Humility and instruction in Zephaniah 3.1-7

Abstract

The rapid and unmarked transition from the oracle against Assyria/Nineveh in Zephaniah 2.13-15 to the condemnation of Jerusalem in 3.1-7 rhetorically underscores the deep and troubling continuity between Jerusalem and Assyria/Nineveh. This article examines this continuity in light of two important elements of the book of Zephaniah: the depiction of Assyria (and those nations aligned with it) as prideful and the scribal character of 3.1-7. The finding is that Zeph. 3.1-7 presents Jerusalem and its leaders as paralleling the arrogant Assyrians and like-minded nations in a way that spurs Zephaniah’s exilic scribal audience to adopt a fundamental attitude of humility. Such humility accepts the authority of Yahwistic teachers and instructional texts in order to avoid future judgment against Jerusalem. In a scribal context, repudiating Assyrian-style pride may also entail rejecting education (putatively) aligned with Assyria/Babylon.

Keywords

Assyria Book of the Four Book of the Twelve curriculum education exile humility pride scribalism Zephaniah

1. Introduction

The condemnation of Jerusalem and its leadership in Zeph. 3.1-7 comes after the oracles against the nations (OAN) in 2.4-15, specifically after the oracle against Assyria/Nineveh in 2.13-15. Surprisingly, the transition to Jerusalem in 3.1 is sudden yet not explicitly marked, rhetorically suggesting that there is much continuity between Jerusalem and Nineveh.¹ Although numerous scholars point to the rhetorical effects of this transition on the characterization of Jerusalem, this article examines such ambiguity in light of two important elements of the book of Zephaniah: the depiction of Assyria (and those nations aligned with it) as prideful and the scribal character of 3.1-7 at the end of Zephaniah and the exilic Book of the Four.² More specifically, this article argues that Zeph. 3.1-7 rhetorically presents Jerusalem and its leaders as paralleling the arrogant Assyrians in a way that spurs its exilic scribal audience to adopt a fundamental attitude of humility. Such humility accepts the authority of Yahwistic teachers and pedagogical texts instead of exhibiting destructive Assyrian-style pride. Indeed, in view of the scribal context of the book of Zephaniah, the critique of Assyrian pride could also entail repudiating the Mesopotamian scribal establishment.

This article begins by examining the rhetorical significance of the placement of Zeph. 3.1-7 immediately after the OAN in 2.4-15. It then explores the characterization of Assyria as prideful before showing how this same pride is a component of the behavior and attitude of Jerusalem and its leaders in 3.1-7. The final section investigates the pride/humility motif in relation to the character of the exilic book of Zephaniah as a scribal text.

2. Rhetorical significance of the placement of Zeph. 3.1-7

The placement of the condemnation of Jerusalem in Zeph. 3.1-7 immediately after the OAN rhetorically characterizes Jerusalem as similar to Nineveh. Prophetic books in the Hebrew Bible generally take on a two-part or three-part structure consisting of words of doom against the prophet’s own people, (often) words against the nations, and a proclamation of salvation. In an influential 1979 essay, Walther Zimmerli analyzes these structures, noting that the books of Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Zephaniah and the Greek version of Jeremiah all exemplify the three-part form.³ Scholars commonly apply this tripartite structure to Zephaniah.⁴ At the same time, researchers recognize that Zephaniah in its final form clearly cannot be a straightforward example of this structure, as words against Jerusalem in 3.1-7 come between the OAN in 2.4-15 and the words of salvation in 3.9-20.⁵ Wilhelm Rudolph’s commentary, for instance, struggles with how to define the relation between Zephaniah and the three-part scheme.⁶ He settles on a more complicated arrangement that includes going from the oracles against Judah (1.2-2.3) to the OAN (2.4-15) to the oracle against Jerusalem (3.1-7) back to the condemnation of the nations (3.8). Rolf Rendtorff’s influential introduction to the Old Testament also recognizes that the threefold structure does not suit Zephaniah and that the book should instead be understood as ‘a catena-like composition’.⁷ Bernard Renaud’s commentary similarly dispenses with the tripartite division, noting that the other sections of Zephaniah are also not uniform; the judgment in the first section encompasses much more than just Judah (1.2-3, 17-18), and the next section speaks of a remnant of Judah (2.7, 9).⁸

James D Nogalski’s study of the Book of the Twelve suggests that the editors of Zephaniah placed Zeph. 3.1-7 after the OAN because of the similar location of the condemnation of Israel after the OAN in Amos 1.3-2.16.⁹ The connection with Amos is especially significant in Nogalski’s view because Zephaniah is part of the ‘Deuteronomistic Corpus’ that encompasses both Amos and Zephaniah.¹⁰ Indeed, scholars regularly understand Zeph. 3.1-7*, along with 2.3* and 1.1, 4-18*, to be part of the Deuteronomistic editing of Zephaniah in conjunction with the Book of the Four.¹¹ Many scholars, thus, now agree that the order of the oracles in Amos 1.3-2.16 directly influenced the book of Zephaniah.¹²

Yet, Zeph. 2.4-3.7 also differs significantly from Amos in that the addressee in Zeph. 3.1-7 is ambiguous. Amos 2.6—the beginning of the surprising oracle against Israel—follows the same structure as the preceding oracles, and the name Israel appears as the fourth word in the oracle. By contrast, the term Judah/Jerusalem never appears in Zeph. 3.1-7, and readers of the final form of Zephaniah must wait for the first explicit mention of ‘Jerusalem’ in 3.14.¹³ This absence becomes even more salient in light of the cases when a new addressee is introduced in the OAN (2.4-15). In the woe in 2.5, the addressee—the inhabitants of the seacoast (ישׁבי חבל הים‎)—appears immediately following the ‘woe’.¹⁴ By contrast, Zeph. 3.1 begins with ‘woe’ (הוי‎) but does not specify the addressee immediately. Even the oracles without woes in 2.4-15 (namely, 2.4, 8, 12, 13) identify the target within the first seven words of the oracle.

A number of scholars point to the fact that 3.1 is ambiguous; a casual reading might at first suggest that Nineveh—the city mentioned in the previous verse (2.15)—is the target of 3.1 as well.¹⁵ The qualities of rebelliousness, defilement, and oppressiveness listed in 3.1 could easily apply to Nineveh.¹⁶ Of course, these same scholars note that Jerusalem is clearly in view in the current form of 3.1-7.¹⁷ Nevertheless, the ambiguity of the addressee in 3.1-7, especially in light of Amos 1.3-2.16 and the preceding Zephanian OAN, remains an important feature of the passage. Some scholars observe the rhetorical effects of the ambiguity.¹⁸ Rhetorically, such ambiguity encourages the reader to recognize the deep and troubling continuities between the cities of Nineveh and Jerusalem and perhaps meditate on the wrath of Yahweh that has come upon them.

Indeed, the notion that Judah/Jerusalem has associated itself too closely with foreigners—especially Assyria—is present not only in 3.1-7 but also in 1.4-18*, which likely preserves some of the oldest material in Zephaniah.¹⁹ Three pieces of evidence in Zeph. 1 point to Jerusalem’s close connection to Assyria. First, Zeph. 1.5 specifically condemns those who bow down to the host of heaven on the rooftops. Non-Assyrian forms of astral worship certainly existed, but most commentators identify the astral worship in view here as being imitative of Assyria.²⁰ After all, such worship was especially prominent in Assyria, and material evidence for astral worship in the Levant increases considerably with greater contact with Assyria.²¹ Furthermore, the particular kind of priests condemned in 1.4 (כמרים‎) appear to be connected with astral worship, as their proximity to the mention of astral worship in 1.5 suggests.²² Regardless, the term for these priests is Aramaic in origin.²³ They likely represent Judahite borrowing of Assyrian worship practices, such as is envisioned in 2 Kgs. 16.10-16.²⁴

Second, Zeph. 1.8 condemns ‘all of those who dress in foreign garments’ (כל־הלבשׁים מלבושׁ נכרי‎).²⁵ Christoph Uehlinger persuasively argues that, in light of the iconographic evidence for Assyrian-style dress in the Levant during the period of Assyrian domination, Zeph. 1.8 has specifically Assyrian-style dress in view.²⁶ Elites were attempting to gain prestige by aligning themselves with Assyria even on the level of their clothing.²⁷ Third, Zeph. 1.1 sets the entire book in the time of Josiah. An important component of Josiah’s reform seems to have been purifying Judean worship of Assyrian practices in the time of Assyria’s rapid decline.²⁸ The superscription of Zeph. 1.1 thus encourages readers to view the condemnation of different practices in Zeph. 1 in the context of anti-Assyrian backlash on the part of Josiah and his allies. In this way, the rhetorical effect of 3.1-7 following 2.15, in showing a close association between Jerusalem and Assyria, coheres with Zeph. 1, which suggests a close identification between Assyria and the leadership of Jerusalem.

