THE SIGN OF THE COVENANT CIRCUMCISION IN THE LIGHT OF THE PRIESTLY *é ETIOLOGIES * Circumcision is ono of the most ancient rites known to man and still practiced today. It was and is found in many parts of the world— in West Asia, Africa, the Americas, and Oceania. Yet until modern times the rite has engendered little theoretical spoculation about its meaning. Few of the peoples practioing it offer any explanation of its origins or rationale for its practice. Thus modern scholars are unable to offer a definite explanation of the pur- pose (or purposes) of this rite. Among the suggestions offered by scholars starting with Herodotus (1 37) and Philo (De spec. Leg. 1 2-11) are the following: hygiene, preparation for sexual life, obvia- tion of peril from sexual relations, test of endurance, tribal mark, sacrifice, sanctification of the generative faculties, social distinction, to increase sexual pleasure, to limit sexual pleasure, to facilitate reincarnation, mark of subjection, initiation» The explanations of the meaning of ciroumeision for ancient Israel have been almost as numerous, for the sources of information (mainly Gen., xvi; Ex., 1v, 24 £5 Josh., v, 2-9) offer little aid in this regard. = Lvs to tank Prot Messen Harn for eng and etic this ty ‘The lowig comunta etre toby ane tel ony Gnas H Sonne, Glingan, 182; Hxttsen,Donn, 1280 S47¥/1):0.Procesen, Lape 19 UEAT 1G. ton an, Londom 1863 (P 4 ana}. Sasson Bing, 380 100) B: Suisun, Now ot 1964 (Ancor Bi) eda? Nov, Paha 00a (OT, tc. 8 Bowden Teresi Na, Philadlphl, 195 (090-38. Anton, imsen: 6. Boersnan Gn, dag, 00 (700). Daten: Rs Daven, Bamburgh, 352 (106); 0: vox Ras, Lands, 966 (01, arn we: Sanus, London, 1967 (Century Bible); H. W. Hexrzmenc, (et ot Non 2k Wis) iniah: B. bony, Osos, 1968; 0. Kaen, London, 1978 (OFL, t.R.A. Wine); 6 Wasranuanny London, 03 (OTs, Ds Ske Sehr HG Maan, Sain 512 160), Praia ot, Rasy, Neon, tet (BEAT tsi, BRE TU, pp. yg vata of tne tev ingen, 1950 ‘Tablagea, 1959 (HAT 1/2}; 1. A. Soars, London, 1972 (OTL, te.58 MICHAEL V. FOX ‘Pho most important of these sources is the priestly etiology of Gameision; Gon., xvit, 4-14, Here alone are ria i aS ir. sina meaning of eircumcision; we are told that circumeision ne i bert, a “sign of the covenant” (vs. 11), But how isi sign ie vevonant? For whom is it a sign—God, Tsrach or foreign poo a What is the funotion of this siga? What does it signify, and vata Hann a plish? The meaning of this phraso i far Tes transparent then scholars often appoar to think. = Hola Nin ia P has bean interpreted in many ways. Von. Rad ogc that" eieumelsio is only the act of appropriation, of wines aay at ciation of God's salvation, and the sign of its accoptans” (ep tgs). Procksch tall us that “ies Zechon ist das Orga in (PP. sig rr gelasst ist, wie das Wasser bei der Taufe, ohne das te see creat wirlich ware” (p. 540), For Skianer dieumdson is “en gar niet mark of the invisible bond which united every Jew to eh Skinner, like many if not most commentators following aoarreent explains thatthe great importance P attaches to dt ian the exile experience, when the suspension sphatis to rites that can be observed by the real, and further, tht thre was neod for the cizumcision ta rare aanish ews trom thsi heathen neighbors (pp. 290). Aor Senge Licht," Berit moans a symbolic act which contains Sing oof of the making of the covenant, i. proof that ths wor eT dividual is inckudod in the congregation of men to whom cumeined nd rights apply. Thus cioumcision serves c6 a Maen of tor no spot covanantel society. Heinisch say. tha "ae Be: aaa apg sollte die Tsralitn immer aufs newein dle Picht einnsn, Mace jon Bund mit Gott diesen gogendber aot sich genomes hatten...” (p- 239) Hoes a sampling of opinions. The great variety of ilps, Sian eae indoates the diiculty in understending the cones At tons some gatatore ofer any systematic argumentation (67 1! tor sectations, Most seam to conser tho phrase “sign of tho em nant” self-explanatory. ae aeedava an attempt Vo approach systematically Ube mean orn aay Sr the covenant” in the context of the prise sa anseconcenned with the “original”, “real” meaning! etiologies. Wi aaoreession to much as with the meaning given it iP Our purpose narrowing: Giotatos the plan of this study, which is a progressive cumeision is a product of the cult gave fresh et ew York, 1885 (1961), p24 TV, cal #92 2 J. Wensnavats, Prolegomens, 2 Leen in Bncylopetia Mirai,THE SIGN OF THE COVENANT 559 down from the meaning of the word °ét in general (part I), to the meining of °6t in the contoxt of the priestly °4t-etiologies (part II), to the partioular °41 in question, circumcision (part III). While each part prepares the way for the next, I consider the first two parts as Is in themselves, for there is need for both a fresh look at the word ‘it and a fuller study of P's °ét-otiologies. Some of my statements will be better understood if I explain that, 1 accept Kaufmann’s relative dating of P as preceding D.4 But I donot think that my conclusions are dependent upon this hypothesis, and I have tried to avoid hasing arguments on any hypothesis of the relative dating of D and P. On the other hand, the conclusions them- selves may afford some evidence on behalf of an early dating for Py because it is improbable that such a deliberate and systematic altempt as P's to eliminate the magical and mythical significance of certain cultic and natural phenomena would have been necessary in the postexilio period. The process in P that. I will describe is carried further in D. That is not to say that there is a linear development from Pto D, but that this process, so manifest and important in D, is present, but to a lesser degree, in P. I, — TH weantvas oF *4t, ‘The most comprehensive examination of the meaning and functions of the °4t is that of C.A. Keller, Das Wort OTH als “Offenbarungs- ‘tichen Gottes” (Basel, 1946), and our investigation of this word must hegin with a consideration of this work, which has been the basis for most subsequent studies of the °ét. Keller's study proceeds from the question : “Welches ist der Ort im Leben und Denken der Israeli- fen, an welchem der Begriff oth seinen Ursprung hat?,” or : “Welches ist die Lebenssphare, aus der er, seiner Eigonart nach, stammt?” (0.6). This starting question is misleading. First ofall, it assumes that 1¥. Kavrwaxn, Tallot Ha-Eunah Ha-Yieraal, 1, Tol Avie, 1956, pp. 2020; i the Ahldged translation of A Gnsexs8nc, The Religion of Tora, Chicago, 1060: chap. ¥. Seo ‘tho M. Watureun, Deuteronomy and ite Deateronmsie Sebel, Oxford 1972, pp. 179.249 Weloeid argues that the concern for demythologization and secularzaion fs mach geeatet ‘RD than in the earlier sourees~including P.M. Haren as shown the antiquity ofthe cals {aneeptons and traditions of P which, while in part wtopian, evidence an antiguity greater fsa that of D. The Tabernacle leped goas back to Shilo, which ito sey that the priestly ‘edtion had a pre-Jersalomite origin (Ml. Hans%, Shilo and Jerselom, in JBL, LXXXT, 1852, op. 46 1), and the phenomenology of the ealt described in P evinces high antiquly ‘ie compas of ritual ats performed inside the Tabernacle, in Seripta Herosolymiians, MUL 4901, pp. 272 Mr). ‘The Ark, of contra importance In Py was probably removed by Monassoh and’ never restored {Iobx, The disappearance of the Arkin TE, Rill, 1963, S61) See also Ine, Prise and pritood,n Bey. Judaica, ill, col. 1069560 MICHABL V. FOX there is a place in the lifo and thought of ancient Tsrael in which th “gonvept”” originated. But *t is a word, not a concept, uni tig wee area of thought. It dose no come from “ier ¢ Ie”, but ie applied to certain realities or ideas in a sphere of ife—o Spheres of ll Ttis true that certain technical words are crested ig Specific areas of human activity, but it is misleading to star with the presupposition that a certain word, especially one with as broad a usage 2876, was ereated in one such aroa of activity. Far more fre Gquenlly_-and this is certainly the case with *4-—a word in common ‘sage is applied to certain concepts in various areas of thought and ‘otivity, and only then may we say that the word expresses a cer fain concept. Tho assumption thet we must work back to a sing, common Siz for all usages of the word (except later developments sn whieh tho original meaning of the word “degenerates”) prejudicially Yorgos one to find a single Sits in the socio-eligious sphere of lif for tho various uses of the word. Having assumed that ho will ind a single Sits for this “concept”, Keller proceeds to show that °4 is usually associated in some way with God or a god and concludes that °6: is originally a “religious” oneept, whose true function is within the realm of intercourse bet sroon'God and man (p. 44). In particular, *6 is originally and essen- tally an oracle or revelation sign by which God makes his wall known to his people (p. 114, ua.). Other writers have dealt with this oonly ion and have shown that °4t is a term, not essentially “rligi that may be applied in many spheres of life and thought, including revelation. NH. Tur-Sinai® hes tried to prove « thesis similar to Keller's: that °6t is @ miraculous sign from God. Now this is indeed one of the meanings of °, but it should not be imposed on all occurrences Sf the word nor should it be assumed that this is the essential and Griginal meaning just because it is the most frequent. Tt is true thet neat 741d in the Bible have a “religious” context, ie., are in some way directly or indirectly associated with God, but this may be due to the fact that most of the Bible has a religious context, so that there are simply more opportunities to speak of signs with a religious fate tion theo of signs with a sooular function. *t is no moro essentially Toligious than dabar, which also may be applied to divine relovatin ‘The proper procedure in investigating the semantic range of & wf, uauenus, in 72, ¥, 1968, pp. 896 fl Rexostone, in THFOT VIN, pp. 207 Mauyeven, in THAT Teal. 84 6 Seer ie gmtin, Ha-Laton vetlarSefer, 11, Jerusalem, 1955, pp. 124MTHE SIGN OF THE COVENANT 564 word is to analyze the various ways it functions in specific contexts. ‘This range of functions constitutes the meaning of the word. Any sense common to the various usages is a lexical abstraction and should not be identified with an original meaning nor associated with a Sits im Leben. Now Keller does offer a categorization of the meanings of —after having reached a conclusion about the essential, original meaning of the “concept”. His categorization is as follows (pp. 49 ff.): 4. Prophetic symbolic actions; e.g, Bzsk,, rv, 1-2. 2. An everyday circumstance, insignificant in itself, which is given greeter significance by being designated in advance as an °t. There is no inner correspondence between the sign and ils meaning; e.g. Sam., xrv, 8-10. 3, Hvents foretold by the prophet on behalf of Yahweh which are designated 5 dt; 0g. I Sam, X. 4, Future events foretold and designated as *tt, but direotly by Yahewh, without prophetic mediation; e.g, Es., m1, 42 5, Heavenly sigas, og. stars and tho rainbows, not amazing in themselves, Dut regarded in antiquity as a means of divine revelation. 6. Cultic practice or apparatus; og, circumcision, Sabbath, altar cover, the altar in Egypt (Ze. xtx, 19 f). 7, An event of the Salvation History or an object reminiscent thereof; fg. the twelve stones from tho Jordan (Joek., 1, 6) 8, A mark of shame and godlessness; e.g, Deut, xxvit, 46, Brek., x1¥, 8. 