Thursday, 21 March 2019

God Abandons the Garden of Eden and Dwells with the Cherubim


Four Aramaic targumim (ancient translations) have God, and not just cherubim, taking up residence east of the garden. This is based on a slightly different vocalization of the Hebrew text, which is likely a more original reading than our current biblical text (MT).[1]
Dr. Raanan Eichler
Adam and Eve Are Driven out of Eden by Gustave Dore 1866 
The story of the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve’s eating from the tree ends with the following verse:
בראשית ג:כד וַיְגָרֶשׁ אֶת הָאָדָם וַיַּשְׁכֵּן מִקֶּדֶם לְגַן עֵדֶן אֶת־הַכְּרֻבִים וְאֵת לַהַט הַחֶרֶב הַמִּתְהַפֶּכֶת לִשְׁמֹר אֶת דֶּרֶךְ עֵץ הַחַיִּים.
Gen 3:24 Having driven Man out,[2] he [God] stationed east of the garden of Eden the cherubim and the spinning-sword-flame, to guard the way to the tree of life.[3]
Four ancient Jewish targumim (translations of the Torah into Aramaic) however, understand the verse differently, at least up to the word cherubim:
Targum Neofiti(TN)[4]
וטרד ית אדם ואשרי יקר שכינתיה מן מלקדמין מן מדנ[חה] לגנתה דעדן מן בני תרין כרוביה…
And he drove Man out, and he caused the glory of his Immanence to dwell of old[5] to the east of the garden of Eden between the two cherubim…
Fragmentary Targum V (FT-V) [6]
וטרד ית אדם ואשרי איקר שכינתיה מן לקדמין מן מדנח לגינתא דעדן מעילוי תרין כרובייא…
And he drove Man out, and he caused the glory of his Immanence to dwell of old to the east of the garden of Eden above the two cherubim…
Fragmentary Targum P (FT-P)
וטרד ית אדם ואשרי יקר שכינתיה מן לקדמין מעלוי גינתא דעדן מן ביני תרין כרוביא…
And he drove Man out, and he caused the glory of his Immanence to dwell of old above the garden of Eden between the two cherubim…
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (TPJ)[7]
וטרד ית אדם מן דאשרי יקר שכינתיה מן לקדמין בין תרין כרוביא…
And he drove Man out from the place where he caused the glory of his Immanence to dwell of old between the two cherubim…
These four translations differ from one another in the following particulars:
  1. Was God’s presence between (TN, FT-P, TPJ) or above (FT-V) the cherubim?
  1. Was God east of Eden (FN, FT-V), above Eden (FT-P), or unspecified (TPJ avoids mentioning Eden here altogether, and no gives no direction for the expulsion, only that it was “from”)?
Even so, they take the same basic approach, stating that God dwelled somewhere, rather than that God stationed separate entities—cherubim and the spinning-sword-flame—somewhere. This understanding is based on two main considerations:
1. Vocalization of וישכן: Qal vs. Hiphil
In place of the Torah’s word וַיַּשְׁכֵּן, “he stationed,” all four Targumim have the Aramaic words [ו]אשרי [א]יקר שכינתיה, “he caused the glory of his Immanence to dwell.” In other words YHWH himself, or “his Immanence” dwelled east of Eden. This shows that the vocalization of the verse’s fourth word underlying their translations was וַיִּשְׁכֹּן, a qal form meaning “he dwelled” or “he went to settle”, rather than MT’s וַיַּשְׁכֵּן, a hiph‘il form meaning “he caused to dwell” or “he stationed.”[8] (For a similar confusion with the pointing of this verb, see appendix.)
The surplus reference to “God’s Immanence” does not reflect a different text, but is the way the targumim euphemistically refer to God when he is said to be dwelling somewhere, likely in order to avoid applying anthropomorphic language to the Deity.[9]
2. “ʾEt the Cherubim” – Accusative Particle or Preposition?
But if וישכן is an intransitive verb meaning “God dwelled” according to this reading, how does it parse the phrase את הכרובים, which seems to be the object of the verb in the biblical text? In the targumim, their function in the sentence is merely to specify where the divine Immanence was caused to dwell, i.e., God dwells between or above them, but how are they reading the Hebrew? The answer is that they understand the word אֶת preceding הכרבים differently.
Like English, Biblical Hebrew has homonyms, i.e., two different words with different meanings that are spelled the same (homograph) and sound the same (homophone). The Hebrew את is just such a homonym. Two different words with different meanings are spelled this way and sound the same:
  1. The accusative particle, which functions as a marker of a following direct object.
  2. A preposition meaning “with.”[10]
Although the preposition is less common than the accusative particle, it is still quite common, even appearing in the very next verse (Gen 4:1), in Eve’s declaration:
קָנִיתִי אִישׁ אֶת יְ-הוָה
I have made a man with YHWH.
“Between,” “Above,” or “With”?Admittedly, if the phrase את הכרובים means “with the cherubim,” then we may have expected the targumim to translate this as עם כרוביא, “with the cherubim,” as opposed to the somewhat different בין תרין כרוביא, “between the two cherubim,” employed by TN, FT-P, and TPJ (with minor variations). This unexpected rendering, however, is inspired by Exod 25:22 and Num 7:89, in which God is said to speak with Moses מבין שני הכרבים, “from between the two cherubim” over the ark in the tabernacle.[11]
In contrast, FT-V’s slightly different rendering of the phrase as מעילוי תרין כרובייא, “above the two cherubim,” is probably inspired by the variant reading of 2 Sam 22:11 and Ps 18:11 found in the targumim, the Septuagint, and the Vulgate, in which God is said to ride “upon” (על) cherubim.
In other words, although the targumim are certainly translating את as “with,” they adjust the imagery to fit with other biblical descriptions of YHWH in relation to his cherubim, so that YHWH dwells outside the garden, between or above them.
The End of the VerseAt this point in the verse, after the word cherubim, all four Targumim examined above shift into midrashic expansions, and thus we can only reconstruct how they would have read what follows.
With the Sword – The word וְאֵת preceding להט החרב המתהפכת, “the spinning-sword-flame,” would have been understood the same way it was in the previous phrase, as “with.” Consequently, the targumim likely understood this as “God settled between (or above) the cherubim and with the spinning-sword-flame.”  