3. Pride and Assyria

This article now turns to an important way in which Judah/Jerusalem and Assyria are parallel in 3.1-7: they display haughty attitudes that prevent them from recognizing the authority of Yahweh. In order to make this case, it is first necessary to argue that pride is a major marker of Assyria (and those nations aligned with it) in the preceding OAN.

Pride plays an important role in Zeph. 2.1-15 and is strongly associated with the nations aligned with Assyria and especially with Assyria itself. Zephaniah 2.3 signals the importance of pride/humility as a theme early in the chapter by exhorting all the humble of the land (כל־ענוי הארץ‎) to ‘seek’ (בקשׁ‎) righteousness and ‘humility’ (ענוה‎) in the hope that they might be hidden on the day of Yahweh.²⁹ The fact that humility is a character trait alongside righteousness indicates that it involves an attitude and not merely an economic status.³⁰ As a result, 2.3 already highlights the contrast between the ‘humble of the land’ and the Judeans who come under condemnation in the previous chapter.³¹ This contrast continues in the OAN. The redactional linkage ‘for’ (כי‎) in Zeph. 2.4 indicates that the OAN function as a reason for the exhortation in 2.3.³² Not only will these nations suffer the wrath that the addressees of 2.3 might avoid, but they also exemplify the kind of attitude and actions that leads to destruction. Most of Zeph. 2.4-15 consists of descriptions of the ways that the nations will be destroyed. The oracles only implicitly or explicitly give reasons for the destruction in 2.8, 10, 15.³³ In each case, the nations suffer destruction because of an attitude and/or actions that can best be described as prideful.³⁴ Moab and Ammon make ‘a reproach’ (חרפה‎) and ‘taunts’ (גדופים‎) against Yahweh’s people while ‘making boasts’ (יגדילו‎) against their territory (2.8). Presumably, the boasts of Moab and Ammon are rooted in their acquiring some of Judah’s territory.

Zephaniah 2.10 also speaks of the ‘pride’ (גאון‎) of Moab and Ammon, for they ‘taunted’ (חרפו‎) and ‘made boasts’ (יגדלו‎) against the people of Yahweh.³⁵ Even though 2.10 is likely later than the first exilic redaction of the Book of the Four, it is still significant in this analysis for two reasons.³⁶ First, it shows that—at the very least—early readers of the OAN interpreted pride as one of the main reasons for the punishment of Moab and Ammon. After all, the punishment envisioned in 2.10a is causally linked by a ‘for’ (כי) to the prideful actions in 2.10b. Second, 2.10 shows that the actions of reproaching (חרף) and making boasts are marks of pride.

The emphasis on pride in the OAN continues in the oracle against Assyria in 2.13-15.³⁷ Nineveh is the ‘exultant city’ (העיר העליזה‎) that ‘dwells in peace’ (היושׁבת לבטח‎). The text then reveals her inner dialogue: ‘I am, and there is no one else’ (אני ואפסי עוד‎). Nineveh’s speech has a hubristic tone, putting words in her mouth that one would expect only Yahweh to speak.³⁸ Her claim to be alone thus clearly leaves no place for Yahweh’s rule over her. It certainly prevents her from recognizing the swift judgment of Yahweh, which is signaled by the instant shift from her speech (2.15a) to her desolation (2.15b); a grammatical marker of transition is not even present.

In context, the oracle against Assyria appears at the apex of the OAN in Zeph. 2.4-15. Given the fact that Assyria seems to be very much in the background in what is widely recognized as the oldest part of Zephaniah (namely, 1.4-2.3*), at least some form of the oracle against Assyria likely goes back at least as far as the first exilic book of Zephaniah.³⁹ Indeed, the nations that appear in Zeph. 2.4-15 were mostly aligned with Assyria or at least benefited from Assyria’s rule.⁴⁰ The actions of taunting and boasting, although they are associated with Moab and Ammon, also easily parallel Assyria’s prideful behavior and attitude elsewhere (e.g. Isa. 10.1-8; 36.4-20 // 2 Kgs. 18.19-35; Zech. 10.11).⁴¹ In fact, Assyria specifically boasts about taking territory in Isa. 10.13. Even more, Moab and Ammon both gained territory at Judah’s expense as a result of Assyria’s conquests, which means that their territory-based boasts in 2.8 are ultimately rooted in Assyria’s actions. Consequently, although Assyria certainly does not have a monopoly on arrogance, it holds pride of place in the OAN. It receives the most attention of any single people or city in the OAN, historically exerted profound political and economic influence on the other nations listed in the OAN, and is the last nation to appear before Jerusalem in 3.1-7.⁴² The arrogant Assyrian attitude in 2.15 represents the reverse of the humble attitude enjoined in 2.3.

4. Pride and Jerusalem

Zephaniah 3.1-7 subtly depicts Jerusalem and its leadership as exhibiting the pride that Assyria exemplifies.⁴³ Assyria’s attitude of not acknowledging—and even usurping the place of—Yahweh fits well with the description of Jerusalem as ‘rebellious’ (מראה‎) in 3.1. It also matches Jerusalem’s refusal to listen to Yahweh’s voice or take instruction in 3.2.⁴⁴ The same critique comes up again in 3.7, where Yahweh complains that Jerusalem does not fear Yahweh or take instruction. Moreover, 3.2 attacks Jerusalem for refusing to ‘trust’ (בטח‎) in Yahweh. Instead, in light of the selfishness of the four groups of leaders in 3.3-4 (officials, judges, prophets, and priests), the implication of 3.2 seems to be that Jerusalem is trusting in its own devices rather than Yahweh.⁴⁵ Similarly, Nineveh is said to be ‘dwelling confidently’ (היושׁבת לבטח‎) in 2.15. Although 3.2 contains a verbal form and 2.15 a nominal form, the triliteral root (בטח‎) is the same; both verses imply that the cities are not placing their trust in Yahweh but rather in themselves. Moreover, the selfishness of Jerusalem’s leaders in 3.3-4 matches the selfishness of Nineveh, who refuses to acknowledge anyone besides herself (2.15).⁴⁶

Another important piece of evidence that 3.1-7 accentuates the prideful demeanor of Jerusalem can be seen in 3.11-13, which refers to the removal of ‘your exultant boasters’ (עליזי גאותך‎) and ‘haughtiness’ (גבה‎) from Jerusalem (3.11b), with a ‘humble and lowly people’ (עם עני ודל‎) remaining (3.12a). Scholars disagree as to whether 3.11-13 belongs to the first exilic layer of Zephaniah or not.⁴⁷ The shift to the promise of salvation suggests that 3.11-13 is a later redactional continuation of 3.1-7. Of course, if 3.11-13 was part of the same layer as 3.1-7, then it would furnish direct evidence for the presence of pride in 3.1-7. As a redactional continuation, however, it indicates an early interpretation that—at least with respect to pride—accurately recognizes an important theme in 3.1-7. The promise to remove the exultant boasters is significant because it indicates that pride is a major problem in 3.1-7 and that Jerusalem’s safety requires the removal of such pride. Indeed, 3.11-13 indicates the systematic reversal of the conditions of 3.1-7 through specific lexical connections.⁴⁸ Moreover, the exultation of some of Zion’s inhabitants corresponds to Nineveh, which 2.15 describes as ‘the exultant city’ (העיר העליזה‎).⁴⁹ Zephaniah 3.11bβ then promises that Zion ‘will no longer be haughty on my holy mountain’ (ולא־תוספי לגבהה עוד בהר קדשׁי‎). The verse thus identifies Zion’s previous behavior as haughty, as was described in Zeph. 3.1-7, as well as (by extension) Zeph. 1.4-18*.

