Fat Eglon more

FAT EGLON James K. Aitken It has long been recognized that the tale of the judge Ehud defeating the Moabite king Eglon (Judg. 3.15–30) is one of humour and parody.1 The seemingly successful king is outwitted by Ehud, fooled by a ruse to take him into a private place where he is run through by Ehud’s short sword (vv. 21–22), too short for the deep fat of the king, and where his stewards are equally outwitted, thinking the king to be defecating (v. 24). Word-plays and grotesque characterizations abound. The puns, for example, on ‫ ְדּבר־סתר‬as a secret message or a concealed object ֶ ֵ֥ ַ (i.e. weapon), and on the verb ‫( תקע‬the ‘thrusting’ of the sword in v. 21 prefiguring the ‘sounding’ of the trumpet in v. 27) contribute to the irony, along with the sexual references of the dagger and the locked doors.2 Commentators have delighted in the ironic reversals of the story and provided rich retellings that draw out the many subversive elements. It is clear that Eglon is a foreign king who is to be contrasted with the judge Ehud, the local hero for the writer. He conforms to a type of the foolish foreign king or leader (e.g., Pharoah, Exod. 1–2; Balak, Num. 22–24; Sisera, Judg. 4–5; Abimelek, Judg. 9) outwitted by an Israelite hero.3 Eglon’s fate, to be killed in private in a room of dubious function, and to have the ‘dirt’ exude from him, was not becoming of a person of his stature. And yet, humour as a culturally-bound construct hampers attempts to distinguish between what was considered humorous in ancient Israel from what would be 1 It is a pleasure to offer this to an ever supportive friend and colleague, who is also able to burst any academic pomposity with wit. 2 These examples are all discussed in Alter (1981: 38–41). The bibliography on the subject of biblical parody and of the Judges narratives is extensive such that we can here only be representative rather than exhaustive. My thanks to Ora Lipschitz for bibliographic assistance. After this article had been submitted, the study of L.G. Stone (2009) appeared touching on similar issues. Although it has not been possible to take his arguments into consideration, they complement the approach taken here. 3 A full list of examples is compiled by Brenner (1994: 42), who proceeds to discuss some of those in Judges, Esther and Daniel. 141-154_KHAN&LIPTON_F13.indd 141 7/28/2011 1:50:43 PM 142 james k. aitken today.4 There are many elements that are indeed intended as ridicule, but not all are necessarily to be put down to a scatological or lewd sense of humour on the part of the author.5 The one physical feature that is identified about Eglon is his weight. He is introduced in the following words ( Judg. 3.17): And he [Ehud] presented the tribute to Eglon king of Moab. Now Eglon was a very fat man (‫( )אישׁ בּ ִ֖ריא מאד‬RSV translation) ֹֽ ְ ָ ִ֥ Features are usually recorded for a purpose, and many commentators have seen this descriptive element, placed so prominently in parenthesis in the introduction of Eglon, as essential to the narrative (e.g., Moore 1895: 93; Budde 1897: 29; Lindars 1995: 142; Schneider 2000: 49–51). The author is at pains to provide as much information as possible, and only Genesis 22 and 2 Samuel 18 in the Hebrew Bible, as Halpern notes (1988: 40), lavish as many details in their accounts of killings. In the case of his corpulence, Budde sees it as a particularly personal and realistic feature to draw attention to (‘ein besonders individueller und realistischer Zug’, 1897: 29). The fact that Eglon was fat indeed prepares for the description of Ehud’s sword being lost in the folds of flesh, allowing the author a phonetic word-play on ‫ה ֶח ֶרב‬ ֖ ַ ‘sword’ and ‫‘ החלב‬fat’ (v. 22). Nevertheless, in recent years, commenta֙ ֶ ֵ֙ ַ tors have increasingly read the reference to Eglon’s fat as an indicator that he is a humorous or incompetent character. Lindars’s is one of the first commentaries to draw attention to the fact that the description is ‘intentionally comic’ (1995: 142). And such an understanding of the humorous nature of fat Eglon has apparently grown in the latter half of the past century, and is becoming a standard reading of his ‘fat’. Schneider, for example, sees the weight as signifying that the king is ‘fat, slow-moving, and naïve’ (2000: 51), while admitting that it prefigures the grotesque description of the blade and hilt of Ehud’s dagger being enclosed with fat (2000: 50). Alter believes Eglon’s encumbrance of fat will make him an easier target as he awkwardly rises from his seat, but more importantly sees the fat as a ‘token of his physical ponderousness, his vulnerability to Ehud’s sudden blade, and the emblem of his regal stupidity’ (1980: 155, emphasis mine; cf. Alter 1981: 40–41). Brenner 4 Point made aptly by Brenner (1994: 41). She also notes that biblical humour is ‘serious’ humour, namely less joyful as it is aimed at disparagement of opponents. 