¹ Kritik der Berichte über die Eroberung Palästinas, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 1 (1881), 117–46Google Scholar; and Der Krieg gegen Sihon und die zugehörigen Abschnitte, ZAW 5 (1885), 36–52Google Scholar.

² Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri (HzAT) (Göttingen, 1903), 585–87.Google Scholar

³ Böhl, Franz, Kanaanäer und Hebräer (Leipzig, 1911), 43, 57Google Scholar; and Glueck, Nelson, The Other Side of the Jordan (New Haven, 1940), 137–39.Google Scholar

⁴ Weiser, observing the Elohist's tendency to incorporate earlier sources into his narrative to a greater degree than the Yahwist, assigns the passage to the former. This is the view adopted here. See Weiser, Artur, Einleitung in das alte Testament, 6th ed. (Göttingen, 1966), 108f.Google Scholar

⁵ The History of Israel, II, 3rd ed. (London, 1876), 205f.Google Scholar

⁶ E.g., Heinisch, Paul, Das Buck Numeri (Bonn, 1936), 84Google Scholar; W. Rudolph, Der “Elohist” von Exodus bis Josua, Beihefte zur ZAW 68 (1938), 39f.; M. Noth, Num. 21 als Glied der Hexateuch — Erzählung, ZAW 58 (1940), 161ff.

⁷ Gray, G. B., Numbers (ICC) (New York, 1903), 300Google Scholar.

⁸ See especially Holzinger, H., Numeri (KH-CAT) (Tübingen, 1903), 98f.Google Scholar; compare also Noordtzij, A., Het Boek Numeri (Korte Verklaring der Heilige Schrift), 3rd ed. (Kampen, 1957), 229f.Google Scholar

⁹ See van Zyl, A. H., The Moabites (Leiden, 1960), 102–15.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Geschichte des Volkes Israel, I, 6th ed. (Stuttgart, 1923), 377, note 1.Google Scholar

¹¹ Com. Amos 1 and 2, Dt. 9:3, Ps. 50:3, II Sam. 22:9, and Is. 29:6; 30:27, 30.

¹² I am indebted to Professor Cross for this observation.

¹³ Jerusalem und die israelitische Tradition, Oudtestamentische Studiën, Deel VII (1950), 36f., reprinted in Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (München, 1957), 179.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Cf. Barth, Jakob, Die Nominalbildung in den Semitischen Sprachen, 2nd ed. (Leipzig, 1894), § 10a, 18f.Google Scholar

¹⁵ In Ugaritic nayru in the epithet nyr šmm (16:1:3; 24:1:16, 31) is secondarily derived from *nawru.

¹⁶ … ušēšib pā ištēn ušaškinšunūti itti nišī ^mātAššur amnūšunūti nirri Ašur bēliya kī ša Aššurî (ēmissunūti), 18:18, Rost, Paulus, De Inscriptione Tiglat-Pileser III, Regis Assyriae Quae Vocatur Annalium (Lipsiae, 1892).Google Scholar

¹⁷ nišī Aššur ina qereb Karkamiš ušēšibma nīr ^ilAššur bēliya ēmissunūti, 100:50, Winckler, Hugo, Die Keilschrifttexte Sargons, I (Leipzig, 1889)Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Abdi-Milkutti šar ālṢidunni lā pāliḫ bēlūtiya lā šēmû zikir šaptīya ša eli tâmtim gallatim ittaklūma islû ^iṣnīr Aššur …, 48:65–67, Borger, Riekele, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons Königs von Assyrien (Graz, 1956)Google Scholar, Archiv für Orientforschung, Beiheft 9.

