Hezekiah and the Compositional History of the Book of Kings (Forschungen Zum Alten Testament 2.Reihe) 9783161529351, 9783161529559, 3161529359

Citation preview

Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe Edited by Konrad Schmid (Zürich) · Mark S. Smith (New York) Hermann Spieckermann (Göttingen)

63

Benjamin D. Thomas

Hezekiah and the Compositional History of the Book of Kings

Mohr Siebeck

Benjamin D. Thomas, born 1980; PhD in Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East from the University of Chicago; currently a Research Project Professional at the Oriental Institute in Chicago.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-152955-9 ISBN 978-3-16-152935-1 ISSN 1611-4914 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 2. Reihe) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2014 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. www.mohr.de This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Nehren on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

For Heidi

Preface This study began as a doctoral dissertation submitted to the department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at the University of Chicago. I owe a debt of gratitude to my advisor Dennis Pardee, who guided this project. I would also like to recognize the members of my committee, Jeffrey Stackert, Steven McKenzie, and David Schloen. Seth Richardson and Simeon Chavel also helped to refine this study. The present book comprises a version of the dissertation with some minor revisions concerning style and content. I would like to thank Konrad Schmid, Mark S. Smith, and Hermann Spieckermann, the editors of the series Forschungen zum Alten Testament II, as well as Henning Ziebritzki, the Editorial Director of Theology and Jewish Studies at Mohr Siebeck, for accepting this study. In particular, I would like to single out Mark S. Smith for providing indispensible comments to enhance the presentation and argumentation of this work. Benjamin D. Thomas

Chicago, Illinois

Table of Contents Preface .......................................................................................................... VIII Abbreviations ............................................................................................... XVI

Chapter One: How Was the Book of Kings First Composed? ....

1

1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................

1

1.2 The Standard Critical View ...................................................................

2

1.3 Early Critiques of the Standard View ....................................................

9

1.4 Recent Studies on the Framework of Kings ............................................ 17 1.5 Recent Objections to a Hezekian Framework ........................................ 34 1.6 In Search of the Original Framework .................................................... 37 1.7 Defining Deuteronomism ........................................................................ 38 1.8 Objectives ................................................................................................ 41 1.9 Outline of the Present Study ................................................................... 44

Chapter Two: The Framework of Kings as a Chronographic Genre .............................................................................. 46 2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................. 46 2.2 Theoretical Underpinnings ..................................................................... 46 2.3 Methodological Considersations ............................................................ 51

Chapter Three: The Basic Framework of Kings .............................. 62 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................. 62

X

Table of Contents

3.2 Accession Notice and Regnal Year Total ................................................ 63 3.3 The Synchronistic Structure .................................................................... 69 3.3.1 Comparative Evidence .................................................................... 71 3.3.2 Are the Synchronisms Deuteronomistic? ........................................ 76 3.4 The Naming of the Queen Mother .......................................................... 78 3.5 The Source Citations .............................................................................. 3.5.1 The Temporal Gap between Source and History ............................ 3.5.2 Reliability and Function .................................................................. 3.5.3 Formulaic Considerations ...............................................................

84 89 93 97

3.6 The Death and Burial Notices ................................................................ 102 3.6.1 Comparative Evidence .................................................................... 103 3.6.1 Semantics ........................................................................................ 107 3.6.2 As Evidence for the HH .................................................................. 109 3.7 Conclusions ........................................................................................... 122

Chapter Four: The Regnal Evaluations ............................................. 124 4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 124 4.2 yšr-/rʿ-Formula ...................................................................................... 124 4.3 Comparative Evidence ............................................................................ 127 4.3.1 Mesopotamian Chronographic Texts .............................................. 127 4.3.2 Literary Predictive Texts ................................................................. 132 4.3.2.1 Text A ................................................................................... 132 4.3.2.2 Text B ....................................................................................133 4.3.2.3 Šulgi Prophecy (Text C) ........................................................134 4.3.2.4 Marduk Prophecy (Text D) ................................................... 135 4.3.2.5 Uruk Prophecy ...................................................................... 136 4.3.2.6 Dynastic Prophecy ................................................................ 137 4.3.3 Royal Inscriptions ........................................................................... 140 4.3.3.1 Mesopotamian Inscriptions ................................................... 140 4.3.3.2 Levantine Inscriptions ...........................................................142 4.4 Royal Predecessor Formula ................................................................... 147 4.4.1 Positive Examples ........................................................................... 148 4.4.2 Negative Examples ......................................................................... 149 4.4.3 The Comparative r#)-CLAUSE .................................................. 153 4.4.4 “Walking in/Turning from the Way” .............................................. 158 4.4.5 hwhy t) sy(kh “He Vexed YHWH” .......................................... 161

Table of Contents

XI

4.4.6 Comparative Evidence .................................................................... 163 4.5 Relationship of the Synchronisms and the Evaluations .......................... 168 4.6 Are The Evaluations Deuteronomistic? .................................................. 173 4.7 Conclusions ............................................................................................ 177

Chapter Five: The Cultic Reports ........................................................ 178 5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 178 5.2 The Bāmôt ............................................................................................... 179 5.3 Josiah’s Account and the Bāmôt-Notices .............................................. 187 5.4 Sacrificing and Burning Incense ............................................................ 190 5.5 Golden Calves at Bethel and Dan .......................................................... 194 5.6 Additional Cultic Motifs in the Framework ........................................... 197 5.6.1 Qādēš/qedēšîm ................................................................................ 197 5.6.2 Divination ....................................................................................... 198 5.6.3 Pillars and ʾĂšērîm .......................................................................... 199 5.6.4 Baal ................................................................................................. 200 5.6.5 Baal and Asherah/Astarte ............................................................... 201 5.7 Minor Objects/Deities ............................................................................. 203 5.8 Comparative Evidence ............................................................................ 203 5.9 Conclusions ............................................................................................. 206

Chapter Six: Solomon’s Account and the Beginning of the Hezekian History .......................................................................... 208 6.1 Introducton ............................................................................................. 208 6.2 The Literary Relationship of Samuel and Kings ..................................... 209 6.2.1 Early Considerations ....................................................................... 209 6.2.2 Noth’s View of Samuel and Kings .................................................. 214 6.2.3 Reactions to Noth ............................................................................ 215 6.2.4 Recent Considerations ..................................................................... 218 6.2.5 Samuel and Kings in Studies on a Hezekian History ...................... 222 6.2.6 Provisional Results .......................................................................... 224

XII

Table of Contents

6.2.6.1 Option 1: The Framework Author was the Redactor of Samuel .................................................................................. 225 6.2.6.2 Option 2: Framework Written in Continuation of Samuel ... 226 6.2.6.3 Option 3: Framework Composed Separately from Samuel .. 227 6.3 Textual Argumentation ........................................................................... 228 6.3.1 The Notice on Saul’s Reign at 1 Samuel 13:1 ................................ 229 6.3.2 The Notices on Ish-boshet and David at 2 Samuel 2:10–11 and 5:4–5 .......................................................................................... 232 6.3.3 David’s Epilogue and Solomon’s Succession Notice at 1 Kings 2:10–12 ............................................................................................. 236 6.3.4 LXX 3 Reigns 2:35 (// MT 1 Kgs 2:46b) as the Beginning of the HH Framework? ............................................................................... 243 6.3.5 The Beginning of the HH-Framework: LXX 3 Reigns 2:46l–3:2 (Later Insertions: 1 Kings 3:1 and 3:3) ............................................. 247 6.4 The Beginning of the HH in Relationship to 1 Kings 3:1–9:9, 24–25 .............................................................................................. 255 6.4.1 1 Kings 3:1 and 9:24–25 ................................................................. 255 6.4.2 The Theophany at Gibeon [HH-edition: 1 Kings 3:5–6a,7–9, *11, 12ab, 13, *15] .......................................................................................... 258 6.4.3 The HH-Gibeon Story and the Construction of the Temple in 1 Kings 5:14–9:9 ...................................................................................... 261 6.5 Conclusions ............................................................................................. 264

Chapter Seven: The Story of the Division of the Kingdom .......... 266! 7.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 266 7.2 Summary of Research ............................................................................. 267 7.3 Translation of 3 Reigns 12:24a–z ........................................................... 276 7.4 Textual Argumentation ............................................................................280 7.4.1 The Regnal Formulae for Solomon and Rehoboam (3 Reg 12:24a // MT 1 Kgs 11:43; 14:21) .........................................280 7.4.1.1 Rehoboam’s Age at Accession and Regnal Year Total ........ 283 7.4.1.2 The Name of Rehoboam’s Mother ........................................284 7.4.1.3. The Evaluative Formulae for Rehoboam ............................. 286 7.4.1.3.1 The Negative Evaluation ........................................286 7.4.1.3.2 The Contrast with David ........................................ 289 7.4.2 The Rise of Jeroboam (3 Reg 12:24b–f // MT 1 Kgs 11:26–28, 40; 12:2–3) .............................................................................................. 292

Table of Contents

XIII

7.4.2.1 The Description of Jeroboam (3 Reg 12:24b) ...................... 292 7.4.2.2 Jeroboam’s Rebellion, Flight, and Return (3 Reg 12:24b–f) ................................................ 294 7.4.2.3 The Integration of the Story of Jeroboam in Rehoboam’s Account ........................................................301 7.4.3 The Story of Jeroboam’s Sick Son (LXX 3 Reg 12:24g–na // MT 1 Kgs 14:1–18) ........................................................................305 7.4.3.1 The Report of Oracular Inquiry in 3 Reg 12:24g–na ............ 306 7.4.3.2 The Curse of Non–burial in 3 Reg 12:24m ...........................309 7.4.4 The Assembly at Shechem in the HH (3 Reg 12:24nb–................... 311 7.4.4.1 The Role of Jeroboam versus the Role of the People ........... 311 7.4.4.2 The Prophecy Announcing Jeroboam’s Rule over the Ten Tribes ............................................................... 312 7.4.5 The Prevention of War between Rehoboam and Jeroboam (LXX 3 Reg 12:24x–z // MT 1 Kgs 12:21–24) .................................315 7.5 Conclusions ............................................................................................. 317

Chapter Eight: The Evaluation of Hezekiah’s Account (2 Kings 18:1–2) ..................................................................................... 319 8.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 319 8.2 Hezekiah as David (2 Kgs 18:3) ............................................................. 319 8.3 Hezekiah’s Cultic Reform (2 Kgs 18:4) .................................................. 320 8.3.1 Is 2 Kgs 18:4 an Archival Notice or a Late Insertio........................ 320 8.3.2 The Notice on the Bronze Serpent (2 Kgs 18:4b............................. 322 8.3.3 *Excursus on Waw + Suffix Conjugation with Perfective Aspect ([we]qatal)* ................................................. 327 8.3.4 Second Kings 18:4 as Part of a Deuteronomistic Framework......... 332 8.3.5 Second Kings 18:4 as the Final Cultic Report of the Hezekian History .................................................................... 341 8.4 Hezekiah’s “Trust,” Incomparability, and Success in War (2 Kgs 18:5*, 7–8) ........................................................................................ 343 8.5 The Fall of Samaria in 2 Kgs 18:10–11 ................................................. 350 8.6 Conclusions ............................................................................................. 352

Chapter Nine: The Story of the Deliverance of Jerusalem in 2 Kings 18:13–19:37 .................................................................................. 353

XIV

Table of Contents

9.1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 353 9.2 Source Division........................................................................................ 353 9.3 On the Reliability of the B1 Narrative .................................................... 359 9.4 The Hezekiah Stories in the Context of 1–2 Kings ................................. 374 9.5 The B1 Narrative in the Hezekian History ............................................. 379 9.6 The Contrast of Samaria and Jerusalem in LXXL 4 Reigns 18:34 ................................................................................ 381 9.7 The Reference to Cultic Centralization in the B1 Narrative (2 Kgs 18:22) ................................................................ 384 9.8 The Relevance of the Date of the B1 Narrative ...................................... 390 9.9 Conclusions ............................................................................................ 391

Chapter Ten: The Hezekian History in Its Historical Context ..... 394 10.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 394 10.2 The Historicity of Hezekiah’s Reform .................................................. 394 10.3 Indications from Hosea and Isaiah ...................................................... 395 10.4 The Relationship of the HH to the Covenant Code .............................. 397 10.5 Archaeological Evidence ...................................................................... 398 10.5.1 Arad ............................................................................................... 398 10.5.2 Beersheba .......................................................................................399 10.5.3 Lachish ...........................................................................................400 10.6 When did the Reform Occur? ............................................................... 401 10.7 Historical Grounds for Hezekiah’s Reform .......................................... 404 10.8 Historical Parallels .............................................................................. 408 10.9 Conclusions .......................................................................................... 410

Chapter Eleven: Final Conclusions ..................................................... 411 11.1 Summary of Major Results ................................................................... 411 11.2 Hezekiah and Josiah ............................................................................. 414

Table of Contents

XV

11.3 The HH and Deuteronomy–2 Samuel ................................................... 415 11.4 A Josianic Edition of 1–2 Kings ........................................................... 417 Appendix: The Hezekian History ................................................................. 419 Bibliography ................................................................................................. 437 Source Index ................................................................................................. 469 Author Index ................................................................................................. 503 Subject Index ................................................................................................ 506

Abbreviations AB ABC ABD ABGe AfOB AHw AJSL AKL ALASP ANET AOAT AS ASynH ATD BA BBB BDB BeThL BiOr BJS BKAT BN BR BWANT CAD CahRB CANE CAT CHLI

COHP COS

Anchor Bible Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (Texts from Cuneiform Sources 5; Locust Valley, NY, 1975) Anchor Bible Dictionary Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte Archiv für Orientforschung: Beiheft W. von Soden, Akkadisches Handwörterbuch (3 vols; Harrasowitz Verlag, 1965–81) American Journal of Semitic Languages Assyrian King List Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palästinas Ed. J. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts (3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1969) Alter Orient und Altes Testament Assyriological Studies Assyrian Synchronistic History Das Alte Testament Deutsch Biblical Archaeologist Bonner Biblische Beiträge F. Brown, S.R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1959) Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium Bibliotheca Orientalis Brown Judaic Studies Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament Biblische Notizen Bible Review Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Ed. I. J. Gelb et al., The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 1956ff.) Cahiers de la Revue Biblique Civilizations of the Ancient Near East M. Dietrich et al., The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and other Place (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1995) J. D. Hawkins, Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions. Volume I: Inscriptions of the Iron Age: Part 1: Text, Introduction, Karatepe, Karkamiš, Tell Ahmar, Maraş, Malatya, Commagne (Berlin: De Gruyter) Contributions to Oriental History and Philology W. W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, eds., The Context of Scripture (3 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1997–2003)

Abbreviations D(tr)H DtrN DtrP EB

XVII

KHC

Deuteronomistic History Nomistic redaction of DtrH Prophetic redaction of DtrH T. K. Cheyne and J. S. Black, eds., Encyclopaedia Biblica (4 vols.; London: Adam and Charles Black, 1899–1904) Etudes Bibliques Erträge der Forschung English Standard Version English Translation Evangelische Theologie Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Geographic Name J. Renz, Handbuch der althebräischen Epigraphik (vol. I-II/1; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftiche Buchgesellschaft, 1995) L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (5 vols.; Trans. and ed. by M.E.J. Richardson; Leiden: Brill, 1994–2000) Handbuch zum Alten Testament Herders biblische Studien Hezekian History Handkommentar zum Alten Testament Harvard Semitic Monographs Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual Israel Oriental Society Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University Journal of Cuneiform Studies Journal of North West Semitic Languages Jewish Publication Society Tanakh Translation Journal for the Study of Judaism H. Donner and W. Röllig, Kanaanäische und Aramäische Inschriften (vol. 1, 5th ed.; Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 2002) Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament

LHBOTS

Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies

LSAWS

Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic

Luc.

Lucifer of Cagliari Codex Alexandrinus and the group of manuscripts which follow it.

Ebib ErF ESV ET EvT FRLANT GN HAE HALOT

HAT HBS HH HKAT HSM HTR HUCA IOS JANER JANES JANESCU JCS JNWSL JPS JSJ KAI

LXXA LXXB

Codex Vaticanus and the group of manuscripts which follow it.

LXXL

Group of manuscripts representing the Lucianic recension of the Septuagint (boc2e2)

MIO

Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung

N

Number

NAB

New American Bible

Narr.

Narrative

NASB

New American Standard Bible

XVIII

Abbreviations

NEA

Near Eastern Archaeology

NEB

Neue Echter Bibel

NIV

New International Version

OBO

Orbis biblicus et orientalis

OG

Old Greek ≈ LXXB for 3 Reg 2:12–21:43 (non-kaige); ≈ LXXL for 3 Reg 22:1– 4 Reg 25:30 (kaige)

OL

Old Latin: a translation that preserves significant Old Greek readings, often in agreement with LXXL

OTL

Old Testament Library

OTS

Oudtestamentische Studien

PEQ

Palestinian Exploration Quarterly

PN

Personal Name

Pred. RLA RN SA SAA SAAB SAAS SBLDS SBLMS SBLSP SBLWAW SBOT SBT SHCANE SKL Standard LXX SynKL TA TDOT

Predicate Reallexikon der Assyriologie Royal Name Short account (of the division of the kingdom in 3 Reg 12:24a–z) State Archives of Assyria State Archives of Assyria Bulletin State Archives of Assyria Series Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers Society of Biblical Literature Writings of the Ancient World Sacred Books of the Old Testament Studies in Biblical Theology (2nd Series) Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East Sumerian King List Greek text parallel to the MT but lacking 1 Kgs 14:1–20 Synchronistic King List Tel Aviv G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren, eds., Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–) Theologische Revue Tyndale Bulletin Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament Ugarit Forschungen UR III Sumerian King List variant Palimpsestus Vindobonensis Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum Supplements Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für Assyriologie Zeitschrift für Althebraistik Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

TRu TynByl TWAT UF USKL var. Vind. VT VTS WBC WMANT ZA ZAH ZAR ZAW

Abbreviations ZBK ZDPV ZThK

Zürcher Bibelkommentare Zeitschrift des deutsches Palästina-Vereins Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

XIX

Chapter One

How Was the Book of Kings First Composed? 1.1. Introduction The present form of 1–2 Kings in modern editions of the Bible is a mixture of repetitive formulaic details on the kings of Judah and Israel, dry reports, narrative complexes, prophecies and fulfillments, theological evaluations, and discourses. The bulky nature of the text hints at the possibility that a single author did not produce it in its present form. As a result, a major question that has perplexed students over the last two centuries has been how best to explain the history of its composition. How one responds to that question matters for interpreting the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament as a whole, especially the biblical books associated with theories of a Deuteronomistic History (or rather Deuteronomistic Histories).1 Increasing skepticism about whether such a work ever existed has resulted in calls to develop new methods to explain the text of 1–2 Kings without initial recourse to the Books of Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, or 1–2 Samuel.2 The text of Kings has also been central in reconstructions of the history of Israel, particularly for the events of the monarchic period. Opinions range from considering 1–2 Kings to be a relatively accurate portrayal of historical events to considering it an “anthology of fanciful stories.”3 Investigation into the compositional history of 1–2 Kings may shed further light on how to decide between viewing the text either as history per se or as an imaginary collection of stories. Developments in the comparative-contextual approach, synchronic readings, intertextual analysis, and text criticism have emerged in the last half-century requiring further examination of the text. A number of problems immediately come to mind: 1) If 1–2 Kings is not to be read immediately with the aid of Deuteronomy, how should one read it? 2) How does the basic form of 1–2 Kings compare or contrast with parallel nonbiblical texts of the Iron Age? 3) When was the original form of 1

Note the title of the work Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke (Witte et al. 2006). Würthwein 1994: 1–4; Knauf 2000: 388–98; Knoppers 2001: 393–415; Schmid 2004: 193–211; idem 2012: 379–88; Noll 2007: 49–72; Blanco Wißmann 2008; Leuchter and Adam 2010: 1–11; Pietsch 2010: 72. 3 1–2 Kings as history is the standard view offered in Noth 1981; for the text as a fanciful anthology, see Noll 2007: 49–72; and specifically regarding 2 Kgs 18–19, see idem 2008: 30–56. 2

2

Chapter One: How Was the Book of Kings First Composed?

1–2 Kings written? 4) What was the purpose in composing this work on the monarchic period in Israel? 5) To what extent does the work represent accurately actual historical events? 6) What is the relationship of the work to other texts in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, especially the Book of Deuteronomy? Briefly stated, the thesis of this study is that the original framework is best understood by first comparing it to similar texts belonging or related to the chronographic genre (i.e., kinglists, chronicles, and royal inscriptions). With this approach in mind, I trace the original climax of the framework neither to Josiah’s account nor to the account of the Babylonian exile but to Hezekiah’s account, which represents him as the pious YHWHist who limited the space of the official cult to Jerusalem. The original form of this Hezekian History is thus closely connected with the Davidic royal ideology based in Jerusalem.4 There is no clear indication of Deuteronomic influence on the history to allow for its classification as Deuteronomistic or Josianic. The author of the history wrote in the early-to-mid seventh century B.C.E. and recounted the major historical developments of Hezekiah’s reign, namely, his centralizing reform and the survival of Jerusalem in 701 B.C.E.

1.2. The Standard Critical View The standard explanation for the literary development of Kings derived, unpredictably perhaps, from critical discussions on the composition of the Pentateuch at the beginning of the 19th century. In his 1805 Jena doctoral dissertation, “Dissertatio Critica …,” de Wette suggested in a lengthy footnote that Deuteronomy was “the book of the Law” allegedly discovered in the temple of YHWH in Jerusalem during Josiah’s reign that incited him to eradicate the non-YHWHistic and non-centralized cultic sites from Judah, Bethel, and Samaria (2 Kgs 22–23).5 Of course, the equation of Josiah’s lawbook with Deuteronomy was already made in the writings of earlier Jewish exegetes and church fathers (e.g., Athanasius, Jerome, Theodoret, Procopius of Gaza, and John Chrysostom). However, in his Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament (1806–7), de Wette argued that until Josiah’s day, there did not exist a set of legal prescriptions for centralized sacrificial worship. Under Josiah, the depraved worship at the popular cultic sites came to an end in satisfaction of the stipulations of Deuteronomy.6 He also argued that the final form of the 4

My reconstruction of the HH may be consulted in the appendix to this study. A recent English translation of De Wette’s “Dissertatio Critica …” is in Harvey and Halpern 2008: 47–85. 6 As he originally stated it, de Wette (1806: I, 258, 299) exaggerated the success of Josiah’s reform in its having put an end to the “unconstrained” and “debauched” worship at 5

1.2. The Standard Critical View

3

Pentateuch was an unreliable source for the history of Israelite religion and that the historical books make practically no reference to it prior to Josiah.7 In his opinion, Deuteronomy was the latest of the Pentateuchal books. Afterwards, in a later edition of Die Einleitung (1869), updated by Eberhard Schrader, de Wette stated that the author of Deuteronomy (the “Deuteronomiker”) also wrote the Book of Kings.8 The reception of de Wette’s hypothesis on the nature of the Pentateuch and its relationship to the historical books was mixed. Gramberg agreed with de Wette that Deuteronomy was the latest of the Pentateuchal books and dated both Deuteronomy and Kings to the end of the exilic period.9 However, he maintained that portions of Exodus were discovered as Josiah’s lawbook, in particular, the commands not to worship Canaanite deities and to destroy them in Exod 23:24–33 and 34:12–17.10 George agreed with de Wette that Deuteronomy was Josiah’s lawbook and that the Book of Kings was written after Deuteronomy.11 However, he contended that Deuteronomy was written prior to portions of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. When Wellhausen wrote Die Composition des Hexateuch und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments (1876–78) and Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (1878), the view that one or two authors influenced by Deuteronomy had written the Book of Kings became almost uninamous.12 The role of the “author” of the Book of Kings was thought of as one of compiling and editing various prophetic and historical sources, but with a specifi-

the bāmôt. Recents scholars are not willing to attribute to Josiah such unreserved success, since there is a general silence about his reform outside of Kings, and texts such as Jer 13:27; 18:13–17; 44:17–18; Ezek 8–11 illustrate its limited effectiveness; see Naʾaman 2006b: 166; already Siebens 1929: 158–70. 7 De Wette 1806: I, 135–88. See already Vater 1805: III, 676–80. In contrast to Vater, de Wette used the Book of Chronicles to argue that the final form of the Pentateuch was late; unlike de Wette, Vater dated portions of Deuteronomy to the Davidic period; see Rogerson 1992: 59–61; de Pury and Römer 2000a: 32–3. In his Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in die Bibel (ET 1850), de Wette pointed out again the many references to Deuteronomy towards the latter half of 2 Kgs (2 Kgs 14:6 [cf. Deut 24:16]; 2 Kgs 16:3 [cf. Deut 17: 7, 8, 11, 13, 35–39]; 2 Kgs 18:12, 32; 21:1–8; 22; 23). Prefiguring Noth’s emphasis on the tragic emplotment of the Deuteronomistic History, de Wette underscored the general tenor of Kings in line with Deuteronomic Law, in particular, its “gloomy view of history” (de Wette 1850: II, 248). 8 De Wette and Schrader 1869: § 226. 9 Gramberg 1829: I, 146–53. 10 Ibid. 306. De Wette (1806: I, 175–6) was actually ambiguous on whether more than just Deuteronomy was discovered in the temple; see Rogerson 1984: 35, 59 n. 39. 11 George 1835: 7–8, 153; see Rogerson 1984: 65. 12 The material of Die Composition was originally written as a compilation of separate journal and book publications; in this study, I will cite according to the fourth edition (Wellhausen 1963).

4

Chapter One: How Was the Book of Kings First Composed?

cally religious purpose in light of Josiah’s cultic reform.13 In his essay titled, “Die Zeitrechnung des Buchs der Könige seit der Theilung des Reichs” (1875), Wellhausen laid out his views on the chronology and composition of 1–2 Kings. He examined the relationship of the synchronisms and regnal year summaries and concluded that the synchronisms were not based on historical tradition but were dependent on the summaries, which he believed to be “objective.” The person responsible for constructing the synchronisms was the Josianic author whose religious interests were quite “subjective.” It was the same author who constructed the evaluations for each king in terms of their failure or success to adhere to the cultic restrictions authorized in Deuteronomy.14 In his examination of the relationship of the synchronisms to the regnal year summaries, Wellhausen argued that the former could only have been created in the Neo-Babylonian period, since synchronisms are noted between Jehoiachin and Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kgs 24:12; cf. Jer 25:1, 3) and between Zedekiah and Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kgs 25:8, 27; cf. Jer 33:1), but never with Assyrian kings.15 In addition, Wellhausen argued that the formulaic use of the perfect of Klm was unwieldy in the Book of Kings, as in the example of 2 Kgs 14:23: “In the fifteenth year of Amaziah of Judah, Jeroboam, Joash’s son, reigned (Klm) over Israel in Samaria forty-one years.”16 There were two possible meanings for Klm: the “functional” meaning, which entailed that Jeroboam ruled for all of forty-one years; and the inchoative meaning, which entailed that he began to rule in the fifteenth year of Amaziah. In order to decide between the two meanings, Wellhausen appealed to the five cases where a second instance of Klm in the form of a consecutive preterite (Klmyw) was employed.17 On that basis, he maintained that the “functional” meaning, 13

See Ewald 1843: I, 164–215; ET 1876: I, 133–68. Wellhausen 1875: 609–11. 15 Unlike the Judean and Israelite synchronisms, the synchronized reigns of Judean and Babylonian kings are not dated by accession date, but rather by military incursion or by prison release. Similar references occur with reference to Shishak’s invasion in the reign of Rehoboam (1 Kgs 14:25) and to Shlamaneser’s and Sennacherib’s campaigning during the reigns of Hoshea and Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:9–10, 13). However, the year of Shalmaneser’s and Sennacherib’s reigns is not given as it is for Nebuchadnezzar’s and Evil-merodach’s; but see 2 Kgs 25:1. In addition, references to rivalries with Edom, Libnah, and Aram occur with the phrases, “then” (2 Kgs 16:5), “in his days” (2 Kgs 8:20), or “at that time” (2 Kgs 8:22; 12:18; 16:6), which may indicate the use of an earlier source; cf. Burney 1903: xii; Montgomery and Gehmen 1951: 33–7; Jepsen 1956: 36 n. 1. Similar phraseology introduces prophetic stories: 1 Kgs 11:29; 14:1; 2 Kgs 20:1, 12; see Plöger 1937: 48. 16 See Bin-Nun 1968: 414–32; Cortese 1975: 39; Timm 1982: 16; differently, Lewy 1927; Begrich 1929: 7. 17 1 Kgs 15:25; 16:29; 22:52; 2 Kgs 3:1; 15:13; see Wellhausen 1875: 611. However, Wellhausen failed to take into account the different readings of the LXX at 1 Kgs 16:28, 29; 22:52; 2 Kgs 15:13, which would have narrowed his count to only two instances, instead of five. See also the different reading of 2 Kgs 3:1 in the Antiochene text. 14

1.2. The Standard Critical View

5

which applied to the sum of the entire reign with the consecutive preterite was the more original, with the resultant phrase: “And Jeroboam, Joash’s son, reigned over Israel in Samaria forty-one years.” Here again, the synchronism was a later addition, created for the sake of religious comparison between the Israelite and Judean kings. Wellhausen solidified the views of de Wette concerning Deuteronomy as a seventh-century document from the period of Josiah’s reform. Like de Wette, Wellhausen also maintained the success of Josiah’s cultic reform since its effect was visible in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomistic texts. However, he underscored more forcefully than de Wette the total absence of a central sanctuary before Josiah.18 Following Wellhausen, the meaning of “Deuteronomistic redaction” pertained to work of the redactors influenced by the centralizing legal material of Deuteronomy. Benzinger,19 Kittel,20 Burney,21 Gressmann,22 Šanda,23 Steuernagel,24 Hölscher25 and Begrich26 maintained that it was the Deuteronomistic redactor (siglum = R or Rd, ca. 621–587) who was responsible for the introductory and concluding formulae appended to the reign of each king.27 It is not astounding, then, that Noth’s subsequent view of the unified composition of Deuteronomy–Kings reflected this communis opinio.28 He, too, maintained that Josiah’s account was of particular significance to the Deuteronomistic historian, because it was the very law book placed at the introduction of the history that was found, i.e., Deuteronomy. In Noth’s opinion, the accounts of the finding of the lawbook and of the cultic reform were probably based on “eine amtliche Denkshrift.”29 Because the history writer only selected the 18

Wellhausen 1957: 25–6, 46–7. Wellhausen’s argument here is, of course, partially circular: it assumes that the literary representation of the notion of centralization was possible only after Josiah, because Josiah’s reform was the major cause for cultic centralization. Wellhausen supports his argument using negative evidence (as pointed out by Stauernagel 1896: 102), contending that the concern for centralization cannot be traced back to the prophets or to Hezekiah, as the testimony of 2 Kgs 18:4 and 22 is unfactual (ibid. 46). 19 Benzinger 1899: xiii–xv. 20 Kittel 1900: vi–viii. 21 Burney 1903: ix. 22 Gressmann 1910: xiv. 23 Šanda 1911: xxi–xlii. 24 Steuernagel 1912: 345–6, 349. 25 Hölscher 1923: 158–213. 26 Begrich 1929: 167, 174, 211–12. 27 Similar to Ewald and Wellhausen, Burney and Kittel held that the regnal framework was the work of a first redactor, and that a second redactor came especially into view in the perorations at 2 Kgs 17:7–20; 21:7–15; 23:26f., which denounced foreign idolatry. 28 Noth 1981: 63–74. 29 Noth 1957: 87; ET 1981: 73; see already Hölscher 1923: 208 (see Pakkala 2010: 201– 35). However, he regarded as secondary Deuteronomistic redaction the statements about

6

Chapter One: How Was the Book of Kings First Composed?

chronological information and varying reported details from the (non-official) “Books of the Chronicles,” Noth asserted: Er selbst wollte also – und das ist für die Beurteilung seiner Arbeit von grundlegender Wichtigkeit – gar nicht die Geschichte der einzelnen Könige darstellen, sondern die Geschichte der Gesamtkönigszeit, deren katastrophaler Ausgang ihm vor Augen stand.30

As a result, the positive triumphs of individual kings did not have an effect on the tragic outcome of the history, emphasized in the “repetitive monotony” (monotone Wiederholung) of the negative judgments on the northern and southern kings. For Noth, then, the historical framework was a unified composition from beginning to end that depicted the disastrous consequences of flouting Deuteronomic principles of cultic centralization and cultic purity. As with Wellhausen, he regarded the depiction of the period of Hezekiah in Kings as merely a “transitory interlude” (vorübergehende Zwischenzeit) on the way to Josiah’s account and the end of the monarchy. The intention behind the Josianic account in Kings was to provide an example of a true follower of Deuteronomic Law that ought to have been imitated from the outset of the monarchic period. Some scholars upheld Noth’s conception of a unified history in toto (Hoffmann) or after taking into account considerable secondary additions (Van Seters).31 Even those critical of Noth’s unified history and its tragic theme, such as von Rad,32 Eissfeldt,33 Fohrer,34 Weiser,35 and Cross,36 still regarded the framework of Kings as a Deuteronomistic (i.e., Josianic or postJosianic) composition. Cross and his followers traced the two themes of Davidic loyalty and the Jeroboamic countercultus in the evaluative formulae for each king down to Josiah. Others using the Göttingen model of a triple-

Josiah’s removal of the bāmôt (ibid. 198–9, 206). Schmidt (1923: ii, 22, 9) argued for the factuality of Josiah’s Reformbericht (2 Kgs 23:1–20) over against Hezekiah’s (18:4) because the former provides a more detailed and believable account whereas the latter is brief and stereotypical (similarly, Wellhausen 1957: 47 n. 1; Noth 1958: 173 n. 62). Here, one observes the preference for determining factual meaning through narrative scope rather than through the culminating formulaic statements of the framework. 30 Noth 1957: 73 (= ET 1981: 63). 31 Hoffmann 1980; Van Seters 1983. 32 Von Rad 1953: 75. 33 Eissfeldt 1965: 284: “The standard here applied to the kings of Israel and Judah presupposes the reform of Josiah in the year 621 B.C. and the finding of the law which became its basis, i.e. our Deuteronomy, or rather the original Deuteronomy.” 34 Fohrer 1968: 229. 35 Weiser 1961: 161–2, 168. 36 Cross 1973: 274–89; cf. Nelson 1981: 29–42.

1.2. The Standard Critical View

7

redaction theory of the Deuteronomistic History also regarded the framework of Kings as Deuteronomistic (Dietrich and Spieckermann).37 The discovery of the seventh-century Neo-Assyrian Vassal Treaty of Esarhaddon (VTE) and its influence on the composition of Deuteronomy seemed to corroborate de Wette’s original declaration of its Josianic provenance. Weinfeld initially observed the close similarities between the structure of VTE and Deuteronomy as well as the specific instances of direct influence in Deut 13:2–6 and 28.38 Afterwards, Otto built on the connections between VTE and Deuteronomy arguing that the latter was essentially an anti-Assyrian polemic against the deity Assur and his capital in the city of Assur in substituting in their place YHWH and his capital in Jerusalem.39 Many scholars went as far as to state that the notion of “covenant” did not exist in literary texts before the composition of Deuteronomy and the Josianic reform. Perlitt’s work, which asserted as much, had a ripple effect on the study of most of the Hebrew Bible.40 References to the covenant between YHWH and Israel in Exodus and Hosea were considered late pre-exilic creations of the Deuteronomistic authors. Levin argued that the covenant-notion was strictly an exilic phenomenon and that the original Urdeuteronomium (dating to Josiah’s reign) only authorized cultic centralization. The form of Deuteronomy did not yet resemble the work more familiar to modern readers that bound Israel to worship YHWH alone (esp. Deut 1–11; 27–34).41 For Levin, the earliest edition of the framework in Kings was Deuteronomistic and climaxed in Josiah’s account, which he detected in 2 Kgs 22:2; 23:8a, 25a (until Klm), b. The original framework and Josianic account in 1–2 Kings lacked any allusion to a Deuteronomic covenant with commands to worship only YHWH (Kultusreinheit) and incorporated a narrow centralizing tendency (Kultuseinheit).42

37

Dietrich (1972) dated DtrG to the exilic period; Spieckermann (1982) dated the original DtrG to Josiah’s time. 38 Weinfeld 1972: 97–100, 116–29; idem 1991: 59–157. Weinfeld himself, however, maintained that some form of Deuteronomy had already existed in Hezekiah’s time (1972: 163–4) although its recognition as a national consitution was the result of Josiah’s reform. 39 Otto 1999: 32–90. 40 Perlitt 1969. This current of thought was carried out in the works of Schmid (1976) and Van Seters (1983), who dated the J material later than the Deuteronomistic History. 41 Levin 1985: 83–9, 99. According to Levin’s schema, UrDeuteronomium contained Deut 6:6; 12:13–27*; 16:18*, 19; 17:8, 9b; 19:2a, 3b–5, 11–12, 15*–17a, 18b–19, 21b; 21:1*–4, 6–7, 8b. However, other scholars include in the original Josianic version of Deuteronomy material decreeing Kultusreinheit at 4:45*; 5:1*; 6:4–6; 13*; 14:22–15:23; 16:1– 17, 18–18:5*; 19:2–25:12*; 26:2–13*; 28*: Blanco Wißmann 2008: 16–24. 42 Levin 1984: 351–71; cf. Niehr 1995: 33–55. Slightly less minimalistically, Pakkala (1999: 170–80; idem 2010: 221–31) uses 2 Kgs 22:1–7, 9; 23:4a, 8, 11–12a, 28–30 to reconstruct Josiah’s original account in the first (exilic) edition of Kings, but nevertheless agrees with Levin that all references to the removal of foreign deities are secondary. In contrast to

8

Chapter One: How Was the Book of Kings First Composed?

In recent years, Naʾaman has been perhaps the most outspoken in support of the historicity of the Josianic reform as recounted in 2 Kgs 22–23.43 In his opinion, the author of the first edition of Kings (or, better, the first edition of the Deuteronomistic History = Dtr1) made use of the temple archives in Jerusalem when Josiah was still alive.44 Naʾaman points both to the fact that Josiah based his cultic reform on Deuteronomic Law and that it was immediately after the collapse of the Assyria in 623 B.C.E. that Josiah carried out his reform measures in 622 B.C.E., the eighteenth year of his reign according to 2 Kgs 22:3 and 23:23. The impetus for the reform was thus twofold in that it was based on a religious legal document but also incorporated the deliberate abolition of Assyrian cultic objects as part of a national program (see 2 Kgs 23:11–12a).45 One may summarize the individual theses of the standard position on the original composition of the Book of Kings as follows: 1) the account of 2 Kgs 22–23* concerning the finding of the lawbook and Josiah’s resulting cultic reform reflects real historical events; 2) the basic form of Deuteronomy was unknown prior to Josiah’s day; 3) the notion of cultic centralization only arose once Deuteronomy was composed; 4) the integration of statements that presuppose cultic centralization in the framework of Kings is owing to the influence of the law of centralization, such as it is found in Deut 12*; 5) the notion of centralization in the framework of Kings dictates that its original composition should be dated after the reform of Josiah; 6) the original framework of Kings and all of its opening and closing formulae were the unified creation of an exilic (or perhaps Josianic) Deuteronomistic historian and none of the formulaic expressions can be traced to earlier official or non-official sources;46 7) the combination of “unofficial religious” historical writing and “official secular” chronological reporting did not occur until the Deuteronomistic historian undertook to compose a history of the monarchic period.

Levin, however, Pakkala regards as unfactual the reference to the defilement of the bāmôt in 23:8a. 43 Naʾaman 2006b: 131–68; idem 2011: 47–62. According to Naʾaman, 2 Kgs 22–23 was originally an independent historical short story (he regards 23:13–14, 16–20 as secondary); so Lohfink 1987: 459–65. 44 Naʾaman 2005: 151–2. 45 Naʾaman 1991: 38; idem 2006: 140–41; cf. Spieckermann 1982; Arneth 2001: 189– 216. 46 This specific assumption of the standard Wellhausenian-Nothian view actually differed from Begrich’s (1929) and Jepsen’s (1956) view that the formulaic synchronisms and regnal year totals were already found in pre-Deuteronomistic sources; see further Bin-Nun 1968: 414–32.

1.3. Early Critiques of the Standard View

9

1.3. Early Critiques of the Standard View The standard view outlined above maintains that, while there is historical evidence for an actual reform in Josiah’s day, there is little if any historical basis for a cultic centralization before Josiah. The account of Hezekiah’s removal of the bāmôt in 2 Kgs 18:4 is thus regarded as unreliable.47 Yet it is perhaps significant that de Wette himself concluded that Hezekiah had taken the first step in centralizing worship at Jerusalem: “Under Hezekiah the first attempt occurred to abolish sacrifice external to the temple.”48 In his opinion, it was only under Josiah that the stipulations of Deuteronomy were fulfilled. In actual fact, the original “de Wette hypothesis” allowed for cultic centralization prior to the discovery of the Deuteronomic lawbook. His original insight was not entirely lost even after Wellhausen argued against pre-Josianic centralization in his Prolegomena.49 Although several scholars immediately followed Wellhausen in his skepticism toward a Hezekian cultic reform,50 others rejected his conclusions. Cheyne contended that the reference to the removal of the bāmôt in the speech of the Rabshakeh in 2 Kgs 18:22 was a historical indication that the Assyrians “had a well-organized intelligence department.”51 Kuenen also took 18:22 as a support for Hezekiah’s reform, pointing out that whereas 18:6 contains an explicit reference to Hezekiah’s obedience to the commands of YHWH to Moses, 18:22 represents the removal of the bāmôt as an arbitrary measure of Hezekiah, an idea that the author does not contradict.52 He also argued that the existence of Deuteronomy itself is easier to understand if Hezekiah’s reform was an actual historical event.53 Steuernagel argued vigorously against Wellhausen’s view that Hezekiah’s cultic reform had not taken place.54 That Hezekiah’s reform left no imprint on later texts cannot be upheld, since 18:22 is a reliable witness to such an event and Josiah’s later reform appears as a corollary to Hezekiah’s previous effort. Although Hezekiah’s endeavor to centralize the cult is depicted as short-lived, it does not undercut its historicity, since the success of Josiah’s reform was

47 E.g., Wellhausen 1957: 25–6, 46–7; Stade 1886: 171; Meinhold 1898: 67, 83; Benzinger 1899: 177; Duhm 1902: 229; Würthwein 1984: 411; Naʾaman 1995: 179–95; Arneth 2006: 169–215; Blanco Wißmann 2008: 77–8. 48 De Wette 1806: I, 299: “Unter Hiskia ist der erste Versuch geschehen, das Opfern außer dem Tempel abzubringen.” 49 The acceptance of a Hezekian cultic reform is found in works predating Wellhausen’s Prolegomena such as Stähelin 1843: 139 and Nöldeke 1869: 126–8. 50 Stade 1886: 171; Meinhold 1898: 67, 83; Benzinger 1899: 177; Duhm 1902: 229. 51 Cheyne 1882: I, 197; Schmidt 1923: ii, 22, 9. 52 Kuenen 1887: vol. I, part 2, 193 (§11 n. 9), 205 (§12, 2). 53 Ibid. 208 (§12, 5 n. 2). 54 Steuernagel 1896: 100–13.

10

Chapter One: How Was the Book of Kings First Composed?

also ephemeral, mentioned barely if at all in Jeremiah.55 Steuernagel also underscored the exaggeration in Wellhausen’s distinction between the absence of the concern for the removal of the bāmôt in the Latter Prophets and the presence of that concern in Josiah’s day. In fact, Nöldeke had already preempted Wellhausen in his observation that the older sanctuaries had become less important than Jerusalem before Hezekiah (Amos 4:4; 8:14).56 Steuernagel likewise observed that the Book of Isaiah assumes that Jerusalem was YHWH’s only or main dwelling place and cultic sanctuary (Isa 30:29; 31:9) and that the prophetic polemic in Hosea and Micah against the popular cult set the stage for the transformation of the cult in Hezekiah’s time.57 The fall of the northern kingdom in 722 B.C.E. provided perhaps the greatest rationale for concentrating the cultus in one location.58 Thus, only the time of Hezekiah provided a complete backdrop for the origin of the demand for cultic centralization.59 Like Kuenen, he emphasized the improbability that the reform was based on an already existing legal corpus, as 2 Kgs 18:4 and 18:22 do not mention a legal corpus, although the core of Deuteronomy owed some of its inspiration to Hezekiah’s reform.60 His view nevertheless resembled Wellhausen’s on the composition of 1–2 Kings. It developed in two editions, one pre-exilic dating to Josiah’s time (ca. 620–607 B.C.E.) and the other exilic (post 561 B.C.E.), and both Deuteronomistic.61 Driver first observed that the framework of 1–2 Kings was at variance with Deuteronomy in that the former was more tolerant in its attitude to worship at the bāmôt in the formulaic evaluation for the Judahite kings. The author of Kings did not “place all deviations from the law of Dtn. in the same category: 55

Similarly, Siebens 1929: 158. The view that Josiah’s reform was not a complete success is standard in modern scholarship and was already conceded by Wellhausen (1957: 27). Naʾaman (2006: 164) has shown that in the majority of cases where a cultic reform is made in the ancient Near East, there is a backlash that occurs immediately after the reforming king’s death. He also points out that the most successful centralizing reform occurred with the measure of Nebuchadnezzar I of the second dynasty of Isin to place Marduk at the head of the Babylonian pantheon, possibly because that city prospered as the capital of southern Mesopotamia for almost a millennium. 56 Nöldeke 1869: 127. Wellhausen (1957: 47) maintained that the prophetic movement against the old popular worship was not actuated by a deep-seated preference for Jerusalem but by ethicial motives. Nevertheless, given the fact that many of the sites were destroyed in 701 B.C.E. (a fact overlooked by Wellhausen!), the shift from a prophetic ethic to a desire for centralization is feasible. 57 Steuernagel 1896: 104–8; Similarly, Dillmann 1898: 313–4; Siebens 1929: 162. See Hosea 2:9–11, 17, 24–25; 3:4–5; 7:10; 10:1–2, 7–8; 12:10; 13:4; 14:2; Micah 1:5. 58 Steuernagel 1896: 111; idem 1900: xiv; already Kittel 1888: II, 303–4; further, König 1917: 51; G. A. Smith 1918: ci. 59 Steuernagel 1896: 104. 60 Steuernagel 1900: xiv. 61 Steuernagel 1912: 345–6, 349.

1.3. Early Critiques of the Standard View

11

he views, indeed, the worship (of Jehovah) at the high places with disfavour, but the kings who permit it are not thereby disqualified from receiving a verdict of approval, as are those who patronized, or encouraged, practices actually heathen.”62 He also maintained that the cultic evaluation of Hezekiah’s account was taken from an archival source.63 Benzinger assigned to two separate redactors (R1 and R2) the notices involving YHWHistic worship tolerated at the bāmôt, on the one hand, and statements involving the explicit worship of other deities, on the other hand.64 Kittel originally argued in Geschichte der Hebräer (1888) that that even if the statements about Hezekiah’s reform in 18:4 and 18:22 are secondary, they nevertheless transmit factual information.65 Dillmann also maintained that, if secondary, those verses were not necessarily added under the influence of Deuteronomy and retained reliable historical information.66 In his subsequent work, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, Kittel was more bold in declaring that 18:4 and 22 are factual and that they were taken from source material.67 In contrast to scholars who maintained that only the notice on the destruction of bronze serpent is factual (2 Kgs 18:4b), he insisted that Hezekiah would not have removed only this single object. Either it amounted to nothing or it involved something more substantial.68 He also pointed to the messages of the eighth-century prophets who railed against the excessive increase of cultic worship and would likely have supported the measure to eradicate the numerous cultic sites.69 Baudissin essentially agreed with Kuenen, Kittel, Steuernagel, and Dillmann about the early prophetic critique against the outer sanctuaries, about the fact that Jerusalem took on a central role as the favored cultic site after 701 B.C.E. (see Isa 18:7), and that Hezekiah carried out the first centralizing reform without the aid of a legal authority. According to him, Deuteronomy was composed in the interval between Hezekiah’s and Josiah’s

62 Driver 1891: 189; similarly, Burney 1903: 27–8. Earlier scholars had recognized that the early cultic sites were YHWHistic but that once the prophetic movement arose the multiple manifestations of YHWH could be mistaken for multiple deities; so Wellhausen 1957: 26–7. 63 Driver 1891: 187. 64 Benzinger 1899: xiii–xv; similarly, Kittel 1900: vii–viii; idem 1909: II, 499; Steuernagel 1912: 345–6, 349; Pfeiffer 1948: 377–81; Jepsen 1956: 81; Gray 1963: 13. Thus, in these early works there was already an attempt to separate diachronically the elements of the framework of the Book of Kings both in terms of redactional layers (Schichtenmodell) and in terms of separating coherent units of successive regnal accounts (Blockmodell); pace Cortese 1975: 43. 65 Kittel 1888: II, 302. 66 Dillmann 1898: 313–4. 67 Kittel 1909: II, 291–2, 495–9. 68 Ibid. 496; cf. Siebens 1929: 162. 69 Kittel 1909: II, 498.

12

Chapter One: How Was the Book of Kings First Composed?

days, but probably closer to Hezekiah’s time.70 This was a direct contradiction of de Wette’s hypothesis that Deuteronomy was previously unknown until Josiah’s time. Loisy also called attention to the political context of 701 B.C.E. after which Hezekiah possessed only his capital in Jerusalem. The movement was thus not a legal reform authorized by a traditional text but was a royal initiative that would not have been carried out rigorously since it was quite a new state of things.71 W. R. Smith likewise argued that Hezekiah’s reform was aided by the destruction of Judah at the hands of the Assyrian army in 701 B.C.E. The invaders plundered the false idols and images of Baal and other deities and carried them away to Assyria, an indication that those gods were unable to save Jerusalem. In contrast, it was YHWH alone who safeguarded Jerusalem from the onslaught of Sennacherib and his forces, teaching that Zion, not the idolatrous bāmôt, was the true sanctuary of Judah’s worship.72 König suggested that the mention of Hezekiah’s reform in 18:4 is reliable because the characteristic bāmôt-notices are no longer mentioned after his reign.73 The knowledge of Hezekiah’s reform would not otherwise have been gained without 18:4 and 18:22 and thus raises the question of how likely it is for such statements to have existed if a reform did not occur.74 Oestreicher 70

Baudissin 1901: 112–3 (§34); cf. McFadyen 1905: 55–6; Westphal 1910: 304–5; Hempel 1914: 258–9; Sellin 1914: 46; S. R. Driver 1914: 87; Weippert 1972: 337; even Noth 1958: 275. Welch (1924) maintained that Deuteronomy was of northern provenance; similarly, Alt 1953: 2, 250–75. Some suggested that Hezekiah could not have carried out a cultic reform without a legal basis (e.g., Westphal, Sellin, and Bright). This is unconvincing since the cultic reforms were actuated by the ability of the king’s power to enforce them (see Naʾaman 2006b: 162). The logic that a legal document was required for actual change is a perhaps an anachronistic imposition of the description of the finding of the lawbook back onto the account of Hezekiah. 71 Loisy 1908: 182–3; similarly, Lods (1937: 116) suggested that Hezekiah did not rebuild the bāmôt after the Assyrians destroyed them. Loisy actually doubted that Hezekiah removed the bāmôt but offered the above insights since he did not rule out the possibility of its historicity. 72 W. R. Smith 1912: 359–63. Smith seems to be influenced by earlier scholars who held that the major concern for reform was cultic purity and does not pay attention to the fact that the bāmôt were YHWHistic. 73 Of course, bāmôt are mentioned in Manasseh’s account (2 Kgs 21:3) and in Josiah’s account (23:5, 8 [2x], 9, 13, 15 [3x], 19, 20); however, König’s obvervations are valuable in that the characterization of the bāmôt in these later accounts differs from their mention in Hezekiah’s account (18:4, 22). 74 König 1917: 49; similarly, Robinson 1932: I, 392; Zorn 1977: 205; Albertz 1994: 181. A similar consideration comes from Rosenbaum (1972: 35), namely, that, if the account of Hezekiah’s reform were imaginary, why would a Josianic author desire to associate him with a king whose reform was a temporary measure only to be reversed by his own son shortly thereafter? Continuing this line of thought, one may add the question of why Hezekiah was not graded with the limited praise afforded in the cultic evaluations for Solomon,

1.3. Early Critiques of the Standard View

13

also argued that Wellhausen was wrong to conclude that cultic centralization had not occurred under Hezekiah, since too many instances could be adduced against him.75 It is worth noting that Oestreicher argued that it was impossible for the author of the framework of Kings to have used the idea of cultic centralization in Deut 12.76 The author of the framework regarded the bāmôt as YHWHistic cultic sites, not Canaanites places of worship; otherwise he would not have evaluated the series of kings from Asa down to Jotham with such high praise. The author could not have been influenced by the strict prohibition against the Canaanite sites in Deut 12:2–7 while tolerating their existence in Judah during the monarchic period.77 Oestreicher used the mention of the removal of the bāmôt in the Rabshakeh’s speech (2 Kgs 18:22) to underscore that such a deed would not only have required political and military force, but also would have needed to reckon with “supernatural powers.” The decommissioning of the bāmôt would have had religious as well as political consequences both for the priesthood and for the people with ties to the traditional cultic sites.78 Honor argued as well that if a reform had taken place under Hezekiah, 18:22 would have been a natural statement for the Rabshakeh to make. If the reform had not taken place, then it would have been quite an imaginative and vivid statement to fabricate. The Rabshakeh would have apprehended the popular disapproval of Hezekiah’s decree calling for the discontinuance of traditional religious institutions.79 Siebens suspected that the critique of scholars who denied the historicity of the biblical narratives on the reform of the eighth century B.C.E. had been influenced by their theory of Deuteronomy.80 He observed that doubters of the historicity of both Hezekiah’s and Josiah’s reforms tended to date DeuteronAsa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoash, Amaziah, Azariah, and Jotham (1 Kgs 3:2; 15:11; 22:44; 2 Kgs 12:4; 14:4; 15:4, 35). The reference to the destruction of the bronze serpent would not necessarily have led an author to posit the removal of the bāmôt under Hezekiah (cf. 1 Kgs 15:12–14; 22:44, 47; 2 Kgs 3:2); pace Hölscher 1923: 210. Albertz underscores that it is not the historicity of Hezekiah’s account but Manasseh’s that should be questioned, since Hezekiah caused problems for the Deuteronomistic editors who wanted to focus on Josiah, and thus Manasseh was made the scapegoat in preparation for his grandson’s reform. 75 Oestreicher 1923: 48. 76 Ibid. 117–8. 77 Oestreicher (ibid. 117) points out that 2 Kgs 16:4b uses the formula for “Canaanite cult of Baal” from Deut 12:2b (“on the hills and under every verdant tree”), but that this formula never occurs in Kings when the author speaks of the YHWHistic sites. 78 Ibid. 49–50. Oestriecher seems to contradict himself immediately afterwards when he states that Hezekiah’s and Josiah’s reforms were only a military countermeasure to hinder the Assyrian cult from taking root in Judah; more recently, see Handy 1988: 111–5. Would not this action nevertheless have required a religious explanation on Hezekiah’s part? So Herzog 2010: 182, 192. 79 Honor 1926: 52; cf. Childs 1967: 82; Cogan 1974: 96. 80 Siebens 1929: 165–9; cf. Gray 1963: 13.

14

Chapter One: How Was the Book of Kings First Composed?

omy to the exilic period while those who dismissed only Hezekiah’s reform dated it to 621 B.C.E.81 For him, the context of Hezekiah’s era was truly the proper moment for a reform in light of the events of 722 and 701 B.C.E.82 Similarly, Robinson pointed to the possible political incentives for a reform at the end of the eighth century B.C.E.: if the Jerusalem Temple were the only spot left at which gifts might be brought to Him [sc. YHWH], then it would follow that the national enthusiasm would be concentrated on an effort to preserve this spot from the invader. We need not doubt Hezekiah’s sincerity if we see in this reform a political gesture, for patriotism and religious loyalty naturally went hand in hand in ancient Israel.83

Even Noth was willing to concede on the basis of the reference to the destruction of the bronze serpent in 2 Kgs 18:4b that a “reform” against Assyrian religion took place under Hezekiah. The Assyrian overlords demanded vassals to worship Assyrian deities (especially Assur) and the reform was therefore anti-Assyrian in nature but also involved the eradication of non-Assyrian elements (e.g., the bronze serpent).84 Gray argued that the singular mention of the bronze serpent “might stand to the credit of Hezekiah, and there is no good reason to deny him the credit of the reformation in this verse.”85 Zimmerli argued that Hosea was the first to polemicize against the northern calf and images and that Hezekiah’s reform should be viewed against this background, especially the mention of the bronze serpent.86 In Jepsen’s Die Quellen des Königsbuches (1956), he detected five or six basic sources, which were taken up in the works of two redactors (RI and RII). RI (ca. 580 B.C.E.) made use of a synchronistic chronicle, containing introductory and final notices and other minor content as well as an annalistic history with remarks on the temple. RI’s own contribution consisted of regnal and cultic evaluations (e.g., 2 Kgs 18:3–4) and source citations (e.g., 1 Kgs

81

Hölscher (1923: 211) was the main advocate for dating the Book of Deuteronomy to the exilic period and discounting both the historical value of the reform accounts of Hezekiah and Josiah in Kings, which he dated ca. 500 B.C.E. 82 Siebens 1929: 170; so Ricciotti 1932: 467–8. Maag (1956: 12–3) argued that the idea of Jerusalem as YHWH’s holy sanctuary had already to be strong in Josiah’s time to engender a revolutionary reform overcoming significant difficulties. In his opinion, only the survival of Jerusalem in 701 B.C.E. answers as a backdrop necessary for a Josianic reform. In stressing 701 B.C.E., however, Maag did not pay enough attention to the aftermath of 722 B.C.E. in Judah leading up the Assyrian attack against Judah. 83 Robinson 1932: 393. 84 Noth 1958: 265; similarly, Welten 1969: 159; as first argued by Oestreicher (1923: 9– 10) but for the reign of Josiah rather than for Hezekiah. Like Wellhausen, Noth doubted the reliability of the removal of the bāmôt under Hezekiah as stated in 2 Kgs 18:4a. 85 Gray 1963: 608. 86 Zimmerli 1971: 86–96.

1.3. Early Critiques of the Standard View

15

11:41). As far as the relationship of RI to Deuteronomy was concerned, Jepsen stated incisively: Merkwürdig ist vor allem, daß eindeutige Beziehungen zum Deuteronomium sich nicht in dem Maße finden, als eigentlich angenommen werden müßte, wenn die übliche Annahme im Rechte wäre, daß RI ein Rd, d. h. ein von der deuteronomistischen Gedankenwelt abhängiger Schriftsteller ist. Das Wort Bama, für RI eins der häufigsten fehlt im Deuteronomium völlig; umgekehrt wird rxb, das bei Dt so oft auftaucht, von RI völlig gemieden. Es ist daher wohl die Frage erlaubt, ob überhapt das Werk des RI ohne weiteres schon zur deuteronomistischen Literatur gerechnet werden darf oder ob die Beziehungen nicht wesentlich verwickelter sind. Eine Entscheidung ist freilich nur durch genauen Vergleich zwischen RI und Dt zu erreichen. Ein solcher aber setzt zunächst eine Analyse des Deuteronomiums voraus, die im manchem von den bisherigen Analysen abweichen würde. So muß es vorläufig bei der Erkenntnis bleiben, daß unmittelbare Beziehungen zwischen RI und Dt nicht ohne weiteres feststellbar sind. Dieses Ergebnis wird in seiner Bedeutung erst dann klar, wenn sich für RII das Umgekehrte eindeutig erweisen wird.87

Jepsen questioned whether RI – which would become virtually synonymous with the siglum, DtrG – was ever related to Deuteronomy. On the other hand, RII (ca. 550) (which Jepsen equated with Noth’s Dtr writing in Mizpah and emanating from prophetic circles) rewrote RI in accordance with the Josianic edition of the law of Deuteronomy.88 As with Benzinger, Jepsen argued that even though RII often reused RI’s phrasings and point of view, an obvious shift had taken place: whereas RI forbid the false worship practices of YHWH, RII banned the worship of false deities. For RII, the history of the monarchy was related to YHWH’s election of the people Israel, and the calamity that befell the nation occurred on account of a disregard for his law in worshipping other deities. Jepsen’s work is significant for having acknowledged the need for a more extensive comparison of Deuteronomy and the varying compositional strata of Kings (RI and RII). Rowley opined that if no account existed on Hezekiah’s cultic reform, one would be forced to posit the fact of a reform. He was skeptical of the idea that the notion of centralization was strictly Deuteronomistic: “But it is quite unnecessary to suppose that the author of Deuteronomy must have been the first person to think of the suppression of the ‘high places’ and the centralisation of worship.”89 Briefly summarized, the early critiques of the standard view of the relationship of Deuteronomy to Kings were carried out in the mode of historical argumentation using primarily the biblical texts. Many scholars were unwilling 87

Jepsen 1956: 73; so Steck 1967: 66 n. 3; Weippert 1972: 338 n. 1. Jepsen 1956: 76–101. 89 Rowley 1963: 129; see idem 1950: 164: “To the present writer its seems probable that Deuteronomy was written early in the reign of Manasseh, and emanated from small group of reformers who wished to embody the lessons of Hezekiah’s reforms in a plan for the next occasion that should offer”; so McKay 1973: 17. 88

16

Chapter One: How Was the Book of Kings First Composed?

to accept that Hezekiah had not carried out a reform or that the testimonies of 2 Kgs 18:4 and 18:22 were unrealiable. Some were skeptical about the view that the idea of centralization had not existed prior to the “finding” of Deuteronomy in Josiah’s day, contending instead that either Deuteronomy had already existed before Josiah’s time (Steuernagel) or that centralization preceded Deuteronomy (Rowley; already de Wette!). Scholars pointed out Wellhausen’s arbitrary omission of a century of history between the collapse of the northern kingdom in 722 B.C.E. and the finding of Deuteronomy in 621 B.C.E.; in particular, the events leading up to and following the Assyrian invasion into Judah in 701 B.C.E. Yet relatively few had questioned the influence of the Deuteronomy on 1–2 Kings as a result of this debate. Oestreicher and Jepsen argued that Deuteronomy had not influenced the bāmôt-notices in 1–2 Kings, but they were not taken seriously on this point. König drew attention to the climax of the bāmôt-notices in Hezekiah’s reign, but not much was made of his observation in this early period of scholarship. Benzinger posited multiple redactional stages in the development of Kings, but at base, the framework judgments continued to be regarded as Deuteronomistic. Comparative studies were relatively few at this stage, although a few studies were undertaken to compare the form of 1–2 Kings with nonbiblical works from the Near East.90 However, the comparisons were limited mainly to nonreligious chronicles, and the development of religious concepts in 1–2 Kings was understood mostly if not strictly as an inner-Israelite and inner-biblical process. It was viewed as the work of history writing composed freely by a Deuteronomistic author rather than one that grew organically from “royal” genres of kinglists, chronicles, and royal inscriptions. Here again, Oestriecher was an exception to this norm in paying attention to external political influences to explain the process of biblical composition.91 Still, his observations did not pertain to overlaps in genre between biblical and non-biblical texts. Nor did scholars of this early period pay close attention to textual witnesses other than the Masoretic Text to discern earlier editions of 1–2 Kings.92 This

90

E.g., Lewy 1927. Oestreicher 1923: 9–10: “Man las die alttestamentlichen Nachrichten stets unter der Voraussetzung, daß es sich dabei um rein innerisraelitische Angelegenheiten handelte, um den Abschluß einer Entwicklung, die allein auf religiösen Beweggründen beruhte … Diese rein innerisraelitische Betrachtungsweise ist durchaus verkehrt.” As an example of such an argument presuming an inner-Israelite development, he mentions specifically the prophetic critique against the bāmôt, which should have led to the adoration of God in spirit and in truth, but nevertheless ended in the abolition of the bāmôt through a cultic monopoly in Josiah’s time. 92 Law (2011: 280–97) argues that this is still a current problem in the scholarship of 1–2 Kings; see also Robker 2012: 8–11. 91

1.4. Recent Studies on the Framework of Kings

17

oversight is particularly evident in the works of Wellhausen and Noth.93 Especially lacking was a vigorous use of the Greek Lucianic witnesses and their congeners, the Old Latin witnesses. This was probably primarily on account of the influence of Rahlfs on the use of those witnesses in text critical studies, as he depreciated the value of ancient variants reflected in the Lucianic witnesses.94 The use of the Septuagintal and Old Latin witnesses to reconstruct the compositional history of biblical texts, the use of the comparative method to understand the historical genres of the Bible, and the implementation of archaeological findings to corroborate the alleged reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah have constituted the innovations in recent scholarship most clearly distinguishing it from earlier approaches.

1.4. Recent Studies on the Framework of Kings In the preceding discussion on the early studies of the framework of Kings, I have pointed out that Wellhausen and Noth had argued that the framework was mostly if not wholly the creation of the Deuteronomistic historian, who had taken only the chronological information from earlier sources. Their argument was challenged by Bin-Nun in an essay on the origin of formulae from royal records of Israel and Judah in the Book of Kings.95 She observed that the formulaic structure of the framework of Kings was both regular and varied, and on that basis she argued that the variation in formulaic expression must have be owing to the content and style of earlier sources. Otherwise, the historian would have employed the formulae created to compose the framework invariably throughout the entire work.96 In particular, she pointed out the regular variation between the two types of accession formulae for the northern and southern kings in order to reconstruct two originally separate formulae.97

93 In his discussion of the chronological framework of Kings, Wellhausen (1875: 609–11) failed to take into account the different readings of the LXX at 1 Kgs 16:28, 29; 22:52; 2 Kgs 3:1; 15:13. Begrich (1929: 175–82) used these stylistic differences in the MT and LXX (including the Lucianic witnesses) to argue for separate chronistic sources. However, his insights would not be appreciated until the 1980s in the work of Trebolle. 94 Rahlfs 1904; idem 1911. Rahlfs admitted that Lucian may have preserved variants different from those of the Masoretic Text, but nevertheless underestimated their value; see Tov 1999: 477. Hugo (2006: 33–4) notes, however, that Rahlfs was instrumental in demonstrating that LXXL was based on a pre-Hexaplaric text. 95 Bin-Nun 1968: 414–32. 96 Ibid. 418. 97 Ibid. 418–21, 428.

18

Chapter One: How Was the Book of Kings First Composed? Southern hdwhy K7leme B Nb A wklmb A hn# N(umber) Nb Ml#wryb K7lamf hn# N w

Northern hn# N l)r#y K7lamf B Nb A

Since the northern formula occurs elsewhere in Judges and the southern formula occurs in Samuel, Bin-Nun concluded that they were not created by the historian but must have derived from two separate sources, a Judahite kinglist and an Israelite kinglist. She preferred to regard the earlier sources as kinglists instead of chronicles owing to the ordering of the formulae: accession notice and regnal year total prior to the death formulae.98 In contrast to Wellhausen and Noth, she demonstrated that the historian of the framework did not create from whole cloth the variation in word order or clause order in the two standard types of accession formulae. It is also noteworthy that Bin-Nun maintained that religious formulae were also present in earlier records available to the historian, although she did not work out this argument in detail.99 I have also noted that a handful of commentators had begun to concentrate on the nature of the regnal evaluations in 1–2 Kings down to Hezekiah and to question their relationship to Deuteronomy. These early observations formed the basis of more systematic studies on the framework of Kings arguing for redactional layers. Whereas Bin-Nun had dealt with the non-evaluative accession formulae, Helga Weippert wrote an influential essay on the so-called “Deuteronomistic” evaluations of the kings of Israel and Judah in the Book of Kings.100 On finding Noth’s argument for a unified historical work unpersuasive, she renewed the question of the unity of the framework of 1–2 Kings. She restricted her analysis to the formulaic judgments belonging indubitably to the framework in order to concentrate on the comprehensive outline of the history and to filter out from her analysis potentially secondary elements that had been customarily assigned to Deuteronomistic redaction.101 She assumed that those responsible for composing the evaluations did not stand in immediate relationship to the evaluated kings but that a temporal distance stood before the evaluator and the evaluated. As with Noth, then, she held that the evaluations were not created ad hoc primarily on the basis of political deeds but were governed by a theological perspective enveloping the entire history. 98 “After all, the king’s regnal years could not have been summed up before his death”: ibid. 423. She considered this formula illogical to a chronicle, as she did not encounter it in any of the Babylonian chronicles. 99 Ibid. 417 n. 1, 418. 100 Weippert 1972: 301–39. Her title embeds the term Deuteronomistic in quotation marks, because she argued in this essay that the original framework of Kings was “preDeuteronomistic.” 101 Ibid. 302–3. Weippert found support for her work in Jenni’s (1961: 118) call for scholars to perform an exact analysis of Deuteronomistic style and usage to determine whether the Deuteronomistic History existed in the way that Noth had claimed.

1.4. Recent Studies on the Framework of Kings

19

However, she criticized Noth for passing over several of the positively evaluated kings in his discussion of the framework.102 By reason of stylistic and conceptual variations within these regnal evaluations, Weippert argued for the diachronic separation of three textual blocks within the framework of the Book of Kings (RI; RII; RIII).103 The RI framework-block was composed sometime after 722 B.C.E. in the wake of Hezekiah’s reforms and comprised the block of regnal evaluations from 1 Kgs 22:41 to 2 Kgs 17:22. A northern Israelite, who escaped to Judah, authored RI from the standpoint of the cult reforms. The block of material comprising RII enveloped RI, extending from 1 Kgs 14:21 to 22:40 and then emerging again at 2 Kgs 16:2b/17:7 and concluding at 23:20.104 It was authored during the reign of Josiah in support of his program against foreign deities and in hopes of an upswing in the religiouspolitical situation of the kingdom of Judah. RII did not show a clear interest in cultic centralization, but rather showed an interest in the worship of foreign deities.105 It was also harsher in its negative judgment on the northern kings than RI. It reused the language of RI, but in relationship to David as an ideal king, who was the true follower of the Law of Moses. Finally, Weippert posited a third block in the framework (RIII), which was tacked onto the end of RII, comprising of 2 Kgs 23:31–25:30. The regnal evaluation in 2 Kgs 23:32 states that Jehoahaz “did what was evil in the eyes of YHWH according to all that his fathers had done.” This ignores the positive evaluation of Josiah ob102

Weippert 1972: 302–3 n. 3. According to Noth (1957: 73–4; ET 1981: 63–4): “und die Tatsache, daß von dem allgemein rein negativen Urteil einige halbe und vereinzelte ganze Ausnahmen gemacht werden, weist nur darauf hin, daß das Königtum an sich die Chance gehabt hätte, sich als positiver Faktor in der Geschichte Israels zu erweisen, daß es aber tatsächlich nur ein Ferment des Untergangs gewesen ist.” Noth used most of his space to discuss Dtr’s use of source materials, which really did not serve to prove his point. In fact, he betrayed the inadequacy of his argument in his statement: “Mit den Abschnitten über die judäischen Könige Jotham (15:32–38) und Ahas (16:1–20) geht Dtr zur Darstellung der geschichtlichen Verwickelungen über, die zum Ende des Staates Israel führten” (1957: 85; ET 1981: 72). This transition from the series of positively evaluated kings (Jehoash, Amaziah, Azariah, and Jotham, not to mention Solomon, Asa, and Jehoshaphat earlier in the history) to the topic of the end of the monarchy would seem to justify seeing more than merely isolated cases of positively evaluated kings (of which Noth mentioned only Hezekiah and Josiah as primary examples). 103 Weippert’s work thus resembled earlier works arguing for a double redaction in the Book of Kings, most visible in the works of Cross (1973: 274–89) and his followers (Nelson 1981). As her essay incorporated a Blockmodell, it is not to be confused with the use of a Schichtenmodell in the works of Smend and his followers (esp. Dietrich 1972; Veijola 1975; idem 1982; Würthwein 1977; idem 1984; Kratz 2000a). 104 The first regnal evaluation formula is found at 1 Kgs 14:22 with Rehoboam; however, Weippert included in the same redactional stratum 1 Kgs 11:33, 38; 14:8, 16. She did suggest that 1 Kgs 11:38 and 14:8 are not from the same hand (1972: 330 n. 1). 105 Similarly, Jepsen 1956: 60–76. Weippert (1972: 338 n. 1) remarked that RII was also not acquainted with the vocabulary and style of Deuteronomy!

20

Chapter One: How Was the Book of Kings First Composed?

served immediately beforehand in 2 Kgs 22:2 (not to mention Hezekiah’s evaluation in 2 Kgs 18:3). Weippert concluded, therefore, that the author of RIII could have written so negatively of the earlier kings only subsequent to the demise of the southern kingdom.106 Weippert was the first scholar to argue that the earliest form of the framework with moral evaluations was pre-Deuteronomistic.107 Yet she maintained that Deuteronomy was already in development by the time of its discovery in Josiah’s reign but that this was no cause for alarm since RI approximated Deuteronomistic language in style and the Deuteronomistic principle of centralization in theme. The objections to the bāmôt in the Judahite regnal formulae of RI could be understood only against the backdrop of an imagined demand for cultic centralization if not a concrete reform in Hezekiah’s day (2 Kgs 18:4, 22).108 The evaluations for the Judahite kings in RI stood thus in direct relationship with Deut 12. As a result, Weippert characterized RI not only as pre-Deuteronomistic in time, but also as “proto-Deuteronomistic” in a “literary sense.” Unfortunately, she left open the question of defining with any precision the proto-Deuteronomistic literary sense of her original RI framework.109 Even if Weippert left several problems unsolved, her analysis drew attention to Noth’s misunderstanding of the original framework as a unified structure anticipating the disastrous outcome of the monarchy. It also brought to the fore the specific issues of the origin and development of linguistic idioms to express the idea of centralization prior to a Josianic edition of Deuteronomy. However, she did not discuss the relationship of her reconstruction of the evaluations to Bin-Nun’s reconstruction of the Judahite and Israelite accession formulae and appeared rather to support Noth’s view of the historian’s total freedom in composing the framework, at least with respect to the evaluative formulae. Whereas Bin-Nun reconstructed the sources available to the author of the framework, Weippert’s analysis did not touch on the author’s use of sources or traditions. The reception of Bin-Nun’s and Weippert’s essays on the compositional history of the framework of Kings has been mixed.110 Barrick responded with 106

Ibid. 334. Weippert 1972: 336. Oestreicher and Jepsen had argued that the bāmôt-notices were non-Deuteronomistic only but still dated them to after the composition of Deuteoronomy. 108 Ibid. 337 n. 4. 109 Ibid. 337 n. 5. 110 Bin-Nun’s (1968: 414–32) results have been accepted by Weippert 1972: 302; Macy 1975: 115–17; Van Seters 1983: 298; Campbell 1986: 140 n. 1; Barnes 1991: 138–40; Eynikel 1996: 122–9; Parker 2000: 370–74; idem 2006: 215, 223, 225; Naʾaman 2005: 134–5. See the review of criticisms leveled against Bin-Nun’s position with a response in support of her thesis in Eynikel 1996: 122–9; see also Nelson 1980: 30–1; Haran 1999: 156–64. Several scholars have endorsed Weippert’s classificatory scheme of the redactional history of Kings, while making improvements of their own: Barrick 1974: 57–9; idem 2002: 116, 125; Mayes 107

1.4. Recent Studies on the Framework of Kings

21

an essay supporting Weippert’s analysis but differed concerning the divisions that she placed between 1 Kgs 22:40 and 22:41 as well as between 2 Kgs 16– 17 and chs. 18–23, divisions that he considered arbitrary.111 The disjunctive use of the conjunction w instead of qr or K) was not strong enough to dissociate Asa’s cultic judgment in 1 Kgs 15:14a from RI. Similarly, he pointed out that the bāmôt-notices for the positively evaluated Judahite kings in RI (Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoash, Amaziah, Azariah, and Jotham) found their “dramatic denouement” in the notice of Hezekiah’s removal of the bāmôt in 2 Kgs 18:4a as emphasized by the emphatic pronoun )wh. The original Hezekian History may have ended with the statement of Hezekiah’s incomparability in 18:5b, argues Barrick, since a Josianic compiler would not have considered Josiah inferior to his predecessor.112 However, he allowed that the hand of RII may have retouched the cultic reports of Asa and Hezekiah.113 He also argued that the report of Manasseh’s reversal of his father’s reforming measures is couched in a style different from the preceding bāmôt-notices.114 Cortese was critical of Bin-Nun’s reconstruction of the separate southern and northern accession formulae as well as of Weippert’s divisions between RI and RII.115 He argued that the two types of formulae that Bin-Nun distinguished were actually found for both northern and southern kings. The expression “reigned over Judah” is found for Abijah in 1 Kgs 15:1 and for Jehoshaphat in 22:41, just as “reigned over Israel” is present in northern accounts.116 Similarly, he argued that the expression “he reigned as king of Judah” is comparable to the expression “he reigned as king of Israel” for

1983: 120–4; Lemaire 1986: 221–36; Provan 1988; Halpern and Vanderhooft 1991: 179– 244; Eynikel 1996; Sweeney 2007: 20–6. 111 Barrick 1974: 57–9; idem 2002: 123–5. 112 Barrick 1974: 59 n. 3. Barrick also noted the problem of tracing the framework back to its beginning, which neither Weippert nor he was able to do (ibid. 59 n. 2). He was critical of 1 Kgs 3:2 and 3:3b as potential candidates, as they did not use both xbz and r+q in the D-stem in contrast to the rest of the framework. Moreover, 1 Kgs 14:22–23 was also an unlikely candidate, according to Barrick, because there was nothing beyond the mention of the bāmôt to recommend it as an introduction to the framework. 113 Ibid. 59. 114 Ibid. 58. Barrick points out that whereas the bāmôt-notices regularly employ the verb rws (so in 2 Kgs 18:4), the cultic report for Manasseh uses the verb db) (D-stem) “to destroy.” 115 Cortese 1975: 37–52. 116 Ibid. 39–42; cf. Nelson 1981: 30. However, neither Cortese nor Nelson discussed the significant variants in the Old Greek or in Chronicles; (1 Kgs 14:21 [LXX; MT “in Judah”; but see 3 Reg 12:24a: “in Jerusalem”]; 15:1–2 [but see 2 Chr 13:2: “in Jerusalem”]; 22:41– 42 “over Judah” [but it is absent in LXXB/OL 3 Reg 16:28a]; cf. 2 Kgs 9:29). The attestations of “over Judah” at 1 Kgs 14:21 and 22:41–42 are probably later than 3 Reg 12:24a and 16:28a, where only “in Jerusalem” occurs.

22

Chapter One: How Was the Book of Kings First Composed?

Jeroboam II in 2 Kgs 14:23 (MT).117 He also compared with the formulae “reigned over Judah” to the similar variant “reigned in Jerusalem” at MT 1 Kgs 14:21 for Rehoboam.118 As a result, Cortese concluded that there was too much overlap between the northern and southern formulae to argue for their literary division. Still, he did not deal with Bin-Nun’s arguments concerning the ordering of the various formulae as befitting a kinglist, that is, at the level above the clause. Regarding Weippert’s division of RI and RII, Cortese noted that both textual blocks share a good deal of the same phraseology.119 Concerning the judgments for the Judahite kings, he noted that the references to David as an ideal figure of comparison cover both RI and RII, observing that only Asa, Hezekiah, and Josiah are compared with David, because it was only they who carried out cultic reforms.120 Moreover, negative comparisons with David are found in 2 Kgs 14:3 (Amaziah) and 16:2 (Ahaz) of RI, and not simply in RII. Regarding the judgments for the northern kings, Cortese noted again that some of the same formulae occur in both RI and RII; e.g., -b Klh “to walk in (the sins of Jeroboam)” (cf. 1 Kgs 15:26 and 2 Kgs 13:11).121 In fact, the expression rs )l “not to turn from (the sins of Jeroboam)” of Weippert’s RI found in 2 Kgs and the expression Krdb Klh of RII found earlier in 1 Kgs are compatible if one posits that the author of the northern judgments regarded the kings associated with the Omride dynasty as more deliberately evil than the subsequent northern kings, such as Jehu (2 Kgs 10:29, 31) and Hoshea (17:2).122 117 LXXBL reads “over Israel.” However, Cortese mistranslated (and thus misunderstood Bin-Nun’s argument concerning) the Judahite regnal year total as “reigned as king of Judah/Israel” when “king of Judah/Israel” is really in apposition to the patronymic and is not a verbal complement of Klamf; so NAB and JPS. This is in keeping with the use of titles after the patronymic in West Semitic royal inscriptions; e.g., KAI 1: 1: “Ethbaal, son of Ahiram, king of Byblos”; also 10:1–2; 13:2; 14:2; 24:1; 181:1; 214:1; 215:1; 216:1–3; 217:1; 222:1; 308:1–3. 118 “In Judah” in MT 1 Kgs 14:21 is fallacious in light of 3 Reg 12:24a LXX/OL: “in Jerusalem” and 3 Reg 14:21: “over Judah.” 119 Cortese 1975: 44. The shared phrases are: hwhy yny(b r#yh h#(, Krdb Klh, and rx) Klh. 120 Ibid. 44. Cortese’s assertion is unhelpful in this case, since Jehoshaphat also carried out a reform (see 3 Reg 16:28d ≈ 1 Kgs 22:47). It is probable that Asa, Hezekiah, and Josiah are compared with David, because their immediate predecessors were not acceptable examples, i.e., they were judged negatively (= Abijah, Ahaz, Manassheh/Amon). Similarly, Jehoash is said to have done right as Jehoiada the priest had instructed him (2 Kgs 12:3), if this reference can be regarded as original (see Burney 1903: 312–3). 121 Similarly, Timm 1982: 29. 122 Cortese 1975: 46–7; similarly, Halpern and Vanderhooft 1991: 199–202. Cortese overlooks the variant in 2 Kgs 17:2 in LXXL/OL, which describes Hoshea, the last northern king, as having done worse than any of his predecessors; see Trebolle 1989: 188–93; Schenker 2004: 116–7. However, the formula rs )l is not found in 17:2, so that Cortese’s (1975: 45) argument remains plausible even if the last northern king was considered the

1.4. Recent Studies on the Framework of Kings

23

In his dissertation on the Sources of the Book of Chronicles, Macy undertook a systematic analysis of the opening and closing regnal formulae for each king in both Chronicles and Kings.123 He concluded that the opening accession formula consisted of three standard parts: the king’s age and regnal year total, the name of the queen mother, and an evaluation of the king in religious terms.124 Following Bin-Nun, he argued that the initial two parts would have come from official “records” while, in contrast to her, he maintained that the religious evaluations were added later. Yet in his opinion, the evaluation was an integral part of the accession formulae, since it is found regularly in the formulaic style of both 1–2 Kings and 1–2 Chronicles. Macy differentiated between the short standard evaluation and supplemental evaluations, which usually consisted of “one to three verses immediately following the short evaluation and preceding the narrative about the king who was just introduced in the accession notice.”125 He noted how the supplemental evaluations are not formulaic at all in Chronicles but are quite formulaic at points in Kings, especially with respect to the bāmôt-notices.126 This three-part opening structure must have existed in sources before the Deuteronomistic version of the Book of Kings, possibly in “annals or abstracts maintained by persons or circles with religious interests.”127 However, Macy maintained that these earlier documents would still have originated in Deuteronomistic circles since the style of the evaluation was found in Deuteronomistic texts. Macy was thus supportive of Bin-Nun’s hypothesis concerning the divergent sources used to construct the northern and southern accession formulae: “It is wholly unreamost evil. The same cannot be said of Cortese’s association of Manasseh’s comparison with Ahab in 2 Kgs 21:3 (cf. 1 Kgs 16:32–33) with similar comparisons between Jehoram (2 Kgs 8:18)/Ahaziah (8:27) and Ahab. In contrast to Jehoram’s and Ahaziah’s maternal lineage, Manasseh’s mother was not a descendent of the Omride house. There is thus a tension between the Omride comparison for Manasseh in 21:3 and judgment on Hoshea’s most reprehensible behavior in 17:2 as the climactic judgment for the northern kings. For literary tensions involving Manasseh’s comparison with Ahab indicated in the Lucianic and Old Latin witnesses, see Schenker 2004: 52–4. 123 Macy 1975. Macy did not directly discuss Weippert’s essay in his analysis of the regnal formulae of Chronicles, but his work overlapped with hers enough to warrant a discussion of it in the present study. 124 Ibid. 115–35. The specific evaluative formulae that Macy references are: “he did what was right/evil in the eyes of YHWH” hwhy yny(b r#yh/(rh #(yw and the formula for comparison with predecessors Krdb Klh “he walked in the way of.” 125 Ibid. 122. This may demonstrate a type of place within the framework where authors (or later redactors) could insert more extensive evaluative explanations of their own. 126 Macy did not include a discussion of the bāmôt-notice at 1 Kgs 3:2 or the regnal evaluation for Rehoboam at 3 Reg 12:24a. Owing to the regularity and formulaic nature of the bāmôt-notices in Kings, it is doubtful that they should be considered “supplemental”; rather they comprise a standard part of the opening regnal formulae in Kings. 127 Ibid. 120.

24

Chapter One: How Was the Book of Kings First Composed?

sonable to assume that a single author composed these different organizing formulae ex nihilo and used them consistently throughout his work.”128 Regarding the instances of naming the queen mother, he observed that, in contrast to Kings, mention of the queen mother was lacking in the accounts from Manasseh until Zedekiah in Chronicles (i.e., following the account of Hezekiah). He explained this difference by positing that Chronicles must have used a source different from the current form of 1–2 Kings that also lacked the name of the queen mother after Hezekiah. He argued persuasively that the author of Chronicles had no conceivable motivation for deleting this information from an earlier source.129 Trebolle paid far greater attention than previous scholars to the Old Greek and Old Latin versions of the Book of Kings in order to reconstruct earlier Hebrew Vorlagen. He used the versions to reconstruct an earlier form of the framework in Kings. He criticized Noth and his students for conferring very little importance to the potential contributions of the versions for the recensional and compositional history of Kings.130 He also criticized Bin-Nun, Weippert, and Cortese for ignoring cases of framework-formulae in the Old Greek, especially Rehoboam’s prologue at 3 Reg 12:24a, which in his opinion represents an earlier Deuteronomistic redaction of the framework that was later supplanted by the formulae at MT 14:21–24*.131 He noted five other cases at LXXL 3 Reg 16:28a (= 22:41 [LXXL]); 16:29; 22:52; 4 Reg 3:1; 12:1 where the Old Greek reflects a more pristine form of the framework beginning with “In the year (tn#b) … of X” in lieu of “Now A son B became king” in the MT. According to him, “The change in the MT is always occasioned by the transposition of the whole formula to a different context from its primitive location.”132 Trebolle understood the composition of books of Kings as a process in three stages: (1) A synchronistic scheme of the reigns of Israel and Judah; (2) then, integrated notices from the annals of both kingdoms (e.g., “conspiracy notices”); also in the second stage, narratives gathered from prophetic and historical sources that were incorporated into the synchronized framework; (3) finally, deuteronomistic comments added at various later

128

Ibid. 117. Ibid. 118–20. The Greek shows the name of the Queen Mother for the reigns of Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim at 2 Chr 36:2, 5, but Macy observes that this information was introduced from Kings and is also absent from the parallel at 1 Esdras 1:39–47. 130 2000: 476. 131 Trebolle 1980: 84; idem 2000: 481. 132 Trebolle 2000: 481. A similar transformation following transposition is true in the case of 1 Kgs 14:21 (Klm … M(bxrw) in contrast to 3 Reg 12:24a (M(bxr Klmyw). In at least one case, the opposite scenario obtains: LXXB 3 Reg 16:8 contains the formula “Now A son B became king” at in contrast to MT’s “In the year.” 129

1.4. Recent Studies on the Framework of Kings

25

stages difficult to define precisely for each case.133 Trebolle’s view thus resembles Jepsen’s reconstruction of the compositional stages of 1–2 Kings. Nelson rejected both Bin-Nun’s and Weippert’s reconstructions of the compositional processes of the framework.134 Like Cortese, he underscored that the random variation in the regnal formulae precluded the possibility that the author of the framework incorporated the outline of the framework from available kinglists. Again, as with Cortese, Nelson did not deal with the order of the formulae at the level above the clause but restricted his analysis to individual words and phrases. Against Weippert, he argued that the tripartite division of framework-blocks is fatally weakened by the extensive variations with the respective domains of the hypothetical R I and R II, the free variations in the other elements of the regnal formulae that cut across Weippert’s divisions, and the need to postulate an editor vitally interested in cultic centralization a hundred years before the discovery of Deuteronomy.135

Nelson assumed that a separate editor would have imitated the formulaic expressions of the earlier author of the framework in order to update the work and that there would be a noticeable change in style with less variation and a greater use of stereotypical language. He did not detect such a hand until after Josiah’s account regarding the last four kings of Judah. In the accounts leading up to Josiah, he listed variations in the synchronistic formulae, the king’s age at accession (Judah only), regnal year total, and capital city, and the style regarding the place of origin of the queen mother. Concerning the judgments on the northern kings, he opined that the author of the framework varied certain stock phrases from king to king, so that a continuous reading of Kings is not monotonous but points to the impending doom of the northern kingdom under the “growing weight of its constantly repeated sin.”136 Turning to the judgment formulae for the Judahite kings, Nelson detected similar variations in the formulaic comparisons with the royal predecessors, suggesting, “the basic structures and constituent materials are always the same, but no two are

133

Ibid. 483. Nelson 1981: 30–36. 135 Nelson 1981: 31–6 (esp. 31). The concerns that Nelson raises on these points are answerable on the grounds that many of the variations are negligible in light of text critical evidence, as Trebolle observed, so that the variation in the formulae is not as great as Nelson claimed. 136 Ibid. 33. Nelson’s separation between monotonous formulaic expression and the telic impression of the theme of repeated sin is unclear, since the two modes of expression and meaning can be complementary. However, at least one example of heightened stylistic rigidity that Nelson mentions supports Weippert’s thesis, namely, the combined mention of the place of origin and patronymic for the Queen Mother after Hezekiah in contrast to the standard practice of mentioning only the origin or the patronymic individually in the accounts down to Hezekiah. 134

26

Chapter One: How Was the Book of Kings First Composed?

alike.”137 He also indicated that the source citations always begin the same way: “as for the rest of the acts of”; but afterwards they vary in style and content. The death and burial formulae, in his opinion, were strongly influenced by the nature of the king’s death itself, in particular, the use of the formula “with his fathers” for only Judahite reigns.138 Overall, Nelson cautioned against overemphasizing the stereotypical nature of Weippert’s RI and RII textual blocks. Timm discussed the framework of Kings in the context of his study on the Omride dynasty.139 He reconstructed the Minimalformular for Judahite kings as follows: Ml#wryb Klm hn#…w wklmb hyh hn#…Nb (… Nb)…Klm (… Nb)…l… tn#b

Like Wellhausen, Timm concluded that the different verbal nuances of the twice-used perfective verb Klm (ingressive vs. constative) demonstrated that the constative nuance was primary and that the creation of the synchronistic framework was not taken from official sources.140 He also argued, against Bin-Nun, that the earlier Judahite formula with synchronisms was at variance with the later Judahite formula without synchronisms in 2 Kgs 21:1, 19; 22:1; 23:31, 36; 24:8, 18 (the latter he reconstructed as): …Nm…tb… wm) M#w Ml#wryb Klm My#dx/hn# …w wklmb … hn#…Nb

Timm argued that this formula was a variation on the Judahite Minimalformular and that one cannot speak of a unified formulaic prologue for the Judahite kings going back to official sources.141 Rather, both variations are attributable

137

Ibid. 34. Nelson’s opinion on the southern judgment formulae is greatly overstated, as Provan (1988: 48–9) has observed. To take just one example, the phrase “according to all that RN, his father, had done” is repeated at 2 Kgs 14:3; 15:3, 34; 18:3 and is not found in Manasseh’s, Amon’s, or Josiah’s accounts and is imitated imprecisely (with a greater degree of vartiation!) in the accounts of the last four kings of Judah (2 Kgs 23:32, 37; 24:9; 19). Thus, his model operates more in favor of Weippert’s thesis than in support of his own with these examples. 138 Nelson 1981: 35. This observation supports the consistent use of formulae in the regnal epilogues for Judahite kings in order to contrast them with their northern counterparts. The variations that Nelson observes between the use of the N-stem versus the G-stem of rbq is weakened somewhat by his strict preference for the MT, which vitiates many points of his overall discussion. 139 Timm 1982: 13–40. 140 Ibid. 16; recently, Robker 2012: 75. 141 Timm 1982: 17. Timm only provides evidence for the secondary nature of the synchronisms in relationship to the accession formula and regnal year total. In fact, Bin-Nun did not regard the synchronisms as original, and thus imagined a development in direct contrast to Timm’s alleged variation.

1.4. Recent Studies on the Framework of Kings

27

to a single Deuteronomistic author responsible for creating the framework.142 The northern formula Timm reconstructed as follows: Mymy/My#dx/hn#… Nwrm#b… Nb…Klm hdwhy Klm …l… tn#b

He indicated that, in contrast to the Judahite Minimalformular, its Israelite counterpart used Klm only once to express double nuances of ingressivity and constativity.143 Here again, to his mind, such a formulation could not have gone back to official documents and must be credited to authorial innovation. The variations between northern and southern formulae were due to the purpose of the Deuteronomistic author in portraying the northern kings as deficient for lacking complete accession formulae.144 Timm also argued that the variations in the judgment formulae for Omri, Ahab, Ahaziah, and Joram (MT 1 Kgs 16:23, 29; 22:52; 2 Kgs 3:1–3) were not copied from official sources but were the author’s own free variation.145 Yet he allowed that the prologues for the Omride kings preserved authentic historical information, such as the names of the four kings of that dynasty and the name of their country as “Israel” with its capital city in “Samaria.”146 In the cases of Ahab (1 Kgs 16:31– 33) and Joram (2 Kgs 3:2–3), he argued that material had been taken from earlier sources, namely, the report that Ahab had married Jezebel and that he 142

Timm’s inclusion of the name of the Queen Mother in this second formula and not in the Minimalformular is arbitrary since this is a standard element in the Judahite prologues. In addition, his inclusion of the synchronizing formula tn#b in the Minimalformular is unfounded, as his own argument concerning the double use of Klm betrays. Nevertheless, using Timm’s observations, one may improve Bin-Nun’s reconstruction of the Judahite formula, by taking into account that a succession notice originally provided the name of the acceding king and would have immediately preceded the prologue formulae that he provides for the final Judahite kings. It is this structure that is used for the last seven kings of Judah after Hezekiah and is also found essentially in Gen 36:32–39 and in Judg 12:7–15. 143 Ibid. 18. 144 Ibid. 19–20. Timm argues against the possibility that the differences between the Israelite and Judahite formulae go back to distinct sources, because it only suspends the question of why extra information was in the Judahite sources that was not in the Israelite sources. However, this response does not account for the variation in word order “he reigned N years” (Israelite) vs. “N years he reigned” (Judahite); nor does he pay sufficient attention to the standard variation between “over Israel” and “in Jerusalem.” 145 None of these examples vitiates Bin-Nun’s argument concerning the two standard types. In fact, a couple cases demonstrate that the northern formula “He reigned over Israel N years” (MT 1 Kgs 15:25; 16:29; 22:52; 2 Kgs 3:1) is standard and does not occur in the Judahite reigns. Taking into account the Septuagintal evidence, the differences in the MT are potentially owing to later scribal alterations; see Trebolle 2000: 480–84. 146 Timm 1982: 28. Timm did not describe the process through which historical information became available to the author of the framework (ibid. 39) if that author did not use standard formulae from official sources (ibid. 18–19). Timm seems to have assumed that either the standard formulae were not present in the Deuteronomist’s sources or that, if standard formulae were present, the Deuteronomist did not make use of them.

28

Chapter One: How Was the Book of Kings First Composed?

had built an altar for Baal in the “temple of Ĕlôhîm” (reading with LXX 3 Reg 16:32), as well as the report that Joram removed the pillar(s) of Baal.147 In contrast to earlier studies, Van Seters discussed Bin-Nun’s sourcecritical hypothesis of two kinglists used to construct the framework against the backdrop of extrabiblical kinglists and chronicles from Mesopotamia and Phoenicia.148 He essentially confirmed the results of her analysis and added supporting evidence from the so-called Tyrian Annals. He distilled the two formulae into more basic and distinctive elements: “A (son of B) reigned over Israel in (Tirzah/Samaria) n years,” standard for the northern prologue, versus “And n years reigned he in Jerusalem” for the southern prologue.”149 He argued that this distinction did not operate well for the early kings from Saul to Solomon or from Jeroboam to Jehu and argued, “these formulas should be left outside of the king-list scheme.”150 Two kingslists for Israel and Judah provided the basic framework that was augmented in the two “literary” works cited in Kings, “the chronicles of the kings of Israel” and “the chronicles of the kings of Judah.” Unlike the kinglists, however, these two chronicles were not composed contemporaneously with the events that they describe but much later.151 It was also possible that the author used commemorative or memorial inscriptions to compose the history of the monarchy. Van Seters paid close attention to the general order of the formulae, observing that the summary of the regnal year total occurs before the specific details of the regnal account. This matched not the form of the Neo-Babylonian chronicles but that of the Annals of Tyre preserved in Josephus.152 Consequently, the genre of “royal chronicles” used by the author of the framework was not unique to the west.153 Despite the fact that the ordered structure of the framework matched that of the Annals of Tyre and despite the possibility that the author of framework used local inscriptions, Van Seters concluded nevertheless that the

147

Ibid. 32–3, 39. Van Seters 1983: 296–9. 149 Ibid. 297. 150 Ibid. 298. It is difficult to know what Van Seters means precisely for the kings from Jeroboam to Jehu. To be sure, the accounts of Jeroboam and Jehu do not include a prologue, but many of the accounts for the northern kings between those two kings follow the standard formulae, especially if one takes into account the Septuagintal evidence. 151 Van Seters 1983: 298. Here, Van Seters reflects Wellhausen’s and Noth’s view that these “chronicles” were non-official literary sources. He did not, however, clearly distinguish the genre of “official kinglist” from the genre of “literary chronicle”; nor did he provide support for why the latter had to be written at a much later period, i.e., in the exilic period. In fact, what Van Seters designates as an example of a “royal chronicle,” namely, the so-called Tyrian Annals, could be acceptably designated a kinglist. 152 Josephus Ant. 8.141–146; idem Ag. Ap. 1.116–125; see Barnes 1991: 29–55. 153 Van Seters 1983: 297. 148

1.4. Recent Studies on the Framework of Kings

29

West Semitic genre of “royal chronicle” was created as a response to NeoBabylonian chronicle writing.154 Campbell accepted the main points of Weippert’s essay on the divisions of the textual blocks of the framework in Kings.155 However, his reconstruction of the compositional history of the framework of Kings differed in significant ways from hers. He argued in Of Prophets and Kings for an early ninthcentury “Prophetic Record,” stretching from 1 Samuel to 2 Kings 10, written by prophetic circles associated with Elisha.156 This source combined earlier documents and molded them into a continuous account on the early monarchy from a prophetic perspective. The aim of this work was to legitimize the uprising of Jehu in northern Israel, stressing the prophet’s role as “kingmaker” and “kingbreaker.” The Prophetic Record was structured according to a minimal “linear system,” whereby the death formulae for each king were followed immediately by the succession notice of each king: “And X lay down with his fathers, and was buried … and Y his son reigned in his stead” or “And Y killed X and reigned in his stead” (cf. Gen 36:31–39).157 Lacking from this system were the synchronistic formulae, the chronological data, mention of the country of kingship, naming of the queen mother, judgment formulae, and source citations. Attached to this Prophetic Record was a “Northern Expansion,” a chronicle of the decline and fall of northern Israel, which also worked according to the linear system, but included judgment formulae for kings from Jehu to Hoshea (2 Kgs *10:29–17:23). The pattern of the judgment formulae in the Northern Expansion, which Campbell designated as Pattern A, resembled the northern formulae of Weippert’s RI (=

154

Ibid. 297; Kratz 2000a: 163; Blanco Wißmann 2008: 35–7, 68–72; see also Morawe 1966: 308–22; differently, Römer 2005: 103. To my mind, it defies probability to accept that the pristine Levantine examplar of a “royal chronicle,” which differs from the form of NeoBabylonian chronicles, was created only in the 6th century B.C.E. in response to NeoBabylonian parallels and that its basic structure was retained both in the Book of Kings and in Phoenicia. Positing an earlier and more vibrant levantine tradition for West Semitic “chronicles” is more plausible. 155 Campbell 1986: 139–202. 156 Campbell developed in relation to the study the composition of 1–2 Kings the arguments of McCarter (1984) and Birch (1976), who worked on 1–2 Samuel. Recently, Campbell’s thesis has been accepted in the main by O’Brien (1989), Lehnart (2003), and Hutton (2009); the latter has provided an extensive review of scholarship on prophetic sources and redactions in Samuel and Kings on pp. 113–56. A major weakness of Campbell’s extension of his Prophetic Record into Kings is that he reconstructs the period from David’s death to Jehoram’s accession as framed by formulaic death and succession notices and omits a discussion of how the formulaic structure of a kinglist would have been combined with prophetic narrative to write a history of the northern kingdom including David and Solomon! 157 Campbell 1986: 139.

30

Chapter One: How Was the Book of Kings First Composed?

IN1).158 The Northern Expansion dated to some time after 722 B.C.E. and was written from a northern perspective that judged all of the Israelite kings negatively. Campbell also posited a nearly identical “Southern Expansion” for the kings from Rehoboam to Hezekiah, the formulae for which he designated as Pattern B (≈ Weippert’s IS1).159 In contrast to Weippert’s reconstruction, he argued that the Southern Expansion, though influenced by the Northern Expansion, had been written as a separate document. It was only later, in the work of Deuteronomistic author, that the Southern Expansion was combined with the Prophetic Record-Northern Expansion and that the formulae were added to the accounts for the northern kings from Jeroboam to Joram (Pattern C).160 Lemaire wrote an essay on the literary history of the Book of Kings, in which he proposed a modified view of Weippert’s model.161 Instead of contending that the first section of second redaction (1 Kgs 12–22 = RII) from the divided kingdom until Joram’s reign was Josianic, Lemaire dated it to the ninth century (ca. 850) B.C.E. The textual basis for this early date was the expression “to walk in the way of Jeroboam” in the northern formulae of 1 Kings (but which is lacking in 2 Kings) in addition to the mentions of the qādēš/qedēšîm ([My]#dq) in Rehoboam’s, Asa’s, and Jehoshaphat’s accounts in 1 Kgs 14:24; 15:12; 22:47, but which are never mentioned again until Josiah’s account in 2 Kgs 23:7. Furthermore, Lemaire cited as evidence the diplomatic marriage between Jehoram ben Jehoshaphat and Ahab’s daughter Athaliah (2 Kgs 8:18, 26–27) to underscore that Judahite scribes would have been composing and updating synchronistic histories in the context of the political reconciliation between the northern and southern kingdoms in the ninth century B.C.E.162 Lemaire also accepted Weippert’s arguments for a Hezekian edition of Kings.

158

Against Weippert, Campbell attributed Joram’s prologue in 2 Kgs 3:2–3 to Dtr (Pattern C), since its references to Ahab and Jezebel connected it closely with the foregoing material. However, the Prophetic Record mentioned Ahab’s marriage to Jezebel and his worship of Baal (1 Kgs 16:31–32), so that it is possible that the Northern Expansion alluded to the mention of Jezebel already in the Prophetic Record. 159 As in Weippert’s model, Campbell (1986: 164–5, 169) also maintained that both the Northern and Southern Expansions were pre-Dtr texts. 160 Campbell reused Weippert’s two formualic distinctions in the northern prologues: “He walked in the sin(s) of X” of RII/Pattern C vs. “He did not depart from the sin(s) of X” of RI/Pattern A; “He vexed (s(k H-stem) YHWH,” which is exclusive to RII/Pattern C. However, it is unlikely that Jehu’s house would have been compared to Jeroboam I while the account for the latter’s own son, Nadab, at the same time lacked such a comparison! 161 Lemaire 1986: 221–36; ET 2000: 446–61. 162 Lemaire 1986: 230; ET 2000: 456. In fact, Lemaire argued that a synchronistic history appeared with the division of the kingdom; so Gressmann 1910: xii.

1.4. Recent Studies on the Framework of Kings

31

Provan set out to refine Weippert’s theory of the compositional history of 1–2 Kings.163 However, he only detected two redactional stages, not three as Weippert had maintained: a Hezekian edition dating to the early part of Josiah’s reign before the latter’s reform and a post-Josianic edition. Provan dated the work on the grounds that it contained the death notice of Sennacherib at 2 Kgs 19:37, which occurred ca. 680 B.C.E., after the death of Hezekiah. He argued that the Hezekian edition of 1–2 Kings constituted the original Deuteronomistic History, that it was joined only to an earlier form of 1–2 Samuel, and that it did not include Deuteronomy–Judges (with the possible exception of Judg 17–21);164 however, this original edition was written with the knowledge of the law of centralization in Deut 12*. He traced the framework notices back only as far as 1 Kgs 3:3, having argued that 1 Kgs 3:2 and 14:21–24 were secondarily added.165 He devoted most of his energy to discussing two major themes in the Judahite regnal formulae of the Hezekian edition: the bāmôt-notices and the Davidic promise. He concluded that the bāmôt were YHWHistic shrines that Hezekiah removed to centralize Jerusalem and that David was significant as a comparative figure up until the reign of Hezekiah, after which he is almost entirely absent. In the northern prologues, the “sin of Jeroboam” as well as Ahab’s worship of Baal were regarded as “idolatry” and not simply as uncentralized worship. In fact, the Judahite kings Jehoram and Ahaziah, who are connected to the “house of Ahab” through intermarriage, are associated with idolatry.166 The binary evaluative schema distinguished thus between kings who worshipped YHWH (r#y) and those who worshipped non-YHWHistic deities ((r).167 In the original framework, according to Provan, the Judahite kings worshipped only YHWH and all references to southern worship of other deities he regarded as secondary.168 He also used Macy’s conclusions on the absence of the names of the queen mothers after Hezekiah in Chronicles and the alteration in death and burial formulae in Kings after Ahaz to argue for a Hezekian form of the framework.

163

Provan 1988. For a summary of Provan’s work, see Moenikes 1992: 341–5. Similarly, Sweeney 2007a: 24–5. 165 Provan 1988: 68–69, 81, 84–6. 166 Actually, the prologues for Jehoram and Ahaziah never explicitly state what their crime was, as Baal is never mentioned. It is noteworthy that Joram is said in 2 Kgs 3:2 (= 4 Reg 1:18b) not to have done evil like his father or mother. 167 Provan 1988: 64–5. Provan defined “idolatry” as the worship of “foreign,” “heathen,” or non-YHWHistic (“other”) gods. 168 Provan (1988: 85) considered the bronze serpent notice in 2 Kgs 18:4b secondary, since it referred to an “idolatrous” cultic object (similarly, for the mention of the pillars and ʾăshērîm) and does not discuss the possibility that they were YHWHistic objects condemned for their iconic quality; differently, Robinson 1932: 392. 164

32

Chapter One: How Was the Book of Kings First Composed?

Halpern and Vanderhooft wrote a lengthy essay on the regnal formulae of the Book of Kings in support of Weippert’s triple-redaction model. They discussed the death and burial formulae, references to the queen mothers, regnal evaluations, and source citations. They favored Macy’s and Provan’s arguments concerning the naming of the queen mother as well as the death and burial formulae in support of a Hezekian edition of 1–2 Kings.169 With Provan, they maintained that the Hezekian History was the original version of the Deuteronomistic History, whose literary scope, though uncertain, least contained some account of the United Monarchy and perhaps a version of the Book of Judges.170 Eynikel’s published dissertation is the most recent comprehensive study further developing Weippert’s triple-redaction hypothesis.171 He devoted much attention to the regnal formulae in 1–2 Kings and over two hundred pages to the form and vocabulary of the narrative of Josiah’s reform (2 Kgs 22–23). The main contribution of the work is the diligent effort exercised to distinguish stylistic elements among the three redactional textual blocks (RI; RII/Dtr1; RIII/Dtr2). In contrast to Provan, Eynikel did not emphasize the “idolatrous” nature of Jeroboam’s establishment of the calves at Bethel and Dan.172 From the perspective of the RI author, “Jeroboam’s sin was constructing alternative sanctuaries in Bethel and Dan … The kings of the North were condemned because of their participation in these cults.”173 Following Provan and Halpern/Vanderhooft, Eynikel argued that the original Hezekian framework was Deuteronomistic. However, he argued that RI was not necessarily attached to an older version of 1–2 Samuel, although RI was familiar with a Davidic tradition.174 Having traced the framework back to Solomon’s evaluation in 1 Kgs 3:3a, he allowed that the original history began with an older version of Solomon’s account and possibly ended in 2 Kgs 19 or 20.175 Rösel supported Provan’s revised thesis of a pre-exilic Hezekian edition of 1–2 Kings as a result of his study on the Deuteronomistic History as well as Provan’s dismissal of a Josianic edition.176 He interacted mostly with Hoffmann’s description of the cultic theme of “reform and reforms” in Kings, which Hoffmann used to argue for the unity of the Deuteronomistic History.177 Rösel undermined Hoffmann’s argument by observing the contradictions in the theme and style among the cultic notices in Kings. Whereas 169

Halpern and Vanderhooft 1991: 183–99. Ibid. 242. 171 Eynikel 1996. 172 Ibid. 68 n. 99, 79 n. 137. 173 Ibid. 357–8. 174 Ibid. 362. 175 Ibid. 110 n. 264. 176 Rösel 1999: 90, 93, 106–8. 177 Ibid. 1999: 37–46; idem 2000: 205–11. 170

1.4. Recent Studies on the Framework of Kings

33

Hoffman held that the single author of Kings composed the cultic notices in view of the history’s climax (Zielkomposition) in Josiah’s reform in 2 Kgs 23, Rösel contended that stylistic and thematic tensions obtain between earlier cultic notices and the account of Josiah’s reform.178 One must conclude that different authors were responsible for the composition of the cultic notices and the account of Josiah’s reform. What emerged more dynamically in Rösel’s study was the methodological issue of the diachronic relationship of the cultic notices to the climactic narrative accounts in Kings. From his point of view, the theme of the bāmôt and the theme of David found in the framework of Kings originally concluded in Hezekiah’s account at 2 Kgs 18:3–4. This also explained why the narrative account in 2 Kgs 18–20 was incorporated as part of Hezekiah’s account, being disparate in character from the other material in Kings and existing naturally at the end of the history.179 The original history of Hezekiah was a textual unit once independent of the material in Deuteronomy–Samuel.180 He left open the question of the connection between Deuteronomy and the Hezekian edition of 1–2 Kings as a problem for future research. Since this spate of research on the framework of 1–2 Kings using and modifying Weippert’s three-edition theory, to my knowledge, no one has undertaken a thorough investigation of the question of an earlier Hezekian History in 1–2 Kings. However, the thesis has found recent support in the works of Barrick,181 Moenikes,182 Schniedewind,183 Schmid,184 Köhlmoos,185 Smith,186 Sweeney,187 Hutton,188 Adam,189 Suriano,190 Keimer,191 Monroe,192 178

Rösel (1999: 39) observes that Hoffmann contradicted himself in stating that the 2 Kgs 23 is the target-composition of cultic notices while also speaking of 2 Kgs 23 as a clumsy and chaotic composition, “weil die Zusammenstellung der einzelnen Angaben lediglich nach dem Prinzip der Summierung erfolgte. Das Ziel dieser Darstellungsform ist es, gleichsam alle bisherigen Kultreformaktionen in einer Reform zusammenzufassen: Aus den Reformen wurde die Reform”: Hoffmann 1980: 251 (Hoffman’s emphases). 179 Rösel 1999: 90. 180 Rösel (ibid. 74–5) favored Würthwein’s and Eynikel’s textual division between 1–2 Samuel–1 Kgs 2 and 1 Kgs 3–2 Kgs 20. 181 Barrick 2002: 106–9. 182 Moenikes 2003: 69–85. 183 Schniedewind 2004: 77–81. 184 Schmid 2006: 41. 185 Köhlmoos 2007: 216–31. 186 Smith 2007: 200. 187 Sweeney 2007: 20–26. 188 Hutton 2009: 102–13. 189 Adam 2010: 40–41. 190 Suriano 2010: 173–4. 191 Keimer 2011: 189–90. 192 Monroe 2011: 125–32. As with Provan, Monroe does not view the Deuteronomistic redaction in 1–2 Kings as pre-exilic.

34

Chapter One: How Was the Book of Kings First Composed?

Nam,193 and Young.194 The works of Schniedewind and his student, Kyle Keimer, attempt to view Hezekiah’s reform and concomitant Hezekian History against the backdrop of the Judahite reception of numerous northern refugees as well as Hezekiah’s extensive defensive preparation for his revolt against Sargon II in 705 B.C.E. They argue that the fall of the northern kingdom presented Hezekiah the perfect opportunity “to create a new golden age” that was primarily political, not religious.195 Schniedewind, in particular, observes that the author of the Hezekian edition of Kings must have had access to specific information in the royal archives from the north.196 According to him, the author made use of the royal archives to compose the formula of the source citations to “praise” their exploits in battle and building construction (1 Kgs 16:5, 27; 22:39; 2 Kgs 10:34; 13:8, 12; 14:28).197 Although the author was less harsh with some of the northern kings, he was not sparing with the use of condemnatory language (e.g., 2 Kgs 17:20–21). “It was Israel that had left the house of David. It was Israel that was now being punished for rending asunder the kingdom of David.”198

1.5. Recent Objections to a Hezekian Framework The thesis of a Hezekian framework has not continued unchallenged. McKenzie criticized Provan for not taking adequate stock of Josiah’s account as the final climax of numerous literary motifs, leaving the “resumptive nature” of Josiah’s reform report unexplained.199 He also challenged Provan’s distinction between the representation of the bāmôt as provincial YHWHistic shrines in the Hezekian edition and their representation as non-YHWHistic in 193

Nam 2012: 6–7. Young 2012: 276–82. 195 In my opinion, Schniedewind goes too far, on this point, for a political decision to remove the bāmôt and to criticize Israel for leaving the house of David surely required a religious rationale and must have been regarded by the larger populous in both political and religious terms. 196 Schniedewind 2004: 78. 197 Differently, Robker (2012: 80) places the source citations at an already earlier stage of composition of a pre-Hezekian Israelite Vorlage. The somewhat positive attitude toward the military deeds of the northern kings that Schniedewind finds in the source citations is reminiscent of Weippert’s observation that the northern kings are judged less harshly after the Omrides (esp. Hoshea, 2 Kgs 17:2). 198 Schniedewind 2004: 80. 199 McKenzie 1991: 120–22; similarly, Van Keulen 1996: 44–5. Blanco Wißmann (2008: 88–90) also took up this point, building the following schema involving the bāmôt: preframework sources: 1 Sam 9–10*; 1 Kgs 3:4–15*; 2 Kgs 18:17–19:9a*, 36–37*; 2 Kgs 23:8b, 13*, 15; pre-Dtr framework bāmôt-notices: 2 Kgs 18:4 (influencing v. 22); 21:3; later harmonizing Dtr bāmôt-notices: 1 Kgs 3:2; 2 Kgs 23:8a, 9; cf. Pakkala 2010: 201–31. 194

1.5. Recent Objections to a Hezekian Framework

35

secondary passages, noting that YHWHistic bāmôt are referenced in 2 Kgs 17:29–34a and 23:8–9, texts ascribed by Provan to an exilic editor.200 McKenzie further noted Provan’s seemingly arbitrary division between the YHWHistic bāmôt in 18:4aa and the mention of the idolatrous pillars, ʾăšērîm, and bronze serpent in 18:4abb. Finally, he pointed out that the variations in the death and burial formulae in the absence of “with his fathers in the City of David” may reflect a change in actual burial practice and that, even if 2 Chronicles lacks the names of the queen mothers after Hezekiah, 2 Kings still retains them.201 Knoppers criticized Provan’s argument for a Hezekian edition of the Deuteronomistic history on the grounds that the Deuteronomist did not concentrate on Hezekiah’s reform when writing his account. The B account 2 Kgs 18:17–19:37 mentions virtually nothing about his reform (with the exception of 18:22), and the author did not capitalize on the statement of his reform in 18:4, treating it only in passing.202 In the literary representation of 1–2 Kings, Hezekiah’s reform is simply a precursor to Josiah’s fuller measures recounted in full. Naʾaman has been the most outspoken opponent of a Hezekian History reconstructed on the basis of 1–2 Kings. He has challenged virtually every argument made on behalf of such a theory. His arguments are numerous and extensive and thus will be addressed throughout the course of this study. The major thrust of his objection, however, can be summarized in general terms. He has been an avid supporter of the Dtr1/Dtr2 redactional hypothesis of the Deuteronomistic History and holds the opinion that Hezekiah is represented in 2 Kings as a literary precursor to Josiah and assigns no historical credibility to the report of Hezekiah’s reform. Aurelius discussed Weippert’s contribution on the framework evaluations as well as later studies that modified Weippert’s initial conclusions. He argued that if 1 Kings is to be regarded as earlier than RI, then the relationship of 2 Kgs 18–22 to this earlier source becomes a problem, since both 1 Kgs 1– 22 and 2 Kgs 18–22 were originally part of Weippert’s RII stratum.203 It is unlikely, in his opinion, that there ever was a redactional boundary between 1 Kgs and 2 Kgs 3–17.204 In a similar way, Aurelius dismisses the possibility of

200

Similarly, Blanco Wißmann 2008: 77–8. McKenzie 1991: 117–18 n. 1. 202 Knoppers 1992: 418 n. 28. 203 Aurelius 2003: 25. 204 Aurelius (ibid. 25–9) offers six argument against Weippert’s redactional boundary at the beginning of 2 Kgs: (1) The comparisons “with David” (1 Kgs 15:3, 11; 2 Kgs 14:3; 16:2; 18:3; 22:2) in the regnal evaluations are secondary in Weippert’s scheme, but often without literary-critical evidence. 201

36

Chapter One: How Was the Book of Kings First Composed?

a redactional boundary between the evaluations of Ahaz (2 Kgs 16:2b–4) and Hezekiah (18:3).205 According to him, the destruction of the bāmôt accorded to Hezekiah is factually untrue (against Weippert). Manasseh functions in the narrative of Kings as a depraved ruler to highlight the imminent reform of Josiah as all the more favorable. Due to this Josianic emphasis, the notice of Hezekiah’s destruction of high places in 18:4aa was added before the accurate notice reporting that he smashed the bronze serpent of Moses in 18:4b. The regnal evaluations relating to Manasseh (21:2) and Josiah (22:2) are not later than Hezekiah’s (18:3), even though they refer to divine law and to the abominations of the nations. They are the archetypal models on which later, comparable passages are based (e.g., Josh 1:7; 23:6; Judg 2:17; 1 Kgs 14:24; 15:5; 2 Kgs 16:3b; 17:8; 18:6; 24:19). Römer concedes that Hezekiah’s account “constitutes the first climax in the DH” owing to the culmination of the two themes of the bāmôt and Davidic comparison in Hezekiah.206 Yet he counters this observation with the following statement: “It is quite difficult to assume that there was a first edition of the DH that ended somewhere in 2 Kgs 18–20*.”207 He also argues that Hezekiah would have certainly capitalized on the fall of the northern kingdom and may even have carried out a first step towards cultic centralization. However, he regards this as unlikely since Hezekiah ultimately capitulated under Assyrian pressure and would not have openly rebelled through cultic reform. In Römer’s schema, the original framework of Kings pointed ultimately toward the report of Josiah’s reform in 2 Kgs 23:4–20*. (2) Asa is also praised with reservation in 1 Kgs 15:11, 14 as are his successors in RI (1 Kgs 22:44; 2 Kgs 12:4; 14:4; 15:4, 35). (3) The characteristic language of accusation in RII, rx) Klh, b Klh, and b qbd (1 Kgs 15:26, 34; 16:2, 19; 22:53f, 2 Kgs 21:20f), occurs also in RI (2 Kgs 3:3; 13:2, 11), whereas the characteristic phrase of RI, Nm rs )l (1 Kgs 22:43f; 2 Kgs 12:3f; 14:3f; 15:3f, 34f; 16:2b, 4), also occurs in RII (1 Kgs 15:5). (4) Jehoshaphat’s regnal evaluation (1 Kgs 22:43 – RI) refers to “his father,” Asa, and Joram’s (2 Kgs 3:2, 3 – RI) to “his father and his mother” (i.e., Ahab and Jezebel), all of which are excluded from RI. Furthermore, Ahaziah’s regnal evaluation (1 Kgs 22:53f – RII) refers to “his father and his mother” (i.e., Ahab and Jezebel). (5) The regnal evaluations of RI constantly refer to Jeroboam I, where the recurring phrase in reference to the daybooks of the Kings of Israel also is first evidenced (1 Kgs 14:19). (6) The consistent use of the phrase Nm rs )l in RI to evaluate northern kings is owing to the narrative’s more favorable evaluation of Joram (2 Kgs 3:2a) than of his brother Ahaziah (1 Kgs 22:53). 205 Aurelius points out that Ahaz is compared with David (2 Kgs 16:2) and Krdb Klh is used in 2 Kgs 16:3a (RI) as well as in 1 Kgs 15:3; 2 Kgs 22:2 (RII). 206 Römer 2005: 67–9. For several reviews of Römer’s The So-Called Deuteronomistic History with a response from Römer, see Person 2009: 1–49. 207 Ibid. 68. Römer allows for the existence of a Hezekian History but notes the difficulty in reconstructing such a work from the text of Kings itself (ibid. 69 n. 5).

1.6. In Search of the Original Framework

37

1.6. In Search of the Original Framework From the preceding overview of the critical comments against Provan’s thesis of a Hezekian edition of Kings, it is obvious that they center mainly on a lack of concern for Josiah’s account as the literary target of the cultic notices. To be fair, Provan did discuss Josiah’s account, concluding that Josiah is assimilated more closely with the figure of Moses than with David and that hardly any of the content in his reform report could be attributed to a pre-exilic context.208 Moreover, his arguments were particularly relevant for positing a literary division between 1 Kgs 3:3–2 Kgs 19:37 and 2 Kgs 20–25, especially the distinction between YHWHistic and non-YHWHistic bāmôt. However, these arguments pertained only to the thematic profile of the framework and ignored form critical observations. They did not address adequately two counterarguments already put forth by Wellhausen: first, the view that Hezekiah is represented as a literary precursor to Josiah, whose reform is made all the more significant by having Manasseh undo the provisional efforts of Hezekiah; and, second, since many of the formulae in the cultic reports are resumed in Josiah’s account, the latter may be regarded as the climax of the original framework. Provan did not demonstrate the likelihood that, by its very form and nature, the framework originally ended with the brief halfverse on Hezekiah’s reform in 2 Kgs 18:4aa and not with a more substantially detailed account of his reform, such as in Josiah’s reform report in ch. 23. Moreover, he did not demonstrate that Hezekiah’s and Josiah’s accounts stand in literary tension. These omissions in his work appear to be the primary reasons why some scholars have been reluctant to accept the idea of a Hezekian History. The way forward in the discussion on the development of the framework of 1–2 Kings must be, then, to address the standard view that the original cultic notices climaxed in the detailed resumptive account of reforming measures in 2 Kgs 23:4–15 and not in the brief cultic notice in 18:4 (even if the latter was succeeded by the statement of incomparability in 18:5b and the account of the deliverance of Jerusalem in 18:17–19:37).209

208

Provan 1988: 115–6, 150–51. This way of stating the issue should not overlook the possible significance of 2 Kgs 18:5 or 2 Kgs 18:13–19:37 for determining the compositional history of 1–2 Kings (see chs. 8 and 9). The concern to appreciate the style and content of 18:4 in relationship to 2 Kgs 22–23 is in recognition of the potential stylistic and genre-specific differences between Hezekiah’s (telic) and Josiah’s (resumptive) accounts; see further 5.3 and 9.9. 209

38

Chapter One: How Was the Book of Kings First Composed?

1.7. Defining Deuteronomism I must lay out a methodology for defining such elusive terms as “Deuteronomistic,” “Deuteronomist,” and “Deuteronomism” that loom significantly in the backdrop to this work. Despite earlier attempts to lay the groundwork for a clearer definition of Deuteronomism, there is still, to my mind, the need for a clearer, more careful definition of what is meant by the continuing impact of Deuteronomy. All scientific definitions possess a degree of circularity and should therefore be taken as provisional, as new discoveries and insights unfold. The merit of a given definition should be judged on the basis of its ability to allow the reader access to an understanding of the text under scrutiny and on the basis of offering more clarity to the reader than opposing definitions have yielded to date. If a definition loses some of its utility or value, then it must be abandoned or revised.210 A stronger definition of Deuteronomism should stand in a relationship of mutual clarification with non-Deuteronomistic (and nonbiblical) elements that have influenced 1–2 Kings involving structure, style, and ideology.211 The difficulty in attempting to provide a clear and useful definition to understand the text of 1–2 Kings is readily apparent. The Book of Deuteronomy and its place in Israelite literature, religion, and politics has been the object of heated debate since the very inception of biblical criticism. Its impact extends to the whole of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. The Deuteronomistic History has been described as the coherent work of an individual author, the combined product of a large social movement, and as a “literary experiment” composed in a particular scribal style. It does not seem that Noth’s own intention was to define Deuteronomism, as he could for the most part assume such a definition on the basis of earlier literary studies. What Noth was after was the meaning of Deuteronomism in light of the final coherent whole of those passages already labeled as Deuteronomistic. Noth’s great synthesis was immediately disputed by later scholars, who did not agree either with his unification of Deuteronomy–Kings or with his attribution of certain texts as Deuteronomistic.212 It has become evident that Deuteronomism is not as coherent as Noth had claimed, if it is to define the group of scribes responsible for Deuteronomy–2 Kings. A growing discontent has intensified in recent scholarship over the overgrowth of Deuteronomistic influence. Coggins warned against

210

On the advantages and limitations of definitions, I am indebted to Hacking 1999 and Bal 2009: 3–5. 211 Edenburg 2012: 443–60. 212 See de Pury and Römer 2000a: 56–62, 101–4.

1.7. Defining Deuteronomism

39

the danger of “pan-Deuteronomism”213 and asked “what does ‘Deuteronomistic’ mean?”214 It may be that the emergence of pan-Deuteronomism goes hand in hand with “pseudo-Deuteronomism” or “quasi-Deuteronomism,” i.e., attributing textual and thematic threads to Deuteronomistic influence, when such an attribution is vague or unhelpful. Noll has opined that “if Dtr is to survive as a hypothesis, it will be necessary to define anew what a ‘Deuteronomistic’ agenda really is; to define how it is to be identified.”215 Tov demonstrates that the “Deuteronomistic” ideological and stylistic components of MT-Jeremiah are composed not with a view to Deuteronomy, but solely in regards to the LXX Vorlage of Jeremiah. Tov rejects that the editor of MT-Jer should be linked to the Dtr school of reshaping biblical texts, since MT-Jer consists of post-exilic reflections and there is a smaller percentage of Dtr words and phrases than in the LXX Vorlage.216 Similarly, the fulfillment notice in 1 Kgs 16:34 referring to Josh 6:2 should not be labeled as Deuteronomistic, although it is written in the style of the prophecy-fulfillment schemas of the Book of Kings.217 Sometimes the presence of ideology and style similar to authentic Deuteronomistic traits may be owing to the inner process of the transmission of one or more “books” of the Bible that is secondary to earlier Deuteronoimstic readings of Deut–2 Kgs. The use of textual criticism demonstrates that in some cases, the use of “Deuteronomistic” ideology and style is late.218 A fixed assemblage of Deuteronomistic literature should not presume that all influences or every part of the work is Deuteronomistic. This is generally agreed upon in theory, though in practice, Deuteronomism has commonly been used as a “catch-all” term for redactional elements. The direction of influence of that canon is not necessarily unilateral in relation to other texts of the Hebrew Bible. The tendency has been to allow the ideology and style of Deuteronomy–2 Kings to trump other works as the prime source of intertextual association. The problem is that the possibility of an opposite directional 213

Coggins 1993: 85; see the collection of essays in Shearing and McKenzie 1999, which is summarized in McKenzie 2012: 401–8; for a critique of the term “pan-Deuteronomism,” see Person 2002: 13–5. 214 Coggins 1995: 135–48; reprinted in Shearing and McKenzie 1999: 22–35. 215 Noll 2007: 316. 216 Tov 2007: 167–8. For the same point regarding 1–2 Kings, see already Trebolle 1980. 217 Pace Tov (2007: 161), who calls 1 Kgs 16:34 a “Dtr addition” in the pattern of other Dtr prophecies. However, the addition in this context is not essentially the same as the other so-called Dtr prophecies, which were carried out at an earlier developmental stage of Kings, whereas this fulfillment and the LXX plus at Josh 6:26 were carried out in the process of textual transmission; in agreement with Rösel 2002: 11–12. 1 Kgs 16:34 can hardly be regarded as a recension. 218 E.g., the MT text of 2 Kgs 20:6 (“for the sake of David, my servant”), which is a scribal harmonization; in agreement with Tov 2007: 169 n. 83; pace Person 1997: 115; idem 2002: 24.

40

Chapter One: How Was the Book of Kings First Composed?

influence, deriving from either the Pentateuch or the Latter Prophets is passed over.219 Similarly, within Deut–2 Kgs, a retrospective direction of influence should be ascertained, particularly when later additions to Deuteronomy are influenced by the Former Prophets. Recent scholars argue that the way to read the Deuteronomistic History is backwards from 1–2 Kings, not forwards from Deuteronomy.220 Not all of the later developing ideas under Deuteronomy’s influence should be regarded as having taken place in a vacuum. Ideas grow under discursive pressure and through social conflict. Deuteronomistic ideas had points of disagreement within the formation and growth of its circles as well as points of agreement with non-Deuteronomistic texts.221 Lohfink enlisted two criteria for the task of determining Deuteronomistic passages: first, ideological traits that derive directly or closely from Deuteronomy; second, inner-clausal stylistic traits derived from Deuteronomy.222 The clearest instances of direct Deuteronomistic influence are examples of quotation or direct allusion (cf. Deut 24:6 and 2 Kgs 14:6). It is preferable that both criteria should be met in order for a text to be considered as a potential example. In this way, the exegete is spared from attributing ideas to Deuteronomistic thought that actually belong to a broader worldview. This also guards from incorporating passages with similar style but with an ideology distinct from the Deuteronomistic core. A significant caveat on the aforementioned dictum is necessary, however: if an ideological-stylistic trait found in Kings appears to be compatible with the outlook of Deuteronomy, but is also found in non-Deuteronomistic texts of the monarchic period or nonbiblical 219

Lohfink 1999: 45; Person, 2002: 8–9, 12–3. See Auld 1999: 123 and already Würthwein 1994: 1–14. Specifically, most scholars have argued for the influence of the Former Prophets on the Laws of Public Officials in Deut 16:18–18:22, known in German scholarship as the Verfassungsentwurf. Dietrich (2000a: 322) acknowledges that the Law of the King in Deut 17:14–20 (esp. v. 14b) has been supplemented under the influence 1 Sam 8:5. Alternatively, Levinson (2001: 511–34) argues that Deut 16:18–18:22 was of such a utopian nature that the authors of the Josianic edition of the Deuteronomistic History contravened it. For the view that the Prophetic Law in 18:9–22 is a later dtr addition, perhaps even post-exilic: Lohfink 1990: 305–23; Braulik 1991: 54–61; Otto 1994: 142–155; Schäfer-Lichtenberger 1995b: 105–18; alternatively, Stackert (2012: 47–63), like Levinson, regards the Prophetic Law as too utopian to be followed slavishly but as nevertheless similar in “family resemblances” with the Deuteronomistic History. 221 For internal opposing ideologies within Deut–2 Kings, see Edenburg 2012: 443–60. For oppositions between 1–2 Kings and Jeremiah, see Long 1982: 31–53; Hardmeier 1990; Dutcher-Walls 1991: 77–94; Albertz 1996: 377–407; idem 2000: 1–17. 222 Lohfink 1999: 40–42. The compendium of Deuteronomistic ideological and stylistic traits in Weinfeld (1972: 320–65) is taken as a point of departure for this study, though it will not be assumed but tested in this study for its continuing value. Other collections to be consulted are: S. R. Driver 1895: lxxvii–lxxxviii; Steuernagel 1900: xxxiii–xli; Jepsen 1956: 83–7; Dietrich 1972: 64–102; Stulman 1986: 33–44. The list of Deuteronomistic traits in Driver, Steuernagel, and Jepsen are not as useful as Weinfeld’s enumeration on account of their stress on single words rather than complex phrases; on this point, see Lohfink 1999: 41. 220

1.8. Objectives

41

texts of the same genre, then the likelihood of the influence of Deuteronomy diminishes greatly. There is little value in designating a broad-spectrum tendency as Deuteronomistic in such a case. If everybody is a Deuteronomist, nobody is a Deuteronomist.223 Deuteronomistic ideology and language must pertain to innovative and directly influential aspects. Still another refinement is necessary for the present study. A limitation of studying 1–2 Kings mainly from the perspective of Deuteronomic influence and Deuteronomistic redaction is that it does not proceed from the vantage point of comparative genre analysis. A valid argument for the direct or close influence of Deuteronomy on the text of 1–2 Kings should also take into account not only textual information below the clause, but also information above the clause. In more concrete terms, this applies to structural data typical of genres of chronographic texts and royal memorial inscriptions of Mesopotamia and the Levant. The shared structural components between 1–2 Kings and identical or similar genres should be determined fully before rushing to explain a literary feature through Deuteronomistic influence or to determine the nature and extent of such influence. It remains to be seen whether an analysis of the particulars will afterwards countenance the view of an originally Deuteronomistic framework. I open this study with the recognition of 1– 2 Kings as a chronographic text, although the results of such an investigation do not preclude, in theory, an interpretion of that text (or a portion thereof) as Deuteronomistic.

1.8. Objectives Much is still needed in order to understand the development of the framework of 1–2 Kings against the backdrop of nonbiblical literature. Although scholars have appealed to extrabiblical materials to understand the framework of 1–2 Kings (esp. the Neo-Babylonian chronicles), there is still a dearth of studies attempting to understand the origins of the framework in relationship to the full extent of relevant extrabiblical texts. The recent works of Adam and Blanco Wißmann assist in filling this gap. The former points to examples of kinglists and chronicles from Assyria and Babylon for comparison with his reconstructed synchronistic chronicle in 1–2 Kings.224 In particular, he notes the Assyrian synchronistic list of kings dating to the seventh century B.C.E and the Assyrian Synchronistic History written probably in the eighth century B.C.E. He also compares to the framework of 1–2 Kings the Weidner Chronicle, ABC 1, the Akītu Chronicle, and the Chronicle of Esarhaddon. Adam focuses on three main elements of the Mesopotamian chronicles for comparison 223 224

Wilson 1999: 78–82. Adam 2007: 174–211; idem 2010: 42–9.

42

Chapter One: How Was the Book of Kings First Composed?

with their counterparts in his synchronistic chronicle: dynastic succession, the relationship between neighboring states (with military attack and treaties), and rebellions. He also notes that close parallels to the synchronistic chronicle are not interested in “religious” events but usually “secular” events. This is in contrast to royal inscriptions, which typically focus on both religious and political events. This leads Adam to conclude that the original framework of 1–2 Kings was limited in the main to telling political accounts without religious details. Blanco Wißmann has also made use of extrabiblical kinglists, chronicles, and royal inscriptions to understand the framework of Kings. Whereas Adam locates the origination of the framework in the late eighth century B.C.E., Blanco Wißmann pinpoints the creation of the framework in the sixth century B.C.E. The latter appeals not to the formulaic expressions in Deuteronomy to understand the framework but to extrabiblical texts from Mesopotamia and the Levant as well as to the formulae in the Latter Prophets. He thus characterizes the early form (Grundfassung) of 1–2 Kings as “prophetic” instead of “Deuteronomistic.” He compares the historical conception of divinatory and chronographic texts from Mesopotamia with the similar conception of history in the Latter Prophets and the early prophetic stories of the Book of Kings. As the Babylonian Chronicles made use of the astronomical diaries and omen literature and even stemmed from the same literary circles, so the Grundfassung made use of “writing prophecy” (Schriftprophetie), both of which were preserved by the same literary tradents.225 The Book of Kings was a manual on Schriftprophetie, a sort of reference work for the tradents of that literature. These tradents were convinced that the end of Judah was the fulfillment of the prophecies of woe in Schriftprophetie.226 The outlook of the framework of Kings is associated most closely with a developed collection of prophetic literature (including parts of the Latter Prophets), especially (but not exclusively) with Jeremiah.227 Although he makes frequent references to levantine royal inscriptions of the Iron Age, Blanco Wißmann points to the Latter Prophets as the main source of inspiration for the theological judgments of the framework of 1–2 Kings. This study is a further attempt to gain an understanding of the compositional history of the framework of 1–2 Kings and is thus a diachronic literary study, broadly conceived. As with traditional scientific scholarship of the Bible, it makes use of source, form (or genre), redactional, and synchronic readings. It takes as its starting point the previous source-critcial and redactional arguments offered in the earlier studies of Weippert, Provan, 225

For the Mesopotamian materials, Pongratz-Leisten 1999: 18–21. For the biblical materials, see Hardmeier 2006: 129–51. 226 Blanco Wißmann 2008: 231–3. 227 Ibid. 225.

1.8. Objectives

43

Halpern/Vanderhooft, and Eynikel and re-examines them in light of new data and methods. Its main contribution is to shape an argument first and foremost in terms of a comprehensive genre-critical analysis of the framework of 1–2 Kings. It affords not only a thorough description of the major components of the framework of 1–2 Kings but also of its literary relationships with similar chronographic texts (discussed in ch. 2). Such a description in turn will furnish results for understanding the ideology and setting of the text, since the form of the text contains its own ideology and purpose. The purpose of genre criticism is to clarify the relationships between like texts that might remain unseen for lack of defining a context for reading or by assuming an intepretive approach that derogates a priori the form of the text.228 It is “among the ways in which literary works are ideally presented, whatever the actualities are.”229 Principles of distinctive genres can be discovered as governing the construction of texts while at the same time can be open to being reshaped according to authorial intention or function in society. The selection of texts for investigation may differ depending on the question being asked of them, but the main goal is to encounter the text at its most profound level of meaning; not simply to use it, but to grow in an understanding of it for its own sake. The modern reader, inasmuch as is possible, must contemplate with openness the specific data involving the form of the text and the major ideas addressed in its composition.230 Reading the framework of 1–2 Kings together with similar texts allows the modern reader to gain greater competency in determining what is fitting or regular in texts with a chronographic form. Comparative genre analysis provides an external control for establishing what is normative and thus is bound to source-critical questions regarding the search for the original form and extent of the framework. The search for an originally consistent text must be able to proceed with a clear definition of what is “consistent” as regards the chronographic genre. The results of such an analysis in turn will likely be relevant for the discovery of subsequent redactional additions to the framework that are inconsistent with the form, style, or ideology of the original framework. The present study also pays close attention to text-critical insights afforded through recent studies on the Greek and Old Latin witnesses to 1–2 Kings. 228 Frye 1957: 247–8; see White 1984: 4: “On the one hand, narrative was regarded as a form of discourse, a form which featured the story as its content. On the other hand, this form was itself a content insofar as historical events were conceived to manifest themselves in reality as elements and aspects of stories.” 229 Frye 1957: 247. 230 My reading is informed here but not limited to Lewis (1961); see also Cohen 1986: 203–18. For a discussion of genre’s “resistence to theory,” see White 2003: 597–613.

44

Chapter One: How Was the Book of Kings First Composed?

Although text-critical analysis has not been used traditionally to reconstruct earlier textual forms underlying the final form, recent scholars have become aware of the relevance of text-critical evidence for diachronic analysis.231 Such evidence may signal the need for or support the results of diachronic reconstruction and is therefore not entirely separate from source- or redactioncriticisms. In determining the compositional history of 1–2 Kings, one must take seriously variant readings in the Old Greek and Old Latin as potentially superior or equal to the Masoretic Text. Such evidence figures prominently in the discussion on the account of the division of the kingdom in chapter seven of this study, where the Old Greek appears to preserve an earlier form of the framework at 3 Reg 12:24a.

1.9 Outline of the Present Study This study is divided into three parts. The first analyzes the individual formulae in the order that they appear recycled in each regnal account. Each chapter of this initial part contains a philological and critical investigation of each major formula of the regnal prologue and epilogue both at the macro- and microlevel, i.e., above and below the level of the clause. I compare and contrast biblical texts with nonbiblical parallels in order to determine whether a given formulaic construction or structure can be explained as having derived from a royal scribal linguistic context without resorting to a theory of Dtr influence. The nonbiblical evidence lends external support also to literary critical arguments internal to 1–2 Kings. Space is also afforded to analyze the Josianic account in 2 Kgs 23 in light of the overall sense gained of the HH-framework. Chapter three covers regnal year totals, synchronisms, geographic filiations, naming the queen mother, source citations, and the death and burial formulae. Significant is the question of how the formulae for the two lines of the Judah and Israel combined through synchronization are indicative of the original purpose for composing the framework. Chapter four covers the regnal evaluations and formulaic comparisons-contrasts with the royal predecessors in order to determine if one or perhaps more textual breaks came after Hezekiah’s account. Another purpose is to detect any patterns in those formulae that are significant for its overall meaning, particularly, the manner in which it leads up to and evaluates Hezekiah’s account. In chapter five, I discuss the cultic reports in order to understand the evaluative pattern of the original Hezekian framework.

231 Trebolle 1980; idem 2000; Catastini 1989: 322–4; Tov 1999: 477–88; Schenker 2000a; idem 2004; Hugo 2006: 1–125; Person 2010; Law 2011: 280–97; Robker 2012: 8– 11.

1.9 Outline of the Present Study

45

In light of the second main criticism that Provan’s thesis incurred, namely, that a clear outline of the full extent of the history is lacking, and particularly its onset, the second part of the study traces the original extent of the HHframework. Chapter six initiates the search for the original opening of the HH-framework. Of special import is whether it began with material in 1–2 Kings or can be traced back into 1–2 Samuel. Another significant question is the relationship of Solomon’s account to the HH, since he is depicted as the builder of YHWH’s temple in 1 Kgs 6–7. Chapter seven concerns the inclusion in the HH of the ensuing story on the division of the united monarchy, which I read not according to the standard edition of the Masoretic Text but the edition of the Old Greek (3 Reg 12:24a–z). The story of the division of the kingdom in the Old Greek is pre-Dtr, preserving in 3 Reg 12:24a a pristine form of the HH-framework. In chapter eight, I argue in detail that the cultic report at 2 Kgs 18:4 is the final such report in the HH, and was found also with 18:1–3, 5, 7–11. Chapter nine presents the argument that the B1 narrative in 2 Kgs 18:13–19:9, 36–37 was originally joined by the HH-historian to conclude the history. It is necessary to determine whether the bāmôt-notice at 18:22 comports with the general tenor of the Judahite framework down to Hezekiah. The third part contains a single chapter (ten) in which I discuss the degree of correspondence between the HH and historical events covering 722–680 B.C.E. The historical grounds for Hezekiah’s reform are compared with those of the HH. The conclusion to the study summarizes the major results of the study and discusses briefly the HH within the context of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, particularly, in relation to Deuteronomy. The establishment of the HH calls into question the long-standing view that the literary representation of cultic centralization in Jerusalem was possible only after Josiah’s cultic reform (ca. 621 B.C.E.). The HH-historian’s concept of centralization was not necessarily guided with knowledge of the Book of Deuteronomy. Cultic centralization is not an absolute criterion for classifying a literary text as Deuteronomistic, since the phenomenon developed out of royal motivations grounded in the historical context of 722 and 701 B.C.E.

Chapter Two

The Framework of Kings as a Chronographic Genre 2.1. Introduction In this chapter, I take the first step in investigating the framework of 1–2 Kings. I lay out a methodology for discerning sources and redactional updating in the framework of Kings by examining the formulaic expressions of kinglists and chronicles from Mesopotamia and the Levant.

2.2. Theoretical Underpinnings In the search for literary parallels to assist in explaining the development of the framework of 1–2 Kings, scholars frequently appeal to kinglists and chronicles of Mesopotamian origin. Grayson has applied the term “chronographic” to encompass both kinglists and chronicles, as “documents which are composed along essentially chronological lines.”1 He defines a kinglist as “a list of royal names with the possible addition of regnal years and filiation” and a chronicle as “a prose narration, normally in the third person, of events arranged in chronological order.” Grayson also categorized the kinglists and chronicles according to style.2 Table 1. Grayson’s Catergories A and B3 Category A (N Year RN) Date Lists (Year Narr.) Larsa Date List 1

Category B (RN Year N Pred.) Sumerian King List Dynastic “Chronicle”

Grayson 1975a: 4; idem 1980b: 172. I provide above only categories A and B, which will be most germane to the following discussion, although Grayson actually included three other categories (C, D, and Unclassified), which are provided as follows for sake of throroughness: Category C (RN Narrative): Tummal Chronicle; Weidner Chronicle; Chronicle of Early Kings; Babylonian Chronicle Fragment 1. Category D (RN1 RN2): Synchronistic History; Synchronistic King List. Unclassified: Chronicle P; ABC 23–24; Assyrian Chronicle Fragments 1–4; Babylonian Chronicle Fragment 2. 3 The documents appearing in bold typeface contain year totals and death notices; the italicized documents are not original to Grayson’s Category A. 2

2.2. Theoretical Underpinnings Babylon I Date List Ur-Isin King List Babylonian King List A Babylonian King List C Uruk King List Babylonian Chronicles ABC 1–17 Astronomical Diaries (Year Nth Narr.) Eighteen-year Interval List Eponym Lists Mari Eponym Chronicle (Glassner 8)4 Assyrian Eponym Chronicle (Glassner 9) Assyrian Chronicle Fragments 1–3 (?) Assyrian Chronicle Fragment 4 (?)5

47

King List of the Hellenistic Period Babylonian King List B Ptolemaic Canon Assyrian King List

Skeletal kinglists and fuller chronicles may be attributed to either category A or category B. It is generally assumed that earlier lists were employed to create fuller “chronicles,” which seems valid for both Mesopotamia and Israel.6 However, the attribution of a particular text to a category on the basis of its structure does not favor the label of either kinglist or chronicle in order to establish the actual course of the literary growth of these documents. This is important to keep in mind when attempting to determine the compositional history of the framework of 1–2 Kings. The sources incorporated by the author of the framework may have contained statements on isolated events approaching “episodic” material in addition to chronological and other enumerative formulae.7 One must not privilege chronicle over list in the developmental model of the composition of the framework. Grayson’s definition of chronographic literature is excessively broad, according to Brinkman, and the same is also true of his definition of a “chroni4

Grayson did not include the italicized documents in his Category A: the Mari Eponym Chronicle and the Assyrian Eponym Chronicle were not published at the time. Grayson did not categorize the Assyrian chronicle fragments, which I have included tentatively in Category A. He did include the eponym lists in this category (1975: 196–7), however, and their connection with the eponym chronicles argues in favor of the inclusion of the latter as well. 5 My hesitation to include the Assyrian Chronicle fragments 1–4 under category A is due to the fact that the introductory phrase ina līme “in the eponym of” is missing from these texts (see Glassner 2004: 184–90). Without that phrase, there is no indication that specific year-formulae figure explicity in these texts. 6 Röllig 1969: 268–9; Veenhof (2003: 18) has recently advanced the argument that the eponym lists were used by the author of the Mari Eponym Chronicle, and that the latter was in turn used by the author of AKL. However, this point was disputed by Röllig (1969: 276) and Millard (1994: 6–7), who noted that the Eponym Chronicles draw on fuller sources than just the Eponym Lists and that their connection with kinglists is uncertain. 7 The kinglists from Mesopotamia sometimes incorporated reported events that move beyond the simple enumeration of the chronology of succession and death (Grayson 1980a: 101–15; idem 1980b: 172).

48

Chapter Two: The Framework of Kings as a Chronographic Genre

cle,” intended chiefly as the third-person-counterpart to the Assyrian royal inscriptions written in the first person.8 Van Seters has questioned the validity of Grayson’s inclusion of the genres of kinglist and chronicle under one heading.9 One distinction between a kinglist and chronicle is that the former always traces the chain of multiple kings, while a chronicle may report only on (a portion of) the reign of a single king. The raison d’être for using a list form is to weld the last king’s reign together with one or more earlier kings in his pedigree. The function of a chronicle, on the other hand, might be merely antiquarian rather than propagandistic, recording particular details of a reign over against spotlighting the continuity of a royal dynastic line.10 Nevertheless, Grayson is correct to point out the overlap between the genres of kinglist and chronicle, since kinglists could include fuller prose material. In the same way, distinguishing kinglists and chronicles from royal inscriptions on the basis of first and third person reporting does not mean that the two sets of genres were hermetically sealed from each other.11 Van Seters defines a chronicle as “a narration of political or religious events in chronological order … closely dated to the years of a king’s reign.”12 He is mindful, however, that the texts often designated as chronicles are diverse in character and do not have a common origin. A kinglist may contain prose resembling the character of chronicles, and, in fact, he imagines such a document for the “chronicles of the kings of Israel/Judah” cited in the regnal epilogues of 1–2 Kings. He assumes that these “chronicles” could not have been written during the monarchic period “but were much later works created by supplementing the king lists with records from other historical sources, such as commemorative or memorial inscriptions.”13 In my opinion, Van Seters has not provided sufficient evidence either to draw a sharp line between kinglists and chronicles or to use that division to establish the diachrony of levantine chronographic texts. If kinglists could be supplemented with prose narration, why did such accretion occur only “much later?” Comparison with the Phoenician “Annals of Tyre” (cited by Van Seters), which resemble the genealogical structure of the framework of 1–2 Kings more closely than any other extrabiblical text (see below 2.3), suggests that a uniquely levantine genre of kinglist was frequently supplemented with politi8

Brinkman 1990: 76 n. 18. Van Seters 1983: 80. 10 Beaulieu 1994: 37–42. 11 In fact, there are cases where the author of the Assyrian Synchronistic History probably cited a royal inscription or a copy of one. See Grayson 1975a: 54. Glassner (2004: 41–2) observes that chronographic texts were placed beside royal inscriptions and other literary texts in archives and maintains that “the Assyrian chroniclers drew on royal inscriptions and official documents” (ibid. 46). 12 Van Seters 1983: 80; see Brinkman 1990: 76 n. 18. 13 Van Seters 1983: 298. 9

2.2. Theoretical Underpinnings

49

cal and religious reports. Van Seters does not demonstrate why an early history of the monarchy could not have possessed the structure of a kinglist in combination with reports and narration. His reconstruction of the compositional history of the framework seems to presuppose that the genre of chronicle is the “missing link” in the growth from kinglist to royal historiography. There is no legitimate reason of which I am aware to preclude the coexistence of fuller and shorter kinglists as well as larger histories using the structure of a kinglist. It seems more advantageous to use the differentiations in the genres of kinglist and chronicle with some degree of flexibility in discussing the compositional history of the framework rather than as strictures for determining its date and function. According to Long, “List approaches historical narration when the list maker claims to have reconstructed an order of things as they really existed in the past and as they have relevance to the writer’s own present time.”14 The imprint of historical narration is “the extensive, continuous, written composition made up of various materials, originally oral and/or written, and devoted to a particular subject or historical period.”15 It is the “order of things” or the “devotion to a particular subject or historical period” that transforms the list’s profile to that of “history.” As White would have it, chronicles are openended, whereas histories possess discernable inaugurations and resolutions: “In the chronicle, this event is simply ‘there’ as an element of a series; it does not ‘function’ as a story element.”16 For the purposes of this work, I retain the use of Grayson’s term “chronographic” to describe the framework of 1–2 Kings, because the latter obeys the structure of a levantine “kinglist” while also remaining in possession of prose material similar to what one discovers in Mesopotamian/levantine chronicles and royal memorial inscriptions. The original framework (as well as the present edition) of 1–2 Kings may be described as a history of the monarchic period that uses a “chronographic” structure. The chronology of the historical framework is “genealogical” with structural and functional similarities with kinglists. That is to say, the framework obeys a linear chronology governed by a line of multiple reigns, typically with formulaic-repetitive style and composed in third person. In a genealogical “history,” the linear chronology of the kinglist is carried over and for the most part adhered to, forming the temporal backbone for all subsequent developments in the historical narrative. Expressed in narratological terms, the correspondence between temporal reality and representation – between the chronological line (story; fabula; histoire) 14

Long 1984: 4. Ibid. 7. 16 White 1973: 7. Furthermore, historians “find” their stories; fiction writers “invent” theirs: “Unlike the novelist, the historian confronts a veritable chaos of events already constituted, out of which he must choose the elements of the story he would tell” (ibid. 6 n. 5). 15

50

Chapter Two: The Framework of Kings as a Chronographic Genre

and the narrated order of events (narrative; sujet; discours) – is nearly identical.17 Any deviation in the narrative chronology from the progression of the royal genealogy is minute or at most realistically mimetic. This is particularly so when the narrative recounts a series of simultaneous reigns, which exhibit a slight dechronologization of the linear progression, in order to conform to the “complex of forces and pressures and motivations for simultaneity in occurrence” that “belong to the represented world.”18 While the individual narrative episodes may demonstrate some amount of chronological deformation, the order of those episodes adheres generally to a linear storytime. I have already discussed Bin-Nun’s essay on the composition of the Book of Kings in the last chapter. In the present discussion on chronographic texts, however, it bears mentioning that one cannot support her ill-defined use of the terms, “kinglist” or “chronicle,” or her assumptions of what is “logical” to one textual genre against another. Scholars have noted that the distinction between the two genres can be somewhat artificial, having been imposed on Near Eastern studies on the basis of the study of historical texts from Medieval Europe.19 In comparing biblical and Mesopotamian parallels, it is preferable to speak of structural similarities and differences among “chronographic” documents, a label that covers both kinglists and chronicles. In this study, in substitution for the labels, “kinglist” and “chronicle,” I will employ the labels category A chronographic text and category B chronographic text, after the fashion of Grayson’s work on the Assyrian and Babylonian chronicles.20 This should not be regarded as a complete abrogation of the distinction maintained above between kinglists and chronicles. Rather, it bears in mind that the two main patterns of regnal year totals are common to both kinglists and chronicles. From this discussion on the definition of the nature of chronographic historiography in 1–2 Kings, it will also be necessary to situate the original framework along a continuum from the most skeletal type list form, consisting merely of royals names, to a full-fledged history with complexity in climactic ordering, causal explanation, and thematic evaluation; a history focused on representing a selected period of the past. To what degree did the original historical framework of 1–2 Kings include historical explanation and evaluation? 17 On the positive value of chronology in (historical) narrative, see Sternberg 1990b: 901–48; idem 1992: 463–561; idem 2006: 125–235. It may also bear mentioning that while chronology is not to be equated with narrative, all narratives “must make chronological sense” (Sternberg 1990b: 903), a statement that is all the truer with respect to biblical history writing. 18 On chronology in the Book of Kings, see Sternberg 1990a: 110–11, 118–19, 139–41. 19 For this problem of definition see Grayson 1980b: 171–2; Michalowski 1984: 237–8; Brinkman 1990: 76 n. 18; van de Mieroop 1999: 79. 20 Grayson 1975a: 5–6, 193–201. Grayson’s (ibid. 4) opinion that a text simply listing one ruler after another may be classified as a kinglist is satisfactory as far as it goes.

2.3. Methodological Considerations

51

Was its explanation or evaluation implicit or explicit? Were they reported mainly or only through repetitive listing or through supplemental episodes? These questions will be entertained throughout the course of this and the next chapters on the framework.

2.3. Methodological Considerations The chronographic structure of the framework of 1–2 Kings is marked by the formula introducing – and thus governing structurally – the description and reporting of events pertaining to a given king’s reign: “Reigned so-and-so N years” or “N years so-and-so reigned.” The formula is expanded with elements such as the patronym, region of jurisdiction, and capital city, or what Grayson terms “filiation.”21 The specific reign is typically concluded with an epilogue consisting of the king’s death and burial notices, followed by the succession formula, “And reigned RN (his son) in his place,” which in turn initiates another period of rule.22 As with a kinglist, each sequence can be repeated continuously until the whole temporal duration of the regnal sequences is concluded. Note the following example:23 1 Kgs 14:31–15:124 Rehoboam-Abijam And Rehoboam lay down with his fathers and he was buried in the city of David, and Abijam, his son, reigned in his place. In year eighteen of King Jeroboam, son of Nebat, Abijam began to reign over Judah.

JKRl™R;mAl h$érVcRo h∞RnOmVv ‹tÅnVvIb…w wy`D;tVjA;t wäønV;b M¶D¥yIbSa JKöølVmˆ¥yÅw dYˆw∂;d ry∞IoV;b ‹wyDtObSa_MIo r§Eb∂;qˆ¥yÅw wy#DtObSa_MIo M%DoVbAj√r b°A;kVvˆ¥yÅw há∂d…wh◊y_lAo M™D¥yIbSa JK¶AlmD f¡Db◊n_NR;b M∞DoVb∂rÎy The epilogue of Rehoboam’s reign with the death and burial formulae is bound to the prologue of Abijah’s reign. The purpose of this textual juxtaposition was to demonstrate continuity within a royal genealogy. In maintaining that the regnal formulae of prologues and epilogues are entirely natural to a West Semitic kinglist, I draw attention to the closest parallel 21

Grayson 1980b: 172. The death and burial notices are discussed below (3.6). 23 Examples of the succession formula: 3 Reg 12:24a ≈1 Kgs 11:43 (Rehoboam); 14:20 (Nadab), 14:31 (Abijam); 15:8 (Asa), 15:24 (Jehoshaphat), 15:28 (Baasha); 16:6 (Elah), 16:10 (Zimri), 16:28 (Ahab); 3 Reg 16:28h =1 Kgs 22:51 (Jehoram); 22:40 (Ahaziah); 2 Kgs 8:24 (Ahaziah); 10:35 (Jehoahaz); 12:22 (Amaziah); 13:9 (Joash); 14:16 (Jeroboam) 14:21 (Azariah); 14:29 (Zechariah); 15:7 (Jotham); 15:10 (Shallum); 15:14 (Menahem); 15:22 (Pekahiah); 15:25 (Pekah); 15:38 (Ahaz); 16:20 (Hezekiah); cf. 2 Kgs 8:15 (Hazael of Aram); 13:24 (Ben-Hadad of Aram). 24 My translation omits with the LXX the repetition of the statement, “and the name of his mother was Naamah, the Ammonitess,” already found at 1 Kgs 14:21. 22

52

Chapter Two: The Framework of Kings as a Chronographic Genre

for this regnal sequencing, namely, the Tyrian King List cited preserved in the works of Josephus (Ant. 8.141–146; idem Ag. Ap. 1.116–125). It reports a king’s length of life and regnal year total before the mention of that ruler’s death, which is directly connected with the succeeding ruler’s prologue. If a fuller or more concise report is included, it appears between the regnal year total and the death notice, as is standard for the framework in Kings. In the case of the reign of Hiram of Tyre, Josephus quotes Menander, as provided in the following excerpt from the Tyrian King List: “On the death of Abibalus, his son Hiram received the kingdom from him; he lived fifty-three years and reigned thirty-four. He raised a bank in the large place, and dedicated the golden pillar, which is in Jupiter’s temple. He also went and cut down materials of timber from the mount called Libanus, for the roof of temples; and when he had pulled down the ancient temples, he both built the temple of Hercules and that of Astarte; and he first set up the temple of Hercules in the month Perituis; he also made an expedition against the Euchii [or Titii], who did not pay their tribute; and when he had subdued them to himself he returned … On the death of Hiram, Baleazarus his son received the kingdom.” (Josephus, Ant. 8.144–146 // idem Ag. Ap. 1.117–121)

As with the framework in Kings, the details of Hiram’s reign are located in between the regnal year total and the notice of death (provided in italics above). Compare Josephus’ statement, “Hiram received the kingdom from him, he lived fifty-three years and reigned thirty-four … On the death of Hiram, Baleazarus his son received the kingdom,” with the following Judahite series from 1–2 Kgs: “… Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, began to reign as king of Judah … and Jotham lay down with his fathers and was buried with his fathers in the city of David, his father; and his son, Ahaz, became king in his place” (2 Kgs 15:32b, 37). As the notices following the source citations in 1–2 Kings refer primarily to the military tribute or to building projects belonging to a given king’s reign, so, too, does the report, included between the regnal year total and the death notice of the Tyrian king Hiram, pertain to overtly political events. I agree with Lipiński who suggests that the statements on the restoration of Phoenician shrines and the forcing of tribute payment are unrelated to the Solomonic account found in the Book of Kings and “may be based on Tyrian chronicles” (or “kinglists”).25 Some caution is necessary. Boyes argues that Josephus’s use of “actual Tyrian records … was very probably third- or fourth-hand, and probably subject to significant distortion through translation and transmission.”26 Such distortion occurred with regard to inner-clausal phenomena (i.e., individual 25

Lipiński 2010: 253; similarly, Dochhorn 2001: 89 n. 38. The Tyrian King List cited in Josephus is often thought to have stemmed in some way from authentic tradition; see Barnes 1991: 29–36. 26 Boyes 2012: 34.

2.3. Methodological Considerations

53

words, syntagms, and numerical data).27 Other instances are more difficult to determine pertaining to the borrowing of structural elements (i.e., clauseexternal). Would Josephus have borrowed the data on the Tyrian royal line and not its concomitant literary structure? It is imaginable that he excerpted information from his sources and altered their structure in the process of transmission. This possibility arises after comparing the presence and absence of year-references in Josephus, depending on whether he excerpted material from Dios or Menander.28 Yet, significant is the structural difference between the Tyrian King List and similar lists excerpted from Manetho and Berossus that place the year total after the résumé of events (Ag. Ap. 1.75– 79, 1.135–136).29 Finally, one must explain why the Tyrian structure corresponds to the Kings-structure only partially and in its most fundamental elements (the former lacks burial notices, geographic filiation; 1–2 Kgs lacks age-at-death notices)? The simplest answer, to my mind, is that Josephus obtained both the content – whatever its original nature – and the structure for the Tyrian King List from his sources, not from 1–2 Kgs. If this argument is accepted, then the former is an independent example of a Levantine king list similar to the basic structure of 1–2 Kgs. One should contrast the structure of Neo-Babylonian Chronicle 1 (hereafter ABC 1), on the one hand, with the Mesopotamian chronographic texts of Grayson’s Category B together with the Tyrian “Annals,” on the other hand. The framework of 1–2 Kings corresponds to the tradition of Category B and the Tyrian “Annals” rather than that of ABC 1 (Category A). The Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles always insert reports before the regnal year total (see Josephus’ use of Berossus, Ag. Ap. 1.135–136, 1.146–147), whereas the Book of Kings consistently places the narrated events after the year total, as 27

However, the individual names of the kings and their sequences appear to be authentic in many cases; see Green 1983: 373–97. Dochhorn (2001: 93) argues that Josephus, not Menander, was the originator of the 155 year framework, while nevertheless maintaining that Menander’s sources would have contained names, age-at-death notices, regnal year totals, and manner of death (ibid. 89). 28 See Barclay 2007: 71 n. 383. Dios (Ant. 8.147–148 // Ag. Ap. 1.113–115): “When Abibalos died, his son Eiromos became king” vs. Menander: “When Abibalos died, his son Eiromos inherited his kingdom; he lived for 53 years and reigned for 34.” Barclay (ibid. 74 n. 406) rightly suspects that each king had a brief résumé of events like those for Hiram above but Josephus only extracted the initial year-references. Although the context of Against Apion, whereby Menander’s version of Hiram’s account is followed immediately by the rest of Tyrian king list, would suggest that Josephus supplemented the year-reference, this does not hold for the parallel text in Antiquities that is detached but still in possession of yearreferences. 29 Note also the discussion immediately below on Grayson’s category A with regard to Mesopotamian chronicles and kinglists. The Tyrian King List also has a greater penchant for presenting death notices than the Egyptian or Chaldean lists; for the Egyptian and Chaldean data, see Ag. Ap. 1.94–97, 1.146–149; for the Tyrian data, see ibid. 1.158–159.

54

Chapter Two: The Framework of Kings as a Chronographic Genre

does the Tyrian King List.30 This relationship is the strongest argument, of which I am aware, in favor of a Levantine kinglist/chronicle tradition extending from Phoenicia to Israel.31 The practice of adding prose and narrative material between the regnal year sum and the death notice appears to have been the modus operandi for the composition of the framework in 1–2 Kings and of levantine chronographic texts in general.32 Earlier kinglists in Israel and Judah were probably continuously or at least occasionally updated and supplemented with fuller reports.33 The structure of these sources should also be imagined for the sources cited by the author of the framework as the “Books of the Days of the Kings of Israel/Judah” (see 3.5).34 Significant to the structure of the framework is the use of formulaic repetition, which is attested in its most significant components: synchronisms; lengths of reign; designations of royal domain/city; naming of the queen mother; source citations, death and burial formulae; and the succession formula. Formulaic repetition was also operative for the concomitant phraseology in the regnal evaluations, comparisons with royal predecessors, cultic reports, and even the prophecy-fulfillment schemas.35

30 With the exception of the account of Joram, which lacks a closing formula, and Jehu at 2 Kgs 10:36; AKL inserts the report on events of a king’s reign between the royal name [RN] and the year total (Röllig 1969: 266). The Assyrian Eponym Chronicle inserts events between the eponym date formula [ina līme PN] and the regnal year total [N Years RN = category A]. 31 Pace Van Seters (1983: 297), who suggested that the Tyrian “Annals” were composed in reaction to the Babylonian Chronicles. However, the Tyrian “Annals” follow Category B, not the Neo-Babylonian chronicle-type corresponding to Category A; contrast the Chaldean sequence of kings in Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.1.135–136, 146–147. 32 Van Seters 1983: 298. 33 Pace Nelson 1981: 31, who appeals to Röllig (1969: 265–77) to bolster his case. However, Röllig (ibid. 269, 275, 276) maintained that kinglists and chronicles would have been continuously updated. 34 Of the texts belonging to Grayson’s Category B, which are all conventionally taken to be kinglists, only two of them contain a death notice and regnal year totals. Their order is the opposite of his Category A, in the texts of which the death notice is preceded by the regnal year total. One of them is designated as a “chronicle” by Grayson, the so-called Dynastic Chronicle, but it is quite different from the Neo-Babylonian chronicles of Category A. The second is the kinglist of the Hellenistic period. 35 The criterion of repetition has often been invoked as a proof of “Deuteronomistic” editorial activity; however, the basic impetus of repetition in stock phraseology is not essentially Deuteronomistic, since it is governed by the genre constraints of the structured temporality of the HH, which ultimately derives from the West Semitic scribal milieu that generated kinglists and royal inscriptions (similarly, Cohn 2010: 117). My discussion of listrepetition should be contrasted with the scribal phenomenon known as resumptive repetition (Wiederaufnahme; epanalepsis); for the use of resumptive repetition as a source-critical indication, see Kuhl 1952: 1–11.

2.3. Methodological Considerations

55

The penchant for repetition is of a piece with chronographic texts from Mesopotamia and has been used as a criterion for discerning the compositional history of kinglists in particular. Jacobsen held that the original composition of the Sumerian King List (hereafter SKL) dated to around the time of Utu-Hegal just before the Ur III period. He argued that all of the extant copies of SKL, most of which at that time were from the Old Babylonian Period, derived from a common original.36 Jacobsen made substantial use of evidence consisting of variations in formulaic phraseology. He noted, for example, that the antediluvian section of SKL was secondary, exhibiting variations in formulae that were distinct from the postdiluvian section.37 Wilcke and Michalowski also discerned a change in the political perspective of the redaction stemming from the Isin period:38 while Šulgi’s (Ur III) dynasty was joined to the mythical past through ancestry, in the following Isin period, individual dynasties were represented as possessing a beginning and an end that changed through the decision of the divine assembly. The Ur III and Isin kings are represented as though they formed a continuous unit of rulers by means of the culminating structure of enumeration. According to Michalowski: The narrative form of the [Sumerian] King List, that of a repetitive list, is perfectly suited for the purpose of the text–to serve as a historical charter for the Dynasty of Isin. The meaning of the text is not revealed by any narrative episodes but through the cumulative effect of the structure of the composition. The ending of the text is the present–the Isin kings. It is therefore not surprising that the order of certain dynasties, the names and even the presence or absence of some groups of rulers are minor details from the point of view of the function of the List. In this instance structure is meaning and therefore the details are of little importance.39

Whereas it is necessary for the legitimation of the present to demonstrate the stability of the ancestral line, the Isin redaction of SKL demonstrates the no36

Jacobsen 1939: 13–14. See the list of copies of SKL in ibid. 5–12; Edzard 1980: 77–8; Glassner 2004: 117–8. 37 Jacobsen 1939: 61–3. Most significantly, the postdiluvian section uses the expression, “GN1 was smitten by weapons,” whereas the antediluvian section uses, “GN1 was abandoned.” 38 Wilcke 1982: 41; idem 1988: 120–21; Michalowski 1984: 242–3; followed by Pongratz-Leisten 1997: 99–100. 39 Michalowski 1984: 242–3; cf. Pongratz-Leisten 1997: 99. One might quibble with Michalowski’s description of SKL as “narrative,” for it lacks the descriptive-evaluative power of a full-fledged history. There is expected in a work of history more or less clear modes of emplotment (e.g., “tragedy”; “comedy”) and argument (e.g., identifying the uniqueness of events [“formist”]; searching for causal laws [“mechanistic”]; an integrativeparadigmatic explanation oriented toward a telos [“organicist”]); see White 1973: 11–21. Modes of historical emplotment and argument, in turn, presuppose or prescribe an ideological value scheme, not apparent in a kinglist or chronicle. However, because SKL does present a telic effect through its structure, it is not disadvantageous to analyze that text with narrative categories in mind.

56

Chapter Two: The Framework of Kings as a Chronographic Genre

tion of the transfer of monarchy from city to city, so that it appears natural by the end that Isin should be in control of the monarchy. Steinkeller published a manuscript of SKL dated to the beginning of the Ur III period essentially confirming on external grounds the conclusions of Jacobsen, Wilcke, and Michalowski.40 The structure of the Ur III Sumerian King List (USKL) differs appreciably from the later SKL in its pre-Sargon section. In that section of SKL, fourteen separate dynasties are enumerated, whereas USKL contains a genealogy of the single line of rulers of Kiš. According to Steinkeller, the most plausible author of USKL would not have been Šulgi of Ur or Utu-hegal of Uruk, since those two cities are rarely mentioned, but Sargon of Akkade, in whose interest it was to associate his own dynasty as an extension of the line of Kiš, having deposed Lugalzagesi from the throne. This (original?) version of USKL was updated first in the time of Utu-hegal, appending the final rulers of Akkade, the fourth dynasty of Uruk, and the Gutian rulers and again in the time of Ur-Nammu or Šulgi.41 The change in political perspective, whereby the single line of Kiš was divided into multiple dynasties and separated by other additional dynasties, perhaps occurred under the Ur III period, as maintained by Wilcke.42 However, Steinkeller favors the Isin period as the time when the complete restructuring of the pre-Sargon section occurred. In this period, the past was regarded as a series of recurring cycles (Sumerian bala) with kingship passing among various cities, not as an unbroken line of kings of a single city (Kiš). Steinkeller confirmed Jacobsen’s use of internal formulae to locate an earlier version of SKL: Steinkeller points out that USKL uses the original standard phrase for the change of dynasty already put forth by Jacobsen: “GN1 was defeated; its kingship was taken to GN2; RN at GN2 ruled 40 years.”43 Steinkeller concluded that most of the patronymics, the anecdotal material appended to various reigns, and the bala-bi ba-kúr formula, “its turn of (rule) came to an end,” are later developments of SKL.44 One thus observes that the redactional alterations in the SKL comprise variations in style, phraseology, mechanical updating of later kings (Uruk IV and Ur III), more interpretive material (anecdotal information and the antediluvian prologue), and alterations in the structure and meaning of the original USKL. These alterations may be placed along a scale of increasing order from inadvertent stylistic 40

Steinkeller 2003: 267–92. Ibid. 281–4. 42 Ibid. 284–5. 43 Jacobsen 1939: 43; cf. Steinkeller 2003: 276. The phrase above is a translation of Sumerian GN1-a gištukul ba-sàg nam-lugal-bi GN2-šè ba-de6 GN2-a (RN mu x ì-na). Similarly, Glassner (2005: 138–41) has argued, apparently independent of Steinkeller, for the date of the original composition in the time of Naram-Sin of Akkade on internal literary grounds, noting the prominence of both Kiš and Akkade in the structure of SKL. 44 Ibid. 276; cf. Jacobsen 1939: 43. 41

2.3. Methodological Considerations

57

changes to added material exemplifying literary intention and covering more textual ground. As Michalowski observes, in a document such as SKL, meaning develops organically out of the culminating structure. In like fashion, the use of listrepetition constrained the original author of the framework of 1–2 Kings, as is observable in its formulaic quality structured around the chronology of two dynastic lines. More particularly, the death and burial formulae, evaluations, cultic reports, and comparisons/contrasts with the royal fathers tend towards the climactic denouement. It stands to reason therefore that inconsistencies in phraseology, literary arrangement, or ideological perspective are grounds for positing the existence of an earlier source ending at the climax of the culminating structure. The Assyrian King List (hereafter AKL) also demonstrates redactional updating, having undergone at least three or four main redactional stages.45 Chiefly the first and second editions were composed with the political objective of justifying the founding of the dynasties of Šamši-Adad I and Bēlubāni, as seems to be the case for the following editions of AKL. The first edition of AKL ended with no. 39 Šamši-Adad I or no. 41 Išme-Dagan I (19th– 18th centuries B.C.E.) with the aim of joining Šamši-Adad I to the Amorites and Assyrian kings.46 This edition furnished the fundamental structure of AKL, which itself made use of three oral or written sources: a list of Amorite “tent-dwellers,” a list of “fore-fathers,” and a list of the rulers of the city of Assur.47 Yamada maintained that the account of the entry belonging to ŠamšiAdad I was original to the first edition, since, in contrast with the entries of subsequent reigns, it was singular in its length and in the dating of events: “[Šam]šī-Adad, son of Ilu-kabkabi, went [to Karduni]aš [during] the time of Narām-Sîn. In the eponym of Ibni-Adad, [Šamšī]-Adad [came up] from Karduniaš. He captured Ekallāti. For three years he resided in Ekallāti. In the eponym of Ātamar-Ištar, Šamšī-Adad came up from

45

See Yamada 1994: 11–37; cf. Landsberger 1954: 33–4, 109–10; Pongratz-Leisten 1997: 106–7. For the contrary view that AKL was composed originally in Babylon, see Hallo 1978: 1–7; Van Seters 1983: 72–6. Yamada (1994: 13–14) provides strong objections against their view and his reconstruction is followed below. 46 This is upheld by Pongratz-Leisten (1997: 106), who points to the similarities with the Genealogy of the Hammurapi Dynasty (see Finkelstein 1966: 95–118), which also contains a list of nomadic kings followed by a series of forefathers before the dynasty of Babylon. This was already observed above in the earlier redactions of SKL (Michalowski 1984: 241–2). Suriano (2010: 149–154) points to similar indications of the “fathers” (Ugaritic Rapaʾūma) in a Ugaritic ritual text (KTU 1.161); cf. Pardee 2002: 85–8, 113–4. 47 The Hanean genealogy (second section) in AKL follows a local tradition, reversing the normal, chronological order used throughout its remainder (Landsberger 1954: 33–4). The Eblaite kinglists (Archi 2001: 3–4) follow the same reverse order. Archi cites an earlier position that held that the Ugaritic King List (KTU 1.113) was also done according to a reverse chronological order, but this view is no longer possible (see Pardee 2002: 195–201).

58

Chapter Two: The Framework of Kings as a Chronographic Genre

Ekallāti. He removed Erišum (II), son of Narām-Sîn from the throne and seized the throne (for himself). He ruled for thirty-three years.”48

The other entries belonging to subsequent kings are similar, but as Yamada points out, in contrast to Šamšī-Adad I’s entry, they are briefer and do not assign dates to the events: “Aššur-dugul, son of a nobody (who) had no right to the throne, ruled for six years.49 “Aššur-rabî, son of Enlil-nāṣir, removed [Aššur-šasûni from the throne]. He took the (throne for himself) [and ruled for x years].50 “Enlil-nāṣir, his brother, [removed him (Aššur-nādin-aḫḫē)] from the throne and ruled for six years.51 “Ninurta-apil-Ekur, son of Ili-ḫadda, offspring of Erība-Adad (I), went to Karduniaš (and) seized the throne (for himself). He ruled for three/thirteen years.52 “Mutakkil-Nusku, his brother, fought with him (Ninurta-tukultī-Aššur) (and) carried him off to Karduniaš. Muttakil-Nusku held the throne for some time (and then) passed away.53 “Šamšī-Adad, son of Tiglath-pileser (I), came up from Karduniaš (and) removed Erība-Adad (II), son of Aššur-bēl-kala, from the throne. He took the throne (for himself and) ruled for four years.”54

A second edition was completed in order to justify the rise of Bēl-bāni and his dynasty by joining the line to the earlier chain of Assyrian kings. It was written in the period between no. 60 Assur-nērāri I and no. 62 Enlil-naṣir I (16th– 15th centuries B.C.E.). There is an omission of chronological information between the reigns of no. 40 Išme-Dagan I and no. 41 Assur-dugul, at or near the division between the first and second editions. According to Yamada, the editor of the second edition lacked available data for this chronological gap.55 The third redaction was composed in the period between no. 75 Arik-dēniili to no. 78 Tukulti-Ninurta I (14th–13th centuries B.C.E.), when there emerged the tendency to periodically update AKL as though it were “canonized.” The data become more accurate and conform to the information of the 48

Grayson 1980a: 106. The reference to Karduniaš is an anachronistic designation arising in the Kassite period. According to Yamada (1994: 22), the text may have originally used the designation māt Akkadî “land of the Akkadians.” 49 Ibid. 106. For the meaning of lā bēl kussî as a designation of a delegitimate claimant to the throne, see CAD K 1971: 591 s.v. kussû. 50 Grayson 1980a: 108. 51 Ibid. 108. 52 Ibid. 111. 53 Ibid. 112. 54 Ibid. 113. 55 Yamada 1994: 23–4.

2.3. Methodological Considerations

59

Assyrian Eponym Chronicle. These compositional expansions are visible in the various copies that have been found ending at no. 97 Tiglath-pileser II, no. 147 Assur-nērāri V, and no. 109 Shalmaneser V).56 In sum, as with SKL and USKL, the redactional activity of AKL is suggested by variation in phraseology, with several kings of the pre-Šamši-Adad I section lacking patronymics. The differences of the length and precise dates in Šamši-Adad I’s entry versus the subsequent entries also indicate a textual break at that king’s reign. Finally, a chronological omission is evident at the seam between the first and second editions. As for the historical accuracy of AKL, only with the third redaction after no. 72 Erība-Adad I does the information increase in reliability, the earlier sources and redactions being more concerned with political interests above historical accuracy. In this way, the earlier editions of AKL are more akin in purpose and historical accuracy to SKL. In Mesopotamian chronicles, too, there are regular and repeated formulae that relate not only to the chronological order, but also to political, military, and cultic matters.57 ABC 1 states that Hallushu-Inshushinak I, King of Elam, usurped the throne from his brother, but ironically the same measure was taken against him by his subjects using the same catch-phrase “to shut the door in his face” (bāba ina pānišu peḫû): “The first year of Ashur-nadin-shumi: Shutruk-Nahhunte (II), king of Elam, was seized by his brother, Hallushu-(Inshushinak I) (lit. Hallushu, his brother, seized him) and he (HallushuInshushinak I) shut the door in his face. For eighteen years Shutruk-Nahhunte (II) ruled Elam . . . On the twenty-sixth day of the month Tishri the subjects of Hallushu-(Inshushinak I), King of Elam, rebelled against him. They shut the door in his face (and) killed him.” For six years Hallushu-(Inshushinak I) ruled Elam.”58

AKL frequently incorporates reports on political and military events relating how a later king usurped and took control of the throne. The reports are chiefly interested in the familial-geographic pedigree of the new ruler (see the example above). These examples are comparable to the reports of assassination in northern reigns of the Book of Kings that repeat the same key words and phrases.

a$DvVoAb …wh∞EtIm◊yÅw NwäøtV;bˆgV;b a$DvVoAb …wh∞E;kÅ¥yÅw r$DkCDÚcˆy ty∞EbVl ‹hÎ¥yIjSa_NRb a§DvVoA;b wy%DlDo r°OvVqˆ¥yÅw wy`D;tVjA;t JKäølVmˆ¥yÅw hó∂d…wh◊y JKRl∞Rm a™DsDaVl v$ølvD t∞AnVvI;b

1 Kgs 15:27–28 Nadab

Baasha, son of Ahijah, of the House of Issachar, conspired against him and Baasha struck him dead at Gibbethon . . . Baasha killed him in the

56

Ibid. 35. The following examples are not intended to exhaust all of the examples of formulaic repetition in the chronographic texts of the Near East. Though worthwhile, such a task would carry this investigation too far afield; the following examples are only representative. 58 Grayson 1975a: 77, 79, ABC 1 ii 32–33; iii 6–8. 57

60

Chapter Two: The Framework of Kings as a Chronographic Genre

third year of Asa, king of Judah, and he reigned in his place.

‹tÅnVvI;b …wh$EtyIm◊yÅw …wh∞E;kÅ¥yÅw y‹ îrVmˆz aôøbÎ¥yÅw bRkó∂rDh ty∞IxSjAm r™Ac y$îrVmˆz wêø;dVbAo ‹wyDlDo rôOvVqˆ¥yÅw wy`D;tVjA;t JKäølVmˆ¥yÅw hó∂d…wh◊y JKRl∞Rm a™DsDaVl oAb$RvÎw MyâîrVcRo

1 Kgs 16:9–10 Elah

His servant, Zimri, general in charge of half of the chariots, conspired against him . . . Zimri came and struck him dead. He killed him in the seventeenth year of Asa, king of Judah, and he reigned in his place.

wy`D;tVjA;t JKølä Vmˆ¥yÅw …wh¡EtyIm◊yÅw M™Do_VlDbá∂q …wh¶E;kÅ¥yÅw v$EbÎy_NR;b M∞U;lAv ‹wyDlDo rôOvVqˆ¥yÅw

2 Kgs 15:10 Zechariah

wy`D;tVjA;t JKñølVmˆ¥yÅw …wh™EtyIm◊yÅw Nw%ørVmOvVb …wh°E;kÅ¥yÅw w#øvyIlDv …wh˝ÎyVlAm√r_NR;b jåq°RÚp ·wyDlDo râOvVqˆ¥yÅw

2 Kgs 15:25 Pekahiah

wy¡D;tVjA;t JKäølVmˆ¥yÅw …wh$EtyIm◊yÅw ‹…wh‹E;kÅ¥yÅw …whYÎyVlAm√r_NR;b ‹jåq‹RÚp_lAo h#DlEa_NR;b Ao∞Evwøh rRv%®q_rDvVqˆ¥yÅw h`D¥yˆzUo_NR;b M™DtwøyVl My$îrVcRo t∞AnVvI;b

2 Kgs 15:30 Pekah

Shallum, son of Jabesh, conspired against him and struck him dead at Ibleam. He killed him and he reigned in his place.

Pekah, son of Remaliah, his aide, conspired against him and struck him dead in Samaria . . . He killed him and he reigned in his place.

Hoshea, son of Elah, conspired against Pekah, son of Remaliah, and struck him dead. He killed him and he reigned in his place.

These phrases were either taken from the sources available to the historian or were composed by the historian himself. They were incorporated in the history to contrast the fate of Israel with Judah’s survival in the reign of Hezekiah (see 4.5). Methodologically speaking, one may posit that the royal genealogical structure of the framework reflects the following genre constraints: 1) the existence of a formulaic presentation of one or more complete dynastic lines that tends towards the climax of the history in the final reign; 2) consistency among the regnal formulae in terms of style and ideology; 3) overall consistency between narrative episodes or other reported material and the repeated formulae of the framework, especially in terms of ideology and literary purpose. As with SKL, USKL, and AKL, inconsistencies in the telic system of repetitive formulae or between the formulae and episodes are grounds for defending the existence of source material and/or multiple editions of 1–2 Kings. The subsequent discovery of coherence within the formulaic structure provides grounds for defining the parameters of an earlier source – in the context of this investigation, a pre-Deuteronomistic history of the monarchy that climaxed with the account of Hezekiah – that was supplemented in later editions of 1–2 Kings (Josianic and/or later). The defense depends on the strength and number of stylistic and ideological inconsistencies. It will be necessary to reconstruct an earlier form of the framework if there is no feasible synchronic explanation for the inconsistencies among the repetitive for-

2.3. Methodological Considerations

61

mulae and narrative episodes. The relevant question is, Are there insuperable difficulties in the framework of 1–2 Kings best answered with source-critical and redaction-critical responses? I am arguing that one should answer that question in the affirmative with the support of comparative material. We are now ready to analyze the structure and history of the framework and begin with its most basic formulae: the accession notice and regnal year total (see below 3.2).

Chapter Three

The Basic Framework of Kings 3.1. Introduction In the present chapter, I detail the unique manner in which the framework of 1–2 Kings recounts the events of the separate Judahite and Israelite lines by alternating the regnal accounts of those two separate lines. I argue that the general structure and individual elements of the basic framework were intended to contrast the fates of the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah during or just after the reign of Hezekiah. The basic formulaic structure of the regnal framework repeated in the HH is: 1. Introductory formulae: synchronism; geographic filiation; age at accession (Judahite only); regnal year total; naming of the queen mother (Judahite only) 2. Evaluative formulae: “good” vs. “bad”; comparisons/contrasts with royal predecessors; cultic reports.1 3. Political reports (in no specific order): usurpation; war reports; building reports. 4. Prophetic references/speeches. 5. Concluding formulae: source citations (supplementary notes); death and burial notices/reports of rebellion; name of successor.

This chapter will focus on the formulae boldfaced above with frequent allusions to extra-biblical chronographic texts. I will consider the reports on political events only by virtue of their relationship to the HH-framework, to which they are structurally subordinate.2

3.2. Accession Notice and Regnal Year Total For the northern reigns, note the paradigmatic example from Baasha’s reign:3 1 The label “evaluative” only indicates explicitness in the evaluative quality of these three formulae; this does not exclude an implicit, evaluative quality in other formulae, e.g., the regnal year total, naming of the queen mother, or death and burial formulae. 2 For the relationship of political reports and the regnal framework, see Hoffmann 1980: 33–5. 3 Examples of the opening formula in northern reigns: 1 Kgs 15:25 (Nadab), 33 (Baasha); 16:8 (Elah), 16:15 (Zimri), 16:23 (Omri), 16:29 (Ahab); 22:52 (Ahaziah); 2 Kgs 3:1 (Jo-

3.2. Accession Notice and Regnal Year Total Baasha, son of Ahijah, reigned over Israel, in Tirzah, twenty-four years.

h`DnDv o™A;b√rAa◊w MyñîrVcRo h$Dx√rItV;b ‹lEa∂rVcˆy_lD;k_lAo h§D¥yIjSa_NRb a°DvVoA;b JKAlDm

63 1 Kgs 15:334 Baasha

For the southern reigns, note the following example from Asa’s reign:5

MÊ¡DlDv…wryI;b JK™AlDm hYÎnDv ‹tAjAa◊w My§IoD;b√rAa◊w há∂d…wh◊y JKRl¶Rm a™DsDa JK¶AlDm

Asa, king of Judah became king; forty-one years he reigned in Jerusalem.

1 Kgs 15:9–10 Asa

In addition, the southern formula may introduce the Judahite king’s age of accession between the accession notice and the regnal year total:

w$økVlDmVb h∞DyDh ‹hÎnDv v§EmDj◊w My°îrVcRo_NR;b há∂d…wh◊y JKRl¶Rm v™Dawøy_NRb …wh¶DyVxAmSa JK¢AlDm MÊ¡DlDv…wryI;b JK™AlDm hYÎnDv ‹oAv‹EtÎw MyôîrVcRo◊w

Amaziah, son of Joash, king of Judah became king; he was twenty-five years old when he began to reign; twenty-nine years he reigned in Jerusalem.

2 Kgs 14:1–2 Amaziah

Disparities exist between the southern and northern formulae: first, the southern type may add the age of accession prior to the regnal year total, whereas the northern type begins with the regnal year total at the outset and does not report the age of accession. Second, the number of years follows the verb Klm and the king’s name in the northern formula, while the number of years precedes the second occurrence of the verb Klm without the king’s name in the Judahite formula. Finally, the opening formulae of the northern rulers almost invariably mention that they reigned “over Israel,” while the formulae of the southern rulers usually specify that the king ruled “in Jerusalem.” The expression l( Klm typically governs the name of the country or dynastic house, whereas b Klm governs the royal capital city in the regnal formulae as is standard in Phoenician and Aramaic royal inscriptions.6

ram); 13:10 (Joash); 14:23 (Jeroboam); 15:8 (Zechariah), 15:13 (Shallum); 15:17 (Menahem), 15:23 (Pekahiah), 15:27 (Pekah); 17:1 (Hosea). Opening regnal formulae are lacking for the northern kings, Jeroboam and Jehu. 4 This translation of 1 Kgs 15:33 follows the LXX by omitting lk “all” before Israel, a common additive element. 5 Examples of opening formulae in southern reigns: 3 Reg 2:46l and 1 Kgs 11:42 (Solomon); 3 Reg 12:24a ≈1 Kgs 14:21 (Rehoboam); 15:1–2 (Abijam), 15:9–10 (Asa); 3 Reg 16:28a ≈1 Kgs 22:41 (Jehoshaphat); 2 Kgs 8:16 (Jehoram), 8:25 (cf. 9:29) (Ahaziah); 12:2 (Jehoash); 14:1–2 (Amaziah); 15:1–2 (Azariah); 15:32–33 (Jotham); 16:1–2 (Ahaz); 18:1–2 (Hezekiah). 6 See the examples of l( Klm in KAI 24:2; 38:2; 181:2; 215:7; 310:12; for b Klm, see KAI 222B:22; probably also 202A:3); see Buccellati 1964: 54–56, who also notes parallels in Sumerian and Babylonian kinglists); cf. Green 2010: 159 n. 14. Another significant difference between the northern and southern prologue is the inclusion of the naming of the queen mother among the Judahite opening formulae; this probably goes back to an earlier practice of naming the queen mother occasionally. It is possible that the author of the framework has schematized this component for ideological reasons.