9. Field-signs (Vum. 1,2, Ps., uxx1v, 4), Which are supposedly symbols of divinity and thoreby say something about the nature of the god. ‘This categorization lacks an organizing principle. Some signs aro categorized in accordance with who announces them ( 3, 4), others by their location ( 5), others by their meaning for Israelite historio- graphy ( 7), others by virtue of their negative valuation ( 8), others by virtuo of their being what they are, ic., by no distinct ordering principle ( 9). Furthermore, Keller’r categorization lacks distinetness of compartmentalization. If some signs are included in group 6 by Virtue of their cultic function, why not put the twelve stones from the Jordan and the field-signs there as well? Is not the altar and Massebah in Egypt (Js., xix, 191.) also an event foretold by the prophet on behalf of Yahweh ( 3)? Now such categorizations of the uses of a word are not to be judged ‘rue or false. The categorization is not inherent in the material itself, but is our way of understanding and ordering phenomena. The cri- terion for the validity of such categorizations is not their truth, but their heuristio utility. The utility of this type of analysisis determined by its clarity, consistency, and distinctness of compartmentalization. savor sisuigue 38562 MICHAEL V. FOX Perfoct consistency and distinctness of compartmentalization ary perhaps impossible to attain, but this is the desideratum, Tn order to achiove greater utility in a semantic analysis, it jg necessary to select an ordering principle that can apply to all the uses of the word in question. A satisfactory starting definition of 24, which would soom to cover all uses of the word, is given by IDB, (article “Sign”): “A mark, symbol, or portent, serving to convey a particular idea or meaning.” This definition correctly emphasizes the function of the sign—to convey a particular idea or meaning. That js to say, a sign’s purpose is to affect in some way cognition or emotion, ‘Thus our division into categories should proceed by analyzing this funetion, viz., the ways in which tho signs serve to convey meaning. ‘This eriterion gives us thros main eategories: (1) proof signs (2) symbol signs, and (3) cognition signs (subdivided into identity signs and ‘mnemonic signs). I believe that these meanings are well compart- ‘mentalized, though the possibility of varying interpretations of the verses in question may cause uncertainty as to which category the particular *4¢ belongs in. ‘1. Proof signs, whose purpose is to convinc? the onlooker of the ‘truth of a certain proposition which might be in doubt. Some proof signs convince by virtue of their miraculous nature, e.g., the events of the Exodus and the reversing of the sundial (/s., xvi, 71). For other proof signs, the persuasive factor lies in the prediction of the ocourrence. The death of Eli’s two sons in one day (F Sam., 1 34) is not in itself miraculous, but the fact that it has been predicted eforchand will prove the veracity of the rest of Samuel's prophesy on the House of Eli Likewise the Philistines’ words, “come up tos” (ZSam.,x1v, 10}, are a proof sign that God will give the Philistines into the hands of Jonathan's band because of the improbability that in ‘the natural course of events the Philistines would say precisely the words arbitrarily chosen in advance by Jonathan. In most cases proof signs obtain their compelling nature by virtue of their improb ability—they involve oocurrences that could not bo expected in the normal course of events. Only in Job, xx1, 29 does the persus- siveness seem to consist in the fact of firsthand experience alone, 2, Symbol signs, which stand for or represent, something else by ‘virtue of resemblance or conventional association. (We are using “symbol” in a limited sense.) Most of the symbol signs in the Bible represent something else by virtue of resomblance, They do not prove that the ropresented event will occur, but serve to make that event vivid to the consciousness by translating it into actions. In othetr THE SIGN OF THE COVENANT 563 ‘words, these signs are a statement translated into representative sotions . So that there will be no doubt as to their meaning, they are followed by a verbalization of the statement. Thus Ezokiel’s model sioge of Jerusalem (Ezek., rv) resombles and so represents the coming, sotual siege of Jorusalem, 3, Cognition signs, whose purpose is to awaken knowledge of something in the observer. They are not intended to prove a proposi- tion, nor do they function as a representational “translation” of a yerbal statement, Cognition signs may be subdivided into two closely related subcategories, identity signs and mnemonic signs. They are dlosely related, for a sign can serve to awaken memory of identity. @. Identity signs mark something as belonging to a certain cate- gory. The scarlet cord in Josh., 1, 12 is not proof that the Israelites vill spare Rahab’s family, but rather serves to identify Rahab's house as the one to be spared. Cain's sign marks him as one under the spe- tial protection of God (Gen., rv, 15). Its purpose is to make Cain tabu, hut it functions by identifying him. The banners in the Israelite camp identify the various families (Num., 1, 2). 3, Mnemonic signs bring to consciousness something already inown (which may or may not have beon forgotten). Mnemonic signs ae distinguished from identity signs in two ways: first, they do not simply indicate identity (x is y), and second, they renew cognizance hut do not create it. An identity sign such as the scarlet. thread in- allls new knowledge: it shows the conquering Israelites that this par- tioular house is protected —something they could not know in advanoo. likewise, Cain’s sign communicates knowledge new to the observar— ‘he fact that this particular man is in the class of the divinely proteo- (ed. But a mnemonic sign, oven when this is not stated explicitly, teslores to the awareness of the observer something he could know stherwise and in fact could be expected to have known in the past. ‘Thus the rainbow reminds God of his covenantal promise not to destroy the world by flood again. The rainbow neither imparts new Inowledge by identifying something as belonging to a certain class, tor doos it in itself symbolize the non-destruction of the world, nor does it even serve as evidence that God will not again bring a des- ltoying flood (this is the usual interpretation), for it is explicitly stat- 1G. Fonsen, Dic synboliclon Handlungen der Prophaen,Zatich, 1980, shows how sym- ‘ac acts ware transferred from the realm of magi ts the realm of cotamuniation (chap. argues thatthe prophets eganded Ui symbole actions as effective in bringing about the ‘abolted ovents, becauso they ar expressions of Go's wil and derive thes efleay from Power (pp. 114564 MICHABL V. FOX ed that it is God who observes this sign (Gen., 1x, 16), and ovideng is not intended to convinee the one who makes a statement, but the one who hears it. A mnemonic sign is a zikkarén, a reminder (eg below, p. 28 £.). ‘We may now proceed to classify the various ocourrences of in accordance with this categorization, leaving Gen., xvit out of consi. deration for the time being. Again I would stress that, individual cases are open to varying interpretations, and this could affect the class: fication of the specific occurrences, but it would not alter the hasig semantic categorization of the meanings of the word °dt. In the following I will also comment on the functions of the various signs in thoir contexts. These comments are in the realm of exegesis, not somantics. By this I mean, for example, that it does not change the moaning of the word °ét if it is God who announces it rather than the prophet, or if it is God who is reminded rather than man, 4. Proof signs. a. Proof by means of the miraculous nature of the event designated as sign: ‘Tho *6tdt Gmépttim® in Egypt and the Exodus were intended ‘as proof of God's power and presence in history. This proof wes directed both at Egypt (of. Bz, virt, 18; vit, 3-5) and—more impor- tantly—at Israel (of. Num., xxv, 41 and Deuteronomy’s emphasis that the signs were performed “before our eyes”, Deut., vi, 22, i.a.). These signs are supposed to induce knowledge (Hz., vim, 18; vit, 38) and belief (Num, xtv, 44). In this group belong Ez., vit, 3; vit, 19; x 1,25 Num., xtv, 41, 22; Deut., rv, 34; vt, 225 vit, 19; x1, 3; xxv, 8} xxrx, 25 xxxty, 1; Josh., xxrv, 17; Jer, xxx1t, 20 (includes sigas “in Israel and in man”); xxi, 24; Ps., Lxxvttr, 43; ov, 27°; exxxY, 9; Nek., vx, 10. Closely related to this group is Ps., Lxv, 9, where the reference is to God’s wondrous acts in general. A similar use is Js, Ly, 13, where God’s restoration of Israel and the revitalization of nature are to stand as eternal proof of God's glory and power. Ts., ixv1, 19 is rather obscure, but it, seems to be related to the we ana Set eng sane Da (852 thin indi howiag that mapa is underatood as "wonder," but this not is nl met seein Zeyrg, 316 symbol sg, sn To, vt, 16, That sits conse in Bek, 3 61 [Ni appocaty alvin Zach i tel, But xxv, 2,27 are cleat Thay se caglon! moasing was "wonder (ao satisfactory etymology has been oered) ad that Alveloped a wider temantc range by association with" "Nate the phrase dire hada: the signs speak,” Le, communinte-—not only a3 ct abn By 1, 8 ETHE SIGN OF THE COVENANT 565 jn Is. Lv, 13. Some of the foreign peoples will see God's glory, mani- fest in his miraculous redemption of Israel and judgment of the nations (vs. 18). God will place an °ét (1Q Is. A: °4té!) among the furvivors of the judgment and send them to report to peoples who have not known God's glory. Hore the events of the redemption are not in themselves °4(6t, because the survivors ‘cannot actually take the events with ther, but as firsthand witnesses they will, in a sense oar these events with them and testify to God’s power among the peoples to whom they are sent. Altematively, the °4t here may be separate Wonder, not made explicit, that will persuade the nations of God’s power (Duhm), ef. 11, 4-6. This passage is linked with xiv, 29-25, where the survivors of the judgment, are invited to participate in salvation, for they have witnessed the amazing events that were predicted long ago (Westermann). ‘The wonders that Moses is to perform at the beginning of his mis- sion in Egypt are intended to prove that God has sent him and thus bring the people to believe in him (Ezx., 1v, 8, 9, 17, 28, 30). Gideon asks for proof—an °4'—that it is God who is speaking to him (Judg., ‘u, 47). The proof sign given Hezekiah is also of miraculous nature, but it has the added force of prediction (IF Kings, xx, 8, 9; Is., xaxvin, 7, 22). In Ps., uxxxv1, 17 it sooms that the psalmist is asking for a wondrous sign that would convince his enemies that God is vith his, 4, Proof by means of prediction : 1 Sam., 1, 34; x, 7, 9; x1v, 10 disoussed above, belong to this lass. To this we may add IJ Kings, x1x, 29 (= Is., xxxvut, 30); Jar, xutv, 29; Is., vit, U1 and vit, 14. (However one may interpret the sign of the ‘almd, it appears to be basically a prediction of a future vent.) The altar and massebah in Egypt (Js., xtx, 19.) may belong here. The question is whether the force of this sign lies in its having heen foretold by Isaiah, or in its serving by itself as a reminder to the Egyptian exiles of God's saving power, in which case itis a mne- ‘onio sign, According to Dewt, xxvitt, 46, tho fulfilled curses will stand for all times as proof of God’s righteous intervention and judgment (cl. Driver). Tribulations in and of themselves could not prove this; they serve as evidence because they were stated in advance, at the lime of the giving of the covenant, ‘The signs of the false prophet in Deut., x11, 2, 3 are also predictive ‘ims, as is shown by vs. 3“. and that sign or portent. (mépét) hich he told to you comes to pass (i-b@).” ere566 MICHAEL V. FOX Ez, 1, 42s difficult because the sign (“when you bring the peop forth from Egypt you will worship God on this mountain”) wil ears about after the need for it is over, for itis intended to prove to Moses that, “it is I who have sent you”. It may be that the original sign jy now missing from the text (von Rad), bul as the text. stands this » is a sort of predictive proof. Ps., Lxx1V, 9 is also unclear. But it seems that the clause “there is no longer any prophet” gives the reason for the statement “we have not seen our signs”. This means that the 24i6t in question are prophetic predictive proof signs. The commun ity wants a sign proving that things will take a turn for the better, In Job, xx1, 29, Job is arguing that the wicked do not suffer the consequences of their deeds, and tells his companions not to deny the ait of the waylarers. These °6i6t must be the firsthand testimony of the experienced travellers that the wicked are spared punishment, Here the °4¢ is testimony rather than actual proof. 