Oracles contre les nations et structures compares des livres d'Isaie et d'Ezechiel',BN 54 (1990), pp. 19-21.

Gray, J., 'The Desert Sojourn of the Hebrews and the Sinai-Horeb tradition', VT 4(1954), pp. 148-54.

Grdseloff, B., 'Ed6m, d'apres les sources egyptiennes', RHJE 1 (1947), pp. 69-99.Gunkel, H., Genesis. Ubersetzt und erklart (HKAT, 1; Gottingen, 2nd edn, 1902).—'Jakob', PJ 176 (1919), pp. 339-62.—Einleitung in die Psalmen. Die Gattungen der religiosen Lyrik Israels (Gottingen,

1933).Gwaltney, W.C., 'The Biblical Book of Lamentations in the Context of Near Eastern

Lament Literature', in W.W. Hallo et al. (eds.), Scripture in Context II, MoreEssays on the Comparative Method (Winona Lake, IN, 1983), pp. 191-211.

Hadley, J.M., 'Some Drawings and Inscriptions on Two Pithoi from Kuntillet 'Ajrud',VT 37 (1987), pp. 180-211.

Haller, M., 'Edom im Urteil der Propheten', in K. Budde (ed.), Vom Alien Testament(Fs K. Marti; BZAW, 41; Giessen, 1925), pp. 109-17.

Hartberger, B., 'An den Wassern von Babylon...'. Psalm 137 auf den Hintergrund vonJeremia 51, der biblischen Edom-Traditionen und babylonischen Originalquellen(BBB, 63; Frankfurt am Main, 1986).

Hay, L.C., 'The Oracles against the Foreign Nations in Jeremiah 46-51' (dissertation,Nashville, TN, 1960).

Hayes, J.H., "The Usage of the Oracles against the Nations in Ancient Israel', JBL 87(1968), pp. 81-92.

Heerma van Voss, M.S.H.G., 'Een nieuwe Phoenix: Amara-West (Soedan)', JEOLIV/11 (1949-50), pp. 22-24.

Helck, H.W., Die Beziehungen Agyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v.Chr. (Agyptische Abhandlungen, 5; Wiesbaden, 2nd edn, 1971).

Helyer, L.R., 'The Separation of Abraham and Lot: Its Significance in the PatriarchalNarrative', JSOT 26 (1983), pp. 77-88.

Herrmann, S., Die prophetischen Heilserwartungen im Alien Testament. Ursprung undGestaltwandel (BWANT, 85; Stuttgart, 1965).

—'Der alttestamentliche Gottesname', EvT 26 (1966), pp. 281-93.

Bibliography 209

—'Die Bewaltigung der Krise Israels. Bemerkungen zur Interpretation des BuchesJeremia', in H. Donner et al. (eds.), Beitrage zur alttestamentlichen Theologie(Fs W. Zimmerli; Gdttingen, 1977), pp. 164-78.

HOffken, P., 'Untersuchungen zu den Begriindungselementen der Vdlkerorakel desAlten Testaments' (dissertation, Bonn, 1977).

Holladay, W.L., 'Prototype and Copies. A New Approach to the Poetry-Prose Problemin the Book of Jeremiah', JBL 79 (1960), pp. 351-67.

—'Chiasmus, the Key to Hosea XII 3-6', VT 16 (1966), pp. 53-64.House, P.R., The Unity of the Twelve (JSOTSup, 97, BLS 27; Sheffield: JSOT Press,

1990).Irsigler, H., Gottesgericht and Jahwetag. Die Komposition Zef 1,1-2,31, untersucht auf

der Grundlage der Literarkritik des Zefanjabuches (ATSAT, 3; St Ottilien, 1977).Janssen, E., Juda in der Exilszeit. Ein Beitrag zur Frage der Entstehung des Judentums

(FRLANT, 69; Gottingen, 1956).Janzen, J.G., Studies in the Text of Jeremiah (HSM, 6; Cambridge, MA, 1973).Jepsen, A., 'Zur Uberlieferungsgeschichte der Vatergestalten', WZLeipzig 2/3 (1953-

54), pp. 265-81.Jeremias, C., 'Die Erzvater in der Verkiindigung der Propheten', in H. Donner et al.

(eds.), Beitrage zur alttestamentlichen Theologie (Fs W. Zimmerli; Gdttingen,1977), pp. 206-22.

Jeremias, J., Kultprophetie und Gerichtsverkiindigung in der spaten Konigszeit Israels(WMANT, 35; Neukirchen, 1970).

Jong, S. de, 'Hizkia en Zedekia. Over de verhouding van 2 Kon. 18.17-19.37/ Jes. 36-37 tot Jer. 37.1-10', ACEBT 5 (1984), pp. 135-46.

Kallai, Z., 'The Southern Border of the Land of Israel—Pattern and Application', VT37 (1987), pp. 438-45.

Kasher, A., Jews, Idumeans, and Ancient Arabs. Relations of the Jews in Eretz-Israelwith the Nations of the Frontier and the Desert during the Hellenistic and RomanEra (332 BCE—70 CE) (TSAJ, 18; Tubingen, 1988).

Kellermann, U., 'Der Amosschluss als Stimme deuteronomistischer Heilshoffnung',EvT 29 (1969), pp. 169-83.

—Israel und Edom. Studien zum Edomhass Israels im 6.-4. Jahrhundert v. Chr.(Habil.Schr.; Miinster i. Westf, 1975).

—'Erwagungen zum deuteronomischen Gemeindegesetz Dt 23,2-9', BN 1 (1977),pp. 33-47.

—'Erwagungen zum historischen Ort von Psalm LX', VT 28 (1978), pp. 56-65.—'Psalm 137', ZAW 90 (1978), pp. 43-58.Keukens, K.H., 'Der irregulare Sterbesegen Isaaks. Bemerkungen zur Interpretation

von Genesis 27,1-45', BN 19 (1982), pp. 43-56.Kitchen, K.A., 'Some New Light on the Asiatic Wars of Ramesses II', JEA 50 (1964),

pp. 47-70.—Ramesside Inscriptions. Historical and Biographical, 11:4 (Oxford, 1979).Knauf, E.A., 'Qaus', UF 16 (1984), pp. 93-95.—'Yahwe', VT 34 (1984), pp. 467-72.—'Alter und Herkunft der edomitischen Konigsliste Gen 36,31-39', ZAW 97 (1985),

pp. 245-53.—Ismael. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Paldstinas und Nordarabiens im 1.

Jahrtausend v.Chr. (ADPV; Wiesbaden, 1985).


—Midian. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Paldstinas und Nordarabiens am Ende des2. Jahrtausends v. Chr. (ADPV; Wiesbaden, 1988).

