Laie - Sinai Theology in Dialog with Zion Theology through Nahum 1

2017·1.8 MB·English

by  Benjamin Laie

SINAI THEOLOGY IN DIALOG WITH ZION THEOLOGY THROUGH NAHUM 1

A Dissertation
presented to
the Faculty of the
Claremont School of Theology

In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy

by
Benjamin Taufoua Laie
May 2017
© 2017

Benjamin Taufoua Laie

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
NT S C HOOL OF
T
O H
M E
O
E L
R O
A G
L Y
C
1885

This dissertation completed by

BENJAMIN TAUFOUA LAIE

has been presented to and accepted by the
faculty of Claremont School of Theology in
partial fulfillment of the requirements of the

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Faculty Committee
Dr. Marvin A. Sweeney, Chairperson
Dr. Tammi J. Schneider
Dr. Jon L. Berquist

Dean of the Faculty
Sheryl A. Kujawa-Holbrook

May 2017
ABSTRACT

Sinai Theology in Dialog with Zion Theology Through Nahum 1
By
Benjamin Taufoua Laie
Claremont School of Theology

The acrostic poem in Nahum 1 has unfortunately not yet found a rightful place in the
book of Nahum. It is not finding its place in four ways: its similarity to foreign materials; its
incompleteness to be considered an acrostic poem; the mixture of personal forms; and the
mixture of perfect and imperfect verbs. In past scholarship, these issues suffice to consider
Nahum 1 a composite work. This dissertation addresses these shortcomings by employing the
new face of form criticism to engage both literary and historical analyses to reach a more
comprehensive understanding of the function of Nahum 1 in relation to the Sitz im Leben of the
seventh century B.C.E era, rather than to be considered as a later insertion.
Based on the literary features of Nahum 1 and the Sitz im Leben of the seventh century,
Nahum 1 presents a coherent structure. The nuances of Nahum 1 clearly make sense in the
historical context of the seventh century, especially after Judah have been suffering under
Assyrian hegemony for almost two centuries. The mixed forms (persons and verbs) are not
redactional layers, but signs of Nahum being specific. This dissertation will attempt to
demonstrate the coherent structure of Nahum 1 and its clear reflection on the social and political
realities in Judah during the Iron Age period.
Acknowledgements
There is a Samoan saying that goes: “Ole tele o popo e sua ai le lolo.” The English
translation of this saying would be “many coconuts make more cream.” Coconut is an important
plant in Samoa for food, cultural events, house buildings, mechanical, weaving, trading product,
cosmetic, medicinal, and many other purposes. This is why the coconut tree in Samoa is called
the “Tree of life.” However, the saying is not meant to emphasize its various uses, but the
gathering of many coconuts to accomplish the purpose of a coconut. Without a great amount of
bodies to gather numerous coconuts, the goal of a coconut would not be accomplished.
My utmost gratitude to God and his faithfulness throughout my whole life. I am indebted
to the EFKAS, Board of Regents- faculty of the Kanana Fou Theological Seminary, and the
Claremont School of Theology, where I was privileged to study over the years. This journey has
provided me with the wisdom and courage to pursue my passion in the Hebrew Bible.
In particular, I have had the honor to learn under the instructions of Rev. Tafailiematagi
Muasau, Rev. Mamoe Mamoe Jr, Rev. Fa’atauva’a Alaelua, Rev. Nafatali Falealii, Rev. Luaao
Leasiolagi, Rev. Reupena Alo, Rev. Tautua Amosa, Rev. Folauga Tupuola, Rev. Iosefa Autele,
Rev. Eleasaro Fa’ata’a. Rev. Viliamu Leilua, Rev. Tafale Fuiava, Rev. Ekitoa Sopoaga, Rev.
Lalomauga Paau, Rev. Sepulona Tanuvasa, Rev. Matapo’o Peniamina, Rev. Samuelu Mauga,
Rev. Elder Vaela’a Taula, Dr. Sekuini Seva’aetasi, Dr. Moreli Niuatoa, Dr. John Strazicich, Dr.
Ho Kim, Dr. Tony Hollister, and Dr. Donald Samuel.
Above all, I must pay homage to my dissertation committee, including my academic
advisor Marvin A. Sweeney’s endless support and advice throughout my studies here at
Claremont School of Theology. His expertise in the form critical method and its new face has
convinced me that Form Criticism will always remain an essential reading to the Hebrew Bible. I
v
am proud to call him my Doktorvater. Tammi J. Schneider’s fortitude has taught me to work
harder and harder. Her expertise in the ancient Near Eastern studies has convinced me that the
Hebrew Bible will always remain vague without acknowledging the ancient Near Eastern
literatures. Jon L. Berquist’s expertise in the social world of the Hebrew Bible has been
tremendously helpful to understand what life was like in ancient Israel. For these reasons, I am
proud to shout aloud that I am fortunate to have these top-notch scholars as my dissertation
committee.
Special thanks to my colleagues and friends in the Hebrew Bible program – Nick
Pumphrey, Nancy Meyer, Gavrielle Blank, Jason Tron, Inchol Yang, Soo Kim, Edens Elveus,
Seongeun Jeong, Christopher Clarke, Emmanuel Ukaegbu-Onuoha, Tim Seals, Dr. Pam Nourse,
Nick Pappani, Shelley Birdsong, Chris Clarke, Kyunsik Park, Koog Hong, Beau Harris, and
Leah Laird.
Next, I am forever indebted to my family, friends, and the EFKAS, whose prayers and
support gave me courage. My parents, my late father, Taufoua Asoau Laie and mother Elisapeta
Fano Laie, instilled within me the love of education and that the sky is the limit. Thanks to both
of their families here and abroad for their support. Also, a big thank you to my wife’s family for
their support, including my late mother-in-law, Tavu’i Lene Seanoa, whose wisdom and
knowledge have instilled in us the love with no boundaries.
Last but not least, I must thank my wife Nunuiasolelei Laie and our four children:
Gracelene, Eliana, Lupefa’alele and Taufoua for their support and patience during this long
journey. My wife was the backbone to this long journey. For her wise advice and encouragement
when I’m down and especially the challenges I have faced during this journey, I am forever
thankful. Without her, this journey would never have come to its completion.
vi
CONTENTS