2. Symbol signs. ‘Acts of prophetic symbolism are *6tét, thus Is., xx, 3 and Hea 1v, 3. Certainly other prophetic acts which are not called -éi ‘could have been so designated, eg., I Sam., xv, 27 1.; 11 Kings, xm, 45-49; Jer., xvi, 2-42. A person or nation can be an °dt in that his condition resombles and represents a certain situation; eg., Bik, x1v, 8 ('4t wlimsalim whore m°alim defines what kind of an 4 ‘thoy will be—a symbol sign that serves as a watchword). Istiah (Is., vu, 18) says that he and his children are °61de and méptttn in Israel from Yahweh. Now the importance of Isaiah's children in hhis prophecy lies in their significative names, Shear-Yashub (vu, 3) and Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz (vu, 3 f.). Isaiah's name too (yita'yaht, “Yahwoh is salvation”) is significant in this prophocy ®. Thus he and his sons are signs in that their names bear a symbolic resemblance to certain situations prophesied by Isaiah. Harder to place are Zs., xiv, 25, which refers to the étdt of soothsayers (reading am132 = bard for ova, see the commente- ries) and Jer., x, 2, which refers to the signs of the heavens, where the intention is apparently to divination signs. It is difficult to place this ‘usage in our categorization because it is derived from a system of thought alien to Israel. Divination signs may be considered symbal signs because they are events or things that represent something ds, but not by virtue of resemblance, but by convention. It is decided for 2 Seo Kaiser's comments on Ze vith 46-48) x11, 86THE SIGN OF THE COVENANT 867 ‘various reasons (primarily observations of the supposed congruence botween the signs and certain types of events) that a certain astro- nomical ocourrence represents a certain future event in the human world, s0 that the astronomical occurrence communicates informa- tion by symbolically representing a type of event. These differ from proof signs based on prediction in that the proof signs aro evidence {or a proposition one is obliged to believe in the present, while these divination signs simply give information about the future which ‘would be otherwise unobtainable. Prophets use proof signs to demon. strato something they themselves know, whereas divination signs give the prophet knowledge. In Israelite thought these signs are transferred to the realm of identity signs (Gen. 1, 14). 3, Cognition signs, a. Identity signs. Gen., 1, 15; Num., 1, 2, and Josh., 1, 12 have been discussed above (p. 7). We may add Gen., 1, 14, according to which the heavenly luminaries are to serve Iétét i-ltmé‘ddim, “as signs of the fixed time-poriods” (ef. Speiser). These signs do not ereate the né‘édim, but merely identity them. Ps., xxxrv, 4 seems to refér to nilitary banners (Kraus) and so belongs here. The blood of the pascal lamb (Ez, x11, 13) identifies the houses of the Israelites (see below, p. 18). 4, Mnemonic signs Ex, xi, 9, “And it [se, the eating of mazzot] shall be for you for a sign upon your hands and a reminder [sikkdrén] between your eyes (60 that the law [tdrd] of Yahweh may be in your mouth) that Yah- weh brought you forth from Egypt with a strong hand,” and Ez., xutt, 16, “And it (so. the dedication of the firstborn] shall be for a sign Pét] upon your hands and for frontlets [t0eapét] between your eyes, that the Lord brought you forth with a strong hand from Egypt.” ‘These verses, or parts of them, have been variously ascribed to J, E%, Re, and R¢, For our purposes it is sufficient to identify them as JE, but the words lema‘an tikye tdrat YHWH beptha (vs. 9) are an editoral addition #, They are missing in vs. 16 and they disturb the 1 Supgssted by A. Hanan, The Passover eacrifee, n SVT, XXU, 4972, p. 106 Canranten and Hanroin, The Hezatuch, London, 1900, take si, 2:18 a5 J with Targus additions. They regard xa, 0 as tho addition of BP and vs. 16 asthe adaivon of ‘lste RS, but $¥ cannot be distingulshed from 46. Their main evidence for Ito n 9 isthe xyression dra: YHTFH, which oocurs nowhere esti the Hlexateuch. However, the expres. en does not occur in any prlsty strand, but the concept does appear in dsularonocctic Pasopss (Jer, xciv, 10, 23 (ra, tra}, and the expression ite occurs in Geuterona.568 MICHAEL V. FOX syntax : “that Yahweh brought you forth from Egypt” is a natural sya hat Yaee bonte ot iingengrunt ab acne continuation of (si) oa owt wh mneany “that” or “because.” Underlying JE’s statement is a reference to actual apotropaic devices. But JE is hardly advising the nse ‘of actual apotropaic devices here. JE is saying that the rites in (question should funotion as mnemonic signs (°6t[2ikkarén) remind. {ng Israel that God redeemed them from Egypt with a strong hand, “TE opens this section (xitt, 3-46) vith a command to remember this day because on it God brought Tsrael out of bondage “with strong hand,” and appends, as it were, the command to avoid eating leaven as the consequence of the command to remember the day: “no leaven- tid bread shall be eaten” (vs. 3). After the injunction conceming the tating of mazzot he instructs Israel to tell future generations of God's mighty saving acts in Egypt (vs. 8). The didactio importance of qthe dedication of the first-born as presorving the awareness of Yah- ‘web's “strong hand” is stressod in vs. 44. Those 76tdt are not proof gs because in their specific contexts they do not serve as evidanee of God's power, but as reminders thereof 1D is apparently dependent on JE’s usage in Deut, vi, 8 and xr, 48, whore “tis used in the sense of mnemonio siga, but with a differen: In D the words of the Torah themselves have the mnemonic function, For Deuteronomy, as for wisdom literature, memory—which is indi tinguisheble from learning in ancient pedagogy—is a goal in ite “The twelve stones from the Jordan are to serve as a sign in the midst of Israel reminding all gonerations that God split the Jordan before the Ark (Josh, 1v, 6 .). Vs. 7® (in the third person) explains the funotion of the 61 preseribed (in the second person plural) in 6.7. ‘The rainbow (Ger., 1x, 42, 13, 17) is explicitly a mnemonic sign (et. vas. 15), The altar-covering made out of the censers of Korashis and (um, xvtt, 3) is dosignated as a silkardn, a reminder (v6) to outsiders of the danger of approaching the altar. While it is not vated explicitly, Aaron's rod (2Vum., xvi, 25) also serves as a reins sta vat Yahweh hos given the Aaronides a special position (vs. 20) pnts phraselogy 11 King). The words Zomatan ge ra HVT Wt lati pres 1 Mereconehe addition. The deuterouomist is concrmed wiht {orate Bh pape speaking th word of Gos Torah (Det. 7 22a portance ofthe pep Hoe re asamping of perpaicamiel, 8 Ayre ‘Seaies, XVI, 1965, pp. 91-996 adie, XVI A965, he (Devteronoy, pp 304) nds nx 9 “HN 2 The tudo the Meceely youl ways kee in mind tal I seuminer tobe tn yor mone preset ony nh vere stands wh aston in 9.F THE SIGN OF THE COVENANT 569 reading 1d for Uris in Num,, xv, 39 (see below, p. 22 £,), we find gnother clear mnemonic sign, the fringo on the garment, which is jptended to remind one of God’s commandments. ‘Thus all the °4t6t in P (with the exception of Ez, vir, 3, which is sing an old formula) are cognition signs: the luminaries, the rainbow, {he blood of the pascal lamb, the Sabbath, the family standards, the fringe, the altar cover, and Aaron’s rod. We will tum now to an inves- tigation of the moaning of these signs in P. The circumcision too, as ye shall see below, is a cognition sign—in particular, a mnemonic ‘ign. UL. — Tar *é-eriovocres 1m P. Tho concentration of P's “tt in the category of cognition signs is ‘tot accidental. The "6tdt in P are part of a definite schema of consider- able significance for the understanding of his theology. B. Long?® las analyzed the form of the priestly °4! schema and identified it as significative etiology. According to Long, only Gen., 1x, 13; xvtt, 41; Br, xxxt, 13, 17 and Num., xvut, 3 “bring together conceptually a specific object designated as 6t and the quality of timeless permanence. Only these passages now pertain to etiology.” 1 Long says that two other passages, Ez., x1, 13 and Num, xvn, 25, have a similar pat- tern, but these lack the quality of timeless permanence and so do not Tdong in the schema. In fact, however, as wo shall see, Bz., xtt, 13 does have the quality of “timclors permanence” and is quite in line ‘vith this etiological schema, and Num., xvit, 25 is at least tangen- lilly related to it, Long finds the necessary qualities also in Ez., Xm, 9, 16 and Josh, rv, 6, but investigates them separately as part. of a“mixed-form,” the question-answer schema”. Hr., x11, 9, 16 are indeed different formally from the P *4¢ schema. In addition to the factor mentioned by Long, they lack the type of purpose clause pre- tent in the other priestly “ér-otiologies (except for Gen., xvit, see ielow, Part ITI). But insofar as these verses interpret an existing rite a mnemonic sign they bear a significant resemblance to P's °ét- tuologies and may be forerunners of them. ‘These passages, together with Josh. xv, 6 f., will be disoussed after the investigation of the iestly “6t-etiologies. HB. Lonc, The Problem of Btilogical Narrative in the Old Testament (BZAW 108), ein, 1668, 69 “Tia, p. 69, "hid, pp. 84| Long offers the following analysis of the structure of P's 4 schem a: 510 MICHAEL V. FOX 4. Identification of an object or rte. 2, Designation 2s an °4r (haya 10st or 761 A) 4, Meaning of the 7 (what it symbolizes, memorialize, recalls), ‘This is not incorrect, but it is incomplete. I believe it is possible tp offer a more precise analysis of the schema which will show more Glearly the meaning of these etiologies and the purpose of the priestly | writer, (Our investigation will lead to the conclusion that in the priestly >avetiologies the °at is a permanent sign whose purpose is to stir up cognition, with the result that a covenant, a promise, or a command. ment is maintained by God or man, These etiologies do not just explain the origin of current phenomena; they are rather concerned ith explaining the present meaning of the phenomena by historial reference. ‘A. The rainbow, Gen., 1x, 8-17. 8. God said to Noah and his sons as well: 5, “Inow establish my covenant with you and your seed after you fo. And with every living being that is with you—birds, cattle, and every ‘Rid beast as well-all who have come out of the ark, all the animals of th earth, Seay yl establish my covenant with you: never again will all leah be et Off by the waters of the flood, and never again will there be a flood to des- troy the earth. te” and God said, “This is the sign of the covenant (227% %6 habit] that T got botween me and you and every living ereature that is with you forall generations to come: Font placo my bow in the cloud, that it may be for a sign ofthe covenant fwehayetd 19¢e Berit] between me and the earths Te Wwhen T brings clouds over the earth, the bow will appear (wsnitaé] in the cloud, 45, And I vill remember [o*sdkart you and every living creature among Yvaters become a flood to destroy all flesh, {6. When the bow is in the clouds, 1 will so it Tiskér] the everlasting covenant between God and overy livin ‘among all flesh that is on the earth”. $7 AS 4 God said to Nosh, “Thisis the sign of the covenant (20 7 halt] that Thave established between me and all flesh that is on the earl }] my covenant that is between me and al flesh, 30 that never again wil fe and remember (dtd ig eos Tid, p. 69.THE SIGN OF THE COVENANT on Structure : Introduction, vss, 8-11: Announces the covenant that is being estab- ished and describes its content, a. vss. 12-13: Identification of the *4t (and reference to its eternal- : Funotion of the °ét—cognition: perception (w*nir’dtd) Jeads to remembering (®zakarti). ¢. vs, 15%: Purpose of the ’é—maintenance of the covenant. ¢.vs.16: Punction of the °4t (perception—t-r®itihd—and remem- ring [2 consecutive infinitive ]) leading to maintenance (liskér signifies both remembrance and maintenance and thus fuses 5° and 2, soe below, remark (2). @. vs. 17 : Identification of sign. Remarks (1). This section contains several repetitions which