Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule: Windows on Abimelech’s Rise and Demise in Judges 9 9781472550613, 9780567557186

Citation preview

LIBRARY OF HEBREW BIBLE/ OLD TESTAMENT STUDIES

546 Formerly Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series

Editors Claudia V. Camp, Texas Christian University Andrew Mein, Westcott House, Cambridge

Founding Editors David J. A. Clines, Philip R. Davies and David M. Gunn

Editorial Board Richard J. Coggins, Alan Cooper, John Goldingay, Robert P. Gordon, Norman K. Gottwald, Gina Hens-Piazza, John Jarick, Andrew D. H. Mayes, Carol Meyers, Patrick D. Miller, Yvonne Sherwood

ii

LEGITIMACY, ILLEGITIMACY, AND THE RIGHT TO RULE

Windows on Abimelech’s Rise and Demise in Judges 9

Gordon K. Oeste

Copyright © 2011 by Gordon K. Oeste

Published by T & T Clark International A Continuum imprint 80 Maiden Lane, New York, NY 10038 The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX www.continuumbooks.com Visit the T & T Clark blog at www.tandtclarkblog.com All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the written permission of the publisher, T & T Clark International.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

eISBN: 9780567557186 Typeset and copy-edited by Forthcoming Publications Ltd. (www.forthpub.com)

The NewJerusalemU font used to print this work is available from Linguist’s Software, Inc., PO Box 580, Edmonds, WA 98020-0580 USA. Tel (425) 775-1130. www.linguistsoftware.com

CONTENTS Acknowledgments Abbreviations

ix xi

Chapter 1 LOOKING AT JUDGES 9 THROUGH MULTIPLE SIGHT LINES 1. The Value of Multiple Sight Lines 2. Reading the Narrative Interests of Judges 9 a. The Goal of a Narrative Analysis b. Assumptions (1) Coherence (2) The Recoverability of Authorial Intention 3. Reading the Rhetoric of Judges 9 4. Monarchic Context 5. The Social Context of Judges 9 a. Social-Scientic Models b. Max Weber’s Patrimonialism c. The Dimensions of Legitimacy d. Abimelech as Localized Power-Holder 6. Combining the Sight Lines

1 2 3 3 4 4 5 9 15 19 19 21 27 28 29

Chapter 2 APPROACHES TO ABIMELECH AND JUDGES 9 1. Redactional Studies 2. Social-Scientic Studies 3. Ideological Studies 4. Literary-Holistic Studies 5. Summary

31 32 38 41 47 52

Chapter 3 NARRATIVE ANALYSIS OF JUDGES 9 1. Judges 9 and the Gideon Narrative (Judges 6–8) a. Judges 9 as a Separate Narrative Unit b. Gideon and/or Jerubbaal? c. The Motif of Kingship

55 55 55 57 58

vi

Contents

2. The Narrative Structure of Judges 9 3. Narrative Analysis of Judges 9 a. Judges 9:1–6—The Exposition b. Judges 9:7–22—The Complication c. Judges 9:23–24—The Change d. Judges 9:25–55—The Unravelling (1) Gaal’s and Shechem’s Challenges (9:25–29) (2) Abimelech’s First Counter-Attack (9:30–41)

64 70 70 79 93 94 94 99

Excursus: Safety Inside the City—Danger Outside the City

103

(3) Abimelech’s Second Counter-Attack (9:42–45) (4) Abimelech’s Third Counter-Attack (9:46–49) (5) Abimelech’s Humiliation (9:50–55) e. Judges 9:56–57—The Ending 4. Conclusions

104 107 110 112 115

Chapter 4 READING THE RHETORIC OF JUDGES 9 1. The Rhetoric of the Exposition in Judges 9:1–6 a. The Rhetoric of Judges 9 and the Framework of Judges b. The Rhetoric of Kinship (9:1–6) 2. The Rhetoric of the Complication in Judges 9:7–22 a. The Rhetoric of Jotham’s Fable (9:7–15) b. The Rhetoric of Jotham’s Application of the Fable (9:16–22) 3. The Rhetoric of the Change in Judges 9:23–24 4. The Rhetoric of the Unravellng in Judges 9:25–55 a. The Shechemites’ Challenges to Abimelech’s Kingship (9:25–29) b. Abimelech’s First Counter-Attack (9:30–41) c. Abimelech’s Second Counter-Attack (9:42–45) d. Abimelech’s Third Counter-Attack (9:46–49) e. Abimelech’s Humiliation (9:50–55) 5. The Rhetoric of the Conclusion of Judges 9:56–57 6. Summary of the Rhetorical Strategy of Judges 9 7. The Rhetorical Situation Implied by Judges 9 a. The Argumentative Goals of Judges 9 b. The Assumptions Shared by the Implied Author and the Implied Audience c. The Narrative Analogies Utilized by the Implied Author of Judges 9 d. The Argumentative Context of Judges 9

119 119 119 121 137 137 140 145 148 148 152 155 156 159 162 165 167 168 170 171 172

Contents Chapter 5 THE SOCIAL WORLD(S) OF JUDGES 9 1. A Social-Scientic Analysis of the Story World of Judges 9 a. Abimelech’s Rise—The Abuse of Kinship b. Abimelech as King—The Abuse of Power c. Abimelech’s Death—Shaming the “Shamer” d. Abimelech as Illegitimate Ruler 2. Social-Scientic Analysis of the World of the Implied Author a. Abimelech as Illegitimate Local Ruler b. The Sitz im Leben of the World of the Implied Author c. The Delegitimation of Local Leaders in Early State Contexts 3. Implications for the Role of Judges 9 in the Book of Judges 4. Summary

vii

174 176 183 190 194 197 206 206 209 211 221 228

Chapter 6 CONCLUSION 1. The Contribution of Each Method 2. Combining the Sight Lines

229 229 232

Bibliography

238

Index of References Index of Authors

254 264

1

viii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project is a revision of my doctoral dissertation (University of St. Michael’s College [2008]). It grew over a number of years and within the context of several different communities who were a support and blessing during its research and writing. It is my privilege to be able to acknowledge their varied and valuable contributions here. Wycliffe College provided numerous formal and informal opportunities to interact with students from both within and outside of my eld of study, an experience which greatly enriched my learning and stimulated my thinking on many different topics. Glen and Marion Taylor were particularly insightful and encouraging mentors during my coursework and a well-spring of advice and encouragement throughout my work on this project. I am grateful for their generous insights, wise counsel, and continuing friendship. Wycliffe College is situated within the Toronto School of Theology and the University of Toronto, which allowed me to learn from the wisdom and insights of a much broader community of scholars and friends. It also afforded access to library resources that were vital in researching this project. Mike Hagan rst introduced me to the joys of paying careful attention to the details of stories and how they are told at Sioux Falls Seminary. Pat Dutcher-Walls helped hone those skills and taught me to also pay attention to the persuasive power of stories and their social context. She was a wise guide through the maze of dissertation writing, and this work has beneted in countless ways from her careful scrutiny and sage advice. I am also grateful that she consented to supervise my dissertation despite her move across the country to the Vancouver School of Theology. The readers of my dissertation, Glen Taylor, Marion Taylor, and John McLaughlin made many helpful comments. Victor H. Matthews graciously consented to serve as the outside reader of the dissertation. He provided valuable feedback and pointed me to further bibliographic resources. I am grateful for God’s leading in bringing me to the wonderful community at Heritage College and Seminary. Kelvin Mutter, Bill Webb, 1

x

Acknowledgments

Dave Barker, and Stan Fowler have been my colleagues for the past four and a half years, and have provided an exceptionally collegial and supportive environment within which to engage in the ministry of teaching. Several church communities were a wonderful source of friendship, support, and encouragement during the research and writing of this project. The years as interim Sr. Pastor at Humbervale Park Baptist were a wonderful gift and blessing for my family, and the people of Cedar Creek Community Church continue to be a source of encouragement. My family has been my anchor of support. Phone calls and care packages from my extended family came at just the right times. Our daughters, Sarah and Emily, were just beginning school when this odyssey rst began. They not only supported and prayed for me, but they gave me the gift of perspective; our trips to the park and slides down the hill reminded me of the things that are most important and most precious in life. Above all, I am profoundly grateful to God for the support and encouragement of my wife, Carolyn. She made many, many sacrices with a joyful spirit and willing heart that allowed me to do what I love to do. This work is dedicated to Carolyn, Sarah, and Emily

1

ABBREVIATIONS AB ABD ABRL AbrN AOAT ASOR ATD AThANT ATSAT AUSS BA BARev BASOR BBB BBC BCBC BDB Bib BibSac BN BO BSC BT BZAW CANE CBC CBQ CHANE ConBOT CSHJ DDD DH Dtn Dtr

Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York, 1992 Anchor Bible Reference Library Abr Nahrain Alter Orient und Altes Testament American Schools of Oriental Research Das Alte Testament Deutsch Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament Andrews University Seminary Studies Biblical Archaeologist Biblical Archaeology Review Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bonner biblische Beiträge Blackwell Bible Commentaries Believer’s Church Bible Commentary Brown, F., S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford, 1907 Biblica Bibliotheca Sarca Biblische Notizen Berit Olam Studies in Hebrew Narrative and Poetry Bible Student’s Commentary The Bible Translator Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Edited by J. Sasson. 4 vols. New York, 1995 Cambridge Bible Commentary Catholic Biblical Quarterly Culture and History of the Ancient Near East Coniectanea biblica: Old Testament Series Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Edited by K. van der Toorn, B. Becking, and P. W. van der Horst. 2nd ed. Leiden, 1999 Deuteronomistic History Deuteronomic, or the Deuteronomic editor Deuteronomistic, or the Deuteronomist

xii E EHAT EQ ErIsr FAT 2 FCI FRLANT GBS GKC HALOT

HAR HSM IB IBHS ICC IEJ J JBL JETS JJS JNES JSOT JSOTSup JSS JTS LAI LB LXX

MB NAC NCB NCBC NEA NIBC NIVAC OBO OBT OTE OTG OTL

Abbreviations The Elohistic editor Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament Evangelical Quarterly Eretz-Israel Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Guides to Biblical Scholarship Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Edited by E. Kautzsch. Translated by A. E. Cowley. 2d ed. Oxford, 1910 Koehler, L., and W. Baumgartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Edited by M. E. J. Richardson. Study Edition. 2 vols. Leiden, 2001 Hebrew Annual Review Harvard Semitic Monographs Interpreters’ Bible. Edited by G. A. Buttrick et al. 12 vols. New York, 1951–1957 An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. B. K. Waltke and M. O’Connor. Winona Lake, Indiana, 1990 The International Critical Commentary Israel Exploration Journal The Yahwistic or Jehovistic editor Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Studies Library of Ancient Israel Late Bronze Age The Septuagint Middle Bronze Age New American Commentary New Century Bible New Cambridge Bible Commentary Near Eastern Archaeology New International Biblical Commentary The NIV Application Commentary Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Overtures to Biblical Theology Old Testament Essays Old Testament Guides Old Testament Library

Abbreviations OtSt P PEQ RB SBLDS SBLMS SBS SJOT SWBA TA TBT TDOT

TRu TWOT TynBul TZ VT VTSup WMANT ZAW ZDPV

xiii

Oudtestamentische Studiën The Priestly editor Palestine Exploration Quarterly Revue Biblique Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament Social World of Biblical Antiquity Tel Aviv The Bible Today Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren et al. Translated by J. T. Willis, G. W. Bromiley, and D. E. Green. 15 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–2006 Theologische Rundschau Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Edited by R. Laird Harris, Gleason Archer, and Bruce Waltke. 2 vols. Chicago, 1980 Tyndale Bulletin Theologische Zeitschrift Vetus Testamentum Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten and Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins

xiv

Chapter 1

LOOKING AT JUDGES 9 THROUGH MULTIPLE SIGHT LINES

The story of the rise and demise of Abimelech son of Jerubbaal in Judg 9 is rather odd, even for the book of Judges. The story describes the threeyear reign of Abimelech as king in Shechem (9:22). Indeed, Abimelech is the only Israelite explicitly described as king in the book of Judges. The description of his kingship, however, is very negative, emphasizing Abimelech’s shady rise to power, the elimination of all of his subjects, and his humiliating demise at Thebez. Moreover, the anomalous reign of Abimelech stands in direct contrast to Gideon’s rejection of dynastic rule (Judg 8:22–23). This negative portrait has led some to argue that the story of Abimelech’s cut-throat style of monarchy, in whole or in part, is strongly anti-monarchic.1 However, the story itself is set in the period of the judges, a time when Israel was led by a series of regional, charismatic judges or deliverers. The nal chapters of Judges repeatedly point out that there was no king in the land (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25), and when combined with the accompanying chaos described in Judg 17–21, the end of the book makes a powerful argument legitimating the role of a king. Thus, some have even argued that the book of Judges serves as an apology for the monarchy.2 1. Martin Buber, The Kingship of God (3d ed.; trans. R. Scheimann; London: G. Allen & Unwin, 1967), 75; A. D. H. Mayes, Judges (OTG; Shefeld: JSOT, 1985), 26; Frank Crüsemann, Der Widerstand gegen das Königtum. Die antiköniglichen Texte des Alten Testamentes und der Kampf um den frühen israelitischen Staat (WMANT 49; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978), 29; Timo Veijola, Das Königtum in der Beurteilung der deuteronomistischen Historiographie. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, Series B, Tom. 198; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1977), 115– 20; J. Alberto Soggin, Judges: A Commentary (trans. J. Bowden; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981), 174–77. 2. Arthur E. Cundall, “Judges—An Apology for the Monarchy,” Expository Times 81 (1969–70): 178–81; Marc Zvi Brettler, “The Book of Judges: Literature as

2

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

The strongly negative depiction of Abimelech as king therefore seems at odds with the pro-monarchic stance of the end of the book. However, I propose that a multi-disciplinary approach using the tools of narrative, rhetorical, and social-scientic analysis will provide data that support theories holding to a monarchic context for Judg 9. In addition, this approach will show how, while negative, the description of the reign of Abimelech in Judg 9 served as part of a legitimation strategy for the monarchy. This strategy attempted to delegitimate local bases of power, exemplied by Abimelech’s regional rule in Shechem, by showing how such localized centres of power failed to benet the people and instead resulted in disaster. This negative analogy was then utilized to legitimize the role, function, and authority of a centralized monarchy.3 1. The Value of Multiple Sight Lines The value of a multidisciplinary approach can be compared with ways of viewing Michelangelo’s Pietà. In order to appreciate fully a sculpture such as the Pietà, it must be viewed from multiple sight lines or viewpoints. A frontal view will yield an appreciation that is similar to, and yet different from, a view in prole. Each sight line gives a different perspective of Michelangelo’s work with a unique appreciation of its artistic design, lines, and emotional power. However, to appreciate this work best, one must combine the different sight lines into an appreciation of the whole. Just as the Pietà can best be appreciated by viewing it through multiple sight lines, I believe that Judg 9 can be appreciated best when it is viewed through multiple methodological lenses. Each method can add a new and different perspective on Judg 9: a narrative analysis can show how plot structure and characterization further the message of Judg 9; a rhetorical analysis can highlight the arguments intended to persuade the audience of Judg 9; and a social-scientic analysis can aid in understanding the social context(s) embedded in the Abimelech narrative. These analyses are not exhaustive and will not provide a comprehensive view of Judg 9, but when combined, they can bring a fuller appreciation of the message communicated in this biblical chapter. Politics,” JBL 108 (1989): 395–418; Robert H. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges (VTSup 63; Leiden: Brill, 1996); Marvin A. Sweeney, “Davidic Polemics in the Book of Judges,” VT 47 (1997): 517–29. 3. The passage may also function to show the negative results of a king who reigns without Yahweh’s approval. However, this too could serve to delegitimize local power bases by implying that even such localizations of power as found in Judg 9 operate without Yahweh’s sanction and ultimately lead to destructive ends. 1

1. Looking at Judges 9 Through Multiple Sight Lines

3

2. Reading the Narrative Interests of Judges 9 a. The Goal of a Narrative Analysis Our study of Judg 9 will begin with a narrative analysis because the account of Abimelech in Judg 9 is related in the form of a story, a narrative. Stories can entertain through the use of humour or suspense. Biblical stories, however, seek to move beyond entertainment or the mere conveyance of information, and seek to instruct and to elicit a response from their audience. They have been crafted to relay a message as effectively as possible, and if we are to attempt to discern those interests, we must begin by carefully analyzing the way in which the story is told. Our analysis of the story of Abimelech and the Shechemites, therefore, begins with a narrative analysis, an examination of the various tools utilized by the storyteller of Judg 9 to convey his message. Such an approach seeks to examine the “building blocks” of the story by utilizing a close reading strategy. Adele Berlin points to the value of such an endeavour: “If we know how texts mean, we are in a better position to discover what a particular text means.”4 Jan Fokkelman similarly emphasizes the relationship between a story’s form and its content, “When we learn more and more about how a story has been constructed and by what means, and learn to understand what the purpose is behind all those techniques and structures, we will have penetrated deeply into the meaning and values of the text.”5 Thus, we will examine the key tools and techniques utilized by biblical storytellers that enable them to work their craft effectively, and thereby shape the perceptions of readers with regard to the characters and message of Judg 9. The works of Robert Alter, Adele Berlin, Shimon Bar-Efrat, Yairah Amit, Jan Fokkelman, and Meir Sternberg6 have been instrumental in laying out the “tools” and techniques of biblical narrative and have greatly informed my reading of biblical narrative. These tools and techniques may include: characterization, point of view, plot development and structure, time sequencing, 4. Adele Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Shefeld: Almond, 1983), 17. 5. Jan P. Fokkelman, Reading Biblical Narrative: An Introductory Guide (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999), 28. 6. Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981); Berlin, Poetics and Biblical Interpretation; Shimon Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible (London: T&T Clark/Continuum, 1989, 2004); Yairah Amit, Reading Biblical Narratives: Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001); Fokkelman, Reading Biblical Narrative; Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985). 1

4

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

or the use of repetitive elements, such as the use of Leitwörter and Leitmotifs. A careful reading of Judg 9 will illustrate how the storyteller of Judg 9 has combined these various tools and techniques in order to craft his story, and thereby help readers to discern the interests and values inherent in Judg 9. b. Assumptions (1) Coherence. The narrative analysis presumes that the story of Abimelech found in Judg 9 of the MT is a unity. This does not discount reference to the LXX or other ancient versions in order to elucidate those places where the MT is less than clear due to eccentricities in the transmission of the text. However, our reading of the Abimelech story is fundamentally a reading of the MT version of Judg 9. It may be helpful to point out that both synchronic and diachronic readings of a given passage begin with the current form of the text as found in the MT;7 they diverge in their explanation of the various tensions, ambiguities, and gaps that appear in biblical narratives. Diachronic approaches see the “bumpiness” in a text as evidence of another source or the hand of another author/editor.8 Synchronic interpreters, however, come to a different interpretation of the “bumpiness” of a text. They assume that gaps and tensions can be intentional and part of the overall story design. Thus, sometimes the narrator may withhold information or create gaps for rhetorical, aesthetic, or structural purposes. Meir Sternberg points out that literature frequently contains gaps, discontinuities, and missing bits of information which serve the interests of the story by creating suspense, curiosity, or ambiguity, and thereby drawing the reader into the story.9 At other times, the structure of a narrative may lead an 7. James Barr, “The Synchronic, the Diachronic and the Historical: A Triangular Relationship?,” in Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis (ed. Johannes C. de Moor; OtSt 34; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 1–14. 8. Thus, changes in perspective or viewpoint within a story are often linked to different writers from different time periods. By adding a new viewpoint, sometimes merely in the form of an explanatory sentence or just a word here and there, the meaning of the text was shaped anew. These differing perspectives were then enfolded into the current text, which a careful diachronic reading can elucidate by sifting through the various strata in the text, linking them with different meanings for the story. Diachronic analysts also presume that one can recover, at least in part, the intentions of the author(s) who added various layers to a text in order to shape further its meaning. 9. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 183–88. Sternberg suggests that such gaps are intentional, for we presume that the author could have done otherwise, but chose not to (p. 184). 1

1. Looking at Judges 9 Through Multiple Sight Lines

5

author to leave out some pieces of information and add others, sacricing detail in order to achieve structural goals, thereby leaving the reader to ll these gaps imaginatively.10 In light of the above, tensions or shifts in point of view will be considered as parts of the communicative design of the story. (2) The Recoverability of Authorial Intention. This study of Judg 9 also assumes the recoverability of authorial intention. Under the inuence of New Criticism, some scholars have challenged the recoverability or applicability of authorial intent.11 However, most biblical interpreters hold to the potential of recovering some form of authorial intention.12 In many cases, the author of a given piece of biblical literature remains anonymous, as is the case with the book of Judges, or a work may be the product of multiple authors. As a result, it is helpful to speak of the role of an implied author. As interpreters read a narrative, they inevitably form some sort of mental picture of the author. The reader constructs this picture from the narrative’s portrayal of the characters, the narrator’s comments, and the overall plot and design of the story.13 The mental image of this “personality” behind the text is the implied author. Similarly, the implied reader is the audience presupposed by the text.14 It is the implied author’s message, discerned from the overall narrative of Judg 9, that we will attempt to uncover.