—'Supplementa Ismaelitica, 13. Edom und Arabien', BN 45 (1988), pp. 62-81.Koch, K., 'P—kein Redaktor! Erinnerung an zwei Eckdaten der Quellenscheidung', VT

37 (1987), pp. 446-67.Kreuzer, S., Die Fruhgeschichte Israels in Bekenntnis und Verkiindigung des Alien

Testaments (BZAW, 178; Berlin and New York, 1989).Labuschagne, C.J., Deuteronomium, deel II (POT; Nijkerk, 1990).Leene, H., De vroegere en de nieuwe dingen bij Deuterojesaja (Amsterdam, 1987).Lemaire, A., 'Hadad 1'Edomite ou Hadad 1'Arameen?', BN 43 (1988), pp. 14-18.Lescow, T., 'Redaktionsgeschichtliche Analyse von Micha 6-7', ZAW 84 (1972),

pp. 182-12.Lindsay, J., 'The Babylonian Kings and Edom, 605-550 B.C.', PEQ 108 (1976),

pp. 23-39.Luke, K., 'Esau's Marriage', ITS 25 (1988), pp. 171-90.Lust, J., 'Freud, Hosea and the Murder of Moses: Hosea 12', ETL 65 (1989), pp. 81-

93.Lutz, H.-M., Jahwe, Jerusalem und die Volker. Zur Vorgeschichte von Sach 12,1-8 und

14,1-5 (WMANT, 27; Neukirchen, 1968).Maag, V., 'Jakob—Esau—Edom', TZ 13 (1957), pp. 418-29.Maier, J., '"Siehe, ich mach(t)e dich klein unter den Volkern..." Zum rabbinischen

Assoziationshorizont von Obadja 2', in L. Ruppert et al. (eds.), Kiinder desWortes. Beitrage zur Theologie der Propheten (Fs J. Schreiner; Wiirzburg, 1982),pp. 203-15.

Mailland, A., 'La "petite apocalypse" d'Isai'e. Etude sur les chapitres XXXIV etXXXV du livre d'Isai'e' (dissertation, Lyon, 1956).

Marti, K., Das Dodekapropheton (KHAT, 13; Tubingen, 1904).Marx, A., 'A propos des doublets du livre de J£r£mie. Reflexions sur la formation d'un

livre proph6tique', in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Prophecy (Fs G. Fohrer; BZAWaa, 150;Berlin, 1980), pp. 106-20.

—'A propos de Nombres XXIV: 19b', VT 37 (1987), pp. 100-103.Masing, U., Der Prophet Obadja. I: Einleitung in das Buch des Propheten Obadja

(Tartu, 1937).McKay, H.A., 'Jacob Makes it across the Jabbok. An Attempt to Solve the

Success/Failure Ambivalence in Israel's Self-consciousness', JSOT 38 (1987),pp. 3-13.

McKenzie, S.L., 'The Jacob Tradition in Hosea XII 4-5', VT 36 (1986), pp. 311-22.Meer, W. van der, 'Oude woorden worden nieuw. De opbouw van het boek Joel"

(dissertation, Kampen, 1989).Miller, J.W., Das Verhaltnis Jeremias und Hesekiels, sprachlich und theologisch

untersucht (Assen, 1955).Moye, R.H., 'In the Beginning. Myth and History in Genesis and Exodus', JBL 109

(1990), pp. 577-98.Miiller, I., 'Die Wertung der Nachbarvolker Israels Edom, Moab, Ammon, PhilistSa und

Tyrus/Sidon nach den gegen sie gerichteten Drohspriichen der Propheten'(dissertation, Miinster i. Westf, 1970).

Bibliography 211

Myers, J.M., 'Edom and Judah in the Sixth-fifth Centuries B.C.', in H. Goedicke (ed.),Near Eastern Studies (Fs W.F. Albright; Baltimore, MD and London, 1971),pp. 377-92.

Neef, H.-D., Die Heilstraditionen Israels in der Verkiindigung des Propheten Hosea(BZAW, 169; Berlin and New York, 1987).

Negenman, J., Een geografie van Palestina (Palaestina Antiqua, 2; Kampen, 1982).Niehr, H., Herrschen und Richten. Die Wurzel &pt im Alien Orient und im Alien

Testament (FZB 54; Wiirzburg, 1986).Nobile, M., 'Beziehung zwischen Ez 32,17-32 und der Gog-Perikope (Ez 38-39) im

Lichte der Endredaktion', in J. Lust (ed.), Ezekiel and his Book. Textual andLiterary Criticism and their Interrelation (BETL, 74; Leuven, 1986), pp. 255-59.

Ogden, G.S., 'Prophetic Oracles Against Foreign Nations and Psalms of CommunalLament: The Relationship of Psalm 137 to Jeremiah 49:7-22 and Obadiah', JSOT24 (1982), pp. 89-97.

Otto, E., Jakob in Sichem. Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche, archdologische und territori-algeschichtliche Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte Israels (BWANT, 110 = VI,10; Stuttgart, 1979).

Paul, S.M., 'Amos 1:3—2:3: A Concatenous Literary Pattern', JBL 90 (1971), pp. 397-403.

Pfeifer, G., 'Denkformenanalyse als exegetische Methode, eriautert an Amos 1,2-2,16",ZAW88 (1976), pp. 56-71.

Priest, J., 'The Covenant of Brothers', JBL 84 (1965), pp. 400-406.Prinsloo, W.S., The Theology of the Book of Joel (BZAW, 163; Berlin and New York,

1985).Rad, G. von, Das erste Buch Mose. Genesis Kapitel 25,19-50,26 (ATD, 4; Gdttingen,

5th edn, 1967).Raitt, T.M., A Theology of Exile. Judgment/Deliverance in Jeremiah and Ezekiel

(Philadelphia, 1977).Reedijk, W., 'Jakob en Esau als spiegel voor joden en christenen. Enkele middeleeuwse

joodse exegeten over Genesis 32', in S. Bellemakers et al. (eds.), Van horen enverstaan. Verklaring en gebruik van de Schrift (Fs P. Drijvers; Hilversum, 1987),pp. 37-47.

Rendsburg, G.A., The Redaction of Genesis (Winona Lake, IN, 1986).Rendtorff, R., Das Alte Testament. Eine Einfuhrung (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 2nd

edn,1985).Renkema, J., ' "Misschien is er hoop". De theologische vooronderstellingen van het

boek Klaagliederen' (dissertation, Franeker, 1983).Reventlow, H., Wachter uber Israel. Ezechiel und seine Tradition (BZAW, 82; Berlin,

1962).Robinson, R.B., 'Levels of Naturalization in Obadiah', JSOT 40 (1988), pp. 83-97.Robinson, T.H., 'The Structure of the Book of Obadiah', JTS 17 (1916), pp. 402-408.Rose, M., 'Yahweh in Israel—Qaus in Edom?', JSOT 4 (1977), pp. 28-34.—Jahwe. Turn Streit um den alttestamentlichen Gottesnamen (TS, 122; Zurich, 1978).Rudolph, W., 'Obadja', ZAW 49 (1931), pp. 222-31.—Jeremia (HAT, 1,12; Tubingen, 3rd edn, 1968).—Joel—Amos—Obadja—Jona (KAT, 8.2; Gutersloh, 1971).Ruppert, L., 'Herkunft und Bedeutung der Jakob-Tradition bei Hosea', Bib 52 (1971),

pp. 488-504.


