Читать книгу Malachi - Aaron Schart - Страница 21

Date Regrettably, the Malachi document contains very few indications that could permit a precise dating. We should keep in mind that the various levels of redaction must be ordered differently. If, to begin with, we look for indications that permit any kind of historical ordering, the following are usually cited:

– The references to double doors (Mal 1:10), to a היכל (hêkāl, “temple edifice,” Mal 3:1), to a storehouse probably within the temple precincts (Mal 3:10), to the “Lord’s table” (Mal 1:7), and to the מזבח (mizbeaḥ, “[sacrificial] altar,” Mal 1:7, 10) presuppose the rebuilding of the temple.

– Malachi 1:8 mentions a פחה, “governor,” though he remains unfortunately anonymous. In all probability this is the Persian provincial governor, though that Persian title of office was still in use in the Hellenistic period, as inscriptions on coins attest.

– Malachi 1:4 presumes that Edom has fallen. That national catastrophe must have been vividly present to everyone at the time of composition. It is usually associated with one of Nabonidus’s campaigns, ca. 552 BCE, in which he is also supposed to have conquered the Edomites. However, later dates should also be considered.

– There are some connections, both thematic and literary in nature, to Ezra and Nehemiah, but these are scarcely specific enough to permit certain dating. The Malachi document mentions neither the name Ezra nor Nehemiah; neither Ezra nor Nehemiah mention Malachi. In addition, it is uncertain whether the same problem of mixed marriages we encounter in Ezra 10 or Neh 13:23–27 stands behind Mal 2:10–16. The Malachi document, or at least its basic stratum, is usually dated before Ezra and Nehemiah because it is supposed that the conditions criticized in the document would no longer have existed after their reforms. But it is entirely possible that the global socio-cultural problems addressed by the Malachi document erupted repeatedly in the post-exilic period.³²

– Sirach 49:10 (ca. 180 BCE) refers to the “twelve prophets,” most probably a reference to the Book of the Twelve Prophets as a scroll. At that time the Malachi document would have been as good as finished. Still, there would have been minor additions in the course of the copying process: for example, the differing placements of Mal 3:22 [4:4 ET] in the MT and in the Vorlage to the Septuagint show.

– Malachi 1:6–2:9 presupposes legal formulations found in late additions to the book of Leviticus: for example, the list of cultically unacceptable animals in Lev 22:18–25. That scarcely offers any greater precision in dating because the Leviticus passages are themselves hard to date. In any case they must be placed later than the Pentateuchal Priestly source and so would probably belong to the fifth century.

On the whole the material written down in the basic stratum belongs to the years after the rebuilding of the temple, that is, around 500, during the reign of Darius I (521–486 BCE).³³ We can easily imagine that after the decades of Babylonian rule during which the people had to live without a temple there were debates about how the renewed temple cult should best be integrated into the community’s life. In general Darius followed a policy of peaceful and harmonic union among the peoples under Persian rule and supported the erection of local sanctuaries. Ever since Second Isaiah had celebrated the Persian king Cyrus as the ruler established as king by Yhwh (Isa 45:1), Persian rule had been generally accepted as approved by Yhwh. It seems that only for a very brief time and to a very limited extent was the hope for a restoration of the Davidic dynasty associated with Zerubbabel (see Hag 2:23 and Zech 4:7–14). The temple priests, especially the high priest (Zech 3:1) appear to have exercised the greatest influence on community leadership.