10. Alter (The Art of Biblical Narrative, 114–30) describes this phenomenon as the “art of reticence.” 11. For an overview of the rise of New Criticism and its impact upon biblical studies, see Tremper Longman III, Literary Approaches to Biblical Interpretation (FCI 3; Grand Rapids: Academie, 1987), 25–27; Mark Allan Powell, What is Narrative Criticism? (GBS; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 4–5. 12. Diachronic analysts assume not only the recoverability of the intent of the whole, but also presume to be able to describe how the various accretions over time modied the original intent of the story. For a response to the irrelevance of the author, see E. D. Hirsch, Jr., Validity in Interpretation (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1967), 1–23; Kevin Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning In This Text? The Bible, The Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge (Leicester: Apollos, 1998), 43–97, 201–78. 13. A reader’s image of the implied author’s values may not always coincide with the true views of the real author. However, this disjunction is largely a modern literary innovation. 14. See the discussion in D. F. Tolmie, Narratology and Biblical Narratives: A Practical Guide (Bethesda, Md.: International Scholars Publications, 1999), 6–8; Longman, Literary Approaches, 84–85. 1

6

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

The narrator is the author’s representative within the story itself.15 Though there are various manifestations of narratorial presence in a text,16 the narrator usually carries out three functions in biblical narrative: (1) a directing function, where the narrator makes meta-narrative remarks about the internal organization of the narrative in order to bring out certain relationships or disjunctions; (2) an ideological function, where the narrator voices theological or ideological opinions that summarize or characterize events, people, or places in biblical narrative; (3) a testimonial function, where the narrator indicates his relationship to the narrative by signalling sources or emotional responses to the events in a narrative.17 An implied author will use the omniscient narrator of a biblical narrative18 to shape the reader’s responses to various events or characters in the narrative through the narrator’s evaluation and ordering of the events. Thus, the narrator is a tool of the implied author, echoing the implied author’s thoughts, and in this sense is identied with and related to the implied author. Moreover, in biblical literature, the distinction between implied author and narrator is not very great. The narrator is responsible for shaping and sometimes interpreting the story for readers, and in this way often functions in the same manner as the implied author. Corresponding to the role of the narrator is the narratee. The narratee is the person or group addressed by the narrator. At times, the narratee may be a character within the story, as in the case of Theophilus in Luke 1:3. However, in most narratives, the presence of the narratee is implicit, and only discerned through the narrator’s use of deictic particles like “now,” “then,” “there,” or other brakes of frame in order to address his audience.19 There is no explicit narratee in the Abimelech narrative. The relationship between the various aspects of a narrative work can be illustrated as follows:20

15. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 14. 16. Ibid., 23–43. For example, Bar-Efrat distinguishes between an overt and a covert narrator. 17. Tolmie, Narratology and Biblical Narratives, 21–24. 18. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 17, 22. 19. On the role of the narratee, see Longman, Literary Approaches, 86–87; Tolmie, Narratology and Biblical Narratives, 13–24, passim. 20. Adapted from Tolmie (Narratology and Biblical Narratives, 6), who adapted this illustration from Seymour Chatman (Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film [Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1978], 147). 1

Events Real

Implied

Author

Author

Characters Narrator

Point of View Setting Time

Figure 1.1

Narratee

Implied

Real

Reader

Reader

8

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

The real author and the real reader stand outside the text itself. Both the implied author and implied reader are inferred from the text, while the narrator and narratee (if present) can be easily observed in the text. However, while both narrator and narratee are part of the story world, they are not usually part of the events of the story itself, but external to it, observing or commenting upon it. This distinction between real author and implied author is a useful concept. Mark Powell points out that the concept of an implied author “provides all that is needed in order to comprehend the literary meaning and impact of the narrative; thus it is possible to understand works that are anonymous.”21 In this sense, good stories are accessible to all readers—at one level readers can grasp the overarching idea or thematic emphasis of a story without recourse to knowledge about the author. However, the notion of an implied audience suggests that Powell’s observation is not completely accurate. For a reader to grasp the meaning of a passage beyond a simplistic comprehension of its theme or message, the reader must enter the world of the implied author and audience. The implied author and the implied audience share certain assumptions and knowledge, to which we, as modern readers, are not always privy. For example, the meaning of certain words, phrases, cultural traits, or euphemisms may be shrouded by the mists of time, and can only be illuminated by the use of geographical, lexicographical, or comparative studies. Such information can help the modern reader “join” the implied audience, so that they too “hear” the words of the text as intended for the implied audience. Therefore, this analysis of the Abimelech narrative, while grounded in the text, will also make judicious use of extra-textual resources in order to help elucidate the story world of Judg 9.22 Furthermore, good stories will challenge readers not only to ask about the worlds of the implied author and audience, but also the purpose and intention behind a literary work. Not only that, but good stories also reveal clues as to the values, purposes, and goals of the implied author. Thus, this analysis will not only examine the plot, characters, and events of the Abimelech narrative, but will also ask about its goal and intention. What was the implied author of Judg 9 trying to say? What clues in the 21. Powell, What is Narrative Criticism?, 5–6. 22. The remarks in this paragraph do not contradict the above-stated intention to read Judg 9 synchronically. Both James Barr (“The Synchronic, the Diachronic and the Historical,” 6–14) and David J. A. Clines (“Beyond Synchronic/Diachronic,” in de Moor, ed., Synchronic or Diachronic?, 52–71) conclude that synchronic and diachronic approaches are inextricably linked. Thus, diachronic data from archaeological studies, lexicographical research, or comparative studies can add to our understanding of the story world of Judg 9. 1

1. Looking at Judges 9 Through Multiple Sight Lines

9

text suggest his goals and intentions? How do the overall literary structure and the artistry of the narrative combine to convey meaning for both the implied audience and modern readers? 3. Reading the Rhetoric of Judges 9 The second sight line into Judg 9 will be the use of a rhetorical analysis. A rhetorical analysis builds upon a narrative analysis by going beyond an appreciation of how the literary artistry contributes to the message of the story to delve into the various means by which the story persuades its audience of its message. Historically, the rise of the formal study of rhetorical art began with the Greeks. Consequently, the question rightly arises as to the value and even the legitimacy of examining forms of persuasion that pre-date Greek categories and interests. Moreover, ancient Hebrew does not utilize the word rhetoric, nor does it describe its stories in this manner. However, as Carol Lipson and Roberta Binkley rightly point out, absence of the term does not necessarily indicate an absence of the concept.23 Furthermore, though the term “rhetoric” is anachronistic when applied to Hebrew narrative, these narratives clearly aim to persuade their audience, and it is their persuasive means that is our interest here.24 The Aristotelian view of rhetoric, which has dominated modern understandings of rhetorical form and method, was based upon a view of reality where relationships between premises were considered valid if they met the requirements of a formal, enthymematic, logic-based system. However, a growing trend over the past half-century has been the recognition of the role of narratives in structuring reality.25 Narratives help people give meaning to the events in which they take part by placing these events within a “plot” or a series of interconnected stories. Plots display the signicance of events by placing these events in relation 23. Carol S. Lipson and Roberta A. Binkley, “Introduction,” in Rhetoric Before and Beyond the Greeks (ed. Carol S. Lipson and Roberta A. Binkley; Albany: State University of New York Press, 2004), 9–10. 24. Dale Patrick and Allen Scult, Rhetoric and Biblical Interpretation (JSOTSup 82; Shefeld: Almond, 1990), 31–32, list four cues that suggest the rhetorical character of the Hebrew Scriptures: (1) the narrator construed God’s actions in the world as rhetorical; (2) the authors possibly chose prose because of its amenability to rhetorical forms; (3) direct prescriptions in the text itself about ritual use strongly suggest a rhetorical perspective; (4) rabbinic interpreters read the text in a manner similar to what we call rhetoric. 25. Gerard Hauser, Introduction to Rhetorical Theory (2d ed.; Prospect Heights, Ill.: Waveland, 2002), 185–217. 1

10

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

to one another. Consequently, narratives play a key role in shaping our perceptions and convictions—they carry persuasive force.26 Gerard Hauser writes, For stories to exert persuasive force, they must partake of the emplotted accounts that community members actively share. They are an important source of identity and how it is manifested through words and deeds. By developing rhetorical appeals in ways that are sensitive to these elements, we inuence how our audience’s interests are engaged, emotions aroused, and thoughts channelled. The audience’s use of narrative reasoning to make sense of novel situations is the primary way in which this is accomplished.27

Consequently, among rhetoricians and literary analysts, there is a growing appreciation of the close relationship between narrative form and rhetorical function.28 There is also a recognition in biblical studies that biblical narratives do not merely recount stories from Israel’s past in order to record what happened.29 At times, they specically call for a response (Josh 24:15), set out wise council from past leaders (Deut 5:1–5), or point out past mistakes that should not be repeated (Judg 6:7–10). The popularization of a rhetorical approach to biblical literature had its genesis in James Muilenburg’s SBL presidential address.30 Muilenburg himself saw a rhetorical approach to the Bible as an outgrowth or expansion of form criticism. Phyllis Trible, Muilenburg’s student, outlines two distinct, but not incompatible understandings of rhetoric that have grown out of Muilenburg’s program: (1) an investigation of the art of composition, which focuses upon the use of artful speech, particularly its structure and style (often connected with the type of close reading of texts described above as a narrative analysis); and (2) the art of persuasion, which focuses on the means and methods used by a writer to persuade his or her audience.31 The second understanding generally corresponds 26. Ibid., 191. Hauser points out that while Aristotle dened humans as rational animals, contemporary rhetoric has begun to appreciate how humans are more fundamentally story-telling animals. 27. Ibid., 192. 28. See, for example, the work by Michael Kearns, Rhetorical Narratology (Lincoln; University of Nebraska Press, 1999). 29. For a brief historical survey of the development of rhetorical methods in biblical studies, see Patricia K. Tull, “Rhetorical Criticism and Intertextuality,” in To Each Its Own Meaning (ed. Steven L. McKenzie and Stephen R. Haynes; rev. ed.; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999), 156–64. 30. James Muilenburg, “Form Criticism and Beyond,” JBL 88 (1969): 1–18. 31. Phyllis Trible, Rhetorical Criticism: Context, Method, and the Book of Jonah (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 32–47, passim. 1

1. Looking at Judges 9 Through Multiple Sight Lines

11

with the approach we will use in the examination of Judg 9, though the two are closely related to each other.32 An attempt to dene rhetoric or rhetorical criticism is a slippery thing. While different authors dene the term differently,33 the description by Dale Patrick and Allen Scult serves as a good summary of the rhetorical approach to Judg 9 utilized in this study: The idea that the form or shape of a discourse is the key to how it functions for an audience is basic to rhetorical perspective. But in the rhetorical perspective, function is seen more broadly: It refers to how a discourse is meant to act upon, or affect an audience. Through the shape into which speakers cast their message they tell the audience how they mean it to be engaged and therefore to be understood. Of course, the auditors are free to interpret the language of a discourse in any way they wish, but the speaker or author attempts to constrain that freedom and direct interpretation by giving the audience cues and indicators as to how he or she means the discourse to function for them.34

A rhetorical study requires interpreters to enter into the world of the text and to join its implied audience in order to discern how the author persuades his audience to accept his message.35 It is this emphasis upon the implied audience presupposed by the text that differentiates rhetorical criticism from a reader-response approach.36 Moreover, such an approach recognizes that the subject under discussion “is intimately related to the situation in which persuasion takes place.”37 Indeed, Chaim Perelman notes, 32. Hauser (Introduction to Rhetorical Theory, 189) intimates the inter-connectedness of literary artistry and rhetorical function when he says, “Examining a narrative’s basic structural features will help us better understand its rhetorical function.” 33. James Comas, “The Question of Dening ‘Rhetoric’,” n.p. (cited December 30, 2010). Online: http://frank.mtsu.edu/~jcomas/rhetoric/dening.html. 34. Patrick and Scult, Rhetoric and Biblical Interpretation, 15. 35. Throughout this work I will make use of the conventional masculine pronouns when referring to the author or implied author. That the author was a female remains, of course, an unlikely possibility. 36. Yehoshua Gitay (“Rhetorical Criticism,” in To Each Its Own Meaning [ed. Steven L. McKenzie and Stephen R. Haynes; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1993], 136–37) notes the difference in this way: “Receptionists [reader response theorists] focus on the act of reading and the signicance of the audience’s imagination and self-interpretation. Rhetoric, however, attempts to bring the audience into agreement with the thinking of the author. Thus the analysis of rhetoric focuses on the text itself, regarding the audience as an element in the deliberate communicative endeavor and not as a subjective commentator.” 37. Robert Cockcroft and Susan M. Cockcroft, Persuading People: An Introduction to Rhetoric (London: MacMillan, 1992), 5. 1

12

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule The part played by the audience in rhetoric is crucially important, because all argumentation, in aiming to persuade, must be adapted to the audience and, hence based on beliefs accepted by the audience with such conviction that the rest of the discourse can be securely based upon it.38

Due to the argumentative focus of rhetorical analysis, rhetorical study also involves a reconstruction of the argumentative situation or the conditions to which a given piece of literature addresses itself.39 An examination of the various means used by the implied author of Judg 9 to persuade the implied audience of the illegitimacy of Abimelech’s rise will then lead us to consider possible argumentative situations that could give rise to such a narrative. The foundation of the rhetorical methodology to be applied to Judg 9 stems from the “New Rhetoric” developed by Chaim Perelman and others.40 The New Rhetoric focuses upon informal means of persuading audiences, ones which are not bound to formal rules of induction and deduction, though these types of rules may still apply informally.41 Perelman explains, Nonformal argument consists, not of a chain of ideas of which some are derived from others according to accepted rules of inference, but rather of a web formed from all the arguments and all the reasons that combine to achieve the desired result. The purpose of the discourse in general is to bring the audience to the conclusion offered by the orator, starting from premises that they already accept… The argumentative process consists in establishing a link by which acceptance, or adherence, is passed from one element to another, and this end can be reached either by leaving the various elements of the discourse unchanged and associated as they are or by making a dissociation of ideas.42

This form of analysis lends itself well to the mode of argumentation used in Hebrew narrative, which persuades not by logical syllogisms but through plot, characterization, and narratorial point of view. 38. Chaim Perelman, The New Rhetoric and the Humanities: Essays on Rhetoric and Its Applications (Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel, 1979), 14. 39. Gitay, “Rhetorical Criticism,” 136. It is thus helpful in placing a text within a possible Sitz im Leben. 40. See Chaim Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation (trans. J. Wilkinson and P. Weaver; Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1969); Chaim Perelman, The Realm of Rhetoric (trans. W. Kluback; Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1982); cf. Hauser, Introduction to Rhetorical Theory; Cockcroft and Cockcroft, Persuading People. 41. See Ronald C. Katz, The Structure of Ancient Arguments: Rhetoric and Its Near Eastern Origin (New York: Shapolsky/Steimatzky, 1986), 7. 42. Perelman, The New Rhetoric and the Humanities, 18–19. 1

1. Looking at Judges 9 Through Multiple Sight Lines

13

The informal mode of rhetorical argumentation described by Perelman utilizes persuasive techniques that fall into two broad categories. One method inuences the audience’s perceptions via the use of associative techniques, such as narrative example and analogy or the recurrence of key words or ideas from other contexts. A second method utilizes an array of dissociative techniques, such as the displacement of conventional patterns, key omissions, drastic negative actions, or a play on perspectives that casts doubt on a character’s actions, words, or thoughts.43 Perelman’s associative technique of argumentation, particularly through analogy in the context of biblical interpretation, requires further discussion here. Many biblical interpreters have noted that biblical narratives often bring to mind other biblical texts for their audience. These associations may be based upon similar topics, themes, or characters, or they may stem from similar vocabulary, style, or characterization. These connections form a web of connotations and associations in which biblical texts are then “heard” by their audience. Patricia Tull explains, We all approach books (or any text, whether written or oral) lled with presuppositions and associations based upon previous experience, without which a new book would be as indecipherable as the rows of wedgedshaped indentations on an ancient Sumerian table… This property of texts, that is, their inseparability from associations with other texts, is known as “intertextuality.” In a general sense, intertextuality simply refers to the interconnections among texts. These connections can be as general and indirect as shared language, or as specic and direct as the footnoted quotation of one text in another.44

Intertextuality within the book of Judges evidences itself in various ways, particularly through the use of the introductory paradigm (2:11–19) and the various framework elements surrounding the deliverer cycles. These paradigmatic elements invite the audience to compare and contrast the judges with each other, so that each is evaluated in light of the previous and following judges.45 Thus, intertextuality is an important part of understanding the book of Judges, and will play a vital role in discerning the message of Judg 9. As the quote from Tull above suggests, there are multiple approaches to intertextuality. One approach examines the web of interconnections reaching out from a text under consideration from the perspective of the

43. Cf. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 441–81. 44. Tull, “Rhetorical Criticism and Intertextuality,” 164. 45. This approach is particularly evident in J. Cheryl Exum, “The Centre Cannot Hold: Thematic and Textual Instabilities in Judges,” CBQ 52 (1990): 410–31. 1

14

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

modern reader.46 However, our interests lie in examining how the implied audience of Judg 9 may have received the arguments of the Abimelech narrative. The determination of how the implied audience may have “heard” the Abimelech narrative, however, is not an easy task. Despite this, I believe that the implied author does give some clues for his implied audience as to how to understand this story via explicit comments by the narrator, the characterization of individuals and groups, and so on. Thus, the rhetorical analysis will build upon the results of the narrative analysis discussed above. One particular form of intertextuality is the use of analogy. Analogies are intertextual connections that invite the audience to compare and contrast elements found in two (or more) stories, and then by positive or negative association inuence the audience’s view of characters or events in a story. This process is admittedly subjective and can be based on factors such as similar plot, characterization, or semantic choice. Therefore, in order to avoid what Samuel Sandmel has called “parallelomania,”47 we need to set out some reasonable criteria by which we can judge the intentionality of an analogy. Yairah Amit makes several recommendations that seem helpful: rst, interpreters must determine the extent to which analogies are anchored in the text through multiple points of equivalency, especially linguistic parallels and parallels of genre: The more points of equivalents on the level of the story world, strengthened by linguistic or generic elements, the more reasonable it is to assume that the analogy was intended by the composer and does not represent the creative interpretation of the reader. Conversely, when the analogical elements are limited, and the linguistic and generic supports are absent, it is reasonable to assume that the analogy is accidental or that it expresses the abstract and associative thinking of the interpreter.48

Second, interpreters must ask whether the analogical element is integral to the text or whether it is incidental to the narrative. The more vital the 46. Cf. George Aichele and Gary A. Phillips, “Introduction: Exegesis, Eisegesis, Intergesis,” Semeia 69–70 (1995): 7–18. 47. Samuel Sandmel, “Parallelomania,” JBL 81 (1962): 1–13. Sandmel denes “parallelomania” as “that extravagance among scholars which rst overdoes the supposed similarity in passages and then proceeds to describe source and derivation as if implying connection owing in an inevitable and predetermined direction” (p. 1). 48. Yairah Amit, “The Use of Analogy in the Study of the Book of Judges,” in Wünschet Jerusalem Frieden: Collected Communications of the XIIth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Jerusalem, 1986 (ed. Matthias Augustin and Klaus-Dietrich Schunck; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1988), 388. 1

1. Looking at Judges 9 Through Multiple Sight Lines

15

analogous element is to the structure of the plot, the greater the likelihood it was intended by the implied author as a persuasive element.49 To this, we might add a third guideline: the stronger the pattern of resemblances that run throughout a given set of texts (not only at isolated spots), the greater the likelihood of its intentionality.50 When these three recommendations are taken together in relation to the analogies of Judg 9:1–57, they form a viable basis upon which we can evaluate the analogies in Judg 9. Finally, for the purposes of this study we will restrict the analogical eld to the Deuteronomistic History (DH), in part due to the accepted convention of reading the books of the DH in light of each other,51 and also because it is the primary biblical narrative corpus that deals with the establishment of the monarchy, a key issue in Judg 9. It should also be noted that analogies from within the book of Judges are more likely to be intentional due to macro plot developments or the juxtaposition and/or strategic placement of key ideas within the book. In light of these criteria, the strength of each analogy will need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis in order to judge if it may serve as a viable comparison to Judg 9. Thus, this study will examine the overt and implicit rhetorical techniques used in Judg 9:1–57 and discuss what type of audience they may presuppose. It will also examine plausible settings for the argumentative situation and audience implied by the concerns discerned in the rhetorical analysis. 4. Monarchic Context The argumentative context presupposed by Judg 9 also reects a social context in which such a discussion took place. The view advanced here is that the argumentative situation reected in Judg 9 best ts a monarchic context. The following discussion will explore this view in greater detail, but it is helpful to build a general case for such a situation at the outset to show why such a case could be plausible. 49. Ibid., 389. 50. Cf. Paul R. Noble, “Esau, Tamar, and Joseph: Criteria for Identifying InnerBiblical Allusions,” VT 52 (2002): 244–52. 51. While this convention has increasingly been challenged on a number of fronts (e.g. Graeme Auld, “The Deuteronomists and the Former Prophets, or What Makes the Former Prophets Deuteronomistic?,” in Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism [ed. Linda S. Shearing and Steven L. McKenzie; JSOTSup 268; Shefeld: Shefeld Academic, 1999], 116–26) most scholars still hold to some sense in which Deuteronomy–2 Kings forms a distinct corpus. 1

16

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

While the date of the composition of Judg 9 and the book of Judges remains a matter of continuing debate, some scholars hold that much of Judg 9 stems from the exilic/post-exilic period,52 or that the whole book was composed in this period.53 This determination, in part, is inuenced by how one views the composition of the DH. However, scholars continue to place the composition of the book (or at least Judg 9) within the period of the monarchy.54 In addition, Marc Zvi Brettler, Robert 52. Volkmar Fritz, “Abimelech und Sichem in Jdg. 9,” VT 32 (1982): 144; Veijola, Das Königtum in der Beurteilung der deuteronomistischen Historiographie, 111; U. Becker, Richterzeit und Königtum: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Richterbuch (BZAW 192; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990), 300–305; Edgar Jans, Abimelech und sein Königtum: Diachrone und Synchrone Untersuchungen zu Ri 9 (ATSAT 66; St. Ottilien: EOS, 2001), 414–21; Karin Schöpin, “Jotham’s Speech and Fable as Prophetic Commentary on Abimelech’s Story: The Genesis of Judges 9,” SJOT 18 (2004): 3–22. 53. Graeme Auld, “The Deuteronomists Between History and Theology,” in Congress Volume: Oslo, 1998 (ed. A. LeMaire and M. Sæbø; VTSup 80; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 353–67; Janet E. Tollington, “The Book of Judges: The Result of PostExilic Exegesis?,” in Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel (ed. Johannes C. de Moor; OtSt 40; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 186–96. 54. Frank Moore Cross (Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973], 274–89) places the bulk of the composition of the DH during the time of Josiah, with a second, lightly edited version arising in the exilic period. Cf. Richard Nelson, The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History (JSOTSup 18; Shefeld: JSOT, 1981), 43; idem, “The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History: The Case is Still Compelling,” JSOT 29 (2005): 319– 37; Marvin A. Sweeney, King Josiah of Judah: The Lost Messiah of Israel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 121–22. Yairah Amit (The Book of Judges: The Art of Editing [trans. Jonathan Chipman; Biblical Interpretation Series 38; Leiden: Brill, 1999], 368–69) suggests that the composition of the book may t into the period of the early monarchy, but prefers a Hezekianic date for at least Judg 1–18; cf. also older studies that are still relevant, like those of Robert Boling, Judges (AB 6A; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1975), 165–85, passim; Wolfgang Richter, Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Richterbuch (BBB 18; Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1963), 316–17. Cf. also Isabelle de Castelbajac, “Histoire de la redaction de Juges ix: une solution,” VT 51 (2001): 166–85. Daniel Block (Judges, Ruth [NAC; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999], 66–67) similarly proposes a date during the reign of Manasseh, while Trent Butler (Judges [WBC 8; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2009], lxxii–lxxiv) proposes a date in the early Divided Monarchy; cf. Eli Assis (Self-Interest or Communal Interest: An Ideology of Leadership in the Gideon, Abimelech and Jephthah Narratives [Judg. 6–12] [VTSup 106; Leiden: Brill, 2005], 239–48), who dates the ideology of Judg 6–12 to the pre-monarchic period. Others, however, date the book largely to the exilic or post-exilic period; cf. R. Smend (“Das Gesetz und die Völker: Ein Beitrag zur deuteronomistischen Redaktionsgeschichte,” in Probleme biblisher Theologie: Festschrift Gerhard von 1

1. Looking at Judges 9 Through Multiple Sight Lines

17

O’Connell, and Marvin Sweeney have presented arguments for a proJudahite ideological orientation for the book of Judges, suggesting that the book denigrates northern leaders in the pre-state period in order to develop a positive picture of southern Judahite leaders.55 As a result, they place the probable composition of the book during the period of the monarchy, though they assign it different dates.56 This position must however be tempered by the observation that, while Judges does portray Judah in a relatively positive light, it too is not portrayed without its faults.57 Yet, when considered in light of the implied positive view of the monarchy presented in Judg 17–21, this outlook suggests that, overall, Judges could have served the interests of the monarchy in legitimating its role. Additionally, F. Greenspahn’s observations regarding the phase “everyone did what was right in their own eyes” (Judg 17:6; 21:25) are suggestive. He points out that “to do right in the eyes of…” is a common positive Deuteronomic (Dtn) evaluation, while its negative use here to describe the anarchy of the pre-monarchic period makes a strong argument for the value of a king.58 Greenspahn notes how this phrase has several similarities with an expression from the reign of Setnakhte (ca. 1184–1182 B.C.E.) describing the chaos before his accession, as found in Harris Papyrus No. 1, “The land of Egypt had been overthrown with every man being his own standard of right…since they had no leader (rÜry) for many years in the times of others.”59 While this exact wording is unique, comparison between current rulers and the “chaos” of their predecessors was a common monarchic legitimation technique in Egypt.60 Rad [ed. H. W. Wolff; Munich: Kaiser, 1971], 494–509) and W. Dietrich (Prophetie und Geschichte: Eine redactionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum deuteronomistischen Geshichtswerk [FRLANT 108; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972]). 55. Brettler, “Literature as Politics,” 395–418; O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges; Sweeney, “Davidic Polemics in the Book of Judges,” 519–25. 56. Sweeney links the book with Josiah (King Josiah of Judah, 121–22). Brettler (“Literature as Politics,” 417) places its composition any time between the period after Solomon to the period of the Chronicler. O’Connell (The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 305–42) proposes a date during the United Monarchy. 57. Three thousand men of Judah betray Samson into the hands of the Philistines in Judg 15:11–13. A Levite from Bethlehem in Judah services Micah’s illicit cultic installation (Judg 17:7), and Judah fails to conquer some of its allotted territory (Judg 1:19). 58. F. E. Greenspahn, “An Egyptian Parallel to Judg 17:6 and 21:25,” JBL 101 (1982): 129–30. 59. Ibid. 60. Ibid. 1