Sarna, N.H., Genesis (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia, 1989).Schmitt, H.-C., 'Redaktion des Pentateuch im Geiste der Prophetic. Beobachtungen zur

Bedeutung der "Glaubens"-Thematik innerhalb der Theologie des Pentateuch',VT 32 (1982), pp. 170-89.

Schneider, D.A., 'The Unity of the Book of the Twelve' (dissertation, Yale University,1979).

Sherwood, S.K., 'Had God Not Been on My Side.' An Examination of the NarrativeTechnique of the Story of Jacob and Laban—Gen 29,1-32,2 (EuropeanUniversity Studies 23/400; Frankfurt am Main, 1990).

Simian, H., Die theologische Nachgeschichte der Prophetic Ezechiels. Form- und tradi-tionskritische Untersuchung zu Ez 6; 35; 36 (FZB, 14; Wiirzburg, 1974).

Simons, J., Handbook for the Study of Egyptian Topographical Lists Relating toWestern Asia (Leiden, 1937).

Smelik, K.A.D., '"Een vuur gaat uit van Chesbon". Een onderzoek naar Numeri20.14-21; 21.10-35 en parallelplaatsen', ACEBT 5 (1984), pp. 61-109.

—'De functie van Jeremia 50 en 51 binnen het boek Jeremia', NTT 41 (1987),pp. 265-78.

—'Afdalen naar Egypte', in M.G.B. Harbers et al. (eds.), Tussen Nijl en Herengracht(Fs M.S.H.G. Heerma van Voss; Amsterdam, 1988), pp. 9-16.

Smith, S.H., '"Heel" and "Thigh": The Concept of Sexuality in the Jacob-EsauNarratives', VT 40 (1990), pp. 464-73.

Snijders, L.A., 'Genesis 27, Het bedrog van Jakob', NTT 45 (1991), pp. 183-92.Stemberger, G., Die romische Herrschaft im Urteil der Juden (EF 195; Darmstadt,

1983).Stern, E., Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period 538-332 B.C.

(Warminster, 1982).TengstrOm, S., Die Toledot-Formel und die literarische Struktur der priesterlichen

Erweiterungsschicht im Pentateuch (CBOTS, 17; Uppsala, 1981).Thomas, D.W., 'The Sixth Century B.C.: A Creative Epoch in the History of Israel',

JSS 6 (1961), pp. 33-46.Thompson, T.L., The Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel. I: The Literary Formation of

Genesis and Exodus 1—23 (JSOTSup, 55; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987).Torrey, C.C., 'The Edomites in Southern Judah', JBL 17 (1898), pp. 16-20.Vermeylen, J., 'L'Unite' du livre d'Isai'e', in J. Vermeylen (ed.), The Book of Isaiah/Le

livre d'Isai'e. Les oracles et leurs relectures. Unite et complexite de I'ouvrage(BETL, 81; Leuven, 1989), pp. 11-53.

Vogelstein, M., 'Nebuchadnezzar's Reconquest of Phoenicia and Palestine and theOracles of Ezekiel', HUCA 23 (1950-51), pp. 197-220.

Vollmer, J., Geschichtliche Ruckblicke und Motive in der Prophetic des Amos, HoseaundJesaja (BZAW, 119; Berlin, 1971).

VorlSnder, H., Die Entstehungszeit des jehowistischen Geschichtswerkes (EuropaischeHochschulschriften, 23/109; Frankfurt am Main, 1978).

Vriezen, T.C., "The Edomite Deity Qaus', OTS 14 (1965), pp. 330-53.Vuilleumier, R., 'Les Traditions d'Israel et la libertd du prophete: Os6e', RHPR 59

(1979), pp. 491-98.Wallis, G., 'Die Tradition von den drei Ahnvatern', ZAW 81 (1969), pp. 18-40.Ward, W.A., 'The Shasu "Bedouine"', JESHO 15 (1972), pp. 35-60.Watts, J.D.W., Obadiah. A Critical Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI, 1969).

Bibliography 213 213

Wehrle, J., Prophetic und Textanalyse. Die Komposition Obadja 1-21, interpretiert aufder Basis textlinguistischer und semiotischer Konzeptionen (ATSAT, 28; St.Ottilien, 1987).

Weimar, P., 'Der Schluss des Amos-Buches. Ein Beitrag zur Redaktionsgeschichte desAmos-Buches', BN 16 (1981), pp. 60-100.

—'Obadja. Eine redaktionskritische Analyse', BN 27 (1985), pp. 35-99.Weinfeld, M., 'Kuntillet 'Ajrud Inscriptions and their Significance', SEL 1 (1984),

pp. 121-30.Weippert, M., 'Edom. Studien und Materialien zur Geschichte der Edomiter auf Grund

schriftlicher und archeologischer Quellen" (dissertation, Tubingen, 1971).—'Semitische Nomaden des zweiten Jahrtausends. Uber die S3s"w der a'gyptischen

Quellen', Bib 55 (1974), pp. 265-80, 427-33.—'Edom und Israel', in G. Kraus and G. Miiller (eds.), Theologische Realenzyklopadie

IX (Berlin & New York, 1982), pp. 291-99.—'Remarks on the History of Settlement in Southern Jordan during the Early Iron

Age', in A. Hadidi (ed.), Studies in the History and Archeology of Jordan, I(Amman, 1982), pp. 153-62.

Wellhausen, J., Die kleinen Propheten. Ubersetzt und erkldrt (Berlin, 4th edn, 1963)..Wensinck, A.J., 'De oorsprongen van het Jahwisme', in Semietische studien uit de

nalatenschap van Prof. Dr A.J. Wensinck (Leiden, 1941), pp. 23-50.Werner, W., Studien zur alttestamentlichen Vorstellung vom Plan Jahwes (BZAW, 173;

Berlin and New York, 1988).Westermann, C., Das Buch Jesaja. Kapitel 40-66. Ubersetzt und erklart (ATD, 19;

Gottingen, 1966).—Genesis II. Genesis 12-36 (BKAT, 1.2; Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1981).Wevers, J.W., Ezekiel (NCBC; London, 1969, repr. 1982).Whitt, W.D., "The Jacob Traditions in Hosea and their Relation to Genesis', ZAW 103

(1991), pp. 18-43.Whybray, R.N., The Making of the Pentateuch. A Methodological Study (JSOTSup, 53;

Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987).Wildberger, H., Jesaja. 2. Teilband. Jesaja 13-27 (BKAT, 10.2; Neukirchen-Vluyn,

1978).Willi-Plein, I., Vorformen der Schriftexegese innerhalb des Alien Testaments.

Untersuchungen zum literarischen Werden der auf Amos, Hosea und Michazuruckgehenden Biicher im hebraischen Zwolfprophetenbuch (BZAW, 123; Berlinand New York, 1971).

—'Genesis 27 als Rebekkageschichte. Zu einem historiographischen Kunstgriff derbiblischen Vatergeschichten', TZ 45 (1988), pp. 315-34.