Zephaniah 3.12 then claims that a ‘humble and poor people’ (עם עני ודל‎) who take refuge in the name of Yahweh will be left in Zion. The reference to the ‘humble’ (עני‎) people of 3.12 thus harkens back to ‘all the humble of the land’ (כל־ענוי הארץ‎) who are to seek ‘humility’ (ענוה) in 2.3, immediately before the OAN. Although specific lexical connections are missing, the possibility that the ‘humble of the land’ might be hidden on the day of the wrath of Yahweh in 2.3 parallels the action of the humble and lowly in seeking refuge in the name of Yahweh (3.12). Taken together, 2.3 and 3.11-13 thus form a frame of references to humility around 2.4-3.7.⁵⁰ The frame highlights the importance of the theme of pride/humility and suggests a movement from exhortation in 2.3 to a promise of preservation and reversal of the negative conditions in 3.11-13. In summary, then, in reading 3.1-7 within the context of the OAN in 2.4-15 and the exhortation to seek humility in 2.3, the exilic reader of the edited book of Zephaniah learns about the importance of seeking humility, then observes how the nations—especially Assyria—represent the opposite of humility, and finally confronts the fact that Jerusalem mirrors the pride of Assyria. The nations suffer because of their pride, but Yahweh is graciously giving Jerusalem an opportunity to embrace humility and avoid such suffering (2.3; 3.2, 7).

5. Humility in a Judean scribal context

The final section of this article explores the theme of humility—which takes on a central place in the exilic book of Zephaniah—in view of the growing recognition among scholars that prophetic books are scribal products.⁵¹ Together with other texts, prophetic books like Zephaniah were designed in some sense to form scribes as a component of a developing Judean scribal curriculum.⁵²

As a passage near the end of the exilic book of Zephaniah and the Book of the Four, Zeph. 3.1-7 offers important clues as to how the scribes believed that readers should approach the corpus. The frames around books or corpora are often places where specific scribal concerns come to the surface. Karel van der Toorn, for instance, draws upon Ancient Near Eastern evidence to argue that new editions of works are frequently marked by scribal interventions at the beginnings and ends of texts.⁵³ He points to the books of Deuteronomy, Psalms, and Proverbs as biblical examples of this phenomenon.⁵⁴ Isaiah 66 also has an orienting role to the rest of the book of Isaiah.⁵⁵ Within the Book of the Twelve, Mark Leuchter argues that Hosea’s Levitical and instructional function becomes especially prominent near the end of Hosea (specifically Hos. 14.2-4 [Eng. 14.1-3]).⁵⁶ Hosea 14.10 (Eng. 14.9) also effectively closes the book of Hosea.⁵⁷ The book of Malachi, as a work at the end of the Book of the Twelve—and even at the end of what was a developing authoritative collection of texts that included some form of the Pentateuch, the Former Prophets, and the Latter Prophets—displays significant allusions to other works of the developing Hebrew Bible.⁵⁸ The conclusions of literary works thus often bear significance as scribal additions that are intended to orient readers in some way to the broader work or collection.

Zephaniah 3.1-7, which is placed at a strategic point as conclusion not only to the exilic book of Zephaniah but also to the Book of the Four, functions to shape its exilic readers. For instance, a number of scholars argue that Zeph. 3.1-8* orients readers to the notion that Jerusalem’s destruction comes because the city and its leaders fail to heed the warnings given through the prophets and through Yahweh’s judgments against other nations.⁵⁹ In a scribal context, 3.1-7 thus assists readers in understanding the prophets and specific parts of prophetic books (such as the OAN) in the book of Zephaniah, the Book of the Four, and other developing prophetic corpora.

At the same time, 3.1-7 and its context inculcate a fundamental attitude that readers must embody: humility. Zephaniah 3.1-7 identifies a prideful, self-centered attitude as endangering the Judeans by preventing them from accepting the authoritative instructions of Yahweh provided through such channels as the proper prophets, prophetic books, certain legal traditions, and perhaps, Levitical teachers.⁶⁰ Not only should Judeans as a collective group embody humility, but it is also an important scribal virtue, as indicated by wisdom texts, which have roots in a scribal context (e.g. Prov. 8.13; 15.33; 16.5; 18.12; 22.4; Sir. 3.17; 4.8).⁶¹ Humble scribes are scribes who are receptive to proper instruction as it comes from their teachers and through the texts transmitted in the scribal curriculum. Within a scribal context, the pedagogical function of the punishments of the nations and of Jerusalem (Zeph. 3.6-7) parallels the institution of corporal punishment in instructional settings. A term associated with corporal punishment (מוסר‎) in wisdom texts (e.g. Prov. 13.24; 22.15; 23.13-14) appears in Zeph. 3.2, 7. The city of Jerusalem, personified as a female, did not accept discipline (מוסר‎) and suffered even more as a result. The scribes encountering this text must thus realize the importance of humility and the physical discipline that attends scribal life, at least in its early stages. They themselves must begin to exemplify the very humility required of the Judean community as a whole. The theme of humility in the exilic book of Zephaniah thus takes on additional significance and shades of meaning when read in light of the book’s scribal context.

The book of Zephaniah does not just discourage pride in favor of humility in an abstract way but in fact strongly associates pride with a specific negative image: Assyria. Within the exilic Judean scribal context, the admonition to embrace humility and reject the pride that Assyria exemplifies could have still further implications. If humility involves receptiveness to instruction from proper teachers and the writings of the Judean scribal curriculum, then perhaps repudiating Assyrian-style pride also means opposing the Assyrian-style scribal curriculum that putatively expresses and bolsters Assyrian pride.⁶² In other words, another function of the pride/humility motif could be to carve out a place for a specifically Yahwistic Judean scribal curriculum that stands counter to the Assyrian-Babylonian curriculum—or at least a caricature of it. Although this additional connotation of the pride/humility motif in the exilic book of Zephaniah is admittedly more speculative, two types of evidence increase the probability that scribal readers would recognize it.

First, Nineveh’s statements in Zeph. 2.15 parallel those of Lady Babylon in Isa. 47.8, 10—a context that alludes to the Babylonian scribal establishment. Zephaniah 2.15 and Isa. 47.8 uniquely include the same seven words in sequence: ‘The one that dwells in peace, saying, “I am, and there is no one else”’ (היושׁבת לבטח האמרה בלבבה אני ואפסי עוד‎).⁶³ In Isa. 47.10, the verb and possessive pronoun are in the second person, but otherwise the words closely match those of Zeph. 2.15: ‘And you said in your heart, “I am, and there is no one else”’ (ותאמרי בלבך אני ואפסי עוד‎).

The context in Isa. 47 suggests that Lady Babylon adopts such a conceited stance in part because she trusts in the Babylonian scholarly establishment. Isaiah 47.9, which comes between the two prideful outbursts of 47.8, 10 noted above, indicates that she will suffer calamities despite her many sorceries and powerful charms. Even more, immediately before her second exclamation, the prophet indicates that Lady Babylon’s wisdom and knowledge have led her astray (Isa. 47.10aβ). The references to wisdom, knowledge, sorceries, charms, and astrology that permeate Isa. 47.8-15 evoke the Babylonian scholarly establishment that produced the specialists who aided the Babylonian (and Assyrian) rulers.⁶⁴ This scribal establishment, which serves as the basis for Lady Babylon’s pride, proves to be worthless and even deleterious to her (see also 47.11-13). Indeed, such specialists cannot even save themselves (47.14-15).

On the rhetorical level, Deutero-Isaiah develops the image of Babylon’s weak and harmful scholarly establishment as the foil to Yahweh’s legitimate, authoritative, and effective teaching that secures the prosperity of Yahweh’s people. Yahweh educates the people for their own good (48.17), provides instructors (50.4-5), and will serve as teacher to Lady Zion’s children (54.13). Deutero-Isaiah thus powerfully contrasts Yahwistic instruction with the image of the Babylonian scribes in a way that parallels the well-recognized polemics against Babylon and Babylonian forms of worship that so deeply define Deutero-Isaiah (e.g. 44.9-21; 45.1-46.13; 48.14). Within the scribal context of the Deutero-Isaian community, Lady Babylon and Lady Zion represent not only contrasting images but also competing scribal systems.

The parallels between Zeph. 2.15 and Isa. 47.8, 10 suggest that the exilic book of Zephaniah implicitly undermines the Assyrian-Babylonian scholarly establishment and supports the authority of Yahwistic instruction in a way that parallels the similar condemnation of Babylon in favor of Zion in Deutero-Isaiah. One need not identify the exact direction of influence between Zephaniah and Deutero-Isaiah. If Zeph. 2.15 came first, then these parallels indicate that near-contemporary exilic scribes received the language of Zeph. 2.15 in the context of competing claims to authority among Babylonian and Judean scribes as reflected in Deutero-Isaiah. These Deutero-Isaian scribes, then, at the very least found that the Assyrian-Judean contrast in Zephaniah fit well with a Babylonian-Judean scribal contrast. If Isa. 47.8, 10 influenced Zeph. 2.15, then the redactors of Zephaniah could have been influenced directly by the Deutero-Isaian contrast between instruction in Babylon and Zion.

