The Silent God

Cover illustration: Zoran Music (Gorizia 1909 - Venice 2005), ‘Non siamo gli ultimi’ (1973).
Photo and permission to use kindly granted by: Kunsthandel Michael Kraut, Postgasse 10,
9150 Bleiburg/Kärnten, Österreich. Tel./Fax: 0043 - 4235 / 2028. Mobil: 0043 - 676 / 348 24 27.
[email protected], www.kunsthandel-kraut.at.
The Silent God
By
Marjo C.A. Korpel
and
Johannes C. de Moor

LEIDEN • BOSTON
2011
This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Korpel, Marjo C.A. (Marjo Christina Annette), 1958-

The silent god / by Marjo C.A. Korpel, Johannes C. de Moor.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-90-04-20390-7 (hardback : alk. paper)
1. God. 2. Hidden God. 3. Belief and doubt. I. Moor, Johannes C. de (Johannes Cornelis),
1935- II. Title.

BL473.K67 2011
212’.6—dc22
2011006138

ISBN 978 90 04 20390 7

Copyright 2011 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing,
IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV
provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center,
222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.
 contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

1. The Silent God in Modernity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
1.2 The Silent God in Modern Literature and Media . . . . . . . . . .1
1.2.1 Marie Louise Kaschnitz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2.2 Jean-Paul Sartre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2.3 Samuel Beckett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2.4 Eli Wiesel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2.5 Ingmar Bergman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.2.6 Endō Shūsaku . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.2.7 Nathalie Sarraute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.2.8 Cormac McCarthy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.2.9 Patric Tavanti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.3 Some Theologians and Philosophers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1.3.1 Silent before the Silent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1.3.2 Contemporary Theologians and Philosophers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1.3.2.1 Karl Barth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1.3.2.2 Kornelis Miskotte . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1.3.2.3 God Is Dead Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1.3.2.4 John Paul II and Benedict XVI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
1.3.2.5 Emmanuel Levinas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1.3.2.6 Rachel Muers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1.3.2.7 Interim Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
1.4 The Silent God in Agnosticism and Atheism . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
1.5 In Defense of a Silent God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
vi contents

1.6 Critical Examination of Current Views . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

1.6.1 Modern Literature and Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34
1.6.2 Contemporary Theologians and Philosophers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
1.6.2.1 Contemporary Christian Theologians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
1.6.2.2 Does a Silent God Require Silent Devotion? . . . . . . . . 41
1.6.2.3 A New Theism? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
1.6.2.4 Is Atheism the Solution? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
1.6.2.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

2. Prerequisites for a Fresh Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

2.1 Defining the Scope of This Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
2.2 The Human Nature of Religious Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
2.2.1 Metaphor in the Philosophy of Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
2.2.2 Metaphor in Religious Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
2.2.3 Religious Language: Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

2.3 Silence Presupposes Speech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70

2.3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
2.3.2 Spaces Marking Rhetorical Silences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

2.4 The Silent God: The Biblical Roots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

2.5 The Silent God: The Biblical World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
2.6 Why This Approach? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76

3 Silence between Humans in Antiquity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
3.2 Reasons for Silence between Humans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
3.2.1 Silence Because of Offenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
3.2.1.1 In the Ancient Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
3.2.1.2 In the Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
 contents vii

3.2.2 Silence Because of Awe or Fear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

3.2.2.1 In the Ancient Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
3.2.2.2 In the Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
3.2.3 Silence Because of Forbearance or Prudence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
3.2.3.1 In the Ancient Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
3.2.3.2 In the Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
3.2.4 Silence Because of Incapacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
3.2.4.1 In the Ancient Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
3.2.4.2 In the Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
3.2.5 Silence Because of Sleep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
3.2.5.1 In the Ancient Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
3.2.5.2 In the Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
3.3 Conclusions on Silence between Humans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .106

4. How Did Man Address the Deity? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
4.2 Songs and Prayers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
4.2.1 Songs and Prayers in the Ancient Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
4.2.2 Songs and Prayers in the Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
4.3 Letters to Deities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
4.3.1 Letters to Deities in the Ancient Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
4.3.2 Letters to God in the Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
4.4 Magic and Sorcery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
4.4.1 Magic and Sorcery in the Ancient Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
4.4.2 Magic and Sorcery in the Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
4.5 Silence of Man before the Deity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
4.5.1 Silence Because of Offenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
4.5.1.1 In the Ancient Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
4.5.1.2 In the Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
viii contents

4.5.2 Silence Because of Awe of Fear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

4.5.2.1 In the Ancient Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
4.5.2.2 In the Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
4.5.3 Silence Because of Forbearance or Prudence . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
4.5.3.1 In the Ancient Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
4.5.3.2 In the Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
4.5.4 Silence Because of Incapacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
4.5.4.1 In the Ancient Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
4.5.4.2 In the Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
4.5.5 Silence Because of Sleep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
4.5.5.1 In the Ancient Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
4.5.5.2 In the Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
4.6 Conclusions on Man Addressing the Deity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

5. How Did the Deity Address Man? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

5.1 Direct Communication between Deity and Man . . . . . . . . .140

5.1.1 In the Ancient Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
5.1.2 In the Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
5.2 Communication through Intermediaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .158
5.2.1 Divine Intermediaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
5.2.1.1 Lower Divine Intermediaries in the Ancient
Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .159
5.2.1.2 Lower Divine Intermediaries in the Bible . . . . . . . . . . 162
5.2.2 Human Intermediaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
5.2.2.1 Prophets and Seers in the Ancient Near East . . . . . . 167
5.2.2.2 Prophets and Seers in the Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
5.2.2.3 Scribes in the Ancient Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
5.2.2.4 Scribes in the Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
5.3 Dreams, Visions, Oracles, Omina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
5.3.1 Dreams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
 contents ix

5.3.1.1 Dreams in the Ancient Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212

5.3.1.2 Dreams in the Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .215
5.3.2 Visions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
5.3.2.1 Visions in the Ancient Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
5.3.2.2 Visions in the Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
5.3.3 Oracles and Omina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
5.3.3.1 Oracles and Omina in the Ancient Near East . . . . . . 217
5.3.3.2 Oracles and Omina in the Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
5.4 Conclusions on the Deity Addressing Man . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224

6. The Silent God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231

6.1 The Silence of the Remote God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
6.1.1 In the Ancient Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
6.1.2 In the Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
6.2 Broken Communication between God and Man . . . . . . . . . 237
6.2.1 Comprehensible Divine Silence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
6.2.1.1 Divine Silence Because of Offenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
6.2.1.1a In the Ancient Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
6.2.1.1b In the Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
6.2.1.2 Divine Silence Because of Awe or Fear . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
6.2.1.2a In the Ancient Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
6.2.1.2b In the Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
6.2.1.3 Divine Silence Because of Forbearance or Prudence 247
6.2.1.3a In the Ancient Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
6.2.1.3b In the Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
6.2.1.4 Divine Silence Because of Incapacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
6.2.1.4a In the Ancient Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
6.2.1.4b In the Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
6.2.1.5 Divine Silence Because of Sleep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
6.2.1.5.a In the Ancient Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
6.2.1.5.b In the Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
x contents

6.2.2 Incomprehensible Divine Silence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261

6.2.2.1 In the Ancient Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
6.2.2.2 In the Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
6.3 Conclusions on Divine Silence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274

7. Epilogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .279
7.1 Faith Talk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
7.2 God’s Word in Human Guise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
7.3 Synergy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284
7.4 Is Revelation Still Possible? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
7.5 Bearing Witness to a Silent God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
7.6 The Courage to Become a Witness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
7.7 The Integrity of Witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294
7.8 Theodicy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298
7.9 Believers and Unbelievers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309

Index of Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349

Index of Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362

 preface

So much has been written about the silence of God that it seems
hardly possible to put forward anything new. However, most of
these publications are of a philosophical, systematical-theological
or edifying nature. The biblical studies on the topic by profes-
sional exegetes are relatively rare. We do not imagine that we
can do much better but in our opinion the broad historical back-
ground of the problem has been neglected too long. This has
resulted in a distorted picture drawn by theologians and philo-
sophers who were judging a past they did not know well enough
to pronounce a balanced judgment on it. Yet it was this unreal-
istic picture that has contributed to deep skepticism, despair and
agnosticism among many.
In this book we will try to let hear first of all the voices of
others, from testimonies of our own recent past to the distant
past of the first texts human beings ever wrote about the subject
of a silent God. The subject is so all-encompassing that we do not
imagine to have done more than skimming swiftly along a limited
number of representative quotations, but we believe them to be
sufficient to make our point.
We give all quotations in English, mostly following authorit-
ative translations by others, but occasionally providing our own
translations. If possible, we add a reference to the original text.
Quotations should not be burdened by too much technical dis-
cussion so we confine ourselves to a few explanatory notes for
non-specialists.
Obviously the subject of the silent God touches upon many
other hotly debated topics, such as theodicy (the attempt to re-
concile the existence of evil with the postulated goodness of God),
deism, theism and atheism. Occasionally we will briefly comment
on such adjacent matters, but our main concern is the question:
what do people, in past and present, mean when they state that
God is silent? This is something different from arguing that God
is nonexistent, dead or absent. In these cases it is self-evident
that God remains silent. The concept of a silent God, however,
xii preface

presupposes at least the possibility of a speaking God. So it will

be necessary to also investigate how people conceptualized divine
speech.
Unless explicitly stated otherwise, we use the terms ‘man’ and
‘mankind’ in an inclusive way.
Thanks are due to Bob Becking (Utrecht University) for sev-
eral useful suggestions.
We thank Patric Tavanti (Berlin) for his permission to publish
an English translation of his ballet play Das Schweigen Gottes
(http://www.tavanti.de/schweigengottestext.html).
The Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam kindly granted us permis-
sion to publish a photograph of a painting by Cornelis Saftleven.
We thank the fine-art dealer Michael Kraut, Bleiburg/Kärn-
ten, Österreich, for providing a photograph of the painting ‘Non
siamo gli ultimi’ (‘We are not the last ones’) by Zoran Music
and for his permission to use it on the cover of this book. From
1943-1945 Zoran Music was interned in the German destruction
camp of Dachau. Between 1970-1975 he painted many canvasses
entitled ‘Non siamo gli ultimi’, a kind of posthumous reply to
a man who cried out shortly before he was hanged while the
liberation of the camp in Auschwitz was already close at hand,
‘Comrades, I am the last one’. All the horrible images of suffering
in Dachau came back to Music when he realized three decades
later that the hope of that man had been shattered. Suffering and
killing continued on a worldwide scale, despite the Shoah. Zoran
Music’s painting on the cover powerfully expresses the conviction
that mankind cannot afford to resign to God’s silence vis-à-vis
undeserved suffering.
We thank Liesbeth Hugenholtz, Acquisitions Editor at Brill’s
publishing house (Leiden), for her efficient and competent hand-
ling of the evaluation and printing process of the manuscript we
submitted.
Finally we thank Janny de Moor who read the entire ma-
nuscript with a critical eye. Her comments and corrections have
been extremely helpful. Her cheerful support and culinary art
brightened many stages of this project.
The Authors
 chapter one
the silent god in modernity

1.1 Introduction
The silence of God is a recurring theme in modern reflection.1
It is not only addressed in theology, religious studies and philo-
sophy, but also in literary fiction, film and theatre.2 As Mark
Taylor remarks, ‘You cannot understand the world today if you
do not understand religion’ (Taylor 2007, xiii), even though an
empty concept of transcendence is a characteristic of modernity
(Friedrich 1956).
In this first chapter we give an overview of the ways in which
people have handled the concept of a God who according to many
believers may have spoken in the past, but is now silent. Why does
he keep silent when humanity is hit by disaster? Why do so many
ardent prayers remain unheard?
Or is it a misconception that God has spoken? Has he always
been silent? And will he always remain silent? Because he does
not exist, or is temporarily absent, or just indifferent?

1.2 The Silent God in Modern Literature and Media

In this section we discuss some poems, stage plays, movies and
novels which illustrate how the silence of God in our age occu-
pies the minds of artists and writers. Of course no more than a
representative selection of relevant quotations can be presented
here.
1
Cf. Gillmayr-Bucher 2003, 317: ‘Die lange gepflegte Kommunikation mit
Gott ist verstummt, die traditionellen Formen sind unverständlich und damit
unbrauchbar geworden’ (‘The communication with God that was kept up for
so long has fallen silent, the traditional forms have become incomprehensible
and hence obsolete’); Muers 2004, 25: ‘The history and form of God’s silence
can . . . be traced within the history of theology, particularly in modernity
– within the ways of talking about God that have reduced God to silence.’;
Sorace & Zimmerling 2007, 7: ‘Die Epoche der Moderne, die im 20. Jahrhun-
dert ihren Höhepunkt fand, ist vom “Schweigen Gottes” geprägt.’ (The epoch
of modernity which found its apogee in the 20th century is marked by the
silence of God).
2
To some extent these categories overlap. Especially French philosophers
love to propagate their ideas in the form of stage plays.
2 chapter one

1.2.1 Marie Luise Kaschnitz

In the post-war work of the German novelist and poet Marie
Luise Kaschnitz the demolition of hitherto trusted religious con-
cepts is painfully felt. She still talks to God, but experiences his
remoteness as unbridgeable,3

I started to talk to the Invisible.

My tongue hit upon the awesome You,
Feigning the intimacy of yore.
But whom did I speak too? Whose ear
Did I try to reach? Whose breast
To touch – that of a Father?
Father, you dying Giant,
Perishing behind the Milky Flow,
Father, you flickering of air,
Twinkling from the fleeing star.4

Kaschnitz mingles the traditional mode of addressing God (‘You’,

‘Father’) with language vaguely resembling modern astronomical
terminology. In this way she creates an impression of the enorm-
ous distance separating God and man since the discoveries of
modern science. God is the ‘Invisible’, yet she perceives him as
the last glimmer of a dying star.
In her view this remote God is responsible for all the sorrow,
hurt and ruin in the world. If human beings call him to account,
God does not answer,

If one goes out to be judged, he finds no judge anymore.

If one goes out to ask the elders, he does not get an answer.
Break off you did the dialogue of old.
If we ask what the purpose is,
You remain silent.
If we ask why so fast,
You remain silent.5

3
Cf. Kuschel 2001, 219-231.
4
Our translation. German original: Kaschnitz 1957, 9. The first reading
of this poem at the Lutheran academy of Tutzing in 1951 was met with
perplexity.
5
Our translation. German original: Kaschnitz 1957, 10.
 the silent god in modernity 3

Though God may have abandoned mankind, for Kaschnitz this is

no reason to break off her dispute with him, although she raises
the possibility that God might prefer human beings to reply to
his silence with their own silence,

Perhaps you do not even want to be mentioned.

Once upon a time you fed on meat and blood,
on hymns, on the singing
Of the wheels. But now on silence.
...
Our paralyzed tongues you prefer over
The dancing flames of your pentecostal miracle.6

Her conclusion hints at certain modern dialectical theological con-

cepts we will encounter later in this chapter,

You will demand that we, the loveless of this earth,

Are your love.
The ugly ones your beauty,
The restless your rest,
The wordless your speech,
The heavy your flight.
...
But everyone will know: this is your last secret.
Your remoteness is your closeness,
Your being at the end your beginning,
Your coldness your fire,
Your indifference your wrath.7

1.2.2 Jean-Paul Sartre

In Jean-Paul Sartre’s stage play Le diable et le bon Dieu (The
Devil and the Good God) captain Goetz, who initially decided
to do evil, comes to believe that God has illuminated him to do
good. His opponent Nasty replies scornfully,

When God is silent, you can make him say whatever you want.8

6
Our translation. German original: Kaschnitz 1957, 13.
7
Our translation. German original: Kaschnitz 1957, 17.
8
Our translation. French original: Sartre 1951, 121.
4 chapter one

Towards the end of the play Goetz addresses God,

I am coming to you, Lord, I am coming, I walk in the night:

give me your hand. Say, the night, that is you, isn’t it? The
night, the heartrending absence of everything! For you are the
one who is present in the universal absence, the one who is heard
when everything is silence, the one who is seen when nothing
is seen anymore. O ancient night, great night from before there
were living souls, night of not-knowing, night of disgrace and
misfortune, cloak me, devour my foul body, glide between my
soul and myself, and eat away at me.9

Somewhat later, when Goetz has seen that his attempts to do

good have failed, he asks God why he has given mankind the
desire to do good? Why not a longing to be evil? The following
dialogue with the renegade priest Heinrich develops,

heinrich
Why do you pretend to talk to him? You know perfectly well that
he will not reply.
goetz
And why this silence? Why is it that he who showed himself to
the she-ass of the prophet10 refuses to show himself to me?
heinrich
Because you do not count. Torture the weak or become a martyr,
kiss the lips of a courtisane or those of a leper, die of deprivation
or voluptuousness, God does not give a damn.
goetz
Who then counts?
heinrich
Nobody. Man is nothing. Do not feign surprise, you have always
known this. [. . . ] You have forced your voice to cover up God’s
silence. The commands you pretend to receive – you yourself are
the one who sends them out.11

Goetz agrees,
9
Our translation. French original: Sartre 1951, 209-210.
10
Sartre refers to Num. 22:22-35.
11
Our translation. French original: Sartre 1951, 236-237.
 the silent god in modernity 5

I myself – you are quite right, Your Reverence. I alone. I pleaded,

I begged for a sign – no reply. I sent messages to Heaven – no
reply. Heaven does not even know my name. Every minute I asked
myself what I might be in God’s eyes. Now I know the answer:
nothing. God does not see me, God does not hear me, God does
not know me. Do you see that void over our heads? That’s God.
Do you see that breach in the gate? That’s God. Do you see that
hole in the ground? That’s God again. The silence, that’s God.
The absence, that’s God.12

A few lines further Goetz confesses with obvious relief that he

believes God does not exist. But Heinrich admits that he does
not really want to abandon his faith in God. ‘Our Father who
art in Heaven, I prefer to be judged by an infinite being rather
than by my equals.’13 Goetz ends where he started and becomes
a cruel soldier again.

1.2.3 Samuel Beckett

In his famous tragicomedy En attendant Godot (Waiting for Go-
dot)14 Samuel Beckett relates the fuzzy dialogues between two
tramps who are waiting for a personage called ‘Godot’. Although
Beckett himself in a letter to Michel Polac, dated January 1952,
denied to know who this ‘Godot’ was,15 it requires little imagin-
ation to see that the name is a thinly screened alias for ‘God’.
Twice the two men think that Pozzo, a strange human figure that
crosses their path, is Godot but he denies it and the real Godot
never appears and never speaks. His only message is delivered
by a messenger boy: ‘Mr Godot will not come this evening but
surely tomorrow’.16 This episode too is repeated later on with
slight variations17 and evidently the idea is that all this will hap-
12
Our translation. French original: Sartre 1951, 237-238.
13
Our translation. French original: Sartre 1951, 240.
14
First French edition Beckett 1952; English version: Beckett 2004, first
printed in 1954.
15
‘I do not know who Godot is. I do not even know, especially not, if he
exists. And I do not even know if those two who await him believe in him or
not.’ (our translation; original French text on the back-cover of the French
edition).
16
Beckett 2004, 43; French original: Beckett 1952, 66.
17
Beckett 1952, 119-20.
6 chapter one

pen over and over again. The play is interspersed with many long
silences and in a confused monologue of Lucky, another character
hiking by, the idea of a personal God is rejected because of his
apparent apathy and aphasia.18 Later on, when the messenger
boy returns and announces again that Mr Godot will not come,
one of the tramps asks what Mr Godot is doing. The boy replies:
‘He does nothing, sir.’19
It is intriguing that till the very end of the play the tramps
do not give up hope even though they know now that the chances
of Godot still coming are slim. They decide to hang themselves
the following morning ‘unless Godot comes’ and saves them.

1.2.4 Eli Wiesel

Obviously the Shoah, that most terrible and incomprehensible
event of the twentieth century, prompted the question why God
remained silent and did not protect the Jews, his chosen people.20
One of the tormented attempts to describe the horrors of the
German extermination camps is Elie Wiesel’s La nuit (Night).21
One day the inmates of the camp were forced to witness the
hanging of three people, two adults and a child.
The three condemned prisoners together stepped onto the chairs.
In unison, the nooses were placed around their necks.
‘Long live liberty!’ shouted the two men.
But the boy was silent.
‘Where is merciful God, where is He?’ someone behind me was
asking.
At the signal, the three chairs were tipped over.
Total silence in the camp. On the horizon, the sun was setting.22

The young boy did not die immediately and the inmates of the
camp had to witness his death agony.
18
Becket 2004, 34-36; French original: Beckett 1952, 55.
19
Becket 2004, 80; French original: Beckett 1952, 120.
20
Cf. Jonas 1984, 41.
21
Originally written in Yiddish (Un di velt hot geshvign, ‘And the world
remained silent’), it was finally published in abridged form in French by Les
Éditions de Minuit in 1958. For the English translation we use Wiesel 2006,
for the French edition Wiesel 2007.
22
Wiesel 2006, 64. French text: Wiesel 2007, 124.
 the silent god in modernity 7

Behind me, I heard the same man asking:

‘For God’s sake, where is God?’
And from within me, I heard a voice answer:
‘Where He is? This is where – hanging here from this
gallows . . . ’23

That autumn, Wiesel was unable to praise God anymore during

the celebration of Rosh Ha-Shanah, the Jewish New Year. He
accused God, but at the same time felt terribly alone,

But now, I no longer pleaded for anything. I was no longer able to

lament. On the contrary, I felt very strong. I was the accuser, God
the accused. My eyes had opened and I was alone, terribly alone
in a world without God, without man. Without love or mercy.24

On Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, he could not bring him-

self to fast. ‘I no longer accepted God’s silence’.25
What such rebellious statements must have meant to a once
observant Jewish young man becomes clear when one realizes
that in Jewish worship the ‘Days of Awe’, originally the ten days
from Rosh Hashanah through Yom Kippur, are days of prayer
and repentance when the so-called Selichos, ingeniously composed
poetical prayers pleading forgiveness, are recited daily. However,
in both the Sephardic and Ashkenazic rites this period is ex-
panded considerably. Ten times the supplicants implore God with
heart-rending repetitions of the cry ‘Answer us!’26 But in Buna
(Auschwitz III), God cloaked himself in silence . . .
Later on, however, Wiesel prayed again to his silent God
in whom he professed to believe no more. In his later writings
he reestablishes his faith and admits to be firmly rooted in his
people’s memory and tradition. His commitment to the state of
Israel is total.27 Yet for Wiesel God’s refusal to answer the cries
of the victims of the Shoah remained incomprehensible (Boschki
23
Wiesel 2006, 65. French text: Wiesel 2007, 124.
24
Wiesel 2006, 79. French text: Wiesel 2007, 129.
25
Wiesel 2006, 69. French text: Wiesel 2007, 131.
26
For the Ashkenazic community, see for example Gold 1992, 42-43, 80-81,
120-121, 160-161, 200-201, 240-241, 280-281, 524-527, 596-597, 658-659.
27
See, for example, Wiesel 1979/1986, and his Nobel Peace Prize Accept-
ance Speech, Wiesel 2006, 117-120.
8 chapter one

2001). They were innocent children of his chosen people, so why

did God keep silent?

1.2.5 Ingmar Bergman

For some time, the silence of God was also an obsession to the
Swedish filmmaker Ingmar Bergman.28 His movie Det sjunde in-
seglet (The Seventh Seal, 1957) starts with a quotation from Rev.
8:1 – the silence that falls when the Lamb opens the seventh seal.
Death comes to fetch a crusader who has only just returned safely
from a dangerous journey to the Holy Land. The nobleman suc-
ceeds in receiving a brief respite from Death by challenging him
to play a chess match against him. Somewhat later the crusader
goes to confession with a priest – who in reality is Death disguised
as priest. He confesses that his heart is empty and that he only
sees emptiness when he looks into a mirror. He wants knowledge
of God. No faith, no suppositions, but true knowledge. ‘Why is
he hiding in a cloud of half promises and unseen miracles? Why
am I unable to get rid of God? . . . I want him to extend his hand
to me, to show me his face and talk to me.’ Death replies, ‘But
He is silent.’
Later on Bergman even devoted a special trilogy to the theme
of the silent God. The name of the first film, Såsom i en spegel
(As in a Mirror, 1961),29 is evidently an allusion to 1 Cor. 13:12.
Bergman wanted to point out two things by that title: here in
our sublunary world man can never really come to know God,
but love brings us closest to knowledge of God.
In an old mansion on the coast four people are together: a
father who is a not very successful writer, a schizophrenic daugh-
ter and her husband, and the rather simple younger brother of
the girl. One day she learns from the diary of her father that
she is incurably ill. Her ailment grows worse by this frightening
discovery and she starts to hear voices. She waits for God but
He does not appear or answer her. Her brother tries to help her,
but in a shipwreck she seduces him. After this incest she relapses
totally and must be hospitalized. Towards the film’s end she fi-
28
Cf. Gibson 1969.
29
English version also released under the title Through a Glass Darkly.
 the silent god in modernity 9

nally sees God, but he manifests himself as a loathsome spider.

Her brother is ashamed before his father and tries to avoid him.
Finally he confesses the intercourse with his sister and indicates
that he wants to die. However, the father shows understanding
and says, ‘One must have something to go upon in life.’ ‘What
then? God? Give me proof that He exists.’ The father replies that
God is present in all kinds of love, both in the good and in the
bad kinds. God is love. This gives the boy some consolation.
The second movie of the trilogy was Nattvardsgästerna (The
Communion Takers, 1963).30 The film starts with a communion
celebration in an almost empty parish church. Only five people
come forward to partake in the celebration. The minister is a rigid
man who has lost his wife four years earlier. He does not believe
in God anymore and God’s silence is the cause of his inability
to help his parishioners adequately. A poor fisherman who fears
the arrival of Chinese hordes possessing atomic bombs commits
suicide when the minister instead of reassuring him professes his
own powerlessness and disbelief. The clergyman fails as a witness
of God.
There is a young schoolteacher, Martha, with whom he has
had a two year long relationship, although he did not really love
her. The parish disapproved strongly of it. The affair ended when
he proved himself unable to pray for the hideous eczema on her
hands. Although she had once said to him, ‘God has never spoken,
for He does not exist’, she herself goes to a chapel to pray and
is heard. From that moment on she realizes how strong her love
for the clergyman is. She wants to help him and marry him. She
writes all this down in a fat letter which in the film she reads
out in a deeply moving monologue. But time and again he repels
her. Finally he offends her cruelly to make clear that he does
not want her. But just before he leaves the house he changes his
mind and takes her with him to an even more empty service in
another parish. Only the sexton and the organist are there, but
since Martha is attending the service has to be held. The film
ends rather abruptly, and it is unclear if her great love has won.

30
English version also released under the title Winter Light.
10 chapter one

The third movie Tystnaden (The Silence, 1963) is a monu-

ment of oppressive silence. Two sisters share the last weeks of
one of them who has terminal cancer. The other has a very lonely
small boy with her. A horrible muteness reigns between the three.
Dialogues are often hardly audible. They talk and live past each
other, although it is vaguely indicated that there existed a lesbian
relationship between the two sisters. Although Bergman wanted
to show that no communication is possible between people if God
is silent, God is only once invoked in the film when the cancer pa-
tient prays, ‘O God, let me die at home!’ But of course no answer
follows and she dies in a hotel.

1.2.6 Endō Shūsaku

A novel about the silence of God is Endō Shūsaku’s Chimmoku
(Silence), originally published in 1966.31 Two 17th century Por-
tuguese missionaries set out for Japan. They know that Chris-
tians are persecuted there, yet feel it their duty to support the
few Christians remaining there. Soon they are captured and after
much suffering required to apostatize. One refuses and joins other
Christians in their death by drowning. The other, father Rodri-
guez who is the main subject of the book, is finally convinced by
an earlier apostate, a father Ferreira, to give in and avoid cruel
torture. Both become Japanese Buddhists and marry.
Time and again Endo’s rationale is that God remains silent
in the face of human suffering.32 In the end Rodriguez imagines
to hear Christ at long last speaking to him and instructing him
to apostatize just as He himself, though blameless, carried his
cross to share man’s pain.33 But the killing of other Christians
continues, even if they do apostatize.

1.2.7 Nathalie Sarraute

Also a stage-play, initially a radio play, entitled Le Silence (The
Silence) by Nathalie Sarraute34 revolves round a silent main per-
31
We use the English translation by W. Johnston (Endo 1976).
32
Endo 1976, 96, 105, 153, 172-174, 194-195, 210, 222-223, 233, 265-267,
297-298.
33
Endo 1976, 271.
34
The original edition of the play appeared in 1967. We use the edition
 the silent god in modernity 11

sonage, a certain Jean-Pierre. Four unnamed women and two

unnamed men discuss his offending taciturnity, all the more of-
fending because they sometimes hear his smothered snickering.
Apparently they see Jean-Pierre as a kind of Jesus. They them-
selves admit to be blind and deaf, like Jesus’ audiences.35 Time
and again they beg, ‘Have mercy on us’, like the blind follow-
ing Jesus.36 They feel betrayed by Jean-Pierre’s stubborn silence
and reproach him for having thrown them into a state of utter
confusion.

[Female voice 1:] Hey, Jean-Pierre, aren’t you flattered? You do

not doubt [your right to do such a thing to people], isn’t it?
[Male voice 1:] Forgive them; for they know not what they do.37

As recognized by Rykner, this is an overt allusion to Luke 23:34.

Couldn’t Jean-Pierre reassure them?

[Male voice 1, very serious:] You wish that you could reassure
us, don’t you? I’m sure you do. . . You would do it if you could
. . . Actually it would require so little. Even one word. One small
word from you and we would feel delivered38 . . . One word only. A
small remark, totally banal. I assure you, it doesn’t matter what,
but it would make all the difference. But it must be stronger
than you, isn’t it? You are ‘walled in by your silence’, aren’t you?
That’s the way they put it, I believe. . . ? One would like to escape
but can’t, is that it? Something is holding you back . . . It’s as in
dreams. . . 39

Soon after his company assumes that Jean-Pierre is too timid to

speak up. Or that he feels embarrassed because of their insist-
ence and ignorance, he who is pure like an angel and understands
everything (Sarraute 1998, 37-41). Other hypotheses raised to ex-
plain Jean-Pierre’s reticence are that he is afraid to say something
annotated by Arnaud Rykner (Sarraute 1998).
35
Sarraute 1998, 28-29. Cf. Mt.13:13-17; 23:16-19.
36
Sarraute 1998, 32-33. Cf. Mt. 9:27; 20:30-31 par.
37
Our translation. French original: Sarraute 1998, 12.
38
Rykner, in: Sarraute 1998, 87, refers to a formula pronounced just before
communion in the Catholic mass liturgy. One might assume that this was
inspired by Mt. 8:8 par.
39
Our translation. French original: Sarraute 1998, 33.
12 chapter one

stupid, or that he feels intellectually too superior to address imbe-

ciles, or that he has something to hide, for example the seduction
of a young girl who receives the suggestive nickname ‘Martha’.
Eventually Jean-Pierre’s silence seems to become contagious
and the participants in the conversation try to observe absolute
silence themselves – in vain. But nevertheless more and more
silences are interspersed in their increasingly vague talks. When
Mr. 1 pronounces an eulogy on Byzantine art in churches and
chapels on the Balkan and mentions an authoritative work by a
certain Labovic on the subject, Jean-Pierre suddenly joins in the
conversation. He wants to know who this Labovic is and who has
published the book. All rejoice that finally he has spoken. Yes,
why wouldn’t he be interested in Byzantine art? If this is how he
wanted to break his silence? Jean-Pierre has fulfilled their wish
and has uttered a total banality. Nothing mysterious about him,
he is one of them.

1.2.8 Cormac McCarthy

In his terrifying novel The Road Cormac McCarthy describes a
father and his young son roaming over the last remnants of an
earth utterly destroyed by some unnamed disaster: ‘Barren, silent,
godless.’40 They have to fight for their lives with the very few
other survivors they meet on the road. The father is a kind of
Job-figure. ‘Then he just sat there holding the binoculars and
watching the ashen daylight congeal over the land. He knew only
that the child was his warrant. He said: If he is not the word of
God God never spoke.’ (McCarthy 2007, 3). Somewhat later he
curses God,

Then he just knelt in the ashes. He raised his face to the paling
day. Are you there? he whispered. Will I see you at last? Have
you a neck by which to throttle you? Have you a heart? Damn
you eternally have you a soul? O God, he whispered. O God.41

40
McCarthy 2007, 2. There is also a film version directed by John Hillcoat,
2009.
41
McCarthy 2007, 10.
 the silent god in modernity 13

On the road father and son chance upon an old man in rags. They
share their food with him and talk about their bleak future. The
father asks the stranger,

How would you know if you were the last man on earth? he said.
I dont guess you would know it. You’d just be it.
Nobody would know it.
It wouldn’t make any difference. When you die it’s the same as
if everybody else did too.
I guess God would know it. Is that it?
There is no God.
No?
There is no God and we are his prophets.42

At the end of the book there is a glimmer of hope. After his father
has died miserably the boy finds another family to stay with and
prays – not to God anymore, but to his father.43

1.2.9 Patric Tavanti

A recent ballet play entitled Das Schweigen Gottes (God’s Si-
lence) by Patric Tavanti lays the blame for God’s silence entirely
with mankind,

Speaker:
And God spoke . . .
Ballet dancers:44
And God spoke . . . and God spoke . . . and God spoke . . . and
God spoke . . . and God spoke . . . God spoke . . . God spoke . . .
God . . . God . . . spoke . . . 45
Speaker:
And God spoke . . .
but man did not listen to him.
And God spoke to man . . .
and man listened to him, but did not understand.
42
McCarthy 2007, 180-181.
43
McCarthy 2007, 306. We are unconvinced by Patrick Horn’s much more
positive evaluation of McCarthy’s novel (Horn 2009).
44
In the German original the dancers are female.
45
Tavanti clearly refers to the frequency of the formulae like ‘Thus speaks
the Lord’ in the Bible.
14 chapter one

And therefore God spoke so that man did understand him.

But man did not believe it.
Ballet dancers:
Why me?
Why so simple and clear?
That cannot be God.
I imagined that, it was not God who spoke to me.
Speaker:
And then God fell silent.
Man felt abandoned.
Ballet dancers:
Why do you do this to me?
Do not turn away from me.
Speaker:
Then God spoke: I do not turn away from you,
you only do not want to understand.
Ballet dancers:
I want, but I can’t.
Do not speak to me alone,
nobody would believe it.
Speaker:
And God spoke to mankind . . .
And everybody understood him – in his own way and manner.
Then man said to himself, he who speaks in so many different
ways cannot be only one.
There cannot be only one God, too many voices were heard.
Ballet dancers:
There cannot be only one God . . .
He speaks in so many different ways to us . . .
Not only one . . .
Too many voices . . .
Too differently . . .
Not only one God . . .
Too many . . . many. . . many. . .
Speaker:
But God spoke to man, to reassure him:
There is only one God.46
46
Reference to Deut. 6:4.
 the silent god in modernity 15

And man understood him – for his own benefit, and said now
himself:
Ballet dancers:
There is only my God!
He spoke to me
and I have understood him!
Whoever says something different is a liar, it can only have been
a false God who spoke to him.
Or he himself is a liar, to blind us.
He cannot belong to us anymore.
Speaker:
And God spoke again: Look, I invite you to unity.47
Ballet dancers:
Hear hear!
Speaker:
Was that someone calling?
Ballet dancers:
Now I know the truth.
I have heard it loud and clear, and I know the way
that leads us to unity with God and in God with us.
Speaker:
And thus spoke several others.
And furiously they pointed to each other and warned:
Ballet dancers:
Whoever says that he too knows the way, only leads us astray.
What separates us will be there to all eternity.
Speaker:
And look, man was separated then and remained separated –
from himself, from God, from the other in God.
And only the possession of his truth remained for him, but he
wasn’t that sure about himself anymore.
He felt abandoned, confused and fear overwhelmed him so that
he cried:
Speaker / Ballet dancers:
(first mixed voices, then unisono)
47
Allusion to John 17:21-22.
16 chapter one

O God, if you are the false one now?

(Pause)
Speaker:
What should God say to this?
Man, torn away, empty and troubled, wants an answer – and he
gives it himself.
If only one truth leads to the one way that can give certainty
about the goal, then only he can know the right one who is also
the strongest. God is with him.
Thus he provides himself with the proof. Only one can gain the
victory over all. Then there will be only one God and it will be his
one, since he spoke to him it seems. The God who may remain,
the victorious and only one, must also be the true one, so that
man may know that he believes in the right belief. And so certain
was man that he was right that he continued immediately: the
victory which brings certainty will also bring me the unity. And
whoever defends himself, him I simply slaughter. And he started
slaughtering.
But God was silent and let man have his way,
who did hear, but could not listen,
who wanted to understand, but did not want to know.

In the stream of blood, shed for unity, truth and justice, every-
thing drowned.
Merely the separation remained and became itself the iron truth
of man who hacked around only more furiously and wildly slaugh-
tered in order to finally experience the unity.
There was no victory, there only remained loneliness.
And then man cried one last time, almost a dying animal, full of
bitterness and pain:
Ballet dancers:
And guilty is God alone, who spoke with me and took away my
peace.
Speaker:
And God did not know what he could say then.
A ballet dancer:
Man felt himself very small
 the silent god in modernity 17

Speaker:
and God himself was no bigger now.
Speaker:
But when man – so weak and pitiable, so wounded and miser-
able, so without strength, courage and hope, so without one tear
anymore – understood what he had unchained, he was left with
nothing, left with nothing valuable.
In this empty silence he heard very softly, very hesitatingly, very
shyly, a whisper.
And God spoke: You . . . I . . .
And man heard him and understood and said:
Ballet dancers:
Yes!
Speaker:
And then a new era started and the earth itself should become
heaven.
And the Lord said: ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all
your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This
is the most important and first commandment. But the second is
like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’48
And thus heaven will be on earth. This is the greatest and most
important promise!
But man remained his own neighbor.
And God was silent. What should he say anymore?
(Black )
Whoever can hear, let him hear.49

Apparently Tavanti proceeds from the assumption that it is hu-

manity itself that has silenced God.

48
Quotation from Mt. 22:37-39, itself a combination of Deut. 6:5 and Lev.
19:18.
49
Tavanti 2008. Our translation. For the original German text see:
http://www.tavanti.de/schweigengottestext.html. The last line hints at Mk
4:9.
18 chapter one

1.3 Some Theologians and Philosophers

1.3.1 Silent before the Silent

Since God radically transcends the limits of human comprehen-
sion, an early response to the problem of God’s silence has been
that it is better for man to keep silent about him at all. Not even
repeat what God would have said about himself in the Bible. In
many religions of the world silent communication with the divine
world is seen as a sublime form of pious worship. To the most
pious virtues of the Coptic anchorites belonged absolute silence
(Brunner-Traut 1979). Mystics like Gregory of Nazianze (c. 329-
390), Evagrius of Pontus (c. 348-399), Pseudo-Dionysius Areopa-
gita (5th century) and Meister Eckhart (c. 1260-1328) perceived
that one cannot say anything definite about God.50 If one tries
nevertheless, it inevitably leads to contradictions and paradoxes,
so that it would be wiser to keep silent about Him altogether.
Only in absolute silence one may attain the experience of the
mystic union with God.51 Such mystics have deeply influenced
great theologians like Augustine (354-430) and Thomas Aquinas
(1225-1274) who have dominated modern discussions about ‘God-
talk’.
Similar ideas are found in medieval Judaism. Commenting on
Ps. 19:2 the great Jewish scholar Moses Maimonides (c. 1135-
1204) taught,

. . . whatever we utter with the intention of extolling and of prais-

ing Him, contains something that cannot be applied to God, and
includes derogatory expressions: it is therefore more becoming to
be silent, and to be content with intellectual reflection, as has
been recommended by men of the highest culture, in the words
“Commune with your own heart upon your bed, and be still” (Ps.
iv. 4).52

50
Cf. e.g. Blans 2000.
51
See e.g. Caranfa 2004; Erickson 2007, 78; Armstrong 2009, 110-112, 123-
129, 154-155.
52
Maimonides 1904, 173. The reference is to Ps. 4:5[4].
 the silent god in modernity 19

On the basis of the apophatic or negative theology certain Chris-

tian monastic orders still restrict verbal communication to the
absolute minimum. An example is the Order of the Reformed
Cistercians of the Strict Observance (O.C.S.O.), a branch of the
Roman Catholic Cistercians, founded by the converted courtier
Armand de Rancé (1626-1700), who had governed the Cistercian
abbey of La Trappe in France, which he transformed (1662) into
a community practicing absolute silence. Although the rigid reg-
ulations have been moderated somewhat, silence is still strived
after in the hundreds of Trappist cloisters all over the world.
Is keeping silent the best way of communication with a silent
God? We live in a world full of noise.53 So much noise that on
airports, malls, in hospitals and factories silence centers are be-
ing created where people can find a few moments of quiet, inner
reflection and prayer.54
People hanker for silence and simplicity. Silent meditation re-
treats have become exceedingly popular and handbooks on silent
meditation sell well.55 The success of a film like Philip Gröning’s
Die grosse Stille (Into Great Silence, 2006) about the Carthus-
ian monks of La Grande Chartreuse in the French Alps shows
a remarkable yearning for the simplicity of a life dominated by
silence before the silent God. At first, silence appears to be a re-
lative concept in this film, as there is a lot of noise: bell-ringing,
clumping shoes on wooden floors, rain, thunder, cow-bells, rus-
tling trees. Yet the prevailing silence is so deep that even the
sound of a bumble-bee is experienced as a loud intrusion.
What the Carthusian order sees as its ideal is to join God in
the silence and solitude of the hermit’s cubicle. At the beginning
and end of the film 1 Kgs 19:11-13 is quoted, a passage that seems
to indicate that God is not present in storm, or earthquake, or fire,
but in silence. We will return to this text later, but note here that
the Carthusian monks are convinced that admitting God to speak
53
Cf. Maitland 2009, 131-133.
54
According to a 2008 survey in The Netherlands, there were about 250 en-
terprises that have opened facilities for employees who feel the need for quiet
or prayer at work (Ajarai 2008). In many other countries similar initiatives
exist, see for example http://www.christiansatwork.org.uk/.
55
For example Gentili & Schnöller 1986.
20 chapter one

his word in our hearts is the highest form of peaceful silence. They
see silence as a way to overcome sufferings like blindless, illness
or even the fear of death.
Of course Carthusian monks celebrate mass and chant their
age-old hymns together. But only rarely are they allowed to en-
gage in conversation with each other or to undertake short com-
munal outings. The film shows how much they enjoy these occa-
sions, especially the scene where they are frisking happily in the
snow. This counterpoint demonstrates that a life in silence before
God need not be dull or abnormal.
Also in certain Protestant circles silence is a regular part of
the liturgy.56 In the worship of the ecumenical Taizé community
silence plays an important role57 and several recent pietistic works
advocate silence as an excellent way of communicating with the
silent God in the noisy world we live in.58

1.3.2 Contemporary Theologians and Philosophers

Ever since Nietzsche proclaimed the death of God theologians
and philosophers have tried to cope with the concept of a God
who is silent like the dead. Some have tried to value this deep
silence positively, as the real ground for faith. Others found this
silence unbearable.

1.3.2.1 Karl Barth

According to Karl Barth, for example, God speaks while being
silent. In his Römerbrief, the first edition of which appeared in
1919, he emphasizes the unknowability of God in his comment on
Rom. 4:3-5,

Beyond the line of death is God, substantial but without sub-

stance, essential without any essence, known as the unknown,
speaking in his silence, merciful in His unapproachable holiness,
demanding recognition as the One who supports everything, de-
manding obedience in his working alone, merciful in His judg-
56
See e.g. Szuchewycz in: Jaworski 1997, 239-260. See now also Bittner
2009.
57
http://www.taize.fr/ and Frère Roger 2005.
58
Bentz 2007, 23-88.
 the silent god in modernity 21

ment. Because He is not man, He is the true Cause, the House

which cannot be dissolved, the first and last Truth, the Creator
and Redeemer and Lord of men. To men His ways appear always
new, strangely distant, pre-eminent, beyond their horizon and
possession.59

Elsewhere Barth states that any interpretation of the Word of

God in a historical sense is false, because the Word of God re-
mains silent if we treat it as human discourse,

The Word of God hides and withdraws itself from the Church
when the latter permits itself to regard and treat itself and its
tradition or nature, or the being and history of mankind, as the
source of its knowledge of God. The Word of God itself is silent,
and yet it speaks even by its silence, when the Church wishes
to hear only the human word of prophets and apostles as such
and therefore the voice of a distant historical occurrence which
does not really concern it or lay any obligation upon it. The
Word of God itself veils itself in darkness when the Bible is in-
terpreted with violent and capricious one-sidedness according to
the promptings of various spirits instead of under the leading of
its own Holy Spirit.60

In Barth’s typical dialectical style he emphasizes God’s freedom

to speak or keep silent,

God is free to deal in this way with creation. It is still His work
and witness, though His silent witness. For His Word also im-
plies His silence; what He says implies what He does not say; His
Yes implies His No; His grace His judgment. His self-revelation
as Creator also contains, as a true Word, His silence, No and
judgment. Hence we must not be surprised if it is not identifiable
with the Yes which we find in the created world.61
59
Barth 1968, 120-121, slightly adapted by us to the German text of Barth
1940, 96.
60
Barth, ChD, vol. 1/2, 684. Original German text: Barth, KD, Bd. 1/2,
767. A similar rejection of modern historical-critical biblical scholarship is
found with followers of Barth, e.g. Miskotte 1967, 55, 106, 142, and more
often. However, elsewhere Miskotte offers a more positive appreciation of the
historic, oriental background of the Bible and critical scholarship, Miskotte
1967, 149-153. See also Levinas 1987, 191-200.
22 chapter one

All this has to do with Barth’s conviction that our everyday sec-
ular use of words is ‘improper and merely pictorial use’. In so far
as there is any appropriateness in our views, concepts and words
they are not our property, but God’s creation.62
1.3.2.2 Kornelis Miskotte
In his Als de goden zwijgen (When the Gods Are Silent) Kornelis
Miskotte stated that the gods of paganism were not dead, but
merely silent. ‘That they never spoke is certain.’63 Israel was the
first nation to perceive that the gods of other nations were dumb
gods (Ps. 115). The theophany of God in Israel sounded the death
knell of religion.64 Like Karl Barth, Miskotte emphasized that
God speaks in the preaching of the Word of God, the whole Bible,
including the New Testament.
1.3.2.3 God Is Dead Movement
The short-lived ‘death of God’ movement was a typical attempt
to free theology from theism.65 A ‘dead’ God cannot speak. Tom
Milazzo summarizes the predicament of modern theologians well,

But whether it is the road to Golgotha on which we walk, or

the road to Babylon, or the road to Auschwitz, or the road that
leads to our own death, only silence answers our prayer. In that
silence, death casts its shadow over more than just our life. It
casts its shadow over our faith as well. Where is God while we
suffer and die? What are we to make of God’s silence? Does
God’s silence speak of God’s absence? Does God’s silence speak
of God’s impotence? Or does God’s silence speak of our murder
61
Barth, ChD, vol. 3/1, 371-372. Original German: Barth, KD, Bd. 2/1,
425. See also 373: ‘It is the revelation of God which, when He is silent and
says No and exercises judgment, clouds the created world and wills to be
honored in this too, demanding human complaint and accusation. But the
revelation of God is as little bound up with the confining darkness of being
as with its light. While it gives us cause for complaint and accusation, and
places in our mouth a negative judgment on being, it does not in any sense
consist in what creation can and does reveal in this way.’ Original German:
KD, Bd. 2/1, 427.
62
Barth, ChD, vol. 2/1, 228-229.
63
Miskotte 1967, 9. Original Dutch text: Miskotte 1956, 16.
64
Miskotte 1956, 17, 25; Eng. translation: Miskotte 1967, 10, 19.
65
For succinct overviews see Milazzo 1992, 151-157; Robbins 2007, 1-4;
Taylor 2007, 199-205; Armstrong 2009, 289-330.
 the silent god in modernity 23

at the hands of God? Thus is the question of the reality of God

inseparable from the question of what it means to be human in
a world where all things die. In a world where all things die, if
we cling to our faith despite or even because of the silence of
God, though we might not deny God’s existence, we must doubt
that God’s justice is absolute. We must doubt the sincerity, the
efficacy, even the certainty, of God’s love.66

For Milazzo and others67 the hiddenness of God and his eternal
silence is a paradox that cannot be resolved,

Where is God while the innocent and the righteous die? Why has
God chosen silence and absence? In the presence of God’s silence
and hiddenness, the paradox of our existence endures. As long
as that paradox endures, the God of love seems inseparable from
the God of death. Indeed, as long as that paradox endures, the
shadow of death threatens to call into question all that is human.
Once our humanity is called into question, so too is faith in God.
Yet despite our death, despite the vanity of our existence, despite
even the triumph of death, our faith stands.68

1.3.2.4 John Paul II and Benedict XVI

In an address to a general audience on Wednesday 11 December
2002 the then Pope John Paul II (Karol Jósef Woytila) reflected
on Jer. 14:17-21 and said,

In fact, in addition to the sword and hunger, there is a greater

tragedy, that of the silence of God who no longer reveals himself
and seems to have retreated into his heaven, as if disgusted with
humanity’s actions.69

Of course the Pope did not leave it at that point and observed
that ‘God’s silence was provoked by man’s rejection. If people will
convert and return to the Lord, God will also show himself ready
to go out to meet and embrace them’. Can this age-old scheme of
66
Milazzo 1992, x. See also p. 146.
67
E.g. Terrien 1978; Balentine 1983.
68
Milazzo 1992, 135.
69
http://www.vatican.va/holy father/john paul ii/audiences/2002/
documents/hf jp-ii aud 20021211 en.html
24 chapter one

sin – sanction – penance – remission still be applied confidently

to the world at large?
In 2007 Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger) wrote a meditation
in which he pointed out that the death of God is part of the
Christian tradition which is felt most painfully on Holy Saturday
(Karsamstag), the day when Christ was in the grave. It is in this
sense that Ratzinger valued God’s silence positively,

We need the darkness of God, we need the silence of God, to

experience once again his greatness, the abyss of our nothingness
which would be exposed if it were not there.70

No doubt such statements were meant well and many believers

recognized their own feelings in them. Yet their ambiguousness
may be confusing because the darkness and silence of God are
presented as positive, even indispensable aspects of his being.

1.3.2.5 Emmanuel Levinas

In Zvi Kolitz’s moving Yiddish fictional story about Yosl Rakover
talking to God in the last days of the burning Jewish ghetto of
Warsaw, the faithful Jew understandably reproaches God for hav-
ing hidden his face from his chosen people. Yet he keeps believing
in this God, preferring a revenging God over the ‘God of Love’ of
the Christians (Kolitz 1999; 2008). The Jewish philosopher Em-
manuel Levinas praises Kolitz for this attitude and writes,

Man’s true humanity and his powerful gentleness make their en-
trance into the world in the severe words of a demanding God;
the spiritual does not impart itself in anything of substance; it
is an absence. God manifests Himself not by incarnation but by
absence. God manifests Himself not by incarnation but in the
Law.71

The ‘Law’ is the Jewish Torah here. Levinas restricts the possi-
bility of true humanity to the Jewish religion, at the same time
equating the Jewish Law with divine absence. He explains this
70
Our translation. German text:
http://diepresse.com/home/panorama/welt/religion/296271/index.do.
71
Emmanuel Levinas, in: Kolitz 1999, 85.
 the silent god in modernity 25

more fully in several of his works, among them Dieu, la Mort et

le Temps (God, Death, and Time),72

. . . God escapes objectification and is not even found in the I-

Thou relationship; God is not the Thou [Tu] of an I, is neither
dialogue nor in dialogue.73

And at the end,

. . . God is torn out of the objectivity of presence and out of being.

He is no longer an object or an interlocutor in a dialogue. His
distancing or his transcendence turns into my responsibility: the
non-erotic par excellence!74

For Levinas God is ‘transcendent to the point of absence’.75 A

God who is absent and does not engage himself in dialogue is a
silent God. And yet the same Levinas was a Talmudic scholar. It
has rightly been observed that what Levinas intended was a new
humanism which was rooted in biblical humanism (Purcell 2006,
36, 49-55).

1.3.2.6 Rachel Muers

The Quaker theologian Rachel Muers interprets God’s silence
positively as the patience of a listener (Muers 2001; 2004).

Listening can be described as the act of “giving time” to allow the

other’s own possibilities for new speech to emerge – possibilities
that are themselves in some sense given in and through the act of
listening. The idea that God is patient, or that God “waits for”
creation could, it would seem, allow the silence of God that grants
responsibility to the world to be understood as coterminous with
God’s salvific action.76

This comes close to the positive view of the mystics we discussed

earlier (Section 1.3.1).

72
Levinas 1993; English translation used here: Levinas 2000.
73
Levinas 2000, 203. Original French text: Levinas 1993, 232.
74
Levinas 2000, 224. Original French text: Levinas 1993, 253.
75
Levinas 2000, 224. Original French text: Levinas 1993, 253.
76
Muers 2004, 94-95.
26 chapter one

1.3.2.7 Interim Conclusion

The ambiguity with which leading theologians and philosophers
of our day speak about the necessity of believing in a silent, ab-
sent, dead God who yet was or is able to speak may be confusing
to laymen. Perhaps not to the theologians and philosophers them-
selves but it is a fact that many of them eventually loose their
faith. Some disappear silently from the public debate, others have
no objection to openly declare their inability to believe in an all-
powerful speaking God anymore.

1.4 The Silent God in Agnosticism and Atheism

Ever since the Enlightenment the rationality principle made any
form of non-empirical proof suspect and since religion can rarely,
if ever, furnish that kind of evidence, agnosticism and atheism
are gaining terrain among intellectuals worldwide.77 In its strong
form of a categorical denial of the existence of any transcendent
being one might call ‘God’, atheism has vociferous advocates.78
Sometimes this point of view is mitigated to ‘Probably there’s no
God’, as a recent slogan advertising atheism on public transport
vehicles in many European countries ran. In Germany Christians
hired an accompanying bus that posed the question: ‘and if He
really does exist . . . ’. The competition was friendly and incited
lively discussions between the two groups. But it is evident that
a speaking God is unacceptable in the framework of agnosticism
and atheism.

1.5 In Defense of a Silent God

The silence of God as described in the previous section stands in
stark contrast with recent attempts to deny that God is forever
silent. Mostly these attempts are found in pietistic works that
are often characterized by a highly autobiographical nature and
not uncommonly start with a tragedy with which the author has
been confronted in her or his personal life. The goal of this type
of literature is theodicy – the attempt to justify God in the face
77
For a brief history and evaluation, see Armstrong 2009, 240-261, 301-317.
78
To mention only a few of them, Smith 1979; Everitt 2004; Dawkins 2007;
Schulz 2008.
 the silent god in modernity 27

of apparent injustice or incomprehensible silence. At first some

kind of crisis leads to angry questions like ‘Why had this to hap-
pen?’ The lack of a direct reply from God is experienced as an
inexplicable and cruel silence.
Usually those who defend the silence of God derive their an-
swers from Scripture. They do not seem to realize that this ap-
proach does in no way appeal to those who regard the Bible as
a rather haphazardly collected bundle of writings from Antiquity
that have very little bearing on our modern world. Moreover,
these writers rarely take the trouble to check their interpreta-
tions with serious scholarship.
Several of these authors counsel patience, quoting biblical ex-
amples of prayers fulfilled only after a long period of suffering
(Abraham and Sarah; Joseph; Naomi and Ruth; Hannah; Job).
Only God is able to oversee history, human beings can perceive
only fragments of it. Therefore, what seems injustice at present,
may prove to be beneficial in the end. This kind of reasoning
restores the author’s faith in a good and merciful God and com-
munication with him is resumed.79
Hope in salvation that is not yet seen is true hope (cf. Rom.
5:2-4; 8:24-25; 18:18-23). So if God is silent one should interpret
that as a sign that he is pulling the wires in the wings,

Silence is no indication that God doesn’t care or that He is not in-

terested. Silence simply means that He is up to something. When
you can’t hear from God, you should rejoice because something
on the horizon is far greater than the challenge you are presently
facing.80

Another type of theodicean argument is to invoke God’s total

freedom to choose whether or not to reply to prayers. In Wiesel’s
play Le procès de Shamgorod (English title: The Trial of God)81
it is the devil, personified as ‘Sam’, who takes up the defense of
God and states,
79
Examples of this type of theodicean argument are found with Patterson
1991; Montgomery 2002; Allen 2005; Gire 2005; Bentz 2007; Sittser 2007.
80
Montgomery 2002, 185. Similarly Clift George 2005, 19.
81
Wiesel 1979.
28 chapter one

If God chooses not to answer, He must have his reasons. God is

God, and his will is independent from ours–as is his reasoning.82

It is certainly not without reason that Wiesel attributes this ac-

quiescent attitude to the devil. Others too affirm that not all
evil in the world should be ascribed to God. Satan or the devil
may be the cause.83 One might be inclined to ask if God could
not have restrained the devil? Is God less powerful than Satan?
Faced with such challenging questions believers are fond to invoke
the mysteriousness of the divine being. Gire, for example, relates
the kidnapping of a woman on the parking lot of a supermarket.
Daily he prays for her. But months later she appears to have been
murdered by a sex maniac.

If God is everywhere present, he saw what happened in that car.

That he saw it and did nothing to stop it is the darkest and most
unsettling mystery in the universe.84

What strikes us in such statements is the lack of precision and

the deliberate exaggeration. First Gire poses a condition: ‘If God
is present . . . Already in the next sentence his doubt evaporates,
‘he saw it’. How certain is Gire that God sees everything? Doesn’t
make such overstating God responsible for all evil in the world,
despite Gire’s conviction that it is the devil who should be held
responsible? Yet he blames God for ‘the darkest and most unset-
tling mystery in the universe’.
It is also common to lay the blame with the person complain-
ing about God’s silence. It is the deficiency of our God-talk, the
idolatry of our human projections of God which causes him to
withdraw from us.

God deflects our attempts at control by withdrawing into silence,

knowing that nothing gets to us like the failure of our speech.
82
Wiesel 1986, 132. The original French text slightly diverges from the
English translation: ‘Si Dieu, béni soit-il, choisit de ne pas répondre, c’est
qu’il a ses raisons. Dieu est Dieu, et sa volonté n’est pas dépendante de la
nôtre.’ (Wiesel 1979, 114). Similar reasoning with Clift George 2005, 22-24.
83
Montgomery 2002, 24, 112; Clift George 2005, 2; Gire 2005, 49, 110, 184,
189
84
Gire 2005. 8.
 the silent god in modernity 29

When we run out of words, then and perhaps only then can God
be God.85

If God does not answer, we have to repair our belief system.86

Despite God’s silence we should value the experience of his pres-
ence when we pray (Rockwood 2004, 11, 13, 42-43). If we think
that God is not capable of inflicting suffering on innocent people,
we reduce his power and God isn’t God anymore (Patterson 1991,
37-41, 50). If God does not answer your prayer in the way you
hoped for, you may yet receive a different blessing.87
How does communication between God and man take place ac-
cording to those who seek to explain God’s silence? Man ap-
proaches God through prayer, preferably frequent prayer.88 God
answers either directly through the Holy Spirit,89 or through oth-
ers, human beings or angels, who act as faithful witnesses to
God,90 or through peace that is attained by solitude and allowing
God to guide one’s decisions.91 God may answer through silence,
like Jesus who remained silent when the Canaanite woman asked
him to heal her daughter.92 However, ‘We should not allow the
silence of God to silence us, not for long anyway.’93
Among the ingenious arguments to explain God’s silence is the
supposition that his heavenly host needs more time to conquer
the forces of evil. Daniel, for example, had to wait for twenty-one
days before his angel, with the help of the archangel Michael, was
able to conquer his Persian opponent.94
According to others God’s silence is the consequence of sins.
Some apologetic works of this kind are quite old, but are still
85
Brown Taylor 1998, 38-39.
86
E.g. Montgomery 1999, 65; cf. Murphy-O’Connor 2003, 399.
87
Rockwood 2004, 81; Sittser 2007, 175, 179, 193.
88
Montgomery 2002, 8, 12, 27, 126; Allen 2005, 53; Gire 2005, 94-98, 102,
125.
89
Allen 2005, 34, 108
90
Allen 2005, 34, 59; Gire 2005, 33-44, 55-56, 62; Justice 2006, 33; Bentz
2007, 17-19.
91
Allen 2005, 34, 75-95; Maitland 2009.
92
Gire 2005, 123-124. As a matter of fact, Jesus’ silence is mentioned only
in Mt. 15:23. In the parallel account Mk 7:27 he answers immediately.
93
Gire 2005, 125. Similarly Rockwood 2004, 19-21; Sittser 2007, 82-93.
94
Dan. 10:4-13. Cf. Gire 2005, 56-57.
30 chapter one

avidly read in fundamentalist circles. For example, Sir Robert

Anderson’s The Silence of God, which was first published in 1897,
but was reprinted many times – the last edition we know of ap-
peared in March 2010. For Anderson the arrival of Christ has
been the ultimate answer to all our questions. The Cross of Christ
marks the end of the time in which God was speaking and doing
miracles. Because so many people rejected the Gospel – Anderson
means specifically the Jews – God has chosen to remain silent.
God could have used thunder and other punishments, but he just
remains silent, until he will speak again on judgment day.95 If we
ask why God does not speak up nowadays, we do not see that the
coming of Christ has been God’s final answer. This answer can
still be heard, but if we are just murmuring and sobbing, we do
not see and hear it. God has spoken in the Bible and revelation
is complete now. We have to bear disaster just as Paul did and
take it as a boast, even enjoy it, for Christ’s sake.96
According to some theologians calling God to account in ar-
dent personal lament is impious or even blasphemous.97 If so, Job,
the authors of Lamentations, many Psalmists and prophets were
impious blasphemers. Complaints against God have a legitimate
place in faith talk.98
The Roman Catholic priest Charles Mœller launched a learn-
ed but utterly insensitive attack on writers who rejected theism
because of the silence of God (Mœller 1958).
The Roman Catholic philosopher Gustave Thibon wrote a
satyrical play Vous serez comme des dieux (You Will Be like
Gods) in which he relates discussions between a few survivors of
the destruction of our planet (Thibon 1959). All have lost their
souls. Suffering, death and the old deities have been banned from
their newly constructed world (‘a city of light’). Human beings
have become deities themselves. However, one of the main charac-
95
Anderson 2008, 147.
96
Anderson 2008, 154-155. Similarly, and also anti-Jewish, Brown Taylor
1998, 49-59, 72-73. See further Carse 1995, 9-11, 23, 32; Rockwood 2004,
27-31; Clift George 2005, 7-9; Sittser 2007, 38-39.
97
See e.g. Fuchs 1982, 941-942; Westermann 1990, 78.
98
Cf. Renkema 1998, 59-62; Bayer 2001; Berges 2003, esp. 1-19; Janowski
2003.
 the silent god in modernity 31

ters, Amanda, starts to have second thoughts about this abolition

of the old world. At first she says to her fiancé Hélios,
If I would have lived in the time of death and deities, I know that
my life would have been nothing but prayer. Now however, I pray
to you because the deities are dead. You will say yes, you will not
be deaf or cruel like them.99

Later on Amanda slowly grows convinced that God still exists

and that suffering and death should not have been abolished. A
doctor Weber, her supervisor, sees this return to suffering, death
and godhead as a very serious, contagious condition. However,
his treatment of Amanda is unsuccessful. Her friend Stella worries
about Amanda’s belief in a God to whom she prays. The following
dialogue develops,
Amanda
We can pray to him without asking him anything. Perhaps we
can give him everything. In the void. Without return. Without
hope. Be the last courtier of an inert and dethroned king . . .
Stella
Pure absurdity . . .
Amanda
Pure prayer.
Stella
All this is crazy. If God had existed, he would have reacted, would
not have let it happen. He would not have permitted mankind to
construct a false paradise veiling the truth for ever.
Amanda
You do not know how far God’s silence can go.
Stella
Nothingness remaining silent . . . 100

After an encounter with her departed soul, Amanda prays to God

and accepts death. Her example convinces Hélios, her parents and
Stella to follow her. Dr Weber obliges by killing them all.
The new atheism of Richard Dawkins and his allies (Section 1.4)
has come under attack from the side of other scientists like An-
thony Flew (2008). Their theistic theology is no longer based on
99
Our translation. Original French, Thibon 1959, 101.
100
Our translation. Original French, Thibon 1959, 140.
32 chapter one

revelation or tradition, but on natural phenomena which they

believe to point directly to the existence of a superior Being re-
sponsible for the laws of nature and the existence of the uni-
verse. Especially Flew offers poignant quotations from great sci-
entists like Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, Werner Heisenberg,
Erwin Schrödinger, Max Planck and many others who professed
to be theists in this sense (Flew 2008, 95-112). Recent and well-
informed refutations of the new atheists from the side of theolo-
gians are those of Gerhard Lohfink 2008 and Hans Kessler 2009.
Another fairly recent opponent of atheism is the French philo-
sopher and writer Éric-Emmanuel Schmitt. In his play Le vis-
iteur (The Visitor)101 he arranges a meeting between an un-
known stranger and the atheistic father of psychoanalysis Sig-
mund Freud.102 Repeatedly Freud asks his visitor who he is, but
the stranger remains silent.103 The unknown visitor appears and
disappears miraculously. He evidently knows all about Freud’s
past and future. Despite himself Freud sometimes considers the
possibility that the stranger is a human incarnation of God and
the latter accommodates him by assuming the fake name of Wal-
ter Oberseit.104 In the end Freud acknowledges, ‘You are al-
mighty’. But his visitor replies,

Well, actually, no, I’m not. The moment I made man free, I lost
omnipotence, lost omniscience. I would have been able to control
everything, and know everything in advance if I had constructed
automata – mere machines.105

Freud’s visitor explains that he has given man a free will to do

either good or bad out of love. He even kneels before Freud and
offers him his hand, but Freud is too embarrassed to take it.
For our study it is important to note that Schmitt appears to
think that God can still address man in human shape and that
this shape itself is relatively unimportant. When Freud asks ‘Are
101
Schmitt 1999; English translation Schmitt 2002.
102
On Freud’s ‘atheism’ see Oelmüller 1999, 112-114.
103
Schmitt 1999, 144, 150, 154; Schmitt 2002, 82, 86, 89.
104
Note the obvious play with German ‘Oberseite’ – the upper side.
105
Schmitt 2002, 120. French original: Schmitt 1999, 201-202.
 the silent god in modernity 33

you Walter Oberseit, yes or no?’ the stranger answers, ‘I ought

to say “no”, but Walter Oberseit would say the same.’106 ‘Walter
Oberseit’ is an actor, a role in Schmitt’s play. Freud believes in
Walter Oberseit because he can see him, ‘But who proves to you
that Walter Oberseit exists?’107
In his novel Oscar et la dame rose (Oscar and the Lady in
Pink) (2002) Schmitt explores the problem of the suffering and
premature death of a boy who is ten years old and dying of cancer.
His agnostic parents hardly dare to visit him anymore, but an old
lady in a pink dress – the uniform of ladies who come in to spend
time with sick children – visits him regularly and encourages him
to write letters to God. The fact that she pretends to have been
a famous wrestler, ‘the Languedoc Strangler’, impresses the boy
very much. Yet Oscar hangs back at first,

‘And why would I want to write to God?’

‘You wouldn’t feel so lonely.’
‘Not so lonely with someone who doesn’t exist?’
‘Make him exist.’
She leant over to me.
‘Every time you believe in him, he’ll exist a bit more.
If you keep at it, he’ll exist completely.
Then, he’ll do you good.’108

Every one of his last days Oscar writes a letter to God and relates
what he has experienced. Through talking to God in his letters
Oscar begins to realize that every day, even his last one, is worth
to be lived. When the boy has died, the Lady in Pink herself
writes a letter to God, thanking him for the hours she has spent
with Oscar. She says, ‘He helped me believe in you’ and ends with
a PS,

For the last three days Oscar had a little sign on his bedside
table. I think you should know. It said: ‘Only God is allowed to
wake me.’109

106
Schmitt 2002, 114. French original: Schmitt 1999, 192.
107
Schmitt 2002, 108; French original: Schmitt 1999, 183.
108
Schmitt 2005, 11. Original French: Schmitt 2004a, 16.
109
Schmitt 2005, 88. Original French: Schmitt 2004a, 94.
34 chapter one

In the talks between Oscar and the old lady God shows himself
through both of them who He is – a good God, even if it sometimes
looks differently from our side. Oscar becomes someone who cares
for others. His last days were not in vain: he has shown God to a
sick girl, to a grumpy doctor, to his parents and to the Lady in
Pink. Oscar became a witness of God.

1.6 Critical Examination of Current Views

Here we classify and critically examine some of the modern state-
ments about the silence of God we have discussed in Section 1.2-5
above. This is necessary because it will appear that despite the
enormous amount of literature on the subject of a silent God it is
worthwhile to reconsider the origin and meaning of the concept
of a silent deity.

1.6.1 Modern Literature and Media

Almost all writers and artists we reviewed in Section 1.2 above
show a certain amount of bitterness about the faith they have lost.
Most of them cannot be regarded as true atheists.110 They are
more concerned with human behavior and the absence of a divine
response to that behavior than with the true atheist’s categorical
denial of God’s existence.
On the other hand, theists who try to defend their faith
against the criticism of agnostics and atheists clearly have trouble
to deny that God’s silence can be oppressing. Often they deny
that any real dialogue with God is possible or express themselves
in a frustratingly ambiguous or even contradictory way, to the
effect that it is an unanswerable question if the Almighty does or
does not reply to the cries of the helpless – both is in his power.
In the end a man like Eli Wiesel arrives at an impasse,
It is wrong to understand Auschwitz exclusively as a theolo-
gical problem. Auschwitz was not brought about by God; it was
brought about by human beings against other human beings. It is
first and above all a human problem, human responsibility. How-
ever, it is also dishonest to leave God out. The tragedy is that
110
For Sartre see e.g. Howells 1981. For Bergman see e.g. Gibson 1969. For
Beckett, see e.g. Bryden 1998.
 the silent god in modernity 35

we can conceptualize Auschwitz neither with God, nor without

God.111

Both parties, believers and non-believers, often refer to biblical

notions about God, but they do so in a highly eclectic and some-
times naive manner, thus wittingly or unwittingly distorting the
picture as a whole.

1.6.2 Contemporary Theologians and Philosophers

The modern captivation with the concept of a silent God is dif-
ficult to reconcile with the undeniable fact that the number of
places in the Hebrew Bible where the silence of God is mentioned
pales into insignificance compared to the number of ocurrences
testifying to a speaking God:112

The ancient Israelites certainly did not regard God’s speaking and
keeping silent equally important. This simple observation points
111
Our translation. German original: Wiesel 1987, 119.
112
We counted only explicit terms denoting divine speech and silence. Im-
plicit instances will be dealt with in this study, but are omitted here because
they are debatable. In the New Testament direct speech of God is rare.
36 chapter one

to a deep divergence of perception between Antiquity and Mod-

ernity which, however, is rarely addressed directly in the work of
modern theologians and philosophers.

1.6.2.1 Contemporary Christian Theologians

For Karl Barth God is silent in the sense that man cannot really
know him. But as an act of grace God has talked to man in his
Word, the Christian Bible. The preaching of the Word under the
guidance of the Holy Spirit is the way in which God continues to
talk to man. If God is silent in our days this should be attrib-
uted to the failure of man, more specifically to historical-critical
biblical scholarship.
In our opinion Barth’s dismissal of the historical background
of the Bible was a fundamental error. The enormous increase
in knowledge about the actual circumstances in biblical times
has taught us that it is impossible to explain the Bible without
having recourse to the facts uncovered by archaeology and bib-
lical scholarship. Of course the interpretation of those facts is
often controversial, but that is the case in many other fields of
scholarly research. Israel shared many religious concepts with its
neighbors. Rejecting religious traditions other than those of an-
cient Israel, Judaism and Christianity as ‘paganism’, is unrealistic
and contraproductive. Just as believers stand in a concrete his-
torical situation and are called to testify to their faith given that
situation, so it was in ancient Israel, Judaism and early Chris-
tianity.113 Denying the reality of the day, including the progress
of science, leads to a pietistic, unworldly kind of faith.
In this connection an often quoted passage which Dietrich
Bonhoeffer wrote in a Nazi prison is relevant,

While I’m often reluctant to mention God by name to religious

people . . . to people with no religion I can on occasion mention
him by name quite calmly and as a matter of course. Religious
people speak of God when human knowledge (perhaps simply be-
cause they are too lazy to think) has come to an end, or when
113
See the fully justified criticism of James Barr on Barth and his followers
with regard to their attempts to ward off the spectre of natural theology
(Barr 1993; 1999, esp. 468-496). Barr’s criticism also affects the arguments of
Oswalt 2009 and White 2010.
 the silent god in modernity 37

human resources fail – in fact it is always the deus ex machina

that they bring on to the scene, either for the apparent solution
of insoluble problems, or as strength in human failure – always,
that is to say, exploiting human weakness or on human bound-
aries. Of necessity, that can go on only till people can by their
own strength push these boundaries somewhat further out, so
that God becomes superfluous as a deus ex machina. I’ve come
to be doubtful of talking about any human boundaries (is even
death, which people now hardly fear, and is sin, which they now
hardly understand, still a genuine boundary today?). It always
seems to me that we are trying anxiously in this way to reserve
some space for God; I should like to speak of God not on the
boundaries but at the center, not in weaknesses but in strength;
and therefore not in death and guilt but in man’s life and good-
ness. On the boundaries, it seems to me better to be silent and
leave the insoluble unsolved. . . . The church stands, not on the
boundaries where human powers give out, but in the middle of
the village.114

Bonhoeffer hoped to overcome ‘the forces that separate the world

from God, religion from reality, faith from life, the church from
daily routine.’115
The massive rejection of the ‘pagan’ world and its religions
is not our only objection to Barth’s treatment of the subject of
divine speech and silence. In Barth’s theology the nothingness
of human effort is underscored far too heavily. This may be in
line with a certain type of Protestant theology, but it is not in
accordance with the biblical testimony.116
Moreover, Barth and his followers defined the Bible as the
Protestant Christian canon. Even Miskotte, who far more than
Barth was convinced of the indispensability, even the surplus
value of the ‘Old’ Testament, maintained the unity of Scripture
114
Bonhoeffer 2001, 93-94. Original text: Bonhoeffer 1998, 407-408.
115
Dramm 2007, 193; on Bonhoeffer’s ‘religion-less’ Christianity see espe-
cially her Chapter 20 and the volume published by Neumann 1990. Of course
Bonhoeffer was by no means the only Christian who advocated openness to
the world, see for example Boehme 2007 on Madeleine Delbrêl. See also Diet-
rich & Link 2002, 14: ‘Kein Bereich unserer Wirklichkeit muß und darf von
Gott abgetrennt werden’ (No area in the reality around us must and may be
separated from God).
116
See e.g. Brueggemann 1973. See further below Chapter 7.
38 chapter one

as defined in the Protestant tradition. That there exist other can-

ons, for example the Jewish canon, or that of Alexandria, partly
adopted by Rome and the Eastern Orthodox churches, was not
considered important enough to take into consideration. Recent
discoveries in the deserts of Judah (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek) and
Egypt (Coptic and Greek) have demonstrated that historically
spoken the fringes of the canon are so frayed that one should not
create the impression that with the acceptance of one particular
canon the debate is closed.
There is no harm in showing more openness towards adducing
and comparing other religious and philosophical systems, as has
been the case in biblical times as well. Neither Israel nor the early
church lived in splendid isolation. Both Testaments recognized the
existence of other religions. Despite fierce antagonism and mutual
claims to exclusivity, the Jewish and Christian scribes of the bib-
lical books adopted elements from other, nonbiblical sources as
well. If this was the case then and there, modern believers should
not be more apprehensive of modern science and culture, or the
exchange of compatible ideas with other religious or philosophical
systems.117
Modern theologians who profess the weakness or even death
of God are usually Christians for whom the death of Jesus on the
cross is the most sublime event in human history.118 Even if one
broadens this approach in a trinitarian sense, attributing equal
roles to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, as Jürgen Molt-
mann did (Moltmann 1974), the pivotal role of the Cross tends to
detract from the importance of the other two persons of the Trin-
ity. Suffering and death are not the most prominent aspects of the
image of God as the Bible sketches it. In contrast to the relics of
other cultures in the ancient world, the Bible stands out as the
daring testimony to the living God.119 The often invoked model of
117
Even in evangelical circles this is increasingly realized nowadays. See e.g.
Sparks 2008.
118
Cf. Section 1.3.2.3 and below. This was definitely not in line with Barth’s
approach for whom the resurrection of Christ was the central salutary event.
Cf. e.g. Marquardt 1968.
119
Kreuzer 1983; Mettinger 1988, 62-91; De Moor 1997, 147, 361-362; Dekker
2008, 222-225; Janowski 2009. Because dying deities are by no means rare in
 the silent god in modernity 39

taking up one’s cross in imitation of the suffering of Christ (Phil.

2) is no doubt appropriate in many circumstances, but should
not be used to argue for a drastic reduction of the much richer
biblical message about how to order life making use of one’s own
abilities. Accepting suffering and self-denial as inevitable would
also deprive believers of the courage to remind God of his cov-
enantal promises. The theology of the Cross has been used too
often to mask uneasy feelings about the resurrection of Christ,
so that the proclamation of the victory of the living God over
death was muted. John Caputo has rightly pointed out that by
overemphasizing the Cross one risks to minimize the importance
of the Hebrew Bible, Judaism and the Jewishness of Jesus.120
If believers state that God speaks or is silent, or that he is
present or absent, they do not mean to describe an empirical real-
ity that can be verified experimentally. They are talking about
their experiences with God, about positive or negative develop-
ments in their relation to God.121 It is a relational truth for them.
Thomas Schärtl expresses this in the lapidary thesis,

. . . that God is certainly a singular, but by no means (semantic

or epistemological) relationless entity.122

However, this inevitably prompts the question how believers be-

come convinced that certain of their experiences relate to God.
In Protestant Christian theology this question is answered with
a resolute affirmation of God’s initiative culminating in the cross
of Jesus Christ. To quote only one from many,

To sum up: the presence and absence of God is, in a phenomen-

ological sense, always a presence and absence for us; it is, in a
theological sense, a presence and absence of God only if it is God
and God alone who determines both his presence and his ab-
sence as a mode of his divine presence, i.e. his presence as God ;
and this God-defining determination takes place, in a Christian
eschatological sense, in the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ
the ancient Near East, it is mistaken to claim a genuine christian origin for
the concept of the death of God.
120
Caputo in: Robbins 2007, 77-82, 140-141.
121
Jüngel 1978; 1983; Dalferth 2006; 2009; Dekker 2008.
122
In Halbmayr & Hoff 2008, 56, English translation ours.
40 chapter one

in that God there discloses himself as God in a definitive way by

becoming present as absent (in the cross), and absent as present
(in the resurrection).123

Our problem with this kind of dialectic reasoning is not merely its
ambiguity and its exclusively christological thrust, but above all
its balancing of absence and presence of God, as if both were equal
characteristics of God. In our opinion Willem Maarten Dekker
has proposed an important correction on this scheme by distin-
guishing between characteristic and uncharacteristic properties of
God,
God is himself as a God of human beings, a God of love and grace.
Therein his essence expresses itself. At the same time this is not
the only mode in which God exists. He exists also as the wrathful
one, as the one who has the right (because of sin) and the power
(as the Almighty) to destroy the world, as the one who deplores
his creation. Therein his non-essence expresses itself. Also in this
mode God is God. But he is not himself therein. In his grace
God reveals that he does not want to be God without mankind.
In his wrath he reveals that he can be God without mankind.
Speaking concretely about the relation of God means: speaking
about God’s grace. Speaking concretely about the independence
of God means: speaking about God’s wrath. The absence of God
as it is experienced especially in European modernity must be
interpreted as God’s revelation of God’s non-essence: his wrath,
his ‘deploring that he made mankind’ (Gen. 6:7).124

In faith it is not sufficient to observe that God can be both absent

and present, silent and speaking, dead and alive. The believer
must know that the dark side of God does not belong to his
essence. If God destroys, it is his opus alienum, an act running
counter to his true essence (Isa. 28:21-22).125 God may be silent,
but he is not free anymore to remain silent, as Barth seems to
suppose (Section 1.3.2.1). According to the biblical testimony he
has voluntary committed himself to mankind to answer those
who are in need, even if they themselves are unable to invoke
him anymore because their tongue is parched with thirst,
123
Dalferth in: Dalferth 2009, 19.
124
Our translation. Dutch original: Dekker 2008, 376.
125
Cf. Dietrich & Link 2004, 121.
 the silent god in modernity 41

The afflicted and poor

are searching for water but there is none;
their tongue is parched with thirst.
I am the Lord, I will answer them,
the God of Israel, I will not forsake them.126

For their part human beings are free to disbelieve him if his reply
reaches them – even though they may regret their stubbornness
later, as in the case of Job,
If I would call and he answered me,
I would not believe that he was listening to my voice.127

Apparently their is a need to reconsider the biblical notion of a

silent God. Because silence was understood as the interruption of
the spoken or written communication between God and man, it
will also be necessary to investigate how this communication was
expected to take place normally.
1.6.2.2 Does a Silent God Require Silent Devotion?
With regard to the best way for man to respond to the silence
of God many authors advocate answers that lean to pietism or
mysticism.128 We have seen that according to several religious
orders silence is the best way to communicate with a silent God.
We want to state right away that we are convinced of the power
of silence in spirituality. This conviction is supported by factual
data,
Current brain studies show that silence does indeed exist as pro-
cesses of traditional and religious practice and belief, as well as
intrapersonal aspects of spirituality, contemplation, and medita-
tion. Such processes have been largely neglected or even negated
in much of behavioral communication research as unimportant
simply because silence seems elusive and measures are not appar-
ent or are difficult. Silence will be shown in this entry to concern
valid neurological processes, metaphorical narratives, and aes-
thetics. More importantly, silence concerns synchronous psycho-
logical temporalities, or various temporary psychological states
126
Isa. 41:17. See also Isa. 58:9; 65:24; Jer. 29:12-14; 33:3; Zech. 13:9; Ps.
81:8[7]; 91:15; Lam. 3:33. For the New Testament, see Mt 7:7-8, 11; Jn 9:31.
127
Job 9:16, cf. 39:37-38; 42:6.
128
Cf. Section 1.3.1 above.
42 chapter one

occurring together, and the nonlinear brain processes necessary

for creating spiritual aspects of consciousness. To believe in deep
silence, then, is to believe in spirituality.129

Günter Stachel, an advocate of silent mysticism, states that there

is no language in which one can speak ‘of God’ because if God is
absent words cannot bring him back (Stachel 1989, 21).
Therefore mysticism is somehow ‘experience of God’ and is under-
stood by the one as becoming empty and as nothing (Nirwana),
by another as becoming one with the God of biblical revelation
(who, however, for his part has withdrawn in the darkness of the
impossibility to name him or to understand him).130

However, is not filling emptiness with emptiness a sophism,131 a

too easy escape from the hazardous business of professing faith
in the modern tumultuous world? Have the advocates of silence
when approaching the Silent One realized the dangers of silencing
oneself? Or of allowing others to cover up crimes by silence?
As is more often the case, Karl Barth writes somewhat am-
biguously on the subject of silence in faith,
Faith means motionlessness, silence, worship – it means not-
knowing. Faith renders inevitable a qualitative distinction be-
tween God and man; it renders necessary and unavoidable a per-
ception of the contradiction between Him and the world of time
and things and man; and it finds in death the only (the only!)
parable of the Kingdom of Heaven.132

129
Bruneau 2009, 281.
130
Stachel 1989, 126, our translation. On the so-called ‘negative theology’
in its different articulations, see also e.g. Oelmüller 1999, 124-126; Bulhof &
Ten Kate 2000; Sorace & Zimmerling 2007; Halbmayr & Hoff 2008.
131
Ekman Tam describes the highest level of prayer life as ‘no one speaks;
no one listens; there is pure silence’ (Tam 2002, 162).
132
Barth 1968, 202, slightly adapted to the German text which runs,
‘Glauben heißt Halt machen, Schweigen, Anbeten – Nicht-Wissen. Der quali-
tative Unterschied von Gott und Mensch wird unverkennbar, der Widerspruch
Gottes zu der Welt der Zeit, der Dinge und des Menschen zur unausweichlich
notwendigen Einsicht, der Tod zum einzigen (zum einzigen!) Gleichnis des
Himmelreichs.’ (Barth 1940, 96, see also 183: ‘. . . die Erkenntnis also, daß
wir Gott gegenüber Nicht-Wissende sind, daß wir vor ihm nur Halt machen,
schweigen und anbeten können.’).
 the silent god in modernity 43

Elsewhere Barth states that a Christian should not keep silent

about God,

God’s revelation in its subjective reality is the person and work

of the Holy Spirit, i.e., the person and work of God Himself. This
does not mean that we cannot say anything about it, that we
have to be silent. How can it possibly mean that? In this matter
we have to follow Holy Scripture, which testifies that the person
and work of God are manifest. Silence about the person and work
of God means only that we reject the witness of Holy Scripture,
and ultimately that we deny God’s revelation.133

And further on in ChD 1/2,

It is quite understandable that both in earlier times and to-day it

could be proposed and the attempt made to achieve pure doctrine
quickly, by either silencing the human word entirely, or accom-
panying it with silence, or by destroying its verbal and so its
rational character in an attempt to express it in the speech of
primitive poetry. This kind of silence was interpreted as the com-
pletest way of letting God speak, and it was thought to be better
than speech, and to be what was really meant and intended in
speech. Where there is a desire to replace or crowd out preaching
by the sacrament and liturgy, no small part is usually played by
the theme that pure doctrine is the result of doing nothing, of
abstention from human words, which fall under the suspicion of
being so solid that they cannot have the transparency required to
reveal the Word of God. But the matter is not so simple. That any
sort of human words have the required transparency is certainly
not the case. But silence is also a human action, as is everything
that man does instead of preaching.134

If we talk about God or if we remain silent about him, it is not

our own decision, but the work of the Holy Spirit which Barth
repeatedly calls ‘the subjective reality of revelation’.135 In his
comment on Rom. 8:2 Barth wrote already,
133
Barth, ChD, vol. 1/2, 232-233. German original: Barth, KD, Bd. 1/2,
254.
134
ChD, vol. 1/2, 778. German original: Barth, KD, Bd. 1/2, 870.
135
E.g. Barth, ChD, vol. 1/1, 238-239, 242.
44 chapter one

We speak concerning the Spirit. But can men dare to un-

dertake such conversation? For the description of other possibil-
ities we possess a large vocabulary, but we have no single word
which we can make use of to define the impossible possibility
of our lives. Why, then, are we not silent concerning Him? We
must also be silent; but none the less we must bear in mind that
our silence compromises Him no less than our speech. We do the
Spirit no greater service by our silence. The Spirit remains the
Word whether we proclaim Him in silence or in speech. Whether
being speechless we are compelled to speech, or speaking we are
compelled to silence, confronted by the Spirit we are equally em-
barrassed and have no means of escape. Could we but take care
that we should speak or be silent as He willeth, in order that we
might at once recognize that, if we should do right, it is not that
we do so in the speech or in the silence of religion, but that the
Spirit Himself has spoken with or without words!136

Despite the dialectic ambiguousness of Barth’s statements137 on

human silence as a response to the silence of God, it seems clear
that in the end he is of the opinion that speaking the Word of God
is preferable to radical silence. However, even if human beings do
speak Barth evidently minimizes their role as far as possible. It
is not their speech or silence, but that of the Spirit. ‘That any
sort of human words have the required transparency is certainly
not the case.’ This is in line with his dismissal of ordinary every-
day language as inappropriate. But are not human beings God’s
covenantal partners? Are we mere automata obeying the Spirit?

If God’s silence is interpreted as his patience that should be

matched by silence on the part of the church, as Rachel Muers
advocates, this raises the suspicion that actually she is thinking
along lines not all that far removed from the ideas of a fundament-
alist like Robert Anderson. Basically humankind deserves to be
punished for its sins, but God in his grace grants us some respite.
She writes about the ‘imperfect past’ of the church and the need
of repentance,138 ‘human evil’ that causes God’s silence,139 ‘our
136
Barth 1968, 273. German original: Barth 1940, 256.
137
Cf. Sneller 2000.
138
Muers 2001, 87.
139
Muers 2001, 89.
 the silent god in modernity 45

failed words and our wrongly kept silences’,140

. . . a whole community developing habits of distorted listening,

that perpetually fails to attend either to its own speech’s failures
or to the voices it does not recognise, or that is insufficiently at-
tentive to be able to recognise pervasive falsehoods.
. . . the Church itself is an object of God’s patience. Its mis-
hearings and its failed mediations of patience are themselves
heard and tested. Its silence–liturgical, theological and in pub-
lic discourse–acknowledges that it has heard and hears the one
reliable word of God; at the same time, they acknowledge that its
practices of listening and speaking require conversion and trans-
formation.141

She acknowledges that the silence of the church is ‘a way of

dodging the issues’, but thanks God for his patience with it.142
In its silence the church is the image of the silent, patient God
who is silent because he is listening.143
Can this acceptance of the concept of a silent God and a silent
community of believers be reconciled with the biblical emphasis
on the speaking of God and his exhortations to his congregation
to bear witness, also in the form of hymns and prayers? Muers is
aware of the possibility that this objection might be raised but her
attempt to attribute equal importance to God’s silence and his
speech is unconvincing (Muers 2004, 13-15 et passim). Moreover,
being a Quaker who is captivated by the work of Dietrich Bon-
hoeffer, she opts for an exclusively christological interpretation of
God’s silence. She rarely quotes from the Hebrew Scriptures.

We have seen that in Philip Gröning’s film Die grosse Stille (Into
Great Silence, 2006) the silence of the Carthusian monks was seen
as a positive way of communicating with a silent God.144 How-
ever, a less harmonious picture is drawn in another recent film
about monastic life: In memoria di me (In Memory of Me, 2007)
by Saverio Costanzo. It was shot in the Basilica di San Giorgio
140
Muers 2001, 93.
141
Muers 2001, 94-95.
142
Muers 2001, 95.
143
Muers 2001, 96; Muers 2004, 14-15.
144
Section 1.3.1 above.
46 chapter one

Maggiore on the Venetian island of San Giorgio, designed by 16th

century architect Andrea Palladio. In this case the film centers on
three novices. Their spiritual crises are followed closely, and their
emptiness and utter frustration are not concealed. When Andrea,
the principal character, presents himself to the Father Superior
of the Jesuit cloister, the latter says to him, ‘Tomorrow you will
enter into your personal silence. Silence which sharpens discern-
ment.’ . . . ‘We must envelop ourselves in silence and prayer. We
are not accustomed to listening to the silence which speaks deep
within us, where God dwells’.
Indeed silence reigns throughout the film. Conversation is lim-
ited to the absolute minimum. Early on in the film, one of the
three novices, Fausto, revolts against the degrading discipline of
the order. ‘. . . the silence of this church is empty. . . . They need
truth to be dead.’ He leaves the cloister.
Zanna, another novice, tells Andrea that he has decided to
leave too. They talk about faith and Andrea blurts out, ‘I don’t
believe in anything. . . . I’m coming with you. We’re leaving to-
night.’ Later that night Andrea listens in on a brilliant defense by
the Jesuit Superior who tries to convince Zanna to stay by invok-
ing ‘The terrifying mystery of a weak God.’ But Zanna merely
kisses the reluctant priest a farewell and leaves alone, without
waiting for Andrea. The latter runs after him, outside the gate,
but does not see him anymore and after long hesitation returns to
the cloister. Merely by silent shots Costanzo suggests that he is
afraid of the bustling outside world. Gradually Andrea becomes
convinced that staying in the order is his duty. ‘I was created to
carry out a plan for which no one else was created.’
Certainly a deep thought, but any pious human being could
have said it, and two out of three pious novices left. One realizes
that it may be God’s intention for Andrea to stay, but was it
silent contemplation that brought about his decision?
For Bonhoeffer it was unthinkable that there might be a place
where a Christian could withdraw from the world either out-
wardly or within the inner sphere.145 Indeed, radical mystic si-

145
See Section 1.6.2.1 above and Dramm 2007, 198.
 the silent god in modernity 47

lence is not a viable option anymore in modern society.146 This is

even admitted by a determined silence seeker like Sara Maitland,
The reality is that it is impossible to live in complete silence
for very long in the developed world in the 21st century without
various and extensive negotiations, in part with oneself. And par-
ticularly if you need to earn a living.147

The reader of Maitland’s report on her quest for silence soon real-
izes that her desire to exclude communication with the outside
world results in a self-centered view of life. Even if one prays of-
ten, as she does, and if one reads as extensively as by a multitude
of quotations she demonstrates to have done, it is a legitimate
question whether this can really replace or even surpass direct
social contacts. To her credit it must be acknowledged that she
does attempt to deal with the dangerous effects of prolonged si-
lence, voluntary or imposed. Silence can kill you, or drive you
insane.148 Characteristically, however, Maitland hardly ever con-
siders the harm that a person’s prolonged silence can do to others.
For this reason Ilse Bulhof cautions prudence,

The possibility remains that the silence forced upon us by a rad-

ically transcendent God leads to complicity with the forces of evil
. . . ,149 which is a warning against an easy enthusiasm for silence
and mysticism.150

We cannot hope to avoid collateral damage if we overemphasize

our inability to describe the divine in familiar terms which at
least hint at a knowable divine being.

1.6.2.3 A New Theism?

As we have seen, the Jewish philosopher Levinas juggles with
the concept of an absent God who does not engage in dialogue
146
Gebauer, in: Kamper & Wulf 1992, 27-37; Schorsch, in: Kamper & Wulf
1992, 52-64.
147
Maitland 2009, 274.
148
Maitland 2009, Chapter 3.
149
Bulhof refers here to an essay on Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin (1895-
1975) by Simons 2000.
150
Bulhof in: Bulhof & Ten Kate 2000, 387.
48 chapter one

with man. Yet Levinas believes that technology as secularization

is destructive of pagan gods,

Through it, certain gods are now dead: those gods of astrology’s
conjunction of the planets, the gods of destiny [fatum], local gods,
gods of place and countryside, all the gods inhabiting conscious-
ness and reproducing, in anguish and terror, the gods of the skies.
Technology teaches us that these gods are of the world, and there-
fore are things, and being things they are nothing much [pas
grand-chose]. In this sense, secularizing technology figures in the
progress of the human spirit. But it is not its end.151

Such a statement grossly misrepresents the concept of the divine

in the so-called ‘pagan’ religions. The concept of divine transcend-
ence was by no means foreign to ancient theologians in the world
around Israel. Moreover, the statement conveniently skips the fact
that on the one hand also the God of Israel is connected with
certain localities on earth (e.g. Sinai, Horeb, Bashan, Zion) and,
on the other hand, that universal, supra-territorial claims were
also made by the worshippers of other ancient Near Eastern gods
(e.g. the Mesopotamian deities Anu and Ninurta, Marduk, Assur,
and the Egyptian god Amun-Re). It has rightly been observed
that Levinas’ view of non-monotheists, like his view on women,
is dated, misunderstood and distorted.152
And isn’t Yosl Rakover153 himself an embodiment of the Law
– an objective entity? Leon Wieseltier criticizes Lévinas in this
respect,

Levinas wants the courage of the atheist and the certainty of the
theist. I do not see how he can have both, in his reflection on Yosl
Rakover and in his other writings. The problem will not go away
by declaring romantically that “God manifests Himself not by
incarnation but by absence” and taking pleasure in the paradox.
For this is not a paradox, it is a contradiction. The idea of a
God who manifests Himself by not manifesting Himself is an idea
in need of an explanation. Until then, it is only an intellectual’s
incredibility. Until then, an absent God is a God who has not
151
Levinas 2000. 166. French original: Levinas 1993, 191.
152
Perpich 2008, 177-198.
153
See above, Section 1.3.2.5.
 the silent god in modernity 49

manifested Himself, and the rest is nothing more than desire,

which is an engine of superstition.154

We encountered this kind of juggling with a concept of God who

is totally absent as well as totally present also in the works of
modern Christian theologians. But does it provide solid ground
to stand on? In the end Tom Milazzo opts for Jesus as the ultimate
example of a human being standing up against the silence of God.
But only a believer may find the absurdity of the last sentence of
his book Protest and the Silence acceptable,

And though God may slay us, yet shall we love God unto death.155

It has been objected to the use of expressions like ‘the disappear-

ance of God’ or ‘the death of God’ that they imply that at a
certain moment he was present or even alive. Gregory Erickson
and others tried to get around this objection by using the word
‘absence’ instead (Erickson 2007, 3). As we have seen earlier, sev-
eral philosophers preceded them in this respect. One look in a
good dictionary reveals that ‘absence’ is an ambiguous term too.
That is exactly why it is chosen. The word ‘absence’ can mean
both physical non-presence and a lack of companionship, a failure
to be present where one is needed or expected. In other words, it
depends on the context in which the expression ‘the absence of
God’ is used which meaning is intended.156

We have seen that a ‘new theism’ is emerging that is supported

by many distinguished scientists.157 To be sure, it is based not on
revelation or tradition, but on fresh cosmological and biological
insights which seem to favor the theory of intelligent design by a
Superior Mind. Although honest atheists may find the reasoning
behind the ‘new theism’ difficult to rebut, it should be observed
154
Wieseltier, in: Kolitz 1999, 85.
155
Milazzo 1992, 167.
156
One example: when Pope Benedict XVI in an Angelus address on Mark
1:29-31 par. called the absence of God ‘man’s truest and deepest illness’, he
obviously meant agnosticism and atheism.
(http://www.vatican.va/holy father/benedict xvi/angelus/2009/documents
/hf ben-xvi ang 20090208 en.html)
157
Section 1.5.
50 chapter one

that also the proponents of ‘new theism’ rely on a still unproven

theory. There might exist other explanations and some have been
proposed already. One of the disadvantages of the ‘new theism’ is
that it too is deterministic. After the Big Bang God has remained
inactive and silent. This comes close to the Deism of the 17th and
18th centuries. There is no possibility of feedback from the side
of the living beings that ultimately sprang from an omnipresent
and omniscient spirit. Small wonder that the ‘new theist’ An-
thony Flew concludes his book There Is a God with the following
statement,

The discovery of phenomena like the laws of nature . . . has led

scientists, philosophers, and others to accept the existence of an
infinitely intelligent Mind. Some claim to have made contact with
this Mind. I have not – yet. But who knows what could happen
next?