64

Chapter Three: The Basic Framework

The original pattern that Bin-Nun reconstructed for the northern Israelite regnal total was: reigned + RN + over Israel + N years.7 This corresponds to Mesopotamian chronographic texts belonging to category B exhibiting the pattern RN Year N(umber) Predicate. Parker has pointed out the existence of an identical pattern in the ninth-century Mesha inscription: “My father (Kemoš-yatti) reigned over Moab thirty years.”8 Parker uses this evidence to support Bin-Nun’s argument for the existence of an Israelite kinglist in the Omride period and even for a shared socio-historical context in Israel and Moab. He also postulates that documents such as the Mesha inscription could have made use of texts such as a kinglist or royal genealogy. One may appeal to Parker’s observations for the existence of local levantine traditions of chronographic genres already in the ninth century B.C.E. The identity of the structure of the royal date-formulae as well as the use of a numeric year total in the Mesha inscription with Israelite regnal totals is a strong argument in favor of an early kinglist already in ninth century B.C.E. Israel. Mesha declares that he ruled after his father, whose sovereignty, on account of the length of his reign, was to be regarded as rightful. In the same way, Mesha uses the length of his father’s reign to legitimate his own claim to the throne. This demonstrates that Israelite and Moabite kings would have conferred value on the length of a reign as a means of legitimation in royal ideology.9 It points to the possibility of reconstructing a royal scribal Wortfeld of the Levant in the ninth century B.C.E., through which any Mesopotamian influence would have had to pass.10 7

I have used the essential elements of Bin-Nun’s (1968: 419) actual pattern: “And there reigned A (the son of B) over Israel in… …years.” Bin-Nun also pointed out the similarity of the formulae concerning the northern judges, in which the regnal year total also concludes the formula (Judg 9:22; 10:2, 3; 12:7, 11, 14). One expects based on the unmarked grammar of each language the difference between the VSO (verb-subj.-obj.) word order of the Hebrew and the Akkadian parallels that are verb-final. 8 Parker 2000: 372; somewhat different from his conclusions in idem 1997: 48. The Moabite text is KAI 181:2: ʾby . mlk . ʿl . mʾb . šlšn . št. In the following context of lines 2–3, Mesha speaks in the first person (wʾnk . mlkty), whereas the HH uses the third person in accordance with its style. This may have triggered the word order SVO in the notice for Mesha’s father, since Mesha contrasts his own reign with his father’s using a first person pronoun, which is semantically redundant: “I myself reigned (wʾnk . mlkty) after my father.” The word order may also indicate at the level of discourse new background information, which seems to explain the fronting of Omri (ll. 4–5) and may also contrast Omri’s reign with that of Mesha; compare KAI 24:2; 38:2; 215:7. 9 Note also the use of “forty years” to describe the temporal length of the Omrides’ control over the land of Mehadaba (ll. 8–9). Similar numbers are attributed to the following kings: David (40), Solomon (40), Asa (41), Joash (40), Jeroboam II (41). All of these reigns may be considered a time of blessing and prosperity; see Würthwein 1984: 493–5. 10 The ninth century B.C.E. is significant because this is when actual writing is first in evidence, though the semantic field for the Levantine chronographic and royal genres was almost certainly in bloom in the preceding centuries; see Sanders 2009: 120–22.

3.2. Accession Notice and Regnal Year Total

65

According to Bin-Nun, the basic Judahite formula reverses the order found in the northern totals: N years + reigned + (RN) + in Jerusalem. It follows the pattern of category A in Mesopotamian chronographic texts: N Years RN Narr(ative). It is possible that a Judahite kinglist or chronicle existed that contained a pattern of regnal years influenced by the Neo-Babylonian or Assyrian Chronicles belonging to Category A. It must be stressed that the influence would not necessarily have been Neo-Babylonian, since there are other chronographic documents that preserve the structure of Category A, such as the Mari Eponym Chronicle and the Assyrian Eponym Chronicle.11 Accession Notices in the Assyrian Eponym Chronicle “[During the eponym of Nabû-bēla-uṣur, (governor) of] Arrapḫa, in Ayyar, the thirteenth, [Tigla]th-Pileser (III) ascended the throne (B1 75’–76’).”12 “[During the eponym of Bēl-Ḫarrān-bēla-uṣur], (governor) of [Gūz]āna, (campaign) against […; Šalman]eser (V), [asc]ended the throne (B3 6’–7’).”13

It is difficult to explain adequately how Mesopotamian documents belonging to Categories A and B would have inspired two separate “Israelite” traditions in the northern and southern kingdoms. Rather than assuming that the northern chronographic tradition borrowed from Mesopotamian texts of category B and that the southern tradition borrowed from category A, it is preferable to assume either that each developed out of separate (not necessarily Mesopotamian) streams of tradition and/or was the creation of the authors of the chronographic sources. Smith has cautiously put forward the argument that the tradition of chronicles was not “native” to West Semitic culture, evidenced by the lack of chronicles at Ugarit and Emar.14 Although his argument may be valid for the Late Bronze Age, a “native” tradition may have taken root at any point in the Iron Age. Smith does not mention the Tyrian King List or the regnal dating formula found in the Mesha inscription. The lack of direct evidence for chronicles does not require that they were unknown in the west, as the material on which they were written may have perished and would not have been

11

Pace Van Seters 1983: 297. Glassner 2004: 172–3; Millard 1994: 43, 59. 13 Glassner 2004: 174–5; Millard 1994: 45, 59. 14 Smith 2007: 198–9. However, the local kinglist traditions at Ebla and Ugarit associated with burial (see Archi 2001: 1–13 [at 11]), the royal inscription of Idrimi found at Alalakh with a regnal year total (but see the caveat of Liverani 2004: 147–59 [at 159]), and the Mari Eponym Chronicle should give one pause about the strength of such negative evidence. 12

66

Chapter Three: The Basic Framework

preserved as public monuments. The very impetus for writing chronicles in Israel and Judah may have come directly from or through Phoenicia.15 Bin-Nun claimed that the regnal year totals of 1–2 Kings were taken from two separate official kinglists, one from Judah and one from Israel, and were supplemented with chronistic and annalistic sources. Her thesis gave prominence to the incorporation of these formulae from source material over against a creative impulse stemming from the political agenda of the historian. Yet it is uncertain whether the original Judahite pattern corresponded to the current pattern in Kings or whether some elements or their sequence are the creation of the historian. Bin-Nun herself noted that one might argue that the formula had been altered due to the addition of the preceding age of king in the Judahite formula, but she rightly dismisses this possibility since the formula remains stable with the regnal year total preceding the verb Klm even where the age is missing.16 Although it is uncertain how far the historian’s sources obliged him/her to follow precisely the traditional formulaic elements in the construction of the Israelite and Judahite prologues, it is clear that the historian did not create the framework, neither the Judahite nor the Israelite sequences, out of whole cloth. A synchronic literary explanation for why the historian placed the regnal year total before the verb Klm in the Judahite prologue is not readily available. The historian could have reversed the order of the southern formula to match the northern prologue (and the formula in levantine royal inscriptions) but did not. That two distinct sets of formula already existed, however, does not rule out the likelihood that they served the literary goals of the historian. Adam suggests an alternative explanation, already seen in the works of Cortese, Nelson, and Timm, whereby the disparity between the northern and southern formulae is credited to the artifice of the historian who created the synchronistic structure in order to tell the history of the two kingdoms.17 He 15

In a similar vein, Rollston (2010: 110, 129) has recently argued that the scribal conventions used to create the Samarian economic dockets of the eighth century required training in the use of complicated foreign numeric systems. The formulation of these documents may indicate a practice of educating scribes to draft economic documents using a system of regnal dating. Kaufman (1982: 233) has argued that the scribes would have learned the hieratic numerical system through Phoenicia for writing on papyrus. 16 Bin-Nun 1968: 421; see 1 Kgs 15:1–2 (Abijam), 9–10 (Asa). 17 Adam 2007: 180–2. Adam mentions texts involving northern kings, who are said to have “reigned over Israel (l)r#&y-l() for X years (in Tirzah/Samaria)” and that this is indicative of a distinctly Judahite perspective. He lists as examples 1 Kgs 14:20; 15:25; 16:29; 2 Kgs 13:10; 15:27; already Bin-Nun 1968: 428; it is unclear to me why Adam includes 1 Kgs 14:20 in this list, as that text only provides the length of Jeroboam’s reign. Examples with “over Israel” are: 1 Kgs 15:25 (Nadab); 15:33 (Baasha); 16:8 (Elah); [lacking for Zimri]; 16:23 (Omri); 16:29 (Ahab); 22:52 (Ahaziah); 2 Kgs 3:1 (Joram); [secondary is 10:36 (Jehu)]; 13:1 (Jehoahaz); 13:10 (Joash); LXX 14:23 (Jeroboam); 15:8 (Zechariah);

3.2. Accession Notice and Regnal Year Total

67

takes the view that his reconstructed synchronistic chronicle was of Judahite provenance and drew on Judahite written sources almost exclusively. However, the identical structure of the northern regnal year totals in Kings to the regnal year total in the Mesha inscription argues against accepting Adam’s hypothesis. In a related essay, he notes that the omission of the names of the queen mothers in the northern formulae may be owing to an earlier omission in the historian’s sources.18 It is thus probable that the historian used both northern and southern sources to his advantage. A northern kinglist stating that multiple kings reigned “over Israel” is not implausible if one observes the use of geographic designations in SKL or AKL, where kingship is transferred from dynasty to dynasty but remains in the same city (AKL, Assur) or general region (SKL, Ur).19 Only the pervasive and consistent use of “over Israel” in the northern prologue may indicate that the author was writing from a Judahite perspective. By stating that each of the northern houses reigned “over Israel,” the historian was able to represent the multiple houses as a single chain, albeit one that was broken multiple times and whose base of power shifted to multiple cities. Moreover, it was necessarily to clarify the dominion of each northern ruler in order to keep the northern line separate from the Judahite line subsequent to their synchronization. In extrabiblical texts, the use of the designation of geographic filiation is more regular where multiple characters – foreign kings, officers, or commoners – are mentioned in the text.20

[lacking at 15:13 for Shallum]; 15:17 (Menahem); 15:23 (Pekahiah); 15:27 (Pekah); 17:1 (Hoshea). 18 Adam 2010: 167 n. 15. Recent discussions on the Jehu narrative in 2 Kgs 9–14 also argue for the historian’s use of northern sources; see Otto 2001; Robker 2012. Northern material is present in the account of the Judahite king Amaziah that recounts his military defeat at the hands of the Israelite king Jehoahaz (2 Kgs 14:8–14); see ibid. 90–91. 19 For AKL, see Grayson 1980a: 101–15; Glassner 2004: 136–45; for SKL, see Jacobsen 1939: 69–127; Glassner 2004: 117–27; for the geographical centricity of the region of Ur in SKL, see Wilcke 1988:117; see Glassner (2005: 139) for the notion that the three major cities of Kiš, Uruk, and Ur represent all of Mesopotamia in SKL. 20 The same regular use of geographic designation in regnal formulae is exhibited in ASynH and in NBC 1 (Grayson 1975a: 70–87, 157–70), both of which make liberal use of synchronisms. The Mesha inscription makes use of formal titles (Moab; Israel); it speaks of multiple kings whose reigns overlap (Kemoš-yatti, Omri, Omri’s “son,” and Mesha). The Assyrian Eponym Chronicle (contents covering 858–699 B.C.E.) designates the Assyrian kings as “King of Assur”; see Glassner 2004: 164–77. The Mari Eponym Chronicle (19th– 18th centuries B.C.E.) is inconsistent in its marking of geographic filiation, making use of such designations in the case of Šarrum-Adad, “the man of Elam” (lúElam) but not in the case of Ipi1-Adad II, the enemy of Šamši-Adad I (ibid. 160–63); it does not preserve a geographic filiation for the “Assyrian-Mariote” kings.

68

Chapter Three: The Basic Framework

Adam suggests that the shifting locations of the capital cities on the basis of changing political situations are also indicative of a Judahite focus.21 The fact that political power shifted from Shechem and Penuel (3 Reg 12:24n, x; 1 Kgs 12:25) to Tirzah (1 Kgs 15:21, 33) and then to Samaria (16:24) may be contrasted with the permanent location of the Judahite royal city at Jerusalem (3 Reg 2:46l; 6:1, 37; 8:1; 2 Kgs 18:2). Unlike the region of royal dominion, however, the mention of the royal cities is a regular element of both the northern and the southern reigns; the latter continue even after the collapse of the northern dynasty and Hezekiah’s reign (2 Kgs 21:1; 22:1; 23:31, 36; 24:8, 18). Whereas the contrasted fates of the northern and southern cities are highlighted in the history, especially the fates of Samaria and Jerusalem, the continued inclusion of “in Jerusalem” after the reigns of Hezekiah and Josiah (in Kings and Chronicles) weakens these observations on the royal cities as evidence in support of the Hezekiah History (or a more concise synchronistic chronicle).22 The transition of kingship from city to city does not preclude that the historian made use of a kinglist or genealogical chronicle of northern kings. The main purpose of SKL (cf. the Dynastic Chronicle) is to demonstrate that the kingship over Mesopotamia transferred from city to city and could only reside at a single location at any given point in time.23 AKL, too, demonstrates how Assyrian kingship was transferred from dynasty to dynasty. Thus, the passage of kingship among dynasties and cities is not in and of itself an argument against the existence of an earlier source for the northern dynastic houses.24

21

Adam 2007: 181, 203–4. 2 Kgs 21:1 (Manasseh); 21:19 (Amon); 22:1 (Josiah); 23:31 (Jehoahaz); 23:36 (Jehoiakim); 24:8 (Jehoiachin); 24:18 (Zedekiah). 23 Glassner 2005: 138. 24 It is significant that Jehu is said to have belonged to the “house of Omri” in sources during the period of Shalmaneser III’s reign in the latter half of the ninth century B.C.E. (Kelle 2002: 647–8; Miller and Hayes 2006: 330–31). Kelle persuasively contends that BitOmri was the Assyrian designation for the northern kingdom including Judah at that time. This point demonstrates from an Assyrian point of view that Jehu had taken over the territory (or some fraction thereof) associated with Omri’s dynasty. Kelle also rightly maintains that “Israel” was the native term used for denoting the northern kingdom and the territory under its power, as the Monolith Inscription (Omride), the Mesha Stela (Omride), and the Tel Dan Inscription (Nimshide) bear witness (respectively, ANET 277–81, col. 2, lines 91– 2; KAI 181: 5, 7, 10–11, 14, 18, 26; 310: 8, 12). On the mention of Israel in the Monolith Inscription, see Kelle 2002: 641 (n. 4 with literature). 22

3.3. The Synchronistic Structure

69

3.3. The Synchronistic Structure The framework of 1–2 Kings is infused with a peculiar synchronistic structure that governs each formula and consequently the goals of the entire history. The regnal accounts are structured by synchronizing a year from the neighboring king’s reign (i.e., Israelite or Judahite) with the regnal year total of the main ruler under discussion (i.e., Judahite or Israelite). Note the synchronism in 1 Kgs 16:8: “In year twenty-six of Asa, king of Judah, Elah, son of Baasha, reigned over Israel in Tirzah for two years.”25 The perfective verb Klm, which originally functioned as a constative (“he reigned [for N years]”), stands in tension with the synchronization, which demands an ingressive meaning (“[in N year] he began to reign”). This evidence suggests that the synchronizing formula RN-l (hn#) N(umber) tn#b was added secondarily to the primary structure of the Israelite kinglist. In the Judahite prologues, however, the verb Klm is repeated twice, first as with an ingressive meaning and again in the constative (e.g., 1 Kgs 15:9–10, provided below). This suggests that the author of the framework was innovating a new synchronistic structure in order to treat the history of two royal lines in tandem.26 It is unlikely that a second instance of Klm was elided, since there are no examples of the two verbs preserved directly side-by-side.27

25

I have translated only the original constative to keep the original Hebrew in view although it is admittedly awkward in English. Modern translations present only the ingressive meaning of the verb (JPS; KJV; NAB) or at least as the original meaning (NASB). Others present both meanings despite the fact that there is a single Hebrew verb (ESV; NIV). In my opinion, the ingressive meaning should be italicized in this type of northern prologue to indicate its secondary status relative to the original constative meaning. See Wellhausen 1875: 609–11; Timm 1982: 16; Robker 2012: 75. To my knowledge, only the constative meaning of Klm is exemplified in the Phoenician and Aramaic inscriptions; see KAI 24:2; 38:2; 181:2; 215:7; KAI 222B:22. 26 Pace Miano (2010: 97–202), who argues that the regnal year totals were taken from two kinglists (Israelite and Judahite) and that the synchronisms were taken from an Israelite royal chronicle. The only argument for this, i.e., contradictions in chronological dating, can be explained on other grounds, such as redactional updating. Furthermore, the specific distinction that Miano draws between kinglists and chronicles is unsupported, as he does not spell out the compositional development of synchronization in his “Israelite chronicle” in disctinction from an Israelite “kinglist.” 27 It seems to me that we would have some remaining evidence to warrant the view that an original synchronistic formula with elision was taken over from source material; not to mention if it was the historian who performed the elision. Most examples of northern prologues with two instances of Klm in MT (1 Kgs 16:29; 22:52; 2 Kgs 3:1) are later than OG (see LXX 3 Reg 16:29; 22:52 [LXXL/OL]; 4 Reg 1:18a [LXXL/Josephus]); see Trebolle 2000: 480–82; but note MT 1 Kgs 15:25 (Nadab). In the MT examples, the double occurrences of Klm are separated by the synchronistic formula and thus are not contiguous, as one might expect.

70

Chapter Three: The Basic Framework

The subordination of the accession year and regnal year total to the synchronizing structure is also observable by the fact that the synchronisms precede the regnal years totals in the narrated time (the time it takes for the narrator to tell the story): the audience encounters the synchronism prior to the regnal year total. Note the example from Asa’s opening formula:

My§IoD;b√rAa◊w há∂d…wh◊y JKRl¶Rm a™DsDa JK¶AlDm l¡Ea∂rVcˆy JKRl∞Rm M™DoVb∂rÎyVl My$îrVcRo t∞AnVvIb…w MÊ¡DlDv…wryI;b JK™AlmD hYÎnDv ‹tAjAa◊w

1 Kgs 15:9–10 Asa

In year ten of Jeroboam, king of Israel, Asa, king of Judah, began to reign; forty-one years he reigned in Jerusalem.

Both linear chronologies of the southern line and the northern line are synchronized in a pattern of alternation.28 The chronology of one line (1) is sometimes postponed while the entire reign or series of reigns of the other line (2) is reported and the chronology of the that line may even extend beyond the first line (1). After the present reign or series of reigns of the second line (2) is described, the narrative resumes the description of first line that was momentarily postponed (1). Example of An Alternating Pattern of Synchronized Royal Lines (1) … Asa, king of Judah, began to reign; he reigned forty-one years in Jerusalem … He lay down with his fathers and he was buried in the City of David and his son, Jehoshaphat, reigned in his stead (1 Kgs 15:9–10, 24). (2) Now Nadab, son Jeroboam, began to reign over Israel in the second year of Asa, king of Judah; he reigned over Israel two years (1 Kgs 15:25). (2) In the third year of Asa, king of Judah, Baasha, son of Ahijah, reigned twenty-four years over Israel in Tirzah (1 Kgs 15:33). (2) In the twenty-six year of Asa, king of Judah, Elah, son of Baasha, reigned two years over Israel in Tirzah (1 Kgs 16:8). (2) In the twenty-seventh year of Asa, king of Judah, Zimri reigned seven days in Tirzah (1 Kgs 16:15) (2) In the thirty-first year of Asa, king of Judah, Omri reigned over Israel twelve years (1 Kgs 16:23). (1) In the eleventh year of Omri, Jehoshaphat, son of Asa, began to reign (3 Reg 16:28a).

First Kings 15:10 and 15:24 state that Asa reigned for forty-one years, at the end of which he was buried in the City of David and succeeded by his son, Jehoshaphat. Thus, Asa’s entire reign is recounted from beginning to end, from succession to burial with his fathers. The narration of Jehoshaphat’s reign is postponed while a series of five northern reigns are recounted in order to bring the chronology of the northern line into harmony with that of the southern line. However, Omri’s reign actually extends beyond Asa’s reign and into the second year of Jehoshaphat’s reign. Thus, the account of Omri’s reign is reported in toto before resuming the narration of the Judahite line with 28

Sternberg 1990a: 110–11; Cohn 2010: 112–13.

3.3. The Synchronistic Structure

71

Jehoshaphat. In a similar way, Azariah reigns fifty-two years (2 Kgs 15:2), after which the reigns of the northern rulers, Zechariah (2 Kgs 15:8), Shallum (15:13), Menahem (15:17), Pekahiah (15:23), and Pekah (15:27) are recounted, the latter extending nineteen years past Azariah’s reign before the reign of Jotham begins. Both of these series narrate the accounts of five northern kings beyond the reign of a single Judahite king, and both series depict periods of northern rebellion and instability. The alternation between the two chronologies is not a major deviation from the strict genealogical chronology of a single line; nevertheless, such dechronization requires explanation. Postponements and resumptions of the actual chronology by means of synchronization were carried out in order to bring about an exchange between both royal lines without offending the unity of each reign.29 A rigorous adherence to a single unalternating chronology would have broken up the events belonging to a unified regnal account and would have dispersed them among one or more reigns of the other line. In so doing, any analogical comparisons or contrasts within or between the two lines as well as the continuity within a single genealogy would have been rendered less intelligible. One may conclude, therefore, that the individual reigns were kept intact in order to compose a historical narrative conducive to making analogical contrasts and comparisons between the rulers of the northern and southern dynasties as well as between the rulers of a single dynasty.30 Furthermore, abandoning the continuous royal line would flout the essential function of a kinglist: to demonstrate continuity with one’s royal predecessors. Neither northern reign nor southern reign is favored at the expense of the continuity of the other’s chronological ordering. This type of synchronization was most suitable for drawing comparisons or contrasts between the northern and southern lines in terms of dynastic succession. 3.3.1. Comparative Evidence An investigation of the synchronisms in Near Eastern texts allows one to deduce that the historian constructed a synchronistic structure by putting to use the knowledge of local scribal chronographic and epigraphic sources. One is thus not bound methodologically to advocate a one-to-one correspondence between Israelite-Judahite and Mesopotamian chronographic or historical sources, despite the fact that they often demonstrate parallel characteristics. Synchronisms combining the beginning of a reign in one kingdom with the year of reign in another kingdom are not found in the Neo-Babylonian chroni29

Sternberg 1990a: 111. Similarly, Köhlmoos 2007: 223: “Die Grunderzählung verbindet mit der synchronen Datierung zwei histories zu einer story.” Köhlmoos’ use of the term “histories” is unclear, since the construction of history is inherently narratological (White 1973: 5–11). 30

72

Chapter Three: The Basic Framework

cles, with the exceptions of ABC 1, which contains ten synchronisms.31 It needs to be emphasized that this is the only Neo-Babylonian chronicle that contains synchronisms with precise dates, as several compositional theories of the framework of 1–2 Kings have been based on the fact that both IsraeliteJudahite and Mesopotamian texts contain synchronisms.32 Table 2. Synchronisms in ABC 1 1. [The third year of Nabonassar, king of Babylon]: Tiglath-Pileser (III) ascended the throne in Assyria (i 1). 2. The fifth year of Nabonassar: Humban-nikash (I) ascended the throne of Elam (i 9). 3. The fifth year: Shalmaneser (V) died in the month Tebet . . . In the month Nisan MerodachBaladan (II) ascended the throne in Babylon (i 29, 32).33 4. The fifth year of Merodach-Baladan: Humban-nikash (I), king of Elam, died. For [twentysix] years Humban-nikash (I) ruled Elam. [Shutruk-Nahhu]nte (II), his sister’s son, ascended the throne of Elam (i 38–40). 5. The first year of Ashur-nadin-shumi: Shutruk-Nahhunte (II), king of Elam, Hallushu(Inshushinak I), his brother, seized him and he shut the door in his face. For eighteen years Shutruk-Nahhunte (II) ruled Elam. Hallushu-(Inshushinak I), his brother, ascended the throne of Elam (ii 32–35). 6. The first year of Nergal-ushe[zib] . . . On the twenty-sixth day of the month Tishri, the subjects of Hallushu-(Inshushinak I), king of Elam, rebelled against him. They shut the door in his face (and) killed him. For six years Hallushu-(Inshushinak I) ruled Elam. Kudur(Nahhunte) ascended the throne in Elam (iii 4, 6–9). 7. The first year of Mushezib-Marduk: On the seventeenth (var. eighth) day of the month Ab, Kudur-(Nahhunte), king of Elam, was taken prisoner in a rebellion and killed. For ten months Kudur-(Nahhunte) ruled Elam. Humban-nimena ascended the throne in Elam ( iii 13–15). 8. The fourth year of Mushezib-Marduk . . . On the seventh day of the month Adar, Humbannimena, king of Elam, died. For four years Humban-nimena ruled Elam. Humban-haltash (I) ascended the throne in Elam (iii 19, 25–27). 9. The eight year of there not being a king in Babylon . . . On the twenty-third day of the month Tishri Humban-[hal]tash (I), king of Elam, became paralyzed at noon-hour and died at 31 Except for the use of an eponym in place of the regnal year, an almost identical style is found in the Assyrian Eponym Chronicle of the first millennium (Glassner 2004: 173; and see IIC in the appendix). Here again, this is evidence to argue against emphasizing the NeoBabylonian chronicles over Assyrian texts. 32 Most notably, Lewy 1927: 7–32; cf. Jepsen 1956: 38, 115; Kratz 2000a: 164. 33 This is the only case of an Assyrian king preceding a Babylonian king in a NeoBabylonian chronicle, an unusual scenario. However, this is on account of the fact that the Assyrian king was ruling in Babylon and then later lost control to a Babylonian ruler.

3.3. The Synchronistic Structure

73

[sun]set. For eight years Humban-haltash (I) rule Elam. Humban-haltash the second, his [son], ascended the throne (iii 28, 30–33). 10. The sixth year (of Esarhaddon): . . . Urtaki, his (Humban-haltash’s [II]) brother, ascended the throne in Elam (iv 9, 14).

Synchronisms in Other Chronicles34 [At the time of Nabu-shu]ma-ukin (I), Tukul[ti-Ninurta (II) (was) the king of] Assyria (ABC 24: rev. 3; cf. 24: r. 2, 4, 5–6; ABC 22: iv 14–15, 17–18).

There are several differences from the framework of 1–2 Kings: most significantly, the structure of ABC 1 is not realized according to a alternating schema, but in accordance with what might be designated as an “annalistic” style, i.e., a year-by-year reporting of events in one or more reigns that never interrupts the chronology of a single timeline.35 The reports of the timeline of Babylonian kings are never delayed to describe all of the events in the reign of an Elamite king, even if it extends past the timeframe of the Babylonian king’s reign. Nor does the Babylonian chronicle combine two separate meanings of constativity and ingressivity. In contrast to 1–2 Kings, both the Elamite king’s accession and his death notice are governed by two separate synchronisms, and his regnal year total stands after the death notice separate from the chronology for the Babylonian king. The synchronisms of the framework of 1–2 Kings, by contrast, govern only the accession notice and never the death formula.36 Several events of the Babylonian king’s reign may intervene between the notice of his accession and the notice of the accession of the Elamite king. For example, in the first year of Nergal-ushezib, it is reported that he captured the city of Nippur, that the Assyrian army plundered the city of Uruk, that Nergal-ushezib battled against Assyria and was captured, and that the land of Elam rebelled against its king and killed him. Only then does the chronicle report the accession of Kudur-Nahhunte to the Elamite throne (ABC 1: ii 46–iii 9). Reported events may even follow after the notice of succession. The Elamite synchronisms are loosely situated in a subordinate 34 Grayson did not classify these two Babylonian chronicles since they lack precise dates. ABC 22 is also called Chronicle P, after T. G. Pinches; ABC 24 is also called the Eclectic Chronicle, reporting on Babylonian kings and religious matters. The style of synchronism matches the Assyrian Synchronistic History, but unlike the latter they do not frame the whole chronicle. 35 Pace Morawe 1966: 308–20, see the criticism of Grayson (1975: 4 n. 26). Morawe argued that NBC 1 corresponded to Jepsen’s reconstructed synchronistic chronicle, but he did not consider the significant differences in structure. 36 There are three isolated cases of synchronization in combination only with reports of assassination at 1 Kgs 15:28; 16:10; 2 Kgs 15:30.

74

Chapter Three: The Basic Framework

relationship to the annalistic series of regnal years for the Babylonian king and not vice-versa.37 Scholars also have appealed to the Assyrian Synchronistic History (ASynH) to explain the development of the synchronistic framework of 1–2 Kings. The entire justification for the ASynH is the glorification of Assyrian supremacy over Babylon through the use of synchronisms. The temporal phrase, “in the time of” (ina tarṣi) is used for reporting synchronisms, either because no precise dates were available to the author or it was not an interest of the work.38 Table 3. Synchronisms in the Assyrian Synchronistic History39 “In the time of Enlil-narari, king of Assyria, Kurigalzu (II), the younger, [(was) the king of Karduniash]” (ABC 21:i 18’). “In the time of Ashur-bel-kala, king of [Assyria], Marduk-shapik-zeri (was) the king of Kard[uniash]” (ABC 21:ii 25’–26’). “In the time of Shalmaneser (III), king of [Assyria, Nabu-ap]la-iddina (was) the king of Karduni[ash]” (ABC 21:iii 22–23).

This document demonstrates the use of synchronization already in the eighth century B.C.E. The Synchronistic King List (hereafter SynKL) from a century later is the only other example of an Assyrian chronographic text with a consistent synchronistic structure. ASynH, somewhat similar to ABC 1, subordinates all reported events under the single timeline of one kingdom, in this case, under the line of Assyrian kings.40 ASynH reports that its contents were engraved on a public monument to be heeded by a later ruler, a statement that may actually be false.41 It contrasts the domination of Assyria with the “crime” (ṣiliptu) of Babylon, through the latter’s violation of an agreement not to trespass the boundary between the two kingdoms. The author of the document probably was attempting to persuade the audience that Babylon would be successfully resisted at a time 37

Albright 1945: 19. Grayson 1975a: 51 n. 5; cf. ABC 1 i 6. The phrase is also used in AKL (i 39; ii 9) and the Uruk King List. 39 This chronicle follows Grayson’s Category D [RN1 RN2], since it does not contain precise dates, but still is based on a synchronistic structure. The text is written in the literary language of Standard Babylonian. 40 Both SynKL and ASynH are pro-Assyrian, not Babylonian (see Grayson 1975a: 51– 56, 157–70; idem 1980: 116–22). The presence of Assyrian chronicles argues against giving the main preference to Neo-Babylonian chronicles over other chronographic texts, including Levanting exemples, to reconstruct the compositional history of 1–2 Kings. 41 Grayson 1975a: 53. 38

3.3. The Synchronistic Structure

75

when Assyria was weak. The synchronisms of the Mesopotamian chronographic texts normally mention the main ruler, whether Babylonian or Assyrian, before the reign of a neighboring ruler. In ABC 1, ASynH, and SynKL, the main ruler of the single timeline is mentioned before the reports on another king.42 In contrast to the synchronisms of ABC 1 and the two synchronistic texts, the HH normally attaches the year of the neighboring ruler immediately before the regnal year total for the main ruler. It alternates the Judahite and the Israelite regnal series in a sort of mutual subordination, whereas ABC 1 and ASynH subordinate all events under a single chronological series of kings. The alternating pattern of the Israelite-Judahite synchronization is unique to the framework of 1–2 Kings, evincing its innovative quality and structure. The synchronisms in the Mesopotamian chronicles demonstrate that they could be manipulated for literary purposes. In ABC 1, nearly all of the synchronisms concern the continuous succession of eight Elamite rulers; only two synchronisms involve Babylonian and Assyrian kings, since Assyria controlled Babylon for much of the eighth and seventh centuries, thus constituting a genuine historical caesura in the Babylonian timeline. The significance of Elam for Babylon in the eighth and seventh centuries was its role in attacking Assyria, allowing Babylon to regain some independence from Assyrian control. In ASynH, however, the synchronistic structure functions to denigrate the Babylonian invasions into Assyria. Yet an important distinction remains between the Mesopotamian and Israelite-Judahite synchronisms: neither the synchronisms of ABC 1 nor those of ASynH used the presence or absence of dynastic continuity to draw a contrast between Babylon and Elam or between Assyria and Babylon. The alternating pattern of synchronization in the framework of 1–2 Kings was to contrast the fates of the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah by emphasizing the lasting nature of the Davidic line against the short-lived northern houses. Each regnal account is preserved intact for the sake of analogical comparison and contrast with other accounts, whether of the same or different royal house. Some have suggested that an earlier synchronistic chronicle was a source of the Book of Kings, since similar synchronisms have been found in ABC 1.43 However, the comprehensive synchronistic structure of 1–2 Kings did not emerge in response to the Neo-Babylonian Chronicles, which differs in structure and purpose. One might argue that ASynH and SynKL influenced the

42 See already Albright 1945: 19. There are actually two exceptions in ASynH (Grayson 1975a: ABC 21: i 1’–2’; ii 9) and one in NBC 1 (ibid. ABC 1: i 29, 32) with a precise date formula. Overall, these are exceptions to the general structure that places the main ruler before the neighboring ruler. 43 Jepsen 1956: 38, 115.

76

Chapter Three: The Basic Framework

sources of Kings in the late eighth or early seventh century B.C.E.44 Yet the same structural differences as well as the lack of precise dates in those documents, requiring one to sustain the difficult assumption that the inclusion of the date formulae in Kings was secondary, argue against such influence.45 A final corollary is that if the historian constructed the synchronisms from at least two separate sources then access to “official” records or a collection of texts for the history of the divided kingdom was required, and hence, a date before the destruction of the temple for the composition of the history is plausible for bringing together the chronographic sources. The most plausible date for the composition of the synchronistic structure is the reign of Hezekiah himself or soon afterward, as he was the last Judahite king whose reign was synchronized with that of a northern king. 3.3.2. Are the Synchronisms Deuteronomistic? Kratz has maintained that the unification of Israel and Judah into a comprehensive whole through the synchronisms in the basic edition of 1–2 Kings (DtrG) already constituted the first step towards a “Deuteronomistic” interpretation of the two kingdoms.46 He equates the unification of the people of god in Kings to the notion of the people in Deuteronomy. Differently, Blanco Wißmann holds that the unification of Israel and Judah in Kings is not “Deuteronomistic,” since the designation “Israel” is rarely employed in the legal core Deuteronomy to indicate the “state” (Staat) of Israel (Deut 4:45; 6:4; 13:12; 17:20; 18:1, 6; 20:3; 21:8, 21; 22:19; 23:18; 24:7), whereas in the basic edition of Kings, Israel and Judah are juxtaposed as “states.”47 Judah is only mentioned in Deuteronomy in the context of the twelve tribes (Deut 27:12; 33:7; 34:7). In the legal core of Deuteronomy, “Israel is not a state, but the community addressed by the Law, the cult-community, the people of God.”48 Even according to the Law of the King, added later in the exile, argues Blanco Wißmann, one king rules “in the midst of Israel” (Deut 17:20). However, his position may be countered by appealing to the literary fiction of Deuteronomy. If the literary setting of the legal core of Deuteronomy was not the mon44

Adam 2007: 174–211; idem 2010: 35–68. Pace Lewy 1927: 7–32. Jepsen (1956: 30–54) expected that an author responsible for his eighth century synchronistic chronicle would have composed the date formulae accurately, although the author’s work may have been later misunderstood and engendered redactional harmonizations or errors. Most scholars who have worked on the chronology of the divided kingdom are convinced that the author of the framework copied and adapted the chronological data from earlier chronographic sources. See Noth 1981: 18; Hayes and Hooker 1988: 14, 99; Galil 1996; Haran 1999: 156–64; Tetley 2005: 64. 46 Kratz 2000a: 164; idem 2000b: 1–16. 47 Blanco Wißmann 2008: 33–4. 48 Ibid. 33: “… ist Israel nicht Staat, sondern die Gemeinschaft der durch das Gesetz Angeredeten, die Kultgemeinde, das Gottesvolk.” 45

3.3. The Synchronistic Structure

77

archic period, but the days before the entry into the Promised Land under Joshua, then the bounds of that fiction would have been transgressed if Israel had been mentioned as a political kingdom, particularly in comparison with Judah. The relationship of Deuteronomy’s perspective on the “community of God” to the depiction of Israel and Judah in 1–2 Kings is unclear. Methodologically speaking, any relationship in perspective must be defended on textual grounds, after the delineation of source material is carried out. The idea of the people of God in 1–2 Kings should not be used as a strong indication for textual stratification. The style of the synchronistic structure of the framework emerged from pre-existing levantine chronographic tradition. The phrase tn#b + N(umber) + RN-l used to synchronize the regnal accounts occurs not only in 1–2 Kings and elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (including texts in Imperial Aramaic),49 but also in the Samaria ostraca and in Phoenician-Punic royal inscriptions.50 There are a number of synchronisms that could have been available to the author of the framework of 1–2 Kings in early chronographic sources.51 The style of the phrase is not Deuteronomistic, as it does not occur in Deuteronomy but is standard for documents in which it was necessary to date events according to specific years. The phrase itself is thus not the free creation of the author of the framework of 1–2 Kings, although its location at the head of the regnal prologue to construct the synchronization of the two royal lines appears to be innovative. In sum, nothing about the content or style of the synchronizing notices leads one to conclude that they are “Deuteronomistic” but point to the close relationship between the framework and the form and style of chronographic texts. 49 Gen 7:11; Jer 32:1; 46:2; 51:59; 52:29 (not in LXX), 30 (not in LXX), 31; Hag 1:1, 15; 2:10; Zech 1:1; 7:1; Est 1:3; 3:7; Dan 1:1; 2:1; 7:1; 8:1; 9:1; 10:1; 11:1; Ez 1:1; 5:13; 6:3; 7:7; Neh 13:6. 50 Samaria Ostraca: KAI 183:1–2; 184:1–2; 185:1–3; Phoenician: 14:1; 18:4–5; 19:5–6; 32:1; 33:1; 38:2; 39:1; 40:1; 41:4–5; 43:4, 8; 60:1; Punic: 110:3–4; 111:3–4; 112:4–5; NeoPunic: 141:3–4. 51 Aside from the possibility that some of the synchronisms of the framework are authentic, other potentially authentic synchronisms outside of the framework occur at 1 Kgs 15:28; 16:10; 2 Kgs 1:17; 2 Kgs 14:17; 15:30; 18:10, 13. Bin-Nun (1968: 426) allowed that earlier synchronisms probably entered into the kinglists after the split of the kingdoms, particularly when there was an alliance between the houses of Ahab and Jehoshaphat. Those accepting the early date and reliability of the synchronisms include: Lewy 1927: 7–32; Begrich 1929; Thiele 1983: 197; those accepting the early date, but not necessarily the final credibility, of the synchronisms: Montgomery and Gehmen 1951: 53; Mowinckel 1962: 18; Shedl 1962: 88–119. Barnes (1991: 147) maintains that the fictitious, chronological framework of 480 years, as first argued by Wellhausen, was created only at the latest stage of redaction from the original chronological data that would have been accurate (Dtr2 for Barnes). Similarly, Würthwein (1984: 491), Van Seters (1997: 52–52), and Naʾaman (1999: 44–46) argue that the date formulae in 1 Kgs 6:1 (“480th year”), 37–38a, and 8:2 are late additions.

78

Chapter Three: The Basic Framework

3.4. The Naming of the Queen Mother A significant component of the framework providing a contrast between the Israelite and Judahite genealogies is the mention of the name of each Judahite ruler’s mother when indicating the new king’s age of accession to the throne (with two exceptions52): for example, with the following patronym, “The name of his (Abijam’s) mother was Maacah, daughter of Abishalom” (1 Kgs 15:2 // 2 Chr 13:2); or with the place of origin, “And the name of his mother was Zibiah from Beersheba” (2 Kgs 12:2 // 2 Chr 24:1).53 This element is lacking in the introductory formulae for the northern rulers, with the sole exception of the mention of the mother of Jeroboam I (3 Reg 12:24b ≈ 1 Kgs 11:26) and the indirect mention of Ahab’s wife, Jezebel. Jepsen held that these names were reliably transmitted by the author of the his reconstructed synchronistic chronicle from written sources of Judahite provenance.54 Macy,55 McKenzie,56 Provan,57 Barnes,58 and Halpern and Vanderhooft59 have argued that the attestations of the names of the regnal mothers originally concluded with the reign of Hezekiah, as they do presently in the Book of Chronicles. Halpern suggested that the names were derived from an original Judahite document, the contours of which are preserved in Chronicles, but which was updated in 1–2 Kings to include the names of the royal mothers 52 The royal mother’s name is lacking at Jehoram’s (2 Kgs 8:17) and Ahaz’s (16:2) reigns; see Provan 1988: 139 n. 19; Halpern and Vanderhooft 1991: 197 n. 44. 53 More examples with the patronym: 3 Reg 12:24a (daughter of Ana) (≈ 1 Kgs 14:21 [minus patronym] // 2 Chr 12:13); 1 Kgs 15:10 (daughter of Abishalom) // 2 Chr 15:16 (minus patronym in Chr); 1 Kgs 22:42 // 2 Chr 20:31 (daughter of Shilhi); 2 Kgs 8:26 // 2 Chr 22:2 (daughter of Omri); 2 Kgs 15:33 // 2 Chr 27:1 (daughter of Zadoq); 2 Kgs 18:2 // 2 Chr 29:1 (daughter of Zechariah); more examples with the place of origin: 2 Kgs 12:2 // 2 Chr 24:1; 2 Kgs 14:2 // 2 Chr 25:1; 2 Kgs 15:2 // 2 Chr 26:3. 54 Jepsen 1956: 40. See already Begrich 1929: 179–80; cf. Bin-Nun (1968: 422), who assumed that the names of the regnal mothers would have been absent from the northern sources and not simply omitted by the historian. This is impossible to prove, as it comprises an argumentum ex silentio. 55 Macy 1975: 115–65. 56 McKenzie 1985: 174–5. 57 Provan 1988: 139–41. 58 Barnes 1991: 141–2. 59 Halpern and Vanderhooft 1991: 197–9; Halpern 1996: 213, 215. Ackerman (1993: 385–401) argues that the names of the royal mothers were included in the Judahite framework, though not with the northern reigns, owing to the Judahite royal ideology, whereby the king’s adopted father is YHWH and the queen’s adopted mother is Asherah. However, this argument is based on outmoded presuppositions such as Alt’s (1951: 2–22) divisional classification of the southern and northern royal ideologies. There is simply not much evidence in support of Ackerman’s arugment. Most of the biblical texts that she cites as evidence for Asherah worship may be late additions and anachronistic in terms of ninth-to-mid-seventh century royal ideology (e.g., 1 Kgs 15:13; 16:33; 18:45–46; 2 Kgs 10:13).

79

3.4. The Naming of the Queen Mother

from Manasseh to Zedekiah.60 The Chronicler had no clear reason to omit the names of the royal mothers from Manasseh to Zedekiah.61 Halpern and Vanderhooft also note that a modification in the Judahite formulae takes place after Hezekiah in Kings: the name of the royal mother is always governed by both a patronym and place of origin, whereas the names of the mothers before and including Hezekiah’s reign are followed by either patronymic or place of origin, but never both components. Their conclusion that the absence of the names of the queen mothers after Hezekiah’s reign supports the existence of the Hezekian History is confirmed again in this study. The evidence of their study is reproduced below with some modifications and further annotations.62 Table 4. Naming of the Queen Mother King

Mother’s Name Patronym

Rehoboam

Naanan Naanan

quga&thr Anan basile/wj LXX 12:24a 12:13 ui9ou~ Naaj ui9w~n Ammwn ≈ MT 14:2163 Daughter of Anan, King of Ammon son of Naas

Abijam

hkf(jma Maacah

MwOl#$fybi)j-tb@a ———— Daughter of Abishalom

15:2

13:264

Asa

hkf(jma(?)

MwOl#$fybi)j-tb@a

15:865

[14:1;

60

Place of Origin

————

Kings

2 Chr

Halpern 1981: 48. Auld (1994: 78, 121–3, 126–7) notes the discrepancy between Kings and Chronicles after Hezekiah’s reign, but nevertheless retains in his Shared Text the mention of the royal mother’s name in all of the reigns from Manasseh to Zedekiah. 61 Provan 1988: 141. I agree with Provan that the edition of Kings used by the Chronicler may already have extended beyond the reign of Hezekiah, but that at least “the edition of Kings which he knew itself contained no such notices after Hezekiah” (ibid. 141). 62 Halpern and Vanderhooft 1991: 199. I have taken as the starting point of the following table the one provided on ibid. 198. [N.B. Bracketed citations indicate texts where the name of the royal mother is lacking.] 63 MT 1 Kgs 14:21 reads hmf(jnA, Naamah, instead of Naanah at 3 Reg 12:24a; however, LXXL reads also Naanah; LXXB reads Maacah, under the influence of 15:2, 10. 1 Kgs 14:21 is irregular in that it modifies Rehoboam’s mother with a gentilic (“Ammonitess”) rather than with a patronym or place of origin, as opposed to 3 Reg 12:24a (“daughter of Anan”); it is therefore anomalous and indicates the secondary nature of 1 Kgs 14:20–24. 64 2 Chr 13:2 reads “Micaiah (LXXB: Maacah), daughter of Uriel, from Gibeah,” which is different from 11:20: “And after her (Mahalath), he (Rehoboam) took Maacah, daughter of Absalom, and she bore him Abijah”; 11:21: “And Rehoboam loved Maacah, daughter of Absalom”; and 11:22: “And Rehoboam appointed Abijah, son of Maacah, as chief.” LXXL reads: “Maacah, daughter of Abishalom” and omits “from Gibeah” comporting with 1 Kgs 15:2. The testimony of 2 Chr 11:20–22 is to be preferred over Chronicles tendency to avoid contradiction at 13:2; see Burney 1903: 195; Montgomery and Gehmen 1951: 274; Gray 1963: 316; Würthwein 1984: 187 n. 8.

80

Chapter Three: The Basic Framework Maacah(?)

15:16]66

Daughter of Abishalom

Jehoshaphat hbfw@z(j Azubah

yxil;#$i-tb@a ———— Daugther of Shilhi

LXX 16:28a MT 22:42

20:31

Jehoram

————

————

[8:17–18]67

[21:5–6]

Ahaziah

w@hyFl;ta(j Athaliah

yrim;(f-tb@a King of Israel Daughter of Omri

8:26

22:2

Jehoash

hyFb;ci Zibiah

————

(ba#$f\ r)eb@;mi 12:2 From Beersheba

24:1

Amaziah

Nyd@i(awOhy: Jehoiaddin68

————

MIla#$fw@rymi 14:2 From Jerusalem

25:1

Azariah

w@hyFl;kfy: Jecoliah

————

MIla#$fw@rymi 15:2 From Jerusalem

26:3

————

65 The MT duplicates the name of the royal mother from Abijam’s reign at 15:2 (Maacah); the LXX reading is not necessarily to be preferred, despite the strong textual witness of LXXBL, as it preserves, with the MT, the following patronymic “daughter of Abishalom”; so Kittel 1900: 124; Burney 1903: 195; Montgomery and Gehmen 1951: 274; Gray 1963: 316. Wellhausen (1957: 210; so Würthwein 1977: 187) held that Asa was Abijam’s brother rather than his son. Actually, it may be that Maacah was: the daughter of Absalom, David’s son, born of Tamar (2 Sam 14:27 [LXX]); the wife of Rehoboam (1 Kgs 15:2); the mother of Abijam; and the grandmother of Asa, but still continued as queen mother in the days of Asa; see Josephus Ant. 7.190 (somewhat differently, ibid. 8.249); see also Thenius 1873: 201; Burney 1903: 196; Montgomery and Gehmen 1951: 274; Kratz 2000a: 33 n. 17; Knauf 2002: §3; Halpern 2004: 99, n. 39, 371, 386–7). 66 2 Chr does not actually contain the name of Asa’s mother in the regnal framework at 13:23–14:1; rather, 15:16 (// 1 Kgs 15:13), which is dislocated from 14:1–5 with an expanded description of Asa’s reign, contains the name of Maacah, which is influenced by 1 Kgs 15:13; the latter text follows more closely after 15:10, however. 67 Begrich (1935: 78–9) noted problems in chronology if it is accepted that Athaliah was Ahab’s daughter in 8:18, particularly, the shortage of time necessary for her nubility. She would have had to marry Jehoram and to give birth immediately to Ahaziah by the about the early in Ahab’s reign. Admittedly, Begrich was working within his own chronological system (878 B.C.E. [= Omri’s accession] as the earliest date for the marriage of Ahab and Jezebel and a date of 845 B.C.E. for Ahaziah’s accession). Yet if one dates Omri’s accession to 885 and Ahaziah’s to 843/2 (Galil 1996: 12–45), then Athaliah could have been around twenty years old and Jehoram around sixteen. Begrich prefers to regard the patronymic of Athaliah as the “daughter of Ahab” at 2 Kgs 8:18 as secondary in contrast to the earlier designation with her as the “daughter of Omri” at 2 Kgs 8:26 (cf. Montgomery and Gehmen 1951: 396; Adam 2010: 37–8). In my view, these differences in terminology and the problems in chronology are still sufficient to posit an addition at 8:18 with Begrich. The tagline “daughter of Ahab” also indicates that Jezebel was Athaliah’s mother. 68 MT Kethiv and LXX of 2 Kgs 14:2: Jehoiaddin; MT Qere of 2 Kgs 14:2 and 2 Chr 15:1: Jehoiadan.

81

3.4. The Naming of the Queen Mother

Jotham

h#$fw@ry: Jerushah

qwOdcf-tb@a ———— Daughter of Zadok

15:33

27:1

Ahaz

————

————

————

[16:2]

[28:1]

Hezekiah

ybi)j Abi

hyFr;kaz:-tb@a ———— Daughter of Zechariah

18:269

29:170

Manasseh

h@bf-ycip;xe Hephzibah

————

21:1

[33:1]

Amon

tmel@e#$um; Meshullameth

Cw@rxf-tb@a hbf+;yF-Nmi Daughter of Haruz From Jotbah

21:19

[33:21]

Josiah

hdfydiy: Jedidah

hyFdf(j-tba Daughter of Adaiah

tqac;b@fmi From Bozkath

22:1

[34:1]

Jehoahaz

l+aw@mx Hamutal

w@hyFm;r;yI-tb@a Daughter of Jeremiah

hnFb;li@mi From Libnah

23:31

LXX 36:2a71

Jehoiakim

hdfybiz: Zebidah

hyFdfp%;-tba Daughter of Pidaiah

hmfw@r-Nmi From Rumah

23:36

LXX 36:572

Jehoiachin

)t@f#$;xun: Nehushta

NtfnFl;)e-tba Daughter of Elnathan

MIla#$fw@rymi 24:8 From Jerusalem

[36:9]

Zedekiah

l+aw@mxj Hamutal

w@hyFm;r;yI-tb@a Daughter of Jeremiah

hnFb;li@mi From Libnah

[36:11]

————

24:18

There are two unique cases in 1–2 Kings in which the descriptions of the reigns of two Judahite rulers, Jehoram (2 Kgs 8:17–18) and Ahaz (16:2), lack the name of the royal mother. Concerning the omission in Jehoram’s reign, Provan is possibly correct in his statement, “It is possible that the omission in the case of Jehoram (2 Kgs 8:17) may be due to the presence of the reference to the daughter of Ahab in 8:18, the intention being to emphasize the influ69

LXX 4 Reg 18:2: Abu(t). MT 2 Chr 29:1: Abi(j)a(h); LXX: Abba. 71 LXX of 2 Chr 36:2a reads kai\ o!noma th~j mhtro_j au)tou~ Amital quga&thr Ieremiou e0k Lobena, “And the name of his mother was Abeital, daughter of Jeremiah, from Lobena.” 72 LXX of 2 Chr 36:5 reads kai\ o!noma th~j mhtro_j au)tou~ Zexwra quga&thr Nhriou e0k Rama, “And the name of his mother was Zechora, daughter of Nerias, from Rama.” 70

82

Chapter Three: The Basic Framework

ence from the north at this point, rather than continuity with the south.”73 His logic is supported by the fact that Jehoram and Ahaz are evaluated negatively (2 Kgs 8:17–18; 16:2) and compared with the kings of Israel (2 Kgs 8:18, 27; 16:3a). If Provan is correct, then the censure of Ahaz and the demise of Jehoram (and Ahaziah) are perhaps based on the Israelite-Judahite contrast in the HH that casts Israel in a negative role. There is also evidence, however, that Jehoram’s evaluation was reworked in line with an anti-Omride redaction and that the name of the queen mother was omitted.74 As for Ahaz’s reign, it should be noted that the evaluative statements of his reign at 2 Kgs 16:2–3 are inconsistent with the block of reigns from Joash to Hezekiah and bear marks of later redaction. There is also a problem with being able to show the relationship between the political reports of Ahaz’s visitation to Damascus at 2 Kgs 16:7–18 and his negative evaluation at 16:2–3, as it is not clear why Ahaz is compared with the kings of Israel.75 Through the naming of the queen mother, the historian focuses on the continuity and prosperity of the southern kingdom from Jehoash to Jotham and then with Hezekiah: Jehoash’s, Amaziah’s, and Azariah’s mothers are Judahite and in two cases Jerusalemite; Hezekiah’s grandfather’s name is YHWHistic (hyrkz). After Hezekiah’s reign, there is a break in the naming of the queen mothers: Manasseh is the only ruler for whom the royal mother’s name is provided but which lacks both the patronymic and place of origin; this specific designation is anomalous. Moreover, it is curious that 2 Chr 33:1–2 omits altogether the name of Manasseh’s mother. McKay held that the name was withheld because Manasseh’s mother was not of Judahite origin;76 however, her place of origin is not explicitly stated in Chronicles. In addition, Jehoiachin’s mother’s name is lacking in Chronicles despite the fact that she was from Jerusalem (2 Chr 36:9),77 whereas other names are retained, though of non-Judahite provenance (esp. 2 Chr 12:13 [Ammonite]; 22:2 [Omride]).78

73 Provan 1988: 139 n. 19; pace Halpern and Vanderhooft (1991: 198), who conclude that the mothers of Jehroam and Ahaz predeceased their accessions; but there is no way to prove this assertion. It is likely, however, that the designation of Athaliah(?) at 2 Kgs 8:18 is late. 74 Adam 2010: 37–8. “The purpose of these notes was to emphasize the queen mother’s relation to Judah and not to the Omride dynasty” (ibid. 167 n. 15). Adam also points out that if Joram of Israel and Jehoram of Judah were actually the same person, then Jehoram’s prologue would not have named his mother, just as other northern reigns do not name the queen mother. 75 Jepsen 1956: 54–6. 76 McKay 1973: 23–5. 77 Other queens from Judahite towns are omitted as well, such as Hamutal from Libnah at 2 Chr 36:5 (but see LXX) and 36:11 and Jedidah from Bozkath (2 Chr 34:1; cf. Josh 15:39). 78 Similarly, Provan 1988: 140.

3.4. The Naming of the Queen Mother

83

McKay’s stronger argument for the withdrawal of the name of Manasseh’s mother is the potentially analogous case of the intentional omission of Maacah’s name at 2 Chr 14:1; however, this point is vitiated by the fact that Maacah was probably not Asa’s biological mother, but rather his grandmother, Rehoboam’s wife, so that her name might have originally been absent from 1 Kgs 15:10.79 Maacah’s designation as “his (grand)mother” at 1 Kgs 15:13 in the reporting of her removal from the position of queen mother may have engendered the confusion as to whom Asa’s mother was and brought about her mention at 15:10 and the various other emendations in Kings and Chronicles. In my opinion, the report on her removal (15:13) was also added at a later stage in the redaction of Kings along with 1 Kgs 3:1a (Solomon’s marriage to Pharaoh’s daughter); 11:1–7 (Solomon’s being led astray by his foreign wives; cf. Deut 17:17: “He [the king] is not to increase for himself wives, lest they should lead his heart astray”); 14:23 (Rehoboam’s introduction of the Asherah cult); also perhaps 2 Kgs 8:18 (“the daughter of Ahab”). These texts associate the introduction of taboo cultic measures with wives and/or adumbrate the abolishment of forbidden cultic establishments in the reign of Josiah (see 6.3.5). However, with the reign of Joash (2 Kgs 12), this concern for foreign wives no longer figures in the history, so that one may conclude that the tendency to underscore the negative role of foreign wives or mothers in the Judahite reigns of Rehoboam and Asa (and perhaps Jehoram at 2 Kgs 8:18) should not be regarded as a primary concern. I have already noted above a similar inconsistency in the use of “over Judah” in the earlier Judahite reigns of Rehoboam, Abijah, and Jehoshaphat in the MT at 1 Kgs 14:21; 15:1; 22:41 (and at 3 Reg 15:1) (see 1.4 and 7.4.1). It may be that the historian’s sources were more inconsistent in the amount of information provided for the reigns of these earlier kings. It is also evident that the reigns of the earlier kings of the history, namely, Solomon, Rehoboam, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, and Ahaziah were more susceptible to redactional supplementation and alteration, probably because of their proximity to the houses of Jeroboam and Omri.80

79

Josephus, Ant. 7.190; see Halpern 2004: 99 n. 39. In this matter, there is some overlap between my view and Weippert’s formulation (1972: 301–39; cf. Lemaire 2000: 446–61), in noting the formulaic tensions before and after Jehoshaphat’s and Jehoram’s reigns. However, whereas Weippert adhered strictly to the “Block” Model in her delineation of RI and RII (see Weippert 1985: 235–49), my view accords also with a model of stratification (Kompromißmodelle), albeit primarily before the reign of Joash of Judah, with the earlier reigns of the history having been overwritten more than the block of text from 2 Kgs 12–18. Similar redactional supplementions and additions both to the beginning and end(s) of a kinglist as well as to its middle are discernable in SKL (antediluvian section; restructuring of the dynasty of Kiš; see Jacobsen 1939: 55–63; Steinkeller 2003: 276, 284–6) and AKL (Yamada 1994: 11–37 [note in particular the redaction 80

84

Chapter Three: The Basic Framework

It is thus probable that Hephzibah was mentioned only in the post-HH editions of Kings – as supported by MT/LXX – and was originally deprived of her credentials to represent Manasseh as dishonorable. All of the royal mothers following Manasseh are ascribed both a patronymic and a place of origin. This negative view of Manasseh is possible both in a Josianic edition of Kings, where Josiah would have been contrasted with Manasseh and all of the other kings of Judah, as well as in a post-Josianic edition of Kings, to cast Manasseh as the scapegoat for the fall of Jerusalem and the royal dynasty (see 2 Kgs 23:26–27).81 There is also a level of disparity between the accounts of Jehoram and Ahaz and that of Manasseh: the name of Manasseh’s mother is provided at 2 Kgs 21:1, while the names of Jehoram’s and Ahaz’s mothers are entirely lacking at 2 Kgs 8:17–18, 16:2. This again suggests a division between the reigns of Jehoram to Ahaz (or more broadly from Solomon to Hezekiah) and those from Manasseh to Zedekiah. At the very least, the discrepancy in the attestation of the mothers’ names undermines any claim that the omission of the mother’s names in the accounts of Jehoram and Ahaz was carried out by the same person who left out the credential for Manasseh’s mother. As mentioned, except for Jeroboam, the text of 1–2 Kings does not provide the name of the mother for the northern king’s (though implicitly through Ahab’s marriage to the Phoenician princess Jezebel (1 Kgs 16:32). The absence of the royal mothers from the opening formula of the northern kings underscores the lack of dynastic continuity throughout the northern houses as well as the consequences of usurpation and instability in the broken chain of northern kings, whereas the presence of the mother’s name in all but two cases stresses a level of constancy in the unbroken pedigree of the southern rulers.

3.5. The Source Citations Moving on to the regnal epilogues in 1–2 Kings, the notices referring to other information about the kings of Israel/Judah in the standard chronographic of filiation in the earlier portion of AKL and the addition of entries concerning Babylon (Karduniaš) at pp. 19, 21–2]). 81 Naʾaman (2004: 246) maintains that the inconsistencies in the naming of the queen mother in the earlier reigns before Manasseh are owing to the written sources used by a Josianic author (Dtr2) and that the later changes reflected in the naming of the mother in the accounts from Amon to Zedekiah indicate redactional updating of a later author (Dtr2). In my estimation, this earlier written source was the HH and its sources, and the strongest inconsistencies, as Naʾaman himself alludes, are between Hezekiah’s and Amon’s reigns, not between Josiah’s and Jehoahaz’s. Naʾaman does not comment on the aberrant style in the reference to Hephzibah at Manasseh’s prologue.

3.5. The Source Citations

85

works of two kingdoms are introduced by the basic rty-formula: “As for the rest (rty) of the events of RN [. . .] are they not/they are written on the document concerning the events of the days of the kings of Israel/Judah.”82 Since we are not in possession of any nonbiblical royal Hebrew documents of the monarchic period other than seal impressions with royal names, one does not have the greatest vantage point from which to offer statements on the use of source citations. Earlier generations of scholarship maintained that they functioned to inform the audience that the author made use of standard works on the monarchy. Discussion has typically ensued, first, around the question of whether these are “official” sources, a dry report of events and dates in annalistic (“year-by-year”) or chronological order,83 or “non-official” sources, being in nature more episodic, explanatory, or even prophetic.84 Another line of inquiry has focused on the extent of the historian’s use of the source material from these quoted sources, whether “the author of the framework included nearly verbatim every tradition used by him, particularly where he did not edit, but simply repeated the material” and “thus, it is possible to reconstruct partially the chronicles,”85 or whether the historian of the framework selected partially from his sources, so that they cannot be reconstructed in full.86 Finally, scholars have deliberated over the repeated call to the audience to acknowledge the historian’s use of these sources, whether that injunction was disingenuous or whether the sources were actually accessible to the audience (or even to the historian).87 Noth ascribed to his Deuteronomistic author-redactor (Dtr) the source citations to the “Books of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah/Israel.” Noth described these sources as non-official compilations that covered the entirety of the monarchic period. They, too, had been compiled from the official “Chronicles of the Days of the Kings of Israel/Judah,” running accounts with an emphasis on individual kings rather than the entire, monarchic period.88 It 82 Hebrew: yklml Mymyh yrbd rps l( Mybtk Mnh … RN yrbd rtyw hdwhy/l)r#y (1 Kgs 14:19, 29; 15:7, 23, 31; etc.). 83 Hävernick 1839: II, 1 150–52; Gressmann 1910: xiii; Montgomery and Gehmen 1951: 31; Jepsen 1956: 54–60; Haran 1998: 158; Dijkstra 2005: 26; Naʾaman 2005: 144; Parker 2006: 225; Adam 2010: 46. 84 Eichhorn 1787: II 511–6 (§482); De Wette 1850: II 241; Begrich 1929: 62; Mowinckel 1963: 7–8, 12–13, 17–21; Wellhausen 1963: 295; Eissfeldt 1965: 297–9; Noth 1981: 63; Van Seters 1983: 292–302. 85 Begrich 1929: 174: “Der Verfasser des Rahmens hat nämlich da, wo er nicht bearbeitet, sondern den Stoff einfach wiedergibt, sich praktisch dem Wortlaut der jeweils benutzten Ueberlieferung angeschlossen. So ist es möglich, teilweise die Chroniken zu rekonstruieren”; similarly, Jepsen 1956: 30–40; Adam 2007: 174–211; Levin 2008: 131–8. 86 Noth 1968: 262–3; idem 1981: 18; Würthwein 1984: 490, 505–15; Barnes 1991: 2; Cogan 2000: 91; Köhlmoos 2007: 221. 87 Van Seters 1983: 299–302; Stott 2008: 52–60; Leuchter 2010: 119–34. 88 Noth 1981: 63.

86

Chapter Three: The Basic Framework

was from the “Books of the Chronicles” that the author-redactor acquired the dates for his chronological framework. Dtr left the majority of the sourcematerial out of the history, retaining only selected episodes, particularly the northern accounts of usurpation in order to demonstrate the “rapid decline” of the monarchy in Israel.89 For the southern accounts, Dtr brought in more from the “Books of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah,” particularly, the references or episodes related to the temple in Jerusalem. The episodes relate primarily to payment of tribute to foreign kings from the temple coffers, such as Rehoboam’s payment to Shishak (1 Kgs 14:25–28), Asa’s payment to BenHadad (1 Kgs 15:18), Joash’s tribute payment to Hazael (2 Kgs 12:18–19), or Hezekiah’s tribute to Sennacherib (2 Kgs 18:13–16). Noth also regarded the notice concerning Hezekiah’s destruction of the bronze serpent at 2 Kgs 18:4b as from the Judahite source.90 All of the notices were proof, in Noth’s mind, that Dtr had selected these accounts to demonstrate the “progressive decay” in the history of southern monarchy, which met with the same fate as its northern affiliate. In contrast to Noth, Jepsen did not assign the composition of the source citations to the author of the Synchronistic Chronicle, but attributed them to the author-redactor (RI ≈ DtrG) who incorporated episodic material and reports on the temple from a unified annalistic work in addition to creating the cultic notices and regnal evaluations.91 Jepsen maintained the possibility that the title of the work was “The Scroll of the Events of the Days of the Kings of Israel and Judah” (hdwhyw l)r#&y), similar to their designation in Chronicles (which omits the synchronisms and most of the northern history!) and that RI abbreviated them as context demanded.92 However, the existence of both a synchronistic chronicle and another separate document combining historical reports and episodes from both kingdoms does not bear up under the burden of proof.93 How would the events of the two histories of Israel and Judah and their chronologies have been combined in such a document and what would its purpose have been? A clear choice was made on the part of the 89

Ibid. 64: 1 Kgs 15:27, 28; 16:9–12, 15–18, 21, 22; 2 Kgs 15:10, 15:14, 16; 15:25, 30a; cf. Jepsen 1956: 37; Adam 2007: 199–201; Köhlmoos 2007: 222, 227–8. Noth (1981: 65) even allowed that the reference to Jonah’s prophecy at 2 Kgs 14:25 was incorporated from the “Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel.” To my mind, this view of Noth’s should still be regarded as a real possibility (see further Mowinckel 1962: 20; Bin-Nun 1968: 427; Halpern and Lemaire 2010: 151, 153). 90 Noth 1981: 66. 91 Jepsen 1956: 54–76. It included but is not limited to 6:1–7:51*; 8:2a–8a*; 9:10, 11b, 15, 17b, 18, 19a, 23; 10:16–20a; 11:27b, 28; 15:15, 17–22; 2 Kgs 12:5–19; 14:8–14; 16:5, 7–18; 18:14–16. 92 Ibid. 56 n. 1. 93 In this respect, the influences of Lewy (1927: 7–32) and Begrich (1929: 8, 109–11) on Jepsen’s work are indelible.

3.5. The Source Citations

87

author of the HH to distinguish the northern and southern histories through alternating reigns (see 3.3), and the division of the source citations between northern and southern strands reflects this choice of alteration. The recent work of Adam acknowledges the possibility of the continuous growth of a self-contained chronicle that ended with Hezekiah’s reign, since the source citations present down to the reign of Jehoiakim (2 Kgs 24:5) infuse the work with literary coherence and indicate authorial intention.94 However, Adam rightly points out that Near Eastern chronicles were consistently reworked using the same formulae for sources or editions.95 As will be argued below, there is also internal evidence from the biblical text itself to support the existence of the reuse of source citations by more than one author. Levin maintains that one author wrote the synchronisms and the source citations, but this was not the Deuteronomistic author who composed the regnal evaluations.96 He offers three arguments in support of his reconstruction: first, the function of the source citations was to describe the entire regnal performance of duties, but the only types of event noted in the citations are those pertaining to non-religious politics, such as wars, usurpation, and building endeavors. The call for the readership/audience to consult a source for “and all that [the king] did,” as in the case of 1 Kgs 15:17, is taken by Levin to exclude the evaluations “he did the right/evil in the eyes of YHWH,” which primarily concerned religious politics. He assumes that the historian who wrote the source citations excerpted material only from these sources. In my opinion, this argument possesses an undefended preference for a literal reading of the term “all” in the source citation and is too restrictive in its denial of the historian’s freedom to combine theological explanations or prophetic episodes with the material taken from the sources. The term “all” may simply mean that for the reader desiring a more complete representation of the events of the king’s reign, those standard scrolls may be consulted. As for the purpose of the synchronistic excerpt that he reconstructs, he argues that it was composed in order to cause the two kingdoms to appear as a “unity.”97 However, the mere combination of material into a chronicle does not demonstrate the “unity” of the two kingdoms. If that was indeed the purpose of the synchronistic excerpt, it is unclear how it defines Israel and Judah as a “unity.” Levin does not explain the purpose of the alternating reigns of northern and southern kings, which is not identical with any known Near Eastern text and which was appropriate for dynastic comparison and contrast (see 3.3), and he countenances no evaluation in his synchronistic excerpt, whether implicit or explicit. The purpose of (and thus the need for) the source that he reconstructs 94

Adam 2010: 41; see already Eichhorn 1787: II 519; Fohrer 1968: 229. Adam 2010: 170 n. 41; see Nelson 1981: 31. 96 Levin 2008: 129–68. 97 Ibid. 137. 95

88

Chapter Three: The Basic Framework

is unclear, except to supply an explanation for how chronological information was preserved in 1–2 Kings (this does not appear to be an interest or concern of Levin’s study). Second, he notes that the evaluations are absent from the accounts of Elah’s (1 Kgs 16:8–10, 14) and Shallum’s reigns (2 Kgs 15:13– 15), but both reigns close with source citations.98 In my opinion, this is not a strong argument, given the presence of all of the other regnal evaluations in Kings that make explicit and are consistent with the analogical purpose of synchronistic alternation. That purpose explains the reference to separate sources, one on the subject of the kings of Judah and the other on the kings of Israel. Third, Levin holds that the occasional element of hrwbg “special proficiency” (besondere Tüchtigkeit) in nine of the source citations accords with the non-religious perspective of the cited sources and does not refer to the regnal evaluations. He supports this assertion by pointing out that the hrwbgelement pertains to kings who are negatively evaluated as well as to kings who are positively evaluated.99 In response, one may object that three of the four positively evaluated kings whom Levin indicates are Judahite (Asa [1 Kgs 15:11], Jehoshaphat [1 Kgs 22:43], and Hezekiah [2 Kgs 18:3]). The northern king that Levin indicates as positively evaluated is Jehu, but that is far from clear, since Jehu’s reign lacks an introduction (this stands in slight contradiction with his second point just mentioned). The evaluations of Jehu’s reign at 2 Kgs 10:29–31 are somewhat contradictory, since Jehu actually receives both negative and positive evaluations. If one concludes that Jehu was originally evaluated negatively like all the other northern rulers with evaluations, then there is more consistency between the regnal evaluations and the presence of the hrwbg-element in the source citations than Levin allows.100 In the northern reigns, the hrwbg-element indicates that three of the founders of northern houses were successful in battle (Baasha, Omri, and Jehu). Four of the five rulers belonging to Jehu’s dynasty, the longest of the northern lines, had reigns in which the hrwbg-element is attested in their source citations (Jehu, Joahaz, Joash, and Jeroboam). Thus, the reference to military proficiency in the source citations of the six northern reigns is consistent with their role as usurpers/dynastic founders or as belonging to a long-reigning house. In this way, the source citations allowed the historian to demonstrate to the audience an attempt to reckon with actual occurrences of the past. On the other hand, the three southern kings evaluated positively, namely, Asa, Jehoshaphat, and Hezekiah, are three of the most distinguished kings of the monarchic period. It is not surprising that, of all the Judahite kings, these 98 Ibid. 135. Kratz (2000a: 164) rightly concludes from this same observation that the regnal evaluations were not part of the historian’s sources. 99 Levin 2008: 135. 100 Alternatively, the HH-historian may be reflecting the perspective of the northern material incorporated into this history; see Robker 2012.

3.5. The Source Citations

89

three are singled out with references in the source citations to their military proficiency. Thus, a connection can be established between the regnal evaluations and the hrwbg-element in the source citations in these three Judahite reigns.101 3.5.1. The Temporal Gap between Source and History In Haran’s view, the major reason why scholars hypothesized that the historian of 1–2 Kings used an intervening “non-official” literary source, composed from the more “official” chronicles, was the temporal gap between the earlier annals of the court and the literary history produced by the Deuteronomistic Historian in the exilic period.102 A further problem is that at the time of their composition and afterwards, the three “books” referenced by the historian were accessible only to the elite scribal class. While acknowledging these difficulties, for which earlier scholarship attempted to provide answers, Haran ultimately disagrees with the common view, since Wellhausen and Noth, that the historian used the non-official “books of chronicles.” Haran maintains, persuasively, in my opinion, that the term “book” rps does not prove the existence of a work, separate from the official annals, whose title and content was distinct from the latter; for rps does not refer to the title of a work, but rather denotes a written document or copy, the actual title being “the Chronicles/Events of the days of Solomon/the Kings of Judah/Israel.”103 In place of the common theory of sources for 1–2 Kings, Haran holds that the historian himself did not actually consult the three Myrps or “written documents (of the royal annals/chronicles)” for Solomon (1 Kgs 11:41), Israel (14:19), and Judah (14:29). Rather, the historian created the chronological framework from literary sources, which retained some annalistic dates. Haran thus omits the necessity of having the Deuteronomistic author quote from the royal annals/chronicles directly or from a source not far removed in time from the reported events. He supports his argument further by pointing to chronological data scattered throughout 1–2 Kings outside of the regnal framework.104 101

See further the discussion below of Halpern’s and Vanderhooft’s (1991: 179–244)

study. 102

Haran 1998: 159; see already de Wette 1850: II 241: “The date of the book and the legendary character of some of the narratives forbid us to suppose these were the official annals of the realm.” 103 Haran 1998: 159–60. See 1 Kgs 11:41: hml#(l) (LXXL + Mymyh) yrbd rps. 104 Ibid. 161 n. 7. The chronological framework cannot have been purely the creation of an author since it appears to follow a standard, compositional practice for West Semitic kinglists (2.3). Furthermore, the framework in Judges is not a synchronistic combination of two kinglists, such as is the chronological framework of the HH/Book of Kings. Thus, the comparison with the framework of Judges is not suitable.

90

Chapter Three: The Basic Framework

Haran creates more problems than he solves, as he must describe what kinds of literary sources would produce enough data for the construction of the entire monarchic period. It is difficult to imagine one or more sources that would have included the large list of kings from both Judah and Israel distinct in nature from a chronicle or a kinglist. Haran does not consider seriously the similarities of 1–2 Kings in comparison with the Mesopotamian and Phoenician kinglists and chronicles; e.g., the Tyrian King List preserved in the account of Josephus, who cites from Menander’s “Acts” (pra5ceij) or from the “Archives” (a0rxei~a) of the Tyrian kings. The cited material is used to report a king’s total length of life in addition to the regnal year total before the mention of that ruler’s death (Josephus, Ant. 8.141–146; idem Ag. Ap. 1.116–125). Furthermore, the dates that Haran indicates are external to the regnal framework do not preclude the historian’s use of chronicles or kinglists; they merely suggest that the historian took over dates that were embedded in the political reports or episodes from the sources. Nevertheless, Haran has hit upon a significant problem in the reconstruction of the composition of 1–2 Kings: the need for a persuasive explanation for the temporal gap between the composition of the royal archives and the standard exilic date of Kings. One may solve this problem if the date for the creation of the source citations is raised to the eighth or seventh centuries B.C.E. and the types of material included from the three sources cited is considered to have been intended for a more restricted royal-elite audience. Haran also underscores the necessity for a cogent explanation for how the historian came to incorporate a great amount of literary material in the work, if he primarily quoted chronographic sources. I suggest that the HH was the historical-literary source of which the later editions of Kings made use. Furthermore, much of the episodic material, in particular, the prophetic stories, was probably not incorporated into this early history of the monarchy. If this is the case, then the HH-historian’s direct use of royal chronographic texts is more plausible. The description of “the Book of the Chronicles of the Days of the Kings of Israel/Judah” that Naʾaman offers is unique in that he proceeds from the understanding that the author of 1–2 Kings wrote in the days of Josiah before the temple of Jerusalem had fallen. He takes the view that this Josianic author included most if not all of the material available to him from his sources. The “Book of the Chronicles of the Days of the Kings of Israel/Judah” possessed only a dry record of regnal events, especially wars and building projects. He supports this assertion by observing that the references following the source citations nearly always refer to military and building endeavors and that corresponding reports are found within the reign of the kings for nearly all of these references. I agree with Naʾaman that the sources cited by the historian

3.5. The Source Citations

91

were primarily dry accounts of the events of the monarchic period;105 on the other hand, I do not agree that the historian used most or all of the material that he had at his disposal from the “Chronicles of the Days of the Kings of Israel/Judah.” Naʾaman himself points out that there is no real report of Ahab’s building of the ivory house or cities or of Hezekiah’s quarrying project, despite the fact that they are referenced after the source citations (1 Kgs 22:39; 2 Kgs 20:20). However, he objects to these disparities by noting that any inhabitant of Jerusalem would have known who had made the pool and that the historian could have deduced that Ahab had carried out building activities in Samaria and elsewhere on the basis of Amos 3:15 (“the house of ivory will perish”) and from the prophetic stories about Ahab at 1 Kgs 21:1 and 2 Kgs 9:15, 30–33. Although the point about Hezekiah’s pool as forming part of the common knowledge in Jerusalem is well taken, the reference to the ivory house and other cities of Ahab is not so easily explained. An allusion to Amos 3:15 at 1 Kgs 22:39 is far from clear, and no ivory house is mentioned at 1 Kgs 21:1–16. Hezekiah’s quarrying project and Ahab’s building projects are precisely the kinds of royal activity that would have been recorded in the royal annals/chronicles. Moreover, Jehoshaphat’s actions are not exactly what one might label as “militarily proficient”; for at 1 Kgs 22:32, he escapes death by “crying out” (q(z), and at 2 Kgs 3:12 (as at 1 Kgs 22:7–8), Jehoshaphat’s only role is to ensure that a prophet of YHWH has been consulted before entering into battle; yet this role is probably secondary to both of these narrative episodes.106 If the prophetic stories at 1 Kgs 22 and 2 Kgs 3 are later than the historian’s composition, then the historian did not include a war report in his account of Jehoshaphat’s reign corresponding to the reference to his military success at 1 Kgs 22:46.107 On the basis of these objections, it must be concluded that Naʾaman has not proven his point about author’s wholesale use of the “Chronicles of the Days of the Kings of Israel/Judah.” Naʾaman is critical of the view that the “Book of the Chronicles” was a further literary development from the royal annals and that a copy of it reached 105

The one exception is the source citation concluding Manasseh’s reign, for afterwards there is a reference to “his sin that he committed” (2 Kgs 21:17). Commentators have viewed this as secondary or at the very least not an accurate indication of the nature of the author’s sources; see Würthwein 1984: 443; O’Brien 1989: 184 n. 36; Römer 2005: 159; Blanco Wißmann 2008: 167; pace Jepsen 1956: 56–60. The explicit reference to Manasseh’s “sin” is distinct from the foregoing citations. 106 Schmitt 1972: 34–7; 42–4; McKenzie 1991: 97–8 (“the king of Judah was originally nameless”); LXXL at 4 Reg 3:7 (2x), 9 and OL at 4 Reg 3:9 name the king of Judah as Ahaziah rather than Jehoshaphat (Shenkel 1968: 93–101). The reading of Jehoshaphat in the MT at 3:7, 11, 12, 14 is thus deficient on these strong textual grounds. 107 According to the LXX, Jehoshaphat’s reign ended at 3 Reg 16:28c; consequently, 1 Kgs 22 and 2 Kgs 3 fall outside of his regnal frame. This is also true of 2 Kgs 3, even if one regards the MT placement of the end of Jehoshaphat’s reign at 1 Kgs 22:46 as original.

92

Chapter Three: The Basic Framework

the historian during the Babylonian exile.108 In his estimation, there is no literary parallel for such a complete chronicle in the Near East. Furthermore, the introduction of a new source “requires the existence of another, anonymous author and places a needless burden on our own understanding of the process of composition.”109 His solution is to acknowledge that the historian wrote not during the exilic period but during the latter part of the seventh century B.C.E. in the days of Josiah’s reign when the temple still stood. The historian would have had access to the “Books of the Chronicles” kept in the temple library at Jerusalem. In my view, Naʾaman’s critique of the “intervening source” view is only partially adequate: the excessiveness of the further introduction of an anonymous author is moot, since all of the authors of biblical narraitive are anonymous (or pseudonymous as the case may be). Source criticism has had habitual recourse to explanations in support of anonymous authors, when the unified reading of the text became thwarted. The introduction of an anonymous author is not itself problematic, although a cogent argument must be specifically marshaled in its defense. As an answer to the difficulty of the temporal gap between the recording of the royal deeds of warfare and building projects and their incorporation into an exilic history, a problem recognized early in scholarship,110 the hypothesis of an intervening “source” between the annals and the exilic Kings is hardly a “needless burden.” In fact, Naʾaman implicitly acknowledges the validity of this difficulty by advocating an earlier date for the original composition of Kings in the days of Josiah and thus reduces the time gap between source and history. Naʾaman’s first objection concerning the lack of Near Eastern parallel for such a complete “chronicle-like” source is valid (see 3.3). The composition that was created from the “Books of the Chronicles” was not a more copious “chronicle”; it was a full-fledged history.111 In other words, on literary and comparative grounds, one may argue that the HH-historian used sources associated with Solomon, the kings of Israel, and the kings of Judah. This history was created at the earliest after the fall of 720 B.C.E. and at the latest in the reign of Josiah. Naʾaman favors a Josianic date in the late seventh century B.C.E.; for my part, in attempting to close the temporal gap even further, I 108 Naʾaman 2005: 144; see already Hävernick 1839: II, 1 150–52; Gressmann 1910: xiii; Montgomery and Gehmen 1951: 31; and further Dijkstra 2005: 26; Parker 2006: 225; pace Noth 1981: 63–74; Haran 1998: 156–64. 109 Naʾaman 2005: 144. 110 See Hävernick 1839: II, 1 150–60 (§ 169); De Wette 1850: II 241 (§ 184, a). 111 One should bear in mind that Naʾaman assumes a greater inclusion of literary episodes in his Josianic history than I do for the HH or some other scholars have assumed for their reconstructed chronicles (Jepsen 1956: 30–40; Würthwein 1984: 505–15). Naʾaman only criticizes the creation of a single chronicle-like source, although Haran (1998: 156–64) has argued that the exilic historian used multiple literary sources.

3.5. The Source Citations

93

favor a Hezekian date in the early seventh century B.C.E (but also allow for a later Josianic edition in addition to the HH). But Naʾaman and I are basically of the same mind on the more general matter: the hypothesis of a grandiose chronicle is improbable when one is in possession of a history. The acceptance of such a chronicle has only tempted scholars who have maintained that the literary-historical creation of Kings was an entirely exilic creation. 3.5.2. Reliability and Function Van Seters, in essential agreement with Bin-Nun’s reconstruction, maintains that two kinglists stood originally behind the composition of 1–2 Kings. These kinglists were official records that contained reports on unnatural succession, usurpation, and a reference to the royal, burial place. According to Van Seters, These two king lists for Israel and Judah provided a framework that could be expanded into literary works, ‘the chronicles of the kings of Israel’ and ‘the chronicles of kings of Judah.’ If this is the case, then such chronicles could not have been ‘contemporaneously constructed’ during the course of the monarchy but were much later works created by supplementing the king lists with records from other historical sources, such as commemorative or memorial inscriptions.112

The process of composition that Van Seters imagines is well formulated in that it takes seriously the fact that two separate kinglists were combined to form the synchronistic, alternating structure of the HH/Book of Kings. It also acknowledges that these were probably fuller lists with reports on circumstances significant to succession. Even if two kinglists and supplemental material from other chronicle-like sources were used but referred to as “the book” of the events of the kings of Israel or Judah, the emphasis on the military and building enterprises in the notices that follow the citations demonstrates that the kinglists/chronicles were mostly or entirely non-religious in character. However, Van Seters’ temporal confinement of the existence of such “chronicles” to after the monarchy is problematic, as I have already argued (see 2.3). He has not, to my mind, ruled out the possibility that the “chronicles” existed in the late-eight to early-seventh century B.C.E.; nor has he taken into consideration all of the literary and comparative evidence that renders plausible an earlier date for such sources. Köhlmoos has recently highlighted the discursive function of the )lhquestion/Mnh-assertion as a directive to the “public” to test the accuracy of the historian’s faithfulness to his sources.113 However, Köhlmoos does not define the word “public,” which could encompass both elite and non-elite or “popular” groups. The Book of Kings does not name the precise audience to 112 113

Van Seters 1983: 298. Köhlmoos 2007: 220–2.

94

Chapter Three: The Basic Framework

whom it is addressed. If the sources to which the historian refers were standard annals/chronicles in the temple or palatine archives, then access to them would have been restricted to only a handful of elite scribes. Even if the sources cited were more literary and more for the purpose of entertainment, access to them would have been restricted to elite scribes in association with or as members in the court. This consideration does not, of course, rule out the reading aloud of the sources in an oral collective context. However, if they had been dry chronicles, they would not have been of general interest to the public and could only have been checked by scribes with a higher status. That a few scribes connected to the court could have checked the royal or temple archives if necessary and may themselves have been familiar with the sources is quite possible in the eighth-seventh centuries B.C.E. In fact, a major reason for the later inclusion of popular literary genres in the genealogical history was probably the growing interest among the general populace in prophetic figures, such as Elijah and Elisha, during the days of the monarchy. The social setting for these (prophetic) tales is more suitable for that of the bard or storyteller, whose role is to entertain a more diverse crowd.114 Stott studies the source citations in the Book of Kings from a literary approach, distinct from what Robert Alter called the “excavative” approaches. Her focus is the search for the precise narrative conventions of the citations “in the text” and their role in shaping the message rather then their origins or content.115 Her observations are mostly comparative rather than literary, bringing to bear insights from Greek historiosophy (specifically, from Herodotus’s Histories). However, from this vantage point, she confronts the older “unproven” assumptions of source critics and historians by questioning whether “the documents referred to in the narrative were used as sources for information about the past by the author of 1–2 Kings and not simply to bolster the credibility of the narrative” or whether “the citations refer to documents that actually did exist external to the biblical narrative.”116 In the end, although Stott argues that the sources “used are not necessarily those mentioned and vice versa,”117 she concedes that the author of Kings probably did have access to reliable records, as some accurate material is reported.118 In this fashion, her study does actually deal with the origins and content of the

114

I am not accepting that these prophetic stories were originally part of the HH but that the genealogical history became a reservoir for popular tales to be later inserted. For the late integration of these stories into Kings, see Schmitt 1972: 32–7, 42–5, 137–8; Rofé 1988; Stipp 1988: 253–67, 361–2; McKenzie 1991: 88–93, 95–8; Kratz 2000a: 174; Otto 2001; idem 2003: 487–508; Römer 2005: 153–4. 115 Stott 2008: 140. 116 Ibid. 57. 117 Ibid. 140. 118 Ibid. 57.

3.5. The Source Citations

95

cited sources, despite her own claims, as the study attempts to erode the view of the “referential” function of the source citations. Unfortunately, Stott does not offer much evidence beyond some general observations, so that it remains unclear what the precise narrative conventions for the source citations are beyond their function to persuade. The author did not use the sort of citation relating to personal or traditional sources as is found in Herodotus.119 On account of this and other differences between the source citations in the Book of Kings and those in Herodotus, it is not clear that the approaches useful to the study of Herodotus should be considered valid for questioning the referentiality or accuracy of the source citations in the Book of Kings. The correspondence in approach must be demonstrated through means of detailed evidence. The biblical historian, in contrast to Herodotus, refers to only three sources, those pertaining to Solomon, the kings of Israel, and the kings of Judah. If Bin-Nun’s view about the combination of two original “kinglists” as forming the chronological structure of the history is essentially correct, as I have maintained (see 2.3 and 3.3), then there is a clear correspondence between the alternating chronologies of Israel and Judah and the division of the sources also along Israelite and Judahite lines. This situation is in direct contrast with the Book of Chronicles, which lacks the synchronistic structure and thus cites the “Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel” (2 Chr 16:11; 25:26; 27:7; 32:32; “Israel and Judah”: 1 Chr 9:1; 2 Chr 35:27; 36:8; “Israel”: 2 Chr 20:34).120 A purpose of the Hezekian historian was thus to combine the genealogical chronologies and reports of Israel and Judah for analogical comparison and contrast, and the source citations refer to these Israel and Judahite sources, from which he obtained chronological data and events necessary for a comprehensive history of the two kingdoms. As mentioned, the best comparison for a single chronological structure of a kinglist before being combined with another similar list through synchroniza119

Herodotus nearly always cites oral sources generally: “I have heard that”; “the Persians say”; “the Spartans say.” In addition, Herodotus refers to specific, personal witnesses to whom he himself spoke, namely, Promeneia, Timarete, and Nicandra at the oracle of Dodana (Histories, II. 55); Archais (III. 55); Iymnes (IV. 76); Thersander (IX. 16); and others, whom he did not meet (VI. 117; VIII. 65 [Dicaeus’ story]). As far as written sources are concerned, Lateiner (1989: 91–108) notes that Herodotus only quotes by name the “rival prose-writer, Hecataeus” (II. 143; VI. 137). It is probable that Herodotus used other written sources, although they are not specifically quoted; Lateiner (ibid. 106) suggests that the following prose sources other than Hecataeus were used by Herodotus: Charn; Euagon; Schylax; Xanthus. Fehling (1989) has questioned the honesty and accuracy of Herodotus’ source citations, but many scholars continue to view the scope of Herodotus’ knowledge and its general accuracy, checked through archaeological excavation, as impossible without having possessed truthful informants (Marincola 2003: xxii, xxxi; Roberts 2011: 105). 120 Chronicles also makes explicit reference to prophetic sources at the conclusion of a king’s reign, most of which, as has been advocated, were added later.

96

Chapter Three: The Basic Framework

tion is the Tyrian King List, quoted in the works of Josephus (see 2.3). Stott affords neither consideration of the comparison between the particular genealogical structure of the Book of Kings and the Tyrian King List nor the narrative conventions of the synchronistic alternating chronologies of Kings. Thus, her attempt to dispel the suppositions for accepting the “referential” nature of the source citations must be considered unsuccessful. Leuchter also focuses on the function of the source citations in 1–2 Kings but is primarily interested in reconstructing the sociolinguistic audience to whom the citations were addressed. He is careful to point out, “These topoi are temporally and geographically specific in their allusions to specific kingdoms and, in the case of Source 3, a specific king (Solomon). They suggest that the audience expected differences to be drawn between the infrastructure of the northern and southern monarchies and, in the case of Source 3, between Solomon and those that followed him.”121 In this way, Leuchter underscores the historian’s intention to contrast the northern and southern monarchies, as I am maintaining was the original purpose of the HH. He also argues that the historian’s concerns were twofold: the latter was in possession of a message that he hoped to convey but also wanted to demonstrate that the fortunes of both kingdoms were subject to the “whims and woes” of their kings. Some part of the audience, a group of learned scribes “independent” of the royal court, would have had an awareness of the genre of “royal chronicles.”122 Leuchter views the historian as distancing himself from the immediate royal context and hearkening to these records in order to demonstrate that his work was not simply royal propaganda. Thus, the interests of the historian and audience are to be located between those of “official ‘state’ literature” and popular/rural genres. One must imagine, thus, a nonroyal, oral situation, in which a reader read aloud the history to both elite and non-elite members of society. One piece of evidence that Leuchter offers are the Neo-Babylonian chronicles possibly copied by “private” scribes, as may be concluded on the basis of two colophons.123 This comparative evidence does not provide the strongest argument, however, given the existence of other texts such as ASynH, which possesses a pro-Assyrian agenda and was found in an official archive and probably copied from a display inscription.124 An example of a Neo-Babylonian chronicle with a distinctive message is the Nabonidus Chronicle, which delegitimizes the king after whom the chronicle is named through the repeated cultic reports concerning the neglect of the Babylonian New Year’s Festival. Finally, since the original purpose of the creation of a kinglist was propagandistic, then the “genealogical” or “king121

Leuchter 2010: 122. Ibid. 123. 123 Brinkman 1990: 75. The evidence is not decisive, as Brinkman points out. 124 Grayson 1975a: 52; Brinkman 1990: 74–5; Dijkstra 2005: 22. 122

3.5. The Source Citations

97

list”-like structure of the Book of Kings demonstrates a closeness (though not identity) in purpose through the retention of that basic structure. Leuchter himself concludes that the audience was limited to those with a higher cultural literacy but does not want to limit the audience only to a circle of priests and scribes, since “scribes and priests on the royal payroll would hardly be interested in a work that repeatedly calls attention to the shortcomings of the monarchic faculties.”125 Here, one must inquire as to which monarchic shortcomings Leuchter means; for if there was a Hezekian History, then many of the shortcomings that Leuchter envisions may be valid only for later editions of 1–2 Kings. The addition of prophetic stories and antimonarchic viewpoints suggests a larger audience, but it is does not follow that the same Sitz im Leben of the Persian Era should also correlate with that of the later monarchic period. In consequence of these considerations, it must be concluded that one may not assume that the audience was not made up of “priests and scribes on the royal payroll” or that the audience excluded the king himself. Leuchter also draws attention to the differences between Solomon’s source citations and those divided between the kings of Israel and the kings of Judah. Solomon’s citation stresses his wisdom and focuses only on his reign; it is not chronistic, whereas the citations belonging the kings of Israel and Judah concern political events and cover whole series of reigns in chronological order. If the Solomonic and Israelite/Judahite documents were so patently distinct, then why did the historian judge it necessary to cite from a separate source for Solomon’s reign? Leuchter does not provide an answer to this question, but it is significant for the purpose and meaning of the history, particularly as Solomon’s is the first source citation in the history. If the HH began with Solomon’s reign (see ch. 6), then it would appear that the historian integrated standard sources that pertained strictly to the scope of his work: Solomon’s reign and the histories of Israel and Judah down through the period of Hezekiah. It was only those sources useful for the coverage of the narrative that the historian quoted. 3.5.3. Formulaic Considerations Halpern and Vanderhooft assign the source citations to an earlier stage of the composition of the Deuteronomistic History, to their “Hezekian History.” They argue that the variation in the source citations indicates a change in authorship and point out four elements in the source citations that denote the changing authorship: 1) “the rest of the affairs of RN”; 2) “and all that he did”; 3) other data, such as the king’s martial prowess (hrwbg); 4) “are they not [or: lo, they are] written in the books of the chronicles of the kings of Is125

Leuchter 2010: 125.

98

Chapter Three: The Basic Framework

rael/Judah.” In the view of Halpern and Vanderhooft, the most substantial variation occurs in the third element of the source citation: the mention of the king’s prowess (hrwbg). This element is the least attested of the four in the citation formula; it is used six times in the accounts of the reigns of the northern kings but only three times in those of the reigns of the southern kings (Asa, Jehoshaphat, and Hezekiah).126 In the accounts of the northern reigns, the third element regularly involves military success, whether battles fought or conspiracies manufactured. It is attributed to the founders of new Israelite dynasties (Baasha, Omri, and Jehu) and to four of the five rulers of the Nimshide dynasty, the longest of any northern dynasty (Jehu, the founder, Joahaz, Joash, and Jeroboam II). In the accounts of the southern reigns, an allusion to martial success is clear for Asa’s and Jehoshaphat’s reigns, especially in the LXX: As for the rest of the events of Asa and all of his might that he exhibited, and the wars that he fought, are these not written in the scroll of the events of the days of the kings of Judah? (3 Reg 15:23 [LXXL]) As for the rest of the events of Jehoshaphat, all of his might that he exhibited, and wars that he fought, are these things not written in the Scroll of the events of the days of the kings of Israel? (3 Reg 16:28c)

The reference to Jehoshaphat’s military success at 3 Reg 16:28c is noteworthy, especially if the prophetic stories recounting his actions in battle are later additions (esp. 1 Kgs 20:1–38; 2 Kgs 3:7–14), as has been argued in several recent works.127 Even if portions of 1 Kgs 22 or 2 Kgs 3 were included in the original history, they do not narrate clearly Jehoshaphat’s victory over the Arameans or Moabites. This suggests that the inclusion of the hrwbg-element was intended to draw a correlation between Jehoshaphat’s loyalty to YHWH and his success in war, much in the same way that his father, Asa, was both righteous and martially successful. The last example of hrwbg to indicate military success is attested in the source citation of Hezekiah’s reign (2 Kgs 20:20). Hezekiah is reported to have fought effectively in his victory over the Philistines (18:8), and there may be an allusion to Hezekiah’s successful rebellion against the Assyrians at 20:20 (cf. 18:7, 20). Halpern and Vanderhooft note that Asa, Jehoshaphat, and 126

Northern kings: Baasha (16:5); Omri (16:27); Jehu (2 Kgs 10:34); Joahaz (13:8); Joash (13:12); Jeroboam (14:28); southern kings: Asa (1 Kgs 15:23); Jehoshaphat (3 Reg 16:28c ≈ 1 Kgs 22:46); Hezekiah (2 Kgs 20:20). Halpern and Vanderhooft point out that in the three reigns of Asa, Jehoshaphat, and Hezekiah, the third element (hrwbg) displaces the second element (“[and] all that he did”). However, this is only true of the MT but not the reading of LXXL for Hezekiah’s reign (4 Reg 20:20: “As for the rest of the deeds of Hezekiah and all that he did and all of his might . . .”). 127 Schmitt 1972: 32–7, 42–5, 137–8; Rofé 1988; Stipp 1988: 253–67, 361–2; McKenzie 1991: 88–93, 95–8; Kratz 2000a: 174; Otto 2001; idem 2003: 487–508; Römer 2005: 153–4.

3.5. The Source Citations

99

Hezekiah are also singled out for comparison with David, especially as there are other southern kings who enjoyed military success, such as Amaziah in his victory over Edom (2 Kgs 14:7) and Ahaz in his defense against Rezin and Pekah (16:5). Just as there is a reference to warfare between Asa and Baasha at 1 Kgs 15:16 and 15:32, other mentions of warfare between Judahite and Israelite kings are found in the accounts of the reigns of Rehoboam (1 Kgs 14:30, 15:6) and Abijah (15:7), but their source citations do not incorporate the element of military success (hrwbg).128 Amaziah’s source citation does not include the hrwbg-element (2 Kgs 14:18), despite fighting effectively against Edom (14:7). Rehoboam, Abijah, and Ahaz are evaluated negatively and thus their reigns do not obtain the hrwbg-element. Halpern and Vanderhooft conclude accordingly that the correspondence between military success and the righteous evaluations of these three kings is strong evidence to suggest, “The author of the regnal evaluations (at least, down to Hezekiah’s reign), who likened these three kings to David, also penned the expanded source citations.”129 Halpern and Vanderhooft also call attention to the absence of the hrwbgelement from Josiah’s account, despite the fact that Josiah is assumed to have secured territory in northern Israel, at least for the purpose of making serious cultic alterations to the landscape. Since the three righteous kings “likened to David” also contain the hrwbg-element, it is noteworthy that Josiah, who, apart from Hezekiah, is compared to David (and Moses!) without qualification (2 Kgs 22:3; 23:25), does not receive the hrwbg-element at the source citation for his reign (23:28). Further considerations still warrant attention: if the history ended with Josiah’s reign at 2 Kgs 23:25, as has been argued by advocates of the doubleredaction theory,130 then it is possible that a Josianic history incorporated the third element to close the reigns of Asa, Jehoshaphat, and Hezekiah but not for Josiah, as the history would have been written during his reign without an epilogue for his own account. This consideration is valid only if there actually existed a Josianic edition of the history of the monarchy and if in that edition Josiah’s reign did not contain a source citation. Furthermore, this consideration does not preclude the possibility that the hrwbg-element was added to Hezekiah’s reign before the composition of a Josianic history. 128 Halpern and Vanderhooft (1991: 220) state casually that these three kings are likened “without equivocation” to David; however, only Asa and Hezekiah are explicitly connected with David; Jehoshaphat is compared to Asa. In addition, Hezekiah is the only king before Josiah who removes the twmb (2 Kgs 18:4), so that Asa’s and Jehoshaphat’s behavior is not Davidic “without equivocation.” In any case, these kings are outstanding for their loyalty to YHWH, which is symbolized in the history as a Davidic standard. 129 Ibid. 220; pace Levin 2008: 135. 130 Nelson 1981: 83–5; Vanoni 1985: 357–62; McKenzie 1991: 136–7; Römer 2005: 104.

100

Chapter Three: The Basic Framework

If the source citation was incorporated during Josiah’s reign, then the absence of the third element may have been owing to Josiah’s fall in battle. In none of the nine northern or southern accounts in which the hrwbg-element appears does a king fall in battle or by assassination. Still, one expects some statement as to the virtue of Josiah’s conduct, as one reads in the source citation for Solomon (1 Kgs 11:41): “As for the rest of the deeds of Solomon and all that he did and [LXX adds “all of”] his wisdom, are they not written on the scroll of the deeds of [LXX adds “days of”] Solomon?” Compare the negative addition to Manasseh’s reign (2 Kgs 21:17): “As for the rest of the deeds of Manasseh and all that he did and his sin that he committed, are they not written on the scroll of the deeds of the days of the kings of Judah?”131 Another question must be raised: if Hezekiah’s reign concluded with a source notice, then does that mean that the history was written after his death? If yes, then how much later? Halpern and Vanderhooft, who are aware of this problem, surmise that the Josianic historian may have composed Hezekiah’s source citation on the model of that for Asa’s and Jehoshaphat’s reigns or, alternatively, Hezekiah’s source citation may antedate the Josianic edition of the history. Despite these uncertainties, they conclude: “Still, the evidence of the source citations indicates a change at Hezekiah.”132 To my mind, this conclusion is correct, but on account of the caveats raised above the source citations cannot be regarded as the strongest line of evidence either for or against the HH. Stronger is the case against attributing both Hezekiah’s and Josiah’s source citations to the same author; this is especially significant, since there is stronger variation between the source citations and regnal evaluations through Hezekiah’s reign and the citations and evaluations after Hezekiah’s reign (particularly with Josiah’s). The same author of the source citations immediately before (or with) the account of Hezekiah probably also penned the regnal evaluations of the same block of text concluding with Hezekiah. From this conclusion also emerges a significant deduction, namely, that the source citations cannot be used to deny the growth of 1–2 Kings in blocks, from Hezekiah to Josiah and then to Zedekiah. Thus, the evidence of variation concerning the hrwbg-element supports the compositional development of the framework.133 Consequently, I maintain that Hezekiah’s source citation was probably not part of the original HH and was added before the composition of the Josianic edition in the narrative after Hezekiah’s death in conformity with Asa’s and Jehoshaphat’s reigns. Because the source citation usually occurs immediately next to or in close proximity with the following notice on the king’s death and burial, and because the latter also serves as the introduction to the next ruler, 131

On the possible date of the HH to Manasseh’s reign, see 9.8 and 10.6. Halpern and Vanderhooft 1991: 220. 133 See Adam 2010: 41. 132

3.5. The Source Citations

101

an appropriate conclusion to the history would not have been the allusion to Hezekiah’s end through the source citation or through the introduction of Manasseh’s reign. I should like to conclude this section by summarizing briefly some of the more significant results of the above discussion: 1) Already in the last two centuries of biblical scholarship, scholars had identified the problem of the temporal gap between the sources of 1–2 Kings and its actual composition (in the exile). Even if one assumes that the source citations are “rhetorical” rather than “referential” (an assumption still in need of demonstration), an explanation for the number of accurate dates and the scope of reported events is lacking. The simplest view holds that the sources were distinct kinglists for Israel and Judah that included political reports and that existed in the pre-exilic period. They were filled out with reports on military affairs and building endeavors and may even have had propagandistic uses in the royal court.134 The historian had access still in the First Temple Period to the “Events of the Days of the Kings of Israel/Judah” as well as to the “Events of the Days of Solomon” (reading with LXXL). Rather than to trace the emergence of literary characteristics back to two or more chroniclelike sources before the synchronization of the HH, it is preferable to locate that process in the creation of the history itself and in its synchronization. 2) The historian did not copy the entirety of these works into the HH, since it is affirmed that the “rest” (rty) of the events concerning so-and-so king could be found in them. The author found more information about battles, treaties, and building projects than was necessary to include in the history.135 The source citations demonstrate that the historian was shaping an ideological perspective in the audience through the selection, supplementation, omission, and arrangement of source data as necessary.136 The selection of the events of the monarchic past was carried out in order to create a history with an evaluative structure for judging the behavior of the kings and for conveying a meaningful message. 3) The historian made use of both northern and southern sources in order to contrast the fates of the two kingdoms. The citations of three standard works pertaining to Solomon, Israel, and Judah also corresponds to the temporal du134 They did not correspond to the Tagebuchstil of the Egyptian “daybooks” or the style of recording varia in the Babylonian astronomical diaries. Although they were probably based on similar documents, they were not, with the possible exception of “the Events of the Days of Solomon,” as developed as certain “literary” compositions like the Annals of Thutmosis III or the Ten-Year Annals of Muršili II; for these sources, see Hoffmeier 1994: 165– 79. 135 In contrast, the Book of Chronicles did not have the same access to such sources as the author of Kings had; see Barnes 1997: 106–31. The main written source of the Chronicler was a later edition of Samuel–Kings, which he altered considerably. 136 Leuchter 2010: 131.

102

Chapter Three: The Basic Framework

ration that covered from Solomon until the collapse of the Israelite kingdom in the days of Hezekiah. The historian found the pro-Judahite sources to be especially appropriate for inclusion in his work, since they possessed more details about the temple and highlighted the greatness of the Davidic Dynasty. Most of the suitable, northern material pertained to assassination and military defeat in the north (2 Kgs 10:32b; 15:19–20, 29; 17:3–9) but occasionally could be marshaled to demonstrate the success of a dynasty, which was necessary in order to account for the actual, continued existence of that dynasty (1 Kgs 16:24; 2 Kgs 14:25, 28).137 4) As a rhetorical device, the historian implemented the source citations to appeal to a limited, mostly literate audience associated with the existing royal court but with enough distance to be able to critique such figures as Rehoboam and Ahaz. The historian used the external (better: extradiagetic) narrator-voice on a level above the reported events, breaking the temporal level of the narrated past to speak to the audience in the present. The appeal was made in order to certify that his historical representation of the monarchy was crafted with the knowledge of the standards works on the Judahite and Israelites monarchies. The historian used the sources at times as a license to report difficulties of historical occurrence that must be addressed in such a comprehensive work (1 Kgs 16:24; 2 Kgs 14:25, 28). 5) The historian was aware of or influenced by royal epigraphic texts, but in contrast to the “Books of the Chronicles,” these were not standard works to be cited. For example, the historian used inter alia the evaluative language attested in royal inscriptions for the composition of the royal evaluations and comparison/contrasts with the fathers (see 4.3.3). In addition, the historian probably composed his account of Assyria’s invasion into Jerusalem under Sennacherib making use of a source near to the epigraphic context (9.4).138

3.6. The Death and Burial Notices Almost invariably, the use of death and burial notices is consistent in the epilogues of the framework down to Ahaz.139 The phrase “(RN) lay down with his fathers” (-M( [RN] bk#yw wytb)) is linked with kings whose deaths were peaceful or natural and who were succeeded by their sons, whereas the phrase “he died” (tmyw) is typical of kings who experienced a violent death 137

See Naʾaman 2005: 145. Parker 1997: 113–20. 139 It is noteworthy that the death of one king inaugurates the reign of the next king (Suriano 2010: 32–41). Mesopotamian chronographic documents that follow this pattern include Assyrian Chronicle Fragment 4, the “Dynastic Chronicle,” and the Hellenistic King List, all of which I have included in Category B; see Grayson 1975a: 5–6, 197–9; see above 2.2. 138

3.6. The Death and Burial Notices

103

and whose dynasty was brought to an end by force.140 Both phrases usually precede a statement concerning the king’s burial in the capital city with the verb rbq in the qal or niphal stem. Occasionally, concise notes are interpolated between the source citation and the death notice (1 Kgs 14:30; 15:8, 24; 22:47–50; 2 Kgs 12:21–22; 14:19–21; 15:37; 23:29).141 3.6.1. Comparative Evidence The parallel material from Mesopotamian chronicles and from the Tel Dan inscription provides evidence that the standard death and burial formula in the framework-epilogues developed out of local chronographic and royal epigraphic genres.142 Neo-Babylonian chronicles report the manner of a king’s death, whether through illness, rebellion, or military campaign, demonstrating some commonality between the formulae in 1–2 Kings and similar statements in Mesopotamian chronicles: Table 5. Death Formulae in Neo-Babylonian Chronicles The fourteenth year: Nabu-nasir became ill and died in his palace. For fourteen years Nabunasir ruled Babylon (ABC 1: i 11–12) The second year: (Nabu)-nadin-(zeri) was killed in a rebellion. For two years (Nabu)-nadin(zeri) ruled Babylon (ABC 1: i 14–15) The second year: Tiglath-pileser (III) died in the month Tebet. For Tiglathpileser (III) ruled Akkad and Assyria. For two of these years he ruled in Akkad (1: i 24–26) The fifth year: Shalmaneser (V) died in the month Tebet. For five years Shalmaneser (V) ruled Akkad and Assyria (1: i 29–30) The fifth year of Merodach-baladan (II): Humban-nikash (I), king of Elam, died. For [twentysix] years Humban-nikash (I) ruled Elam (ABC 1: i 38–39) The subjects of Hallushu-(Inshushinak I), king of Elam, . . . rebelled against him. They shut the door in his face (and) killed him. For six years Hallushu-(Inshushinak I) ruled Elam (1: iii 6–8)

140

See Driver 1891: 186; Alfrink 1943: 106–18; Halpern and Vanderhooft 1991: 179– 244; Naʾaman 2004: 245–56; Suriano 2010: 33–97. The manner of death is also significant to and is regularly stated in the Mesopotamian Chronicles (Glassner 2004: 80–1). 141 See Halpern and Vanderhooft 1991: 215. 142 Suriano (2010: 40–1) is critical of drawing false analogies between the burial formulae in 1–2 Kings and the so-called “Dynastic Chronicle.” Although the fifth column of that chronicle contains burial notices, he draws attention in the Dynastic Chronicle to the absence of any report on the manner of a king’s death; see also Van Seters (1983: 298 n. 26) on the analogical relationship of 1–2 Kings to the Dynastic Chronicle.

104

Chapter Three: The Basic Framework

Kudur-(Nahhunte), king of Elam, was taken prisoner in a rebellion and was killed. For ten months Kudur-(Nahhunte) ruled Elam (1: iii 14–15) On the seventh day of the month Adar Humban-nimena, king of Elam, died. For four years Humban-nimena ruled Elam (1: iii 25–26) On the twenty-third day of the month Tishri Humban-[hal]tesh (I), king of Elam, became paralyzed at noon-hour and died at sunset. For eight years Humban-[hal]tesh (I) ruled Elam (1: iii 30–32) Humban-haltash (II), king of Elam, without becoming ill, died in his palace. For five/six years Humban-haltesh (II) ruled Elam (1: iv 11–12 // 14: 16–17) The twelfth year: The king of Assyria . . . became ill on the way and died on the tenth day of the month Marchesvan. For twelve years Esarhaddon ruled Assyria (1: iv 30–32 // 14: 28–30) On the night of the eleventh of the month Marchesvan Ugbaru died (ABC 7: iii 22) [no regnal year total is provided] Assyrian Fragment 4 [Marduk-nādin-aḫḫē, king of] Karduniaš, died. Marduk-[šāpik]-zēri entered upon hi[s father’s throne]. Eighteen years (of reign) of Marduk-[nādin-aḫ]ḫē.

The style of the death notices in the Mesopotamian chronicles is different from those of 1–2 Kings, following more of an “annalistic” style. In three cases (1: i 11; iv 11 // 14: 16) it is specifically mentioned that the king died in his palace, which resembles vaguely the statements involving death and burial in the City of David for Judahite kings or in Tirzah or Samaria for Israelite kings. The fourteenth year: Nabu-nasir became ill and died in his palace. For fourteen years Nabunasir ruled Babylon (ABC 1: i 11–12) Humban-haltash (II), king of Elam, without becoming ill, died in his palace. For five/six years Humban-haltesh (II) ruled Elam (1: iv 11–12 // 14: 16–17)

In two parallel cases (1: iv 30–1 // 14: 28–29), the Assyrian king is reported as dying “on the way” in campaign. The twelfth year: The king of Assyria . . . became ill on the way and died on the tenth day of the month Marchesvan. For twelve years Esarhaddon ruled Assyria (1: iv 30–32 // 14: 28–30)

However, the Neo-Babylonian chronicles belonging to Category A never mention that the king was buried, an idea that may have been implicit, though hardly in the case of death while on military campaign (e.g., ABC 1: iv 30–1 // 14: 28–29). Only the fifth column of the so-called “Dynastic Chronicle” (belonging to Category B) mentions a series of kings who were buried.

3.6. The Death and Burial Notices

105

Table 6. Burial Formulae in the Dynastic “Chronicle” Simbar-shihu, son of Eriba-Sin . . . ruled for seventeen years. He was buried in the palace of Sargon (ABC 18: v 3–4). Ea-mukin-zeri, the usurper, son of Hashmar, ruled for three months. He was buried in the swamp of Bit-Hashmar (18: v 5–6). Kashshu-nadin-ahi, son of SAPpaya, ruled for three years. In the palace (ABC 18: v 7). [E]ulmash-shakin-shumi, son of Bazi, ruled for fourteen year. [He was buried] in the palace of Kar-Marduk (18: v 9). [Shirikti]-Shuqamuna, DITTO (i.e., son of Bazi), ruled for three months. He was [. . .] in the palace of [ . . .] (18: v 11). [Mar-biti-apla-usu]r, descendant . . . Elam, ruled for six years. He was buried in the palace of Sargon (18: v 13–14).

Comparison with 1–2 Kings suggests that the Neo-Babylonian Chronicles did not directly influence the death and burial notices of the framework; rather, it suggests a local Israelite or levantine derivation for the burial formulae. In accordance with an annalistic style, the Neo-Babylonian death notices often use specific dates involving not only the year of death, but also the month and day. This stylistic feature does not have a parallel in Kings (see above 3.3). The single mention of the burial of the “usurper” Ea-mukin-zeri in the swamp of Bit-Hashmar demonstrates that pretenders to the throne could be cursed with non-burial or burial unbefitting royalty.143 Moreover, Ea-mukinzeri reigned for only three months, a short time in comparison with the majority of the other kings buried in palaces. As will be observed below (3.6.3), this parallels the potential literary function of the Garden of Uzza in the epilogues belonging to Amon and perhaps to Manasseh and Jehoiakim as well as the lack of burial notice in the reigns of the northern kings. A parallel occurs in the Aramaic Tel Dan inscription (ninth century B.C.E.): “And my father lay down, he went to his [fathers]” wyškb . ʾby . yhk . ʾl[ . ʾbhw]h (KAI 310: 3).144 In Suriano’s view, Hazael used the idiom to claim 143

Grayson 1975a: 40–1; cf. Adam 2007: 202. This reading assumes that the restoration proposed by Biran and Naveh is correct in its orientation of fragments A and B; followed by Suriano 2007: 163–76. Contrary to Athas’ (2003: 92–3) argument against the standard epigraphic orientation of the Tel Dan inscription, also affecting the interpretation of what has been designated as line 3. In his view, fragment B should not be placed to the left of fragment A but probably should be placed below A, with the result that the hē from fragment B can no longer assist in reconstructing line 3 of fragment A. His argument is rendered difficult by the fact that scholars who have 144

106

Chapter Three: The Basic Framework

political legitimacy through dynastic succession.145 This parallels the death formula in 1–2 Kings and indicates that such formulae were conventional to royal memorial inscriptions. In addition, the root škb appears in a number of the Phoenician funerarydedicatory inscriptions with the meaning “to lie down (in a grave).” “In this grave, in which I am lying” bmškb zn ʾš ʾnk škb bn (KAI 9 A 3 – ca. 500 B.C.E.). “In this coffin I, BTNʿN, mother of King ʿZBʿL . . . am lying” bʾdn zn ʾnk btnʿn ʾm mlk ʿzbʿl . . . škbt (KAI 11, ca. 350 B.C.E.). “I, Tabnit, Priest of Aštart, King of the Sidonian, son of Eshmunazar, Priest of Aštart, King of the Sidonians, am lying in this coffin” ʾnk tbnt khn ʿštrt mlk ṣdnm bn ʾšmnzr khn ʾštrt mlk ṣdnm škb bʾdn z (KAI 13:2, sixth century B.C.E.).

The inscription on the sarcophagus of Eshmunazar (fifth century B.C.E.) contains a curse against any usurper who would attempt to open Eshmunazar’s resting place or bear him away. As for any king or any man, who opens upon this resting place or who lifts up the coffin of my resting place or who bears me up from this resting place, may they not possess a resting place with the Rephaim and may they not be buried in a grave. May they possess neither son nor seed in their place. May the holy gods deliver them to a mighty king who rules over them in order to extirpate them. kkl mmlkt wkl ʾdm ʾš yptḥ ʿlt mškb z ʾm ʾš yšʾ ʾyt ḥlt mškby ʾm ʾš yʿmsn bmškb z ʾl ykn lm mškb ʾt rpʾm wʾl yqbr bqbr wʾl ykn lm bn wzrʿ tḥtnm wysgrnm hʾlnm hqdšm ʾt mmlk ʾdr ʾš mšl bnm lqṣtnm (KAI 14: 6–10).

Suriano has called attention to the order of the ideological complex of deathburial-succession in the three expressions, “may they not possess a resting place (mškb) with the Rephaim,” “may they not be buried (qbr N-stem) in a tomb,” and “may they possess neither son nor seed in their place (tḥt).”146 This corresponds to the tripartite structure of the death, burial, and succession notices of the Israelite and Judahite kings (bk#$ “to lie down”; rbq (niph.) “to be buried”/(qal) “to bury”; wytxt “in his place”). In addition, the curse denies the usurper the possibility of “possessing a resting place with the Rephaim,” which Suriano compares with the death idiom “to lie down with one’s fathers” in 1–2 Kings. This structural comparison is insightful for demonstrating the commonality between the biblical and Phoenician milieus.

seen the reverse of the inscription have noted that the material join of the two fragments is sound (Hasegawa 2012: 38). For a positive review of Athas’ work, see Pardee 2006: 289– 91; contrast the more critical appraisals of Younger (2005: 246 n. 3) and Hasegawa (2012: 37). 145 Suriano 2007: 165. In Suriano’s view, Hazael’s dynastic claim may not have been actual but only a “matter of perspective.” 146 Suriano 2010: 155–6.

3.6. The Death and Burial Notices

107

What appears to be common to both is the use of the ideology of ancestry for claiming royal legitimacy. 3.6.2. Semantics The standard peaceful-death theory regarding the expression “he lay down with his fathers” has recently met with opposition. In particular, Suriano has argued that the expression occurs only in examples where a son follows his father in succession and thus does not signify the manner of death but symbolizes and buttresses the patrimonial dynastic claim.147 If Suriano if correct, this would have import for the purpose in composing the framework. As I hope to make clear, both the standard peaceful-death theory in addition to arguments for the death and burial formulae as indicators of dynastic legitimation are valid. The king’s natural death and the exercise of venerated rituals on his behalf were significant for dynastic succession. Suriano points to the reigns of Ahab (1 Kgs 22:40), Amaziah (2 Kgs 14:22), and Josiah (2 Kgs 22:20) as cases where the expression is used despite the fact that these kings die violently. However, there are problems with all three examples employed by Suriano, as the account of Ahab’s violent death is probably late and the other two cases do not occur in the epilogues belonging to Amaziah’s and Josiah’s reigns. As Suriano points out himself, 2 Kgs 14:22 is probably a secondary insertion and thus is not necessarily consistent in perspective with the regnal epilogues of the original framework.148 Also contested is the referent of “the king” in 14:22, whether it is the Edomite king,149 Azariah,150 Joash of Israel,151 or Amaziah.152 The expression “he lay down with his fathers” in Josiah’s reign does not occur in that king’s epilogue, and the nature of the expression “to be gathered to his fathers” in Huldah’s prophecy is disputed (2 Kgs 22:20). None of these problematic texts can be ascribed to the original framework of the HH. Although the expression “to lie down with his fathers” may originally have signified burial with one’s ancestors,153 it is distinguished from the burial notices in Kings and elsewhere. According to Gen 47:30, Jacob expresses his wish to be buried with Abraham and Isaac after he dies, “When I lie down

147

Ibid. 41–50. Ibid. 86. 149 Alfrink 1943: 109. 150 Naʾaman 1993: 229. 151 Halpern and Vanderhooft 1991: 186–8. 152 Suriano 2010: 85 n. 64. 153 Stade 1887: I, 421; Alfrink 1943: 106. 148

108

Chapter Three: The Basic Framework

with my fathers, transport me from Egypt and bury me in their burial place.”154 Thus, the expression denotes a statement on a specific type of death. In 1–2 Kings, the expression “to lie down with his fathers” also operates as a statement of death followed by the separate expression denoting burial, “to be buried with one’s fathers.”155 The expression “to lie down with his fathers” occupies precisely the same position as in cases where a king is struck dead or commits suicide; these latter cases make use of the Hebrew verb twm “to die” rather than bk#$ “to lie down.”156 If the second expression were merely intended to designate the location – and not the fact – of the burial place, it could have been removed, resulting in the following formulation: “RN lay down with his fathers in the City of David.” Since the threat of non-burial was a frequent theme in royal and legal curse formulae, it was necessary to specify whether or not the king was indeed buried after death, especially in cases of assassination. A king who meets a violent end may still be buried with his fathers in the City of David, as seen in the examples of Ahaziah (2 Kgs 9:28 ≈ 4 Reg 10:36+), Jehoash (12:21–22), Amaziah (2 Kgs 14:19–20). According to Suriano’s view, these cases should also have employed the expression “he lay down with his fathers,” since their sons follow them as successors. The verb twm (qal) “to die,” used to denote a violent death, does not necessarily indicate non–succession or irregular succession but that the king was killed in a coup; for it is almost invariably found in collocation with the verbs hkn (hi.) “to strike (dead)” or twm (hi.) “to kill,” where the king is the object.157 Note the example of Jehoash: “His servants struck him down and he died (whkh tmyw wydb(), and they buried him with his fathers in the City of David” (2 Kgs 12:22). This death notice of Jehoash lacks the expression “he lay down with his fathers,” yet 12:22 states that he was buried with his fathers in the City of David and was succeeded by his son, Amaziah, indicating that the expression refers to the manner of the king’s death and not strictly to burial or legitimate succession. Similarly, there are cases in both Kings and Chronicles

154

See Alfrink 1943: 107. Similar cases with the phrase “to be gathered to one’s people” occur at Gen 25:8–9 and 35:29. 155 Of particular significance is the collocation of twm and bk#$ evidenced at 3 Reg 2:1 in LXXL; see Trebolle 1980: 244–8; cf. Gen 47:29–31; 50:16 and Deut 31:14–16, 29. 156 Compare the examples with bk#$ (kings of Judah: 1 Kgs 2:10; 11:43; 14:31; 15:8, 24; 22:51 = 3 Reg 16:28h (lacking “his father”); 2 Kgs 8:24; 15:7, 38; 16:20; 20:21; 21:18; 24:6; kings of Israel: 1 Kgs 14:20; 16:6, 28; 22:40; 2 Kgs 10:25; 13:9, 13; 14:16, 29; 15:22) to the examples with twm (kings of Judah: 2 Kgs 9:27–28 ≈ 4 Reg 10:36+; 2 Kgs 11:16; 12:21–22; 14:19–20; 21:23, 26; 23:29–30; 23:34; 24:14; 25:7b; kings of Israel: 1 Kgs 15:27–28; 16:10; 22:35b, 37; 2 Kgs 1:17; 9:24; 15:10, 14, 25, 30). 157 Halpern and Vanderhooft 1991: 190; kings of Judah: 2 Kgs 9:27; 2 Kgs 12:21–22; 14:19–20; 21:23, 29b–30a; kings of Israel: 1 Kgs 15:27–28; 16:10; 22:34, 2 Kgs 9:24; 15:10, 14, 25, 30.

3.6. The Death and Burial Notices

109

that make use of the expression “to lie down with his fathers,” but the king is not stated to have been buried with his fathers.158 The expression “to lie down with his father’s” is not a pleonasm of the following burial notice but is a death notice. The expression “with his fathers” is used differently depending on whether it occurs as part of the death notice or whether it is incorporated in the burial notice. With the verb bk#$ “to lie down,” the expression is always in attendance, even in the cases of the founders of dynasties, such as David (1 Kgs 2:10), Jeroboam (1 Kgs 14:20), Baasha (1 Kgs 16:6), Omri (1 Kgs 16:28), Jehu (2 Kgs 10:25), and Menahem (2 Kgs 15:22). However, with rbq (niph.) “to be buried”/(qal) “to bury,” the expression “with his fathers” is only used in the Judahite burial notices for kings removed two or more generations from the dynastic founder (Rehoboam, 1 Kgs 14:31). One may compare to these Judahite notices the northern expression “with the kings of Israel” in the burial notices belonging to Joash (2 Kgs 13:13; 14:16) and Jeroboam II (14:29). These two kings are removed from Jehu by two and three generations, respectively. If the expression “to lie down with his fathers” implies burial, it is not in the same sense of the burial expression “to be buried with his fathers.” Thus, the death notice, though having legitimating ramifications rooted in dynastic succession is not one of two burial notices and thus does not explicitly pertain to burial rites. The perspective of the historical narrative maintains that the king’s natural death in normal circumstances was an indication of the security of his son’s succession to the throne over against marking the surrender of the dynasty in military defeat or assassination. Instead of eschewing the peaceful-death view (at least for 1–2 Kings), Suriano has actually gone a long way in describing what natural death might have signified for royal succession in Kings. His work demonstrates, however, the limitations of focusing only on the manner of death, as the death idiom is directly linked with the following burial and succession notices. These formulae concern the place of burial (“the City of David”), royal patrimony (“his fathers”), and immediate succession (“in his place”). The epilogue thus frames the history in terms of a royal ideology that incorporated Jerusalem as its capital (of which the “City of David” was a portion) and legitimized David and his heirs. 3.6.3. As Evidence for the HH The investigation into the death and burial notices of the epilogues of 1–2 Kings has resulted in two general explanations for the inconsistencies among 158 Alfrink 1943: 106. The kings in question are: David (1 Kgs 1:21; 2:10; 11:21); Ahaz, 2 Chr 28:27 (MT: “in the city, in Jerusalem”; LXX: “in the City of David”); Hezekiah, 2 Chr 32:33: “in the ascent of the tombs the sons of David”; Manasseh, 2 Kgs 21:28: “in the Garden of Uzza”; 2 Chr 33:20; Josiah, 2 Kgs 23:30 “they buried him in his own burial place”; but see 2 Chr 35:24 (MT: “in the tombs of his fathers”; LXX: “in the tombs of David”).

110

Chapter Three: The Basic Framework

the formulae. Either the incongruity of the death and burial notices indicates the diverse ideological perspectives of various authors responsible for the composition of Kings or they reflect an actual change in practice for royal burials and thus do not require recourse to a redactional explanation. One may also maintain a priori that these two explanations are not mutually exclusive. As indications of the composite nature of the epilogue-formulae, Begrich discerned in his Die Chronologie der Könige von Israel und Juda und die Quellen des Rahmens der Königsbücher five variations in the death and burial notices of the Judahite regnal epilogues.159 Begrich’s First Formula

wäønV;b M¶D¥yIbSa JKöølVmˆ¥yÅw dYˆw∂;d ry∞IoV;b ‹wyDtObSa_MIo r§Eb∂;qˆ¥yÅw wy#DtObSa_MIo M%DoVbAj√r b°A;kVvˆ¥yÅw wy`D;tVjA;t

1 Kgs 14:31 Rehoboam

Rehoboam lay down with his fathers and was buried with his fathers in the City of David and Abijam his son reigned in his place. Begrich’s Second Formula

f¶DpDvwøh◊y JKöølVmˆ¥yÅw wy¡IbDa d∞Iw∂;d ry™IoV;b wy$DtObSa_MIo ‹rEb∂;qˆ¥yÅw wy$DtObSa_MIo ‹aDsDa b§A;kVvˆ¥yÅw wy`D;tVjA;t wäønV;b

1 Kgs 15:24 Asa

Asa lay down with his fathers and was buried with his fathers in the City of David, his father, and Jehoshaphat his son reigned in his place.

The basic difference, which in my opinion is negligible, between the first and second formulae is the addition of the word wyb) “his father.” Its absence in the LXX (including the Lucianic witnesses) is strong textual evidence to regard it as secondary. The other references that Begrich classifies under this second type are equally called into question through observations from textual criticism. The presence of “his father” in 1 Kgs 22:51 is not reflected in the text of the LXX at 3 Reg 16:28h just as it is not reflected in Jotham’s epilogue at 2 Reg 15:38 (LXXL and OL).160 Begrich’s second pattern thus cannot be distinguished from the first type. Begrich’s Third Formula

wy`D;tVjA;t wäønVb a¶DsDa JKöølVmˆ¥yÅw d¡Iw∂;d ry∞IoV;b wäøtOa …wõrV;bVqˆ¥yÅw wy$DtObSa_MIo ‹MÎ¥yIbSa b§A;kVvˆ¥yÅw

Abijam lay down with his fathers and they buried him in the City of David and Asa his son reigned in his place.

1 Kgs 15:8 Abijam

The two divergences in the third formula are, first, the use of the Qal stem of the verb rbq with a direct object (literally, “they buried him”) and, secondly, 159

Begrich 1929: 192–4. Similarly, Halpern and Vanderhooft (1991: 192 n. 28), who, however, regard “his father” as original in 1 Kgs 11:43. This is supported by text-critical evidence and by the logic of the text, since David is actually Solomon’s father. 160

3.6. The Death and Burial Notices

111

the absence of a second use of the phrase “with his fathers.” However, as Begrich points out, other textual witnesses, particularly those of the Lucianic recension, retain the passive voice of the verb “to bury” at 1 Kgs 15:8 and 3 Reg 15:38 (LXXL). The use of the Qal stem with an object at 2 Kgs 12:22 is common with violent deaths, such as Joash experiences at the hands of his assassins (cf. 1 Kgs 14:18; 22:37; 2 Kgs 9:28; 10:35 [LXXL]; 12:22; 15:7 [LXXL]; 21:26). As a rule, the rulers who experience peaceful deaths possess epilogues with the verb rbq in the niphal stem (passive voice in Greek). Secondly, the absence of the repetition of “with the fathers” as part of the burial notice is also questionable from the perspective of textual criticism. All three texts that Begrich cites (1 Kings 15:8; 2 Kgs; 12:22; 15:7) include the phrase in association with the Judahite kings’ burial in the city of David, according to the LXX. In fact, the MT contains the phrase at 2 Kgs 12:22 and 15:7, so that one must conclude here again that Begrich has not satisfactorily demonstrated a true divergence in the formulae of the death and burial notice among his first, second, and third patterns. Begrich’s Fourth Formula wy`D;tVjA;t wäønVb h¶RÚvÅnVm JKöølVmˆ¥yÅw (. . .) wy¡DtObSa_MIo …wh™D¥yIq◊zIj b¶A;kVvˆ¥yÅw Hezekiah lay down with his fathers (…) and Manasseh his son reign in his place.

2 Kgs 20:21 Hezekiah

The fourth formula only occurs in the MT in Hezekiah’s epilogue and in Jehoiakim’s epilogue (2 Kgs 24:6). All other examples that Begrich included in this pattern are from LXXA but are not supported by LXXB or LXXL (2 Kgs 8:24; 15:7, 38). He also overlooked the reading of LXXL/OL 2 Kgs 20:21 that includes the phrase, “and he was buried with his fathers in the city of David,” which would make Hezekiah’s epilogue identical with all of the other Judahite kings. On the other hand, Begrich pointed out that LXXL offers a variant reading for Jehoiakim’s epilogue: “and he was buried in the Garden of Oza with his fathers.”161 This reading, as he indicated, becomes significant when one compares it to his fifth formula. Begrich’s Fifth Formula

wäønV;b NwñømDa JKöølVmˆ¥yÅw a¡D%zUo_NÅgV;b wäøtyE;b_NÅgV;b r¶Eb∂;qˆ¥yÅw wy$DtObSa_MIo ‹hRÚvÅnVm b§A;kVvˆ¥yÅw wy`D;tVjA;t

2 Kgs 21:18 Manasseh

Manasseh lay down with his fathers and was buried in the garden of his house in the Garden of Uzza and Amon his son reigned in his place.

Begrich noted that LXXL lacks the MT’s “in the garden of his house” but only mentions that Manasseh was buried “in the garden of Uzza.” Together with 161

Begrich 1929: 193.

112

Chapter Three: The Basic Framework

Manasseh’s death and burial notice, he grouped the similar notices belonging to Amon’s epilogue.

wy`D;tVjA;t wäønVb …wh¶D¥yIvaøy JKöølVmˆ¥yÅw a¡D%zUo_NÅgV;b wäøt∂rUbVqI;b wöøtOa rñOV;bVqˆ¥yÅw One buried him in his own grave in the Garden of Uzza and Josiah his son reigned in his place.

2 Kgs 21:26 Amon

However, here again, one must point out (as Begrich did) that LXXL reads, “they buried Amon in the grave of his father in the garden of Oza.”162 He then pointed to the LXXL’s reading at 4 Reg 24:6, “Jehoiakim lay down with his fathers and he was buried in the garden of Oza with his fathers,” and he calls attention to the coherent nature of the Lucianic version in terms of the epilogues of Manasseh, Amon, and Jehoiakim (2 Kgs 21:18, 26 [agreeing with the MT]; 23:30). Those three epilogues refer to the garden of Uzza/Oza, and the phrase “with his fathers” is used a second time with reference to Jehoiakim, as he had two fathers with whom he could be buried, namely, Manasseh and Amon.163 In addition, the burial notice belonging to Josiah reads in the MT 2 Kgs 23:30, “They buried him in his own grave,” whereas LXXL reads, “They buried him in his own grave in the city of David.” From these observations on the fifth formula, Begrich concluded that the death and burial notices from Manasseh to Jehoiakim, as represented in the Lucianic recension, were taken from a chronicle separate from other chronicles used for the composition of 1–2 Kings. Although Begrich failed to make a strong case for the distinct nature of the initial four formulae of his classification, his fifth formula involving the three notices of burial in the garden of Uzza/Oza as well as the distinctiveness of Josiah’s burial notice requires further consideration. Provan concluded that the death and burial notices in Kings signal a change in authorship between the reigns from Rehoboam to Hezekiah and those from Manasseh to Zedekiah. He observed that the phrase, “he was buried with his fathers in the city of David” is present in all of the epilogues belonging to the reigns from Rehoboam to Ahaz but is absent from all of the following burial notices beginning with Hezekiah. According to Provan, a change in authorship is signaled by this change in formulaic expression. The block of material from Rehoboam to Ahaz focused on the burial of the Judahite kings in “David’s city” (following Provan’s use of italics; see 1 Kgs 15:4), whereas the later authors of Kings responsible for the epilogues after Ahaz emphasized the city of Jerusalem as YHWH’s “chosen” abode (see 1 Kgs 11:13, 32). This is consistent with the use of David for the sake of the evaluative comparisons/contrasts with the royal predecessors (see 4.4) and points to David as a 162

Ibid. 194. See Yeivin 1948: 34. The reading of LXX at 2 Chr 36:8 also follows that of LXXL at 4 Reg 24:6. 163

3.6. The Death and Burial Notices

113

pivotal literary symbol in the prologue as well as in the epilogue (see above 3.6.2). Provan drew two additional conclusions. First, he concluded that Hezekiah’s burial notice was added after the Hezekian edition of Kings had been composed, the latter having originally ended at 2 Kgs 19:37. Second, he opined that the use or absence of the phrase “with the fathers” in the burial notices after Ahaz does not reflect any alteration in ideological perspective or actual practice but is simply a matter of stylistic preference. Provan did not defend his use of the MT over LXXL: his assertion that “the city of David” is absent after Ahaz overlooks its presence in LXXL at 2 Kgs 20:21 (Hezekiah) and 23:30 (Josiah).164 Furthermore, the phrase, “with his fathers” occurs after Ahaz in LXXL, again, at 2 Kgs 20:21 (Hezekiah) and one other time at 2 Kgs 24:6 in the burial notice belonging to Jehoiakim’s epilogue (cf. 2 Chr 36:8, LXX). Furthermore, the phrase, “with his fathers,” is not actually reflected in Ahaz’s burial notice in LXXB and LXXL at 2 Kgs 16:20. Thus, Provan’s conclusion that “with the fathers” was present until the reign of Ahaz and was totally absent afterwards is perhaps weakened by these further observations. As there is a strong evidence suggesting that in several cases the Hebrew Vorlage of LXXL was more original than the MT,165 one could perhaps conclude that Hezekiah’s burial notice in fact contained the phrase “he was buried with his fathers in the city of David.” This does not necessitate that the phrase was originally part of the HH, but the variant reading in the Lucianic witnesses might weaken the validity of the phrase’s absence from the MT as a support for the ending of the history at 2 Kgs 19:37. One must be able either to demonstrate the originality of the MT over against LXXL in these cases or otherwise to accept that the burial notice does not furnish evidence for the original conclusion of the HH. Halpern and Vanderhooft are the first, to my knowledge, to offer a cogent explanation for the differences between the MT and LXXL with respect to the death and burial notices.166 They are in essential agreement with Provan that there is an authorial break between Hezekiah’s and Manasseh’s reigns, as indicated by the absence of the burial notice in Hezekiah’s epilogue (2 Kgs 20:21, MT), by the change to Manasseh’s burial in the Garden of Uzza/Oza (21:18), and by the absence of a reference to “the city of David” in Josiah’s epilogue (23:30, MT). However, they support the readings of the MT over

164

See already Begrich 1929:193–4. Shenkel 1968; Trebolle 1980; idem 1984; Catastini 1989: 322–4; Tov 1999: 477–88; cf. Law 2011: 280–97 (at nn. 2 and 18 with literature). 166 Halpern and Vanderhooft 1991: 195–6 n. 36. Adam (2007: 210 n. 151) is approving of Provan’s and Halpern’s/Vanderhooft’s argumentation concerning the use of the death and burial notices as an indication of a textual break at Hezekiah’s reign. 165

114

Chapter Three: The Basic Framework

against those of LXXL concerning these specific notices with the following incisive statement: As the present condition of MT can in none of these verses be explained as the product of common scribal errors, one must reconstruct either deliberate disfigurement of MT or fitful scribal systematization of the formulary in the Greek. Of the alternatives, the latter is by far the more benign assumption. In this instance, MT preserves the more conservative tradition reflecting variation in the construction of the DBF.167

In other words, Halpern and Vanderhooft rightly underscore that a more straightforward reading will regard the MT’s reading at 2 Kgs 20:21 as superior to LXXL/OL. The omissions can be adequately explained neither on the basis of common, involuntary scribal mistakes, such as haplography, nor by means of voluntary modification. On the other hand, that LXXL has systemized the death and burial formulae into a coherent piece on the basis of the more laconic MT yields a good deal of explanatory power.168 The purpose of the addition of “he was buried with his fathers in the city of David” was to show that Hezekiah’s burial was legitimate (2 Kgs 20:21); so, too, the expression “in the city of David” added to Josiah’s reign was for the same reason (23:30). The phrase “with his fathers” was perhaps omitted from Ahaz’s epilogue to demonstrate that not being buried with his predecessors resulted from faithlessness (16:20; cf. 16:2). Consequently, I agree with the view of Halpern and Vanderhooft that “for the purpose of stratifying the literary history of Kings, one of the most telling regnal formulae is the Death and Burial Formula.”169 They highlight the contrast between the northern and southern kings through the application of the death and burial notices from Rehoboam to Ahaz. Every Judahite king down to Ahaz is said to have been “buried with his fathers in the city of David,” whereas a similar statement of burial does not occur in every reign of the kings of Israel.170 Even the Judahite kings who are reportedly assassinated or killed in battle are buried nonetheless (Ahaziah, 2 Kgs 9:27–28; Jehoash 2 Kgs 12:21–22; Amaziah 2 Kgs 14:19–20), whereas 167

Halpern and Vanderhooft 1991: 196 n. 36. A similar systematization has also been maintained for the royal chronologies of Manuscript c2, one of the textual witnesses of the LXXL tradition (boc2e2), in Galil (1996: 130–3). As further indications of the systematization in OG, Halpern and Vanderhooft also point to Joash’s closing formula at 2 Kgs 13:25, the substitution of Rehoboam for Judah at 1 Kgs 14:22, the simple formula for Rehoboam at 3 Reg 12:24a (“he did evil in YHWH’s sight and did not go in the way of David, his father,” and the addition of “and all that he did” after the source citations in Amaziah’s and Hezekiah’s epilogues (2 Kgs 14:18; 20:20). 169 Halpern and Vanderhooft 1991: 183. 170 There is no notice of burial in the epilogues belonging to Jeroboam (1 Kgs 14:20), Nadab (1 Kgs 15:27–28), Elah (1 Kgs 16:10), Ahaziah (2 Kgs 1:17), Joram (2 Kgs 9:24), Zechariah (2 Kgs 15:10), Shallum (2 Kgs 15:14), Menahem (2 Kgs 15:22), Pekahiah (2 Kgs 15:25), Pekah (2 Kgs 15:30), and Hoshea (2 Kgs 17:4b). 168

3.6. The Death and Burial Notices

115

nothing is said about the burial of the two Israelite kings who die peacefully (Jeroboam, 1 Kgs 14:20; Menahem, 2 Kgs 15:22). Every Judahite king down to Ahaz was buried “with his fathers,” while no Israelite king is said to have been buried “with his fathers.” Even in the case of the Nimshide dynasty, which lasted five generations, the burial notices state that they were interred “with the kings of Israel” (Joash, 2 Kgs 13:13; Jehoash, 2 Kgs 14:16; Jeroboam II, 2 Kgs 14:29), not with their fathers. Solomon is also said to have been buried in the city of David, his father in 1 Kgs 11:43. In light of these observations, Halpern and Vanderhooft rightly conclude that the absence of the mention the fathers in the burial notices of the northern kings and its consistent use in the burial notices down to Ahaz was for the purpose of contrasting the continuous line of the Davidic house with the volatility of the northern houses.171 I have already stressed this motive in conjunction with the formulae concerning the synchronistic structure, the naming of the queen mother, and the source citations. As mentioned above, another group of scholars has maintained that the death and burial notices reflect actual practices in the royal context of burial.172 The French scholar Raymond Weill excavated the “City of David” (the Ophel) in search of the royal tombs of the Judahite kings referenced in 1–2 Kings down to Ahaz. Uncovering a series of partially preserved caves hewn out of stone near the southern edge of the City of David, Weill considered these caves to be the royal tombs to which the Book of Kings alludes.173 Since these tombs were intramural, they eventually came to present a problem for the later Priestly notions of impurity. Corpses or graves caused people who came into contact with them or even the temple space to become impure (Numb 19:16, 18; Ezek 43:7–9). In the days of Hezekiah and later kings, the remains of the tombs were emptied and transferred outside of the city walls, as indicated by the reference to Manasseh’s burial in the garden of Uzza.174 171 Halpern and Vanderhooft 1991: 193, 194; see Suriano 2010: 166–7. Cf. Jepsen (1956: 38), who included the death and burial formulae in his synchronistic chronicle. 172 See Bin-Nun 1968: 430–31; McKenzie 1991: 117–8 n. 1; Schmidt 1996: 250–54; Naʾaman 2004: 245–54; Suriano 2010: 98–126. McKenzie allows, however, that the absence of “with his fathers” and “in the City of David” from the burial notices of the Judahite rulers may suggest a change “in the records used by Dtr as sources.” 173 Weill 1920: 35–8. Weill’s location of the royal tombs on the southern slope of the “City of David” (the Ophel) was followed in Montgomery and Gehmen 1951: 90; Noth 1968: 32; Würthwein 1977: 21. Yeivin (1948: 30–45) argued that the location of the royal tombs was moved (still within the city walls) when it had become full. However, it has been demonstrated that single-chambered tombs could serve multiple generations up to one hundred family members, since bones and gifts were moved into a repository (Bloch-Smith 2002: 123, 128–9; Fantalkin 2008: 24). Overflow does not seem to have represented a real problem in the royal context of ancient Judah. 174 This notion has been recently put forth in Naʾaman 2004: 245–54; cf. Stavrakopoulou 2006: 7–8; Suriano 2010: 102–3. This notion of impurity in the late monarchic period would

116

Chapter Three: The Basic Framework

However, recent scholars have not followed Weill in his designation of the caves of the City of David as the royal tombs, especially as the unusual shape of the caves do not match the character of elite Judahite burials elsewhere. Ussishkin pointed out that that the Iron Age tombs in Silwan were more “monumental” and used a “much higher standard of stone-dressing” than the crudely fashioned caves that Weill designated as royal.175 Naʾaman has written recently on the death and burial formulae in Kings. Owing to the fact that he is critical of the view that an earlier history of the monarchy ended at Hezekiah’s account, it is necessary to evaluate the considerations of his essay in more detail. He is not inclined to pinpoint an exact location for the royal tombs of the Judahite kings on the basis of archaeological evidence.176 Instead, he determines their location through the correlation of statements from other biblical texts with the burial formulae in Kings. He nevertheless draws the same conclusions already offered by Weill, maintaining that the royal tombs mentioned in the epilogues from David until Ahaz were intramural whereas the later tombs (including the Garden of Uzza) were extramural on account of the concern for impurity laws (see Ezek 43:7–9). The omission of a burial notice at Hezekiah’s epilogue (2 Kgs 20:21), according to Naʾaman, was for the purpose of dissociating the righteous Hezekiah from the wicked Manasseh, although in reality they shared the same burial location in the Garden of Uzza. He maintains that the earlier tombs of the Judahite rulers were also buried in or nearby the royal palace within the city walls.177 He identifies the Garden of Uzza with the “royal garden” (Klmh Ng) apparently have had to predate the P-source in accordance with standard Pentateuchal criticism; for a critique of this alleged association between Priestly impurity and actual burial practices of late monarchic Judah, see Suriano 2010: 103 n. 24, 110. 175 Ussishkin 1970: 46; see idem 1993: 298–9; cf. Naʾaman 2004: 247–8. Zorn (2006: 805–12) has noted, however, that royal tombs can be distinctive from other types of elite burials. Thus, Ussishkin’s objection cannot be taken as conclusive, although I regard it as a strong objection. As Suriano (2010: 119 n. 36) points out, if the recent identification of the two Iron Age subterranean features at Samaria beneath the palace as royal Israelite tombs is to be accepted, then there may prove to be adequate parallels to demonstrate the expected character of the Judahite royal tombs. Based on the present condition of the structures identified by Weill as royal tombs and the fact that they cannot be linked directly to the context of the Iron Age, Suriano (ibid. 107–8) concludes that it is not possible to know whether they are the Judahite royal tombs. 176 Naʾaman 2004: 245–54; similarly, Suriano 2010: 100–18. 177 Ibid. 248–9 (with literature). Naʾaman notes the recent possible identification of the tombs of Omri and Ahab in the palace at Samaria (see Franklin 2003:1–11; cf. Ussishkin 2007: 49–70), the vaulted royal tombs at Calah, the palace-burials and “Mausolea” at Ur, the vaulted royal tomb beneath the palace of Ras Shamra as well as other royal graves in or by the palaces at Kamid el-Loz (Kumidi), Alalakh, Tel Mardikh (Ebla), Byblos, and Megiddo. Naʾaman also points to the fifth column of the “Dynastic Chronicle,” which reports repeatedly the burials of kings “in the palace”; see Grayson 1975a: 40–41, 142–3, 197–8.

3.6. The Death and Burial Notices

117

referenced in Neh 3:15; 2 Kgs 25:4; and Jer 52:7, asserting that “the garden of Uzza, which in 2 Kgs 21,18 is called ‘the garden of his house’, is clearly the King’s Garden mentioned in 2 Kgs 25,4; Jer 52,7 and Neh 3,15.”178 Unfortunately, as Naʾaman is unable to provide any supporting evidence for this identification of Garden of Uzza with the royal garden in Nehemiah, his assertion remains speculative as is his conclusion that the Garden of Uzza was located external to the city walls of Jerusalem.179 He criticizes Provan’s view that the Garden of Uzza, probably near Manasseh’s palace, was also located within the fortifications of Jerusalem, since, he argues, Provan fails to realize that kings could build and reside in more than one palace. However, if the burial notice of Manasseh’s epilogue (“in the garden of his house, in the Garden of Uzza” 2 Kgs 21:18) is to be accorded a measure of historical reliability, then I fail to see why Provan’s location of the Garden of Uzza within the city walls founders on the basis that kings could reside in multiple palaces or on the basis of Neh 3:15–16. This seems to contradict the Near Eastern evidence that Naʾaman himself furnishes in favor of an intramural burial beneath or nearby the royal palace.180 Suriano has also pointed out that it is implausible that the royal tombs would have been relocated outside of the Jerusalem’s fortifications at a time when Assyrian siege warfare was a material concern.181 Stavrakopoulou has criticized Naʾaman’s use of 2 Kgs 21:18 as a reliable historical source for the location of the royal tombs of Judah. She underscores the ideological perspective of 1–2 Kings in its negative evaluation of Manasseh, one that may have located Manasseh’s burial place in the Garden of Uzza (i.e., away from his fathers) as a consequence of his wickedness (2 Kgs 21:2).182 A similar reference to the burial of the usurper Ea-mukin-zeri, “in the swamp of Bit-Hashmur” in the fifth column of the “Dynastic Chronicle” provides a parallel example (see above 3.6.1).183 Second, through text-critical observations, Stavrakopoulou undermines the value of 2 Kgs 21:18 as a transparent reference to the Garden of Uzza. Whereas the MT of 2 Kgs 21:18 reads 178

Naʾaman 2004: 250. See already the critique of Naʾaman’s views in this regard in Stavrakopoulou 2006: 4. 180 See also Zorn 2006: 816; Suriano 2010: 55–9. 181 Suriano 2010: 63–7, 109, 116, 118. Suriano notes the evidence at Isa 22:8b–11 of efforts to fortify the water supply inside of Jerusalem’s walls (on Isa 22:8b–11 see Gallagher 1999: 64). He also points out that the Assyrian inscriptions testify to the desecration of burial sites in hostile lands; cf. Weinfeld 1972: 116–29, 140–41; Barrick 2002: 178–9 (with literature); see also Deut 28:26; 2 Kgs 23:16a; Jer 7:32–34; 8:1–3. Desecration of royal burials, furthermore, was the constant apprehension of Near Eastern rulers, who coveted the eternal protection of their burials (see KAI 1:2; 13:3–4; 14:3–12; 24:15–16; 191:2–3; 309:22–23). 182 Stavrakopoulou 2006: 18. This is clearest in the Lucianic witnesses at 2 Kgs 21:18, 26; and 24:6, which, however, are probably due to later scribal updating. 183 Grayson 1975a: 41, 143. 179

118

Chapter Three: The Basic Framework

)z(-Ngb wtyb-Ngb “in the garden of his house, in the Garden of Uzza,” 2 Chr 33:20 (MT) simply reads, “they buried him in his house.” The LXX of 2 Chr 33:20 reads, “in the garden of his house,” in partial agreement with 2 Kgs 21:18 (MT), but the LXXL at 3 Reg 21:18 reads only, “in the Garden of Uzza,” demonstrating again partial agreement with the MT but in opposition to 2 Chr 33:20. Stavrakopoulou rightly suggests that these intricate textual variations allow one to suppose that the MT’s reading at 2 Kgs 21:18 is conflate and that “the Garden of Uzza” was secondarily added to Manasseh’s epilogue to reinforce his negative evaluation.184 A similar addition may occur at 2 Kgs 24:6; as mentioned, the MT lacks a burial notice at Jehoiakim’s epilogue (it is absent at 2 Chr 36:8 of the LXX), whereas LXXL adds, “and he was buried in the garden of Oza (“Ganoza” 2 Chr 36:8, LXX) with his fathers.”185 If original to 2 Kgs 24:6, this variant reading would constitute the only burial notice provided for a king who had been captured and taken into exile (cf. 2 Kgs 23:34; 24:15; 25:7b). Admittedly, the omission of the expression is explainable in terms of scribal homoioteleuton: ʿm ʾbtyw [bgn ʿzʾ ʿm ʾbtyw] wymlk.186 Whatever the case, there is no conclusive argument against the reading of 2 Kgs 24:6 of the MT without reference to his burial (cf. 2 Kgs 20:21, MT): “Jehoiakim lay down with his fathers and Jehoiachin his son reigned in his place.”187 184 Stavrakopoulou 2006: 19–20; Macy (1975: 149) had already suggested the conflate reading of 2 Kgs 21:18. Differently, Halpern and Vanderhooft (1991: 194 n. 33) argued that the Old Greek Vorlage omitted a portion of the text by scribal homoioteleuton (bgn [bytw bgn] ʿzʾ) and that the double definition of Manasseh’s burial location through apposition is understandable in its first reference. In any case, two legitimate explanations are possible for the variant readings of Kings and Chronicles, rendering its trustworthiness as a source problematic. 185 Here again, there is evidence to regard LXXL as having systematized the burial notices of Manasseh (“in the Garden of Oza,” 2 Kgs 21:18), Amon (“in the burial of his father in the Garden of Oza,” 21:26), and Jehoiakim (“in the Garden of Oza with his fathers” 24:6). The same systematization is apparent in Josiah’s burial notice (“in his own burial in the City of David,” 23:30). The LXXL thereby seeks to inculpate the three wicked kings but associate the righteous Josiah with the earlier kings of Judah down to Hezekiah (“with his fathers in the City of David” 20:21). See Halpern and Vanderhooft 1991: 196 n. 36. 186 Nelson 1981: 86; Würthwein 1984: 469. Nelson points out that the burial notice of Jehoiakim may have been omitted due to the prophecy of non-burial at Jer 22:19. Neither of these explanations, however, are applicable to the omission of “and he was buried with his fathers in the City of David” in Hezekiah’s reign. 187 Lipschits 2002: § 4.4. Naʾaman (2004: 252–3) argues that Jehoiakim was buried within the city walls and that the reference to the Garden of Uzza was a later harmonization in the text to bring it into line with Jeremiah’s prophecies (Jer 22:19; 36:30), on the specious assumption that the burial was extramural. Würthwein (1984: 469) argues that the statement in Kings of Jehoiakim’s death is factually false at 2 Kgs 24:6, on account of the testimony of 24:10 and ABC 5 (Grayson 1975a: 102), which may bear witness to the fact that Jerusalem was besieged before the death of Jehoiakim (ibid. 471).

3.6. The Death and Burial Notices

119

Suriano questions alike the validity of using Ezek 43:7–9 (a prooftext for Weill and Naʾaman) as a reflection of actual practices in the seventh century B.C.E on the basis of impurity laws.188 According to him, no direct link can be drawn between 1–2 Kings and Ezek 43:7–9, as it is not clear whether the prophetic text possesses any real implications for the Garden of Uzza.189 He further suggests that since the practice of intramural burial for Judahite kings in the City of David was a time-honored tradition by the seventh century B.C.E., it could have overshadowed the emerging concern for burial purity.190 Notwithstanding the fact that Suriano deems correctly the endeavors to explain the actual transformation in burial practices at the Garden of Uzza on the basis of Ezek 43:7–9 and Neh 3:15–16 as little more than speculation, he maintains still that the mention of the Garden of Uzza reflects an actual change in the seventh century B.C.E. According to him, Manasseh, Amon, and Jehoiakim (and Josiah) were interred in the Garden of Uzza, preferring to read with the LXXL in several cases.191 In support of his reading of LXXL, Suriano claims that in light of Jeremiah’s prophecies of non-burial against Jehoiakim (Jer 22:19; 36:30), either Jeremiah or Kings would have included a fulfillment notice if Jehoiakim were not actually buried.192 As is well known, however, 1–2 Kings never observes the fulfillment of a prophecy belonging to the Latter Prophets but only provides notices that fulfill prophecies internal to the history or that form a secondary arc with earlier texts in DtrH.193 Suriano also argues that the term hrbq “burial place” at 2 Kgs 9:28; 21:26; 23:30 denotes an individual place of burial, distinct from the term rbq “tomb,” as indicated by the third masculine singular possessive suffix, “his” (wtyb-Ngb “in the garden of his house” and wtrbqb “in his burial”). There are textual problems with this view, however: if Manasseh, Amon, Josiah, and Jehoiakim were buried in the Garden of Uzza, as Suriano suggests, then the term may refer to communal interment for these kings. Indeed, it can denote a communal burial, as in Gen 47:30: “When I lie down with my fathers, you shall transport me from Egypt and bury me in their burial place (Mtrbqb).” The use of hrbq in the regnal epilogues may simply demonstrate a differ188

Similarly, Adam (2007: 201 n. 151), who is also critical of Naʾaman’s essay. Suriano 2010: 103 n. 24, 110. 190 Ibid. 116 n. 84. Suriano regards the standard practice of intramural burial for kings of the Near East (ibid. 55–9, 116; cf. Naʾaman 2004: 248–90) as problematic for locating the tombs outside of the walls of Jerusalem in the seventh century B.C.E. A major factor was the protection of the royal tombs, and the best guarantee was to locate them near or beneath the royal palace. 191 Suriano 2010: 111–2. I have already demonstrated above the difficulties with applying the LXXL as a reliable source on account of its theological Tendenz. 192 Suriano is employing the earlier argument of Lipschits 2002: §§ 3.1.1, 3.2.9. 193 Noth 1981: 97–9; Koch 1981: 115–30. On the absence of explicit references to the prophet Jeremiah in Kings, see Terblanche 2000: 306–14. 189

120

Chapter Three: The Basic Framework

ence in authorial style after Hezekiah and may indicate no differentiation between communal and individual interment.194 Yet as the reading of LXXL is not to be preferred, one cannot demonstrate definitely that Manasseh, Amon, Josiah, and Jehoiakim were buried in the same garden cemetery. Furthermore, no textual tradition intimates that Josiah was buried in the Garden of Uzza; rather, the Hexapla and LXXL add that he was buried “in the City of David.” This is probably a later addition for the purpose of joining Josiah with the earlier kings of Judah down to Ahaz. There are archaeological grounds, however, to support the meaning of hrbq as an individual tomb in 2 Kgs 21:26; 23:30. At the Village of Silwan, single-chamber tombs were discovered for the interment of one or at most three persons.195 One of those tombs (no. 34) was engraved with an inscription that made use of the term qbrt. It is likely that the longer inscription of tomb no. 35 (the “Tomb of the Royal Steward”) also included this term, although the inscription is now broken.196 Admittedly, this evidence is only circumstantial, as the group of tombs at Silwan is too abundant and dispersed to have functioned as a royal cemetary. In Ussishkin’s view, “it does not seem likely that the kings – or some of them – would be buried in a cemetary in which persons not of royal descent were interred.”197 That being said, it is possible to explain the trend at Silwan together with the broader appearance of bench-tomb in the Judean Highlands in the eighth century B.C.E. when Hezekiah converted Judah into a more developed kingdom.198 This would lend further support for a change in royal burial customs. All in all, it is likely that there was an actual change in royal burial customs during Hezekiah’s expansion of Jerusalem and afterwards. It is uncertain what 194 The presence of hrbq at 2 Kgs 9:28b is probably secondary (Jepsen 1956: 30–40; Würthwein 1984: 332). This is confirmed by the earlier parallel text at 4 Reg 10:36+ of LXXL (and OL): “And Ahaziah went against Hazael, king of Syria, into war. At that time, Jehu, son of Naessei, conspired against Joram, son of Ahab, king of Israel, and he struck him in Jezreel and he died and Jehu shot also Ahaziah, king of Judah, on the chariot and he died and his servants brought him up into Jerusalem and buried him with the fathers in the city of David” (see Trebolle 1984: 110–25; McKenzie 1991: 71–73). 2 Kgs 9:28b (LXX) appears to have come under the influence of Josiah’s burial notice at 2 Kgs 23:30 (MT). 195 Ussishkin 1993: 328. Ussishkin points out that these tombs lack bone repositories commonly found in Judean family tombs, so that one may conclude that they were not intended for longterm use (ibid. 303, 328 n. 27). This feature is the main datum distinguishing the Silwan tombs from comtemporary bench-tombs in Israel at Motza, Beth-Shemesh, Lachish, Khirbet el-Kom, Tel-ʿEton, and the St. Ètienne Monastery (ibid. 300–1). 196 Ibid. 243–50. 197 Ibid. 330. 198 Fantalkin 2008: 24; cf. Bloch-Smith 2002: 123, 128–9. Fantalkin notes that multichambered tombs existed throughout the Iron Age, especially in the area of Jerusalem, as demonstrated by the tombs of the St. Ètienne Monastery in Jerusalem; see Kloner 1986: 121–29; Ussishkin 1993: 298–9.

3.6. The Death and Burial Notices

121

the motive for that change would have been, although it may have been for the protection of the royal tombs from northern migrants or in case of military attack. It is this is granted, then the royal tombs would have remained intramural, although it is uncertain whether the royal tombs shifted from a multito a single-chambered style. It remains to determine if an actual change in the architectural style of the royal tombs rules out a literary break at Hezekiah’s account. First, the above argument regarding actual burial practice does not pass muster in the face of the diverging ideologies of the text. The fact that no king after Ahaz is “buried with his fathers” indicates a significant modification in the standpoint of the text through the lack of interest in burial with the fathers in 2 Kgs 21–24. The presence of the expression in the burial notices denotes the stability of the Judahite dynasty in its possession of the city of Jerusalem from David until Ahaz. The expression is never used in the burial formula for the Israelite kings, even in the cases of three or more generations (Omri’s and Jehu’s houses).199 The similar phrase “he was buried with the kings of Israel” in the epilogues of Jehu’s descendants (2 Kgs 13:13; 14:16; 14:29) suggests that the same author constructed both the Judahite and Israelite burial notices down to Ahaz whether the burial site was Jerusalem or Samaria. The absence of the expression “he was buried with his fathers in the City of David” in Josiah’s epilogue (2 Kgs 23:30; cf. 22:20) also demonstrates the same lack of concern after Ahaz to associate a Judahite king with his predecessors in burial. The same is also true of the epilogues belonging to Hezekiah (20:21, MT) and Jehoiakim (24:6, MT), both of which lack the phrase “he was buried with his fathers in the City of David.” The absence of a notice stating that these three kings were buried in the City of David is at striking odds with the consistent perspective of the epilogues down to Ahaz. That stylistic consistency down to Ahaz is sufficient to posit a source, which at the very least included a synchronized contrast between Judah and Israel.200 Furthermore, the counterargument based on actual burial practice does not account for the absence of the burial notice from Hezekiah’s epilogue. The claim that his burial notice was omitted owing to the biblical writers’ reluctance to affiliate Hezekiah with Manasseh and Amon does not answer why it was omitted entirely. Josiah’s epilogue states that he was interred not in the Garden of Uzza but “in 199

See Jepsen 1956: 30–40; Halpern and Vanderhooft 1991: 193, 194. Suriano (2010: 166–7) is mindful of the Judahite-Israelite contrast concerning the legitimating use of the death notice “he lay down with his fathers” in favor of the House of David and even correctly, in my view, attributes this use of this contrastive strategy to the days of Hezekiah after the fall of the north. He also considers that the burial notice “he was buried with his fathers in the City of David” plays a similar legitimating role (ibid. 43–50, 166–7). He thus upholds Provan’s emphasis on the theological significance of the City of David, even if Provan incorrectly equated the City of David with Jerusalem. 200 Suriano 2010: 174.

122

Chapter Three: The Basic Framework

his tomb” (wtrbqb) (2 Kgs 23:30). It stands to reason then that Hezekiah’s account also would have had a burial notice, unless the original framework concluded before his epilogue, as I am arguing. The above claim also assumes that Hezekiah would have been buried in the Garden of Uzza, but the latter is only mentioned at MT 2 Kgs 21:18, 26, i.e., in only two of the five epilogues following Ahaz’s account.

3.7. Conclusions The results of the first stage of investigation of the framework of 1–2 Kings – i.e., before analyzing its explicit judgment and cultic formulae – is, first, the discovery of a literary break in the framework at Hezekiah’s account. The investigation of the accession notice, regnal year total, and geographic filiation demonstrates that the Hezekian historian used a northern source and a southern source in order to contrast the constancy of Jerusalem with the demise of Tirzah and Samaria. The naming of the queen mother indicates, again, the constancy of the Judahite line, whereas the northern lines were regarded by the historian as illegitimate through the omission of such notices for the northern houses. The source citations indicate that the HH began with Solomon’s reign and climaxed with the continuation of the Judahite line following the devastation of the northern kingdom. The death and burial formulae emphasize the unbroken chain of succession for the Judahite kings down to Hezekiah in contrast with the frequent usurpations and assassinations in the northern houses. All point to an intention to legitimate the Judahite royal line through the use of a Davidic royal ideology grounded in Jerusalem. The basic structure of the framework reflects the combination of distinct kinglists for the northern kings and another separate list for the southern house. These two separate kinglists were united in alternation in the process of composing a history of the monarchy down to Hezekiah’s reign. The synchronization of the two lines is not itself configured for a contrast or comparison of the fates of the two houses. Rather, it is the formulae governed by the synchronizing schema that are indicative of its original aim to draw a contrast between the stability of the line of Davidic kings down to Hezekiah and the transient houses of the northern kings. Although the framework of the HH resembles the chronographic texts of Mesopotamia, it was derived primarily using the form and style of local levantine chronographic and memorial texts. The following genre formatting and style used by royal scribes to compose chronographic texts in the southern Levant have no parallel in the Neo-Babylonian or Assyrian chronicles (i.e., Category A):

3.7. Conclusions

123

1) The expression Reigned + RN + over GN + N Years (compare the Mesha Stele KAI 181:2; and the Tel Dan Inscription, KAI 310:12).201 2) The precise chronological date formula RN-l N tn#b “in the Nth year of RN” (compare the Samaria Ostraca and Phoenician/Aramaic memorial inscriptions). 3) Death notice preceded by the regnal year total (see the Tyrian King List in Josephus, Ant. 8.141–146; idem Ag. Ap. 1.116–125). 4) Inclusion of reported events after the regnal year total and before the death notice (see the Tyrian King List in Josephus, Ant. 8.141–146; idem Ag. Ap. 1.116–125). 5) Explicit mention of burial alongside of the death notice and dynastic succession (compare the Sarcophagus of Eshmunazar, KAI 14:6–10).

A further result from studying the framework in both its biblical and nonbiblical contexts was a noticeable lack of sufficient evidence to suggest that Deuteronomy or Deuteronomistic literary groups had effected the origination of the framework. There is greater evidence to suggest that the specific formulaic expressions and evaluative configuration of the framework derived from the broader language and semantics of levantine royal inscriptions and kinglists rather than from a specifically Deuteronomistic literary context. The next step in the study of the framework is to examine its explicit judgment and cultic formulae. As I hope to make clear, the formulaic language and religious perspectives of the regnal evaluations, comparisons/contrasts with the royal predecessors, and cultic reports will serve to shore up the conclusions presented in this chapter and add greater clarity to the larger work.

201

For an example of an Israelite king: “Reigned Omri over Israel for twelve years” (1 Kgs 16:23).

Chapter Four

The Regnal Evaluations 4.1. Introduction I turn now to the explicit evaluative scheme of the Hezekian History. I argue that the explicit formulae define the reign of the king as a period of loyalty or disloyalty towards YHWH, incurring either divine retribution or reward. I also argue that the evaluative formulae are pre-Deuteronomistic and derive from both the political and cultic interests of the historian. The argumentation is carried out by observing the evidence of the HH itself, but also with frequent reference to extrabiblical texts with royal figures (4.3). Hezekiah’s account is favored as the original narrative climax to the explicit evaluations of the narrative framework in his representation as a restorer of cultic and political order.

4.2. yšr-/rʿ-Formula The formulaic evaluations of the framework may be categorized according to two basic types, positive and negative. The positive formula most commonly attested is the phrase, “he did what was right in eyes of YHWH.” It is used for most of the southern kings (seven of twelve counting from Rehoboam to Hezekiah [vs. only one of seven from Manasseh to Zedekiah]),1 typically those who enjoyed longer reigns and attained political success. Table 7. Positive Southern Accounts with hwhy yny(b r#yh h#&( 1 Kgs 15:10–11 Asa 22:42–43 Jehoshaphat 12:2–3 Joash 14:2–3 Amaziah 15:2–3 Azariah 15:34–35 Jotham (16:2 Ahaz, r#yh h#&( )l)2 1

This figure does not count Athaliah as part of the line. The negative formula for Ahaz does not employ the phrase (rh h#&( but h#&( )l r#yh. Barrick (1974: 257–9) has suggested plausibly that this is because it follows in the 2

4.2. yšr-/rʿ-Formula

125

18:2–3 Hezekiah; cultic reform (22:1–2 Josiah; cultic reform: post-HH)

The corresponding negative formula “he did what was wrong in the eyes of YHWH” is used to evaluate nearly all of the northern kings and several of the southern kings. Table 8. Northern/Southern Accounts With hwhy yny(b (rh h#&( Northern3 Jeroboam — 1 Kgs 15:25–26; Nadab 1 Kgs 15:33–34; Baasha Elah — Zimri — Tibni — 1 Kgs 16:23, 25 Omri 1 Kgs 16:29–30 Ahab 1 Kgs 22:52–53 Ahaziah 2 Kgs 3:1–2 Joram Jehu — 2 Kgs 13:1–2 Jehoahaz 13:10–11 Jehoash 14:23–24 Jeroboam 15:8–9 Zechariah Shallum — 15:17–18 Menahem 15:23–24 Pekahiah 15:27–28 Pekah 2 Kgs 17:1–2 Hoshea

Southern 3 Reg 12:24a; Rehoboam 1 Kgs 15:2–3; Abijam

2 Kgs 8:18–19 Jehoram 8:25, 27 Ahaziah

2 Kgs 21:1–2 Manasseh 21:19–20 Amon 23:31–32 Jehoahaz 23:36–37 Johoiakim 24:8–9 Jehoiachin 24:18–19 Zedekiah

The evaluative formula in the regnal prologues serves as a final and categorical description of the king’s moral conduct for the duration of his entire reign. It is given structural priority by being fronted at the beginning of the king’s account and governs all narrated information regarding political and religious events. Narrated political triumphs and reversals can, together with cultic reline of positively evaluated reigns of Joash, Amaziah, Azariah, and Jotham, which employ r#yh h#&(. 3 The accounts for Jeroboam, Elah, Zimri, Tibni, Jehu, and Shallum lack an evaluation or a prologue entirely.

126

Chapter Four: The Regnal Evaluations

ports, function as two – sometimes separate, sometimes combined – criteria for the assessment of a king’s reign and form the basis for divine favor or disapproval. The unanimous characterization of the northern rulers as “evil” is reflected in the volume of usurpations within, and ultimate evanescence of, the northern dynastic houses. Likewise, the characterization of the southern rulers as “good” (or “evil”) is based in part on their political successes (or failures). “Good” Judahite kings typically reigned for a long time and were successful in battle (e.g., Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoash, Azariah, Hezekiah) while “bad” Judahite kings generally had shorter reigns and committed political errors. With the latter group a cultic report is often lacking, as in the cases of Rehoboam (3 Reg 12:24a), his son Abijam (1 Kgs 15:3), Jehoram (2 Kgs 8:18), Ahaziah (8:27), and potentially with Ahaz (16:2).4 A literary tension obtains on occasion between the evaluations of the prologues and the reported events they frame. Such dissonance is not to be taken as evidence of an intention to convey irony in the original historical narrative. Rather, it is an indication of the priority given to the evaluative structure that frames the distinct episodes reported from the historian’s sources. Any tension occurring between event and evaluation resulted from the historian’s emphasis on the judgment of the king in terms of the climax of the historical framework.5 In the case of Jeroboam II, the king is described as having done what is evil, even though the reported events suggest that he was successful as a political leader (2 Kgs 14:23–28). The historian supported his evaluation with the comparison of Jeroboam II to Jeroboam I and the latter’s cultic “sin” in v. 24.6 In terms of the narrative levels, the cultic criterion governs the political events reported in vv. 25a and 28.7 In this case, the narratological conclusion of the northern kingdom’s demise (2 Kgs 17:2–6; 18:9–10ab) dictated that the evaluation should be negative. An example of northern material framed not only by the framework but with Judahite source material is the account of the Judahite king Jehoahaz. 4 Jehoram and Ahaziah were both assassinated by the northern usurper Jehu b. Nimshi (2 Kgs 9:24, 27). 5 Pace Köhlmoos 2007: 216–31; Levin 2008: 129–68; Adam 2010: 35–68. Noth (1981: 63) was correct that the historian was focused on evaluating the conglomeration of the reigns as a totality, and not primarily on individual reigns. However, he used this to dismiss valid tensions in the framework suggestive of literary divisions, although his observation pertained to the relationship of the evaluations to the reported episodes from the historian’s sources. 6 Similar is Jehu’s reign at 2 Kgs 10:29–31, where it is reported that he did well, but continued in the “sins” of Jeroboam, and similar is the commentary at Jehoahaz’s reign in 13:4– 5. 7 In fact, the prophetic fulfillment in 14:25b and the theological commentary in vv. 26–27 constitute other forms of justification for why Jeroboam II had political success despite his negative evaluation.

4.3. Comparative Evidence

127

After the standard regnal prologue for a “good” king in 2 Kgs 14:1–4, there is material taken probably from a Judahite source or sources in vv. 5, 7 and in vv. 19–22. This material frames the episode of northern origin that narrates the encounter between Ahaziah and the Israelite king Jehoahaz in vv. 8–14.8 Despite the military setback of Ahaziah, the mention of the defeat of his father’s assassins in v. 5, his victory over Edom in v. 7, and the succession of his son to his throne in v. 21 supported the claim that he was pleasing to YHWH in v. 3. The positive evaluation for Ahaziah stands in line with the series of Judahite kings who were faithful to YHWH but still did not remove the bāmôt, a recurrent notice that climaxes in the account of Hezekiah at 18:3–4. As with the northern formulaic sequence, so one observes for the line of Judahite accounts the priority of the climactic schema of evaluations over against any contrary statements found in individual episodes retained from source material. The dissonance between evaluative scheme and reported episode may also be suggestive of later hands having reworked the history, to append a report of misdeeds at the end of a Judahite regnal account that was originally “good”;9 or, in the case of an Israelite account, to add a favorable report to an originally “bad” regnal account.10

4.3. Comparative Evidence 4.3.1. Mesopotamian Chronographic Texts The formulaic repetition of regnal evaluations in the framework may be contrasted with the almost wholesale absence of direct evaluative formulae in Mesopotamian kingslists and chronicles. In fact, nowhere in the Mesopotamian chronicles is there found any explicit evaluation of a king, with the exceptions of the so-called Weidner Chronicle and the so-called Chronicle of the Early Kings, which has used the former as a source.11 However, those texts are not identical in form with the Neo-Babylonian and Assyrian chronicles

8

On the northern provenance of the episode in 2 Kgs 14:8–14, see Burney 1903: 215; Gray 1963: 545; Wellhausen 1963: 287; Robker 2012: 90–92. Scholars normally point to the phrase “at Beth-shemesh which belonged to Judah” in 14:11 as indicative of northern origin. 9 E.g., for Solomon, cf. 1 Kgs 3:2 and 11:1–40; for Hezekiah, cf. 2 Kgs 18:1–19:37 and 20:12–19; for Josiah, cf. 2 Kgs 22:2 and 23:26–30. This is also common for the Book of Chronicles, which modifies a good reign from Kings by adding negative elements to it (e.g., cf. 2 Chr 14:1–2 and 16:7–10). 10 E.g., for Ahab, cf. 1 Kgs 16:30 and 21:27–29; for Jehu, cf. 2 Kgs 10:29, 31 and 10:30. Compare the same modification in the Book of Chronicles, which, at times, adds positive elements to temper the force of a negative evaluation (e.g., cf. 2 Chr 33:2–11 and 33:12–17). 11 Grayson 1975a: 47.

128

Chapter Four: The Regnal Evaluations

and perhaps should not be regarded as chronicles at all.12 The Weidner Chronicle, probably dating from the early-to-mid-first millennium B.C.E.,13 evaluates a series of kings’ reigns as either “good” or bad.” In the prologue, a certain king writes a fictitious letter in the first person, recounting a night vision in which the goddess Gula stands before him and blesses him in response to his request to defeat the lands of Sumer and Akkad. Part of the content of the blessing is a prediction of the dominion of the city of Babylon over all other lands with Marduk as the city’s patron deity. At some point, the text transitions from first person narration to reporting in the third person a series of accounts for over ten kings who ruled over Babylon. Each ruler is evaluated in positive or negative terms especially in relation to cultic measures (i.e., whether or not they offered fish to Marduk and carried out normal sacrificial rituals at the Esagila) as well as to their treatment of the people of Babylon.14

12 See Al-Rawi 1990: 1–13; Dijkstra 2005: 23; Blanco Wißmann 2008: 47 n. 228. A major difference from the Neo-Babylonian chronicles is the opening in the Weidner Chronicle with a letter recounting a nocturnal vision in the first person. 13 See Grayson 1975a: ABC 19, plus the newer fragments published in Al-Rawi 1990: 1– 13. Grayson argues for a Middle Babylonian date near the reign of Nebuchadnezzar I (1125– 04 B.C.E.) on the following grounds: 1) Copies were found at Assur (with scribal errors and already with the prologue), Sippar, and elsewhere, pointing to the earlier transmission of this Babylonian text. 2) The fact that Marduk is venerated as the patron deity supports a date during the Second Dynasty of Isin. Several texts appear around the time of Nebuchadnezzar I venerating the god Marduk, such as the Marduk “Prophecy,” two boundary stones recounting how he led Marduk into Babylon by the hand (King 1912: 6 i 12–13; 24 obv. 7–12), and probably the Creation Epic, which depicts Marduk’s rise to kingship; for these texts and their history, see Roberts 2002: 83–92. 3) This chronicle belongs to a distinct type of genre, which is not based on a precise dating system (Grayson’s Category C), and which includes ABC 20, containing synoptic material for Sargon and Naram-Sin. All the texts of this type deal with events from the third or early second millennium B.C.E. 4) The chronicle pattern C is an ancient pattern (see the Sumerian Tummul Chronicle of the Old Babylonian Period [Glassner 2004: text 7]) perhaps related to the apodoses of the so-called historical omens (Goetze 1947: 253–65; Starr 1977: 157–66; Grayson 1975a: 47). Of these arguments, only the first is persuasive regarding the various find spots of copies of the text; but that does not necessitate the early date that Grayson assigns to the text (an early to mid first millennium date is probable). That being said, the recent emphasis on a Neo-Babylonian context for the Weidner Chronicle is also problematic on the same grounds (pace Van Seters 1983: 90–92; Blanco Wißmann 2008: 70). Those also holding to a date in the Isin II period include Evans 1983: 108; Arnold 1994: 131 n. 8; Glassner 2004: 263 allows for a date of 1100 B.C.E. as a terminus a quo; similarly, Adam 2007: 178. 14 References to fish offerings are also found in the earlier Lagash Chronicle (Glassner 2004: 149) and in the story of Adapa, ANET, pp. 101–3; COS I, p. 449.

4.3. Comparative Evidence

129

Table 9. Evaluations in the Weidner Chronicle Royal Name Akka Enmekiri Puzur-Nirah Kubaba Ur-Zababa Sargon Naram-Sin Invaders Utuhegal

Kingdom Kish Uruk Akshak Kish “ Akkad “ Gutium Uruk

Evaluation B(ad)? B B G(ood) Bad G(ood-to-bad) B B G-b

Šulgi Amar-Sin Šu-Sin Imbi-Sin

Ur-III “ “ “

B B G B?

Outcome L(oss of kingship status)? L? (laconic text) L G(iven kingship status) L G; (later: revolts; insomnia) L L G; (later: loss of kingship; abnormal death) ? (laconic text) Abnormal death — ? (laconic text)

The “idea of history” in the Weidner Chronicle takes for granted that the gods transferred kingship to another ruler and city for theological offense and has been described as “ein Lehrbuch der Konzeption der Geschichte als Folge menschlichen Tuns.”15 The reigns are depicted as “bad” for the most part, although there is no discernable sequence that is repeated.16 A new ruler was occasionally pleasing to the divine assembly as betokened by the expression “Marduk looked with joy upon her/him and handed over/gave RN/him sovereignty over all lands/the Four Quarters.”17 However, in certain cases, the dynastic line remained unbroken despite a king’s offense against Marduk and the Babylonian cult, in which case the king himself was punished with uprisings or personal injury. Toward the end of the chronicle, there is a report that Amar-Sin altered something in the normal practice of sacrificing bulls and sheep for the akītu festival and that goring by an ox was predicted for him (nikip alpi iqqabūšumma) and that he died from “bite of the shoe.”18

15

Gese 1958: 136. Gese contrasts this “idea of history” with the earlier Sumerian concept of the “sequence” (Abfolge) of reigns based on the arbitrary decision-making process of the divine council. Although the distinction existed in Mesopotamian thought, it strikes me as a naive to use it as a dividing line between “Sumerian” and “Akkadian” thought patterns. 16 Gese 1958: 133–4. 17 Grayson 1975a: 148 (ABC 19: 44, 48): dMarduk ḫ a-diš ip-pa-lis-si/su-ma (a-na RN) šarru-ut kiš-šat mātāti (kur.kur) ug-dam-mir-[ši] (or: šarru-ut ki[b]-rat ar-ba-ʾi id-din-šú). 18 This is a reference to the omen apodoses of Amar-Sin attested already in the Old Babylonian Period (Goetze 1947: 260–1). Tikulti-Ninurta I also experiences personal injury according to Chronicle P (Grayson 1975a: ABC 22: iv 2–13), where he ruins the wall of Babylon, puts the people to the sword, and takes the property of the Esagila to Assyria, including the statue of Marduk. As a result, the Babylonian officers revolt, imprison him in his own fortress, and assassinate him.

130

Chapter Four: The Regnal Evaluations

Osswald observed that the same philosophy of history found in Weidner Chronicle, i.e., of human action and divine consequence, whether for weal or woe, also figures in 1–2 Kings.19 The prime example of fated woe is the cardinal sin of Jeroboam I in his establishment of the golden calves at Bethel and Dan in order to gain independence from Jerusalem in the sphere of the royal cult (1 Kgs 12:27ff.). All of the subsequent kings of Israel followed suit and were judged negatively so that YHWH destroyed the northern kingdom (2 Kgs 17:21–22). The clearest example of achieving a state of weal through obedience to YHWH in 1–2 Kings, as Osswald also indicated, is the evaluation of Hezekiah at 2 Kgs 18:3–4: “Daß Wohlverhalten Glück bedeutet, wird ausdrücklich nur bei Hiskia gesagt.”20 Otherwise, there are expansions on and alterations to the basic philosophy: e.g., Jehu eradicates the worship of Baal but still worshipped at Bethel and Dan (10:29); the conduct of the king could effect the people as well (13:2–3; 17:7–20; 24:3); Josiah is evaluated positively but meets with a sudden death (23:29–30) on account of Manasseh’s sins (23:26–27); the wicked king Ahab is granted clemency for his repentance (1 Kgs 21:27–29) and the wicked Judahite kings are spared retribution because of David (1 Kgs 11:12–13; 15:4; 2 Kgs 8:19).21 Evans and Arnold have drawn the comparison between Naram-Sin in the Weidner Chronicle and Jeroboam I in Kings as both fulfilling the role of Unheilsherrscher (“ill-fated ruler”), defined as a ruler that brings about his own demise or the demise of his house through theological transgression.22 Although Naram-Sin is cast singularly in this role in other texts, such as the Curse of Agade and the Cuthean Legend of Naram-Sin, he is not the first or only Unheilsherrscher mentioned in the Weidner Chronicle. For example, his father, Sargon, also offended Marduk by building another city at Agade in imitation of the one at Babylon: He (Sargon) took earth from his pit and built a city opposite Agade; and called its name Babylon (ABC 19: rev. 18).23 19

Osswald 1969: 290. Ibid. 292. 21 Ibid. 292–3. 22 Osswald 1969: 286–96; Evans 1983: 97–125; Arnold 1994: 129–48 (esp. 138–40); cf. Gese 1958: 133–7. The term was first used to describe the literary characterization of Naram-Sin by Güterbock (1934: 75–6). Albrektson (1967:103) makes the point that both texts judge on the basis of an anachronistic cultic criterion. 23 Al-Rawi (1990: 10) and Glassner (2004: 291 n. 10), who believe that the names Agade and Babylon were switched, translate, “(Sargon) built a city opposite Agade; and called its name Babylon.” Perhaps they are correct; however, all of the five extant tablets have the reading that the city was built opposite Agade. The parallel account in ABC 20 reads that the dirt was from Babylon and that Sargon built a duplicate (miḫru) of Babylon alongside Agade. Either this is the original meaning or it is a secondary interpretation after the names had been exchanged. 20

4.3. Comparative Evidence

131

Although it is not entirely clear, Sargon’s construction of another city seems to have diminished the privileged status of Babylon. This action is reminiscent of Jeroboam I’s decision to construct two temples at Bethel and Dan in opposition to Jerusalem (1 Kgs 12:26–30). Of Naram-Sin, it is only mentioned that he destroyed the people of Babylon, without mention of any corporate sin on the part of the people.24 It is both Sargon and Naram-Sin whose actions parallel those of Jeroboam I’s (nor does Naram-Sin, in contrast to Jeroboam, stand at the beginning of a dynastic line). Arnold further notes that the motif of Unheilsherrscher is applied only to the northern kings and already appears early in the history. He remarks that this is not the case for the Judahite line: Rather, the decline of the nation was paralleled with a steady decline of monarchic leadership. There was a climax of royal degradation, as it were, from Asa to Manasseh, from general hubris to child sacrifice. So Manasseh was credited with the fall of the nation, even though he was late in the cultural history.25

I agree that the evaluative trajectory for the northern kings is consistently negative and begins already with the account of its first king, Jeroboam I. However, the evidence does not support the claim of a “steady decline” or “climax of royal degradation” in the Judahite accounts before Hezekiah. The climax of the southern judgments is rather the account of Hezekiah’s complete faithfulness to YHWH and the attendant deliverance in his reign of the city of Jerusalem from Assyria. Of course, Manasseh does fulfill the role Unheilsherrscher in 1–2 Kings in its present form (see 2 Kgs 23:26–27), but it does not represent the climax of a “steady decline,” only a rupture in the line of his father’s normative behavior. This points to two main distinctions between the evaluative structure of the Weidner and the Judahite evaluations of 1–2 Kings. In the Weidner Chronicle, usually one or two kings are selected for presentation without a full genealogy and, therefore, with no evaluative climax based on genealogy. In 1–2 Kings, the line of Judahite kings continues unbroken down to Hezekiah and beyond, and even the presentation of the northern houses with two or more generations of kings always features the complete dynastic line. Secondly, 1–2 Kings contrasts the trajectories of two concurrent dynastic lines, whereas the Weidner chronicle traces only one trajectory. In sum, the notion paralleled in the Weidner Chronicle is that royal moral behavior triggers divine reward or punishment. However, in 1–2 Kings, this notion is most clearly linked to the genealogically structured climaxes of both the northern and the southern kingdoms down to Hezekiah.

24 25

Arnold 1990: 140. Ibid. 140.

132

Chapter Four: The Regnal Evaluations

4.3.2. Literary Predictive Texts Literary Predictive Texts (sometimes called Akkadian [or better Babylonian] “Prophecies”) comprised an important genre in Mesopotamian literary tradition and were studied and quoted in antiquity.26 They combine some of the structure and characteristics of chronicles with the predictive phraseology of omen texts and are styled in the future.27 There are six texts characterized as literary predictive: Text A, Text B, Text C (= the Šulgi Prophecy), Text D (= the Marduk Prophecy), the Uruk Prophecy, and the Dynastic Prophecy.28 Like the Weidner Chronicle, the Šulgi Prophecy (Text C) and the Marduk Prophecy (Text D) contain first-person biography. The evaluative structures of each text sometimes reveal common patterns but no two texts are entirely alike in structure. 4.3.2.1. Text A Text A begins each period of reign with the prologue “a ruler (rubûm) will arise and reign for N years.” The periods of “good” (two) and “bad” (four) are depicted in terms of the land’s ability to produce and general order or disorder among the people of the king’s country as a result of divine blessing/curse. A “good” rule establishes and fulfills the regular offerings to the gods; during a “bad” king’s reign, rebellions, assassinations, and devastation occur. According to Grayson and Lambert, “One does not find ‘good’ and ‘bad’ things happening in the same reign.”29 Text A does not stress that the rulers are part of a successive line of kings, and it is certain that at least not all the rising rulers are related genealogically, since their tenure often ends in assassination, and in one case, “a man who is unknown will arise and seize the throne as king” 26

See deJong Ellis 1989: 157; Pongratz-Leisten (1999: 53 n. 52), where she notes that a Neo-Assyrian astrological text (SAA 8 459 rev. 5–6, 29) quotes sections of Text B, lines 16 and 29. 27 See Biggs (1967: 117–32), who notes that Text B borrows mainly the terminology of astrological texts arranged according to omen protases. For this reason, Text B is sometimes omitted from discussion of the Literary Predictive Texts, e.g., Grayson 1975b: 15; Longman 1991: 131. Later, Biggs suggested similar associations for Text A, the Šulgi Prophecy, and the Marduk Prophecy (idem 1985: 86–90; idem 1987: 1–14). The relationship of the texts to omen literature has remained a point of contention; see deJong Ellis 1989: 148–56. 28 For Texts A–D, see Grayson and Lambert 1964: 7–30. Text A dates to the early first millennium; Text B is of uncertain date; Text C (Šulgi Prophecy) and Text D (Marduk Prophecy) are reedited in Borger 1971: 3–24, who assigns them an Isin II date. For the Uruk Prophecy, see Hunger and Kaufman 1975: 371–5, who believed that more such texts would be discovered; for the Dynastic Prophecy, see Grayson 1975b: 24–37. The Uruk Prophecy (Beaulieu 1993: 41–52) and the Dynastic Prophecy (Grayson 1975b: 24–27) date to the late Babylonian Period. The texts as a group are discussed thoroughly in Longman 1991: 131–90 and recently in Neujahr 2012: 13–73; see also Nissinen 2003b: 134–48. 29 Grayson and Lambert 1964: 10.