led von Rad to regard it as a conflation of two recensions, A: 144, 13, 16f, and B: 91, 11%, 12, 14 £." But repetitions in P cannot be taken as prima focie evidence for separate recensions. The priestly writer hardly has an aversion to repetitions, but on the contrary, uses them fre- quently and skilfully. In Gen., 1, 27, for example, there is at least a two-fold, perhaps a three-fold, repetition, together with an inoon- gruency in grammatical number (von Rad, Genesis, explains the repe- tition as a purposeful stylistic device"). Further examples of stylis- tio repetition : Gen., m, 24.5 vir, 14-163 1x, 5; xxtu, 17-20; xurx, 29, 32; Ex., x1, 18-20, and throughout Lev., xxv, 8-55. In none of these passages, except for Gen., 1, 2£.,® does von Rad separate strands on the basis of the repetition. For Gen., rx, 8-17, McEvenue has shown the presence of deliberate formal structures, which leave little doubt of the integrity of the passage™. The question of two possible recensions in P may be raised for most of the passages to be considered in this section, but the arguments raised above against 8 Gt. P.P. Joo0x, Grammaire, Rome, 1923, § 124 ® G. vow Ran, Dl Pristerccrift im Hsaieuch (BWANT IV, 49) Stotigart-Berlin, 1986, matt) * On the types of repetition in P and thei funtion ste 8. B, MeRvewwe, The Narratire ‘Sule ofthe Pristly Writer (Analete Bibles $0), Rome, 1974, pp. 68 ky 78 thy and possi. My teferenes to MeBvenuo's stlstle analysis do not imply acceptance of ail his conclu: loa, nor ofall the datalsof his anslyss Tn Pricterselrfi, however (pp. 15), ho separates out vs. 2799, but that does not remove ‘he particaaraing repetition inv: 27 6. vow Ran attributes, 3, to PA, at 9 to PB (ibid, pp, 16), but even this does not tliinata repetition in th fat “resnsion—nor the ewileh in gracamatical perso. "BR. MeBvenus, NVarratie Site pp. 72| the theory aro applicable elsewhere as well: repetition is insufficient evidence for the existence of parallel recensions, and the presence of carefully wrought formal structures points to authorship rather than editorship ®, (Q). The verb zakér plays an important role in the *ét-tiologies. 1t often means more than just “remember” in the sense of mental reool- Jeotion and is frequently best translated “maintain.” salir *et yém hakiabbat (Ex. xx, 8) means smér *et yom hasiabbat (Deut., v, 12), God's promise to remember the covenant of the forefathers (Lev, ‘xvt, 45) certainly means that he will maintain it, as the dative of ‘advantage shows. The fact: that akr usually, if not always, implies action as well as memory was one of the factors that led Pedersen to the conclusion that action was inseparably bound to thought in Hebrew mentality®”. B. Childs too finds an integral connection between memory and action in the root zkr, but places the relationship on the level of semantics, not psychology®. In fact, English “remember” has a similar semantic, range. When one “remembers” his wife's birthday he does more than just think about it. To be “remembered” in a will means more than being thought about when the will is drawn up We can determine the precise meaning of “remember”—and zkr—only within its context. W. Schottrofl® has examined the precise nuancing of zkr in its various contexts. For our purposes here we may quote his significant. conclusion that “tatig, nicht bloss gedanklich ist der mit zl ausgesprochene Bezug, wenn das Verbum das Beachten eines, Gebots, die Wahrung eines Vertragsverhilltnisses, den Erweis von gemeinschaftsgemisser Verbundenheit ausdrilckt®, It should be stes 5 MICHAEL V. FOX Narrative Style pasin, See further the detailed riitam and rele Peak Reals thesis by P. Huwbine, Die Ierariache Zrehet dex Prenter Codes Tider Genesio in ZAW, X-¥. XVII, 1960/61, pp. 30. de cert: acaason of the meaning of sir see B. Cxtuos, Memory and Tradition i erat apenas 1962, pp 18 Seo algo M. Wa1nvLo,Habrt ce Hahesed, in Leones, XXVE, 1972, pp. 97 0 sO ovenvee, Ziad -IL, Copeshagen-London, 1926 (1964), pp. 99 fl sp. pp. 406 ‘When the soul Temmbers something, it doasnot'mean that it has en objective monary Free" tuba ting or event but thak this mage is called forth inthe sou! and esi it image ring is vedio, Its action. the pecllarty about the Israelite is that he santo eT nagibe memory, wiless atthe came mo an effect onthe totality and the detio f ‘ills taken for granted” "B, Cuias, Memory end Tradition pp. 17 ft 2 ees doar, Sedenken im dan Orient und im Alten Testament (WALANT 48) Neukircken, 1957 i Srv aid, p. 989, seo pp. 159-248 passim. However this is not invariably ea, In Fes 1 jar eianple, weyyér “tdi et Brits cannot mean that God maintained ME aaa ee oigl with wow conversive never express future tense), for he has not yet be seer WES promise” Als, sk in 2s sooms tobe equivalent to 7A 03 Ehtowle a Ba, 3 ate bd means smply romember, without implying ectiit S10 8. B. MoEvaxon,2 otto 4B BB Ao BRS ee. Ee BR Sash eS 8 THE SIGN OF THE COVENANT 573 sed that zkr in Gen., 1x, 45 f. designates true recollection, not just ‘thought on a present circumstance. That is to say, the plain meaning of the text is that God is not thinking of his promise when it starts to rain, but when he sees the rainbow it reminds him of his past pro- mise, and this memory results directly in the maintenance of his vow. For God, no shadow falls betweon the thought and the reality. (3). Lot us stress what is explicit in the text but often passed over by the commentators: the purpose of the rainbow is to remind God, not man, of the covenant. (@. The rainbow is an °6t bertt, This is not a sign identifying the covenant, nor is it even meant to prove the existence of the covenant (éhough man may secondarily interpret it as such a testimony). The genitival construction of t Berit docs not indicate that the sign belongs to the covenant. ‘The °4t is a sign recalling the covenant and may be more precisely translated as a “reminder of the covenant.” The phrase is an objective construct, ie., the gonitive is in a sense the semantic direot object of the nomen regens. (A noun that signifies activity may take a semantic direct object in the genitive, e., yiat ohim, kdmas *ahika, *émat melek, cf. Gesenius-Kautsch § 128h.) (6). Further formal characteristios present here and in most of P's *dt-etiologies are the expressions used to identify the *ét: w*hayttd (wthdyd) 6t “to serve as a sign,” and z0't 41 (habb*rit). (6). As has long been recognized, the rainbow motif goes back to the idea that the rainbow is God’s war-bow (gaiti, “my bow”), just as the lightning is his arrows, and the appearance of the rainbow after the storm means that God has hung up his bow and is no longor hostilo®. P is taking an old—pre-Israclito—motif and removing it from its mythic context by interpreting it as an st, thus fitting it into his own thoology and view of history. (D. This passage is etiological in that it explains the origin and significance of a currently existing fact on the basis of an event in the past. (@). The °6t is not an ond in itself. Its ultimate purpose is the main- tenance of God’s covenant with mankind. (9). The rainhow is a permanent sign. Having been established once and for all by Yahweh, it now and forever operates independently in the service of the covenant ®. ® See, ia, Qunest and Suse, ad fo. * This Weuuen, Des Wort OTH, p18B. The blood of the pascal lamb, Ea., x11, 7, 12-14. SE a pen an) 12 od wl pe Ea et heme e ao et Tue: Ce eda Bene Structure : Introduction, vss. 7,12. The introduction to this sign is woven into the general introduction of the Passover laws. It presents the com- mandment of the pascal blood and the circumstances in which it will be used. a, vs. 13%: Identification of the *ét. bs. vs. 13%: Function of the "él: cognition ¢. vs. 13%: Purpose of the ’ét: maintenance of God’s promise, (Che element of eternality appears in vs. 14, which by implication includes the blood-rite.) Remarks (1). Long does not include this passage in the "é-etiologies because it supposodly lacks the element of “timeless permanence.” But this is a true etiology, and it does contain the element of timeless perma- renee, for the blood-rite, together with the other rites of the Passover night, is intended for all generations (vs. 14). The offering of the fst Passover is a model for the rite that, is to be performed in all gener tions, both in P (vss. 14, 17) and J (vss. 24-27), Bz, xtt, 42 (P) states that this first “night of vigil for Yahweh” shall be the model for the night of vigil “for all the children of Israel throughout their gener tions.” (2), The blood is [a cognition sign, in particular an identity sig, which functions by affecting God’s consciousness, not man's. 1 A, Hanan, The Pessove sarin in SPT, XXII, 1972, pps 86 fTHE SIGN OF THE COVENANT 595 (@). The purpose of the cognition is action, the maintenance of the promiso to spare Israel the punishment inflicted upon Egypt. (f). This passage too uses the formula w*hayé 1®6t in identifying blood-sign (vs. 14), but does not identify the blood as an °4t, (©. Tho blood rite itself belongs originally to the realm of magic. Iwas probably an apotropaic device meant to protect a house against inimical demons or divinities (the mashit?)*. Tho identity of the maihit as a distinct being belonging to the superhuman realm is dlear in J (vs. 23): “and he will not allow the maihtt to enter your houses to smite.” In P the difficult phrasing in 13% may reflect a deliberate attempt to obscure the independent demonic character of the mashit while preserving the old terminology associated with this rite. (P never mentions angelic or intermediary beings, though they seem to bo alluded to in Gen., 1, 26; the belief in them was present. in the older traditions that P is remolding.) In Ez., xtr, 43 P is using an ancient concopt, but. for him it no longer belongs to the realm of magic, but to theology. Instead of functioning automatically to ward off demons—i.e., as magio—the blood serves as a cognition sign that alfects Yahweh’s will. G The Sabbath. Hz., xxx1, 12-17. 412, Yahwoh said to Moses: 43 “As for you, speak to the children of Israel and say: You shall surely hep my Sabbaths, for itis a sign [4t hP] between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I, Yahweh, am he who senctifes you. 44, You shall keep the Sabbath, for it is holy to you. He who profanes it Shall be put to death. Whoever does work in it, that person shall be out off from his kin, 45. Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day therw shall be a Sebbath of complete rest, holy to Yahweh; whoever does work on the Sebbath day shall be put to death 18. The children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout all generations as an everlasting covenant (17) between me and the children of Tsrae tis an overlasting covenant [4t Av Islam). For Yahweh made the heav- 0s and the earth in six days, and on the seventh day he coased from work fand was refreshed.” ] “OG. Bucuawan Guar, Secrice ix the Old Testament, Oxford, 1925, pp. 202 f.7 516 MICHAEL V. FOX Structure : Introduction, vs. 138: Presentation of the commandment, a, vs, 13%: Identification of the *ét (and reference to lity). i, vs. 43% : Funotion of the ét—cognition (Iada‘at). evans UeAT2=: Purpose of the °é—porformance of command (ea. orated). @. 