God guards the way – Finally, in this reading, the words לשמר את דרך עץ החיים, “to guard the way to the tree of life,” refer to what God will be doing, as he dwells with his cherubim and spinning-sword-flame.
All this yields the following reading of the verse (differences in bold): 
בראשית ג:כד וַיְגָרֶשׁ אֶת הָאָדָם וַיִּשְׁכֹּןמִקֶּדֶם לְגַןעֵדֶן אֶת הַכְּרֻבִים וְאֵת לַהַט הַחֶרֶב הַמִּתְהַפֶּכֶת לִשְׁמֹר אֶת־דֶּרֶךְ עֵץ הַחַיִּים.
Gen 3:24 Having driven Man out, he [God] settled east of the Garden of Eden with the cherubim and with the spinning-sword-flame to guard the way to the tree of life.
In short, once we repoint the word וישכן, we learn that it is God himself who settles east of the garden of Eden in order to guard the way to the tree of life, while the cherubim and the spinning-sword-flame assist him in this task.[12]
Similar Usages in the Bible
The reading of the targumim in Gen 3:24, which takes the particle את as a preposition, fits with other biblical passages.
Dwelling with the IsraelitesThe precise combination שָׁכַן את also occurs in Lev 16:16 (with a pronoun suffixed to the preposition את):
ויקרא טז:טז …וְכֵן יַעֲשֶׂה לְאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד הַשֹּׁכֵן אִתָּםבְּתוֹךְ טֻמְאֹתָם.
Lev 16:16 …and he shall do the same for the Meeting Tent of the one who dwells with them in the midst of their uncleanness.
According to this translation, the one who dwells with Israel is a direct reference to God.[13]Alternatively, it could refer to the Meeting Tent and would then be translated “which dwells with them in the midst of their impurities.”[14] Even so, the reference to the Meeting Tent still alludes metonymically to God, since God is present in the Tent (Exod 29:42, 30:36, 40:34; Lev 1:1).[15]
With a Cherub (LXX)Most remarkably, the combination of prepositional את and כרוב may appear in the Hebrew Bible’s other Eden story, incorporated into Ezekiel’s dirge over the King of Tyre in Ezek 28:11–19. In the MT version of v. 14, Ezekiel calls the king of Tyre a cherub:
אַתְּ כְּרוּב מִמְשַׁח הַסּוֹכֵךְוּנְתַתִּיךָבְּהַר קֹדֶשׁ אֱלֹהִים הָיִיתָבְּתוֹךְ אַבְנֵי אֵשׁ הִתְהַלָּכְתָּ.
You are the anointed sheltering cherub,And I have set you [so],You were upon the holy mountain of God,You walked among the stones of fire.
The verse is problematic in two ways. First, what does it mean that the king of Tyre is an anointed cherub? Second, the phrase “and I have set you so” seems to say nothing at all, and it throws off the poetic rhythm of the sentence.
But according to the reading reflected in the Septuagint, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion and the Peshitta, v. 14 reads as follows:
אֶת כְּרוּב מִמְשַׁח הַסּוֹכֵךְ נְתַתִּיךָבְּהַר קֹדֶשׁ אֱלֹהִים הָיִיתָבְּתוֹךְ אַבְנֵי אֵשׁ הִתְהַלָּכְתָּ.
With the anointed sheltering cherub I set you,You were upon the holy mountain of God,You walked among the stones of fire.
This reading has one consonantal difference, the lack of a conjunction “and” (vav) before the word “I set you,” but this is related to the other difference, which is based on how the opening word is to be understood. The alternative reading, which is considered by many to be superior to that of MT for the reasons discussed above,[16] understands the opening word as the preposition “with.”
This difference between MT and the Greek and Syriac translations highlights two things:
  1. The word את is easy to confuse with other words (in this case the f. sg. personal pronoun, which is a homograph).
  1. The phrase “with a cherub,” using the less common word for “with,” את (instead of עם), also appears in the only other biblical text about the Garden of Eden.
This supports the translation of the targumim in Genesis 3:24, that God dwells “with the cherubim” outside Eden.
Is YHWH Omnipresent in Genesis 3-4?
Conceptually, the targumic reading fits well with other elements of the Eden story corpus that demonstrate that YHWH is not omnipresent but dwells in a particular place. God walks about in the garden, and after they eat from the fruit and realize they are naked, Man and his wife must hide from him when he appears so that he doesn’t see them (3:8–10).[17]
In the sequel to the Garden of Eden story, both Cain, in his complaint to God, and the narrator consider Cain’s location (from which he will depart at the story’s conclusion) as being “in the presence of” God:
בראשית ד:יד הֵן גֵּרַשְׁתָּ אֹתִי הַיּוֹם מֵעַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה וּמִפָּנֶיךָ אֶסָּתֵר וְהָיִיתִי נָע וָנָד בָּאָרֶץ…  ד:טז וַיֵּצֵא קַיִן מִלִּפְנֵי יְ-הוָה וַיֵּשֶׁב בְּאֶרֶץ נוֹד קִדְמַת עֵדֶן.
Gen 4:14 Since You have banished me this day from the soil, and I will be hidden from Your presence and become a restless wanderer on earth… 4:16 Cain left the presence of YHWH and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.
These verses indicate that God is located in a particular place rather than being omnipresent, and, that he is located in the same place as Cain.
God speaks on two separate occasions with Cain (4:6–7, 9–15). Since Cain, at this point, is certainly outside the Garden of Eden, it seems that the narrator expects it to be clear to the reader that God too is now located outside the garden. Such an expectation would only be justified if the targumic reading of 3:24 is original, “Having driven Man out, he [God] settledeast of the Garden of Eden with the cherubim and with the spinning-sword-flame to guard the way to the tree of life,” and God was said to have taken up residence right outside the garden.
A Garden no Longer?
Indeed, it is only natural that God should abandon the garden of Eden after driving Man out. His original plan was for Man to till and tend it (לעבדה ולשמרה: Gen 2:15); once Man was absent from the garden, there would be no one to maintain it, and thus it would not be fit for habitation nor serve any constructive purpose.
The reader, therefore, expects God to relocate; our verse explains where God chooses to settle and why. Never again in the Hebrew Bible is the Garden of Eden referred to as an extant habitation of God; yet, unless the targumic reading is original, we are never told when or even that it ceased to be so.