5 McCann suggests ‘the story quite literally becomes bathroom humor’ (2002: 44–45). 141-154_KHAN&LIPTON_F13.indd 142 7/28/2011 1:50:44 PM fat eglon 143 infers that the name Eglon, meaning ‘big calf ’, is an allusion to the king’s obesity, going so far as to suggest that, ‘ “Obese” is of course a cultural token of stupidity and vulnerability’ (1994: 45). In particular she draws attention to the association of obesity with women, noting that Amos 4.1–3 equates fat with the obtuseness and greed of women.6 For her, the king is thus feminized, and hence politically ineffectual. Guest suggests that Eglon’s fat is intentionally over-stressed: ‘Not only is Eglon’s physical obesity the subject of derision, however, for fatness operates as a cipher for other qualities as well’. She proceeds to list the attributes of gullibility and greed (an uncontrolled hunger), and observes how it functions to feminize him.7 The problem for us is whether his weight is a reason for the humour, symbolic of the incompetence and stupidity of the king, or whether the humorous element of obesity is a modern western phenomenon. Our suspicion is raised in the text of Judges by the translation, sometimes noted though rarely commented upon,8 in the LXX of ‫‘ בּ ִ֖ריא‬fat’ by ָ ἀστεῖος, an adjective conventionally translated ‘pretty, charming’ (LSJ: 260). There are very few biblical characters whose physical features are noted, reflecting the fact that features are only mentioned when essential to the narrative. As a result, it is not easy to conclude anything from the fact that few others are described as fat. It either means it is a striking feature of Eglon (and the use of the adjective ‫ מאד‬might be ֹֽ ְ important here), or that fat was not an issue at all and therefore not elsewhere mentioned. Further consideration of fat both in the narrative and in the cultural context are in order. First we should consider why we should not be so ready to see fat as humorous. 6 The feminization of Eglon has been discussed by Alter (1980: 155–56) and others, but is an issue that requires a separate treatment that space does not allow here. An element that is often noted is the phrase used when Ehud goes to meet Eglon in secret, ‫‘ בוא אל‬he went into him’ ( Judg. 3.20), which can have a sexual connotation implying Ehud is thrusting Eglon with his sword as a man would a woman. Similar phrases elsewhere in Judges are not sexual (e.g., Judg. 6.18), and such an interpretation has been criticized by Brettler (1991: 295). For criticism of other details, see Barré (1991: 7). 7 Guest (2003: 191–92). It is easy in our language and culture to make allusions to fat in comical ways. In an otherwise sensitive and careful discussion of Eglon, MacDonald characterizes him as ‘a man concerned primarily with his belly’ and ‘constituted by nothing more than fat and faeces’ (2008a: 114). 8 This reading is not noted at all in his textual notes by Moore (1895: 94). Schneider notes it but without elucidation (2000: 49). 141-154_KHAN&LIPTON_F13.indd 143 7/28/2011 1:50:44 PM 144 james k. aitken The Cultural Significance of Fat Increasing attention has been paid in recent years to the cultural significance of fat (e.g., Schwartz1986; Stearns 2002; Gilman 2008). Stearns noted how until the twentieth century plumpness was associated with prosperity, and with good health. While there have often been cultural stereotyping of figures such as Shakespeare’s Falstaff, this grew with the later representation of Falstaff in opera (Gilman 2008: 85–100). The real change in the nineteenth century in the west came with increased medical knowledge that recognized the dangers of obesity (Pool 2001: 7; Gilman 2008: 4–9), responding to the nineteenthcentury opinion that it was healthy to have a few extra pounds (Pool 2001: 21). This was coupled in the 1950s with the view from Freudian psychoanalysts who saw overeating as a psychological disorder (Pool 2001: 7). As a result an increasing negative stereotyping of fat has grown in the west, being