1798 ; Tdentification of the °6t $ otema- Remarks = (1). Remark (1) to passage A (p. 15 £) applies here as well: the doublets do not provide sufloient reason to separate the section into two strands®, There are formal indications of different tradition. Tayers in this passage, but these layers are virtually impossible to separate. It is hard to determine whether we have here secondary expansions (particularly in vss. 45 £.) or material from easier legal traditions taken up by the priestly writer. One gets the impression that P is taking up earlier legal material (belonging to the priestly schol) and incorporating it into his *-etiology schema. At any rate, even it the repetitious elaboration of the Sabbath lew is removed we have ‘the basie structure of the °6-etiology (a-D-c), together with a closing recapitulation (2°) such as we have seen already in Gen., 1%, 47. Tho fection can be treated as a single unit, for the expansion—if there ‘vas one—did not disturb the basio structure of the eticlogy. y The Sabbath is a cognition sign for Isracl. It is in fact « mne- ‘monio sign, although the word zkr is not usod. The Sabbath recalls to Tereel each weok something that is not new knowledge—that it it Yahweh who sanctifies them. Yahweh's sanctification of Israel moans that ho has set them aside as his special nation, for whom he will be their God ®, God informed them of this sanotification im his covensnt with Abraham (Gen., xvi, 7). It is not an identity sign (contrary 19 Noth), for thero is no hint that the Sabbath is supposed to inforn thers that Israel is God’s people. It is not a symbol sigo, for it dos sot resemble or stand for another event. (It does resemble Goi’ Tost Sabbath, but symbol signs always inform by representing ¢ jutare event in the human sphere; in « sense God's Sabbath was the wg. vox Rao, Pristehrf, pp. 62 A, divides as follows: A = xxx, #4, 48% HE Bm zest, 105, 1540 Fee EEA can rephrase latte kt tant YHWH megaastam (Bethe X 7 “HWA elheten (8,20), ai ef. Ler XX, 28 Laat Hat, symbol for Israel's Sabbath.) Tt is not a proof sign, for in itself it | as no porsuasive foree to convince the observer of anything, ‘The ‘wual translation of vs. 17 implios that the Sabbath is a proof sign: ‘It is a sign for ever between me and the people of Israel that. in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed” (RSV). But. why would knowledge of that fact be an end in itself? At any rate, it was never a matter of doubt that would require evidence. Rather, the At in vs. 17 is causal: the Sabbath is an eternal sign ('4t Ri Ie-dlam) because God built it into the | orld as a part of nature (like the rainbow). @). Thus the Sabbath too has the element of timeless permanence characteristic of most of P's signs (see vss. 14, 16, 17). Like the rain- bow and the pascal blood it was established ones and for all and now has independent. power to recall an important fact. (4). Just how the Sabbath can be traced back to pre-Israclite thought ja still an open question, but it. was hardly ereated ex nihilo. The Sabbath was, of course, an established practice long before P. In the ninor Book of the Covenant, cessation from labor on the seventh day is commanded (Zz., xxxrv, 21), but without any motivating reason. In Es., xx, 14, a priestly expansion motivates the Sabbath commend with a reference to God’s first Sabbath but does not explain the pur- pose of the Sabbath for man. D (Deut., v, 15) uses a historical motiva- tion that is obviously secondary. In Ex., xxx1, 12-47, P is doing for the Sabbath essentially the same thing he did for the rainbow and the pascal blood: he is offering an stiological explanation for an existing fact or rite by interpreting it as a cognition sign. He may be attempting to eliminate any traces of magic and taboo that still clung to the Sabbath. This is speculation, The attempts to connect the Sabbath with the Babylonian sapaitn or the “evil days” that fell at seven-day intervals in the month have ‘ot been persuasive, yet it must be admitted that the Sabbath bears ome resemblance to both. God's resting on the seventh day is remi- riscent of the Sapaitu as the day of the “quieting of (the god's) heart”. Like the “evil days”, in which the king must cease from certain acti. ‘ities, the Sabbath is a day of cessation from labor, and like it the Sabbath was structured on seven-day cycles (though independent, of THE SIGN OF THE COVENANT 577 * Sto R, pe Vaux, Anciont Ieael, Now York, 1964, pp. 675 M1, and bibliography; also Nel Knute, Woruhip tn soe, Oxford, 1966, pp. 78 tks, and. Lnver, The origi ofthe wok andthe oldest West Asiatic calendar, in HUGA, XVil, 1943/48, pp. 1) CEL A Asonzasen, The Old Testament Sabbath (SBL Diseiation Series Le Sabbt a Pépoqueroyle trait, in RB, URXK, 1979, pp. 401 mevur winuigns ” 17a; A Leann,— the month). At the Teast we can say that a similar concept under dae ihe Sobbath and these special days in Babylonia—the cones a to which cortain days have 0. special chara ee aet may be holy. The Sabbath i a day that belongs to God (abba LyAWH “anita, Bx., xx, 10; Dent, %, 14) ike the sabbatical year (Lan, xxv, 2), The division of sme into eysles of seven may here tnythical or magical significance ®. Te) ‘Thove is diflerenco between this etiology and the othr vasciologios in P= it was not given at the time when the signin wetton originated. So instead of saying thatthe Sabbath “tal saree sian” (amhayrs 1261), the text says: “Tor itis a sign” (kl | ne Aa). Avtording to Long, this ahows « slight modification of form: eee the Sabbath being designated a8 a sign, its “sign-nes” fy) serenGitedin-a motivo cause asa reason for ebeying the law ®. Thi | ing ion, ho aaye, comes about because the dominant interest rao uke prescription. I think, howover, that tho interest inthe pevworition ten lessiguifcant inthe cses ofthe crue, ata aoa the altr-overing. The real reason for this chon off) iting that the Sabbath is already existent, at the time when | eva dergnetod as an 4) so that a formula with dee fan is being ‘able. Of all P's signs the Sabbath elono was created when maori men to be informed of it. Note further thatthe weand sae he formula occurs (vs. 47), itis not in a motive clause, i 578 MICHABL V. FOX of saored time, D. fringe. Num., xv, 37-40. 37. Yahweh sald to Moses: 38, “Speak to the children tomers of their garments throughout their blue on the fringe on the corners. sane one al efor ou as haya.) asign reading 4] S20 Tt) 3 tat [erottem °ato] and remember (w-atkoriem] all 1s commande saa cat Yahweh and do them, and you shall nat go astray afer JOUR east Re} your ayes after which you are wont to go awhorng aa oe ooo that you may remember and do ell my commandments ate | holy to your God.” of Ksracl and tell them to make a fringe om the generations, and to put a. card spit in vs. 39 seems quite likely, although ther Friedrich Delitzsch classifies this s veranlasst” ® (srt ‘The reading of *ét for $ js no support for it in the versions. gare os a “Schreibfebler durch Vorhergehende 1 see Knaus, Warship, pp. 85 USES” cotem of Etlogieal Nerratic, v.75 2 Le et ped Sefer i Alen Tesamen, Lei 1929 smbTHE SIGN OF THE COVENANT 509 ogours twice in the preceding verse and may have caught the copyist's eye). There are two justifications for this emendation. First, the text asit stands contains a bald tautology—you shall make a fringe, put ‘cord of blue on it, and it shall be as a fringe. What is the point of saying that x (even x with something on it) shall be as x, or x shall serve as x? Seoond, this section fits perfectly into the contentual and formal pattern of the *ét-etiologies, and at this place in an *é1-otiology wo expect the phrase «haya 1d. Wo will proceed to analyse this unit on the basis of this emendation. While this unit can strengthen aur case by offering another possible example with all the formal and contentual characteristics that we have found to belong to the ‘étotiologies, it will not change any of the basic conclusions, so that this assumption is not essential to the general argument. Structure = Introduction, vss. 37 f.: Presentation of the commandment, 2, ¥8. 390 (whayd Iakem 1ét) : Identification of the °6t. 4. vs. 39% (i-r@item... YHWH) Function of the *6t—cognition; perception leads to memory. ¢. vss. 308 : Purpose of the °ét. Maintenance of God's command- ments, (w-3¢hartem in part b implies both memory and maintonance of the commandments, and thus fuses & and <) ¥.¢. vs. 40: Recapitulation of function (lma‘an tizk*ri) and pur- pose (sva‘dsttem °et hol miswécdy). Remarks : (1). P is commanding the wearing of an actual physical symbol on ‘the garments—a fringe with blue cords. In £z., x11, 9, 16, as in Dewt., ‘8; Xt, 18, the practice of using certain physical (probably apotro- Paic) devices is converted into a figurative usage, whereby something hosides the token serves as a mnemonic device. Here the token itself is a memory sign. Whereas JE and D seem to be offering a substitute for the physical tokens—eating of mazzot, dedioation of firstborn, God’s words—P is maintaining the visible token, but explaining it as mnemonic sign. The uso of tassels, g°dilim, is prescribed by D (Deut. x, 12), but there their meaning of function is not explained. (2). The siyit was no doubt an ancient apotropaic device, like the blood on the doorpost *. The operative factor was probably the blue ord on the sfsit (ef. the blue cord on the priest’s tuzban, Ea, xxvii, See the commentaries to Numbers, ep. Gnay.580 MICHAEL V. FOX 37). The custom was certainly an old one, no doubt pro-Israclite « Onoe again P is taking an existent usage with magical overtonos and converting it into a cognition sign. Phe element of timeless permanence is present in this etiology too : [edaratam, vs. 38. E. The altar-covering. Num, xvu, 1-5. 4. Yahweh said to Moseé: 2, “Tell Eleazar son of Aaron the priest to remove the fre pans from the ‘charred remains, and scatter the fire around, 3, for the fire pans of these sinners have become holy, at the cost of their lives ®, And they shall make them into hammered sheets as plating forth altar—for since they have used them for offering before Yahweh they have become holy. And they shall be as a sign for the children of Israel” 4, (Then Eleazar the priest took the copper fire pans which those who had been burnt had used for offering and hammered them into plating forthe alter)— 5, “as a reminder (zikkardn] for the ehildron of Israel, so that no outsides ‘one not of Aaron's seed—should approach to offer incense before Yahweh fand become like Korach and his bandas Yahweh had commanded through Moses.” Structure = Introduction, vss. 1-3% Presentation of a commandment, which gives the setting in which the °4 was created. a. vs, 3: Identification of the 74 vs. 4 Parenthesis, desoribing the execution of the command. b, vs, 58 (cikkarén libné yitra”él) Function of the *6t—memory. c. vs. 5% (Itma‘an)-»: Purpose of the °é—maintenance of the command prohibiting an outsider’s approach to the altar. Remarks : (1). Vs. 4 is parenthetical, so that sikkardin libné yids 5 is joined syntactically to vs. 3 as an epexegetical apposition to 26t libné yisreel. (2). Although a word designating eternality, such as ‘lam or «© Pictures of Asatios on Bgyptian monuments and representations on the esis of Pes pls chow a clas custom ee the seloonon a, Gayy ad le Als BSretsrn, Pall ant Bongeners in Assy. Sadi, XV, 1968, pp. 491 Mf; W. Rosznrsow urns, Religion of ht Semier, 1927 (New York, 1909), p. 697 7 Genstraiog qd in Ws. th mat, sv Gna. Gray considers the ' intro, bl ‘a attan procndes the gramma(eal subject asa marker afte logea predicate (Gen. = GE! Deuy xy 22, te Also posble tho reading gtdaia with LXX, A. Bnucx, Rondao sen 1, Lapag, 1909, p.178.Ee THE SIGN OF THE COVENANT 584 rdérétam is not used, it is clear that this °4t has the element of timeless permanence“, The story assumes that this altar cover (which may be a layer additional to that of Ez., xxvit, 2), is to stand as an °4t for all times, for the covering is hardly tomporary. . Aaron’s rod. jum., xvit, 25-26 (the narrative begins in vs. 16). 