Wolfe, R.E., 'The Editing of the Book of the Twelve', ZAW 53 (1935), pp. 90-129.Wolff, H.W., Dodekapropheton 1. Hosea (BKAT, 14.1; Neukirchen, 1961).—Dodekapropheton 2. Joel und Amos (BKAT, 14.2), Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1969).—Dodekapropheton 3. Obadja und Jona (BKAT, 14.3; Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1977).—'Obadja—ein Kultprophet als Interpret', EvT 37 (1977), pp. 272-84.Woudstra, M.H., 'Edom and Israel in Ezekiel', CTJ 3 (1968), pp. 21-35.Yee, G.A., Composition and Tradition in the Book of Hosea. A Redaction Critical

Investigation (SBLDS, 102; Atlanta, GA, 1987).Zimmerli, W., 'Erkenntnis Gottes nach dem Buche Ezechiel', in Gottes Offenbarung.

Gesammelte Aufsaize zum Alien Testament, I (TBii, 19; Miinchen), pp. 41-119.


—'Das Wort des gottlichen Selbsterweises (Erweiswort), eine prophetische Gattung', inGottes Offenbarung, pp. 120-132.

—Ezechiel (2 vols.; BKAT, 8; Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1969).Zwickel, W., 'Rehobot-Nahar', BN 29 (1985), pp. 28-34.

Bibliography 215 215

INDEX OF REFERENCES

INDEXES

NEW TESTAMENT

Genesis11.1-2.31.26-281.282.4-4.262.4-72.42.73455.1-6.85.1

5.25.36.9799.1-710

10.1-11.910.110.510.3211.10-2611.1011.27-25.1111.27-12.511.27

11.30

162127127128127127126, 127127162135, 162127127126, 127,151127, 128127126, 127161137128127, 132,161127126, 127132132127126, 127128130126, 127,131, 151131

11.31-3211.3112-5012-361212.1-312.512.712.1313.5-613.8-913.813.913.10-1213.1013.1113.1213.1313.1414.1214.1414.161616.1217.1-817.15-2217.18-1917.1817.1919.24-2819.2419.2519.2819.31-38

130130, 131133, 138128127, 164128131131, 132154133131131132131132132131132132131131131132, 151133, 134135135132133133132106106106132

2121.721.8-2121.10-1221.12-1321.1321.1822.20-2422.2124.1025-36

25-35

25-3325

25.1-625.625.925.12-18

25.1225.1825.19-37.125.19-35.2925.19-3425.19-2025.19

25.20

132123151133135134134, 13513013013016, 126,135, 137-39, 160, 202122, 137,140, 145141, 154139, 140-43, 145,147, 150,153, 198132132, 133134128, 132,133126, 127132126, 129116, 128116161116, 126,127130

217Index of References

25.21-2825.2225.23

25.24-2625.25

25.26

25.27-2825.2825.29-34

25.30

2626.34-35

26.3426.3527-3327

27.1-427.5-1727.11

27.2327.27-2927.28-2927.2827.29

27.30-33.2027.36

140, 148116, 138116-18,132, 133,135, 138,140, 143,144154120, 138,139120, 124,156119133138-40,148, 161,204117, 120,135, 138116122, 152,161, 202122122140, 153116, 118,120, 122,123, 138-40, 142,144, 145,147, 148,150, 161,198, 202133133119, 120,138120, 138144, 159120118, 119117, 118,123, 130,135, 138,143, 144164118, 120,156

27.3727.39-40

27.39

27.40

27.41-4527.4127.4327.46-28.9

27.4628-3328

28.1-428.3-428.328.428.528.6-928.828.928.10-22

28.10

28.1128.1228.13-1528.13-1428.1328.1428.1528.2229-3129-3029.129.429.1229.1531.17-1831.21-5431.3531.44-5431.4732-33

143, 144119, 133,144, 159119, 138,140119, 138,140-42, 144122, 140123130, 148141, 152,161, 202122161, 198116, 146,154122120, 159117120, 160122122, 134122122121, 123,145, 147121, 130,148123123161141120, 160117, 141141, 161147129, 130117148130, 148130130130, 131148124130130116, 121,

32

32.232.332.4

32.532.6

32.832.8-932.932.10-13

32.11

32.1232.1332.1432.1932.2132.2232.23-33

32.2632.29

32.3132.3232.3333

33.133.333.433.533.6-733.8

33.933.1033.1133.12-17

139-42,149, 153,172, 203121, 123,146, 201123121118, 120,138, 139,149, 200123121, 123,155121123121141, 160,161121, 146,161123161121121, 123121, 123121121, 145,149, 154121, 124117, 121,129, 135,149121123121, 124123, 130,155123123123, 155121, 123123121, 123,155125121, 155121, 123123


33.1333.14-1533.14

33.15

33.16

33.1733.18343535.1-1535.735.9-1535.9-1235.10-1235.10

35.1535.16-1835.22-2635.29

36

36.1-37.136.1-3736.1

36.2-336.536.6-8

36.636.736.8-936.8

36.9

36.10-14

123123118, 120,123, 138,200121, 123,155118, 120,138, 200,201121146116116, 154121121129117129121, 129,135121124, 129129116, 124,134117, 139,152, 153128, 133116116, 118,122, 126,127, 135,139, 161122116120, 124,201130, 131118, 133201118, 135,139, 200116, 118,126, 127,139, 161,200153

36.15-1936.1636.1736.1936.20-2836.2136.31-39

36.31

36.4337.137.246.6

Exodus15.7

Numbers20.420.820.14-2120.1421.10-3524.18-1924.18

Deuteronomy1.21.442.1-82.12323.8-9

23.823.929.2233.2

Joshua11.1712.724.4

Judges2.16-18

118, 139118118, 139118, 139153139118, 139,153118, 134,142118, 139118116, 127131

76

170170170149170171171

173, 201173170173, 201170170, 171,178, 180149, 170170106171, 174,178

120, 173120, 173201

25

3.9-103.93.155.4-55.411.1212.3

1 Samuel11.3

2 Samuel8.13-14

8.13

1 Kings11.1-811.111.511.711.15-1611.3317.9-10

2 Kings8.20-22

14.7-1414.716.619.1019.21-2819.31

1 Chronicles1.381.431.511.54244.42

18.1118.1218.13

2525251781715625

25

140, 144,187140

17617617617618717624

142, 143,18717138, 1761876119477

171171171171153153171, 173,201171171171

Index of References 219

2 Chronicles8.17102020.1020.2220.2321.821.921.10222325.11-2025.1125.1425.1925.2028.17

Ezra2.53

Nehemiah7.559.27

Job12.615.2124.539.5-8

Psalms2.624.333.1660

60.260.6-860.8-1160.1060.1168.8-968.1883.14-15137

17120150, 56, 201171171171171171171201201171171171, 176171171, 176171

111

11125

6666133133

752525192, 193,1961931941931931931781787615,63, 187,192-96

137.4137.7-9137.7

137.8-9137.8137.9

Proverbs30-31.930.31

Isaiah11.22.42.52.65.2478.1710.2011.913-2313-141313.213.1613.19-2013.21-2214.119.2019.23-2521.11-1222.252425.829.2234-35

34

195110, 196183, 187,195195195194, 195

177177

617625787876187787875107107106, 19694195106106782520456, 20376107767813, 15, 111,112, 160,189, 19913, 15, 17,70, 88, 105-107, 109-11, 158,159, 162,163, 191,196, 201

