כְּרוּב – cherub
Semantic Fields:
Supernatural Beings
Author(s):
Alice Wood
First published: 2014-08-13
Citation: Alice Wood, כְּרוּב – cherub,
Semantics of Ancient Hebrew Database (sahd-online.com), 2014
Introduction
Grammatical type:
Occurrences: 91x HB (??/??/??); 0x Sir; 20x Qum; 0x Inscr. (Total: ??)
-
Torah: Gen 3:24; Exod 25:18, 19, 20, 22; 26:1, 31; 36:8, 35; 37:7, 8, 9; Num 7:89;
-
Nebiim: 1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2; 22:11; 1 Kgs 6:23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 35; 7:29, 36; 8:6, 7; 2 Kgs 19:15; Isa 37:16; Ezek 9:3; 10:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20; 11:22; 28:14, 16; 41:18, 20, 25;
-
Ketubim: Pss 18:11; 80:2; 99:1; 1 Chron 13:6; 28:18; 2 Chron 3:7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14; 5:7, 8.
-
Qumran: 4Q11 29-30 i 9, 10, 11 (2×), 12; 4Q54 6,9; 4Q73 1, 4; 4Q73 1,7; 4Q73 2, 2; 4Q286 1 ii 2; 4Q364 16, 2; 4Q391 16, 2; 4Q403 1 ii 15; 4Q405 20 ii 20-21-22 3, 7, 8; 4Q511 41, 2; 11Q 17 V, 9, VII, 5, 11Q19 VII 10; 11QShirShab 3-4, 4.
1. Root and Comparative Material
A.1 The root כרב is not attested elsewhere in AH, apart from in Ezr 2.59 and Neh 7.61, where the form כְּרוּב II occurs as a place name.
A.2 The etymology of כְּרוּב is uncertain. Several attempts at tracing its derivation have been made, yet there is not enough evidence to confirm its origin beyond doubt. The root k-r-b occurs frequently in East Semitic and the majority of scholars link כְּרוּב, in some way, to the Akkadian terms kāribu and kurību. Kāribu is the present participle of the verb karābu and has the meaning “one who prays” or “intercessor”. Kurību is a diminutive form from the same root (see Von Soden §55k). Dhorme (1926:338) was among the first to make a connection between these terms and Hebrew כְּרוּב. He states: “le kâribu et le kerûb appartenaient à la meme racine et, par conséquent, présentaient une signification analogue.” According to Dhorme, the Akkadian terms refer to specific statues of deities that flanked the gateways of Mesopotamian temples and interceded with the gods on behalf of humanity. However, he fails to take full account of the difference between kāribu and the diminutive kurību. Towards the end of his article, Dhorme states, “Nul doute que le kuribu ne corresponde au kâribu d’antan.” (1926:338) Later, he adds, “Quel que fût le nom adopté, kâribu “orant”, kuribu “petit orant”… il s’agit toujours du même être qui se trouve à l’entrée du sanctuaire.” (1926:339) In the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary, however, an important difference between the two forms is noted. Kāribu is recorded as an adjective (CAD, VIII 1991:216), whereas kurību is said to be a substantive (CAD, VIII 1991:559). If this is the case, kāribu may be nothing more than a descriptive word, modifying a god (or a statue of a god), and not a noun designating a specific type of divine being or representation of such a being. Indeed, the data suggests that kāribu is used in a generic way, to refer to any statue which was fashioned in a position of prayer.
Turning to the diminutive form kurību, we can argue that the word refers to a statue of a specific type of divine being. The form occurs in two Assyrian building inscriptions from the reign of Esarhaddon, in which kurību statues appear together with statues of apotropaic beings, such as laḫmu, anzû and lion figurines (see CAD, VIII 1991:559). That the kurību was of non-human form is suggested by a text describing an Assyrian prince’s vision of the underworld (Von Soden 1936:16; ANET, 109). In his vision, the prince sees a monster which he describes as having the head of a kurību but human hands and feet.
Non-human characteristics and an apotropaic function, are common to both the Assyrian kurību and the biblical cherubim statues. These features bolster the argument for an etymological link between Hebrew כְּרוּב and Akkadian kurību, although there is not sufficient evidence to prove such a connection.
B.1 It is possible that כְּרוּב is related in some way to the Semitic verb krb, “plough”, which occurs in Aramaic, Arabic and South Semitic and possibly in Akkadian (in the word nukarribu, meaning ‘gardener’).
There may be a link here between this meaning of the stem k-r-b and the biblical portrayal of the cherubim. First, the biblical evidence shows that the cherubim were associated with vegetation. The best known passage in this regard is Gen 3.24, where Yahweh places the cherubim to the east (or in front) of the Garden of Eden in order to guard the way to the Tree of Life. In Ezek 28.14 and 16, a cherub is also situated in the Garden of Eden. In Ezek 41.18-19 and 1 Kgs 6.29, cherubim are depicted on the walls of the temple, alternating with palm trees and open flowers. Hence the biblical evidence may help to support a connection between Semitic k-r-b “to plough” and כְּרוּב, “cherub”. Iconographic evidence corroborates a link between the cherubim and vegetation: supernatural, hybrid beings and sacred trees regularly appear together in artwork from all over the ancient Near East, even as far as South Arabia. See Cleveland 1963:55-61 and Stordalen 2000:159-160.