133

4.3. Comparative Evidence

(obv. ii 14–15). The term rubûm “prince”/”ruler” need not refer to a king of a dynastic line, but can refer to subordinates in the royal service that may choose to revolt against their lord.30 Table 10. Text A Ruler Ruler I Ruler II Ruler III Ruler IV Ruler V Ruler VI Ruler VII Ruler VIII

Year Total 18 years 13 Short 3 ? 8 3 8

“Good/Bad” Good Bad — Bad Good ? Bad Bad

Cult — Ruined — ? Repaired ? Ruined? Ruined

Manner of Death Assassination Assassination — ? — ? Assassination ?

4.3.2.2. Text B Text B differs from Text A in being structured according to repeated cycles of divine restoration of justice followed by human rebellion and depravity.31 The text thus lacks an opening formula to introduce regnal periods. After a period of ruin and want, the divine council gathers to restore justice in the land and to reestablish kingship. A period of ruin ensues illustrated by complaints against the king, failure, treachery, theft, famine, foreign invasion, rebellion, assassination, or disrepair of the cultus. Another unique feature of Text B is that it does not explicitly state that the outcomes of weal or woe are consequences of the king’s behavior, but focuses on the decision and activity of the gods to reinstate order. Like Text A, it does not trace a single genealogy of kings from beginning to end since the repeated cycles end with the usurpation of the throne by an unknown or foreign king. Table 11. Text B Period Period IA Period IB Period IIA Period IIB Period IIIA Period IIIB 30

Good/Bad Good Bad Good Bad Good Bad

Cult — Ruined — Ruined — ?

Outcome Justice/kingship Assassination Justice/kingship Assassination Justice/kingship Amorite Invasion

CAD R 1999: 399–400 s.v. rubû A. Grayson and Lambert stated that Text B alternated between reigns of “good” and “bad,” but this is misleading, since it is only the gods who exercise justice in this text. The text does not alternate between reigns, explicitly, but between periods of divine justice and of human depravity. 31

134

Chapter Four: The Regnal Evaluations

4.3.2.3 Šulgi Prophecy (Text C) The Šulgi Prophecy (Text C) opens with a first-person report on how Ištar gave a vision to Šulgi similar to the vision of Gula in the Weidner Chronicle.32 However, the Šulgi prophecy begins with the catchphrase that is found in the Marduk Prophecy (iv 16’; see below): anāku dŠulgi, indicating that both texts form a series in which the Marduk Prophecy preceded the Šulgi Prophecy.33 It then text switches to third-person prediction, although it is unclear how this switch was originally formed since the text is laconic. In any case, it is clear from the stereotypical language that an initial period of woe is predicted: In that reign brother will consume brother. People will sell their children for money. The lands all together will be confused. Husband will abandon wife, and wife will abandon husband. Mother will lock her door against daughter (iv 9’–15’).

The following period predicts the ascent of a “good” king who is to restore Girsu and Lagash, construct sanctuaries for the gods, establish the nindabûofferings, and restore the sanctuary at Nippur. It is possible that a larger portion of the Šulgi Prophecy is now missing; whatever the case may be, it presents at least one cycle of a movement from a “bad” reign followed by a “good” reign. It is noteworthy that the movement of the cycle is one of bad to good in the Šulgi Prophecy in contrast to repeated cycles in the Weidner Chronicle, Text A, and Text B. Table 12. Šulgi Prophecy Period Ruler I Ruler II

Good/Bad Bad Good

Outcome Social Disorder Cult restored/economic blessing

4.3.2.4. Marduk Prophecy (Text D) The “Marduk” Prophecy also features a deity (Marduk) speaking in the first person about his journeys to and returns from Hatti and Aššur and then transitions into a prediction that a “king of Babylon will arise” and restore peace to the city of Babylon. Marduk first narrates about his journey to Hatti to establish trade between Hatti and Babylon (i 13–22; there is not a hint of the theme of “divine abandonment” at this part of Marduk’s account). Marduk returns to Babylon with the statement “[A king of Babylon(?)] arose and took (?) [my 32 Though uncertain, the Šulgi and Marduk prophecies (see below for the latter) probably date to the Isin II period, perhaps making allusion to Tukulti-Ninurta I’s theft of the property of the Esagila and Marduk in 1225 B.C.E. See Borger 1971: 22–3; Longman 1991: 143. Borger considered both this text and the Marduk prophecy to be cases of vaticinia ex eventu. 33 Borger 1971: 4, 20. Longman 1990: 142.

4.3. Comparative Evidence

135

hand(?)]. … […] Babylon” (i 23–25) and causes its cult and economy to thrive. The cycle appears to have been repeated, but Marduk’s tenure in Assyria was presumably described in a portion of the now missing text after line 38 in Column I. Only some of the description of his return to Babylon is preserved and expresses a time of blessing on the Babylonian people. There is then a transition to the present time where Marduk uses the analogy of these past two examples to predict “As I have gone away, I will come back–I have commanded it” (i 21’). He then describes he journey to Elam that he “commanded.” During this period of Marduk’s absence, Babylon suffers, particularly its cult. Marduk then predicts A king of Babylon will arise and he will renew the house of announcement, the Ekursagil. He will draw the plans of heaven and earth in the Ekursagil forever. He will change its height. He will establish tax exemptions for my city Bablyon. He will take my hand and bring me into my city Babylon and the Ekursagil forever. (ii 19–27)

The king of the prophecy is almost certainly Nebuchadnezzar I of the second dynasty of Isin, who actually did return Marduk to Babylon after conquering the Elamites.34 The text thus supports the reign of that king and his dynasty and he is represented as the restorer of the cult and economy of Babylon, a ruler without rival. The structure of the Marduk Prophecy is made up of three cycles of Marduk’s movement from his absence to his presence in Babylon. The first two cycles are represented as movements from a good state to even better circumstances in Babylon. The final cycle, however, is represented as a movement from a bad state to the best circumstances in the period of Nebuchadnezzar I. The structure of repeated cycles of alternating periods of good/bad to better/best is reminiscent of some of the texts discussed above, such as the Weidner Chronicle and Text B. However, the Marduk Prophecy ends on a high note (IIIB), which is contrasted with the worst period (IIIA) immediately preceding. Table 13. Marduk Prophecy Period Period IA Period IB Period IIA

34

Good/Bad Good Better Good?

Marduk Absent Present Absent?

Cult Economy prospers Cult/economy prosper ?

The text relates to actual historical events, as when Mursili I, the Hittite king, took Marduk to the land of Hatti in 1595 B.C.E, after which, Agum II, a Kassite king, returned him to Babylon. The next time that Marduk was taken to Babylon was by Tukulti-Ninurta I, which is also related in Chronicle P (ABC 22: iv 12–13). A third time, Marduk “traveled” to Elam in the possession of Kutir-Naḫḫunte of Elam. For a historical reconstruction of events, see Longman 1991: 133–5.

136 Period IIB Period IIIA Period IIIB

Chapter Four: The Regnal Evaluations Better Bad Best

Present Absence Present

Cult/economy prosper Cultic ruin & disorder Cult/dynasty prosper forever

4.3.2.5. Uruk Prophecy The Uruk Prophecy is distinct from the previously discussed Literary Predictive Texts. It has been compared to the apocalyptic nature and style of biblical Book of Daniel.35 However, its evaluative structure is similar to what is found in certain royal inscriptions of Mesopotamia and the Levant as well as with the structure of the evaluations of the Judahite kings down to Hezekiah in 1–2 Kings. There is no description of a “good” reign in the first part of the text, although the originally undamaged text may have begun with a good reign or exhortation to rule justly. In any case, there is a long series of “bad” kings who are evaluated with the repeated stereotypical judgment formula “After him a king will arise, but he will not provide justice in the land, he will not give the right decisions for the land” (rev. 3) In the first account with this negative judgment, it is predicted that the king “will remove the ancient protective goddess of Uruk from Uruk and make her dwell in Babylon” (rev. 4). The same king will set up a statue of another goddess in the Uruk temple as well as a new priesthood, impose heavy taxes, fill the canals with mud, and abandon cultivated fields. The same judgment formula is repeated again for King III and is followed by KI.MIN “ditto” repeated five times for Kings IV– VIII, making it difficult to know how many kings are meant exactly. It is King X whose account finally breaks the negative current with a judgment that reverses the negative formula into a positive one: After him a king will arise in Uruk who will provide justice in the land and will give the right decision for the land. He will establish the rites of the cult of Anu in Uruk. He will remove the ancient protective goddess of Uruk from Babylon and let her dwell in her own sanctuary in Uruk. The people belonging to her he will devote to her. (rev. 11–14)

The same king also rebuilds other temples in Uruk and restores the city gates with lapis lazuli and fills the rivers. As a result, his son will become king in Uruk and will ruler over the Four Corners (rev. 16) and the dynasty will be established forever (rev. 17). For my purposes, it is not significant who the historical personages named King X and King XI were, since it agreed that the text was meant to legitimate the successor to King X probably while the latter was still alive.36 Scholars also agree that the line of reigns from King I to King X does not comprise a single genealogy, as it begins and ends with kings of Chaldean origin, though there was an intermediate period when 35

Grayson 1975b: 7, 20–22. The identification of King X and King XI is disputed with multiple possibilities given; see Scurlock 2007: 447–65. 36

137

4.3. Comparative Evidence

Assyrian kings ruled Babylon in the eighth and seventh centuries B.C.E. Unlike the other Literary Predictive texts and in contrast to the Weidner Chronicle, the structure of the Uruk Prophecy operates according to a binary opposition moving from a period of negative time or “disorder” to one of positive time or “restored order.” The reign of King X represents a clear break with the previous reigns by virtue of his reversal of Uruk’s chaotic state to one of stability. The evaluative structure of the Uruk Prophecy is thus linear and climactic with the restoration described especially in terms of the presence of the protective goddess in the temple of Uruk and the reinstatement of her worship. As the goal of the text was to support the dynasty of King X and thus the succession of his son, the text culminates and closes at this point. Table 14. Uruk Prophecy King King I King II King III Kings IV–VIII King IX King X King XI

Good/Bad Bad? Bad Bad Bad Bad Good Good

Cult — Statue taken from Uruk to Babylon Property removed to Assyria — — Statue back to Uruk —

Outcome —

— — Dynastic Succession —

4.3.2.6. Dynastic Prophecy The Dynastic Prophecy is the latest discovered Literary Predictive Text.37 According to Grayson, “the Dynastic prophecy is a strong expression of antiSeleucid sentiment.”38 He based this assertion on the description of the falls of dynasties, whereby each fall or “change results in the reign of the founder of a new dynasty being either ‘good’ or ‘bad,’ good reigns alternating with ‘bad.’” The fall of Assyria is succeeded by the rise of Babylon (good) on column i; the fall of Babylon by the rise of Persia (bad) on column ii; the fall of Persia by the defeat of Macedonia (good) on column iii; and presumably the fall of Macedonia (bad) on column iv (which is broken away). Grayson’s reconstruction is not accepted by everyone, however, as it is based on evidence of a “tenuous nature” as he admitted himself.39 Neujahr has observed that Grayson’s scheme does not match the actual line divisions between dynasties in the text itself, and given the complexity and diversity of the accounts of each dynasty, the evidence of the columns may only be coincidental.40 It also 37

Grayson 1975b: 24–37; Longman 1990: 149–52, 239–40. Grayson 1975b: 17. 39 Ibid. 17 n. 22. See further Neujahr 2005: 101–7. 40 Ibid. 104 n. 20. Nabonidus’ account opens with the description “the dynasty of Harran” (palê ḫarran) his single reign is bound at the beginning and end with line dividers. Neujahr 38

138

Chapter Four: The Regnal Evaluations

bears mentioning that explicit judgments are not provided in the text (in contrast to the Uruk Prophecy). I provide below a table of the reigns but only those examples where the text is well preserved (lines represent dividing lines in the text). Table 15. Dynastic Prophecy King Assyrian rule Nabopolassar (I 23–25)

Good/Bad Bad Good

Outcome Loss of dynasty Resoration of economy/cult

Lacuna Neriglissar (II 4–8) Labaši-Marduk (II 9–10)

? Bad

Dynastic succession Rebellion

Nabonidus (II 11–16)

Bad

Cult ruined/king deposed

Cyrus (II 17–24) Arses (III 1–5) Darius III (III 6–8) Lacuna

Bad Bad Bad-to-Good

Disorder Assassination Military victory over Macedonia

In summary, the Weidner Chronicle and Literary Predictive Texts usually provide at best a general analogue to the evaluative formulae making up the framework of 1–2 Kings. The evaluative scheme in certain texts is not explicit making it difficult to know whether a given period/reign should be qualified as good or bad (esp. Text B and the Dynastic Prophecy). The texts vary, some with repeated cycles of “good-bad” (Weidner Chronicle and Text B), some with “bad-good” cycles (the Šulgi and Marduk Prophecies), while others appear to be more ad hoc (Text A and the Dynastic Prophecy). The Uruk Prophecy is distinct for its repetition of an explicitly negative formula within a long series of “bad” reigns, but which is reformulated into a positive formula in the “good” reigns of the final king and his son. Somewhat confusingly, patterns of both “bad-good” and “good-bad” cycles are also found in the current form of the framework of 1–2 Kings as well. The accounts from Ahaz to Josiah are made up of alternating reigns of “bad” and “good,” although the history ends with four consecutive “bad” reigns. In addition, the Uruk prophecy, in particular, shares with the Judahite reigns down to Hezekiah the use of a climactic evaluative scheme of a series with a repeated negative formula to build up to the good reign that uses the same terminology to construct a positive formula (cf. 2 Kgs 15:34–35 and 18:3–4). As will be seen below (4.3.3 and 5.8), parallels to this evaluative schema occur elsewhere in Neo-Assyrian and levantine royal inscriptions as well as in the Nabonidus chronicle. The discovnotes, too, that if the text were six columns long, this would potentially upset Grayson’s alternating schema based on column-orientation.

4.3. Comparative Evidence

139

ery of multiple evaluative schemes in 1–2 Kings is explainable with recourse to a source-critical approach that posits that the original climax of the history was Hezekiah’s account, to which were added another cycle of “bad-good” reigns and finally an additional four “bad” reigns after Josiah. The motif of the favorite city and sanctuary of a patron deity as well as the performance of or failure to carry out prescribed cultic rites are shared among most of the Mesopotamian texts. The Weidner Chronicle and Uruk Prophecy as well as the framework of Kings demonstrate that the cultic misdemeanors of the king coincided with political setbacks, whether agricultural infertility, usurpation, foreign military invasion, or assassination. There are marked differences between the Mesopotamian chronographic texts with evaluations and the framework of Kings, most notably the latter’s strict adherence to the synchronization of two genealogical chronologies. The longest genealogy is found in the Weidner chronicle (four kings of the Ur III dynasty from Šulgi to Ibbi-Sin), although this text typically selects only one member of a dynasty for comment (contrast this with Judah’s dynastic line of twenty kings). The northern dynasties in Kings are similar in that the largest dynasty of that of Jehu’s line of five generations (2 Kgs 10–15); however, the northern reigns are always “bad,” although some kings are worse than others (contrast Jeroboam I and Ahab with Hoshea).41 4.3.3. Royal Inscriptions 4.3.3.1. Mesopotamian Inscriptions I have observed that the Mesopotamian chronographic texts do not furnish us with examples of narrative history, despite the fact that they sometimes possess implicit evaluations or explicit evaluations in cases of the so-called 41

The differences of the moral-chronological framework in the Book of Judges from that of 1–2 Kings is illustrative of the varying evaluative schemes described thus far. According to von Rad (1957: I, 345–7), Judges repeats the cycle of deliverance, apostasy, enemy oppression, and repentance that the tribes of Israel experienced, while Kings operates according to a linear anticipation of a final doom or deliverance (depending on which kingdom is intended) throughout the series of regnal accounts covering the whole period. Observing that the regnal accounts exhibit several political successes and reversals, he argued that the author could have applied the cyclical schema in Judges also to Kings. He thus questioned why the historian did not carry out such a schema, and he concluded that the author of Judges and the author of Kings were not identical. In support of von Rad, one can point to the reign of Amaziah, who was defeated by the northern king Jehoahaz (2 Kgs 14:8–14), yet Amaziah is evaluated positively in the line of Judahite kings judged with limited positive evaluations from Jehoash to Jotham. If Von Rad’s logic obtains for the literary relationship between Judges and 1–2 Kings, then the same may be said regarding the internal compositional history of 1–2 Kings, which sometimes follows a cyclical pattern in redactional examples, though originally a linear pattern down to Hezekiah’s account. Recent support for Von Rad’s diachronic division between Judges and 1–2 Kings is found in Blanco Wißmann 2008: 51–2.

140

Chapter Four: The Regnal Evaluations

Weidner Chronicle and Literary Predictive Texts (see 4.3.1 and 4.3.2). One finds, however, in the royal inscriptions of the Near East examples of explicit evaluations of kings in the opening epithets that frame following historical episodes. Explicit evaluations of the king’s character together with an opening summary of his political and military prowess appear at the beginning of the inscription, similar to the ordering of the regnal evaluations in 1–2 Kings.42 The Assyrian royal inscriptions typically begin with the name of the king featured in the text, followed by a list of epithets pertaining to his divine favor and office, his dominion over Assyria and the outer lands, and his faithful provision for and restoration of the temples. Following these opening epithets are accounts of military conquest and of domestic public works.43 He frequently bears the title “faithful shepherd” (rēʿû kīnu) to describe his status as a divine favorite in addition to his stewardship over the people. The term kīnu “faithful; legitimate” is attested in royal inscriptions and boundary stones from Babylon and Assyria and parallels West Semitic ṣdq and Neo-Hittite tarwana.44 Ashurnasirpal II (883–859 B.C.E.) is designated as “the legitimate prince who is entrusted with insuring the observance of the cult in the sanctuaries of his country.”45 The phrase “insuring the correct performance” is a translation of the term šutēšuru, which is the functional equivalent of h#&f(f r#$fy@Fha “to do what is right,” not only in terms of etymological derivation, but also in semantic correlation vis-à-vis the cultic obligations of the king. It demonstrates that the king was charged with correctly carrying out cultic performance and that the well-being of the kingdom depended on him faithfully doing so.46 Another epithet commonly attested is “provider (zāninu) for the temple X.”47 Spieckermann has drawn attention to the significance of the Assyrian and Babylonian kings in the role entrusted to them by the gods to defend and to expand the terrestrial borders and their peoples.48 Among the king’s responsi42

Tadmor 1981: 14–25; Edelman 2008: 396. Green 2010: 83–5. On genealogies in Mesopotamian royal inscriptions, see Wilson 1977: 56–114. Wilson notes that genealogies reaching a depth of more than three or four generations are rare (ibid. 62, 64). Pertaining to their function, Wilson simply states that they “served to legitimate the present ruler and to support his claim to political power”; cf. Long 1984: 5; Pongratz-Leisten 1997: 75–104. 44 See CAD K 1971: 391 s.v. kīnu; CAD B 1965: 182–3 s.v. baʾulātu.. 45 Translation from CAD E 1958: 363 s.v. ešēru: rubû kēnu ša ana šutēšur parṣē ēkurrāte mātišu pitqudu; cf. Grayson 1991: 195, 239, 264 (RIMA 1 A.0.101.1 i 24; 17 i 20–21; 20 25–27). 46 The use of šutēšur with the meaning of “insuring the correct performance” is found elsewhere in the inscriptions of Esarhaddon (Borger 1956: 74:25; 18:43) and in the Weidner Chronicle (parṣī uṣurāti šutēšur lā idû “They did not know how to insure the correct performance of the cultic rites [and] divine ordinances”); Grayson 1975a: 150, ABC 19 line 57. 47 CAD Z 1961: 46 s.v. zāninu. 48 Spieckermann 2010: 345–6. 43

4.3. Comparative Evidence

141

bilities were maintenance of cultic buildings, dedication of statues, votive offerings for deities, and participation in cultic processions.49 He also points out that a sort of royal henotheism is apparent in the royal inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Although several gods and goddesses are named in these texts, it is typically one or two gods, who are singled out (i.e., Enlil or Marduk) and on whose behalf the king boasts of his faithful service.50 According to him, “Though polytheism is clearly presupposed, a kind of monarchical monolatry is the striking profile of the ideology of kingship.”51 Thinking of the framework in 1–2 Kings, it is YHWH who is the sole god to whom the king is obligated to demonstrate his loyalty. For the entire narrative time of the royal inscription the Assyrian king is depicted in completely positive terms. According to Tadmor, the Assyrian royal inscriptions manifest the tendency to flout the chronological ordering of the events for the purpose of accentuating the excellent character of the ruler. Instead of dating military conquests and the repair of temples for gods according to their exact dates, it became conventional to state that the king undertook these deeds in his accession year (ina šurru šarrūtiya). It would seem that the intention of the author of the Assyrian royal inscription, to lay emphasis on the heroic character of the king, as manifested in his deeds, called for the concentration of the king’s military prowess within the literary convention of one single year. Alas, such a convention, typical to the heroic epic, was in fact diametrically opposed to the dry chronistic form of narration, one that is confined to presenting the events in their proper, historical sequence … The tension between the context and the formulaic language and framework is therefore inherent in the very nature of Assyrian royal inscriptions: heroic and epic on the one hand, and chronistic on the other.52

Though one should not equate the literary contours of the Assyrian royal inscriptions and the framework structure of 1–2 Kings, it should not be overlooked that the latter also fronts the royal epithets to frame the following account of king’s foreign and domestic actions as with or without divine sup49

See CAD Š/II 1992: 87, 88 s.v. šarru. Spieckermann 2010: 346–7. Spieckermann points to Nebuchadnezzar I (1125–1104 B.C.E.), who is appointed by Marduk to protect the boundary lines and avenge Elam (see King 1912: no. 6 i 1–13), and Tiglath-pileser I (ca. 1114–1076 B.C.E.), who is entrusted with the task of “shepherding” the subjects (baʾulātu) of Enlil (King 1902: no. 8 i 32–34). The trope of “true” or “legitimate” shepherding occurs frequently in collocation with ruling over populations belonging to the deity (see CAD B 1965: 182–3 s.v. baʾulātu). 51 Spieckermann 2010: 347. One may quibble with Spieckermann’s use of “monolatry” and may instead prefer the term “henotheism,” which can imply a certain degree of inclusivity or tolerance of other deities, to describe the relationship between god and king. For such matters in Egyptian religion, see Assmann 2008: 53–75. This is also case for the celebration of the akītu festival in Babylon, where Marduk was distinguished in his role as chief deity of Babylon and its ruling dynasty. 52 Tadmor 1981: 17–18. 50

142

Chapter Four: The Regnal Evaluations

port.53 The framework in 1–2 Kings may be regarded as a series of regnal accounts, sometimes abbreviated, sometimes expanded. Similarly, the Assyrian royal inscriptions may be regarded as independent regnal accounts with detailed accounts of foreign military battles and domestic building activities that reflect the king’s self-glorification. The evaluative scheme in the Assyrian royal inscriptions generally involves a binary opposition between the Assyrian king and his foreign enemies. The king is always featured in the role of the hero in contrast with his enemies cast in the role of the villain. In fact, the same deed may be evaluated as “good” or as “bad” depending on whether it was undertaken by the king or his foreign enemy. According to Younger: The digging of a canal is considered a positive achievement if accomplished by the Assyrian king. However, if the enemy digs a canal, it has negative connotations. This is even clearer in the case of ruin or destruction of a territory or city (a negative event in itself). If caused by the Assyrians, it is viewed positively.54

Thus similar to the framework of Kings (see 4.2), the evaluative scheme of an Assyrian royal inscription may govern or even override aspects of the individual reports. It is that scheme that resembles closest the author’s intention in writing the history or inscription. 4.3.3.2. Levantine Inscriptions The Mesopotamian formulae for a ruler’s faithful care of the land and cult on behalf of the gods in the royal inscriptions and boundary stones mirror similar themes in West Semitic and Neo-Hittite inscriptions. Evidence suggests that the evaluations in 1–2 Kings developed as part of the West Semitic Wortfeld for royal inscriptions. Similar literary topoi attested in Phoenician, Aramaic, and Luwian royal inscriptions demonstrate that their geographic coverage was widespread. Moreover, the use of the royal motif of the “faithful king” in the Levant began at least as early as the tenth century B.C.E. and continued until the fifth century B.C.E. An early use of yšr as part of a regnal evaluation is found in the tenth-century Phoenician inscription of Yehimilk (KAI 4: 6–7): May Baal-Shamem and Baal of Byblos and the assembly of the holy gods of Byblos prolong the days of Yehimilk and his years over Byblos. For [he is] a loyal king and an upright king before the holy gods (k mlk . ṣdq . wmlk yšr . lpn . ʾl gbl . qdšm [hʾ]).55

53 Tadmor (ibid. 24 n. 42) observed that the author of the Book of Chronicles tended to date the pious deeds of the Judahite kings to their accession year; e.g., “It was he who, in the first year of his reign in the first month, opened the doors of the house of YHWH and repaired them” (2 Chr 29:3). 54 Younger 1990: 63. 55 My translation agrees with the recent translation in Green 2010: 91. He also regards the phrase, “For [he is] a righteous king and an upright king before the holy gods,” as pro-

4.3. Comparative Evidence

143

The reason why Yehimilk is called loyal and upright is not precisely stated; however, the first lines of the inscription suggest that it was due to his restoration of collapsed buildings (probably temples or palaces). The invocation to Baal of Byblos and the divine assembly of Byblos demonstrates the special relationship of Yehimilk with them in his appointed rule over Byblos. The term yšr occurs in collocation with the semantically related term ṣdq “loyal,” which is also found in the Phoenician inscription of Yehawmilk, dating to the fifth century B.C.E. (KAI 10: 9–10): For he is a just king (k mlk . ṣdq . hʾ), and the “Mistress,” the “Lady of Byblos,” gave to him favor with the gods (l ʿn ʾlnm) and with the people of this land (lʿnʿm ʾrṣ z).56

The king dedicates several cultic objects to the Lady of Byblos, including a bronze altar (line 4), and the Lady approves of him because of his “loyalty” (ṣdq). It is a relationship of loyalty in terms of the king’s performance of his duties entrusted to him by the dynastic god(s) which allows him to tout his legitimate status before the god(s) and the people of Byblos.57 Of significant import is the concern of political-cultic legitimation before the people that resonates with the evaluations in the Book of Kings concerning the king’s behavior in relation to that of the people.58 The term ṣdq is found in another Phoenician royal inscription connoting legitimacy (KAI 16; fifth century B.C.E.): King BDʿAŠTRT and the legitimate (ṣdq) son, YTNMLK, King of the Sidonians, grandson of King Eshmunazor, King of Sidonians, built this temple for the god ʾEšmun, the holy prince.

viding the reason why the gods of Byblos should lengthen the lifespan and reign of Yehimilk (ibid. 91 n. 18). 56 The collocation of the roots r#$y and qdc is also found at Deut 9:5; 32:4; 1 Kgs 3:6; Isa 26:7; 45:13; Hos 14:10; Hab 2:4; Ps 5:9; 11:7; 32:11; 33:1; 36:11; 64:11; 94:15; 97:11; 112:4; 119:7; 140:14; Job 8:6; Prov 11:5, 6; 16:13; 17:26; 21:18; 29:27. Noteworthy is Isa 45:13, where Cyrus (see v. 1) is to build YHWH’s chosen city and set captives free without accepting remuneration (i.e., it is a votive gift to YHWH). Green (2010: 91 n. 17) correctly maintains that ṣdq in the Yehimilk possesses nuances of loyalty and faithfulness in a “covenant-like” relationship between a king and his god(s) or goddess(es). 57 The meaning of the term ṣdq has received some discussion; I consider the general meaning of the word in both the epigraphic and biblical contexts to mean “righteous” or “loyal.” However, the term in this context cannot be divorced from its ultimate, pragmatic objective, namely, political-theological legitimation. Therefore, in some cases, the translation of “legitimate” is more appropriate (Swetnam 1965: 29–40); Rose’s (2000: 110–14) critique of Swetnam is thus not entirely valid. 58 See 1 Kgs 12:26–30; 2 Kgs 17:21–23. This observation (among others, see Spieckermann 2010: 341–56; Köckert 2010: 365) has not been adequately considered in the recent attempts in scholarship to use the idea of the “people of God” as a criterion for literary stratification in terms of the religionsgeschichtliche Methode, as for example in Kratz 2000a: 164–6; 2000b: 1–17 (at 8–12); cf. Würthwein 1984: 491; idem 1994: 4–5; Linville 1998; Köhlmoos 2006: 154–68, 179–82; Blanco Wißmann 2008: 154–73, 194–6.

144

Chapter Four: The Regnal Evaluations

In this example, ṣdq is a technical term for the legitimate successor to the dynastic throne, demonstrating its correlations with royal genealogy.59 The king also boasts of his construction of a temple for Eshmun, the patron deity of the royal house of Sidon. The term ṣdq is also a standard topos of the Aramaic royal inscriptions of the vassal kings who ruled at Samʾal (Zincirli) in the eighth century B.C.E. The inscription of Bar-rakib employs the term ṣdq to convey the Aramean’s loyalty to his Assyrian overlord (KAI 215: 11, 19; cf. 216: 4–5; 217: 3, 5; 219: 4; cf. 226: 2): In wisdom and in loyalty (ṣdqh), he grasped the hem (of the robe) of his lord, the King of Assyria.

In the Phoenician inscription from Karatepe, dated to the late eighth or early seventh century B.C.E., a comparable meaning of ṣdq is attested together with the terms “wisdom” and “goodness” in a context involving loyalty and legitimation (KAI 26: A I 11–13):60 And I (Azatiwada) seated him on the throne of his father, and I established well-being with every king, and every king treated me even as a father on account of my loyalty (ṣdq), my wisdom, and the goodness of my heart.

Azatiwada, the servant of Awariku, King of the Danunians, boasts of continuing the dynastic line, of securing well-being for his reign, and of receiving a father’s honor on account of his loyalty, wisdom, and goodness of heart (cf. 1 Kgs 3:6: “as he walked before you in truth, loyalty [hqdc], and uprightness [hr#$y] of heart”).61 His claim is to have acted politically as a loyal and shrewd servant of the dynastic house. Elsewhere in the same text, Azatiwada describes his removal of evil from the land and his deeds on behalf of his lord’s dynasty.

59

See Jer 23:5; 33:15, which designate David’s future heir as a “legitimate branch” (cf. KAI 43:11); see Swetnam 1965: 29–40. Cognates for ṣdq and yšr occur in collocation in the Ugaritic Kirta Epic (KTU 1.14:I 12–13) to designate a “rightful” (ṣdqh) and “legitimate” (yšrh) wife for the king. Thus, the collocation of these terms to designate a legitimate familial relationship in a West Semitic context already appears in the Late Bronze Age. Akkadian aplu kīnu “legitimate heir (to the throne)” was typically the king’s firstborn son; however, the title is applied to Esarhaddon, to mask the non-legitimacy related to being a younger son (Tadmor 1983: 39; Pongratz-Leisten 1997: 86–7). 60 Röllig 1999: 50. Röllig dates the inscription to the eighth century B.C.E. on the basis of a paleographical analysis of the Phoenician script (ibid. 79); similarly, Hawkins (1995: 1304) on the basis of the paleography of the hieroglyphic Luwian. It is generally accepted that the king Awariku is to be identified with the king of Que, who appears in the tribute lists of Tiglath-Pileser III (738–732 B.C.E.) and Sargon II (710–709 B.C.E.) in the form Urikki; see Younger 1998: 12–13 n. 6. 61 See Weinfeld 1970: 186 n. 17.

4.3. Comparative Evidence

145

And I extirpated all the evil that was in the land and I set the dynasty of my lord in good order. And I did what was good for the offspring of my lord (KAI 26 A I 9–10).

The word for evil is rʿ, which in context is associated with eradicating enemies from the land, is the same (r used in the negative judgments in the framework of Kings. The Phoenician expression, translated “to do what was good” is pʿl nʿm and though not exactly cognate, is a direct parallel with Hebrew r#$yh h#&(. In the mouth of Azatiwada, it is functions as a claim of his fidelity to the dynasty of his lord through installing the king’s son on the throne. The contrast between eradicating evil from the land and acting faithfully on behalf of the dynasty is precisely the same binary value system used in the framework of Kings. Yet in Kings, the relationship is not between servant and king but between king and deity. West Semitic ṣdq corresponds to the Luwian term tarwan(a) “justice” attested together as mutual translations of one another in the bilingual inscription from Karatepe.62 A semantic exchange took place among the Neo-Hittite, Aramean, and Phoenician rulers of the Iron Age in the creation of royal inscriptions for self-legitimization. Tarwan(a) “justice” is attested in several Luwian inscriptions dating from the tenth to the eighth centuries B.C.E. One inscription, for example, from Karkamiš reads “the gods raised me [sc. Katuwas, Ruler of Karkamiš] in strength because of my justice (IUSTITIA-wa/iní-ti) . . . My lord Tarhunzas, Karhuhas and Kubaba loved me because of my justice (IUSTITIA-na-ti).”63 Katuwas’ legitimate accession and prosperity of reign are attributed to the divine favor shown to him because of his loyalty to

62

Hawkins 2000: 51. Another inscription of an important royal servant, Ruwas, who served under Tuwatis, desires that the house that he built for the deity Tarhunzas should remain after his death, because of the justice (tara/i-u-na-ti) of Tuwatis; see Hawkins 2000: 443. For an overview of Luwian sources in terms of their relationship to the Hebrew Bible, see Kitchen 2005: 117–34. Kitchen lists as themes in the royal inscriptions: (1) wars and expansions; (2) building projects; (3) religious/cultic activities; (4) family affairs and legitimacy of succession; (5) acts of officials; (6) skills, fame, and wealth; (7) and curses. In my view, all of these themes in the Luwian royal and funerary inscriptions relate to the evaluations of deities, rulers, and officials as “just” or “loyal”; similarly, Wälchli 1999: 186. 63 Hawkins 2000: 95, CHLI I, II.9 Karkamiš A11a §§ 4 and 7. The royal motif of tarwan(a) is also found in the Gurgumean king, Halparuntiyas’, inscription (Hawkins 2000: 262–3, CHLI I, IV.4 Maraş 1 § 7), which includes a long genealogy going back six generations; the text is unclear at this point; cf. ibid. 366 (Tell Tayinat, mid-ninth century B.C.E.), 476 (Tabal region, eighth century B.C.E.). It is discovered also in the funerary stele of Kupapiyas, wife of Taitas, king of Watsatini, who boasts of having lived for one hundred years on account of her “justice” (tarwan[a]) and stipulates the well-being of the next five generations (ibid. 417 [Sheizar in the Hama region, date no later than 700 B.C.E.]). The motif is frequently combined with the common motif of being “loved” by the gods and goddesses.

146

Chapter Four: The Regnal Evaluations

the gods Tarhunzas, Karhuhas, and Kubaba.64 The inscription also reports how Katuwas had a temple constructed and food offerings established for Tarhunzas, underscoring Katuwa’s royal titles and genealogy (§ 1) as well as the fact that he successfully received (or recovered) the territory belonging to his predecessors (§§ 7–10, 13). In another inscription, Katuwas reports that the same deities caused him to expand his domain in conquering the city of Kawa, again, “because of his justice (IUSTITIA-wa/i-na-ti)” (CHLI I, II.10 Karkamiš A11b § 9).65 In these Aramaic, Phoenician, and Luwian inscriptions, the realms of politics and cultic services are united to serve as the criteria (or the consequences) of the explicit regnal evaluations. Justice and uprightness in this epigraphic context are characterized as “before” or “in the sight of” the mentioned deities and people. The legitimation of the king was the result of his accomplishment of the entrusted cultic and political services on behalf of the patron deity or deities,66 who, in turn, reciprocated their own loyalty and benevolence on the king, the results of which were the general security of the land and the well being of the people. The divinely reciprocated loyalty worked also for the benefit of the ruler, whose reign was represented accordingly as a political period of weal. The date of the these evaluative formulae has siginficance for the inclusion of parallel formulae in 1–2 Kings. Naʾaman has argued that the specific mechanism for the cultural borrowing of the genre of royal display inscriptions by levantine rulers arose in response to and as an emulation of stelae erected by Neo-Assyrian kings in conquered lands west of the Euphrates in the ninth century B.C.E.67 I argue, however, that the presence of the royal motif of “faithful king” in the tenth-century Phoenician inscription of Yehimilk, the Aramaic inscriptions of the eighth century B.C.E., and the Luwian inscriptions from the tenth to eighth centuries B.C.E. suggest that the motif was already in existence throughout the Levant at least at the outset of the first millennium B.C.E. The translatability of West Semitic yšr/ṣdq and Luwian tar64

In other Luwian inscriptions from Tell Ahmar, the kings bear the title, “servant of Tarhunzas,” demonstrating at the outset his loyalty to the patron deity of the royal house (Hawkins 2000: 228, 236, 245). 65 Hawkins 2000: 103. Alongside the motif of justice is found that of “goodness” in the Luwian inscriptions, also with the connotation of loyalty (see ibid. 438, 523; cf. Deut 6:8; 12:28; Josh 9:25; 1 Sam 29:6; 1 Kgs 3:6; 2 Kgs 10:3, 30; Jer 26:14; Mic 7:4; Ps 25:8; 125:4; Prov 17:26; 2 Chr 14:1; 31:20; KAI 26: A I 11–13). 66 See also Wälichli 1999: 163, 186. 67 Naʾaman 2006a: 174–6; see further Sanders 2009: 120–22. Sanders rightly points out that the Neo-Assyrian idiom would have been translated into a West Semitic vernacular, such as is the case for the Tel Fekheriye inscription in the ninth century B.C.E., and would have led to the Levantine kings employing the genre of their overlords for their own local sovereignty (ibid. 122).

4.4. Royal Predecessor Formula

147

wan(a) in the bilingual Karatepe inscription typifies the cultural process that was taking place in the transmission and development of the genre of royal inscription in Syria well before the eighth to seventh centuries B.C.E. This is not a denial of Naʾaman’s preference for an emulation of Assyrian display inscriptions or their influence on the West Semitic-Neo Hittite rulers in the emergence of royal display inscriptions in the ninth century B.C.E. At the very least, however, the indigenous semantic apparatus behind the West Semitic royal inscriptions was already in place. The plausibility of the indigenous development of the formulae and motifs related to r#y from the tenth to eighth centuries B.C.E. allows one to accept the inclusion of evaluative reflection in the form of regnal evaluations already in the Hezekian History. The lack of explicit evaluations in the NeoBabylonian Chronicles does not prove that the Hezekian framework was without such formulae. The HH-historian used an overt system of evaluations, rooted in an indigenous West Semitic tradition and in many cases clarified what was already latent in the relevant events selected for narration.

4.4. Royal Predecessor Formula As argued above, the r#y-/(r-formula can demonstrate the existence of separate blocks in the framework of 1–2 Kings. However, the case is buttressed when this formula is analyzed in combination with the formulae of comparison/contrast with royal predecessors. There are six basic types of evaluations in the HH that compare a king with a predecessor (two positive Davidic comparisons and four negative [comparison with Jeroboam; Davidic contrast; comparison with Ahab; and comparison with Israelite kings]).68 4.4.1. Positive Examples 1) The most regular type of positive evaluation that the HH-historian provided is the comparison with David or with a righteous predecessor. It always occurs with the qualification that the king did not remove the bāmôt (MT: “they did not disappear”; see 1 Kgs 15:11, 14a; 3 Reg 16:28b = 22:43; 2 Kgs 12:3; 14:3; 15:3, 34), with exception to Hezekiah, who removed the bāmôt (2 Kgs 68 I do not concur with Halpern and Vanderhooft (1991: 211; cf. Aurelius 2003: 35–6), who are of the opinion that the comparisons made with the Amorites in the regnal evaluations of certain southern rulers (1 Kgs 14:24; 15:3; 2 Kgs 16:3; 21:2, 20–21) likely derive from the same authors who drew the comparisons with the Israelite kings. They do not take into account the fact that the original history did not associate worship at the bāmôt with foreign worship (Provan 1988: 58 [with literature], 90; Pakkala 1999: 206 nn. 8, 9, 214–6); nor do they take seriously the literary-critical evidence suggesting that 2 Kgs 21:2–3 is later than the framework texts.

148

Chapter Four: The Regnal Evaluations

18:4a) Its frequency demonstrates that the comparison with David in the regnal evaluations is inseparable from the cultic reports on the bāmôt.69 Table 16. Positive Comparison with Predecessor rysh )l twäømD;bAh◊w :wy`IbDa d™Iw∂dV;k h¡Dwh◊y y∞EnyEoV;b r™DvÎ¥yAh a¢DsDa cAoªA¥yÅw Asa did right in the eyes of YHWH like David his father. But (LXX/OL: he did not remove) the bāmôt. K) hwhy yny(b r#yh tw#(l hnmm rs )l wyb) )s) Krdb Klyw rysh )l twmbh 28b He walked in the way of Asa, his father, and he did not turn from it, doing right in the eyes of YHWH; only (LXXL/OL: he did not remove) the bāmôt rysh )l twmbh qr hwhy yny(b r#yh #(yw Jehoash did right in the eyes of YHWH. Only (he did not remove: OL) the bāmôt.

twäømD;bAh qñår :h`DcDo wy™IbDa v¶Dawøy h¢DcDo_rRvSa l¬OkV;k hYÎwh◊y y∞EnyEoV;b ‹rDvÎ¥yAh cAo§A¥yÅw rysh )l He did right in the eyes of YHWH according to all that Jehoash his father had done. Only (he did not remove: LXXBL) the bāmôt.

twäømD;bAh qñår :wy`IbDa …wh¶DyVxAmSa h™DcDo_rRvSa lñOkV;k h¡Dwh◊y y∞EnyEoV;b r™DvÎ¥yAh cAo¶A¥yÅw rysh )l He did right in the eyes of YHWH according to all that Amaziah, his father, had done. Only (he did not remove: LXXB/Vulgate) the bāmôt.

qôår :h`DcDo wy™IbDa …wh¶D¥yˆzUo h¢DcDo_rRvSa l¬OkV;k h¡Dwh◊y y∞EnyEoV;b r™DvÎ¥yAh cAo¶A¥yÅw rysh )l ‹twømD;bAh

15:11, 14a Asa

3 Reg 16:28b Jehoshaphat

4 Reg 12:3*, 4a Joash 14:3*, 4a Amaziah

15:3, 4a Azariah (Uzziah) 15:34, 35a Jotham

He did right in the eyes of YHWH according to all that Uzziah, his father, had done. Only (he did not remove: LXXBL/OL) the bāmôt.

2) The comparison with David minus the above qualification is the strongest positive evaluation reported for a righteous king. Only Hezekiah receives such unqualified praise (2 Kgs 18:3), inasmuch as it is he who brings about a restoration of political and cultic order.70

wy`IbDa d¶Iw∂;d h™DcDo_rRvSa lñOkV;k h¡Dwh◊y y∞EnyEoV;b r™DvÎ¥yAh cAo¶A¥yÅw He did what was right in the eyes of YHWH, according to all that David his father had done.

2 Kgs 18:3 Hezekiah

The comparison with David is also encountered when the Judahite king under consideration follows immediately after a predecessor that was evaluated negatively (1 Kgs 15:11; 2 Kgs 18:4).

69 70

Provan 1988: 53; cf. Hoffmann 1980: 34–8. For a more detailed discussion of Hezekiah’s account in 2 Kgs 18, see ch. 8.

4.4. Royal Predecessor Formula

149

4.4.2. Negative Examples 1) All northern kings are compared with Jeroboam and his “sin” of fashioning two golden calves at Bethel and Dan, with the exceptions of Elah and Shallum, who lack regnal evaluations (1 Kgs 16:6, 8–11; 2 Kgs 15:13–15) and Hoshea (2 Kgs 17:2), whose sins did not equal those of Jeroboam and therefore is represented as a contrastive figure. The consistent failure of later kings to turn away (rws qal) from the faithless conduct of Jeroboam ultimately brought about the consequence of YHWH’s “removal” (rws hi.) of Israel, according to 2 Kgs 17:21–23a. The comparison with Jeroboam is inseparable from the cultic report on the rival sanctuaries in Bethel and Dan as is the association between David and the bāmôt. This is clear, for example, in the regnal evaluation of Jeroboam, where the cultic misdemeanor is first described (1 Kgs 12:28) and then referenced in his successors’ accounts (1 Kgs 15:26). Table 17. Negative Comparison with Predecessor

‹ÔKy‹RhølTa h§E…nIh MÊ$AlDv…wr◊y twâølSoEm ‹MRkDl_bår M#RhElSa rRmaâø¥yÅw b¡DhÎz y∞El◊gRo y™EnVv cAoÁÅ¥yÅw d™DjRaDh_tRa◊w l¡Ea_ty`EbV;b d™DjRaDh_tRa MRc¶D¥yÅw :Mˆyá∂rVxIm X®r¶RaEm ÔK…wälToRh l$Ea∂rVcˆy r¶RvSa :Ná∂;d_dAo d™DjRaDh y¶EnVpIl M¢DoDh …wñkVl´¥yÅw ta¡DÚfAjVl h™R%zAh r¶Db∂;dAh y¢Ih◊yÅw :Ná∂dV;b N¶AtÎn

1 Kgs 12:28–30 Jeroboam

He made two golden and he said to them, “It is too difficult for you to ascend to Jerusalem; here is your god, O Israel, who led you up from the land of Egypt. And he placed one in Bethel and the other in set in Dan, and this thing became a sin and the people went before the one as far as Dan.

_tRa ay™IfTjRh r¶RvSa w$øtaDÚfAjVb∏…w wy$IbDa JK®râ®dV;b ‹JKRl‹´¥yÅw h¡Dwh◊y y∞EnyEoV;b oäårDh cAo¶A¥yÅw :l`Ea∂rVcˆy

15:26 Nadab

_tRa ay™IfTjRh r¶RvSa w$øtaDÚfAjVb∏…w M$DoVb∂rÎy JK®râ®dV;b ‹JKRl‹´¥yÅw h¡Dwh◊y y∞EnyEoV;b oäårDh cAo¶A¥yÅw :l`Ea∂rVcˆy

15:34 Baasha

w$øtaDÚfAjVb…w f$Db◊n_NR;b M∞DoVb∂rÎy ‹JK®r‹®;d_lDkV;b JKRlG´¥yÅw h¡Dwh◊y y∞EnyEoV;b oäårDh yöîrVmDo h¶RcSoÅ¥yÅw l¡Ea∂rVcˆy_tRa ay™IfTjRh r¶RvSa

16:25a, 26a Omri71

He did what was evil in the eyes of YHWH and he went in the way of his father and in his sin he led Israel to commit.

He did evil in the eyes of YHWH and he went in the way of Jeroboam and in his sin he led Israel to commit.

Omri did evil in the eyes of YHWH and he went in all the way of Jeroboam and in his sin he led Israel to commit. tw)+xb wm) lbzy) Krdbw b)x) Krdb Klyw hwhy ynyb r#yh #(yw53 l)r#y t) )y+xh r#) +bn Nb M(bry 5 He did evil in the eyes of YHWH and walked (LXXBL: in the way of Ahab and Jezebel his mother and in the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat) that he led Israel to commit.

ay¶IfTjRh_rRvSa f¢Db◊n_N`R;b MªDoVb∂rÎy twaøÚfAjV;b qår . . . hYÎwh◊y y∞EnyEoV;b ‹oårDh h§RcSoÅ¥yÅw hÎ…n`R;mIm r™Ds_aøl q¡Eb∂;d l™Ea∂rVcˆy_tRa

He did evil in the eyes of YHWH . . . only to the sins of Jeroboam son of Ne-

71

3 Reg 22:53 Ahaziah

2 Kgs 3:2aa, 3a Joram72

The Kethiv of 16:26 reads the plural (wyDtaøÚfAjVb…w), whereas the Qere reads to the singular (w$øtaDÚfAjVb); I prefer the originality of the singular (see below 5.5).

150

Chapter Four: The Regnal Evaluations

bat that he led Israel to commit he clung; he did not turn from it.

_tRa ay¶IfTjRh_rRvSa f¢Db◊n_NR;b MªDoVb∂rÎy ta%øÚfAj r°AjAa JKRl´¥yÅw h¡Dwh◊y y∞EnyEoV;b oäårDh cAo¶A¥yÅw :hÎ…n`R;mIm r¶Ds_aøl l™Ea∂rVcˆy

13:2 Jehoahaz

ay¶IfTjRh_rRvSa f¢Db◊n_NR;b MªDoVb∂rÎy twaøÚfAj_lD;kIm r#Ds aâøl h¡Dwh◊y y∞EnyEoV;b oäårDh h¶RcSo`A¥yÅw :JK`DlDh ;h¶D;b l™Ea∂rVcˆy_tRa

13:11 Joash

He did evil in the eyes of YHWH and he followed after the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat that he led Israel to commit.

He did evil in the eyes of YHWH; he did not turn from all the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat that he led Israel to commit; he walked in it.

ay™IfTjRh r¶RvSa f$Db◊n_NR;b M∞DoVb∂rÎy ‹twaøÚfAj_lD;kIm r#Ds aâøl h¡Dwh◊y y∞EnyEoV;b oäårDh cAo¶A¥yÅw :l`Ea∂rVcˆy_tRa

14:24 Jeroboam II

f$Db◊n_NR;b M∞DoVb∂rÎy ‹twaøÚfAj`Em r#Ds aâøl wy¡DtObSa …wäcDo r¶RvSaA;k hYÎwh◊y y∞EnyEoV;b ‹oårDh cAo§A¥yÅw :l`Ea∂rVcˆy_tRa ay™IfTjRh r¶RvSa

15:9 Zechariah

ay¶IfTjRh_rRvSa f¢Db◊n_NR;b MªDoVb∂rÎy twa%øÚfAj l°AoEm rDs aâøl h¡Dwh◊y y∞EnyEoV;b oäårDh cAo¶A¥yÅw :wy`DmÎy_lD;k l™Ea∂rVcˆy_tRa

15:18 Menahem

ay™IfTjRh r¶RvSa f$Db◊n_NR;b M∞DoVb∂rÎy ‹twaøÚfAj`Em r#Ds aâøl h¡Dwh◊y y∞EnyEoV;b oäårDh cAo¶A¥yÅw :l`Ea∂rVcˆy_tRa

15:24 Pekahiah

He did evil in the eyes of YHWH; he did not turn from all the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat that he led Israel to commit.

He did evil in the eyes of YHWH as his fathers had done; he did not turn from all the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat that he led Israel to commit.

He did evil in the eyes of YHWH; he did not turn from all the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat that he led Israel to commit.

And he did what was evil in the eyes of YHWH; he did not turn from all the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat that he led Israel to commit.

ay™IfTjRh r¶RvSa f$Db◊n_NR;b M∞DoVb∂rÎy ‹twaøÚfAj_NIm r#Ds aâøl h¡Dwh◊y y∞EnyEoV;b oäårDh cAo¶A¥yÅw :l`Ea∂rVcˆy_tRa

15:28 Pekah

He did evil in the eyes of YHWH; he did not turn from all the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat that he led Israel to commit.

M§DoVb∂rÎy j°å;dÅ¥yÅw f¡Db◊n_NR;b M∞DoVb∂rÎy_tRa …wky™IlVmÅ¥yÅw dYˆw∂;d ty∞E;b ‹lAoEm l#Ea∂rVcˆy oâår∂q_y`I;k _lDkV;b l$Ea∂rVcˆy y∞EnV;b ‹…wkVl`E¥yÅw :h`Dlwød◊g h¶DaDfSj M™DayEfTjRh◊w hYÎwh◊y yâérSjAaEm ‹lEa∂rVcˆy_tRa wyYÎnDÚp l∞AoEm ‹lEa∂rVcˆy_tRa h§Dwh◊y ry°IsEh_rRvSa dAo :hÎ…n`R;mIm …wr™Ds_aøl h¡DcDo r∞RvSa M™DoVb∂rÎy t)+x

17:21–23a Israel73

21

For YHWH had torn Israel from the House of David and they crowned Jeroboam son of Nebat king. Jeroboam led Israel away from YHWH and led them to commit a grievous sin. 22The Israelites went in all the (sin: LXXB) of Jeroboam that he committed. They did not depart from it 23auntil YHWH removed Israel from his presence.

Ahab is said to have done worse than Jeroboam, by marrying Jezebel, a Tyrian princess, and by worshipping Baal. Like Jeroboam’s evaluation, Ahab’s 72

The LXXB of 2 Kgs 3:3 has a reading with the singular “sin,” corresponding to Hebrew t)+a%xa; however, the Lucianic manuscripts agree with the MT, which preserves the original reading in this case. 73 The LXXB of 2 Kgs 17:22 has a reading with the singular “sin,” corresponding to Hebrew t)+a%xa; however, the Lucianic manuscripts agree with the MT, which preserves the original in this case.

4.4. Royal Predecessor Formula

151

is clear-cut and consistently associated with the worship of Baal throughout the narrative of the HH (1 Kgs 16:30–31; 22:54; 2 Kgs 3:2).

w$ø;tVkRl lâéqÎnSh ‹yIh◊yÅw :wy`DnDpVl r¶RvSa läO;kIm h¡Dwh◊y y∞EnyEoV;b oäårDh yöîrVmDo_NR;b bªDaVjAa cAo∏Å¥yÅw MyYˆnOdyIx JKRl∞Rm ‹lAo‹A;bVtRa_tA;b lRbG‰zyIa_tRa h%DÚvIa j°å;qˆ¥yÅw f¡Db◊n_NR;b M∞DoVb∂rÎy twaäøÚfAjV;b :wáøl …wj™A;tVvˆ¥yÅw lAo$A;bAh_tRa dâObSoÅ¥y`Aw ‹JKRl‹´¥yÅw

1 Kgs 16:30–31 Ahab

Ahab son of Omri did what was evil in the eyes of YHWH more than all before him, and it was not enough for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat so he married Jezebel daughter of Ethbaal King of the Sidonians and persisted in serving Baal and worshipping him.

2) David can also function as the object of contrast when the immediate predecessor of a wicked king is righteous (3 Reg 12:24a; 2 Kgs 16:2).74 This also demonstrates that all of the positive comparisons as well as the negative contrasts for Judahite kings are made in relation to the Davidic archetype. Two southern kings are contrasted with David to indicate that they behaved wickedly: Rehoboam at 3 Reg 12:24a and Ahaz at 2 Kgs 16:2:

wyba dwd Krdb Klh alw hwhy ynyob orh coyw He did what was evil in the eyes of YHWH, and he did not walk in the way of David his father.

:wy`IbDa d¶Iw∂dV;k wy™DhølTa h¶Dwh◊y y¢EnyEoV;b r#DvÎ¥yAh h∞DcDo_aøl◊w He did not what was right in the eyes of YHWH, his god, as David his father (had).

3 Reg 12:24a Rehoboam75 2 Kgs 16:2b Ahaz

It may be significant that these kings are the first and last negatively evaluated Judahite kings down to Hezekiah and that their downfalls are political. Rehoboam brought about the division of the kingdom, and Ahaz lost the city of Elath to Edom, which had been regained earlier by his predecessor Amaziah (2 Kgs 14:22). The evaluations for these kings are not plainly cultic and seem to have derived from their careers as political leaders.76 If political hardship 74

The formula “he did not walk in the way of David his father” for Rehoboam at 3 Reg 12:24a is indirect evidence that Solomon was originally evaluated positively. If Solomon’s conduct were graded negatively, it would have been possible to say that he had done evil like his father or had “walked in his father’s sins” (see 1 Kgs 15:3a). 75 The Hebrew here is not actually in the MT, but is a retroversion of the Greek at 3 Reg 12:24a. 76 Similarly, Würthwein 1984: 494. The HH version of Rehoboam’s account did not refer to cultic misdeeds; see below 7.4.1.4. Regarding Ahaz’s account, Weippert (1972: 313–14) concluded that 2 Kgs 16:2bb, 3b, 4abb was post-RI, leaving the following original account: “And he did not do what was right in the eyes of YHWH … and he walked in the way of the kings of Israel … and he sacrificed and made incense-offerings at the bāmôt.” Provan (1988: 85) also regarded 16:2bb as original (“like David his father”); cf. Eynikel 1996:104–6. In support of their conclusion is the presence of Mgw opening 16:3b as a signal of a redactional

152

Chapter Four: The Regnal Evaluations

was experienced in a given reign, it was not necessarily the case that his loyalty to YHWH was compromised as regards cultic worship. The historian did not always write in plain terms, nor is the function of David as a contrastive figure in the history transparent. The historian compares Abijam to his father, Rehoboam, at 1 Kgs 15:3a:

wy¡DnDpVl h∞DcDo_rRvSa wy™IbDa twañøÚfAjV;b JKRlÁ´¥yÅw

He went in the sins of his father that he had committed before him.

1 Kgs 15:3a Abijam

What comprised the “sins” of Abijam and his father, Rehoboam, and how were they at variance with Davidic “uprightness?” Unlike the description of Jeroboam’s reign (1 Kgs 12:30), the root )+x occurs nowhere in the evaluations of Rehoboam’s reign. For David’s loyalty is never illustrated with historical reports of events from his reign; it is merely assumed in the evaluative comparisons of the framework. In accordance with the ideology of analogical genealogies in the nonbiblical royal inscriptions, the basic comparison with David is related to his loyalty towards YHWH and resulting political rewards (see above 4.3.3). 3) The comparison with “the kings of Israel” is used for the Judahite kings Jehoram (2 Kgs 8:18) and Ahaz (16:3a).77 It is also used to lessen the negative evaluation of Hoshea (17:2) in contrast to the earlier northern kings. It is uncertain whether the comparison for Jehoram at 8:18 was originally part of the HH-framework, since it does not follow the standard order of formulae, occurring before the (r-formula rather than afterwards.78

l#Ea∂rVcˆy y∞EkVlAm —JK®râ®dV;b JKRl˝´¥yÅw l¡Ea∂rVcˆy y∞kE VlAm JK®rä®dV;b JKRlÁ´¥yÅw

2 Kgs 8:18aa Jehoram 16:3a Ahaz

:wy`DnDpVl …wäyDh r¶RvSa l$Ea∂rVcˆy y∞EkVlAmV;k aøl£ q#år h¡Dwh◊y y∞EnyEoV;b oäårDh cAo¶A¥yÅw

17:2 Hoshea

He went in the way of the kings of Israel. He went in the way of the kings of Israel.

He did what was evil in the eyes of YHWH; only not like the kings of Israel who were before him.

break and the presence of language uncommon to the framework in 4abb. It is uncertain whether v. 4aa was original to the HH since it exhibits cultic terminology usual to the framework. If original, it would represent the nadir in the line of Judahite kings immediately prior to Hezekiah’s account. If secondary, then it is possible that Ahaz’s evaluation originally made no reference to the cult. 77 The comparison of Ahab with the Israelite kings at 1 Kgs 16:33 is late. 78 Other evidence for the post-HH nature of 8:18 is use of the designation “daughter of Ahab” rather than “daughter of Omri” at 8:26; see Begrich 1935: 78–9; Montgomery and Gehmen 1951: 396; Adam 2010: 37–8; differently, Robker 2012: 172.

153

4.4. Royal Predecessor Formula

4) The comparison with Ahab is used to evaluate his son Ahaziah at 1 Kgs 22:53 (contrast 2 Kgs 3:2). It is the strongest negative evaluation used for a southern king, found twice in the HH in the accounts of Joram and Ahaziah at 2 Kgs 8:18, 27. On account of their connection with Ahab’s line through intermarriage, these two kings were punished with foreign invasion (2 Kgs 8:20) and with assassination (2 Kgs 9:27–28). The (political) action of intermarriage between the house of Ahab and the Davidic dynasty was censured.79

w$ø;mIa JK®râ®dVb…w ‹wyIbDa JK®rô®dV;b JKRlG´¥yÅw h¡Dwh◊y y∞EnyEoV;b oäårDh cAo¶A¥yÅw He did evil in the view of YHWH, and he went in the way of his father and in the way of his mother.

wóø;mIaVk…w wy™IbDaVk añøl q›år hYÎwh◊y y∞EnyEoV;b ‹oårDh h§RcSoÅ¥yÅw He did evil in the eyes of YHWH; only not like his father or his mother.

b$DaVjAa ty∞E;b ‹…wcDo r§RvSaA;k l#Ea∂rVcˆy y∞EkVlAm —JK®râ®dV;b JKRl˝´¥yÅw He went in the way of the kings of Israel just like the house of Ahab.

b¡DaVjAa ty∞EbV;k h™Dwh◊y y¶EnyEoV;b oöårDh cAoªA¥yÅw b$DaVjAa ty∞E;b ‹JK®r‹®dV;b JKRlG´¥yÅw

1 Kgs 22:53 Ahaziah (2 Kgs 3:2) Joram 2 Kgs 8:18 Jehoram 8:27 Ahaziah

He went in the way of the house of Ahab, and he did evil in the eyes of YHWH like the house of Ahab.

4.4.3. The Comparative r#)-Clause Hoffmann maintains that all of the northern and southern comparisons with predecessors belong to one and the same author, chiefly when the comparison is made using a relative clause in the regnal framework. He regards the latter as one of the most significant features demonstrating the single authorship and unity of DtrG, through the networking of heterogeneous texts.80 He provides a table of comparative formulae with r#) found with the regnal framework.81 I reproduce it below with a few corrections: Table 18. Comparative r#)-Clause

M$DtObSa …wâcDo r∞RvSa ‹lO;kIm wy¡DnDpVl h∞DcDo_rRvSa wy™IbDa twañøÚfAj_lDkV;b JKRlÁ´¥yÅw wy`DnDpVl r¶RvSa läO;kIm 79

1 Kgs 14:22 Rehoboam82 15:3 Abijam83 16:30 Ahab

Here again, it is uncertain whether any or part of 2 Kgs 8:27 was original to the HHframework, owing to its unconventional style (comparison with Ahab’s house prior to the (r-formula) and perspective (the Judahite worship of Baal). The comparisons with Ahab that are post-HH are intended to justify the destruction of Judah (2 Kgs 8:19; 21:3; cf. 1 Kgs 15:4). 80 Hoffmann 1980: 366; cf. McKenzie 1991: 120: “the resumptive nature of Josiah’s portrait.” 81 Hoffmann 1980: 365. 82 The LXX reads e0n pa~sin oi[j e0poi/hsan oi9 pate/rej au)tou~ == wytb) w#( r#) lkb. 83 lk should be omitted with LXX; it is often secondarily introduced in the regnal formulae.

154

Chapter Four: The Regnal Evaluations

wy`DnDpVl …wäyDh r¶RvSa l$Ea∂rVcˆy y∞EkVlAm l°O;kIm wy™IbDa a¶DsDa JK®rö®;d_lDkV;b wy`IbDa h™DcDo_rRvSa lñOkV;k b$DaVjAa ty∞E;b ‹…wcDo r§RvSaA;k b¡DaVjAa ty∞EbV;k h`DcDo wy™IbDa v¶Dawøy h¢DcDo_rRvSa l¬OkV;k wy`IbDa …wh¶DyVxAmSa h™DcDo_rRvSa lñOkV;k wy¡DtObSa …wäcDo r¶RvSaA;k h`DcDo wy™IbDa …wh¶D¥yˆzUo h¢DcDo_rRvSa l¬OkV;k wy`IbDa d¶Iw∂;d h™DcDo_rRvSa lñOkV;k ‹bDaVjAa h#DcDo r∞RvSaA;k wy`IbDa h¶RÚvÅnVm h™DcDo r¶RvSaA;k wy`DtObSa …wäcDo_rRvSa lñOkV;k wy`DtObSa …wäcDo_rRvSa lñOkV;k wy`IbDa h™DcDo_rRvSa lñOkV;k MyáîqÎywøh◊y h™DcDo_rRvSa lñOkV;k

16:33 Ahab 22:43 Jehoshaphat84 22:54 Ahaziah85 2 Kgs 8:18 Jehoram 8:27 Ahaziah 14:3 Amaziah 15:3 Azariah 15:9 Zechariah 15:34 Jotham86 18:3 Hezekiah 21:3 Manasseh 21:20 Amon 23:32 Jehoahaz 23:37 Jehoiakim 24:9 Jehoiachin 24:19 Zedekiah

It is useful to combine the northern and southern formulae to demonstrate their continuity. For example, the formula used for Ahab’s son Ahaziah is very close to the formula for the later Judahite kings, Amaziah, Azariah, Jotham, and Hezekiah (if one follows the reading of the MT at 1 Kgs 22:54).87 However, fourteen Judahite kings possess in their evaluations a comparative clause with k (+ lk) + r#); another two possess a comparative clause with only k + noun (Asa and Ahaz; 1 Kgs 15:11; 2 Kgs 16:2); only the reigns of Jehoshaphat, Joash, and Josiah lack the comparative clause (1 Kgs 22:43; 2 Kgs 12:3; 22:2).88 Yet combining the northern and southern series veils the 84

Hoffmann does not discuss his preference for comparative clauses with r#) versus those without r#). The clause with r#) is used when the comparison concerns a verbal action, whereas k without r#) is used to govern a noun. Accordingly, Hoffmann could have enlarged his data set to account for all comparisons in the regnal framework, whether followed by a (proper) noun is found in four verbal or nominal. The comparison with places, three of which involve David; the other involves Ahab (1 Kgs 15:11; 2 Kgs 3:2; 14:3; 16:2). It is unclear why Hoffmann includes 1 Kgs 22:43 and 2 Kgs 8:27 in his table, since they use k + noun, but omits the other examples. To my knowledge, there are no results from this appreciation as regards source-critical insight. 85 There is strong textual evidence for the reading wynpl wyh r#) in place of h#&( r#) wyb),; LXX (kata_ pa&nta ta_ geno&mena e1mprosqen au)tou~); OL (quae gesta erant ante eum). 86 Hoffmann (1980: 365) writes the comparative formula in Azariah’s reign with r#)k, but the correct reading is r#) lkk. 87 Actually the formula is identical only with that of Jehoichin; however, this need not imply that Ahaziah’s formula is late. 88 The phrase wy™IbDa RN JK®rö®;d_lDkV;b is found in the MT for both Jehoshaphat’s and Josiah’s accounts; however, the phrase Krd lkb as a Davidic comparison occurs only at 4 Reg 22:2 in the LXX. The equivalent of lk is not reflected in the LXX at 16:28a (= MT 1 Kgs 22:43; cf. 3 Reg 15:3a); see Halpern and Vanderhooft (1991: 202 n. 56). In addition, the regnal

k

155

4.4. Royal Predecessor Formula

strict continuity in formulaic expression from Amaziah (2 Kgs 14:13) until Hezekiah (18:3). The continuity is noticeable once these four righteous kings are isolated and grouped together.

h`DcDo wy™IbDa v¶Dawøy h¢DcDo_rRvSa l¬OkV;k

2 Kgs 14:3 Amaziah

According to all that Joash, his father, had done.

wy`IbDa …wh¶DyVxAmSa h™DcDo_rRvSa lñOkV;k

15:3 Azariah

h`DcDo wy™IbDa …wh¶D¥yˆzUo h¢DcDo_rRvSa l¬OkV;k

15:34 Jotham

wy`IbDa d¶Iw∂;d h™DcDo_rRvSa lñOkV;k

18:3 Hezekiah

According to all that Amaziah, his father, had done. According to all that Uzziah, his father, had done. According to all that David his father had done.

Hezekiah is compared with David, because, in one respect, it was not appropriate to compare him with his immediate predecessor, Ahaz, who “did not do what was right in the eyes of YHWH like David, his father” (2 Kgs 16:2). On the other hand, Hezekiah’s resemblance to David was apt as the focus of his genealogical evaluation, since he was the monarch who restored cultic and political order to the Judahite house. It may be that Ahaz’s reign was characterized negatively for the purposing of emphasizing Hezekiah’s restoration of Davidic royal order, similar to the motifs of restoration in the royal display inscriptions and literary predictive texts.89 After Hezekiah, the next king said to be righteous is Josiah; however, the regular formula used from Amaziah to Hezekiah is not attested for Josiah’s reign. In fact, no r#)-clause appears in Josiah’s regnal evaluation at 2 Kgs 22:2. In that verse, Josiah is said to have “gone in all the way of David, his father,” which is similar to the formula used for Jehoshaphat’s evaluation as well as to the formulae of the earlier series of northern evaluations, which use the idiom -b Klh (1 Kgs 15:35; 16:26; 22:53; 2 Kgs 13:2; cf. 17:22). It is also comparable to the immediately preceding negative formula of Amon, the father of Josiah: “And he walked in all the way that his father walked” (2 Kgs 21:21).90 This difference in terminology suggests that Josiah’s evaluation was not written by the same author who composed 2 Kgs 14:3–18:3.91 evaluation of Rehoboam at 3 Reg 12:24a contrasts his actions with those of David employing the phrase kai\ ou)k e0poreu&qh e0n o(dw~| Dauid tou~ patro_j au)tou~ = Krdb Klh alw wyba dwd. 89 Green 2010: 38–40; cf. Liverani 1973: 186–8; see above 4.3.2 and 4.3.3. 90 The comparison with Omri’s evaluation at 16:28a is identical to Amon’s evaluation at 2 Kgs 21:21. This may indicate that the evaluations of Amon and Josiah were made in comparison with the reigns of the earlier northern kings. 91 Weippert 1972: 326–33. Provan (1988: 117) and Monroe (2011: 126) maintain that Josiah is associated with David only as an afterthought in order to replace Josiah as the hero of the Kings history (2 Kgs 18:7–8).

156

Chapter Four: The Regnal Evaluations

The rigidity and continuity of the formula from 2 Kgs 14:3 to 18:3 also corresponds to the seven, overlapping northern reigns from Jehoahaz until Pekah (2 Kgs 13:2, 11; 14:24; 15:9, 18, 24, 28).92 This combination of formulae propels the accounts of the northern and southern reigns forward, contrasting the end of the northern kingdom with the survival of southern kingdom in Hezekiah’s reign. The similar phraseology (r#) lkk) in the final negative evaluations of Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah (cf. 1 Kgs 14:22) should be contrasted with the positive comparative formulae of Amaziah, Azariah, Jotham, and Hezekiah.

wy`DtObSa …wäcDo_rRvSa lñOkV;k

23:32 Jehoahaz

According to all that his fathers had done.

wy`DtObSa …wäcDo_rRvSa lñOkV;k

23:37 Jehoiakim

According to all that his fathers had done.

wy`IbDa h™DcDo_rRvSa lñOkV;k

24:9 Jehoiachin

According to all that his father had done.

MyáîqÎywøh◊y h™DcDo_rRvSa lñOkV;k

24:19 Zedekiah

According to all that Johoiakim had done.

The comparison of Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim with their “fathers” presents a problem since it is unclear who the referents of the comparisons are in these texts. The common use of (rh modified by lkk, attested as a northern idiom, is found only in regnal evaluations for Judahite kings post Josiah (contrast the positive use of the formula at 2 Kgs 14:3; 15:3, 34; 18:3). According to Provan, these statements, “express the view that the kings of Judah as a group were bad rather than good.”93 But Jehoahaz’s father was the righteous Josiah, who was also Jehoiakim’s grandfather. Moreover, nearly half of the Judahite kings are indicated as having done “what is right in the eyes of YHWH.” Alternatively, the “fathers” may refer to an earlier generation of Israelites from the eras of the Exodus, the Wilderness, or the Judges.94 In any case, the above evidence indicates that there were one or more textual breaks

92 On different grounds, Köhlmoos 2007: 222. Nelson (1981: 33, 38) argued that only the rigidity of the formulae for the last four kings was evidence for a redactional break after Josiah’s account. However, I agree with Provan (1988: 48–50) that the formulaic rigidity of the earlier regnal evaluations is no different from that of the last four kings and may be explained similarly as indicating a textual break; cf. McKenzie 1991: 127 n. 13. 93 Provan 1988: 114. 94 Blanco Wißmann (2008: 55) is dismissive of this possibility and does not account for the similar mention of “fathers” at 1 Kgs 14:22 (LXX). Another possibility perhaps worth exploring is that Josiah’s reign was originally negatively evaluated. This would be more plausible if a later kinglist or chronicle was used to supplement the HH.

4.4. Royal Predecessor Formula

157

located somewhere between Hezekiah and the last four kings and not merely between the reigns of Josiah and Jehoiakim.95 It is also unclear why Hoffmann does not discuss the comparative r#)clause in the references to Jeroboam’s “sin.” As Dietrich points out, the phrase, “which he caused Israel to commit,” employing the verb )+x (hiphil), occurs fourteen times in DtrG and only elsewhere at Exod 23:33; Deut 24:4; Jer 32:35; Ecc 5:5; Neh 13:26.96 I assign thirteen of those references to the original HH-framework (1 Kgs 15:26, 34; 16:26; 22:53; 2 Kgs 3:3; 10:29; 13:2, 11; 14:24; 15:9, 18, 24, 28) to which may be added 2 Kgs 13:6. Dietrich rightly concludes that the later examples of this phrase have stemmed not from Deuteronomy or elsewhere but from these original examples of the framework (his “DtrG”).97 4.4.4. “Walking in/Turning from the Way” The r#y-/(r-formula is closely related to the formulae, “walking in” (Klh -b) or “departing from” (Nm rws) the “way” (Krdh).98 As part of the analogical structure of the HH, “the way” (Krdh) is used formulaically to 95 See Provan (1988: 115), who locates a single break between Hezekiah’s and Manasseh’s reigns; Weippert (1972: 333–4); Nelson (1981: 37); and Vanoni (1985: 359–60) locate another break between Josiah’s and Jehoahaz’s reigns. There actually may have been multiple breaks between Hezekiah and Jehoahaz (Halpern and Vanderhooft 1991: 209). Blanco Wißmann (2008: 240) argues that the reference to the fathers in Jehoahaz’s and Jehoiakim’s reigns only concerns evil fathers (cf. Aurelius 2003: 46–7); but this is unclear. He compares these formulae to that of Zechariah, which also refers to the plural “fathers.” But, in this case, all of Zechariah’s fathers are evil, so there is no confusion; cf. 1 Kgs 15:3. Aurelius (2003: 46) maintains that the general reference to the fathers at 2 Kgs 23:32, 37 is necessary because they cannot be compared to the righteous Josiah. But Aurelius does not acknowledge the cases where the historian refers back to a specific king, whether in comparison (2 Kgs 8:18, 27; 21:3) or in contrast (3 Reg 12:24a; 2 Kgs 16:2) in order to avoid a back-reference to an immediate predecessor. 96 Dietrich 1972: 93. 97 Secondary examples are at 1 Kgs 14:16; 15:30; 16:13, 19; 2 Kgs 10:29, 31?; 21:16 (Judah); 23:15. 98 Blanco Wißmann 2008: 43–4. The term r#$FyF is related to the corresponding verbal root with the meaning “to be straight” and can mean “to go on a direct road” with Krd as its object (1 Sam 6:12, followed later with “the cattle did not turn away [rws]”; also, Ps 107:7; Prov 9:15) or to make a path straight (Isa 40:3; 45:13; Prov 3:6); cf. the phrase “straight paths” r#&$ey twOxr;)f at Prov 2:13; cf. 4:11. Prov 11:5 states, “The righteousness of the blameless one will make his path straight (wkrd r#yt), but in his wickedness the wicked one will fall.” Prov 16:17 states, “The highway of the straight ones (Myr#y) is to turn away from evil ((rm rws), and the one who guards his soul watches his way (wkrd).” Similar is Akkadian šūšuru (Š-stem of ešēru), used to speak of having success by going directly on one’s way; šutēšuru (Št-stem) is used in the Weidner Chronicle and in royal inscriptions with the cultic meaning “to insure the correct performance of a cultic ritual” (CAD E, 357, 363).

158

Chapter Four: The Regnal Evaluations

compare a particular ruler with an earlier predecessor, whether distant or immediate. The idiom -b Klh is found in the regnal evaluations for the southern rulers in the HH.99 In the evaluations of the northern kings, the variation between rs )l and -b Klh should be regarded as the artifice of the same historian. From Nadab to Ahaziah (seven kings with the exception of Elah), the idiom -b Klh signifies their active pursuit of their predecessor’s practices,100 whereas from Joram to Hoshea (ten kings), the idiom rs )l shows that they neglected to reform the existing practices.101 It occurs six times at 1 Kgs 3:3 (post-HH); 3 Reg 12:24a; 1 Kgs 15:3 (post-HH?); 3 Reg 16:28a (=MT 22:43);102 2 Kgs 8:18 (post-HH?), 27 (post-HH?). The use of -b Klh at 2 Kgs 8:18, 27 (cf. 1 Kgs 15:3), which belong to Weippert’s RI, signifies that the southern kings followed in the wickedness of the preceding king or did worse by participating in the sins of the northern kings. In the case of Rehoboam, 3 Reg 12:24a states that “he did not walk in (corresponding to )lw -b Klh) the way of David, his father.” That statement may be contrasted particularly with 1 Kgs 3:3: “Solomon loved YHWH, walking in (-b tkll) the statutes of David, his father.”103 The use of -b Klh at 3 Reg 16:28a (MT 1 Kgs 22:43 = Weippert’s RI) communicates that Jehoshaphat was as ardent about being righteous as his father, Asa, had been (the latter is compared with David at 1 Kgs 15:11).104 The -b Klh idiom climaxes at 1 Kgs 16:31 in the reign of the most wicked northern king, Ahab: “As though it was not enough for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam, son of Nebat, he took a wife, Jezebel, daughter of Ethbaal, King of the Sidonians, and he went and served Baal and worshipped him.”105 The idiom rs )l, which recurs in the evaluations of the northern reigns from Joram to Pekah, overlaps with the repetitive expression in the regnal 99

So Campbell (1986: 146–7), who extends Weippert’s RI (his “Pattern B”) to cover the reigns of Rehoboam to Hezekiah and notes the use of the idiom RN Krdb Klyw in this pattern. 100 1 Kgs 15:26, 34; 16:19, 26, 31; 22:53. 1 Kgs 16:19 is probably secondary, since it is presented as an afterthought to 16:18 (cf. 15:30; 16:13; Dietrich 1972: 137 n. 108). 101 2 Kgs 3:3; 10:29, 31b; 13:2, 11; 14:24; 15:10, 18, 24, 28; 17:2; see Halpern and Vanderhooft 1991: 202. 102 If the original position of Jehoshaphat’s regnal evaluation was located at 3 Reg 16:28a immediately before Ahab’s evaluation, then this is problematic for Weippert’s RI, since Jehoshaphat’s reign is supposed to be the beginning of that literary stratum at 1 Kgs 22:41. 103 On the secondary relationship of 1 Kgs 3:3 to the HH, see 6.3.5. 104 Eynikel 1996: 56. 105 See Halpern and Vanderhooft 1991: 201. Ahab’s son, Ahaziah is evaluated similarly: “He walked in the way of his father and in the way of his mother and in the way of Jeroboam, son of Nebat, who caused Israel to sin” (1 Kgs 22:53). However, Ahab’s other son, Jehoram, is the first northern ruler to be evaluated with the idiom Nm rs )l (2 Kgs 3:3), since he did not follow in the way of his father and mother, but only in the way of Jeroboam, son of Nebat.

159

4.4. Royal Predecessor Formula

evaluations of Judahite kings from Asa until Joram): LXX/OL: “he did remove (rysh )l) the bāmôt”; MT: the bāmôt did not disappear (wrs )l).” Table 19. The rws-Motif of “Departure/Removal” Northern

Southern rysh )l

hÎ…n`R;mIm r™Ds_aøl :hÎ…n;m`R Im r¶Ds_aøl twaøÚfAj_lD;kIm r#Ds aâøl f¢Db◊n_NR;b MªDoVb∂rÎy ‹twaøÚfAj_lD;kIm r#Ds aâøl f$Db◊n_NR;b M∞DoVb∂rÎy ‹twaøÚfAjEm` r#Ds aâøl r¶RvSa f$Db◊n_NR;b M∞DoVb∂rÎy twa%øÚfAj l°AoEm rDs aâøl f¢Db◊n_NR;b MªDoVb∂rÎy ‹twaøÚfAj`Em r#Ds aâøl f$Db◊n_NR;b M∞DoVb∂rÎy ‹twaøÚfAj_NIm r#Ds aâøl f$Db◊n_NR;b M∞DoVb∂rÎy

twäømD;bAh◊w

2 Kgs 3:3a106 Joram 13:2 Jehoahaz 13:11 Joash 14:24 Jeroboam II 15:9 Zechariah 15:18 Menahem 15:24 Pekahiah

rysh )l

twäømD;bAh JK¶Aa

rysh )l

twäømD;bAh qñår

rysh )l

twäømD;bAh qñår

rysh )l

twäømD;bAh qñår

15:28 Pekah

rysh )l

‹twømD;bAh qôår

1 Kgs 15:11, 14 Asa 22:44 Jehoshaphat 2 Kgs 12:4 Joash

14:4 Amaziah 15:4 Azariah

15:35 Jotham

rws (hiphil) is employed at the contrasted climaxes for both the northern and southern cultic histories (2 Kgs 17:22; 18:4aa). Whereas YHWH removes (rws hi.) the people of Israel from his sight as a consequence of their not turning (rws qal) from the sin of Jeroboam, Hezekiah removes (rws hi.) the bāmôt which the previous kings had left in operation. Following in Jeroboam’s path resulted in the punishment of exile to Assyria (17:23b), while following in the path of David brought about the continuation of the dynasty, even against Assyria (18:7–8; 19:36–37). This motif of “departure/removal” is only valid for the synchronistic contrast of Israel and Judah and their archetypal rulers, Jeroboam and David (Hezekiah being a David redivivus).107 106 The LXXB of 2 Kgs 3:3 has a reading with the singular “sin,” corresponding to Hebrew t)+a%xa; however, the Lucianic manuscripts agree with the MT, which preserves the original reading in this case. 107 This assertion is based on (1) the use of rws in the evaluations and contrastive climaxes of the northern and southern kings until Hezekiah’s account and (2) the auxiliary nature of the four references after Hezekiah’s account in relation to the HH (2 Kgs 22:2; 23:19, 27; 24:3). For 2 Kgs 22:2, see above 4.4.3.; 23:19 is closely related to 1 Kgs 13:31 and 2 Kgs 17:24, 26 (Eynikel 1996: 283); 23:27 and 24:3 blame Manasseh for the fall of Judah and

160

Chapter Four: The Regnal Evaluations

… hÎ…n`R;mIm …wr™Ds_aøl h§Dwh◊y ry°IsEh_rRvSa dAo wyYÎnDÚp l∞AoEm They did not depart from it … until YHWH removed [Israel] from his face.

17:22b, 23aa Israel

tw#ømD;bAh_tRa ry∞IsEh —a…wâh

18:4aa Hezekiah

It was he who removed the bāmôt.

The comparisons/contrasts are inextricably linked to the evaluations, inasmuch as they are sometimes the only criterion applied for evaluation and also stand in close relationship to the cultic elements of the HH-framework. The comparisons with David are the capstone of the unbroken succession of the southern dynasty until the days of Hezekiah (1 Kgs 15:11; 22:53; 2 Kgs 14:3; 18:3), whereas the comparisons with the northern kings (esp. Jeroboam and Ahab) predict the immediate or eventual fall of the northern houses. The Leitmotifs of “departure” and “removal” associated with rws (qal and hiphil stems, respectively), again, justify the Israelite-Judahite contrast, governed by the synchronistic structure. Without David, Solomon, Asa, Jehoshaphat, or Hezekiah, there is no positive, counter-protagonist (Heilsherrscher) to set up the contrast with the northern Unheilsherrscher, a role played by Jeroboam (and Ahab). It is implausible that the Israelite-Judahite history would have emphasized the political-cultic “sin” of Jeroboam, while neglecting to report on the political-cultic successes of the Judahite kings.108 4.4.5. hwhy t) sy(kh “He Vexed YHWH” The use of the verb s(k (H-stem) with YHWH as its object has been variously attributed to “Deuteronomistic” style.109 Weippert argued that the phrase was “technical” usage for describing the worship of foreign deities and attributed all attestations in Kings to the RII textual block.110 Dietrich argued that the attestations in 1 Kgs 14:9; 16:2; 21:22 (assigned to DtrP) were borrowed from the earlier attestations in the framework of DtrG involving the break with the prior text; 2 Kgs 17:23, as Dietrich (1972: 99–100) notes, follows upon the use of rs )l in relation to the “sin” of Jeroboam (i.e., in accordance with its standard meaning in the regnal evaluations) and therefore suggests that the other texts are late. 108 With Adam 2007: 174–211; Köhlmoos 2007: 226 (similarly, Römer 2005: 102, 103); pace the view of the Neo-Göttingen School: Würthwein 1984: 492; Kratz 2000a: 164–5. 109 Weinfeld 1972: 17–18, 340–41; Hoffmann 1980: 332 (Hos 12:15 = pre-Dtr). See Deut 4:25; 9:18; 31:29; Jer 11:17; 25:6, 7; 32:30, 32; 44:3, 8. 110 Weippert 1972: 326; idem 1973: 222–7. She held that twelve instances were nonDeuteronomistic: Deut 9:18; 32:16, 21; Judg 2:12; 1 Sam 1:7 (without YHWH as obj.); 1 Kgs 14:9; 16:7; 2 Kgs 22:17; 23:19; Isa 65:3; Hos 12:15; Ps 78:58. Weippert was followed by Campbell (1986: 149) in assigning hwhy t) sy(kh to later Dtr redaction (Pattern C) in distinction from his pre-Dtr “Northern Expansion” (Pattern A).

4.4. Royal Predecessor Formula

161

Omride kings at 1 Kgs 16:26 (Omri), 33 (Ahab); 22:54 (Ahaziah); 2 Kgs 17:11; 21:6).111 Eynikel divided the attestations of s(k (H-stem) between the specific references to the “sin(s) of Jeroboam” in RII/Dtr1 and the vague references in RII/Dtr2.112 Rösel distinguished between attestations involving individual northern kings, on the one hand, and those involving Israel as a collective group or individual Judahite kings, on the other hand.113 Relevant to this work is the question of whether any attestations of s(k (H-stem) in Kings were already present in the original framework. If one takes into account the results of the aforementioned studies, only the attestations in the prologues for the Omride kings in 1 Kgs 16:26, 33; 22:54 have the greatest likelihood of having belonged to the original framework. However, one cannot easily divide these attestations from the other examples of s(k (H-stem) involving prophetic speech, collective Israel, or Judahite kings. The example concerning Omri at 1 Kgs 16:26 reads exactly like the preceding occurrence involving both Baasha and Elah at 16:13, which is attached to the fulfillment notice of the prediction of the fall of Baasha’s dynasty at v. 12 (see 16:2–4). Both 16:13 and 16:26 conclude with: Mhylbhb l)r#y yhl) hwhy-t) sy(khl “Vexing YHWH, God of Israel, with their vanities”

In both cases, the antecedent of “their” in the expression “with their vanities” is collective Israel, which Jeroboam or Baasha/Elah led into sin (see 1 Kgs 14:9, 15; cf. Deut 32:21; Jer 8:19). Another potential example occurs in the prophetic speech of Jehu ben Hanani at 3 Reg 16:2 (LXX/OL): “vexing me with their vanities (e0n toi=j matai/oij au)tw~n)” again in reference to Jeroboam’s causing Israel to sin.114 If the examples in the prophetic texts at 1 Kgs 14:9, 15; 15:30, 16:2, 7, 13, 21:20 (LXX), 22 are later than the original framework, then the example in Omri’s prologue evaluation is likely also secondary. The attestation in the prologue for Ahab at MT 16:33b also presents interpretive difficulties: “Ahab continued doing [...] vexing YHWH, God of Israel, more than all the kings of Israel before him.” As it now stands, MT 16:33 is superfluous after the evaluation at 16:30: “Ahab did more evil than 111

Dietrich 1972: 90–91. Dietrich assigned to DtrN the attestations in 1 Kgs 14:15; 15:30; 16:(7), 13; 2 Kgs 17:17; 21:15; 22:17; 23:26. He overlooked the example at LXXBL 3 Reg 20(21):20 (parorgi/sai au)to&n), which is probably a post-Dtr addition, if not DtrP. 112 Eynikel 1996: 69–71: Dtr1: 1 Kgs 14:9, 15; 15:30; 16:26, 33; 21:22; 22:54; 2 Kgs 23:19; Dtr2: 1 Kgs 16:7; 2 Kgs 17:11b, 17; 21:6, 15; 22:17; 23:26; similarly, Joo (2006: 36), who assigns 1 Kgs 14:15 to Dtr2 (ibid. 68). 113 Rösel 1999: 23–4; see also Joo 2006: 36, 65. Examples involving individual northern Kings: 1 Kgs 14:9, 15; 15:30; 16:2, 7, 13, 26, 33; 21:22; 22:54; versus those involving collective Israel or Judahite kings: 1 Kgs 14:15; 16:13; 2 Kgs 17:11, 17; 21:6 (Manasseh), 15; 22:17; 23:19, 26 (Manasseh). 114 MT reads Mtf)O+%xab@; “with their sins.”

162

Chapter Four: The Regnal Evaluations

all who were before him.”115 It has been added to the earlier cultic report in 1 Kgs 16:31–33a to connect it to the prophetic texts mentioned above and in relation to Omri’s prologue. The same reasoning also applies to Ahaziah’s evaluative material in his prologue at 1 Kgs 22:54, where the expression “he vexed YHWH, God of Israel, according to all that his father did” (with LXXL/OL) occurs after the comparative formulae (“he walked in the way of his father”) and cultic report.116 The formula “to vex YHHW” should be regarded as later than the standard formulae belonging to the original framework: “he did evil in the sight of YHWH” and “he walked in the way of RN.” 4.4.6. Comparative Evidence It is natural that the HH-historian drew comparisons and contrasts with David, since, according to the biblical sources, he was the founder of the dynasty. The Babylonian dynasty of Hammurapi sought to legitimate itself through appeasing a special class of defunct royal ancestors.117 Grayson argued that Šamši-Adad I attempted to legitimate his ancestry by combining his nonAssyrian ancestors with a genuine Assyrian lineage “with an emphasis on the continuity of the Assyrian royal line.”118 On the Black Obelisk of Shalmane115 Trebolle (1989: 136–8) uses the LXXL/OL versions of 16:33 “he did more evil than all the kings of Israel before him” to argue for an instance of redactional Wiederaufnahme and thus for the secondary insertion of vv. 31–33a. Trebolle’s case is unconvincing for multiple reasons, as it results in more difficulties than it solves: 1) why was there no mention of Jeroboam’s sin(s) in Ahab’s prologue? 2) How did 1 Kgs 16:31 preserve the specific patronymic for Jezebel that occurs nowhere else? 3) Where did the later passages that refer to Ahab’s worship of Baal and Asherah obtain their information (see 1 Kgs 22:54; 2 Kgs 3:2; 10:27–28; 13:6; 21:3)? It is preferable to regard 16:33b as a redactional addition that repeats 16:30 rather than as an indication of the secondary nature of vv. 31–33a. 116 The variant readings of the LXXL/OL at 3 Reg 16:33; 22:54; 4 Reg 1:18d indicate a later exegesis after the judgment formulae for the Omrides were joined to the prophetic texts in 1 Kgs 21; 2 Kgs 1; 9–10. LXXL 3 Reg 16:33 reads “to cut off himself” (perhaps going back to w#pn t) tyrkhl) indicating that Ahab’s misdeeds caused only his own death (contra 1 Kgs 21:21–24). According to 3 Reg 22:54, Ahaziah ben Ahab vexed YHWH more than those before him, suggesting that Ahaziah’s tragic death came as a consequence of his own misdeeds, not those of his father. According to LXXL 4 Reg 1:18d, Joram was not as evil as his “brothers,” which anticipates the account of their assisination under Jehu in 2 Kgs 10 and construes their deaths as justifiable on the basis of their own individual conduct. However, 1:18d qualifies the already restricted comparison of Joram with is brothers in stating that YHWH grew angry “with him” and with the house of Ahab. In sum, in LXXL each king is responsible for his own demise, whereas the MT leaves room for collective punishment. It is unlikely that these variants in LXXL are original, since they stand in tension with the judgments at 1 Kgs 21:21–24; pace Schenker 2004: 100. 117 Finkelstein 1966: 95–118. According to Suriano (2010: 149 n. 2), the ideology of royal ancestry probably emerged with the rise of the Amorites in the Old Babylonian period. The same concern is evidenced at Ugarit (ibid. 150–4). 118 Grayson 1971: 311–19 (citation at 317).

4.4. Royal Predecessor Formula

163

ser III (858–824 B.C.E.), Jehu is described as a “son of Omri,” despite the fact that he was not of true blood descent.119 The genealogical characterizations of David and Jeroboam as dynastic founders hold in common with Near Eastern parallels the objective to legitimate the present dynasty via the claim of an ancient and continuous pedigree.120 Ash has set forth the view that the author of Kings possessed an “‘ideology of the founder,’ that is, his ideological notion that the fate of a kingdom or dynasty was determined by the behavior of its founder.”121 Although Ash’s approach is not concerned with diachronic matters, many of the texts to which he appeals are post-HH, i.e., the later “Josianic” account of the division of the kingdom in 1 Kgs 11:26–12:33; 14:7–8, particularly the notions of Solomon as a “scapegoat” and Jeroboam as initially “good” (see 6.4.1 and ch. 7). He differentiates the ideology of Kings from the ancestral ideologies of the nonbiblical texts in that Kings assigns the fate of both kingdoms on the basis of their first king, whereas nonbiblical texts focus on continuity with the dynastic line rather than on the founder.122 It seems to me that he is partially correct on this point, since, as a rule, the royal inscriptions and kinglists of the Near East focus neither on the first ruler of the dynasty nor, more specifically, on the initial ruler’s function as prognostic of the dynasty’s future.123 The main 119

The designation as Omri’s son may indicate that the Assyrian king regarded him as a legitimate ruler; see Blanco Wißmann 2008: 56. More generally, on genealogical legitimation in the Assyrian royal inscriptions, see Wilson 1977: 56–114; Pongratz-Leisten 1997: 75–108. 120 For the Near Eastern context, see Michalowski 1984: 237–48; Wilcke 1988: 116; Pongratz-Leisten 1997: 97–8. A major difference between the HH/Kings and the Near Eastern texts is the absence of a mythical foundation for Israelite-Judahite kingship, while in Mesopotamian royal inscriptions not only is the individual king (the “eternal seed” zēru dārû or “distant scion” līpu rūqu) legitimated, but the general institution of kingship is naturalized in the framework of creation (Cancik-Kirschbaum 1996: 15). In any case, dynastic legitimation from venerability is consistent across Mesopotamian and biblical royal ideologies. In SKL, the mythological connection allowed the Dynasty at Isin to connect itself not through a true genealogical lineage per se but through the transfer of divine favor from city to city; see Michalowksi 1984: 242. 121 Ash 1998: 17. Ash rightly underscores the contrastive representations of the southern and northern founders: “David and Jeroboam become opposites. Jeroboam becomes the antiDavid, the cause of Israel’s fall and a negative standard of comparison for future kings” (ibid. 19). On narrative prolepsis through characterization, see Sternberg 1985: 337–41. 122 This is not to say that David engendered the ultimate fate of Judah but that it was generally successful and durable. Of course, Ash’s comments operate more effectively in the HH or a Josianic edition of 1–2 Kings. 123 See already Evans 1983: 121: “True, there are differences between the two: unlike Naram-Sin, Jeroboam is the first member of his dynasty and nothing like the telescoping of the Gutian invasion into the reign of Naram-Sin occurs in the Deuteronomist’s scheme.” However, Evans points out that the results of Naram-Sin’s and Jeroboam’s cases are the same: the collapse of the kingdom on the basis of cultic “sins.” Wilson (1977: 64–9) points

164

Chapter Four: The Regnal Evaluations

issue with Ash’s formulation of the proleptic characterization of the dynastic founders in 1–2 Kings is that it does not account for the behavior of individual kings or the corresponding divine reward/retribution. If the fates of the two dynasties depended solely on the behavior of their founders, then the judgments given for the subsequent kings would be meaningless. The northern kingdoms did not perish because of Jeroboam but because each king continued in Jeroboam’s “sins,” i.e., in the cultic worship at the sites of Bethel and Dan. Correspondingly, the Davidic kingdom remained strong not merely because of David’s righteousness, but because the majority of its kings were righteous. YHWH delivered Jerusalem from the Assyrian invaders because Hezekiah trusted in him (2 Kgs 18:5). It is not mainly the founder of both dynasties that determines the success of the Davidic kingdom or the failure of the northern kings but the overall conduct of their kings. David and Jeroboam are paragons of faithful and apostate kings, respectively, who establish new dynasties, but the fate of the dynasty will depend as much on their successors as it does on them. Turning to discuss the examples of explicit comparisons and contrasts with royal predecessors in levantine royal inscriptions, one observes the link between father and son in the Aramaic inscriptions from Samʾal (eighth century B.C.E.). For example, in the inscriptions of Bar-Rakkab, the following phrase recurs: Because of the loyalty of my father and because of my loyalty, my lord Rakkabel and my lord Tiglath-Pileser seated me upon the throne of my father (KAI 215:19; 216:4–7; 219:4–5).

The juxtaposition of Bar-Rakkab’s righteousness with that of his father, Panamuwa, is used to demonstrate that the longevity of their ruling line is owing to their fidelity to the Assyrian overlord, Tiglath-Pileser, and also to the patron deity of the royal house, Rakkabel. Bar-Rakkab is able to boast of the legitimacy of his line by the continuity of righteousness from father to son. Relevant, too, is the Aramaic inscription from Dan (ninth century B.C.E.), which provides support for the biblical portrayal of David as the royal founder of the Judahite dynasty, in referring to the Judahite kingdom as the “house of David” (bytdwd; KAI 310:9).124 This historical evidence confirms the exisout that a few inscriptions belonging to Adad-nirari III, Esarhaddon, and Šamaš-šum-ukin exhibit telescoping, skipping over several generations to connect the dynastic line to its founder. However, these are not examples of the “ideology of the founder,” since these royal inscriptions merely emphasize the present king’s pedigree as being in continuity with a long dynastic line. The material point is that it has an early origin or a “genuine” connection to an earlier dynasty, not that the origin prefigures the dynasty’s future. 124 This is not the place to discuss thoroughly the significance of the Dan inscription or the debate in biblical scholarship regarding its authenticity. I regard the interpretation provided above of the syntagm bytdwd “House of David” in the inscription as standard and as the most probable, historically; I do not concur with the less commonly held skepticism

4.4. Royal Predecessor Formula

165

tence not of only of the Davidic dynasty in Judah but also the presence of a royal “Davidic” ideology in the ninth century B.C.E. The epigraphic evidence not only incorporates comparisons with royal predecessors, but also presents contrasts between the temporal period of earlier kings and the present time of the ruler or high official presented in the inscription. A Phoenician inscription from ancient Samʾal (eighth century B.C.E.) represents an explicit contrast between Kilamuwa and his royal predecessors (KAI 24:1–5, 9–13): Kilamuwa claims that he accomplished what four of his predecessors had not done, including his father and his brother (lines 1–5). I am Kilamuwa, son of HYʾ. Gabbar ruled over YʾDY but accomplished nothing; there was BMH and he accomplished nothing; and there was my father, HYʾ, and he did not accomplish anything; and there was my brother, Shaʾil, and he did not accomplish anything; but I, Kilamuwa, son of TM-, what I accomplished, my predecessors did not accomplish.125

Kilamuwa contrasts his own present reign with the past reigns of his predecessors as a contrast between present order and past disorder. Within the period of past reigns in the inscription is repeated the negative judgment formula “there was RN and he accomplished nothing” (kn RN wbl pʿl). Kilamuwa’s present reign is contrasted with the past by fronting the first person pronoun after the waw and stating in the positive the same terminology: wʾnk klm[w] . br . tm- . mʾš . pʿlt bl . pʿl . hlpny{h}m “but I, Kilamuwa, son of TM-, what I accomplished, (my) predecessors did not accomplish” (lines 4–5).126 The text among some advocates of the “minimalist” approach concerning the mention of the “House of David.” See recently Couturier (2001: 72–98), who concludes that the syntagm bytdwd refers to the Judahite kingdom and notes the same meaning of dwd tyb at 1 Kgs 12:19 (// 2 Chr 10:19), 20, 26. Courturier argues that the lack of a divider between byt and dwd is not disconcerting, as other texts exhibit the same style of orthographic style in West Semitic texts (e.g., bytʾl KAI 222 A: 34; bytgš KAI 222 B: 11; bytʾwkn KAI 233: 4, 5, 9, 13, 15; bytʿdn KAI 233: 14, 15); in general, the absence of the word divider is common after the nomen regens in West Semitic inscriptions of the tenth to sixth centuries B.C.E. (ibid. 82– 86). 125 In the Karatepe inscription, Azatiwada also states that he subdued strong lands, something that the previous kings were unable to do (KAI 26:A I 18–19). For Akkadian parallels, see CAD Š/II 1992: 97–8 s.v. šarru. See Green 2010: 82–6, 146–8. According to Green, as with Mesha, Zakkur, and Panamuwa, Kilamuwa’s claim to military success had domestic consequences within his own territory that were unusual for Assyrian rulers, who typically focused on external territory in military endeavors. 126 On the textual and morphological problems involving hlpny{h}m, see Green 2010: 145–6 n. 19. On the basis of context, the reading here assumes that the word is made up of a deictic particle + complex preposition + yod-enclitic as a gentilic + mem-enclitic as a plural marker. The second hē would be regarded as an error (cf. hlpnym in line 10). Green’s translation “those who preceded them” would refer to some unmentioned group of predecessors who lived before the predecessors mentioned in lines 1–4, but this is unwarranted in the text as the main contrast is between Kilamuwa and his precedessors mentioned explicitly in lines

166

Chapter Four: The Regnal Evaluations

also contrasts Kilamuwa’s military success with his predecessors’ military weakness (lines 5–7). He also improved the condition of the MŠKBM-group of people, who had been treated harshly by the former kings (lines 9–13). I (ʾnk), Kilamuwa, the son of Hayya, sat upon my father’s throne. In the presence of the former kings (mhlkm . hlpnym) the MŠKBM used to whimper like dogs; but I (wʾnk) – to some I was father, and to some I was a mother, and to some I was a brother. Him who had never seen the face of a sheep, I made owner of a flock; him who had never seen the face of an ox, I made owner of a herd and owner of silver and owner of gold; and him who had never seen linen from his youth, in my days they covered with byssus. It was I who (wʾnk) took the MŠKBM by the hand, and they behaved (toward me) like an orphan toward (his) mother.

Kilamuwa boasts of his protection of the weak, designated in this inscription as the MŠKBM, who were disgraced before Kilamuwa’s time. The theme of social justice in this inscription calls to mind the episode with Rehoboam and his failure to heed the elders’ warning to treat the people with less severity than their father, resulting in the negative evaluation, “he did not walk in the way of David, his father” and in his forfeit of the northern tribes to Jeroboam (3 Reg 12:24a–z; cf. 2 Chr 13:7). An inscription written in the language of Assyrian on behalf of the Aramean king Kapara of Gozan dating to ninth century B.C.E. contains almost verbatim the language of the Kilamuwa inscription. I am Kapara, son of Hadiyanu: What my father (and) my grandfather … had not accomplished, I myself accomplished” (šá AD-ia AD.AD-ia … la e-pu-šu-ni a-na-ku e-tap-šá).127

The Phoenician Karatepe inscription also draws repeated contrasts between past disorder and present order. And I built strong fortresses in all the frontiers, on the borders, in the places where there were wicked men (ʾšm rʿm), leaders of marauding bands, none of whom had ever been subject to the house of Mopsos – but I (wʾnk), Azatiwada, set them under my feet. (KAI 26, A I 13–17).

And afterwards in the same text: And I humbled (wʿn ʾnk) strong lands in the West which none of the kings who preceded me had humbled (ʾš bl ʿn hmlkm ʾš kn lpny). But I (wʾnk), Azatiwada, humbled them (ʿntnm) (ibid. A I 18–20).

In this last excerpt, the contrast is represented as a restoration of order using the same terminology to describe the former period of disorder (ʿn “to humble”). However, both excerpts from the Karatepe inscription feature the fronted pronoun “I” to mark the contrast between the past and present periods. A similar sequence occurs in a Hieroglyphic Luwian text from Carchemish

1–4, in line 5 (“my father’s house”), and again in lines 9–10 (mhlkm . hlpnym “the former kings”). 127 For a discussion, see Tropper 1993: 35.

4.4. Royal Predecessor Formula

167

dating to the tenth or early ninth century B.C.E. concerning Katuwa king of Carchemish. When Tarhunzas gave me my paternal succession, the Karkamišean Tarhunzas had exalted the person neither for my father, nor for my grandfather had he exalted (the person), but for me Katuwas, the Kar(ka)mišean Country-Lord he exalted the person (CHLI, 1.1 II.13+14 A2+3 §§2–5).

The same text continues with an enumeration of divine blessings during Katuwa’s reign involving economic and cultic prosperity (§§7–9). The evidence put forth here demonstrates a wide range of use concerning the motif of the restoration of order in the ninth century B.C.E. in southern Anatolia and in the Levant. The motif represents the movement within a single royal genealogy from a bad or good period of previous reigns to a good or better contemporary reign. To my knowledge, the explicit use of this motif does not occur in any of the chronicles or kinglists of Mesopotamia, suggesting that its presence in 1–2 Kings in the Judahite reigns down to Hezekiah was entirely of local derivation. The motif would have likely been included in earlier memorial inscriptions in Israel or Judah, and future excavations may bring some examples to light. Parker has contrasted the functions of the royal memorial inscription and the kinglist. In his opinion, whereas dedicatory and monumental inscriptions were erected for the immediate legitimation of the present ruler and for gaining favor with the patron deity or deities of the royal house, kinglists were composed with the aim of demonstrating the legitimacy of the present ruler by positioning him as the last of an ancient and authentic line of kings.128 The literary goals of the authors of Kings were, according to Parker, more in line with the kinglists than the dedicatory and monumental inscriptions. Generally speaking, Parker is correct to observe that the structure of the framework is after the fashion of a kinglist, but one should not disregard the evaluative structures in royal inscriptions associated with genealogies. Such evaluations in the royal inscriptions can be quite similar to genealogical evaluations in texts with chronographic style. One needs only to compare the Uruk Prophecy, the Kilamuwa inscription, and the HH-framework to make this point. The material point is whether there is a genealogical structure with evaluations present in a given text, not whether it is a kinglist or memorial inscription stricto sensu. Still, I retain the force of Parker’s argument that in the transformation from kinglist to historical narrative, the historian worked in large degree in accordance with the rationale of the genre of kinglist (better: royal genealogical text), narrating the last king’s reign as the climax of the history.

128

Parker 2000: 376.

168

Chapter Four: The Regnal Evaluations

4.5. The Relationship of the Synchronisms and the Evaluations The assertion that the phrase “He did what was right/wrong in the eyes of YHWH” is “Deuteronomistic”129 is in need of further discussion and is based on the unproven assumption that the idea of centralization in Deuteronomy directly influenced the author’s use of this phrase in the first edition of 1–2 Kings.130 Kratz maintains that an Israelite-Judahite chronicle would have been theologically coherent. The motivation for the synchronization would have been to compare Israel and Judah as the “people of God” on the basis of the archetypal “sin of Jeroboam,” a breach of the measures of both cultic unity and cultic purity.131 The earliest (exilic) edition of Kings was a politicaltheological etiology of the catastrophe experienced in the northern kingdom, recreating the identity of the people in terms of the unity of God, people, and land.132 Having both ultimately failed to remain loyal to YHWH, the Israelite and Judahite kings received one and the same fate: destruction of the kingdom and exile into foreign lands. The two measures of cultic unity and cultic purity are closest to the perspective of Deuteronomy, and therefore the explicit theological schema of 1–2 Kings is Deuteronomistic. Unfortunately, Kratz does not defend the unity of the entire framework of Kings in terms of the opening and closing formulae, evaluations, comparisons, or cultic elements.133 His theory of the redactional history of Kings underestimates the role of David and the Judahite house in the history of the two 129

So Weinfeld 1972: 335; Würthwein 1984: 492; Levin 2008: 135. The majority of scholars since De Wette have held to the view that the evaluative structure of Kings assumed entirely the Deuteronomic law of centralization. Significant scholars who have dissented from this view include: Jepsen 1956: 60–76 (esp. p. 73); Weippert 1972: 301–39; Köhlmoos 2007: 226–7; Blanco Wißmann 2008: 44–54; Adam 2010: 38–40. 131 Kratz 2000a: 164–6; 2000b: 1–17 (at 8–12); cf. Würthwein 1984: 491; idem 1994: 4– 5; Linville 1998; Köhlmoos 2006: 154–68, 179–82; Blanco Wißmann 2008: 154–73, 194–6. However, Kratz’s application of the “sin” of Jeroboam to the mention of the bāmôt in the positive framework-evaluations of the southern rulers (1 Kgs 15:14a; 22:44; 2 Kgs 12:4; 14:4; 15:4, 35) is problematic, since he correctly attributes the mention of bāmôt in Jeroboam’s reign to a secondary stratum (DtrS): idem 2000a: 168, 192 (cf. Hoffmann 1980: 41–3); see 5.2. 132 So Köhlmoos 2006: 154. Kratz and Köhlmoos locate the creation of this etiological edition in the exilic period, but the assimilation of the northern identity within a Judahite point of view was possible already after 722 B.C.E. (Römer 2005: 103, 105–6). From the standpoint of a history-of-religions approach, the emerging dynastic programs of the northern and southern kingdoms as well as the traditional tribal religion would have constantly maintained their ancestral identities in terms of YHWH’s relationship with his people, Israel (see Albertz 1994: 114–26; Liverani 2005: 42; Sanders 2009: 124). 133 This critique is applicable in some respects to Hoffmann 1980: 29–46 and Aurelius 2003: 21–140; for the view that the schema of Kings is not a unity, see Rösel 1999: 37–46. 130

4.5. The Relationship of the Synchronisms and the Evaluations

169

kingdoms.134 It is not clear that the Judahite kings Rehoboam, Abijam, Jehoram (post-HH?), and Ahaziah (post-HH?), who are graded negatively, are actually treated thus on account of cultic impropriety, and certainly not on the basis of Jeroboam’s sin (nowhere is this explicit).135 They are contrasted with David or compared to Ahab, and the consequences of their negative evaluation are political upheaval and/or foreign incursion (3 Reg 12:24a–z; 1 Kgs 14:25–26; 2 Kgs 8:20–22; 9:28; 16:6). Furthermore, Kratz’s hypothesis does not account for the greater contrast between the Israelite and Judahite evaluations – i.e., negative vs. positive – especially from the reigns of Asa to Hezekiah, a pattern that breaks with the following reigns of Manasseh, Amon, and the last four kings of Judah. Kratz is thus unable to rule out the plausibility of a synchronized history that contrasted the survival of the Judahite dynasty with the fate of Israelite houses. Finally, his appeal to cultic centralization and cultic purity as explicitly “Deuteronomistic” ignores that political-cultic centralization probably resulted already in the period following the Assyrian annexation of the northern kingdom in 720 B.C.E.136 A cultic reform with a predilection for YHWH as the patron deity of Israel above other deities is plausible already at this period (see ch. 10).137 Furthermore, the notions of monotheism or the collective identity of Israel and Judah do not necessarily prove a text as “Deuteronomistic,” “Josianic,” or “exilic,” since the date of the historical inception of those notions is not firmly established. The strongest argumentation must emerge from inductive textual investigation, not primarily from a deductive history-of-religions approach. Although Kratz rightly maintains that the special synchronistic structure of the Israelite-Judahite work possesses a coherency in terms of political events and theological explanation,138 his conclusion that the synchronistic structure links Israel and Judah together in terms of a common fate is problematic. The structure of the synchronisms does not in and of itself favor a comparison or contrast of the two kingdoms’ fates; rather, the synchronistic structure only dictates that such a comparison or contrast exists. 134

The omission of David in the earliest evaluative stratum of Kings is still a residual effect of Noth’s emphasis on the pessimistic plot of the Deuteronomistic History, noticeable in the works of Wolff 2000: 62–78; Weippert 1972: 301–39; Veijola 1975: 5, 141; idem 1982: 159; Würthwein 1984: 492, 500. Noth’s omission was aptly criticized by von Rad (1953: 74–91), who in turn influenced Cross (1973: 274–89); for other critical responses, see Cortese 1975: 37–52; Campbell 1986: 146–7, 176 n. 21; Provan 1988: 52–3; Eynikel 1996: 57; Aurelius 2003: 34 n. 45; Blanco Wißmann 2008: 58. 135 Ahaz (2 Kgs 16:3a) is compared with the kings of Israel, not explicitly with Jeroboam’s sins; nor is Baal mentioned. 136 Albertz 1994: 180–81; Finkelstein and Silberman 2001: 229–50; Finkelstein and Silberman 2006: 269–75; Bloch-Smith 2009: 35–44; Halpern 2009: 411. 137 Further, see Halpern 2009: 98–131; differently, Pakkala 1999. 138 See also Köhlmoos 2007: 222–5.

170

Chapter Four: The Regnal Evaluations

Blanco Wißmann (following Kratz) also argues for a unified and comprehensive view of “Israel” (a designation encompassing both Israel and Judah) in the first version of Kings.139 According to him, the notion of the literary unification of Israel and Judah in Kings most plausibly arose in the exile, since it is unlikely that the histories of Israel and Judah would have been so closely connected and narrated while both kingdoms were still in existence.140 Similarly, the Neo-Babylonian chronicles probably only provided coverage on both Assyria and Babylonian in the Neo-Babylonian era, after Assyria had fallen from power.141 He maintains that Jepsen’s Synchronistic Chronicle is improbable and that the sources of the two houses (“the Books of the Events of the Days of Kings of Israel/Judah”) remained separate until the author of the first edition of Kings composed his history of the two kingdoms in the exile. Blanco Wißmann observes that the synchronisms alone are insufficient to decide whether the first edition of Kings ended in tragedy with the two kingdoms meeting the same fate (Noth’s and the Göttingen model) or whether it was pre-exilic, concluding in triumph with Judah deliverance after the destruction of the northern kingdom (Jepsen’s or Cross’s model).142 In this statement, he is more careful in his view of the association of the two kingdoms structured through the synchronisms. The synchronistic structure alone does not signal whether the history concluded with both kingdoms meeting similar or distinct fates.143 However, the evidence does not fully support him 139 Blanco Wißmann 2008: 39–41; Kratz 2000b: 1–17; idem 2006: 103–28; however, Kratz regards the use of “Israel” in this way as beginning already in the eighth century B.C.E (idem 2006: 116–17). To date, the terminus a quo for the use of a unified “Israel” has not been demonstrated and thus is not operable as a reliable criterion for literary stratification. Albertz (2005: 30–2) points to 1 Kgs 12 and Isa 7:17 as two separate witnesses demonstrating that there must have been a United Monarchy (ibid. n. 11). However, Kratz (2006: 125) has argued that Isa 7:17 is a late addition to First Isaiah. Linville (1998) has dated Kings to the Persian period on the basis of the notion of a unified “Israel.” Incidentally, one may one wonder why Kings was narrated with complete synchronization if its sole concern was the unification of “Israel,” since the Book of Chronicles has an ideal view of “Israel” as the restoration of a unified Israel and Judah, yet lacks the synchronization of the Israelite and Judahite histories (see Blanco Wißmann 2008: 37–8). 140 Ibid. 38. Blanco Wißmann points out, moreover, Israel and Judah do not constitute a political unity in First Isaiah (7:1–3, 7–9; 8:1–4). 141 Blanco Wißmann (ibid. 39) does not mention in this context the fact that ASynH and AKL were composed when Babylon and Assyria existed simultaneously. 142 Ibid. 41. 143 Pace Cohn 2010: 118; more careful is Cohn’s prior statements at ibid. 113: “But alteration between kingdoms permits a rough juxtaposition of events in one with those of the other. By intertwining their histories in this way, Kings also makes a claim about the interrelated stories and fates of the two kingdoms. Though ruled by different dynasties, they are yet ‘two nations under God.’“ Whether that claim is a justification of the identical of divergent fates of the two dynasties depends on diachronic considerations.

4.5. The Relationship of the Synchronisms and the Evaluations

171

in establishing that the synchronization of Israel and Judah genealogies in a first edition of Kings dates to the exilic period. Nor is he successful in excluding the plausibility that the primary association between Israel and Judah is one of contrast rather than unity. The synchronistic structure of the HH does not preclude that the historian meant to underscore the strong association between the histories of the two kingdoms, as having derived from one original house within a narrative-history. Yet an over-emphasis on the association of the two houses runs the risk of neglecting the strong contrastive-adversative elements of the regnal evaluations as well as those in the episodes of the historical plot.144 According to Adam, not all theological characteristics of 1–2 Kings should be ascribed to secondary Deuteronomistic redaction; rather, one should allow for pre-Deuteronomistic theological reflection in an earlier synchronistic source of Kings. He proposes that the regnal evaluations accreted steadily in accordance with the tenor of the earlier synchronistic chronicle but were nonetheless pre-Dtr.145 One may thus maintain a close connection between the chronographic framework of the HH and the evaluations. Adam appeals to the Neo-Babylonian Chronicles (esp. the Nabonidus Chronicle) as furnishing the closest parallels to the regnal evaluations. To be sure, the Nabonidus Chronicle does offer a critique of that king for the non-celebration of the akītu New Year’s Festival; however, the evaluations in that chronicle are not explicitly stated. Consequently, there is still the problem of explaining how the HHauthor came to add the regnal evaluations solely on the basis of the NeoBabylonian chronicles. Tending in the opposite direction, I would argue that the governing synchronistic structure of the HH included explicit evaluations, e.g., the r#y/(r-formula as well as the comparative-contrastive formulae involving royal predecessors, and that the same author was responsible for both the synchronisms and the evaluative formulae.146 The genealogical structure of the 144 The extrabiblical material is also commensurate with the originally contrastiveadversative function of the synchronistic structure of the HH (see Adam 2007: 177–80; idem 2010: 46–9). ASynH contrasts the merits of Assyria and Babylon whereas the purpose of SKL is uncertain, as the latter excludes reports on political events (Grayson 1975a: 51–56, 157–70; idem 1980: 117). The synchronisms in ABC 1 are primarily intended to demonstrate Babylon’s liberation from Assyria through Elamite incursions. 145 Adam 2007: 174–211; idem 2010: 36–59; cf. Jepsen 1956: 58–60. Jepsen and Adam only consider the narrativity of their Synchronistic Chronicle once material was added to it from annalistic sources. Adam also discusses the narrativity of his reconstructed Synchronistic Chronicle in terms of its relationship to the Saul and David narrative episodes in the Book of Samuel, but as a later development. 146 So Burney 1903: ix; Wellhausen 1963: 295–6; Noth 1981: 63–7; Kratz 2000a: 164; Köhlmoos 2007: 225–8; Blanco Wißmann 2008: 32–58; pace Jepsen 1956: 60–63; Adam 2007: 174–211; Levin 2008: 137.

172

Chapter Four: The Regnal Evaluations

evaluations and the explicit appeal to royal predecessors is fully in line with the form and purpose of a kinglist involving a single dynasty. It is quite difficult to conceive that the linear progression from bad/good > good/better in the Davidic dynasty was carried out on an ad hoc basis. A similar consistency is observable regarding the northern accounts, which are always evaluated negatively, despite the fact that there was cause for praise regarding certain kings (see 4.2). Conversely, the evaluations from Manasseh to Josiah and afterwards have the appearance of an ad hoc nature in light on continuing events that transpired after the HH was written. The implicit and explicit evaluative formulae of the HH – indicated by means of filiation, naming of the queen mother, source citations, death and burial notices, regnal evaluations, comparisons/contrasts with royal predecessors, and cultic reports – guarantee that the distinct fates of Israel and Judah remain foregrounded in the perception of the audience. The sweeping characterization of the all the northern kings as “evil” stands out against the majority of the Judahite kings, who are characterized as “righteous.” The Judahite kingdom, represented by David, was most loyal to YHWH and therefore triumphant.

4.6. Are the Evaluations Deuteronomistic? The comparative expression -b Klh is sometimes described as a later “Deuteronomistic” feature, particularly with respect to the pro-Davidic stance of 1– 2 Kings.147 Weippert argued that RI only makes reference to the immediate predecessor, whereas RII (≈ Dtr1) refers to more distant predecessors, particularly David. This argument has been criticized by Cortese,148 Campbell,149 Provan,150 Eynikel,151 Aurelius,152 and Blanco Wißmann.153 If not David, then 147 For -b Klh as Dtr in the framework of Kings (1 Kgs 15:3; 26, 34; 16:19, 26, 31; 2 Kgs 13:2), see Weinfeld 1972: 333–4, 340. Dietrich (1972: 92) assigned these examples (plus 1 Kgs 22:43, 53; 2 Kgs 8:16, 27; 16:3; 22:2) to DtrG. Würthwein (1984: 492, 500) retained the “sin” of Jeroboam as original to DtrG but attributed the Davidic comparisons to DtrN; cf. Veijola 1975: 5, 141; idem 1982: 159. Würthwein’s view is criticized in Aurelius 2003: 34 n. 45. Kratz (2000: 164–5, 169–73, 192), Levin (2008: 151–63), and Pakkala (2010: 220) retain the Jeroboamic and Davidic comparisons as original to DtrG. Recently, Adam (2010: 39) has argued that the association of the evaluations with David are late; however, since the Davidic comparison is in accordance with the structure of Adam’s synchronistic chronicle (following Jepsen [1956: 30–40], who assigned the Davidic comparisons to RI ≈ DtrG [at p. 68]), it is difficult to assign them to a later hand. 148 Cortese 1975: 37–52. 149 Campbell 1986: 146–7, 176 n. 21. 150 Provan 1988: 52–3. 151 Eynikel 1996: 57. 152 Aurelius 2003: 25.

4.6. Are the Evaluations Deuteronomistic?

173

with whom else would the historian have compared a righteous king whose predecessor was wicked, as in the examples of Asa and Hezekiah (1 Kgs 15:11; 2 Kgs 18:3; cf. 1 Kgs 3:3a; 3 Reg 12:24a; 2 Kgs 14:3; 16:2)? David, as a typological comparison, is the southern counterpart to the northern kings, Jeroboam and Ahab, in whose “way” the majority of northern kings and a handful of southern kings followed (Jehoram 2 Kgs 8:18 [post-HH?]; Ahaziah 8:27 [post-HH?]; Manasseh 21:3 [post-HH]). The synchronistic structure of the HH accentuated the distinguished character of David and his house above the ephemeral northern dynasts. David was the Heilsherrscher of the Judahite house, which outlasted the houses of Jeroboam, Baasha, Ahab, Jehu, and Menahem.154 The Davidic comparisons of the regnal framework (1 Kgs 15:11; 2 Kgs 18:3; cf. 1 Kgs 3:3a; 3 Reg 12:24a; 2 Kgs 14:3; 16:2) must be contrasted with those outside of the framework stemming from later editors (1 Kgs 2:4; 11:4, 6, 33, 34, 38; 14:8). It is not at all clear that the texts speaking of the fulfillment of the Davidic Promise in 2 Sam 7 or alluding to David’s having walked in the commandments of YHWH (1 Kgs 3:14; 8:17–20; 9:4–5) are on the same literary level as the comparisons of the framework.155 As an element of the northern reigns, the idiom -b Klh has not attracted as much attention; however, it also governs the motif of the “sin” of Jeroboam in eight examples;156 it also occurs with the term “sins” in the HH-framework at the reign of Abijam (1 Kgs 15:3). This specific use of the idiom (with “sin[s]”) is exclusive to the HH/Kings and is thus not “Deuteronomistic.” I noted above (4.4.3) that the use of the verb )+x (hiph.) in the HH-framework is not “Deuteronomistic” but is original to the HH-framework.157 As for the comparative idiom (Nm) rs )l, surprisingly, fewer scholars have assigned it to late, “Deuteronomistic” redaction.158 It is one of the distin153

Blanco Wißmann 2008: 58. The statement “he (did not) walk(ed) in the way(s) of YHWH” at 1 Kgs 2:3; 3:14; 8:58; 11:10, 33, 38, 2 Kgs 21:22 is probably post-HH, as is the phrase “he was not careful to walk in the instruction of YHWH” (10:31); cf. Deut 5:33; 8:6; 10:12; 11:22; 19:9, 26:17; 28:9; 30:16; Josh 22:5; Judg 2:22; Jer 9:13; 26:4; 32:23; 44:10, 23; see Dietrich 1972: 20, 82 n. 62; Weinfeld 1972: 333, 334. In these cases, the king does not behave in accordance with his predecessor but with YHWH. 155 See Eynikel 1996: 56–8; Rösel (1999: 90–2) also argues against the unity of the Davidic motif in Kings; pace Veijola 1975: 5; Nelson 1981: 99–118; Würthwein 1984: 500; Aurelius 2003: 25, 33–4. 156 1 Kgs 15:26, 34; 16:26, 31; 2 Kgs 13:2 (rx)), 6 (after rs )l), 11 (after rs )l); 17:22 (before rs )l); later examples are at 1 Kgs 16:19; 2 Kgs 10:31 (before rs )l). 157 Dietrich (1972: 93) assigns the framework texts with )+x hi. to DtrG, which has influenced the later examples in the Book of Kings. 158 Significantly, a discussion of the phrase Nm rs )l in the father-comparison is omitted in Dietrich 1972 and Weinfeld 1972. Hoffmann (1980: 347–8) attributes the verb rws (hiph.) of the framework notices to Dtr usage. Aurelius (2003: 32 n. 37, 34 n. 45) follows 154

174

Chapter Four: The Regnal Evaluations

guishing characteristics of Weippert’s RI stratum (seventeen examples), which she associated with the “sin” of Jeroboam and the disappearance of the bāmôt.159 The Göttingen School has also focused on the “sin” of Jeroboam as part of the core of DtrG, as even earlier than the pro-Davidic elements in Kings.160 Others such as Campbell,161 Provan,162 and Halpern/Vanderhooft163 assign it to their Hezekian DtrH, and Eynikel assigns rs )l to his “RI.”164 The notion of the removal of the bāmôt is basic to the evaluative structure of the framework.165 The verb rws is translated “to depart” in the qal stem and “to remove” in the hiphil stem. It is never used in Deuteronomy for the disappearance of cultic sites, but indicates the deviation from a pattern of behavior that is in accordance with its religious ideals (e.g., Deut 2:27; cf. 2 Kgs 22:2). The formula cannot be attributed to Deuteronomistic style on the basis of similarities with Deuteronomy.166 In the Hiphil, it may denote the removal of clothing or jewelry (Gen 38:14, 19; 41:42; Exod 34:34; Deut 21:13; Isa 3:18; Ezek 26:16) as well as the removal of heavier objects, such as chariot wheels (Exod 14:25) and the covering of the ark (Gen 8:13). It is used for the removal of “foreign” deities (Gen 35:2; Josh 24:14, 23; Judg 10:16; 1 Sam 7:3, 4) and illegitimate cultic objects associated with the worship of other dei-

Hoffmann in assigning both the qal and hiphil stems of rws to Deuteronomistic parlance. He cites examples of rws (hiph.) with cultic objects at Gen 35:2; Josh 24:14, 23; Judg 10:16; 1 Sam 7:3, 4; 28:3; 1 Kgs 15:12; 2 Kgs 3:2. The references explicitly concern “strange gods,” necromancy (1 Sam 28:3), and Baal/Astarte (Judg 10:16; 2 Kgs 3:2). However, the use of rws (hiph.) at 2 Kgs 18:4 is the climax of the repeated references with rws (qal) repeated in the HH-framework (1 Kgs 15:14; 22:44; 2 Kgs 12:2; 14:2; 15:2, 35) that do not explicitly mention foreign gods and necromancy, but whose character is somewhat ambiguous in nature (see 4.2.2.1); furthermore, the use of rws (hiph.) at Hos 2:4, 19 may be dated to the eighth century B.C.E.; finally, the notion of the removal of cultic objects is not unfamiliar to nonbiblical inscriptions. It is typically the fear of most who erected display inscriptions and is a frequent topos in curses against anyone who should “remove” the image, remains, or object in the future. Thus, 2 Kgs 18:4 should not be assigned a late date on the basis of the passages that Aurelius cites. 159 Weippert 1972: 309–11; twelve examples in the northern reigns (IS1): 2 Kgs 3:3; 10:29, 31; 13:2, 6, 11; 14:24; 15:9, 18, 24, 28; 17:22; five examples in the southern reigns: 1 Kgs 22:43; 2 Kgs 12:4; 14:4; 15:4; 15:35. 160 Würthwein 1984: 492; Kratz 2000a: 164–5. 161 Campbell 1988: 144–5 (almost exclusive to Campbell’s pattern A, noting the exceptions at 1 Kgs 22:43; 2: Kgs 3:3). 162 Provan 1988: 40, 62–3. 163 Halpern and Vanderhooft 1991: 199–208 (at 207). 164 Eynikel 1996: 79–82; his “RI” is more expansive than Weippert’s RI, covering portions of 1 Kgs 3:2 to 2 Kgs 18:7 but is not yet connected with the other texts associated with the DtrH. 165 1 Kgs 3:2; 15:14; 1 Kgs 22:44 (= 3 Reg 16:28b); 2 Kgs 12:4; 14:4; 15:4, 35; 18:4, 22. 166 Similarly, Milgrom 2000: 69.

4.6. Are the Evaluations Deuteronomistic?

175

ties (1 Kgs 15:12–13; 2 Kgs 3:2; Jer 4:1; Ezek 11:18).167 More figuratively, rws may denote the cancellation or revocation of something said (Isa 31:2), granted (2 Sam 7:15), or of a resultant reproach (1 Sam 17:16; 1 Kgs 2:31; Isa 25:8). It can mean to desist or refrain from behaving or acting in a certain manner (see Isa 1:16 // ldx “to cease”). Aurelius has recently argued that the use of rs )l at 2 Kgs 22:2 (Josiah) is assignable to the same literary level as the other examples in the framework (northern and southern).168 However, an issue arises from the addition of l)m#&w Nymy, which does not occur elsewhere in Kings, but is prevalent in Deuteronomy. Aurelius points to 1 Kgs 15:26b; 16:26; 22:43 as texts of the framework comparable to 2 Kgs 22:2b and concludes that Deuteronomy is not the origin of Josiah’s evaluation; rather, Josiah’s evaluation (as part of the regnal framework) is the Vorbild of the “right-left” formula in Deuteronomy.169

l`Ea∂rVcˆy_tRa ay™IfTjRh r¶RvSa w$øtaDÚfAjVb∏…w wy$IbDa JK®râ®dV;b ‹JKRl‹´¥yÅw

1 Kgs 15:26 Nadab

He went in the way of his father and in his sin he led Israel to commit.

l¡Ea∂rVcˆy_tRa ay™IfTjRh r¶RvSa w$øtaDÚfAjVb…w f$Db◊n_NR;b M∞DoVb∂rÎy ‹JK®r‹®;d_lDkV;b JKRlG´¥yÅw

16:26 Omri

He went in all the way of Jeroboam son of Nebat and in his sin he led Israel to commit. …w…n¡R;mIm r∞Ds_aøl wy™IbDa a¶DsDa JK®rö®dV;b JKRlG´¥yÅw He went in the way of Asa, his father; he did not turn form it.

lwaáømVc…w Ny¶ImÎy r™Ds_aøl◊w wy$IbDa d∞Iw∂;d ‹JK®r‹®;d_lDkV;b JKRlG´¥yÅw

22:43 Jehoshaphat 2 Kgs 22:2b Josiah

He went in all the way of David, his father, and he did not turn (to the) right or left.

Several observations weaken Aurelius’ argumentation: first, it is unclear why he appeals to the examples from the northern reigns to demonstrate that the “turning (to the) right-left” formula is original; the examples of the idiom -b Klh without rs )l at 1 Kgs 15:26 and 16:26 are not in dispute and do not bolster his argument. On the other hand, he leaves out of his discussion 167

Hoffmann (1980: 347–8; cf. Aurelius 2003: 32) has argued that rws (hi.) is characteristic of the texts concerning cult reforms from Joshua to Kings, pertaining to the removal of cultic objects associated with the worship of other deities. However, the association of rws (hi.) with the worship of other deities in these texts may be contrasted with 2 Kgs 18:4, 22, which qualify the bāmôt as YHWHistic shrines. The bāmôt are not actually cultic objects but cultic locations. Hos 2:4 is probably an early example of rws (hi.) denoting the removal of religious impurity (“harlotries”). At 2 Kgs 16:17 (from a pre-HH source), it is reported that Ahaz removed (H-stem of rws) the laver from the stands and took down (H-stem of dry) “the sea” from the bronze bulls in the temple of YHWH, perhaps to make improvements to the temple structure or to use the bronze to pay tribute to Tiglath-Pileser (cf. Isa 5:5). 168 Aurelius 2003: 33–4. 169 Ibid. 34; cf. Würthwein 1994: 1–11.

176

Chapter Four: The Regnal Evaluations

the fuller expression Nm rs )l, attested in the northern reigns (2 Kgs 3:3; 13:2, 6, 11; 14:24; 15:9, 18, 24, 28; 17:22, usually with the word t)+x “sin,” not Krd “way”). The latter formula is unlike the example in the Josianic unit, as it pertains to “turning from” the way/sin of Jeroboam, not turning (from the “way of David”) to the right/left. This type of positive characterization occurring in the Josianic evaluation is predominant also in Deuteronomy, suggesting its lateness at 2 Kgs 22:2. One might appeal to 1 Kgs 22:43, which is the only other example of the idiom Nm rs )l in the regnal formula of a Judahite king. As the idiom is not a regular feature of the Judahite regnal evaluations, this example is perhaps the exception that proves the rule. If original, the inclusion of the phrase l)m#w Nymy would be singular against the usual formulae of the framework. The use of this phrase in Deuteronomy always (with exception to Deut 2:27) refers to turning away from Deuteronomic instruction, whether from a hwcm (5:32; 17:20; cf. Josh 1:7) or a rbd “word (of instruction)” (Deut 17:11; 28:14); cf. Josh 23:6. Most conspicuous is Deut 17:20, part of the Law of the King in the Deuteronomic legislation.170 The probable allusion to this law in Josiah’s evaluation demonstrates that he fulfilled the requirements of that legislation and was the most loyal king in Deuteronomic terms. In contrast, all other regnal evaluations make no allusion to Deuteronomic legislation, not to commands (twcm), statutes (Myqx/twqx), words (Myrbd), or instruction (hrwt). The one possible exception at 2 Kgs 10:31 is post-HH: “But Jehu was not careful to walk in the instruction (hrwt) of YHWH, God of Israel, with all of his heart.”

4.7. Conclusions The present investigation of the evaluative formulae of the HH has supported the existence of a history ending originally with Hezekiah’s account. The evaluations of the HH and the comparative formulae concerning the royal predecessors were not originally “Deuteronomistic” or “Josianic” in origin, but developed out of the West Semitic Wortfeld of royal epigraphic and chronistic texts (see 3.2.2 and 3.3.4). The contrast of the fates of the Davidic house and the northern kingdom is arrived at through the topoi of “departure” and “removal” associated with )l rs; the latter formula operates in a double capacity in the climax of the history: first, to set up the restoration of cultic order in the reign of Hezekiah (2 170 See Hardmeier (2005: 130–2), who plausibly links Josiah’s opening evaluation at 2 Kgs 22:2 with the overt references to Deuteronomic instruction in the same king’s closing formulae at 2 Kgs 23:25, which also contains the theme of “changing one’s ways” despite the inevitability of YHWH’s wrath (cf. Deut 4:29; 30:1–10; 1 Kgs 8:48; Jer 24:7b; 31:31– 34).

4.7. Conclusions

177

Kgs 18:4), who removes the not yet “departed” bāmôt and, second, the “removal” of Israel for the people’s inability to “depart” from the “sin” of Jeroboam (2 Kgs 17:22–23a). This is the last example in 1–2 Kings of rs )l with the specific meaning of not departing from evil. The rigidity and continuity of the formulaic comparisons with David (Amaziah to Hezekiah, 2 Kgs 14:3; 15:3, 34; 18:3) and Jeroboam (Jehoahaz to Pekah, 2 Kgs 13:2, 11; 14:24; 15:9, 18, 24, 28) and the disparity they display with the evaluations of Josiah and the following rulers shore up the conclusion that one or more textual breaks existed after Hezekiah’s reign. The evaluations pertained to both political and cultic topics, as both related to the loyalty of royal figures toward the patron deity. The comparisons and contrasts with earlier predecessors were shown to be inextricably related to the cultic reports, which is the topic of the next chapter.

Chapter Five

The Cultic Reports 5.1. Introduction I now progress to the references to the cultic objects (golden calves; twmb; incense) and deities (YHWH; Baal) characteristic of the HH-framework as well as to the minor objects/deities that are post-HH (e.g., ʾăšērîm; pillars; Asherah; Astarte; Host of Heaven). When a report or narrative episode on cultic endeavors is combined with the chronographic framework, it is placed between the evaluative and concluding formulae. The cultic notice always follows immediately after the evaluative formulae and comparison with the father(s) in the HH. The cultic report always matches the evaluative formulae and is therefore inseparable from them.1 1. Introductory formulae: synchronism; age at accession; regnal year total; name of mother. 2. Evaluative formulae: “good” vs. “bad”; comparison with father(s) 3. Cultic report (4. Political and prophetic reports) 5. Concluding formulae: source citations; death and burial notices; succession formula.

A significant deviation from this pattern is found in a later edition of Kings concerning Josiah’s reign (2 Kgs 22–23): the regnal evaluation at 22:2 and the “Reform Report” at 23:4–20 are interrupted by the “Discovery Report” in 22:3–10, the consultation and prophecy of Huldah in 22:11–20, and by the report stating that Josiah read, wrote, and carried out the instruction of Moses in 23:1–3. This evidence suggests that the author who created the framework down to Hezekiah was not responsible for the structure of the Josianic account. 1 Examples of regnal evaluations together with following cultic reports: 1. Original texts in the HH: a. Southern kings — 1 Kgs 15:11, 14 (vv. 12–13 are later); 22:44 (= 3 Reg 16:28b); 2 Kgs 12:3–4; 14:3–4; 15:3–4, 34–35; 16:2, 4a (vv. 3, 4b are later); 18:3–4. The mention of the bāmôt comes before Solomon’s evaluation at 1 Kgs 3:2, because it is not actually part of the evaluation; however, it is still in direct proximity to it. b. Northern kings — 1 Kgs 16:31–32 (v. 33 is later); 22:53–54; 2 Kgs 3:2–3. 2. Later texts in Kings: a. Southern kings — 1 Kgs 14:22–23; 2 Kgs 21:2–9. b. Northern kings — 2 Kgs 10:26–31.

5.2. The Bāmôt

179

5.2. The Bāmôt By far the most significant cultic formula found in proximity with the positive r#y-formula concerns the (non-)removal of the bāmôt (twmb). They are the only cultic objects referenced after the r#y-formula in every case of a Judahite king with a positive evaluation down to Hezekiah (1 Kgs 15:11; 22:43; 2 Kgs 12:3; 14:3; 15:3, 34; 18:4). While the bāmôt occur in the regnal evaluations of the positively evaluated Judahite kings, they themselves do not carry a positive connotation.2 The HH-historian focused on the cult as a concession to the otherwise positively evaluated Judahite kings but generally refrained from including detailed reports on the topic (see above 4.4.1). There is a major difference between the MT and LXX involving the bāmôtnotices: whereas the former has the impersonal and intransitive wrs )l “they did not disappear,” the latter has the transitive ou)k e0ch~ren “he did not remove” (= rysh )l) to represent the subject’s action on the bāmôt in a direct manner (3 Reg 15:14; 16:28b (LXXL) = 2 Kgs 22:44; 4 Reg 14:4; 2 Kgs 15:35).3 Noth,4 Gray,5 and Weippert6 observed in the MT that the agent of wrs was ambiguous and shifted the guilt from the king onto the people. Differently, Provan maintained that it was the king who was primarily responsible for all cultic offenses.7 He observed – correctly in my opinion – that the 2 The following passages contain a negative assessment of the bāmôt in Kings: 1 Kgs 11:7; 12:31, 32; 13:2, 32, 33; 14:23; 15:14 (= 2 Chr 15:17); 22:44 (= 2 Chr 20:33); 2 Kgs 12:4; 14:4; 15:4; 15:35; 16:4 (= 2 Chr 28:2); 17:9, 11, 29, 32; 18:4, 22 (= 2 Chr 32:12; Isa 36:7); 21:3 (= 2 Chr 33:3); 23:5, 8, 9, 13, 15, 19, 20. 3 It is impossible to know whether the particle t) preceded the object twmb, since we must reconstruct the Hebrew Vorlage from the Greek and Latin witnesses. Arguing in favor of the presence of t) is the occurrence in 2 Kgs 18:4a and its common attestation after qr; see Gen 24:8; Deut 15:23; Josh 11:14; 1 Kgs 11:13; Amos 3:2; see, however, Deut 12:16. 4 Noth 1968: 337: “Die intransitive Formulierung w@rsf-)lo . . . drückt die Sache für den König möglichst schonend aus.” 5 Gray 1977: 349. 6 Weippert 1972: 310–11: “Diese Tendenz den Regenten zu entlasten, setzt sich innerhalb des Schemas IS1 weiter fort, da plötzlich nicht mehr vom König, sondern vom Volk die Rede ist” (at 311). 7 He disagrees with Weippert’s claim that wrs is imprecise in terms of the actual agent of the action and appeals to Isa 6:7; 10:27; 14:25, where Isaiah’s iniquity departs because the seraph touches the coal to his lips or where a burden of oppression disappears because of YHWH’s intervention. However, there are significant differences between the passages from Isaiah that Provan cites and the repeated statement on the bāmôt in Kings. In Isaiah, the action of only one agent is reported immediately before a phrase marked with a waw that concerns the departure (rws) of the iniquity or burden, so that the initial action results in the latter departing. In Kings, the departing could mean that the king is not culpable for bāmâworship, since the particle qr is there and may be contrastive (K) in 1 Kgs 22:44). Moreover, the mention of the people in Kings introduces another potential agent into the equation, whereas the examples in Isaiah mention only a single agent.

180

Chapter Five: The Cultic Reports

author of the regnal evaluations between 1 Kgs 22 and 2 Kgs 15 “did not consider the toleration of the bāmôt sufficient reason to condemn the king.”8 Recently, Schenker has argued that LXX preserves the more ancient reading and that the MT later sought to exculpate the Judahite kings of any responsibility for the cult.9 In support of the LXX’s reading, it must be observed that the presence of a series of direct statements that the king did not remove the bāmôt raises the major question answered in the climax of the history: who was it that removed the bāmôt? Answer: “It was Hezekiah who removed (rws hi.) the bāmôt” (2 Kgs 18:4a). One should draw attention to the preposed pronoun )wh in 2 Kgs 18:4, which, though semantically redundant, is pragmatically meaningful. It highlights that “Who removed the bāmôt” was an appropriate question in the context of the historical narrative.10 Quite the opposite, the purpose of Josiah’s account was not to answer the question, Who removed the bāmôt? – as an agent, Josiah never takes a preposed pronoun (see 2 Kgs 23:19) – as it focuses rather on the geographical extent of the illegitimate cultic objects (Judahite, Solomonic, Manassite, Bethelite, and Samarian), on the eliminated cultic personnel (priests, illegitimate diviners; 2 Kgs 23:12, 13, 15, 19, 24), and on the means of eradication (burning; scattering; defiling with bones; 23:4, 5, 10, 14).11 Josiah’s reform is narrated more extensively than Hezekiah’s, not because Hezekiah’s reform was originally less significant, but because the focus of the latter’s cultic notice was primarily on the person of Hezekiah and the removal of the bāmôt (not on the location or number of the cultic objects or the manner of their removal). The HH thus answers a different sort of question from what is implied in the Josianic narrative. The motif of the removal of the bāmôt is repeated characteristically with the regnal evaluations of the righteous Judahite kings, whereas the mention of other deities and the manner of their destruction are found in isolated locations. Since the primary question of the framework is answered in the person of Hezekiah (not Josiah), I regard this as strong evidence in support of the theory of the pre-Josianic, pre-Deuteronomistic Hezekian History.12 In further support of the notion that the cult was primarily the responsibility of the king, it must be observed that it is within the regnal evaluation that 8

Provan 1988: 62. Schenker 2004: 27–31; cf. Blanco Wißmann 2008: 60–1. 10 On the syntax and pragmatics of preposing, see Moshavi 2010: 91. 11 Compare 1 Kgs 13:2, which already pre-empts the account of 2 Kgs 22–23, but still emphasizes the altar at Bethel, the addressee of the prophecy, and what Josiah will do to it and its priests. 12 Similarly, Barrick (2002: 116 n. 27) points out the “presentational difference [between the Hezekian and Josianic narratives]: brief, unadorned formulaic notices ending with Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:4a) and descriptive passages using different vocabulary thereafter.” 9

5.2. The Bāmôt

181

the notice of the people’s worship at the bāmôt is embedded. Having derived from the genre of royal chronography, the HH was not a history of the people but first and foremost a history of the kings of the houses of Israel and Judah. This is why Hezekiah alone is given the credit for their removal. The order of the evaluative formulae confirms that the ultimate responsibility for the cult was the king’s. The report that the bāmôt did not depart follows immediately after the regnal evaluation. In fronting the mention of the bāmôt before the actions of the people, emphasis is on the contrast between the righteousness of the king and the survival of the bāmôt, not on the king and the people. The same point of view is in the northern evaluations in the recurrent phrase expressing that Jeroboam caused the Israel to sin (hi. of )+x).13 However, Jeroboam’s actions were tantamount to a “sin of commission,” whereas the actions of the righteous southern kings constituted a “sin of omission.” He had two molten images cast in the form of a bull located at Bethel and Dan, in order to oppose any allegiance to the sacrificial site at Jerusalem (1 Kgs 12:26– 30). The historian did not provide detailed information on the cultic actions of the kings and at times was even ambiguous. The evaluations at 3 Reg 12:24a (Rehoboam) and 15:3 (Abijam) do not explicitly state what these kings did wrong; only that Rehoboam did not walk in the way of David, his father, and that Abijam walked in the “sin” of his father.14 The latter statement calls to mind the report of Jeroboam’s establishing of the two calves as “sin.” However, Rehoboam and Abijam never attempted to defy the sacrificial rites established at the Jerusalemite temple, whereas Jeroboam’s institution of two rival sites involving iconic worship was a strategic act of cultic substitution. The HH-historian focused on the political (rather than cultic) failures of the negatively evaluated kings of Judah – Rehoboam, Abijam, Jehoram, Ahaziah. He remained reticent about their relationship to the bāmôt, though these kings were not loyal to YHWH. The single potential example of a king before Hezekiah who is said to have participated directly in cultic worship at the bāmôt involves his father, Ahaz (2 Kgs 16:4aa). If one follows Weippert’s inclusion of 16:4aa to the Hezekian stratum, it would represent a low point in the line of Judahite kings immediately prior to Hezekiah’s account.15 Instead of doing what was right in 13 Provan 1988: 63: “the king is thought to be completely responsible for the behaviour of his people.” 14 Concerning Rehoboam’s reign, Chronicles is equally vague (2 Chr 12:2, 14); 2 Chr 13:7 states that Rehoboam was inexperienced and fainthearted and could not stand up to his advisers. 15 Provan (1988: 85–6) argued that 2 Kgs 16:4aa was not part of the Hezekian edition of 1–2 Kings, since it is surrounded by secondary content concerning the worship of other deities in vv. 3 and 4 and since the bāmôt are only mentioned with righteous kings. This evi-

182

Chapter Five: The Cultic Reports

the eyes of YHWH, 16:2b, 4aa states the opposite “he did not do what was right (r#yh h#( )l) in the eyes of YHWH … but he sacrificed and made incense offerings at the bāmôt.” Unlike the former Judahite kings, Ahaz not only allowed the bāmôt to persist but worshipped there himself.16 The historian does not provide the exact details of how Hezekiah removed the bāmôt, and two main options present themselves. Either the bāmôt were synonymous with altars (twxbzm), if physical removal from one location to another is to be imagined, or “removal” may signify the royal decommissioning of sanctuaries with no or only partial destruction. In favor of the first option, Haran argued that the bāmôt were open-air altars without an adjacent temple or “house” (tyb) covered with a roof and surrounding walls.17 In his view, the H-stem of rws “cannot be appropriately applied to a building,” that is, to immoveable property, demonstrating “that the bāmôt were simple, solid, and exposed constructions in the open.”18 The term rws would, in his opinion, presuppose the total “removal” of the temple complex, including the building, but Haran offers no positive evidence for this suggestion. It may be demonstrated that hmb and xbzm are not synonymous in meaning. In the case of 1 Kgs 3:4, Solomon goes to the hmb at Gibeon and sacrifices an offering on the altar, suggesting that the latter belonged to the hmb as part of its cultic equipment.19 Barrick has mounted an incisive case against the synonymy of hmb and xbzm, on the basis of the use of the prepositions b “within” or l( “on.” The idioms b + xbz “to sacrifice within” and b + r+q “to burn incense within” always take as their object hmb/twmb (12x), while the same verbs with l( take xbzm as an object (15x). This is true regardless of whether the verbs occur in the G-, D-, or H-stem. Barrick argues on this basis that the hmb was “an installation–a building or precinct . . . within which one performed cultic acts and placed cultic objects,”20 whereas the altar was a cul-

dence does not rule out, however, the possibility that v. 4aa was original with material later added to it. 16 It is necessary to keep in mind the boundary between the literary goals of the historian and the actual characteristics of the bāmôt in the northern and southern regions. As for the realia of eighth century B.C.E. Israel, the bāmôt of the northern and southern regions were not entirely distinct. Both regions probably granted royal support to such sites and were even sanctioned as official cultic places for practicing normative YHWH-istic religious rites (see Exod 20:24; 1 Sam 9:12–14, 19, 25; 10:5, 13; 1 Kgs 3:2, 4; cf. the Mesha Stele [KAI 181:3]). In refraining from designating the northern shrines at Bethel and Dan as bāmôt, the historian distinguished the southern bāmôt from the northern ones; however, the distinction was essentially a rhetorical point post factum (i.e., after 722 and 701 B.C.E.). 17 Haran 1985: 24 n. 21; cf. Emerton 1997b: 122–3. 18 Haran 1985: 23. 19 Larocca-Pitts 2001: 152; cf. 2 Kgs 23:19, 20; Hos 10:8; similarly, Gleis 1997: 80. 20 Barrick 2008: 122.

5.2. The Bāmôt

183

tic object upon which sacrificial acts were conducted.21 This becomes even clearer when one observes the additional objects that these prepositional idioms take. Other objects of xbz and r+q with b include: a tent, land, garden, mountain, wilderness, place (Mwqm), gate, street, city (ry(), valley, and holyplace. The individual elements of this group hold in common the fact that they are defined by virtue of being a locality, whether general or more specific. It is highly unlikely that they would have performed the rites upon a valley or a tent.22 In contrast, the additional objects of xbz and r+q with l( (mountain, face, hill, top, roof, brick, fire-offering, frankincense, altar-hearth, burntoffering, and wood) pertain to elevated positions or concrete objects. As a result, Barrick’s separation of bāmâ and “altar” on the basis of prepositional idiom is to be preferred over the more uncertain altar-equation.23 Ahlström assigns a more abstract meaning to rysh in the context of the bāmôt-notices. In may be that Hezekiah changed the function of these sanctuaries; they ceased to be part of the royal administration and its jurisdiction … Even if the sanctuaries were cut off from being part of the royal administration they were probably not destroyed; the text of 2 Kings 18:4 does not say anything to that effect.24

In Manasseh’s account, it is stated that he rebuilt (Nbyw) the bāmôt that Hezekiah had destroyed (db) D-stem). However, Ahlström interprets db) as meaning that Hezekiah had “abandoned” the bāmôt not that he destroyed them. Yet in consideration of Deut 12:2–3, which describes the thorough destruction of the cultic sites of the nations (opening in v. 2 with “you shall utterly destroy [Nwdb)t db)] the cultic sites where the nations worship”), it is highly unlikely that the same term signifies Hezekiah’s decommissioning of

21

There are nearly 85 occurrences of the phrase (tw)xbzm(h)-l( in the Hebrew Bible, but only six occurrences of xbzmb (Gen 8:20; Exod 29:37; Numb 23:2, 4, 14, 30). The example at Exod 29:37 may be discounted because the verb (gn there normally combines with the preposition b. The four examples of Numbers pertain to the idiom xbzmb ly) “the ram at the altar,” and may along with Gen 8:20 be construed as taking place within the area of the altar where the sacrifice is offered (see Emerton 1997b: 122–3). 22 The terms for valley qm( and )yg invariably take the preposition b (rather than l() with verbs of motion: e.g., qm(: Gen 14:8; Numb 14:25; Josh 10:12; Hos 1:5; Ps 84:7; )yg: Deut 3:29, 46; Josh 19:27; 2 Sam 8:13. 23 As Haran (1985: 24 n. 18) admits: “It is difficult to explain why the offering . . . is said to have taken place ‘in the bāmôt’ and not ‘on the bāmôt’, as in all these cases the text has prefixed b instead of the preposition ‘al (as would have demanded). The reason seems to be connected with certain architectural details of the bāmāh the knowledge of which has been lost.” I also think that Barrick has adequately addressed the criticisms of Emerton (1997: 121–2), which are based on a limited number of data in comparison to those marshaled by Barrick. 24 Ahlström 1982: 66.

184

Chapter Five: The Cultic Reports

the bāmôt in 2 Kgs 21:3.25 Second Kings 18:4 and 18:22 remain in line with the regular bāmôt-notices, whereas 2 Kgs 21:3 is probably a later redefinition of Hezekiah’s reforming actions.26 Lowery has observed that only Josiah’s account actually records the material destruction and defilement of both the bāmôt and the cultic objects in them. Josiah not only decommissions the bāmôt but also breaks them down (Ctn, 23:8, 15; cf. vv. 7, 12; 10:27; 11:18) and desecrates ()m+ D-stem, 23:8, 10, 13, 16) them so as to render them unfit for future use. The action taken against the altars in Deut 7:5; 12:3 also involves Ctn (G/D-stem), which must mean total destruction and is thus not synonymous with rysh.27 Archaeological evidence may be incorporated both to support and to nuance Ahlström’s and Lowery’s interpretation of rysh as a royal decommissioning of the bāmôt without a sweeping destruction (see 10.5). The upper parts of the temple at Arad, which functioned during strata X and IX (eighth century B.C.E.), were dismantled and covered by the floors of stratum VIII in order to avoid rebuilding the temple. Incense altars were buried carefully on their sides under the floor of stratum IX to protect them from breaking, and a standing stone was laid carefully on its side next to a raised platform of stratum IX. An installation for kindling first was removed from the top of sacrificial altar of the temple, as evidenced by imprint left in the plaster remains of the altar. The entire temple precinct was covered by the floors of stratum VIII and showed no signs of burning or destruction. At Beersheba, the stones of an altar belonging to stratum III were dismantled and buried elsewhere at the site in the wall of the “pillared house” of stratum II (late-eight century B.C.E.) before it was destroyed. This is evidence that the cultic sites at Arad and Beersheba were abolished intentionally without extensive destruction of site or object through conflagration, shattering, or splitting toward the end of the eighth century B.C.E.28 The fact that at Arad the cultic equipment was buried carefully while at Beersheba the altar was reused at another part of the site 25 The use of hnb in 2 Kgs 21:3 also argues against regarding the meaning of db) as one involving abandonment, as the former does not connote simply “reoccupation” or “rehabitation” but material construction. 26 Pace Naʾaman (2006: 326; cf. Levin 1984: 359 n. 26; Knauf 2005: 184), who does not seem to be aware of the semantics of rysh in 2 Kgs 18:4, asserting that Hezekiah destroyed the altars and sacred pillars; but that text does not mention altars and only speaks of their “removal.” 2 Kgs 21:3 is the solitary case in 1–2 Kings where this type of action is performed on the bāmôt (only elsewhere at Numb 33:52; Ezek 6:3). 27 Drawing a distinction between Ctn and rws (H-stem), Milgrom (2000: 69) obvserves that the latter is employed to describe the “removal” (hfresiy:wA) of Asa’s mother from the status of hrybg. Milgrom remarks, “Surely, the queen mother was not torn down!” 28 Herzog 2010: 169–97. This is indirect support for the argument that the reference to shattering standing stones and cutting down Asherah-posts was later inserted into 2 Kgs 18:4 (see 8.3.4).

5.2. The Bāmôt

185

demonstrates that Hezekiah’s order to decommission the bāmôt was likely executed by means of various tactics. It is unlikely that the author of 2 Kgs 18:4 would have had access to actual records on the process of royal withdrawal from each of the individual bāmôt sites. According to Herzog, “If the biblical description was based on a precise and reliable source, then it may portray the style of the orders sent by the King to the administration in the cities of Judah.”29 In other words, the royal orders would have been interpreted differently depending on the specific concerns for each site. In contrast to the evidence one can bring in support of a Hezekian cultic reform, there is virtually no archaeological evidence to support the statements of Manasseh’s having rebuilt the bāmôt in 2 Kgs 21:3 or mass destruction of the bāmôt under Josiah, as recounted in 2 Kgs 23. The excavations at Arad demonstrated that the temple was not restored during the seventh century B.C.E. Beersheba was completely unoccupied after its destruction during Sennacherib’s campaign. Thus, there was no cultic architecture or sacred objects at these sites that Josiah could have defiled.30 The Book of Kings typically only deals with bāmôt located in Judah and facilitated by Judahites.31 The historian of the HH was concerned with bāmôt as a central component of native worship up to and including the period of Solomon’s temple (1 Kgs 3:2). I do not mean that the historian was unaware of other bāmôt but only that they do not figure explicitly in the account.32 The cultic reports make a distinction between Israelite and non-Israelite bāmôt. The historian was not concerned with bāmôt of northern Israelite derivation. The occurrences of bāmôt in a northern context occur at 1 Kgs 12:31, 32, 13:2, 32, 33; 2 Kgs 17:9, 11, 29, 32; 23:15, 19, 20. All of these texts are arguably post-HH, having been written in connection with Josiah’s account.33 29

Ibid. 180. Ibid. 178, 196–7; see further, Fried 2002: 437–65. Herzog actually accuses Naʾaman’s denial of the Hezekian reform as a form of negative Biblical Archaeology that is dismissive of supporting archeaological evidence “based on assumptions that arise from text-criticism” (ibid. 196). 31 See 1 Kgs 12:31, 32, 13:2, 32, 33; 14:23; 15:14 (= 2 Chr 15:17); 22:44 (= 2 Chr 20:33); 2 Kgs 12:4; 14:4; 15:4; 15:35; 16:4 (= 2 Chr 28:2); 17:9, 11, 29, 32; 18:4, 22; 21:3 (= 2 Chr 33:3); 23:5, 8, 9, 13, 15, 19, 20. 32 Non-Israelite bāmôt are mentioned at Numb 33:52; Isa 15:2; 16:12; Jer 48:35. Other references to Israelite bāmôt are mentioned at Lev 26:30; Jer 7:31; 19:5; 32:35; Ezek 36:2; Hos 10:8; Amos 7:9; Mic 1:5; 3:12; Ps 78:58. Amos 7:9 and Hos 10:8 make accusations against northern worship involving bāmôt. 33 For the division between 1 Kgs 12:26–30 and 12:31ff., see, e.g., Hölscher 1923: 183: “Die Sünde Jeroboams ist bei Rd der Kälberkult, nicht die Höhenkult”; Jepsen 1956: 6; Lemke 1976: 304–5; Provan 1988: 81; Blanco Wißmann 2008: 118–9. The arguments are as follows: 1) 12:30 is the proper conclusion to 12:26–29, which focuses on Bethel and Dan, not on the bāmôt; 2) 12:31–13:2 add new details about the priests and Levites; 3) 12:31– 13:34 is a later insertion as the Wiederaufnahme (“and it became a sin”) in 12:30 and 13:34 30

186

Chapter Five: The Cultic Reports

Unlike the evaluations of the Judahite kings, the bāmôt do not figure as a regular characteristic of the northern rulers.34 The historian used only Judahite bāmâ-worship in the judgments for the Judahite kings,35 regarding them as a retention of the pre-temple era (1 Kgs 3:2) that “RN did not remove” ()l rysh) and were different from the cultic sites of Bethel and Dan (1 Kgs 12:26–30), the latter having been constructed in direct opposition to the Jerusalemite temple. The cultic worship of the Judahite bāmôt is also represented as not participating in Baal worship (1 Kgs 16:31), which led to the ruin of the Omride dynasty.36 The cities of Bethel and Dan (as well as Samaria) are newly constructed sites that symbolize the cultic antithesis of Jerusalem. With the exception of the bāmâ at Gibeon, which is from the pretemple era, the historian characterizes the bāmôt in general terms, not pinpointing their specific locations. This leads to the next consideration: the potential distinction between YHWHistic and non-YHWHistic worship at the bāmôt. All of the occurrences that I have retained above as part of the HH deal only with either positive Judahite worship before the construction of the temple or negative Judahite worship after its construction. These same occurrences pertain only to the worship of YHWH and do not involve the worship of other deities.37 All other passages are post-HH additions: cases of other deities being worshipped (1 demonstrates. McKenzie (1991: 121) has countered this view noting that some portion of 1 Kgs 12:31–32 must have been existent for 1 Kgs 13 to be inserted after it, because it is repeated at 13:33 (Wiederaufnahme: “he made priests from among the people”). However, he has not demonstrated that 1 Kgs 12:31–32 was composed at the same time as or together with 12:26–30* or the regnal evaluations of the framework. Indeed, the general reference to “all the houses of the bāmôt in the cities of Samaria” at 1 Kgs 13:32b beside the mention of Bethel in the prediction of Josiah’s reign demonstrates the quite different perspective in texts mentioning the northern bāmôt from the texts mentioning Bethel and Dan alone; see Noth 1968: 304; cf. 2 Kgs 17:29, 32; 23:19. 34 Hoffmann’s (1980: 41–3) characterization of the “Sin of Jeroboam,” which later northern kings are said to have followed, is misleading, by designating it as a “formula for the high places” (Höhenformel). The sin of Jeroboam is not linked with the bāmôt at 1 Kgs 12:29–30 but the golden calves (as Hoffmann correctly affirms elsewhere [ibid. 66]); the bāmôt are only mentioned (unexpectedly) in v. 31 (see Blanco Wißmann 2008: 118–9). It is therefore strange that Kratz (2000a: 164–5, 168, 192), who agrees with the textual division between v. 30 and v. 31, applies the “sin” of Jeroboam to the positive evaluations of the southern rulers (1 Kgs 15:14a; 22:44; 2 Kgs 12:4; 14:4; 15:4, 35). 35 See 1 Kgs 22:44 (= 2 Chr 20:33); 2 Kgs 12:4; 14:4; 15:4; 15:35; 16:4 (= 2 Chr 28:2); 18:4, 22 (=Chr 32:12; Isa 36:7). The following southern occurrences are post-HH: 1 Kgs 14:23; 15:14 (= 2 Chr 15:17); 2 Kgs 21:3 (= 2 Chr 33:3); 23:5, 8, 9. 36 The accounts of Jehoram and Ahaziah do not mention explicitly the worship of Baal at the bāmôt (2 Kgs 8:18, 27; post-HH?) though they are said to have walked in the way of Ahab’s house. 37 1 Kgs 3:2, 4; 22:44; 2 Kgs 12:4; 14:4; 15:4; 15:35; 16:4 (= 2 Chr 28:2); 18:4, 22 (= 2 Chr 32:12; Isa 36:7).

5.3. Josiah’s Account and the Bāmôt-Notices

187

Kgs 11:7; 2 Kgs 17:29, 32; 23:5, 13) and cases where there is some doubt about who is being worshipped because of terms associated with the worship of other deities nearby (1 Kgs 14:23; 2 Kgs 17:9, 11; 21:3 [= 2 Chr 33:3]; 23: 15, 19, 20). The historian is laconic in his assessment of the cultic practice that took place in the southern bāmôt. The historian does not stress clearly whether or not worshippers venerated multiple iconic images of YHWH in the Judahite bāmôt. The reason for the historian’s reticence on this point is owing to the goal to draw a distinction between the cultic behavior of the northern and southern kingdoms. He characterizes Jeroboam as having introduced the worship of the iconic deities into the north (1 Kgs 12:28), although the deities are still connected with the Exodus liberation tradition (cf. Exod 32:4, 8).

5.3. Josiah’s Account and the Bāmôt-Notices Before leaving the topic of the bāmôt, it is necessary to contrast texts mentioning the bāmôt that anticipate or occur in Josiah’s account and the HHframework, which anticipates only Hezekiah’s account. The bāmâ that Solomon constructed for other gods on behalf of his wives, mentioned in 1 Kgs 11:7–8 (MT), is explicitly destroyed by Josiah in 2 Kgs 23:13 (MT): “the bāmôt near Jerusalem to the right of the Mount of Corruption that Solomon king of Israel had built for Astarte…, Chemosh…, and Molech…. the king defiled.” Would not these bāmôt have been among those that Hezekiah removed? Since Solomon had built them opposite Jerusalem, surely the Judahites would have sacrificed at them and Hezekiah would have removed them. This narrative arc from Solomon to Josiah cannot be harmonized easily with the progression of the bāmôt-notices in the framework, since neither it nor the framework notices can be regarded as a sub-plot. Either Josiah’s account was originally the Zielpunkt of the bāmôt motif or Hezekiah’s account was. It cannot be both. The eradication of the Solomonic bāmâ sidesteps the Hezekian climax and even surpasses it.38 First Kings 13:32b predicts that Josiah would destroy all the bāmôt-temples in the cities of Samaria and finds explicit fulfillment in 2 Kgs 23:19a: “Even all the bāmôt-houses in the cities of Samaria that the kings of Israel made … Josiah removed.”39 Of course, the bāmôt at Samaria are not Judahite, but Josiah’s eradication of them detracts from the merit of Hezekiah’s account. One must then interpret in hindsight that the bāmôt-notice in 2 Kgs 18:4a ac38 This point holds whether one reads with MT at 2 Kgs 23:13 (twmbh) vs. LXX (to_n oi]kon “the house”); the critique of Hezekiah is even stronger in the LXX, which claims that another temple had stood in Jerusalem from Solomon until Josiah; see Schenker 2004: 34–5. 39 The origin of the bāmôt at Samaria is not recounted in 1–2 Kings and is distinct from the Israelite cultic site at Bethel, whose origin is provided at 1 Kgs 12:26–30.

188

Chapter Five: The Cultic Reports

tually conveyed that he removed none but the Judahite bāmôt. Yet this goes against the grain of the framework notices down to Hezekiah anticipating that a king will remove the bāmôt in Judah without any restrictive force. Other examples in Josiah’s account make it appear as if Hezekiah’s measures to reform the cult were insignificant, so as to forgo consideration. The MT version of 2 Kgs 23:5a states that Josiah abolished the priests of the foreign deities (Myrmk) “that the kings of Judah had set up, and one made incense offerings at the bāmôt in the cities of Judah and surrounding Jerusalem”; cf. v. 8a. Like Jeroboam, who, according to 1 Kgs 12:31, made his own non-Levitical priesthood, the “kings of Judah” here charge an illegitimate priesthood to perform cultic duties for other deities. But who are these kings of Judah?40 Manasseh and Amon or perhaps Ahaz as well? None of these kings is mentioned as having established a new priesthood. If Ahaz is intended, then the question must be raised why Hezekiah did not get rid of an illegitimate priesthood along with their bāmôt. If Manasseh is mainly intended, then why not refer explicitly to him (cf. 2 Kgs 23:12, 26)?41 The cultic notices of the framework do not prepare for the statements in 2 Kgs 23:5.42 Similarly, MT 2 Kgs 23:12 states “the altars on the roof of Ahaz’s upper chamber that the kings of Judah made and the altars that Manasseh made in the two courts of the house of YHWH did the king tear down.” The mention of altars on Ahaz’s upper chamber suggests that Ahaz himself as well as Manasseh and Amon had constructed altars.43 The kings of Judah probably do not refer to Manasseh or Amon only, as the former is mentioned by name later 40

The same problem is encountered in 2 Kgs 23:11: “he (Josiah) burned the horses that the kings of Judah dedicated to the Sun at the entrance to house of YHWH.” The motif of horses does not figure elsewhere in 1–2 Kings. Observing the problem 23:11 creates for Hezekiah’s account, Schenker (2004: 68–9) remarks incisively, “Wer waren diese Könige von Juda? Manasses kultische Verirrungen had der Erzähler in 2 Kön 21:3–7 geschildert, aber die Aufstellung von Votivbildern von Pferden für die Sonne kam in seiner Schilderung der von ihm verursachten Missstände nicht vor. Amon hat in seiner kurzen Regierungszeit von zwei Jahren nicht viel an kultischen Missgriffen tun können … So drängt sich die Vermutung auf, auch unter Ezechias (Hiskija) könnte es möglicherweise diese Votivpferde schon gegeben haben, sodass auch er für solche Votivpferde Mitverantwortung trüge. Ein Schatten würde auf diesen frommen König fallen.” 41 Josiah’s account refers directly to several kings by name: Solomon in 2 Kgs 23:13; Ahaz in v. 12; and Manasseh in v. 12 and v. 26. Moreover, Manasseh’s account refers explicitly to both Hezekiah and to Ahab in 2 Kgs 21:3. 42 The LXX reading of 2 Kgs 23:5 is also amenable to the above case, since the priesthood is not illegitimate but the one righteous group of Zadokites that worshipped other deities (Baal, the sun, the moon, constellations, and the host of heaven). Furthermore, its reading “in the bāmôt and in the cities of Judah” suggests that the bāmôt established by the “kings of Judah” were not just around Jerusalem but inside the city itself; see Schenker 2004: 60–6. 43 The reading of LXXL/OL explicitly states that Ahaz himself had built the altars; see Schenker 2004: 72–3.

5.3. Josiah’s Account and the Bāmôt-Notices

189

in the same verse as having constructed altars in the temple of YHWH, an action to which Manasseh’s own account actually testifies (2 Kgs 21:5). Amon is said to have served only the same gods that his father had served (21:21). No reference to the construction of altars on Ahaz’s upper chamber occurs elsewhere in 1–2 Kings. The report in 23:12 not only obscures Hezekiah’s reforming contribution to the cult in Judah but tarnishes his reputation, since he would have allowed altars to persist in his own house.44 The LXXL and OL versions preserve a variant reading that has been omitted in the MT at 2 Kgs 23:11b: “And he (Josiah) burned the horses … and burned the chariots of the sun with fire (LXXL adds: in the house of Beth-On, which the kings of Israel had built as a bāmâ for Baal and for all the hosts of heaven).”45 This is the only mention of Beth-On or of a northern bāmâ set up for Baal in 1–2 Kings.46 According to MT 1 Kgs 16:32 (cf. 2 Kgs 10:21–27; 11:18), Ahab erected an altar for Baal in the Temple of Baal with no mention of a bāmâ in the context.47 Here again, the framework does not prepare for the report on the destruction of the bāmâ at Beth-On in Josiah’s account. That report does not resume a motif from the framework (or narrative episode!) but adds a detail that is not expected. Concerning the relationship of Josiah’s and Hezekiah’s cultic reports, a related question is raised as to whether the hand responsible for Josiah’s account did not in some way explicitly omit some or most of Hezekiah’s cultic initiatives.48 While the possibility cannot be ruled out, I can see of no way to demonstrate such a scenario. Any large-scaled omission Hezekiah’s cultic report is possible appears unlikely since the Josianic redactor retained the story of Jerusalem’s deliverance under Hezekiah, which repeats that he removed the bāmôt (2 Kgs 18:22). The practice of Josianic revision seems to have been

44

Schenker 2004: 73. Ibid. 2004: 67–70. 46 The fact that the kings of Israel are said to have erected the bāmâ for Baal excludes automatically Manasseh (2 Kgs 21:3) or the “kings of Judah” (23:5) from this statement in 23:11. 47 On the primacy of the MT’s reading at 1 Kgs 16:32, see Emerton 1997a: 293–300; Robker 2012: 134–5 n. 139. Against Timm (1982: 32–5) and Schenker (2004: 47–9), Emerton has argued that the MT’s l(bh is more likely the original reading than Myhl) (a back translation from the LXX’s prosoxqisma&twn). The main arguments are as follows: 1) “an altar for Baal (in) the Temple of Baal” is not a tautology, since it is a significant fact that Ahab had constructed a temple for Baal as well (Emerton notes that Ahab may have constructed the altar and temple for Baal at the same time); 2) there is no sound explanation for why l(bh would have come to replace Myhl) as a prejorative; 3) it is possible that the LXX translated l(bh. 48 See Rosenbaum 1979: 23–43; Vaughn 1999. The historical plausibility of Hezekiah’s expansion of Jerusalem would not necessarily have matched the literary focus of the HHhistorian. 45

190

Chapter Five: The Cultic Reports

through adding negative material (see ch. 20) to an already existing account rather than extensive erasure.

5.4. Sacrificing and Burning Incense The verb that is usually taken to denote the general act of sacrifice is xbz, which appears frequently in the Hebrew Bible. In the piel, xbz is never attested in Genesis–Samuel or in Jeremiah, although it is found five (or more) times in the HH-framework.49 It occurs in the concessive statement for nearly all of the Judahite kings who obtain a positive evaluation: “the people kept sacrificing and burning incense in the bāmôt.”50 The employment of this verb, particularly with r+q, can hardly be said to have originated from the influence of Deuteronomy or its precepts. In collocation with r+q in the piel stem, examples occur in 1–2 Kings, twice in Hosea, and once in Habbakuk.51 The verb that is usually taken to denote the act of burning incense offerings is r+q. The hiphil of r+q is employed when the object of the verb is explicitly mentioned, whether the fat portion of a sheep (Exod 29:13; 1 Sam 2:16), the whole animal (Exod 19:18; 2 Kgs 16:13, 15), incense (Exod 30:7; cf. Lev 4:7), or grain (Lev 2:16; Jer 33:18).52 The general meaning of r+q deals with burning and smoking, despite uncertainties as to whether the actual substance burned was incense, grain, animal portions, or some mixture thereof.53

49 1 Kgs 22:44; 2 Kgs 12:4; 14:4; 15:4, 35; (16:4aa). The example at 1 Kgs 3:2 is a late substitution for the original reading of r+q (see LXX); 1 Kgs 3:3b and 11:7 are post-HH. 50 The one exception is the evaluation for Asa’s reign (1 Kgs 15:11–15), which seems to have been altered at some point through textual revision so that it is difficult to know what the original evaluation read. It is quite possible that it contained the statement that the people kept sacrificing and burning incense in the twmb, as might be expect if one compares 1 Kgs 15:14 to 22:44. 51 1 Kgs 22:44; 2 Kgs 12:4; 14:4; 15:4, 35; 16:4; Hos 4:13; 11:2; Hab 1:16; 2 Chr 28:4; the examples with r+q in the hiphil are late: 1 Kgs 3:3; 11:7. The example at 2 Chr 28:4 has been taken from 2 Kgs 16:4. 52 Edelman (1985: 396) defined the verb r+q in both the piel and hiphil as “to burn food offerings.” She preferred this definition for three reasons: the verb’s action was performed on a sacrificial altar (Jer 11:13); it was a priestly prerogative (2 Kgs 23:5, 8); and a regular ʾiššîm-portion was grain (Jer 44:19). However, she does not discuss the possibility that the incense, once mixed with the food, would make it a tr+q-offering. According to Nielsen (1986: 56), “it cannot be determined whether [the type of offering indicated by qṭr] is an incense or meal offering.” 53 With HALOT ad loc. This is also the meaning of Akkadian qutturu, “to cause something to smoke” (CAD Q, pp. 166–7) and is the basic meaning of Ugaritic qṭr “to smoke”; see Nielsen 1986: 58–9; Heger 1997: 26. The LXX translates with the term qumiaw “to burn incense.”

5.4. Sacrificing and Burning Incense

191

Edelman drew out the implications of the fact that the piel of r+q occurs as an intransitive verb.54 The intransitive valency of the verb may also explain why it is preferred in contexts of polemics against burning offerings in restricted areas (Isa 65:7; Hos 4:13) or against burning offerings to images or to other deities (2 Kgs 22:17; Jer 1:16; Hos 11:2). The emphasis is not merely on the action of offering but on the location of the rite or its beneficiary.55 This also applies to the HH, where the concern of the historian was not to underscore the substance offered but the place where the action of offering occurred (i.e., in the bāmôt). First Kings 3:2 states that the people had been “burning incense offerings” (reading r+q with LXX; cf. 2 Kgs 18:4b), because no temple had been constructed for YHWH. The emphasis of the historian on the bāmôt is also recognizable by the fact that the term is preposed in the recurrent notices (1 Kgs 22:44; 2 Kgs 12:4; 14:4; 15:4, 35). The piel of r+q is employed in all of these cases as well as in 1 Kgs 3:2 [LXX]; 2 Kgs 16:4a; 18:4, 22.56 The assertion that r+q (piel) is “Deuteronomistic” and therefore late is to be viewed with caution. To be sure, Weinfeld included the phrase “to sacrifice and burn incense at the high places” in his appendix of Deuteronomistic phraseology.57 However, a closer examination of the verb r+q in the piel demonstrates that it occurs thirteen times in Kings and only at one other place in Gen–Sam (1 Sam 2:16). In all of these cases, except for 2 Kgs 22:17 (cf. 23:5), which refers to the worship of other deities, the bāmôt are specifically mentioned as the locations where incense burning took place. Surprisingly, Dietrich understood the use of the piel of r+q as “prophetic,” compelling him to maintain that the eight instances of DtrG (1 Kgs 22:44; 2 Kgs 12:4; 14:4; 15:4, 35; 16:4; 17:11; 18:4) came under the influence of the Prophets.58 With this understanding, Dietrich actually obscured the line

54 Edelman 1985: 401. According to Edelman, at the earliest stage there was a clear line between r+e%qi as an intransitive verb and ry+iq;hi as a transitive verb. At the point when Hosea, Jeremiah, and the 1–2 Kings were written (8th–6th centuries B.C.E.), the hiphil came to be used both transitively and intransitively and was clearly preferred in the priestly writings; the piel always functioned as an intransitive verb. It is possible to explain the piel as a transitive denominative even if it is formally intransitive; see Waltke and O’Connor 1990: 411. 55 See Weippert 1972: 319 n. 2; Pakkala 2010: 220, 221. 56 In 2 Kgs 18:4, the bronze serpent was destroyed, because the people had burned offerings to it in lieu of YHWH. Whether or not 2 Kgs 18:4 reflects the people’s attitude and veneration of the bronze serpent with historical accuracy, it does not explicitly equate their actions with the worship of other deities (contrast 2 Kgs 22:17; 23:5; Jer 1:16). 57 Weinfeld 1972: 326. 58 Dietrich 1972: 77; cf. Blanco Wißmann 2008: 224–33. Contra Dietrich, in terms of comparison and influence of other genres with the 1–2 Kings, I fail to see why the literary prophetic milieu should take precedence over the significance of the cultic apparatus of the royal ideology of the monarchic period in Israel, as reflected in chronographic and display

192

Chapter Five: The Cultic Reports

that he drew between DtrG and DtrP, since this would assume some amount of prophetic influence on the framework of HH/Kings. Hosea 4:5 states that the priests sacrifice and burn incense on the hills, albeit without reference to other deities. However, at Hos 11:2 (cf. 2:15), northern Israel is accused of sacrificing (xbz pi.) to the baalim and burning incense (r+q pi.) to graven images (Mylsp). The connection of r+q with the mention of bāmôt in Hosea remains unclear, since the latter term is found only at Hos 10:8. However, only a few verses prior, at 10:5, the calf of Bethel (“Bethaven”) is mentioned, which calls to mind the report of the “sin” of Jeroboam at 1 Kgs 12:26–30.59 r+q is also employed regularly in Jeremiah in connection with the veneration of other deities (Jer 7:9; 11:13, 17; 19:13; 32:29). In three cases, the verb occurs with bāmôt, although only at Jer 19:4–5 are the verb r+q and the bāmôt in close proximity. Two of these cases deal with other deities and the third case concerns holocaust offerings of human children, still in the context of “syncretism” (7:31).60 The verb xbz is never used with r+q in Deuteronomy, Joshua–Samuel, in the Book of Jeremiah, or in any of the other Prophets with the exception of Hosea and Habbakuk. However, the hiphil of r+q is found with the noun xbazE at Lev 4:10, 23, 31, 35, but these examples only indicate the problems with regarding r+q as simply Deuteronomistic. Weippert has contrasted what is in her opinion the non-Dtr, Jeremianic idiom r+q pi. + l, associated with the worship of foreign gods, with the (proto-) Deuteronomistic idiom r+q pi. + b, associated with illegitimate YHWH worship in the regnal formulae of 1–2 Kings.61 I concur that r+q pi. + l always entails the worship of other deities in Jeremiah, while r+q pi. + b denotes the worship of YHWH in the regnal formulae of Kings. As a caveat, however, r+q pi. + l does not inherently denote the worship of other deities in other texts; it may refer to incense offerings for iconic images that were religious representations or symbols associated with YHWHistic religion (see 2 Kgs 18:4b; Hab 1:16; even Hos 11:2). Nor does r+q pi. + b essentially denote the worship of YHWH, as Weippert’s example at 2 Kgs 17:11 testifies (cf. 2 Kgs 23:5; Jer 19:4; 44:8).

inscriptions. This strikes me as an example of preferring innerbiblical exegesis to using texts of the same or similar genre. 59 Albertz (1994: 181–2) puts forth the argument that Hezekiah’s reform arose in the aftermath of Hosea’s vocation and was motivated by similar (though not identical) concerns pertaining to the cult. See below 10.3. 60

One may draw a comparison with the holocaust offerings at 2 Kgs 16:3b (after Mgw); 17:17a; 21:6a (after w + s.c.); 23:10 (w + s.c.), which are post-HH (cf. Deut 12:31; 18:10); see Provan 1988: 85–6; Eynikel 1996: 247–9. 61 Weippert 1973: 218–21.

193

5.4. Sacrificing and Burning Incense

Unlike the texts mentioned in Hosea and Jeremiah, however, none of the instances of r+q in the HH mentions the worship of other gods. Only the texts conventionally considered to be post-HH explicitly mention the worship of other gods in Judahite contexts (1 Kgs 11:8; 2 Kgs 17:11; 22:17; 23:5). Even if it could be proven that r+q referred to the worship of other deities at the bāmôt at Hos 11:2, that would not necessitate that the focal point of the HH-historian was the worship of other deities in the southern kingdom. The primary focus of the historian was on the location of the bāmôt as external to the Jerusalemite temple and their removal. A distinction obtains in the primary concern for centralization in the evaluations of southern rulers in the HH versus the later references to the worship of other deities outside of the HH regnal evaluations. Nearly all of the instances of r+q in reference to the worship of other deities are found outside of HH regnal framework structure (1 Kgs 11:8; 2 Kgs 17:11; 22:17; 23:5, 8?). The use of r+q in the Josianic narrative at 2 Kgs 22:17; 23:5, 8 is distinct from the use of the same verb in the HH-framework. Whereas the references inside the framework refer generally to the burning of incense carried out by the people, the Josianic narrative is concerned more specifically with the priests who burned incense at the bāmôt. Table 20. References to r+q in the Regnal Evaluations

twóømD;bA;b (!)My™îrVÚfåqVm M$DoDh qâår :twáømD;bA;b MyäîrVÚfåqVmá…w My¶IjV;bÅzVm M¢DoDh dwñøo :twáømD;bA;b MyäîrVÚfåqVmá…w My¶IjV;bÅzVm M¢DoDh dwñøo :twáømD;bA;b MyäîrVÚfåqVmá…w My¶IjV;bÅzVm M¢DoDh dwñøo :twáømD;bA;b MyäîrVÚfåqVmá…w My¶IjV;bÅzVm M¢DoDh dwñøo twóømD;bA;b MyäîrVÚfåqVmá…w My¶IjV;bÅzVm M¢DoDh dw#øo

1 Kgs 3:2 Solomon 22:44 Jehoshaphat 2 Kgs 12:4 Joash 14:4 Amaziah 15:4 Azariah 15:35 Jotham

All in all, a distinction may be drawn concerning the use of r+q (pi.), on the one hand, between burning incense in the Judahite bāmôt as concentrating on centralization in the HH and, on the other hand, between burning incense to other deities in the southern kingdom in the later editions of 1–2 Kings.62 The

62

For earlier scholars who saw this distinction between centralizing and anti-idolatrous tendencies, see Benzinger 1899: xiii–xv, 14–5; Driver 1902: 199–200; Burney 1903: 27–8;

194

Chapter Five: The Cultic Reports

historian of the HH employed the piel of r+q in order to focus on the location of the offering (i.e., the bāmôt), which was significant in light of the centralizing reform of Hezekiah. The historian did not concentrate any efforts on charging Judahite kings with worshipping other deities. The later editors of Kings employed r+q to focus on the worship of other deities, especially to justify the collapse of the southern kingdom (2 Kgs 22:17; 23:5; cf. 17:11; Jer 7:9; 11:13, 17; 19:13; 32:29). The later references of the Josianic narrative refer to the worship of other gods (2 Kgs 22:17) or focus on the role of the priests instead of the general populace (23:5, 8).63

5.5. Golden Calves at Bethel and Dan The golden calves of Bethel and Dan are mentioned explicitly three times in Kings (1 Kgs 12:28–29; 2 Kgs 10:29; 17:16).64 The action of fashioning the calves for “the people” (M(h) of Israel to worship at the sites of Bethel and Dan constituted a “sin” (t)+x), according to 1 Kgs 12:30. In the HH, the comparison with Jeroboam and his cultic-political sin is a Leitmotif on which the northern rulers and the course of the northern kingdom are patterned. Allusions to Jeroboam’s “sin” recur in nearly each northern account spanning from Nadab until Hoshea.65 Otto conflates the formulae in 1 Kgs 16:30–33; 21:22b to maintain that Ahab led Israel into sin by worshipping Baal, just as Jeroboam caused Israel to worship the golden calves (1 Kgs 14:16).66 Provan dismisses on insufficient grounds the possibility that Jeroboam’s calves were “YHWHistic” images condemned for being substituted in place of YHWH and remarked that the author of the framework associated the calves with Baal worship.67 Like Otto, Pfeiffer 1948: 377–81; Jepsen 1956: 81; Provan 1988: 57–8, 90; Eynikel 1996: 58–60; Pakkala 1999: 233. 63 My position may be contrasted with that of Hoffmann (1980: 337–9) who collapses the use of r+q into a single Deuteronomistic stratum. 64 The attestation at 2 Kgs 10:29b may be post-HH, since it is an unnecessary explication of Jeroboam’s sins; even so, 10:29a may have belonged to the HH, having been added to the earlier pro-Jehuide material in ch. 10 and perhaps at 10:30; see Robker 2012: 50–1. It is distinct from 10:31, which emphasizes Jehu’s opposition to the Torah of YHWH (differently, ibid. 50). The attestation at 2 Kgs 17:16 is commonly held to be secondary. 65 The accounts lacking allusions to Jeroboam’s sin belong to Elah (1 Kgs 16:8), Shallum (2 Kgs 15:13), and Hoshea (2 Kgs 17:1). 66 Otto 2001: 133–4. 67 Provan 1988: 64. It is generally granted that Jeroboam co-opted traditional bull imagery associated with El for the YHWHistic cults at Bethel and Dan; and in preference to the less likely view that the calves represented YHWH’s pedestal; see Toews 1993: 45–55; Mettinger 1997: 178–82; Smith 2001: 32; 2004: 34–35; Day 2002: 34–41; differently, Chung 2010. The question of whether the author of 1 Kgs 12:28b was censuring the calves as a

195

5.5. Golden Calves at Bethel and Dan

he conflates the distinction between Jeroboam’s sin and Baal worship in the framework notices at 1 Kgs 16:31–32; 22:53–54; 2 Kgs 3:2–3; cf. 10:29–30. However, 1 Kgs 16:30–33 never states explicitly that Ahab led the Israelites to worship Baal (contrast 1 Kgs 12:30); only Ahab and Jezebel are stated as having worshipped Baal. According to 2 Kgs 3:2, his son Joram followed only Jeroboam, and it is the latter’s misdeeds that remain a constant in the northern formulae. Even if one could show that the framework accuses Ahab of leading the Israelites to worship Baal, this would not necessarily entail that Jeroboam lead them to worship a deity other than YHWH. The sin of Jeroboam is not the worship of other deities but is instead the false worship of YHWH deliberately via iconic images and at newly established heterodox cultic sites.68 It is probable that in the HH the comparative reference to Jeroboam’s sin occurred invariably in the singular and that subsequent reinterpretations replaced the singular with the plural. That is to say, the comparison was made only with respect to the fashioning of the golden calves and the people’s veneration of them at Bethel and Dan.69 The strongest arguments in favor of this view are, first, the initial reference at 1 Kgs 12:30 that refers to Jeroboam’s action with the singular “sin”; and second, the four examples of grammatical disagreement in number (2 Kgs 13:2, 11; 17:22), whereby the initial plural noun, “sins” is again indexed by a following 3.f.s. pronominal suffix (hnF@m@emi “from it” or h@bf@ “in it”) instead of “from/in them”; contrast 2 Kgs 10:29.70 Table 21. Singular and Plural of t)+x in the HH//1–2 Kings71 Text 1 Kgs 12:30

Singular

Plural

sing 13:34 14:16

sing plural

form of cultic polytheism has not been solved on the basis of the plural verb Kwl(h; see Hahn 1981: 305–9. However, Hahn does not support his assertion that the author conceived of bovine images of YHWH at Bethel and Dan as polytheistic emblems because they were found at sites other than Jerusalem; for the text admits of YHWH worship outside of Jerusalem (see 1 Kgs 3:2–15). Jeroboam’s institution of a counterfeit YHWHism is determined by YHWH’s favor of Davidic kingship based in Jerusalem more than a Dtr monolatry. 68 Debus 1967: 39 n. 25; Schüpphaus 1967: 28; Toews 1993: 41–45; Eynikel 1996: 68 n. 99. 69 Pakkala 2008: 501. 70 Burney 1903: 268; Montgomery and Gehmen 1951: 358; Gray 1963: 431; Würthwein 1984: 279; Hobbs 1985: 161, 2.b. These examples cannot be explained by the distributive use of suffixes in the singular to refer to the plural, since that use typically functions with respect to animates (see Kautzsch and Cowley 1910: §145, 5). 71 The references with left alignment are original to HH; the right-aligned references in italics are later accretions. The bracketed references with the plural have probably replaced the earlier singular references.