18

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

Thus, though not exactly parallel, the phrase is consistent with monarchic efforts to contrast the advantages of the current ruler over the disadvantages of the previous period. We may add to this observation another line of argumentation. C. F. Burney was among the rst to note the scant evidence for direct Deuteronomistic (Dtr) shaping of the book beyond Judg 2.61 Walter Beyerlin, in comparing the framework elements of Judges to characteristic Dtr phraseology concluded that only 2:11–19 could rightly be attributed to Dtr.62 Greenspahn further expanded the circle of Dtr inuence to the framing elements in Judg 2, 3, and 10, but again noted that none of the other deliverer stories indicate direct ties to Deuteronomy, and so are older than the portions exhibiting Dtr inuence. Greenspahn opines, “Outside chapters ii, iii, and x, there is no rm basis for describing the framework as Deuteronomistic… If so, however, one cannot simply assume that the ideology of these passages conforms to Deuteronomic teaching.”63 When Yairah Amit examined the linguistic links between Judges and Deuteronomy using Weinfeld’s invaluable summary of Dtr phraseology,64 she too found that most of the ideological world of Deuteronomy and its school was concentrated in the opening framework of Judges, and that even this phraseology was not unique to Dtn: “We thus nd that, not only are there a limited number of shared subjects with a common denominator in the stylistic realm, but that these are not unique to Deuteronomy or to the literature developed under its inuence.”65 Based upon these factors, Amit dates the editing of the book of Judges (or at least Judg 1–18) to the late eighth century B.C.E. and suggests that the ideology of Judges affected the Dtr stream of literature, rather than being affected by it.66 Given these considerations, it is 61. C. F. Burney, The Book of Judges (2d ed.; London: Rivingtons, 1920), xli–xlii. 62. Walter Beyerlin, “Gattung und Herrkunft des Rahmens im Richterbuch,” in Tradition und Situation: Studien zur alttestamentlichen Prophetie, Festschrift A. Weiser (ed. E. Würthwein and O. Kaiser; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963), 1–29. 63. Frederick Greenspahn, “The Theology of the Framework of Judges,” VT 36 (1996): 391, 395–96; similarly Robert D. Miller, “Deuteronomistic Theology in the Book of Judges?,” OTE 15/2 (2002): 411–16. 64. Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972; repr., Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 320–65. 65. Amit, The Art of Editing, 366. 66. Ibid., 367–82. Cf. Boling (Judges, 30–31; idem, “In Those Days There Was No King in Israel,” in A Light Unto My Path [ed. Howard N. Bream, Ralph D. Heim, and Carey A. Moore; Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1974], 33–48), who offers a similar timeframe for Judg 3–16, though using a very different methodology. 1

1. Looking at Judges 9 Through Multiple Sight Lines

19

probable that the deliverer narratives are older than the passages that exhibit Dtr-like language. Furthermore, Judg 9:1–57 does not exhibit any characteristic Dtr language, and so may well stem from an earlier period during the monarchy. These factors are by no means conclusive. However, they do point towards the viability of exploring a monarchic context for Judg 9.67 5. The Social Context of Judges 9 a. Social-Scientic Models A third sight line by which to view Judg 9 is through the use of a socialscientic analysis. An examination of the argumentative situation presupposed by the rhetoric of Judg 9 points us towards a social context in which such a “discussion” might take place. A social-scientic examination of Judg 9 can aid us in understanding not only the social world described in the text, but also help us to understand better the social world of the implied author. The application of social-scientic methods to the Bible can take a wide variety of forms. In general, the social-scientic exploration of biblical texts borrows insights and models from social, political-, ethnoanthropology, and macro-sociology, augmented by evidence from archaeology and even other ancient Near Eastern parallels, in order to explain social relationships and structures described in the Bible. Our goal in applying these methods to Judg 9 is to understand better the social world described and implied in the text, and to see more clearly the social connections between the narrative world and the world of the implied 67. We might also supplement these conclusions with some archaeological observations from excavations at ancient Shechem (Tell Balâtah), which suggests that elements of Judg 9 are indeed reected in the archaeological context of Tell Balâtah. G. E. Wright, followed (more tentatively) by E. F. Campbell, associates the Iron I destruction of Shechem with Abimelech: see G. Ernest Wright, Shechem: The Biography of a Biblical City (London: Duckworth, 1965), 78; Edward F. Campbell, Shechem III: The Stratigraphy and Architecture of Shechem/Tell Balâtah. Vol. 1, Text (Boston: ASOR, 2002), 232, 251. While reinterpreting elements of Wright’s view, L. Stager goes on to suggest that the level of correspondence between Judg 9 and the archaeological context is such that the descriptions of Judg 9 must have been compiled not long after the events described: see Lawrence E. Stager, “The FortressTemple at Shechem and the ‘House of El, Lord of the Covenant,’ ” in Realia Dei: Essays in Archaeology and Biblical Interpretation in Honor of Edward F. Campbell, Jr. at His Retirement (ed. P. H. Williams Jr. and T. Hiebert; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), 240, 245–46, and “The Shechem Temple Where Abimelech Massacred a Thousand,” BARev 29, no. 4 (2003): 68. 1

20

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

audience. Such models can also assist us in examining the social context in which the implied author may have formulated the arguments found in Judg 9. The social phenomena embedded in Judg 9 may at times be explicitly described in the narrative, but at other times may be part of the social matrix shared by the implied author and the implied audience, and so hidden or blurred for modern interpreters by social, cultural, and temporal distance. By applying models based upon cross-cultural comparisons, social-scientic analysis can open up new lines of inquiry and point towards aspects of the biblical text that have been overlooked due to the interpreter’s cultural or temporal distance, or possibly social location. Social-scientic analysis employs the use of models in order to facilitate comparisons between diverse cultures. In reality, we all use models to aid us in the interpretation of social phenomena, whether consciously or unconsciously.68 The value of a model is that it can specify interpretive assumptions that may otherwise remain hidden. Moreover, conscious use of a model can simplify diverse variables and cultural data into manageable points of comparison, though this also brings with it a corresponding disadvantage. The selection of some data by denition excludes other points of information, which makes it more difcult to consider other viewpoints or phenomena. Another drawback69 to using a consciously chosen model is that a model may obscure the role of individuals whose actions contravene expectations and general social patterns.70 Furthermore, the applicability of some models to certain 68. Thomas F. Carney, The Shape of the Past: Models and Antiquity (Lawrence, Kans.: Coronado, 1975), 5: “The hard fact is that we do not have the choice of whether we will use models or not. Our choice, rather, lies in deciding whether to use them consciously or unconsciously. If we use them unconsciously they control us, we do not control them.” 69. Cf. Niels Peter Lemche, “On the Use of ‘System Theory,’ ‘Macro Theories,’ and ‘Evolutionistic Thinking’ in Modern Old Testament Research and Biblical Archaeology,” in Community, Identity, and Ideology: Social Science Approaches to the Hebrew Bible (ed. Charles E. Carter and Carol L. Meyers; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 273–86; Gary A. Herion, “The Impact of Modern and Social Science Assumptions on the Reconstruction of Israelite History,” in Carter and Meyers, eds., Community, Identity, and Ideology, 230–57; Charles E. Carter, “A Discipline in Transition,” in Carter and Meyer, eds., Community, Identity, and Ideology, 3–36; Paula M. McNutt, Reconstructing the Society of Ancient Israel (LAI; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1999), 25–31. 70. Lemche, “On the Use of ‘System Theory,’” 280–81; Herion, “The Impact of Modern and Social Science Assumptions,” 236. 1

1. Looking at Judges 9 Through Multiple Sight Lines

21

aspects of ancient Israelite culture depends upon the level of abstraction used—the greater the level of abstraction in order to obtain comparable data, the greater the danger of misreading social phenomena described in the Bible.71 Paula McNutt’s summary is helpful here, It is important to keep in mind at every level of the interpretive process that a “type” or “model” is not “real”—they are hypothetical entities. They should be used to analyze the existing data, not as substitutes for evidence in the absence of data. Neither should data that do not mesh with the model be shoved aside or forced to t the model. In such cases the interpreter should investigate why it is that the data and the model diverge. Models do not provide denitive answers.72

Thus, the judicious use of social-scientic models and insights justies their careful application as heuristic tools, which may point us towards new insights and perspectives on the biblical materials related in Judg 9. b. Max Weber’s Patrimonialism In light of the diverse approaches utilized by practitioners of biblical social-scientic analysis and the importance of models in the study of the society of ancient Israel, it is important to spell out the particular approach used in this study. Sociologist Max Weber developed the general model that will be applied to the analysis of the story world of Judg 9. Weber described societies based upon the type of authority governing their social structure and the type of legitimation used to bring order to social relationships. Weber’s analysis uses “ideal-types,” an attempt to describe the essential features of a social phenomenon by setting it within the analytical framework of an idealized case. A pure ideal-type does not exist because in actuality there are a wide variety of other factors also inuencing the phenomenon described. Thus, an idealtype is an analytical tool accentuating certain aspects of social behaviours.73 Weber’s use of ideal-types has been questioned by positivists, suggesting that they are not based upon testable generalizations (they are unfalsiable) and that the decision as to what ts within the parameters of the type is completely subjective. As a result, they are unable to 71. Cyril S. Rodd, “On Applying a Sociological Theory to Biblical Studies,” in Social-Scientic Old Testament Criticism (ed. David Chalcraft; The Biblical Seminar 47; Shefeld: Shefeld Academic, 1997), 32; cf. McNutt, Reconstructing the Society of Ancient Israel, 26. 72. McNutt, Reconstructing the Society of Ancient Israel, 30. 73. Sven Eliaeson, “Max Weber’s Methodology: An Ideal-Type,” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 36, no. 3 (2000): 250. 1

22

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

produce helpful predictions or explanations,74 or serve as impartial abstractions.75 However, the charge of subjectivity may be mitigated in Weber’s case by his original historical orientation and his attempt to draw out native understandings of society, combining them with observations drawn from other similar contexts to form an ideal-type.76 Moreover, the objectivity claimed by empirical methods has increasingly come into question by pointing out that all models reect to a degree the values of the interpreter and require selectivity in choosing to isolate certain phenomena and in attempting to explain the possible causes of an action.77 Weber’s ideal-types still have currency and applicability because of their utility in explaining social action—the selectivity inherent within an ideal-type allows greater explanatory power for some social phenomena.78 Thus, Ola Agevall, after surveying the continued currency of Weber’s ideal-types, suggests that their relevance lies in their combinatorial nature, in the fact that they can serve as a bridge between inductive and deductive studies.79 Weber’s approach is based upon observations of human behaviour with relation to others or “social action,” which can be described as “a type of behaviour that is oriented to the behaviour of another actor, and to which the actor attaches a meaning.”80 One specic type of social action is domination, “The probability that certain specic commands (or all commands) will be obeyed by a given group of persons,” which implies at least some form of voluntary compliance.81 However, Weber’s 74. See, for example, the critique in David Papineau, “Ideal Types and Empirical Theories,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 27, no. 2 (1976): 137–46. 75. Peter Breiner, “Ideal-Types as ‘Utopias’ and Impartial Political Clarication: Weber and Mannheim on Sociological Prudence,” in Max Weber’s “Objectivity” Reconsidered (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007), 89–116. 76. Eliaeson, “Max Weber’s Methodology,” 250. 77. Ibid., 255; Catherine Brennan, Max Weber on Power and Social Stratication: An Interpretation and Critique (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1997), 22–23. 78. Stephen Turner, “The Continued Relevance of Weber’s Philosophy of Social Science,” Etica & Politica/Ethics & Politics 7, no. 2 (2005): 7–8 (cited December 31, 2010). Online http://www2.units.it/etica/2005_2/TURNER.htm. 79. Ola Agevall, “Thinking About Congurations: Max Weber and Modern Social Science,” Etica & Politica/Ethics & Politics 7, no. 2 (2005): 9 (cited December 31, 2010). Online: http://www2.units.it/etica/2005_2/AGEVALL.htm. 80. Richard Swedberg, “Social Action,” in The Max Weber Dictionary: Key Words and Central Concepts (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2005), 246. 81. Max Weber, Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology (ed. Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich; trans. Ephraim Fischoff et al.; 2 vols.; Berkley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1978), 212. 1

1. Looking at Judges 9 Through Multiple Sight Lines

23

denition also implies the capacity for resistance.82 Consequently, social relationships of domination (or power) require a belief in the legitimacy of that power relationship.83 However, different types of legitimacy will result in different types of obedience, different types of administrative staffs required to guarantee such power, and different modes by which that power is exercised.84 Weber classies diverse societies based upon the types of legitimation used to under-gird domination or authority. 1. Legal Authority—a rationalized belief in the legality of enacted rules and the right of those who have been elevated to authority based upon those rules to issue commands. 2. Traditional Authority—domination based upon an established belief in the sanctity of immemorial traditions and the legitimacy of those exercising authority under them. 3. Charismatic Authority—where authority rests upon devotion to the exceptional sanctity, heroism, or exemplary character of an individual person, and of the normative patterns of order revealed or ordained by him.85 Weber’s three-fold classication of legitimate authority has come under scrutiny as authorities question whether Weber’s analytical categories are comprehensive enough,86 while Craig Matheson has suggested that Weber’s bases for legitimacy also needs to be expanded, though 82. J. M. Barbalet, “Power and Resistance,” The British Journal of Sociology 36 (1985): 531–48. 83. Dennis Wrong (Power: Its Forms, Bases and Uses [New York: Harper & Row, 1979], 24–34) differentiates between four different types of power: force, manipulation, persuasion, and authority. Wrong further notes that not all authority is legitimate, differentiating between ve types of authority: coercive authority, authority by inducement, legitimate authority, competent authority, and personal authority (pp. 35–62). It is the concept of legitimate authority as a form of power that is our interest here. 84. Weber, Economy and Society, 1:212–13. 85. Ibid., 1:215. 86. Martin E. Spencer, “Weber on Legitimate Norms and Authority,” The British Journal of Sociology 21, no. 2 (1970): 123–34 (129–31). Monica Ciobanu has noted a fourth category which utilizes “negative legitimacy,” a situation where authority is upheld despite the absence of consent (though these are very few); see Monica Ciobanu, “Theoretical and Historical Dimensions of the Concept of Political Legitimacy: Lessons from Socialist and Post-Socialist Societies” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Philadelphia, 2005), 6–7 (cited June 18, 2007). Online: www.allacademic.com/meta/p18984_ index.html. 1

24

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

his expansions merely specify items largely already subsumed under Weber’s three types.87 Charismatic authority rests in some personal quality exhibited by a leader, as a result of which others willingly submit to their authority. It exists as long as the ruler endowed with specic quality(ies) continues to exhibit those qualities. Whenever the expression of those qualities (rather than questioning the ofce or position of power) comes into question for more than a brief period of time, authority is lost. Consequently, charismatic domination is inherently unstable, and its routinization usually involves a shift towards traditional types of legitimation.88 Weber’s legal authority describes many modern bureaucratic states. Most ancient social power relationships, however, exhibit the characteristics of Weber’s traditional mode of authority and legitimation. In this form of authority, power-holders claim legitimacy on the basis of age-old beliefs and traditions where power-holders are obeyed because their authority is rooted in traditions from the past. One particular type of traditional authority that is helpful for examining Judg 9 is Weber’s patrimonial domination. Patrimonial domination is a form of patriarchal domination that has been decentralized and is based upon personal relationships structured along the lines of a patriarchal household, which are sanctioned by tradition.89 One form of this type of domination is the patrimonial state, where, just as in the patriarchal household, the fundamental obligation of the subject is to provide for the wishes and needs of the ruler. Tradition legitimates the ruler’s position, but at the same time constrains it. Both the administrative apparatus of the state and the military are the personal instruments of the ruler, for personal loyalty, and not abstract delity to duty, determines the relationship between the ruler and the ruled.90 Retainers have no clearly demarcated sphere of competence dened by abstract rules of government, no rationally established hierarchy, no regular system of appointments, nor xed salaries or technical training 87. Craig Matheson, “Weber and the Classication of Forms of Legitimacy,” The British Journal of Sociology 38, no. 2 (1987): 206–7. Matheson takes the three aspects of Weber’s “traditional authority” and separates them into three distinct bases of legitimacy: the sanctity of tradition, convention, and personal relationship with the power-holder. 88. Weber, Economy and Society, 1:247. 89. Weber (ibid., 2:1007) describes this form of authority as “based upon personal relations that are perceived as natural. This belief is rooted in lial piety, in the close and permanent living together of all dependents of the household which results in an external and spiritual ‘community of fate.’ ” 90. Ibid., 2:1006–10. 1

1. Looking at Judges 9 Through Multiple Sight Lines

25

requirements.91 The ruler’s demands may be legitimized partly in terms of past traditions, which determine the boundaries of his authority, and partly through the ruler’s discretion in areas not directly addressed by tradition, which provides a degree of latitude in the exercise of power. A further characteristic is the central ruler’s continuous struggle with various local power-holders. These local power-holders compete with the ruler for power by things like attempting to gain immunity from various forms of taxes or demanding that the ruler not interfere with the exercise of patrimonial power. The ruler in turn attempts to curb the local leaders’ power by limiting the terms of grants and beneces.92 Though Weber rst proposed this model many decades ago, it continues to serve as a valuable tool for sociologists. Weber’s model of patrimonial authority has also been fruitfully applied to ancient Israel by a number of scholars.93 The value of Weber’s model for our study evidences itself in a number of ways. First, the polity reected in Judg 9 91. Ibid., 1:226–31. 92. Ibid., 2:1055–59. 93. Lawrence Stager was among the rst to apply Weber’s patrimonial model to ancient Israel. Stager illustrated the importance of the patriarchal household in ancient Israelite society, showing how each level of society functioned as a series of nested households, culminating with the king as the earthly master over the children of Israel, and Yahweh as their ultimate heavenly master; see Lawrence E. Stager, “The Archaeology of the Family,” BASOR 260 (1985): 1–35; Philip King and Lawrence E. Stager, Life in Biblical Israel (LAI; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 36–38, and “Of Fathers, Kings and the Deity: The Nested Households of Ancient Israel,” BARev 28, no. 2 (2002): 42–45, 62; Lawrence E. Stager, “The Patrimonial Kingdom of Solomon,” in Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina (ed. William Dever and Seymour Gitin; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 63–74; cf. Daniel M. Master, “State Formation Theory and the Kingdom of Ancient Israel,” JNES 60 (2001): 117–31. Christa SchäferLichtenberger (“Sociological and Biblical Views of the Early State,” in The Origins of the Ancient Israelite State [ed. Volkmar Fritz and Philip R. Davies; JSOTSup 228; Shefeld: Shefeld Academic, 1996], 78–105) combines Weber’s patrimonial model with the processual model of early states proposed by Henri Claessen and Peter Skalník. David Schloen has made the most detailed investigation of the evidence for patrimonialism in the ancient Near East, and suggests that the social structure of ancient Israel from the pre-state period until the period of Assyrian invasion and inuence reects the essential characteristics of Weber’s patrimonial model. Thus, even an entire national body can be conceived of as a household, a group of individuals whose social structure reects the typical Israelite household; see J. David Schloen, The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol: Patrimonialism in Ugarit and the Ancient Near East (SAHT 2; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2001), 49–76, 255–357. 1

26

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

differs in size and form from a patrimonial state, but the type of authority and its structure is similar to that found in a patrimonial state94 (a patrimonial state extends a leader’s patriarchal authority by adding a layer of retainers and staff loyal to the king). This then allows for a fundamental continuity in terms of the conception of social relationships, particularly power relationships, between the story world and the world of the implied author and his implied audience, for power in both pre-state and state contexts was legitimated through traditional means, though its specic expression differed in these two contexts. Second, the legitimation of power in Weber’s model has a common basis at all levels of society. Social relationships at various levels of society can then be fruitfully compared with each other, not on the basis of extrinsic factors such as social or economic differentiation, but on the basis of shared views of legitimate and illegitimate authority. Thus, the legitimation of Abimelech’s authority can be fruitfully compared to that of other kings, though the scope and scale of his “kingdom” may be decidedly different. Third, Weber’s model attempts to describe social relationships using concepts that are at home in the biblical milieu,95 thereby minimizing the level of abstraction for cross-cultural comparisons. Weber’s concept of patriarchal domination, with its emphasis upon personal, kin-based relationships is particularly useful as a model in examining Judg 9, for as the narrative analysis will show, the story of Abimelech and the Shechemites places a great deal of emphasis upon the use (and abuse) of kinship relationships in depicting the characters of Judg 9. However, we must also be cognizant of the drawbacks of Weber’s model. First, as it is an ideal-type, we may expect that not every detail in Judg 9 will comport with Weber’s model. For example, while the story world relegates the sphere of Abimelech’s reign to the area around Shechem, the model cannot easily explain why the narrator refers to the scope of his reign as extending to “Israel” (9:22, 55). Second, Weber’s model suggests that the legitimation of authority at various levels of society operates in fundamentally the same fashion. While this is generally true, it does not take full recognition of the fact that there are also some signicant differences between the legitimation of patriarchal authority and patrimonial authority. In particular, when applying this 94. Schloen (The House of the Father, 64) notes that the use of the house of the father as a fundamental metaphor to describe Israelite society at all its levels undergoes a fundamental shift in the seventh century B.C.E. 95. Ibid., 65: “The patrimonial model takes account of the native understanding of social reality in a way that an alien model derived from medieval European feudalism cannot.” 1

1. Looking at Judges 9 Through Multiple Sight Lines

27

model to ancient Near Eastern kingship, kings require a much greater and more visibly evident degree of sacral legitimation than the head of a household.96 As a result, sacral legitimation plays a large part in understanding the legitimation (and delegitimation) of Abimelech’s reign, though it does not play a large role in Weber’s model.97 c. The Dimensions of Legitimacy One other key aspect of Weber’s model requires further examination and expansion. For Weber, power is legitimate because people believe it to be so (on legal, traditional, or charismatic grounds).98 David Beetham, however, points out that this denition is inadequate. Power is legitimate not only because people believe it to be so, but also because powerholders are successful in convincing their subordinates of the legitimacy of their power. What is more, power is legitimate because it can be justied in terms of people’s (pre-existing) beliefs—because it comports with their understanding of reality. Furthermore, Weber’s view does not adequately take account of the fact that there are some aspects to legitimacy that are not tied to belief, but to action; legitimacy is conferred not by mental ascent alone, but by ritual and action as well.99 Thus, Beetham points out that that legitimacy is multi-dimensional.100 Beetham builds upon Weber’s basic denition, positing that when power is considered legitimate, it reects the following three component elements:101 (1) it conforms to established rules (or is acquired and exercised in accordance with established rules); (2) the rules can be justied by reference to beliefs shared by both the dominant and the subordinate; (3) there is evidence of consent by (qualied) subordinates 96. This may be evidenced in the importance of the anointing of kings (1 Sam 9:16; 10:1; 15:1; 16:13; 2 Sam 5:3; 1 Kgs 1:39; 2 Kgs 9:12; 11:12), the prominence of temple building (2 Sam 7; 1 Kgs 6–9), and spirit possession (1 Sam 10:10; 16:13– 14), and so on. 97. Weber (Economy and Society, 2:1022–25) makes limited reference to the sacral aspects of legitimation through reference to the role of liturgical elements in the maintenance of patrimonial authority. 98. Ibid., 1:213. 99. David Beetham, The Legitimation of Power (London: Macmillan, 1991), 9–12. 100. Ibid., 6–10. Beetham adds (p. 21), “In analysing legitimacy into its component elements, I am claiming that these constitute basic criteria for legitimacy in all historical societies, past and present.” However, he also emphasizes that this is only a general framework, and that the specic forms that legitimation takes will also need to be examined in individual societies. 101. Ibid., 16–19. 1