associated with ill-health, psychological problems and lack of self-control. By contrast, under the influence of Greek philosophy, accounting for the different attitude in the Talmud to that in the Bible (see Kottek 1996), it became a powerful myth in the West for philosopher-scientists to have a ‘lean and hungry look’. While cases of the social stigma of being fat have existed in previous centuries (cf. Gilman 2004: 11–12, 35–39) it has become such a mainstay in the twentieth century, with fat being seen as a cause or symptom of low self-esteem. It is, therefore, difficult for us to appreciate attitudes from other periods. Given the cultural determinedness of the meaning of fat, it is not immediately apparent whether a stigma would have been attached to being fat in ancient Israel. Indeed, it is also not apparent whether people would have been seen as fat at all. Although in antiquity degenerative joint disease was very common, it is difficult to determine from archaeology whether people were overweight, since the bones would most likely only show signs of deformity from the pressure of weight in the morbidly obese. Mechanical stress on joints leading to deformation of the skeleton or injury to the joints can be caused by obesity, but it could also arise from poor posture (Živanović 1982: 153–154). It is now thought that osteoporosis can be caused by obesity, and the most likely cause of large amounts of new bone formation especially in the spine (vertebral osteophytosis) may be associated with either diabetes or obesity (Julkunen et al. 1971; Mays 1998: 127–128). Since arthritis and other infectious diseases can cause deformities, it is 141-154_KHAN&LIPTON_F13.indd 144 7/28/2011 1:50:44 PM fat eglon 145 impossible to conclude for definite whether a skeletal remain suffered from obesity.9 Obesity can, nevertheless, arise from hormonal disturbances (Pool 2001: 3–4), so that as long as those with the hormonal deficiency have sufficient access to food we would expect to find some people in antiquity overweight. It is generally accepted that the diet was healthy in ancient Israel, implying cases of obesity would have been fewer (Borowski 2004: 96; 2003: 133n.1; accepted by MacDonald 2008b: 6). Where it did exist, though, there might not have been a conscious social significance to the phenomenon. It might even have been a sign of privilege arising from access to plentiful food. If anyone it might well have been the king who was fat, having access to a more varied diet, meat consumption especially, and to foodstuffs not available to the poorer members of society.10 As such, a sign of both success and health was to be fat, indicating access to plentiful foodstuffs. In Job being heavy of jowl and sides bulging with fat (Job 15.27) seems to be a mark of prosperity, implied too by Deut. 32.15 (Borowski 2004: 96). Could the symbolism of fat, then, as healthy be a sufficient explanation for Eglon’s condition? Fat in Hebrew Interpretation of the adjective ‫‘ בּ ִ֖ריא‬fat’ in a positive sense has been ָ noted already by many commentators.11 It has been well expressed recently by Ryan (2007: 19–20), who proposes as one possibility that the king’s constitution ‘is to be understood as robust and healthy, a fine specimen of a well-fed manhood’ (p. 19). He even cites in support of this reading the LXX (see below). This sense seems in recent years to have been submerged among the humorous readings of the 9 The standard works on the archaeological study of skeletal remains include Ortner and Putschar (1985); Rogers and Waldron (1995). 10 On socioeconomic differentiation in ancient Israel, see MacDonald (2008b: 77–79, 93). 11 Hepner (2004: 291) comes up with his own explanation, that ‫ בּ ִ֖ריא‬might denote ָ ָ ְ ‘having a big chasm’ (if playing on ’‫ בּ ִריאה‬creation’), and thus describing Eglon’s large anus from which the dirt will be expelled. This interpretation requires a high degree of associative semantics between the two words and then an extension of the sense of the associative word to mean chasm. It is hard to imagine any reader following such a word-play. 141-154_KHAN&LIPTON_F13.indd 145 7/28/2011 1:50:44 PM 146 james k. aitken passage. ‫ בּ ִ֖ריא‬is primarily used with reference to animals—a cow (Gen. ָ 41.2, 4, etc.), cattle (1 Kgs 5.3), sheep (Ezek. 34.20; Zech. 11.16), sacrificial animals (Ezek. 34.3)—or of foodstuffs—ear of grain (Gen. 41.5, 7), food (Hab. 1.16). It is, however, also used in two other