196

Chapter Five: The Cultic Reports 14:22 15:3

15:26

plural plural sing

[LXX-plural]

sing

[LXX-plural]

15:30 15:34

plural

16:2b 16:19 16:26 16:31 2 Kgs 3:372

sing (2x)

plural Qere-plural

LXX-sing; cf. v. 21 21:16, 17

[Kethiv/LXX-plural] [plural] [MT-plural (with sing suffix)] plural [plural (with sing suffix)] plural (with sing suffix) [plural (with sing suffix)] [plural] [plural] [plural] [plural] [plural] [plural (with sing suffix)] 24:3

Qere-sing LXXB-sing 10:31

13:2 13:6 13:11 14:24 15:9 15:18 15:24 15:28 17:22 cf. Manasseh

The texts original to the HH exemplify the singular of t)+x up to and including the reigns of the Omride kings (i.e., from 1 Kgs 12:30 to 1 Kgs 16:26).73 The singular in these passages also agrees with the employment of the singular noun “way” (Krd) in these initial texts. The final reference to Jeroboam’s sin occurs in the singular in the LXX of 2 Kgs 17:22 (also v. 21). However, in the reigns from 2 Kgs 3:3 until 15:28 of the MT, t)+x occurs consistently in the plural, coinciding with the introduction of the formula )l Nm rs “he did not depart from.” The transition to the plural has probably resulted from the tendency to multiply the amount of sin associated with Jeroboam (note the addition of lk in some cases: 1 Kgs 15:3; 16:13; 2 Kgs 13:11; 14:24 [lk at 17:22 may be original]). Whereas the evaluative formulae of the northern rulers focus on the calves at Bethel and Dan, the reign of Josiah (esp. 2 Kgs 23:15), by contrast, concentrates on the altar (xbzm) that Jeroboam built at Bethel, in allusion to 1 Kgs 12:32, 33; 13:1–5, 32. These texts as well as 2 Kgs 23:15 are all late additions to the HH narrative.

72 The parallel passage at 4 Reg 1:18c and the LXXL of 4 Reg 3:3 place both the noun and the anaphoric suffix in the plural. 73 The modification of the singular to the plural in the LXX at 15:26 and 15:34 came about under the influence of the previous references to “sins” at 1 Kgs 14:16, 22; 15:3, 30, which are all additions to the HH.

5.6. Additional Cultic Motifs in the Framework

197

5.6. Additional Cultic Motifs in the Framework Unlike the regular Judahite cultic references regarding the bāmôt, sacrifice, and the burning of incense and unlike the northern “sin” of the golden calves or the Omride worship of Baal, other cultic motifs in the framework of 1–2 Kings do not figure prominently or consistently in the original HHframework. Unintegrated references to qādēš/qedēšîm, sacred pillars, offering children in fire, Asherah/ʾăšērîm, and Baal (in Judah) may be regarded as later additions to the HH-framework. 5.6.1. Qādēš/qedēšîm Use of the terms #dq/My#dq occurs in 1 Kgs 14:24; 15:12; 22:47; and 2 Kgs 23:7.74 According to 1 Kgs 14:24, Rehoboam introduced or tolerated the qādēš “in the land”; Asa then removed (rb( hi.) the qedēšîm “from the land”; thereafter, Jehoshaphat removed (r(b pi.) the qādēš “from the land remaining from the days of Asa.” Second Kings 23:7 states that Josiah then tore down (Ctn) the houses of the qedēšîm that were in the house of YHWH.75 Hoffmann has argued that the mention of the qādēš/qedēšîm climaxes in the account of Josiah, while acknowledging the problem that Josiah again carries out a reform which had already been undertaken by his predecessors Asa and Jehoshaphat. However, Hoffmann maintains that the focus in the Josianic cultic reform is on the housing (Mytb) associated with the qedēšîm that underscores to a greater extent the irreversible nature of Josiah’s actions.76 Nevertheless, the contradictory nature of the repeated reforms against the qādēš/qedēšîm in the accounts of Asa, Jehoshaphat, and Josiah cannot be overlooked. Hoffmann rightly chalks it up to the idealistic portrait of the Deuteronomist.77 However, 1–2 Kings does not adequately prime the audience for Josiah’s destruction of the qedēšîm-houses.78 There is a long pause between 74

One may compare Deut 23:18 for the legal prohibition of the masculine qādēš alongside of the feminine qedēšâ; cf. Hos 4:14. This is not the occassion to provide a systematic discussion of the meaning of qādēš/qedēšîm. It is now generally argued that there is no evidence in 1–2 Kings to suggest that the masculine term means “male cultic prostitute”; rather, it refers to a male cultic functionary in a non-YHWHistic cult without reference to sexual practice; see Gruber 1983: 167–76. 75 Different from the notices concerning the bāmôt in the HH-framework, which consistently employ the verb rws hi. to signify their removal, the notices against the qādēš/qedēšîm use three different verbs: rb( hi. at 1 Kgs 15:12 (only here in Kings; cf. 2 Chr 15:8); r(b pi. at 1 Kgs 22:44 (cf. 2 Kgs 23:24 with divination and forbidden cultic objects); and Ctn at 2 Kgs 23:7 (cf. 10:27; 11:8; 23:8, 10, 12, 15, 27; cf. Exod 34:13; Deut 7:5; 12:3; Judg 2:2; 6:30–32). 76 Hoffmann 1980: 39, 230–1. 77 Hoffmann 1980: 91–2; cf. Lowery 1991: 88–9. 78 Lowery 1991: 91.

198

Chapter Five: The Cultic Reports

Jehoshaphat’s eradication of the qādēš remaining from his father’s days and Josiah’s reform.79 In fact, the reforms against qādēš/qedēšîm in the accounts of the Judahite kings create a problem within the narrative of Kings, because the audience may wonder why Hezekiah (not to mention the four righteous kings before him) did not abolish them when he had the opportunity. In contrast to the inconsistent and contradictory nature of the references to qādēš/qedēšîm, the references to the bāmôt demonstrate a clear continuity from 1 Kgs 3:2 until 2 Kgs 18:4, preparing the audience for the report of Hezekiah’s reform. In contrast to the reading of the MT at 1 Kgs 22:47 (#dqh), OL 3 Reg 16:28d indicates that Jehoshaphat removed “his deeds” (actus euis [with eius added supralinearly; actus may be an error for actus]). The Latin is likely a translation of Greek e0pithdeu&mata (= Hebrew Myll(m), which is found in the LXX version of Asa’s cultic report at 3 Reg 15:12 (MT: Myllgh); cf. Deut 28:20; Jer 4:4, 18; 7:3, 5; 11:18; 17:10; 18:11. Hebrew Myll(m “deeds” is similar to Myllgh “non-YHWHistic images,” especially if one takes into account the similarity of the historical pronunciations of ayin (pharyngeal) and gimel (velar). If one accepts the variant reading of OL 16:28d for Jehoshaphat’s cultic report as earlier than the MT, then there is an uncanny resemblance between it and 2 Kgs 23:24 of Josiah’s reform report, in which one finds the only other occurrence of Myllgh as the object of r(b (D-stem). It is also stated in that text that Josiah removed the Myllgh that had appeared “in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem” that are reminiscent of the Myllgh that had remained from Asa’s time that Jehoshaphat “removed (r(b) from the land.”80 This association between Jehoshaphat and Josiah, again, has the effect of lessening the force of Hezekiah’s reform, since he did not pursue the eradication of the same cultic objects. 5.6.2. Divination Hoffmann makes the point that the motif of passing sons or daughters through fire as a ritual act climaxes in the account for Josiah, despite the fact that the series of statements regarding the motif is limited only to Ahaz, Manasseh,

79

Rösel (1999: 43) concludes that the motif of qādēš/qedēšîm in no way points to the unity of authorship; cf. Auld 1994: 90 (the Book of Chronicles does not contain the motif of the My#dq); also Spieckermann 1982: 181–9; however, Spieckermann takes seriously the possibility that the reference to the qedēšîm-houses at 2 Kgs 23:7 (cf. 11:8) is old and authentic (ibid. 92). The references at Deut 7:5; 12:3 (Ctn) and 23:18 (#dq) argue against his assertion that the language of 2 Kgs 23:7 is not characteristically Deuteronomistic. 80 Besides the fact that two or three mentions of qādēš/qedēšîm are a slim basis for positing a synchronistic history dating to the ninth century (pace Lemaire 2000: 454–5), the evidence of the LXX/OL cited here is a problem for such an argument.

5.6. Additional Cultic Motifs in the Framework

199

and Josiah.81 Second Kings 16:3 and 21:6 state that Ahaz and Manasseh passed their sons through the fire, whereas 23:10 states that Josiah defiled the Topheth in the Valley of Hinnom, lest anyone should cause his son or daughter to pass through the fire on the behalf of Molech. Second Kings 21:6 and 23:10 (and 17:17) probably allude to Deut 18:10, which mentions both the rite of passing children through fire as well as the divinatory practices of other nations (cf. Jer 7:18, 31; 19:5).82 To be sure, the motif of offering children found in Manasseh’s account does prepare the reader for Josiah’s reform; however, the presence of the motif at Ahaz’s account is strange in that it is not mentioned in Hezekiah’s evaluation. It counteracts the tenor of the regular notices on the bāmôt by reducing the effectiveness of Hezekiah’s reform.83 Why did he not destroy the Tophet in the Valley of the children of Hinnom to render child sacrifice impossible? As already argued, the motif in 2 Kgs 16:3b is probably post-HH (similarly 17:17),84 as is the concern for child sacrifice, the sudden spike in interest for which occurs after Hezekiah’s account. 5.6.3 Pillars and ʾĂšērîm Spieckermann understands the three elements twmb-twbcm-hr#) as a fictive device of the “Josianic” DtrH redaction to set up the contrast between Manasseh and Josiah and to solve by Josiah’s reform (2 Kgs 23:8a, 13, 14) the problem of false worship to YHWH commencing in the days of Solomon and Rehoboam (1 Kgs 11:7*, 8; 14:22–23).85 Against Spieckermann, I hold that the pillars and ʾăšērîm were added after the HH had been written, perhaps by a later redactor.86 The general aniconic 81

Hoffmann 1980: 39–40. The texts at Jer 7:31 and 19:5 mention the motif of offering children in the bāmôt; however, this association does not figure in 1–2 Kings. Indeed, it would be odd that Hezekiah’s evaluation is silent about the motif if the latter pertained to the bāmôt. 83 Pace Lowery 1991: 128: “The apostasies of Ahaz make the reforms of Hezekiah possible and necessary.” It is possible that the references to Ahaz’s worship in the bāmôt may set up Hezekiah’s reform, but his “apostasies” do not make Hezekiah’s reform necessary. It is the taboo nature of the bāmôt that makes their removal necessary, according to 1–2 Kings. Hezekiah does not abolish child sacrifice, since he does not defile the Tophet. 84 Cf. Jer 7:31–32; 19:6, 11–12. Rösel (1999: 45) points to two discrepancies that may demonstrate that the motif of offering children came into the Book of Kings at separate times: 2 Kgs 16:3 and 21:6 mention only the son, whereas 17:17 and 23:10, like Deut 18:10 mention the son and the daughter; 23:10 mentions offering children to the deity Molech. Moreover, 17:17 does not refer to a king but to the Israelites of the northern kingdom. In my opinion, none of these factors demonstrates the stratification of the motif; stronger is the late nature of 16:3b indicated by Mgw, which probably arose after 17:17; 21:6; and 23:10. 85 Spieckermann 1982: 195–7. 86 For a similar but even later combination of cultic elements, see 2 Chr 14:2; 17:6; 31:1; 34:3–4, 7. Camp (1990: 85–6) also holds to the secondary nature of the pillars and ʾăshērîm 82

200

Chapter Five: The Cultic Reports

or anti-syncretistic influence of Exod 34:13 or Deut 7:5; 12:3 may have brought about the later additions of the pillars and ʾăšērîm to the HH. According to 1 Kgs 14:23, Judah (MT)/the fathers (LXX) built the bāmôt, pillars, and ʾăšērîm on every hill and under every verdant tree. This statement is similar to the late text at 2 Kgs 17:9–11 (cf. 23:14), which describes how Israel also built the same triad of objects on the every hill and under every verdant tree. First Kings 15:12 states that Asa removed (rws hi.) all of the Myllg that his fathers made, which may refer to sacred pillars and ʾăšērîm from the account of Rehoboam.87 If that is the case, then the statement that Hezekiah cut down the pillars and ʾăšērîm (2 Kgs 18:4ab) is an excessive repetition of a reforming act already carried out by Asa. There is also the statement in Josiah’s reign at 23:14 that is similar to 2 Kgs 18:4ab, triggered by the allusions to the bāmôt from Solomon’s and Jeroboam’s accounts (23:13, 15).88 The two elements may have been interpolated after the references to the bāmôt at 2 Kgs 18:4ab and 23:14 as type of “literary reflex” in light of Deut 7:5 and 12:3.89 The earliest reference to Asherah may have been at 1 Kgs 16:33 (still postHH), the evaluation in Ahab’s account, to which 2 Kgs 21:3 has secondarily alluded; the other references at 1 Kgs 14:23; 2 Kgs 18:4ab; 23:14 may even be later than 2 Kgs 21:3. 5.6.4. Baal Baal is not mentioned in 1–2 Kings before Ahab’s account and is usually connected with him thereafter. In the MT, Baal figures only in the evaluative formulae for Ahab’s dynasty (1 Kgs 16:31–32; 22:54; 2 Kgs 3:2; 10:18–29*). Some have argued that the worship of Baal is present in the Judahite accounts of Jehoram (2 Kgs 8:18) and Ahaziah (8:27), who possessed ties to Ahab’s family through intermarriage. Actually, the prologues for Jehoram and Ahaziah never state that they had committed any cultic misdemeanor, and Baal is not mentioned. At 1 Kgs 16:31, it is stated that Ahab worshipped Baal and erected an altar for him; 22:54 states that Ahaziah worshipped Baal just as his father and mother had done; 2 Kgs 3:2b and 10:26–27 report that on separate occasions Joram removed and Jehu had burned the/a sacred pillar of Baal. However, 1 Kgs 16:31–33 never mentions a sacred pillar dedicated to Baal, while maintaining the originality of the removal of the bāmôt and the burning of incense to the bronze serpent at 2 Kgs 18:4b. 87 Hoffmann 1980: 44. 88 The combination of the sacred pillars and ʾăshērîm without the mention of bāmôt at Mic 5:12–13 (cf. 2 Kgs 17:10–11; 23:14) suggests that the terms could stand together on their own and could be inserted together as a pair. 89 Lowery 1991: 207–8; cf. Barrick (2002: 103–4), who holds out the possibility that the pillars and ʾăshērîm were original to the HH at 2 Kgs 18:4 and that 23:13–14 borrowed from it, but this is difficult to verify and the reverse direction of dependence is also allowable.

5.6. Additional Cultic Motifs in the Framework

201

which makes one wonder whether 2 Kgs 3:2b and 10:26–27 are secondary additions to the HH or have been reworked. In any case, according to 1 Kgs 16:31, there is already some intolerance of other gods in the HH, even if it is essentially related to the worship of Baal in the days of Ahab’s dynasty.90 The Judahite accounts of Jehoiada (2 Kgs 11:18), Manasseh (21:3), and Josiah (23:4, 5, 11b [LXXL/OL], 13) mention the erection or destruction of cultic objects or personnel related to the worship of Baal; all of these texts are post-HH. Second Kings 11:18 mentions the tearing down (Ctn) of the altars of Baal stationed in Jerusalem, an action about which the preceding narrative is silent. According to 21:3, Manasseh erected an altar to Baal, just as Ahab had done. Manasseh had no familial ties to the house of Ahab, although the mention of the altar of Baal at 2 Kgs 21:3 alludes explicitly to Ahab’s account at 1 Kgs 16:32.91 The references to the Baal-cult in the evaluations of Ahab’s dynasty do not extend into Josiah’s account. According to 2 Kgs 23:12, Josiah tore down (Ctn) the altars erected by Manasseh that he dedicated in the two courts of the house of YHWH to the Host of Heaven (cf. 21:5), not those erected for Baal (cf. 21:3). Moreover, the clear references to Baal at 23:4–5 do not make any kind of allusion to Ahab’s regnal evaluation (cf. 2 Kgs 17:16). I have also mentioned that the bāmâ said, according to LXXL/OL 4 Reg 23:11b, to have been built for Baal at Beth-On, is not prepared for by reading the framework and tarnishes Hezekiah’s reputation (see above 5.3). 5.6.5. Baal and Asherah/Astarte Spieckermann argued that the ancient conception of Asherah underwent several developments throughout the course of the monarchic history.92 The Deuteronomistic editors (DtrH; DtrP; DtrN) both preserved these developments and simultaneously erased them through the indiscriminate use of the names, t(w)rt#$( and hr#$)(h). The clearest designation of the fertility goddess t(w)rt#$( “Astarte,” according to Spieckermann, was predominant in the pre-monarchic (Judg 2:13; 10:6; 1 Sam 7:3f.; 12:10; 31:10) and Solomonic eras (1 Kgs 11:5, 33; cf. 2 Kgs 23:13). The dtr redaction preserved this memory correctly.93 Then, the other designation of the same goddess, hr#$)(h), was employed already by the monarchy and indicated not the Canaanite fertility goddess and consort of El, but the Assyrian Ištar, visible in older Vorlagen 90 See Pakkala 1999: 159–60, 163–5. The repetition of 16:30 in v. 33 (esp. OL and LXXBL demonstrates that v. 33 is secondary (see Trebolle 1989: 136–8, without holding to his view that vv. 31–32 are also secondary). 91 The allusion to 1 Kgs 16:32 does not prove that 2 Kgs 21:3 was part of the HH, although it does suggest that 1 Kgs 16:32 was original to the history. 92 Spieckermann 1982: 170–3, 212–21. 93 Ibid. 220. For the problems inherent in the sexist category “fertility goddess,” see Hackett 1989: 65–76.

202

Chapter Five: The Cultic Reports

(Deut 16:21; 2 Kgs 21:7; 23:6f.) and in Dtr texts (DtrN: 2 Kgs 17:16; DtrH: 18:4; 21:3; 23:4).94 He is thus maintains that after the Assyrian conquests of Israel and Judah, Asherah was identified with Ištar, the Queen of Heaven (Jer 7:18; 44:15–19) and with the worship of the “army of heaven” (Deut 4:19 [late-dtr]; DtrN: 2 Kgs 17:16; DtrH: 21:3; older Vorlage: Deut 17:3; 2 Kgs 23:4, 5).95 The references to Baal and Asherah together in the Bible may also be explained as an attempt to demonize the ʾăšērîm as iconic objects associated with non-YHWHistic veneration. The mentions of Astarte in Judges–Kings are rather distinct from those of Asherah. In the Books of Judges and Samuel, Astarte is nearly always mentioned alongside Baal (Judg 2:13; 3:796 [with two manuscripts, Syriac, and Vulgate]; 1 Sam 7:3–4 [also with “foreign” gods]; 12:10), in agreement with the Ugaritic sources; in 1–2 Kings, however, she is designated as the goddess of the Sidonians (1 Kgs 11:5, 33; cf. 2 Kgs 23:13; cf. KAI 13:1–2; 14:15–18; 15; 16) and is never mentioned with Baal.97 On the contrary, Asherah is found together with Baal in five cases in Kings (1 Kgs 16:33; 18:19; 2 Kgs 17:16; 21:3; 23:4), all of which may be taken as later additions to the HH. Concerning the depiction of astral religion in 1–2 Kings, Theuer has argued that the report of Hezekiah’s removal of the bāmôt in 2 Kgs 18:3–5 is a late Dtr invention.98 In fact, Hezekiah participated in or at least tolerated a syncretistic cult involving elements of the astral worship during his reign. Since the bāmôt would have indubitably entailed such elements, she claims, it stands to reason that the claim of his removal has no basis in historical fact. Moreover, 2 Kgs 23:12 states that Josiah removed the altars on Ahaz’s roof made by the “kings of Judah” (i.e., from before the time of Manasseh and perhaps from before the time of Ahaz, reading with LXXL/OL). Some points of contention serve to call Theuer’s acceptance of 2 Kgs 18:4 as a late fiction into question. Hezekiah’s motivation for removing the bāmôt may have pertained to cultic space rather than specifically to cultic purification. It may be that it was only with the rise of the concern for cultic purification during and after Josiah’s reign that the eradication of astral elements was 94

Ibid. 221. Ibid. 222; see Theuer 2000: 473–74. 96 Reading twrt#( at Judg 3:7 with Lipiński 1972: 114; Larroca-Pitts 2001: 59 n. 18; pace Spieckermann 1982: 213: “twr#) . . . eine für hr#) völlig ungewöhnliche Pluralbildung (sonst nur noch 2Chr 19,3), die sich als Angleichung an die dominierenden twrt#( verstehen läßt.” 97 Eynikel 1996: 201–2. Asherah is called the “goddess of the Sidonians” in a Ugaritic text (KTU 1.14 IV 38–39) but Astarte goes by the same title in Phoenician texts of the sixthfifth centuries (KAI 13:1–2; 14:15–18; 15; 16; cf. 1 Kgs 11:5, 33; 2 Kgs 23:13). Asherah does not figure in the Phoenician texts. 98 Theuer 2000: 469–70. 95

5.7. Minor Objects/Deities

203

first conceived. It is noteworthy that Baal and Asherah are not conjoined with astral religion until after Hezekiah’s account.99 It is also uncertain what connection the removal of the bāmôt had to worship of astral deities in Judah. Were the bāmôt official or non-official cultic sites and to what degree was astral worship prominent at them? Indeed, Theuer hints at the tension in 1–2 Kgs regarding the motif of the “host of heaven.” Darauf deutet auch die Ambivalenz der dtr. Ideologie in Bezug auf Hiskijas Reform hin; obwohl er für seine Reformen gerühmt wird, ist er dennoch in der pauschalen Bezeichnung der Manasse vorangehenden “Königen von Juda” eingeschlossen, die die Astralreligion gefördert bzw. Toleriert hatten.

The tension visible with this motif is in harmony with the evidence regarding the bāmôt offered in favor of an HH above at 5.3, in answer to the question of why the regular bāmôt-notices down to Hezekiah’s account are overshadowed by the use of cultic motifs introduced in Manasseh’s and Josiah’s accounts. An appeal merely to literary fiction does not adequately answer these outstanding tensions in 1–2 Kings.

5.7. Minor Objects/Deities References to further cultic objects and deities include: Mylwlg 1 Kgs 15:21; 21:26; 2 Kgs 17:12; 21:11, 21; 23:24 (see 5.6.1); Mylbh 1 Kgs 16:13, 26; 2 Kgs 17:15 (see 4.4.5); hksm 1 Kgs 14:9; 2 Kgs 17:16; tclpm 1 Kgs 15:13 (see 3.4); lsp/Mylysp 2 Kgs 17:41; 21:7; Mym#h )bc 2 Kgs 17:16; 21:3, 5; 23:4, 5 (see 5.6.5); Mlc 2 Kgs 11:18; Mycwq# 1 Kgs 11:5, 7; 2 Kgs 23:13, 24 (see 5.3); hb(wt 1 Kgs 14:24; 2 Kgs 16:3; 21:2, 11; 23:13. All of these references are explainable as late additions to the HH and belong mainly to the retrospective explanation for the fall of the northern kingdom (2 Kgs 17:7–20), the description of Manasseh’s account (21:3–16), the report on Josiah’s reform (23:4–24), or texts that adumbrate the reform (1 Kgs 11:5, 7; 14:24; 15:21). None of these cultic objects/deities is a standard element in the cultic reports of the HH-framework.

5.8. Comparative Evidence The themes of the Mesopotamian chronicles usually concern dynastic succession, military events, building projects, and treaties, but they also sometimes detail a series of events that are cultic in nature, such as interruptions in the 99

So Theuer (2000: 473–74, 569–70), who points out that the combination of Baal and Asherah with astral deities rises with Manasseh’s account (2 Kgs 21:3; 23:4–5).

204

Chapter Five: The Cultic Reports

akītu festival.100 In chronicles focused more explicitly on religious matters, political events may play only a supporting role. In the so-called Religious Chronicle (ABC 17), an Aramean invasion is reported to explain why the akītu New Year’s festival was not celebrated. In the Nabonidus Chronicle, failure to carry out the akītu is cause for the (implicit) negative evaluation of the king’s conduct.101 Mention of the akītu comes only as a side comment in the case of the chronicle concerning the early years of Nebuchadnezzar II: “In the month Nisan he took the hand of Bel and of the son of Bel (and) celebrated the Akitu festival” (ABC 5: obv. 14). This statement may have been intended to make an implicitly positive evaluation of Nebuchadnezzar’s rule; however, Liverani observes: The careful reading of the akītu celebration seems to have been the practice at least from the mid-10th century, but it becomes a topic for political polemics only in connection with the reign of Nabonidus, because of his religious reforms and the opposition they met from the Marduk clergy.102

Liverani compares and contrasts the recording of the celebration and noncelebration of the akītu festival with the profile of worship at the bāmôt in the framework of 1–2 Kings. Both political and cultic reports were recorded in the earlier chronographic tradition of Mesopotamia.103 There was the potential for using these texts to evaluate or polemicize against royal figures such as Nabonidus. That the Mesopotamian chronicles should report on royal affairs in relation to a significant cultic festival such as the akītu is not surprising, since the king was primarily responsible for the services of the cult – the latter being necessary for the proper rule and protection of the land. Its well-being depended on the king’s execution of his duties in harmony with the divine will in the cult.104 In the Nabonidus Chronicle, the statement on the akītu festival is repeated formulaically and climaxes in the final regnal year of Nabonidus, who flees and is captured by Cyrus and his army: The seventh year: The king (was) in Tema (while) the prince, his officers, (and) his army (were) in Akkad. [The king] did not come to Babylon [in the month of Nisan]. Nabu did not come to Babylon. Bel did not come out. The [Akitu festiv]al [did not take place]. The offer100

See Grayson 1975a: ABC 5: obv. 14; ABC 7: ii, 6, 10–11, 19–20, 23–24, iii, 5–8; ABC 14:35–37; ABC 16; ABC 17: iii, 4–6, 8–9, 13–15; ABC 24. 101 Liverani (2010: 176–7) notes that, unlike the Nabonidus Chronicle (ABC 7), the Akitu Chronicle (ABC 16) does not appear to criticize kings for the non-celebration of the akītu. Both the Akitu chronicle and the Neo-Babylonian Chronicle Series probably used a common source for their information on Neo-Babylonian history; see Grayson 1975a: 36. 102 Liverani 2010: 177. 103 See also Halpern 1996: 216–18; Kratz 2000a: 164 n. 62; Adam 2010: 40. 104 Spieckermann 2010: 348. According to Spieckermann (ibid. 352), “the concept of kingship in pre-exilic Israel and Judah was by and large similar to the Mesopotamian” conception.

5.8. Comparative Evidence

205

ings were presented (to) the gods of Babylon and Borsippa a[s in normal times] in Esagil and Ezida.105 The ninth year: Nabonidus, the king (was) Tema (while) the prince, his officers, and his army (were) in Akkad. The king did not come to Babylon in the month of Nisan. Nabu did not come to Babylon. Bel did not come out. The Akitu festival did not take place. The offerings were presented (to) the gods of and Borsippa as in normal times in Esagil and Ezida.106 The tenth year: The king (was) in Tema (while) the prince, his officers, and his army (were) in Akkad. The king [did not come to Babylon in the month of Nisan]. Nabu did not come to Babylon. Bel did not come out. The Akitu festival did not take place. The offerings were presented (to) the gods of Babylon and Borsippa as in normal times in E[sagil and Ezida].107 The eleventh year: The king (was) in Tema (while) the prince, his officers, and his army (were) in Akkad. [The king did not come to Babylon in the month of Nisan. [Nabu] did not come [to Bab]ylon. Bel did not come out. The Akitu festival did not take place. The of[ferings] were presented [(to) the gods of Bab]ylon and Borsippa [as in normal times in Esagil and Ezida].108

These four examples of formulaic language were probably repeated elsewhere in the broken portions of the chronicle. The repeated formulae report that in Nabonidus’ absence in Tema, the akītu festival was not celebrated but that offerings were still presented to Marduk and Nabu in their temples. In Nabonidus’ final regnal year (seventeenth) – the “climax” of the chronicle, so to speak – the language, which was first formulated in the negative, is now restated in the positive: [The seventeenth year: . . . N]abu] [came] from Borsippa for the procession of [Bel. Bel came out].109 [. . . B]el came out. They performed the Akitu festival as in the normal times.110

After Nabonidus fled in battle from Cyrus and was captured in Babylon, the chronicle reports: “There was no interruption (of rites) in Esagil or the (other) 105

Grayson 1975a: 106, 7 ii 6–8. Ibid. 107, 7 ii 10–12. 107 Ibid. 108, 7 ii 19–21. 108 Ibid. 108, 7 ii 23–25. Compare the similar formulae in the Akitu Chronicle (ibid. 131– 2): ABC 16:3–4 (“Bel s[tayed] in Baltil and the Akitu festival did not take place”), 18–19 (“Nabu did not come from [Borsippa] for the procession of Bel [and] Bel did not come out”), 20–21 (“Nabu did not come from Borsippa for the procession of Bel [and] Bel did not come out”), 22 (“Nabu did not come [and] Bel did not come out”), 23 (“Nabu did not come [and] Bel did not come out”), 27 (“Nabu did not come [and] Bel did not come out”); cf. ABC 14 (ibid. 125–8): 32–33, 35–37; ABC 15 (ibid. 128–30): 4, 22; ABC 17 (ibid. 133–8): ii 2–5, 18; iii 4–6, 8–9. 109 Ibid. 109, 7 iii 5. 110 Ibid. 109, 7 iii 8. 106

206

Chapter Five: The Cultic Reports

temples and no date (for a performance) was missed.”111 The rest of the text is only partially preserved, but the gods taken to Babylon are returned to their places and Cyrus is greeted with jubilation in Babylon and peace remained in the city during his days.112 The final column of the tablet appears to have provided a description of Cyrus’ reign over Babylon. The above example demonstrates again the use of repetition to structure the meaning of the whole text as a movement from cultic disorder to cultic restoration. The repetitive nature of these cultic formulae and their significance in structuring meaning parallels the climactic judgment and cultic report of Hezekiah’s account at 2 Kgs 18:3– 4aa: “He did what was right in the eyes of YHWH according to all that David his father had done. It was he who removed the bāmôt.”

5.9. Conclusions The cultic reports of the framework of 1–2 Kings, in addition to the regnal evaluations, climax with the account of Hezekiah. The regular bāmôt-notices of the framework are used to restrict the positive evaluations of the southern kings down to Hezekiah. The history is not clear as to how YHWH was worshipped at the bāmôt, beyond the fact that the Judahites were offering sacrifices at those sites. Regardless, the historian emphasized the non-removal of the Judahite bāmôt and the performance of incense burning performed at those sites. Although the history focused on the primary responsibility of the king in caring for the cultus, it was not the historian’s objective to castigate the southern kings strongly for allowing the bāmôt to persist. It is the people of Judah (not the king) who are said to have continued sacrificing at the bāmôt. Only Ahaz is blamed for having sacrificed at the bāmôt and the history judges him as not having done what was right in the eyes of YHWH. The focus is on the fact that the kings had not removed the illegitimate cultic places prior to Hezekiah’s reign. The framework operates with the “restorer of order” pattern observed in the history of the Davidic dynasty, whereby the present reign of the Judahite ruler is evaluated as a retroversion to an earlier utopian period. Hezekiah effects a restitution of cultic and political order absent from the previous reigns of the Judahite kings that hearkens back to the “original” intention for constructing the temple in Solomon’s age (see 1 Kgs 3:2).113 The temple at Jerusalem was to be the sole locus of sacrificial worship

111

Ibid. 110, 7 iii 17–18. Ibid. 110, 7 iii 19, 22. 113 For a discussion of the invented “Golden Age” during David’s time, see Mullen 1993: 209–48. Mullen is less concerned with diachronic analysis; thus his inclusion of Solomon’s reign under of rubric of “The Golden Age Lost” is debatable. Furthermore, he does not dis112

5.9. Conclusions

207

to YHWH, since it was his own residence and served as the capital for the Davidic royal line. All texts associating the bāmôt with northern non-Israelite, nonYHWHistic worship should probably be regarded as having been added later to the HH. Whereas the northern sites of Bethel and Dan are newly constructed cultic sites that implement iconic statues, the southern bāmôt are an outmoded relic from the pre-Solomonic era. The references to the bāmôt in preparation for Josiah’s account disregard the significance of Hezekiah’s role as the one who removed the bāmôt and should be regarded as post-HH additions.

cuss the indications that Hezekiah’s reign is a restoration of the “Golden Age” in terms of cultic and political order (ibid. 278–9).

Chapter Six

Solomon’s Account and the Beginning of the Hezekian History 6.1. Introduction In the initial part of this work, I argued for the existence of the HH on the basis of its formulaic structure. In the second part of the work, my objective will be to delimit more fully the boundaries of the HH-framework, in particular, its beginning and end. Significant is whether the formulae function within a genuine historical narrative in possession of a beginning, middle, and end, or whether the project was simply a continuous reporting of events without beginning or end, i.e., a “chronicle.” Not only can the objectives of the HH be elucidated in terms of its evaluative configuration but also in terms of its beginning and final climax.1 Defining the limits of the HH will lend further credence to its existence and provide clarification in rendering its scope and purpose. In this chapter, I attempt to demonstrate where the beginning of the HH was originally located, by reviewing previous considerations on the literary relationship of Samuel and Kings (6.2), then by offering my own textual argumentation for the identification of the beginning of the history (6.3), and finally by demonstrating how the beginning of the HH operates as a catalyst for the remaining account of the history (6.4). I will argue that the framework of Kings was composed as a work distinct from Samuel and that the chronological notices at 1 Sam 13:1; 2 Sam 2:10–11; 5:4–5; and 2 Kgs 2:11 do not demonstrate the likelihood that Samuel was originally joined to the HHframework as a single continuous work. I also demonstrate that the epilogue for David’s reign in 1 Kgs 2:10–12 as well as the notices regarding Solomon’s control over the kingdom in 3 Reg 2:35/1 Kgs 2:46b did not serve as an introduction to the HH. Instead, the opening notice in 3 Reg 2:46l and the cultic 1 It is worth pointing out as a methodological caveat that, although the characterization of historical work as narrative does imply evaluation, the opposite assertion is not necessarily true; that is to say, evaluation does not automatically imply narrativity. It is at least possible that a chronicle could, however unlikely, evaluate a set of protagonists without possessing an explicit beginning or climactic goal; on evaluation and narrativity, see White 1973: 5–29 (at 22–9), according to White, narrative coherence implies a certain ideology (cf. Barthes 1981: 7–20; Sternberg 1985; Tambling 1991; Toolan 2001: 59–63; Bal 2009: 31–5, 167– 70).

6.2. The Literary Relationship of Samuel and Kings

209

report in 1 Kgs 3:2* comprised the original introduction to the HHframework. As for the relationship of the framework to the HH-account of Solomon’s reign, I will argue that the HH-account of the dream theophany at Gibeon is located at 1 Kgs 3:4–6a, 7–9, 11*, 12ab, 13, 15*, while the HHaccount of the construction of the temple is preserved in 3 Reg 5:14a–b; 1 Kgs 5:15a, 16, 20*, 22–25, 26b–27, 28b, 31–32; 6:2–10* 15–36*; 7:15–41*; 8:1–6*, 12–13, 62, 63b. The result is that the construction of the temple is represented as a radical innovation amid the customary toleration of sacrifice at the bāmôt, as described in 1 Kgs 3:2.

6.2. The Literary Relationship of Samuel and Kings Since Noth’s work on the Deuteronomistic History, the view has become commonplace that 1–2 Kings was also written by the author of the Deuteronomistic History and that it was joined at the time of its composition to material found in 1–2 Samuel and Judges as a single comprehensive work. In what follows, I review the history of scholarship on the literary relationship of Samuel and Kings leading up to Noth and following in his wake. 6.2.1. Early Considerations The course of scholarly investigation into the relationship of Samuel and Kings has undergone several transformations in recent centuries. In the lateeighteenth-early-nineteenth century, the German orientalist, Johann Jahn, maintained that a single author wrote the Books of Samuel and Kings.2 He cited as precedents for this view authorities such as Josephus, Melito of Sardis, Origen, and Jerome as well as the fact that in the Greek (1–4 Basileion) and Latin (1–4 Regum) witnesses of Samuel and Kings they bear the same title. On internal grounds, Jahn pointed out that the Book of Kings mentions the promise to David in 2 Sam 7 and refers to that king in the evaluations of the Judahite monarchs. Johann Gottfried Eichhorn espoused the view that, although composed according to distinct methods, 1–2 Samuel and 1–2 Kings were written by the same author (Epitomator), who bound an earlier history of the lives of David and Solomon to the history of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah.3 Eichhorn traced the earlier history of the lives of David and Solomon down to 1 Kgs 11

2 3

Jahn 1827: 256–7. Eichhorn 1787: II, 519–20.

210

Chapter Six: Solomon’s Account

but did not attempt to determine whether 1 Kgs 12 fit together with the Solomonic account or with the ensuing material in 1 Kgs 13–2 Kgs 25.4 Wilhelm M. L. de Wette originally adhered to the view that Samuel and Kings were composed by the same person.5 Years later, he altered his opinion and proffered six reasons for why Kings was not originally connected to Samuel:6 1) the traces of the exilic period in the former book; 2) its regular allusions to the Pentateuch; 3) its disapproval of the freedom of worship (contrast 1 Sam 7:9–10, 17; 9:13; 10:3; 14:35; 2 Sam 24:18–25);7 4) the different spirit of its history (by which de Wette meant that the complex history writing of 1–2 Samuel declines in 1–2 Kings into dry chronicle mixed with legendary prophetic stories); 5) its use of source citations; 6) the precision and specificity of its dates (in contrast with the round numbers at 1 Sam 4:18; 2 Sam 2:10; 5:4; 1 Kgs 2:11; 11:42). Although the strength of the initial two reasons is disputable, particularly in regards to 1 Sam 8–12, the last four remain valid for upholding the original separation of the compositions of Samuel and Kings. In uncanny resemblance to the development of de Wette’s conception of the literary relationship between Samuel and Kings, a similar shift occurred in Karl Heinrich Graf’s work. In 1840, Graf shared in a letter to his friend, Eduard Reuss, his conclusion that the editor of the Book of Samuel was none other than the author of the Book of Kings.8 The editor incorporated a history of David en bloc with light editing here and there and integrated it with Kings to compose a single work. No similar history was incorporated into the Book of Kings but only editorial additions and prophetic stories. Graf’s notion is still prevalent in the works of modern scholarship, most notably in Martin Noth’s work on the Deuteronomistic History. However, in his work on the Historical Books, he did not observe any indications of Deuteronomistic re4

Ibid. II, 503. Halpern’s (Halpern and Vanderhooft 1991: 181 n. 12; Halpern and Lemaire 2010: 123) association of the notion of a “Hezekian History” with Eichhorn is specious, in my opinion, since the common source posited for Samuel–Kings and Chronicles was not indicative of a Hezekian provenance (see Eichhorn 1787: II, 516–19). The same is true of Halpern’s tendency to see a forerunner of the “Hezekian History” in the work of Stähelin (1843: 137–40), which is primarily concerned with the Succession Narrative in relation to Hezekiah and dates the bulk of 1 Kgs 3–2 Kgs 25 to the sixth century B.C.E. (ibid. 150–60). 5 De Wette 1806: I, 42–3; but see ibid. 248 (note), stating that the author of Samuel may not have been the same as the author of Kings, since in the former work cultic worship is irregular and diverse without any noticeable criticism. 6 De Wette 1850: II, 251. 7 Bleek and Wellhausen (1893: 188–9) offer similar arguments and note in particular that whereas the author of Kings took umbrage at the mention of the bāmôt (see 1 Kgs 3:2–4), sacrificial rites at the various cultic places receive no comment in Samuel, though ample opportunity was afforded for criticism; see also Thenius 1873: xiii–xiv. 8 Budde and Holtzmann 1904: 99; see de Pury and Römer 2000a: 35.

6.2. The Literary Relationship of Samuel and Kings

211

daction in Samuel; rather, signs of that redaction began at 1 Kgs 3:2–3 with the statement on the people’s cultic practices at the bāmôt prior to the construction of the temple and carried on into the framework of Kings authored by the Deuteronomist (1 Kgs 15:14; 22:44; 2 Kgs 12:4; 14:4; 15:4, 35; cf. 1 Kgs 11:7; 14:22f.; 2 Kgs 16:4; 21:3).9 Heinrich Ewald argued for the existence of an earlier “prophetic history of the kings,” found in *1 Sam 1–2 Kgs 9, noting that although the exact formation of Solomon’s history was elusive, language in 1 Kgs 11:32–34 and 1 Kgs 12 recalled the style of the Book of Samuel and 1 Kgs 1–2.10 Afterwards, a later Deuteronomistic editor incorporated the older (prophetic) work in *1 Sam 1–1 Kgs 2 (2 Kgs 9) and blended other works together with it to compose Samuel and Kings. However, Ewald detected a clear break at 1 Kgs 3, where the style of narrative becomes more abbreviated and laconic in contrast to the earlier Saul and David narratives.11 He agreed with Graf’s original view that there was only light editing in the Book of Samuel up to 1 Kgs 2 whereas the material from 1 Kgs 3 and onwards was the editor’s own work.12 He also addressed the problem of why citation references were absent for David and Saul, to which he provided the response that the editor did not abbreviate his sources prior to 1 Kgs 3 and thus was not required to cite them.13 A final (Deuteronomistic) editor was responsible for the pessimistic tenor found in Judges and Kings, as seen in the cultic notices of the regnal prologues beginning with 1 Kgs 3:2.14 Abraham Kuenen was not convinced by Ewald’s view of the compilation of Judges–Kings.15 Though noting some signs of continuity, Kuenen stressed the distinctive qualities of the Book of Kings, found only partially in the Book of Judges and rarely if at all in Samuel, the latter lacking source citations and regnal evaluations. Julius Wellhausen maintained that an initial Deuteronomistic redactor was responsible for composing the synchronisms and the grand chronology of 430 + 50 years (1 Kgs 6:1) in the Book of Kings.16 The Books of Judges and Samuel were connected at a pre-Dtr stage while the connection between Judges–Samuel and Kings was probably Dtr, However, Wellhausen observed that Samuel and Kings were not composed as a unified conception. He did not assign the chronological notices in the Book of Samuel to Dtr redaction, noting that the final redaction of Samuel was post-Dtr (1 Sam 4:18; 7:2; 13:1; 9

Graf 1866: 100–1, 104, 108. Ewald 1869: I, 149. 11 Ibid. I, 158. 12 Ibid. I, 165. 13 Ibid. I, 166. 14 Ibid. I, 167.1 15 Kuenen 1866: I, 436–41. 16 Wellhausen 1963: 299–301. 10

212

Chapter Six: Solomon’s Account

27:7; 2 Sam 2:10–11; 5:4–5; 1 Kgs 2:11).17 The Deuteronomistic redactor did not openly criticize the cultic practices at the various sites mentioned at 1 Sam 7:9–10, 17; 9:13; 10:3; 14:35, owing to the statement at 1 Kgs 3:2 (Dtr) that no temple had been built for YHWH until Solomon’s time.18 Karl Budde worked with the hypothesis that the documents originally detected in the Hexateuch (J and E) continued into Judges and Samuel.19 Budde assigned 2 Sam 9–20; 1 Kgs 1–2 to the J-source, which he did not regard as having continued into the Book of Kings.20 He maintained that the Deuteronomists omitted earlier source material in their edition of Samuel deemed unnecessary for reasons of religious decency, namely, 1 Sam 28:3–25; 2 Sam 9–20; 21–24; 1 Kgs 1; 2:13–46, with the result that 2 Sam 8 was originally followed by 1 Kgs 2:1–12, the latter attributed to the Deuteronomistic redactor.21 Benzinger pointed out that a chronological notice and regnal evaluation expected for Solomon’s account should have appeared at the beginning of 1 Kgs 3 and probably fell out of the text once chs. 1–2 were connected to ch. 3.22 He regarded 3:3 as the original cultic evaluation for Solomon, opting to view 3:2 as a secondary explanatory gloss. However, he observed that both 17 Ibid. 1963: 236, 239, 244, 253–4, 262. Wellhausen assigned 1 Sam 4:18, 13:1; and 2 Sam 2:10a to later redactors. 18 Ibid. 239, 263; idem apud Bleek 1893: 188; Pfeiffer 1948: 366. 19 Budde 1890; cf. Graf 1866: 97; Cornill 1891; Wellhausen apud Bleek 1893: 173; Benzinger 1899; idem 1921, Sellin 1920, Hölscher 1923: 158–213; idem 1952; Eissfeldt 1965: 244–6. 20 Budde 1890: 248; similarly, Sellin 1920: 82; Pfeiffer 1948: 380. Benzinger (1899: xi) argued that 1 Kgs 1 belonged to the David-narrative and that 1 Kgs 2 belonged to the Solomon-narrative. Eissfeldt (1948: 47–8) maintained that 2 Sam 9–20 and 1 Kgs 1–2 were probably originally independent and that the list in 2 Sam 20:23–26 was the original conclusion to the David-narrative (cf. 1 Sam 14:49–51 and 2 Sam 8:16–18). Significantly, Graf 1866: 101, 103–4, 108; Cornill 1891: 120; Hölscher 1952: 143, 380– 81; and Eissfeldt 1965: 288–9 argued that the J and/or E sources continued into Kings beyond chapters 1 and 2. Hölscher joined 1 Kgs 2:10–12 to 1 Kgs 3–10 in his continuous E source dated to the exilic period, while he assigned 2 Sam 9–20 and 1 Kgs 1–2 (without 2:10–12) to his continuous J-source dated to ca. 800 B.C.E. In particular, Hölscher joined 1 Kgs 1:1–53; 2:13–26, 28–46a to 3:4a, 16–28 (Solomon’s judgment) followed by 12:1, 3b– 14, 16, 18–19 (Israel’s defection from the house of David), where the J-source concluded (ibid. 27, 59–60). Hölscher thus assigned the majority of Solomon’s reign as well as the regnal framework in Kings to his E-source, which followed directly after 2 Sam 7–8. Hölscher’s reconstruction is significant in that he divided the negative portrayal of David found in the 2 Sam 9–20; 1 Kgs 1–2, on the one hand, from the positive representation of David in 2 Sam 7–8, in Solomon’s reign at 1 Kgs 3–10, and in the regnal framework of Kings, on the other hand. 21 Budde 1890: 264–5. Budde also assigned 1 Sam 14:47–51; 2 Sam 3:2–5; 5:13–16; 8 to Deuteronomistic redaction; similarly, Pfeiffer 1948: 366–8. 22 Benzinger 1899: 14.

6.2. The Literary Relationship of Samuel and Kings

213

3:2 and 3:3 were tolerant of Solomon’s worship at the bāmôt in contrast to the secondary redaction of Kings (R2), which represented the worship at the bāmôt as entirely reprehensible.23 In contrast to Budde, Hugo Gressmann did not support the notion that continuous documents could be traced from the Hexateuch in Samuel or Kings; instead, he favored the “fragmentary hypothesis” and made use of form criticism to describe the development of historical writing in ancient Israelite culture. Gressmann contrasted the composition of the historical narratives achieved in the David and Solomon era with the strict chronological framing typical of a dry chronicle.24 In this way, he prefigured the subsequent critiques of von Rad, Fohrer, and Westermann, who argued that Judges, Samuel, and Kings were originally separate compositions based on the diversity of literary forms. However, Gressmann moved in another direction, maintaining that Deuteronomistic redaction had brought about the juxtaposition of the chronological framework and historical episodes in Samuel and in Kings.25 However that may be, he regarded 2 Sam 2:10–11; 5:4–5; 1 Kgs 2:10–11 nevertheless as late fabricated additions and only found notable Deuteronomistic editing at 1 Sam 7:2–8:22; 10:17–27; 12:1–25.26 Leonard Rost also used form critical insights in his discussion of the Succession Narrative (2 Sam 9–20; 1 Kgs 1–2), and, as did Gressmann, he favored the “fragmentary hypothesis” for explaining the composition of 1–2 Samuel.27 He was unable to detect the continuation of the David-story beyond 1 Kgs 2 and located the conclusion of the Succession Narrative at 1 Kgs 2:46.28 He observed that 1 Kgs 12:1–19 is similar to the various episodes of the Succession Narrative by the fact that it contains a counsel scene, just as 2 Sam 17 does; both texts contain a proleptic statement in narrator voice (cf. 2 Sam 17:14 and 1 Kgs 12:15). In addition, 1 Kgs 12:16 repeats 2 Sam 20:1 concerning the northern tribes’ denunciation of the Davidic house.29 At any rate, Rost rejected the possibility that 1 Kgs 12 originally formed part of the Succession Narrative, since the latter finds an appropriate conclusion at 2:46, and the form of direct speech in 1 Kgs 12 did not match its form in the Suc-

23

Ibid. xv. Gressmann 1910: xiii. 25 Ibid. xvii. 26 Ibid. xvii, 127, 134, 191. 27 Rost 1926: 138; similarly, Weiser 1961: 162; Fohrer 1968: 217–8. 28 Ibid. 8 n. 22, 84, 89, 137, pace Klostermann (1887: xxi–xxiv), who argued that a source began with Solomon’s birth at 2 Sam 13 and ended at 1 Kgs 9. For a recent discussion of the Succession Narrative, see Hutton 2009: 176–196 and the collection of essays in de Pury, Römer, and Macchi 2000. 29 Rost 1936: 136. 24

214

Chapter Six: Solomon’s Account

cession Narrative. His strongest argument was that 1 Kgs 12:1–19 demonstrates no obvious literary connection with 1 Kgs 1–2.30 Pfeiffer, who followed Wellhausen and Budde in his reconstruction of Judges–Kings, argued that the Deuteronomists did not wish to criticize the early kings in 1–2 Samuel for worshipping at the bāmôt, because Saul and David were wholeheartedly devoted to YHWH.31 The Deuteronomists traced the chronological scheme begun in the Book of Judges through Samuel and into Kings (1 Sam 4:15; 18b; 7:2; 27:7; 2 Sam 2:10–11; 5:4–5; 1 Kgs 2:11).32 Working with a two-edition model of Deuteronomistic redaction, Pfeiffer concluded that 1 Kgs 2:10–12; 3:1 comprised the introduction to the first Deuteronomistic edition of Kings. 6.2.2. Noth’s View of Samuel and Kings As a result, when Martin Noth argued that (Deuteronomy–) Samuel–Kings was the compilation of a single Deuteronomistic author in his Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, he rejected the aspect of the documentary hypothesis, according to which the Hexateuch continued into Judges–Kings, in favor of the “fragmentary” hypothesis, already upheld by Kittel,33 Gressmann, and Rost. The chronological framework stretching over Deuteronomy to Kings played a greater role in Noth’s argumentation. Whereas earlier scholars tended to regard the chronological information in Samuel as secondary and isolated occurrences, a major innovation of Noth’s work was his claim that the single Deuteronomistic author-redactor was responsible for the framework in Kings and the chronological notes in Samuel (1 Sam 13:1; 2 Sam 2:10a, 11; 5:4–5; 1 Kgs 2:10–11; 6:1).34 Similarly, he pointed to the number 480 in 1 Kgs 6:1 as extending from Joshua to Kings.35 In his own words, “Samuel and Kings are obviously closely linked by a broadly conceived chronology … We cannot suppose that they underwent a separate

30

Ibid. 137. Pfeiffer 1948: 366. This argument fails to explain why the bāmôt are typically mentioned in the accounts of the righteous kings of Judah and does not account for the symbolic use of David in relationship to cultic centralization. 32 Ibid. 367–8. According to Pfeiffer, the chronological note in the reign of Ish-boshet in 2 Sam 2:10 seems to be abbreviated; the Deuteronomists did not have a chronology for Saul; 1 Sam 13:1 was included by a later editor after the manner of Kings. 33 See Kittel 1892: 44–71. 34 Noth 1981: 23–5, 54–5, 106–7 (nn. 22, 23, 25, and 26), 125 (nn. 7, 8, and 12), 127 (n. 29); cf. Kratz 2000a: 174–5 (DtrG); Blanco Wißmann 2008: 245–6 (DtrG). Noth contradicted himself on the status of 1 Kgs 2:10–11. At one place, he states that 2:11 was the work of Dtr (1957: 25; idem 1981: 24), while at another he states that 2:10–11 was a secondary non-Dtr addition (1957: 66 n. 1; idem 1981: 127 n. 29). 35 Ibid. 25; see Wellhausen 1963: 299 (= Ewald’s final redactor). 31

6.2. The Literary Relationship of Samuel and Kings

215

“Deuteronomistic editing” as individual books.”36 Incidentally, Noth abandoned the view of Wellhausen, who used the statement on the people’s worship at the bāmôt prior to the construction of the temple at 1 Kgs 3:2 as a means of explaining the lack of any commentary on the cultic practices at the various sanctuaries mention at 1 Sam 7:9–10, 17; 9:13; 10:3; 14:35. Instead, Noth regarded 1 Kgs 3:2 as a late explanatory gloss on 1 Kgs 3:3 (Dtr).37 6.2.3. Reactions to Noth Independently of Noth, Alfred Jepsen maintained that the Deuteronomistic redactor (RII; ca. 550 B.C.E.) joined the Succession Narrative to 1 Kgs 3–2 Kgs 25 after (the non-Deuteronomistic) RI (ca. 580 B.C.E.) had added the regnal evaluations and cultic reports to the chronological framework.38 He regarded the composition of Samuel as originally separate from that of Kings and the inclusion of the evaluations and cultic reports beginning in 1 Kgs 3:2b as prior to their literary integration. That being said, Jepsen did allow for the possibility that a version of the Davidic Promise provided the starting point for his chronicle.39 Von Rad noted that there was a “yawning gulf” in which the Deuteronomist did not intervene between the Book of Judges and 1–2 Kings, especially from 1 Sam 12 until 1 Kgs 3.40 The lack of commentary on David’s reign was difficult to explain, since the Judahite king played a significant theological role in 1–2 Kings. Coupled with the differences between Judges and Kings, he favored the view that the Deuteronomistic History could not have been written as a single work.41 Artur Weiser was critical of Noth’s views on the Books of Samuel and Kings, opining that “it is not without some violence that [Noth] attempts to adjust or explain the contradictions and discrepancies” in order to assign the passages in 1 Sam 7–12 to the Deuteronomistic author.42 In a similar vein, H. H. Rowley reckoned that a pre-Dtr version of the Book of Samuel was likely completed before 1–2 Kings.43 He allowed that 36

Ibid. 25. Ibid. 127–8 n. 34; idem 1968: 49. 38 Jepsen 1956: 76. 39 Ibid. 30. 40 Von Rad 1957: I, 334, 346–7. 41 Ibid. I, 347. Concerning the literary separation of Judges and Kings, von Rad first contrasted the cyclical view of sin and punishment in Judges with the telic accumulation of sin leading to final punishment in Kings and also distinguished the culpability of people from the judges (Judg 2:17) whereas the people’s fate is coupled with the that of their kings. 42 Weiser 1961: 161. Weiser did attribute the chronological notes at 1 Sam 4:18b; 7:2b; 2 Sam 5:4–5 to the Deuteronomistic author (ibid. 168). He also attributed the prophetic texts at 1 Sam 2:35f. and 2 Sam 7:13 to Deuteronomistic authorship. 43 Rowley 1967: 66. 37

216

Chapter Six: Solomon’s Account

Samuel and Kings had been written separately but that “one must have been written expressly to continue the other.”44 In Rowley’s own words, “It is quite improbable, however, that a single hand was responsible for the editing of all these books, since the editorial methods vary in the different books.”45 Georg Fohrer regarded Noth’s view as an oversimplification of the literary complexities found in Judges, Samuel, and Kings and that those books did not constitute part of a work composed by a Deuteronomistic author or redactor.46 Samuel and Kings could not have derived from a single author or redactor, since the compositional procedure and perspective are so different in those works. Instead, those books were the product of various hands working in various ways.47 With the works of Timo Veijola, Ernst Würthwein, F. Langlamet, and P. Kyle McCarter, there arose the propensity to assign more material in Samuel and 1 Kgs 1–2 to diverse redactional strata in partial rejection of Noth’s theory of a single author-redactor. As a representative of this approach for the socalled Göttingen School, Timo Veijola ascribed more passages in the Book of Samuel and 1 Kgs 1–2 to Dtr redaction than had previously been attempted.48 On the level of DtrG, he included inter alia the duplicate chronological notes at 2 Sam 5:4–5 = 1 Kgs 2:10–11.49 He also took the unprecedented position that 1 Kgs 2:46 and 1 Kgs 4:1 were originally joined together in DtrG and that it was possibly DtrN who had first inserted the story of Solomon’s sacrifice and dream at Gibeon in 1 Kgs 3:4–15 and Solomon’s judgment in 3:16–28 with the framing notices in v. 3 and v. 28b.50 While many scholars have ac44

Ibid. 70; thus Schüpphaus (1967: 214–20), who supported a pre-Dtr edition of Judges– Samuel–Kings. 45 Rowley 1967: 74. 46 Fohrer 1968: 194. 47 Ibid. 195. Fohrer did detect Dtr redaction in Samuel at the chronological notices in 1 Sam 4:18b; 2 Sam 5:4–5 (ibid. 225). 48 Veijola 1975: DtrG: 1 Sam 2:27–36; 11:13; 20:13–15, 20–22; 23:17; 24:18, 21; 25:26, 28–30, 31, 33, 39a; 2 Sam 3:9–10, 17–19, 28–29, 38–39; 4:2b–4; 5:1–2, 4–5, 11, 12a, 17a; *6:21; 7:8b, 11b, 13, 16, 18–21, 25–29; 8:1a, 14b–15; 9:1, *7, *10, 11b, 13ab; (14:9); 15:25–26; 16:11– 12; 19:22–23, 29; 21:2b, 7; 24:1, 19b, 23b, 25ba; 1 Kgs 1:*30, 35abb–37, 46–48; 2:4aab, 10–11, 15bg, 24aa, 26–27, 33b, 45. DtrP: 1 Sam 3:11–14; 2 Sam 7:*7b–10, 13–14; 11:27b; *12:17–15; 24:3–4a, 10–14, 15ab, 17, 21bb, 25bb. DtrN: 1 Sam 13:13–14; 2 Sam 5:12b; 7:1b, 6, 11a, 22–24; 22:1, 22–25, 51; 1 Kgs 2:3– 4ab; cf. the DtrN-stratum in the following Gibeon-narrative: 1 Kgs 3:3, 6abgb, 7aa (ht(w), 8, 9abb, 11b, 12bbg, 14, 15bb; 1 Kgs 3:1–2 is post-DtrN; see idem 1982: 146 n. 8, 147 n. 10. 49 Veijola 1975: 23, 97 n. 112. 50 Veijola 1975: 96; idem 1982: 147 n. 10. Veijola held that 1 Kgs 3:1–2 was post-DtrN. Kratz (2000a: 174–93) has compounded the amount of material assigned to Dtr redaction (esp. the Dtr-S stratum), although what he assigns to DtrG is less than Veijola incorporated

6.2. The Literary Relationship of Samuel and Kings

217

cepted Veijola’s detection of redactional material in Samuel and 1 Kgs 1–2, they have not maintained with him that the bulk of the material should be assigned to Deuteronomistic redaction.51 Although putting much of Veijola’s penetrating work on the redactional strata of the Book of Samuel – along with Würthwein’s earlier work on the Succession Narrative52 – to good use, Langlamet ascribed the bulk of the redactional texts discerned by Veijola to a series of pre-Dtr anti-/pro-Solomonic editions of the Succession Narrative.53 His reconstruction of the redactional strata in 2 Sam and 1 Kgs 1–2 has been accepted by a number of scholars working on the Succession Narrative.54 Representative of the redactional approach of the so-called Harvard School is the work of P. Kyle McCarter, who allocated several passages to potential into his model: 1 Sam 10:8; 13:1, 4b, 7b–12, 15a; (14:47–51); 2 Sam 2:10–11; (3:2–5); 5:4– 5; (5:13–16); (8–10); (20:23–36); 1 Kgs 2:10–11; 3:1–3. 51 O’Brien 1989: 9–10. Most significantly, Walther Dietrich has not followed Veijola in assigning much of the redactional texts to Dtr redaction, but ascribes more material to a preDtr Prophetic Redaction. According to him, the Dtr additions to Samuel “are neither very extensive nor structurally very significant” (Dietrich 2007: 27). 52 Würthwein 1974. 53 Langlamet 1976a: 114–37; idem 1976b: 321–79, 481–528; see Dietrich and Naumann 1995: 204–5; Bietenhard 1998: 227–8: Original Account of Absalom’s Revolt: 2 Sam 15:1–6 (earlier 14:25–27), 7–*37; 16:15, 20–22; *17:1–4, *15–18, *21, 22, 24, 26; 18:*1–2, 6–7, *9, *15–17; *19:9b–16, *41b–44; *20:1–7, *14–22; (other potential texts included in this stratum: 2 Sam *13:1–22, *23–38, 39a; 14:1, 23–24, *28–35). Anti-Solomonic Account (S1): 2 Sam 11:1–18, 26, 27a; 12:*24b; 1 Kgs 1:*1–53; 2:10, 12, *13–25, *28–35. Succession Narrator (S2): 2 Sam 1:1–4, 11–12; *2:1–4; 2:8–9; *3:2–5; *3:7–37; 4:2, *5–12; 5:3, *6–11, 13–16; *6:1–23; *9:2–13; 16:1–4, *5–14; 17:27–29; *18:19–32; *19:1– 2, *6, *8–9(?); *17–24, *25–31, *32–41, *41b–44; 1 Kgs *2:36–46. Pro-Solomonic Redaction (S3): 2 Sam 9:1, 7b, 10ae, 11b, 13ab; 16:7–8, 10, 11, 12, *13b (wtm(l); 19:20ag, 22–23, 25, *26a (yk yhyw), 29, 33ab, 35b, 36a, 37; 1 Kgs 2:37b, 44–45. In the Succession Narrative: 2 Sam 13:13a, 34b–35, 36; 14:2–22; 15:8, 16b–17a, *24, 25–26, 31, 34abgdeb, 35aa; 16:1–14, 15a, 16–19, 20ba, 21b, 23; 17:(2abg), 3b, 5–14, 15b, 17–22, 23, 24b, 25, 27–29; 18:2b–4a, 10–14, 18; 19:40a, 41abag, 42bd; 1 Kgs 1:5abg ()#$ntm) 5b, 6aba* (w) 12abb, 13:aa (ykl), 17ab*, 21, 29bb, 30aag* (ytxh), 30b, 34a*, 35, 37 (45a?), 46–48, 51ba* (rm)l), 51bbg, 52; 2:1, *5 (without Mgw), 6, 7(?), 8–9, 14–15, 16aa (ht(w), 22ade, 23, *24a, 31–33, 37b, 44–45. Later pre-Dtr additions: 1 Kgs 2:7(?), 22b, 26–27, 28abg (…b)wy yk). Dtr additions: 1 Kgs 2:2–4 (Mgw in v. 5), 11. 54 Hentschel 1984: 19–31; Bietenhard 1998; Vermeylen 2000; Weippert (1983: 364 n. 44, 366) maintained that Langlamet’s “pro-Solomonic redaction” belonged to her RIIstratum in the Book of Kings and that composing the latter would have been impossible without prior knowledge of the narrative complex of the Saul-David-Solomon tradition (following M. Weippert 1973: 438).

218

Chapter Six: Solomon’s Account

Dtr redaction in the Book of Samuel as well as to an earlier prophetic redaction.55 At several points, however, he was uncertain about its Dtr characterization. Concerning the chronological notes at 1 Sam 13:1; 2 Sam 2:10–11; 5:4– 5, McCarter considered the possibility that these notes were post-Dtr additions, supported by their omission in significant textual witnesses including OG, OL, 4QSama, the Book of Chronicles, and Josephus (especially 1 Sam 13:1 and 2 Sam 5:4–5).56 Among the texts that McCarter assigned to Dtr redaction was 1 Sam 2:27–36, which he maintained was for the purpose of expressing “the Deuteronomistic polemic against the non-Jerusalemite priesthood–the priests of the ‘high places.’”57 While I do not question the redactional nature of 1 Sam 2:27–36,58 its inclusion to the level of an “original Deuteronomistic redaction” is tenuous. The polemic that McCarter detected against the priests of the “high places” is unlikely since there is no explicit critique of other sacrificial sites to be found in this passage. The use of the verb r+q in the H-stem with the cognate accusative tr+q in this passage is known elsewhere only in Priestly texts and the Book of Chronicles (Exod 30:7, 8; 40:27; Numb 16:40; 1 Chr 6:49; 2 Chr 2:4; 13:11; 26:16, 19; 29:7),59 whereas the D-stem of r+q is employed regularly in the cultic reports of the regnal framework of Kings. This evidence indicates a division between the composition of the regnal framework of Kings and the redactional strata in Samuel rather than their original integration in a single work. 6.2.4. Recent Considerations John Van Seters made a radical departure from the traditional theories on the sources (Rost) and redactional history (Veijola/McCarter) of 1–2 Samuel. He assigned *1 Sam 1–2 Sam 1; *5–8; 1 Kgs 2:1–4, 10–12 not to a continuous pre-Dtr source/redaction but to DtrH, which comprised, according to Van Seters, not the perfunctory work of a compiler but essentially the free composi-

55

McCarter 1980: 16–17; idem 1984: 8: Dtr1: 1 Sam 2:27–36 (+ 3:11–14); 4:18b; 7:2b–4, 6b, 13–14, 15–17; 8:8; 12:6–15, 19b(?), 20b–22; 13:1–2; 14:47–51; *17:1–58; 20:11–17, 23, 40–42; 23:14–24:23; 25:28–31; 2 Sam 2:10a(?), 11(?); 3:9–10, 17–18a(?), 18b, 28–29; 5:1–2, 5–4(?), 12; 6:21; 7:1b, 9b– 11a, 13a, 16, 22b–24(?), 25–26, 29ba; 8:14b–15(?); 14:9; 15:*24ab(?); 21:7(?). Dtr2: 2 Sam 7:22b–24(?); 15:*24ab(?). 56 McCarter 1984: 88: “All of these things suggest that these notices (I Sam 13:1; II Sam 2:10a, 11; 5:4–5; and perhaps 1 Kings 2:11; 11:42) were not part of the original Deuteronomistic framework of the history of the kingdom but were instead very late additions to the texts in the spirit of that framework”; see ibid. 130–1. 57 McCarter 1980: 16, 91–3. 58 See Weiser 1961: 168 (Deuteronomistic); Veijola 1975: 35–7 (DtrG). 59 On the priestly character of 1 Sam 2:27–36, see Kratz 2000a: 179.

6.2. The Literary Relationship of Samuel and Kings

219

tion of an author.60 In the face of previous scholarship, he asserted that Samuel and Kings were composed according to identical compositional procedures: “the redactional process–a mixture of free composition and the creation of redactional links between independent blocks of material of different types and genres–is the basis of historiography in Samuel and Kings.”61 At the same time, Van Seters argued that 2 Sam 2:8–4:12; 9–20; 1 Kgs 1:1–53; 2:5–9, 13– 46 belonged not to Rost’s Succession Narrative of Solomon’s time, but to a Court History, written in the post-exilic period to supplement the account of David’s reign in DtrH. In contrast to the portrayal of David in DtrH, the Court History depicted subversively David’s role as king.62 Van Seters maintains that several of the chronological notices have been secondarily added in the style of Dtr in order to align Samuel with Kings. For example, 2 Sam 5:5 duplicates the more original formula in 1 Kgs 2:11; the latter and 2 Sam 5:4 were composed by Dtr.63 It remains unclear in Van Seters’ works how 2 Sam 5:4 stood alone as the Dtr introduction to David’s reign without moral-cultic reports, as he does not discuss this text in detail. However, he rightly points out that the cultic criterion found consistently in the basic framework of Kings (in connection with “Davidic righteousness”) is never directly applied to David, and, furthermore, that according to 1 Kgs 3:2–3, other cultic sites (bāmôt) were still in existence from the time of David.64 Claus Westermann argued against the existence of a comprehensive Deuteronomistic History on form critical grounds.65 He argued that the genres of Samuel and Kings are incompatible as a single work. Whereas Samuel is constructed with large narrative blocks (Erzählungen) and fewer historical reports (Geschichtsberichten), 1 Kings 12–2 Kgs 25 consists almost entirely of his60

In his review of Van Seters (2009), Dietrich (2010) is dubious about Van Seters’ assignment of several texts in 1–2 Samuel to Dtr. Especially problematic is the rejection of the monarchy in 1 Sam 8 and 12 together with the support of the Davidic dynasty in toto in Van Seters’ DtrH. 61 Van Seters 1983: 258. Since then, Van Seters has become less enamored with the notion of “redaction” to describe the compositional history of the Book of Samuel, favoring the role of free authorial composition; see idem 2009: 35. 62 Van Seters 1983: 277–91; idem 2000: 70–93; idem 2009. 63 Van Seters 2000: 80 n. 35. According to Van Seters, the date formulae in 2 Sam 2:10– 11 were written in “poor imitation” of Dtr style in order to accommodate the conflict between Judah and Israel in connection with David’s popular election (ibid. 80; idem 2009: 212). In his In Search of History, he noted that Dtr’s David-Story (*1 Sam 16–2 Sam 1) “shows little concern for exact chronology” (idem 1983: 269). 64 Van Seters 2000: 72; idem 2009: 291. Although not subscribing to his view of the Court History (2 Sam 9–20; 1 Kgs 1–2), I agree with Van Seters that this block of material was not originally joined to the framework of Kings. In fact, one can go further than Van Seters does by dissociating from it the material in 1 Samuel and 2 Sam 5–8. 65 Westermann 1994.

220

Chapter Six: Solomon’s Account

torical reports.66 The account of Solomon in 1 Kgs 3–11 is made up of narratives (e.g., 1 Kgs 3:4–15, 16–28; 10:1–10), reports (esp. 1 Kgs 6:1–7:51; 8:1– 13), and brief notices scattered between the narratives and reports (see 1 Kgs 4:20; 5:1–6, 2f, 7–8; 9:15–24, 26–28; 10:11–29). The history of Solomon began not with 1 Kgs 1–2 but with 1 Kgs 3:1–3, as the former does not focus primarily on Solomon.67 Westermann rightly noted the tension between the positive evaluation of Solomon at 1 Kgs 3:2–3 and his negative evaluation at 11:1–13 and concluded that even if 1 Kgs 1–11 belonged to a comprehensive historical work, the conflicting evaluations situated at so short a distance apart are highly improbable. He also pointed out that the motif of wisdom does not play a role in the following evaluations of the kings of Israel and Judah.68 He doubted thus whether 1 Kgs 1–11 belonged originally to 1–2 Kings and surmised that it may have been added independently to 1 Kgs 12–2 Kgs 25. On similar grounds, Ernst Würthwein also espoused the view that DtrG consisted of an older version of Kings alone without Deuteronomy–Samuel.69 This earlier version of Kings included an account of Solomon’s reign (1 Kgs 3–11) as well as the theme of Jeroboam’s sin of constructing calves for Bethel and Dan at 1 Kgs 12:28–30 that is traced down through the northern royal lines until 2 Kgs 17:21f.70 Samuel was later prefixed to Kings and in so doing truncated the original beginning to Solomon’s account.71 Thus, the outline from Solomon to Zedekiah was the original point of departure (Ausgangspunkt) for the historical work to which were added the earlier traditions on Saul and David in Samuel. Reinhard Kratz followed Würthwein in much of his reconstruction of the compositional history of Kings, while nevertheless retaining the earlier view of Graf that the author of the framework of Kings was the redactor of Samuel.72 The framework of Kings covered originally material in *1 Sam–2 Kgs 25 down to the account of the fall of Judah, as detected at 1 Sam 13:1; 2 Sam 2:10–11; 5:4–5 = 1 Kgs 2:10–12; 3:1–3; cf. 1 Sam 4:18.73 66

Ibid. 57–78. Ibid. 67. 68 Ibid. 70. 69 Würthwein 1994: 1–11. Against Wellhausen and Noth, Würthwein (ibid. 9–10) argued against employing the chronological framework in arguments supporting the unity of the Deuteronomistic History. 70 Ibid. 4. According to Würthwein, a parallel continuous and retrospective censure does not exist for the southern kingdom, and the similar retrospective discourse in the account of Manasseh at 2 Kgs 21 is the later work of DtrP/DtrN. 71 Ibid. 11. 67

72 Kratz 2000a: 161–75; 215–6. Kratz has been followed in the recent works of Aurelius 2003: 207 and Blanco Wißmann 2008: 245–6. 73

Kratz 2000a: 175. Reminiscent of the annalistic flavor of Kings are 1 Sam 14:47–51; 25:43f; 27:7; 2 Sam 3:2–5; 5:13–16; 8:1ff.

6.2. The Literary Relationship of Samuel and Kings

221

Thomas Römer likewise has argued for the probable existence of an earlier scroll containing an older version of the Story of David’s Rise, *1 Kgs 1–11, and the chronicles of Judah and Israel that would have been held in the Josianic library in the Neo-Assyrian period.74 This scroll was afterwards combined with other scrolls containing Deuteronomy–Judges in the NeoBabylonian period to form the historical work designated as the Deuteronomistic History in modern scholarship. Felipe Blanco Wißmann adheres to many of the traditional arguments found in earlier works (most notably from Kratz’s work): the framework found in Kings extends into 1 Sam 13:1; 2 Sam 2:10–11; 5:4–5; the mention of David in Kings presupposes an older version of Samuel; the Greek and Latin textual editions call Samuel and Kings by one name.75 Novel to the discussion is the view taken by Blanco Wißmann that the mention of other sacrificial sites (bāmôt) in 1 Sam 9–10 somehow prepares for their mention in Kings.76 Adam – constructing his theory not on Noth’s compositional model of Kings but on Jepsen’s model – argues in the reverse literary direction from Kings into Samuel.77 He takes the earlier Synchronistic Chronicle as the literary starting point for Judahite history writing. The chronicle provided the author(s) of Samuel with a group of royal character types (Figurenkonstellation) essential for the allegorical invention of the Saul and David narratives.78 The various royal traditions were culled from the multiple individual accounts 74

Römer 2005: 105. Blanco Wißmann 2008: 245–6; idem 2011: 256. 76 Blanco Wißmann (2008: 73 n. 377) describes 1 Kgs 3:2 as secondary to 3:3. Nevertheless, problematic to this view is the fact that the text of Samuel lacks any censure whatsoever against the bāmôt. 77 Adam 2007: 169–211; see a review of the latter work in Dietrich 2008. 75

78 Like Provan, Adam (2007: 207) compares the account of Hezekiah in 2 Kgs 18 to that of David in 1 Samuel. Hezekiah is loyal to Sennacherib just as David is loyal to Saul; both guarantee Judah’s survival and are evaluated positively; both plot usurpation (cf. 1 Sam 22:7f; 2 Kgs 18:13–16); both are described with the expressions “YHWH was with him” (Mitseinsformel) and “he had success (in war).” Adam also maintains that Saul is a figure for the purpose of contrast, just as Hosea ben Elah is contrasted with Hezekiah in 2 Kgs 18:9–11 (ibid. 205). Hezekiah is a David redivivus, as the latter is victorious in battle with the Philistines and is contrasted with Saul, who is defeated at their hands (2 Sam 5:17–21, 22– 25; 8:12; cf. 2 Kgs 18:8a; 1 Sam 17–18:5, 20–28, 30). Adam also compares the Absalom narrative (2 Sam 15–19; see esp. the death notice at 2 Sam 18:17) to the role of Jeroboam as a usurper in 1 Kgs 11:26–28; cf. 11:14, 23 in order to emphasize the motif of the treaty relationship between northern Israel and southern Judah (ibid. 208–9). Similarly, 2 Sam 20:1 is compared with 1 Kgs 12:16 (Sheba and Jeroboam) to contrast David’s successful dismissal of Sheba and Solomon’s ability to quell revolts to Rehoboam’s weakness in repelling usurpers. According to Adam, the Saul-David-narrative of David (7th cent B.C.E.) was based on the depictions of especially Asa, Hezekiah, and Zedekiah in the Book of Kings (ibid. 209).

222

Chapter Six: Solomon’s Account

of kings in the chronicle and mapped onto the accounts of Saul and David in Samuel. Thus, the Saul and David narratives are form critically distinct from Kings, not being in possession of so many accounts of individual kings and their deeds.79 6.2.5. Samuel and Kings in Studies on a Hezekian History Among those arguing for a Hezekian edition of 1–2 Kings, Helga Weippert maintained that composing her Josianic RII-stratum (1 Kgs 11:33, 38; 14:8, 16, 22–16:33; 22:53–54; 2 Kgs 18:3–22:2) would have been unfeasible without prior knowledge of the stories of the Saul, David, and Solomon.80 She did not offer any explicit comments on the relationship between her RI-stratum (1 Kgs 22:43–44; 2 Kgs 3:2–16:2) and 1–2 Samuel, although her acceptance of the “block model” to describe the compositional history of the Deuteronomistic History seems to support the original separation of Samuel and Kings.81 Campbell argued that a ninth-century BCE Prophetic Record (1 Sam 1:1–2 Kgs 10:28) was expanded with a pre-Dtr northern “chronicle” extending from Jehu to Hoshea in 2 Kgs 10:29–17:23b as an explanation for the calamity of 722 BCE.82 While the notion of a Prophetic History is plausible for the depictions of Samuel, Saul, and David, with the account of Rehoboam’s reign, the narrative episodes are subordinated to the regnal framework in 1–2 Kings. Campbell retains as original to the Prophetic History only the death/burial notices and succession formula of the Kings-framework but omits as secondary the other elements of that framework. The partial retention of only a few elements – especially without the notices of geographic filiation and regnal year total – appears arbitrary.83 Consequently, the most serious difficulty for 79 Ibid. 206 n. 180. Adam does not discuss the literary connections or lack thereof between 1 Kgs 1–2 and 3–10 or the relationship of Solomon’s account to the following history of the northern and southern monarchies. He briefly states that whereas the Synchronistic Chronicle assumed that Judah and Israel were separate kingdoms with their own monarchs, the tradition of Solomon reverses this situation by portraying Solomon as the king of both Judah and Israel in a “personal union.” 80 Weippert 1983: 364n. 44, 366 (following M. Weippert 1973: 438). In particular, Weippert maintained that Langlamet’s “pro-Solomonic redaction” — one of the pre-Dtr editions of the Story of David and the Succession Narrative — was known to the RII-stratum of Kings. 81 Ibid. 235–49. 82 Campbell 1986: 139–68. He retains with a few alterations the northern formulae of Weippert’s first redaction (I N), excluding the account of Joram’s reign but extending the northern expansion into Hoshea’s reign. Campbell’s northern expansion resembles a sort of “northern Dtr2,” concluding the history of the northern kingdom on a note of condemnation. 83 The omission of these elements among others, such as the synchronisms, age at accession (Judahite), name of the queen mother (Judahite), and the source citation, from Campbell’s pre-Dtr northern and southern chronicles (see ibid. 169–202) is even more problematic. He also leaves unexplained the omission of such elements from the material in Samuel,

6.2. The Literary Relationship of Samuel and Kings

223

Campbell’s view of the relationship of Samuel to Kings concerns the question of genre, as the “Prophetic Record” straddles the large block of narrative history in 1–2 Samuel and the succession of northern kings from Jeroboam to Jehu in 1–2 Kings.84 Iain W. Provan maintained that the Dtr-Hezekian edition of Kings must have been written in continuation of the Book of Samuel, but without Judges.85 The theme of the promise of David comprised an indispensable association between the Story of David in Samuel and the fulfillment notices in Kings. Moreover, Provan pointed out some potential intertexts linking the accounts of David and Hezekiah, in particular, the expressions “YHWH was with him” (1 Sam 16:18; 18:12, 14; 2 Sam 5:10; 2 Kgs 18:7) and the king “had success” in battle (1 Sam 18:5, 14, 15, 30; 2 Kgs 18:7) as well as the theme of defeating the Philistines (1 Sam 18:27; 19:8; 2 Sam 8:1). He was aware of the problems of correlating the critical portrayal of the monarchy in *1 Sam 7–12 and the negative depiction of David in the Succession Narrative. He responded to this difficulty by assigning the negative caricature of kingship in 1 Sam 7:2–8:22; 10:17–27; 12:1–25 to subsequent exilic Dtr redaction. Unfortunately, his deliberations on the relationship of the History of David’s Rise to the Succession Narrative were not as cogent: David’s piety is something which is continually stressed in the HDR, but which is overshadowed by his grave sin in respect of Bathsheba and her husband (2 Samuel 11). His piety could hardly have been so emphatically maintained in Kings, then, if the SN alone originally preceded these books. The presence of HDR is essential to the credibility of the David theme.86

Provan thus assumes that the positive portrait of David in the Histroy David’s Rise would be remembered above the disapproving depiction of him in the Succession Narrative, even though he concedes that the grave sin in the Succession Narrative “overshadows” David’s piety in the History of David’s Rise. One may instead contend that either there was no Sucession Narrative in the original version of Samuel–Kings, as Van Seters has suggested, or the History of David’s Rise and Succession Narrative were later joined to the HH after both Samuel and the HH had been composed. most significantly, the absence of judgment formulae and cultic reports in relationship to the story of David. 84 See McKenzie 1991: 14. 85 Provan 1988: 116–7, 158–63. 86 Ibid. 159. This same oversimplification is found in Jacques Vermeylen’s work (2000: 606), which maintains that 1 Kgs 3–11 was the original climax of the historical work found in *1 Sam 1–1 Kgs 2 composed in Solomon’s reign! Afterwards, the work was not updated until the Deuteronomistic author joined to it the histories of the two monarchies in 1 Kgs 12–2 Kgs 25. Vermeylen’s view on this matter has also been criticized by Hutton (2009: 137–8) for allowing too much of a temporal gap (300 years!) between the composition of 1 Sam–1 Kgs 2 and subsequent Dtr redaction.

224

Chapter Six: Solomon’s Account

Baruch Halpern and David Vanderhooft also maintained that the extent of the Hezekian edition of the Deuteronomistic History must have extended back into the accounts of the period the United Monarchy and perhaps even into the accounts of the period of the Judges.87 Unfortunately, they did not offer any support for their position beyond the possible existence of an earlier “Book of Saviors” as a source for Judges that might have been included in the history.88 Erik Eynikel advocated that the author of the Hezekian edition of Kings (RI) – and the author of the Josianic RII! – was acquainted with an older version of Samuel and alluded to it (especially the Davidic Promise).89 While allowing that RI began with 1 Kgs 3 as a continuation of the Succession Narrative, Eynikel deemed that this view is by no means necessary and even preferred to regard RI as not having integrated Samuel into the composition of the framework of Kings. He also suggested that blocks of texts had been redacted individually – Joshua–1 Sam 12, 1 Sam 13–2 Sam (+ 1 Kgs 1–2) and RI’s block in 1 Kgs 3–2 Kgs 18 – before being combined in subsequent redaction and supplementation.90 6.2.6. Provisional Results From the foregoing discussion, one may conclude that since the nineteenth century scholars have varied on whether 1–2 Samuel and 1–2 Kings were originally joined together in a single literary work. Although Noth’s Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien tipped the scale in favor of the view that they formed a single work, the recent skepticism towards Noth’s theory has resulted in a resurgence of questions on this matter. Three basic options present themselves for the original literary relationship of Samuel and Kings: 1) The author of the framework of 1–2 Kings was the same person responsible for editing 1–2 Samuel. 2) The author of the framework of 1–2 Kings originally wrote it as a continuation of the history of David in 1–2 Samuel, though with some difference in literary purpose. 3) The framework of 1–2 Kings was composed as an originally separate work with literary purposes distinct from 1–2 Samuel and was only later joined to the latter. 87

Halpern and Vanderhooft 1991: 242. Eynikel 1996: 134 n. 330 is dubious about this connection between earlier posited editions of Judges and Kings. 89 Ibid. 362–4. 90 Ibid. 364 (following the leads of von Rad 1957–60 and Westermann 1994). Similarly, Rösel (1999: 70–4), who also subscribed to a Hezekian edition of the Book of Kings, maintained that since Samuel and Kings are distinct form-critically (after Westermann and Eynikel) and that since a line of separation exists after the SN between 1 Kgs 1–2 and 1 Kgs 3, Samuel must have been attached to 1 Kgs 3–2 Kgs 20 after the latter had already been written. 88

6.2. The Literary Relationship of Samuel and Kings

225

6.2.6.1. Option 1: The Framework Author was the Redactor of Samuel The most durable arguments in favor of their original connection have been, first, that the title of 1–2 Samuel and 1–2 Kings is identical in several ancient textual witnesses, a fact presumed in the works of Josephus. Second, the mention of David and in particular the theme of the Davidic Promise found in 1–2 Samuel was necessary for the following regnal evaluations in Kings. Further evidence and arguments have been added to these, such as the examples of textual allusions between Samuel and Kings (Provan) or even the assertion that 1–2 Samuel and 1–2 Kings were composed according to one and the same authorial procedure in DtrH (Van Seters). None of these arguments proves the original continuous bond of 1–2 Samuel and 1–2 Kings and, as will be seen, they do not take seriously the difficulties in attempting to detect a continuous line from 1 Kgs 1–2 to 1 Kgs 3–10 and into 1 Kgs 12–19. The ancient textual witnesses and authors that presumed that Samuel and Kings were read as a single work only establish their integration as early as the third or second centuries B.C.E. (The date may be pushed earlier depending on how one dates 1–2 Chronicles, though not earlier than the late sixth or fifth century B.C.E.) While the mention of David in the framework of 1–2 Kings assumes some prior knowledge of him, the distinctive literary purposes of David’s representation in that framework, especially the association of Davidic righteousness with centralized sacrifice, is entirely absent from Samuel. Van Seters has demonstrated sufficiently the problems with the view that the history of the Davidic monarchy in Kings was originally combined with the negative portrayal of David in the Court History.91 As for the explicit references to the Davidic Promise in 1–2 Kings, none of them is essential to the original historical framework, as scholars from the Göttingen-School have maintained.92 They appear either to adumbrate the discontinuation of the Davidic dynasty (1 Kgs 2:4; 8:25; 9:5) or to explain why the Judahite dynasty persisted despite the wrongdoings of several of its kings (1 Kgs 15:4; 2 Kgs 8:19), much in the same way that the promise to Abraham is invoked for the deliverance of the northern kingdom from oppressors (2 Kgs 13:23; cf. 14:27).93 Finally, that a 91

Alternatively, McKenzie (2000: 123–35) has argued that only 2 Sam 11–12 with its negative charicature of David was added later to the Succession Narrative. 92 Veijola 1975: 5; see also von Rad 1953: 83–4, 89–90; Würthwein 1984: 500–1; Aurelius 2003: 52–5. 93 Without a doubt, the object of the framework is to demonstrate the longevity and continuity of the Davidic kingdom, and this is true for the present version of 1–2 Kings. The main point is that in the HH-framework, the southern kingdom is still existent, whereas in the present form of 1–2 Kings, it is not. The Davidic Promise is used to explain why the southern kingdom lasted despite the unfaithfulness of some of its kings, but intimates that destruction will occur (2 Kgs 8:19: “But YHWH did not wish to destroy Judah for the sake of his servant David as he had promised to him to give him a lamp for his sons always”; cf.

226

Chapter Six: Solomon’s Account

Deuteronomistic author composed Samuel and Kings according to the same literary procedure contradicts the basic observation of conventional critical scholarship that Dtr style is scant in 1–2 Samuel. In the context of the present study, the form of the framework leads one to detect the original climax of the royal Davidic ideology in Hezekiah’s account. That same form is not encountered in 1–2 Samuel. 6.2.6.2. Option 2: The Framework Written in Continuation of Samuel It is possible that the framework of Kings was written in order to continue the history of the monarchy begun in 1–2 Samuel, although the author of the framework did not necessarily carry out extensive redaction in Samuel (see Rowley and Campbell). The same arguments assembled above in favor of the literary integration of Samuel and Kings are also potentially valid for this option. Without a doubt, some knowledge of the History of David was necessary for the composition of the regnal framework of 1–2 Kings. Nonethless, this does not necessitate that the History of David must have preceded the subsequent history of the monarchy from Solomon to Hezekiah as part of a unified literary work. Most essential to the regnal evaluations is the account of the construction of the temple, a version of which is located in the description of Solomon’s reign in 1 Kgs 6–7.94 Furthermore, the virtue of Davidic righteousness is inexorably linked to the concern for centralized sacrifice, that affiliation being observed with consistency in the regnal prologues (see 4.4.1) but is absent from Samuel.95 It is telling that no notice is found concerning David’s relationship to the various places of sacrifice until the account of Solomon, although he is featured as the symbolic standard of sacrificial purity in the framework. One has only to consult the Book of Chronicles for a description of David’s piety in this regard, where it is stated that David offered holocausts in Jerusalem at the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite on account of the theophany of YHWH, not at the great bmh at Gibeon, although the Tabernacle of YHWH and the altar of holocausts were situated at the latter site (1 Chr 21:26–30). Although it would have been preferable for David to sacrifice at 1 Kgs 21:27–29; 2 Kgs 20:17–19; 22:18–20). The goes against the optimistic tone of the climactic evaluation in Hezekiah’s account. 94 On the dating of 1 Kgs 6–7 and the Solomon-narrative, I am in agreement with Cogan (2000: 273) and Smith (2006: 279), who argue for a mid-eighth century B.C.E. date for the core of 1 Kgs 6–7 before the reign of Ahaz. Wälchli (1999: 195–8) argues for the late-eighth century B.C.E., but then one must explain why the description of the temple accoutrements in 1 Kgs 7:25 and 44 mentions the bronze oxen that Ahaz later sent to Assyria (2 Kgs 16:17– 18); Van Seters’ (1997: 45–57) dating of 1 Kgs 6–7 to the exilic period is difficult to accept. 95 Somewhat ironic is the current tendency to assign the cultic report in 1 Kgs 3:2 to a late- or post-Dtr hand, since this has been employed as an explanation for why the author of Kings did not make alterations to Samuel (so Wellhausen 1963: 239, 263).

6.2. The Literary Relationship of Samuel and Kings

227

Gibeon,96 he did not do so owing to his fear of the angel of YHWH. The issue of sacrificial worship at the bmh in Gibeon has been taken from the account of Solomon’s reign in 1 Kgs 3 // 2 Chr 1:3–13 and introduced into the account of David’s reign in Chronicles. In 2 Chr 1:3–5, the sacrificial rites performed by Solomon at Gibeon are justified by taking into account the presence of the altar for holocausts in the Tabernacle of YHWH there. However, 2 Chr 1:4 hastens to add that David not only brought the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem, but it was also he who put the sacrificial altar in Gibeon (cf. Exod 31:1–11). David is thus credited with founding two legitimate places of worship, as the transfer of the Ark prepares for the construction of the temple in Jerusalem during Solomon’s days. The offering of holocausts at Gibeon was the provisional measure taken by David until a more permanent place for sacrifice could be built in Jerusalem. This depiction of David’s role in the construction of the temple is in striking contrast with the account of Solomon’s reign in 1 Kgs 3–10, which depicts the construction of the temple as a radical innovation from the multiple sacrificial sites in existence (see esp. 1 Kgs 3:2).97 The attempt in Chronicles to account for the David’s cultic actions visà-vis the bmh at Gibeon only serves to underscore the tension between his disjointed profiles in 1–2 Samuel and 1–2 Kings. The need for such a text only arose after David’s story was read along with the account of Solomon’s sacrificial worship at Gibeon in 1 Kgs 3 and with the framework in 1–2 Kings. 6.2.6.3. Option 3: Framework Composed Separately from Samuel In my opinion, the view of the original separation of the framework of 1–2 Kings from the History of David in Samuel is the soundest of the three options. Since the two works are unalike form critically and have their origins in distinct genres, the demonstration of their original connection must ultimately be based on the success of tracing the chronological-moral framework continuously from Samuel into Kings. It comes as no surprise then that this is 96

Japhet 1989: 226–7; idem 1993: 528. This justification in Chronicles for tolerating sacrifice at Gibeon also contradicts 1 Kgs 8:1–4, which suggests that the accoutrements of the Tabernacle had been residing in the City of David; see Day 2007: 128. The same contradiction is also exemplified in 1 Kgs 2:28–34 and in 3 Reg 3:15 (“in Zion” = the City of David); see Schenker 2000a: 91–3. According to Japhet (1989: 227; 1993: 528), the difficulty that Samuel and Kings posed for Chronicles in having two locations of worship is solved by omitting the act of sacrifice at Jerusalem in 2 Chr 1:13 (cf. 1 Kgs 3:15) and by arguing that before the Temple was built, there were two tents of meeting, one constructed by Moses now at Gibeon and one by David brought to Jerusalem housing the Ark. Only music via song and instruments was allowed at the latter according to 2 Chr 6:16–17; 16:14, 37–38, thus preserving the adherence to sacrifice on only one altar (cf. Josh 22:10–34). According to 1 Kgs 3:2, Gibeon seems to have been only one among several acceptable locations for worshipping YHWH with burnt offerings (cf. 2 Kgs 18:22). 97

228

Chapter Six: Solomon’s Account

precisely what Noth attempted to demonstrate in support of a comprehensive historical work (instead of focusing on the import of the Davidic Promise for the Deuteronomistic History). There are serious problems, though, with Noth’s argumentation on the matter of chronology. First, he did not allot enough weight to the absence of several of the chronological notes from the Old Greek (supported by similar omissions from the Old Latin, Chronicles, 4QSama, and Josephus).98 Second, he assumed that the unlikely numbers and round figures of the regnal year totals in the reigns for Saul, Ish-boshet, David, and Solomon derived from authentic traditions and could be used for reconstructing historical events.99 Third, he was unable to explain why the figures often came at the end of a king’s reign instead of at the beginning.100 Fourth, he did not explain why the moral tenor of the frameworks in Judges and 1–2 Kings is lacking from the chronological notes in Samuel. I argue in the following section that the chronological scheme that Noth proposed for his comprehensive historical work did not originally frame the composition of 1–2 Samuel and 1–2 Kings, but was inserted once they had been written individually and then joined together.

6.3. Textual Argumentation It is necessary to investigate in detail the nature of the chronological notes found throughout 1–2 Samuel and to compare/contrast them with the chronological framework of 1–2 Kings to determine whether the framework can be traced from Samuel to Kings as the continuous work of a single authorredactor. I will conclude in the negative and will further argue that 3 Reg 2:46l and 1 Kgs 3:1 retain (partially) the original beginning of the framework of the HH. In order to facilitate discussion, the primary chronological notices in Samuel are reproduced here together with 1 Kgs 2:11 according to the MT:

98

See Noth 1981: 23, on the lack of a regnal year total in 1 Sam 13:1. Ibid. 127 n. 29; idem 1958: 176–7, 186, 191. Saul and Ish-boshet (1 Sam 13:1; 2:10) are said to have reigned only two (yt#$/Myt#$) years. 2 Sam 2:10, 5:4, and 1 Kgs 11:42 contain the number forty, which is unlikely to be original, as Noth (1981: 125 n. 8) admits for 2 Sam 2:10a; for the inaccuracy of these figures, see McCarter 1980: 222; idem 1984: 88, 133; Kreuzer 1996: 269–70; Fischer 2004: 89; Dietrich 2007: 169. Noth (1981: 18, 20) allowed for the fabrication of round numbers for the pre-monarchic period and even for the monarchic period (ibid. 107 n. 26). 100 At one point, Noth argues that 1 Kgs 2:10–11 was secondary because of its placement at the end of the account of David’s reign rather than at its opening (ibid. 125 n. 12), while at another point he ascribes the chronological note at the end of the account of Solomon’s reign at 1 Kgs 11:42 to Dtr as well as for Jeroboam’s note at 14:20a (ibid. 127 n. 29). 99

6.3. Textual Argumentation

229

1 Sam 13:1 (MT)101

l`Ea∂rVcˆy_lAo JK™AlDm MyYˆnDv y∞E;tVv…w wóøkVlDmV;b l…wâaDv h™DnDv_NR;b

Saul was … years old when he began to reign and he reigned two years over Israel. 2 Sam 2:10–11 (MT)102

KJ Aa£ JK¡DlDm My™InDv Mˆy¶A;tVv…w l$Ea∂rVcˆy_lAo ‹wøkVlDmV;b l…w#aDv_NR;b tRvâO;b_vy`Ia h˝ÎnDv My°IoD;b√rAa_NR;b NwëørVbRjV;b JKRl¢Rm d¶Iw∂d h∏ÎyDh ·rRvSa My$ImÎ¥yAh r∞AÚpVsIm ‹yIh◊y`Aw 11 d`Iw∂d yñérSjAa …wäyDh h$∂d…wh◊y ty∞E;b My`Iv∂dFj h¶DÚvIv◊w My™InDv oAb¶Rv hó∂d…wh◊y ty∞E;b_lAo 2:10

Ish-boshet, son of Saul, was forty years old when he became king over Israel and he ruled two years; but the house of Judah was loyal to David 11and the amount of time that David was king in Hebron over the house of Judah was seven years and sixth months. 5

2 Sam 5:4–5 (MT)103

oAb¶Rv h$∂d…wh◊y_lAo JK∞AlDm ‹NwørVbRjV;b KJ `DlDm h™DnDv My¶IoD;b√rAa wóøkVlDmV;b d™Iw∂;d h¢DnDv My¶Iv ølVv_NR;b há∂d…whyˆw l™Ea∂rVcˆy_lD;k l¶Ao hYÎnDv ‹v ølvD ◊w My§Iv ølVv JK#AlDm MÊ∞AlDv…wryIb…w My¡Iv∂dFj h∞DÚvIv◊w My™InDv

5:4 David was thirty years old when he became king. He ruled forty years. 5In Hebron he ruled over Judah seven years and six months; in Jerusalem he ruled thirty-three years over all Israel and Judah.

1 Kgs 2:11 (MT)104

MyYˆnDv oAb∞Rv ‹JKAlDm NwûørVbRjV;b h¡DnDv My™IoD;b√rAa l$Ea∂rVcˆy_lAo ‹dˆw∂;d JK§AlDm r°RvSa My#ImÎ¥yAh◊w My`InDv välø Dv◊w My¶Iv ølVv JK$AlDm MÊ∞AlDv…wryIb…w

The period that David ruled over Israel was forty years. In Hebron he ruled seven years; in Jerusalem he ruled thirty-three years.

6.3.1. The Notice on Saul’s Reign at 1 Samuel 13:1 A thorough treatment of the chronological notices in Samuel is found in the works of Sigfried Kreuzer and Alexander Fischer.105 Kreuzer deals mainly with notice in 1 Sam 13:1 regarding Saul’s account, favoring the priority of 101

1 Sam 13:1 is missing from LXXB; concerning Saul’s age, the o and e2 MSS of LXXL have 30 (bc2 = MT); some MSS of the Old Latin have 31 (< 30 + 1 of MT?); concerning the length of Saul’s reign, LXXL gives two years like MT; Josephus gives both 20 (Ant. 10.143; Latin MSS of 6.378 [18 + 2 of MT?]) and 40 (Greek MSS of 6.378 [18 + 22]); Acts 13:21 also has 40 years; Eusebius (Praeparation 9.30) gives the number 21 (< 20 + 1 of MT?); see Barthélemy 1982: 175–6. 102 Most witnesses follow MT; one manuscript of the OL reads 30 for Ish-boshet’s age at accession (Cod. Leg. 93); Josephus (Ant. 7.65) seems to be aware of 2 Sam 2:11, since he mentions the seven-and-a-half years of David’s reign in Hebron after the style of that verse (Ulrich 1978: 60–2); the mention of the seven-and-a-half years is absent from 1 Chr 3:4 (LXXB). 103 2 Sam 5:4–5 is absent from OL (Palimpsestus Vindobonensis 115), 4QSama, the parallel text in 1 Chr 11, and from Josephus. The absence of 5:4–5 in the OL indicates that it was almost certainly absent from the Old Greek (Ulrich 1978: 61–2). 2 Sam 5:4–5 has thus probably come into the MT as a secondary insertion. 104 1 Kgs 2:11 is attested in all major witnesses (MT; LXX; OL; 1 Chr 29:26–27; Josephus Jew. Ant. 7.389 [though with seven years and six months]). 105 Kreuzer 1996: 263–70; Fischer 2004: 85–93.

230

Chapter Six: Solomon’s Account

the MT’s reading for both Saul’s age in 1 Sam 13:1a (ziemlich alt “quite old”) and the year notice (noch zwei Jahre “another two years”) in 13:1b. He rightly argues that the MT is the lectio difficilior and that the numbers found in other textual witnesses are probably later attempts to address the laconic reading of the MT.106 However, the priority of the MT does not mean that it is historically accurate or that it was taken from an archival source. Wellhausen held that the original numerical data for Saul’s account became corrupt by a copyist’s error.107 Others have maintained that ancient scribes did not have the data necessary for Saul’s account and chose to leave it blank, whether in a late addition to the text or in mimicry of a source.108 First Samuel 13:1 should probably be regarded as a late insertion into the account of Saul’s reign in order to complete the chronological framework of the monarchic period, but the scribe responsible for the insertion did not venture to fill in the numerical information.109 As for the interpretation of 1 Sam 13:1a, Kreuzer’s translation of Hebrew hn#$ Nb with German ziemlich alt (“quite old”) cannot be upheld, as he provides no other example in support of his translation.110 In consequence, the MT’s reading in 1 Sam 13:1a should not be regarded in any sense as archival. 106 Barthélemy (1982: 175–6) also maintains that the reading of the MT may be preferred over other readings, as the round numbers 40, 30, or 20 in other texts are formed on analogy to other texts (2 Sam 2:10–11; 5:4–5; 1 Kgs 2:11; 11:42) and in some cases added to them the number one of MT in 1 Sam 13:1a, thus presuming the latter’s prior existence. 107 Wellhausen 1957: 246. This conclusion is almost certainly correct for the addition of the historically improbable “two years” in 1 Sam 13:1b; see McCarter 1980: 222; Dietrich 2007: 43. 108 Smith (1904: 92) contended that a later scribe added the regnal formulae but did not fill in the numerical data. Buccellati (1963: 29) held that a scribe (better: author?) did not find in the Vorlage the numbers for Saul’s reign; see Grayson 1963: 86, 110; idem 1975a: 72–3. Problematic for Buccellati’s comparison between Mesopotamian and biblical evidence is the fact that, whereas Mesopotamian scribes are imagined as having used sources with chronological data, such a situation does not obtain for the accounts of Saul, Ish-boshet, and David. 109 Similarly, McCarter (1980: 222), translates 1 Sam 13:1 as “Saul was ____ years old when he began to reign; and he reigned ____ years over Israel”; see also Dietrich 2007: 43, 169. 110 Kreuzer (1996: 269–70) notes that the meaning of hn#$ Nb is always “a one year old” and is found only in Priestly texts (the one exception is Mic 6:6, whose context is nevertheless sacrificial). Unanswered is why this example in 1 Sam 13:1a diverges from all other accession notices in Samuel and Kings, which employ specific numbers alongside of Hebrew hn#$, especially when one observes the expression found for David in 1 Kgs 1:1 where hn#$ is absent: “Now King David was old (and) getting on in age.” On the other hand, there is the expression found in the Phoenician Eshmunazor inscription (KAI 14:3): bn msk ymm “a son of limited days,” but this employs the term ym “day,” also common for descriptions of human age in Hebrew (although the expression “son of days” does not occur in Hebrew texts).

6.3. Textual Argumentation

231

The total of only two years to encompass the entirety of Saul’s reign in 1 Sam 13:1b is also improbable in terms of historical and literary considerations, as Kreuzer notes.111 He maintains that the figure of two years is accurate if interpreted as covering only the final two years of Saul’s reign (noch zwei Jahre “another two years”), during which he fought against the Philistines.112 In support of this claim, Kreuzer points to Ish-boshet’s following chronological notice at 2 Sam 2:10a, which prepares for the ensuing narrative. He also notes that the chronological notice occurs in the middle of Saul’s account in 1 Sam 13, not at the beginning (1 Sam 9) or at the end (1 Sam 31) as is customary for such notices. These arguments cannot be upheld, since the chronological notice in 2 Sam 2:10a is not entirely analogous to 1 Sam 13:1b. Ish-boshet is mentioned immediately beforehand in 2 Sam 2:8–9, whereas a greater distance is covered between Saul’s initial mention in 1 Sam 9:2 (or rather in 1 Sam 1:27–28) and the chronological notice in 1 Sam 13:1. A description of 1 Sam 13:1 as being in the middle of Saul’s account is not advantageous in this case, since 1 Sam 9–11 narrates Saul’s rise to power, whereas 1 Sam 13–31 narrates the account of Saul’s actual reign as king once he is chosen by the people and Samuel (1 Sam 9:16; 10:1; 11:14–15).113 This sort of broader coverage is not altogether incongruous with the accounts of subsequent kings like David (2 Sam 2:11; 5:4–5; cf. 1 Sam 16:12, 13; 2 Sam 2:4, 7; 5:3) and Baasha (1 Kgs 15:33; cf. 15:16–28). The inclusion of noch “another” in Kreuzer’s translation of 1 Sam 13:1b is also difficult. It would represent the sole example for such a translation among a host of chronological formulae encompassing the entirety of a king’s reign immediately after the notice on his accession age (e.g., 2 Sam 5:4; 3 Reg 12:24a). It is thus likely that the figure of two years was added later to 1 Sam 13:1b, which was originally left blank just as the number for Saul’s age in 1 Sam 13:1a is missing in the current text (as stated above, the earliest text probably lacked numerical information altogether).114 Regarding the question of the literary relationship of 1 Sam 13:1 to the framework of Kings, it should be noted that the style of Saul’s accession and year total notice is nearly identical to those belonging to the regnal prologues 111

Kreuzer 1996: 268; see Dietrich 2007: 43, 169; pace Noth 1958: 176–7. Kreuzer 1996: 268–70. 113 See already Noth 1981: 23: “1 Sam 13:1 was certainly inserted by Dtr. at the appropriate place after 1 Sam. 12 in the style of his formulaic introductions to the reigns of kings elsewhere”; on the appropriate placement of 2 Sam 5:4–5, see Van Seters 2000: 80; differently, Kaiser 2000: 119. 114 Wellhausen’s (1957: 246) opinion that the figure of “two years” (1 Sam 13:1b) was added later to the chronological framework (also McCarter 1980: 222; idem 1984: 88; Dietrich’s 2007: 43, 169) is a problem for Noth’s (1981: 23) conception of a comprehensive Deuteronomistic work, since Noth argued that the “two years” was included by the same one responsible for the framework of 1–2 Kings. 112

232

Chapter Six: Solomon’s Account

in 1–2 Kings (e.g., 2 Kgs 18:2). The solitary exception concerns the spelling of “two years”: whereas 1 Sam 13:1b reads Myn#$ yt#$ (cf. 2 Sam 2:10), the regnal prologues for the northern kings employ the dual Mytn#$ (1 Kgs 15:25; 16:8; 22:52; 2 Kgs 15:23).115 Given that the regnal notices for Saul and Ishboshet follow the style of the Judahite regnal prologues in providing the king’s age at accession, one might explain this discrepancy by holding that the author of the framework of Kings retained the dual as a stylistic tendency from a northern kinglist.116 However, this explanation is made difficult by the fact that the singular for “year” in 1–2 Kings is consistently hn#$, while one might have expected t#$ in a Samarian kinglist, as witnessed in the ostraca found at the site of ancient Samaria.117 Another difficulty concerns the relationship of 1 Sam 13:1 to the immediately following notices in 2 Sam 2:10 (Ish-boshet), 5:4–5 // 1 Kgs 2:11 (David), and 1 Kgs 11:42 (Solomon). These notices possess round numbers for the age of accession or regnal year total, whether 30 or 40 years (compare Judg 3:11; 4:3; 5:31; 8:28; 12:14; 13:1; 15:20; 1 Sam 4:18; 2 Kgs 12:1). Why would an author who had regular recourse to round numbers for these and potentially other notices have been unable to supply the needed data for the reign of Saul?118 As a result, it is difficult to trace the framework from the account of Saul’s reign into 1–2 Kings as the work of a single author. It is probable that 1 Sam 13:1 is a secondary addition to Samuel isolated from the following notices in 2 Sam 2:10–11 and 5:4–5. 6.3.2. The Notices on Ish-boshet and David at 2 Samuel 2:10–11 and 5:4–5 Turning to the notices for Ish-boshet and David, we have at our disposal the work of Fischer, who concludes that 2 Sam 2:10b–11 and 5:5 are late-Dtr insertions of a single hand notable for its synchronizing tendency.119 These sec115 Driver 1913: 97. The spelling Myn#$ yt#$ is found in 2 Kgs 21:19 = 2 Chr 33:21, which is later than the HH. Stoebe’s (1973: 243) objection that Mytn#$ is not necessarily expected at 1 Sam 13:1 and 2 Sam 2:10, since hn#$ is also found in 1 Sam 13:1a and 2 Sam 2:10 does not make sense. 116 Noth 1981: 107 n. 25: “But the discrepancy can readily be accounted for by the diversity of Dtr’s sources.” 117 See Dobbs-Allsopp et al. 2004: 730–1. 118 Similarly, Kreuzer (1996: 266) in response to Buccellati, but with a different objective from mine. This works against Noth’s (1958: 176–7) assumption that the Dtr historian both retained “two years” from a sound tradition, which as it happens fit into his comprehensive chronology of 480 years, and left Saul’s age blank for lack of data in his sources. Here again, Noth is forced to hold in tension the literary design of the Dtr historian together with the incorporation of authentic traditions or sources (even with round numbers!). 119 Fischer 2004: 85–93. As Fischer observes, if the synchronization of the reigns of Ishboshet and David is regarded as secondary, then this would present a problem for Noth’s chronological schema.

6.3. Textual Argumentation

233

ondary notices were written in poor imitation of the synchronizing framework of 1–2 Kings.120 Interestingly, Fischer assigns 2 Sam 2:10a and 5:4 not to the level of the framework of 1–2 Kings but to an earlier pre-Dtr David-redaction, which he dates to the early seventh century B.C.E. In this earlier redaction, the chronological notices are carried out with the intention of presenting the reigns of Saul, Ish-boshet, and David in succession with no overlap in time. By this understanding, none of the chronological notices in 1–2 Samuel is assigned to the same level of the framework in 1–2 Kings. Although Fischer concedes that the tripartite structure of age, accession notice, and regnal year total in the notices at 2 Sam 2:10a and 5:4 (also 1 Sam 13:1) is similar to the framework of Kings, he argues that this may be owing to their shared origins in the “annalistic” style of the Judahite court and is thus not indicative of common authorship.121 In divorcing 2 Sam 2:10a and 5:4 from 2:10b–11 and 5:5, Fischer underscores how 2:10b–11 and 5:5 stand in tension with their contexts by the synchronization of the reigns of David and Ish-boshet. David’s reign cannot have been synchronized with Ish-boshet’s, since he is anointed in place of Ishboshet after the latter died, according to 2 Sam 4:7–5:4. Fischer can come to this conclusion only on the unlikely assumption that the notice of David’s accession at 5:4 after the death of Ish-boshet is more original than the synchronizing notice at 2:11. In the literary context of 2 Sam 2:8–4:6, however, Ishboshet is still alive, so that the synchronization of his reign with David’s remains a possibility. Fischer observes three further difficulties when reading 2 Sam 2:10–11; 5:4–5; 1 Kgs 2:11 together. First, he points to the ambiguity concerning the king’s age at accession, where according to 2 Sam 5:3–4, David was 30 years old when he was anointed over Israel, while in 5:5 he seems to be 30 already when he was anointed king of Judah. Second, concerning the statements on the length of David’s reign, 2 Sam 5:4 and 1 Kgs 2:11 indicate a regnal period of forty years during which David ruled over all Israel, while 2 Sam 5:5 states that he ruled only 33 years over all Israel and Judah. Third, concerning the ambiguity of double residency in these notices, David had been anointed al-

120 Fischer (ibid. 92) points out that the designation “king of Judah” is normal for the Judahite regnal prologues, but “over Judah” is found at 2 Sam 2:11; the term tyb is not found in the regnal prologues, but see “over the house of Judah” in 2 Sam 2:11 (see vv. 4a, 7b, 10b); similarly, Van Seters 2000: 80. 121 Fischer 2004: 89. Fischer differs from the standard view of 2 Sam 2:8–12, going back to Wellhausen (1957: 246; idem 1963: 253–4), that v. 10b was the original continuation of vv. 8–9, preparing for v. 12 (thus, vv. 10a and 11 are secondary). Even if Fischer’s dating of 2 Sam 2:10a and 5:4 cannot be accepted, his willingness to explain the stylistic similarities of the chronological notices on the basis of a court context rather than owing to individual authorial style is noteworthy.

234

Chapter Six: Solomon’s Account

ready in Hebron as king over Israel in 2 Sam 5:3–4, with the result that his accession age does not correspond with the change in residency in 5:5. Fischer’s argumentation concerning these difficulties stands or falls with the assumption that 2 Sam 5:4 belongs with 5:1–3, not with 5:5. He supposes that the regnal year total in v. 4 pertains to the same geographic context specified in v. 3, but this is not explicit. Although the evidence he produces merits considering 5:5 as separate from 5:1–3,122 he does not provide evidence for the assumption that 5:4 belongs together with 5:1–3 and not 5:4. In terms of a form critical analysis, there is no reason to separate David’s age at accession in v. 4 from the data on his regnal year total in v. 5, a structure that is commensurate with the Judahite regnal prologues and with 1 Sam 13:1 and 2 Sam 5:4, as Fischer himself points out.123 As a result, his arguments actually serve to disconnect both 2 Sam 5:4 and 5:5 from their surrounding context. A serious weakness in Fischer’s presentation is the omission of a text critical discussion on 2 Sam 5:4–5. It must be noted that 2 Sam 5:4–5 is not reflected in the Old Latin, 4QSama, the parallel text in 1 Chr 11, and from Josephus. Ulrich has observed that the absence of 5:4–5 in the Old Latin indicates that it was also not reflected in the Old Greek.124 Thus, it is likely that 2 Sam 5:4–5 probably came into Samuel as a secondary insertion to provide the account of David’s reign with a prologue and was written with the aid of 2 Sam 2:11 and 1 Kgs 2:11.125 As for 2 Sam 2:10–11, although it does not conform purely to the style of 1 Kgs 2:11 and 11:42, it is supported by all textual witnesses and thus should be regarded as having been more stable than 2 Sam 5:4–5. However, Fischer contends that the stylistic and informational incongruities between 2 Sam 2:10b–11 and 1 Kgs 2:11 support the priority of the latter text.126 On the other hand, the mere observation of incongruities between these two texts does not automatically indicate that 1 Kgs 2:11 appeared first.127 In any case, two stylistic oddities point to the fact that 2 Sam 2:10a should be read together with 122 Another contradiction is observed between 2 Sam 5:5 and 1 Kgs 2:11: the statement that David reigned “33 years over all Israel and Judah” in 2 Sam 5:5 conflicts with the statement that he reigned “over Israel forty years” in 1 Kgs 2:11 (the forty years in 2 Sam 5:4 is not specific in terms of geographic location). N.B.: according to the MT of 1 Kgs 11:42, Solomon reigned “in Jerusalem over all Israel forty years” (“over all Israel” is not reflected in the LXX). 123 Ibid. 89. 124 Ulrich 1978: 61–2. 125 Adam 2007: 34–5; Trebolle 2010: 263. 126 The difference in synchronizing style from Kings is also clear. 127 1 Kgs 2:11 may have rounded the figure of seven years and six months to only seven years in order to match the whole figure of 40 years given for David’s regnal year total (so Noth 1981: 127 n. 29; Dietrich 2007: 169). In addition, 1 Kgs 2:11 is not clear on David’s rule over Judah only, stating that he ruled 40 years “over Israel,” with no mention of Judah.

6.3. Textual Argumentation

235

vv. 10b–11 and that the author of that passage was not the same one responsible for the framework of 1–2 Kings. The first issue pertains to the spelling of the number two, and the same observations already discussed above for 1 Sam 13:1b also apply in the case of 2 Sam 2:10a. The other issue pertains to the placement of “over Israel” at the end of the accession notice rather than as part of the notice on the regnal year total. This is a sort of double application of “over Israel” from the prologues of the northern kings (e.g., 1 Kgs 15:25; 16:8, 23) together with the age at accession notice from the prologues of the Judahite kings (e.g., 3 Reg 12:24a, 1 Kgs 15:1–2, 9–10).128 This stylistic irregularity functions to contrast the notices for Ish-boshet’s reign in 2 Sam 2:10a with those for David in 2:10b–11. The initial geographic demarcation “over Israel” for Ish-boshet (A) mirrors the initial expression “house of Judah” for David in v. 10b (A’), just as the second statement on Ish-boshet’s regnal year total (B) corresponds to the second statement for David concerning his regnal year total v. 11 (B’). If read together with 2 Sam 2:10b–11, the stylistic incongruities in v. 10a are difficult to connect with the framework of 1–2 Kings as the work of a single author. I now offer some conclusions on the literary relationship of chronological notices in 1 Sam 13:1, 2 Sam 2:10–11, and 5:4–5 and some related remarks (if my arguments above are to be accepted): 1) The earliest chronological notice for David’s reign is probably located in 2 Sam 2:11,129 which served as the basis for 1 Kgs 2:11 and 2 Sam 5:4–5. (The relationship of 1 Kgs 2:11 to the framework of 1–2 Kings will be discussed in the following section.) The notices for Saul (1 Sam 13:1) and for Ish-boshet (2 Sam 2:10a) were added to 1–2 Samuel after the framework of Kings had already been written. The latter served as the basis for the synchronization found in 2 Sam 2:10–11 (allowing for the possibility that v. 10b is original); notwithstanding, it was composed in loose imitation of the framework (owing perhaps to the prior existence of v. 10b). 2) Of these notices, the chronological formulae for David’s reign in 2 Sam 5:4–5 were inserted even later into 1–2 Samuel to provide a proper prologue for his account, much in the same manner of the framework of 1–2 Kings. In addition to the round figure produced for David’s age, 5:4–5 conflated the information found in both 2 Sam 2:10–11 (the accession notice in v. 10a; “in Hebron over Judah seven years and six months” from v. 11) and in 1 Kgs 2:11 (“over Israel 40 years”; “in Jerusalem 33 years”).

The chronological notices inserted later into Samuel cannot be traced forward as the continuous work of the author of the synchronizing framework of 1–2 Kings. Samuel and Kings were not composed according to the same purposes, 128 Since this stylistic feature is not observed in the cases of Saul’s and David’s notices at 1 Sam 13:1 and 2 Sam 5:5, this is another reason to dissociate these notices from 2 Sam 2:10–11 in terms of their literary relationship. 129 According to Dietrich (2007: 169), the mention of seven years and six months for the period that David spent in Hebron may reflect an authentic tradition.

236

Chapter Six: Solomon’s Account

but were united at a later time. It is possible that the accounts of Saul, Ishboshet, and David did not yet include chronological notices that functioned as prologues before 1–2 Samuel and 1–2 Kings were combined. The grand chronological framework so integral to Noth’s Deuteronomistic historical work should be regarded as a later design, feasible only once 1–2 Samuel and 1–2 Kings were combined as a unified piece in the late sixth-to-fifth centuries B.C.E. 6.3.3. David’s Epilogue and Solomon’s Succession Notice at 1 Kings 2:10–12 The next step is to detect the location of the onset of the HH-framework in 1– 2 Kings, which begins in the MT with a description of the conclusion of David’s reign as an old man and his death. On the other hand, the Lucianic text of the Book of Kings and Book Eight of Josephus’ Antiquities commence with the reign of Solomon corresponding to MT 1 Kgs 2:12. According to Thackeray, the translation unit designated as section-gg in the non-Kaige recension also began at 3 Reg 2:12.130 Recent scholars working with structuralist and new literary approaches have argued that 1 Kgs 2:12 forms the beginning of Solomon’s reign as denoted by the succession notice in that verse.131 They observe the depiction of the consolidation of Solomon’s royal power in 1 Kgs 2:12–46 mirrored in the account of the demise of his kingdom in 1 Kgs 11.132 Owing to these textual witnesses and scholars who support 1 Kgs 2:12 as the beginning of Solomon’s reign or the Book of Kings, it is worth inquiring whether 1 Kgs 2:10–11 and/or v. 12 formed the onset of the Hezekian History.133 The Hebrew text is provided below with a translation:

l$Ea∂rVcˆy_lAo ‹dˆw∂;d JK§AlDm r°RvSa My#ImÎ¥yAh◊w d`Iw∂;d ry¶IoV;b r™Eb∂;qˆ¥yÅw wy¡DtObSa_MIo d™Iw∂;d b¶A;kVvˆ¥yÅw My`InDv väølDv◊w My¶IvølVv JK$AlDm MÊ∞AlDv…wryIb…w MyYˆnDv oAb∞Rv ‹JKAlDm NwûørVbRjV;b h¡DnDv My™IoD;b√rAa dáOaVm wäøtUkVlAm NñO;kI;tÅw wy¡IbDa d∞Iw∂;d a™E;sI;k_lAo b›AvÎy h›OmølVv…w 2:10

And David lay down with his fathers, and he was buried in the City of David. 11The days that David reigned over Israel were forty years. In Hebron he reigned seven years and in Jeru-

130

Thackeray 1907: 262–78. Thackeray (ibid. 264–5) regarded the division between 1 Kgs 2:11 and 2:12 as original. Rahlfs (1911: 186–7) was critical of Thackeray’s view. Montgomery (1932: 124–5) agreed but also maintained an earlier division at 1 Kgs 2:35, owing to the additional material found there in the LXX (see Trebolle 1980: 252–5). 131 Parker 1988: 19–27 (at 24); Frisch 1991: 3–14 (at 7–9); Hays 2003: 149–74 (at 154 n. 11); Olley 2003: 355–69 (at 365); Van Keulen 2005: 277. However, Van Keulen concedes that 1 Kgs 3–10 constitutes the “central account” of Solomon’s reign and that “chapters 2 and 11 stand more or less aloof from the central account of Solomon’s throne” (ibid. 288). 132 From a historical-critical perspective, the results of the new literary studies on 1 Kgs 1–11 are problematic. See the critique of these synchronic literary approaches expressed in Wälchli (1999: 24–7) who advocates that one should be mindful of pre-Dtr structures and intentions in 1 Kgs 3–11*; similarly, Auld 1994: 33–4. 133 Jepsen (1956: 30) included all of 1 Kgs 2:10–12 in his synchronistic chronicle.

6.3. Textual Argumentation

237

salem he reigned thirty-three years. 12And Solomon sat on the throne of David, his father, and his kingship was firmly established.

David’s epilogue consists of death and burial notices and regnal year total before the succession notice, albeit not in the style common to the framework of Kings. The order of these elements does not match what is found for him in 2 Chr 29:27–30: regnal year total, death and burial notices, succession notice, and source citation (the last item is lacking in Kings).134 Moreover, the order of these three elements is distinct from the following epilogues for Solomon (1 Kgs 11:41–43) and Jeroboam (14:19–20) in MT–Kings, which comprise in the order of their presentation a source citation, regnal year total, death and burial notices, and a succession notice. In contrast from David’s epilogue, the order and to some degree the style of these elements for Solomon’s epilogue remain in tact in 2 Chr 9:29–31. Solomon’s epilogue contains the standard source citation in 1 Kgs 11:41, whereas David’s epilogue lacks the citation. To my mind, this is sufficient evidence to conclude that some or all of 1 Kgs 2:10–12 was written after the framework of Kings had been written, but more can be said in support of this conclusion. As observed in the preceding discussion on Samuel, 1 Kgs 2:11 is related to the similar notices in Samuel (2 Sam 2:11; 5:4–5). Some scholars attribute the regnal year total in the epilogue of David’s reign in 1 Kgs 2:11 to later redaction, noting that it is based on 2 Sam 5:4–5.135 First Kings 2:11 is also similar to the other notices for Solomon, Jeroboam, and Jehu that stand at the end of their accounts (1 Kgs 11:42; 14:20 [absent from LXX]; 2 Kgs 10:36). With the exception of David’s notice in 2 Sam 5:4–5, the prologues to the accounts for these kings are either absent or have been omitted so that these concluding notices are capable of being interpreted as necessary to fill in the lacking figures. However, in light of the foregoing discussion on 2 Sam 5:4–5 (6.3.2), the relative priority of 1 Kgs 2:11 must be maintained. Another oddity concerning 1 Kgs 2:11 is its placement between David’s death and burial formulae in v. 10 and Solomon’s succession notice in v. 12. In keeping with the style of West Semitic kinglists (see 2.3), the bond between the death and burial formulae and the succession notice is never broken in the framework of Kings.136 First Kings 2:10, 12a corresponds closely with 134

Van Seters (2000: 79–80) does not mention these differences. Even if the author of the framework was not in possession of introductory notices for Saul, David, and Solomon culled from a kinglist (a genuine possibility as I have argued), there was available to him a source for Solomon’s reign that was cited (1 Kgs 11:41); see 3.5.2. 135 Rost 1926: 91; Noth 1968: 8; Veijola 1975: 23; Würthwein 1977: 21; Hentschel 1984: 26; Seiler 1998: 81; Vermeylen 2000: 453. 136 The one exception in the epilogue for Rehoboam proves the point, since the MT at 1 Kgs 14:31 has “and the name of his mother was Naamah, the Ammonitess” interposed between the death and burial formulae and the succession notice. This insertion duplicates the

238

Chapter Six: Solomon’s Account

2 Kgs 13:13 suggesting that 1 Kgs 2:10, 12a should not be attributed to the author of the regnal framework and perhaps not even to a Dtr redactor. Consequently, the location of the beginning of the Book of Kings at 1 Kgs 2:12 according to certain traditions is artificial in terms of that book’s compositional history. It became a suitable beginning point for Solomon’s account once the Samuel/1 Kgs 1–2 and 1 Kgs 3–2 Kgs 18 (25) were united. Compounding the difficulties for 1 Kgs 2:11 is the observation that it is repeated verbatim in 1 Chr 29:27, whereas the standard death and burial notices in 1 Kgs 2:10 and perhaps the succession notice for Solomon in v. 12 are not present in Chronicles. This is surprising, since the series of kings from Solomon to Jotham receives the standard death and burial formulae exemplified in Kings (2 Chr 9:31; 12:16; 13:23; 16:14; 21:1; 21:20; 21:16; 24:25; 27:9).137 Opinions vary concerning David’s death and burial notice in 1 Kgs 2:10. Veijola saw in David’s death and burial notice at 1 Kgs 2:10 the hand of Dtr, since the death and burial notice is similar to other notices found in the framework of Kings.138 However, the Dtr character of 1 Kgs 2:10 is not as obvious as at first glace, as similar notices are exemplified at 2 Sam 17:23 (Ahithophel) and at 2 Kgs 2:34 (Joab). The expression “to lie down with one’s fathers” also occurs at 2 Sam 7:12 (pre-Dtr), 1 Kgs 1:21 (pre-Dtr), and 1 Kgs 2:1 (LXXL).139 What is nearly certain is that 1 Kgs 2:10 was not written before 2:12a (“and Solomon sat on the throne of David, his father”), for the phrase “and he lay down with his fathers” always precedes in the regnal framework the standard succession notice wytxt RN Klmyw “and RN reigned in his stead,” but here the latter notice is absent.140 Veijola also maintained that the notice – “And Solomon sat on the throne of David, his father, and his kingship was exceedingly established” (1 Kgs earlier mention of Naamah at 3 Reg 12:24a/1 Kgs 14:21 and is lacking in the LXX at 3 Reg 14:31. 137 Japhet (1993: 516 [c]) argues that the statement “and he was buried in the City of David” possibly became lost owing to parablepsis: kbd [wyqbr bʿr dwd] wymlk. The problem with this explanation is that it does not account for the absence of the standard notice “and he lay down with his fathers,” while in 1 Chr 29:28 one finds “and he died” (tmyw). Caillou’s (2008: 121) suggestion that Chronicles lacks the standard death and burial notices in order to distinguish David from his successors is conjectural. 138 Veijola 1975: 23; Würthwein 1977: 6, 21; Trebolle 1980: 244–8; Hentschel 1984: 26; Van Seters 2000: 79; Kasari 2009: 198. 139 See Seiler 1998: 81; Vermeylen 2000: 454. 140 1 Kgs 11:43 = 3 Reg 12:24a; 1 Kgs 14:20, 31; 15:8, 24; 16:6, 28; 22:40, 51 = 3 Reg 16:28a; 2 Kgs 8:24; 10:35; 13:9, 14:16, 29; 15:7, 22, 38; 16:20; 20:21; 21:18; 24:6. Vejoila’s (1975: 27) position — “Weil Dtr in 1Kön 1 mit grosser Anteilnahme die volle Inthronisierung Salamos schon zu Lebzeiten Davids herausgearbeitet hat, kann er in 1 Kön 2 nicht mehr die normale Rahmenangabe bringen” — is problematic. It is unclear why the narrative occurrence should override the need for formulaic continuity, as there is no contradiction between narrative and formula.

6.3. Textual Argumentation

239

2:12) – was a late addition, since it is out of keeping with the regular succession notice in the remainder of the Book of Kings (e.g., 1 Kgs 11:43 = 3 Reg 12:24a; 14:31; 15:8; 16:6).141 Only at 2 Kgs 13:13 does the expression “And RN sat on the throne” occur directly after the death and burial notice, albeit as an intrusion into the death notice of the defunct king (2 Kgs 13:13 is a doublet of 4 Reg 13:25+ = 2 Kgs 14:16). Additionally, if one maintains that MT 1 Kgs 2:46b (or LXX 2:35) was the original conclusion to the Succession Narrative (2 Sam 9–20; 1 Kgs 1–2), then the notice that Solomon’s kingdom “was established” in 1 Kgs 2:12b conflicts with the similar notice at 1 Kgs 2:46b (note also the difference between the later twklm in v. 12b vs. the earlier hklmm in v. 46b).142 In the surrounding context of 2:12b, nothing has happened to “greatly establish” Solomon’s reign in contrast to 2:35 (LXX) and 2:46b (MT), which come to expression once Solomon’s adversaries are eradicated.143 On assuming the throne, Solomon has yet to handle his enemies who had sided with his rival sibling Adonijah (1 Kgs 1:49–53; 2:13–35; [36– 46]).144 First Kings 2:12b is probably a later addition to the narrative in order to match David’s epilogue and Solomon’s succession notice with 2 Sam 7:12, 16.145 141 Veijola 1975: 23, 27; Würthwein 1977: 6; Hentschel 1984: 26; Schäfer-Lichtenberger 1995a: 232–5 (2:1–12 = Dtr). Kaiser (2000: 109 n. 67) connects 1:30a (“after me”) to the same redactor who added 2:10–12. However, in 1:30 (cf. v. 35) the presence of txt, common to the succession notice of the regnal framework, jars with its absence after David’s burial notice at 2:10. Veijola (1975: 17) and Langlamet (1976a: 120) attribute the use of txt in 1:30, 35 to a pro-Solomonic redactor of the Succession Narrative, in order to dissociate David’s words from Nathan’s. In any case, this observation disfavors the attribution of 2:10–12 to the same level as txt in 1:30, 35 or to the HH framework of Kings, which regularly employs that term. 142 Veijola 1975: 23. Note, however, the early use of twklm at Numb 24:7 and 1 Sam 20:31. 143 Hentschel 1984: 26; Seiler (1998: 57) points out that 2:12b is unmotivated and anticlimactic in relationship to 2:46b; pace Stade and Schwally (1904: 65), who regard LXX 2:35 as superfluous after 2:12b and take MT 2:46b as providing the circumstances for the marriage of Pharaoh’s daughter; see below 6.3.4. Langlamet (1976a: 119 n. 2), in contradiction to Veijola, argues that 2:10, 12 were original to the early anti-Solomonic report. 144 See Thornton 1968: 159–66 (at 160–1); McCarter 1981: 355–67 (at 359); Seibert 2006: 114–5. For the use of the terms hklmm and hkwlm in the context of warfare, see 1 Sam 14:47; 2 Kgs 14:5; for the use of the terms in the context of rebellion or the potential loss of the dynasty, see 1 Sam 15:28; 28:17; 2 Sam 3:10; 16:3; 1 Kgs 11:11; 12:26; 14:8; 2 Kgs 15:19. 145 Vermeylen (2000: 454 n. 55) and Kasari (2009: 198 n. 417) point out that although Veijola viewed 1 Kgs 2:12 as a later insertion, he provided no reason why it was actually inserted (for Seiler [1998: 57–8] only v. 12b is late). In reply, I suggest that vv. 10–12 are a redactional updating of the text in conformity to 2 Sam 7:12 (with Suriano 2010: 79–82). The original statement was probably located at LXX 3 Reg 2:35 and has since shifted to MT 2:46b (see Noth 1968: 8–11; Langlamet 1976b: 517–8; Trebolle 1980: 250–5; see below

240

Chapter Six: Solomon’s Account

Veijola also understands 1 Kgs 2:12a to be late: “And Solomon sat on the throne of David, his father.” While the expression is incongruent with the regnal framework in Kings, it does not necessarily follow that it was written subsequent to 2:10–11, as Veijola suggests. As mentioned, the clearest analogue to 1 Kgs 2:10, 12a is found at 2 Kgs 13:13, a late text in which the death and burial notices are followed directly by the expression: “and Jeroboam sat on his throne.” Most scholars contend that the Succession Narrative must have contained a notice of David’s death probably with an attendant burial notice, which they detect at 1 Kgs 2:10.146 Moreover, they assert that the adjuration of David (1 Kgs 2:1b–9) cannot have been written or located in its present position prior to the existence of the death notice and burial notice in 1 Kgs 2:10.147 According to Trebolle, however, the original notice of David’s death is retained in LXXL at 3 Reg 2:1a: “After these things David died (tmyw),” the original continuation of which was v. 12: “Solomon took possession of the throne of David, his father, and the kingdom was exceedingly established.”148 Trebolle supports his conclusion with the following arguments: (1) since the expressions “to die” (twm) and “to lie down (bk#$) with one’s fathers” do not occur together in the Book of Kings, the use of the latter phrase in v. 1a (LXXL) is secondary. (2) The expression “to lie down with one’s fathers” in 1 Kgs 2:1b (LXXL) has been inserted as a Wiederaufnahme repeating the expression from 2:10 (for him Dtr) in order to insert David’s adjuration to Solomon in vv. 2– 9.149

6.3.4). In the same way, the r#$)-clause at 1 Kgs 2:24 also bears the influence of 2 Sam 7:11–12, 16 (see Seiler 1998: 63–4). 146 So Noth 1968: 32. The designation of the southern acropolis (dwd ry() does not occur in Samuel outside of 2 Sam 5–6. The mention of burial is a standard element in 1 Sam 25:1; 28:3; 2 Sam 2:4–5, 32; 3:32; 4:12; 17:23; 19:38; cf. Gen 35:8, 19; 35:29; 47:30; Josh 24:33; Judg 8:32; 10:2, 5; 12:7, 10, 12, 15. 147 Jepsen 1956: 19 (vv. 2–9 = RII/Dtr); Noth 1968: 9; Veijola 1975: 19–24, 27 (vv. 5–10 = Dtr); Langlamet 1976a: 119 n. 2 (v. 10 = ancient narrative); Bietenhard 1998: 227–8; Seiler 1998: 74–82, 87; Vermeylen 2000: 451–2 (v. 10 = early narrative); Van Keulen 2005: 52–5. 148 Trebolle 1980: 244–8. 149 According to Trebolle, 1 Kgs 2:8–9 was originally located with the Simei episode at LXXL 2:35+ and was later inserted together with vv. 2–7 between 2:1b (LXXL) and 2:10; cf. Campbell 1986: 83; O’Brien 1989: 141; Van Keulen 2005: 52–5. In the account of David’s death at 1 Chr 29:28, the verb twm “to die” is employed and not the expression “to lie down with one’s fathers.” This is explainable by the fact that Chronicles has been influenced by 3 Reg 2:1a (LXXL) and/or 1 Kgs 1:1. Compare the episode of Hezekiah’s illness at 2 Kgs 20:1 = Isa 38:1, in which he is told that he about to die (twm) and is instructed by YHWH to “charge” (hwc) his household; cf. Ahithophel’s charge (hwc) at his death (twm) at 2 Sam 17:23.

6.3. Textual Argumentation

241

Two other passages combine the two expressions “to die” and “to lie down with one’s fathers,” namely, Gen 47:29–31 (cf. 50:16) and Deut 31:14–16 (cf. 31:29). Both texts comprise adjurations to subsequent heirs (spiritually in the case of Moses’ successor, Joshua) to follow any number of injunctions after the exactor’s death. The combination of both expressions is appropriate to the charge of the dying father to his heir, so that the occurrence at LXXL may suggest influence from these passages. In contrast to the other adjurations at Gen 47:29–31 and Deut 31:14–16, LXXL 1 Kgs 2:1, 10a is temporally retrospective containing two death notices descriptive of the past (cf. 2 Sam 17:23), whereas Gen 47:30 and Deut 31:16 are anticipatory of a future death (cf. 2 Kgs 20:1). The statements of David’s death in 1 Kgs 2:1 (LXXL and OL) and again in 1 Kgs 2:10 are thus unnecessarily redundant. Either the notice with only tmyw at 1 Kgs 2:1 (LXXL and OL) was prior to bk#yw of 1 Kgs 2:10 or the reverse is true. The incongruous nature of 1 Kgs 2:10–12 in relation to the framework of Kings and the fact that 1 Chr 29 is unaware of David’s death and burial notice in 1 Kgs 2:10 suggest that 1 Kgs 2:10 is secondary. Consequently, Trebolle’s discovery of an instance of Wiederaufnahme at LXXL 2:1 (“he lay down with his fathers”) in order to introduce the adjuration at 2:1b–9 is plausible in my opinion. The juxtaposition of “to die” and “to lie down with one’s fathers” in 1 Kgs 2:1 (LXXL) is secondary and is not the work of the author responsible for the framework of Kings.150 The above discussion results in the following progression for 1 Kgs 2:1–12: first, LXXL/OL 3 Reg 2:1 existed with only the death notice for David involving tmyw; second, David’s death notice with bk#yw and combined with Solomon’s succession notice were inserted; third, the bk#yw-notice was reemployed at v. 1 to introduce David’s adulation in vv. 1b–9. Trebolle’s view that Solomon’s succession notice in 1 Kgs 2:12 originally followed after 2:1a (LXXL) is unnecessary, however, since similar statements on the topic of his succession are attested in the narrative at 1 Kgs 1:45–48 and subsequently at 2:46b (LXX 2:35a). Coupled with David’s death notice, the expression “to sit on the throne” in 2:12a is found at 1 Kgs 1:13, 17, 20, 24, 27, 30, 35, 46, 48; 2:19, 24, involving one of the most “persistent ques150

Regarding the juxtaposition of these two expressions as original in 1 Kgs 2:1 would require assuming that the adjuration in vv. 1b–9 was originally located immediately after David’s death notice. Both Gen 47:29 and Deut 31:14 employ the phrase “the days of PN draw near to death” also present in MT/LXXB 1 Kgs 2:1 but absent from v. 1 in LXXL (cf. 2 Kgs 20:1). It is probable that the language of the original Vorlage of LXXL (“After these things David died”) was made to conform in MT 2:1 to those adjurations at Gen 47 and Deut 31 (“the days are approaching to death”). Of the two latter passages, 1 Kgs 2:1–9 demonstrates the most similarities with Deut 31:14–30: (1) the expression “the days are approaching to death,” Deut 31:14; cf. 1 Kgs 2:1 MT; (2) a charge (hwc D-stem), Deut 31:14, 23; cf. 1 Kgs 2:1; (3) “be strong” (qzx G-stem), Deut 31:23; cf. 1 Kgs 2:2; (4) Moses writing the Torah, Deut 31:24; cf. 1 Kgs 2:3.

242

Chapter Six: Solomon’s Account

tions” of the (pro-Solomonic) narrative: “who will sit on the throne of my lord, the king; who will reign after him?”151 Although 1 Kgs 2:12a states that: “Solomon sat on the throne of David, his father,” this is redundant in light of 1 Kgs 1:46–48. 1:46

Solomon sat on the royal throne … 48And thus said the king, ‘Blessed be YHWH, the God of Israel, who appointed today one to sit on my throne while my eyes can see’ … 2:46bAnd the kingdom was established in Solomon’s hand.

The statements found in 1 Kgs 1:46–2:1 (LXXL) thus prepare for 2:13–35,152 and 1 Kgs 2:10–12 is probably a late insertion serving as a sort of “bridge” to draw together several texts, most notably, the Davidic Promise in 2 Sam 7:12 and the framework of Kings (1 Kgs 11:42). As Suriano has demonstrated, 1 Kgs 2:10–12 probably appeared in imitation of 2 Sam 7:12, “When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your seed after you that will emerge from your loins, and I will establish his kingdom.”153 The expression “to establish (Nwk H-stem) the kingdom” occurs in both 2 Sam 7:12b and 1 Kgs 2:10, 12 adjacent to the expression “to lie down with one’s fathers.” Moreover, the use of Mymy “days” in 1 Kgs 2:11 to express that David reigned for forty years, namely, for a full generation, is in explicit ful151 Rost’s (1926: 86) “die bohrende Frage.” On these verses as part of a pre-Dtr ProSolomonic redaction, see Langlamet 1976b: 360–1. Langlamet differentiates between the meaning of “to sit on the throne” indicating enthronement sensu stricto at 1 Kgs 1:35, 46, (48) and another meaning indicating the idea of succession at 1:13, 17, 20, 24, 30*, (48), 2:12a, 24; cf. 3:6. See also Bietenhard (1998: 239–40), who notes that only 2:12a is stylized as a narrative preterite (not as direct speech) and therefore assigns only this verse to an earlier anti-Solomonic report. Following Langlamet, Bietenhard assigns 1:13, 17, 20, 24, 27, 30, 35, 46, 48; 2:19, 24 to subsequent, pro-Solomonic, pre-Dtr redactions of the Succession Narrative. Rost (1926: 89) speciously equates the meaning of “to sit on the throne” with the expression “the kingdom was established” in order to argue for the original conclusion at 2:46b. However, succession to the throne and solidification of royal power are not to be reduced to the same political processes; see Blum 2000: 23. With this distinction in view, Van Seters (2000: 87–8) separates 1 Kgs 2:12b in DtrH (successful succession) from 2:46b in the Court History (solidification of kingdom against adversaries). Cogan’s (2000: 181) view that Dtr is identifiable in the resumption of the language in 2:12b at 2:46b is without foundation and he is too ready to dismiss the value of the LXX witnesses (ibid. 171–2); see Jobling (1997: 474), who maintains that 2:46b repeats 2:12b in order to open the description of the Golden Age in chs. 3–10 but offers no defense of this view. 152 According to Noth (1968: 10–11), 1 Kgs 2:12 existed as the original conclusion to the Succession Narrative (Überlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids). Noth assumed that the narrator ended the episode of Adonijah’s rebellion at 1:53. However, Rost’s (1926: 87) earlier notion that 1:52 anticipates the closure provided in 2:13–25 is to be preferred over Noth’s view (see Langlamet 1976b: 346 n. 69; Seiler 1998: 57). For the adjuration of David to Solomon as interrupting the connection between 1:53 and 2:13, see Šanda 1911: 49. 153 Suriano 2010: 79–82; cf. Van Seters (2000: 79), who also considers the occurrence of “to lie down with one’s fathers” in 1 Kgs 2:10a to be an allusion to 2 Sam 7:12a; see already Rost 1926: 89.

6.3. Textual Argumentation

243

fillment of 2 Sam 7:12 (“when your days become full”). Owing to the numerous irregularities in 1 Kgs 2:10–12 and to its function as the fulfillment of 2 Sam 7:12, it is difficult to believe that it was composed as part of the regnal framework of the HH. 6.3.4. LXX 3 Reigns 2:35 (// MT 1 Kings 2:46b) as the Beginning of the HH Framework? It is occasionally argued that 1 Kgs 2:46b functioned as the beginning of Solomon’s reign: “Now the kingdom was established in the hand of Solomon.”154 Van Keulen opines that “it is quite possible that the note at 1 Kgs. 2:46b was actually meant to be understood as an introduction to 3:1.”155 He maintains that 2:46b can be interpreted as a circumstantial clause describing the situation of Solomon’s becoming a son-in-law to Pharaoh.156 However, syntactically speaking, 2:46b operates effectively as the concluding phrase at a paragraph or narrative boundary with a preposed substantive and a QATAL phrase.157 The expression “the kingdom was established” demonstrates thematic connections with Samuel and 1 Kgs 2 (see 1 Sam 13:13; 20:31; 2 Sam 5:12; 7:12, 13, 16; 1 Kgs 2:12, 24, 45; cf. Isa 9:6; Ps 89:22, 38; 103:19); it never occurs in 1 Kgs 3–2 Kgs 25.158 The question of the establishment of Solomon’s succession is a primary concern of the 2 Sam 9–20* and 1 Kgs 1– 2*, whereas the main concern of 1 Kgs 3–10* is to provide a depiction of Solomon’s reign as a Golden Age. These observations demonstrate suffi154

Thenius (1873: 24; cf. Sweeney 2007: 78) includes 2:46b with 3:1 because 3:2 (qr) demands a positive antithesis but his thesis is successfully refuted by Görg (1975: 21–2) and by Carr (1991: 27 n. 71). Šanda (1911: 53) groups 2:46b with 3:1a but regards both as the conclusion to chapters 1 and 2, while 3:1b begins another document. Montgomery and Gehmen (1951: 101) include 2:46b with the following narrative; see also Kittel 1900: 23–4. Gray (1963: 110) points out that deciding whether 2:46b is a concluding or opening note is problematic, though he opts to regard it as a conclusion to the story of the Davidic succession; see also Porten 1967; 98; Görg 1975: 21–2. Kratz (2000a: 167) regards 2:46b as the original conclusion to the Succession Narrative but later 2:46b (together with 3:1–3) came to form part of the introduction to Solomon’s reign in DtrG. 155 Van Keulen 2005: 58–9. 156 Ibid. 59 n. 47, citing Mulder 1998: 129 and Joüon-Muraoka 2000: §159d; see already Thenius 1873: 23; Kittel 1900: 24; Stade and Schwally 1904: 65; Šanda 1911: 48. The interpretation of 2:46b as a circumstantial clause is born out in Josephus Ant. 8.21, the Hexaplaric recension, and the Vulgate, which assign MT 2:46b to the very beginning of chapter three. 157 On the use of QATAL clauses and preposing to mark paragraph boundaries, see Heller 2004: 56. See also the discussion in Moshavi 2010: 24–5. 158 See Trebolle 1980: 487 n. 479. Veijola (1982: 51 nn. 11 and 12) acknowledges that this expression in 1 Sam 20:31; 2 Sam 7:12; 1 Kgs 2:46 is pre-Dtr. Still, his assignment of the phrase to Dtr or later usage in 1 Sam 13:13; 2 Sam 5:12; 1 Kgs 2:12, 24, 45 is too sweeping.

244

Chapter Six: Solomon’s Account

ciently that 2:46b originally belonged to what preceded and not to the succeeding narrative, as several scholars have already maintained.159 Other scholars argue that the second clause of LXX 3 Reg 2:35 was the original conclusion to the Succession Narrative: “And the kingdom was established in Jerusalem” (or perhaps: “in Solomon’s hand” instead of “in Jerusalem”).160 If that is the case, the above considerations remain sound. In LXX 3 Reg 2:35 ≈ MT 1 Kgs 2:46b, Solomon has just eradicated his adversaries, Adonijah and Joab (and Simei in the MT), from the kingdom to solidify his power. The expression “the kingdom was established” marks explicitly the culmination of Solomon’s power and comprises the final note of the foregoing narrative. According to Trebolle, the material at LXX 3 Reg 2:35a–k, 36–46, 46a–k was added after 3 Reg 2:35 in the sixth century B. C. E. or beforehand, since the text-type represented by the MT incorporated that material in its principle text of Solomon’s reign in 1 Kgs 3–10 some time during that century.161 If LXX 3 Reg 1:1–2:35* originally belonged to the Succession Narrative, then that text may not have been joined to the history of Solomon’s reign (1 Kgs 3–10*) until later in the sixth century B.C.E. Whereas there are intimate connections between 2 Sam 9–20* and 1 Kgs 1–2* as well as between 1 Kgs 1 and 1 Kgs 2, certain tensions indicate that 1 Kgs 1–2 did not originally belong with 1 Kgs 3–10: 1) there is no mention of the temple or palace con-

159 For example: Benzinger 1899: 14; Burney 1903: 1; Rost 1926: 89; Gray 1963: 110; Wellhausen 1963: 259; Fohrer 1968: 222; Würthwein 1977: 25; Van Seters 1983: 279; Jones 1984: 119; Seiler 1998: 57, 82; Dietrich 2000c: 69; Seibert 2006: 104–5; Hutton 2009: 195; cf. Dietrich and Naumann 1995: 180–82. 160 Montgomery 1932: 124–9; Jepsen 1956: 11–13. Noth (1968: 10) regarded 1 Kgs 2:46b as part of 2:36–46, a secondary addition appended to the original conclusion of the Succession Narrative (for him LXX 3 Reg 2:35), and also regarded 1 Kgs 3:1, 2 as redactional additions (ibid. 45–6); similarly, Trebolle 1980: 250–5. Schenker (2000a: 38–9) groups the second clause of LXX 3 Reg 2:35 with the following section (2:35a–k) rather than regarding it as the conclusion of the Succession Narrative. Langlamet (1976: 516–18) regarded MT 1 Kgs 2:35 as the original conclusion, resulting in the following compositional explanation: initially, MT 1 Kgs 2:35 formed the original conclusion to the earliest narrative of 1 Kgs 1–2; then, an editor replaced the statement about Zadok in v. 35b with v. 46b in an edition without the Simei-narrative in vv. 36–46; finally, a later editor added v. 35b after vv. 35a + 46b (= LXX reading). It may be pointed out that Langlamet’s reconstruction favors the MT over the LXX, which problematizes the presence of what corresponds to v. 46b in the MT at LXX 3 Reg 2:35. Similarly, Van Keulen (2005: 58–9) holds that MT 1 Kgs 2:46b was the original placement of the concluding notice but was moved later to LXX 3 Reg 2:35. To my mind, Langlamet’s and Van Keulen’s arguments are less persuasive than those put forward by Trebolle and Schenker (2000a: 1–4), who construct a methodology on the more stable grounds of Literarkritik and literary coherence (see also McKenzie 1986: 15–34; idem 1991: 21–40, 47–51, 73–3; Hugo 2006: 100–108, 122–3). 161 Trebolle 1980: 250–5, 281–3.

6.3. Textual Argumentation

245

structed by Solomon (1 Kgs 6–7);162 2) there is an unawareness of the disruption of the monarchy after Solomon’s reign in 1 Kgs 1–2;163 3) Solomon’s wisdom functions dissimilarly in 1 Kgs 2 and in 1 Kgs 3–10.164 These elements – temple, monarchic rupture, and wisdom in political circumstances – anticipate the ensuing narrative that will recount the division of the monarchy 162

Jones 1984: 56; pace Vermeylen (2000: 611), who assumes that 2 Sam 7:13 and 1 Kgs 6–7* are attributable to a second (pre-Dtr) Solomonic redactor. However, 2 Sam 7:13 is typically regarded as an insertion (Dtr); for example, see Rost 1926: 56; Weinfeld 1972: 15 n. 4; Veijola 1975: 69; Nelson 1981: 106; Noth 1981: 59, 87; Campbell 1986: 80; O’Brien 1989: 133; Dietrich and Naumann 1995: 146; Römer 2005: 146; Hutton 2009: 281–2; Kasari 2009: 29–32 (DtrN). 163 Gray 1963: 24; Jones 1984: 56. In 1 Kgs 1:35 (“I appointed him prince [dygn] over Israel and over Judah”), there is a potential allusion to the divided kingdom. Two major differences that set this verse apart are, first, that David, not YHWH as is normal (1 Sam 9:16; 10:1; 13:14; 25:30; 2 Sam 5:2; 6:21; 7:8; 1 Kgs 14:7; 16:2; 2 Kgs 20:5), is the one who appoints Solomon as dygn, and, second, that Judah is mentioned here together with Israel, whereas other examples only mention Israel (1 Sam 9:16; 10:1; 13:14; 25:30; 2 Sam 5:2; 6:21; 7:8; 1 Kgs 14:7; 16:2; 2 Kgs 20:5; 1 Chr 11:2; 17:7; 29:22; 2 Chr 6:5; 11:22; cf. 1 Sam 15:1; 2 Kgs 9:6 with the title Klm “king”); see Campbell 1986: 48; Linville 1998: 124–5. Scholars are undecided on the nature of 1 Kgs 1:35: (Dtr) addition: Veijola 1975: 16– 17; Würthwein 1977: 4, 16–17; Jones 1984: 51; DeVries 1985: 5 (only “and over Judah”); Kaiser 2000: 110; pre-Dtr: Lipiński 1974: 497–9; Langlamet 1976b: 497–8; Trebolle 1980: 231–3; Schäfer-Lichtenberger 1995a: 241–2; Seiler 1998: 29–33; Vermeylen 2000: 442. What is significant is that the mention of “Israel and Judah” in 1 Kgs 1:35 is unique in the context of 1 Kgs 1–2, so that it is difficult to regard it as belonging originally to 1 Kgs 1–2 (see Vermeylen 2000: 442 n. 15). 164 Pace Liver 1967: 88–9; Noth 1968: 9 (pre-Dtr connection); Seiler 1998: 75; Vermeylen 2000: 605–7 (assigns 2:8–9 and chs. 3–11* to his second Solomonic redaction). Wälchli (1999: 27, 103–5) dissociates the mention of wisdom in 1 Kgs 2:6, 9 from the following Solomon-narrative in 1 Kgs 3–11. In 1 Kgs 2:6, 9, Solomon is already regarded as a wise man, who is able to deal with his enemies, while in 1 Kgs 3:4–15, Solomon expresses his inability to govern and protect the people through military deeds for want of wisdom or knowledge (vv. 9, 12); see further Carr 1991: 39; pace Veijola 1975: 28. Jones (1984: 120) and Römer (2005: 100–1) point out that the audience is here introduced to this central theme in the Solomon narrative (cf. 1 Kgs 5:9–14, 21; 10:1–13, 23–25; 11:41). Van Seters (2000: 78–9) also notes that Solomon first acquires his wisdom in 1 Kgs 3 and that it was not the kind to dispose of enemies. The references to wisdom in 1 Kgs 2:6, 9 may actually allude back to 2 Sam 13:3; 14:2, 20; 20:16, 22 (cf. Seiler 1998: 112 n. 51). Alternatively, if Trebolle (1980: 274–83) is correct (as I think he is) in thinking that 3 Reg 2:35a–2:46k comprises a genuine textual variant and is not merely a late midrashic amalgamation, then the several references to Solomon’s wisdom introducing the textual variants at 3 Reg 2:35a–k and 2:46a–k operate rather well in a surrounding context on his political control (2:35a, b, 46a); see Schenker 2000a: 17–18. It is reported that YHWH had given Solomon wisdom previous to David’s mentioning that he was wise man in 3 Reg 2:35n = MT 1 Kgs 2:9. Following this line, one may point out that the list of officials in MT 1 Kgs 4:2–5 is also found at 3 Reg 2:46h, which mentions Zadok and Benaiah (cf. 1 Kgs 1:8; 2:25, 29, 34, 35).

246

Chapter Six: Solomon’s Account

as owing to Rehoboam’s disregard for the counsel of the elders who served Solomon (cf. 1 Kgs 3:9, 12 and 12:8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16).165 The account on the construction of the temple was necessary for the evaluative scheme and the cultic reports associated with the regnal framework of the HH as well as for the contrast between the northern cultic sites and the Jerusalemite temple in 1 Kgs 12:26–30.166 Consequently, it is unlikely that the Solomon narrative in 1 Kgs 3–10* comprised the climax of the David-Solomon history.167 Rather, the Solomon narrative had already existed as an independent pre-Dtr source before being employed by the historian of the HH.168 It presented Solomon’s reign as a 165

For the possibility of a pre-Dtr combination of the Rehoboam episode and the Solomon-narrative in terms of a shared theme of wisdom, see Liver 1967: 96–100, Wälchli 1999: 190–91, 197; cf. Jepsen 1956: 78–9; Cogan 2000: 351. 166 Similarly, Schüpphaus (1967: 215), who added that the later dry reports in the history of the monarchy on the fate of the temple are clearly connected to the report on the construction of the temple in 1 Kgs 6–8; cf. Noth (1981: 59, 65–6) and Römer (2005: 98), who, however, does not take into account the secondary nature of 2 Kgs 24:13–14. Jepsen (1956: 54) held that a temple source was inserted by RI beginning with the account of the temple construction and continuing in the accounts on the later period of the monarchy: 1 Kgs 6:1–7:51 (later heavily edited); 8:2a–8a [edited]; 9:10, 11b, 15, 17b, 18, 19, 23; 10:16–20a; 11:27b, 28; 14:25–28; 15:15, 17–22; 2 Kgs 12:5–19; 14:8–14; 16:5, 7–18; 18:14–16; on the centrality the temple construction within the context of the theme of “wisdom,” see Wellhausen 1963: 273. 167 Pace Vermeylen 2000: 605–8. In particular, 1 Kgs 1:20, in employing the theme of “sitting on the throne,” is indicative of a climactic point in the Succession Narrative; see Rost 1926: 86; Long 1984: 36; Suriano 2010: 78. 168 Here, I am in agreement with a host of earlier commentators that the “Book of the Acts of Solomon” (1 Kgs 11:41) was the source for later historians; see Ewald 1869: I, 166; Wellhausen 1963: 273; Noth 1968: 263; idem 1981: 57; Alt 1976: 102–12 (at 103); Jones 1984: 57–61; Wälchli 1999: 188–98 (1 Kgs 3:4–15*, 16–28; 4:1–5:8; 5:9–14, 15–8:13*; 1 Kgs 9*; 10:1–8, 10, 13, 23–25); Römer 2005: 99–102; Dietrich 2007: 255–8. Wälchli (1999: 189) rightly stresses that 3:1 hardly forms an adequate introduction to the Solomon narrative and that the latter’s introduction was probably omitted in DtrG when it was replaced with 1 Kgs 1–2 (he does not consider LXX 3 Reg 2:46l). O’Brien (1989: 144) also notes that neither 1 Kgs 3:1 nor 3:4 are passable as an introduction to the account of Solomon’s reign (again without reference to 3 Reg 2:46l). Following Trebolle (1980: 250–55, 274–83) and Pennoyer (1993: 53–8, 63–138), it seems that material from the original Solomon-narrative was appended to the Succession Narrative ending at 3 Reg 2:35. In the LXX-edition, the variant texts at 3 Reg 2:35a–k, 35l– o + 36–46, 2:46a–k remained in tact after the Solomon-narrative was joined to 1 Kgs 2:46k, with the result that the some material was duplicated. Several editions of and/or works that included the Solomon narrative were in existence at various (overlapping) points: (1) a version of the Solomon Narrative (3 Reg 3–10*; 11:43a) before being attached to either the Succession Narrative or being incorporated into the Hezekian History; (2) a version of the Solomon Narrative (3 Reg 2:46l; [omitted text?]; 3:2–10*; 11:41, 43) incorporated into the HH; (3) a story about Shimei together with an amount of material partially overlapping with

6.3. Textual Argumentation

247

golden age, highlighting his wisdom in political affairs, both internal and international, and was thus a remarkable work for its own part. A form of it was incorporated into the HH in order to introduce the division of the monarchy into northern and southern lines as well as to provide a traditional representation of an idyllic reign to bolster the establishment of Jerusalem and Judah as the true heir of Solomon and the united monarchy.169 In conclusion, LXX 3 Reg 2:35 (and MT 1 Kgs 2:46) did not comprise the introduction to the Solomon narrative but formed the conclusion to 1 Kgs 1–2, which was joined to Kings at a stage after the composition of the HH. After ruling out the possibility that the introduction to the HH-framework was located at either 1 Kgs 2:12 or LXX 3 Reg 2:35 (MT 1 Kgs 2:46), I now continue with an investigation of 3 Reg 2:46l and 1 Kgs 3:1–3. 6.3.5. The Beginning of the HH-Framework: LXX 3 Reigns 2:46l–3:2 (Later Insertions: MT 1 Kings 3:1 and 3:3) Another view maintains that the original opening to Solomon’s reign occurred at LXX 3 Reg 2:46l. Montgomery argued that the original conclusion to David’s account was LXX 3 Reg 2:35, where a clear break was indicated owing to the presence of a formal introduction of the Book of Kings at 3 Reg the Solomon Narrative (3 Reg 2:35a–46k*) that accumulated at the end of the Succession Narrative and before the HH (or a later version of Kings); (4) a (Dtr) edition of the Solomon Narrative represented in the Vorlage of LXX-Kings with both the variant text (3 Reg 2:35a– 46k) and the principle text (3 Reg 2:46l; 3:2–11:43) preserved together; (5) another later edition of the Solomon Narrative where material from 3 Reg 2:35a–46k was integrated into MT-Kings (1 Kgs 2:12–46; 3:1–11:43). It is difficult to go beyond this sketch here, and I leave open the possibility that (2) and (3) may have overlapped chronologically, when 1 Kgs 1–2* and 1 Kgs 3–10* were not yet joined. On the “multiformity” and “fluidity” of textual tradition in ancient Israel pertaining to the Deuteronomistic History, see Person 2010; on 3 Reigns, see Law 2011: 288 n. 20 (with literature). Law (ibid. 291) criticizes Van Keulen (2005) and Turkanik (2008) for not acknowledging the phenomenon of textual plurality evidenced in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint. 169 Wälchli (1999: 195–8) dates the composition of the pre-Dtr Solomon Narrative to the period of Hezekiah’s reign (ca. 725–697 B.C.E.). He does this for thzˀ e following reasons: first, Ahaz’s and Hezekiah’s reigns were ones with continuous relations existing between Judah and its neighbors, Babylon, Assyria, and Egypt. This international setting is reflected in Solomon’s reign. Second, the influx of northern refugees into Judah in the late-eighthearly-seventh-century B.C.E. allowed for Hezekiah to provide a response to the northern critique against Solomon in the account of the division of the kingdom in 1 Kgs 12* as well as to strengthen the identity of Judah after the fall of the north. In my opinion, these arguments are inconclusive, as the arguments seem to be based on assumptions of the relative dating of compositional strata and of the emergence of a “state” in Judah with a royal scribal apparatus. I differ from Wälchli in allowing for the possibility that the composition of the Solomon narrative may be dated earlier than the late eighth century B.C.E., while retaining some of his insights for the inducement behind including the Solomon Narrative in the HH; similarly, Cogan 2000: 273; Smith 2006: 279.

248

Chapter Six: Solomon’s Account

2:46l (LXXB); between them were later interpolated the supplements at 3 Reg 2:35a–k, 2:35l–2:46, and 2:46a–k.170 Agreeing with Montgomery, Jepsen included LXX 3 Reg 2:46l in his synchronistic chronicle following David’s epilogue in MT 1 Kgs 2:10–11.171 Fichtner noted that the prologue to Solomon’s account is broken in the Hebrew text, although the LXX retains a piece of it.172 Trebolle maintained that LXX 3 Reg 2:46l together with 3:2–3 was part of an edition of Kings that was earlier than MT 1 Kgs 2:46–3:3.173 With somewhat different results, Pennoyer, too, argued that a version of the Succession Narrative existed with 3 Reg 2:35 immediately before 2:46l, which was later broken up by the (pre-Dtr) pluses at 2:35a–k, 2:35l–46, and 2:46a– k.174 *Third Reigns 2:46l B // 2:35a MNgny kai\ (B omits kai\) Salwmwn ui9o_j Dauid e0basi/leusen e0pi\ Israhl kai\ Iouda e0n Ieousalhm Reconstructed Hebrew Text Ml#wryb hdwhyw l)r#y l( Klm dwd Nb hml#[w] LXX 2:46l

Solomon, son of David, reigned over Israel and Judah in Jerusalem.

The Hebrew text is a retroversion of LXX 3 Reg 2:46l based on Vaticanus, the Lucianic witnesses (boc2e2), and MSS Nhmqstwy. The latter reading is also supported in a parallel text found at 3 Reg 2:35a in MSS MNgny. (I will refer to this set of data as 2:46l for convenience.)

170

Montgomery 1932: 125; cf. Jepsen 1956: 11, 13. Jepsen 1956: 30. 172 Fichtner 1964: 66. 173 Trebolle 1980: 297. 174 Pennoyer 1993: 145–8. Pennoyer argues that the original Succession Narrative consisted of 2 Sam 20:23–26; 1 Kgs 1:1–53/2:1a? + 2:10?/12–35aa; 4:1–6. To this original narrative was added some form of 1 Kgs 3 to present Solomon’s administration in 1 Kgs 4:1–6 “as a result of the divine gift of wisdom” (ibid. 57). I see two problems with Pennoyer’s reconstruction of the SN. On the one hand, his equation of 3 Reg 2:46l as a later replication of 1 Kgs 4:1 is unclear to me and remains undefended by Pennoyer. This is also true of the same view of dependency espoused by Tov (1999: 561–2) and by Van Keulen (2005: 56), who do not take sufficiently into account three signification differences between 3 Reg 2:46l and 1 Kgs 4:1: 1) 2:46l begins neither with a conjunction nor with hyh; 2) Klm is a verb in 3 Reg 2:46l, whereas it is a title in 1 Kgs 4:1, as indicated by the definite article -h; 3) the final wording “and Judah in Jerusalem” is not found in 1 Kgs 4:1. The introductions to the regnal prologues in the Book of Kings correspond with 3 Reg 2:46l over against 1 Kgs 4:1. On the other hand, Pennoyer’s assumption that 1 Kgs 3 was inserted in the Succession Narrative in order to legitimate the cabinet list in 4:1–6 is not defended against the view that 1 Kgs 3 introduces the theme of “royal wisdom” for the pre-Dtr Solomon Narrative as a whole; see Noth 1968: 46–7, 80–1, 208–9; Jones 1984: 120; Carr 1991: 22, 67–8; Särkiö 1994: 190; Wälchli 1999: 51, 109–11. 171

6.3. Textual Argumentation

249

Van Keulen has recently criticized the view that LXX 3 Reg 2:46l was the original introduction of Solomon’s account. He raises the objection that, unlike similar introductory formulae opening with a subject,175 2:46l lacks a regnal year total.176 However, this objection is not conclusive, since in contrast to the northern and southern kinglists that provided the HH-historian with regnal year totals the source used for Solomon’s reign (1 Kgs 11:41) may not have supplied a regnal year total. The Solomon-narrative was composed in a literary form different from the sources for the royal lines, concentrating on the topos of wisdom in addition to other themes such as the construction of the temple.177 Furthermore, unlike the examples that Van Keulen uses for comparison from the LXX, 3 Reg 2:46l (LXXB) does not begin with the conjunction kai\ (= w) “and,” a clue that the introduction to Solomon’s account may not have been originally united to a preceding text.178 Van Keulen argues that 3 Reg 2:46l was inserted owing to the presence of the following cultic report and theological evaluation in 1 Kgs 3:2–3, in order to conform to the normal configuration of the introductory regnal formulae in the Book of Kings.179 I agree with Van Keulen that 3 Reg 2:46l belongs with 175

Cf. 3 Reg 14:21; 15:25; 16:8, 15; 22:41, 52; 4 Reg 3:1; 15:13. Van Keulen 2005: 56–7. The parallel with 3 Reg 2:46l at 1 Kgs 22:52 (MT; LXXB) that Van Keulen highlights in favor of his objection actually proves that the formula is possible without a regnal year total. Van Keulen does not discuss LXXL 3 Reg 16:15, 28+; 22:52 (also OL), which follow the standard pattern of locating the synchronism before the regnal year total. 177 Wälchli 1999: 109–11. Alternatively, it is possible that the regnal year total for Solomon’s reign was eliminated once 1–2 Samuel* and 1 Kgs 1–2* were fused with the material from 1 Kgs 3* and following (ibid. 189); see Wellhausen 1963: 271; Würthwein 1994: 11. The regnal year total at the conclusion of Solomon’s account at 1 Kgs 11:42 is probably secondary and was added to bring Solomon’s reign into line with the other regnal introductions; cf. 1 Kgs 14:20; 2 Kgs 10:36. Jeroboam lacked the introductory formulae as his rise to power is subsumed as part of the account of the Judahite king Rehoboam (3 Reg 12:24b; cf. MT 1 Kgs 11:26, 40); in the same way, Jehu’s rise to power is subordinate to the reigns of Joram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah (2 Kgs 8:28–29; 9:14–15, 24–27). 178 3 Reg 14:21; 15:25; 16:8, 15; 22:41, 52 (MT without w); 4 Reg 3:1; 15:13 (MT without w). It is noteworthy that Van Keulen points to LXXB examples, when he typically favors the edition of the MT. He does not mention that MT 1 Kgs 16:29 also begins with the subject (one could also point to 2 Kgs 12:1 as an example; see Trebolle 2000: 481). Half of the examples occur where the prologue for a Judahite king follows directly after the succession notice for an Israelite king (3 Reg 14:21; 15:25; 22:41, 52); two of the examples involve prologues that follow a digression from the preceding epilogue (3 Reg 16:8; 4 Reg 3:1); see Trebolle 2000: 481: “The change in the MT is always occasioned by the transposition of the whole formula to a different context from its primitive location.” Not only is this true of 1 Kgs 16:29; 22:41, 52; 2 Kgs 3:1; 12:1, but it also applies to 1 Kgs 14:21 (contrast 3 Reg 12:24a) and 16:8. 179 Gooding (1976: 23–6) had maintained that 3 Reg 2:46l was introduced as part of the supplement in 2:46a–l in order to divorce the earlier reports on Solomon’s affairs abroad from his domestic affairs beginning in 1 Kgs 3:1. Recently, Schenker (2000a: 17, 44) has 176

250

Chapter Six: Solomon’s Account

what follows while not conceding that this connection constitutes evidence against its early status, since it is arguable that the connection between 3 Reg 2:46l and 1 Kgs 3:2 was in some way original to the HH. Solomon’s patronymic, “son of David,” in 3 Reg 2:46l is in keeping with similar examples in the synchronistic prologues belonging to the Judahite kings. However, since 2:46l lacks a synchronism, it may well indicate that originally no succession notice preceded it (in other words, there was not a prior succession notice with a patronymic).180 The mention of “Israel and Judah” demonstrates an awareness of the division of the kingdom recounted in the ensuing narrative (LXX 3 Reg 12:24a–z) that is absent from 1 Kgs 1–2 (also contrast 1 Kgs 4:1, which only mentions “[all] Israel”). In the same way, 3 Reg 2:46l calls attention to the Solomonic capital of Israel and Judah based “in Jerusalem” and resonates with the later notices in the Judahite regnal prologues.181 Since 3 Reg 2:46l prepares for the following narrative of Solomon’s reign, it is necessary to discuss its relationship to the following verses in 1 Kgs 3. For several commentators, the status of 1 Kgs 3:2 has depended on the initial argued that 3 Reg 2:46l alludes back to v. 46a instead of functioning as an introduction to Solomon’s reign in ch. 3, since v. 46a also mentions “Judah and Israel.” However, I agree with Van Keulen (2005: 58–9 n. 46) that 3 Reg 2:46l is in no way connected with what precedes it, as demonstrated by its formulaic nature, particularly, the sudden use of the fulllength patronymic for Solomon. 3 Reg 2:46l possesses no obvious role in the context of 3 Reg 2:46a–k, and thus I maintain that it is earlier than vv. 46a–k. The expression “reigned over Israel and Judah in Jerusalem” has its closest parallel in David’s regnal prologue at 2 Sam 5:5 (cf. 1 Kgs 2:11), which is late (6.3.2). It is possible that 2 Sam 5:4–5 may have been composed with both 1 Kgs 2:11 and 3 Reg 2:46l in mind. 180 3 Reg 15:1; 16:28a ≈ 1 Kgs 22:41; 2 Kgs 8:16, 25; 14:1; 15:2, 32; 16:1; 18:1. With exception to 3 Reg 2:46l and 1 Kgs 14:21 (contrast 3 Reg 12:24a), a full-length patronymic (where the father’s name follows Nb in a genitival relationship) does not appear in the regnal prologues until the appearance of synchronization and then after its cessation. It is possible to explain the absence of a full patronymic at 3 Reg 12:24a; 2 Kgs 21:1, 19; 22:1; 23:36; 24:8; 24:18 as owing to the economy of a Levantine kinglist, which combines the deathburial and succession notices together with the regnal year total, filiation, geographic dominion, or toponym (without the interposed synchronism). The expression “RN his son” in the succession notice was unnecessary to repeat in the accession notice (2 Kgs 20:21–21:1; 21:18–19; 21:26–22:1; 24:6–8, 17–18). In the same way, the direct sequence of death noticesuccession notice-regnal year total in the Tyrian King List (Josephus Ant. 8.141–146; idem Ag. Ap. 1.116–125) indicates that full-length patronymics were unnecessary to a Levantine kinglist. For repetition and non-repetition in the linear system of royal lists, see Campbell 1986: 139. 181 3 Reg 12:24a ≈ 1 Kgs 14:21; 15:2, 10; 3 Reg 16:28a ≈ 1 Kgs 22:42; 2 Kgs 8:17, 26; 12:2; 14:2; 15:2, 33; 16:2; 18:2. Since the expression “in Jerusalem” also appears at 2 Kgs 21:1, 19; 22:1; 23:31, 36; 24:8, 18, the point I am making here is simply that the use of the expression in 3 Reg 2:46l is consistent with the formulae of the Judahite prologue but is not indicative of a division in sources or of redactional activity following Hezekiah’s account.

6.3. Textual Argumentation

251

interpretation of v. 3: “Solomon loved YHWH, walking in the statutes of David, his father; only at the bāmôt he would sacrifice and burn incense.”182 Commentators generally regard v. 3, though Deuteronomistic, as earlier than v. 2, which reads, “only the people would sacrifice at the bāmôt, for a house had not been built for the name of YHWH until that time.” The latter is taken to be a marginal or explanatory gloss on the following evaluation of Solomon in v. 3. The “evaluative coordination” in 1 Kgs 3:3, whereby Solomon is first extolled (v. 3a) and then criticized (v. 3b), is compared with the other positive regnal evaluations for Judahite kings also possessing a similar “coordination” (2 Kgs 12:2–4; 14:3–4; 15:3–4, 34–35). In contrast, the cultic report in v. 2 is not openly negative and was added to exonerate Solomon of worshipping in the bāmâ at Gibeon (v. 4).183 Some commentators even maintain that the particle qr in v. 2 was first added to the margin of the text due to influence of the same particle in v. 3b and was later inserted into the text proper resulting in its awkward location after v. 1.184 This interpretation of 1 Kgs 3:2 as a marginal gloss on or doublet of v. 3 is conjectural, however, since the status of the latter is uncertain and does not provide an adequate answer for the difficult reading in v. 2 with qr. The terminology of 1 Kgs 3:3a is different from the following regnal evaluations of the Book of Kings, in that it employs the verb bh) “to love” with YHWH as its object. The standard positive evaluation of the Judahite prologues is “he did what was right in the eyes of YHWH” (1 Kgs 15:11; 3 Reg 16:28b = 1 Kgs 22:43; 2 Kgs 12:3; 14:3; 15:3; 15:34; 18:3). In the Book of Kings, the verb bh) is present only in Solomon’s account (1 Kgs 3:3; 5:15; 10:9; 11:1, 2; cf. Deut 6:5; 7:9; 10:12; 11:1, 13, 22; 13:3; 19:9; 30:6, 16, 20). It serves to demarcate his account into an initial section governed by his devotion to YHWH and the latter part of his account in ch. 11, in which love for his foreign wives causes him to wander from YHWH.185

182

Benzinger 1899: 15; Kittel 1900: 23–4; Burney 1903: 28; Wellhausen 1963: 263; Noth 1968: 49; Würthwein 1977: 28–9; Hentschel 1984: 32–3; O’Brien 1989: 145; Carr 1991: 26–7; Särkiö 1994: 19–20 (3:2 = DtrN2; 3:3 = DtrN); Schäfer-Lichtenberger 1995a: 262–3; Gleis 1997: 134–5; Wälchli 1999: 51; Römer 2005: 148 n. 94; Blanco Wißmann 2008: 73 n. 377; differently, see Pakkala 1999: 153 n. 61 (DtrG); Barrick 2001: 428–9 (Hezekian edition of Kings). 183 Barrick 2001: 425–6. 184 Benzinger 1899: 15; Burney 1903: 28; Carr 1991: 26–7. 185 O’Brien 1989: 146; Auld 1994: 26, 34; Gleis 1997: 134; Knoppers 1997: 394; Barrick 2001: 427. Together with the structural theme of love, the censure of Solomon for performing cultic worship in the bāmôt also adumbrates his establishment of bāmôt for the gods of his foreign wives (1 Kgs 11:7–8); see Noth 1981: 58; Fichtner 1964: 65; Brettler 1991: 95– 6.

252

Chapter Six: Solomon’s Account

This is the only attestation of the phrase “he walked in the statutes of David” found in a regnal evaluation. Here again, the attestations of the terms hqx/qx “statute” in combination with David are manifest only in Solomon’s account, especially in those passages usually considered to be late.186 The association of 1 Kgs 3:3 and ch. 11 involving the use of the verb bh) and the combination of hqx/qx and David may be taken as evidence that 1 Kgs 3:3 and ch. 11 were written by an author different from the one responsible for the subsequent regnal evaluations. The conclusion that 1 Kgs 3:2 is an explanatory gloss on 3:3 is thus predicated on two uncertain suppositions: that Solomon was originally evaluated negatively in accordance with 1 Kgs 11 and that the promise of an enduring kingdom to David was originally conditioned on the behavior of Solomon and his sons in accordance with the “statutes of David.”187 As for the “evaluative coordination” in 1 Kgs 3:3, whereby Solomon is first given a favorable assessment and then immediately criticized for worshipping at the bāmôt, the assertion that the coordination here matches the structure of the following regnal evaluations is specious. Typically, when kings who are graded positively receive qualifications involving the bāmôt, the “people” (M(h) always figure into the equation. First Kings 3:3 is the sole example of a regnal evaluation where a Judahite king is initially granted a favorable appraisal and then is immediately faulted for his own worship at the bāmôt. The one king criticized for worshipping individually at the bāmôt is Ahaz, who receives not the glowing praise afforded to Solomon in 1 Kgs 3:3a but an explicitly negative evaluation: “he did not do what was right in the eyes of YHWH, his god, like David his father” (2 Kgs 16:2b). The assumption that the normative structure of the positive regnal evaluations involves the appraisal of the king individually without reference to the people is unsubstantiated by the textual evidence.188 I conclude that 1 Kgs 3:3 is part and parcel of a post-HH point of view found at 1 Kgs 2:3–4; 3:14; 6:12; 9:4; 11:1–2, 33, 34, 38 and was not composed together with the standard regnal formulae

186 1 Kgs 2:3–4; 3:14; 6:12; 9:4; 11:33, 34, 38; cf. Deut 26:17; 30:16; the initial four examples occur in conditional promises, which are often regarded as late nomistic additions to Kings. For the link between 1 Kgs 2:3–4 and 3:3, see Schäfer-Lichtenberger 1995a: 263; Wälchli 1999: 51. The latter three examples occur only in ch. 11, in the prophecy of Ahijah, these verses are regarded as latter accretions and, indeed, in contrast to 3 Reg 12:24a–z, the entirety of ch. 11 is probably a later reworked conclusion to Solomon’s account; see ch. 7. For the DtrN nature of 1 Kgs 2:3–4; 3:14; 6:12; 9:4; 11:2, 33, 34, 38, see Dietrich 1972: 28– 9, 71 n. 23, 72 n. 35; Veijola 1975: 19–29, 56, 141–2; Würthwein 1985: 28–29; O’Brien 1989: 169; Pakkala 1999: 154–5. 187 So Barrick 2001: 424–6: “this explanation begs the question why Solomon’s sacrifice would have been negatively described in this chapter in the first place” (ibid. 425). 188 See further Noth 1968: 337; Weippert 1972: 310–11; Gray 1977: 349.

253

6.3. Textual Argumentation

at 1 Kgs 15:11; 3 Reg 16:28b = 1 Kgs 22:43; 2 Kgs 12:3; 14:3; 15:3; 15:34; 18:3.189 If 1 Kgs 3:3 can be dismissed as evidence against the originality of the cultic notice in v. 2, it still remains to investigate in more depth the nature of v. 2 and its potential as an integral component of the HH. The major problem in v. 2 is the hanging particle qr (lectio difficilior) that does not follow well after 2:46–3:1 and regularly appears after a positive regnal evaluation (see below 6.4.1). *Third Reigns 3:2190 MNy plh_n [kai\ Zboc2e2] o( lao_j h}san qumiw~ntej (= Myr+qm) [ZBgoc2e2 add: kai\ qu&ontej (= Myxbzmw)] e0pi\ toi=j u(yhloi=j o#ti ou)k w)|kodomh&qh oi]koj tw~| o)no&mati kuri/ou e3wj nu~n Mhh Mymyh d( hwhy M#l tyb hnbn )l yk twmbb

(!)

Myr+qm M(h qr

HH 1 Kgs 3:2

Only the people kept burning incense-offerings at the bāmôt; for a temple had not been built for the name of YHWH until then.

There is no distinctly late or Deuteronomistic terminology in v. 2, with the possible exception of the expression “the name of YHWH.”191 However, this expression occurs in the Book of Deuteronomy in texts dated early and is well attested as a Near Eastern idiom.192 Commentators have pointed to the absence of the verb r+q (piel) in v. 2 in contrast to the standard cultic reports incorporating both xbz (piel) and r+q (piel), as in v. 3.193 However, the Vorlage of LXXB demonstrates a variant reading of Myr+qm in place of (or alongside of?) the MT’s Myxbzm.194 In addition, LXXL and LXXA read both qumiw~ntej and qu&ontej in reverse order (“and the people were making in189

See Särkiö (1994: 19), who regards 1 Kgs 3:3 as nomistic. Vaticanus omits plh_n o( lao_j h}san probably owing to scribal corruption. LXXL reads kai\ (= w instead of qr) in an attempt to provide a more fluid reading. If this restoration of 3:2 is accepted, then it forms an inclusion with the final cultic report of the HH at 2 Kgs 18:4aa, bgd, which also utilizes r+q (piel) by itself with the temporal phrase “until then” (hmhh Mymyh d() in an explanatory clause (see 8.3.2). 191 Särkiö 1994: 19. 192 Pakkala 1999: 153 n. 61, who points to Deut 12:11. For the Near Eastern background of the phrase, see Richter 2002: 127–205. In addition, the term o!noma “name” is absent from LXXB in 3:2, suggesting that the originality of Hebrew M#$ is questionable. 193 Provan 1988: 68–9; Carr 1991: 26 n. 70; Eynikel 1996: 52. 194 LXXB may be damaged, beginning immediately with qumiw~ntej after 2:46l. It may originally have read plh_n o( lao_j h}san qumiw~ntej e0n toi=j u(yhloi=j “only, the people kept making incense-offerings in the high places.” Kittel (1900: 25) maintained that the broken reading at 3 Reg 3:1 was the result of the insertions in the LXX at 3 Reg 2:46a–l. Since 3 Reg 2:46l does not belong with what precedes, however, it is possible that it formed the opening to Solomon’s account in the HH and has been preserved in the LXX. 190

254

Chapter Six: Solomon’s Account

cense-offerings and sacrificing”; cf. 1 Kgs 11:8), perhaps a conflate reading of the MT and LXX Vorlage. First Kings 3:2 would constitute the sole case of bāmôt serving as the object of the verb xbz (pi.) without r+q (pi.). If the LXX Vorlage read Myxbzm at v. 2, then this would be the only instance of qumia5w used for its translation. Consequently, I posit that the original text must have contained Myr+qm,195 and that it was either omitted and/or changed to Myxbzm due to interference from 1 Kgs 3:3–4 and subsequent regnal formulae (1 Kgs 11:8?).196 The evaluative nature of 1 Kgs 3:2 is consistent with the other cultic reports with favorable assessments. As with the notice in 3:2, the people (M(h) figure prominently in 1 Kgs 15:11; 3 Reg 16:28b = 1 Kgs 22:43; 2 Kgs 12:3; 14:3; 15:3; 15:34. Solomon is cleared of any wrongdoing for the people’s activity at the bāmôt, since this was the sole means of sacrificing to YHWH before the temple was constructed. Incidentally, it is is important to point out that the original opening to Solomon’s account does not provide a rationale for the implementation of cultic centralization. The bāmôt are not regarded as a Canaanite foil to the Judahite temple (contra Deut 12:2–7); they are simply an obsolete mode of YHWHistic cultic worship in 1 Kgs 3:2. This perspective is close to Deut 12:8– 12, which holds that territorial security was required before the ideal of cultic centralization could be achieved.197 That specific view in Deut 12:8–12 is nowhere found in explicit terms in the HH. Yet the similar lack of concern for Canaanite worship in both 1 Kgs 3:2 and Deut 12:8–12 is probably indicative of a pre-Dtr view of centralization that was in existence already since the late eighth/early seventh century B.C.E.198 The absence of a temple would not have excused the worship of Canaanite deities or the use of Canaanite cultic 195

That the verb r+q is primary over against xbz is indicated by two observations: first, the reading with the former by itself is indicated in not only LXXB but also the uncials AMN, all of the cursive mss besides the Lucianic witnesses and ms g, the Armenian version, and the Syro-hexapla (Brooke, McLean, and Thackeray 1930: 214). Second, the reading of r+q is supported in its position ahead of xbz in LXXL, suggesting that the latter verb was inserted as a correction under the influence of MT and the other regnal formulae with both verbs. 196 qumia5zw (or qumia5w) always stands as a translation for r+q (37x in the pi.; 25x in the hi.); the noun qwmi5ama translates the noun tr+q at least 37x (it renders the noun xbazE2 twice in the Hebrew Bible [not in Kings]); 16x in Kings: LXX 3 Reg 2:35g (= 1 Kgs 9:25); 3:2; 11:7 (= 1 Kgs 11:8); 16:28b (= 1 Kgs 22:44); 22:44; 4 Reg 12:4; 14:4; 15:4, 35; 16:4, 13; 17:11, 18:4; 22:17; 23:5, 8. epiquw also translates r+q 4x (3x in Kings: 1 Kgs 12:33; 13:1, 2 [only the Jeroboam-Bethel episode]). 197 For Deut 12:2–7, 8–12, see Chavel 2011: 308–9. 198 Kaufmann’s (1960: 174) view that 1 Kgs 3:2 is an authoritative interpretation of Deut 12:8–12 does not address the fact that the former text does not mention the motif of “rest,” which is not a standard element of the HH, figuring only at 1 Kgs 8:56 (post-HH; see below 6.4.3).

6.4. The Beginning of the HH in Relationship

255

emblems or practices prior to Solomon. If cultic purification was the focus of the Dtr redactors, its absence in 1 Kgs 3:2 is striking.