34.134.2-434.234.5-734.6-734.634.834.9-1734.9-1034.11-1734.13-1434.19-2135

36.1-636.1437.737.2243.1145.1545.2146.347.1448.148.25151.17-2352.156.757.1358.163.1-663.1-563.163.363.663.865.1165.2566.20

Jeremiah2.42.242.2644.1

1091081091088110781, 107-10910610610610610613, 107,158, 159,16215616077252525787678751911917575757813, 111189, 191178, 192192191, 19225757575

78133625862


4.105.15.206.4-56.46.56.96.226.236.246.267.59.310.20-2110.2010.2110.2212.1213.1513.1714.614.1815.815.1115.1916.1717.1821.1-31.1222.2423.2425

25.1-1125.925.12-1425.13-3825.15-2925.1525.17-1825.1825.2625.27-2925.27-2825.28-2925.292626.1726.18

6162783460,6360,6362606160,636662156, 2049393,9494606676621336266626262, 84711646162, 8469, 89, 92,94, 95, 192898'98910769,92899289891038969, 8969777777

2727.1829.83131.632.1437.537.938.1638.2240.1141.546-51

46.1-49.3346.246.346.1046.1446.214848.248.848.1448.1848.248.2748.3248.3948.4048.4149

49.1-3349.1-749.1-649.149.449.649.7-22

816261796313360616221,6918419058, 60, 62,89, 90, 94,968161,9481, 1079593949566616668626666949467, 68, 90,96, 102,110, 161,162, 194,20196, 104689692,9564,969613, 15, 16,26, 58, 63,67, 69, 73,88-91, 93,96, 98, 103-107, 109,

49.7-1149.7-849.7

49.8-1549.8-1049.8

49.9-10

49.9

49.10-1349.10-1149.10

49.12-13

49.12

49.13

49.14-16

49.14

49.1549.16

49.17-2249.17-21

49.17

159, 160,162, 163,172, 185,191-96, 19990,9393, 94, 10267, 68, 73,92, 93, 94,95,97686893, 95, 97,163, 16859, 67, 73,82, 83, 92,94,95, 11061, 62, 64-66, 95, 1949394, 95, 10261,62,66,67, 82-84,93, 162,163, 168,170-72,198, 19990-95, 102,16336, 69, 70,73, 89, 91,92,97, 185,19289, 90, 91,92,9659, 67, 73,90, 92-95,11034, 60, 61,63, 94, 9561, 6461,64,65,67, 82-84,95, 96, 19511191,93,94,103, 109,20191,92

Index of References 221

49.18-2249.18-2149.1849.19-2149.1949.2049.2249.23-2749.23-2449.2349.2549.2649.2749.28-3349.2849.2949.3049.3149.3249.3349.34-51.6449.34-3950-51

5050.250.2350.2450.2950.3150.3250.39-4050.3950.4050.4350.44-4650.455151.1151.1351.2751.3751.4151.4351.4651.4851.5653

91106106, 19694, 196946294,96966060, 94, 969696969660, 94, 979693,9760,969396969689, 90, 93,94, 103, 10710660,956661616161106106106, 1966094, 106, 1966263986134,609066906060,666666

Lamentations1.2144.21-22

4.21

Ezekiel1-2435.85.115.135.14-156

6.76.136.147.1013.813.913.2213.2316.44-5816.5216.5416.5820.520.920.1420.2220.4020.412121.3021.3422.1622.1922.2225

25-32

25-26

183192, 196185, 187,189-92, 194183, 185

44,48724846464814, 45, 46,48, 50, 5454545461464646464848484878484848754871717148464641,52,53,10914, 43, 44,45, 47, 5540, 41, 46,47, 52, 53,55, 85, 101,113, 168

25.1-26.6

25.3

25.425.525.625.725.825.925.1125.12-14

25.1225.1325.1425.1525.1625.1726.1-626.226.326.526.628.20-2628.20-2328.24-2628.242929.629.8-1030.332.2933-4833-363333.21-2233.23-2933.283434.1334.1434.2034.2134.2734.29

40, 46, 49,52, 53, 55,7246, 52, 53,182464646,534646,53464613, 43, 46,47, 53, 55,97, 19946, 53, 18246, 53, 9746, 47, 5546, 53, 7146465323, 46, 5323,4623464747474781164468143,5544,48504948484848,49484846464648

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

35-36

35

35.1-36.15

35.1-4

35.135.235.3

35.435.5-1235.5-9

35.5-6

35.5

35.6-935.635.7-935.7-835.7

35.8

15,23,43,53-55, 57,73, 103,105, 109-12, 160-63,166, 172,189, 197,199-201,20313-16, 40,43, 45-47,50-57, 70,72, 73, 87,88, 98, 105,107, 108,111, 158-60, 163,168, 171,182, 199,20143-48, 50,51,54,56-58, 10843, 47, 50,51,53,54,564444, 71, 20043, 44, 48,53, 54, 71,20044,535143, 46, 51-5445,50,51,53, 110, 18246, 52, 53,70, 71, 73,20210835, 46, 524451,53,5444, 48, 54,71, 163, 20044, 54

35.9

35.1-36.1535.10-1535.10-13

35.10-12

35.10-1135.10

35.1135.12

35.1335.14-1535.1435.15

36

36.1-15

36.1-1136.1-236.136.2-536.236.3

36.4

36.5

36.6

36.7-936.736.8-1236.8-1136.836.1-1536.1136.12

44,46,51,53, 110137043, 46, 52,5348,51,53,1605044-46, 48,53, 70, 79,175, 1854644, 46, 48,53, 7153, 70, 7343, 44, 5144,9944, 46, 53,70, 71, 20014, 44, 45,47, 49, 50,54, 56, 158,15944-46, 49,50, 70, 10950, 565144, 7144,4846, 70, 16046, 47, 50,70, 16044, 46, 47,50, 54, 7144, 46, 47,49, 50, 53,70, 16044, 46, 48,54, 715146, 47, 4823,444944, 71475170, 160

36.1336.1536.16-3236.1636.22-2736.22-2336.33-3636.3637-383737.11-1437.15-2838-3938.238.839.439.1747.1-12

Hosea18.910.141212.4-5

12.412.5-712.512.613.413.10

Joel1.151.19-202.12.32.52.112.26-272.262.273.43.54

4646, 48, 545044484847485049497949, 108, 1134949494942

61133195155, 156137, 154,1561541561551542562

747574,7574-7674, 75747777777774-7733, 40, 42,85-87, 98,112

222

223

4.1-174.1-24.14.2-84.24.34.4-8

4.44.64.7-84.74.84.9-214.9-154.94.11-124.114.124.144.154.16-214.16-174.164.17

4.18-21

4.18

4.19

4.20

4.21

Amos1-2

1

1.11.21.3-2.51.3-2.31.3-5

363436333334, 10233, 80-82,85-8734, 8034,409934, 80, 8134, 74, 80414133, 34, 603433,4133,4133, 42, 74774142, 7742, 8642, 74, 75,7735, 36, 80-82, 87, 102,18536, 41, 42,8234,35,41,80, 81, 86,18235,36,41.8135, 36, 42