Someday I might hear a Voice that says, “Can you hear me

now?”158

For the ‘new theists’ God does exist, but he is still silent. But
would not an omniscient Mind have deliberately provided human
beings with intelligence and imagination so that they might con-
verse with It? Why would It have remained silent if meaningful
communication was its aim? Can some form of immaterial con-
tact between the omniscient Mind and the human mind really be
excluded? If the Mind cannot read our mind and cannot address
it, the Mind would not be omniscient. So Flew was right to leave
open the possibility that one day he might still be illuminated by
the Mind.
1.6.2.4 Is Atheism the Solution?
Protests against the new, often aggressively propagated atheism
abound. Atheists tend to underestimate the fact that there are
religions, for example Buddhism, which do not recognize deities,
but rest just as well on presuppositions that are not verifiable by
empirical tests. Characteristic is Richard Dawkins’ statement,
158
Flew 2008, 158.
 the silent god in modernity 51

. . . I shall not be concerned at all with other religions such as

Buddhism or Confucianism. Indeed, there is something to be said
for treating these not as religions at all but as ethical systems or
philosophies of life.159

Is the truth claimed by philosophies and ethical systems more

reliable than Jewish, Christian or Muslim monotheism? If that
were the case, there would be a lot less dissent in the world. In
reality, however, social values are established on the basis of a
consensus which is heavily influenced by religion. If for whatever
reason this consensus is eroding, a society experiences this as
a crisis which requires new spiritual leadership and the creative
transformation of existing values.
Let it be clear: we do not prematurely take a position in this
matter. But just like many Jewish, Christian and Muslim apolo-
getics, the new atheists exhibit a certain zeal in trying to convince
or even silence those who raise objections to their argument. And
let it be granted, they have been successful in propagating their
ideal of a secular society based on rationalistic reasoning. At the
same time it should be admitted that this became to a large ex-
tent a value-less society. As Mark Taylor formulates it poignantly,

The echoes of the death of God can be heard in the disappearance

of the self, the end of history, and the closure of the book.160

In his hugely successful novel Nachtzug nach Lissabon (Night

Train to Lisbon) Pascal Mercier, a Swiss professor of philosophy,
makes a character called Amadeo Inácio de Almeida Prado, a
brilliant seventeen year old Portuguese student, his advocate of
atheism.

I revere the word of God for I love its poetic force. I loathe the
word of God for I hate its cruelty. . . . The poetry of the divine
word is so overwhelming that it silences everything and every
protest becomes wretched yapping. That’s why you can’t just put
away the Bible, but must throw it away when you have enough of
its unreasonable demands and of the slavery it inflicts on us. It
159
Dawkins 2007, 58-59.
160
Taylor 1984, 7.
52 chapter one

is a joyless God far from life speaking out of it, a God who wants
to constrict the enormous compass of a human life–the big circle
that can be drawn when it is left free–to the single, shrunken
point of obedience.161

However, later in life this ‘godless priest’ states,

I live in myself as in a moving train. I didn’t board voluntarily,

didn’t have a choice and don’t know the name of the destination.
. . . I can’t get off. I can’t change the tracks or the destination.162

And after having had to sacrifice his friendship with his best
friend in order to save the life of the girl Fátima whom he loves,
Our life, those are fleeting formations of quicksand, formed by
one gust of wind, destroyed by the next. Images of futility that
blow away even before they have properly formed.163

However, even his love for Fátima is a mere matter of chance.

When she asks him ‘Do you also think we were destined for each
other?’ he observes skeptically,
No one is destined for another. Not only because there is no
Providence and no one else who could arrange it. No: because
there is simply no inevitability between people beyond accidental
needs and the powerful force of habit.164

Do human beings have to resign to a life governed by random-

ness? Are they doomed to live futile lives without destination?
Mercier’s novel illustrates vividly the truth of Taylor’s thesis that
an atheistic society runs the risk of becoming a valueless society.
Atheism is often presented as the logical consequence of the
Enlightenment, the emancipation of modern man. But is it? There
have always been people who stated, ‘There is no God!’ (Ps. 10:4;
14:1; 53:1). Job definitely has a point when he sees atheism as
an attitude which is only possible if one is rich, safe and well-
nourished (Job 21). He quotes those lucky fellows,
161
Mercier 2008, 169. Similar passages 216, 236, 255, 273, 276, 340, 366.
German original: Mercier 2006, 199-200).
162
Mercier 2008, 369. German original: Mercier 2006, 423.
163
Mercier 2008, 411. German original: Mercier 2006, 467.
164
Mercier 2008, 426. German original: Mercier 2006, 483-484.
 the silent god in modernity 53

And they say to God, ‘Leave us alone!

we do not appreciate knowledge about your ways!
What is the Almighty, that we should serve him?
And what would we gain by praying to him?165

If atheism is a luxury that only the prosperous can afford, the

door to asocial exploitation of less lucky people is wide open.
Of course also modern atheists advocate generosity and altruism,
but merely as a form of self-interest because the law of survival
of the fittest simply requires that they obey their selfish genes if
the worst comes to the worst.
1.6.2.5 Conclusion
Believers will have recognized many of the above attempts to ex-
plain God’s silence and some may have found several of these an-
swers comforting and helpful in their own situation. Non-believers
will have felt the need to riposte. Indeed, not all apologetic an-
swers to God’s refusal or inability to reply to man’s prayers and
laments are satisfactory. The idea that it is inadmissible to call a
silent God to account in the context of a lament is questionable,
not only because many biblical passages contradict this theolo-
gical shift,166 but because it is incompatible with the concept of
man’s free will and God’s free decision to enter into a covenant
with man.
To attribute God’s silence to human sins, as Job’s friends do,
is unacceptable because it does not take the fierce denials of Job
and the Psalmists seriously. It is also unacceptable in view of
the cries of those who became the victims of genocide or natural
disasters – we cannot make all of them sinners who would have
deserved punishment (Berges 2003, 27-30).
A book such as that of Anderson 1897167 tries to resolve the
problem by denying that we can still expect spoken messages
or miracles from God. This undermines the clear biblical mes-
sage of God’s continuing work of creation and revelation, as well
as the faith in inspired persons which is acknowledged in both
Judaism and Christianity. Anderson’s emphasis on the absolute
165
Job 21:14-15.
166
As was demonstrated brilliantly by Berges 2003.
167
Often reprinted, we used Anderson 1978.
54 chapter one

sufficiency of the divine revelation in Christ often borders on anti-

Semitism.168 Critical biblical scholars are denounced as agnostics.
Anderson’s approach boils down to the most simplistic form of
Christian fundamentalism.
The ‘new theists’ have not drawn the full consequences of their
acceptance of an omniscient and almighty Spirit. Communication
is a two-sided process, so why are they waiting for the Spirit’s
voice whereas they might just as well address It?
The concept of divine silence as found in modern literature
and theology is evidently based on the biblical concept of a God
who allegedly has spoken in biblical times, but is now forever
silent. In this study we retrace the early history of the concept of
divine speech and silence in the ancient world. In an epilogue we
explore the question if use of this concept can still be continued
or has to be abandoned.

168
E.g. Anderson 1978, 78: ‘The jews had crucified the Messiah’. And 85:
‘And finally we have seen how the rejection of that testimony by the favoured
nation led to the unfolding of the Divine purpose to deprive the jew of his
vantage-ground of privilege and to usher in the Christian dispensation.’ And
pp. 86-87: ‘What concerns us is the fact that Israel’s fall was due to the na-
tional rejection of the Messiah, and that that fall was “the reconciling of the
world” – a radical change in God’s attitude toward men, such as the Old Test-
ament Scriptures gave no indication of, and even the Gospels foreshadowed
but vaguely.’ See also p. 163.
 chapter two
prerequisites for a fresh investigation

2.1 Defining the Scope of This Study

It is more difficult than it may seem to define what ‘silence’ is
(Maitland 2009, 25-28). It may be the absence of sound or the
absence of speech. Silence has to be interpreted to acquire mean-
ing. Since this book will deal mainly with the concept of silence
in the ancient Near East, and in particular with the silence of
deities, we will try to establish what the Ancients meant when
they assumed that under circumstances God remained silent. The
truth about God is not objectively accessible to man. We do not
really know who He is. What then is divine ‘silence’ as perceived
by the Ancients?
Divine silence is related to, but not the same as divine absence.
Obviously an absent deity does not speak because he is not there
to enter into a dialogue with mankind,1 whereas a silent deity
can be attentively listening or may have reason to keep silent,
but might speak again if he wants to. Joel Burnett ends his fine
study on the absence of God in the Hebrew Bible as follows,

Through the theme of divine absence, the Hebrew Bible portrays

a God who freely chooses relationships with humankind, a God
whom human beings are free to seek, a God who responds.2

The very last part of this statement is problematic. The God of

the Hebrew Bible does not always respond. Nor did other deities
of the ancient world. In this study we concentrate not on the
absence of God, but on his silence although he is thought to be
present.
If the Word of God is inextricably connected with the word
of man, as has been emphasized by many theologians, including
Karl Barth and the Second Vatican Council,3 we need to know
more about the religions of the world in which the Hebrew Bible
1
Cf. Levinas, Sections 1.3.2.5 and 1.6.2.3.
2
Burnett 2010, 178. See also pages vii, 2, 108 where he seems to equate
divine absence and silence.
3
With regard to the latter, see e.g. Rahner 2008; Hieke 2009, 96.
56 chapter two

came into being, because that was the reality in which the biblical
writers wrote down what they believed to be the word of their own
God. As will appear later on in this study, recent discoveries in the
Near East have revealed that there are far more points of contact
and similarities between the religion of Israel and the religions of
its neighbors than is commonly realized or admitted. This is also
true of prophecy, the most prominent mode of communication
between God and man in the Bible.4 Of course these parallels
render the differences all the more interesting, and of course these
too will be discussed.
We limit our investigation to the silence of human and di-
vine beings. For example, the silent hymn that the heavens sing
to God according to Ps. 19:2-4 may once have been ascribed to
deities personifying sun, moon and stars, but in its present form
the Psalm does not concern animated beings anymore. The poet
is merely using bold metaphorical language to indicate that the
silent skies are singing a wordless ode to their Creator.
With regard to the demarcation of the ancient world we con-
fine ourselves to written texts and will only rarely indulge in the
interpretation of iconographic evidence because the interpretation
of the latter is often hypothetical. In contrast to what has been
the custom since the rise of Classicism we include early Greek
texts in our inquiry. Intensive contacts between Greece and the
Near East existed at least since the 12th century bce and there
is every reason to regard early Greece as part of the Near Eastern
world.5
Every nation of the ancient world and every period in its
long history had its own religious peculiarities, but that does not
preclude the possibility to study similarities that need not be
the result of direct contacts between religions, but reflect a sim-
ilar reaction to what was experienced as silence on the part of
the deity. Respected works like Pritchard’s Ancient Near East-
ern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, Kaiser’s Texte aus der
4
It is always risky to argue that certain biblical notions are ‘unique’. New
finds may invalidate such statements.
5
See e.g. Davies & Schofield 1995; Kropp & Wagner 1999; Brown 1995-
2001; Loretz 2002; Burkert 2003; Kaiser 2003; Alkier & Witte 2004; Görg
2005; Korpel 2006; Villing 2006; Dietrich 2007.
 prerequisites for a fresh investigation 57

Umwelt des Alten Testament, Hallo’s The Context of Scripture as

well as countless monographs and collaborative volumes explor-
ing similar phenomena in the world of the Bible demonstrate the
usefulness of this approach.
Since we are primarily interested in the phenomenon of di-
vine silence we will quote sources from Antiquity not always in
strict chronological or geographic order, although we will mostly
provide some information on date and origin. However, in many
cases the age of a certain tradition cannot be established with
certainty because the available fragments do not allow us to fol-
low the history of a literary tradition in great detail. The Meso-
potamian Gilgamesh traditions, for example, cover a history of
transmission of about two millennia and the extant tablets show
an extremely complicated genesis up to c. 1200 bce, with many
gaps.6
Some theologians may object to comparing other religions
with the Holy Bible. Especially Karl Barth advocated the view
that revelation inevitably means the end of religion.7 Yet it may
be asked if Barth did not place theology in a false dilemma
between faith-talk and ordinary discourse where persons as sub-
jects preside. It would seem that Barth’s view implies an underes-
timation of the anthropological side of the process of revelation.8
His view of the God of Israel as the God who acts, in contrast
to the speculative thinking of myth,9 influenced Old Testament
scholars like Gerhard von Rad and George Wright, but has been
shown to be based on a no longer tenable view of ancient Near
Eastern religion.10 Other deities in the ancient world too were
supposed to act in human history (e.g. the Babylonian Marduk,
the Egyptian Amun-Re, the Moabite Kemosh).
Since human beings cannot describe the divine adequately by
means of the limited possibilities of human language a paragraph
will be devoted to the human nature of religious language (Section
2.2).
6
Tigay 1982; George 2003; Fleming & Milstein 2010.
7
Barth, KD, Bd. 1/2, 304ff. Cf. Marquard 1968.
8
Cf. High 1967, 188ff.; Pöhlmann 1990, 371. See also above, Section 1.6.2.1.
9
Especially clear in KD, Bd. III/2, 536.
10
See e.g. Albrektson 1967.
58 chapter two

If the way in which people speak about God is patterned after

human behavior, we must conclude that also the silence of God is
patterned after the function of silence in human communication.
Therefore, it is useful to first look at the function of silence on the
latter level. Human communication always needs interpretation
on the basis of the actual situation in which words are spoken. Si-
lences are part of every human utterance and by their very nature
require even more explanation (cf. Sections 2.3-5). Therefore ex-
egesis of the texts involved is imperative (Hieke 2009), but for
the purpose of this study it will not be necessary to delve deeply
into form and redaction history of every individual passage. Our
approach will be pragmatic, making use of existing translations
of primary sources11 and restricting technical discussion to the
absolute minimum. Quotations are given in English translation.
In this way we hope to make the book accessible also to non-
specialists.
Since human utterances about the divine are inevitably pat-
terned after ordinary human discourse, we first investigate what
reasons people in Antiquity may have had to keep silent among
themselves (Chapter 3).
In Chapter 4 we discuss how human beings did address the
deity in Antiquity. Hymns, lamentations, prayers, letters to dei-
ties, magic rituals, requests for signs and acts were some of the
more common ways of approaching the deities. Also silence was
a way of asking the deity to pay attention to one’s misery.
In Chapter 5 we relate how the deity did address man accord-
ing to the sources available. Direct communication was restricted
to certain privileged persons. Mostly intermediaries relayed the
messages of the deities.
Chapter 6 is devoted to the silence of deities as recorded in
the extant writings of the ancient world and in the Hebrew Bible.
To allow the reader a convenient overview of categories of
silence in the ancient sources we discuss we group the reasons for
silence under the following headings,
11
Texts from the Bible will be provided with a translation of our own in
order to avoid a choice between the often widely diverging existing trans-
lations which all too often have been influenced by theological or esthetic
considerations.
 prerequisites for a fresh investigation 59

1. Silence because of offenses

2. Silence because of awe or fear
3. Silence because of forbearance or prudence
4. Silence because of incapacity
5. Silence because of sleep

Whereas silence among humans could mostly be explained along

these lines, the alterity of divine beings made it often difficult to
fathom the reasons for silence on the part of the gods. So we de-
vote an extra section to incomprehensible divine silence (Section
6.2.2).
We fully realize that there are other possibilities of categor-
izing12 and that any such classification is imperfect because in
reality categories overlap to some extent.
In an Epilogue (Chapter 7) we tentatively explore the con-
sequences of what we have found, and try to establish in which
way our findings may be relevant to those who experience God’s
silence as utterly frustrating. We realize that further philosoph-
ical, psychological, systematic and practical theological studies on
this subject are indispensable, but we deemed it useful to start
the investigation from the disciplines with which we are more
or less familiar. But even this field of studies has grown so fast
over the past century that we can only offer a modest selection
from the material available and may well have overlooked some
relevant evidence.

2.2 The Human Nature of Religious Language

If people state that God ‘keeps silent’ they presuppose that nor-
mal audible or written communication between God and human
beings is possible. Mostly they assume that God has spoken in
the past, for example directly addressing the biblical patriarchs,
Moses and the prophets. It is important, however, to realize that
the concept of a speaking God belongs to the domain of meta-
phorical religious language. To be more specific, phrases like these
12
E.g. the 10 categories used by Brunner-Traut 1979, or the 12 categories
enumerated by Pelsy 1995, 31-34, or the 14 categories distinguished by Bar-
rado 1997. As a matter of fact, Muers 2004, 8-9, 12 shows how difficult it is
to interpret silence without sufficient context.
60 chapter two

originate from the common idea that God can be described ana-
logous to a human being. Anthropomorphic concepts of God dom-
inate all God-talk from ancient times until today, even though the
inadequacy of this ‘humanizing’ of God is generally admitted.13
The metaphorical (or analogous) nature of the biblical and
other oriental descriptions of the divine has long been recog-
nized.14 For the purpose of our study it is sufficient to briefly
review the major philosophical and theological positions taken
with regard to the metaphorical nature of religious language.

2.2.1 Metaphor in the Philosophy of Language

The term ‘metaphor’ derives from the Greek metaforav (meta-
fora), composed of meta ‘trans-’ and fevrein ‘to carry,’ or trans-
porting the meaning from one word to the other. The word was
coined by Greek grammarians of the classical period (5th cen-
tury bce). In those days political strategy was a major subject of
study. One of the qualities a politician needed was eloquence. The
technique of eloquence could be learned in the schools of rhetoric.
Here the study of language itself was fostered as a by-product be-
cause speech was a formidable weapon in a verbal duel. People
could be influenced by the conscious use of language. One of the
tricks of eloquence was the willful misunderstanding of an oppon-
ent’s ambiguous use of words. Initially, this strategic weapon in
political debates was called ‘metaphor’.

13
See e.g. Rahner 1994, 135-136; White 2010. However, see also a statement
by Lenzi 2010, 309, n. 14: ‘Humans generally think of deities as if they were
people, despite the objections of theologians. The cognitive scientific branch
of religious studies is empirically establishing the cognitive basis for this uni-
versal religious conception. It is, in a sense, therefore natural for people to
look to their own social conventions for interacting with the gods.’
Modern empirical research demonstrates that concepts of God are mostly
relational, i.e. that communication with God is seen as comparable to con-
versation between humans. Cf. Van der Lans 2001, 356; Schaap-Jonker 2008,
140-142.
14
See e.g. Soskice 1987; Brettler 1989; Korpel 1990; Eidevall 1996; Seifert
1996; Jablónski et al. 1998; Aaron 2002; Van Hecke 2005; Basson 2006;
Bergmann 2008; White 2010.
 prerequisites for a fresh investigation 61

Next to the importance for rhetoric, metaphor played a major

role in the science of poetics.15 Here its function was totally dif-
ferent. The purpose of metaphor in poetics was not to persuade
people, but to express as purely as possible what one experienced
and could not express in literal terms. As a result, the original
concept of metaphor was characterized by a certain duality.
So the word ‘metaphor’ had been in use for some time already
when Aristotle (384-322 bce) started to describe the phenomenon
in a more systematic way.16 His view became known as the so-
called substitution theory of metaphor – mistakenly, because Ar-
istotle was not as simplistic as thinking that metaphor works by
substituting one word for another.17
From the 4th century bce to the middle of the 19th century
little was added to the theory of metaphor that went beyond
what Aristotle had stated. Mostly, metaphor was regarded as a
stylistic ornament that belonged to the domain of literature and
aesthetics.
Some writers and poets, like Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-
1778)18 and Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792-1822),19 however, dared
to go further and advocated the primacy of figures of speech in
the development of language. Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) was
one of those who embraced this concept, but he carried it to its
extreme consequences. In denouncing not only metaphor itself,
but all human language as nothing but faded, empty metaphor,
Nietzsche paved the way for the modern research into this re-
markable figure of speech. Is it true that language, and metaphor
in particular, is unable to convey truth?
The first to take on that challenge was Ivor Richards. Al-
though he had earlier defined metaphor along the lines of logical

15
Aristotle 1926, 1406-1407 (366-369); Aristotle 1932, 1457b (78f.).
16
For some particularly illuminating discussions of Aristotle’s views on
metaphor and analogy see Derrida 1974; Ricoeur 1978, 9-43; Kirby 1997;
White 2010, 7-9, 27-72. The different types of metaphor Aristotle distin-
guishes are discussed in detail by Levin 1982.
17
Korpel 1990, 36-37; Kirby 1997, 519-521, 538-539.
18
Rousseau 1966, Ch.3.
19
Shelley 1962, 301. Others followed suit, e.g., Paul 1804, 179; Biese 1893,
24; Runze 1889, 14.
62 chapter two

positivism, denying it all cognitive value,20 he made a complete

volte-face in a later and far more influential study.21 He criticizes
rhetoric for its treatment of metaphor as a secondary element of
language, as a mere ornament. On the contrary, metaphor is om-
nipresent, permeates all our discourse, is used in all sciences, and
may rightly be called the constitutive form of language. There-
fore it is extremely important to understand the way metaphor
works. In the analysis of metaphors, two elements have to be dis-
tinguished, the tenor and the vehicle.22 The tenor is the meaning
of the metaphor or the underlying idea, the vehicle is the fig-
ure.23 When we are using a metaphor, the two thoughts render
their meaning by interaction, not by substitution. The effect of
this is ‘a meaning of more varied powers than can be ascribed to
either’, tenor or vehicle.24 Therefore metaphor cannot be reduced
to a literal paraphrase.
It took another twenty years before the new insight in metaphor
provided by Richards was taken over and expanded by the philo-
sopher Max Black. Black introduces some new terms for the ana-
lysis of metaphor. An example he uses is ‘The chairman plowed
through the discussion.’ This sentence he calls a case of meta-
phor. ‘With this we are implying that at least one word (here the
word “plowed”) is being used metaphorically in the sentence, and
that at least one of the remaining words is being used literally.’25
Black calls the word ‘plowed’ the focus of the metaphor, and the
remainder of the sentence the frame.26 Metaphor works like a fil-
ter. In the metaphorical expression ‘man is a wolf,’ there are two
subjects. When in the metaphorical expression the word ‘wolf’ is
linked to ‘man’ some of the commonplaces associated with ‘wolf’
will be pushed into the background because they cannot be re-
lated to man. ‘If to call a man a wolf is to put him in a special
20
See Ogden & Richards 1946, 149. Cf. Johnson 1981, 17-18; Kjärgaard
1986, 15-16.
21
Richards 1936, 89-138.
22
Richards 1936, 96.
23
Richards 1936, 97.
24
Richards 1936, 100.
25
Black 1962, 28.
26
Black 1962, 28.
 prerequisites for a fresh investigation 63

light, we must not forget that the metaphor makes the wolf seem
more human than he otherwise would.’27
An in many respects novel approach to the problem of meta-
phor was introduced by the linguist George Lakoff and the philo-
sopher Mark Johnson (Lakoff & Johnson 1980). Their first, rather
radical, though not innovative statement is that almost all lan-
guage is metaphorical. They use the conceptual metaphor Argu-
ment is war to illustrate their view. This metaphor is reflected
in a wide variety of expressions used in everyday language, e.g.
‘Your claims are indefensible’ and ‘He attacked every weak point
in my argument’. It has to be understood that these expressions
not only reflect a way of talking but also a way of acting. Argu-
ments really can be won or lost, and the person we are arguing
with is really seen as an opponent. In this way, Lakoff and John-
son want to emphasize that metaphor is more than just a matter
of language. Metaphor also is a part of life. The principal idea of
Lakoff and Johnson is that metaphors structure the ordinary con-
ceptual system of our culture as reflected in everyday language.28
The theory of Lakoff and Johnson became widely accepted and
was elaborated by others.29
One of the subconscious root metaphors used in the medical
profession, for example, is The doctor is a detective. Such
a conceptual metaphor generates a host of related associations.
The doctor has to ‘find’ the cause of the disease. The disease
is a ‘criminal’ who has to be ‘tracked down’ and therefore the
patient has to be ‘interrogated’ about his background and about
the symptoms of the illness. On the basis of the interrogation the
doctor may arrive at certain ‘suspicions’. Even surgery can be
explained in this frame as a kind of ‘forensics’, research to find
out more about the disease. Also warlike imagery appears to be
helpful. Thus, the outbreak of SARS in 2003 was described as
a ‘threat’. Illness was an ‘enemy’ that had to be ‘traced’. There
27
Black, 1962, 44. This is the so-called interaction view of metaphor, a term
introduced by Black 1962, and based on the ideas on metaphor developed by
Richards.
28
See also Lakoff & Turner 1989, 51; Yu 2008; Basson 2006, 34-35.
29
E.g. Fauconnier & Turner 2003 as well as Kövecses 2010, a book com-
pletely built on their conceptual system of metaphors.
64 chapter two

even was a special ‘incident command post’ in the province of

Ontario to monitor the development of the disease in the region
(Villamil Touriño 2006).
For the understanding of metaphor in ancient religious lan-
guage only a few aspects from the general discussion on metaphor
are really important.

1. The creative power of metaphor, as it is used in religious

language, to describe God whom no one has ever seen.

2. The culturally based associations connected to specific re-

ligious metaphors.

3. The existence of conceptual metaphors (root metaphors)

generating a tree of related metaphors – the beginning of
theology.

All further discussions on the mental processes active when people

use metaphor or when they read metaphor in fact do not add
much to the understanding and interpretation of culturally based
religious language.

2.2.2 Metaphor in Religious Language

Conceptual metaphors create a fuzzy set of associations between
related images and targeted meanings, resulting in overviews of
conceptual correspondences, nowadays referred to as mappings
(Kövecses 2010, 7-10). An example from the biblical world is God
is a shepherd. This conceptual metaphor results in the flock as
metaphor for the people, the rod and staff of the shepherd as his
guidance and care (Ps. 23:4), sheep as metaphor for the elderly
people and lambs as the youngsters (Isa. 40:10-11). The green
pastures become a metaphor for the fruitful land of Israel (Jer.
23:3; Ezek. 34:14, 18), the wolves trying to get the sheep represent
the nation’s enemies (Ezek. 34:8).
In the same way concepts like divine speech, words, revela-
tion, can be regarded as belonging to the same domain or map-
ping. There is no basic difference between religious and other
 prerequisites for a fresh investigation 65

metaphors.30 However, religious metaphor is used in an especially

creative way, for describing objects and ideas for which no literal
terms exist.31 To speak about the ‘arm’ of God is just as accur-
ate, or inaccurate, as to speak about a ‘black hole’ in modern
astronomy. In both cases the metaphor hints at a truth, based on
analogy, that will gradually become more clearly defined as it is
accepted and further explored by an ever growing circle of initi-
ated. However, the theologian and the astronomer will be humble
enough to concede that they will never arrive at a fully adequate
description in any particular case. Because of its special capacity
to hint at a truth that cannot be described adequately in terms
of general human experience, metaphor is the ideal vehicle to talk
about God whom ‘no one has ever seen.’32 It has been established
that both in Israel and in the surrounding world people were using
their metaphors and similes for the divine knowingly.33
Since human beings cannot adequately describe God and the
divine world, they have to make do with terms borrowed from
ordinary human discourse. It is their conviction that the words
they use do hint at a reality, but since the approximation is admit-
tedly inaccurate, their faith discourse is replete with metaphors
and should for that reason always remain open to interpretation.
This is even more true of silences which can have many different
meanings in ordinary discourse (cf. Section 2.3 below).
Divine speech and silence are common elements in the Bible
and its world. They form a subcategory of the major conceptual

30
See e.g. Kövecses 2010, 26, who lists religion under his thirteen examples
of target domains of metaphor.
31
See e.g. Soskice 1987; Korpel 1990; Stiver 1996; Aaron 2002; Van Hecke
2005. Compare the advice of the ‘Languedoc Strangler’ in Schmitt’s novel
Oscar and the Lady in Pink, ‘Every time you believe in him, he’ll exist a bit
more. If you keep at it, he’ll exist completely’, quoted in Section 1.5 above.
32
John 1:18; cf. 5:37; 6:46; 14:8ff.; 1 Cor. 2:9; 13:12; 1 John 4:12. A philo-
sopher who tried to explain divine speech in a more literal way, without
equating it with revelation, is Nicholas Wolterstorff. In our opinion, however,
he misses the special quality of metaphor to describe the divine when he de-
mands ‘what is the fact of the matter to which metaphor points?’ (Wolterstorff
1995, 10). See also the critical review by Childs 2005 who rightly stresses that
the role of the human biblical witnesses is neglected by Wolterstorff.
33
Korpel 1990, 82-87.
66 chapter two

metaphor or simile34 God is (like) a human being, and more

specifically his discourse belongs to the source domain of intel-
lectual capacities, especially mind and communication.35 There-
fore divine speech and silence should be interpreted against the
background of human discourse. However, time and again the
Ancients make it abundantly clear that this is merely a way of
speaking, because everything in the realm of the divine is greater
or smaller than human beings can imagine, let alone understand.
To illustrate this with an example, in many religions of Antiquity
the voice of God is represented as thunder which, as a Ugaritic
myth states, is not understood by mankind.36 Yet it is also in the
power of a deity to address a person through silence (e.g. 1 Kgs
19:11-13).
Black’s interaction theory of metaphor applies here too. By
making a mental comparison of God with human beings the latter
somehow assumed theomorphic features.37 Especially kings and
34
On the difficulty to distinguish metaphor and simile see Korpel 1990,
54-58.
35
On this conceptual group of metaphors see the Chapter on Intellectual
Capacities in Korpel, 1990, 147-164.
36
Cf. De Moor 1987, 10.
37
Pace Lakoff & Turner 1989, 131-133, who erroneously conclude that the
interaction view means that the metaphor can be reversed. The point is, that
by combining source domain and target domain associations of both fields
are also combined subconsciously, thus giving God, in the metaphor God is a
shepherd, features of a shepherd, but vice versa the human shepherd receives
divine features in the minds of people acquainted with this biblical metaphor.
Consequently, this implicitly means that superhuman qualities were ascribed
to shepherds which also applied if the metaphor was applied to other leaders,
e.g. kings.
Or let us contemplate the example of ‘man was created in the image of
God’ (Gen. 1:26). Because of this comparison believers must behave as more
than just human beings, they are expected to behave as if they were remotely
reflecting God’s goodness, wisdom, etc. The idea of the philosopher Ludwig
Feuerbach (1804-1872), adopted by Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) and later
psychoanalytics, that the phrase could be just as easily be reversed (‘man
created God in his own human image’) turns out to be wrong. The interaction
view merely suggests the comparison of associations from both the source and
the target field. Source and target of the metaphor, however, can not simply
be exchanged. ‘Man is a wolf’ evokes the evilness of mankind, but hardly
its hairiness. The conceptual spheres overlap only partially. Compare Davis
2009, 149: ‘if we are similar to God in some ways then God is similar to us
 prerequisites for a fresh investigation 67

queens often acquired divine status in the propagandistic court

poetry of the ancient world and were sometimes deified after their
death.38 Later on this concept was democratized and all Israelites
became favored children of God (Korpel 1996b). A remarkable
feature in the priestly creation story of Gen. 1 is the theomorph-
ousness not only of the king but of all mankind. According to
this rather late account God created man and women ‘in our im-
age’ and ‘after our likeness’.39 Because his human creatures are
called ‘very beautiful’ this justifies the assumption that the phys-
ical appearance of man reflected the beauty of God himself. In
the ancient Near East the ruling principle was that royal figures
resembled the gods, an idea which was idealized in the reliefs and
statues representing the royal family. In the creation story, how-
ever, the ruling power is not given to a king but to all humankind
(Gen. 1:28). By mentioning this ruling power, the author of the
creation story implicitly emphasizes the royal status of human-
kind, and therefore its beauty and appearance was assumed to
resemble that of God. In a world where the divine and human
nature were so closely interrelated it was not experienced as ab-
normal when human beings claimed to speak in the name of God,
even if the word of God was mediated by someone else (e.g. Exod.
4:13-16). Or if their prayers remained unanswered, they sought for
explanations they knew from the realm of interpersonal relations
to explain God’s silence.

2.2.3 Religious Language: Conclusion

Although some ignore or dispute the metaphorical character of
religious language, the general view is that in fact human beings
are unable to speak of God, because his essence is beyond all
human imagination. All this means that whatever human beings
say about deities, including the messages for which they claim a
divine origin, are merely a bleak reflection of a totally different

in some ways’ (italics ours). But a complete reversal is impossible: ‘Wolf is a

man’ is immediately recognized as nonsense, however ‘human’ the wolf may
seem in the tale of Little Red Riding Hood.
38
Korpel 2011.
39
Both words refer to physical appearance. Cf. De Moor 1998a, 115.
68 chapter two

reality. This is the axiom of the so-called apophatic or negat-

ive theology: the totally different nature of the deity, the tran-
scendence of God which renders any comparison with the human
experience inadequate. We can only talk about God by way of
negation.
It is sometimes surmised that this negative theology is a con-
struct of modern times. Others seek the roots of the negative
theology in the works of Plato (c. 428/7-348/7), the Jewish philo-
sopher Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 bce-50), the Neo-Platonist
Plotinus (c. 205-270) or in some later Christian mystics (cf. Sec-
tion 1.3). All these views are misconceptions. The total alterity
of the divine being was realized much earlier by Egyptian theo-
logians of the New Kingdom, long before the earliest strata of
the Hebrew Bible were written.40 The paradoxical nature of re-
ligious language was realized already more than 3000 years ago.
The same Egyptian theologians who said that Amun-Re cannot
be described in human language or art, who emphasized his total
incomparability, hiddenness, unapproachability, nevertheless gave
him descriptive names, sang hymns to him, ascribed to him many
properties, among them speech, and worshipped him in anthro-
pomorphic and theriomorphic shapes. This is the paradox of faith
that inevitably crops up whenever people want to share their wor-
ship of a transcendental deity.
This paradox is also present in the Hebrew Bible, for example
in Isa. 45,
15
However, you are a God who hides himself,
O Savior God of Israel!
16
They are ashamed and disgraced, all of them;
altogether they go in disgrace,
the craftsmen with their drawings.
17
But Israel is saved by the Lord,
a salvation of ages.
They will not be ashamed and not be disgraced
to ages everlasting (Isa. 45:15-17).

Although Second Isaiah rejects the images worshipped by other

40
Hornung 1971; Assmann 1979; 1983; De Moor 1997, 41-64. Cf. Section
6.1.1 below.
 prerequisites for a fresh investigation 69

nations, this prophet believes that his hidden God manifests him-
self by delivering his people, just as He had done in the past,
especially during the Exodus from Egypt. For this prophet it was
not contradictory to believe that his hidden God would act again
in a concrete, visible way. And he intones time and again, ‘Thus
says the Lord . . . ’. It has been pointed out that Isa. 45:19 (‘I
have not spoken in hiddenness’) is relevant to the interpretation
of v. 15: to Israel God has revealed himself in the spoken word
(Fornara 2004, 85-87).
The negative theology41 that denies any possibility of God-
talk is often attributed to Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900). He
preferred silence over natural language (Angier 2006, 121-122),
yet he himself too was unable to free himself from inadequate,
worn metaphors. Is it really so objectionable to talk about the
divine in human language? Charles Wackenheim nicely sums up
our predicament,

In the end everything which human beings have ever said on

the subject of or in the name of God – including analogical and
metaphorical language – is expressed within the limits of human
discourse. To say that ‘only God can really talk about God’ is a
figure of style, because no word of God reaches us without the
mediation of a human discourse or a human word.42

Early on it was realized that there is simply no other possibility.

One of the earliest proponents of the so-called accommodation
theory – God accommodates himself to what human beings can
understand – was Ephrem the Syrian (c. 306-373). In a poem
the refrain of which runs ‘Blessed is He who has appeared to our
human race under so many metaphors’, he continues,

We should realize that, had He not put on the names of such

things, it would not have been possible for Him to speak with us
humans. By means of what belongs to us did He draw close to
us: He clothed Himself in our language, so that He might clothe
us in His mode of life.43

41
For some succinct criticism see Wackenheim 2002, 93-97.
42
Our translation. Original French text: Wackenheim 2002, 29.
43
Translation Brock & Kiraz 2006, 19.
70 chapter two

We hope to demonstrate in this book that if we accept this line of

thinking about divine speech, we will also be in a better position
to understand divine silence. However, faith is not merely some
highly personal experience. Faith must be shared to find confirm-
ation in the community of faith. It is not one face that dimly
reflects divinity, in the community of faith we discover that many
more have seen similar glimpses of the Eternal. The Letter to the
Hebrews defines faith as ‘the assurance of things hoped for, the
conviction of things not seen’ (Heb. 11:1), but continues immedi-
ately with ‘for therein the ancients received (God’s) attestation’
(Heb. 11:2, cf. 11:4, 5, 39). It is a long line of pious people, a
‘cloud of witnesses’ (Heb. 12:1), that gives the faithful the assur-
ance that there is truth to be found in the imperfect images we
perceive. As Pope Benedict XVI wrote in his Encyclical Letter
Spe Salvi,

Faith is not merely a personal reaching out towards things to

come that are still totally absent: it gives us something. It gives
us even now something of the reality we are waiting for, and this
present reality constitutes for us a ‘proof’ of the things that are
still unseen. Faith draws the future into the present, so that it
is no longer simply a ‘not yet’. The fact that this future exists
changes the present; the present is touched by the future reality,
and thus the things of the future spill over into those of the
present and those of the present into those of the future.44

2.3 Silence Presupposes Speech

2.3.1 Introduction
Silence cannot exist without sound. But it would be too simple
to describe silence merely negatively as ‘the absence of sound’. If
we talk about the calm before the storm we describe a natural
44
Spe Salvi, § 7, authorized English translation. Original Latin text: ‘Fides
non est solum personalis inclinatio ad ea quae ventura sunt sed adhuc omnino
absunt; ipsa nobis quiddam largitur. Nobis iam nunc tribuit aliquid realit-
atis exspectatae, et haec praesens realitas ‘probationem’ quandam nobis con-
stituit rerum quae nondum conspiciuntur. Ipsa attrahit futurum intra tempus
praesens, eo ut hoc extremum tempus non sit amplius solum illud ‘nondum’.
Existentia huius futuri mutat praesens; praesens futura realitate attingitur,
et ita res futurae in praesentes vertuntur et praesentes in futuras.’
 prerequisites for a fresh investigation 71

phenomenon which we know will be broken soon by a lot of noise.

But this kind of silence is not a break of communication. Nobody
is sending a signal. If all the birds in our garden suddenly fall
silent we start looking for a raptor or cat. Yet this bird silence
is more than the calm before the storm. It is a rupture of the
normal multi-sided communication between birds that serves as
a warning.
In human communication silence often means much more than
the absence of sound.45 Christoph Wulf describes the absence of
speech as follows,

Being silent forms the horizon before which all talk happens. It
permeates and encloses the process of speaking. The melody of
speech consists in words and pauses. Silence has its place and time
in the pauses between words and phrases in which thoughts are
formed. For the listener it is a necessary preliminary to the decod-
ing of the semantic and metaphorical dimension of speech. Every
speaker uses not only words, but also non-words, the pauses, the
places and moments of being silent. Silence is a constituent of all
interaction. A person speaking causes others to be silent, making
them his audience and determining their silence by his speech.
Their listening is part of the talking and therefore also of the un-
derstanding. The hearers help the speaker to create and develop
his thoughts.46

It is evident, however, that an unnaturally long silence on the

part of a speaker causes uneasiness among the hearers. Does he
feel unwell? Has he lost the thread of his speech? Does it suddenly
strike him that what he wanted to say is utter nonsense? Has he
lost heart seeing the scowls on the faces of his audience?
Also the shortening or total lack of pauses can have an ali-
enating effect.47 When we hear a so-called ‘rapper’ delivering his
text, the lack of natural pauses between words contributes to the
feeling of uneasiness many of us will experience.
45
Jaworski 1997, 3, proposes to view silence as a metaphor for communic-
ation, but this seems overextending the common understanding of the term.
46
Our translation. Original German: Wulf 1992, 7. See also Barrado 1997,
7-8; Van Dijk 2006, 31-35.
47
Cf. Dorfles 1992, 24.
72 chapter two

So there are pauses which by our long training as listeners

we interpret as ‘normal’ and silences which are experienced as
abnormal and call for an urgent resumption of normal oral com-
munication.
The use of silence in spoken language is an unspoken invita-
tion to interpretation.48 The hearer is forced to formulate a hypo-
thesis about its meaning. There are many kinds of eloquent silence
– silence expressing awe, sorrow, despair, ignorance, embarrass-
ment, indignation, contentment.49 It depends on the situation
how we interpret such silences.

2.3.2 Spaces Marking Rhetorical Silences

Of course it might be objected that in the case of the Bible we
are severely handicapped because we cannot hear Moses or any
other person from biblical times speaking anymore. However, to
some extent this also applies to modern written or printed texts.
We use all kinds of graphical substitutes for emphasis or silence.
We hardly realize it anymore, but layout is a mighty means to
steer our interpretation of texts. Without underlining, boldface,
italics and all kinds of punctuation it would be hard for us to
understand what the writer intended. In written texts the blanks
between words, blanks between lines, extra empty space at the
end of verselines, indentation to mark off new paragraphs are
substitutes for silence (Fierro Bardajı́ 1992). Few people realize
that many of these clever tricks were already used in some of the
oldest alphabetic texts we have, for example the clay tablets of
Ugarit50 dating from around 1200 bce.51
It has long been known that horizontal lines on Babylonian
and Ugaritic clay tablets were used to demarcate logical sec-

48
Cf. Muers 2001, 90: ‘The keeping of silence is a communicative action the
content of which is underdetermined.’ (with references).
49
For fuller lists of this kind and evaluation of their importance in cultural
and interpersonal relations see Wulf 1992; Jaworski 1993; Jaworski 1997; Eph-
ratt 2007.
50
A Canaanite city on the coast of modern Syria.
51
We thank Professor Wayne T. Pitard for his permission to check some
Ugaritic passages in the InscriptiFact database.
 prerequisites for a fresh investigation 73

tions in literary texts.52 For us it is confusing that the ancient

scribes used this kind of ruling for various purposes, e.g. to de-
marcate strophes and paragraphs.53 Moreover, duplicate copies
of the same text demonstrate that the scribes inserted these ho-
rizontal lines inconsistently, omitting them at will.54 Where they
employed them, however, it seems likely that they often wanted
to mark a silence, for example when a priest had to establish if
a sacrificial victim was without blemish. Because if it was not,
there was no need to recite the rest of the text anymore.55
It is useful to observe that Ugaritic tablets divided into sec-
tions by rulings are also divided by empty spaces because the last
line of each section is often left blank. It is our contention that
in Ugaritic literary texts blanks at the end of lines often fulfill
the function to mark a pause when the text was recited. A few
examples may illustrate this statement.
When Kotharu56 urges Ba,lu57 to slay his opponent Yammu58
and to reestablish his kingship, wide spaces after the crucial lines
(KTU 1.2:IV.9-10) mark this exciting turn of the story. A moment
of tension also occurs when it is narrated that Ba,lu is afraid of
the god of death Môtu. Will he give in to the latter’s demand
to surrender? Indeed there is a blank at the beginning of Ba,lu’s
unintroduced reply just after KTU 1.5:II.7 where the narrator
relates that Ba,lu was afraid of Môtu. Again there are blanks after
line 9 and line 12 when Ba,lu actually announces his surrender in
a message to Môtu: ‘I am your slave, yes, yours for ever!’
Several times wider spacing seems to mark the introduction of
direct speech. However, a line where it is evident that no switch of
speaker is involved, but a rhetorical effect is intended is the blank
at the end of KTU 1.5:I.25. Here the space indicates a dramatic
silence. Môtu has just observed that Ba,lu was celebrating the
completion of his new palace with all the other gods, happily
52
Cf. Korpel 2000; 2005a; Mabie 2004.
53
Korpel 2000, 40-3.
54
Korpel 2005a, 148.
55
Korpel 2005a, 146.
56
The technician among the gods of Ugarit.
57
Weather-god. His name is actually the same as that of the biblical Baal.
58
Sea-god.
74 chapter two

dining and wining, when he lets fall a meaningfull silence and

continues, ‘but I was forgotten, O Ba,lu!’.
The use of spaces to divide paragraphs is also attested in
other Northwest Semitic inscriptions, as has been demonstrated
by Ingo Kottsieper (Kottsieper 2003). In the Phoenician Karatepe
inscriptions (c. 720 bce), for example, sense units are clearly
marked by spaces. Mostly this happens at the end of lines, as
in Ugarit, but sometimes also in the middle of lines of writing,
what in the Hebrew tradition would be called a Setumah (closed
section). Also in the Ah.iqar papyri from Elephantine and in some
Punic texts spaces are used to delimit paragraphs.
If we now look at the Hebrew evidence, it appears that several
of the earliest manuscripts from the Judean Desert exhibit many
more spaces than the later Masoretic manuscripts. Emanuel Tov
and Eugene Ulrich have called such deviating spacing ‘impression-
istic’. Is it? Such a term seems to presuppose that there existed
some kind of standard from which imaginative scribes deviated
at will. It is true that the rabbis have strived after uniformity
with regard to spacing, but in reality the use of spaces remained
inconsistent up till the late Middle Ages.
In 2007 we described spacing in the Hebrew manuscript 80
of the French National Library (De Moor & Korpel 2007). This
codex contains the Prophets and Writings. Unfortunately it is
undated, but it is a rare and hitherto unnoticed example of a so-
called Tibero-Palestinian manuscript. The spacing in the Paris
codex deviates in many instances from the exemplary Tiberian
manuscripts and we were able to establish that its division of
the text often concurs with pre-Tiberian traditions. This counsels
against dismissing such spacing too soon as ‘impressionistic’.
In this book we will give many examples where blank spaces in
the Hebrew tradition evidently mark rhetorical silences. Silences
were not only described in words, they were also indicated by
blank spaces in the text (cf. Index of Subjects: space).

2.4 The Silent God: The Biblical Roots

Because for most Jews and Christians the roots of the faith
in a speaking or non-speaking God lay in the Bible, and con-
sequently those who denounced their belief often referred to the
 prerequisites for a fresh investigation 75

same source, it is sensible to start with a re-examination of the

biblical data on the silence of God. A relatively small number of
scholarly studies deals with the concept of silence in the Bible
and discusses a number of passages in which God is said to be
silent.59 However, none of these studies places the biblical data
in the context of its own world. Was there a difference in the way
other ancient Near Eastern peoples conceptualized divine speech
or its absence? Moreover, only Barrado has treated the subject
of the silence of God in connection with human silence, but his
treatment was rather superficial and he did not draw the con-
sequences of dealing with divine silence as an anthropomorphic
concept.
It can be stated right away that it is understandable that the
theme has not been discussed very often in the exegetical litera-
ture. In comparison with the thousands of places where the Bible
describes divine speech the number of passages where it deals
explicitly with divine silence is dwindling.60 However, in view of
its prominent place in modern drama and thought it is certainly
worthwhile to reexamine the biblical data and confront them with
the skepticism of our own era. Was it justified to accuse God
of unwarranted silence in view of what people in biblical times
thought about the reasons why their deities fell silent?
The problem we are dealing with concerns biblical theology61
as a whole. It is for this reason that we will refer to the ‘Old’
Testament as the Hebrew Bible, even though we will occasion-
ally also pay attention to the New Testament and some relevant
Judaic sources.

2.5 The Silent God: The Biblical World

Since the Bible originated in the ancient Near Eastern world, it
is useful to have a look at statements about human and divine
59
Neher 1970; Barrado 1997; Dietrich 2004. For the Psalms, Gillmayr-
Bucher 2003; Spieckermann 2004.
60
See above, Section 1.6.2.
61
We understand ‘biblical theology’ as comprising the main theological
views expressed in the biblical canon which, however, cannot be understood
without recourse to the world in which it originated, and so has a religion-
historical aspect too.
76 chapter two

silence in documents from Antiquity. So we start every chapter

with a brief review of written material from the ancient Near East
and occasionally Greece. We hope to demonstrate that also in the
world around ancient Israel there was an acute awareness that in
times of crisis, when the old paradigms did not work anymore, it
was imperative to formulate fresh answers to the challenges of the
moment (Lanczkowski 1955). Since trust in divine guidance was
still quite normal in those days, it was felt as particularly grievous
when the gods did not seem willing to speak or act anymore in
such situations of distress.
We intend to refer to quite a number of passages in the lit-
erature of the Ancients where this silence on the part of deities
occurs. The anthropomorphic nature of human utterances about
the divine world62 induced us to also study a number of situations
in which human beings kept silent among themselves (Chapter
3). Since we want to study the phenomenon of divine silence, we
first discuss how people tried to communicate with their deities
(Chapter 4) and next how deities were supposed to communic-
ate with man (Chapter 5). Finally, Chapter 6 will describe the
situations in which deities were said to be silent. In an Epilogue
(Chapter 7) we try to take stock of the consequences of our find-
ings.

2.6 Why This Approach?

The prerequisites formulated above may seem to imply a rather
laborious approach to our subject. Why do we deem this neces-
sary? First of all because many readers will have an understand-
ably limited knowledge about the ancient world and many of them
will still cherish the idea that Israel was a unique people chosen
by God and living in splendid isolation in the land that God had
promised to Abraham. Some passages in the Bible itself certainly
suggest this view (e.g. Gen. 12:1-9; Num. 23:9). To many believ-
ers who accept the biblical testimony all this is true and will be
of lasting value.
However, as in modern times, many other nations of Antiquity
regarded themselves as the unique and privileged favorites of their
62
Cf. Section 2.2.
 prerequisites for a fresh investigation 77

deities. Not only Israel, but also other nations regarded their ter-
ritory as an inalienable inheritance from their gods. Not only the
God of Israel revealed himself in spoken and written language, the
same was said of other deities. Everywhere in the ancient world
people expected their deities to speak or write words of salvation
in reply to their prayers. Of course some freethinkers of the past
few centuries have long suspected all this, but only fairly recently
these new insights that have come to light as a result of the work
of archaeologists and orientalists can be proved convincingly. The
realization of this fact may help to put the modern discussion
about the silence of God in proper perspective. We hope that our
broad approach will clarify the relationship between the human
and the divine factor in the transmission of speech and silence as
recorded in ancient sources, including the Bible.
As we have seen, discussions about the silence of God tend
to become heated as soon as the eternal validity of what the
Lord has spoken in the distant past seems to have become ob-
solete in our age. What we hope to achieve with this book is to
demonstrate that it is false to impose dogmatic absolutism on di-
vine speech or silence that was described millennia ago by saintly
people living in totally different circumstances. We are convinced
that the inevitability of picking out what is still enormously valu-
able and the reinterpretation of what cannot be accepted uncon-
ditionally anymore in the light of the progress of science may
prove to be extremely helpful to induce moderation in these dis-
cussions that are bound to go on as long as people take divine
messages or silence seriously.
 chapter three
silence between humans in antiquity
3.1 Introduction
The metaphorical nature of descriptions of deities and the divine
world implies that if people state, or have once stated, that God
keeps silent, we have always to compare this with what they say
about silence on the part of human beings.
In the past decennia several studies have been devoted to
the subject of silence between human beings, the function of si-
lence in human discourse or in literature.1 Silence appears to be
an indispensable, but often underestimated element in human
communication. Silence can be an instrument to exercise power
(Achino-Loeb 2006), but mostly it points to a certain aporia on
the part of the speaker or the hearer. It depends on the context
or situation how we interpret such silences. In written texts all
kinds of graphical substitutes for silence are used, mostly blank
spaces (Van Dijk 2006). It is little known that this use of blanks is
already attested in clay tablets from the Canaanite city of Ugarit,
dating from the beginning of the twelfth century bce.2 Layout is
one of the earliest means to steer the interpretation of texts. In
music rests are necessary to make a piece of music performable
(Beeman 2006).
Since we want to study the phenomenon of divine silence in
Antiquity it is warranted to concentrate on a few passages in
ancient texts dealing with silence between human beings. What
reasons for silence did people in the Bible and its world have?

3.2 Reasons for Silence between Humans

3.2.1 Silence Because of Offenses
Keeping silent about one’s involvement in morally dubious activ-
ities is of all times. Often such silences are widely known (‘the
silent majority’), but nobody has the courage to break them (sev-
eral contributions in Kamper & Wulf 1992).
1
E.g. Kane 1984; Kamper & Wulf 1992; Jaworski 1993; 1997; Loevlie 2003;
Muers 2004, 4-10; Ephratt 2007; Bruneau 2009.
2
Cf. Sections 2.3.2 and 2.3.3.
80 chapter three

3.2.1.1 Silence Because of Offenses in the Ancient Near East

As in our own times, there was always a natural inclination to
conceal offenses in Antiquity. A Sumerian saying runs, ‘He keeps
silent like an ox fleeing from the threshing floor’, meaning ‘a slave
who fled from work’,3 a serious offense at that time. Keeping silent
about stealing is wrong according to several Babylonian sources.4
A Hittite goldsmith asks a colleague to keep silent about a theft
of gold.5 Priests who have changed the ancient rites arbitrarily
order their subjects to remain silent about the matter.6 Adultery
was considered a grave sin in all civilizations of the ancient Near
East.7 In view of the severe penalties the partners risked they
tried to keep their affair secret.8
There were occasions when keeping one’s mouth was con-
sidered morally wrong. In the Egyptian Wisdom of Merikare (c.
2000 bce) the king is admonished ‘He who is silent toward vio-
lence diminishes the offerings’.9 A king should not let theft pass
over in silence.10 In the Demotic Papyrus Insinger it is stated,
‘Do not let yourself be called “idiot” because of silence when it is
time to speak.’11
In the Egyptian Complaint of the Eloquent Peasant a bureau-
crat is accused of not being able to persuade a wronged humble
man who hitherto has kept silent to speak up.12
A king should not remain silent when his country is in dan-
ger,13 or when his subjects have lodged a well-grounded com-
plaint.14 A king’s dilemma was that other speakers on behalf of
3
Alster 1997, vol. 1, 62-63; vol. 2. 369.
4
CAD (Š) 1, 490-491.
5
Hofner, CoS, vol. 3, 58.
6
Cole & Machinist 1998, No. 134, r. 16*.
7
Cf. Marsman 2003, 168-175. For Greece see Wagner-Hasel 2010.
8
E.g. Homer, Odyssey, XV.430; XXII.445.
9
Cf. Lichtheim, CoS, vol. 1, 65. See also Kammerzell & Sternberg, TUAT,
Bd. 2, 104.
10
Parpola 1993, No. 107, r.e. 12-13.
11
Lichtheim 1980, 187; Thissen, TUAT, Bd. 3, 283.
12
Brunner 1988, 365, B I, 285-288. Cf. Lanczkowski 1955, 190.
13
Cf. Kaplony-Heckel, TUAT, Bd. 1, 561; Lichtheim, CoS, vol. 2, 43.
14
Lambert 1960, 112-113, line 16, as rendered by Von Soden, TUAT, Bd.
3, 172. See also Parpola 1987, No. 29, r. 14.
 silence between humans in antiquity 81

the gods might encourage him to remain silent because his god
would no doubt deliver him.15 Of course their subjects were not
inclined to accept such a passive attitude. An officer who is hold-
ing the city of Babylon for the Assyrian king writes to his master,
Now, as the prefect has left Bit-Dakuri, the whole of Babylon
lives in fear, saying, ‘We have been handed over to the dogs.’
Why is my lord silent, while the whole of Babylon (pleadingly)
raises its hands towards my lord?
...
Why does my lord remain silent, while Babylon is being des-
troyed? Šamaš16 and Marduk17 have installed you for interces-
sion in Assyria. Persuade the king to come here and to exempt
Babylon for Marduk, and (make) your name everlasting in Esag-
gil and Ezida!18

When rebellious enemies threaten to overthrow Egyptian civiliza-

tion this state of anarchy is experienced as a return to primordial
chaos19 and under such circumstances it would be wrong to re-
main silent,20 even though the one who speaks up may well be
silenced quickly.21
According to the Ugaritic Legend of Aqhatu it was a son’s
duty to silence people who slandered his father.22 As in modern
usage, ‘to silence’ a person might be equivalent to killing him. The
Ugaritic goddess ,Anatu, for example, silences (destroys) various
monsters as well as human beings.23
An Old Babylonian diviner assures his master king Zimrilim
that he will not keep secret any oracular inquiry about an up-
coming rebellion (Lenzi 2008, 43). A servant of the Hittite king
15
Parpola 1997, No. 2, iii, 11’.
16
Sun god.
17
The most important god of Babylon.
18
Dietrich 2003, No. 21, r. 2-6, 11-16. Esaggil and Ezida were temples in
Babylon.
19
Barta 1971, 37; Lichtheim 1973, 141; Foster 2001, 76-84. See also below
Section 6.1.1.
20
Barta 1971, 37; Lichtheim 1973, 140-141; Shupak, CoS, vol. 1, 106, with
n.25; 108.
21
Barta 1971, 42; Lichtheim 1973, 142; Shupak, CoS, vol. 1, 108.
22
KTU 1.17:I.28-29 par., cf. Wyatt 1998, 257-258. For comparable usage in
Akkadian, see CAD (S), 75.
23
KTU 1.3.II.8, 44.
82 chapter three

should not cloak himself in silence about anything that might

endanger his master.24 The Assyrian king Esarhaddon (681-669
bce) forces his vassals to swear that they will not keep secret
any inappropriate talk about or conspiracy against his successor
Assurbanipal (Watanabe 1987, passim). In the Assyrian empire
royal servants should not keep silent about offenses.25

3.2.1.2 Silence Because of Offenses in the Bible

Whereas most people, like Adam (cf. Gen. 3:8-10), are inclined to
keep their offenses secret because they fear punishment or scorn
from others, Job declares that he has nothing to hide (Job 31:33-
34).26
According to Lev. 5:1 and Prov. 29:24 it was a sin to keep
silent about an offense one had witnessed.27 The narrator of Judg.
17–18 clearly disapproves of the behavior of a priest who agrees
to keep quiet about the theft of cultic paraphernalia in order to
get a better job (Judg. 18:19).28 King Saul is not answered by his
subjects because they disapprove of his rash vow (1 Sam. 14:39,
cf. v. 24). Four lepers who found the camp of the Aramaeans
deserted initially kept their discovery secret and started to loot.
Eventually, however, they came to see the errors of their ways
and decided to break their silence because they were afraid to be
punished (2 Kgs 7:9).
Kings should not remain silent when parts of their country
were occupied by enemies (1 Kgs 22:3). Modern translations often
render the verbal form here as ‘we do nothing’, but in view of the
Egyptian parallel referred to above it is better to maintain the
literal interpretation.29 Apparently the king of Israel implies that
they should have called up their troops earlier. The same motif is
present in 2 Sam. 2:26 where Abner asks David, ‘How long will it
24
Cf. Von Schuler, TUAT, Bd. 1, 125.
25
Parpola 1987, No. 244, r. 13; Lanfranchi & Parpola 1990, No. 149, r. 5.
26
Cf. Clines 2006, 1029-1030.
27
See Milgrom 1991, 293-294 for further parallels.
28
According to Judg. 18:20 the heart of the Levite gladdens at the request
of the Danites to become their priest. Cf. Younger 2002, 342; Phillips 2004,
272.
29
Cf. Cogan 2001, 489.
 silence between humans in antiquity 83

be before you say to the people to turn from the pursuit of their
brethren?’
According to Deut. 3:23-28 Moses prays that he may be al-
lowed to see the promised land at the other side of the river
Jordan. God refuses because of sins of the people and orders
Moses not to bring up the matter anymore (v. 26). This account
differs in essential points from the presentation of the facts in
Exod. 17:1-7 and Num. 20:2-13, the latter making Moses himself
the culprit.
Just as elsewhere in the ancient world it was a king’s task
to speak up for the poor and oppressed who themselves lack the
courage to speak (Prov. 31:8-9). The Khirbet Qeiyafa inscription
seems to prove that this was a duty of a king already in the tenth
century bce.30
However, an offense like rape was considered an offense about
which it was better to keep silent because the honor of the family
was at stake. Apparently this was more important than the rights
of the violated girl. When Jacob’s daughter Dinah had been vi-
olated and Jacob heard about it, he said nothing until Dinah’s
brothers came back (Gen. 34:5). When Amnon overpowered his
half-sister Tamar, her brother Absalom asks her to keep silent
about what happened. The reason Absalom gives for this request
is the circumstance that Amnon is Tamar’s (half-)brother (2 Sam.
13:20). Also Absalom himself does not speak to Amnon anymore
(2 Sam. 13:22). In both cases it must be assumed that the conceal-
ing of the crime was in the interest of the family until a brother
or brothers had taken revenge.31
Although they correctly suspected that Jeremiah had told
them a lie which had been dictated to him by king Zedekiah, the
princes went away silently because they had no proof (Jer. 38:24-
27).32 Their silence is graphically expressed by a space (Petuchah)
following v. 27.
30
http://qeiyafa.huji.ac.il/ostracon2.asp; Puech 2010; Becking & Sanders
2010.
31
Westermann 1981, 655. See further Marsman 2003, 68, 81, 248-252, 280,
460, 470, 714, 731, and on the relations between the two stories, De Hoop
1999, 518-519.
32
Cf. Keown 1995, 225; McKane 1996, 966-967.
84 chapter three

It was seen as wrong not to confess sins to the Lord. Ini-

tially the supplicant of Ps. 32 kept silent about his sins, but his
conscience started to plague him (v. 3), even though nobody but
the Lord seems to have known about his offense. Day and night
God’s hand was heavy upon him (v. 4a) and his tongue33 became
parched as by the heat of summer (v. 4b) so that eventually he
might be unable to speak at all. After v. 4 a Selah follows, indic-
ating a pause in reading, as if the supplicant hesitates whether or
not to break his self-imposed silence. Then he continues,

My sin I will make known to you,

and my transgression I do not cover up.
I thought: ‘I must confess my transgressions to the Lord!’
And you forgave my sinful transgression (Ps. 32:5).

Perhaps the supplicant spoke his confession and received abso-

lution from a priest or a prophet. But it is just as well possible
that it was a silent exchange with his God during which the inner
conviction grew in his heart that God had forgiven him.34

3.2.2 Silence Because of Awe or Fear

3.2.2.1 Silence Because of Awe or Fear in the Ancient Near
East
A hunter who is faced with the wild, hairy appearance of Enkidu35
grows silent for fear (Gilg. Ep. I.118).36
Silencing rebels and quelling turmoil was expected of kings.37
Enemies of the Assyrian king Sargon II (722-705 bce) are so
impressed by his terror-inspiring eighth campaign that ‘stillness
spread over them, they became as the dead’.38
33
For this reading cf. Craigie 1983, 264; Hossfeld & Zenger 1993, 202.
34
See our treatment of Psalms 13 and 28, Section 6.2.2.2.
35
Who grew up in the wild among the gazelles and later on became the
friend of the Mesopotamian hero Gilgamesh.
36
George 2003, vol. 1, 544-545. See also I.156, 546-547.
37
Sumerian examples: Römer, TUAT, Bd. 2, 685; CAD (Š) 1, 491. Egyptian
example, Foster 2001, 84.
38
CAD (Š), I, 108a; see also Parpola 1987, No. 32, 14; Livingstone 1989,
No. 2, 26-27; Dietrich 2003, No. 22, 17-18.
 silence between humans in antiquity 85

Rebellion might start already at a young age and earned the

disobedient child a reprimand or even a beating.39 Fear for cor-
poral chastisement must induce a Sumerian schoolboy to keep
silent.40 That boys and girls were not always treated equally in
this respect is suggested by a Sumerian proverb,

A chattering girl is silenced by her mother.

A chattering boy is not silenced by his mother.41

Another early example of silence because of fear is described in

the tale of the Egyptian Sinuhe (20th century bce) who upon
his return home does not dare to speak to the Pharaoh for fear
that he might yet be punished because of his desertion.42 In The
Prophecy of Neferty, from about the same period, people silently
hand over their possessions to violent shouting barbarians (Foster
2001, 82).
The ancient Egyptians indicated silence iconographically by
a hand or fist close to the mouth.43 Covering the face with both
hands as a gesture expressing horror is also attested in Egypt
(Dominicus 1994, 68, 70). Because in this attitude speaking is
difficult, we may assume that it is a graphical illustration of si-
lence (cf. Brunner-Traut 1979, 201).
For fear that politically sensitive information might leak out
kings swore their servants to secrecy. Shortly before the total col-
lapse of the city of Ugarit a scribe warns another important officer
at the court not to divulge the fact that the queen has left the
country.44 To prevent sacrilege scholars like scribes and diviners
were obliged to keep their knowledge secret. Of course others tried
to obtain that information by spying, bribing or stealing (Lenzi
2008).

39
De Moor 2003.
40
Römer, TUAT, Bd. 3, 71.
41
Translation Alster 1997, vol. 1, 37 (1.185).
42
Cf. Lichtheim 1975, 232; CoS, vol. 1, 81-82.
43
Brunner-Traut 1977, 580. The gesture of putting a hand or a finger over
the lips remained a universal symbol of silence up to our own days (Mancini
2008). See also Section 3.2.3.1 below.
44
Pardee, CoS, vol. 3. 102-103; Bordreuil & Pardee 2010, 4-6.
86 chapter three

3.2.2.2 Silence Because of Awe or Fear in the Bible

For fear of Joseph who had become vice-roy of Egypt his brothers
did not dare to respond to his admission that he was indeed their
brother (Gen. 45:3).
The fear of the Canaanites for the victorious Israelites was so
great that no one dared to snarl45 at them.
When prince Ishbosheth asks the general Abner why he has
taken one of the wives of his father, Abner becomes very angry
and gives a rude answer which does not satisfy Ishbosheth in
the least. He, however, is so frightened by the general’s brutal
behavior that he does not dare to retort (2 Sam. 3:11). Again
this silence is expressed graphically (Setumah).
After the battle in which the rebellious prince Absalom has
been killed, the people requested the comeback of king David from
the elders of Judah.46 The latter, however, hesitated because they
had anointed Absalom as their new king, even though David, the
legitimate king, was still alive. Therefore they feared his wrath
and kept silent (2 Sam. 19:11 [10]). A space (Setumah) expresses
their silence graphically.
When both the prophets of Bethel and Gilgal independently
ask the prophet Elisha whether he knows that Eliah will be taken
away from him he hastily confirms that he knows and twice
asks them to keep silent (2 Kgs 2:3-5). Normally his confirma-
tion would have prompted howling and laments. Possibly Elisha
wanted to prevent this. But it may also be that Elisha himself
dreaded what was about to happen and did not want to talk
about it.
Fearing the magic potential of the spoken word people often
tried to silence prophets who announced doom (e.g. Isa. 30:10;
Jer. 27–28; Mic. 2:6).
In Isa. 10:14 the Assyrian king is bragging that his awesome
military exploits silenced all nations he subjected,

there was none that moved a wing,

or opened the mouth, or chirped.
45
Lit. ‘sharpen the tongue’.
46
2 Sam. 19:10[9]. Cf. 2 Sam. 19:12.
 silence between humans in antiquity 87

Kings will shut their mouths when they see the rehabilitation of
the suffering Servant of the Lord (Isa. 52:15).
When Lady Zion47 hears the noise of approaching armies her
heart sinks and she cannot remain silent anymore (Jer. 4:19).
Until then she had awaited her fate in anxious silence.
Silence because of fear could also be expressed not in words,
but by blank spaces. In order to denounce David’s adultery with
Bathsheba the prophet Nathan tells David his well-known parable
about a rich man who wrongfully took the only lamb of a poor
man (2 Sam. 12:1-4). After vv. 5-6, with David’s angry threat
to execute this rich man, the venerable Aleppo Codex lets fall
a first silence by means of a blank space to indicate that the
audience realizes that David has just condemned himself. Then
after Nathan’s reply ‘You are that man!’ a second space underlines
this dramatic turn in the story. These blanks are not merely the
result of scribal caprice, because several other Hebrew and Greek
witnesses support them.
Sometimes silence is expressed both in words and by a blank
space. Initially Esther fears to address the Persian king because
if she went to the king uninvited she risked to be killed (Est.
4:11-14). In Est. 7:4 she explains to the king that she would have
kept silent if she and her people had been sold as slaves, thus
indicating that it had taken her a lot to overcome her fear. There
is a space (Setumah) after this verse, graphically expressing the
tense silence that falls after her speech before the king answers.

3.2.3 Silence Because of Forbearance or Prudence

3.2.3.1 Silence Because of Forbearance or Prudence in the
Ancient Near East
Silence on the part of the hearer may also signify respectful at-
tention, so that the same Babylonian verb may also be rendered
as ‘to heed, listen’.48 In Egypt putting the hand on the mouth
was a gesture expressing the intention to maintain a respectful

47
For the identity of the speaker see Korpel 2009b.
48
CAD (Q), 73b-75b.
88 chapter three

silence.49 An Assyrian king is admonished to keep silent as a sign

that he trusts his goddess.50
In many situations silence was deemed preferable to rash talk-
ing. Modern sayings like ‘speech is silver, but silence is gold’ and
‘a still tongue makes a wise head’ represent the kind of popular
wisdom that is timeless and is also frequently found in ancient
oriental wisdom literature.51
Raising your voice unnecessarily was seen as a lack of humility,

I have trodden the square of my city unobtrusively,

My voice was not raised, my speech was kept low.52

Apparently the choice between speaking up and remaining silent

was often as difficult as it is now. The Neo-Babylonian version of a
Dialogue of Pessimism suggests that one’s choice does not really
matter.53 Eloquent silence under all circumstances is counseled
in Old Egyptian wisdom literature,

If you meet a disputant in action,

A powerful man, superior to you,
Fold your arms, bend your back,
To flout him will not make him agree with you.
Make little of the evil speech
By not opposing him while he’s in action;
He will be called an ignoramus,
Your self-control will match his pile (of words).

If you meet a disputant in action

Who is your equal, on your level,
You will make your worth exceed his by silence,
While he is speaking evilly,
There will be much talk by the hearers,
49
Couroyer 1960, 204-209; Dominicus 1994, 19-21. See also Section 3.2.2.1.
50
Nissinen 2003, 115.
51
Lanczkowski 1955; Brunner-Traut 1979; Hornung & Keel 1979, 173-216;
Assmann 1984; Englund 1987; Brunner 1988, 222:8; 228:175; Assmann 1990,
259, 268-269; TUAT, Bd. 2, 873, 878, 883; Shlomit-Groll 1990; Shupak 1993,
Ch. 4; Alster 1997, vol. 1, 23 (1.96); Frandsen 1998; Shirun-Grumach, TUAT,
Bd. 3, 223-224, 226, 229-230, 234; Lichtheim, CoS, vol. 1, 117.
52
Babylonian Theodicy, 291-292, translation Lambert 1960, 89.
53
Lambert 1960, 146-147, lines 2’-6’.
 silence between humans in antiquity 89

Your name will be good in the mind of the magistrates.

If you meet a disputant in action,

A poor man, not your equal,
Do not attack him because he is weak,
Let him alone, he will confute himself.
Do not answer him to relieve your heart,
Do not vent yourself against your opponent,
Wretched is he who injures a poor man,
One will wish to do what you desire,
You will beat him through the magistrates’ reproof.54

In many situations the Egyptian sages counseled silence rather

than speaking (Assmann 1984). Even when provoked by an older
man, a younger one should not resort to violence, but should
silently accept his scolding and beating,
Let him beat you while your hand is on your chest,
Let him revile you while you are silent;
If next day you come before him,
He will give you food in plenty.55

And from the Papyrus Insinger,

He who is silent under wrong is one who escapes from harm.56

The powerless poor did not have any other option than to bear
their lot in silence. ‘The poor are the silent ones of the country’
is a Sumerian proverb.57 In the New Kingdom of Egypt it be-
came fashionable for the upper classes to represent themselves
as humble and poor, but pious people. Keeping your silence was
seen as an expression of pious trust in the deity and in the ideals
of a society based on solidarity and altruism (Assmann 1990, 259,
268-269).
Obviously such counsel could easily be misused to maintain
the status quo in an authoritarian society. A righteous Babylonian
sufferer laments about his opponents,
54
Instruction of Ptahhotep, §§ 2-4, translation Lichtheim 1976, 63-64. See
also §§ 9 and 24.
55
Translation Lichtheim 1976, 161.
56
Translation Lichtheim 1976, 161.
57
Alster 1997, vol. 1, 51 [2.32].
90 chapter three

My eloquent mouth they checked, as with reins,

My lips, which used to discourse, became those of a deaf man.
My resounding call struck dumb . . . 58

There could be still other reasons to keep quiet. According to the

Ugaritic Legend of king Kirtu he and his army stayed quiet dur-
ing the first seven days of their siege of the city where his bride
dwelt, probably because it was deemed prudent not to frighten
Kirtu’s future father-in-law by the intimidating noises that nor-
mally accompanied an attack.59
Later on, when he is mortally ill, Kirtu commands his son not
to weep for him and not yet to tell his sister of his grave condition
lest she would burst into tears.60

3.2.3.2 Silence Because of Forbearance or Prudence in the

Bible
According to Num. 30, probably a collection of late prescriptions,
a wife’s vow could be annulled by her husband and a daughter’s
vow by her father. However, if the man under whose authority
the woman stood did not protest, but kept silent, her vow had to
be honored.61 Because failure to honor a vow provoked the anger
of the deity and could have terrible consequences, the silence of
the father or husband may be interpreted as an act of piety and
prudence.
By definition spying is a secret business and for that reason
many scholars want to delete the adverb ‘secretly’ in Josh. 2:1.
However, it occurs more often that something circumstantial is
added at the end of a Hebrew phrase, as a kind of afterthought.
The secrecy has to do with the sending: ‘Joshua son of Nun
secretly sent two spies from Shittim’ (JPS). Apparently he did
not talk about the mission with others to prevent treason.
Prompted by his uncle to tell him about his visit to Samuel
Saul relates the finding of his donkeys, but modestly keeps silent
58
Translation Foster, CoS, vol. 1, 487. See also Von Soden, TUAT, Bd. 3,
118.
59
KTU 1.14:III.10 (par.). Cf. De Moor 1987, 196; Wyatt 1998, 194, and for
the noise e.g. Josh. 6:5, 16, 20; 7:19-22.
60
KTU 1.16:I.25-35.
61
Cf. Marsman 2003, 572-597.
 silence between humans in antiquity 91

about his anointing as king by Samuel (1 Sam. 10:16). A space

(Petuchah) marks his reticence graphically.
When some fellows openly vent their contempt for the newly
installed king Saul, the latter wisely keeps silent, apparently un-
derstanding their irritation (1 Sam. 10:27).62 Tsumura writes that
the verse ‘prepares the audience for the next stage of this drama
with expectation’ (Tsumura 2007, 301). In the Masoretic tradi-
tion the chapter ends with a space (Petuchah) expressing Saul’s
silence graphically.
When Saul notices David’s absence at a sacrificial banquet
he keeps his mouth shut because he assumes that David could
not come because he was ritually unclean (1 Sam. 20:26). David’s
servants consider it prudent not to tell David immediately that his
child has died lest he might do himself harm (2 Sam. 12:18). When
Abigail returns from her visit to David she finds her husband
Nabal drunk and decides that it is better to tell him nothing
immediately (1 Sam. 25:36).
If a prophet was preaching in the streets it was by no means
necessary to raise his voice (Isa. 42:2), even though on other oc-
casions this might be unavoidable (Isa. 52:8; 58:1). Also the ex-
pression ‘to put the hand on the mouth’ as a gesture of remaining
silent occurs just as well in Hebrew.63
At the end of his career the prophet Micah64 counsels his
surroundings not to trust anybody and even to ‘guard the doors
of your mouth from her who lies in your embrace’ (Mic. 7:5).
Apparently it was wisdom65 not to provoke the ruling class.
Of the servant of the Lord it is said twice in Isa. 53:7 that
he did not open his mouth even though he was oppressed and
afflicted. Like a young ram he was led to the slaughter, and like
a ewe that is dumb before its shearers. Because the following
verses state that he was taken away without restraint and without
62
LXX and an interlinear gloss in 4QSama read differently, but the Mas-
oretic Hebrew text deserves confidence. Cf. Herbert 1997, 53; Fincke 2001,
78.
63
Judg. 18:19; Mic. 7:16; Job 21:5; Prov. 30:32. See also Job 40:4 and Wisd.
8:11-12.
64
On the authenticity of the passage see De Moor 2000c.
65
Cf. Prov. 13:2; 21:23.
92 chapter three

arbitration, and had done no violence and did not deceive, one
can only conclude that the servant’s silence was a sign of piety.66
Elihu introduces his speeches against Job67 with the words,

I am young in days, and you are aged;

therefore I hesitated and feared to show you my knowledge.
I thought, ‘Let the days speak,
and let a multitude of years make known wisdom.’
(Job 32:6-7)

He has kept silent for so long68 out of respect for old age, but
is no longer able to restrain himself seeing that the friends have
been unsuccessful in convincing Job that he must repent (32:12,
15-16).
Especially the book of Proverbs contains several sayings ad-
vocating the prudence of silence, e.g. Prov. 10:19,

When words are many, transgression is not lacking,

but he who restrains his lips is prudent.

And Prov. 11:12-13,

He who derides his friend is heartless,

but a man of understanding remains silent.
He who overflows with slander uncovers social ties,
but a man of trustworthy spirit covers up things.

And Prov. 17:27-28,

He who is sparing with words is a knowledgeable man,

he who has a cool spirit is an understanding man.
Even a fool who keeps silent is deemed wise,
when he presses his lips shut (is deemed) understanding.69

66
So we disagree with Barrado 1997, 18-19 who interprets the silence of the
Servant as resignation and powerlessness.
67
These speeches that cover Job 32:1–37:24 are a late addition to the Book
of Job, see e.g Strauß 2000, 266-267.
68
See also Job 32:11, 16, 19-20.
69
For more examples and discussion, cf. Bühlmann 1976. For the impact
on later rabbinic literature Stemberger 2003. In the Sentences of the Syriac
Menander, 311-313, similar counsel is found, but borrowing seems unlikely.
 silence between humans in antiquity 93

And yet the wisdom teachers of Israel were well aware of the di-
lemma created by all these summons to keep quiet under pressure
from the mighty. Prov. 31:8 states,
Open your mouth for the dumb,70
for the rights of all who are left destitute.
Open your mouth, promote righteousness,
and the case of the wretched and poor.

It is appropriate to continue here with Amos 5:13, a verse usually

regarded as part of a later addition to the book (vv. 13-15).71
This verse creates the impression that a learned reader quotes an
existing wisdom saying of the kind we have quoted above. In view
of the injustice described in the preceding verses a sensible man
is advised to keep a low profile,
Therefore he who is prudent will keep silent in such a time;
for it is an evil time.

One might assume that this inserted quotation implies also a

mild criticism of the prophet Amos himself who certainly did
not mince his words. And indirectly the speaker seems to address
God, asking if it was wise to send out prophets on such dangerous
missions against the rich and powerful. In early Judaism people
felt very sorry for the fate of the prophets of doom. According to
a legend Amos would have been tortured and finally been killed
by the priest Amaziah and his son.72
Job’s friend Zophar denies Job’s arguments against God any
cogency,
Should your babbling silence people?
If you stammer, should nobody protest? (Job 11:3)

Apparently it was a ploy among ‘philosophers’ to attempt to si-

lence their opponents by irrefutable reasoning,73 as Elihu does in
Job 33:31-33,
70
The dumbness described here is not a literal, but a metaphorical one,
because other physical problems are not mentioned (Murphy 1998, 241; Fox
2009, 888).
71
E.g. Wolff 1985, 293-294; Van Leeuwen 1985, 204-205.
72
Vita prophetarum, 7.1-2. Cf. Amos 7:10, 17.
73
Cf. Hartley 1988, 194; Clines 1989, 259.
94 chapter three

Give heed, O Job, listen to me;

be silent, now I will speak.
If you have anything to say, answer me;
speak, for I would like to justify you.
If not, pray listen to me;
be silent, and I will teach you wisdom.

Job for his part keeps his end up too. He is only prepared to keep
his mouth if his friends come up with cogent arguments (Job
6:24; 13:19). It is commonly assumed that in Job 13:5 he quotes
a proverb like Prov. 17:28 to silence his friends whose words he
regards as folly,

O that you would keep totally silent,

that would be wisdom for you!74

Job expects their silent attention when he himself speaks (Job

13:13, 17). Later on, he reminds his friends of previous times,
when he still received respect from the community. In the past,
when he spoke people were silently listening to him (Job 29:9-10,
21-22). It is quite clear that Job considered himself a wise king75
whose argument could not be countered.76
What should be avoided above all is self-praise,

Let another man praise you, not your own mouth,

a stranger, not your own lips (Prov. 27:2).77

The late book of the Wisdom of Ben Sira gives all kinds of reasons
for silence between people, but stresses especially the wisdom of
biding your time,

If you know something, answer your neighbor,

if not, put your hand on your mouth (Sir. 5:12).
74
Clines 1989, 307 aptly remarks, ‘The via negativa of silence about God
is preferable to cheap theologizing that ignores the dark side of God. Better,
indeed, than any talk about God is dialogue with God, even if it must be
painful and bitter disputation (v.6).’
75
On Job’s quasi-royal status see De Moor 1997, 154-157.
76
Cf. v. 22; Judg. 3:19; Rowley 1970, 189; Hartley 1988, 394.
77
Cf. Prov. 30:32.
 silence between humans in antiquity 95

According to the Wisdom of Solomon 8:12 other rulers will wait

for the king to resume when he falls silent and will put their hands
to their mouth when he speaks at length.

When a rich man speaks all are silent.

they extol his wisdom to the clouds.
When a poor man speaks, they say ‘Who is that?’
if he stumbles they knock him down.78

There is someone who is silent and is deemed wise,

and there is someone who is despised because of quarrelsome
lips.
There is someone who is silent because there is no answer,
and there is someone who is silent because he sees the right
time (coming).
The wise is silent till the right time (comes),
but a fool does not bide his time.79

Many commentators have noted the close resemblance between

such sayings and the Egyptian wisdom literature,80 but other
Hebrew sources may have inspired the author too, e.g. Qoh. 3:7,

[There is] a time to rend, and a time to sew,

a time to keep silent, and a time to speak.

Several scholars81 relate the silence to mourning,82 allegedly fol-

lowing rabbinic sources which, however, offer different explana-
tions.83 Mourners commonly expressed their sorrow by loud wail-
ing, but silent mourning did occur too.84 However, it seems better
to explain the alternatives of silence and speech in Qoh. 3:7 in
accordance with the broad wisdom tradition referred to above.
78
Sir. 13:23.
79
Sir. 20:5-7.
80
E.g. Couroyer 1960; Scott 1965, 111; McKane 1970, 507; Shupak 1993,
158-182; Murphy 1998, 132.
81
E.g. Gordis 1968, 230-231; Crenshaw 1987, 96; Murphy 1992, 34; Krüger
2000, 159. But Seow 1997, 162, expresses doubt.
82
See on this Section 4.5.3.
83
Cf. b. Zev. 115b; Qoh. R. 3:9; Targum Qoh. 3:7.
84
See Sections 4.5.3 and 4.5.4.
96 chapter three

Also in Israel silence in connection with military action is

attested. Joshua orders the people to remain silent until he gives
the order ‘Shout!’ whereupon the walls of Jericho will collapse
(Josh. 6:10).85 According to Judg. 16:2 the Gazites kept quiet all
night to be absolutely sure that they would be able to overpower
Samson in the light of the morning.

3.2.4 Silence Because of Incapacity

3.2.4.1 Silence Because of Incapacity in the Ancient Near
East
Dumbness in otherwise healthy persons was not attributed to
natural causes, but was seen as an abnormality that had to be
attributed to the machinations of evil demons or witches. By
magic one tried to undo this state.86 The gruesome punishment
of cutting out the tongue was another possibility to silence a
person for ever.87 The Assyrians applied it specifically against
enemies who dared to utter blasphemy against their gods.88 And
finally, the Egyptian sage Ptahhotep (c. 2380-2342 bce) appears
to know full well that with old age the ability to speak may cease,

Old age has come, the years weigh heavily,

misery my lot, and infant helplessness returns.
Repose for such a one is sleeplessness each day;
the eyes are dim, the ears benumbed,
Strength ebbs from the faltering heart,
the mouth is still and cannot speak . . . 89

85
Obviously there is a certain tension in the present narrative which makes
the priests blow the ram’s horns whereas the people should keep silent. Prob-
ably this is the result of redactional combining of different traditions. Cf. e.g.
Butler 1984, 66-68.
86
See e.g. Šurpu V-VI.3-4, 15-16; VII.17-18, 33-34 (Reiner 1958, 30, 36-37);
Maqlû VII.38 (Abusch 1987, 99-124; Abusch, in: Krüger 2008, 171), and the
Aramaic text translated by Delsman, TUAT, Bd. 2, 433.
87
CAD (L), 210-211; ANET, 288. The proverb ‘He who has been stabbed
in the back has (still) got a mouth to speak, but he who has been stabbed in
the mouth, how can he speak?’ (Parpola 1993, No. 294:12-13) may refer to a
similar cruelty.
88
CAD (Š) 2, 445.
89
Translation Foster 2001, 187.
 silence between humans in antiquity 97

When the waters of the great Flood had ebbed away Utanapishti,
the Babylonian counterpart of the biblical Noah, observes,
I looked at the weather; silence reigned, For all mankind had
returmed to clay.90

According to Mesopotamian and Canaanite mythology mankind

had been fashioned from clay, so what is described here is the total
destruction of mankind but for the Flood hero and his family who
were saved in their boat. The silence is caused by the incapacity
of the dead to speak (cf. Section 3.2.5 below).
Silence might also be caused by embarrassment. Not knowing
what to answer to the sarcasm of the king of Byblos, the Egyptian
diplomat Wenamun (c. 1090 bce) remains silent.91 Similarly the
steward Rensi in the Egyptian Tale of the Eloquent Peasant: ‘The
high steward Rensi, son of Meru, was silent; he did not reply to
these magistrates; he did not reply to the peasant.’92 If a Babylo-
nian scholar did not know how the react to a problem, he should
keep silent.93
When people expect solutions from their superiors but do not
receive adequate help or reply, they feel abandoned and write des-
perate letters, reproaching their masters that they keep silent.94
Written texts are dumb. Until relatively recent times all writ-
ten texts were meant to be read out aloud, or at least to be
murmured. Silent reading did occur, but was uncommon.95 This
meant that people unable to read had to remain silent while oth-
ers read texts to them aloud. Towards the end of his famous
stele on which his laws were inscribed the Old Babylonian king
Hammurapi (c. 1795-1750 bce) writes,
˘
Let the oppressed man who has a cause go before my statue
(called) ‘King of Justice’ and then have the inscription on my
monument read out and hear my precious words.96
90
We follow the rendering by Dalley 1991, 113.
91
Lichtheim, CoS, vol. 1, 91.
92
Translation Shupak, CoS, vol. 1, 100.
93
CAD (Q), 72b.
94
Fuchs & Parpola 2001, No. 288:4-8; CAD (Q), 72-73; (S), 75a.
95
See e.g. Driver 1954, 70, 72, 228-229; Ben Zvi in: Ben Zvi & Floyd 2000,
22; Grayson 2000; Maitland 2009, 147-148.
96
Translation Driver & Miles 1955, 97.
98 chapter three

Even though this invitation will hardly ever have been followed
up, the situation described proves that an ordinary person was
unable to read but had to put his trust in someone who had
mastered this skill, usually a scribe. It is only against this back-
ground of reading texts aloud that a phrase like the following is
understandable, ‘And let none of the words of this book be si-
lent!’97 The ‘book’ is an inscription in stone containing the text
of a treaty between two Aramaic kings. It dates from c. 740 bce.
Apparently it too was intended to be read out aloud.
In the report of the Egyptian envoy Wenamun it is told that
the prince of Byblos has the daybook of his forefathers brought
in and has it read before him. Apparently the king himself was
not able to read. The Egyptian envoy himself is not able to write
a letter. He has a scribe called in to do that for him.98
In the Hebrew Bible ‘to read’ is actually the same verb as ‘to
call out, read aloud’ and this usage is already attested in Lachish
ostracon No. 3 (c. 586 bce),

And when my lord says, ‘Don’t you know how to read a letter?’
As the Lord lives! I swear that no one has ever tried to read me
a letter! On the contrary, I swear that I have read every letter
that came to me!

This passage shows that normally one would ask a literate person
to read out a letter aloud, but that this particular officer was
proud to be able to do the reading himself. In such a world it was
an unbearable insult if one scribe accused a colleague ‘You are
deaf to the scribal art, and silent in Sumerian!’99
Messengers carrying tablets had to deliver their message or-
ally: the recipients heard the message.100 The silent tablets merely
served to confirm their words if doubt about their trustworthiness
arose. According to Nah. 2:14[13] the bellowing voices of Assyrian
emissaries will be silenced for good.101
97
KAI No. 222B:8-9.
98
Lichtheim, CoS, vol. 1, 91-92.
99
Vanstiphout, CoS, vol. 1, 589.
100
Cf. De Moor 1965, 5-7; Meier 1988; Greene 1989.
101
On the textcritical problem involved see e.g. Barthélemy 1992, 814-815;
Spronk 1997, 109-110.
 silence between humans in antiquity 99

3.2.4.2 Silence Because of Incapacity in the Bible

In the Hebrew Bible dumbness is seen as inability to speak clearly
(Houtman 1993, 410). According to the Hebrew Bible it were not
evil demons who made people dumb, but the Lord himself,

Who provided man with a mouth?

Who will make dumb or deaf?
Or seeing or blind?
Is it not I the Lord? (Exod. 4:11)

Although this is formulated as a general principle,102 the context

renders it likely that in this particular case it was at the same
time a warning to Moses who had shown himself reluctant to
speak in the name of God and had tried to justify himself by
invoking that his mouth had difficulty with speaking (v. 10). God
who gave mankind a mouth to speak can also take away that gift.
Ezekiel and Daniel suffered from temporary bouts of dumbness103
which illustrates that according to the biblical writers God did
indeed control their power of speech. Therefore the self-curse of
Ps. 137:6 ‘let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I do
not remember you [Jerusalem]’, must be seen as an ultimate type
of oath.
In Isa. 29:18 it is foretold that in a bright future the deaf will
hear the words of a book. Similarly Isa. 32:3-4 and 35:5-6 foresee
that the ears of the deaf will hear and the tongue of the dumb will
sing and speak distinctly. Evidently this was seen as a miracle,
just as the ability of the blind to see and of the lame to leap. Since
these phenomena are connected with God’s return to Zion (Isa.
35:2-4)104 the undoing of these afflictions is a divine prerogative
here too.
If one did not want to listen to malicious and treacherous
talk it was possible to feign dumbness and deafness (Ps. 38:14-15
[13-14]).105
102
God is also the agent in Ezek. 3:26; 24:27; 33:22; Ps. 94:9; Prov. 20:12;
Dan. 10:15-19.
103
Cf. Section 5.2.2.2.
104
Perhaps also Isa. 29:17 if the ‘Lebanon’ is a designation of Zion there.
105
Seybold suggests that the patient’s enemies may have recommended him
100 chapter three

If Benjamin Foreman is right, Jer. 18:18b testifies to a plot to

silence the prophet Jeremiah by cutting out his tongue (Foreman
2009). As we have seen, such a cruelty was committed elsewhere
too.
During the Assyrian king Sennacherib’s siege of Jerusalem
king Hezekiah’s emissaries and the people standing on the city
walls were unable to counter the Assyrian general’s blasphemy.
Normally blasphemers had to be put to death.106 Apparently He-
zekiah had foreseen such a situation and had instructed the people
to keep quiet.107 Inability to wail loudly or to deliver a prophecy
was sometimes expressed by covering the mouth up to just below
the nose.108
People might feel unable to count (aloud) because the num-
ber of items became to large (Gen. 41:49). Naomi stops speaking
when she notices that her daughter-in-law Ruth is determined to
accompany her (Ruth 1:18). The singer of Ps. 77 who has called
to God in his distress (vv. 2-3[1-2]) feels unable to speak while
he lays awake at night, thinking of God (vv. 3-5[2-4]).
When Job’s friends acknowledge that they are unable to refute
his argument, they fall silent (Job 32:3, 5, 12, 15-16). Job, how-
ever, does not give in until God himself answers him. God’s long
defense against Job’s complaints ends with the following lines,

1
Then the Lord said to Job:
2
‘Will he who contends with the Almighty correct him?
Let him who accuses God answer him!’
3
Then Job said to the Lord:
4
‘Look, I am a nobody – what can I answer back?
I lay my hand on my mouth.
5
I have spoken once, but could not answer;
twice, but I will proceed no further.109

to renounce his God (cf. v. 16[15]) and resort to forbidden magic (Seybold
1996, 160).
106
Lev. 24:15-16; Dan. 3:29. Cf. Exod. 22:27[28].
107
2 Kgs 18:36. The subject ‘the people’ is missing both in the LXX and
in the parallel text Isa. 36:21. For this reason some scholars delete the word
‘people’ here too. However, since exchanges of abuse were normal during a
siege, Hezekiah may have given a general order beforehand.
108
Lev. 13:45; Ezek. 24:17, 22; Mic. 3:7. Cf. Himbaza 1997.
 silence between humans in antiquity 101

Spaces (Petuchot) mark the rhetorical silences after vv. 2 and 5.

Finally Job admits here at the end of the canonical book that he is
unable to refute the arguments of the Creator of all. He underlines
this with an expressive gesture (v. 4[39:34]) that was apparently
known everywhere in the ancient world.110 Neither this passage
nor Job 42:6 implies that Job takes back his protest against God’s
silence. He merely acknowledges his inability to contend with the
Almighty.111 His position is still the same as in Job 9,112 but as
a true sage he deems it wiser to stop his defense.113
Silence caused by embarrassment is also attested in Neh. 5:8.
Nehemiah accuses his fellow men that they force Jewish people
to sell themselves and their children as slaves, because they were
exacting high interest on loans. The accused people kept silence
after this accusation, not knowing what to say. Apparently, they
know in their hearts that Nehemiah is right, since he and oth-
ers had sacrificed a lot to buy other enslaved Jews free (Neh.
5:7).114 After Neh. 5:8 there is a physical marking of a long si-
lence (Setumah).
Resigned silence in anticipation of being silenced forever is
attested in Jer. 8:14 where the meaning of v. 14aB is determined
by the parallel ‘Why are we sitting still’ in v. 14aA (cf. Lundbom
1999, 519, 524). Of course inability to speak or give any other sign
of life was seen as an indication that a person had died (2 Kgs
4:31).
In Job 30 the sufferer complains that God does not reply to
his laments (v. 20), he is surrounded by evil (v. 26), his bowels
are in turmoil and refuse to keep silent (v. 27) which appears to
be the opposite of a restful state.115

109
Job 40:1-5[39:31-35].
110
Cf. Section 3.2.2.1.
111
Cf. De Moor 2000b, 340-342.
112
See especially Job 9:3, 14-15, 21, 32.
113
Cf. Strauß 2000, 375.
114
Williamson 1985, 238: ‘The loaning of money on pledge and the practice
of debt-slavery were not illegal as such; cf. Exod. 21:2-11; 22:24-26[25-27]; Lev.
25; Deut. 15:1-18; 24:10-13.’ So the embarrassment must have been caused
by Nehemiah’s example.
115
Cf. Isa. 16:11; 63:15; Jer. 4:19.
102 chapter three

According to Luke 1:18, 19, 63-64 an angel struck the priest

Zechariah with temporary dumbness because he expressed doubt
about the angel’s annunciation of the birth of his son, John the
Baptist. Elsewhere in the New Testament it are demons again
who, in contrast to the Hebrew Bible, were held responsible for
dumbness (Mt. 9:32-34; 12:22-24; Luke 11:14-15).
Silence by embarrassment because of not knowing what to
answer is also attested in the New Testament where the Jewish
leaders admit their inability to refute Jesus’ arguments (Luke
14:4, 6; 20:26; cf. Mt. 22:46).

3.2.5 Silence Because of Sleep

3.2.5.1 Silence Because of Sleep in the Ancient Near East
By necessity most human beings are silent when they are a-
sleep.116 Of course the sleep of human beings is mentioned often
in texts.117 An Old Babylonian prayer to the gods of the night
describes the silence as the stopping of all human noise,

The noble ones are safely guarded(?),

doorbolts drawn, rings in place,118
The noisy people are fallen silent,
the doors are barred that were open.
Gods of the land, goddesses of the land,
Shamash, Sin, Adad, and Ishtar
are gone off to the lap of heaven.119
They will give no judgment,
they will decide no cases:
The veil is drawn for the night,
the palace is hushed,
the open land is deathly still.120
116
Not only at night, but also during a siesta. The female demon Lamashtu
enters preferably at noon, the most silent part of the day. Cf. Farbe, TUAT,
Bd. 2, 257.
117
E.g. Seux 1976, 247; Jacobsen 1987, 428-429; Guinan 2009.
118
The translation is somewhat uncertain, cf. CAD (Š) 2, 326. Weippert
1997, 105-106 proposed ‘sleeping-mats are put in place’.
119
I.e., sun, moon, storm and evening-star have all gone to sleep. Probably
a variant reading that has Ea, the god of wisdom, instead of Sin, the moon
god, is to be preferred.
120
Translation after Foster 2005, 207. See also Hecker, TUAT, Bd. 2, 719.
 silence between humans in antiquity 103

Apparently also gods needed sleep at night, even the peculiar

Egyptian creator god Aten,

When you set in western lightland,

Earth is in darkness as if in death;
One sleeps in chambers, heads covered,
One eye does not see another.
...
Darkness hovers, earth is silent,
As their maker rests in lightland.121

What is striking in both texts is the explicit parallel drawn be-

tween human sleep and divine sleep, although the ‘resting’ of Aten
might imply that he was thought to be awake. We will discuss
other texts describing divine sleep later.122
The sleep of death was a metaphor in Egypt,123 Mesopota-
mia,124 and Ugarit.125 The comparison between sleep and death
is attested in Homer too,
There she encountered Sleep, full brother of Death.
She caught him by the hand and spoke, calling him by his name,
‘O Sleep, ruler of all gods and all human beings . . . 126

3.2.5.2 Silence Because of Sleep in the Bible

Peaceful sleep is seen as a gift of God (Ps. 127:2).127 Only in
extreme distress a supplicant may forego the blessed silence of
the night (Ps. 22:3[2]). In Ps. 4:5[4] a pious Israelite admonishes
his powerful adversaries,
Toss around, but do not sin;
speak in your heart on your bed, but be silent.128
121
Translation Lichtheim, CoS, vol. 1, 45; see also Assmann 1999, 218;
TUAT, Bd. 2, 849.
122
See Section 6.2.1.
123
Zandee 1960, Ch. 1.
124
CAD (S.), 69; Spronk 1986, 98-99; Guinan 2009, 201-202.
125
KTU 1.19:III.45, cf. De Moor 1987, 259.
126
Iliad, XIV.231-233. See also XVI.454, 672, 682 and Stenger 2009.
127
For an admirable overview of the problems connected with this verse see
Zenger in: Hossfeld & Zenger 2008, 513-529. See also Prov. 3:24; 19:23; Jer.
31:26.
128
A Selah marks the silence that falls after this verse.
104 chapter three

Those in power devise evil plans against the poor on their beds
(Mic. 2:1), tossing around restlessly, whereas the pious poor can
sleep the undisturbed sleep of the just (Ps. 4:9[8]).
The incompetent leaders of Israel are compared to watchdogs
that do not bark in time because they have fallen asleep,

All its watchers are blind, they notice nothing,

all of them dumb dogs,
that cannot bark;
sleeping visionaries129 who love to slumber (Isa. 56:10)

Visionary leadership would have issued timely warnings that en-

emies were approaching.130
The metaphor of the sleep of death was also known in ancient
Israel,

Look! Answer me, O Lord, my God!

