Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T19:17:09.304Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Some Aspects of Prayer in the Bible*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 October 2009

Jeffrey H. Tigay
Jeffrey H. Tigay
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Get access

Extract

The root metaphor of God's kingship appears to have been the most fertile of those applied to God in the Bible. Although this metaphor was commonly applied to deities in the ancient Near East, in Israel it bore unique fruits. The seriousness with which it was taken is manifested in Israel's unique conception of her relation with God as a covenant with a suzerain. Conformably, Israel viewed her title to her land as a grant from the suzerain. Her prophets were pictured as royal messengers or ambassadors. Similarly expressive of God's kingship is the Israelite concept of divine authorship of laws, a role reserved for kings elsewhere in the ancient Near East.

Type
Research Article
Information
AJS Review , Volume 1 , April 1976 , pp. 363 - 379
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Jewish Studies 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Cf. M. Buber, Kingship of God,chap. 3;Jacobsen, T., “Ancient Mesopotamian Religion: The Central Concerns,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 107 (1963), 479ff.;Google Scholar “Babylonia and Assyria: Religion,” Encyclopaedia Britannica (1966), vol. 2, 972;Smith, M., “The Common Theology of the Ancient Near East,” JBL, 71 (1952), 141,Google Scholar n. 25;Rothschild, F., “Truth and Metaphor in the Bible,” Conservative Judaism, 25/3 (Spring, 1971), 18–21.Google Scholar

2. For recent contributions to the growing literature on this theme seeHillers, D. R., Covenant: The History of an Idea (Baltimore, 1969);Google ScholarMcCarthy, D. J., Old Testament Covenant: A Survey of Current Opinions(Oxford and Richmond, Va., 1972);Google ScholarWeinfeld, M., “Covenant,” EJ, 5, 1012–22; brit, in Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament, Band I (Stuttgart, 1972), 782–808. Note the remarks of Greenberg, –On the Refinement,– above, p. 66, n. 11.Google Scholar

3. Weinfeld, , “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East,” JAOS, 90 (1970), 184–203; cf. Hillers, Covenant, p. 79.Google Scholar

4. Holladay, J. S., Jr., “Assyrian Statecraft and the Prophets of Israel,” HTR, 63 (1970), 29–51.Google Scholar

5. Greenberg, M., “Some Postulates of Biblical Criminal Law,” in Yehezkel Kaufmann Jubilee Volume, ed.M., Haran (Jerusalem, 1960), pp. 9–13;Google Scholar reprinted inJ., Goldin, ed., The Jewish Expression (New York, 1970), pp. 21–24.Google Scholar

6. “On the Refinement,” above, pp. 64–70.

7. Cf.R. deVaux, Ancient Israel(New York, 1961), pp. 282f Oppenheim, A. L., “The Mesopotamian Temple,” in The Biblical Archaeologist Reader, ed.G., E.Wright and D., N.Freedman (Garden City, 1961), pp158ffGoogle Scholar especially p. 164. For the routine of Mesopotamian divine statues being modeled on the daily routine of the royal court see Ibid and Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia(Chicago, 1964), pp. 183–93.

8. Haran, M., “The Ark and the Cherubim: Their Symbolic Significance in Biblical Ritual,” IEJ, 9 (1959), 30–38, 89–94; cf. de Vaux, op. cit., pp. 299 f.Google Scholar

9. “What Were the Cherubim?” in Biblical Archaeologist Reader, pp. 95–97; cf.Wright, G. E., Biblical Archaeology, 2d ed. (Philadelphia, 1962), pp. 142 and fig. 41 on p. 74.Google Scholar

10. Weinfeld, , “The Covenant of Grant,” JAOS, 90, 201f.Google Scholar

11. Cf. BDB, 764 top, sub e; AHw, 409b sub 2;Oppenheim, A. L., “Idiomatic Accadian,” JAOS, 61 (1941), 258.Google Scholar

12. Cf.Gaster, T. H., “Sacrifices,” 1DB, vol. 4, 148f.;Google ScholarWeinfeld, M., “Tithe,” EJ, 15, 1156–62; “The Royal and Sacred Aspects of the Tithe in the Old Testament,” Beer-Sheba, I (1973), 122–31. On God's right to first fruits, etc., cf. Herodotus, Persian Wars, VI, 57.Google Scholar