Abstract
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………...v-vi
Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………………vii-ix

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………1
1.1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………..1-6
1.2. Evidence of the Problem: A History of Research………………………………..6-10
1.3. A Solution to the Problem………………………………………………………10-17
1.4. Limit and Scope……………………………………………………………………...7
1.5. Methodology and Its Historical Development: Form Criticism………………...17-18
1.5.1. Wilhelm and Jacob Grimm (1800’s) …………………………………18-19
1.5.2. Hermann Gunkel (1901) ……………………………………………...19-20
1.5.3. Sigmund Mowinckel (1921) ………………………………………….20-21
1.5.4. Claus Westermann (1991) ……………………………………………21-22
1.5.5. James Muilenburg (1969) …………………………………………….22-23
1.5.6. Ferdinand de Saussure (1916) and Wolfgang Richter (1970’s)………23-24
1.5.7. Rolf Knierim (1973) ………………………………………………….24-26
1.5.8. Marvin A. Sweeney (2014) …………………………………………..26-31
1.6. Relevancy of the new face of Form Criticism to Nahum 1………………………...31
1.7. Overview of the Study………………………………………………………….32-33
CHAPTER TWO: A FORM CRITICAL READING OF NAHUM 1:1-15……………………34
2.1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………..34-36
2.2. Nahum 1:1-15 Structural Analysis……………………………………………...36-38
2.3. Superscription (1:1) ………………………………………………………………..39
2.3.1 Structure / Form …………………………………………………………..39
2.3.2. Genre……………………………………………………………………..40
2.3.3. Setting………………………………………………………………...40-42
2.3.4. Narratological…………………………………………………………43-44
2.3.5. Interpretation………………………………………………………….44-53
2.4. Interpretation of Past Events (1:2-5) ………………………………………………53
2.4.1. Structure / Form………………………………………………………53-54
2.4.2. Genre………………………………………………………………….54-56
2.4.3. Setting…………………………………………………………………….56
2.4.4. Rhetorical……………………………………………………………..57-61
2.4.5. Narratological…………………………………………………………61-64
2.4.6. Intertextuality……………………………………………………………..64
2.4.7. Interpretation……………………………………………………………...65
2.5. The Omnipotent Control of Yahweh over Assyria (1:6-8) ………………………...66
2.5.1. Structure / Form……………………………………………………….66-72
2.5.2. Genre…………………………………………………………………..73-74
2.5.3. Setting…………………………………………………………………74-75
2.5.4. Rhetorical…………………………………………………………………76
2.5.5. Narratological…………………………………………………………76-77
2.5.6. Intertextuality……………………………………………………………..77
vii
2.5.7. Interpretation…………………………………………………………..77-78
2.6. Theodicy Issues (1:9-11) …………………………………………………………...79
2.6.1. Structure / Form……………………………………………………….79-80
2.6.2. Genre…………………………………………………………………..80-81
2.6.3. Setting…………………………………………………………………81-83
2.6.4. Rhetorical……………………………………………………………...83-85
2.6.5. Narratological……………………………………………………………..85
2.6.6. Intertextuality………………………………………………………….85-86
2.6.7. Interpretation…………………………………………………………..86-88
2.7. Oracle of Salvation for Judah (1:12-15) ……………………………………………89
2.7.1. Structure /Form………………………………………………………..89-92
2.7.2. Genre…………………………………………………………………..92-93
2.7.3. Setting…………………………………………………………………93-95
2.7.4. Rhetorical……………………………………………………………....95-96
2.7.5. Narratological………………………………………………………….96-98
2.7.6. Intertextuality……………………………………………………………...98