Enlighten my eyes, lest I sleep the sleep of death!
(Ps. 13:4[3])

Normally death silenced a person for ever. The poor woman at

Gibeah was unable to answer her husband’s summons anymore
(Judg. 19:28). At the order of Elisha his servant Gehazi places
the prophet’s staff on the face of the dead boy of the Shunamite
woman but this magic did not work, ‘there was no sound and no
response’ (2 Kgs 4:29-31). Because Gehazi reports, ‘The boy has
not awakened’ (v. 31) it may be assumed that he had hoped to
rise the boy from the sleep of death.
Just like the neighboring nations Israel imagined the realm of
death as a place of utter silence,

For the Nether World does not praise you,

(nor) does Death jubilate for you,
those who descend into the Pit do not hope for your trust-
fulness (Isa. 38:18).
129
We opt for the reading of the great Isaiah scroll from Qumran (1QIsaa )
that is supported by the Peshit.ta and the Vulgate. Also the parallelism favors
this reading.
130
Young 1972, 395; cf. Sections 3.2.1-2.
 silence between humans in antiquity 105

For in death there is no remembrance of you;

in the Nether World who can give you praise? (Ps. 6:6[5])

What profit is there in my blood if I go down into the abyss?

Dust – will it tell about my faithfulness? (Ps. 30:10[9])

At the end of the Psalm the singer proclaims his intention to sing
hymns to the Lord forever because his prayer has been heard,

So that my inner self will sing for you,

and will not be silent O Lord, my God,
I will praise you forever (Ps. 30:13[12]).

Other Psalms depicting the Nether World as a place of utter

silence are,

Do you work wonders for the dead?

Do the shades rise up to praise you?
Is your faithfulness recounted in the grave,
your trustfulness in the place of perdition?
(Ps. 88:11-12[10-11])

If the Lord had not been my help,

my soul would soon have dwelt in silence (Ps. 94:17).131

The dead will not praise the Lord,

nor any of those who descend into silence (Ps. 115:17).

The theme is also found in the wisdom of Ben Sira,

Who in the Nether World will glorify the Most High,

in place of the living who praise him?
Since they are no more, there is no praise of the dead,
only those who are alive and well praise the Lord
(Sir. 17:27-28).

The absence of praise in the Nether World does not imply that
God has no control over the silent multitudes of the dead. He is
just as powerful there as in heaven (Amos 9:2; Ps. 139:8). Even
the poet of Ps. 88 who states
131
‘Silence’ short for ‘the land of silence’, cf. e.g. Seybold 1996, 375.
106 chapter three

Among the dead I am free132

like those killed in action who lie in the grave,
those whom you do not remember anymore,
since they have been cut off from your hand (Ps. 88:6[5]).

The singer knows that it is God who has put him there (Ps.
88:7[6]).
In Jer. 51:39, 57 the prophet anounces that the Babylonians
will sleep a perpetual sleep. The same concept underlies 4 Ezra
7:32 and the unprovenanced song quoted in Eph. 5:14.
In 1 Kgs 19:4 Elijah asks God permission to die because queen
Jezebel has sworn to kill him. Apparently convinced that his re-
quest will be granted he lies down and falls asleep, as if in antici-
pation of his eternal sleep. However, he is touched by an angel who
summons him to rise and eat. Job too asks for eternal sleep (Job
3:13) because in the Nether World everybody is resting quietly,
even the wicked (Job 3:17,18; see also Ps. 31:18[17]). To ‘si-
lence’ a person is sometimes meant literally as ‘to stop someone’s
mouth’,133 but can also be equivalent to killing someone.134

3.3 Conclusions on Silence between Humans

The reason for discussing silence among humans in the ancient
Near East is the fact that all God-talk is based on the analogy
of human talk.135 Silence is a normal element in all human dis-
course.136 Therefore we assumed that it would be worthwhile to
establish what reasons for interpersonal silence can be derived
from ancient Near Eastern sources and the Bible (Section 3.1).
In the first section (Section 3.2.1) we discussed silence because
of offenses. It was shown that often silence was kept in case of mor-
ally dubious activities. Several texts mention silence in connection
with theft, telling lies, adultery, abritrarily changing of religious
132
An ironic designation of the state of the dead who are locked up forever
in the Nether World.
133
Ps. 63:12; 107:42; Job 5:16.
134
1 Sam. 2:9; Jer. 8:14; 25:37; 48:2; 49:26; 50:30. See also texts like Isa.
15:1; 47:5; Jer. 6:2; 47:5; 48:2.
135
Cf. Section 2.2.
136
Cf. Section 2.3.
 silence between humans in antiquity 107

rituals, acts of violence, neglect, for example when enemies en-

danger the country. In some cases people kept silent because the
honor of the family was at stake.
However, it was not always easy to decide what was bet-
ter, secrecy or openness. Several texts affirm that one should not
keep silent about crimes, such as violence, threatening enemies,
slandering, etc. In the Bible it is explicitly stated that people
are not allowed to conceal sins from God. Also elsewhere in the
ancient Near East sins had to be confessed to the gods. It is
unclear if in such cases people actually confessed to a priest or
soliloquized with their own conscience. Of kings it is said that
they should not keep silent if the poor and weak were oppressed.
Generally speaking, concealing offenses was seen as immoral.
Silence might also be caused by apprehension (Section 3.2.2).
When facing wild animals or human enemies people kept silent
for fear of being hurt or even killed. Furthermore, politically sen-
sitive information had to be kept secret. Silence because of fear
was depicted by a hand or finger to the mouth, or even by fully
covering the face with both hands. Kings were supposed to silence
any threat to their nations. Parents were expected to silence dis-
obedient children. People tried to silence prophets who announced
doom.
Silence because of forbearance or prudence was seen as a sign
of wisdom (Section 3.2.3). Silence was kept out of respect be-
fore esteemed speakers, kings, elderly people, wise men and wo-
men. The still well-known saying ‘speech is silver, but silence
is gold’ appeared to have ancient roots. Furthermore, keeping
silence could be taken as an indication of piety. Especially in
temples noise had to be avoided. Silent agreement with decisions
of superiors was expected. Sometimes people temporarily kept si-
lent about someone’s death because of the grief this would cause
to the nearest relatives, if it would be told immediately. Silence
also could have its meaning in a military situation. Normally an
attack on a city was accompanied with a lot of shouting, but
sometimes silence was deemed wiser in order to take the enemy
by surprise or to grant the defenders some respite to surrender
without losses. As in case of silence because of fear, silence out of
wisdom could be expressed by covering the mouth with the hand.
108 chapter three

Obviously silence could also be caused by physical or psycho-

logical incapacity (Section 3.2.4), as in the case of permanent or
temporary dumbness. A special case of dumbness is that of writ-
ten texts. They ‘spoke’ by being read aloud by people able to
read, like priests and scribes, but remained silent to those unable
to read unless someone read it to them. Dumbness and deafness
could be feigned if one did not want to listen to certain talk. Cut-
ting out someone’s tongue was a possibility to silence a person
for ever, both in the ancient Near East and in the Bible. Another
reason for silence could be embarrasment. In such cases people
did not know what to say and in fact became unable to speak.
Worst of all was the incapability to speak anymore because of
death.
Of course people did not normally speak when asleep (Section
3.2.5). A widely used metaphor was the sleep of death. The realm
of death was seen as a place of utter silence, both in the ancient
Near East and the Bible. There, deities were no longer praised.
Intriguing is the fact that in the ancient Near East the sleep of
human beings and of deities was evidently seen as comparable
and parallel. Also deities needed their sleep and did not reply to
the prayers of worshippers when asleep.
The various types of silence between human beings we looked
for appeared all to be present in Egypt, Mesopotamia and Is-
rael. The circumstance that we did not find all types in Anatolia,
Canaan and Greece should no doubt be attributed to our imper-
fect knowledge of the sources.
In several cases we observed that in the written text of the
Hebrew Bible the silence of human beings was expressed not in
words, but graphically by a blank space (cf. Section 2.3.2).
The results of this chapter can be summarized in the following
table which will serve later as a model for comparison with various
types of silence occurring when humans are addressing deities
(Section 4.6) and with silence on the part of deities (Section 6.3).
 silence between humans in antiquity 109

Silence of Humans before Humans

Reasons ANE Bible
Humans Humans
↓ ↓ ↓
Humans Humans
Offenses x x
Awe / Fear x x
Forbearance /
Prudence x x
Incapacity x x
Sleep x x

A cross (x) indicates that we found that particular reason to re-

main silent in the ancient sources at our disposal. With regard to
interpersonal silence there appears to be little difference between
the reasons found in ancient Near Eastern texts and the reasons
found in the Bible.
 chapter four
how did man address the deity?

4.1 Introduction
In the ancient world personal piety is rarely expressed in writ-
ten texts. The main speakers in the cult were the king and re-
ligious functionaries such as magicians, priests, singers, diviners
and prophets. In Egypt space for personal prayers of ordinary
people was created outside the Eastern Temple in Karnak. The
creator god Amun was invoked there as ‘Amun who listens to
prayers’ or ‘Amun the listening ear’.1 A similar place outside a
temple for Ptah is called ‘the great rampart, the place where pray-
ers are heard’. The temple itself is called ‘Ear of God’.2 Epithets
of various deities show that at least since the New Kingdom (c.
1570-1070 bce) the Egyptians expected the gods to listen to their
prayers. Their gratitude for being heard they expressed by dedic-
ating so-called ear-stelae which expressed the conviction that the
deity would continue to listen to the supplicant’s prayers. Some-
times the image of a listening god was provided with as many as
777 pairs of ears. By speaking into the ears, people were certain
that their words would be heard. At the same time the stelae
encouraged the pious not to give up their invocations.3
These stelae testify to the fact that ordinary people did not
dare to address the deity directly themselves. Next to ‘buffers’ like
stelae or images, they made use of professional intermediaries,
such as priests, prophets, astrologers, diviners, magicians, spir-
itualistic mediums, or learned scribes.4 According to the Hebrew
Bible the number of legitimate intermediaries between God and
man was much smaller, though there is reason to suspect that
in pre-exilic times more religious officials may have worked in Is-
raelite sanctuaries too. In distress king David calls upon God and
professes, ‘From his temple5 he heard my voice, and my cry came
1
Altenmüller 2009, 32.
2
Altenmüller 2009, 33.
3
Schlichting 1977; 1982a; Morgan 2004; Martin 2005, 102-108.
4
Cf. Section 5.2.
5
In view of the following description of the theophany it is probably God’s
112 chapter four

to his ears’ (2 Sam. 22:7 = Ps. 18:7[6]). How could the supplicant
arrive at this certainty unless he really thought to ‘hear’ the voice
of God in the temple? Either through a human intermediary or
by a a sudden inner illumination?
Normally the people stood in the court of the temple (Jer.
19:14; 26:2; Ps. 135:2; 2 Chron. 20:5). Similarly it is said in 1 Kgs
8:35 ‘if they (the people) pray toward this place’ which seems to
imply that the people are not in the temple. According to 1 Kgs
8:39, 42 the supplicants had to stretch out their hands ‘toward
this house’. In 1 Kgs 8:44 this formula is broadened to praying
toward the city (of Jerusalem) and to the house Solomon built
there for the Lord. And if one is praying from captivity abroad
even praying in the general direction of the land, the city and the
house of God suffices (1 Kgs 8:49).
Asking God for illumination in difficult situations was quite
normal (Madl 1977; Thelle 2002). Even in mundane cases like lost
asses a visionary was consulted (1 Sam. 9). But also in matters
of state nothing was decided without the advice of a priest or a
prophet. King Hezekiah, for example, asks God to incline his ear
and listen to Sennacherib’s mockery (2 Kgs 19:16 = Isa. 37:17).
The prophet Isaiah answers him, even though he was not present
when Hezekiah was praying (2 Kgs 19:20-34).
Intercessory prayer was quite common. Abraham prays for
Abimelech (Gen. 20:17), Moses prays for the Israelites (Num.
11:2; 21:7; Deut. 9:26), as do Samuel (1 Sam. 7:5; 8:6; 12:19),
Solomon (1 Kgs 8) and Hezekiah (2 Kgs 19:14-19 k Isa. 37:14-20).
Jeroboam asks a ‘man of God’ (prophet) to pray for him (1 Kgs
13:6), as does king Zedekiah ask Jeremiah (Jer. 37:3) and as does
the people (Jer. 42:2, 4). God instructs Jeremiah not to pray for
his people (Jer. 7:16; 11:14) which suggests that normally this was
expected from a prophet, especially if he had predicted disaster.
Jeremiah even encourages the exiles to pray for the prosperity of
the foreign city where they are living (Jer. 29:7).

heavenly temple that is meant here. Cf. Mic. 1:3-4. However, one of the pre-
Solomonic sanctuaries is not excluded. Cf. 1 Sam. 7:5-11.
 how did man address the deity? 113

4.2 Songs and Prayers

4.2.1 Songs and Prayers in the Ancient Near East
Everywhere in the ancient Near East people addressed the gods
in hymns, lamentations and prayers. Especially in Egypt prayers
and lamentations are more rare than hymns, possibly because of
the basically positive attitude of the ancient Egyptians towards
the divine world and afterlife. The closest parallels to biblical
lamentations and prayers are found in Sumerian and Hittite lit-
erature. But even there we have to be cautious in drawing par-
allels because genres may differ considerably.6 In any case it is
impossible and unnecessary to review the enormous number of
possibly comparable texts here. A few examples must suffice.
The supplicants expected their gods to react to their prayers
and laments. If no response came, they vented their disappoint-
ment. In a Sumerian incantation of the second millennium bce a
suppllicant prays to his god,

How long shall you remain silent?

What keeps you quiet?

Yet the same person is supposed to have extolled the virtues of

his god in the very same composition,

Lord, you are exalted. Who can compare to you?

Asarluhi, you are superior to any god, whatever he be named.7

A similar prayer is found in a testimony of the so-called ‘personal

piety’ of the Ramesside period in Egypt,

Prayer to Pre,-Harakhty8
Come to me, Pre,-Harakhty,
that you may perform (your) will.
You are the one who takes action,
6
Lenzi 2010, especially 315: ‘There is still a mountain of work to be done
on the comparison of the prayers in the Hebrew Psalter with those from
Mesopotamia’.
7
Cohen 1988, vol. 1, 416.
8
A Late Egyptian name of the sun god in his daytime form.
114 chapter four

there being none who takes action apart from you,

...
Hear my prayers –
my supplications by day,
my hymns by night.
For my petitions are constant in my mouth,
They are heard throughout the day.
O sole one, unique!
O Pre,-Harakhty,
the likes of whom does not exist here.
Protector of millions,
who delivers hundreds of thousands,
the helper of the one who cries to him,
the lord of Heliopolis.
Visit not my many offenses upon me,
I am one ignorant of himself.
I am a mindless man,
who all day follows his mouth,
like an ox after grass.9

Such prayers should be a warning to avoid two simplifications,

a) Seemingly ‘monotheistic’ or ‘henotheistic’ statements in the
context of worship should not lead to premature conclusions a-
bout the singularity of a deity.
b) Presumed silence on the part of the deity is often nothing
more than an argument to mollify that deity and urge him or her
to answer.
In an Egyptian hymn to Amun-Re it is apparently assumed that
the god will hear the prayer of a person in distress and will ut-
ter words effectuating his salvation.10 Presumably an officiant or
prophet answered in the name of the deity.11The fugitive Egyp-
tian Sinuhe prays,
Whichever god decreed this flight, have mercy, bring me home!
Surely you will let me see the place in which my heart dwells! . . .
may he hearken to the prayer of one far away!12
9
Translation Fox, CoS, vol. 1, 47. See also Assmann 1999, 408.
10
Ritner, CoS, vol. 1, 38-39.
11
Cf. Section 5.3.3.1.
12
Translation Lichtheim, CoS, vol. 1, 80.
 how did man address the deity? 115

In some skeptical Egyptian laments about the fate of the dead it

is stated blandly that no deceased will ever come back to tell the
living how it is in the hereafter,

I have heard the words of Imhotep and Herdedef,

Whose sayings are recited whole.
What of their places?
Their walls have crumbled,
Their places are gone,
As though they had never been!
None comes from there,
To tell of their state,
To tell of their needs,
To calm our hearts,
Until we go where they have gone!13

This was certainly not the prevailing belief in the ancient Near
East. Most people assumed that the spirits of the dead did visit
the living and did tell them about both their state as well as
about the past and future.
Out of a feeling of awe, human beings often shrank back from
addressing great deities directly. In many Mesopotamian incan-
tations a minor or more approachable deity is asked to intercede
with mightier colleagues.14 The Hittite king prays the Sun-god
to intercede on his behalf with an unknown angry god, ‘Whether
that deity is in heaven or whether he is in earth, you, O Sun-
god, shall go to him. Go, speak to that deity and [tell(?)] him.
Transmit the following words of the human: [follows a prayer
pleading before the angry god]’ (Singer 2002, 37). The Hittite
queen Puduhepa asks various deities to relay her prayer to the
Sun-goddess˘of Arinna (Singer 2002, 104-105).

4.2.2 Songs and Prayers in the Bible

In the Bible too people often inquired a solution to their problems
from God (Begg 1992). As one from many similar prayers we
quote Ps. 55:2-3a[1-2a],

13
Translation Lichtheim, CoS, vol. 1, 49.
14
E.g. Mayer 1976, 230-239; Maul 1988, 116:28; Lambert 1989.
116 chapter four

Give ear to my prayer, O God;

and hide not yourself from my plea!
Attend to me, and answer me!

It is our subjective impression that the Hebrew Psalmists resorted

more often to supplication and lamentation15 than other peoples
of the ancient Near East. We have no ready explanation for this
phenomenon, but factors that may have played a role are the
stricter concentration on one God and the heightened feeling of
collective guilt after the collapse of the Judean kingdom.
Of course intercession by other deities is absent from the ca-
nonical books of the Hebrew Bible, even though it may have oc-
curred in pre-exilic Israel, especially in the form of consultation
of deified ancestors.16 In the Bible human intermediaries take the
place of deities. When the Israelites felt threatened by the Phil-
istines (1 Sam. 7:1, 7-14) they asked Samuel to intercede for them
with the Lord (v. 8).17 After various rites – libation of water (v.
6), burnt offering of a suckling lamb (v. 9a) – Samuel prayed to
God who answered him (v. 9b). The content of the reply is not
recorded, but when the Philistines attacked, God’s thundering
voice confused them so much (v. 10) that it was easy for Israel to
defeat them.18

4.3 Letters to Deities

4.3.1 Letters to Deities in the Ancient Near East
Oscar19 was by no means the first to write letters to God. One
of the most ancient manners of sharing one’s experiences with a
god or goddess are the letters addressed to the deity. Sumerian
15
Lately some scholars have criticized the use of the term ‘lamentation’
(Villanueva 2008, 253-254). However, since this designation is so well estab-
lished in biblical scholarship we have decided to keep using it.
16
Cf. Section 5.3.3.2.
17
Barrado 1997, 12 rightly remarks that Samuel’s silence seems to imply
that he was reluctant to intercede for the people.
18
Although it is difficult to peel off the various redactional layers in 1 Sam. 7
(see e.g. Caquot & De Robert 1994, 104-106) this seems an acceptable recon-
struction.
19
The mortally ill boy in Schmitt’s short story, cf. Section 1.5.
 how did man address the deity? 117

examples are attested in Mesopotamia since the end of the neo-

Sumerian period, at the end of the 3rd millennium bce.20 A few
centuries later, Yašmah-Addu, king of Mari, writes a long letter
to the god Nergal because˘ he fears that his dynasty will come to
an end. The letter contains so many details about the political
history of the royal family that it is hardly possible that Yašmah-
Addu would have composed it himself.21 When Elamites invade ˘
his country, king Zimrilim of Mari writes letters to several gods
asking for help and receives written answers from prophets speak-
ing in the name of the deities, assuring him of their help (Durand
1988, 413-414). Also several Neo-Assyrian kings wrote letters to
their gods.22
In Egypt prayers were written on ostraca since the early 14th
century bce. Most were intended for Amun-Re whose oracle was
consulted when his image passed by during a procession.23 Since
letters to deities are also attested in the early Demotic period,24
it seems likely that such practices have been fairly common.

4.3.2 Letters to God in the Bible

In the Hebrew Bible no letter to God has been preserved. But
king Hezekiah goes to the temple and spreads the letter of the
Assyrian king before the God, apparently assuming that he will
be able to read it (2 Kgs 19:14). So it may be assumed that the
practice of writing to God was not unknown in Israel either.

4.4 Magic and Sorcery

4.4.1 Magic and Sorcery in the Ancient Near East
Not only by words people tried to influence the deities. In all
civilizations of the ancient Near East complicated magic to ward
off evil demons, or to persuade ‘good’ deities to help, accompanied
the incantations or prayers.25 The goal of magic and sorcery was
20
Hallo 1996, 231-235, with earlier literature.
21
Durand 2000, 69-74.
22
See e.g. Mayer 1984; Keller 1991; Leichty 1991.
23
Altenmüller 2009, 35-37.
24
Migahid 1986; Vittmann 1995; Migahid & Vittmann 2003.
25
See e.g. Borghouts 1980; Cryer 1994, 42-123; Bottéro 1987-1990; Haas
1987-1990; Koenig 1994; Jeffers 1996; Abusch & Van der Toorn 1999; Mirecki
118 chapter four

to ward off suffering from oneself or one’s family and friends, or,
conversely, to inflict suffering on one’s enemies, whether human
or divine. The performer of magic may be cast in the role of a
messenger, healer, sorcerer or even a divine being himself, because
he stands partly in the divine realm, partly in the human realm.
Similarity between the two realms is often explained by myth,
from which in some cases extensive quotations are given. In magic
the word was more important than the act. What Joris Borghouts
writes with regard to ancient Egyptian magic is true for the entire
ancient world,
Its mediating bridge is primarily the word (spell, as curse or con-
juration) complemented by an act (both eventually abbreviated
to a mere allusion or gesture) and often by an instrument or
medicine whose power is endorsed (or even rationalized) by the
spell.26

4.4.2 Magic and Sorcery in the Bible

In contrast to what is commonly thought, certain forms of ma-
gic were also deemed admissible in ancient Israel, even though
magic and sorcery are expressly forbidden in texts like Exod.
22:17[18]; Lev. 19:26; 20:6; Deut. 18:9-13.27 Moses and Aaron,
for example, perform miracles with Aaron’s staff which becomes
a serpent (Exod. 7:9-10) and turns the Nile into blood (Exod.
7:19-20). The Egyptian magicians are able to imitate these acts.
In Qumran and early Christianity magic was apparently com-
mon practice.28 In rabbinic Judaism the ban was upheld offi-
cially,29 but the prohibition became never really effective.30 The
same ambiguous attitude is found in the New Testament. Jesus
often casts out demons and does not even prevent a non-follower
from casting out demons in his name (Mk 9:38-40), but Paul op-
poses magic and sorcery (e.g. Acts 13:6-12).
& Meyer 2002; Klutz 2003; Jean 2006; Schwemer 2007; Collins 2008.
26
Borghouts 1980, 1137.
27
Cf. Jeffers 1996; Klutz 2003; Schmitt 2004b; Römer 2009.
28
See e.g. Kee 1986; Meyer & Smith 1999; Conner 2006; Labahn & Lietaert
Peerbolte 2007.
29
m. Sanh. VII.4; VII.11; j. Sanh. VII.19 [25d]; b. Sanh. 67a-68a.
30
See e.g. Trachtenberg 1939; Naveh & Shaked 1985; 1993; Schäfer 1990;
Schäfer & Shaked 1994; Schäfer et al. 1998; Klutz 2003; Bohak 2008.
 how did man address the deity? 119

4.5 Silence of Man before the Deity

4.5.1 Silence Because of Offenses
Many pious men and women have concluded that the best way to
communicate with a silent God is stillness.31 When was silence
better than speaking according to texts from Antiquity?
4.5.1.1 Silence Because of Offenses in the Ancient Near East
We have found no cases of human beings keeping silent about
offenses before their deities in the ancient Near Eastern sources.
Probably this must be attributed to our imperfect knowledge of
the available sources. Priests in the Assyrian empire who have
arbitrarily changed the ancient rites instruct their subordinates
to keep silent about the matter,32 but this is not the same as
hiding the offense from a deity. Perhaps people were reluctant
to assume that it would be possible to conceal sins from the all-
knowing gods.
4.5.1.2 Silence Because of Offenses in the Bible
When God calls his people to account through the message of
his prophets they may remain silent because they do not believe
he will help them (Isa. 50:2) or because they want to conceal to
have participated in pagan worship (Isa. 66:3-4). The supplicant
of Ps. 39 knows that he is suffering because he has sinned (Ps.
39:9[8], 12[11]). Therefore he decided to undergo his punishment
in silence (Ps. 39:2-3[1-2], 10[9]). But after a while he could not
restrain himself any longer and started to call on God (Ps. 39:3b-
4[2b-3]), asking him to listen to his prayer and break the silence
(Ps. 39:13[14]). Apparently, if God is silent, human beings need
not remain silent too, even if they deserve God’s silence.33
If an answer from the deity failed to come through, the frus-
tration of the supplicants was growing rapidly. When the Babylo-
nians had devastated the temple in Jerusalem and had deported
many Judeans people lamented,
31
Cf. Section 1.3.1.
32
Cole & Machinist 1998, No. 134, r. 16.
33
See further Section 4.5.3.2.
120 chapter four

Even when I call out or cry for help,

he shuts out my prayer (Lam. 3:8).

One possible reaction to God’s refusal to listen was resignation,

They sit on the ground, they keep silent,

the elders of the Daughter of Zion,
they have sprinkled dust on their heads,
have put on sackcloth (Lam. 2:10).

Silent mourning was one of the means to express acceptation of

the inevitable consequence of a decision on high to terminate a
life.34 This point of view is elaborated more fully in Lam. 3:26-29,

He is good, one should wait quietly

for the Lord’s salvation.
...
One should sit down alone and be silent,
for He has imposed it on him.
He should press his mouth to the dust,
perhaps there is still hope.35

When the Lord will forgive Lady Jerusalem her sins she will
never open her mouth again because of shame (Ezek. 16:63).
However, when Second Isaiah had announced that Jerusalem
had repaid her iniquity (Isa. 40:2) people did no longer accept
that God remained silent. Third Isaiah intones,

For Zion’s sake I will not keep silent,

for Jerusalem’s sake I will not keep quiet,
till her righteousness comes forth as brightness,
and her salvation blazes like a torch (Isa. 62:1).

Scholars differ on the question whether it is God or the prophet

who is speaking here in the first person,36 but the latter option
is preferable, if only because of vv. 4 and 12 (cf. Isa. 61:10).
34
See Sections 4.5.3 and 4.5.4.2.
35
Cf. Renkema 1998, 394-399.
36
God according to e.g. Young 1972, 467; Whybray 1975, 246-247; Oswalt
1998, 578-579. The prophet according to e.g. Westermann 1986, 297; Childs
2001, 511-513; Blenkinsopp 2003, 233-234.
 how did man address the deity? 121

The verb we have translated with ‘to keep quiet’37 normally

describes the trusting, peaceful attitude of the pious, whereas the
refusal to keep quiet was seen as typical of hotheads and rebellious
sinners.38

4.5.2 Silence Because of Awe or Fear

4.5.2.1 Silence Because of Awe or Fear in the Ancient Near
East
For various reasons human beings might fall silent before dei-
ties. A bad dream renders both deity and man speechless.39 The
Sumerian god Ninurta commands the rebel lands to fall silent
before his awesome exploits.40 Of course also the silence in the
sanctuary which we will discuss below (Section 4.5.3) implies a
certain amount of awe or fear for the deity.

4.5.2.2 Silence Because of Awe or Fear in the Bible

At the sight of the mighty acts of the Lord when he led his people
out of Egypt the nations writhe, shake, are terrified, struck down
by fear and dread (Exod. 15:14-15). Finally they become dumb
37
Hebrew fqv (šqt.).
38
Cf. Section 3.2.3.1. The verb ‘to remain quiet’ is a synonym of ‘to control
oneself’ and the opposite of turmoil (Isa. 7:2) and fear in Isa. 7:4. In contrast
to a hothead, a man able to restrain himself quiets strife (Prov. 15:18). Na-
omi’s confident statement that Boaz will not tarry to conclude the matter of
marrying Ruth (Ruth 3:18) is clearly a humorous understatement – on the
contrary, he will act swiftly. Also ‘to rest’ and ‘to sleep’ are close in meaning
(Isa. 14:7; 30:15; Job 3:13, 26), as are the nouns ‘rest’, ‘peace’ and ‘quiet’ in
1 Chron. 22:9. To dwell in peaceful quiet was everybody’s ideal (Ezek. 38:11;
Zech. 1:11). Trust characterizes the self-controlled behavior of the pious (Isa.
30:15) that contrasts sharply with the desire of the disobedient to plunge into
the turmoil of battle (v. 17). Isaiah criticizes the wealthy ladies of Jerusalem
who are at ease and trust that nothing will befall them (Isa. 32:9) in their
bustling city (Isa. 32:14) whereas soon enough (Isa. 32:10) disaster will strike.
True peace, trust and quiet are the result of righteous deeds (Isa. 32:17; cf.
Ps. 94:12-15). The restlessness of the wicked is compared to the inability of
the sea to remain quiet (Isa. 57:20; Jer. 49:23). After the return from the
terrors of the exile, the Lord’s pious ‘servant Jacob’ will have quiet and ease
(Jer. 30:10; 46:27).
39
Römer, TUAT, Bd. 2, 28, 34; Von Soden, TUAT, Bd. 3, 169.
40
Black et al. 2004, 170.
122 chapter four

as a stone when they see how the Israelites cross between walls
of seawater (Exod. 15:16).
When God orders the nations to be silent in Isa. 41:1 the
immediate context suggests an analogy to the common attempt
to silence adversaries in a lawsuit.41 However, this would imply
the possibility that the other party might use the same strategy
and summon God to be silent. This can hardly have been Second
Isaiah’s intention.42 The following verses (Isa. 41:2-6) describe
the terror that campaigns of Cyrus inspired among the nations.
This and the parallels discussed above suggest that silence out of
fear definitely plays a part too.

4.5.3 Silence Because of Forbearance or Prudence

4.5.3.1 Silence Because of Forbearance or Prudence in the
Ancient Near East
From early times on virtuous silence was seen as an implicit ap-
peal to the gods who were expected to reward such a pious atti-
tude.43
In the Ugaritic Legend of Aqhatu, for example, king Dani-ilu44
lies for seven consecutive days in silent supplication before the
gods, merely clad in sackcloth and with his boots on – a sign
of total self-neglect that expressed the grief of mourners (KTU
1.17:I.1-19). Dani-ilu does not explain why he is doing this, but
probably it is because he realizes that silence is wiser than speech
because the all-knowing gods might be offended if he were to
assume that they were ignorant of his problem – the lack of a son
and heir.
In wars the kings of the ancient Near East had to rely totally
on the protection of their gods. The Assyrian king Esarhaddon
(681-669 bce), for example, is admonished to keep silent in a
41
Cf. Beuken 1979, 59, 61; Berges 2008, 177.
42
It is a way out to describe the nations as ‘silent witnesses’ (Blenkinsopp
2002, 196-197). They are invited to speak (v. 1b) and they do speak in v. 6.
43
See e.g. Lanczkowski 1955, 196; Brunner-Traut 1979; Shupak 1993, 161-
162.
44
His name is identical to ‘Daniel’ in the Hebrew tradition. This Canaanite
Daniel is mentioned as a righteous sufferer in the Bible, Ezek. 14:14, 20; 28:3.
Cf. De Moor 1997, 149-150.
 how did man address the deity? 123

threatening situation,45 even though this contrasts starkly with

the behavior expected from a king according to other sources.46
Excessive noise had to be avoided in the sanctuary. So keeping
your quiet was a virtue of the Babylonian pious.47 Mesopota-
mian prayer was normally murmured (Grayson 2000, 306). In
the fourth chapter of the Egyptian Wisdom of Amenemope the
behavior of an excited man in the temple is contrasted with that
of a ‘truly silent man’, someone who prefers harmony over conflict
and clamor. The sage observes,

But all the silent in the temple,

They say: ‘Re’s blessing is great.’
Cling to the silent, then you find life,
Your being will prosper upon earth.48

Indeed you do not know the plans of god,

And should not weep for tomorrow;
Settle in the arms of the god,
Your silence will overthrow them.
The crocodile that makes no sound,
Dread of it is ancient.
Do not empty your belly to everyone,
And thus destroy respect of you;
Broadcast not your words to others,
Nor join with one who bares his heart.
Better is one whose speech is in his belly
Than he who tells it to cause harm.49

Also the Egyptian Wisdom of Any states that silence is the

prudent attitude in the temple,

Do not raise your voice in the house of god,

He abhors shouting;
Pray by yourself with a loving heart,
Whose every word is hidden.
He will grant your needs,
45
Parpola 1997, 17, No. 2, iii.11’.
46
See Section 3.2.1.1.
47
CAD (Q), 75b.
48
Translation Lichtheim 1976, 151.
49
Translation Lichtheim 1976, 159; CoS, vol. 1, 120.
124 chapter four

He will hear your words,

He will accept your offerings.50

Another wisdom text contains a similar passage,

Beware of raising your voice in his house,

god appreciates silence.
...
(Amun) loves the silent one more
than the one with a loud voice.51

Also the late Demotic Papyrus Insinger criticizes a person who

is loud-mouthed in the temple.52 Especially the priests who had
access to the most holy room where the image of the deity stood
affirm that they kept complete silence during their service (Brun-
ner-Traut 1979, 199-201).
Also in Greece silence was deemed appropriate in sacral surround-
ings, as is illustrated by Socrates’ remark, ‘Now listen to me in
silence, because the place is holy’ (Plato, Phaedrus, 15). Silent
prayer is also attested in Greek literature, e.g. in Homer, Iliad,
VII.194-195. In Neoplatonic thought, prayer was seen as a way
of becoming one with the deity, something that was attainable
only in total silence (Damascius 1967, 64f.). This comes close to
mysticism.
4.5.3.2 Silence Because of Forbearance or Prudence in the
Bible
When God commands Abraham to sacrifice his only son Isaac,
Abraham does not protest, but silently obeys (Gen. 22:2-3). He
does not divulge the purpose of their journey to his son and he
does not pray to God to rescind the cruel order. Abraham’s silence
has aptly been described as a terminal silence that bespeaks his
piety (Muers 2004, 6).
50
Any IV.1; translation Lichtheim 1976, 137. See also Brunner-Traut 1979,
199; Brunner 1988, 201; Shupak, CoS, vol. 1, 111.
51
Papyrus Chester Beatty VI, verso 5, 1 and 5, 8. Cf. Brunner-Traut 1979,
199-200; Brunner 1988, 228.
52
Cf. Lichtheim 1980, 211; Thissen, TUAT, Bd. 3, 317.
 how did man address the deity? 125

Another example of this pious attitude is found in Gen. 24.

Standing by the well the servant of Abraham prays that his mis-
sion may succeed, asking for a specific sign that one of the maid-
ens coming down to draw water will be the future wife whom God
has destined for Isaac (Gen. 24:13-14). Then Rebekah arrives and
does exactly as the servant had asked for in his prayer. At that
moment he still keeps silent prudently (Gen. 24:21), because he
wants to know for sure if God has answered his prayer so soon.53
The reader of the book of Genesis already knows Rebekah’s name
and pedigree (Gen. 22:23; 24:10), but the servant does not.54 Yet
he has learnt enough to reward her kindness with golden jew-
els (Gen. 24:22, 30). Only when she has told him the name of
her father and grandfather, and has offered him hospitality, the
servant kneels down to thank God (Gen. 24:24-27).
When the Egyptians pursued the Israelites after their flight
from Egypt, the Israelites cried in panic to God (Exod. 14:9-10)
and reproached Moses to have brought them in this dangerous
situation (Exod. 14:11-12). Moses reassures them that the Lord
will deliver them,

The Lord will fight for you,

and you must be still (Exod. 14:14).

Instead of protesting loudly (Exod. 14:10-12) the Israelites should

show forbearance, putting their trust in God. An open space
(Petuchah) after v. 14 underlines their silence graphically.55
When God has burnt Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu to death
because they had burnt incense although they did not have the
53
Cf. Westermann 1981, 474.
54
Cf. Wenham 1994, 144: ‘the narrator lets us know much more about the
girl than was apparent to the servant: her name, her family, and her marital
status. Having already met her name in the genealogy in 22:23, we suspect
at once that Rebekah is the appointed bride. If she passes the test, that will
clinch the issue, but as yet the servant is totally in the dark.’
55
In the present context v. 15 would support this interpretation if the sin-
gular ‘you’ is taken as addressing the collective body of all Israelites, including
Moses who must have participated in the crying to the Lord (v. 10) then.
However, the source critical analysis of the chapter indicates that the tension
between Exod. 14:9-14 and Exod. 14:15 may be the result of the weaving
together of three different sources. Cf. e.g. Propp 1999, 468, 478-479.
126 chapter four

right to do so (Lev. 10:1-2), Moses justifies this severe punish-

ment, but his brother Aaron remains silent (Lev. 10:3). Whether
Aaron’s silence meant that he resigned to Moses’ judgment or
that he felt it was too harsh cannot be decided with certainty.
But the first option seems the most likely one (Levine 1989, 60;
Maarsingh 1989, 84; Barrado 1997, 19). Aaron does not cry out as
a mourning father would be expected to do (Milgrom 1991, 604)
because he realizes that God’s severe retribution was deserved.
Similar wordless prudence occurs in Amos 5:13.
Moses and the priests command the people to be silent to
listen attentively to the blessings and curses that are about to
be pronounced by Moses (Deut. 27:9-10). After v. 10 the silence
that falls is expressed by a space in the text (Setumah).
A good parallel to the Ugaritic king Dani-ilu is king Ahab.
When Elijah has announced the terrible punishment that awaits
Ahab for the murder of Naboth he does not say a word in reply
but starts fasting, dons mourning garb, and walks cautiously
(1 Kgs 21:27). A graphical space (Setumah) underlines his si-
lent repentance. And as in the case of Dani-ilu his silent plea is
(partially) successful (1 Kgs 21:28-29).
In the presence of the Lord clamor is unseemly. Excessive
noise is a characteristic of the ungodly in the Hebrew Bible and
is incompatible with proper service in the sanctuary.56
In Ps. 65:2[1] the poet says ‘To you silence is praise, Oh God
in Zion!’ The translation of this colon is disputed. Most common
English translations have ‘Praise awaits you, O God, in Zion’ or
something similar, though there are also translations that have
preserved the meaning of ‘silence’ in this verse.57 In our opinion
56
1 Kgs 18:25-29; Isa. 5:14; 16:14 (loud-mouthed multitude); 17:12-14; 25:5;
Jer. 3:23; 50:42; 51:55; Ezek. 5:7; 7:11-14; 23:42; 31:18; 32:16; 39:11; Amos
5:23; 6:5; Ps. 41:12; 46:7; 59:7, 15; 65:8; 74:23; 83:3; Prov. 7:11; 17:1.
57
E.g. NASB: ‘There will be silence before You, and praise in Zion, O God’;
The Message: Silence is praise to you, Zion-dwelling God’; Amplified Bible:
‘To you belongs silence and praise is due and fitting to You, O God, in Zion’;
God’s Word Translation: ‘You are praised with silence in Zion, O God’, etc.
Also a French translation (French Nouvelle Version Segond Revisée, 1978)
preserved the translation ‘silence’: ‘Pour toi le silence est louange ô Dieu,
dans Sion’, as well as the German Luther Bible: ‘Gott, man lobt dich in der
Stille zu Zion’ and the Bibel in gerechter Sprache (3 2007): ‘Für dich ist Stille
 how did man address the deity? 127

the Hebrew text does not need emendation. The expression used
here cannot be very different from that which is used in Ps. 83:2.
The rendering ‘To you silence is praise’58 is simply the best. The
idea is that God does not appreciate clamor because it is a charac-
teristic of the ungodly. The silent praise of the humble supplicants
is contrasted with ‘the clamor of the nations’ in Ps. 65:8[7]. Just
as the silence of the pious is connected here with paying of vows
(v. 2b[1b]), so Qoh. 5:1-6 recommends the prudent worshipper to
pay his vows punctually and avoid a flood of words.
Of course there is the expectation that God will listen to these
silent prayers (Ps. 65:3a[2a]), but no audible reaction is expected:
‘You will answer us fairly through tremendous acts, Oh God of
our salvation!’ (v. 6a[5a]). And this is elaborated in the rest of the
Psalm, especially in vv. 10-14a[9-13a] where abundant harvests
and prosperity are awaited from the Creator of all. In this way the
meadows and valleys will shout and sing the praise of the Lord
(v. 14b[13b]) – silently, it may be presumed, like the heavenly
bodies (Ps. 19:2-5a).
Whether or not according to the Priestly source (P) com-
plete silence reigned in the inner priestly service in the temple on
Mount Zion is a disputed issue.59 In our opinion it is likely that
just as in other sanctuaries of the ancient world a higher degree
of silence was observed the closer one came to the place where
the deity was thought to be residing.
In any case the call ‘Silence!’ seems to have preceded the theo-
phany according to Hab. 2:20, Zeph. 1:7 and Zech. 2:17[13] (cf.
Lux 2005). In all three cases a blank space in the Hebrew text
marks this silence physically.60 Later on when the Feast of Booths
and the reading of the Law was resumed, ‘The Levites were quiet-
ing the people, saying, “Hush, for the day is holy; do not be sad.” ’
(Neh. 8:11; cf. Deut. 27:9). If v. 11 is not seen as a (later) paren-

Lobgesang, Gottheit auf dem Zion!’, and also the Dutch Naardense Bijbel
(2005): ‘U komt toe stilheid, een lofzang! O God op Sion’ and older Dutch
translations.
58
So e.g. Delitzsch 1867, 407; DCH, vol. 2, 426.; Goldingay 2007, 272.
59
Knohl 1995; 1996; Wick 1998.
60
In the case of Zeph. 1:7 a space is missing in the Codex Leningradensis,
but many other reliable and older manuscripts do have it.
128 chapter four

thetical insertion (Williamson 1985, 293), this instruction seems

to reflect the order not to mourn and weep in vv. 9-10. Nor-
mally mourning and weeping were rather loud affairs (cf. Sections
4.5.4.1-2).
A pious supplicant might feign deafness and dumbness to mol-
lify God (Ps. 38:14-15[13-14]; 39:2-3, 10[1-2, 9]). It is unknown if
such Psalms were meant as silent prayers. In any case there was
no need to cry out aloud to God. When Hannah ardently prayed
for a son the text says explicitly that ‘only her lips moved, and
her voice was not heard’ (1 Sam. 1:13).61 The truly pious put
their trust in God and wait patiently for their salvation, even if it
seems that the wicked are blessed with prosperity.62 Truly pious
people keep quiet (Ps. 35:20), pray with their head bowed down,
i.e. silently (v. 13), even if the wicked open wide their mouths
against them (Ps. 35:21). In accordance with this attitude it is
stated in Isa. 30:15 that Israel should have kept quiet and silent
awaiting God’s delivery. Instead they put their trust in strong
cavalry (Isa. 30:16).
However, just as elsewhere complete silence was unthinkable
in a community of worshippers that felt the urge to praise the
Lord (Ps. 30:13[12]; 40:10[9]). Even the Song of Moses – which
accuses the Israelites of many sins in the past – should not be
forgotten out of the mouths of their posterity (Deut. 31:21).
The supplicant in Ps. 39 suffers from a grave affliction which
affects his outward appearance (vv. 11-12[10-11]). He fears that
he will die shortly (vv. 5-7[4-6], 12b[11b], 14b[13b]), but since he
realizes that his sorry state is the deserved punishment for sins
(v. 12a[11a]), he feels that he has no right to call God to account
and has tried to remain silent in order not to curse God in front
of other sinners (vv. 2-3[1-2]). ‘I kept quiet in silence’ (v.3a[2a]),
‘I shut up without goodness’ (v. 3b[2b]), so even though he did
not receive the good he expected from God, he kept his mouth
shut. The word ‘goodness’ here has the meaning of ‘prosperity’,63
the supplicant is living without prosperity, whereas the wicked
61
There is no proof whatsoever that silent praying was uncommon, as
Stoebe 1973, 91 asserts.
62
Ps. 37:7; 62:2, 6[1, 5]; 131:2.
63
Cf. similar use in Ps. 25:13, despite Craigie 1983, 309.
 how did man address the deity? 129

apparently prosper (v. 2[1]). He did not want to denounce God

because of this. However, his pious attitude increased his pain so
much that he could not keep his tongue in check any longer and
starts to speak now (vv. 3-4[2-3]). He wants to know: will his all
too short life end prematurely? (vv. 5-6[4-5]). The way in which
the supplicant describes his pain resembles Job’s complaints,64
with this difference that Job persistently affirms his innocence. If
the supplicant himself would try to answer the questions to this
dilemma he would imply injustice on the part of God.65
The supplicant’s only hope is a merciful God (v. 8[7]). Just as
he has saved God from scorn from the side of the wicked (v. 2[1]),
he hopes that God will spare him the scorn of fools by delivering
him undeservedly from his transgressions (v. 9[8]). However, now
he encounters a problem that imposes silence upon him again: he
may have sinned but the same God whose deliverance he awaits
has done it (v. 10[9]). In view of the goodness of v. 3[2], there
can be hardly any doubt that the supplicant deliberately refrains
from filling in the word ‘evil’66 because this would bring him
too close to the blasphemy he attempts to avoid. The supplicant
considers this argument strong enough to ask God to terminate
the stubborn silence on his part before his worshipper is no more
(vv. 13-14[12-13]). Ps. 39 is one of the many examples of a certain
correspondence between human and divine silence.
According to Qohelet one should restrict speaking in the sanc-
tuary to the absolute minimum,

Guard your feet when you go to the house of God;67

to draw near to listen is better than the offering of sacrifices by
fools,
for they do not know that they are doing wrong.
Be not rash with your mouth,
and let your heart not hurriedly utter a word before God,
64
On the connections with the wisdom literature, see Hossfeld & Zenger
1993, 249. See also Section 3.2.4.2 on the wisdom aspect of Job’s decision to
stop his defense against the Almighty.
65
Cf. Craigie 1983, 308-309.
66
‘Goodness’ and ‘evil’ are a standard word pair.
67
Egyptian parallels show that this refers to avoiding unnecessary noise by
walking hurriedly. Cf. Brunner-Traut 1979, 198.
130 chapter four

for God is in heaven, and you are upon earth,

therefore your words should be few (Qoh. 4:17–5:1[5:1-2]).

This reductionist counsel of the skeptical sage is the consequence

of his conviction that God will not answer prayer or lament.
Surely there is still a messenger in the sanctuary (Qoh, 5:5[6]),
but the sage shrinks back from calling him a ‘messenger of God’,
because he does not expect any answer from heaven anymore,
not even by a human intermediary. Qohelet’s God remains si-
lent (Kaiser 2008, 1-23; Spieckermann 2008). He has no need of
a prophet anymore, because he is convinced that human beings
cannot discover anything about the future (Qoh. 7:14; 9:1). What
God does remains an unfathomable secret (Qoh. 8:17).68

4.5.4 Silence Because of Incapacity

4.5.4.1 Silence Because of Incapacity in the Ancient Near
East
One of the most universal experiences of powerlessness is mourn-
ing the dead. This might be expressed by loud wailing, but some-
times also by paralyzed silence. Normally worshippers were not
silent before their gods. Singing, praying, lamenting and recita-
tion of holy texts filled the temples of the ancient Near East
quasi-continuously with sound,69 though irreverent clamor had
to be avoided. Therefore it was a sign of utter sorrow on the part
of man if total silence replaced this sign of active worship.
It is debatable if silence because of the loss of beloved ones
should be assigned to the rubric ‘Silence before the Deity be-
cause of Incapacity’. We might have grouped part of the following
material under Section 3.2.4. However, in the ancient world the
deities were ultimately held responsible for life and death, even if
human beings were instrumental in the implementation of their
will. For that reason we deal with these texts at this point.
When the Sumerian god of wisdom Enki and his wife Damgal-
nunna departed from their defiled sanctuary Apsû (groundwater)
67
Egyptian parallels show that this refers to avoiding unnecessary noise by
walking hurriedly. Cf. Brunner-Traut 1979, 198.
68
Cf. Schoors 2003.
69
See e.g. Kaplony-Heckel, TUAT, Bd. 1, 539.
 how did man address the deity? 131

in Eridu, silence reigned (Cohen 1988, vol. 1, 59). In the des-

troyed temples of Sumer one of the most horrible descriptions of
abandonment by the gods is silence on the part of their worship-
pers.70 Silent mourning is also attested in Egypt.71 According to
Isa. 23:2 the inhabitants of Phoenician colonies would have fallen
silent because of the destruction of Tyre, but Isa. 23:1, 6 create
the impression that silent mourning alternated with loud wailing.
It was often difficult to keep silent. People lamenting the loss
of their dearest might refuse to be silenced. When Gilgamesh
mourns the early death of his friend Enkidu he cries out, ‘How
could I stay silent? How could I stay quiet?’72 When countless
calamities strike Egypt even a normally quiet sage finds it hard
to keep silent.73 However, weeping over the impending death of
one’s father was not manly according to the Ugaritic legend of
Kirtu,

My son, do not weep for me,

do not mourn for me!
Do not use up, my son, the fountain of your eyes,
the marrow of your head for tears.
Call your sister Thatmanatu,
the daughter whose passion is strongest:
let her weep and mourn for me!74

In many cultures of Antiquity weeping and wailing were con-

sidered a specialism of women.75 In such lamentations human
70
Cooper 1983, 185; Cohen 1988, 70, 140, 171, 218; Black et al. 2004, 130,
136; Römer 2004, 93, 96; idem, TUAT, Bd. 2, 706; Von Soden, TUAT, Bd. 3,
120, lines 100, 106; Hallo, CoS, vol. 1, 420; Tremper Longman III, CoS, vol.
1, 481; Foster, CoS, vol. 1, 488; Klein, CoS, vol. 1, 538. The theme was even
transferred to other genres, cf. Vanstiphout 2003, 41.
71
Dominicus 1994, 20-21.
72
Gilg. Ep. X.67 par.; George 2003, vol. 1, 682-683.
73
Cf. Shupak, CoS, vol. 1, 106. Cf. above, Section 2.4.2.4.
74
KTU 1.16:I.25-30, translation De Moor 1987, 212-213.
75
De Moor 1987, 261, n. 234. Some scholars, e.g. Gibson 1978, 114 and
Wyatt 1998, 294, assume that in the Ugaritic legend KTU 1.19:I.34-35 a girl
is stifling her sobs, while others, among them De Moor 1987, 250, translate
differently, supposing that on the contrary she wept unrestrainedly when she
noticed the ominous signs of disastrous drought and death at the court of her
father.
132 chapter four

beings accused the deities directly or indirectly of incomprehens-

ible behavior, like the girl Thatmanatu when she hears the news
of Kirtu’s impending death,

She raised her voice, shrieked,

she raised her cry,
she wept and gnashed her teeth,
made her voice heard in weeping:
‘In your life, o father, we rejoiced,
in your immortality we exulted.
(Now), like dogs we prowl through your house,
like puppies – ah! – through your basement.
Ah father! Should you die like mortal men?
Alas! Should weeping pass through your basement?
Dirges of father’s wife on the heights?

Alas! Do gods die?

Does not a child of the Benevolent live?76

It is worth noting that the girl Thatmanatu does not accuse the
gods directly, but her intention is clear: she challenges the existing
royal theology which propagated the doctrine of the divine nature
of kingship. Therefore she and her mother feel free to raise their
voices.
Also in Greece mourning in silence, by foregoing the wailing
that was customary, is attested (Iliad VII.427-428; VIII.28-29;
IX.695).
4.5.4.2 Silence Because of Incapacity in the Bible
In Israel too loud wailing gave expression to the feelings of frus-
tration accompanying the death of a beloved one.77 Mostly God
is not openly held responsible, but it is evident that the laments
76
KTU 1.16:II.33-44, translation De Moor 1987, 215-216. ‘Benevolent’ is an
epithet of the highest god, Ilu. Tropper & Hayajneh 2003 propose to render
the epithet as ‘scharfsinnig’ (sagacious). In both cases the irony is obvious.
In the royal cult prayers were sent up to wish the king immortality, like the
gods whose ‘son’ he presumably was. Traces of this ideology are still found
in the Hebrew Bible, cf. 1 Kgs 1:31; Ps. 2:7; 45:7[6]; 89:27-28[26-27].
77
E.g. Isa. 15:2-3, 8; 16:7; Jer. 4:8; 25:34; Mk 5:39 par. Also if killing was
awaited only, cf. Est. 4:1.
 how did man address the deity? 133

are directed to the Lord of life and death. In Israel too it was in
the first place a task of women to moan over the death of beloved
ones and sometimes it is stated explicitly that they were not able
to restrain themselves.78
But silent mourning is attested as well. Those who bury or
burn the bodies of deceased sinners have to execute their task
in silence, not invoking the name of God (Amos 6:10).79 Wailing
over the dead and the temple has to stop when punishment is
deserved (Amos 8:3). Job’s friends rend their clothes and strew
ash on their heads when they see his sorry state. They sit with him
for seven days and seven nights in complete silence.80 Possibly
they feel too embarrassed to address Job unless he himself starts
speaking. Or had they already decided that his punishment was
no doubt deserved?
After the destruction of Zion its elders sit dumbfounded on
the ground, sprinkle dust on their heads and put on mourning
attire (Lam. 2:10).81 In Lam. 3:28 the intention is somewhat more
positive, implying also humble resignation of those waiting for
the Lord’s salvation (cf. v. 26), though the associations with
mourning are still present.
As in the world around Israel the destruction of the temple
caused the silencing of music and songs according to Amos 8:3
and 4 Ezra 10:22.
The silence in destroyed cities or countries is implied in Isa.
15:1; 47:5; Jer. 6:2; 25:37; 47:5; 48:2. Also shame over defeat and
destruction of cities might be a reason to suppress loud wailing.
The prophet Micah laments about the destruction of Samaria
and the subsequent fall of Jerusalem he expects (Mic. 1:8-9), but
warns his compatriots not to weep in front of their enemies, the
Philistines (Mic. 1:10).
78
E.g. ‘Rachel’ in Jer. 31:15; Lady Zion in Jer. 4:8, cf. Korpel 2009b; Lam.
1:16.
79
Cf. Stuart 1987, 364; Lux 2005.
80
Job 2:12-13. Normally a period of mourning lasted seven days. Cf. De
Moor 1987, 261, n. 240. Lohfink 1962 assumes the existence of a cultic period
of silence, but the evidence for anything like that is too meager.
81
Cf. Renkema 1998, 264: ‘The intention behind the action, therefore, would
appear to be a desire to share in the silence of the dead, made real by their
own silence and paralysis.’
134 chapter four

Elsewhere we will discuss Ezekiel’s inability to speak anything

else but the word of God.82 But here we want to discuss Ezra 9:4-
5. Having heard the news that many Jewish men have married
foreigners (Ezra 9:1-2), Ezra rends his clothes, performs what
are evidently further rites of mourning and sits down in silence,
appalled by such behavior (Ezra 9:4-5). Evidently he does this
because he is sure that the same God who allowed Moses to take
a foreigner as a wife did not allow later generations that freedom
anymore (Ezra 9:6-15).
A reason to remain silent could be that people accepted that
they were confronted with a decision of God which made it im-
possible for them to pronounce judgment (Gen. 24:50). When
God finally answers Job’s tormented questions, after so many
chapters of deep silence on God’s side, by invoking his awesome
power as the Creator and sustainer of the world (Job 38–39), Job
realizes his human limitations and is unable to refute God’s argu-
ment. He lays his hand on his mouth to indicate that henceforth
he will remain silent (Job 40:4-5[39:37-38]).83

4.5.5 Silence Because of Sleep

What is rather surprising is that the ancient sources mention
human and divine sleep at night several times side by side. Ap-
parently because it was seen as quite normal that deities needed
sleep just like human beings. This point illustrates well our thesis
that the Ancients were fully aware of the anthropomorphic nature
of their god-talk.

4.5.5.1 Silence Because of Sleep in the Ancient Near East

In all cultures of the ancient Near East people went to sleep in
the temple deliberately because they awaited an oracle from the
deity in the form of dreams, visions or direct spoken revelation.84
They expected salvation in the morning (Janowksi 1989). If the
deities addressed did not react it seemed logical to suppose that
82
Cf. Section 5.2.2.2.
83
See for this gesture Sections 3.2.3.1-2.
84
Cf. Section 5.3 above, especially the passage about the silent supplication
of the Ugaritic hero Dani-lu.
 how did man address the deity? 135

they too were asleep. With regard to the sleep of death and the
lack of praise in the Nether World see Section 6.2.1.5a.
4.5.5.2 Silence Because of Sleep in the Bible
Israel is no exception with regard to the belief in the revelatory
nature of dreams and visions received while sleeping (cf. Sec-
tion 5.3.1.2). Possibly the Psalms which speak of salvation in the
morning85 reflect a time when incubation was also practiced in
Israel.86 With regard to the sleep of death and the lack of praise
in the Nether World see Section 6.2.1.5b.

4.6 Conclusions on Man Addressing the Deity

In normal communication between humans silence presupposes
speech (Section 2.3). Therefore we explored the modes in which
human beings addressed their gods in this Chapter 4.
Usually ordinary people did not dare to approach the deity di-
rectly. They made use of ‘buffers’: stelae, images or professional
intermediaries such as priests, prophets, singers, scribes. Even
praying in the general direction of the sanctuary was deemed
sufficient to be heard by the deity (Section 4.1).
The gods were invoked in more or less standardized hymns,
lamentations and prayers. The deity was mollified with exuberant
praise of his or her unique qualities. Several of these texts betray
frustration because the supplicant did not receive the answer he
or she expected, but there is reason to suspect that this too was
merely an attempt to put pressure on the god or goddess. Instead
of the most powerful gods people often addressed minor divine
beings asking them to convey their request to the right deity
(Section 4.2.1).
It is our subjective impression that in the Hebrew Bible more
supplication and lamentation is preserved than in the surround-
ing cultures. The closest but still remote parallels are found in
Sumerian and Hittite texts. Factors that may have played a role
are the stricter concentration on one God and the heightened
feeling of collective guilt after the collapse of the Judean king-
dom. Intercession by other deities is absent from the canonical
85
Ps. 30:6[5]; 46:6[5]; 90:14; 92:3[2] 143:8.
86
Cf. Ps. 3:6[5]; 4:9[8].
136 chapter four

books of the Hebrew Bible, even though it may have occurred in

preexilic Israel, especially in the form of consultation of deified
ancestors. In the Bible human intermediaries take the place of
divine intercessors (Section 4.2.2).
In contrast to other kings in the ancient Near East the kings
of Israel and Judah do not seem to have written letters to God,
even though he is evidently supposed to be able to read a letter
written by a human being (Section 4.3).
In all civilizations of the ancient Near East complicated magic
and sorcery were accompanying incantations to ward off suffering
from oneself or one’s family and friends, or, conversely, to inflict
suffering on one’s enemies, whether human or divine. Even though
such practices are expressly forbidden in the Bible there is reason
to suspect that people continued to believe in their effectiveness
(Section 4.4).
In Chapter 3 we explored the reasons for interpersonal silence
in Antiquity. Did the same reasons apply in communication with
deities? This was the question we have tried to answer in Section
4.5. Silence because of offenses committed did occur, but more
often virtuous silence was a way to incite the deity to show pity.
Also terrifying exploits of deities might cause human beings to
keep silent. Sometimes the gods themselves urged their protégés
to remain silent while they were busy punishing their adversar-
ies. Excessive noise had to be avoided in the temple, but com-
plete silence was impossible and undesirable. In general wordless
prudence was seen as a sign of piety. Silent mourning might al-
ternate with loud wailing. Incubation in the temple in the hope
to receive dreams or visions promising divine intervention was
common, possibly also in Israel.
If we now compare the results summarized in Section 3.3 with
those of Section 4.5 it appears that the reasons human beings may
have had for keeping silent before their deities are practically the
same:
 how did man address the deity? 137

Silence of Humans before Humans and God(s)

Reasons ANE Bible ANE Bible
Humans Humans Humans Humans
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
Humans Humans Gods God
Offenses x x ∅? x
Awe / Fear x x x x
Forbearance /
Prudence x x x x
Incapacity x x x x
Sleep x x x x
 chapter five
how did the deity address man?
Now that we have discussed the way in which man addressed
God (Chapter 4) we need to deal with the other side of the com-
munication between deities and human beings. How did people
in the ancient world describe their experiences with a speaking
or writing deity? Or a deity reacting to their prayers or anxious
questions by acting, for example by delivering the supplicants or
by giving them an unmistakable sign or token? Or by addressing
them?
We confine ourselves in this introductory section to some
Hebrew examples – some collateral evidence from other ancient
Near Eastern civilizations will follow later. It is evident that ac-
cording to existing literary tradition the deity expected that hu-
man beings were attentively listening to any message from above.1
If humans neglected this apparently self-evident obligation pun-
ishment had to be expected.2 So people promised to listen atten-
tively to the word of God (e.g. Exod. 24:7; Josh. 24:24) and were
sure that he would answer (e.g. Ps. 86:7).
From his side God promised to answer swiftly to the prayers of
the pious,

Before they call I will answer,

while they are yet speaking I will hear (Isa. 65:24).

For I know the plans I am planning for you, declares the Lord,
plans for prosperity and not for evil,
to give you future and hope.
Then you will call me and I will certainly come,
and you will pray to me and I will hear you.
You will seek me and will certainly find me
when you search for me with all your heart (Jer. 29:11-13).

But the worshippers soon forgot to do so, triggering a certain

reciprocity – if people did not listen to God, he refused to listen
1
For the Hebrew Bible, see e.g. Gen. 22:18; 26:5; Exod. 15:26; Deut. 15:5;
26:17; 27:9-10, etc.
2
Lev. 26:14, 18, 21, 27; Deut. 28; 30; Isa. 1:18-19, etc.
140 chapter five

to them.3 If they do not listen (Jer. 6:10), his prophet may try
to keep the word of God down (Jer. 6:11). God may even make
the sinners deaf to the admonitions of the prophets, Isa. 6:9-
10, etc. Similarly Lady Wisdom will refuse to answer those who
have neglected her wise counsel (Prov. 1:28, cf. 1:24-25 and Prov.
21:13).

5.1 Direct Communication between Deity and Man

5.1.1 Direct Communication in the Ancient Near East

Directly hearing the voice of the gods was a privilege of divinely
elected people like kings.4 An interesting example is the recently
published fragmentary dialogue between one Išme-Dagan5 and
the then highest god Enlil who for political reasons is identified
with Assur in this and other contemporary documents. The ruler
is informed that Enlil wants to talk to him. The text continues,

Išme-Dagan addressed his Lord as follows:

‘[. . . ], O our Lord, why are you angry? [Whereas his servant (?)]
walks constantly behind him? Listen [to his prayers (?)!]’
He (the god) opened his mouth with him:
‘[. . . ] I am furious at my city, my temple, my house. There I
am furious at Nippur, here at Baltil,6 my cult center, because
a descendant of a foreigner has stopped the big sacrifices and
(because) the exalted sanctuary of my two cult centers7 has been
destroyed.
Išme-Dagan replied with these words:
‘Speak to us and we will restore the regular cult and the plans of
your two cult centers.’
[Thereupon the god] spoke as follows:
3
E.g. Deut. 1:43-45; 3:26; Isa. 1:14, 19-20; 65:12 ↔ 65:24; Jer. 7:16 (accord-
ing to the Septuagint and 4QJera ) ↔ Jer. 7:23-28; Jer. 11:11, 14 ↔ 11:7-10;
Zech. 7:7 ↔ 7:13.
4
E.g. the Old Babylonian kings Ibalpiel II (DeJong Ellis 1987; Lenzi 2008,
58-62) and Samsu-Iluna (Sollberger & Kupper 1971, 223ff.; Van Dijk 2000).
5
Probably Išme-Dagan II, son of Šamši-Adad who appointed him viceroy
of Ekallatum and Assur. Išme-Dagan II ruled, with mixed success, in the early
18th century bce. Cf. Frahm 2009, 148-149.
6
Another name of the city of Assur.
7
In the cities of Nippur and Assur.
 how did the deity address man? 141

‘Go in the early morning, enter the Ekur temple. On the spot
where you see a white raven [shall my sanctuary be rebuild (?)].’8

The white raven is an omen by which the god will indicate where
his sanctuary should be rebuild. In the subsequent badly dam-
aged lines the god promises Išme-Dagan that if he rebuilds the
sanctuaries in Assur and Nippur, and resumes the lavish contri-
butions to the temples, his dynasty will be successful and will
never come to an end.
A similar divine speech is directed to Ibalpiel II of the city of
Eshnunna who reigned c. 1779-1765 bce,

O king Ibalpiel, thus says Kititum:9 The secrets of the gods are
placed before me. Because you constantly pronounce my name
with your mouth, I constantly disclose the secrets of the gods to
you.
On the advice of the gods and by the command of Anu,10 the
country is given you to rule. You will ransom the upper and lower
country, you will amass the riches of the upper and lower country.
Your commerce will not diminish; there will be a perm[anent] food
of peace [for] any country that your hands keep hold of.
I, Kititum, will strengthen the foundations of your throne; I
have established a protective spirit for you. May your [e]ar be
attentive to me!11

Scholars agree on the divinatory, prophetic nature of such dy-

nastic oracles.12 The standard phrases in which they are couched
justify the assumption that we are dealing here with literary cre-
ations which to a considerable extent should be attributed to the
scribes who wrote the oracles down. This is also the case if other
persons, like prophets, priests or servants of the king, acted as
additional intermediaries between the deity and the king since
quite similar dynastic oracles are found in this indirect form. The
8
Our translation after Frahm 2009, 146-147, omitting line numbers and
other epigraphic details.
9
Goddess.
10
High god.
11
Translation Nissinen 2003, 94, omitting line numbers and notes. See also
Pientka-Hinz, in: Krüger 2008, 57.
12
E.g. Nissinen 2003, 93; Lenzi 2008, 61.
142 chapter five

direct addressing of the king is therefore a literary ploy and one

might treat such texts in which the impression is created that a
deity addresses the king directly also under the Section 5.2.2.
A Babylonian legend relates how Shamash (sun god) and
Adad (storm god) once invited the Sumerian king Enmeduranki,
legendary ruler of Sippar, to the divine assembly. They taught
him how to observe oil on water (a type of omen) and gave him
‘the tablet of the gods, the liver’, the main source of information
in hepatoscopy.13 Upon returning on earth Enmeduranki taught
the priests of the cities of Nippur, Sippar and Babylon the secret
techniques of the diviners. Every priest is bound by an oath before
Shamash and Adad to guard his secret knowledge which included
the ability to use tablet and stylus (Lambert 1967, 132). Enmed-
uranki presumably reigned before c. 2900 bce but the Babylonian
version of this legend is much later (c. 1100 bce) and serves to
make Enmeduranki the ancestor of all divination priests.
Even if the impression is created that a deity writes a letter
directly to a king it must be assumed that it was dictated to a
scribe by a human messenger of the god.14 When a man sees in a
dream that an oracle for the Assyrian king Assurbanipal (668-627
bce) is written on a pedestal of the moon god Sin, this person
assumes that the inscription was written by Sin himself.15 But
according to a variant version of this dream Nabû, the god of the
scribal art, read the text to the dreamer which suggests that it was
a human hand that wrote the oracle.16 Other Babylonian tablets
refer to religious texts which were presumably written by deities
themselves but were no doubt the work of human scholars.17
Deities might also address officers of the king directly. In what
is possibly a precursor of the later Harpers’ Songs, an Egyptian
singer of the 20th century bce prays to the goddess Hathor,
Pray hear my supplication, your Majesty, Golden One!
Turn your heart toward me.18
13
See Section 5.3.3.1.
14
Cf. Pongratz-Leisten 1999, 202-265; Durand 2008, 487-490.
15
‘I put my trust in the words of Sin’.
16
Van der Toorn 2007, 180-181.
17
Van der Toorn 2007, 209.
18
Cf. Altenmüller 2009, 29.
 how did the deity address man? 143

Apparently he expected a direct reply from the goddess. Similarly

the Egyptian administrator Paheri (15th century bce) prays to
his favorite god Osiris,

May you (Osiris) hear my calling,

May you fulfill what I have said.19
For I am one of those who worship you.20

A high officer of the Egyptian New Kingdom praises the goddess

Hathor in the hope she will commend him to Horakhty and other
deities. Her reply is couched in the form of a direct reply, ‘Words
spoken by Hathor, mistress of Thebes’ (Frood 2007, 91-94).
In many letters from the Old Babylonian kingdom of Mari
(18th century bce) servants of the king report that a deity di-
rectly addressed them, usually with a message intended for their
master. Because in other cases it is a prophet or prophetess who
speaks on behalf of the deity, it may be that the officers omitted
the medium sometimes to make themselves more important.
Kings believed in the possibility of direct conversation with
their patron-god. A Hittite king prays,

O Sun-god! A human, your servant, herewith speaks a word to

you and listens to your word.21

The apparently angry god must tell him in a dream, or by a

seeress, or a diviner able to interpret a liver omen, what the king’s
sins are (Singer 2002, 32, 38). The Hittite king Muwatalli prays,

Divine lords, lend me your ear, and listen to these my pleas! And
the words which I will make into a plea to the divine lords, these
words, divine lords, accept and listen to them!22

In a Hittite expiation ritual a session of a court of Nether World

deities is simulated. The sun goddess of the earth (Allani) takes
19
His preceding wishes for a happy afterlife.
20
Cf. Altenmüller 2009, 31-32.
21
Singer 2002, 37.
22
Singer 2002, 87. See also Singer 2002, 91: ‘The words of prayer which I
will present to the gods, let them not turn them back to me!’
144 chapter five

the stand as a witness and speaks out either a favorable or unfa-

vorable oracle for the royal family. It must be assumed that in the
ritual her text was spoken by an officiant or a prophet (Taracha
2000, 51, 183-184).
According to the Ugaritic legends of Kirtu and Aqhatu kings
had access to the divine council in which the gods directly ad-
dressed them.23
Often deities address human beings directly in a dream (cf.
Section 3.2.3). An Egyptian dream book enumerates all kinds of
dreams and interprets them as either good or bad omina. At the
end of the session in which a man has his dream explained the
following dialogue between him and the goddess Isis is recorded,
[Dreamer:]
‘Come to me, come to me, my mother Isis! Behold, I am seeing
what is far from me in my city.’
[Isis:]
‘Behold me, my son Horus,24 as one come forth bearing away
what you have seen, so that your deafness be ended as your dream
recedes, and fire go forth against him who frightens you. Behold,
I have come so that I might see you, that I might drive off your
ills, and that I might eradicate all terror.’
[Dreamer:]
‘Hail, good dream seen (by) night and by day. Drive off every evil
terror that Seth,25 son of Nut,26 has made. As Re27 is victorious
against his enemies, so I am victorious against my enemies.’28

Here a standard prayer is answered by a standard oracle of sal-

vation in the name of a goddess. Yet the illusion is created that a
genuine direct dialogue takes place between the goddess and the
dreamer.
According to an Assyrian dreambook a dreamer may repeat-
edly hear speaking voices from heaven but the identity of the
23
For Kirtu, cf. KTU 1.15:II-III. For Dani-ilu in the Legend of Aqhatu, cf.
KTU 1.20–1.22.
24
The identification with the god Horus might mean that originally this
dream book was intended for the benefit of the king.
25
Evil god.
26
Goddess of the (night)sky.
27
Sun god who dispels the terrors of the night.
28
Translation Ritner in: CoS, vol. 1, 54.
 how did the deity address man? 145

speakers is not disclosed.29 A voice from heaven – probably the

voice of the sun god Shamash – instructs Enkidu to prevent his
friend Gilgamesh from entering the forest.30 The Ugaritic sun
goddess Shapshu calls ‘from above’ to put an end to a fight
between gods.31 In Mesopotamia thunder was interpreted as the
heavenly voice of the storm god Adad.32
In his prayer to Amun at the battle of Kadesh (c. 1285 bce),
the Egyptian king Ramesses II claims to have heard the god an-
swer him from behind his back,

But then I found Amun mighty for me

above a million soldiers, a hundred thousand charioteers,
More than ten thousand men, comrades and children,
united in singleness of heart.
No, not the work of multitudes of people –
Amun is mightier than they!
I learned these things from your own mouth, O Amun;
and I did not exceed your counsel.

So, I prayed at the far end of the world,

and my voice echoed through Thebes;
And I found that Amun would come
once I cried out to him.
He put his hand in mine
and I was happy.
And he called as if behind me,
‘Go forward! I am with you!
I am your Father, my hand is in yours!
I am stronger than hundreds of thousands of men!
I am the Lord of Battle, Lover of Victory!’33

The Pharaoh claims to have heard the voice of Amun speaking

directly to him, encouraging him to attack and promising him
victory. Modern readers may grow somewhat suspicious of the
29
CAD (T), 457.
30
Gilg. Ep. IV.194-195; VII.132-133. Cf. George 2003, vol. 1, 599, 641; vol.
2, 820, 848.
31
KTU 1.6:VI.23. See also 1.82:6
32
CAD (R), 322-333.
33
Translation Foster 2001, 98-99. See also Gardiner 1960, 10, and for par-
allels De Moor 1997, 52.
146 chapter five

fact that the god’s voice came from behind the king, but that is
not the point here.34 For the Egyptians god and man are partners
(Hornung 1977). A god dwells inside every human being (Gries-
hammer 1977) and so it is by no means strange to hear an inner
divine voice addressing you (Brunner 1977b, 1162). Man is free to
follow this divine guidance or to reject it, but exactly this liberty
entails that the choice often remains difficult, especially when the
heart remains silent in situations where it should provide divine
inspiration (Brunner 1977b, 1162-1163).
In the Ugaritic Legend of Aqhatu, the god of rain and fertility
Ba,lu35 addresses king Dani-ilu36 directly when for seven consec-
utive nights Dani-ilu has laid in silent supplication before the gods
(KTU 1.17:I.1-19). In this case the wish for a son is at issue. The
high priest Attanu who dictated the epic to his scribe Ilimilku
relates a heavenly discussion between Ba,lu and Ilu, ending with
Ilu blessing Dani-ilu with a son. It is probably Ba,lu himself who
passes the good news on to Dani-ilu (KTU 1.17:II).
The thundering voice of Ba,lu was heard especially in spring
and autumn.37 In the Ugaritic myth KTU 1.4:V.6-9 his mother-
in-law, Athiratu, observes,

Also it is the prime time for his rains,

Ba,lu should appoint the time of the barques on the waves
and of the giving forth of his voice in the clouds,
of his letting loose the lightnings to the earth.38

And sure enough, somewhat later Ba,lu gives forth his thundering
voice,

Ba,lu gave forth his holy voice,

Ba,lu repeated the u[tterance of his li]ps.
His holy voice made the earth [qu]ake,
[the utterance of] his [lips] the mountains:
34
See the rather close Hebrew parallel below, Section 5.1.2.
35
‘Baal’ in the Hebrew tradition.
36
Cf. Section 5.5.3.
37
De Moor 1971; De Moor 1988b.
38
New translation by De Moor. For other opinions see Smith & Pitard 2009,
537.
 how did the deity address man? 147

“I want to invade the inaccessible [ ]

[ ] the ancient [mountains]!”39

Evidently the direct speech that follows the description of Ba,lu’s

thundering is the interpretation of the thunder. Who provided
this explanation? Probably the diviner and high priest Attanu
whose recitation of the myth was recorded by his scribe Ilimilku.40
In many cultures of Antiquity brontoscopy (the interpretation of
thunder and lightning) was among the divinatory techniques, it
seems likely that this has been the case here too.41
In the Ugaritic tablet KTU 1.3 Ba,lu announces to his partner
,Anatu,

For I have a word, which I want to speak to you,

a message which I want to communicate to you,
a word of trees and a whisper of stones,
a groaning of the heavens to the earth,
of the Flood to the stars:
I understand the lightning which the heavens do not know,
a matter that mankind does not know,
and the multitudes of the earth do not understand!42

Apparently trees and stones which were animated beings to the

Ugaritians were supposed to inform Ba,lu about the secrets of the
lightning which announced the arrival of the rains that were so
vitally important to the semi-arid region of Ugarit. Here too it
must be assumed that it was the diviner and high priest Attanu
who was able to ‘make’ rain43 who was the man revealing some
of his secrets here – the little signs he observed in nature that
announced to him the coming of thunderstorms: the creaking of
39
KTU 1.4:VII.29-34, Translation De Moor 1987, 63, with comments. Dif-
ferently e.g. Smith & Pitard 2009, 557-558.
40
De Moor 2009.
41
In Homer, Odyssey, XX.98-121 Zeus answers the hero’s prayer through
thunder which, however, has to be interpreted for him by a slave woman.
According to Cicero, De divinatione, I.72 (33) the Etruscans used books to
interpret thunder and lightning.
42
KTU 1.3:III.20-28 (par.). Translation De Moor 1987, 9-10, with com-
ments. Similarly Smith & Pitard 2009, 202-203.
43
De Moor 2009; 2010b.
148 chapter five

wood, the rattling of stones, the mysterious groaning of the whole

cosmos.44
In inscriptions of Mesha, king of Moab (9th century bce),
his national god Kemosh speaks directly to him, ‘Go! Take Nebo
from Israel!’ and ‘Go down, fight against Horonain’.45 In another
Moabite document, the so-called Marzeah. Papyrus of the 7th
century bce, the gods speak directly to a certain Gera.46
Most of the examples hitherto discussed concern important
people like kings and their officers. However, it was to be expected
that written documentation from the ancient world concerned
them in the first place. It must be assumed that personal piety
was not restricted to these circles, but was simply not recorded.
An Egyptian prayer states in a very general way about the deity,
‘(He) who listens to the prayer of him who loves to invoke him’
(Brunner 1977a, 456-457).
The Greek philosopher Socrates saw himself as a diviner who
sometimes heard a voice instructing him to make the right de-
cisions in religious matters.47

5.1.2 Direct Communication in the Bible

Direct communication between God and certain privileged people
is confined mainly to descriptions of the early history of Israel.
God addresses the first human beings directly in the Garden of
Eden. He visits the patriarchs of Israel and engages in conversa-
tions with them. The Lord used to speak face to face to Moses,
conversing with him as with a friend (Exod. 33:11; Num. 12:8).48
After such meetings the face of Moses was radiating (Exod. 34:29,
30, 35). Some similarity has been noted between the revelation
to the Sumerian king Enmeduranki and the Hebrew descriptions
of the way in which Moses received the Torah.49
44
Cf. Hos. 2:23-24; Hab. 3:10; Ps. 19:2[1]; 42:8[7]; 96:12; Rom. 8:19, 22.
45
See e.g. Smelik, CoS, vol. 2, 137-138; Ah.ituv 2008, 389-418.
46
For this text see Section 5.2.1.1.
47
Plato, Phaedrus, 20. The Codex Bodleianus B adapts the text to Plato,
Apology, 31.
48
Miriam is punished when she and Aaron claim that God has spoken
through them too (Num. 12:1-15).
49
Lambert 1967, 127; Van der Toorn 2007, Chapter 8.
 how did the deity address man? 149

Whereas the idols of other deities are unable to speak and

hear (Deut. 4:28), the people of Israel was privileged to hear God
himself speaking from fire on the mountain according to Deuter-
onomy, though they were not allowed to see their interlocutor
(Deut. 4:12, 15, 33, 36; 5:4-5, 22-23). However, Deut. 5:4 states
that the Lord spoke from face to face to the people. According to
the older, Elohistic account in Exod. 20:18-21 the people did wit-
ness the thunderclaps,50 lightning, and smoke, but did not hear
understandable speech and asked Moses to act as their interme-
diary. According to Deut. 4:36 and 5:23-27, however, the people
would have asked Moses to act as intermediary only after having
heard the Ten Commandments directly from the mouth of God
himself. Yet Deut. 5:5 creates the impression that already during
the pronouncement of the Commandments Moses stood between
God and the people as an intermediary,
I myself stood between the Lord and you at that time
to tell you the word of the Lord
because you were afraid of the fire
and did not go up into the mountain.

Confusing as these different accounts may be,51 all ultimately

agree that the thundering voice of the deity had to be interpreted
by an exceptionally gifted human intermediary – Moses.
Also other texts interpret thunder as the heavenly voice of
God.52 According to Ps. 81:8[7] God answers prayers in the mys-
terious language of thunder which no human being can under-
stand (cf. v. 6[7]) but which subsequently is ‘translated’ into
a long, but understandable oracle of salvation (vv. 7-17[6-16]).
Ezekiel hears the thundering voice of God from above the firma-
ment ‘as on a rainy day’ (Ezek. 1:24-25, 28). Such texts gave rise
to the concept of the voice from heaven in the apocalyptic liter-
ature.53 Its divine origin is intimated, but not stated explicitly.
50
The Hebrew text has ‘voices’.
51
Cf. e.g. Weinfeld 1991, 240-241; Tigay 1996, 61.
52
1 Sam. 7:10; 2 Sam. 22:14; Ps. 18:14[13]; 29:3-9; Isa. 30:30; Job 37:2-5;
40:9. In Ezek. 43:2 the voice of God is compared to the sound of many waters,
but the circumstance that the earth lights up at the same time suggests that
a rainstorm with thunder is intended (Zimmerli 1969, 1077).
53
Ruf 2010, 89, n. 353 refers to Dan. 4:31 lxx; Rev. 10:4, 8; 11:12; 14:13;
150 chapter five

God even addresses the non-Israelite seer Balaam directly

(Num. 22–24). Direct addressing continued for some time in the
post-Mosaic period,

In the earlier parts of the Deuteronomic History, God often speaks

directly to individuals, such as Joshua and Samuel. In the later
books, for the most part, the divine locutions are put into the
mouths of prophets. These prophetic oracles function as an on-
going commentary on the narrative and are an elaboration of the
divine promise of continued prophetic guidance found in Deuter-
onomy 18.15-19 (Coogan 2006, 193).

It is noteworthy that in its present form the Deuteronomistic

history does not attribute the privilege of direct conversation with
God to the early Israelite kings. King Saul is acting like a prophet
(1 Sam. 10:6, 10-12; 18:10; 19:22-24), but does not seem to have
received any spoken revelation. King David is usually addressed
indirectly (2 Sam. 7; Ps. 89:20[19]), though 2 Sam. 23:2-3 creates
the impression that the Spirit of God spoke in his heart. With
king Solomon God talks in a dream (1 Kgs 3:5-15).
Pious kings were thought to have access to the divine coun-
54
cil, but later on prophets became the normal intermediaries
between God and kings in Israel. Prophets were sometimes priv-
ileged to witness the proceedings in the divine council and hear
God speaking.55 When God calls young Samuel (1 Sam. 3) the
latter thinks initially that it is Eli who calls him. Only after the
third time it is Eli who tells him that it must be the Lord call-
ing him (1 Sam. 3:8-9). Apparently to Samuel the voice of God
sounded not much different from that of his master. Later on
God continued to appear to Samuel in Shiloh and ‘he let none of
his words fall to the ground’ (1 Sam. 3:19-21).56 The similarity
between the reception of the word of God by Moses and Samuel
1 Enoch 13:8; 65:4; 2 Bar. 13:1; 22:1.
54
Cf. De Moor 1997, 156; 1998b; 2010a.
55
Examples are found in 1 Kgs 22; Isa. 6; Jer. 23:18, 22; Ezek. 1–2; Amos
3:7; Zech. 3 (cf. Gordon 2007).
56
Since the words of Samuel are apparently the words of God himself, it is a
moot question whose words are meant here. However, in the Deuteronomistic
corpus the expression most likely refers to the implementation of a divine
promise. Cf. Josh. 21:45; 23:14; 1 Kgs 8:56; 2 Kgs 10:10.
 how did the deity address man? 151

is striking and the tradition made them both prophets, recipients

of the word of God. However, after Deut. 34:1057 it was obviously
impossible to stress the parallelism.58
In the Hebrew Bible God himself is said to have written the
commandments, or even the complete text of the covenant treaty,
on natural stone or on clay tablets (Exod. 24:12; 31:18; 32:15-16;
34:1; Deut. 4:13; 5:22; 9:10; 10:1-5. Cf. Korpel 1990, 471-474). If
so, God would also have communicated with his people in written
form. However, already within the tradition process of the Bible
itself it was supposed that Moses broke the original tablets on
Mt. Sinai and that Moses had to rewrite the commandments him-
self.59 Obviously the concept of God himself writing a document
destined for human eyes was regarded as too anthropomorphic
by later generations.
In Daniel 5 a hand writes ‘mene, mene, tekel and parsin’
on the plaster of a wall of Belshazzar’s palace,

At that moment fingers of a man’s hand appeared and wrote on

the plaster of the wall of the king’s palace, opposite the lamp-
stand; and the king saw the hand as it wrote (Dan. 5:5).

The emphasis that is put on the fact that it was not the hand
of God or an angel that wrote,60 but a man’s hand ‘opposite the
lampstand’ suggests that the writer suspected a human mediator
behind the miraculous writing. In any case it is important that the
king’s wise counselors are unable to read the text until Daniel, ‘a
man in whom is the spirit of the holy gods’ who had become ‘chief
of the magicians, enchanters, Chaldeans, and astrologers’ (v. 11),
finally explained the riddle. So, also in this case the mediator was
a presumably inspired expert.
An angel calls from heaven to Hagar in Gen. 21:17. However,
the passage is probably adaptation of an earlier description in
which the messenger of the Lord encountered Hagar on earth,
57
Cf. Section 5.2.2.2.
58
Originally the text of 1 Sam. 3:21–4:1a might have run ‘Like the word of
the Lord was the word of Samuel to all Israel’. Cf. 1 Kgs 8:56.
59
Exod. 34:27-28, presupposing the breaking of the original tablets (Exod.
32:19). But see also Exod. 24:4; 34:1.
60
Dan. 5:24 states that it was God who sent the hand.
152 chapter five

as in Gen. 16:7.61 So it is questionable if one can use this as an

example of direct communication.
An unidentified voice from heaven addresses Nebuchadnezzar
according to Dan. 4:28[31] but it is unlikely that it was the voice
of God. The Aramaic text uses a neutral participle plural for the
speakers in v. 28 and in v. 29 ‘the Most High’ occurs in the third
person.
The New Testament too avoids direct identification of the
occasionally speaking voice from heaven or the clouds with the
voice of God himself.62 The voice from heaven in Jn 12:28 is
explained by some bystanders as thunder or the voice of an angel
in Jn 12:29. The heavenly voice of Jesus occurs in Acts 9:3-6 and
is heard by all companions of Paul. Since Paul is blinded by the
light accompanying the voice one might think of thunder here
too. However, according to Acts 22:9 the bystanders did see the
light, but did not hear the voice. Of the various explanations for
this phenomenon that of Jerome is still the best: variants in the
sources Luke used. In any case the compiler of Acts did not deem
the difference important.

Also according to the Hebrew Bible God may communicate with

human beings through an inner voice, commonly designated as
his Spirit.63 According to rabbinic Judaism every Jew has to learn
the Law by heart and no new revelation is possible after Moses,
whereas at the same time the interpretation of the Word of God
(by legal scholars, not by anybody) is left more or less free (Tigay
1996, 286-287). The latter can hardly be what is meant in Deut.
30:14. Even Deut. 31:12 argues against this interpretation, ‘As-
semble the people, men, women, and little ones, and the sojourner
within your towns, that they may hear and learn to fear the Lord
your God, and be careful to do all the words of this law’. To un-

61
Westermann 1981, 418-419.
62
Mt. 3:17; 17:5; Mk 1:11; 9:7; Lk. 9:35; Jn 12:28; 2 Pet. 1:17-18. For an
overview of the New Testament texts and their parallels in the Greek Old
Testament see Ruf 2010, 88-100.
63
It is often difficult to distinguish between ‘a’ spirit as messenger of God
(cf. Section 5.2.1) and ‘the’ Spirit of God as the breath of life and immanent
guide of human beings.
 how did the deity address man? 153

derstand how to do the Word of God always presupposes some

kind of interpretation and therefore interpretation cannot be the
privilege of scholars alone. This is definitely not how Mosaic tra-
dition is seen in Jer. 31:31-34.64 The decisive factor is whether
the Spirit of God is working through a human being.65
However, the Spirit did not provide guidance on command.
Jeremiah for example once had to wait ten days before God spoke
to him (Jer. 42:7) and the message was not what those urging him
to intercede on their behalf had hoped for.
Psalm 51 is enlightening if it comes to describing the inter-
activity of the divine Spirit and the human spirit.
12[10]
Create a clean heart for me, O God,
and renew a steadfast spirit66 within me;
13[11]
Do not cast me away from before you,
and do not take away your holy Spirit from me.
14[12]
Do return to me the joy of your deliverance,
and may a willing spirit support me.

The Spirit of God and the spirit of man are inextricably inter-
woven here and it is not at all certain that only in v. 13[11] we
have to write ‘Spirit’ with a capital letter.67 Most versions trans-
late v. 14[12] ‘uphold me with a willing spirit’, but the ‘with’ is
lacking in the Hebrew text. Since the Hebrew word for ‘spirit’ is
used in the feminine gender here,68 the rendering we prefer is just
as well possible.69 The Hebrew word for ‘willing’ always indicates
64
See Becking 2004, 244-63.
65
Num. 11:25-29; 1 Sam. 10:6, 10-12; 19:20, 23:20-21; Isa. 48:16; Ezek. 11:5,
24; 37:1, etc. (cf. Section 5.2.2.2). A prophet could be designated as a ‘man
of the Spirit’, Hos. 9:7.
We read Num. 11:25b as ‘and they did not stop’, cf. Deut. 5:22; Est. 9:28,
or with the Samaritan Pentateuch and some other witnesses, ‘and they were
not brought in’, cf. Num. 11:30. The present Masoretic text is vouchsafing
the unique position of Moses, but stands in stark contrast to v. 29.
66
The parallelism argues against the proposal of Dalgish 1962, 154 and
others to render ‘the spirit of a steadfast man’.
67
After all it is a Spirit of God that dwells in man (Gen. 6:3; cf. Scheepers
1960, 315). It is his gift to every human individual until death (Qoh. 12:7).
However, because of man’s sins his spirit might be corrupted and had to be
renewed (v. 12[10]; cf. Ezek. 11:19; 36:26).
68
Cf. Scheepers 1960, 86.
69
Cf. DCH, vol. 6, 168.
154 chapter five

free will, so both the free will of God and the free will of man
might have been meant (note the parallel ‘your deliverance’).70
The reason that we have chosen to write ‘spirit’ in v. 14[12]
is v. 19[17]. There it becomes clear that it is the ‘broken’ spirit
of the supplicant that needs repair. As John Goldingay writes,

The fact that the spirit is broken, the heart crushed, actually
clears the way for renewing. Only something that is broken can
be made new. Being broken is not a sufficient condition for being
renewed, but it is a necessary one.71

Only a heart that is willing to clean up can receive the Holy

Spirit to be made whole again. Although the Spirit of God and
the spirit of man do cooperate, it is the spirit of man that is
in need of steadfastness and support, not the other way around.
Only if God restores man’s spirit (v. 12[10]) and opens his lips (v.
17[15]), the latter finds the courage to tell the sinful world about
God’s greatness (v. 15[13]).72
Of particular interest is Isa. 30:19-21, a passage that is part
of a late addition73 to the book of Isaiah.

19
Truly, you people who dwell on Zion, in Jerusalem,
you will definitely weep no more.
He will definitely be gracious to you
at the sound of your cry for help,
as soon as he hears (you), he will answer you.
20
Though the Lord has given you bread of distress,
70
Because spirits are sometimes acting as messengers of God (Judg. 9:23;
1 Kgs 22:21-23), one might also think of a guardian angel. But this does not
make a big difference, because God would be the one who acts.
71
Goldingay 2007, 133. See also Levison 2009, 30-31.
72
In a similar vein Paul writes in Romans 8:14, ‘The Spirit himself testifies
with our spirit that we are God’s children.’ The Greek verb used here describes
the close interaction between the divine Spirit that works in the heart of
children of God (Rom. 8:9, 11) and the human spirit that in itself does not
find the strength to bear witness: ‘the Spirit comes to help us in our weakness,
for, when we do not know how to pray properly, then the Spirit personally
makes our petitions for us in groans that cannot be put into words’ (Rom.
8:26).
73
Cf. Beuken 2010, 165-166.
 how did the deity address man? 155

and water of oppression,74

your teacher will not hide himself anymore,
and your eyes will be seeing your teacher.
21
And your ears will hear a word,
saying from behind you,
‘This is the way, walk in it,
whether you turn to the right or to the left.’

From early times on there has been dissent with regard to the
correct reading and interpretation of v. 20. Grammatically the
Hebrew text allows both interpretation as a singular and as a
plural. The great Isaiah scroll from Qumran, one of the earliest
manuscripts of the Bible, opted for a plural: ‘your teachers will
not hide themselves anymore, and your eyes will see your teach-
ers.’ This reading might be geared to the situation of the sect
of Qumran itself which had to hide from its persecutors in the
Desert of Judah. Also the Old Greek version (LXX) and the Syr-
iac version (Peshit.ta) rendered in the plural, but interpreted vv.
20-21 in a negative way as ‘those who lead you astray’ which in
view of the context is a very unlikely choice. The Targum, a Jew-
ish Aramaic translation, opts for the singular, clearly interpreting
the ‘Teacher’ as the Presence of the Lord. Also the Latin Vulgate
prefers the singular. As a result, up to our own days translations
and commentaries offer different renderings and interpretations,
some opting for the singular, others for the plural.
In our opinion the phraseology of Isa. 30:20-21 reflects Deu-
teronomic theology,75 especially Deut. 5:32-33[29-30],

So you shall be careful to do as the Lord your God has com-

manded you; you shall not turn aside to the right or to the left.
In all the way which the Lord your God has commanded you to
walk, that you may live, and that it may go well with you, and
that you may live long in the land which you shall inherit.

This means that the way from which the people should not stray
to the left or the right is the Law of God as mediated by Moses.
74
There is no need to emend the text at this point. The expression refers
to the frugal meal of prisoners, as in 1 Kgs 22:27.
75
Deut. 5:32-33; 17:20; 28:14; Josh. 1:7; 23:6; 2 Kgs 22:2.
156 chapter five

This argues in favor of a singular.76 However, after Moses the

teaching of the Law was delegated to others, priests and magis-
trates according to Deut. 17:8-13, esp. 17:11.77 This passage prob-
ably reflects a secondary combination of offices.78 It may safely be
assumed that also a prophet was regarded as a divinely inspired
teacher,79 like Moses himself (Deut. 34:10). So the ‘teacher’ is an
individual, but someone with special spiritual gifts.
There has been a lot of discussion about the identity of this
teacher. Is he a prophet? A scholar? Why was he hidden at first?
Why does he speak from behind the people? No doubt the best
solution is to see God himself as the teacher, as is the opinion
of the Targum, Rashi and several contemporary scholars.80 Ac-
cording to the immediate context, the path from which the Is-
raelites had strayed away is the path of God (Isa. 30:11; see also
63:17). The teaching (tôrāh) keeping Israel on the right track is
the teaching of the Lord, even in the mouth of false teachers
(Jer. 8:8; Mic. 3:11). Also elsewhere God is called a teacher (Job
36:22; see also Isa. 2:3 [Mic. 4:2]). The promise that those res-
cued will enjoy the privilege of seeing God with their own eyes
is in line with Isa. 17:7; 33:17; 52:8. Especially significant is the
parallel in Isa. 48:17, ‘I am the Lord your God, who teaches you
to profit, who leads you in the way you should go’. The Egyptian
parallel cited above81 lends strong support to the thesis that it is
the voice of God that speaks from behind the back of his stricken
people. However, in the Bible it is the voice of God mediated by
human beings: Moses, priests, magistrates, prophets.
The underlying imagery in Isaiah is that of God (or his spokes-
man) as the shepherd who urges on his flock (the rescued of his
people), walking behind them as oriental shepherds normally did
76
The argument derived from Isa. 10:10-11 (Beuken 2010, 182) is not con-
clusive in this respect.
77
See also Deut. 24:8; 2 Kgs 12:3; 17:27-28; Ezek. 44:23; Mic. 3:11; 2 Chron.
15:3. Ultimately all this derives from Exod. 18:17-26; Num. 11:17, 25-29 (the
elders).
78
Cf. Weinfeld 1972, 235.
79
Cf. e.g. Isa. 8:16, 20; 9:15; 28:9. See also Section 5.2.2.2 on prophetic
schools.
80
E.g. Watts 1985, 400-401; Oswalt 1986, 560; Childs 2001, 228.
81
Under Section 5.1.1.
 how did the deity address man? 157

when guiding their flock to different grazing grounds.82 The deep

frustration after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem and
the ensuing exile was that God remained hidden (Ps. 89:47[46])
and silent to the laments of his oppressed people.83 This disaster
was caused by a leadership lacking the guidance of God’s Holy
Spirit (Isa. 63:10-11; cf. Jer. 13:1-3). Early on in Israel this was
seen as an absolute prerequisite for good leadership.84
Also Ps. 139:7 ‘Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where
shall I flee from your presence?’ and the parallelism between ‘the
angel of his presence’ in Isa. 63:9 and ‘his holy Spirit’ in Isa. 63:10
suggest that the Holy Spirit guided his people from behind. The
word here translated as ‘presence’ – in conformity with existing
custom – is actually the Hebrew word for ‘face’. Isa. 63:14 proves
beyond any doubt that it was the Spirit who guided the herd.
Similarly Ps. 51:13[11]: ‘Cast me not away from before your face’
in parallelism with ‘and do not take your Holy Spirit from me’
points to the concept of God guiding the king through his Spirit
from behind, as a good shepherd did.85
Therefore it is significant that after the destruction of the
temple in Jerusalem and the end of the monarchy the promise of
the gift of the Spirit became so enormously important and was
no longer reserved for special people. A certain ‘democratization’
of the concept took place.86 This gift of the Spirit was at the
same time seen as the end of the period in which God had hidden
himself from Israel (Isa. 45:15; Ezek. 39:19).
82
Cf. Isa. 40:10-11; 62:11-12; 63:9, 11, 14; cf. Beuken 1997, 379-380; 2010,
183; De Moor 2010a. Of course it is no problem that Isa. 30:20 states that
they will see their/teacher. Many illustrations from the Near East show that
shepherds needed not to remain behind their flock when they were not on the
move. Also Isa. 30:26b is in line with the imagery of the shepherd, cf. Ezek.
34:4, 16; Ps. 147:2-3.
83
E.g. Isa. 64:11[12]. Cf. Section 6.2.1.1b.
84
Scheepers 1960, 131-175; Fee 1994, 907-908. With regard to the prophets
see Ezek. 2:2; 3:12-14, 24; 8:3; 11:1, 5, 24; 37:1; 43:5; Hos. 9:7; Mic. 2:7; 3:8;
Zech. 7:12. With regard to artisans see Exod. 28:3; 31:3; 35:31.
85
For the relationship between Isa. 63:11 and Ps. 51:13[11] as well as the
imagery of the shepherd see Goldenstein 2001, 65-85.
86
Isa. 32:15; 42:1, 5; 44:3; 48:16; 57:15-16; 59:21; 61:1 (contrast 61:3); Ezek.
11:19; 36:26-27; 37:5-6, 9-10, 14; Joel 3:1-2 [2:28-29]; Hag. 2:5 [6]; Zech. 4:6;
12:10.
158 chapter five

So the voice from ‘behind’ of Isa. 30:19-21 is the voice of the

Spirit of God as mediated by Israel’s spiritual leadership.87 It
comes from the Shepherd keeping an eye on his flock and it does
not exclude human freedom of choice. Those hearing the voice
may go to the right or to the left, just as they wish,88 but the
Spirit will let them know whether they are on the right track or
not.
John Oswalt wrote about Isa. 30:21,

. . . here is a person whose teacher is just at his shoulder and little

more than a word of guidance from time to time is necessary for
him to stay on the right path. This is the ideal of the Spirit-filled
life, where contact between us and him is so intimate that only a
whisper is sufficient to move us in his way (Gal. 5:16-25).89

In Gal. 5:13 Paul expressly states that Christians are called to

freedom but that this should never be an excuse for selfish love.
‘If we live by the Spirit, let us walk by the Spirit’ (Gal. 5:25).
According to the Book of Revelation the apostle was seized
by the Spirit on the island of Patmos and heard a voice speaking
to him from behind, instructing him to write down what was
revealed to him (Rev. 1:10, 12).
5.2 Communication through Intermediaries
The awe of deities was so great in the ancient Near East that
most people did not dare to communicate directly with the most
powerful gods. But even if they prayed to lesser deities as inter-
mediaries, the answer usually came through human representa-
tives of the gods, such as priests, prophets, astrologers, diviners,
magicians, spiritistic mediums, scribes. Most of these specialists
had gone through a long professional training and claimed to
87
Beuken 1997, 380-381; 2010, 183-184, argues in favor of the Angel of God
on the basis of Exod. 14:19. However, this too is a form of mediation which
does not differ fundamentally from our view because of the ‘name’ (presence)
of the Lord in his messenger (Exod. 23:20-21), whether an angel or a human
being (cf. Propp 2006, 287).
88
The Hebrew text is rendered correctly in the RSV and most other modern
translations: ‘when you turn to the right or when you turn to the left’.
89
Oswalt 1986, 560. See also Rom. 8:16 for this close interaction.
 how did the deity address man? 159

have access to secret knowledge of the divine world.90 Some-

times these specialists wore anthropomorphic or theriomorphic
masks to identify themselves with a deity in whose name they
were speaking.91 In many cases they combined offices, for ex-
ample that of a priest and a diviner, prophet or exorcist. All of
them claimed divine illumination and the privilege to make use
of arcane knowledge of the deities.
In Deut. 18 all these forms of mediation are forbidden, except
prophecy. But even in this case severe sanctions were necessary to
prevent people from pretending to speak the word of God. As we
shall see, it must be assumed that Deut. 18 is a relatively late text
whereas in reality mantic practices, including the consultation of
spirits, did take place in ancient Israel (cf. Römer 2009).