13. Cf. Luzzatto at Ex. 23:17. Cf. Oppenheim, “Idiomatic Accadian” (above, n. 11), p. 258 top. A number of letters rebuke vassals who have failed to visit the sovereign: PRU, IV, 191 (translated by Oppenheim, Letters, p. 137); PRU,V, no. 60= UT 2060; cf.Loewenstamm, S. E., “Ugaritic Gleanings,” Leshonenu, 30 [1965–66], 89;Google ScholarHuffmon, H. B. and Parker, S. B., “A Further Note on The Treaty Background of Hebrew Yada,” BASOR, 184 [1966], 36–38;Google ScholarABL, 88 [RCAE,no. 88 = Pfeiffer, no. 154; cf. ABL, 1120 (Pfeiffer,no. 196)]; similarly between equals, PRU, IV, 228 f. These epistolary rebukes constitute real analogues to the prophetic messages (sometimes referred to as “covenant lawsuits”) rebuking Israel for failure to comply with covenant obligations. Cf. also the historical inscriptions quoted byCogan, M., Imperialism and Religion (Missoula, Mont., 1974), pp. 124 f., § 6, nos. 4–6.Google Scholar

14. SeeLuzzatto, S. D., ′Oheb Ger (Cracow, ed., 1895; Jerusalem, 1965), pp.11f.;Google ScholarKadushin, M., The Rabbinic Mind (New York, 1952), pp. 333f.;Google ScholarBendavid, A., Leson Miqra′ uLeson Hakamim, I (Tel Aviv, 1967), 68, 373 f.; II (1971), 454 f.Google Scholar

15. See ANET3, 568 for translation and bibliography.Naveh, J., “Canaanite and Hebrew Inscriptions (1960–64),” Leshonenu, 30 (1965–66), 69 compares I Sam. 26:19.Google Scholar

16. For the hod wehadar (and related terms) of God and kings seeWeinfeld, M., “The Creator God in Gen. 1 and Deutero-Isaiah,” Tarbiz, 37 (1967–68), 131 f.Google Scholar

17. On Ps. 101 seeMowinckel, S., The Psalms in Israel's Worship (New York and Nashville, 1962), pp. 65 ff.Google Scholar To the contents of the psalm itself cf. II Sam. 23:1–7. On Pss. 15 and 24 seeSpiegel, S., “A Prophetic Attestation of the Decalogue: Hosea 6:5, With Some Observations on Psalms 15 and 24,” HTR, 27 (1934), 105–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18. On royal songs seeEissfeldt, O., The Old Testament: An Introduction (New York and Evanston, 1965), pp.98–100.Google Scholar

19. Hallo, W. W., “Individual Prayer in Sumerian: The Continuity of a Tradition,” JAOS, 88 (1968), 71–89.Google Scholar

20. Cf. Ibid p. 77.

21. Cf. Ibid p. 76, nn. 27, 32; 80, n. 78.

22. Hallo, , JAOS, 88 (1968), 76.Google Scholar

23. Cf. Ibid 79 and n. 74, and Hallo, “The Royal Correspondence of Larsa: I. A Sumerian Prototype for the Prayer of Hezekiah?,” n. 19 and accompanying text, in the forthcoming jubilee volume in honor of Samuel Noah Kramer

24. UET 6/2, no. 403, studied byGadd, C. J., “Two Sketches from Life at Ur,” Iraq, 25 (1963), 177 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25. Hallo, , JAOS, 88, 71–89; cf. “The Cultic Setting of Sumerian Poetry,” in Actes de la XVIIe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale (1970), p. 119 with nn. 6, 7.Google Scholar

26. Ibid p. 117.

27. ANET3, pp. 584–86; SAHG, pt. 1, no. 28,Sjöberg, A.. “Ein Selbstpreis des Konigs Hammurapi von Babylon,” Zeitschrift fiir Assyriologie, 54 (1961), 51–70; cf. the prologue and epilogue to the laws of Hammurapi (ANET3, pp. 164 f., 177 f.).Google Scholar