References to the Hellenistic period The basic stratum was repeatedly reworked in the fifth century and probably in the fourth as well. There is scarcely any indication that individual passages assume the Hellenization that came in the wake of Alexander the Great.³⁴ A major defeat of Edom, following a successful phase of advancement, must lie behind Mal 1:4–5. It is possible that such a thing happened in the Hellenistic period, but there is no concrete information about it. Jutta Noetzel thinks the idea that the “sun of righteousness” brings healing Mal 3:20 [4:2 ET]) may reflect Ptolemaic influence.³⁵ We might also consider whether the tendency toward individualizing the judgment associated with the day of Yhwh (Mal 3:13–21) is due to Greek influence. The appendix, Mal 3:22, 23–24 [4:4, 5–6 ET], which points to a profound conflict between generations (v. 24 [4:6 ET]) fits with the tensions between those who accepted Hellenization and those who strictly rejected it.³⁶ The Malachi document was the last to be incorporated in the Book of the Twelve, probably together with the Jonah narrative. The final text must have existed, at the latest, by about 180 BCE.

Economic situation The assessment of the economic situation is highly important for understanding the motivations of the prophet’s opponents. For example, we would like to know why those opponents were not paying their full tithe (Mal 3:10a). Were they in need, perhaps because of drought and insect infestation? Did they prefer to sell their produce themselves rather than surrender it to the temple personnel? Or did they interpret the state of the law differently from the prophet by, for example, calculating the tithe that was owed only in terms of agricultural yield and not of income from commerce?

Johannes Bremer has recently given a summary account of the economic situation of the province of Yehud in the Persian period.³⁷ Agriculture was essentially based on the production of grain, olive oil, and wine. Harvests were limited by drought, pests (especially locusts), and plant diseases; all these are mentioned repeatedly in Joel, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi (Joel 1:4–20; Hag 1:10–11; 2:15–19; Zech 8:9–12; Mal 3:10–12). It is difficult to assess the extent and influence of the Persian tax system. Examination of archaeological evidence gives no indication of unusually large distinctions between rich landowners and poor farmers, but recovered coins are quite interesting. They reveal a change in the economy during the Persian period that was of substantive value. Coins enabled intensified international commerce as well as eased the development of investment. Anyone who had coins could succeed; those who could only pay in goods or silver were at a disadvantage. The province of Yehud received the right to mint its own coins. It is striking that most of the coins circulating in Yehud were small ones of little value. In spite of its minor economic achievements, the province of Yehud made use of the innovative method of payment in coin, which points to a high degree of economic efficiency.

Noteworthy among the indicators internal to the texts are occasional references to “economic thinking”: the prophet’s opponents seek “profit” (Mal 3:14) or acknowledge the Persian governor as the authority for judging the quality of products (Mal 1:8). The list of personae miserae in Mal 3:5 also is telling: alongside the traditional groups of widows, orphans, resident aliens, and Levites, this list also mentions hired workers as victims of oppression,³⁸ an indication that the numbers of hired workers had increased sharply. That in turn may well imply that traditional family farms and businesses were under pressure to compete with larger economic units that employed wage workers. The remark that it is not the hired workers themselves but their wages that are being depressed is worth noting. This tells us that the productive workers in Yehud were under acute economic pressure and had to keep their payrolls low. At the same time references to innovative techniques, such as “fullers’ soap” (Mal 3:2), slash-and-burn agriculture (Mal 3:19, 21 [4:1, 3 ET]), calves in the stall (Mal 3:20), and the “refiner’s fire” (Mal 3:3) point to new methods of production. The prophet sides with those who see themselves as oppressed and appeals to the social laws of the Torah.

Malachi’s opponents The Malachi document shows the prophet involved in disputes with various groups he directly addresses with “you say…,” even supposedly quoting them. If we assume the historical plausibility of the substantial core of the citations we can distinguish various groups. Jon Berquist finds three: the “inner-group,” representing what Malachi depicts as strict believers; an undecided “in-group”; and the “out-group,” which includes the evildoers.³⁹ But that is only a reconstruction of the personal view of the prophet. We have to set alongside it a description of the groups from an external historical perspective. A good starting point would be to describe the relationship between the various groups and the temple cult.