¹⁹ nišī I'llipi ana pāt gimriša (šūbat) nīḫtu ušēšib nīr bēlūti (ya ēmissunūti), 70:413, Winckler, op. cit. Professor Wm. Moran has called my attention to a Babylonian proverb which further illustrates that bearing a yoke can be used as a metaphor for benevolent relationships: “Whom you love — you bear (his) yoke” (ša tarammī u nīra tušâṭ) 227:21–22, in Lambert, W. G., Babylonian Wisdom Literature (Oxford, 1960).Google Scholar

²⁰ … nīr bēlūtiya kabta elīšunu ukīn pān Aššur bēliya ušadgilšunūti, 57:col. III:85–87, Cylinder Inscription of Tiglath-Pileser I, Budge, E. A. Wallis and King, L. W., Annals of the Kings of Assyria, I (London, 1902).Google Scholar

²¹ akbus kišādī nišē māt Hilakki … ša eli šadānišunu dannūti taklūma ultu ūme pāni lā kitnušū ana nīri, 51: 47–51, Riekele Borger, op. cit.

²² ša ina adīya iḫṭû ṭābat ēpušūš la iṣṣurūma islâ ^iṣnīr bēlūtiya ša ¹¹Aššur ēmeduš išūṭu abšānī ana šaʼal šulmeya šēpāšu iprusma ikla tāmartī mandattašu kabittu, 64: col. VII: 85–90, Streck, Maximilian, Assurbanipal und die Letzten Assyrischen Könige bis zum Untergange Ninivehs, II (Leipzig, 1916)Google Scholar.

²³ u anūma u ina[n]a [šak]n[āt]i p[ān]a ^iṣnīri/ḫullu šarri bēliya ana ^[š]irk[iš]ādiya u ubbalušu, 296, 38, Knudtzon, J. A., Die El-Amarna Tafeln (Leipzig, 1915)Google Scholar.

²⁴ In Biblical Hebrew לע comes to be used in the same metaphorical sense as nīru in the Assyrian Annals, being used to symbolize both the dominion of a foreign conqueror (Lev. 26:13; Dt. 28:48; Is. 10:27; 14:25; 47:6) and the kingship of the Lord over his own people (Jer. 2:20; 5:5). Jeremiah's words are reminiscent of Akkadian usage: “Bring your necks under the yoke of the king of Babylon, and serve him and his people, and live” (Jer. 27:12). And Hananiah plants the seeds of insurrection by proclaiming: “Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: I have broken the yoke of the King of Babylon.” טוׄמ, the other Hebrew word for “yoke,” is also used in this metaphorical sense: “… when I break there the dominion (תוׄטוׄמ) of Egypt.” As in the Amarna letter, so too in the Biblical tradition this metaphorical usage of nīr was borrowed and promptly translated into a more common word for yoke, except, that is, in the passages under discussion, where the foreign term was retained, but, as we shall see, was soon misunderstood by the tradition.

²⁵ An adequate English translation should employ a word which preserves the rich connotations of nīru in the Assyrian Annals. Our word “dominion” (“the power or right of governing and controlling; sovereign authority,” first definition in Random House's The American College Dictionary) comes close to doing this, as is readily apparent when one substitutes “dominion” for “yoke” in the passages translated above from the Assyrian Annals. “Kingship” or “royal power” are among the other possible translations. In using such a translation, however, the underlying metaphor of the yoke should not be forgotten.

²⁶ The Northern prophet Ahijah had the tribe of Benjamin in mind, since this was the only “Israelite” tribe which would remain under the dominion of the Davidides. The apparent miscalculation is explained by the fact that it was taken for granted that the twelfth tribe Judah would remain under Davidide control. The Deuteronomist, however, intended that the one tribe left to the Davidides be understood as Judah (cf. Noth, Martin, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, I [Halle, 1943], 114, n. 7)Google Scholar.

²⁷ In the Targum Onkelos, for example, nîr is found in its literal sense in Lev. 19:2 and Deut. 21:3, and in its metaphorical sense in Gen. 27:40, Lev. 26:13 and Deut. 28:48.