40,41,85,111-13, 16840, 85-87,149, 16937, 16942, 863716937

1.31.41.6-81.6

1.71.9-101.9

1.101.11-12

1.111.13-151.131.142.1-32.12.4-52.42.52.63.134.115.65.1566.66.87.10-179

9.2-4

9.29.3-49.39.49.89.11-15

9.11-129.11

373737,4037,38,41,863737,4037,38,41,863736, 38, 40,86, 112,168, 169,19937, 38, 1143737373737, 383737373778106787861784116932, 33, 36,67, 78, 82,84, 86, 87,11339, 61, 67,82-84, 86,87, 10282, 84, 958482-84, 958478, 8739,41,84,185189, 20339,42

9.12

9.13-159.139.15

Obadiah1-181-14

1-81-71-6

1-41

23-43

4-6

4-54

5-6

5

6

7-8

7

8-218-15

8-108

29-31, 41,42, 78, 87,18539, 82, 10239, 42, 8239

189, 19199, 100,101, 103,109, 11058, 99, 10926,9859, 66, 67,92,949429, 34, 60,61,63,94,16261, 64, 16284,9561, 64, 65,99, 162, 19528, 39, 61,82, 83, 87,62, 67, 8265, 82, 83,95, 98, 9962, 67, 94,9528, 61, 64-66, 83, 95,98, 99, 19461,62,66,82-84, 163,16867, 68, 92,10227, 61, 68,69, 99, 1037626,73,91,98, 182, 18326, 27, 10027-29, 68,71,78, 100,163, 168

Index of References

Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist

9

10-2110-1510-14

10

11-14

11

12-1412

131415-2115-1815-1615

16-21

16-18

16-1716-2116

27, 29, 71,78, 100,163, 1683385, 86, 8733,70,72, 17-2180, 81 17-1826,27,29, 17-1834,35,41, 1772, 80, 86,114, 158,19626-28, 100,102, 113 1826, 34, 102,19522, 28, 18329, 70, 80,158, 19533,71 19-2141, 7642, 19934, 79, 82 19-2027, 10026-28, 34,41,42,74,80, 81, 99-103, 109, 19110, 191,19441,87,88,91,98,110, 20159, 16027, 30, 74, 2 199, 100-102, 111,19126, 75, 7726 Micah26-29, 33, 1

34, 41, 42,69, 71, 77,92, 100,103, 109,16029,41,70297623, 26, 27,29, 39, 42,70, 71, 75,77-79, 87,100, 10123, 26, 27,29, 30, 41,70, 72, 75,78-80, 87,100, 163,16826, 29, 30,41,81, 111,189, 20341,42,70,76, 78, 81,86, 87, 102,103, 160,183, 18523, 24, 26,29, 30, 70,71,78, 163,175, 18524, 29, 70,17625-27, 29,30, 71, 78,99, 100,163, 168

61

1.2-52.73.94.37.7-107.87.10

Nahum1.103.103.19

Habakkuk3.23.3

Zephaniah23.11

Zechariah7.37.58.199.910.6

Malachi1.2-5

1.2-31.21.31.43.19

1 Esdras4.45

41787825189, 190189189

7634, 19560

60178, 179

11175

1891891892578

41, 114,144, 189,19911416816811476

184

224

INDEX OF AUTHORS

Aalders, G.C. 23Ackroyd, P.R. 155, 156, 189, 190Aharoni, R. 204Andersen, F.I. 155Astour, M.C. 180Axelsson, L.E. 153, 178-80

Bach, R. 60,94Bartlett, J.R. 15, 53, 97, 103, 138, 139,

141, 142, 148-50, 153, 169-78,180, 184, 186, 187

Barton, J. 37, 169Beentjes, P.C. 64, 201Berge, K. 144, 148, 161Bergler, S. 34, 36, 74, 80, 81, 82Berridge, J.M. 84Bewer, J.A. 23,69,99Beyerlin, W. 84Blank, S.H. 142, 144, 152, 176Blum, E. 120, 131, 138-49, 151, 152,

161, 164-66, 170, 200Boadt, L. 46, 55, 108Boer, P.A.H. de 124Breukelman, F.H. 126, 135Bright, J. 98Brodie, L.T. 164Buber, M. 123, 145Burrows, M. 71, 108Butterweck, A. 204Bohl, F.M.Th. de Liagre 121

Carroll, R.P. 91, 96, 97Cnilds, B.S. 28, 126, 127Clements, R.E. 55Clines, D.J.A. 127, 128, 164Coats, G.W. 123Coggins, R.J. 22, 28, 75, 76, 100, 101

Cohen, G.D. 204Cresson, B.C. 13, 14, 186, 188Cross, P.M. 152

Daniels, D.R. 155, 156Daube, D. 165Day, J. 76Deurloo, K.A. 121, 124, 127, 131, 135,

145, 164Dicou, A. 16, 25, 44, 46, 48, 68, 69, 72,

89, 90, 92, 93, 95, 96, 106-108,111, 112, 117, 121, 123, 129,145, 158, 164, 178, 192, 204

Diebner, B.J. 143, 152, 169, 171Diedrich, F. 155, 165

Edel, E. 179, 180Emerton, J.A. 90, 152Eslinger, L.M. 155

Fishbane, M. 116, 123, 145, 169, 204Fohrer, G. 23Fokkelman, J.P. 117, 120-23, 129Freedman, D.N. 155Friedman, R.E. 64Fritz, V. 169Funs, H.F. 169

Galling, K. 170, 171Gammie, J.G. 117, 121, 123Gardiner, A.H. 179Gerstenberger, E. 189Gertner, M. 155Gervitz, S. 120, 121, 124Gese, H. 155Geus, C.H.J. de 175Geyer, J.B. 40, 55, 72, 85, 169


Ginsberg, H.L. 175Giveon, R. 179, 180Goldingay, J. 128, 165Good, E.M. 155Gordis, R. 38, 169Gosse, B. 15, 46, 48, 107, 108, 111,

169Gray, J. 177Grdseloff, B. 179, 180Gunkel, H. 145, 190, 193Gwaltney, W.C. 190G6rg, M. 179, 180

Hadley, J.M. 179Haller, M. 13, 14, 188Hartberger, B. 15, 23, 52, 63-65, 67,

81,97, 110, 183, 185-87, 193,195

Hay, L.C. 91Hayes, J.H. 194Heerma van Voss, M.S.H.G. 164, 178,

179Helck, H.W. 180Helyer, L.R. 131, 132Hemelsoet, B. 164Herrmann, S. 72, 179, 180Holladay, W.L. 84, 155House, P.R. 112Hdffken, P. 64

Irsigler, H. 74

Janssen, E. 189, 190Janzen, J.G. 94Jepsen, A. 152Jeremias, C. 165, 190, 191, 193Jong, S. de 60, 61, 62

Kallai, Z. 120Kasher, A. 174, 175, 186Kellermann, U. 14, 15, 23, 25, 29, 30,

31,39,41,51-55,65,69,81, 101,103, 106, 108, 110, 168, 169,171, 173, 182, 184, 186, 188-97,203, 204

