A Short Introduction to the Scholarship of Daniel Bodi

    There are three principal reasons why the scholarship of Daniel Bodi deserves to be better known. First of all, Bodi is not afraid to offer bold hypotheses, plough new ground, and make fresh connections. If only more biblical scholars fit this mold. Not all of Bodi’s hypotheses are convincing, but one is always grateful for the verve with which they are presented.

    Secondly, as Jeremy Hutton points out in his review of Bodi’s latest volume, The Demise of the Warlord: A New Look at the David Story (Hebrew Bible Monographs 26; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2010) [a close reading of 2 Sam 11-12, a fact one could not guess from the book’s title], “Bodi demonstrates a solid and diverse knowledge of previous interpretations (both modern and rabbinic), deep familiarity with ancient Near Eastern cognate literature, and a keenly sensitive reader’s eye.” That’s a winning combination. A broad interdisciplinary approach is fruitful if and only if the researcher who adopts it is sufficiently grounded in the languages and concepts of the primary sources. Bodi qualifies.

    Thirdly, Bodi’s scholarship attempts to exemplify what might be termed the “Moshe Held principle”, to wit, that “if one can show how insights gained from the study of newly discovered ancient Near Eastern texts have been anticipated by medieval rabbis who did not have access to these buried ancient Semitic documents, then the probability that one’s interpretation is plausible may be increased” (quoted by Hutton from p. 4 of Bodi, op. cit.).¹ The premise is that there is a native tradition of biblical interpretation; it deserves attention and is an important resource for historical interpretation in the modern sense.

    I could not locate a comprehensive bibliography of Bodi’s scholarship. Here is what I came up with.

Daniel Bodi Bibliography

The Book of Ezekiel and the Poem of Erra (OBO 104; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991) [reviews inter alia by J. N. Postgate in VT and Michael S. Moore in JBL]; "Les expressions פגרי מלכיהם dans Ez 43, 7b.9 et פגרי גלוליהם dans Lv 26,30 à la lumière des termes akkadiens pagrû(m)/pagra’u(m) et maliku(m) des textes de Mari," in Lectio difficilior probabilior? L'exégèse comme expérience de décloisonnement. Mélanges offerts à Françoise Smyth-Florentin (Thomas Römer, ed.; Dielheimer Blätter zum Alten Testament und seiner Rezeption in der Alten Kirche 12; Heidelberg: Wiss.-theol. Seminar, 1991) 87-101; “Der altorientalische Hintergrund des Themas der ‘Ströme lebendigen Wassers’ in Joh 7,38,” in Johannes-Studien. Interdisziplinäre Zugänge zum Johannes-Evangelium. Freundesgabe der Theologischen Fakultät der Universität Neuchâtel für Jean Zumstein (Martin Rose, ed.; Zürich: TVZ, 1991) 137-158; “Les gillûlîm chez Ézéchiel et dans l'Ancien Testament, et les différentes pratiques associées à ce terme,” RB 100 (1993) 481-510; “Le livre d'Ézéchiel et le Poème d'Erra,” ETR 68 (1993) 1-24; “La tragédie de Mikal en tant que critique de la monarchie israélite et préfiguration de sa fin,” Foi et vie 95 (1996) 65-105; “Polarité dialectique: Cheminer sur la route ou construire la cité?” Études théologiques et religieuses 72 (1997) 3-25; "Le prophète critique la monarchie: le terme nāśī’ chez Ézéchiel," in Prophètes et rois: Bible et Proche-Orient (André Lemaire, ed.; Lectio Divina hors série; Paris: Cerf, 2001) 249-257; “La clémence des Perses envers Néhémie et ses compatriotes: faveur ou opportunisme politique?” Transeuphratène 21 (2001) 69-86; Petite grammaire de l'Akkadien à l'usage des debutants (Paris: Geuthner, 2001); Jérusalem à l’époque perse: "Levons-nous et bâtissons!" (Paris: Geuthner, ²2006 [2002]); “Bible et littérature--Erich Auerbach et les débuts de la method,” Revue des études juives 161 (2002) 465-473; “Outraging the Resident-Alien: King David, Uriah the Hittite, and an El-Amarna Parallel,” UF 35 (2004 [2003]) 29-56 [pdf here]; “Corporation des charmeurs de serpents à Jérusalem à l'époque de Néhémie et en Babylonie,” Transeuphratène 28 (2004) 49-66; The Michal Affair, From Zimri-Lim to the Rabbis (Hebrew Bible Monographs 3; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2005) [reviews inter alia by Mark Chavalas in JNES, Zev Garber in CBQ; Eric Ortlund in ET, Peter Mischall in Bible and Critical Theory, and Nathan MacDonald in JSOT]; “Une locution proverbiale à Mari, El-Amarna et dans la Bible,” Journal Asiatique 29 (2006) 39-52; “Was Abigail a Scarlet Woman? A Point of Rabbinic Exegesis in light of Comparative Material,” in Stimulation from Leiden: Collected Communications to the XVIIIth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Leiden 2004 (Matthias Augustin und H. Michael Niemann, eds.; Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentums 54; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2006) 67-79; “Les problèmes de la version grecque du livre d’Ezéchiel,” Semitica 52-53 (2005-2007) 57-81; “A Biblical Aramaic Hapax Legomenon yahîtû (Ezra 4:12) in the Light of Akkadian and Aramaic Texts,” Transeuphratène 34 (2007) 51-63; “Néhémie ch. 3 et la charte des bâtisseurs d'une tablette néobabylonienne de l'époque perse,” Transeuphratène 35 (2008) 55-70; “Ezekiel,” in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel (John H. Walton, gen. ed.; Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009) 400-516; The Demise of the Warlord: A New Look at the David Story (Hebrew Bible Monographs 26; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2010) [reviews by Jeremy Hutton and Peter Miscall; TOC here]; “Les apocalypses akkadiennes et bibliques: quelques points communs,” Revue des études juives 169 (2010) 13-36; “La crise économique et sociale à Athènes de Solon en 590 av. notre ère et à Jérusalem de Néhémie en 445: Comparaisons et contrastes,” Transeuphratène 40 (2011) 33-45