35, Yahweh said to Moses: “Put Asron’s rod back before the Testimony, to be kept as a sign (l¢miémeret 6} for the rebels, that their complaining against me may cease [read w*tikel, cf. LXX, Peshitta], lest they die.” 26. And Moses did this; just as Yahwoh had commanded him, so he did. Structure: This is not a true *ér-etiology, but it is based on the »ét-etiology pattern and has some of its basic elements. Tntroduction, vs, 25% + Iemiémeret: A command that prosonts tho setting of the ° 4a, vs. 25% (14 libné mert) : Identification of the *4t. . Function of the °t; not explicit. But clearly the intention is that when the Israelites see the rod, they will remember the special position of the Aaronides (cf. vs. 20) . vs. 250: Purpose of the *é—cessation of rebellion, i.e., main- tenance of God's command, ‘Remarks : (1). This bit of narrative is not, as it stands, explicitly etiological, for it does not explain an existing fact by its origin. Yet it is probable that the verse is implicitly etiological. It is likely that Aaron's rod ‘vas a secondary cultic appurtenance which was present at some stage of the Jerusalem cult but did not have the status of the cult objects divinely ordained in the Tabernacle plan and so was logitimatized by an etiological narrative. The Nehustan had a similar status, see 11 Kings, xvi, 4; Num., xxt, 8 f. The term l*mitmeret indicates that the rod had some degree of permanence and was not meant only for the time of Korack’s rebellion. The omer of manna (Ez., xvi, 32 1), which was also to be kept before the Testimony (lipnd YHWH Pmismeret,i.e., before the Ark) seems to have had a similar status, and there it is specifically stated that: the object is to be kept “through- out your generations”. bend mert in Wum,, xvii, 25 refers to Israol in general, of. Js., xxx, 9; Ezek., 11,5 £., 8; m1, 9, oto, “B, Lone, Probie of Ealogioat Narrative, pp. 7582 MICHAEL V. FOX (0). The rod in question may have been at first @ divine rod of th sort known from Near Eastern mythology. Gads are commonly we sented os carrying rods as symbols of rule and power. Moses’ ro ee arn the mythic ephoro, i sil divine—"the od of God” (Ez., 1v, 20; xvit, 9). The stories of Aaron's rod are develop. ments of the same motif—they are ultimately the same rod, as is noted in Exodus Rabbeh, Bedallah, xxvit, 9. In Egypt and Phoenicia the rods of the gods were’ kept in sanctuaries “, The priestly story in Num., xvi, 16-26 is an attempt to eliminate whatever mythological or magical significance the rod still possessed by converting it into a mnemonic sign *, Summary : the form and content of the priestly ’étetiologies. ‘The *6tetiology schema in P has four basic elements: Introduction: Announcement of a covenant or presentation of a command, (A promise for God is the equivalent of a command for man; both designate an action that should be performed.) ‘a, Identification of the °4t by the formulae 20% *61, w*hdyd Id, ort ht, (In Num., xvrt, 25, which is not a complete *ét-otiology, Jest is subordinated to haieb; this is elliptical for haseb et math >ahdtrén... wehaya 16.) . Function of the *ét: cognition, either by identifying something or reminding due of something. r@é often used to indicate pereeption ¢ Purpose of thet: action, i.e. fulfillment of promise or command, not necessarily the one presented in the introduction. "These elements, especially a, may be repeated for the sake of elaboration or emphasis. ‘in all cases P is taking an ancient phenomenon which had its own significance and converting it into, cognition sign. Tn the case of the rainbow, the pascal blood, the fringe, the rod of Aaron, and poss bly the Sabbath, we see a process of demythologization: the priestly waiter seeks to raise the theological level of these phenomena by bring- Jng them from the realm of myth and magio to the realm of psych Toy. The process of demythologization is manifest throughout tbs priestly code. Cosmogony is stripped of mythological clements and se & Lonwensravn, Brey. Migrat TV, cx 626-882; H. Bonar, Rellriton dt dgyptsckon Teligionspeschishte, Belin, 195%, pp 205-256. yptschen, Religions iminating the aythical sigacance of this od i Preent ean mesa the Slane on herd asian of on a word spoken ie Aum 2 TAB, UMS pando showing ack of faith; soe 8, Loxwessrauay Mi Staak, Perbie, NVI, 1997/58, pp. 8r made into creation through divine flat. The luminaries lose all super- natural significance and become passive time-markers. God’s rod is still effective, but its importance is reduced and it is considered a sign ‘of small faith that Moses feels he must rely on it (IVum., xx, see above, 1, 46). The priestly writer is worried that the people might attribute independent power, which is to say, magical power, to the rod. He also eliminates all direct references to angels, lest: one think that there are superhuman powers independent of Yahweh. ‘This tendency is not due to one writer, of course, but was charac- | (oristic of the priestly school, which transmitted the traditions and documents that were developed into the priestly document. Nor ‘was the tendency restricted to the priestly school, although it is less prominent and developed in JE. (It is more extensive and thorough- going in D *) Now P did not arrive at a purely abstract, non-anthropomorphic and non-anthropopathic theology, totally devoid of mythical rem- nants, God’s rod is still effective (Vum., xx, 41; Es., vit, 9 fl 195 11, 12f.). P does preserve traces of a belief in intermediary beings (Gen., 1, 26; Ez., x1, 13). The whole cultio phenomenology of P may fairly be called primitive: God has a human form (Gen., 1,27; ¥, 13 1x, 6). Tho “glory (kabéd) of Yahweh” is conocived in corporeal, not abstract, terms (Ez., xxtv, 17 8. He dwells in the deep recesses of his house, seated on the cherubim, with the ark as his footstool ®. He is ministered to by his sorvants the priests, who provide him with food, drink, incense, and light; all this is done in Yahweb’s presence, | lipnt YHWH ©. It is doubtful that the priestly writer himself believes these conceptions in a strictly literal sense. He is transmitting im- agery that is part of the pre-Israclite cultic heritage, which has long | since lost its literal meaning ®. It is unlikely that the lofty deity | presented else where in P—in the Creation Story, for example—was thought to need food and drink. Yet the meaning of the ancient rites cannot have been totally lost to the priests who performed them day by day. Tt is clear that for P Yahweh in some sense actually dwolls in the Tabernacle, ef. Bz., xxv, 8; xx1x, 45; xt, 3438; Num., 1x, 45 1, Perhaps the priests felt that. they were ministering to God, while not thinking that God actually ate, drank and smelled their offerings. ‘THE SIGN OF THR COVENANT 583 © cL Weinysro, Deweronomy, Past 1. ‘Ton, ibid, pp. 199 fe 1M Hasan, The Ark end che Charubim, in 1B, 1X, 1950, pp. 80-88, 89-9 Ions, The compler of ritual ect im Serita iierseolymitane, Vili, 1964, pp. 272 © Ine, (Bid, pp. 292, 296, 286MICHAEL V. FOX “Thus while the oviginal significance of the rites was not retained wx full literal force, the original purpose was. Cod may not sau cat the offerings, but they have the same purpose as it he did--d win his favor, his rdsén. : ‘Thus P shows a dialectic between primitive carry-over and inte. pretation on a more sophisticated level. P could hardly climinate the rainbow, the pascal blood, the fringes, the rod, ete., and ho recognized that they had supernatural significance. But he is pushing away from that supernatural significance in the direotion of naturalistic inter: pretation. By “naturalistic” I do not mean that these phenomena are Femoved from the aphere of rligion—that is obviouly not the exe T mean thet P make thoes phenomena function in a naturals way—by influencing the cognition, and thus the will, of God and man. This is in contrast to magical functioning, which means tha manipulation of self-operating forces in the realm of the motadivine, which are independent of, and in fact superior to, divinity ®, Yo this naturelistic interpretation did not result. in abstract. theology. ‘The rainbow and the pascal blood are cognition signs for God. The plain meaning of tho text is that God needs such signs. Ho is not omniscient ina medioval philosophical sense ‘These observations lead us to an understanding of the relation between the *tt and the zikrandt in P. sikkarén is used in two main senses : in the passive sense of memo- randum, something remembered, and in the active senso of a remind- er, P uses the word only in the latter sense. The following cult phenomena are called sikrondt: the breastplate (Ex., xxvut, 29), the onyx stones (Bz., xxvim, 12), atonément money (Ev., xxx, 16), gold booty (um., xxxr, 54), the “cereal offering of jealousy” (Num, v, 18), the blowing of trumpets (Vum., x, 9 f; of. Lev., xxitt, 24), the altar cover (Num., xvit, 5), and Passover day (Ez., xii, 14). The full formula designating something as a sikkdrdn is zikkarén libné yisr@l lipnt YHWH (Num., xxx1, 54; 600 Ex, xxvist, 29; xxvut, 42; xxx, 16; Vum., x, 10 for variants of the full formula). In Bx, xxvii 12; xXxIK, 7 the object is called simply zikkardn libné yisr@a, but it is olear that it is not Israel that is to be reminded, but God. ibné yidraal is a dative of advantage. The function of a zikkarén is stated clearly in Num., x, 9: w®nizkartem lipné YHWH, “and 1 See Kauruaxn’s analysis ofthe nature of magic and its place in pagan religion, Tale dot, 1 pp 350-958 (English el, pp 40-42) ‘On aikkirin it P'ste B. Cains, Memory, pp. 66 fL; W. Scnorraorr, “Gade pp. 299‘THE SIGN OF THE COVENANT 585 you will be remembered before Yahweh”. All of P's ikrdndt are jeminders for God, with the excoption of Num., xvut, 5 and Ex., x11, 44, “The sikkarén stimulates God’s memory and his acts of memory are synonymous with his acts of intervention. The zikkarén also stimulates Tsrael’s memory, which produces participation in the sacred order”, ‘Thus it is clear that reminders to God are of groat importance in P, Since memory and action are closely linked for God, these remind- xs serve to aotualize God's grace in the life of the community. “If we try to find in the cultic vocabulary of the Old Testament a goneral formula answering to the significance of the eult for Israel, we ‘an say that the eult brings Israel to the remembrance of Yahweh” ‘This general formula desoribes the way in which P infuses new mean- ing into the ancient paraphenalia of the cult. The zikkardn (like the *) is a major device used in this reinterpretation, for it converts rites that were once considered as possessing magical potency into devices whose efficacy consists in affecting divine cognition. Remark : Non-priestly *ét-etiologies. JE contains two *ét-etiologies, Ex., xu, 9 and 16 (see above, p. {4 £), both within the context of a question-answer schema. Here we have (a) the identification of the ’étand (b) the function—memory. But the memory is an end in itself. The sign reminds Israel of God’s redemptive power, but does not have the purpose of leading to a specific action, such as the fulfillment of a command. Deut., vi, 8 and, x1, 18 are derived from the *ét-etiology found in JE but are no longer true etiologies. If we press the logic of these ‘verses, we find that the reminder and that which is remembered are ‘the same—God’s words. The °4¢ does not point beyond itself to some other event or fact, as it must in an etiology, but is an end in itself. D is not concerned with providing an etiology for God’s words—that would hardly make sense. His point is simply that God's words should remain continually in one’s awareness. He has drawn upon ‘the form of the *ét-etiology of Kx., x11, 9, 16, but his meaning derives from the metaphorical use of ornaments in wisdom exhortations, Where the pupil is told to keep the father’s instruction with him always, attached to him like ornaments (or apotropaic amulets), of. Prov., , 20-22: “My son, keep your father’s commandments and forsake 3B, Camps, Menon) p. 68. But the purpose of reminding Terel of the sacred order is tog significant than Childs implies. See also W. Seuorrnoyr, “Gedenken”, pp. 808M 6. vow Rap, Old Testament Theology, 1, London-tdinburgh, 1962, p. 22586 MICHAEL V. FOX not your mother’s teaching. Bind them upon your heart continually Te chem about your neck, ote.” also Prov it, 35 1¥, 95 vit, 38,” ‘Josh, 1v, 6 f. is an *étetiology similar to Ez. xt, 9 and 46 Hove as there, a goriain cutie phenomenon is given a place in a question-answer schema and is meant to remind succeeding gener- peas of a historical fact. As in Bz., «int, 9, 16, the °6t has no purpose peyond its mnemonic function. The etiology in Josh. 1¥, 6 f. prob. ably belongs to J. The deuteronomic editor gives the etiology uni. Sersal scope in vs. 24, of. I Kings, vist, 60; Deut, xxvitt, 10. TUL) — Tue aeantne oF CIRCUMCISION IN THE PRIESTLY CODE; Gen., xvu, 1-44. 4. When Abram was 99 years old Yahweh appeared to Abram and std tonim, “Tam Bl Shaddal, Walk in my ways and be blameless Lar establish my covenant between ine and you: Twill make you exceed- Then Abram threw himself on 4. “As for me, my covenant is wit ‘ude of nations. 