Who Dwells Among the CherubimA final point in favor of this reading is its elegant consonance with the phrase ישב הכרבים, an epithet of God that appears seven times in the Hebrew Bible (1 Sam 4:4, 2 Sam 6:2 = 1 Chron 13:6; 2 Kings 19:15 = Isa 37,16; Ps 80:2, 99:1). This epithet is usually taken by modern scholars and English Bible translations to mean “who is seated upon the cherubim”;[18] but, as I have argued elsewhere on independent grammatical grounds, it should properly be rendered “who dwells among the cherubim.”[19] Genesis 3:24, which tells of God settling with the cherubim at the dawn of the world, is thus the verse that describes how he came to be the one “who dwells among the cherubim.”[20]
God Abandons the Garden
If the targumic reading is original, then Gen 3:24 suggests that when Man and his wife disobeyed God and ate the forbidden fruit, their deed led not only to their expulsion from the garden but to God’s self-expulsion as well.  This reading is therefore, highly significant for understanding the way in which the biblical writer viewed the events of the Garden of Eden and the ensuing relationship between humans and God.
___________________

Appendix
Similar Instances of Qal/Piʿel Confusion with שכן את
A similar text-critical phenomenon to that identified in this piece, namely שכן את followed by a noun being vocalized and understood variously as “cause <noun> to dwell” and “dwell with <noun>,” recurs twice in Jeremiah 7.
In Jeremiah 7:3, God tells the Judahites:
MT; LXX (καὶ κατοικιῶ ὑμᾶς); Symmachus (Latin rendering, et confirmabo vos); Targum Jonathan (ואשרי יתכון); Peshitta (ואשריכון)
הֵיטִיבוּ דַרְכֵיכֶם וּמַעַלְלֵיכֶם וַאֲשַׁכְּנָה אֶתְכֶםבַּמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה.
Mend your ways and your actions, and I will let you dwell in this place.
Aquila (και σκηνωσω συν υμιν); Vulgate (et habitabo vobiscum)
הֵיטִיבוּ דַרְכֵיכֶם וּמַעַלְלֵיכֶם וְאֶשְׁכְּנָה אִתְּכֶםבַּמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה.
Mend your ways and your actions, and I will dwell with you in this place.
The only difference is in the pointing, but the messages are very different. The former, piʿelpointing is a threat of exile, whereas the latter, qal pointing is God threatening to abandon the Temple in Jerusalem.
Later on in this same chapter, in verse 7, God repeats his promise, that if the Judahites improve their behavior:
MT (Aleppo and Leningrad); LXX (καὶ κατοικιῶ ὑμᾶς); Targum Jonathan (ואשרי יתכון); Peshitta (ואשריכון)
וְשִׁכַּנְתִּי אֶתְכֶם בַּמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה בָּאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר נָתַתִּי לַאֲבוֹתֵיכֶם לְמִן עוֹלָם וְעַד עוֹלָם.
Then only will I let you dwellin this place, in the land that I gave to your fathers for all time.
MT (some other MSS); Vulgate (habitabo vobiscum)
וְשָׁכַנְתִי אִתְּכֶם בַּמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה בָּאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר נָתַתִּי לַאֲבוֹתֵיכֶם לְמִן עוֹלָם וְעַד עוֹלָם.
Then only will I dwell with you in this place, in the land that I gave to your fathers for all time.
Concerning the similar instances in Jer 7:3 and 7:7, many scholars have maintained that the qal readings (“dwell with you”) are original.[21]
For example, Abraham Geiger, a nineteenth-century scholar and founder of Reform Judaism, and Emanuel Tov, a contemporary expert on the textual history of the Bible, argue that the piʿel readings (“let you dwell”) here are theological alterations in vocalization. They explain that there would have been uneasiness with the notion, expressed in the original reading, of God dwelling among lesser beings. There are additional instances in which it seems that original qal forms of שכן having God as their subject were deliberately changed to piʿel, or to some other form, for the same reason.[22]
Thus, while in our verse (Gen 3:24) both vocalization options are acceptable and either one could have developed unconsciously from the other, the direction of development from qal to piʿel fits an identified pattern of deliberate, theologically-motivated alterations. Although not decisive on its own, this consideration, too, weighs in favor of the originality of the targumic reading.
___________________
Dr. Raanan Eichler is Senior Lecturer of Bible at Bar-Ilan University. He holds a Ph.D. from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and has been a Fellow at Harvard University and Tel Aviv University. His articles, published in JBL, VT, ZAW, JSS, and other journals, focus mainly on biblical beliefs and worship and on understanding the Bible in light of the natural environment, material culture, and iconography of the ancient Near East. His book, The Ark and the Cherubim, is forthcoming in Mohr Siebeck’s FAT series. He is married to Hayah, and they live in Jerusalem with their four children. 

[1] This academic devar torah is based on research that is presented in greater detail in my article, “When God Abandoned the Garden of Eden: A Forgotten Reading of Genesis 3:24,” Vetus Testamentum 65.1 (2015): 20–32. I thank the TABS team for their extensive editing of the piece.
[2] For this understanding of the opening clause, see Saadiah b. Joseph Gaon, Abraham ibn Ezra, David Kimhi and Hezekiah b. Manoah (ad loc.).  
[3] It has long been recognized that the Septuagint differs from the Masoretic Text with regard to the words וישכֵּן מקדם לגן עדן את הכרבים, “he stationed east of the garden of Eden the cherubim.” Here the Septuagint reads:
καὶ κατῴκισεν αὐτὸν ἀπέναντι τοῦ παραδείσου τῆς τρυφῆς καὶ ἔταξεν τὰ χερουβιμAnd [he] caused him to dwell opposite the orchard of delight, and he stationed the cheroubim. (NETS)
Some scholars maintain that the Septuagint reflects a variant reading here, which they reconstruct as:
וישכֵּן אֹתו מקדם לגן עדן וישם את הכרבים
He stationed him east of the garden of Eden, and he placedthe cherubim
Others characterize the Greek text as an idiosyncratic translation of no text-critical import.
[4] Targum Neofiti is a true “hidden treasure of the Vatican.” It went unnoticed in the Vatican’s libraries for hundreds of years until the mid-twentieth century, when it was published.
[5] This is likely an example of “double translation” which is common in the Palestinian targumim, in this case reading the Hebrew word קדם as both “east” and “ancient times.”
[6] The Fragmentary Targumim, which are similar in style to Pseudo-Jonathan, get their name from the fact that they are incomplete.