Note 

¹ The premier example of the Moshe Held principle involves the interpretation of the grammar of Gen 1:1-3: following the discovery of Enuma Elish (“When on high …”) and the Atrahasis Epic (“When the gods were like men …”), the interpretation of Gen 1:1-2 (“When God began to create”) as stage-setting for the first mainline event of Gen 1, “God said, ‘Let there be light’” (Gen 1:3), a view already advanced by Rashi, became more plausible. A host of modern interpreters, with or without knowledge or dependence on the discoveries, and with or without knowledge of Rashi’s interpretation, construe likewise (inter alia Heinrich Ewald, Max Geiger, Karl Budde, William Foxwell Albright, Otto Eissfeldt, Siegfried Herrmann, Harry M. Orlinsky, Ephraim A. Speiser, and Francis I. Andersen). I describe (but do not argue for) the “new-old” understanding of Gen 1:1-3 in a “Technical Note” here. Robert Holmstedt offers an analysis in terms of a type of relative clause: go here and here for online discussion).

For a discussion of rabbinic interpretations of the passage in question, see Peter Schäfer, “Berēšit bārā ‘Elōhīm. Zur Interpretation von Gen 1:1 in der rabbinischen Literatur,” JSJ 2 (1971) 161–66. On this view, Gen 1:1-3 finds its closest analogues in Gen 2:4b-7 and Hos 1:4. For variations on this understanding which however miss the fact that the wayyiqtol marks the matrix clause or mainline event, see Ibn Ezra and, among moderns, Paul Humbert, "Trois Notes sur Genèse I," Interpretationes ad Vetus Testamentum Pertinentes Sigmundo Mowinckel Septuagenario Missae ( = NTT 56 [1955]; Nils A. Dahl and Arvid S. Kapelrud, eds.; Olso: Forlaget Land og Kirche, 1955) 85-96 (ET here), repr. in idem, Opuscules d'un hébraïsant (Mémoires de l'université de Neuchâtel 26; Neuchâtel: Secrétariat de l'université; 1958) 193-203; idem, “Encore le premier mot de la Bible: à propos d'un article de M Walther Eichrodt,” ZAW 76 (1964) 121–31; and Walter Gross, “Syntaktische Erscheinungen am Anfang althebräischer Erzählungen: Hintergrund und Vordergrund,“ in Congress Volume: Vienna (John A. Emerton, ed.; VTSup 32; Leiden: Brill, 1981) 131-145. For the alternative view that Gen 1:1 represents an independent clause, see John H. Walton, Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011 [I thank James Spinti for sending me a PDF of this important volume]) 123-127, and bibliography cited.

Comments

[TheraP]

From the review you've linked to:

"the principle of divine retribution for wrongdoing is not an invention of Hebrew literature but is rather a much older, demonstrably Amorite, Weltanschauung, one that may be found in later Greek and Egyptian texts as well."