28

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

to the particular power relation.102 Using this model for assessing elements of legitimate power can then guide our examination of the portrayal of Abimelech’s power in Judg 9. The absence of some (or all) of these characteristics points towards a desire on the part of the implied author of Judg 9 to delegitimate Abimelech’s reign as “king.” d. Abimelech as Localized Power-Holder Weber’s model is helpful for examining the social context described in the story world of Judg 9. However, when we examine the world of the implied author of Judg 9, another social-scientic model can also prove helpful. The story of Abimelech’s rise and fall from power in Shechem is the story of a localized king. The sphere of Abimelech’s rule described in Judg 9 does not extend beyond Thebez and Arumah (Judg 9:41, 50), and so the story can be localized around Shechem. This facet of the story allows it to serve as a negative example of what local power-holders can do. Thus, Judg 9 can also be fruitfully viewed through anthropological models on the dynamics of legitimation in early and developing precolonial states,103 with their emphasis upon the prevention of ssioning.104 102. Ibid., 71–76. 103. The impetus for the model of the early state as passing through three phases—(1) inchoate state; (2) typical state; and (3) transitional state—comes from the work of Henri Claessen and Peter Skalník: see Henri J. M. Claessen and Peter Skalník, “The Early State: Models and Reality,” in The Early State (ed. Henri J. M. Claessen and Peter Skalník; Studies in the Social Sciences 32; New York: Mouton, 1978), 637–50; idem, “Ubi sumus? The Study of the State Conference in Retrospect,” in The Study of the State (ed. Henri J. M. Claessen and Peter Skalník; Studies in the Social Sciences 35; New York: Mouton, 1981), 469–510. Subsequent evaluation of their model, while largely accepting the general classicatory descriptions, has wrestled with the model’s Eurocentric views of statehood, the determinism assumed by the model, and a difculty in taking into account the actions of free individuals, which can greatly inuence the process of state formation. Cf. Philip L. Kohl, “State Formation: Useful Concept or Idée Fixe?,” in Power Relations and State Formation (ed. Thomas C. Patterson and Christine W. Gailey; Salem, Wisc.: Shefeld, 1987), 27–34; Norman Yoffee, “Too Many Chiefs? (or, Safe Texts for the 90s),” in Archaeological Theory: Who Sets the Agenda? (ed. Norman Yoffee and Andrew Sherratt; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 60–78; Paul B. Roscoe, “Practice and Political Centralisation: A New Approach to Political Evolution,” Current Anthropologist 34 (1993): 111–40 (113–15); Peter Skalník, “Ideological and Symbolic Authority: Political Culture in Nanun, Northern Ghana,” in Ideology and the Formation of Early States (ed. Henri J. M. Claessen and Jarich G. Oosten; Studies in Human Society 11; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 84–98. However, the general typology has remained a useful concept for anthropologists. Our focus is 1

1. Looking at Judges 9 Through Multiple Sight Lines

29

Fissioning is the tendency within political systems to break up and form other similar units in response to conicts over such resources as land, and disputes over issues such as succession, and so on. It is my contention that Judg 9 represents an argument that could have been used to minimize the ssioning tendencies of local power-holders in an early state context. Therefore, the frameworks provided by Weber and Beetham, augmented with other applicable social-scientic insights can then help readers view the social realities recorded in Judges within an appropriate context and aid in the interpretation of Judg 9. In addition, a socialscientic analysis can also aid in giving some possible or even plausible answers to such questions as: Whose interests are reected in Judg 9? And in what sorts of social contexts would those interests arise? 6. Combining the Sight Lines Each of the following chapters presents important and inter-related “views” of Judg 9 that need to be read in relation to each other and as building upon each other. A narrative analysis examining the ways the message of the chapter has been structured and communicated then sets the foundation for an examination of its persuasive means. A study of the various ways in which Judg 9 attempts to persuade its implied audience implies a social context in which persuasion takes place. Combining specically upon the role of legitimation, where the concern with ssioning seems to resonate well with the realia of modern tribal states in the Middle East. Thus, Khoury and Kostiner, in their study of modern Middle Eastern tribes, have noted that a key aspect of the survival of Middle Eastern states is the ability to legitimate themselves through the formation and management of coalitions. This is very similar to the interests of early states in preventing ssioning, described below. Cf. Philip S. Khoury and Joseph Kostiner, “Introduction: Tribes and the Complexities of State Formation in the Middle East,” in Tribes and State Formation in the Middle East (ed. Philip Khoury and Joseph Kostiner; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), 19. 104. Ronald Cohen, “State Origins: A Reappraisal,” in Claessen and Skalník, eds., The Early State, 35–36, and “Evolution, Fission, and the Early State,” in Claessen and Skalník, eds., The Study of the State, 87; Donald. V. Kurtz, “The Legitimation of the Aztec State,” in Claessen and Skalník, eds., The Early State, 170, 186; idem, “Strategies of Legitimation and the Aztec State,” in Anthropological Approaches to Political Behavior (ed. Frank McGlynn and Arthur Tuden; Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1991), 148–49; idem, Political Anthropology: Paradigms and Power (Boulder, Colo.: Westview, 2001), 61; Donald V. Kurtz with Margaret Showman, “The Legitimation of Early Inchoate States,” in Claessen and Skalník, eds., The Study of the State, 179. 1

30

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

these different “sight lines” enables us to see how Judg 9 could t well into a monarchic context. Moreover, the story of Abimelech need not be viewed as anti-monarchic. While Judg 9 is certainly negative, it may yet have served the interests of a centralized monarchy and is thus compatible with the pro-monarchic stance of Judg 17–21. These diverse approaches to Judg 9 allow us to gain a multi-dimensional and vivid picture of the rise and demise of Abimelech son of Jerubbaal from multiple sight lines, as well as a deeper appreciation for its role within the book of Judges in legitimating the interests of a centralized monarchy.

1

Chapter 2

APPROACHES TO ABIMELECH AND JUDGES 9

One of the primary issues for interpreters of the book of Judges and for the study of Judg 9 in particular relates to the various “tensions” throughout the Abimelech narrative.1 These tensions lie at two different levels. The rst deals with the reader’s response to the story itself and how one makes sense of such things as the sometimes-abrupt transitions between scenes,2 the different descriptions of what lies behind the hostilities between Abimelech and the Shechemites,3 or the complete destruction of Shechem and then the tower of Shechem.4 A second level of tension relates to the question of how the negative portrayal of kingship in Judg 9 accords with the rest of the book of Judges. The diverse responses to these issues, together with the equally diverse methodologies applied to these questions, have shaped the varying interpretations of the story of Abimelech and his reign. At present, there is very little consensus about how one should read Judg 9 or which method one can most fruitfully apply to this task.5 1. For example, Jans (Abimelech und sein Königtum, 74–129) nds forty-six different tensions in Judg 9. 2. For example, Judg 9:34–41 recounts how Abimelech soundly defeated Gaal and the Shechemites in battle, while 9:42 suggests that the very next day, the people of Shechem went out of the city to their elds as if nothing had happened. 3. Judg 9:23; cf. 9:25. 4. Judg 9:45; cf. 9:46. 5. Cf. two studies, published in the same year, which utilize completely different methodologies and come to very different conclusions about the composition and message of Judg 9. Jans (Abimelech und sein Königtum, 463) holds that only diachronic analysis can reconcile the presence of two competing themes—“retribution” and “critique of kingship”—in Judg 9. On the other hand, Wolfgang Bluedorn (Yahweh Versus Baalism: A Theological Reading of the Gideon–Abimelech Narrative [JSOTSup 329; Shefeld: Shefeld Academic, 2001]) uses a synchronic, literary-theological reading to show how the Abimelech narrative needs to be read in conjunction with the Gideon narrative (Judg 6–8), and that its theme is: Yahweh is God and Baal is not.

32

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

Several important sources survey the history of the interpretation of the book of Judges,6 while a number of others focus specically upon the interpretation of Judg 9 and the Gideon narrative up to the turn of the millennium.7 This chapter will briey survey a number of more recent approaches to Judg 9 in order to illustrate the variety of ways in which interpreters have understood this chapter and its role in the book of Judges. 1. Redactional Studies Many interpreters have followed the approach of G. F. Moore, who was among the rst to question the unity of the Abimelech narrative. Moore observed two different descriptions of the source of hostility between Abimelech and the Shechemites (9:22–25, 26–29), and surmised from this the presence of two sources. He attributed the Gaal account (9:26– 29, 30–41) to the hand of J, while assigning the other narratives (9:1–25, 42–57) to E, mostly due to the presence of the divine name Elohim in 9:22 and 56–57.8 Interpreters no longer view Judg 9 in light of the classic Pentateuchal sources9 and instead dene redactional layers in relation to the extent (if any) of Dtr editing.10 Isabella de Castelbajac took up an observation by 6. David M. Gunn (Judges [BBC; Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 2005]) focuses specically on the reception history of Judges. See also Ernst Jenni, “Zwei Jahrzehnte Forschung an den Büchern Josua bis Könige,” TRu 27 (1961): 1–32, 97–146; Barry Webb, The Book of Judges: An Integrated Reading (JSOTSup 46; Shefeld: JSOT, 1987), 19–36; Rüdiger Bartelmus, “Forschung am Richterbuch seit Martin Noth,” TRu 56 (1991): 221–59; Mark A. O’Brien, “Judges and the Deuteronomistic History,” in The History of Israel’s Traditions: The Heritage of Martin Noth (ed. S. L. McKenzie and M. P. Graham; JSOTSup 182; Shefeld: Shefeld Academic, 1994), 235–59; Kenneth Craig, “Judges in Recent Research,” Currents in Biblical Research 1 (2003): 159–85. Craig particularly notes the relative dearth of material on Abimelech (and Micah). 7. Jans, Abimelech und sein Königtum, 10–32; Bluedorn, Yahweh Versus Baalism, 18–50. 8. George F. Moore, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges (2d ed.; ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895), 237–38, 252–53, 269. 9. Cuthbert Simpson was the last interpreter to see the J and E sources at work in Judg 9. Simpson (The Composition of the Book of Judges [Oxford: Blackwell, 1957], 40–44, 141–45) saw two Yahwistic, two Elohistic and at least three Dtn editions, a few glosses and a later P redactor who reincorporated Judg 9, which a former Dtn editor had removed. 10. Key redactional studies related to Judg 9 are Martin Noth, The Deuteronomistic History (JSOTSup 15; trans. Jane Doull; rev. trans. John Barton; Shefeld: 1

2. Approaches to Abimelech and Judges 9

33

E. Würthwein11 regarding the diverse ethnic portraits of Abimelech in Judg 9 to suggest that 9:1–5a, 23, 26–41 were thematically linked in their depiction of the relationship between local chiefs and Canaanite citystates.12 A second tradition (9:25, 42–54) portrayed Abimelech as a judge of Israel ghting against the Canaanite Shechemites.13 A pro-Judean Josianic Dtr editor, who applied a royal schema to the book of Judges in order to condemn Jeroboam, then combined these two portraits. This editor directed the application of the fable (9:16–20) towards the northern kingdom of Israel by linking the fable with the Jerubbaal tradition (9:16b–19a, 24, 57 and 8:35), thereby implicitly condemning northern Israel for the worship of false gods. For de Castelbajac, the originally independent fable was not anti-monarchic, but condemned the landed aristocracy for failing to take up royal functions to the ruin of all of the trees.14 However, de Castelbajac’s proposal that the fable constitutes an economic rather than a political indictment confuses the trees’ rejection of the ofce of kingship with a refusal to supply their due portion for the royal court. Reinhard Müller, in his study of the OT texts detailing the relationship between kingship and the rule of Yahweh, proposed that the story of Abimelech originally focused upon what is now the Gaal episode (roughly 9:26–41), to which 8:28b, 30 and 9:1aB, 2aB, 6 were added, originally portraying a positive understanding of kingly rule.15 Then a midrash in 8:31; 9:1b, 2a, 3a, 5a linked Gideon and Abimelech through familial relationship, and the seventy sons of Gideon with the seventy aristocratic lords of Shechem in 9:2. This layer darkened the picture of JSOT, 1981), and Richter (Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Richterbuch; and Die Bearbeitungen des “Retterbuches” in der deuteronomischen Epoche [BBB 21; Bonn: Hanstein, 1964]), who proposed the existence of a multi-layered, antimonarchic Retterbuch (“Book of Saviours”) stretching from Judg 3–9. Richter’s proposal is taken up in modied form by Philippe Guillaume, Waiting for Josiah: The Judges (JSOTSup 385; London: T&T Clark, 2004), 60–69. Other key studies are Veijola, Das Königtum, 15–27; Crüsemann, Der Widerstand gegen das Königtum; Fritz, “Abimelech und Sichem in Jdg. 9,” 129–44; Becker, Richterzeit und Königtum. 11. E. Würthwein, “Abimelech und der Untergang Sichems: Studien zu Jdc 9,” in Studien zum Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk (BZAW 227; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994), 12–28. 12. De Castelbajac, “Histoire,” 169–70. 13. Ibid., 175–76. 14. Ibid., 177–78. 15. Reinhard Müller, Königtum und Gottesherrshaft (FAT 2; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 93–118. 1

34

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

Abimelech, portraying him as a half-Canaanite usurper. A third layer added 9:3ba, 7, 15 (except ), 15b, 16a, 19ba, 20a, 23b, 25b, 26b, 27, 33, 42–43 (44), 46–49, which was used to incorporate Jotham’s fable and to criticize political vacillation. A late Dtr, anti-Canaanite addition also included 8:29, 33b; 9:1b, 2b, 3bC, 28aB, b, 45. Upon this foundation, two layers emphasizing retribution were added, one blaming the bloodbath at Ophrah (9:5) upon Abimelech (9:19bC, 20b, 23a, 24a, 24ba, 25a, 56) and the other blaming the Shechemites (8:35; 9:4, 16b–19a, 24bC, c, 57). Müller’s reconstruction of the earliest stages of the narrative presupposes that at some point the Shechemites had to choose between the rule of an aristocratic group of seventy and one man (Abimelech). However, by assigning the “genetic” relationship between Abimelech and the Shechemites to a later redactional level, Müller removed all motivation for the Shechemites to choose Abimelech, other than that he is not a group of seventy people. Presumably, then, the Shechemites could have chosen one of the seventy brothers just as easily as Abimelech. Müller’s approach also removes any rationale behind Gaal’s rebellion. Edgar Jans has completed the most thorough redactional and traditioncritical study of Judg 9 thus far. Jans breaks from previous reconstructions by splitting the narrative involving Gaal into two separate but closely related strata. He differentiates between a Gaal I stratum (9:26ab, 27–34a, 43c–g) and a Gaal II stratum (9:34b–42), positing (1) that in Gaal II there is a newly formulated and expanded scene at the gate (9:34b–39a, 39b–41) and (2) that the earlier description of the battle was not simply removed but viewed as a transition and tied to a second battle scene (9:42, 43c–g).16 Furthermore, there is a difference in goal between Gaal I and Gaal II—Gaal I intended to glorify the warrior Abimelech, while Gaal II commented on Gaal’s character, suggesting something like “pride comes before the fall.”17 These layers, along with the originally independent anti-monarchic fable (9:8–15d) are the oldest layers of the narrative. However, it is not easy to see v. 26ab as the beginning of an originally independent Gaal narrative, for 9:26 begins with a waw-consecutive, suggesting a link to previous materials. Furthermore, in light of Jans’ suggested goals for the two strata, the Gaal I stratum is rather laconic in its depiction of Abimelech’s prowess, while Gaal II emphasizes the one-sidedness of the battle and its consequences. In addition, it is odd that if Gaal I intends to extol Abimelech as warrior, the stratum

16. Jans, Abimelech und sein Königtum, 226. For his description of Gaal I, see pp. 187–225. 17. Ibid., 244–45. 1

2. Approaches to Abimelech and Judges 9

35

indicates Abimelech’s destruction of “the people” who are with Gaal (9:33, 43c) without ever suggesting that he bests Gaal himself, the original point of contention. As a result, Jans’ arguments here are not completely convincing. For Jans, it was the “Baalim” redactor,18 more author than editor, who tied the narrative together. This redactor incorporated the fable, which castigated not the monarchy but the Shechemites for installing Abimelech, an unworthy candidate, as king (though this was not a moral judgment). The intentional rhetorical parallels with David, Saul, Jehu, and Athaliah place this stratum in the mid-ninth century, criticizing either Jehu or Athaliah.19 For Jans, this story about Abimelech circulated independently of something like Richter’s Retterbuch, and was not included in the original Dtn redaction of the book of Judges.20 It was a later redactor who added “Israel” in 9:22 and 55, and 9:43ab, 44–45 and 9:16b–19a (as well as the Jerubbaal passages to Judg 6–8) in order to link the Abimelech narrative together with the Gideon narrative. This redactor drew the Abimelech story into the orbit of the book of Judges in the late exilic or early postexilic period, for if Judg 9 is interpreted in tandem with Judg 8:22–23, then these two passages show that every earthly kingship stands in opposition to Yahweh’s kingship, thereby blaming kingship for the fall of Israel.21 A different and possibly later hand added 9:24, 56–57, for both passages break the ow of the narrative.22 After approximately 400 pages of diachronic analysis, Jans examines the effectiveness of synchronic approaches to Judg 9. For Jans, however, a diachronic interpretation is the only viable approach to Judg 9, for only a diachronic analysis could make adequate sense of the two main (competing) themes of the passage (“repayment for injustice” and “criticism of kingship”) by assigning them to different hands.23 Jans’ vision of the composition of Judg 9 is represented in Fig. 2.1 (overleaf).24

18. So named because the word “Baalim” serves as a keyword throughout this stratum. The Baalim stratum = 9:1–7, 15e–16b, 19b–21, 23, 35, 26c, 29a, and 46–54. 19. Jans, Abimelech und sein Königtum, 305–20 (317–20). 20. In support, Jans rightly points out (ibid., 356–66) that Judg 9 contains none of the typical Dtr formulae or framing devices, while the transition to the Abimelech narrative (8:29–32) contains similarities to the minor judges lists. 21. Ibid., 321–404. 22. Ibid., 408–21. 23. Ibid., 463. 24. Ibid., 130. 1

Jans—The Compositional History of Judges 9 Gaal I 27–34a, 43c–g*

Gaal II + 34b–42*

Fable 8a–15d

+1–7

“Baalim” Story 25

15e–16b, 19b–21, 23

16c–19a Additions

(in 43c with the mention of Gaal)

(in 43c-g strike Gaal, 39a without “before the citizens of Shechem”)

26c

39a*

46–54

43ab, 44–45 22

55 24

56–57

Figure 2.1

2. Approaches to Abimelech and Judges 9

37

This same assumption evidences itself when Jans considers the role of Judg 9 within the book of Judges, where the issues of leadership and kingship also stand out. Both singularly and together, Judg 8:22–23 and Judg 9 stand in opposition to the pro-monarchic perspective advocated in Judg 17–21.25 G. Hentschel also recognizes tensions in the structure of Judg 9 and after evaluating a number of literary-holistic interpretations of the chapter, argues that in order to minimize subjective or atomizing arguments for or against a unied reading of the chapter, a cumulative approach that draws multiple observations together is necessary.26 Like Jans, Hentschel also concludes that the tensions in the chapter must point towards multiple hands in the composition of Judg 9. However, like de Castelbajac, Hentschel sees two antithetical layers evident in the Abimelech story, one positive in portraying Abimelech as a successful warrior, the other negative in portraying Abimelech as a despotic king.27 Hentschel’s reconstruction rightly notes that the portrayal of Abimelech is not uniformly negative, and that the encounter with Gaal (9:26– 41) generally portrays Abimelech as a successful leader who was able to put down a pugnacious rebel and his followers.28 However, his stratication of the chapter does not account for a number of elements in the portrayal of Abimelech. First, Hentschel’s proposal tentatively suggests that 9:25 formed the beginning of an older Abimelech cycle (possibly stretching to 9:54), to which 9:22, 55 were later added. However, 9:25 is an unlikely candidate for the beginning of such a cycle, for it begins with the lords of Shechem setting up ambushes “against him” (), presupposing at least 9:22 or some other text introducing an antecedent for “him.” Second, Abimelech’s death at the hands of a woman (9:53–54) is 25. Ibid., 477. 26. Georg Hentschel, “Abimelech—Two Sides of the Story (Judges 9),” in With Wisdom as a Robe: Qumran and Other Jewish Studies in Honour of Ida Fröhlich (ed. Károly Dániel Dobos and Miklós Köszeghy; HBM 21; Shefeld: Shefeld Phoenix, 2009), 49. 27. An early stratum comprised Judg 9:26–41, 46–49, 50–54 and possibly vv. 25, 42–45, verses which were later brought together under an “all Israel” framework (9:22, 55). This stratum recognizes positive elements in the portrayal of Abimelech, suggesting that the initial story praised Abimelech as a successful warrior and leader who was able to put down a rebellion. A second, exilic stratum (9:1–3, 4–5a, *6, 23–24, 56–57) appropriated the originally independent fable (9:8–15a), enlarged it (9:15b), and gave it a twofold interpretation (9:16, 19b, 20 and 9:17–19a). This stratum accounts for the negative cast to the chapter (Hentschel, “Two Sides of the Story,” 55–56; cf. de Castelbajac, “Histoire,” 166). 28. Hentschel, “Two Sides of the Story,” 52. 1

38

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

not a positive portrayal,29 and so would run against the goal of portraying him as an effective warrior. This then makes it difcult to maintain Hentschel’s distinction between the positive and negative portrayals of Abimelech in the layers he has laid out. Similarly, while Abimelech’s actions against Gaal’s rebellion nds warrant in Hentschel’s rst layer (9:26–29), his annihilation of all of the Shechemites and his attempted destruction of Thebez lacks a strong motive in the text as he has reconstructed it. However, the description of Abimelech’s murder of his brothers in 9:5 places his murderous rampage in 9:42–54 within the context of a murderous pattern of behaviour, one prone to excessive violence. Thus, while Hentschel rightly realizes that the portrait of Abimelech is not uniformly negative and is more nuanced than often appreciated, his desire to differentiate two antithetical portraits of Abimelech, traced to two different redactional layers, does not reconcile the diverse elements in the portrayal of Abimelech with the layers he has set out. Also, interpreters favouring a diachronic explanation of the tensions found in Judg 9, and between Judg 9 and the rest of the book, proceed under the assumption that differing perspectives and tensions must stem from different hands. This assumption is not above challenge.30 Furthermore, diachronic interpreters are still left with the task of explaining how a later interpreter could justify bringing together such “contradictory” perspectives.31 This opens the door to explore further whether one can more fruitfully relate the perspective of Judg 9 to that of the whole book of Judges. 2. Social-Scientic Studies Social-scientic studies have utilized anthropological, sociological, ethnological, and archaeological evidence to reconstruct social realities 29. Cf. 2 Sam 11:20–21. Gale A. Yee, “By the Hand of a Woman: The Metaphor of the Woman Warrior in Judges 4,” Semeia 61 (1993): 99–132. Yee argues that in Israel’s warrior culture, to be killed by a woman was akin to being “unmanned.” 30. See, for example, Pauline Deryn Guest, “Dangerous Liaisons in the Book of Judges,” SJOT 11 (1997): 241–69, and “Can Judges Survive Without Sources? Challenging the Consensus,” JSOT 78 (1998): 43–61. 31. Jans (Abimelech und sein Königtum, 441) comes closest to this when he draws upon the work of J. Marais (Representation in Old Testament Narrative Texts [Biblical Interpretation Series 36; Leiden: Brill, 1998]), to suggest that the juxtaposition of paradoxical perspectives is a compositional technique in the Old Testament. However, the juxtaposition of differing perspectives need not imply different authors. 1

2. Approaches to Abimelech and Judges 9

39

hinted at in the biblical text. A large segment of social-scientic studies has tended to look at the society of ancient Israel reected in Judges and 1 and 2 Samuel with an eye to the social conditions leading to the rise of the monarchy.32 Naomi Steinberg’s study on kinship relationships is one of the few social-scientic studies focusing directly on the social realities of Judg 9, and so needs mention here. Sternberg notes well how interpreters can look beyond the theological evaluation of Judg 9:56–57 to ask where Abimelech went wrong from the standpoint of social norms. Abimelech establishes his claim to kingship through matrilineal rather than patrilineal descent. In doing so, Abimelech bypasses ancient Israelite social norms, basing his ascension on might, not legitimate authority.33 The reason Judg 9 then reviles Abimelech is because of his wrongful manipulation of kinship structures. Steinberg’s explanation, however, is incomplete, for while it explains the Shechemites support of Abimelech’s rise based on their kinship ties with him (9:2–3, 6), it does not give full account of the withdrawal of support from their kinsman (9:25–26). More than just the abuse of kinship ties is at work in this narrative. Also, Steinberg’s description assumes that the portrayal of Abimelech is uniformly negative throughout, but this fails to take full account of the varying ways that the chapter depicts Abimelech.34