[7] This targum gets its name from the fact that it is printed in many Miqra’ot Gedolot editions under the incorrect label “Targum Yonatan ben Uzziel.” That name properly belongs to the Targum on the Prophets (Nevi’im).   
[8] Prof. Simcha Kogut has brought to my attention that the vocalization וַיִּשְׁכֹּן in our verse seems to be employed in an elaborate homily in Sefer Habahir 67, excerpted in the Zohar2:271a; see, e.g., Daniel Abrams (ed.), The Book Bahir (Los Angeles, 1994), pp. 159–160; Gershom Scholem (ed.), Annotated Zohar (Jerusalem, 1992), vol. 4, p. 542.
[9] Here are three examples:
  • In Exod 25:8, ושכנתי בתוכם, “so that I may dwell in their midst”, is translated by Targum Neofiti and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, as well as Targum Onqelos, as ואשרי [איקר] שכינתי ביניהון, literally, “so that I may cause [the glory of] my Immanence to dwell among them.”
  • In Exod 29:45, ושכנתי בתוך בני ישראל, “And I will dwell in the midst of the Israelites”, is translated by these three Targumim as ואשרי שכינתי בגו בני ישראל, literally, “And I will cause my Immanence to dwell in the midst of the Israelites.”
  • In Exod 29:46, לשכני בתוכם, “that I might dwell in their midst”, is translated by the three Targumim as לאשראה/למשריה [איקר] שכינתי[ה] ביניהון, “that I might cause [the glory of] my Immanence to dwell among them.”
The same pattern is seen in many other instances: Targum Neofiti. on Gen 9:27, Lev 16:16, Num 35:34, and Deut 33:16; in Targum Jonathan on 1 Kings 6:13, 8:12, Isa 33:5, Ezek 43:7, 9, Joel 4:17, 21 and Zech 2:14, 15, 8:3; in Targum of Psalms on Ps 135:21; and in Targum of Chronicles on 1 Chr 23:25 and 2 Chr 6:1.
[10] The standard Biblical Hebrew lexica BDB and HALOT both list the accusative particle and the preposition as I אֵת and II אֵת respectively.
[11] Indeed, Tg. Neof. and Tg. Ps.-J. translate this phrase, in both of its occurrences, in a manner that is identical to the wording they use in our verse. Note also Targum of Psalms, which translates ישב [ה]כרובים in Ps 80:2 and 99:1 as ד[י ]שכינתיה שריא ביני כרוביא, “whose Immanence dwells between the cherubim”, again influenced by the two verses in the tabernacle narrative.
[12] This is essentially the sense in which Targum Neofiti and the fragmentary Targumim in fact took it, whereas Targum Pseudo-Jonathan used the alternative vocalization as a point of departure for a more fanciful understanding of the verse, according to which God dwelled in the garden both before and after the expulsion of Man. This view may survive in the obscure work Midrash Alfa Betot, in the fourth chapter.
[13] Geiger, Urschrift, p. 320; Baruch Schwartz, “Commentary on Leviticus,” in The Jewish Study Bible, 2nd ed. (eds., Adele Berlin and Marc Z. Brettler; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 233. See also Tg. Neof., Tg. Neof. marginalia, Sifra ad loc., b. Yoma 56b; Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16 (AB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991), 1035.
[14] Septuagint, Peshitta, Targumim, Vulgate. Most modern commentators accept this understanding uncritically.
[15] The similar combination שָׁכַן עִם (not את) occurs in Ps 120:5;
תהלים קכ:ה אוֹיָה לִי כִּי גַרְתִּי מֶשֶׁךְשָׁכַנְתִּי עִם אָהֳלֵי קֵדָר.
Ps 120:5 Woe is me, that I live with Meshech,that I dwell with the tents of Kedar.
In this verse, the object of the preposition is אהלי קדר, “the tents of Kedar”, showing that one can even dwell “with” inanimate objects, all the more so with the spinning-sword-flame, which is characterized by its name as an animate object.
[16] BHK, BHS; George A. Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel (ICC; Edinburgh, 1967 [1936]), p. 317; Walther Eichrodt, Ezekiel: A Commentary(OTL; London, 1970), p. 389; Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel Chapters 25–48 (Hermeneia; Philadelphia, 1983), p. 89; Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 20–48 (WBC 29; Dallas, 1990), p. 90.
[17] Other passages that are usually attributed to J, e.g., Gen 11:5, 7; 18:1–33, also assume that God is not omnipresent.
[18] E.g., William F. Albright, “What Were the Cherubim?” BA 1 (1938), pp. 1–3 at 2; Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus (Jerusalem, 1967 [1951]), pp. 328–336; Menahem Haran, “The Ark and the Cherubim: Their Symbolic Significance in Biblical Ritual”, IEJ 91 (1959), pp. 30–38, 89–94 at 31; Roland de Vaux, “Les chérubins et l’arche d’alliance, les sphinx gardiens, et les trônes divins dans l’ancient orient”, in idem, Bible et Orient (Paris, 1967), pp. 231–259 (MUSJ 37 [1961], pp. 93–124) at 238; Othmar Keel and Carl Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses and Images of God in Ancient Israel (Minneapolis, 1998), pp. 157, 168.
[19] “The Meaning of ישב הכרבים,” ZAW 126/3 (2014): 358–371. The combination of active participial qal ישב followed by a governed noun with no intervening preposition occurs some 238 times in the Hebrew Bible. The combination never means “who is seated upon <noun>”, and almost always means “who dwells in <noun>,” or, when the governed noun signifies a plurality of entities, “who dwells among <noun>”: thus יֹשב (אהל ו)מקנה means “those who dwell (in tents and) among herds”.
[20] The near-synonymy of the verbs שָׁכַן and יָשַׁב is manifest in such passages as יהוה אמר לשכן בערפל . . . מכון לשבתך עולמים, “God decided to שָׁכַן in a dark cloud . . . a place for you to יָשַׁב forever” (1 Kgs 8:12–13 ≈ 2 Chr 6:2), and ההר חמד אלהים לשבתו אף יהוה ישכן לנצח, “the mountain that God desires for his יָשַׁב-ing, where God will indeed שָׁכַן permanently” (Ps 68:17).
