Reading akkadian PRayeRs & Hymns An Introduction

80
READING AKKADIAN PRAYERS AND HYMNS: AN INTRODUCTION
tional—the Judahites, the prophet tells us, believe the results of Nebuchadnezzar’s
divinations are false by their very nature (Ezek 21:28).
Despite the lack of Iron Age archaeological evidence and textual witness,
several scholars have argued that extispicy was practiced in ancient Israel and
Judah. Sigmund Mowinckel claims that certain Psalms were, in fact, oracle questions
posed to Yahweh before the ritual slaughter of an animal whose exta were
to be examined. 2 Specifically, based on its usage in 2 Kgs 16:15 and Ps 5:4,
Mowinckel makes the case that the verb רקב (normally translated “to inquire”) is
a technical term referring to performing an extispicy. 3 Otto Loretz, building on
Mowinckel’s study and citing the liver models from Ugarit as precedent, posits
that the “signs,” תוֹתֹא, mentioned in Ps 74:4, 9 are, in fact, liver omina. 4 Frederick
Cryer, looking at the time, location, equipment, procedure, language, and
personnel described in the various descriptions of (condoned) divination in the
Hebrew Bible, maintains that these accounts are modeled on NA extispicy reports
and queries and implies that, under the heavily edited biblical narratives
which report them, lies buried the remains of an Israelite hepatoscopic tradition.
5 Anne Jeffers considers whether the participle דקֹנ, ֵ “sheep-tender” (used
only twice in the Hebrew Bible, 2 Kgs 3:4 and Amos 1:1), might refer to one
who not only raises sheep, but was actually involved in sacrifice and mantic
liver examination. 6
All of these proposals share certain elementary problems. Why are there no
models of exta known from Iron Age sites in Israel and Judah, though they are
attested in the Late Bronze Age? Why, if the biblical authors use specific technical
terminology to refer to hepatoscopy (i.e., רקב and דקֹנ, ֵ as per Mowinckel,
Loretz and Jeffers) do they not employ that terminology when referring to the
practice in Ezek 21:26? Even if it is because they reject the foreign, but not domestic,
practice of extispicy, the biblical authors are perfectly willing to call
other illegitimate diviners by native technical terms (e.g., prophets of other deities:
1 Kgs 18:19; 2 Kgs 10:19; Jer 2:8; 23:13; false prophets of Yahweh: 1 Kgs
2 Sigmund Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien I (Amsterdam: P. Schippers, 1961), 145–49.
3 Ibid., Psalmenstudien I, 146.
4 Otto Loretz, Leberschau, Sündenbock, Asasel in Ugarit und Israel: Leberschau und Jahwestatue in
Psalm 27, Leberschau in Psalm 74 (UBL 3; Altenberge: CIS–Verlag, 1985), 9–34, 81–112.
5 Frederick Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel and its Near Eastern Environment: A Socio-Historical
Investigation (JSOTSup 142; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 298–305. Notably, while Cryer astutely
rejects the methods of Mowinckel (296) and Loretz (296–98), he accepts their conclusion that
extispicy was known and practiced in ancient Israel. The fundamental problem with Cryer’s
argument is that all mantic acts include the elements named above to a high degree since all
divinatory acts are rituals conducted by special personnel, which respond in time and place to
specific situations! Celestial divination, for example, for which we also have extensive reports
dating to the NA period, mention all, some, or many of these elements. This does not mean that
the biblical narrative, and ultimately the real practice which lies behind it, is based on Babylonian
or native Israelite celestial divination.
6 Anne Jeffers, Magic and Divination in Ancient Palestine and Syria (SHCANE 8; Leiden: Brill,
1996), 111–16.