2.7.7. Interpretation…………………………………………………………99-101
CHAPTER THREE: TRADITIONS IN ANCIENT ISRAEL AND JUDAH…………………102
3.1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………...102-104
3.2. Sinai and Zion Traditions ……………………………………………………..104-111
3.3. Are Traditions Reliable? Why were they Important? ………………………..111-115
3.4. Traditions in Pre-Monarchical Age…………………………………………..115-120
3.5. Traditions During and Post-Monarchy: Disunity Amongst the People……….121-126
3.6. Prophetic Usage of Traditions: Confliction…………………………………...126-132
3.7. How were both traditions available in Judah during Nahum?..........................132-135
3.8. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………135-137
CHAPTER FOUR: PENTATEUCHAL AND OTHER CITATIONS AS RHETORICAL
DEVICES IN NAHUM 1:1-15………………………………………………………………...138
4.1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………...138-141
4.2. Rhetorical Criticism and Nahum 1…………………………………………...141-142
4.3. Past Scholarship on the Allusions in Nahum 1……………………………….143-144
4.4. Pentateuchal and Other Biblical Allusions in Nahum 1…………………………..144
4.4.1. Nahum 1:2 – A Righteous God……………………………………..144-147
4.4.2. Nahum 1:3a-b – A Powerful God……………………………………147-149
4.4.3. Nahum 1:4a1 – Crossing of the Red Sea……………………………149-151
4.4.4. Nahum 1:4a2 – Crossing of the Jordan River………………………151-152
4.4.5. Nahum 1:4b1 – Bashan and Carmel Events………………………..152-156
4.4.5.1. The Bashan Event – Numbers 21………………………...156-158
4.4.5.2. The Carmel Event – 1 Kings 18………………………….158-162
4.4.6. Nahum 1:4b2 – the bloom of Lebanon fade………………………...163-165
4.4.7. Nahum 1:15 – Sinai and Zion in Dialog…………………………...165-168
4.5. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………168-171
CHAPTER FIVE: JUDAH’S POLITICAL STATUS DURING THE IRON AGE…………..172
5.1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………..172-176
5.2. A Brief History of the Neo-Assyrian Empire in Relation to Israel’s
Iron Age Period………………………………………………………………176-179
viii
5.2.1. Assyria and Babylon……………………………………………….179-181
5.3. Early Ninth Century BCE………………………………………………………...181
5.3.1. Shalmaneser III (858-824 BCE) …………………………………..181-187
5.3.2. Adad-Nirari III (811-783 BCE) …………………………………...188-196
5.4. Latter Half of Eighth Century BCE………………………………………….196-197
5.4.1. Tiglath-pileser III (744-727 BCE) ………………………………...197-200
5.4.2. Shalmaneser V (726-722 BCE) and Sargon II (721-705 BCE)……200-202
5.4.3. Sennacherib (704-681 BCE) ………………………………………203-205
5.5. Seventh Century BCE…………………………………………………………….205
5.5.1. Esarhaddon (680-669 BCE) ………………………………………205-207
5.5.2. Assurbanipal (668-627 BCE) ……………………………………..207-210
5.6. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………...210-211
CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………..212
6.1. Nahum 1 and the Sitz im Leben of Judah in the seventh century BCE………212-213
6.2. Nahum 1 and the Twelve Prophets…………………………………………..214-217
6.3. Nahum 1:15 (MT: 2:1) Influence on Isaiah 52:7…………………………….217-219
6.4. Nahum 1’s Influence on Isaiah 55……………………………………………219-221
6.5. A Theological Overview of Nahum 1………………………………………..221-223
BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………...224-241

ix