Admittedly, the condemnation of Assyria in Zeph. 2.13-15 does not specifically tie Assyrian arrogance to its scribal establishment in the way that Isa. 47 indicates a link between Babylonian pride and its scribal specialists. This apparent omission is due to the fact that Deutero-Isaiah contains much longer direct condemnations of Babylon and thus has the space to critique the Babylonian scribal establishment as well. Zephaniah, on the contrary, devotes less space to a direct announcement of judgment against Assyria and thus does not directly refer to Assyrian scribes. As with Babylonian pride, Assyrian arrogance was tied to various institutions, including its military, temple complexes, merchants, and leaders. Therefore, although Assyrian pride is not rooted solely in its scribes, Deutero-Isaiah illustrates how advanced scribal cultures and self-assurance could go hand in hand, at least in the view of exilic Judean scribes.

The second area of evidence that suggests that the pride/humility motif in the book of Zephaniah could also function to counter the authority of the Mesopotamian scribal curriculum is circumstantial: the Mesopotamian scribal establishment served as a powerful, long-standing rival to Yahwistic Judean scribal authority. The Assyrians had a sophisticated scribal system that passed down the traditional works of the Ancient Near Eastern literary tradition.⁶⁵ Sargon II speaks of Assyrians ‘versed in all the proper culture’ as teaching deported peoples to fear god and king.⁶⁶ Although the Judeans of Josiah’s day (the putative setting of the book of Zephaniah) were not deported under Sargon II, they were plausibly still influenced at least by caricatures of Assyrian education. For instance, rulers sometimes spent time in Assyria as youth, during which time the Assyrians plausibly attempted to influence them ideologically.⁶⁷ In addition, elites were likely drawn to Assyrian educational literature in the same way that they seem to have been inclined to other aspects of Assyrian culture, such as astral worship and clothing (see Zeph. 1.4-5, 8). The Hebrew Bible shows traces of contacts with Assyrian literature, especially in the well-recognized similarities between the birth accounts of Sargon II and Moses, as well as in the numerous lexical and structural parallels between Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty and Deuteronomy.⁶⁸

By the time of the exilically edited Book of the Four, however, Assyria had passed away and Babylon was instead the dominant power. Several pieces of evidence suggest alongside the Deutero-Isaian references mentioned previously that in an exilic context, the reference to Assyria in Zeph. 2.13-15 applies to Babylon as well.⁶⁹ Assyria and Babylon were culturally very similar, and Assyria elsewhere seems to be a cipher for later empires, including Babylon (e.g. Isa. 52.3-6; Ezra 6.22; Zech. 10.10-11).⁷⁰ During the period of Neo-Assyrian domination, Babylonian administrators often managed Assyrian affairs in the Levant.⁷¹ Even more than Assyria, Babylon was renowned as an intellectual and cultural center. Moreover, especially with the deportations in 597 BCE and 586 BCE, Judeans were exposed to Babylonian literary traditions. The Hebrew Bible certainly evinces contacts with Babylonian literature. The Enuma Elish and Gilgamesh Epic, for example, influenced portions of the Primeval History (Gen. 1-11).⁷² As a result, the Assyrian-Babylonian scribal establishment that assisted in administration and was entrusted with literary traditions held an influential place in the Ancient Near East in a way that would be recognizable and even enticing to the Judean elite.

Regardless of the extent to which Judeans participated seriously in Assyrian or Babylonian scribal culture, they could recognize the Assyrian-Babylonian scribal apparatus as a powerful system that offered different explanations for the world and could thus be an alternative to Yahwistic education. In other words, Judeans would at least be aware of a caricature of the Assyrian-Babylonian scribal culture. Indeed, the literary connections between Judean texts and Assyrian-Babylonian traditions indicate that certain Judean scribal communities were already interested in situating themselves in relation to these traditions. At the same time, the exile seems to have rendered problematic certain intellectual traditions ingrained in the Judean scribal curriculum, such as the everlasting reign of Davidic monarchs. The strength of the Assyrian-Babylonian scribal establishment and the apparent problems with Judean traditions threatened to dissolve distinctively Yahwistic Judean scribal traditions. The pride/humility motif in the exilic book of Zephaniah plausibly functions within the Judean scribal curriculum as a subtle response to this threat by identifying Mesopotamian pride as destructive.

6. Conclusion

In a rhetorically sophisticated way, the exilic book of Zephaniah presents Assyria as the epitome of pride. Like other nations, Judah had followed Assyria’s prideful example and suffered disaster. Zephaniah 3.1-7 forces its readers to confront the troubling continuities between Assyria’s arrogance and the attitudes of Judah’s previous leaders. Readers thus have a powerful motivation to embrace humility (2.3)—the virtue that stands in antithesis to Assyria—and accept the instruction of Yahweh (3.2, 7). Recent research into scribalism and the identification of the exilic book of Zephaniah as a scribal product provides additional horizons of meaning for humility. In contrast to an arrogant attitude that refuses to accept discipline, humility means receptivity to instruction from proper Yahwistic teachers and texts in the developing exilic Judean curriculum. Connections between the book of Zephaniah and Deutero-Isaiah on one hand and the evidence for the influential place of the Mesopotamian scribal establishment on the other, raise the possibility that the exilic book of Zephaniah also serves as part of the Yahwistic counterpoint to the Assyrian-Babylonian curriculum. Zephaniah 3.1-7 thus employs the pride/humility motif in a rhetorically powerful way at the end of the exilic book of Zephaniah and Book of the Four to shape its Judean scribal audience to face the new threats and opportunities of the exilic period.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Prof. James Nogalski, Nicholas Werse, and Jeremiah Bailey of Baylor University, as well as the anonymous reviewer, for their valuable comments. All errors are the author’s own.

ORCID iD

Nathan Hays

1.

On the rhetorical effects of the shift in 3.1, see, for example, Rex Mason, Zephaniah, Habakkuk, Joel, OTG (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994), p. 23; Daniel Hojoon Ryou, Zephaniah’s Oracles Against the Nations: A Synchronic and Diachronic Study of Zephaniah 2:1–3:8, BibInt 13 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), pp. 319-25, 353; Heinz-Dieter Neef, ‘Glaube als Demut: Zur Theologie des Buches Zephanja’, TBei 27 (1996), pp. 145-58, here 536; Hubert Irsigler, Zefanja, HKAT (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2002), pp. 319, 327; Marvin A. Sweeney, Zephaniah: A Commentary, ed. Paul D. Hanson, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2003), p. 162; James D. Nogalski, The Book of the Twelve: Micah-Malachi, SHBC (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2011), p. 736; Steven Shawn Tuell, Reading Nahum–Malachi: A Literary and Theological Commentary (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2016), p. 131; Walter Dietrich, Nahum – Habakkuk – Zephaniah, IECOT (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2016), pp. 223-24, 228.

2.

The Book of the Four comprises Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah. Various scholars defend its existence, largely based on the similar superscriptions and redactional activity binding the four works (e.g., James D. Nogalski, Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve, BZAW 217 [Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993], pp. 176-78, 278-80; Aaron Schart, Die Entstehung des Zwölfprophetenbuchs: Neubearbeitungen von Amos im Rahmen schriftenübergreifender Redaktionsprozesse, BZAW 260 [Berlin: de Gruyter, 1998], pp. 156-233; Rainer Albertz, Israel in Exile: The History and Literature of the Sixth Century B.C.E., trans. David Green, SBLStBL 3 [Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003], pp. 204-37; Jakob Wöhrle, Die frühen Sammlungen des Zwölfprophetenbuches: Entstehung und Komposition, BZAW 360 [Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006], pp. 51-284; Dietrich, Nahum – Habakkuk – Zephaniah, p. 190). Further support for the Book of the Four appears in a monograph published too late to include in this article’s discussion: Nicholas Werse, Reconsidering the Book of the Four: The Shaping of Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah as an Early Prophetic Collection, BZAW 517 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2019). This study limits itself to the first exilic version of Zephaniah after its incorporation into the Book of the Four because the themes of pride/humility appear to be particularly prominent in this version. In addition, the exilic setting of the Book of the Four—and particularly recent memories of Assyria and contemporary contacts with Babylon—is an important background to this study.