28. Cf. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament, pp. 58 f., 98 f.

29. Cf. SAHG, pt. I, no. 7.

30. Ibid nos. 25 and 26.

31. ARM 5, no. 66 (Oppenheim, Letters, p. 100).

32. ANET3, 631a; cf. p. 450c.

33. ANET3 483–90.

34. Cf. EA 296 (Oppenheim, Letters, p. 126), on which seeBohl, F., “Hymnisches und Rhythmisches in den Amarnabriefen aus Kanaan,” in his Opera Minora (Groningen, 1953), pp. 375 f.Google Scholar

35. EA 147 (Oppenheim, Letters, pp. 123–25; ANET 3, p. 484).

36. EA 144:16–18 (Oppenheim, Letters, pp. 126 f.).

37. “On the Refinement,” above, pp. 68 f.; cf. SAHG, p. 122 top.

38. EA 264:14–19 (Oppenheim, Letters, p. 127), on which see Böhl, op. cit., p. 375.

39. See n. 35. Cf.Albright, W. F., “The Egyptian Correspondence of Abimilki,” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 23 (1937), 197–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

40. ANET3, 256d. Cf. the text quoted by Cogan, Imperialism and Religion, p. 45.

41. See n. 36.

42. EA 287:60 (ANET 3 488c); cf.Dean, S., “The Deuteronomic Name Theology” (unpublished Harvard thesis, 1969).Google Scholar

43. See n. 35; EA 286 (ANET 3, 487d).

44. ABL, 6 (Pfeiffer, no. 161).

45. For several examples see CAD A2, 251c.

46. ABL, 499, 756, 880;Thompson, R. C., The Reports of the Magicians and Astrologers of Nineveh and Babylon (London: Luzac, 1900), no. 158,Google Scholar quoted byOppenheim, , “Divination and Celestial Observation in the Last Assyrian Empire,” Centaurus, 14 (1969), 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

47. ABL, 6, 358 (Pfeiffer, nos. 161, 162).

48. ABL, 499 (Pfeiffer, no. 172).

49. ABL, 358 (Pfeiffer, no. 162).

50. ABL, 435 (Pfeiffer, no. 164; Oppenheim, Letters, p. 151).

51. ABL, 80, 435, 880.

52. ABL, 2, 353, 416, 530.

53. ABL, 885.

54. Cf. Thompson, Reports, no. 170, cited by Oppenheim, Centaurus, pp. 14, 116.

55. ABL, 2 (Pfeiffer, no. 160; Oppenheim, Letters, 149 f.), 530.

56. ABL, 498

57. ABL, 166.

58. ABL, 885; Thompson, Reports, nos. 73 and 158, quoted by Oppenheim, Centaurus, 14, 116, 117.

59. ABL, 2 (above, n. 55), 283 and 793 (Oppenheim, Letters, p. 152); Rs 20.16, a letter to the king of Ugarit, quoted byWeidner, E., “Neue Entdeckungen in Ugarit,” AfO, 18 (1957–58), 169.Google Scholar

60. ABL, 716 (Oppenheim, Letters, pp. 179 f.),756 (Pfeiffer, no. 174), cf. 1261 (Pfeiffer, no. 180). Cf. ANET 3, 249b and n. 40 of the present paper. For an early example of such a promise addressed to a god as an inducement to save his city, see the letter from Sin-iddinam to Utu cited by Hallo in the article mentioned above, n. 19.

61. See n. 55; this part of the text is translated in ANET 3, 626. Cf. LKA no. 31, translated byWeidner, E., “Assurbanipal in Assur,” AfO, 13 (1939–41), 210–13; cf. I Mace. 14:4–15.Google Scholar

62. Cf. Eissfeldt, , The Old Testament, p. 99;Google ScholarSellin, E., Introduction to the Old Testament (Nashville and New York: Abingdon, 1968), pp. 277 f.Google Scholar