5, And you shall no long for Tam making you the father of 6. And T will make you exceedingly fertile, kings shall come forth from you. Kings shestablishing my covenaat botween me and you and your seed ater Jou thronghout their generations as an evarlasting covenant to be God fr You and your seed after you. yal give to you and your seed after you the land of your sojourning iy the fond of Canaan—as an everlasting possession, and T will be God for them.” Peka God sald to Abraham, “As for you, you shall keep my covenant You and your seed after you throughout their generations 30" tiie i may covenant that you shall Koop between me and you and your Ged after you: Bvery male emong you shall be circumcised ea ou aball clrcumeise the flesh of your foreskin, and that shall be for sign of the covenant (wehéy@ 16: Brit} elween me and you. his face, and God spoke to him as follows ih you: You shall be the father of « multe gerbe called Abram, but your nameshall be Abraham, ‘a multitude of nations. ‘and make nations of you, and ws Por a comparison of the amulets or omamens in Deuteronomy with thace In Prenets ee Fora compeseeyonomy pp. 299. Bul, contrary to Weinfel, the signs ond WM a eae ie ud Ye no les than in Deuteronomy, se sBOVe, Pf 8 ee ee ys is usually attibuted toa reactor or copys (Uns COE Ceeeeaaarn rare) But it may be that P can ue the name Yahwel ven So ter Hafod, Sean is own vole and herby nat voating Bs theory of Re Be, wt when etd ne of Moen It so, Pi ting care otal! that M2 tion of te muted ith the anetent covenant was none other than Yahws 7THE SIGN OF THE COVENANT 587 42, Ab the age of eight days, every male among you shall be clreumelsed throughout your generations, even the homeborn slave and the one bought ‘rom an outsider who is not of your seed. 43. The slave that is born in your household or bought with your money rust be oireumeised. Thus shall my eovenant be in your Mesh eternally 44, An uncircumeised male who does not elrcumelso the Desh of his fore- skin—such a person shall he cutoff from his kin; he has broken my covenant.” Structure : Introduction, part one, vss. 1 mise of progeny. Introduction, part two, vss. 7 f: Announcement of covenant—pro- mise to be Isracl’s God and to give them the Land. Introduction, part three, vss. 9-40: Command—Abraham’s duty. 4, vss. 41-44, Identification of the *ét (wehdya 161). The identi- fication of the °4t is extensively elaborated by a series of presorip- tions of various types *. 6, Funetion of the °4t; missing. c. Purpose of the *6t: missing. Announcement of covenant—pro- Preliminary remark (1). Gircumeision is called both a covenant (26% beriti, vs. 10) and sign of the covenant ("t brit, vs. 14). This dual representation is not the result of vagueness of thought (contrary to Gunkel and Skin- ner). The designation of circumcision as a covenant is a synecdoche On the basis of varying fade an onnlir layer, vet 2 dtalled prescriptions 12-13 (aingulay) and perhaps £6, (It is Intersting that he doee not use the doublet criterion to separate 3 from 10%, 40¥ from 41s, and 40® from 41%, the double eitarion is oftan capricious) Tn fac, howover, tho whol lgal sction (2-16) expt for 19s, himmll yinumdl ytd Berka dmignat Rarpeks. Since the sar dea ‘ahirha (405) occur In the plural setion, te cannot be used te aeiterion for Ie ingular section (12). Hecase of the lege nature ofthis etiology, which ests preaeip ons incumbent upon ll generations, ii formlated In the plural and is ‘fect addressed to Uhe people of Istaek sa'dhd “ebirska must remain in the singular sas it rare tothe sed of one man. Va, £30 i the only other singult formblation, and is may be a quote from an earir lngal tradition, although we cannot use the criterion grammatical umber with rigidity (e, Gen, xxx, 15, here the formula isin the plural) 16, in the thiedsingulr, fs aot toe ideniied formally wth the seoond singular wesge i, fortis in no way in tension withthe second pal ange. TL a generalized eaulstic age which may be addrassed to a group a3 Well as to an individual There may indeed be erent tcadition layers in the prestriptions, but i is unlikely that we can identify them ny purely formal erierin, But it rooms quite certain that one hand—P-is responsible for ie chapter in its prosent form. Again MeSvenus offers @ deception, for the most part nvincing, of the formal structures prsent In this chapter, whaseelaborateness and pre- ion Indicate thatthe present form i the product of individual authorship (MevexU, faratve Sie, pp. 16858 MICHAEL V. FOX for covenantal obligation, this aspect of bert being indicated by the clause *éter timer: (vs. 10)."The sentence may be translated “this ig the aspeot of my covenant that you shall keep.” The stress on you, in contrast to me (God), is evident in vs. 9, where w®attdis emphasized by being placed in frontal extraposition, corresponding to °én in vs. 48, (2). %t bertt (vs, 14) is to be understood here as in rx, 12: a reminder of the covenant. (Skinner), see above, p. 17. (@). The element of timeless permanence, essential to the *tetio logies, is emphasized here in almost every verse. The circumcision isa permanent, eternal sign, irradicablo and inreversible, both in the life of the individual and in the course of the generations. (6). Tho convenantal promises in the introduction are introduced syndotically with finite vorbs: w®arbe °aeha binad mead (vs. 2) ‘wehaytta ab hdmin géyim (vs. 4, 5-6 are an elaboration of this promise), as well as asyndotically, with an infinitive: ihyét Ika to. Tahim (vs. 7; this is not a purpose or final clause, but a nominal clause explicating bertt ‘éldm). Compare the syndetic introduction of the covenant promise in Gen., 1x, 118*. This is to say that the syndetic tlauses in xvi, 2, 40-6, and also 8, are not promises additional to the covenant (“I will establish my covenant with you and increase you, ste.”), but dofine its content. So this covenant contains three pro- ‘ices, that Abram will have great posterity, that. Yahweh (El Shaddei) will be his God, and that he will inherit the Land. ‘To whom do these promises pertain? The promise of the land and the promise of a special relation between Yahweh and Abraham's descendants can pertain only to Tsaac and his descendants. The first promise, however, includes Ishmael and the sons of Ketura: 20, T will make you exceedingly numerous. {G2 You shall be the father of a multitude of nations. 5. And you shall no longer be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for Tam making you the father of a multitude of nations. fb And T will make you exceedingly fertile, and make nations of you, and kings shall come forth from you. Vss. 2-6 by themselves can only be a promise applying to all ti ‘Abrahamic tribes, who, according to the tradition, aro circumoised tn Be xx%1, 48, the Sabbath ts nol actully called a covenant, Rather, brit 150° an nd yout ve decrilng the manner in which the Sabbath isto be kept AINE 5 5, p. Vannron, Bodelung und Stllang des Worts rye im Priesteles in ZAW, Xi, 1892, p. 9THE SIGN OF HE COVENANT. 589 ‘The commentators have understood the section in this way, and Abraham himself thought the promise belonged to Ishmael, for in ‘ss. 15-27 God has to correct his mistaken impression. This understand~ ing is correct for the section 2-6 in itself, but not for the section as it stands in P. That is to say, P took over an ancient tradition of a promise of great posterity for all the Abrahamic tribes but reinter- preted its range of application. In the following section, vss. 15-27, P reinterprets the ancient tradition by correcting Abraham’s (and, the reader's) misapprehen- sion, Note first-of all that this section reflects the structure of the first section (the introduction, vss. 1-8}—literally reflects it, for the structure of this section exactly reverses the order of the first, giving is a “palistrophe.”® ‘The palistrophic structure suggests that the second section is a comment on the first, and this is olear from the content. The promise that Abraham thought related to Ishmael actually belongs—much to Abraham’s surprise—to an unborn son, Isaao. With him, not with Ishmael, will God establish his covenant. ‘Vos. 151. deliberately transfer the blessing of 4, 5%, 6 from Ishmael to Isaac. Ishmael gets his blessing only as an afterthought (vs. 20), s.a result. of Abraham’s request, not as part of the covenant estab- lished in the first. part of the chapter. (From Ishmael, however, will come n%C'im, not méldkim.) Vs. 21 stresses that the promise belongs to Isaac: “But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear you this time next year.” Only then does the vision that hogan in xvur, 1 come to an end. So the tradition-history of Gen., xvii may be outlined as follows: a. An ancient posterity-promiso (oracle?) by El Shaddai ® common to the Abrahamic tribes, or at least applied to all the Abrahamic iribes. Vss. 2-6 can be interpreted in no other way. This tradition is tot presont in JE, but it can hardly be P's invention, for P has little interest in foreign nations. The connection of the promise of posterity ‘with circumcision belongs to this oldest stage. For several of the ttibes given Abrahamic lineage there is evidence of the practice of icumcision, namely Edom, Amon, and Moab, and “all the desert, Awvellers that out the corners of their hair” (Jer., 1x, 24 1.) The latter are associated with Tema and Dedan (Jer., xxv, 23) and Kedar (Jer-, Xurx, 28, 32), Tema and Kedar are Ishmaelite tribes (Gen., xxv, 13 f.), ‘© McRvewue, Norratize Styl, p. 458, For the desition of palistrophe see iid, p20. ‘=H Shaddai” belongs to the religious traditions of the religion group of “Webrens” (cons of Bbor, of which Terael was a part, see Mf. Hanan, The religion of che ‘tart, i ASTI, IV, 4965, p82590 MICHAEL V. FOX and Dedan was descended from Abraham through Keturah (Gop, xxv, 3). Bx, rv, 24 ff. seoms to testify to the practice among hy Midianites®. | ». P took over this old tradition of eiroumeision among the Abraham. ie tribes and incorporated it in his Abrahamic covenant, but ing | doing deliberately and explicitly permutated its original significance, webct it now nopied only to Toad. Tho od formula thet sneapeay ates the promise, whose -apothegmatic character suggests that it, ‘was originally oracular, was of some importance for P, oven after it Jost its original moaning. The formula appears with slight variations in Gen., xvit, 465 xxvin, 3; xxv, Af and xtvit, 4. The best evidenes that this formula was an ancient, independent tradition and no simply written for the sake of the context is Gen., xxxv, MM: “And God said to him [Jacob}; ‘T am El Shaddai. Bo fertilo and increase; ‘A nation, yea an assembly of nations, shall descend from you, and kings shall issue from your loins.” ” At most two nations descended from Jacob ®, but the formula clearly envisions many more, And P ‘would hardly consider the division of the Israelite kingdom and the multiplication of kings it resulted in as a blessing. ¢, Associated with the transference of the promise from the Abra- hamic tribes in general to Israel is the transference of circumcision from age thirteen years to age eight days. As wo will se later, itis probable that circumcision was originally a fertility rite astociated ‘with puberty and marriage (there was not much separation between them in ancient tribal societies). Gen., xvi (rather than Ex, 1%, 24 f.) may be in part an etiology for the transference of the rte from puberty to birth. 