This article relatively conventionally considers the following texts as at least being in place by the time of the first exilic book of Zephaniah: 1.1, 4-18; 2.1-6, 8-9, 12-15; 3.1-7. The only area of disagreement that significantly impacts this article is 2.13-15 (the oracle against Assyria), which some scholars place (in whole or in part) after the first exilic redaction (e.g., Rainer Edler, Das Kerygma des Propheten Zefanja, FThSt 126 [Freiburg: Herder, 1984], pp. 93, 264; Irsigler, Zefanja, pp. 62-63, 298-301; Wöhrle, Die frühen Sammlungen, pp. 219-21, 226-28; see also James D. Nogalski, ‘Zephaniah’s Use of Genesis 1–11’, HBAI 2 (2013), pp. 351-72, here 366-67). Yet, the oracle against Assyria makes sense in a book that putatively dates to the time of Josiah and in the exilic context when the memory of the fall of Assyria was still relatively fresh. See Marco Striek, Das vordeuteronomistische Zephanjabuch, BBET 29 (New York: Lang, 1999), pp. 72-77, 253; Schart, Die Entstehung, pp. 214, 316-17; Albertz, Israel in Exile, pp. 218-19; Dietrich, Nahum – Habakkuk – Zephaniah, pp. 230-35. Zephaniah 3.5 does not play a significant role in this article, but it likely found a place in the developing book of Zephaniah at least by the exilic period. See, e.g., Schart, Die Entstehung, p. 214; Albertz, Israel in Exile, p. 220; Dietrich, Nahum – Habakkuk – Zephaniah, p. 231.

3.

Walther Zimmerli, ‘From Prophetic Word to Prophetic Book’, in ‘The Place Is Too Small for Us’: The Israelite Prophets in Recent Scholarship, ed. R. P. Gordon, SBTS 5 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995), pp. 419-42, especially p. 436. Zimmerli’s work represents the most comprehensive and provocative analysis of the two- or three-part structures up to that time, but scholars had certainly already recognized these structures prior to his article (e.g., Otto Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction, trans. Peter R. Ackroyd [New York: Harper and Row, 1965], p. 306; Georg Fohrer, ‘Prophetie und Magie’, in Studien zur Alttestamentlichen Prophetie [1949–1965], BZAW 99 [Berlin: Töpelmann, 1967], pp. 242-64, here 261). Of course, Zimmerli and others recognize that these structures do not imply absolute homogeneity within sections and certainly do not apply to all prophetic books.

4.

Fohrer, ‘Prophetie und Magie’, p. 261; Elizabeth Rice Achtemeier, Nahum—Malachi, IBC (Atlanta: John Knox, 1986), pp. 61-62; Ehud Ben Zvi, A Historical-Critical Study of the Book of Zephaniah, BZAW 198 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1991), pp. 298, 325-29, 335-36, 339-40, 345-46; Lothar Perlitt, Die Propheten Nahum, Habakuk, Zephanja, ATD 25/1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), p. 98; David M. Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), p. 189 n. 28; Anselm C. Hagedorn, Die Anderen im Spiegel: Israels Auseinandersetzung mit den Völkern in den Büchern Nahum, Zefanja, Obadja und Joel, BZAW 414 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), p. 113; Dietrich, Nahum – Habakkuk – Zephaniah, p. 223; see also Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), p. 459; Marvin Alan Sweeney, ‘A Form-Critical Reassessment of the Book of Zephaniah’, CBQ 53 (1991), pp. 388-408, here 388-89; Marvin A. Sweeney, ‘Zephaniah: A Paradigm for the Study of the Prophetic Books’, CurBS 7 (1999), pp. 119-45, especially p. 119. Ben Zvi, Perlitt, and Dietrich acknowledge that Zephaniah does not fit this scheme perfectly.

5.

Nogalski, Literary Precursors, p. 171; Ryou, Zephaniah’s Oracles Against the Nations, p. 355; Wöhrle, Die frühen Sammlungen, pp. 198, 216; Nogalski, Micah–Malachi, p. 699; Tuell, Reading Nahum-Malachi, p. 113; Dietrich, Nahum – Habakkuk – Zephaniah, p. 186. Marvin Sweeney questions the tripartite schema altogether as methodologically flawed (‘Form-Critical Reassessment’, pp. 388-408; ‘Zephaniah’, pp. 119-20; Zephaniah, p. 2). Of course, the three-part schema does not require homogeneity within sections. Yet, the relative length of the oracle against Jerusalem relative to the size of Zephaniah and its constituent parts renders such a tripartite division of the book quite insecure.

6.

Wilhelm Rudolph, Micha - Nahum - Habakuk - Zephanja, KAT 13.3 (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1975), p. 255.

7.

Rolf Rendtorff, The Old Testament: An Introduction, trans. John Bowden (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), p. 234.

8.

Bernard Renaud, Michée, Sophonie, Nahum, SB (Paris: Gabalda, 1987), p. 177.

9.

Nogalski, Literary Precursors, pp. 172, 174-75 n. 13; see also Nogalski, Micah–Malachi, pp. 702, 707, 729, 736. Arvid S. Kapelrud had similarly noticed similarities in the geographical groupings of the OAN in Amos and Zephaniah (The Message of the Prophet Zephaniah: Morphology and Ideas [Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1975], p. 33; see also Nogalski, Literary Precursors, p. 175 n. 14). Robert Pfeiffer had pointed to dependence on Amos (Introduction to the Old Testament [New York: Harper & Brothers, 1941], p. 601). Some of the same nations appear in the OAN in Amos and Zephaniah (e.g., the Philistines, Ammon, and Moab). Early Isaiah also seems to shift back to proclamations against the prophet’s own people in Isa. 28–32* (Carr, Formation of the Hebrew Bible, p. 333). For the sake of convenience, this article follows the convention of using asterisks to indicate references that may be more inclusive than the actual verses in question. Some scholars, for instance, make further distinctions within these references. Yet, given the redactional connections between Zephaniah and Amos in the Book of the Four, Amos appears to be more relevant for Zephaniah.

10.

Nogalski, Literary Precursors, pp. 176-78, 278-80; Nogalski, Micah–Malachi, p. 707. Nogalski is the first scholar to identify Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah as belonging together in a book redacted in the exilic period.

11.

Schart, Die Entstehung, pp. 204-18, 316-18; Albertz, Israel in Exile, pp. 216-24; Wöhrle, Die frühen Sammlungen, pp. 198-226; Dietrich, Nahum – Habakkuk – Zephaniah, pp. 188-92, 224. On the presence of 2.13-15 in the Deuteronomistic book of Zephaniah, see Albertz, Israel in Exile, p. 219; Dietrich, Nahum – Habakkuk – Zephaniah, pp. 230-35.

12.

Schart, Die Entstehung, p. 212; Irsigler, Zefanja, pp. 41, 51, 66, 192, 212-13, 216-17, 315; Albertz, Israel in Exile, pp. 221-22; Dietrich, Nahum – Habakkuk – Zephaniah, pp. 224, 236; see also Hagedorn, Die Anderen im Spiegel, pp. 113, 293; Sweeney, Zephaniah, p. 162; Tuell, Reading Nahum-Malachi, p. 131; Wöhrle, Die frühen Sammlungen, p. 217 n. 73.

13.

Zephaniah 3:13 mentions Israel, and 3.14-18 regularly mention Zion and Israel. Scholars disagree as to whether the exilic book of Zephaniah ended at 3.11-13* or earlier. Nogalski interprets 3.11-13 as a relatively early Fortschreibung of 3.1-7 while the Book of the Four still circulated independently (Literary Precursors, pp. 177-78, 202-3; ‘Zephaniah 3: A Redactional Text for a Developing Corpus’, in Schriftauslegung in der Schrift: Festschrift für Odil Hannes Steck zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, ed. Reinhard Gregor Kratz, Thomas Krüger, and Konrad Schmid, BZAW 300 [Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000], pp. 207-18, here 212-13; Micah–Malachi, p. 703). Other scholars also see 3.11-13 as later than 3.1-8* (e.g., Irsigler, Zefanja, pp. 63, 399-400; Perlitt, Die Propheten, p. 132; Judith Gärtner, Jesaja 66 und Sacharja 14 als Summe der Prophetie: Eine traditions- und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum Abschluss des Jesaja- und des Zwölfprophetenbuches, WMANT 114 [Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2006], pp. 185-91, 328; Judith Gärtner, ‘Jerusalem – City of God for Israel and for the Nations in Zeph 3:8, 9-10, 11-13’, in Perspectives on the Formation of the Book of the Twelve: Methodological Foundations, Redactional Processes, Historical Insights, ed. Rainer Albertz, James Nogalski, and Jakob Wöhrle, BZAW 433 [Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012], pp. 269-93, here 273-75; Dietrich, Nahum – Habakkuk – Zephaniah, pp. 191, 246-47). Schart is uncertain about whether 3.11-13 belongs to the original exilic Book of the Four (Die Entstehung, pp. 213-14, 316-17). Albertz and Wöhrle both assert that 3.11-13 is part of the original exilic edition of Zephaniah (Albertz, Israel in Exile, pp. 219-20; Wöhrle, Die frühen Sammlungen, pp. 211-13, 224-26).