32. There is a great deal of literature that touches upon this issue. Some of the more prominent studies include: Crüsemann, Der Widerstand gegen das Königtum, 194–220; James W. Flanagan, “Chiefs in Israel,” JSOT 20 (1981): 47–73; Frank Frick, The Formation of the State in Ancient Israel (SWBA 4; Shefeld: Almond, 1985); Israel Finkelstein, “The Emergence of the Monarchy in Israel: The Environmental and Socio-Economic Aspects,” JSOT 44 (1989): 43–74; “State Formation in Israel and Judah: A Contrast in Context, a Contrast in Trajectory,” NEA 62 (1999): 35–52; and “City-States to States: Polity Dynamics in the 10th–9th Centuries B.C.E.,” in Dever and Gitin, eds., Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past, 75–83; Schäfer-Lichtenberger, “Sociological and Biblical Views,” 78–105; Master, “State Formation Theory,” 117–31. Note the contrasting perspective of Niels Peter Lemche, “From Patronage Society to Patronage Society,” in Fritz and Davies, eds., The Origins of the Ancient Israelite State, 106–20. Cf. also Emanuel Pfoh, “Dealing with Tribes and States in Ancient Palestine: A Critique on the Use of State Formation Theories in the Archaeology of Israel,” SJOT 22 (2008): 86–113. 33. Naomi Steinberg, “Social Scientic Criticism: Judges 9 and Issues of Kinship,” in Judges and Method: New Approaches in Biblical Studies (ed. Gale A. Yee; 2d ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 46–64; noted also by Butler, Judges, 236–37. 34. For example, the larger framework of the book of Judges condemns Israel’s unwillingness to drive out the indigenous inhabitants of the land (Judg 1:19; 2:2–4; 1

40

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

Katie Heffelnger also recognizes that Steinberg’s assessment alone is insufcient, and, using the model developed by Robert Miller, places Judg 9 within the milieu of “complex chieftainships.”35 Complex chiefdoms cycle between a two-tiered structure (chief and people) and a threetiered structure (paramount chief, sub-chiefs, people). In this light, Abimelech’s appeal to the Shechemites based upon common kinship and their self-interest (9:3) may be seen as an offer to the lords of Shechem to be among the rst or highest ranking of his sub-chiefs. Additionally, Abimelech’s “random” attack on Thebez (9:50–55) may either be an attempt to put down revolting sub-chiefs, or an attempt to conquer new territory in order to buy the loyalty of other sub-chiefs. The Shechemite raids (9:25) on caravan trade near Shechem would have then served as a personal affront to Abimelech if he were a paramount chief, for as paramount, he would personally be responsible for the external trade relations of his people.36 Heffelnger’s model is helpful for understanding some of the tensions in Judg 9 in light of the power dynamics presented in the text. The model acknowledges the strong emphasis upon kinship within the narrative and places it within the dynamics of the struggle of chiefs to achieve and maintain legitimate leadership over their people. However, while Abimelech’s appeal to the Shechemites’ self interest (9:2) may well serve as an offer of priority position among his sub-chiefs, the Shechemites response in making Abimelech king (     , 9:6) suggests links to monarchic (rather than chiey) interests or perspectives in the narrative as a whole.37 If this is indeed the case, then Judg 9 presents its version of chiey politics through the lens of monarchic concerns. It is precisely here that further discussion is required: How does the portrayal of a despotic local chieftain who annihilates his people articulate with the centralizing interests of monarchies? Why might Judg 9 emphasize the role of kinship ties in Abimelech’s ascendancy and downfall

cf. 3:4–5). By contrast, Judg 9 suggests that Abimelech obliterates the (probably indigenous) Shechemites. Thus, while Judg 9 does not directly portray Abimelech in a positive light, his actions indirectly support a contention of the book and thereby paint a multivalent picture of Abimelech and his accomplishments. 35. Katie M. Heffelnger, “ ‘My Father is King’: Chiey Politics and the Rise and Fall of Abimelech,” JSOT 33 (2009): 277–92. Heffelnger develops the model of Robert D. Miller II, Chieftains of the Highland Clans: A History of the 12th and 11th Centuries B.C. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005). 36. Heffelnger, “Chiey Politics,” 287–89. 37. For further discussion of a monarchic setting for the book of Judges, see pp. 15–19, 170–73. 1

2. Approaches to Abimelech and Judges 9

41

when later monarchic structures attempt to move away from an emphasis upon kinship and towards a formalization of succession structures?38 3. Ideological Studies There is a growing recognition that much of the DH, and the book of Judges in particular, is ideological in nature. However, the term “ideological” can describe two differing approaches to a biblical text. One recognizes that a biblical text is imbued as much with the questions, concerns, and values of the writer/redactor as it is the values and ideals of the world the text describes. These approaches attempt to uncover the ancient ideas, values, and principles (the ideological background) that helped to produce the particular form that a text has taken and that are represented in that text.39 These studies tend to utilize a variety of differing methodologies to access the ideology of the text and so can be difcult to classify. Another approach sometimes described as “ideological” examines a biblical text in light of the particular concerns and interests of the modern author in order to see whether (or how) they are reected in a given text. There is a rich background of literature that examines the ancient ideological background of the book of Judges.40 Unfortunately, with few exceptions,41 most of the studies looking at the book of Judges from an ideological perspective examine Judg 9 only indirectly or briey. R. O’Connell proposed that the book of Judges as a whole utilizes a rhetorical strategy of entrapment42 and evaluative foreshadowing to 38. Cf. Joseph Kostiner, “Introduction,” in Middle East Monarchies: The Challenge of Modernity (ed. Joseph Kostiner; London: Lynne Rienner, 2000), 1–12; McNutt, Reconstructing the Society of Ancient Israel, 140–42. 39. See Gale A. Yee, “Ideological Criticism: Judges 17–21 and the Dismembered Body,” in Yee, ed., Judges and Method, 138–43. Ideological approaches may combine the use of multiple methodologies, utilizing narrative, sociological, anthropological, narrative, historical, or theological components. 40. Many recent ideological approaches follow the lead of Mark Brettler in focusing upon the political interests embedded within the book of Judges: Brettler, “The Book of Judges,” 395–418, and The Creation of History in Ancient Israel (New York: Routledge, 1995); Sweeney, “Davidic Polemics in the Book of Judges,” 517– 29; Tollington, “The Book of Judges,” 186–96; Guest, “Dangerous Liaisons,” 241– 69, and “Can Judges Survive Without Sources?” 43–61; Susan Niditch, “Historiography, ‘Hazards,’ and the Study of Ancient Israel,” Interpretation (2003): 138–50. 41. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges. 42. Ibid., 6–7. By this, O’Connell means that the book of Judges withholds information until the end of the book, thereby inviting the reader to reassess earlier materials in light of new information. 1

42

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

“enjoin its readers to endorse a divinely appointed Judahite king who, in contrast to foreign kings and previous non-Judahite deliverers, exemplied loyalty to the deuteronomic ideals of expelling foreigners from the land and maintaining intertribal loyalty to YHWH’s covenant, cult and social order.”43 More specically, the portraits of both Gideon and Abimelech evoke narrative analogies with King Saul.44 When O’Connell compares these concerns for delegitimating King Saul and legitimating Judah and its concerns, he concludes that the rhetorical context implied in Judges (and thus the Abimelech narrative) best ts the situation described in 2 Sam 1–4, so that the book essentially functions as a legitimation of the early Davidic monarchy. Although O’Connell is able to show how the present form of the negative portrayal of Abimelech may serve the larger purposes of the book of Judges, his study fails to show the specic legitimating interests at work in the chapter beyond the delegitimation of Saul. The process of legitimation may include a wide number of concerns beyond the delegitimization of rival political factions noted by O’Connell.45 Like O’Connell, many ideologically oriented studies highlight political interests, noting a concern for lifting up Judah (hence the Judahite monarchy) at the expense of its northern neighbours.46 However, Gregory

43. Ibid., 10. 44. Ibid., 292, 299. These narrative analogies include: the presence of rivals for the throne (Judg 9:2 [Abimelech’s half-brothers]//1 Sam 20:30–31; 22:7–8 [David]); both are motivated by an “evil spirit” from Yahweh (Judg 9:23//1 Sam 16:14b); both slaughter fellow Israelites (Judg 9:5, 45, 49b, but one [Jotham] escapes//1 Sam 22:18–20, but one [Abiathar] escapes); both receive a rebuke (Judg 9:7–21 [cursing of king and his subjects]//1 Sam 8:4–22; 12:1–25 [cursing of king and subjects by Samuel] and 1 Sam 24:8–22; 26:13–25 [curse of king as gure searching for dog/ dead ea]). These narrative analogies predispose the reader also to evaluate Saul and his household in a negative manner. 45. Cf. Kurtz with Showman, “The Legitimation of Early Inchoate States,” 182–83. Kurtz and Showman suggest the following legitimizing concerns which one could explore: (1) the establishment of social distance between rulers and ruled; (2) the validation of state authority; (3) consolidation of state power; (4) the socialization of the population regarding the new order; (5) the restructuring of the nation’s economy. 46. See particularly the studies of Brettler, “The Book of Judges”; Sweeney, “Davidic Polemics”; and O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 343–44. These authors point to factors such as the contrast between the positive portrayal of Judah and the negative portrayal of the other, more northerly tribes in Judg 1; the fact that Othniel, the rst, untainted, and paradigmatic deliverer is from Judah (Judg 3:7–11); that Judah twice is designated by Yahweh as the tribe to lead Israel (Judg 1

2. Approaches to Abimelech and Judges 9

43

Wong has noted that the unreservedly pro-Judahite stance of the book is not as clear as some have supposed.47 Several elements in the portrayal of Judah within the book of Judges are ambiguous or negative. For example, the fact that the priest who rst serves Micah’s illegitimate worship installation before defecting to the Danites is a Judahite from Bethlehem (Judg 17:7) serves as a negative characterization, particularly when read in light of the preceding verse (17:6). The men of Judah hand Samson over to their Philistines enemies (Judg 15:10–11).48 This suggests that additional factors need to be taken into consideration before tying the political ideology found in the book of Judges directly to a pro-Judahite ideology. Furthermore, the Abimelech narrative has sometimes been read in connection with a pro-Judahite stance for the book of Judges. The negative portrayal of Abimelech in Judg 9, with its setting in the north, in Shechem, has then been read as anti-northern polemic. Abimelech would then serve as a negative example of the ways in which northern kings abandoned Yahweh and served the baals (cf. Judg 9:4).49 However, if indeed the ideological interests of the book of Judges are not as strongly pro-Judahite as rst supposed, this then opens the door for considering other interests in the chapter beyond simply supporting the Judahite monarchy. 1:2; 20:18); the increasingly negative portrait of Israel’s deliverers, culminating in Samson; the negative depiction of the men of Gibeah and the Benjaminites (Saul’s hometown and kinsmen), and so on. 47. Gregory T. K. Wong, “Is There a Direct Pro-Judah Polemic in Judges?,” SJOT 19 (2005): 84–110. Note the response by Serge Frolov, “Fire, Smoke, and Judah in Judges: A Response to Gregory Wong,” SJOT 21 (2007): 127–38. For example, Wong points out that Judg 1 does not portray Judah as completely successful in its conquering endeavours, for it fails to take the cities on the plains due to the presence of chariots (1:19). In this way, Judah’s conquest success is only relatively better than the other tribes and it is not without its negative characterizations. 48. Frolov’s argument (“Fire, Smoke, and Judah,” 130–31) that Judah is justied in this due to Samson’s failure as a deliverer, and that doing so forces him to confront the Philistines, and thus do the right thing, is not convincing. The Judahites are motivated purely by self-preservation, and the fact that the narrative indicates that 3,000 men of Judah (all potential warriors or at least fellow rebels) push Samson forward rather than engage Philistia themselves points to this as a negative, rather than positive, characterization of Judah. 49. See, for example, Brettler, “The Book of Judges,” 407. Brian Irwin, “Not Just Any King: Evolving Polemic, Abimelek, and the Final Form of Judges” (paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies, June 1, 2008), suggests that Judg 9 may serve as a more general attack on the northern monarchy, given the pro-Judahite and anti-Saulide stance of the book. Many thanks to Brian Irwin for supplying a copy of his paper, a version of which will appear in JBL. 1

44

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

Two other recent ideological studies may also point in this direction. Jacob Wright has noted how battleeld honour was a common ancient Near Eastern method of legitimating monarchic rule.50 Victory in battle served as divine conrmation of a king’s rule. When comparing narrative similarities between battle stories in Judges and 1 Samuel, Wright observes how Judges is largely critical of the typical royal ideology that equates the warring king with his warring god. In Judges, battles are due to sin. This viewpoint would be unexpected if Judges was expected to serve only as pro-Judahite propaganda, for Judah is not always portrayed positively in the book, particularly at the end of the book.51 Susan Niditch holds that the book of Judges presents an ambivalent view of kingship, for kingship is a necessary evil in the DH.52 While the portrait of Abimelech’s kingship in Judg 9 is negative, Jotham’s fable (Judg 9:8–15) indicates that only under conditions of reciprocity can kingship function adequately. The fable’s interpretation (9:16–20), however, describes the absence of reciprocity in Abimelech’s rise and rule. For Niditch, the various deliverer narratives of the book should be read as typical epic, heroic tales that present larger-than-life victories from Israel’s past.53 The nal refrain mentioning the absence of a king (Judg 17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25) functions to remove the editor from the time period of the judges (to the post-exilic period), marking an ancient foundation myth from before the advent of Israelite kingship and indicating that the events took place a long time ago. According to Niditch, The book of Judges offers a complex and ambivalent view of kingship that acknowledges its role in Israelite polity without endorsing it or propagandizing in favour of monarchy. Human leadership and the exercise of power in all its forms are fraught with challenges. Heroes are complicated, 50. Jacob Wright, “Military Valor and Kingship: A Book-Oriented Approach to the Study of a Major War Theme,” in Writing and Reading War: Rhetoric, Gender, and Ethics in Biblical and Modern Contexts (ed. Brad E. Kelle and Frank Ritchel Ames; SBLSymS 42; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), 33–56. 51. For example, the narrator draws attention to how the Levite serving Micah’s illegitimate shrine and who ends up serving the illegitimate Danite shrine comes from Bethlehem of Judah (Judg 17:7, 8, 9). 52. Susan Niditch, “Judges, Kingship and Political Ethics: A Challenge to the Conventional Wisdom,” in Thus Says the Lord: Essays in the Former and Latter Prophets in Honor of Robert R. Wilson (ed. John J. Ahn and Stephen L. Cook; LHBOTS 502; New York: T&T Clark International, 2009), 59–70. Niditch points to such examples as the cautious view of kingship in Deut 17:14–20, the alternating stances towards kingship in 1 Sam 8–12, and the negative assessment of most kings in 1 and 2 Kings. 53. Ibid., 66–67. 1

2. Approaches to Abimelech and Judges 9

45

exaggerated, and bigger than life. The nal voice of Judges is steeped in Israelite tradition. Judges presents the traditional-style tales of Israelite heroes and the people’s foundation myths, while acknowledging these narratives as a source of identity and a critical repository of group memory.54

Niditch rightly points to the role of the judges narratives as providing a set of foundation narratives that work to dene Israel’s identity in terms of the past. However, foundation narratives are typically generated within political contexts in an attempt to explain and legitimate current social or power structures.55 Within a post-exilic context, it is unclear what sort of identity an ambivalent approach to kingship might build. Thus, Niditch’s proposal needs further elaboration here. There is a second type of approach that may also be viewed as ideological. This approach examines a text in order to determine how it might highlight the unique concerns of the interpreter. It is here that we may include many feminist approaches to Judges, which often combine feminist interests with literary readings of the text.56 The contribution of literary feminist studies lies in their recovery of the importance of women to the Judges narratives, showing, for example, how the woman at Thebez plays a crucial role in the retribution brought upon Abimelech.57 However, their ideological interests may lead at times to a reading that runs counter to the plain sense of the text.58

54. Ibid., 70. 55. Jonathan Freidman, “Myth, History, and Political Identity,” Cultural Anthropology 7 (1992): 194–210; Naomi Chazan and Michel Abitbol, “Myths and Politics in Precolonial Africa,” in The Early State in Africa Perspective (ed. S. N. Eisenstadt, Michal Abitbol, and Naomi Chazan; Studies in Human Society 3; Leiden: Brill, 1988), 28. 56. Phyllis Trible, Texts of Terror: Literary Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives (OBT; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984); Mieke Bal, Death and Dissymmetry: The Politics of Coherence in the Book of Judges (CSJH; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988); Athalya Brenner, ed., A Feminist Companion to Judges (FCB 4; Shefeld: JSOT, 1993); J. Cheryl Exum, Was Sagt das Richterbuch den Frauen? (SBS 169; Stuttgart: Katholishes Bibelwerk, 1997); Tammi J. Schneider, Judges (BO; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 2000). 57. Exum (Was Sagt das Rictherbuch den Frauen?, 31–32), for example, notes the irony that a woman using a household utensil (the upper-millstone), thereby heightening his shame, kills Abimelech, the man of war. 58. For example, Bal’s (Death and Dissymmetry, 217–24) and Exum’s (Was Sagt das Richterbuch, 31–35) practice of naming the unnamed woman of Thebez (as Pelah) runs counter to the intention of the text. By leaving the woman of Thebez nameless, the narrative emphasizes how anyone could have been Abimelech’s killer 1

46

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

Ken Stone has applied gender criticism to Judg 9 in order to show how the book of Judges at times blurs gender distinctions between men and women, like the tendency in Judges to portray “manly women” such as Yael and Deborah who engage in battle, and “feminized men” such as Sisera, who fails to display the required manly prowess.59 Stone points to a number of destabilizing elements in the Abimelech narrative. For example, he notes not only how death at the hand of a woman brought on gender-based shame (Judg 9:54; cf. 4:21–22; 5:24–27), but also how “homologous oppositions” like “up and down,” “above and below,” may serve symbolically to feminize Abimelech. In this light, Stone suggests that a millstone may symbolize sexual intercourse in some Mediterranean cultures (through the movement of an upper part against an immobile lower portion). The millstone penetrating Abimelech’s head from above might then connote a “ravaging phallus,” and thereby symbolically “unman” Abimelech.60 Stone draws attention to Abimelech’s “unmanly” death at the hands of a woman and notes how this portrayal may well have served the aims of the editor of Judges in developing an anti-northern polemic.61 However, Stone’s analysis at times depends upon the assumption that the ancient audience identied with all of the rhetorical associations he adduces in the portrayal of Abimelech.62

(cf. 1 Sam 31:4–5; 1 Kgs 22:34), and so her anonymity intensies his disgrace even further; the war-mongering Abimelech is not killed by a fellow warrior, but by a nameless, anonymous, female. In this way, the naming of Abimelech, in contrast to the unnamed woman of Thebez, furthers the interests of the larger plot, which highlights the retribution meted out upon Abimelech for his crimes (9:56). 59. Ken Stone, “Gender Criticism: The Un-Manning of Abimelech,” in Yee, ed., Judges and Method, 183–201. Gender critics hold that what constitutes gender in a given culture is socially constructed and that bringing to light ambiguities, tensions, and failures in the portrayal of men and women in a given text may provide for the destabilization of binary distinctions between men and women. 60. Ibid., 195–97. 61. Ibid., 198–99. Stone also notes rhetorical elements which tie Judg 9 to the stories of Saul, Jonathan, and David in 1 Samuel. 62. For example, Stone notes that sexual symbolism linked to the use of millstones was not ubiquitous among Mediterranean cultures (ibid., 196). Additionally, the sexual symbolism of the millstone’s “penetrating” Abimelech from above is seriously weakened by the fact that the stone does not penetrate Abimelech, but crushes his skull. This suggests that Judg 9 is not attempting to draw upon sexual inferences in the characterization of Abimelech, but instead emphasizes the gender of the one who brought about Abimelech’s death. 1

2. Approaches to Abimelech and Judges 9

47

4. Literary-Holistic Studies Literary–holistic approaches focus on the “nal form” of the book of Judges and attempt to interpret the parts of the book in light of the whole or to nd unifying elements that draw the parts of a narrative unit together.63 Many of these literary studies came about as a reaction to the atomizing tendency in source- and redaction-critical studies, and often use the tools of modern narrative criticism in their study of the book of Judges.64 Several authors have specically explored the literary structure of Judg 9.65 When viewed through the tools of a narrative analysis, Elie Assis showed how the Gideon, Abimelech, and Jephthah narratives were collected, adapted, enlarged, and reshaped by an editor in order to warn his readers of the excesses of leaders who act out of self-interest rather than for the national good. Assis pointed out that such phenomena as tensions and repetitions, often taken as signs of editorial activity, might have narrative signicance that one can explain at a literary, rather than a 63. Recent commentaries utilizing this approach include Dennis T. Olson, “Introduction, Commentary, and Reections on the Book of Judges,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible (Nashville: Abingdon, 1998), 2:723–888; Schneider, Judges; K. Lawson Younger, Jr., Judges and Ruth (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002); and, to some degree, Butler, Judges. 64. Some key studies that emphasize a holistic approach to the book of Judges include: J. P. U. Lilley, “A Literary Appreciation of the Book of Judges,” TynBul 17 (1967): 94–102; David W. Gooding, “The Composition of the Book of Judges,” ErIs 16 (H. M. Orlinsky Memorial Volume) (1982): 75; Webb, The Book of Judges; Lillian R. Klein, The Triumph of Irony in the Book of Judges (BLS 14; Shefeld: Almond, 1988); Robert Alter, Language as Theme in the Book of Judges (Cincinnati, Ohio: University of Cincinnati, Judaic Studies Program, 1988); O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges; Amit, The Book of Judges. Amit examines the book in order to nd the key themes around which Judges was redacted, but the study also sees a general coherence to the book as a whole and Amit reads with literary sensitivities. More recently, S. Gillmayr-Bucher, applying a Bakhtinian perspective to the coherence between the preface of Judg 2:11–19 and the following deliverer narratives, suggests that Judges unfolds as a dialogue between the perspective of the preface and the perspectives portrayed in the narratives themselves; see Susanne Gillmayr-Bucher, “Framework and Discourse in the Book of Judges,” JBL 128 (2009): 687–702. 65. T. A. Boogaart, “Stone for Stone: Retribution in the Story of Abimelech and Shechem,” JSOT 32 (1985): 45–56; J. Gerald Janzen, “A Certain Woman in the Rhetoric of Judges 9,” JSOT 38 (1987): 33–37; Jan P. Fokkelman, “Structural Remarks on Judges 9 and 19,” in “Sha‘arei Talmon”: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon (ed. M. Fishbane and E. Tov with W. W. Fields; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 33–45. 1

48

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

compositional, level.66 Assis is often successful in showing how these tensions functioned at this level, though not always with similar degrees of effectiveness.67 Gregory Wong’s inductive, literary-rhetorical study of the composition of Judges examines the rhetorical inter-connections between the introduction to Judges (Judg 1:1–3:5), the deliverer narratives (Judg 3:6– 16:31), and the conclusion of the book (Judg 17–21) in order to examine whether a holistic reading is justied.68 Wong sees strong rhetorical connections between these three sections, so that both Judg 1:1–3:5 and 17–21 were composed with the story of Abimelech in mind, justifying a holistic reading. Wong is one of the few who has examined the relationship between Judg 9 and Judg 17–21 in some depth. For Wong, Abimelech’s actions as a king who brings anarchy, along with analogies to Adoni-Bezek (Judg 1:5–7), portray him as a “canaanitized” Israelite king.69 As a result, Judg 9 directly contradicts the refrain of Judg 17–21 claiming there was no king. Instead, the refrain is best understood as a reference to the increasing “canaanization” of Israel and the failure to honour Yahweh as king.70 Wong presents a cogent argument for a unied reading of Judges, though his conclusions about the relationship between Judg 9 and Judg 17–21 require further address.71