[21] BHK; BHS; HALOT, שׁכן; Manfred Görg, “שָׁכַן; שָׁכֵן”, TDOT, vol. 14, pp. 691–702 at 694, 699–700; Benjamin Blayney, Jeremiah and Lamentations: A New Translation; with Notes Critical, Philological and Explanatory (Oxford, 1784), p. 49; Abraham Geiger, Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der innern Entwickelung des Judenthums (Breslau, 1857), pp. 319–323; Arnold B. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur hebräischen Bible: textkritisches, sprachliches und sachliches (Leipzig, 1908–1914), vol. 4, pp. 259–260; John Bright, Jeremiah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Garden City, N. Y., 1965), pp. 55–56. Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (3d ed.; Minneapolis, 2012), pp. 246–247.
[22] Geiger identified several of these. In Ezek 43:7, the masoretic אשר אֶשְׁכָּן־שָׁם, “where I will dwell”, is reflected in the Septuagint as אשר יִשְׁכֹּן שְׁמִי שָׁם, “where my name will dwell”. In Ps 78:60, the Septuagint, Theodotion, the Peshitta, Targum of Psalms and the Vulgate reflect אהל שָׁכַן באדם, “the tent where he dwelled among men”, while the Masoretic Text has אהל שִׁכֵּן באדם, “the tent he placed among men”. In Ps 74:2, the Masoretic Text and all other witnesses with the exception of Symmachus attest הר ציון זה שָׁכַנְתָּ בו, “Mount Zion, where you dwell”, while Symmachus reflects הר ציון זה שִׁכַּנְתָ בו, “Mount Zion, where you placed this [temple]”. Finally, in Deut 12:5, the Septuagint and Vulgate reflect לְשָׁכְנוֹ (or לִשְׁכֹּן ו-), while the Masoretic Text has the odd form לְשִׁכְנוֹ, in an apparent attempt to make the word seem a noun.

Wednesday, 20 March 2019

Why Is Esau’s Kiss Dotted?


Esau’s kiss to Jacob is written with scribal dots over the word וַׄיִּׄשָּׁׄקֵ֑ׄהׄוּׄ, “and he kissed him.” Traditional commentators suggest this hints to Esau’s feelings or state of mind. Critical scholarship, however, points to something much more prosaic, a question of syntax.
Prof. Albert I. Baumgarten
Esau Meeting Jacob, 1881, Dalziel Brothers Metmuseum.org
When Esau saw his brother Jacob for the first time in twenty years, the text states:
בראשית לג:ד וַיָּ֨רָץ עֵשָׂ֤ו לִקְרָאתֹו֙ וַֽיְחַבְּקֵ֔הוּ וַיִּפֹּ֥ל עַל־צַוָּארָ֖ו וַׄיִּׄשָּׁׄקֵ֑ׄהׄוּׄ וַיִּבְכּֽוּ.
Gen 33:4 Esau ran to greet him. He embraced him and, falling on his neck, he kissed him; and they wept. (NJPS)
Why is וַׄיִּׄשָּׁׄקֵ֑ׄהׄוּׄ, “he kissed him” dotted?[1] Before answering this question, we must probe a broader one: what do scribal dots in ancient scrolls from this period mean?
Nota Bene: Attracting the Reader’s Attention
Shemaryahu Talmon, the late J. L. Magnes Professor of Bible at Jerusalem’s Hebrew University, argued that the “special dots” (puncta extraordinaria) found in MT and in certain Qumran texts had multiple uses. They were, in his view, an ancient form of nota bene (Latin for “note well”),[2] calling special attention to a word or phrase. For Talmon, the dots were a way for later scribes to call attention to something in the Torah, but for traditional interpreters, the dots were an integral part of the Torah itself.
A Fake Kiss?Understanding the dots as the Torah’s own nota bene, the ancient rabbis attempted to ascertain what exactly the Torah was attempting to call to our attention. Thus, Sifre Numbers65 offered the following:
שלא נשקו בכל לבו. ר’ שמעון בן יוחיי אומר והלא[3] בידוע שעשו שונא ליעקב אלא נהפכו רחמיו באותה שעה ונשקו בכל לבו.[4]
[Esau] did not kiss him [Jacob] wholeheartedly. Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai says: “It is well-known that Esau hates Jacob.  Nevertheless, he became merciful at that moment and kissed him wholeheartedly.”
The first, anonymous position, suggested that the dots imply that the kiss was not reflective of Esau’s inner feelings, while R. Shimon bar Yohai suggested that they were meant to convey that the kiss was authentic, despite the suspicion the reader might have to the contrary.
A Treacherous Kiss: R. Yannai and OrigenA somewhat different understanding appears in Genesis Rabbah (927):
אמר ר’ יניי…מלמד שביקש לנשכו, ו י ב כ ו זה בכה על צווארו וזה בכה על שיניו.
R. Yannai[5] said: “…This teaches that [Esau] tried to bite (nashakh) him. ‘And they cried’ – one of them cried about his neck and the other about his teeth.”[6]
Playing on the similarity between the words נשק (kiss) and נשך (bite), and emphasizing the plural ויבכו, “and they both cried,” R. Yannai claimed that the dots explained why both Jacob and Esau were crying.[7]
A similar understanding appears in the work of the Church Father, Origen (184/185 – 253/254 C.E.), a contemporary of R. Yannai. Origen was one of the greatest biblical scholars of the time, and the author of the Hexapla, a complex and massive work named thus for its six columns of Biblical text,[8] which, unfortunately, only survives in very fragmentary form.[9]
Two manuscripts of the Hexapla contain an anonymous remark on our verse with the following note in Greek:
[The word] Vayyishakehu is dotted in every (Greek: en panti) Hebrew Bible, not [to indicate] that it should not be read,[10] but the wickedness of Esau is hereby hinted by the Bible: he treacherously kissed Jacob. 
Fridericus Field, a 19th century scholar who produced the critical edition of the fragments, believed the note to be Origen’s (sed videtur Origenis esse).[11] Assuming Field is correct, and this comment is Origen’s, we see that וישקהו was dotted in all the Hebrew Bibles Origen knew, ca 240 C.E., which fits with the evidence from Rabbinic sources quoted above.