14.

The text goes on to specify these seacoast dwellers further as the ‘nation of Cherethites’ (2.5aβ). Zephaniah 2.5 and 3.1 are the only two woes in Zephaniah.

15.

E.g., Ralph L. Smith, Micah-Malachi, WBC 32 (Waco, TX: Word, 1984), p. 137; Klaus Seybold, Nahum, Habakuk, Zephanja, ZBK 24.2 (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1991), p. 110; Adele Berlin, Zephaniah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 25A (New York: Doubleday, 1994), p. 126; Michael Weigl, Zefanja und das ‘Israel der Armen’: Eine Untersuchung zur Theologie des Buches Zefanja, ÖBS 13 (Klosterneuburg: Österreichisches Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1994), pp. 137-39, 143, 153-54, 262; Schart, Die Entstehung, p. 205 n. 167; Sweeney, Zephaniah, pp. 155, 158-59, 161; Nogalski, Micah–Malachi, p. 736; Anselm C. Hagedorn, ‘When Did Zephaniah Become a Supporter of Josiah’s Reform?’, JTS 62 (2011), pp. 453-75, here 469; Tuell, Reading Nahum-Malachi, p. 131; Dietrich, Nahum – Habakkuk – Zephaniah, pp. 223-24; see also J. J. M. Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah: A Commentary, OTL (Louisville: Westminster, 1991), p. 211. Wöhrle views the oracle against Nineveh in 2.13-15 as an insertion later than the Deuteronomistic layer of Zephaniah that serves to reinterpret 3.1-8 (originally an oracle against Jerusalem) as an oracle against Nineveh (Die frühen Sammlungen, pp. 219-20). Wöhrle thus recognizes the identification between Nineveh and Jerusalem in the present form of Zephaniah. The Peshitta understands Zeph. 3.1 still to be referring to Nineveh by translating the Hebrew as ‘city of Jonah’. Targum Jonathan also seems to connect 3.1 to Nineveh (Sweeney, Zephaniah, pp. 155, 161; Irsigler, Zefanja, p. 319). Similarly, the Septuagintal tradition of versification places 2.15 as the first verse of chapter three, making the city in 2.15 refer to Jerusalem (Sweeney, Zephaniah, pp. 155, 158). The ‘woe’ at the beginning of 3.1 would suggest a new unit, but such is not always the case in the final form of prophetic books (e.g., Nah. 3.1, which continues to speak of Nineveh).

16.

On the translation of 3.1, see Sweeney, Zephaniah, p. 156; Johannes Vlaardingerbroek, Zephaniah, HCOT (Leuven: Peeters, 1999), pp. 170-71; Irsigler, Zefanja, pp. 317-19.

17.

See the references to ‘her God’ (אלהיה‎) Yahweh in 3.2, the sanctuary and law in 3.4, and Yahweh’s habitation ‘in her midst’ (בקרבה‎) in 3.6. The tradents of the developing book of Zephaniah would surely not consider such descriptions to apply to Nineveh.

18.

See, for example, the treatments listed on p. 1 n. 1. Many of these analyses of the rhetoric of 3.1 point to ambiguity as an important factor.

19.

On 1.4-18* as older material, see, for example, Nogalski, Literary Precursors, pp. 189-98; Irsigler, Zefanja, pp. 60-61; Dietrich, Nahum – Habakkuk – Zephaniah, pp. 188-90. See also the survey of earlier scholarship summarized in Edler, Das Kerygma des Propheten Zefanja, p. 261.

20.

Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, pp. 172-73; Christoph Uehlinger, ‘Astralkultpriester und Fremdgekleidete, Kanaanvolk und Silberwäger: Zur Verknüpfung von Kult- und Sozialkritik in Zef 1’, in Der Tag wird kommen: Ein interkontextuelles Gespräch über das Buch des Propheten Zefanja, ed. Walter Dietrich and Milton Schwantes, SBS 170 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1996), pp. 49-83, here 72-79; Perlitt, Die Propheten, pp. 105-6; Nogalski, Micah–Malachi, pp. 714-15; Dietrich, Nahum – Habakkuk – Zephaniah, p. 215.

21.

Such worship was likely not imposed by Assyria, but the prestige of being aligned with such a dominant power as Assyria proved enticing, even if the Judean elites modified the received iconography to suit their own needs. See Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel, trans. Thomas H. Trapp (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1998), pp. 287-316, 357-58, 369-72, 402-3. The Assyrians themselves were drawing upon Aramean traditions of astral devotion.

22.

Uehlinger, ‘Astralkultpriester’, pp. 72-79.

23.

Jason Radine, ‘The “Idolatrous Priests” in the Book of Zephaniah’, in Priests and Cults in the Book of the Twelve, ed. Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer, ANEM 14 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016), pp. 131-48, especially pp. 131-33.

24.

This is the suggestion in Radine, ‘Idolatrous Priests’, p. 133. Second Kings 16.18 specifically states that Ahaz copied the altar in Damascus ‘because of the king of Assyria’, which suggests that even borrowing from the cult in Damascus could by extension represent accommodation to Assyria. In fact, the cult in Damascus was likely deeply aligned with Assyria by the time that Ahaz visited (Vlaardingerbroek, Zephaniah, pp. 71-72; Radine, ‘Idolatrous Priests’, pp. 131-48, especially p. 133 n. 9).

25.

All translations are the author’s.

26.

Uehlinger, ‘Astralkultpriester’, pp. 56, 70, 79-80; see also Vlaardingerbroek, Zephaniah, p. 86; Sweeney, Zephaniah, p. 85; Nogalski, Micah–Malachi, p. 719.

27.

See Rainer Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period I: From the Beginnings to the End of the Monarchy, trans. John Bowden, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), p. 195; Angelika Berlejung, ‘The Assyrians in the West: Assyrianization, Colonialism, Indifference, or Development Policy?’, in Congress Volume Helsinki 2010, ed. Martti Nissinen (Brill, 2012), pp. 21-60, here 50.

28.

Josiah thus cleared away elements of astral worship, including those from the time of Ahaz (2 Kgs. 23.12; see also 2 Kgs. 16.10-16).

29.

Some scholars identify the phrase ‘all you humble of the land who seek his justice’ (כל־ענוי הארץ אשׁר משׁפטו פעלו‎) in 2.3aα as an isolated unit (e.g., Vlaardingerbroek, Zephaniah, pp. 115-16, 121; Wöhrle, Die frühen Sammlungen, pp. 207-8, 224, 228; see also the survey in Edler, Das Kerygma des Propheten Zefanja, p. 262). At the same time, the admonition to seek humility in 2.3bα seems to be secure in its context, so the removal of parts of 2.3aα has little consequence for the thesis of this article.

30.

See Vlaardingerbroek, Zephaniah, p. 203; Johannes Un-Sok Ro, Die sogenannte ‘Armenfrömmigkeit’ im nachexilischen Israel, BZAW 322 (Berlin: de Gryuter, 2002), pp. 97-112, 202-3; Perlitt, Die Propheten, pp. 119-20, 142; Tuell, Reading Nahum-Malachi, p. 126; Dietrich, Nahum – Habakkuk – Zephaniah, pp. 211, 243-44; Hagedorn, Die Anderen im Spiegel, p. 157; see also Albertz, History of Israelite Religion I, p. 195. If the ‘humble’ were only people of a certain socio-economic status, then it would not make as much sense to admonish them to seek humility. At the same time, there does not have to be a strong demarcation between poverty as a material condition and a religious attitude. In view of the condemnation of the elite in Zeph. 1, it is likely that the laudable kind of humility envisioned in 2.3 comes more easily to those of a lower socio-economic status. Indeed, contacts with Assyrians likely would have occurred mostly on the level of the elite, meaning that those of lower status would not have been influenced as greatly by what the exilic book of Zephaniah views as corrupting Assyrian/Babylonian influences.

31.