4. P joined to the promise of posterity two other ancient promiss, the Land and Yahweh's Godship for Israel. The promise of the Land is less ancient than the promise of Godship, for the promise of a special relationship with Yahweh is an antedating of the substance of the Sinai covenant, The promise of the Land belongs originally to the patriarchal religion, where it assured the seminomadic tribes driving toward the civilized territory that they would achieve their goal ‘These two traditions were, of course, united long before P, and they Bee, Lora, ibid, pp. 42 {and note &8. : sty lea bation 4 political designstion—not @ Kinship group, cf, B. Sexisen, "Pop jon of forac, i JBL, LXXIX, 1960, pp. 157 ser las Genesis p 198, Bul this promise may itslf be based on « tadien ot'a promise given by the’ patsiarchal deities, cf. A. Aux, The God of the Fetiet, ‘Fisape on O18 Testerent History and Religion, Oxtora, 1968, pp. 68 f "2°G. von Rav, The problem ofthe Heoatech, ia The Probes of the Hecate Bvsays, Balaburgh-London, 1966, p. 61 Js end Osey form the heart of J’s patriarchal covenant. The promise of progeny js probably more ancient than the other two promises, for in its orig- jnal form the posterity promise applied to all the Abrahamic tribes, ‘whereas the promises of the Land and Yahweh's Godship belong only to the traditions of the sons of Jacob. ‘Whatever the order of development, the posterity promise is clear- fy the most prominent one in this chapter. It is the first promise ‘to be given—the other two are appended—and it takes up five verses, as against two for the other two promises. Progeny is the focus of eoncern in Gen., xv1t, even though it is not the most important ele- mont elsewhere in P. In Ex., 11, 24-25, God remembers his covenant with the fathers and takes cognizance of Israel’ situation. The aspects of the covenant relevant here can only be the promises that Yahweh will be Israel's God and will give them the Land, becauso they have already greatly increased. When God addresses Moses in Ez., v1, 21, he says that he has remembored his covenant with the fathers tovgive them the Land. To do this, he will bring Israel out of Egypt and be their God (vs. 7). The following narrative tells how these prom- isos were fulfilled. If P decided to give such importance to the pro- geny promise in Gen., xvrt, that can only be because of the special connection between that promise and the duty prescribed as the aspect of the covenant incumbent upon Israel. We havo already suggested the possibility that one etiological ‘spect of P's reinterpretation of the progeny promise may be the transference of circumcision from puberty to birth. This would fit in with his larger purpose of reinterpreting circumcision and elim- inating its magical funetion. This purpose is accomplished above all by interpreting circumcision as an °4t, the exact signifleance of which ‘ve will now consider. First we must consider the original significance of circumcision. This is very difficult to do, because nowhere do we find the original Significance stated explicitly, and also because in the course of time additional meanings were added to it. But there are indications that ‘ireumeision was originally and essentially a fertility device associat- ed with puberty and marriage. ‘The first indicator that circumcision is essentially a fertility device (and not, say, a tribal mark) is the fact that among the tribes through- Sut the world that. practice circumeision it is with few excoptions Performed in adolescence or just before marriago™. It is often a prere- ‘THE SIGN OF THE COVENANT sot © BRE, I, p. 62,592 MICHABL V. FOX quisite for marriage. While itis doubtful thet one explanation ca sever all the varieties of this worldwide custom, it is fair to ‘ssume that fertility is one of the basic motives, if not the basic motive, "The ‘ther explanations, such as that ciroumcision is «tribal mark, test of caeetrance, ot sacrifice, do.not explain why the rite is performed on the penis. This is so oven if wo avsopt the LX reading 12, “eit down" and refer (eventhough {Aissems rather farfelched) to the Old Kingdom rile which shows a aqualting. man Performing circumeision (Hrtzberg). That doce not alimiaats the diflealty of fate. (LX Simply omits the word, but this certainly seems ta be acace where the ltl diflir isto ‘wpretred, for would be imposible to explain how the word appeared in 41) J. Basson (Greuncision, in JBL, LXV, 1966,p. 474) suggests that ia Jesh. ¥ the Tsraclites are Tadeod creumeised a “second Unie by having ther foreskins completely removed, whereas ‘evinusly they were croumclzed according to the Bgyptian method, which was supposedly Galy «dorsal incision on th fraskin. However, nowhere do wo Od a preseiption of a pro- [ir tehnigue oF aconcarn for a eeriain method of dreamison, suchas we ould expect fo fad if this were an iste "See B, Stape, Der gal dar Vorhaute’ in ZAWV, VI, 1886, pp. 492 evor piougue a859% MICHABL V. FOX How did this fortiity deviee work? Th. Ploss suggested that gin cumeition was essontially a medical operation intended to prevesy phimosis and thus ensure the greatest number of offspring ™. Bat Inost cases of phimosis could he cured by ciroumeision ofthe indiviane sufferer, it the pooples practicing eiroumeision were really eonscass of its medical value. Furthermore, if circumcision were primar preventative medicine, it would most suitably be performed in tks eonatal phase, which is rarely the case outside Israel. Nor is there evidence that it was intended to influence the will or win the favor of deity by being, for example, a sacrifice to the goddess of frtity designed to win her favor in the production of offspring ™, Creum. cision was rarely associated with a specific deity or deities. What’ nore, ceumoision is rarely associated with distinctly religious eae. ronies, this being known only among the Jews, the New Caledonians the Fijians and possibly the Totonacs™. Furthermore, virtually howhore outside Israelis there any attempt to explain the origin of Ciroumeision or give ita rationale. The very vagueness and anonym: ity surrounding eiroumeision suggest that circumcision belongs ta tiv realm of magic, the attempt to compel the nameless Power that js above and behind deity as well as man, In Gen, xvit wo got one of the few glimpses into the nature and function of eiroumoision, yet this too is not clear and expliit, for roacons we vill ae shortly. In Gen., xv1r, P is once agein renter proting an old rite with a view of removing its magical overtones. He Toes this by designating tho rite as an °ét but here alone of all the priestly °étetiologis he does not tell us the function and purpose Uf the “st, but only identifies it at length Why does P's preciso and strict sokoma fail him here? Even in iVum., xvi, 25, which isnot a tomploto etiology, he gives element (the purpose, viz, ation), although he omits b (cognition), which is at any rate obvious. Else whore all three etiological elements, identification, function, and purpose, are stated explicitly. There must be something in the function and purpose of this particular 26 that made him avoid stating these elements. Hore we may use an argument er silentio, justified because P is so careully not silent with regard to these elements in the other “de ctiologes. T suggest that circumcision is a cognition siga—like the th. Puoss, Des Kind, Berlin, £892, p. 964; Ton, Caehishliches und Eibacloisct ther Rnabenbeschnidung, Loipai, 185. °F Contrary to G. A. Baaons 4 Shetek of Semitic Origins, New York, 1902, pp. 98 0 MERE, TH, p. 682.THE IGN OF THE COVENANT 595 ather °416t in P—whose function is to remind God to keep his promise of posterity. P understandably felt it incongruous’ to express elements jjand cin fall, to say, for example: “When I seo it I will remember the «everlasting covenant between me and you and I will make you increase qsoeedingly.” In plain language that means that God will see the Jsradite’s circumcised penis during or before sexual congress and wil remember to keep his covenant by making the union a fruitful qno. P is led to this interpretation by his having fit the rite of cir- gumeision into his *ét-etiology schema, but he understandably finds it inappropriate to give the schema in full. No other understanding afthe function of this °4¢ can explain why here alone he avoids giving the whole schema. The schema has attained independent force. Orig- jnally the means of expressing an interpretation of some phenome- gon, it becomes an independent agent dictating the interpretation. Lat. us consider the other possible interpretations of this “ét. It is not a proof sign, because it has no inner persuasive force, and there ji no hint that it is supposed to convince anyone of anything; if {hit were s0, the narrator would have to say what is to be proved, and there is no reason why he would not say it. Nor is it a symbol siga, for it does not convey knowledge by some inner resemblance to that which is to be known. Tt is not an identity sign designating one asbelonging to the covenanted people, for first of all no one would sec it, (There is no point in referring the custom to a time when people ‘went naked, for that custom is certainly not relevant for P, and even in earliest times Israelites did not go naked.) Anyway it would not, he of much use in distinguishing the Israclites from their neighbors, hecause many of them were also circumcised. And Ishmael, who as Pttakes pains to emphasize is not part of the covenant, is also circum- ised. For practical purposes circumcision could at most. distinguish ‘the Israelites from the Philistines, who are not an issue for P. However, itis true that circumcision can secondarily effect a heightening of ttibal consciousness and can be used, as in Hellenistic and Roman ‘times, to identify a member of the people, if someone is intent: upon doing so. The circumcision is an °4t b¢rtt in the sense thet it is a reminder of tho covenant, like the rainbow. Like the rainbow, it is a reminder to God, not man, and as wo have seen, P believes in the need for remind- fs to God. We cannot suppose that it is a reminder to the Israelites to fulfil some duty, because this covenant requires nothing of Israel ther than circumeision, and circumcision cannot be a reminder of itseli. If the purpose of circumcision is to remind man to perform some596 MICHAEL V. Fox action, the reader could have no idea what is meant, sinco nothin of the sort is hinted at in this chapter. But he could understand wheg js alluded to if the purpose of circumcision is fertility, because that is the main subject of the introduction. (But, in fact, the offen, tiveness of cioumoison asa fertility device would not be dependent ‘on the Israclite’s comprehension of its meaning, so the writer woutd not be obliged to make it explicit.) And circumcision can ensung progeny only by influencing God's will ‘The covenant in Gen., xvitis not conditional—it will not be cancelled because of Israel's behavior—but it does have a condition, namely ‘that the individual Israelite do his part to aid God in fulfilling his part, in the same way that he must aid God by the pascal blood, Ifhe neglects this duty he will naturally be cut off from the covenantal blessing (xvut, 44), just as he would naturally suffer the consequences of his noglect if he failed to daub the doorpost with blood, without ‘any juridical action, divine or human, being necessary to effect the punishment. In Gen., xvit P is doing what we have seen him do in the other >éeotiologies. He is eliminating the magical or mythic significance of an ancient phenomenon by converting it into a cognition sign, Ho may be carrying this conversion further by moving cireumeision from puberty or marriage to birth, thus telling us that there is no direct connection between circumcision and fertility, but only an indi- rect connection through the mediation of God's covenant. Of course his logic is not unassailable. A modern might argue that if God needs a cognition sign he is not truly omniscient, and if he is not omniscient how can he see this sign in the usual circumstances in which coitus is performed? But there is no reason to assume that God's powers of sight and knowledge could not extend to such ci- cumstances, and at any rate P is not always strictly logical in his explanations of tho function of the °4tdt. The rainbow could not really function in the way it is said to, because it appears after the storm has ended. In faot the slight incongruities in the logic of P's intorprotations of the signs shows that he is not creating them for tho sake of the context. He is taking already existent phenomena and not totally eliminating their original meaning, but rather permuting that meaning by fitting it into his -schema, Such a combination cannot result in perfect consistency. Michael V. Fox.