Moreover, although Origen did not specify just what Esau did to make his kiss “treacherous,” this notion fits well with interpretation offered by R. Yannai in Genesis Rabbah. This may not be accidental, since we know that Origen and his Jewish contemporaries sometimes shared midrashic traditions, and R. Yannai was roughly contemporary with Origen, even if R. Yannai was based in Sepphoris and Origen in Caesarea.[12]
Cancellation of Letters
Origen rejected an alternative interpretation, that the dotted letters “should not be read,” i.e., that dots were an indication of a spurious or doubtful reading. But many contemporary scholars, such as Hebrew University’s Emanuel Tov, suggest that this is, in fact, what the dots meant.
For ancient scribes, dots above letters were a sign indicating problematic letters to be omitted. They originated in the conviction of a given scribe that a letter, letters, word or words were inappropriate, superfluous, or incorrect. Alternately, a scribe may have dotted a piece of text when collating one MSS against another, considered more authoritative, in which the dotted portion was lacking.[13]
Dots had the role of cancellation marks not only in the Torah, but also in classical texts, as we can see from a comment in the Scholion to the Iliad (10.397):
They say that Aristarchus marked (certain verses) with dots, but afterwards removed them entirely.[14]
Tov notes that of the fifteen places in the Bible in which the Masoretic text is dotted, an alternative text without the dotted word is attested in ancient sources in seven or eight instances.[15] The cancellation dots in the Bible are therefore undeniably ancient and reflect well attested ancient textual traditions for how scribes marked problematic words and letters.
Thus, against Talmon, I am convinced by Tov’s conclusion concerning the Qumran evidence: “The Qumran parallels leave no doubt that the original intention of these dots was the cancellation of letters.”[16] Accordingly, elimination, and not emphasis, should be the default choice and the first possibility pursued in all cases of dotted letters.[17]
Rabbinic Knowledge of this PracticeAlthough rabbinic interpretation assumed that dotted words in the Bible should be treated as an integral part of a verse, the rabbis were aware that scribes used dots to suggest erasure. For example, Avot of Rabbi Nathan (version A, 101, column a)[18] makes a general observation:
כך אמר עזרא: אם יבוא אליהו ויאמר לי מפני מה כתבת כך? אומר אני לו כבר נקדתי עליהן ואם אומר לי יפה כתבת אעבור נקודה מעליהן
Thus said Ezra: “If Elijah should come and say to me, ‘Why did you write (these doubtful words in the Torah) in this manner?’ I will answer him: ‘I have already dotted them.’ But if he should say: ‘You have written them correctly,’ I shall remove the dots from them.”
According to this source, Ezra the scribe put the dots in the biblical books to express ambivalence, and whether the words should remain or be erased was to be answered by Elijah the prophet in messianic times. Indeed, Sifre Numbers seems to suggest in one instance that the dots imply that a word was dubious.[19]
But what is the problem with Esau kissing Jacob in this verse such that the word וַׄיִּׄשָּׁׄקֵ֑ׄהׄוּׄ, “he kissed him,” was marked for erasure?[20] I suggest that the scribes were not bothered by the content of the verse, that “Esau wouldn’t have kissed his brother,” but by something much more prosaic: syntax.
Suggestion 1: Hugging and Kissing
Should Be Consecutive
In other verses in Genesis, the way of expressing that someone hugs and kisses his fellow is to place the verbs consecutively:
בראשית כט:יג וַיְהִי כִשְׁמֹעַ לָבָן אֶת שֵׁמַע יַעֲקֹב בֶּן אֲחֹתוֹ וַיָּרָץ לִקְרָאתוֹ וַיְחַבֶּק לוֹ וַיְנַשֶּׁק לוֹ…
Gen 29:13 When Laban heard the news about his sister’s son Jacob, he ran to meet him; he embraced him and kissed him…
בראשית מח:י …וַיַּגֵּשׁ אֹתָם אֵלָיו וַיִּשַּׁק לָהֶם וַיְחַבֵּק לָהֶם
Gen 48:10 So [Joseph] brought them [Manasseh and Ephraim] close to him [Jacob], and he kissed them and embraced them.
If that were the idiom governing our verse, it should have had the verbs adjacent to each other. Thus, it is possible that וַׄיִּׄשָּׁׄקֵ֑ׄהׄוּׄ was dotted because it was in the wrong place in the verse and the dots were meant to convey “delete here and move to the proper spot”:[21]
וַיָּרָץ עֵשָׂו לִקְרָאתֹו וַֽיְחַבְּקֵהוּ [וַיִּשָּׁקֵהוּ] וַיִּפֹּל עַל־צַוָּארָו וַׄיִּׄשָּׁׄקֵ֑ׄהׄוּׄ וַיִּבְכּוּ.
Esau ran to greet him. He embraced him [and he kissed him]; he fell on his neck, and he kissed him, and they wept.
The problem with this interpretation is that dots indicate that a word should be considered/designated for elimination, not that it should be moved. The difficulty is therefore not the place of וַׄיִּׄשָּׁׄקֵ֑ׄהׄוּׄ in the verse but whether it belongs there at all.
Suggestion 2: Conflating the Idioms
for Hugging/Kissing and Crying
I suggest that the problem the scribe had was connected to the way the kiss cuts into the description of the crying, as already suggested in 1906 by Romain Butin.[22] Genesis uses two idioms for crying:
Idiom 1 – Falling on someone’s neck and crying:
בראשית מה:יד וַיִּפֹּל עַל צַוְּארֵי בִנְיָמִן אָחִיו וַיֵּבְךְּ וּבִנְיָמִן בָּכָה עַל צַוָּארָיו.
Gen 45:14 With that he (Joseph) fell on his brother Benjamin’s neck and wept, and Benjamin wept on his neck.
בראשית מו:כט …  וַיִּפֹּל עַל צַוָּארָיו וַיֵּבְךְּ עַל צַוָּארָיו עוֹד.
Gen 46:29 … and he (Joseph) fell on his (Jacob’s) neck, and he wept on his neck some more.
Idiom 2 – Kissing and crying
בראשית כט:יא וַיִּשַּׁק יַעֲקֹב לְרָחֵל וַיִּשָּׂא אֶת קֹלוֹ וַיֵּבְךְּ.
Gen 29:11 Then Jacob kissed Rachel, lifted his voice, and wept.