5.2.1 Divine Intermediaries

5.2.1.1 Lower Divine Intermediaries in the Ancient Near
East
In Mesopotamia the seven antediluvian sages formed the scribal
connection between the divine world and scholars (Lenzi 2008,
106-120). This lent a supernatural aura to the work of master
scribes who were frequently consulted in difficult matters of state
and religion. They guarded the written sources they consulted
jealously, describing them as ‘secret’.92
Babylonians and Egyptians often invoked guardian angels to
mediate for them with the great gods. These lower inhabitants of
the divine world are mostly represented as composite creatures,
with beaks, wings and claws like birds, or partly anthropomorphic
but with a body resembling ferocious animals. A well-known ex-
ample is the great sphinx at Gizeh. Divine beings, also lower
deities, were thought to be able to change their shapes effortless.
90
See e.g. Kees 1953-1958; Sauneron 1988 [2000]; Koenig 1994; Van der
Toorn 2007; Lenzi 2008.
91
See e.g. Rittig 1989; Smith 1990, 134; Duquesne 2001. It should be re-
membered that deities had the power of metamorphosis, i.e. they were sup-
posed to take on different shapes, among them the shapes of animals.
92
Van der Toorn 2007, 208-211; Lenzi 2008, 140-215. Also a high priest in
Ugarit, see De Moor 2009.
160 chapter five

Also in such a non-anthropomorphic state they were able to

speak like human beings. In the Egyptian Tale of the Shipwrecked
Sailor a huge serpent is able to foretell the future.93 In the Tale
of the Two Brothers it is a speaking cow who warns the younger
brother that his elder brother is about to kill him.94 Later on the
younger brother takes on the shape of a bull and speaks to his
former wife.95 When the Ugaritic goddess ,Anatu has transformed
herself in a cow she is still able to announce the birth of their calf
to her husband Ba,lu (De Moor 1987, 115-116).
In all cultures of the ancient Near East and in Greece the
concept of messenger deities existed.96 These messengers could
take on incorporeal shapes, like wind or shadows. But they could
also transform themselves to more tangible forms, like statues
or standing stones representing famous ancestors, or important
functionaries, both iconic and aniconic. These too served as in-
termediaries between the great gods and humans.97 It is certain
that people directed their prayers to them in the expectation that
they would convey them to the more powerful gods who were too
high to be approached directly by ordinary people.98
A recently discovered relief stele from Zinçirli, at the Anato-
lian-Syrian border, confirms that the man who erected the slab
for himself in a mortuary chapel assumed that after his death
his soul would live on in the stone and that he would participate
in yearly banquets provided by his posterity together with the
great gods Hadad, Shamash and Kubaba.99 A singular Egyptian
text relates how the murdered king Amenemhet I rises from the
Nether World to speak to his son (and later generations) in a
revelation.100 A Ugaritic official reports to his king,

93
Lichtheim, CoS, vol. 1, 84. Cf. Shupak 1989-1990, 7.
94
Lichtheim, CoS, vol. 1, 86.
95
Lichtheim, CoS, vol 1, 88.
96
See e.g. Handy 1994, 149-167; Reiterer et al. 2007.
97
See e.g. Andrae 1913; Mettinger 1995; De Moor 1997, 350-356; De Moor
1998; Altenmüller 2009, 33-35, 37-44.
98
This would also seem to be indicated by the Hazor stele on which two
open hands are lifted to heaven.
99
Schloen et al. 2009; Pardee 2009.
100
Lichtheim, CoS, vol. 1, 66-68.
 how did the deity address man? 161

And when I was very ill, I was only a finger removed from death.
Now I have recovered from my illness. For (the god) Apšukka
of (the city of) Irhanta came up and demanded of me that (I
˘
entered) into his alliance. But whoever makes the offerings of
alliance to that god has to bring many presents.101

The expression ‘he came up’ suggests that in this case too the
spirit rose from the Nether World to address the living.
Usually it was a priest who acted as a medium to conjure up
the spirits who were supposed to listen to prayers and intercede
on behalf of the supplicants.102 Kings often consulted such spir-
its, mostly the spirits of their deified ancestors, in spiritualistic
sessions.
The same word designates ‘wind’ and ‘spirit’ in Akkadian,
Ugaritic and Punic.103 These ‘spirits’ acted as messengers be-
tween high gods and lower gods or human beings. Probably their
manifestation in the form of wind is merely a form of metamor-
phosis of the divine messengers who are elsewhere described as
anthropomorphic or theriomorphic beings.
In the Moabite so-called Marzeah. Papyrus of the 7th century
bce we read:
Thus say the gods to Gera: To you belong the Marzeah. and the
two spirits104 and the house. And Yisha should be far removed
from them. And Malka is the trustee.105

The mrzh. was a kind of religious society in which men gathered

to inebriate themselves in order to communicate with the spirits
101
Cf. De Moor 1997, 367-368.
102
For Egypt, Wente in: Simpson 1972, 137-141; Von Beckenrath 1992;
Posener 1960; Lichtheim, CoS, vol. 1, 134-136; for Sumer, Alster 1991; for
Ugarit, e.g. De Moor 1987, 100, 164, n. 54; 165-168; De Moor 1997, 156,
336-361; 2010; Wyatt 1998, 420-441; Pardee 2000, 816-825.
103
CAD (Š) 2, 135; De Moor 1987, 76, 79; Hoftijzer & Jongeling 1995, vol.
2, 1066.
104
Most scholars translate wrh.yn as ‘the millstones’. We regard it as a dual
of r(w)h., ‘spirit’, because a handmill in this context makes little sense. For
other epigraphic attestations of r(w)h., ‘spirit’, see Hoftijzer & Jongeling 1995,
1066.
105
For the text see Ah.ituv 2008, 427, who offers a partially different trans-
lation and duly notes that the authenticity of the unprovenanced papyrus is
disputed. KTU 3.9 is a similar Ugaritic text.
162 chapter five

of their dead.106 These were rather raucous parties in which only

‘virgins’ were sometimes admitted, no married women. Much tact
was required from the president of such a semi-religious club. Ap-
parently a conflict had arisen between Yisha and Gera. The dei-
ties pronounced verdict and declared Gera the rightful leader and
owner of the house where the club used to assemble.107 Accord-
ing to our interpretation of the papyrus, Gera became also the
‘owner’ of two spirits who were regularly present at the spiritual-
istic meetings, just as the two spirits Yaraggib and Tharrumannu
were under the control of the high priest Attanu of Ugarit (KTU
1.6:VI.58; cf. 1 Sam. 28:7). Also in Sumerian and Egyptian liter-
ature such meetings with dead ancestors who were interrogated
in direct speech are recorded.108 Malka as a third party had to
supervise the correct execution of the divine verdict.
In Book XI of Homer’s Odyssey the hero recounts in great de-
tail his dialogue with the spirits of his dead comrades. He first digs
a pit in which he pours a drink-offering of milk, honey and wine to
the dead. Finally he cuts the throats of sheep, pouring their blood
in the pit. At that moment the spirits (yucaiv [psuchai ], Odyssey,
XI.37) rise from the Nether World and Odysseus converses with
them. In Book XXIV the spirits (yuca;", Odyssey, XXIV.1, 15,
35, etc.) of the wooers are called forth by Hermes and in this case
too Odysseus is able to talk to them.

5.2.1.2 Lower Divine Intermediaries in the Bible

It has long been recognized that even though the Bible does not
tolerate lower deities next to God, the existence of lower person-
nel in the divine world is accepted in both Testaments. We are
accustomed to call such beings ‘angels’, ‘cherubs’, or, if they ex-
ercise a nefarious influence, ‘ghosts’ or ‘demons’. Of course this
is only a matter of naming. They are able to achieve things a
human being is not capable of, for example, perform miracles like
flying in the air or traveling underground. So the angels, cher-
106
See on this institution e.g. Spronk 1986, 196-197; Lewis 1989, 80-81; King
1989; Loretz 1993; Loretz 1995; Hoftijzer & Jongeling 1995, 691-692; Klingbeil
2006; Miralles Maciá 2007; Janowski 2009.
107
For the ancestral spirits as judges, see Loretz 2003, 211-336.
108
Alster 1991; Posener 1960; Wente, in: Simpson 1972, 137-141.
 how did the deity address man? 163

ubs, seraphs and demons of the Bible are simply the successors of
the lower deities of the ancient Near East.109 They often function
as intermediaries relaying the word of God to man, in fact acting
just like the messenger-deities of the ancient Near East.110 Just as
these human messengers often required the services of a local in-
terpreter, so angelic languages were not readily understandable to
everybody and often required expert explanation (Poirier 2010).
In Job 4:12–5:1 the apparition of a spirit speaking to the Tem-
anite Eliphaz is described,

Then stealthily a word came to me

and my ear received a whisper of it.
Among terrifying things from visions at night
when heavy sleep falls on men,
dread came upon me, and shuddering,
which filled all my bones with dread.
A spirit111 glided past my face,
the hair of my flesh stood up.
He stood still, but I did not recognize his appearance,
(his) shape was before my eyes.
There was silence, and then I heard a voice:
‘Can a man be righteous before God?
Can a fellow be pure before his Maker?
Even in his (own) servants he puts no trust,
and in his angels he inspires terror.112
...
Call now! Is there anyone who will answer you?
To which of the Holy Ones will you turn?’

Apparently Eliphaz supposes that a spirit might relay an answer

from God to Job’s angry questions, but that none of the Holy
109
Freedman & Willoughby 1984, 895-904; Rosenberg 1986; De Moor 1988a;
Mach 1992; Handy 1994; Noll 1996; Ahn & Dietrich 1997; Smith 2001, 27-53;
Frey-Anthes 2007; 2008; Reiterer et al 2007; Wood 2008.
110
E.g. Gen. 16:7-14; 19:15; 21:17; 22:11; 31:11; Judg. 2:1; 6:12; 13:3-23;
1 Kgs 19:5, 7; 2 Kgs 1:3; 19:7 (Isa. 37:7); Zech. 1:9, 14; 4:1, 4; 5:5. In several
of these passages the angel is equated with God himself.
111
Many translate ‘wind’ here (e.g. Clines 1989, 111), but Scheepers 1960,
111-112, argues convincingly for ‘spirit’ referring to 1 Kgs 22:21 and Job
4:17-18. Also the parallels collected above support this rendering.
112
On the basis of the Arab. root hwl with its noun tahwı̄l ‘terror’.
164 chapter five

Ones113 will dare to reply in the name of God because Eliphaz

considers Job guilty.
In other cases the Bible distinguishes more clearly between
the human and supernatural emissaries of God. Flatterers com-
pared king David to an ‘angel of God’ when he had to make a
difficult decision (2 Sam. 14:17, 20; 19:28[27]). The simile suggests
that the speakers denied David a divine status even though they
wished him divine wisdom. Solomon asks God for the same gift
(1 Kgs 3). In 2 Sam. 24 the demon Deber who brought pestilence
over Israel at the orders of God, is called an ‘angel/messenger’.
It is the hand of this demon that threatens to destroy Jerusalem
(v. 16), but David prays God to transfer his hand from his people
to himself and his family, even though he had seen the demon
(v. 17). His prayer is answered not by the demon-messenger, but
by the prophet Gad (v. 18). Such passages testify to attempts
to demythologize the concept of angelic messengers of God – at-
tempts that were never completely successful. In the late parallel
to 2 Sam. 24 adopted by the Chronist what David had seen is
described as follows,
And David lifted his eyes and saw the angel of the Lord stand-
ing between earth and heaven, and in his hand a drawn sword
stretched out over Jerusalem (1 Chron. 21:16).

At first sight this description looks like a remnant of an older,

more mythological tradition. However, it is rather in line with
the later apocalyptic interest in giant angels. It is a pastiche from
several other passages in Scripture (Japhet 1993, 384) and in this
way it became an admissible elaboration.
Sometimes it seems that later redactors reworked older tradi-
tions in which God appeared in anthropomorphic shape to talk
to human beings but deliberately left a few passages untouched,
so that the reader would realize that it does not make a big dif-
ference if it was God himself who spoke or his messenger.114
In early Judaism speculation about the supernatural angels
and celestial spirits increased enormously, but this too was ulti-
113
The Holy Ones are spirits allowed to participate in meetings of the heav-
enly council, cf. De Moor 2010b.
114
See e.g. Gen. 16:13; 22:12-18; Num. 22:22; Judg. 2:1-5; 6:14-18, 23; 13:22.
 how did the deity address man? 165

mately rooted in concepts inherited from the ancient Near East.

Also in ancient Israel consultation of the spirits of the dead took
place (e.g. 1 Sam. 28) although the practice was gradually phased
out (Janowski 2009). As in other parts of the ancient Near East
divine messengers often take the form of wind or spirit.115 It is of-
ten difficult to distinguish the working in the heart of a recipient
of the (Holy) Spirit and appearance of a messenger spirit.
Such spirits were subordinate to God, but still had a semi-
divine status.116 Whereas in the community of Qumran and in
early Christianity the Holy Spirit of God continued to guide pious
human beings, mainstream rabbinic Judaism became convinced
that revelation through the Holy Spirit had stopped after the
death of the last prophets,

From the time when the last prophets Haggai, Zechariah and
Malachi had died, the Holy Spirit was cut off from Israel. How-
ever, they caused them to listen to the Bath Qol.117

Immanence of the Holy Spirit is not impossible, but lies almost

at the end of the road to sainthood.118 The Bath Qol is a voice
from an invisible being in heaven, either God himself or an angel.
Literally ‘Bath Qol’ means ‘daughter of a voice’, but the origin of
this designation is unclear.119 A voice from heaven is mentioned in
Gen. 21:17 and Dan. 4:28[31] as well as in the New Testament.120
The Bath Qol is a concept that was clearly forged to avoid the
idea that God spoke directly to sinful human beings after the
closure of the Hebrew canon. Perhaps also apologetics against
the Christian trinitarian doctrine may have played a role.
115
Judg. 9:23; Ps. 104:30; 1 Kgs 22:21ff.; Isa. 6:8; Ezek. 37:9-10. Very fre-
quently in early Judaic literature and the New Testament.
116
This follows from the parallelism between ‘god’ and ‘spirit’ in Isa. 31:3.
The spirit of Samuel is called a ‘god’ in 1 Sam. 28:13. Spirits had access to
the divine council and worked in the hearts of prophets (1 Kgs 22:19-24).
117
t. Sot.a XIII.4. For more parallels see Kuhn 1989, 16-17.
118
m. Sot.a IX.15.
119
On the basis of Exod. R. XXIX.9 it is sometimes assumed to be an echo,
but this does not suit all places where the expression occurs.
120
Mt. 3:17; 17:5; Mk 1:11; 9:7; Lk. 9:35; Acts 9:3-6. See further Section
5.1.2.
166 chapter five

However, next to the mainstream opinion other voices in the

rabbinic literature kept the possibility that the Holy Spirit might
continue to guide certain particularly holy persons open.121
Although it would seem clear that the concept of the Holy
Spirit evolved from the ancient oriental parallels discussed above,
we had to take a decision here and treated the immanent role of
the Holy Spirit under Section 5.1.2 (direct communication).
5.2.2 Human Intermediaries
If the deities of the ancient Near East wanted to address human
beings they rarely made use of a lower deity as a messenger.
Samuel Meier writes,

It is typical for gods in the ancient Near East to have at their

disposal specific, lower-ranking deities who do their bidding in
running errands and relaying messages. These messenger deities
function primarily as links between gods and not between gods
and humans; when a major god wishes to communicate with a
human, he or she can be expected to make a personal appear-
ance.122

However, the latter statement applies only to special privileged

people, like kings or queens, who stood close to divinity accord-
ing to the prevailing ideology of those days.123 Normally a deity
would make use of a human-like emissary to communicate with
people on earth. Mostly messengers of God, commonly designated
as ‘angels’ in Bible translations, look exactly like ordinary human
beings: they walk, speak, eat like normal men.124 In the story
about Elijah on Mt. Horeb nothing suggests that the ‘messenger
of God’ is a supernatural being until the invigorating effect of
the food he brings becomes apparent (1 Kgs 19:5-8) – though
human prophets performed similar miracles. Only by miraculous
deeds or announcements that come true the messengers of God
121
See e.g. Kadushin 1952, 251; Schäfer 1972, esp. 147-162; Urbach 1975,
577; Levison 2009.
122
Meier 1999b, 53.
123
This is not only true of great civilizations like those of Mesopotamia and
Egypt, but also of the much smaller Canaanite states, including Israel. Cf.
Korpel 2007, 396.
124
E.g. Gen. 16:7-14; 18–19; Judg. 6:11-24; 13:3-21.
 how did the deity address man? 167

may reveal their supernatural nature, but this is apparently not

a prerequisite for their being a ‘messenger’ of God. The Hebrew
and Greek words for ‘messenger’ designate both natural and su-
pernatural beings125 and the dividing line between the two was
sometimes vague.126 Especially human beings who were supposed
to speak the word of the Lord could be designated as ‘messen-
ger of the Lord’. The prophet Haggai (Hag. 1:13) and a faithful
Levitic priest (Mal. 2:7) bore the very same title attributed to
‘angels’.
For fear of God people preferred to hear his word via an in-
termediary instead of hearing him speak directly.127 But this did
not make a big difference, since also if human intermediaries or
angels in human shape were speaking in the name of God it was
a sin to ignore their words.128

5.2.2.1 Prophets and Seers in the Ancient Near East

The best-known human intermediaries in the Hebrew Bible are

the prophets129 and seers – there is no functional difference be-
tween the two designations. Usually ‘diviners’ are seen as a sep-
arate category of specialists because they work with material ob-
jects like lots, entrails of sacrificial animals and/or handbooks
explaining all kinds of celestial and terrestrial omens.130 Here we
shall deal first with the prophets and seers, postponing treatment
of various forms of divination to Section 5.3.
For a long time it was thought that prophecy was a special
feature of the religion of ancient Israel, even though the Bible it-
self mentions several non-Israelite prophets and seers (e.g. Num.
22–24; 1 Kgs 18). Nowadays we know that similar phenomena oc-
125
Meier 1999a and b; Van Henten 1999.
126
Cf. Sections 5.2.1-2.
127
Cf. Exod. 20:19 ↔ Exod. 19:9; Deut. 5:23-31; 18:15-20.
128
Cf. Exod. 4:8, 9; 5:2; 6:9, 12; 7:4, 13, 16, 22; 8:15, 19; 9:12; 11:9; 16:20;
23:20-23 (it is uncertain whether the Hebrew word designates an angel here or
a human messenger speaking on behalf of God. Cf. Propp 2006, 287); Deut.
3:26; 8:20; 9:23; 11:26-28; 18:19; Josh. 1:17-18; 5:6; Judg. 2:17; 13:3-23; 1 Sam.
15, etc.
129
On the difficulty of defining this concept see Nissinen 2004.
130
On the difficulty of distinguishing the three groups see Nissinen 2004.
168 chapter five

curred in Sumeria in the 3rd millennium bce, in Old Babylonian

Mari and Eshnunna in the 18th century bce, in Assyria in the
7th century bce, in the Levant (12th-7th century bce), as well
as in Egypt. It has become clear that human messengers of the
gods are attested in many other civilizations of the ancient Near
East.131 These prophecies resemble the biblical prophetic liter-
ature in many respects. They often start with the introduction
‘Thus speaks DN (divine name)’, are delivered orally, usually in
the temple, in front of witnesses, are mostly transmitted in writ-
ing by others, are often couched in a poetic style. They may start
without introduction and jump unexpectedly from one person to
another132 – formal elements that have given rise to much spec-
ulation in scholarly literature of the past.
In the Old Babylonian kingdoms of Mari and Eshnunna (c.
1780 bce) both male and female prophets were active. They are
designated by various names, one of which is ‘raving one’. Mostly
their oracles were addressed to the king and in some cases can be
understood as replies to prayers recited by, or on behalf of, the
king. However, oracles against foreign nations are also attested
(e.g. Nissinen 2003, 44).
We must confine ourselves to a few representative examples of
such prophecies. It is reported in a letter from a certain Nur-Sin,
representative of king Zimri-Lim of Mari in the city of Aleppo,

Through oracles, Adad, Lord of Kallassu,133 [spoke] to me as

follows: ‘Am I not [Ad]ad, Lord of Kallassu, who reared him (the
king) between my loins and restored him to the throne of his
father’s house? After I restored him to the throne of his father’s
house, I have again given him a residence. Now, since I restored
131
It is impossible here to review the enormous number of publications these
discoveries generated. We confine ourselves to the following references: Eller-
meier 1968; Barta 1972; Noort 1977; Wächter 1984; Durand 1988; 2002; 2008;
DeJong Ellis 1989; Chappaz 1990; Heintz 1997; Parpola 1997; Malamat 1998,
59-162; Nissinen 1998; 2000a; 2000b; 2003; Starbuck 1999; Van der Toorn and
Nissinen, in: Ben Zvi & Floyd 2000, 219-234, 235-271; Weippert 2001; 2002b;
Charpin 2002; Köckert & Nissinen 2003; Hilber 2005; Szpakowska 2006; De
Jong 2007; Blum 2008; Lenzi 2008.
132
See e.g. Korpel & De Moor 1998, 18, n. 5; 71, n.6; 73, n. 10; 123, n. 16;
206, n. 7; 207, n. 8; 211, n. 36; 363, n. 8; 491, nn. 4, 6; Hilber 2005, 206-207.
133
Local manifestation of the Babylonian weather god.
 how did the deity address man? 169

him to the throne of his father’s house, I will take from him an
estate. Should he not give (the estate), am I not master of throne,
territory and city? What I have given, I shall take away.
If (he does) otherwise, and satisfies my desire, I shall give him
throne upon throne, house upon house, territory upon territory,
city upon city. And I shall give him the land from the rising (of
the sun) to its setting.’134

Further on in the same letter another prophet of Adad of Kal-

lassu admonishes king Zimrilim to judge the case of a wronged
man or woman and to heed the word of Adad – the same kind of
social standard that the ‘good’ prophets in Israel advocated. As
Malamat and others have recognized, these oracles resemble the
so-called dynastic prophecy of Nathan in 2 Sam. 7 in many re-
spects.135 We note that these Mari prophecies are conditional, like
many Hebrew prophecies, and that the message is delivered in-
directly through a royal steward who probably had heard it from
prophets in his entourage. The elevated style, however, points to
an educated person who edited this divine speech. Thus far there
is little evidence that the prophets themselves were literate.
Sometimes Mari prophets received their messages in the form
of dreams, as in the following report of one Malik-Dagan,

In my dream I was going, together with a companion, from the

district of Saggarātum, through the upper district, to Mari. Be-
fore I got to my destination, I entered Terqa. As soon as I came
into Terqa, I visited the temple of Dagan, and did obeisance to
Dagan.136 As I did obeisance, Dagan opened his mouth and spoke
to me in these terms: Have the Yaminite rulers137 and their armies
made peace with Zimrilim’s army that has come up? I said: They
did not make peace. Just before I left he spoke to me: Why is it
that Zimrilim’s messengers are not steadily present before me?
And why doesn’t he put a complete report before me? Had he
done so, I would have delivered the Yaminites into Zimrilim’s
134
Translation Malamat 1998, 107-108. See also Durand 2000, 130-133;
Nissinen 2003, 17-21.
135
See also Durand 2002 and 1 Kgs 1:47-48; Job 1:21.
136
Dagan was the national god of the kingdom of Mari.
137
The Yaminites were semi-nomadic tribes who often rebelled against their
overlord in Mari.
170 chapter five

hand a long time ago. Go now, I send you. You shall say to Zim-
rilim: Send me your messengers and put a complete report before
me. Then I will make the Yaminites crawl in a fisherman’s box
and put them at your disposal.138

Among the interesting points in this report are the disobedience

of king Zimrilim for which he is rebuked, the manifest political
interest of the deity, the conditional promise of eventual victory
and the circumstance that the prophet is addressed as the god’s
messenger. Parallels to what we find in the Bible come readily to
mind.
Even if the Old Babylonian prophets from Mari were said to
have written letters to the king139 it must be assumed that in
reality they made use of the services of scribes who will have
felt free to modify the wording according to their own literary
taste.140
It is also noteworthy that the Mari prophets sometimes per-
formed symbolic acts to underline their messages. A prophet of
the god Dagan, for example, devours a lamb raw in front of the
elders sitting at the city gate. After having delivered his message
– which is clearly related to his symbolic act141 – he requests to
be clothed in a garment, so that it must be assumed that he was
naked while carrying out his divinely inspired mission.
Also in the kingdom of Emar on the upper Euphrates proph-
ets and prophetesses appear to have worked c. 1200 bce. Their
professional designations are closely related to the Hebrew words
for ‘prophet’ and ‘prophetess’ (Pentiuc 2001, 112-113).
The Egyptian Report of Wenamun (c. 1090-1080 bce) relates
how in the Canaanite city of Byblos an ecstatic prophet arose
while the king of Byblos was sacrificing,
Now while he was offering to his gods, the god took hold of a
young man [of] his young men and put him in a trance. He said
138
Translation Van der Toorn, in: Ben Zvi & Floyd 2000, 222 (explanatory
notes added by us).
139
Durand 1988, t. 1, Nos. 192-194; t. 2, No. 414:29-35. Cf. Charpin 2002,
8-9.
140
Cf. Van der Toorn, in: Ben Zvi & Floyd 2000, 229-233; similarly Charpin
2002, 14.
141
He says, ‘A devouring will take place!’ (Nissinen 2003, 38).
 how did the deity address man? 171

to him:142 ‘Bring [the] god up!143 Bring the envoy who is carry-
ing him! . . . It is Amun who sent him. It is he who made him
come!’144

Several points are worth noting,

1. The spontaneous nature of the seizure by a god. The im-
pression is created that the medium was selected at random
(‘a young man [of] his young men’).
2. The cultic context in which the event took place.
3. The revelatory content of the divine message. The report
indicates that the envoy Wenamun had kept the presence
of an image of the Egyptian national god Amun-Re with
him a secret. As he had not divulged that it was Amun-
Re who had instructed him to undertake this voyage it had
remained a complete secret. He had even hidden the god’s
image in a tent on the shore. Of course the ‘prophet’ may
have had special intelligence enabling him to reveal these
facts to his king, but this is irrelevant since both the king
of Byblos and the Egyptian envoy believed that he spoke
the words of a deity.
4. The message is clearly a warning, not a good tiding.
Next to these reports of prophetic activity more or less literary
prophecies have been found in Babylonia, like the Marduk Proph-
ecy (Foster 2005, 388-391), the Shulgi Prophecy (Foster 2005,
357-359) and the Uruk Prophecy (CoS, vol. 1, 481-482; Foster
2005, 1026-1027). All these compositions predict disasters and
the ultimate delivery by a righteous king. It is clear that the
events described have taken place already and so we are dealing
with vaticinia ex eventu, texts in which the future tense is chosen
to extol the virtues of victorious kings living much later. Per-
haps it is better to regard them as apocalyptic literature.145 In
142
I.e. the man in trance says to the king of Byblos.
143
I.e. the cult image of the Egyptian god Amun(-Re).
144
Translation Lichtheim in: CoS, vol. 1, 90.
145
See e.g. Hallo 1966; Grayson 1975; Lambert 1978; Ringgren 1983; Gold-
stein 1988; De Jong 2007, all with earlier literature.
172 chapter five

most cases the author is unknown, but obviously it is the work of

learned scribes. In the Marduk and Shulgi prophecies they make
the deity speak in the first person singular, but also in the other
cases a divine origin may have been assumed for such ‘arcane’
knowledge.
In Egypt too this type of apocalyptic literature existed. In
the exceptional Coffin Texts Spell 1130 the creator god Atum
predicts that after ‘millions of years’ he will join Osiris, the god
of the Nether World and all created order will be overturned,

I will come to sit with him in one place,

and mounds will become towns, and towns mounds:
one enclosure will destroy the other.146

Also in the Book of the Dead, 175, the total destruction of the
created world is envisaged,

Then I [Atum] shall destroy all that I have made. This land will
return into the Abyss, into the flood as in its former state.147

In these cases too the deities speak in the first person singular.
However, this is embedded in theological speculation about a pro-
cess of rise and fall of deities that stretches over millions of years.
A similar compilation of apocalyptic predictions is the Egyp-
tian Prophecy of Neferty, written during the reign of Amenemhet
I (c. 1976-1947 bce), but antedated under the reign of Snefru (c.
2614-2579 bce).148 Neferty is a lector priest, but also a skilled
scribe.149 He predicts a time of utter chaos resembling the state
of the world before creation. Only when a savior, i.e. Amenemhet
I, comes from the South order will be restored. Also in Egyptian
literary compositions like the Admonitions of Ipuwer 150 and the
146
Allen, CoS, vol. 1, 27.
147
Allen, CoS, vol. 1, 28.
148
Translations e.g. Simpson 1972, 234-240; Foster 2001, 76-84.
149
Blumenthal 1982, 14-15, stresses the fact that he is a sage rather than
a prophet in the Israelite sense. It is questionable, however, whether in the
ancient world somebody able to predict the future in so much detail would
not automatically be regarded as a messenger of the gods.
150
Translation e.g. Shupak, in: CoS, vol. 1, 93-98. The prophetic nature of
this text is disputed however, cf. Enmarch 2008, 41.
 how did the deity address man? 173

very late (2nd century bce?) Greek-Egyptian Potter’s Oracle 151

calamities of apocalyptic dimensions are announced, but here too
a royal redeemer will eventually rehabilitate the country. Most
scholars are convinced that all these works should be regarded as
propagandistic vaticinia ex eventu, but this does not imply that
they were not intended and understood as genuine prophecy.152
Also in this case it has been defended that this genre of Egyptian
literature stood at the basis of Jewish apocalyptic literature.153
However, any direct link between the two is unlikely. Since the
genre is also attested in Mesopotamia, and possibly in the Trans-
jordanian Balaam text, there is reason to suspect that it was a
generally accepted way to hold up a mirror to one’s contempor-
aries.
Combinations of prophecy or oracles with hymns or prayers
which were most likely recited in a cultic context are only rarely
attested in the literature of the ancient Near East. But this may
well be accidental. Several examples are known of endangered
kings who pray to their deities for help and in answer to their
prayers receive a good omen or an oracle of salvation.154 A very
clear example is found in the well-known inscription of Zakkur,
king of Hamath (8th century bce):

Then Bar-Hadad, son of Hazael, king of Aram, united against

me s[even]teen kings . . . All these kings laid siege to Hazrach.
They raised a wall higher than the wall of Hazrach, they dug a
ditch deeper than [its] ditch. Now I raised my hands to Ba,lsha-
mayn and Ba,lshamayn answered me. Ba,lshamayn [spoke] to me
through seers and diviners, Ba,lshamayn said to me, ‘Do not be
afraid! Since I have made [you king, I will stand] beside you. I
will save you from all [these kings who] have besieged you.’155

Here at least one gets the impression that a prayer was followed
151
Translation e.g. Jördens, in: Krüger 2008, 420-426.
152
Cf. Blumenthal 1982, esp. 13; Schlichting 1982b.
153
References Blumenthal 1982, 17, n. 122; Schlichting 1982b, 1125, n. 20.
154
See e.g. Dietrich 1990, 33-4; Fales 1991, 83-4; Parpola 1997, lxxiii.
155
Translation Millard, CoS, vol. 2, 155. Instead of ‘diviners’ the rendering
‘messengers’ might be preferable, cf. Ugaritic ,dd ‘herald, messenger’, with
Becking 1987; Del Olmo Lete & Sanmartı́n 2003, vol. 1, 149.
174 chapter five

shortly by an oracle of salvation not unlike some Israelite proph-

ecies156 and it was mediated by acknowledged experts.
A similar combination of prayer and promise of salvation is
found in the Ugaritic ritual RS 24.266 (KTU 1.119):26’-36’:

When a strong one attacks your gate,

a warrior your walls,
You shall lift your eyes to Ba,lu and say:

Oh Ba,lu, please drive the strong one from our gate,

the warrior from our walls,
a bull, Oh Ba,lu, we shall sanctify,
the vows, Oh Ba,lu, we shall fulfill;
the firstlings, Oh Ba,lu, we shall consecrate,
a h.itpu-sacrifice, Oh Ba,lu, we shall fulfill,
the tithe, Oh Ba,lu, we shall pay,
to the sanctuary, Oh Ba,lu, we shall ascend,
the path of the House, Oh Ba,lu, we shall walk.
And Ba,[lu will h]ear [your] prayer:
He will drive the strong one from your gate,
[the warrior] from yo[ur] walls.157

Again it makes no sense to suppose that a long time elapsed

between the prayer and the fulfillment of the promise. It is cer-
tainly noteworthy that both have been formulated in poetic
form158 and that the whole passage was inserted into a cultic
text.
At the end of another Ugaritic ritual which describes a sac-
rificial banquet for the shades of the dead ancestors of the royal
dynasty, it is intoned,

Peace, peace on ,Ammurapi!159

And peace on his house!
Peace on Tharyelly!160
Peace on her house!
156
See the parallels given by Millard, CoS, vol. 2, 155, notes n-p.
157
Translations do not differ much, cf. for example, De Moor 1987, 173-174;
Pardee 2002, 53, 149-50.
158
Note the sevenfold promise of thanksgiving.
159
Last king of Ugarit.
160
Queen of Ugarit.
 how did the deity address man? 175

Peace on Ugarit!
Peace on its gates!161

This looks strongly like a blessing for the ruling king, his family
and his kingdom. Who is pronouncing it? Just like the preced-
ing promise of deliverance the direct speech is not introduced.
Moreover a blessing like this does not differ much from an oracle
of salvation. The strong connection of both passages with the cult
suggest that it was pronounced by a priest or a cultic prophet.
The prophetic criticism of Israelite oracles promising peace seems
to support this hypothesis.162
As indicated earlier, hymns and prayers in a prophetic context
are rare outside Israel. But they are not completely absent. An
example is a lament quoted in a favorable prophecy for Esarhad-
don, king of Assyria (681-669 bce):

I am the Lady of Arbela.

To the king’s mother:
Because you implored me, saying:
‘You have placed the ones at the (king’s) right and left side in
your lap,
but made my own offspring roam the steppe’ –
Now fear not, my king!
The kingdom is yours, yours is the power!

By the mouth of the woman Ahat-abiša of Arbela.163

˘

It may be noted that both the complaint and the divine reply
are couched in the form of poetic verses with nicely balancing
parallelism. It would be absurd to suspect a later insertion here.
The lament is part and parcel of the prophecy.
The authority of persons claiming to speak in the name of
deities was not accepted automatically. A Sumerian sage mocks
humorously about verification of prophecy,
161
KTU 1.161:31-34.
162
Jer. 6:13-14; 8:10-11; Ezek. 13:10, 16; Mic. 3:5. Cf. 1 Chron. 12:18.
163
Translation Parpola 1997, 9. The Lady of Arbela was the goddess Ishtar
worshipped in the city of Arbela in northern Iraq.
176 chapter five

An ecstatic164 positioned himself at Inanna’s165 gate.

His woman spoke among the people,
‘My mother’s word(?) is verily true,’ she said.166

The salient point in this little narrative gem is the change of

gender. Rather than testifying to the truth of the message of her
husband the prophet, she advises the audience to listen to the
comments of her mother, possibly meaning Inanna.
In a Sumerian lament the disastrous effects of the word of the
high god Enlil – apparently a prophecy of doom – are described
as follows,

Let me bring his word to the diviner

and that diviner will lie,
Let me bring his word to the interpreter
and that interpreter will lie.
His word afflicts a man with woe.
That man moans.
His word afflicts a young woman with woe.
That young woman moans.
As his word proceeds lightly, it destroys the land.
As his word proceeds grandly, it destroys habitations.
His word is a covered fermentation vat.
Who may know what is inside it?
His word, whose interior is unknown,
its exterior tramples down (everything).
His word, whose exterior is unknown,
its interior tramples down (everything).167

The word of the highest god is unfathomable and its menacing

contents may be such that diviners and interpreters prefer to lie
about it instead of revealing the terrible truth. Also in Assyria
the possibility of false prophecy was acknowledged.168
164
A designation of a raving prophet.
165
Goddess of love.
166
Translation Alster 1997, vol. 1, 213 (13.42).
167
Cohen 1988, vol. 1, 137.
168
Nissinen 1998, 166-167. According to Durand 2008, 480-481, the sincerity
of the Old Babylonian Mari prophets was never put in doubt, but the king
remained free to ignore prophetic advice. However, there are also cases where
the trustworthiness of a prophecy was tested by consulting another prophet
or by performing hepatoscopy (Charpin 2002, 20-26).
 how did the deity address man? 177

An Assyrian officer complains,

[I turned to] a prophet (but) did not find [any hop]e,

he was adverse and did not see much.169

Apparently also private persons sometimes consulted prophets

and might be disappointed by the outcome of their inquiries.
A Late Babylonian Chronographic text (dated in the month of
Tishri, 133 bce) relates how an ordinary person called ‘Boatman’
went into a frenzy and started to announce the arrival of several
deities in various Babylonian cities on certain dates. These mes-
sages were received with much enthusiasm by the citizens. How-
ever, the temple council did not believe the prophet and urged
his followers to go back to their cities,

‘[I am] a mes[senger] of Nanaya! I have been sent on behalf of

the strong, hitting god, your God’. The council of that temple
responded to [that] Boatman [and to the people with him], saying:
‘Retreat back, return to your cities! Do not deliver up the city
to loot and plunder! Do not let the gods like the city be carried
off as spoils!’ [. . . Boatman] responded to them, saying: ‘I am a
[mes]senger of Nanaya; I will not deliver up the city to loot and
plunder! As the hand of the strong, hitting God [. . . s] to Ezida
[. . . ]’
The council of that temple responded to the people who were
wi[th] that [Boatman]: ‘Do not listen to the words of that fanat-
ic!’170

In Ancient Egypt the existence of prophecy that is comparable

to that of ancient Israel is disputed. Nili Shupak has reviewed
the relevant texts and concludes that there is indeed a remark-
able resemblance, but the Egyptian admonitions are closer to the
wisdom literature.171
Among the Hittites too the idea existed that ordinary people
could become messengers of the deities.
169
Parpola 1993, No. 294:32.
170
Translation Nissinen 2003, 197-198, omitting line numbers and footnotes.
See also Pientka-Hinze, in: Krüger 2008, 59-60.
171
Shupak 1989-1990; CoS, vol. 1, 93-110.
178 chapter five

O gods, whatever sin you perceive, either let a man of god come
[and declare it], or let the old women, [the diviners, or the augurs
establish it], or let ordinary persons see it in a dream.172

The title ‘man of god’ resembles the title sometimes attributed to

Israelite prophets and probably refers to a similar institution in
Hatti (Prechel 2008). A scribe was instructed to daily read out a
tablet inscribed with a prayer in the name of the king and queen
(Singer 2002, 54, 56). Apparently a prophet or prophetess was
among those who might deliver the deity’s reply.
One of the most convincing testimonies of prophetic activity
of seers in Transjordan is the famous, 8th century Balaam text
discovered on the wall of a sanctuary in Tell Deir ,Alla-, biblical
Succoth, in Transjordan.173 There is no doubt that this Balaam
is the same man as the biblical Balaam, son of Beor.174 In the
text he is called ‘a seer of the gods’ to whom the gods reveal
future disasters which the seer had to pass on to his people. His
message is called a ‘burden-oracle of El (God)’. The same term
often heads prophecies of doom in the Bible (see especially Jer.
23:33-34, 36).
Earlier we discussed the Moabite Marzeah. Papyrus of the 7th
century bce which testifies to consultation of spirits.175 For our
investigation it is important to note here that even though the
gods address Gera directly (‘you’), the verdict is apparently re-
layed to him through another person. The messenger formula
‘Thus say the gods’ strongly resembles the introduction of proph-
etic speech in Mari, Eshnunna, Assyria and the Bible: ‘Thus says
(the deity)’.176 Therefore it seems likely that this formula was
uttered by a Moabite prophet, or a scribe posing as a prophet.
Also in Greece the phenomenon of prophecy was known. The
mavnti" (mantis, originally probably meaning ‘raving one’) was
a prophet or prophetess who was consulted in difficult matters.
172
Singer 2002, 52, 58; see also 60.
173
See e.g. Levine, CoS, vol. 2, 140-145; Seow, in: Nissinen 2003, 207-212;
Ah.ituv 2008, 432-465.
174
Num. 22–24; 31:8, 16; Deut. 23:4-5; Josh. 13:22; 24:9-10; Mic. 6:5; Neh.
13:2.
175
See Section 5.2.1.1.
176
Cf. Westermann 1960, 70ff.
 how did the deity address man? 179

Generals of armies made important military decisions on the basis

of their advice which was based presumably on divine revelation,
but certainly also on intelligent guesswork. One of the most fam-
ous prophets was the blind Teiresias from Thebes who even as a
spirit was still consulted by Odysseus (Odyssey X.490-495; XI.90-
151).
The Greek prophet/seer too did not always announce good
news. A well-known example is the prophecy of doom which the
seer Calchas, ‘wisest of augurs, who knew things past, present and
to come’ (Iliad I.69-70), pronounced against Agamemnon (Iliad
I.92-100) and which elicits the following angry retort from the
latter,

Seer of evil, you never yet prophesied smooth things concerning

me, but have ever loved to foretell that which was evil.

This demonstrates that people expected positive messages from

prophets and that bad news was exceptional. Mistrust of proph-
ecy is also expressed by the chorus in Aeschylus’ Agamemnon,
1130-1135,

I cannot boast that I am a keen judge of prophecies; but these,

I think, spell some evil. But from prophecies what word of good
ever comes to mortals? Through terms of evil their wordy arts
bring men to know fear chanted in prophetic strains.

False prophecy too appears to have been known among the Greeks,
as is demonstrated by Cassandra’s scornful remark, ‘Or am I a
prophet of lies, a door-to-door babbler?’177 In her case too only
the course of history could prove her prophecies to be right or
wrong, ‘What is to come, will come. And soon you, yourself
present here, shall with pity pronounce me all too true a prophet-
ess.’178 In Lucian’s sarcastic Dialogues of the Dead, 9 (28), Menip-
pus ends his talk with the blind prophet Teiresias with the words,
‘Ah, you love a lie still, Teiresias. But there, it is your trade. You
prophets! There is no truth in you.’
177
Aeschylus, Agamemnon, 1197. Cassandra herself was an ecstatic proph-
etess who was overwhelmed by the god Apollo, cf. Lindblom 1963, 27-28.
178
Aeschylus, Agamemnon, 1240-1241.
180 chapter five

One of the most famous prophetesses was the Pythia of the

oracle of Apollo Pythius at Delphi. According to Plutarch she
came from a simple peasant family and spoke incoherently in
a hoarse voice, but on other grounds it must be assumed that
normally her responses were clear and coherent, even formulated
in verse (for which literacy was not a requirement). The historian
Thucydides relates extensively how the false interpretation of a
lunar eclipse by prophets became the undoing of the Athenians
in their 415 bce expedition against Sicily. Thucydides calls the
Greek commander too superstitious, but of course this was easy
criticism in hindsight.179

5.2.2.2 Prophets and Seers in the Bible

On a small hieratic ostracon from Ashkelon (late second millen-
nium bce) an officer reports ‘There are no prophets’ (Wimmer
2008). Apparently his superior had expected to find prophets in
the Philistine Shephelah. This in itself is important information
because it proves that at that time already prophecy was an es-
tablished institution in the region.
At this time we still have no unequivocal extra-biblical evid-
ence that prophecy was also an established institution in ancient
Israel. But it does seem more than likely now. A Lachish letter
dating from the time when Nebuchadnezzar’s army was besieging
Jerusalem and razing the cities of Judah (c. 587 bce) proves in-
dependently from the Bible that in Israel too prophets worked
in the service of the king and his officers. One of the officers in
the Judahite army reports to his superior, ‘And as for the letter
of Tobijah, the servant of the king, which came to Shallum, the
son of Jaddua, from the prophet, saying, “Be on guard!”, your
ser[vant] is sending it to my lord.’180 It is unclear if the prophet
himself wrote the letter received by Shallum or that Shallum re-
corded an orally delivered message of the prophet. Another very
fragmentary letter from Lachish also refers to ‘the prophet’ which
means at least that the man’s office was well-known.181 Meagre
179
See on all this Flower 2008; Köckert 2009; Scherf 2009.
180
Cf. Ah.ituv 2008, 62-69 who points to the similar warning of the man of
God in 2 Kgs 6:9.
181
Seow on Lachish ostracon No. 16 in: Nissinen 2003, 217-218.
 how did the deity address man? 181

though this extrabiblical evidence is, it demonstrates that in the

pre-exilic period prophecy did exist in Israel and its immediate
surroundings.
The parallels discussed in the preceding section indicate that
Israelite prophecy can no longer be seen as an isolated phenom-
enon. Just like their colleagues elsewhere, the Israelite prophets
could work within the framework of the cult, but were not obliged
to do so.182 They often openly criticized the official cult, including
the hymns and prayers that were sung in the temple (Isa. 1:15;
Amos 5:23; Mic. 3:11.) Like their colleagues elsewhere, Israel-
ite prophets performed symbolic acts, for example walking naked
(1 Sam. 19:24; Isa. 20; Mic. 1:8), to draw public attention.183 Like
their Mesopotamian colleagues the Israelite prophets introduced
their oracles as speech of the deity himself: ‘Thus says the Lord’.
In Jer. 38:20 the voice of God is explicitly identified with what
the prophet is going to say. The spontaneous nature of prophecy
did not preclude prophets to train for their job. There is suffi-
cient reason to suppose that in ancient Israel schools for prophets
existed. Those learning the skills of a prophet were designated
as ‘sons of the prophets’184 or ‘students’.185 However, in Israel
too ordinary people might be called to speak the word of God
and in this way became prophets.186 The word of God does not
require some far-fetched, esoteric insight (Deut. 30:13-14).187 In
principle, no special intellectual capacities or education are re-
quired. Every Israelite can know the word of God and can act
according to it (Deut. 30:14). The obvious meaning of this state-
ment is that for every Israelite the Law of Moses (‘this law’, v.
10; ‘this commandment’, v. 11) should be the guiding principle.
Of course there were differences between Israel and its neigh-
bors. Whereas the ‘classical’ prophets in the Hebrew Bible usually
182
See e.g. Mowinckel 1923 [1962], vol. 2, 53-63; Johnson 1962; Booij 1978;
Hilber 2005.
183
Viberg 2007. Friebel 1999, 11-79 and Becking 2009, 35-36 prefer ‘sign-
acts’ instead of ‘symbolic acts’.
184
1 Kgs 20:35; 2 Kgs 2:3, 5, 7, 15; 4:1, 38, etc.
185
Isa. 8:16; 50:4; 54:13; 1 Chron. 25:8. Cf. Lemaire 1981, 57-61, 70-71.
186
E.g. Exod. 7:1; 15:20; Num. 11:25-29; 1 Sam. 3:20; 19:20; Joel 3:1-2[2:28-
29], etc.
187
Cf. Weinfeld 1972, 258-259, 264.
182 chapter five

pronounce oracles of doom in the name of the deity, the majority

of the hitherto found prophetic oracles from elsewhere are prom-
ises of salvation on behalf of deities. However, we have to consider
a number of factors that call for prudence in drawing conclusions.
Critical admonitions to the king and oracles of doom, especially
directed to foreign nations, may be rare outside Israel, but are
certainly not absent from the prophecies found in the surround-
ing cultures. On the other hand also Israelite prophets of the
pre-exilic period did pronounce oracles of salvation, not only the
so-called ‘false’ prophets, but also ‘genuine’ prophets like Nathan,
Isaiah, Micah. Moreover, Israelite prophecy has come to us only
through a long chain of literary transmission and theologically
motivated redaction. And finally, both the documentation about
prophecy in the ancient Near East and the selection of proph-
ecies we have from Israel are so incomplete that it is hazardous
to overemphasize either the differences or the similarities.
This is also true of the presumed contrast between oral and
written prophecy. It has often been pointed out that the prophetic
messages of prophets outside Israel were mostly delivered orally
whereas the main characteristic of Israelite prophecy would have
been its scribal character. This is a biased representation of the
facts. Of many Israelite prophets no written books have come to
us (e.g. Elijah, Elisha, Gad, Nathan, Huldah, Uriah). The proph-
etic ‘books’ that acquired canonical status are the product of cen-
turies of literary and theological reshaping. A text like the Balaam
inscription from Deir ,Alla- is without any doubt a highly literary
prophetic composition that was deemed important enough to be
recorded on the wall of the sanctuary. As far as the fragmentary
state of the text allows a judgment, it was directed not to a king,
but to Balaam’s compatriots (Blum 2008). It is fairly certain that
at least some Israelite prophets have been able to read and write.
Samuel first explains the legal consequences of kingship orally to
the people and subsequently writes them in a ‘book’ which he
deposits in the sanctuary at Shiloh (1 Sam. 10:25). It is uncer-
tain if this rests on reliable historical tradition, but it might be
if the ‘book’ was an inscription on a tablet or durable stone.188
188
In Ugaritic spr may designate a clay tablet and in Phoenician and Old
 how did the deity address man? 183

The prophet Isaiah writes a short message on a polished bronze

mirror,

Then the Lord said to me, ‘Take a big mirror189 and write upon
it with a normal stylus, “For Soon-spoil, Quickly-loot” ’ (Isa. 8:1).

‘Soon-spoil, Quickly-loot’ was to be the symbolical name of

Isaiah’s unborn son (Isa. 8:3-4). The reason why Isaiah had to
write this ominous name on a large reflecting surface was ob-
viously to warn passers-by who saw their own reflection in the
mirror that they themselves would soon become spoil of war. It
is noteworthy that God also appoints two oral witnesses to testify
to Isaiah’s act (Isa. 8:2).190
Later on Isaiah has the scroll with his oracles bound up and
sealed, to be kept among his students until his prophecies have
come true (Isa. 8:16-18, possibly referred to in Isa. 29:11). It is
not stated explicitly that Isaiah had written that scroll himself,
but it cannot be excluded either (Dekker 2009). According to Isa.
30:8 the same prophet has to write a prophecy of doom on a kind
of billboard.191
Aramaic an inscription in a durable kind of stone like basalt. Obviously this
recalls the ‘tablets of stone’, given to Moses according to Exod. 24:12 (cf.
Korpel 1990, 471-473). For Isa. 30:8 see the main text above and for writing
the law on stones, Deut. 4:13; 5:22; 27:8; Josh. 8:30-32.
189
Against all other proposals we see this is the best rendering of the Hebrew
word which occurs also in Isa. 3:23, as will be demonstrated in a forthcoming
publication.
190
There is some discussion about the text to be preferred. One manuscript
of Qumran and some ancient versions read an imperative: ‘and appoint as
witnesses’. However, this seems to be an adaptation to the context. Another
manuscript from Qumran and the Vulgate support the Masoretic text which
on the basis of Hebrew syntax most likely means ‘and I will appoint as wit-
nesses’ (cf. Joüon & Muraoka 2006, §116b). Of course Isaiah will have to act
as the instrument through which this will be realized (De Waard 1997, 34).
191
It is possible that this passage is a later addition to the Book of Isaiah,
but this does not diminish the worth of this testimony. The basic meaning of
the Hebrew word used is ‘board, plank’. The parallel word ‘book’ is commonly
understood to mean that Isaiah would have written the book all by himself.
However, the same word can also designate a tablet or a board (pace Beuken
2010, 172) and the Hebrew text definitely suggests here too a text that was
inscribed in a hard surface to serve as a durable witness. Cf. De Moor 1997,
158.
184 chapter five

According to Jer. 29 the prophet Jeremiah wrote two letters

to the exiles in Babylonia. The letters are not preserved in their
original form, but large portions are quoted from them. It seems
likely that the chapter was heavily edited, according to many
scholars by Baruch, Jeremiah’s scribe,192 but few scholars doubt
the historicity of the fact that Jeremiah wrote letters to the ex-
iles, even though he may have made use of the services of his
secretary. It was not unusual for senders of letters to omit such
information. The same observation is valid for the contract which
Jeremiah wrote according to Jer. 32:10. Actually a scribe may
have written it, even though the prophet asserts that he did so
himself. With contracts too it was customary to have them veri-
fied by oral witnesses whose names were recorded at the end of
the document (Jer. 32:10, 25, 44).
The prophet Habakkuk has to write a vision on publicly ex-
posed tablets so that passers-by who read the text may decide to
flee (Hab. 2:2). It is not entirely clear which vision the prophet
meant, but since several tablets were needed one has to assume
that it was a fairly long text. In any case it seems likely that
also in Israel at least some prophets may have been able to check
if their scribes had recorded their oracles correctly and in still
fewer cases may have been able to write down their prophecies
themselves.
Both outside and inside Israel the style of the prophecies is
highly developed, often even poetic. This raises the suspicion that
the scribes who were responsible for the recording of the words of
a prophetess or prophet may well have adapted their basic, oral
message to their own literary taste. This must have been all the
more so the case when the prophet was in a state of frenzy when
he gave his oracle so that it was impossible to refute a scribe’s
interpretation of the incoherent sounds.
However, with regard to ancient Israel it must be assumed
that we certainly do not know the whole truth. For many centu-
ries prophets were accustomed to pronounce oracles of salvation
for the king and the nation, just as elsewhere prophets fulfilled
this function. Some of the royal Psalms of Israel still contain
192
Cf. McKane 1996, 726-748, as well as Section 5.2.2.4.
 how did the deity address man? 185

such oracles (Hilber 2005). Small wonder that later on, after the
destruction of the Solomonic temple, many reproached God for
having deluded them.193 Often it is assumed that such oracles
of salvation were the prophetic answer to prayers by or on be-
half of the king, mostly in his function as the representative of
the people. However, Frederico Villanueva has pointed out that
the certainty of a hearing did not always follow a lament and
that after praise there could follow lamentation again (Villanueva
2008). Later on194 we will defend that in many cases not a pro-
phetic message, but a growing inner conviction that God had
heard the prayer stood at the basis of praise.
Witnessing the disastrous effects of the misdemeanor of their
kings, some Israelite and Judean prophets started to emphasize
the impending disaster. When both North Israel and Judah had
fallen prey to destruction by foreign armies (Samaria in 622, Jer-
usalem in 587 bce), this seemed to confirm the message of the
prophets of doom. This must have caused a massive redactional
censure of existing written prophetic literature. The message of
doom had won and was heavily underlined with prophecies that
were clearly vaticinia ex eventu, as was the accepted practice in
the ancient Near East.195 We must grow accustomed to the fact
that redactional adaptation of prophetic texts to new situations
was not uncommon. It is attested in the Neo-Assyrian period
(Nissinen 2000b, 263-268) and there is good reason to suppose
that it also did happen in ancient Israel. Recently discovered cryp-
tograms in Ezekiel 19 even enable us to reconstruct such a redac-
tional adaptation process fairly accurately (Korpel 2009a), but
this is an exceptional case. Despite the development of ever more
sophisticated methods to distinguish redactional layers in ancient
sources, the results are hardly ever universally accepted. Author-
ship is blurred by tradition. Authenticity is a modern concept
that was foreign to the ancient world.

The ipsissima verba, that is, the actual spoken words of indi-
vidual prophets, are as impossible to find in ancient Near Eastern
193
See e.g. Renkema 1983, 90-145.
194
Section 6.2.2.2.
195
See above, Section 5.2.2.1.
186 chapter five

sources as in the Bible. A written prophecy is always scribal work,

and it is ultimately beyond our knowledge to determine to what
extent the scribe would, or could, transmit the exact wording of
the prophecy.196

If a person claims to be relaying the word of God this creates the

problem how hearers can be certain that somebody looking like
an ordinary human being is truly speaking the word of God. Often
prophets confronted each other with diametrically opposed mes-
sages, both invoking divine authority (e.g. 1 Kgs 22; Jer. 14:13-16;
23; 27–28; Ezek. 12–13). This made it very difficult to distinguish
true from false prophecy.
Deuteronomy tries to solve this tricky problem by requiring
consistency with earlier commandments of the Lord197 or the
fulfillment of his words.198 Especially the latter criterion is puz-
zling,199 because it works only afterwards. The application of this
rule in the deuteronomistic corpus further complicates the mat-
ter. In 1 Kgs 13 the Judean prophet’s message of doom against
Jeroboam comes true, but he has to die because he does not rec-
ognize the prophecy of a colleague as false. In 1 Kgs 22 a faithful
prophet first utters a false prophecy (v. 15) and the false prophecy
of his opponents is attributed to a spirit executing God’s com-
mand (vv. 19-23). There are many more examples of prophecies
that remained unfulfilled or proved to be false even though they
were spoken by ‘true’ prophets. In these cases too it was a hu-
man being’s free choice to decide whether the use of the formula
‘thus says the Lord’ was justified or not.200 Believing another
196
Nissinen 2004, 29. See also Lindblom 1963, 159, 178-179.
197
Deut. 13:2-6[1-5]. Christensen 2001, 273 applies this text as follows,
‘Keeping close to our own sacred duty will keep us out of harm’s way; for
God never leaves us until we first leave him.’
198
Deut. 18:21-22.
199
Cf. Tigay 1996, 177-178; Christensen 2001, 410-413. It does not help much
to observe that Deut. 18:21-22 may have been directed against a prophet who
utters a false prophecy of doom (‘you need not be afraid of him’, v. 22, cf.
Labuschagne 1990, 142; Kwakkel 2003, 24) because the same is said about a
prophet who utters an oracle of salvation, Jer. 28:9, 15-17.
200
Cf. e.g. Fabian 2000; Freedman & Frey 2004; Sweeney 2005, 78-93. When
Amos announced in the name of God that the house of Jeroboam would be
eradicated with the sword (Amos 7:9) the priest Amaziah of Bethel pointedly
 how did the deity address man? 187

person’s claim to divine authority was and will always be a risky

enterprise. We will return to this difficult matter at the end of
the book (Chapter 7).
It is too simple to boldly assert that the prophets claimed
divine authority for their messages to lend extra weight to what
they themselves wanted to say. A deeper psychological experience
must have been involved. Even if they themselves did not want to
speak out, they were unable to hold back the word of God. The
prophet Amos exclaims,

Surely the Lord God does nothing,

unless he has revealed his counsel
to his servants the prophets.
The lion has roared; who will not fear?
The Lord God has spoken;
who can but prophesy? (Amos 3:7-8).

Jeremiah201 describes his thankless task as a messenger of doom

in the name of God,

And (when) I thought, I will not mention him,

and I will no longer speak in his name,
then it became like a burning fire in my heart,
shut up in my bones,
and I became weary of holding it in,
and I could not prevail (Jer. 20:9).202

God warns the prophet Ezekiel203 not to keep an oracle of doom

from the sinners he has to address,

If I say to the wicked, ‘You will certainly die!’ and you do not
warn him, and do not speak to warn the wicked to turn from his
wicked way so that he may live, that wicked man will die for his
iniquity, but I will require his blood from your hand (Ezek. 3:18).

relayed this prophecy as a word of Amos himself (Amos 7:10).

201
It is irrelevant in this connection whether the speaker was Jeremiah him-
self (so e.g. Lundbom 1999) or a redactor allegedly speaking in his name (so
e.g. Carroll 2006, vol. 1, 401).
202
See also Jer. 6:11.
203
It is likely that Ezek. 3:17-21 is a secondary elaboration of Ezek. 33:1-6,
but for our argument that is not really important.
188 chapter five

The prophet known as Second Isaiah states explicitly that he does

not resist when God instructs him to speak his word,

The Lord God gives me a tongue of disciples

to know how to make witnesses those too tired for words.
Morning by morning he wakens,
he wakens my ear
to hear like disciples do.

The Lord God opens my ear,

and I do not resist,
I do not move backwards (Isa. 50:4-5).204

The prophet sees himself as an attentive student of the divine

Teacher. He passes on the message to his compatriots who are
too tired to speak up. He can only find the courage to become an
unobtrusive teacher to the nations himself when God has put his
Spirit on him (Isa. 42:1-4).
Remaining silent when God entrusted a prophet with his word
was an option only if the life of the prophet himself became en-
dangered. Contrary to an earlier oath to spare Jeremiah’s life (Jer.
38:16), king Zedekiah threatens to kill the prophet if he does not
keep secret a prophecy of doom he should have delivered in public
(Jer. 38:24-27).
Normally, however, a prophet could not refuse to divulge the
word of God. Jeremiah promises his compatriots that he will not
keep back even one word from what God will reveal to him (Jer.
42:4). In Ezek. 2:9; 3:1, 2, 3 God presents a scroll with lament-
ations written on the outside and the inside – an exceptional
procedure – to the prophet with the command to eat it. Its taste
proved to be like sweet honey (Ezek. 3:3),205 but caused bitterness
in the end (Ezek. 3:14). Later on a spirit (the Spirit?)206 enters
him (Ezek. 3:24) who summons the prophet to let himself be
locked up in his house. The spirit announces that his tongue will
stick to his mouth and that he will become dumb. It seems likely
204
For this translation see Korpel & De Moor 1998, 448.
205
Jeremiah ‘ate’ and enjoyed the words of the law-book found in the temple
by Hilkiah (Jer. 15:16, cf. 2 Kgs 22:13).
206
Cf. Block 1997, 153-154.
 how did the deity address man? 189

that the eating of the scroll should be compared with Ezekiel’s

dumbness which made it impossible for him to speak anything
else than the true word of God (Ezek. 3:26-27). He is not even
allowed to vent his personal grief when his wife dies (Ezek. 24:15-
27) and in this restricted sense he has to keep ‘silent’ throughout
his career as a prophet (Ezek. 33:22). Only when he hears the
voice of God speaking to him a spirit207 enters him so that he is
able to hear what God is saying (Ezek. 1:28–2:2). It is his task
to relay the words of God to his compatriots, regardless ‘whether
they hear or refuse to hear’ (Ezek. 2:5, 7; 3:7, 11). Later on he
feels lifted up by a spirit208 and the whole experience disturbed
the prophet’s spirit very much (3:14). Again we note a close in-
teraction between the human spirit and spirits sent by God. The
result is that Ezekiel no longer can act as a mediator (Ezek. 3:26)
for the people, and he is unable to speak a word of his own.209 It
might be that Ezekiel suffered short moments of literal aphasy,210
but this does not diminish the fact that Ezekiel from 3:24-27 on
is able to speak only words of God.
A similar experience is related about Daniel. He is touched by
an unknown hand; apparently it is a messenger of the Lord who
does so (Dan. 10:10). Subsequently the unknown person is de-
scribed as someone looking like a human being (10:16). When he
speaks to Daniel, the latter seems to be frightened. He turns his
face to the ground and immediately becomes dumb (10:15). Only
after the messenger has touched his lips Daniel’s mouth is opened
again and he is able to speak words and to answer him. Never-
theless, Daniel does not feel strong enough, and complains that
no strength is left in him, as well as no breath (Dan. 10:17). The
messenger who looks like a human being touches him again and
Daniel feels strong enough to answer. The chapter clearly recalls
the prophet Ezekiel who was also struck by dumbness (Plöger
1965, 149).
Those who felt that they had to speak the word of God were
fully aware of their own inadequacy: Moses (Exod. 3:11; 4:10-16),
207
The article ‘the’ is missing in the Hebrew text.
208
Ezek. 3:12-14; see also 8:3; 11:1, 24; 43:5.
209
Dijkstra 1986, 54; Block 1997, 156; Friebel 1999, 184; Duguid 1999, 80.
210
Dijkstra 1986, 54; Dijkstra 1989, 22.
190 chapter five

Isaiah (Isa. 6:5-7), Jeremiah (Jer. 1:6-10), Daniel (Dan. 10:15-

19). They knew that an ‘unclean spirit’ might lead a prophet
astray (Zech. 13:2) and they had to resist that temptation. Only
if Jeremiah repents from having uttered a ‘worthless’ oracle, he
may act as the ‘mouth’ of God again (Jer. 15:19. Cf. Jer. 1:9 and
Lundbom 1999, 749-750).
According to Exod. 3–4 Moses sees an angel (messenger) of
the Lord appearing in a flaming thorn bush.211 Miraculously,
however, the bush is not consumed by the fire. The circumstance
that later on it is God who addresses Moses (Exod. 3:4ff.) can be
explained plausibly by the ancient oriental concept of a spokes-
man or messenger as the visible and audible representation of his
master (Propp 1999, 198-199).
Moses communicates with God as with a human being. He
first says that he is listening (v. 4) and after God has called him
to become the leader of his people (vv. 7-10) he puts forward
several objections why he would not be the right man for this
demanding assignment (Exod. 3:11; 4:1). Finally he states that
he is not an eloquent speaker (lit. his mouth and tongue are heavy,
Exod. 4:10). God counters this with a rhetorical question,

Who provided man with a mouth?

Who will make dumb or deaf?
Or seeing or blind?
Is it not I the Lord? (Exod. 4:11)212

It is useless to speculate about the precise nature of Moses’ handi-

cap.213 In any case he was not completely dumb. God continues,
‘Now go; for I will be with your mouth and will teach you what to
say.’ So Moses will have to speak the words of God who will make
use of Moses’ mouth. This is confirmed by Jewish interpretations.
Targum Onqelos states that God said ‘and my word will be in
211
We skip the complicated source-critical and redactional history of these
chapters here.
212
On dumbness as an affliction caused by God according to the Hebrew
Bible, see Section 3.2.4.2.
213
In Exod. 6:12, 30 Moses states that he is ‘of uncircumcised lips’ which
might mean that he regarded his mouth as too unholy to speak the word of
God. Cf. Isa. 6:5-7.
 how did the deity address man? 191

your mouth’ and Targum Neofiti ‘with my mouth I will be with

the speaking of your mouth’ (Houtman 1993, 412-413). Just as
the ‘angel’ represented God, so Moses will represent God.
Moses recoils yet another time, ‘Oh, my Lord, send, I pray,
some other person!’ (Exod. 4:13), whereupon God becomes angry
and says,

Is there not Aaron, your brother, the Levite?

I know that he can speak well;
and also, behold, he is coming out to meet you,
and when he sees you he will be glad in his heart.
And you shall speak to him
and put the words in his mouth;
and I myself will be with your mouth and with his mouth,
and will teach you two what you shall do.
He shall speak for you to the people;
and he shall be a mouth for you,
and you shall be to him as God (Exod. 4:14b-16).

Aaron becomes the spokesman of Moses, just as Moses in fact

is the spokesman of God. The comparison of Moses to God and
Aaron as his spokesman is based on the similarity with the rela-
tionship between God and a prophet.214 This human comparison
clearly shows the idea behind the speaking of God: human beings
have to become his mouthpieces, his spokesmen, just as in the hu-
man world people can be the spokesmen of others.215 Moses has
to speak with divine authority before Pharaoh216 and apparently
the latter does not doubt that it is possible that human beings
speak on behalf of deities – he only does not know the God of the
Hebrews (Exod. 5:1-3).
The idea of Aaron as the spokesman of Moses is repeated by
the Priestly Source in Exod. 7:1, ‘And the Lord said to Moses,
“See, I make you as God to Pharaoh; and Aaron your brother
shall be your prophet. You shall speak all that I command you;
214
Childs 1974, 79; Hyatt 1980, 101; Noth 1988, 33; Houtman 1993, 417;
Propp 1999, 229-231.
215
Wolterstorff 1995, 48 aptly compares the commissioner who is allowed to
speak on behalf of a president or a government.
216
Childs 1974, 118; Houtman 1993, 524.
192 chapter five

and Aaron your brother shall tell Pharaoh to let the people of Is-
rael go out of his land.” ’ In accordance with the priestly theology
Aaron the priest now becomes the indirect mouthpiece (prophet)
of God.217 It has been observed that Aaron only seldom serves as
the spokesman of Moses, generally it is Moses himself who speaks
on behalf of God (Hyatt 1980, 84). However, it was common in
the literature of the ancient world to minimize the role of inter-
mediaries and to create the impression that it was the deity or
king himself who spoke or acted.
Deuteronomy finally resolves the problem of the conflicting
nature of prophecies by declaring that ‘there has not arisen a
prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face
to face’ (Deut. 34:10), thus lending a higher authority to Moses
than to any other prophet.218 It must be assumed that the Spirit
of God rested upon the prophet Moses.219 Unquestionably the
guidance of the Holy Spirit was indispensable to prophets,220 also
to an eminent spokesman of God like Moses. But the work of
the Spirit had to be matched by a willing spirit in man. If this
willingness was lacking, a further link in the line of transmission
had to be inserted.
Like his contemporary Micah (Mic. 2:11), Isaiah reproaches
the priests, seers and prophets with their excessive consumption
of wine which befuddles their brains so that they do not hear
the voice of the Lord.221 Their professional wisdom has become
a purely human affair, there is no divine inspiration in it (Isa.
29:13-16; cf. Mic. 3:5-8). Because of their irresponsible behavior

217
This is the only time that the Priestly Source uses the word ‘prophet’.
218
On the role of Moses as an intermediary even in places where God seems
to address the people directly see Section 5.1.2.
219
Cf. Num. 11:29; 27:28; Deut. 34:9; Isa. 63:11.
220
Looking back, (pseudo)-Nehemiah states that God has warned the people
by his Spirit through the intermediary of the prophets (Neh. 9:30; cf. Zech.
7:12; 2 Chron. 24:19-20). Since the structure of the verse makes it impossible
to leave out anything this indicates that by this time it was the prevailing
opinion that the prophets had been divinely inspired, yet had been badly
understood.
221
Isa. 28:7-10; cf. 29:9-10. It is generally recognized that Isaiah 28–31 does
contain material that goes back to the first Isaiah, but that much editorial
elaboration is of a later date (see e.g. Wildberger 1982, 1041-1368, 1557).
 how did the deity address man? 193

God has blinded the seers and prophets so that they do not foresee
the impending disaster (Isa. 29:10).222 God does not answer them
anymore when they call to him for help (Isa. 28:7-11; cf. Mic. 3:4,
6-7).
The prophets willing to speak the word of God met with a lot
of hardship. Prophets had to undergo long training for their pro-
fession which required also learning at least the basics of reading
and writing. Speaking up against those in power required courage.
Prophets had to face devastating criticism of their contemporaries
and many of them paid for their audacity with their lives. There-
fore it is mistaken to state that there is no merit whatsoever in
the prophets’ contribution to the proclamation of word of God.
It is simply an exaggeration that ‘as sinful and weak men, they
can only make shipwreck with their words’ (Barth, ChD, vol. 2/1,
221). No, they were courageous men and women who sacrificed
a lot for the Lord. It is simply bad dogmatics to minimize the
participation of human beings in the work of God to the point
where one can qualify it as shipwrecking.223
Having denounced the self-interest of prophets, seers and di-
viners, who fail to get answers from God,224 the prophet Micah
continues,

I, however, am filled with power,

[the Spirit of the Lord,]
and with justice and courage,
to tell Jacob his rebellion,
and Israel its sin (Mic. 3:8).

According to the canonical version of his book, Micah feels that

next to the indispensable guidance of the Spirit his sense of justice
and a certain amount of courage is necessary for his mission.
However, there are strong indications that the phrase ‘the Spirit
of the Lord’ is a later explanatory gloss.225 To be sure, this gloss
222
The glosses in Isa. 29:10 interpret the text correctly, cf. Watts 1985, 384;
Oswalt 1986, 529-530, n. 3; Oswalt 2003, 328, 333; Childs 2001, 218.
223
See further Chapter 7.
224
Mic. 3:5-7.
225
See e.g. Renaud 1977, 135-137; Ben Zvi 2000, 72. Contrast Levison 2009,
36, 41-45.
194 chapter five

is certainly an apt elucidation of what Micah will have meant,226

but originally he spoke merely with wonder about his own power,
justice and audacity. For him it will have been self-evident that
his decision to speak up against those in power derived from his
divine Sender. However, it seems unwarranted to scale down his
human effort to insignificance.
In the same chapter Micah predicts the destruction of the
Solomonic temple in Jerusalem (Mic. 3:12), one of the most con-
vincing examples of a prophecy that came true. Yet Micah himself
did not live to witness that event,227 and at the end of his career
seriously considered the possibility that this might have been be-
cause of sins he himself might have committed.228 Here we meet
the tragic fate of a man who served God but never knew for cer-
tain if what he pronounced were words of God that were bound
to come true.
Also a wisdom teacher could be filled with the Spirit of God
and might be unable to repress his argument. Elihu justifies his
decision to participate in the dispute with Job by invoking his
divine inspiration. It is not old age that makes a man wise,

But it is the Spirit in mankind

and the breath of the Almighty
that gives them understanding (Job 32:8)

I too will have my share,

I too will show my knowledge.
For I am full of words,
and the Spirit within me compels me.
Look, inside I am like bottled-up wine,
like new wineskins ready to burst (Job 32:17-19).

Some authors insist on taking ‘the spirit’ in the sense of breath

here.229 No doubt the breath was seen as a gift of God.230 How-
ever, in the context of Job 32 it would be strange to argue that
226
Cf. Mic. 2:7, 11.
227
Jer. 26:17-19.
228
See on this interpretation De Moor 2000c.
229
E.g. Scheepers 1960, 179; Habel 1985, 450; Clines 2006, 718.
230
Gen. 2:7; 6:8; Ps. 104:30; Job 27:3; 32:8; 33:4; 34:14.
 how did the deity address man? 195

every breathing human being is a wisdom teacher. That is exactly

what Elihu disputes. He is claiming divine illumination here,231
even though it is difficult to separate the human from the divine
spirit.232 In the late wisdom literature to which the speeches of
Elihu belong the sages started to take over the place of the proph-
ets as mediators of revelation (Fohrer 1963, 451). Jer. 9:11 which
is part of a late theological amplification of the Book of Jeremiah
(McKane 1986, 205) may reflect the same development because
here the sage is the man to whom God has spoken.
Also in the New Testament the human spirit and the divine
Spirit that are at work in the believer’s life are often indistin-
guishable (Fee 1994, 24-26). But here too the possibility of an
‘unclean’ spirit was recognized.233 Like the Hebrew prophets, the
apostle Paul sees no possibility to hold back the word of God. He
feels compelled to preach the gospel,

Yet when I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, for I am compelled

to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! (1 Cor. 9:16)

This was also the conviction of the author of 2 Pet. 1:21,

Prophecy has never occurred by the will of man, but moved by

the Holy Spirit234 men spoke as235 God.

According to this view, prophets did not ‘invent’ revelation them-

selves, but were seized by God and driven to speak on his be-
half. Of course modern man may doubt that this was what really
happened, but such a modern view is not based on scribal tra-
dition from Antiquity. To the Ancients ‘invented’ prophecy was
‘false’ prophecy because it did not originate in God.

231
Cf. Gordis 1978, 367; Hartley 1988, 424.
232
In this sense we can understand Levison’s insistence on writing ‘spirit’
(Levison 2009).
233
Mt. 12:43-45; Mk 1:23-27; 3:11, 30; 5:2, 8, 13, etc.
234
An article is lacking in the Greek. This does not preclude the rendering
‘the Holy Spirit’ (cf. Fee 1994, 15-24) which in the light of vv.19-20 is far
more likely than ‘a holy spirit’.
235
Literally ‘out of God’.
196 chapter five

5.2.2.3 Scribes in the Ancient Near East

Scribes were the scholars of the ancient world. Most of their con-
temporaries were illiterate and had to rely on their memory.236
Although the capacity to memorize important data was much
better developed than in the present world that has put its trust
in the written or digital word, the only people able to transmit
knowledge over very long stretches of time were the scribes. This
gave them an enormous power that was often enhanced by the
fact that they claimed to have received their revelations directly
from the deities themselves. In this respect they too were con-
sidered messengers of the gods, carriers of divine revelation. An
Egyptian scribe praises his teacher,

You are the father of the god in command of mysteries . . . You

are a noble priest in the House of Ptah, versed in all the mysteries
in the House of the Prince.237

The more advanced Egyptian scribes were seen as the keepers

of the powerful secret language of the deities (Hornung 1996;
Fischer-Elfert 2007). In the closing section of the Wisdom of Ame-
nemope scribes are extolled as the only human beings who achieve
true immortality through their writings (Foster 2001, 226-228).
When the offices of scribes are destroyed, their secret knowledge
is endangered according to the Egyptian skeptic Ipuwer who may
have lived in the 18th century bce,

O, yet the sacred forehall, its writings have been removed;

the place of secrets and the sanctuary(?) have been stripped bare.
O, yet magic is stripped bare;
236
Some ancient oriental kings boast about their ability to read. See for
Egypt, Redford, in: Ben Zvi & Floyd 2000, 164. In Mesopotamia Shulgi,
Išme-Dagān and Assurbanipal are examples of kings who boasted to have
mastered the scribal art (Waetzoldt 2009, 264; Hunger 2009, 273); for the
Hittites, see Van den Hout 2009, 277. Mostly this kind of praise will have
been cheap flattering by their scribes. Assurbanipal’s scribes had to annotate
the tablets the king wanted to read aloud to show off his proficiency with
interlinear clarifying glosses. Also some officers in the service of the king may
have mastered reading. See below an example from Judah.
237
Translation Lichtheim 1976, 173-174.
 how did the deity address man? 197

omens(?) and predictions(?) are made dangerous

because of their being recalled by people.238

Apparently knowing the will of the gods required access to the

secret scribal lore. It might rest on oral tradition, but could not
be replaced by it because the mere fact of the mortality of its
carriers made it unreliable. Also other people, like priests, ma-
gicians, officials and doctors, were regarded as keepers of secret
knowledge in ancient Egypt, but it is highly unlikely that all of
them were skilled scribes.239
In Mesopotamia too scribes were the keepers of arcane know-
ledge. Even though other scholars such as diviners and sorcerers
were also supposed to have access to the secrets of the gods,
their revelations were recorded by scribes who had the power to
modify their words.240 Tablets containing explanatory commen-
taries on rituals were provided with the warning, ‘Let not the
knowing show this to the unknowing’ and especially the proceed-
ings during the Babylonian New Year festival were partly kept
secret (Zgoll 2007). In Ugarit the scribe Ilimilku praises his mas-
ter Attanu who was a high priest as the one who had dictated
Ugaritic religious texts to him and was himself an accomplished
scribe of Babylonian. Ilimilku describes him as a keeper of ‘the
secrets of Ba,lu (Baal)’ in an eulogy after Attanu’s death,

Who was like the Holy Man?

[Who was like Attanu?]
[Thri]ce he has made dew,
four times [drizzle for] me.
So, he understood the secrets of Ba,lu,241
[grasped (?) the wisdo]m of Ba,lu.
The great Holy Man [fell (?)] into the river,
[ into] the wadi of Astarte, into the Rah.banu242
[he died (?) in] Araru,243
238
Ipuwer 6.6-7, translation Enmarch 2008, 227-228.
239
Kees 1953-1958; Altenmüller 1977; Fischer-Elfert 2007. Cf. Exod. 7:22.
240
Nissinen 2000b; Van der Toorn 2007; Lenzi 2008.
241
At the moment of writing, the weather god Baal was the national god of
Ugarit. Astarte, mentioned a few lines further on, was one of his wives.
242
Ugaritic name of the river Nahr el-Kebir.
243
District south of Ugarit.
198 chapter five

in the sea of Baal’s hill.244

[What about] the secrets of Ba,lu?
[Woe! (?) What about the se]crets of Ba,lu?245

Apparently Ilimilku ascribed to his master secret knowledge

which had enabled him a few times to manipulate the rainfall
that was vitally important to the semi-arid region of Ugarit.246
What is important to note is the distribution of tasks between
the learned high priest who recited the religious texts of Ugarit
and the scribe who recorded the words of his master.
Karel van der Toorn has argued forcefully that in a predomi-
nantly illiterate world everything we know about the religious tra-
ditions of Israel must have been transmitted through the hands of
scribes, many of whom were working in the service of the temple
(Van der Toorn 2007). In a sense, this conclusion is too facile.
What else than written documents have survived up till our own
era? Yet his emphasis on the role of scribes is justified to a consid-
erable extent. He and others have demonstrated that the scribes
of the ancient world were not merely copyists, but also creative
authors. Certainly they often invoked written sources to show
that they stood in a reliable chain of tradition, but more often
than not such claims have been proved to be false. The sources
quoted and/or the quotations were sometimes invented to lend
authority to what actually were reformations or innovations (see
also Stott 2008). As Van der Toorn demonstrated, the scribes
often weaved various threads of tradition, also from oral tradi-
tion, into a new composition. This mode of composition agrees
to a large extent with the modes of textual creation supposed
by literary-critical biblical scholarship in the past. In our opinion
the latter approach far too often neglected the cumulative nature
of literary production in Antiquity. Old material was woven into
new compositions and this circumstance counsels prudence with
regard to dating individual passages.
244
Probably Mt S.apānu = Jebel Akra, north of Ugarit. The very imprecise
designation of the locale might indicate that the exact spot of Attanu’s death
was unknown.
245
RS 92.2016. For a full commentary on this text, see De Moor 2009.
246
Cf. 1 Kgs 18.
 how did the deity address man? 199

Moreover, the possibilities of manipulation of existing tradi-

tion were limited by several factors. First of all the scribes had
to satisfy their employers, usually belonging to the ruling elite,
both priests and kings.247 The propagandistic nature of royal doc-
uments, for example, made it impossible for a scribe to record the
often disappointing truth. It might seem easy for a scribe to dupe
his master who nearly always will have been unable to check him-
self what the scribe had written, but it has been demonstrated
that also officers in the service of the court were often able to
read, or could even write (Charpin 2008). So kings could have
the content of a scribe’s work checked.
It should be remembered that normally texts were read aloud
and could be confirmed or contradicted by oral witnesses. This
also applies to priests and other religious leaders. Their power
rested on commonly understood traditional religious lore. There-
fore radical innovation was possible only in the aftermath of great
crises that undermined faith in existing theology or ideology. In a
mainly illiterate society important lore is often carefully fostered
by oral tradition (see below). Therefore a scribe could not present
a version of a text that differed radically from what had been en-
grained in the collective memory of a socially coherent group.
A third objection to attributing too much weight to the free-
dom of scribes is the circumstance that sometimes the person who
delivered a religious text orally may well have been able to check
what the scribe who wrote down his words had made of it, as was
doubtlessly the case with Attanu and Ilimilku of Ugarit.
And finally, the formation of canonical written versions of
important, authoritative documents limited the freedom of the
scribes. It has been demonstrated that after canonization only rel-
atively minor differences could be introduced by later scribes.248
In all matters of importance the written text served as the ul-
timate testimony. Everywhere in the ancient Near East contracts
were drawn up in front of witnesses, but the written contract
247
In view of the close ties between temple and palace in the ancient world
we do not think it is helpful to distinguish sharply between scribes in the
service of the cult and scribes in the service of the king.
248
See e.g. De Moor 1978; Tigay 1982; Tertel 1994; Hallo 1996, 144-153;
Korpel 1998; 2005a; George 2003, 1-70.
200 chapter five

was decisive. Messages were delivered orally, but were confirmed

by written documents. Generally scholarly works, at that time
mostly religious texts, had to be in conformity to the ancient
scribal tradition, both in Egypt and in Babylonia.249 This gave
the scribes an enormous power over all sectors of society.
Yet the influence of scribes should not be overestimated. Most
of the dissemination of culture, also religious culture, took place
via oral channels in the largely analphabetic societies of those
days.250 Modern parallels, like oral Arabian poetry, show that
oral and written tradition of the same (narrative) poems can co-
exist, both in reasonably stable form, over extended periods of
time, centuries even.251 Both channels of tradition exhibit many
characteristics that are also found in the written literature of the
ancient world, especially tricks to assist the memory of the re-
citer, such as repetition of phrases or scenes, standard epithets
functioning as stopgaps, parallelism (standard pairs of words),
rhythmical structure to promote cadence, acrostics and rhyme.252
However, not only existing tradition was fostered in this man-
ner. The oral tradition also provided a means to expand or con-
tract a poem according to the mood of the moment.253 Appar-
ently oral tradition served to promulgate texts among a wider
audience and occasionally helped to actualize the written tradi-
tion. After such a revision the oral tradition in its turn may have
been adapted to the updated written text, for some time at least.
Even in Egypt where writing was so all-important for the royal
administration and the cult, texts were disseminated as widely as
possible by means of reciting them aloud and certain types of
literature were apparently based on oral tradition.254 A good ex-
ample demonstrating that oral delivery was seen as more impor-
249
For Egypt, see Redford, in: Ben Zvi & Floyd 2000, 165-167.
250
See for a fine overview of the relation between orality and literacy in
Antiquity, Niditch 1996, esp. 39-59.
251
See e.g. Sowayan 1985, esp. 6-10; Bailey 1991; Kurpershoek 1994-2002,
esp. vol. 2, 10-12; Lyons 1995, esp. vol.1. See also Widengren 1969, 565-573.
For the relevance of this type of research for the interpretation of the Bible,
see De Moor 2000a.
252
Cf. Niditch 1996, 8-24.
253
De Moor 1978; Korpel 1998.
254
Redford, in: Ben Zvi & Floyd 2000, 159-163, 171-218.
 how did the deity address man? 201

tant than writing a text down is the Sumerian proverb ‘A scribe

whose hand can keep up with the mouth, he is indeed a scribe!’
(Alster 1997, vol. 1, 53 [2.40]). Such a saying proves that not every
orally delivered text was subjected to scribal embellishment, but
that literal dictation took place too.
Van der Toorn’s thesis that the scribes of the ancient Near
East ‘invented’ religious texts, including the Bible, does not do
justice to their own testimony. They believed that deities guided
them in their work. Even verbal inspiration is attested. One Old
Babylonian scribe is praised as a man whose stylus was guided
by the gods Marduk and Nabû (Charpin 2009, 268). Many pious
prayers on behalf of scribes testify to the fact that they did not
see their work as ‘inventing’ but believed to do what the deities
wanted (Hunger 2009, 270). The scribe of the Babylonian Epic of
Creation,255 for example, closes the final tablet of his enormous
work with the words,
An elder scholar256 spoke the revelation before him257
he wrote (it) down and fixed it
so that future generations would hear it. [. . . ]
Let them read the song of Marduk aloud,
(Marduk) who fettered Tiâmat258 and took the kingship.259

Again we note the precedence of oral delivery of both the original

revelation and its later recitation. Similarly, the Babylonian Epic
of Erra,260 states,

Kabti-ilāni-Marduk the son of Dabibi (was) the composer of this

tablet (= of this poem):
(The deity) revealed it to him during the night,
and in the morning, when he recited (it), he did not skip a
single (line)
255
Usually the date of the main part of this composition is given as c. 1120
bce, but the last tablet may be somewhat younger.
256
Cf. En. el. VII.145.
257
Marduk, the creator god to whom the epic was devoted.
258
The monstrous sea, cf. Section 6.2.1.2a.
259
En. el. VII.157-158, 161-162, our translation. Different renderings are
found with e.g. Bottéro & Kramer 1989, 653; Foster, CoS, vol. 1, 402; Talon
2005, 108.
260
See Sections 6.2.1.1a and 6.2.1.5a..
202 chapter five

Not a single line (of his own) did he add to it.

Erra heard and approved it.
It (also) pleased Išum, his herald.
All the gods expressed their praise together with him.261

Why should we mistrust such statements? On what grounds does

Van der Toorn dismiss the notion that these scribes honestly be-
lieved that their gods had inspired them to write down what they
wrote? Just like diviners, prophets and other mediators of that
era believed to speak the words of their gods? There is no appar-
ent reason to assume that they engaged in deliberate delusion.
It may be true that they developed new theological paradigms
in response to periods of economic or social crisis when old reli-
gious paradigms broke down. But why not accept the idea that
these scribes thanked their gods for enlightening them? Whether
we believe their statements is a totally different issue that should
not be projected back on the scribes of Antiquity.
In the texts quoted above oral and written transmission are
clearly parallel. Written texts were intended for reading them
aloud to promote subsequent oral transmission.
Also in Greece oral and written tradition coexisted. Formerly
it was thought that one can recognize oral transmission on the
basis of style. To some extent this is certainly true. A creator of
literary work did not necessarily belong to the guild of scribes.
What he or she needed above all was a good memory and thor-
ough training. The problem is that scribes could imitate the tradi-
tional style of oral poetry, accommodating themselves to the oral
style their readers were accustomed to as hearers. This renders it
extremely difficult to separate oral and scribal input.262
Yet modern anthropological research, such as that of Kurpers-
hoek and others referred to above, demonstrates that memory
based oral literature can be just as sophisticated as written liter-
ature. And can be transmitted reliably over many generations.
Indicative of the legitimate place of oral tradition next to writ-
ten tradition is the circumstance that in the ancient world blind
261
Erra V.42-47, Cagni 1977, 60. Other translations hardly differ. See e.g.
Bottéro & Kramer 1989, 706-707; Dalley, CoS, vol. 1, 415.
262
Thomas 1989; 1992.
 how did the deity address man? 203

persons were often employed as singers or prophets. In Egypt

blind persons often earned their living as singers in temples or
at banquets (Brunner 1972, 829). Also in Babylonia blind girls
were employed as musicians/singers.263 In the Bible one encoun-
ters the blind prophet Ahijah (1 Kgs 14:4). Above we already
encountered the blind Greek prophet Teiresias from Thebes. Ac-
counts describing the Greek poet Homer himself as blind probably
rest on etymologizing, but Odyssey, VIII.43-47, 62-83, 261-369,
482-521 describe a highly regarded blind bard called Demodocus
who performed at the court of the Phaeacians. He is sometimes
seen as a pen-name of Homer himself. Demodocus too presented
his songs as free improvisations, sometimes on request. In the
Homeric Hymns, III.172 another famous blind singer dwelling on
the rocky island of Chios is mentioned. Both are thought to have
inspired the legend of Homer’s blindness. However that may be,
it seems certain that nobody saw anything strange in a blind
bard who improvised – always making use of existing tradition
and techniques – songs on the spur of the moment. And who was
obviously not a scribe.
Many courts of the ancient Near East were entertained by
singers who did not sing in the language of their hosts. The king of
the Old Babylonian city of Mari used Amorite singers,264 Ugaritic
singers sang in Hurrian, the Hurrian king of Carchemish listened
to Babylonian singers, the king of the Canaanite city of Byblos
employed an Egyptian songstress, Canaanite singers were impor-
ted by the Pharaoh, Hezekiah of Judah sent Israelite singers to
the court of the Assyrian king Sennacherib,265 Babylonians forced
Israelite captives to sing for them (Ps. 137:3). These people too
did not read or write, they were the carriers of oral tradition.
All this does not alter the fact that for information about
the concept of silence in Antiquity we are entirely dependent on
the work of scribes. As we shall see later on, they often mention
silences of deities and human beings in their texts. But from early
times on they also made use of other means to indicate silences. It

263
CAD (N) 1, 382; Durand 1997, 92-94.
264
See Malamat 2003.
265
See for all this De Moor 1978, 131.
204 chapter five

has long been established that horizontal lines on Babylonian and

Ugaritic clay tablets were used to demarcate logical sections in
religious texts.266 In Egyptian texts and in the Balaam text from
Deir ,Alla rubrics were headed in red to indicate separation of
sense units in literary texts.267 In hieratic texts also spaces were
used to indicate the beginning of new paragraphs (De Halleux
1986). This custom was taken over by other civilizations: Ugarit,
Phoenicia, Israel, Greece, and it survives up to our present days.
It may be assumed that the reader paused for a moment at such
clearly marked points of transition.
In the literary texts of Ugarit horizontal lines mostly serve
to demarcate portions of text not intended for recitation. It is
our contention that in addition to that device, a blank space at
the end of lines often fulfills the function to mark a rhetorical
silence when the text was recited. Longer pauses are indicated
by blank lines and an even longer moment of silence is required
when a large number of blank lines or even an entirely blank page
precedes a fresh chapter. Lately many studies have been devoted
to blank spaces in inscriptions and manuscripts from Antiquity.268

5.2.2.4 Scribes in the Bible

In the Hebrew Bible as it has been transmitted to us secrecy on
the part of the mediators of divine speech is absent according to
Lenzi,

Unlike the protective treatment of secret knowledge in Mesopot-

amia, in Israel, at least as presented in the Hebrew Bible, know-
ledge from the divine realm was proclaimed quite openly, even
publicly. I suggest that this difference in treatment is rooted in
a specific religio-political understanding of Israel in relation to
its deity that has generally, even if not entirely, permeated the
biblical materials.269
266
Cf. Korpel 2000; 2005; Mabie 2004. See also Section 2.3.3.
267
See e.g. Černy 1952, 24; Assmann 1983; Ah.ituv 2008, 433.
268
E.g. Oesch 1979; Korpel & De Moor 1988; 1998; Olley 1998; Steck 1998;
Kottsieper 2003; Ulrich 2003; Tov 2004, and many more publications in the
series Pericope, cf. http://www.pericope.net/.
269
Lenzi 2008, 221.
 how did the deity address man? 205

As ‘the most obviously relevant text’ in this respect Lenzi refers

to Deut. 29:28[29],

The secret things belong to the Lord our god, and the revealed
things to us and to our children forever, in order to do all the
words of his torah.270

The cogency of this argument is questionable. According to Jew-

ish interpretations, summarized by Tigay 1996, 283, the ‘con-
cealed things’ are sins only known to God, ‘the overt things’
the fulfillment of the commandments. If so, we are not dealing
with general statements about revelation here. The wording of
the passage is thoroughly Deuteronomic (Weinfeld 1972, 336) and
in our opinion it can hardly be doubted that with ‘the revealed
things’ the commandments of the book of Deuteronomy itself
were meant, i.e. ‘the words of this law’.271 This also determines
the meaning of ‘the secret things’ – they are the uncertain fu-
ture events, whether obedience and blessing, or disobedience and
punishment.272 The Deuteronomic writer does not want to de-
tract from God’s foreknowledge – God knows what will happen,
but at this moment Israel still has its future in its own hands.
Lenzi’s second example, ‘The best evidence for this charac-
terization of revelation’, comes from Judg. 3:12-30, the story of
Ehud’s murder of Eglon. Admittedly, Ehud cleverly suggests that
his ‘secret word’ (v. 19) was a ‘word of God’ (v. 20), but this
ruse implies at most that Ehud assumed that the Moabite king
would be eager to listen to him in private if he claimed to have
a secret message from the God of Israel. It does in no way prove
that in Israel ‘knowledge from the divine realm was proclaimed
quite openly, even publicly’.
A text like Isa. 48:6-7 proves convincingly that in principle
also Israelite prophets asserted that they had knowledge of hith-
erto secret information, as Lenzi himself admits (Lenzi 2008, 227-
229).
270
Lenzi 2008, 223-224, translation Lenzi’s.
271
Deut. 29:28[29]c, ‘that we may do all the words of this law’, cf. 29:19[20]-
20[21].
272
Deut. 29:17[18]-27[28].
206 chapter five

In our opinion Lenzi is right with regard to the easy access of

prophets to the king and the temple, but the same kind of spon-
taneous revelation occurred among Mesopotamian, Caanaanite
and Egyptian prophets. So we believe it is mistaken to make a
sharp distinction between secrecy outside Israel and openness in
Israel. Even in a late book like Daniel the hero is presented as a
‘prophet’ possessing secret knowledge (Lenzi 2009).
However, as a rule prophecy was spoken, mostly in the name
of a deity: ‘Thus speaks the Lord . . . ’. The examples of proph-
ecies in other parts of the ancient Near East suggest that in Israel
too their messages must have been quite short and that proph-
ets delivered these revelations orally (cf. Jer. 18:18). The scribes
were the experts who not merely wrote down literally what they
heard, but elaborated the word of God according to their scribal
training, explaining things where this seemed necessary, molding
the text according to acknowledged stylistic literary patterns. A
well-known example from the Hebrew Bible is the scribe Baruch
who wrote down the word of God from the mouth of Jeremiah,

And Jeremiah recited to273 Baruch the son of Neriah; and from
the mouth of Jeremiah Baruch wrote in a book scroll all the words
of the Lord which he had spoken to him (Jer. 36:4).