66. Assis, Self-Interest or Communal Interest, 5–6. 67. For example, Assis (ibid., 141–52) pointed out how scholars have often noted that the focus in Jotham’s fable (9:8–15) differs from that of its interpretation (9:16– 20). Rather than pointing to different sources, Assis understands the fable and its interpretation as targeted at different audiences. The fable indicted Abimelech for his eagerness to seek kingship out of personal motives, for in the fable the thorn bush refused the possibility of being deposed and threatened harm if the other trees failed to accept its rule. Assis suggested this exposed Abimelech’s eagerness to be king, as stemming from self-interested motives, rather than seeking the good of the people. However, in the fable, the trees seek out the thorn bush, and the issue of sincerity (9:15) points to the surprising nature of their choice. Therefore, the thorn’s threat of destruction is motivated by the perceived duplicity of the trees rather than selfinterest. Thus, Assis’s observation regarding the differing targets of Jotham’s speech remains valid, though his interpretation goes beyond the sense of the text here. 68. Gregory T. K. Wong, Compositional Strategy of the Book of Judges: An Inductive, Rhetorical Study (VTSup 111; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 23. 69. Ibid., 201–11. 70. Ibid., 212–21. 71. While the theme of Israel’s faithfulness to Yahweh is indeed a key issue throughout the book, it is not clear that Yahweh’s “kingship” is at issue. Israel continues to seek (albeit idiosyncratically) Yahweh even in Judg 17–21 (cf. 20:28). The book’s examination of various forms of human leadership (or lack thereof) 1

2. Approaches to Abimelech and Judges 9

49

Vince Endris uses a narrative-critical reading of Judg 6–9 to build upon a narrative-theological study by Wolfgang Bluedorn.72 Like Bluedorn, Endris holds that the Gideon–Abimelech narrative coheres around the question of whether Yahweh or Baal is really god. Judges 6–9 serves as the climax of the book of Judges, and the conict between Yahweh and Baal comes to a head in Judg 8:22–23 when Gideon afrms Yahweh’s kingship. Thereafter, Gideon seems to draw Israel into the service of Baal, with Baal seeming to have won the heart of Israel (Judg 8:35). Endris views Judg 9 as a seeming further slide into Baalism, for Abimelech aligns himself with the baalist Shechemites (  , 9:2), accepts money from the temple of Baal-Berith (9:4), and murders his seventy brothers (9:5), thereby establishing himself as Baal’s representative in the narrative. Jotham’s curse, however, suggests Yahweh’s intervention and the divine retribution meted out upon Abimelech as Baal’s representative signals Yahweh’s ultimate victory over Baal (9:56–57). Thus, Judg 9 denounces not kingship itself, but “the ultimate tyrannical rule of the Canaanite god, Baal, whom Abimelech represents.”73 Within the larger context of the book, Judg 9 denounces the kind of kingship associated with human agents of a tyrannical god. Instead, Judg 17–21 calls for a human king who would serve as Yahweh’s agent, guarding against anarchy and tyranny. Endris is correct in his observation that Judg 17–21 points to the need for a king who acts as Yahweh’s human representative. However, it is not clear that Abimelech functions as Baal’s human representative in Judg 9. The emphasis upon Baal in Judg 9 lies beneath the surface of the narrative, and is not as pervasive as Endris suggests. The epithet “Baal” only occurs once in Judg 9 (9:4), and the term “Baal-Berith” likely functions as an epithet of El, not Baal (cf. El-Berith in 9:46).74 Also, if the narrator purely wanted to emphasize the baalistic nature of the

suggests that the failure lies with the modes of human leadership and the leaders’ varying abilities to ensure faithfulness to Yahweh, rather than that Yahweh’s kingship itself was in question. Moreover, in Wong’s schema (pointing to 2 Chr 15:1–7), the most natural reading of the refrain in Judg 17–21 would suggest that Yahweh was not king in the period of the judges, rather than that he was not treated as king (Compositional Strategy, 220–21). 72. Vince Endris, “Yahweh Versus Baal: A Narrative Critical Reading of the Gideon/Abimelech Narrative,” JSOT 33 (2008): 173–95; Bluedorn, Yahweh Versus Baalism. 73. Endris, “Yahweh Versus Baal,” 194. 74. T. J. Lewis, “The Identity and Function of El/Baal Berith,” JBL 115 (1996): 401–23. 1

50

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

Shechemites and Abimelech,75 it is curious that he left the reference to the Shechemite celebration in the “temple of their god” (9:27) generic, rather than seizing the opportunity to place repeated emphasis on the name Baal. Furthermore, Abimelech’s murder of his brothers need not directly associate him with Baal, for Jehu’s anti-baalistic measures include a purge of Ahab’s seventy sons (1 Kgs 10:7). Brian Irwin also explores the relationship of Judg 9 to the larger question of kingship within the book of Judges using a rhetorical-ideological approach. Irwin concurs with Brettler’s conclusions about the strongly pro-Judean stance of the book and the book’s anti-Benjaminite polemic.76 However, for Irwin, Judg 9 serves as a more general polemic against the northern kingdom of Israel. For example, he notes how Shechem and Thebez in Judg 9 correspond to the early capital cities of the northern Israelite kingdom77 and how Jeroboam I, like Abimelech (Judg 9:4; 2 Chr 13:6), hires a group of “worthless men” (  ).78 Moreover, Irwin observes that the unexpected rise of Gaal son of Ebed (Judg 9:26–29), a commoner (as suggested by his patronymic “son of a slave/servant”), to power in Shechem parallels the situation of monarchic rule in northern Israel, where commoners often rose to seize power through bloodshed.79 This critique is most fully explored through Jotham’s fable (Judg 9:7– 20). Irwin points to some very general parallels between Jotham’s speech and the speech of Abijah in 2 Chr 13:4–12 condemning the breakaway northern tribes (the assonance between the locations of their speeches [Gerazim and Zemaraim] and the similar use of  + subject to begin their speeches) to link these two passages. Moreover, Irwin notes that both speeches complain about the rejection of legitimate leadership (Judg 9:16–20; 2 Chr 13:5–6), and that in Jotham’s fable the trees anoint a king over themselves, an unworthy  (NRSV, “bramble”), who, like Abimelech will surely bring violence.80 This warning corresponds to the history of the northern kingdom, which was marked by political instability and the rise of multiple usurpers, so that “Jotham’s fable reads well as a clear critique of the manner in which the northern kingdom rejected the dynasty chosen by God and instead enthroned Jeroboam I by popular 75. The repeated reference to the Shechemites as  (9:2, 3, 6, 7, 18, 20, 23– 26, 39, 46, 47, 51) may indeed imply the baalistic orientation of the Shechemites, though its force may be more rhetorical than theological and its primary emphasis is to designate them as the lords of Shechem (cf. Gen 14:13). 76. Irwin, “Not Just Any King,” 2–3, 13–20. 77. Ibid., 25, 28–30. Irwin proposes that Thebez is a corruption of Tirzah. 78. Ibid. 79. Ibid., 30. 80. Ibid., 32. 1

2. Approaches to Abimelech and Judges 9

51

acclaim.”81 As additional support, Irwin notes how Abimelech’s name— “my father is king”—does not directly t his situation, for Gideon/ Jerubbaal was not king (Judg 8:23). This highlight’s Abimelech’s role as a usurper who resorted to manufactured claims of legitimacy in an attempt to secure his position, much like nine of the monarchs of the northern kingdom of Israel.82 Thus, for Irwin, the story of Abimelech shows how the leadership of the northern monarchy parallels the failure of the judges as leaders for the people of Israel.83 Irwin’s study points to the many parallels between the rise and fall of the northern kingdom of Israel and the rise and fall of Abimelech. However, upon closer inspection, not all of the parallels that Irwin adduces are of equal strength. For example, Irwin notes that the phrase    is used in the MT only in connection with Abimelech (Judg 9:4), Jephthah (Judg 11:3), and Jeroboam (2 Chr 13:7). However, the parallel is strongest between Jephthah and Jeroboam, for while Judg 11:3 and 2 Chr 13:7 both use the phrase   , Judg 9 emphasizes the bankruptcy of these men by adding  (thus    ). Also, while both Judg 9:7 and 2 Chr 13:4 use the Qal imperative plural  + subject to begin speeches, the construction is fairly common when introducing speeches, particularly when the speaker is hoping to gain the attention of his audience, and so it may simply be a common formula used to gain a hearing rather than a strong rhetorical parallel.84 As noted above, Irwin also holds that Jotham’s fable serves as a critique of selecting rulers by popular acclaim, particularly Jeroboam I. However, if this serves as a critique of the northern monarchy, it does not take full account of several traditions where northern rulers are designated, at least initially, by Yahwistic, prophetic sanction, including Jeroboam I himself.85 Moreover, the accounts of the establishment of the Davidic dynasty also include a blend of Yahwistic sanction and popular acclaim.86 Consequently, we might say that the Jotham fable criticizes not popular acclaim, but popular acclaim without Yahwistic sanction. Irwin’s observation regarding Abimelech’s concern for legitimacy is both helpful and important. The question of legitimacy actually runs throughout the entire Abimelech narrative, from the murder of his 81. Ibid., 33. 82. Ibid., 33–34. 83. Ibid., 34. 84. Cf. Num 12:6; Job 13:6, 17; 21:2; 34:2, 10; Ps 34:11 (12 MT); Prov 5:7; 7:24; 8:32; Isa 46:3, 12; 49:1; 51:1, 7; 55:2. 85. See Jeroboam I in 1 Kgs 11:11–13, 29–39 and Jehu in 2 Kgs 9:1–3 (both northern usurpers). 86. Cf. 2 Sam 2:4; 5:1–3. 1

52

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

seventy half-brothers (9:5) to his concern about the manner of his death (9:54). This dovetails with the observation of David Beetham, who notes that legitimacy is not a one-time event or activity, but an on-going process that includes not only gaining but maintaining legitimacy.87 It is this type of lens that will give a fuller perspective of the role of legitimacy and illegitimacy in the Abimelech narrative and build upon some of Irwin’s observations. 5. Summary The diverse approaches to the book of Judges and Judg 9 in particular have added much to our understanding of the Abimelech narrative. Diachronic approaches to Judg 9 have noted well the tensions in the Abimelech account and have accounted for them by attributing them to the combination of different sources, which were composed by different authors with different interests writing in differing time periods and from differing theological and ideological perspectives. However, there is a distinct lack of consensus on both the proper attribution of these sources and redactional layers, as well as their dating. In addition, diachronic studies, regardless of the number or extent of the layers discerned in Judg 9, have struggled to show how a redactor could feel comfortable allowing differing and diverse viewpoints to stand beside each other, and at times even contradict each other. These challenges open the door for another approach that explains how these various tensions could function within their present context without necessitating recourse to supposing different sources. Several studies have pointed to the importance of kinship in Judg 9,88 an issue that has subsequently not received enough attention in synchronic or diachronic studies. In particular, the articulation between issues of kinship and monarchic interests requires further exploration. Another source of continuing debate relates to the question of the role of political ideology in the shaping of Judg 9 and the book of Judges. The studies by Brettler, O’Connell, Sweeney, Assis, Irwin,89 and others have brought to the fore the question of how these passages may have 87. Beetham, The Legitimation of Power, 103. 88. Crüsemann, Der Widerstand gegen das Königtum, 38–39; and Würthwein, “Abimelech und der Untergang Sichems,” 12–28; de Castelbajac, “Histoire,” 166– 75; Steinberg, “Social Scientic Criticism,” 45–64; Heffelnger, “Chiey Politics,” 277–92. 89. Brettler, “The Book of Judges,” 395–418; O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges; Sweeney, “Davidic Polemics,” 517–29; Assis, Self-Interest or Communal Interest; Irwin, “Not Just Any King,” 20–35. 1

2. Approaches to Abimelech and Judges 9

53

functioned in a political context. These studies have shown how the book, as it now stands, seems to further the interests of the Davidic monarchy, in part by delegitimating Saul and the northern tribes of Israel. However, as noted above, the specic manner in which Judg 9 functions to delegitimate Abimelech and legitimate the concerns of the monarchy remains unexplored. Additionally, the tensions between the perceived anti-monarchic portrayal of Abimelech in Judg 9 and promonarchic texts such as Judg 17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25 have not yet been satisfactorily resolved. Most synchronic studies view the negative portrayal of Abimelech in Judg 9 as a “disastrous interlude”90 or in juxtaposition to Gideon’s rejection of kingship in 8:22–23.91 However, with the exception of Wong, Heller, and (partially) Irwin,92 synchronic studies have not yet specically tackled the question of how the negative portrayal of Abimelech’s kingship might relate to the positive evaluation of the values of a king at the end of the book. It should be noted that an emphasis upon the political function of Judg 9 does not rule out the religious emphases that other interpreters have highlighted,93 for this would result in a false dichotomy. The religious and political realms were intimately connected in the ancient Near East and Israel.94 In fact, it is precisely for this reason that Jans’ claim95 that only diachronic approaches can explain the existence of two juxtaposed and differing themes in the Abimelech account—one political (critique of kingship), the other religious (divine retribution)—merits an explanation that attempts to bring these two themes together without needing to posit the presence of two different authors. 90. Exum, “The Centre Cannot Hold,” 588. 91. Webb, The Book of Judges, 159; Bluedorn, Yahweh Versus Baalism, 265–66. 92. Wong, Compositional Strategy of the Book of Judges, 201–21; Irwin, “Not Just Any King”; Roy Heller, “What is Abimelek Doing in Judges?,” in Raising Up a Faithful Exegete: Essays in Honor of Richard D. Nelson (ed. K. L. Noll and Brooks Schramm; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 225–35. 93. Bluedorn (Yahweh Versus Baalism, 265–66) proposed that Judg 9 highlights Yahweh’s abilities as God and denigrates Baal as a viable god. This religious emphasis is echoed in the works of Block, Judges, Ruth, 57–59; Younger, Judges and Ruth, 24 n. 15, 31 n. 33. 94. Henri Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods: A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the Integration of Society and Nature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948). The integration of the religious and the political is ubiquitous but appears most prominently in Israel in the interrelationship between kingship and the temple. Cf. Carol Meyers, “David as Temple Builder,” in Ancient Israelite Religion (ed. Patrick D. Miller, Jr., Paul D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 357–76. 95. Jans, Abimelech und sein Königtum, 463. 1

54

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

One nal observation regarding methodology seems in order here. The differing interpretations of Judg 9 can be attributed, in large part, to the differing methods that scholars have applied to the chapter. Yet, with the notable exception of Frank Crüsemann and the contributions to the volume edited by Gail Yee,96 very few scholars have applied more than one method to the same chapter or narrative block in Judges.97 However, Richard Bowman makes a pertinent observation: No single reading strategy or interpretive method accounts for all the important literary or historical data, either textual or extratextual. Different methods approach the text with different presuppositions and for different purposes. As a result, readers ask various kinds of analytic questions of the story and seek a variety of answers. The asking of certain questions precludes the asking of others and consequently excludes obtaining certain information. No one method is, therefore, sufcient for a comprehensive interpretation of any narrative. Each approach has its own advantages and disadvantages. Often benets of one method are limitations for another, and likewise weaknesses of one method are strengths of another.98

Bowman’s observation indeed holds true for the diverse approaches to Judg 9 surveyed above. Consequently, the advantages of applying several methods to Judg 9 would allow an interpreter to bring together the fruits of differing methodologies and explore how such a multiplex approach can bring further understanding to Judg 9 and its role within the book of Judges.

96. Crüsemann, Der Widerstand gegen das Königtum; Yee, ed., Judges and Method. 97. This is also Craig’s observation (“Judges in Recent Research,” 175), where he notes the recent methodological bloom in scholarly interest in the book of Judges, concomitant with the blossoming of a wide variety of different approaches to the interpretation of Scripture. Craig, however, laments the fact that, despite the ourishing of a variety of methodologies, few studies have integrated these different methodologies into the study of a single passage in the book of Judges. 98. Richard G. Bowman, “Narrative Criticism of Judges: Human Purpose in Conict with Divine Presence,” in Yee, ed., Judges and Method, 18. 1

Chapter 3

NARRATIVE ANALYSIS OF JUDGES 9

Judges 9 is a narrative, a story about the relationship between Abimelech and the Shechemites. The story is quite shocking in its depiction of Abimelech, who brutally slaughters all of his subjects before he himself comes to an ignominious end, seemingly warning of the evils of kingship. However, there is more to this story than simple anti-monarchic polemic, and a narrative analysis can help us to see the particular points of emphasis in this story by carefully examining how the story is told and how it is structured. 1. Judges 9 and the Gideon Narrative (Judges 6–8) There are several important thematic and textual links that associate Judg 9 with the preceding narrative in Judg 6–8.1 While not denying the close links between Judg 9 and the Gideon narrative, there are also a number of important, nuanced differences that need to be recognized and which suggest that the two narrative units exhibit a complementary relationship. a. Judges 9 as a Separate Narrative Unit Judges 9 stands outside the framework that typically outlines the deliverer narratives.2 After the Gideon narrative, the rst framework element indicating a new deliverer cycle appears in 10:6, but the narratorial comment in 10:1, “After Abimelech…” and the differences in form, depiction, and vocabulary3 used in 10:1–5 serve to separate the narrative 1. Cf. Bluedorn, Yahweh Versus Baalism, 15–56, 182–85. 2. The framework elements include: Israel does evil in eyes of Yahweh (3:7, 12; 4:1; 6:1; 10:6; 13:1); Yahweh gives/sells them into hands of oppressors (3:8, 12; 4:2; 6:1; 10:7; 13:1); Israel serves the oppressors for X years (3:8, 14; 4:3; 10:8; 13:1); Israel cries out to Yahweh (3:9, 15; 4:3; 6:6; 10:10); Yahweh raises up a deliverer (3:9, 15); the oppressor is subdued (3:10, 30; 4:23; 8:28; 11:33); the land has “rest” for X years (3:11, 30; 5:31; 8:28). 3. For example, both Tola and Jair “judge” ( ) Israel. Neither Gideon nor Abimelech “judge.”

56

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

of 9:1–57 from the following materials. The element of “rest” (Judg 8:28) serves as the typical closing framework element in the previous deliverer narratives, suggesting that the Abimelech narrative may begin in 8:29. However, as Edgar Jans rightly notes, Abimelech receives only passing mention in 8:31, and that, beginning in Judg 9, he is the centre of focus.4 This, coupled with the new geographical focus (Shechem) in Judg 9, enables the narrator to forge a break between Judg 9 and the preceding narrative. Several commentators have seen 8:33–35 as the introduction to the Abimelech story.5 Indeed, the reference to Baal-Berith (8:33) foreshadows Abimelech’s acceptance of money from the treasury of BaalBerith (9:4). Israel’s failure to remember Yahweh (8:34) also nds resonance with Abimelech’s alignment with Baal-Berith (9:4) and the absence of any hint of allegiance to Yahweh.6 In addition, the motif of loyalty to the house of Gideon/Jerubbaal (8:35) resurfaces in Jotham’s charge against the Shechemites for their failure to show loyalty to Jerubbaal (9:19). In these ways, 8:33–35 prepares the reader for Judg 9. However, the role of 8:33–35 as a prologue or introduction to Judg 9 is not as clear as it may rst seem. Each of the narrator’s charges against Israel has also been pregured in some way in the preceding narrative. Israel’s “whoring after” ( ) the baals is an echo of their “whoring after” ( ) Gideon’s ephod in Ophrah (8:27). The failure to remember Yahweh is exemplied in Israel’s offer of kingship to Gideon after the defeat of the Midianites (8:22), which fails to recognize God’s actions on their behalf. The people of Succoth and Penuel’s failure to recognize Gideon’s need for food during his pursuit of the Midianite kings Zeba and Zalmunna (8:4–9, 13–17) was certainly viewed by Gideon as a breach of expected protocol and could also be viewed as a failure to exhibit loyalty to Gideon (cf. 8:35). In these ways, 8:33–35 recapitulates elements of Judg 8 as much as it looks forward to Judg 9. Until this point in the deliverer narratives, Israel’s slide into apostasy only begins with the death of each deliverer. Judges 8 is unique, however, in that it describes Gideon’s waning positive inuence even before his death (8:27; cf. 2:19; 3:11, 30; 5:31b), and so it is not completely 4. Jans, Abimelech und sein Königtum, 74. 5. Buber, The Kingship of God, 111; Boling, Judges, 169; Younger, Judges and Ruth, 218. 6. Robert Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomistic History. Part 1, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges (New York: Seabury, 1980), 173–74. Similarly, Klein (The Triumph of Irony, 70) notes Yahweh’s absence from the narrative, especially in light of his prevalence in the Gideon narrative. 1

3. Narrative Analysis of Judges 9

57

surprising that 8:33–35 goes on to recount the effects of this slide after his death, thereby epitomizing the overall effects of his leadership. Therefore, while the events narrated in Judg 8:33–35 do foreshadow some of the events of Judg 9, they also look back upon the Gideon narrative as an epilogue. b. Gideon and/or Jerubbaal? The name Gideon only occurs in Judg 6–8, while the name Jerubbaal is common to both Judg 6–8 and Judg 9.7 This, in part, has led commentators to conclude that the name Jerubbaal functions as a redactional device linking the originally separate Gideon and Abimelech narratives.8 For our purposes, however, it is important to note that these names carry different, nuanced theological freight in Judg 6–8 and Judg 9. In 6:32, the attribution of the name “Jerubbaal”9 (from the root ) to Gideon creates an expectation that Baal himself (as opposed to the people of Ophrah) will (or should) respond in some way to the destruction of his altar.10 The occurrence of the name in 7:1, at the outset of battle preparations against Midian, refreshes for the reader the possibility of 7. Jerubbaal occurs in Judg 6:32; 7:1; 8:29, 35; 9:1, 2, 5, 16, 19, 24, 28, 57. 8. Karl Budde, Das Buch der Richter (Freiburg: J. C. B. Mohr, 1897), 68; Moore, Commentary on Judges, 236; Ernst Sellin, Wie wurde Sichem eine israelitische Stadt? (Leipzig: A. Deichertsche Verlagsbuchhandlung Dr. Werner Scholl, 1922), 20; Herbert Haag, “Gideon–Jerubbaal–Abimelek,” ZAW 79 (1967): 305–14; Baruch Halpern, “The Rise of Abimelek Ben-Jerubbaal,” HAR 2 (1978): 80–81; Barnabas Lindars, “Gideon and Kingship,” JTS 16 (1965): 324–25; Becker, Richterzeit und Königtum, 183; Ansgar Moenikes, Die grundsätzliche Ablehnung des Königtums in der Hebräischen Bibel (BBB 99; Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, 1995), 112–13; Jans, Abimelech und sein Königtum, 345–47. However, note John A. Emerton (“Gideon and Jerubbaal,” JTS 27 [1976]: 289–312) and Boling (Judges, 144), who suggest that the alternation of names is indicative of the narrative structure rather than evidence of another source; cf. also Burney, The Book of Judges, 266–67; H. W. Hertzberg, Die Bücher Josua, Richter, Ruth (ATD 9; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965), 187. 9. “Let/may Baal contend/prosecute,” following most commentators; for example, Boling, Judges, 137; Block, Judges, Ruth, 270; Younger, Judges and Ruth, 178. 10. With Bluedorn (Yahweh Versus Baalism, 106–7), who holds that the name Jerubbaal signals the theme of Judg 6–8, which revolves around the question of whether Yahweh or Baal will show himself to be God/god. Contra Assis (SelfInterest or Communal Interest, 49–50), who suggests that the name reects the outlook of the town Baalists that Gideon will lose the impending war with Midian in retribution for his destruction of Baal’s altar. In the logic of the story, the battle with Midian is not yet in view, and so the expectation must be more general and undened at this point. 1