places of people.12 The psalmist in Ps. 73.4 is envious of the ‘fat’ bodies of the arrogant, and in Dan. 1.15 it refers to the better appearance of the youths who had been eating the king’s food. It appears, therefore, to be positive when applied to humans, and a sign that something is ripe and ready for eating (Hab. 1.16; Zech. 11.16) or sacrificing (Ezek. 34.3) when applied to animals or foodstuffs. Indeed, the sleek and fat cows of Genesis are described in highly positive terms as ‫‘ יָ פה‬beautiful’ in ֶ both ‫‘ מ ְראה‬appearance’ (Gen. 41.2, 4) and ‫‘ תֹּאר‬form’ (41.18).13 ֶ ַ ַ A positive interpretation then of the adjective ‫ בּ ִ֖ריא‬in Judg. 3.17 ָ conforms to its use elsewhere, and fits the cultural presuppositions already outlined above. It also highlights the insufficiency of the glosses provided in many of our Hebrew lexicons.14 The simple choice of the word ‘fat’ (e.g., BDB: 135; HAL: 150, ‘fett’; Kaddari 2006: 125, ‫)שׁמן‬ ֵ ָ and similar terms (Gesenius18: 175, ‘dick, korpulent, wohlgenährt . . . ein sehr dicker Man (Jdc 3.17)’) can confuse more than clarify. Some lexicons are much more helpful, providing explanatory additional glosses. Clines’s definition of ‘fat, fleshy, i.e. nourished, healthy’ (1995: 263) and Zorell’s glosses (128) ‘pinguis, bene saginatus, corpulentus’ recognize the potentially healthy sense of the Hebrew, and Alonso Schoekel’s typically full list of glosses, ‘Cebado, gordo, orondo, obeso; sustancioso, granado’ (117) includes this sense.15 Alonso Schoekel does not make clear which biblical citations should be ascribed to which meaning, but the order of citation suggests the first set of meanings (fat, obese) are intended for Judg. 3.17, even though the second pair (healthy, choice) might in fact be more appropriate. A positive interpretation of Eglon’s fat would make sense in the context. He is the successful king, grown healthy and prosperous on other people’s offerings. The irony lies in the fact that it is such 12 The application of the adjective to humans elsewhere is sometimes downplayed, especially if the instance in Ps. 73.4 is overlooked (e.g., Amit 1999: 76). 13 The positive sense is also clear from consultation of Rabbinic Hebrew. See Jastrow: 192–193. 14 On the problem of using glosses rather than definitions in lexicons, see Lee (2003: 15–30). 15 On the benefits of Zorell’s and Alonso Schoekel’s multiple glosses, as well as some of the frustrations, see Aitken (2009). 141-154_KHAN&LIPTON_F13.indd 146 7/28/2011 1:50:44 PM fat eglon 147 a successful figure that will be defeated so easily by the judge Ehud. His successful fatness serves as a contrast to his eventual downfall. Hence, the identification of this detail about his physical appearance is placed between two references to Ehud’s presenting of the tribute (vv. 17 and 18). Wénin (2008) has recently drawn attention to the point of view expressed for each character, and in this Eglon’s weight is judged from the point of view of Ehud. In presenting tribute he sees Eglon as already fatted, perhaps not even needing the tribute. In particular Wénin repeats what has become a standard interpretation of the passage, playing on the name Eglon meaning ‘calf ’ (e.g., Soggin 1989: 96). He sees Eglon as a fat calf, thanks to excess, ready for slaughtering and eating.16 This still seems to be the most likely reading of the passage, and adopted recently by Butler (2009: 70). While Eglon is fatted from success, it also makes him a juicy specimen for sacrificing. Alter (1981: 38–41) notes the use of ritual words such as ‫)81 ,71.3( המּנְ חה‬ ָ֔ ִ ַ and the verb ‫ ;81 ,71.3( קרב‬see too Amit 1989: 110; Brettler 1991: 294–95; Lindars 1995: 138). To this we might also note the reference to Eglon’s fat ‫ ,)22.3( החלב‬a component in sacrifice. Eglon thus proves ֙ ֶ ֵ֙ ַ to be a well-fed successful monarch comparable to a fatted calf ready for the slaughter. A similar pun is to be found in the description of his troops as ‫ ,שׁמן‬both ‘stout’ and ‘fat’ troops ( Judg. 3.29; see Alter 1981: ֵ֖ ָ 41). The key point is that the end result is the same: the monarch is humiliated. The Versions As noted above, of the Versions the LXX is of particular note. The Targum (‫ )פטּים‬and the Vulgate (crassus), on the other hand, merely ִ ַ render the Hebrew by equivalents for ‘fat’. The Peshitta, to which we will return in a moment, is more complex than Lindars suggests (1995: 142), who wonders whether the Syriac’s ‘very simple’ shows disapproval or a misunderstanding of the comical Hebrew. In both LXX versions (A and B), however, we have the same striking Greek reading: 16 Barré (1991: 7 n. 24) points, perhaps tenuously, to the root prš, also used of cattle, in the peculiar word in v. 22. 