The maximum length of a book scroll was about 20 sheets of

leather or papyrus which were joined with glue (papyrus) or
threads (leather).274 It is not unlikely that originally a collection
of disconnected short prophecies of a well-known prophet were
collected on such a book scroll. Evidently this made regrouping
of the written material relatively easy and in this respect too the
scribes enjoyed considerable freedom, as is demonstrated by the
different order of passages in the books of Jeremiah, Samuel and
Song of Songs (and other biblical books) in the Qumran manu-
scripts.
It is important to note that actually God had ordered Jere-
miah himself to take a scroll and write down everything God had
273
Literally ‘called to’, harmonizing the text with that of v. 18 and Jer. 45:1.
274
Tov 2004, 36-43. The overall length of the great Isaiah scroll from Qumran
(1QIsaa ), for example, is 7.34 meter, divided over 17 sheets of uneven width.
 how did the deity address man? 207

revealed to him (Jer. 36:2). Apparently it was quite normal that

Jeremiah called in a scribe to do the job for him, even though
he himself may have been able to do it (Jer. 32:10; 51:60). It is
also Baruch who has to recite275 the words written on the scroll
in the temple, in the hearing of all the people (vv. 6, 8, 10, 13-
14). Having recited the prophecies, Baruch is requested to come
to the chamber of the scribes (v. 20) and to recite the words of
Jeremiah again (vv. 14-19). Subsequently an officer called Jehudi
recites the scroll before the king and the princes of Judah (v. 21).
Apparently only Baruch and Jehudi were able to read aloud from
the scroll, the rest was illiterate, including the king. Apparently
the repeated reading of the scroll served to verify that also the
person who read it out aloud did not alter or omit anything.
People knew that a scribe like Baruch might influence the
words of the prophet whose mediator he was (Jer. 43:1-3). This
raises the question who has had more influence on the word of
God as it was mediated by inspired persons like the prophets,
the speaker in the name of God or the scribe who recorded his
words? The scribes had ample opportunity to manipulate existing
religious tradition (Jer. 8:8: ‘behold, the false pen of the scribes
has made it into a lie’).
We have seen how the Ugaritic high priest who was a learned
scribe himself dictated religious texts to the scribe Ilimilku who
wrote them down. Apparently the oral recitation of texts was seen
as the more original, authoritative act. The equally learned scribe
had the right to elaborate and embellish the words he heard, but
his freedom to do this was limited by several factors, among them
the authority of his master who in the case of the Ugaritic high
priest Attanu must have been able to check the work of his scribe
Ilimilku. Also in the case of Jeremiah and Baruch this is clearly
the case. When at the end of writing down Jeremiah’s prophecies
of doom Baruch complained that the grief and suffering Jeremiah
had annnounced became too much for him, Jeremiah corrects him
(Jer. 45).276

275
The verb is the same as that which is used with Jeremiah in v. 4.
276
Although scholars are divided over the originality of v. 1, most accept that
here a real tension between the prophet and his scribe has been recorded.
208 chapter five

It is simply wrong to construct an artificial opposition be-

tween authoritative oral prophecy and learned scribal scholarship.
As Ehud Ben Zvi states,

It is worth noting that the present discussion clearly leads to an

image of ‘restricted, high literacy’ and ‘general orality’ as two
deeply interwoven social phenomena. Within the proposed his-
torical matrix, one does not and cannot take over and replace
the other; rather, they complement (and sustain) each other.277

Van der Toorn 2007 compares the literacy in Mesopotamia and

Egypt to that of ancient Israel. However, the cuneiform and hi-
eroglyphic/hieratic/demotic scripts of the former are far more
difficult to master than the alphabetic script used in Canaan and
Israel. Here even a rudimentary reading ability sufficed to check at
least superficially what a scribe had written. According to Judg.
8:14 a young man caught by chance was able to write down the
names of 77 elders of Succoth. In one of the Lachish letters a
subordinate officer assures his commander that he does read the
letters send to him (Ah.ituv 2008, 62-69). Such evidence suggests
that the alphabet made acquiring basic reading skills a lot easier
than in Mesopotamia and Egypt.
Yet also in Israel writing literary compositions of some length
must have required thorough scribal training. According to the
biblical testimony heroes of faith like Moses and Joshua would
have been able to write large portions of the present text of
the Hebrew Bible themselves. However, modern research has cast
grave doubt on these statements. Of course it is not impossible
that some written traditions go back to Mosaic times,278 but for
the time being honesty requires that we admit the speculative
nature of such theories.
So it is uncertain when serious literary production may have
started in Israel. If the ,Izbet S.artah ostracon is seen as the earli-
est example of Israelite writing (so Ah.ituv 2008, 249), the cir-
cumstance that it contains an encoded message (Korpel 2009a)
would seem to indicate that Israelite scribes achieved some level
277
Ben Zvi, in: Ben Zvi & Floyd 2000, 23. In the same vein other scholars
contributing to this volume, e.g. Culley and Floyd.
278
See e.g. De Moor 1997.
 how did the deity address man? 209

of sophistication already in the 12th century bce. If the ostracon

from Khirbet Qeiyafa is indeed a Hebrew text it is further evi-
dence of Israelite writing skills in the 10th century bce.279 In
this case the content of the message shows that the scribe(s) had
mastered a fairly advanced level of literacy. From at least the 9th
century onwards Hebrew inscriptions show the hands of experi-
enced scribes. These scribes must have been able to write larger
documents on papyrus and leather which due to the unfavorable
climate of Palestine have gone lost.
On the basis of 1 Kgs 22:28 which he dates c. 560 bce and
Jer. 26:17-19 dating from the year 609 bce Karel van der Toorn
supposes that by the early 6th century a written scroll of Micah
oracles must have existed (Van der Toorn 2007, 173-174). How-
ever, this is more than the two quotations prove.280 The short
quotation from Mic. 1:2 in 1 Kgs 22:28 does not fit the context
and looks suspiciously like a pseudo-learned gloss of someone who
has confused Micah ben Imlah with Micah the Morashtite. In the
time of the glossator ‘Hear, all you peoples’ may have been the
first words of the Book of Micah the Morashtite. First words
of written documents were often used as titles. Apparently the
present superscription of Mic. 1:1 was still lacking at that time,
but since we do not know when the glossator lived, the reference
to Mic. 1:2 in 1 Kgs 22:28 may have been inserted much later
than c. 560 bce.
With regard to Jer. 26:17-19 it is hardly imaginable that the
elders (v. 17) would have been able to read a Micah scroll. Elders
were carriers of oral tradition. They simply quoted from memory.
They remembered Mic. 3:12 as a famous example of an unfulfilled
oracle of doom.
So we simply do not know for certain when the writing of the
biblical books started, though it seems likely that the collecting
279
Cf. http://qeiyafa.huji.ac.il/ostracon2.asp; Puech 2010; Becking & San-
ders 2010.
280
Further on Van der Toorn broadens his thesis in an inadmissable way to
state that this proto-Micah scroll would have consisted of only the three first
chapters of the Book of Micah, ‘precisely the part that many critics regard
as the original core’ (Van der Toorn 2007, 177). Yet later on he includes Mic.
7:1-6 as authentic, cf. 192, with 338, n. 32.
210 chapter five

of prophetic oracles may have started as early as the 8th century

bce.281 It seems logical to suppose that the same scribes who
wrote them down have tried their hands on other literary genres,
such as laws, annals, proverbs, hymns and prayers. But we have
their legacy only in the form of heavily edited later documents,
not in the form of autographs or even copies of autographs.
Also in the case of the scribes who were responsible for the
compilation of the Scriptures it is unwarranted to assume that
they engaged in willful deception. It is an undeniable fact that
only thanks to the work of scribes we know about the intellectual
heritage of the past. However, exactly because of the complex
process of interaction between oral and scribal tradition we just
described we are reluctant to accept Van der Toorn’s thesis that
the scribes ‘invented’ revelation (Van der Toorn 2007, Chapter 8).
In many cases the ‘inventor’ must have been a speaker or singer
who honestly believed to merely pass on words which a deity had
prompted her or him to speak. They understood themselves as
messengers, servants of the gods.
That also the scribes of Israel understood themselves as mere
servants of God is abundantly clear in Ben Sira’s eulogy on the
scribe (Sir. 38:24–39:11). A scribe occupies himself with the Law
and the Prophets (Sir. 38:34; 39:1, 8), prays frequently (Sir. 39:5-
6) and if it pleases the Lord Almighty ‘he will be filled with the
spirit of understanding’ (Sir. 39:6).

5.3 Dreams, Visions, Oracles, Omina

Uncertainty about the future has always vexed human beings.
The conviction that life on earth was determined in heaven led
people to surmise that there must be means to establish what
the gods had in store for them. This was achieved by divina-
tion (Cryer 1994; Krüger 2008). Even though the reliability of
divination was occasionally doubted, the enormous expenditure
in time, money and training of the diviners testifies to the high
esteem they enjoyed in the ancient Near East. Astrological obser-
vations, cloud formations, flights of birds, terrestrial events like
floods and earthquakes, rustling leaves, physical abnormalities in
281
Section 3.2.2.1.
 how did the deity address man? 211

humans and animals, inspection of the entrails of sacrificial vic-

tims, patterns of oil on water, curling smoke – all were used in
attempts to clarify the unknown. In Mesopotamia enormous col-
lections of observable phenomena were collected and in the form
of ‘if – then’ phrases connected with certain consequences. Theor-
etically such learned collections of written omina enabled trained
scholars to predict future events.282
Yet it would be erroneous to make a sharp distinction between
such ‘technical’ approaches to divination and the more spontane-
ous phenomena like prophecy (cf. Flower 2008, 90-91). Rather the
‘learned’ approach was seen as complementary to inspired speech.
A distinction between divination as an ineffective technical skill
and ‘true’ prophecy as the word of God is made in the Bible alone
where soothsaying is derided and condemned. Probably this is a
late theological construction. Originally also in Israel itself other,
more technical means of acquiring knowledge about the will of
God were available. Some of these, for example the interpretation
of dreams and lot casting, were tolerated until the closure of the
canon.
Dreams, oracles and omina were enormously important to the
political wellfare of the king and the state. Timely warnings about
impending disasters, wrath of the gods, advancing enemies, illness
or even death were vital to the rulers of antiquity. In times of
distress they resorted to all kinds of divination in order to obtain
certainty about what was awaiting them. The Hittite king Mursili
II complains time and again that the gods do not listen to his
prayers in which he asked for help against the plague that was
ravaging his country. He begs them to clarify the situation by
visions in dreams, oracles, men of god (prophets), or incubation-
dreams of priests (Singer 2002, 60).
It would be haughty to dismiss such attempts as outdated
and rather naive. The complexity of many situations in real life
still causes people to resort to the same kind of outward pseudo-
decisive phenomena – horoscopes, soothsaying, spiritualistic ses-
sions, throwing dices, etcetera. Only in 2008 it became known
that several politicians and captains of industry of the Nether-
282
Maul 2003-2005.
212 chapter five

lands made use of astrologers to predict the future.283 As a matter

of fact this is hardly surprising if one believes that in the end all
processes on earth are governed by randomness and unpredictable
chaos.

5.3.1 Dreams
5.3.1.1 Dreams in the Ancient Near East
From early times on mankind must have wondered about the
meaning of dreams. Because often certain connections were pos-
sible with experiences, thoughts and worries which had occupied
the dreamer during the day, people assumed that in a dream the
gods revealed things that were inaccessible or incomprehensible
to normal human beings, including what might happen in the
future. However, the patchy and fuzzy character of dream frag-
ments remembered made subsequent interpretation imperative
and therefore specialist help was invoked. If necessary, incanta-
tions and magic might be necessary to ward off impending dis-
aster and this too required the help of a trained and authorized
person like a priest or magician. Therefore most dreams were not
understood as direct communication with the divine world,284
but as information that had to be decrypted by knowledgeable
people.
As early as the 23rd century bce a dream oracle is attested on
a cuneiform tablet from the Mesopotamian city of Ebla. A ‘seer’
interprets an incubation dream of a woman (Bonechi & Durand
1992). According to the Sumerian account of the rise to power
of the Old Akkadian king Sargon I (also 23rd century bce) he
had a dream when he was still a cupbearer to king Urzababa
of Kish. In this dream the goddess Inanna announced that she
would drown Urzababa ‘in a river of blood’, thus clearing the
road for Sargon’s ascendency (Cooper 1985). Dreams of or about
members of the royal house were seen as politically important.
However, also dreams on mundane matters like a missing servant
girl were dutifully reported to the king.
283
Published in the Dutch newspaper De Pers, November 12, 2008.
284
With the exception of dream theophanies in which a deity addressed a
human being directly (cf. Section 5.1).
 how did the deity address man? 213

When he was still a prince, the later king Thutmose IV (c.

1413-1403 bce), received an oracle in a dream during a siesta in
the shadow of the great Sphinx which is designated as ‘this great
god’. The god speaks directly to the future king,
Sleep took hold of him, slumbering at the time when the sun was
at (its) peak. He found the majesty of this august god speaking
with his own mouth, as a father speaks to his son, saying: “See
me, look at me, my son, Thutmose! I am thy father, Harmakhis-
Khepri-Re-Atum. I shall give thee my kingdom . . . upon earth at
the head of the living. Thou shalt wear the southern crown and
the northern crown on the throne of Geb, the crown prince (of
the gods). Thine is the land in its length and its breadth, that
which the Eye of the All-Lord illumines. Provisions are thine from
the midst of the Two Lands and the great tribute of every for-
eign country. . . . I knew that thou art my son and my protector.
Approach thou! Behold, I am with thee; I am thy guide.’285

Similar dreams are attested of the Hittite king Hattushilis (c.

1290-1250 bce). Also in his case the evidently faked dream sup-
posedly substantiating his claim to the throne by divine election
cannot be taken seriously as evidence of divine intercession, al-
though it is certainly possible that the prince himself was con-
vinced of this and that the scribe believed him. We noted already
the similar revelation to the Old Babylonian king Ibalpiel (Section
5.1). Apparently it was a well-known literary genre legitimating
the ruling king by divine approbation.
Divination on the basis of dreams (oniromancy) remained one
of the important means to learn the will of the deities in Egypt
and Mesopotamia.286 The interpretation of dreams was a task
of special people. They could be gifted lay men or women, but
could also be trained professionals who used manuals to arrive at
a presumably reliable result. An Egyptian dream book, for ex-
ample, describes all kinds of dreams a person might have and ex-
plains them as either good or bad signs.287 Even very late Demotic
285
Translation Wilson, ANET, 449.
286
Oppenheim 1956; Leibovici 1959; Sauneron 1959; Vieyra 1959; Gnuse
1984, 11-55; Cooper 1985; Durand 1988, 453-482; Butler 1998; Husser 1999;
Szpakowska 2001; 2006; Zgoll 2002; 2006; Noegel 2007; Pientka-Hinz, in:
Krüger 2008, 47-49.
287
Ritner 2001; Ritner, CoS, vol. 1, 52-54.
214 chapter five

dream books contain standard interpretations of dreams.288 Neo-

Assyrian kings like Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal firmly believed
in dream oracles.289 In civilizations that were influenced by Meso-
potamia, such as those of the Hittites290 and the Ugaritians,291
the mantic significance of dreams was also accepted. The Greeks
too regarded dreams as a source of enlightenment about the in-
tentions of the deities, provided they were properly interpreted by
an expert (e.g. Homer, Iliad I.62-67; V.144-151). However, some
schools, notably the Epicureans, rejected the use of dreams for
mantic purposes (Walde 2009).
Even much earlier doubt about the reliability of dreams is
already expressed in the Sumerian epic Lugalbanda in the Wil-
derness,
Dream – a door cannot hold it back, nor can the pivot;
To the liar it speaks lies, to the truthful the truth;
It may make one happy or sad
But it remains the closed table-basket of the gods.292

A tragic example of a human being who was misled by a dream-

revelation is the Canaanite king Kirtu. In a Ugaritic legend writ-
ten towards the end of the 13th century bce, but probably based
on a much older story, the hero receives a dream from the highest
god Ilu describing in great detail how he can obtain a bride with
whom he will sire the many sons he is longing for. However, Ilu
deliberately omits to give Kirtu instructions for one small episode.
So Kirtu has to act on his own initiative at that moment and ul-
timately this will cost him all his sons again and leave him with
his youngest daughter as his only remaining legitimate heir.293
Because doubt about the reliability of dream reports was ex-
pected the sender sometimes affirmed that another person had
had the same dream (Durand 2008, 465).
288
Quack, in: Krüger 2008, 350-362.
289
Parpola 1997, lxxiv; Nissinen 2003, 144-145.
290
Cf. Kammenhuber 1976; Taracha 2000, 59, 63; Singer 2002, 32, 38, 60;
Mouton 2007.
291
Cf. Caquot 1959; Husser 1994, 27-62; Jeffers 1996, 125-143.
292
Translation Vanstiphout 2003, 123.
293
For a full discussion of this legend and its intriguing plot, see De Moor
1997, 91-95.
 how did the deity address man? 215

5.3.1.2 Dreams in the Bible

It has long been recognized that ancient Israel shared its belief
that dreams might contain important important messages from
the deity with its neighbors.294 The mainly positive view of the
Bible on the revelatory value of dreams is so well known that it is
hardly necessary to document this extensively here: Abimelech,
Jacob, Joseph – they and many others in the Bible are reported
to have had dreams that were deemed significant. As Cooper 1985
noted, the dream of Joseph resembles Sargon’s dream about his
own rise to power. It is possible that a story about the origin
of the royal house of Israel formed the inspiration for the Joseph
cycle. Even Deuteronomy recognizes dreams as a legitimate mode
of divine revelation (Deut. 13:2, 4, 6[1, 3, 5]).
However, dreams were not trusted (Gen. 37:8-10, 19-20). At
least from Jeremiah on, the revelatory nature of dreams is called
more and more into question,295 but so is prophecy (Section
5.3.2.2) and since also positive judgments about dreams are at-
tested in the post-exilic period,296 we are confronted with divided
opinions.

5.3.2 Visions
5.3.2.1 Visions in the Ancient Near East
Several examples of visions exist. A letter from the Old Baby-
lonian city of Mari records a presumably witnessed discussion
between deities about the question whether or not they will pay
a visit to the city and its king (Durand 2000, 319-321). An un-
fortunately heavily damaged tablet from the Canaanite city of
Ugarit seems to relate a vision of the post-mortem fate of a be-
loved high priest in the Nether World.297 One of the most im-
pressive visions from Mesopotamia is the Nether World vision of
294
See e.g. Ehrlich 1953; Gnuse 1984; Husser 1994; Jeffers 1996; Husser 1999.
295
Jer. 23:25-32; 27:9-10; 29:8-9; Zech. 10:2; Qoh. 5:6; Sir. 31:1-8; 40:5-7;
Letter of Aristeas, 213-216. Cf. Ehrlich 1953, 156-170.
296
Ehrlich 1953, 170; Husser 1994, 263.
297
RS 92.2016, cf. De Moor 2009. In some other Ugaritic rituals it is stated
that the king will ‘see’ various deities (KTU 1.90:1; 1.168:8). It is unlikely
that this refers to expected visionary experiences. Rather the king will be
allowed to contemplate the images of the deities.
216 chapter five

an Assyrian crown prince (Foster 2005, 832-839). Balaam who is

also known as a visionary in the Bible (Num. 23–24) is designated
a ‘seer’ in the Transjordanian inscription recording his terrifying
visions.298

5.3.2.2 Visions in the Bible

Visions are recorded throughout the Hebrew Bible, the New Test-
ament and apocalyptic as well as pseudepigraphic literature. This
fact is so well-known that there is no need to discuss it in full here.
According to 1 Sam. 9:9 a prophet was formerly called a ‘seer’.
The word used here differs from a more frequent term for ‘seer’299
and the verbs from which these words are derived are often used
to designate the activity of prophets. Like prophecy, clairvoyance
was not confined to professionals. Balaam describes himself as,
The oracle of Balaam, the son of Beor,
yea, the oracle of the man whose eye is perfect,300
the oracle of him who hears the words of God,
who sees the vision of the Almighty,
who falls down, yet has his eyes uncovered (Num. 24:3b-4).

The last words seem to suggest that a vision differed from a dream
in that it was perceived with open eyes.301 But it is more likely
that it is a description of inner enlightenment (Milgrom 1990,
203), because other elements in Balaam’s description fit better
into a prophet’s experience.302
The Bible attributes the capacity to receive visions also to
non-Israelites like Balaam and emphasizes the impossibility for
such a foreign seer to deliver an oracle that would differ from
what God had revealed to him,
God is not a man, that he should lie,
nor a son of man, that he should repent.
298
See e.g. Ah.ituv 2008, 432-465.
299
2 Sam. 24:11; 2 Kgs 17:13; Isa. 29:10; 30:10; Amos 7:12; Mic. 3:7.
300
This interpretation is suggested by a similar expression in a Phoenician
amulet from Arslan Tash: ‘whose mouth is perfect’.
301
An argument in favor of this interpretation might be derived from Zech.
4:1-2 where an angel wakes the prophet before showing him the vision. See
also Zech. 1:18; 2:1; 5:1; 6:1.
302
He ‘hears the words of God’ and ‘falls down’ (cf. 1 Sam. 19:24).
 how did the deity address man? 217

Does he speak and then not act?

Does he talk and not fulfill?
I was instructed303 to bless;
he has blessed, and I cannot reverse it (Num. 23:18-19).

The impression is created that Balaam received the literal word-

ing of his blessing and that it was impossible for him to give in to
Balak’s pressure to curse the Israelites instead of blessing them.

5.3.3 Oracles and Omina

5.3.3.1 Oracles and Omina in the Ancient Near East
A very common way to consult the deities was in the form of
a question to which a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ was possible. Such binary or-
acles are attested for Egypt since the 18th dynasty (Kákosy 1982;
De Moor 1997, 104, 260-261), for Babylonia in the form of ques-
tions directed to Shamash, the sun god, and Adad, the storm
god (Lambert 2007), and for the Hittite empire (Singer 2002, 59;
Beal 2002). In Egypt the verdict of the deity was inferred from
movements of his cult image, for example interpreted as choosing
one from two contradictory documents, or it was communicated
by a priest speaking through a tube in the mouth of the image
(Kákosy 1982, 600-601). In any case professional help was ne-
cessary to learn what the deity meant. The political power of
the oracle priests was enormous. They acted, for example, as in-
termediaries for the election of kings by the deity (Barta 1980,
476-477).
Queries to the Sun-god in Sargonid Assyria invariably begin
with the phrase, ‘O Shamash, great lord, answer me with a firm
“yes” to what I ask you’ (Starr 1990, XVI). This type of phrases
too suggests a binary oracle – yes or no – but in reality the answer
of the deity will not always have been so straightforward, because
it should be derived by oracular means, most often by extispicy of
the liver of a ram, with accompanying rituals and prayers. Though
the idea was that the deity invoked had ‘written’ a firm ‘yes’ in
the entrails of the sacrificial lamb,304 the correct interpretation of
this ‘writing’ required an expert (barû, literally ‘examiner’) who
303
Cf. Levine 2000, 182.
304
CAD (Š) 2, 231b.
218 chapter five

was trained with the help of clay models of such livers.305 Yet the
outcome of his extispicy was regarded as a genuine reply from
the gods. The god ‘answered’ through the signs on the organ, the
diviner transmitted the ‘word’ of the deity (Jeyes 1989, 17-19).
Or, to put it plainly, the diviner’s word was seen as the word of
the deity.
The technical nature of such oracles should not be interpreted
as an indication that the ancients thought they could force the
deities to pronounce a favorable judgment. King Zimrilim of Mari
(c. 1779-1757 bce), for example, ordered one of his servants to
detain a convoy of Qat.na until the omens were good. However,
after five days of trying, the lambs available for extispicy were
exhausted and a different solution had to be found (Durand 2000,
102). On the other hand, human beings could decide to ignore a
positive oracle. A new priestess of Dagan, for example, objects
against the house that had been allotted to her by means of a
firm ‘yes’ of the deity. Subsequently another omen is obtained
about a different house and this time too the outcome is ‘yes’
which is accepted by the priestess (Durand 2000, 105-106).
In satellite states under the influence of Mesopotamia, such
as the kingdoms of Hatti and Ugarit, this practice of ‘reading’
the will of the gods in livers and other organs was imitated.306
In Emar, a Mesopotamian satellite state also close to Canaan,
an interesting text records,
As the Hurrian troops surrounded the city wall of Emar, the
divination of Mašruhe, diviner of the king and the city, came
˘ king, therefore, has given him this field as
true. Pilsu-Dagan, the
307
a present.

As Tsukimoto notes, in this case we are lucky enough to have

another Emarite report on this matter,

The king of the troops of the Hurrian land treated Pilsu-Dagan,

son of Ba,lu-kabar, the king of Emar, badly. Then, Pilsu-Dagan
305
Jeyes 1989; Starr 1990, XXXVI-LV; Koch-Westenholz 2000; Lambert
2007, 4-5; Pientka-Hinz, in: Krüger 2008, 16-28.
306
Dietrich & Loretz 1990; Arnaud 2007, 47-54; Haas 1994, 689-91; Haas
2008.
307
Translation Tsukimoto 1990, 190.
 how did the deity address man? 219

raised his eyes toward Ba,lu, and Ba,lu gave him the favourable
auspices which he wished. So the soldiers guarding (the city’s)
inner part and siege wall, in accordance with his divination, de-
feated (the enemy) and saved the city of Emar.308

In this case the oracle was obtained by inspecting the entrails

of a bird, but obviously it required a trained diviner to estab-
lish whether or not the results he found warranted a favorable
interpretation.
In Mesopotamia enormous collections of omina were compiled,
not only by means of livers and lungs, but also on the basis of oil
patterns on water,309 astrological observations,310 abnormalities
in foetuses (Leichty 1970) patterns in curling smoke or flour,311
etcetera. Divination became a ‘science’ there. If a king died on
a day when a black dog strayed into the temple, this was reason
enough to record: ‘If a black dog enters the temple, the king will
die’. The scribes not only had to acquire the skill to copy these
very extensive divination manuals, they also had to learn them
by heart. Modern man should not depreciate their work as mere
human effort. Several of these textbooks are explicitly ascribed
to utterances of the god of wisdom Ea himself (Van der Toorn
2007, 58). Despite this huge amount of ‘expertise’ based on divine
revelation, the gods might deliberately give an unreliable answer
to a question put before them.312
Ugarit, fairly close to the later territory of ancient Israel, also
made use of extispicy of livers and lungs, necromancy and as-
trology, apparently imitating the Babylonian practice.313 Also in
Late Bronze Age Hazor, in what later would become Israelite
territory, liver models for extispicy were found.314
Also among the Greeks hepatoscopy was a common method
to learn more about the will of the gods (Plato, Phaedrus, 244c).
308
Translation Tsukimoto 1990, 192.
309
Pettinato 1966; Maul 2003-2005, 46-50; Pientka-Hinz, in: Krüger 2008,
31-34.
310
Hunger 1992; Koch-Westenholz 1995; Rochberg 2004.
311
Pientka-Hinz, in: Krüger 2008, 29-31.
312
CAD (A) 2, 162a; (T), 364b.
313
Dietrich & Loretz 1990, with plates of clay models.
314
Horowitz & Oshima 2006, 66-68.
220 chapter five

The Etruscans too used models of livers, as the bronze liver of

Piacenza demonstrates (Van der Meer 1987).
Especially in the Levant which formed the main corridor for
the great bird migrations between Europe and Africa interpre-
tation of the flight of birds by diviners was common. In Ugarit
and Egypt it was thought that the spirits of the dead, like the
great gods themselves, could take on the shape of birds. The
more important the dead, the more impressive species of bird they
became – falcons, black kites or eagles. Small wonder that people
tried to obtain oracles from the way birds behaved.315 Also the
Greeks believed that the flight of birds could be predictive (e.g.
Homer, Odyssey II.182; XV.160-181; Iliad I.69; VI.76).
Trees and stones were thought to murmur oracles in the Ca-
naanite city of Ugarit.316 Also in the Greek religion stones were
thought to be able to speak.317 The very famous diviner’s oak of
Dodona is mentioned by Homer.318 A Demotic Egyptian hand-
book relates oracles obtained through interrogation of a stone.319
Israel’s close neighbor Moab entertained a ‘sign house’, prob-
ably a house where oracles were obtained (Ah.ituv 2008, 423-426).

5.3.3.2 Oracles and Omina in the Bible

It is sometimes thought that Num. 23:23 would imply that from
an early date on even a non-Israelite diviner like Balaam would
have testified that there was no augury or divination in ancient
Israel. However, the translation of the passage is contested and
even if such a rendering is accepted it is possibly a late addition
to the Balaam oracles.
In Israel too oracles could be consulted to learn the will of
God. The best-known is the priestly oracle Urim and Thum-
mim.320 Although the precise shape and working of this oracle
315
Cf. Spronk 1986, 185; De Moor 1987, 65, 266, 269; 1988b, 66-67; Korpel
1996a.
316
De Moor 1987, 180-181 (KTU 1.82:36-43).
317
Nonnus, Dionysiaca, XIV.269-283.
318
Homer, Iliad, XVI.233-235. For later testimonies, cf. Graf 2009.
319
Quack, in: Krüger 2008, 362-367.
320
See e.g. Horowitz & Hurowitz 1992; Jeffers 1996, 210-215; Van Dam 1997;
Houtman 2000, 493-497.
 how did the deity address man? 221

are unknown,321 its result was interpreted by a priest as a de-

cision of God. Often its consultation resulted in a firm ‘yes’ or
‘no’ on the part of God, so that it may be compared to the bina-
ry oracles referred to above.322 Sometimes more elaborate state-
ments were derived from it, as was the case with the Egyptian
and Babylonian binary oracles. Under Saul the authority attrib-
uted to the Urim oracle equalled prophecy according to 1 Sam.
28:6. Under the Davidic monarchy Urim and Thummim seem to
have fallen in disuse, at least in Jerusalem, possibly because the
oracle gave the priests too much power over the affairs of state.323
Consulting a prophet became the most common way of learning
the will of God, even in mundane matters. However, also proph-
ecies could acquire the character of a binary oracle by offering a
choice between two alternatives.324
Also other types of oracles remained in use. In Hos. 3:4 the
prophet announces, ‘the Israelites will have to spend a long time
without king, without prince, without sacrifice, without standing
stone, without ephod and teraphim’. Standing stones and ter-
aphim fulfilled a role in the consultation of ancestors (De Moor
1997, 336-361). According to Isa. 19:19-20 a standing stone will
be erected for the Lord at the border of Egypt which will be a
sign and a witness to the Lord. When the Israelites cry to him
because of oppressors he will send them a savior, and will defend
and deliver them. This text seems to confirm that at the time
of its composition (4th century bce?) standing stones were still
admissible in the cult and were supposed to be able to ‘speak’ or-
acles of salvation. Zech. 10:2 demonstrates that up till very late
times the teraphim were used in divination by Israelite rulers.
The mention of the ephod in Hos. 3:4 seems to imply that at
321
The most plausible explanation is that of Horowitz & Hurowitz 1992, but
even their Assyrian parallel is uncertain, as they themselves acknowledge. Cf.
Van Dam 1997, 40-42 and Lambert 2007, 19, 100-101.
322
This is especially clear when the oracle was used to exclude one of two
possibilities, as in 1 Sam. 14:41 according to the Old Greek. However, Van
Dam 1997, 197-203, rejects the Greek version.
323
Cf. De Moor 1997, 308. According to Van Dam 1997, 247-255, the con-
sultation of counselors and the unfaithfulness of priests would have played a
role.
324
Becking 2009, 39-40 points to Jer. 38:17-18.
222 chapter five

least in Northern Israel the oracular use of Urim and Thummim

continued for some time (Macintosh 1997, 106-107). Apparently
the Lord chose not to communicate with his people by these
means any longer. Probably as a result of such prophetic criti-
cism the standing stones and teraphim were forbidden later on
(Deut. 16:22; 2 Kgs 23:24; Zech. 10:2).
Also the casting of lots continued. The land was divided by
means of this oracle. If Josh. 18 is considered too late to be taken
as evidence, Ps. 16:5-6 and Amos 7:17 attest to the practice in
earlier days. Mic. 2:5 indicates that a special official had to pull
ropes over the land according to the outcome of the lot. That this
was a religious ceremony is attested by the fact that it took place
‘in the congregation of the Lord’. Similar ceremonies are attested
elsewhere in the ancient Near East (De Moor 2002, 93-96).
A ‘Diviners’ Oak’ near Shechem is mentioned in Judg. 9:37.
Probably it is the same tree that later on was renamed into
the less offensive ‘Teacher’s Terebinth’ (Gen. 12:6).325 Next to
the standings stones the Hebrew Bible often mentions the Ashe-
rah’s. In Mic. 5:12-14 the diviners, the standing stones and the
Asherah’s are condemned in the same breath.326 Generally it
is assumed that the Asherah’s were poles of wood. Hosea re-
proaches his compatriots that they seek oracles from their ‘tree’
and ‘branches’ which the prophet denounces as following of ‘a
spirit of harlotry’, apparently contrasting this practice to the
Spirit of God on which the prophets relied.327 It is likely that the
criticism of consulting trees or wood for divine guidance started
fairly early in Israel, initially perhaps because the experts in such
practices rivalled with the prophets. Earlier, however, David had
got the signal to attack the Philistines from the sound of footfalls
in the tops of balsam trees (2 Sam. 5:24). So it seems likely that
originally the Israelites, like their neighbors, also derived oracles
from trees and other wooden objects.
In Israel too the flight of birds was observed intently (Jer. 8:7;
325
Cf. De Moor 1976.
326
The passage is a later addition to the Book of Micah.
327
Hos. 4:12. Others translate ‘wood’ instead of ‘tree’ and ‘staves’ instead
of ‘branches’, thinking of oracles obtained by means of rhabdomancy, cf.
Macintosh 1997, 151-152.
 how did the deity address man? 223

Job 35:11; 39:26). According to Ezek. 13 certain prophetesses

in Israel symbolically caught souls of the dead in the form of
birds with self-made nets. They did this to practice divination
with these birds (Korpel 1996a). Ezekiel criticizes these women
severely, but since nobody else seems to have hindered them it is
likely that earlier it was an acceptable form of divination, as in
the Levant.
Other signs may have had an oracular function in the cult (Ps.
86:17) and these too might be withheld (Ps. 74:4).328 Possibly
these signs were events announced by or symbolic acts performed
by prophets,329 but the possibility that also in Israel hepatoscopy
(examination of livers) has occurred cannot be excluded, although
later on it will have fallen under the prohibition of Deut. 18:9-12,
cf. Ezek. 21:26[21].330
After having waited silently and patiently331 for a reaction
from God the Psalmist of Ps. 62 suddenly exclaims,
One thing God has said,
two things that I have heard!332
Surely,333 to God belongs strength,
and to you, O Lord, belongs faithfulness.
Surely you will reward
everyone according to what he has done.
(Ps. 62:12-13[11-12])

All kinds of hypotheses are possible with regard to what God said,
but the most satisfactory solution is that the first favorable divine
328
Cf. Keller 1946, 46-47.
329
1 Sam. 2:34; 10:7, 9; 2 Kgs 20:8-9; Isa. 7:10-17; 8:18; 37:30; 38:7, etc.
Viberg 2007.
330
For discussion on the possibility of hepatoscopy in Israel, see Cryer 1994,
295-305; Jeffers 1996, 158-160.
331
The sixfold repetition of the word ‘nevertheless’ (Hebr. -ak ) points to the
effort this patience cost him (Tate 1990, 122).
332
Sometimes the verse is rendered ‘Once God has spoken; twice have I
heard this’. The philological basis for this rendering is too shallow and most
modern dictionaries of Biblical Hebrew do not support it anymore.
333
The Hebrew text twice has the same particle. It should not be translated
first ‘that’, then ‘surely’. Moreover, the Psalmist does not doubt God’s power,
so it would hardly be what he was waiting for if we were to render, ‘that God
has strength’. In our opinion the Psalmist does not divulge what he has heard,
but his hymnic praise lets it be known that he received a favorable oracle.
224 chapter five

oracle was confirmed by a second one – a common procedure in

the biblical world, as we have seen.
The overall picture is that just as in the world surrounding
ancient Israel magical arts and divinatory techniques did exist
in the pre-exilic period, but were gradually phased out when the
biblical canon was formed and the holy Book became the only
authoritative source of revelation.

5.4 Conclusions on the Deity Addressing Man

This chapter about speaking deities is by far the longest of the
whole book – a book about the silence of God. . . Actually this
is not surprising because the God of the Bible is described far
more often as a speaking God than as a silent God.334 Every-
where in the ancient Near East people expected their deities to
react promptly to their prayers. According to the available evi-
dence deities for their part promised to do so, on condition that
their worshippers would provide their cult with everything they
needed and would honor their commandments. In this respect
there was little difference between Israel and its neighbors. How-
ever, although it was impossible for us to prove this because of
the enormous quantity of relevant data that have been amassed
in the past few decades we have the definite impression that the
God of the Bible is much more often represented as a speaking
God than any of the other deities of the ancient world. Of course
this may be due to the fact that early Judaism and Christian-
ity were much later religious movements than most religions of
the ancient Near East we have reviewed. But it might be inter-
esting to investigate if the presumed difference between biblical
and other Near Eastern divine oracles might be ascribed to the
more routinely given answers in the much more extensive cen-
ters of religious worship elsewhere. Nevertheless a more detailed
comparison of what evidence we have would seem warranted.
Direct communication between the deity and human beings
was restricted to divinely elected people like patriarchs and kings
of the distant past. It may be surmised, however, that the record-
334
Cf. Section 1.6.2.
 how did the deity address man? 225

ing of direct dialogues between the gods and these divinely elect
was a literary ploy to heighten the prestige of the latter. In later
times, both in Israel and in the surrounding cultures, specialists
like prophets, priests, diviners and scribes were openly described
as the intermediaries between the deity and mankind. In Israel,
however, the concept of direct communication between an indi-
vidual and God was ‘democratized’ soon after the destruction of
the Solomonic temple in 587 bce. Jews had been dispersed all
over the ancient world and did not have much faith anymore in
a deity residing in an exclusively fixed place on earth.

Voices from heaven are mentioned both in the Bible and in doc-
uments from the ancient Near East. In the latter the sun deity is
the speaker sometimes, but more often thunder was seen as the
voice of a deity, especially the storm god. Also in the Bible, even
in the New Testament, thunder is seen as the voice of God. How-
ever, ordinary human beings could not understand the meaning
of thunder and therefore specialists trained in the interpretation
of thunderstorms had to act as intermediaries.
Both in ancient Egypt and in the Bible the notion existed
that the gods could address man ‘from behind’. Here the imagery
of the good shepherd who walks behind his flock when they are
on the move stood at the background. The warning voice of the
deity, mediated by human leadership, kept the ‘sheep’ on the right
track.
Because the Ancients were convinced that a divine spirit in-
habited every human being they also listened to this inner voice
for guidance. Especially in the Bible it is often impossible to dis-
tinguish sharply between the Spirit of God and the spirit of man.
Man is free to choose differently from what the Spirit counsels,
but mostly the effect of a self-willed decision is described as det-
rimental.
Deities were also supposed to communicate in written form
with their followers, but in this case too later generations openly
admitted that human scribes had to do the actual writing. In the
Bible Moses, Joshua and several prophets are described as writing
down the words of God.
226 chapter five

Communication between high gods and human beings might

take place via lower divine beings, for example deified founders of
dynasties, ancestors or heroes of the past. Because metamorph-
osis was a characteristic quality of godhead, such speaking dei-
ties could take on a wide variety of shapes, e.g. animals, stand-
ing stones, trees. In the Bible ‘angels’ became the messengers
between God and human beings. The dividing line between these
semi-divine messengers and human messengers was vague.
Anthropomorphic or theriomorphic images served as foci of
the divine in all cults of the ancient Near East, but physical rep-
resentation of God is condemned in the Bible. It is generally as-
sumed that this was a late development in Israel.

Incorporeal spirits were imagined as shadows, smoke or wind.

They were called up in spiritistic sessions to consult them on dif-
ficult matters and traces of such practices still exist in the Bible.
They were assumed to be able to speak and acted as messengers
between high deities and human beings. The medium controlling
such spirits was usually a priest or diviner, but also great he-
roes of the glorious past, like the Mesopotamian Gilgamesh, the
Ugaritic Dani-ilu and the Greek Odysseus were thought to have
possessed this ability. Also the Israelite king Saul is reputed to
have consulted the spirit of his mentor Samuel, but in order to
make contact he had to pay a visit to a specialist medium (1 Sam.
28).
In early Judaism and Christianity the Holy Spirit of God con-
tinued to inspire people, but in mainstream rabbinic Judaism the
opinion took hold that the inner voice of the Holy Spirit stopped
speaking after the last canonical prophet had died.

Usually the deity would make use of human emissaries to ad-

dress man, for example a prophet or a priest. For a long time it
was thought that prophecy was a typical Israelite phenomenon.
Nowadays it has become clear that all over the ancient Near East
deities addressed their worshippers through prophets who were
not always trained specialists because also spontaneous proph-
etic seizure of ordinary people is attested. The literary and theo-
logical refining of written Hebrew prophecy during the centuries
 how did the deity address man? 227

after their first delivery makes comparison with the often much
shorter oracles from elsewhere difficult. However, the main char-
acteristics justify the thesis that prophecy was an established in-
stitution by which the deity addressed mankind, also in response
to prayers spoken in a cultic context.
If a human being was the carrier of the words of the deity,
inevitably the question presented itself if this woman or man was
trustworthy. In all civilizations of the ancient world people were
wary of false prophecy.
Although we do not want to overemphasize the differences,
at this moment it is true that in no culture of the ancient Near
East a singular ‘prophet’ like Moses arose – or was framed. And
nowhere so many prophecies of doom were recorded as in Israel –
although this might be the result of hindsight after the collapse
of the monarchy.
Some prophets may have been able to write, but most were
not. This means that initially their messages from the deity were
passed on through oral transmission. In modern discussions the
written nature of religious documents from Antiquity tends to be
overestimated. Probably oral transmission was just as important,
if not more important. Ethnological research has demonstrated
convincingly that oral tradition is able to preserve texts reliably
over many centuries. Yet it must be assumed that it was easier
to adapt the oral tradition to new challenging situations than to
introduce completely different ideas in the hoary legacy of genera-
tions of scribes. Because prophecy relied first of all on a live audi-
ence, it was experienced as the spoken word of God that opened
up new vistas in times of emergency. Eventually, however, also the
written tradition must have been adapted to the new situation
that had already been addressed orally. The redactional processes
involved to remodel the written tradition afterwards can in some
cases be followed pretty closely.
The guidance of the Holy Spirit was indispensable to proph-
ets according to the biblical testimony. Admittedly they might
be deluded by evil spirits, in some cases presumably sent by God
himself. Therefore it required courage and the power of discern-
ment to be certain of their mission and refuse to utter prophecies
228 chapter five

of salvation even if the ruling class and their followers required

only favorable predictions – without sufficient justification.
Despite the importance of orality in the ancient world we must
acknowledge the fact that only the scribal tradition of the word
of God has endured the ravages of time and renders it possible for
us to vaguely conjecture what the scribes meant when they wrote
down, ‘Thus says the Lord. . . ’ They had the freedom to reword
the original message of a prophet, to embellish it according to
the best of their literary skills, and to adapt it to the needs of
the moment. There did not exist any copyright and plagiarism
was not punishable. To state that a biblical book was written
by the prophet Amos or Isaiah because the Bible says so is an
anachronistic misjudgment. Some of it may go back to the original
words of the prophet speaking in the name of God, but certainly
not all of it. The divine inspiration of the scribes who undertook
the rewording of the prophet’s original message centuries later
should not be denied. They themselves at least were honestly
believing they were carrying out a task entrusted to them by the
deity. Whether or not we as modern readers believe them is a
wholly different question which should not anachronistically be
projected back on their achievements.

Next to prophecy there existed other means of learning what the

gods had in store for their worshippers. In the world around Is-
rael various modes of divination stood in high esteem and were
seen as complementary to inspired speech. A distinction between
divination as an ineffective technical skill and ‘true’ prophecy as
the word of God is made in the Bible alone where soothsaying
is derided and condemned. Probably this is a late theological
construction. Originally also in Israel itself other, more technical
means of acquiring knowledge about the will of God were avail-
able. Some of these, for example the interpretation of dreams and
lot casting, were tolerated until the closure of the canon.
Also in divination human intervention was indispensable. The
confusing nature of dreams necessitated the help of experts, like
Joseph and Daniel in the Bible. Outside Israel inspection of the
entrails of a sacrificial victim, especially the liver, was considered
to provide important information about the future which the gods
 how did the deity address man? 229

had ‘written’ there beforehand. This method, however, produced

results only at the hands of thoroughly trained specialists. Also
astrology, observation of bird flights, consulting trees or stones
representing ancestors, and other forms of augury were gradually
phased out in Israel, probably because in all these cases the ‘wit-
nesses’ themselves remained silent and those who interpreted the
signs often contradicted each other. Judaism became the religion
of the codified Word of God.
The main general conclusion of this chapter must be that the
words deities addressed to man were mediated by other human
beings, usually religious specialists. Even if the impression was
created that the deity spoke directly to certain privileged people
or had entrusted his words to angelic messengers, there are strong
indications that in reality human intervention was necessary. This
cannot be seen as deliberate delusion of the ignorant masses, be-
cause the intermediaries themselves understood their mission as
inspired by the deity. Of course all this has long been suspec-
ted, but as far as we know it has never been demonstrated as
conclusively on the basis of a broad textual basis.
 chapter six
the silent god
6.1 The Silence of the Remote God
Silence was one of the ways in which human beings tried to com-
municate with their deities (Section 4.6). In Chapter 5 we have
demonstrated that divine messages were usually mediated by hu-
man beings. What did it mean when deities were believed to
remain silent, even if humans implored them to speak or act?

6.1.1 In the Ancient Near East

According to Egyptian theologians of the New Kingdom stillness
reigned on the primordial earth before the Sun-god Amun-Re
created everything that exists, including the first deities.1 He did
so by being the first to speak.2 Without the word of the Creator of
life, the earth was silent. An Amun-hymn from a Leiden papyrus
states,
He opened speech from within the stillness:
and he opened each eye, letting it see;
He began sounds while the world was silent –
and his unchallenged victory-shout encircled the earth.3

According to the creation theology of the Egyptian city of Heli-

opolis, the god Shu stilled the sky, earth and other deities before
revealing his self-creation, ‘I shall speak. Become still, Ennead!
Become silent, gods, and I will tell you my evolution myself.’4
So the Egyptians thought that silence reigned before it was
broken by the speech of the creator.
Already in the Wisdom of Merikare (c. 2000 bce) it is stated
that the good creator god erected a chapel for himself among his
human creatures; when they weep, he listens to them.5
1
Assmann 1999, No. 32:15-20 (117); No. 136:20-25 (330); Allen, CoS, vol.
1, 24.
2
Assmann 1999, No. 136:15-19, 21-22 (330); Allen, CoS, vol. 1, 24.
3
Translation Foster 1995, 76.
4
Allen, CoS, vol. 1, 8-9. See also Coffin Texts Spell 1130, Allen, CoS, vol.
1, 26.
5
Lichtheim 1973, 106; Foster 2001, 203; Altenmüller 2009, 25.
232 chapter six

Can humans really hear the voice of the creator god? In prin-
ciple this is deemed impossible. The absolute transcendence of
the creator god Amun is expressed as follows in a Theban eulogy,

Amun is one, hiding himself from them.6

He is concealed from the gods, and his aspect is unknown.
He is farther than the sky, he is deeper than the Duat.7
No god knows his true appearance,
no processional image of his is unfolded through inscriptions,
no one testifies to him accurately.
He is too secret to uncover his awesomeness,
he is too great to investigate, too powerful to know.8

From another hymn to Amun-Re,

Whose Form is mysterious, there is no knowing him,

who conceals himself from all the gods;
Who hides himself in the sundisk, there is no comprehending
him.
who masks himself even from those who emerged from him.9

Communication with such a transcendent, remote deity seems

impossible.10 Yet the same text affirms that messages are sent
by him from the sky and heard in the sanctuaries of Heliopolis,
Memphis and Thebes.11 Although Amun-Re is infinitely remote,
he is at the same time very close to his worshippers. It is therefore
understandable that he became the focus of the much discussed
‘personal piety’ which reached its culmination point under the
Ramessides, probably as an answer to the chill of the monotheistic
revolution in the Amarna period. Now it becomes possible to
address Amun-Re directly and the supplicant may expect the
god to listen to his prayer and deliver him from distress,
6
The great gods who had been created by Amun just before.
7
The Abyss.
8
Translation Allen, CoS, vol. 1, 25.
9
Translation Foster 1995, 67.
10
The Egyptian pessimistic sage Ipuwer states about the high god Ptah,
‘There is none who can reach him’ (Ipuwer 5.9; translation Enmarch 2008,
227, with his comments 110).
11
Allen, CoS, vol. 1, 26.
 the silent god 233

Who hears the prayer of the one in distress,

is kind to whoever calls on him,
Saves the fearful man from the hand of the insolent,
judges fairly between the wretched man and the affluent.12

A similar ambiguous attitude is found in the Babylonian Theodicy

which dates from about the same era. On the one hand it is stated,
The divine mind, like the centre of the heavens, is remote;
Knowledge of it is difficult; the masses do not know it.13

Yet at the end of his long diatribe the sufferer turns to his god,
I, though humble, wise, and a suppliant,
Have not seen help and succour for one moment.
...
May the god who has thrown me off give help,
May the goddess who has [abandoned me] show mercy.14

Also the classic Babylonian wisdom text Ludlul bēl nēmeqi, again
dating from the end of the second millennium bce, reflects this
paradoxical attitude towards the deity,
My god has forsaken me and disappeared,
My goddess has failed me and keeps a distance.
The benevolent angel who (walked) beside [me] has departed,
My protecting spirit has taken to flight, and is seeking someone
else.15

The god who has forsaken the sufferer is the supreme Lord, cre-
ator and sustainer of the world, and master of all other gods,
angels and spirits.

6.1.2 The Silence of the Remote God in the Bible

Just as in Egypt, the pseudepigraphic book 4 Ezra (late 1st cen-
tury ce) assumes that stillness reigned in the cosmos before God
began his work of creation,
12
Translation Foster 1995, 61. See for further discussion De Moor 1997,
41-58; Altenmüller 2009, esp. 27-28.
13
Babylonian Theodicy, 256, translation Lambert 1960, 87.
14
Babylonian Theodicy, 289-290, 295-296, translation Lambert 1960, 89.
15
Ludlul, I.43-46, translation Lambert 1960, 33.
234 chapter six

And then the Spirit was hovering, and darkness and silence em-
braced everything; the sound of man’s voice was not yet there
(4 Ezra 6:39).

And the world shall be turned back to primeval silence for seven
days, as it was at the first beginnings (4 Ezra 7:30).

Also in other pseudepigraphic literature the primordial silence is

mentioned a few times. It is contrasted with the greatness of the
Creator God,

Or how shall we speak again about your glorious deeds? Or to

whom again will that which is in your Law be explained? Or will
the universe return to its nature and the world go back to its
original silence? (2 Bar. 3:6-7)16

It is possible that a similar concept is at the background of Isa.

41:26 where the prophet emphasizes the absolute solitude of the
Creator who was the first to speak,17

Who told us from the beginning so that we might know,

and beforehand, so that we might say: ‘He is right!’ ?
No, there was no one who was telling,
no, there was no one who let hear,
no, there was no one who heard your words.

However, in Pseudo-Philo (1st century bce) the Creator God

himself is replaced by silence,

Darkness and silence were before the world was made,

and silence spoke a word and the darkness became light
(Ps. Philo 60:2).

The remoteness of God was felt painfully by several Psalmists

(Ps. 22:2[1], 12[11], 20[19]; 38:22[21]; 71:12).18 Also Second Isaiah
states, ‘However, you are a God hiding himself, O Savior God of
Israel’ (Isa. 45:15). Lady Zion complains, ‘The Lord has forsaken
me, and the Lord has forgotten me (Isa. 49:15).
16
2 Baruch probably dates from the early 2nd century ce.
17
Cf. Isa. 41:20 and Korpel & De Moor 1997, 74, n. 17.
18
More examples with Lindström 2003, 263-271.
 the silent god 235

The beauty of the cosmos fills the singer of Ps. 8 with wonder.
How is it possible that the Creator of heaven and earth cares for
mankind?

When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers,

the moon and the stars which you have created,
what is man that you remember him,
and mankind that you take notice of him?

Yet you made him lack only a little from being God,
you crowned him with glory and honor,
you gave him power to rule over the works of your hands,
everything you have put beneath his feet.19

Certainly a text of timeless beauty which despite its gross an-

thropomorphism expresses on the one hand the immeasurable
distance between God and man, on the other the proud aware-
ness of the greatness of the human race as God’s caretaker on
earth.
However, other Hebrew poets were less optimistic. Job refuses
to keep silent about the Creator’s20 constant watch over him,

What is man that you make so much of him,

that you have set your heart on him,
that you take notice of him every morning,
and test him every minute?
Why don’t you look away from me,
don’t let me alone even for an instant? (Job 7:17-19)

The life of man being as short as it is,21 Job feels that the
Almighty should give him more leeway. A similar thought is ex-
pressed in Ps. 114:3-4,

O Lord, what is man that you want to know him,

mankind that you want to think of him?
Man resembles a breath,
his days pass by like a shadow.
19
Ps. 8:5-7.
20
Cf. Job 7:11-12.
21
Cf. Job 7:21.
236 chapter six

Also the poet of Ps. 90 complains about the inequality between

the Creator, for whom a thousand years are like one day, and
man whose lifespan is limited. Yet in all three cases these poets
pray to this totally different Being to deliver them. This is the
perseverance of the faithful.
Job too is convinced of his innocence and vents his disappoint-
ment over the stony silence meeting his legitimate protests,

Behold, I cry out, ‘Violence!’ but I am not answered;

I call aloud, but there is no justice (Job 19:7)

I cry to you, but you do not answer me;

I stand up, but you do not pay attention to me (Job 30:20).

Elihu22 reprimands Job,

Why do you quarrel with him

because he answers none of man’s words?
Though God does speak in one way,
or in another, but man does not perceive it.
In a dream, in a vision of the night,
when deep sleep falls on men,
by shapes when they are in bed,
then he may open the ears of men,
and seal them with chastisement
to turn mankind from wrongdoing,
and to suppress pride in man (Job 33:13-17).

Even another of Job’s interlocutors wishes that God would answer

Job (Job 11:5), but Elihu states that God is completely free to
remain silent – man cannot call him to account for that (Job
34:29). Walter Dietrich concludes,

God is free up to arbitrariness. It is pointless to ask for his motives

or to want to correct him. He can act as he wants, he can also
not act when his acting would have been imperative, he can wrap
himself in unapproachability when people (like Job) want to see
him urgently.23
22
Generally the Elihu speeches are thought to be a later addition to the
Book of Job.
23
Our translation. German original: Dietrich 2004, 1001.
 the silent god 237

It is questionable if it is acceptable to promote the fatalistic theo-

logy of the non-Israelite Elihu to a general principle of biblical
theology. Dietrich acknowledges that Elihu’s ‘argument’ will not
have appeased Job and many other voices in the Hebrew Bible.24
When God finally answers Job in the storm he does not defend
his right to act as he wants, but emphasizes his own greatness as
the Creator of all. He does not reply directly to Job’s complaint
that the Almighty has treated him unjustly and arbitrarily.25
The strangeness of the Book of Job within the canon of the
Old Testament is due at least in part to the fact that Job does not
see any possibility for man to appeal to God’s covenantal loyalty.
God has made a covenant with the monstrous Leviathan (Job
40:28, tr. 41:4), but not with Job. If God feels some kind of loyalty
towards man, he is hiding it carefully (Job 10:12-13). When Job
implores God to grasp his hand as a sign that he accepts him as
a covenantal partner (Job 17:3),26 God does not react. In none
of the longer books of the Old Testament the number of terms
connected with the covenant is as low as in the poetic part of the
Book of Job.27

6.2 Broken Communication between God and Man

The experience of the absence or hiddenness of the deity is and
was painful. A host of studies reflects awareness of exegetes that
this is a very old problem indeed.28 According to the Egyptian
skeptic Ipuwer a hot-tempered man blurts out, ‘If I could perceive,
and know where God is, then I would act for him’.29 Human be-
ings speculated about the reasons why their deities seemed to
have abandoned them and did not reply to their prayers. How-
ever, they did realize that there was a limit to a human’s ability
to fathom the mind of a deity. So there remained instances of
24
Ibidem.
25
Cf. Hieke 2009, 96-97. Contrast Dietrich 2004, 1000.
26
Cf. Viberg 1992, 42-43.
27
De Moor 1997, 146.
28
See e.g. Perlitt 1971; Terrien 1978; Balentine 1983; Gerstenberger 1992;
Milazzo 1992; Kutsko 2000; Burnett 2005; Groenewald 2005; Schellenberg
2009.
29
Translation Enmarch 2008, 105, 226. Cf. Shupak, CoS, vol. 1, 95.
238 chapter six

divine silence that could not be explained. Therefore we distin-

guish between reasons that were more or less comprehensible to
man and divine silence that from the viewpoint of man was in-
comprehensible because no parallel with human silences could be
discerned.

6.2.1 Comprehensible Divine Silence

6.2.1.1 Divine Silence Because of Offenses
6.2.1.1a In the Ancient Near East
People realized very well that the silence of their deities might
be caused by their own behavior. The Hittite prayers and rituals,
for example, betray an acute awareness of sins that explained
divine stillness.30 Also elsewhere in the ancient world people were
inclined to attribute illness or hunger or defeat not to caprices of
the deities, but held themselves fully responsible (e.g. Van der
Toorn 1985; Maul 1988). Within the horizon of their own world
this may have been a logical conclusion.
Soon after coming into existence, the bustling creation became
full of noise. In the first tablet of the Babylonian Creation Epic
enūma eliš the divine pair Apsû (groundwater, male) and Tiâmat
(seawater, female) create the other gods by mixing their waters.
The noise made by their children is deafening Apsû. At first he
is incapable of making the clamor stop. Also Tiâmat ‘fell silent
before them’ (En. el. I.26).31 Apsû wants silence so that they can
sleep again (En. el. I.40). Following the counsel of his messenger
Mummu, Apsû decides to annihilate his own offspring.
Gods do not appreciate noise from man. Also in the Babylo-
nian epic Atra-hası̄s it is the deafening noise made by mankind
that disturbs the˘ gods so much that they decide to destroy them
32
by the Flood. In this case too it is Ea who devises a plan to
save humanity from total extinction.
30
Cf. Section 6.2.2.1 below.
31
The text we used is Talon 2005. See also Lambert, TUAT, Bd. 3, 565-593;
Foster, CoS, vol. 1, 390-402.
32
Lambert & Millard 1969, passim. Indeed the noise in the cities of An-
tiquity may have been a nuisance sometimes, cf. Weippert 2002a; Choi 2004;
Saiko 2008.
 the silent god 239

The destruction of the world’s population by the Babyloni-

an evil god Erra is also justified by the noise human beings
make.33 Erra silences their noise by destroying entire cities.34
Apparently the gods of Mesopotamia regarded clamor as sinful
behavior which merited punishment even to the point of silencing
the noise-makers.35
Silence on the part of the deity may also forebode divine pun-
ishment. When the Babylonian storm god Adad was on the brink
of unleashing the Deluge that would destroy the whole earth a
menacing calm preceded his fierce raging and when after seven
days and seven nights the gale relented, stillness reigned on earth
because all living creatures except those in the ark had died.36

6.2.1.1b Divine Silence Because of Offenses in the Bible

In the Bible the destruction by the Flood is attributed not to
excessive noise but to the evilness of mankind (Gen. 6). Yet the
idea that silence of God might be his answer to sinful behavior is
also attested in the Bible. In Deut. 1 Moses recounts the history
of the Exodus. In v. 45 he states,

Then you [the Israelites] returned and wept before the Lord;
but the Lord did not listen to your voice,
and did not give ear to you.

On the basis of the preceding account it may be assumed that the

refrain-like reference to Israel’s frequent rebellion37 was omitted
here to avoid repetitiousness (cf. Num. 14:45; Ps. 95:6-11). So the
Lord’s refusal to reply to their lamentation was based on their
refusal to listen to him – a clear case of a reciprocal refusal to
listen.
According to 1 Sam. 8:18, Mic. 3:4-7, and Job 35:12 God may
also refuse to answer to prayers because of sinful behavior. The
circumstance that the people wanted a king despite the fact that
33
Cagni 1977, 29-30, nn. 12, 20, 21. See also Dalley, CoS, vol. 1, No. 113.
34
Cagni 1977, 54, IV.68.
35
See also Section 4.5.3.
36
Gilg. Ep. XI.106, 130-135, George 2003, vol. 1, 708-711.
37
Deut. 1:26-27, 32, 43.
240 chapter six

God was their real king was interpreted as sin long after the end
of the Davidic dynasty. Therefore Samuel is made to say that a
king will oppress them so that ‘you will cry out because of your
king, whom you have chosen for yourselves; but the Lord will not
answer you in that day.’ (1 Sam. 8:18). Apparently God’s silence
is the consequence of sins.
Mic. 3:4 and 7 belong to the message of Proto-Micah. Here
too the silence of God when people cry to him for help is seen
as the sanction imposed because of social injustice.38 The cir-
cumstance that this scheme is already present in this 8th century
prophetic tradition indicates that one cannot easily dismiss it as
a late theological construct.
In Job 35:9-14 Elihu reprimands Job, suggesting that God
does not answer because he is a sinner,

9
Because of the multitude of oppressions people cry out;
they call for help because of the arm of the mighty.
10
But none says, ‘Where is God my Maker,
who gives songs in the night,
11
who teaches us more than the beasts of the earth,
and makes us wiser than the birds of the air?’
12
There they cry out, but he does not answer,
because of the pride of the wicked.
13
Surely God does not listen to an empty cry,
nor does the Almighty see it.
14
How much less when you say that you do not see him,
that the case is before him, and you are waiting for him!

Verse 11 clearly refers to oracles derived from the consultation of

Nether World spirits and the observation of the flight of birds.39
Like the soothsayers of Mic. 3 they are unable to fathom God’s
answer.
Finally a similar argument is found in Isa. 42. The Israelites
had deserved punishment because they had not listened to God,
i.e. to his messengers, the prophets (Isa. 42:18-21). As one of the
consequences he mentions that nobody, i.e. neither God40 nor
38
Cf. Section 5.2.2.
39
Cf. Section 5.3.3.2.
40
Blenkinsopp 2002, 217
 the silent god 241

man, saw ground for protest against the subsequent plundering

of the nation.41
Also those who opposed David, God’s chosen king, could not
count on an answer from God when they appealed to him (2 Sam.
22:42 = Ps. 18:42[41]). The Deuteronomistic History stresses the
point that sinners invoke the help of God in vain several times.
An example is found in 2 Kgs 6 where an unnamed king42 of
Northern Israel43 is exclaiming during the siege of Samaria,

This trouble is from the Lord!

Why should I wait for the Lord any longer? (2 Kgs 6:33)

The narrative as it is preserved in the canonical Hebrew version

does not indicate that the king had prayed or had asked Elisha
for a word from the Lord, but it may be assumed that he did, as
was the custom in such a situation. Apparently the king looses his
patience and does not ask himself if his own sinful behavior might
have been the cause of God’s silence. His blasphemous question
causes an apprehensive silence to fall which is marked by a space
(Setumah).
It was usual to accompany fasting with loud weeping.44 But
insincere fasting implied no genuine wish to be heard on high
(Isa. 58:4). God will only reply to the cries of those who show
true remorse by caring for others (Isa. 58:5-12; Prov. 21:13).
When God has shown the prophet Ezekiel all the illegal forms
of worship practiced in the temple he concludes,

But now I – I will act in wrath;

my eye will not spare, nor will I have pity;
and if they cry in my ears with a loud voice,
I will not listen to them (Ezek. 8:18).

The few times that God is the subject of the Hebrew verb šqt. ‘to
41
Isa. 42:22. Some further examples: Isa. 1:15; 59:1-3.
42
The Hebrew text, supported by ancient versions, has ‘messenger’ (or:
‘angel’), but the emendation to ‘king’ is universally accepted. Cf. Barthélemy
1982, 388-389.
43
Probably Joram, cf. e.g. Sweeney 2007, 312; Korpel 2009.
44
Judg. 20:26; 2 Sam. 1:12; 12:21-22; Neh. 1:4.
242 chapter six

be silent’ it denotes total passivity on his part.45 In Isa. 62:1 the

prophet declares that he will no longer resign to such a passive at-
titude. Persisting in wordless mourning is a form of self-pity that
is unseemly if higher issues are at stake. In vv. 6-7 the prophet
continues his argument,
6
On your walls, O Jerusalem, I have posted watchmen;
every day and every night – never they will be silent.
Oh, you who call on the Lord,
do not allow yourselves silence,
7
and do not allow him silence
till he founds and till he makes Jerusalem
a hymn in the country (Isa. 62:6-7).

Is this unrealistic? At this moment of Jerusalem’s history the

walls of the city did not exist anymore. This is pure faith-talk. The
prophet is talking about the city he dreams up. The watchmen he
appoints are the prophets46 who share his dream. It is important
to observe that people need not meekly resign to their fate, but
may rebel against the silence of God and refuse to give up their
dreams: ‘do not allow yourselves silence, and do not allow him
silence’. After the latter, rather daring statement the tradition
places a major colon divider (Atnach) indicating a short, tense
silence.
The penitent supplicants of Isa. 64 describe the malaise in
their country after the Babylonian occupation, culminating in
the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem where their fathers
used to pray. They then cry out,
Will you, O Lord, after all this, will you keep yourself
inaccessible?
Will you keep silent and punish us beyond measure?
(Isa. 64:11[12])

They acknowledge their sins and admit that punishment was de-
served (Isa. 64:4[5], 6[7]) but are of the opinion that they have
45
Isa. 18:4; Ezek. 16:42; Ps. 83:2[1]. Some scholars assume that the latter
text is dependent on Isa. 62, cf. Tate 1990, 345. But in Isa. 62:1 the speaker
is the prophet, not God. Cf. Section 4.5.1.2.
46
Jer. 6:17; Ezek. 3:17; 33:2, 6-7. Cf. Isa. 21:6, 8; 52:8; 56:10; Ezek. 33:7;
Hos. 9:8; Mic. 7:4, 7; Hab. 2:1.
 the silent god 243

suffered enough now and that God should not remain angry be-
yond measure (Isa. 64:8[9], 11[12]). God’s silence was the under-
standable consequence of their sinful behavior in the past, but it
should end now.
After a silence indicated by a space (Setumah) God defends
himself by pointing out that sinful practices still continue and
that he will not keep silent47 about these offenses until they have
been repaid in full (Isa. 65:6).
The singer of Ps. 66 acknowledges that sinful behavior and
the expectation that God will hear his prayer do not go together,
Come, hear and let me tell you,
all you who fear God,
what he did to me personally.
To him I cried with my mouth,
his praise was under my tongue.
Iniquity – if my heart would have cherished that,
the Lord would not have listened.
However, God did listen
and paid attention to my loud prayer.48 (Ps. 66:16-19)

The singer does not indicate how he received the certainty that
his prayer had been heard, but he awaited it – the hymn of praise
was on the tip of his tongue.
Earlier49 we discussed Job 4:12–5:1 where Eliphaz hears a
ghost say,
Call now! Is there anyone who will answer you?
To which of the holy ones will you turn?

The clear implication was that Job, being a sinner because he

refused to accept undeserved suffering, had no right to expect an
answer from God, not even by intermediaries like angels.
If God was displeased with the behavior of his people, proph-
ecy and other means to learn the will of God became scarce, or
even totally absent.50
47
This reading is suggested by many Hebrew manuscripts as well as most
ancient versions.
48
See for similar reasoning Job 35:13-16.
49
Section 5.2.1.2
50
1 Sam. 3:1; 28:6; Ezek. 7:26; Amos 8:12; Mic. 3:6-7; Ps. 74:9; Lam. 2:9.
244 chapter six

Even if Israel was lamenting about God’s incomprehensible

refusal to speak through signs and prophets when his people was
in distress and even if he allowed its enemies to put up their own
signs in the place where his congregation used to gather (Ps. 74:4,
9), there is a conviction that this must be a temporal decision.
The very late Psalm 74 does not question the fact that God’s
anger may have been deserved, but it should not go on for ever
(Ps. 74:1).
God’s silence in the Hebrew version of the book of Esther may
have to do with the fact that Mordecai and Esther act on their
own initiative and seem to have partially lost faith in God.51 Sim-
ilarly, God is missing in the grisly chapters Jer. 40:7–41:18 where
nationalists brutally murder Gedaliah and many of his support-
ers, acting on their own, without consulting God through the
prophet Jeremiah who was available with Gedaliah in Mizpah.52
The absence of God in the rape scenes of the Hebrew Bible53 is
another indication that at least some narrators shrank back from
relating God to brutal violence.
The eschatological silence in heaven mentioned in Rev. 8:1
precedes the execution of the divine wrath.54
Already in Qumran the ‘voice of a thin silence’ of 1 Kgs 19:12
is applied to the heavenly beings before the throne of God.55 In
view of the impressive evidence collected by Richard Bauckham
and Philip Alexander it is likely that according to Jewish tradition
the angels interrupted their songs of praise during this silence to
act as mediators bringing the prayers of those who had suffered
on earth before God.56

51
Korpel 2003; 2008. Attempts to explain the absence of God in the Hebrew
Book of Esther positively as silent working in the background (e.g. Chalupa
2003) are mistaken.
52
Jer. 40:6; cf. Stulman 2004, 311-318. The relationship with the much less
detailed account in 2 Kgs 25:22-26 is a matter of discussion, cf. Becking 2007,
147-173.
53
Dietrich 2004, 1006-1009; Schulte & Schneider 2009.
54
We checked several manuscripts but none marks this silence with an open
space, but just after the beginning of a chapter this was not to be expected.
55
4Q405, Frags. 20, 21, 22; 11Q17:VII.
56
Rev. 8:3-4. Cf. Bauckham 1993, 70-83. See also Muers 2001, 90.
 the silent god 245

6.2.1.2 Divine Silence Because of Awe or Fear

6.2.1.2a In the Ancient Near East
When the Sumerian creator god Enki and the birth-goddess Nin-
mah have fashioned the first human being, ‘a great silence fell’
˘ the gods.57 It is unclear whether the deities were stunned
among
with admiration or with horror.58 Similarly, all the gods bow
down in stunned silence before the mighty creator god Marduk.59
But also the reversal of creation is met with stupefied silence.
When in the Babylonian Epic of Creation (c. end 12th century
bce)60 Apsû’s61 decision to annihilate his own offspring is com-
municated to the gods they are deeply disturbed and sit down in
silence (En. el. I.58). The god of wisdom Ea, however, succeeds
in baffling Apsû’s plan and kills him. Subsequently Ea engenders
Marduk to lead the battle against Tiâmat62 under the pretext
that she remained silent when her husband Apsû was killed (En.
el. I.114). Tiâmat musters all her forces to battle Marduk and his
allies. When Ea hears this, he falls silent at first (En. el. II.6), but
then devises a plan. When this too fails, all the gods sit mutely
together (En. el. II.122-126). But Ea counsels Marduk to go to
Anšar, the father of the gods, to urge him to break his silence
and allow him, Marduk, to go to defeat Tiâmat (En. el. II.139-
142; III.1). Marduk conquers her and creates heaven and earth
from her body. Later on Marduk is praised because he broke the
stunned silence that had paralyzed the other gods (En.el. VII.42).
In the Assyrian cultic calendar the 18th and 19th of the month
of Shebat are called ‘Silence’ because Marduk was supposed to
have killed his opponents on those dates.63
In accordance with this praise the Assyrian king Assurbanipal
(668-627 bce) honors Marduk in a hymn,
He summoned the Igigi and the Anunnaki, they kneel before him,
and the gods who begot him repose in silence at [his] f[eet]. To
57
Klein, CoS, vol. 1, 518.
58
Later on we will defend the latter option, cf. Section 6.2.1.4a.
59
See also Hecker, TUAT, Bd. 2, 766.
60
We use the edition by Talon 2005.
61
Apsû is the god of the sweet ground water.
62
Monstrous goddess of the salty waters.
63
Livingstone 1989, No. 40, 3, 5.
246 chapter six

take advice, to consult in lordly consultation, [their] at[tention]

is directed towards Marduk alone.64

Even the deities of the Nether World fall silent when a human
being risks his life by entering their realm.65
In a visionary experience an Assyrian crown prince is ap-
proaching the throne of the god Namtar, co-ruler of the Nether
World. Because no man can go unpunished if he comes close to
this redoubtable god all inhabitants of the Nether World fall si-
lent, ‘The nether world was full of terror; a mighty silence lay
before the crown prince’.66
A deceased Egyptian may gain control over the dangerous
deities of the Nether World by identifying himself with Heka, the
eldest son of the creator. In this capacity he commands them, ‘Be
silent for me; Bow down to me!’67
In the Babylonian Epic of the evil god Erra (c. 8th century
bce) it is his herald Ishum who first sits in silent horror because
of the magnitude of the slaughtering envisaged by Erra and his
warriors (I.95), but towards the end of the story he succeeds in
convincing Erra to stop the massacre. According to another text
the gods of the Nether World fall silent at the terrifying cry of
the warrior-god Nergal.68
According to Iliad I.511-512 Zeus, king of the gods, sits in
silence, not knowing what to answer to the prayer of Thetis, be-
cause he fears the wrath of his wife Hera (Iliad I.518-519), just as
she herself keeps silent when Zeus threatens her (Iliad I.568-569).

6.2.1.2b Divine Silence Because of Awe or Fear in the Bible

As we have just seen, silence out of fear or awe was not unknown
among the deities of the ancient cultures surrounding Israel. It is
no doubt significant that such feelings are rarely, if ever, attrib-
uted to God in the canonical books of the Bible.69 Whereas other
64
Translation Livingstone 1989, No. 2:26-27.
65
Livingstone 1989, No. 32, r. 13.
66
Livingstone 1989, No. 32, r. 13.
67
Ritner, CoS, vol. 2, 58.
68
CAD (Š) 3, 332.
69
Korpel 1990, 178; Sanders 1996, 403-405.
 the silent god 247

negative emotions (e.g. wrath, sorrow, jealousy) are freely attrib-

uted to God in the Hebrew Bible, fear is not, probably because it
would imply an infringement of the monotheistic principle. God’s
description of the Leviathan in Job 40:25–41:26[41:1-34] definitely
betrays a certain awe for this redoubtable sea-monster which ac-
cording to Canaanite myth the deities Ba,lu and ,Anatu had only
barely been able to defeat70 so that Job 41:17[25] aptly states
that ‘deities’ are afraid of him. But far from falling silent for
this ‘creature without fear’ (Job 41:25[33]) the God of the Book
of Job does not want to keep silent about its fearsome qualities
(Job 41:4[12]).
6.2.1.3 Divine Silence Because of Forbearance or Prudence
6.2.1.3a In the Ancient Near East
According to the Babylonian myth Adapa and the South Wind the
human being Adapa has broken the wing of the South Wind which
enrages the highest god Anu. Adapa is summoned to ascend to
heaven to give account for his crime. Adapa’s explanation satisfies
the god because he realizes that in fact another god, Ea, was
responsible: ‘His heart calmed, he became silent’ (Izre’el 2001,
19, 62, 97).
In polytheism, one god may try to silence the other in order
to draw his attention, e.g. ‘Be silent, and listen to my speech’,71
as quarreling human disputants do (Section 3.2.3.2).
Earlier we have given some examples of silences on the part
of deities that were marked not by words, but by blank spaces or
horizontal dividing lines with a rhetorical function. In the Babylo-
nian Gilgamesh Epic Gilgamesh responds rudely to the proposal
of marriage by the goddess of love Ishtar (Gilg. Ep. VI.22-79).
Two tablets mark the end of his speech by a horizontal line before
the narrator starts to describe the goddess Ishtar’s rage (George
2003, 622 and Plates 79 and 90). The reader expects immediate
divine retaliation, but the goddess has to remain silent because
she first has to obtain her father’s permission to punish her re-
viler. Apparently the horizontal line marks a tense silence here.
70
Cf. De Moor 1987, 69-70 (KTU 1.5:I.1-8).
71
Dalley, CoS, vol. 1, 406, 415.
248 chapter six

6.2.1.3b Divine Silence Because of Forbearance or Prudence

in the Bible
There are several occasions when God might have spoken but has
kept silent out of forbearance (2 Sam. 7:7; Jer. 7:22). Isa. 42:13-14
describes how God breaks a long silence,

The Lord goes out like a hero,

like a warrior he wakes up fury,
he shouts, even yells,
he shows himself a hero to his enemies.
I have been quiet for a long time.
Shall I remain silent, restrain myself?72
Like a woman in labor I will groan!
I will gasp and pant together!

The contrast between Isa. 42:13 where the Lord is depicted as a

shouting warrior and Isa. 42:14 where he is compared to a preg-
nant woman who has been silent for a long time, but now has
to cry out because of the pangs of childbirth, has given rise to
various hypotheses about the redactional history of these verses
(cf. Berges 2008, 253). However, there is little reason to neglect
the careful composition of the final literary product (Korpel & De
Moor 1998, 157-158). The contrast between vv. 13 and 14 may
have been created deliberately. Had God manifested himself as
a valiant warrior? No, he admits in v. 14, he was keeping a grip
on himself for a long time until he could no longer remain silent
anymore, like a woman in labor who cannot suppress her shrieks
when her time has come. A space (Setumah) expresses God’s long
silence graphically. The reason for his silence is revealed in vv. 18-
19 and 23-25: the Israelites failed to listen to the word of God as
mediated by his servants.
A psalm closely related to the ideas of Second Isaiah is Psalm
73
50. Also the theme of God’s breaking the silence after a long
72
An unintroduced rhetorical question, cf. Joüon & Muraoka 2006, § 161a.
73
Although recently parallels with Neo-Assyrian cultic prophecy have been
used as an argument in favor of a pre-exilic date of this Psalm (Hilber 2005,
162-166), the allusions to passages in the Pentateuch (vv. 5 , 16-20) and the
close relations with the message of Second Isaiah make an exilic or post-exilic
 the silent god 249

period during which He restrained himself (Ps. 50:3, 21) was de-
rived from the same source (Isa. 42:14; 48:9). The reason for God’s
silence were the sins of his people that are described in great de-
tail in vv. 16-22 and this silence is contrasted with his decision
to speak up now in favor of those who obey him and serve him
with immaterial sacrifices (vv. 1, 4, 7-23).74
One might consider Isa. 42:14 and Ps. 50:3, 21 therefore as
cases of silence because of offenses (cf. Section 6.2.1.1b). However,
Isa. 57:11 emboldens us to interpret these instances as silences
because of forbearance. God denounces the apostate sinners of
pre-exilic Israel here,

Who was it you dreaded, and feared, that you should lie,
whereas you did not recall me
and did not give (me) a thought?
Was I not silent, for a long time even?
So you cannot have feared me.

This idea of divine forbearance is attested in several other pas-

sages, e.g. Neh. 9:30-31,

You bore with them for many years, testified against them by
your Spirit through your prophets, but they would not give ear,
so you delivered them into the power of the peoples of countries.
But, in your great compassion you did not destroy them com-
pletely and did not abandon them, for you are a gracious and
compassionate God.75
date more likely. Later redactional reworking of the Psalm is not excluded (cf.
Seybold 1996, 203-209). The theophany described in v. 3 has parallels in Isa.
40:10 and 42:13-15. The low esteem for bloody sacrifices in vv. 8-13 may be
compared with Isa. 40:16 and 43:23-24. In Second Isaiah’s new Zion there is
no mention of sacrifices anymore, but only of singing hymns of thanksgiving
(cf. Ps. 50:14). Also the universalism (‘from the rising of the sun to its setting’,
Ps. 50:1, cf. Isa. 45:6) and the idea of a case pleaded in the divine court (Ps.
50:4-6) are typical of Second Isaiah (Isa. 41:1, 21-29; 43:9-21, etc.). Even the
heavens testify to God’s righteousness (Ps. 50:6), as in Isa. 45:8. Also the
emphasis on the incomparability of God in v. 21 is characteristic of Second
Isaiah (Isa. 40:18, 25; 43:10-11; 44:7-8; 45:21-22; 46:5, 9, etc.).
74
Dietrich 2004, 998 creates an inaccurate contrast between the silent gods
of Israel’s neighbors and the Lord who would not be silent. Note the simil-
arity with the ideas of Kornelis Miskotte, Section 1.3.2.2.
75
See also Zech. 7:12; 2 Chron. 24:19-20.
250 chapter six

Possibly also Zeph. 3:17 refers to the divine patience with sin-
ful Israel if the text states indeed that God will be silent in his
love, as Rashi has proposed (cf. Vlaardingerbroek 1999, 214). Al-
though other interpretations and readings have been considered,
the Masoretic text, already attested in Antiquity, is the best op-
tion (Barthélemy 1992, 913-915).
Sometimes God’s restrained silence is not indicated by words,
but by spaces marking rhetorical silences, for example after Mo-
ses’ bitter complaints in Exod. 33:12-16, Num. 11:15 and 11:22.
And after Joshua’s complaint in Josh. 7:9. And after Elijah’s com-
plaints in 1 Kgs 19. The first time Elijah laments in this way God
answers him not in the form of impressive natural phenomena
like storm, earthquake or fire, but in the form of a ‘sound of thin
silence’ (v. 12).76 When Elijah stubbornly repeats his complaint77
there falls an even deeper silence, again marked by a blank space
(Setumah). In all these cases a rhetorical silence falls before the
Lord answers. One expects a rebuke, a thunderclap even. But a
prolonged anxious silence falls, as if the Lord has some difficulty
to restrain himself.
6.2.1.4 Divine Silence Because of Incapacity
6.2.1.4a In the Ancient Near East
Closely related to the preceding motif is inability of deities to
deal with a menacing situation. According to the Old Babylonian
version of the Myth of Anzû, the gods were dumbstruck when this
terrible bird stole the supreme power of the pantheon – ‘Silence
reigned’ (Anzû OBV II.2-3).78 One after the other the deities
76
See for an admirable overview of the interpretation of this ‘thin silence’
Thiel 2009, 268-272. We agree with Thiel, 268, that the proposal of Lust
1976 encounters insurmountable difficulties. Lust’s appeal to Ugaritic rests
on antiquated insights.
77
Dietrich 2004, 1009 reads too much dialectic theology in this text: God
would be a God of silence as well as a God of dialogue.
We see also insufficient support for Becking’s idea that vv. 11-14 should be
read as a ‘nachholende Erzählung’ (Becking 2007, 23-34). The participles of
v. 11 can hardly be interpreted as pluperfects.
78
We follow the rendering of Dalley 1991, 222. See also Foster 2005, 556-558
and 564-566 for the later version, and Vogelzang, CoS, vol. 3, 328-329, 332.
Exactly the same phrase describes the silence after the Deluge, cf. Section
 the silent god 251

called upon to destroy the bird back away, so that the divine
assembly sits down in silent despair (Anzû OBV II.23).79
Fear or confusion is not the only reason why deities may re-
main silent. When the Sumerian fertility god Dumuzi has made
love fifty times to his beloved Inanna and is exhaustedly waiting
for her, ‘she trembled underneath him, dumbly silent for him’.80
Despite human fantasies about the potency of deities, there was
apparently also an end to divine lust.
In the Sumerian myth of Enki and Ninmah the deities are
complaining about the toil Enki, the Sumerian˘ god of wisdom,
who was their creator, had imposed upon them on the primor-
dial earth. Initially Enki refuses to arise from his sleep, until his
mother convinces him to do something about it. The mother-
goddess Ninmah is appointed as Enki’s helper. She boasts that
˘
she can create human beings good or bad. However, her first six
attempts to make men from clay are all crippled failures. After
the sixth attempt,

Ninmah threw the pinch of clay in her hand on the ground,

and a great silence fell.81

Apparently the gods are silent because the workers who would
free them from their toil did not materialize. It is up to Enki
himself to fashion the first sound human being, as the seventh in
succession.
According to a late Assyrian text the gods lie down in silent
exhaustion from toiling on earth before the creation of mankind
that was destined to take over their labor.82
A Late Egyptian text relates how the gods laid their arms on
their heads and became silent when they saw the cruelties of the
evil god Seth (Dominicus 1994, 70).
In literary texts from the Canaanite city of Ugarit there are
several passages where the gods sit silently together, apparently
at a loss how to deal with a terrifying situation. When king Kirtu
3.2.4.1.
79
Dalley 1991, 223.
80
ETCSL translation, A balbale to Inana (Dumuzid-Inana D), c.4.08.04.
81
Translation Klein, CoS, vol. 1, 518.
82
Livingstone, CoS, vol. 1, 476-477.
252 chapter six

lies dying, the head of the pantheon Ilu asks the assembly of the
gods seven times, “Who among the gods is able to cast out the
disease, to expel the illness?” and seven times the narrator has
to observe, ‘None of the gods answered him.’ Finally Ilu sighs,

Return, my children, to your dwellings,

to your exalted thrones.
I myself shall perform magic and shall create,
I shall create a female being able to cast out the disease,
to expel the illness!83

According to a passage in the Ugaritic Myth of Ba,lu the gods

lower their heads on to their knees when they notice the arrival of
frightening messengers of the Sea-god who have come to demand
the extradition of Ba,lu. Apparently they feel unable to speak.
Ba,lu offers to answer the messengers himself, but the head of
the pantheon Ilu simply ignores him.84
Just like human beings, the deities of Ugarit were thought to
mourn occasionally in silence. When Ba,lu has disappeared in the
realm of death for seven or eight years,

Surely [his] brothers were clothed in mourning dress,

in a mourning coat his kinsmen.85

The word translated as ‘mourning’ denotes silent mourning, in-

stead of the loud wailing that was customary shortly after a death.
Indeed, seven years of loud wailing might be too much even for
the gods.
As in modern usage, ‘to silence’ was the equivalent of ‘killing’
someone.86 In Ugaritic mythology, for example, major deities ‘si-
lence’ their opponents.87 To some extent even human beings were
thought to be able to silence (lower) deities by magic. An exorcist
calls upon a goddess of the Nether World to ignore the invocations
of witches,
83
KTU 1.15:V.10-28, translation De Moor 1987, 219.
84
KTU 1.2:I.3-38, De Moor 1987, 32-33.
85
KTU 1.12:II.46-47, translation De Moor 1987, 133, with comments.
86
Cf. Section 3.2.5.2.
87
Cf. De Moor 1971, 89. Contrast Del Olmo Lete & Sanmartı́n 2003, 786-
787.
 the silent god 253

If they call upon you, do not answer them,

if they speak to you, do not listen to them!
If I call upon you, answer me,
if I speak to you, speak to me, me (alone)!88

In 2 Kgs 18:34 (cf. Isa. 36:19) an Assyrian general poses the

rhetorical question, ‘Where are the gods of Hamath and Arpad?
Where are the gods of Sepharvaim, Hena, and Ivvah?’ clearly
implying that they were nowhere to be found when their wor-
shippers cried to them for help and asserting that Hezekiah too
will call to his God in vain.
6.2.1.4b Divine Silence Because of Incapacity in the Bible
Israel itself taunted the gods of other nations because of their in-
capacity to answer the prayers of their worshippers. When Elijah
challenged the prophets of Baal to pray to their god to kindle
the wood of the sacrifice on Mount Carmel the narrator observes
sarcastically ‘there was no voice; no one answered’ (1 Kgs 18:26,
29).89 It is appropriate to continue with 2 Kgs 19 here. There
Hezekiah puts on sackcloth – a sign of mourning – and goes to
the temple, apparently to pray in silence.90 He sends his officers
to the prophet Isaiah from whom he awaits God’s reply (2 Kgs
19:1-5) and this reply comes immediately: a prophecy of salvation
of the kind also attested in the world around ancient Israel,91
Isaiah said to them,
‘Thus you shall say to your master,
“Thus says the Lord:
Do not be afraid because of the words that you have heard,
with which the servants of the king of Assyria have reviled me.
Behold, I will put a spirit in him,
so that he shall hear a rumor and return to his own land;
and I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own land.” ’
(2 Kgs 19:6-7)
88
Maqlû I.56-59, cf. Meier 1937, 9; Abusch, in: Krüger 2008, 137.
89
For a fine analysis of 1 Kgs 18–19 with regard to the silence motif see
Spronk 2010. Similarly, Moab’s prayers remain unheard (Isa. 16:12).
90
Compare the silent supplication of Dani-ilu in the Ugaritic legend, see
Section 4.5.3.1 above.
91
See, for example, the promise of deliverance when a strong enemy attacks
the city of Ugarit (KTU 1.119), Section 5.2.2 above.
254 chapter six

And so it happens according to the biblical account.92 According

to Sennacherib’s own annals he would have lifted the siege of
Jerusalem voluntarily and would have been content to accept a
large tribute only afterwards, when he had returned to Assyria. It
is unlikely that the mighty Assyrian king would have permitted
a rebellious vassal to escape so easily. Something, perhaps an
urgent message from Assyria, must have compelled him to end
the siege prematurely.93 However that may be, the story reads
as an explicit denial that the God of Israel would have remained
silent because He, like the gods of other nations, would have been
incapable of reacting adequately.
In post-exilic times Israel loved to mock at the dumbness of
idols out of apprehension that the exiles might pray to images
representing foreign deities. Deut. 4:28 is part of a passage that
reflects the exile,94

And the Lord will scatter you among the peoples, and you will
be left few in number among the nations where the Lord will
drive you. And there you will serve gods of wood and stone, the
work of men’s hands, that neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor
smell.

If somebody cries out for help to them, they are unable to answer
and save (Isa. 46:7). They are more dumb than their makers.95
It is difficult to say if Second Isaiah himself was the first to use
this argument. Most scholars are inclined to attribute the passage
46:1-7 and other diatribes against the cult images of other nations
in Second Isaiah to a later redactor, but this is by no means
certain.96 In Jer. 10 the theme is further elaborated. The speaking
of the Lord in v. 1, with a voice like thunder (v. 13), is contrasted
with the inability of the idols to speak (v. 5), because they have no
breath/spirit (v. 14). According to the Book of Habakkuk stone
and wood may speak to expose injustice (Hab. 2:11), but graven
92
Which may have been expanded and embellished later on, 2 Kgs 19:8-37
(Isa. 37:8-37).
93
Cf. Becking 2007, 141.
94
Cf. Weinfeld 1991, 207, 209.
95
Isa. 44:11, with Korpel & De Moor 1998, 207, note 11.
96
Spykerboer 1976; Holter 1995; Blenkinsopp 2002, 263-270.
 the silent god 255

images of wood and stone are dumb – whoever thinks to hear

them say something is deluding himself with lies (Hab. 2:18-19).
Manmade idols do have a mouth, but they are unable to speak,
no sound comes from their throat (Isa. 41:28; Jer. 10:5; Ps. 115:5,
7; 135:15-17).
In view of this fierce polemic against the representation of
deities by other nations it is understandable that there remained
little room for the concept of divine silence because of incapacity
in the Hebrew Bible. Yet the circumstance that God sometimes
seems to suffer when he must keep silent (cf. Section 7.8) indicates
that the motif is not entirely absent in the Hebrew tradition.

6.2.1.5 Divine Silence Because of Sleep

6.2.1.5a In the Ancient Near East
In the Sumerian composition Lugalbanda in the Wilderness, prob-
ably dating from the third millennium bce, it is seen as quite
normal that the sun god Utu goes to bed just like mankind,

Utu, shepherd of the land, father of the black-headed,97 when you

go to sleep, the people go to sleep with you; youth Utu, when you
rise, the people rise with you.98

Apparently gods needed sleep just like human beings.99 As we

have seen earlier, the Ancients sometimes drew explicit parallels
between human and divine sleep.100 In the Sumerian myth of Enki
and Ninmah it is the wise creator god Enki who is unwilling to
rise from his˘ bed when all other deities rebel against him because
he has obliged them to toil for their own sustenance. Only when
his mother Nammu suggests that he create mankind to take over
their toil he does rise reluctantly from his sleep.101 A similar
reluctance to abandon sleep is attested in a later Babylonian epic
about the redoubtable god Erra (Erra I.15-20).
97
Inhabitants of Sumer.
98
Translation Black et al. 2004, 17.
99
With regard to Mesopotamia, see Guinan 2009, 196, 201.
100
Sections 3.2.5.1 and 4.5.5.
101
Cf. Klein, CoS, vol. 1, 516-517. See also Batto 1987; Mrozek & Votto
1999.
256 chapter six

According to several Mesopotamian myths the gods could not

sleep because of the noise other creatures made.102 The goddess
Ishtar could not sleep because of the destruction of her city.103
In early Greek mythology remarkably similar ideas are found.
It is often told that also the Greek deities were sleeping just like
human beings (e.g. Iliad XXIV.677-678).
In a metaphorical sense the sleep of death silences even di-
vine visitors of the Nether World. Stillness is a characteristic of
the world of the dead.104 Even the goddess Inanna has to obey
to the law of silence of the Nether World. After having shouted
aggressively at the entrance of the realm of the dead, she is ad-
monished, ‘Be silent, Inanna, a divine power of the Nether World
has been fulfilled. Inanna, you must not open your mouth against
the rules of the Nether World.’105 Also according to the Egyp-
tians silence reigned in the Nether World, the realm of Osiris,
‘the Lord of Silence’.106 The Book of the Dead 125, 175 calls the
Nether World ‘the Land of Silence’.107 When the Canaanite god
Ba,lu is instructed to descend into the Nether World he is fore-
warned ‘and you will experience dumbness/weakness as in the
state of death’.108
Also the gods of Canaan needed their sleep.109 According to
a Canaanite myth preserved in an Egyptian version the goddess

102
Cf. Section 6.2.1.1a.
103
CAD (S.) 67b.
104
Cf. Gilg. Ep. VII.192 (Gilgamesh, Enkidu and the Nether World, A.184;
George 2003, vol. 1, 644-5); KAR 1:8 (Borger 1979, 96, Ass. Vs. 8).
105
Cf. Seux 1976, 243; Römer, TUAT, Bd. 3, 470-471.
106
Brunner-Traut 1979, 198-199; Frandsen 1998; Shupak, 1993, 159; Shupak,
CoS, vol. 1, 100.
107
Ritner, CoS, vol. 1, 28; vol. 2, 62. See also the Great Cairo Hymn of
Praise to Amun-Re, Ritner, CoS, vol. 1, 39. And in a Harper Song, cf. Foster
1995, 160; Assmann, TUAT, Bd. 2, 907; Ritner, CoS, vol. 2, 65. Also the
dead who are identified with Osiris are sometimes called ‘Lords of Silence’,
Shupak, CoS, vol. 1, 105.
108
KTU 1.5:V.16-17. The translation ‘dumbness’ rests on the reading -il m
which cannot be rendered ‘the gods’ here because mtt can hardly be the 2 sg.
masc. perfect of mwt which would require mt = *mattā. However, the tablet
is damaged at this point and the reading -il l ‘weakness’ is equally possible.
109
Cf. Korpel 1990, 208-211.
 the silent god 257

,Athtartu once was said to be asleep.110 During a banquet the

old creator god Ilu falls asleep as a result of excessive drinking.
Although it is not expressly stated that he is sleeping, the cir-
cumstance that he is said to awake would seem to imply that he
was either unconscious or asleep (KTU 1.114:28). Elijah mocks
the prophets of Baal because their god might not answer them
because he is asleep (1 Kgs 18:27).
That the Ugaritic deities could dream may be seen as a further
indication that they were supposed to sleep at certain times. The
god Ilu gets a dream in which he sees the heavens raining oil
and the wadis running with honey (KTU 1.6:III.10f.) Another
indication that the gods needed their rest is the circumstance that
they possessed beds. The goddess Pidrayu was provided with a
bed made with the sheets of the king (KTU 1.132:25-26).
From the viewpoint of human beings the sleep of deities was
menacing. Without mentioning him directly, the Egyptian pess-
imist Ipuwer assumes that the creator god might be asleep instead
of faithfully herding his people,

One says: ‘He is the shepherd of everyone.

There is no evil in his heart’.
(But) his herd is lacking, even though he has spent the day caring
for them . . .
There is no pilot on duty.
Where is he today?
Is he perhaps asleep? Look, the wrath thereof cannot be seen!
When we have been saddened, I could not find you;
No one can call on you . . . 111

The full impact of this criticism becomes clear if we know that

Amun-Re was praised as the good Shepherd who is constantly
110
Ritner, CoS, vol. 1, 35.
111
Ipuwer 12.1-5, translation Enmarch 2008, 235. The sole surviving manu-
script of The Admonitions of Ipuwer dates from the 12th century bce, but it
is generally supposed that the original composition goes back to the Second
Intermediate Period (c. 1850-1600), a time of upheaval and decline in ancient
Egypt.
It does not make a big difference if the creator god is some manifestation
of (Amun)-Re or the king in his role as the creator’s mediator on earth. Cf.
Enmarch 2008, 30-31.
258 chapter six

looking after the herd of the living, the untiring watcher who
never sleeps.112
However, the sleep of deities might be deceptive. Gods could
pretend to be asleep, just like human beings (Guinan 2009, 200-
201). Of the Babylonian god Nergal it is said, ‘he is awake even
when he seems asleep’,113 and the Egyptian supreme god Amun–
Re is said to sleep never,

Sole-one awake – for you detest slumber –

everyone sleeps, yet your eyes are alert. . . 114

However, yet another hymn to the same god states, ‘Day itself
passes and you go to rest’.115 In Pyramid Text 573 the king prays,

Awake in peace, O Rê, pure one, in peace.

Awake in peace, O Eastern Horus, in peace.
Awake in peace, O Soul of the East, in peace.
Awake in peace, O Horus of the Horizon, in peace.
Sleep in the Night Bark,
wake in the Day Bark,
For you are the one who watches over the gods,
and there is no god to watch over you.116

Such texts seem to indicate that people realized that talking

about the sleep of deities was inadequate because divine sleep
did not preclude simultaneous awareness.