6.4. The Beginning of the HH in Relationship to 1 Kings 3:1–9:9, 24–25 It is important to draw out the implications of the beginning of the HHframework for reading the remainder of the account of Solomon’s reign. According to 1 Kgs 3:2, the construction of the temple is presented as a radical innovation against the background of the sacrificial practices at the bāmôt. It is Solomon, who is credited with making it possible to worship YHWH at the temple in Jerusalem alone (1 Kgs 6–7*; 8:1–12*). As a thorough investigation into the account of Solomon’s reign is beyond the scope of this study, I will restrict the focus of my inquiry to the relationship of 1 Kgs 3:2 to the most essential material bearing on sacrificial rites and the construction of the temple: the conveyance of Pharaoh’s daughter to Jerusalem (1 Kgs 3:1; 9:24–25); the account of the theophany at Gibeon (1 Kgs 3:4–15); and the construction of the temple in (1 Kgs 6:1–8:12). 6.4.1. 1 Kings 3:1 and 9:24–25 The immediate context surrounding 1 Kgs 3:2 is admittedly problematic (particularly for the MT) if one maintains that it is original.199 The cultic report is not fitting after the notice that Solomon established control over the kingdom in LXX 3 Reg 2:35 / MT 1 Kgs 2:46b, since other cultic reports of this kind follow after the regnal prologue and evaluation of the lauded Judahite king (1 Kgs 15:11, 14; 3 Reg 16:28b = 1 Kgs 22:43–44; 2 Kgs 12:2–4; 14:2–4; 15:2– 4; 15:34). No mention of temple construction or sacrifice occurs in 1 Kgs 1–2, with the result that such mention in 1 Kgs 3:2b is not prepared for in the context.200 Nor does the restrictive particle qr follow logically after the notice of Solomon’s marriage to Pharaoh’s daughter in v. 1, as it is unclear how the people’s cultic worship at the bāmôt functions as a restriction to the marriage.201 Talshir detects the only connection between v. 1 and v. 2 in their ref199 See Pakkala 1999: 153 n. 61: “v. 2 could stem from the history writer. On the other hand, v. 2, with its reference to Israelites sacrificing at the twmb, is very loose in its context, especially if one removes v. 3 as a later addition.” Pakkala does not discuss the possibilities that v. 2 originally succeeded LXX 3 Reg 2:46l or that the introduction to Solomon’s reign has been damaged through subsequent redaction leaving v. 2 without preparation. 200 The use of the terms tyb and xbz in 1 Kgs 1–2 pertain in the narrative context to dynastic or priestly succession (for tyb, see 2:24, 27, 31, 33 and for xbz, see 1:9, 19, 25). 201 Similarly, Van Keulen 2005: 63.

256

Chapter Six: Solomon’s Account

erence to the pre-temple era and, although she regards that connection as “artificial,” she nevertheless maintains that it is deliberate.202 Proof for Talshir is the structural comparison with 1 Kgs 9:24–25 (MT): But Pharaoh’s daughter went up from the city of David to her house, which he built for her; then he built the Millo. Solomon would offer three times in the year holocausts and communion offerings on the altar he built for YHWH and would make incense-offerings with it, which was before YHWH; so he finished the house.

Brettler, too, argues that the similarities in theme and vocabulary between 1 Kgs 3:1–2 and 9:24–25 suggest that they are related.203 He notes that both texts share the following phraseology: h(rp tb (3:1; 9:24), dwd ry( (3:1; 9:24) and tybh-t) Ml#w in 9:25b complements tyb hnbn-)l yk in 3:2b. While the connection between 9:24 and 9:25 is potentially early (though not necessarily original),204 in my view, 1 Kgs 3:1 is very late, and thus the bond between 3:1–2 and 9:24–25 is secondary. The connection between Pharaoh’s daughter and sacrifice at the temple in 1 Kgs 9:24–25 is paralleled at LXX 3 Reg 2:35f–g and 2 Chr 8:11–16 (MT/LXX), whereas that connection in MT 1 Kgs 3:1–2 is absent from LXX 3 Reg 2:35c and 3 Reg 5:14a, which do not demonstrate counterparts to 1 Kgs 3:1a (Ntx Dt-stem with Pharaoh) or 3:2 (the people at the bāmôt). The connection between 1 Kgs 3:1 and 3:2 is distinctive only to MT!205 First Kings 3:1 seems to have been transported from LXX 5:14a, where it was originally associated with the dowry of Pharaoh’s daughter (cf. MT 1 Kgs 9:16–17a).206 This transfer was done in order to 202

Talshir 2000: 236; cf. Porten 1967: 98–9; Brettler 1991: 90; Van Keulen 2005: 64–9, 78, 278. 203 Brettler 1991: 90; see Barrick 2001: 428–30. 204 The originality of MT 1 Kgs 9:24–25 is doubtful, since 9:24b and 9:25 are not attested in LXX. What corresponds to 9:24a in MT is found at 3 Reg 9:9a in LXX. Trebolle (1980: 305–6) demonstrates that 9:15–24 interrupts 9:10–14 and 9:26–28 in MT. He also points out the difficulty with the fact both 3 Reg 2:35k*.i.h.f.g and 2 Chr 8:3–16 parallel MT 1 Kgs 9:15–24 (idem 2007: 496–7). In addition, 2 Chr 8:11 matches the wording of LXX 3 Reg 9:9a over against MT (Trebolle 1980: 300). However, although 2 Chr 8:11–18 does not demonstrate a one-to-one correspondence in content with MT 1 Kgs 9:24–26, it does follow its structure and reflects the content of 9:25 in 2 Chr 8:12–16; see Trebolle 2007: 495; Person 2010: 112. 205 The absence of a parallel for 1 Kgs 3:1 in the Book of Chronicles led Auld (1994: 26, 55) to argue that a common source for Kings and Chronicles did not contain 1 Kgs 3:1; cf. Trebolle 1980: 296–300; idem 2007: 483–501. Talshir (2000: 236–8) argued that by repeating 1 Kgs 9:24–25 in 2 Chr 8:11–16, the Chronicler also assumed prior knowledge of 1 Kgs 3:1–2. Talshir’s view has been aptly criticized by Person (2010: 111), who observes that Chronicles makes sense without knowledge of 1 Kgs 3:1b. 206 Trebolle 1980: 298. Van Keulen’s (2005: 62–81) argumentation in contradiction to Trebolle’s conclusions is not persuasive, in my opinion, since Van Keulen’s text-critical methodology, following Wevers, Gooding, and Talshir, has not been properly established, in positing that the MT is earlier than the LXX owing to the former’s “inferior” comprehensi-

6.4. The Beginning of the HH in Relationship

257

highlight the role of intermarriage with Egypt in the subsequent demise of Solomon (cf. 1 Kgs 11:1 [MT/LXX]).207 The dubious status of MT 1 Kgs 3:1 and 3:3 as well as the illogical location of the particle qr in 1 Kgs 3:2 may be taken as evidence suggesting that the original regnal evaluation to which it was joined restrictively has somehow become lost. The lost regnal evaluation for Solomon was positive in nature, in keeping with the tenor of other Judahite evaluations followed by restrictive cultic reports on the bāmôt. Though admittedly reconstructed, the evaluation may originally have read as follows (which I designate here as HH 1 Kgs 3:1 together with the preceding formula from LXX 2:46l and the following cultic report that I have reconstructed above as HH 1 Kgs 3:2): hml# #(ywHH 1 Kgs 3:1] Ml#wryb hdwhyw l)r#y l( Klm dwd Nb hlm#LXX 2:46l yk twmbb Myr+qm M(h qrHH 1 Kgs 3:2 [wyb) dwd Krdb Klyw hwhy yny(b r#yh Mhh Mymyh d( hwhy tyb hnbn )l Solomon, son of David, reigned over Israel and Judah in Jerusalem. [HH 1 Kgs 3:1He did what was right in the eyes of YHWH and walked in the way of David, his father;] HH 1 Kgs 3:2 only the people kept making incense-offerings at the bāmôt, for the temple of YHWH had not been built until then. LXX 2:46l

bility and coherence at the macro-level and often favors Tendenzkritik over Literarkritik (ibid. 78); the same deficiency in methodology is found in Särkiö 1994: 17 and Turkanik 2008: 100, 141–2. Neither Van Keulen nor Turkanik (2008: 142–4) account for the fact that 2 Chr 8:11–12 agrees in content with LXX 3 Reg 9:9a over against MT 1 Kgs 9:24–25. Van Keulen’s position that the revisions in the LXX were carried out solely by a later Greek reviser and were not present in early oral or written Hebrew sources (ibid. 305) is criticized as extreme by Hugo (2006: 98) and by Law (2011: 285). Law also criticizes Van Keulen for confusing “revision” with “midrash” and that his “theory fails to resemble any acceptable model of the revisional history of the LXX” (ibid. 286). 207 Auld 1994: 26, 34; Särkiö 1994: 18–19 (3:1a = DtrN2; 3:1b = DtrN). Regarding MT 1 Kgs 3:1a, note the examples of Ntx (Dt-stem) with a negative connotation at Gen 34:9; Deut 7:3; Josh 23:12; 2 Chr 18:1; Ezra 9:14, regarding marriage to foreign women. David’s marriage to Saul’s daughter is a source of consternation for him and she never has children – 1 Sam 18:22, 23, 26, 27; 2 Sam 6:23; cf. the use of Ntx at Judg 15:6; 2 Kgs 8:27 (Ahab); Neh 6:18 (with Tobiah the Ammonite); 13:28; 2 Chr 18:1; cf. Exod 4:25f. and Numb 12:1. According to Noth (1968: 48) and Trebolle (1980: 297), MT 1 Kgs 3:1a is a pure gloss, as it is not reproduced in any of the other primary versions of Kings or Chronicles (it is attested at in the Hexapla, Alexandrinus, x, Armenian, and the Syro-hexapla). In addition, scholars hold that the mention of Pharaoh’s daughter in 1 Kgs 11:1 (MT/LXX) is late, since it is interposed awkwardly in its context with t)w; for example, see Burney 1903: 154; Stade and Schwally 1904: 121; Šanda 1911: 301; Montgomery and Gehman 1951: 231; Gray 1963: 253; Noth 1968: 239; Würthwein 1977: 131; Jones 1984: 233; Vanoni 1984: 87–8; Knoppers 1993: 141 n. d; Cogan 2000: 325–6; for a different view, see Barrick 2001: 432–3; Davidovich 2010: 73–7. However, given the fact that mention of Pharaoh’s daughter is found in both MT and LXX at 11:1, it probably occurred earlier there relative to MT 1 Kgs 3:1a.

258

Chapter Six: Solomon’s Account

The author(s) of the secondary evaluation in v. 3 and the negative portrayal of Solomon in ch. 11 possessed a palpable motive for omitting the original evaluation, namely, to refashion Solomon’s account negatively under the influence of Deut 7:1–6 and 17:14–20 (the topos of intermarriage with foreign wives). In addition, the later author(s) provided an alternate explanation for the rise of Jeroboam as owing to the defection of Solomon (over against the administrative flaws of Rehoboam; see 1 Kgs 12:1–20; 2 Chr 10:1–19; 13:5– 7) but postponed until the days of Rehoboam on account of YHWH’s leniency (1 Kgs 11:29–39; cf. Deut 7:9–10).208 6.4.2. The Theophany at Gibeon (HH-edition: 1 Kings 3:4–6a, 7–9, *11, 12ab, 13, *15) If one continues reading from 1 Kgs 3:2 to the story of YHWH’s appearance to Solomon in his dream at Gibeon (1 Kgs 3:4–15), a contradiction involving the locations for sacrifice to YHWH is observable. According to 1 Kgs 3:2, sacrifice was performed in multiple locations, because no temple had been constructed for offering holocausts to YHWH. The sacrifices to YHWH at Gibeon in 1 Kgs 3:4 accord with the view taken in 1 Kgs 3:2.209 According to 3:15, however, after YHWH appeared to Solomon, he returned to Jerusalem to make burnt offerings “before the Ark of the Covenant of Adonai.”210 The LXX reads differently at 3:15: “And he stood before the altar, which was before the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord in Zion.” As Schenker has demonstrated, the reading of the LXX is probably earlier than the MT, which removed the portions of 3:15 that were problematic for the notion of the centralized cult in Jerusalem.211 In mentioning the Ark of the Covenant and the altar of sacrifice facing each other in Zion (= the pre-Solomonic City of David), the LXX assumes that a sanctuary resembling the future Solomonic temple with shelter and protective walls already existed in the City of David (not the future site of the temple!). If sacrifices were offered in such a structure, then how could those performed for YHWH by Solomon and the people at other sanctuaries be tolerated? In response, the MT has eliminated in 3:15 the most difficult references involving Solomon’s sacrifice at Gibeon and Je208 For the “Deuteronomistic” relationship of 1 Kgs 11 to Deut 7:1–6, 9–10 (and Josh 23:2–16, esp. vv. 11–13), see Knoppers 1997: 392–410. Knoppers (ibid. 408) notes the significance of faulting Solomon for the division of the kingdom and Josiah’s account (2 Kgs 23:13–14) in order “to portray Josiah’s reform as striking at the heart of what ails Judah”; see idem 1994: 175–96. 209 According to Naʾaman (2009: 105–9), Gibeon was the greatest sanctuary in all of Judah, second only to Jerusalem. 210 As Carr (1991: 25–6) has argued, the use of Adonai in lieu of YHWH in association with the Ark of the Covenant is late; see also Wälchli 1999: 49. 211 Schenker 2000a: 90–3.

6.4. The Beginning of the HH in Relationship

259

rusalem (“before the altar”; “in Zion”), although the difficulties obtain on an implicit level in MT.212 Scholars are right to argue that a statement concerning Solomon’s sacrifices after YHWH appeared to him must have been included in the original version of this story on the basis of the Gattung of theophany (see Gen 12:7; 26:23–25; 28:10–22; Exod 3:1–6, 12; Judg 6:18–24; 13:15–20).213 Wälchli retains as original the statement “Solomon awoke and behold, it was a dream, and he offered burnt-offerings and made a feast for all of his servants” and removes as secondary “and he came to Jerusalem and stood before the Ark of the Covenant of Adonai.”214 A later hand inserted the idea that a change took place after the theophany at Gibeon, so that sacrifices to YHWH should be no longer be offered at Gibeon, but at Jerusalem.215 Figuring largely in the updated portion of 1 Kgs 3:15 is the Ark of the Covenant, which in line with 2 Sam 6 was brought to Jerusalem by David, who is mentioned immediately beforehand in the conditional promise at 1 Kgs 3:14. The mention of the Ark of the Covenant together with David is a later attempt to bring the story of Gibeon into conformity with a centralizing ideology but one at odds with the explanation found at 1 Kgs 3:2. In the latter text is found only a tolerance for sacrifice at multiple sanctuaries observed in the earlier story of Solomon’s theophanic dream at Gibeon (in contrast to 1 Kgs 3:15 and 2 Chr 1:3–5). The Ark of the Covenant and the altar of sacrifice at Jerusalem probably only figured into the Gibeon-story once Samuel and Kings were combined and the need arose to harmonize the accounts of the Ark and David with the accepted sacrifices at Gibeon. I conclude therefore that the beginning of the HH was composed through the assimilation of the earlier Gibeon-story as it was found in the History of Solomon (1 Kgs 3–10*).

212

1 Chr 21:26–30 and 2 Chr 1:3–5 go further by restricting sacrifice only to Gibeon, whereas the rites performed before the Ark of the Covenant were non-sacrificial (2 Chr 6:16–17; 16:14, 37–38; cf. Josh 22:10–34); see Japhet 1993: 528. 213 Carr 1991: 25, 42–6; Särkiö 1994: 22–3; Wälchli 1999: 50; Schenker (2000a: 90) notes that a reason is normally provided if the worshipper does not offer a sacrifice at the same moment when the theophany takes place (see Gen 28:20–22; Exod 3). It should be pointed out, however, that sometimes the actions of traveling to a destination and building an altar are not separated by a theophany (e.g,. Gen 13:18). As he points out for 1 Kgs 3, no reason is provided for why Solomon does not offer a sacrifice at Gibeon after YHWH’s appearance but returns to Jerusalem to sacrifice. 214 Wälchli 1999: 49–50; cf. Särkiö 1994: 22–3. 215 See Schenker 2000a: 91. The intended altar in Jerusalem in the view of this late insertion was perhaps the one that Joab touched for safety (1 Kgs 2:28–34) and may be equated with the altar that David had built, according to 2 Sam 24:18–19, 24–25 (cf. 6:13, 17). It is uncertain whether 1 Kgs 3:4 was added to expound 1 Kgs 3:3 and to reverse the order of sacrifice in the original story (from theophany-sacrifice to sacrifice[Gibeon]-theophanysacrifice[Jerusalem]).

260

Chapter Six: Solomon’s Account

As for the remainder of 1 Kgs 3 (esp. vv. 9–14), I agree with Wälchli that vv. 10, 11ab, 12aab, 14 are late.216 Regarding vv. 5–8, however, I hold against the prevailing view that only v. 6b is secondary to the edition of the Solomon-narrative that was incorporated into the HH. The view that vv. 6ab and 8 were also the work of a Deuteronomistic author goes back to Burney and has become the majority view.217 The alleged Deuteronomistic characteristics in v. 6ab involve the conditional nature of YHWH’s loyalty to David as well as elements of style. Noth regarded ynpl Klh in v. 6b as a Dtr phrase (see 1 Sam 2:30; 1 Kgs 2:4; 8:23, 25; 9:4; 2 Kgs 20:3; Ps 56:14; 116:9);218 however, the presence of this idiom may be a late addition to 3:6, as it stands in tension with the subsequent preposition M(. If the original idiom was Klh + M( “to walk with” it would correspond to YHWH’s demonstration of loyalty to David observed earlier in the same verse (M( + h#&().219 Noth also attributed the expression “in loyalty and in uprightness of heart” (hqdcbw bbl tr#$ybw) to Dtr style, observing similarities especially with Deut 9:5. However, Noth does not mention the parallel expression belonging to a royal context in the Karatepe inscription of Azatiwada (bṣdqy wbḥkmty wbnʿm lby “on account of my loyalty and my wisdom and the goodness of my heart, KAI 26:A I 12–13), and one is therefore justified in demanding more evidence for the preference of Dtr influence over the royal background.220 The conception in 1 Kgs 3:6 that YHWH’s loyalty is dependent on David reciprocating the same loyalty to YHWH is in no way restricted to Dtr texts. Rather, it was the deep-seated viewpoint on kingship in the ancient Near East as is recognizable in documents from the second and first millennia (see 4.3.3.2).221 In the inscription from Karatepe, political “loyalty” (ṣdq) is found in collocation 216

Wälchli (1999: 37–52) is somewhat different in retaining as original to the Solomonnarrative more of the elements pertaining to the theme of wisdom in 1 Kgs 3 (esp. vv. 9 and 11aab); contrast Görg 1975: 31; Würthwein 1977: 32; O’Brien 1989: 146 n. 59; Särkiö 1994: 23–4. 217 Burney 1903: 30–1; Noth 1968: 50–1: all of vv. 6–8; Würthwein 1977: 30, 35; Veijola 1982: 146 n. 8: DtrN: 6abgb, 7aa (ht(w), 8; O’Brien 1989: 147: 6abb, 7, 8; Carr 1991: 7– 30: vv. 6abb, 8; Särkiö 1994: 23–4: DtrN: 6abb, 7aa (ht(w), 8; Wälchli 1999: 221: DtrH: 6aabb, 7aa (ht(w), DtrN: 6abba, *8 (trxb r#$) Km(). One observes here the recent tendency to assign more of 1 Kgs 3:7–8 to the pre-Dtr-level. My view is not radical, since some commentators have assigned v. 6aa to the pre-Dtr Vorlage with its mention of YHWH’s loyalty to David. 218 Noth 1968: 50–1. 219 The addition of the preposition ynpl in 1 Kgs 3:6 may be due to the influence of 2:4; 8:23, 25; 9:4. The idiom M( dsx h#&( is not restricted to Dtr texts (see Gen 24:12, 14; Judg 8:35; 1 Sam 15:6; 2 Sam 3:8; 10:2). 220 See Seow 1984: 141–52. 221 Pace Carr 1991: 63. Carr imposes on 1 Kgs 3:6 a strict division between unilateral and reciprocal modes of loyalty from deity to king. However, recognizing that v. 6b stands in some tension with vv. 6a and 7a and is thus late diminishes the correlation between dynastic succession and the element of loyalty to YHWH that Carr emphasizes. Moreover, his

6.4. The Beginning of the HH in Relationship

261

scription from Karatepe, political “loyalty” (ṣdq) is found in collocation with “wisdom” (ḥkmh),222 whereas it is missing from the characterization of David in 1 Kgs 3:6. After contrasting himself with his father in 3:7, Solomon explicitly asks in 3:8 to acquire political understanding in his youth and in 3:12 YHWH grants him wisdom in addition to wealth and honor. Noth is correct to attribute 1 Kgs 3:6b to Dtr, since l dsx rm#$ is more common in Dtr texts (e.g., Deut 7:9, 12; 8:23; 1 Kgs 8:23; Ps 89:29, 38),223 and here it is unduly repetitive after the first mention of YHWH’s loyalty to David in v. 6a and differs in style from the latter. In the same way, the mention of Solomon’s succeeding David as king in v. 6b is redundant in light of v. 7a. The statement that YHWH placed Solomon on David’s throne in 3:6b is repeated in 1 Kgs 1:48 nearly verbatim suggesting that it is probably a later intertext.224 The view of Davidic piety in 3:6a, 7 is consistent with the mention of that king in the regnal framework of the HH, which places the Judahite kings in a relationship of reciprocating loyalty with YHWH (see 4.3.3.2). According to 1 Kgs 3:2, 15*, Solomon and the people could exhibit devotion to YHWH and perform sacrificial celebrations at the bāmôt.225 Subsequent Judahite kings could also remain loyal to YHWH as David (and Solomon) had done despite the fact that the people still sacrificed at the bāmôt (1 Kgs 15:11, 14; 3 Reg 16:28a; 2 Kgs 12:3–4; 14:3–4; 15:3–4, 34–35). A reconstructed HH-edition of the story of Solomon’s dream theophany at Gibeon thus may have included 1 Kgs 3:4–6a, 7–9, 11*, 12ab, 13, 15*. 6.4.3. The HH-Gibeon Story and the Construction of the Temple in 1 Kings 5:14–9:9 The account of Solomon’s reign in the HH included a version of the construction of the temple in 1 Kgs 5:14–8:66. The HH-edition probably included 3 Reg 5:14a–b; 1 Kgs 5:15a, 16, 20*, 22–25, 26b–27, 28b, 31–32; 6:2–10*, 15–

own arguments tend toward the reciprocal understanding of loyalty already in the pre-Dtr Vorlage: “pious kings are particularly favored by God and can ask the God(s) for whatever they want and receive it” (ibid. 50; italics mine). Royal “piety” is not to be defined as simply a matter of being the last king’s son but entails considerable other duties performed on behalf of a deity (see Knoppers 1996: 670–97; Wälchli 1999: 163, 186; Spieckermann 2010: 345–7). 222 See also KAI 215: 11. 223 See Veijola 1975: 52. 224 Noth 1968: 51; O’Brien 1989: 148. 225 If 1 Kgs 3:4 is secondary, as Schenker has argued (2000a: 91), then Solomon’s loyalty to YHWH may not yet have been demonstrated in the narrative through sacrifices prior to the theophany in Gibeon; differently, Carr 1991: 53–4.

262

Chapter Six: Solomon’s Account

36*; 7:15–41*; 8:1–6*, 12–13, 62, 63b.226 O’Brien maintained that Dtr was the first to bring about the connection between Solomon’s wisdom and the construction of the temple in 1 Kgs 5:21 and 26.227 He concluded therefore that the existence of a pre-Dtr edition of Solomon’s account is unlikely. Wälchli, too, maintained that the explicit connections between Solomon’s wisdom and his endeavor to construct the temple in 5:21, 26 belong to Deuteronomistic editing.228 However, he argued that Solomon’s construction of the temple in the pre-Dtr account was in fulfillment of YHWH’s promise to bless him with wealth.229 According to Wälchli, moreover, the task of constructing and maintaining the temple as well as undertaking the organization of the cult was one of the essential tasks of the ideal wise ruler in the ancient Near East, corresponding to what is found in the reconstructed pre-Dtr version of Solomon’s reign.230 The account of Solomon’s wisdom in 5:9–14 is bound together with 3 Reg 5:14a–b and 1 Kgs 5:15–32* to form the introduction to the account on the construction of the temple in 1 Kgs 6–8.231 Thus, one may conclude that YHWH’s promise to Solomon of wisdom and wealth in the story of the dream theophany at Gibeon prepared for the accounts of 1 Kgs 5–8. These accounts, together with those found in 3 Reg 9:9a; 1 Kgs 9:10–10:29*; 11:41, 43, formed part of the HH-edition of Solomon’s account. The caricature of Solomon in this material was thus entirely positive, portraying him as an ideal ruler of the Near East. Scholars have typically divided the positive image of Solomon in 1 Kgs 3– 10 from his negative caricature in ch. 11. Porten argued that 1 Kgs 3:4–10:29 could be divided into three sections involving Solomon’s justice and administration (3:4–4:19), building endeavors (4:20–9:23), and his wealth (9:26– 10:29), whereas the final section of Solomon’s account dealt entirely with the themes of sin and punishment (11:1–40).232 However, Noth argued for a twofold division of the Deuteronomistic account of Solomon’s reign into 3:3– 8:66 and 9:1–11:43.233 The material in the first section stresses how Solomon had obeyed YHWH’s will, whereas the latter section introduces his apostasy with a severe warning against forsaking YHWH. Both sections begin with a theophany of YHWH at Gibeon, and according to Noth the Deuteronomistic 226

My reconstruction of 1 Kgs 5–8 has made use of O’Brien 1989: 143–60; Hurowitz 1992: 172, 286–7; Wälchli 1999: 67–92, 119–20; Römer 2005: 100. 227 O’Brien 1989: 150. 228 Wälchli 1999: 76–9. 229 Ibid. 125. 230 Ibid. 129–63, 186–7. 231 Ibid. 191; see also Römer 2005: 101. Neither of these scholars mention 3 Reg 5:14a– b. 232 Porten 1967: 94–128 (esp. pp. 97, 128); see also Frisch 1991: 3–14; literature at Brettler 1991: 87 n. 1. 233 Noth 1981: 58, 60.

6.4. The Beginning of the HH in Relationship

263

author constructed the entire report of YHWH’s second appearance in 9:1–9 on analogy to the traditional story of theophany in 3:4–15.234 I conclude that together with 1 Kgs 8:14–61,235 the whole section is a later Deuteronomistic insertion into the Book of Kings to prepare for the destruction of the temple and discontinuation of the Davidic dynasty in 2 Kgs 24–25.236 In 1 Kgs 9:1–9, the destinies of David’s line and the temple depend on the obedience of his descendents to the “statutes,” “commandments,” and “judgments” given by YHWH (esp. 9:4–9; cf. 2:3–4; 3:3a, 14; 6:11–13; 8:58, 61). However, the idea of obedience to the statutes of YHWH as a condition for the continuation of the dynasty and temple is absent from the HH-framework. Davidic righteousness in the HH is not associated with such terminology but is rooted in the representation of the ideal ruler exemplified more broadly in the ancient Near East (contrast 1 Kgs 3:2 with 3:3a). Moreover, YHWH warns against worshiping other gods in 9:6–9, but here again this is a nonissue for the original epilogues belonging to the HH-framework. In the HHframework, an explicit fear of the future destruction of the temple or loss of dynasty is absent. I deduce that Solomon’s account in the HH probably did not contain texts adumbrating the final destruction of the temple or the termination of the Davidic line (e.g., 1 Kgs 2:3–4; 3:14; 8:14–58; 9:1–9; 11:39).

234

Ibid. 60. Noth’s structural division has been supported by Fichtner 1964: 155–7; Parker 1988: 19–27; idem 1991: 15–21; idem 1992: 75–91; Williams 1999: 49–66; Kratz 2000a: 168. Brettler (1991: 87–97) maintains that the unit hostile to Solomon begins not in 9:1 but in 9:26; however, his use of 3:1–2 and 9:24–25 to prove this point is unconvincing in my opinion (see above 6.4.1.). 235 See Burney 1903: 112; Wellhausen 1963: 268; Weinfeld 1972: 250; Würthwein 1977: 104; Noth 1981: 60; Jones 1984: 198; O’Brien 1989: 151; Hurowitz 1992: 286; Särkiö 1994: 101; Kratz 2000a: 168; Person 2002: 113–16; Römer 2005: 149. 236 Traditional scholarship has rightly maintained in my opinion that the entirety of 9:1–9 is exilic; see Wellhausen 1963: 268; Benzinger 1899: 65; Kittel 1900: 81–2; Stade and Schwally 12; Eissfeldt 1965: 301; Jepsen 1956: 20; Fichtner 1964: 155–7; Noth 1968: 195– 6; Dietrich 1972: 72 n. 35 (DtrN); Würthwein 1977: 104–6; Veijola 1982: 156 n. 58 (DtrN); Jones 1984: 209 (DtrN); Long 1984: 108–10; Albertz 1994: II, 393–5; Särkiö 1994: 99–103 (DtrN); Wälchli 1999: 121 (DtrN); Römer 2005: 100, 140, 149–50; pace Cross 1973: 287; Nelson 1981: 73–6; Provan 1988: 110 n. 50; Brettler 1991: 88; McKenzie 1991: 140; Halpern 1996: 155–67; Cogan 2000: 297. The evidence for the disunity of vv. 4–5 and 6–9 is slight (switch from singular to plural in v. 6; addresses switch from Solomon to the people in v. 6), as the two conditions form together a type of “Alternative-Predigt,” whereby a good alternative is opposed to a negative one; see Veijola 1982: 157; cf. Jer 7:1–15; 22:1–5; 17:19–27; 42:10–17.

264

Chapter Six: Solomon’s Account

6.5. Conclusions This chapter has comprised a search for the beginning of the HH in the Books of Samuel and Kings. In section 6.2, it was concluded that three main options exist for the literary relationship of Samuel to Kings: either the author of Kings was the author-redactor of Samuel, or Kings was written in continuation of Samuel, or the framework of Kings was composed as a work distinct from Samuel. I opted for the last option owing to the unique genres of which Samuel and Kings consist in addition to the fact that the chronological-moral framework cannot be traced from Samuel into Kings. In section 6.3, after investigating the chronological notices at 1 Sam 13:1; 2 Sam 2:10–11; 5:4–5; and 1 Kgs 2:11, I concluded that none of these notices demonstrate that Samuel originally joined the HH-framework as a single continuous work. The direction of redactional influence actually seems to work backwards from 1 Kgs 2:11 onto the notices in Samuel. David’s epilogue in 1 Kgs 2:10–11 followed by Solomon’s succession notice in 2:12 contain irregularities of style in contrast to the standard formulae of the HH-framework. The role that 1 Kgs 2:10–12 plays as the fulfillment of 2 Sam 7:12 also indicates that it may be a later composition that did not originally exist as part of the HH. The notice on Solomon’s control over his kingdom in 3 Reg 2:35/1 Kgs 2:46b was also dismissed as a likely introduction to the HH since it serves better as the conclusion to 1 Kgs 1–2. After producing these negative conclusions, I argued that 3 Reg 2:46l and 1 Kgs 3:2* could have compromised the original introduction to the HH-framework. In terms of style and content, 3 Reg 2:46l suits the standard elements of the framework just as 1 Kgs 3:2* matches the cultic reports of the Judahite kings down to the account of Hezekiah’s reign. The elements standard in the Judahite prologues, – the name of the queen mother, regnal year total(?), and evaluation – are now lost in Solomon’s introduction owing to the later connection of 1 Kgs 1–2 to 3–10 (11). Finally, in section 6.4, I discussed the relationship of the framework to Solomon’s account, in particular, the story of the dream theophany at Gibeon (1 Kgs 3) and the account of the construction of the temple (1 Kgs 5–8).237 The reference to Pharaoh’s daughter in 3:1 (post-Dtr) as well as the evaluation and second cultic report in 3:3 are later additions. The former is awkward in its context and is only attested in the MT (cf. 3 Reg 5:14a), while the elements of 1 Kgs 3:3 are incompatible with the evaluative notices of the HHframework. In a similar vein, the act of sacrificing in a enclosed structure in 237 HH-edition: 3 Reg 2:46l; 1 Kgs 3:2*, 4–6a, 7–9, 11*, 12ab, 13, 15*, 16–28; 5:2–3, 6–14; 3 Reg 5:14a–b; 1 Kgs 5:15a, 16, 20*, 22–25, 26b–27, 28b, 31–32; 6:2–10*, 15–36*; 7:15–41*; 8:1–6*, 12–13, 62, 63b; 3 Reg 9:9a; 1 Kgs 9:10–10:29*; 11:41, 43. Post-HH: 1 Kgs 3:1, 3–4, 6b, 10, 12aab, 14; 5:4–5, 15b, 17–19, 21, 26a, 28a, 29–30; 6:1, 11–13; 7:1–12; 8:7–11, 14–61, 63a, 64–66; 9:1–9; 11:1–40, 42.

6.5. Conclusions

265

the City of David before an altar opposite the Ark of the Covenant in 3:15 conflicts with the traditional story of the dream theophany at Gibeon, in line with the view that sacrifice to YHWH was tolerated in the Judahite bāmôt. In addition, the mention of the reciprocating loyalty between YHWH and David in 3:6a probably belonged to the HH-edition of the Gibeon story, as it is line with the notion of loyalty in the Davidic comparisons of the framework. Lastly, it was concluded that the representation of Solomon as an ideal ruler in terms of his wisdom and his ability to construct the temple of YHWH was perhaps incorporated into the HH for its significance for the rest of the history. In terms of ideology of the HH, the construction of the temple is presented as a radical break from the earlier tolerance for the sacrificing at the bāmôt (see 1 Kgs 3:2; contrast 3:15; 1 Chr 21:26–30; 2 Chr 1:3–5). Solomon is depicted in entirely positive terms, as he is rewarded with wisdom, wealth, and honor. Only in the post-HH editions of Kings would Solomon’s account have become a platform for foreshadowing explanations of the fall of Jerusalem, the destruction of the temple, and the cessation of Davidic kingship (1 Kgs 3:14; 6:11–13; 8:14–53; 9:1–9; 11:1–40). In the following chapter (7), I discuss the account of the division of the southern and northern kingdoms in the HH.

Chapter Seven

The Story of the Division of the Kingdom 7.1. Introduction It is necessary to trace the continuation of the HH-framework from its onset in the account of Solomon (3 Reg 2:46l–3:2) and beyond. The next manifestation of the framework does not come into view until the source citation for Solomon and his death and burial notices in 1 Kgs 11:41, 43, as expected. However, because the prologue to Rehoboam’s account does not follow Solomon’s epilogue in the MT, this presents a potential problem for tracing the framework throughout the account of the division of kingdom in MT 1 Kgs 11–14. The next sign of the framework occurs neither, as scholars are wont to imagine, at 1 Kgs 12:25–32, the report of Jeroboam’s establishment of the cult at Bethel and Dan, nor at 1 Kgs 14:21–24, the prologue to Judah’s/Rehoboam’s history. It occurs instead at 3 Reg 12:24a in the doublet account of the division of the kingdom (12:24a–z). In this account, one observes the unbroken passage from the concluding formulae for Solomon to the opening formulae of Rehoboam’s account. Only a few scholars have taken seriously the consideration that the regnal formulae at 3 Reg 12:24a represent an earlier (pre-Dtr) piece of the framework (see below 7.2), rendering it necessary to carry out a careful study of this text. The investigation in 7.4 of the Short Account (SA) of the division of the kingdom in 3 Reg 12:24a–z (translation at 7.3) leads me to conclude that it constitutes a similar exemplar of the story of the division as it would have appeared in the HH. The regnal formulae as well as the account of the division in the SA cohere more with the HHframework at nearly every point and are more internally consistent than the corresponding formulae at 1 Kgs 14:21–24 and the parallel account of the division in 1 Kgs 11–14. The account in 3 Reg 12:24a–z lays the groundwork for the ensuing contrast between the northern and southern kingdoms. The lasting Davidic house remains the favorite of YHWH while the northern houses who defect from the Davidic king incur the tragic consequences of following Jeroboam (see below 7.5).

7.2. Summary of Research

267

7.2. Summary of Research The earlier phases of research on 3 Reg 12:24a–z focused predominantly on its merit for the reconstruction of the history of the division of the kingdom. Scholars were predisposed to value the Greek edition as an authentic source useful for the study of the fraction of the early monarchy.1 Thenius employed that edition as a legitimate source for reconstructing the original account of the conflict between Rehoboam and Jeroboam, preferring the details of 3 Reg 12:24x over MT 1 Kgs 12:21.2 Klostermann recognized in 3 Reg 12:24a–z the original form of the Rehoboam history from which the later redactor of Kings excerpted materials.3 Ranke maintained that the Greek version was historically credible, although he was disinclined to amalgamate the MT and short account and viewed them as separate traditions.4 Winckler opined that the Greek version represented a form of the prophetic oracles before they were subsequently edited.5 In particular, the placement of the reports on Jeroboam’s fleeing and Ahijah’s condemnation of the Jeroboam’s house before his royal designation make better sense than the MT’s placement after his designation (1 Kgs 11:29–31). Benzinger held that the Hebrew and Greek versions comprise two diverse traditions stemming from a common source and that the latter retains a more pristine form.6 Cheyne made use of the Lucianic version to produce a “genuine comprehension” of the history of Jeroboam’s rise to power.7 Hrozný concluded that 3 Reg 12:24a–z is a composition of significant historical value, emphasizing that it is void of Deuteronomistic expressions.8 Gray saw evidence that the short account was an independent northern tradition, but that it had been reworked by a Judean editor responsible for describing Jeroboam’s mother as a harlot and for the tradition 1

The early research into the nature of 3 Reg 12:24a–z is reviewed extensively in Debus 1967: 68–80. 2 Thenius 1873: 183. 3 Klostermann 1887: 341. 4 Ranke 1883: 11–12; similarly, Knoppers 1993: 173–4. 5 Winckler 1892: 11–14. 6 Benzinger 1899: 82, 94; see also Burney 1903: 167–8; Olmstead 1913: 25. Olmstead held that the Old Latin version (contained in the work of Lucifer of Cagliari) comprised the earliest stage of the development of the account of the division of Israel and Judah, followed in order by the Greek versions and finally by the MT. 7 Cheyne 1901: 2402–5. In some cases, Cheyne’s historical reconstruction of Jeroboam’s life plays fast and loose with the evidence of both versions, considering Jeroboam’s mother to have been north Arabian and that it was to her homeland that Jeroboam fled instead of to Egypt. Seebass (1967: 325–33) argued that the description of Jeroboam and other reports in 3 Reg 12:24b.c.f.o–z are useful for the historical interpretation of the division of the kingdom. 8 Hronzý 1909: 41; see also Olmstead 1913: 30–33. Olmstead took the extreme view that the Deuteronomistic expressions were for the most part post-Septuagintal.

268

Chapter Seven: Story of the Division of the Kingdom

of Jeroboam’s marriage to Pharaoh’s daughter.9 “Other details, representing genuine North Israelite tradition, are worth consideration.”10 At the same time, other scholars opposed the view that the short account of the division of the kingdom possessed any historical value. Keil argued that additions in 3 Reg 12:24a–z “are nothing more than a legendary supplement made by an Alexandrian.”11 Kittel regarded the short account as erroneous and ill-considered in terms of narrative cohesion, expressed in the manner of late midrash.12 Meyer advocated strongly that the account of the assembly at Shechem in MT 1 Kgs 12:1–24 was the original and that the Greek version was a disfigured and abbreviated reworking.13 He pointed out that the time allotted between Solomon’s death and the assembly at Shechem is too prolonged, as a large interval would be required for Jeroboam to return from Egypt, fortify Ephraim, and suffer condemnation against his descendents from Ahijah. In the MT, Jeroboam also plays a minor role in the assembly, while in the Greek version he summons the tribes of Israel to convene.14 Meyer’s view came to form the majority opinion in subsequent scholarship. For example, Šanda was of the opinion that the Greek version did not possess historical credibility, although he regarded the two accounts – one Deuteronomistic (MT) and the other non-Deuteronomistic (3 Reg 12:24a–z) – as going back to an original source.15 Montgomery argued on historical grounds that the MT version was more original than the Greek version, since it was too critical of Jeroboam, lacking the “cool objectivity” of the MT.16 Gooding contrasted the account of the assembly of Shechem in MT 1 Kgs 12 with 3 Reg 12:24nb–u, arguing that the MT was a fully coherent account without the need for correction or amputation.17 Debus regarded 3 Reg 12:24a–z as a historical source

9

Gray 1963: 286–8. Ibid. 288. 11 Keil 1865: 145 n. 1. 12 Kittel 1900: 106–7. Kittel notes in particular the young age of Rehoboam (sixteen), Jeroboam’s marriage to Pharaoh’s daughter, how Jeroboam’s dynasty is cursed before he is king and has committed any misdeed, that the scene with the torn garment is interpolated in the middle of the account of the assembly at Shechem, and that Jeroboam is present at the assembly but is not proclaimed to be king. 13 Meyer 1906: 363–70. 14 Ibid. 364. 15 Šanda 1911: 375–8; see also Noth 1981: 133 n. 31. 16 Montgomery and Gehmen 1951: 253–4. Montgomery did allow that the short account recalls an early form of the MT and thus “may serve at times for text-correction.” 17 Gooding 1967: 173–89. In the standard LXX, the parenthetical statement in 12:2–3a closes after the words “Jeroboam resided in Egypt”; in the MT, it extends as far as the words “and they sent and called him.” According to Gooding (ibid. 180–82), the apodosis following the parenthetical statement is found in 12:3: “then Jeroboam and all the assembly of Israel came and spoke to Rehoboam saying.” Those who call for Jeroboam in MT 1 Kgs 12:3, 10

7.2. Summary of Research

269

inferior to the MT, although he did consider it to possess immense literary qualities.18 He drew an important distinction between investigating the Greek version for its worth as a historical document and discerning marks of textual divisions (Literarkritik), elevating the latter to first place in terms of methodological procedure.19 As a result, he concluded that 3 Reg 12:24a–z represents a pre-Dtr stage of the account of the division of the kingdom.20 He was also critical of earlier scholars who described the Greek version as “midrashic,” pointing out that in contrast to the homiletic and even poetic expansions of Midrash in line with a parent text, 3 Reg 12:24a–z contradicts the MT in terms of structure and content and is much shorter in length.21 Noth dismissed the Septuagintal “plus” as a strange and arbitrarily formed account, hardly permissible for reconstructing historical events or an original account.22 Gordon concluded that there were “midrashic” features in 3 Reg 12:24a–z and that the historical material was either of uncertain origin or unreliable.23 Trebolle provided a groundbreaking investigation on the relationship of the two accounts of the division of the kingdom in MT 1 Kgs 11–12, 14 and in 3 Reg 12:24a–z.24 He departed radically from earlier studies in his critique of those who posed the question of whether the Greek version is “history or midrash.”25 He contended that it is difficult to imagine that an author could compose on the basis of the MT version a “midrash” sufficiently old and authoritative so as to have been incorporated in the LXX. Nor does 3 Reg 12:24a–z adhere to the analogical principles established in the rabbinical “derash.” In light of new texts coming to the light from Qumran, Trebolle raised the issue of deciding between various Vorlagen of the account of the division. In his view, Between the definitive redaction of Kings in the sixth century BCE and the definitive fixation or “standardization” of its text in the second or first centuries BCE, mediates a large period of

Gooding argues, are not the same as the leaders of the assembly. The group in 1 Kgs 12:20 is the ten tribes of Israel, who call the second assembly for Jeroboam’s coronation. 18 Debus 1967: 90. 19 Ibid. 81; see also Vanoni 1984: 21 (n. 40), 22. 20 According to Debus (1967: 85–6), the epilogue to Rehoboam’s account in 3 Reg 12:24a belonged to a first Deuteronomistic edition of Kings (distinct from Jepsen’s RI, as the latter is non-Dtr), whereas the formulae in 1 Kgs 14:21–24* belonged to a secondary Deuteronomistic edition. 21 Ibid. 80. 22 Noth 1968: 270–71. 23 Gordon 1975: 393. 24 Trebolle 1980. 25 Ibid. 9–12.

270

Chapter Seven: Story of the Division of the Kingdom

less than five centuries, during which the text was transmitted and in a state of fluidity or of plurality of textual types.26

The textual “landscape” is not to be telescoped into one text type (protoMasoretic) but is to be appreciated for its diversity of textual traditions. The Greek edition of Kings is indicative of distinct redactional and compositional activity and not merely textual transmission, thus requiring both textual and literary methods of criticism.27 Trebolle made a detailed investigation of both MT 1 Kgs 11–12, 14 and LXX 3 Reg 12:24a–z and concluded that the latter preserves a preDeuteronomistic version of the account of the division of the kingdom. According to his reconstruction, the original story of Jeroboam’s flight to and return from Egypt and the assembly at Shechem is retained in 12:24b– da.f.nb.p–x, which corresponds to MT 1 Kgs 11:26–28*, 40; 12:2* (after LXX 11:43*); 12:1*, 3b–14*, 16*, 18b*, 20*, 21*, 25, 28–29, 30b, 32*. At an early compositional stage, grafted into the original story were the prophetic actions and speeches of Ahijah and Shemiah in 3 Reg 12:24g–l.mb.o corresponding to MT 12:29–31a; 14:1–2ba, 3–6, 12, 13aa, 17–18a.28 A redactional addition (still pre-Deuteronomistic) came into the prophetic speech of Ahijah at 3 Reg 12:24ma corresponding to MT 14:10ab–11.29 The latest redactional phases may be detected in the report of Jeroboam’s marriage to Pharaoh’s daughter at 3 Reg 12:24db–e and the report on Rehoboam’s disabled attempt to fight against Jeroboam at 3 Reg 12:24x–z, which nearly reduplicates MT 1 Kgs 12:21–24*.30 Like Hrozný and Debus, Trebolle pointed out the difficulty in maintaining that the author of the Greek version had purged the Deuteronomistic phrases recognized in the MT.31 The retrospective motivations (Begründungen) are absent from the prophetic speeches of Ahijah and Shemiah at 3 Reg 12:24m.o, as they were subsequently added by a Deuteronomistic hand. In the account of the assembly at Shechem, certain phrases in the MT version are absent from the short account that are late Judahite and are connected with 2 Kgs 17:21–23.32 While Trebolle’s discussion of Deuteronomistic material is 26 Ibid. 10. Shenkel (1968: 3) had expressed, too, that the same methods used for comparing the alternative editions in the Greek and MT witnesses involving 1–2 Samuel could be used profitably for the Book of Kings. 27 Vanoni (1984: 22) has taken issue with Trebolle’s methodology, maintaining that the MT and LXX-Plus are incompatible and stand far apart; so Ranke 1883: 11. Vanoni (1984: 23) also warns against mixing text criticism and literary criticism, though he admits that the barrier between them is not constructed with ease. 28 Trebolle 1980: 143–7, 149–63. 29 Ibid. 156. 30 Ibid. 121, 148–9. 31 Ibid. 9, 129, 152, 174, 184–5. 32

Ibid. 132, 178–80. Secondary is the phrase “For at Shechem all Israel had come to coronate him [Rehoboam]” at 1 Kgs 12:1. MT repeats the word “Shechem” in v. 1 forming

7.2. Summary of Research

271

not comprehensive, he does draw attention to some significant differences between the Deuteronomistic elements found in MT and the opposing structure of the account in 3 Reg 12:24a–z. Whereas the Deuteronomistic motivations explain Jeroboam’s rise to power as a consequence of Solomon’s behavior involving the foreign cult (1 Kgs 11:1–38), in the Greek version Jeroboam’s rebellion occurs in the account of the Rehoboam’s reign (3 Reg 12:24a) and is not construed as a corollary to Solomon’s behavior.33 Like Debus, Trebolle suggests that 12:24a represents an earlier Deuteronomistic redaction of the framework that was later supplanted by the formulae at MT 14:21–24*.34 Significant for this discussion is the fact that Trebolle criticized scholars who worked on the regnal framework of Kings – e.g., Bin-Nun and Weippert – for neglecting the variant reading at 3 Reg 12:24a.35 His work thus demonstrates the need for a more painstaking study of the relationship of the SA to the regnal framework. McKenzie criticized the use of the term “midrash” as a description of 3 Reg 12:24a–z (the “supplement”), noting that it is in the “Old Greek, one of the earliest and best witnesses for the text of Kings.”36 He maintains that the “supplement” is potentially significant for the compositional history of Kings. In his analysis of the literary units of the SA, however, he concludes that it was composed “on the basis of the MT to provide the story of Jeroboam’s an account that is less fluid than LXX 12:24nb (“Shechem”; “there”; “there”); “all Israel” is found in place of “the tribe of Israel” (24n); “to proclaim king” in MT 12:1 is based on v. 20. The fulfillment notice at MT 12:15b is absent from LXX 12:24q–s. Contrasting LXX 12:24u.x. with MT 12:16b–22, Trebolle (ibid. 180) notes that MT 12:17 is unknown to the both the standard LXX 12:17 and the other account at 3 Reg 12:24u; see, however, 2 Chr 10:17; “the king” (2x) in MT 12:18 is from a late Judahite hand; MT 12:19–20 are inserted between a repetition of Rehoboam going to Jerusalem (the second occurrence in MT 12:21 [ketiv is singular] corresponds with LXX 12:24u [singular]); “Israel transgressed against the House of David” in MT 12:19 is an editorial comment like 2 Kgs 1:1; 3:5 (= late Judahite view); see Montgomery and Gehmen 1951: 348; Noth 1968: 279; Gray 1970: 307; MT 12:20 only mentions Judah, namely, the “one tribe” for the successor of Solomon (see 1 Kgs 11:32, 36). 33 Ibid. 175–80. In the MT, the opening formulae for Rehoboam are delayed until after 1 Kgs 14:20. 34 Trebolle 1980: 108; idem 2000: 483. Trebolle (ibid. 182–4) draws a similar distinction between the cultic motivation for the events in the MT account and the more profane characterization of the Greek version. However, Debus (1967: 85–6) maintained that 3 Reg 12:24a was influenced by Deuteronomy and was therefore still aware of cultic centralization. If 3 Reg 12:24a is indicative of a Deuteronomistic regnal framework prior to the MT, as Trebolle maintains, would not its moralizing-cultic force also be present in the pre-Masoretic account of 3 Reg 12:24a? The question remains then as to whether 3 Reg 12:24a should be distinguished from 1 Kgs 14:21–24 in terms of Deuteronomistic influence or the lack thereof. 35 Trebolle 1980: 84; idem 2000: 481. 36 McKenzie 1991: 28. It also occurs in the OL, which is based on an OG exemplar.

272

Chapter Seven: Story of the Division of the Kingdom

sick son for the Vorlage of the Old Greek,” as the latter lacked such a story.37 The Greek version cannot therefore be used as evidence for a pre-Dtr version of Kings, though such a level of redaction cannot be ruled out otherwise.38 McKenzie observes the presence of Dtr language in the regnal formulae at 3 Reg 12:24a and maintains that the irregularities of the formulae lead to the conclusion that it is a secondary imitation.39 Jeroboam’s history is not embedded within regnal formulae for his own account but follows directly after Rehoboam’s prologue. In addition, the information on Rehoboam’s age at accession (“sixteen”) and the genealogical details regarding his mother (an Ammonite princess) are not historical, and therefore in apparent contrast to 1 Kgs 14:21, these details cannot be derived from an archival source. The expression “he did not walk in the way of David his father” occurs nowhere else for a Judahite king, demonstrating that the formula has been composed in imitation. The irregular separation of Solomon’s epilogue (11:40–43) from Rehoboam’s prologue (1 Kgs 14:21–24) as well as the absence of the anomalous formulae (e.g., “and Rehoboam son of Solomon reigned in Judah” in 1 Kgs 14:21a) from 3 Reg 12:24a are, McKenzie argues, evidence that the characteristics of the prologue are imitative of the regular pattern of formulae.40 He also raises the question about the relationship of 3 Reg 12:24a to the rest of the story of the division in 12:24b–z and points out that whereas §a (as well as §§x–z) focuses on “Rehoboam and Judah,”41 the remainder of the short account, especially §§b–nb, centers on the history of Jeroboam and Ephraim.

37 Ibid. 39; see also Sweeney 2007: 183, 191. It is unclear why a preference given to one story above others to explain the inclusion of the SA in the OG (similarly, Talshir 1993: 158 nn. 45 and 46). According to McKenzie, it is not obvious why the Vorlage of the Old Greek lacked the story about Jeroboam’s sick son. The other possibility is that once the story about Jeroboam’s sick son was added in 3 Reg 12:24a–z, the subsequent doublet account at 3 Reg 14 may have been omitted for sake of narrative coherence as it is the only repeated parallel of the SA post 3 Reg 12:24z; see Trebolle 1980: 464 n. 344; Talshir 1993: 158; Schenker 2000b: 222 n. 11. 38 Similarly, Toews 1993: 26–8. 39 McKenzie 1991: 38–9. He does not discuss why a later author would have employed Dtr formulae without imitating the expressions that relate to cultic centralization and monolatry; see Debus 1967: 85–6; Trebolle 1980: 182–4. 40 If an adequate literary explanation can be provided for why no other prologue belonging to a Judahite king possesses the expression “he did not walk in the way of David, his father” in §a, then the irregularity would not necessarily constitute a contradiction indicative of secondary status. 41 Ibid. 39. Actually, 3 Reg 12:24a never mentions that Rehoboam ruled over Judah (contra MT 14:21: hdwhyb); it only mentions that he ruled in Jerusalem, allowing for the possibility that he ruled over all Israel (= Judah, Benjamin, and the ten northern tribes) from the capital in Jerusalem (cf. 3 Reg 2:46l; 2 Sam 5:5 [LXX]); see Schenker 2000b: 235; pace Talshir 1993: 185.

7.2. Summary of Research

273

For the most part, Knoppers follows Trebolle in his view of the relationship of MT 1 Kgs 11–12; 14 and LXX 3 Reg 12:24a–z.42 He sees value in the SA for textual criticism and for recovering an earlier version of the division of the kingdom and maintains that the MT and SA represent two distinct redactional traditions. He regards the condemnation of Jeroboam’s descendents in 3 Reg 12:24o as a more archaic form of the prediction of Jeroboam’s rule over the northern tribes than the version in MT 1 Kgs 11:29–39, which in his opinion is a wholly Deuteronomistic composition.43 Significant for the present study is Knoppers’ acceptance of the priority of the sequence of events narrated in 3 Reg 12:24a–f over MT 1 Kgs 11:40–12:3. The former presents Solomon’s epilogue and Rehoboam’s prologue ahead of Jeroboam’s flight and return, an order different from that of the MT, which detaches Rehoboam’s succession notice from his prologue (cf. 1 Kgs 11:43b and 14:21) and interrupts the report of Jeroboam’s flight and return (cf. 11:40 and 12:3) with Solomon’s epilogue (11:41–43).44 “The transposition of these formulaic accession notices from their natural context evidently triggered later corruption in the textual traditions represented by KM [MT] and KG [standard LXX].”45 The MT focuses on Jeroboam’s ascent to power, which covers the accounts of Solomon and Rehoboam; according to Knoppers, this explains delays narrating Rehoboam’s account until the treatment of Jeroboam is concluded (1 Kgs 11:26–14:20). The latter part of Solomon’s account and Rehoboam’s prologue are governed by an interest in Jeroboam.46 Moreover, the MT emphasizes Solomon’s blame and reduces Jeroboam’s culpability not only through YHWH’s use of Jeroboam as effective instrument to punish Solomon (1 Kgs 11:11, 14) but also through YHWH’s direct support of Jeroboam to begin a new dynastic house “on the same footing as the southern kingdom under the Davidids.”47 Talshir has undertaken the most careful exposition of the account in 3 Reg 12:24a–z to date, providing a critical reconstruction and translation of its Hebrew Vorlage and a discussion of major interpretive issues pertaining to structure and to the relationship of the SA to the rest of Kings.48 While not ruling out the possibility that the SA represents an earlier version of the division of the kingdom, she is persuaded that its composition was dependent on the Vorlage of the standard LXX (rather than an MT text-type) and thus represents a 42

Knoppers 1993: 172–223. Ibid. 185. 44 Ibid. 209–10. 45 Ibid. 211. According to Knoppers, “the sequence of the supplement more readily explains the MT than vice versa” (ibid. 211 n. 68). 46 Ibid. 165. 47 Ibid. 186. 48 Talshir 1993. 43

274

Chapter Seven: Story of the Division of the Kingdom

late midrashic composition.49 Regarding the regnal formulae in 3 Reg 12:24a, Talshir argues that the syntax of the Vorlage of the short account (waw + noun + QATAL) demonstrates that Solomon’s epilogue does not continue or conclude a previous unit but denotes the independent status of LXX 12:24a– z.50 She suggests that §a is not a redactional addition to the short account but is essential to prepare the reader for Rehoboam’s appearance in the story.51 However, her explanation for the omission of the cultic report in MT 14:22– 24 from LXX 12:24a is not satisfactory. According to Talshir, The alternative story does not deal with the history of Judah; it limits itself to the division of the kingdom. It is on Rehoboam that the author concentrates. Later in his story he makes plain that Rehoboam is to blame for the loss of the northern tribes (§t).52

The concentration of the SA on Rehoboam does not establish, however, that LXX 12:24a must lack the mention of the people’s cultic misdeeds. Typically, the cultic report involving the mention of the people’s behavior at the bāmôt occurs immediately after the mention of the king’s evaluative formulae (see above 5.2 and 6.3.5). Schenker wrote an article in which he set out to test the results of Talshir’s study on the short account of the division of the kingdom in 3 Reg 12:24a–z (which he designates “The History of the Two Ambitions,” i.e., of Jeroboam’s usurpation and Rehoboam’s foolish pride = HA). Though conceding that the priority of MT 1 Kgs 11–12 and 14 or LXX 3 Reg 12:24a–z could not be proven in either direction, he argued that the latter “seems to be an original account, reworked for an edition preserved in the MT.”53 Furthermore, the SA was the source used not by the editor of the MT version but also by the Chronicler. As for the “Deuteronomistic” nature of 12:24a, Schenker suggests that inasmuch as Judges and Samuel are Deuteronomistic – that is to say, in 49

According to Talshir (ibid. 261–76), the standard LXX account of 3 Reg 11:14–12:24 relies on the MT version, so that the short account in 3 Reg 12:24a–z is actually two stages removed from the MT. 50 Ibid. 42, 157, 185, 246–8. 51 Ibid. 247–8. Talshir’s criticizes earlier scholarship for using the redactional status of §a as evidence that the story in §§b–u is pre-Dtr, rejecting the assumption that “the redactional elements in the MT absent from the alternative story prove that the latter predates the Dtr. redaction, while the redactional elements extant in the alternative story are additions to an original story!” It is necessary to appreciate, however, the complexity of the argument that distinguishes multiple redactions and does not assign all redactional material to a single (Dtr) level. If one accepts that 3 Reg 12:24a is earlier than the redactional elements at 1 Kgs 14:21, then this relative scheme may be used as evidence to date §§b–u to a pre-Dtr milieu. Talshir herself allows that MT 14:21–24 may not have been in the Vorlage of the author of LXX 12:24a and that the former “is undoubtedly part of a late stage in the composition of the Book of Kings” (ibid. 245). 52 Ibid. 246. 53 Schenker 2000b: 256.

7.2. Summary of Research

275

the sense that those books present a narrative substance that is only retouched periodically with Deuteronomistic alterations – so is the account in §§b–z framed by the formulae in §a.54 Schenker assigns the reference to Judah’s worship of other deities in 1 Kgs 14:22–24 to the same level as the standard Judahite regnal formulae in 1 Kgs 15:12–14; 22:44; 2 Kgs 12:4; 14:4; 15:4, 35 (also 2 Kgs 21:16; 22:17; 23:25–27) without contemplating the potential relationship of 3 Reg 12:24a to those same formulae.55 Sweeney argued that synchronically the standard LXX text-type (designated by him as “LXXA”) and the short account in 3 Reg 12:24a–z (“LXXB”) “must be read in relation to each other in the present form of the Greek text.”56 Diachronically, the SA is a derivation of the earlier Vorlage of the MT and standard-LXX versions. The SA (“LXXB”) was written in the Hasmonean Era in the second-to-first-century B.C.E. to confront interpretative issues inherent to the MT and standard Greek (“LXXA”) versions;57 more specifically, the question of Rehoboam’s and Jeroboam’s characterizations as well as the question of YHWH’s stance toward Jeroboam. The SA, according to Sweeney, portrays Rehoboam as an immature sixteen-year-old descended from the Ammonite king, Hanun, who shamed David’s delegates, condemns Jeroboam as an upstart in league with Egypt and for fomenting revolt against Rehoboam, and replaces YHWH’s/Ahijah’s provisional legitimation of Jeroboam’s rebellion against the House of David in MT/standard-LXX 11:29– 38 with a lack of divine support for his attempt at the throne. There are difficulties with Sweeney’s view that the SA must be read with the standard LXX. He maintains that because the fulfillment notice at 3 Reg 15:29 in reference to the prophecy against Jeroboam’s house would not make sense without the story of Jeroboam’s sick son in the SA, it must refer to the latter story.58 This scenario assumes that MT 1 Kgs 14:1–20 was omitted at the same that LXX 3 Reg 12:24a–z was added to avoid a “hanging” fulfillment notice. That this was a genuine concern of the person responsible for adding LXX 3 Reg 12:24a–z is dubious in light of a similar fulfillment notice 54

Ibid. 256. Ibid. 254. Schenker’s telescoping of the Judahite regnal formulae into one redactional group under the rubric of cultic apostasy is not to be followed. 56 Sweeney 2007: 172. The same nomenclature is found in Gordon 1975: 368. In my opinion, this system of designation for the three accounts of the division of the kingdom is infelicitous, since LXXA and LXXB are the conventional sigla for the Alexandrinus and Vaticanus codices of the Septuagint, respectively, and/or the manuscript traditions that emanate them; see Talshir 1993: 38. 57 For a critique of Sweeney’s date of the SA in the second-to-first-century B.C.E., see Schenker 2008: 371: “How could this complex literary development on both the Hebrew and Greek sides be compressed into such a short space of time (1st half of the 1st c. B.C.E.) and take place so late?” 58 Sweeney 2007: 183. 55

276

Chapter Seven: Story of the Division of the Kingdom

at 2 Chr 10:15 that still refers to the prophecy of Ahijah present in 1 Kgs 11:29–39, but which is missing from Chronicles (see also the suspended notice at 2 Kgs 14:25b).59 Furthermore, although Sweeney does offer some remarks on the lack of Deuteronomistic elements in the SA, he does not address the relationship of 3 Reg 12:24a to 1 Kgs 14:21–24 or the regnal framework of Kings. In conclusion, it is worthwhile for the present discussion to observe from previous works the need for further dialogue on the relationship of 3 Reg 12:24a to the rest of the short account in §§b–u.x–z as well as to the regnal framework extending throughout Kings. Of special import is the question of whether 3 Reg 12:24a preserves pre-Dtr regnal formulae for Solomon and Rehoboam or whether it is imitative in nature.

7.3. Translation of 3 Reigns 12:24a-z a

Now King Solomon lay down with his fathers and was buried with his fathers in the City of David60 and Rehoboam his son reigned in his place in Jerusalem; he was sixteen61 years old when he began to reign and he reigned seventeen62 years in Jerusalem and the name of his mother was Naamah daughter of Hanun son of Nahas king of the Ammonites. He did evil in the eyes of the Lord and he did not walk in the way of David his father. b There was a man from the hill country of Ephraim, a servant of Solomon, and his name was Jeroboam and the name of his mother was Zarerah,63 a harlot. Solomon appointed him as supervisor over the levy of the House of Joseph. He rebuilt for Solomon64 Zarerah, which is in the hill country of Ephraim, and there was at his disposal three-hundred horse-drawn chariots; he built the Millo with the labor of the house of Ephraim; he sealed off65 the City 59 See further Schenker 2008: 370. In pointing out the major differences in general outline, sequence, and content, Schenker states that “there must be allowed some space of time between the account of 3 Kgdm (sic) 12:24a–z and 3 Kdgms 11–12.” 60 The Old Latin quoted by Lucifer of Cagliari (von Hartel 1886: 42) reads et rex Salomon dormiuit cum patribus suis in ciuitate Dauid, unintentionally omitting through homoioteleuton the phrase “and he was buried with his fathers.” 61 With LXXB and OL (Luc.); MT 1 Kgs 14:21, LXXL, and 2 Chr 12:13 (MT/LXX): “forty-one.” 62 With MT 1 Kgs 14:21, LXXL, the majority of Greek manuscripts, 2 Chr 12:13 (MT/LXX), and Josephus Ant. 8.264: “seventeen”; LXXB: “twelve”; OL (Luc.): “twenty.” 63 With the majority of Greek manuscripts and OL: Sariram (Luc.) and Charira (91–95); LXXB: Sareisa; MT 1 Kgs 11:26: h(wrc (not reflected in LXXB or LXXL; OL: Sarua). 64 With LXXL, the majority of Greek manuscripts: tw Solomwnti, and OL (91–95): Salomonis; LXXB lacks tw reading only Salwmwn. 65 It is difficult to determine whether the verb rgs means here “to shut off (access to)” (Talshir 1993: 58; see Numb 12:14; Josh 6:1; 1 Sam 23:7; Isa 24:10; Jer 13:19; Ezek 3:24)

7.3. Translation of 3 Reigns 12:24a-z

277

of David; and he was magnifying himself over the kingship. cAnd Solomon sought to kill him and he became afraid and he took flight to Shishak king of Egypt, and he was with him until Solomon died. dAnd Jeroboam heard in Egypt that Solomon had died and he spoke in the hearing of Shishak, king of Egypt, saying, “Send me away that I may go to my country.” Shishak said to him, “Ask for any request and I will give it to you.” eNow Shishak had given to Jeroboam Ano, the eldest sister of Thekemina, his wife, to him66 as a wife; she was the greatest among the daughters of the king. She bore for Jeroboam Abia his son. fAnd Jeroboam said, “Really, send me away so that I may leave.” 67Jeroboam departed from Egypt and came to the land of Zarerah, which is in the hill country of Ephraim. All the tribe of Ephraim gathered there68 and Jeroboam built there a fortress. g His child grew deathly ill69 and Jeroboam set out to inquire on behalf of the child and he said to Ano, his wife, “Rise and go inquire of God on behalf of the child whether he will survive his illness.” hNow there was a man in Shiloh and his name was Ahijah and he was sixty years old and the word of the Lord was with him. Jeroboam said to his wife, “Rise and take in your possession for the Man of God loaves of bread and cakes for his servants and grapes and a jar of honey.” iThe wife rose and took in her possession loaves of bread, two70 cakes, grapes, and a jar of honey for Ahijah.71 Now the man was old and his eyes were too poor to see. kShe ascended from Zarerah and departed and as she was coming to the city to Ahijah the Shilonite,72 Ahijah said to his servant, “Now go out to meet Ano, the wife of Jeroboam and say to her, ‘Come and do not delay, for thus says the Lord, “I am sending grim tidings against you.”’” lAnd Ano came to the Man of God and Ahijah said to her, or to “seal off (a breach)”; for the latter meaning, see MT 1 Kgs 11:27 (3 Reg 2:35c; 10:23; 11:27); see Trebolle 1980: 193–5; McKenzie 1991: 33; but the term Crp of the MT is not paralleled in the SA. The verb rgs should not be translated as “to lay siege to” since it does not have this meaning; pace Gooding 1967: 187; Gordon 1975: 380–2. 66 With LXXB and OL (91–95); LXXL lacks “to him.” Gordon (1975: 385–6) has argued that the placement of “to him” is awkward, having come secondarily from the original order in MT 1 Kgs 11:19: wt#$) twx) t) h#$) wl Ntyw. However, Gordon does not discuss the syntax at Gen 16:3 that is nearly identical to the SA: “She gave her to Abram, her husband, to him as a wife (h#$)l wl),” which suggests that the order of LXXB/OL is original or at least should not be considered secondary on the ground of clumsy syntax. 67 In LXXL and the remaining Greek manuscripts, “and Jeroboam” is preceded with kai apesteilen auton sousakeim “and Shishak sent him away.” 68 LXXL and the majority of Greek manuscripts add “to Jeroboam.” 69 This is a lively rendering of kai\ h)rrw&sthse to_ paida&rion au)tou~ a)rrwsti/an krataia_n sfo&dra “And his child became sick with a very strong sickness.” 70 LXXL lacks the number “two.” 71 OL (Luc.) states that Jeroboam’s wife carried out his order and does not repeat the list of foot items: et fecit sicut dixit ei uir eius. 72 LXXL reverses the order reading “to Ahijah the Shilonite to the city.”

278

Chapter Seven: Story of the Division of the Kingdom

“Why have you brought me loaves of bread, cakes, grapes, and a jar of honey, for thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, you will leave me and when you enter the gate73 to Zarerah, your maidservants will come out to meet you and will say to you, “The child is dead.”’74 mFor thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I am about to destroy75 those belonging to Jeroboam who urinate on the wall. Those belonging to Jeroboam who are dead in the city dogs will devour and those who are dead in the field the birds of the sky will consume.’ But the child they will mourn, ‘Oh lord, for there was found in him something good concerning the Lord.’” nThe wife left when she heard (this) and when she came to Zarerah, the child died and the mourning cry went out to meet her.76 And Jeroboam went to Shechem, which is in the hill country of Ephraim and he gathered there the tribes of Israel, and Rehoboam son of Solomon ascended there. oAnd/Now the word of the Lord came/had come to Shemiah the Elamite,77 saying, “Take for yourself a new garment, which has not been immersed into water; rip it into twelve pieces78 and give (it)79 to Jeroboam and say to him, ‘Thus says the Lord, “Take for yourself ten pieces to clothe yourself.”’” And Jeroboam took (them) and Shemiah said, “Thus says the Lord, ‘Over the ten tribes of Israel you shall reign.’”80 pAnd the people said to Re73 Reading with LXXB and OL (Luc.; Palimpsestus Vindobonensis); LXXL has po&lin “city,” owing to the influence of the surrounding context (note the cases of polij in §§k and m) or of MT/LXXA 1 Kgs 14:12: “when your feet enter the city (hry(h).” 74 The Vorlage read tm dlyh; so LXXB, OL (Luc.; Vind.): puer mortuus est. In contrast, MT/LXXA 1 Kgs 14:12 reads dlyh tmw; similarly, LXXL: te/qnhke to_ paida&rion. 75 This is a translation of i0dou_ e0gw_ e0coleqreu&sw, from which one may reconstruct the Hebrew tyrkm ynnh; cf. §l: i0dou_ su_ a)peleu&sh|; MT 1 Kgs 11:31; pace Talshir (1993: 95) who assumes that the Vorlage would have read ytrkhw, even though the latter does not make sense in 3 Reg 12:24m. 76 With LXXL: ei0j a)panthsin au)th~j; OL (Vind.): obviam eius. In contrast, LXXB reads ei0j a)panth&n. 77 With LXXL: 0Elamei/thn and the majority of the remaining Greek manuscripts: elamithn; OL (Vind.): glamita (error for elamita?). Different is the reading of LXXB: 0Enlamei\. An explanation for the presence of the n in LXXB is uncertain, although it may be related to Jer 29(LXX 36): 24, 31, 32. In LXX Jer, ymlxnh is translated by ailamithn (LXXB) and by elamithn (remaining manuscripts). The identification of Shemiah in the SA with the same name in Jeremiah is uncertain. The Shemiah in Jeremiah is a false prophet, whereas the Shemiah of the SA speaks true prophecies on behalf of YHWH (cf. §§o and y); see further Schenker 2008: 372–3; pace Sweeney 2007: 184, 189. 78 LXXL adds prematurely the phrase “to clothe yourself” in anticipation of the following directive to Jeroboam; see the following note. 79 LXXL adds prematurely the phrase “ten pieces” in anticipation of the following directive to Jeroboam; see the preceding note. 80 With LXXL: basileu&seij “you shall reign,” which is missing from LXXB and OL (Vind.). Form critical insight dictates that a message should follow the kataphoric phrase hwhy rm) hk, even if the following preposition l( may be interpreted as marking a topic (“concerning”); see Jer 11:21; 12:14; 14:15; 16:3; 22:6; 34:4; 36:30; pace Talshir 1993: 107.

7.3. Translation of 3 Reigns 12:24a-z

279

hoboam son of Solomon, “Your father made heavy his yoke on us and made heavy the food on his table. And now, if you lighten (the burden) on us we will serve you. qRehoboam said to the people, “Three days from now I will reply to you.” And Rehoboam said, “Bring to me the elders so that I may take counsel with them as to how I should reply to the people on the third day.” Rehoboam spoke in their hearing as the people had sent to him and the elders of the people said to him, “The people have spoken to you aright; so you shall speak to the people.”81 rBut Rehoboam rejected their counsel and it did not please him and he sent and brought in young men who had grown up with him82 and he said to them, “Thus and so the people sent to me.”83 And the young men who had grown up with him said to him, “Thus you shall say to the people, ‘My little finger is thicker than my father’s loins. My father beat you with a whip, but I will govern you with scorpions.’” sAnd the plan pleased Rehoboam and he answered the people as the young men who had grown up with him advised him. tAll the people spoke as one man, each to his neighbor, and everyone cried out, saying, “We have no portion in David nor inheritance in the son of Jesse! To your tents, Israel, for this man is not to be a leader or ruler!” uAll the people were scattered from Shechem and each went to his tent. Rehoboam strengthened himself and departed. He mounted his chariot and entered Jerusalem and all of the tribe of Judah and all of the tribe of Benjamin followed after him. x At the beginning of the year, Rehoboam gathered all the men of Judah and Benjamin and went up to fight with Jeroboam at Shechem. yAnd the word of 81 The translation of the elder’s speech is based on the following reconstruction of the Hebrew Vorlage: M(h-l) rbdt Nk M(h Kyl) rbd Nk. The repetition of the terms M(h (3x) and Nk (2x) has probably resulted in instances of parablepsis in LXXB and LXXL. The reading of the OL is an attempt to make sense of the Greek ou#twj “thus, in this way,” a translation of Hebrew Nk meaning here “well, aright” (cf. Exod 10:29; Numb 27:7; Jer 8:6); see Talshir 1993: 116–7. LXXB: kai\ ei]pon oi9 presbu&teroi tou~ laou~ ou#twj e0la&lhsen pro_j se\ o( lao&j “And the elders of the people said, ‘The people have spoken to you aright.’“ LXXL: kai\ ei]pon oi9 presbu&teroi tou~ laou~ ou#twj lalh&seij pro_j to_n lao_n a)gaqw~j “And the elders of the people said, ‘So you shall speak to the people with kindness.’“ OL (Vind.): et dixerunt praesbyteri populi fac sicut locutus est ad te populus et sic dices ad populum “And the elders of the people said, ‘Do as the people have said to you and so you shall speak to the people.’“ 82 A translation of the reconstructed Vorlage wt) wldg r#$) Mydlyh, see Talshir 1993: 121. 83 Translating the reconstructed Vorlage yl) xl#$ t)zkw t)zk rm)l Mhyl) rbdyw M(h. This reconstruction is supported by the superior reading of the OL (Vind.): et locutus est eis dicens haec et haec mandavit ad me populus. All other witnesses (LXXB, LXXL, and the remaining Greek manuscripts) have struggled to make sense of the Hebrew or Greek resulting in erroneous variants. For the phrase t)zk t)zkw, see Talshir 1993: 122–3.

280

Chapter Seven: Story of the Division of the Kingdom

the Lord came to Shemiah, the Man of God, saying, “Say to Rehoboam, king of Judah, and to all the house of Judah and Benjamin and to the rest of the people, saying, ‘Thus says the Lord, “Do not go up and fight with your brothers, the sons of Israel. Return each one to his house,84 for this affair has issued from me.”’” zThey heeded the word of the Lord and refrained from going in accordance with the word of the Lord.

7.4. Textual Argumentation 7.4.1. The Regnal Formulae for Solomon and Rehoboam (3 Reg 12:24a // MT 1 Kgs 11:43; 14:21) The SA opens with the death and burial notices for Solomon followed by the accession notice and opening formulae for Rehoboam. In contrast to the MT, 3 Reg 12:24a exhibits an unbroken progression from the Solomon’s epilogue to Rehoboam’s introductory formulae. The syntax for Solomon’s death and burial notices is anomalous: kai\ o( basileu_j Salwmwn koima~tai = Klmhw bk#$ hml#$ “Now King Solomon lay down.” The standard death notice for defunct kings employs the waw-consecutive, as for example in MT 1 Kgs 11:43: hlm#$ bk#$yw. Talshir has argued that the syntax of 3 Reg 12:24a formulated with waw-conjunctive + noun marks the SA as an independent unit. In her opinion, this formulation demonstrates that 3 Reg 12:24a did not belong to an earlier (pre-Dtr) form of the regnal framework. While the possibility that the syntax of the opening phrase of 12:24a is intended to introduce the SA as a new literary unit is not to be ruled out, the conclusion that 3 Reg 12:24a is “independent” from the remainder of the regnal framework of Kings is unnecessary. Certain lines of evidence suggest that the formulaic material of Solomon and Rehoboam has been duplicated from an earlier form of the framework. First, as Talshir observes, the phrase “And King Solomon lay down” is also found in the standard LXX at 3 Reg 11:43: kai\ o( basileu_j Salwmwn e0koimh&qh. However, in the latter case the phrase is used to resume the transition from Solomon’s epilogue to Rehoboam’s succession notice after the insertion concerning Jeroboam’s stay in Egypt and his return to Zarerah (Wiederaufnahme).85 LXX 3 Reg 11:43 And Solomon lay down (kai\ e0koimh&qh Salwmwn) with his fathers and they buried him in the City of David, his father. When Jeroboam, son of Nebat, heard . . . he went to his city, to the land of Zarerah, which is in the hill country of Ephraim 84 85

LXXL: “tent.” So Gooding 1967: 178–9; Trebolle 1980: 73–4; Talshir 1993: 266.

7.4. Textual Argumentation

281

And King Solomon lay down (kai\ o( basileu_j Salwmwn e0koimh&qh) with his fathers and Rehoboam his son reigned in his place.

With the duplication of the death notice for Solomon came the transformation in syntax from waw-consecutive + verb (bk#$yw) to waw-conjunctive + noun (Klmhw). A similar syntactical transformation could have occurred when the original formula was duplicated to introduce the SA. Another line of evidence sustains this view. Trebolle has pointed out that when the MT of the Book of Kings transposes the introductory formulae for a king from its original context (as preserved in the Vorlage of the Old Greek) to a different location, the formulae open in its new location with wawconjunctive + noun + verb.86 For example, contrast Jehoshaphat’s prologue at LXX 3 Reg 16:28a with the parallel text at MT 1 Kgs 22:41. LXX 3 Reg 16:28a: kai\ e0n tw~| e0niautw~| tw~| e9ndeka&tw| tou~ Ambri basileu&ei Iwsafat ui9o_j Asa e0tw~n tria&konta “And in the eleventh year of Omri, Jehoshaphat, son of Asa, reigned thirty years” MT 1 Kgs 22:41: … b)x)l (rb) tn#$b hdwhy-l( Klm )s)-Nb +p#$whyw “Now Jehoshaphat, son of Asa, reigned over Judah in the fourth your of Ahab …”

In LXX 3 Reg 16:28a, the verb basileu&ei (= Klm) precedes the name of the king as is standard for the synchronized prologues, but in the second example (MT 1 Kgs 22:41), the verb succeeds the kings’ name, a pattern uncharacteristic of the framework notices. In this and similar cases (see 1 Kgs 14:21; 16:29 [cf. LXXBL]; 22:52 [cf. LXXL; OL]; 2 Kgs 3:1 [cf. LXXL 4 Reg 1:18a]), the irregular pattern has resulted from the secondary transposition of the regnal prologue to another location. It is possible to argue also that once Solomon’s epilogue was dislodged from its original context and repositioned after 1 Kgs 12:24 in the SA, it was introduced with the waw+noun+verb pattern. The introduction to Rehoboam’s account in MT 1 Kgs 14:21 strengthens this argument beginning with the expression hdwhyb Klm hml#$ Nb M(bxrw “Now Rehoboam, son of Solomon, reigned in Judah.” Here again, the transposed prologue opens with waw + noun + verb, reversing the regular order of verb + noun (e.g., 1 Kgs 15:1, 9; 3 Reg 16:28a [contrast MT 1 Kgs 22:41]; 2 Kgs 8:16; 9:29; 12:1[LXXL]; 14:1; 15:1, 32; 16:1; 18:1). It is significant that 3 Reg 12:24a begins not with Rehoboam’s account but with the closing notices on Solomon’s reign. The account is therefore unlike the transposed reigns of the MT (1 Kgs 14:21; 16:29; 22:41, 52; 3 Kgs 3:1) that begin with the regnal prologue. One reason for including death and burial formulae in 3 Reg 12:24a was the essential role that Solomon’s death plays in the account of Jeroboam’s flight and return in §§b–f. However, the SA does not simply progress from Solomon’s death into Jeroboam’s story as the MT does but continues with Rehoboam’s prologue. This is not merely to prepare 86

Trebolle 2000: 480–82.

282

Chapter Seven: Story of the Division of the Kingdom

the reader for Rehoboam’s intervention in the story at Shechem.87 If the MT were used to compose the SA, Rehoboam’s succession in 1 Kgs 11:43b and the notice of his journey to Shechem in 1 Kgs 12:1 would have sufficed for that purpose: “Rehoboam went to Shechem, for all Israel had come to Shechem to make him king.” But this is not the case; in the SA, Rehoboam’s initial possession of Israel and Judah is not in dispute. As is the case for the HHframework, the secure transfer of the kingship from Solomon to his son Rehoboam in 3 Reg 12:24a underscores the stability of David’s line (see 3.6). In the SA, then, the dispute between the people and Rehoboam is not over whether he will rule as king but whether they will revolt if he refuses to lighten the corvée.88 Rehoboam’s prologue in MT 1 Kgs 14:21 is anomalous: “Now Rehoboam, son of Solomon, ruled in Judah (hdwhyb). With this sole exception, the expression “in Judah” never occurs in the regnal framework to designate the territory of the southern kingdom. The preposition b always governs the cities of Jerusalem and Samaria, not the territories of Judah or Samaria, which take the preposition l(. This is either an indication that MT 1 Kgs 14:21 is late or that the text originally read l(. Support for the latter option is found in the reading of the Septuagint, which reads epi (corresponding to Hebrew l() instead of en (= b). However, LXXL, ms g, and Josephus (Ant. 8.246) agree that Rehoboam ruled over both Judah and Benjamin (epi Ioudan kai beniamin). The Book of Chronicles, which also is of the perspective that Judah and Benjamin belonged to Rehoboam (see 2 Chr 11:12), points to a Vorlage that contained “in Jerusalem” rather than “in Judah” without mentioning Judah or Benjamin: “And (MT: King) Rehoboam strengthened his hold in Jerusalem (Ml#$wryb) and reigned.”89 The syntax of 2 Chr 12:13 is unusual whereby Klmyw is suspended by itself after “in Jerusalem” and indicates that the phrasing of the Vorlage of Rehoboam’s account was altered in order to contextualize the introductory formulae for Rehoboam’s reign from 1 Kgs 14:21 within 2 Chr 10–12 (see also 2 Chr 17:1).90 However, the reading “in Judah” in MT 1 Kgs 14:21 is lectio difficilior. If the prologue to Rehoboam’s reign originally read “over Judah” (so LXXB), then it is difficult to explain how the preposition l( was changed to the preposition b before Judah. On the other hand, a straightforward explanation is available for the reverse change from b to l(, since 87

Pace Talshir 1993: 247. Schenker 2000b: 220. 89 Alternatively, 2 Chr 12:13 could have made use of another tradition different from MT 1 Kgs 14:21; so Knoppers 1990: 434 n. 3; idem 1994: 114 n. 68. 90 For the use of the motif of “strength” associated with the verb qzx (Dt-stem) in the Rehoboam story (occurring here in 2 Chr 12:13), see 1:1; 11:11, 12, 17; 13:7; 21:4; 26:16; see Knoppers 1990: 432–40; Japhet 1993: 676, 681, 745. Knoppers argues that the use of the root qzx in Chronicles is directly tied to its ideology of immediate retribution and uses this root when adding details not found in its Vorlage. 88

283

7.4. Textual Argumentation

the latter conforms to the nearby Judahite prologues at 1 Kgs 15:1; 15:9 (LXX); 16:28a (LXXL) = 22:41; 2 Kgs 9:29. As shown above, the syntax of 1 Kgs 14:21 indicates that the prologue to the Rehoboam’s reign was transposed from its original location (after Solomon’s death and burial formulae). The expression “Now Rehoboam son of Solomon reigned in Judah” was necessary only to introduce the specific notices on his age at accession, regnal year total, and so forth. The function of the opening phase “RN reigned” always functions to synchronize the overlapping reigns of the kings of Israel and Judah (e.g., 1 Kgs 15:1). For the synchronisms, it was necessary to indicate the territory or city over which each king ruled in order to prevent confusion about a king’s identification with Israel or Judah. The statement “in Judah” in MT 1 Kgs 14:21 does not hold that function; rather, it communicates that Rehoboam had authority only over Judah, not over the northern tribes. In 3 Reg 12:24a, the reading “in Jerusalem” affirms as does the rest of the SA that Rehoboam succeeded his father in taking control of both Israel and Judah. The difficult reading of “in Judah” has resulted from reduplicating the original reading preserved at 3 Reg 12:24a in MT 14:21, substituting “Judah” for “Jerusalem.”91 Table 22. LXX 3 Reg 12:24a and MT 1 Kgs 14:21 LXX 3 Reg 12:24a kai ebasileusen Roboam uioj autou — ant autou en Ierousalhm uioj wn ekkaideka etwn …

MT 1 Kgs 14:21 — hml#$ Nb M(bxrw Klm — hdwhyb … hn#$ tx)w My(br) Nb

7.4.1.1. Rehoboam’s Age at Accession and Regnal year total According to MT 1 Kgs 14:21, Rehoboam was forty-one years old when he came to the throne and reigned for seventeen years, whereas according to 3 Reg 12:24a (LXXB; OL), he was sixteen and reigned for twelve years. It is difficult to determine which figure was original for Rehoboam’s age at accession. Arguments have typically revolved around the historical plausibility of sixteen versus forty-one. According to McKenzie, “If Solomon reigned forty years (1 Kgs 11:42) and had many children, the son who succeeded him would certainly have been older than sixteen.”92 Similarly, Talshir argues that 91 Similarly, Hronzý 1909: 31: “Dafür spricht schon die Wiederholung des Schlusses von 11,43 in 14,21, der die durch Erzählungen von Jerobeam (12,25–14,20) auseinandergerissene Geschichte Rehabeams fortsetzen sollte.” In place of 11:43, the succession formulae for Rehoboam in 3 Reg 12:24a seem to match 1 Kgs 14:21 more closely. 92 McKenzie 1991: 38.

284

Chapter Seven: Story of the Division of the Kingdom

the SA altered Rehoboam’s age to reflect his immaturity in his dealings with the people’s demands in the assembly at Shechem.93 On the other hand, one cannot merely assume that Rehoboam’s age of forty-one according to the MT is historically plausible, since as Schenker remarks,94 that figure may be based on Solomon’s regnal year length of forty years (itself a round number void of historical probability) in order to place Rehoboam’s birth in the time when David was ruling and Solomon was seeking YHWH early in his career. This would remove any misgivings about Rehoboam as the child of Solomon’s foreign wives, who led him away from following YHWH (1 Kgs 11:7–8, 33 [LXX]). Moreover, it is more difficult to imagine a forty-one year old exhibiting jejune behavior toward the people and the elders. The information on Rehoboam’s age at MT 1 Kgs 14:21 may therefore have been composed in the light of the literary division of Solomon’s account into a virtuous beginning followed by a final stage of apostasy (see above 6.3.5). Consequently, one cannot judge in favor of either 3 Reg 12:24a (LXXB; OL) or MT 1 Kgs 14:21 as having retained the original figure for Rehoboam’s age at accession.95 The case is different for Rehoboam’s regnal year total, which the majority of textual witnesses read as seventeen years (see the translation note on §a); only according to LXXB did Rehoboam rule for only twelve years. The figure seventeen matches the chronological schema of the framework if one understands that Rehoboam’s accession year is counted as Jeroboam’s first regnal year.96 Asa Abijah ac 1 2 … ac 1 2 3 4 5 6 Rehoboam: ac . . 15 16 17 Jeroboam: 1 . . 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Given the uncertainly of the value of the figure twelve in LXXB, one cannot make use of the divergence in numerals to argue that the information for Rehoboams’ reign in the SA cannot have belonged to the original chronological system of the framework of Kings.97 7.4.1.2. The Name of Rehoboam’s Mother According to MT 1 Kgs 14:21, the name of Rehoboam’s mother was simply “Naamah, the Ammonitess,” while 3 Reg 12:24a offers the fuller “Naamah 93

Talsher 1993: 186–7; similarly, Sweeney 2007: 184–5. Schenker 2000b: 236. 95 Ibid. 236. 96 See, according to the LXX schema (Abjiah – six years), Shenkel 1968: 32–5; Miano 2010: 155–60 or, according to MT (Abijah – three years), Galil 1996: 16, 24. 97 Pace Talshir 1993: 46. 94

285

7.4. Textual Argumentation

daughter of Hanun son of Nahash king of the Ammonites.”98 Gordon, Talshir, and Sweeney argue that the more complete genealogy for Naamah was borrowed with midrashic interests from 2 Sam 10:2(–4): “David said, ‘I will show my loyalty to Hanun son of Nahash as his father showed his loyalty to me.’” Sweeney maintains that the author of the SA made use of the Naamah’s patronymic to cast Rehoboam as not “falling far from the tree” in his poor decision making in the assembly at Shechem, just as Hanun despised David’s offer to form a treaty and mocked his servants.99 Gordon has also noted the historical improbability of Rehoboam’s marriage to an Ammonite princess, whose people David captured only a generation ago (2 Sam 12:26–31).100 He also argues that the three-part patronymic retracing Naamah’s line back to her grandfather may also suggest that the genealogy of the SA is secondary. While all of these observations are suggestive of the secondary nature of Naamah’s genealogy in 3 Reg 12:24a versus MT 1 Kgs 14:21, none is conclusive. The suggestion that Rehoboam is being denigrated through his genealogical association with the Ammonite king Hanun cannot be proven. A plausible case for the opposite relationship can also be made, namely, that the author of MT 1 Kgs 14:21 may have tried to remove from the royal Judahite bloodline any association with a foreign king.101 The historical argument holding that Solomon would not have married his father’s enemy is dismissible, since after his defeat, it may have behooved Hanun to league with Israel through intermarriage (one wonders if the social status of an Ammonite woman marrying Solomon was probably anything other than of royalty). In any case, the historical argument is not decisive for reconstructing the literary relationship between the MT and the SA. As for the length of Naamah’s genealogy going back to her grandfather, Talshir allows that an extensive genealogy may be sensible ad occasionem. Her point is valid given that Rehoboam’s mother is a non-Israelite princess. Two other such cases of an extended genealogy can be observed for the Phoenician princess Jezebel (1 Kgs 16:31) and the northern Israelite princess Athaliah, who married the Judahite king Ahaziah (2 Kgs 8:26). kai\ o!noma th~j mhtro_j au)tou~ Naanan quga&thr Anan ui9ou~ Naaj basile/wj ui9w~n Ammwn And the name of his mother was Naanan, daughter of Anan, son of Naas, King of the Ammonites

3 Reg 12:24a Rehoboam

98 The name of Rehoboam’s mother is repeated secondarily between his death and burial formulae in MT 1 Kgs 14:31 (missing in the LXX). 99 Sweeney: 2007: 185. 100 Gordon 1975: 376. 101 Talshir 1993: 187 n. 69. The anomalous use of the gentilic “Ammonitess” (see below) as well as the above discussion on the literary reason for selecting the figure of “forty-age” as the age of Rehoboam at his accession also point in the direction of intentional censoring, though this suggestion remains inconclusive.

286

Chapter Seven: Story of the Division of the Kingdom

MyYˆnOdyIx JKRl∞Rm ‹ lAo‹A;bVtRa_tA;b lRbG‰zyIa_tRa h%DÚvIa j°å;qˆ¥yÅw

1 Kgs 16:31 Ahab

l`Ea∂rVcˆy JKRl¶Rm yäîrVmDo_tA;b …whYÎyVlAtSo ‹wø;mIa M§Ev◊w

2 Kgs 8:26 Ahaziah

And he (Ahab) married Jezebel, daughter of Ethbaal, King of the Sidonians. And the name of his mother was Athaliah, daughter of Omri, king of Israel.

The naming of the queen mother in the Judahite accounts from Abijah to Hezekiah is consistent, in that the historian modifies those names with only a patronymic or the place of origin, but never with both elements in a single occurrence (see 3.4). Strikingly, the mention of Rehoboam’s mother at 1 Kgs 14:21 is anomalous, lacking both a patronymic and place of origin.

ty`InO;mAoDh h™DmSoÅn w$ø;mIa M∞Ev◊w

And the name of his mother was Naamah, the Ammonitess.

1 Kgs 14:21 Rehoboam

To be sure, this example contains the ethnic designation “Ammonitess,” which would imply that Naamah was from Ammon; but the use of the gentilic (-î[t]) with the name of a royal mother is exceptional to Kings. The queen mother is normally the “daughter of” (tb) someone or is “from” (-Nm) a specific city.102 In contrast to MT 1 Kgs 14:21, 3 Reg 12:24a is consistent with the formulaic designations at 1 Kgs 16:31 and 2 Kgs 8:26. Furthermore, the mention of the queen mother always precedes the reporting of the events of that king’s reign: in the MT, Naamah is mentioned after some events are reported in Rehoboam’s account (esp. 1 Kgs 12), whereas 3 Reg 12:24a follows the standard pattern of mentioning the queen mother before the political reports. Since the formula at 3 Reg 12:24a follows the common pattern in the rest of Kings, this suggests that 3 Reg 12:24a preserves the original form of the framework.103 7.4.1.3. The Evaluative Formulae for Rehoboam 7.4.1.3.1. The Negative Evaluation The evaluation of Rehoboam’s account at 3 Reg 12:24a states, “And he did evil in the eyes of YHWH and he did not walk in the way of David his father.” The evaluation in MT 1 Kgs 14:22–24 is more complicated, since it is Judah, not Rehoboam, that is the subject of the evaluation: 102 The one exception is Manasseh’s account (2 Kgs 21:1), but this actually severs his account from those of Rehoboam to Hezekiah (see above 3.4). 103 Pace Talshir (1993: 187–8), who holds that the unique quality of 1 Kgs 14:21–24 among the rest of the regnal framework suggests that it is original and that the consistency of 3 Reg 12:24a with the framework suggests its secondary nature. I view this argument as weak on methodological grounds, preferring the reverse conclusion on the basis of the logic of coherence within the framework.

7.4. Textual Argumentation

287

And Judah did what was evil in the eyes of YHWH and they vexed YHWH more than all of their fathers did by the sins that they committed. They also built for themselves bāmôt, standing stones, and ʾăšērîm on every high hill and under every verdant tree. There were even qādēš104 in the land. They acted in accordance with all the abominations of the nations that YHWH dispossessed from before the sons of Israel.

The Old Greek reads Roboam in place of Judah and 2 Chr 12:14 (like 3 Reg 12:24a) states that “he” did evil, without providing an explicit subject, but in any case agrees with the OG of 1 Kgs 14:22 and with 3 Reg 12:24a that Rehoboam is the subject of the regnal evaluation.105 The MT thus breaks with the convention of the framework of Kings, which usually focuses on the behavior of the king and only mentions “the people” (M(h) in order to draw a contrast with a righteous Judahite king (1 Kgs 3:2; 15:14; 3 Reg 16:28b[LXXL]; 2 Kgs 12:4; 14:4; 15:4, 35) or to indicate that a wicked northern king led them into transgression (e.g., 1 Kgs 15:26).106 In contrast, 3 Reg 12:24a is consistent with the framework of Kings in focusing its evaluation on Rehoboam and not Judah.107 The reading with Judah at MT 1 Kgs 14:22–23 is to be preferred over Rehoboam in the Old Greek,108 though the mention of Rehoboam in 3 Reg 12:24a is original to the framework of Kings. This is indicated by the grammatical change in number in LXXB, in which the singular switches to plural: “And Rehoboam did what was evil in the eyes of YHWH and he vexed him more than their fathers did by their sins that they committed, and they built for themselves high places …” (LXXB 3 Reg 14:22–23a). This reading points to the secondary insertion of Rehoboam in place of Judah, which has mistakenly 104

The reading of the Old Greek (syndesmos “binding,” followed by OL: colligatio) is a translation of the Hebrew r#$q “conspiracy,” resulting from a misreading of #$dq; so Burney 1903: 193. Wevers (1950: 317) argues that it was done by the translator to avoid mention of the qādēš/qedēšîm, but the OG must assume a Hebrew Vorlage with r#$q; so Schenker (2000a: 121), who maintains that r#$q is original; however, the latter term does not make sense within an enumeration of cultic misdeeds in 14:22–24, whereas #$dq is appropriate to that setting; cf. Deut 23:18–19; 1 Kgs 15:12; 3 Reg 16:28d = 1 Kgs 22:47; 2 Kgs 23:7; see Hoffmann 1980: 77; Spieckermann 1982: 192; Lowery 1991: 72. 105 According to some commentators, the original text of 1 Kgs 14:21 read “he did evil” like 2 Chr 12:13, without an explicit subject: Thenius 1873: 197; Benzinger 1899: 98; Stade and Schwally 1904: 138; Šanda 1911: 371; Noth 1968: 323; Würthwein 1977: 181; Hölscher 1984: 94; DeVries 1985: 184; Provan 1988: 76. 106 Stade and Schwally 1904: 138; Schenker 2000a: 122; Cogan (2000: 389) also points out that the reference to the people’s cultic behavior is regularly mentioned aside of righteous kings (1 Kgs 22:43–44; 2 Kgs 12:3–4; 14:3–4; 15:3–4, 34–35). 107 Thenius 1873: 197; Benzinger 1899: 98; Gordon 1975: 377; Trebolle 1980: 108–9; idem 2000: 483. 108 Kittel 1900: 120; Burney 1903: 192; Hrozny 1909: 31; Montgomery and Gehmen 1951: 272; Jepsen 1956: 6; Hoffmann 1980: 74; Spieckermann 1982: 190 n. 75; Lowery 1991: 71; Talshir 1993: 245; Cogan 2000: 389; Schenker 2000b: 254 n. 43.

288

Chapter Seven: Story of the Division of the Kingdom

retained the third person plural pronouns, whose antecedent must be Judah.109 Even if one reads “his fathers” with LXXA, ms N, and LXXL (in place of “their fathers”), referring back to Rehoboam, the switch from Rehoboam’s actions in the singular to the actions of the “fathers” in the plural is still abrupt.110 This type of shift in subject is unique to the framework of Kings, an indication that it is not original. Others commentators have maintained that only MT 14:21a with the reading “he did evil” was original and that vv. 22b–24 were added by a later glossator.111 The difficulty with this position is its assumption that the redactor who added vv. 22b–24 worked in a careless fashion forgetting to provide an explicit antecedent for the plural pronouns and verbs. Levin posits that the original reading of 14:21a focused on Rehoboam (“he did evil”) and when vv. 22a–24 were added subsequently, the same redactor added the explicit subject of “Judah.” At an even later stage, according to Levin, the reading with Judah was replaced with Rehoboam as is exemplified in LXXBL.112 This reconstruction does not explain why Rehoboam was only provided with an evaluation but no statement comparing him with a royal predecessor. A more preferable explanation maintains that 3 Reg 12:24a was the original prologue to Rehoboam’s account and was subsequently transposed to its present location in the MT at 1 Kgs 14:21–24. In the process of transposition, the redactor replaced Rehoboam’s original formulae with a description of Judah’s cultic behavior. Aware of the tension resulting from the general description of Judah in 1 Kgs 14:21–24 in place of evaluative statements focusing on Rehoboam, the LXX Vorlagen replaced Judah with Rehoboam resulting in additional switches from plural to singular in LXXB, LXXL, and in ms N. This explanation does not require one to reconstruct a hypothetical evaluation for Rehoboam but actually appeals to an existing text in 3 Reg 12:24a. 109

Burney 1903: 192; Hrozný 1909: 31; Talshir 1993: 245. Noth (1968: 320; already Thenius 1873: 197) opted for the problematic reading: “And he (i.e., Rehoboam) did what was evil in the eyes of YHWH and they provoked YHWH to jealousy more than all their fathers had done with their sins that they had committed” (italics mine). On the principles of Literarkritik, this reading possesses an obvious case of “unmotivated Personenwechsel” that cannot be original; see Richter 1971: 59. 110 Trebolle 1980: 109. Provan 1988: 76 n. 50: “None of the attempts at explaining the plural of v 23 in the context of the formulae for Rehoboam are convincing” (in reference to arguments for the plural of majesty and the use of the plural owing to a paucity of source material on Rehboam). Schenker (2000a: 122) has argued for the priority of ms N (“his fathers” = Solomon and David), but in doing so, he creates a reading in which David is said to have built bāmôt, pillars, and ʾăshērîm, according to v. 23. This would constitute a major contradiction of the evaluative scheme of the framework; see Stade and Schwally (1904: 138), who omit v. 23 owing to this difficulty. 111 Hentschel 1984: 94: “ein späterer dtr Redaktor”; DeVries 1985: 184; Provan 1988: 76; McKenzie 1991: 58 n. 36; Levin 2008: 143. 112 Ibid. 143. His study does not make use of 3 Reg 12:24a or the OG version of Kings.

7.4. Textual Argumentation

289

7.4.1.3.2. The Contrast with David According to the SA, “Rehoboam did not walk in the way of David his father.” This contrast with David in Rehoboam’s prologue at 3 Reg 12:24a is in line with the Judahite prologues of the framework, which uses David or the immediate predecessor for comparison (see 4.4.1 and 4.4.2).113 In MT 1 Kgs 14:22, Judah is compared with their “fathers,” who cannot refer to David or Solomon but must refer to earlier generations of Israelites from the period after the Exodus until the monarchy (cf. 1 Kgs 8:21, 34, 48, 53; 9:9; 14:15; 15:12;114 2 Kgs 17:13–14; 21:8, 15, 22; 22:13).115 The comparison of the people to their earlier ancestors is distinctive of late texts in 1–2 Kings and is not the standard convention of the framework.116 If one reads according to LXXBL 3 Reg 14:22–23, it is the ancestors, not Rehoboam, who are responsible for building the twmb-twbcm-Myr#). However, according to the regnal evaluations of the Judahite kings praised after Solomon and before Hezekiah, it is “the people” (M(h) who are contrasted with the king, not “the fathers,” and it is they who continue to burn incense at the bāmôt. In the context of this study, it is noteworthy that LXX 14:22–23 criticizes “the fathers” for building the twmb-twbcm-Myr#) when according to 1 Kgs 3:2 the people had been burning incense (LXXBL) at the bāmôt (there is no mention of pillars or ʾăšērîm “on every high hill and under every green tree”) before the Solomonic temple was built. In contrast to the perspective of LXX 14:23, the people’s continual incense burning is tolerated in 1 Kgs 3:2 (LXX). McKenzie and Talshir maintain that the expression “He did not walk in the way of David his father” in 3 Reg 12:24a does not conform to other comparisons belonging to the framework. They point out that the comparison with David is ordinarily phrased another way, whether using the expression “like David his father” (1 Kgs 15:11; 2 Kgs 16:2) or “according to all that David his father did” (2 Kgs 18:3; cf. 14:3; 15:3, 34).117 It is true that the expression “he did not walk in the way of David” only occurs here in 3 Reg 12:24a.118 113

Gordon 1975: 377. MT 1 Kgs 15:12 may refer either to Solomon and Rehoboam or more likely to the ancestral fathers of Israel having come under the influence of 1 Kgs 14:22; see Lowery 1991: 72. 115 Already Thenius 1873: 197; similarly, Gray 1963: 310. 116 Provan 1988: 76. Provan rightly remarks that even if one reads the singular pronoun on wytb) reflected in LXXBL 1 Kgs 14:22, this would not make any sense having Rehoboam as more evil than David and Solomon. 117 McKenzie 1991: 38; Talshir 1993: 184 n. 63. 118 Two other instances of the expression “not to walk in the way” occur in 1 Kgs 11:33 and 2 Kgs 21:22, both of which are late and pertain to the way of YHWH. The positive formulation “he walked in the all the way of David” occurs in Josiah’s account in 2 Kgs 22:2, 114

290

Chapter Seven: Story of the Division of the Kingdom

There are several considerations, however, that reduce the force of McKenzie’s and Talshir’s argument. First, other comparisons with royal predecessors employing the phrase “to walk in the way of X” occur in the prologues for Judahite kings in addition to Rehoboam’s account. In 3 Reg 16:28b (≈ MT 1 Kgs 22:43), Jehoshaphat is said to have “walked in the way of Asa, his father.” In 2 Kgs 8:18, it is stated that Jehoram of Judah “walked in the way of the kings of Israel … and did evil in the eyes of YHWH.” According to LXXL 4 Reg 10:36+ (≈ 2 Kgs 8:27), Ahaziah of Judah “walked in the way of the house of Ahab and did evil in the eyes of YHWH.” In the account of Ahaz in 2 Kgs 16:2, it is reported that, like Jehoram, “he did not do right in the eyes of YHWH like David his father and he walked in the way of the kings of Israel.” These four examples demonstrate that the use of the expression “to walk in the way” is actually somewhat common to the regnal prologues of the Judahite kings. In three of the four cases (Jehoram, Ahaziah, and Ahaz), the use of “to walk in the way of X” occurs together with negative evaluations for the king (“he did evil” (rh/”did not do right”).119 The standard comparisons with David mentioned above always occur together with positively stated evaluations (“he did right” r#$yh). A king cannot be said to be “like David” or to have done “according to all that David did” if he was “evil” ((rh), as is the case for Rehoboam.120 The same three kings (Jehoram, Ahaziah, and Ahaz), moreover, are compared to the northern kings of Israel (in two cases to the House of Ahab). In the account of Rehoboam’s reign, there is no such group of northern kings with whom to draw a comparison, so it is not surprising that the expression “he did not walk in way of David” is employed in 3 Reg 12:24a before the division of the kingdom. After all, David is the paragon of righteousness according to the evaluative configuration of the regnal framework. An explanation for how the original evaluation for Rehoboam at 3 Reg 12:24a was used to compose the description on Judah in MT 1 Kgs 14:22–24 results in less complications than an explanation in support of the reverse scenario. As mentioned, the original evaluation focusing on Rehoboam and the so that to suggest that Rehoboam’s negative comparison is imitative necessitates taking into account the same consideration for Josiah. 119 It is noteworthy that Abijah son of Rehoboam is said to have “walked in” the sins of his father in 1 Kgs 15:3, a negative statement reminiscent of the comparative formulae in the prologues of the northern kings. In a formula belonging to a Judahite king, this expression is anomalous, perhaps fashioned secondarily to match the fates of the Israelite and Judahite lines (cf. 1 Kgs 12:30–32 and 14:22–23). 120 The example at 2 Kgs 16:2 proves the rule, since one can only use the expression “like David” if Ahaz “did not do right (r#$yh) in the eyes of YHWH.” If Ahaz had done “evil,” another expression would have been necessary to draw a comparison with David (such as “he did not walk in the way of David”).

7.4. Textual Argumentation

291

contrast with David corresponds to the character of the framework, whereas the broad description of Judah and the comparison of the people to their premonarchic ancestors is reminiscent of the late texts related to the final destruction of the Israelite and Judahite kingdoms (2 Kgs 17:7–23; 2 Kgs 21:2– 16; 23:26–27).121 It is difficult to account for the omission of the descriptive (Deuteronomistic) elements of MT 1 Kgs 14:21–24 from 3 Reg 12:24a. According to Talshir, since the SA focuses primarily on Rehoboam, its author would not necessarily have incorporated the broad description of Judah into the account of the division of the kingdom.122 This explanation does not account for the fact that 3 Reg 12:24a adheres closely to the framework structure of Kings. If the elements used to describe Judah were original to that framework, then one would expect them to have been altered to form Rehoboam’s account in the SA as is the case in the Old Greek of 1 Kgs 14:21– 24 and 2 Chr 12:13–15. There is no convincing explanation at hand for why Judah’s comparison with their “fathers” in 1 Kgs 14:22 would have been transformed into the phrase “he did not walk in the way of David, his father.” In the same way, one cannot readily explain why the phrase “the city where YHWH chose to set his name from among all the tribes of Israel” in 1 Kgs 14:21 – calling to mind its frequent use in Deuteronomy – would have been omitted from 3 Reg 12:24a after the mention of “in Jerusalem.”123 From a comparison of MT 1 Kgs 14:22–24 with 3 Reg 12:24a and the standard framework of Kings, one may conclude that the MT version of Rehoboam’s prologue is a late addition to Kings. Even according to Talshir, the explicit reference to Judah in MT 1 Kgs 14:22 “is undoubtedly part of a late stage in the composition of the Book of Kings,”124 since it brings to mind the final address to the northern kingdom (2 Kgs 17:7–23) and the condemnation of Manasseh leading to the destruction of Judah (2 Kgs 21:2–16 & 23:26– 27).125 Moreover, Jepsen has compared the cultic description of Judah in 1 121 Additional items of content signal the lateness of 1 Kgs 14:22–24 vis-à-vis 3 Reg 12:24a: “to vex ()nq D-stem) YHWH with abominations (twb(wt)”; cf. Deut 32:16, 21; “on every high hill and every verdant tree”; cf. Deut 12:2; 2 Kgs 16:4; 17:10; Isa 57:5; Jer 2:20; 3:6, 13; Ezek 6:13; 2 Chr 28:4; qādēš/qedēšîm (after Mgw); cf. Deut 23:18; 1 Kgs 15:12; 22:46; 2 Kgs 23:7; the motif of the “dispossessed nations”; cf. Deut 9:4, 5; 11:23; 12:2, 29; 18:9, 14; 19:1; 1 Kgs 11:2; 2 Kgs 16:3; 17:8; 21:2, 9. 122 Talshir 1993: 246. 123 Thenius 1873: 196; Hrozný 1909: 30; Debus 1967: 85; Trebolle 1980: 109. According to Spieckermann (1982: 190), this phrase belongs to DtrN (see Kratz 2000a: 169: DtrS). 124 Talshir 1993: 245. 125 Similarly, Jepsen 1956: 6, 60–61; Knoppers 1990: 424 n. 3; 1994: 114 n. 68; Lowery 1991: 71–2; Cogan 2000: 389; Trebolle 2000: 483 (14:21*, 22 = late Dtr); Blanco Wißmann 2008: 236; idem 2011: 254; Levin 2008: 143 (vv. 22b–24). Spieckermann, too, notes that 1 Kgs 14:23 corresponds exactly in terms of contact with 2 Kgs 17:9–11 (his assignment of these texts to DtrH [= DtrG] is questionable, however; see Kratz 2000a: 169, 173: 1 Kgs 14:22b–24 and 2 Kgs 17:7–20 = DtrS).

292

Chapter Seven: Story of the Division of the Kingdom

Kgs 14:22–24a (cf. 15:3, 11–14) with the similar description for the northern kingdom under Jeroboam I in 1 Kgs 12:26–30.126 The similarity between these texts indicates that a redactional stratum existed emphasizing that the course of Judahite history met the same fate that the northern kingdom experienced.127 Yet there are signs that 1 Kgs 14:22–24 is intended to imitate or allude to 1 Kgs 12:26–30. Whereas the account of Jeroboam is contextualized in a specific narrative of Kings, where Jeroboam, not Israel, is the central focus, the cultic description of Judah is stylized as general description, like the résumé of the northern kingdom in 2 Kgs 17:7–20, not part of a specific narrative episode, and focuses on Judah as a whole rather than on Rehoboam (even though it is framed as part of his epilogue!). The narrative of Jeroboam’s establishment of the sanctuaries at Bethel and Dan is essential to the cultic reports for the northern kings. The cultic description of Judah in MT 1 Kgs 14:22–24, in contrast, is unessential to the cultic reports for the Judahite kings and is disjointed. 7.4.2. The Rise of Jeroboam (3 Reg 12:24b–f // MT 1 Kgs 11:26–28, 40; 12:2–3) 7.4.2.1. The Description of Jeroboam (3 Reg 12:24b) The story of Jeroboam’s rise to power begins in the MT as part of the account of Solomon, since Jeroboam is the final of three adversaries sent against Solomon as punishment for the apostasy late in his reign (1 Kgs 11:26–40). In the SA, Jeroboam’s story begins immediately after Rehoboam’s prologue and focuses on his story until the assembly at Shechem is recounted (3 Reg 12:24b–nb). In the MT, Jeroboam is introduced with a disjunctive waw, his patronymic, and with his geographic filiation, whereas in the SA, Jeroboam’s patronymic is absent, though his geographic filiation is present: LXX 3 Reg 12:24b kai\ h}n a!nqrwpoj e0c o!rouj Efraim dou~loj tw~| Salwmwn kai\ o!noma au)tw~| Ieroboam “And there was a man from the hill country of Ephraim, a servant of Solomon, and his name was Jeroboam.”

MT 1 Kgs 11:26 hdrch Nm ytrp) +bn Nb M(bryw “Now Jeroboam son of Nebat an Ephrathite from Zaredah”

126 Jepsen 1956: 6, 60–61. Pakkala (1999: 158) argues that 1 Kgs 14:23–24a is close to 1 Kgs 12:31–13:34 and 2 Kgs 17. 127 Spieckermann 1982: 191. Noteworthy is the mention of constructing cultic sanctuaries (bāmôt) and objects in 1 Kgs 12:26–32 and 14:23 as well as the mention of “sin(s)” (t[w])+x) in 12:30 and 14:22 (cf. MT 14:16; 15:3; 2 Kgs 21:16, 17).

293

7.4. Textual Argumentation

In MT 11:26, Jeroboam is designated an “Ephrathite,” just as Elkanah and Jesse, David’s father, are in MT 1 Sam 1:1 and 17:12 (cf. Judg 12:15).128 In the SA, Jeroboam is a man from “the hill country of Ephraim,” an expression that recurs throughout the SA (§§b[twice].f.nb); cf. Judg 10:1; 17:1; 1 Sam 1:1; 2 Sam 20:21; 1 Kgs 11:43 (LXX); 12:25; 2 Chr 13:4. In the MT, the rare expression “Ephrathite” may be for the purpose of anticipating the comparison with David in the prophecy of Ahijah in 1 Kgs 11:38.129 Since the sons of the royal line of one Ephrathite, David, have failed to achieve YHWH’s standards, YHWH will afford the opportunity to another Ephrathite, Jeroboam, of establishing a new dynasty with YHWH’s blessing. In the SA, no such comparison with David is drawn; nor does YHWH grant Jeroboam the right to found a dynasty. As mentioned, the SA does not provide Jeroboam’s patronymic, “son of Nebat,” in his initial description (nor in the entirety of the SA). The absence of his patronymic coincides with the description of his mother in 3 Reg 12:24b, where she is named Zarirah and called a harlot, implying that that identity of Jeroboam’s father was unknown.130 According to MT 1 Kgs 11:26, her name is Zeruah, and she is described as a widow, implying that the identity of Jeroboam’s father was known. kai\ o!noma th~j mhtro_j au)tou~ Sarira gunh_ po&rnh And the name of his mother was Zarirah a harlot.

3 Reg 12:24b Jeroboam

hYÎnDmVlAa h∞DÚvIa ‹hDo…wrVx ‹wø;mIa M§Ev◊w

1 Kgs 11:26 Jeroboam

And the name of his mother was Zeruah a widow.

The absence of Jeroboam’s patronymic throughout the SA is a potential problem for relating the SA to the HH-framework, since his patronymic is a regular element therein (1 Kgs 15:1; 16:26, 31; 22:53; 4 Reg 1:18c [LXXL; ms N] ≈ 2 Kgs 3:3; 13:2, 11; 14:24; 15:9, 18, 24, 28). In Talshir’s opinion, “It is in128

At 1 Sam 1:1, LXXBL read efraim; LXXA: eqraqaioj; 1 Sam 17:12 is absent from the LXX. 129 Leuchter (2006: 60–63) notes that the term Ephrathite is commonly associated with Bethlehem (Gen 35:19: “on the way to Ephrath, that is, Bethlehem”; 1 Sam 17:12: “An Ephrathite from Bethlehem”; Mic 5:1: “But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah”). The historical connection between David and Jeroboam that Leuchter draws on the basis on of Jeroboam’s status as an Ephrathite (ibid. 61) remains speculative in my estimation, as the purpose for the epithet of Ephrathite from the literary perspective of Kings renders dubious its usefulness for constructing a historical argument. 130 This is similar to the common phrases, “son of a nobody (mār lā mammāna)” and “one not suitable to the throne (lā bēl kussî),” signaling the status of a ruler as a usurper unconnected with a royal line and expressing negative connotations; see Lemaire 1998: 3–14 (at 6); Younger 2005: 246–8. See the reference in AKL (Grayson 1980a: 106; Yamada 1994: 26 n. 47) as well as in the Synchronistic History // Chronicle P (Grayson 1975a: 159, 165, 172; all three cases refer negatively to a Kassite usurper).

294

Chapter Seven: Story of the Division of the Kingdom

conceivable that the established tradition of the Book of Kings, and of the Book of Chronicles, according to which Jeroboam was the son of Nebat is secondary to another which suggests that his father was unknown.”131 This point must be conceded in favor of MT’s regular employment of Jeroboam’s patronymic; however, evidence already mentioned (i.e., the regnal formulae of 3 Reg 12:24a) and to be discussed below points to the fact that the SA preserves content that relates to other portions of Kings and its framework. It is possible that the SA preserves much of the form and content of the original account of the division of the kingdom, while having still incurred secondary modifications, such as the further deprecation of Jeroboam.132 The tendency to characterize Jeroboam more harshly in the SA thus cannot be taken as a decisive argument against the original qualities of the SA or to dissociate it from the HH-framework. 7.4.2.2. Jeroboam’s Rebellion, Flight, and Return (3 Reg 12:24b–f) The description of Jeroboam in 12:24b is followed by a report on how Jeroboam maneuvered to gain leverage for the takeover of Solomon’s throne. It is recounted how Jeroboam was a high official (“Servant of Solomon”) among Solomon’s retinue charged with the oversight of the corvée of the “House of Joseph.”133 He behaves like a potential king, acquiring threehundred horse-drawn chariots for himself and engaging in building activities so as to “exalt himself ()#&n Dt-stem) over the kingship” (compare the activity of Adonijah in 1 Kgs 1:5: “Now Adonijah, son of Haggith, was exalting himself [)#&n Dt-stem], saying, ‘I myself will be king,’ and he provided for himself a chariots and fifty horsemen running before him.”). The report of Jeroboam’s designs on the throne of Solomon gives way naturally to the following account of Jeroboam’s flight to Egypt and return to Zarerah, initiated by Solomon’s resolve to eliminate Jeroboam (3 Reg 12:24c): “And Solomon 131

Talshir 1993: 196–7. Similarly, Gray 1963: 286–8. Such a revision was not carried out thoroughly, as Jeroboam still holds a high position in Solomon’s retinue (§b) and is capable of marrying an Egyptian princess (§e). As Talshir (1993: 197) herself expresses, the SA did not originate from the desire to denigrate Jeroboam; similarly, Knoppers 1993: 177 n. 16; pace Stade and Schwally 1904: 125; Olmstead 1913: 21; Gooding 1967: 82. 133 Talshir’s (1993: 195) distinction between the meaning of the designation “Servant of Solomon” in MT and that in the SA does not make sense to me. In her opinion, since the title “Servant of Solomon” directly precedes the phrase “And he raised a hand against the king,” this is intended to underscores Jeroboam’s use of his powerful status to overtake Solomon, while the distance between the title and the similar phrase “he exalted himself over the kingdom” in the SA diminishes or negates the force of Jeroboam’s status. The phrase Mryw Klmb dy of the MT is not found in the majority of Greek witnesses (esp. LXXBL). The House of Joseph was the Ephraimite group of tribes prevalent in the Book of Judges and represented the majority of Saul’s chiefdom; see Miller and Hays 2006: 214. 132

7.4. Textual Argumentation

295

sought to kill him, and he became afraid and took flight to Shishak king of Egypt and was with him until Solomon died.” After learning of Solomon’s death (§d), Jeroboam requests Shishak to permit him to return to Zarerah and returns there, whereupon the tribe of Ephraim bands together there and Jeroboam builds a fortress to consolidate his power (§f). The structure of the account of Jeroboam’s flight and return in the SA is markedly different from the parallel accounts in MT 1 Kgs 11:26–12:3 and LXX 3 Reg 11:26–12:3.134 The account of Jeroboam’s flight and return in 3 Reg 12:24b–f is a more coherent than its parallel in MT 1 Kgs 11:26–12:3. In the SA, Jeroboam is the protagonist, all of whose actions reported in 3 Reg 12:24b contribute to his designs on the throne. In the MT signs of incoherence occur in the report of Jeroboam’s rebellion and flight (1 Kgs 11:26–28, 40), which is interrupted by the oracle of Ahijah in which Ahijah promises Jeroboam that he will rule over Israel (1 Kgs 11:29–39). Table 23. LXX 3 Reg 12:24b–c and MT 1 Kgs 11:26–40 3 Reg 12:24b–c Jeroboam’s Rebellion 12:24b Flight of Jeroboam 12:24c

1 Kgs 11:26–40 Jeroboam’s Rebellion 11:26–28 Ahijah’s Prophecy 11:29–39 Flight of Jeroboam 11:40

The beginning of the account of Jeroboam’s rebellion in MT 1 Kgs 11:26–29 reads: 11:26

Now Jeroboam son of Nebat was an Ephrathite from Zaredah135 and the name of his mother was Zeruah a widow136 – (he was) a Servant of Solomon – and he revolted against the king.137 11:27Now this is the account of how he revolted against138 the king. Solomon139 had built the Millo (and) he had sealed up the breach in the City of David, his father. 11:28The distinguished Jeroboam was a nobleman and Solomon saw that (this) official was an industrious worker, and he charged him with the oversight of all the forced labor of the House of Joseph. 11:29 And at that time it happened that when Jeroboam had gone out from Jerusalem the Prophet Ahijah the Shilonite met him on the road …

134

See Trebolle 1980: 175–8; Knoppers 1993: 206–14; Talshir 1993: 156. LXX reads Zarerah in place of MT’s Zaredah. 136 LXX lacks “the name of his mother was Zeruah.” 137 LXX lacks “and he revolted against the king.” 138 Literally: “he raised a hand against” -b dy Myrh; see Numb 33:3; Deut 32:27; 2 Sam 20:21; Mic 5:8; Esth 2:21; 6:2. The example in 2 Sam 20:1–2, 21 is especially telling, since David seeks the life the Sheba after the latter had called the Israelite tribes to repudiate David as their king. 139 LXXL fills in the ambiguous gaps of the MT reading “ … how he revolted against King Solomon, and King Solomon built … “; LXXB and OL agree with the MT. Solomon has to be the subject of the verbs hnb and rgs owing to the presence of wyb) at the end of the verse (see LXX 3 Reg 2:35f); so McKenzie 1991: 32–3; Knoppers 1993: 176 n. 13. 135

296

Chapter Seven: Story of the Division of the Kingdom

MT 1 Kgs 11:27–28 serves as the introduction to the story of Jeroboam’s rebellion, but the information that follows is not integrated well in the account. It is unclear why Solomon’s construction of the Millo and sealing of the City of David are mentioned in this context. Solomon’s appointment of Jeroboam to supervisor of the forced labor of the House of Joseph does not seem to be essential information to prepare the reader for what follows. In fact, none of the information in 11:27–28 is descriptive of how Jeroboam revolted against Solomon. Thus, these verses were probably structured in order to introduce the real cause of Jeroboam’s revolt, namely, the providence of YHWH, as expressed in the oracle of Ahijah in vv. 29–39. As mentioned, Jeroboam’s designation as an Ephrathite calls to mine the genealogical background of the Davidic house (1 Sam 17:12), which is the object of comparison in 1 Kgs 11:38. Moreover, just as 11:27–28 is more approving of Jeroboam representing him as “distinguished” (#$y)h), a “nobleman” (lyx rwbg), and an “industrious worker” (hk)lm h#&(), worthy of the attention of King Solomon, so is YHWH accepting of Jeroboam in affording him the opportunity to procure a dynasty like David’s (11:38). YHWH would not have endorsed a reprobate who stood against his chosen dynasty. In the SA (§c), the report of Solomon’s response in seeking the life of Jeroboam follows naturally after Jeroboam’s active sedition in his king’s employ. In MT 1 Kgs 11:40, however, there is a tension in Solomon’s action to eliminate Jeroboam, since the narrative reports no wrongdoing on the part of Jeroboam, and the establishment of his is dynasty endorsed by YHWH. In addition, the oracle of Ahijah shifts abruptly to the report of Solomon’s response; the result is that Solomon is potentially cast in a negative light, since he is either ignorant or dismissive of Ahijah’s prophecy.140 The narrative is ambiguous on these matters, not providing a clear description of the nature of Jeroboam’s political status in 11:27–28 in relationship to Ahijah’s oracle in vv. 29–39 or Solomon’s reason for pursuing Jeroboam (v. 40). The literary tensions and ambiguities existing in the MT have resulted from the secondary insertion of Ahijah’s oracle into the story of Jeroboam’s rebellion.141 Certain scholars have attempted to reconstruct an earlier prophetic layer out of 1 Kgs 11:29–39, but none of them has been successful in uncovering a 140

Knoppers 1993: 179 n. 18. On the compositional history of 1 Kgs 11:26–40, I concur with the view of earlier commentators that the prophetic story in 1 Kgs 11:29–39 is a secondary Deuteronomistic insertion between vv. 26–27* (28) and v. 40: Šanda 1911: 323–4; Jepsen 1956: 15, 78, 80 (vv. 29–31a = Nebiistic; vv. 31b, 33–38aba = RII; vv. 32, 38bb, 39 = late additions); Wellhausen 1963: 273; Debus 1967: 11 (vv. 32–38b); Noth 1968: 245–6, 258–62; Dietrich 1972: 15–20, 54–5 (vv. 29–31, 33a, 35aba, 37abgb = DtrP; vv. vv. 32, 33b, 34b, 35bb, 36, 37aa, 38aba = DtrN); Würthwein 1977: 142–5; Trebolle 1980: 120–21, 143–8 (vv. 31b–39); Kratz 2000a: 168; Jaruzelska 2004: 167–8, 171; Köhlmoos 2006: 155–8; Blanco Wißmann 2008: 195–7. 141

7.4. Textual Argumentation

297

pristine text free from Deuteronomistic influence or from resulting textual difficulties. Trebolle ascribes vv. 31b–39 to Dtr but retains as original the initial prophetic gesture of Ahijah in vv. 29–31a.142 However, the symbolic gesture requires a prophetic message that immediately begins with the loss of Solomon’s kingdom, an element that Trebolle rightly considers to be Dtr.143 The original content of the prophecy (as Trebolle himself contends) is preserved at LXX 3 Reg 12:24o. Weippert retains in her reconstructed text the reference to rending the kingdom away from Solomon in v. 31b and the promise of the ten tribes to Jeroboam, but that reference presupposes that Solomon is about to be punished for his (cultic) misdeeds (v. 33 LXX).144 The separation of the promise of a “lasting house” in v. 38b from the following mention of David linking this text with 2 Sam 7 (= RII) is arbitrary. Leuchter arrives at his reconstruction through the unnecessary removal of content related to the ten tribes in addition to producing a text with a doublet that repeats the phrase “I will rend/take the kingdom out of the hand of …”145 The irresolvable problems in ascertaining the compositional history of MT 1 Kgs 11:26–40 should be contrasted with the simple reading of the prophecy in 3 Reg 12:24o, which provides the symbolic gesture of tearing the garment into twelve pieces and the corresponding prophetic announcement without Dtr extrapolations. In reaction to Solomon’s threat on his life, Jeroboam flees to Egypt under the protection of Shishak (MT 11:40). Both the MT and the SA emphasize that Jeroboam was in Egypt until Solomon died and after hearing that he had died returned to Israel. In the SA (§§c–d), the progression from Jeroboam’s flight to the report of his learning about Solomon’s death is seamless, while in the MT (11:40–12:3), the account of Jeroboam’s flight and return is interrupted with Solomon’s epilogue and Rehoboam’s succession notice (11:41– 43) in addition to the statement that Israel had assembled in Shechem to crown Rehoboam as king (12:1). The death and burial formulae of Solomon’s epilogue in MT 1 Kgs 11:43 stand outside of his account and interrupt the report on Jeroboam’s flight and return, while his death and burial formulae ap-

142 Trebolle 1980: 147; similarly, Jepsen 1956: 15, 78, 80; Debus 1967: 11; Knoppers 1993: 184–5. 143 For the view that 1 Kgs 11:31b is Dtr, see Trebolle 1980: 146; Wallace 1986: 33; Knoppers 1993: 184. 144 Weippert (1983: 343–75). She does not adequately defend her omission of 11:33, the laundry list of Solomon’s cultic sins, since the reading of the LXX is to be preferred. Her reconstructed text of the original prophecy resembles 3 Reg 12:24o closely; however, the mention of “Israel” in its entirety (1 Kgs 11:37) does not harmonize perfectly with the mention of the ten tribes in v. 31b // 3 Reg 12:20o. 145 Leuchter 2008: 53–9.

298

Chapter Seven: Story of the Division of the Kingdom

pear before the similar report of Jeroboam’s flight and return in the SA (3 Reg 12:24a).146 Table 24. LXX 3 Reg 12:24a.c–f and MT 1 KGS 11:40–12:3 3 Reg 12:24a.c–f Solomon’s Epilogue 12:24a Flight of Jeroboam 12:24c

Hears of Solomon’s Death 12:24d Jeroboam’s Marriage; Son’s Birth 12:24e147 Jeroboam’s Return to Zarerah 12:24f

1 Kgs 11:40–12:3 Flight of Jeroboam 11:40 Solomon’s Epilogue 11:41–43 Rehoboam Comes to Shechem 12:1 Jeroboam Hears ??? 12:2 Jeroboam’s Return to Shechem 12:3

The secondary insertion of Solomon’s epilogue and the notice about Rehoboam and the people at Shechem into the account has left multiple tensions in the MT, none of which exists in the SA. Schenker has pointed out that the text following Solomon’s death and burial formulae is strained in the MT.148 One reads at 1 Kgs 11:43b that Rehoboam succeeded his father as king; however, 12:1 states that all Israel came to Shechem to crown Rehoboam king. One must then backtrack and reinterpret Rehoboam’s succession notice in 11:43b in light of the fact that he was not yet ruling over all Israel.149 Without

146 According to Trebolle (1980: 71–82), 1 Kgs 11:41–43 was inserted by Dtr into the report of Jeroboam’s flight and return. Knoppers (1993: 206–211) follows Trebolle in arguing for the priority of the sequence of events narrated in 3 Reg 12:24a–f. 147 Further support for the view that the SA is more original than MT 1 Kgs 11:26–12:20 (and the standard text of LXX-Kings) may be gleaned from a comparison of the parallel accounts of flight and return for Jeroboam and Hadad, both of which include an account of their marriage to the daughter of Pharaoh. First, in contrast to the Hadad account, the report on Jeroboam’s flight and return is significant to the SA. In the MT account of Hadad’s flight and return from Egypt, upon returning from Egypt, nothing is accomplished from Hadad’s pleading to return home, whereas Jeroboam’s pleading to Shishak demonstrates how profound is his desire to secure the throne; see Schenker 2000b: 218–19, 221, 243. Second, whereas the description of Hadad’s marriage to Pharaoh’s daughter serves no goal of the narrative in the MT, Jeroboam’s marriage is significant to the SA in that it demonstrates his status as a potential threat to the house of David and prepares for the following account of the sickness of his son (§§g–na); see ibid. 218–19, 221, 243. Third, in 3 Reg 12:24d, it is stated that Jeroboam heard “that Solomon had died (tm)”; MT 1 Kgs 11:21 states that Hadad heard “that David had lain down with his fathers.” It is easier to explain the change from the basic verb twm to the more honoring expression “to lie down with one’s fathers” than the reverse alteration. The use of twm in 3 Reg 12:24d (= 1 Kgs 11:40) repeats the same verb found in §c: “And he was with him until Solomon died (twm).” 148 Schenker 2000b: 234–5. 149 Schenker (ibid. 235) notes that the situation is similar for David, who begins to rule in Judah according to 2 Sam 2:1–11 but then is anointed as ruler over the tribes of Israel in 2

7.4. Textual Argumentation

299

12:1, the succession notice in 11:43b would signify that Rehoboam assumed control over Israel and Judah. First Kings 12:1 serves to introduce the account of the Assembly at Shechem and stresses from the start the role of the people in the election of their king. Turning to LXX 3 Reg 12:24a, it is reported that Rehoboam succeeded his father and ruled in Jerusalem (not only “in Judah” as MT 1 Kgs 14:21 states). In the SA, Rehoboam rules over Israel and Judah in Jerusalem until the division of the kingdom (cf. 3 Reg 2:46l). Here, the assembly at Shechem is not for the purpose of making Rehoboam king but to demand him to lessen their labor obligations. When Jeroboam hears of Solomon’s death in 3 Reg 12:24d.f, he returns home to enlarge his powerbase in Zarerah. The function of Jeroboam’s hearing of the death of Solomon therefore serves a clear purpose in the SA, to capitalize on the opportunity to resume making arrangements for taking hold of the kingship. In MT 1 Kgs 12:2, the report of Jeroboam learning of Solomon’s death (and Rehoboam’s accession) is without meaning, since the protasis in 12:2 (“When he heard”) lacks a proper apodosis.150 Trebolle has demonstrated that the Hebrew expression -b b#$yw of MT 1 Kgs 12:2 belongs not to any apodosis but to the parenthetical statement in 12:2 (“now he was still in Egypt … “). That the reading of -b b#$yw should not be emended to Nm b#$yFw is demonstrated by the parallel texts incorporating the literary motif of flight, where either the verb b#$y “to dwell (in)” or hyh “to be (in/with)” (see 3 Reg 12:24c) are employed and never bw#$ “to return (with the single exception in the parallel text at 2 Chr 10:2).151 Another problem with MT 1 Kgs 12:2–3 is the switch in number between v. 2 and v. 3: “When Jeroboam son of Nebat heard … they sent (wxl#$yw) and called (w)rqyw) him and Jeroboam and all the assembly of Israel came (ketiv w)byw; qere )byw) and spoke (wrbdyw) to Rehoboam.”152 With Jeroboam as the subject of the protasis in v. 2, it is surprising that the people play the primary role in the apodosis of v. 3. As in 1 Kgs 11:26–40, Jeroboam is more of Sam 5:1–5. However, a notable distinction remains: whereas David is the founder of a new royal house, Rehoboam rules as the legitimate successor to the kingship over all Israel! 150 McKenzie 1987: 299. 151 Trebolle 1980: 67–82; followed by Knoppers 1993: 212–3. The reading of -b b#$y”w is also supported by the parallel text found at LXX 3 Reg 11:43: kai ekaqhto en Aiguptw = MT 1 Kgs 12:2: Myrcmb (M(bry) b#$y”w. 152 See Exod 2:14–15; Judg 9:21; 11:3; 1 Sam 19:2; 23:14–15; 27:1–4; 2 Sam 4:1–3; 13:37–38; Jer 26:21. Gooding (1967: 175–7) has argued that the parenthetical statement ends not in 1 Kgs 12:2 but with the phrase “and when they sent and called him.” Trebolle (1980: 70) is correct that the subject of the phrase “send and call” should agree with the following subject of the action of speaking rather than with the preceding content of the parenthetical statement; see Gen 27:42; 41:8; 41:14–15; Judg 4:6; 1 Kgs 1:36, 42; 12:20. Probably preserved in the LXX is the original reading, in which v. 2 is absent and v. 3 reads: “And the people spoke to King Rehoboam, saying.”

300

Chapter Seven: Story of the Division of the Kingdom

a passive character in 12:1–20 coming to the assembly at Shechem at the people’s summons (see 1 Kgs 12:20), while in 3 Reg 12:24b–f, nb, he is a protagonist who instigates the revolt against Rehoboam. In MT 1 Kgs 12:2–3a, he is mentioned together with the people of Israel as one of the dissidents who speak to Rehoboam. These observations are relevant for analyzing the context of the statement that Jeroboam “heard” in MT 12:2. In SA 3 Reg 12:24d and Standard-LXX 11:43, that statement follows immediately after Solomon’s death, while in the MT 1 Kgs 12:1–2 and in 2 Chr 10:1–2, it follows the statement that Rehoboam and all of Israel had convened at Shechem (v. 1).153 In the LXX, the statement about Jeroboam is located before the account of the assembly at Shechem, whereas in the MT, it forms part of the Shechem account itself. McKenzie has argued that both statements in LXX 3 Reg 11:43 and MT 1 Kgs 12:2–3a are secondary, since the LXX exhibits a Wiederaufnahme at 11:43 and the MT has Jeroboam arriving at the assembly in 1 Kgs 12:3 // 2 Chr 10:3 in direct contradiction to 1 Kgs 12:20 (missing from 2 Chr 10), which assumes that he was not present at the assembly until summoned by Israel.154 Alternatively, Knoppers argues that although MT 1 Kgs 12:2–3 has been corrupted in the course of transmission, and an original reading can be reconstructed that makes sense in the context of MT 1 Kgs 12:1–20.155 With McKenzie, Knoppers argues that the original apodosis was omitted mistakenly by homoioteleuton (Myrcm … Myrp)) but is still preserved at LXX 3 Reg 11:43 in a secondary context. kai\ e0ka&qhto e0n Ai0gu&ptw| kateuqu&nei kai\ e1rxetai ei0j th_n po&lin au)tou~ ei0j th_n gh~n Sarira th_n e0n o!rei Efraim Myrp) rhb r#$) hrrc Cr)l wry(l )byw r#$y/xlc (Myrcmb b#$yw) … (and he dwelt in Egypt), 156then he came straightaway to his city to the land of Zarerah in the hill country of Ephraim.157

153

Trebolle (1980: 76) has argued that LXX 3 Reg 11:43 was originally located after 11:40 and that its location after 12:2 in the MT is secondary. According to Trebolle, moreover, LXX 3 Reg 11:43 is problematic in its present context within Solomon’s death and burial formulae and has resulted in a case of Wiederaufnahme. 154 McKenzie 1987: 297–8, following Klein 1970: 217–8. 155 Knoppers 1993: 213–4. 156 Perhaps one should read kai before kateuqu&nei with LXXL (and OL: et direxit); one would thus read xlac;yI@wA or r#$%’yAy:wA. 157 This argument for the originality of Zarerah in Ephraim at LXX 3 Reg 11:43 furnishes indirect support for the priority of the SA, since Zarerah plays a significant role in the latter. In that account, Jeroboam before fleeing from Solomon had built Zarerah for him (§b) to set up a subsequent revolt only to return there upon Solomon’s death to rally the tribe of Ephraim, thus forming an inclusio; see Schenker 2000b: 243.

7.4. Textual Argumentation

301

Subsequent to this scribal error, the text was corrected with the plural verbs under the influence of 1 Kgs 12:20 or 2 Chr 10:3 (w)rqyw wxl#$yw). I agree with Knoppers that the statement about Jeroboam’s hearing would have existed in the original account, since 1 Kgs 12:20 assumes that Jeroboam had returned to Israel. However, owing to the fact that MT 12:2–3a now belongs to the account of the assembly at Shechem, one must conclude that the statement about Jeroboam’s hearing the news of Solomon’s death has been inserted after 12:1 in order to emphasize that both Jeroboam and the people came against Rehoboam (v. 3). In the context of the Shechem account, the report that Jeroboam returned from Egypt would be insignificant if he did not play an active role in the happenings of the assembly. I am thus inclined to agree with McKenzie that the present arrangement of MT 1 Kgs 12:1–3 is late; but in contrast with him and with Knoppers, I conclude that the modifications to the original report on Jeroboam’s return to Zarerah occurred intentionally to compose the current form of the MT.158 The report of Jeroboam’s flight and return is most meaningful to the SA (3 Reg 12:24b–e), where it leads to the conflict between Jeroboam and Rehoboam at Shechem (§§nb and x). 7.4.2.3. The Integration of the Story of Jeroboam in Rehoboam’s Account The description of Jeroboam’s rise occurs as part of Rehoboam’s account in the SA. Some scholars have regarded the focus on Jeroboam’s rise directly after the opening formulae of Rehoboam’s account as an indication of the secondary arrangement of the SA.159 It is the standard method employed in the composition of Kings to insert political or prophetic accounts immediately after the regnal evaluations.160 Admittedly, the focus on Jeroboam without the 158

Following Klein (1970: 217–8), the LXX Vorlage, which places the earlier version of the statement on Jeroboam’s return to Zarerah in 11:43 and lacks 12:2–3a, is more original than the MT version. The LXX account assumes that Jeroboam played virtually no role in the assembly (see esp. 12:20), a view that works well with the statement of Jeroboam’s return at LXX 11:43 located prior to the Shechem account. I cannot agree, however, with Trebolle’s (1980: 76) view that the statement on Jeroboam’s return would have stood in the original account without Solomon’s death and burial formulae, since one would not be able to understand what Jeroboam had heard; see 1 Kgs 11:21: “Now Hadad had heard that David had lain down with his fathers”; 3 Reg 12:24d: “And Jeroboam heard in Egypt that Solomon had died”; 1 Kgs 21:15–16: “When Jezebel/Ahab heard that Naboth had been stoned and had died.” LXX 11:43 thus assumes the report on Solomon’s death. 159 Stade and Schwally 1904: 137; Gordon 1975: 375; McKenzie 1991: 38; Talshir 1993: 185. For a view similar to the one presented here, see Schenker 2000b: 221, 223. 160 The MT’s version of Rehoboam’s regnal evaluations in 1 Kgs 14:21–24 precedes the report of Shishak’s attack on Jerusalem in 14:25–28. The prologue to Asa’s account is succeeded by the account of Baasha’s attack on Judah and Benjamin in 15:16–22. After the opening formulae to Joram’s account in 2 Kgs 3:1–3, a description of Mesha, king of Moab, immediately follows in 3:4 introducing the narrative on the conflict between Moab and Is-

302

Chapter Seven: Story of the Division of the Kingdom

mention of Rehoboam in 3 Reg 12:24b–na is unusual. Nevertheless, the account of Jeroboam’s rise prepares for his rebellion in Rehoboam’s days.161 Jeroboam’s self-promotion (§b), his exertions to return to Israel after Solomon’s death (§§d, f), and his fortification of Zarerah and consolidation of Ephraim (§f) all serve as background for his convocation of the tribes of Israel at Shechem (§nb) and the separation of the northern tribes from the Rehoboam’s dominion in 3 Reg 12:24p–u. Like other political reports occurring as repercussions of a king’s heinous conduct, the account of Jeroboam’s rise to power is framed as the by-product of Rehoboam’s failure to curry favor with YHWH (§a). At the same time, Jeroboam’s insurrection against YHWH’s beloved dynasty, blessed with longevity and stability via succession (§a), constitutes evidence to discredit the reputation of Jeroboam, whose house is condemned (§m) before the commencement of his reign.162 The MT lacks a formal introduction to Jeroboam’s account, and scholars often appeal to the similar omissions in the accounts of David (1 Kgs 2:11), Solomon (11:41–42; 2 Kgs 10:36), and Jehu to explain the absence of a prologue for Jeroboam.163 Some claim that the absence of the regnal prologue is regular for accounts devoid of a synchronism, as in the cases of David, Solomon, and Jehu.164 This argument is problematic since Rehoboam’s account includes a prologue without a synchronism in 3 Reg 12:24a // LXX 14:21–24 (the existence of a prologue is standard to the final Judahite accounts in 2 Kgs 21–25 after the termination of synchronization). An opening synchronistic formula occurs for Jehu in LXXL and OL at 4 Reg 10:36+. The reading of LXXL is as follows: “In the second year of Athaliah Jehu son of Nimshi reigned”; the OL reads, “And it was the first year of Athaliah when Jehu son rael in 3:4–27 (the insertion of the prophetic story is probably late; see McKenzie 1991: 96– 7). The prologue to the account of the wicked Jehoram in 2 Kgs 8:16–18 precedes the report on the rebellion of Edom in 2 Kgs 8:20–22. Ahaz’s opening formulae in 2 Kgs 16:2–3* precede the account of the Syro-Ephraimite War in 16:5–9; similarly, see the attack of Assyria in Hoshea’s account in 2 Kgs 17:3–6. 161 Schenker (2000b: 223 n. 14) suggests incorrectly that Jeroboam does not revolt against Solomon in 3 Reg 12:24b but only consolidates his power. The expression “to exalt oneself ()#&n Dt-stem, the retroversion of e0pairo&menoj; cf. 3 Reg 1:5; 11:27) over the kingdom” denotes open rebellion in 1 Kgs 1:5; see also Numb 16:3; 24:7; Ezek 29:15. In contrast to MT, which indicates that Jeroboam’s insurrection resulted from Solomon’s cultic sins, in the SA Solomon is successfully able to dispel of Jeroboam, only for him to reemerge in resistance to Rehoboam after Solomon’s death. 162 Talshir’s (1993: 107, 238) assertion that the SA never calls Jeroboam a king needs qualification. A different reading of 3 Reg 12:24o (LXXL) with form critical validation affirms that Jeroboam will rule (basileu&seij = Klmt) over the ten tribes of Israel; see the translation note above on §o (7.3). 163 I have already made a case against the original nature of the concluding notices at 1 Kgs 2:10–11 and 11:42; see above 6.3.3. 164 Trebolle 1980: 108; Miano 2010: 118.

7.4. Textual Argumentation

303

of Nimshi reigned.” Shenkel and Trebolle have argued that these readings preserve the Old Greek and an early variant that was subsequently transported to a secondary location, whether one opts for Athaliah’s first or second year.165 I have argued elsewhere in the present study that Solomon’s account originally began with 3 Reg 2:46l; 3:2 and that 1 Kgs 11:42 is secondary (6.3.3. and 6.3.5). It is necessary to discuss Jeroboam’s epilogue at MT 1 Kgs 14:19–20, since it may indicate coherent regnal account between Solomon’s and Rehoboam’s accounts. A sign of the secondary nature of MT 1 Kgs 14:19–20 is the divergence of its year total for Jeroboam’s account from the OG version of Kings. Shenkel demonstrated that the chronology of the OG is consistent in retaining the synchronism of the twenty-fourth year of Jeroboam as the accession year of Asa (3 Reg 15:8, 9; = MT, twentieth) and the regnal year length of his father Abijam as six years (MT, three) while synchronizing the latter’s accession with Jeroboam’s eighteenth year (3 Reg 15:1; so MT // 2 Chr 13:1). This would mean that Jeroboam reigned for a total of twenty-five years in disagreement with the twenty-two years of MT 1 Kgs 14:20. The OG does not contain an epilogue for Jeroboam’s account, because it was likely incorporated later into the MT.166 Further indications of the secondary status of 1 Kgs 14:19–20 involve stylistic irregularities, such as the omission of where Jeroboam ruled in 1 Kgs 14:20 (1 Kgs 2:11 [over Israel in Hebron and in Jerusalem]; 11:42 [in Jerusalem]; and 2 Kgs 10:36 [over Israel] mention the territory of the king’s dominion). The source citation employs the particle )lh + hnh participle in lieu of the standard interrogative use of the negative particle in.167 Finally, Jeroboam lacks a burial notice, which is conventional for northern kings said to have lain down with their fathers (see below 7.4.3.2). These considerations suggest that 14:19–20 was inserted after Solomon’s and Rehoboam’s accounts were separated in the post-HH editions of Kings. 165

Shenkel (1968: 78–9) reads according to LXXL using non-accession year dating and does not mention the OL. Trebolle (1980: 436 n. 217) notes that the total years for Jehu in the OL 4 Reg 10:36 is twenty-seven instead of the twenty-eight of MT/LXX 2 Kgs 10:36. According to Miano’s (2010: 174) reconstruction, Jehu’s first year beginning in the spring would have overlapped with the latter half of the first year of Athaliah’s reign and the first half of her second year beginning in the autumn. 166 Nor does the Book of Chronicles contain Jeroboam’s epilogue, although it states that Abijah ruled three years in Jerusalem (2 Chr 13:2) in line with the MT’s chronology. Miano (2010: 128–9) maintains that the synchronism of Asa’s accession year in the twenty-fourth year of Jeroboam’s reign was original to the first edition of the Book of Kings (= Dtr1) and that the regnal year total of twenty-two years was subsequently added in the exilic edition (= Dtr2). 167 This is the only occurrence of Mn@Fhi outside of the four examples in MT/LXXA 2 Kgs 15:11, 15, 26, 31; but those four examples conflict with LXXL, which contains the reading ouk idou = )lh; the kaige recension follows the MT (idou estin = Mnh).

304

Chapter Seven: Story of the Division of the Kingdom

Others are of the opinion that the account of the division of the kingdom was unable to accommodate an opening for Jeroboam’s account, whether owing to the unusual nature of his assuming control of the northern tribes or owing to the fact that the author of the framework wished to avoid disrupting the flow of the narrative in 1 Kgs 11–14.168 To be sure, it is unlikely that a hypothetical author of MT 1 Kgs 11–12 would have incorporated a regnal prologue for Jeroboam’s account before 1 Kgs 12:26–32 since the narrative is constructed on the condition of Jeroboam’s faithfulness to YHWH in the realm of cultic affairs (see 1 Kgs 11:38; 14:7–9).169 However, this explanation does not obtain for the Göttingen perspective on the composition of Kings, which retains for its DtrG-stratum only 1 Kgs 11:26 (27–28), 40–43; 12:2, 20a, 25– 30a; 14:19–20.170 The conditional arrangement of Jeroboam’s account is not evidenced in this layer, so that the integration of a prologue together with an evaluation after 12:20a and before 12:25–30a would not has disrupted the narrative.171 Without the conditional promise to Jeroboam in 1 Kgs 11:38 and the resulting condemnation in 14:7–9 for his failure to uphold his part of the bargain, one cannot explain according to the DtrG model why the introductory formulae to Jeroboam’s reign are absent after 12:20a. Despite the fact that the SA also lacks the conditional element for the account of Jeroboam’s rise, the same problem does not exist in that account. In the integration of Jeroboam’s rise in the account of Rehoboam’s reign in 3 Reg 12:24b–na, the author of the SA could not have inserted the regnal prologue for Jeroboam’s account within framework of Rehoboam’s (Jeroboam is portrayed as wicked from the beginning; not so in DtrG 1 Kgs 11:26–28, 40–43; 12:2, 20a!).172 Rather than suggesting that Jeroboam’s epilogue at MT 1 Kgs 14:19–20 was accidentally

168

Noth 1968: 328; Würthwein 1977: 180; Jones 1984: 275; Long 1984: 158. Wallace 1986: 37–8; Knoppers 1993: 35–44, 152–9, 199–206; Ash 1998: 18–19; Leuchter 2008: 57; pace Holder 1988: 29. 170 See Würthwein 1984: 506–7. The problem is exacerbated all the more if one excises the concluding formulae for Solomon’s account in 1 Kgs 11:41–43 (Levin 2008: 137–8), as Jeroboam’s account would not have been divided by Solomon’s epilogue and would thus form a single literary unit. The view is recommended then that the story of Jeroboam’s rise formed part of the accounts of either Solomon and/or Rehoboam in the original history. 171 An example of such a literary design is found in the account of Baasha, who initially appears in Asa’s account in 1 Kgs 15:16–22 vying for the territory of Benjamin and in the report of usurpation (Putschbericht) in Nadab’s account at 15:27–29 but whose actual account is formally opens at 15:33–34 and concludes at 16:5–6. 172 This does not signify that the SA should be read in isolation from the report on Jeroboam’s cultic endeavors in 1 Kgs 12:26–30 or from the HH-framework; pace Wallace 1986: 39; Talshir 1993: 157–8. Wallace and Talshir assume that 1 Kgs 11:29–39 and 1 Kgs 14:7–9 were included in the first version of the Book of Kings. However, if these texts are secondary (after the fashion of DtrG), then Jeroboam’s account does not mention cultic matters before 1 Kgs 12:26–30. This design is identical to the SA’s literary arrangement. 169

7.4. Textual Argumentation

305

omitted,173 it is likely that it never existed in the Vorlage of the OG and is a strictly Masoretic development. 7.4.3. The Story of Jeroboam’s Sick Son (LXX 3 Reg 12:24g–na // MT 1 Kgs 14:1–18) In the account of Jeroboam’s flight to Egypt and return to Zarerah, 3 Reg 12:24e reports that he had married Ano the daughter of Pharaoh, and she had born him a son named Abia. That information prepares for the story of Jeroboam’s sick son and the consultation of the prophet Ahijah about his welfare in 12:24g–nb. Jeroboam sends his wife, Ano (whose description is also found in §e), to consult the prophet Ahijah. Once she arrives, Ahijah pronounces an oracle of woe against both the child and Jeroboam’s family (12:24l–na).174 The parallel account in the MT occurs not prior to the assembly at Shechem as in the SA but afterwards in 1 Kgs 14:1–18 and is also larger than the SA’s version of the story (recall that in MT 12:2–3 Jeroboam’s return is grafted into the Shechem account). The narrative portion of the MT account in 1 Kgs 14:1–6 and the content of Ahijah’s prophecy in 14:7–11 assume the conditional promise to Jeroboam of a dynasty in 1 Kgs 11:29–39 and the description of the cult that Jeroboam establishes at Bethel and Dan in 12:26–32.175 Moreover, the oracle of Ahijah in 14:7–11 is directly associated with the similar oracles that occur in the accounts for Baasha (16:2–4), Ahab (21:20–22, 24), and Jehu (2 Kgs 9:7–10). Those elements of Ahijah’s oracle that relate to material elsewhere in Kings are strikingly absent from the SA, so that one must conclude that the concern of the SA is neither the conditional promise of a lasting dynasty to Jeroboam nor cultic matters. Trebolle has argued that the pronouncement against Jeroboam’s house in 12:24m is an extraneous (but still pre-Dtr) element interrupting the normal succession of the oracle, which originally read: “Your maidservants will come out to meet you and will say to you, ‘The child is dead.’ And they will mourn the child.”176 There is a contradiction, according to Trebolle, between this original pronouncement and the one against Jeroboam’s house, in that the primary oracle states that Abia will be mourned and buried while the secon173

Gooding 1969: 13; Talshir 1993: 159; Toews 1993: 27. As in MT 1 Kgs 14:1–6, Ahijah is formally introduced in 3 Reg 12:24h, the logical place for his introduction, since this is the first time that he is mentioned in the SA. The detailed description of Ahijah in MT 1 Kgs 14 is strange, however, given that he is already mentioned in 1 Kgs 11:29–31. 175 1 Kgs 14:2bb (“he told me that I would become king over this people”) and 14:8 allude to 11:29–39; 14:9 refers directly to the images that Jeroboam made in 12:28; see Noth 1968: 319. 176 Trebolle 1980: 152. Wallace (1986: 36) also argues that the existence of Ahijah’s oracle in 3 Reg 12:24m points to an earlier source used by the Dtr editor. 174

306

Chapter Seven: Story of the Division of the Kingdom

dary oracle states that all the members of Jeroboam’s house will not be buried. Trebolle’s argument disregards the disjunctive syntax of the oracle indicating that a contrast is being drawn between the rest of the members of Jeroboam’s house who will not be buried and the sick child who will receive a proper burial, although the child’s death results from YHWH’s decision to eliminate Jeroboam’s house: Your maidservants will come out to meet you and will say to you, ‘The child is dead.’ For thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I am about to destroy those of Jeroboam who urinate on the wall. Those belonging to Jeroboam who are dead in the city dogs will devour and those who are dead in the field the birds of the sky will consume.’ But the child (kai\ to_ paida&rion = dlylw) they will mourn.177

There is no contradiction concerning the oracle of non-burial for Jeroboam’s house in 3 Reg 12:24m in terms of syntax. In MT 1 Kgs 14:7–10, Ahijah immediately responds to Jeroboam’s inquiry with the retrospective justification for the condemnation of Jeroboam’s house, whereas in the SA, Ahijah first addresses the specific issue of the child’s illness. The SA has woven together the story of Jeroboam’s sick child and the curse against his house more satisfactorily than the MT version.178 McKenzie argues that one must infer from the MT account that the sick child would be buried, since burial is not explicitly mentioned in the SA regarding the sick child.179 However, the contrast between the non-burial of Jeroboam’s male family and the sick child indicates that the child was buried. The content of the mourning (“O lord”) is used in rites that explicitly mention burial, twice for a king and once for a prophet (1 Kgs 13:30; Jer 22:18–19; 34:5).180 Given the circumstances of Abia’s death, which resulted not from battle but from sickness, there is no indication in the SA that he would be left unburied. 7.4.3.1. The Report of Oracular Inquiry in 3 Reg 12:24g–na In order to determine the relationship between Ahijah’s oracle of woe in 3 Reg 12:24m and the HH-framework, one must first understand the oracle in the context of §§g–na. The basic form of the story of Jeroboam’s sick child in which the oracle resides is a report of an oracular inquiry involving a prophet,181 which consists of four essential elements: 1) a description of the problem to be addressed by divine oracle, in this case sickness (hlx); 2) a 177

So Talshir 1993: 96. Wallace 1986: 28–9. 179 McKenzie 1991: 30. 180 See Trebolle 1980: 155. On the other hand, the term dps need not imply burial; see 2 Sam 11:15–17, 26–27. 181 For the definition of the report of oracular inquiry involving a prophet, see Long 1973: 337–48; idem 1984: 254. 178

7.4. Textual Argumentation

307

consultation with the prophet to request an oracle (#$rd); 3) the oracle; 4) a report that it was fulfilled. According to Long, the prototype of the report of oracular inquiry occurs in 2 Kgs 8:7–15, the story of the consultation of Elisha on behalf of the Aramean king, Ben-Hadad.182 The Aramean king grows ill and requests Hazael to inquire of YHWH as to whether he will live. The themes of becoming sick (hlx) and of directing a messenger to go (Klh) inquire (#$rd) of YHWH as to whether the one ailing will survive (hyx) appear in 2 Kgs 8:8. Furthermore, the king directs the messenger to take (xql) a gift to present to the prophet as a guarantee of a positive response in the same verse. The messenger fulfills his order, inquiring about the welfare of the sick person, but receives a further pronouncement beyond what is necessary to indicate whether the illness will abate. In 2 Kgs 8:10–13, after Elisha tells Hazael to relay the oracle that Ben-Hadad will recover (even though he will actually perish), the prophet then predicts that Hazael will become the next king of Aram and will oppress Israel severely. This prediction is immediately fulfilled in 2 Kgs 8:15: “The next day he (i.e., Hazael) took a woven covering and dipped it in water and spread it over his (Ben-Hadad’s) head and he died (tmyw) and Hazael reigned in his place (wytxt Klmyw).” Since Hazael assassinates the king, rules in his place, and does not provide the king with a proper burial, the fulfillment reads like the series of reports of usurpation found in 1 Kgs 15–16 and 2 Kgs 15.183 The prophecy, which commences as a prophetic consultation as to the future welfare of the indisposed king, anticipates the report of usurpation. Beyond the fulfillment of the assassination of Ben-Hadad and usurping of his throne, Elisha also foretells the oppression of Israel under the domination of Hazael. This further prediction frames the subsequent reports on the conflict between Syria and Israel that mention Hazael in 2 Kgs 9:14; 10:32; 13:3, 22 (Judah in 2 Kgs 12:18–19).184 The story of Jeroboam’s sick child in 3 Reg 12:24g–na is nearly identical in form to the report of oracular inquiry in 2 Kgs 8:7–15. Jeroboam requests his wife, Ano, to go (Klh) inquire (#$rd) of God concerning the future wel182

Long 1973: 344. Trebolle (1980: 99–105; idem 1984: 110–15; idem 2000: 482–3) notes another instance of a report of usurpation (Putschbericht) in 2 Kgs 8:28+9:27–28 = 4 Reg 10:36+ (LXXL; OL). 184 The preparatory function of the prophecy in 2 Kgs 8:11b–13a is evident even if it is a later insertion (Schmitt 1972: 82–5; Würthwein 1984: 320–21; for criticisms of this view, see Stipp 1987: 476–7). Schmitt and Würthwein divide the prediction involving Hazael’s reign from the prediction involving his oppression of Israel. Whereas Schmitt assigns the former to the original prophetic story, Würthwein regards it also as secondary, though not as late as the prediction of Israel’s oppression. In my opinion, Würthwein’s separation of the prediction of Hazael’s reign from the original story is unconvincing, since Hazael plays a primary role in the story as Ben-Hadad’s messenger and assassinates him at the story’s conclusion. 183

308

Chapter Seven: Story of the Division of the Kingdom

fare (hyx) of their sick child (hlx) in 3 Reg 12:24g and to take (xql) gifts to encourage a favorable response (3 Reg 12:24h–i). The unfavorable oracle is immediately fulfilled in 12:24na: “The wife left when she heard (this) and when she came to Zarerah, the child was dead and the mourning cry went out to meet her.” What is interesting for drawing a comparison between 3 Reg 12:24g–na and 2 Kgs 8:7–15 is that both stories contain further predictions beyond the simple oracular response. In both cases, moreover, the additional predictions await fulfillment outside of the immediate context of the stories in which they occur. McKenzie maintains that one cannot understand Ahijah’s oracle without the grounds for it in MT 1 Kgs 14:7–9, as there is no moral justification (Begründung) for the oracle of judgment against Jeroboam’s house in the SA.185 Although oracles of condemnation usually include a moral justification, there are exceptions (1 Kgs 22:17; 2 Kgs 20:1; Jer 22:10, 11f, 24–27, 30; 37:17).186 The original form of the oracle did not necessarily contain an extensive motivation, since in the context of the SA, Jeroboam’s role as a usurper against the house of David constitutes sufficient grounds for the oracle against his house.187 The reason for the Abia’s death, however general, is YHWH’s intention to eliminate Jeroboam’s house (3 Reg 12:24m: “For thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I am about to destroy those belonging to Jeroboam who urinate on the wall.’”). In the prophetic story involving Ben-Hadad’s illness in 2 Kgs 8:7–15, to cite a parallel, Elisha’s prophecy of woe against Israel in vv. 11b–13a also lacks a moral justification. Since the form of this story is closest to the story of the illness of Jeroboam’s son in 3 Reg 12:24g–na, this is further evidence to suggest that the original account did not require a Begründung.188 I conclude therefore that the oracle of condemnation in the SA is coherent in its context and should not be regarded as secondary. It is simpler to explain the transformation of the form of the story as having been derived from SA and developed into the MT version. One is not liable then to explain the omis185

McKenzie 1991: 30. Westermann 1967: 161–3. Westermann holds that there is no justification included in examples concerning stories featuring inquiry, as in 2 Kgs 20:1 and Jer 37:17. This insight is valid for 2 Kgs 8:7–15 and 3 Reg 12:24g–na. 187 See Schenker 2000b: 223. The fact that the child is allowed a burial on account of his good qualities before YHWH implies that the rest of Jeroboam’s house (including Jeroboam) is considered by YHWH to be sordid. 188 Long (1973: 344) notes that the form of Report of Oracular Inquiry is not as clear in 1 Kgs 14:1–18 due to secondary additions in vv. 7b–11, 13–16. This is true regarding the moral justification in vv. 7–9 and the prediction of Israel’s destruction in vv. 14–15. Long does not discuss the parallel story of Jeroboam’s sick child in the SA. Scholarship going back over a century has maintained that the original oracle in 1 Kgs 14 lacked a Begründung (i.e., vv. 7–9); Thenius 1873: 251; Šanda 1911: 364; Debus 1967: 52–3; Noth 1968: 318–19; Trebolle 1980: 155; Blanco Wißmann 2008: 196–8 (1 Kgs 14:1–2ba.3–7aa.10*, 11–13, 14?, 17f., in the non-Dtr Grundfassung of Kings); Ephʿal-Jaruzelska 2009: 40, 175. 186

7.4. Textual Argumentation

309

sion of the Deuteronomistic motivation in 1 Kgs 14:7–9 or why certain explanatory glosses in the MT did not make their way into the SA.189 Most significant is the absence of the fulfillment notice in MT 1 Kgs 14:18 from the SA: “And all Israel buried him and mourned for him according to the word of YHWH which he had spoken through his servant Ahijah the prophet.”190 7.4.3.2. The Curse of Non-burial in 3 Reg 12:24m If the SA preserves a pre-Dtr form of the curse of non-burial of Jeroboam’s line, as I maintain, then it is potentially relevant for the discussion of the HHframework, in particular, its possible association with the death and burial formulae in the royal epilogues. Since the curse is not fulfilled within the parameters of the SA, its fulfillment might be found in the following account of the fate of Jeroboam’s house. As mentioned above in the discussion on the embedment of the story of Jeroboam’s rise within the account of Rehoboam’s reign (7.4.2.3), there are several indications that the conclusion to Jeroboam’s account at MT 14:19–20 is late. A further indication that Jeroboam’s epilogue is late results from an investigation of the death and burial formulae at MT 1 Kgs 14:20. wytxt wnb bdn Klmyw wytb) M( bk#$yw And he lay down with his fathers and Nadab his son reigned in his stead.

This formula is irregular among the regnal epilogues in that is lacks a burial notice after the phrase “to lie down with one’s fathers.” Only two other occurrences of this type of formula are found in a northern account (1 Kgs 22:40 and 2 Kgs 15:22).191 The reading of 1 Kgs 22:40 is problematic, because earlier in 22:37 it is stated that Ahab died (tmyw) and was buried (wrbqyw) in Samaria. It is possible that the burial notice was left out of Ahab’s epilogue to avoid unnecessary duplication.192 The omission of the burial notice in Menahem’s epilogue (2 Kgs 15:22) is more difficult to explain. It should be noted that no burial notice exists in the account belonging to a northern king follow189

For example, the gloss in the MT that makes explicit the fact that the child was buried found in 1 Kgs 14:13abg (“and they will bury him for he alone of those belonging to Jeroboam will enter a tomb”) is missing from the SA; similarly, Trebolle 1980: 153–4. 190 Pace Talshir 1993: 256. Talshir does not offer support for her argument that the addition of a fulfillment notice would have spoiled the effect of the expression of grief in the conclusion to the story. Dietrich (1972: 22–6) demonstrated that the explicit use of fulfillment notices in the Book of Kings is frequently owing to late redaction. 191 The example at 2 Kgs 14:29 (Jeroboam II) is not counted among these examples since the burial formula occurs in the Old Greek at LXXL (cf. Josephus Ant. 9.215) as is consistent with the surrounding epilogues at 2 Kgs 10:35: 13:9, 13; 14:16. See Halpern and Vanderhooft 1991: 193. 192 This is possible even if 1 Kgs 22:40 is earlier than 22:37 (ibid. 235), since the change could have taken place once 22:37 was added.

310

Chapter Seven: Story of the Division of the Kingdom

ing the last notice for a Nimshide king (Jeroboam II) at 2 Kgs 14:16 (LXXL).193 The lack of a burial notice in 2 Kgs 15–17 may have occasioned the omission of the burial notice in Menahem’s epilogue. In any case, the absence of a burial formula in Jeroboam’s account is anomalous in light of its regular occurrence for northern kings who die peacefully (1 Kgs 16:6, 28; 2 Kgs 10:35; 13:9, 13; 14:16, 29 [LXXL]). One might contend that Jeroboam’s epilogue lacks a burial notice because of the curse of non-burial in MT 1 Kgs 14:11 (≈ 3 Reg 12:24m), but the same curse is found in the accounts of Baasha and Ahab (1 Kgs 16:4; 21:24), which contain notices of burial (1 Kgs 16:6; 22:37).194 Instead, one may argue that there was originally no epilogue to Jeroboam’s account (since it was actually situated within Rehoboam’s account) and that a formal conclusion was later added to fill out his account, supplying a regnal year total and a succession notice. Neither the manner of Jeroboam death is ever predicted in 3 Reg 12:24m nor is the manner of transition from his reign to his son’s indicated. The absence of 1 Kgs 14:19–20 in the original framework is supported by its nonattendance in the Book of Chronicles’ story of the battle between Abijah and Jeroboam in 2 Chr 13:3– 20. The latter narrates the violent death of Jeroboam during Abijah’s reign without any mention of burial or a successor. Either Chronicles ignored the death and succession notices in MT 1 Kgs 14:20 or they were not present in its Vorlage.195 A firm conclusion cannot be reached on this matter, although the multiple instances of Chronicle’s use of the LXX Vorlage of Kings permits one to regard the latter option as a genuine possibility.196 The fulfillment of the curse against Jeroboam’s house in 3 Reg 12:24m is found in 1 Kgs 15:27–28: 1 Kgs 15:27 Baasha son of Ahijah of the house of Issachar conspired against him and Baasha struck him dead in Gibbethon, which belonged to the Philistines (Nadab and all Israel had 193

Perhaps the similar omission of the burial notice for Jeroboam II at MT 2 Kgs 14:16 is analogous to the lack of a burial notice for Menahem at 15:22; however, none of the major versions preserves a burial notice at 15:22. According to Josephus (Ant. 9.233), Menahem was buried in Samaria, a reading possibly preserving an original notice. 194 Ibid. 193. The expression ryqb Nyt#$m of the curse in 1 Sam 25:22, 34 is used in the context of David’s threat to kill off the entire house of Nabal. In the episode’s denouement, it is Nabal alone who is killed by YHWH as compensation for his wickedness. This is evidence for considering the curse to have been original to the account of Jeroboam, who possesses no burial formula, and subsequently applied to accounts of Baasha and Ahab, which contain a burial notice. 195 In epilogues for kings who “lie down (bk#$) with their fathers,” a burial notice is always in attendance: 2 Chr 9:31; 12:16; 13:23; 16:13–14; 21:1; 26:23; 27:9; 28:27; 32:33; 33:20. In contrast, YHWH strikes Jeroboam dead according to 2 Chr 13:15, 20. Although the fact that Chronicles recounts the death of Jeroboam in the reign of Abijah results in a chronological difficulty, Japhet (1993: 688) points out that the problem does not exist in Chronicles, since the latter lacks a parallel for 1 Kgs 14:19–20 or the synchronism in 15:9. 196 McKenzie 1985; Person 2010.

7.4. Textual Argumentation

311

been laying siege against Gibbethon). 15:28And Baasha killed him in the third year of Asa king of Judah and he reigned in his place.197 15:29When he began to reign, he struck down all the house of Jeroboam. [He did not leave behind any living being of Jeroboam.]198

In the above passage the usurper Baasha assassinates Nadab and takes his place as king of Israel; an attendant burial notice is appropriately absent from Nadab’s epilogue. The report of the assassination of Nadab lies within a chain of reported usurpations concerning Baasha and Zimri that are nearly identical in form with the chain concerning Jehu, Shallum, Pekah, and Hoshea that do not contain a fulfillment notice or a following cultic explanation (2 Kgs 9:14, 24; 12:21; 14:20; 15:10, 25, 30; 21:23); these reports are considered to be original or early and parallel similar reports in the Mesopotamian chronicles.199 There is nothing in the above-cited text in 1 Kgs 15:29 that demonstrates a connection with MT 1 Kgs 14:7–11 over against LXX 3 Reg 12:24m. However, the references to Jeroboam’s cultic sins at 1 Kgs 15:30 and 16:13 are loosely attached to the fulfillment notices. As such explanatory attachments are unique to these notices in Kings, they are probably secondary to the original history.200 7.4.4. The Assembly at Shechem in the HH (3 Reg 12:24nb–u) 7.4.4.1. The Role of Jeroboam versus the Role of the People The SA is explicit about the fact that Jeroboam was the instigator behind the assembly at Shechem: “And Jeroboam went to Shechem, which is in the hill country of Ephraim, and he gathered there the tribes of Israel, and Rehoboam 197

LXXL reads “and Baasha reigned over Israel” probably in anticipation of 1 Kgs 15:33, which contains the same synchronism in 15:28. 198 I have placed in brackets part of 1 Kgs 15:29, which may or may not have been original to the HH. Dietrich (1972: 59) argues that 1 Kgs 15:29 does not follow the standard form of a usurpation report (Putschbericht), found repeatedly in 2 Kgs 15. However, the original notice may have been a catalyst for the fulfillment of the eradication of Jeroboam’s house in 15:29a; see Campbell 1986: 92. Kittel (1990: 128) included in his annalistic source (K) the phrase “he struck down the entire house of Jeroboam”; support for this view is found in the parallel text for Baasha (1 Kgs 16:11), which omits the expression “he left no one remaining who urinates on the wall, not even his kinsman or his friend.” The latter expression is absent from LXXBL and OL. On the other hand, the expression -l hm#$n lk ry)#$h )l may be early; see Dietrich (1972: 83), who pointed to the early occurrences of similar expressions at 2 Kgs 10:11 and Josh 8:22; differently, Schmitt 1972: 22–3; Otto 2001: 45–7. 199 Adam 2007: 192–5; idem 2010: 48–9. 200 Further support is supplied in the similar report of consultation in a case of illness in 2 Kgs 8:7–15, where the prophecy of Hazael’s reign in v. 13 corresponds to its fulfillment via notices of Ben-Hadad’s violent death (tmyw) without burial and Hazael’s usurpation (Klmyw wytxt) in v. 15. The lack of an explicit fulfillment notice (“according to the word of YHWH”) in 2 Kgs 8:15 suggests that the explicit fulfillment notice in 1 Kgs 15:29b is secondary.

312

Chapter Seven: Story of the Division of the Kingdom

son of Solomon ascended there” (3 Reg 12:24nb). The MT account also casts Jeroboam in the limelight: “Jeroboam and all Israel came and spoke to Rehoboam” (1 Kgs 12:3 // 2 Chr 10:3); “Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam on the third day” (12:12 // 2 Chr 10:12). This presentation of Jeroboam is contradicted by the greater role played by “the people” (M(h) as addressees in the dialogue with Rehoboam (1 Kgs 12:5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 16, 23) as well as by the explicit notice in 12:20 that Israel summoned Jeroboam to the assembly when they heard that he had returned from Egypt. The SA is more satisfactory than the MT in its display of coherence in focusing on the actions of Jeroboam.201 7.4.4.2. The Prophecy Announcing Jeroboam’s Rule over the Ten Tribes There are notable differences between the parallel versions of the oracle forecasting the reign of Jeroboam over the ten tribes in 3 Reg 12:24o and MT/standard-LXX 1 Kgs 11:29–39. Whereas the latter is located within the account of Solomon prior to the assembly at Shechem, the SA recounts the prophecy in retrospect immediately after the report that Jeroboam had come to Shechem and gathered the tribes of Israel to confront Rehoboam in 3 Reg 12:24nb. In the MT, the prophecy is mediated through Ahijah, the same prophet who figures in the condemnation of Jeroboam’s house in 1 Kgs 14:1– 18. In the SA, it is Shemiah the “Elamite” who announces Jeroboam’s future as king of the ten tribes of Israel, the same prophet who commands JudahBenjamin and Israel to refrain from battle in 3 Reg 12:24y. The gesture of ripping the garment and presenting ten pieces to Jeroboam functions in the MT to introduce a lengthy extrapolation on the transfer of the kingdom of Solomon to Jeroboam, focusing on the themes of Judah and David (1 Kgs 11:32–39). The SA depicts a simple prophetic gesture followed by a brief corresponding pronouncement: Jeroboam grasps ten pieces of the garment symbolizing the ten tribes of Israel over which he will rule. There is no mention of Solomon, David, or Judah. Several factors indicate that one should hold to the priority of the form of Shemiah’s prophecy over the one ascribed to Ahijah in the MT. The most significant indication of the earlier age of Shemiah’s first prophecy in the SA relative to MT 1 Kgs 11:29–39 is the lack of Dtr elements in the former account. In the MT, the focus of the account is the reduction of Solomon’s kingdom as Jeroboam’s rise to power and reign over Israel emerge in his account as forms of divine punishment for Solomon’s cultic sins (1 Kgs 11:7, 33,

201 The standard LXX is also consistent as it lacks any mention of Jeroboam in 3 Reg 12:3 and 12:12 and thus highlights the role of the northern tribes who defected from the house of David.

7.4. Textual Argumentation

313

LXX).202 It is stated in 11:33 (LXX) that Solomon did not walk in YHWH’s ways (instead of the ways of David). There is also allusion in the account of Josiah at 2 Kgs 23:13 to the specific cultic transgressions of Solomon in LXX 3 Reg 11:33 involving the deities Ashtoreth, Chemosh, and Milcom; see also MT 1 Kgs 11:7 // LXX 3 Reg 11:5. The description of Solomon’s dedication of the bāmôt to those deities prepares for the account of their destruction during the reign of Josiah.203 The pairing of the bāmôt and veneration of deities other than YHWH does not match the HH-framework and the emphasis of this motif in the account of Solomon (1 Kgs 11) is perhaps the redactional work of a Josianic editor of Kings. In contrast to the SA, which states that Judah and Benjamin remained loyal to Rehoboam, in MT 1 Kgs 11:32 only the tribe of Judah is said to have remained loyal to Rehoboam “for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem, the city that I chose from among all the tribes of Israel” (see also 11:13, 36).204 The expression marking YHWH’s choice of Jerusalem comes directly from the Book of Deuteronomy and is absent from the SA (cf. MT 1 Kgs 14:21 vs. 3 Reg 12:24a).205 The mention of only Judah also occurs in MT 1 Kgs 12:20: “None but the tribe of Judah remained loyal to the house of David.” Yet in MT 1 Kgs 12:21, it states that after regrouping in Jerusalem, Rehoboam gathered together the tribe of Judah and the tribe of Benjamin to fight against the house of Israel. In contrast to 12:20, which mentions only Judah, the references to Judah and Benjamin in 12:21, 23 correspond to the prophecy that Jeroboam would rule over ten northern tribes in LXX 3 Reg 12:24o and in MT 1 Kgs 11:31, 35. The ten pieces of the garment in the symbolic prophetic gesture are in harmony with the ten tribes ruled by Jeroboam in the prophetic message. In the MT (also at standard LXX 3 Reg 11:13) there are two resultant contradictions. In texts where Judah and only the ten northern tribes are mentioned, one wonders why only eleven tribes are featured when the prophet had torn the garment into twelve pieces. Furthermore, the 202

See 1 Kgs 11:11: “YHWH said to Solomon …’I will surely take the kingdom from you’“; 11:31b: “I am about to tear the kingdom away from Solomon”; 11:35: “I will take the kingdom from his son.” 203 See Knoppers 1994: 175–96; idem 1997: 408; Barrick 2001: 419–49. 204 The standard LXX has added Benjamin to the mention of Judah only or replaced “one tribe” with “two” in 3 Reg 11:32, 36; 12:20; 14:21 (LXXL); other texts mentioning only Judah are absent from the LXX, such as MT 12:17. However, the LXX is inconsistent mentioning only “one tribe” at 3 Reg 11:13 in agreement with the MT. Furthermore, the mention of Benjamin together with the expression “for the sake of Jerusalem the city which YHWH chose” is unique to these texts only in LXX-Kings, never occurring elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. One may therefore conclude that the inclusion of Benjamin in LXX-Kings was done to bring the texts of 1 Kgs 11–14 into conformity with the prophecy of MT 1 Kgs 11:29–31 (10 + 2 = 12); similarly, Wevers 1950: 303–4. 205 Deut 12:5, 11, 14, 18, 21, 26; 14:23, 24, 25; 15:20; 16:2, 6, 7, 11, 15, 16; 17:8, 10; 18:6; 23:17; 26:2; 31:11; cf. 1 Kgs 8:16, 44, 48; 11:36, 14:21; 2 Kgs 23:27.

314

Chapter Seven: Story of the Division of the Kingdom

texts mentioning only Judah stand in direct contradiction with MT 12:21, 23, which refers to both Judah and Benjamin in line with the prophecy involving the division of ten tribes from a total of twelve (11:30–31). None of these problems exists in the SA. In 3 Reg 12:24o, the ten pieces correspond exactly to the ten tribes of Israel, and both Judah and Benjamin rally to the support of Rehoboam in §§ u, x, and y. (The latter two verses parallel MT 1 Kgs 12:21, 23, which also mention both Judah and Benjamin.)206 There is an explicit fulfillment notice in reference to the prophecy of the torn garment in 1 Kgs 11:29–39 at MT 1 Kgs 12:15: “The king did not listen to the people, for the affair was from YHWH in order to uphold his word, which he spoke through Ahijah the Shilonite to Jeroboam son of Nebat.” An analogous notice is absent from the SA (cf. 3 Reg 12:24na), a fact difficult to explain if the latter was based on the MT.207 Scholars arguing against the originality of the prophecy in 3 Reg 12:24o have often observed that it interrupts the account of the assembly at Shechem (Trebolle; McKenzie). However, this argument does not account for the opening syntax exhibiting a disjunctive structure: kai\ lo&goj kuri/ou e0ge/neto pro_j Samaian = hy(m#$ l) hyh hwhy rbdw “Now the word of YHWH had come to Shemiah.” The syntactic structure here denotes background information that is temporally retrospective.208 The placement of Shemiah’s prophecy in 3 Reg 12:24o is not accidental, as it generates a narrative arc that is concluded in the final episode of the SA (§§x–z).209 The initial retrospective prophecy of Shemiah in §o involving Jeroboam’s immanent rule over the ten northern tribes of Israel forms an inclusio with the final prophecy of Shemiah that causes the two southern tribes under Rehoboam to refrain from fighting against the ten northern tribes under Jeroboam in §§x–z. Just as YHWH had at some point in the past revealed that Jeroboam would become king, so Rehoboam’s attempt to prevent Jeroboam’s rebellion is stymied by YHWH: “For this affair has issued from me” (§y).

206

See also Schenker 2000b: 224. Pace Talshir 1993: 256. Talshir opines that the author of the SA preferred to use the explanation that Rehoboam’s stupidity was the cause of his decision to answer the people according to the advice of his peers over against the explanation of divine intervention. If this is the case, then why did the SA include the prophecy of Jeroboam’s future reign over the ten tribes of Israel? 208 Talshir 1993: 169, 175–6, 189; Schenker 2000b: 224–5; contrast the syntax in 3 Reg 12:24y (kai\ e0ge/neto [= yhyw] r(h~ma kuri/ou pro_j Samaian). 209 Talshir 1993: 176. 207

7.4. Textual Argumentation

315

7.4.5. The Prevention of War between Rehoboam and Jeroboam (LXX 3 Reg 12:24x–z // MT 1 Kgs 12:21–24) The concluding segment involving Rehoboam’s effort to regain control of the northern kingdom matches the MT version of 1 Kgs 12:21–24 more strictly than preceding sections of the SA. There are two significant differences between the two parallel accounts. According to 3 Reg 12:24x, “At the beginning of the year, Rehoboam gathered all the men of Judah and Benjamin and went up to fight with Jeroboam at Shechem.” Once again, Jeroboam plays an active role in the SA as the opponent of Rehoboam, while in the MT “House of Israel” is cast in that role (1 Kgs 12:21). The leading position of Jeroboam is thus consistently portrayed in the SA (cf. §§nb and x), while in the MT Jeroboam’s status is subordinated to the position of the northern tribes of Israel (1 Kgs 12:20–21). The majority of scholarship has regarded MT 1 Kgs 12:21–24 as a post-Dtr addition to Kings.210 I have already mentioned above the contradiction between texts such as 1 Kgs 12:20 in which only Judah remains faithful to Rehoboam as against vv. 21–24, which states that Benjamin also belonged to Rehoboam’s retinue. Scholars have noted that the Rehoboam’s arrival in Jerusalem in 1 Kgs 12:21 repeats the notice in 12:18 that he had already fled there.211 Nielsen maintained that the references to the “House of Israel” and “House of Judah” are late characteristics.212 Similarly, others regard the reference to Benjamin in 1 Kgs 12:21 as late.213 It is also observed that the prophetic command to avoid military conflict in 12:24 is at variance with the statement in 14:30 and 15:6 that Jeroboam and Rehoboam were continually at war.214 These considerations have compelled scholars of the opinion that 3 210 Burney 1903: 173; Jepsen 1956: 102–3; Gray 1963: 285; Wellhausen 1963: 277; Debus 1967: 34; Schüpphaus 1967: 19–21; Noth 1968: 179–80; idem 1981: 133 n. 26; Dietrich 1972: 114 n. 16; Würthwein 1977: 160–1; McKenzie 1991: 57; Fritz 1996: 136; Cogan 2000: 354. 211 Knoppers (1994: 19 n. 6) maintains that )byw in 1 Kgs 12:21 is circumstantial: “When Rehoboam entered Jerusalem …” 212 Nielsen 1955: 204. The SA uses “House of Joseph” (§b = MT 1 Kgs 11:28), “House of Ephraim” (§b), and “House of Judah and Benjamin” (§y); cf. MT 1 Kgs 15:27: “House of Issachar.” 213 Kittel 1900: 105; Nielsen 1955: 204 n. 1; Noth 1968: 279; Würthwein 1977: 161. 214 The expression “there was war between RN1 and RN2 continually” is found in 1 Kgs 14:30, missing in LXX (Rehoboam and Jeroboam); 15:6 (Rehoboam and Jeroboam); 15:7 // 2 Chr 13:2 (Abijah and Jeroboam); 1 Kgs 15:16 (Asa and Baasha); 15:32, missing in LXX (Asa and Baasha); cf. 2 Sam 3:1 (House of Saul and House of David); 3:6 (House of Saul and House of David); 1 Kgs 22:1 (Aram and Israel). There is thus a question about the original quality of this expression for Rehoboam’s account. There is no battle account actually preserved for Rehoboam and Jeroboam. 1 Kgs 14:30 does not concern Rehoboam’s attempt to reacquire the northern kingdom from Israel (so Noth 1968: 280); cf. Robker 2012: 129 n. 82.

316

Chapter Seven: Story of the Division of the Kingdom

Reg 12:24a–z preserves a pre-Dtr account of the division of Israel and Judah to regard the final segment in §§x–z as a late addition under the influence of the MT version. Trebolle has maintained that 3 Reg 12:24x–z was added through resumptive repetition (Wiederaufnahme) in order to facilitate the transition from the SA to MT 1 Kgs 12:25 and following.215 Talshir rightly criticized Trebolle’s view and drew attention to the prominence of Jeroboam’s role in 3 Reg 12:24x that is in line with the previous material of the SA.216 This can only be the composition of a single literary mind seeking to assign Jeroboam an important status in the story. Nevertheless, Talshir upheld the standard critical view that MT 1 Kgs 12:21–24 is secondary in its context to demonstrate that the parallel text in 3 Reg 12:24x–z signifies that the entirety of the SA is based on an MT text-type and cannot be pre-Dtr.217 Knoppers disputed the standard critical view for MT 1 Kgs 12:21–24, arguing that the pre-exilic Dtr author of Kings composed 1 Kgs 12:21–24 as a bridge for the progression of 1 Kgs 12:1–20 to vv. 25–32. In essence, 1 Kgs 12 forms a compositional unity of the Deuteronomistic author, although the latter based the work on multiple sources, from whence the standing tensions remain.218 Although Knoppers demonstrates that 1 Kgs 12:21–24 is not necessarily a late text, a major problem with his assignment of the text to Dtr is the lack of any distinctive terminology in 12:21–24 that would indicate such an ascription. Nor does Knoppers’ account sufficiently for the discrepancies between 1 Kgs 12:1–20 and vv. 21–24, in particular, the contradictory references to only Judah in v. 20 and to Judah-Benjamin in vv. 21–24. The situation is different when one turns to the SA, as the discrepancies between 1 Kgs 12:1–20 and 12:21–24 in the MT are absent. There is no material in the SA contradicting the mention of both Judah and Benjamin as part of Rehoboam’s retinue. The second mention of Rehoboam’s arrival in Jerusalem in MT 1 Kgs 12:21 (cf. v. 18) does not occur in 3 Reg 12:24x. Nor does the expression “House of Israel” occur in the SA; one finds instead “tribes of Israel” (§§nb, o), “Israel” (§t), “sons of Israel” (§y). I have already mentioned that Jeroboam maintains a more active role throughout the SA as the one responsible for assembling the tribes of Israel at Shechem (3 Reg 12:24nb) and as the main opponent of Rehoboam in §x. As mentioned, twice Shemiah announces that the division of the kingdom was prompted by YHWH (§§o and y), forming an inclusio between 3 Reg 12:24x–z and the preceding pericope in

215

Trebolle 1980: 149. Talshir 1993: 241; also Schenker 2000b: 225 217 Talshir 1993: 241, 257–9. 218 Knoppers 1994: 13–24; pace Nielsen 1955: 204; Jones 1984: 248. The anti-Judahite Tendenz of the source thought to have been used for the composition of 1 Kgs 12:1–20 is held in tension with the pro-Judahite Tendenz in 12:21–24. 216

7.5. Conclusions

317

§§nb–u.219 The SA also prepares more adequately for the following report on Jeroboam’s building projects. The setting of the potential battle scene is explicitly named as Shechem in 3 Reg 12:24x (see also §nb) compatible with the reference to Shechem in MT 1 Kgs 12:25: “Jeroboam built Shechem (LXX adds: which is) in the hill country of Ephraim.”220 In the MT, the setting of the contest between Rehoboam and the House of Israel is not mentioned, so that the progression from 12:20 to 12:25 is not as smooth as in the parallel texts of the SA.