141-154_KHAN&LIPTON_F13.indd 147 7/28/2011 1:50:44 PM 148 james k. aitken καὶ Εγλωμ ἀνὴρ ἀστεῖος σφόδρα Now Eglom was a very handsome man (NETS) Few have tried to explain the reading of ἀστεῖος ‘handsome, urbane’ in the LXX.17 ἀστεῖος is derived from the Greek ἄστυ ‘town’, and thus the adjective denotes ‘urbane’, referring both to manner (refined, witty) and appearance (pretty, graceful ). Elsewhere in the LXX ἀστεῖος denotes the beautiful appearance of the infant Moses (Exod. 2.2) and of attractive women ( Jdt 11.23;18 Sus. 1.7), in addition to what appears to be a ‘root sense’ of ‘relating to a town’ (Num. 22.32; 2 Macc. 6.23). In the LXX of Judges we should be cautious of reinterpreting the Greek in the light of the Hebrew, and therefore we cannot follow without further evidence Engel, who concludes that a semantic change is present in the translation of fat by ἀστεῖος (1985: 91). Lindars makes a desperate attempt to account for the Greek, proposing that the LXX has taken the adjective as a derivative of ‫ ברא‬I ‘to create’, and therefore understood the meaning as ‘well made, handsome’ (1995: 142). It is true that there is confusion in our manuscripts between ‫ ,בריה‬the noun ‘fat’, and ‫‘ בריאה‬creation’ or ‘creature’ (Sir. 16.16), such as in 1Q382 105.7 (DJD XIII: 402; Bindi 1998: 3), and between ‫ בריא‬and ‫ בריאה‬in 1QpHab on Hab. 1.16 (van der Woude 1978: 30). However, even if the LXX read the word as a derivative of ‫ ברא‬I this does not lead naturally to the translation ἀστεῖος. ‫ בריאה‬is translated as φάσμα in Num. 16.30. We must go back to the nineteenth century and citations of much earlier work to find other attempts to explain the Greek. Schleusner translates the phrase in Judg. 3.17 as ‘vir valde pulcher’ (1822: 383), but cites Bonfrère’s conjecture (presumably from his 1631 commentary on Judges) ἀνηρ σταιτός (vir pinguedinis) or σταίτιος (pinguis et adipatus). Unfortunately, these adjectives might not exist in Greek, and seem to be conjectural derivatives of σταῖς/σταίς (‘dough’; LSJ: 1633), and hence ‘doughy’ (i.e. fat?). The only appearance of σταίτιος is with the referent bread, and not a person (in Zonaras’s 13th-century lexicon, and in the 15th-century writer Gennadius Scholarius). Cassel (1875: 74) suggests the Greek of Judg. 3.17 follows a different inter- 17 Typically, Aquila’s πιμελής (‘fat’) and Symmachus’s παχύς (‘stout’) render the Hebrew literally (Field 1875: 406). 18 Engel (1985: 92) suggests that the choice of ἀστεῖος is more restrained than καλός, used by Holofernes in Jdt 11.21. 141-154_KHAN&LIPTON_F13.indd 148 7/28/2011 1:50:44 PM fat eglon 149 pretation from the Hebrew, to be connected with the narrative context of receiving gifts. He sees the LXX as denoting the manner in which Eglon receives the gifts, since ἀστεῖος could mean ‘friendly, accessible’ (e.g., Plato, Phaedo 116d: ‘What a civil man’). He adds, to account for this, that in the Egypt of the LXX translators it was still a matter of experience that presentation or tribute of gifts to the rulers did not always meet with a gracious reception. This interpretation might make sense of the word in the context, but does not explain why the translators would choose this equivalent for ‘fat’ in the first place. Another explanation, also derived from the supposed experience in the ancient world, is that by Serarius, who argues that all urbani would have had a tendency to become fat owing to their comfortable living (1609: 87, cited by Cassel 1875: 74). Schleusner (1822: 383) himself, despite citing Bonfrère’s conjecture, does not accept it. He notes that fat can be deemed to be beautiful, drawing attention to Gen. 41.2 where fat cows are said to be beautiful in form in the LXX (though translating a different phrase). Here he is following in a line of interpretation already proposed much earlier by Bochart (1646: 534), who takes ἀστεῖος as a description of a handsome man (cited by Cassel 1875: 74). We might pause at this point and consider the Peshitta. In the family of manuscripts represented by 7a1 from Milan the translation is given of ‫ܗܘ ܕ‬ understood by Lindars as ‘the 19 man was very simple’. MS 9a1 (Florence) and its family, however, has an expanded reading of ‫ܗܘ ܕ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܗܘ‬ ‘he was very fat and the man was simple’.20 This alternative appears to indicate a corrected reading towards the Hebrew, but still preserves the equivalent , perhaps reflecting the antiquity of this tradition. As already noted, Lindars saw this as an avoidance of the meaning of the Hebrew (1995: 142), although two other possibilities are available. First, ‫ בריא‬could have been misread as ‫ בריר‬and accordingly translated in the Peshitta, although there is no other textual evidence for this. Second, the semantics of could suggest it is a translation of the Greek ἀστεῖος rather than the Hebrew, or at least represents the same understanding of the Hebrew. For, the adjective can mean, in For the text of the Peshitta and manuscript readings, see Dirksen (1978: 8). It is not the place here to discuss the much-vexed question of the relationship of 9a1 to the other families. It is of the nature of this manuscript to reflect a tradition close to that of the Masoretic text. 20 19 141-154_KHAN&LIPTON_F13.indd 149 7/28/2011 1:50:44 PM 150 james k. aitken addition to simple, ‘elegant’ or ‘pure’ (Payne Smith 1868–1901: 621, ‘mundus, purus’), a suitable rendering of the Greek ἀστεῖος, as Payne Smith has already recognized. We therefore have two textual attestations, either as independent witnesses or as one witness, to a positive sense of the Hebrew ‫.בּריא‬ ִ ָ It seems that we may follow Bochart, Schleusner, and most recently Ryan (2007: 19) and Butler (2009: 54), who have all noted, taking their leave from the LXX translation, that ‘very handsome’ is an appropriate translation for the king’s constitution. This would concur with our earlier investigation into the positive sense of Hebrew ‘fat’ in the narrative. But there is a further issue in the Greek that should be noted, and one that has been overlooked owing to the manner of presentation of data in our Greek lexicons. Modern Greek can often shed light on ancient Greek, and especially Koine, as has been amply demonstrated by Shipp (1979, and literature therein). In this case we find that in modern Greek ἀστεῖος often denotes ‘witty’ (εὐτράπελος, Kriaras 1968–: III, 274) or even ‘ridiculous’ (Dematrakos 1937–1955: 1067–68). This sense is not to be found in the biblical lexicons, but it is in the LSJ entry, if buried under other evidence. Certainly, LSJ records the meaning witty in a positive sense, but the negative connotation is subsumed under the definition of a word of praise (i.e. pretty, charming) as ‘ironically, ἀ. κέρδος a pretty piece of luck’ (LSJ: 260). Here the English semantics has governed the description of the Greek definition. The ironic use of pretty in English has led to its sub-classification under the Greek for ‘pretty’ rather than it being given a separate classification of meaning.21 Consultation of ancient Greek sources does indeed indicate that a negative or ironic connotation of ἀστεῖος can be found. In Aesop, for example, the word is collocated with εὐτράπελος ‘witty’ (Fable 93bis version 3, delta line 17) and in a scholion to Aristophanes it is given as an equivalent of γέλοιος ‘laughable’ (Scholia in plutum 697: Dübner 1969). A character in Aristophanes can exclaim: μάχαιραν; ἀστεῖόν γε κέρδος ἔλαβεν ὁ κακοδαίμων Ha! A knife! What a joke of a reward the poor bastard received for his decency! (Clouds 1064; translated by George Theodoridis). 21 As a result it is a sense that seems to have been overlooked in Diccionario GriegoEspañol III (1991). 141-154_KHAN&LIPTON_F13.indd 150 7/28/2011 1:50:44 PM fat eglon 151 More importantly, the word may refer to persons. Thus the fourthcentury comic writer Diphilus has one character exclaim to the other ἀστεῖος εἶ ‘you are a wheeze’ (Synoris fragment 1, line 2; cf. Plutarch, Demetrius 42.3; Longinus, On the sublime 34.3). It is possible, therefore, that there is a double meaning in the Greek. Eglon is handsome, owing to his portly indicator of wealth and health, but at the same time he is to be seen as something of a witty character. It is notable that the Syro-hexapla, rendering the Greek some centuries later, translates the phrase as ‫ܗܘ‬ ‘the man was very jocular’ (Rørdam 1861: 76). Conclusions While it may be true in modern satire that the excesses ‘we laugh at are usually inferior excesses; the fat man, not the strong man’ (Feinberg 1967: 6), it does not apply in the case of Judg. 3.17. Our current cultural pre-occupation with fat can