6.2.1.5b Divine Silence Because of Sleep in the Bible

A few times the Hebrew Bible seems to suggest that the God
of Israel too needed sleep.117 This is the case implicitly in Ps.
35:23 where God is implored to awake to vindicate the supplic-
ant118 and explicitly in Ps. 44:24[23], where God is asked why
112
References De Moor 1997, 49-50.
113
CAD (S.), 68a.
114
Translation Foster 1995, 71.
115
Translation Foster 1995, 56. See also pp. 41, 46.
116
Translation Foster 1995, 31.
117
See Batto 1987; McAlpine 1987; Emmendörffer 1998, 118-119; Mrozek &
Votto 1999.
118
See also Ps. 7:7; 59:6; 78:65.
 the silent god 259

he is sleeping while his people is suffering. The poet accuses God

of rejecting his people (v. 10[9]), handing them over to the en-
emies (v.12[11]), and even selling them for a ridiculous price (v.
13[12]). This evokes phrases from other biblical texts using the
same metaphor of God as a seller of his people.119 However, in
all those cases he ‘sold’ his people because of their sins, whereas
according to the poet of Psalm 44 they are innocent and pious
(vv. 18-22[17-21]).
In Isa. 51:9 God, or more specifically his strong arm, is prayed
to wake up (cf. Ps. 44:24[23]) as in the days of old (cf. Ps. 44:2[1]),
and the speaker reminds God of his deliverance of his people Israel
in Egypt, when he made a road in the depths of the sea so that
they were able to cross over, and he asks for a repetition of these
wondrous acts of the past. The same argument is used in Ps. 44:2-
4[1-3]. In Ps. 44:25[24] the Psalmist complains that God hides his
face. In Isa. 40:27 the prophet seems to quote this complaint,
asking his audience why they say that God has hidden himself
for them. In Isa. 54:8 God admits that for a moment he hid his
face from his people, but that with everlasting kindness (cf. Ps.
44:27) he will have compassion for them.
However, the poet’s reproach that God is asleep (Ps. 44:24[23])
is merely provocative language of the supplicant. The context in-
dicates that he expects God to be wide awake, hearing his prayer
loud and clear.120
Actually the Israelite knows that his vigilant Keeper will nei-
ther slumber nor sleep. The supplicant of Ps. 121 lifts his eyes up
to the mountains and asks, ‘where does my help come from?’ (Ps.
121:1). Several scholars take the mountains as a menace, he would
become afraid when looking at them,121 but it is far more likely
that ‘the mountains’ are a designation of the places from where he
expects God’s help to come,122 as is suggested by his own answer
in v. 2 with which v. 1 forms a strophe structurally. In his view
119
Deut. 32:20; Judg. 10:7; 1 Sam. 12:9; Isa. 50:1; 52:3; Est. 7:4.
120
McAlpine 1987, 196-197 points out that the net effect of this contextual
evidence is to shift the language from a literal to a metaphorical level.
121
E.g. Kraus 1978, 1013; Terrien 2003, 811; Becking 2008, 47. Seybold 1996,
478, even thinks of an accident in the mountains.
122
Goldingay 2008, 456-457; Hossfeld & Zenger 2008, 436.
260 chapter six

the mountains belong to God’s work of creation and do not have

to be feared by man. This in contrast to the view of surrounding
nations who deified mountains.123 Whereas the mountains seem
asleep, Israel’s Protector never sleeps.124 If it takes some time
before he intervenes, it is not because he is really asleep, but
because it seems as if he is sleeping.
In Ps. 78:65 the poet uses daring similes,125 ‘Then the Lord
awoke like a sleeper, like a hero brawling because of wine’. But this
is nothing more than a simile which the poet uses to bring home
his message that God could no longer bear the dumbfounded
silence of young girls and widows whose dearest and priests he
himself had allowed to be silenced for ever (cf. Ps. 78:63-64).
Yet in this case too it may be surmised that the difference
between Israel and its neighbors was less pronounced than it may
seem, on the one hand because outside Israel too there was an
awareness of the incomparability of divine and human sleep, on
the other hand because the Hebrew Bible does not shrink back
from the idea that God might need what human beings call ‘rest’
or ‘sleep’. After six days of creation work God rests on the sev-
enth day (Exod. 20:11). In Gen. 2:2-3 the very anthropomorphic
verb ‘rest’ is replaced by the less offensive ‘to stop working’. It
is noteworthy that the first verb is a general term which occurs
frequently with human beings as its subject, but also with in-
sects.126 In Exod. 31:17 ‘to stop’ is elucidated by a verb implying
that God took a break to feel refreshed. That this anthropo-
morphism127 was left intact is doubtlessly caused by the desire
to preserve the symmetry between the resting of God and man
(Exod. 31:15; cf. 23:12).
123
Korpel 1990, 578-579; Haas 1994, 461-464. Becking 2008, 49, and others,
reject the idea that vv. 3-4 form a deliberate contrast to pagan deities who
rise and die with the seasons, because of the fact that the verbs used here are
not the same as those in the texts describing the rising and dying of gods.
124
Ps. 121:3-4. When it is suggested here that eventually he might sleep,
it means that ‘he gives the impression of being asleep’ because he remains
inattentive to the prayers of his people (Dahood 1965, 268).
125
In this case too some scholars suppose a relation with the concept of the
sleeping deity in the texts of Ugarit, cf. Kraus 1978, 711; Tate 1990, 294.
126
Cf. Exod. 23:14; Deut. 5:14 (man); Exod. 10:14 (locusts).
127
Cf. 2 Sam. 16:14.
 the silent god 261

The correspondence between divine silence and human silence

because of sleep has as a consequence that it is not sufficient for
Zion to urge the Lord to wake up (Isa. 51:9, cf. 52:10), Lady
Zion herself must awake too, shake off her chains and restore her
own strength (Isa. 51:17; 52:1-2).128

6.2.2 Incomprehensible Divine Silence

6.2.2.1 In the Ancient Near East
People were not always able to fathom a reason for the silence
of their gods. In such cases they find silence on the part of the
deity particularly difficult to accept because they cannot under-
take measures to placate the gods. Given the unpredictable way
the gods are wielding their awesome power, their silence may even
forebode the total destruction of the human race.
Above we quoted some lines from the Egyptian Admonitions
of Ipuwer expressing concern about unanswered prayers,

When we have been saddened, I could not find you;

No one can call on you . . .

Ipuwer is wondering if the god might be asleep, but he realizes

that this is no more than a hypothesis.
Fear of silence from the side of the deities is also at the back-
ground of Mesopotamian prayers. Praying without receiving an
answer is experienced as utterly vexing. In a Sumerian incanta-
tion of the second millennium bce a supplicant prays,

How long shall you remain silent?

What keeps you quiet?129

A Babylonian supplicant complains,

Speaking, but not being heard, has kept me awake,

calling out, but not being answered, has vexed me,
128
See also Isa. 52:7-9 and 40:9, with the remarks by Korpel & De Moor
1998, 542-543.
129
Cohen 1988, vol. 1, 416.
262 chapter six

has drained my strength (?) from my heart,

has bowed me down like an old man.130

Another supplicant prays,

Bring about speaking and granting of [my prayer].131

Apparently these supplicants expected a spoken answer from the

deities or their representatives. Such an answer is spoken by a
prophet to reassure the Assyrian king Esarhaddon who reigned
from 681-669 bce,

Fear not, Esarhaddon! I am Bel,132 I speak to you! I watch over

the supporting beams of your heart. When your mother gave
birth to you, sixty Great Gods stood there with me, protecting
you. Sı̂n133 stood at your right side, Šamaš134 at your left. Sixty
Great Gods are still standing around you; they have girded your
loins.
Do not trust in humans! Lift up your eyes and focus on me! I
am Ištar of Arbela.135 I have reconciled Aššur to you. I protected
you when you were a baby. Fear not; praise me!
Is there an enemy that has attacked you, while I have kept
silent? The future shall be like the past! I am Nabû, the Lord of
the Stylus.136 Praise me!

By the mouth of the woman Bayâ, a man from Arbela.137

130
Ebeling 1953, 72-73; Seux 1976, 169-170 (English translation ours). For
similar passages see Ebeling 1953, 114-115; Seux 1976, 313; CAD (Š) 2, 149a.
131
Ebeling 1953, 84-85, cf. CAD (M) 2, 38-39. See also Ebeling 1953, 106-
107.
132
Bel means ‘Lord’ and is a title of the Babylonian creator god Marduk
which was taken over by the national god of Assyria Assur.
133
Moon god.
134
Sun god.
135
Ishtar was the goddess of love and war who was the patroness of prophets
in Arbela, an important Assyrian city. Her gender was androgynous (she is
Bel but at the same time Ishtar), as seems to have been the case with the
female/male prophetess who speaks in her name.
136
As the epithet indicates, Nabû was the patron of scribes. It was he who
wrote the tablets of fate and thus determined the future.
137
Translation Nissinen 2003, 105, explanatory notes ours.
 the silent god 263

The text clearly suggests that the goddess (who is identified with
other great gods) will not remain silent when the king is attacked.
She reassures him by invoking the salutary acts of the gods in
the past, from Esarhaddon’s birth on. The future will not be
different.138
It was seen as a terrible curse to ask the gods not to listen to
someone’s prayers. On a Babylonian boundary stone the owner
tried to prevent people to remove it by praying,

May Shamash139 and Marduk140 not listen to him when he in-

vokes them.141

The evil god Erra asks Marduk not to answer the prayers of
the inhabitants of Mesopotamia when he starts devastating the
country.142
Gilgamesh bewails the loss of his friend Enkidu before mighty
gods like Enlil, Sin and Nergal, but they do not answer him at
all.143 However, the story also indicates that persistent prayer
may be successful, because when Gilgamesh repeats his lament
before the wise god Ea, the latter relents and grants him his wish
to meet the spirit of his dead friend once more, if only to describe
the horrors of the Nether World to him.144
Spurning of their prayers by the deities is also the complaint
of Babylonian righteous sufferers. In Ludlul bēl nēmeqi, a poem
composed at the end of the second millennium bce, the protag-
onist wails,

I called to my god, but he did not show his face,

I prayed to my goddess, but she did not raise her head.145

The sufferer continues with a long list of all his pious acts and
affirms emphatically,
138
For a similar prophecy see Nissinen 2003, 110-111.
139
Sun-god.
140
Creator and head of the pantheon.
141
King 1912, No. V, iii.42-44 (p. 29). See also Maqlû I.56-60.
142
Erra II, Fragment C, 23 (Cagni 1972, 40).
143
Gilg. Ep. XII.55-71, George 2003, vol. 1, 730-733.
144
Gilg. Ep. XII.73-153, George 2003, vol. 1, 732-735.
145
Ludlul II.4-5, translation Lambert 1960, 39.
264 chapter six

For myself, I gave attention to supplication and prayer:

To me prayer was discretion, sacrifice my rule.146

So he contrasts the behavior of the deities with his own piety and
concludes that divine reasoning is beyond human comprehension,

What is proper to oneself is an offence to one’s god.

What in one’s own heart seems despicable
is proper to one’s god.
Who knows the will of the gods in heaven?
Who understands the plans of the underworld gods?
Where have mortals learnt the way of a god?147

Earlier this pessimistic sage has stated that in his case all spe-
cialists (diviner, dream priest, spirit, incantation priest) failed to
obtain an answer to his complaints from the gods (Ludlul II.6-9).
Later on, however, Marduk sends him several dreams promising
him deliverance from his afflictions, sometimes addressing him
personally.148
Also in the famous Babylonian Theodicy, possibly dating from
c. 1100 bce,149 the sufferer expresses total incomprehension,

Those who neglect the god

go the way of prosperity,
While those who pray to the goddess
are impoverished and dispossessed.
In my youth I sought the will of my god;
With prosternation and prayer I followed my goddess.
But I was bearing a profitless corvée as a yoke.
My god decreed instead of wealth destitution.150

Evidently this man has given up on his god, ‘I will ignore my

god’s regulations and trample on his rites.’151
146
Ludlul II.23-24, translation Lambert 1960, 39.
147
Ludlul II.34-38, translation Lambert 1960, 41. See also the proverb quoted
by Lambert 1960, 266.
148
Ludlul III, Lambert 1960, 47-52.
149
Van der Toorn 2003, 65-69.
150
Babylonian Theodicy, 70-75, translation Lambert 1960, 75-77.
151
Babylonian Theodicy, 135, translation Lambert 1960, 79.
 the silent god 265

In the moving Plague Prayers of the Hittite king Mursili II

silence on the part of the deities is not mentioned explicitly, but
is clearly supposed. ‘O gods, my lords, you have turned your back
on mankind’ (Singer 2002, 65; Sanders 2007, 198). ‘That deity has
turned aside his eyes elsewhere and does not permit the human
to act’ (Singer 2002, 37). ‘My father repeatedly inquired through
the oracles, but he did not find you, O gods, my lords, through the
oracles. I have also repeatedly inquired of you through oracle, but
I have not found you, O gods, my lords, through oracle.’ (Singer
2002, 65).

6.2.2.2 Incomprehensible Divine Silence in the Bible

Jacob wrestles a whole night with an unknown man. Neither man
says a word. Until day breaks and the stranger asks Jacob to let
him go. Meanwhile Jacob has realized that his attacker must have
been God. He refuses to let him go unless he receives a blessing
(Gen. 32:22-32).152 Wrestling with God in the night and refusing
to give up can end in a blessing.
In Ps. 91:15, a prophetic oracle of salvation for the king,153
God promises to answer the ruler when he calls to him,

When he calls me, I will answer him;

I am with him in distress,
I will deliver him and bring him honor.

Despite the affirmative tone of this oracle, a divine answer was

not an automatism. It did occur that a king tried to learn the will
of God, but was refused an answer. This is the case for example
in 1 Sam. 14:37, ‘Saul inquired of God, “Shall I go down after the
Philistines? Will you give them into the hand of Israel?” But he
did not answer him that day.’ Apparently Saul waited a whole
day for an answer, but finally concluded that there was no reply
because someone, perhaps even his own son Jonathan, had com-
mitted a sin against the Lord. But even though all people knew
that Jonathan unwittingly had violated his father’s oath (1 Sam.
152
For a Ugaritic parallel of a human being detaining deities until they bless
him see KTU 1.15:II.13-16, with De Moor 1997, 92-93.
153
Hilber 2005, 203-208.
266 chapter six

14:24-30, 38-39), nobody dared to reply to Saul’s outburst (1 Sam.

14:39). Indeed, who was the guilty party? Saul who pronounced
a rash vow, or Jonathan who was a victim of ignorance? Eventu-
ally the divine oracle pronounces Jonathan guilty, but the people
indignantly refuse to have him executed (1 Sam. 14:40-45).
This short story raises several questions. Why did God refuse
to answer Saul first, but soon afterwards does instruct his oracle
to convict the innocent Jonathan? The reader experiences this
as blatant injustice and feels relieved when the people did not
accept God’s decision and Saul’s acceptance of their disobedience.
Apparently it is not always the best way to meekly accept God’s
decision. God does not rebuke the people for this, but leaves room
for the sometimes rebellious free will of human beings.
A somewhat similar episode occurs in 1 Sam. 28:6.154 In v. 3
the narrator has related that the prophet Samuel had died and
that Saul had removed the mediums and wizards out of the
land.155 So when God did not answer Saul’s request whether or
not he should do battle with the redoubtable Philistines, Saul
had to decide for himself what he should do. Through an ‘illegal’
medium in the town of Endor he consults the spirit of Samuel, re-
peating that God refused to answer him, either by prophets or by
dreams (v. 15). Referring to an earlier prophecy (1 Sam. 15:28-29;
cf. 16:1), Samuel points out that God had rejected Saul as king
and that for that reason the latter should have known better than
asking him, Samuel, for an oracle (1 Sam. 28:16-19). Even Saul’s
atonement and Samuel’s acceptance of his repentance in 1 Sam.
15:30-31 had not altered God’s negative judgment.
This story seems to imply that there is also a possibility to
misuse human freedom. One may well ask if God would not have
relented if Saul had remained true to his initial decision not to
allow consultation of a medium. Perhaps Saul should have shown
more patience and trust.
In many Hebrew laments the supplicant expresses his incom-
prehension by the interrogative ‘why?’156 A classical example is
154
The narrative similarity was discussed by Craig 1994.
155
There is insufficient reason to regard the verse as a later editorial addition,
cf. Stoebe 1973, 489.
156
See for example Jer. 14:8-9; 20:18; Joel 2:17; Ps. 10:1; 42:10[9]; 43:2;
 the silent god 267

Ps. 22:2-3[1-2],

My God, my God, why did you abandon me?

far removed from my salvation, the words of my outcry?
My God, I am crying by day, but you do not answer,
and by night, when I do not allow myself silence.157

The singer deplores that God has abandoned him, keeping his
distance in order not to be obliged to come to the rescue of the
supplicant who is crying out by day, but does not receive an
answer (v. 3a[2a]). Even by night he does not allow himself to
become silent (v. 3b[2b]). If God refuses to answer, the supplicant
sacrifices his rest to implore him even at night (Ps. 22:1-3[0-2]).
If God remains silent, the supplicant will not allow himself to
keep silent too, even though his tongue is glued to his palate (v.
16[15]).
There had been happier days, when God saved previous gener-
ations who cried to him (vv. 5-6[4-5]), so that they had reason to
praise him (v. 4[3]). Therefore he asks God not to remain distant
(vv. 12[11], 20[19]). The supplicant’s determination not to keep
silent but continue his prayer for deliverance seems to be rewar-
ded. The prayer ends with the joyful, but rather abrupt exclam-
ation: ‘You have answered me!’ (v. 22aB), followed by abundant
thanksgiving.158 It seems logical to suppose that in the silence
that fell after the lament a priest or cultic prophet spoke an or-
acle of salvation. Others see ‘You have answered me!’ as a later
addition meant to explain the sudden transition from prayer to
hymn. Still others regard the entire hymnic part of the Psalm
(vv. 23-32[22-31]) as a later addition, perhaps by the Psalmist
himself.
All this is possible, yet none of these solutions is entirely sat-
isfactory. The Psalm is a well-composed whole (Van der Lugt
2006, 239-249) which renders the supposition of a later addition
44:23-24; Lam. 5:20.
157
According to Mt. 27:46; Mk 15:34 Jesus quoted this verse on the cross.
158
The text is not entirely certain. The Septuagint has a different reading
which is favored by Villanueva 2008, 81-89. However, as Ridderbos 1972, 191,
has seen, the inclusion between v. 3 ‘you do not answer’ and v. 22 ‘you have
answered me!’ argues strongly in favor of maintaining the Hebrew text.
268 chapter six

less likely. Despite his disappointment in his God the supplicant

continues to put his trust in him: ‘from my mother’s womb on
you are my God’ (v. 10[9]). Therefore it cannot be excluded that
a sudden inner conviction broke through that God had answered
him. Just as he declares later on that God ‘has done it’ (v. 32[31]),
although a promise of deliverance is not the same as its fulfillment.
We have to reckon with the possibility of a proleptic, anticipatory
use of the perfect in the Psalms.
People lament about the incomprehensibility of God’s refusal
to speak through signs and prophets when his people is in utter
distress. He even allows its enemies to put up their own signs in
the place where his congregation used to gather (Ps. 74:4, 9). In
this Psalm there is no trace of any awareness of guilt on the part
of the people, as Michael Emmendörffer observes,

Between shepherd and sheep there exists a relationship of pro-

tection and trust. Yhwh has revoked this. However, Psalm 74
does not provide information about the reason for this decision.
Guilt and sin on the part of the congregation or their fathers do
not come under consideration, seem to be excluded. The acting
of the enemies can only be understood as expression of divine
wrath. But the ground for the wrath remains elusive.159

The supplicant does not resign to God’s silence and adamantly

refuses to keep silent himself. This is a recurrent pattern of reci-
procity. The poet of Ps. 35 describes himself as one of the ‘quiet
ones in the country’ (v. 20). He is treated badly by his enemies
(vv. 1-21) who rejoice about his downfall (v. 24). He anticipates
God’s help, promising that he will thank and praise God in the
congregation (vv. 9-10, 18, 28). So, just as in other Psalms, God
is prayed to rescue the supplicant who promises to praise God
afterwards. The poet suggests a so-called win-win situation, both
God and the supplicant will benefit from God’s active interven-
tion. This is a very frequent type of argument in ancient oriental
supplications.
In spite of his sympathizers the poet feels himself alone, since
God does not answer his prayers (Ps. 35:13). God keeps silent
159
Our translation. German original: Emmendörffer 1998, 85.
 the silent god 269

and seems remote (v. 22), or is even sleeping (v. 23), although
the poet is convinced that God has seen (v. 22) how he is treated
by his enemies. In the supplicant’s opinion God sees, but does
not act, so he assumes that God knowingly remains inactive. Out
of compassion with his enemies the supplicant himself has worn
sackcloth, has fasted, has prayed with his head bowed on his
bosom, i.e. silently (v. 13). Just as a man laments over a friend,
a brother or a mother, so he prayed (v. 14). Thus he adopted the
well-known attitude of a mourner expressing hope for mercy on
the part of God.160 What this supplicant wishes is that God will
break the silence (v. 22) and will say to him, ‘I am your salvation’
(Ps. 35:3b).
As in this Psalm, supplicants often beg God to reply to their
prayer.161 They cannot endure his silence,
O God, do not keep silence;
do not remain quiet
and do not be still, O God! (Ps. 83:2[1])

Be not silent, O God of my praise! (Ps. 109:1)

The latter Psalmist contrasts God’s silence with the hateful words
of his opponents (vv. 2-3, 20, 25) and quotes their false accusa-
tions at length (vv. 6-19).162 He represents himself as the per-
sonification of pious prayer (v. 4) and promises to praise God
abundantly if he vindicates him (v. 30).
Another example of the inability of supplicants to resign to
God’s silence is found in Ps. 28,
To you, O Lord, I call,
my Rock, do not remain silent,
lest, if you keep silent to me,
I become like those who go down into the Pit (Ps. 28:1).

The argument is very clever. By using God’s honorary epithet

‘Rock’163 the Psalmist evokes the equally frequent denunciation
160
Cf. 2 Sam. 12:16, 21, 22; Joel 2:12-16; Jonah 3:5, 9, contrast Est. 4:3, 16.
161
E.g. Ps. 39:13[12]; 55:2[1] (cf. Section 4.5.1.2).
162
Cf. e.g. Seybold 1996, 434-435; Goldingay 2008, 279-280.
163
A well-known biblical metaphor, cf. Korpel 1990, 579, 584-585; Ryken et
al. 1998, 732-733.
270 chapter six

of idols of stone that cannot speak (cf. Section 6.2.1.4b). And by

hinting at the possibility that he will die he reminds God of the
fact that the inhabitants of the Nether World remain eternally
silent and do not praise him anymore (cf. Section 3.2.5.2). The
Psalmist meets God’s silence with persistent loud supplication (v.
2) and pleads his innocence in contrast to the wicked (vv. 3-5).
In the hymnic thanksgiving (v. 6) he refers back explicitly to his
loud supplication and affirms that he has been successful: God
has heard him.
In this and other cases an oracle of salvation might have been
pronounced by a priest or a prophet164 promising concrete help
in the name of God. If Ps. 28 is a royal Psalm (cf. v. 8) and v.
9 is part of it, a rather general wording of such oracles may be
supposed.165 In other cases it is evident that a spoken answer is
not what is asked for, but rather a delivering act of God (Ps. 55:3,
10-24).
It has often been maintained that in Ps. 28:5 a different person
pronounces an oracle that would be the answer to the preceding
laments. However, Van der Lugt’s careful structural analysis of
the Psalm has revealed that vv. 4-5 cannot be separated from
each other.166
This renders a break after v. 4 very unlikely. It is the same per-
son who asks God to repay the godless their evil acts in vv. 4-5a
and who announces their downfall in v. 5b.167 ‘Rock’ is a charac-
teristic divine epithet in Psalms that were ascribed to David.168
Since Ps. 28 too is a ‘Davidic’ Psalm (v. 1) it is possible that in
using this divine epithet the late169 author may have wanted to
164
Cf. Section 5.2.2.1-2.
165
A fairly convincing example of this type of oracle is found in Ps. 60:7-
10[6-9] = 108:7-10[6-9], cf. Hilber 2005, 192-202. However, others regard Ps.
28:8-9 as a later appendage. Cf. Hossfeld & Zenger 1993, 176.
166
Van der Lugt 2006, 288-293; similarly Seybold 2003, 116-117.
167
Note especially the impressive parallelism between ‘their deeds’ (v. 4aA),
‘the work of their hands’ (v. 4aC) and ‘the Lord’s deeds’ (v. 5aA), ‘the work
of his hands’ (v. 5aB).
168
Ps. 18:3, 32, 47 (= 2 Sam. 22:3, 32, 47); 19:15; 31:3; 62:3, 7-8; 71:3; 89:27;
144:1.
169
V. 5b strongly recalls Jeremiah’s frequent parallel use of ‘to tear down’
and ‘to build up’.
 the silent god 271

hint at David’s last words in 2 Sam. 23:2-3, ‘The Spirit of the

Lord speaks by me, his word is upon my tongue. The God of
Israel has spoken, the Rock of Israel has said to me . . . ’.170
So there is no need for a priest or a prophet as an intermediary.
According to these Psalmists God spoke directly to David (cf.
e.g. 2 Sam. 7) and his successors171 and so the Davidic king they
envisaged was endowed with the gift to hear the word of God172
and was entitled to pass God’s message on to his subjects (cf.
Ps. 40:7-11). In a sense this endowed ‘David’ with the gift of
‘prophecy’, just as his predecessor Saul was thought to be among
the divinely inspired prophets (1 Sam. 10:11-12; 18:10; 19:24).
Does this make the singer of Psalm 28 a prophet then? Cer-
tainly not, otherwise he would have passed on the oracle of salva-
tion he heard and would not have ended his Psalm with a further
request (v. 9). For our present investigation it is important to note
that while the supplicant is still praying, the conviction grows in
his heart that he ‘hears’ the voice of the ‘silent’ God promising
him that He will punish his wicked opponents. This is the reason
for his praise in v. 6, because he is convinced now that God did
not remain silent, but did indeed listen to his passionate prayer.
This certainty is reached not through hearing an external voice,
but through an internal process that takes place while the sup-
plicant is praying. Samuel Terrien aptly observes with regard to
God’s answering in v. 6 that ‘deliverance has not yet taken place,
but the certitude of its coming is so complete that the future
itself is absorbed within the present’ (Terrien 2003, 272). This
is in accordance with what John Day writes about such sudden
changes of mood in individual lament Psalms,

170
Just as in Ps. 28:8, ‘anointed’ is used in 2 Sam. 23:1. See also Ps. 18:51;
89:39, 52.
171
It was a common element in ancient oriental royal ideology that occa-
sionally deities communicated directly with their chosen kings. See Section
5.1.
172
Also in other ‘Davidic’ Psalms the expectation is that God will certainly
not fail to answer him or has already done so, cf. Ps. 3:5; 6:9-10; 13:4, cf.
6; 17:6; 20:2, 7, 10; 22:3, 22; 27:7; 34:5; 38:16; 55:3; 60:7; 65:6; 69:14, 17-18;
86:1, 7; 108:7; 138:3; 143:1, 7. Note also the use of ‘oracle of the Lord’, in
Ps. 110:1 which renders this Psalm a prophetic oracle, cf. Hilber 2005, 76-88.
272 chapter six

It is more likely that the change of mood is to be explained by

some inner psychological process in which the psalmist was able
to look forward, anticipating the desired deliverance. This explan-
ation gains support from the fact observed by students of prayer
that it is not uncommon for those who pray to find that feelings
of doubt and despair eventually give rise to feelings of confidence
and assurance.173
A similar case is Ps. 13. The supplicant is afraid that God will
forget him forever and will hide his face from him (v. 2[1]). ‘Hid-
ing the face from someone’ was an expression of disgust, mostly
because of offenses. It comes close to remaining silent (Job 34:29).
That is presupposed here too, because the Psalmist asks God to
look at him again and answer him (v. 4aA[3aA]). In v. 4aB[3aB]
he explicitly asks God to lighten his eyes, otherwise he will fall
into the sleep of death. This renders it very likely that the con-
fident statement that God has been good to him (v. 6) was based
on an inner conviction, not on an oracle of salvation.174
God might also choose to reply to a personal complaint of a
prophet. An example of this is found in the book of Habakkuk.
In Chapter 1 the prophet has complained about the injustice of
the wicked because of which the righteous have to suffer distress
(Hab. 1:4, 13a). He cannot understand why God remains silent
(1:13b) when the righteous have to suffer under the doom and
destruction that he as God’s messenger has to announce because
of the behavior of the wicked (1:5-11). Since the Lord is reliable,
it cannot be the case that the righteous will die in the judgment
destined for the wicked (1:12). Chapter 1 ends in a tormented
question from the side of the prophet who had been obliged to
announce this merciless warfare and destruction by the Babylo-
nian king: ‘Will he continue slaying nations for ever?’
This question remains unanswered and the tradition has mark-
ed this silence by wide spaces. Chapter 2 then starts with a mono-
logue of the prophet which is answered by a further instruction
of the Lord,
173
Day 2003, 32. He refers to Heiler 1997, 259-260.
174
Cf. Craigie 1983, 143, ‘the knowledge that deliverance was coming created
an anticipatory calm and sense of confidence’ and Alter 2007, 39: ‘Perhaps
the prayer itself served as a vehicle of transformation from acute distress to
trust’; similarly Dahood 1965, 76; Janowski 2001; Terrien 2003, 160.
 the silent god 273

1
Let me stand at my watch,
and station myself on the ramparts,
I will look out to see what he will say to me,
and what I must answer175 to my complaint.
2
Then the Lord replied, saying:
Write down the vision, make it clear on boards,
so that the one who reads it may hurry away.
3
For the vision still awaits the appointed time,
but it pushes forward to the end, and does not lie.
If it seems to linger, wait for it,
for it will certainly come, and will not delay.
4
Look, he is puffed up, (he) whose soul within him is not right,
but a righteous man will live by his faith.

Apparently the prophet does not acquiesce in the silence that

follows his anguished question of 1:17. He awaits a vision in which
God will answer him so that he will know how to deal with his
own complaint. As in Ps. 38:15[14] and Job 23:4, the Hebrew
word which we translate here as ‘complaint’ is a forensic term,
indicating the plea of an innocent man before the judge. In all
three cases the speaker awaits an adequate answer. Since Hab.
2:4 forms a structural unit with 2:1-3,176 the puffed-up must be
the temporarily successful wicked, whereas the righteous who will
not die are the faithful servants of the Lord, among them the
prophet himself.
For our investigation it is important to note that here we
are allowed a glimpse into the psychological process involved in
the contact between a prophet and his God. When there was no
divine answer to his question the prophet positioned himself in
an ostensible attitude of waiting,177 silently demanding a reply.
175
Several ancient versions, modern translations and commentators betray
uneasiness with the first person singular, and many feel that they should
alter the text so that it reads ‘what he (God) will answer’. Often the Peshit.ta
is referred to as a witness supporting this emendation, but this version too
is merely removing the difficulty. The Septuagint and Theodotion clearly
support the first person singular and from viewpoint of textual criticism there
is insufficient reason to reject this more difficult reading and proceed to a
theologically more acceptable conjecture (cf. Haak 1992, 54).
176
This solution is favored by the Habakkuk pesher from Qumran and sev-
eral medieval Masoretic codices. Cf. Prinsloo 2009.
177
Cf. Ps. 130:5-6 where the supplicant waits tensely for a word of God.
274 chapter six

Which did come, apparently in the form of an inner enlightenment

– a narrow escape is still possible for the faithful.

6.3 Conclusions on Divine Silence

The chapter bearing the same title as this book itself inevitably
became relatively short because the evidence from the ancient
Near East for silence on the part of deities appeared to be as
meagre as it was in the case of the Bible (cf. Section 1.6.2). This
indicates once again that divine taciturnity was not a major issue
in the world of the Bible. The topical interest in the theme is a
product of modernity. Yet our broad approach has elucidated
many aspects of the involvement of man in the mediation of both
divine speech and silence. Remarkable differences between the
Bible and the literature of the nations surrounding ancient Israel
came to light in this chapter.
According to both ancient Near Eastern sources and the Bible
only the almighty Creator was able to break the primordial si-
lence. Before he spoke, stillness reigned everywhere according to
Egyptian theologians of the New Kingdom, Neo-Babylonian wis-
dom texts and much later Hebrew sages.
Even though they were deeply convinced of the Creator’s ab-
solute transcendence, they all assumed that he did listen to hu-
man complaints and would respond to their prayers. So they ven-
ted their deep disappointment if the remote deity remained silent.
This attitude owed them reprimands from those who were of the
opinion that God was completely free to ignore supplication. It is
questionable, however, if this fatalistic view was shared by Israel
as a whole. Neither Job, nor many Psalmists and prophets resign
to God’s silence because in the covenant God had willingly com-
mitted himself to answer the complaints of the righteous (Section
6.1).
We have divided the reasons for silence on the part of deities
in two categories: comprehensible and incomprehensible silence.
In the first category (Section 6.2.1) we found exactly the same
reasons that were adduced for silence on the part of human beings
before each other (Section 3.2) and before their gods (Section 4.5).
 the silent god 275

These silences were often expressed not in words, but by blank

spaces (cf. Section 2.3).
Silence because of offenses like making too much noise so that
the gods could not sleep is attested several times in Mesopotami-
an sources.
In Israel God refused to reply to prayers if the Israelites had
sinned against himself or against his representatives on earth. In
the post-exilic book of Third Isaiah the prophet admits that God
has had every right to react to Israel’s sins by remaining silent
when they begged him to respond to their lamentations. However,
they themselves refused to remain silent and in this way hoped
to break God’s silence.
It is noteworthy that God is left out from passages in the ca-
nonical version of the Hebrew Bible where grisly crimes are com-
mitted by human beings acting on their own. His silence should be
seen as disapproval, not as ‘working silently in the background’.
The eschatological silence in heaven mentioned in Rev. 8:1
precedes the execution of the divine wrath. It may be compared
to the menacing calm that preceded the unleashing of the Deluge
according to Babylonian myth.
Divine silence because of awe, fear or incapacity occurs fairly
often in documents from the ancient Near East. It is certainly re-
markable that this kind of silence is never attributed to God in the
Hebrew Bible. In polytheism the rise and fall of other deities was
a normal phenomenon which merely meant a (temporary) shift
in power from one deity to another. So fear, weakness and even
death, mostly temporary, did occur in the divine world, though
‘temporary’ might add up to millions of years, because divine time
differed radically from human time. Apparently silence because
of fear and weakness on the part of God has been avoided in the
Hebrew Bible as we have it now. On the contrary, Israel taunted
the gods and idols of other nations because of their incapacity to
answer the prayers of their worshippers.
Conversely, silence of the deity because of forbearance or pru-
dence seems to occur more often in the Bible than in the sur-
rounding world. Possibly this has to do with the concept of divine
grace that came more to the fore after the collapse of the mon-
276 chapter six

archy and the realization that this grave sanction on their sins
had been deserved and could not easily be undone. Sometimes
this kind of silence is not expressed in words, but by blank spaces
marking a rhetorical silence (cf. Section 2.3).
All deities from the ancient Near East, including the God of
Israel, were thought to be asleep sometimes. During such periods
they were not reacting to human prayers. However, here too it
must be realized that divine sleep is not the same as human sleep.
It is merely a human metaphor. While sleeping a deity might at
the same time be fully awake. The common metaphor of the sleep
of death, however, is never applied to the living God of Israel (cf.
Section 1.6.2.1).

From the viewpoint of man the alterity of the deity implied that
one could not always fathom the reasons why a divine answer
remained forthcoming. Cases of divine silence which vexed the
supplicant because he considered himself innocent were discussed
in Section 6.2.1. Both in and outside Israel the conviction existed
that persistent prayer of the righteous could break the silence of
the deity. The answer might eventually be mediated by an oracle
pronounced by a priest, prophet or diviner, but could also be the
result of a growing inner conviction that the deity agreed to what
the supplicant awaited so eagerly. In both cases the human and
the divine side of the revelatory process appear to be indivisible.

At the end of this chapter we may conclude that both in the Bible
and in its surrounding world people professed the incomparabil-
ity of God and man even though they spoke about the divine in
human metaphorical language. The consequence of the accept-
ance of the alterity of divine beings had as a consequence that
humans did not always understand why their gods did not react.
The remoteness of the Creator implied that he had been the first
to speak and could chose to remain silent even if his creatures
were in grave danger. The transcendence of God meant that the
composers of the canon of the Hebrew Bible had to exclude cer-
tain typical human reasons for keeping silent, especially awe or
fear, because such feelings might suggest that there existed other
redoutable divine powers. Also some other reasons for silence, like
 the silent god 277

incapacity or sleep, do not seem to have been not really applicable

to the God of Israel (in the following table indicated by: x?).

Silence of Deities Compared to Human Silence

Reasons ANE Bible ANE Bible ANE Bible
Humans Humans Humans Humans Gods God
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
Humans Humans Gods God All All
Offenses x x ∅? x x x
Awe / Fear x x x x x ∅
Forbearance /
Prudence x x x x x x
Incapacity x x x x x x?
Sleep x x x x x? x?
Incompre-
hensible x x
 chapter seven
epilogue
7.1 Faith Talk
On one of the first pages of his bestseller Yosl Rakover Talks to
God Zvi Kolitz quotes the following lines,

I believe in the sun, even when it doesn’t shine.

I believe in love, even when I don’t feel it.
I believe in God, even when He is silent.1

Allegedly these words were found on the wall of a cellar in Cologne

where some Jews had remained hidden during World War II.
The authenticity of the quote is disputed. A quick search on the
Internet reveals that others state that it is an Irish saying. Since
the whole book on Yosl Rakover rests on fiction, as Kolitz himself
admitted,2 it is possible that he picked it up from an Irishman
while serving in the British army during the war. However, a text
need not be authentic to contain truth. This is also true of many
texts from Antiquity, including the Bible. We permit ourselves a
few comments on it because it helps to understand the nature of
the problem dealt with in this study.
The first statement is far from cogent. The presence of the
sun can be established objectively by other means than visual
observation. In a strict sense, no belief is required. Yet the phrase
conveys an optimistic mood we all know. The weather may be
gloomy now, but sooner or later the sun is bound to break through
the clouds. This is a rational expectation based on common ex-
perience.
Belief in love is more difficult. Love can only partially be es-
tablished in an objective sense. Even if there are observable out-
ward signs of love, for example certain gestures, words, or the
presence of certain hormones, the meaning of such indicators has
been established by existing tradition and acquired knowledge.
Unfortunately, love can be feigned. Most people will admit that
1
Yiddish text and German transliteration: Kolitz 2008, 7. English trans-
lation: Carol Brown Janeway in: Kolitz 1999, v.
2
Cf. Paul Badde in: Kolitz 2008, 105-169.
280 chapter seven

‘love’ does not depend on sexual arousal alone, so a hormone test

would fail. And finally, ‘love’ is a fuzzy concept. Is ‘feeling’ it a
physical sensation? Some psychological event? An innate social
response? What do we mean when we say that we believe in love?
Yet, despite this lack of precision, ‘love’ is a phenomenon that to
some extent can be verified empirically, for example by the fact
that many people have experienced it in their own lives.3 But to
a far greater extent love has to be believed to be true.
According to most people in our age this is not the case with
God. He cannot be described adequately in human language. He
is not verifiable by experiments.4 Which God we mean has to be
established by context. Is he the God of the Hebrew Bible, the
Christian Bible, the Koran? Or the new theists’ Superior Mind
who designed the entire cosmos?
In this book a host of other deities from Antiquity has come
under review and many similarities with the God of Israel came
to the fore. Do we have to believe in all of them? On what ra-
tional grounds does a person expect an answer from the deity
to whom she or he turns? God cannot be ‘silent’ if he does not
‘speak’. He cannot ‘speak’ if He does not ‘exist’. Belief in a ‘si-
lent’ God presupposes at least the belief that he has spoken in
the past and might speak again. For those who coined the saying

3
Compare this statement: ‘Negative theology affirms that a direct insight
into mystery–for example, the mystery of love–is possible. This is a knowledge
derived from experience that is usually called ‘mysticism’, a knowledge that
cannot be logically proven, but only personally experienced.’ (Bulhof & Ten
Cate 2000, 6.) See also Marion 2010, 119-142.
4
Soares 2006 reports: ‘The three-year Study of the Therapeutic Effects
of Intercessory Prayer (STEP), published in the April 4 American Heart
Journal, was the largest-ever attempt to apply scientific methods to measure
the influence of prayer on the well-being of another. It examined 1,800 pa-
tients undergoing heart-bypass surgery. On the eve of the operations, church
groups began two weeks of praying for one set of patients. Each recipient had
a praying contingent of about 70, none of whom knew the patient personally.
The study found no differences in survival or complication rates compared
with those who did not receive prayers. The only statistically significant blip
appeared in a subgroup of patients who were prayed for and knew it. They
experienced a higher rate of postsurgical heart arrhythmias (59 versus 52 per-
cent of unaware subjects).’ Did the knowledge of being prayed for perhaps
heighten the apprehension in the latter group of patients?
 epilogue 281

‘I believe in God, even when He is silent’ this was a certainty for

which they needed no proof. It was the certainty of faith. Their
conviction that it was worthwhile to continue believing in him
rested on the testimony of countless generations of pious prede-
cessors. Admittedly this is not the same as scientific proof, but it
is useful to observe that also scientists work with hypotheses, as
Karen Armstrong remarks,
In science, as in theology, human beings could make progress on
unproven ideas, which worked practically even if they had not
been demonstrated empirically.5

7.2 God’s Word in Human Guise

Many people still believe that messages from God must at least be
delivered by angels to be true. In 2008 the museum Catharijne
Convent in Utrecht, The Netherlands, organized an exhibition
called Allemaal engelen (All angels). It was a huge success. The
public interest was so massive that the exhibition had to be pro-
longated far into 2009.6 In the end more than 66.000 people had
visited the exhibition. One of its nice features was a stand where
visitors could photograph themselves with wings and have their
pictures placed on the Internet. Thousands made use of this op-
portunity to pose as an angel, often adopting pious or hilarious
poses. In this way the designer of the exposition, Maarten Spruyt,
made clear that if we want, we all can be angels. Among the
paintings exposed some depicted angels as normal human beings.
Especially the narrative of Abraham’s three visitors in Gen. 18
gave rise to paintings in which the ‘angels’ lack wings, for example
by Lambert Jakobsz (1628) and Rembrandt van Rijn (1656). Ap-
parently people realized already long ago that messengers of God
can be normal human beings.
We have documented extensively our not too surprising con-
clusion that whenever deities in the ancient Near East, including
the God of Israel, are said to address human beings their word is
mediated, either by the hearers themselves or by other human be-
ings. This is even the case if a deity or a (semi-)divine messenger
5
Armstrong 2009, 267. See also 286.
6
Cf. http://www.codart.nl/exhibitions/details/1710.
282 chapter seven

(angel) is said to speak directly to human beings because it were

always reciters or scribes who were relating the divine speech.
What are the consequences of this observation?
First of all it means that if we expect God to speak but he
remains silent, we as human beings have to ask ourselves if he
expects us to speak for him ourselves. Some works we have dis-
cussed earlier have proposed similar views. For many people the
idea that there is no revelation without the intervention of man is
in no way disturbing. They trust the testimony of prophets and
biblical writers that they did not merely speak or write their own
words, but the word of God. For others the thoroughly human
nature of messages attributed to deities meant the end of their
faith.
Does this view do justice to the ancient scribes? As we have
seen, they themselves ascribed their religious writings to divine
revelation.7 Not necessarily in the sense of verbal inspiration be-
cause it has been demonstrated in a conclusive way that to some
extent the scribes were free to shape the text according to their
own needs and tastes. The divine cannot be separated from the
human in religious writings from Antiquity, including the Bible.8
However, ‘inventing revelation’ is humanizing it whereas the An-
cients saw the deity as the initializing force, but were well aware
of the fact that without their own contribution as human servants
the word of God would not be heard or would remain incompre-
hensible.
Believers should acknowledge that if God is silent it is because
humans are there not merely for themselves, but also to realize
God’s plans on earth, including the duty to pass on his word. His
silence may be caused by their inertia, even if they have all the
means to do what they are praying for and know what he has
said in the past. God awaits action from his followers.

7
Cf. Section 5.2.2.3-4.
8
Second Vatican Council, cf. Rahner 2008; Reformed Churches 1981. For
this reason some authors distinguish between divine revelation and its putting
into words by the writers of Scripture. So e.g. Wolterstorff 1995, esp. 282-283.
Theoretically this may be true, but in practice such a distinction is impossible
to maintain.
 epilogue 283

The young Jewish woman Etty Hillesum expressed this idea

poignantly in her diary, ‘And if God does not help me to go on,
then I shall have to help God’.9 Later on she would come back to
this insight repeatedly and we quote some of her moving thoughts
here,

Sunday morning prayer [12 July ’42]. Dear God, these are anxious
times. Tonight for the first time I lay in the dark with burning
eyes as scene after scene of human suffering passed before me.
I shall promise You one thing, God, just one very small thing:
I shall never burden my today with cares about my tomorrow,
although that takes some practice. Each day is sufficient unto
itself. I shall try to help You, God, to stop my strength ebbing
away, though I cannot vouch for it in advance. But one thing
is becoming increasingly clear to me: that You cannot help us,
that we must help You, God, in ourselves. And perhaps in others
as well. Alas, there doesn’t seem to be much You Yourself can
do about our circumstances, about our lives. Neither do I hold
You responsible. You cannot help us, but we must help You and
defend Your dwelling place inside us to the last.10

Hillesum was not a sanctimonious woman, but her simple faith,

rooted in both Jewish and Christian notions, carried her through
the arduous last months before her execution by the Nazis on 30
November 1943. She was fully aware of the fact that her faith
would not always be that strong, but she helped many around
her to trust in God and often found rest for herself too.
To be sure, one obviously has the choice not to believe in
God, but Hillesum’s example shows that even in the most difficult
circumstances it may help to talk to God as if He exists.11 Every
human being, if she or he is alone, talks to her/himself, or to
an absent beloved. Why not talk to God? Why refuse to pray
any longer if God does not fulfill an ardent wish? And why feel
wronged if God seems unable or unwilling to help? Hillesum’s
conviction that if God seems unable to help human beings must
take the initiative themselves is a message of lasting value.

9
Hillesum 1996, 173. Dutch original: Hillesum 2006, 181.
10
Hillesum 1996, 178. Dutch original: Hillesum 2006, 187-188.
11
As Schmitt’s Lady in Pink advised Oscar, cf. Section 1.5.
284 chapter seven

7.3 Synergy
However, does not the concept that human beings can help God
detract from God’s omnipotence and grace? Especially in church-
es of the Reformation people have been weary of attributing too
much weight to human participation in the work of God. The
doctrine of the sola gratia (by grace alone) and sola fide (in faith
alone) excluded cooperation between God and man on an equal
footing (Ritschl 1912, 423-455). However, as we have seen,12 hu-
man mediators of the word of deities in the ancient world did
not regard themselves as equals of their divine masters. They
regarded themselves as servants, messengers who merely related
the message they believed to have received. They continued to
believe that it had been the deity who had taken the initiative,
even if they felt obliged to edit the text according to the best of
their abilities to bring home its presumed intention.
The idea that human beings should not wait and see if God
will do it again but should actively participate in his work on
earth is one of the basic concepts of the Hebrew Bible.13 In the
old Deborah Song the town of Meroz is cursed ‘because it did
not come to the help of the Lord with heroes’ (Judg. 5:23).
The patriarchs, Moses, Joshua, David and all Israel are regularly
designated as ‘servants of the Lord’. The prophets as spokesmen
of God are described as his servants. Even non-Israelites like the
Assyrians, Cyrus and Nebuchadnezzar are supposed to be in his
service.
The Book of Ruth is a good example of the initiative human
beings have to take even though they are well aware of the fact
that God has to bless their efforts.14 In dire circumstances the
Israelites themselves must prepare the way for the Lord (Isa.
40:3), have to climb on a high mountain to espy the arrival of the
Lord (Isa. 40:10), have to renew their own ‘pinions’ to fly back
(Isa. 40:31),15 In spite of the fact that he himself is a ‘smoldering
wick’, the Servant of the Lord will not quench other ‘smoldering

12
Section 5.2.2.
13
Cf. Brueggemann 1997, 413-564.
14
Korpel 2001; cf. Köhlmoos 2010, XVII.
15
On the translation of this verse see Korpel & De Moor 1998, 22, n. 14.
 epilogue 285

wicks’, but has to become a light to the nations and free his com-
patriots suffering in dark dungeons (Isa. 42:1-7). If Zion exhorts
God to wake up and clothe his arm with strength as in the days of
old (Isa. 51:9) God’s answer is that she herself must awake, shake
off her chains and restore her own strength (Isa. 51:17; 52:1, 2;
cf. 52:7-9 and 40:9). In the Book of Third Isaiah God expresses
wonder about the fact that nobody intervenes on his behalf when
lawlessness is spreading like wildfire (Isa. 59:16).
In the New Testament too the concept of a certain synergy
between God and his human servants is present. The apostle Paul
exclaims,
What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom
you believed, as the Lord assigned to each.
I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth.
So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only
God who gives the growth.
He who plants and he who waters are equal, and each shall re-
ceive his wages according to his labor.
For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s build-
ing.16

The Greek word for ‘fellow workers’ is sunergoiv (sunergoi ), ‘co-

workers’. It is evident that their contribution is not really com-
parable to what God does, but God has chosen to cooperate
with human beings. In this sense also Luther deemed coopera-
tion between God and man absolutely necessary (Seils 1962). We
believe that John Locke (1632-1704) was right when he wrote,
God when he makes the prophet does not unmake the man. He
leaves all his faculties in their natural state, to enable him to judge
of his inspirations, whether they be of divine origin or not.17

In our opinion human participation in the work of God may even

go as far as participation in God’s work as the Creator. The Bible
sees creation not as a finished work of God, but as a continuous
process.18 God calls his servants to partake in his work of creation,
16
1 Cor. 3:5-9, RSV.
17
John Locke, Essay IV, xix, 14.
18
Angerstorfer 1979, 224-225; Van Leeuwen 1996, especially 730; Becking
& Korpel 2010, 18, with earlier literature.
286 chapter seven

And I put my words in your mouth,

and cover you with the shadow of my hand,
to plant the heavens and to found the earth,
and to say to Zion, “You are my people!”19

Under the protection of God’s hand the prophet’s words become

words of the Creator himself who wants to create new things.20
The Creator of all constantly reveals21 his ponderings to mankind
(Amos 4:13). He does this through his Spirit.22
In Ps. 90:17 the Psalmist asks God to use his power as the Cre-
ator to give substance to the work of human hands. The Hebrew
verb used often designates God’s work of creation. We ourselves
have to use our hands, but it will actually become something
meaningful only if God accepts it as his work.
Ken Gire points to the New Testament concept of the body
of Christ,23

We are his eyes, so we can see people with the same compassion
that Christ would see them with if he were here. We are his ears,
so we can listen with the understanding he would have. We are
his mouth, so we can speak the words he would speak. We are
his hands, so we can reach out to others the way he would if he
were here . . . (Gire 2005, 153-154).

Believers should not sit still in meek silence when things go awry
in this world but should accept their responsibility as God’s co-
workers, as Nicholas Wolterstorff formulates it,

We shall join God in doing battle against all that causes early
death and all that leads to unredemptive suffering: disease, in-
justice, warfare, torture, enmity. The self-characterization of the
biblical God is not that of a God who passively accepts things
going awry with reference to his intent but that of a God who
does battle; and is not that of a God who weakly struggles in a
19
Isa. 51:16, with the remarks we made in: Korpel & De Moor 1998, 491-
492, 542-543.
20
See also Isa. 40:28; 42:5-9; 43:19; 48:6-7.
21
Literally, ‘is telling’, an active participle in the Hebrew text.
22
See Section 5.1.2 above and our remarks below.
23
Rom. 12:4-8; 1 Cor. 12:12-31; Eph. 1:23; 4:4, 12, 16; 5:23, 30; Col. 1:24.
 epilogue 287

failing cause but that of a God whose cause will triumph. It is in

that cause that we shall join, as God’s co-workers.24

7.4 Is Revelation Still Possible?

In the history of theology the special nature of the revelation in
the Bible has been emphasized time and again. Sometimes it is
even stated that revelation ended when the last apostle died. This
is, however, an unwarranted reduction of the work of God’s Spirit
in man. Charles Wackenheim states,

With regard to this point, Christians would do well to familiarize

themselves with the Jewish concept of revelation which associates
God and man intimately in the act by which the latter appro-
priates the meaning which the text studied acquires for him here
and now. From that moment on, revelation is no longer a one way
communication, but a synergy between two agents that are cer-
tainly not equal, but are both indispensable for a word of faith to
be born. . . . Hence this unexpected and yet logical consequence:
the activity of the believer is an integral part of revelation. We
must, therefore, pass on from a unilateral and direct view of rev-
elation to an interactive, indirect and mediated view.25

If God is silent, man must speak.26 Divine silence is an invita-

tion to speak in his name. The Spirit who guided the writers of
the Bible is still at work in our times. Or if one prefers the Jew-
ish approach, the mysterious voice from above (Bath Qol). The
Spirit of God certainly did inspire the biblical writers,27 but to
be recognized as revelation, the Spirit must also be at work in the
process of understanding Scripture as relevant for the here and
now. This is why in many churches a prayer for the enlightenment
by the Holy Spirit is said before the Bible is opened.
However, the Bible is a book that in its present form was
closed almost two millennia ago. One cannot expect to find an-
24
Wolterstorff 2003, 30.
25
Our translation. French original: Wackenheim 2002, 71-72; see also 111-
112. Wackenheim’s thought is in line with Martin Buber’s ideas, see Adams
2003, especially 65.
26
Wackenheim 2002, 179-180.
27
See Sections 5.1.2 and 5.2.2.2.
288 chapter seven

swers on all problems of modernity in it. Scripture may give mod-

ern believers impulses in the right direction, but it also may lead
astray if people do not realize that its ethics and its comprehen-
sion of nature reflect a bygone time and culture. This is why it is
important to listen to the creative voice of the Spirit which con-
tinues to accompany us up to our own times. As Gerhard Lohfink
wrote,
God acts continuously. He grants his Spirit unremittingly, so that
Christendom will awake and perform its duty. He wants to act
through us in the world. It depends totally on our willingness
to listen to God – or do we prefer to close our ears and look
away? Therewith the immense responsibility becomes clear, the
independence and the freedom which God grants human beings.
Ultimately the whole question which has occupied us here ends
in the awesomeness of human freedom and responsibility.28

In a similar vein Rachel Muers writes,

The gift of the Holy Spirit is the gift both of the promise that God
will hear and of the “capacity for discernment and recognition”
that accords with God’s own act of discernment and recognition.
The possibility of innerworldly transformation depends on both
these gifts – being freed for responsible action before God and
being enabled to understand the complexity of penultimate real-
ity.29

We have seen that in several Psalms the supplicant seems to have

reached an inner conviction that God had answered him.30 Proph-
ets and sages testify to divine illumination that forced them to
speak in the name of God.31 It is easy to dismiss such psycholo-
gical processes as pure self-delusion. Jewish and Christian believ-
ers, however, will not exclude the possibility that in the course of
earnest prayer God may suddenly grant them insight in the solu-
tion to their problems. From the viewpoint of reason God and
his messages may seem illusory, but the Jewish psychiatrist Her-
man van Praag is right in observing that no human being can live
28
Our translation. Original German: Lohfink 2008, 83-84.
29
Muers 2004, 99. See also Armstrong 2009, 324.
30
Cf. Section 6.2.2.2.
31
Cf. Section 5.2.2.2.
 epilogue 289

by reason alone. Religious experience has an intrinsic and thera-

peutic value, especially in situations of severe psychic stress. For
that reason he speaks of a ‘noble illusion’ (Van Praag 2008).
Similarly, the conviction that an outside voice has spoken to
a prophet or has shown him or her a vision need not rest on
deliberate self-delusion. Trained as we are to distrust such claims
to visionary or auditory experiences, we may be inclined to regard
them as pure inventions. However, modern social anthropology
has established that genuine visionary experience does occur,32
although in the end this will inevitably remain a verdict based
on hearsay.

7.5 Bearing Witness to a Silent God

In a video recording called Take your god and shove him (August
21, 2008, on YouTube), the vociferous British atheist Pat Condell
demanded from believers proof that will stand up in a court of
law. This is exactly what the prophet speaking in Isa. 43:9-12
proposed to do long ago,
9
Let all the nations gather together,
and let the peoples assemble!
Who among them will tell what is coming?
Let them make us hear first things!
Let them give their witnesses to be justified,
so that one may hear and say: “It is true!”
10
You are my witnesses, declares the Lord,
and (you are) my Servant, whom I have chosen.
So that you may know and believe me and will understand,
that I am the same One.
Before me no god was formed,
nor will there be one after me.
11
I, I am the Lord,
and apart from me there is no savior.
12
It is I who told and saved and made heard,
and not a stranger who was among you.
And you are my witnesses, declares the Lord,
that I am God.33
32
Tiemeyer 2008, 574-578; see also Gnuse 1984, 5-10.
33
See also 44:8. This summons echoes a long tradition of representing dia-
290 chapter seven

However, it is not easy to bear witness to an invisible God who

remains silent. Most of this prophet’s contemporaries had given
up on God (Isa. 43:22-24).34 What Condell wanted is a bench of
independent, preferably agnostic judges. The problem with faith
is that there cannot be a bench of judges, as in a courtroom, be-
cause ultimately only God himself is believed to be able to judge
the trustworthiness of the witnesses. True, he is often a silent
Judge, as capable judges are, most of the time. Unfortunately
the case cannot be tried because the prosecutor will refuse to
start proceedings since in his opinion there is no judge present.
However, what is certainly possible is to listen to the witnesses
with the ears of a prosecutor, counselor or juror – the latter two
as delegates of the Supreme Judge. In the case of Judaism and
Christianity the testimony stretches over millennia and comprises
millions of people. A formidable task indeed. Although in normal
cases the number of witnesses declaring basically the same cer-
tainly is a factor of considerable importance,35 the prosecution in
this case will no doubt attempt to prove that they all have been
‘brainwashed’ . . .
As far as we know, no religion in the ancient world has been
so acutely aware of the fact that they had (and have) to stand
up as witnesses to their God as ancient Israel. The Law of Moses
(Torah) is called a testimony,36 written religious texts can serve
as testimony,37 all Israel is called to bear witness to him (Josh.
24:22; Isa. 43:10, 12; 44:8; 55:4).38 Commenting on Isa. 43:12, the
Tannaitic midrash Sifre on Deuteronomy makes God say,

logues between God and man in language partially borrowed from court pro-
ceedings. See e.g. Boecker 1964; Harvey 1967; Nielsen 1978. See also Josh.
24:22 and Ruth 4:9-11 which both may have been inspired by Second and
Third Isaiah. See provisionally Korpel 2001, 232.
34
For further examples see Korpel 2005b.
35
Cf. Swinburne 2004, 341: ‘The experience of so many people in their
moments of religious vision corroborates what nature and history show to
be quite likely – that there is a God who made and sustains man and the
universe.’
36
Deut. 4:45; 6:17, 20; Ps. 25:10; 78:56; 93:5 (?); 99:7; 119:2, 22, 24, 46, 59,
79, 95, 119, 125, 138, 146, 152, 167, 168; 132:12.
37
Deut. 31:19, 21, 26; Isa. 8:16, 20; 30:8
38
Cf. Korpel & De Moor 1998, 629-630, n. 2.
 epilogue 291

When you are my witnesses, then I am God, and when you are
not my witnesses, then, as it were, I am not God.39

‘As it were . . . ’ – of course the rabbis did not make God’s exist-
ence dependent on human testimony, but if the testimony would
ever come to an end, it would appear as if God were non-existent.
In the wake of the Hebrew tradition the New Testament empha-
sizes the importance of witnessing.40 In Luke 24 Jesus concludes
his talks with the two men from Emmaus with the words, ‘You are
witnesses of these things’ (v. 48). The importance of witnessing
is expanded in Acts 1:8 and 5:32, where all followers of Jesus are
called to bear witness with the help of the Holy Spirit. Finally
there is the impressive metaphor of the cloud of male and female
witnesses described in the Letter to the Hebrews, Ch. 11.
Karl Barth has a beautiful passage on the difficult task of
witnesses to God,

In his word man hazards himself. And it is demanded of him that

in his word he shall continually hazard himself to God’s glory,
coming out into the open as a partisan of God. . . . God as the
Lord of this history not only wants man to be the object of His
action and the recipient of His blessings, but also to have him as a
responsible partner. And the fact that He makes him responsible
means also that He calls him to hazard himself to His honour,
claiming his word as a word of witness to Him. In order that
God’s glory may shine forth, the history of the covenant must
also be related, proclaimed and therefore imparted. Man is made
responsible for this. As God wills man to be free before Him,
He always has in view the freedom of those who have something
to relate about Him, the freedom of confessors who cannot keep
silence but must speak of Him, their freedom to expose themselves
to His glory, to commit themselves to His honour with clear and
definite words, to be serviceable to Him in and with these words,
to be His declared and decided partisans.41
39
Sifre on Deuteronomy, § 346, translation Neusner 1987. Original text
Horovitz & Finkelstein 1939, 403-404. According to Pes. K., 12:6 (102b), the
saying would stem from the 3th generation Tannaite R. Simeon b. Yoh.ai.
40
Cf. Rose 1994; Trites 2004.
41
ChD, vol. 3/4, 75. Original text: Barth, KD, Bd. 3/4, 82. Elsewhere how-
ever, Barth significantly reduces this human partnership by stating that man
is merely an instrument by which God speaks. So e.g. KD, Bd. 2/1, 221,
292 chapter seven

Stanley Hauerwas supports Barth’s stance with regard to wit-

nessing in contrast to natural theology that seeks to avoid such
faith talk (Hauerwas 2002). In a world in which only rational logic
is deemed acceptable this inevitably means that tough challenges
have to be met by both Jews and Christians.
Walter Brueggemann who has built his Theology of the Old
Testament around the concept of testimony and counter-testi-
mony ends his book with a similar cautionary statement,

Which witnesses are believed – concerning Yahweh or the gods

‘beyond the River and in Egypt’ – will determine the internal
shape of the community. Which witnesses are believed – concern-
ing Yahweh or the gods of the empire – will determine the shape
of the world. Testimony to this particular, peculiar God, voiced
in ways that are as odd as the God to which witness is borne,
is characteristically offered from a position of vulnerability. This
vulnerability, however, is not evidence against its veracity. The
testimony is neither reductionist nor coercive. It is given in all its
elusiveness and density, and then the witnesses await the decision
of the court, while other testimony is given by other witnesses for
other gods. The waiting is long and disconcerting, because wit-
nesses to other gods are sometimes most formidable. And the jury
only trickles in – here and there, now and then.42

It is the still unbroken chain of witnesses from Antiquity to our

own days that makes Judaism and Christianity so special as com-
pared to the far more sophisticated religious systems of ancient
Egypt and Mesopotamia that rested on the arcane knowledge of a
relatively small group of specialists. However, modernity is erod-
ing the ability and willingness to bear witness to a silent God
and ultimately the religions based on this vital testimony may
disappear too, so that the words of Amos become true,

Behold, the days are coming

– declares the Lord God –
when I will send a hunger in the land;
not a hunger for bread,
and not a thirst for water,

249-50. Similarly Levinas 2000, 196-197.

42
Brueggemann 1997, 750. See also Goldingay 2005, 215-249.
 epilogue 293

but for hearing the words of the Lord.

And people will roam from sea to sea,
and from north to south,
they will wander around aimlessly,
searching for the word of the Lord,
but they will not find it (Amos 8:11-12).

7.6 The Courage to Become a Witness

So it is not easy to speak on behalf of God. The voice of many a
witness falters. Witnessing is always taking a risk. Barristers and
judges will try to cast doubt on the reliability of the testimony.
Especially if the testimony cannot be substantiated by physical
evidence and merely rests on what one believes to have seen or
heard, speaking up in court requires courage.
The prophets of biblical times faced the same opposition and
ridicule, especially if they dared to speak up against the ruling
class. They too often became tired of having to testify in a hostile
world. The prophet known as Second Isaiah observed this apathy
among his compatriots who suffered under Babylonian rule,

The Lord God gives me a tongue of disciples

to know how to make witnesses those too tired for words.
Morning by morning he wakens,
he wakens my ear
to hear like disciples do.

The Lord God opens my ear,

and I do not resist,
I do not move backwards (Isa. 50:4-5).43

The prophet hopes that by passing on the message of his divine

Teacher he will be able to encourage others to overcome their
exhaustion (see also Isa. 40:28-31).
In a world of disbelievers and sometimes fanatic adherents to
other religions, believers who testify to their faith have similar ex-
periences. As Barth wrote, ‘In his word man hazards himself.’44
43
For details on the translation of this passage see Korpel & De Moor 1998,
448.
44
One does not have to speak in the literal sense of the word. When John
294 chapter seven

It is tempting to escape from confrontation by adopting the doc-

trine of two separate worlds, the spiritual world of faith, and the
ordinary world where ‘reason’ is said to reign. In the first a person
bears witness among his or her fellow believers, in the second he
or she keeps silent about faith because of working with a different
set of rules.
With Bonhoeffer we reject such a dual system.45 In this book
we have tried to demonstrate that the witnesses who were re-
sponsible for the biblical testimony participated in the world in
which they lived, often sharing religious views with their neigh-
bors, at other times rebutting them. In our opinion the same cour-
ageous attitude befits our times. But nobody should be ashamed
if in certain situations words fail to come. Nobody can deny the
singer of Psalm 119 piety, but even he, steeped as he was in the
teaching of the Lord, feared that at the crucial moment the right
words to rebut his opponents would fail him if God would not help
him (Ps. 119:32-43). In the New Testament Jesus promises his fol-
lowers that he will lay the right words in their mouth (through
the Holy Spirit) if they themselves feel unsure what to answer
under interrogation.46

7.7 The Integrity of Witnesses

If making the word of God heard relies on human witnesses, the
question of their trustworthiness inevitably crops up. We have
seen that from the very beginning there has existed doubt about
the truthfulness of those asserting to speak the word of God.47
Therefore, if in our days someone assumes the role of a spokes-
man or spokeswoman of God, it is only normal that such a claim
generates skepticism. Often the integrity of the person involved is
called into question. That this is warranted we want to illustrate
with one example.

Paul II (Karol Jósef Woytila) became unable to speak at the end of his long life
his wordless appearance in the window of the apostolic palace was understood
as an act of witnessing (Mancini 2008, 7-8).
45
Cf. Section 1.6.2.1. For a convenient summary of Bonhoeffer’s views in
this respect, see Dramm 2007, esp. Chapters 6 and 20.
46
Mt. 10:19-20; Mk 13:11; Lk. 12:11-12; 21:14-15.
47
Cf. Section 5.2.2.
 epilogue 295

In 1936 Edwin Erich Dwinger published a book entitled Und

Gott schweigt. . . ? Bericht und Aufruf (‘And God keeps silent. . . ?
Report and appeal’). In it he describes the atrocities and the
mismanagement of the communist regime under Stalin.

H o w c a n G o d s p e a k i f m a n k e e p s s i l e n t ? Isn’t the con-

temporary Russia a much more convincing proof in favor of God
than that it could be proof against him? Because this would never
have been possible in a country in which people believe in some-
thing divine in man – is all the suffering not also the first punish-
ment for the fact that they cold-heartedly abjured faith? No, his
silence is absolutely no evidence against his existence, God had
never any other possibility than manifest himself in his human
creatures. If they do not make him visible, in what form would
he become visible then?48

Dwinger was an expert on Russia and one of the few who in

the thirties of the twentieth century were warning against the
massacres that were taking place under Stalin. Millions of vic-
tims did not prompt any serious reaction from the West. At first
sight, his appeal to bear witness against this mass murder sounds
sympathetic. However, in hindsight it is absolutely clear that his
motivation was by no means religious. Dwinger was a Nazi who
used religion as a thin varnish over his political conviction that
only as a totalitarian state subjected to one national-socialistic
will Europe could survive.49
This example shows that the decision to speak words of God
is a moral one. Believers have to ask themselves honestly, ‘Is it a
word of God I am going to speak? Or will I speak what I myself
or what others want to hear?’ How difficult it is to distinguish
the inner voice of God’s Spirit from that of one’s own spirit was
demonstrated by Psalm 51 and the self-doubt of prophets.50 Isa.
30:21 describes the voice of God instructing the believer to go in
the right direction as a voice ‘from behind’.51 The Teacher cannot
48
Our translation. Original German: Dwinger 1936, 150-151. Similar pas-
sages on 105, 115, 119.
49
Unabashedly so Dwinger 1936, 153.
50
Cf. Section 5.1.2.
51
Ibidem.
296 chapter seven

be seen at that moment, but in a flash his voice can be recognized

– if one is acquainted with him.
But what if people listen more to themselves and manipulate
the facts to suit their own goals? Knowingly or unknowingly? We
all know this happens. In ordinary life we are prone to embellish
accounts of events we witnessed. This also occurs in legal pro-
cedures that rest not on forensic evidence, but on the testimony
of witnesses. In such cases we have to submit ourselves willingly
to the most rigorous tests available. After all, also in the non-
religious world provisions against false testimony were severe in
Antiquity,52 and in most countries still are. Mere appeal to illu-
mination by the Spirit is insufficient, as Ezekiel (Ezek. 13:3) and
the early Christians realized.53
Self-delusion is a risk all who are believing to speak the word
of God should be aware of. In his movie Breaking the Waves
(1996) the controversial Danish film director Lars von Trier tried
to demonstrate once again that under circumstances good people
can feel compelled to do things that are commonly deemed bad.
The main character of the film, Bess McNeill, comes from a
strictly orthodox church. She often prays to God, especially for
the recovery of her husband Jan who shortly after their marriage
has become paralyzed by an accident on an oil rig. In a low voice
she herself mutters God’s answers to her prayers. Jan, no longer
able to have intercourse, asks her to have sex with other men
and describe it to him afterwards. He assures Bess this will keep
him alive. At first, she adamantly refuses, but when she believes
God says the same as Jan, she reluctantly agrees. With each act
of promiscuity she performs Jan’s health improves. In spite of
strong disapproval of her mother and the elders of her church,
Bess slowly begins to believe that what she is doing is the will
of God. To her sister-in-law she justifies her acceptance of Jan’s
proposal, ‘He is my husband and God has said that I must honor
him.’ In church she asks God, ‘Dear Father, what’s going on?’
But this time no word of God comes from her lips and in despair
52
Ponchia 2009, 227-228, with earlier literature. For Israel, Exod. 20:16;
Deut. 5:20.
53
Acts 18:24–19:7; 1 Cor. 12:10; 14:29; Gal. 5:16-25; 1 Thess. 5:19-21; 1 Jn
4:1.
 epilogue 297

she calls out, ‘Father, where are you?’ On her final trip to a ship
offshore which other prostitutes shun because of earlier violent
incidents she prays again. This time God does reply, assuring her
that He will be with her. But upon arrival she is brutally gang
raped and finally dies in hospital. Jan at this point miraculously
makes an almost full recovery.
Von Trier deliberately creates the impression that Bess’ ul-
timate sacrifice was approved by God. The spectator, however,
knows that Jan’s proposal was immoral54 and that Bess only
deluded herself when she muttered God’s consent to herself. She
should have stood firm by her initial refusal instead of submitting
to sexual abuse. But isn’t such an act of witnessing against one’s
mortally ill beloved more than can be expected from a compas-
sionate human being? During her burial at sea heavenly church
bells seem to indicate God’s approval of her choice. But wasn’t
God himself implicated in her decision? As in many of his other
movies, Von Trier succeeds in demonstrating how difficult it is
to choose between good and bad. The case of Bess shows that
absolute honesty is imperative if one makes an appeal to divine
illumination.
For Levinas bearing witness has everything to do with ethics,
with doing justice to one’s neighbor.55 Although we cannot accept
his view that God is absent in the relationship with the other and
that no dialogue with the Infinite is possible,56 it is certainly true
that in ethical behavior human beings bear witness to God.
‘A voice from behind’ can also be taken as a voice from the
past, the word of God as it was spoken by countless past gen-
erations witnessing to the truth of his message. The Word of
God, as codified in the Bible, in the form of whatever canon one
accepts as authoritative, always has to be explained and actual-
ized for the present. But the wisdom of millennia of believers has
to be taken into account. Biblical interpretation is a cumulative
process. The role of tradition in the interpretation of Scripture is
54
Jan himself admits that he asked this for his own sake, not for hers.
55
Levinas 1993, 227-230, quoting Jer. 22:15-16 and Mt. 25:31-40; Levinas
2000, 198-201. On Levinas’s problematic, yet promising concept of ethics see
Purcell 2006; Perpich 2008.
56
Cf. Sections 1.3.2.5 and 1.6.2.3.
298 chapter seven

accepted in Judaism as well as in the Catholic and Eastern Ortho-

dox churches. Protestant churches were always wary of attaching
too much weight to tradition, but they too have their heroes of
faith and decisions by synods which they regard as authoritative.
However, since the Second Vatican Council points of view in this
respect are clearly converging.57
If we accept that the word of God is usually mediated by hu-
man beings, the ‘voice from behind’ can also be someone looking
over your shoulder: a friend, a colleague, a partner. Or even a
whole community of believers standing behind you. It has always
been the custom, both in Judaism and Christianity, to discuss
difficult matters arising from faith together.58 In the Jewish tra-
dition there is an acute awareness that often such problems can-
not be resolved in any definitive way, so that it is better to allow
different opinions to exist next to each other than to fix a decision
once and for all in a dogma.
Summing up, the integrity of witnesses must always be tested,
first of all by critical and honest self-examination, then by ob-
serving the witness’ attitude towards others, and finally by com-
paring the testimony to what has been accepted as words of God
by previous generations, first of all the Bible itself – but always
aware of the danger of a fundamentalist use of Scripture. Ex-
egesis should always remain open-ended, open to new solutions
in different times, as Jesus has stated according to the gospel of
Matthew,
Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of
heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure what
is new and what is old (Mt. 13:52).

7.8 Theodicy
If it is admissible to challenge human witnesses to the word of
God, is it also acceptable to repudiate the Judge himself if he
remains silent when innocent people suffer under disasters or vi-
olence? Answers to this question differ and did so from Antiquity
57
See, for example, Flesseman-Van Leer 1980, 38-40.
58
It may be noted that a minimum of two witnesses was required in An-
tiquity, cf. CAD (Š) 2, 394; Deut. 17:6; 19:15, Mt. 18:16, cf. Num. 35:30. For
this reason messengers usually travelled in pairs.
 epilogue 299

on, both in and outside Israel.59 One of the modern answers is

that there cannot be an all-powerful good God if he allows so
much undeserved suffering in this world. Why did he remain si-
lent during the Shoah,60 or at the time of the 2004 Indian Ocean
tsunami, or when Haiti was hit by the 2009 earthquake?
It is questionable if the dogmatic concept of God’s absolute
omnipotence that is at the basis of the argument of people who
reject the possibility of theodicy61 is really found in the Bible.
The divine epithet pantokravtwr (Pantocrator ), ‘Almighty’, is the
Septuagint’s rendering of Hebrew words that do by no means
indicate that God was seen as all-powerful.62 The New Testament
takes over this epithet from the Septuagint, but outside the Book
of Revelation, it occurs only once in the New Testament (2 Cor.
6:18), to underline that the preceding verses are quotations based
on the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible.
The texts traditionally cited as supporting the doctrine of
the all-powerfulness of God are inconclusive at best. Gen. 18:14;
Jer. 32:27 and Zech. 8:6 do state that nothing is impossible with
God, but all three texts show that He lets himself be influenced
by human wishes and behavior. Surely God is able to kill and
make alive,63 can create both light and darkness, peace and evil
(Isa. 45:7),64 but the context shows that his choice may be influ-
enced by human choices.65 Even Job admits grudgingly that God
can realize anything he wants (Job 42:2), but the mere fact that
according to the canonical version of the Book of Job God has
finally responded to Job’s complaints proves that eventually he
is willing to give in to the power of persistent human argument.
When the Psalmists exclaim that their God can do anything that
59
Crenshaw 1983; 2005; Jonas 1984; Oelmüller 1999, 93-104; Laato & De
Moor 2003; Dietrich & Link 2004; Ehrman 2008.
60
We prefer to use this Hebrew word meaning ‘Destruction’ over the better-
known designation ‘Holocaust’.
61
Cf. e.g. Jonas 1984; Kreiner 1997; Baucke-Ruegg 1998.
62
Cf. Michaelis 1938, 914; Dietrich & Link 2004, 24-25.
63
Deut. 32:39, etc. Cf. Sanders 1996, 239-240, 420-421.
64
See on the history of interpretation of this text Laato & De Moor 2003,
xxvi, n. 52.
65
Especially Isa. 45:20-25. See also Gen. 2:17; 3:5; 18:16-33; Deut. 30:15;
32:29, 46; Amos 3, etc.
300 chapter seven

pleases him (Ps. 115:3; 135:6), their clear presupposition is that

he will continue to bless Israel (Ps. 115:9-15; 135:4, 12, 14). He has
willingly given up the earth to the human race (Gen. 1:26; Ps.
8:5-7; 115:16). When king Nebuchadnezzar extols God’s power
both in heaven an on earth (Dan. 4:35), God relents and restores
his health (Dan. 4:36). According to Mt. 19:26 Jesus has said
‘with God all things are possible’. This is in answer to his dis-
ciples’ dismay over the difficulty to enter the Kingdom of God, so
it has evidently to do with God’s grace – he may relent and admit
sinners. Indeed Eph. 1:19 speaks of ‘the immeasurable greatness
of his power’ but it is a power that works ‘in us who believe’
and therefore does not transcend human capabilities. In theory,
God is all-powerful, but he prefers the good and not the bad.
He has willingly given up some of his power to human beings.
Especially in the covenant with his people Israel God voluntary
committed himself and accepted certain conditional obligations.
But in granting humanity the freedom to ignore his conditions,
God himself accepted the risk of suffering (Jonas 1984, 25-26).
If according to the biblical testimony God has left room for
human initiative, there remains little reason to accuse him of
arbitrary silence in the face of suffering. Moreover, it makes a big
difference if one realizes that actually an answer must be awaited
from those who in any particular era are called upon to act as
God’s witnesses – to be sure, God ’s witnesses, i.e. listening to the
‘voice from behind’, or whatever designation one wants to use for
divine guidance.
It is not warranted to apply biblical rules and examples to
the present world without realizing that they were meant for a
world two, three thousand years ago that admittedly was in many
respects practically the same as ours, but in many other respects
totally different. Those who nevertheless try to eliminate the lat-
ter in order to cling to a set of ‘clear’ ethical rules inevitably come
down to some form of anachronistic fundamentalism. What was
a reasonable explanation or even wise solution in the distant past
need not be so now anymore.
An example may serve to elucidate this. In biblical times
nobody would have understood the mechanism of plate tectonics.
It was discovered only about a century ago and even now is not
 epilogue 301

fully understood. So it is unreasonable to expect that the Bible

would have explained the origin of earthquakes, volcanic erup-
tions and tsunamis in rational terms and to demand that if God
exists he should have prevented these natural phenomena to kill
hundreds of thousands of people. In biblical times such natural
disasters were explained in terms that were understandable then
and there, e.g. as acts of divine wrath because of the depravity
of human beings.66 Within the horizon of its time this may have
been a ‘logical’ explanation. Other peoples in the ancient world
explained earthquakes in similar terms. We, however, cannot ac-
cept such explanations anymore. Instead we might contemplate
the fact that the constant renewal of our planet by the very same
mechanism of plate tectonics has been proved to be beneficial to
millions of lives on earth because it produces essential minerals
and fertile soil.67 Of course this offers little comfort to the rel-
atives of the hundreds of thousands of victims, but it makes it
difficult to accuse God of arbitrariness and unwarranted silence.
And certainly it is no conclusive evidence for his non-existence.
If it is inevitable that innocent people suffer, God himself
may well be speechless for sorrow and regret, and his inability
to do something about it.68 According to both the Hebrew Bible
and the New Testament there are occasions when God suffers
because of the sorry fate or the sinful behavior of human beings.69

66
Gen. 6:5-6; 2 Sam. 22:8 [= Ps. 18:8]; Isa. 13:13; 24:18; 29:6; 64:1; Jer.
4:23-26; 10:22; 51:29; Ezek. 38:19-20; Joel 4:16[3:16]; Amos 1:1 (‘an act of
divine judgment’, Lessing 2009, 48); 9:5; Mic. 1:4-5; Nah. 1:5; Hab. 3:6; Hag.
2:7; Rev. 11:8-13; 16:17-21. In historical times no volcanic eruptions have
taken place in the Holy Land, but people concluded from solidified lava that
the rocks must have molten in the past and might melt again.
67
We leave aside here the question if this is the result of chaotic randomness
or intelligent design.
68
We found that this is one of the reasons why deities in the ancient world
might remain silent. Cf. Section 6.2.1.4. The bidirectional nature of the cov-
enantal relation between God and his people implies that he may reconsider
a previous decision when he sees the suffering and/or remorse it caused. Cf.
Korpel 1990; 180-181; Jeremias 2002; Dietrich & Link 2004, 144-194; Döhling
2009.
69
For grief on the part of God see e.g. Gen. 6:6; 1 Sam. 15:11, 35 (despite
15:29, on which cf. Tsumura 2007, 407); Isa. 1:14; Lam. 1:5. See on Neh. 9:30,
Batten 1913, 370: ‘a long-suffering God gave them many years of grace’. For
302 chapter seven

Several laments in the Book of Jeremiah may be understood as

expressions of sorrow not by the prophet, but by God himself,
even though it is obviously the prophet who has to put God’s
lament into words.70 One of the convincing cases is Jer. 14:17-18,
And you shall say to them these words:
My eyes stream with tears, night and day,
and they cannot cease,
for the young daughter of my people has been hit
with a great affliction,
a sickening blow!
If I go out into the field,
behold, men pierced by the sword,
and if I enter the city,
behold, men weakened by famine! 71

According to Jer. 13:17 God may weep in secret. When his chosen
people suffers, he suffers with them (Isa. 63:9). This does not
mean that those suffering have to bear God’s taciturnity in meek
silence (Isa. 62:7; 64:11[12]), but there are situations when God’s
messengers have no divine message to relay that would explain
what happened. Human beings are also unable to help God re-
solve his impossible dilemma with regard to the plate tectonics
until one day they will be allowed to predict earthquakes and
volcanic eruptions reliably. Modern believers see the discoveries
of science as a form of progressive revelation in line with the bib-
lical concept of creation as a continuing process.72 Meanwhile,
however, they can help God by falling back on his earlier com-
mandments with regard to the obligation to show compassion
and provide support to the needy. In this respect they will find
people entertaining totally different convictions at their side73
grief of the Holy Spirit see Isa. 63:10; Eph. 4:30.
70
Roberts 1992; Dietrich & Link 2004, 281-283.
71
Even rather conservative commentators simply state that the opening
line in which the prophet is addressed must be regarded as an inappropriate
editorial expansion that should be ignored. This is an unwarranted assump-
tion. Exactly the same introductory formula occurs in Jer. 13:12. Similar
cases of divine lament are Jer. 8:18-21; 12:7-9. However, Jer. 4:19-22 is less
likely, cf. Korpel 2009b.
72
Cf. Becking & Korpel 2010.
73
For example Bart Ehrmann 2008, 277-278.
 epilogue 303

which demonstrates that one should not wait too long for divine
enlightenment in cases of emergency.
If human beings are required to speak the word of God, the
tormented question why God remained silent during horrendous
crimes like genocide, above all the Shoah, boils down to the ques-
tion why so few believers protested publicly against such bar-
barism. No doubt it was partly fear that prevented them from
obeying ‘the voice from behind’, but probably selfishness played
a role too, even though that is a vice in all major monotheistic
religions.

7.9 Believers and Unbelievers

To state that God is silent amounts to saying that his messengers,
angelic or human, are unable to speak in his name. In our era this
is increasingly the case. We have seen that also those who dared
to speak the word of God in the past often encountered disbelief
and ridicule, or felt incapable of assuming the role of spokesmen
of God any longer, either temporarily or permanently. If a divine
origin is claimed for certain messages or events acceptance of this
as true always rests on faith. However, faith is not something one
can appropriate. According to the Bible faith is a gift (Eph. 2:8),
like the Spirit that compels people to speak the word of God.74
Others who witness the same phenomena may well maintain that
they have seen or heard nothing. Or may reject the testimony of
believers. Or interpret it in a totally different way.
This diversity of possible reactions is expressed by the Dutch
painter Cornelis Saftleven (c. 1607–1681) in his painting of the
annunciation of the birth of Christ as narrated in Luke 2.75 Most
adults look up in adoration, but one on the left is fast asleep
and another shepherd is starting to run away. One dog sleeps on
like his master, another looks up in surprise. One child finds the
painter far more interesting than the angels. Another child looks
on very skeptically.
74
Num. 11:25, 29; Isa. 42:1; Ezek. 11:19; 36:26; 37:14; Qoh. 12:7; Lk. 11:13;
Jn 7:39; 20:22; Acts 2:38; 5:32; 8:18-19; 10:45; 19:2; Rom. 5:5; 2 Cor. 1:22;
5:5; 11:4; Gal. 3:2, 14; Eph. 1:17; 2 Tim. 1:7; 1 Jn 3:24; 4:13.
75
See for a reproduction in color:
http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/assetimage.jsp?id=SK-A-801.
304 chapter seven

Apparently Saftleven wanted to express the different reactions

to angelic manifestations, ranging from disbelief and indifference
to adoration. Even if one is an eyewitness to an extraorinary event
and hears the words of an ‘angel’ speaking in the name of God
it still requires faith to accept what happens as divine revelation.
Saftleven has painted the resulting divergence of opinion with a
certain cheerful resignation, as is demonstrated by the naughty
little cherub crawling from under the robe of the angel. Such a
relaxed attitude might be helpful to mitigate the tension sur-
rounding the debate about the question whether God is forever
silent or not. A debate that is not likely to end soon, since be-
lievers and unbelievers are quarreling about a speaking or silent
God already more than 4000 years . . .

Picture on the opposite page: Cornelis Saftleven, The Annunciation to

the Shepherds (c. 1630, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam). Most adults look
up in adoration, but one on the left is fast asleep, like his dog, and
unlike the dog on the right. Another shepherd is starting to run away.
One child finds the painter far more interesting than the angels, another
child looks on very skeptically.
epilogue 305
 abbreviations
All abbreviations of series, handbooks and journals in this book
are according to: S.M. Schwertner, Internationales Abkürzungs-
verzeichnis für Theologie und Grenzgebiete, Berlin 2 1992 (= S.M.
Schwertner, Theologische Realenzyklopädie: Abkürzungsverzeich-
nis, Berlin/New York 2 1994). For Judaic literature abbreviations
current in English are used. In addition the following abbrevi-
ations occur.