Of course, such a contrast is not only on the level of attitude and action but also on social status. Zephaniah 1 singles out for special condemnation the elite, such as the priests in 1:4 and the princes, king’s sons, and those who wear foreign garments in 1.8. Zephaniah 1.11, 18 also refer to those who have silver and gold. Albertz correctly identifies a certain arrogance in the Judeans’ actions in Zeph. 1 (Israel in Exile, 221). See, for example, 1.6, 12. The command to ‘seek Yahweh’ (בקשׁו את־יהוה‎) in 2.3 also contrasts on the lexical level with those who ‘do not seek Yahweh’ (לא־בקשׁו את־יהוה‎) in 1.6. Numerous scholars point to this connection (e.g., Striek, Das vordeuteronomistische Zephanjabuch, pp. 100, 132; Perlitt, Die Propheten, p. 119; Wöhrle, Die frühen Sammlungen, p. 206; Albertz, Israel in Exile, pp. 217, 220).

32.

On the particle, see Renaud, Michée, Sophonie, Nahum, p. 222; Sweeney, ‘Form-Critical Reassessment’, pp. 393, 397, 408; Sweeney, Zephaniah, pp. 111-13; Wöhrle, Die frühen Sammlungen, pp. 215, 217.

33.

Once again, this paucity of reasons for judgment contrasts with the OAN in Amos (Dietrich, Nahum – Habakkuk – Zephaniah, p. 233).

34.

Ryou, Zephaniah’s Oracles Against the Nations, pp. 202, 232-33; Albertz, Israel in Exile, p. 221; see also Mason, Zephaniah, Habakkuk, Joel, p. 23. Ryou in particular notes how hubris is a ‘principle sin’ in Zephaniah. Michael H. Floyd traces the theme of pride in the OAN even before 2.8 by observing that the people who seek humility and who survive in 2.3 are the ones who inhabit the abandoned Philistine houses (2.7) (Minor Prophets Part 2, FOTL 22 [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000], p. 209). Floyd thus correctly notes the centrality of pride throughout the OAN.

35.

The pride of Moab also appears in other texts (e.g., Isa. 16.6; Jer. 48.29).

36.

Zephaniah 2.10 is likely secondary because of its prose style and because it depends on 2.9b, whose reference to the remnant does not fit well with the context. See Edler, Das Kerygma des Propheten Zefanja, pp. 93, 264; Schart, Die Entstehung, p. 212; Striek, Das vordeuteronomistische Zephanjabuch, pp. 158-59, 254; Irsigler, Zefanja, pp. 63, 267-68; Albertz, Israel in Exile, p. 219; Wöhrle, Die frühen Sammlungen, pp. 218, 226-28; Dietrich, Nahum – Habakkuk – Zephaniah, pp. 230-31. See also the survey of opinions in Edler, Das Kerygma des Propheten Zefanja, p. 262; Ryou, Zephaniah’s Oracles Against the Nations, p. 301 n. 25.

37.

On the identification of Assyria’s attitude as prideful, see Ben Zvi, Historical-Critical Study, pp. 335; Ryou, Zephaniah’s Oracles Against the Nations, pp. 251-52; Neef, ‘Glaube als Demut’, p. 148; Sweeney, Zephaniah, p. 154; Dietrich, Nahum – Habakkuk – Zephaniah, p. 237.

38.

Achtemeier, Nahum—Malachi, p. 78; O. Palmer Robertson, The Books of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), p. 313; Ryou, Zephaniah’s Oracles Against the Nations, p. 251. Indeed, in Deutero-Isaiah, Yahweh does speak in a parallel fashion (Isa. 45.5, 14, 18, 21). See the further connections to Deutero-Isaiah in the last section below.

39.

See p. 2 n. 2 above.

40.

Berlin, Zephaniah, p. 120; Nogalski, Micah–Malachi, pp. 701, 732; Hagedorn, Die Anderen im Spiegel, pp. 169-73, 291; Hagedorn, ‘When Did Zephaniah’, pp. 465-68, 475. The relationship between Cush (2.12) and Assyria remains uncertain, but Cush likely represents a power not aligned with Assyria—the exception that proves the rule.

41.

See Ivan Jay Ball, A Rhetorical Study of Zephaniah (Berkeley: BIBAL Press, 1988), p. 147.

42.

The brevity of the oracle against the Cushites (2.12)—the shortest of the oracles—accentuates the length of the oracle against Assyria. The oracle against Assyria forms the apex of the OAN due to its placement toward the end and its length (Berlin, Zephaniah, pp. 116, 120; Irsigler, Zefanja, p. 213).

43.

Dietrich points out that there is already a connection in 2.13 to Jerusalem in that the outstretched hand of Yahweh goes out for judgment in a way that mirrors Yahweh’s action against Judah and Jerusalem in 1.4 (ונטיתי ידי על־יהודה ועל כל־יושׁבי ירושׁלם‎ in 1.4 // ויט ידו על־צפון‎ in 2.13) (Nahum – Habakkuk – Zephaniah, p. 224).

44.

On the characterization of Jerusalem as arrogant in 3.2-7, see also Nogalski, Micah–Malachi, p. 746.

45.

The word used to describe the prophets in 3.4 (פחז‎) can have the connotation of arrogant, although that is only one of several meanings. See Ryou, Zephaniah’s Oracles Against the Nations, pp. 58 n. 196, 263; Armin Lange, ‘Die Wurzel pḥz und ihre Konnotationen’, VT 51 (2001), pp. 497-510; Dietrich, Nahum – Habakkuk – Zephaniah, pp. 220, 222; BDB s.v., ‘פָּחַז‎’. The characterization of prophets as arrogant would strengthen the connection to 2.15 and bolster the idea that pride is one of the reasons for Judah’s punishment.

46.

The specific reference to the officials as lions may resonate with Neo-Assyrian rulers, who often described themselves as lions. See, for example, Dietrich, Nahum – Habakkuk – Zephaniah, pp. 66-68. At the same time, lion imagery was fairly widespread in the Ancient Near East, meaning that a specific Neo-Assyrian reference may not be present here.

47.

See p. 5 n. 13 above.

48.

First, 3.3 describes the officials—who appear at the head of the list of the four offices in 3.3-4—as being ‘in her midst’ (בקרבה‎). Correspondingly, 3.11-13 refers to the fact that the proudly exulting ones will be removed ‘from your midst’ (מקרבך‎; 3.11) and instead the humble and poor people will be left ‘in your midst’ (בקרבך‎; 3.12). Note that ‘midst’ (קרב‎) as a keyword recurs throughout Zeph. 3 as an important term and does not appear in the rest of the book. See, e.g., Rendtorff, The Old Testament, p. 235; Perlitt, Die Propheten, p. 141. Second, the humble and poor remnant will not do ‘wrong’ (עולה‎; 3.13) in contrast to the ‘unjust person’ (עול‎) in 3.5. What is ‘wrong’ (עולה‎) also appears in 3.5aβ as an activity that Yahweh does not do.

49.

See Neef, ‘Glaube als Demut’, p. 154.

50.

See Smith, Micah-Malachi, p. 142; Robertson, The Books of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, p. 294; Neef, ‘Glaube als Demut’, p. 153; Schart, Die Entstehung, p. 214; Striek, Das vordeuteronomistische Zephanjabuch, pp. 133-35; Floyd, Minor Prophets Part 2, pp. 209, 236; Ro, Die sogenannte ‘Armenfrömmigkeit’, pp. 90-91; Albertz, Israel in Exile, p. 220; Wöhrle, Die frühen Sammlungen, pp. 211, 214, 249, 251, 255, 283; Nogalski, Micah–Malachi, p. 703; see also Gärtner, Jesaja 66, pp. 187-89; Gärtner, ‘Jerusalem’, pp. 274-75. The pride/humility motif might continue in the allusion to the story of the tower of Babel in 3.9 as well (Ryou, Zephaniah’s Oracles Against the Nations, p. 355; Minor Prophets Part 2, p. 209). Such an observation may indicate that later scribes continued to recognize the place of humility in Zephaniah, although the theme becomes less prominent through time.

51.

For research into prophetic literature in light of advances in understanding scribalism, see Philip R. Davies, Scribes and Schools: The Canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures, LAI (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998), pp. 107-25; David M. Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. 111-73; Karel van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007), pp. 173-204; Carr, Formation of the Hebrew Bible, pp. 5, 57-65. See also the overview of current scholarship in Brad E. Kelle, ‘The Phenomenon of Israelite Prophecy in Contemporary Scholarship’, CurBR 12 (2014), pp. 275-320, here 296-300.

52.

For the application of the scribal curriculum model to Zephaniah, see Floyd, Minor Prophets Part 2, pp. 178-79; Nogalski, ‘Zephaniah’s Use of Genesis 1–11’, pp. 267-72. See also Ben Zvi, Historical-Critical Study, pp. 236-37, 347-56. Scribal activity in the exilic period sought to explain the downfall of Jerusalem and point the way to a reformed Yahwistic community.