7.5. Conclusions The division of the kingdom in the SA seems to be pre-Dtr, preserving in 3 Reg 12:24a a pristine form of the HH-framework. In terms of structure, the SA constitutes an earlier form of the account that is more coherent than the MT; as to content, it is free from Dtr phraseology. The regnal formulae for Solomon and Rehoboam in 3 Reg 12:24a are presented without interruption and contain formulae in line with the rest of the HH-framework. The reign of Solomon is evaluated positively in accordance with the HH, and YHWH does not support Jeroboam as the Satan of Solomon sent to punishment him for cultic violations (1 Kgs 11:9–14, 26). Instead, Jeroboam is distinctively the enemy of Rehoboam and, though successfully dispelled by Solomon, is able to lay hold of the kingship of the northern tribes. His ability to become a legitimate opponent to Rehoboam results from the latter’s moral deficiency in not living up the Davidic standard (3 Reg 12:24a).221 The SA is thus an earlier composition that was perhaps incorporated into the HH with the latter possibly having influenced its representation of the history of the two kingdoms. Absent from the SA are the promise of a lasting house to Jeroboam on the condition that he adhere to the commands of YHWH (MT 1 Kgs 11:38) and the retrospective diatribe against Jeroboam for his failure to fulfill YHWH’s commands (14:7–9). Jeroboam is from the out219

Talshir 1993: 176; Schenker 2000b: 225. Knoppers 1994: 18. The phrase “(which was) in the hill country of Ephraim” recalls the use of this expression in 3 Reg 12:24b, f, nb. That expression is absent from 1 Kgs 11–12 (but see LXX 3 Reg 11:43: ei0j th_n gh~n Sarira th_n e0n o!rei Efraim). 221 It is important to keep in mind that even if one was not convinced that the SA is earlier than the MT, a case can still be made using the MT alone that much that is called Deuteronomistic or Josianic was later inserted; see Trebolle 1980: 143–63; Würthwein 1984: 506–7; see above 7.4.2.3. For example, the account of Ahijah’s oracle in 1 Kgs 11:27–39 is a later insertion between 11:26 and 11:40; again, many have remarked that the account of the people’s election of Jeroboam in 1 Kgs 12 is earlier than the prophetic accounts in 1 Kgs 11 and 14. Even if the details remain debated, it is standard to regard the Dtr/Josianic material as secondary to an earlier version of Solomon’s and Rehoboam’s accounts. 220

318

Chapter Seven: Story of the Division of the Kingdom

set the enemy of the Davidic house in 3 Reg 12:24b–na, and his own house is cursed before he becomes king of the northern tribes. His cultic deeds in 1 Kgs 12:26–30 are commensurate with his initial characterization in the SA.222 Furthermore, in the SA, having defected from the house of David, YHWH punishes Israel by delivering them over to a wicked ruler, the first of a long trajectory of impious northern kings. Yet the cultic misdeeds that Jeroboam performs do not seal the fate of Israel (contra 1 Kgs 14:15–16), rather it is Israel’s decision to desert the Davidic king (and hence its capital at Jerusalem) resulting in its tragic choice of Jeroboam that catalyzes its baneful trajectory. With this decision to reject David’s house, Israel suffers at the hands of a series of rulers who resemble Jeroboam and amplify their offenses against YHWH, resulting in the final destruction of the northern kingdom.

222

Similarly, Sweeney 2007: 192.

Chapter Eight

The Evaluation of Hezekiah’s Account (2 Kings 18:1-2) 8.1. Introduction Complex issues concerning the culmination of the HH-framework in 2 Kgs 18:1–4 still require a resolution. Is 18:4 the free creation of the historian or is it from an archival source? Similarly, what material in 2 Kgs 18:1–12 might have belonged to the HH? Is the statement of incomparability in 18:5 suitable to the HH or is it a later insertion? Is the report of Hezekiah’s military success in 18:7–11 or the statement of Israel’s defeat under Hoshea in 18:9–11 compatible with the HH’s purposes? These issues steer the procedure for locating the conclusion to the HH and are significant for issues of genre and dating.

8.2. Hezekiah as David (2 Kgs 18:3) Hezekiah is the only ruler who receives unqualified praise for having behaved “in accordance with all that David, his father, had done” (cf. 2 Chr 29:2). The distinctive usage of the Davidic comparison favors Hezekiah’s account as the climax of the HH. The idiom lkk wyb) RN h#&( r#$) is also found at 2 Kgs 14:3; 15:3, 34, where the comparison is made with the ruler’s immediate father, not with David (see 4.4.3). Similar language is used to evaluate northern rulers negatively (1 Kgs 14:24; 21:26; 22:54). Josiah is also compared to David in 2 Kgs 22:2; however, the phrase Krd lkb to demonstrate a Davidic comparison in the formulae of southern kings occurs only here and is out of line stylistically with the earlier series of southern kings.1 Furthermore, the verbal sequence Klyw . . . #&(yw which is common to the northern kings to describe a southern king’s accout is unique to 2 Kgs 22:2, whereas Hezekiah’s evaluation is in direct line with the kings who precede him (cf. 2 Kgs 14:3; 15:3, 34).

1

Rösel 1999: 89. lk is not reflected the LXX at 3 Reg 15:3a and 16:28a (= MT 1 Kgs 22:43). According to Halpern and Vanderhooft (1991: 202 n. 56), “‘All’ probably comes in late to the text on the understanding that hṭʾt is a plural, and is secondary in every occurrence”; see 4.6.

320

Chapter Eight: Hezekiah’s Account

Weippert held that only the “Josianic” redaction of Kings (RII) compared certain rulers with David, whereas RI always compared the king under consideration with his immediate predecessor. However, as Provan points out, if one adds the reference to David here at 18:3 and the negative statements in 2 Kgs 14:3 and 16:2 (I also include 3 Reg 12:24a), then one may conclude that RI does refer to David.2 How would the historian evaluate positively a king whose immediate predecessor was wicked except by appealing to David?3 Hezekiah is the paragon of Davidic righteousness (2 Kgs 18:3), in that his actions to unify the cultic worship of YHWH around the temple of Jerusalem may be perceived as a restoration of an earlier Davidic ideal. The other deeds of Hezekiah reported in 18:7–8 are also reminiscent of David’s actions, especially how it is stated that “YHWH was with him” (1 Sam 16:18; 18:12, 14; 2 Sam 5:10; 2 Kgs 18:7), that he was “successful” in war (1 Sam 18:5, 14, 15, 30; 2 Kgs 18:7), and that he defeated the Philistines (1 Sam 18:17; 19:8; 2 Sam 8:1; 2 Kgs 18:8).4

8.3. Hezekiah’s Cultic Report (2 Kgs 18:4) Immediately following Hezekiah’s glowing evaluation is the brief, yet pointed, description of his cultic “reform.” As a good deal hinges on the interpretation of 2 Kgs 18:4 it is necessary to provide a full history of interpretation to prepare for the contributing argumentation to follow. It will be observed that all interpretive matters on this cultic report are contested. Scholars have argued that all or some of 18:4 is derivable from an “archival” source; or that all or some portion of it belongs to the Deuteronomistic framework; or that all or part of it is secondary (post-framework). The majority opinion, which goes back at least to Wellhausen, holds that the notice on the bāmôt in 18:4a belongs to the framework and that the reference to the bronze serpent in 18:4b is based on a reliable source. 8.3.1. Is 2 Kgs 18:4 an Archival Notice or a Late Insertion? Kittel argued that the references both to the removal of the bāmôt (18:4a) and to the bronze serpent (18:4b) were derived from an archival source.5 He ob2

Provan 1988: 40; cf. Cortese 1975: 45; Eynikel 1996: 56–7. Halpern and Vanderhooft 1991: 205–6; cf. 1 Kgs 15:11; 2 Kgs 12:3; 14:3; 18:3; 22:2). 4 These Davidic traditions were undoubtedly known to the historian, whether orally or written, although they did not form part of the HH, except through allusion. On 1 Sam 18, see Dietrich and Naumann 1995: 87–98; recently, Hutton 2009: 263–5. 5 Driver 1891: 187; so Kittel 1900: 278; Cornill 1907: 539; Montgomery 1934: 50; Gray 1963: 608; Hutter 1982: 9. Herzog (2010: 179–80) allows for the possibility that the author of 2 Kgs 18:4 used reliable sources. 3

8.3. Hezekiah’s Cultic Report (2 Kgs 18:4)

321

served that an argument for the archival nature of 18:4a depends on the assumption that a Hezekian cultic reform actually took place. Kittel regarded the use of the waw-suffix conjunction with perfective aspect as a potential indication of the quellenhaft nature of the bāmôt-notice. Montgomery maintained later that the emphatic )wh introducing the cultic report was typical of archival style (see 2 Kgs 14:7, 25; 18:8).6 Pakkala has argued against the view that 2 Kgs 18:4 goes back to an archival source.7 According to him, the asyndetic )wh is “emphatic” and connects the account of Hezekiah’s reform with the similar cultic reports of earlier kings. Since the author did not specify what he meant by bāmôt in 18:4a, it signifies that the audience should have been familiar with the preceding text and that the author was focused on the whole history of Israel and Judah in writing 18:4.8 I have also argued that the fronted pronoun in 18:4 emphasizes the role of Hezekiah as the ruler who actually removed the bāmôt (see 5.2). However, the evidence from nonbiblical West Semitic royal inscriptions produced elsewhere in this work demonstrates the use of the fronted pronoun to mark a contrast between past disorder and present restoration of order (see 4.4.6). As Parker has observed, It is also notable that Kings often uses a perfect verb form to describe a king’s building activities, as is consistently done in the royal memorial inscriptions, where, in contrast, accounts of military activities use the narrative tense … it must be admitted that brief statements that the king “built” or fortified such and such a city correspond in substance to the lists of such royal activities in the inscriptions.9

Although Parker is referring to a specific type of notice, his comment seems applicable to 2 Kgs 18:4–5, 7–8. The use of the perfect also occurs throughout 2 Kgs 18:5, 7–8, which contrasts Hezekiah with previous kings of Judah and describes his military prowess. Based on style, it is possible that the cultic notice in 18:4, along with 18:5, 7–8, was taken from a royal source, or at least makes use of royal lapidary style. It is more helpful to pose the problem not in terms of either archival vs. non-archival style but as potentially the creation of an author who wrote in lapidary style (admitting that 18:4a could actually have been taken from such a source). At the very least, the comparison with the royal lapidary style demonstrates that the brevity of Hezekiah’s cultic report of the bāmôt (and on his military prowess in 18:5, 7–8) is not owing to an ad hoc editorial style. 6 Montgomery and Gehmen 1951: 481; for a critique of this approach to tracing archival sources through style, see Van Seters 1983: 299–300. 7 Pakkala 2010: 214–5. 8 Pakkala (ibid. 214) also argues that it is unlikely that the bāmôt-reference came from annals because other excerpts from the annals (18:7b–10) are divided from 18:4a by vv. 5– 7a, but this still does not prove that 18:4a or v. 5 did not derive from annals, since 18:6 is arguably late; see Vera Chamaza 1989: 227. 9 Parker 2006: 224–5. See 1 Kgs 8:13; 9:24; 11:27; 16:34; 2 Kgs 14:22; 15:35b; 21:4.

322

Chapter Eight: Hezekiah’s Account

A handful of scholars in the wake of Stade ascribed the notice of Hezekiah’s removal of the bāmôt in 18:4a neither to the framework of 1–2 Kings nor to an archival source but to a late hand.10 This view deems the use of the waw-suffix conjugation syntax not as quellenhaft but as an indication of a post-exilic date.11 Würthwein argued that the use of the preposed )wh with asyndetic style in 18:4a breaks with the preceding regnal evaluation in 18:3 with its consecutive verbal syntax. He also argued that the expressions “to remove bāmôt”, “to break massebot”, and “to tear down ʾăšērîm” constitute DtrN style. However, his assertion that the cultic report of 2 Kgs 18:4 is disconnected from 18:3 is undermined by the fact that the regnal evaluations for previous Judahite kings who are positively appraised are chained immediately to the cultic reports on the bāmôt (1 Kgs 15:11, 14; 3 Reg 16:28d = 1 Kgs 22:43–44; 2 Kgs 12:3–4; 14:3–4; 15:3–4, 34–35).12 That the preposed )wh in 2 Kgs 18:4 is a suitable resolution to the rising conflict of prior kings who, though righteous, still fell short of cancelling the bāmôt makes it unlikely that the notice on the removal of the bāmôt is a late insertion. Würthwein’s additional claim that the expressions “to remove bāmôt”, “to break massebot”, and “to tear down ʾăšērîm” are particular manifestations of DtrN circles is too simple a redactional solution for so complex a literary problem. It is based on the unproven assumption that the cultic reports are detached redactionally and ideologically from the regnal evaluations and is not shorn up by evidence. 8.3.2. The Notice on the Bronze Serpent (2 Kgs 18:4b) On the other hand, most scholars have maintained that the reference to the bronze serpent in 18:4b goes back to a reliable source. Wellhausen maintained that the reference to the bronze serpent in 18:4b was of historical worth, while assigning 18:4a to Deuteronomistic authorship.13 It has the appearance of a reliable historical report, and it is difficult to understand how a later author would have fabricated such a notice. 10

Stade 1886: 171; so Benzinger 1899: 177; Duhm 1902: 229; Würthwein 1984: 411. See the discussion below on the Waw + Suffix Conjugation with Perfective Aspect (weqātāl) at 8.3.3. 12 Vera Chamaza (1989: 222) criticizes this point of Würthwein’s argument on the coherenece of the regnal evaluations and cultic reports by positing that the regnal evaluation in 18:3 is based on the cultic report in 18:4. Vera Chamaza’s counterargment is an oversimpflication of the system of regnal evaluations, which entail multiple aspects of the king’s loyalty to YHWH; see above 4.2. 11

13

Wellhausen 1957: 47 n. 1; so Loisy 1908: 183; Hölscher 1914: 164, 165 n. 1; Schmidt 1923: ii, 22, p. 9; Honor 1926: 75 n. 56; Lods 1937: 114–5; Noth 1980: 137 n. 62; Todd 1956: 289–90; Childs 1967: 83; Zorn 1977: 205; Spieckermann 1982: 173; Donner 1986: II, 332; Asurmendi 1988: 287; Vera Chamaza 1989: 223; Camp 1990: 75; Albertz 1992: I, 181; Naʾaman 1995: 181–2; Gleis 1997: 149–51; Zevit 2001: 471; Aurelius 2003: 16 n. 51; Blanco Wißmann 2008: 77–8.

8.3. Hezekiah’s Cultic Report (2 Kgs 18:4)

323

Würthwein argues, however, that the mention of the bronze serpent in 18:4b is late, and since it is shrouded in mystery it cannot serve as the starting place for the understanding Hezekiah’s cultic reform.14 The underlying method in this statement is acceptable as far as it goes, but the inability of scholars to understand the origin and nature of the bronze serpent does not constitute proof for the rejection of the historical reliability of 2 Kgs 18:4b. Overstated is the assertion that the origin and nature of the bronze serpent is a mystery. Although maintaining that the bronze serpent has been taken from an archival source, Camp regards as late the statement that the sons of Israel had been burning incense to it.15 He defends his view with three assertions: 1) the switch from Moses to the sons of Israel; 2) the use of r+q in the piel, which is supposedly “Deuteronomistic”; 3) and the use of “sons of Israel” (ynb l)r#y), which in the period of the divided kingdom only pertained to the northern monarchy.16 The switch from Moses to the sons of Israel does not actually disrupt the flow of the text, since the mention of Moses is embedded in a relative clause. The incense burning of the sons of Israel plays a role in the explanation for why Hezekiah destroyed the bronze serpent, just as “the people’s” burning incense in the twmb requires an explanation at 1 Kgs 3:2 (LXX). The return to the singular with the verb )rqyw (MT; LXXB; Vulg.) reports that Hezekiah called the bronze serpent Nehuštan, the reason for which is unknown. This is not an issue, syntactically, since with the verb )rqyw the narrative resumes speaking about the main agent, Hezekiah.17 Camp’s claim that the mention of “the sons of Israel” is anachronistic because it pertained to the northern kingdom in the days after the split of the united monarchy has several adherents, particularly of the Neo-Göttingen School and the so-called minimalist approach.18 However, it is based on a supposition that is not shared by all or even most biblical scholars, namely, that the United Monarchy (i.e., a united “Israel”) never existed until it materialized as an etiology following the collapses of the northern and southern

14

Würthwein 1977: 411. Camp 1990: 76. 16 See also Würthwein 1984: 412. 17 Alternatively, the verb may originally have read w)rqyw (LXXL; Syriac; Targ.), whose subject would have remained the sons of Israel and thus would not present any difficulties. 18 Würthwein 1984: 491; idem 1994: 4–5; Linville 1998; Kratz 2000b: 1–17 (esp. pp. 8– 12); Köhlmoos 2006: 154–68, 179–82; Blanco Wißmann 2008: 154–73, 194–6. The absence of a United Monarchy has been one of the reasons for accepting the late date of the Book of Deuteronomy, which stresses the concept that Israel constitutes a unity. 15

324

Chapter Eight: Hezekiah’s Account

kingdoms.19 Even if it could be proven that the United Monarchy never existed, it would not preclude the possibility that members of Judah and Israel viewed themselves as genealogically (or religiously) related already by the ninth or eighth centuries B.C.E. Especially after the fall of the northern kingdom in 722 B.C.E., the Judahite court could have appealed to the fact that it remained in genuine continuity with its Israelite lineage via the Davidic line. Thus, the presence of the terms “Israel” and “Israelites,” when constituting a religious political unity, is not a dependable criterion for indicating the date of a text.20 As a related consideration, Hoffmann made the intriguing suggestion that the bronze serpent reference was read in light of the narrative of the golden calves that Jeroboam I fashioned (1 Kgs 12:28–32).21 Although I would disagree that this analogy implies that the serpent notice was reread in an exilic DtrH, it is worth pursuing the possibility that an allusion to the “original sin” of the northern kingdom is in effect. One may surmise that the presence of a double entendre in the designation “sons of Israel” in 2 Kgs 18:4b to mark both the people of Israel from the days of Moses until the construction of the temple as well as the northern kingdom after the split of the Davidic house (cf. 1 Kgs 12:24). The reference to the bronze serpent may allude to the downfall of the north in its substitution of graven images and temples at Bethel and Dan for the YHWHistic cult at Jerusalem. Although both kingdoms are charged with cultic offenses, the northern kingdom’s offenses are regarded as more serious than the southern kingdom’s.22 Another indication that 2 Kgs 18:4b alludes to an earlier era where the people of Israel were not worshipping according to pure YHWHistic standards is the repetition of the temporal phrase (h)mhh Mymyh d( “until that time” in connection with burning incense at the bāmôt. This exact phrase occurs only at the opening and closing cultic reports of the framework (1 Kgs 3:2; 2 Kgs 18:4b) in all of the Hebrew Bible.23 In fact, these are the only two 19

See Finkelstein and Silberman 2001: 123–45. In support of the historical accuracy of the United Monarchy, see Albertz (2005: 30–2), who points to 1 Kgs 12 and Isa 7:17 as two separate witnesses demonstrating that there must have been a United Monarchy (ibid. n. 11). 20 In fact, the allusion to the sons of Israel in 2 Kgs 18:4 is perhaps to be expected, since the bronze serpent is remembered from the days of Moses and Israel is represented a political unity. According to Numb 21:6–9, Moses made the bronze serpent in order to heal “the people” of “Israel” (LXX of v. 6: tw~n ui9w~n Israhl “of the sons of Israel”). 21 Hoffmann 1980: 153–4. 22 There may be a subtle argument that centralization could not really have taken place until YHWH destroyed the northern kingdom. This works with the SA at 3 Reg 12:24y (“it was from YHWH”) and 2 Kgs 17:21–23 (“YHWH tore Israel away”). 23 This is precisely the kind of argument that scholars have made to argue for a comprehensive, Josianic history stretching from Deuteronomy to Kings; e.g., Römer (2005: 104) states: “Finally, the conclusion of the first edition of the books of Kings in the Neo-Assyrian period closed with the account of Josiah’s reform, which ended with the following statement

8.3. Hezekiah’s Cultic Report (2 Kgs 18:4)

325

occurrences of the plural Mymy following directly after the preposition d( in all of Genesis to Kings or the Latter Prophets.24 Given that the action of burning incense at the bāmôt is so central to the framework,25 it is perhaps not coincidental that it is restricted temporally at 2 Kgs 18:4b with Mymyh d( (h)mhh when the similarities with 1 Kgs 3:2 are visible. The temporal phrase marks the epochs before which the two major events of cultic centralization took place, first at the beginning of Solomon’s reign with the construction of the temple, and, secondly, at the reign of Hezekiah, which seals the period of worship at the bāmôt. According to Zimmerli, the polemic against icons and images emerged with Hosea (2:10; 4:12, 17; 8:4–6; 10:2–5; 11:2; 13:2; 14:9) and that a generation later in the days of Hezekiah, the removal of the bronze serpent and other similar objects was a consequence of Hosea’s preaching.26 In support of Zimmerli’s thesis, one may compare Hos 11:2 and 2 Kgs 18:4:

h#RvOm h∞DcDo_rRvSa tRv%Oj◊…nAh v°Aj◊n ·tA;tIk◊w . . . tw#ømD;bAh_tRa ry∞IsEh —a…wâh N`D;tVvUj◊n wäøl_a∂rVqˆ¥yÅw w$øl MyâîrVÚfåqVm lEa∂rVcˆy_y`EnVb …wôyDh ‹hD;m‹EhDh My§ImÎ¥yAh_dAo y∞I;k

2 Kgs 18:4 Hezekiah

N…wírEÚfåq◊y My™IlIsVÚpAl◊w …wj$E;bÅz◊y My∞IlDoV;bAl

Hosea 11:2

It was he who removed the bāmôt … and crushed the bronze serpent which Moses had made; for until then the Israelites had been burning incense-offerings to it. He called it Nehushtan. To the baals they sacrificed and to the images they burned incense.

on Josiah: ‘Before him, there was no king like him, who turned to Yahweh with all his heart, which all his soul and all his might’ (2 Kgs 23.25aa), which offers a fitting conclusion to the Josianic edition of Kings. Since this statement is a literal parallel of Deut 6:5, which was part of the original opening of the first (Josianic) edition of the Deuteronomic Code in Deut 6.4–5, Josiah is obviously portrayed as the one and only king who enacted the divine instructions promulgated in this code.” 24 See later occurrences in Dan 6:8, 13; Neh 12:23, but in these passages d( conveys a period of time until which an event takes place, whereas in 1 Kgs 3:2 and 2 Kgs 18:4, the preposition prescribes a time before which an event takes place. 25 Camp (1990: 85–6) places the mention of the bronze serpent on the same level with the twmb (= DtrH); similarly, Jepsen 1956: 63, 68 n. 3 (= his priestly redaction), although he did not hold to the originality of 2 Kgs 18:4bb, due to the mention of Moses and the “sons of Israel” (ibid. 62 n. 2). Although scholars are unwilling to eliminate the original reference to the twmb at 2 Kgs 18:4aa, since it is as the heart of the theological disposition of the historian (so Levin 1984: 353–4; Pakkala 2010: 213–4), they do not acknowledge that the same emphasis is placed on the burning of incense by the historian and all the more at 2 Kgs 18:4b, since some of them accept that the bronze serpent was original, if not from the historian’s source material (Spieckermann 1982: 173; Aurelius 2003: 16). Naʾaman (1995: 181– 2), although maintaining the archival origin of the bronze serpent, regards all of 2 Kgs 18:4 as “Josianic.” I also disagree with Provan (1988: 57–90) and Moenikes (1992: 341 n. 41), who regard the bronze serpent as later than the twmb, since, in their opinion, only the former pertains to the worship of other gods. 26 Zimmerli 1971: 89–91.

326

Chapter Eight: Hezekiah’s Account

This message of Hosea is representative of the context that led up to Hezekiah’s destruction of the bronze serpent. The action of burning incense to images in both texts comprises the only such examples in the all of the Hebrew Bible, with the exception of Hab 1:16. The usage is not clearly Deuteronomistic, as 2 Kgs 18:4 contains the first occurrence of l + r+q in Genesis–Kings (elsewhere only in the Josianic narrative at 2 Kgs 22:17; 23:5). Elsewhere, the verbal idiom l + r+q occurs almost invariably with deities (Myhl), l(b, Astarte) as at 2 Kgs 22:17 (“other gods”) and 23:5 (“Baal”); cf. Jer 1:16; 7:9; 11:12; etc. However, it is not certain that the bronze serpent actually was a separate non-YHWHistic deity;27 it may have represented the symbolic power of YHWH,28 a power that was coming increasingly under attack for having been confused with the actual reality behind the symbolism. Provan understood the mention of burning incense without xbz as a sign that 2 Kgs 18:4b is secondary (see 1 Kgs 12:33; 13:1–2; 2 Kgs 17:11a; 23:5).29 However, he did not mention the fact that the LXX Vorlage at 3 Reg Kgs 3:2 probably contained a variant reading with Myr+qm. I have already restored what I believe was the original reading of 1 Kgs 3:2 and can now compare that reading with 2 Kgs 18:4, which also makes use the verb r+q alone and signals an inclusio between the beginning of the framework and its end (see 6.3.5): Mhh Mymyh d( hwhy tyb hnbn )l yk twmbb Myr+qm M(h qr 1 Kgs 3:2 Only the people were burning incense-offerings at the bāmôt, for the temple of YHWH had been built until that time.

My§ImÎ¥yAh_dAo y∞I;k h#RvOm h∞DcDo_rRvSa tRv%Oj◊…nAh v°Aj◊n ·tA;tIk◊w . . . tw#ømD;bAh_tRa ry∞IsEh —a…wâh :N`D;tVvUj◊n wäøl_a∂rVqˆ¥yÅw w$øl MyâîrVÚfåqVm lEar∂ Vcˆy_y`EnVb …wôyDh ‹hD;m‹EhDh

2 Kgs 18:4

It was he who removed the bāmôt … and he crushed the bronze serpent, which Moses had made, for until that time, the Israelites had been burning incence-offerings to it. And he called it Nehushtan.

This specific connection between the opening and closing cultic reports in the framework from Solomon (3 Reg 3:2) to Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:4) should not be overlooked. Provan argues additionally that the verses mentioning the triad of bāmôt, pillars, and ʾăšērîm (1 Kgs 14:23; 2 Kgs 17:9–10; 18:4a) “represent the history of Judah as one of continuous idolatry” and that the people’s veneration of the bronze serpent in 2 Kgs 18:4b can be explained accordingly.30 27 The terms lsep%e/lysip%f do not denote an image that is itself divine, i.e., an “idol.” For a recent discussion, see Greenspahn 2004: 480–94. 28 Pace Zimmerli (1971: 90), who conjectured that the serpent was a chthonic deity of healing located in the temple and was a remnant of the earlier Jebusite Jerusalem. There is no direct evidence to support that the serpent was located in Jerusalem or that it was even deified. 29 Provan 1988: 84, 86. 30 Ibid. 86.

8.3. Hezekiah’s Cultic Report (2 Kgs 18:4)

327

He contrasts the late representation of the bāmôt as sites in which other deities are worshipped with their earlier representation as legitimate sites of YHWH worship. However, the taboo representation of the bronze serpent may be owing to its iconic nature, and it may not have operated in non-YHWHistic rites (see 10.7). Pakkala, too, claims that the remainder of the verse involving the pillars, ʾăšērîm, and bronze serpent is later than the notice on the bāmôt.31 He argues that 2 Kgs 18:4abb is dependent on Exod 34:13 (or Deut 7:5), which also mentions destroying bāmôt, pillars, and ʾăšērîm, and Numb 21:9 (“Moses made the bronze serpent”).32 In his opinion, the opposite view that the Pentateuchal editors were dependent on 2 Kgs 18:4 is unreasonable since the editor of Exod 34:13 (or Deut 7:5) would not have adopted the references to the pillars and ʾăšērîm without also mentioning the bronze serpent; likewise, the editor of Numb 21:9 would not have mentioned the serpent while leaving out the other cultic objects. The syntax involving the waw-suffix conjugation with perfective aspect is used for all three objects (pillars, ʾăšērîm, serpent) so that one cannot argue that two different editors are responsible for 2 Kgs 18:4abb. The problem with Pakkala’s position is that the language found in Exod 34:13 and Deut 7:5 is stereotypical, and such usage does not necessitate intertextual borrowing.33 8.3.3. *Excursus on Waw + Suffix Conjugation with Perfective Aspect ([we]qatal)* McKay lists several options that have been proposed for waw-conjunctive plus suffix conjugation:34 1) source material prefaced with a simple waw;35 2) a sign of late glossation (B. Stade);36 3) sign of “decadence” in style (Bur31

Pakkala 2010: 215–6; see also Provan 1988: 85–8; Levin 2008: 146–7. Pakkala 2010: 216. 33 Barrick 2002: 103–4. 34 McKay 1973: 84–5 n. 5. 35 Principally, see Montgomery 1934: 50–1: “A still more flagrant case of offense is found in II, 18 4, where four perfects appear aligned with waw, rysh, rb#, trk, ttk … I am inclined to think we have here a reduction from the lapidary style.” Parker (2006: 224–5) notes that the Book of Kings often uses a perfect verb to describe a ruler’s building activities, as is done in the royal memorial inscriptions, but that Kings is inconsistent, sometimes using the perfect to describe military activities and sometimes using the narrative tense to describe building activities. He thus concludes, “the style of Kings is freer than the drafters of memorial inscriptions would allow.” As mentioned above, the style of 2 Kgs 18:4 is explainable as having derived from royal lapidary style. 36 Stade 1886: 171; see Würthwein 1984: 411. Stade believed that the Aramaic use of the weqatal superceded the classical Hebrew narrative form of wayyiqtol after the exile. On the basis of a comparison between Kings and Chronicles, Stade’s thesis has been contested, in light of the fact that weqatal did not actually come to replace wayyiqtol in the narrative of Chronicles or at all in classical Hebrew (Verheij 1990: 92–7; cf. Spieckermann 1982: 128; 32

328

Chapter Eight: Hezekiah’s Account

ney);37 4) frequentative or continuous description (Kautzsch/Cowley);38 5) discontinuity between actions (König);39 6) simultaneity between actions (A. Jepsen);40 7) delay between actions (Oestreicher);41 8) error in transcription perhaps under the influence of Aramaic (Siebens and Rubinstein);42 9) originated with the introduction of marginal notes or parallel accounts (Budde).43 McKay concludes, “In view of this vast array of often conflicting opinion, it seems likely that it will be possible to explain the construction differently in its different occurrences.”44 For 1–2 Kings, the two passages that have been most discussed in relation to the use of waw + suffix conjugation are 2 Kgs 18:4 and 23:4–15. Spieckermann carried out a copious study of waw-s.c. and concluded that, although ninety percent of ca. 200 examples were exilic or later, already since the eighth century B.C.E. the form had become established.45 Evidence for this was discovered in the judiciary plea from Yavneh Yam (ca. 600 B.C.E.), which contains two examples of a waw-s.c. as with the same function as the narrative preterite (Ms)w “and he gathered”; KAI 200: 5, 6–7, following lkyw “and he measured off” from the root lwk).46 Spieckermann also concluded Pietsch 2004–2007: 164–5, 177). At 2 Kgs 18:4, Stade preferred with LXXB to omit ttk, but with little justification, except that t#xnh #xn lacks the nota accusativi, in contrast to the terms twmb-twbcm-Myr#); but the lack of an accusative marker requires explanation regardless of the date of the text, as it is already attested in early epigraphic texts. 37 Burney 1903: 357–8. 38 Kautzsch and Cowley 1910: 338–9; similarly, Vera Chamaza (1989: 224–8) argued that the presence of the x-qatal formulation in v. 4 and vv. 7–8 demonstrates that they originally formed a coherent unit using descriptive style, between which vv. 5–6 were later added. 39 König 1897: §370n, translating “he also (did x).” 40 Jepsen 1959: 99, translating, “and at the same time he (did x).” 41 Oestreicher 1923: 42. 42 Siebens 1929: 78–80; Rubinstein 1963: 62–9. 43 Budde 1926: 177–244. 44 Ibid. 85 n. 5. McKay regards it as descriptive at Judg 7:13 and frequentative here at 2 Kgs 18:4a; as with many commentators, he also regards other examples as problematic on text critical grounds (e.g., 2 Kgs 18:36 weheḥerīšū // Isa 36:21 wayyaḥarīšū). 45 Spieckermann 1982: 120–30; for the oldest uses, Spieckermann points to Gen 34:5; 37:3; 49:23; Judg 16:18; 1 Sam 5:7; 17:20, 38; 2 Sam 12:16(?), 31; 13:18; 16:5; 1 Kgs 14:27; 21:12. 46 Ibid. 129; Pardee (1978: 42–3) lists three possibilities for Ms)w: 1) simple waw + 1.c.s. prefix conjugation (non-perfective) with elided aleph; 2) infinitive absolute; 3) simple waw + 3.m.s. suffix conjugation (perfective). Pardee opts for the third possibility, since the verb in the first person does not follow well upon the earlier third person forms in the letter. He regards as fitting in the context of this letter the syntactic function of the waw-s.c. indicating “actions perceived as coordinate rather than consecutive to the principal one(s) (the latter expressed by waw-consecutive forms).” This is in line with the earlier suggestion of Jepsen 1959: 99. M. Weippert (1990: 464–5) disagreed with Spieckermann in his conclusion that Ms)w does not have the same function as lkyw in the Yavneh Yam inscription, but in-

8.3. Hezekiah’s Cultic Report (2 Kgs 18:4)

329

that waw-s.c. by itself is not indicative of the lateness of a text, but must be used in connection with other literary arguments.47 Thus, one may deduce that the presence of waw-s.c. is not a conclusive argument for a late date, since it is actually dependent on other literary grounds, which themselves may be debatable.48 Barrick has discussed the perfective waw-s.c. passages in Kings with a view to the Josianic reform report in 2 Kgs 23,49 concluding that, although many passages of the reform with this construction are either late or are owing to editorial “fine-tuning,” some of the information that they convey may nevertheless be original and historically credible.50 Consequently, he also stresses that the perfective waw-s.c. is an unreliable criterion for dating texts. Vera Chamaza observed the examples of (we)qatal in 18:1–4 and in 18:7–8 and argued that they constitute the older stratum of the Hezekian account, used in DtrG (or Dtr1). According to him, 18:5–6 was added later, since it praises the king further after he has already been praised in 18:3. To my mind, his insight is only partially valid. The praise of Hezekiah in terms of observing Mosaic torah in 18:6 is an unusual form of evaluation in any part of the regnal prologue, but especially after the cultic report, which usually precedes political reports or episodes. However, the statement of his trust in YHWH (v. 5a) that alludes to the deliverance of Jerusalem recounted in 18:13–19:37 and the statement of Hezekiah’s incomparability (v. 5b) rounds out the evaluations of 18:3–4 describing his distinctive righteousness. This commentary is continued in 18:7–8, which provides military reports and prepares for the introduction (18:9–11) and narrative episode of the deliverance of Jerusalem (18:13–19:37). This emendation to Vera Chamaza’s original insight is also based on the verbal syntax of 18:5–7, vv. 5 and 7 implementing (we)qatal in agreement with vv. 4 and 8, whereas v. 6 makes use of wayyiqtol. Niccacci refers to x-qatal constructions as complex nominal clauses rather than verbal clauses (e.g., wayyiqtol), since they are not verb-initial, with the

dicates an attendant or circumstantial action as it does in classical Hebrew; alternatively, Renz (HAE 1: 325) deems it more likely that Ms)w is an infinitive absolute, his justification being that prior to the exile a perfective use of weqātal in a narrative function is disputed. Renz’s argument is thus circular rather than contextual. 47 Spieckermann 1982: 129. 48 Pace Camp (1990: 74), who with Stade (1886: 171) must reconstruct at 18:4b hwʾ ktt nḥš hnḥšt ʾšr MŠH wyqrʾ lw NḤŠTN without waw (ibid. 75) in order to maintain that the reference to the bronze serpent was archival and was only changed once when it was redacted for DtrH. Though possible, this explanation is unnecessary to maintain the primacy of the bronze serpent reference owing to its non-generic attributes in contrast to other cultic objects. 49 Barrick 2002: 64–105, with literature. 50 Ibid. 104–5.

330

Chapter Eight: Hezekiah’s Account

verb usually occupying the second position, and emphasize the “x” element.51 Whereas wayyiqtol is used to recount the king’s deeds without special emphasis as in 2 Kgs 18:3, x-qatal emphasizes the x-element in 18:4: “He it was who removed the bāmôt” (also in 18:5a, 8). According to Niccacci, the following weqatal constructions in 18:4 continue the emphatic construction with x-qatal in 18:4aa.52 All of 18:4–8 is “narrative commentary” in his estimation whereas the presence of yhyw in 18:9 resumes the “narrative itself” from v. 1 (yhyw).53 However, he attributes to the rare wayyiqtol constructions in vv. 6 and 7 a “continuative” function that derives its tense from the preceding construction.54 Hardmeier has argued that the waw + suffix conjugation in 2 Kgs 18:4 is enumerative in style. It does not have a temporal narrative sequence and does not carry a non-perfective sense, but the waw retains a simple coordinating function.55 He also sees the use of the same formulation in 2 Kgs 23:4bb, 5aa, 8b, 10, 12bb, 15b as representative of the enumerative style of a pre-Dtr catalogue of Josiah’s cultic reform measures. At the opening of paragraphs within the context of the narrative history the weqatal of the earlier pre-stage was assimilated and reshaped into wayyiqtol style at 2 Kgs 23:4b, 6–7, 14ab, b, 15b.56 Argues Hardmeier, Further, one has to point to the stylistic homogeneity of the reconstructed pre-stage. It is characterized by the style of annalistic records. The enumerating wktb- and w-X-ktb-style is dominant. It does not narratively/consecutively give a recount of an irreversible connection of events, but like a catalogue it accounts without creating a narrative tension. We find this style for example in the argumentation of Jer. 22.15b but also in the annalistic enumeration of regal measures such as in 2 Kgs 14:7 or 18:4 … But in 2 Kgs 14:7 and 18:4 there are the precise text openings for such catalogues that are also easily thinkable for the opening of the prestage in 2 Kgs 23:4.

Noteworthy is Hardmeier’s grouping of enumerative style together with “annalistic” accounts and the fact that he appeals to 2 Kgs 18:4 for support. 51

Niccacci 1990: 27–8. Ibid. 185. 53 Ibid. 69–70. 54 Similarly, Heller (2004: 451–6) defines the similar text at Gen 37:2–3 as “extraparagraph comments” on the basis on the presence of qatal, weqatal, and unchained wayyiqtol. Argues Heller, “The information provied by extra-paragraph comments often concerns actions which are regularly performed over an extended length of time, multiple actions which occurred before the larger narrative framework of the preceding and following paragraphs, or the long term outcome of actions related in previous paragraphs” (ibid. 451). His description applies well to 2 Kgs 18:2–8: the comments in 18:4–8 list the achievements of Hezekiah over the duration of his reign; most if not all of his achievements probably occurred prior to 701 B.C.E.; and his reform is the anticipated culmination of the bāmôtnotices. 55 Hardmeir 1990: 97; idem 2005: 148 n. 65. 56 Ibid. 123–63 (esp. 148). 52

8.3. Hezekiah’s Cultic Report (2 Kgs 18:4)

331

Pietsch studied the use of the perfective waw-s.c. in 2 Kgs 23:4–15; following Koch’s and Hardmeier’s studies, he concluded that the examples of perfective waw-s.c. at 23:4b, 5a, 8b, 10, 12b, 14a, 15b are to be understood as coordinating perfectives that break the narrative progress of action and introduce concomitant action(s) or circumstantial details.57 In his opinion, it is unnecessary to explain these examples as owing to textual error appearing in the course of transmission or as indicative of late editorial activity. Instead, the semantic function of the weqatal within the narrative should first be appreciated before coming to any text critical or redaction critical conclusions merely on the basis of its existence in a given text. Concerning 2 Kgs 18:4, Pietsch concludes that weqatal functions to enumerate a list of single actions taken against the bāmôt, pillars, and ʾăšērîm, conceived of as a cultic unity, as it is at 1 Kgs 14:23 and 2 Kgs 23:13–14.58 It is striking, however, that whereas 2 Kgs 18:4–8 is written in non-sequential enumerative style, the actions at 1 Kgs 14:23 (cf. 2 Kgs 17:9–10) make use of wayyiqtol in contrast to x-qatal or weqatal constructions (so trkyw and )myw in 2 Kgs 23:14). Pride of place should be given to the study of 2 Kgs 18:1–8 in determining the compositional history of the framework on the basis of its enumerative royal lapidary style. Arneth has argued for a chiastic structure on the basis of style in 2 Kgs 18:4–8, observing that 18:4a and 18:8 open with )wh + qatal and that 18:4 and 18:7 contain weqatal.59 He maintains that 18:4 and 18:7–8 are related by means on content in addition to style: 18:4 relates to innerpolitical and innerrelgious measures while 18:7–8 relates to external political history. However, as it is the normal progression for each regnal account in 1–2 Kings to move from the cultic report to political reports or narrative episodes, it is unlikely that a chiastic structure is discernible in the content of the 18:4 and 18:7–8. More likely is the simpler explanation that the X-qatal and weqatal forms are the enumerative style of royal lapidary building inscriptions and develop according to a linear, non-chiastic progression. Conclusions: the use of the perfective waw-s.c. was established already by the eighth century B.C.E. and probably earlier.60 Together with the x-qatal construction, its use at 2 Kgs 18:4–8 may be dated accordingly and is commensurate with the lapidary style of royal West Semitic memorial inscriptions. The presence of the perfective waw-s.c. is thus insufficient to date this verse to the exilic or post-exilic periods. As for the pragmatic function of waw-s.c., in agreement with the studies of Hardmeier and Pietsch, I prefer to view its function in this verse as one of coordinating two or more non57

Pietsch 2004–2007: 159–77. Ibid. 175. 59 Arneth 2006: 175–6. 60 See Kittel 1900: 278; Bergsträsser 1929: II §9n. 58

332

Chapter Eight: Hezekiah’s Account

sequential actions within the description of Hezekiah’s reign.61 Although it is possible that a later hand has reworked the descriptions of Hezekiah’s removal of the bāmôt and destruction of the bronze serpent in light of Exod 34:13; Deut 7:5; 12:3, it does not necessitate that the references to the bāmôt or to the bronze serpent are late or Deuteronomistic. An argument for a late date is strongest regarding the mention of the pillars and ʾăšērîm in 2 Kgs 18:4, not regarding the bronze serpent, since the latter is an isolated occurrence of a singular cultic object while the pillars and ʾăšērîm are generic and stereotypical.62 The resumption of wayyiqtol in 18:6 is unexpected and interrupts the instances of (we)qatal in vv. 4–5, 7–8, suggesting that it is post-HH. 8.3.4. Second Kings 18:4 as Part of a Deuteronomistic Framework The majority of biblical scholars hold that the author of the framework of Kings wrote the bāmôt-notice in 18:4a. However, they are divided on which date to assign to the framework. Does it stem from a pre-Josianic, preDeuteronomistic context or from a (post-)Josianic period contemporaneous with the rise of the Deuteronomistic circles? Some scholars argue that an exilic Deuteronomistic redactor presented Hezekiah’s removal of the bāmôt in anticipation of the account of Josiah’s defilement of the bāmôt in 2 Kgs 23:8a (“And he defiled [)m+ piel] the bāmôt where the priests were burning incense-offerings”).63 According to these scholars, )m+ is a term for cultic contamination (Verunreiniung) underscoring the impossibility of rebuilding the cultus on the formerly sacred sites. This term is contrasted with the verb rws (hiphil) in 2 Kgs 18:4, which signifies only the removal of the bāmôt and thus allows for the possibility that the successors to Hezekiah (i.e., Manasseh) could reconstruct the cultic sites cancelled in his father’s reign. In literary terms, Hezekiah’s temporary cancellation of the bāmôt is seen as a precursor to Josiah’s more extensive desecration of those sites. By this view, one must argue that the term )m+ – typical of priestly texts64 – was part of an archival source used by the exilic redactor in 2 Kgs 23:8a (cf. vv. 10, 13, 16).65 The 61

The “coordination” (Pardee 1978: 42–3) of the actions covers the “frequentative” and “descriptive” aspects (Kautzsch and Cowley 1910: 338–9) as well as the “simultaneous” temporality of the waw-s.c at 2 Kgs 18:4 (Jepsen 1959: 99). 62 The view that the references to the bāmôt and the bronze serpent are original to the history but that the pillars and ʾăshērîm were inserted later goes back to Steuernagel (1896: 104) and is reasserted in Hutter 1982: 62; Camp 1990: 75; Aurelius 2003: 16; Blanco Wißmann 2008: 77–8; Monroe 2011: 129. 63 Budde 1926: 197; Jepsen 1959: 102–3, Hoffmann 1980: 229–30, Levin 1984: 358–9; Aurelius 2003: 42–3; see the critical remarks in Schmid 2006: 31–3. 64 Passim in Lev, Numb, Ezek; cf. Deut 21:23; 24:4; Hos 5:3; 6:10; 9:4; Jer 2:7, 23; 7:30; 32:34. 65 Spieckermann 1982: 426. If the term )m+ was not brought into 2 Kgs 23:8a from an earlier source or tradition, then the Josianic account is probably late; whether historical or

8.3. Hezekiah’s Cultic Report (2 Kgs 18:4)

333

archival nature of 2 Kgs 23:8 is opposed to the stereotypical character of the framework, which incorporates the verb rws (1 Kgs 15:14; 3 Reg 16:28 = 1 Kgs 22:44; 2 Kgs 12:4; 14:4; 15:4, 35; 18:4).66 A similar opposition in terminology concerns the presence of the “priests” Mynhk in 2 Kgs 23:8 versus “the people” (M(h) typical of the framework. Hoffmann asserts that as part of the Deuteronomistic framework, the preDtr historical report on the crushing of the bronze serpent was reinterpreted in connection with the golden calf tradition of Deut 9 // Exod 32, whose influence is also perceptible in the account of the golden calves forged by Jeroboam I (1 Kgs 12:26–32).67 He observes that it is only Hezekiah and Moses in DtrG who attempt to unify the cult by means of crushing a metal image. However, 2 Kgs 18:4b actually stands in tension with the traditions of Moses as a reformer in Exod 32 and Deut 9, since the author of 2 Kgs 18:4 regarded as taboo the object that Moses fashioned.68 Moses is not represented as a cultic reformer in 2 Kgs 18:4b. The reason for mentioning Moses is that the bronze serpent is introduced in the HH for the first and only time at 2 Kgs 18:4b, not to highlight Moses’ “reforming” measures. Similarly, the connection between Exod 32 and 2 Kgs 18:4b is not strong enough to confidently claim any directional influence. The use of the verb ttk at Deut 9:21 and 2 Kgs 18:4b may only be coincidental, since both narratives deal with grinding metal images, as at Mic 1:7.69 These few instances hardly furnish grounds on which to argue that the reference to the bronze serpent is a Deuteronomistic insertion.70 fictional, the presence of the term in 2 Kgs 23:8, 10, 13, 16 is evidence that it is the work of a different hand from the one responsible for the framework (so Provan 1988: 84). Levin (1984: 359) has argued that no part of the reform report in 2 Kgs 23 goes back to a pre-Dtr source but only that 23:8a was composed by the first exilic redactor of DtrH (similarly, Nelson 1981: 81 [Dtr1]). Given the untypical nature of that verse, it is difficult to understand how the author of the framework could have written it, especially if it is dated to the exilic period (see Schmid 2006: 32). 66 I have already discussed the use of rws in the hiphil stem elsewhere (4.4.4, 4.6, and 5.2). Deuteronomy never uses rws to describe the cancellation of cultic sites, and thus more is required than just stereotypical language to justify the attribution of “Deuteronomistic” to the phraseology of the framework. The most effective argument will prove that Deuteronomy directly influenced the author of the regular elements of the framework of Kings, not merely that the framework employs repeated “stereotypical” language. 67 Hoffmann 1980: 148, 153–4. 68 In fact, it is possible that the tension between Moses as cultic purifier and his mention as the fashioner of the bronze serpent at 2 Kgs 18:4 brought about the omission of bronze serpent at 2 Chr 31:1. 69 ttk is known with the general meaning “to crush, grind” in the Hebrew Bible at Lev 22:24; Deut 1:44; Isa 2:4; 30:14; Joel 3:10; Mic 4:3; Ps 88:23. The verbal root is ancient and is attested already in Ugaritic economic texts as a G passive participle to denote ground or powdered copper/bronze. (KTU 4.203:14; 4.288:9; 4.721:4). 70 So Aurelius 2003: 16.

334

Chapter Eight: Hezekiah’s Account

Hoffmann regards the formula “cultic item + h#&( r#)” in 2 Kgs 18:4b (“the bronze serpent which Moses made”) and elsewhere in Kings as Deuteronomistic,71 although the evidence for late/Deuteronomistic usage of this formula at Exod 32:20, 35; 1 Kgs 14:26; Amos 5:26 is questionable. Given that the bronze serpent is introduced in the history at 2 Kgs 18:4 for the first and only time, it is logical that the formula should be used to associate the serpent with Moses. Unlike the other cultic items in Kings that are designated with general nomenclature,72 2 Kgs 18:4b lists specific details about the bronze serpent: the name of its maker (Moses); the temporal period during which the Israelites were burning incense to it; and even what it was called (Neḥuštan). Whereas other cultic items crop up repeatedly in the Book of Kings (even after they have been eradicated) and are mentioned in Manasseh’s or Josiah’s reigns,73 the bronze serpent is only mentioned in the reign of Hezekiah and is never referenced again, not even in the accounts of Manasseh or Josiah. The cultic items indicated in the relative clauses under discussion are nearly always in the plural, whereas the bronze serpent is a singular item. Moreover, the formula “cultic item + h#&( r#)” is always used negatively to criticize earlier kings, with this exception where Moses, a nonroyal personage, is not evaluated negatively. Thus, the harmonizing view offered by Hoffmann is unable to account for the pre-Dtr character of the bronze serpent notice at 18:4b, as it is not necessarily united to a larger exilic DtrG.74 Camp offers a more sophisticated explanation of 2 Kgs 18:4.75 Like Hoffmann, he argues that the pre-Dtr notice on the bronze serpent was taken over by the exilic DtrH redactor and originally read #$xn ttk )wh 71

Hoffmann 1980: 364. Of the seventeen particular relative clauses that Hoffmann lists from Kings, two cases belong to the HH (1 Kgs 14:26; 2 Kgs 18:4). Of the other fifteen cases, seven occur in the accounts of Manasseh or Josiah: 2 Kgs 21:3, 7; 23:4, 5, 11, 12, 15. The final eight cases are found at 1 Kgs 12:32, 33; 15:12; 22:47; 2 Kgs 3:2; 17:8; 24:13; 25:16. 72 Myr#) 1 Kgs 14:15; 15:13; 16:33; 2 Kgs 17:16; 18:4; 21:3, 7; 23:6, 14, 15; Mylwlg 1 Kgs 15:21; 21:26; 2 Kgs 17:12; 21:11, 21; 23:24; Mylbh 1 Kgs 16:13, 26; 2 Kgs 17:15; hksm 1 Kgs 14:9; 2 Kgs 17:16; tclpm 1 Kgs 15:13; twbcm 1 Kgs 14:23; 2 Kgs 3:2; 10:26, 27; 17:10; 18:4; 23:14; lsp/Mylysp 2 Kgs 17:41; 21:7; Mlc 2 Kgs 11:18; Mycwq# 1 Kgs 11:5, 7; 2 Kgs 23:13, 24; hb(wt 1 Kgs 14:24; 2 Kgs 16:3; 21:2, 11; 23:13. 73 In addition to the references of the preceding note, see the repeated eradication of the My#dq at 1 Kgs 15:12; 22:47; 2 Kgs 23:7; Myr#) at 1 Kgs 15:12; 2 Kgs 18:4; 23:14; twbcm at 1 Kgs 15:12; 2 Kgs 18:4; 2 Kgs 23:6, 14; l(b tbcm at 2 Kgs 3:2; 10:26; see Spieckermann 1982: 184–91; Lowery 1991: 89; Rösel 1999: 42–3. 74 Stade 1886: 171; Burney 1903: 337; Wellhausen 1957: 47 n. 1; Gray 1963: 608; McKay 1973: 13; Weinfeld 1972: 163–4; Hoffmann 1980: 151, 154; Noth 1981: 66, 137 n. 62; Spieckermann 1982: 173; Gonçalves 1986: 73–88; Camp 1990: 75; Lowery 1991: 148; Naʾaman 1995: 181–2; Eynikel 1996: 109–10; Aurelius 2003: 16 n. 51. 75 Camp 1990: 69–97; followed by Aurelius 2003: 16; see already with a similar thesis, Stade 1886: 171.

8.3. Hezekiah’s Cultic Report (2 Kgs 18:4)

335

… t#$xnh. In the course of assimilating the earlier notice into the history, the exilic redactor transferred the initial subject pronoun )wh from the archival notice and appended it to the beginning of his own report on the bāmôt (w twmbh-t) rysh). The redactor also left the form of the original suffix conjugation alone only prefixing a simple waw-conjunctive to it. Thus, Camp opts for a redactional solution to the problem of the perfective waw + suffix conjugation in 2 Kgs 18:4b. As a result, the serpent notice was the original raison d’être for Hezekiah’s glowing evaluation in 18:3 as well as the statement that he removed the bāmôt. This explanation has the inadvertent consequence of deemphasizing the climactic position of the Hezekiah’s cultic report within the framework. One problem with Camp’s explanation is that it is impossible to demonstrate what the original content of the pre-Dtr notice on the bronze serpent would have read; whether it actually contained a preposed )wh immediately preceding ttk in the suffix conjugation. Nor does his explanation address the motivation of the editor in the choice to retain in Hezekiah’s cultic report the preposed subject pronoun )wh over against the usual waw-consecutive (wayyiqtol). The “redactor” (or better historian) of the framework did not work mechanically with a “scissors-and-paste” style, so the retention of )wh from a hypothetical source demands explanation. A more satisfactory interpretation posits that the preposed pronoun before the notice on the bāmôt (2 Kgs 18:4aa) is the stamp of an intentional author who wrote the final resolution to the cultic reports of the framework. The redactional explanation implies that there is virtually no historical truth in the statement that the bāmôt were removed under Hezekiah’s direction.76 Yet the incorporation of the earlier source on the bronze serpent does not imply that there was a lack of cultural memory behind the bāmôt-notice at 18:4aa. The redactional explanation does not force the conclusion that the bāmôt-notice is Deuteronomistic, since it is rooted in the memory of the historian of the framework and was itself possibly taken from a royal source. One cannot rule out the possibility that the historian worked prior to the composition of Deuteronomy.77 Others argue that the framework, inclusive of 2 Kgs 18:4, was written just after the Josianic reform. Spieckermann has pointed to the triad of terms – bāmôt, pillars, and ʾăšērîm – found in 1 Kgs 14:23; 2 Kgs 17:9–10; 18:4; 23:13–14 to argue for a unified framework authored by a single Josianic redactor (DtrH). Spieckermann assumes the bāmôt, pillars, and ʾăšērîm of Hezekiah’s report only emerged under the influence of Josiah’s account (23:13–14). His discussion is relevant since one of the instances where this triad of terms is incorporated is in 2 Kgs 18:4a. He argues that Hezekiah is 76

So Aurelius 2003: 30–32. Similarly, Blanco Wißmann (2008), but who nevertheless dates the framework to the exilic period. 77

336

Chapter Eight: Hezekiah’s Account

cast as a prototypical cultic reformer foreshadowing the measures of Josiah to purge the countryside of syncretism, while Manasseh’s account provides a literary foil for the following developments in the account of Josiah’s reign. Spieckermann is aware of difficulties in arguing for a unified Josianic framework. For example, he points out that the sacred pillars are discussed in Josiah’s account (2 Kgs 23:14), but do not appear in Manasseh’s account at 21:3. This may illustrate that Hezekiah’s cultic report originally did not mention the sacred pillars since 2 Kgs 21:3 does not state that Manasseh had reconstructed them. It suggests that the ʾăšērîm were only introduced to the framework after 2 Kgs 21:3 and 23:14 had been written. Second, unlike the other passages with the triad of elements (1 Kgs 14:23; 2 Kgs 17:10; 23:13– 14; cf. Deut 7:5; 12:3; 16:21–22), 2 Kgs 18:4 does not explicitly mention that the people were worshipping like the other nations or that other deities were worshipped. As Lowery has stated, “If in 18.4 the Deuteronomist were fictionally building a case against Manasseh to enhance the reputation of Josiah, it is strange that the author should ignore astral worship, augury, Baalism and child sacrifice.”78 Yet these cultic and divinatory practices are purged by Josiah (2 Kgs 23:4–5, 10–11) and are those for which Manasseh is particularly blamed for introducing into the Judahite cult (21:3, 5–6).79 Only the bāmôt and rites of sacrifice and burning incense-offerings are consistently attested throughout the framework from Solomon until Hezekiah.80 A further difficulty with Spieckermann’s view is the diachronic separation of 2 Kgs 18:4 from the other texts signaled by the absence of the phrase “on every high hill and under every verdant tree” in the former text. There is no reason why the hand responsible for that phrase at 1 Kgs 14:23; 2 Kgs 16:4; 17:9–10 (cf. Deut 12:2; Jer 2:20) would have omitted it in 2 Kgs 18:4.81 In the same contexts at 1 Kgs 14:24; 2 Kgs 16:3; 17:8 (cf. Deut 12:2), the cultic practices at these non-centralized cultic sites are described as those performed

78

Lowery 1991: 149. Compare Jer 7:9, 31; 19:4–5; 32:35. 80 I do not mean that every mention of the pillars and ʾăshērîm implied the worship of other deities, since this is especially difficult to prove for 2 Kgs 18:4. However, their association with the worship of other deities in a Judahite context seems to be implied in the later redactions of Kings (2 Kgs 17:10–12; 21:3b–4) and with foreign worship in Deut 7:5; 12:3. 81 See Holladay (1961: 170–6), who concludes that Jer 2:20 may be the oldest use of the trope, “on every high hill and under every green tree” and that its use at Deut 12:2; 1 Kgs 14:23; 2 Kgs 16:4; 17:10; Isa 30:25; 57:5, 7; 65:7; Jer 3:6, 13; 17:2; Ezek 6:13; 20:28; 34:6; Hos 4:13 is either secondary to their contexts or later than Jer 2:20. He also allows that the phrase could have been a “common idiom.” Alternatively, Spieckermann (1982: 191 n. 76) maintains that the example at Hos 4:13 is the non-Dtr exemplar for the later formulaic use in the Deuteronomistic texts. Also regarding 1 Kgs 14:23; 2 Kgs 16:4; 17:10 as secondary is Aurelius (2003: 55 n. 153). 79

8.3. Hezekiah’s Cultic Report (2 Kgs 18:4)

337

by “the nations (Mywgh),” while in 2 Kgs 18:4b, it is the “Israelites” mentioned burning incense-offerings to the bronze serpent. Spieckermann also argues for the fictitious nature of 2 Kgs 18:4 by noting the resemblance of the singular hr#) in 2 Kgs 18:4 and 21:3; 23:4. But he disregards the strong text critical evidence in favor of the plural Myr#) at 2 Kgs 18:4 (LXXBL) and 21:3 (LXXBL; OL; 2 Chr 33:3).82 He connects the plural Myr#) with the phrase “on every high hill and under every green tree” which occurs only at 1 Kgs 14:23 and 2 Kgs 17:10–11. As just mentioned, however, that phrase does not occur in 2 Kgs 18:4 and suggests that one should assign 1 Kgs 14:23, 2 Kgs 16:2, and 17:10–11 to a different hand from the one that interpolated the pillars and ʾăšērîm after 2 Kgs 18:4aa. First Kings 14:22–24 is central to Spieckermann’s argumentation, since it is the first occurrence of the triad of terms, bāmôt, pillars, and ʾăšērîm in his Josianic DtrH (see 2 Kgs 17:9–10; 18:4; 23:13–15aa) and sets up the conflict to be resolved in 2 Kgs 18:4 and 23:13–15aa.83 However, neither the mention of the pillars and ʾăšērîm at 1 Kgs 14:23 (Judah/Rehoboam) nor their mention at 2 Kgs 23:14 (Josiah) are paralleled in the Book of Chronicles, whereas both the pillars and ʾăšērîm mentioned at 2 Kgs 18:4 are also found at 2 Chr 31:1. Here again, this is evidence to suggest that the texts featuring the pillars and ʾăšērîm may have been added by various hands at multiple stages.84 It is also noteworthy that there is no reference to pillars or ʾăšērîm in 2 Kgs 23:8a, sometimes regarded as the kernel of Josiah’s reform report.85 If 2 Kgs 23:13– 14 is regarded as secondary in relation to the framework, as several scholars argue, then the mention of the pillars and ʾăšērîm in 23:14 does not support the unity of an exilic framework whose goal is Josiah’s account.86 Spieckermann does not take into account the other regnal evaluation of Rehoboam at 3 Reg 12:24a: “He did what was evil before the Lord and did not walk in the way of David his father.” Third Reigns 12:24a does not make 82 His historical distinction between the plural tied to the fertility goddess and the singular in connection with the “army of heaven” is also tenuous, therefore. 83 Already Jepsen 1959: 102. 84 Camp (1990: 79) criticizes Spieckermann for assigning these texts to the earliest redaction of DtrH, since the bāmôt are fundamental to the history of the Judahite kingdom, whereas the sacred pillars and ʾăshērîm play no role in that history. Differently from Camp, I would still assign these texts to DtrH or perhaps later redactions, but retain the mention of the bāmôt and bronze serpent for the HH. The role of the pillars and ʾăshērîm remain viable for the later edition(s) of Kings. The connection that Spieckermann highlights between the sins of Judah (MT)/”the fathers” (LXX) during Rehoboam’s reign (1 Kgs 14:23), the Josianic reform (2 Kgs 23:13–14), and the downfall of Israel (17:9–10) still bears the marks of an intentional scheme, albeit secondary to the framework. 85 Levin 1984: 358–9. 86 Rösel 1999: 42; for the late date of 23:13–14, see Benzinger 1899: 194; Kittel 1900: 297; Montgomery and Gehmen 1951: 534; Würthwein 1984: 460; O’Brien 1989: 257; Pakkala 1999: 176–7.

338

Chapter Eight: Hezekiah’s Account

any reference to bāmôt, pillars, or ʾăšērîm, but only to “the way of David.” I have already pointed out the probable secondary nature of 1 Kgs 14:21–24 in relation to the HH-framework (7.4.1.3.1). Spieckermann assumes that DtrH took for granted that Manasseh reintroduced the sacred pillars and ʾăšērîm, since they are purged in the accounts of both Hezekiah and Josiah (2 Kgs 18:4a and 23:14a), even though the text does not state that Manasseh ever reintroduced them.87 Spieckermann must admit that this is “eine der seltenen Unstimmigkeiten seiner [DtrH’s] Redaktion.”88 In fact, the altar for Baal and the ʾăšērîm that Manasseh constructs are compared to the earlier actions of Ahab (1 Kgs 16:33, which I regard as late)89 but are not contrasted with the ʾăšērîm that Hezekiah is said to have removed; nor are Baal or the Host of Heaven mentioned at 2 Kgs 18:4. This suggests that 2 Kgs 18:4 originally did not mention the sacred pillars and ʾăšērîm and that 2 Kgs 21:3, though mentioning the reversal of Hezekiah’s actions, was actually written with 2 Kgs 23:4–6 in mind, which mentions Baal, Asherah, and the Host of Heaven. Spieckermann nevertheless concludes that the notice on the destruction of the bronze serpent “wahrscheinlich aus den Annalen stammt” and became the “Kristallisationspunkt für die Redaktionsarbeit von DtrH.”90 While I can agree with Spieckermann as to the significance of the bronze serpent –with the caveat that the bāmôt and the rite of incense-burning were equally as significant for the structure and message of the HH – I cannot agree with him concerning the secondary nature of the reform report. Second Kings 18:4 contains the only reference to the bronze serpent in Kings and is also the only cultic object to which the Israelites had burned incense (they did not do so to the pillars or ʾăšērîm!). Naʾaman has claimed that a Josianic Deuteronomistic historian constructed 2 Kgs 18:4 on the basis of Deut 7:5 and 12:3 (cf. 16:21–22).91 All three texts mention pillars (twbcm) and ʾăšērîm (Myr#$)) together with either bāmôt or altars (twxbzm). According to Naʾaman, the bāmôt in 18:4 stand in place of

87

Spieckermann 1982: 172. Ibid. 172. 89 See Lowery 1991: 149; Rösel 1999: 42. The connection with Ahab’s account is signaled by the use of the H-stem of Mwq to denote the erection of the altar to Baal the construction of the ʾăshērîm at both 1 Kgs 16:32–33 and 2 Kgs 21:3 (Hoffmann 1980: 349). 90 Spieckermann 1982: 173; see already Stade 1886: 171; Camp 1990: 75; Naʾaman 1995: 181–2; Aurelius 2003: 16 n. 51. 91 Naʾaman 1995: 179–95; cf. Bostock 2006: 27–8; Pakkala 2010: 216. For a different view, see Barrick 2002: 103–4. 88

339

8.3. Hezekiah’s Cultic Report (2 Kgs 18:4)

the altars in Deut 7:5 and 12:3 as does the bronze serpent (t#$xnh #$xn) in place of the Deuteronomic images (Mylysp).92 Table 25. Altars, Pillars, ʾĂšērîm, and Images Images

ʾĂšērîm

Pillars

Altars

M™RhyElyIsVp…w :v`EaD;b N…wñp√rVcI;t

‹MRhéry`EvSaÅw N…w$oé;dÅgV;t

M™DtObE…xAm…w …wr¡E;bAvV;t

M™RhyEháølTa N…wóoé;dÅgV;t ·tA;tIk◊w tRv%Oj◊…nAh v°Aj◊n —

M‹ Rhyér`EvSaÅw v$EaD;b N…wâp√rVcI;t täårDk◊w hó∂rEvSa`Dh_tRa tëOrVkˆ¥yÅw MyóîrEvSaDh_tRa

M‹ R;t√rA;bIv◊w M$DtOb∞E…xAm_tRa ‹rA;bIv◊w t$ObE…xA;mAh_tRa ‹rA;bIv◊w tw$øbE…xA;mAh_tRa

hôO;k_MIa_y`I;k M$RhDl ‹…wcSoAt M∞RhyEtOjV;b◊zIm …wx$O;tI;t M∞R;tVxA;tˆn◊w M#DtOj;b◊zIm_tRa ry∞IsEh —a…wâh tw#ømD;bAh_tRa —

Deut 7:5

Deut 12:3 2 Kgs 18:4 2 Kgs 23:14

However, there are significant differences between the passages in Deuteronomy and 2 Kgs 18:4. The actions performed on the standing stones and the ʾăšērîm are different: in Deuteronomy, they are cut down using (dg in the Dstem (Deut 7:5) or burned (Pr#& in 12:3), while in 2 Kgs 18:4, they are cut down using trk in the G-stem.93 Hoffmann suggests that the use of trk with hr#) as its object is a strictly Deuteronomistic formula.94 The assertion is in need of more evidence, however, but I can at least agree that the texts in which it appears are often late, although the date of Exod 34:13, which has traditionally been assigned to the J source, may be earlier.95 Naʾaman does not 92

Naʾaman also held that the bronze serpent was taken from an earlier archival note, in keeping with earlier scholarship, yet maintains that the entire verse was constructed by Dtr, concluding that two sources were brought together (1995: 181–2); cf. Ben Zvi 1990: 85. 93 The LXX translates the G-stem of trk with ecoleqreuw “destroy” here and at 2 Kgs 23:14. These are the only instances in Genesis–Kings that this word translates the G-stem of trk. It is more common as a translation for the N-stem and H-stem of trk. Thus, it is likely that trk was in the Greek translator’s Vorlage at 2 Kgs 18:4 and 23:14. It should not be equated with db) in the D-stem as at 2 Kgs 21:3 (cf. Deut 12:3), since the Greek translators have used different renderings there. 94 Hoffmann 1980: 344 n. 20; see Exod 34:13; Judg 6:25, 26, 28, 30; 1 Sam 28:9; 1 Kgs 15:13; 2 Kgs 18:4; 23:14. This description is imprecise, since some texts should not be harmonized with one another and may stem from different hands. 1 Kgs 15:13 possesses several components different from 2 Kgs 18:4a and 23:14a (the use of tclpm; introduced with Mgw; there is an association with the Myllg in 1 Kgs 15:12). 95 Exod 34:11–17 has been regarded as proto-Deuteronomistic, Deuteronomistic, and post-Deuteronomistic; see Bar-On 1998: 185–6, 190–2. If it is late, then it appears to be based on the earlier prohibition against worshipping other gods above YHWH and fashioning images at Exod 20:3–4 (cf. 34:13–14). In any case, a borrowing from Exod 20:3–4 does

340

Chapter Eight: Hezekiah’s Account

consider that Exod 34:13, lacking mention of the Mylysp, is a closer parallel to 2 Kgs 18:4ab than Deuteronomy 7:5 or 12:3: (Exod 34:13) N…wátOrVkI;t wyä∂rEvSa_tRa◊w N…wúrE;bAvV;t M™DtObE…xAm_tRa◊w N…w$xO;tI;t ‹MDtOjV;b◊zIm_tRa y§I;k (2 Kgs 18:4a) (!)MyóîrEvSaDh_tRa täårDk◊w tw$øb®E…xA;mAh_tRa rA;bIv◊w tw#ømD;bAh_tRa ry∞IsEh —a…wâh

Exodus 34:13 (LXXB) contains the extra phrase, kai\ ta_ glupta_ tw~n qew~n au)tw~n katakau&sete e0n puri/ “And the graven images of their gods, you shall burn in fire,” which is reminiscent of Deut 7:5 and is probably secondary to Exod 34:13.96 While there are as many differences between the passages in Kings and in Exodus as there are with Deuteronomy, both 2 Kgs 18:4ab (also 23:14a) and Exod 34:13 share the verb trk, whereas Deut 7:5 and 12:3 have employed other verbs in connection with the ʾăšērîm. It is more likely that the one who updated 2 Kgs 18:4ab was aware of Exod 34:13 rather than Deut 7:5; 12:3; 16:21–22.97 That being said, it is just as possible that the pair “sacred pillars and ʾăšērîm” were included to expand the prohibitive nature of the cultic items that Hezekiah had banished in line with the prohibition against images at Exod 20:3–4. According to Barrick, the cultic language employed at Exod 34:13; Deut 7:5; 12:3 is “stereotypical, but not ‘deuteronomic.’”98 Barrick notes that 23:14a has been prompted by the mention of bāmôt in 23:13 as in the case of 2 Kgs 18:4a and not by the passages in Deuteronomy.99 This is supported by the fact that both 2 Kgs 18:4ab and 23:14a mention the sacred pillars and ʾăšērîm in connection with bāmôt, but do not mention altars or graven images (contrast 2 Kgs 17:41; 21:3, 7; 2 Chr 31:1). Although it is speculative, their inclusion at 2 Kgs 18:4ab appears to be earlier than 2 Kgs 23:14a and may have influenced their mention at the latter text. Not only is 2 Kgs 18:4ab incongruous with 2 Kgs 21:3a (adding “altars” and lacking mention of the “sacred pillars”), but 2 Kgs 23:14a mentions not Manasseh’s bāmôt, but Solomon’s, in connection with the pillars and ʾăšērîm at vv. 13–14. These inconnot rule out a pre-Deuteronomistic date. This would be another example of updating a text on images (Mylsp/Mylysp) with the mention of pillars and ʾăshērîm, as is perhaps the case at 2 Kgs 18:4; 23:13–14. 96 The inability to supply a reason for why the mention of the Mylysp would have been omitted from the MT but preserved in LXX is a weak point in the argumentation of those scholars (e.g., Pakkala 1999: 130 n. 2; Levin 2008: 146–7, 162), who maintain that the 2 Kgs 18:4 is based on Deut 7:5. The final phrase on the Mylysp may have been secondarily added to Exod 34:13. Hoffmann (1980: 342 n. 3) is dubious as to whether the mention of the Mylysp in LXXB at Exod 34:13 is original. I point out that the Mylysp are mentioned with and without the sacred pillars and ʾăshērîm; cf. Deut 7:5; 12:3; 16:21–22; 1 Kgs 14:23; 2 Kgs 17:10; 18:4; 23:14; Mic 5:12–13. 97 Similar terminology exists at Exod 23:24 and Jer 43:13. 98 Barrick 2002: 103. 99 See also Lowery 1991: 207–8.

8.3. Hezekiah’s Cultic Report (2 Kgs 18:4)

341

gruities argue against the unity of the cultic reports for Hezekiah, Manasseh, and Josiah in relation to the twmb-twcmb-Myr#). The actions performed on the Mylysp in Deut 7:5 and 12:3 are the same as those for the ʾăšērîm in Deuteronomy, but in reverse order (i.e., Pr#& and pi. of (dg). However, in 2 Kgs 18:4b, Hezekiah grinds up (pi. of ttk) the bronze serpent; he does not cut it down or burn it (contrast 1 Kgs 15:13 and 2 Kgs 23:4, 6, 15).100 Admittedly, Deut 9:21 and Mic 1:7 pair ttk together with the verb Pr#& “to burn,” but the mentioned difference must not be ignored. Hoffmann has pointed to Deut 9:21 of the golden calf narrative as proof for designating the verb ttk as “Deuteronomistic.” ttk is also used to denote the destruction of Mylysp at Mic 1:7, but there is nothing to prove that this verse is Deuteronomistic.101 All told, none of the arguments of Hoffmann, Spieckermann, Camp, or Naʾaman detracts from my position that a history was written that concluded with a climax in Hezekiah’s account.102 There is no evidence that necessitates a Deuteronomistic origin or exilic date for 2 Kgs 18:4*. Although the evidence is admittedly complex, one must still take seriously the culmination of the bāmôt-notices in 2 Kgs 18:4 as well as the report of burning incense to the bronze serpent as strong evidence in support of the theory of the HH. 8.3.5. Second Kings 18:4 as the Final Cultic Report of the Hezekian History I will not repeat here the numerous arguments provided thus far in support of the conclusion that Hezekiah’s cultic report in 2 Kgs 18:4 originally functioned as the climax of the Kings-framework. I will only summarize the strongest argument for an HH-framework, whose telos is 2 Kgs 18:4, and this in preference to the view that the framework is a post-Hezekian invention: the most regular elements of the framework bāmôt-notices anticipate not Josiah’s but Hezekiah’s cultic reform in 2 Kgs 18:4aab. Even if Hezekiah’s cultic report were not grounded in historical reality, it would still remain a problem for a history written on behalf of Josiah that the framework points primarily to Hezekiah’s account.103 The difficulty remains even if one posits a historical 100 The reading of ttk is supported by LXXL (sugkoptw “break up”). LXXB does not reflect the verb. 101 Kugler 1999: 140. 102 Similarly, McKay 1973: 17: “II Kings 18.4 seems to be of good historical value”; Lowery 1991: 149: “The Hezekian reform, as it is reported in Kings, is more plausible as history than as fiction.” 103 Actually, the historicity of 2 Kgs 18:4a has no bearing on the telos of the framework. Regardless of whether the cultic report is to be credited with some amount of historical worth, the culminating point of the framework in Hezekiah’s account is out of place in a Josianic edition. See König 1917: 49; Zorn 1977: 205. That said, the telos of the HHframework does have a bearing on the historicity of the Hezekian reform, improving the likelihood that such an event actually took place.

342

Chapter Eight: Hezekiah’s Account

source behind 2 Kgs 23 (e.g., v. 8a), as it is still necessary to explain why the author of the framework did not use language corresponding to that source. If the Josianic reform served as a blueprint of cultic reform that was read back onto the account of Hezekiah, why do the most regular elements of the framework point to Hezekiah’s cultic report instead of Josiah’s?104 The bāmôt-notices anticipate not the desecration (Verunreinigung) but the cancellation of the Judahite bāmôt. As it now stands, 2 Kgs 18:4 is an anti-climax to the account of Josiah’s purification of the Judahite cultus in 2 Kgs 23 and vice-versa, Josiah’s measures do not resonate with Hezekiah’s actions but outshine them. The redactional attempts to merge the accounts of Hezekiah and Josiah were not successful in creating a unified text free from remaining literary sutures. Those disregarding the antithetical relationship between Hezekiah’s and Josiah’s accounts have difficulty explaining the disapprobation of Manasseh’s conduct in a pre-exilic Josianic framework. As Albertz suggests, if Hezekiah’s account was written in anticipation of Josiah’s reform, one suspects the account of Manasseh’s reign is the most fabricated of all regnal accounts, of historical value only to the most credulous.105 The nature of the framework as it is, one cannot explain the post-Hezekian reform of Josiah without the interposed figure of Manasseh. The more Manasseh is seen as a “scapegoat,” however, the more likely his account was written as a justification for “exile.” For the accumulation of his cultic misdeeds demands a punitive response on the part of YHWH.106 As Lowery aptly notes, though, the regular bāmôt notices down to Hezekiah do not adequately prepare for Manasseh’s account.107 Far more deeds of apostasy are required to cast Manasseh in the role of scapegoat than are mentioned in Hezekiah’s cultic evaluation. If in 18.4 the Deuteronomist were fictionally building a case against Manasseh to enhance the reputation of Josiah, it is strange that the author should ignore astral worship, augury, Baalism and child sacrifice. These, after all, are the especially abominable cult practices purged by Josiah which the Deuteronomist attributes to Manasseh … Cult centralization may well have been the most drastic and far-reaching reform Hezekiah could have accomplished … But its mention in 2 Kgs 18.4 does little to damage Manasseh’s reputation.108 104

The one instance of rws (hiphil) in Josiah’s reform report occurs in 2 Kgs 23:19ag, a late text; see Nelson 1981: 120; Spieckermann 1982: 117–8, 428; Levin 1984: 361; Würthwein 1984: 460–1; Römer 2005: 161. 105 Albertz 1992: 181. 106 Schmid (2006: 32) has criticized Levin’s minimal reconstruction of Manasseh’s original cultic report (2 Kgs 21:2a, 3abbg) for leaving the catastrophe of the exile unexplained in an exilic edition of Kings. Josiah is reported to have irreversibly defiled the bāmôt in 2 Kgs 23:8a, a verse originally only suitable for a pre-exilic context, according to Schmid. 107 Lowery 1991: 148. I do not agree with the evidence that Lowery adduces, namely, that a king’s toleration of the bāmôt was not an unforgivable offense. But the case for Manasseh is different, since like Jeroboam and Ahab, he did not only tolerate already existing bāmôt, but reconstructed those torn down by his father. 108 Ibid. 149; pace Hoffmann 1980: 151–5; Spieckermann 1982: 172–3.

8.4. Hezekiah’s “Trust,” Incomparability, and Success in War

343

The same problem exists for Noth’s interpretation of the historical work as fully pessimistisch, and he ignored the evidence against his thesis issuing out of Hezekiah’s account, designating it merely as a “transitory interlude” (vorübergehende Zwischenzeit) on the way to the final collapse of the monarchy. The subsequent modifications to his theory, though taking into account the auspicious characteristics of the monarchic history, still fail to answer for the cultic report of Hezekiah. The regular elements of the framework that come to a head in 2 Kgs 18:4 induce the audience to anticipate the account of a king who will cancel the bāmôt from Judah. What sort of tone would be sounded in a history, whose moral objective is achieved in Hezekiah only to be reversed in the reign of his son? If Hezekiah’s reforming measures were short-lived, moreover, and reversed with ease, what was to prevent a similar reversal in the case of Josiah’s reform?109 One may retort that the examples of Hezekiah and Josiah are only paradigmatic, isolated examples of YHWHistic devotion (or Zwischenzeiten) and that those types seldom figure in a history riddled with religious apostasy. I counter with the response that the example of Hezekiah is in line with the telic expression of the framework and is not simply an anomaly.

8.4. Hezekiah’s “Trust,” Incomparability, and Success in War (2 Kgs 18:5*, 7–8) According to 2 Kgs 18:5, Hezekiah “trusted” in YHWH and none of the earlier or later kings of Israel was comparable to him. The statement about Hezekiah’s trust probably belonged to the HH as well as some form of the statement of incomparability to highlight his distinguished character. It is significant that 2 Kgs 18:13–19:37 references the theme of trust using x+b nine times (18:19, 20, 21 [twice], 22, 24, 30; 19:10). x+b is not Deuteronomistic style, as it is rarely encountered in Deut–Kings and never occurs outside of 2 Kgs 18–19 with YHWH as its object.110 The Book of Isaiah, too, is replete with references to trusting in YHWH employing the root x+b (Isa 12:2; 26:3, 109 Evidence for the continuation of cultic syncretism after Josiah occurs in Jer 13:27; 18:13–17; Ezek 8–11. The criticism that Hezekiah’s reform was short-lived was first raised as an argument against its historicity (Schmidt 1923: ii, 22, 9) but then was applied in the same measure against the historicity of a Josianic reform (Siebens 1929: 158–9). Cf. Rosenbaum 1979: 35. 110 Pace Childs 1967: 85. YHWH is the object of the verb x+b only here in conjunction with an oracle of assurance (19:6–7). The root Nm) is more common in the DtrH (Deut 1:32; 9:23; Judg 11:20; 1 Sam 27:12; 2 Kgs 17:14: cf. Jer 40:9, 14). Only Deut 1:32; 9:23 and 2 Kgs 17:14 refer to trusting (or not trusting) in YHWH; Judg 11:20 and 1 Sam 27:12 concern trust in humans.

344

Chapter Eight: Hezekiah’s Account

4; 32:17; cf. 30:12; 31:1). Since the motif is also absent from the HH, this suggests that the historian borrowed it from the narrative episode in 18:17– 19:37*. The theme of trust is also familiar to the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions, especially in connection with the common phrase ina tukulti ilāni rabûti “by trusting in the great gods.”111 The theme and its related phraseology are common in the royal inscriptions of the Sargonid kings, particularly in those relating events from the days of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal (ca. 680–627 BCE). In this context, this phrase may be applied to legitimate a militaristic enterprise against “rebels,” the latter often represented as neglectful of divine counsel (kî lā libbi ilāni “against the will of the gods” [Nin A i 46]).112 In the account of Sennacherib’s third campaign against Syria and Palestine, it is reported how Sennacherib came to fight against Ekron, which had rebelled and handed over its king, Padî, to Hezekiah, and against the Egyptian troops who came their aid. The text states that “by trusting in Assur” (ina tukulti Aššur), he fought and defeated them (Chicago Prism III 1–2 // Taylor Prism II 78).113 The similarities with the Hezekian portrayal in 18:5*, 7–8 are remarkable, since it is on account of Hezekiah’s trust and piety that YHWH was with him and granted him success in his military affairs, particularly in his rebellion against Assyria. It is probable that some amount of Assyrian influence lay behind the earlier compositional process of the episode of the Assyrian exchange with Hezekiah and his delegates.114 Although the theme of trust (x+b) is not a characteristic feature of the HHframework,115 18:5 presents it as a quality of an ideal Davidic monarch. The result is the assimilation of a traditional episode concerning Hezekiah’s piety and the deliverance of Jerusalem into the theological scheme of the historian. By employing a “celebrated,” historical episode, the historian establishes the authority of its vision of the Davidic archetype in the personage of Hezekiah.116

111

Dion 1988: 6; Gonçalves 1986: 410–12. Oded: 1991: 223–30; idem, 1992: 9–27. 113 Luckenbill 1924: 23–47, 128–31. 114 Note also the use of the Assyrian royal title “the great king, the King of Ashur.” On the possibility of other Assyrian components, see Cohen 1979: 32–48; Long 1991: 218–20; Machinist 1983: 723–6, 729–31; Milgrom 2000: 69. 115 x+b is more common in the book of Isaiah, especially in texts that are sometimes associated with 2 Kgs 18–19 (esp. Isa 12:2; 26:3–4; 31:1; cf. the root Nm) at 7:9 along with an oracle of assurance). Most of the occurrences in Jeremiah are found in pejorative contexts (e.g., Jer 5:17; 7:4, 8, 14; 9:3; 13:25; 17:5; 28:15; 29:31; 46:25; 48:7; 49:4); cf. examples with a positive connotation at 17:7; 39:18; 49:11. 116 For a discussion of 2 Kgs 18:13–19:37 in the context of the HH, see the following chapter. 112

8.4. Hezekiah’s “Trust,” Incomparability, and Success in War

345

As for the incomparability formula in 18:5b (“And after him there was not one like him among all the kings of Judah or who were before him”), Provan rightly regards it as evidence in support of a Hezekian edition of the Book of Kings, since it stands in contradiction with the similar formula in Josiah’s reign (2 Kgs 23:25). However, the fact that Hezekiah is said to have been superior to all subsequent kings leads him to suggest that “although 2 Kgs 18:5 . . . is unlikely to have been written after the reign of Josiah, it is also unlikely to have been written before it.”117 According to Knoppers, a later hand could have added the statement of incomparability to distinguish Hezekiah from other kings only in terms of his trust in YHWH.118 Besides the example in 2 Kgs 18:5b, other examples are known at Deut 34:10; 1 Kgs 3:12; 2 Kgs 23:25. Table 26. Incomparability Formulae

:My`InDÚp_lRa My™InDÚp hYÎwh◊y wâøo∂d◊y ‹rRvSa h¡RvOmV;k l™Ea∂rVcˆyV;b dwöøo ay¶IbÎn M°∂q_aáøl◊w

Deut 34:10 Moses

_aøl ‹ÔKw‹ømD;k r§RvSa Nw$øbÎn◊w M∞DkDj bEl£ #ÔKVl yI;t∞AtÎn —h∞E…nIh ÔKyó®rDb√dI;k yIty™IcDo h¶E…nIh :ÔKwáømD;k M…wõqÎy_aøl ÔKyä®rSjAa◊w ÔKyY‰nDpVl h∞DyDh

1 Kgs 3:12 Solomon

h$∂d…wh◊y y∞EkVlAm ‹lOkV;b …wh#OmDk h∞DyDh_aøl wyrSjAa◊w j¡DfD;b l™Ea∂rVcˆy_y`EhølTa h¶DwhyA;b :wy`DnDpVl …wäyDh r¶RvSaÅw

2 Kgs 18:5 Hezekiah

‹wøvVpÅn_lDkVb…w wôøbDbVl_lDkV;b ‹hÎwh◊y_lRa b§Dv_rRvSa JKRl#Rm wy˝ÎnDpVl h∏ÎyDh_aáøl ·…whOmDk◊w :…wháOmD;k Mñ∂q_aáøl wyä∂rSjAa◊w h¡RvOm tâårwø;t läOkV;k w$ødOaVm_lDkVb…w

2 Kgs 23:25 Josiah

Never again did a prophet arise in Israel, as Moses (did), whom YHWH knew face to face.

Behold, I have done according to your words; behold, I have given you a wise and discerning heart, so that there has been none like you previously and after you no one will arise like you.

In YHWH, God of Israel, he trusted; after him there was no one like him among all the kings of Judah or who were before him.

And like him there was no king before him who returned to YHWH with all of his heart and with all of his soul and with all of his strength according to all the teaching of Moses and after him there did not arise his like.

There are several differences between 2 Kgs 18:5 and the other texts that indicate at least that 18:5b is not on the same literary level with the other examples. First, 2 Kgs 18:5b does not employ the verb Mwq to allude to later rivals but the verb hyh, which is standard for speaking about earlier predecessors. Second, 2 Kgs 18:5b switches the temporal order found in 1 Kgs 3:12 and 2 Kgs 23:25 by referring to the later kings of Judah ahead of later successors; in so doing, it also alters the verb into the plural (wyh) in agreement the antece117

Provan 153; cf. Eynikel 1996: 108. Knoppers 1992: 411–31; cf. Aurelius 2003: 38. However, the statement should not be understood as having derived from one exilic redactor, who also added 1 Kgs 3:12; 2 Kgs 23:25 (see below). 118

346

Chapter Eight: Hezekiah’s Account

dent, “the (former) kings of Judah.”119 Third, the three texts explicitly qualify the incomparability formula using an r#)-clause (Moses – whom YHWH knew face-to-face; Solomon – a wise and intelligent mind so that; Josiah – who returned to YHWH); 2 Kgs 18:5b does not use this stylistic feature.120 These differences suggest that Hezekiah’s statement was probably not composed by the same author who wrote 1 Kgs 3:12 or 2 Kgs 23:25. Earlier commentators have already appealed to several of these peculiarities in order to emend the text. Burney expected wynpl wyh r#)w to have occupied the first place in accordance with 1 Kgs 3:2 and regarded wyrx)w was secondary, since it contradicted 2 Kgs 23:25.121 He reconstructed the original text as wynFpfl; w@yhf r#$e)j hdfw@hy: yk'l;ma-lkfb@; w@hmok@f hyFhf )low: And there was one like him among all the kings of Judah who were before him.

In support of Burney’s emendation, similar formulae in Phoenician and Akkadian royal inscriptions pertain to the king’s incomparability with earlier predecessors or current rivals but never with later successors.122 The formula is found in royal inscriptions in the first person, as in the case of the Phoenician Kilamuwa inscription in KAI 24: 2–5: “ but as for me, Kilamuwa, son of TML, what I accomplished my predecessors did not accomplish” (mʾš pʿlt bl pʿl hlpnyhm); and the Phoenician Karatepe inscription in KAI 26 A I 18–19: wʿn ʾnk ʾrṣt ʿzt bmbʾ šmš ʾš bl ʿn kl hmlkm ʾš kn lpny “I subdued strong lands at the setting of the sun that none of the kings who were before me had been able to subdue.” It is noteworthy that these inscriptions are the same texts that contain the “restorer of order pattern” observed in the HH-framework and makes perfect sense with the progression of the bāmôt-notices. Differently, Gray omitted wynpl wyh r#)w as secondary, since he regarded the phrase as unwieldy in context and as causing a contradiction with David.123 The phrase

119

1 Kgs 3:12 and 2 Kgs 23:25 either derive from the same hand or show literary dependence with 2 Kgs 23:25 relying on 1 Kgs 3:12. 120 This weakens Knoppers’ (1992: 411–31) arguments against regarding the Hezekian formula as contradictory with Josiah’s formula in 2 Kgs 23:25, as Hezekiah’s statement of incomparability is not directly qualified in terms of a characteristic virtue. The statement of his trust in YHWH in 18:5a stands in paratactical relationship to 18:5b. 121 Burney 1903: 338. 122 Weinfeld 1972: 359. It is noteworthy that both of these examples use a relative clause to qualify the point of contrast, as in Deut 34:10 and 2 Kgs 23:25. 123 Gray 1963: 609; cf. already Stade 1886: 172; Camp 1990: 89. This is the only occurrence of hyh r#)w, where the relative pronoun is not made the object of the verb. It would have improved the syntax if lkb had been repeated before the relative pronoun in the last clause (i.e., “and among all [of the kings] who were before him”); see Burney 1902: 338. The difficulty arises from the fact that the temporal adjunct wyrx) is independent of the prepositional phrase (…lkb) in 18:4ba, whereas the temporal adjunct wynpl in 18:4bb is

8.4. Hezekiah’s “Trust,” Incomparability, and Success in War

347

wynpl wyh r#)w, though unwieldy, is not necessarily secondary, as it does not make sense to state that Hezekiah was simply greater than all who came after him. Instead, the force of the framework is to demonstrate that he was greater than all who preceded him. The expression “kings of Judah” may only pertain to the kings from Rehoboam onward, since David and Solomon were kings of both Israel and Judah (3 Reg 2:46l). Burney’s emendation is more plausible in light of nonbiblical parallels and in the context. The expression wyrx)w and the w before wynpl may have been arisen later in 18:5b under the influence of parallel texts at 1 Kgs 3:12 and 2 Kgs 23:25.124 The view that I have opted for above may be contrasted with that of the Neo-Göttingen School, which holds that 18:5–7a was composed entirely by late Deuteronomistic redactors (i.e., DtrN).125 According to that school, the lateness of 18:5 is indicated by the theme of trust borrowed from the Sennacherib episode in 2 Kgs 18:17–19:37. Similarly, DtrN idioms include “clinging to YHWH” (qbd, v. 6aa), “turning away” (rws, v. 6ab) from YHWH, “keeping the commandments” (twcm rm#, 6b), and “having success” (lk#& hiph., v. 7a).126 Aurelius points to Josh 1:7 and 1 Kgs 2:3 as two other examples of “nomistic” texts that combine Moses, the Lawgiver, and “having success” (lk#& hi).127 He maintains that the second evaluation of Hezekiah in 18:5–7b was inserted to supplement the original evaluation in 18:3, much akin to the secondary evaluations of Manasseh at 21:7–9 and Josiah at 23:25–27. The underlying assumption of this perspective is that 18:5–7a is a whole unit, composed by a later Deuteronomist. In my opinion, however, this fails to comply with evidence suggesting that only v. 6 is late, whereas vv. 5, 7–8 are of a piece with 18:3–4aab. First, the connection of the regnal framework with the narrative in 18:17–19:37 does not automatically prove the lateness of these verses, especially since x+b is not associated with DtrN phraseology. It would first have to be proven that the narrative as a whole is late, something that has not yet been achieved.128 Second, while it part of the clause headed by a relative pronoun which functions like the previous prepositional phrase. 124 The absence of wyrx) from HH 2 Kgs 18:5 would indiacte that 18:6 had not functioned as part of a chiastic structure extending into v. 6 (wyrx)m); pace Aurelius 2003: 66. 125 Dietrich 1972: 138 n. 155; Spieckermann 1982: 174–5; Würthwein 1984: 410; Camp 1990: 87–9; Aurelius 2003: 66–70; cf. already Jepsen 1956: 62 n. 2, 80 and further Hardmeier 1990: 98. 126 Vera Chamaza’s (1989: 223) assertion that the exclusively “religious” attitude in vv. 5–6 stands in tension with the evaluation and cultic report in vv. 3–4 is in danger of drawing an arbitrary line between politics and religion, particularly with the term x+b “to trust,” operative in the Rabshaqeh’s speech on the Assyrian invasion. 127 Aurelius 2003: 67. 128 McKenzie (1991: 103) is of the opinion that the interplay of the regnal framework and the narrative episode may indicate that the 2 Kgs 18–19 was derived from an earlier source. This is likely, but does not necessarily mean that the story was written many years earlier

348

Chapter Eight: Hezekiah’s Account

may be granted that the idioms “to cleave to YHWH” and “to turn away from YHWH” in conjunction with keeping the charges of Moses may be regarded plausibly as later insertions, the idiom “to have success” (lk#& hi) is not late. There is a significant divergence between Josh 1:7 and 1 Kgs 2:3, which combine lk#& with a concern for keeping Moses’ charges and 2 Kgs 18:7a. Joshua 1:7 and 1 Kgs 2:3 describe “having success” in terms of where Joshua “goes” (Klh) and what Solomon “does” (h#&(), whereas at 2 Kgs 18:7a, Hezekiah had success whenever “he went out (to battle)” ()cy). The verb )cy is employed several times in 1 Sam 18:5, 13–14, 30 together with lk#& (hi) to underscore David’s military success in battle. I am thus more inclined to agree with Provan, who puts forward a compelling argument for viewing 2 Kgs 18:7–8 as early, since they contain a martial comparison of Hezekiah with David. Of David and Hezekiah, it is stated that “YHWH was with him” (1 Sam 16:18; 18:12, 14; 2 Sam 5:10; 2 Kgs 18:7), that they “prospered” (lk#& hi.) in war (1 Sam 18:5, 14, 15, 30; 2 Kgs 18:7), and that they defeated (hkh) the Philistines (1 Sam 18:27; 19:8; 2 Sam 8:1; 2 Kgs 18:8). Here again, it is Hezekiah, not Josiah, who is the “hero” of the earlier material in 1– 2 Kings.129 Aurelius considers the “second” evaluation of Hezekiah in 2 Kgs 18:5–7a to be unmotivated. Actually, 18:5, 7–8 fall in line with the Davidic evaluation at 18:3 and the report on political endeavors, as expected on the basis of the regular structure of the framework (i.e., introductory formulae; evaluative formulae; political-military reports and/or episodic texts; concluding formulae).130 The motifs of “trust” and military “success” in vv. 5a and 7a represent an appropriate segue to the narrative on the conflict of Judah and Assyria in 2 Kgs 18:13–19:37. The term x+b denotes here both an absolute devotion to YHWH, commensurate with the regnal evaluation in 18:3, and a steadfast hope of deliverance from military foes in anticipation of the major theme of the Rabshakeh’s speech.131 What the Neo-Göttingen perspective lacks is a demonstration for why the potentially late association with Moses in v. 6 should outweigh the primary attention to be paid to the Davidic comparisons in vv. 7–8 to argue for the unity of vv. 5–7a. The Davidic comparison is essential to the evaluative formulae of the framework, whereas the evaluative formulae involving Moses are not intrinsic to it. It is actually v. 6 that is unprepared for in the context.

than the HH; for evidence to this effect taken from the epigraphic inscriptions of Mesha and Zakkur, see Parker (1997: 53–5, 108–9), who draws the comparison between the Zakkur stele and 2 Kgs 18:13–19:37*. 129 Provan 1988: 117. 130 Hoffmann 1980: 33–8; Hardmeier 1990: 96. 131 Wildberger 2002: 391–2.

8.4. Hezekiah’s “Trust,” Incomparability, and Success in War

349

Standard opinion maintains that the military-political reports in 18:7b–8 were taken from authentic sources, and are corroborated by external historical witnesses.132 The style of 18:8 with its preposed )wh has been compared to the bāmôt-notice in 18:4, which begins with the same independent pronoun, indicative of reporting style.133 Only a few scholars have doubted the inauthenticity of 18:7b–8. Noth regarded 18:7b and 18:8 as inauthentic, the former provided by Dtr too early in its context to introduce 18:13–16 and 18:8 as stemming from an unclear provenance.134 Würthwein’s suggestion that 18:8 comprises a later learned addition to the text cannot be taken seriously, since he offers no evidence for this view.135 Adam argues that the verb drm “to rebel” in 18:7b (also v. 20) places Hezekiah’s account in connection with the Babylonian invasions of Judah (24:1, 20b = Jer 52:3).136 He also dates 2 Kgs 18:8 to his Saul-David tradition that began to develop no earlier than the seventh century B.C.E.137 None of the arguments for the secondary nature of 18:7b or 18:8 is conclusive, as 18:7b may be considered only one piece of information preliminary to the narrative on the Judahite-Assyrian conflict beginning in 18:13 (contra Noth). The argument that 18:7b, 20 are late texts due to the presence of drm is constructed on a slim evidential basis, bearing in mind that the two further examples in Kings (2 Kgs 24:1, 20b) are regarded as historically reliable.138 I conclude that 18:7b and 18:8 already belonged to the HH.

132

Gonçalves 1986: 106–7; Camp 1990: 90; Mittmann 1990: 92; Gallagher 1999: 272–3; Mayer 2003: 172–3; Evans 2009: 174–5. Scholars generally maintain that Hezekiah set on an anti-Assyrian course after the death of Sargon II in 705 B.C.E. and that his defeat of Gaza and Ekron was part of an attempt to form a local hegemony. 133 Benzinger 1899: 177 (only v. 8); Kittel 1900: 279 (only v. 8); Montgomery/Gehmen 1951: 481; Jepsen 1956: 30, 62 n. 2; Würthwein 1984: 407 (only v. 7b); Vera Chamaza 1989: 227, 230 (vv. 7–8); Hardmeier 1990: 109–10 (only v. 8); cf. 2 Kgs 14:7. 134 Noth 1981: 132 n. 17; followed by Donner 1986: 322, 328. 135 Würthwein 1984: 408. 136 Adam 2007: 198, 207. 137 Ibid. 199. Adam analogizes the notice on Hezekiah’s defeat of the Philstines in 2 Kgs 18:8 with David’s similar defeat of the Philistines in 2 Sam 5:17–21. Dietrich (2008) points out, however, that Hezekiah’s victory over the Philistines is corroborated in the Annals of Sennacherib. 138 Würthwein 1984: 468, 474–5; Camp 1990: 90. The suggestion that drm is a loanword from Aramaic is unlikely owing to the fact that the root is attested in Arabic, Ethiopic, and Sabean, and therefore goes back to Common Semitic; pace Hardmeier 1990: 293–4; Adam 2007: 199 n. 137.

350

Chapter Eight: Hezekiah’s Account

8.5. The Fall of Samaria in 2 Kgs 18:10–11 The résumé of Hezekiah’s military success in 18:5*, 7–8 is immediately contrasted with the prior defeat of Samaria in 18:9–11, the content of which is nearly identical to 17:5–6. The standard view maintains that 18:9b–11 was taken from archival material (probably the Judahite chronicles) and was introduced with the synchronism in 18:9a and concluded with a theological justification for the Israelites’ defeat in 18:12.139 Hardmeier argued that 18:10ab, 11 is earlier than vv. 9, 10aa on account of several factors.140 There are two references to the capture (dkl) of Samaria, once in v. 9 and again in v. 10ab, just as there are two separate synchronisms of the reigns of Hoshea and Hezekiah distributed between vv. 9 and 10ab. The royal title “king of Israel” is repeated in both synchronisms for Hoshea. In v. 9, the long form of the name of Hezekiah is encountered (whyqzx) as in 18:13a, 17–19:37, while v. 10ab contains the short form (hyqzx) as in 18:1, 13b–16. Finally, the style of the date formulae differ with v. 9 containing the term hn#$ in absolute state before an ordinal number with the article (see 2 Kgs 17:6) whereas v. 10ab contains hn#$ in construct state before a cardinal number. The former type is attested in various reports or story episodes introduced with specific year-dates, not all of which are necessarily late (e.g., 1 Kgs 14:25). The latter type of v. 10ab is attested almost invariably in the synchronisms of the framework, and in light of its contrastive character this verse could serve as the final synchronism highlighting Hezekiah’s military success against the conquering of Samaria.141 I detect weaknesses in Hardmeier’s reconstruction, although I concede the possibility that vv. 10ab, 11 may represent the earliest stratum in 18:9–12. First, if one eliminates v. 9, not mentioned are the king and army who conquered the city of Samaria (contrast 2 Kgs 17:5–6).142 Second, as in 18:9, 10aa, it is the common style of the Neo-Babylonian chronicles to state that a foreign army marched in a hostile land for a period of time, after which the

139

Benzinger 1899: 173, 177 (vv. 9b–11); Kittel 1900: 279 (vv. 9b–10a, 11); Burney 1903: 338 (vv. 9b–11); Gray 1963: 609–10 (vv. 9a–11); Dietrich 1972: 138 n. 115; Nelson 1981: 62 (vv. 9a = Dtr1; vv. 9a–11 = archival; v. 12 = Dtr1); Spieckermann 1982: 174 (vv. 9– 11 = Annalentexte; v. 12 = DtrN); Campbell 1986: 196 (vv. 9aab, 10aa, 11); O’Brien 1989: 222–3 (vv. 9–11); Hardmeier 1990: 101–17 (vv. 10ab, 11 = Annals; vv. 9, 10aa, 13a = ABBJ–narrative; v. 12 = Dtr); Adam 2007: 196–8 (vv. 10aab, 11 = sC). 140 Hardmeier 1990: 101; followed by Adam 2007: 197. 141 2 Kgs 12:7 and this example are the only examples of hn#$ (construct state) + cardinal number outside of the framework in Kings. 2 Kgs 12:7 is regarded as an earlier text; see Wellhausen 1963: 292–3; Noth 1981: 66; Jepsen 1956: 54; Gray 1963: 526; O’Brien 1989: 243; differently Würthwein 1984: 354. 142 It is possible therefore that the latter synchronism in 18:10ab with the redundant notice on the capture of Samaria may be imitative of the framework.

8.5. The Fall of Samaria in 2 Kgs 18:10–11

351

army captured one or more key cities.143 Third, the nearly identical text in 2 Kgs 17:5–6 demonstrates that 18:9, 10aa was probably not fabricated by a later redactor but goes back to authentic material. Forth, Hardmeier is inconsistent in retaining 18:10ab, 11, which repeats the reports of the capture of Samaria and of the exile of the northerners to Halah, the Habor, and the cities of Medes in 17:6, while claiming that 18:9, 10aa is secondary, although it duplicates material in 17:5.144 Some scholars have argued of late that the whole of 2 Kgs 18:9–12 (with possible exception to v. 7b or v. 8) is a late redactional piece intended to contrast the success of Hezekiah (vv. 5–7a) with the fall of Samaria.145 They maintain that 18:9–12 cannot be associated with the original framework, because the theological justification for the collapse of the northern kingdom is not rooted in the sins of Jeroboam but in their rejection of Mosaic instruction (v. 12). The northern rejection of YHWH’s commandments given to Moses recalls the differing representation of Hezekiah, who according to 18:6 clung to YHWH and observed his commands. Both Hezekiah’s justification of reward and the northern exiles’ justification of punishment are juxtaposed to military reports (respectively, 18:7b–8 and 18:9–11). The flaw in this view is its assumption that 18:6 and 18:12 were originally attached to vv. 5*, 7a, 9–11. However, the reference to Hezekiah’s trust in YHWH in 18:5a and his military success in v. 7b point forward to the narrative on the Assyrian conflict with Judah in 18:17–19:37, whereas the statements that he clung to YHWH and followed his commandments in 18:6 do not prepare for what follows. Similarly, the theological justification in 18:12 is loosely attached to the end of the political report vv. 9–11 with r#$) l(.146 I concur that 18:6 and 18:12 are later additions to HH, but I am constrained to 143

E.g., Grayson 1975a: 98 (ABC 4: 16–22): “The twentieth year: The army of Egypt marched (illukūnimma) against the garrison at Kimuhu which the king of Akkad had stationed inside. They laid siege to the city for four months, captured it (iṣṣabtū), (and) defeated (iddūkū) the garrison of the king of Akkad. In the month Tishri the king of Akkad mustered his army, marched along the bank of the Euphrates, and pitched camp in Quramatu which is on the bank of the Euphrates. He had his army cross the Euphrates and they captured Shunadiru, Elammu, and Dahammu, cities of Syria.” The Babylonian Chronicles are replete with such examples. 144 Hardmeier’s argument that 2 Kgs 17:6 is not archival because 18:10ab, 11 represents the primary mention of the fall of Samaria is unfounded. It is possible to argue with older commentators that both 2 Kgs 17:5–6 and 18:9–11 are derived from archival material (e.g., Benzinger 1899: 173, 177). 145 Würthwein 1984: 410; Camp 1990: 94–5; Fritz 1998: 105; Kratz 2000a: 173, 193; Aurelius 2003: 68–9. 146 Burney 1903: 338; Montgomery/Gehmen 1951: 482; Gray 1963: 610; Dietrich 1972: 138 n. 115; Spieckermann 1982: 174. Contrast the loosely integrated 18:12 with the example of kataphoric r#$) l( in Ezek 1:20 or those examples in response to the prompted questions in Deut 29:23–27; 1 Kgs 9:8–9; Jer 16:10–11; 22:8–9.

352

Chapter Eight: Hezekiah’s Account

include 18:5*, 7–8, 9–11 to the HH. By way of conclusion, the contrast between Hezekiah’s success reported in 18:5*, 7–8 and the collapse of the northern kingdom in vv. 9–11 is consistent with the evaluative configuration of the HH-framework and prepares the audience for the subsequent narrative on the conflict between Assyria and Judah and the deliverance of Jerusalem in 2 Kgs 18:17–19:37*.

8.6. Conclusions Of the material in 2 Kgs 18:1–12 I regard as belonging to the HH vv. 1–5*, 7– 11. Verses 1–4 comprise the original climax of the framework to the HH. The report of Hezekiah’s removal of the bāmôt is perhaps the creation of the historian imitating lapidary style while recognizing the possibility that 18:4a could have profitted from an actual source. The statement of Hezekiah’s incomparability in 18:5* is a high approbation for the king who accomplished what no other king had previously and agrees with similar statments to that effect in levantine royal inscriptions. 18:7–11 report Hezekiah’s military success in Davidic (not Mosaic) terms and introduce the account of Jerusalem’s deliverance in 18:13–19:9a, 36–37. The post-HH strata would include 18:6 by dent of its Deuteronomic style (esp. qbd with YHWH as the subject “to cling to”; Deut 4:4; 10:20; 11:22; 13:5; 30:20; Josh 22:5; 23:8; 1 Kgs 11:2; 2 Kgs 3:3; and the use of the phrase “and he observed his commands, which YHWH commanded Moses”). Second Kings 18:12 would also be secondary, since it seems to be an afterthought connected by l( r#) “because” and employs the phrase “all which Moses, the servant of YHWH, commanded” – which is reminiscient of v. 6.147

147 Dietrich (1972: 138–39 n. 115) attributes 18:1–5, 7b–11, 13–16 to DtrG and 18:6, 7a, 12 to DtrN. More radical is the reconstruction of Würthwein (1984: 404–38): DtrG = 18:1– 3a, 7b, 13b–16*; 20:20–21, DtrN = 18:3b, 5–7a, 9–12, and post-Dtr = 18:4.

Chapter Nine

The Story of the Deliverance of Jerusalem in 2 Kings 18:13–19:37 9.1. Introduction The foremost intention for this chapter is to demonstrate that an earlier form of the story of the deliverance of Jerusalem in 2 Kgs 18:13–19:37*, namely, the B1 source (18:17–19:9a, 36–37), concluded the Hezekian History. For that purpose, I treat the traditional source division of 2 Kgs 18–20 as it pertains to the HH. Does the B1 source date to the pre-exilic period during the time of Manasseh’s reign or earlier? Does it really function as a proper conclusion to the HH in terms of content, purpose, and style? Most pressingly, what is the relationship of the bāmôt-notice at 2 Kgs 18:22 to the HH-framework? Did the same author write them?

9.2. Source Division The conventional division of 2 Kgs 18:13–19:37 into literary strata goes back to the famous study of Stade, who distinguished four sections: 1) 18:14–16 was from a reliable source and was inserted between vv. 13 and 17; 2) 18:13, 17–19:9a belonged to a first report on the attack against Judah; 3) 19:9b–20, 32–37 comprised another version of the same account; 4) 19:21–31 was a poetic elaboration on 19:20, 33–34.1 Childs and Gonçalves argued vigorously in support of Stade’s reconstruction, concluding that 2 Kgs 18:17–19:37 (or what came to be known as the B narrative) should be broken up into two complete autonomous accounts (B1 and B2).2 The B1 narrative comprises 18:17–19:9a and 19:36–37, while B2 is made up of 19:9b–19:35. The section 19:21–31 is a later interpolation into the B2 account signaled by the repetitive 1 Stade 1886: 173–80. It is importannt to note that following Stade’s scheme does not entail regarding 18–20 as legendary, at least to the degree that Stade did. Winckler (1892: 26– 49) followed closely Stade’s literary division but used the biblical account to support a version of the “two-invasion theory” (so recently, Gallagher 1999). 2 Childs 1967: 69–103; Gonçalves 1986: 373–444. Those who regard the B narrative as a unified composition include Smelik 1986: 74–85; idem, 1992: 93–128; Seitz 1991a: 66–96; Sweeney 1996: 477; Gallagher 1999: 149–59.

354

Chapter Nine: The Story of the Deliverance of Jerusalem

resumption of the messenger formula in 19:32aa and by its poetic quality.3 This leaves 19:9b–20 and 19:32ab–35 as representative of the B2 account. Both accounts commence with an Assyrian discourse (pronounced by the Rabshakeh in B1 – 18:19–35; by the “messengers” in B2 – 19:9b–13), intended to persuade the Judeans of the power of the Assyrian king. These discourses are followed by pious actions on the part of Hezekiah. In B1, he rends his clothes and covers himself with sackcloth (19:1); in B2, he prays to YHWH in the temple (19:14–19). In the first account, Hezekiah sends three higher officials to ask the Prophet Isaiah to pray for “the surviving remnant” of Judah (19:2, 4). Isaiah responds with a message of YHWH (19:6–7). The officials are absent from the second account, and Isaiah’s second oracular discourse comes as a result of Hezekiah’s prayer (19:20).4 The B1 account reports that Sennacherib, after having returned to Nineveh, worshipped in the temple of Nisroch, whereupon his sons assassinated him (19:36–37).5 The B2 narrative concludes with an explicit deus ex machina: the messenger of YHWH destroys 185,000 Assyrian soldiers during the night (19:35). Whereas the B1 shows no signs of Deuteronomistic language or dependence on later texts, the B2 narrative is closely related in language and ideology to Second Isaiah and late Deuteronomistic texts.6 Although the Stade-Childs hypothesis has not passed unchallenged, it remains the standard view among biblical scholars.7 Smelik argued for the unity of Isa 36–37 (= the B narrative of 2 Kgs 18:17–19:37), which, according to him, was originally composed for placement in the book of Isaiah.8 He dated the writing of the narrative to somewhere in the middle of the sixth century BCE., as the introduction to the oracles of Isa 40–55. He pointed out several weaknesses in Stade’s argument that 3

Stade 1886: 178; Childs 1967: 96–7, 100, 103; Dion 1988: 10; Gonçalves 1986: 450– 51, 485–87; McKenzie 1991: 105; Wildberger 2002: 365. Although this is a plausible suggestion, it is not without its problems; see Seitz 1991a: 88–94; Gallagher 1999: 159, 229–38. 4 For Stade (1886: 174), that the separate oracles do not cross-reference each other was a clear sign that they did not originate from a single author. 5 2 Kgs 19:37 reports that it was his sons Adrammelech and Sarezer, the former of which may be a corruption of the Assyrian Arda-Mullišši, the eldest son of Sennacherib, who was passed over in favor of Esarhaddon and who was his father’s assassin according to Assyrian sources. See Parpola 1980: 161–70; Borger 1956: 40–43 (Nin. A i 41–46). 6 See Carr 1992: 594; 7 Those accepting the Stade-Childs hypothesis include Gray 1963: 600–603; Childs 1967: 73–76; Dietrich 1972: 138–39; Clements 1980: 14, 52–71; Cogan and Tadmor 1982: 240– 44; Würthwein 1984: 405; Gonçalves 1986: 373–487; Laato 1987: 51; Provan 1988: 122– 31; Rofé 1988: 88–95; McKenzie 1991: 103–106; Machinist 2000: 151–68; Wildberger 2002: 363–4; Naʾaman 2003: 201–4; Scurlock 2011: 277–316. 8 Smelik 1986: 70–93. A revised version of the same essay is in idem 1992: 92–128. Seitz (1991a: 66–96) holds a similar view of the literary unity of the B narrative but dates it to the reign of Manasseh (ca. 650 B.C.E.).

9.2. Source Division

355

the B narrative comprised two originally autonomous sources. First, at 2 Kgs 19:9, where the narrative seam is said to occur, b#yw–translated either “and he returned” or “he did X again”–is not a fitting introduction to the B2 narrative since the referent of “he” is unclear. One would expect the narrative to have included the name of Sennacherib or his royal title, “the king of Ashur.”9 All the more so, if (m#yw (“and he heard”) was originally in place of b#yw, as the Isaianic version reads (37:9).10 The audience wonders what exactly Sennacherib heard that impelled him to send another delegation. Second, the two narratives mimic each other so closely as to preclude the likelihood of literary independence (esp. B2 as dependent on B1).11 Third, Stade and Childs based their argumentations on positivistic assumptions. Since the repetitions of the nearly identical speeches of the Rabshakeh and messengers, the replicated reports of Hezekiah’s pious actions, and the inclusion of Isaiah’s two oracular responses are historically improbable, the unity of the narrative is therefore improbable.12 However, this assumes that the B1 narrative is historically reliable and that B2 is not, an untenable position, according to Smelik.13 Rather, the repetition of certain narrative elements is a literary device intended for clarity and suspense and may not be taken as indications of historical accuracy. Scholars have benefitted from the literary observations offered by Smelik, even if they continue to adhere to some form of the Stade-Childs hypothesis and agree with Gesenius’ position that the Hezekiah-Isaiah narratives were first composed for inclusion in 1–2 Kings.14 Many now consider the B2 narrative to be a doublet dependent on the B1 narrative, although Stade and Childs

9

Smelik 1986: 75. Würthwein (1984: 414) regards wyšb of 19:9b as a connective insertion between B1 and B2. Wildberger (2002: 366–7) considers the whole of 19:9a to be a redactional suture. 11 Pace Childs, who in agreement with Stade wrote, “the differences would tend to point to a body of tradition held in common rather than to a direct use of B1 by B2” (1967: 98; also on 87). 12 Smelik 1986: 73. 13 Smelik 1992: 104. For an alternative view, see Gallagher 1999: 162–254. The latter believes that only four parts of the B narrative are doubtful regarding Sennacherib’s third campaign: 1) Taharqa’s involvement; 2) Isaiah’s prediction of the manner of Sennacherib’s death; 3) a second letter nearly identical to the wording of the Rabshakeh’s speech; 4) the miraculous deaths of the Assyrian soldiers (ibid. 254). Dion (1988: 13), though advocating the plausibility of several themes and core events of the B1 narrative, reads with a healthy skepticism the details of the B1 narrative and doubts the entire historical realiability of the B2 narrative. 14 The latter position was originally argued by Eichhorn (1787: 74) but was popularized in Gesenius 1821: II/1, 22, II/2, 933–35. See Kaiser 1974: 367; Ruprecht 1990: 35–6. Some of those who discount the Stade-Childs hypothesis still hold that the texts had their original context in Kings: e.g., Sweeney 1996: 454; Person 1997: 5, n. 19. 10

356

Chapter Nine: The Story of the Deliverance of Jerusalem

had originally maintained that they were autonomous doublets.15 Nevertheless, Smelik’s arguments for the unity of the B narrative do not sufficiently answer to the need for diachronic explanation respecting the preservation of authentic historical memory in the B1 narrative, duplicate phraseology, readings, and motifs, and the presence of late features in 19:9b–35 in contrast to 18:17–19:9a, 36–37. While it can be argued that B2 is dependent on B1, the reverse deduction is not evidenced: B1 is not dependent on B2. Person undertook a text-critical investigation of 2 Kgs 18:13–20:21 and rejected the Stade-Childs hypothesis of three sources, arguing instead that 18:14–16 was a later addition to 18:13, 17–37. However, Person’s conclusions did not discuss the distinctive relationship between B1 and B2 and his study did not offer source or redactional analyses. Consequently, his conclusions cannot be taken as a complete rejection of the Stade-Childs hypothesis.16 Evans has recently called into question the Stade-Childs hypothesis, favoring instead rhetorical-critical and new literary approaches when reading 2 Kgs 18:1–19:37. According to him, the Dtr historian wrote a unified narrative in the manner of a free composition, transforming any earlier sources to such an extent so as to render them indistinguishable from the final composition.17 In my estimation, Evans’ study suffers from his acceptance of the A Account (18:13–16) as a text written in the style of Dtr, citing the work of Childs, and from his use of this as evidence for a unified composition.18 However, this aberrant component in Childs’ analysis represents a radical departure from earlier studies and has not gained acceptance in subsequent works. Furthermore, there is little if any Dtr language in the B1 narrative in contrast with B2, especially if the mention of Hezekiah’s removal of the bāmôt in 18:22 is reGonçalves 1986: 441–42, 478–80; Gallagher 1999: 159; Naʾaman 2003: 201–20. See already, Kaiser 1974: 379: “. . . the second narrative must have assumed the existence of the first,” but nevertheless maintained that one must search for two distinct conclusions for the B1 and B2 narratives (ibid. 377), a residual assumption from the hypothesis of two autonomous sources. 16 See the critique of Person (1997) in Naʾaman 2003: 202–3. 17 Evans 2009: 195–6. Although Evans criticizes Noth for labeling 2 Kgs 18:13–19:37 as a “transitory interlude” on the way to the destruction of the kingdom, his own view of the purpose for this narrative as an “important transition” from the Assyrian menace to the threat of Babylon in the context of Kings (ibid. 194) constitutes only a subtle departure from Noth’s view. More preferable is a pre-exilic date for the B1 narrative; see below 9.5. 18 Evan 2009: 40, 169, citing Childs 1967: 70. However, his citation of Gonçalves 1986: 368–70 is specious. The latter notes that it is impossible to decide whether 18:13–16 has undergone redactional reworking or goes back directly to an official Judahite source, but never entertains the possibility that 18:13–16 was written “in the style of Dtr.” The only study of which I am aware that takes up this point of Childs’ thesis is Kim 2008: 477–89, but the latter only qualifies the style of the A Account as “non-annalistic,” not specifically as Dtr. 15

9.2. Source Division

357

garded as pre-Dtr.19 Evans argues for a source that ended with Isaiah’s prediction of Assyria’s retreat and Sennacherib’s death in 2 Kgs 19:7 without its fulfillment in 19:37 (a Dtr addition) and divides the second speech of the Rabshakeh in 18:28–35 from his earlier speech in 18:19–25 without validation.20 Still, one cannot fail to notice that his own source division resembles Stade’s division: account ) = 2 Kgs 18:13–19:7 (missing conclusion); account b = 2 Kgs 19:11–15a, 20, [21–31] 32–36; Dtr = 19:37. Recently, Young has also, like Evans, attempted an original source division of 2 Kgs 18:13–19:37.21 In contrast to Evans, however, he is fully supportive of using diachronic literary approaches to explain the duplicate motifs and language in the B narrative. He divides the B narrative into two autonomous sources: B1 = 2 Kgs 18:17a, 26–36; 19:1–9a, 36–37; B2 = 2 Kgs 18:17b–25, 37; 19:9b–35. The two main differences of Young’s division from the StadeChilds hypothesis are that he detects two separate introductions in 18:17a and 18:17b and that he joins the first speech of the Rabshakeh in 18:17b–25 with the B2 narrative. Nevertheless, it is apparent that his division is reminiscent of Stade’s original hypothesis. I cannot accept Young’s revised source division of 2 Kgs 18:13–19:37 for several reasons. He argues that “the conduit of the upper pool, which is on the highway of the fuller’s field” was located some distance outside the city, since it was located on a highway and the Jerusalemite delegates had to “go out” ()cy) to reach the place in 18:17, 18 (cf. Isa 7:3).22 The location of the meeting place at which the Rabshakeh and the Jerusalemite officials had their disputation is uncertain, as Young observes, and therefore the road to the fuller’s field may not be as distant from the city walls as he claims. Also, if the delegates “went out” to speak with the Rabshakeh, this may only mean that they exited the city gate to meet the Rabshakeh. This type of scenario is described 19

See Gonçalves (1986: 400–412) and McKenzie (1991: 103–5), who argue, however, that 18:32b–35 is a late addition; differently, Wildberger 2002: 380; Naʾaman 2003: 213–14. 20 On the nature of 2 Kgs 19:7, 37b, see Evans 2009: 66, 79–81, 109; on the division of the two speeches of the Rabshakeh, see ibid. 69. Evans does not offer a cogent explanation for why the explicit fulfillment of 19:7 in 19:8–9a, 36–37 is Dtr or secondary. Evans (ibid. 82 n. 135) bases his decision to divide the two speeches of the Rabshakeh in 18:19–25 and vv. 28–35 on the questionable study of Le Moyne (1957: 149–53) that has been criticized for misunderstanding the relationship of the two speeches (see Gonçalves 1986: 353–4; 512–3); on the unity of 18:19–35, see Childs 1967: 73 n. 16; Gonçalves 1986: 395–409; Camp 1990: 153–6; Machinist 2000: 155 n. 9. 21 Young 2012: 136–42. 22 Ibid. 138. For an extensive discussion, see Camp (1990: 171–83), who prefers an intramural northern location. Trebolle (1987: 13–7; idem 1989: 193–6) argues that the conduit of the upper pool and the highway to the fuller’s field refered to two originally separate locations, the former to an intramural site and the latter to an extramural site. The reading with the fuller’s field was original, according to Trebolle, and was later displaced by the interpolation of the upper pool; see below 9.4.

358

Chapter Nine: The Story of the Deliverance of Jerusalem

in lines 10 and 21 of the Neo-Assyrian Sargon II letter ND. 2632 used by Childs to categorize the genre of the Rabshakeh’s speeches as a diplomatic disputation: “When they came out (i[t-t]u-ṣu-u-ni) they were standing before the gate with the Babylonians … They would not come out (la ú-ṣu-u-ni). They would not argue with us: …”).23 The verb waṣû signifies that the Babylonian addressees came out to talk to the Assyrian messengers before the gate. A similar location is implied in 2 Kgs 18:26, which mentions that the Rabshakeh spoke in the hearing of the people who were on the city wall. Young also argues that there is a tension between the addressees of the first and second speeches of the Rabshakeh. In 18:19–25, Hezekiah is the sole addressee whereas in 18:28–35, he addresses the people on the city wall. However, there is actually no tension at all in the narrative since 18:26–27 makes clear that the Rabshakeh had been speaking in the hearing of the people all along. If 18:26–27 is regarded as original to the narrative, as Young accepts, then there is no reason to divide vv. 19–25 from vv. 28–35.24 Young makes use of the different readings of 2 Kgs 18–19 and Isa 36–39 to reconstruct his two original sources. He uses the mention of the Rabshakeh from Isa 36:2 without the Rabsaris or the Tartanu to construct his B1 narrative while using the reading with all three Assyrian officials in 2 Kgs 18:17 to construct his B2 narrative, even though a text-critical explanation would maintain that the reference to the two officials was omitted secondarily from the original narrative.25 In other words, this is a case where a text-critical solution overrides the need for a source–critical explanation. Young’s source division of 2 Kgs 18:13–19:37 actually creates more tensions than it resolves.26 For example, in his B1 narrative, the Rabshakeh’s arrival at Jerusalem in 18:17 is followed abruptly by the demand of Eliakim, Shebna, and Joah for him to speak only in Aramaic before any reference to the Rabshakeh’s speech is offered. “These words” in 18:27 probably allude to a prior communication on the part of the Rabshakeh before being interrupted in v. 26. The introduction of the narrative referred to the Assyrian delegate’s 23

For the text, see Saggs 1955: 23–4; von Soden 1985: 149–57. For the comparison drawn between )cy in 2 Kgs 18:17 and Akkadian waṣû in ND. 2632, see Gonçalves 1986: 409. 24 With Camp 1990: 154; Young (2012: 104–5 n. 44) acknowledges this in his discussion of 18:22, thus contradicting his own argument: “The purpose of the rab šāqê before the walls of Jerusalem was not merely to convey a formal message to the king, but to install fear among the populace by ensuring that they heard as well, see vv. 26–28. The subsequent dialogue demonstrates that at no time were the words of the cupbearer to be construed as private, since it would be a political failure on the part of Assyria to forego an occasion to employ its propaganda to maximum effect.” 25 Person 1997: 55. 26 Young (2012: 295–8) provides his reconstructed B1 and B2 sources in translation toward the end of his work.

9.3. On the Reliability of the B1 Narrative

359

initial attempt to speak. In Young’s reconstructed B2 narrative, Eliakim, Shebna, and Joah report the Rabshakeh’s speech to Hezekiah with torn clothes in 18:37. At this point, the reader expects to hear Hezekiah’s reaction to the Rabshakeh’s words, which is precisely what is found in 19:1–4. However, in his B2 narrative, the second message from Sennacherib follows in 19:9b–13, leaving the episode with the Rabshakeh unfinished (contrast the Rabshakeh’s departure in 19:8, which Young assigns to B1). It is recommended, then, that all references to the Rabshakeh (18:17, 19, 26, 27, 28, 37; 19:4, 8) be assigned to the B1 narrative in accordance with the Stade-Childs hypothesis. In summary, none of the recent attempts to destabilize the Stade-Childs hypothesis on the source division of 2 Kgs 18:13–19:37 can be deemed as successful, and even the varying reconstructions of recent scholars who depart from the hypothesis resemble it to a large degree (i.e., Evans and Young). It is my opinion that the hypothesis is amenable to the argument for the HH offered throughout this work, and it will be assumed for the remainder of this chapter.

9.3. On the Reliability of the B1 Narrative Scholars of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries studied 2 Kgs 18:13–19:37 with the primary goal of unpacking its value as a historical source and many confirmed the biblical account.27 Some regarded the dry report on Hezekiah’s capitulation in 2 Kgs 18:14–16 as credible but differed on the value of 18:13, 17–19:37. Others attempted to reconstruct a history according to the order of the biblical account, reading it as unified narrative.28 The question of the reliability of the B1 narrative is significant for determining whether or not it belonged to the HH. If it is a late work of fiction, it cannot have been known to the HH-historian. The view that 2 Kgs 18:13–19:37 is a fully reliable report on the conflict between Assyria and Judah has usually coincided with the conclusion that there were two Assyrian attacks on Judah, or what is known as the “twoinvasion theory.” There are three main variations of this theory: Henry and George Rawlinson understood 18:13–16 to be descriptive of the initial Assyrian attack on Judah in 700 B.C.E. (later dated to 701 B.C.E.) and 18:17–

27 For earlier scholarship on 2 Kgs 18:13–19:37, see Honor 1926: 13–77; Childs 1967: 11–19; Gonçalves 1986: 121–34; Grabbe 2003: 20–36; Evans 2009: 1–27. 28 In his essay on the history of “Israel” from Encyclopedia Britannica, Wellhausen (1957: 481–3) read 2 Kgs 18:13–19:37 in this manner. In his Prolegomena (ibid. 47 n. 1), however, he questioned its authenticity.

360

Chapter Nine: The Story of the Deliverance of Jerusalem

19:37 to refer to another Assyrian invasion in 698 (699) B.C.E.29 Another scenario maintains that 18:14–16 refers not to Sennacherib’s invasion into Judah but Sargon II’s attack in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah (v. 13) (ca. 713–711 B.C.E.) and that the following material refers to Sennacherib’s campaign in 701 B.C.E.30 A third scenario identifies two separate invasions of Sennacherib in 18:17–19:37 without regarding 18:14–16 as indicative of another distinct attack.31 All three options regard the majority of 2 Kgs 18:13– 19:37 with some degree of reliability and base their hypothesis of the second invasion largely on the biblical account. Arguing against Rawlinson’s original hypothesis is the fact that there is no evidence in Neo-Assyrian texts for another Assyrian invasion in Judah after 701 B.C.E.32 Furthermore, if correct, the dating of the end of Hezekiah’s reign to 697/696 B.C.E. means that there is no suitable timeframe for a second invasion after 701 B.C.E.33 Scholars of this view rely generally on the opaque reference to Taharqo (hqhrt, 690–664 B.C.E.), king of Kush in 2 Kgs 19:9a, asserting that such a figure was not of age to accede the throne and wage battle against Sennacherib in 701 B.C.E. Based on the Egyptian Kawa Stele IV published by Macadam,34 Albright argued that Taharqo was not yet ten years old in 701 B.C.E. and that it was impossible for him to participate in military warfare.35 However, Kitchen,36 Rainey,37 Yurco,38 Hoffmeier,39 and Young40 have argued that Macadam misinterpreted the text of Kawa Stele IV and that Taharqo was at least twenty years old in 701 B.C.E. The inscription dated to the sixth year of Taharqo’s reign (ca. 685 B.C.E.) describes how he was summoned north to Thebes to join his brother, King Shabitqo (702–690 B.C.E.). Taharqo calls to mind that he was twenty years old when he was 29 G. Rawlinson 1864: II, 430–46; followed by Winckler (1892: 26–49), who popularized the view, and later by Albright (1953: 8–11), Bright (1959: 267–9, 282–7), and Shea (1985: 401–18). 30 Hincks (1858: 126–39 [at 134]) espoused this version of the “two-invasion thesis” at the same time that Rawlinson published his view of the two-invasion theory. New support for the thesis is found in the recent works of Jenkins 1976: 284–98; Becking 2003: 46–72; Miano 2010: 231–9. 31 Gallagher 1999. 32 Becking 2003: 59; Grabbe 2003: 32, 35–6; Young 2012: 67–8. Young notes that there is no archaeological evidence of a destruction layer to suggest a second invasion. 33 Young 2012: 68. 34 Macadam 1949: I, 7–10. 35 Albright 1953: 8–11. 36 Kitchen 1966: 82–3; idem 1973: 95–101; idem 1983: 243–53; idem 1986: 154–61, 552–9. 37 Rainey 1976: 38–41. 38 Yurco 1980: 221–40. 39 Hoffmeier 2003: 219–34. 40 Young 2012: 74–5.

9.3. On the Reliability of the B1 Narrative

361

summoned, not twenty in his sixth regnal year, as Macadam read. His father, Piy died in 716 B.C.E., indicating that Taharqo was at least fourteen or fifteen in 701 B.C.E. He would have been sufficiently established to take charge of an army, which may be the reason why Shabitqo favored him over his peers.41 It is not significant whether Taharqo was Pharaoh in 701 B.C.E., since, according to 2 Kgs 19:9a, he is distinguished as the “king of Kush” or Nubia. There were multiple kings ruling in separate local centers throughout Libya and Nubia during the Third Intermediate Period. Taharqo had control of Napata, the capital of Nubia, when Shabitqo was Pharaoh of Egypt in Memphis. Whatever Taharqo’s participation in the battle of Eltekeh, there is preserved in the B1 narrative a genuine historical datum as to his status in 701 B.C.E.42 All in all, the evidence is thin for a second Assyrian invasion post 701 B.C.E.43 The second of the two-invasion hypotheses mentioned above maintains that 2 Kgs 18:13–16 is a description of an invasion of Sargon II (ca. 712 B.C.E. = Hezekiah’s fourteenth year in v. 13a). There is no direct evidence, however, for an Assyrian campaign in the southern Levant in 715 B.C.E. Becking argues that the Azekah fragment relates how Sargon II, who was occupied with Urartu, may have sent Sennacherib, the Crown Prince, to make an attack on Judah for the purpose of preventing Egyptian expansion.44 He correlates the Azeqah fragment with a reference to Sargon II in the Nimrud inscription as the subjugator of Judah (mu-šak-niš kurJa-ú-da).45 However, it is uncertain whether the defeat of the city of Azeqah described in the fragment refers to 715 B.C.E. or to an attack in 720 B.C.E.,46 712 B.C.E.,47 or 701 B.C.E.48 It is more likely that the reading of the fourteenth year was added at 2 Kgs 18:13

41

Ramesses II was only ten years old when he was made commander-in-chief of the army and fought campaigns with his father in the Levant in his mid-teens; see Hoffmeier 2003: 231; Young 2012: 75 n. 35. 42 With Young 2012: 73–6, 83 n. 69, 86–7; pace Gallagher 1999: 222. 43 With Jenkins 1976: 284–98; Evans 1980: 165–6; Hardmeier 1990: 164; Redford 1992: 354 n. 165; Frahm 1997: 10. The battle between Sennacherib and the Egyptians at Eltekeh occured before the Assyrian invasion into Judah in 701 B.C.E. 44 Becking 2003: 56–8. 45 Becking (ibid. 57) notes that the Š-stem of kanāšu “to make subject” need not imply military subjugation, but this is precisely the force of #&pt “to sieze” in 18:13b; cf. 2 Kgs 14:7, 13; 16:9; 25:6. 46 Young 2012: 38–42. Young has recently argued that the Sargon II Nimrud Inscription and the Azeqah inscription refer to Hezekiah’s submission to Sargon II after the fall of the northern kingdom. 47 Goldberg 1999: 360–90. 48 Naʾaman 1974: 101–2; Gallagher 110–12; for the literature, see Becking 2003: 56–7 n. 47; Young 2012: 38–9 n. 14.

362

Chapter Nine: The Story of the Deliverance of Jerusalem

to match the total of 29 years in 18:2 minus the fifteen years in 20:6.49 The biblical evidence of 18:13–16 cannot be correlated with Sargon II easily, as it is Sennacherib who is featured prominently in 18:13.50 Furthermore, the city of Lachish, the flagship site producing evidence from its Stratum III to demonstrate the Assyrian invasion in 701 B.C.E., is mentioned in 18:14, while Azeqah is not found in 18:13–16. Scholars remain undecided concerning the historical witness of the B narrative (2 Kgs 18:17–19:37). Wellhausen opined that it was not contemporaneous with the events reported in it and therefore the bāmôt-notice in 2 Kgs 18:22 (regarding Hezekiah’s cultic reform) should not be trusted.51 Childs identified a level in the speeches of the Rabshakeh that indicate “later theological reflection” but was hesitant to draw a sharp line between the authentic material of the speeches and its theological elements.52 Ben Zvi argued that the features of the Rabshakeh’s speeches were taken from other biblical passages and thus comprise “neither a transcription nor a closely related version of an actual Assyrian report.”53 With the advent of newer literary studies, the historicity of the B narrative has been denied in toto, observable in the works of De Jong,54 Smelik,55 Hardmeier,56 Clements,57 and Hjelm.58 Smelik concluded that the B narrative “has almost no bearing on the historical reconstruction of the events of 701 BCE.”59 Smelik’s conclusion is influenced by his view that the Hezekiah narrative was originally composed for the Book of Isaiah in the post-exilic period and was afterwards inserted into the narrative of Kings. This view depends on demonstrating that Isa 36–39 was a unified composition composed with material from both First and Second Isaiah in mind. As demonstrated above (9.2), 49 So Young 2012: 146–50. Scholars have often reconstructed 18:13 without a numerial chronological reference, reading “in that time” or “in his/Hezekiah’s days” (wymyb/ ymyb RN; cf. 2 Kgs 23:29; 24:1; Isa 7:1): Hitzig 1833: 415; Meinhold 1898: 66–67; Duhm 1902: 229; Wildberger 2002: 371, 387. H. Rawlinson (1858: I, 393 n. 8) regarded the “fourteenth year” of 18:13 as late under the influence of 20:1–19 reading instead “twenty-seventh.” 50 Scurlock 2011: 289 n. 24. 51 Wellhausen 1957: 47 n. 1. He pointed to the telescoping of the events of 701 B.C.E. and the death of Sennacherib in 681 B.C.E. into a single narrative space, that seems to place some distance between the reported events and the actual narration. However, Wellhausen overlooked the mention of Sennacherib’s having dwelled in Nineveh in 2 Kgs 19:36b that introduces an interval between 701 and 681 B.C.E.; see H. Rawlinson 1858: I, 394 n. 1. 52 Childs 1967: 85, 90. 53 Ben Zvi 1990: 91; see also Rudman 2000: 100–10. 54 De Jong 1984: 135–46. 55 Smelik 1986: 70–93; idem 1992: 93–128. 56 Hardmeier 1990. 57 Clements 1980; idem 1996: 35–48; idem 2011: 101–12. 58 Hjelm 2004: 30. 59 Smelik 1992: 124.

9.3. On the Reliability of the B1 Narrative

363

scholars remain unconvinced of the B narrative’s unity. If the content associated with Second Isaiah in Hezekiah’s prayer is assigned to the later B2 narrative, Smelik’s late date for the entirety of the B narrative does not obtain.60 He appeals to Isa 10 as a source for the composition of the Rabshakeh’s speeches: “His [the author of 2 Kgs 18:13–19:37] point of departure probably was Isaiah x; the two speeches of Rabshakeh are actually a dramatization of the prophecy in this chapter.”61 However, Machinist has demonstrated how Isa 10:5–19* (an early text) reverses the image of the Assyrian king in the royal inscriptions by characterizing him as the “enemy” who relies with hubris on his own strength and does not concern himself with YHWH.62 This is a clear example of an Isaianic revision of a well-known trope employed in Assyrian royal propaganda. The B1 narrative lacks the specific language of the prophecy in Isaiah 10:5–19.63 Thus, the context of the Neo-Assyrian royal propaganda of the eighth and seventh centuries seems to be the original catalyst for this point of overlap between First Isaiah and the B1 narrative.64 In addition, the texts in the Book of Isaiah that are alleged to have served as sources for the B1 narrative (esp. Isa 7:3; 10:5–11*; 14:24–25a; 18:1–2, 4; 22:15bb, 20b; 29:1–4a; 30:1–5, 12–16; 31:1, 3, 8a) are themselves disputed in terms of their literary provenance.65 The introductory statements on the invasion of Aram and northern Israel (Isa 7:1–2) as well as the mention of the conduit of the up60

Seitz (1991a: 83–94, 199–202) challenged the association of B2 with Second Isaiah, arguing that it lacks the specific language and themes of Second Isaiah. However, the language and themes of B2 are similar to other late texts (Deut 4; 2 Sam 7:18–29; 1 Kgs 8:14– 53); On the relationship between 1 Kgs 8 and Deut 4, see Wolff 2000: 62–78; Levenson 1975: 203–33; idem 1981: 143–66; Carr 1992: 594; McConville 1992: 67–79. 61 Smelik 1992: 126. 62 Machinist 1983: 734. 63 Most significantly, Isa 10:5–19 does not attest the use of x+b though it is generally considered an early text. For a recent attempt to argue that Isa 10:5–15 was originally part of the B1 narrative, see Scurlock 2011: 299. 64 See further Gonçalves 1986: 413–14; Gallagher 1999: 193–7, 200. 65

Barth (1977) argued for a unified “Assur-Redaction” (Isa 8:9–10; 8:23b–9:6; 10:16– 19; 14:24–27; 17:12–14; 28:23–29; 30:27–33; 31:5, 8b–9; 32:1–5, 15–20), which he dated to Josiah’s period and represented Isaiah as a prophet of salvation. Clements (1980: 5–7) and Hardmeier (1990: 437–49) developed Barth’s thesis to argue that 2 Kgs 18–20 was dependent on the representation of Isaiah in the Assur-Redaction and situted 2 Kgs 18–20 in the period of Josiah (Clements) or later in 588 B.C.E. (Hardmeier). Becker (1997: 212–22) criticized Barth’s view that the Assur-Redaction was a unified literary work and his view that it should be dated to Josiah’s time (Becker prefers the early post-exilic period). Instead, Becker argued that the B1 narrative (dated to the pre-exilic period) served as a source for the Assur-redaction. Both the texts of Isa 6:1–8* and 8:1–4* containing the oldest Isaiah tradition and the B1 narrative represent Isaiah as a royal court prophet of Jerusalem favorable to the king. Thus, the “historical” characterization of Isaiah as a prophet of woe cannot be used to argue for his secondary role as a prophet of weal. See further Gonçalves 1986: 256–61; Köckert, Barthel, and Becker 2003: 105–35; de Jong 2007: 14–17, 36–8, 308–13.

364

Chapter Nine: The Story of the Deliverance of Jerusalem

per pool and the street of the fuller’s field (Isa 7:3) are usually considered to be dependent on 2 Kgs 16:1–5 and 18:17 for the purpose of presenting Ahaz as a contrastive foil to his righteous son.66 The mention of Shebna and Eliakim and the inversion of their offices at Isa 22:15bb, 20 are also probably dependent on 2 Kgs 18:18, 26, 37; 19:2.67 The oracles against forming a political alliance with Egypt in Isa 18:1–2, 4; 30:1–5; 30:6b–8; 31:1, 3, 8b either contain authentic sayings of Isaiah that would have influenced the circles responsible for composing the Rabshakeh’s speeches (esp. 2 Kgs 18:21, 23–24) or they represent secondary material influenced by the B1 narrative.68 The view that the Rabshakeh’s speeches are a patchwork of other biblical texts runs the risk of being too limited or “bibliocentric” if it denies the possibility that the overlapping material in the Isaianic texts and in the Rabshakeh’s speeches may derive from the larger context of Neo-Assyrian propaganda.69 To take just one example, the motif of the “broken reed” as an image of military defeat is also found in Neo-Assyrian texts of the period.70 Hardmeier has argued that the B narrative does not possess any degree of historical accuracy in relation to the events of 701 B.C.E. Rather the narrative speaks to the situation of 588 B.C.E. when the Babylonians had briefly withdrawn from attacking Judah because of Egyptian pressure (Jer 37:1–10). The narrative reveals an anti-Babylonian disposition intended to persuade Zedekiah to revolt against Babylon and comprised a direct censure against Jeremiah’s perspective in Jer 37–38, which encouraged capitulation to Baby66

De Jong 2007: 63–5. Gonçalves 1986: 433–4. Isa 22:15–23 may originally have lacked the names of Shebna and Eliakim and the mentions of their official functions; see de Jong 2007: 155–8. Young (2012: 137 n. 38) points out that a scribe — as Shebna is called in 2 Kgs 18:17 — commonly accompanied the king on military engagements. Tadmor (1997: 329) writes concerning the process of the scribal composition of the Assyrian royal inscriptions: “It is probable that the royal scribes based their presentations of events and military campaigns on firsthand written sources enumerating captives and booty siezed. After all, royal scribes accompanied the king on every military engagement.” 68 For the first option, see Gonçalves 1986: 435–6; de Jong 2007: 83–170, 361–4; for the latter option, see Becker 1997: 220–22. 69 On the effects of Assyrian propaganda on First Isaiah and the Rabshakeh’s speeches, see Machinist 1983: 719–37. 70 Cohen 1979: 41–2; Gallagher 1999: 191, 199; Younger 2003: 257–8; Young 2012: 82; cf. CAD Ḫ, p. 131, qanâ ḫuṣṣuṣu; also CAD Q, p. 88. In Ezek 29:6–7, the verbs are different from the Rabshakeh’s speech to express “leaning” and “piercing/tearing”: K7m#& and bqn in 2 Kgs 18:21 vs. N(#$ and (qb in Ezek 29:7 (so Gonçalves 1986: 435 n. 283); secondly, Cwcr is an attributive adjective in 2 Kgs 18:21 while Cwrt is a niphal prefix conjugation in the statment following the mention of the reed in Ezek 29:7 (on the adjectival use in Akkadian, see Cohen 1979: 42 n. 47); thirdly, the verbs for “grasping” the reed are different: )wb in 2 Kgs 18:21 vs. #&pt in Ezek 29:7. For the themes of trust and salvation, see the discussion below on the theological discourse in the Rabshakeh’s speeches. 67

9.3. On the Reliability of the B1 Narrative

365

lon.71 Although Hardmeier’s work is exemplary for its thoroughness and provocative suggestions, many of its precise exegetical arguments remain controversial.72 His alleged intertextual connection between YHWH’s directive to both Sennacherib (2 Kgs 18:25) and Nebuchadnezzar (Jer 36:29) “to destroy the land” (Cr)h-t) tyx#$hl) is tenuous since that specific phrase is attested in multiple texts with military contexts (Gen 6:11, 12, 13; 9:11; Josh 22:33; Judg 6:5; 1 Sam 6:5; Isa 14:20; Ezek 22:30; 30:11; 1 Chr 20:1) just as the idea of “divine abandonment” was prevalent in the ancient Near East.73 A significant difference in Sennacherib’s claim is that he boasts of having received a command directly from YHWH to destroy Judah, while Jeremiah does not claim that YHWH actually spoke to Nebuchadnezzar. Hardmeier claimed that “the elders of the priests” in 2 Kgs 19:2 is an anachronistic reference, since the expression occurs elsewhere only at Jer 19:1.74 In his opinion, their mention in 2 Kgs 19:2 must stem from the time when the siege of Jerusalem was temporarily halted. However, LXX of Jer 19:1 reads “some elders of the people and some of the priests” so that its connection with the “elders of the priests” at 2 Kgs 19:2 is dubious, not to mention its ties to the historical context of 588 B.C.E.75 Hardmeier focused on the appellatives attached to the proper names of the kings and the prophets of the narratives.76 He noted that the designations using royal and prophetic epithets are consistent between the two narratives. For example, the title Klmh “the king” appears immediately before the names of both Hezekiah and Zedekiah (Kgs 19:1, 5; Jer 37:3).77 Furthermore, Isaiah and Jeremiah bear the title )ybnh “the prophet” directly after their names.78 71

Hardmeier 1990. Laato (1987: 66) argues that the redactor of the Hezekiah-Isaiah narrative complex arranged it under according to the pattern of Jer 37–39; For criticisms of Hardmeier’s views, see Seitz 1991a: 66–96; Seitz 1991b: 511–13; Smelik 1992: 127–8; van der Kooij 2000: 117–18; Naʾaman 2003: 207–8; Evans 2009: 9–10. 72 See Seitz 1991b: 512. 73 Albrecktson 1967: 16–41, 98–114; Cogan 1974: 9–41; Gonçalves 1986: 413–14; Gallagher 1999: 193–7. 74 Hardmeier 1990: 308, 316. His view that the “elders of the priests” are a veiled reference to the priest Zephaniah is without direct support. 75 For commentators regarding “and the elders of the priests” as secondary in 2 Kgs 19:2, see Würthwein 1984: 417 n. 12; Wildberger 2002: 400: “the redactor wanted to make sure that the temple and its priests are shown the appropriate respect.” 76 Ibid. 118–19, 307. 77 However, Person (1997: 62–64) argues that Hezekiah’s name in 2 Kgs 19:1 and the title Klmh in 19:5 were absent from the earliest editions of Kings. 78 Where the narrative refers to Isaiah or reintroduces him, it uses the patronymic “the son of Amoz” (Cwm) Nb) and the epithet “the prophet” ()ybnh).78 Both epithets occur together in 2 Kgs 19:2 and 20:1, but the first instance diverges from the standard order of PERSONAL NAME – TOPONYMIC/PATRONYMIC – PROPHETIC EPITHET. The order of 2 Kgs 19:2 may have resulted from a secondary transposition of the patronymic and the functional epi-

366

Chapter Nine: The Story of the Deliverance of Jerusalem

The gravity of this point concerning royal epithets is severely diminished once one reckons with the fact that the manner in which Hezekiah and Zedekiah are titled is standard for biblical Hebrew.79 As for the prophetic epithet, LXXJeremiah never incorporates “the prophet” in either Jer 21 or 37.80 However, Hardmeier’s evaluation of the epithets in the accounts of Kings and Jeremiah does not consider Greek Jeremiah. The prophetic epithet, though common to the Masoretic Text, is mostly absent from Greek Jeremiah (only four times: LXX-Jer 28:59 [MT 51:59]; 49:2 [MT 42:2]; 50:6 [MT 43:6]; 51:31 [MT 45:1]; cf. 1:5).81 Hardmeier compares Hezekiah’s “order” (Auftrag) for intercession (Fürbitteersuchen) and Zedekiah’s order to inquire of YHWH (Jahwebefragung).82 According to him, the royal orders are the same. After the king’s order to pray or inquire, neither text narrates the execution of the order. Instead, the prophet responds with an oracular message from YHWH. It is significant, in Hardmeier’s opinion, that the texts of both Kings and Jeremiah call for prophetic intercession (2 Kgs 19:4; Jer 37:3; but cf. Jer 21:2; 37:7) but instead receive a divine message. He maintains that a discrepancy exists between prophetic intercession (llpth) and oracular inquiry (#$rd), so that if the king orders a prophet to pray, he is not actually demanding an oracular response. He only desires prayer. Intercession denotes the request for help when the situation is clear. Inquiry denotes the request for help in decision making when the situation is uncertain.83 But contrary to expectation, both 2 Kgs 19:2–7 and Jer thet, which had originally followed the standard order (cf. Isa 37:2); pace Hardmeier 1990: 119. Both the patronymic and the prophetic epithet are attested in the Hebrew and Greek textual witnesses of Kings and Isaiah. 1QIsaa shows a tendency for inversion of word order, though here is it consistent with the rest of the Isaianic Greek and Hebrew witnesses (Person 1997: 45, 63). LXXL 2 Kgs 19:2 agrees with the Isaianic witnesses at Isa 37:2, an indication that the earliest Hebrew text of 2 Kgs 19:2 followed the standard order of epithets (Catastini 1989: 185, 225, 226). 79 Revell 1996: 83–91. 80 Following the edition of Ziegler 1976. 81 If the original text of 2 Kgs 19:2 lacked )ybnh (so Montgomery/Gehmen 1951: 503; Würthwein 1984: 417; Gonçalves 2001: 173; Wildberger 2002: 400), this presents a further problem for Hardmeier’s argument. 82 Hardmeier’s use of the term “order” is probably too strong (see his translation of 2 Kgs 19:4 at 1990: 123: “Und vorbringen sollst du ein Gebet . . . willen”). One need not interpret the waw + perfect as an imperative or volitive. Hezekiah may be showing deference to Isaiah as an esteemed prophet of YHWH. In this case, it is preferable to detect the mood of possibility in Hezekiah’s request. This is also corroborated by other examples where a king requests a prophet to pray using the imperative with the politeness marker nāʾ, which is regarded as connoting something akin to English “please” (1 Kgs 13:6; Jer 21:2; 37:3). For the continuation of the mood of possibility by means of a waw + the suffix conjugation, see Waltke and O’Connor 1990: §32.2.1.d; for a similar analysis of the parallel verse at Isa 37:2, see Watts 1987: 42 (n. 4.c). For nāʾ as meaning “please,” see Kaufman 1991: 195–8. 83 Hardmeier 1990: 310–11.

9.3. On the Reliability of the B1 Narrative

367

37:3–9 integrate a royal order for intercession followed by a message. This is proof for Hardmeier that 2 Kgs 19:2–7 was authored in the temporary Babylonian withdrawal of 588 BCE. Whereas Hezekiah shows his devoutness by requesting prayer (llpth), Zedekiah reveals the error of his ways by inquiring of YHWH (#$rd). Second Kings 18–19 portrays what Zedekiah should have done when the Babylonians pulled out of Judah for a brief interlude: he was to request intercession. Several pieces of evidence go against Hardmeier’s views of the intercessory and query-related orders. The phraseology of the royal requests is not the same: 2 Kgs 19:4 employs the expression “to lift up a prayer for X” (nāśāʾ tepillâ beʿad X), which occurs otherwise only at the parallel text of Isa 37:484; Jer 37:3 employs the more common expression “to pray for X” (llpth X dyb), which is almost invariably used to designate prophetic intercession.85 The assertion that the king is requesting only prayer (llpth) and not seeking (#$rd) a divine answer overlooks the rationale for making the request to the Prophet Isaiah.86 The primary purpose of Isaiah’s role in the narrative is to deliver an oracular message in response to Hezekiah’s petition for divine aid.87 That the narrative omits a report of his prayer is a minor consideration in view of the primary literary tasks for Isaiah. Nevertheless, when a prophet is asked to pray, some immediate outcome, be it a message, deliverance in war, remission of sins, or miraculous healing, is generally expected, as in other instances where prophets who deliver or receive divine utterances after intercession.88

84

Jer 7:16 and 11:14 are distinct, for in those two passages hnr )#&n “to raise a cry” is the actual expression, after which hlpt follows in parallelism. The unwieldy repetition of the movement of the delegates in 2 Kgs 19:3–5 is not enough to stratify the text of 19:2–7, though it may underscore the deliberate concordance between 19:4 and 6. See, alternatively, Würthwein (1984: 424), who maintains the secondary nature of 19:3–4. 85 Gen 20:7, 17–18; Numb 21:7; Deut 9:20; 1 Sam 7:5; 12:19; 1 Kings 13:6; 2 Kgs 4:33; Jer 7:16; 11:14; 42:2, 20; cf. 1 Sam 15:11, 16; see Childs 1967: 92–93. 86 Although in all of the DtrH, this is only one of two cases where a king asks a prophet to pray for YHWH’s help (cf. 1 Kgs 13:6), this is not necessarily a problem since most of the prophets pronounce doom in the DtrH. 87 Parker (1997: 116) points out that Hezekiah’s appeal to YHWH prompts a divine response in accordance with the literary scheme of “stories of miraculous deliverance from a siege.” He points to the inscription of Zakkur and Ugaritic prayer for deliverance as parallels; both incorporate prayer and the Zakkur inscription mentions prophets as mediating the deity’s response. A further analogue is Assurbanipal’s War against Teumman, King of Elam; see Nissinen 2003c: 146–50, Prism B, v 46–49 (cf. lines 25–28): “Ištar heard my desparate sighs and said to me: ‘Fear not!’ She made my heart confident, saying, ‘Because of the prayer you said with your hand lifted up, your eyes being filled with tears, I have compassion for you.’“ 88 Numb 21:7; 1 Sam 15:11, 16; Jer 42:2, 20.

368

Chapter Nine: The Story of the Deliverance of Jerusalem

More significantly, the texts of Jeremiah on which Hardmeier stakes his claims are not clear on the functional discrepancy between Fürbitteersuchung and Jahwebefragung. In Jer 37:3, Zedekiah sends a delegation to Jeremiah requesting prayer, but soon after, YHWH assigns their request to the category of inquiry (37:7). Zedekiah’s request to question (#$rd) YHWH in Jer 21:2 is couched in terms that resemble Hezekiah’s request for prayer (llpth) in 2 Kgs 19:4. Both kings, in order to secure YHWH’s aid, convey their requests in the mood of possibility connoted by the particle ylw) “perhaps.” The same mood applies in both cases, be it a matter of intercession or inquiry.89 In both, YHWH is bidden to take action: in Kings he is to hear the Rabshakeh’s blasphemous and reproach him, the effect of which is the defeat and withdrawal of the Assyrian army; in Jeremiah YHWH is to deliver the city miraculously from the Babylonians. Jeremiah 42:2 assumes that a divine response will ensue after the request for prayer. In a similar vein, Jer 29:7 and 12–13 demonstrate an intimate connection between prophetic prayer and oracular inquiry: “And seek (w#$rd) the welfare of the city to which I have exiled you and pray (wllpth) to YHWH for it; when you call me and come and pray (Mtllpthw) to me, I will hear (yt(m#$w) you. You will search for me and find me, if you seek me (ynw#$rdt) with all of your heart.” Hardmeier’s view seems overwrought in asserting that 2 Kgs 19:2–7 is a “prayer-hearing-scene” and Jer 37:3–9 is an “inquiry-message-sequence” but regards them as being in direct dialogue.90 As he himself admits, “‘zu Jahwe beten’ und ‘Jahwe befragen’ als prophetische Tätigkeiten eng zusammengehören.”91 Because the texts do not divide sharply between prophetic intercession (llpth) and oracular inquiry (#$rd), the discrepancy between the two actions should not be used to situate 2 Kgs 18–19 within the context of 588 BCE. To be sure, the narrative of 2 Kgs 18:13–19:37 exhibits rich literary artistry, but such artistry does not preclude its having been founded on genuine historical events. The most one may assert from Hardmeier’s analysis is the possibility that the B narrative of 2 Kgs 18:17–19:9a, 36–37 was subsequently reused for an anti-Babylonian agenda. In fact, the composition of Jer 39:3–9 is probably dependent on 2 Kgs 19:2–7,92 although an independent variation

89 Compare Jon 1:6: “Summon your god. Perhaps the god will take notice of us lest we perish.” 90 Hardmeier 1990: 314. He regards Zedekiah’s predicament as uncertain in Jer 37, but it seems clear from the narrative that Zedekiah is hoping YHWH will cause the Babylonians to withdrawal forever. Jeremiah’s message in Jer 37:6–8 asserts just the opposite: the Babylonians will return and destroy Jerusalem; cf. 21:2–7. 91 Ibid. 310, in agreement with Machholz 1971: 314–18 and Jeremias 1970: 140ff. 92 Duhm 1901: 169; Rudolph 1968: 135; Pohlmann 1978: 40 n. 130, 58; Seitz 1991a: 66– 96. Pohlmann considers Jer 21:1–10 and 37:1–10 to stem from the same author, who, while composing both passages, had considered and evaluated 2 Kgs 18–19.

9.3. On the Reliability of the B1 Narrative

369

on a well-known literary Gattung – A. danger; B. appeal; C. response; D. deliverance – is also a plausible alternative. Clements argued that 2 Kgs 18:13–19:37 should not be studied for only its historical veracity but for its literary and theological origins. He maintained that the story of Jerusalem’s deliverance was a mostly fictional account written in the time of Josiah to legitimate the Davidic dynasty and to promote Jerusalem over other cities. In his later studies, Clements tended to stress not only the emergence of Zion Theology post-701 B.C.E. but also its meaning to the exilic remnant, particularly with respect to four thematic elements: 1) YHWH is superior to the gods of other cities and peoples. 2) YHWH is superior to Sennacherib. 3) Hezekiah is a ruler directly descended from David, to whom YHWH had promised an eternal dynasty “over the nations.” 4) Jerusalem is David’s city and YHWH therefore protects the city.93

It is significant, however, that Clements neither denied the possibility that the A and B narratives were rooted in authentic historical tradition nor precluded that the B1 narrative was originally separate from B2.94 The themes that Clements highlighted are not emphasized in the B1 narrative at least to the degree that B2 presents them. The B1 narrative (esp. 2 Kgs 18:32b–35 – LXXL) highlights the contrast between the fates of Samaria and Jerusalem (in the tenor of the HH-framework), whereas B2 lacks the mention of Samaria’s fate (2 Kgs 19:11–14).95 One would also do well to inquire whether some of the themes (especially the second and third themes) that Clements enumerated are not also appropriate to the HH. For YHWH’s superiority over Sennacherib and Hezekiah’s utter success in rebellion are striking inasmuch as Assyria is not mentioned again in the Book of Kings despite Manasseh’s status as an Assyrian vassal. The majority of scholars, even those who regard some or most of the historical testimony of B narrative as suspect, detect some amount of genuine historical tradition, stemming from earlier written or oral sources. Wellhausen conceded that “highly authentic statements have been preserved” in the B narrative.96 Stade, though maintaining that the B narrative is generally legendarisch, did not rule out the possibility that certain of its statements reported 93

Clements 2011: 108; see idem 1996: 35–48. Clements 1980: 56: “What we are faced with is a story which has been strongly oriented in a particular theological manner, but which does not seriously depart from the facts of what happened in that important year [sc. 701 B.C.E.]”; idem 1996: 45: “The original narrative drew confidence from the knowledge that Sennacherib had not entered Jerusalaem in 701 B.C.E.”; idem 2011: 110: “This [sc. the origin of the Hezekiah stories in Isa 36–37 in the Book of Isaiah] does not refute the notion that, at one time, two loosely parallel earlier forms of the story existed.” 95 Similarly, Naʾaman 2003: 213–14. 96 Wellhausen 1957: 47 n. 1. 94

370

Chapter Nine: The Story of the Deliverance of Jerusalem

genuine historical details, namely, the specific details on the location of the confrontation between the Assyrian and Judahite delegates (2 Kgs 18:17) as well as the names of the figures who participated in the negotiation.97 Childs maintained that the Dtr redactor reworked various “ancient traditions with his own theological intent” to compose the B1 narrative and that, form critically, “the first speech of the Rabshakeh has its setting in the diplomatic disputation and reflects a level of ancient historical tradition.”98 He pointed to an Assyrian letter from a royal archive in Nimrud dating to Tiglathpileser III’s siege of Babylon in 729 B.C.E, in which two royal servants report to the king on their disputation with the Babylonian authorities in an effort to bring about their capitulation.99 The circumstances surrounding the letter are noticeably similar to those of the exchange between the Judahite delegates and the Rabshakeh in 2 Kgs 18:17–37. Both disputations take place at a strategic location at the city and are directed to its population for their surrender, not just to its governors.100 The Nimrud letter and the Rabshakeh’s speech use a conventional messenger formula to introduce the king’s communication.101 Both disputations involve the initial conveyance of the king’s message followed by a series of the envoy’s own arguments.102 Both the royal messages and the envoys’ own arguments demand a response from the people or addressed delegates, but the addressees refrain from responding. According to ND. 2632: 20–22, the Babylonians did not come out or argue, and an important city official did not agree to let the Assyrian envoys enter Babylon. Likewise, in 2 Kgs 18:26–27, 36–37, Hezekiah’s envoys ask the Rabshakeh to refrain from speaking in the dialect of Judah after his first speech and the Jerusalemite populace remains silent after his second speech. This agreement between the two populaces’ reactions in the Nimrud letter and the biblical account is striking. This evidence supports Childs’ caution against considering unhistorical the entirety of the Rabshakeh’s speeches. According to Machin97 Stade 1886: 179; cf. cf. Alt 1909: 78–9. Ben Zvi (2003: 102) acknowledges that the Rabshakeh’s speeches are based on older tradition and that the pursuit of an earlier historical source is worthwhile. 98 Childs 1967: 85. 99 The letter (ND. 2632; Letter I) was published in Saggs 1955: 21–56; with alternate readings in von Soden 1972: 43–51; cf. Gonçalves 1986: 407–9; Camp 1990: 144–8. Other parallels from Egypt, Greece, and in Josephus are discussed in Höffken 2008: 44–55. 100 For the evidence, see Gonçalves 1986: 409. 101 See Camp 1990: 145–6; based on the reconstruction of von Soden 1985: 153: 13 š[arr]u! ina muḫ-ḫi-ku-nu i!-[šap!]-ra-na-ši 14ma-a: “Der König hat uns zu euch! geschickt mit dem Auftrag: …” The latter serves as a correction to Saggs’ (1955: 24) initial reading: “We spoke to the Babylonians in this way: ‘Why do you act hostiley to us for the sake of them?,’ (adding): …” 102 In ND. 2632: 13–19, the Assyrian envoys state that they used many arguments with the Babylonian populace immediatedly after conveying the king’s message; cf. 2 Kgs 18:17– 25.

9.3. On the Reliability of the B1 Narrative

371

ist, “however one may evaluate the present form of the [Rabshakeh’s] speeches, the historical reality behind the tactic they represent is confirmed by the report of similar embassies in Assyrian sources.”103 Kaiser,104 Wildberger,105 Würthwein,106 and Camp107 have attempted to reconstruct the earliest stratum of the Rabshakeh’s speech. Kaiser (and Camp) proposed three criteria for determining the original content of the Rabshakeh’ speeches, namely, by removing: 1) the switch from Rabshakeh’s voice (original) to Sennacherib’s (secondary);108 2) texts influenced by other biblical texts (esp. Isaiah);109 3) theological statements with the term x+b “to trust” or the term lcn (hiphil) “to save.”110 Kaiser has provided a reasonable starting point for detecting authentic historical information in 2 Kgs 18:17–19:9a, 36–37; however, he provides no objective grounds for prioritizing data for reconstructing a continuous literary text. As already noted, regarding the first criterion of Numeruswechsel in the Rabshakeh’s speech, Childs had cautioned against the tendency to deny the Assyrian negotiator the freedom both to relay the king’s message and to interject his own arguments.111 The subtraction of certain textual information based on the second criterion of intertextual commonality with other (prophetic) texts is also found to be wanting in this case, as the present discussion demonstrates. The final criterion in Kaiser’s reconstruction – all theological 103

Machinist 1983: 729; cf. Younger 2003: 262. Kaiser’s (1974: 367–97) reconstruction of the earliest stratum of B1: 2 Kgs 18:17– 19aa, 20a, 23, 24a, 26–28, 31–32a, 36–37; 19:1–4aa, 6a, 7–9a, 36aab, 37. 105 Wildberger’s (2002: 359–433) earliest stratum of B1: 18:17*, 18–22a, 23–24a, 25, 28–30, 33–35, 31, 36–37; 19:2*, 6a, 7–8, 36aab, 37. 106 Würthwein’s (1984: 418–24) layer of B1: 2 Kgs 18:17*, 18–21, 23–24, 26–29, 31a, 32*, 36–37; 19:8–9a, 36–37. Würthwein dates the first text of B1 to 612 B.C.E. after the collapse of the Assyrian empire but while its memory was still fresh in the minds of the Judahite audience. His earliest reconstruction actually places a division between an earlier speech to the people (18:28–36aa*) and a later speech to the Jerusalemite envoys (18:18– 25*, 36abb, 37). His reconstrution has been criticized aptly by Camp (1990: 153–6) and is to be rejected. 107 Camp’s (ibid. 169–70) earliest layer of B1: 18:17*, 18–19a, 20a, 23–24a, 26aabb–28, 31, 32ab, 36aabb, 37; 19:1aba, 2*, 5, 6*, 7–9a, 36aab, 37. 108 Rabshakeh’s voice: 2 Kgs 18:19a, 20a, 23–24a, 28, 31–32a; Sennacherib’s voice: 2 Kgs 18:19b, 20b–21, 25. 109 (1) compare 2 Kgs 18:24b and Isa 31:1–3; (2) 2 Kgs 18:21 and Isa 30:1–7; (3) 2 Kgs 18:22 and 18:4; 23:8–9; cf. Deut 12:2–3; (4) 18:25 and Isa 10:5–6. 110 Kaiser 1974: 380; see Camp 1990: 150, 159. Instances of x+b: 2 Kgs 18:19b, 20b, 21, 22, 24b, 30; cf. 19:10; instances of lcn (hiphil): 2 Kgs 18:29, 30, 32b, 33, 35; cf. 19:11, 12. 111 Childs 1967: 79–81. In my opinion, the switch from Rabshakeh’s voice to Sennacherib’s is most convincing as an indication of redactional activity in the case of 2 Kgs 18:25, since the Rabshakeh reverts back to Sennacherib’s voice after he has offered his own arguments, though its originality to B1 cannot be ruled out. 104

372

Chapter Nine: The Story of the Deliverance of Jerusalem

discourse is secondary (esp. the themes of “trust” and “salvation”) – falters on imprecise assumptions when contextualizing the literary genre of the Rabshakeh’s speeches in the context of Near Eastern historical literature. Similar reports of political disputations from Assyria, Egypt, and Greece lacking theological discourse may appear to support Kaiser’s reconstruction.112 Thus, Höffken concluded recently on the theological nature of the Rabshakeh’s speeches, “Der Rabsake von 2 Kön xviii / Jes. xxxvi argumentiert schon ein Stück weit entfernt von eigentlich politisch-militärisch Notwendigkeiten.”113 Yet this assumes that the Rabshakeh’s speeches in the earliest text of the B1 narrative conformed more to the standards of a political report than to a text such as a royal inscription exhibiting literary, ideological, and religious features. According to Younger: The full consideration of the literary, ideological, and religious features of both the Assyrian royal inscription and the biblical texts should serve as a caution to those who assume the historicity of ancient Near Eastern narrative emplotment. Conversely, it should also serve as a warning to those who too quickly dismiss the historicity of the biblical material by accusing the biblical text of being “theological,” when, in fact, this is standard fare for all ancient Near Eastern history writing.”114

The two motifs of “trust” (x+b) and “salvation” (lcn hiphil) in the Rabshakeh’s speeches that Kaiser considers secondary serve as prime examples. The theme of trust is found in First Isaiah in potentially secondary texts (Isa 12:2; 26:4; 30:12; 32:9, 10, 11 and perhaps at 31:1b),115 and the term may not be originally Isaianic.116 “Trust” is also a recurrent theme in the Assyrian

112

For a discussion of the evidence, see Höffken 2008: 44–55. Ibid. 55; similarly, Gleis (1997: 156) maintains that the theme of “trust in YHWH” in the Rabshakeh’s speeches is a “prophetic” idea, not a “political” one. Höffken (2008: 45 n. 4) mentions ABL 301, a letter sent by Ashurbanipal to the Babylonians during the rebellion of his brother Shamsh-shum-ukin to submit to him, but he does not make adequate use of the explicit religious statements in the letter to moderate his final conclusions. In the letter, Ashurbanipal equates siding with Shamsh-shum-ukin as “sinning against the god” and that rebel king is “abhorrent to Marduk.” For the letter, see Moran 1991: 320–31 and Gallagher (1999: 202–3) who compares the form of the letter to the second speech of the Rabshakeh in 2 Kgs 18:28b–35. 114 Younger 2003: 262. Fales (1999–2001: 134–6) notes that Neo-Assyrian scribes would have been competent in both technical reporting (derived from field diaries, reports, an omens) and ideological discourse (derived intertextually from literature [epics, wisdom], religious and common lore) when composing the royal inscriptions. 115 Wildberger 2002: 391; de Jong (2007: 96) considers Isa 31:1b a “redactional extension” to 31:1a to prepare for the Hezekiah stories in chs. 36–39. The same is true of the texts making use of semantically related Nm) (Isa 1:21, 26; 7:9b; 25:1; 28:16; 33:16). 116 Nor is it Deuteronomistic; pace Childs 1967: 85; see Gonçalves 1986: 410; Camp 1990: 147–8; Milgrom 2000: 69; Hjelm 2004: 42; see already Cohen 1979: 39 n. 34: “this reflex of Neo-Assyrian annalistic style has never been observed”; see above 8.4. 113

9.3. On the Reliability of the B1 Narrative

373

royal inscriptions associated with the term tukultu.117 In a royal inscription of Sennacherib, the Babylonians are represented as soliciting military aid against Assyria: “Gather thy army, prepare thy camp, haste to Babylon, come to our aid (lit. stand at our side), for thou art our trust (tukultāni lū atta).”118 This example is comparable to the opening questions of the Rabshakeh’s spoken in the name of the Assyrian king in 2 Kgs 18:19b: “What is this confidence (Nwx+b) that you trust (tx+b)?” and again in 18:20b: “in whom do you trust (tx+b) that you have rebelled against me?” Liverani has observed the rhetoric found in the Assyrian royal inscriptions whereby the king contrasts his “trust” (tukultu) in the deity Assur causing him to prevail with the folly of his opponent who trusts in his own strength (ana emūqi ramāni).119 In two texts during the period of Sargon II, his enemies are represented as those who misplace their trust in perfidious allies who do not “save” (Š-stem of ezēbu/Gstem of eṭēru) them. This theme of “salvation” calls to mind the instances of lcn (hiphil) in the Rabshakeh’s second speech (2 Kgs 18:29, 30, 32b, 33, 35; cf. 19:11, 12).120 The dividing lines between religious, theological, and political discourse do not exist at the literary level in either the Assyrian royal inscriptions or the B1 narrative. This is a mostly modern distinction that should not be applied as a useful criterion for discerning the original text of the Rabshakeh’s speeches. In summary, the B1 narrative is based on genuine historical events and reports several accurate historical details regarding location, names of the diplomatic persons, the confrontation with the Rabshakeh, Taharqo as king of Kush and Egypt’s role during Sennacherib’s third campaign.121 The events have been interpreted using literary devices and theological perspectives, so that it is difficult to separate a historical stratum from theological develop117

Cohen 1979: 39–41. Luckenbill 1924: 42 (Col. V, 36–37). 119 For a descrption of this type of rhetoric, see Liverani 1979: 311; idem 2005: 158–62; Cohen 1979: 41, 43. Horn and McCarter (2011: 188) contend that the Rabshakeh’s speeches are based on authentic events and the stereotypical elements of style, ideology, and language in the Assyrian royal inscriptions. 120 For the Assyrian texts, see Gallagher (1999: 206) who notes that although only human political allies are mentioned as those who do not “save,” there are texts that mention salvation from a deity (ibid. 206 n. 173); see CAD E, p. 403, 2’, 3’ (eṭēru) and pp. 425, 6b3’ (šūzubu). In any case, it is the deity Assur, who, among other gods or goddesses, is credited with defeating the king’s enemies in battle; see Liverani 1979: 310–11; idem 2005: 160; Grayson 1995: 962: “The king was the vice-regent of the state god Asshur, and all the king’s acts, including his military achievements, were carried out on behalf of the god … he did so ‘with the support of the god Asshur’“; see further Pongratz-Leisten 1995: 245–52. The texts in First Isaiah with the term lcn (hiphil) are probably secondary or later than B1 (Isa 5:29; 19:20; 20:6; 31:5). De Jong (2007: 121) dates Isa 31:5 to the late seventh century B.C.E. after the composition of the B1 narrative. 121 Similarly, Scurlock 2011: 301. 118

374

Chapter Nine: The Story of the Deliverance of Jerusalem

ments. In any case, the sweeping claim that the theological elements are not original to the B1 narrative is unwarranted. Given the suitability of most of its language and motifs to the greater Assyrian context, the burden of proof falls on scholars who assume that the B1 narrative or the majority of its religious features are late.

9.4. The Hezekiah Stories in the Context of 1–2 Kings Recent studies call into question the original setting of 2 Kgs 18:17–20:19 in the context of 1–2 Kings. Some favor an original setting in the Book of Isaiah (chs. 36–39),122 while others maintain the existence of an early independent source (B1) disconnected from either Kings or Isaiah.123 An argument for the priority of an Isaianic setting on the basis of the unity of 2 Kgs 18:13–20:19 is inadequate, since it is a composite text (see 9.2).124 Nor can an argument for Isaianic priority be persuasive based primarily on text-critical evidence, as both 2 Kgs 18:17–19:37 and Isaiah 36–39 have undergone separate transformations after their inclusion in both frameworks.125 It is above all a grave mistake to base an argument on the priority of either text by privileging the MT versions, neither of which may be equated with a hypothetical “Urtext” and in most cases are deficient to the Old Greek.126 The strongest basis emerges from the textual elements common to both the Kings and the Isaiah textual traditions.127 Smelik maintains that the prophetic narrative is not original to Kings, since the latter never refers to the classical prophets with this one exception.128 However, this argument does not hold weight, since Isaiah was probably a Jerusalemite court prophet whereas the other prophets in Kings were usually Smelik 1986: 70–93; idem 1992: 93–128; Seitz 1991a; Hjelm 2004: 93–168; Young 2012: 126–33. 123 Clements (2011: 110–11) has argued that the whole collection of Hezekiah stories in 2 Kgs 18:13–19:37 and in Isa 36–39 derived from a common source. For earlier scholars who argued this view, see the bibiliography in Gonçalves 1986: 343 n. 59; see also Konkel 1993: 482. It is obvious, too, that 2 Kgs 18–20 is a problem for Auld’s theory of a Shared Text used in composing Kings and Chronicles; see Auld 1994: 98–103, 138–9. 124 Pace Smelik 1984: 70–93; idem 1992: 93–128; Seitz 1991a; Hjelm 2004: 93–168. 125 Kaiser 1969: 314; Gonçalves 1986: 348–50; idem 1999: 30; Smelik 1986: 71; Camp 1990: 59; Konkel 1993: 464; Berges 1998: 271. 126 Orlinsky 1939–1940: 44–9; Trebolle 1987: 7–22; Konkel 1993: 467; Person 1997: 5– 6, 43–6. Catastini (1989: 324) argues that the proto-Lucianic stratum of 2 Kings 18:13– 20:19 (bo[r]c2e2) is its earliest attainable tradition and is very close to IQIsaa and the Old Greek of Isa 36–39. Person (1997: 45) observes that IQIsaa is closer to the Urtext since it reflects the Vorlage of the Old Greek of Isaiah. 127 Gonçalves 1986: 349–50. 128 Smelik 1986: 72. 122

375

9.4. The Hezekiah Stories in the Context of 1–2 Kings

peripheral northern prophets.129 The representation of Isaiah as supportive of Hezekiah in 2 Kgs 19:4–7 stands in complete contrast with the other prophetic stories in Kings. Isaiah’s favorable disposition toward Hezekiah in the B1 narrative corresponds to the intent of the HH-framework, which emphasizes Hezekiah’s piety (and not the role of prophetic speech). Arguments for the late incorporation of the most of the prophetic narratives into Kings may render doubtful the use of the non-classical prophets in Kings on behalf of Smelik’s argument.130 According to Smelik, the Hezekiah-Isaiah narrative has its counterpart in the Ahaz-Isaiah narrative at Isa 7:1–17.131 They share significant components: they open with foreign military invasion (Isa 7:1; 36:1); they share the identical setting at the upper pool on the highway to the fuller’s field (7:3; 36:2) as well as the king’s reception of an oracle of assurance ()ryt-l)1) together with a sign (tw)) (Isa 7:4–9, 11, 14; 37:6–7, 30; 38:7, 22). None of these arguments is conclusive and some of them actually suggest the anteriority of 2 Kgs 18:13–19:37. The opening at Isa 7:1 depends on 2 Kgs 16:5, a military report similar to other such reports opening with the particle z) in Kings (1 Kgs 9:11, 20; 16:21; 2 Kgs 8:22; 12:18; 14:8; 15:16).132 Trebolle has argued that the original reading at 2 Kgs 18:17 probably made reference only to one of the two locations mentioned, as evidenced by LXXL/OL.133 Table 27. LXX 2 Kgs 18:17 // MT 2 Kgs 18:17 // MT Isa 7:3 // MT Isa 36:2 LXX 2 Kgs e0pi\ Ierousalhm kai\ a)ne/bhsan kai\ h}lqon ei0j Ierousalhm

kai\ e1sthsan LXXL/OL retain: e0n th~| a)naba&sei e0n tw~| u(dragwgw~| th~j kolumbh&qraj th~j a!nw h# e0stin e0n th~| o(dw~| 129

2 Kgs 18:17 Myl#$wry wl(yw w)byw Myl#$wry wl(yw w)byw wdm(yw

Isa 7:3

Isa 36:2

tl(tb hkrbh hnwyl(h r#$) tlsmb

tl(t hcq l) hkrbh hnwyl(h

tl(tb hkrbh hnwyl(h

tlsm l)

tlsmb

dm(yw

Wilson 1980: 252–4, 270–74. Schmitt 1972: 32–7, 42–5, 137–8; Rofé 1988; Stipp 1988: 253–67, 361–2; McKenzie 1991: 88–93, 95–8; Kratz 2000a: 174; Otto 2001; idem 2003: 487–508; Römer 2005: 153–4. 131 Smelik 1986: 72; recently, Young 2012: 128. 132 Williamson 1994: 193; Adam 2007: 189–90. 133 Trebolle 1987: 13–17; idem 1989: 196–8; followed by Gonçalves 1999: 43–4. 130

376 tou~ a)grou~ tou~ gnafe/wj

Chapter Nine: The Story of the Deliverance of Jerusalem hd#& sbwk

hd#& sbwk

hd#& sbwk

The duplication of w)byw wl(yw in the MT is unattested in the Old Greek of 2 Kgs 18:17 or in Isa 36:2. The originally separate locations have been combined by the relative particle r#$) in MT 2 Kgs 18:17. Trebolle observes that LXXL/OL 2 Kgs 18:17 inserts after kai\ e1sthsan (= wdm(yw) the phrase e0n th~| a)naba&sei (= tl(mb or tlsmb). This indicates that two doublets were linked together in a crude way (modo burdo) by juxtaposing the initial word of each doublet: hnwyl(h hkrbh tl(tb wdm(yw w)byw wl(yw (Ml#$wry … sbwk hd#& tlsmb wdm(yw w)byw wl(yw (Ml#$wry …

1. 2.

This is a case where text criticism informs us on the redactional relationship of the Isa 7:3 to 36:2. If Trebolle’s analysis is correct, the mention of the Upper Pool and the Fuller’s Field in Isa 7:3 (based on the double reading in Isa 37:2) are later than the original reading of the so-called “Urtext” of 2 Kgs that referred only to a single location (the road to the Fuller’s Field?).134 Nor can the correspondence between the royal oracle of deliverance ()ryt-l)) in Isa 7:4 with a concomitant sign (tw)) in 7:11, 14a lead one to the conclusion that the Hezekiah narratives are original to the Book of Isaiah. Scholars maintain that the oracle of assurance was originally detached from the sign in Isa 7.135 In the same way, the references to prophetic signs in 2 Kgs 19:29 and 20:8 are later than the B1 narrative, which contain only the favorable oracle of Isaiah to Hezekiah in 19:6–7. Moreover, there are significant differences between the two narratives in 2 Kgs 18:17–19:9a, 36–37 and Isa 7:1–17. Whereas the Assyrian army is regarded as a truly formidable foe, Rezin of Syrian and Pekah of Israel are represented as feeble in Isa 7:4ab, as “two stubs of smoking logs.” Thus, whereas Ahaz’s fright is without foundation, Hezekiah’s confidence in YHWH is necessary against the Assyrian army.136 Furthermore, it is YHWH who initiates the prophetic address to Ahaz in Isa 7:3–9a, while in the B1 narrative Isaiah’s oracle (2 Kgs 19:6–7) is uttered in response to Hezekiah’s appeal for YHWH to deliver Jerusalem from 134

According to Trebolle (1987: 16; idem 1989: 195–6), the original location of the setting of the Rabshakeh’s disputation was on the road to the Fuller’s Field, which was on the outskirsts of Jerusalem. This original reading was displaced by the insertion of the location of the conduit of the Upper Pool, which was inside the walls of Jerusalem. 135 Barthel 1997: 151–8; Köckert, Becker, and Barthel 2003: 130–31 (Isa 7:3–7*, 14b, 16); de Jong 2007: 65–6 (Isa 7:2–9a, 14b, 16). The plural addressees and negative tenor in Isa 7:10–14a conflict with the dialogue between Isaiah and Ahaz and the favorable oracle in vv. 2–9a, 14a, 16. 136 Gonçalves 1986: 437–8.

9.4. The Hezekiah Stories in the Context of 1–2 Kings

377

the Assyrian threat (2 Kgs 19:1–4). Ahaz’s passiveness and unfounded fear in Isa 7:7–17 serve as a foil to Hezekiah’s active trust in YHWH in the B1 narrative, and it is the latter characterization that holds pride of place in terms of intertextual relationship.137 Hjelm argues that the Hezekiah stories were first located in the Book of Isaiah primarily on the ground that the literary schema of threat-salvation is prophetic and psalmodic, not Deuteronomistic, and therefore the narrative of Isa 36–39 does not suit the context of 2 Kgs.138 According to her, if the representation of Hezekiah were consistent with the other kings facing foreign invasion, he should have bribed the Babylonians for assistance against the Assyrians as Asa (1 Kgs 15:18–20) and Ahaz (2 Kgs 16:7–9) did in similar situations. Instead, Hezekiah is described in similar language as his father, Ahaz, in Isa 7; 8:7; 10:6, following the schema of threat-salvation including a sign from the prophet Isaiah. I do not wish to enter again into the details of the relationship of Isa 7 and 2 Kgs 18:17–19:37, but it is necessary to address the points that Hjelm raises concerning the literary form of the B1 narrative. The pattern of threatsalvation is not only found in prophetic literature or the Psalms. The B1 narrative is an instantiation of a Gattung found in the Assyrian royal inscriptions (Nin A i 53–62 [Esarhaddon]; Prism B v 25–48 [Ashurbanipal]) and in the Zakkur inscription from Tell Afis in Syria (KAI 202), where a king, in view of imminent battle with enemy forces, entreats the deity to intervene on his behalf.139 By the time the deity’s response is provided, the mood of the narrative has already signaled to the audience that the response will be favorable and that the king and his country will succeed.140 The response is often introduced by the phrase “fear not.”141 The elements of the literary form are as follows: THREAT of impending battle (2 Kgs 18:17–35), king’s APPEAL for divine assistance in the form of a symbolic gesture or prayer (19:1–4), divine PROMISE of assistance (19:6–7), and SALVATION in fulfillment of that promise (19:36–37).142 In the Zakkur inscription the deity Baalshamayn speaks 137

Gonçalves 1999: 42–3. Hjelm 2004: 42. 139 For the Assyrian texts, see Nissinen 2003a: 139, 147. Jer 21 and 37 are also variations on this literary form, but the oracular decision does not favor the royal establishment, and thus their literary aims are different. For a comparison of 2 Kgs 19:1–7 and Jer 37:3–9, see Hardmeier 1990: 307–21 and the discussion above (9.3). 140 Compare Jer 37:2, which states that neither Zedekiah nor his serving officials listened to the Jeremiah’s messages. Their demise is therefore expected as a consequence of their behavior. 141 Conrad 1985; Nissinen 2003c: 122–61 (with literature). 142 See Parker 1997: 105–30. According to Parker (ibid. 111), the royal appeal to the deity for a response in circumstances of foreign invasion is an essential component of the genre. He rightly regards Hezekiah’s tearing of his garments and covering himself with 138

378

Chapter Nine: The Story of the Deliverance of Jerusalem

through a group of anonymous oracular specialists (KAI 202 A 12: [b]yd . ḥzyn . wbyd . ʿddn “[thr]ough seers and through visionaries”), just as 2 Kgs 19:6–7 indicates that the intermediary Isaiah transmitted the divine response. The Assyrian royal inscriptions and the Zakkur inscription are royalist works of propaganda, vindicating the monarch’s appeal to the deity in battle. The author of the B1 narrative used this royalist literary form to represent Hezekiah as the favorite of YHWH for his demonstrated loyalty. Citing the contrast of 2 Kgs 18–20 with the reports of Asa’s appeal to BenHadad and of Ahaz’s appeal to Tiglath-Pileser in 1 Kgs 15:17–22 and 2 Kgs 16:5, 7–9 to argue that the Hezekiah stories were first situated in the Book of Isaiah is also tenuous. The Hezekiah stories have political and theological interests and are written with a high degree of literary sophistication, whereas the reports of Asa’s and Ahaz’s appeals for military assistance lack theological characteristics or royalist propaganda. The reports are analogous in structure and may have been incorporated into Kings from official palace records.143 One cannot assume that the author of the HH would have rewritten the B1 narrative in accordance with reports incorporated from official records. That being said, I concur with Hjelm that the B1 narrative does not affirm the (“Deuteronomistic”) view that both Israel and Judah sinned in order to demonstrate that Jerusalem was rejected for neglecting Deuteronomic Law and thus does not comprise a fitting conclusion to such a tragic history.144 However, I cannot agree that one must therefore locate the B1 narrative’s original setting in the Book of Isaiah.145 The strongest evidence for the original setting of the Hezekiah stories in the Book of Kings is the dependence of the “fourteenth year” of 2 Kgs 18:17 and the “fifteen years” of 20:6 on the length of Hezekiah’s reign (“twentynine years”) indicated in 18:2.146 According to 2 Kgs 20:6, YHWH will prolong Hezekiah’s life by fifteen more years and will deliver Jerusalem from the king of Assyria. The story of Hezekiah’s recovery appears to serve as an explanation for why YHWH initially allowed the destruction of Judah (18:13) sackcloth as well as his dispatch of the embassy to Isaiah as the actual appeal for YHWH to deliver the city (ibid. 114–15); cf. Sargon II’s lifting of his hands preceding the military defeat of Pisiri, the Carchemishite (COS 2.118A, lines 72–78). 143 Parker 2006: 223–4. On the parallel literary structures of 1 Kgs 15:16–22 and 2 Kgs 16:5, 7–9, see Adam 2010: 49–59. 144 Hjelm 2004: 87–8. However, Hjelm is correct to observe that the account of Josiah does conform to such a tragic perspective. 145 This argument also responds to Adam’s (2007: 184–99, esp. 198) view that the B1 narrative is incompatible with the text of the synchronistishen Chronik. It is more acceptable to affirm that the genre of the B1 narrative is different from the reports from the official records of Jerusalem. 146 H. Rawlinson 1858: I, 393; Gonçalves 1986: 345, 349–50; idem 1999: 53–4; Carr 1991: 593; Young 2012: 125.