58

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

Baal’s retribution through a Midianite victory. However, the ensuing chapters illustrate Baal’s failure/inability to contend for himself against Gideon. Similarly, the occurrence of the name in 8:29, at the end of Gideon’s tenure as judge, signals Baal’s complete failure to contend for himself—Gideon instead has prospered. In Judg 8:34–35, the narrative syntactically links the Israelite failure to remember Yahweh with their failure to show loyalty () to the household of Jerubbaal through the repetition of the negative particle and conjunction (). This association then links loyalty to Yahweh with loyalty to the household of Jerubbaal. Conversely, disloyalty to Jerubbaal would imply disloyalty to Yahweh. As Judg 8:34–35 links disloyalty to Yahweh with disloyalty to Jerubbaal, the reader comes to expect Yahweh’s retribution for disloyalty to Jerubbaal and his house. All the occurrences of the name Jerubbaal in Judg 9 are associated with various ways in which Abimelech (9:1, 2, 5), the Shechemites (9:16, 19), and Gaal (9:28) exhibit disloyalty to Jerubbaal and his household. As a result, it is not surprising that Judg 9:24 and 57 indicate God’s retribution for disloyalty to Jerubbaal. Thus, the name Jerubbaal links the stories of Judg 6–8 and Judg 9 via the motif of retribution.11 However, the name Jerubbaal in Judg 6–8 points to Baal’s inability to vindicate himself. By contrast, in Judg 9, God nds disloyalty to the house of Jerubbaal offensive and brings retribution upon those who perpetrate this disloyalty. The differing connotations of the name “Jerubbaal” in these two sections serve to differentiate these two stories into two complementary narratives with different emphases. c. The Motif of Kingship In Judg 8, Gideon’s defeat of the Midianite army prompts the men of Israel to offer Gideon dynastic rule ( 12) over Israel (8:22). Gideon’s rejection of this offer in favour of Yahweh’s rule has led many to view Judg 8 as expressing an anti-monarchic conviction.13 This viewpoint has 11. Cf. Bluedorn, Yahweh Versus Baalism, 202. 12. The meaning of   is very similar to that of . H. Gross notes this similarity, but suggests that   focuses more on the rule itself, rather than the person of the ruler. See H. Gross, “› ma£al,” TDOT 9:69. 13. Buber, The Kingship of God, 59; Veijola, Das Königtum, 100–102; Crüsemann, Der Widerstand gegen das Königtum, 49; Becker, Richterzeit und Königtum, 177; Moenikes, Die grundsätzliche Ablehnung des Königtums, 106–10; Moore, Judges, 229–30; Cundall, Judges, 121; Soggin, Judges, 160; Cheryl A. Brown, “Judges,” in Joshua, Judges, Ruth (NIBC; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2000), 202–3. 1

3. Narrative Analysis of Judges 9

59

also been attributed to Judg 9. However, a closer inspection of the attitudes these two chapters towards kingship shows that Judg 8 displays an ambiguous stance towards kingship, so that the anti-monarchic link between the chapters is not as clear as rst supposed. Daniel Block has noted how the narrative’s stance towards kingship evidences itself in Gideon’s words and actions even before his rejection of rule over Israel in 8:23: 1. Gideon treated his subjects/countrymen ruthlessly (8:5–9, 13–17; cf. 9:46–49). 2. His actions were driven by personal agenda instead of theological or national ideals (cf. 8:9’s repetition of the rst person pronoun). 3. Gideon reacted to the death of his brothers as if they were royal assassinations requiring blood vengeance (8:18–21). 4. Gideon made a ridiculous demand of his people (8:20). 5. Gideon claimed for himself symbols of royalty taken from the enemy (8:21). Block concludes, “It appears the Israelite offer of kingship to Gideon simply seeks to formalize de jure what is already de facto.”14 One could also add that the Midianite kings already attribute a regal bearing to Gideon (Judg 8:18).15 Gideon’s kingly bearing before the Israelites even offer him kingly rule prepares the reader for the offer of Judg 8:22. Moreover, the omission of any mention of Yahweh’s sanction of the offer of rule suggests that the Israelites extend the offer without sacral legitimation.16 In this way, the narrative casts a dark shadow upon the legitimacy of the Israelite offer. It is rightly an offer that should be rejected because it lacked Yahweh’s sanction. In addition, careful observation reveals that though Gideon ostensibly rejects the Israelite offer of kingship, Judg 8:24–32 portrays him as taking on the trappings of kingship17 in nine different ways,18 thereby 14. Block, Judges, Ruth, 299. 15. In response to Gideon’s question about who they killed at Tabor, the two Midianite kings answer, “They were just like you, having the form of the sons of the king (   ).” Gideon then responds that those men were his brothers (8:19). Cf. Assis (Self-Interest or Communal Interest, 101), who points out that Gideon meant to humiliate the Midianite kings by commanding his son to slay them. Jether, Gideon’s son, however, refuses and the kings ask to be dispatched by someone of equal status (8:20–21). 16. See Block, Judges, Ruth, 297. 17. G. Henton Davies (“Judges VIII 22–23,” VT 13 [1963]: 151–57), argued for Gideon’s veiled acceptance of kingship, while Barnabas Lindars (“Gideon and Kingship,” 315–26) argued Gideon’s acceptance on traditio-historical grounds. 18. Building here upon Block (Judges, Ruth, 299–304). 1

60

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

creating ambiguity regarding his actual views on kingship. These nine aspects will only briey be stated here. First, Gideon requested an additional share of the booty plundered from the Midianites (Judg 8:24–25). A portion of the spoil was sometimes dedicated by kings to Yahweh and to the temple service (2 Sam 8:13; 1 Chr 26:27; cf. 8:27). Consequently, kings were often entitled to a special portion of the plunder (Judg 5:30; 1 Sam 30:19-20; 2 Sam 12:30; 1 Chr 20:2), though this phenomenon is not restricted to kings (cf. 1 Sam 30:22; Isa 33:23; Ps 68:13). Second, Gideon takes the 1700 shekels of gold and fashions an ephod, which he “sets” (, Hiphil)19 in Ophrah, his city (8:27). The exact nature of the ephod remains a subject of continuing debate.20 The narrator’s statement indicating that Israel “whored” () after this object and that it becomes a snare for Gideon and his family (8:27) is similar to language associated with the worship of foreign gods in Judg 2:3, 17, suggesting a cultic interpretation of this object. Thus, the portrayal of Gideon setting up this cultic object in his town may then suggest his role as a cult patron or sponsor, a frequent royal initiative.21 19. This verb is unusual if Gideon merely fabricated a type of garment. B. Johnson (“ y‰g,” TDOT 6:251–52) notes that with inanimate objects,  means to set something in place, either by setting up or laying in place (cf. Gen 30:38; Judg 6:37). 20. An ephod carries positive connotations in most cases (cf. Exod 28:4; 29:5; 1 Sam 2:18; 22:18; 23:9; 2 Sam 6:14). Some authors, however, suggest that the ephod was a type of idol used to obtain oracles (cf. Judg 17:5; 18:14, 17, 18, 20): Budde, Das Buch der Richter, 67; Moore, Judges, 232; Hertzberg, Die Bücher Josua, Richter, Ruth, 198–99; and Soggin, Judges, 160. Others suggest it was simply a priestly vestment: Burney, The Book of Judges, 237–43; C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, “Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I & II Samuel,” in Commentary on the Old Testament (trans. J. Martin; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, n.d.), 2:358–59; Vincenz Zapletal, Das Buch der Richter (EHAT; Münster: Aschendorff, 1923), 173–74; C. J. Goslinga, Joshua, Judges, Ruth (trans. Ray Togtman; BSC; Grand Rapids: Regency Reference Library/Zondervan, 1986), 350–51; Boling, Judges, 160. However, the ephod could be made of golden threads (Exod 28:6, 8; 39:2, 5), which would have given it a somewhat rigid form so that it could be stored in an upright position; cf. 1 Sam 21:9 (10) and C. Van Dam, “Priestly Clothing,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch (ed. T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2003), 643. Old Assyrian parallels show that such golden garments could be draped over statues of deities in order to clothe them; see Carol Meyers, “Ephod,” ABD 2:550. Therefore, Daniel Block’s suggestion (Judges, Ruth, 300) that, in Judg 8, the ephod functions as a synecdoche for some sort of physical image which causes Israel to “whore” () after it and become a snare for Gideon and his family (8:27) seems the best explanation. 21. The book of Kings sponsored improvements to the temple and presided over the administration of the cult, often using booty gained from the spoils of war (e.g. 1

3. Narrative Analysis of Judges 9

61

Third, the narrative portrays Ophrah as a type of capital city. Ophrah is Gideon’s city (8:27; cf. the city-states in 1 Chr 1:43, 46, 50). Gideon is buried in his city, like many kings.22 Furthermore, 8:29 says that Gideon went “to live in his house” ( 



). Block rightly points out that this statement is tautological in that people naturally reside in their houses. However, if the verb

 is understood to mean “to sit [on a throne]” or “to be king, to reign,” then the statement could again point to Gideon’s regal deportment.23 Fourth, and closely related to the king’s role as cult patron, was the king’s interest in centralizing worship. The establishment of a central cultic site helped kings to secure sacral legitimacy.24 Judges 8:27 emphasizes by repetition that Gideon placed his ephod “in his city, in Ophrah,” and that Israel prostitutes itself to it  , “there.” The narrative thereby foregrounds Gideon’s town of Ophrah as a gathering place for Israel’s cultic practice, suggesting Ophrah functioned as a centralized cult site to which Israel traveled in order to inquire of Yahweh. Fifth, the narrative indicates that Gideon acquired “many wives” (8:30) and a “concubine” ( , 8:31). While the acquisition of multiple wives and concubines was not restricted to royalty, the practice was strongly associated with royalty.25 Sixth, the narrative describes Gideon as the father of seventy sons (8:30). The number seventy often has regal associations, as in the seventy sons of the goddess Athirat at Ugarit, the seventy sons of Ahab killed by Jehu (2 Kgs 10), and the seventy brothers of Panamuwa killed in a palace coup.26 J. C. de Moor goes beyond this to propose that seventy family

2 Kgs 12:19); so Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor, II Kings (AB 11; New York: Doubleday, 1988), 141; R. H. Lowery, The Reforming Kings: Cults and Society in First Temple Judah (JSOTSup 120; Shefeld: JSOT, 1991), 119, 211. 22. Northern and southern kings were also often buried in their capital city (Judg 8:32; cf. 1 Kgs 2:10; 11:43; 14:31; 15:8, 24; 16:6, 28; 22:50; 2 Kgs 8:24; 9:28; 10:35; 12:21; 13:9, 13; 14:16, 20; 15:7, 38; 16:20). 23. Block, Judges, Ruth, 300–301; cf. also M. Görg, “ › yšab,” TDOT 6:430– 31. 24. See also Meyers, “David as Temple Builder,” 357–76 (360–64); Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods, 264–69; Lowery, The Reforming Kings, 211; Keith Whitelam, “The Symbols of Power: Aspects of Royal Propaganda in the United Monarchy,” BA 49 (1986): 166–73. 25. Deut 17:17; 2 Sam 3:7; 5:13; 12:8, 11; 15:16; 16:21–22; 19:5; 20:3; 1 Kgs 11:3–8; 20:3–7; 2 Kgs 24:15; 1 Chr 3:9; 14:3; 2 Chr 11:21; 13:21; 21:14; 24:3; Esth 2:14; Song 6:8–9; Dan 5:2–3. 26. F. C. Fensham, “The Numeral Seventy in the Old Testament and the Family of Jerubbaal, Ahab, Panamuwa and Athirat,” PEQ 109 (1977): 115. 1

62

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

members constitutes an archetypal family.27 However, in light of the judicial role of the seventy elders in Israel (Exod 24; Num 11:16, 24–25) and the common motif of the slaughter of the seventy by rivals for power, the number seventy in political contexts seems also to carry some administrative or governing associations. This suggests that Gideon’s seventy sons functioned either as an advisory council or, more likely, shared some aspects of his rule.28 Seventh, the narrative describes Gideon’s household using regal overtones. As noted above, Gideon returns to “stay” or “rule at/over his house” (8:29). The use of “house” here may be a double entendre, for “house” can refer to a domicile or to a dynastic household.29 Judges 8:30 emphasizes Gideon’s seventy sons and many wives through the use of a chiasm, though the main emphasis falls upon Gideon’s virility, a frequent motif associated with kings.30 The repeated references to Gideon’s household here may be gratuitous. However, the references become more understandable if the narrative seeks to highlight Gideon as the founder of a dynasty whose actions inuence later generations. Eighth, the narrative twice (8:21, 27) indicates Gideon’s personal appropriation of the symbols of kingship associated with the Midianite kings. These items are only associated with the Midianite kings in the narrative and serve to set them apart from the common Midianite soldiers. The transfer of these symbols of kingship to Gideon insinuates an attempt to take on a similar status among his own people. Ninth, Judg 8:31 indicates that Gideon named (    ) his son “Abimelech.” Naming provides an important window on the point of view of the narrator and/or characters,31 and here presents a potential insight into Gideon’s true understanding of kingship. Commentators have remarked upon the unusual nature of this particular expression for naming, noting that it often indicates a re-naming.32 This opens the 27. J. C. de Moor, “Seventy!,” in “Und Mose schrieb dieses Lied auf”: Studien zum Alten Testament und zum Alten Orient. Festschrift für Oswald Loretz zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahr mit Beiträgen von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen (ed. M. Dietrich and I. Kottsieper; AOAT 250; Münster: Ugarit Verlag, 1998), 199–200. 28. Halpern also notes (“The Rise of Abimelek ben-Jerubbaal,” 91 n. 32) that oligarchic rule may have been known at Shechem in the Amarna period, pointing to J. Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna Tafeln (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1915), 102:22; 138:49. 29. Cf. 2 Sam 7:13–16; 1 Kgs 2:24; 8:20, 25. 30. See, for example, Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (trans. John McHugh; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997 [1961]), 115–17. 31. See Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, 59–61, 87–91. 32. See Goslinga, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 353; Boling, Judges, 162; Schneider, Judges, 130; Bluedorn, Yahweh Versus Baalism, 192; cf. 2 Kgs 17:34; Neh 9:7; 1

3. Narrative Analysis of Judges 9

63

possibility that Gideon’s naming of Abimelech reects an intentional characterization of Gideon’s views. While the referents in the name “Abimelech” include a range of options,33 one of the possible interpretations of Abimelech’s name is “my (earthly) father is king.” In this case, such an admission would directly contradict Gideon’s afrmation in 8:22. Similarly, the name could also mean “father (Gideon) of the king,”34 in which case, the name foreshadows Abimelech’s kingship in Judg 9 and also contradicts Gideon’s words in 8:23. When taken separately, these nine depictions do not necessarily indicate Gideon’s acceptance of the Israelite offer of kingship; the depictions can also be interpreted in other ways. However, when taken together, and in conjunction with the regal portrayal of Gideon even before the offer of kingship, the accumulation of detail is highly suggestive, creating ambiguity around Gideon’s views of kingship and even contradicting Gideon’s explicit rejection of kingship in Judg 8:23. In this regard, it is useful to note that in terms of the narrative’s portrayal, Gideon’s rejection of kingship is related using direct speech, while it is the narrator who relates each of the nine depictions of Gideon as king. In such cases, readers must weigh conicting portrayals,35 for the narrator does not proffer a direct pronouncement. Here, the reader must weigh Gideon’s direct speech against the implicit portrayal of Gideon as king. However, it is also instructive to note that in biblical narrative, a character’s decisions and actions reveal his/her true values.36 Consequently, the portrayal of Gideon’s attitude towards kingship in Judg 8 is bathed in ambiguity, asserting Gideon’s rejection of kingship, but insinuating his acceptance. The narrative’s true stance towards the monarchy is also brought into question. The narrative has counter-balanced Gideon’s rejection of kingship with his regal pretensions; it is thus not clear that the narrative wishes to eschew completely all forms of human kingship. This ambiguity sets the stage for the explicit exploration of kingship in Judg 9. While Judg 8 is reticent to connect Gideon directly with kingship, Judg 9 explicitly connects Abimelech with kingship. Judges 8 explores the granting of kingship while Judg 9 explores the seizing of Dan 1:7. The observation that Abimelech alone is named while his seventy brothers remain anonymous further foregrounds Abimelech’s naming. 33. See the discussion in Bluedorn (Yahweh Versus Baalism, 192). 34. This reading understands the yod in   as an old genitive singular ending. See IBHS 8.2c. 35. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 116–19; cf. Amit, Reading Biblical Narratives, 75–82. 36. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 81. 1

64

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

kingship. The ambiguity in Judg 8 leaves the reader with questions regarding the legitimacy of Gideon’s actions while Judg 9 makes the illegitimacy of Abimelech’s actions clear (9:56–57). These observations are not an attempt to deny the validity of comparing the two accounts or their close connection. However, they do suggest a nuanced difference of stance that requires our close attention to both perspectives. These observations lead to the conclusion that the Abimelech narrative in Judg 9 functions as an independent narrative unit, but with important close ties to Judg 6–8 that make it a natural complement to these chapters. Judges 6–8 contains several motifs that do not reach their terminal conclusion in Judg 8. The dissonance between Gideon’s words and actions leave the motif of kingship unresolved. The motif of retribution, introduced through the etiology of Gideon’s second appellative, Jerubbaal, also leaves room for further exploration. These motifs receive further examination and clarication in the Abimelech narrative, so that when viewed together, a more comprehensive picture comes into view. The examination of Judg 9 proceeds in this light. 2. The Narrative Structure of Judges 9 A well-told story has the ability to capture not only its hearers’ or readers’ attention, but to spark their imagination and to shape their understandings of the world around them. In order to do so, a good story needs a coherent plot. A plot is “the main organizing principle of a story.”37 A good plot ties diverse story elements together into a coherent chain of inter-connected narrative events in order to “arouse the reader’s interest and emotional involvement, while at the same time imbuing the events with meaning.”38 Narrative techniques such as dialogue, ambiguity, narration, point of view, characterization, and setting propel the plot forward towards a climax and resolution. The story’s composer also carefully selects cause and effect relationships and relations of contrast, analogy, or parallelism in order to tie individual scenes or events together. Consequently, each individual incident contributes important elements to the plot and so must be interpreted within the whole of the larger story, for it is the plot structure that gives individual episodes a context and organizes the relationships between the various parts. Stories that spark the imagination contain some sort of tension, quest, or conict that needs resolution, and so focus upon some sort of change

37. Fokkelman, Reading Biblical Narrative, 76 (emphasis Fokkelman’s). 38. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 92. 1

3. Narrative Analysis of Judges 9

65

and its denouement. It is this dynamic that moves the plot forward and grabs the interest of the reader. Thus, by understanding the structure of a given narrative, we are then able to understand its message better.39 Yairah Amit has laid out a simple yet instructive method for analyzing plot structure. Amit holds that biblical narratives can be analyzed using a ve-part pediment structure.40 The rst structural element, the exposition, familiarizes readers with the initial situation by introducing the main characters and their relationships, the time, and the setting in which the action will take place. This information tends to be static and descriptive, preparing the reader for the major change, quest, or tension around which the rest of the story revolves. The exposition usually ends with some sort of statement, action, or description that changes the initial situation. Without this disruption of the initial equilibrium there would be no story. The second structural element, the complication, illustrates why and how the initial situation has changed. This complication then brings on the third element, the change, which alters the opening conditions and serves as the heart of the story. After the introduction of the change, the fourth element, the unravelling, illustrates the consequences of the change. The ending marks the exit of the main characters from the “stage” and a return to the conditions of the opening. The pediment structure can be illustrated in the following manner:41 Change Unravelling

Complication

Ending

Exposition

Figure 3.1

This model can fruitfully be applied to the analysis of Judg 9. Judges 9:1–6 serves as the exposition, introducing the main characters (Abimelech and the Shechemites) as well as the ensuing point of tension— Abimelech’s rise to kingship at Shechem at the expense of the seventy sons of Jerubbaal, his brothers (9:5), through the aid of the Shechemites, who are also his “brothers” (9:3). In this way, the exposition makes a

39. Fokkelman, Reading Biblical Narrative, 149. 40. Amit, Reading Biblical Narratives, 33–49 (46–49). 41. Adapted from ibid., 47. 1

66

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

break with the previous story-line in Judg 8, which focuses on Gideon, and introduces readers to a new story-world with new main characters in a new setting (Shechem). This exposition is admittedly atypical, for an unusual amount of action takes place within these six verses. However, these verses set the foundation for the rest of the chapter by bringing together two main points of tension that echo throughout the passage. The entire exposition focuses upon how Abimelech becomes king. This motif is combined with a focus upon kinship signalled by the repetition of such words as “father,” “brother,” “father’s house,” and “mother.”42 This intense concentration of terms from the semantic domain of the family prepares the reader for the shifting alliances that characterize Abimelech’s rise to kingship and remain instrumental in his demise. Moreover, it is to this set of conditions that the narrator returns at the conclusion of the narrative in 9:56–57. In this way, Judg 9:1–6 introduces readers to the key people and issues around which the plot of Judg 9 turns. Judges 9:7–21 signals a complication in the initial alignments of 9:1– 6. Jotham’s escape from the hand of his brother (9:5) does not directly threaten Abimelech’s hold upon the throne in Shechem. However, as the lone survivor of the massacre at Ophrah, Jotham’s presence signals that Abimelech’s attempts to secure his rule by eliminating all of his potential rivals have failed. Moreover, Jotham’s words ultimately mark the beginning of the end for both Abimelech and his subjects. Jotham’s speech upon Mt. Gerizim contains a fable (9:8–15) and its application (9:16–20). The fable follows a three-and-four structure, which “is often used to convey confrontation and persuasion and for effecting a change of attitude. It entails four events sharing a common denominator, the last of which entails a change in position; in other words, after three ineffective occurrences, there is an effective fourth.”43 Here the trees make three unsuccessful offers of kingship to three trees, followed by a fourth successful offer of kingship to another type of tree.44 The fourth tree (the thorny tree) then challenges the sincerity ( ) of the offer using conditional clauses, predicting destruction if the offer is not sincere (9:15).

42. The name “Abimelech,” which can mean “my father is king,” appears in (9:1, 3, 4, 6). Other kinship terms that appear in Judg 9:1–6 include: “father” (9:1, 5); “brother” (9:1, 3 [twice], 5); “son” (9:1, 2 [twice], 5 [twice]); “mother” (9:1 [twice], 3); and “clan” (9:1). 43. Amit, Reading Biblical Narratives, 62. 44. Ibid. 1

3. Narrative Analysis of Judges 9

67

The modied three-and-four structure of Jotham’s explanation (9:16– 20) parallels the three-and-four structure of the fable. Jotham also questions the sincerity ( ) and genuineness ( ) of the Shechemite agreement to Abimelech’s kingship by using three positive conditional clauses in 9:16: A B C

Now if you have acted in sincerity and genuineness when you made Abimelech king… And if you have acted in kindness towards Jerubbaal and his house… And if you have acted in appropriate response to what he has done for you…

At this point, however, Jotham digresses45 into reasons why the Shechemites had reason to act appropriately and how they failed to do so by making Abimelech king (9:17–18). In 9:19, having made his point, he again resumes the line of thought introduced by the three initial conditional clauses in 9:16, modifying and combining statements A and B, in order to lay out a modied third conditional clause in 9:19a: A+B

If you have acted in sincerity and genuineness towards Jerubbaal and his house today…

This clause essentially repeats the information in A and B, adding the temporal marker “today” or “this day.” In this way, the three-and-four structure, though modied, remains recognizable to the reader and resumes the thoughts of 9:16. The resulting apodosis to Jotham’s three conditional clauses is: Apodosis 1

Rejoice in Abimelech and may he also rejoice in you (9:19b).

Thus, Jotham lays out three conditions under which the Shechemites could rejoice in their actions. However, 9:20 puts forward a fourth conditional clause: D Apodosis 2

But if not… Fire will come out from Abimelech and consume the lords of Shechem and Beth-Millo and re will come out from the lords of Shechem and Beth-Millo and consume Abimelech.