I can't cite Rabbis for this, but I submit that the "principle" is learned in childhood, where indeed "wrongdoing" is (generally) swiftly punished and "rightdoing" is (somehow) rewarded. Couple that with the fact that children base their own view of God on their parents. It's a belief from childhood, which tends to stick around for a lifetime - in spite of all subsequent evidence to the contrary. And I bet even the Rabbis might be persuaded to agree!

Synchronicity: I am just now working my way through the Samuels - in an effort to glean wisdom therefrom. And John, if you ever have a chance, I'd appreciate your own view of how similar (at least to me) the "historical" books of the Hebrew Bible appear to the checkered history of Christianity. I suspect the Hebrew Bible's wisdom is about all we have to fall back on (at times) when faced with the discord so evident over the past 2000 years. (Ok, I also think the "footwashing" from John's Gospel is meant to point us to a solution - and I don't discount all the wisdom in the New Testament, of course.) But I myself always cringe at the irony of "one" and "catholic" in the Creed we profess.

[JohnFH]

Hi Thera,

Happy New Year, first of all.

I agree with you that the principle of divine retribution is close to being an anthropological constant. It is not just the experience of retribution at the hands of parents and teachers that incline us to adhere to such a principle. The concept of desert is extremely ramified on closer inspection and has deep roots, not only in the human psyche and in the dynamics of "family systems," but in the very structure of existence. Or so it seems to me.

The following concepts form the background against which the kind of ethical closure people tend to expect is intelligible.

(1) A self is constituted by its history of moral agency.

(2) A wrongdoer’s wrong confers an unfair advantage on the wrongdoer. Deserved punishment is symmetrical; it inflicts a proportionate disadvantage on the wrongdoer.

(3) The past extends its normative reach into the future.

(4) A future event may rectify an event of the past.

The four points I list (which I adapt from a dry but helpful book by George Sher) are of course difficult to reconcile in practice. On the ground they often stand in tension with one another.

The narrative of the books of Samuel brings deep structures of human existence to the surface in a compelling way. Saul and David are characters of great psychological complexity. Their issues are never resolved in a Hollywood ending sort of way. It's disconcerting.

At the same time, the gates of hell never quite prevail against the qahal of the old covenant. Presumably then, there is a minimum of hope for the ecclesia of the new covenant, which is anything but "one" and "catholic" except in the dimension of the "invisible church."

No wonder the distinction between a visible and an invisible church was leveraged early on, in the first centuries of the church's existence, and among the Reformers, Protestant and Catholic, of the 16th century.

[TheraP]

What a wonderful comment, John! And thanks for the reminder of the "invisible church". What else for a God of Mystery but a church of mystery?

"deep structures of human existence" - Now there's an interesting book title - which covers more than just the Samuels.

I am ever amazed at your intellectual/moral/spiritual reach! Your parishioners, your friends and family, and your readers are greatly in your debt.

[Steve]

I greatly recommend the book ‘The Book of Ezekiel and the Poem of Erra’ by this author. It is a thorough examination of the quite easily overlooked mentions found in Ezekiel that when put in their correct historical context can shed a lot of light on the true meaning of the sometimes complex symbolism and numerological reference found in this scripture.

The comparison Bodi makes between the "7 Slayers" of Ezekiel and the Babylonian Sibitti/"The Seven" which is now known from cuneiform mythos such as The Poem Of Erra is utterly fascinating. The Sibitti were roughly the 7 demons of judgement in the Old Babylonian Astral demonological pantheon (to put it simply) and understanding their role in this deepest of beliefs from Mesopotamia can not only shed a light on Ezekiel, but may render a better understanding of certain aspects of Jewish Mysticism and Gnostic sects who have demonologies of judgement so similar as to render them a continuance of the Old Babylonian astral religions mixed with 1st Millennium BC Judaism.

In my opinion, the fact that the composition of The Poem Of Erra is very similar to Ezekiel is in no way an indictment that Ezekiel is in some way a regurgitation of Mesopotamian literature, but simply proof of a cross pollination of ideology and influence that the Bible itself suggests was present amongst the learned of the East.

A great read, and I agree that this author is under rated and that his commentary and cross disciplinary approach is most welcome in Biblical scholarship and too rare in my opinion. Modern Assyriologists who are interested in comparative mythologies are always too quick to reduce the Hebrew Bible to a secondary source when trying to analyse Mesopotamian literature (if in fact they make any comparisons at all), when in fact this is to their detriment and a handicap as the Hebrew Bible is the ONLY living document that didn't end up in the dirt and buried by the sands of time, and it time and time again stands the scrutiny of sceptics as a historical, theological and philosophical commentary on one of the most important cultures to ever imprint itself on the world mind; Israel.