63. Cf. Akkadian palah ili u sarri (an example is cited byPaul, S., “Sargon7apos;s Administrative Diction in II Kings 17:27,” JBL 88 [1969], 73);Google Scholar cf. a similar phrase in Lambert, W. G., Babylonian Wisdom Literature (Oxford, 1960), p. 63; cf. also Eccl. 8:2.Google Scholar

64. Cf. Tigay, EJ, 2, 300.

65. See n. 16.

66. Cf. ABL, 3, rev. 7, “that which the king, my lord, has said is as perfect as (the word) of a god” (thus CAD I/J, 91c). Cf. the remarks ofvan Selms, A., “Halo in the Courtier's Language in Ancient Israel,” Fourth World Congress of Jewish Studies. Papers, vol. I (Jerusalem, 1967), 138Google Scholar

67. Ziegler, § I, nos. 68–70, 75, 76, 81, 82, 93, 105, 107, 109, 111, 112, 114; § III, 58; § IV, 37; § V, 1, 25, 31, 32, 47, 65, 77; § VI, 19; § XI, 48. See also Exodus Rabbah 15:12 (Lieberman, S., Hellenism in Jewish Palestine [New York, 1962], pp. 4 f.);Google Scholar Midrash Aggadah 27:1, cited byGinzberg, L., Legends of the Jews, III (Philadelphia, 1954), 148 f.Google Scholar Note the statement of R. Sheshet: “Earthly kingship is like heavenly kingship” (T.B. Berakot 58a). My colleague, Prof. Judah Goldin, calls my attention to Abot de-Rabbi Natan A, chap. 15 (ed. Schechter, p. 61; seeGoldin, J., The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan [New Haven, 1955], pp. 80 f.)Google Scholar andLieberman, S., qls qylwsyn in Alei Ayin: The Salman Schocken Jubilee Volume (Jerusalem, 1948–52), pp. 75–81.Google Scholar

68. Sellin, E., Introduction, pp. 256–60; see also the works cited in nn. 15, 19, 69, 79, 80, and 86 of the present paper.Google Scholar

69. Cf. perhaps UT 68:10 (ANET 3 131a) and Ps. 145:13.

70. Occasions for such a liturgy might have been the king's coronation (cf. Pss. 2 and 72), marriage (cf. Ps. 45), birth of a child (cf. Isa. 9:5 f.), going forth to battle (cf. Ps. 20), and victorious return (cf. I Sam. 18:6–7). Cf. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament, pp. 98 f., and Hallo, “The Cultic Setting” (above, n. 21), pp. 117–19.

71. Greenberg, “On the Refinement,”pp. 71–75. Cf. R. Akiba in Mekhilta Beshallah, chap. 3 (ed. Horovitz-Rabin, p. 127: 10 ff., translated inGoldin, J., The Song at the Sea [New Haven, 1971], pp. 115 ff.).Google Scholar

72. Cf. Oppenheim, Centaurus, 14, 116

73. Greenberg, “On the Refinement,” p. 69.

74. Cf.Wiseman, D. J. inD., Winton Thomas, ed., Documents from Old Testament Times (New York, 1961), 49 sub (c).Google Scholar

75. Greenberg, “On the Refinement,” pp. 88 f.

76. Culley, R., Oral Formulaic Language in the Biblical Psalms (Toronto, 1967), though formulaic composition as such does not necessarily imply oral composition, as we know that scribes were trained in the use of formulaeCrossRefGoogle Scholar

77. Hallo, , “New Viewpoints on Cuneiform Literature,” IEJ, 12 (1962), 19 f.Google Scholar

78. Smith, M., Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament (New York, 1971), pp. 78 f., 149.Google Scholar

79. C. W. F. Smith, “Prayer,” WB,vol. 3, top of 861;Ginsberg, H. L., “The Dead Sea Manuscript Finds,” in Israel: Its Role in Civilization,ed.M., Davis (New York, 1956), pp. 49 f.;Google Scholar J. Goldin, The Jewish Expression, pp. xii–xiv;Sanders, J. A., “Cave 11 Surprises and the Question of Canon,” in New Directions in Biblical Archaeology, ed.D., N.Freedman and J. C. Greenfield (Garden City, 1971), pp. 117,127.Google Scholar The ultimate development of this type in the Jewish prayer book is the Pesuqe de-Zimra, on which seeLiebreich, L., “The Compilation of the Pesuke de-Zimra,” PAAJR, 18 (1948–49), 255–67.Google Scholar

