What Sort of Friends? 397 nearly the only instance in biblical Hebrew in which it describes the worthlessness of something non-divine (12). If the μylyla are indeed divinities, would they be associated with the Rephaim? Indeed: μylyla is parallel with μyfa in Isa 19,3; there is a broad consensus that the latter term is cognate with Akk. et≥immu, a term for a ghost(13) In Isa 19, μylyla served as a term for the divinized dead who are consulted for knowledge (14). Although lyla certainly came to be a general term for a false god or idol, it seems to have been specifically associated with ancestor worship in Leviticus as well (15). Therefore it is more probable that l(y)la has something to do with divinized spirits of the dead than with “doctors”. If μyapr and μylyla can indeed both refer to “spirits of the dead”, then how is one to understand the syntax of the phrase lla yapr? Instead of an attributive (epexegetical) genitive, it functions as a genitive of association, where the μyapr belong to the class of lla (“false gods”) (16). Thus, for the whole phrase, something like “false oracles” better captures the meaning. Here the witness of the Targum to Job is of some interest, since it reads, ˆwklwk ˆydkh hyks hyflpd aqdrwmw lla ysmb rqç yrbjm ˆwta μrbw “And indeed you are associates of falsehood; like vain idols, and dead flesh that the knife opens up, thus are you all” (17). I would deem this expansion a double translation of lla yapr that sought to capture both the senses I have argued for: the friends are portrayed as false oracles and as the dead. 2. Smearers or slanderers? As for the first charge of the indictment, one should question the typical translation of rqv ylpf as “smearers of falsehood” (18). HALOT considers (12) Zech 11,17 might be the only other instance, depending on the identity of the shepherd. (13) See, for example, T.J. LEWIS, Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit (HSM 39; Atlanta, GA 1989) 133-134 and further references in n. 16; CAD E, 397-401. (14) On necromancy in ancient Egypt, see R.K. RITNER, “Necromancy in Ancient Egypt”, Magic and Divination in the Ancient World (eds. L. CIRAOLO – J. SEIDEL) (Ancient Magic and Divination 2; Leiden 2002) 89-96. (15) In Lev 26,1, the μlyla are condemned alongside the hbxm, a stone structure which according to Albright’s classic theory was associated with ancestor- or hero-worship. More interesting still Lev 19,3-4, where the fear of mother and father (v. 3) is juxtaposed with the prohibition not to turn to μylyla (v. 4). It was proposed some time ago by Brichto that the Decalogue’s injunction to “honor thy father and mother” originally referred to ancestor worship; if so perhaps Lev 19,4 is a later revision (or clarification) of the law after ancestor worship was banned in Judah. (16) See B.K. WALTKE – M. O’CONNOR, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN 1990) 153. (17) D.M. STEC, The Text of the Targum of Job. An Introduction and Critical Edition (Leiden 1994) 86*; cf. C. MANGAN et al., The Targum of Job (Collegeville, MN 1991) 43. Job 13 is not preserved in the Targum to Job from Qumran (11QtgJob). (18) Though wooden, this translation appears to reflect the underlying assumptions of such translations as the NIV’s “you … smear me with lies” and the NRSV’s “you whitewash with lies”.