²⁸ See Zimmern's, Heinrich entry under nīru in Akkadische Fremdwörter als Beweis für babylonischen Kultureinfluss (Leipzig, 1915), 42.Google Scholar

²⁹ The question arises whether at the time when the matres lectionis were introduced into the text to mark long vowels, the correct distinction also was maintained in every other case between רינ and רנֵ or whether some original רינ's did not perhaps escape recognition, and not having received the distinguishing yod, became leveled with the word for lamp already at that early period. The question is pertinent in connection with three occurrences of רנ, i.e., Ps. 132:17, II Sam. 21:17 and Prov. 21:4.

The covenant language of Ps. 132:11–18 is striking: Yahweh has sworn to David that his sons will sit upon his throne forever. For Yahweh has chosen Zion and he will bless that city. Then he promises: “There I will raise forth ןרק for David, I will arrange רנ for my anointed.” It is commonly pointed out that ןרֶקֶ is a symbol of might on the basis of verses like Dt. 33:17, II Sam. 22:3 and Ps. 92:11. Less frequently mentioned is that it is also a royal image, as in Ps. 89:25, I Sam. 2:10, Dan. 8, and finally in Ez. 29:21, where Yahweh promises the return of the Davidic king: “On that day I will cause a ןרק to spring forth to the house of Israel …” Moreover, a parallel between “horn” and “yoke” is suggested by I Kings 22:11, where Zedekiah the false prophet makes himself horns of iron as a sign of the royal power he promises Israel, thus being similar to the yoke worn by Jeremiah to symbolize the royal power of Nebuchadnezzar. This parallel usage becomes even clearer in comparing Jeremiah 48:25 with Numbers 21:30 (as emended): באָוׄמ ןרֶקֶ העָרְגְנׅ // רבָאָ באָוׄמ רינִ. It thus seems likely that in Ps. 132:17 the original parallel was between ןרֶקֶ and רינִ, both belonging to the same family of metaphors as parts of the ox, and both being symbols of royal power: “I will raise forth royal power for David, I will arrange dominion for my anointed.” That the verb ךרע is suitable with a term having covenantal overtones like רינ is indicated by II Sam. 23:5, where ךרע is used with תירב. This translation would suit very well the covenant language of the preceding verses, for as in the Kings and Chronicles passages discussed above, what is involved here is the promise of dominion to David and his sons as Yahweh's vassals in Jerusalem.

II Sam. 21:17 speaks of the לארשי רנֵ, and alongside the five verses which were the central concern of this study, it is the only other verse where the Targum translates a nr root with וכלמ rather than with a word for lamp. Is this a second instance where the original tradition read רינִ, but the scribes failed to recognize that fact when the internal matres lectionis were added to the text? The evidence of the Targum would suggest such an interpretation. Yet it is equally possible that this is an instance where the error is in the Targum, since the nature of the phrase could very easily have prompted the translation “Kingdom of Israel.” Moreover, the verb הבכ is the one expected with רנֵ, though this fact is not conclusive proof against an original רינׅ, since the translators of the Targum sensed no difficulty in coupling וכלמ with the Aramaic equivalent of הבכ. A third possible interpretation is that רינִ is in fact original, and that הבכ was used to create a paronomasia between רינִ and רנֵ. If this were the case, it is obvious how at a very early point this subtle paronomasia was lost, nr thereafter being read simply “lamp.”

The final instance where an original רינׅ may not have been recognized when the matres lectionis were added is Prov. 21:4, where in fact the Masoretic pointing is with hireq. The verse is elliptical, and the matter is hardly one amenable to proof; nevertheless, the translation “yoke,” taken in the sense of an evil inclination which binds the proud to a fateful course of action, seems to make better sense than either the usual translation “lamp,” or the translation found occasionally, “freshly tilled ground.” Thus: “Haughty eyes and a proud heart, the yoke of the wicked, are sin.”

³⁰ Professor Cross observes that the rabbis often went to an Aramaic root in seeking the sense of an obscure word in the Hebrew text (private communication). Whereas this procedure often led to an incorrect translation, here we have an instance where it resulted in the correct identification of the root.

³¹ Rashi, ad. loc.