בראשית מה:טו  וַיְנַשֵּׁק לְכָל אֶחָיו וַיֵּבְךְּ עֲלֵיהֶם…
Gen 45:15 He kissed all his brothers and wept upon them…
The problem in our verse as it stands is then that it conflates these two idioms for crying. As the text now reads, Esau fell on Jacob’s neck, crying, and kissed him at the same time. Butin suggests that this is why וַׄיִּׄשָּׁׄקֵ֑ׄהׄוּׄ  was marked with dots as dubious. When וַׄיִּׄשָּׁׄקֵ֑ׄהׄוּׄ is omitted only one idiom for crying, falling on someone’s neck and crying remains controlling the description of the event.[23]
 If the word is deleted, the verse would then read, following one of the expected patterns:
וַיָּרָץ עֵשָׂו לִקְרָאתֹו וַֽיְחַבְּקֵהוּ וַיִּפֹּל עַל־צַוָּארָו וַיִּבְכּוּ.
Esau ran to greet him. He embraced him and he fell on his neck and they wept.[24]
Not Correcting Gen 50:1If this explanation is correct, why are there no dots over Joseph’s kissing (וַיִּשַּׁק) his deceased father in Gen 50:1, which also comes together with crying:
בראשית נ:א וַיִּפֹּל יוֹסֵף עַל פְּנֵי אָבִיו וַיֵּבְךְּ עָלָיו וַיִּשַּׁק לוֹ.
Gen 50:1 Joseph fell upon his father’s face and wept over him and kissed him.
I suggest that it is because the text reads על פני, “on his face,” rather than על צואראו, “on his neck,” which is a different idiom. Also, the kissing does not interrupt the idiom, but follows afterwards as a separate action.[25]
Postscript: Scribal Error as a Religious Problem
Many readers of TheTorah.com, like any number of its writers, live on the seams between the worlds of tradition and the university. These offer two different ways of approaching the same set of texts, based on different assumptions, asking and answering very different sorts of questions. Sometimes these seams are rough, sharp, and very uncomfortable to sit on. The dissonance can be great.[26]
The case of the dotted letters, however, is one in which the tradition itself invites university-style analysis, employing philological tools to identify problem readings deserving elimination, which is not a usually accepted procedure in traditional analysis. The dotted letters open the door to asking what might be wrong with a specific word and why it might be appropriate to strike it from the text.
If, as Avot of Rabbi Nathan (referenced above) states, Ezra could explain to Elijah that the dots meant that certain letters were incorrectly found in the Torah and should be taken out, then we are free to understand what might be wrong with those letters that Ezra conceded were candidates for omission by means of text critical and philological analysis.
The dotted letters are thus an issue where the two different approaches to the sacred text can agree on the assumptions underlying the questions to be asked and the sorts of answers to be offered. To return to the metaphor of the seams, if those seams are sometimes uncomfortable to sit on, in this case they are flat and smooth. They cause little discomfort, if any.
___________________
Prof. Albert I. Baumgarten is Professor (Emeritus) at the Department of Jewish History in Bar Ilan University. He holds a B.H.L. in Talmud from JTS and a Ph.D. in History from Columbia University. He was a Fulbright Fellow at the University of Strasbourg and a Principal Investigator at The McMaster Project: Judaism and Christianity in the Graeco-Roman Era. Baumgarten is the author of The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean Era: An Interpretation and Second Temple Sectarianism – A Social and Religious Historical Essay.

[1] Genesis 33:4 is one of the ten places dotted in the Torah. The basic presentation of the topic of the significance of dotted letters in the Torah remains Saul Lieberman, “The Ten Dotted Places in the Torah,” Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (New York, 1962), 43-46. Manuscripts from Qumran have added further evidence, but not changed the basic picture. See further Emanuel Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert (Leiden, 2009), 175-186; ibid., “(Proto-)Masoretic Text: Scribal Marks,”TheTorah.com (2017).
[2] Shemaryahu Talmon, “Prolegomenon,” in Romain F. Butin, The Ten Nequdoth of the Torah (Baltimore: J.H Furst, 1906; New York: Ktav, 1969 Reprint), xxi-xxviii.
[3] An alternative text, והלכה בידוע “it is a known rule,” which was known to Rashi and thus became the dominant reading, led to much speculation about why this is a “rule.” See discussion in Martin Lockshin, “Esau Hates Jacob But Is Antisemitism a Halakha?”TheTorah.com (2016).
[4] References to Rabbinic sources that follow are to the page numbers in the standard critical editions: Sifre Numbers – Kahana; Genesis Rabbah – Theodor-Albeck; Mekhilta de-Rabbi Yishmael – Horovitz-Rabin; Avot of Rabbi Nathan [ARN] – Schechter.
[5] He was of the first generation of amoraim in the Land of Israel, roughly the first half of the third century CE.  
[6] According to the version of the event as told in the first printed edition of Genesis Rabbah, as recorded in the critical apparatus of Theodor-Albeck (927), Jacob’s neck became like marble and Esau broke his teeth on Jacob’s neck. Jacob then cried over his neck while Esau cried over his broken teeth. From the first printed edition this account of the consequences of Esau’s kiss was then repeated in popular (vulgate) versions of Genesis Rabbah such as the Vilna edition, as Albeck commented ad loc.:וכן הדפיסו אחריו .
[7] Despite the authority of the Rabbis, Ibn Ezra rejected the midrashic interpretation of the verse:
הדרש על נקודות וישקהו טוב הוא לעתיקי משדים כי על דרך הפשט לא חשב עשו לעשות רע לאחיו והעד, ויבכו, כאשר עשה יוסף עם אחיו.
The derash explaining the dots on the word “he kissed him” is good for babes newly weaned, since, according to its simple meaning, Esau did not plan on doing any harm to his brother. Note, [the verse says] “and they cried” just as Joseph did with his brothers.
Ibn Ezra, however, did not offer his own explanation of why וישקהו was dotted. Compare Nahum Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary Genesis בראשית (Philadelphia, 1989), 366, n. 3, who adopted the midrashic explanation of the verse known from Origen and the Rabbis.
[8] The columns were:
  1. Hebrew;
  2. Transliteration of the Hebrew into Greek letters;
  3. LXX;
  4. Aquila;
  5. Symmachus;
  6. Theodotion.
In addition to simply putting the various versions in columns, Origen also marked what was in Hebrew but not in the LXX as well as marking what was in the LXX but not in the Hebrew.
[9] The most convenient edition remains that of Fridericus Field, Origenis Hexaplorum quae Supersunt (Oxford, 1875). It is available as a pdf on the Internet at https://archive.org/details/origenhexapla01unknuoft. I note, however, that a new edition is being prepared under the auspices of the Hexapla Institute, as described at www.hexapla.org.