mislead in appreciating its significance in biblical times. The increase in attention in the past thirty years to the humorous nature of Eglon’s fat might in part reflect these contemporary concerns, although it might also be a by-product of the greater number of literary readings of Judges that focus on the satirical nature of many of the tales. It might seem churlish to deny the more entertaining interpretations of this passage and to return to the view of Eglon as a calf ready for the slaughter, but there is still much in the tale to entertain the ancient Israelite. Certainly, the weight of someone can be a cause of their downfall. The case of Eli is the best example, although in 1 Sam. 4.18 he is actually said to be heavy (‫ )כ ֵבד‬rather than fat. Furthermore, his weight is ֑ ָ given as an explanation after his death and not as a narrative feature earlier on. Eglon remains a comical character in some respects, a calf ripe for slaughtering. His healthy weight may be too much (‫ )מאד‬and ֹֽ ְ his success is leading to his downfall. The weight of Eglon is also a problem for Ehud (Amit 1989: 111): we can imagine him wondering how he on earth he will fit his short sword into such a large stomach. One problem for us is the inadequacy of the glosses in dictionaries to convey the nuances of the Hebrew and we can easily misunderstand words that have a different cultural signification from our own. The Septuagint was more sensitive to this problem, and can be our guide. It is only very recently, in the commentaries of Ryan and Butler (2007 141-154_KHAN&LIPTON_F13.indd 151 7/28/2011 1:50:44 PM 152 james k. aitken and 2009 respectively), although long ago proposed by Bochart (1646), that the LXX has been accepted as a legitimate translation. In this case, though, the LXX has chosen a most flattering word, used only of beautiful women elsewhere in the LXX, and not entirely appropriate for a monarch. As the word can also be used disparagingly of someone who is a wit or the object of wit, it is Greek that has the last laugh. References Aitken J.K. 2009. ‘Other Hebrew Lexicons: Zorell and Alonso Schoekel’, in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III (eds. J. Dyk, W. van Peursen, B. Turner, T. Falla, R. de Blois; Piscataway: Gorgias Press). Alter, Robert. 1980. ‘Sacred History and the Beginnings of Prose Fiction’, Poetics Today 1.3 (Special Issue: Narratology I: Poetics of Fiction): 143–162. ——. 1981. The Art of Biblical Narrative (London: Allen & Unwin). Amit, Y. 1999. Judges, with Introduction and Commentary [in Hebrew] (Tel Aviv: Am Oved). ——. 1989. ‘The Story of Ehud (Judges 3:12–30): The Form and the Message’, in Signs and Wonders: Biblical Texts in Literary Focus (ed. J.C. Exum; SBL Semeia Studies; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature) 97–124. Barré, Michael L. 1991. ‘The Meaning of pršdn in Judges III 22’, Vetus Testamentum 41: 1–11. ָ ִ ְ Bindi, S. 1998. ‘‫ ,’בּריאה‬in Semantics of Ancient Hebrew (ed. T. Muraoka; Louvain: Peeters Press) 3–10. Bochart, S. 1646. Geographia Sacra seu Phaleg et Canaan (Caen: Typis Petri Cardonelli). Borowski, O. 2003. Daily Life in Biblical Times (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature). ——. 2004. ‘Drink and Be Merry: The Mediterranean Diet’, Near Eastern Archaeology 67: 96–107. Brenner, A. 1994. ‘Who’s Afraid of Feminist Criticism? Who’s Afraid of Biblical Humour? The Case of the Obtuse Foreign Ruler in the Hebrew Bible’, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 63: 38–55. Brettler, M.Z. 1991. ‘Never the Twain Shall Meet? The Ehud Story as History and Literature’, Hebrew Union College Annual 62: 285–304. Budde, K. 1897. Das Buch der Richter (Kurzer Hand-commentar zum Alten Testament, Abt.7; Freiburg: Mohr, 1897). Butler, T. 2009. Judges (Word Biblical Commentary, 8; Nashville: Thomas Nelson). Cassel, P. 1871. The Book of Judges, Translated from the German, with Additions, by P.H. Steenstra (Edinburgh: T&T Clark). Clines, D. 1995. Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, Vol. 2: Beth-waw (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic). Dematrakos, D.V. 1937–1955. Μέγα Λεξικόν Όλης της Ελληνικής Γλώσσης (Athenai: Demetrakos). Dirksen, P.B. 1978. The Old Testament in Syriac: according to the Peshiṭta version. Part 2.2: Judges-Samuel (Leiden: E.J. Brill). Dübner, F. 1969. Scholia Graeca in Aristophanem (Hildesheim: Olms; reprint of Paris: Didot, 1877). Engel, H. 1985. Die Susanna-Erzählung: Einleitung, Übersetzung und Kommentar zum Septuaginta-Text und zur Theodotion-Bearbeitung (Orbis biblicus et orientalis 61; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). 