Priests At the center of the social fabric stood the temple in Jerusalem. Regrettably, we know little about the temple district and the organization of its personnel in the Persian period. It appears from the Malachi document that there was a “table” for vegetable gifts and an “altar” for animal sacrifices. There was also a storehouse in which the offerings, especially the tithes, were kept (Mal 3:10a). Supervision of the sacrifices lay with the priests. This included the communication of cultic decisions to the laity. They would also have been responsible for the collection and distribution of the tithes and other offerings.⁴⁰

Levites Besides the priests, the Malachi document also mentions Levites (Mal 2:4b, 8b; 3:3). It is disputed whether priests and Levites made up two distinct groups or whether the priests were a sub-group of the Levites. The latter is most probable. That offers the best explanation of why the priests were criticized (Mal 1:6; 2:1) while their present wrong behavior is contrasted with their obligation on the basis of the covenant with Levi (Mal 2:4b, 8b). The idea of a “covenant with Levi” appears only in this passage. It most probably results from a broad interpretation of Num 25:12, where Phinehas is offered a covenant of peace because his deed has protected Israel from Yhwh’s wrath; the covenant with Phinehas is extended to the Levites as a whole. The priests, as successors to Phinehas, thus constitute the core of the Levites. In addition the prophet expects that a future purification of the Levites will result in a renewed presentation of gifts (Mal 3:3–4); here the priests are not mentioned separately, although—at the same time—they have been addressed as the principal offenders (Mal 1:6; 2:1).

Participants in the cult Besides the cultic personnel there is mention of laypersons who take an active part in cultic activities out of subjective conviction. Still, the prophet accuses them of insulting Yhwh. It appears that the cultic participants addressed here are withholding property they ought to contribute to the temple. For example, they present blemished animals for sacrifice (Mal 1:8a). The prophet characterizes the sacrificial practice of this group as “wicked” (Mal 1:8a; NRSV: “wrong”). If we speculate about how those criticized might have justified themselves, we may suppose they would have pointed out that for Yhwh it is not the material of the sacrifice that determines its acceptance, but rather the internal attitude with which it is offered. Moreover, the word “weariness” (1:13) allows us to suppose that the participants in the cult were in a difficult economic situation and could have sold the animals elsewhere for a profit (cf. Mal 3:14). If, on the other hand, the neglect of the cult took place without any economic excuse we could suppose it most likely that what is being criticized is the group’s own self-distancing from animal sacrifices, perhaps in favor of different cultic actions.

The Separated We can call the third group the “separated.” They have distanced themselves from temple worship. The point of the distancing may have been the question whether Yhwh is the guarantor and protector of what is right (Mal 2:17). The separated ones measure Yhwh’s potency by the implementation of right and by economic success and thus arrive at the conviction that there is no point in continuing the pious practices of the past toward Yhwh. Instead, success belongs to those who are profit-oriented in their thinking and their living (Mal 3:15).

The Uncertain In Mal 1:2 we might discern yet a fourth group we could call “the uncertain.” They assent to faith principles about Yhwh’s love for the people that can be derived—more or less—from tradition, but they are unsure whether and how that affects their own lives.

The prophet’s supporters The group that stands behind the prophet relies on tradition, especially the Torah. It makes high demands regarding the purity of the sacrificial animals like those found also in Leviticus. On the other hand, the second disputation speech mentions neither the burnt offerings nor the penitential rituals involving blood, which constitute the core of cultic practice in Leviticus (Lev 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:10, 13, 16, 18; 19:22; Num 15:25–28).

The Nations A redactor has inserted an unusually positive statement about the nations (Mal 1:11, 14): they bring a “pure offering” and acknowledge Yhwh’s “greatness.” Historically speaking we can see positive experiences with the Persians behind these statements. That there are also declared enemies of Yhwh among the nations is just, as clearly stated when God sharply separates Esau/Edom out of “hatred” for “him” (Mal 1:3). The basic stratum makes it clear that Edom will be destroyed by Yhwh while Jacob may expect Yhwh’s love and care because he carries out the worship that is appropriate for God.