[10] Mē anaginōskētai, which means not to be read at all, to be skipped as a spurious reading. This is not a matter of ketiv/qere.
[11] Field, in his edition of Origen’s Hexapla, 49, n. 6.  Field cited five MSS. Codd. Regii in his work, 4-5, all in the “royal” library of Paris. He did not specify which of the five were the two that had this anonymous comment.
[12] As one example: when the Red Sea was split a separate path through the waters was carved for each tribe, as noted by Origen in Hom. In Ex, 5. and by the Rabbis in Mekhilta de Rabbi Yishmael, 100. R. Heine, Origen, Homilies on Genesis and Exodus (Washington, 1982), 283, n. 58. On Origen and the Rabbis in more general terms see Reuven Kimelman, “Rabbi Yokhanan and Origen on the Song of Songs: A Third-Century Jewish-Christian Disputation,” HTR 73 (1980): 567-595.
[13] This explanation of the origin of dotted letters suggests that there was not one organized body, practicing one consistent textual policy, behind the dotted letters. This presumption may explain the fact that the reasons for some dotted letters in the Torah are hard to determine. See for example the dots in Deut 29:28 on לנו ולבנינו ע which Tov, Scribal Practices, 204, considered cryptic and Talmon, “Prolegomenon,” xviii, deemed “extremely enigmatic.”
[14] As quoted by Lieberman, Hellenism, 44, n. 52. For the use of dots as marks for omission in Classical texts, see Tov, Scribal Practices, 184.
[15] For some examples, see his, “(Proto-)Masoretic Text: Scribal Marks,” TheTorah.com(2017).   
[16] Tov, Scribal Practices, 202.
[17]  I follow Tov because he wrote some forty years after Talmon and his conclusion was based on knowledge of a far wider corpus of texts.
[18] In Avot of Rabbi Nathan B, 98, col. b, Ezra’s explanation to Elijah was introduced with the question: ולמה נקוד על כל האותיות האלה? J. Goldin, The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan(New York, 1974), 139 inserted this question into the shorter text of ARNA cited above as supplying a context for Ezra’s answer to Elijah.
[19] In Num 3:5 Moses was commanded to “bring forward the Levites” (הקרב את בני לוי), and the rest of chapter continues with the account of how this was done. However, at the end, summarizing the counting of the Levites, in Num 3:39 we find:
במדבר ג:לט כָּל פְּקוּדֵ֙י הַלְוִיִּ֜ם אֲשֶׁר֩ פָּקַ֙ד מֹשֶׁ֧ה וְ֗אַ֗הֲ֗רֹ֛֗ן֗ עַל פִּ֥י יְ-הוָ֖ה לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָ֑ם
Num 3:39 All the Levites who were recorded, whom at YHWH’s command Moses and Aaron recorded by their clans.
Not surprisingly, ואהרן (“and Aaron”) is dotted. What was he doing there, as the original command was given to Moses alone!? This difficulty was recognized in Sifre Numbers 69, where the dots were explained as indicating a problem word שלא היה במיניין “since he wasn’t part of the counting.” The standard printing reads differently, שלא היה אהרן מן המנין “Aaron was not one of the [Levites who were] counted.” Menachem Kahana suggested that this might have been a deliberate attempt to adjust the more controversial claim to something less problematic. See Menachem Kahana, Sifre on Numbers: An Annotated Edition, volume 4 (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2011), 475-476.
[20] One modern scholar, W. Vischer, “La Réconciliation de Jacob et d’Esau,” Verbum Caro11 (1957): 47, wanted to have it both ways. He noted the dots on וַׄיִּׄשָּׁׄקֵ֑ׄהׄוּׄ as both cancellation dots and as the basis for the Midrash on the evils of Esau but rejected both. Accepting these explanations is “c’est passer devant la vérité sans la voir. Tout le récit est clair et net et ne permet aucun doute.” For Vischer, the reconciliation of Jacob and Esau was real, a prefiguration of the total, universal, and cosmic reconciliation achieved by Jesus on the cross. This Christological interpretive context is consistent with the indication, ibid, 41, n. 1 that Vischer’s paper was based on remarks delivered at the European Regional Assembly of the International Reform Alliance in Emden in August 1956.
[21] Butin, Ten Nequdoth, 74, suggested that this was the reading behind the Hebrew source of the major archetype of the verse in the LXX. The connection with the LXX version was a principal reason Talmon also preferred this explanation of the dotted letters, “Prolegomenon,” xii-xiii. For Tov’s comments on the LXX version of this verse see Tov, Scribal Practices, 203, n. 268.
[22] Butin, Ten Nequdoth, 74.
[23] My interpretation differs from that offered by other scholars, such as by Lajos Blau, Masoretische Untersuchungen (Strassburg, 1891), 22,  and Christian David Ginsburg; Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible (London, 1897), 325 in insisting on recognizing the idiom for kissing and crying in Gen 45:15 and the difficulty it caused for our verse in comparison to the idiom for crying while falling on someone’s neck, as in Gen 45:14. Compare also Ephraim A. Speiser, Genesis (New York, 1964), 259 who cited an Akkadian parallel for falling on someone’s neck and kissing them, and therefore concluded that there was no problem in the verse. Again, however, Speiser did not note that the reason וַׄיִּׄשָּׁׄקֵ֑ׄהׄוּ was problematic was that it introduced a second idiom for crying (missing altogether in his Akkadian parallel) into a verse that already utilized another idiom for crying.
[24] I note with pleasure that Talmon conceded that Butin’s interpretation “indeed has some appeal,” even if Talmon found its reasoning precarious since he was convinced that the sequence in Gen 45:14-15 showed that the two idioms could co-exist and did not clash. Talmon, “Prolegomenon,” xii-xiii.
[25] Perhaps, as suggested to me by the editors, this act of kissing and crying was seen differently because Joseph was kissing his dead father. It was a kiss of goodbye, closure after crying. Cf. the idiom in Gen 46:29, above, where Joseph fell on Jacob’s neck and wept on his neck some more.
[26] For some reflections on this dissonance, see, “Not a Naive Reading: An Interview with Professor James Kugel,” TheTorah.com (2018).

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

  This is not merely an epistemological maxim ; it is also a logical principle of inference . In other words, the mere absence of evidence ...