9.5. The B1 Narrative in the Hezekian History

379

and the submission of Hezekiah (18:14–16) in the A account but then delivered Jerusalem in the B narrative.147 The following narrative in 2 Kgs 20:12– 19 prepares for the Babylonian exile by means of the contrast of the deliverance of Jerusalem resulting from Hezekiah’s piety with the devastation of Jerusalem in his descendents’ time (cf. 20:17–19 and 24:2, 12–15; 25:7). That the total of twenty-nine years in the Hezekiah stories is anchored in the framework of Kings argues against viewing 2 Kgs 18:13–20:19 as a unified narrative before being inserted in the Book of Kings.148 Indeed, their unity results from the cohesion of the chronological information in 18:2, 13 and 20:6. The chronological data in the Hezekiah stories are shared by all the major textual witnesses of 2 Kgs 18–20 and Isa 36–39. There is thus no text critical evidence to suggest that the B narrative of the Hezekiah stories was framed originally in the Book of Isaiah and then reconfigured chronologically in Kings and then inserted back into Isaiah.149 In addition, the references to the removal of the bāmôt in 2 Kgs 18:22, the Deuteronomic motifs in 19:15– 19,150 and “for the sake of David” 19:34 demonstrate ties with 1–2 Kings (or Deuteronomy), not with Isaiah.151 Scholars who point out the affinities of the B2 narrative (2 Kgs 19:9b–35) with the material in Isa 1–35 and 40–55 are prone to overlook other influences from Deuteronomistic texts, the Psalms, and other prophetic literature.152 Recognizing these other parallels leads to the conclusion that the B2 narrative, though in conversation with certain texts in Isaiah, is broadly related to various texts thus precluding the hypothesis of an exclusively Isaianic context.153

9.5. The B1 Narrative in the Hezekian History It is interesting to observe that, although many scholars have adhered to the idea of a pre-exilic edition of Kings, relatively few of them have directly addressed the B1 narrative in the context of such an earlier textual stratum. Nelson has observed the potentially critical ramifications of dating the incorporation of the Hezekiah stories in the Book of Kings to the exilic or post-exilic 147

Clements 1980: 63–6; idem 2011: 102; Provan 1988: 118. Gonçalves 1999: 54. 149 Pace Young 2012: 142–8. 150 This passage is related to Deut 4:28; 28:36–37; 1 Kgs 9:6–9; see Provan 1988: 119; Carr 1992: 594. 151 Cf. 2 Kgs 19:34 and 1 Kgs 11:12, 13, 34; 2 Kgs 8:19; 20:6. 152 Childs 1967: 99–101; Carr 1992: 594; Gonçalves 1999: 37–9. 153 Vermeylen (1997: 95–118) demonstrates that the B2 narrative has close affinities with the Assur-redaction of Isa 1–35, both of which he dates, however (unconvincingly), to the reign of Manasseh. De Jong (2007: 361–5) argues more pluasibly that the B1 narrative influenced both the Assur redaction and the B2 narrative. 148

380

Chapter Nine: The Story of the Deliverance of Jerusalem

period, as its existence would destroy “the hypothesis of a Josianic date for the original stratum of the Book of Kings.”154 Should scholars who adhere to a pre-exilic edition of 1–2 Kings assume that the B1 narrative was originally incorporated in that edition and that later Deuteronomistic editors added B2 and 20:1–11, 12–19 to later editions of Kings?155 As the above discussion demonstrates, such an assumption is in need of further discussion owing to the recent studies favoring an Isaianic context as the original literary setting for the Hezekiah stories. It is quite plausible that the B1 narrative originally belonged to the HH and functioned as the narrative counterpart to the climactic report of Hezekiah’s cultic reform in 2 Kgs 18:4. In the regnal résumé of Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1–8), the themes of cultic reform (18:4), trust in YHWH (18:5a), rebellion against Assyrian (18:7b), and the contrast between the fall of Israel and deliverance of Jerusalem (18:9–11) are directly related to the B1 narrative.156 The theme of cultic reform and the contrast between Samaria and Jerusalem in the regnal résumé appear to have influenced the B1 narrative at 18:22 and 18:32b–34 (LXXL). In the opposite direction, the themes of trust in YHWH and rebellion against Assyria of the B1 narrative influenced Hezekiah’s regnal résumé at vv. 5a and 7b. On the other hand, there are no direct allusions between Hezekiah’s regnal résumé and the B2 narrative. The object of Hezekiah’s trust (x+b) forms the primary concern of the first speech of the Rabshakeh (18:19, 20, 21, 22, 24) but also occurs once in his second speech (18:30). The Assyrian negotiator opens his disputation in 18:19 with the question, “What is this confidence that you trust?” The preceding statement in 18:5a makes clear what is implicit in the B1 narrative, i.e., that none but YHWH was the singular object of Hezekiah’s trust. 154

Nelson 1981: 129. Nelson ultimately conludes that 2 Kgs 18:13–19:37 is Josianic and that 2 Kgs 20:12–19 is post-Josianic. However, he does not discuss B2, which is usually dated to the exilic or post-exilic period, and he offers no particulars on the B1 narrative; similarly, McKenzie (1991: 101–9) is unclear on what sort of “Dtr” was responsible for B2. For further criticisms of standard redactional views concerning 2 Kgs 18–20, see Person 1997: 77–8. 155 So Gray 1977: 668; Vogt 1986: 50–59. Vogt allows for a gap of almost a century between the composition of B1 (post 701 B.C.E.) and the Josianic Kings (609 B.C.E.). This is a substantial length of time for the B1 narrative to have remained intact. To my knowledge, Dion (1988: 13; idem 1989: 25) and Provan (1988: 120–30) were the first scholars working on the Book of Kings to explicity assign the B1 narrative to a pre-exilic Hezekian edition of Kings; cf. Schniedewind 2004: 70; Young 2012: 118 n. 7. Professor Francolino Gonçalves has also confirmed for me that he considers it quite plausible that the B1 narrative existed in an earlier edition of the Book of Kings before B2 and ch. 20 were added (personal communication — October 27, 2012). Differently, Schüpphaus (1967: 101) argued that 18:17– 20:19 was interpolated by the exilic Dtr historian into the pre-Dtr historical work (18:1, 2, 7b, 8–11; 20:20f). 156 Gonçalves 1986: 338–9; idem 1999: 50–51; Provan 1988: 121–2, 129.

9.6. The Contrast of Samaria and Jerusalem

381

The Rabshakeh also communicates that the king of Assyria demands to know why Hezekiah would rebel (drm) against him (2 Kgs 18:20b). This demand is subordinate to the main question of Hezekiah’s object of trust in the Rabshakeh’s message in 18:19. Again, Hezekiah’s regnal résumé underscores the fact that Hezekiah was successful in his rebellion against Assyria (rw#$) Klmb drmyw) in v. 7b because YHWH was with him (v. 7a) and because he trusted in him (v. 5a). The verb drm used in v. 7b to allude directly to v. 20b of the B1 narrative is only attested elsewhere at 2 Kgs 24:1, 20.157 The B1 narrative depicts the triumph of Hezekiah in the rebellion against Assyria as stemming from his trust in YHWH.

9.6. The Contrast of Samaria and Jerusalem in LXXL 4 Reigns 18:34 The contrast between the fall of Samaria and the deliverance of Judah is emphasized indirectly in 2 Kgs 18:9–11. The repetition of the report on the fall of Samaria from 2 Kgs 17:3–4 sets the stage for the contrastive theme of deliverance in the B1 narrative at 18:32b–34.158 The LXXL/OL readings of v. 34 are preferable to the reading of the MT in their omission of Hena and Ivvah (also lacking at Isa 36:19)159 and in their retention of the original reading kai\ pou~ e0isi\n oi3 qeoi\ th~j xw%raj zamarei5aj “And where are the gods of the land of Samaria?”160 However, Rahlfs concluded that the Lucianic text of 2 Kgs 18:34 was late, since no other attestation of the “land of Samaria” (Nwrm#$ Cr)) occurs in the Hebrew Bible.161 Orlinsky questioned the validity of Rahlfs’ criterion, observing that the “gods of the nations” in 18:33 are represented as potential deliverers, each of “his own land” (wcr)) and again in

157

For the assignment of the content in 2 Kgs 18:5*, 7–8 to the HH, see above 8.4. Gonçalves 1999: 53; Naʾaman 2003: 213–14. I am willing to concede with Hardmeier (1991: 96–108) that, in the present text, 2 Kgs 18:9 opens the narrative of 18:9–19:37. However, the source used for the B1 narrative probably originally opened with 18:13*, and 18:9– 11 was inserted by the HH-historian to prepare for it; see above 8.5. 159 The two words have been added under the influence of 2 Kgs 19:13 // Isa 37:13, where they are present in all textual witnesses (except LXXL with Hena only). 160 Similarly, OL: ubi sunt dii terrae Samariae and Artham; see Klostermann 1887: 462; Benzinger 1899: 181; Kittel 1900: 284; Burney 1903: 342; Stade and Schwally 1904: 274–5; Orlinsky 1939–40: 45–6; Gray 1963: 615; Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 224, 233; Anbar 1990: 7–8; Gallagher 1999: 170; Wildberger 2002: 375; Naʾaman 2003: 204–12. Montgomery and Gehmen (1951: 490, 503) regard the difficult reading of MT 18:34 as a secondary accretion on the basis of 19:13 and the smoother readings of LXXL and OL as later pluses; similarly, Person 1997: 63. 161 Rhalfs 1911: 278; similarly, Kaiser 1969: 311; Barthélemy 1982: 411. 158

382

Chapter Nine: The Story of the Deliverance of Jerusalem

18:35 (twcr)h yhl) and Mcr)).162 He also points out that 1 Kgs 13:32; 2 Kgs 17:24, 26; 23:19 refer to the “cities of Samaria” (Nwrm#$ yr(), referring not to the city itself but to its general vicinity. According to 2 Kgs 17:5, the king of Assyria marched throughout the entire land of the northern kingdom when he conquered Samaria. Two texts even refer to the Israelite king as the “king of Samaria” (1 Kgs 21:1; 2 Kgs 1:3).163 Extra-biblical evidence also supports Orlinsky’s argument, since Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions of the late ninth to mid-eighth centuries B.C.E. refer to the northern kingdom as “the land (KUR) of Samaria.”164 This was one of two Assyrian designations for the northern kingdom in the eighth century B.C.E.165 The other was “the land of Bit-Ḫumri,” which is never encountered in the Hebrew Bible, but which is most common in the inscriptions of Sargon II, who conquered the “extensive land of the house of Omri” (KUR É-Ḫu-um-ri-a rap-ši).166 It is quite possible that the “land of Samaria” in LXXL 18:34 reflects an authentic designation for the northern kingdom in the eighth century B.C.E.167 Gallagher has likewise pointed out that the phrase twcr)h yhl) in 18:35 reflects Akkadian ilāni mātāti (DINGIR.MEŠ KUR.KUR) and occurs nowhere else except for the parallel text in Isa 36:20.168 Naʾaman has argued moreover that the place names mentioned in the B1 narrative at LXXL 18:34 – Hamath, Arpad, Sepharvaim, and Samaria (not Hena and Ivvah, which are missing from LXXL and Isa 36:19) – reflect accurately the time of Sargon II, Sennacherib’s father.169 Hamath, Arpad, and Sa162

Orlinsky 1939–40: 45 n. 30. Kelle 2002: 651. Köckert (2010: 372) has argued that, in relation to the calf image at Bethel, the mention of Samaria in Hos 8:5–6 “likely refers not to the city of the same name but to the Northern kingdom as a whole since — after 733 BCE — its territory hardly extended beyond the city itself and its hinterland.” The “calf of Samaria” invokes the role of the king as representative of YHWH in the royal cult. 164 Kelle (2002: 653) argues that the designation “land of Samaria” probably reflects Hazael of Damascus’ organization of district called “Samaria” in his empire in the ninth century B.C.E., a designation that obtained in the Assyrian inscriptions of the eighth century B.C.E. 165 Ibid. 640. 166 For the text and translation of the Sargon II Cylinder Inscription 19, see Becking 1992: 32 and COS 2.118H; cf. COS 2.118F, 2.118G. 167 Pace Trebolle 1987: 17–19; idem 1989: 196–8. Trebolle attempts to identify an instance of false harmonization (original “gods of the nations” in 18:33 vs. secondary “gods of the lands” in 18:35) on the basis of Talmon’s (1955: 206–8) study of 2 Kgs 19:17b (cf. Person 1997: 66). However, the other uses of Cr) in 18:33, 34, 35 and the spatial-temporal gap between vv. 33 and v. 35 argue against reading 18:33–35 on analogy to Talmon’s reading of 19:17b. 168 Gallagher 1999: 194, 196, 205. 169 Naʾaman 2003: 204–12. Passing over the readings of LXXL 18:34 and Isa 36:20 renders ineffective the criticisms against Naʾaman’s arguments offered in Hjelm 2004: 103 n. 57 and Evans 2009: 76–7. 163

9.6. The Contrast of Samaria and Jerusalem

383

maria joined in the anti-Assyrian revolt after the death of Shalmaneser V in 722 B.C.E. when Sargon became king. The latter also conquered Sepharvaim in his campaign against Babylonia in 710–709 B.C.E. These data led Naʾaman to conclude that the B1 narrative was written in the mid-seventh century B.C.E.170 The similar list of city names at 2 Kgs 19:12–13 is an expanded list (mentioning Gozan, Harran, Rezeph [Raṣappu], Eden [Bīt-Adini], Telassar [Til Aššuri], Lair [Laḫiru], Hena, and Ivvah) reflecting Babylonian campaigns to northern Mesopotamia and Syria in 612–605 B.C.E. Naʾaman points out that the list of cities in the B2 narrative does not make any reference to (the land of) Samaria.171 Unlike the author of B1, the author of B2 was not concerned with contrasting the fates of Samaria and Jerusalem. If one accepts that 2 Kgs 18:32b–34 was original to the HH, then the mention of the “gods of the land of Samaria” in v. 34 is relevant for the outlook of the history.172 The fate of the northern kingdom is attributed ironically in the mouth of the Rabshakeh to the lack of support of its deities. This is an accurate representation of the Sargon II’s description of plundering the gods of Samaria: “I counted as spoil 27,280 people, together with their chariots, and gods, in which they trusted.”173 It is striking that the gods of Samaria are described in this inscription as objects of “trust” (tiklu), the same concern observed in the Rabshakeh’s speeches and in 2 Kgs 18:5 of Hezekiah’s regnal résumé. Anbar has taken the correspondence between the mention of the gods of Samaria in LXXL 18:34 and Sargon II’s plundering of cultic images in Samaria as evidence that the Lucianic version is probably original.174 Becking has argued that the spoliation of the gods of Samaria in Nimrud Prism IV: 32 cannot be merely a literary topos but must constitute a real event.175 This supports the hypothesis that divine images, probably anthropomorphic, were a core element of the royal cult of Samaria. YHWH was still the dynastic god of 170

Naʾaman 2003: 217. Ibid. 214; cf. Provan 1988: 129 n. 114; Gonçalves 1999: 53. 172 Duhm (1902: 237) argued that 2 Kgs 18:32b–35 is secondary since it stands in conflict with 18:25; however, this view assumes first that the Rabshakeh could not be represented as altering his message to the context (royal delegates vs. the people). Second, Duhm assumes that 18:25 has priority over 18:32b–35, but 18:25 is the perhaps the most problematic verse of the Rabshakeh’s first speech, since it switches from the voice of the Rabshakeh back to the king of Assyria’s voice. Third, it does not follow that the author could not represent the Rabshakeh asserting both that YHWH supported an Assyrian attack and that he was unwilling (or unable?) to save Jerusalem (similarly, Benzinger 1899: 181; Kittel 1900: 284). The Rabshakeh’s argument may only re-emphasize YHWH’s unwillingness to act on behalf of Jerusalem. Fourth, Duhm’s arguments allow for two earlier traditions relating to the Rabshakeh to be brought together in the B1 narrative (so Childs 1967: 90). 173 COS 2.118D, column IV, lines 31–33. For the text and translation, see Becking 1992: 28–30. 174 Anbar 1990: 7–8. 175 Becking 1997: 165. 171

384

Chapter Nine: The Story of the Deliverance of Jerusalem

the northern kingdom and an image of him was housed at Samaria (similar to the calves at Bethel).176 However, it is clear in the B1 narrative that YHWH, who rescued Jerusalem from Assyria, is dissociated from the “gods of the land of Samaria.”177 The mention of Samaria appeals to the role of the royal cult in its misguided attempt to defend the kingdom from outside invasion (cf. Hos 8:4–6*). The possibility cannot be excluded that there is an implicit criticism of the calf of Bethel representing the patron deity of the royal cult of the northern kingdom, since it is the “land of Samaria” mentioned. This is a blanket statement in the B1 narrative on the erroneous cultic practices of the northern kingdom at large precipitating its defeat. Even if the author of the HH did not pen LXXL 4 Reg 18:34, the standpoint therein could be brought easily into line with 1 Kgs 12:28 (cf. Amos 7:13), according to which the main cultic center of the northern kingdom was located in Bethel (not in the city of Samaria);178 or with 1 Kgs 16:32, where Ahab builds an altar to Baal in Samaria. The statement in LXXL 18:34 complements the synchronization of the subjugation of the northern kingdom in Hoshea’s days with the reign of Hezekiah in 18:9–11.

9.7. The Reference to Cultic Centralization in the B1 Narrative (2 Kings 18:22) In addition to the reference to Hezekiah’s cultic reform in 18:4, another reference to the same event occurs in the B1 narrative in the first speech of the Rabshakeh. 2 Kings 18:22

_tRa◊w wy∞DtOmD;b_tRa ‹…wh‹Î¥yIq◊zIj ry§IsEh r°RvSa a…w#h_awølSh …wnVj¡DfD;b …wny™EhølTa h¶Dwh◊y_lRa y$AlEa N…wêrVmaøt_yIk◊w [MÊ`DlDv…wryI;b] …wäwSjA;tVv`I;t hY‰%zAh Aj∞E;b◊zI;mAh ‹y´nVpIl MÊ$AlDv…wêryIl◊w ‹h∂d…why`Il rRmaôø¥yÅw wy$DtOjV;b◊zIm

176

Köchert 2010: 364–76. Related is the perspective of Isa 10:5–9, [10–11], which is critical of the Assyrian king’s (i.e., Sargon II) hubris in boasting of being able to destroy any nation that he desires, including Hamath, Arpad, and Samaria. 10:5–9 is considered genuine to Isaiah; see de Jong 2007: 127–30. Naʾaman (2003: 213–14) is therefore correct to point out that this perspective in a genuine text of Isaiah suggests the pre-exilic date of the B1 narrative. After arguing that Isa 10:5–15* was originally part of the B1 narrative, Scurlock (2011: 300) stresses the constrast between YHWH in Jerusalem and the local gods of Samaria, Damascus, Hamath, or any city in the area. The point is that it is only YHWH whose altar resided in Jerusalem, if one reads 2 Kgs 18:22 together with v. 34 and Isa 10:5–11. 178 Köchert 2010: 368–9. 177

9.7. The Reference to Cultic Centralization in the B1 Narrative

385

But if you say to me, “Upon179 YHWH our God we trust.” Is he not the one whose bāmôt and altars Hezekiah has removed and said to Judah and to Jerusalem, “Before this altar you shall worship [in Jerusalem]?”180

Scholarship is divided along two main lines, detecting in 2 Kgs 18:22 either a genuine statement of the Rabshakeh’s disputation preserved in the B1 narrative or an addition added to the B1 narrative on the basis of 18:4.181 Scholars of the former persuasion typically maintain that the Rabshakeh’s reference to Hezekiah’s cultic reform is based on the capabilities of Neo-Assyrian intelligence operations that would have put such information to use in psychological warfare.182 Dubovský has demonstrated “that the Neo-Assyrian intelligence described in the biblical texts corresponds to the Neo-Assyrian intelligence services and operations reconstructed on the basis of Sennacherib’s annals and the Neo-Assyrian archives.”183 He offers two caveats, however: first, it is possible that later biblical redactors were still familiar with the customs of the Neo-Assyrian intelligence services even centuries later; second, it is possible that the modes of the Neo-Assyrian intelligence services were pervasive 179 Reading l( with LXX-Kgs, 1QIsaa, LXX-Isa, and the Syriac in place of l) in MTKgs and MT-Isa (contra the retroversions of the LXX into Hebrew in Person 1997: 14). The original reading of l( x+b comports with the same usage in the surrounding context (2 Kgs 18:20, 21, 24). 180 The reading of Myl#$wryb is absent from MT/LXX-Isa 36:7 and 2 Chr 32:12; see Person 1997: 59. Catastini (1989: 268) has argued unconvincingly that the reading of LXX-Isa 36:7, which lacks the statements concerning Hezekiah’s cultic reform from wwxt#$t to )wlh, is original. His argument is not to be followed, because an omission of 2 Kgs 18:22b leaves the Rabshakeh’s initial statement in 18:22a hanging. The statement on Hezkiah’s cultic reform has probably been omitted in LXX-Isa’s Vorlage due to theological reasons: the bāmôt are claimed as belonging to YHWH, yet are frequently associated with foreign cultic practices; see Person 1997: 59. 181 For the view that 2 Kgs 18:22 is an authentic part of the Rabshakeh’s disputation, see Nöldeke 1869: 126–8; Cheyne 1882: I, 197; Keunen 1887: 1.193, §11 n. 9; Kittel 1888: II, 302; idem 1909: II, 293; Steuernagel 1896: 101; Skinner 1904: 390; Barnes 1908: 101; König 1917: 49; G. A. Smith 1918: ci n. 2; Honor 1926: 52; Siebens 1929: 159; Montgomery and Gehemen 1951: 487; Nicholson 1963: 382; Rowley 1963: 129 n. 4, 130; Weinfeld 1964: 202; Childs 1967: 82; Deutsch 1969: 106–7; McKay 1973: 17; Cogan 1974: 96; Oded 1977: 442; Zorn 1977: 200; Ahlström 1982: 67 n. 115; Bright 1982: 282; Hobbs 1985: 257; Vogt 1986: 4; Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 231; Gallagher 1999: 189; Milgrom 2000: 69 (not verbatim but based on historical tradition); Liverani 2005: 159–60; Miller and Hayes 2006: 368, 414; Horn and McCarter 2011: 361 n. 124; Young 2012: 106. For the view that 2 Kgs 18:22 has been added to the B1 under the influence of 18:4, see Benzinger 1899: 180; Duhm 1902: 229; Haag 1958: 351; Kaiser 1969: 308; Wildberger 2002 (1982): 384–5; Gonçalves 1986: 74–6; Würthwein 1984: 422; Provan 1988: 85; Ben Zvi 1990: 85 (also influenced by Deut 7:5; 12:2–3); Camp 1990: 115; Naʾaman 1995: 182; idem 2003: 218; Gleis 1997: 153 n. 274; Fritz 1998: 112; Kratz 2000a: 173; idem 2010: 135; Blanco Wißmann 2008: 84. 182 Cheyne 1882: I, 197; Skinner 1904: 390; Honor 1926: 52. 183 Dubovský 2006: 239.

386

Chapter Nine: The Story of the Deliverance of Jerusalem

among the imperial powers of the first millennium B.C.E., including Babylon, Persia, and Greece.184 Consequently, the supposition that the intelligence operations of the Neo-Assyrian would have provided the Rabshakeh with information on Hezekiah’s reform, even if plausible, has not been proven. Honor and Childs have argued that the Rabshakeh’s claim that YHWH was angry with Hezekiah because he removed his bāmôt and altars is too involved an idea to be regarded as the design of a later redactor.185 However, Childs sees the Rabshakeh in possession of a “pagan point of view” of Hezekiah’s reform, so that the Assyrian delegate’s criticism is misguided in the context of a pro-Hezekian Judah: “Only someone completely removed from the Hebrew religion could have interpreted Hezekiah’s reform as an insult to Israel’s deity.”186 However, probably not everyone in Judah was satisfied with Hezekiah’s removal of the bāmôt (e.g., Arad and Beersheba).187 Weinfeld claimed that the theological force of the Rabshakeh’s speeches in the B1 narrative (2 Kgs 18:19–25, 28–35) has its roots in the prophecies of Isaiah (Isa 8:5–8; 10:5–11), and the later disciples of Isaiah placed a “veiled protest” in the mouth of the Rabshakeh expressing disapproval of Hezekiah’s reform.188 This suggests that the B1 narrative does not preserve the ipsissima verba of the Rabshakeh’s disputation but still reflects a genuine reaction of some of the Judahite populace to the reform. Whether spoken by the Rabshakeh himself or as comprising a genuine part of the B1 narrative, both views consider 2 Kgs 18:22 not to have derived from the same author responsible for the bāmôtnotices of the framework (esp. 2 Kgs 18:4). If two distinct authors referred independently to Hezekiah’s cultic reform, this is stronger testimony to suggest the historical probability of such an event.189

184

Ultimately, Dubovský (ibid. 241) concludes with literary critics that the speeches of the Rabshakeh reflect the later theological intentions of the biblical authors. 185 Honor 1926: 52; Childs 1967: 82. 186 Ibid. 82. 187 Cogan and Tadmor (1988: 231) argue that 18:22 is authentic to the Rabshakeh’s speech and that “the reform was introduced within Judah without much popular support and so could have served the polemical purposes of the Assyrian speaker.” 188 Weinfeld 1964: 208; similarly, Rowley 1963: 130; Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 243; Handy 1988: 114; Young 2012: 137 n. 38. Cogan (1974: 96 n. 170) criticizes Weinfeld’s view arguing that Isaiah would not have supported the bāmôt because of their incorporation of “pagan” accoutrements. However, there is no evidence for determining Isaiah’s actual views on Hezekiah’s reform. References to cultic objects in Isaiah are typically held to be later additions. Moreover, the use of the term “pagan” (or “foreign”) is probably anachronistic in the context of YHWHistic religion of 701 B.C.E., especially in the context of the HH, which maintains that the bāmôt were YHWHistic. 189 Already Nöldeke 1869: 126–8; recently, Young 2012: 106. This point is left unnoticed by Smelik 1986: 90 n. 58; idem 1992: 111 n. 67 and Hardmeier 1990: 311–2, 395, both of whom argue that 18:4 and 18:22 were written independently. Methodologically, this is a

9.7. The Reference to Cultic Centralization in the B1 Narrative

387

In order to accept the view that 2 Kgs 18:4 and 18:22 stem from separate authors, one must verify that v. 22 is secure in the context of the B1 narrative.190 However, scholars have ordinarily argued that 18:22 is secondary to its surrounding context, having been inserted on the basis of 18:4.191 They observe that the Rabshakeh addresses Hezekiah with the second person singular (trm), v. 20) in 18:19–22 but switches abruptly to the second masculine plural (Nwrm)t) to address Hezekiah’s messengers in 18:22.192 The plural must be original since Hezekiah is mentioned in the third person in v. 22b, which is also unusual. Finally, the specific issues raised by the Rabshakeh open with ht( (vv. 20b, 21, 23, 25), which is not present before the reference to Hezekiah’s removal of the bāmôt. None of these points by themselves is decisive proof against the original inclusion of 18:22 in the B1 narrative. The observation has already been made that the genre of diplomatic disputation allows for Rabshakeh’s freedom to negotiate with Hezekiah’s embassy while delivering a message (9.3). It naturally follows then that Hezekiah would be mentioned in the third person if the Rabshakeh turns to address his envoys in 18:22, implementing the second masculine plural. Indeed, the use of ht( in 18:20b, 21, 23, 25 is restricted to the Rabshakeh’s primary address to Hezekiah, whereas ykw in 18:22 marks the Rabshakeh’s own comment to the Jerusalemite delegates (cf. Deut 18:21; 1 Sam 24:20 [Heb]; Isa 8:19; Mal 1:8). The initial waw is disjunctive and breaks the context of the formal address to Hezekiah, which is resumed in v. 23 with the repetition of ht(w.193 Yet all of vv. 22–24 are spoken in the voice of the Rabshakeh (in contrast to vv. 20–21 in Sennacherib’s voice), which may be taken as an indication that 18:22 is located appropriately before vv. 23–24. It is not enough to argue that 18:22 is a late insertion in the B1 narrative on grounds of syntax or stylistic cohesion alone.194 separate issue from discerning a social context behind redactional texts employing identical language, since 18:4 and 18:22 make reference to an actual event. 190 Montgomery and Gehmen 1951: 502; Childs 1967: 82–5; Hardmeier 1990: 331–2, 395; Young 2012: 105. 191 Hitzig 1833: 415; Meinhold 1898: 66–67; Benzinger 1899: 180; Duhm 1902: 229; McKenzie 1991: 104; Naʾaman 1995: 183. 192 The readings with the singular in LXXL 2 Kgs 18:22; MT-Isa 36:7 are secondary alterations influenced by the singular verbs of the surrounding context; so Duhm 1902: 229; pace Person 1997: 57. 193 I prefer this explanation to the suggestion that 18:22 is a continuation of v. 21 with the same theme of trust, since the latter is repeated throughout the first speech of the Rabshakeh; pace Young 2012: 104 n. 44. 194 Noteworthy is McKenzie’s (1991: 104) contention that the mention of the cultic reform in 18:22 breaks the flow of the Rabshekeh’s speech from his initial statement of Egypt as a weak alliance (“crushed reed”) in v. 21 to the following statement in vv. 23–24 that Hezekiah is trusting in Egypt for chariotry. However, as an indication of the lateness of 18:22, this argument is not definitive. The reference to Egypt in v. 24b is attached loosely to

388

Chapter Nine: The Story of the Deliverance of Jerusalem

Scholars also argue that 2 Kgs 18:22 is secondary to the B1 narrative due to its shared terminology with the report of Hezekiah’s reform in 18:4.195 Both texts make use of rws (hiphil) to express the removal of the bāmôt. Beyond this single agreement, however, the remaining terminology of 18:22 does not match the terminology of 18:4. On the face of it, the emphatic )wh of both texts suggests a connection, but any agreement must be considered uncertain as Hezekiah is the antecedent of the pronoun in 18:4 whereas it is YHWH in 18:22.196 None of the remaining cultic objects in 18:4 such as the pillars, ʾăšērîm, or bronze serpent are mentioned in 18:22. In the Rabshakeh’s speech, Hezekiah is said to have removed YHWH’s bāmôt and “his altars” (wytxbzm) and even includes Hezekiah’s own command to the Judahites only to worship before the altar in Jerusalem. The cultic report in 18:4 refers neither to altars (contrast 2 Chr 31:1) nor to Hezekiah’s command to worship exclusively at the Jerusalemite altar. If 18:22 is based on Hezekiah’s cultic report in 18:4, its author composed the rest of v. 22b in free style or with the use of another source. Scholars have argued that the reform reports in 2 Kgs 18:4, 22 are based on an existing Deuteronomic legal corpus (Deut 12:2–4; 2 Kgs 23:4–15) or the nomistic frame of mind observed in 2 Kgs 18:6, 12.197 Yet none of these scholars has demonstrated the direct influence of Deuteronomy, 2 Kgs 18:6, 12, or 23:4–15 on 18:22. Smelik offers no direct evidence for his statement, “Rabshakeh’s argument appears to be inspired by Deut. xii 2ff. and II Kings v. 24a with a waw-consecutive, so that Egypt was perhaps not mentioned again after v. 21 (Benzinger 1899: 180; Childs 1967: 79; Camp 1990: 117). If the claim that YHWH commissioned the Assyrian king to invade Judah in v. 25 is original, then the structure of vv. 21 (A– Egypt), 22 (B–YHWH’s displeasure) corresponds to that of vv. 23–24 (A’–Egypt), 25 (B’– YHWH’s displeasure). 195 Ben Zvi 1990: 85; Naʾaman 1995: 183; Kratz 2010: 135. 196 LXXL 2 Kgs 18:22/MT-2 Chr 32:12 read rysh whyqzx )wh “this same Hezekiah removed” presumably with an anaphoric function of the pronoun, which in constrast to 2 Kgs 18:22 operates well after the mention of Hezekiah in 2 Chr 32:11. Lacking in 2 Chr 32 is the statement, “But if you tell me, ‘Upon YHWH our god we trust.” The focus of Sennacherib’s message in 2 Chr 32 is on Hezekiah, whereas in 2 Kgs 18:22, the focus is explicitly on trust in YHWH. Muraoka (1985: 65) notes that the anaphoric use of )wh occurs only in post-exilic texts: Ezr 7:6; Neh 10:38; 1 Chr 9:26; 26:26; 27:6; 2 Chr 28:22; 32:12, 30; 33:23. The reading at 2 Chr 32:12 seems to be a re-interpretation of 2 Kgs 18:22 and not a quotation of its Kings-Vorlage; nor is it more original than the reading of 2 Kgs 18:22 // Isa 36:7; pace Auld 1994: 121. The reading of LXXL 2 Kgs 18:22 must be secondary for the reason that it does not work in the context of B1 (Hezekiah is the addressee not the topic of discourse) and is perhaps owing to the influence of 2 Chr 32. 197

For the view that 18:22 is based on Deut 12:2ff. and 2 Kgs 23:4ff, see Smelik 1986: 90 n. 58; idem 1992: 111 n. 67; Ben Zvi 1990: 85. For the view that 2 Kgs 18:22 was influenced by 18:12 and the Josianic reform, see Graf 1866: 168; for the view that 18:22 is DtrN, see Würthwein 1984: 421, 422.

9.7. The Reference to Cultic Centralization in the B1 Narrative

389

xxiii 8ff. rather than by II Kings xviii 4.”198 Ben Zvi’s statement, “The reference to altars immediately after twmb occurs also in Deut 7:5; 12:2–3,” is not fact-based.199 The word hmb never appears in Deuteronomy with a cultic meaning and never in collocation with xbzm.200 The terms hmb and xbzm appear together elsewere in texts that are potentially early (1 Kgs 3:4 and Hos 10:8),201 texts influenced by the Josianic reform (1 Kgs 12:32; 13:2, 32; 2 Kgs 21:3 [// 2 Chr 33:3]; 23:9, 15, 20), and texts that are exilic or later (Ezek 6:6; 1 Chr 21:29; 2 Chr 14:3; 31:1). The Josianic texts refer to the “priests” or “houses” of the bāmôt (1 Kgs 12:32; 13:2, 32; 2 Kgs 23:9) and to “tearing down” (Ctn) or “burning” (Pr#&) the bāmôt, not to removing (rws hiphil) them. The sacrifice of the bāmôt-priests on the altars at Bethel in 2 Kgs 23:20 is especially detached from the context of 2 Kgs 18:4, 22! In sum, there is no straightforward reinforcement for the view that 2 Kgs 18:22 is interconnected with Deuteronomy or with the portrayal of the Josianic reform. Nor is there in 18:22 any allusion to an existing legal corpus as forming the rationale for Hezekiah’s reform. Hezekiah’s injunction in 18:22b is unique to the Bible. The idiom hwx ynpl appears in Deut 26:10 but also in 1 Sam 1:19 (at Shiloh!) and in Pss 22:28, 30; 86:9; 95:6. It is not a Deuteronomistic idiom per se and is not to be found elsewhere in Deuteronomy–Judges (esp. Deut 12) or in 1–2 Kgs (esp. ch. 23).202 In addition, as a rule the preposition ynpl of that idiom governs a personal object (people of the land [Gen 23:12]; YHWH [Deut 26:10; 1 Sam 1:19; Isa 66:23; Ezek 46:3; Pss 22:28, 30; 86:9; 95:6], other deities [2 Chr 25:14], or the king [2 Sam 14:33; 1 Kgs 1:23]). In 2 Kgs 18:22b, the object of ynpl hwx is not personal but the concrete object hzh xbzmh: “Before this altar you shall worship.” This unique command in 2 Kgs 18:22b may go back to an authentic source or memory; or else it is a free creation. In the end, either 2 Kgs 18:22 is an authentic piece of the B1 narrative, which provides supportive evidence for the historicity of Hezekiah’s cultic reform, or it is based on the bāmôt-notice in 18:4a combined with the (authentic?) command of Hezekiah. It is unlikely that it is a secondary gloss based on the account of the Josianic reform since it only resembles 2 Kgs 18:4a and regards the bāmôt as strictly YHWHistic. If it did not originally belong to the B1 narrative, then the author of the HH-framework integrated it into the con-

198

Smelik 1992: 111 n. 67. Ben Zvi 1990: 85. 200 The term hmb in Deut 32:19 (ketiv), 29 has a topographic meaning; see Hardy and Thomas 2012: 175–88. 201 It still remains open, in my view, whether Hos 10:8 is late as Pfeiffer (1999: 109–10) maintains. 202 Blanco Wißmann 2008: 81 n. 415; pace Hardmeier 1990: 396. 199

390

Chapter Nine: The Story of the Deliverance of Jerusalem

text by using the theme of trust repeated throughout the Rabshakeh’s first speech and at the juncture where the Rabshakeh opens with his own voice.

9.8. The Relevance of the Date of the B1 Narrative If the HH-historian made use of the B1 narrative as I have argued, then the date of the composition of the B1 narrative is relevant for dating the HH. The memory of genuine details of the confrontation with Assyria argues for a preexilic date not too far removed from 701 B.C.E.203 Telling is the accurate memory of Assyria’s military grandeur as well as the concern for the destruction of the northern kingdom in contrast to the deliverance of Jerusalem. The B1 narrative “could have been written only in the pre-exilic time, when Jerusalem and the temple were still intact and the memory of the destruction of the Northern Kingdom was very much alive.”204 The references to Hamath, Arpad, and Samaria in LXXL 4 Reg 18:34 (contrast 19:12–13) correctly reflect the anti-Assyrian revolt against Sargon II in 722 B.C.E. The precise details and accurate memory of the location of the Rabshakeh’s diplomatic disputation in 18:17, the names of the Assyrian and Jerusalemite ambassadors, Taharqo, king of Kush (19:9a), and the Neo-Assyrian intelligence operations all reinforce an early date for the B1 narrative. If the Assyrian withdrawal from Judah was the original rationale for telling the story of the deliverance of Jerusalem, it is imaginable that varying versions of the confrontation with the Rabshakeh were told soon afterwards in Jerusalem.205 If the original B1 narrative also reflected this rationale, then it may also have dated to just after 701 B.C.E. This conclusion presupposes that 2 Kgs 19:36–37 was later added to the B1 narrative and that either 19:32–34, [35] was the original conclusion to the B1 narrative or that the original conclusion was lost in transmission (after 19:9a). Either way, this does not affect the date for the HH in the early-to-mid seventh century B.C.E., but it is significant for determining a more precise date of the history; whether it was written earlier circa 697 B.C.E. and is therefore contemporaneous with Hezekiah or later. If the fundamental rationale for writing the B1 narrative was not merely the Assyrian withdrawal but also the death of Sennacherib in 2 Kgs 19:37, then its terminus post quem is 681 B.C.E. with its incorporation into the HH occur-

203

Wellhausen 1963: 289–90; Clements 1980: 56; Gonçalves 1986: 442–4; Dion 1988: 19; Scurlock 2011: 299–301. 204 Naʾaman 2003: 214. 205 Clements 2011: 106–11.

9.9. Conclusions

391

ring afterwards.206 Favoring this view is the continuous movement of the narrative from 19:1–9a* to 19:36–37 involving the explicit fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy.207 I conclude therefore that, although a date near 700 B.C.E. cannot be ruled out for the earliest edition(s) of the B1 narrative, the most likely date for the composition of its current form is 681 B.C.E. or soon afterwards. Its incorporation into the HH probably did not occur after too long an interval, since it is free from Josianic and Deuteronomic influences. In addition, earlier oral versions must have been told of Jerusalem’s deliverance from Assyria that highlighted Hezekiah’s loyalty to YHWH.

9.9. Conclusions Noth was curiously remiss in omitting a cogent analysis of 2 Kgs 18–20 as part of his grander theory of a unified Deuteronomistic History.208 As mentioned, he dubbed the narrative of 2 Kgs 18–20 “as nothing but a transitory interlude” that Dtr placed between the accounts of the falls of the states of Israel and Judah (2 Kgs 17 and 21).209 This statement might be attributed to his having placed too much weight upon the “negative” outlook of Dtr. His subordination of the Hezekian narrative to the final postmonarchic perspective of Kings, which ends with King Jehoiachin in Babylonian exile, caused him to 206

Kittel 1900: 280–81; Burney 1903: 338–40; Honor 1926: 46–7; Montgomery and Gehmen 1951: 514–5; Clements 1980: 54; Childs 1967: 92; Kaiser 1974: 377; Gonçalves 1986: 428–9; Hutter 1986: 34–9; Laato 1987: 49–68; Provan 1988: 120–28; Camp 1990: 138–9; Scurlock 2011: 299–301. Unconvincing is Cogan’s and Tadmor’s (1988: 240–44) argument that the statment on the death of Sennacherib in 19:37 could only have been written using a Neo-Babylonian chronicle, since it is probably based on an accurate memory of 681 B.C.E. 207 The fulfillment of three elements of Isaiah’s prophecy in 2 Kgs 19:7 occurs in 19:9a and 19:36–37. In 19:7, Isaiah predicts that YHWH will cause the king of Assyria to hear ((m#) a report, return (bw#) to his land, and fall by the sword (brxb) in his land. In 19:9a, the king of Assyria hears ((m#) that Taharqo, king of Kush, had marched out to fight him; in 19:36, Sennacherib returned (bw#) and stayed in Nineveh; in 19:37, while worshipping in the temple of Nisroch, his sons struck him down with the sword (brxb). 208 Similarly, von Rad (1953: 74–91) and Cross (1973: 274–89) were virtually silent about 2 Kgs 18–20. 209 Noth 1981: 73; contrast Long (1991: 192, 195, 216), who regards 2 Kgs 18–20 as intentionally placed against the backdrop of the decline of both the northern and southern kingdoms. According to Noth, Dtr, owing to an interest in the temple, included the subject matter of 18:4b (pulled from the “Books of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah”) and 18:13–16 of the A account (1981: 66). Dtr included the latter to introduce the Isaiah narratives. Dtr also prepared the reader for 18:13–16 (A) in 18:7b (ibid. 132 n. 17). Finally, Noth observed the connection between the report of the downfall of north in 18:9–11 and the earlier report of 17:5–6, included in “the Judean annals” for their obvious significance to a southern audience (ibid. 67).

392

Chapter Nine: The Story of the Deliverance of Jerusalem

overlook its significance for the compositional history of 1–2 Kings. I have argued that the HH-historian may have incorporated and regarded the B1 narrative as the natural conclusion to the history’s climax in Hezekiah’s account. In the aftermath of 701 B.C.E., Hezekiah’s centralizing program in Jerusalem was interpreted as a sign of his “trust” in and loyalty to YHWH by removing the bāmôt (cf. 18:3–5a and 18:19–22). The representation of the deliverance of Jerusalem as owing to Hezekiah’s loyalty and trust in YHWH in accordance with the bāmôt-notices of the framework is remarkably optimistic for a historical work that has been conventionally appreciated as a portrayal of the doom of YHWH’s people. The perspective in 2 Kgs 18:22 that the bāmôt belonged to YHWH is in keeping with the Judahite cultic reports of the framework. The potentially authentic command of Hezekiah in 2 Kgs 18:22b underscores only the centralization of cultic worship in Judah at the temple of Jerusalem. The motivation for their destruction is not attributed to Canaanite syncretism. It is contrary to the legislation on centralization in Deut 12:2–3 that states that Israelites should destroy all the Canaanite places of worship and their cultic objects (i.e., altars, standing stones, ʾăšērîm, and graven images). In contrast, the account of Josiah’s reform comport with the Deuteronomic legislation on centralization. The MT version of 2 Kgs 23:5a states that Josiah abolished the priests of the foreign deities (Myrmk) “that the kings of Judah had set up” and who had “made incense offerings at the bāmôt in the cities of Judah and surrounding Jerusalem.” LXXL 2 Kgs 23:11b states, “He (Josiah) burned the horses … and burned the chariots of the sun with fire in the house of Beth-On, which the kings of Israel had built as a bāmâ for Baal and for all the hosts of heaven.” According to 2 Kgs 23:13 (MT), “the bāmôt near Jerusalem to the right of the Mount of Corruption that Solomon king of Israel had built for Astarte…, Chemosh…, and Molech…. the king defiled.” The B1 narrative does not demonstrate signs of having been influenced by Deuteronomic legislation whereas the Josianic account operates according to the same ideals. It is unlikely that the B1 narrative is a late fiction from the exilic period or later but appears to preserve accurate details with a continous account on the probable encounter between the Rabshakeh and the Jerusalemite delegates. However, if the Rabshakeh did not actually mention Hezekiah’s removal of the bāmôt, as stated in 2 Kgs 18:22, the B1 narrative would still make a direct reference to 2 Kgs 18:4a. In contrast to the Josianic account, neither the regnal résumé for Hezekiah nor the B1 narrative constitutes the final resumptive narrative of the previous history. Instead, 2 Kgs 18:22 would be the concluding reference in the single stream of bāmôt-notices that is embedded within the earlier pre-HH account of Jerusalem’s deliverance. The framework would constitute a unified whole attached to the B1 narrative through allusion and repetition of major themes. Unlike the Josianic account, the elements of the

9.9. Conclusions

393

HH-framework are not resumed in the B1 narrative after ranging over large textual gaps but are directly sequential (18:1–11 and then 18:13–19:37*).210

210

Contrast the resumption of Solomon’s bāmâ from 1 Kgs 11:7–8 at 2 Kgs 23:13.

Chapter Ten

The Hezekian History in Its Historical Context 10.1. Introduction Having given much space to internal textual matters, the final portion of this study is dedicated to situating the reconstructed framework of the HH within its external historical and literary contexts. It is my intention in the present chapter to argue for the historicity of Hezekiah’s reform, the primary objective of which was the centralization of the cult in Jerusalem. It has been necessary at some junctures to reflect on external historical matters that were relevant to the previous literary discussion. I will resume those points and expand on them in order to flesh out the historical issues surrounding the reform and, in particular, to determine the intention of Hezekiah and his followers in undertaking such a radical action.

10.2. The Historicity of Hezekiah’s Reform It will be recalled from the introduction to this work that some scholars (most prominently, Wellhausen) doubted the factual character of the reports of Hezekiah’s reform at 2 Kgs 18:4 and 18:22. If one accepts the literary arguments offered thus far, however, the likelihood that a cultic reform occurred in some form must be acknowledged. Either the authors of the framework themselves or the sources for their historical information were able to provide eyewitness testimony of the events of Hezekiah’s reign. If one acknowledges this, then one would have to reject their testimony as (in some way) disingenuous or at least as a completely misguided attempt to evaluate Hezekiah’s reign. Similarly, if one accepts that 2 Kgs 18:4 and 18:22 are of diverse provenance, then one must contend with the corroboration of Hezekiah’s reform through multiple witnesses.1 Hezekiah’s reign was precisely the time when a religious-political program of cultic centralization would have made sense. The period following the fall 1 Young 2012: 106. This point is not discussed by Hardmeier (1990), who, though regarding 18:4, 22 as fictional, accepts that 2 Kgs 18:22 belonged to a continuous narrative different from and earlier than the exilic Dtr redaction in 18:1–12 (including 18:4).

10.3. Indications from Hosea and Isaiah

395

of the northern kingdom (ca. 720 B.C.E.) was ideal for growth of the capital at Jerusalem. Israelite refugees were streaming into Judah and the latter’s population increased sizably especially from 730 to 701 B.C.E.2 The settlements throughout Judah expanded greatly and the city of Jerusalem was enlarged greatly to the west to make room for the arriving population. The western expansion of the city was reinforced with the massive “Broad Wall,” some 7 m. thick, to make up for the topographical weaknesses in that area in preparation for Assyrian attack.3 The massive city wall around the southwestern hill ran south of the Siloam Pool, which was fed by the newly constructed water tunnel whose source was the Gihon Spring. Hezekiah’s construction of the wall and water tunnel provided a strong defensive measure against the Assyrian army.4 Refugees not only from northern Israel but also from Judah itself flocked to Jerusalem for protection. After 701 B.C.E., Hezekiah possessed only his expanded capital in Jerusalem, and he and its residents would have recognized that YHWH had safeguarded the city from the Assyrian onslaught and would have acknowledged it as the true sanctuary of Judah’s worship.5 The effect of the collapses of the northern kingdom and its official cult as well as the looming Assyrian threat to Judah should not be underestimated for interpreting the historical context in the late eighth century B.C.E. Only immediately prior to and during the time of Hezekiah does one observe the historical backdrop required for the origin of the demand for cultic centralization.

10.3. Indications from Hosea and Isaiah The impression of the late eighth century in Judah gained from this brief historical outline is further evidenced in the prophetic messages of Hosea and Isaiah. The first prophesied the doom of the northern kingdom on account of cultic misdemeanors of the kings and people. According to Hos 3:4–5, the poor decision on the part of the northern population to break away from the Davidic kingdom would result in loss of kingship and sacrifice. The people of Israel would then return to YHWH and to the Davidic king. As Schniedewind points out, David is regarded in this text as the true king of the northerners (“their king” in 3:5).6 Another text, Hos 8:4–6, states that northern Israel made kings without YHWH’s authority or approval and constructed false images. Special mention is made of the “calf of Samaria,” which may refer to 2

Vaughn 1999: 19–79; Finkelstein and Silberman 2006: 265–6. Broshi 1974: 21–6. 4 Geva 2003: 198. 5 W. R. Smith 1912: 359–63. 6 Schniedewind 2004: 87. 3

396

Chapter Ten: The Hezekian History in Its Historical Context

the cultic worship of the entire northern kingdom (see 10:5–6; 13:2–3).7 The image of the calf is contrasted with YHWH, who is not to be represented iconically (and this in agreement with the standard prohibition against cultic images at Exod 20:4). According to v. 11 of the same chapter in Hosea, “When Ephraim made many altars for sin, his altars became occasions of sin,” a statement that qualifies the multiplication of sacrificial altars as wrongful. Similarly, in 10:1–2 (cf. 4:7), it is stated, A proliferate vine is Israel, it ripens fruit for itself. The more plentiful its fruit, the more it multiplied altars; The more excellent its land, the more elaborate they fashioned standing stones. Their heart is treacherous, they will suffer their guilt; He [i.e., God] will break their altars, he will destroy their standing stones.

Hosea’s main criticism (which is in basic agreement with the messages of Amos, Isaiah, and Micah) was that the court and priests were more concerned with appeasing YHWH (and other deities) through (false) cultic rites than with administering social justice. But a portion of his message underscored that the proliferation of altars and cultic objects was commensurate with Israel’s indifference to serving YHWH wholeheartedly. This resulted in the threat that YHWH would destroy Israel’s altars and major cultic cities (see Isa 27:9; Amos 7:9; Hos 10:8; Mic 5:12–13 [Heb 5:13–14]).8 Consequently, in the mid-to-late eighth century B.C.E., one already detects that YHWH was irritated with the careless increase in sacrificial altars in the northern kingdom and intended to destroy them. Conversely, a Zionist-centric ideology that regarded Jerusalem as YHWH’s inviolable cultic sanctuary is presented in Isaiah.9 In Isa 18:4 and 18:7, YHWH is said to rest confidently in his habitation (Nwkm) and tribute is to be brought to him “at the place (Mwqm) of the name of YHWH of Hosts, namely, the mountain of Zion.” Isaiah 30:29 refers to Jerusalem as the “mountain of YHWH,” and in 31:8–9, Assyria’s fall is predicted not as occurring with human violence but as a melting of rock before the fire of YHWH that resides in Zion, that is, in Jerusalem. In contrast to the instability and

7

Köckert 2010: 372. Zimmerli (1971: 86–96) argued that Hosea was the first to polemicize against the northern calf and that Hezekiah’s reform should be viewed against this background. 8 That there were several official manifestations of YHWH is suggested by the inscriptions from Kuntillet Ajrud (“YHWH of Samaria” and “YHWH of Teman”); see DobbsAllsopp et al. 2004: 289–96. Various biblical verses seem to indicate that this was true of northern Israel alone: Amos 8:14: “(As for) those who swear by the guilt Samaria, and say, ‘By the life of your god, O Dan! By the life of the Way of Beersheba!’ they will fall and never rise again”; similarly, 1 Kgs 12:28b (Bethel and Dan): Here is your god (MT: These are your gods), O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt.” 9 Steuernagel 1896: 104–8; Similarly, Dillmann 1898: 313–4; Siebens 1929: 162.

10.4. The Relationship of the HH to the Covenant Code

397

eventual collapse of the northern kingdom, Jerusalem is assured victory against outside enemies while YHWH resides within its confines.10 Divine support for Jerusalem and the Davidic line is also observed in the royal psalm found in Psalm 2 (vv. 6–7; cf. 2 Sam 7:14): “I myself have set my king over Zion, my holy mountain. I will proclaim the (adoption) decree of YHWH.” He said to me, “You are my son. Today I myself have begotten you.”

In the southern kingdom, then, YHWH took on a royal profile as the divine king of Zion whose rule was mediated through the Davidic king by legal adoption. Spatially, this is perceived in the plan of the temple of YHWH and the Davidic royal palace which were located together in Jerusalem.

10.4. The Relationship of the HH to the Covenant Code One should consider the place of the HH within the broader context of the legal material of the Pentateuch – not merely Deuteronomy but also the Covenant Code (CC) at Exod 20:21–23:33. Before Hezekiah’s reign there were multiple sacrificial sites in Israel and Judah – as in Moab11 – where YHWH could be celebrated with official support. Albertz has argued that the CC formed the legal basis for Hezekiah’s reform, particularly the Altar Law in 20:24 stating that legitimate sacrificial worship could only be carried out at officially declared cultic places of YHWH.12 The lawgivers would have limited the cult to clearly indicated YHWHistic sanctuaries to prevent the worship of other gods and goddesses and to protect YHWH from cultic manipulation. Hezekizah would have removed only the open-air high places, not the official YHWHistic temple sites. The former would have been especially open to misunderstanding as syncretistic sites of worship. Unfortunately, there is not much evidence to support the idea that the bāmôt were open-air sites outside of the official domain (see 8.3.4). Albertz’s suggestion does not accord with Hezekiah’s edict in 2 Kgs 18:22: “before this altar you shall worship in Jerusalem.”13 According to Osumi, the main focus of that reform would have been on cultic politics, not on issues of social justice, which is a primary concern of the CC.14 There is no explicit statement in the HH of Hezekiah’s concern for social justice in relation to his cultic reform. Osumi also observes that 10

Köckert 2010: 381–3. Barrick 1991: 67–89. 12 Albertz 1994: 182–4. 13 Albertz (ibid. 334 n. 150) thinks that 2 Kgs 18:22 is late and based on the Josianic account in ch. 23, “where complete centralization of the cult is presupposed.” For a critique of this argument, see above 9.7. 14 Osumi 1991: 178. 11

398

Chapter Ten: The Hezekian History in Its Historical Context

the altar at Arad was decomissioned even though it was constructed according to the law of the altar in Exod 20:25–26 (see below 10.5.1).15 To be sure, the CC demonstrates that the question of legitimacy was being asked in regard to YHWHistic official cultic sites in the mid-century B.C.E., but there must have been another rationale for cancelling the Arad altar, not to mention the entire temple there. There are no clear indications that Hezekiah’s rationale for the reform was identical to the concerns of the CC.

10.5. Archaeological Evidence 10.5.1. Arad The historicity of Hezekiah’s cultic reform afforded by investigating the historical period and the prophetic texts of the late eighth century B.C.E. is also corroborated by archaeological evidence.16 The sites of Arad, Beersheba, and Lachish have figured most prominently in scholarly debate. According to Herzog, the temple constructed inside the Arad fortress existed only during two strata dated to the mid-to-late eighth century B.C.E., namely, strata X and IX (ca. 50–80 years).17 The presence of another temple in Judah at this time is extraordinary, having been constructed not too long before Hezekiah’s reform.18 The temple was deliberately cancelled in Hezekiah’s time at the end of stratum IX prior to stratum VIII, which was destroyed in 701 B.C.E. (contemporary with Lachish III), and was never rebuilt. The main pieces of evidence that Herzog employs to argue for the cancellation of the temple are his renewed analysis of the floor-levels with the temple and that the entire temple – courtyard, storage rooms, main hall (hekal), adytum (debir), and altar – was

15 Ibid. 180. One may add that the aniconic standing stones buried at Arad also argue against regarding aniconism as the grounds for the cancellation of the Arad temple. 16 The extensive debate on Hezekiah’s reform particularly with regard to supporting archaeological evidence cannot be repeated here in its entirety. I refer the reader to: Herzog 2001: 156–78; idem 2002: 3–109; idem 2010: 169–99; Naʾaman 2002: 585–602; Fried 2002: 437–65; Münnich 2004: 333–46; Finkelstein and Silberman 2006: 259–85; Edelman 2008: 395–434; Young 2012: 93–101. 17 Herzog 2001: 174; idem 2010: 175. 18 Aharoni (1968: 28–9) designated the Arad temple as a “border temple” like those constructed at Bethel and Dan and the intention for such a temple was “to give divine and royal authority to the new borders.” This interpretation founders on the fact that the temple did not exist in the tenth century B.C.E. as Aharoni had first supposed, and thus could not reflect Solomonic dominion. Herzog (2001: 170) suggests that temple “may reflect the need for popular ceremonial centres throughout the kingdom of Judah.” Such a scenario is suggestive in connection with the expression in the HH-framework: “the people kept sacrificing and burning incense at the bāmôt.”

10.5. Archaeological Evidence

399

buried with no sign of destruction under 1 meter of earthen fill.19 Whereas the rest of the fortress was destroyed in stratum IX, the temple complex showed no indication of conflagration or debris. The floor levels in the courtyard of stratum VIII were about 2 meters higher than the main hall (hekal) and the adytum (debir). In the absence of any indication of a wall to retain such a fill or stairs to descend into the debir, the main hall adytum could not have been in use while the courtyard was filled up above the level of the sacrificial altar in stratum VIII. All valuable objects were removed prior to cancellation (including the metal grid atop the altar), the incense altars were buried under stratum IX, and a standing stone (hbcm) was laid carefully on its side. Thus, it is difficult to argue that the discontinuation of the temple toward the end of stratum IX was not intentional.20 10.5.2. Beersheba A similar debate has materialized around the discovery of a large four-horned altar at Beersheba not found in situ. The altar was dismantled with some of its stones buried in the stratum II glacis for (non-sacred) use in a corner wall of a pillared house.21 It is uncertain whether the altar belonged to a roofed multiroomed temple complex, as at Arad, or whether it functioned in an open shrine.22 Stratum II was destroyed in a conflagration that Aharoni attributed to Sennacherib’s army in 701 B.C.E (contemporary with Lachish III and Arad VIII) after the prior dismantling and reuse of the altar in the wall. This is positive evidence to support the historicity of Hezekiah’s cultic reform reported in 2 Kgs 18:4. According to Herzog, although archaeological evidence has not supplied us with absolute proof of Hezekiah’s reform, the evidence suggests that the reform is a “very likely possibility.” He has “no doubt that even without the Biblical evidence we would have explained the finds at Arad and Tel Beer-sheba as reflecting a religious revolution.”23 Nevertheless, Beersheba was abandoned entirely after its destruction in 701 B.C.E. and, as with the Arad temple, the cultic site was never refurbished, despite the statement in 2 Kgs 21:3 that Manasseh rebuilt the shrines that his father had “destroyed” (db)).24 This also involves questioning whether Josiah actually undertook (all of) the reform measures asserted in 2 Kgs 23.

19 Herzog 2001: 168; idem 2002: 65–6; for reactions to Herzog’s arguments, see Naʾaman (2002: 585–602); for a follow-up response to his detractors, see Herzog 2010: 179–96. 20 Naʾaman 2002: 596; Herzog 2010: 192. 21 Aharoni 1974: 2–23. 22 Herzog 2010: 176; see Naʾaman 2002: 593, 595. 23 Herzog 2010: 177. 24 Ibid. 178.

400

Chapter Ten: The Hezekian History in Its Historical Context

Fried also holds that the Beersheba altar had to be dismantled before the invasion of Sennacherib but points out the seeming contradiction between the preservation of the altar at Arad through careful burial and the unceremonious reuse of the stones of the altar at Beer Sheba.25 However, the difference between the non-sacred reuse of the Beersheba altar and preservation of the Arad altar is unable to weaken the historicity of the Hezekiah’s cultic reforms. It only suggests that the manner in which the reform was carried out was not entirely consistent. Fried also indicates that two incense altars were found in situ in stratum II demonstrating that cultic rites continued until the destruction of the site by Sennacherib. Still, the presence of cultic objects in stratum II does not negate the intentional dismantling and disuse of the earlier altar that is best attributed to the result of a cultic reform.26 The use of incense does not necessarily imply that sacrifice was performed at Beersheba in an official capacity during stratum II. 10.5.3. Lachish Aharoni discovered a small broad-room with benches along the walls, which he construed as a Judahite sanctuary destroyed by Sheshonq I in the tenth century B.C.E. (Level V).27 A limestone altar, four clay incense burners, and perhaps a sacred pillar were found within the building. However, Ussishkin argued that no genuine evidence of conflagration could be ascertained in days of Level V.28 He therefore dated the cultic vessels to the time of Level IV in the late Iron IIA period (ninth/early eighth century B.C.E.) and maintained that the sanctuary and its vessels were no longer operative once they were covered by the fill of Level III. Finkelstein and Silberman used Ussishkin’s conclusions as evidence for the possible cultic reform performed in the course of Hezekiah’s reign.29 However, owing to fact that the sanctuary and its vessels could have gone out of use at any point during the ninth and eighth centuries B.C.E. and that the vessels have not yielded precise dates, typologically, the evidence at Lachish is not strong evidence for (or against) Hezekiah’s reform. In brief, the authenticity of the historical testimony of 1–2 Kings itself is compatible not only with evidence of the general period of Judah’s history in the late eighth century B.C.E. known from historical events and from the biblical prophetic corpus (Hosea and Isaiah) but also with the archaeological evidence from Arad and Beersheba. The general argument provided above for 25

Fried 2002: 447. Herzog 2010: 182 n. 27. 27 Aharoni 1975: 26–32. 28 Ussishkin 2003: 205–11. 29 Finkelstein and Silberman 2006: 270–1. 26

10.6. When Did the Reform Occur?

401

Hezekiah’s reform is useful for determining its original historical motivation and for understanding its literary purpose within the HH-framework.

10.6. When Did the Reform Occur? The text of 2 Kgs 18:4, 22 makes it clear that it was Hezekiah who removed the YHWHistic bāmôt located throughout Judah. Knauf has recently argued that the cult was not centralized under Hezekiah but under Manasseh owing to Assyrian influence. Comparing the archaeological evidence from the site of Arad to the biblical account in 2 Kgs 18:4, Knauf argues that the careful preservation of incense altars and the stele found intact at the site contradicts the statement at 18:4 that Hezekiah had the standing stones crushed.30 Four considerations detract from this argument. The first pertains to the interpretation of 18:4. I have already argued that rysh does not imply total destruction by means of conflagration, crushing, or cutting but denoted a cancellation or disuse of a space or object in sacred ritual (5.2). Second, the mention of the crushed pillars may not have originally belonged to Hezekiah’s cultic report and could have been updated on the basis of a stereotypical ideal or later reform (see Exod 34:13; Deut 12:2–3; 1 Kgs 14:23; 2 Kgs 23:14; see 8.3.4). The third consideration, put forth by Herzog, is that 2 Kgs 18:4 may represent an official royal directive that was carried out variously at different sites.31 Evidence for this is in the distinctive ways that the altars fell into disuse at Arad and at Beersheba. Whereas the altar at the former site was buried intact, the altar at Beersheba was dismantled and reused in the construction of a wall. The attribution of the decommissioning of Beersheba and Arad to the time of Manasseh does not square with the established chronology for those sites. The ceramic assemblages are similar between Lachish III, Arad VIII, and Beersheba II, all of which are dated to 701 B.C.E.32 According to Herzog, The dating of the pottery assemblage from Stratum 8 [of Arad] to the late eighth century BCE leaves little doubt that this reform should therefore be attributed to King Hezekiah and provides us with one of the neatest correlations between the biblical account and the archaeological record.33

Finally, if my dating of the B1 narrative (including 2 Kgs 18:22) to the early seventh century B.C.E. is accepted, it would have been highly implausible for the generation only one step removed to have attributed a cultic reform to

30

Knauf 2005: 184. Herzog 2010: 180. 32 Ibid. 180, on the basis of the ceramic anaylsis of Singer-Avitz 2002: 110–214. 33 Herzog 2002: 170. 31

402

Chapter Ten: The Hezekian History in Its Historical Context

Hezekiah in this text if it had actually been his son Manasseh who centralized the cult. The text of 2 Kgs 18:4 is not specific about the exact period or moment when Hezekiah carried out his reform. The speech of Rabshakeh in 18:22 assumes that Hezekiah had already removed the bāmôt of YHWH from Judah and commanded the populace to sacrifice only in Jerusalem. The latter text suggests that Hezekiah’s reform took place some time prior to 701 B.C.E. This is corroborated by the archaeological evidence from Arad and Beersheba discussed above. Early commentators associated Hezekiah’s religious reform with his revolt against Assyria and its religion sometime after the death of Sargon II, but this view has been seriously criticized in recent works.34 The major religious influences in Israel and Judah were of local Canaanite derivation more than as a result of Assyrianizing.35 At any rate, the focus of the HH-framework is on the reforming measure with regard to sacrificial space, not religious objects. Römer argues against the likelihood of a reform since Hezekiah ultimately capitulated under Assyrian pressure and would not have openly rebelled through cultic reform.36 However, rebellion was always undertaken through the stoppage of tribute or military attack, not religious action.37 Hezekiah appears to have cooperated with Assyria in external affairs, namely, from the beginning of his reign in 727 B.C.E. until the death of Sargon II in 705 B.C.E.38 There is no firm evidence to suggest that Hezekiah joined in league against Assyria with the western kings of Hamath, Simirra, Damascus, Arpad,

34

McKay 1973; Cogan 1974. Both scholars observe a mixture of primarily local cults as those under question, and Cogan argues that the Neo-Assyrian texts never evidence any antagonism toward foreign cults. 35 See 2 Kgs 17:24–33, on which, see Cogan 1974: 105–7. Albertz (1992, I: 171–3) observes that Hosea denounced popular YHWHistic elements as Baalistic. Assyria is regarded as a weapon of punishment in YHWH’s hands, not as a religious threat in 2 Kgs 19:25–28; cf. Isa 10:5–15; 19:23–25. 36 Römer 2005: 68. 37 Cogan 1974: 107 n. 62. 38 This dating schema accepts the conventional chronology for Hezekiah’s reign based on the framework synchronisms rather than on “fourteenth-year” notice at 2 Kgs 18:13; see above 9.3. Differently, Herzog (2002: 67), who bases his conclusions on the testimony of 2 Chr 29–31, which situates Hezekiah’s reform in his first year on the throne and involves the territory of northern Israel. This allowed for the “red herring” counter-argument on the part of Naʾaman (2002: 588), who argued for the implausibility of Hezekiah having extended his reform into Samaria; see Münnich 2004: 336–7. But Herzog (2010: 187) did not intend to argue for a northern reform, only that it occurred in Hezekiah’s initial year, which he maintains (incorrectly, in my view) was 715 B.C.E. At any rate, 2 Kgs 18:4 is not specific about the precise timeframe during which the reform occurred (Edelman 2008: 396), and 2 Kgs 18:22 assumes that it took place before 701 B.C.E.

10.6. When Did the Reform Occur?

403

and Gaza.39 After Sargon’s death, Hezekiah did openly revolt against Assyria, as his measures to fortify and expand Jerusalem demonstrate (i.e., through construction of the Siloam Tunnel and Broad Wall). Römer’s argument rules out a priori a reform prior to his encounter with Assyria in 701 B.C.E., despite the testimony of the biblical text (2 Kgs 18:22) and that of archaeology. In one sense, it is useful to see an overlap of motivations between Hezekiah’s religious goals and his political objectives, since pulling together all cultic revenue into Jerusalem would have provided him with the means to strengthen the capital and surrounding Judah against outside attack. On the other hand, this does not mean that the religious reform took place only during Hezekiah’s rebellion against Assyria beginning around 705 B.C.E. and continuing down to 701 B.C.E.40 He may have initiated the reform earlier in his reign and continued implementing it until his death in 699 B.C.E. or even afterwards by the Jerusalemite priesthood. The survival of Jerusalem in contrast with the other cities of Judah destroyed under Assyria would have confirmed the decision to venerate only Jerusalem as YHWH’s chosen place of residence.41 The flow of cultic revenue into Jerusalem would have aided Hezekiah in sending tribute as a vassal to Assyria.42

39 Judah and Hezekiah may even have fought as a client state on the side of the Assyrians in 720–719 and Assyria may have awarded Hezekiah territory in Philistia; see Miller and Hayes 2006: 404–6. I have deliberately left out a discussion of the Azekah inscription here, since it presents no firm data for Hezekiah’s relationship with Assyria; see Younger 2003: 238–40. 40 Gallagher 1999: 268–9. Gallagher mentions seven other potential grounds for Hezekiah’s rebellion: 1) the burden of vassaldom; 2) overextension of Assyrian empire; 3) Assyrian epidemic of disease in 707 B.C.E.; 4) Sennacherib’s perception as a coward; 5) Sennacherib lost control of Babylon; 6) other countries joined in rebellion (Tyre); 7) a chance for Hezekiah to gain territory and influence. 41 Bloch-Smith 2009: 35–44. 42 Professor J. David Schloen (personal communication — May 3, 2013) has expressed to me that neither Hezekiah’s centralizing reform nor his characterization in the HH would have necessarily provoked Sennacherib to attack Jerusalem as long as he continued to send tribute and did not have pretensions beyond Judah. Schloen points to the Kilamuwa inscription (KAI 24: 8), which mentions Kilamuwa hiring the Assyrian king (Shalmaneser III) to subjugate the Danunian king, although the Assyrian king clearly was Kilamuwa’s superior. This allows for a complex reconstruction of an audience for such texts; although the immediate audience would have been local (i.e., Samʾalians), there is another more distant and tacit audience (i.e., Shalmaneser III) that would tolerate such messages as long as Kilamuwa towed the political line. A similar scenario is appealing with regard to Hezekiah and Judah under the governance of the Assyrian king Sennacherib (at least until his death ca. 681 B.C.E.).

404

Chapter Ten: The Hezekian History in Its Historical Context

10.7. Historical Grounds for Hezekiah’s Reform The impression gained from the evidence reviewed thus far is that Hezekiah was concerned predominantly with restricting official sacrifice to the one sacred space in Judah and not with destroying diverse religious objects in Judah or with cancelling smaller private cultic shrines. This impression is supported also with archaeological evidence from Tel Ḥalif, a site near Arad and Beersheba. The excavators discovered a private shrine there within a domestic four-room house containing a female pillar figurine, an incense stand, and possibly two sacred pillars.43 The shrine was functional until its destruction under the Assyrian army of Sennacherib in 701 B.C.E., on account of which Borowski concludes, This means that Hezekiah’s reforms did not interfere in its operation. Is it possible that because it was a private shrine the king did not consider it a threat to the centralization of worship in shrines as long as incense burning, and not sacrifices, was involved?44

Hezekiah’s reforms likely pertained only to the removal of public sanctuaries competing with the temple at Jerusalem or perhaps requiring state support. This is in line with repeated references to the people (M(h) sacrificing and burning incense at the bāmôt in the HH. The degree to which the Arad temple would have received royal support is not clear. Certainly, the court would have previously known of and tolerated the existence of the temple, even if it was not directly responsible for its construction.45 Gitin has drawn attention to the evidence of burning on incense altars.46 He remarks that the two incense altars linked to Hezekiah’s reform in the Arad temple had indications of burnt fat residue, indicating that animal portions may have been burnt together with the various spices.47 Two altars at Dan had 43

Borowski 1995: 151–2. Ibid. 152. 45 Herzog 2002: 64. Holladay (1987: 280–82) has isolated on the basis of archaeological evidence “official” multi-roomed cultic sites at large towns such as Arad (Dan in the north) with altars and aniconic objects from the “popular” domestic cultic buildings with iconographic objects but without sacrificial altars. On the basis of Holladay’s analysis, Pakkala (1999: 205–6) argues that the bāmôt-notices of the framework refer to official local religion that competed with the Jerusalem temple and, with Provan, that all references to the bāmôt as idolatrous are secondary (“nomistic”). Noteworthy is the presence in the Arad ostraca of personal names know from the Bible associated with priestly families: “the son of Korah” in Arad inscription 49 and Meremoth and Pashhur in inscription 50 and 54; see Aharoni 1981: 80–86. On the basis of these personal names, Ahlström (1982: 41) maintained that Arad was “an arm of the national cultic establishment”; similarly, Mettinger 1995: 149. 46 Gitin 2002: 95–123 (at 103–12). Pace Haran (1995: 30–7, 48), who understood the tr+q offerings as pertaining only to grain offerings, without necessarily implying the action of burning. 47 Gitin 1989: 54; idem 2002: 110, 112 44

10.7. Historical Grounds for Hezekiah’s Reform

405

traces of fire; another incense altar dated to the ninth century B.C.E. from the “high place” was heavily calcined.48 Two altars from Megiddo, one of which dated to the days of Hezekiah’s reign, were discolored by fire.49 Although Gitin favors the consensus view that the altars were used to burn incense, he allows that grain and animal portions may also have been burnt on the altars. He notes that no four-horned altars have been found in Judah dating to Manasseh’s days.50 The lack of such altars in Judah with a post-Hezekian date supports the testimony of 2 Kgs 18:4. The incense altars at Arad were not demolished with iconoclastic vehemence but with a certain amount of reverence and care, since they were buried carefully on their sides under stratum IX. The incense burning and sacrifice were thus not regarded as immoral intrinsically or by association with image worship, but merely by the fact of being performed at other public sanctuaries. Scholars have argued for other historical grounds without religious motivation to explain the archaeological evidence from Arad and Beersheba. Naʾaman allows, for instance, that the Assyrians or other enemies may have desecrated Arad and Beersheba following their conquest of Judah.51 He points to historical parallels in ninth-century-B.C.E. northern Israel where shrines and cultic structures at Megiddo, Taanach, and Tel ʿAmal were destroyed by the Arameans and the sacred artifacts at those sites were buried. Münnich points out, however, that the sites of Arad and Beersheba were not destroyed by outside enemies (i.e., Assyrians) but were discontinued through local Judahites. “The destruction of a cult site by the inhabitants themselves must testify to the changes in the religion of a given community.”52 Moreover, Edelman has disputed the locations (Megiddo, Taanach, and Tel ʿAmal) used by Naʾaman as unsecure examples of decommissioned sanctuaries.53 Naʾaman himself suggests that the abandonment of those cult places in Israel and Judah 48

Gitin 1989: 54. Ibid. 55. 50 Gitin 2002: 111. 51 Naʾaman 2002: 593. For a critical response to Naʾaman’s argument, see Münnich 2004: 585–602 and Herzog 2010: 183–96. Naʾaman (2002: 593–4) himself does not hold that the desecration of the Beersheba altar owing to the Assyrian threat is actually a more “feasible” scenario than Aharoni’s hypothesis of a royal order for cancellation. Herzog (2010: 194) points out correctly that no matter how the altar was desecrated, whether to protect it from Assyrian forces or to leave it in a state of desecration, a royal decision was required, since it was the king’s obligation to care for the cult; similarly, Münnich 2004: 341– 2. 52 Münnich 2004: 342–3 (citation from p. 343). Similarly, Young (2012: 100 n. 32) observes that Naʾaman inadvertently provides support for a Hezekian cultic reform in his own admission that the sites of Megiddo, Taanach, and Tel ʿAmal were destroyed by enemies, whereas Arad and Beersheba, according to Young, “are the only known examples in Israelite culture of deliberately decommissioned temples which have not been destroyed” (ibid. 100). 53 Edelman 2008: 412–16. 49

406

Chapter Ten: The Hezekian History in Its Historical Context

was owing to a royal decision to leave the site in disrepair in an effort to eliminate the prestige that local shrines enjoyed in competition with the central temple at Jerusalem.54 Herzog stresses the necessarily religious motivation behind such a royal order; the initial cancellation of the cult sites of Arad and Beersheba as well as the subsequent decision not to restore them to their former cultic status must have been owing to a religious motivation, whatever political grounds should otherwise be entertained.55 What about the motivations for cultic reform found in prophetic texts? According to some scholars, since the northern prophets explained the fall of Israel in light of the worship of other deities, such syncretistic worship in Judah should also be abolished for reasons of cultic purity.56 According to Wellhausen, the prophetic movement against the traditional worship was not actuated by a deep-seated preference for Jerusalem but only by ethical motives pertaining to the cult.57 Halpern maintains that Hezekiah’s reform should be considered in relation to the messages of Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, and Micah against the false ritual of icons that stood in lieu of the loyalty to YHWH’s ethical demands: Amos 5:26; 8:14; Hos 2:10; 4:17, 12; 8:4–6; 10:2–5; 11:2; 13:2; 14:9; Isa 1:10–17, 29–31; 2:9, 16, 18–22; 10:10f.; 17:7–10; 19:1; 27:9; 30:22; 31:7; Mic: 1:7; 5:12–14. As Halpern explains, “it seems to be sometime in the period around 715–701 that we speak of the systematic turning of traditional xenophobic rhetoric and monolatrous thought against the traditional religion of Israel.”58 Halpern supports the thesis that Hezekiah acted out against the cultic imagery, which was the object of the prophetic polemicizing. The prophetic ethos would have partly inspired and worked to the advantage of Hezekiah’s reforming initiative, but it does not necessarily follow that his own rationale for cultic reform was identical, particularly as the HH-

54

Naʾaman 2002: 595–6. Herzog 2010: 192; similarly, Münnich 2004: 343; Young 2012: 101. A religious motivation would have been necessary in order to cancel the sanctuaries for their protection; pace Handy 1988: 111–15. Schniedewind (2004: 80) rightly views Hezekiah’s reform and concomitant Hezekian History against the backdrop of the Judahite reception of numerous northern refugees as well as Hezekiah’s extensive defensive preparation for his revolt against Sargon II in 705 B.C.E. But his view that the fall of the northern kingdom presented Hezekiah the perfect opportunity “to create a new golden age” that was primarily political, not religious, cannot be upheld. On the requisite rationale behind the removal and founding of new temples in Mesopotamian conceptions of the divine in royal ideology, see Schaudig 2010: 152: “an established cultic place was hard to remove.” 56 Steuernagel 1896: 111; idem 1900: xiv; cf. already Kittel 1888: II, 303–4; further König 1917: 51; G. A. Smith 1918: ci. 57 Wellhausen 1957: 47. 58 Halpern 2008: 42. 55

10.7. Historical Grounds for Hezekiah’s Reform

407

framework represents the Judahite bāmôt as YHWHistic.59 The temple at Arad has been viewed as a strictly aniconic YHWHistic site furnishing no evidence for the worship of deities other than YHWH. Mettinger has argued that the aniconic standing stone (hbcm) in the debir or adytum represented the presence of YHWH in the temple and conformed to the biblical prohibition against icons in Exod 20:4.60 Stade argued that Hezekiah’s destruction of the bronze serpent (2 Kgs 18:4b) was owing to the prophetic reform of Isaiah against the cultus.61 Schmidt argued that the prophetic movement against objects such as the bronze serpent found its continuation in Josiah’s reform.62 However, this may only be a somewhat isolated example of an iconic representation of YHWH that came to be worshipped in association with “Israelite” (i.e., northern) practices. According to 18:4b, it is represented as a public cultic image famous since the time of Moses and does not suggest a sweeping reform towards Kultusreinheit. The official cult of YHWH in Judah (in contrast to personal private religion) seems to have been completely aniconic and predominantly, if not wholly, YHWHistic.63 The predominant use of Asherah cultic objects, smaller incense altars, and iconographic images seems to have been restricted to personal religion.64

59

See Wellhausen 1957: 26–7; Driver 1891: 189; Benzinger 1899: xiii–xiv; Barnes 1908: 101; Kittel 1909: II, 499; Schmidt 1923: ii, 22, 9. 60 Mettinger 1997: 202–3; followed by Herzog 2002: 63–4; similarly, Köckert 2010: 377–8; pace Zevit 2001: 261. The evidence produced by Fried (2002: 444–50) shows that no other public cult sites in Judah (Lachish, Beersheba, Kuntillet Ajrud, Vered Jericho, or Ekron) contained a clear example of a standing stone (hbcm) other than at Arad. She mentions examples from Lachish V, but the date of the sanctuary that contained the standing stones as well as the contexts in which they were found are highly disputed; see Holladay 1987: 254; Ussishkin 2003: 205–11; Young 2012: 98–9. She also mentions Tel Ḥalif as a possibility during Hezekiah’s reign, but the shrine there was private, not public. 61 Stade 1887: I, 466. 62 Schmidt 1923: ii, 22, 10. 63 Pakkala 1999: 205; similarly, Köckert 2010: 377–89. Robinson (1932: 392) argued that the bronze serpent was a YHWHistic cultic object, which differed from the cultic objects mentioned in Josiah’s account. Without more evidence, Joines’ argument for Jebusite influence on the Davidic Jerusalem in the use of the bronze serpent is tenuous (Joines 1974: 92–3). Recent attempts to connect the serpent to an Egyptian symbol acquired in Hezekiah’s day run aground for lack of evidence (see Swanson 2002: 460–9). Keel and Uehlinger (1998: 313–14) reject as uncertain that speculation in addition to the link sometimes posited between Asherah and the bronze serpent (e.g., Olyan 1988: 70–71; Wilson 2001: 213–15) as well as the view that the destruction of the bronze serpent was an anti-Assyrian measure (Keel and Uehlinger 1998: 314 n. 288; pace Spieckermann 1982: 172 n. 33; Camp 1990: 285–6). 64 Köckert 2010: 388–9.

408

Chapter Ten: The Hezekian History in Its Historical Context

10.8. Historical Parallels In order to understand the motivation for restricting the official cult to Jerusalem, one must gain a general conception of the divine in connection with royal ideology and its related capital city, that is, the idea of one god – one king – one city – one cult. According to Schaudig, “certain ‘boss gods’, the heads of the pantheon, the divine kings of the gods who in turn bestowed kingship on chosen human kings on earth, had only one cult place at a given time in a given region.”65 He points out several examples of royal divine figures who resided in a sole sanctuary: Enlil at Nippur; Marduk at Esagil in Babylon; Assur at Assur. In each case, the traditional widespread cults associated with these gods were reduced once their city became an imperial power. Their city served as the capital of a larger dominion that combined temple and palace and divine and human kingship. As Schaudig observes, “It would have been highly disadvantageous to have dozens of Enlils scattered all over the land, with individual priesthoods pursuing their own politics, and with ecstatics rising and delivering prophecies beyond any control.”66 This conception is observed in Marduk-apla-iddina’s appropriation of the gods from their sanctuaries that he conveyed to Babylon not once, but twice. Afterwards, the Assyrian king Sargon II (a contemporary of Hezekiah) boasted of returning the deported gods to their sanctuaries and re-establishing their regular offerings.67 Cyrus the Persian also boasted of returning the gods of Sumer and Babylonia that the Babylonian king Nabonidus had brought into Babylon, thereby invoking the wrath of Marduk. Schaudig observes a case when a new capital was established and the cultic image of the deity was transferred there, as when Assur was taken to Tukultī-Ninurta I’s new capital at Kār-TukultīNinurta but was apparently returned after his death.68 One is reminded of the episode in Egyptian history involving Akhenaton and his creation of monotheistic religion at Amarna. Hezekiah’s reform has sometimes been compared to Akhenaton’s establishment of a new capital at Amarna as well as Nabonidus’ worship of the moon god Sîn (instead of Marduk) while residing at Tayma.69 Although both cases involve royal capitals and religious reform, they do not completely parallel Hezekiah’s reform, as they also entail the transfer of patron deities to newly constructed capital cit65 Schaudig 2010: 145. According to Naʾaman (2006: 163), all the reforms (with the exception of Tudhaliya) “attempt to elevate a particular deity to the headship of the pantheon and exalt his status throughout the kingdom.” 66 Schaudig 2010: 152. 67 Ibid. 147. 68 Ibid. 156. 69 For Nabonidus, see Weinfeld 1964: 202–12 and the critical response of Kratz 2010: 130–4.

10.8. Historical Parallels

409

ies. A significant difference is that Hezekiah worshipped the traditional deity of Jerusalem associated with the Davidic line of kings and responsible for bestowing and maintaining that line. Hezekiah’s centralization of the cult and expansion of Jerusalem as a capital city was not so radical an innovation, given the historical circumstances, but was in line with a strict devotion to his patron deity, YHWH. That is why the contrast with the northern houses could be effective in the HH, as they are represented as having fabricated new policies through the worship of bovine images (1 Kgs 12:26–30) and Baal (1 Kgs 16:31–32) at newly constructed temples at Bethel, Dan, and Samaria. According to 1 Kgs 12:26–30, Jeroboam I did not set up his new capital and sanctuaries with the blessing of YHWH but in opposition to the chosen line of Davidic kings based in Jerusalem (see also 3 Reg 12:24a–z). Kratz has argued that none of the ancient Near Eastern parallels for cultic centralization (with the exception of Akhenaton) included the destruction or cancellation of other cultic sites.70 In Babylonia, a king would not simply shut down one of the sanctuaries because he thought they were too numerous or were misplaced.71 This evidence is insufficient, however, to argue that no convincing reason is available for Hezekiah’s reduction of sacrifice to Jerusalem. As mentioned already, Schaudig has observed that the chief Mesopotamian deities, Enlil (Nippur), Marduk (Esagil), and Assur (Assur) ruled from only one sanctuary, particularly when their respective cities took control of the surrounding areas. Enlil ceased to be worshipped at Lagaš; Marduk at Borsippa. The tradition of worshipping Assur at Šubat-Enlil ended with Assyrian imperialism.72 It was to the advantage of an expanding city to gain as much religious capital as possible by limiting the residence of its patron deity to one site. Hezekiah’s mission was to dispose of YHWH’s other minor manifestations, i.e., YHWH of Samaria, Dan, and Bethel as well as YHWH of Teman, Arad, and Beersheba. The motivation was already existent with the conception of the divine in Davidic royal ideology. The spark needed to ignite Hezekiah into action was the destruction of the northern kingdom engendering a crisis in religious belief, the prophetic message of Hosea against the northern cult together with Isaiah’s message centered on the enduring presence of YHWH in his sanctuary at Jerusalem, and the looming threat of Assyria. These events defined the trajectory not only for Hezekiah’s expansion of Jerusalem but also for his cancellation of other official cultic sites. He demonstrated his loyalty to YHWH (2 Kgs 18:5) by focusing his attention on fortifying Jerusalem and providing for its cult.73 70

Similarly, Kratz 2010: 133. Schaudig 2010: 152. 72 Ibid. 153–4. 73 This is an indirect argument against the distributive meaning of the phrase “in the place which YHWH will choose” at Deut 12:5, 11, 15, 18, 21, 26; 14:23, 24, 25; 16:2, 6, 7, 71

410

Chapter Ten: The Hezekian History in Its Historical Context

10.9. Conclusions The overall message of the HH and historical veracity of 18:4, 22 is compatible with external evidence in the nature of historical events and archaeological data as well as from the biblical prophetic corpus and Near Eastern parallels. Hezekiah’s cultic reform and its surrounding context provide a historical backdrop sufficient to explain the origin of cultic centralization in Judah. This context underscores the existence of a Davidic royal ideology as the motivation for the reform with the result that legal recourse was unnecessary. The breadth and strength of the evidence produced in favor of Hezekiah’s cultic reform is unparalleled for any other king of Judah, particularly, Josiah. Without a prior reform, no clear political rationale existed for Josiah’s later reform.74 Why did he not expand the Judahite cult instead of purging it? As Kratz argues, “If Josiah is interpreted by employing any anti-Assyrian tendency it would have been more likely that we find an expansion of the local cults of YHWH rather than their defamation and abolition.”75 Conversely, if Hezekiah actually did limit sacrifice to YHWH to Jerusalem, then Josiah’s measure would have had a historical precedent. Josiah’s own reform (and the creation of Deuteronomy) is best explained in terms of an actual earlier reform under Hezekiah.

11, 15, 16; 17:8, 10; 18:6; 23:17; 26:2; 31:11 (i.e., one legitimate site after the other), which after 701 B.C.E. could only have referred to Jerusalem; pace Halpern 1981: 20–38; Knauf 2005: 187. And the distributive meaning is certainly not present in 1–2 Kings concerning cultic centralization, as Knauf rightly notes; see Levinson 1997: 23–4 n. 1. 74 So Kratz 2010: 129, 134; following Barrick 2002: 183 (see ibid. 171): “While its [Josiah’s reform] theological significance seems clear enough, its exact nature and practical significance as an official governmental action in Josiah’s Judah are not.” 75 Kratz 2010: 129.

Chapter Eleven

Final Conclusions 11.1. Summary of Results From start to finish, this study has endeavored to describe the framework of 1–2 Kings in its original historical and literary contexts. Due to similar structural patterns in chronographic texts from Mesopotamia and the Levant, it was necessary at the outset to explain the structure of the framework as a chronographic work characteristic of levantine scribal culture. Likewise, stylistic similarities in phraseology and syntax also pointed to the close relationship between levantine royal inscriptions and the framework. This starting place of shared chronographic structure and royal epigraphic style is to be preferred over attempting to explain the framework initially as a Deuteronomistic work, since its parallels with other chronographic texts are more in evidence. Indeed, the nature of Deuteronomism as the Archimedean pou stō in the interpretation of 1–2 Kings is no longer accepted, whereas the latter’s basic chronographic structure is unquestioned. Far from an outright denial of Deuteronomistic influence on 1–2 Kings, however, commencing with the genre characteristics of the framework allows for a more precise account of Deuteronomistic authorship and redaction. The style of list-repetition observed in the framework is paralleled by kinglists from Mesopotamia and the Levant (Tyrian King List). This shared characteristic permits the detection of an underlying source by means of identifiable inconsistencies, omissions, and breaks in formulaic use. Examples of non-explicit evaluative formulae involve the accession notice, regnal year total, geographic filiation, naming of the queen mother, source citations, and the death and burial notices. These formulae provide evidence that the Hezekian historian combined a northern kinglist and a southern kinglist to contrast the enduring existence of Jerusalem and the unbroken chain of succession of Judahite kings down to Hezekiah with the demise of Tirzah and Samaria and its royal houses. The macro-structure and style of the HH that involves the evaluative formulae and the comparisons with royal predecessors share concepts and language with West Semitic royal epigraphic and chronographic texts. Clear evidence for the influence of Deuteronomy is not available, and in many cases a theological notion related to specific syntagms is actually contrary to or non-

412

Chapter Eleven: Final Conclusions

existent in Deuteronomic usage: e.g., the idiom -b Klh with the “sin[s]” of Jeroboam as well as the verb )+x hi. only occurs in the framework; the comparative idiom Nm rs )l (3.5). The tropes of “departure” and “removal” associated with rs )l portray the contrast between the fates of the Davidic house and the northern kingdom. That idiom also prepares for the restoration of cultic order in the reign of Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:4) second, the “removal” of Israel for the people’s inability to “depart” from the “sin” of Jeroboam (2 Kgs 17:22–23a). The linear progression observed in the evaluative structure of the HH shares the same profile found in some extrabiblical chronographic texts (Uruk Prophecy – 4.3.2; Nabonidus Chronicle – 5.8) and in several levantine royal inscriptions (Katuwa of Carchemish; Azatiwada [Karatepe]; Kilamuwa; Kapara of Gozan – 3.3.1). In particular, they share the use of a climactic evaluative scheme with a repeated negative formula to build up to the good reign that uses the same terminology in positive formulation. However, alternating patterns of “bad-good” cycles occur in the present form of the framework of 1–2 Kings in the accounts after Hezekiah. The discovery of two different types of evaluative scheme is explainable with recourse to a source-critical approach that posits that the original climax of the history was Hezekiah’s account, while the subsequent accounts were added secondarily. The cultic reports of the framework follow the same trajectory down to the account of Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:4). Whereas the previous Judahite kings had not removed the illegitimate cultic places, Hezekiah restored cultic and political order in accordance with the “original” intention for the Solomonic temple (1 Kgs 3:2). This restoration of order is couched not in terms of “bad” to “good,” but generally in terms of “good” to “better.” The framework represents the Judahite bāmôt as heirlooms passed down from the pre-Solomonic era that were no longer required once the temple came into existence. By contrast, the northern sites of Bethel and Dan are symbolic of sanctuaries erected later in defiance of YHWH’s temple and dynasty installed in Jerusalem. The use of iconic bovine statues is cause for condemnation of those sites as disingenuous masquerades of true YHWHistic religion. I identify the opening of the framework in Solomon’s account at LXX 3 Reg 2:46l and 1 Kgs 3:2*. The content and structure of 3 Reg 2:46l matches the standard elements of the framework, and 1 Kgs 3:2* corresponds to the cultic reports of Judahite kings down to Hezekiah. It is unlikely that 1–2 Samuel was originally secured to the HH-framework as a unified work. The genres of 1–2 Samuel and 1–2 Kings are distinct from each other and the framework can only be traced from 1–2 Samuel into 1–2 Kings with significant effort. Solomon is the quintessential wise king charged with constructing YHWH’s temple, the success of which is meaningful for what comes afterwards in the HH. The temple construction denotes a fundamental change in

11.1. Summary of Results

413

outlook from tolerance of the bāmôt to circumscription of sacrifice to Jerusalem. The historian of the HH may also have included the pre-Josianic short account of the division of the kingdom (SA) at LXX 3 Reg 12:24a–z in order to contribute to the delineation of the opposite fates of the two kingdoms in their historical context. Specifically, the Solomonic epilogue and Rehoboamic prologue coupled together at 3 Reg 12:24a operate as a pristine member of the HH-framework unaffected by Dtr phraseology. The HH-historian evaluated Solomon in favorable terms, not as in the “Josianic” version of his account, where YHWH supports Jeroboam as Solomon’s adversary (MT 1 Kgs 11:9– 14, 26). Rather, Jeroboam is cast in the role of enemy to the Davidic house first against Solomon and then against Rehoboam in his bid to lay hold of the kingship of the northern tribes in consequence of Rehoboam’s moral defect (LXX 3 Reg 12:24a). With Israel’s choice to defect from David, it subjects itself to a series of rulers from Jeroboam to Hoshea who escalate offense against YHWH, precipitating the northern kingdom’s destruction. The prologue to Hezekiah’s account in MT 2 Kgs 18:1–5* is the original climax of the framework. The culmination of the framework in Hezekiah’s removal of the bāmôt as well as the theme of his incomparable trust in YHWH resonate with levantine royal lapidary style. The specifically Davidic terminology used to convey his military success (vv. 7–8) is unique to 1–2 Kings. However, the following report of the northern kingdom’s downfall (vv. 9–11) recapitulates the contrasted fates of the Judahite and Israelite royal lines while also introducing the account of Jerusalem’s deliverance in 18:13–19:9a, 36–37. The HH-historian probably incorporated the B1 narrative as the natural conclusion to history’s climax in Hezekiah’s account. The centralizing program of that favored king is a sign of his loyalty (“trust”) to YHWH (cf. 2 Kgs 18:3–5a and 18:19–22). The reassuring tenor of the B1 narrative underscores its continuity with Hezekiah’s approbation as the touchstone of the history. The B1 narrative is not an exilic period work but probably dates to just after 701 B.C.E., on one theory, or, alternatively, after 681 B.C.E. The YHWHistic characterization of the bāmôt in 18:22 tallies with the Judahite cultic reports of the framework down to Hezekiah. The edict of Hezekiah in 2 Kgs 18:22b foregrounds the issue of cultic centralization at the temple of Jerusalem. The motivation for removal of the bāmôt is not attributed to Canaanite syncretism or to a legal demand. There is hardly a historical context other than that of Hezekiah’s reign that furnishes us with a more felicitous backdrop to the rise of cultic centralization in Judah. Evidence from other biblical and extrabiblical material in addition to archaeological evidence from the sites of Arad and Beersheba are compatible with the testimony of 2 Kgs 18:4, 22. Strong support rooted in Davidic royal

414

Chapter Eleven: Final Conclusions

ideology and in Zion tradition formed the bedrock of Hezekiah’s reform, so much so that legal sanction was superfluous and is never appealed to in the HH.1 No explanation carries as much plausibility or covers the breadth of evidence as positing a distinctly religious motivation for the reform, whatever complimentary political grounds obtain. Acceptance of such a motivation provides scholarship with a strong premise not only for the creation of the HH early in Manasseh’s time but also for the creation of Deuteronomy in the time of Manasseh (or afterwards). A work of such magnitude does not merely grow out of thin air but appears to address concerns specific to a people of a certain time and space.2

11.2. Hezekiah and Josiah At nearly every turn, the literary representation of the HH as well as the historical depiction of Hezekiah that materializes from the fuller scope of evidence differs from the characterization of the later Josiah in 1–2 Kings and from the events reported immediately prior to the Neo-Babylonian exile. The references to the bāmôt in preparation for Josiah’s reign contravene Hezekiah’s role as remover of the bāmôt. Not only that, Josiah goes out of his way to remove all of the cultic objects and bāmôt seemingly overlooked by Hezekiah. Josiah’s intensified efforts, though not obliterating the virtues of his predecessor, nonetheless cast a shadow on his predecessor. The late material in Solomon’s account foreshadows the fall of Jerusalem, the destruction of the temple, and the cessation of Davidic kingship (1 Kgs 3:14; 6:11–13; 8:14–53; 9:1–9; 11:1–40). The post-HH edition of the division of the kingdom includes the conditional promise of a lasting house to Jeroboam in addition to the retrospective diatribe against Jeroboam for failure to uphold YHWH’s commands (14:7–9). It is primarily Jeroboam’s exploits that seal Israel’s fate (1 Kgs 14:15–16) instead of Israel’s rejection of the Davidic king. Jeroboam I’s construction of a cultic site at Bethel in 1 Kgs 12:32– 13:34 is a hallmark of the Josianic account (2 Kgs 23:15). Whereas the HH’s focal point is the limitation of YHWHistic sacrificial space to Jerusalem, the post-HH account underscores the elimination of all syncretistic places of worship and their attendant cultic objects. The prologue and supplemental reports of Hezekiah’s account as well as the B1 narrative do not embody a repository of allusions to the complete history. On the contrary, 2 Kgs 18:4 signifies the final node in the tight sequential structure of bāmôt-notices joined directly to the concluding narrative of Jerusalem’s deliverance (see 18:22). 1 2

Loisy 1908: 182–3; similarly, Lods 1937: 116. Dillmann 1898: 313–4.

11.3. The HH and Deuteronomy–2 Samuel

415

Historical evidence backing the endeavor to centralize the cult under Hezekiah is unmatched relative to such evidence for Josiah’s reform. This is not to claim that the Josianic reform is without historical foundation; quite the reverse: a comprehensible reason for Josiah’s later reform is made available with the acknowledgement of Hezekiah’s actions as the exemplar for his successor’s reform. Incidentally, this discussion is also indicative of the need to commence the study of the compositional history of 1–2 Kgs with a historical reconstruction of the late eighth/early seventh century B.C.E. in addition to source-critical analyses prior to, or in combination with, (Dtr) redactioncriticism.

11.3. The HH and Deuteronomy–2 Samuel There is no definite trace of the influence of either Deuteronomy or redactional texts from Joshua to 2 Samuel on the HH. The framework is rather an instantiation of a levantine chronographic text with a synchronistic genealogical structure. It did not materialize in the mind of a Deuteronomistic scribe ex nihilo. Hezekiah’s reforming actions allude neither in 2 Kgs 18:4 nor in 18:22 to a ratified legal document. The Law of the King in Deut 17:14–20 is not even remotely in the background of Hezekiah’s reform. By contrast, Josiah is obedient to the Deuteronomic prescription to read Torah (cf. Deut 17:18–19 and 2 Kgs 23:2–3).3 The reading of the “Book of the Covenant” precedes the Josianic reform recounted in 2 Kgs 23:4–20, and Josiah returned to YHWH “according to all the Torah of Moses” (v. 25). Texts with the most potential for having influenced the author of the HH do not belong to those commonly associated with the composition of the Deuteronomistic History. For instance, the HH features the language of Hezekiah’s military success in non-Deuteronomistic terms (2 Kgs 18:7–8). His “trust” in YHWH (2 Kgs 18:5) is not found in Deuteronomistic texts but is one of the hallmarks of early Isaianic and royal Neo-Assyrian scribal traditions that was in currency during Hezekiah’s reign. Concerning the centralizing motif in Hezekiah’s account, it is not the Hezekian material but the Josianic account (2 Kgs 23:5, 11b [LXXL], 13) that squares with the standard Deuteronomic legislation demanding the eradication of Canaanite cultic sites and their appurtenances (Deut 12:2–3). The scope of Hezekiah’s reform pertains sensu stricto to official YHWHistc sites in Judah, while Josiah’s account involves the inside of the temple (ignored by Heze3

The agreement between Deut 17:14–20 and 2 Kgs 23 is only in part, as Levinson (2001: 511–34) has demonstrated, since Josiah still would have participated in the cult. On the other hand, this does not remove the many similarities between 2 Kgs 22–23 and Deuteronomy that suggest literary influence.

416

Chapter Eleven: Final Conclusions

kiah!), the landscape of Judah sensu lato, and the cities of Bethel and Samaria. More than that, Josiah eliminates illegitimate cultic objects practiced in non-YHWHistic conditions. The results of this study form a premise for defining with greater clarity the constitution of a legitimate Deuteronomistic text in 1–2 Kings on the nature of cultic reform. The sacrificial space that Deuteronomy prohibits is not specific to YHWHistic religion but encompasses the whole gamut of Canaanite shrines, sanctuaries, temples, images, statues, and deities (Deut 12:2–3, 13, 29–31).4 This same coverage appears to be true of Josiah’s account and related texts such as Solomon’s defamation in 1 Kgs 9–11 for his flagrant disregard of the Deuteronomic Law of the King and the Law of Centralization. In this respect, the decisive conceptual-literary-historical boundary marker is, on the one hand, between a royal demand for restricting official YHWHistic cultic space to the capital city on the basis of traditional royal ideology and, on the other hand, between the concept of obliterating all forms of illegitimate cultic worship involving both space and object, both YHWHistic and nonYHWHistic, on the basis of a legal document. The historical and literary progression is from royal cultic centralization to legal cultic purification. In the same way, the HH contains relatively few prophetic texts, in contrast to the present form of 1–2 Kings. The main prophetic text integrated into the HH concerns the early tale of Ahijah who predicts Jeroboam’s rule over the ten northern tribes and the fall of his house (3 Reg 12:24a–z). This text shows no signs of familiar Deuteronomistic style. By contrast, the Josianic edition of 1 Kgs 11–14 yields virtually every kind of Deuteronomistic style and motif. Future studies should consider the HH’s integration of an earlier pro-Jehuide source in 2 Kgs 9–10 that may have incorporated already the prophecyfulfillment schema at 2 Kgs 10:30 and 15:12 and at 14:25 (fulfillment only!).5 The literary account of Jehu has been updated with an explicit allusion to Deuteronomy at 2 Kgs 10:31, the content of which resonates with Josiah’s statement of incomparability at 23:25. Consequently, the inclusion of prophetic tales and discourse in a chronographic is not a distinctly Deuteronomistic literary creation, and it remains for future studies to determine the extent of Deuteronomistic prophecy. The phenomenon may only be limited to those passages in which the prophets represent enforcers of Deuteronomic teaching (e.g., 1 Kgs 11:38; 14:8; 2 Kgs 17:13; 21:10).

4

7.

5

Further, see Deut 4:38; 7:1, 17, 22; 8:20; 9:1, 4, 5, 11:23; 18:14; 19:1; 31:3; Josh 23:3,

See the recent study of Robker (2012) advocating an early northern pro-Jehuide source in 1–2 Kings.

11.4. A Josianic Edition of 1–2 Kings

417

11.4. A Josianic Edition of 1–2 Kings The results of this study will also have future import on considerations of the post-Hezekian compositional history of 1–2 Kings. The major question here is: What kind of text should be reconstructed as a “Josianic” edition of 1–2 Kings? Did Josiah actually carry out a reform? To what extent was Deuteronomy the major impetus behind Josiah’s reform? The outcome of the present study has argued that Hezekiah’s reform at least provides a historical precedent for the later Josianic effort. Monroe has recently maintained that the connection between Deuteronomy and Josiah in 2 Kgs 22–23 was part of a postmonarchic reworking of an earlier holiness substratum in the Deuteronomistic account of Josiah.6 In this pre-Dtr Josianic account, the reform was not connected with the theme of centralization, even despite the references to the bāmôt. It is in the Deuteronomistic text, however, that Josiah “supplanted Hezekiah as the hero of Israel’s preexilic history.”7 It may therefore be necessary to distinguish a Josianic supplement to the HH from a later more Deuteronomistic edition of 1–2 Kings. The results of this study also demonstrate that the accounts of Solomon, Rehoboam, and Jeroboam in 1 Kgs 9–14 (esp. the MT version) should also factor into the discussion, as they prefigure the present form of Josiah’s account in 2 Kgs 23. The seminal insight of De Wette has provided us with a valuable lens through which to read 1–2 Kings. As is to be expected in scientific research, however, De Wette’s emphasis on Josiah and Deuteronomy, however significant it has been for modern scholarship, is only one piece of the puzzle. Reading the framework of 1–2 Kings according to the characteristics of texts of the same or comparable genres provides another important lens for interpretation. Whereas the focus from the vantage point of Josiah points one in the direction of Deuteronomy or vice-versa, from Deuteronomy to Josiah, the reading informed by genre comparison leads one to detect the original climax in Hezekiah’s account.

6 Monroe 2011. The holiness account is found in 2 Kgs 23:5*, 6–11, 12*, 13*, 14b, 15*, 16a. Monroe argues that the Holiness Code as we presently know it did not necessarily exist by Josiah’s time (ibid. 136). 7 Ibid. 136.

Appendix

The Hezekian History Reconstructed Solomon’s Account LXX 2:46l Solomon son of David reigned over Israel and Judah in Jerusalem. [HH 3:1He did what was right in the eyes of YHWH, and he walked in the way of David, his father.] 2 Only the people kept burning incenseofferings at the bāmôt; for a temple had not been built for the name of YHWH until then.

l)r#y l( Klm dwd Nb hml#[w]LXX 2:46l yny(b r#yh #(yw1] Ml#wryb hdwhyw M(h qr2 [wyb) dwd Krdb hwhy tyb hnbn )l yk twmbb (!)Myr+qm Klyw Mhh Mymyh d( hwhy M#l

Theophany at Gibeon 4 The king went to Gibeon to sacrifice there, for it was the largest bāmâ. He would offer one thousand whole burnt offerings on that altar. 5In Gibeon, YHWH appeared to Solomon in a dream at night. God said, “Ask for whatever I might give to you.” 6aSolomon said, “You have showed great faithfulness to your servant David, my father, just as he walked in truth, loyalty, and uprightness of heart with you. 7Now, YHWH, my God, you have crowned your servant in place of David, my father. But I am a young man, not knowing how to go out or come in. 8Your servant is in the midst of your people, a people numerous beyond reckoning or count. 9So give your servant a listening heart to rule your people, understanding between good and evil; for who can rule this numerous people of yours?” 11God said to him, “You did not ask for long life or riches or the life of your enemies but to understand how to hear judgment. 12Behold, I have given you a wise and understanding heart. 13Even what you did not ask I have given to you: riches and honor so that none among the kings should become like you. 15Solomon woke up and behold it was dream. He offered whole burnt offerings and made well-being offerings and made a feast for all of his servants.

ay™Ih y¶I;k M$Dv AjâO;b◊zIl ‹hÎn‚OoVbˆ…g JKRl§R;mAh JKRl∏´¥yÅw4 l™Ao h$OmølVv h∞RlSoÅy ‹twølOo PRl§Ra h¡Dlwød◊…gAh h∞DmD;bAh _lRa h¢Dwøh◊y hªDa√rˆn Nw#øoVbˆgV;b5 :a…wáhAh Aj¶E;b◊zI;mAh l™AaVv My$IhølTa rRmaâø¥yÅw hDl◊y¡D;lAh MwâølSjA;b häOmølVv Dty%IcDo h°D;tAa h#OmølVv rRmaâø¥yÅw6a :JK`Dl_NR;tRa h¶Dm JK°AlDh ·rRvSaA;k ~lwødÎ…g dRs∞Rj yIbDa d∞Iw∂d ‹ÔK√;dVbAo_MIo K¡D;mIo b™DbEl tñårVvˆyVb…w hö∂q∂dVxIb…w tªRmTaR;b ÔKy˝‰nDpVl $ÔK√;dVbAo_t`Ra D;tVk∞AlVmIh ‹hD;tAa y$DhølTa h∞Dwh◊y ‹hD;tAo◊w7 oäådEa añøl N$Of∂q rAo∞An ‹yIkOn`Da◊w y¡IbDa d∞Iw∂;d tAj™A;t rªRvSa b›∂r_MAo äÔKV;mAo JKwñøtV;b $ÔK√;dVb°Ao◊w8 :aáøbÎw ta¶Ex %ÔK√;dVbAoVl °D;tAtÎn◊w9:bíOrEm r™EpD;sˆy añøl◊w h¢RnD;mˆy_aáøl bwâøf_Ny`E;b Ny™IbDhVl $ÔKV;mAo_t`Ra fâOÚpVvIl ‹Ao‹EmOv b§El d™EbD;kAh ñÔKV;mAo_tRa f$OÚpVvIl ‹lAk…wy y§Im y∞I;k oó∂rVl %ÔKV;l D;tVl°AaDv_aáøl wy#DlEa My%IhølTa rRma∏ø¥yÅw11 :h`R%zAh D;tVl™AaDv añøl◊w rRv$Oo ‹ÔKV;l D;tVl§AaDv_aáøl◊w My#I;bår My∞ImÎy :f`DÚpVvIm AoñOmVvIl Ny™IbDh öÔKV;l D;tVlªAaDv◊w ÔKy¡Rb◊yOa vRp∞Rn r§RvSa M∏Åg◊w13 Nw$øbÎn◊w M∞DkDj bEl£ #ÔKVl yI;t∞AtÎn —h∞E…nIh12 rRvSa dwóøbD;k_MÅ…g rRväOo_MÅ…g JK$Dl yI;t∞AtÎn ‹D;tVl‹AaDv_aáøl :ÔKy`RmÎy_lD;k My™IkDlV;mA;b vy¢Ia ÔKwñømDk h∏ÎyDh_aøl MÊ%AlDv…wr◊y aw°øbÎ¥yÅw MwóølSj h∞E…nIh◊w häOmølVv Xñåqˆ¥yÅw15 ‹twølOo lAo§A¥yÅw yGÎnOdSa_tyîrV;b NwêørSa —y∞EnVpIl —dâOmSoÅ¥yìÅw p :wyá∂dDbSo_lDkVl h™R;tVvIm cAo¶A¥yÅw My$ImDlVv cAo∞A¥yÅw

420

Appendix

Continue with material (including the account of the temple construction) at 3 Reg 5:14ab, 1 Kgs 5:15a, 16, 20*, 22–25, 26b–27, 28b, 31–32; 6:2–10*, 15– 36*; 7:15–41*; 8:1–6*, 12–13, 62, 63b; 3 Reg 9:9a; 1 Kgs 9:10–10:29* (see ch. 6). 11:41

As for the rest of the events of Solomon and all that he did and his wisdom, are they not written on the Scroll of the events of Solomon? 3 Reg 12:24a And Solomon lay down with his fathers and was buried with his fathers in the City of David, and Rehoboam his son reigned in his place in Jerusalem. Rehoboam’s Account He was sixteen years old when he began to reign and he reigned seventeen years in Jerusalem and the name of his mother was Naamah daughter of Hanun son of Nahas king of the Ammonites. He did evil in the eyes of YHWH and he did not walk in the way of David his father.

wóøtDmVkDj◊w h™DcDo r¶RvSa_lDk◊w höOmølVv y¬érVbî;d rRt∏‰y◊w41 :háOmølVv yñérVbî;d rRp™Es_lAo My$IbUtV;k M∞Eh_awáølSh wytb) M( rbqyw wytb) M( hlm# wytxt wnb 12:24a M(bxr Klmyw dwd ry(b bk#yw Ml#wryb

hn# hr#( (b#w wklmb hn# hr#( ## Nb #xn Nb Nwnx tb hm(n wm) M#w Ml#wryb Klm Klh )lw hwhy yny(b (rh #(yw Nwm( ynb Klm wyb) dwd Krdb

Continue with the short account of the division of the kingdom in 3 Reg 12:24b–z (see ch. 7). Jeroboam’s Cultic Sin 1 Kgs 12:25 Jeroboam built Shechem in the hill country of Ephraim and he dwelled in it. He left there and built Penuel. 26He thought to himself, “Now the kingdom will return to the House of David. 27If this people goes up to make sacrifices in the House of YHWH in Jerusalem, they will kill me and return to Rehoboam king of Judah. 28The king took counsel and made two golden calves. He said to them, “It is too difficult for you to go up to Jerusalem. Behold, your god, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt.” 29He placed one in Bethel and the other he placed in Dan. 30And this thing became a sin. The people went before the one as far as Dan.

;h¡D;b bRv∞E¥yÅw MˆyäårVpRa r¶AhV;b M¢RkVv_tRa MªDoVb∂rÎy NRb∏ˆ¥yÅw25 M™DoVb∂rÎy rRmañø¥yÅw26 :l`Ea…wnVÚp_tRa NRb™I¥yÅw M$DÚvIm a∞Ex´¥yÅw _M`Ia27:d`Iw∂;d ty¶EbVl h™DkDlVmA;mAh b…wñvD;t h¢D;tAo wóø;bIlV;b hÎwh◊y_tyEbV;b My§IjDb◊z tw°øcSoAl hG‰%zAh M∞DoDh —h∞RlSoÅy _lRa M$Rhy´nêOdSa_lRa ‹h‰%zAh M§DoDh b∞El bDv◊w MÊ$AlDv…wêryI;b M¶DoVbAj√r_lRa …wb™Dv◊w yˆnÁ¨g∂rShÅw hó∂d…wh◊y ‹JKRl∞Rm M™DoVbAj√r y∞El◊gRo y™EnVv cAoÁÅ¥yÅw JKRl$R;mAh X∞AoÎ…wˆ¥yÅw28 :há∂d…wh◊y_JKRl`Rm MÊ$AlDv…wr◊y twâølSoEm ‹MRkDl_bår M#RhElSa rRmaâø¥yÅw b¡DhÎz X®r¶RaEm ÔK…wälToRh r¶RvSa l$Ea∂rVcˆy ‹ÔKy‹RhølTa h§E…nIh _tRa◊w l¡Ea_ty`EbV;b d™DjRaDh_tRa MRc¶D¥yÅw29 :Mˆyá∂rVxIm ta¡DÚfAjVl h™R%zAh r¶Db∂;dAh y¢Ih◊yÅw30 :Ná∂dV;b N¶AtÎn d™DjRaDh :Ná∂;d_dAo d™DjRaDh y¶EnVpIl M¢DoDh …wñkVl´¥yÅw

Appendix

421

Continue with the remainder of Rehoboam’s account in 1 Kgs 14:25–28. Rehoboam’s Epilogue 1 Kgs 14:29 As for the rest of the events of Rehoboam, are they not written on the Scroll of the Events of the Days of the Kings of Judah. 31 Rehoboam lay down with his fathers and was buried with his fathers in the City of David and Abijam his son reigned in his place. Abijam’s Account 15:1 In the eighteenth year of king Jeroboam son of Nebat Abijam began to reign over Judah. 2Three years he reigned in Jerusalem and the name of his mother was Maacah daughter of Abishalom. 3He walked in the sins of his father that he had done before him. 7 As for the rest of the events of Abijam, are they not written on the Scroll of the Events of the Days of the Kings of Judah. 8Abijam lay down with his fathers and (LXX: was buried with his fathers) in the City of David and Abijam his son reigned in his place. Asa’s Account 9 In the twentieth year of Jeroboam king of Israel, Asa king of Judah began to reign. 10 Forty-one years he reigned in Jerusalem and the name of his mother was Maacah daughter of Abishalom. 11Asa did right in the eyes of YHWH like David his father.14aBut (LXX/OL: he did not remove) the bāmôt.

_aølSh h¡DcDo r∞RvSa_lDk◊w M™DoVbAj√r yñérVbî;d rRt¢Ry◊w29 y¶EkVlAmVl My™ImÎ¥yAh yñérVbî;d rRp¢Es_lAo My#Ib…wtVk hD;m∞Eh r§Eb∂;qˆ¥yÅw wy#DtObSa_MIo M%DoVbAj√r b°A;kVvˆ¥yÅw31:há∂d…wh◊y wäønV;b M¶D¥yIbSa JKöølVmˆ¥yÅw dYˆw∂;d ry∞IoV;b ‹wyDtObSa_MIo p :wy`D;tVjA;t f¡Db◊n_NR;b M∞DoVb∂rÎy JKRl™R;mAl h$érVcRo h∞RnOmVv ‹tÅnVvIb…w1 JK™AlDm MyYˆnDv vâølDv2 :há∂d…wh◊y_lAo M™D¥yIbSa JK¶AlDm :MwáølDvyIbSa_tA;b h™DkSoAm w$ø;mIa M∞Ev◊w MÊ¡DlDv…wryI;b rRt∏‰y◊w7 wy¡DnDpVl h∞DcDo_rRvSa wy™IbDa twañøÚfAjV;b JKRlÁ´¥yÅw3 M∞Eh_awáølSh h$DcDo r∞RvSa_lDk◊w ‹MÎ¥yIbSa yôérVbî;d hó∂d…wh◊y y∞EkVlAmVl My™ImÎ¥yAh yñérVbî;d rRp¢Es_lAo My#Ib…wtV;k b§A;kVvˆ¥yÅw8 :M`DoVb∂rÎy Ny¶Eb…w M™D¥yIbSa Ny¶E;b h¶DmDjVlIm…w ry∞IoV;b wytb) M( rbqyw_MIo ‹MÎ¥yIbSa h¢Dt◊yDh p :wy`D;tVjA;t wäønVb a¶DsDa JKöølVmˆ¥yÅw d¡Iw∂;d wy$DtObSa

JK¶AlDm l¡Ea∂rVcˆy JKRl∞Rm M™DoVb∂rÎyVl My$îrVcRo t∞AnVvIb…w9 hYÎnDv ‹tAjAa◊w My§IoD;b√rAa◊w10 :há∂d…wh◊y JKRl¶Rm a™DsDa _tA;b h™DkSoAm w$ø;mIa M∞Ev◊w MÊ¡DlDv…wryI;b JK™AlDm h¡Dwh◊y y∞EnyEoV;b r™DvÎ¥yAh a¢DsDa cAoªA¥yÅw11 :MwáølDvyIbSa 14a rysh )l twäømD;bAh◊w :wy`IbDa d™Iw∂dV;k

Continue with 1 Kgs 15:16–22. 23

As for the rest of the events of Asa and all of his might, all he did, and the cities he built, are they not written on the Scroll of the Events of the Days of the Kings of Judah; only during his old age he developed a foot disease. 24Asa lay down with his fathers and was buried with his fathers in the City of David and Jehoshaphat his son reigned in his place.

r∞RvSa_lDk◊w w%øt∂r…w°b◊…g_lDk◊w aDsDa_yáérVbî;d rRt∞Ry◊w23 My#Ib…wtVk hD;m∞Eh_aáølSh hYÎnD;b r∞RvSa ‹MyîrDo`Rh◊w h#DcDo qårï hó∂d…wh◊y y∞EkVlAmVl My™ImÎ¥yAh yñérVbî;d rRp¢Es_lAo ‹aDsDa b§A;kVvˆ¥yÅw24 :wy`Dl◊går_tRa h™DlDj w$øtÎnVqˆz t∞EoVl d∞Iw∂;d ry™IoV;b wy$DtObSa_MIo ‹rEb∂;qˆ¥yÅw wy$DtObSa_MIo p :wy`D;tVjA;t wäønV;b f¶DpDvwøh◊y JKöølVmˆ¥yÅw

422

Nadab’s Account 1 Kgs 15:25 Nadab son of Jeroboam began to reign over Israel in the second year of Asa king of Judah. He reigned over Israel two years. 26He did evil in the eyes of YHWH and walked in the way of his father and in his sin that he led Israel to commit. 27Baasha son of Ahijah of the House of Issachar conspired against him. Baasha struck him dead in Gibbethon, which belonged to the Philistines (Nadab and all Israel had been laying siege against Gibbethon). 28Baasha killed him in the third year of Asa king of Judah and he reigned in his place. 29 When he began to reign, he struck down all the house of Jeroboam. 31As for the rest of the events of Asa and all that he did, are they not written on the Scroll of the Events of the Days of the Kings of Israel? Baasha’s Account 1 Kgs 15:33 In the third year of Asa king of Judah, Baasha son of Ahijah began to reign. He reigned over Israel in Tirzah twenty-four years. 34He did evil in the eyes of YHWH and he walked in the way of Jeroboam and in his sin that he led Israel to commit. 16:5As for the rest of the events of Baasha and what he did and his might, are they not written on the Scroll of the Events of the Days of the Kings of Israel? 6Baasha lay down with his fathers and was buried in Tirzah and Elah his son reigned in his place.

Appendix

Mˆy$A;tVv t∞AnVvI;b l$Ea∂rVcˆy_lAo ‹JKAlDm M#DoVb∂rÎy_NR;b bâ∂dÎn◊w25 :Mˆy`DtÎnVv l™Ea∂rVcˆy_lAo JKñølVmˆ¥yÅw hó∂d…wh◊y JKRl∞Rm a™DsDaVl wy$IbDa JK®râ®dV;b ‹JKRl‹´¥yÅw h¡Dwh◊y y∞EnyEoV;b oäårDh cAo¶A¥yÅw26 r°OvVqˆ¥yÅw27 :l`Ea∂rVcˆy_tRa ay™IfTjRh r¶RvSa w$øtaDÚfAjVb∏…w …wh∞E;kÅ¥yÅw r$DkCDÚcˆy ty∞EbVl ‹hÎ¥yIjSa_NRb a§DvVoA;b wy%DlDo _lDk◊w ‹b∂dÎn◊w My¡I;tVvIlVÚpAl r∞RvSa NwäøtV;bˆgV;b a$DvVoAb t∞AnVvI;b a$DvVoAb …wh∞EtIm◊yÅw28 :NwáøtV;bˆ…g_l`Ao MyäîrDx l$Ea∂rVcˆy y∞Ih◊yÅw29 :wy`D;tVjA;t JKäølVmˆ¥yÅw hó∂d…wh◊y JKRl∞Rm a™DsDaVl v$ølDv yñérVbî;d rRt¢Ry◊w31M$DoVb∂rÎy ty∞E;b_lD;k_tRa ‹hD;kIh w#økVlDmVk rRp¢Es_lAo My#Ib…wtV;k M∞Eh_aølSh h¡DcDo r∞RvSa_lDk◊w bä∂dÎn :l`Ea∂rVcˆy y¶EkVlAmVl My™ImÎ¥yAh yñérVbî;d

a°DvVoA;b JKAlDm hó∂d…wh◊y JKRl∞Rm a™DsDaVl v$ølDv t∞AnVvI;b33 o™A;b√rAa◊w MyñîrVcRo h$Dx√rItV;b ‹lEa∂rVcˆy_lAo h§D¥yIjSa_NRb JK®râ®dV;b ‹JKRl‹´¥yÅw h¡Dwh◊y y∞EnyEoV;b oäårDh cAo¶A¥yÅw34 :h`DnDv s :l`Ea∂rVcˆy_tRa ay™IfTjRh r¶RvSa w$øtaDÚfAjVb∏…w M$DoVb∂rÎy _aølSh wóøt∂r…wáb◊g…w h™DcDo r¶RvSaÅw a¢DvVoAb yñérVbî;d rRt∏‰y◊w5 y¶EkVlAmVl My™ImÎ¥yAh yñérVbî;d rRp¢Es_lAo My#Ib…wtV;k M∞Eh r™Eb∂;qˆ¥yÅw wy$DtObSa_MIo ‹aDvVoA;b b§A;kVvˆ¥yÅw6 :l`Ea∂rVcˆy :wy`D;tVjA;t wäønVb h¶DlEa JKöølVmˆ¥yÅw h¡Dx√rItV;b

Appendix

Elah’s Account 1 Kgs 16:8 In the twenty-sixth year of Asa king of Judah, Elah son of Baasha began to reign. He reigned over Israel in Tirzah two years. 9His Servant Zimri, general over half the chariots conspired against him. (Now he was drinking himself silly at the house of Arza, who managed the palace in Tirzah.) 10Zimri came and struck him and killed him in the twenty-seventh year of Asa king of Judah and he reigned in his place. Elah’s Epilogue 1 Kgs 16:14 As for the rest of the events of Elah and all he did and his might, are they not written on the Scroll of the Events of the Days of the Kings of Israel. Zimri’s Account 15 In twenty-seventh year of Asa king of Judah Zimri began to reign. He reigned seven days in Tirzah. (Now the people were laying siege against Gibbethon, which belonged to the Philistines.) 16The people who were deployed heard the report, “Zimri has revolted and even struck down the king.” They crowned (LXXB/OL: in Israel) Omri, the military general, over Israel on that day in the camp. 17 Omri went up and all Israel with him from Gibbethon and they laid siege to Tirzah. 18When Zimri saw that the city was captured, he went to the fortified area of the royal palace and he burned it and the royal palace with fire and he died. 20As for the rest of the events of Zimri and his conspiracy that he undertook, are they not written on the Scroll of the Events of the Days of the Kings of Israel.

423

hó∂d…wh◊y JKRl∞Rm a™DsDaVl hYÎnDv ‹vEvÎw MyôîrVcRo t∏ÅnVvI;b8 h™Dx√rItV;b l¢Ea∂rVcˆy_lAo aªDvVoA;b_NRb h°DlEa JKAlDm ty∞IxSjAm r™Ac y$îrVmˆz wêø;dVbAo ‹wyDlDo rôOvVqˆ¥yÅw9 :Mˆy`DtÎnVv a$Dx√rAa ty∞E;b rw$ø;kIv h∞RtOv ‹hDx√rItVb a…wôh◊w bRkó∂rDh …wh∞E;kÅ¥yÅw ‹yîrVmˆz aôøbÎ¥yÅw10 :h`Dx√rItV;b tˆy™A;bAh_lAo r¶RvSa hó∂d…wh◊y JKRl∞Rm a™DsDaVl oAb$RvÎw MyâîrVcRo ‹tÅnVvI;b …wh$EtyIm◊yÅw :wy`D;tVjA;t JKäølVmˆ¥yÅw

M∞Eh_awáølSh h¡DcDo r∞RvSa_lDk◊w h™DlEa yñérVbî;d rRt¢Ry◊w14 y¶EkVlAmVl My™ImÎ¥yAh yñérVbî;d rRp¢Es_lAo My#Ib…wtV;k p :l`Ea∂rVcˆy

h$∂d…wh◊y JKRl∞Rm ‹aDsDaVl hGÎnDv oAb%RvÎw My°îrVcRo ·tÅnVvI;b15 _l`Ao MyYˆnOj M∞DoDh◊w h¡Dx√rItV;b My™ImÎy t¶AoVbIv yöîrVmˆz JK¶AlDm My∞InOjAh ‹MDoDh o§AmVvˆ¥yÅw16 :My`I;tVvIlVÚpAl r¶RvSa NwäøtV;bˆ…g …wk∞IlVmÅ¥yÅw JKRl¡R;mAh_tRa h∞D;kIh M™Ag◊w y$îrVmˆz r∞Av∂q r$OmaEl Mwñø¥yA;b l¢Ea∂rVcˆy_lAo aªDbDx_rAc y°îrVmDo_tRa l)r#yb wäø;mIo l¶Ea∂rVcˆy_lDk◊w yöîrVmDo h¶RlSoÅ¥yÅw17 :h`RnSjA;m`A;b a…wähAh ‹yîrVmˆz twôøa√rI;k yIh◊yÅw18 :h`Dx√rI;t_lAo …wr™UxÎ¥yÅw NwóøtV;bˆ…g`Im JKRl¡R;mAh_tyE;b Nwâøm√rAa_lRa aäøbÎ¥yÅw ry$IoDh hâ∂dV;kVlˆn_y`I;k ‹rRt‹‰y◊w20 :táOmÎ¥yÅw v™EaD;b JKRl¢Rm_ty`E;b_tRa wyªDlDo P°OrVcˆ¥yÅw My#Ib…wtV;k M∞Eh_aáølSh r¡Dv∂q r∞RvSa wëørVvIq◊w y$îrVmˆz yâérVbî;d p :l`Ea∂rVcˆy y¶EkVlAmVl My™ImÎ¥yAh yñérVbî;d rRp¢Es_lAo

424 Tibni and Omri 21 The people of Israel were divided in half. Half of the people followed Tibni son of Ginath to crown him and the other half followed Omri. 22The people who followed Omri overcame the people who followed Tibni son of Ginath, and Tibni died and Omri reigned in his place. Omri’s Account 23 In the thirty-first year of Asa king of Judah, Omri began to reign. He reigned over Israel twelve years. In Tirzah he reigned six years. 24He purchased the hill of Samaria from Shemer with two talents of silver and he reconstructed the hill and called the name of the city he built after Shemer the master of the hill of Samaria. 25Omri did evil in the eyes of YHWH more than all who (LXX/OL: were) before him. 26a

He walked in all way of Jeroboam son of Nebat and in his sin that he led Israel to commit. 27As for the rest of the events of Omri, what he did and his prowess that he showed, are they not written on the Scroll of the Events of the Days of the Kings of Israel. 28Omri lay down with his fathers and was buried in Samaria and Ahab his son reigned in his place. Jehoshaphat’s Account 3 Reg 16:28a In the eleventh year of Omri, Jehoshaphat son of Asa began to reign. He was thirty-five years old when he began to reign. Twenty-five years he reigned in Jerusalem. The name of his mother was Azubah daughter of Shilhi.

Appendix

hÎyDh M%DoDh y°IxSj yIx¡EjAl l™Ea∂rVcˆy M¶DoDh q¢ElDj´y zªDa21 yñérSjAa y™IxSjAh◊w w$økyIlVmAhVl ‹tÅnyˆ…g_NRb y§InVbIt y°érSjAa M›DoDh_tRa y$îrVmDo yâérSjAa r∞RvSa ‹MDoDh q§AzTj‰¥yÅw22 :yáîrVmDo JKäølVmˆ¥yÅw yYˆnVbI;t tDm∞D¥yÅw t¡Anyˆ…g_NRb y∞InVbI;t yäérSjAa r¶RvSa p :yáîrVmDo

h$∂d…wh◊y KJ Rl∞Rm ‹aDsDaVl hGÎnDv t%AjAa◊w My°Iv ølVv ·tÅnVvI;b23 h¡DnDv häérVcRo My¶E;tVv l$Ea∂rVcˆy_lAo ‹yîrVmDo JK§AlDm NwÿørVmOv r¶DhDh_tRa N®q˝ˆ¥yÅw24 :My`InDv_vEv JK¶AlDm h™Dx√rItV;b a#∂rVqˆ¥yÅw r$DhDh_tRa ‹NRb‹ˆ¥yÅw PRs¡D;k MˆyâårV;kIkV;b rRm™Rv tRa¶Em y™EnOdSa rRm$Rv_MRv l∞Ao hYÎnD;b r∞RvSa ‹ryIoDh M§Ev_tRa h¡Dwh◊y y∞EnyEoV;b oäårDh yöîrVmDo h¶RcSoÅ¥yÅw25 :NwíørVmOv r¶DhDh :wy`DnDpVl wyh r¶RvSa läO;kIm oårÁÎ¥yÅw

w$øtaDÚfAjVb…w f$Db◊n_NR;b M∞DoVb∂rÎy ‹JK®r‹®;d_lDkV;b JKRlG´¥yÅw26a ‹yîrVmDo yôérVbî;d rRt∏‰y◊w27 l¡Ea∂rVcˆy_tRa ay™IfTjRh r¶RvSa My#Ib…wtV;k M∞Eh_aáølSh h¡DcDo r∞RvSa wäøt∂r…wb◊g…w h$DcDo r∞RvSa b§A;kVvˆ¥yÅw28 :l`Ea∂rVcˆy y¶EkVlAmVl My™ImÎ¥yAh yñérVbî;d rRp¢Es_lAo b¶DaVjAa JKöølVmˆ¥yÅw NwúørVmOvV;b r™Eb∂;qˆ¥yÅw wy$DtObSa_MIo ‹yîrVmDo p :wy`D;tVjA;t wäønV;b

Klm yrm(l hn# hr#( tx) tn#bw28a hn# #mxw My#l# Nb )s) Nb +p#why Ml#wryb Klm hn# #mxw Myr#(w wklmb yxl# tb hbwz( wm) M#w

Appendix 28b

He walked in the way of Asa, his father, and he did not turn from it, doing right in the eyes of YHWH; only (LXXL/OL: he did not remove) the bāmôt; they kept sacrificing and burning incenseofferings at the bāmôt. 28gAnd Jehoshaphat was in league with the king of Israel. As for the rest of the events of Jehoshaphat and all of his prowess that he showed and how he fought, are they not written on the Scroll of the Events of the Days of the Kings of Judah? 28h Jehoshaphat lay down with his fathers and he was buried with his fathers in the City of David and Jehoram his son reigned in his place. Ahab’s Account 3 Reg 16:29 In the second year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah Ahab son of Omri began to reign. He reigned over Israel in Samaria twenty-two years. 30Ahab did evil in the eyes of YHWH more than all who were before him. 31If it was not enough to walk in the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, he married Jezebel daughter of Ethbaal king of the Sidonians. He went and served Baal and worshipped him. 32He erected an altar for Baal in the temple of Baal that he constructed in Samaria.

425

tw#(l hnmm rs )l wyb) )s) Krdb Klyw28b rysh )l twmbh K) hwhy yny(b r#yh +p#why r#qyw28g Myr+qmw twmbb Myxbzm lkw +p#why yrbd rtyw l)r#y Klm M( Mybwtk Mh )lh Mxln r#)w r#) wtrwbg hdwhy yklml Mymyh yrbd rps l( wytb) M( rbqyw wytb) M( +p#why bk#yw28h wytxt wnb Mrwhy Klmyw dwd ry(b

Klm hdwhy Klm +p#whyl Myt# tn#bw29 Nw$ørVmâOvV;b ‹lEa∂rVcˆy_lAo JKølVmˆ¥yÅw yrm( Nb b)x)

y∞EnyEoV;b oäårDh bªDaVjAa cAo∏Å¥yÅw30 :h`DnDv Mˆy™A;tVv…w MyñîrVcRo w$ø;tVkRl lâéqÎnSh ‹yIh◊yÅw31 :wy`DnDpVl r¶RvSa läO;kIm h¡Dwh◊y lRbG‰zyIa_tRa h%DÚvIa j°å;qˆ¥yÅw f¡Db◊n_NR;b M∞DoVb∂rÎy twaäøÚfAjV;b _tRa dâObSoÅ¥y`Aw ‹JKRl‹´¥yÅw MyYˆnOdyIx JKRl∞Rm ‹lAo‹A;bVtRa_tA;b ty∞E;b lAo¡D;bAl Aj™E;b◊zIm M®q¶D¥yÅw32 :wáøl …wj™A;tVvˆ¥yÅw lAo$A;bAh :NwíørVmOvV;b h™DnD;b r¶RvSa lAo$A;bAh

426 Ahab’s Epilogue 1 Kgs 22:39 As for the rest of the events of Ahab and all that he did and the ivory palace that he built and the cities he built, are they not written on the Scroll of the Events of the Days of the Kings of Israel? 40Ahab lay down with his fathers and Ahaziah his son reigned in his place. Northern Ahaziah’s Account 3 Reg 22:52 In the twenty-fourth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, Ahaziah son of Ahab began to reign. He reigned over Israel in Samaria two years. 53He did evil in the eyes of YHWH and walked (LXX: in the way of Ahab and Jezebel his mother and in the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat) that he led Israel to commit. 54a He served Baal and worshipped him.

Appendix

‹NEÚvAh ty§Eb…w h#DcDo r∞RvSa_lDk◊w b%DaVjAa y°érVbî;d ·rRt‰y◊w39 M∞Eh_awáølSh h¡DnD;b r∞RvSa MyäîrDoRh_lDk◊w hYÎnD;b r∞RvSa :l`Ea∂rVcˆy y¶EkVlAmVl My™ImÎ¥yAh yñérVbî;d rRp¢Es_lAo My#Ib…wtV;k wäønVb …wh¶Dy◊zAjSa JKöølVmˆ¥yÅw wy¡DtObSa_MIo b™DaVjAa b¶A;kVvˆ¥yÅw40 p :wy`D;tVjA;t Klm +p#whyl hn# (br) Myr#( tn#bw52 l)r#y l( b)x) Nb whyzx) Klm hdwhy hwhy ynyb r#yh #(yw53 hn# Myt# Nwrm#b wm) lbzy) Krdbw b)x) Krdb Klyw t) )y+xh r#) +bn Nb M(bry tw)+xb

wóøl h™RwSjA;tVv`I¥yÅw lAo$A;bAh_tRa ‹dObSoÅ¥y`Aw54a l)r#y

Continue with the prophetic story in 2 Kgs 1. 2 Kgs 1:17a

And he died according to the word of YHWH that Elijah had spoken and Joram reigned in his place. 18As for the rest of the events of Ahaziah that he did, are they not written on the Scroll of the Events of the Days of the Kings of Israel?

JKôølVmˆ¥yÅw …whGÎ¥yIlEa r∞R;bî;d_rRvSa —h∞Dwh◊y r¶Ab√dI;k tDm˝Î¥yÅw17 r∞RvSa …wh™Dy◊zAjSa yñérVbî;d rRt¢Ry◊w18 p wy$D;tVjA;t ‹M∂rwøh◊y My™ImÎ¥yAh yñérVbî;d rRp¢Es_lAo My#Ib…wtVk hD;m∞Eh_awáølSh h¡DcDo p :l`Ea∂rVcˆy y¶EkVlAmVl

Joram’s Account 4 Reg 1:18a (LXXL: In the second year of Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, Joram son of Ahab began to reign. He reigned in Samaria twelve years.) 2 Kgs 3:2aHe did evil in the eyes of YHWH; only not like his father or mother. 3Only to the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat that he led Israel to commit did he cling. He did not turn from it.

Klm +p#why Nb Mrwhyl Myt# tn#bw18a Myt#] Nwrm#b b)x) Nb Mrwhy Klm hdwhy q›år hYÎwh◊y y∞EnyEoV;b ‹oårDh h§RcSoÅ¥yÅw3:2a [hn# hr#(

Joram’s Epilogue is missing.

f¢Db◊n_N`R;b ‹MªDoVb∂rÎy twaøÚfAjV;b qår3 wóø;mIaVk…w wy™IbDaVk añøl r™Ds_aøl q¡Eb∂;d l™Ea∂rVcˆy_tRa ay¶IfTjRh_rRvSa s :hÎ…n`R;mIm

Appendix Jehoram’s Account 2 Kgs 8:16 In the second year of Ahaziah, Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah began to reign. 17He was thirty-two years old when he began to reign. Eight years he reigned in Jerusalem. 18bHe did evil in the eyes of YHWH. 20 In his days Edom revolted from under the control of Judah and they crowned king over themselves. 21Jehoram crossed over to Zair and all the chariots with him, and he was going up at night, and the Edomites who surrounded him struck him and the generals of the chariots and the people fled to their tents. 22Edom has revolted from under the control of Judah until this day. Then Libnah revolted at that time. 23As for the rest of the events of Jehoram and all that he did, are they not written on the Scroll of the Events of the Days of the Kings of Judah? 24Jehoram lay down with his fathers and he was buried with his fathers in the City of David and Ahaziah his son reigned in his place. Southern Ahaziah’s Account 2 Kgs 9:29 In the eleventh year of Joram son of Ahab, Ahaziah began to reign over Judah. 4 Reg 10:36+ (LXXL/OL)He was twentytwo years old when he began to reign. He reigned one year in Jerusalem. The name of his mother was Athaliah daughter of (Omri: OL/MT 2 Kgs 8:27) king of Israel. He did evil in the eyes of YHWH. He went to war with Hazael king of Aram. Then Jehu son of Nimshi conspired against Joram son of Ahab king of Israel and struck him in Jezreel and he died and Jehu also shot Ahaziah king of Judah on a chariot and he died there and his servants transported him to Jerusalem and they buried him with his fathers in the City of David. Source citation and epilogue are lacking for Ahaziah’s account. Prologue to Jehu’s Account is absent.

427

KJ Rl∞Rm ‹bDaVjAa_NR;b [whyzx)l Myt#] t∞AnVvIb…w16 :há∂d…wh◊y JKRl¶Rm f™DpDvwøh◊y_NR;b Mñ∂rwøh◊y JK¢AlDm l$Ea∂rVcˆy h∞RnOmVv…w wóøkVlDmVb h∞DyDh h™DnDv Mˆy¢A;tVv…w My¶Iv ølVv_NR;b17 y¶EnyEoV;b oäårDh cAo¶A¥yÅw18b :MÊ`DlDv…wryI;b JK™AlDm MyYˆnDv :h`Dwh◊y …wk¶IlVmÅ¥yÅw hó∂d…wh◊y_dÅy tAj™A;tIm Mw$ødTa o∞AvDÚp ‹wyDmÎyV;b20 bRkä®rDh_lDk◊w h∂ry$IoDx ‹M∂rwøy rôObSoÅ¥yÅw21 :JKRl`Rm M™RhyElSo Mw%ødTa (!)wt) h°R;kÅ¥yÅw hDl◊y#Al Mâ∂q a…wh_yIh◊y`Aw wóø;mIo M™DoDh sÎn¶D¥yÅw bRk$®rDh yâérDc ‹tEa◊w ‹wyDlEa by§EbO;sAh d™Ao h$∂d…wh◊y_dÅy ‹tAj‹A;tIm Mw#ødTa o∞AvVpˆ¥yÅw22 :wy`DlDhOaVl rRt¢Ry◊w23 :ay`IhhA t¶EoD;b h™DnVbIl o¶AvVpI;t z¢Da h¡R%zAh Mwâø¥yAh My#Ib…wtV;k M∞Eh_awáølSh h¡DcDo r∞RvSa_lDk◊w Mä∂rwøy yñérVbî;d b§A;kVvˆ¥yÅw24 :há∂d…wh◊y y¶EkVlAmVl My™ImÎ¥yAh yñérVbî;d rRp¢Es_lAo d¡Iw∂;d ry∞IoV;b wy™DtObSa_MIo r¶Eb∂;qˆ¥yÅw wy$DtObSa_MIo ‹M∂rwøy p :wy`D;tVjA;t wäønVb …wh¶Dy◊zAjSa JKöølVmˆ¥yÅw

b¡DaVjAa_NR;b Mä∂rwøyVl hYÎnDv hâérVcRo t∞AjAa ‹tÅnVvIb…w29 10:36+ Nb hyzx) :há∂d…wh◊y_lAo h™Dy◊zAjSa JK¶AlDm Klm hn# tx)w wklmb hn# Myt#w Myr#( Klm yrm( tb whylt( wm) M#w Ml#wryb hyzx) Klyw hwhy yny(b (rh #(yw l)r#y r#qtyw Mr) Klm l)hzx M( hmxlml Klm b)x) Nb Mrwy l) y#mn Nb )why hrwh Mgw tmyw l)(rzyb whkyw l)r#y hbkrm l( hdwhy Klm hyzx) t) )why hml#wry wydb( wt) wbkryw M# tmyw dwd ry(b wytb) M( wt) wrbqyw

428 Jehu’s Epilogue 2 Kgs 10:34 As for the rest of the events of Jehu and all that he did and all of his might, are they not written on the Scroll of the Events of the Days of the Kings of Israel? 35Jehu lay down with his fathers and (LXXL: he was buried) in Samaria and Jehoahaz his son reigned in his place. Jehoash’s Account 4 Reg 12:1 In the seventh year of Jehu son of Nimshi, Jehoash son of Ahaziah began to reign. 2He was seven years old when he began to reign. Forty years he reigned in Jerusalem. The name of his mother was Zibiah from Beersheba. 3aJehoash did right in the eyes of YHWH. 4Only (he did not remove: OL) the bāmôt; still the people kept sacrificing and burning incenseofferings at the bāmôt. 2 Kgs 12:18Then Hazael king of Aram attacked and fought against Gath and captured it. Hazael decided to attack Jerusalem. 19He took all the gold found in the treasuries of YHWH’s temple and the royal palace, and he sent (it) to Hazael king of Aram and he left Jerusalem. 20As for the rest of the events of Jehoash and all that he did, are they not written on the Scroll of the Events of the Days of the Kings of Judah? 21 He servant arose and made a conspiracy and they struck down Jehoash at BethMillo, which is on the way down to Silla. It was Jozabad son of Shimeath and Jehozabad son of Shomer who struck him down. He died and they buried him with his fathers in the City of David and Amaziah his son reigned in his stead. Jehoahaz’s Account 2 Kgs 13:1 In the twenty-third year of Jehoash son of Ahaziah king of Judah, Jehoahaz son of Jehu began to reign. He reigned over Israel in Samaria seventeen years. 2 He did evil in the eyes of YHWH and he went after the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat that he led Israel to commit; he did not turn from it.

Appendix

_lDk◊w h™DcDo r¶RvSa_lDk◊w a…wöh´y yñérVbî;d rRt∏‰y◊w34 yñérVbî;d rRp¢Es_lAo My#Ib…wtV;k M∞Eh_awáølSh wóøt∂r…wb◊…g _MIo ‹a…wh´y b§A;kVvˆ¥yÅw35 :l`Ea∂rVcˆy y¶EkVlAmVl My™ImÎ¥yAh wäønV;b z¶DjDawøh◊y JKöølVmˆ¥yÅw NwúørVmOvV;b rbqyw wy$DtObSa :wy`D;tVjA;t #)why Klm y#mn Nb )whyl (b# tn#bw12:1 My(br)w wklmb Myn# (b# Nb2 hyzx) Nb r(bm hybc wm) M#w Ml#wryb Klm hn# twmbh qr4 hwhy yny(b r#yh #(yw3a (b# twmbb Myr+qmw Myxbzm dw( rysh )l

t™A…g_lAo MRj¶D;lˆ¥yÅw M$∂rSa JKRl∞Rm ‹lEaÎzSj h#RlSoÅy z∞Da18 :MÊ`DlDv…wr◊y_lAo twäølSoAl wyYÎnDÚp ‹lEaÎzSj MRc§D¥yÅw ;hó∂dV;kVlˆ¥y`Aw ·b#DhÎ%zAh_lD;k t∞Ea h#∂d…wh◊y_JKRl`Rm v∞Dawøh◊y jå;qˆ¥yÅw19 JKRl¡R;mAh ty∞Eb…w h™Dwh◊y_tyE;b twõørVxOaV;b a¢DxVmˆ…nAh :MÊ`DlDv…wr◊y l¶AoEm lAo™A¥yÅw M$∂rSa JKRl∞Rm ‹lEaÎzSj`Al j#AlVvˆ¥yÅw M∞Eh_awølSh h¡DcDo r∞RvSa_lDk◊w v™Dawøy yñérVbî;d rRt¢Ry◊w20 :há∂d…wh◊y y¶EkVlAmVl My™ImÎ¥yAh yñérVbî;d rRp¢Es_lAo My#Ib…wtV;k v$Dawøy_tRa ‹…w;kÅ¥yÅw rRvó∂q_…wírVvVqˆ¥yÅw wyä∂dDbSo …wmñüqÎ¥yÅw21 tDoVmIv_NR;b d∞DbÎzwøy◊w22 :a`D;lIs dñérwø¥yAh aäø;lIm ty¶E;b wõrV;bVqˆ¥yÅw t$OmÎ¥yÅw …wh∞U;kIh ‹wy∂dDbSo —r§EmOv_NR;b d°DbÎzwøhyˆw wäønVb h¶DyVxAmSa JKöølVmˆ¥yÅw d¡Iw∂;d ry∞IoV;b wy™DtObSa_MIo wöøtOa … p :wy`D;tVjA;t

w… h™Dy◊zAjSa_NR;b v¶DawøyVl hYÎnDv ‹v ølDv◊w MyôîrVcRo t∏ÅnVvI;b1 ‹lEa∂rVcˆy_lAo a…wôh´y_NR;b z°DjDawøh◊y JKAlDm hó∂d…wh◊y JKRl∞Rm y∞EnyEoV;b oäårDh cAo¶A¥yÅw2 :h`DnDv häérVcRo o¶AbVv Nw$ørVmâOvV;b _rRvSa f¢Db◊n_NR;b MªDoVb∂rÎy ta%øÚfAj r°AjAa JKRl´¥yÅw h¡Dwh◊y :hÎ…n`R;mIm r¶Ds_aøl l™Ea∂rVcˆy_tRa ay¶IfTjRh

Appendix Jehoahaz’s Epilogue 2 Kgs 13:8 As for the rest of the events of Jehoahaz and all that he did and his might, are they not written on the Scroll of the Events of the Days of the Kings of Israel? 9 Jehoahaz lay down with his fathers and they buried him in Samaria and Joash his son reigned in his place. Joash’s Account 2 Kgs 13:10 In the thirty-seventh year of Jehoash king of Judah, Joash son of Jehoahaz began to reign. He reigned over Israel in Samaria sixteen years. He did evil in the eyes of YHWH; he did not depart from all the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat that he led Israel to commit; he walked in it. 24Then Hazael king of Aram died and Ben-Hadad his son reigned in his place. 25aJoash retook the cities from the control of Ben-Hadad son of Hazael that he had taken from the control of Jehoahaz his father in war. 4 Reg 13:25+As for the rest of the events of Joash and all that he did and his might and how he fought with Amaziah king of Judah, are they not written on the Scroll of the Events of the Days of the Kings of Israel? Joash lay down with his fathers and was buried in Samaria with the kings of Israel and Jeroboam his son reigned in his place. Amaziah’s Account 2 Kgs 14:1 In the second year of Joash son of Jehoahaz king of Israel, Amaziah son of Jehoash king of Judah began to reign. 2He was twenty-five years old when he began to reign. Twenty-nine years he reigned in Jerusalem. The name of his mother was Johoaddam from Jerusalem. 3*He did right in the eyes of YHWH according to all that Jehoash his father had done. 4Only (he did not remove: LXXBL) the bāmôt. Still the people kept sacrificing and burning incenseofferings at the bāmôt. 5When he solidified the kingdom in his power, he struck down his servants who had struck the king his father. 7He struck 10,000 Edomites in the Valley of Salt and seized Sela in battle. He called its name Joktheel as it is today.

429

wóøt∂r…wb◊g…w h™DcDo r¶RvSa_lDk◊w z¢DjDawøh◊y y¬érVbî;d rRt∏‰y◊w8 My™ImÎ¥yAh yñérVbî;d rRp¢Es_lAo My#Ib…wtV;k M∞Eh_awølSh wy$DtObSa_MIo ‹zDjDawáøh◊y b§A;kVvˆ¥yÅw9 :l`Ea∂rVcˆy y¶EkVlAmVl p :wy`D;tVjA;t wäønV;b v¶Dawøy JKöølVmˆ¥yÅw NwúørVmOvV;b …whäürV;bVqˆ¥y`Aw KJ Rl∞Rm v™DawøyVl hYÎnDv ‹oAb‹RvÎw My§Iv ølVv t∏ÅnVvI;b10 ‹lEa∂rVcˆy_lAo z§DjDawøh◊y_NR;b v°Dawøh◊y JKAlDm hó∂d…wh◊y oäårDh h¶RcSo`A¥yÅw11 :h`DnDv häérVcRo v¶Ev Nw$ørVmâOvV;b MªDoVb∂rÎy twaøÚfAj_lD;kIm r#Ds aâøl h¡Dwh◊y y∞EnyEoV;b :JK`DlDh ;h¶D;b l™Ea∂rVcˆy_tRa ay¶IfTjRh_rRvSa f¢Db◊n_NR;b wäønV;b dñådSh_NR;b Mó∂rSa_JKRl`Rm l∞EaÎzSj tDm™D¥yÅw24 jôå;qˆ¥yÅw v∞Dawøh◊y bDv˝Î¥yÅw25a :wy`D;tVjA;t JKöølVmˆ¥yÅw r∞RvSa l$EaÎzSj_NR;b dâådSh_NR;b ‹dÅ¥yIm ‹MyîrDo`Rh_tRa : rtyw13 25+ h¡DmDjVlI;mA;b wy™IbDa z¶DjDawøh◊y d¢A¥yIm j#åqDl r#)w wtrwbg h#( r#) lkw #)why yrbd Mh )lh hdwhy Klm hycm( M( Mxln yklml Mymyh yrbd rps l( Mybwtk rbqyw wytb) M( #)why bk#yw l)r#y M(bry Klmyw l)r#y yklm M( Nwrm#b wytxt wnb

l¡Ea∂rVcˆy JKRl∞Rm z™DjDawøy_NR;b v¶DawøyVl Mˆy$A;tVv t∞AnVvI;b1 _NR;b2 :há∂d…wh◊y JKRl¶Rm v™Dawøy_NRb …wh¶DyVxAmSa JK¢AlDm MyôîrVcRo◊w w$økVlDmVb h∞DyDh ‹hÎnDv v§EmDj◊w My°îrVcRo Nä∂;dAowáøh◊y w$ø;mIa M∞Ev◊w MÊ¡DlDv…wryI;b JK™AlDm hYÎnDv ‹oAv‹EtÎw l¬OkV;k hYÎwh◊y y∞EnyEoV;b ‹rDvÎ¥yAh cAo§A¥yÅw3* :MÊ`DlDv…wr◊y_NIm 4 )l twäømD;bAh qñår : wy™IbDa v¶Dawøy h¢DcDo_rRvSa :twáømD;bA;b MyäîrVÚfåqVmá…w My¶IjV;bÅzVm M¢DoDh dwñøo rysh _tRa ‹JKÅ¥yÅw wúødÎyV;b h™DkDlVmA;mAh hñ∂q◊zDj r¢RvSakA; y›Ih◊yÅw5 _tRa h°D;kIh_a…wh7 :wy`IbDa_tRa My™I;kA;mAh wy$∂dDbSo My$IpDlSa t®r∞RcSo jAlR;mAh_ay´gV;b MwûødTa JKRl¶R;mAh ‹;hDmVv_tRa aô∂rVqˆ¥yÅw h¡DmDjVlI;mA;b oAl™R;sAh_tRa c¶ApDt◊w p :h`R%zAh Mwñø¥yAh d™Ao l$EaVtVqÎy

430

Appendix

Continue with the northern material regarding the conflict between Amaziah and Joash in 2 Kgs 14:1–14. Amaziah’s Epilogue 2 Kgs 14:18 As for the rest of the events of Amaziah and all that he did, are they not written on the Scroll of the Events of the Days of the Kings of Judah? Conspirators laid a plot against him in Jerusalem and he fled to Lachish and they sent assassins after him to Lachish and they killed him there. 20They bore him on horses and he was buried in Jerusalem with his fathers in the City of David. 21All the people of Judah took Azariah (he was sixteen years old) and they crowned him in place of his father, Amaziah. Jeroboam’s Account 2 Kgs 14:23 In the fifteenth year of Amaziah son of Jehoash king of Judah, Jeroboam son of Joash began to reign. He reigned (over Israel LXXBL) in Samaria forty-one years. 24He did evil in the eyes of YHWH. He did not depart from the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat that he led Israel to commit. 25He restored the territory of Israel from Lebo-Hamath as far as the Sea of the Arabah, according to the word of YHWH, God of Israel, that he had spoken through his servant Jonah son of Amittai the prophet from Gath-Hepher. 28As for the rest of the events of Jeroboam and all that he did and his might and how he fought and how he restored Damascus and Hamath to Israel, are they not written on the Scroll of the Events of the Days of the Kings of Israel? 29Jeroboam lay down with his fathers and was buried in Samaria with the kings of Israel and Zechariah his son reigned in his place. Azariah’s Account 2 Kgs 15:1 In the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam king of Israel, Azariah son of Amaziah king of Judah began to reign.

w… h¡DyVxAmSa yâérVbî;d rRt™Ry◊w18 My™ImÎ¥yAh yñérVbî;d rRp¢Es_lAo My#Ib…wtV;k M∞Eh_aølSh rRvö®q wy¶DlDo …w°rVvVqˆ¥yÅw19 :há∂d…wh◊y y¶EkVlAmVl hDvy$IkDl ‹wy∂rSj`Aa hDvy¡IkDl sÎn∞D¥yÅw MÊ™AlDv…wryI;b _lAo wäøtOa …wñaVcˆ¥yÅw20 :M`Dv …wh™UtIm◊yÅw …wôjVlVvˆ¥yÅw ry¶IoV;b wy™DtObSa_MIo MÊ¢AlDv…wryI;b rªEb∂;qˆ¥yÅw My¡Is…w;sAh hYÎy√rÅzSo_tRa ‹h∂d…wh◊y M§Ao_lD;k …wjVqˆ¥yÅw21 :d`Iw∂;d tAj™A;t w$øtOa …wk∞IlVmÅ¥yÅw h¡DnDv häérVcRo v¶Ev_NR;b a…w›h◊w :…wh`DyVxAmSa wy¶IbDa h#( r#) lkw

_NRb …wh¶DyVxAmSaAl hYÎnDv hâérVcRo_vEmSj ‹tnÅ VvI;b23 v§Dawøy_NR;b JKRl∞Rm M°DoVb∂rÎy JKAlDm hó∂d…wh◊y v™Dawøy :h`DnDv Nw$ørVmâOvV;b t™AjAa◊w My¶IoD;b√rAa l)r#y l( 24 t)+xm r#Ds aâøl h¡Dwh◊y y∞EnyEoV;b oäårDh cAo¶A¥yÅw :l`Ea∂rVcˆy_tRa ay™IfTjRh r¶RvSa f$Db◊n_NR;b M∞DoVb∂rÎy awñøbV;lIm l$Ea∂rVcˆy l…wâb◊…g_tRa ‹byIvEh a…w#h25 y∞EhølTa ‹hÎwh◊y r§Ab√dI;k h¡Db∂rSoDh M∞Dy_dAo t™DmSj _NRb h§Dnwøy wø;dVbAo_dÅyV;b r#R;bî;d r∞RvSa l$Ea∂rVcˆy ·rRt‰y◊w28 :rRp`EjAh t¶A…gIm r™RvSa ay$IbÎ…nAh ‹yA;tImSa wâøt∂r…wb◊g…w ‹hDcDo r§RvSa_lDk◊w M%DoVb∂rÎy y°érVbî;d _tRa◊w qRcªR;må;d_tRa by%IvEh r°RvSaÅw M$DjVlˆn_rRvSa _lAo My#Ib…wtV;k M∞Eh_aølSh (!)l)r#yl t¢DmSj :l`Ea∂rVcˆy y¶EkVlAmVl My™ImÎ¥yAh yñérVbî;d rRp¢Es y∞EkVlAm M™Io wy$DtObSa_MIo ‹MDoVb∂r`Dy b§A;kVvˆ¥yÅw29 p :wy`D;tVjA;t wäønVb h¶Dy√rAk◊z JKöølVmˆ¥yÅw l¡Ea∂rVcˆy

JKRl∞Rm M™DoVb∂rÎyVl hYÎnDv ‹oAb‹RvÎw MyôîrVcRo t∏ÅnVvI;b1 :há∂d…wh◊y JKRl¶Rm h™DyVxAmSa_NRb h¶Dy√rÅzSo l¡Ear∂ Vcˆy

Appendix

Azariah’s Account (cont.) 2 Kgs 15:2 He was sixteen years old when he began to reign. Fifty-two years he reigned in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Jecholiah from Jerusalem. 3He did right in the eyes of YHWH according to all that Amaziah, his father, had done. 4 Only (he did not remove: LXXB/Vulgate) the bāmôt. Still the people kept sacrificing and burning incenseofferings at the bāmôt. 5YHWH plagued the king and he was a leper until the day of his death. He resided in a separate house. Jotham the king’s son managed the house as ruler of the people of the land. 6As for the rest of the events of Azariah and all that he did, are they not written on the Scroll of the Events of the Days of the Kings of Judah? 7Azariah lay down with his fathers and (was buried: LXXL) with his fathers in the City of David and Jotham his son reigned in his place. Zechariah’s Account 2 Kgs 15:8 In the thirty-eighth year of Azariah king of Judah, Zechariah son of Jeroboam began to reign. He reigned over Israel in Samaria six months. 9He did evil in the eyes of YHWH as his fathers had done. He did not depart from the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat that he led Israel to commit. 10Shallum son of Jabesh conspired against him and struck him down at Ibleam and he killed him and reigned in his place. 11As for the rest of the events of Zechariah (and all that he did, are they not: LXXL) written on the Scroll of the Events of the Days of the Kings of Israel?

431

‹Mˆy‹A;tVv…w My§IÚvImSjÅw w$økVlDmVb h∞DyDh ‹hÎnDv hôérVcRo v°Ev_NR;b2 …wh™DyVlDk◊y w$ø;mIa M∞Ev◊w MÊ¡DlDv…wryI;b JK™AlDm hYÎnDv _rRvSa lñOkV;k h¡Dwh◊y y∞EnyEoV;b r™DvÎ¥yAh cAo¶A¥yÅw3 :MÊ`DlDv…wryIm dwñøo rysh )l twäømD;bAh qñår4 :wy`IbDa …wh¶DyVxAmSa h™DcDo h˝Îwh◊y o∏Å…gÅn◊yÅw5 :twáømD;bA;b MyäîrVÚfåqVmá…w My¶IjV;bÅzVm M¢DoDh ty∞EbV;b bRv™E¥yÅw w$øtOm Mwâøy_dAo ‹o∂rOxVm y§Ih◊yÅw JKRl#R;mAh_tRa _tRa f™EpOv tˆy$A;bAh_lAo ‹JKRl‹R;mAh_NR;b M§Dtwøy◊w ty¡IvVpDjAh h¡DcDo r∞RvSa_lDk◊w …wh™Dy√rÅzSo yñérVbî;d rRt¢Ry◊w6 :X®r`DaDh M¶Ao y¶EkVlAmVl My™ImÎ¥yAh yñérVbî;d rRp¢Es_lAo My#Ib…wtV;k M∞Eh_aølSh _MIo rbqyw wy$DtObSa_MIo ‹hÎy√rÅzSo b§A;kVvˆ¥yÅw7:há∂d…wh◊y p :wy`D;tVjA;t wäønV;b M¶Dtwøy JKöølVmˆ¥yÅw d¡Iw∂;d ry∞IoV;b wy™DtObSa JKRl∞Rm …wh™Dy√rÅzSoAl hYÎnDv ‹h‰nOmVv…w My§Iv ølVv t∏ÅnVvI;b8 l¢Ea∂rVcˆy_lAo MªDoVb∂rÎy_NRb …wh∏Îy√rAk◊z JKAlDm hó∂d…wh◊y hYÎwh◊y y∞EnyEoV;b ‹oårDh cAo§A¥yÅw9 :My`Iv∂dFj h¶DÚvIv NwëørVmOvV;b _NR;b M∞DoVb∂rÎy ‹twaøÚfAj`Em r#Ds aâøl wy¡DtObSa …wäcDo r¶RvSaA;k ‹wyDlDo rôOvVqˆ¥yÅw10 :l`Ea∂rVcˆy_tRa ay™fI TjRh r¶RvSa f$Db◊n JKäølVmˆ¥yÅw …wh¡EtyIm◊yÅw M™Do_VlDbá∂q …wh¶E;kÅ¥yÅw v$EbÎy_NR;b M∞U;lAv My#Ib…wtV;k Mh )lh h¡Dy√rAk◊z yâérVbî;d rRt™Ry◊w11 :wy`D;tVjA;t :l`Ea∂rVcˆy y¶EkVlAmVl My™ImÎ¥yAh yñérVbî;d rRp¢Es_lAo

432 Shallum’s Account 2 Kgs 15:13 Shallum son of Jabesh began to reign in the thirty-ninth year of Uzziah king of Judah. He reigned one month in Samaria. 14Menahem son of Gadi ascended from Tirzah and came to Samaria and struck down Shallum son of Jabesh in Samaria. He killed him and reigned in his place. 15As for the rest of the events of Shallum and the conspiracy he made (are they not: LXXL) written on the Scroll of the Events of the Days of the Kings of Israel? Menahem’s Account 2 Kgs 15:17 In the thirty-nine year of Azariah king of Judah, Menahem son of Gadi began to reign. He reigned over Israel twelve years in Samaria. 18He did evil in the eyes of YHWH. He did not depart from the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat that he led Israel to commit. 19In his days Pul king of Assyria attacked the land, and Menahem gave Pul onethousand talents of silver to make a treaty with him to strengthen the kingdom in his possession. 20Menahem took out the silver taxed on all the wealthy mean in Israel to give the king of Assyria, namely, fifty shekels of silver from each man. The king of Assyria returned and did not remain there in the land. 21As for the rest of the events of Menahem and all that he did, are they not written on the Scroll of the Events of the Days of the Kings of Israel? 22 Menahem lay down with his fathers and Pekahiah his son ruled in his place.

Appendix

‹oAv‹EtÎw My§Iv ølVv t∏ÅnVvI;b JK$AlDm ‹vyEbÎy_NR;b M…wô;lAv13 My™ImÎy_jår`Ry JKñølVmˆ¥yÅw hó∂d…wh◊y JKRl∞Rm h™D¥yˆzUoVl hYÎnDv ‹aøbÎ¥yÅw h#Dx√rI;tIm y%îdÎ…g_NR;b M°EjÅnVm ·lAoÅ¥yÅw14 :NwíørVmOvV;b NwúørVmOvV;b vy™EbÎy_NR;b M…wñ;lAv_tRa JK¢A¥yÅw Nw$ørVmOv M…w$;lAv yâérVbî;d ‹rRt‹‰y◊w15:wy`D;tVjA;t JKñølVmˆ¥yÅw …wh™EtyIm◊yÅw rRp¢Es_lAo My#IbUtV;k Mh )lh r¡Dv∂q r∞RvSa wëørVvIq◊w s :l`Ea∂rVcˆy y¶EkVlAmVl My™ImÎ¥yAh yñérVbî;d

KJ Rl∞Rm h™Dy√rÅzSoAl hYÎnDv ‹oAv‹EtÎw My§Iv ølVv t∏ÅnVvI;b17 rRc¶Ro l¢Ea∂rVcˆy_lAo y¬îdÎ…g_NR;b M°EjÅnVm JKAlDm hó∂d…wh◊y rDs aâøl h¡Dwh◊y y∞EnyEoV;b oäårDh cAo¶A¥yÅw18 :NwíørVmOvV;b My™InDv _tRa ay¶IfTjRh_rRvSa f¢Db◊n_NR;b MªDoVb∂rÎy twa%øÚfAj l°AoEm _lAo ‹r…wÚvAa_JKRl`Rm l…wôp a∞D;b (!)wymyb19 : l™Ea∂rVcˆy twôøyVhIl PRs¡D;k_rA;kI;k PRl™Ra l…w$pVl ‹MEjÅnVm N§E;tˆ¥yÅw X®r$DaDh M°EjÅnVm ·aExO¥yÅw20 :wíødÎyV;b h™DkDlVmA;mAh qy¶IzSjAhVl w$ø;tIa ‹wy∂dÎy ‹tEtDl lˆy$AjAh yâérwø;bˆ…g_lD;k lAo£ l#Ea∂rVcˆy_lAo PRs%R;kAh_tRa d¡DjRa vy∞IaVl PRs™R;k My¢Il∂qVv MyªIÚvImSj r…w$ÚvAa JKRl∞RmVl rRt¢Ry◊w21 :X®r`DaD;b M™Dv dAm¶Do_aøl◊w r…w$ÚvAa JKRl∞Rm ‹bDv‹Î¥yÅw My#Ib…wtV;k M∞Eh_awølSh h¡DcDo r∞RvSa_lDk◊w M™EjÅnVm yñérVbî;d b¶A;kVvˆ¥yÅw22 :l`Ea∂rVcˆy y¶EkVlAmVl My™ImÎ¥yAh yñérVbî;d rRp¢Es_lAo p :wy`D;tVjA;t wäønVb h¶DyVjåqVÚp JKöølVmˆ¥yÅw wy¡DtObSa_MIo M™EjÅnVm

Appendix Pekahiah’ Account 2 Kgs 15:23 In the fiftieth year of Azariah king of Judah, Pekahiah son of Menahem began to reign. He reigned over Israel in Samaria two years. 24He did evil in the eyes of YHWH. He did not depart from the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat that he led Israel to commit. 25His officer Pekah son of Remaliah conspired against him and struck him down in Samaria in the fortified part of the royal palace, and with him Argob and Arieh and fifty men of the Gileadites. He killed him and reigned in his place. 26As for the rest of the events of Pekahiah and all that he did, (are they not: LXXL) written on the Scroll of the Events of the Days of the Kings of Israel? Pekah’s Account 2 Kgs 15:27 In the fifty-second year of Azariah king of Judah, Pekah son of Remaliah began to reign. He reigned over Israel in Samaria twenty years.28He did evil in the eyes of YHWH. He did not depart from the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat that he led Israel to commit. 29In the days of Pekah king of Israel, TiglathPileser king of Assyria came and took Ijon, Abel Beth Maacah, Janoah, Kedesh, Hazor, Gilead, Galilee – all the territory of Naphtali. He led them captive to Assyria. 30Hoshea son of Elah made a conspiracy against Pekah son of Remaliah and struck him down. He killed him and reigned in his place. 31As for the rest of the events of Pekah and all that he did, (are they not: LXXL) written on the Scroll of the Events of the Days of the Kings of Israel?

433

JKAlDm hó∂d…wh◊y JKRl∞Rm h™Dy√rÅzSoAl hYÎnDv My∞IÚvImSj ‹tÅnVvI;b23 :Mˆy`DtÎnVv NwëørVmOvV;b l¢Ea∂rVcˆy_lAo MªEjÅnVm_NRb h∏ÎyVjáåqVÚp ‹twaøÚfAj`Em r#Ds aâøl h¡Dwh◊y y∞EnyEoV;b oäårDh cAo¶A¥yÅw24 :l`Ea∂rVcˆy_tRa ay™IfTjRh r¶RvSa f$Db◊n_NR;b M∞DoVb∂rÎy …wh°E;kÅ¥yÅw w#øvyIlDv …wh˝ÎyVlAm√r_NR;b jåq°RÚp ·wyDlDo râOvVqˆ¥yÅw25 _tRa◊w bâO…g√rAa_tRa ‹JKRl‹R;mAh_tyE;b Nwôøm√rAaV;b Nw%ørVmOvVb MyóîdDoVlˆg y∞EnV;bIm vy™Ia My¶IÚvImSj wöø;mIo◊w hY´y√rAaDh h™DyVjåqVp yñérVbî;d rRt¢Ry◊w26 :wy`D;tVjA;t JKñølVmˆ¥yÅw …wh™EtyIm◊yÅw rRp¢Es_lAo My#Ib…wtV;k Mh )lh h¡DcDo r∞RvSa_lDk◊w p :l`Ea∂rVcˆy y¶EkVlAmVl My™ImÎ¥yAh yñérVbî;d

JKRl∞Rm h™Dy√rÅzSoAl hYÎnDv ‹Mˆy‹A;tVv…w My§IÚvImSj t∏ÅnVvI;b27 l¢Ea∂rVcˆy_lAo …whªDyVlAm√r_NR;b jåq∞RÚp JKAlDm hó∂d…wh◊y y∞EnyEoV;b oäårDh cAo¶A¥yÅw28 :h`DnDv MyñîrVcRo NwëørVmOvV;b f$Db◊n_NR;b M∞DoVb∂rÎy ‹twaøÚfAj_NIm r#Ds aâøl h¡Dwh◊y _JKRl`Rm jåq∞RÚp yEmyI;b29 :l`Ea∂rVcˆy_tRa ay™IfTjRh r¶RvSa _tRa jâå;qˆ¥yÅw ~r…wÚvAa JKRl∞Rm rRsRaVlIÚp t∞Al◊gI;t aD;b l#Ea∂rVcˆy v®d°®q_tRa◊w AjwønÎy_tRa◊w h&DkSoAm_ty`E;b l∞EbDa_tRa◊w NwÓø¥yIo X®r∞Ra läO;k hDly$IlÎ…gAh_tRa◊w ‹dDoVlˆ…gAh_tRa◊w rwôøxDj_tRa◊w NR;b Ao∞Evwøh rRv%®q rDvVqˆ¥yÅw30 :h∂r…wáÚvAa M™El◊gÅ¥yÅw y¡IlD;tVpÅn …wh$EtyIm◊yÅw ‹…wh‹E;kÅ¥yÅw …whYÎyVlAm√r NR;b ‹jåq‹RÚp lAo h#DlEa :h`D¥yˆzUoNR;b M™DtwøyVl My$îrVcRo t∞AnVvI;b wy¡D;tVjA;t JKäølVmˆ¥yÅw My#Ib…wtV;k M∞D…nIh h¡DcDo r∞RvSa lDk◊w jåq™Rp yérVbî;d rRt¶Ry◊w31 p :l`Ea∂rVcˆy y¶EkVlAmVl My™ImÎ¥yAh yñérVbî;d rRp¢Es_lAo

434

Jotham’s Account 2 Kgs 15:32 In the second year of Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel, Jotham son of Uzziah king of Judah began to reign. 33 He was twenty-five years old when he began to reign. Sixteen years he reigned in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Jerusha daughter of Zadok. 34He did right in the eyes of YHWH according to all that Uzziah, his father, had done. 35 Only (he did not remove: LXXBL/OL) the bāmôt. Still the people kept sacrificing and burning incense-offerings at the bāmôt. He built the upper gate to YHWH’s temple. 36As for the rest of the events of Jotham, are they not written on the Scroll of the Events of the Days of the Kings of Judah? 38Jotham lay down with his fathers and was buried with his fathers in the City of David and Ahaz his son reigned in his place. Ahaz’s Account 2 Kgs 16:1 In the seventeenth year of Pekah son of Remaliah, Ahaz son of Jotham king of Judah began to reign. 2He was twenty years old when he began to reign. Sixteen years he reigned in Jerusalem. He did not do right in the eyes of YHWH his god like David his father. 4a He sacrificed and burned incenseofferings at the bāmôt.

Appendix

l¡Ea∂rVcˆy JKRl∞Rm …wh™DyVlAm√r_NR;b jåq¶RpVl Mˆy$A;tVv t∞AnVvI;b32 My°îrVcRo_NR;b33 :há∂d…wh◊y JKRl¶Rm …wh™D¥yˆzUo_NR;b M¶Dtwøy JK¢AlDm JK™AlDm hYÎnDv hâérVcRo_vEv◊w w$økVlDmVb h∞DyDh ‹hÎnDv v§EmDj◊w cAo¶A¥yÅw34 :qwíødDx_tA;b a™Dv…wr◊y w$ø;mIa M∞Ev◊w MÊ¡DlDv…wryI;b wy™IbDa …wh¶D¥yˆzUo h¢DcDo_rRvSa l¬OkV;k h¡Dwh◊y y∞EnyEoV;b r™DvÎ¥yAh M¢DoDh dw#øo rysh aâøl ‹twømD;bAh qôår35 :h`DcDo rAo¶Av_tRa h¢DnD;b a…w#h twóømD;bA;b MyäîrVÚfåqVmá…w My¶IjV;bÅzVm r∞RvSa M™Dtwøy yñérVbî;d rRt¢Ry◊w36 :NwáøyVlRoDh h™Dwh◊y_tyE;b My™ImÎ¥yAh yñérVbî;d rRp¢Es_lAo My#Ib…wtV;k M∞Eh_aølSh h¡DcDo wy$DtObSa_Mio ‹Mdtwøy b§A;kVvˆ¥yÅw38:há∂d…wh◊y y¶EkVlAmVl JKöølVmˆ¥yÅw wy¡IbDa d∞Iw∂;d ry™IoV;b wy$DtObSa_Mio ‹rEb∂;qˆ¥yÅw p :wy`D;tVjA;t wäønV;b z¶DjDa

w… h¡DyVlAm√r_NR;b jåq™RpVl hYÎnDv hâérVcRo_o`AbVv ‹tÅnVvI;b1 MyôîrVcRo_NR;b2 :há∂d…wh◊y JKRl¶Rm M™Dtwøy_NR;b z¶DjDa JK¢AlDm JK™AlDm hYÎnDv hâérVcRo_vEv◊w w$økVlDmV;b z∞DjDa ‹hÎnDv wy™DhølTa h¶Dwh◊y y¢EnyEoV;b r#DvÎ¥yAh h∞DcDo_aøl◊w MÊ¡DlDv…wryI;b twäømD;bA;b r¢Eúfåq◊yÅw AjªE;bÅz◊yÅw4a :wy`IbDa d¶Iw∂dV;k

Continue with the political report in 2 Kgs 16:5–9. Ahaz’s Epilogue 2 Kgs 16:19 As for the rest of the events of Ahaz and what he did, are they not written on the Scroll of the Events of the Days of the Kings of Judah? 20Ahaz lay down with his fathers and was buried with his fathers in the City of David and Hezekiah his son reigned in his place.

My#Ib…wtV;k M∞Eh_aølSh h¡DcDo r∞RvSa z™DjDa yñérVbî;d rRt¢Ry◊w19 b§A;kVvˆ¥yÅw20 :há∂d…wh◊y y¶EkVlAmVl My™ImÎ¥yAh yñérVbî;d rRp¢Es_lAo d¡Iw∂;d ry∞IoV;b wy™DtObSa_MIo r¶Eb∂;qˆ¥yÅw wy$DtObSa_MIo ‹zDjDa p :wy`D;tVjA;t wäønVb …wh¶D¥yIq◊zIj JKöølVmˆ¥yÅw

Appendix

Hoshea’s Account 2 Kgs 17:1 In the twelfth year of Ahaz king Judah, Hoshea son of Elah began to reign. He reigned in Samaria over Israel nine years. 2He did evil in the eyes of YHWH; only not like the kings of Israel before him. 3Shalmaneser (V) king of Assyria came up against him and Hoshea became his subject and paid him tribute. 4 The king of Assyria discovered a conspiracy involving Hoshea, whereby he had sent messengers to So king of Egypt and had not offered up annual tribute to the king of Assyria. The king of Assyria arrested and imprisoned him. 5The king of Assyria came up into all the land and Samaria and laid siege against it for three years. 6In the seventh year of Hoshea, the king of Assyria captured Samaria and led Israel captive to Assyria. He had them reside in Halah and around the Habor, the river of Gozan, and in the cities of Media. 21For YHWH had torn Israel from the House of David and they crowned Jeroboam son of Nebat king. Jeroboam led Israel away from YHWH and led them to commit a grievous sin. 22The Israelites went in all the (sin: LXXB) of Jeroboam that he committed. They did not depart from it 23a until YHWH removed Israel from his presence.

435

KJ AlDm hó∂d…wh◊y JKRl∞Rm z™DjDaVl h$érVcRo My∞E;tVv ‹tnÅ VvI;b1 :My`InDv oAv¶E;t l™Ea∂rVcˆy_lAo NwÿørVmOvVb hªDlEa_NR;b Ao°Evwøh l$Ea∂rVcˆy y∞EkVlAmV;k aøl£ q#år h¡Dwh◊y y∞EnyEoV;b oäårDh cAo¶A¥yÅw2 JKRl∞Rm rRs™Ra◊nAmVlAv h$DlDo wy∞DlDo3 :wy`DnDpVl …wäyDh r¶RvSa :h`Dj◊nIm wäøl bRv¶D¥yÅw dRb$Ro ‹Ao‹Evwøh wôøl_yIh◊y`Aw r…wóÚvAa j§AlDv r°RvSa rRv#®q Ao%EvwøhV;b r…w°ÚvAa_JKRl`Rm ·aDxVmˆ¥yÅw4 h¶DlToRh_aøl◊w Mˆy$årVxIm_JKRl`Rm awâøs_lRa ‹MyIkDaVlAm ‹JKRl∞Rm …wh‹érVxAoÅ¥y`Aw h¡DnDvVb h∞DnDvV;k r…wäÚvAa JKRl¶RmVl h¢Dj◊nIm r…wäÚvAa_JKRl`Rm lAo¶A¥yÅw5 :aRl`R;k ty¶E;b …whäérVsAaÅ¥yÅw r…w$ÚvAa vñølDv Dhy™RlDo rAx¶D¥yÅw Nw$ørVmOv ‹lAo‹Å¥yÅw X®r¡DaDh_lDkV;b _JKRl`Rm d§AkDl Ao#EvwøhVl ty%IoyIvV;tAh t∏ÅnVvI;b6 :My`InDv bRv°O¥yÅw h∂r…wóÚvAa l™Ea∂rVcˆy_tRa l‰g¶R¥yÅw Nw$ørVmâOv_tRa ‹r…wÚvAa p :yá∂dDm yñérDo◊w N™Dzwø…g r¶Ah◊n rwöøbDjVb…w jªAlVjA;b M%DtOa …wky™IlVmÅ¥yÅw dYˆw∂;d ty∞E;b ‹lAoEm l#Ea∂rVcˆy oâår∂q_y`I;k21 ‹lEa∂rVcˆy_tRa M§DoVb∂rÎy j°å;dÅ¥yÅw f¡Db◊n_NR;b M∞DoVb∂rÎy_tRa ‹…wkVl`E¥yÅw22 :h`Dlwød◊g h¶DaDfSj M™DayEfTjRh◊w hYÎwh◊y yâérSjAaEm _aøl h¡DcDo r∞RvSa M™DoVb∂rÎy t)+x_lDkV;b l$Ea∂rVcˆy y∞EnV;b ‹lEa∂rVcˆy_tRa h§Dwh◊y ry°IsEh_rRvSa dAo23a :hÎ…n`R;mIm …wr™Ds wyYÎnDÚp l∞AoEm

436

Appendix

Hezekiah’s Account 2 Kgs 18:1 In the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, Hezekiah son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign. 2He was twenty-five years old when he began to reign. Twenty-nine years he reigned in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Abi daughter of Zechariah. 3He did right in the eyes of YHWH according to all that David his father had done. 4aabIt was he who removed the bāmôt. He crushed the bronze serpent which Moses had made. For until then the Israelites had been burning incense-offerings to it. He called it Nehushtan. 5He trusted in YHWH, God of Israel; there was never anyone like him among all the kings of Judah before him. 7YHWH was with him: whenever he went out to battle he was successful. He rebelled against the king of Assyria and did not serve him. 8He struck down the Philistines as far as Gaza and its borders from watchtower to fortified city. 9

In the fourth year of King Hezekiah – that was the seventh year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel – Shalmaneser (V) king of Assyria attacked Samaria and laid siege to it. They captured it at the end of three years. In the sixth year of Hezekiah – that was the ninth year of Hoshea king of Israel – Samaria was sacked. 11The king of Assyria led Israel captive to Assyria and led them into Halah and along the Habor, the river of Gozan, and in the cities of Media. Conclude with 2 Kgs 18:13–19:9a, 36– 37, including 18:22: 2 Kgs 18:22 But if you say to me, “(Upon: LXX/IQIsaa/LXX-Isa) YHWH our God we trust.” Is he not the one whose bāmôt and altars Hezekiah has removed and said to Judah and to Jerusalem, “Before this altar you shall worship.”

l¡Ea∂rVcˆy JKRl∞Rm h™DlEa_NR;b Ao¶EvwøhVl v$ølDv t∞AnVvI;b ‹yIh◊y`Aw 1 My°îrVcRo_NR;b2 :há∂d…wh◊y JKRl¶Rm z™DjDa_NRb h¶D¥yIq◊zIj JK¢AlDm hYÎnDv ‹oAv‹EtÎw MyôîrVcRo◊w w$økVlDmVb h∞DyDh ‹hÎnDv v§EmDj◊w cAo¶A¥yÅw3 :h`Dy√rAk◊z_tA;b y™IbSa w$ø;mIa M∞Ev◊w MÊ¡DlDv…wryI;b JK™AlDm :wy`IbDa d¶Iw∂;d h™DcDo_rRvSa lñOkV;k h¡Dwh◊y y∞EnyEoV;b r™DvÎ¥yAh tRv%Oj◊…nAh v°Aj◊n ·tA;tIk◊w tw#ømD;bAh_tRa ry∞IsEh —a…wâh4aab _y`EnVb …wôyDh ‹hD;m‹EhDh My§ImÎ¥yAh_dAo y∞I;k h#RvOm h∞DcDo_rRvSa h¶DwhyA;b5 :N`D;tVvUj◊n wäøl_a∂rVqˆ¥yÅw w$øl MyâîrVÚfåqVm ‹lEa∂rVcˆy y∞EkVlAm ‹lOkV;b …wh#OmDk h∞DyDh_aøl j¡DfD;b l™Ea∂rVcˆy_y`EhølTa lñOkV;b w$ø;mIo ‹hÎwh◊y h§DyDh◊w7 :wy`DnDpVl …wäyDh r#) h$∂d…wh◊y añøl◊w r…wäÚvAa_JKRl`RmV;b dõOrVmˆ¥yÅw ly¡I;kVcÅy a™Ex´y_rRvSa _tRa◊w h™D%zAo_dAo My¢I;tVvIlVÚp_tRa hªD;kIh_a…wáh8 :wíødDbSo p :r`DxVbIm ry¶Io_dAo MyäîrVxwøn lñå;d◊gI;mIm Dhy¡Rl…wb◊…g

h∞DnDÚvAh ayIh£ …whYÎ¥yIq◊zIj JKRl∞R;mAl ‹tyIoyIb√r`Dh h§DnDÚvA;b yIh◊y`Aw9 hDlDo l¡Ea∂rVcˆy JKRl∞Rm h™DlEa_NR;b Ao¶EvwøhVl ty$IoyIbVÚvAh :Dhy`RlDo rAx¶D¥yÅw NwëørVmOv_lAo r…wöÚvAa_JKRl`Rm rRsªRa◊nAmVlAv h¡D¥yIq◊zIjVl v™Ev_tÅnVvI;b MyYˆnDv vâølDv ‹hExVqIm Dh#üdV;kVlˆ¥y`Aw10 hä∂dV;kVlˆn l$Ea∂rVcˆy JKRlRm∞ ‹Ao‹EvwøhVl oAv#E;t_tÅnVv ay∞Ih h∂r…wóÚvAa l™Ea∂rVcˆy_tRa r…wöÚvAa_JKRl`Rm l‰gªR¥yÅw11 :NwíørVmOv :yá∂dDm yñérDo◊w N™Dzwø…g r¶Ah◊n rwöøbDjVb…w jªAlVjA;b MEj◊nÅ¥yÅw

w… nVj¡DfD;b …wny™EhølTa h¶Dwh◊y l( y$AlEa N…wêrVmaøt_yIk◊w22 _tRa◊w wy∞DtOmD;b_tRa ‹…wh‹Î¥yIq◊zIj ry§IsEh r°RvSa a…w#h_awølSh ‹y´nVpIl MÊ$AlDv…wêryIl◊w ‹h∂d…why`Il rRmaôø¥yÅw wy$DtOjV;b◊zIm …wäwSjA;tVv`I;t hY‰%zAh Aj∞E;b◊zI;mAh

Bibliography Ackerman, S. 1993. “The Queen Mother and the Cult in Ancient Israel” JBL 112: 385–401. Adam, K.-P. 2007. Saul und David in der judäischen Geschichtsschreibung: Studien zu 1 Samuel 16–2 Samuel 5 (FAT 51; Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck). —. 2010. “Warfare and Treaty Formulas in the Background of Kings” in M. Leuchter and K.P. Adam, eds., Soundings in Kings: Perspectives and Methods in Contemporary Scholarship (Minneapolis, MN, Fortress Press) 35–68. Aharoni, Y. 1968. “Arad: Its Inscriptions and Temple” BA 31: 1–32. —. 1974. “The Horned Altar of Beer-sheba” BA 37: 2–6. —. 1975. Investigations at Lachish: The Sanctuary and the Residency (Lachish V) (Tel Aviv). Ahlström, G. W. 1982. Royal Administration and National Religion in Ancient Palestine (Leiden: Brill). Albertz, R. 1994. A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period: Volume I: From the Beginning to the End of the Monarchy (Translated by John Bowden; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press). —. 1996. A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period: Volume II: From the Exile to the Maccabees (Translated by John Bowden; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press). —. 2000. “In Search of the Deuteronomists: A First Solution to a Historical Riddle” in T. Römer, ed., The Future of the Deuteronomistic History (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 147; Leuven: Leuven University Press) 1–17. —. 2004. Israel in Exile: The History and Literature of the Sixth Century B.C.E. (SBL 3; trans. of 2001 German; Leiden: Brill). —. 2005. “Why A Reform Like Josiah’s Must Have Happened” in L. L. Grabbe, ed., Good Kings and Bad Kings (LHBOTS 393; London: T & T Clark) 27–46. Albrektson B. 1967. History and the Gods: An Essay on the Idea of Historical Events as Divine Manifestations in the Ancient Near East and in Israel (Lund: Gleerup). Albright, W. F. 1945. “The Chronology of the Divided Monarchy of Israel” BASOR 100: 16– 22. —. 1953. “New Light from Egypt on the Chronology and the History of Israel and Judah” BASOR 130: 4–11. —. 1957. “The High Place in Ancient Palestine” in G. W. Anderson, ed., Congress Volume: Strasbourg, 1956 (VTS 4; Leiden: Brill) 242–58. Alfrink, B. 1943. “L’expression wytwb) M( bk#” OTS 2: 106–18. Al-Rawi, F. “Tablets from the Sippar Library. I. The ‘Weidner Chronicle’: A Suppositious Royal Letter Concerning a Vision” Iraq 52: 1–13. Alt, A. 1909. Israel und Ägypten: die politischen Beziehungen der Könige von Israel und Juda zu den Pharaonen nach den Quellen untersucht (Greifswald: J. Abel). —. 1951. “Das Königtum in den Reichen Israel und Juda” VT 1: 2–22. —. 1953. “Die Heimat des Deuteronomiums” in M. Noth, ed., Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel (Volume 2; Munich: C. H. Beck) 250–75.