Keukens, K.H. 144, 202, 203Kitchen, K.A. 179, 180Knauf, E.A. 97, 144, 151, 153, 171,

173, 174, 176-80

Koch, K. 152Kreuzer, S. 178

Labuschagne, C.J. 171Leene, H. 191Lemaire, A. 153Liedke, G. 30Lindsay, J. 97, 175Luke, K. 121, 152Lust, J. 46, 55, 155

Maag, V. 142, 143Maier, J. 204Mailland, A. 13, 14, 183, 186Marti, K. 23-25, 168Marx, A. 90, 171Masing, U. 76McKay, H.A. 156, 164, 201McKenzie, S.L. 155Meer, W. van der 35, 36, 42, 77, 80, 81Miller, J.W. 72Moye, R.H. 164Myers, J.M. 175Miiller, I. 14, 185-87

Neef, H.-D. 155Negenman, J. 173Niehr, H. 30Nobile, M. 55

Ogden, G.S. 182, 193-96Otto, E. 138-40, 142, 149

Paul, S.M. 37, 169Pfeifer, G. 168Priest, J. 38Prinsloo, W.S. 35,36,77,81

Rad, G. von 121, 139, 189Raitt, T.M. 72Reedijk, W. 204Rendsburg, G.A. 138, 143Rendtorff, R. 126, 189Renkema, J. 185, 189, 190, 193Reventlow, H. 52Robinson, R.B. 28, 95, 100, 183Rose, M. 177, 178, 180Rudolph, W. 25, 74, 77, 81, 91

Index of Authors 227

Ruppert, L. 155, 204

Schmid, H.H. 30Schmitt, H.C. 200Schneider, D.A. 28, 32, 33, 77, 79, 81,

113Schult, H. 143, 152, 171Sherwood, S.K. 124, 129Simian, H. 14, 15, 47, 50-52, 54-57,

183, 184, 188Smelik, K.A.D. 98, 164, 170Smith, S.H. 124, 125, 155Snijders, L.A. 204Stemberger, G. 204Stern, E. 175

Tengstro'm, S. 126, 127, 152Thomas, D.W. 200Thompson, T.L. 124, 126, 127, 152,

181Torrey, C.C. 175

Vermeylen, J. 107Vogelstein, M. 97Vollmer, J. 155, 156Vorlander, H. 147, 156, 164, 165, 187Vriezen, Th.C. 176, 177Vuilleumier, R. 155

Wallis, G. 142Ward, W. A. 180Watts, J.D.W. 21,23,25Wehrle, J. 21-25, 27, 28, 58, 60, 65, 69,

78, 80,81,99, 101-103, 183, 185,186, 199

Weimar, P. 21, 23-25, 32, 33, 63, 65,78, 79, 83, 84, 98-101, 169

Weinfeld, M. 179Weippert, M. 153, 173-76, 180, 186Wellhausen, J. 168Wensinck, A.J. 177Werner, W. 91Westermann, C. 153, 192Wevers.J.W. 53,55Whitt, W.D. 155, 156Whybray, R.N. 151, 152Wildberger, H. 185Willi-Plein, I. 119, 120, 135Wolfe, R.E. 21, 155, 156Wolff, H.W. 23-25, 28-30, 36, 38, 39,

65, 76, 81, 99-101, 155, 189, 191,199

Yee, G.A. 156

Zimmerli, W. 46, 200Zwickel,W. 153

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

Supplement Series

90 BIBLICAL HEBREW IN TRANSITION:THE LANGUAGE OF THE BOOK OF EZEKIELMark F. Rooker

91 THE IDEOLOGY OF RITUAL:SPACE, TIME AND STATUS IN THE PRIESTLY THEOLOGYFrank H. Gorman, Jr

92 ON HUMOUR AND THE COMIC IN THE HEBREW BIBLEEdited by Yehuda T. Radday & Athalya Brenner

9 3 JOSHUA 24 AS POETIC NARRATIVEWilliam T. Koopmans

94 WHAT DOES EVE Do TO HELP? AND OTHER READERLY QUESTIONSTO THE OLD TESTAMENTDavid J.A. Clines

95 GOD SAVES:LESSONS FROM THE ELISHA STORIESRick Dale Moore

96 ANNOUNCEMENTS OF PLOT IN GENESISLaurence A. Turner

97 THE UNITY OF THE TWELVEPaul R. House

9 8 ANCIENT CONQUEST ACCOUNTS:A STUDY IN ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN AND BIBLICAL HISTORY WRITINGK. Lawson Younger, Jr

9 9 WEALTH AND POVERTY IN THE BOOK OF PROVERBSR.N. Whybray

100 A TRIBUTE TO GEZAVERMES:ESSAYS ON JEWISH AND CHRISTIANLITERATURE AND HISTORYEdited by Philip R. Davies & Richard T. White

101 THE CHRONICLER IN HIS AGEPeter R. Ackroyd

102 THE PRAYERS OF DAVID (PSALMS 51-72):STUDIES IN THE PSALTER, IIMichael Goulder

103 THE SOCIOLOGY OF POTTERY IN ANCIENT PALESTINE:THE CERAMIC INDUSTRY AND THE DIFFUSION OF CERAMIC STYLEIN THE BRONZE AND IRON AGESBryant G. Wood

104 PSALM STRUCTURES :A STUDY OF PSALMS WITH REFRAINSPaul R. Raabe

105 RE-ESTABLISHING JUSTICEPietro Bovati

106 GRADED HOLINESS:A KEY TO THE PRIESTLY CONCEPTION OF THE WORLDPhilip Jenson

107 THE ALIEN IN ISRAELITE LAWChristiana van Houten

108 THE FORGING OF ISRAEL:IRON TECHNOLOGY, SYMBOLISM AND TRADITION IN ANCIENT SOCIETYPaula M. McNutt

109 SCRIBES AND SCHOOLS IN MONARCHIC JUDAH:A socio-ARCHAEOLOGICAL APPROACHDavid Jamieson-Drake

110 THE CANAANTTES AND THEIR LAND:THE TRADITION OF THE CANAANITESNiels Peter Lerache

111 YAHWEHANDTHESUN:THE BIBLICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCEJ. Glen Taylor

112 WISDOM IN REVOLT:METAPHORICAL THEOLOGY IN THE BOOK OF JOBLeo G. Perdue

113 PROPERTY AND THE FAMILY IN BIBLICAL LAWRaymond Westbrook

114 A TRADITIONAL QUEST:ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF Louis JACOBSEdited by Dan Cohn-Sherbok

115 I HAVE BUILT YOU AN EXALTED HOUSE:TEMPLE BUILDING IN THE BIBLE IN LIGHT OF MESOPOTAMIANAND NORTHWEST SEMITIC WRITINGSVictor Hurowitz

116 NARRATIVE AND NOVELLA IN SAMUEL:STUDIES BY HUGO GRESSMANN AND OTHER SCHOLARS 1906-1923Translated by David E. OrtonEdited by David M. Gunn