ALASP Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palästinas

(Ugarit-Verlag: Münster).
CHANE Culture and History of the Ancient Near East
(Brill: Leiden).
ChD K. Barth, The Church Dogmatics,
Vol. 1/1 (§ § 1-12), Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975;
Vol. 1/2 (§ § 13-24), Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956;
Vol. 2/1 (§ § 25-31), Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1957;
Vol. 2/2 (§ § 32-39), Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1957;
Vol. 3/1 (§ § 40-42), Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1958;
Vol. 3/2 (§ § 43-47), Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1960;
Vol. 3/3 (§ § 48-51), Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1960;
Vol. 3/4 (§ § 52-56), Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1961;
Vol. 4/1 (§ § 57-63), Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956;
Vol. 4/2 (§ § 64-68), Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1958;
Vol. 4/3 (§ § 69-73), Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1961;
Vol. 4/4 (Fragment), Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1969.
CoS W.W. Hallo (ed.), The Context of Scripture, 3 vols,
Brill: Leiden, 1997-2002.
ETCSL The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Litera-
ture: http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/.
Fs. Festschrift.
HeBSt Herders Biblische Studien (Herder: Freiburg i.B.).
HCOT The Historical Commentary on the Old Testament
(Kok: Kampen / Peeters: Leuven).
HThK.AT Herder’s Theologische Kommentar: Altes Testa-
ment (Herder: Freiburg i.B.).
JHS The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures (online).
308 abbreviations

KD K. Barth, Die kirchliche Dogmatik, Bd. 1/1-4/4,

Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 1980.
KTU M. Dietrich, O. Loretz & J. Sanmartı́n, The Cunei-
form Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani
and Other Places (KTU: second, enlarged edition),
Neukirchen: Ugarit-Verlag, 1995.
NICOT The New International Commentary on the Old
Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
NIDOTTE W.A. van Gemeren (ed.), New International Dic-
tionary of the Old Testament Theology and Ex-
egesis, 5 vols, Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1996.
PredOT De Prediking van het Oude Testament (Callenbach:
Nijkerk).
SAA State Archives of Assyria (Helsinki: University
Press).
SAAS State Archives of Assyria Studies (Helsinki: Uni-
versity Press).
SBL.WAW Society of Biblical Literature: Writings from the
Ancient World (Atlanta: SBL).
SEL Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente
antico (Verona: CSIC).
SHANE Studies in the History of the Ancient Near East
(Leiden: Brill).
SHCANE Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient
Near East (Leiden: Brill).
TUAT O. Kaiser (ed.), Texte aus der Umwelt des Al-
ten Testaments, 5 Bde, Gütersloher Verlagshaus:
Gütersloh, 1982-2001.
TUAT-NF B. Janowski & G. Wilhelm (eds), Texte aus der Um-
welt des Alten Testaments: Neue Folge, Bd. 1– ,
Gütersloher Verlagshaus: Gütersloh, 2004– .
Univ. University.
UTR Utrechtse Theologische Reeks (Utrecht: Universi-
teit).
WBC Word Biblical Commentary (Waco: Word Books).
 bibliography

Aaron 2002 – D.H. Aaron, Biblical Ambiguities: Metaphor, Semantics, and

Divine Imagery, Boston: Brill (original publication: Leiden: Brill, 2001).
Abusch 1987 – I.T Abusch, Babylonian Witchcraft Literature (BJSt, 132),
Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Abusch & Van der Toorn 1999 – T. Abusch & K. van der Toorn, Mesopo-
tamian Magic: Textual, Historical, and Interpretative Perspectives (An-
cient Magioc and Divination, 1), Groningen: Styx.
Achino-Loeb 2006 – M.-L. Achino-Loeb (ed.), Silence: The Currency of Pow-
er, New York: Berghahn.
Adams 2003 – R.M. Adams, ‘The Silence of God in the Thought of Martin
Buber’, Philosophia 30, 50-68.
Ah.ituv 2008 – S. Ah.ituv, Echoes from the Past: Hebrew and Cognate Inscrip-
tions from the Biblical Period, Jerusalem: Carta.
Ahn & Dietrich 1997 – G. Ahn & M. Dietrich (eds), Engel und Dämonen:
Theologische, anthropologische und religionsgeschichtliche Aspekte des Gu-
ten und Bösen (Forschungen zur Anthropologie und Religionsgeschichte,
29), Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Ajarai 2008 – H. Ajarai, ‘Een plek om even tot rust te komen’, NRC/Handels-
blad, 2 juli 2008, 14.
Albrektson 1967 – B. Albrektson, History and the Gods: An Essay on the
Idea of Historical Events as Divine Manifestations in the Ancient Near
East and in Israel, Lund: CWK Gleerup.
Allen 2005 – J.-A. Allen, You Only Think God Is Silent: Hearing God in the
Defining Moments of our Lives, Mustang: Tate.
Alkier & Witte 2004 – S. Alkier & M. Witte (eds.), Die Griechen und das
antike Israel: Interdisziplinäre Studien zur Religions- und Kulturgeschichte
des Heiligen Landes (OBO, 201), Fribourg: Academic Press.
Alster 1991 – B. Alster, ‘Incantation to Utu’, Acta Sumerologica 13, 27-96.
Alster 1997 – B. Alster, Proverbs of Ancient Sumer: The World’s Earliest
Proverb Collections, 2 vols, Bethesda: CDL.
Altenmüller 1977 – H. Altenmüller, ‘Geheimnis’, LÄ, Bd. 2, Wiesbaden: Har-
rassowitz, 510-513.
Altenmüller 2009 – H. Altenmüller, ‘Gott und die Götter im alten Ägypten:
Gedanken zur persönlichen Frömmigkeit’, in: Hartenstein & Rösel 2009,
17-58.
Alter 2007 – R. Alter, The Book of Psalms, New York: W.W. Norton &
Company.
Anderson 1978 – R. Anderson, The Silence of God, Grand Rapids: Kregel
(original publication: London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1897).
Andrae 1913 – W. E. Andrae, Die Stelenreihen in Assur (WVDOG, 24),
Leipzig : Hinrichs.
Angerstorfer 1979 – A. Angerstorfer, Der Schöpfergott des Alten Testaments:
Herkunft und Bedeutungsentwicklung des hebräischen Terminus br - (bara)
‘schaffen’ (RSTh, 20), Frankfurt a.M.: Lang.
310 bibliography

Angier 2006 – T.P.S. Angier, Either Kierkegaard/Or Nietzsche: Moral Philo-

sophy in a New Key (Intersections: Continental and Analytic Philosophy),
Hants: Ashgate.
Aristotle 1926 – Aristotle, The ‘Art’ of Rhetoric, transl. J.H. Freese ((Loeb
Classical Library), Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.
Aristotle 1932 – Aristotle, The Poetics, transl. W. Hamilton Fyfe (Loeb Clas-
sical Library), Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.
Armstrong 2009 – K. Armstrong, The Case for God, New York: Knopf.
Arnaud 2007 – D. Arnaud, Corpus des textes de bibliothèque de Ras Shamra-
Ougarit (1936-2000) en sumerien, babylonien et assyrien (Aula Orientalis,
Supplements, 23), Sabadell-Barcelona: Ausa.
Assmann 1979 – J. Assmann, ‘Primat und Transzendenz: Struktur und Ge-
nese der ägyptischen Vorstellung eines “Höchsten Wesens” ’, in: W. Wes-
tendorf (ed.), Aspekte der spätägyptischen Religion, Wiesbaden: Harrasso-
witz, 7-42.
Assmann 1983 – J. Assmann, ‘Die Rubren in der Überlieferung der Sinuhe-
Erzählung’, in: M. Görg (ed.), Fontes atque Pontes: Eine Festgabe für H.
Brunner (ÄAT, 5), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 18-41.
Assmann 1984 – J. ‘Reden und Schweigen’, LÄ, Bd. 5, Wiesbaden: Harrassow-
itz, 195-201.
Assmann 1990 – J. Assmann, Ma ,at: Gerechtigkeit und Unsterblichkeit im
Alten Ägypten, München.
Assmann 1999 – J. Assmann, Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete (OBO), Frei-
burg: Universitäts-Verlag, 2nd ed.
Bailey 1991 – C. Bailey, Bedouin Poetry from Sinai and the Negev: A Mirror
of Culture, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Balentine 1983 – S.E. Balentine, The Hidden God: The Hiding of the Face of
God in the Old Testament, Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
Barr 1993 – J. Barr, Biblical Faith and Natural Theology: The Gifford Lectures
for 1991, Delivered in the University of Edinburgh, Oxford: Oxford Univ.
Press.
Barr 1999 – J. Barr, The Concept of Biblical Theology: An Old Testament
Perspective, London: SCM Press.
Barrado 1997 – P. Barrado, ‘El silencio en el Antiguo Testamento’, EstB 55,
5-27.
Barta 1971 – W. Barta, ‘Zu einigen Textpassagen der Prophezeiung des Ne-
ferti’, MDAIK 27, 35-45.
Barta 1980 – W. Barta, ‘Königsberufung’, LÄ, Bd. 3, Wiesbaden: Harrasso-
witz, 475-477.
Barth, The Church Dogmatics: see Abbreviations.
Barth 1940 – K. Barth, Der Römerbrief, Zollikon-Zürich: Evangelischer Ver-
lag, repr. of the sixth edition.
Barth 1968 – K. Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, tr. Edwyn C. Hoskyns,
Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, cited after the reprint 1968.
Barthélemy 1982 – D. Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament,
t. 1 (OBO, 50/1), Fribourg: Éditions universitaires.
 bibliography 311

Barthélemy 1992 – D. Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament,

t. 3 (OBO, 50/3), Fribourg: Éditions universitaires.
Basson 2006 – A. Basson, Divine Metaphors in Selected Hebrew Psalms of
Lamentation (FAT, 215), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Batten 1913 – L.W. Batten, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah (ICC), Edin-
burgh: T. & T. Clark.
Batto 1987 – B. F. Batto, ‘The Sleeping God: An Ancient Near Eastern Motif
of Divine Sovereignty’, Bib 68, 153-177.
Baucke-Ruegg 1998 – J. Baucke-Ruegg, Die Allmacht Gottes: Systematisch-
theologische Erwägungen zwischen Metaphysik, Postmoderne und Poesie
(TBT, 96), Berlin: De Gruyter.
Bauckham 1993 – R. Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the
Book of Revelation. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
Baumann 1974 – A. Baumann, hmd II / µmd / µwd, ThWAT, Bd. 2, Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer, 277-83.
Bayer 2001 – O. Bayer, ‘Zur Theologie der Klage’, JBTh 16, 289-301.
Beal 2002 – R. Beal, ‘Hittite Oracles’, in: L. Ciraolo & J. Seidel (eds), Magic
and Divination in the Ancient World, Leiden: Brill-Styx, 57-81.
Beckett 1952 – S.[B.] Beckett, En attendant Godot, Paris: Les Éditions de
Minuit.
Beckett 2004 – S.[B.] Beckett, Waiting for Godot: A Tragicomedy, Revised
Acting edition (1965), revised edition London: Samuel French.
Becking 1987 – B. Becking, ‘A Remark on a Post–Exilic Seal’, UF 18, 445-6.
Becking 2004 – B. Becking, Between Fear and Freedom: Essays on the Inter-
pretation of Jeremiah 30–31 (OTS, 51), Leiden: Brill.
Becking 2007 – B. Becking, From David to Gedaliah: The Book of Kings as
Story and History (OBO, 228), Fribourg: Academic Press.
Becking 2008 – B. Becking, ‘Psalm 121: Het verhaal van een ontgoochelde
pelgrim,’ in: B. Becking & A. Merz (eds), Verhaal als Identiteits-Code:
Opstellen aangeboden aan Geert van Oyen bij zijn afscheid van de Uni-
versiteit Utrecht (UTR, 60), Utrecht: Universiteit, 40-51.
Becking 2009 – B. Becking, ‘Means of Revelation in the Book of Jeremiah’,
in: H.M. Barstad & R.G. Kratz (eds), Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah
(BZAW, 388), Berlin: De Gruyter, 33-47.
Becking & Korpel 2010 – B. Becking & M.C.A. Korpel, ‘To Create, to Sep-
arate or to Construct: An Alternative for a Recent Proposal as to the
Interpretration of arb in Gen 1:1–2:4a’, JHS 10, Article 3, 1-21.
Becking & Sanders 2010 – B. Becking & P. Sanders, ‘De inscriptie uit Khirbet
Qeiyafa: een vroege vorm van sociaal besef in oud Israël?’, NedThT 64,
238-252.
Beeman 2006 – W.O. Beeman, ‘Silence in Music’, in: Achino-Loeb 2006, 23-
34.
Begg 1992 – T. Begg, ‘Inquire of God’, in: D.N. Freedman (ed.), The Anchor
Bible Dictionary, vol. 3, New York: Doubleday, 417-418.
Begrich 1934 – J. Begrich, ‘Das priesterliche Heilsorakel’, ZAW 52, 81-92.
312 bibliography

Bentz 2007 – J. Bentz, Silent God: Finding Him When You Can’t Hear His
Voice, Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press.
Ben Zvi 2000 – E. Ben Zvi, Micah (FOTL, 21B), Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Ben Zvi & Floyd 2000 – E. Ben Zvi & M.H. Floyd (eds), Writings and Speech
in Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy (SBL.SymS, 10), Atlanta:
SBL.
Berges 2003 – U. Berges, Schweigen ist Silber – Klagen ist Gold: Das Drama
der Gottesbeziehung aus alttestamentlicher Sicht mit einer Auslegung zu
Ps 88 (Salzburger Exegetisch-Theologische Vorträge Bd. 1), Münster: Lit.
Berges 2008 – U. Berges, Jesaja 40–48: Übersetzt und ausgelegt (HThK.AT),
Freiburg: Herder.
Bergmann 2008 – C.D. Bergmann, Childbirth as a Metaphor for Crisis: Evi-
dence from the Ancient Near East, the Hebrew Bible and 1 QH 11:1-18
(BZAW, 382), Berlin: De Gruyter.
Beuken 1979 – W.A.M. Beuken, Jesaja: Deel IIa (PredOT), Nijkerk: Callen-
bach.
Beuken 1997 – W.A.M. Beuken, ‘Isaiah 30: A Prophetic Oracle Transmitted in
Two Successive Paradigms’, in: C.C. Broyles & C.A. Evans (eds), Writing
and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah: Studies of an Interpretive Tradition, vol.
1, Leiden: Brill, 369-397.
Beuken 2010 – W.A.M. Beuken, Jesaja 28–39 (HThK.AT), Freiburg: Herder.
Biese 1893 – A. Biese, Die Philosophie des Metaphorischen: In Grundlinien
dargestellt, Hamburg: Voss.
Bittner 2009 – W.J. Bittner, Hören in der Stille: Praxis meditativer Gottes-
dienste, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Black et al. 2004 – J. Black et al., The Literature of Ancient Sumer, Oxford:
Oxford Univ. Press (paperback edition 2006).
Black 1962 – M. Black, Models and Metaphors: Studies in Language and Phi-
losophy, Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press.
Blans 2000 – G.H.T. Blans, ‘ “Cloud of Unknowing”: An Orientation in Neg-
ative Theology from Dionysus the Areopagite, Eckhart, and John of the
Cross to Modernity’, in: Bulhof & Ten Kate 2000, 58-77.
Blenkinsopp 2002 – J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55 (AncB, 19A), New York:
Doubleday.
Blenkinsopp 2003 – J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66 (AncB, 19B), New York:
Doubleday.
Block 1997 – D.I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24 (NICOT),
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Blum 2008 – E. Blum, ‘Israels Prophetie im altorientalischen Kontext: An-
merkungen zu neueren religionsgeschichtlichen Thesen’, in: I. Cornelius &
L. Jonker (eds), “From Ebla to Stellenbosch”: Syro-Palestinian Religions
and the Hebrew Bible (ADPV, 37), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 81-115.
Blumenthal 1982 – E. Blumenthal, ‘Die Prophezeiung des Neferti’, ZÄS 109,
1-27.
Boecker 1964 – H.J. Boecker, Redeformen des Rechtslebens im Alten Testa-
ment (WMANT, 14), Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.
 bibliography 313

Boehme 2007 – K. Boehme, ‘Weltoffen Christ sein: Madeleine Delbrêl’, in:

Sorace & Zimmerling 2007, 67-76.
Bohak 2008 – G. Bohak, Ancient Jewish Magic: A History, Cambridge: Cam-
bridge Univ. Press.
Bonechi & Durand 1992 – M. Bonechi & J.-M. Durand, ‘Oniromancie et
magie à Mari à l’époque d’Ébla’, in: P. Fronzaroli (ed.), Literature and
Literary Language at Ebla (QS, 18), Firenze: Dipartimento di Linguistica,
Università di Firenze, 151-161.
Bonhoeffer 1998 – D. Bonhoeffer, Widerstand und Ergebung: Briefe und Auf-
zeichnungen aus der Haft, ed. Chr. Gremmels et. al., München: Kaiser.
Bonhoeffer 2001 – D. Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison: An
Abridged Edition, tr. John Bowden, London: SCM.
Bons 1994 – E. Bons, fqæv,; ThWAT, Bd. 8, Lief. 4, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer,
449-454.
Booij 1978 – T. Booij, Godswoorden in de Psalmen: Hun funktie en achter-
gronden, 2 dln, Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Bordeuil & Pardee 2010 – P. Bordreuil & D. Pardee, ‘Textes alphabétiques
inédits du Musée du Louvre’, in: W. van Soldt, Society and Administration
in Ancient Ugarit (PIHANS, 114), Leiden: NINO, 1-15.
Borger 1979 – R. Borger, Babylonisch-Assyrische Lesestücke, Heft 1, Roma:
Pontificium Istitutum Biblicum, 2nd ed.
Borghouts 1980 – J. F. Borghouts, ‘Magie’, LÄ, Bd. 3, Wiesbaden: Harras-
sowitz, 1137-1151.
Boschki 2001 – R. Boschki, ‘Schweigen und schreien zugleich: Anklage Gottes
im Werk von Elie Wiesel’, JBTh 16, 109-132.
Bottéro 1987-1990 – J. Bottéro, ‘Magie A: In Mesopotamien’, RlA, Bd. 7,
200-234.
Bottéro & Kramer 1989 – J. Bottéro & S.Kramer, Lorsque les dieux faisaient
l’homme: Mythologie mésopotamienne, Paris: Gallimard.
Brettler 1989 – M.Z. Brettler, God is King: Understanding an Israelite Meta-
phor (JSOT.S, 76), Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Brock & Kiraz 2006 – S.P. Brock & G.A. Kiraz, Ephrem the Syrian: Select
Poems, Provo: Brigham Young Univ. Press.
Brown 1995-2001 – J.P. Brown, Israel and Hellas (BZAW, 231; 276; 299), 3
vols, Berlin: De Gruyter.
Brown Taylor 1998 – B. Brown Taylor, When God Is Silent: The 1997 Lyman
Beecher Lectures on Preaching, Cambridge: Cowley Publications.
Brueggemann 1973 – W. Brueggemann, In Man We Trust: The Neglected
Side of Biblical Faith, Richmond: John Knox Press.
Brueggemann 1997 – W. Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testi-
mony, Dispute, Advocacy, Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Bruneau 2009 – T. Bruneau, ‘Silence, Silences, and Silencing’, in: St.W. Little-
john & K.A. Foss (eds), Encyclopedia of Communication Theory, vol. 2,
London: SAGE, 880-884.
Brunner 1972 – H. Brunner, ‘Blindheit’, LÄ, Bd. 1, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz,
828-833.
314 bibliography

Brunner 1977a – H. Brunner, ‘Gebet’, LÄ, Bd. 2, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz,

452-459.
Brunner 1977b – H. Brunner, ‘Herz’, LÄ, Bd. 2, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz,
1158-1168.
Brunner 1988 – H. Brunner, Altägyptische Weisheit: Lehren für das Leben,
Zürich.
Brunner-Traut 1977 – E. Brunner-Traut, ‘Gesten’, LÄ, Bd. 2, Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 573-585.
Brunner-Traut 1979 – E. Brunner-Traut, ‘Weiterleben der ägyptischen Le-
benslehren in den koptischen Apophtegmata am Beispiel des Schweigens’,
in: E. Hornung & O. Keel (eds), Studien zu altägyptischen Lebenslehren
(OBO, 28), Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 173-316.
Bryden 1998 – M. Bryden, Samuel Beckett and the Idea of God, Basingstoke:
Macmillan.
Bühlmann 1976 – W. Bühlmann, Vom rechten Reden und Schweigen: Studien
zu Proverbien 10–31 (OBO, 12), Freiburg: Universitätsverlag.
Bulhof & Ten Kate 2000 – I.N. Bulhof & L. ten Kate (eds), Flight of the
Gods: Philosophical Perspectives on Negative Theology (Perspectives in
Continental Philosophy, 11), New York: Fordham Univ. Press.
Burkert 2003 – W. Burkert, Die Griechen und der Orient: Von Homer bis zu
den Magiern, München: Beck.
Burnett 2005 – J.S. Burnett, ‘The Question of Divine Absence in Israelite
and West Semitic Religion’, CBQ 67, 215-235.
Burnett 2010 – J.S. Burnett, Where Is God? Divine Absence in the Hebrew
Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress.
Butler 1984 – T.C. Butler, Joshua (WBC), Nashville: Nelson.
Butler 1998 – S.A.L. Butler, Mesopotamian Conceptions of Dreams and Dream
Rituals (AOAT, 258), Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Cagni 1977 – L. Cagni, The Poem of Erra, Malibu.
Caquot 1959 – A. Caquot, Les songes et leur interprétation selon Canaan et
Israel’, in: Esnoul 1959, 99-124.
Caquot & De Robert 1994 – A. Caquot & P. de Robert, Les livres de Samuel
(CAT, 6), Genève: Labor et Fides.
Caranfa 2004 – A. Caranfa, ‘Silence and Spiritual Experience in Augustine,
Pseudo-Dionysius, and Claudel’, JLT 18, 187-210.
Carroll 2006 – R.P. Carroll, Jeremiah, 2 vols, Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix
Press (repr. of the 1986 SCM-edition).
Carse 1995 – J.P. Carse, The Silence of God: Meditations on Prayer, San
Francisco: Harper.
Černy 1952 – J. Černy. Paper and Books in Ancient Egypt, London: Lewis.
Chalupa 2003 – P. Chalupa, ‘Gottesschweigen im hebräischen Esterbuch’,
Analecta Cracoviensia 35, 131-8.
Chappaz 1990 – J.-L. Chappaz, ‘Un nouveau prophète en Abydos’, Bulletin
du Société d’Égyptologie à Genève 14, 23-31.
Charpin 2002 – D. Charpin, ‘Prophètes et rois dans le Proche-Orient amorrite:
Nouvelles données, nouvelles perspectives’, in: D. Charpin & J.-M. Durand
 bibliography 315

(eds), Florilegium marianum VI: Recueil d’études à la mémoire d’André

Parrot (Mémoires de N.A.B.U, 4), Paris: SEPOA, 7-38.
Charpin 2008 – D. Charpin, Lire et écrire à Babylone, Paris: PUF.
Charpin 2009 – D. Charpin, ‘Schreiber (scribe). B. Altbabylonisch’, RLA 12.
3/4, Berlin: De Gruyter, 266-269.
Childs 1974 – B.S. Childs, Exodus (OTL), London: SCM Press.
Childs 2001 – B.S. Childs, Isaiah (OTL), Louisville: John Knox Press.
Childs 2005 – B.S. Childs, ‘Speech-act Theory and Biblical Interpretation’,
SJTh 58, 375-392.
Choi 2004 – J.H. Choi, ‘Protecting the Silence: Exploring Noise and Tranquil-
ity in Babylonian Religion’, The Journal of the Association of Graduate
Near Eastern Students 10, 2-22.
Christensen 2001 – D.L. Christensen, Deuteronomy 1:1–21:9 (WBC, 6A),
Nashville: Nelson, 2nd ed.
Clift George 2005 – J. Clift George, Troubling Deaf Heaven: Assurance in the
Silence of God, B & H Publishing GrOxford Univ. Press.
Clines 1989 – D.J.A. Clines, Job 1–20 (WBC, 17), Dallas: Word Books.
Clines 2006 – D.J.A. Clines, Job 21–37 (WBC, 18A), Nashville: Nelson.
Cogan 2001 – M. Cogan, 1 Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary (AncB, 10), New York: Doubleday (repr. New Haven: Yale
Univ. Press, 2008).
Cohen 1988 – M.E. Cohen, The Canonical Lamentations of Ancient Meso-
potamia, 2 vols, Potomac: Capital Decisions.
Cole & Machinist 1998 – S.W. Cole & P. Machinist, Letters from Assyrian
and Babylonian Priests to Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal (SAA, 13),
Helsinki: Helsinki Univ. Press.
Collins 2008 – D. Collins, Magic in the Ancient Greek World (Blackwell An-
cient Religions), Oxford: Blackwell.
Conner 2006 – R. Conner, Jesus the Sorcerer: Exorcist and Prophet of the
Apocalypse. Oxford: Mandrake.
Coogan 2006 – M.D. Coogan, The Old Testament: Historical and Literary
Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures, Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
Cooper 1983 – J.S. Cooper, The Curse of Agade, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
Univ. Press.
Cooper 1985 – J.S. Cooper, ‘Sargon and Joseph: Dreams Come True’, in: A.
Kort & S. Morschauser (eds.), Biblical and Related Studies Presented to
Samuel Iwry, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 33-39.
Couroyer 1960 – B. Couroyer, ‘ “Mettre sa main sur sa bouche” en Égypte et
dans la Bible’, RB 67, 197-209.
Craig 1994 – K.M. Craig, ‘Rhetorical Aspects of Questions Answered with
Silence in 1 Samuel 14:37 and 28:6’, CBQ 56, 221-239.
Craigie 1983 – P.C. Craigie, Psalms 1-50 (WBC, 19), Waco: Word Books.
Crenshaw 1983 – J.L. Crenshaw (ed.), Theodicy in the Old Testament: Edited
with an Introduction (Issues in Religion and Theology, 4), Philadelphia:
Fortess.
316 bibliography

Crenshaw 1987 – J.L. Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes (OTL), Philadelphia: Westmin-

ster.
Cryer 1994 – F.H. Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel and its Near Eastern
Environment: A Socio-Historical Investigation (JSOT.S, 142), Sheffield:
JSOT Press.
Dahood 1965 – M. Dahood, Psalms I: 1-50 (AncB), New York: Doubleday.
Dalferth 2006 – I.U. Dalferth, Becoming Present: An Inquiry into the Chris-
tian Sense of the Presence of God, Leuven: Peeters.
Dalferth 2009 – I.U. Dalferth (ed.), The Presence and Absence of God: Clare-
mont Studies in the Philosophy of Religion, Conference 2008 (Religion in
Philosophy and Theology, 42), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Dalgish 1962 – E. Dalgish, Psalm Fifty-one in the Light of Ancient Near
Eastern Patternism, Leiden: Brill.
Dalley 1991 – S.M. Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood,
Gilgamesh, and Others, Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
Damascius 1967 – Damascii Vitae Isidori reliquiae, ed. C. Zintzen (Biblioteca
Graeca et Latina suppletoria, 1), Hildesheim: Olms.
Davies & Schofield 1995 – W. V. Davies, & L. Schofield (eds.), Egypt, the
Aegean and the Levant: Interconnections in the Second Millennium BC,
London: The Trustees of the British Museum.
Davis 2009 – S.T. Davis, ‘God as Present and God as Absent’, in: Dalferth
2009, 147-160.
Dawkins 2007 – R. Dawkins, The God Delusion, London: Black Swan.
Day 2003 – J. Day, Psalms (T&T Clark Study Guides), repr. Edinburgh:
Clark (original publication: Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992).
De Halleux 1986 – N. de Halleux. ‘Aspects de mise en page des manuscrits
de l’Égypte pharaonique’, Communications et Langues, Paris 69, 66-91.
De Hoop 1999 – R. de Hoop, Genesis 49 in Its Literary and Historical Context
(OTS, 39), Leiden: Brill.
De Jong 2007 – M.J. de Jong, Isaiah among the Ancient Near Eastern Proph-
ets: A Comparative Study of the Earliest Stages of the Isaiah Tradition and
the Neo-Assyrian Prophecies (VT.S, 117), Leiden: Brill.
DeJong Ellis 1987 – M. DeJong Ellis, ‘The Goddess Kititum Speaks to King
Ibal-pi-el: Oracle Texts from Ishchali’, MARI 5, 235-266.
DeJong Ellis 1989 – M. DeJong Ellis, ‘Observations on Mesopotamian Oracles
and Prophetic Texts: Literary and Historiographic Considerations’, JCS
41, 127-86.
Dekker 2008 – W.M. Dekker, De relationaliteit van God: onafhankelijkheid en
relatie in de godsleer en ontologie van Francesco Turrettini en Eberhard
Jüngel, Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum.
Dekker 2009 – J. Dekker, ‘ “Bind Up the Testimony”: Isaiah 8:16 and the
Making of the Hebrew Bible’, in: R. de Hoop et al. (eds), The Impact of
Unit Delimitation on Exegesis (Pericope, 7), Leiden: Brill, 63-88.
Delcor 1971 – M. Delcor, vrj, THAT, Bd. 1, München: Kaiser, 639-41.
Delitzsch 1867 – F. Delitzsch, Biblischer Commentar über die Psalmen, Leip-
zig: Dörfling & Franke.
 bibliography 317

Del Olmo Lete & Sanmartı́n 2003 – G. del Olmo Lete & J. Sanmartı́n, A Dic-
tionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition, tr. W.G.E.
Watson, 2 vols, Leiden: Brill.
De Moor 1965 – J.C. de Moor, Mondelinge overlevering in Mesopotamië,
Ugarit, en Israël, Leiden: Brill.
De Moor 1971 – J.C. de Moor, The Seasonal Pattern in the Ugaritic Myth
of Ba ,lu According to the Version of Ilimilku (AOAT, 16), Neukirchen–
Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker.
De Moor 1976 – J.C. de Moor, ‘Diviners’ Oak’, IDB, Supplementary Volume,
Nashville: Abingdon, 243-244.
De Moor 1978 – J.C. de Moor, ‘The Art of Versification in Ugarit and Israel:
I: The Rhythmical Structure’, in: Y. Avishur & J. Blau (eds), Studies
in Bible and the Ancient Near East (Fs S.E. Loewenstamm), Jerusalem,
119-139.
De Moor 1987 – J.C. de Moor, An Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit
(Nisaba, 16), Leiden: Brill.
De Moor 1988a – J.C. de Moor, ‘ “O death, where is thy sting” ’, in: L. Eslinger
& Glen Taylor (eds), Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical & Other Studies in
Memory of Peter C. Craigie (JSOT.S, 67), Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 99-107.
De Moor 1988b – J.C. de Moor, ‘The Seasonal Pattern in the Legend of
Aqhatu’, SEL 5, 61-78.
De Moor 1997 – J.C. de Moor, The Rise of Yahwism: The Roots of Israelite
Monotheism (BETL, 91A), Leuven: Peeters, 2nd ed.
De Moor 1998a – J.C. de Moor, ‘The Duality in God and Man: Gen. 1:26-
27 as P’s Interpretation of the Yahwistic Creation Account’, in: J.C. de
Moor (ed.), Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel (OTS, 40), Leiden: Brill,
112-125.
De Moor 1998b – J.C. de Moor, ‘Seventy!’, in: M. Dietrich & I. Kottsieper
(eds), “Und Mose schrieb dieses Lied auf ”: Studien zum Alten Testament
und zum Alten Orient (Fs O. Loretz; AOAT, 250), Münster: Ugarit-Verlag,
199-203.
De Moor 2000a – J.C. de Moor, ‘Genesis 49 and the Early History of Israel’,
in: J.C. de Moor & H.F. van Rooy, The Deuteronomistic History and the
Prophets (OTS,44), Leiden: Brill, 176-198.
De Moor 2000b – J.C. de Moor, ‘The Rebel in Bible Lands’, in: J.C. Exum
& H.G.M. Williamson (eds), Reading from Right to Left: Essays on the
Hebrew Bible in Honour of David J.A. Clines (JSOT.S, 373), London:
Sheffield Academic Press, 329-346.
De Moor 2000c – J.C. de Moor, ‘Micah 7:1-13: The Lament of a Disillusioned
Prophet’, in: Korpel & Oesch 2000, 149-196.
De Moor 2002 – J.C. de Moor, ‘The Structure of Micah 2:1-13: The Con-
tribution of the Ancient Witnesses’, in: M.C.A. Korpel & J. Oesch (eds),
Studies in Scriptural Unit Division (Pericope, 3), Assen: Van Gorcum,
90-120.
318 bibliography

De Moor 2009 – J.C. de Moor, ‘How Ilimilku Lost his Master (RS 92.2016)’,
UF 40, 179-189.
De Moor 2010a – J.C. de Moor, ‘Een steuntje in de rug’, in: K. Spronk et
al. (eds). Studies uit de Kamper School opgedragen aan Willem van der
Meer, Bergambacht: 2VM.
De Moor 2010b – J.C. de Moor, ‘The Holy Ones’ (in the press).
De Moor & Korpel 2007 – J.C. de Moor & M.C.A. Korpel, ‘Paragraphing in a
Tibero-Palestinian Manuscript of the Prophets and Writings’, in: M.C.A.
Korpel et al. (eds), Method in Unit Delimitation (Pericope, 6), Leiden:
Brill, 1-34.
De Waard 1997 – J. de Waard, A Handbook on Isaiah (Textual Criticism and
the Translator, 1), Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Derrida 1974 – J. Derrida, ‘White Mythology: Metaphor in the Text of Philo-
sophy’, New Literary History 6, 5-74.
Dietrich 1990 – M.Dietrich, ‘Die akkadischen Texte der Archive und Biblio-
theken von Emar’, UF 22, 25-48.
Dietrich 2003 – M. Dietrich, The Babylonian Correspondence of Sargon and
Sennacherib (SAA, 17), Helsinki: Helsinki Univ. Press.
Dietrich 2007 – M. Dietrich, ‘Ugarit und seine Beziehungen zu Zypern und
zur ägäischen Inselwelt’, in: T.R. Kämmerer (ed.), Studien zu Ritual und
Sozialgeschichte im Alten Orient (BZAW, 374), Berlin: De Gruyter, 55-91.
Dietrich & Loretz 1990 – M. Dietrich & O. Loretz, Mantik in Ugarit: Keilal-
phabetische Texte der Opferschau – Omensammlungen, Nekromantie (AL-
ASP, 3), Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Dietrich 2004 – W. Dietrich, ‘Vom Schweigen Gottes im Alten Testament’, in:
M. Witte (ed.), Gott und Mensch im Dialog: Festschrift für Otto Kaiser
zum 80. Geburtstag (BZAW, 345/2), Bd. 2, Berlin: De Gruyter, 997-1014.
Dietrich & Link 2002 – W. Dietrich & C. Link, Die dunklen Seiten Gottes,
Tl. 1: Willkür und Gewalt, Neukirchen Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 4th
ed.
Dietrich & Link 2004 – W. Dietrich & C. Link, Die dunklen Seiten Gottes,
Tl. 2: Allmacht und Ohnmacht, Neukirchen Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,
2nd ed.
Dijkstra 1986 – M. Dijkstra, Ezechiël I (Tekst&Toelichting), Kampen: Kok.
Dijkstra 1989 – M. Dijkstra, Ezechiël II (Tekst&Toelichting), Kampen: Kok.
Döhling 2009 – J.-D. Döhling, Der bewegliche Gott: Eine Untersuchung des
Motivs der Reue Gottes in der hebräischen Bibel (HeBSt, 61), Freiburg:
Herder.
Dominicus 1994 – B. Dominicus, Gesten und Gebärden in Darstellungen des
Alten und Mittleren Reiches (SAGA, 10), Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag.
Dorfles 1992 – G. Dorfles, ‘Die kreative Stille’, in: Kamper & Wulf 1992,
23-26.
Dramm 2007 – S. Dramm, Dietrich Bonhoeffer: An Introduction to his
Thought, tr. Thomas Rice, Peabody: Hendrickson.
Driver 1954 – G. R. Driver, Semitic Writing: From Pictograph to Alphabet,
London: Oxford Univ. Press, 2nd ed.
 bibliography 319

Driver & Miles 1955 – G. R. Driver & J. C. Miles, The Babylonian Laws, vol.
2, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Duguid 1999 – I.M. Duguid, Ezekiel (The NIV Application Commentary),
Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Duquesne 2001 – T. Duquesne, ‘Concealing and Revealing: The Problem of
Ritual Masking in Ancient Egypt’, Discussions in Egyptology 51, 5-31.
Durand 1988 – J.-M. Durand, Archives épistolaires de Mari (ARM, 26), 2
tms, Paris: ERC.
Durand 1997 – J.-M. Durand, Documents épistolaires du palais de Mari
(LAPO), t. 1, Paris: Éditions du Cerf.
Durand 2000 – J.-M. Durand, Documents épistolaires du palais de Mari
(LAPO), t. 3, Paris: Éditions du Cerf.
Durand 2002 – J.-M. Durand, ‘L’affaire d’Alahtum’, in: J.-M. Durand (ed.),
Le culte du dieu de l’orage d’Alep et l’affaire˘d’Alahtum (Florilegium Mari-
anum, 7 / Mémoires de N.A.B.U., 8), Paris: SEPOA, ˘ 59-172.
Durand 2008 – J.-M. Durand, ‘La religion amorrite en Syrie à l’époque des
archives de Mari’, in: G. del Olmo Lete (ed.), Mythologie et religion des
Sémites occidentaux, vol. 1: Ébla, Mari (OLA, 162), Leuven: Peeters 161-
716.
Dwinger 1936 – E.E. Dwinger, Und Gott schweigt ..? Bericht und Aufruf,
Jena: Diederichs.
Ebeling 1953 – E. Ebeling, Die akkadische Gebetsserie ‘Handerhebung’ von
neuem gesammelt und herausgegeben (Deutsche Akademie der Wissen-
schaften zu Berlin: Institut für Orientforschung, Veröffentlichung, 20),
Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Ehrlich 1953 – E. L. Ehrlich, Der Traum im Alten Testament (BZAW, 73),
Berlin: Töpelmann.
Ehrman 2008 – B.D. Ehrman, God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to An-
swer Our Most Important Question – Why We Suffer, New York: Harper-
Collins.
Eidevall 1996 – G. Eidevall, Grapes in the Desert: Metaphors, Models and
Themes in Hosea 4-14 (CB.OT, 43), Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Ellermeier 1968 – F. Ellermeier, Prophetie in Mari und Israel, Göttingen.
Emmendörffer 1998 – M. Emmendörffer, Der ferne Gott: Eine Untersuchung
der alttestamentlichen Volksklagelieder (FAT, 21), Tübingen: Mohr Sie-
beck.
Endo 1976 – S. Endo, Silence, tr. W. Johnston, London: P. Owen.
Englund 1987 – G. Englund (ed.), ‘The Treatment of Opposites in Temple
Thinking and Wisdom Literature’, in: G. Englund (ed.), The Religion
of the Ancient Egyptians: Cognitive Structures and Popular Expressions
(Proceedings of Symposia in Uppsala and Bergen 1987 and 1988), Uppsa-
la: [Uppsala Universitet], 77-88.
Enmarch 2008 – R. Enmarch, A World Upturned: Commentary on and Ana-
lysis of The Dialogue of Ipuwer and the Lord of All, Oxford: Oxford Univ.
Press.
320 bibliography

Ephratt 2007 – M. Ephratt (ed.), µyçyaAˆyb µydjybw twbrtb hqytçh lç hmwqm l[ .twqytç,
Tel-Aviv: Resling.
Erickson 2007 – G. Erickson, The Absence of God in Modernist Literature,
New York: Palgrave.
Esnoul 1959 – A.-M. Esnoul et al. (eds), Les songes et leur interprétation
(Sources orientales, 20), Paris: Éditions du Seuil.
Everitt 2004 – N. Everitt, The Non-existence of God, London: Routledge
(repr. 2009).
Fabian 2000 – D. Fabian, ‘Prophetic Fulfilment: An Examination of ‘True’
and ‘False’ Prophecy in the Deuteronomistic Works’, OTEs 13, 9-26.
Fales 1991 – F.M. Fales, ‘Notes on the Royal Family of Emar’, in: D. Charpin
& F. Joannès (eds), Marchands, diplomates et empereurs: Études sur la
civilisation mésopotamienne offertes à P. Garelli, Paris: ERC, 81-90.
Fauconnier & Turner 2003 – G. Fauconnier & M. Turner, The Way We Think:
Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities, New York: Ba-
sic Books.
Fee 1994 – G. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Sprit in the Letters
of Paul, Peabody: Hendrickson.
Fierro Bardajı́ 1992 – A. Fierro Bardajı́, ‘La conducta del silencio’, in: C.
Castilla del Pino (ed.), El silencio, Madrid: Alianza, 47-78.
Fincke 2001 – A. Fincke, The Samuel Scroll from Qumran: 4QSama Restored
and Compared to the Septuagint and 4QSamc (STDJ, 43), Leiden: Brill.
Fischer-Elfert 2007 – H.-W. Fischer-Elfert, ‘Gezeigtes und Verborgenes im
Alten Ägypten’, in: Streck 2007, 81-102.
Fleming & Milstein 2010 – D.E. & S.J. Milstein, The Buried Foundation of
the Gilgamesh Epic: The Akkadian Huwawa Narrative (Cuneiform Mono-
graphs, 39), Leiden: Brill.
Flesseman-Van Leer 1980 – E. Flesseman-Van Leer, The Bible: Its Authority
and Interpretation in the Ecumenical Movement (Faith and Order Paper,
99), Geneva: World Council of Churches.
Flew 2008 – A. Flew, There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious
Atheist Changed His Mind, New York: Harper Collins, paperback edition.
Flower 2008 – M.A. Flower, The Seer in Ancient Greece, Berkeley: UCP.
Fohrer 1963 – G. Fohrer, Das Buch Hiob (KAT, 16), Gütersloh: Mohn.
Foreman 2009 – B.A. Foreman, ‘Strike the Tongue: Silencing the Prophet in
Jeremiah 18:18b’, VT 59, 653-657.
Foster 1995 – J.L. Foster, Hymns, Prayers, and Songs: An Anthology of An-
cient Egyptian Lyric Poetry (SBL-WAW, 8), Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Foster 2001 – J.L. Foster, Ancient Egyptian Literature: An Anthology, Austin:
Univ. of Texas (4th repr. 2005).
Foster 2005 – B.R. Foster, Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Lit-
erature, Bethesda: CDL Press, 3rd ed.
Fox 2009 – M.V. Fox, Proverbs 10–31 (AncB, 18B), New Haven: Yale Univ.
Press.
Frahm 2009 – E. Frahm, Historische und historisch-literarische Texte (WD-
OG, 121), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
 bibliography 321

Frandsen 1998 – P.J. Frandsen, ‘On the Avoidance of Certain Forms of Loud
Voices and Access to the Sacred’, in: W. Clarysse et al. (eds), Egyptian
Religion – The Last Thousand Years: Studies Dedicated to the Memory of
Jan Quaegebeur, vol. 2 (OLA, 85), Leuven: Peeters, 975-1000.
Freedman & Frey 2004 – D.N. Freedman & R. Frey, ‘False Prophecy Is True’,
in: Kaltner & Stulman 2004, 82-87.
Freedman & Willoughby 1984 – D.N. Freedman & B.E. Willoughby, ‘Ëa;l]m’' ,
ThWAT, Bd. 4, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 887-904.
Frère Roger 2005 – Frère Roger, Prier dans le silence du cœur – Cent prières,
Taizée: Les Presses de Taizé.
Frey-Anthes 2007 – H. Frey-Anthes, Unheilsmächte und Schutzgenien, An-
tiwesen und Grenzgänger: Vorstellungen von “Dämonen” im alten Israel
(OBO, 227), Fribourg: Academic Press.
Frey-Anthes 2008 – H. Frey-Anthes, ‘Concepts of “Demons” in Ancient Is-
rael”, WO 38, 38-52.
Friebel 1999 – K.G. Friebel, Jeremiah’s and Ezekiel’s Sign-Acts (JSOT.S,
283), Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Friedrich 1956 – H. Friedrich, Die Struktur der modernen Lyrik: Von der Mitte
des neunzehnten bis zur Mitte des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts, erweiterte
Neuausgabe (Rowohlts deutsche Enzyklopädie), Hamburg: Rowohlt.
Frood 2007 – E. Frood, Biographical Texts from Ramessid Egypt, ed. J. Baines
(WAW, 26), Leiden: Brill.
Fuchs & Parpola 2001 – A. Fuchs & S. Parpola, The Correspondence of Sargon
II, Part III: Letters from Babylonia and the Eastern Provinces (SAA, 15),
Helsinki: Helsinki Univ. Press.
Fuchs 1982 – O. Fuchs, Die Klage als Gebet: Eine theologische Besinnung am
Beispiel des Psalms 22, München: Kösel.
Gardiner 1960 – A. Gardiner, The K . adesh Inscriptions of Ramesses II, Ox-
ford: Griffith Institute.
Gentili & Schnöller 1986 – A. Gentili & A. Schnöller, Dio nel silenzio: La
meditazione nella vita (Riscoprire il Centro, 1), Milano: Àncora.
George 2003 – A.R. George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction,
Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts, 2 vols, Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
Gerstenberger 1992 – E.S. Gerstenberger, ‘ “Where is God?”: The Cry of the
Psalmists’, in: C. Duquoc & C. Floristan (eds), Where Is God? A Cry of
Human Distress, London: SCM Press, 11-22.
Gibson 1969 – A. Gibson, The Silence of God: Creative Response to the Films
of Ingmar Bergman, New York: Harper & Row.
Gibson 1978 – J.C.L. Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends, Edinburgh: T&T
Clark, 2nd ed.
Gillmayr-Bucher 2003 – S. Gillmayr-Bucher, ‘Wenn die Dichter verstummen:
Das Schweigen in den Psalmen’, Theologie und Glaube 93, 316-332.
Gire 2005 – K. Gire, The North Face of God: Hope for Times When God
Seems Indifferent, Carol Stream: Tyndale House.
Gnuse 1984 – R.K. Gnuse, The Dream Theophany of Samuel: Its Structure in
Relation to Ancient Near Eastern Dreams and its Theological Significance,
322 bibliography

Lanham: Univ. Press of America.

Görg 2005 – M. Görg, ‘Ionien und Kleinasien in früher ausserbiblischer Bezeu-
gung’, BN 127, 5-10.
Gold 1992 – A. Gold (ed.), The Complete ArtScroll Selichos – Ashkenaz (Min-
hag Lita), with a translation by Y. Lavon, New York: Mesorah.
Goldenstein 2001 – J. Goldenstein, Das Gebete der Gottesknechte: Jesaja
63,7–64,11 im Jesajabuch (WMANT, 92), Neukirchen: Neukirchener Ver-
lag.
Goldingay 2005 – J. Goldingay, The Message of Isaiah 40–55: A Literary-
Theological Commentary, London: T& T Clark.
Goldingay 2007 – J. Goldingay, Psalms, vol. 2: Psalms 42–89 (Baker Com-
mentary on the Old Testament), Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
Goldingay 2008 – J. Goldingay, Psalms, vol. 3: Psalms 90–150 (Baker Com-
mentary on the Old Testament), Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
Goldstein 1988 – J.A. Goldstein, ‘The Historical Setting of the Uruk Proph-
ecy’ JNES 47, 43-46.
Gordis 1968 – R. Gordis, Koheleth: The Man and his World – A Study of
Ecclesiastes, New York: Schocken, 3rd ed.
Gordis 1978 – R. Gordis, The Book of Job: Commentary, New Translation and
Special Studies, New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America.
Gordon 2007 – R.P. Gordon, ‘Standing in the Council: When Prophets En-
counter God’, in: R.P. Gordon (ed.), The God of Israel (UCOP, 64), Cam-
bridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 190-204.
Graf 2009 – F. Graf, ‘Dodona, Dodone’, Brill’s New Pauly Online: Antiquity
Volumes, Leiden: Brill, s.v..
Grayson 1975 – A.K. Grayson, Babylonian Historical-Literary texts (TSTS,
3), Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press.
Grayson 2000 – A.K. Grayson, ‘Murmuring in Mesopotamia’, in: A.R. George
& I.L. Finkel (eds), Wisdom, Gods and Literature: Studies in Assyriology
in Honour of W.G. Lambert, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 301-308.
Greene 1989 – J.T. Greene, The Role of the Messenger and Message in the
Ancient Near East: Oral and Written Communication in the Ancient Near
East and in the Hebrew Scriptures – Communicators and Communiques
in Context (BJS, 169), Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Grieshammer 1977 – R. Grieshammer, ‘Gott im Menschen’, LÄ, Bd. 2, Wies-
baden: Harrassowitz, 788.
Groenewald 2005 – A. Groenewald, ‘ “And please, do not hide your face from
your servant!” (Ps 69:18a): The Image of the “Hidden God” ’, in: M. Häusl
& D. Volgger (eds), Vom Ausdruck zum Inhalt, vom Inhalt zum Ausdruck:
Beiträge zur Exegese und Wirkungsgeschichte alttestamentlicher Texte (Fs
Th. Seidl), St. Ottilien 2005, 121-138.
Guinan 2009 – A. Guinan, ‘Schlaf’, RLA 12. 3/4, Berlin: De Gruyter, 195-202.
Haak 1992 – R.D. Haak, Habakkuk (VT.S, 44), Leiden: Brill.
Haas 1987-1990 – V. Haas, ‘Magie und Zauberei B. Bei den Hethitern’, RlA,
Bd. 7, Berlin: De Gruyter, 234-255.
 bibliography 323

Haas 1994 – V. Haas, Geschichte der hethitischen Religion (HdO, 1/15),

Leiden: Brill.
Haas 2008 – V. Haas, Hethitische Orakel, Vorzeichen und Abwehrstrategien:
Ein Beitrag zur hethitischen Kulturgeschichte, Berlin: De Gruyter.
Habel 1985 – N.C. Habel, The Book of Job: A Commentary (OTL), London:
SCM.
Halbmayr & Hoff 2008 – A. Halbmayr & G.M. Hoff (eds), Negative Theologie
heute? Zum aktuellen Stellenwert einer umstrittenen Tradition (QD, 226),
Freiburg: Herder.
Hallo 1966 – W.W. Hallo,‘Akkadian Apocalypses’, IEJ 16, 231-242.
Hallo 1996 – W.W. Hallo, Origins: The Ancient Near Eastern Background of
Some Modern Western Institutions (SHCANE, 6), Leiden: Brill.
Handy 1994 – L.K. Handy, Among the Host of Heaven: The Syro-Palestinian
Pantheon as Bureaucracy, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Hartenstein & Rösel 2009 – F. Hartenstein & M. Rösel (eds), JHWH und
die Götter der Völker: Symposium zum 80.Geburtstag von Klaus Koch,
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.
Hartley 1988 – J.E. Hartley, The Book of Job (NICOT), Grans Rapids: Eerd-
mans.
Harvey 1967 – J. Harvey, Le playdoyer prophétique contre Israël après de la
rupture de l’alliance: Étude d’une formule littéraire de l’Ancien Testament
(Studia: Travaux de Recherche, 22), Bruges: Desclée de Brouwer.
Hauerwas 2002 – S. Hauerwas, With the Grain of the Universe: The Church’s
Witness and Natural Theology, London: SCM Press (original edition:
Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001).
Heiler 1997 – F. Heiler, Prayer: A Study in the History and Psychology of
Religion, tr. S. MacComb, Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press (original edition:
Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1932).
Heintz 1997 – J.-G. Heintz (ed.), Oracles et prophéties dans l’Antiquité. Actes
du Colloque de Strasbourg 15-17 juin 1995. (Université des Sciences Hu-
maines de Strasbourg, Travaux du Centre de Recherche sur le Proche-
Orient et la Grèce Antiques, 15), Paris: De Boccard.
Herbert 1997 – E.D. Herbert, ‘4QSama and its Relationship to the LXX:
An Exploration in Stemmatological Analysis,’ in: B.A. Taylor (ed.), IX
Congress of the International Organisation for Septuagint and Cognate
Studies, Cambridge 1995, Atlanta: Scholars Press, 37-55.
Hieke 2009 – T. Hieke, ‘Alles Auslegungssache: Methodisch-hermeneutische
Erwägungen zur Kontextualisierung biblischer Auslegung’, BN 140, 95-
110.
High 1967 – D.M. High, Language, Persons, and Belief, New York: Oxford
Univ. Press.
Hilber 2005 – J. Hilber, Cultic Prophecy in the Psalms (BZAW, 352), Berlin:
De Gruyter.
Hillesum 1996 – E. Hillesum, An Interrupted Life: Letters from Westerbork,
tr. A.J. Pommerans, New York: Holt Paperbacks.
Hillesum 2006 – E. Hillesum, Het verstoorde leven: Dagboek van Etty Hillesum
1941-1943 (Singel Pocket), Amsterdam: Balans, 26th ed.
324 bibliography

Himbaza 1997 – I. Himbaza, ‘ “Se couvriront-ils la moustache?” (Michée 3:7)’.

BN 88, 27-30.
Hoftijzer & Jongeling 1995 – J. Hoftijzer & K. Jongeling, Dictionary of the
North-West Semitic Inscriptions, 2 vols, Leiden: Brill.
Holter 1995 – K. Holter, Second Isaiah’s Idol-Fabrication Passages, Frankfurt
a.M.: Lang.
Horn 2009 – P. Horn, ‘Simone Weil and Cormac McCarthy’s The Road :
Conditions for the Possibility of Beauty, Justice, and Faith in God’, in:
Dalferth 2009, 187-199.
Hornung 1971 – E. Hornung, Der Eine und die Vielen: Ägyptische Gottes-
vorstellungen, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Hornung 1977 – E. Hornung, ‘Gott-Mensch-Beziehung’, LÄ, Bd. 2, Wies-
baden: Harrassowitz, 788-701.
Hornung 1996 – E. Hornung, ‘Götterworte im Alten Ägypten’, in: R. Brague
& T. Schabert (eds), Die Macht des Wortes (Eranos, N.F. 4), München:
Fink, 159-186.
Hornung & Keel 1979 – E. Hornung & O. Keel (eds), Studien zu altägyptischen
Lebenslehren (OBO, 28), Freiburg: Universitätsverlag.
Horovitz & Finkelstein 1939 – H.S. Horovitz & L. Finkelstein, Siphre ad
Deuteronomium (Corpus Tannaiticum), Berolini: Jüdischer Kulturbund
(repr. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1969).
Horowitz & Hurowitz 1992 – W. Horowitz & V. Hurowitz, ‘Urim and Thum-
mim in Light of a Psephomancy Ritual from Assur (LKA 137)’, JANES
21, 95-115.
Horowitz & Oshima 2006 – W. Horowitz & T. Oshima (eds), Cuneiform in
Canaan: Cuneiform Sources from the Land of Israel in Ancient Times,
Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
Hossfeld & Zenger 1993 – F.-L. Hossfeld & E. Zenger, Die Psalmen: Psalm
1–50 (NEB.AT), Würzburg: Echter Verlag.
Hossfeld & Zenger 2008 – F.-L. Hossfeld & E. Zenger, Psalmen 101–150
(HThK.AT), Freiburg: Herder.
Houtman 1993 – C. Houtman, Exodus (HCOT), Vol. 1, Kampen: Kok.
Houtman 2000 – C. Houtman, Exodus (HCOT), vol. 3, Leuven: Peeters.
Howells 1981 – C. Howells, ‘Sartre and Negative Theology’, MLR 76, 549-555.
Hunger 1992 – H. Hunger (ed.), Astrological Reports to Assyrian Kings (SAA,
8), Helsinki: Helsinki Univ. Press.
Hunger 2009 – H. Hunger, ‘Schreiber. C. Im 2. und 1.Jahrtausend’, RLA 12.
3/4, Berlin: De Gruyter, 269-273.
Husser 1994 – J.-M. Husser, Le songe et la parole: Étude sur le rêve et sa
fonction dans l’ancien Israël (BZAW, 210), Berlin: De Gruyter.
Husser 1999 – J.-M. Husser, Dreams and Dream Narratives in the Biblical
World (BiSe, 63), Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Hyatt 1980 – J.P. Hyatt, Exodus (New Century Bible Commentary), Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans (original edition: London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott,
1971).
 bibliography 325

Jablónski et al. 1998 – P. Jablónski, J. van der Lans & C. Hermans, ‘Metaphor
Theories and Religious Language Understanding’, Metaphor and Symbol
13, 287-292.
Israelit-Groll 1990 – S. Israelit, ‘Chapter Four of the Wisdom Book of Amen-
emope’, in: S Shlomit (ed.), Studies in Egyptology Presented to Miriam
Lichtheim, Vol. 1, Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 464-484.
Izre’el 2001 – S. Izre’el, Adapa and the South Wind: Language Has the Power
of Life and Death (Mesopotamian Civilizations, 10), Winona Lake: Eisen-
brauns.
Jacobsen 1987 – T. Jacobsen, The Harps That Once . . . Sumerian Poetry in
Translation, New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.
Janowski 2001 – B. Janowski, ‘Das verborgene Angesicht Gottes: Psalm 13
als Muster eines Klagelieds des Einzelnen’, JBTh 16 (2001), 25-53.
Janowski 2003 – B. Janowski, Konfliktgespräche mit Gott: Eine Anthropologie
der Psalmen, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.
Janowski 2009 – B. Janowski, ‘Der Gott Israels und die Toten: Eine reli-
gionsgeschichtliche Skizze’, in: Hartenstein & Rösel 2009, 99-138.
Japhet 1993 – S. Japhet, I & II Chronicles: A Commentary (OTL), London:
SCM Press.
Jaworski 1993 – A. Jaworski, The Power of Silence: Social and Pragmatic Per-
spectives (Language and Language Behaviors Series, 1), Newbury
Park: Sage.
Jaworski 1997 – A. Jaworski (ed.), Silence: Interdisciplinary Perspectives
(Studies in Anthropological Linguistics, 10), Berlin: De Gruyter.
Jean 2006 – C. Jean, La magie néo-assyrienne en contexte: Recherches sur
le métier d’exorciste et le concept d’ ašipūtu (SAAS, 17), Helsinki: The
Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project.
Jeffers 1996 – A. Jeffers, Magic and Divination in Ancient Palestine and Syria
(SHANE, 8), Leiden: Brill.
Jeremias 2002 – J. Jeremias, Die Reue Gottes: Aspekte alttestamentlicher
Gottesvorstellung (Biblisch-theologische Studien, 31), Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Verlagsgesellschaft des Erziehungsvereins, 3rd ed.
Jeyes 1989 – U. Jeyes, Old Babylonian Extispicy: Omen Texts in the British
Museum (UNHAH, 64), Leiden: NINO.
Johnson 1962 – A.R. Johnson, The Cultic Prophet in Ancient Israel, Cardiff:
Univ. of Wales, 2nd ed.
Johnson 1981 – M. Johnson, ‘Introduction: Metaphor in the Philosophical
Tradition’, in: M. Johnson (ed.), Philosophical Perspectives on Metaphor,
Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press, 3-47.
Jonas 1984 – H. Jonas, ‘Der Gottesbegriff nach Auschwitz: Eine jüdische
Stimme’, in: O. Hofius (ed.), Reflexionen finsterer Zeit, Tübingen: Mohr
(cited after the reprint as Suhrkamp Taschenbuch, 1516, Berlin: Suhrkamp,
1987).
Joüon & Muraoka 2006 – P. Joüon & T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical
Hebrew (SubBi, 27), Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico.
326 bibliography

Jüngel 1978 – E. Jüngel, Gott als Geheimnis der Welt: Zur Begründung der
Theologie des Gekreuzigten im Streit zwischen Theismus und Atheismus,
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 3rd ed.
Jüngel 1983 – E. Jüngel, God as the Mystery of the World: On the Foundation
of the Theology of the Crucified One in the Dispute between Theism and
Atheism, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Justice 2006 – W.G. Justice, When God Seems Silent, New York: iUniverse.
Kadushin 1952 – M. Kadushin, The Rabbinic Mind, New York: The Jewish
Theological Seminary of America.
Kaiser 2003 – O. Kaiser, Zwischen Athen und Jerusalem: Studien zur grie-
chischen und biblischen Theologie (BZAW, 320), Berlin: De Gruyter.
Kaiser 2008 – O. Kaiser, Vom offenbaren und verborgenen Gott: Studien
zur spätbiblischen Weisheit und Hermeneutik (BZAW, 392), Berlin: De
Gruyter.
Kákosy 1982 – L. Kákosy, ‘Orakel’, LÄ, Bd. 4, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz,
600-606.
Kaltner & Stulman 2004 – J. Kaltner & L. Stulman (eds), Inspired Speech:
Prophecy in the Ancient Near East – Essays in Honor of Herbert B. Huff-
mon (JSOT.S, 378), London: T. & T Clark.
Kammenhuber 1976 – A. Kammenhuber, Orakelpraxis, Träume und Vorzei-
chenschau bei den Hethitern (Texte der Hethiter, 7), Heidelberg : Winter.
Kamper & Wulf 1992 – D. Kamper & C. Wulf (eds), Schweigen: Unter-
brechung und Grenze der menschlichen Wirklichkeit (Reihe Historische
Anthropologie, 18), Berlin: Reimer.
Kaschnitz 1957 – M.L. Kaschnitz, Neue Gedichte, Hamburg: Claassen.
Kane 1984 – L. Kane, The Language of Silence: On the Unspoken and the Un-
speakable in Modern Drama, Rutherford: Fairleigh Dickinson Univ. Press.
Kee 1986 – H.C. Kee, Medicine, Miracle and Magic in New Testament Times
(MSSNTS, 55), Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Kees 1953-1958 – H.A.J. Kees, Das Priestertum im ägyptischen Staat vom
neuem Reich bis zur Spätzeit (Probleme der Ägyptologie, 1), 2 vols, Lei-
den: Brill.
Keller 1946 – C.A. Keller, Das Wort OTH als “Offenbarungszeichen Gottes”:
Eine philologisch-theologische Begriffsuntersuchung zum Alten Testament,
Basel: Hœnen.
Keller 1991 – S.R. Keller, ‘Written Communications Between the Human
and Divine Spheres in Mesopotamia and Israel’, in: K. L. Younger, Jr. et
al. (eds.), The Biblical Canon in Comparative Perspective (Scripture in
Context, 4), Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 299-313.
Keown 1995 – G.L. Keown et al., Jeremiah 26–52 (WBC, 27), Waco: Word
Books.
Kessler 2009 – H. Kessler, Evolution und Schöpfung in neuer Sicht, Kevelaer:
Butzon & Bercker, 3rd ed.
King 1912 – L.W. King, Babylonian Boundary-Stones and Memorial Tablets
in the British Museum, London: British Museum.
King 1989 – P.J. King, ‘The marzēah.: Textual and Archaeological Evidence’,
ErIs 20, 98-106.
 bibliography 327

Kirby 1997 – J.T. Kirby, ‘Aristotle on Metaphor’, American Journal of Philo-

logy 118, 517-554.
Kjärgaard 1986 – M.S. Kjärgaard, Metaphor and Parable: A Systematic Ana-
lysis of the Specific Structure and Cognitive Function of the Synoptic
Similes and Parables qua Metaphors, Leiden: Brill.
Klingbeil 2006 – G.A. Klingbeil, ‘ “Momentaufnahmen” of Israelite Religion:
The Importance of the Communal Meal in Narrative Texts in I/II Regum
and Their Ritual Dimension’, ZAW 118, 22-45.
Klutz 2003 – T.E. Klutz (ed.), Magic in the Biblical World: From the Rod of
Aaron to the Ring of Solomon (JSNT.S, 245), London: T&T Clark.
Knohl 1995 – I. Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence, Minneapolis: Fortress.
Knohl 1996 – I. Knohl, ‘Between Voice and Silence: The Relationship between
Prayer and Temple Cult’, JBL 115, 17-30.
Koch-Westenholz 1995 – U. Koch-Westenholz, Mesopotamian Astrology: An
Introduction to Babylonian and Assyrian Celestial Divination (Carsten
Niebuhr Institute Publications, 19), Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum
Press.
Koch-Westenholz 2000 – U. Koch-Westenholz Babylonian Liver Omens: The
Chapters Manzāzu, Padānu and Pān Tâkalti of the Babylonian Extispi-
cy Series Mainly from Aššurbanipal’s Library (Carsten Niebuhr Institute
Publications, 25), Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.
Köckert 2009 – M. Köckert et al., ‘Prophets’, in: H. Cançik & H. Schneider
(eds), Brill’s New Pauly Online: Antiquity Volumes, Leiden: Brill. s.v.
Köckert & Nissinen 2003 – M. Köckert & M. Nissinen (eds), Propheten in
Mari, Assyrien und Israel (FRLANT, 201), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht.
Köhlmoos 2010 – M. Köhlmoos, Ruth (ATD, 9/3), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht.
Koenig 1994 – Y. Koenig, Magie et magiciens dans l’Égypte ancienne, Paris:
Pygmalion.
Kövecses 2010 – Z. Kövecses, Metaphor: A Practical Introduction, New York:
Oxford Univ. Press, 2nd ed.
Kolitz 1999 – Z. Kolitz, Yosl Rakover Talks to God, transl. C. Brown Janeway,
London: Vintage.
Kolitz 2008 – Z. Kolitz, Jossel Rakovers Wendung zu Gott: Jiddisch – Deutsch,
ed. P. Badde, Illustrated by Tomi Ungerer (DiogenesTaschenbuch, 23785),
Zürich: Diogenes Verlag.
Korpel 1990 – M.C.A. Korpel, A Rift in the Clouds: Ugaritic and Hebrew
Descriptions of the Divine (UBL, 8), Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Korpel 1996a – M.C.A. Korpel, ‘Avian Spirits in Ugarit and in Ezekiel 13,’
in: N. Wyatt et al. (eds), Ugarit, Religion and Culture. Essays . . . John
C.L. Gibson, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 99-113.
Korpel 1996b – M.C.A. Korpel, ‘Metaphors in Isaiah LV,’ VT 46, 43-55.
Korpel 1998 – M.C.A. Korpel, ‘Exegesis in the Work of Ilimilku of Ugarit’, in:
J.C. de Moor (ed.), Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel (OTS, 40), Leiden:
Brill, 86-111.
328 bibliography

Korpel 2000 – M.C.A. Korpel, ‘Introduction to the Series Pericope’, in: Korpel
& Oesch 2000, 1-50.
Korpel 2001 – M.C.A. Korpel, The Structure of the Book of Ruth (Pericope,
2), Assen: Van Gorcum.
Korpel 2003 – M.C.A. Korpel, ‘Theodicy in the Book of Esther’, in: A. Laato
& J.C. de Moor 2003, 351-74.
Korpel 2005a – M.C.A. Korpel, ‘Unit Delimitation in Ugaritic Cultic Texts
and Some Babylonian and Hebrew Parallels’, in: M.C.A. Korpel & J.M.
Oesch (eds), Layout Markers in Biblical Manuscripts and Ugaritic Tablets
(Pericope, 5), Assen: Van Gorcum, 141-60.
Korpel 2005b – M.C.A. Korpel, ‘Disillusion among Jews in the Postexilic
Period’, in: R.P. Gordon & J.C. de Moor (eds), The Old Testament in Its
World, Leiden: Brill, 135-157.
Korpel 2006 – M.C.A. Korpel, ‘The Greek Islands and Pontus in the Hebrew
Bible’, OTEs 19/1, 101-117.
Korpel 2007 – M.C.A. Korpel, ‘Queen Jezebel’s Seal’, UF 38, 379-398.
Korpel 2008 – M.C.A. Korpel, ‘De Ester code’, in: B. Becking & A. Merz
(eds), Verhaal als Identiteits-Code: Opstellen aangeboden aan Geert van
Oyen bij zijn afscheid van de Universiteit Utrecht (UTR, 60), Utrecht:
Universiteit Utrecht, 189-205.
Korpel 2009a – M.C.A. Korpel, ‘Kryptogramme in Ezechiel 19 und im ,Izbet-
S.art.a-Ostrakon’, ZAW 121, 70-86.
Korpel 2009b – M.C.A. Korpel, ‘Who Is Speaking in Jeremiah 4:19-22? The
Contribution of Unit Delimitation to an Old Problem’, VT 59, 88-98.
Korpel 2011 – M.C.A. Korpel, ‘Symbols of Sainthood and Sin in the Ancient
Near East and in the Bible’, in: M. Sarot (ed.), Icons of Sainthood and
Sin (Studies in Theology and Religion), Leiden: Brill (in the press).
Korpel & De Moor 1988 – M.C.A. Korpel & J.C. de Moor, ‘Fundamentals of
Ugaritic and Hebrew Poetry’, in: Van der Meer & De Moor 1988, 1-61.
Korpel & De Moor 1998 – M.C.A. Korpel & J.C. de Moor, The Structure of
Classical Hebrew Poetry: Isaiah 40–55 (OTS, 41), Leiden: Brill.
Korpel & Oesch 2000 – M.C.A Korpel & J.M. Oesch (eds), Delimitation
Criticism: A New Tool in Biblical Scholarship (Pericope, 1), Assen: Van
Gorcum.
Kottsieper 2003 – I. Kottsieper, ‘Zu graphischen Abschnittsmarkierungen in
nordwestsemitischen Texten’, in: M.C.A Korpel & J.M. Oesch (eds), Unit
Delimitation in Biblical Hebrew and Northwest Semitic Literature (Peri-
cope, 4), Assen: Van Gorcum, 121-61.
Kraus 1978 – H.-J. Kraus, Psalmen, 1.Teilband (BKAT,15/1), Neukirchen:
Neukirchener Verlag, 5th ed.
Kreiner 1997 – A. Kreiner, Gott im Leid: Zur Stichhaltigkeit der Theodizee-
Argumente (QD, 168), Freiburg i. B.: Herder.
Kreuzer 1983 – S. Kreuzer, Der lebendige Gott: Bedeutung, Herkunft und
Entwicklung einer alttestamentlichen Gottesbezeichnung (BWANT, 116),
Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
 bibliography 329

Kropp & Wagner 1999 – M. Kropp & A. Wagner (eds), “Schnittpunkt” Ugarit,
Frankfurt: Lang.
Krüger 2008 – A. Krüger (ed.), Omina, Orakel, Rituale und Beschwörungen
(TUAT-NF, 4), Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus.
Krüger 2000 – Th. Krüger, Kohelet (Prediger) (BKAT, 19, Sonderband),
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.
Kuhn 1989 – P. Kuhn, Bat Qol: Die Offenbarungsstimme in der rabbinischen
Literatur: Sammlung, Übersetzung und Kurzkommentierung der Texte
(EichM, 13), Regensburg: Pustet.
Kurpershoek 1994-2002 – P.M. Kurpershoek, Oral Poetry and Narratives from
Central Arabia (Studies in Arabic Literature, 17/1-4), 4 vols, Leiden: Brill.
Kuschel 2001 – K.-J. Kuschel, ‘ “Ein Gleichgültiger hadert nicht”: Zur Funk-
tion der Anklage Gottes bei Joseph Roth und Marie Luise Kaschnitz’,
JBTh 16, 209-231.
Kutsko 2000 – J.F. Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth: Divine Presence and
Absence in the Book of Ezekiel (Biblical and Judaic Studies, 6), Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Kwakkel 2003 – G. Kwakkel, Wonderlijk gewoon: Profeten en profetie in het
Oude Testament (TU-bezinningsreeks, 3), Barneveld: De Vuurbaak.
Laato & De Moor 2003 – A. Laato & J.C. de Moor (eds), Theodicy in the
World of the Bible, Leiden: Brill.
Labahn & Lietaert Peerbolte 2007 M. Labahn & B.J. Lietaert Peerbolte, A
Kind of Magic: Understanding Magic in the New Testament and Its Re-
ligious Environment (Library of New Testament Studies), London: T&T
Clark.
Labuschagne 1990 – C. Labuschagne, Deuteronomium (PredOT), dl. 2, Nij-
kerk: Callenbach.
Lakoff & Johnson 1980 – G. Lakoff & M. Johnson, Metaphors We Live By,
Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Lakoff & Turner 1989 – G. Lakoff & M. Turner, More than Cool Reason: A
Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor, Chicago: Universty of Chicago Press.
Lambert 1960 – W.G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature, Oxford: Clar-
endon.
Lambert 1967 – W.G. Lambert, ‘Enmeduranki and Related Matters’. JCS
21, 126-138.
Lambert 1978 – W.G. Lambert, The Background of Jewish Apocalyptic, Lon-
don: Athlone Press.
Lambert 1989 – W.G. Lambert, ‘A Babylonian Prayer to Anūna’, in: H.
Behrens et al. (eds.), DUMU–E2 –DUB–BA–A: Studies in Honor of Åke
W. Sjöberg (Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund,
11), Philadelphia: Univ. Museum, 321-336.
Lambert 2007 – W.G. Lambert, Babylonian Oracle Questions (Mesopotamian
Civilizations, 13), Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Lambert & Millard 1969 – W.G. Lambert & A.R. Millard, Atra-hası̄s: The
Babylonian Story of the Flood, Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. ˘
330 bibliography

Lanczkowski 1955 – G. Lanczkowski, ‘Reden und Schweigen im ägyptischen

Verständnis, vornehmlich des Mittleren Reiches’, in: O. Firchow (ed.),
Ägyptologische Studien (Fs H. Grapow), Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 186-
196.
Lanfranchi & Parpola 1990 – G.B. Lanfranchi & S. Parpola, The Correspond-
ence of Sargon II, Part 2: Letters from the Northern and Northeastern
Provinces (SAA, 5), Helsinki: Helsinki Univ. Press.
Leibovici 1959 – M. Leibovici, ‘Les songes et leur interprétation à Babylone’,
in: Esnoul 1959, 63-98.
Leichty 1970 – E. Leichty, The Omen Series Šumma izbu (TCS, 4), Locust
Valley: Augustin.
Leichty 1991 – E. Leichty, ‘Esarhaddon’s “Letter to the Gods” ,’ in: M. Cogan
& I. Eph,al (eds.), Ah, Assyria... : Studies in Assyrian History and An-
cient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor (Scripta
Hierosolymitana, 33), Jerusalem: Magness Press, 52–57.
Lemaire 1981 – A. Lemaire, Les écoles et la formation de la Bible dans l’ancien
Israël (OBO. 39), Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires.
Lenzi 2008 – A. Lenzi, Secrecy and the Gods: Secret Knowledge in Ancient
Mesopotamia and Biblical Israel (SAAS, 19), Helsinki: Univ. of Helsinki.
Lenzi 2009 – A. Lenzi, ‘Secrecy, Textual Legitimation, and Intercultural Po-
lemics in the Book of Daniel’, CBQ 71, 330-348.
Lenzi 2010 – A. Lenzi, ‘Invoking the God: Interpreting Invocations in Meso-
potamian Prayers and Biblical Laments of the Individual’, JBL 129, 303-
315.
Lessing 2009 – R.R. Lessing, Amos (Concordia Commentary), Saint Louis:
Concordia Publishing House.
Levin 1982 – S.R. Levin, ‘Aristotle’s Theory of Metaphor’, Philosophy and
Rhetoric 15, 24-46.
Levinas 1987 – E. Levinas, Hors sujet, Cognac: Fata Morgana.
Levinas 1993 – E. Levinas, Dieu, la Mort et le Temps, ed. J. Rolland, Paris:
Grasset.
Levinas 2000 – E. Levinas, God, Death, and Time (Meridian: Crossing Aes-
thetics), tr. B. Bergo, Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press.
Levine 1989 – B.A. Levine, Leviticus (The JPS Torah Commentary), New
York.
Levine 1993 – B.A. Levine, ‘Silence, Sound, and the Phenomenology of Mourn-
ing in Biblical Israel’, JANES 22, 89-106.
Levine 2000 – B.A. Levine, Numbers 21–36: A New Translation with Intro-
duction and Commentary (AncB, 4A), New York: Doubleday.
Levison 2009 – J.R. Levison, Filled with the Spirit, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Lewis 1989 – Th.J. Lewis, Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit
(HSM, 39), Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Lichtheim 1973 – M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, vol. 1: The Old
and Middle Kingdoms, Berkely: UCP.
Lichtheim 1976 – M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, vol. 2: The New
Kingdom, Berkely: UCP.
 bibliography 331

Lichtheim 1980 – M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, vol. 3: The Late

Period, Berkely: UCP.
Lindblom 1963 – J. Lindblom, Prophecy in Ancient Israel, Oxford: Blackwell.
Lindström 2003 – F. Lindström, ‘Theodicy in the Psalms’, in: Laato & De
Moor 2003, 256-303.
Livingstone 1989 – A. Livingstone, Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea
(SAA, 3), Helsinki: Helsinki Univ. Press.
Loevlie 2003 – E.M. Loevlie, Literary Silences in Pascal, Rousseau, and
Beckett (Oxford Modern Languages and Literature Monographs), Oxford:
Clarendon.
Lohfink 1962 – N. Lohfink, ‘Enthielten die im AT bezeugten Klageriten eine
Phase des Schweigens?’, VT 12, 260-277.
Lohfink 2008 – G. Lohfink, Welche Argumente hat der neue Atheismus? Eine
kritische Auseinandersetzung, Bad Tölz: Urfeld.
Loretz 1993 – O. Loretz, ‘Marzih.u im ugaritischen und biblischen Ahnenkult:
Zu Ps 23; 133; Am 6,1-7 und Jer 16,5.8,” in: M. Dietrich & O. Loretz (eds),
Mesopotamica – Ugaritica – Biblica: Festschrift für Kurt Bergerhof zur
Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres am 7.Mai 1992, Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 94-144.
Loretz 2002 – O. Loretz, ‘Die Gefässe Rdmns für ein Marzih.u-Gelage zu Ehren
Baals und der Nestorbecher der Ilias: Zu ugaritisch-griechischen Beziehun-
gen nach KTU 1.3 I 10-15a’, in: O. Loretz et al. (eds.), Ex Mesopotamia
et Syria Lux: Festschrift für Manfried Dietrich (AOAT, 281), Münster:
Ugarit-Verlag, 299-324.
Loretz 2003 – O. Loretz, Götter – Ahnen – Könige als gerechte Richter: Der
“Rechtsfall” des Menschen vor Gott nach altorientalischen und biblischen
Texten (AOAT, 290), Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Lundbom 1999 – J.R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20 (AncB, 21A), New York:
Doubleday.
Lust 1976 - J. Lust, ‘Elia and the Theophany on Mount Horeb ( 1 Rg 19,11-
12)’, BEThL 41, 91-100.
Lux 2005 – R. Lux, ‘ “Still alles Fleisch vor JHWH . . . ”: Das Schweigegebot
im Dodekapropheton und sein besonderer Ort im Zyklus der Nachtgesichte
des Sacharja’, Leqach 6, 99-113.
Lyons 1995 – M.C. Lyons, The Arabian Epic: Heroic and Oral Story-Telling,
3 vols, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Maarsingh 1989 – B. A. Maarsingh, Leviticus (PredOT), Nijkerk: Callenbach,
1989.
Mabie 2004 – F.J. Mabie, ‘The Syntactical and Structural Function of Hori-
zontal Dividing Lines in the Literary and Religious Texts of the Ugaritic
Corpus (KTU 1)’, UF 36, 291-311.
McAlpine 1987 – T. H. McAlpine, Sleep, Divine and Human, in the Old Tes-
tament (JSOT.S, 38), Sheffield: Sheffield Univ. Press.
McCarthy 2007 – C. McCarthy, The Road, paperback edition, Picador: Lon-
don.
332 bibliography

Mach 1992 – M. Mach, Entwicklungsstadien des jüdischen Engelglaubens in

vorrabbinischer Zeit (Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum, 34), Tü-
bingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Macintosh 1997 – A.A. Macintosh, Hosea (ICC), Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
McKane 1970 – W. McKane, Proverbs (OTL), London: SCM.
McKane 1986 – W. McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on
Jeremiah, vol. 1, Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
McKane 1996 – W. McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on
Jeremiah, vol. 2, Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
Madl 1977 – H. Madl, ‘Die Gottesbefragung mit dem Verb šā -al ’, in: H.J.
Fabry (ed.), Bausteine biblischer Theologie: Festgabe für G. Johannes Bot-
terweck zum 60. Geburtstag dargebracht von seinen Schülern (BBB, 50),
Köln: Peter Hanstein, 37-70.
Mayer 1984 – W. Mayer, Sargons Feldzug gegen Urartu, Berlin: Deutsche
Orient-Gesellschaft.
Maimonides 1904 – M. Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed, tr. M.
Friedländer, New York: Dover, 2nd ed.
Maitland 2009 – S. Maitland, A Book of Silence, paperback edition, London:
Granta.
Malamat 1998 – A. Malamat, Mari and the Bible (SHCANE, 12), Leiden:
Brill.
Malamat 2003 – A. Malamat, ‘Musicians from Hazor at Mari’, in: P. Maras-
sini (ed.), Semitic and Assyriological Studies Presented to Pelio Fronzaroli
by Pupils and Colleagues, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 355-357.
Mancini 2008 – R. Mancini, La lingua degli dei: Il silenzio dall’Antichità al
Rinascimento, Costabissara: Angelo Colla Editore.
Marion 2010 – J.-L. Marion, Le visible et le révélé (Philosophie et Théologie),
Paris: Éditions du Cerf.
Marquardt 1968 – F.-W. Marquardt, ‘Religionskritik und Entmythologisie-
rung: Über einen Beitrag Karl Barths zur Entmythologisierungsfrage’, in:
W. Dantine & K. Lüthi (eds.), Theologie zwischen gestern und morgen:
Interpretationen und Anfragen zum Werk Karl Barths, München: Kaiser,
88-123.
Marsman 2003 – H.J. Marsman, Women in Ugarit and Israel: Their Social
and Religious Position in the Context of the Ancient Near East (OTS,
49), Leiden: Brill.
Martin 2005 – G.T. Martin, Stelae from Egypt and Nubia in the Fitzwilliam
Museum, Cambridge: c. 3000 BC–AD 1150, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.
Press.
Maul 1988 – S.M. Maul, ‘Herzberuhigungsklagen’: Die sumerisch-akkadischen
Eršahunga-Gebete, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
˘ – S.M. Maul et al., ‘Divination’, in: H. Cançik & H. Schneider
Maul 2002
(eds), Brill’s New Pauly Online: Antiquity Volumes, vol. 4, Leiden: Brill,
564-577.
Maul 2003-2005 – S.M. Maul, ‘Omina und Orakel. A. Mesopotamien’, RlA,
Bd. 10, Berlin: De Gruyter, 45-88.
 bibliography 333

Mayer 1976 – W.R. Mayer, Untersuchungen zur Formensprache der babylo-

nischen ‘Gebetsbeschwörungen’ (StP, 5), Rome: Biblical Institute Press.
Meier 1937 – G. Meier, Die assyrische Beschwörungssammlung Maqlû neu
bearbeitet (BAfO, 2), repr. Osnabrück: Biblio-Verlag.
Meier 1988 – S.A. Meier, The Messenger in the Ancient Semitic World (HSM,
45), Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Meier 1999a – S.A. Meier, ‘Angel I’, in: K. van der Toorn et al. (eds), Dic-
tionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Leiden: Brill, 2nd ed., 45-50.
Meier 1999b – S.A. Meier, ‘Angel of Yahweh’, in: K. van der Toorn et al.
(eds), Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Leiden: Brill, 2nd
ed., 53-59.
Mercier 2006 – P. Mercier, Nachtzug nach Lissabon, Random House: Mün-
chen, 32nd ed.
Mercier 2008 – P. Mercier, Night Train to Lisbon, tr. Barbara Harshav, Lon-
don: Atlantic Books.
Mettinger 1988 – T. N.D. Mettinger, In Search of God: The Meaning and
Message of the Everlasting Names, Philadelphia: Fortress.
Mettinger 1995 – T. N.D. Mettinger, No Graven Image? Israelite Aniconism
in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context (CB.OT, 42), Stockholm: Almqvist
& Wiksell.
Meyer & Smith 1999 – M.V. Meyer & R. Smith (eds), Ancient Christian
Magic: Coptic Texts of Ritual Power, Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.
Michaelis 1938 – W. Michaelis, pantokravtwr, ThWNT, Bd. 3, Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer, 913-914.
Migahid 1986 – A.-G. Migahid, Demotische Briefe an Götter von der Spät-
bis Römerzeit: Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis des religiösen Brauchtums im
alten Ägypten, Würzburg: Universitätsverlag.
Migahid & Vittmann 2003 – A.-G Migahid & G. Vittmann, ‘Zwei weitere
frühdemotische Briefe an Thot’, RdE 54, 47-65.
Milazzo 1992 – G.T. Milazzo, The Protest and the Silence: Suffering, Death,
and Biblical Theology, Minneapolis: Fortress.
Milgrom 1990 – J. Milgrom, The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers, Phil-
adelphia: Jewish Publication Society.
Milgrom 1991 – J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16 (AncB, 3), New York: Doubleday.
Miralles Maciá 2007 – L. Miralles Maciá, Marzeah y thı́asos: Una institución
convival en el Oriente Próximo Antiguo y el Mediterráneo (Anejos, 20),
Madrid: Publicaciones Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
Mirecki & Meyer 2002 – P. Mirecki & M. Meyer (eds), Magic and Ritual in
the Ancient World (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World, 141), Leiden:
Brill.
Miskotte 1956 – K.H. Miskotte, Als de goden zwijgen: Over de zin van het
Oude Testament, Haarlem: Uitgeversmaatschappij Holland.
Miskotte 1967 – K.H. Miskotte, When the Gods Are Silent, tr. J.W. Dober-
stein, New York: Harper & Row.
Moltmann 1974 – J. Moltmann, The Crucified God: The Cross of Christ as
the Foundation and Criticism of Christian Theology, tr. R.A. Wilson & J.
Bowden, London: SCM.
334 bibliography

Mœller 1958 – C. Mœller, Littérature du XXe siècle et christianisme, t. 1:

Silence de Dieu, Paris: Casterman, 7th ed.
Montgomery 2002 – E. Montgomery, When Heaven Is Silent, Lake Mary:
Creation House.
Morgan 2004 – E.E. Morgan, Untersuchungen zu den Ohrenstelen aus Deir
el Medine (ÄAT, 61), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Mouton 2007 – A. Mouton, Rêves hittites: Contribution à une histoire et une
anthropologie du rêve en Anatolie ancienne (CHANE, 28), Brill: Leiden.
Mowinckel 1923 – S. Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, tr. D.R.
Ap-Thomas, 2 vols in 1, Oxford: Blackwell (repr. as BiSe, 14, Sheffield
1962).
Mrozek & Votto 1999 – A. Mrozek & S. Votto, ‘The Motif of the Sleeping
Divinity’, Biblica 80, 414-419.
Muers 2001 – R. Muers, ‘Silence and the Patience of God’, Modern Theology
17, 85-98.
Muers 2004 – R. Muers, Keeping God’s Silence: Towards a Theological Eth-
ics of Communication (Challenges in Contemporary Theology) Oxford:
Blackwell.
Murphy 1992 – R. E. Murphy, Ecclesiastes (WBC), Nashville: Nelson.
Murphy 1998 – R. E. Murphy, Proverbs (WBC), Nashville: Nelson.
Murphy-O’Connor 2003 – J. Murphy-O’Connor, ‘The Prayer of Petition (Mat-
thew 7:7 and par.)’, RB 110, 399-416
Naveh & Shaked 1985 – J. Naveh & Sh. Shaked, Amulets and Magic Bowls:
Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity, Jerusalem: Magnes.
Naveh & Shaked 1993 – J. Naveh & Sh. Shaked, Magic Spells and Formulae:
Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity, Jerusalem: Magnes.
Neher 1970 – A. Neher, L’exil de la parole: Du silence biblique au silence
d’Auschwitz, Paris: Éditions du Seuil.
Nel 1996 – P. Nel, fqv, NIDOTTE, vol. 4, Carlisle: Paternoster, 1996, 234-235.
Neumann 1990 – P.H.A. Neumann (ed.), “Religionsloses Christentum” und
“Nicht-religiöse Interpretation” bei Dietrich Bonhoeffer (WdF, 304),
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Neusner 1987 – J. Neusner, Sifre on Deuteronomium (BJSt, 101), Atlanta:
Scholars Press.
Niditch 1996 – S. Niditch, Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite
Literature (Library of Ancient Israel), Louisville: Westminster John Knox
Press.
Nielsen 1978 – K. Nielsen, Yahweh as Prosecutor and Judge: An Investiga-
tion of the Prophetic Lawsuit (Rı̂b-Pattern), transl. F. Cryer (JSOT.S, 9),
Sheffield: SUP.
Nissinen 1998 – M. Nisssinen, References to Prophecy in Neo-Assyrian Sources
(SAAS, 7), Helsinki: Univ. of Helsinki.
Nissinen 2000a – M. Nisssinen (ed.), Prophecy in its Ancient Near Eastern
Context: Mesopotamian, Biblical, and Arabian Perspectives (SBL.SS, 13),
Atlanta: SBL.
 bibliography 335

Nissinen 2000b – M. Nisssinen, ‘Spoken, Written, Quoted and Invented: Oral-

ity and Writtenness in Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy’, in: Ben Zvi &
Floyd 2000, 235-271.
Nissinen 2003 – M. Nisssinen et al. (eds), Prophets and Prophecy in the An-
cient Near East (SBL.WAW, 12), Atlanta: SBL.
Nissinen 2004 – M. Nisssinen, ‘What Is Prophecy? An Ancient Near Eastern
Perspective’, in: Kaltner & Stulman 2004, 17-37.
Noegel 2007 – S.B. Noegel, Nocturnal Ciphers: The Allusive Language of
Dreams in the Ancient Near East (AOS, 89), New Haven: American Ori-
ental Society.
Noll 1996 – S.F. Noll, ‘Ëa;l]m’' , NIDOTTE, vol. 2, Carlisle: Paternoster Press,
941-943.
Noort 1977 – E. Noort, Untersuchungen zum Gottesbescheid in Mari: Die
“Mariprophetie” in der alttestamentlichen Forschung (AOAT, 202), Neu-
kirchen: Neukirchener Verlag.
Noth 1988 – M. Noth, Das 2. Buch Mose: Exodus (ATD, 5), Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 8th ed.
Oelmüller 1999 – W. Oelmüller, Negative Theologie heute: Die Lage der Men-
schen vor Gott, München: Fink.
Oesch 1979 – J.M. Oesch, Petucha und Setuma: Untersuchungen zu einer
überlieferten Gliederung im hebräischen Text des Alten Testaments (OBO,
27), Freiburg: Universitätsverlag.
Ogden & Richards 1946 – C.K. Ogden & I.A. Richards, The Meaning of
Meaning, New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 8th ed.
Olley 1998 – J.W. Olley, ‘Texts Have Paragraphs Too – A Plea for Inclusion
in Critical Editions’, Textus 19, 111-25.
Oppenheim 1956 – A.L. Oppenheim, The Interpretation of Dreams in the An-
cient Near East, Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society (repr.
Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2007).
Oswalt 1986 – J.N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1–39 (NICOT),
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Oswalt 1996a – J.N. Oswalt, hmd, NIDOTTE, vol. 1, Carlisle: Paternoster,
1996, 970-971.
Oswalt 1996b – J.N. Oswalt, µmd, NIDOTTE, vol. 1, Carlisle: Paternoster,
1996, 972-973.
Oswalt 1998 – J.N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40–66 (NICOT),
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Oswalt 2003 – J.N. Oswalt, Isaiah (The NIV Application Commentary),
Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Oswalt 2009 – J.N. Oswalt, The Bible among the Myths: Unique Revelation
or Just Ancient Literature?, Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Patterson 1991 – B. Patterson, Waiting: Finding Hope When God is Silent,
Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.
Pardee 2000 – D. Pardee, Les textes rituels (Ras Shamra-Ougarit, 12), 2 vols.,
Paris: ERC.
Pardee 2002 – D. Pardee, Ritual and Cult at Ugarit (WAW, 10), Atlanta:
SBL.
336 bibliography

Pardee 2009 – D. Pardee, ‘A New Aramaic Inscription from Zincirli’, BASOR

356, 51-71.
Parpola 1987 – S. Parpola, The Correspondence of Sargon II, Part I: Letters
from Assyria and the West (SAA, 1), Helsinki: Helsinki Univ. Press.
Parpola 1993 – S. Parpola, Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars
(SAA, 10), Helsinki: Helsinki Univ. Press.
Parpola 1997 – S. Parpola, Assyrian Prophecies (SAA, 9), Helsinki: Helsinki
Univ. Press.
Paul 1804 – J. Paul, Vorschule der Ästhetik, Berlin: Perthes.
Pelsy 1995 – L. Pelsy, Le silence dans la Bible (Les Cahiers de “Christ seul”,
2), Montbéliard: Editions Mennonites.
Pentiuc 2001 – E. J. Pentiuc, West Semitic Vocabulary in the Akkadian Texts
from Emar (HSS, 49), Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Perlitt 1971 – L. Perlitt, ‘Die Verborgenheit Gottes’, in: H.-W. Wolff (ed.),
Probleme biblischer Theologie (Fs G. von Rad), München: Kaiser, 367-382.
Perpich 2008 – D. Perpich, The Ethics of Emmanuel Levinas, Stanford: Stan-
ford Univ. Press.
Pettinato 1966 – G. Pettinato, Die Ölwahrsagung bei den Babyloniern (SS,
21-22), 2 vols, Roma: Instituto di Studi del Vicino Oriente.
Phillips 2004 – W.G. Phillips, Judges, Ruth (Holman Old Testament Com-
mentary), Nashville: Broadman & Holman.
Plöger 1965 – O. Plöger, Das Buch Daniel (KAT, 18), Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn.
Pöhlmann 1990 – H.G. Pöhlmann, ‘Leben wir in einem religionslosen Zeit-
alter? Zur Religionslosigkeitsthese von Dietrich Bonhoeffer’, in: P.H.A.
Neumann (ed.), ‘Religionsloses Christentum’ und ‘nicht-religiöse Inter-
pretation’ bei Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Wege der Forschung 304), Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 370-386.
Poirier 2010 – J.C. Poirier, The Tongue of Angels: The Concept of Angel-
ic Languages in Classical Jewish and Christian Texts (WUNT, 2.Reihe,
287), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Ponchia 2009 – S. Ponchia, ‘Witnessing Procedures in the Ancient Near
East: Problems and Perspectives of Research’, in: N. Bellotto & S. Pon-
chia (eds), Witnessing in the Ancient Near East (Acta Sileni, 2), Padova:
S.A.R.G.O.N., 225-251.
Pongratz-Leisten 1999 – B. Pongratz-Leisten, Herrschaftswissen in Mesopot-
amien: Formen der Kommunikation zwischen Gott und König im 2. und 1.
Jahrtausend v. Chr. (SAAS, 10), Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus
Project.
Posener 1960 – G. Posener, ‘Une nouvelle histoire de revenant (Recherches
littéraires, VII)’, RdE 12, 75-82.
Prechel 2008 – D. Prechel, ‘ “Gottesmänner”, “Gottesfrauen” und die hethi-
tische Prophetie’, WO 38, 211-220.
Prinsloo 2009 – G.T.M. Prinsloo, ‘Petuh.ot/Setumot and the Stucture of
Habakkuk: Evaluating the Evidence’, in: R. de Hoop et al. (eds), The
Impact of Unit Delimitation on Exegesis (Pericope, 7), Leiden: Brill, 196-
227.
 bibliography 337

Propp 1999 – W.H.C. Propp, Exodus 1–18: A New Translation with Intro-
duction and Commentary (AncB, 2), New York: Doubleday.
Propp 2006 – W.H.C. Propp, Exodus 19–40: A New Translation with Intro-
duction and Commentary (AncB, 2A), New York: Doubleday.
Puech 2010 – E. Puech, ‘L’ostracon de Khirbet Qeyafa et les debuts de la
royauté en Israël’, RB 117, 162-184.
Purcell 2006 – M. Purcell, Levinas and Theology, Cambridge: Cambridge
Univ. Press.
Rahner 2008 – J. Rahner, ‘Gotteswort in Menschenwort: Die Bibel als Ur-
kunde des Glaubens’, in: S. Gilmayr-Bucher et al. (eds), Bibel verstehen:
Schriftverständnis und Schriftauslegung (Herder Theologische Module, 4),
Freiburg: Herder, 7-36.
Rahner 1994 – K. ‘Erfahrungen eines katholischen Theologen’, in: A. Raffelt
(ed.), Karl Rahner in Erinnerung, Düsseldorff: Patmos, 134-148.
Reformed Churches 1981 – God with Us: On the Nature of the Authority of
Scripture, tr. Secretariat of the Reformed Ecumenical Synod, Grand Rap-
ids [n.y.] (Dutch original: God met ons: Over de aard van het Schriftgezag
(Kerkinformatie, 113), Leusden: Informatiedienst, 1981).
Reiner 1958 – E. Reiner, Šurpu: A Collection of Sumerian and Akkadian
Incantations (BAfO, 11), Graz: Weidner.
Reiterer 2007 – F.V. Reiterer et al. (eds.), Angels: The Concept of Celestial
Beings – Origins, Development and Reception, Berlin: De Gruyter.
Renaud 1977 – B. Renaud, La formation du livre de Michée: Tradition et
actualisation (Études Bibliques), Paris: Gabalda.
Renkema 1983 – J. Renkema, “Misschien is er hoop . . . ”: De theologische
vooronderstellingen van het boek Klaagliederen, Franeker: Wever.
Renkema 1998 – J. Renkema, Lamentations (HCOT), Leuven: Peeters.
Ricoeur 1978 – P. Ricoeur, The Rule of Metaphor, London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
Richards 1936 – I.A. Richards, The Philosophy of Rhetoric, Oxford: Oxford
Univ. Press.
Ridderbos 1972 – N. H. Ridderbos, Die Psalmen: Stilistische Verfahren und
Aufbau mit besondere Berücksichtigung von Ps 1–41 (BZAW, 191), Berlin:
De Gruyter.
Ringgren 1983 – H. Ringgren, ‘Akkadian Apocalypticism’, in: D. Hellholm,
Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East: Proceed-
ings of the International Colloquium on Apocalypticism, Uppsala, August
12-17, 1979, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 379-386.
Ritner 2001 – R.K. Ritner, ‘Dream Books’, in: D.B. Redford (ed.), The Oxford
Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, vol. 1, Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 410-
411.
Ritschl 1912 – O. Ritschl, Dogmengeschichte des Protestantismus, Bd. 2,
Leipzig: Hinrichs.
Rittig 1989 – D. Rittig, ‘Maske’, RlA, Bd. 7, Lief. 5./6., Berlin: De Gruyter,
448-449.
338 bibliography

Robbins 2007 – J.W. Robbins (ed.), After the Death of God: John D. Caputo
& Gianni Vattimo (Insurrections: Critical Studies in Religion, Politics,
and Culture), New York: Columbia Univ. Press.
Roberts 1991 – J.J.M. Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah: A Com-
mentary, Louisville: Westminster/John Knox.
Roberts 1992 – J.J.M. Roberts, ‘The Motiv of the Weeping God in Jeremiah
and Its Background in the Lament Tradition of the Ancient Near East’,
OTE 5, 361-374.
Rochberg 2004 – F. Rochberg, The Heavenly Writing: Divination, Horoscopy,
and Astronomy in Mesopotamian Culture, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.
Press.
Rockwood 2004 – E. Rockwood, When Prayers Are Not Answered: Finding
Peace When God Seems Silent, Peabody: Hendrickson, 3rd edition.
Römer 2004 – W.H.Ph. Römer, Die Klage über die Zerstörung von Ur
(AOAT, 309), Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Römer 2009 – T. Römer, ‘Das Verbot magischer und mantischer Praktiken
im Buch Deuteronomium (Dtn 18,9-13)’, in: T. Naumann & R. Hunziker-
Rodewald (eds), Diasynchron: Beiträge zur Exegese, Theologie und Rezep-
tion der hebräischen Bibel (Fs W. Dietrich), Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 311-
327.
Rose 1994 – C. Rose, Die Wolke der Zeugen: Eine exegetisch-traditionsge-
schichtliche Untersuchung zu Hebräer 10,32–12,3 (WUNT, 2.Reihe, 60),
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Rosenberg 1986 – A. Rosenberg, Engel und Dämonen: Gestaltwandel eines
Urbildes, München: Kösel.
Rousseau 1966 – J.J. Rousseau, ‘Essay on the Origin of Languages’, in: On the
Origin of Language, transl. J.H. Moran & A. Code, New York: F. Ungan
(repr. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1986).
Rowley 1970 – H.H. Rowley, The Book of Job (NCB), London: Nelson.
Ruf 2010 – M.G. Ruf, Die heiligen Propheten, Eure Apostel und Ich: Meta-
textuelle Studien zum zweiten Petrusbrief, Ridderkerk: Ridderprint (also:
Utrecht: M.G. Ruf).
Runze 1889 – G. Runze, Studien zur vergleichenden Religionswissenschaft,
vol. 1, Berlin: R. Gaertners Verlagsbuchhandlung.
Ryken et al. 1998 – L. Ryken et al. (eds), Dictionary of Biblical Imagery,
Downers Grove: InterVarsity.
Saiko 2008 – M. Saiko, ‘Noise’, in: H. Cançik & H. Schneider (eds), Brill’s
New Pauly Online, Leiden: Brill, s.v.
Sanders 1996 – P. Sanders, The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32 (OTS, 37),
Leiden: Brill.
Sanders 2007 – P. Sanders, ‘Argumenta ad Deum in the Plague Prayers of
Mursili II and in the Book of Psalms’, in: B. Becking & E. Peels (eds),
Psalms and Prayers: Papers Read at the Joint Meeting of the Society of
Old Testament Study and Het Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap in Neder-
land en België, Apeldoorn August 2006 (OTS, 55), Leiden: Brill, 181-217.
 bibliography 339

Sarraute 1998 – N. Sarraute, Le silence (Collection Folio/Théâtre), ed. A.