438

Bibliography

—. 1976. “Solomonic Wisdom” in J. L. Crenshaw, ed., Studies in Israelite Wisdom (New York: KTAV Publishing House) 102–12. Alter, R. 1981. The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books). Anbar, M. 1990. “kai pou eisin oi qeoi thv xwrav Samareiav ‘et où sont les dieux du pays de Samarie?’” BN 51: 7–8. Archi, A. 2001. “The King-Lists from Ebla” in T. Abusch, ed., Historiography in the Cuneiform World (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press) 1–13. Arneth, M. 2001. “Die antiassyrische Reform Josias von Juda: Überlegungen zur Komposition und Intention von 2 Reg 23,4–15” ZAR 7: 189–216. —. 2006. “Die Hiskiareform in 2 Reg 18,3–8*” ZAR 12: 169–215. Arnold, B. 1994. “The Weidner Chronicle and the Idea of History in Israel and Mesopotamia” in A. R. Millard, J. K. Hoffmeier, and D. W. Baker, eds., Faith, Tradition, and History (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns) 129–48. Ash, P. S. 1998. “Jeroboam I and the Deuteronomistic Historian’s Ideology of the Founder” CBQ 60: 16–24. Assmann, J. 2008. Of God and Gods: Egypt, Israel, and the Rise of Monotheism (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press). Asurmendi, J. 1988. “En torno a la serpiente de bronce” Estudios Biblicos 46: 283–94. Athas, G. 2003. The Tel Dan Inscription: A Reappraisal and New Introduction (JSOTSS 360; London: Continuum). Auld, A. G. 1994. Kings without Privilege: David and Moses in the Story of the Bible’s Kings (Edinburgh, T & T Clark). — 1999. “The Deuteronomists and the Former Prophets, or What Makes the Former Prophets Deuteronomistic?,” pp. 116–26 in Schearing and McKenzie, eds. 1999. Aurelius, E. 2003. Zukunft jenseits des Gerichts: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zum Enneateuch (BZAW 319; Berlin, Walter de Gruyter). Bal, M. 2009. Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative (3rd ed.; Toronto: University of Toronto Press). Baden, J. S. 2009. J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch (FAT 68; Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck). Barclay, J. M. G. 2007, Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary. Edited by Steve Mason. Volume 10. Against Apion (Leiden: Brill). Barnes, W. E. 1908. The Second Book of the Kings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Barnes, W. H. 1991. Studies in the Chronology of the Divided Monarchy of Israel (HSM 48; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press). —. 1997. “Non-synoptic Chronological References in the Books of Chronicles” in M. P. Graham, ed. et al., The Chronicler as Historian, (JSOTSS 328; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press) 106–31 Bar-On, S. 1998. “The Festival Calendars in Exodus XXII 14–19 and XXXIV 18–26” VT 48: 161–95. Barrick, W. B. 1974. “On the ‘Removal of the High Places’ in 1–2 Kings” Biblica 55: 257–9. —. 1977. “The Word BMH in the Old Testament” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago). —. 1991. “The Bamoth of Moab” MAARAV 7: 67–89. —. 2001. “Loving Too Well: The Negative Portrayal of Solomon and the Composition of the Kings History” Estudios Bíblicos 59: 419–49. —. 2002. The King and the Cemeteries: Toward a New Understanding of Josiah’s Reign (VTS 601; Leiden: Brill, 2002).

Bibliography

439

—. 2008. BMH as Body Language: A Lexical and Iconographical Study of the Word BMH When Not a Reference to Cultic Phenomena in Biblical and Post-Biblical Hebrew (LHBOTS 477; London: T & T Clark). Bartélemy, D. et al. 1982. Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. Josue, Juges, Ruth, Samuel, Rois, Chroniques, Esdras, Néhémie, Esther. Rapport final du comité pour l’analyse textuelle de l’A.T. hébreu institué par l’Alliance Biblique Universelle (OBO 50/1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Barth, H. 1977. Die Jesaja-Worte in der Josiazeit. Israel und Assur als Thema einer produktiven Neuinterpretation der Jesajaüberlieferung (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener). Barthel, J. 1977. Prophetenwort und Geschichte. Die Jesajaüberlieferung in Jes 6–8 und 28– 31 (FAT 19; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck). Barthes, R. 1981. “The Discourse of History” Comparative Criticism 3: 7–20. Baudissin, W.W. 1901. Einleitung in die Bücher des Alten Testaments (Leipzig: Hirzel). Beaulieu, P.-A. 1993. “The Historical Background of the Uruk Prophecy” in M. E. Cohen, ed., The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press) 41–52. —. 1994. “Antiquarianism and the Concern for the Past in the Neo-Babylonian Period” Bulletin of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 28: 37–42. Becker, U. 1997. Jesaja – von der Botschaft zum Buch (FRLANT 178; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Becking, B. 1992. The Fall of Samaria: An Historical and Archaeological Study (SHCANE 2; Leiden: Brill). —. 1997. “Assyrian Evidence for Iconic Polytheism in Ancient Israel?” in K. van der Toorn, ed., The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Leuven: Peeters) 157–71. —. 2003. “Chronology: A Skeleton without Flesh? Sennacherib’s Campaign as a CaseStudy” in L. L. Grabbe, ed., ‘Like a Bird in a Cage’: The Invasion of Sennacherib in 701 BCE (London: Continuum) 46–72. Begg, C. T. 1986. “2 Kings 20:1–19 as an Element of the Deuteronomistic History” CBQ 48: 27–38. Begrich, J. 1929. Die Chronologie der Könige von Israel und Juda (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr). —. 1935. “Atalja, die Tochter Omris” ZAW 53: 78–9. Ben Zvi, E. 1990. “Who Wrote the Speech of Rabshakeh and When?” JBL 109: 79–92. —. 2003. “Malleability and Its Limits: Sennacherib’s Campaign against Judah as a CaseStudy” in L. L. Grabbe, ed., ‘Like a Bird in a Cage’: The Invasion of Sennacherib in 701 BCE (London: Continuum) 73–105. Benzinger, I. 1899. Die Bücher der Könige (Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum alten Testament 9; Leipzig: J.C.B. Mohr). —. 1921. Jahwist und Elohist in Königsbüchern (BWANT 27; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer). Berges, U. 1998. Das Buch Jesaja. Komposition und Endgestalt (HBS 16; Freiburg: Herder). Bergsträsser, G. 1929. Wilhelm Gesenius’ Hebräische Grammatik (Leipzig: Hinrichssche Buchhandlung). Bietenhard, Sophia K. 1998. Des Königs General. Die Heerführertraditionen in der vorstaatlichen und frühen staatlichen Zeit und die Joabgestalt in 2 Sam 2–20; 1 Kön 1–2 (OBO 163; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Biggs, R. D. 1967. “More Babylonian ‘Prophecies’” Iraq 29: 117–32. —. 1985. “The Babylonian Prophecies and the Astrological Traditions of Mesopotamia” JCS 37: 86–90.

440

Bibliography

—. 1987. “Babylonian Prophecies, Astrology, and a New Source for ‘Prophecy Text B’” in F. Rochberg-Halton, ed., Language, Literature, and History: Philological and Historical Studies Presented to Erica Reiner (New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society) 1–14. Binger, T. 1997. Asherah: Goddesses in Ugarit, Israel and the Old Testament (JSOTSS 232; London: Continuum). Bin-Nun, S. R., 1968. “Formulas from Royal Records of Israel and of Judah” VT 18: 414–32. Biran, A., ed., 1981. Temples and High Places in Biblical Times: Proceedings of the Colloquium of the Centennial of Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion (Jerusalem: Keter). Biran, A. 1994. Biblical Dan (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, HUC–JIR). Birch, B. C. 1976. The Rise of the Israelite Monarchy: the Growth and Development of 1 Samuel 7–15 (SBLDS 27; Missoula: Scholars). Blanco Wißmann, F. 2008. “Er Tat Das Recht …” Beurteilungskriterien und Deuteronomismus in 1Kön 12–2Kön 25 (Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 93; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag). Bleek, F. and J. Wellhausen. 1893. Einleitung in das Alte Testament (6th ed.; Berlin: Reimer). Bloch-Smith, E. 2002. “Life in Judah from the Perspective of the Dead” NEA 65: 120–30. —. 2009. “Assyrians Abet Israelite Cultic Reforms: Sennacherib and the Centralization of the Israelite Cult” in J. D. Schloen, ed., Exploring the Longue Durée: Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns) 35–44. Blum, E. 2000. “Ein Anfang der Geschichtsschreibung? Anmerkungen zur sog. Throngefolgegeschichte und zum Umgang mit Geschichte im alten Israel,” pp. 4–37 in A. de Pury and T. Römer, eds., 2000b. Borger, R. 1956. Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, Königs von Assyrien (AfOB 9; Graz: selfpublished). —. 1971. “Gott Marduk und Gott-König Šulgi als Propheten” BiOr 28: 3–24. Borowski, O. 1995. “Hezekiah’s Reforms and the Revolt against Assyria” BA 58: 148–55. Bostock, D. 2006. A Portrayal of Trust: The Theme of Faith in the Hezekiah Narratives (Milton Keynes: Paternoster). Boyes, P. J. 2012. “‘The King of the Sidonians’: Phoenician Ideologies and the Myth of Kingdom of Tyre-Sidon” BASOR 365: 33–44. Braulik, G. 1991. Die deuteronomistischen Gesetze und der Dekalog (SBS 145; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk). Brettler, M. 1991. “The Structure of 1 Kings 1–11” JSOT 87–97. Bright, J. 1959, 2nd ed. 1982, 3rd ed. 2000. A History of Israel (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press). Brinkman, J. A. 1990. “The Babylonian Chronicle Revisited” in T. Abusch, ed. et al., Lingering over Words: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press) 73–104. Brooke, A. E., N. Mclean, and H. St. J. Thackeray. 1930. The Old Testament in Greek. Volume II. Part II. I and II Kings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Broshi, M. “The Expansion of Jerusalem in the Reigns of Hezekiah and Manasseh” IEJ 24: 21–6. Buccellati, G. 1963. “1 Sam. 13, 1” Bibbia et Oriente 5: 29. —. 1964. “The Enthronement of the King and the Capital City in Texts from Ancient Mesopotamia and Syria” in R. D. Biggs and J. A. Brinkman, eds., Studies Presented to A. Leo Oppenheim (Chicago, IL: Oriental Institute). 54–61. Budde, K. 1890. Die Bücher Richter und Samuel: Ihre Quellen und ihr Aufbau (Giessen: J. Ricker). —. 1926. “Das Deuteronomium und die Reform Josias” ZAW 44: 177–244.

Bibliography

441

Budde, K. and H. J. Holtzmann, eds. 1904. Eduard Reuss’ Briefwechsel mit seinem Schüler und Freunde Karl Heinrich Graf (Giessen: J. Ricker). Burney, C. F. 1903. Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings (Oxford; Clarendon Press). Caillou, J.-S. 2008. Le tombeaux royaux de Judée dans l’antiquité de David à Hérode Agrippa II: Essai d’Archélogie funéraire (Paris: Geuthner). Camp, L. 1990. Hiskija und Hiskijabild: Analyse und Interpretation von 2 Kön 18–20 (Altenberge: Telo-Verlag). Campbell, A. F. 1986. Of Prophets and Kings: A Ninth-Century Document (1 Samuel 1–2 Kings 10) (The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 17; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America). Campbell, A. and M. O’Brien. 2000. Unfolding the Deuteronomistic History: Origins, Upgrades, Present Text (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press). Carr, David M. 1991. From D to Q. A Study of Early Jewish Interpretations of Solomon’s Dream at Gibeon (SBLMS 44; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press). —. 1992. “What Can We Say about the Tradition History of Isaiah? A Response to Christopher Seitz’s Zion’s Final Destiny” SBLSP 31: 583–97. Catastini, A. 1989. Isaiah ed Ezechia: Studio di storia della tradizione di II Re 18–20 // Is. 36–39 (Roma: Università Degli Studi «La Sapienza»). Chavel, S. 2011. “The Literary Development of Deuteronomy 12: Between Religious Ideal and Social Reality,” in T. Dozeman, K. Schmid, B. J. Schwartz, eds., The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research (FAT 78; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck) 303– 26. Chavalas, M. 1994. “Genealogical History as ‘Charter’: A Study of Old Babylonian Period Historiography and the Old Testament” in A. R. Millard, J. K. Hoffmeier, D. W. Baker, eds., Faith, Tradition, and History: Old Testament Historiography in Its Near Eastern Context (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns) 103–28. Cheyne, T. K. 1882. The Prophecies of Isaiah (2 Vol.; New York: Thomas Whittaker). —. 1901. “Jeroboam” EB 2: 2404–6. Childs, B. S. 1967. Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis (SBT 2/3; London: SCM Press) Chung, Youn Ho. The Sin of the Calf: The Rise of the Bible’s Negative Attitude Toward the Golden Calf (LHBOTS 523; London: Continuum). Claburn, W. E. 1973. “The Fiscal Basis of Josiah’s Reform” JBL 92: 11–22. Clements, R. E. 1980. Isaiah and the Deliverance of Jerusalem: A Study of the Interpretation of Prophecy in the Old Testament (JSOTSS 13; Sheffield: The University of Sheffield). —. 1996. “The Prophecies of Isaiah to Hezekiah concerning Sennacherib” in idem, Old Testament Prophecy: From Oracles to Canon (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press) 35–48. —. 2011. “Sennacherib and Hezekiah (I): The Saving of Jerusalem—Isaiah 36–37” in idem, Jerusalem and the Nations: Studies in the Book of Isaiah (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press). Cogan, M. and H. Tadmor. 1988. II Kings (AB 11; Garden City, NY: Doubleday). Cogan, M. 1974. Imperialism and Religion: Assyria, Judah, and Israel in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries B.C.E. (SBLMS 19; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press). —. 2000. 1 Kings (AB 10; Garden City, NY: Doubleday). Coggins, R. J. 1993. “Prophecy—True and False” in H.A. McKay and D.J.A. Clines, eds., Of Prophets’ Visions and the Wisdom of Sages. Essays in Honour of R. Norman Whybray on His Seventieth Birthday (JSOTSS 162; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press) 80–94.

442

Bibliography

—. 1995. “What Does ‘Deuteronomistic’ Mean?” in J. Davies, G. Harvey, and W. G. E. Watson, eds., Words Remembered, Texts Renewed: Essays in Honour of John F.A. Sawyer (JSOTSS 195; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press) 135–48. Cohen, C. 1979. “The Neo-Assyrian Elements in the First Speech of the Biblical Rab-Šaqe” IOS 9: 32–48. Cohen, R. 1986. “History and Genre” New Literary History 17: 203–18. Cohen, S. J. D. 1984–5. “Solomon and the Daughter of Pharaoh: Intermarriage, Conversion, and the Impurity of Women” JANES 23–37. Cohn, R. 2010. “The Literary Structure of Kings” in A. Lemaire and B. Halpern, eds., The Books of Kings: Sources, Composition, Historiography and Reception (VTS 129; Leiden: Brill) 107–122. Conrad, E. W. 1985. Fear Not Warrior: a Study of ʾal tîrāʾ Pericopes in the Hebrew Scriptures (BJS 75; Chico, CA: Scholars Press). Cornill, C. H. 1891. Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Freiburg: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck]). —. 1907. Introduction to the Canonical Books of the Bible (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons). Cortese, E. 1975. “Lo schema deuteronomistico per i re di Guida e d’Israele” Bib 56: 37–52. Couturier, G. 2001. “Quelques observations sur le BYTDWD de la stèle araméenne de Tel Dan” in P. M. M. Daviau, J. W. Wevers and M. Weigl, eds., The World of the Arameans II: Studies in History and Archaeology in Honour of Paul-Eugène Dion (JSOTSS 325; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press) 72–98. Cross, F. M. 1973. “The Themes of the Books of Kings and the Structure of the Deuteronomistic History” in F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (revised from original essay in 1968; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press) 274–89. Davidovich, T. 2010. “Emphasizing the Daughter of Pharaoh” SJOT 24: 71–84. Day, J. 1986. “Asherah in the Hebrew Bible and Northwest Semitic Literature” JBL 105: 385–408. —. 2002. Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). —. 2007. “Gibeon and the Gibeonites in the Old Testament” in R. Rezetko, T. H. Lim, and W. B. Aucker, eds., Reflection and Refraction: Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honour of A. Graeme Auld (VTS 113; Leiden: Brill) 113–37. Debus, J. 1967. Die Sünde Jerobeams: Studien zur Darstellung Jerobeams und der Geschichte des Nordreichs in der deuteronomistischen Geschichtsschreibung (FRLANT 93; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). deJong Ellis, M. 1989. “Observations on Mesopotamian Oracles and Prophetic Texts: Literary and Historiographic Considerations” JCS 41: 127–86. De Jong, M. J. 2007. Isaiah among the Ancient Near Eastern Prophets: A Comparative Study of the Earliest Stages of the Isaiah Tradition and the Neo-Assyrian Prophecies (VTS 117; Leiden: Brill). De Jong, S. 1984. “Over de verhouding van 2 Kon. 18:17–19:37 / Jes. 36–37 tot Jer. 37:1–10” Amsterdamse cahiers voor exegese en Bibelse theologie 5: 135–46. De Pury, A., Römer, T., and J.-D. Macchi. 2000. Deuteronomistic History in Recent Research (JSOTSS 306; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). De Pury, A. and T. Römer. 2000a “Deuteronomistic Historiography (DH): History of Research and Debated Issues,” pp. 24–141 in de Pury, Römer, and Macchi, eds., 2000. —. 2000b. Die sogennante Thronfolgegeschichte Davids. Neue Einsichten und Anfragen (OBO 176; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Devries, S. J. 1985. 1 Kings (WBC 12; Waco, TX: Word).

Bibliography

443

De Wette, W. M. L. 1806–7. Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament (2 vol.; Halle: Schimmelpfennig). —. 1850. A Critical and Historical Introduction to the Canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament (Translated by T. Parker; 2 Vol.; 2nd. Ed.; Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown). De Wette, W. M. L. and E. Schrader. 1869. Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in die kanonischen apokryphischen Bücher des Alten Testaments sowie in die Bibelsammlung überhaupt (8th ed.; Berlin: Reimer). Dietrich, W. 1972. Prophetie und Geschichte: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk (FRLANT 108; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). —. 2000a. “History and Law: Deuteronomistic Historiography and Deuteronomic Law Exemplified in the Passage from the Period of the Judges to the Monarchical Period,” pp. 315–42 in de Pury, Römer, and Macchi, eds., 2000. —. 2002. Von David zu den Deuteronomisten. Studien zu den Geschichtsüberlieferungen des Alten Testaments (BWANT; 8 Folge, Heft 16; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer). —. 2007. The Early Monarchy in Israel: The Tenth Century B.C.E. (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature). —. 2008. “Review of K.-P. Adam (2007), Saul und David in der judäischen Geschichtsschreibung: Studien zu 1 Samuel 16–2 Samuel 5” RBL 05/2008 [http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/6023_6411.pdf]. —. 2010. “Review of J. Van Seters (2009), The Biblical Saga of King David” RBL 02/2010 [http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/7252_7892.pdf]. Dietrich, W. and T. Naumann. 1995. Die Samuelbücher (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft). Dijkstra, M. 2005. “‘As for the Other Events … ‘: Annals and Chronicles in Israel and the Ancient Near East” in R. P. Gordon and J. C. de Moor, eds., The Old Testament in Its World (OTS 52; Leiden: Brill) 14–44. Dillmann, A. 1898. Der Prophet Jesaja (Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch 5; 6th ed.; Leipzig: Hirzel). Dion, P. E. 1988. “Sennacherib’s Expedition to Palestine” Bulletin of the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies 48: 3–25. Dobbs-Allsopp et al. 2004. Hebrew Inscriptions: Texts from the Biblical Period of the Monarchy with Concordance (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press). Dochhorn, J. 2001. “Die auf Menander von Ephesus zurückgehende Liste der Könige von Tyrus in C 1:116–126” in J. U. Kalms, ed., Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium Amsterdam 2000 (Münster: Lit Verlag) 77–102. Donner, H. 1986. Geschichte des Volkes Israel und seiner Nachbarn in Grundzügen 2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Driver, S. R. 1891, new ed. 1914. An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons). —. 1895. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy (ICC 5; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons). —. 1913. Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel (2nd ed.; Oxford: Clarendon Press). Dubovský, P. 2006. Hezekiah and the Assyrian Spies: Reconstruction of the Neo-Assyrian Intelligence Services and Its Significance for 2 Kings 18–19 (Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico). Duhm, B. 1901. Das Buch Jeremia (KHC 9; Tübingen/Leipzig: J.C.B. Mohr [P. Siebeck]). —. 1902. Das Buch Jesaja (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).

444

Bibliography

Dutcher-Walls, P. 1991. “The Social Location of the Deuteronomists: A Sociological Study of Factual Politics in Late Pre-Exilic Judah” JSOT 52: 77–94. Edelman, D. 1985. “The Meaning of qiṭṭēr” VT 35: 395–404. —. 2008. “Hezekiah’s Alleged Cultic Centralization” JSOT 32: 395–434. Edenburg, C. 2012. “‘Overwriting and Overriding,’ Or: What is Not Deuteronomistic,” pp. 443–60 in Nissinen, ed., 2012. Edzard, D. 1980. “Königslisten und Chroniken, A. Sumerisch” RLA 6: 77–86. Eichhorn, J. G. 1787. Einleitung ins Alte Testament, II (2nd Ed.; Leipzig: Weidmanns Erben und Reich). Eissfeldt, O. 1948. Geschichtschreibung im Alten Testament: Ein kritischer Bericht über die neueste Literatur dazu (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt). —. 1965. The Old Testament: An Introduction (Translated by P. Ackroyd; New York: Harper and Row). Emerton, J. A. 1997a. “The House of Baal in 1 Kings xvi 32” VT 47: 293–300. —. 1997b. “The Biblical High Places in the Light of Recent Study” PEQ 129: 116–32. Ephʿal-Jaruzelska, I. 2009. Prophets, Royal Legitimacy and War in Ancient Israel (Warsaw: Warsaw University Press). Evans, C. D. 1983. “Naram-Sin and Jeroboam: The Archetypal Unheilsherrscher in Mesopotamian and Biblical Historiography” in W. W. Hallo, J. C. Moyer, and L. G. Perdue, eds., Scripture in Context II: More Essays on the Comparative Method (Winona, IN: Eisenbrauns) 97–125. Evans, P. S. 2009. The Invasion of Sennacherib in the Book of Kings: A Source-Critical and Rhetorical Study of 2 Kings 18–19 (VTS 125; Leiden: Brill). Ewald, H. 1843–59. Geschichte des Volkes Israel (7 vol.; Göttingen: Dieterichschen Buchhandlung). Translated into English by R. Martineau, J. E. Carpenter, and J. F. Smith, History of Israel (London: Longmans, Green & Company, 1867–86). Eynikel, E. 1996. The Reform of King Josiah and the Composition of the Deuteronomistic History (Leiden: Brill). Fales, F. M. 1999–2001. “Assyrian Royal Inscriptions: Newer Horizons” SAAB 13: 115–44. Fantalkin, A. 2008. “The Appearance of Rock-Cut Bench Tombs in Iron Age Judah as a Reflection of State Formation” in A. Fantalkin and A. Yasur-Landau, eds., Bene Israel: Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and the Levant During the Bronze and Iron Ages in Honour of Israel Finkelstein (Leiden: Brill) 17–44. Fehling, D. 1989. Herodotus and His ‘Sources’: Citation, Invention, and Narrative Art (Great Britain: Francis Cairns). Fewell, D. N. 1986. “Sennacherib’s Defeat: Words at War in 2 Kings 18.13–19.37” JSOT 34: 79–90. Fichtner, J. 1964. Das erste Buch von den Königen (Die Botschaft des Alten Testaments 12.1; Stuttgart: Calwer). Finkelstein, I. and N. A. Silberman. 2006. “Temple and Dynasty: Hezekiah, the Remaking of Judah and the Rise of Pan-Israelite Ideology” JSOT 30: 259–85. Finkelstein, J. J. 1966. “The Genealogy of the Hummurapi Dynasty” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 20: 95–118. Fischer, A. A. 2004. Von Hebron nach Jerusalem: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zur Erzählung von König David in II Sam 1–5 (BZAW 335; Berlin: De Gruyter). Fohrer, G. 1968. Introduction to the Old Testament (Translation by D. E. Green; Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press). Frahm, E. 1997. Einleitung in die Sanherib-Inschriften (AfOB 26; Wien: Universität Wien). Franklin, N. 2003. “The Tombs of the Kings of Israel: Two Recently Identified 9th Century Tombs from Omride Samaria” ZDPV 119: 1–11.

Bibliography

445

Fried, L. 2002. “The High Places (Bāmôt) and the Reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah: An Archeological Investigation” JAOS 122: 437–65. Frisch, A. 1991. “Structure and Significance: The Narrative of Solomon’s Reign (1 Kings 1– 12.24)” JSOT 51: 3–14. Fritz, V. 1996. Das erste Buch der Könige (ZBK 10/1; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag). —. 1998. Das zweite Buch der Könige (ZBK 10/2; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag). Frye, N. 1957. The Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press). Galil, G. 1996. The Chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah (SHCANE 9; Leiden: Brill). Gallagher, W. R. 1999. Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah: New Studies (SHCANE 18; Leiden: Brill). George, J. F. L. 1835. Die älteren jüdischen Feste mit einer Kritik der Gesetzgebung des Pentateuch (Berlin: E. H. Schroeder). Gese, H. 1958. “Geschichtliches Denken im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament” ZThK 55: 127–45. Gesenius, W. 1821. Philologisch-kritischer und historischer Commentar über den Jesaia (Leipzig: Vogel). Geva, H. 2003. “Western Jerusalem at the End of the First Temple Period in Light of the Excavations in the Jewish Quarter” in A. G. Vaughn and A. E. Killebrew, eds., Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period (Leiden: Brill) 183–208. Gitin, S. 1989. “Incense Altars from Ekron, Israel and Judah: Context and Typology” EretzIsrael 20: 52–67. —. 2002. “The Four-Horned Altar and Sacred Space: An Archaeological Perspective” in B. M. Gittlen, ed., Sacred Time, Sacred Space: Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns) 95–123. Glassner, J.-J. 2004. Mesopotamian Chronicles (SBLWAW 19; Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature). —. 2005. “La date de composition de la Chronique de la Monarchie Une” in Y. Sefati, ed. et al., An Experienced Scribe Who Neglects Nothing, Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Jacob Klein (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press) 138–41. Gleis, M. 1997. Die Bamah (BZAW 251; Berlin: De Gruyter). Goetze, A. 1947. “Historical Allusions in Old Babylonian Omen Texts” JCS 1: 253–65. Goldberg, J. 1999. “Two Assyrian Campaigns against Hezekiah and Later Eighth Century Biblical Chronology” Biblica 80: 360–90. Gonçalves, F. J. 1986. L’expédition de Sennachérib en Palestine dan la littérature hébraïque ancienne (EBib n. s. 7; Paris: Librairie Lecoffre). —. 1999. “2 Rois 18,13—20,19 par Isaïe 36—39: Encore une fois, lequel des deux livres fut le premier?” in J.-M. Auwers and A. Wénin, eds., Lecture et relectures de la Bible. Festschrift P.-M. Bogaert (Leuven: Peeters) 27–55. Gooding, D. W. 1967. “The Septuagint’s Rival Versions of Jeroboam’s Rise to Power” VT 17: 173–89. —. 1976. Relics of Ancient Exegesis: A Study of the Miscellanies in 3 Reg. 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Gordon, R. P. 1975. “The Second Septuagint Account of Jeroboam: History or Midrash?” VT 25: 368–93. Görg, M. 1975. Gott-König-Reden in Israel und Ägypten (BWANT 105; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer). Grabbe, L. L. 2003. “Introduction” in L. L. Grabbe, ed., ‘Like a Bird in a Cage’: The Invasion of Sennacherib in 701 BCE (London: Continuum) 2–43.

446

Bibliography

Graf, K. H. 1866. Die Geschichtlichen Bücher des Alten Testaments: Zwei HistorischKritische Untersuchungen (Leipzig: Weigel). Gramberg, C. P. W. 1829–30. Kritische Geschichte der Religionsideen des alten Testaments (2 vol.; Berlin: Duncker und Humbolt). Gray, J. 1963. I & II Kings. A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia, PA: Westminster). —. 1977. I & II Kings. A Commentary (3rd ed.; OTL; Philadelphia, PA: Westminster). Grayson, A. K. 1963. “Additional Note” Bibbia et Oriente 5: 86, 110. —. 1971. “The early development of the Assyrian monarchy” Ugarit-Forschungen 3: 311– 19. —. 1975a. Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (Texts from Cuneiform Sources 5; Locust Valley, NY: J. J. Augustin). —. 1975b. Babylonian Historical-Literary Texts (Toronto: University of Toronto Press). —. 1980a. “Königslisten und Chroniken. B. Akkadisch” Reallexikon der Assyriologie 6: 86– 135. —. 1980b. “Assyria and Babylonia” Orientalia 49: 140–94. —. 1991. Assyrian Rulers of the Third and Second Millennia BC (Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia: Assyrian Periods; Toronto: University of Toronto Press) —. 1995. “Assyrian Rule of Conquered Territory” in J. Sasson, ed., Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (New York: Scribner) 2: 959–68. Grayson, A. K. and W. G. Lambert. 1964. “Akkadian Prophecies” JCS 18: 7–30. Green, A. R. 1983. “David’s Relations with Hiram: Biblical and Josephan Evidence for Tyrian Chronology” in C. L. Meyers and M. O’Connor, eds., The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns) 373–97. Green, D. J. 2010. “I Undertook Great Works”: The Ideology of Domestic Achievements in West Semitic Royal Inscriptions (FAT 2/41; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck). Greenfield, J. C. 1971. “Scripture and Inscription: The Literary and Rhetorical Element in Some Early Phoenician Inscriptions” in H. Goedicke, ed., Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press) 253–68. Greenspahn, F. E. 2004. “Syncretism and Idolatry in the Bible” VT 54: 480–94. Gressmann, H. 1910. Die älteste Geschichtsschreibung und Prophetie Israels (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Gruber, M. 1983. “The Qadesh in the Book of Kings and Elsewhere” Tarbiz 52: 167–76. Güterbock, H.-G. 1934. “Die historische Tradition und ihre literarische Gestaltung bei Babyloniern und Hethitern bis 1200. Erster Teil: Babylonier” ZA 42: 1–91. Haag, H. 1958. “La campagne de Sannacherib contre Jérusalem en 701” RB 65: 348–59. Hacking, I. 1999. The Social Construction of What? (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). Hallo, W. W. 1978. “Assyrian Historiography Revisited” Eretz-Israel 14: 1–7. Halpern, B. 1981. “The Centralization Formula in Deuteronomy” VT 31: 20–38. —. 1996. The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State Press). —. 2004. David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans). —. 2009. From Gods to God: The Dynamics of Iron Age Cosmologies (FAT 63; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck). Halpern, B. and D. Vanderhooft. 1991. “The Editions of Kings in the 7th–6th Centuries B.C.E.” Hebrew Union College Annual 62: 179–244. Halpern, B. and A. Lemaire. 2010. “The Composition of Kings” in A. Lemaire and B. Halpern, eds., The Book of Kings: Sources, Composition, Historiography and Reception (VTS 601; Leiden: Brill) 123–53.

Bibliography

447

Handy, L. K. 1988. “Hezekiah’s Unlikely Reform” ZAW 100: 111–5. Haran, M. 1985. Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into the Character of Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School (Oxford: Clarendon Press). —. 1995. “Altar-ed States: Incense Theory Goes up in Smoke” BR (February) 30–37, 48. —. 1999. “The Books of the Chronicles ‘Of the Kings of Judah’ and ‘Of the Kings of Israel’: What Sort of Books Were They?” VT 49: 156–64. Hardmeier, C. 1990. Prophetie im Streit: Erzählkommunikative Studien zur Entstehungssituation der Jesaja- und Jeremiaherzählungen in II Reg 18–20 und Jer 37–40 (BZAW 187; Berlin: De Gruyter). —. 2005. “King Josiah in the Climax of the Deuteronomistic History (2 Kings 22–23) and the Pre-Deuteronomic Document of a Cult Reform at the Place of Residence (23.4–15*): Criticism of Sources, Reconstruction of Literary Pre-Stages and the Theology of History in 2 Kings 22–23*” in L. L. Grabbe, ed., Good Kings and Bad Kings (LHBOTS 393; London: T & T Clark) 123–63. —. 2006. “Geschichtsdivinatorik und literatursoziologische Aspekte der Schriftprophetie am Beispiel von Jesaja 9–10” in R. Lux and E.-J. Waschke, eds., Die unwiderstehliche Wahrheit. Studien zur alttestamentlichen Prophetie. Festschrift für Arndt Meinhold (ABGe 23; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt) 129–51. Hardy II, H. H. and B. D. Thomas. 2012. “Another Look at Biblical Hebrew bɔmɔ ‘High Place’” VT 62: 175–88. Hartel, W. A. R. von 1886. Lucifer Calaritani opuscula (Corpus ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, vol. 14; Vindobonae: C. Geroldi). Harvey, P. B. Jr. and B. Halpern. 2008. “W.M.L. de Wette’s ‘Dissertatio Critica … ‘: Context and Translation” ZAR 14: 47–85. Hasegawa, S. 2012. Aram and Israel during the Jehu Dynasty (BZAW 434; Berlin: De Gruyter). Hävernick, H. A. Ch. 1839. Handbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Erlangen: Verlag von Carl Heyder). Hawkins, J. D. 1995. “Karkemish and Karatepe: Neo-Hittite City-States in North Syria” in CANE 2: 1295–1307. —. 2000. Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions. Volume I: Inscriptions of the Iron Age: Part 1: Text, Introduction, Karatepe, Karkamiš, Tell Ahmar, Maraş, Malatya, Commagne (Berlin: De Gruyter). Hayes, J. H. and P. K. Hooker. 1988. A New Chronology for the Kings of Israel and Judah and Its Implications for Biblical History and Literature (Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press). Hays, J. D. 2003. “Has the Narrator Come to Praise Solomon or to Buy Him? Narrative Subtlety in 1 Kings 1–11” JSOT 28: 149–74. Heger, P. 1997. The Development of Incense Cult in Israel (BZAW 245; Berlin: De Gruyter). Heller, R. 2004. Narrative Structure and Discourse Constellations (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns). Hempel, J. 1914. Die Schichten des Deuteronomiums (Leipzig: Voigtlander). Hentschel, G. 1984. 1 Könige (NEB10; Würzberg: Echter). Herzog, Z. 2001. “The Date of the Temple at Arad: Reassessment of the Stratigraphy and the Implications for the History of Religion in Judah” in A. Mazar, ed., Studies in Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan (JSOTSS 331; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press) 156–78. —. 2002. “The Fortress Mound at Tel Arad: An Interim Report” TA 29: 3–109.

448

Bibliography

—. 2010. “Perspectives on Southern Israel’s Cult Centralization: Arad and Beer-sheba” in R. G. Kratz and H. Spieckermann, eds., One God – One Cult – One Nation: Archaeological and Biblical Perspectives (BZAW 405; Berlin: De Gruyter) 169–99. Hincks, E. 1858. “On the Rectifications of Sacred and Profane Chronology, which the Newly Discovered Apis-steles Render Necessary” Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record 8: 126–139 Hitzig, F. 1833. Der Prophet Jesaja (Heidelberg: C. F. Winter). Hjelm, I. 2004. Jerusalem’s Rise to Sovereignty: Zion and Gerizim in Competition (London: T & T Clark). Höffken, P. 2008. “Die Rede des Rabsake vor Jerusalem (2 Kön. xviii / Jes. xxxvi) im Kontext anderer Kapitulationsforderungen” VT 58: 44–55. Hoffmann, H.-D. 1980. Reform und Reformen: Untersuchungen zu einem Grundthema der deuteronomistischen Geschichtsschreibung (Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 66; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag). Hoffmeier, J. K. 1994. “The Structure of Joshua 1–11 and the Annals of Thutmosis III” in A. R. Millard, ed. et al., Faith, Tradition, and History: Old Testament Historiography in Its Near Eastern Context (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns) 165–79. —. 2003. “Egypt’s Role in the Events of 701 B.C. in Jerusalem” in A. G. Vaughn and A. E. Killebrew, eds., Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period (Leiden: Brill) 219–34. Holder, J. 1988. “The Presuppositions, Accusations, and Threats of 1 Kings 14:1–18” JBL 107: 27–38. Holladay, Jr. J. S. 1987. “Religion in Israel and Judah under the Monarchy: An Explicitly Archaeological Approach” in P. D. Miller, P. D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride, eds., Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press) 249–99. Holladay, W. L. 1961. “On Every High Hill and under Every Green Tree” VT 11: 170–76. Hölscher, G. 1923. “Das Buch der Könige, seine Quellen und seine Redaktion” in H. Schmidt, ed., Eucharisterion: Studien zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments (Festschrift H. Gunkel; FRLANT 36/1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht) 158–213. —. 1952. Geschichtsschreibung in Israel. Untersuchungen zum Jahwisten und Elohisten (Lund: Gleerup). Honor, L. L. 1926. Sennacherib’s Invasion of Palestine: A Critical Source Study (COHP 12; New York: Columbia University Press). Horn, S. H. and P. K. McCarter, Jr. 2011. “The Divided Monarchy: The Kingdoms of Judah and Israel” in H. Shanks, ed., Ancient Israel: From Abraham to the Roman Destruction of the Temple (3rd ed.; Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeological Society) 129–207. Hrozný, H. 1909. Die Abweichungen des Codex Vaticanus von hebräischen Texte in den Königsbüchern (diss.; Leipzig). Hugo, P. 2006. Les deux visages d’Élie: Texte massorétique et Septante dan l’histoire la plus ancienne du texte de 1 Rois 17–18. (OBO 217; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Hunger, H. and S. A. Kaufman. 1975. “A New Akkadian Prophecy Text” JAOS 95: 371–5. Hurowitz, V. A. 1992. “I Have Built You an Exalted House.” Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings (JSOTSS 115; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). Husser, Jean-Marie translated by Jill M. Munro. 1999. Dreams and Dream Narrative in the Biblical World (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press).

Bibliography

449

Hutter, M. 1982. Hiskija, König von Juda: Ein Beitrag zur judäischen Geschichte in assryischer Zeit (Graz: Eigenverlag des Instituts für Ökumenische Theologie und Patrologie an der Universität Graz). Hutton, J. 2009. Transjordanian Palimpsest: The Overwritten Texts of Personal Exile and Transformation in the Deuteronomistic History (BZAW 396; Berlin: De Gruyter). Jacobsen, T. 1939. The Sumerian King List (AS 11; Chicago: IL; Oriental Institute). Jahn, J. 1827. An Introduction to the Old Testament (New York: Carvill). Japhet, S. 1989. The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang). —. 1993. I & II Chronicles: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press). Jaruzelska, I. 2004. “Les prophètes face aux usurpations dans le royaume du nord” VT 54: 165–87. Jenkins, A. K. 1976. “Hezekiah’s Fourteenth Year: A New Interpretation of 2 Kings xviii 13– xix 37” VT 26: 284–96. Jenni, E. 1961. “Zwei Jahrzehnte Forschung an den Büchern Josua bis Könige” TRu N.F. 27: 1–32, 97–146. Jepsen, A. 1934. Nabi: Soziologische Studien zur alttestamentlichen Literatur und Religionsgeschichte (München: C. H. Beck). —. 1956. Die Quellen des Königsbuches (Halle: Max Niemeyer). —. 1959. “Die Reform des Josia” in L. Rost, ed., Festschrift: Friedrich Baumgärtel zum 70. Geburtstag, 14. Januar 1958 (ErF A/10; Erlangen: Univ.-Bund Erlangen) 97–108. Jeremias, J. 1970. Kultprophetie und Gerichtskündigung in der späten Königszeit Israels WMANT 35; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchner). Jobling, D. 1997. “The Value of Solomon’s Age for the Biblical Reader” in L. K. Handy, ed., The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium (SCHANE 11; Leiden: Brill) 470–92. Jones, G. H. 1984. 1 and 2 Kings (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans). Joo, S. 2006. Provocation and Punishment: The Anger of God in the Book of Jeremiah and Deuteronomistic Theology (BZAW 361; Berlin: Leiden). Kaiser, O. 1974. Isaiah 13–39: A Commentary (OTL; Trans. of 1973 German; Philadelphia, PA: Westminster). —. 2000. “Das Verhältnis der Erzählung vom König David zum sogenannten Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk: Am Beispiel von 1 Kön 1–2 untersucht. Ein Gespräch mit John Van Seters” in A. de Pury and T. Römer, eds., Die sogenannte Thronfolgegeschichte Davids: Neue Einsichten und Anfragen (OBO 176; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht) 94–122. Kasari, P. 2009. Nathan’s Promise in 2 Samuel 7 and Related Texts (Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 97; Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society). Kaufman, I. 1982. “The Samaria Ostraca: An Early Witness to Hebrew Writing” BA 1982: 229–39. Kaufman, S. 1991. “An Emphatic Plea for Please” MAARAV 7: 195–8. Kaufmann, Y. 1960. The Religion of Israel, from Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press). Kautzsch, E. and A. E. Cowley, eds. 1910. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (2nd ed.; Oxford: Clarendon Press). Keel, O. and C. Uehlinger. 1998. Göttinnen, Götter und Gottessymbole. Neue Erkenntnisse zur Religionsgeschichte Kanaans und Israels aufgrund bislang unerschlossener ikonographischer Quellen (4th ed.; Freiburg: Herder).

450

Bibliography

Keimer, K. 2011. The Socioeconomic Impact of Hezekiah’s Preparations for Rebellion (Ph. D. Diss.; University of California, Los Angeles). Keil, C. F. 1865. Die Bücher der Könige (HKAT 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). ET in 1872. The Book of Kings (Edinburgh: T & T Clark). Kelle, B. E. 2002. “What’s in a Name? Neo-Assyrian Designations for the Northern Kingdom and Their Implications for Israelite History and Biblical Interpretation” JBL 121: 639–66. Kenik, H. A. 1983. Design for Kingship: The Deuteronomistic Narrative Technique in 1 Kings 3:4–15 (SBLDS 69; Chico, CA: Scholars Press). Kim, Y.-K. 2008. “In Search of the Narrator’s Voice: A Discourse Analysis of 2 Kings 18:13–16” JBL 127: 477–89. Kittel, R. 1888. Geschichte der Hebräer (Volume 2; Gotha: Friedrich Andreas Perthes). —. 1892. “Die pentateuchlichen Urkunden in den Büchern Richter und Samuel” Theologische Literaturzeitung 17: 44–71. —. 1900. Bücher der Könige (HKAT 11–12; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). —. 1909. Geschichte des Volkes Israel (Volume 2; Gotha: Friedrich Andreas Perthes). Kitchen, K. A. 1966. Ancient Orient and the Old Testament (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press). —. 1973. “Late-Egyptian Chronology and the Hebrew Monarchy” JANESCU 5: 95–101. —. 1983. “Egypt, the Levant and Assyria in 701 B.C.E.” in M. Görg, ed., Fontes atque Pontes: Eine Festgabe für Hellmut Brunner (Ägypten und Altes Testament 5; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz) 243–53. —. 1986. The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100–650 BCE) (2nd ed.; Warminster, Wilts.: Aris & Philips). —. 2005. “Hieroglyphic Inscriptions of the Neo-Hittite States (c. 1200–700 BC): A Fresh Source of Background to the Hebrew Bible” in R. P. Gordon, ed. et al., The Old Testament in Its World (Leiden: Brill) 117–34. Klein, R. W. 1970. “Jeroboam’s Rise to Power” JBL 89: 217–18. Kloner, A. 1986. “The ‘Third Wall’ in Jerusalem and the ‘Cave of the Kings’ (Josephus War V 147)” Levant 18: 121–9. Klostermann, A. 1887. Die Bücher Samuelis und der Könige (Nördlingen: Beck). Knauf, E. A. 2000. “Does ‘Deuteronomistic Historiography’ (DtrH) exist?” in De Pury, A., T. Römer, and J.-D. Macchi, eds., Israel Constructs Its History. Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research (JSOTS 306; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press) 388–98. —. 2002. “The Queens’ Story, Bathsheba, Maacah, Athaliah and the ‘Historia of Early Kings’” Lectio Difficilior 2/2002 [http://www.lectio.unibe.ch/02_2/axel.pdf]. —. 2005. “The Glorious Days of Manasseh” in L. L. Grabbe, ed., Good Kings and Bad Kings (LHBOTS 393; London: T & T Clark) 164–88. Knoppers, G. N. 1990. “Rehoboam in Chronicles: Villian or Victim?” JBL 109: 423–40. —. 1992. “‘There Was None Like Him’: Incomparability in the Book of Kings” CBQ 54: 411–31. —. 1993–94. Volume 1: Two Nations Under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies: The Reign of Solomon and the Rise of Jeroboam. Volume 2. The Reign of Jeroboam, the Fall of Israel, and the Reign of Josiah (HSMM 53–54; Atlanta: Scholars Press). —. 1996. “Ancient Near Eastern Royal Land Grants and the Davidic Covenant: A Parallel?” JAOS 116: 670–97. —. 1997. “Solomon’s Fall and Deuteronomy” in L. K. Handy, ed., The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium (SCHANE 11; Leiden: Brill) 392–410. —. 2001. “Rethinking the Relationship between Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History: the Case of Kings” CBQ 63: 393–415.

Bibliography

451

Knoppers, G. N. and J. G. McConville, eds. 2000. Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History (Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 8; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns). Köckert, M. 2010. “YHWH in the Northern and Southern Kingdom” in R. G. Kratz and H. Spieckermann, eds., One God – One Cult – One Nation: Archaeological and Biblical Perspectives (BZAW 405; Berlin: De Gruyter) 357–94. Köckert, M., U. Becker, and J. Barthel. 2003. “Das Problem des historischen Jesaja” in I. Fischer, ed. et al., Prophetie in Israel: Beiträge des Symposiums ‘Das Alte Testament und die Kultur der Moderne’ anlässlich des 100. Geburtstags Gerhard von Rads (Münster: LIT) 105–35. Koch, K. 1981. “Das Profetenschweigen des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk” in J. Jeremias and L Perlitt, eds., Die Botschaft und die Boten. FS H.W. Wolff (NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener) 115–28. Köhlmoos, M. 2006. Bet-El — Erinnerungen an eine Stadt: Perspektiven der alttestamentlichen Bet-El–Überlieferung (FAT 49; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck). —. 2007. “Die übrige Geschichte”. Das “Rahmenwerk” als Grunderzählung der Königebücher” in S. Lubs ed. et al., Behutsames Lesen: Alttestamenliche Exegese im interdisziplinären Methodendiskurs (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt) 216–31. König, E. 1897. Historisch-comparative Syntax der hebräischen Sprache; Schlusstheil des Historisch-kritischen Lehrgebäudes des Hebräischen (Leipzig: Hinrichs). —. 1917. Das Deuteronomium (Kommentar zum Alten Testament 3; Leipzig: Hinrichs). Konkel, A. H. 1993. “The Sources of the Story of Hezekiah in the Book of Isaiah” VT 43: 462–82. van der Kooij, A. 2000. “The Story of Hezekiah and Sennacherib (2 Kings 18–19): A Sample of Ancient Historiography” in J. C. de Moor and H. F. Van Rooy, eds., Past, Present, Future: The Deuteronomistic History and the Prophets (OTS 44; Leiden: Brill) 107–19. Kratz, R. G. 2000a. Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments (Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). —. 2000b. “Israel als Staat und als Volk” ZThK 97: 1–17. —. 2006. “Israel in the Book of Isaiah” JSOT 31: 103–28. Kreuzer, S. 1996. “‘Saul war noch zwei Jahre König …’ Textgeschichtliche, literarische und historische Beobachtungen zu 1 Sam 13,1” BZ 40: 263–70. Kuenen, A. 1866. Histoire critique des livres de ‘Ancien Testament. Tome premier: Les livres historiques (vol. 1; Paris: Michel Lévy frères). —. 1887. Historisch-kritisch Einleitung in die Bücher des Alten Testaments hinsichtlich ihrer Entstehung und Sammlung (Vol. 1; 2nd part; Leipzig: Otto Schluze). Kugler, R. 1999. “The Deuteronomists and the Latter Prophets,” pp. 127–44 in L. S. Schearing and S. L. McKenzie, eds., 1999. Kuhl, C. 1952. “Die Wiederaufnahme—Ein literarkritisches Prinzip?” ZAW 64: 1–11. Laato, A. 1987. “Hezekiah and the Assyrian Crisis in 701 B.C.” SJOT 2: 49–68. Landsberger, B. 1954. “Assyrische Königsliste und ‘Dunkles Zeitalter’” JCS 8: 31–45, 47– 73, 106–33. Langlamet, F. 1976a. “Review of E. Würthwein (1974), Die Erzählung von der Thronfolge Davids – theologische oder politische Geschichtsschreibung and T. Veijola (1975), Die Ewige Dynastie” RB 83: 114–37. —. 1976b. “Pour ou contre Salomon?: La rédaction prosalomonienne de 1 Rois, I–II” RB 83: 321–97, 481–528. Larocca-Pitts, E. C. 2001. “Of Wood and Stone”: The Significance of Israelite Cultic Items in the Bible and Its Early Interpreters (HSM 61; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns).

452

Bibliography

Lateiner, D. 1989. The Historical Method of Herodotus (Toronto: University of Toronto Press). Law, T. M. 2011. “How Not to Use 3 Reigns: A Plea to Scholars of the Book of Kings” VT 61: 280–97. Le Moyne, J. 1957. “Les deux ambassades de Sennachérib à Jérusalem; Recherches sur l’évolution d’une tradition” in Melanges biblique rédigés en l’honneur de André Robert (Paris: Bloud et Gay) 149–53. Lehnart, B. 2003. Prophet und König im Nordreich Israel: Studien zur sogenannten vorklassischen Prophetie im Nordreich Israel anhand der Samuel-, Elia- und ElischaÜberlieferungen (VTS 96; Leiden: Brill). Lemaire, A. 1986. “Vers l’histoire de la rédaction des Livres des Rois” ZAW 98: 221–36; reprinted in English translations: “Toward a Redactional History of the Book of Kings” in G. N. Knoppers and J. G. McConville, eds., Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000) 446–61. —. 1998. “The Tel Dan Stela as a Piece of Royal Historiography” JSOT 81: 3–14. Lemke, W. E. 1976. “The Way of Obedience: I Kings 13 and the Structure of the Deuteronomistic History” in F. M. Cross, W. E. Lemke, and P. D. Miller, Jr., eds., Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God (FS Wright; Garden City, NY: Doubleday) 301–26. Leuchter, M. 2006. “Jeroboam the Ephrathite” JBL 125: 51–76. —. 2010. “The Sociolinguistics and Rhetorical Implications of the Source Citations in Kings” in M. Leuchter and K.-P. Adam, eds., Soundings in Kings: Perspectives and Methods in Contemporary Scholarship (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press) 119–34. Levenson, J. D. 1975. “Who Inserted the Book of the Torah?” HTR 68: 203–33. —. 1981. “From Temple to Synagogue: 1 Kings 8” in B. Halpern and J. D. Levenson, eds., Traditions in Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns) 143–66. Levin, C. 1984. “Joschija im deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk” ZAW 96: 351–71. —. 1985. Der Verheißung des neuen Bundes (FRLANT 137; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). —. 2008. “Die Frommigkeit der Könige von Israel und Juda” in J. Pakkala and M. Nissinen, eds., Houses of All Good Things: Essays in Memory of Timo Veijola (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht) 129–68. Levinson, B. 1997. Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation (Oxford: Oxford University Press). —. 2001. “The Reconceptualization of Kingship in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History’s Transformation of Torah” VT 51: 511–34. Lewis, C. S. 1961. An Experiment in Criticism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Lewy, J. 1927. Die Chronologie der Könige von Israel and Juda (Giessen: Alfred Töpelmann). Linville, J. R. 1998. Israel in the Book of Kings: The Past as a Project of Social Identity (JSOTSS 272; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). Lipiński, E. 1972. “The Goddess Aṯirat in Ancient Arabia, in Babylon, and in Ugarit” Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 3: 109–19. —. 1974. “Nāgīd, der Kronprinz” VT 24: 479–9. —. 2010. “Hiram of Tyre and Solomon” in A. Lemaire and B. Halpern, eds., The Book of Kings: Sources, Composition, Historiography and Reception (VTS 601; Leiden: Brill) 251–72. Lipschits, O. 2002. “‘Jehoiakim Slept with His Father…’ (II Kings 24:6) – Did He?” JHS 4, Article 1. Liver, J. 1967. “The Book of the Acts of Solomon” Biblica 48: 75–101.

Bibliography

453

Liverani, M. 1973. “Memorandum on the Approach to Historiographic Texts” Orientalia 42: 178–94. —. 1979. “The Ideology of the Assyrian Empire” in M. T. Larsen, ed., Power and Propaganda: A Symposium on Ancient Empires (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag) 297–317. —. 2004. Myth and Politics in Ancient Near Eastern Historiography (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press). —. 2006. Israel’s History and the History of Israel (London: Equinox). —. 2010. “The Book of Kings and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography” in A. Lemaire and B. Halpern, eds., The Books of Kings: Sources, Composition, Historiography and Reception (VTS 129; Leiden: Brill) 163–84. Lods, A. 1937. The Prophets and the Rise of Judaism (New York: Dutton). Lohfink, N. 1987. “The Cult Reform of Josiah of Judah: 2 Kings 22–23 as a Source for the History of Religion” in P. D. Miller, P. D. Hanson, S. Dean McBride, eds., Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press) 459–75. —. 1990. “Die Sicherung der Wirksamkeit des Gotteswortes durch das Prinzip der Schriftlichkeit der Tora und durch das Prinzip der Gewaltenteilung nach den Ämtergesetzen des Buches Deuteronomium (Dt 16, 18–18, 22)” in N. Lohfink, ed., Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur I (SBAB 8; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk) 305–23. —. 1999. “Was There a Deuteronomistic Movement?” in L. S. Schearing and S. L. McKenzie 1999. Loisy, A. F. 1908. La religion d’Israël (2nd ed.; près Montier-en-Der [Haute-Marne]). Long, B. O. 1973. “2 Kings III and Genres of Prophetic Narrative” VT 23: 337–48. —. 1982. “Social Dimensions of Prophetic Conflict” Semeia 21: 31–53. —. 1984. 1 Kings with an Introduction to Historical Literature (FOTL 9; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans). —. 1987. “Framing Repetitions in Biblical Historiography” JBL 106: 385–99. —. 1991. 2 Kings (FOTL 10; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans). Longman III, T. 1990. Fictional Akkadian Autobiography: A Generic and Comparative Study (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns). Lowery, R. H. 1991. The Reforming Kings: Cults and Society in First Temple Judah (JSOTSS 120; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). Luckenbill. D. D. 1924. The Annals of Sennacherib (OIP 2; University of Chicago). McCarter, Jr., P. K. 1980. I Samuel (AB 8; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980). —. 1981. “‘Plots, True or False’: The Succession Narrative as Court Apologetic” Interpretation 35: 355–67. —. 1984. II Samuel (AB 9; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984). McConville, J. G. 2000. “1 Kings 8:46–53 and the Deuteronomic Hope” in G. N. Knoppers and J. G. McConville, eds., Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns) 358–69. McFadyen, J. E. 1905. Introduction to the Old Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton). McKay, J. 1973. Religion in Judah Under the Assyrians 732–609 B.C. (London: Allenson). McKenzie, S. L. 1985. The Chronicler’s Use of the Deuteronomistic History (HSM 33; Atlanta). —. 1986. “1 Kings 8: A Sample Study into the Texts of Kings Used by the Chronicler and Translated by the Old Greek” BIOSCS 19: 15–34. —. 1987. “The Source for Jeroboam’s Role at Shechem: (1 Kgs 11:43–12:3, 12, 20)” JBL 106: 297–300.

454

Bibliography

—. 1991. The Trouble with Kings: The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History (VTS 42; Leiden: Brill). —. 2000. “The So-Called Succession Narrative in the Deuteronomistic History,” pp. 123–35 in De Pury, A. and T. Römer, eds., 2000b. —. 2012. “The Still Elusive Deuteronomists,” pp. 401–8 in Nissinen, ed., 2012. Maag, V. 1956. “Erwägungen zur deuteronomistischen Kultzentralization” VT 6: 10–18. Macadam, M. F. L. 1949. Temples of Kawa: The Inscriptions (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Machinist, P. 1983. “Assyria and Its Image in First Isaiah” JAOS 103: 719–37. —. 2000. “The Rab Šāqēh at the Wall of Jerusalem: Israelite Identity in the Face of the Assyrian ‘Other’” Hebrew Studies 41: 151–68. Macholz, G.-C. 1971. “Jeremia in der Kontinuität der Prophetie” in H. H. Wolff, ed., Probleme biblischer Theologie: Gerhard von Rad zum 70. Geburtstag (München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag) 306–34. Macy, H. R. 1975. The Sources of the Books of Chronicles: A Reassessment (Ph. D. thesis; Harvard University). Marincola, J. 2003. “Revised Edition with New Introductory Matter and Notes” in Herodotus: The Histories (London: Penguin Books). Mayer, W. 1995. Politik und Kriegskunst der Assyrer (ALASP 9; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag). —. 2003. “Sennacherib’s Campaign of 701 BCE: The Assyrian View” in L. L. Grabbe, ed., ‘Like a Bird in a Cage’: The Invasion of Sennacherib in 701 BCE (London: Continuum) 168–200. Mayes, A. D. H. 1983. The Story of Israel between Settlement and Exile: A Redactional Study of the Deuteronomistic History (London: SCM Press). Mazar, A. 1982. “The ‘Bull Site’ – An Iron Age I Open Cult Place” BASOR 247: 27–41. Meinhold, J. 1898. Die Jesajaerzählungen: Jesaja 36–39: eine historisch-kritische Untersuchung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Mettinger, T. N. D. 1995. No Graven Image? Israelite Aniconism in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International). —. 1997. “Israelite Aniconism: Origins and Developments” in K. van der Toorn, ed., The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Leuven: Peeters)173–204. Meyer, E. 1906. Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme (with essay by B. Luther; Halle: Max Niemeyer). Miano, D. 2010. Shadow on the Steps: Time Measurement in Ancient Israel (Resources for Biblical Study 64; Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature). Michalowski, P. 1984. “History as Charter: Some Observations on the Sumerian King List” in Jack M. Sasson, ed., Studies in Literature from the Ancient Near East by Members of the American Oriental Society Dedicated to Samuel Noah Kramer (New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society) 237–48. Milgrom, J. 2000. “Does H Advocate the Centralization of Worship?” JSOT 88: 59–76. Millard, A. 1985. “Sennacherib’s Attack on Hezekiah” TynBul 36: 61–77. —. 1994. The Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire 910–612 B.C. (SAAS 2; Helsinki: NeoAssyrian Text Corpus Project). Miller, J. M. and J. H. Hayes. 2006. A History of Israel (2nd ed.; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press). Mittmann, S. 1990. “Hiskia und die Philister” JNWSL 16: 91–106. Minokami, Y. 1989. Die Revolution des Jehu (Göttinger Theologische Arbeiten 38; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).

Bibliography

455

Moenikes, A. 1992. “Zur Redaktionsgeschichte des sogenannten Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks” ZAW 104: 333–48. —. 2003. “Beziehungssysteme zwischen dem Deuteronomium und den Büchern Josua bis Könige” in G. Braulik, ed., Das Deuteronomium (Österreichische Bibelstudien 23; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang) 69–85. Monroe, L. 2011. Josiah’s Reform and the Dynamics of Defilement: Israelite Rites of Violence and the Making of the Biblical Text (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Montgomery, J. A. 1932. “The Supplement at End of 3 Kingdoms 2 [I Reg 2]” ZAW 9: 124– 9. —. 1934. “Archival Data in the Book of Kings” JBL 53: 46–52. Montgomery, J. A. and H. S. Gehmen. 1951. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Kings (Edinburgh: T & T Clark). Moor, J. C. de and M. J. Mulder. 1973. “l(aba@” TWAT I: 706–27. Moran, W. L. 1991. “Assurbanipal’s Message to the Babylonians (ABL 301), with and Excursus on Figurative BILTU” in M. Cogan and I. Ephʾal, eds., Ah, Assyria...: Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor (Jerusalem: Magnes Press) 320–31. Morawe, G. 1966. “Studien zum Aufbau der Neubabylonischen Chroniken in ihrer Beziehung zu den Chronologischen Notizen der Königsbücher” EvT 26: 308–20. Moshavi, A. 2010. Word Order in the Biblical Hebrew Finite Clause: A Syntactic and Pragmatic Analysis of Preposing (LSAWS 4; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns). Mowinckel, S. 1963. “Israelite Historiography” Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute 2: 4–26. Mulder, M. J. 1998. 1 Kings. Volume 1: 1 Kings 1–11 (Historical Commentary on the Old Testament; Leuven: Peeters). Mullen, Jr., E. T. 1993. Narrative History and Ethnic Boundaries. The Deuteronomistic Historian and the Creation of Israelite Identity (Society of Biblical Literature Series Studies; Atlanta: Scholars Press). Mulzer, M. 1992. Jehu schlägt Joram. Text-, literar- und strukturkritische Untersuchung zu 2 Kön 8,25–10,36 (Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament 37; St. Ottilien: EOS). Münnich, M. M. 2004. “Hezekiah and Archaeology: The Answer for Nadav Naʾaman” UF 36: 333–46. Muraoka, T. 1985. Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew (Leiden: Brill). Naʾaman, N. 1974. “Sennacherib’s ‘Letter to God’ on His Campaign to Judah” BASOR 214: 25–39. —. 1979. “Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah and the Date of the lmlk Stamps” VT 29: 61–8. —. 1991.”The Kingdom of Judah under Josiah” TA 18: 3–71. —. 1993. “Azariah of Judah and Jeroboam II of Israel” VT 43: 227–34. —. 1995. “The Debated History of Hezekiah’s Reform in the Light of Historical and Archeological Research” ZAW 107: 175–95. —. 1997. “Prophetic Stories as Sources for the Histories of Jehoshaphat and the Omrides” Biblica 78: 153–73. —. 1999. “On the Antiquity of the Regnal Years in the Book of Kings” Theologische Zeitschrift 55: 44–66. —. 2002. “The Abandonment of Cult Places in the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah as Acts of Cult Reform” UF 34: 585–602. —. 2003. “Updating the Messages: Hezekiah’s Second Prophetic Story (2 Kings 19:9b–35) and the Community of Babylonian Deportees” in L. L. Grabbe, ed., ‘Like a Bird in a Cage’: The Invasion of Sennacherib in 701 BCE (London: Continuum) 201–20.

456

Bibliography

—. 2004. “Death Formulae and the Burial Place of the Kings of the House of David” Biblica 85: 245–54. —. 2005. “The Sources Available to the Author of the Book of Kings” in Recenti tendenze nella ricostruzione della storia antica d’Israele (Rome, Accademia Nazionae dei Lincei) 105–20. —. 2006a. Ancient Israel’s History and Historiography: The First Temple: Collected Essays (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns). —. 2006b. “The King Leading Cult Reforms in His Kingdom: Josiah and Other Kings in the Ancient Near East” ZAR 12: 131–68. —. 2009. “The Sanctuary of the Gibeonites Revisited” JANER 9: 101–24. —. 2011. “The ‘Discovered Book’ and the Legitimation of Josiah’s Reform” JBL 130: 47–62. Nakhai, B. H. 1994. “What’s a Bamah? How Sacred Space Functioned in Ancient Israel” BAR 20, no. 3: 19–29, 179–82. —. 2001. Archaeology and the Religions of Canaan and Israel (ASOR Books 7; Boston, MA: ASOR). Nam, R. 2012. Portrayals of Economic Exchange in the Book of Kings (Leiden: Brill). Nelson, R. D. 1981. The Double-Redaction Theory of the Deuteronomistic History (JSOTSS 18; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). Neujahr, M. 2005. “When Darius Defeated Alexander: Composition and Redaction in the Dynastic Prophecy” JNES 64: 101–7. —. 2012. Predicting the Past in the Ancient Near East: Mantic Historiography in Ancient Mesopotamia, Judah, and the Mediterranean World (Providence, RI: Brown Judaic Studies). Niccacci, A. 1990. The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose (JSOTSS 86; London: Continuum). Nicholson, E. W. 1963. “The Centralisation of the Cult in Deuteronomy” VT 13: 380–89. Niehr, H. 1995. “Die Reform des Joschija: Methodische, historische und religionsgeschichtliche Aspekte” in W. Gross, ed., Jeremia und die ‘deuteronomistische Bewegung’ (BBB 98; Beltz: Athenäum) 33–55. Nielsen, E. 1955. Shechem: A Traditio-Historical Investigation (Copenhagen: G. E. C. Gad). Nielsen, K. 1986. Incense in Ancient Israel (VTS 38; Leiden: Brill). Nissinen, M. 2003a. Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East (SBLWAW 12; Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature). —. 2003b. “Neither Prophecies Nor Apocalypses: The Akkadian Literary Predictive Texts” in L. L. Grabbe and R. D. Haak, eds., Knowing the Beginning from the End: The Prophetic, the Apocalyptic and the Their Relationships (London: T & T Clark) 134–48. —. 2003c. “Fear Not: A Study on an Ancient Near Eastern Phrase” in M. A. Sweeney and E. Ben Zvi, eds., The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First Century (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans) 122–61. —. Ed., 2012. Congress Volume Helsinki 2010 (VTS 148; Leiden: Brill). Nöldeke, T. 1869. Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alten Testaments (Kiel: Schwers’sche Buchhandlung). Noll, K. L. 2007. “Is the Book of Kings Deuteronomistic? And Is It a History?” JSOT 21: 49– 72. —. 2008. “The Evolution of Genre in the Book of Kings: The Story of Sennacherib and Hezekiah as Example” in P. G. Kirkpatrick and T. Golz, eds., The Function of Ancient Historiography in Biblical and Cognate Studies (LHBOTS 489; London: T & T Clark) 30–56. Noth, M. 1957. Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien: Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament (2nd expanded ed.; Tübingen: Max Niemeyer).

Bibliography

457

—. 1958. The History of Israel (New York: Harper). —. 1968. Könige (BKAT 9/1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener). —. 1981. The Deuteronomistic History (Translation of part 1 of the 1967 ed. of Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien; JSOTS 15: Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). O’Brien, M. A. 1989. The Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis: A Reassessment (OBO 92; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Oestreicher, T. 1923. Das deuteronomische Grundgesetz (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann). Oded, B. 1977. “Judah and the Exile” in J. H. Hayes and J. M. Miller, eds., Israelite and Judaean History (Philadelphia, PA; Westminster Press) 435–88. —. 1991. “‘The Command of God’ as a Reason for Going to War in the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions” in M. Cogan and I. Ephʾal, eds., Ah, Assyria...: Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor (Jerusalem: Magnes Press) 223–30. —. 1992. War, Peace and Empire: Justification for War in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions (Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert). Olley, J. W. 2003. “Pharaoh’s Daughter, Solomon’s Palace, and the Temple: Another Look at the Structure of 1 Kings 1–11” JSOT 2003: 355–69. Olmstead, A. 1913. “Source Study and the Biblical Text” AJSL 30: 1–35. Olyan, S. 1988. Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press). Orlinsky, H. M. 1939–40. “The Kings-Isaiah Recensions of the Hezekiah Story” JQR 30: 33– 49. Oßwald, E. 1969. “Altorientlische Parallelen zur deuteronomistischen Geschichtsbetrachtung” MIO 15: 286–96. Osumi, Y. 1991. Die Kompositionsgeschichte des Bundesbuches Exodus 20,22b–23,33 (OBO 105; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Otto, E. 1994. “Von der Gerichtsordnung zum Verfassungsentwurf. Deuteronomische Gestaltung und deuteronomistische Interpretation im ‘Ämtergesetz’ Dtn 16,18–18,22” in I. Kottsieper, ed. et al., ‘Wer ist wie du, Herr, under den Göttern?’ Studien zu Theologie und Religionschichte Israels. Festschrift für Otto Kaiser zum 70. Geburtstag (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht) 142–55. —. 1999. Das Deuteronomium: Politische Theologie und Rechtsreform in Juda und Assyrien (BZAW 284; Berlin: De Gruyter). Otto, S. 2001. Jehu, Elia und Elisa: Die Erzählung von der Jehu-Revolution und die Komposition der Elia-Elisa-Erzählungen (BWANT 152; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer). —. 2003. “The Composition of the Elijah-Elisha Stories and the Deuteronomistic History” JSOT 27: 487–508. Pakkala, J. 1999. Intolerant Monolatry in the Deuteronomistic History (Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 76; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). —. 2008. “Jeroboam without Bulls” ZAW 120: 501–25. —. 2010. “Why the Cult Reforms in Judah Probably Did Not Happen” in R. G. Kratz and H. Spieckermann, eds., One God – One Cult – One Nation: Archaeological and Biblical Perspectives (BZAW 405; Berlin: De Gruyter) 201–35. Pardee, D. 1978. “The Judicial Plea from Meṣad Ḥasahavyahu (Yavneh-Yam): A New Philological Study” MAARAV 1: 33–66. —. 2002. Ritual and Cult at Ugarit (WAWSBL 10; Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature). —. 2006. “Review of George Athas (2003), The Tel Dan Inscription: A Reappraisal and New Introduction” JNES 65: 289–91. Parker, K. I. 1988. “Repetition as a Structuring Device in 1 Kings 1–11” JSOT 42: 19–27. —. 1991. “The Limits to Solomon’s Reign: A Response to Amos Frisch” JSOT 51: 15–21.

458

Bibliography

—. 1992. “Solomon as Philosopher King? The Nexus of Law and Wisdom in 1 Kings 1–11” JSOT 53: 75–91. Parker, S. B. 1997. Stories in Scripture and Inscriptions: Comparative Studies on Narrative in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions and the Hebrew Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press). —. 2000. “Did the Authors of Kings Make Use of Royal Inscriptions?” VT 50: 357–78 —. 2006. “Ancient Northwest Semitic Epigraphy and the ‘Deuteronomistic’ Tradition in Kings” in M. Witte, ed. et al., Die Geschichtswerke: Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur Deuteronomismus”-Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten (BZAW 365; Berlin: De Gruyter) 213–27. Parpola, S. 1980. “The Murderer of Sennacherib” in B. Alster, ed., Death in Mesopotamia: Papers Read at the XXXIe Rencontre assyriologique international (Mesopotamia: Copenhagen Studies in Assyriology 8; Copenhagen: Akedemisk Forlag) 161–70. Patton, C. 2004. “Layers of Meaning: Priesthood in Jeremiah MT” in L. L. Grabbe and A. O. Bellis, eds., The Priests in the Prophets: The Portrayal of Priests, Prophets and Other Religious Specialists in the Latter Prophets (London: T & T Clark) 149–76. Pennoyer, R. P. 1993. Solomonic Apologetic: Text and Redaction in the Succession Narrative with Special Attention to the So-Called ‘Miscellanies’ in 3 Reigns 2 (Ph. D. Diss.; Johns Hopkins University). Perlitt, L. 1969. Bundestheologie im Alten Testament (WMANT 36; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener). Person, Jr. R. F. 1997. The Kings-Isaiah and Kings-Jeremiah Recensions (BZAW 252; Berlin: De Gruyter). —. 2002. The Deuteronomic School: History, Social Setting, and Literature (Studies in Biblical Literature 2; Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature). —. 2010. The Deuteronomistic History and the Book of Chronicles: Scribal Works in an Oral World (Ancient Israel and Its Literature 6; Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature). Pfeiffer, H. 1999. Das Heiligtum von Bethel im Spiegel des Hoseasbuch (FRLANT 183; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Pfeiffer, R. H. 1948. Introduction to the Old Testament (2nd Ed.; New York: Harper). Pietsch, M. 2004–2007. “Tempus und Syntax. Einige Überlegungen zur syntaktischen Funktion der weqāṭal-Formen in 2 Kön 23,4–15” ZAH 17–20: 159–77. —. 2010. “Prophetess of Doom: Hermeneutical Reflections on the Huldah Oracle (2 Kings 22)” in M. Leuchter and K.-P. Adam, eds., Soundings in Kings: Perspectives and Methods in Contemporary Scholarship (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press) 71–80. Plöger, 1937. Die Prophetengeschichten der Samuel- und Königsbücher (Theo. Diss.; Greifswald: Adler). Pohlmann, K.-F. 1978. Studien zum Jeremiabuch: Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach der Entstehung des Jeremiabuches (FRLANT 118; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Pongratz-Leisten, B. 1997. “Genealogien als Kulturtechnik zur Begründung des Herrschaftsanspruchs in Assyrien and Babylonien” SAAB 11: 75–108. —. 1999. Herrschaftwissen in Mesopotamien: Formen der Kommunikation zwischen Gott und König in 2. und 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (SAAS 10; University of Helsinki: NeoAssyrian Text Corpus Project). Porten, B. 1967. “The Structure and Theme of the Solomon Narrative (1 Kings 3–11)” HUCA 38: 93–128. Provan, I. W. 1988 Hezekiah and the Books of Kings: A Contribution to the Debate about the Composition of the Deuteronomistic History (BZAW 172; Berlin: De Gruyter). von Rad, G. 1953 “The Deuteronomistic Theology of History in the Books of Kings” in G. von Rad, Studies in Deuteronomy (German original in 1947; Translation by D. Stalker

Bibliography

459

from German; Studies in Biblical Theology 9; Chicago, IL: Henry Regnery Company) 74– 91. —. 1957. Old Testament Theology. Volume I: The Theology of Israel’s Historical Traditions (Translated by D. Stalker; New York: Harper & Row). Rahlfs, A. 1904. Studien zu den Königsbüchern (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). —. 1911. Lucians Rezension der Königsbüchern (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Rainey, A. F. 1976. “Taharqa and Syntax” TA 3: 38–41. von Ranke, L. 1883. “Eine Ergänzung der Bücher der Könige aus der alexandrinischen Übersetzung” in L. von Ranke, Weltgeschichte, 3. Theile, 2. Abtheilung (Leipzig: Duncker und Humbolt) 4–12. Rawlinson, G. 1864. The Five Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World: The Second Monarchy: Assyria (4 vols.; London: J. Murray). Rawlinson, H. 1858–60. The History of Herodotus: An New English Edition (London: J. Murray). Redford, D. B. 1992. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press). Revell, E. 1996. The Designation of the Individual: Expressive Usage in Biblical Narrative (Kampen: Kok Pharos). Ricciotti, G. 1932. Histoire d’Israël (Paris: Picard). Richter, S. 2002. The Deuteronomistic History and Name Theology: lešakkēn šemô šām in the Bible and the Ancient Near East (BZAW 318; Berlin: De Gruyter). Richter, W. 1971. Exegese als Literaturwissenschaft. Entwurf einer alttestamentlichen Literaturtheorie und Methodologie (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Roberts, J. J. M. 2002. “Nebuchadnezzar I’s Elamite Crisis in Theological Perspective” in J. J. M. Roberts, ed., The Bible and the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns) 83–92. Roberts, J. T. 2011. Herodotus: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Robinson, T. H. 1932. A History of Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Robker, J. M. 2012. The Jehu Revolution: A Royal Tradition of the Northern Kingdom and Its Ramifications (BZAW 435; Berlin: De Gruyter). Rofé, A. 1988. The Prophetic Stories: The Narratives about the Prophets in the Hebrew Bible: Their Literary Types and History (Jerusalem: Magnes Press). Rogerson, J. 1984. Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century. England and Germany (London: SPCK Publishing). Röllig, W. 1969. “Zur Typologie und Entstehung der babylonischen und assyrischen Königslisten” in W. Röllig, ed., lišān mitḫurti: von Soden Festschrift (AOAT 1; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener) 265–77. —. 1999. “Appendix I – The Phoenician Inscriptions” in H. Çambel, ed., Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions. Volume II: Karatepe-Aslantaş: The Inscriptions: Facsimile Edition (Berlin: De Gruyter) 50–81. Rollston, C. A. 2010. Writing and History in the World of Ancient Israel: Epigraphic Evidence from the Iron Age (Atlanta GA: Society of Biblical Literature). Römer, T. 2005. The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical and Literary Introduction (London: T & T Clark). Rose, W. H. 2000. Zemah and Zerubbabel: Messianic Expectations in the Early Postexilic Period (JSOTS 304; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). Rösel, H. N. 1999. Von Josua bis Jojachin: Untersuchungen zu den deuteronomistischen Geschichtsbüchern des Alten Testaments (VTS 75; Leiden: Brill).

460

Bibliography

—. 2000. “Does a Comprehensive ‘Leitmotiv’ Exist in the Deuteronomistic History?” in T. Römer, ed., The Future of the Deuteronomistic History (BEThL 147; Leuven: Leuven University Press) 195–211. Rösel, M. 2002. “The Septuagint-Version of the Book of Joshua” SJOT 16: 5–23. Rosenbaum, J. 1979. “Hezekiah’s Reform and Deuteronomistic Tradition” HTR 72: 23–44. Rost, L. 1926. Die Überlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids (BWANT 42; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer). Rowley, H. H. 1950. “The Prophet Jeremiah and The Book of Deuteronomy” in H. H. Rowley, ed., Studies in the Old Testament Prophecy Presented to Professor T. H. Robinson (London: T & T Clark) 157–74. —. 1963. “Hezekiah’s Reform and Rebellion” in H. H. Rowley, Men of God. Studies in Old Testament History and Prophecy (London/Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson) 395–431. —. 1967. The Growth of the Old Testament (3rd ed.; London: Hutchinson’s University Library). Rubinstein, A. 1963. “The Anomalous Perfect with Wāw-Conjunctive in Biblical Hebrew” Biblica 44: 62–9. Rudman, D. 1990. “Is the Rabshakeh also among the Prophets? A Rhetorical Study of 2 Kings 18:17–35” VT 50: 100–10. Rudolph, W. 1968. Jeremia (HAT I/12; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr). Ruprecht, E. 1990. “Die ursprüngliche Komposition der Hiskia-Jesaja-Erzählungen und ihre Umstrukturierung durch den Verfasser des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerkes” ZThK 87: 33–66. Saggs, H. W. F. 1955. “The Nimrud Letters, 1952—Part I” Iraq 17: 21–56. Šanda, A. 1911–12. Die Bücher der Könige (Exegetisches Handbuch zum alten Testament 9; 2 vols.; Münster: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung). Sanders, S. L. 2009. The Invention of Hebrew (Urbana: University of Illinois Press). Särkiö, P. 1994. Die Weisheit und Macht Salomos in der israelitischen Historiographie. Eine traditions- und redaktionskritische Untersuchung über 1 Kön. 3–5 und 9–11 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Schäfer-Lichtenberger, C. 1995a. Josua und Salomo. Eine Studie zu Autorität und Legitimität des Nachfolgers im Alten Testament (VTS 58; Leiden: Brill). —. 1995b. “Der deuteronomistische Verfassungsverwurf. Theologische Vorgaben als Gestaltungsprinzipien sozialer Realität” in G. Braulik, ed., Bundesdokument und Gesetz. Studien zum Deuteronomium (Herders Biblische Studien 4; Freiburg: Herder) 105–18. Schaudig, H. 2010. “Cult Centralization in the Ancient Near East? Conceptions of the Ideal Capital in the Ancient Near East” in R. G. Kratz and H. Spieckermann, eds., One God – One Cult – One Nation: Archaeological and Biblical Perspectives (BZAW 405; Berlin: De Gruyter) 145–68. Schearing, L. S. and S. L. McKenzie, eds., 1999. Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism (JSOTS 268; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). Schenker, A. 2000a. Septante et Texte massorétique dan l’histoire la plus ancienne du texte de 1Rois 2–14 (CahRB 48: Paris: Gabalda). —. 2000b. “Jeroboam and the Division of the Kingdom in the Ancient Septuagint: LXX 3 Kingdoms 12.24 A–Z, MT 1 Kings 11–12 and the Deuteronomistic History,” pp. 214–57 in de Pury et al. 2000a. —. 2004. Älteste Textgeschichte der Königsbücher. Die hebräische Vorlage der ursprünglichen Septuagina als älteste Textform der Königsbücher (OBO 199; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). —. 2008. “Jeroboam’s Rise and Fall in the Hebrew and Greek Bible” JSJ 39: 367–73. Schmid, H. H. 1976. Der sogenannte Jahwist (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag).

Bibliography

461

Schmid, K. 2004. “Das Deuteronomium innerhalb der ‘deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke’ in Gen–2Kön” in Otto, E. and R. Achenbach, eds., Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk (FRLANT 206; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht) 193–211. —. 2006. “Hatte Wellhausen recht? Das Problem der literarhistorischen Anfänge des Deuteronomiums in den Königebüchern,” pp. 19–43 in M. Witte, ed. et al., 2006. —. 2012. “The Deuteronomistic Image of History as Interpretive Device in the Second Temple Period: Towards a Long-Term Interpretation of ‘Deuteronomism,’” pp. 369–88 in Nissinen, M., ed., 2012. Schmidt, B. B. 1996. Israel’s Beneficent Dead: Ancestor Cult and Necromancy in Ancient Israelite Religion and Tradition (Winona Lake: IN; Eisenbrauns). Schmidt, H., ed., 1923. Die Schriften des Alten Testaments in Auswahl übersetzt: Die grossen Propheten (vol. 2, Abt. 2, Bd. 2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Schmitt, H.-C. 1972. Elisa: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur vorklassischen nordisraelitischen Prophetie (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn). Schniedewind, W. 2004. How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Schüpphaus, J. 1967. Richter- und Prophetengeschichten als Glieder der Geschichtsdarstellung der Richter- und Königszeit (Diss. theol.; University of Bonn). Scurlock, J. 2007. “Whose Truth and Whose Justice? The Uruk and Other Late Akkadian Prophecies re-Revisited” in S. Holloway, ed., Orientalism, Assyriology and the Bible (Hebrew Bible Monographs 10; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix) 447–65. —. 2011. “Prophecy as a Form of Divination; Divination as a Form of Prophecy” in A. Annus, ed., Divination and Interpretation of Signs in the Ancient World (Chicago, IL: Oriental Institute) 277–316. Seebass, H. 1967. “Zur Königserhebung Jeroboams I” VT 17: 325–33. Seeligman, I. L. 1962. “Hebräische Erzählung und biblische Geschichtsschreibung” ThZ 18: 305–25. Seibert, Eric A. 2006. Subversive Scribes and the Solomonic Narrative: A Rereading of 1 Kings 1–11 (Library of Hebrew – Old Testament Studies 436; London: Continuum). Seiler, S. 1998. Die Geschichte von der Thronfolge Davids: Untersuchungen zur Literarkritik und Tendenz (BZAW 267; Berlin: De Gruyter). Seitz, C. R. 1991a. Zion’s Final Destiny: The Development of the Book of Isaiah (Minneapolis: Fortress Press). —. 1991b. “Review of C. Hardmeier (1990), Prophetie im Streit: Erzählkommunikative Studien zur Entstehungssituation der Jesaja- und Jeremiaherzählungen in II Reg 18–20 und Jer 37–40” JBL 110: 511–13. Sellin, E. 1914. 3rd ed. 1920. Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Leipzig: Quelle & Meyer). Shea, W. 1985. “Sennacherib’s Second Palestinian Campaign” JBL 104: 410–18. Shenkel, J. D. 1968. Chronology and Recensional Development in the Greek Text of Kings (HSM 1; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). Siebens, A.-R. 1929. L’origine du code deutéronomique: examen historique et littéraire du sujet à la lumière de la critique contemporaine (Paris; Ernest Leroux). Singer-Avitz, L. “Arad: The Iron Age Pottery Assemblages” TA 29: 110–214. Skinner, J. 1904. The Century Bible I & II Kings (Edinburgh: T & T Clark). Smelik, K. A. D. 1986. “Distortion of Old Testament Prophecy: The Purpose of Isaiah xxxvi and xxxvii” OTS 24: 70–93. —. 1992. “King Hezekiah Advocates True Prophecy: Remarks on Isaiah xxxvi and xxxvii // II Kings xviii and xix” in K. A. D. Smelik, Converting the Past: Studies in Ancient Israelite and Moabite Studies (OTS 28; Leiden: Brill) 92–128.

462

Bibliography

Smith, G. A. 1918. The Book of Deuteronomy, in the Revised Version (Cambridge University). Smith, H. P. 1904. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Samuel (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark). Smith, M. S. 2001. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Backround and the Ugaritic Texts (Oxford: Oxford University Press). —. 2004. The Memoirs of God: History, Memory, and the Experience of the Divine in Ancient Israel (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press). —. 2006. “In Solomon’s Temple: (1 Kgs 6–7): Between Text and Archaeology” in S. Gitin, J. E. Wright, and J. P. Dessel, eds., Confronting the Past: Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor of William G. Dever (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns) 275–82. —. 2007. “Biblical Narrative between Ugarit and Akkadian Literature: Part II: Mesopotamian Impact on Biblical Narrative” RB 114: 189–207. Smith, W. R. 1912. The Prophets of Israel (2nd ed., repr.; London: Black). von Soden, W. 1985. “Sanherib vor Jerusalem 701 v. Chr.” in H.-P. Müller, ed., Bibel und Alter Orient (BZAW 162; Berlin: De Gruyter) 149–57. Spieckermann, H. 1982. Juda unter Assur in der Sargonidenzeit (FRLANT 129; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). —. 2010. “God and His People: The Concept of Kingship and Cult in the Ancient Near East” in R. G. Kratz and H. Spieckermann, eds., One God – One Cult – One Nation: Archaeological and Biblical Perspectives (BZAW 405; Berlin: De Gruyter) 341–56. Stackert, J. 2012. “Mosaic Prophecy and the Deuteronomic Source of the Torah” in R. F. Person, Jr. and K. Schmid, eds., Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch, Hexateuch, and the Deuteronomistic History (FAT II/56; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck) 47–63. Stade, B. 1886. “Miscellen. 16. Anmerkungen zu 2 Kö. 15–21. Zu 18,13–19,37” ZAW 6: 172–86. —. 1887–88. Geschichte des Volkes Israel (2 vol.; Berlin: Grote). Stade, B. and F. Schwally 1904. The Book of Kings (SBOT 9; Leipzig: Hinrichs). Stähelin, J. J. 1843. Kritische Untersuchungen über den Pentateuch, die Bücher Josua, Richter, Samuels und der Könige (Berlin: Reimer). Starr, I. 1977. “Notes on Some Published and Unpublished Historical Omens” JCS 29: 157– 66. Stavrakopoulou, F. 2006. “Exploring the Garden of Uzza: Death, Burial and Ideologies of Kingship” Biblica 87: 1–21. Steck, H. O. 1967. Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten. Untersuchungen zur Überlieferung des deuteronomistischen Geschichtsbildes im Alten Testament, Spätjudentum und Urchristentum (WMANT 23; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener). Steinkeller, P. 2003. “An Ur III Manuscript of the Sumerian King List” (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz) 267–92. Stern, E. 2001. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible. Volume II: The Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Periods (732–332 B. C. E.) (Toronto: Doubleday). Sternberg, M. 1985. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington, IN: Indiana Univ. Press). —. 1990a. “Time and Space in Biblical (Hi)story Telling: The Grand Chronology” in R. Schwartz, ed., The Book and the Text: The Bible and Literary Theory (Cambridge: Basil Blackwell, Inc.) 81–145. —. 1990b. “Telling in Time (I): Chronology and Narrative Theory” Poetics Today 11: 901– 48.

Bibliography

463

—. 2006. “Telling in Time (III): Chronology, Estrangement, and Stories of Literary History” Poetics Today 27: 125–235. Steuernagel, D. C. 1896. Die Enstehung des deuteronomischen Gesetzes (Halle: J. Krause). —. 1900. Deuteronomium und Josua und Allgemeine Einleitung in den Hexateuch (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). —. 1912. Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das Alte Testament mit einem Anhang über die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen. (Sammlung theologischer Lehrbücher; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr). Stipp, H.-J. 1987. Elischa—Propheten—Gottesmänner. Die Kompositiongeschichte des Elischazyklus und verwandter Texte, rekonstruiert auf der Basis von Text- und Literarkritik zu 1 Kön 20.22 und 2 Kön 2–7 (Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament 24; St. Ottilien: EOS). Stoebe, H. J. 1973. Das Erste Buch Samuelis (Kommetar zum Alten Testament 8/1; Gütersloh: Gütersloher). Stott, Katherine M. 2008. Why Did They Write This Way? Reflections on References to Written Documents in the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Literature (Library of Hebrew – Old Testament Studies 492; London: Continuum). Stulman, L. 1986. The Prose Sermons in the Book of Jeremiah: A Redescription of the Correspondences with Deuteronomistic Literature in the Light of Recent Text-Critical Research (SBLDS 83; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press). Swanson, K. A. 2002. “A Reassessment of Hezekiah’s Reform in Light of Jar Handles and Iconographic Evidence” CBQ 64: 460–69. Sweeney, M. A. 1996. Isaiah 1–39 with an Introduction to Prophetic Literature (FOTL 16; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans). —. 2007a. I & II Kings: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press). —. 2007b. “A Reassessment of the Masoretic and Septuagint Versions on the Jeroboam Narratives in 1 Kings/3 Kingdoms 11–14” JSJ 38: 165–95. Suriano, M. J. 2007. “The Apology of Hazael: A Literary and Historical Analysis of the Tel Dan Inscription” JNES 66: 163–76. —. 2010. The Politics of Dead Kings: Dynastic Ancestors in the Book of Kings in Ancient Israel (FAT II/48; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck). Swetnam, J. 1965. “Some Observations on the Background of ṣaddîq in Jeremias 23:5a” Biblica 46: 29–40. Tadmor, H. 1981. “History and Ideology in the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions” in F. M. Fales, ed., Assyrian Royal Inscriptions: New Horizons in Literary, Ideological, and Historical Analysis (Roma: Istituto Per L’Oriente) 13–33. —. 1983. “Autobiographical Apology in the Royal Assyrian Inscriptions” in H. Tadmor and M. Weinfeld, eds., History, Historiography and Interpretation (Jerusalem: Magnes Press) 36–57. —. 1997. “Propaganda, Literature, Historiography: Cracking the Code of the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions” in S. Parpola and R. M. Whiting, eds., Assyria 1995: Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Helsinki, September 7– 11 1995 (Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project) 325–38. Talmon, S. 1955. “A Case of Faulty Harmonisation” VT 5: 206–8. Talshir, Z. 1993. The Alternative Story of the Division of the Kingdom (3 Kingdoms 12:24a–z (Jerusalem: Simor). —. 2000. “The Reign of Solomon in the Making. Pseudo-Connections between 3 Kingdoms and Chronicles” VT 50: 233–49. Tambling, J. 1991. Narrative and Ideology (Milton Keynes: Open University Press).

464

Bibliography

Terblanche, M. D. 2000. “No Need for a Prophet like Jeremiah: The Absence of the Prophet in Kings” in J. C. de Moor and H. F. Van Rooy, eds., Past, Present, Future: The Deuteronomistic History and the Prophets (OTS 44; Leiden: Brill) 306–14. Tetley, M. E. 2005. The Reconstructed Chronology of the Divided Kingdom (Winona Lake, IN; Eisenbrauns). Thackeray, H. St. J. 1907. “The Greek Translations of the Four Books of Kings” JTS 8: 262– 78. Thenius, O. 1849. Die Bücher der Könige (Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament 9; Leipzig: Hirzel). Theuer, G. Der Mondgott in den Religionen Syrien-Palästinas: Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von KTU 1.24 (OBO 173; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Thiele, E. R. 1983. The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (New Revised Ed.; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan). Thornton, T. C. G. 1968. “Solomonic Apologetic in Samuel and Kings” CQR 169: 159–66. Timm, S. 1982. Die Dynastie Omri: Quellen und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Israels im 9. Jahrhundert vor Christus (FRLANT 124; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Todd, E. W. 1956. “The Reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah” Scottish Journal of Theology 9: 288–93 Toews, W. I. 1993. Monarchy and Religious Institution in Israel under Jeroboam I (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press). Toolan, M. 2001. Narrative: A Critical Linguistic Introduction (Psychology Press). Tov, E. 1999. “Lucian and Proto-Lucian: Towards a New Solution to the Problem” in E. Tov, ed., The Greek and Hebrew Bible. Collected Essays on the Septuagint (VTS 72; Leiden: Brill) 477–88. —. 2007. “The LXX and the Deuteronomists” Textus 23: 145–71. Trebolle Barrera, J. C. 1980. Salomón y Jeroboán. Historia de la recensión de 1 Reyes 2– 12;14 (Bibliotheca Salmanticensis, Dissertationes 3; Salmanca-Jerusalem: Valencia). —. 1984. Jehú y Joás. Texto y composición literaria de 2 Reyes 9–11 (Institución San Jerónimo 17; Valencia). —. 1987. “La expedicion de Senaquerib contra Jerusalém: Reflexiones en torno a un libro reciente.” Estudios Biblicos 45: 7–22. —. 1989. Centena in Libros Samuelis et Regum. Variantes textuales y composición literaria en los Libros de Samuel y Reyes (Textos y Estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” de la Biblia Políglota Matritensa 47; Madrid). —. 2000. “Redaction, Recension, and Midrash in the Books of Kings” in G. N. Knoppers and J. G. McConville, eds., Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns) 475–92. —. 2007. “Kings (MT/LXX) and Chronicles: The Double and Triple Textual Tradition” in R. Rezetko, T. H. Lim, and W. B. Aucker, eds., Reflection and Refraction: Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honour of A. Graeme Auld (VTS 113; Leiden: Brill) 483–501. —. 2010. “Textual Criticism and the Composition History of Samuel. Connections between Pericopes in 1 Samuel 1–4” in P. Hugo and A. Schenker, eds., Archaeology of the Books of Samuel: The Entangling of the Textual and Literary History (VTS 132; Leiden: Brill) 261–86. Tropper, J. 1993. Die Inschriften von Zincirli: Neue Edition und vergleichende Grammatik des phönizischen, sam’alischen und aramäischen Textkorpus (Münster: UGARIT-Verlag). Turkanik, A. S. 2008. Of Kings and Reigns (FAT II/30; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck). Uehlinger, C. 1999. “Nisroch” in K. van der Toorn, ed. et al., The Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans) 630–32.

Bibliography

465

—. 2005. “Was There a Cult Reform under King Josiah? The Case for a Well-Grounded Minimum” in L. L. Grabbe, ed., Good Kings and Bad Kings (LHBOTS 393; London: T & T Clark) 279–316. Ussishkin, D. 1970. “The Necropolis from the Time of the Kingdom of Judah at Silwan, Jerusalem” BA 33: 33–46. —. 1988. “The Date of the Judaean Shrine at Arad” IEJ 38: 142–57. —. 1993. The Village of Silwan: The Necropolis from the Period of the Judean Kingdom (Jerusalem: Biblical Archaeology Society). —. 2003. “The Level V ‘Sanctuary’ and ‘High Place’ at Lachish: A Stratigraphic Analysis” in S. Münger, ed., Saxa loquentur: Studien zur Archäologie Palästinas/Israels: Festschrift für Volkmar Fritz zum 65. Geburtstag (AOAT 302; Münster: UGARIT-Verlag) 205–11. —. 2007. “Megiddo and Samaria: A Rejoinder to Norma Franklin” BASOR 348: 49–70. Van de Mieroop, M. 1999. Cuneiform Texts and the Writing of History (London: Routledge). Van Keulen, P. S. F. 1996. Manasseh Through the Eyes of the Deuteronomists (OTS 38; Leiden: Brill). —. 2005. Two Versions of the Solomon Narrative: An Inquiry into the Relationship between MT 1 Kgs. 2–11 and LXX 3 Reg. 2–11 (VTS 104; Leiden: Brill). Vanoni, G. 1984. Literarkritik und Grammatik: Untersuchungen der Wiederholung und Spannungen in 1Kön 11–12 (St. Ottilien: EOS). —. 1985. “Beobachtungen zur deuteronomistischen Terminologie in 2 Kön 23,25–25,30” in N. Lohfink, ed., Das Deuteronomium. Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BEThL 68; Leuven: Leuven University Press) 357–62. Van Seters, J. 1983. In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press). —. 1990. “Joshua’s Campaign of Canaan and Near Eastern Historiography” JSOT 4/2: 1–12. —. 1997. “Solomon’s Temple: Fact and Ideology in Biblical and Near Eastern Historiography” CBQ 59: 45–57. —. 2000. “The Court History and DtrH: Conflicting Perspectives on the House of David,” pp. 70–93 in A. de Pury and T. Römer, eds., 2000b. —. 2003. A Law Book for the Diaspora: Revision in the Study of Covenant Code (Oxford: Oxford University Press). —. 2006. Review of T. C. Römer, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical and Literary Introduction, RBL [http://fontes.lstc.edu/ ~rklein/Doc8/roemers.pdf]. —. 2009. The Biblical Saga of King David (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns). Vater, J. S. 1802–5. Commentar über den Pentateuch (3 Vol.; Halle: Waisenhaus). Vaughan, P. H. 1974. The Meaning of “bāmâ” in the Old Testament (SOTSMS 3; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Vaughn, A. G. 1999. Theology, History, and Archaeology in the Chronicler’s Account of Hezekiah (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press). Veenhof, K. R. 2003. The Old Assyrian List of Eponyms from Karum Kanish and Its Chronological Implications (Türk Tarih Kurumu 6/4; Ankara: Turkish Historical Society). Veijola, T. 1975. Die ewige Dynastie. David und die Entstehung seiner Dynastie nach der deuteronomistischen Darstellung (AASF 193; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia). —. 1982. Verheissung in der Krise. Studien zur Literar und Theologie der Exilszeit anhand des 89ten Psalms (AASF 220; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia). —. 2004. Das fünfte Buch Mose Deuteronomium. Kapitel 1, 1–16, 17 (ATD 8/1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Vera Chamaza, G. W. 1989. “Literarkritische Beobachtungen zu 2Kön 18,1–12” BZ NF 33: 222–33.

466

Bibliography

Verheij, A. J. C. 1990. Verbs and Numbers: A Study of the Frequencies of the Hebrew Verbal Tense Forms in the Books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles (Studia Semitic Neerlandica; Assen: Van Gorcum). Vermeylen, J. 1997. “Hypothèsis sur l’origine d’Isaïe 36–39” in J. van Ruiten and M. Vervenne, eds., Studies in the Book of Isaiah. FS Willem A.M. Beuken (Leuven: Peeters) 95– 118. —. 2000. La loi du plus fort: histoire de la rédaction des récits davidiques de 1 Samuel 8 à 1 Rois 2 (Leuven: Peeters). Vogt, E. 1986. Der Aufstand Hiskias und die Belagerung Jerusalems 701 v. Chr. (Rome: Biblical Institute). Wälchli, S. 1999. Der weise König Salomo: Eine Studie zu den Erzählungen von der Weisheit Salomos in ihrem alttestamentlichen und altorientalischen Kontext (BWANT 141; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer). Waltke, B. and M. O’Connor. 1990. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns). Wallace, H. N. 1986. “The Oracles Against the Israelite Dynasties in 1 and 2 Kings” Biblica 67: 21–40. Watts, J. D. W. 1987. Isaiah 34–66 (WBC 25; Waco, TX: Word Books). Weill, R. 1920. La Cité de David, Compte-Rendu des Fouilles Exécutées, à Jérusalem, Sur Le Site de La Ville Primative, Deuxième Campagne 1913–1914 (Paris: Paul Geuthner). Weinfeld, M. 1964. “Cult Centralization in Israel in the Light of a Neo-Babylonian Analogy” JNES 23: 202–12. —. 1970. “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East” JAOS 90: 184–203. —. 1985. “The Emergence of the Deuteronomic Movement: The Historical Antecedents” in N. Lohfink, ed., Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BEThL 68; Leuven: Leuven University Press) 76–98. —. 1991. Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible 11; Toronto: Doubleday). Weippert, H. 1972. “Die ‘deuteronomischen’ Beurteilungen der Könige von Israel und Juda und das Problem der Redaktion der Königsbücher” Biblica 53: 301–39. —. 1973. Die Prosareden des Jeremiabuches (BZAW 132; Berlin: De Gruyter). —. 1983. “Die Ätiologie des Nordreiches und seines Königshaus” ZAW 95: 344–75. —. 1985. “Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk. Sein Ziel und Ende in der neueren Forschung” ThR 50: 213–49. —. 2000. “‘Histories’ and ‘History’: Promise and Fulfillment in the Deuteronomistic Work” in G. N. Knoppers and J. G. McConville, eds., Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History (German original in 1991; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns) 47–61. Weippert, M. 1973. “Fragen des israelitischen Geschichtsbewußtseins” VT 23: 415–42. —. 1990. “Die Petition eines Erntarbeiters aus Mesad Hashavyahu und die Syntax althebräischer erzählender Prosa” in E. Blum, ed. et al., Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte. Festschrift für R. Rendtorff (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener) 449–66. Weiser, A. 1961. Introduction to the Old Testament (London: Longman & Todd). Welch, A. C. 1924. The Code of Deuteronomy: A New Theory of Its Origins (London: Clarke). Wellhausen, J. 1875. “Die Zeitrechnung des Buchs der Könige seit der Theilung des Reiche” Jahrbücher für Deutsche Theologie 20: 607–40. —. 1957. Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (New York: Meridian Books).

Bibliography

467

—. 1963. Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments (4th ed.; Berlin: De Gruyter). Welten, P. 1969. Die Königs-Stempel: Ein Beitrag zur Militärpolitik Judas unter Hiskia und Josia (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz). —. 1972. “Kulthöhe und Jahwetempel” ZDPV 88: 19–37. Westermann, C. 1991. Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech (Trans. from 1967 German original with forward by G.M. Tucker; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press). —. 1994. Die Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testaments. Gab es ein deuteronomistisches Geschichtswerk? (Theologische Bücherei 87; Gütersloh: Kaiser). Westphal, A. 1910. The Law and the Prophets; or: The Revelation of Jehovah in Hebrew History from the Earliest Times to the Capture of Jerusalem by Titus (London: Macmillan). Wevers, J. W. 1950. “Exegetical Principles Underlying the Septuagint Text of 1 Kings 2:12– 21:43” OTS 8: 300–322. White, H. 1973. Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press). —. 1984. “The Question of Narrative in Contemporary Historical Theory” History and Theory 23: 1–33. —. 2003. “Anomalies of Genre: The Utility of Theory and History for the Study of Literary Genres” New Literary History 34: 5967–615. Whitney, J. T. 1979. “‘Bamoth’ in the Old Testament” TynBul 30: 125–47. Wilcke, C. 1982. “Zum Geschichtsbewußtsein im Alten Mesopotamien” in H. Müller-Karpe, ed., Archäologie und Geschichtsbewußtsein: Kolloquien zur Allegemeinen und Vergleichenden Archäologie 3 (München: Beck) 31–52. —. 1988. “Die Sumerische Königsliste und erzählte Vergangenheit” in J. von UngernSternberg and H. Reinau, eds., Vergangenheit in mündlicher Überlieferung (Colloquium Rauricum 1; Stuttgart: Vieweg+Teubner) 113–40. Wildberger, H. 2002. Isaiah 28–39: A Continental Commentary (Trans. from 1982 German; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press). Williams, D. S. 1999. “Once Again: The Structure of the Narrative of Solomon’s Reign” JSOT 86: 49–66. Williamson, H. G. M. 1994. The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Wilson, L. S. 2001. The Serpent Symbol in the Ancient Near East: Nahash and Asherah: Death, Life, and Healing (Lanham, MD: University Press of America). Wilson, R. R. 1977. Genealogy and History in the Biblical World (Yale Near Eastern Researches 7; New Haven, CT: Yale University Press). —. 1980. Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press). —. 1999. “Who Was the Deuteronomist? (Who Was Not the Deuteronomist?): Reflections on Pan-Deuteronomism,” pp. 76–82 in L. S. Schearing and S. L. McKenzie 1999. Winckler, H. 1892. “Das elfte Kapitel des ersten Königsbuches, seine geschichtlichen Nachrichten und seine Bedeutung für die Quellenscheidung” in H. Winckler, Alttestamentliche Untersuchungen (Leipzig: E. Pfeiffer) 1–15. Witte, M., K. Schmid, D. Prechel and J. C. Gertz, eds., with assistance from J. F. Diehl. 2006. Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke: Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur “Deuteronomismus”-Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten. (BZAW, 365; Berlin: De Gruyter). Wolff, H. W. 2000. “The Kerygma of the Deuteronomistic History” in G. N. Knoppers and J. G. McConville, eds., Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History (Reprint; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns) 62–78.

468

Bibliography

Würthwein, E. 1974. Die Erzählung von der Thronfolge Davids – theologische oder politische Geschichtsschreibung? (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag). —. 1977. Die Bücher der Könige. 1 Kön. 1–16. (ATD 11/1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). —. 1984. Die Bücher der Könige. 1. Kön. 17–2. Kön. 25 (ATD 11/2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). —. 1994. “Erwägungen zum sog. deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk. Eine Skizze” in E. Würthwein, ed., Studien zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk (BZAW 227; Berlin and New York: De Gruyter) 1–14. Yamada, S. 1994. “The Editorial History of the Assyrian King List” ZA 84: 11–37. Yeivin, S. 1948. “The Sepulchres of the Kings of the House of David” JNES 7: 30–45. Yezerski, I. 1999. “Burial-Cave Distribution and the Borders of the Kingdom of Judah toward the End of the Iron Age” TA 26: 253–70. Young, R. A. 2012. Hezekiah in History and Tradition (VTS 155; Leiden: Brill). Younger, Jr., K. L. 1990. Ancient Conquest Accounts: A Study in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical History Writing (JSOTSS 98; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). —. 1998. “The Phoenician Inscription of Azatiwada: An Integrated Reading” JSS 43: 11–47. —. 2003. “Assyrian Involvement in the Southern Levant at the End of the Eighth Century B.C.E.” in A. G. Vaughn and A. E. Killebrew, eds., Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period (Leiden: Brill) 235–62. —. 2005. “‘Hazael, Son of a Nobody’: Some Reflections in Light of Recent Study” in P. Bienkowski, ed. et al., Writing and Ancient Near Eastern Society: Papers in Honor of Alan R. Millard (JSOTSS 426; London: T & T Clark) 245–70. Yurco, F. 1980. “Sennacherib’s Third Campaign and the Coregency of Shabaka and Shebitku” Serapis 6: 221–40. Zevit, Z. 2001. The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches (London: Continuum). Ziegler, J., ed., 1976. Ieremias. Baruch. Threni. Epistula Ieremiae. (Göttinger Septuaginta 15; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Zimmerli, W. 1971. “Das Bilderverbot in der Geschichte des alten Israel: Goldenes Kalb, Eherne Schlange, Mazzeben und Lade” in K.-H. Bernhardt, ed., Schalom: Studien zu Glaube und Geschichte Israels. A. Jepsen zum 70. Geburtstag (Stuttgart: Calwer) 86–96. Zorn, R. M. 1977. The Pre-Josianic Reforms of Judah (Ph.D. Dissertation; University of Michigan). Zorn, J. R. 2006. “The Burials of the Judean Kings: Sociohistorical Considerations and Suggestions” in A. M. Maeir and P. d. Miroschedji, eds., “I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times.” Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday (Winona Lake: IN; Eisenbrauns) 801–20.

Source Index Genesis 6:11 6:12 6:13 7:11 8:13 8:20 9:11 12:7 13:10 14:8 16:3 20:7 20:17–18 23:12 24:8 25:8–9 24:12 24:14 26:23–25 27:42 28:10–22 28:20–22 34:5 34:9 35:2 35:8 35:19 35:29 36:31–39 36:32–39 37:2–3 37:3 38:14 38:19 41:8 41:14–15 41:42 47 47:29 47:29–31

365 365 365 77 174 183 365 259 259 183 277 367 367 389 179 108 261 261 259 299 259 259 328 257 174 240 240, 293 108 29 27 330 328 174 174 299 299 174 241 241 108, 241

47:30 49:23 50:16 Exodus 2:14–15 3:1–6 3 3:12 4:25 f. 10:29 19:18 20:3–4 20:4 20:21–23:33 20:24 20:25–26 23:24–33 23:33 29:13 29:37 30:7 31:1–11 32 32:4 32:8 32:20 32:35 34:11–17 34:12–17 34:13

107, 121, 243–244 328 108, 241

34:13–14 34:34 40:27

299 259 259 259 257 279 190 340 396, 407 397 182, 397 398 3 157 190 183 190, 218 227 333 187 187 334 334 340 3 197, 200, 327, 332, 340, 401 340 174 218

Leviticus 2:16 4:7 4:10 4:23

190 190 193 193

470

Source Index

4:31 4:35 26:30

193 193 185

Numbers 12:1 12:14 14:25 16:3 19:16 19:18 21:6–9 21:7 21:9 23:2 23:4 23:14 23:30 24:7 27:7 33:3 33:52

257 276 183 302 115 115 324 367 329 183 183 183 183 239, 302 279 295 184–185

Deuteronomy 1–11 1:32 1:44 2:27 3:29 3:46 4 4:4 4:19 4:25 4:28 4:29 4:38 4:45 5:1 5:32 5:33 6:4 6:4–5 6:4–6 6:5 6:6 6:8 7:1 7:1–6 7:3

7 344 333 174, 176 183 183 363 352 202 160 379 176 416 7, 76 7 176 173 76 325 7 251, 325 7 146, 325 416 258 257

7:5 7:9 7:9–10 7:12 7:17 7:22 8:6 8:20 8:23 9:1 9 9:4 9:5 9:18 9:20 9:21 9:23 10:12 10:20 11:1 11:13 11:22 11:23 12 12:2 12:2ff. 12:2–7 12:2–3 12:2–4 12:3 12:5 12:8–12 12:11 12:13 12:13–27 12:14 12:15 12:16 12:18 12:21 12:26 12:28 12:29 12:29–31 12:31 13 13:2–6

184, 197, 200, 327, 332, 336–339, 340–341, 389 251, 261 258 261 416 416 173 416 261 416 333 291, 416 143, 260, 291, 416 160 367 333, 341 344 173, 251 352 251 251 173, 251, 352 291, 416 8, 13, 20, 31, 389 183, 291, 336-7, 339 389 13, 254 183, 371, 389, 392, 401, 415–416 388 184, 197–198, 200, 332, 336, 339–341 313, 409 254 253, 313, 409 416 7 313 409 176 313, 409 313, 409 313, 409 146 291 416 192 7 7

471

Source Index 13:3 13:5 13:12 14:22–15:23 14:23 14:24 14:25 15:20 15:23 16:1–17 16:2 16:6 16:7 16:11 16:15 16:16 16:18 16:18–18:5 16:18–18:22 16:19 16:21 16:21–22 17:3 17:7 17:8 17:9b 17:10 17:11 17:13 17:14–20 17:14 17:17 17:18–19 17:20 17:35–39 18:1 18:6 18:9 18:9–22 18:10 18:14 18:19 18:21 19:1 19:2 19:2–25:12 19:3–5 19:9 19:11–12 19:15–17a

251 352 76 7 313, 409 313, 409 313, 409 313 179 7 313, 409 313, 409 313, 409 313, 409 313, 409 313, 409 7 7 40 7 202 336, 339–340 202 3 3, 7, 313, 409 7 313, 409 3, 176 3 40, 258, 415 40 83 415 76, 176 3 76 76, 313, 409 291 40 192, 199 291, 416 416 387 291, 416 7 7 7 173, 251 7 7

19:18–19 19:21 20:3 21:1–4 21:6–7 21:8 21:13 21:21 21:23 22:19 23:17 23:18 23:18–19 24:4 24:6 24:7 24:16 26:2 26:2–13 26:10 26:17 27–34 27:12 28 28:9 28:14 28:20 28:26 28:36–37 29:23–27 30:1–10 30:6 30:16 30:20 31:3 31:11 31:14 31:14–16 31:16 31:23 31:24 31:29 32:4 32:16 32:19 32:21 32:27 32:29 33:7 34:7

7 7 76 7 7 7, 76 174 76 332 76 313, 409 76, 198, 291 287 157, 332 40 76 3 313, 409 7 389 173, 252 7 76 7 173 176 198 117 379 351 176 251 173, 251–252 251, 352 416 313, 409 241 108, 241 241 241 241 108, 160, 241 143 160, 291 389 160, 291 295 389 76 76

472

Source Index

34:10

345–346

Joshua 1–1 Sam 12 1:7 6:1 6:2 6:26 8:22 9:25 10:12 11:14 15:39 19:27 22:5 22:10–34 22:33 23:2–16 23:3 23:6 23:7 23:8 23:11–13 23:12 24:14 24:23 24:33

224 36, 176, 347–348 276 39 39 311 146 183 179 82 183 173, 352 227, 259 365 258 416 36, 176 416 352 258 257 174 174 240

Judges 2:2 2:12 2:13 2:17 2:22 3:7 3:11 4:3 4:6 5:31 6:5 6:18–24 6:25 6:26 6:28 6:30 6:30–32 7:13 8:28 8:32 8:35

197 160 201–202 36, 215 173 202 232 232 299 232 365 259 339 339 339 339 197 328 232 240 260

9:21 9:22 10:1 10:2 10:3 10:5 10:6 10:16 11:3 11:20 12:7 12:7–15 12:10 12:11 12:14 12:15 13:1 13:15–20 15:6 15:20 16:18 17:1 17–21 1 Samuel 1:1 1–2 Sam 1 1–1 Kgs 2 1–2 Kgs 1 1–2 Kgs 9 1:1–2 Kgs 10:28 1:7 1:19 1:27–28 2:16 2:27–36 2:30 2:35 f. 3:11–14 4:15 4:18 5:7 6:5 6:12 7–12 7:2 7:2–4 7:2–8:22 7:3

299 64 293 60, 240 64 240 201 174 299 344 64, 240 27 240, 293 64 64, 232 240, 293 232 259 257 32 328 293 31

293 218 223 211 211 222 160 389 230–231 190–191 216, 218 260 215 216, 218 214 210–211, 214, 216, 218, 220, 233 328 365 157 215, 223 211, 214, 215 218 213, 223 174

473

Source Index 7:3 f. 7:4 7:5 7:6 7:9–10 7:13–14 7:15–17 7:17 8 8:5 8:8 8–12 9 9–10 9–11 9:2 9:12–14 9:13 9:16 9:19 9:25 10:1 10:3 10:5 10:8 10:13 10:17–27 11:13 11:14–15 12 12:1–25 12:6–15 12:10 12:19 12:20–22 13:1 13:1–2 13 13–31 13–2 Sam 24 13:4 13:7–12 13:13 13:13–14 13:14 13:15 14:35 14:47 14:47–51

201–202 174 367 218 210, 212, 215 218 218 210, 212, 215 219 40 218 210 231 34, 221 231 231 182 210, 212, 215 245 182 182 231, 245 210, 212, 215 182 217 182 213, 223 216 231 215, 219 213, 223 218 201–202 218, 367 218 208, 211, 214, 217–218, 220, 229–233, 235, 264 218 231 231 224 217 217 243 216 245 217 210, 212, 215 239 212, 217–218, 220

14:49–51 15:1 15:6 15:11 15:16 15:28 16–2 Sam 1 16:12 16:13 16:18 17:1 17:1–58 17–18:5 17:12 17:16 17:20 17:38 18 18:5 18:12 18:13–14 18:14 18:15 18:17 18:20–28 18:22 18:23 18:26 18:27 18:30 19:2 19:8 20:11–17 20:13–15 20:20–22 20:23 20:31 20:40–42 22:7 f. 23:7 23:14–24:23 23:14–15 23:17 24:18 24:20 24:21 25:1 25:26 25:28–30 25:28–31

212 245 260 367 367 239 219 231 231 223, 320, 348 293 218 221 293, 296 175 328 328 320 223, 320, 348 223, 320, 348 348 223, 320, 348 223, 348 320 221 257 257 257 223, 257, 348 221, 223, 320, 348 299 223, 320, 348 218 216 216 218 239, 243 218 221 276 218 299 216 216 387 216 240 216 216 218

474 25:30 25:31 25:33 25:39 25:43 f. 27:1–4 27:7 27:12 28:3 28:3–25 28:9 28:17 29:6 31 31:10 2 Samuel 1:1–4 1:11–12 2:1–4 2:1–11 2:4 2:4–5 2:7 2:8–9 2:8–12 2:8–4:6 2:8–4:12 2:10 2:10–11

2:11 2:32 3:1 3:2–5 3:6 3:7–37 3:8 3:9–10 3:10 3:17–18 3:17–19 3:18 3:28–29 3:32 3:38–39 4:1–3

Source Index 246 216 216 216 220 299 212, 214, 220 344 174, 240 212 339 239 146 231 201

4:2 4:2–4 4:5–12 4:7–5:4 4:12 5:1–2 5:1–3 5:1–5 5–8 5:2 5:3 5:3–4 5:4

217 217 217 298 231, 233 240 231, 233 217, 231, 233 233 233 219 210, 212, 214, 218–219, 228, 231–233, 235 208, 212–214, 217–218, 220–221, 229–230, 232–235, 264 214, 218, 229–31, 233– 235, 237 240 315 212, 217, 220 315 217 260 216, 218 239 218 216 218 216, 218 240 216 299

5:5 5:6–11 5:10 5:11 5:12 5:13–16 5:17 5:17–21 5:22–25 6:1–23 6:13 6:17 6:21 6:23 7:1 7 7–8 7:6 7:7–10 7:8 7:9–11 7:11 7:11–12 7:12 7:13 7:13–14 7:14 7:15 7:16 7:18–21 7:18–29 7:22–24 7:25–26

5:4–5

217 216 217 233 240 216, 218 234 299 218–219 245 217, 231, 234 233–234 210, 219, 228, 231, 233–234 208, 212–214, 216–218, 220–221, 229–235, 237, 250, 264 219, 232–235, 250, 272 217 223, 320, 348 216 216, 218, 243 212, 217, 220 216 221, 349 221 217 259 259 216, 218, 245 257 216, 218 173, 209, 297 212 216 216 216, 245 218 216 240 238–239, 242–243, 264 215–216, 218, 243, 245 216 397 175 216, 218, 239–240, 243 216 363 216, 218 218

475

Source Index 7:25–29 7:29 8:1 8:1 ff. 8 8–10 8:13 8:14–15 8:16–18 9:1 9–20 9:2–13 9:7 9:10 9:11 9:13 10:2 10:2–4 11:1–18 11–12 11:15–17 11:26 11:27 12:16 12:17–15 12:24 12:26–31 12:31 13:1–22 13 13:3 13:13 13:18 13:23–38 13:34–35 13:36 13:37–38 13:39 14:1 14:2 14:2–22 14:9 14:20 14:23–24 14:25–27 14:27 14:28–35 14:33 15:1–6

216 218 216, 223, 320, 348 220 212 217 183 216, 218 212 216–217 212–213, 219, 239, 243–244 217 216–217 216–217 216–217 216–217 260, 285 285 217 225 306 217 216–217 328 216 217 285 328 217 213 245 217 328 217 217 217 299 217 217 245 217 216, 218 245 217 217 80 217 389 217

15–19 15:7–37 15:8 15:16–17 15:24 15:25–26 15:31 15:34 15:35 16:1–4 16:1–14 16:3 16:5–14 16:5 16:7–8 16:10 16:11 16:11–12 16:12 16:13 16:15 16:16–19 16:20 16:21 16:23 16:20–22 17 17:1–4 17:2 17:3 17:5–14 17:14 17:15 17:15–18 17:17–22 17:21 17:22 17:23 17:24 17:25 17:26 17:27–29 18:1–2 18:2–4 18:6–7 18:9 18:10–14 18:15–17 18:17 18:18

221 217 217 217 217–218 216–217 217 217 217 217 217 239 217 328 217 217 216–217 216 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 213 217 217 217 217 213 217 217 217 217 217 217, 238, 240–241 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 221 217

476 18:19–32 19:1–2 19:6 19:8–9 19:9–16 19:17–24 19:20 19:22–23 19:25 19:25–31 19:26 19:29 19:32–41 19:33 19:35 19:36 19:37 19:38 19:40 19:41 19:41–44 19:42 20:1 20:1–2 20:1–7 20:14–22 20:16 20:21 20:22 20:23–26 21–24 21:2 21:7 22:1 22:25–25 22:51 24:1 24:3–4 24:10–14 24:15 24:17 24:18–25 24:18–19 24:19 24:21 24:23 24:24–25 24:25 1 Kings

Source Index 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 216–217 217 217 217 216–217 217 217 217 217 217 240 217 217 217 217 213, 221 295 217 217 245 293, 295 245 212, 217, 248 212 216 216, 218 216 216 216 216 216 216 216 216 210 259 216 216 216 259 216

1:1 1:1–53 1 1–2

1–11 1–22 1:5 1:6 1:8 1:9 1:12 1:13 1:17 1:19 1:20 1:21 1:23 1:24 1:25 1:27 1:29 1:30 1:34 1:35 1:35–37 1:36 1:37 1:42 1:45 1:45–48 1:46 1:46–48 1:46–2:1 1:48 1:49–53 1:51 1:52 1:53 2:1 2:1–4 2:1–9 2:1–12 2 2:2 2:2–4 2:2–7 2:2–9

230, 240 212, 217, 219, 248 212, 243 211–214, 219–220, 223–225, 239, 243–245, 247, 249–250, 255, 264 220–221 35 217, 294, 302 217 245 255 217 217, 241–242 217, 241–242 255 241–242, 246 109, 217, 238 389 241–242 255 241–242 217 216–217, 239, 241–242 217 217, 239, 241–242, 245 216 299 217 299 217 241 241–242 216–217 242 241–242, 261 239 217 217, 241 242 217, 238–239, 240–241, 248 218 240–241 212 211–213, 238, 243–245 241 217 240 240

Source Index 2:3 2:3–4 2:4 2:5 2:5–9 2:5–10 2:6 2:7 2:8–9 2:9 2:10 2:10–11 2:10–12

2:11

2:12 2:12–46 2:13 2:13–25 2:13–26 2:12–35 2:13–46 2:14–15 2:15 2:16 2:19 2:22 2:23 2:24 2:25 2:26–27 2:27 2:28 2:28–34 2:28–35 2:28–46 2:29 2:31 2:31–33 2:33 2:34 2:35 2:36–46 2:37 2:44–45 2:45

173, 241, 347–348 216, 252, 263 173, 216, 226, 260 217 219 240 217, 245 217 217, 240, 245 245 108–109, 217, 237–242 213–214, 216–217, 236, 240, 248, 264, 302 208, 212–214, 218, 220, 236–237, 239, 241–243, 264 210, 212, 214, 217–218, 228–230, 232–238, 242, 250, 264, 302–303 217, 236–243, 247 236, 247 242 217, 242 212 239, 242, 248 212, 219 217 216 217 241–242 217 217 216, 217, 240–243, 255 245 216, 217 255 217 227, 259 217 212 245 174, 255 217 216, 255 245 236, 240–241, 244–245 217, 235, 244 217 217 216, 243

2:46

477

208, 213, 216, 241–244, 247, 250, 255, 264 2:46–3:1 253 2:46–3:3 248 3:1 83, 214, 220, 228, 243– 244, 246–247, 251, 255–257, 264 3:1–2 216, 256, 263 3:1–3 217, 220, 243, 247 3:1–9:9 255 3:1–11:43 247 3 211, 212, 215, 224–225, 227, 245, 248–249, 251–254, 259–260, 268 3–10 212, 222, 225, 228, 236, 242, 243–247, 259, 262, 264 3–11 220, 222, 224, 236, 245 3–20 224 3–2 Kgs 18 224 3–2 Kgs 20 33 3–2 Kgs 25 210, 215, 238, 243 3:2 13, 24, 30, 34, 127, 174, 178, 182, 185–186, 191, 193, 209, 211–213, 215, 221, 226–227, 243–244, 250–258, 257, 261, 263–265, 287, 289, 323, 325–326, 346, 412 3:2–3 221, 217–220, 249 3:2–4 210 3:2–15 195 3:2–2 Kgs 18:4 198 3:2–2 Kgs 18:7 174 3:3 30, 32, 158, 173, 190, 212–213, 215–216, 221, 247, 251–253, 255, 257–59, 263–264 3:3–4 254, 264 3:3–8:66 264 3:3–2 Kgs 19:37 37 3:4 182, 187, 212, 246, 251, 258–59, 261 3:4–6 209, 258, 261, 264 3:4–15 34, 216, 220, 245–246, 255, 263 3:4–4:19 262 3:4–10:29 262 3:5–8 260

478 3:6 3:6–8 3:7 3:7–8 3:7–9 3:8 3:9 3:9–14 3:10 3:11 3:12 3:13 3:14 3:15 3:16–28 3:28 4:1 4:1–6 4:1–5:8 4:2–5 4:20 4:20–9:23 5–8 5:1–6 5:2 f. 5:2–3 5:4–5 5:6–14 5:7–8 5:9–14 5:14–8:66 5:14–9:9 5:15 5:15–32 5:15–8:13 5:16 5:17–19 5:20 5:21 5:22–25 5:26 5:26–27 5:28 5:31–32 6:1

Source Index 143, 144, 146, 216, 242, 260–261, 264-265 260 216, 260–261 260 209, 258, 261, 264 216, 260–261 216, 246, 260 260 260 209, 216, 258, 260, 261, 264 209, 216, 246, 258, 260–261, 264, 345–347 209, 258, 261, 264 173, 216, 252, 259, 263–265 209, 216, 227, 258–261, 261, 264–265 212, 216, 220, 246, 264 216 216, 248–249 248 246 245 220 262 262, 264 220 220 264 264 264 220 245–246, 262 261 261 251, 252, 261, 264 262 246 261, 264 264 261, 264 245, 262 261, 264 262 261, 264 261, 264 261, 264 68, 77, 211, 214

6:1–7:51 6:2–10 6–7 6:1–8:12 6–8 6:11–13 6:12 6:15–36 6:37 6:37–38 7:1–12 7 7:15–41 7:25 7:44 8:1 8:1–4 8:1–6 8:1–12 8:1–13 8 8:2 8:2–8 8:7–11 8:12–13 8:13 8:14–53 8:14–58 8:14–61 8:16 8:17–20 8:21 8:23 8:25 8:34 8:44 8:48 8:53 8:56 8:58 8:61 8:62 8:63 8:64–66 9:1–9 9 9–11 9:1–11:43 9–14 9:4

86, 220, 246 25, 261, 264 45, 226, 245, 255 255 246, 262 263–264, 414 252 261, 264 68 77 264 252 262, 264 226 226 68 227 262, 264 255 220 363 77 86, 246 264 265, 264 321 265, 363, 414 263 263, 264 313 173 289 260–261 225, 260 289 313 176, 289, 313 289 254 173, 263 263 262, 264 262, 264 264 263–263, 414 213, 246 416 262 417 252, 260

Source Index 9:4–5 9:4–9 9:5 9:6 9:6–9 9:8–9 9:9 9:10 9:10–14 9:10–10:29 9:11 9:15 9:15–24 9:16–17 9:17 9:18 9:19 9:20 9:23 9:24 9:24–25 9:24–26 9:25 9:26 9:26–28 9:26–10:29 10:1–8 10:1–10 10:1–13 10:9 10:10 10:11–29 10:13 10:16–20 10:23–25 11:1 11:1–2 11:1–7 11:1–13 11:1–38 11:1–40 11 11–12 11–14 11:2 11:4 11:5 11:6

173, 263 263 225 263 263, 379 351 289 86, 246 256 262, 264 86, 246, 375 86, 246 220, 256 257 86, 246 86, 246 86, 246 375 86, 246 256, 321 255–257 263 256 254, 256 262 220, 256 262 246 220 245 251 246 220 246 86, 246 245–246 251, 257 252 83 220 271 127, 262, 264–265 209, 236, 252, 258, 262, 264, 313, 317, 414 269–270, 273–274, 275, 304, 317 266, 304, 313, 393 255, 295, 357 173 201–203, 334 173

11:7 11:7–8 11:8 11:9–14 11:10 11:11 11:12 11:12–13 11:13 11:14 11:19 11:21 11:23 11:26 11:26–27 11:26–28 11:26–29 11:26–40 11:26–12:3 11:26–12:20 11:26–12:33 11:26–14:20 11:27 11:27–28 11:27–39 11:28 11:29 11:29–31 11:29–38 11:29–39 11:30–31 11:31 11:31–39 11:32 11:32–34 11:32–38 11:32–39 11:33

11:33–38 11:34 11:35 11:36 11:37 11:38

479 179, 187, 190, 199, 203, 211, 312–313, 334 187, 251, 284, 393 193, 199, 254 317 173 239, 273, 313 379 130 112, 179, 313, 379 221, 273 277 109, 298, 301 221 78, 249, 276, 292–293, 295, 304, 317, 413 296 221, 270, 292, 295, 304 295 292, 295–297, 299 295 298 163 273 86, 246, 277, 295, 321 296, 304 317 86, 246, 295–296 4, 295 267, 296–297, 305, 313 275 258, 273, 296, 304–305, 312, 314 314 296–297, 313 296 112, 271, 296, 313 211 296 312 20, 173, 201–202, 222, 252, 284, 289, 296–297, 312–313 296 252, 296, 379 173, 296, 313 271, 296, 313 296–297 20, 173, 221, 252, 293, 296–297, 304, 317, 416

480 11:39 11:40 11:40–43 11:40–12:3 11:41 11:41–42 11:41–43 11:42

11:43

12:1 12:1–2 12:1–3 12:1–19 12:1–20 12:1–24 12 12–19 12–22 12–2 Kgs 25 12:2 12:2–3 12:3 12:3–14 12:5 12:6 12:7 12:8 12:9 12:10 12:12 12:13 12:14 12:15 12:16 12:16–22 12:17 12:18 12:18–19 12:19 12:19–20

Source Index 263, 296 249, 270, 273, 292, 295–298, 317 272, 304 273, 297–298 15, 87, 100, 237, 245– 246, 249, 262, 264, 266 302 237, 273, 298, 304 63, 210, 218, 228, 230, 234, 242, 249, 264, 283, 302–303 51, 108, 110, 115, 232, 237–239, 262, 264, 273, 280, 282–283, 293, 297–301 212, 270–271, 282, 297–301, 304 300 301 213–214 258, 300, 316 268 170, 210, 213, 247, 268, 286, 316–317, 325 225 30 219, 223 270, 298–300, 304 268, 292, 299–301, 305 268, 272, 298–301, 312 212, 270 312 312 312 246 246, 312 312 312 246 246 213, 246, 271, 314, 316 212–213, 221, 246, 270, 312 271 271, 313 270–271, 315–316 212 271 165, 271

12:20 12:20–21 12:21 12:21–24 12:23 12:24 12:25 12:25–30 12:25–32 12:25–14:20 12:26 12:26–29 12:26–30

12:26–32 12:27 ff. 12:28 12:28–29 12:28–30 12:28–32 12:29–30 12:29–31 12:30 12:30–32 12:30–16:26 12:31 12:31 ff. 12:31–32 12:31–13:2 12:31–13:34 12:32 12:32–13:34 12:33 13:1 13:1–2 13:1–5 13–2 Kgs 25 13:2 13:6 13:30 13:31 13:32 13:33

165, 269–271, 299–301, 304, 313, 315–317 315 267, 270–271, 313–315, 317 270, 315–316 312–314 281, 324 68, 270, 293, 317 304 266, 315 283 165, 239 185 131, 143, 181, 185–187, 192, 246, 292, 304, 318, 409 292, 304–305, 333 130 149, 187, 198, 305, 384, 396 194, 270 149, 220 324 186 270 152, 185–186, 195–197, 270, 292 290 196 159, 179, 185–186, 188 185 186 185 185, 292 179, 185–186, 196, 270, 334, 389 414 196, 254, 326, 334 254 326 196 210 179–180, 185, 254, 389 366–367 306 159 179, 185–187, 196, 382, 389 179, 185–186

Source Index 13:34 14:1 14:1–2 14:1-6 14:1–18 14:1–20 14 14:2 14:3–6 14:3–7 14:7 14:7–8 14:7–9 14:7–10 14:7–11 14:8 14:9 14:10 14:10–11 14:11 14:11–13 14:12 14:13 14:13–16 14:14 14:14–15 14:15 14:15–16 14:16 14:17 f. 14:17–18 14:18 14:19 14:19–20 14:20

14:20–24 14:21

14:21–24

14:21–22:40 14:22

185, 195 4 270, 308 305 305, 308, 312 275 269, 273–274, 305, 308, 317 305 270 308 245 163 304, 308–309, 317, 414 306 305, 308, 311 20, 174, 222, 239, 305 160–161, 203, 305, 334 308 270 310 308 270, 278 270, 309 308 308 308 161, 289, 334 318 20, 157, 194–196, 222, 292 308 270 111, 309 36, 85, 89 237, 303–304, 309–310 51, 66, 108–109, 114– 115, 229, 237–238, 303, 309–311 79 22, 25, 51, 63, 78–79, 83, 238, 249–250, 272– 274, 276, 280–287, 291, 299, 313 25, 30, 266, 269, 271– 272, 274, 276, 286, 288, 291–292, 301, 338 20 20, 114, 152, 156, 196, 222, 287, 289, 291–292

14:22 f. 14:22–23 14:22–24 14:23

14:23–24 14:24 14:25 14:25–26 14:25–28 14:26 14:27 14:29 14:30 14:31 14:31–15:1 15:1 15:1–2 15–16 15:2 15:2–3 15:3

15:4 15:5 15:6 15:7 15:8 15:9 15:9–10 15:10 15:10–11 15:11

15:11–14 15:11–15 15:12 15:12–13 15:12–14 15:13 15:13–15

481 211 21, 178, 199, 287, 290 274–275, 287, 290–292 22, 83, 179, 185–187, 200, 286–288, 291–292, 326, 331, 334–337, 340 292 30, 36, 147, 197, 203, 319, 334, 337 4, 350 169 86, 246, 301 334 328 85, 89 103, 315 51, 108–110, 237–39 51 22, 83, 281, 283, 293 22, 63, 66, 235 307 78–80, 250 125 35–36, 126, 147, 151– 153, 157–158, 172–173, 181, 196, 290–292 112, 130, 153, 225, 254 36 99, 315 85, 315 51, 79, 103, 108, 110– 111, 238–239 281–283, 310 63, 66, 69–70, 235 70, 78–80, 83, 250 124 13, 35–36, 88, 147–148, 154, 158–160, 168, 173, 178–179, 251, 253–255, 261, 289, 320, 322 292 190 30, 174, 197, 200, 287, 289, 291, 334 175, 178 13, 275 78, 80, 83, 203, 334, 339–341 88

482 15:14

15:15 15:16 15:16–22 15:16–28 15:17 15:17–22 15:18 15:18–20 15:21 15:23 15:24 15:24–26 15:25 15:25–26 15:26 15:27 15:27–28 15:27–29 15:28 15:29 15:30 15:31 15:32 15:33 15:33–34 15:34 15:35 16:2 16:2–4 16:4 16:5 16:5–6 16:6 16:7 16:8 16:8–10 16:8–11 16:9–10 16:9–12

Source Index 21, 36, 147–48, 159, 168, 174, 178–179, 185–186, 190, 211, 226, 255, 261, 287, 290, 322, 333 86, 246 99, 315 301, 304, 378 231 87 86, 246, 378 86 377 68, 203, 334 85, 98 51, 70, 103, 108, 110, 238 125 5, 27, 62, 66, 69–70, 232, 235 125 23, 35, 149, 157–158, 172–172, 175, 196, 287 86, 318 60, 108, 114, 310 304 51, 73, 77, 86, 311 311 157–158, 161, 196, 311 85 99, 315 62–63, 66, 68, 70, 231 125, 311 35, 149, 157–158, 172– 173, 196 155 35, 160–161, 196, 245 161, 305 310 34, 98 304 51, 108–109, 149, 238– 239, 310 160–161 62, 66, 69–70, 194, 232, 235, 249 88 149 60 86

16:10 16:11 16:12 16:13 16:14 16:15 16:15–18 16:18 16:19 16:21 16:22 16:23 16:24 16:25 16:26

16:27 16:28 16:29 16:29–30 16:30 16:30–33 16:31 16:31–32 16:31–33 16:32 16:32–33 16:33

16:34 18:19 18:45–46 20:1–38 21:1 21:1–16 21 21:12 21:15–16 21:20 21:20–22

51, 73, 77, 108–109, 114 311 161 157–158, 161, 196, 203, 311, 334 88 62, 70 86 158 35, 157–158, 172–173, 196 86, 376 86 27, 62, 67, 70, 122, 125, 235 68, 102 125, 149 149, 155, 157–158, 161, 172–173, 175, 196, 203, 293, 334 34, 98 5, 17, 51, 108–109, 238, 310 5, 17, 27, 62, 67, 69, 249, 281 125 127, 151, 153, 161, 201 194 157, 161, 172–173, 186, 196, 200, 285–286, 293 30, 178, 195, 200–201, 409 27, 162, 200 84, 189, 200, 384 23, 338 78, 152, 154, 161–162, 178, 200–202, 222, 334, 338 39, 321 202 78 98 91, 382 91 162 328 301 161 305

Source Index 21:21–24 21:22 21:24 21:26 21:27–29 22:1 22 22:7–8 22:17 22:32 22:34 22:35 22:37 22:39 22:40 22:41 22:41–42 22:41 ff. 22:42 22:42–43 22:43

22:43f. 22:43–44 22:44

22:46 22:47 22:47–50 22:51 22:52 22:52–53 22:53 22:53f. 22:53–54 22:54

2 Kings 1:1 1 1:3

162 160–161, 194 305, 310 203, 319, 334 127, 130, 226 315 91, 98, 180 91 308 91 108 108 108, 111, 309–310 34, 91 21, 51, 107–108, 238, 309 21–22, 25, 63, 83, 158, 249–250, 281–283 22 19 78, 80, 250 124 35, 88, 147, 154, 158, 172, 174–175, 179, 251, 253–254, 290, 319 35 222, 255, 287 13, 35, 159, 168, 174, 178–179, 185–186, 190–191, 193, 197, 211, 254, 275, 333 91, 98, 291 13, 23, 30, 197–198, 287, 334 103 51, 108, 110, 238 5, 17, 27, 62, 67, 69, 232, 249, 281 125 35, 153, 155, 157–158, 160, 172, 293 35 178, 195, 222 151, 154, 161–162, 200, 319

271 162 382

1:17 2:34 3:1 3:1–2 3:1–3 3 3–17 3:2

3:2–3 3:2–16:2 3:3 3:3–15:28 3:4 3:4–27 3:5 3:7 3:7–14 3:11 3:12 3:14 3:12 4:33 8:7–15 8:8 8:10–13 8:11–13 8:15 8:16 8:16–18 8:17–18 8:17 8:18

8:18–19 8:19 8:20 8:20–22 8:22 8:24 8:25 8:26 8:26–27

483 77, 108, 114 239 5, 17, 27, 62, 67, 69, 249, 281–282 125 27, 301 92, 198 35 13, 21, 31, 35–36, 150, 153–154, 158, 172–178, 195, 201, 253, 334–335 27, 29, 178, 195 223 21, 35, 150, 157–159, 175, 196, 293, 353 197 301 301 268 92 98 92 92 92 91 367 307–308, 310 307 307 307–308 51, 307, 310 63, 173, 249, 281 301 80, 82, 84 82, 250 23, 30, 80, 82–83, 126, 152–154, 157–158, 173, 186, 201, 289 125 130, 153, 226, 379 4 167, 301 4, 375 51, 108, 111, 238 63, 125, 250 78, 80, 152, 249, 285– 286 30

484 8:27

8:28 8:28–29 9–10 9–14 9:6 9:7–10 9:14 9:14–15 9:15 9:24 9:24–27 9:27 9:27–28 9:28 9:29 9:27–28 9:28 9:29 9:30–33 10 10–15 10:3 10:11 10:13 10:18–29 10:19 10:21–27 10:25 10:26 10:26–27 10:26–31 10:27 10:27–28 10:29 10:29–30 10:29–31 10:29–17:23 10:30 10:31 10:32 10:34 10:35 10:36 11:8

Source Index 23, 82, 125–126, 153– 154, 157–158, 173, 186, 201, 254, 290 307 249 162 67 245 305 307, 311 249 91 108–109, 114, 126, 311 249 126 307 119, 166 109, 281 108, 114, 152 109–110 22, 63 91 211 139 145 311 79 201 193 188 108–109 334–335 201 178 184, 198, 334 158 23, 127, 130, 157–158, 174, 192, 196 195 88, 126 29, 223 127, 146, 194, 416 23, 127, 157–158, 174– 175, 177, 194, 196, 416 101, 307 34, 97 51, 110, 238, 309–310 54, 67, 236, 249, 302– 303 198

11:16 11:18 12:1 12 12–18 12:2 12:2–3 12:2–4 12:3 12:3f. 12:3–4 12:4

12:5–19 12:7 12:8 12:18 12:18–19 12:21 12:21–22 12:22 13:1 13:1–2 13:2 13:2–3 13:3 13:6 13:8 13:9 13:10 13:10–11 13:11 13:12 13:13 13:22 13:23 13:24 13:25 14:1 14:1–2 14:1–4 14:2 14:2–3 14:2–4

108 184, 189, 201, 204 233, 248–249, 282 83 84 63, 77, 80, 172, 251 124 251, 255 23, 148, 154, 179, 251, 252–253, 320 35 178, 262, 287, 322 13, 35, 138, 159, 166, 175, 179, 185–187, 190–193, 211, 275, 287, 333 86, 246 350 4 376 86, 307 311 103, 108–109, 114 51, 109–110 67 125 35, 150, 155–159, 173– 177, 195–196, 293 130 307 157, 162, 174–176, 196 34, 98 51, 108, 238, 309–310 63, 66–67 125 23, 35, 150, 156–159, 174–177, 195–197, 294 34, 98 108, 110, 114, 121, 238–240, 309–310 307 226 51 114 250, 282 63 126 78, 81, 174, 251 124 256

Source Index 14:3

14:3f. 14:3–4 14:3–18:3 14:4

14:5 14:6 14:7 14:8 14:8–14 14:13 14:16 14:17 14:18 14:19–20 14:19–21 14:19–22 14:20 14:21 14:22 14:23 14:23–24 14:23–28 14:24 14:25 14:26–27 14:27 14:28 14:29 15:1 15:1–2 15 15–17 15:2 15:2–3 15:2–4 15:3

23, 26, 35, 127, 148, 154–156, 158, 173–174, 177, 179, 251, 253–254, 289, 319–320 35 178, 251, 262, 287, 322 155–156 13, 35, 138, 159, 166, 175, 179, 185–187, 190–193, 211, 275, 287, 333 126–127, 239 3, 40 99, 126–127, 321, 331, 349, 361 375 67, 86, 127, 139, 246 155, 361 51, 108, 110, 114, 121, 238–239, 309–311 77 99, 114 108–109, 114 103 127 311 51, 127 108, 151, 321 4, 63 125 126 126, 150, 156–159, 175–177, 196–197, 293 86, 103–104, 128, 321 126 226 34, 99, 102–103, 126 51, 108, 110, 114, 121, 238, 309–310 282 63 180, 311, 311 310 70, 78, 81, 174, 250– 251 124 256 26, 148, 154–156, 177, 179, 251, 253–254, 289, 319

15:3 f. 15:3–4 15:4

15:7 15:8 15:8–9 15:9 15:10 15:11 15:12 15:13 15:13–15 15:14 15:15 15:16 15:17 15:17–18 15:18 15:18–20 15:19 15:19–20 15:22 15:23 15:23–24 15:24 15:25 15:26 15:27 15:27–28 15:28 15:29 15:30 15:31 15:32 15:32–33 15:32–38 15:33

485 35 178, 251, 262, 288, 322 13, 35, 148, 159, 166, 175, 179, 185–187, 190–192, 194, 211, 275, 288, 333 51, 108, 110–111, 238 63, 67, 72 125 150, 154, 156–157, 159, 175–177, 196, 293 51, 60, 86, 108–109, 114, 158, 311 303 416 5, 17, 63, 67, 71, 194 149 51, 86, 108–109, 114 303 86, 376 63, 67, 72 125 150, 157–159, 175–177, 196, 293 377 239 102 51, 108–109, 114, 248, 309–310 63, 67, 71, 232 125 150, 156–159, 175–177, 196, 293 51, 60, 86, 108–108, 114, 311 303 63, 66, 71 125 150, 156–159, 175–177, 196, 293 102 60, 73, 77, 86, 108–109, 114, 311 303 52, 253, 282 63 19 78, 81, 254

486 15:34

15:34 f. 15:34–35 15:35

15:37 15:38 16:1 16:1–2 16:1–5 16:1–20 16–17 16:2

16:2–3 16:2–4 16:3

16:4

16:5 16:6 16:7–9 16:7–18 16:9 16:13 16:15 16:17 16:20 17:1 17:1–2 17 17:2 17:2–6 17:3–4 17:3–6 17:3–9 17:4 17:5

Source Index 26, 148, 154–156, 177, 179, 254, 256–257, 259, 293, 319 35 124, 139, 178, 251, 262, 287, 322 13, 35, 148, 166, 174– 175, 179, 185–187, 190–192, 194, 211, 275, 287, 321, 333 52, 103 51, 108, 111, 238 250, 282 63 364 17 21 20, 23, 35–36, 81–82, 84, 114, 124, 126, 151– 152, 154–155, 157, 173–174, 178, 182, 251, 253, 289–290, 320 82, 301 36 3, 36, 82, 147, 152, 169, 173, 178, 182, 192, 199–200, 204, 291, 334, 337 13, 35, 152, 178–179, 182, 185–187, 190–192, 211, 290, 337 4, 86, 99, 246, 376, 378 4, 167 377–378 82, 86, 246 361 191 191 175 51, 108, 113–114, 238 63, 67, 194 125 291 23, 149, 152, 158 126 381 301 102 114 350, 381

17:5–6 17:6 17:7–20 17:7–23 17:7–23:20 17:8 17:9 17:9–10 17:9–11 17:10 17:10–11 17:10–12 17:11 17:12 17:13 17:13–14 17:14 17:15 17:16 17:17 17:20–21 17:21 17:21 f. 17:21–22 17:21–23 17:22 17:22–23 17:23 17:24 17:24–33 17:26 17:29 17:29–34 17:32 17:41 18:1 18:1–2 18:1–3 18:1–4 18:1–5 18:1–8 18:1–11 18:1–12 18:1–13 18 18:1–19:37 18–19

349–351 350 5, 130, 202, 291–292 290–291 20 36, 291, 337 179, 185–187 327, 331, 336–338 200, 291 290, 334, 337, 340 200, 337 337 159, 179, 185–187, 192–194, 326 204, 334 416 289 344 204, 334 194, 201–204, 334 159, 192, 199–200 34 196–197 221 130 144, 149–150, 268, 324 19, 151, 155, 160, 174– 176, 195–197 177, 412 158 159, 381 402 381 159, 179, 185–187 34 179, 185–187 204, 341 250, 282, 350, 378 63 45, 352 319, 329, 351 351–352, 413 331, 380 393 319, 351 356 148, 222, 372 127, 356 1, 344–345, 348, 358, 367, 369

Source Index 18–20 18–22 18–23 18:2 18:2–3 18:2–8 18:3

18:3–4 18:3–5 18:3–22:2 18:4

18:4–5 18:4–8 18:5

18:5–6 18:5–7 18:6 18:7

18:7–8

18:7–10 18:7–11 18:8 18:8–11 18:9 18:9–10

32, 36, 353, 364, 374, 378–380, 391 35 21 68, 78, 81, 231, 251, 362, 371, 378–380 125 330 20, 26, 35–36, 88, 148– 149, 154–156, 160, 173–174, 177, 251, 253, 319–320, 322, 330, 335, 348–349, 352 15, 32, 127, 130, 139, 178, 206, 330, 348 203, 392, 413 222 5, 6, 9–14, 16, 20–22, 31, 34–35, 37, 45, 86, 99, 148–149, 160, 174– 175, 177, 179–181, 183–187, 191–193, 200–203, 253, 320–343, 347, 351–352, 372, 380, 385–389, 391–393, 399, 401–402, 405, 407, 410, 412–415 321, 332 330–332 21, 37, 45, 164, 319, 321–322, 330, 344–349, 351–352, 380–381, 383, 409, 415 328–329, 348 330, 347–349, 351–352 9, 36, 330, 332, 347– 349, 351–352 99, 223, 320, 330, 348– 349, 351–352, 380–381, 399 155, 159, 320–322, 328–332, 344–345, 349–351, 381, 413, 415 321 45, 319, 351–352 99, 222, 320–321, 330– 331, 349–351 380 349–350, 381 4, 124, 350

18:9–11 18:9–12 18:9–19:37 18:10 18:11 18:12 18:13

18:13–16 18:13–19:7 18:13–19:9 18:13–19:37

18:13–20:19 18:13–20:21 18:14 18:14–16 18:17 18:17–19 18:17–25 18:17–35 18:17–19:9 18:17–19:37

18:17–20:19 18:18 18:18–19 18:18–21 18:18–22 18:19 18:19–22 18:19–25 18:19–35 18:20 18:20–21 18:21 18:22

487 222, 329, 330, 350–351, 380–381, 384, 391, 413 350, 352 381 77, 350–351 349–350 3, 349, 351–352 4, 77, 349–350, 353, 356, 360–362, 371, 379, 381, 402 86, 222, 349–350, 352, 356, 360–362, 391 357 45, 352, 413 37, 330, 344, 348, 353, 357–358, 369, 374–375, 379, 393 374, 378, 380 356 362 86, 247, 353, 356, 360, 371 357–359, 364, 370–371, 375, 379, 390 371 357, 371 377 34, 353, 356, 369, 372, 376 35, 38, 344, 348, 350– 351, 354, 356, 360, 362, 370, 374, 377 373–374 357, 364, 371 371 371 371 344, 359, 372–373, 378 387, 392, 413 357–358, 386 354, 357 99, 343, 349, 371–373, 380–381, 385, 387 372, 387 344, 364–365, 372, 380, 385, 387 5, 9–11, 13–14, 16, 20, 35, 45, 175, 179, 184– 187, 190–191, 228, 344, 353, 357–358, 362, 372,

488

18:22–23 18:22–24 18:23 18:23–24 18:24 18:25 18:26 18:26–27 18:26–28 18:26–29 18:26–36 18:27 18:28 18:28–30 18:28–35 18:28–36 18:29 18:30 18:31 18:31–32 18:32 18:32–34 18:32–35 18:33 18:33–35 18:34 18:35 18:36 18:36–37 18:37 19:1 19:1–4 19:1–7 19:1–9 19 19:2 19:2–7 19:3–4 19:3–5 19:4 19:4–7 19:5 19:6 19:6–7 19:7

Source Index 379–380, 384–389, 392–393, 397, 401–403, 410, 413–415 364 387 371, 387 371–372, 387–388 245, 371–372, 380, 385, 387–388 365, 371–372, 383, 387–388 357, 359, 364 358, 371 358, 371 371 357 359 369, 372 371 357–358, 372, 386 371 372, 374 245, 372, 374, 380 371 371–372 3, 371–372, 374 380–381, 383 357, 370, 383 372, 374, 381–382 371, 382 381–384 372, 374, 381–382 328 371 358, 359, 364 353, 365, 371 359, 371, 376–377 377 357, 391 32 354, 364–366, 371 367–369 367 367 354, 359, 367–367 374 366, 371 367, 371 344, 354, 376–377 357, 391

19:7–8 19:7–9 19:8 19:8–9 19:9 19:9–13 19:9–20 19:9–35 19:10 19:11 19:11–14 19:11–15 19:12 19:12–13 19:13 19:14–19 19:15–19 19:17 19:20 19:21–31 19:25–28 19:29 19:32 19:32–35 19:32–36 19:32–37 19:33–34 19:34 19:35 19:36 19:36–37

19:37 20:1 20:1–11 20:1–19 20 20–25 20:3 20:5 20:6 20:8 20:12 20:12–19 20:17–19 20:19 20:20 20:20 f.

371 371 359 357, 371 355, 360–361, 390–391 355, 359 353–354 353, 356–357, 379 344, 371 371, 373 370 357 372, 374 383, 390 381 354 379 376 353–354, 357 353–354, 357 402 376 354 354 357 353 353, 390 379 354 362, 391 34, 45, 159, 352–354, 356–357, 369, 372, 376–377, 390–391, 413 30, 112–113, 354, 357, 371, 390–391 4, 240–241, 308, 366 380 361 32, 380 37 260 245 39, 362, 371, 379 376 4 378–380 226, 378 127 91, 100, 116 380

Source Index 20:21 20:21–21:1 21:1 21:1–2 21:1–8 21 21–24 21:2 21:2–3 21:2–9 21:2–16 21:3

21:3–7 21:3–16 21:3–4 21:4 21:5 21:6 21:7 21:7–9 21:7–15 21:8 21:9 21:10 21:11 21:15 21:16 21:17 21:18 21:18–19 21:19 21:19–20 21:20 21:20 f. 21:20–21 21:21 21:22 21:23 21:26 21:26–22:1 21:28 21:29–30

108, 111–114, 116, 118, 121, 238 250 26, 68, 81, 84, 250–251, 286 125 3 221, 391 120 36, 117, 147, 204, 291, 334, 343 148 180 290–291 13, 23, 34, 153–154, 162, 173, 179, 184–188, 201–204, 211, 334, 336–341, 343, 389, 399 188 204 337 321 189, 204 159, 192, 199–200 204, 206, 334, 341 348 5 289 291 416 204, 334 159, 289 196, 275, 292 91, 100, 198, 292 108, 111, 113, 116–118, 121, 238 250 26, 68, 81, 234, 250– 251 125 154 35 147 155, 189, 204, 334 173, 289 108–109, 311 108, 111, 117–121, 157 250 109, 111 109

22:1 22:1–2 22:1–7 22 22–23 22:2

22:3 22:3–10 22:9 22:11–20 22:13 22:17 22:18–20 22:20 23 23:1–3 23:1–20 23:2–3 23:4 23:4–5 23:4–6 23:4–15 23:4–20 23:4–24 23:5

23:6 23:6 f. 23:6–7 23:6–11 23:7 23:8

23:8–9 23:9 23:10 23:11 23:11–12 23:12

489 26, 68, 81, 250–251 125 8 99 2, 3, 8, 31, 37, 178, 180, 415–417 8, 20, 35–36, 127, 154– 155, 158, 173, 175–178, 289, 319–320 8, 100 178 8 178 289 159, 191–194, 275, 326 226 108, 121 32, 37, 329, 342, 389, 397, 399, 415–417 178 6 415 8, 180, 201–204, 330– 331, 337, 341 201, 203 339 37, 328, 331 36, 178, 415 204 13, 179–180, 185–189, 191–194, 201–202, 326, 330, 392, 415, 417 334–335, 341 202 331 417 184, 197–199, 286, 335 8, 13, 34, 179, 184–186, 188, 191, 193–194, 198, 200, 331, 333, 338, 343 34, 372 13, 34, 179, 185–187, 389 180, 184, 192, 199–200, 331, 333 188–189, 201, 392, 415 8 180, 184, 188–189, 198, 201, 203, 331, 417

490 23:13

23:13–14 23:13–15 23:14

23:15

23:16 23:16–20 23:19 23:20 23:23 23:24 23:25 23:25–27 23:26 23:26 f. 23:26–27 23:26–30 23:27 23:28 23:28–30 23:29 23:29–30 23:30 23:31 23:31–32 23:31–25:30 23:32 23:34 23:35 23:36 23:36–37 23:37 24:1 24–25 24:2 24:3 24:5 24:6

Source Index 13, 34, 180, 184–185, 187–188, 200–204, 313, 333–334, 341, 392–393, 415, 417 8, 200, 246, 258, 331, 336, 338, 340–341 337 180, 200–201, 331, 334–336, 338–341, 401, 417 13, 34, 157, 180, 184– 187, 197–198, 200, 331, 334, 341, 414, 417 117, 184, 333 8 13, 158–159, 179–180, 182, 185–188, 342, 383 13, 179, 182, 185–187, 389 8 180, 197–198, 204, 334 8, 177, 325, 345–347, 415–416 275, 348 169, 188 5 84, 130–131, 294–295 127 158, 198, 313 100 8 103, 363 108, 132 109, 111–114, 120–123 26, 68, 81, 251 125 20 20, 26, 154, 156–157 108, 118 100 26, 68, 81, 250–251 125 26, 154, 156–157 350, 363, 381 263 378 130, 158, 196 88 108, 111–112, 117–118, 121, 238

24:6–8 24:8 24:8–9 24:9 24:10 24:12 24:12–15 24:14 24:15 24:17–18 24:18 24:18–19 24:19 24:20 25:4 25:6 25:7 25:8 25:1 25 25:7 25:27

250 26, 68, 81, 250–251 125 26, 154, 156 118 4 378 108, 250 118 250 26, 68, 81, 251 125 26, 36, 154, 156 381 116 361 108, 118 4 4 221, 238 378 4

Isaiah 1–35 1:10–17 1:16 1:21 1:26 1:29–31 2:4 2:9 2:16 2:18–22 3:18 5:5 5:29 6:1–8 6:7 7:1 7:1–2 7:1–3 7:1–7 7:1–17 7 7:2–9 7:3 7:3–7 7:3–9 7:4

379 406 175 373 373 406 334 406 406 406 174 174 374 364 179 362, 375, 377 364 170 375 375 377 376 357, 363–364, 375–376 376 376 376

Source Index 7:4–9 7:7–9 7:7–17 7:9 7:10–14 7:11 7:14 7:16 7:17 8:1–4 8:5–8 8:7 8:9–10 8:19 8:23–9:6 9:6 10 10:5–6 10:5–9 10:5–11 10:5–15 10:5–19 10:6 10:10 f. 10:10–11 10:16–19 10:27 12:2 14:20 14:24–25 14:24–27 14:25 15:2 16:12 17:1 17:7–10 17:12–14 18:1–2 18:4 18:7 19:20 19:23–25 20:6 22:8–11 22:15 22:15–23 22:20 24:10 25:1 25:8

375 170 377 373 376 375–376 375–376 376 170, 324 170, 364 386 377 364 387 364 243 363 372 384 363, 384, 386 363, 384, 402 363 377 406 384 363 179 344–345, 373 365 363 364 179 185 185 406 406 363 363–364 363–364, 396 12, 396 374 402 374 117 363 364 363 277 373 176

26:3 26:3–4 26:4 26:7 27:9 28:16 28:23–29 29:1–4 30:1–5 30:1–7 30:6–8 30:12 30:12–16 30:14 30:22 30:25 30:27–33 30:29 31:1 31:1–3 31:2 31:3 31:5 31:8 31:8–9 31:9 32:1–5 32:9 32:10 32:11 32:15–20 32:17 33:16 36:1 36 36–37 36–39 36:2 36:7 36:19 36:20 36:21 37:2 37:4 37:6–7 37:9 37:30 38:1 38:7 38:22

491 344 345 344, 373 143 396, 406 373 364 363 363–364 372 364 344, 373 363 334 406 337 363 10 344–345, 363–364, 373 372 175 363–364 364, 374 363–364 364 10 364 373 373 373 364 344 373 375 372 354 358, 363, 373–376, 379 375–376 179, 187, 385, 388 381–382 382 328 366–367 367 375 355 375 240 375 375

492

Source Index

40–55 40:3 45:13 57:5 57:7 65:3 65:7 66:23

354, 379 157 143, 157 290, 337 337 161 191, 337 389

Jeremiah 1:5 1:16 2:7 2:20 2:23 3:6 3:13 4:1 4:4 4:18 5:17 7:1–15 7:3 7:4 7:5 7:8 7:9 7:14 7:16 7:18 7:30 7:31 7:31–32 7:32–34 8:1–3 8:6 8:19 9:3 9:13 11:12 11:13 11:14 11:17 11:18 12:14 13:19 13:25 13:27 14:15 16:3

366 191, 326 333 290, 337 333 290, 337 290, 337 175 197 197 345 262 197 345 197 345 191, 193, 326, 337 345 367 198, 201 333 185, 191, 198, 337 198 117 117 279 161 345 173 279, 326 190–191, 193 367 160, 191, 193 197 279 277 345 3, 343 279 279

16:10–11 17:2 17:5 17:7 17:10 17:19–27 18:11 18:13–17 19:4 19:4–5 19:5 19:6 19:11–12 19:13 21:1–10 21 21:2 21:2–7 22:1–5 22:6 22:8–9 22:15 22:18–19 22:19 23:5 24 24:7 25:1 25:3 25:6 25:7 26:4 26:14 26:21 28:15 28:59 29 29:7 29:12–13 29:31 31 31:31–34 32:1 32 32:23 32:29 32:30 32:32 32:34 32:35

351 337 345 345 197 264 197 3, 343 192 191, 337 185, 198 198 198 191, 193 369 366, 377 367–368 369 264 279 351 331 306 118–119 144 279 177 4 4 160 160 173 146 299 345 366 279 368 368 345 276 177 76 276 173 191, 193 160 160 334 157, 184, 337

493

Source Index 33:1 33:15 33:18 34:4 34:5 36:29 36:30 37:1–10 37 37–38 37:3 37:3–9 37:6–8 37:7 39:18 40:9 40:14 42:2 42:10–17 42:20 43:6 43:13 44:3 44:8 44:10 44:15–19 44:17–18 44:19 44:23 45:1 46:2 46:25 48:7 48:35 49:2 49:4 49:11 50:6 51:53 51:59 52:7 52:29 52:30 52:31

4 144 189 279 306 365 118–119, 279 365, 369 366, 377 365 366–378 367, 369, 377 369 367–368 345 344 344 366–368 262 367–368 366 341 160 160, 192 173 202 3 190 173 366 76 345 345 185 366 345 345 366 366 76, 366 116 76 76 76

Ezekiel 1:20 3:24 6:3 6:6

351 277 184 389

6:13 8–11 11:18 20:28 22:30 26:16 29:6–7 29:7 29:15 30:11 34:6 36:2 43:7–9 46:3

290, 337 3, 343 175 337 365 175 365 365 302 365 337 185 115–116, 118–119 389

Hosea 1:5 2:4 2:10 2:15 2:19 3:4–5 3:5 4:5 4:7 4:12 4:13 4:14 4:17 5:3 6:10 8:4–6 8:5–6 8:11 9:4 10:1–2 10:2–5 10:5 10:5–6 10:8 11:2 12:15 13:2 13:2–3 14:4 14:9 14:10

183 174–175 325, 406 192 174 395 395 192 396 325, 406 191, 337 197 325, 406 333 333 325, 384, 395, 406 383 396 333 396 325, 406 192 396 183, 185, 192, 389, 396 191–193, 325–326, 406 161 325, 406 396 10 325, 406 143

Joel 3:10

333

494

Source Index

Amos 3:2 3:15 5:26 7:9 8:14

179 9 333, 406 185, 384, 396 10, 396, 406

Jonah 1:6

368

Micah 1:5 1:7 3:12 4:3 5:1 5:8 5:12–13 5:12–14 6:6 7:4

185 334, 341, 406 185 334 293 295 200, 340, 396 406 231 146

Habakkuk 1:16 2:4

190, 193 143

Haggai 1:1 1:15 2:10

76 76 76

Zechariah 1:1 7:1

76 76

Malachi 1:8 Psalms 2:6–7 5:9 11:7 22:28 22:30 25:8 32:11 33:1 36:11 56:14

64:11 78:58 84:7 86:9 88:23 89:22 89:29 89:38 94:15 95:6 97:11 103:19 107:7 112:4 116:9 119:7 125:4 140:14

143 161, 185 183 389 334 243 261 243, 261 143 389 143 243 157 143 260 143 122 143

Job 8:6

143

Proverbs 2:13 3:6 4:11 9:15 11:5 11:6 16:13 16:17 17:26 21:18 29:27

157 157 157 157 143, 157 143 143 157 143, 146 143 143

Ecclesiastes 5:5

157

Esther 1:3 2:21 3:7 6:2

76 295 76 295

Daniel 1:1 2:1 7:1 8:1 9:1

76 76 76 76 76

387

397 143 143 389 389 146 143 143 143 260

Source Index 10:1 11:1

76 76

Ezra 1:1 5:13 6:3 7:6 7:7 9:14

76 76 76 388 76 257

Nehemiah 3:15 3:15–16 6:18 10:38 12:23 13:6 13:26 13:28

116 117, 119 257 388 325 76 157 257

1 Chronicles 3:4 6:49 9:1 9:26 11 11:2 17:7 20:1 21:26–30 21:29 26:26 27:6 29:22 29:26–27 29:27 29:28

230 219 96 388 230 245 245 365 227, 265 389 388 388 245 230 238 238, 240

2 Chronicles 1:1 1:3–5 1:3–13 1:4 1:13 2:4 6:5 6:16–17 8:3–16 8:11

285 227, 259–260, 265 227 227 228 219 245 228, 259 256 256

8:11–12 8:11–16 8:11–18 8:12–16 9:29–31 9:31 10:1–2 10:1–19 10 10–12 10:3 10:17 10:19 11:11 11:12 11:17 11:20 11:20–22 11:21 11:22 12:2 12:13 12:13–15 12:14 12:16 13:1 13:2 13:3–20 13:4 13:5–7 13:7 13:11 13:15 13:20 13:23 13:23–14:1 14:1 14:1–2 14:1–5 14:2 14:3 15:1 15:16 15:17 16:7–10 16:11 16:13–14 16:14 16:37–38

495 257 256 256 256 237 238, 310 299 258 300 283 300, 312 271 165 283 283, 312 283 78 79 78 78, 245 181 77–78, 82, 276, 283, 287 291 181, 286 238, 310 303 22, 77–79, 303, 316 310 290 258 166, 181, 283 219 310 310 238, 310 80 80, 83, 146 127 80 200 389 81 78, 80 179, 186 127 96 310 228, 238, 259 228, 259

496 17:1 17:6 18:1 19:3 20:31 20:33 20:34 21:1 21:4 21:16 21:20 21:26–30 22:2 23:30 24:1 24:25 25:1 25:14 25:26 26:3 26:16 26:19 26:23 27:1 27:7 27:9 28:2 28:4 28:22 28:27 29:1 29–31 29:2 29:3 29:7 29:27–30 31:1 31:20 32 32:11 32:12 32:30 32:32 32:33 33:1 33:2–11 33:3 33:12–17 33:20 33:21

Source Index 283 200 257 202 78, 80 179, 186 96 238, 310 283 238 238 259 78, 80, 83 109 78, 80 238 78, 81 389 96 78, 81 219, 283 219 310 78, 81 96 238, 310 179, 186–187 190, 290 388 109, 310 78, 81 402 319 142 219 237 200, 338, 341, 389 146 388 388 179, 186–187, 385, 388 388 96 109, 117, 310 81 127 179, 186–187, 389 127 109, 310 81, 231

33:23 34:1 34:3–4 34:7 35:24 35:27 36:2 36:5 36:8 36:9 36:11

388 81, 84 200 200 109 96 24, 81 24, 81, 83 96, 112, 118 81, 83 81, 83

1 Esdras 1:39–47

24

3 Reigns 1:1–2:35 1:5 2:1 2:12 2:35 2:35a 2:35a–k 2:35a–2:46k 2:35c 2:35f 2:35f–g 2:35g 2:35h 2:35i 2:35k 2:35l–o 2:35l–46 2:36–46 2:46a 2:46a–k 2:46a–l 2:46h 2:46k 2:46l

2:46l–3:2 3:1 3–10 3:1–11:43 3:2 3:2–3 3:2–10

244 302 108, 240 236 208, 239, 244–245, 247–248, 256, 264 248–249 244–246, 248 245, 247 256, 277 256, 295 256 254, 256 256 256 256 246 248 244, 246 245 244–245, 248, 250 254 245 246 62, 208, 229, 246–251, 254–255, 258, 265, 273, 298, 303, 346, 412 268, 266 254 246 247 253–254, 303, 337 248 247

Source Index 3:15 5:14a 5:14a–b 5:15 5:16 5:20 5:22–25 5:26–27 5:28 5:31–32 6:2-10 6:15–36 7:15–41 8:1–6 8:12–13 8:62 8:63 7:11 9:9a 10:23 11–12 11:5 11:13 11:14–12:24 11:26–12:3 11:27 11:32 11:33 11:36 11:41 11:43 12:3 12:12 12:17 12:20 12:24a

12:24a–f 12:24a-z 12:24b

228 209, 257, 265 262–263, 265 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 254 256, 263, 265 277 276 313 313–314 274 295 277, 302 313 313 313 247 246–247, 281, 299–301, 317 312 312 271 313 22, 24–25, 45, 51, 63, 78–79, 125–126, 151, 155, 158, 173–174, 181, 231, 235, 237–239, 250, 266, 269, 271–276, 280–285, 287, 289–292, 294, 297–298, 302, 313, 316–317, 338, 413 273, 297 45, 166, 169, 250, 252, 263–276, 409, 416 78, 249, 267, 274, 277, 292–294, 300, 302, 315, 317

12:24b–c 12:24b–d 12:24b–e 12:24b–f 12:24b–n 12:24b–u 12:24b–z 12:24c 12:24c–d 12:24c–f 12:24d 12:24e 12:24f 12:24g 12:24g–l 12:24g–n 12:24h 12:24h–i 12:24i 12:24k 12:24l 12:24l–n 12:24m 12:24n

12:24n–u 12:24n–z 12:24o 12:24o–z 12:24p 12:24p–u 12:24p–x 12:24q 12:24q–s 12:24r 12:24s 12:24t 12:24u 12:24x 12:24x-z 12:24y 12:24z

497 295 269 301 292, 294, 299 292, 301, 304, 318 274, 276 272, 275 267, 277, 294, 296, 298–299 297 297 270, 277, 294, 298–299, 301–302 277, 294, 298, 305 267, 270, 277, 293, 294, 298–299, 302 277, 308 270 298, 305–308, 312 278, 305 308 278 278 278 305 270, 278, 305–306, 308–311 68, 270–271, 278, 292, 299, 301–302, 308, 312, 314, 318 318 268 270, 273, 278–279, 297, 302, 312, 314, 317 267 279 302 270 279 271 278 280 274, 280, 317 271, 280, 314 68, 267, 271, 280, 301, 314–317 272, 276, 314–317 279–280, 312, 314–315, 317, 324 280

498 14 14:21 14:21–24 14:22–23 14:31 15:1 15:2 15:3 15:8 15:9 15:10 15:12 15:14 15:23 15:25 15:38 16:2 16:8 16:15 16:28+ 16:28a

16:28b 16:28c 16:28d 16:28h 16:29 16:32 16:33 21:18 22:41 22:44 22:52 22:53 22:54

Source Index 272 22, 249, 313 302 287, 289 237 83, 250, 303 79 155, 319 303 303 79 198 179 98 249 110 161 25, 249 249 249, 333 22–23, 25, 63, 70, 80, 154–155, 158, 238, 250–251, 262, 281–283, 319 148, 175, 179, 253–254, 256, 287, 289 92, 98–99 198, 288, 322 51, 108, 110 25, 69 27 162 117 249 254 25, 69, 249 150 162

4 Reigns 1:18a 1:18b 1:18c 1:18d 3:1 3:3 3:7 3:9 10:36+ 12:1 12:4 13:25+ 14:4 14:23 15:4 15:13 15:35 16:4 16:13 17:11 18:2 18:4 18:34 20:20 22:2 22:17 23:5 23:8 23:11 24:6

69, 281 31 196, 293 162 25, 249 196 92 92 108–109, 119, 290, 302–303, 307 25 254 239 179, 254 66, 289 254 249 254 254 254 254 81 254 384, 390 98 154 254 254 254 202 112

New Testament Acts 13:21

229

Ancient Authors KAI 1:1 1:2 4:6–7 9A3 10:1–2 10:4 10:9–10

22 117 143 106 22 143 143

11 13:1–2 13:2 13:3–4 14:1 14:2 14:3 14:3–12

106 202 22, 107 117 77 22 230 117

499

Source Index 14:6–10 14:15–18 15 16 18:4–5 19:5–6 24:1 24:1–4 24:1–5 24:2 24:2–5 24:4–5 24:5 24:5–7 24:8 24:9–10 24:9–13 24:15–16 26 A I 9–10 26 A I 13–17 26 A I 11–13 26 A I 18–19 26 A I 18–20 32:1 33:1 38:2 39:1 40:1 41:4–5 43:4 43:8 43:11 60:1 110:3–4 111:3–4 112:4–5 141:3–4 181:1 181:2 181:2–3 181:3 181:4–5 181:5 181:7 181:8–9 181:10–11 181:14 181:18 181:26 183:1–2

107, 123 202 202 144, 202 77 77 22 166 165 63–64, 69 347 166 166 166 403 166 165–166 117 145 167 144, 146 165, 347 167 77 77 63–64, 69, 77 77 77 77 77 77 144 77 77 77 77 77 22 63–64, 69, 122 64 182 64 68 68 64 68 68 68 68 77

184:1–2 185:1–3 191:2–3 200:5 200:6–7 202A:3 214:1 215:1 215:7 215:11 215:19 216:1–3 216:4–5 216:4–7 217:1 217: 3 217:5 219:4 219:4–5 222:1 222B:11 222B:22 226:2 233:4 233:5 233:9 233:13 233:14 233:15 308:1–3 309:22–23 310:3 310:8 310:9 310:12

77 77 117 329 329 63 22 22 63–64, 69 144 144, 164 22 144 164 22 144 144 144 164 22 165 63, 69 144 165 165 165 165 165 165 22 117 106 68 165 63, 68, 122

Herodotus Histories II. 55 II. 143 III. 55 IV. 76 IX. 16 VI. 117 VI. 137 VIII. 65

95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95

Josephus Antiquities 6.378

229

500 7.65 7.190 7.389 8.21 8.141–146 8.147–148 8.264 9.215 10.143

Source Index 230 80, 83 230 243 52, 90, 122–123, 250 53 276, 282 309 229

Against Apion 1.75–79 1.94–97 1.113–115 1.116–125 1.117–121 1.135–136 1.146–147 1.146–149 1.158–159

53 53 53 52, 90, 122–123, 250 52 53–54 54 53 53

Eusebius Praeparation 9.30

229

Babylonian ABC 1 i1 i9 i 11 i 11–12 i 14–15 i 24–26 i 29 i 29–30 i 32 i 38–39 i 38–40

72 72 105 104 104 104 72, 75 104 72, 75 104 72

ii 32–33 ii 32–35 ii 46–iii 9 iii 6–8 iii 4, 6–9 iii 13–15 iii 14–15 iii 19, 25–27 iii 25–26 iii 28, 30–33 iii 30–32

59 72 74 59, 104 72 72 104 72 104 73 104

iv 9, 14 iv 11 iv 11–12 iv 30–31 iv 30–32

73 105 104 105 104–105

ABC 5 obv. 14

204

ABC 4 4:16–22

350

ABC 7 ii 6 ii 6–8 ii 10–11 ii 10–12 ii 19–20 ii 19–21 ii 23–24 ii 23–25 iii 5–8 iii 22

204 205 204 205 204 205 204 206 204 104

ABC 14 16 16–17 28–29 28–30 32–33 35–37

105 104–105 105 104–105 206 204, 206

ABC 15 4 22

206 206

ABC 16 3–4 18–19 20–21 22 23 27

206 206 206 206 206 206

ABC 17 ii 2–5 iii 4–6 iii 8–9 iii 13–15

206 204, 206 204, 206 204

501

Source Index ABC 18 v 3–4 v 5–6 v7 v9 v 11 v 13–14

105 105 105 105 105 105

ABC 19 44 48 57 rev. 18

129 129 141 130

ABC 21 i 1’–2’ i 18’ ii 9 ii 25’–26’ iii 22–23

75 74 75 74 74

ABC 22 iv 2–13 iv 12–13 iv 14–15 iv 17–18

129 135 73 73

ABC 24 reverse 3 73 reverse 2, 4, 5–6 73 COS 2.118A 72–78 377 2.118D IV 31–33 383 2.118F 382 2.188G 382 2.118H 382 Text A obv. ii 14–15

133

Text B 16 29

132 132

Text C iv 9’–15’ iv 16’

134 134

Text D

i 13—22 i 23—25 i 21’ ii 19–27

135 135 135 135

Uruk Prophecy rev. 3 rev. 4 rev. 11–12 rev. 16 rev. 17

136 136 136 136 136

Dynastic Prophecy I 23–25 138 II 4–8 138 II 9–10 138 II 11–16 138 II 17–24 138 III 1–5 138 III 6–8 138 Boundary Stones King 1912 6 i 12–13 128 24 obv. 7–12 128 Luckenbill 1924 V 36–37 373 Assyrian Eponym Chronicle B1 75’–76’ 65 B3 6’–7’ 65 SAA 8 459 rev. 5–6, 29

132

ND. 2632 10 13–19 20–22 21

358 371 371 358

Monolith Inscription col. 2, ll. 91–2 68 RIMA 1 A.0.101 1 i 24 17 i 20–21 20 25–27

140 140 140

502

Source Index

Nimrud Prism IV: 32

383

Nin A i 41–46 i 46 i 53–62

354 344 377

Prism B v 25–48 v 46–49

377 368

Chicago Prism III 1–2

345

Taylor Prism II 78

345

CHLI 1.1 II.9 Karkamiš A11a §1 146 §4 146

§7 §§7–10 §13

146 146 146

II.10 Karkamiš A11b §9 146 II.13+14 A2+3 §§2–5 §§7–9

167 167

IV.4 Maraş 1 §7

146

Ugaritic KTU 1.14 I 12–13 1.14 IV 38–39 1.113 1.161 4.203:14 4.288:9 4.721:4

144 202 58 57 334 334 33

Author Index Adam, K.–P. 33, 41–42, 66–68, 87, 171, 221, 349 Aharoni, Y. 400 Ahlström, G. W. 183–184 Albertz, R. 397 Alter, R. 94 Arneth, M. 331 Arnold, B. 130–131 Ash, P. S. 163–164 Aurelius, E. 35, 172, 175, 348 Barnes, W. E. 78 Barrick, W. B. 20–21, 33, 182–183, 329, 340 Baudissin, W. W. 11 Becking, B. 383 Begrich, J. 5, 110–112 Benzinger, I. 5, 11, 15–16, 212, 267 Ben Zvi, E. 362, 389 Blanco Wißmann, F. 41–42, 76, 170, 172, 221 Bin-Nun, S. R. 17–18, 20–26, 28, 50, 64– 66, 93, 95, 271 Borowski, O. 404 Boyes, P. J. 52 Brettler, M. 256 Brinkman, J. 47 Budde, K. 212–213, 328 Burney, C. F. 5, 260, 327, 346–347 Camp, L. 323, 335, 341, 371 Campbell, A. F. 29–30, 172, 174, 222– 223, 226 Cheyne, T. K. 9, 267 Childs, B. 353, 355, 358, 362, 370–371, 386 Clements, R. E. 362, 369 Cortese, E. 21–22, 24–25, 66, 172 Cross, F. M. 6, 170

Debus, J. 268, 270–271 De Jong, S. 362 De Wette, M. W. L. 2–3, 5, 7, 9, 12, 16, 210, 417 Dietrich, W. 7, 157, 160, 191 Dillmann, A. 11 Driver, S. R. 10 Edelman, D. 191, 405 Eichhorn, J. G. 209 Eissfeldt, O. 6 Evans, P. S. 130, 356–357, 359 Ewald, H. 211 Eynikel, E. 32, 43, 161, 172, 224 Fichtner, J. 248 Finkelstein, I. 400 Fischer, A. A. 229, 232–234 Fohrer, G. 6, 213, 216 Fried, L. 400 Gallagher, W. R. 382 Gesenius, W. 355 George, J. F. L. 3 Gitin, S. 404–405 Gonçalves, F. J. 353 Gooding. D. W. 268 Gordon, R. P. 269, 285 Graf, K. H. 210 Gramberg, C. P. W. 3 Gray, J. 14, 179, 267, 346 Grayson, A. K. 46–51, 132, 137, 162 Gressmann, H. 5, 213–214 Halpern, B. 32, 43, 78, 97–99, 113–115, 174, 224, 406 Haran, M. 89–90, 182 Hardmeier, C. 330–332, 350–351, 362, 364–368 Herzog, Z. 185, 398–399, 401, 406 Hjelm, I. 362, 377

Author Index Höffken, P. 372 Hoffmann, H.-D. 6, 32–33, 153, 157, 197–198, 324, 333–335, 339, 341 Hoffmeier, J. K. 360 Hölscher, G. 5 Honor, L. L. 386 Hronzý, H. 267, 270 Hutton, J. 33 Jacobsen, T. 55 Jahn, J. 209 Jepsen, A. 14–15, 25, 86, 170, 215, 221, 328 Kaiser, O. 371–372 Kautzsch, E. 328 Keimer, K. 33–34 Keil, C. F. 268 Kitchen, K. 360 Kittel, R. 5, 11, 214, 268, 321 Klostermann, A. 267 Knauf, E. A. 401 Knoppers, G. 35, 273, 300–301, 316, 345 Koch, K. 331 Köhlmoos, M. 33, 93 König, E. 12, 328 Kratz, R. 76, 168–169, 220, 409–410 Kreuzer, S. 229–231 Kuenen, A. 9–11, 211 Langlamet, F. 216–217 Lemaire, A. 30 Leuchter, M. 96–97 Levin, C. 7, 87–88 Lipiński, E. 52 Liverani, M. 204, 373 Lohfink, N. 40 Loisy, A. F. 12 Long, B. O. 49, 307 Lowery, R. H. 184, 336, 342 McCarter, Jr., P. K. 216–218 McKay, J. 82–83, 327–328 McKenzie, S. L. 34–35, 78, 271–272, 283, 289–290, 300–301, 303, 306, 308, 314 Macadam, M. F. L. 360–361 Machinist, P. 363, 370 Macy, H. R. 23, 31–32, 78 Meyer, E. 268

504

Michalowski, P. 55–56 Moenikes, A. 33 Monroe, L. 33, 417 Montgomery, J. A. 247, 268 Naʾaman, N. 8, 35, 90–93, 116–117, 119, 146–147, 339–341, 382–383, 405 Nam, R. 34 Nelson, R. D. 25–26, 66, 379 Neujahr, M. 137 Niccacci, A. 330 Nöldeke, T. 10 Noll, K. L. 39 Noth, M. 5–6, 14–15, 17–18, 20, 38, 85– 86, 89, 170, 179, 209–210, 214–216, 221, 224, 228, 236, 261–262, 343, 349, 391 O’Brien, M. A. 262 Oestreicher, T. 12–13, 16, 328 Orlinsky, H. M. 381–382 Osswald, E. 130 Osumi, Y. 397 Otto, E. 7 Otto, S. 194 Pakkala, J. 321, 327 Parker, S. B. 64, 167, 321 Pennoyer, R. P. 248 Person, Jr., R. 356 Pfeiffer, R. H. 214 Pietsch, M. 331–332 Porten, B. L. 262 Provan, I. 31–32, 34–35, 37, 42, 45, 78, 81–82, 112–113, 117, 172, 174, 179, 223, 326, 345, 348 Rad, G. von 6, 213, 215 Rahlfs, A. 17, 381 Rainey 360 Ranke, L. von 267 Rawlinson, G. 359–360 Rawlinson, H. 359 Robinson, T. H. 14 Römer, T. C. 36, 221, 402–403 Rösel, H. N. 32–33, 161 Rost, L. 213–214, 218 Rowley, H. H. 15–16, 215–216, 226 Rubinstein, A. 328

Author Index Šanda, A. 5, 268 Schaudig, H. 408 Schenker, A. 180, 274–275, 284, 298 Schmid, K. 33 Schniedewind, W. 33–34, 395 Schrader, E. 3 Shenkel, J. D. 303 Siebens, A.-R. 13, 328 Silberman, N. A. 400 Smelik, K. A. D. 354–356, 362–363, 374– 375, 388 Smith, M. S. 33, 65 Smith, W. R. 12 Spieckermann, H. 7, 140, 199, 201, 335– 338, 341 Stade, B. 322, 327, 353, 355, 357, 369, 407 Stavrakopoulou, F. 117–118 Steinkeller, P. 56–57 Steuernagel, D. C. 5, 9, 11, 16 Stott, K. 94–95 Suriano, M. 33, 106–109, 119, 242 Sweeney, M. A. 33, 275–276, 285 Tadmor, H. 141 Talshir, Z. 256, 273–274, 280, 283, 285, 289–291, 293 Theuer, G. 202 Timm, S. 26–27, 66 Trebolle, J. 24–25, 240–241, 244, 248, 269–271, 273, 281, 297, 299, 305–306, 314, 316, 376

505

Ussishkin, D. 120, 400 Vanderhooft, D. 32, 43, 78, 97–99, 113– 115, 174, 224 Van Keulen, P. 243, 249 Van Seters, J. 6, 28, 48–49, 93, 218–219, 225 Veijola, T. 216–218, 238, 240 Vera Chamaza, G. W. 329 Wälchli, S. 259, 262 Weill, R. 115–116, 119 Weinfeld, M. 7, 191, 386 Weippert, H. 18–22, 24–25, 29–33, 35, 42, 158, 160, 172, 174, 179, 181, 192, 222, 271, 320 Weiser, A. 6, 215 Wellhausen, J. 3–6, 9–10, 13, 16–18, 26, 211, 215, 230, 322, 362, 369, 394, 406 Westermann, C. 213, 219–220 White, H. 49 Wilcke, C. 55–56 Wildberger, H. 371 Winckler, H. 267 Würthwein, E. 216–217, 220, 322–323, 349, 371 Yamada, S. 57–58 Young, R. 34, 357–360 Younger, Jr., K. L. 142, 372 Yurco, F. 360 Zimmerli, W. 14, 325

Subject Index 1–2 Kings – framework of 51, 62, 411 – Josianic date 30 – Hezekian edition 30–32, 35–36 – relationship to 1–2 Samuel 209-228 3 Reigns 12:24a–z – discussion of 267–276 – translation of 276–280 Accession notice 62–63, 65, 283–284 Akītu festival 204–206 Arad 398–399 Ark of the Covenant 258–259 ʾĂšērîm 199–200, 336–341 Asherah/Astarte 201–203, 337 Assassination reports 60 Assyrian King List 57–59 Assyrian royal inscriptions 140–142, 377– 378 Assyrian Synchronistic Chronicle 74 Azatiwada 144–145, 166, 260

– neo-Babylonian 28, 41, 53 Chronology – alternating 71 – deuteronomistic 211–212 – Ish-boshet 232–236, 264 – Saul’s account 229–232, 264 City of David 115–116 Comparative studies 16 Compositional history 1 Covenant code 397–398 Cultic reports 179, 412 David 225–227, 289–292, 319–320 Davidic royal ideology 122, 226, 409– 410, 416 Deuteronomistic redaction 5–7, 37–41, 123, 168–169, 171–176, 191–192, 209, 214–222, 270–271, 332–341, 388–389, 413 Evaluations 18–20, 24, 124–127, 286–288

B narrative 353–359 B1 narrative – date of 390–391 – prophetic inquiry in 365–368 – relationship to HH 379–381, 401–402 – reliability of 359–374 Baal 200–203 Bāmôt – judahite 185–186 – removal of 179–185, 388, 401 – YHWHistic 186–187, 406–407 Beersheba 399–400 Bronze serpent 322–327, 334–335, 338, 407

Formulae – death and burial 102–122, 280–281 – judahite 26, 281–283 – israelite 26 – repetition 54-55, 61 – royal predecessor 147–153, 289–292 – stereotypical 25 Fragmentary hypothesis 213 Fuller’s field 375–376

Centralization 193, 384–386, 408–410, 416 Chronicles 46–50 – mesopotamian 59

“He vexed YHWH” 160–162 Hexateuch 212–213 Hezekiah – account of 11

Genre 43, 60 Gibeon theophany 258–261 golden calves 194–196, 333, 341 Grayson’s Category B 53

Subject Index – cultic reform of 9–16, 394–395, 401– 407 – cultic report of 320–327 – incomparability notice 343–347 – revolt against Assyria 402–403 – stories of 374–379 Hezekian History – beginning of 243–255 – final cultic report of 341–343, 413 – framework of 11, 13, 44–45, 208, 266, 352–353 – relation to 1–2 Samuel 222–224, 415– 416 Hosea – message of 395–397 Ideology of the founder 163–164 Incense 190–194 Isaiah – message of 395–397 Jeroboam (son of Nebat) 149–150, 194– 195, 413 – and assembly at Shechem 311–314 – and war with Rehoboam 315–317 – flight and return 294–301 – prophetic inquiry 306–311 – rise of 292–294 – sick son of 305–306 – story of 301–305 Jerusalem 12 Josiah – lawbook of 2–3 – cultic reform of 4–5, 8, 14 – account of 6, 37, 180, 187–190, 342, 392, 414–415, 417 Kinglists 46–50, 67–68, 167, 411 Lachish 400 Latter Prophets 42 Law of the King 40, 76, 176, 415–416 Levantine royal inscriptions 142–147, 164–167 Literary predictive texts – dynastic 137–138 – Marduk 134–136 – Šulgi 134 – text A 132–133 – text B 133

507

– Uruk 136–137, 139 Lucianic witnesses 17–25 Mesha inscription 64 Northern refugees 33 Old Greek 24–25, 43–44 Old Latin 24, 43–44 Pharaoh’s daughter 255–256, 264 Pillars 199–200, 337–339 Preposed )wh 21, 180, 321–322, 331, 335, 349, 388 Prophetic history 211 Prophetic Record 28–29, 222–223 Prophetic stories 416 Qādēš/qedēšîm 197–198 Queen Mother – naming of 78–84, 285–286 Rabshakeh 13–14, 357–359, 362–364, 380–381, 386–387, 402 Redactional blocks 19–23, 31, 35 Regnal epilogue 236–243 Regnal prologue 18, 21–24, 27, 281–282 Regnal year total 64–66, 283–284 Rehoboam 315–317 Relative clause 153–157, 334, 346–347 Restoration of order 167, 206 Resumptive account 34, 37 Samaria 350–352, 381–384 Silwan 120 Solomon – account of 208–209, 251–253, 412 Source citations 84–102 – reliability of 93–97 Story of the deliverance of Jerusalem – literary unity of 374 Succession Narrative 244 Succession notices 29, 236–243 Sumerian King List 55–57, 59 Synchronisms 4, 69–77, 168–171 Synchronistic chronicle 15, 170 Temple account 245–247, 261–263 Text criticism 17, 228, 247–250, 253– 254, 256–257, 267–276, 375–376

508

Subject Index

Tombs 117, 121 Transitory interlude 6 “Trusting in YHWH” 343–344, 348, 371– 373, 383 “Turning from the way” 158–160, 173– 177, 412 Tyrian King List/Annals 27, 48, 52–54 Unheilsherrscher 131 Upper pool 375–376 Uzza 116–119

Vassal Treaty of Esarhaddon (VTE) 7 “Walking in the way” 157, 173, 412 Weidner Chronicle 127–131, 138–139 Weqatal 327–332 Yšr-/rʿ-Formula 124, 171–172 Zion Theology 396–397, 414