117 SECOND TEMPLE STUDIES:I.PERSIAN PERIODEdited by Philip R. Davies

118 SEEING AND HEARING GOD WITH THE PSALMS :THE PROPHETIC LITURGY FROM THE SECOND TEMPLE IN JERUSALEMRaymond Jacques TournayTranslated by J. Edward Crowley

119 TELLING QUEEN MICHAL'S STORY:AN EXPERIMENT IN COMPARATIVE INTERPRETATIONEdited by David J.A. Clines & Tamara C. Eskenazi

120 THE REFORMING KINGS :CULT AND SOCIETY IN FIRST TEMPLE JUDAHRichard H. Lowery

121 KING SAUL IN THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF JUDAHDiana Vikander Edelman

122 IMAGES OF EMPIREEdited by Loveday Alexander

123 JUDAHITE BURIAL PRACTICES AND BELIEFS ABOUT THE DEADElizabeth Bloch-Smith

124 LAW AND IDEOLOGY IN MONARCHIC ISRAELEdited by Baruch Halpem and Deborah W. Hobson

125 PRIESTHOOD AND CULT IN ANCIENT ISRAELEdited by Gary A. Anderson and Saul M. Olyan

126 W.M.L.DE WETTE, FOUNDER OF MODERN BIBLICAL CRITICISM:AN INTELLECTUAL BIOGRAPHYJohn W. Rogerson

127 THE FABRIC OF HISTORY:TEXT, ARTIFACT AND ISRAEL'S PASTEdited by Diana Vikander Edelman

128 BIBLICAL SOUND AND SENSE:POETIC SOUND PATTERNS IN PROVERBS 10-29Thomas P. McCreesh

129 THE ARAMAIC OF DANIEL IN THE LIGHT OF OLD ARAMAICZdravko Stefanovic

130 STRUCTURE AND THE BOOK OF ZECHARIAHMichael Butterworth

131 FORMS OF DEFORMITY:A MOTIF-INDEX OF ABNORMALITIES, DEFORMITIES AND DISABILITIESIN TRADITIONAL JEWISH LITERATURELynn Holden

132 CONTEXTS FOR AMOS:PROPHETIC POETICS IN LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVEMark Daniel Carroll R.

133 THE FORSAKEN FIRSTBORN:A STUDY OF A RECURRENT MOTIF IN THE PATRIARCHAL NARRATIVESRoger Syre"n

135 ISRAEL IN EGYPT:A READING OF EXODUS 1-2G.F. Davies

136 A WALK THROUGH THE GARDEN:BIBLICAL, ICONOGRAPHICAL AND LITERARY IMAGES OF EDENEdited by P. Morris and D. Sawyer

137 JUSTICE AND RIGHTEOUSNESS :BIBLICAL THEMES AND THEIR INFLUENCEEdited by H. Graf Reventlow & Y. Hoffman

138 TEXT AS PRETEXT:ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF ROBERT DAVIDSONEdited by R.P. Carroll

139 PSALM AND STORY:INSET HYMNS IN HEBREW NARRATIVEJ.W. Watts

140 PURITY AND MONOTHEISM:CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS IN BIBLICAL LAWWalter Houston

141 DEBT SLAVERY IN ISRAEL AND THE ANCIENT NEAR EASTGregory C. Chirichigno

142 DIVINATION IN ANCIENT ISRAEL AND ITS NEAR EASTERN ENVIRONMENT:A SOCIO-HISTORICAL INVESTIGATIONFrederick H. Cryer

143 THE NEW LITERARY CRITICISM AND THE HEBREW BIBLEDavid J.A. Clines and J. Cheryl Exum

144 LANGUAGE, IMAGERY AND STRUCTURE IN THE PROPHETIC WRITINGSPhilip R. Davies and David J.A. Clines

145 THE SPEECHES OF MICAH:A RHETORICAL-HISTORICAL ANALYSISCharles S. Shaw

146 THE HISTORY OF ANCIENT PALESTINE FROM THE PALAEOLITHIC PERIODTO ALEXANDER'S CONQUESTGosta W. Ahlstrom

147 VOWS IN THE HEBREW BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT NEAR EASTTony W. Cartledge

148 IN SEARCH OF 'ANCIENT ISRAEL'Philip R. Davies

149 PRIESTS, PROPHETS AND SCRIBES: ESSAYS ON THE FORMATIONAND HERITAGE OF SECOND TEMPLE JUDAISM IN HONOUR OFJOSEPH BLENKINSOPPEugene Ulrich, John W. Wright, Robert P. Carroll and Philip R. Davies (eds)

150 TRADITION AND INNOVATION IN HAGGAI AND ZECHARIAH 1-8Janet A. Tollington

151 THE CITIZEN-TEMPLE COMMUNITYJ.P. Weinberg

152 UNDERSTANDING POETS AND PROPHETS:ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF GEORGE WISHART ANDERSONA.G. Auld

153 THE PSALMS AND THEIR READERS: INTERPRETIVE STRATEGIESFOR PSALM 18D.K. Berry

154 MlNHAH LE-NAHUM:BIBLICAL AND OTHER STUDIES PRESENTED TO NAHUM M SARNAIN HONOUR OF HIS ?OTH BIRTHDAYEdited by M. Brettler and M. Fishbone

155 LAND TENURE AND THE BIBLICAL JUBILEE:DISCOVERING A MORAL WORLD-VIEW THROUGH THE SOCIOLOGYOF KNOWLEDGEJeffrey A. Fager

156 THE LORD' s SONG: THE BASIS, FUNCTION AND SIGNIFICANCE OFCHORAL MUSIC IN CHRONICLESJ.E. Kleinig

157 THE WORD HESED IN THE HEBREW BIBLEG.R. Clark

158 IN THE WILDERNESSMary Douglas

159 THE SHAPE AND SHAPING OF THE PSALTERJ.C. McCann

160 KING AND CULTUS IN CHRONICLES:WORSHIP AND THE REINTERPRETATION OF HISTORYWilliam Riley

161 THE MOSES TRADITIONGeorge W. Coats

162 OF PROPHET'S VISIONS AND THE WISDOM OF SAGES:ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF R. NORMAN WHYBRAY ON HISSEVENTIETH BIRTHDAYHeather A. McKay and David J.A. Clines

163 FRAGMENTED WOMEN:FEMINIST (SUB)VERSIONS OF BIBLICAL NARRATIVESJ. Cheryl Exura

164 HOUSE OF GOD OR HOUSE OF DAVID:THE RHETORIC OF 2 SAMUEL 7Lyle Eslinger

166 THE ARAMAIC BIBLEEdited by M. McNamara and D.R.G. Beattie

167 SECOND ZECH ARI AH AND THE DEUTERONOMIC SCHOOLRaymond F. Person

168 THE COMPOSITION OF THE BOOK OF PROVERBSR.N. Whybray

169 EDOM, ISRAEL'S BROTHER AND ANTAGONIST:THE ROLE OF EDOM IN BIBLICAL PROPHECY AND STORYBert Dicou

Date post:	08-Jul-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	rav1886
View:	33 times
Download:	5 times

[Bert Dicou] Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist(Book4You)

Documents