80. SeeGinsberg, H. L., “Psalms and Inscriptions of Petition and Acknowledgment,” in Louis Ginzberg Jubilee Volume (New York, 1945), p. 164, n. 14.Google Scholar

81. Cited by Greenberg, “On the Refinement,” p. 88.

82. Cf.Kaufmann, Y., Toledot ha-′Emunah ha-Yisre′elit (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, 1955), II, 505 f.; The Religion of Israel (Chicago, 1960), pp. 310 f.Google Scholar

83. See N. M. Sarna, EJ, 13, 1318 f.; L. I. Rabinowitz, Ibid 1323–26;Spiegel, S., “On Medieval Hebrew Poetry,” in L., Finkelstein, ed., The Jews: Their History, Culture, and Religion (Philadelphia, 1960), I, 859–62; reprinted in J. Goldin, ed., The Jewish Expression, pp. 180–83.Google Scholar

84. “On the Refinement,” above, p. 89.

85. Cf.Goitein, S. D., ′lyyunim ba-Miqra (Tel Aviv, 1963), pp. 274fGoogle Scholar

86. Cf. W. W. Hallo, IEJ, 12, 13–26;Tigay, J., “An Empirical Basis for the Documentary Hypothesis,” JBL, 94 (1975, in press), especially n. 9.Google Scholar

87. Hallo, “The Cultic Setting” (above, n. 25).

88. See n. 19.

89. Above, n. 80; the full study covers pp. 159–71.

90. “Ritual Procession of the Ark and Psalm 132,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 30 (1968), 48–55.

91. “Scripture and Inscription,” inH., Goedicke, ed., Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright (Baltimore, 1971);Google Scholar “The Zakir Inscription and the Danklied,” Proceedings of the Fifth World Congress of Jewish Studies, 1969 (Jerusalem, n. d.), 174–91;Zobel, H.J., “Das Gebet um Abwendung der Not und seine Erhorung in den Klageliedern des AT und in der Inschrift des Konigs Zakir von Hamath,” VT, 21 (1971), 91–99.Google Scholar

92. Contrast the article of Hallo cited above, n. 19.

93. a-ab-ba-hu-Iuh-ha: The History of a Sumerian Congregational Lament (New Haven: Yale Near Eastern Researches, no. 6, 1975).

94. Cf.Hallo, W. W., “Sumerian Hermeneutics,” in Perspectives in Jewish Learning, 5, ed.B., Sherwin (Chicago, 1973), 7 f.Google Scholar

95. “A Sumerian SU-IL-LA from Nimrud with a Prayer for Sin-sar-iskun,” Iraq, 32 (1970), 51–67.

96. This last point assumes that a hymn sung in a particular god's temple is ipso facto dedicated to that god; this is not certain.

97. Ginsberg, H.L., Kitbe ′Ugarit (Jerusalem, 1936), 129–31; “A Phoenician Hymn in the Psalter,” Atti del XIX Congresso Internationale degli Orientalisti (1935), 472–76;Google ScholarH.Gaster, T, Thesis, 2d ed. (Garden City, 1961), 443–46;Google ScholarDahood, M., Psalms I (Anchor Bible; Garden City, 1966), 174–80.Google Scholar A brief dissent is registered by Mowinckel, The Psalms, II, 190, n. 101, and a fuller one byGordis, R., “On Methodology in Biblical Exegesis,” JQR, 61 (1970), 94 f. and especially 100 f.; against the latter's strictures regarding channels of transmission note what Mowinckel says on p. 189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

98. Oppenheim, , “A New Prayer to the ‘Gods of the Night,’” Analecta Biblica, 12 (1959), 282–301.Google Scholar

99. Cf. Tigay, cited above, n. 86.

100. Prof. J. Sanders has called my attention to a similar composite in a Qumran Psalms scroll; see p. 117 of his article cited above, n. 79.

101. Kadushin, M., Worship and Ethics (1964), pp. 71–81.Google Scholar