53.

Toorn, Scribal Culture, pp. 126-32, 150-51, 257-59. Jack Lundbom similarly argues that the scribes who composed successive editions of Deuteronomy used framing techniques (‘The Inclusio and Other Framing Devices in Deuteronomy i-xxviii’, VT 46 [1996], pp. 296-315).

54.

Toorn, Scribal Culture, pp. 151-62, 257-58. Successive editions of Deuteronomy produced rubrics that open the book (Deut. 1.1; 4.44, 45) and colophons that close it (28.69 [Eng. 29.1]; 29.28 [Eng. 29.29]; 34.10-12). Similarly, Ps. 1.1-2, 5-6 and Prov. 1.1, 5-7 have a framing function.

55.

See especially Gärtner, Jesaja 66, pp. 63-66, 103-34, 311-20.

56.

Mark Leuchter, ‘Hosea’s Exodus Mythology and the Book of the Twelve’, in Priests and Cults in the Book of the Twelve, ed. Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer, ANEM 14 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016), pp. 31-49, here 42. Although the context is different, Leuchter’s model of these verses of Hosea both as torah and as ‘counter-liturgy’ to the state cult fits well with the suggestion later in this article that the exilic book of Zephaniah functions within a Judean scribal curriculum that serves as an alternative to the (perceived) Assyrian/Babylonian curriculum.

57.

Toorn, Scribal Culture, p. 257.

58.

The clearest example is found in the closing verses of Malachi (Mal. 3.22-24 [Eng. 4.4-6]), which refer back to Pentateuchal texts (such as Deut. 34) and texts of the Former Prophets (Josh. 1 and 2 Kgs. 2). See Odil Hannes Steck, Der Abschluss der Prophetie im Alten Testament: Ein Versuch zur Frage der Vorgeschichte des Kanons, BThSt 17 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991), pp. 127-36; Toorn, Scribal Culture, p. 254; Jakob Wöhrle, Der Abschluss des Zwölfprophetenbuches: Buchübergreifende Redaktionsprozesse in den späten Sammlungen, BZAW 389 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008), pp. 421-27. The ‘book of remembrance’ in Mal. 3.16-18 could refer not to a heavenly catalogue but to instructional texts like the Book of the Twelve (James D. Nogalski, Redactional Processes in the Book of the Twelve, BZAW 218 [Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993], pp. 204-10; James D. Nogalski, ‘How Does Malachi’s “Book of Remembrance” Function for the Cultic Elite?’, in Priests and Cults in the Book of the Twelve, ed. Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer, ANEM 14 [Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016], pp. 191-212, here 191-97; see also Mark Leuchter, ‘Another Look at the Hosea/Malachi Framework in The Twelve’, VT 64 [2014], pp. 249-65, here 254-57, who argues that the ‘book of remembrance’ becomes a reference to the Book of the Twelve after its inclusion in the closing frame of Malachi). Malachi also displays certain linguistic and thematic connections with Hosea in a way that creates a frame around the Book of the Twelve (David L. Petersen, Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi: A Commentary, OTL [London: SCM Press, 1995], p. 233; John D. W. Watts, ‘A Frame for the Book of the Twelve: Hosea 1–3 and Malachi’, in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve, ed. James Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney, SBLSymS 15 [Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000], pp. 209-17; George Andrew Tooze, ‘Framing the Book of the Twelve: Connections between Hosea and Malachi’ [PhD diss., Iliff School of Theology and University of Denver, 2002]). On Malachi’s place at the end of the Book of the Twelve, see especially Philippe Guillaume, ‘The Unlikely Malachi-Jonah Sequence (4QXIIa)’, JHebS 7 (2009), art. 15, pp. 2-10.

59.

On this pedagogical purpose of the OAN, see Robertson, The Books of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, p. 214; Ben Zvi, Historical-Critical Study, p. 336; Nogalski, Literary Precursors, pp. 175-76; Berlin, Zephaniah, p. 10; Mason, Zephaniah, Habakkuk, Joel, p. 23; Floyd, Minor Prophets Part 2, pp. 206, 228, 230; Albertz, Israel in Exile, p. 222; Gärtner, Jesaja 66, pp. 184-85; Wöhrle, Die frühen Sammlungen, pp. 208, 210, 217-20; Gärtner, ‘Jerusalem’, pp. 270-72.

60.

Prophets come under condemnation in 3.4, but because Zephaniah is putatively prophetic, the passage of course cannot envision all prophets as untrustworthy. Similarly, the instruction/law (תורה‎) is profaned by the priests (3.4), but this does not mean that the developing legal traditions are invalid. Yahweh’s bringing of his judgment/justice (משׁפט‎) to light in the morning (3.5) may also have the connotation of teaching.

61.

See Floyd, Minor Prophets Part 2, pp. 178-79.

62.

See, for instance, David Carr’s argument that the present canonical arrangement of the Hebrew Bible functions as a ‘Hellenistic-style anti-Hellenistic curriculum’ (Writing on the Tablet of the Heart, pp. 253-72).

63.

The close verbal and thematic correspondences suggest that these two texts in particular were in conversation with one another. The direction of influence is not critical to this article, and scholars indeed argue both ways. See the discussion in Irsigler, Zefanja, pp. 298-301; Sweeney, Zephaniah, p. 155.

64.

Shalom M. Paul, Isaiah 40–66: Translation and Commentary, ECC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), p. 300.

65.

Indeed, Assurbanipal—the last effective king of Assyria and the ruler when Josiah ascended to the throne—boasted of his literacy and famously collected as many scribal tablets as he could for his massive library. See Alasdair Livingstone, ‘Ashurbanipal: Literate or Not?’, ZA (2007), pp. 98-118.

66.

The text is preserved in Sargon’s Cylinder, Bull, and Display Inscriptions, and the translation is from Peter Machinist, ‘Assyrians on Assyria in the First Millennium B.C.’, in Anfänge politischen Denkens in der Antike: Die nahöstlichen Kulturen und die Griechen, ed. Kurt A. Raaflaub and Elisabeth Müller-Luckner, Schriften des Historischen Kollegs 24 (München: Oldenbourg, 1993), pp. 77-104, here 95-96.

67.

Berlejung, ‘Assyrians in the West’, pp. 24-25. Carly Crouch suggests that Judahite kings might have undergone such education in Assyria (Israel and the Assyrians: Deuteronomy, the Succession Treaty of Esarhaddon, and the Nature of Subversion, SBLANEM 8 [Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014], p. 150 n. 10). Note that the ‘sons of the king’, mentioned in Zeph. 1.8, are exactly the kind of people who might be taken by the Assyrians to be raised there.

68.

See Carr, Formation of the Hebrew Bible, pp. 304-38.

69.

See Schart, Die Entstehung, p. 212. See also Mark J. Boda, who sees the identity of Babylon as ‘fused’ into that of Assyria in the Book of the Twelve and other prophetic texts (‘Babylon in the Book of the Twelve’, HBAI 3 [2014], pp. 225-48, here 244-45, 248). Of course, Assyria in 2.13-15 is not simply a code word for Babylon. After all, Zephaniah’s putative setting in the time of Josiah presents the OAN as predictions of what actually took place; the nations targeted in the OAN did indeed suffer catastrophes by the time of the exilic editing of Zephaniah. See Ben Zvi, Historical-Critical Study, pp. 298-306. The audience, then, would understand that Assyria in 2.13-15 does indeed refer to Assyria but that subsequent empires (especially Babylon in the exilic context) mirror the prideful attitude of Assyria and thus will suffer a similar judgment.

70.

See also Sweeney, Zephaniah, p. 155 n. 29. Hagedorn argues that Assyria becomes a cipher for Babylon in the developing book of Nahum (Die Anderen im Spiegel, pp. 29-40 [concerning the ‘Babel re-lecture’], 55, 64-71, 296, 314). He sees Assyria in Zeph. 2.13-15 as also taking on a symbolic role as the furthest east of the nations mentioned and thus—along with Cush (2.12)—illustrating the breadth of divine judgment (Die Anderen im Spiegel, pp. 121, 129, 172, 291-92, 296; ‘When Did Zephaniah’, p. 475). The brevity of the oracle against Cush compared to the oracle against Assyria suggests that more than simple geographic factors are at play. On nations as ciphers, see also Hagedorn, Die Anderen im Spiegel, pp. 297, 317.

71.

Berlejung, ‘Assyrians in the West’, p. 50.

72.

See, for example, Joseph Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible, ABRL (New York: Doubleday, 1992), pp. 77-86.