Yet there is no evidence that the cherubim ever actually tended to the plants. Some scholars have argued that in Neo-Assyrian art, hybrid beings are depicted pollinating a date-palm, which was the Assyrian sacred tree. However, a closer inspection of the Akkadian terminology reveals that this was, in fact, a ritual of purification and not pollination. The cherubim are never described as ploughing or tilling the soil. In Gen 3.24, they are given a clear task: to guard the way to the Tree of Life. The iconographical evidence also points in this direction, a pair of hybrid beings is often depicted either side of a sacred tree, facing towards it. This is similar to the iconography described in Ezek 41.18-20. Hence the function of the cherubim seems to be to guard the sacred plants, not to tend to them, and thus the biblical evidence does not strengthen a link between Semitic k-r-b “to plough” and biblical כְּרוּב. If Stordalen is correct in arguing that gardens and vegetation are symbolic of thresholds and boundaries, then the cherubim depicted on the walls of the temple may represent guardian figures that protect the sacred space from contamination (2000:137, 161, 284).
On the other hand, it has been suggested that the connection between the cherubim and the meaning “to plough” lies in their physical appearance and not in their purpose or function (see Dhorme 1926:330). It is argued that the cherubim could have been associated with oxen that pulled ploughs. Evidence for this connection is found in Ezekiel’s second vision of the cherubim in chapter 10. Where, in Ezekiel’s first vision in chapter 1, the four faces attributed to each cherub are said to be that of a man, a lion, an ox and an eagle, in the second vision the four faces are said to be that of a man, a lion, a cherub and an eagle (10.14). This may imply that the prophet saw a certain resemblance between a cherub, on the one hand, and an ox, on the other.
However, the assertion that the prophet changed the face of the ox to that of a cherub merely because he saw a correspondence between the two is not sufficient. There is a more plausible explanation for the removal of the bovine features of the face. This is given by Halperin in his important work, The Faces of the Chariot (1988), where he argues that the author of Ezek 10.14 purposefully deleted the ox’s face of 1.10 and substituted it instead with the rather uninformative “cherub’s face”. The reason for this replacement is, according to Halperin, that the ox’s face was a reminder of the golden calf episode at Sinai and hence represented Israel’s apostasy. Such an interpretation of this substitution is made explicit in rabbinic tradition (e.g. Tanh. Buber ´Emor #23 (ed. 49a-b [222]), cited in Halperin 1988:163). If, as some scholars argue, the cherubim (in their function as the throne of Yahweh) were the southern counterpart to the golden calves set up by Jereboam at Bethel and Dan, then the substitution of cherub for ox is perhaps all the more appropriate. See Albright 1940:228-230. Thus we cannot argue for the equation of cherubic and bovine features on the basis of Ezek 10:14 and hence the case for a relationship between k-r-b “to plough” and כְּרוּב is weakened.
B.2 There is also root krb, “to plait, unite”, which occurs in Aramaic, Arabic, South Semitic and possibly Ugaritic (in KTU 1.19 i 2). Again, there is no real evidence to suggest that this root might be related to Hebrew כְּרוּב.
B.3 Dhorme (1926:331) and Rinaldi (1967:211) assert that כְּרוּב, and hence the Akkadian verb karābu, can be related etymologically to the Hebrew verb ברך, “to bless.” Dhorme argues that ברך is clearly a derivative of karābu, ‘b’ switching with ‘k’ by means of metathesis. However this has since been refuted. Mitchell (1987:11), in his study on the meaning of ברך in the Old Testament, argues that “in spite of the close similarity in meaning… it is unlikely that the two are related; metathesis of the first and third radicals of a root is extremely rare.”
B.4 Brown (1968:163) revives an older argument (cf. Ges.:365), which opposes a Semitic origin and makes a link between כְּרוּב and Greek γρύψ (stem γρυπ-). He claims that the words are identical, apart from the shift in articulation between the stops. This may have been assisted in Greek by means of assimilation to Greek γύψ “bird of prey” or γρυπος “hook-nosed” or in Hebrew by means of assimilation to רכב (see Ps 18.11 = 2 Sam 22.11 and “the chariot (merkābāh) of the cherubim” in I Ch 28.18). The latter seems unlikely, however, as the association of cherub with רכב in Ps 18.11 (= 2 Sam 22.11) is purely for poetic purposes and the further association between the cherubim and the merkābāh only occurs in post-exilic texts.
2. Formal Characteristics
A.1
3. Syntagmatics
A.1
4. Ancient Versions
a. Septuagint (LXX) and other Greek versions (αʹ, σʹ, θʹ):
A.1 The LXX translators transliterate both כְּרוּב and כְּרוּבִים, offering χερούβ and χερουβιμ/χερουβιν.