141-154_KHAN&LIPTON_F13.indd 152 7/28/2011 1:50:44 PM fat eglon 153 Feinberg, L. 1967. Introduction to Satire (Ames: Iowa State University Press). Field, F. 1875. Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt: Veterum interpretum graecorum in totum Vetus Testamentum fragmenta (Oxford: Clarendon). Gilman, S.L. 2004. Fat Boys: A Slim Book (Lincoln: University of Nebraska). ——. 2008. Fat: A Cultural History of Obesity (Cambridge: Polity Press). Guest, P.D. 2003. ‘Judges’, in Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible (eds. J.D.G. Dunn and J.W. Rogerson; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans) 190–207. Halpern, Baruch. 1988. The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History (San Francisco: Harper & Row). Handy, L.K. 1992. ‘Uneasy Laughter: Ehud and Eglon as Ethnic Humor’, Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 6: 233–246. Hepner, G. 2004. ‘Scatology in the Bible’, Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 18: 278–295. Kaddari, M.Z. 2006. Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew (Alef-Taw) [in Hebrew] (RamatGan: Bar-Ilan University). Kaufmann, Y. 1962. Book of Judges [in Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Ḳiryat Sefer). Kottek, S.S. 1996. ‘On health and obesity in talmudic and midrashic lore’, Israel Journal of Medical Sciences 32: 509–510. Kriaras, E. 1968–. Λεξικό της μεσαιωνικής ελληνικής δημώδους γραμματείας 1100– 1669 (Thessalonica: Royal Hellenic Research Foundation). Lee, J.A.L. 2003. A History of New Testament Lexicography (Studies in Biblical Greek 8; New York/Oxford: Peter Lang, 2003). Lindars, B. 1995. Judges 1–5: A New Translation and Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark). MacDonald, N. 2008a. Not Bread Alone: The Uses of Food in the Old Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press). ——. 2008b. What Did the Ancient Israelites Eat? Diet in Biblical Times (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans). McCann, J. Clinton. 2002. Judges (Interpretation; Louisville: John Knox Press). Moore, G.F. 1895. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges (Edinburgh: T&T Clark). Payne Smith, R. 1879. Thesaurus Syriacus (Oxford: Clarendon, 1868–1901). Pool, R. 2001. Fat: Fighting the Obesity Epidemic (Oxford: University Press). Rørdam, T.S. 1861. Libri Judicum et Ruth : secundum versionem Syriaco-Hexaplarem, quos ex codice musei Britannici nunc primum edidit, graece restituit notisque criticis illustravit (Havniae: Ottonem Schwartz, typis excudebat J.C. Scharling). Ryan, R. 2007. Judges (Readings, a new biblical commentary; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press). Schleusner, J.F. 1822. Novus thesaurus philologico-criticus: sive, Lexicon in LXX. et reliquos interpretes graecos, ac scriptores apocryphos Veteris Testamenti (Glasgow: Andreas & Joannes M. Duncan). Schneider, T.J. 2000. Judges (Berit olam; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press). Schwartz, H. 1986. Never Satisfied: A Cultural History of Diets, Fantasies and Fat (New York: Free Press / London: Collier Macmillan). Serarius, N. 1609. Iudices et Ruth explanati (Mogvntiæ: E Balthasaris Lippij Typographeo). Shapin, S. 1998. ‘The Philosopher and the Chicken: On the Dietetics of Disembodied Knowledge’, in Science Incarnate: Historical Embodiments of Natural Knowledge (eds. Steve Shapin and Christopher Lawrence; Chicago, Chicago University Press) 21–50. Shipp, G.P. 1979. Modern Greek Evidence for the Ancient Greek Vocabulary (Sydney: Sydney University Press). Soggin, J.A. 1989. ‘Ehud und Eglon. Bemerkungen zu Richter 3:11b–31’, Vetus Testamentum 39:95–100. 141-154_KHAN&LIPTON_F13.indd 153 7/28/2011 1:50:44 PM 154 james k. aitken Stearns, P.N. 2002. Fat History: Bodies and Beauty in the Modern West (New York/ London: New York University Press). Stone, L.G. 2009. ‘Eglon’s belly and Ehud’s blade: a reconsideration’, Journal of Biblical Literature 128: 649–663. Wénin, A. 2008. ‘Le « point de vue raconté », une catégorie utile pour étudier les récits bibliques? L’exemple du meurtre d’Églôn par Éhud (Jdc 3,15–26a)’, Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 120: 14–27. van der Woude, A.S. 1978. Habakuk, Zefanja (Nijkerk: Callenbach). 141-154_KHAN&LIPTON_F13.indd 154 7/28/2011 1:50:44 PM