Rykner, Paris: Gallimard, 2nd ed.
Sartre 1951 – J.-P. Sartre, Le diable et le bon Dieu: Trois actes et onze tableaux
(Collection Folio, 869), Paris: Gallimard.
Sauneron 1959 – S. Sauneron, ‘Les songes et leur interprétation dans l’Égypte
ancienne’, in: Esnoul 1959, 17-61.
Sauneron 1988 – S. Sauneron, Les prêtres de l’ancienne Égypte, rev. edition,
Paris: Perséa (Eng. tr. by D. Lorton: The Priests of Ancient Egypt, Lon-
don: Cornell Univ. Press, 2000).
Schaap-Jonker 2008 – J. Schaap-Jonker, Before the Face of God: An Inter-
disciplinary Study of the Meaning of the Sermon and the Hearer’s God
Image, Personality and Affective State, Zürich: Lit-Verlag.
Schäfer 1972 – P. Schäfer, Die Vorstellung vom Heiligen Geist in der rabbi-
nischen Literatur (StANT, 28), München: Kösel.
Schäfer 1990 – P. Schäfer, ‘Jewish Magic Literature in Late Antiquity and
Early Middle Ages’, JJS 41, 75-91.
Schäfer & Shaked 1994 – P. Schäfer & S. Shaked (eds.), Magische Texte aus
der Kairoer Geniza, Bd. 1 (TSAJ, 42), Tübingen: Mohr.
Schäfer et al. 1998 – P. Schäfer et al. (eds.), Magische Texte aus der Kairoer
Geniza, Bd. 2 (TSAJ, 64). Tübingen: Mohr.
Scheepers 1960 – J.H. Scheepers, Die Gees van God en dies gees van die mens
in die Ou Testament. Kampen: Kok.
Schellenberg 2009 – A. Schellenberg, ‘Abwesenheit Gottes’, WiBiLex.de: Das
wissenschaftliche Bibellexikon am Internet, 2009
(http://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/nc/wibilex/das-bibellexikon/details/
quelle/WIBI/referenz/12312/)
Scherf 2009 – J. Scherf, ‘Pythia’, in: H. Cançik & H. Schneider (eds), Brill’s
New Pauly Online: Antiquity Volumes, Leiden: Brill, s.v.
Schlichting 1977 – R. Schlichting, ‘Hören’, LÄ, Bd. 2, Wiesbaden: Harrasso-
witz, 1232-1235.
Schlichting 1982a – R. Schlichting, ‘Ohrenstelen’, LÄ, vol. 4, Wiesbaden:
Harrasowitz, 562-566.
Schlichting 1982b – R. Schlichting, ‘Prophetie’, LÄ, Bd. 4, Wiesbaden: Har-
rassowitz, 1122-1125.
Schmidt 2007 – W.H. Schmidt, Alttestamentlicher Glaube, Neukirchen: Neu-
kirchener Verlag, 10th ed.
Schloen et. al. 2009 – J.D. Schloen et al., ‘The New Excavations at Zincirli
and the Stele of KTMW’, BASOR 356, 1-80.
Schmitt 1999 – É.-E. Schmitt, Théâtre: La Nuit de Valogness; Le Visiteur;
Le Bâillon; L’École du diable, Paris: Albin Michel.
Schmitt 2002 – É.-E. Schmitt, Plays: 1: Don Juan on Trial; The Visitor;
Enigma Variations; Between Worlds, tr. Jeremy Sams and John Clifford,
London: Methuen Publishing.
Schmitt 2004a – É.-E. Schmitt, Oscar et la dame rose, ed. W. Adler & G.
Krüger, Stuttgart: Reclam (original publication: Paris: Albin, 2002).
340 bibliography

Schmitt 2004b – R. Schmitt, Magie im Alten Testament (AOAT, 313), Mün-

ster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Schmitt 2005 – É.-E. Schmitt, Oscar and the Lady in Pink, tr. Adriana
Hunter, London: Atlantic Books.
Schoors 2003 – A. Schoors, ‘Theodicy in Qohelet’, in: Laato & De Moor 2003,
375-409.
Schulte & Schneider 2009 – ‘The Absence of the Deity in Rape Scenes of the
Hebrew Bible”, in: Dalferth 2009, 21-33.
Schulz 2008 – P. Schulz, Atheistischer Glaube: Eine Lebensphilosophie ohne
Gott, Wiesbaden: marixverlag.
Schwemer 2007 – D. Schwemer, Abwehrzauber und Behexung: Studien zum
Schadenzauberglauben im Alten Mesopotamien, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Scott 1965 – R.B.Y. Scott, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes: A New Translation with
Introduction and Commentary (AncB), New York: Doubleday, 2nd ed.
Seifert 1996 – B.Seifert, Metaphorisches Reden von Gott im Hoseabuch (FRL-
ANT, 166), Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Seils 1962 – M. Seils, Der Gedanke vom Zusammenwirken Gottes und des
Menschen in Luthers Theologie (BFChTh, 2.Reihe, 50), Gütersloh: Mohn.
Seow 1997 – C.L. Seow, Ecclesiastes: A New Translation with Introduction
and Commentary (AncB, 18C), New York: Doubleday.
Seux 1976 – M.-J. Seux, Hymnes et prières aux dieux de Babylonie et d’Assy-
rie: Introduction, traduction et notes (LAPO, 8), Paris: Éditions du Cerf.
Seybold 1996 – K. Seybold, Die Psalmen (HAT, 1/15), Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck.
Seybold 2003 – K. Seybold, Poetik der Psalmen, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Shelley 1962 – P.B. Shelley, ‘A Defense of Poetry’, reprinted in: G.W. Allen
& H.H. Clark (eds.), Literary Criticism: Pope to Croce, Detroit: Wayne
State Univ. Press.
Shupak 1989-1990 – N. Shupak, ‘ ‘Egyptian “Prophecy” and Biblical Proph-
ecy: Did the Phenomenon of Prophecy, in Biblical Sense, Exist in Ancient
Egypt?’, JEOL 31, 1-040.
Shupak 1993 – N. Shupak, Where Can Wisdom Be Found? The Sage’s Lan-
guage in the Bible and in Ancient Egyptian Literature (OBO, 130), Fri-
bourg: Univ. Press.
Simons 2000 – A. Simons, ‘The Author’s Silence: Transcendence and Repres-
entation in Mikhail Bakhtin’, in: Bulhof & Ten Kate 2000, 354-374.
Simpson 1972 – W.K. Simpson (ed.), The Literature of Ancient Egypt, New
Haven: Yale Univ. Press.
Singer 2002 – I. Singer, Hittite Prayers (SBL.WAW,11), Leiden: Brill.
Sittser 2007 – J. Sittser, When God Doesn’t Answer Your Prayer: Insights
to Keep You Praying with Greater Faith and Deeper Hope, Grand-Rapids:
Zondervan.
Smith 1979 – G.H. Smith, The Case against God, New York: Prometheus.
Smith 1990 – M.S. Smith, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other
Deities in Ancient Israel, San Francisco: Harper & Row.
 bibliography 341

Smith 2001 – M.S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Poly-
theistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts, Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
Smith & Pitard 2009 – M.S. Smith & W.T. Pitard, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle,
vol. 2 (VT.S, 55), Leiden: Brill.
Sneller 2000 – R. Sneller, ‘Crisis in Our Speaking about God: Derrida and
Barth’s Epistle to the Romans’, in: Bulhof & Ten Kate 2000, 223-249.
Soares 2006 – C. Soares, ‘No Prayer Prescription: Send Good Vibrations, but
Keep It to Yourself’, Scientific American 294/6, 12.
Sollberger & Kupper 1971 – E. & J.-R. Kupper, Inscriptions royales suméri-
ennes et akkadiennes (LAPO, 3), Paris: Éditions du Cerf.
Sorace & Zimmerling 2007 – M.A. Sorace & P. Zimmerling (eds), Das Schwei-
gens Gottes in der Welt (Jahresschriften der “Gesellschaft der Freunde
christlicher Mystik e.V.”, 2), Nordhausen: Traugott Baitz.
Soskice 1987 – J.M. Soskice, Metaphor and Religious Language, Oxford: Clar-
endon (original publication: Oxford: Clarendon, 1985).
Sowayan 1985 – S.A. Sowayan, Nabt.i Poetry: The Oral Poetry of Arabia,
Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
Sparks 2008 – K.L. Sparks, God’s Word in Human Words: An Evangelical
Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship, Grand Rapids: Baker.
Spieckermann 2004 – H. Spieckermann, ‘Schweigen und Beten: Von stillem
Lobgesang und zerbrechender Rede im Psalter’, in: F.-L. Hossfeld & L.
Schwienhorst-Schönberger (eds), Das Manna fällt auch heute noch: Bei-
träge zur Geschichte und Theologie des Alten, Ersten Testaments (Fs E.
Zenger) (HBS, 44), Freiburg: Herder, 567-584.
Spieckermann 2008 – H. Spieckermann, ‘Wenn Gott schweigt: Jüdische Ge-
danken zu Schicksal und Vorsehung aus hellenistischer Zeit’, in: R.G.
Kratz & H. Spieckermann (eds), Vorsehung, Schicksal und göttliche Macht,
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 104-124.
Spronk 1986 – K. Spronk, Beatific Afterlife in Ancient Israel and in the Near
East (AOAT, 219), Neukirchener Verlag: Neukirchen.
Spronk 1997 – K. Spronk, Nahum (HCOT), Kampen: Kok Pharos.
Spronk 2010 – K. Spronk, ‘De stilte van God’, Schrift 248, 41-44.
Spykerboer 1976 – H. Spykerboer, The Structure and Composition of Deu-
tero-Isaiah, Meppel: Krips Repro.
Stachel 1989 – G. Stachel, Gebet – Meditation – Schweigen: Schritte der Spi-
ritualität, Freiburg i.B: Herder Taschenbuch Verlag.
Starbuck 1999 – S.R.A. Starbuck, Court Oracles in the Psalms: The So-
Called Royal Psalms in their Ancient Near Eastern Context (SBL.DS,
172), Atlanta: SBL.
Starr 1990 – I. Starr, Queries to the Sungod: Divination and Politics in Sar-
gonid Assyria (SAA, 4), Helsinki: Helsinki Univ. Press.
Steck 1998 – O.H. Steck, Die erste Jesajarolle von Qumran (1QIsa ): Schreib-
weise als Leseanleitung für ein Prophetenbuch (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien,
173/1-2), 2 vols, Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk.
Stemberger 2003 – G. ‘ “Ich habe nichts Besseres für den Menschen gefunden
als Schweigen” (mAv 1,17)’, In: I. Fischer et al. (eds), Auf den Spuren der
342 bibliography

schriftgelehrten Weisen (Fs Johannes Marböck) (BZAW, 331), Berlin: De

Gruyter, 401-10.
Stenger 2009 – J. Stenger, ‘Somnus’, in: H. Cançik & H. Schneider (eds),
Brill’s New Pauly Online: Antiquity Volumes, Leiden: Brill, s.v.
Stiver 1996 – D. Stiver, The Philosophy of Religious Language: Sign, Symbol
and Story, Oxford: Blackwell.
Stoebe 1973 – H.J. Stoebe, Das erste Buch Samuelis (KAT, 8/1), Gütersloh:
Mohn.
Stott 2008 – K.M. Stott, Why Did They Write This Way? Reflections on Ref-
erences to Written Documents in the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Literature,
London: T & T Clark International.
Strauß 2000 – H. Strauß, Hiob: 2. Teilband 19,1–42,17 (BKAT, 16/2), Neu-
kirchen: Neukirchener Verlag.
Streck 2007 – B. Streck (ed.), Die gezeigte und die verborgene Kultur, Wies-
baden: Harrassowitz.
Stuart 1987 – D. Stuart, Hosea – Jonah (WBC, 31), Waco: Word Books.
Stulman 2004 – L. Stulman, ‘Jeremiah as a Polyphonic Response to Suffering’,
in: Kaltner & Stulman 2004, 302-318.
Sweeney 2005 – M.A.C. Sweeney, Form and Intertextuality in Prophetic and
Apocalyptic Literature (FAT, 45), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Sweeney 2007 – M.A.C. Sweeney, I & II Kings: A Commentary (OTL), West-
minster John Knox: London.
Swinburne 2004 – R. Swinburne, The Existence of God, Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 2nd ed.
Szpakowska 2001 – K. Szpakowska, ‘Through the Looking Glass: Dreams
in Ancient Egypt’, in: K. Bulkeley (ed.), Dreams: A Reader on Religious,
Cultural, and Psychological Dimensions of Dreaming, New York: Palgrave,
29-43.
Szpakowska 2006 – K. Szpakowska (ed.), Through a Glass Darkly: Magic,
Dreams and Prophecy in Ancient Egypt, Swansea: Classical Press of Wales.
Talon 2005 – Ph. Talon, The Standard Babylonian Creation Myth Enūma eliš
(SAA.CT, 4), Helsinki: Helsinki Univ. Press.
Tam 2002 – E.P.C. Tam, ‘Silence of God and God of Silence’, Asia Journal
of Theology 16, 152-163.
Taracha 2000 – P. Taracha, Ersetzen und Entsühnen: Das mittelhethitische
Ersatzritual für den Großkönig Tuthalija (CTH*448,4) und verwandte
Texte (CHANE, 5), Leiden: Brill. ˘
Tate 1990 – M.E. Tate, Psalms 51–100 (WBC, 20), Dallas, Word Books.
Tavanti 2008 – P. Tavanti, Das Schweigen Gottes (Tanztheater – Regie: P.
Tavanti/Choreographie: B.J. Lins), St. Blasien.
(http://www.tavanti.de/schweigengottestext.html)
Taylor 1984 – M.C. Taylor, Erring: A Postmodern A/theology, Chicago: Univ.
of Chicago.
Taylor 2007 – M.C. Taylor, After God (Religion and Postmodernism), Chi-
cago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
 bibliography 343

Terrien 1978 – S.L. Terrien, The Elusive Presence: Toward a New Biblical
Theology, San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Terrien 2003 – S.L. Terrien, The Psalms: Strophic Structure and Theological
Commentary, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Tertel 1994 – H.J. Tertel, Text and Transmission: An Empirical Model for the
Literary Development of Old Testament Narratives (BZAW, 221), Berlin:
De Gruyter.
Thelle 2002 – R.I. Thelle, Ask God: Divine Consultation in the Literature of
the Hebrew Bible, Frankfurt a. M.: Lang.
Thiel 2009 – W. Thiel, Könige (BKAT, 11/2-4), Neukirchen: Neukirchener
Verlag.
Thibon 1959 – G. Thibon, Vous serez comme des dieux, Paris: Fayard.
Thomas 1989 – R. Thomas, Oral Tradition and Written Record in Classical
Athens (Cambridge Studies in Oral and Literate Culture, 18), Cambridge:
Cambridge Univ. Press.
Thomas 1992 – R. Thomas, Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece, Cam-
bridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Tiemeyer 2008 – L.-S. Tiemeyer, ‘Through a Glass Darkly: Zechariah’s Un-
processed Visionary Experience’, VT 58, 573-594.
Tigay 1982 – J. H. Tigay, The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic, Philadelphia:
Univ. of Pennsylvania Press.
Tigay 1996 – J.H. Tigay, The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy, Phil-
adelphia: Jewish Publication Society.
Tov 2004 – E. Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts
Found in the Judean Desert (StTDJ, 54), Leiden: Brill.
Trachtenberg 1939 – J. Trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition: A Study
in Folk Religion, New York: Behrman’s Jewish Book House [several re-
prints].
Trites 2004 – A.A. Trites, The New Testament Concept of Witness (MSSNTS,
31), Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press (original edition: 1977).
Tropper & Hayajneh 2003 – J. Tropper & H. Hayajneh, ‘El, der scharfsinnige
und verständige Gott: Ugaritisch lt.pn ’il dp -id im Lichte der arabischen
Lexeme lat.ı̄f und fu -ād ’, Or 72, 159-182.
Tsukimoto 1990 – A. Tsukimoto, ‘Akkadian Tablets in the Hirayama Collec-
tion (I)’, Acta Sumerologica 12, 177-259.
Tsumura 2007 – D.T. Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel (NICOT), Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans.
Ulrich 2003 – E. Ulrich, ‘Impressions and Intuition: Sense Divisions in Ancient
Manuscripts of Isaiah’, in: Korpel & Oesch (eds) 2003, 279-307.
Urbach 1975 – E.E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs, tr. I.
Abrahams, Jerusalem: Magnes.
Van Dam 1997 – C. van Dam, The Urim and Thummim: A Means of Reve-
lation in Ancient Israel, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Van den Hout 2009 – Th. van den Hout, ‘Schreiber. D. Bei den Hethitern’,
RLA 12. 3/4, Berlin: De Gruyter, 273-280.
344 bibliography

Van der Lans 2001 – J. van der Lans, ‘Empirical Research into the Human
Images of God’, in: H.G. Ziebertz, et al. (eds), The Human Image of God
(Fs. A. van der Ven), Leiden: Brill, 347-360.
Van Leeuwen 1985 –C. van Leeuwen, Amos (PredOT), Nijkerk: Callenbach.
Van der Lugt 2006 – P. van der Lugt, Cantos and Strophes in Biblical Hebrew
Poetry with Special Reference to the First Book of the Psalter (OTS, 53),
Leiden: Brill.
Van der Meer 1987 – L.B. Van der Meer, The Bronze Liver of Piacenza: Ana-
lysis of a Polytheistic Structure (Dutch Monographs on Ancient History
and Archaeology, 2), Amsterdam: Gieben.
Van der Toorn 1985 – K. van der Toorn, Sin and Sanction in Israel and
Mesopotamia: A Comparative Study, Assen: Van Gorcum.
Van der Toorn 2003 – K. van der Toorn, ‘Theodicy in Akkadian Literature’,
in: A. Laato & J.C. de Moor 2003, 57-89.
Van der Toorn 2007 – K. van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of
the Hebrew Bible, Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.
Van Dijk 2000 – J.J.A. van Dijk, ‘Inanna, le bon augure de Samsu-iluna’, in:
A.R. George & I.L. Finkel (eds), Wisdom, Gods and Literature: Studies
in Assyriology in Honour of W.G. Lambert, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns,
119-129.
Van Dijk 2006 – Y. van Dijk, Leegte, leegte die ademt: Het typografisch wit in
de moderne poëzie, Nijmegen: Vantilt.
Van Hecke 2005 – P. van Hecke (ed.), Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible, Leuven:
Peeters.
Van Henten 1999 – J.W. Van Henten, ‘Angel II’, in: K. van der Toorn et al.
(eds), Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Leiden: Brill, 2nd
ed., 50-53.
Van Leeuwen 1996 – R.C. Van Leeuwen, arb, NIDOTTE, vol. 1, Carlisle:
Paternoster Press, 728-735.
Van Praag 2008 – H.M. van Praag. God en psyche: De redelijkheid van het
geloven – Visies van een Jood, Amsterdam: Boom.
Vanstiphout 2003 – L.J. Vanstiphout, Epics of Sumerian Kings: The Matter
of Aratta, ed. J.S. Cooper, Atlanta: SBL.
Viberg 1992 – Å. Viberg, Symbols of Law: A Contextual Analysis of Legal
Symbolic Acts in the Old Testament (CB.OT, 34), Stockholm: Almqvist
& Wiksell.
Viberg 2007 – Å. Viberg, Prophets in Action: An Analysis of Prophetic
Symbolic Acts in the Old Testament (CB.OT, 55), Stockholm: Almqvist
&Wiksell.
Vieyra 1959 – M. Vieyra, ‘Les songes et leur interprétation chez les Hittites’,
in: Esnoul 1959, 87-98.
Villamil Touriño 2006 – A. Villamil Touriño, ‘Metaphor in Scientific Lan-
guage: A Study on Medical Texts’, in: M.J. Luzón Marco et al. (eds),
Metaphor, Blending and their Application to Semantic Analysis: Actas
del congreso AELCO (mayo 2004), Zaragoza: Anubar, 171-189.
 bibliography 345

Villanueva 2008 – F. G. Villanueva, The ‘Uncertainty of a Hearing’: A Study

of the Sudden Change of Mood in the Psalms of Lament (VT.S, 121),
Leiden: Brill.
Villing 2006 – A. Villing (ed.), The Greeks in the East, (BMP Research Paper,
157), London: British Museum.
Vittmann 1995 – G. Vittmann, ‘Zwei demotische Briefe an den Gott Thot’,
Zeitschrift für Demotistik und Koptologie 22, 169-181.
Vlaardingerbroek 1999 – J. Vlaardingerbroek, Zephaniah (HCOT), Leuven:
Peeters.
Von Beckenrath 1992 – J. von Beckenrath, ‘Die Geschichte von Chonsemh.ab
und dem Geist’, ZÄS 119, 90-107.
Wackenheim 2002 – Ch. Wackenheim, Quand Dieu se tait, Paris: Éditions du
Cerf.
Wächter 1984 – L. Wächter, ‘Prophetie in der Umwelt des Alten Testaments’,
in: G. Wallis (ed.), Von Bileam bis Jesaja: Studien zur alttestamentlichen
Prophetie von ihren Anfängen bis zum 8. Jahrhundert v. Chr., Berlin:
Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 9-31.
Waetzoldt 2009 – H. Waetzoldt, ‘Schreiber. A. Im 3. Jahrtausend’, RLA 12.
3/4, Berlin: De Gruyter, 250-266.
Wagner-Hasel 2010 – B. Wagner-Hasel, ‘Adultery’, in: H. Cançik & H. Schnei-
der (eds), Der Neue Pauly Online, Leiden: Brill, s.v.
Walde 2009 – Chr. Walde, ‘Dreams; Interpretation of Dreams’, in: H. Cançik
& H. Schneider (eds), Brill’s New Pauly Online, Leiden: Brill, s.v.
Watanabe 1987 – K. Watanabe, Die adê-Vereidigung anlässlich der Thron-
folgeregelung Asarhaddons (BaghM, Beiheft 3), Berlin: Mann.
Watts 1985 – J.D.W. Watts, Isaiah 1–3 (WBC, 24), Waco: Word Books.
Weinfeld 1972 – M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School,
Oxford: Clarendon.
Weinfeld 1991 – M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with
Introduction and Commentary (AncB, 5), New York: Doubleday.
Weippert 1997 – M. Weippert, Jahwe und die anderen Götter: Studien
zur Religionsgeschichte des antiken Israel in ihrem syrisch-palästinischen
Kontext (FAT, 18), Tübingen: Mohr.
Weippert 2001 – M. Weippert, ‘ “Ich bin Jahwe” – “Ich bin Ištar von Arbela”:
Deuterojesaja im Lichte der neuassyrischen Prophetie’, in: B. Huwyler et
al. (eds), Prophetie und Psalmen (Fs. K. Seybold) (AOAT, 280), Münster:
Ugarit Verlag, 31-60.
Weippert 2002a – H. Weippert, ‘Der Lärm und die Stille: Etno-archäologische
Annäherung an das biblische Alltagsleben’, in: A. Lemaire (ed.), Congress
Volume Basel 2001 (VT.S. 92), Leiden: Brill, 163-184.
Weippert 2002b – M. Weippert, ‘ “König, fürchte dich nicht!”: Assyrische
Prophetie im 7.Jahrhundert v.Chr.’, Or 71, 1-54.
Wenham 1994 – G. Wenham, Genesis 16–50 (WBC, 2), Dallas: Word Books.
Westermann 1960 – C. Westermann, Grundformen prophetischer Rede (BEv-
Th, 31), München: Kaiser.
346 bibliography

Westermann 1981 – C. Westermann, Genesis (BKAT, 1/2), Neukirchen:

Neukirchener Verlag.
Westermann 1986 – K. Westermann, Das Buch Jesaja (ATD, 19), Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 5th ed.
Westermann 1990 – C. Westermann, Die Klagelieder: Forschungsgeschichte
und Auslegung, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.
White 2010 – R. White, Talking about God: The Concept of Analogy and the
Problem of Religious Language (Transcending Boundaries in Philosophy
and Theology), Farnham: Ashgate.
Whybray 1975 – R.N. Whybray, Isaiah 40-66 (NCBC), Grand Rapids: Eerd-
mans (repr. 1996).
Wick 1998 – P. Wick, ‘There Was Silence in Heaven (Revelation 8:1): An
Annotation to Israel Knohl’s “Between Voice and Silence” ’, JBL 117,
512-4.
Widengren 1969 – G. Widengren, Religionsphänomenologie, Berlin: De Gruy-
ter.
Wiesel 1979 – E. Wiesel, Le procès de Shamgorod tel qu’il se déroula le 25
février 1649, Paris: Éditions du Seuil.
Wiesel 1986 – E. Wiesel, The Trial of God (as it was held on February 25,
1649, in Shamgorod, tr. Marion Wiesel, New York: Schocken Books.
Wiesel 1987 – E. Wiesel, ‘Die politisch-moralische Aufgabe des Schriftstellers
heute’, in: O. Schwenke (ed.), Erinnerung als Gegenwart: Elie Wiesel in
Loccum, Rehburg-Loccum: Evangelische Akademie, 103-126.
Wiesel 2006 – Night, tr. Marion Wiesel, London: Hill & Wang (original pub-
lication: Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit, 1958).
Wiesel 2007 – E. Wiesel, La nuit, Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit, revised edition
(original publication: Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit, 1958).
Wildberger 1982 – H. Wildberger, Jesaja, 3.Teilband: Jesaja 28–39 – Das
Buch, der Prophet und seine Botschaft (BKAT, 10/3), Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag.
Williamson 1985 – H.G.M. Williamson, Ezra–Nehemiah (WBC, 16), Waco:
Word Books.
Wimmer 2008 – St.J. Wimmer, ‘A New Hieratic Ostracon from Ashkelon’,
Tel Aviv 35, 65-72.
Wolff 1985 – H.W. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 2; Joel und Amos (BKAT14/2),
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 3rd ed.
Wolterstorff 1995 – N. Wolterstorff, Divine Discourse: Philosophical Reflec-
tions on the Claim that God Speaks, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Wolterstorff 2003 – N. Wolterstorff, ‘The Silence of the God Who Speaks’,
Philosophia 30, 13-32.
Wood 2008 – A. Wood, Of Wings and Wheels: A Synthetic Study of the
Biblical Cherubim (BZAW, 385), Berlin: De Gruyter.
Wulf 1992 – C. Wulf, ‘Präsenz des Schweigens’, in: Kamper & Wulf 1992,
7-16.
Wyatt 1998 – N. Wyatt, Religious Texts from Ugarit: The Words of Ilimilku
 bibliography 347

and his Colleagues (The Biblical Seminar, 53), Sheffield: Sheffield Aca-
demic Press. 2006
Young 1972 – The Book of Isaiah: A Commentary, vol. 3, Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans (reprint 1996).
Younger 2002 – K.L. Younger, Judges, Ruth (The NIV Application Com-
mentary), Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Yu 2008 – N. Yu, ‘Metaphor from Body and Culture’, in: R.W. Gibbs, Jr.
(ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge:
Cambridge Univ. Press, 247-261.
Zandee 1960 – J. Zandee, Death as an Enemy according to Ancient Egyptian
Conceptions (Supplements to Numen, 5), Leiden: Brill.
Zgoll 2002 –A. Zgoll, ‘Die Welt im Schlaf sehen: Inkubation von Träumen im
antiken Mesopotamien’, WO 32, 74-101.
Zgoll 2006 – A. Zgoll, Traum und Welterleben im antiken Mesopotamien:
Traumtheorie und Traumpraxis im 3.-1. Jt. v.Chr. als Horizont einer Kul-
turgeschichte des Träumens (AOAT, 333), Münster: Ugarit Verlag.
Zgoll 2007 – A. Zgoll, ‘Schauseite, verborgene Seite und geheime Deutung des
babylonischen Neujahrsfestes: Entwurf einer Handlungstheorie von “Zei-
gen und Verbergen”, in: Streck 2007, 165-190.
Zimmerli 1969 – W. Zimmerli, Ezechiel, 2.Teilband: Ezechiel 25–48 (BKAT,
13/2), Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag.
 index of subjects
Aaron 118, 125f., 148, 191f. 178, 185 , 189, 193, 217-219, 224,
Abraham 27, 76, 112, 124f., 281 236f., 239-241, 243, 246, 250,
Absalom 83, 86 252-254, 257, 259, 261-276, 280,
absurdity 31, 49; see also: rationality 285, 288, 294, 296f., 300
abyss 24, 105, 172, 232 anti-Semitism 54
Adad 102, 142. 145, 168f., 217, 239; Anu 48, 141, 247
see also: Hadad Anunnaki 245
Adam 82 Anzû 250
Adapa 247 apocalyptic 149, 164, 171-173, 216
adversity, see: suffering Apollo 179f.
afterlife 113, 143; see also: death, apophatic 19, 68
Nether World apostasy 10, 249
Agamemnon 179 apprehension, see: fear
agnosticism xi, 26, 32, 33f., 49, 54, Apsû 130, 238, 245
290 Apšukka f161
Ahab 126 Aqhatu 81, 122, 144, 146
Ahat-abiša 175
˘ Arbela 175, 262
Aleppo 87, 168
Aristotle 61
Allani 143
Asarluhi 113
alliance, see: covenant ˘ 180
Ashkelon
Amaziah (priest) 93, 186f.
assembly, see: deity – council
ambiguity 24, 26, 34, 40, 42, 44, 49,
Assur (city) 140f.
60, 118, 233
Amenemhet I 160, 172 Assur (god) 48, 138, 262
,Ammurapi 174 Assurbanipal 82, 142, 196, 214, 245
Amnon 83 astrology 48, 111, 151, 158, 210,
Amos (prophet) 93, 186f., 228 212, 219, 229
Amun(-Re) 48, 57, 68, 111f., 114, Aten 103
117, 124, 145, 171, 231f., 256-258 atheism xi, 26, 30-32, 34, 48-53, 289
analogy 60f., 65, 69, 106, 122; see Athiratu 146
also: metaphor ,Athtartu 257
,Anatu 81, 147, 160, 247 Attanu 146f., 162, 197-199, 207
ancestors 116, 136, 142, 160-162, Atum 172
174, 221, 226, 229 Augustine 18
anchorite 18 authenticity 185
androgyny 262 author, see: scribe
angel, see: deity – angel automata 32, 44
Anshar 245 awe, see: fear
answer 2-10, 16, 22, 27-30, 32-34,
40f., 53, 67, 73, 77, 82, 86f., 89, Baal, see: Ba,lu
94f., 97, 100-102, 104, 108, 112, bad, see: evil
114, 116f., 119, 125-127, 129f., Balaam 150, 173, 178, 182, 204,
134f., 139f., 143-145, 147, 149, 216f., 220
154, 158, 163f., 168, 173, 175, Ba,lshamayn 173
350 index of subjects

Ba,lu 73, 146f., 160, 174, 197f., 219, communication 1, 10, 18-20, 27, 29,
247, 252f., 257 41, 45, 47. 50, 54, 56, 58-60, 66,
Bar Hadad 173 71f., 76, 79, 119, 135-238, 245,
Barth, K. 20-22, 36-38, 40, 42-44, 271, 287; see also: deity – speech
55, 57, 193, 291-293 complaint 22, 28, 30, 80, 100f., 129,
Bashan 48 175, 177, 189, 207, 211, 234,
Bath Qol 165, 287 236f., 250f., 259, 261, 263f.,
Bayâ 262 272-274, 299; see also:
beauty 3, 67, 235 lamentation, prayer
Beckett, S. 5f. Condell, P. 289f.
Bel 262 conversion 23, 44
belief, see: faith Coptic 18, 37
Belshazzar 151 cosmology 31, 49, 148, 231-235, 280
Benedict XVI 23f., 49, 70 Costanzo, S. 45f.
Bergman, I. 8-10 covenant 39, 44, 53, 151, 161, 237,
biblical theology 36, 57, 75, 237 274, 291, 300f.
Black, M. 62f. creation, see: deity – creator, nature
blank, see: space (blank) crime, see: offenses
blasphemy 30, 96, 100, 129. 241 crisis 27, 46, 51, 76, 199f., 202
blessing 29, 69, 103, 123, 126, 128, criticism 21, 34, 54
146, 175, 205, 217, 265, 284, 291, – historical 21, 36
300 – literary 187, 198, 207
Boatman 177 – redaction 58, 96, 116, 164, 182,
book 98, 182f., 188, 206, 209f., 228 185, 187, 190, 227, 248f., 254
brontoscopy 147; see also: thunder cryptography 185
Buddhism 10, 50 cult 82, 112, 132f., 140, 171,
Byblos 97f., 170f., 203 173-175, 181, 199f., 217, 221,
223f., 226f., 245, 248, 254, 267
calamity, see: death, destruction, curse 12, 99, 118, 126, 128, 217, 263,
evil, nature 284
canon 37f., 75, 101,116, 135, 165, Cyrus 122, 284
182, 193, 197, 199, 211, 221, 224,
226, 228, 233, 237, 241, 246, Dachau xii; see also: Shoah
275f., 297, 299 Dagan 169f., 218
Carmel 253 Damgalnunna 130
Carthusians 19, 45 Daniel 29, 99, 122, 151, 189f., 206,
Cassandra 179 228
cherub, see: angel Dani-ilu 122, 126, 134, 144, 146,
Christianity 10, 19, 24, 26, 29f., 226, 253
36-43, 46, 49, 51, 53f., 68, 74, David 82, 86f., 91, 111, 150, 164,
118, 158, 165, 224, 224, 226, 280, 221f., 236f., 240f., 270f., 284
283, 287f., 290, 292, 296, 298, 303 Dawkins, R. 26, 31, 50
Cistercians 18 deafness 11, 31, 90, 98f., 108, 128,
clamor 123, 126f., 130, 238f.; see 140, 144, 190, 238; see also:
also: noise dumbness
 index of subjects 351

death 6, 8, 10, 20, 22-26, 30-33, – demon 96, 99, 102, 117f., 162-164
37-40, 42, 49, 51, 67, 73, 84, 97, – emotions 247
100, 102-108, 114f., 125, 130-133, – essence 39f., 291
135, 153, 158-163, 165, 172, 174, – existence xi, 1, 5, 9, 23, 26,
179, 188, 197f., 211, 217, 220, 31-34, 40, 50, 65, 114, 162, 280,
223, 252, 256, 263, 268, 271f., 283, 291, 295, 301
275f., 286 – fear 245-247, 275-277
death, see also: Motu, Osiris – forbearance 247-250, 275f.
death, see also: deity – death – forgiveness 7, 11, 84, 120; see
Deber 164 also: – grace, – mercy
Deborah 284 – freedom 21, 27, 32, 40, 53, 55,
defeat 116, 133, 219, 238, 245, 247 154, 236, 274
deification 30, 67, 116, 136, 161, – goodness xi, 3, 27, 34, 39f., 66,
226, 260 117, 120, 128f., 132, 157, 225,
Deism xi, 50 231, 233, 257, 272, 299f.
deity passim – grace 21, 36, 40, 44, 154, 249,
– absence xi, 1, 4f., 22-26, 34, 275, 284, 300f.
39-42, 47-49, 55, 237, 244, 297 – helper 105, 114, 117, 119f., 154,
– acting 25, 36, 40, 50, 57f., 63, 69, 173, 193, 211, 233, 240f., 251,
76, 113, 121, 127, 139f., 154, 181, 253f., 259, 268, 270, 283f., 291,
217, 231, 234, 236f., 241, 259, 294
263, 268-270, 276, 287f., 291, 301 – hiddenness 8, 23f., 68f., 116, 123,
– almighty, see: – omnipotence 155-157, 232-234, 237, 259
– angel 11, 29, 102, 106, 151f., 154, – Holy Ones 163f., 165f., 243
157-159, 162-167, 190f., 216, 226,
– image 38, 45, 66-68, 70, 111, 117,
229, 233, 241, 243f., 281f., 303f.
124, 135, 154f., 171, 215, 217,
– anthropomorphism 57-60, 68, 226, 232, 254f.
75f., 134, 151, 159-161, 226, 235,
– immanence 19, 84, 105, 112, 146,
260
152-154, 165f., 266-268, 270-274
– benevolent, see: – goodness
– immortal, see: – living
– character 39f.
– incapacity 250-255, 275-278
– commandment, Law 17, 24, 48,
– indifference 1, 3
127, 149f., 151f., 155f., 179f., 181,
183, 186, 188, 205, 210, 224, 231, – inscrutability, see: – hiddenness,
234, 290, 299, 302 – remoteness
– compassion 40, 249, 259, 286; see – inspiration 53, 146, 151, 156,
also: – emotions, – grace, – mercy 170, 192, 194, 201f., 207, 211,
– council – 142, 144, 150, 164f., 226-229, 271, 282, 285, 287
251f. – intelligence 49f., 301
– creator 21f., 40, 46, 53, 56, 66f., – jealousy 247
97, 101, 103, 111, 127, 134, 153, – justice 23, 26f., 94, 129, 236f.,
172, 201, 231-238, 245f., 251f., 249
255, 257, 260, 262f., 274, 276, – law, see: – commandment
285f., 288, 299, 302 – listening, see: listening below
– death 20, 22-25, 30-32, 39, 47-49, – living 38-40, 49, 98, 132, 276
51, 67, 73, 248, 252, 275 – love 3, 7, 9, 23f., 40, 124, 250f.
352 index of subjects

– mercy 6f., 11, 20, 27, 114, 129, 265, 268, 272, 300-302
233, 269 – theriomorphic 68, 159, 159-161,
– monotheism 48, 51, 114, 232, 226
247, 303 – transcendence 1, 18, 25-26, 47f.,
– omnipotence 32, 34, 40, 53f., 68, 232, 270, 274, 276, 300
100f., 129, 194, 210, 216, 235, – unicity, see: – monotheism
237, 240, 274, 284, 299f. – weakness 36-38, 46, 256, 275, 286
– omnipresence 50 – will, see: – freedom
– omniscience 32, 50, 54; see also: – wrath 3, 40, 211, 241, 243f.,
– providence 246f., 268, 275, 301
– opus alienum 40 deliverance, see: salvation
– patience 25, 44f., 250 Delphi 180
– plan 46, 123, 139, 238, 245, 264, Deluge, see: Flood
282; see also: – providence demon 96, 99, 102, 117f., 162-164
– power 26, 28f., 34, 40, 66, 105,
demon, see: deity – demon
134f., 158-160, 223, 232, 250, 256,
destiny, fate 48, 52, 87, 93, 115, 125,
261, 275f., 286, 299f.
169, 194, 215, 242, 251, 262, 272,
– presence 4, 9, 19, 22, 25, 28f.,
301
39f., 49f., 55, 126, 155, 157
destruction 1, 12, 30, 39f., 43, 47f.,
– providence 32, 52, 139
52, 81, 97, 112, 119, 121, 131,
– remoteness 2f., 231-237; see also
133, 140, 157, 164, 171f., 176,
– transcendence
178, 185, 193f., 196, 211f., 225,
– representation by humans 67, 99,
238f., 242, 249, 251, 256, 261,
117, 158, 190f., 262, 275
272, 298f.
– representation by images 68,
deus absconditus, see: deity –
160, 226, 229, 254f.
hiddenness
– righteousness, see: justice
Deutero-Isaiah, see: Second Isaiah
– silence passim
devastation, see: destruction
– sleep 102f., 108, 134f., 238, 251,
devil 3, 27f.
255-261, 269, 275-277
devil, see also: Satan
– speech xii, 3, 5, 10f., 13-17,
19-22, 26, 30, 34f., 39f., 42-45, dialectic 3, 21, 39, 40, 44, 250
52f., 55, 59, 64-70, 74-77, 121, dialogue 2, 4f., 10, 25, 31, 34, 47, 55,
131, 139-150, 156-163, 166-229, 88, 94, 140, 144, 150, 162, 179,
231, 234, 236, 244, 249, 254f., 225, 250, 297
262, 268, 270f., 276, 280, 282, Dinah 83
286-289, 291, 293-296, 303f. disaster, see: death, destruction,
– Spirit/spirit 21, 24, 29, 36, 38, doom, nature
41-44, 48, 50f., 54, 92, 111, 115, disease, see: illness
141, 150-154, 156-159, 161-166, distress. see: suffering
178f., 186, 190, 192-195, 210f., divination 81, 85, 112, 141-143,
220, 222, 225-227, 233f., 240, 249, 147f., 158f., 167, 173, 176, 178,
253f., 263f., 266, 271, 286-288, 193, 197, 202, 210f., 213, 218-226,
291, 294-296, 302f. 228, 264
– suffering 76, 100, 103, 112, 114, doom 86, 93, 107, 176, 178f., 182f.,
154, 211, 232f., 244, 251f., 255, 185-188, 207, 209, 227, 272
 index of subjects 353

dream 11, 121, 134-136, 142-144, exegesis, see: interpretation

159, 167, 178, 210-216, 228, 236, experience 2, 16, 18f., 24, 27, 29, 33,
257, 264, 266 39-40, 42, 51, 56, 59, 61, 65, 67f.,
dumbness 22, 90f., 93, 96f., 99, 102, 70-72, 81, 116, 130, 139, 187, 189,
104, 108, 121, 128, 133, 188-190, 209, 212, 215f., 227, 237, 246,
250f., 254-256, 260 256, 261, 266, 279f., 289f., 293
Dumuzi 251 Ezekiel 99, 134, 149, 185, 187, 189,
dynasty 117, 141, 169, 174, 217, 223, 241, 296
226, 240 Ezra 134

Ea 102, 219, 238, 245, 247, 263 faith, belief 1, 3, 5, 7-9, 11, 14-16,
ear 2, 96, 99, 111f., 116, 141, 143, 20, 22-42, 45f., 48f., 52f., 56f.,
155, 163, 188, 236, 239, 241, 249, 65f., 68-70, 74, 76, 115, 119,
286, 288, 290, 293 135f., 143, 167, 171, 177, 186,
earthquake 19, 210, 250, 299, 301f. 195, 199, 201f., 208, 212-215, 220,
ecstasy 168, 170, 176-179, 184 225, 228, 231, 242, 244, 273f.,
Ekur 141 279-290, 292-298, 300, 302-305
Eli 150 fasting 7, 126, 241, 269
Elijah 106, 126, 166, 182, 250, 253, fatalism 237, 274; see also: destiny
257 fate, see: destiny
Eliphaz 163f., 243 fear 9, 15, 20, 59, 81f., 84-87, 92,
Elihu 92f., 194f., 236f., 240 107, 109, 117, 121-137, 152, 167,
Elisha 86, 104, 182, 241 175, 179, 187, 233, 237, 241, 243,
Emar 170, 218f. 245-247, 249, 251, 254, 260-262,
embarassment, see: incapacity 275-277, 280, 294, 303; see also: –
fear
Endor 266
Feuerbach, L. 66
enemy 63f., 81f., 84, 96, 99, 104,
figurine, see: idolatry, image
107, 118, 133, 136, 144, 211, 219,
Flood, deluge 97, 147, 172, 210,
244, 248, 253, 259, 262, 268f.
238f., 250, 275; see also: tsunami.
Enki 130, 245, 251, 255
forbearance 47, 59, 87-95, 107-109,
Enkidu 84, 131, 145, 256, 263
122-137; see also: deity –
Enlightenment 25, 52
forbearance
Enlil 140, 176, 263
free will 32, 41, 52f., 55, 132, 146,
Enmeduranki 142, 148
152, 154, 158, 170, 176, 186, 199,
Ephrem the Syrian 69 206f., 225, 228, 266, 282, 288,
Erra 201f., 239, 246, 255, 263 291, 300; see also: deity – freedom
Esarhaddon 82, 122, 175, 214, 262 Freud, S. 32f., 66
Eshnunna 168 fundamentalism 30, 44, 54, 298, 300
Esther 244 future 13, 32, 70, 99, 115, 130, 139,
ethics 50-52, 79f., 106f., 288, 295, 160, 171f., 178, 201, 205, 210-213,
297, 300 228, 262f., 271
Evagrius of Pontus 18
evil xi, 3f., 27-29, 44, 47, 66, 88, 93, Gad 164, 182
96, 99, 101, 104, 117, 129, 139, Gedaliah 244
144, 179, 227, 239, 246, 251, 257, genocide 53, 303; see also: death,
263, 270, 299 Shoah
354 index of subjects

Gera 148, 161f., 178 Holy Ones, see: deity – Holy Ones
ghost 162, 243; see also: deity – Homer 80, 103, 124, 147, 162, 203,
spirit 214, 220
Gilgamesh 57, 84, 131, 145, 226, Horeb 48, 166
247, 256, 263 Horus 144, 258
God/god/goddess, see: deity Huldah 182
Greece/Greek 38, 56, 60, 76, 80, 87, human endeavour, see: ‘free’ will,
108, 124, 132, 148, 150, 154f., morality, obedience, piety,
160, 167, 173, 179f., 195, 202-204, righteousness
214, 219-221, 226, 256, 285, 299 humanism 25
Gregory of Nazianze 18 humbleness 80, 89, 127, 133, 233
Gröning, Ph. 19, 45 hymn 3, 20, 45, 56, 58, 68, 105,
113f., 135, 173, 175, 181, 203,
Habakkuk 184 210, 223, 231f., 242f., 245, 249,
Hadad 160; see also: Adad 256, 258, 267, 270
Hagar 151
Haggai 165, 167 Ibalpiel II 140f., 213
Hamath 173 iconography 56, 85, 160
Hammurapi 97 idolatry 28, 149, 254f., 270, 275; see
˘
hand 4, 8f., 23, 32, 81, 84f., 87, 89, also: images
91, 94f., 100, 103, 106f., 112, 134, Igigi 245
141f., 145, 151, 161, 164, 170, Ilimilku 146f., 197-199, 207
173, 177, 187, 189, 198, 201, 209, illness 8, 20, 49, 63f., 90, 96, 99, 108,
233, 235, 237, 251, 254, 265, 270, 128, 142, 144, 161, 211, 238, 252,
286 286, 292f.
Hannah 27, 128 image, see: deity – image; idolatry
hardship, see: suffering Imhotep 115
Hathor 142f. Inanna 176, 212, 251, 256
Hazael 173 incapacity (human) 59, 72, 96-102,
Hazrach 173 108f., 130-134, 136
hearing, see: listening inspiration, see: deity – inspiration,
heaven 5, 17, 23, 29, 42, 56, 102, spirit
105, 111, 115, 127, 130, 144-147, integrity 294-298
149, 151f., 160, 164f., 210, 225, intelligent design, see: deity –
233, 235, 244f., 247, 249, 257, intelligence
264, 275, 286, 297f., 300 intercession 81, 112, 116, 135f., 151,
Hebrew Bible 75 et passim 159, 213, 280; see also:
Heka 246 intermediaries, mediation
Heliopolis 231 intermediaries 58, 111f., 116, 130,
hepatoscopy 142f., 176, 217-220, 135f., 141. 149f., 158-207, 217,
223, 228 225, 229, 243, 271; see also:
Hera 246 intercession, mediation
Hermes 162 interpretation 21, 25-27, 36, 40,
Hezekiah 100, 112, 117, 203, 253 43-45, 55f., 58f., 64-66, 69, 72, 75,
Hillesum, E. 283 77, 80, 82, 90, 92, 125, 143f., 145,
Holocaust, see: Shoah 147, 149, 152f., 162f., 176, 180,
 index of subjects 355

190, 200, 205, 211-214, 216-221, killing, see: death

225, 228f., 240, 237, 249f., 297, kingship, see: royalty
299, 303 Kirtu 90, 131f., 144, 214, 251
Ipuwer 172, 196f., 232, 237, 257, 261 Kititum 141
Irhanta 161 Kolitz, Z. 24, 279
˘ 124
Isaac Kotharu 73
Isaiah 68, 104, 112, 120-122, Kraut, M. ii, xii
154-156, 182f., 188, 190, 192, 206, Kubaba 160
228, 234, 248f., 253f., 275, 285,
290, 293 Lachish 98, 180, 208
Isis 144 Lakoff, G. 63f., 66
Ishum 246 lamentation 7, 30, 53, 58, 86, 89,
Ishtar 102, 175, 247, 256, 262 101, 113-116, 119, 130-135, 157,
Islam 51 175f., 185, 188, 239, 244, 250,
Išme-Dagan 140f. 263, 266-268, 269-271, 275, 302
Israel passim law 24, 32, 48f., 50, 53, 97, 122, 127,
152, 155f., 181, 183, 188, 205,
Jacob 83, 121, 193, 215, 265 210, 234, 256, 285, 289f.
Jakobsz, L. 281
law, see also: God, – commandment,
Jeremiah 83, 100, 112, 153, 184,
Torah
187f., 190, 195, 206f., 215, 244,
letter 33, 58, 70, 97f., 116f., 136,
270, 302
142f., 168-170, 180, 184., 208, 215
Jeroboam 112, 186
Leviathan 237, 247
Jesus 11, 29, 38f., 49, 102, 118, 152,
Levinas, E. 24, 47f.
267, 291, 294, 298, 300
lightning 146f., 149, 152
Jews 6f., 18, 24, 30, 38f., 47, 51, 54,
68, 74, 101f., 134, 152, 155, 173, listening (hearing) 1, 4f., 7-10,
190, 205, 225, 244, 279, 283, 13-17, 21, 25, 27, 30, 40-42, 45f.,
287f., 292, 298; see also: Judaism 50, 55, 71f., 79, 83, 87f., 93f.,
Jezebel 106 97-99,105, 108, 111-115, 119f.,
122-124, 126-129, 134f., 139f.,
Job 12, 27, 30, 41, 52f., 82, 92-94,
143-146, 148, 152, 154f., 158,
100f., 106, 129, 133f., 163f., 194,
161,163, 165, 167, 169, 174, 176f.,
235-237, 240, 243, 247, 274, 299
185f., 188-190, 192, 201-207, 211,
John Paul II 23
209, 216, 223, 225, 231-234, 239,
Johnson, M. 63
240f., 243, 245, 247f., 253-255,
Joram 241
261, 263, 270f., 274, 281f., 286,
Joseph 27, 86, 215, 228
288, 290, 293-296, 300, 303f.
Joshua 90, 96, 150, 208, 225, 250,
284 literacy 169, 180, 200, 208f.
Judaism 18, 36, 39, 53, 75, 93, 118, liver, see: hepatoscopy
152, 164f., 224, 226, 229, 290, logic 52, 61, 72, 134, 204, 210, 238,
292, 298; see also: Jews 267, 280, 287. 292, 301; see also:
absurdity, rationality
Kadesh 145 love (human) 3, 8f., 17, 32, 52, 130,
Kallassu 168f. 132f., 158, 215, 279f., 283, 278f.
Kaschnitz, M.L. 2f. Lugalbanda 255
Kemosh 57, 148 Luther 285
356 index of subjects

McCarthy, C. 12f. Mordecai 244

magic 58, 86, 96, 100, 104, 111, Moses 59, 72, 83, 99, 112, 118, 125f.,
117f., 136, 151, 149, 151, 158, 128, 134, 148-153, 155f., 181, 183,
196f., 212, 224, 252 189-192, 208, 225, 227, 239, 250,
Malachi 165 284
Malik-Dagan 169 mountains 259f.
mantic 178; see also: prophecy mourning 95, 126, 128, 130-134, 136,
Marduk 48, 57, 81, 171f., 201, 245f., 242, 252f., 269
262-264 mouth 22, 80, 85-87, 90f., 93-96,
Mari 117, 143, 168-170, 176, 178, 99f., 106f., 114, 120, 124, 126,
203, 215, 218 128f., 134, 140f., 145, 149f., 156,
marzeah. 148, 161, 178 169, 175, 188-192, 201, 206, 213,
mediation 45, 67, 69, 118, 151, 216f., 243, 255f., 262, 286, 294
155f., 158f., 174, 189, 195, 202, Muers, R. 25, 44f., 288
204, 207, 225, 229, 231, 244, Mursili II 211, 265
247f., 257, 274, 276, 281, 284, Music, Z. ii, xii
287, 298; see also: intercession, Muslims, see: Islam
intermediaries Muwatalli 143
mediator, see: intermediaries
mysticism 18, 25, 41f., 46f., 68, 124,
meditation 19, 24, 41
280
medium 111, 158, 161, 171, 226, 266
myth 57, 66, 97, 118, 146f., 164,
Meister Eckhart 18
247, 250
Memphis 232
Menippus 179 Nabal 91
Merikare 80, 231 Nabû 142, 201, 262
message 5, 39, 53, 58, 67, 73, 77, 98, nakedness 170, 181
119, 139, 143, 147, 153, 166, Nammu 255
169-171, 176-180, 182-188, 200,
Namtar 246
205f., 208f., 215, 227f., 231f., 240,
Nanaya 177
248, 254, 260, 271, 281-284, 288,
Naomi 27, 100, 121
293, 297, 302f.
messenger 5f., 98, 118, 130, 142, Nathan 87, 169, 182
151f., 154, 158, 160f., 163-170, natural theology 31f., 36, 292
172f., 177f., 187, 189f., 196, 210, nature 31, 53, 298, 301
229, 238, 240f., 252, 272, 281, Nebuchadnezzar 152, 180, 284, 300
284, 298, 302f. negative theology 19, 42, 68f., 94,
metaphor 41, 56, 59-71, 79, 93, 280
103f., 108, 256, 259, 269, 276, 291 Nehemiah 101, 192
Micah 91, 133, 182, 192-194, 209, Neferty 85, 172
222, 240 Nergal 117, 246, 258, 263
might (human), see: power (human) Nether World 104-106, 135, 143,
mirror 183 160-162, 172, 215, 240, 246, 252,
Miskotte, K.H. 21f., 37 256, 263f., 270
modernity 1-53, 274, 288, 292 New Testament 22, 35, 41, 75, 102,
moon 56, 102, 142, 235, 262 118, 152, 165, 195, 216, 225,
morality, see: ethics 285f., 291, 294, 299, 301; see also:
 index of subjects 357

Christianity; Index of Biblical Pidrayu 257

Texts piety 18, 20, 26, 30, 36, 46, 70, 89f.,
Nietzsche, F. 20, 61, 69 91f., 103f., 107, 111-113, 119,
Ninmah 245, 251, 255 121-129, 136, 139, 148, 150, 165,
Ninurta˘ 48, 121 201, 232, 259, 263f., 269, 281, 294
Nippur 140-142 plagiarism 228
noise 19, 71, 87, 90, 102, 107, 123, Plato 68, 124, 148, 219
126, 129f., 136, 238f., 256, 275; poet 2, 56, 61, 105, 126, 203, 235f.,
see also: clamor 259f., 268; see also: singers
Nur-Sin 168 poetry 7, 43, 51, 61, 67, 168, 174f.,
Nuth 144 184, 200, 202, 237
poorness, see: poverty
offenses 24, 29, 37, 40, 44, 53, 59-84,
poverty 9, 41, 83, 87-89, 93, 95, 104,
103, 106f., 109, 114, 119-121,
107, 232, 264
128f., 133, 136f., 140, 143,
power (human) 9, 24, 37, 41, 64, 67,
153f.,165, 167, 178, 187, 193f.,
79, 88f., 79, 92f., 99, 103f., 118,
205, 238-243, 247, 249f., 259, 265,
130, 175, 193-197, 199f., 212, 215,
268, 275-277, 296, 298, 300f., 303
217, 221, 227, 235, 249, 286, 299f.
oil 142, 211, 219, 257
power, see also: deity – power
‘Old’ Testament, see: Hebrew Bible
praise 7, 94, 104f., 108, 126-128,
omen 5, 27, 58, 125, 139, 141-143,
135, 143, 185, 196f., 201f., 223,
144, 147, 167, 173, 183, 197,
243-245, 256f., 262, 267-269,
210f., 213, 218, 220, 222f., 229,
270f.; see also: hymn
244, 268
oracle 117, 134, 141f., 144, 149f., prayer 1, 7, 9f., 13, 19, 22, 27-29, 31,
168f., 173-175, 178, 180-187, 190, 42, 45-47, 53, 58, 67, 77, 83f,
209-214, 216-224, 227, 240, 102f., 105,108, 111-117, 119f.,
265-267, 270-272, 276 122-125,127-130, 132, 134f., 139f.,
oral tradition 72, 98, 168, 180, 142-149, 154, 158, 160f., 164, 168,
182-184, 197-204, 206f., 208-210, 173-175, 178, 181, 185, 191, 201,
227f. 210f., 217, 224, 227, 232f.,
Osiris 142, 172, 256 236-239, 241-244, 246, 253f.,
258-276, 280, 282f., 287f., 296
paganism 22, 36f., 48, 119, 260 Pre,-Harakhty 113f.
Paheri 143 priest 4, 8, 30, 46, 52, 67, 73, 80, 82,
paradox 18, 23, 48, 68, 233 84, 93, 96, 102, 107f., 111f., 119,
parallels 56, 82, 100-104, 108, 113, 124, 126f., 135, 141f., 146f., 156,
122, 126, 129, 135, 145f., 151-154, 158f., 161f., 167, 172, 175, 186,
156f., 163-166, 168, 170, 174f., 191f., 196-199, 207, 211f., 215,
181, 183, 200, 202, 221, 238, 217f., 220f., 225f., 260, 264, 267,
248f., 255, 265, 270 270f., 276
Paul 30, 118, 152, 154, 158, 195, 285 prince, princess, see: royalty
Peshit.ta 104, 155, 273 proleptic perfect 268
pessimism 88, 232, 257, 264 prophecy 4, 13, 21, 30, 56, 59, 69,
Philo Alexandrinus 68 74, 84-87, 91, 93, 100, 104, 106f.,
philosophy xi, 1, 3-5, 18, 20-26, 30, 111f., 114, 117, 119f., 130, 133,
32, 35, 38, 47-51, 59-68, 93, 148 135, 141, 143f., 150f., 153,
358 index of subjects

156-159, 164-195, 202f., 205-208, reciprocity 139f., 239, 268

210f., 215f., 221-223, 225-228, relationship 9f., 24, 39f., 55, 60, 67,
234, 240-244, 248f., 253, 257, 259, 72, 77, 189, 197, 202, 264, 293,
262f., 265-268, 270-276, 282, 297
284-286, 288-290, 293, 295, 302 Rembrandt van Rijn 281
prosperity 52, 112, 123, 127f., 137, Rensi 97
260 repentance 7, 44, 92, 126, 187, 214,
prudence, see: forbearance 262
Pseudo-Dionysius 18 reply, see: answer
Pseudo-Philo 234 resignation xii, 52, 92, 101, 120, 126,
psychology 41, 59, 107, 184, 267, 133, 242, 268f., 274, 304
269, 276, 284f. rethoric 61f., 72-74, 101, 188, 201f.,
Ptah 111, 196, 232 243f., 246, 249, 271
Ptahhotep 89, 96 revelation 21, 23, 30f., 40-43, 48f.,
Puduhepa 115 53, 56f., 64f., 69, 76, 134, 145f.,
˘
punishment 29, 44, 53, 82, 85, 96, 150, 156, 158, 163f., 169, 174,
119, 125, 128, 132f., 136, 138, 176, 185f., 192-195, 199, 202-204,
146, 203, 225, 235f., 238, 242f., 207, 209, 211f., 214, 217, 221,
267, 29143 227, 272, 278, 282-285, 299f.
Pythia 180 Richards, I. 61
queen, see: royalty rock 269-271
quiet 19, 82, 90, 92, 96, 100, 106, Rosh Hashanah 7
113, 120-122, 127f., 131, 244, 257, Rousseau, J.-J. 61
264f. royalty 31, 66f., 73, 80-88, 90f., 94f.,
Qumran 104, 118, 155, 165, 183, 97-100, 107, 111f., 115-117, 122f.,
206, 244, 273 126, 132, 135f., 140-146, 148,
150f., 157, 160f., 164, 166,
rain 19, 146f., 149, 198, 257 168-176, 178, 180, 182, 184f., 188,
Ramesses II 145 192, 196, 199, 200f., 203, 205-207,
rape 83, 240, 293 211-219, 221, 224, 226, 239-241,
Rashi 156, 250 245f., 251, 253f., 257f., 262f.,
rationality 25f., 43, 50, 275f., 288, 265f., 270-272, 300
297 rule 66f., 95, 103, 128, 140-142, 169,
rationality, see also: absurdity, 211, 221, 235, 246, 256, 264, 265,
paradox 293f., 300; see also: royalty
raven 141 Ruth 27, 100, 121, 284
Re 48, 57, 68, 114, 117, 122, 142,
168f, 210, 227f. 252-254; see also: Saftleven, C. xii, 303f.
sun sainthood, see: ancestors, holy ones
reading (Antiquity) 84, 93, 97f., salvation 6, 11, 27, 52, 68f., 71, 77,
107f., 117, 127, 135, 140, 149, 81, 97, 114, 120, 125, 127-129,
176, 180, 181f., 190, 193, 196f., 133-135, 139, 144, 149,
199-201, 204-207, 216, 269 153f.,172-175, 182, 184-186, 219,
Rebekah 124 221, 228, 232-234, 236, 238, 253f.,
rebellion 81, 84, 86, 120f., 167, 191, 259, 264f., 267-272, 277, 289
235, 239, 250f., 262 Samson 96
 index of subjects 359

Samuel 90f., 112, 116, 150f., 165, shepherd 64, 66, 156-158, 225, 254,
182, 226, 240, 266 257, 268, 303
sanctuary 81, 107, 111f., 117, 119, Shiloh 150, 182
121-124, 127, 129-134, 136, 140f., Shoah xii, 6f., 299, 303
157, 168f., 174, 177f., 181f., 185, Shu 231
188, 194, 196, 198f., 203, 206f., Shulgi 171f., 196
219, 225, 231, 241f., 244, 253 Shūsaku, E. 10
Sarah 27 sign, see: omen
Sarraute, N. 10-12 silence passim
Sargon I 212 similarity, see: parallels
Sargon II 84 simile 65f., 164, 260
Sartre, J.-P. 3-5 sin, see: offenses
Satan 28 Sin (god) 102, 142, 262
Saul 82, 90f., 150, 221, 226, 265f., Sinai 48, 151
271 singers 100, 105f., 111, 135, 142,
save, see: salvation 203, 210, 235, 243, 267, 271, 294
Saul 82, 90f., 150, 221, 226, 265f., Sinuhe 85, 114
271 Sippar 142
school 181 skepticism xi, 52, 75, 115, 130, 196,
scribes 38, 73f., 85, 98, 108, 111, 237, 294, 303
135, 141f., 146f., 158f., 170, 172, sleep 59, 96, 102-106, 108f., 121,
178, 184,196-210, 213, 219, 225., 134f., 137, 163, 213, 236; see also:
227f., 262, 282, 298; see also: deity – sleep
writing smoke 149, 211, 219, 226
scroll 104, 155, 183, 188f., 206f., 209 Snefru 172
Second Isaiah 68, 120, 122, 188, 234, Socrates 124, 148
248f., 254, 290, 293 Solomon 112, 150, 164
secret 3, 80-82, 85, 90, 107, 130, soothsaying, see: divination
141f., 147, 159, 171, 188, 196-198, sorcery 117f., 136, 252
204-206, 232, 302 sorrow, see also: suffering
secularization 48, 51 soul 4, 12, 17, 30f., 105, 160, 223,
seer, see: visionary 258, 273
Selah 84, 103 space (blank) 72-74, 79, 83, 86f., 91,
selfishness 53, 158, 303 101, 108, 125-127, 204, 241, 243f.,
Selichos 7 247f., 250, 272, 275
Sennacherib 100, 112, 203, 254 speech passim
Septuagint 155. 273 sphinx 159, 213
servant 81f., 85, 87, 91f., 104, 121, Spruyt, M. 281
125, 141f., 163, 180, 187, 210, star 2, 56, 102, 147, 235
218, 248, 253, 273, 282, 284f., 289 stele 97, 111, 135, 160
Seth 144, 251 stone 98, 122, 147f., 151, 160, 182f.,
shadow 105, 160, 174, 226, 235, 286 220-222, 226, 229, 254f., 263, 270
Shamash 102, 142, 145, 160, 217, stylus 142, 183, 201, 262
262 suffering xii, 10, 20, 22, 27. 29, 30f.,
Shapshu 145; see also: sun 33, 38f., 87, 89, 99, 101, 118f.,
Shelley 61 122, 128, 136, 189, 207, 233,
360 index of subjects

242-244, 255, 257, 259, 263f., 272, Torah 24, 148, 205, 290
283, 285f., 293, 295, 298-302 Torah, see also: law, Pentateuch
sun 6, 56, 81, 102, 113, 115, transcendence, see: deity –
142-145, 213, 217, 225, 231f., 249, transcendence
255, 262f., 279 Trappists 19
supplication, see: lamentation, tree 19, 147, 220, 222, 226, 229
prayer Trito-Isaiah, see: Third Isaiah
symbolic acts 170, 181, 183, 223 tsunami 299, 301
synergy 283-287
unbeliever 9, 303f.
tablet 57, 72f., 79, 98, 142, 147, 151, universalism 48, 249
178, 182-184, 196f., 201, 204, 212, Uriah 182
215, 238, 247, 256, 262 Utanapishti 97
Taizé 20 Utu 255
Tamar 83
Targum 95, 155f., 190f. Van der Toorn, K. 117, 129, 142,
Tavanti, P. xii, 13-17 148, 159, 168, 170, 197-202,
teacher 93, 155-158, 188, 194-196, 208-210, 219, 238, 264
222, 293, 295 vaticinium ex eventu 171, 173, 185
Teiresias 179, 203 victory 16, 39, 86, 144f., 170f., 231
Tell Deir ,Alla- 178 visions 134-136, 163, 165, 184,
temple, see: sanctuary 210-216, 236, 246, 273, 289
Terqa 169 visionary 104, 112, 143, 150, 167,
173, 178-180, 192f., 216, 215f.,
terror 48, 84, 121f., 144, 163, 246;
246, 289; see also: visions
see also: fear
voice 4, 7f., 14, 41, 45, 50, 54, 66,
testifying, see: witness
88, 91, 98, 111f., 116, 123f., 128,
testimony, see: witness
132, 140, 144f., 146, 148-150, 152,
Tharrumannu 162
156, 158, 163, 165f., 180f., 189,
Tharyelli 174
192, 225f., 232, 234, 239, 241,
Thebes 145, 179, 203, 232
244, 253f., 271, 287-289, 292f.,
theism xi, 22, 30, 34, 47-50, 53
295-298, 300, 303
theodicy xi, 26-33, 298-303
volcanic eruptions 301f.
theomorphousness 66f. Von Trier, L. 296f.
theophany 22, 111, 127, 212, 249 Vulgate 104, 155, 183
Third Isaiah 120, 275, 285, 290
Thomas Aquinas 18 Wenamun 97f., 170f.
throne 31, 141, 168f., 213, 244, 246, Wiesel, E. 6f., 27f.
252 wind 160f., 163, 165, 226, 247; see
Thucydides 180 also: spirit
thunder 19, 30, 66, 116, 145-149, wings 86, 159, 247, 281
152, 225, 250, 254 wisdom 18, 66, 80, 88, 91-95, 101f.,
Tiâmat 201, 238, 245, 250 105, 107, 122-124, 129, 130f., 140,
Tobijah 180 151, 159, 164, 172, 175, 177, 179,
tongue 2f., 40f., 84, 86, 88, 96, 99f., 192, 194-197, 219, 231-233, 240,
108, 129, 188, 190, 243, 267, 271, 245, 251, 255, 263, 264, 274, 288,
293 297, 300
 index of subjects 361

witches 96, 252 Yaminite 169f.

witness 6, 9, 21, 29, 34, 43, 45, 65, Yammu 73
70, 82, 122, 144, 149f., 153f., 168, Yarragib 162
174, 183-185, 188, 194, 199, 215, Yašmah-Addu 117
˘
Yom Kippur 7
221, 229, 228, 273, 289-298, 300,
303f. Zakkur 173
writing 27, 33, 56, 58f., 68, 72, 74, Zechariah 102, 165
76f., 79, 81, 89!, 96!, 97-99, 108, Zedekiah 83, 112, 188
111, 116f., 136, 139, 142, 148, Zeus 147, 246
151, 158f., 168, 170, 172, 182-186, Zimrilim 81, 117, 168-170., 218
188, 193, 196, 198-203, 206-209, Zion 48, 87, 99, 120, 126f., 133, 154,
211, 217, 225-229, 271, 273, 282, 234, 249, 261, 285f.
287, 290; see also: scribes Zophar 93
 index of texts
Ancient Near Eastern Texts
Akkadian Texts CAD (Q), 75b: 123 En. Elish ii.6: 245
Adapa and the South CAD (R), 322-333: 145 En. Elish ii.122-126:
Wind: 247 CAD (S), 75: 81 245
AGH, 11:3-6: 261f. CAD (S), 75a: 97 En. Elish ii.139-142:
AGH, 13:8: 262 CAD (S.) 67b: 256 245
AGH, 22:20-21: 262 CAD (S.) 68a: 258 En. Elish iii.1: 245
AGH, 27:19: 262 CAD (S.), 69: 103 En. Elish vii.42: 245
ANET, 288: 96 CAD (Š) 1, 108a: 84 En. Elish vii.145: 201
Anzû OBV ii.2-3: 250 CAD (Š) 1, 490-491: 80 En. Elish vii.157-158:
Anzû OBV ii.23: 251 CAD (Š) 1, 491: 84 201
ARM 26, No. 192-194: CAD (Š) 2, 135: 161 En. Elish vii.161-162:
170 CAD (Š) 2, 149a: 262 201
ARM 26, No. 233:9-39: CAD (Š) 2, 231b: 217 Enmeduranki: 142
169f. CAD (Š) 2, 326: 102 Erra Ep. i.15-20: 255
ARM 26, No. CAD (Š) 2, 394: 298 Erra Ep. i.41: 239
414:29-35: 170 CAD (Š) 2, 445: 96 Erra Ep. i.81: 239
Assyr. Dreambook, CAD (Š) 3, 332: 246 Erra Ep. i.95: 246
327f.: 144 CAD (T), 374b: 219 Erra Ep. ii. Fragm. C,
Atrahasis Ep., CAD (T), 457: 145 23: 263
˘
I.352-359 par.: 238 Chronogr. Text: 177 Erra Ep. iv.68: 239
Bab. Theodicy: 88, CoS 1, 390-402: 238 Erra Ep. v.42-47: 202
233, 264 CoS 1, 402: 201 Gilg. Ep. i.118: 84
BWL, 33: 233 CoS 1, 404-416: 239 Gilg. Ep. iv.194-195:
BWL, 39: 263f. CoS 1, 406: 247 145
BWL, 41: 264 CoS 1, 415: 202, 243 Gilg. Ep. vi.22-79: 247
BWL, 47-52: 264 CoS 1, 420: 131 Gilg.Ep. vii.132-133:
BWL, 75-77: 264 CoS 1, 476-477: 251 145
BWL, 79: 264 CoS 1, 481-482: 171 Gilg. Ep. vii.192: 256
BWL, 87: 233 CoS 1, 481: 131 Gilg. Ep. x.67: 131
BWL, 89: 88, 233 CoS 1, 487: 90 Gilg. Ep. xi.106: 239
BWL, 112-113, line 16: CoS 1, 488: 131 Gilg. Ep. xi.130-135:
80 CoS 3, 328-329: 250 239
BWL, 146-147, lines CoS 3, 332: 250 Gilg. Ep. xi.134-135:
2’-6’: 88 Dialogue of Pessimism, 97
BWL, 266: 264 2’-6’: 88 Gilg. Ep. xii.55-71: 263
CAD (A) 2, 162a: 219 Dream Oracle from Gilg. Ep. xii.73-153:
CAD (L) 2, 210-211: 96 Ebla: 212 263
CAD (M) 2, 38-39: 262 Emar Tablet: 218f. Hammurapi Stele: 97
CAD (N) 1, 382: 203 En. Elish i.26: 238 ˘
Ibalpiel and Kititum:
CAD (Q), 72-73: 97 En. Elish i.40: 238 141, 213
CAD (Q), 72b: 97 En. Elish i.58: 245 Išme-Dagan and Enlil:
CAD (Q), 73b-75b: 87 En. Elish i.114: 245 140f.
 index of texts 363

KAR 1:8: 256 SAA 9, No. 9: 175 Egyptian Texts

Kudurru, BM 90850, SAA 9, No. 294, 12-13: Admon. of Ipuwer, 5.9:
iii.42-44: 263 96 232
LAPO 18, No. 931: 117 SAA 10, No. 107, r.e. Admon. of Ipuwer,
Ludlul i.43-46: 233 12-13: 80 6.6-7: 196f.
Ludlul, ii.4-5: 263 SAA 10, No. 294, Admon. of Ipuwer,
Ludlul, ii.6-9: 264 12-13: 96 12:1-5: 257
Ludlul, ii.23-24: 264 SAA 10, No. 294, 32: Admon. of Ipuwer,
Ludlul, ii.34-38: 264 177 12:5: 261
Ludlul, iii: 264 SAA 13, No. 134, r. 16: ANET, 449: 213
Malamat 1998, 107f.: 119 Ashkelon Ostracon:
168f. SAA 13, No. 21:2-6: 81 180
Maqlû i.56-60: 263 SAA 13, No. 21:11-16: Biographical Text: 141
Maqlû i.56-59: 253 81 Book of the Dead, 175:
Maqlû vii.38: 96 SAA 15, No. 288, 4-8: 172, 256
Marduk Prophecy: 171 97 Coffin Texts Spell 1130:
Prayer to the gods of SAA 17, No. 21, r. 2-6: 172, 231
the night: 102 81 CoS 1, 8-9: 231
SAA 1, No. 29, r. 14: SAA 17, No. 21, r. 11- CoS 1, 24: 231
80 16: 81 CoS 1, 25: 232
SAA 1, No. 32, 14: 84 SAA 17, No. 22, 17-18: CoS 1, 26: 231f.
SAA 1, No. 244, r. 13: 84 CoS 1, 27: 172
82 SAAS 17: 117f., 168 CoS 1, 28: 172, 256
SAA 3, No. 2, 26-27: SAAS 19: 159, 197 CoS 1, 35: 257
84, 246 SAAS 19, 43: 81 CoS 1, 38-39: 114
SAA 3, No. 32, r. 13: SAAS 19, 221: 204 CoS 1, 39: 256
246 SAAS 19, 223-224: 205 CoS 1, 45: 103
SAA 3, No. 40:3: 245 CoS 1, 47: 113f.
Seux 1976, 102: 205
SAA 3, No. 40:5: 245 CoS 1, 49: 115
Seux 1976, 169f.: 262
SAA 4, xvi: 217 CoS 1, 52-54: 213
Seux 1976, 243: 256
SAA 4, xxxvi-lv: 218 CoS 1, 54: 144
Seux 1976, 313: 262
SAA 5, No. 149, r. 5: CoS 1, 65: 80
Shulgi Prophecy: 171
82 CoS 1, 66-68: 160
Šurpu v-vi.3-4: 96
SAA 9: 168 CoS 1, 481-482: 171
Šurpu v-vi.15-16: 96
SAA 9, lxxiii: 173 CoS 1, 80: 114f.
SAA 9, lxxiv: 214 Šurpu vii.17-18: 96 CoS 1, 81-82: 85
SAA 9, No. 1, ii, Šurpu vii.33-34: 96 CoS 1, 84: 160
16’-40’: 262 TUAT 2, 257: 102 CoS 1, 86: 160
SAA 9, No. 2, iii.11’: TUAT 2, 719: 102 CoS 1, 88: 160
122f. TUAT 2, 766: 245 CoS 1, 91-92: 98
SAA 9, No. 1, v.12-25: TUAT 3, 118: 90 CoS 1, 93-110: 177
175 TUAT 3, 120:100: 131 CoS 1, 93-98: 172
SAA 9, No. 1, vi.1-32: TUAT 3, 120:106: 131 CoS 1, 95: 237
263 TUAT 3, 169: 121 CoS 1, 91: 97
SAA 9, No. 2, iii, 11’: TUAT 3, 172: 80 CoS 1, 100: 97, 256
81 Uruk Prophecy: 171 CoS 1, 105: 256
364 index of texts

CoS 1, 106: 81, 131 Pap. Chester Beatty, Balaam Text: 173, 178,
CoS 1, 108: 81 vi, verso 5, 1: 124 180, 182, 204, 216
CoS 1, 111: 124 Pap. Chester Beatty, CoS 2, 137-138: 148
CoS 1, 117: 88 vi, verso 5, 8: 124 CoS 2, 140-145: 178
CoS 1, 120: 123 Pap. Insinger: 80, 89, CoS 2, 155: 173f.
CoS 1, 134-136: 161 124 CoS 3, 102-103: 85
CoS 2, 43: 80 Pap. Leiden: 231, 258 Hazor stele: 160
CoS 2, 58: 80, 246 Potter’s Oracle: 173 Hazor liver models: 219
CoS 2, 65: 256 Prayers: 103, 112ff., KAI 222B:8-9: 98
Demotic Egyptian 117, 148 Karatepe: 74
Handbook: 218 Prophecy of Neferty: Khirbet Qeiyafa
Dream Book: 144, 210, 85, 172 Inscription: 83, 209
213 Pyramid Text, 573: 258 Lachish Ostracon No.
Eloquent Peasant: 80, Report of Wenamun: 3: 98
97 97f., 170f. Lachish Ostracon No.
Harpers’ Songs: 142f., Stele of Suty and Hor, 16: 180
256 BM 826: 258 Marzeah. Papyrus: 148,
Assmann 1999, No. Tale of the Two 161f., 176
32:15-20: 231 Brothers: 160 Mesha Inscription: 148
Assmann 1999, No. Theban Eulogy: 232 Stele of KTMW
136:15-19: 231 TUAT 1, 539: 130 (Zinçirli): 160
Assmann 1999, No. TUAT 1, 561: 80 Syriac Menander, 311-
136:21-22: 231 313: 92
TUAT 2, 104: 80
Hymns to Amun-Re: TUAT 2, 433: 96
TUAT 2, 849: 103
114, 231-233, 256, Zakkur Inscription:
TUAT 2, 873: 88
258 173f.
TUAT 2, 878: 88
Instr. of Amenemhet:
TUAT 2, 883: 88 Sumerian Texts
160f.
Instr. of Amenemope: TUAT 2, 907: 256 Account of the Rise
123, 196 TUAT 3, 223-224: 88 and Power of
Instr. of Any, iv. 1: TUAT 3, 226: 88 Sargon i: 212, 215
123f. TUAT 3, 229-230: 88 Balbale to Inana: 251
Instr. of Merikare: 80, TUAT 3, 234: 88 CoS 1, 516-517: 255
231 TUAT 3, 283: 80 CoS 1, 518: 245, 251
Instr. of Ptahhotep TUAT 3, 317: 124 CoS 1, 538: 131
116: 88f., 96 CoS 1, 589: 98
Kadesh Inscr. Ramesses Hittite Texts ETCSL 1.6.2, 281-299:
II: 145f., 156 Dreams: 213 121
Laments: 114f. Prayers: 115, 143, ETCSL 1.8.2.1,
Shipwrecked Sailor: 177f., 211, 264 240-263: 255
160 TUAT 1, 125: 81f. ETCSL 2.2.3, 58-68:
Sinuhe Tale: 85 131
Sphinx Stele: 213 North-West Semitic ETCSL 2.2.3, 303-317:
Pap. Boulaq, 17: 233, Texts 131
256 Arslan Tash amulet: ETCSL 4.8.4: 251
Pap. Cairo 58032: 232 216 Incantations: 113, 261
 index of texts 365

Lamentations: 176 Ugaritic Texts KTU 1.16:I.25-35: 90

Lugalbanda in the KTU 1.2:I.3-38: 252 KTU 1.16:I.25-30: 131
Wilderness: 214, KTU 1.2:IV.9-10: 73 KTU 1.16:II.33-44: 132
255 KTU 1.3: 147 KTU 1.17:I.1-19: 122,
Enki and KTU 1.3:II.8: 81 146
Ninhursag/Ninmah: KTU 1.17:I.28-29: 81
˘ KTU 1.3:II.44: 81
130f., 251, 255 KTU 1.17:II: 146
KTU 1.3:III.20-28: 147
Sum. Proverbs, 1.96: KTU 1.19:I.34-35: 131
KTU 1.4:V.6-9: 146
88 KTU 1.19:III.45: 103
KTU 1.4:VII.29-34:
Sum. Proverbs, 1.185: KTU 1.20–1.22: 144
146f.
85 KTU 1.82:6: 145
KTU 1.5:I.1-8: 247
Sum. Proverbs, 2.32: KTU 1.82:36-43: 220
KTU 1.5:I.25: 73f.
89 KTU 1.90:1: 215
KTU 1.5:II.7: 73 KTU 1.114:28: 257
Sum. Proverbs, 2.40: KTU 1.5:II.9: 73 KTU 1.119: 253
201 KTU 1.5:II.12: 73 KTU 1.119:26’-36’: 171
Sum. Proverbs, 2.85: KTU 1.5:V.16-17: 256 KTU 1.132:25-26: 257
80 KTU 1.6: III.10f.: 257 KTU 1.161:31-34: 174f.
Sum. Proverbs, 13.42: KTU 1.6:VI.23: 145 KTU 1.168:8: 215
175f. KTU 1.6: VI.58: 162 KTU 3.9: 161
TUAT 2, 28: 121 KTU 1.12:II.46-47: 252 RS 24.266:26’-36’: 171f.
TUAT 2, 685: 84 KTU 1.14–1.16: 214 RS 92.2016: 159, 198,
TUAT 2, 706: 131 KTU 1.14:III.10: 90 215
TUAT 3, 71: 85 KTU 1.15:II-III: 144
TUAT 3, 470-471: 256 KTU 1.15:II.13-16: 265 Elephantine Texts
TUAT 3, 565-593: 238 KTU 1.15:V.10-28: 252 Ah.iqar: 74

Early Jewish Texts

2 Baruch 4Q405, Fragm. 21 244 40:5-7 215
3:6-7 234 4Q405, Fragm. 22 244
11Q17:VII 244 Wisdom of Solomon
13:1 150
22:1 150 8:11-12 91
Wisdom of Ben Sira
8:12 95
4 Ezra 5:12 94
13:23 95 1 Enoch
3-14 233f.
17:27-28 105 13:8 150
6:39 234 20:5-7 95
7:30 234 65:4 150
31:1-8 215
7:32 106 38:24-39 210 Pseudo-Aristeas
10:22 133 38:34 210 213-216 215
39:1 210
Qumran 39:5-6 210 Pseudo-Philo
4QSama 91 39:6 210 60:2 234
4Q405, Fragm. 20 244 39:8 210
366 index of texts

Rabbinic Texts
Mishna Babylonian Talmud Midrash
Sanh. vii.4 118 Pes.K. 12:6 (102b) 291 Exod. R. XXIX.9 165
Sanh. vii.11 118 Sanh. 67a-68a 118 Qoh. R. 3:9 95
Sot.a ix.15 165 Zev. 115b 95 Sifre Deut. §346 291

Tosefta Jerusalem Talmud Targ. Qohelet

Sot.a xiii.4 165 Sanh. vii.19 [25d] 118 3:7 95

Greek and Latin Texts

Aeschylus Iliad, v.144-151: 214 Odys., xv.160-181: 220
Agamemnon, Iliad, vi. 76: 220 Odys., xv.430: 80
1130-1135: 179 Iliad, vii.194-195: 124 Odys., xx.98-121: 147
Agamemnon, 1197: 179 Iliad, vii.427-428: 132 Odys., xxii.445: 80
Iliad, viii.28-29: 124 Odys., xxiv.1: 162
Agamemnon,
Iliad, ix.695: 132 Odys., xxiv.15: 162
1240-1241: 179
Iliad, xiv.160-181: 217 Odys., xxiv.35: 162
Anonymous Iliad, xiv.231-233: 103
Iliad, xvi.233-235: 220 Lucian
Homeric Hymns,
Iliad, xvi.454: 103 Dialogues of the Dead,
iii.172: 203
Iliad, xvi.672: 103 9 (29): 179
Cicero Iliad, xvi.682: 103
Iliad, xxiv.667-678: Nonnus
De Divinatione, i.72: 256 Dionysiaca, xiv, 269-
147 Odys., ii.182: 220 283: 220
Homer Odys., viii.43-47: 203
Odys., viii.62-83: 203 Plato
Iliad, i.62-67: 214 Odys., viii.261-369: Apology, 31:148
Iliad, i.69-70: 179 203 Phaedrus, 15: 124
Iliad, i.69: 220 Odys., viii.482-521: Phaedrus, 20: 148
Iliad, i.92-100: 179 203 Phaedrus, 244c: 219
Iliad, i.511-512: 246 Odys., x.490-495: 179
Iliad, i.518-519: 246 Odys., xi.37: 162 Vita Prophetarum
Iliad, i.568-569: 246 Odys., xi.90-151: 179 7:1-2 93
 index of biblical texts
Hebrew Bible
Genesis 24:30 125 9:12 167
1 67 24:50 134 10:14 260
1:26 66, 300 26:5 139 11:9 167
1:28 67 28:11 181 14:9-14 125
2:2-3 260 31:3 165 14:9-10 125
2:7 194 31:11 163 14:10-12 125
2:17 299 32:22-32 265 14:10 125
3:5 299 32:39 295 14:11-12 125
3:8-10 82 34:5 83 14:14 125
3:23 181 37:8-10 215 14:15 125
6 239 37:19-20 215 14:19 158
6:3 153 41:49 100 15:14-15 121
6:5-6 301 45:3 86 15:16 122
6:6 301 Exodus 15:20 181
6:7 40 15:26 139
3–4 190f.
6:8 194 16:20 167
3:4ff. 190
12:1-9 76 3:4 190 17:1-7 83
12:6 222 3:7-10 190 18:17-26 156
16:7-14 163, 166 3:11 189f. 19:9 167
16:7 152 4:1 190 20:11 260
16:13 164 4:8 167 20:16 296
16:18-19 166 4:9 167 20:18-21 149
18–19 164 4:10-16 189 20:19 167
18 281 4:10 99, 190 21:2-11 101
18:14 299 4:11 99, 190 22:17 118
18:16-33 299 4:13-16 67 22:24-26 101
19:12 24 4:13 191 22:27 100
19:15 163 4:14-16 191 23:12 260
20:17 112 5:1-3 191 23:14 260
21:13 237 5:2 167 23:20-23 167
21:17 151, 163, 165 6:9 167 23:20-21 158
22:2-3 124 6:12 167, 190 24:4 151
22:11 163 6:30 130 24:7 139
22:12-18 164 7:1 181, 191 24:12 151, 180
22:18 139 7:9-10 118 28:3 157
22:23 125 7:4 167 31:3 157
24 125 7:13 167 31:15 260
24:10 124 7:16 167 31:17 260
24:13-14 125 7:19-20 118 31:18 151
24:21 125 7:22 167, 197 32:15-16 151
24:22 125 8:15 167 32:19 151
24:24-27 125 8:19 167 33:12-16 250
368 index of texts

34:1 151 1:26-27 239 18:9-12 223

34:27-28 151 1:32 239 18:15-20 167
35:31 157 1:43-45 140 18:15-19 150
Leviticus 1:43 239 18:19 167
1:45 239 18:21-22 186
5:1 82
3:23-28 83 18:22 186
10:1-2 126
3:26 83, 140, 167 19:15 298
10:3 126
4:12 149 23:4-5 178
13:45 100
4:13 151, 183 24:8 156
19:18 17
4:15 149 24:10-13 101
19:26 118
4:28 149, 254 26:17 139
20:6 118
4:33 149 27:8 183
24:15-16 100
4:36 149 27:9-10 126, 139
25 101
4:45 290 27:9 127
26:14 139
5:4-5 149 27:10 126
26:18 139
5:5 149 28 139
26:21 139
5:4 149 28:14 155
26:27 139
5:14 260 29:6 112
Numbers 5:20 296 29:17-27 205
11:2 112 5:22-23 149 29:19-20 205
11:15 250 5:22 151, 153, 183 29:28 205
11:17 156 5:23-31 167 30 139
11:22 250 5:23-27 149 30:10 181
11:25-29 153, 156, 181 5:32-33 155 30:11 181
11:25 153, 303 6:4 14 30:13-14 181
11:29 153, 192, 303 6:5 17 30:14 152, 181
11:30 153 6:17 290 30:15 299
12:1-15 148 6:20 290 31:12 152
14:45 239 8:20 167 31:19 290
20:2-13 83 31:21 128, 290
9:10 151
21:7 112 31:26 290
9:23 167
22–24 150, 167, 178 32:20 259
10:1-5 151
22:22-35 4 32:39 299
11:26-28 167
22:22 164 32:46 299
13:2-6 186
23–24 216 34:9 192
13:2 215
23:9 76 34:10 151, 156, 192
13:4 215
23:18-19 217 13:6 215 Joshua
23:23 220
15:1-18 101 1:7 155
24:3-4 215
15:5 139 1:17-18 167
27:28 192
16:22 222 2:1 90
30 90
17:6 298 5:6 167
31:8 178
17:8-13 156 6:5 90, 95f.
31:16 178
17:11 156 6:10 96
35:30 298
17:20 155 6:16 90
Deuteronomy 18 159 6:20 90
1 239 18:9-13 118 7:9 250
 index of texts 369

7:19-22 90 7:1 116 28:7 162

8:30-32 183 7:5-11 112 28:13 165
13:22 178 7:5 112 28:15 266
18 222 7:7-14 116 28:16-19 266
21:45 150 7:8 116 2 Samuel
23:6 155 7:9 116
23:14 150 7:10 116, 149 1:12 241
24:9-10 178 2:26 82
8:6 112
24:22 290 3:11 86
8:18 239f.
24:24 139 5:24 222
9 112
7 150, 169, 271
Judges 9:9 216
7:7 248
10:6 150, 153
2:1-5 164 12:1-4 87
10:7 223
2:1 163 12:5-6 87
10:9 223
2:17 167 12:16 269
10:11-12 271
3:12-30 205 12:18 91
10:10-12 150, 153
3:19 94, 205 12:21-22 241
10:16 91
3:20 205 12:21 269
10:25 182
5:23 284 12:22 269
10:27 91
6:11-24 166 13:20 83
12:9 259
6:12 163 13:22 83
12:19 112
6:14-18 164 14:17 164
14:24-45 261f.
6:23 164 14:20 164
14:24-30 265f.
8:14 208 16:14 260
14:24 82
9:23 154, 165 19:10 86
14:37 265
9:37 222 19:11 86
14:38-39 265f.
10:7 259 19:12 86
14:39 82, 266
13:3-23 163, 167 19:27 164
14:40-45 266
13:3-21 166 22:3 270
14:41 221
13:22 164 22:7 112
15 167
16:2 96 22:8 301
15:11 301
17–18 82 22:14 149
15:28-29 266
18:19 82, 91 22:32 270
15:29 301
18:20 82 22:42 241
15:30-31 266
19:28 104 22:47 270
15:35 301
20:26 241 23:1 271
16:1 266
1 Samuel 23:2-3 150, 271
18:10 150, 271
24 164
1:13 127 19:20 153, 181
24:11 216
2:9 106 19:22-24 150 24:16 164
2:34 223 19:24 181, 216, 271 24:17 164
3 150 20:26 91 24:18 164
3:1 242 23:20-21 153
3:8-9 150 25:36 91 1 Kings
3:19-21 150 28 165, 226 1:31 132
3:20 181 28:3 266 1:47-48 169
3:21–4:1 151 28:6 221, 243, 266 3 164
370 index of texts

3:5-15 150 4:29-31 104 8:16-18 183

8 112 4:31 101, 104 8:16 156, 181, 290
8:35 112 4:38 181 8:18 223
8:39 112 6 241 8:20 156, 290
8:42 112 6:9 180 9:15 156
8:44 112 6:33 241 10:10-11 156
8:49 112 7:9 82 10:14 86
8:56 150f. 10:10 150 13:13 301
13 186 12:3 156 14:7 121
13:6 112 17:13 216 15:1 106, 133
14:4 203 17:27-28 156 15:2-3 132
18–19 253 18:34 253 15:8 132
18 167, 198 18:36 100 16:7 132
18:26 253 19 253 16:11 101
18:27 257 19:1-5 253 16:12 253
18:29 253 19:6-7 253 16:14 127
19 250 19:7 163 17:7 156
19:4 106 19:8-37 254 17:12-14 126
19:5-8 166 19:14-19 112 18:4 242
19:5 163 19:14 117 19:19-20 221
19:7 163 19:16 112 20 181
19:11-14 250 19:20-34 112 21:6 242
19:11-13 19, 66 20:8-9 223 21:8 242
19:11 250 22:2 155 23:1 130
19:12 244, 250 22:13 188 23:2 130
20:35 181 23:24 222 23:6 130
21:27 126 25:22-26 244 24:18 301
21:28-29 126 Isaiah 25:5 126
22 150, 186 28–31 190
22:3 82 1:14 140, 301
1:15 181, 241 28:7-11 193
22:15 186
1:18-19 139 28:7-10 192
22:19-24 165
1:19-20 140 28:9 156
22:19-23 186
2:3 154 28:21-22 40
22:21-23 154
3:23 183 29:6 301
22:21ff. 165
5:14 126 29:9-10 192
22:21 163
6 150 29:10 193, 216
22:27 155
6:5-7 190 29:11 183
22:28 205, 209
6:8 165 29:13-16 192
2 Kings 6:9-10 140 29:17 99
1:3 163 6:14 126 29:18 99
2:3-5 86 7:2 121 30:8 183f., 290
2:3 181 7:4 121 30:10 86, 216
2:5 181 7:10-17 223 30:11 156
2:7 181 8:1 183 30:15 121, 128
2:15 181 8:2 183 30:16 128
4:1 181 8:3-4 13 30:17 121
 index of texts 371

30:19-21 154-158 42:1-4 188 51:9 259, 261, 285

30:20-21 155 42:1 157, 303 51:16 286
30:20 155, 157 42:2 91 51:17 261, 285
30:21 158, 295 42:5-9 286 52:1-2 261
30:26 157 42:5 157 52:1 285
30:30 149 42:13-15 249 52:2 285
32:3-4 99 42:13-14 248 52:3 259
32:9 121 42:13 248 52:7-9 261, 285
32:10 121 42:14 248f. 52:8 91, 156, 242
32:14 121 42:18-21 240 52:10 261
32:15 157 42:18-19 248 52:15 87
32:17 121 42:22 241 53:7 91
33:17 156 42:23-25 248 54:8 259
35:2-4 99 43:9-21 249 54:13 181
35:5-6 99 43:9-12 289 55:4 290
36:19 253 43:10-11 249 56:10 104, 242
36:21 100 43:10 290 57:11 249
37:7 163 43:12 290 57:15-16 157
37:8-37 254 43:19 286 57:20 12
37:14-20 112 43:22-24 290 58:1 91
37:17 112 43:23-24 249 58:4 241
37:30 223 44:3 157 58:5-12 241
38:7 223 44:7-8 249 58:9 40
38:18 104 44:8 290 59:1-3 241
40:2 120 44:11 454 59:16 285
40:3 284 45:6 249 59:21 157
40:9 261, 285 45:7 299 61:1 157
40:10-11 64, 157, 280 45:8 249 61:3 157
40:10 249, 284 45:15-17 68 61:10 120
40:16 249 45:15 69, 157, 234 62 242
40:18 249 45:19 69 62:1 120, 242
40:25 249 45:20-25 299 62:4 120
40:27 250 45:21-22 249 62:6-7 242
40:28-31 293 46:1-7 254 62:7 302
40:28 286 46:5 249 62:11-12 157
40:31 284 46:7 254 63:9 157, 302
41:1 122, 249 46:9 245 63:10-11 157
41:2-6 122 47:5 106, 133 63:10 157, 302
41:6 122 48:6-7 205, 286 63:11 157, 192
41:17 40 48:16 153, 155 63:14 157
41:20 234 48:17 156 63:15 101
41:21-29 249 49:15 234 63:17 156
41:26 234 50:1 259 64 242
41:28 255 50:4-5 188, 293 64:1 301
42 240 50:4 181 64:4 242
42:1-7 285 51 295 64:6 242
372 index of texts

64:8 243 14:23 186 36:20 207

64:11 157, 242f., 302 14:27-28 186 36:21 207
65:6 243 15:16 188 37:3 112
65:12 140 15:19 190 38:16 188
65:24 40, 139f. 18:18 100, 205 38:17-18 221
66:3-4 119 19:14 112 38:20 181
Jeremiah 20:9 187 38:24-27 83, 188
20:18 266 38:27 83
1:6-10 190 40:6 244
22:15-16 297
1:9 190 40:7–41:18 244
23:3 64
3:23 126 42:2 112
23:18 150
4:8 133 42:4 112, 188
23:22 150
4:19-22 302 42:7 153
23:25-32 215
4:19 87, 101 43:1-3 207
23:33-34 178
4:23–26 301 45 207
23:36 178
6:2 106, 133 45:1 206f.
25:34 132
6:10 140 46:27 121
25:37 106, 133
6:11 140, 187 47:5 106, 133
6:13-14 175 26:2 112
26:17-19 194, 209 48:2 106, 133
6:17 242 49:23 121
7:6 112 26:17 209
27–28 86 49:26 106
7:16 140 50:30 106
7:22 248 27:9-10 215
28:9 186 50:42 126
7:23-28 140 51:29 301
8:7 222 28:15-17 186
29 184 51:39 106
8:8 156, 207 51:55 126
8:10-11 175 29:7 112
29:8-9 215 51:57 106
8:14 101, 106 51:60 204
8:18-21 302 29:11-13 139
9:11 195 29:12-14 40 Ezekiel
10 254f. 30:10 121 1–2 150
10:1 254 31:15 133 1:24-25 149
10:5 254f. 31:26 103 1:28–2:2 189
10:13 254 31:31-34 153 1:28 149
10:14 254 32:10 184, 204 2:2 157
10:22 301 32:25 184 2:5 189
11:7-10 140 32:27 299 2:7 189
11:11 140 32:44 184 2:9 188
11:14 112, 140 33:3 40 3:1 188
12:7-9 302 36:2 207 3:2 188
13:1-3 157 36:4 207 3:3 188
13:12 302 36:6 207 3:7 189
13:17 302 36:8 207 3:11 189
14:8-9 266 36:10 207 3:12-14 157, 189
14:13-16 186 36:13-14 207 3:14 188f.
14:17-18 302 36:14-19 207 3:17-21 187
14:17 23 36:18 206 3:17 242
 index of texts 373

3:18 187 37:5-6 157 Micah

3:24-27 189 37:9-10 157, 165 1:1 209
3:24 157, 188 37:14 157, 303 1:2 209
3:26-27 189 38:11 121 1:3–4 111
3:26 99, 180 38:19-20 301 1:4-5 301
5:7 126 39:11 126 1:8-9 133
7:11-14 126 39:19 157 1:8 181
7:26 242 43:2 149 1:10 133
8:3 157, 189 43:5 157, 189 2:1 104
8:18 241 44:23 156 2:5 222
11:1 157, 189 Hosea 2:6 86
11:5 153, 157 2:7 157, 194
2:23-24 148
11:19 153, 157, 303 2:11 190, 194
3:4 221
11:24 153, 157, 189 3 240
4:12 222
12–13 186 3:4-7 239
9:7 153, 157
13 223 3:4 193, 240
9:8 242
13:3 296 3:5-8 192
13:10 175 Joel 3:5-7 193
13:16 175 2:12-16 269 3:5 175
14:14 122 2:17 266 3:6-7 193, 243
14:20 122 3:1-2 157, 181 3:7 100, 216
16:42 242 4:16 301 3:8 157, 193
16:63 120 3:11 156, 181
Amos
19 185 3:12 194, 209
21:26 223 1:1 301 4:2 156
23:42 126 3 299 5:12-14 222
24:15-27 189 3:7-8 187 6:5 178
3:7 150 7 240
24:17 100
4:13 286 7:1-6 209
24:22 100
5:13-15 93 7:4 242
24:27 99
5:13 93, 126 7:5 91
28:3 122
5:23 126, 181 7:7 242
31:18 126
6:5 126 7:16 91
32:16 126
6:10 133
33:1-6 187 Nahum
7:9 186
33:2 242 1:5 301
7:10 93, 187
33:6-7 242 2:14 98
7:12 216
33:7 242
7:17 93, 222 Habakkuk
33:22 99, 189
8:3 133
34:4 157 1 272
8:11-12 292f.
34:8 64 1:4 272
8:12 243
34:14 64 1:5-11 272
9:5 301
34:16 157 1:12 272
9:2 105
34:18 64 1:13 272
36:26-27 157 Jonah 1:17 273
36:26 153, 303 3:5 269 2 272f.
37:1 153, 157 3:9 269 2:1-4 273
374 index of texts

2:1-3 273 3:5 271 22:32 268

2:1 242 3:6 135 23:4 64
2:2 184 4:5 18, 103 25:10 290
2:4 273 4:9 104, 135 25:13 129
2:11 254 6:6 105 27:7 271
2:18-19 255 6:9-10 271 28 269ff.
2:20 127 7:7 258 28:1 269f.
3:6 301 8 235 28:2 270
3:10 148 8:5-7 235, 300 28:3-5 270
Zephaniah 10:1 266 28:4-5 270
10:4 52 28:4 270
1:7 127
13 272 28:5 270
3:17 250
13:2 272 28:6 270
Haggai 13:4 104, 271f. 28:8-9 270
1:13 167 13:6 271f. 28:8 270f.
2:5 157 14:1 52 28:9 270f.
2:7 301 16:5-6 222 29:3-9 149
17:6 271 30:6 135
Zechariah
18:3 270 30:10 105
1:9 163 18:7 112 30:13 105, 128
1:11 121 18:8 301 31:3 270
1:14 163 18:14 149 31:18 106
1:18 216 18:32 270 32 84
2:1 216 18:42 237 32:3 84
2:17 56 18:47 270 32:4 84
3 150 18:51 271 32:5 84
4:1-2 216 19:2-5 127 34:5 271
4:1 163 19:2-4 56 35 268f.
4:4 163 19:2 148 35:1-21 268
4:6 157 19:15 270 35:3 269
5:1 216 20:2 271 35:9-10 268
5:5 163 20:7 271 35:13 128, 268f.
6:1 216 20:10 271 35:14 269
7:7 140 22 262ff. 35:18 268
7:12 157, 192, 249 22:1-3 267 35:20 127, 268
7:13 140 22:2-3 267 35:21 128
8:6 295 22:2 234 35:22 269
10:2 215, 221f. 22:3 103, 267, 271 35:23 258, 269
12:10 157 22:4 267 35:24 268
13:2 187 22:5-6 267 35:28 268
13:9 40 22:10 268 37:7 128
Malachi 22:12 234, 267 38:14-15 99, 128
2:7 1677 22:16 267 38:15 273
22:20 234, 267 38:16 100, 271
Psalms 22:22 267, 271 38:22 234
2:7 132 22:23-32 267 39 119, 128f.
 index of texts 375

39:2-3 119, 128 50:21 249 78:56 290

39:2 129 51 151f. 78:63-64 260
39:3 128f. 51:12-14 153 78:65 258, 260
39:3-4 119, 129 51:12 153f. 81:6 149
39:5-7 128 51:13 153, 157 81:8 40, 149
39:5-6 1289 51:14 153f. 81:7-17 149
39:8 129 51:15 154 83:2 127, 242, 269
39:9 119, 129 51:17 154 83:3 126
39:10 119, 127, 129 51:19 154 86:1 271
39:11-12 128 53:1 52 86:7 139, 271
39:12 119, 128 55:2-3 115 86:17 223
39:13-14 128 55:2 269 88 105f.
39:13 119, 269 55:3 270f. 88:6 106
39:14 128 55:10-24 270 88:7 106
40:7-11 267 59:6 258 88:11-12 105
40:10 128 59:7 126 89:20 150
41:12 126 59:15 126 89:27-28 132
42:8 148 60:7-10 270 89:27 270
42:10 266 60:7 271 89:39 271
43:2 266 62 2213 89:47 157
44 258f. 62:2 128 89:52 271
44:2-4 259 62:3 270 90 235
44:2 259 62:6 128 90:14 135
44:10 259, 262 62:7-8 270 90:17 286
44:12 259 62:12-13 223 91:15 40, 265
44:13 259 63:12 106 92:3 135
44:18-22 259 65:2 127 93:5 290
44:23-24 267 65:3 127 94:9 99
44:24 258f. 65:6 127, 271 94:12-15 121
44:25 259 65:8 127 94:17 105
44:27 259 65:10-14 127 95:6-11 239
45:7 132 65:14 127 96:12 148
46:6 135 66 239 99:7 290
46:7 126 66:16-19 242 104:30 165, 194
50 248f. 69:14 271 107:42 106
50:1 249 69:17-18 271 108:7-10 270
50:3 249 71:3 270 108:7 271
50:4-6 249 72:12 234 109 269
50:4 249 74 244 109:1 269
50:5 248 74:1 244 109:2-3 269
50:6 249 74:4 223, 244, 269 109:4 269
50:7-23 249 74:9 243f., 269 109:6-19 269
50:8-13 249 74:23 126 109:20 269
50:14 249 77 100 109:25 269
50:16-22 249 77:2-3 100 109:30 269
50:16-20 248 77:3-5 100 110:1 271
376 index of texts

114:3-4 235 144:1 270 32:3 100

115 22 147:2-3 157 32:5 100
115:3 300 Job 32:6-7 92
115:5 255 32:8 194
1:21 169 32:11 92
115:7 255
2:12-13 133 32:12 92, 100
115:9-15 300
3:13 106, 121 32:15-16 92, 100
115:16 300
3:17 106 32:16 92
115:17 105
3:18 106 32:17-19 194
119 294
3:26 121, 132 32:19-20 92
119:2 290
4:12–5:1 163, 243 33:4 194
119:22 280
4:17-18 163 33:13-17 236
119:24 290
5:16 106 33:31-33 93f.
119:32-43 294
6:24 94 34:14 194
119:46 290
7:11-12 235 34:29 236, 272
119:59 290
7:17-19 235 35:9-14 240
119:79 290
7:21 235 35:11 223, 236
119:95 290
9 101 35:12 239
119:119 290 9:3 101
119:125 290 35:13-16 242
9:14-15 101 36:22 156
119:138 290 9:16 40
119:146 290 37:2-5 149
9:21 101 38–39 134
119:152 290 9:32 101
119:167 290 39:26 223
10:12-13 237 39:37-38 40
119:168 290 11:3 93
121 259f. 40:1-5 100f.
11:5 236 40:2 101
121:1 259 13:5 94
121:2 259 40:4-5 134
13:13 94 40:4 91, 101
121:3-4 260 13:17 94
127:2 103 40:5 101
13:19 94 40:9 149
130:5-6 273 17:3 237 40:25–41:26 247
131:2 128 19:7 236 40:28 237
132:12 290 21 52 41:4 247
135:2 112 21:5 91 41:17 247
135:4 300 21:14-15 52 41:25 247
135:6 300 23:4 273 42:2 299
135:12 300 27:3 194 42:6 40, 101
135:14 300 29:9-10 94
135:15-17 255 29:21-22 94 Proverbs
137:3 203 29:22 94 1:24-25 140
137:6 99 30 101 1:28 140
138:3 271 30:20 101, 232 3:24 103
139:7 157 30:26 101 7:11 126
139:8 105 30:27 101 10:19 92
143:1 271 31:33-34 82 11:12-13 92
143:7 271 32 194f. 13:2 91
143:8 135 32:1–37:24 92 15:18 121
 index of texts 377

17:1 126 1:16 133 10:15-19 99, 190

17:27-28 92 2:9 243 10:15 189
17:28 94 2:10 120, 133 10:16 189
19:23 103 3:8 120 10:17 189
20:12 99 3:26-29 120.
Ezra
21:13 140 3:26 133
21:23 91 3:28 133 9:1-2 134
27:2 94 3:33 40 9:4-5 134
29:24 82 5:20 267 9:6-15 134
30:32 91, 94 Nehemiah
Esther
31:8-9 83
4:1 132 1:4 241
31:8 93
4:3 269 5:7 101
Ruth 4:11-14 87 5:8 101
1:18 100 4:16 269 8:9-10 128
3:18 121 7:4 87, 255 8:11 127
4:9-11 290 9:30-31 245
Daniel
Qohelet 9:30 192, 301
3:29 100
3:7 95 13:2 178
4:28 152, 165
4:17–5:1 130 1 Chronicles
4:29 152
5:1-6 127
4:31 149 12:18 173
5:5 130
4:35 300 21:16 164
5:6 215
4:36 300 22:9 121
7:14 130
5 151 25:8 181
8:17 130
5:5 151
9:1 130 2 Chronicles
5:11 151
12:7 153, 303 15:3 156
5:24 151
Lamentations 9:28 153 20:5 112
1:5 301 10:10 189 24:19-20 192, 249

New Testament
Matthew 17:5 152, 165 1:23-27 195
3:17 152, 165 18:16 298 3:11 195
7:7-8 40 19:26 300 3:30 195
7:11 40 20:30-31 11 4:9 17
8:8 11 22:37-39 17 5:2 195
9:27 11 22:46 102 5:8 195
9:32-34 102 23:16-19 11 5:13 195
10:19-20 294 25:31-40 297 5:39 132
12:22-24 102 9:7 152, 165
27:46 267
12:43-45 195 9:38-40 118
13:13-17 11 Mark 13:11 294
13:52 298 1:11 152, 165 15:34 267
378 index of texts

Luke 5:5 303 5:23 286

1:18 102 8:2 43 5:30 286
1:19 102 8:9 154
Philippians
1:63-64 102 8:11 154
8:14 154 2 38
2 303
9:35 152, 165 8:16 158 Colossians
11:13 303 8:19 148 1:24 286
11:14-15 102 8:22 148
8:24-25 27 1 Thessalonians
12:11-12 294
14:4 102 8:26 154 5:19-21 296
14:6 102 12:4-8 286
2 Timothy
20:26 102 18:18-23 27
1:7 303
21:14-15 294 1 Corinthians
23:34 11 Hebrews
2:9 65
24 291 3:5-9 285 11 291
24:48 291 9:16 193 11:1 70
John 12:10 296 11:2 70
12:12-31 286 11:4 70
1:18 65 11:5 70
5:37 65 13:12 8, 65
14:29 296 11:39 70
6:46 65 12:1 70
7:39 303 2 Corinthians
9:31 40 2 Peter
1:22 303
12:28 152 5:5 303 1:17-18 152
12:29 152 6:18 299 1:19-20 195
14:8ff. 65 11:4 303 1:21 195
17:21-22 15 1 John
Galatians
20:22 303
3:2 303 3:24 303
Acts 3:14 303 4:1 296
1:8 291 5:13 158 4:12 65
2:38 303 5:16-25 158, 296 4:13 303
5:32 291, 303 5:25 158 Revelation
8:18-19 303
Ephesians 1:10 158
9:3-6 152, 165
10:45 303 1:17 303 1:12 158
13:2-6 118 1:19 300 8:1 8, 244, 275
18:24–19:7 296 1:23 286 8:3-4 244
19:2 303 2:8 303 10:4 149
22:9 152 4:4 286 10:8 149
4:12 286 11:8-13 301
Romans 4:16 286 11:12 149
4:3-5 20 4:30 302 14:13 149
5:2-4 27 5:14 106 16:17-21 301