A.2 The LXX account of the construction of the tabernacle (Ex 36-37) differs considerably from that of the MT. The Greek omits the reference to the cherubim worked into the curtains in 36.8 but includes them in 36.35. The description of the gold cherubim on the kappōret in 37.8-9 is much shorter in the Greek than the Hebrew and the LXX omits the reference to the position of the faces of the cherubim in 37.9.
A.3 In Ps 18.11, the LXX has the plural where the MT has the singular. Thus the Greek reads καὶ ἐπέβη ἐπὶ χερουβιν καὶ ἐπετάσθη (“And he mounted on cherubim and flew…”). It is likely that the LXX translator understood the Hebrew singular to be a collective noun here. The LXX also has the plural in the parallel passage 2Sm 22.11, however, here, a different verb is used. In place of Hebrew רכב, LXX has the verb ἐπιβαίνω (“to mount, board”) in Ps 18.11 but ἐπικαθίζω (“to sit”) in 2Sm 22.11.
A.4 In Ezk 9.3 and 10.2,4, the LXX again supplies the plural χερουβιν, where the Hebrew has the singular כְּרוּב. Once more, it is possible that the LXX translator understood the Hebrew to be a collective in these verses. Alternatively, the LXX text may be the result of a desire to tidy up the inconsistent use of the singular and plural of כְּרוּב in the Hebrew version of Ezk 9-10.
A.5 In Ezk 10.7, the LXX does not clarify who it is that stretches out his hand, where in the MT it is one of the cherubim. This renders the Greek text incoherent and has caused Allen (1994:124) to suggest that an original ἐκ μέσου τῶν χερουβιν could have dropped out by homoeoarcton before εἰς μέσον (εκ).
A.6 Ezk 10.14 is absent from the LXX and most scholars regard the verse as a gloss.
A.7 The Greek version of Ezk 28.14 understands the king of Tyre to be placed with a cherub and reads μετὰ τοῦ χερουβ in place of the Hebrew אַתְּ־כְּרוּב, “You are the cherub”. The original text, without vowels, could have been read either way, although the form of the 2ms pronoun that appears in the MT is rare. In verse 16, the LXX continues to view the king of Tyre as entirely separate from the cherub and understands the cherub to be the instigator, and not the recipient, of the punishment.
b. Peshitta (Pesh):
A.1 Transliterates: ܟܪܘܽܒܳܐ (krūbā)
c. Targum (Tg):
A.1 Tg transliterates the Hebrew, unless the word was indigenous to Aramaic as well as to Hebrew. It always uses the determined singular form כְּרֻובָא and never the undetermined form כְּרוּב. For the plural, the Tg supplies both the undetermined form, כְּרֻובִין, and the determined, כְּרֻובַיָּא.
A.2 As one would expect, the divine epithet יֹשֵׁב הַכְּרוּבִים, with its anthropomorphic undertones, is changed in the Tg to דִשְׁכִינְתֵּיהּ שַׁרְיָא עֵיל מִן כְּרוּבַיָא, “whose Shekinah dwells above the cherubim” (2 Sam 6:2).
A.3 Likewise, in Ps 18.11, the anthropomorphic “And he rode upon a cherub and flew” is changed to ואתגלי בגבורתיה על כרובין קלילין, “And he was revealed in his might upon swift cherubim.” In 2Sm 22.11, it is the Shekinah and not God himself who is revealed. Like the LXX, the Tg has the plural form in place of the MT singular, כְּרוּב. Again, the translator may have understood the Hebrew singular as a collective or, alternatively, the writers of the Tg could be envisaging the cherubim as a chariot-throne, in accordance with the Ezekiel tradition and merkābāh mysticism.
d. Vulgate (Vg):
A.1 Transliterates: cherub (pl. cherubim/cherubin)
A.2 Josephus in Ant 8:73 admits that, by his time, people were ignorant about what the cherubim looked like, “No one can tell, or even conjecture, what was the shape of these Cherubim.” It is likely that the original form and function of the cherubim was rapidly forgotten during and after the exile and this may well account for the reluctance among the translators of the versions to offer an appropriate substitute for כְּרוּב in their target languages.
5. Lexical/Semantic Fields
A.1
6. Exegesis
6.1 Textual Evidence
A.1
6.2 Pictorial Material
A.1
A.2
6.3 Archaeology
A.1
7. Conclusion
A.1
Bibliography
For the abbreviations see the List of Abbreviations.
Eva Andersson Strand, Marie-Louise Nosch (eds), Tools, Textiles and Contexts: Investigating Textile Production in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean Bronze Age (Ancient Textiles Series, 21), Oxford: Oxbow.
Daniel Arnaud, Recherches au pays d’Aštata, Emar VI/4: Textes de la bibliothèque: transcriptions et traductions, Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations.
Elizabeth J.W. Barber, Prehistoric Textiles: The Development of Cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages, with Special Reference to the Aegean, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Claudia Bergmann, ‘We Have Seen the Enemy, and He is Only a “She”: The Portrayal of Warriors as Women’, CBQ 69:651-72.