This fourth conditional clause and its apodosis acts as the change (already hinted at earlier) in the three-and-four structure. Jotham confronts 45. Diachronic interpreters have noted how this digression interrupts the connection between Jotham’s three protases and their apodosis in 9:19: Richter, Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Richterbuch, 251; Veijola, Das Königtum, 113; Fritz, “Abimelech und Sichem,” 132–33; Becker, Richterzeit und Königtum, 196–97; Jans, Abimelech und sein Königtum, 321–28. 1

68

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

Abimelech and the Shechemites, listing three related conditions under which the current situation could (theoretically) continue. The fourth conditional clause and its apodosis, however, bring forward the condition under which a change in the status of the relationship between Abimelech and the Shechemites could ensue. If the original conditions under which the alliance between Abimelech and the Shechemites was forged were illegitimate, as Jotham has already indicated, then mutual destruction would result. In this way, the similar structure of both the fable and its interpretation work in tandem with each other. They point the reader back to the initial conditions of Judg 9:1–6 and cause the reader to question explicitly the legitimacy of the means used to make Abimelech king. They also foreshadow the coming change in the relationship between Abimelech and the Shechemites. Judges 9:22 relates that Abimelech only reigned as king for three years. This fact, which is inserted immediately after Jotham’s prediction of impending mutual destruction for Abimelech and the Shechemites, indicates the narrator’s conrmation of Jotham’s words. Abimelech’s kingship was short-lived and the proleptic announcement of its demise foreshadows the immanent change that is about to occur in the relationship between Abimelech and the Shechemites. In this way, Judg 9:7–22 prepares the reader for an impending rift in the alliance rst presented in the exposition (9:1–6). The third element of the pediment structure, the change, occurs in 9:23–24. Though brief, it is on this point that the plot turns.46 Here, the narrator polarizes the initial relationships forged in 9:1–6 via an evil or malicious spirit sent by God, which comes between Abimelech and the Shechemites. It is signicant to note that, other than the conclusion, 9:23 is the only point in the narrative that specically mentions God’s action in the plot, thereby leaving no doubt as to the reason for the turn of events.47 The full impact of this setting asunder, however, does not become evident until the next section. It is here, at the fulcrum of the plot, that the narrator points both backward (via the explicit negative evaluation of the murder of Abimelech’s brothers in 9:24) and forward (via the impending rift in the relationship between Abimelech and the Shechemites in 9:23). A shift has occurred, and the reader must continue on to see how these changes will nd their fulllment.

46. Cf. Terry L. Brensinger, Judges (BCBC; Waterloo, Ont.: Herald, 1999), 105. 47. Assis (Self-Interest or Communal Interest, 155–56) suggests that this theological interjection serves to prevent the build-up of suspense “so that there would be no doubts or alternative readings of the events.” 1

3. Narrative Analysis of Judges 9

69

In contrast to the brevity of the point of change, Judg 9:25–55 illustrates in detail the unravelling of the Abimelech–Shechemite alliance. This section parallels the structure of 9:7–22 in that it also follows a three-and-four pattern. Judges 9:25–29 illustrates the Shechemites’ ckleness through the introduction of Gaal, who plays upon the already weakening (cf. 9:23) Shechemite allegiance to Abimelech. Gaal functions as a representative for the Shechemites, who shift their loyalty to him (9:26). He then leads the Shechemites to open rebellion against Abimelech (9:29; cf. 9:31). In response, Zebul, who functions as Abimelech’s representative at Shechem,48 warns Abimelech of the rebellion and instructs him as to the best way to silence this threat (9:30–33). Thereafter, the narrative recounts Abimelech’s three successful battles at or near Shechem (9:34–41, 42–45, 46–49), battles which result in the complete destruction of Shechem and its inhabitants. Abimelech’s fourth, unsuccessful battle at Thebez, however, results in his own death (9:50–55). The ending (Judg 9:56–57) closes the narrative by drawing the reader’s attention to the ultimate outcome of the change in the relationship between Abimelech and the Shechemites rst mentioned in 9:23–24. Each party has received its due and appropriate recompense in accord with its actions; each party bears responsibility for the annihilation of the other.49 The Shechemites indirectly bring about Abimelech’s downfall by provoking him to a series of reckless and bloodthirsty battles in which Abimelech’s desire for revenge outweighs his common sense. Abimelech’s blood lust leads him too close to the wall of Thebez where he is overcome by a fatal blow to the head by an upper millstone. Abimelech, on the other hand, annihilates his subjects in a bloody and destructive rampage. With the mutual destruction of Abimelech and the Shechemites, the narrative returns to the status quo of the book of Judges,50 albeit

48. Note that both Gaal and Zebul precipitate the confrontation between Abimelech and the Shechemites. Gaal incites the Shechemites to open rebellion. Zebul instructs Abimelech in the best way to confront Gaal and the Shechemites. Once the Shechemites and Abimelech have been drawn into open confrontation, both Abimelech and Zebul disappear from the narrative in 9:41 and do not reappear, while the two main belligerents battle each other until they destroy each other in the process. Thus, Gaal and Zebul function as types in the plot structure; cf. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, 23–32. 49. Boogaart, “Stone for Stone,” 45–56; Janzen, “A Certain Woman,” 33–37. 50. Nathan Klaus (Pivot Patterns in the Former Prophets [JSOTSup 247; Shefeld: Shefeld Academic, 1999], 98, 249) suggests that Judg 9:56–57 exhibits a chiastic structure, one which he links to a common narrative technique called a pivot 1

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

70

a changed status quo, for the overall story line of Judges has now explored the idea of kingship in Israel. The plot structure of Judg 9 brings to the fore the question of the legitimacy of Abimelech’s kingship. It is instructive to note that the narrative does not directly question the value of a monarchy. Rather, the narrative delegitimizes the manner in which Abimelech becomes king. The exposition (9:5), the complication (9:18), the change (9:24), and the ending (9:56) each emphasize the murder of Abimelech’s brothers in his rise to kingship. In addition, God’s intervention in the “change,” foreshadowed by Jotham the brother of Abimelech and related by the omniscient and reliable narrator,51 converge to highlight three key voices that condemn Abimelech’s kingship. Furthermore, the emphasis upon the use and abuse of family relationships throughout the passage (9:1–5, 16–19, 21, 24, 26, 28, 31, 35, 41, 49, 54, 56–57) by both king and people raises questions about the place of local alliances (vs. national interests) in the making of a king. The plot structure can then be illustrated as follows: Change 9:23–24 Complication 9:7–15 (3-and-4 structure) 9:16–22 (3-and-4 structure)

Unraveling 9:25–55 (3-and-4 structure)

Exposition (9:1–6)

Ending (9:56–57)

Figure 3.2

3. Narrative Analysis of Judges 9 a. Judges 9:1–6—The Exposition The story of Abimelech begins with a journey52 to Shechem, the principal setting for Judg 9. The journey to Shechem (9:1) immediately breaks pattern. A pivot pattern enables a narrator to conclude a story in the same way in which he began. Klaus observes that some word pairs common to pivot patterns (e.g.  —  ) indicate a return to the status quo, as seen in Judg 9:56–57. 51. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 17–19; Fokkelman, Reading Biblical Narrative, 55–56; Amit, Reading Biblical Narratives, 95. 52. Becker (Richterzeit und Königtum, 187) holds that Judg 9:1 does not serve as an adequate opening for the Abimelech narrative and so was not the original opening 1

3. Narrative Analysis of Judges 9

71

with the reader’s expectations, for families in ancient Israel were typically patrilineal (where descent and inheritance is reckoned through the father’s line) and patrilocal (where brides go to live with their husband’s family).53 Therefore, Abimelech’s journey to the home of his mother’s family begins the narrative with suspense with regard to Abimelech’s purposes and motives. The narrator’s identication of Abimelech as the son of Jerubbaal (9:1) furthers this tension. By identifying Abimelech as the son of Jerubbaal, the narrator creates an expectation of loyalty to Jerubbaal by virtue of Abimelech’s position as his son. However, Abimelech’s journey to his mother’s hometown immediately creates a dichotomy between his connection to his father’s family centred in Ophrah (9:5) and the family of Abimelech’s mother, centred in Shechem. The juxtaposition of these two families at the beginning of the narrative sets up the motif of kinship loyalty that permeates the rest of the story. The motif of kinship loyalty develops further through Abimelech’s approach towards his uncles ( , 9:1), highlighting their connection to Abimelech through his mother. Abimelech speaks with both his mother’s brothers and the entire family ( ) of the house of his mother’s father. By doing so, the narrative sets the stage for an exploration of how these kin relationships function throughout the rest of the narrative. Judges 9:2 relates the contents of Abimelech’s speech to his mother’s kinsmen and, through them, the lords54 ( ) of Shechem. Robert Alter of the Abimelech story. However,  on occasion does begin a new independent narrative unit; cf. Exod 2:1; Judg 16:1; 2 Sam 5:6; 1 Kgs 12:1//2 Chr 10:1; 1 Kgs 19:19; 1 Chr 11:4. 53. See King and Stager, Life in Biblical Israel, 36–38. 54. Contra Moore, Judges, 242; Burney, The Book of Judges, 270; Sellin, Wie wurde Sichem eine israelitische Stadt?, 24, the term does not refer to the citizens of Shechem. O’Connell (The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 165–66) rightly points out: (1) the baalim of Shechem enter the stronghold of El-Berith after all the citizens have been killed (9:46; cf. 9:24–25); (2) the baalim have the authority to nance Abimelech’s activities (9:4); and (3) Judg 9:51 portrays the lords of Thebez as a body distinct from the ordinary men and women of the city. The choice of  , “baalim,” for the rulers of the city seems to be an intentional word-play on the title of the deity by the same name, “Baal.” Bluedorn (Yahweh Versus Baalism, 202) suggests that the characterization of the lords of Shechem as Baalists is more explicit, and consistently translates the term as “baalists.” However, the term itself need not carry explicit baalistic connotations (cf. Gen 14:13; Num 21:28; 1 Sam 23:11–12; 2 Sam 21:12). Furthermore, the ight of the lords of Shechem to the vault of El-Berith (9:46) precludes simple identication of the lords of Shechem as devotees of only Baal. 1

72

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

notes that particularly at the beginning of a new story, the rst instance of dialogue is revelatory and a key exposition of character.55 Signicantly, Abimelech’s words reveal his self-centred focus. Abimelech asks the people of Shechem to decide, “What is better for you?” ( ), appealing to their self-interest yet mirroring his own vested self-interest in the outcome of the proposal. This focus on self-interested action also serves as a hallmark of both Abimelech and the Shechemites throughout the rest of the chapter.56 Abimelech draws a deliberate contrast between himself and his brothers, the seventy sons of Jerubbaal, using two polar questions.57 The contrast is emphasized through the juxtaposition of “seventy men” (  

, the sons of Jerubbaal) and “one man” ( , Abimelech). The contrast, however, is not equal. Abimelech emphasizes that the choice is not just between one man and seventy men, but also between “all the sons of Jerubbaal” and this one man. Abimelech fails to mention that he is also a son of Jerubbaal in an effort to align himself further with his other kinsmen, the Shechemites. While unusual, a council of seventy rulers may reect a viable form of rule.58 The choice for the Shechemites, however, moves beyond oligarchy or monarchy to include personal allegiance based upon kinship ties. In order to sway the Shechemites to support him, Abimelech reminds them that he is their “bones and esh.” This phrase is a merism, denoting a person in his/her totality—“all physical-psychological dimensions of interaction from A to Z.”59 However, beyond this observation, interpreters have viewed this phrase differently. Naomi Steinberg holds that this phrase emphasizes kinship connection,60 while Tetsuo Saski suggests it signies total equality.61 An argument based on equality seems out of place if Abimelech is simultaneously arguing for his elevation to one of the most inequitable positions in antiquity. Walter Brueggemann suggests 55. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 74. 56. Assis, Self-Interest or Communal Interest, 131–73. 57. Introduced by the interrogative particle , with its corresponding second polar question marked by the use of . See IBHS 40.3.b. 58. See above, pp. 61–62 and n. 28. Note also the group of seventy peoples in the Table of Nations in Gen 10, which is intended to represent the totality of peoples who rule over the earth. 59. Walter Brueggemann, “Of the Same Flesh and Bone (GN 2, 23a),” CBQ 32 (1970): 532–42 (534). 60. Steinberg, “Social Scientic Criticism,” 54. 61. Tetsuo Saski, The Concept of War in the Book of Judges: A Strategical Evaluation of the Wars of Gideon, Deborah, Samson and Abimelech (Tokyo: Gakujutsu Tosho Shuppan-Sha, 2001), 83. 1

3. Narrative Analysis of Judges 9

73

that while kinship relationships may be in view here, the afrmation goes beyond this to serve as a reminder of responsibility for political or communal loyalty. The Shechemite response, “He is our brother”62 (9:3), then goes beyond an afrmation of kinship to serve as “a covenant oath which afrms and establishes a pattern of solidarity,” thereby binding the two parties together throughout all circumstances.63 These afrmations set up an expectation of loyalty between the two parties, stemming from both their kinship ties and their own stated commitments to each other, which will be tested in the following verses. This bond between Abimelech and the Shechemites explicitly sets up a motif closely related to that of kinship—faithful allegiance—that also permeates the rest of the chapter.64 This bond also serves as the backdrop against which the legitimacy of Abimelech’s proposal, and later his kingship, is measured. The grant of seventy pieces of silver from the temple of Baal-Berith (9:4) embodies this alliance. The narrator does not state whether the money comes at Abimelech’s request or the initiative of the Shechemites. However, the fact that the Shechemites “give” ( ) Abimelech this money suggests that it was voluntary. Through this act, the Shechemites have a vested interest in Abimelech’s rise, while the money also serves to create a type of debt that Abimelech owes the Shechemites. The seventy pieces of silver allow Abimelech to hire the band of “unprincipled and reckless men” which then aids him in his actions against his seventy brothers, and thus facilitates his rise to kingship. The characterization of these men through the double epithet “unprincipled” (, literally “empty”) and “reckless” () is an unusual insertion of the narrator’s values,65 and characterizes both them and Abimelech very negatively, for they are his choice.66 62. This term is a frequent covenant term, as noted by Bluedorn (Yahweh Versus Baalism, 205). 63. Brueggemann, “Of the Same Flesh and Bone,” 537, followed by Boling (Judges, 171) and Block (Judges, Ruth, 311 n. 746). 64. Schneider (Judges, 136–37) notes that this is the rst instance where lineage and clan loyalties inuence the community to such an extent that it impacts the leaders they choose: “The role of clan and tribal loyalties will grow to such an extent that it becomes a contributing factor to the civil war at the end of the book, and again in resolving what was almost the destruction of the tribe of Benjamin in the nal episode (Judges 20–21).” 65. Cf. Klein, The Triumph of Irony in the Book of Judges, 71. 66. For further discussion and the link between these men and the heroic culture of ancient Israel, see Gregory Mobley, The Empty Men: The Heroic Tradition of Ancient Israel (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 2005), 19–74, 154. 1

74

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

The identity and role of Baal-Berith remains somewhat of an enigma.67 In particular, the relationship between Baal-Berith and El-Berith (9:46) is key for understanding the identity of these deities.68 In my view, the most helpful understanding of the relationship between these two deities is to see Baal-Berith as an epithet for the god El69 (Baal-Berith = “Lord of the covenant” = “El”) rather than as the title of a separate deity,70 for it is unlikely that there were two patron deities for Shechem.71 Theodore Lewis has made a convincing case for seeing El-Berith as a treaty partner who entered into a covenant with the Shechemites, much like Yahweh

67. For a helpful introduction to the various theories surrounding the interpretation of Baal-Berith, see M. J. Mulder’s entry in DDD 141–44. 68. Early interpreters equated Baal-Berith and El-Berith: Budde, Das Buch der Richter, 71; Moore, Judges, 242. John L. McKenzie (The World of the Judges [Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice–Hall, 1966], 139) and Wright (Shechem, 136–37) suggest that both deities were connected with the name Yahweh at an early period in Israel’s history. However, contra the identication of Yahweh with the god(s) of Shechem, see R. E. Clements (“Baal-Berith of Shechem,” JSS 13 [1968]: 21–32 [24]). On the other hand, Soggin (Judges, 192–93, and “The Migdal Temple, Migdal Shechem Judg 9 and the Artifact on Mount Ebal,” in Augustin and Schunck, eds., Wünschet Jerusalem Frieden, 115–19) has viewed the two deities as two separate gods with two different temples (9:4, 46). Clements (“Baal-Berith of Shechem,” 26–32) explores the possibility of Baal, lord of the covenant as a covenant witness/guarantor between Shechem and some other polity, but suggests that the most likely scenario is that Baal-Berith served as a covenant partner with the people in Shechem. 69. For the prominence of El in the Canaanite pantheon, see Conrad L’Heureux, Rank Among the Canaanite Gods: El, Baal, and the Rephaim (HSM 21; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1979), 3–17. Note also Cross (Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 39), who points to the presence of ’il brt in a Hurrian hymn at Ugarit and equates Baal-Berith with El-Berith. There is no other known extra-biblical evidence for a deity named “b!l brt”; contra Mulder (“Baal-Berith,” 143) and Bernard Batto (“Image of God in Joshua and Judges,” TBT 39 [2001]: 218–19), who see BaalBerith as a reference to a Baal-deity based upon the reference in 9:27 to a harvest/ fertility festival. However, the patron of the temple is left unspecied, and feasts were not exclusively associated with Baal. 70. This would eliminate the need to see the two different references as the result of redactional layering as assumed by Fritz (“Abimelech und Sichem in Jdg. 9,” 129–44 [132–33]). 71. So Lewis, “Identity and Function of El/Baal Berith,” 401–23. Lewis acknowledges the presence of Baal at Shechem (pp. 422–23) based upon a gurine discovered at Tell Balatâh and the occurrence of three personal names containing the theophoric “Hadad” (another appellative for the storm-god Baal) on cuneiform fragments from Shechem. However, it is unlikely that both Baal and El served as covenant partners at Shechem. 1

3. Narrative Analysis of Judges 9

75

and Israel.72 Lewis mentions in passing that as covenant partner, El(Baal-)Berith would have entered into a kinship type of relationship with the inhabitants of the city.73 Kinship language was a common mode of expression for treaties of various kinds, and Frank Cross has effectively argued that Israel’s view of the covenant with Yahweh reects similar perspectives, so that Yahweh served as the ultimate paterfamilias.74 Lawrence Stager has described the structure of Iron Age I society in Palestine as a series of nested households, with the king viewed as the son of the deity and the deity as the ultimate paterfamilias.75 The implications for Judg 9 suggest that El-(Baal-)Berith was viewed in a similar fashion, as the paterfamilias of the Shechemites. By accepting money from the treasury of the temple of El-(Baal-)Berith, Abimelech identies himself with the Shechemites and their deity, joining the “family” of El(Baal-)Berith in Shechem, and abandoning his Israelite familial and religious allegiances. Abimelech’s identication with his Shechemite “family” only deepens when he travels to Ophrah (9:5). The change in physical location does not signal a change of allegiance however. In fact, this brief scene in Ophrah conrms Abimelech’s rejection of his ties with his father’s household, for there he murders his seventy brothers. The narrator draws attention to Abimelech’s kinship relationships with these men through the repetition of kinship terms. Abimelech murders his brothers (), the sons of Jerubbaal (  ). The reference to Abimelech’s brothers is ironic, for the Shechemites accept Abimelech’s proposal for rule over them, over-and-against the seventy sons of Jerubbaal, because they reason, “He is our brother” (9:3). Abimelech’s willingness to betray his brothers for seventy pieces of silver illustrates how cheaply he holds the lives of these brothers—one piece of silver for each life.76 This is particularly telling when compared with the relatively high price of a slave in Lev 27.77 72. Ibid., 404–10. 73. Ibid., 423. 74. Frank Moore Cross, “Kinship and Covenant in Ancient Israel,” in From Epic to Canon (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), 3–21. 75. Stager, “The Archaeology of the Family,” 18–23; King and Stager, Life in Biblical Israel, 36–40. 76. Similarly, Fokkelman (“Structural Remarks,” 36–37) suggests that the number seventy allows readers to compute the value of each life. 77. Block (Judges, Ruth, 311 n. 750) points out that the price of an adult male slave in the prime of his life was valued at fty shekels of silver, a boy at twenty, an elderly male at fteen and a toddler at ve shekels of silver. Even female toddlers could fetch three shekels of silver (Lev 27:3–7). 1

76

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

Abimelech kills “his brothers, the sons of Jerubbaal, seventy men, upon one stone” (     

  ). Uwe Becker points out that this murder was technically unnecessary, as the Shechemites had already accepted his rule,78 though the elimination of perceived rivals is a common phenomenon in succession contexts in the ancient Near East. The narrator draws the reader’s attention to the violence with which Abimelech eliminates his brothers through his choice of terms and by a contrast between the seventy brothers and the one stone upon which Abimelech kills them.79 Block suggests that the focus upon one stone here emphasizes how the brothers were slaughtered one after another in one place.80 The individual confrontation between Abimelech and each of his brothers becomes even clearer with the observation that in Judg 9:5, the subject of the verb “to kill, murder” is singular (). The nearest referent is Abimelech (9:4), placing the murder of the seventy brothers directly in his hands. The observation that though Abimelech hired seventy “unprincipled and reckless men” they play no direct part in the murder, only heightens Abimelech’s culpability. Consequently, by their omission and the emphasis upon Abimelech’s personal responsibility for 78. Becker, Richterzeit und Königtum, 185. 79. There is no consensus among interpreters as to how to interpret the reference to the one stone. Some have seen the stone as a type of altar (Sellin, Wie wurde Sichem eine israelitische Stadt?, 26) or that the murder of the brothers indicates some sort of sacricial ritual (Brensinger, Judges, 108; Boling, Judges, 171; Bluedorn, Yahweh Versus Baalism, 207). Others compare the use of one stone here to Saul’s sacrice in 1 Sam 14:33–35, and suggest that it functions as a vessel to collect the blood of the slaughtered victims and as a safeguard (cf. Gen 4:10) against their blood crying out for vengeance (McKenzie, The World of the Judges, 140; Cundall, Judges and Ruth, 127; John Gray, Joshua, Judges and Ruth [NCB; London: Thomas Nelson, 1967], 318; Moore, Judges, 242–43), or as a guard against infertility (J. D. Martin, The Book of Judges [CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975], 115). Keil (“Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I & II Samuel,” 362), followed by Burney (The Book of Judges, 271), suggests that the presence of the stone merely marks a place of execution. Hertzberg (Die Bucher Josua, Richter, Ruth, 204) comes closer to the emphasis in the narrative when he suggests that the seventy brothers were slaughtered all together, or at the same time (probably implying consecutively rather than simultaneously). 80. Block, Judges, Ruth, 312. The ritual slaughter of Abimelech’s brothers seems unlikely, as there are no hints of a religious context here. The reference to one stone as a sort of collection vessel for his brothers’ blood in order to forestall bloodvengeance may possibly be in view here, though the comprehensiveness of this slaughter implies that Abimelech killed every person capable of vengeance, making such a precaution unnecessary. Block’s suggestion seems most likely, emphasizing the repetitive nature of the murder by localizing it in one place. 1

3. Narrative Analysis of Judges 9

77

the murder of his own brothers, the narrative portrays Abimelech as even worse than these seventy thugs. He will murder his own family in order to advance his own agenda and further his personal ambitions. Thereby, the reader is led to see that a leader like Abimelech is ruthless and dangerous, for even his own family cannot count on his loyalty.81 The narrative moves on to describe Abimelech’s coronation (9:6). In fact, there are no explicit temporal markers in the exposition, so that the presentation of Abimelech’s request (9:2–3), the payment of seventy pieces of silver (9:4), the murder of Abimelech’s brothers (9:5), and Abimelech’s coronation (9:6) all take place in a quick succession of events, linked together in a long wayyiqtol chain. This compression of narrative time tightly connects these events together for readers, and they are all set in motion by Abimelech’s journey to Shechem. The narrative describes the coronation of Abimelech as a gathering of “all the lords of Shechem and all Beth-Millo” (9:6). The identity of “Beth-Millo” remains uncertain.82 Some have understood it as a reference to the Tower of Shechem (9:46–49).83 However, this seems unlikely, as “Beth-Millo” stands in apposition to a group of people—“all the lords of Shechem.” A more common interpretation is to see Beth-Millo as a reference to a group of people living on or in an area known as BethMillo,84 usually priests and soldiers,85 or the nobility.86 However, the narrator emphasizes the inclusivity of those participating in the coronation through the repetition of “all” () and the gathering () of the 81. Butler (Judges, 237) concludes, “The killing effectively removes from Israel any legitimate leadership derived from family or dynastic ties and leaves the central gure of Israelite leadership as a half-breed with closer ties to the Canaanite Baal worshipers than to Israel.” 82. Millo () refers to that which lls or makes full; see HALOT 1:584. Here, Millo is probably the earthwork ll for a large structure or possibly the inll of terraces in the city. 83. So Keil, “Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I & II Samuel,” 362; Budde, Das Buch der Richter, 72; Hertzberg, Die Bucher Josua, Richter, Ruth, 205; Cundall, Judges and Ruth, 127, presumably because of its role in the defensive fortications of Jerusalem (2 Sam 5:9; 1 Kgs 11:27; 1 Chr 11:8; 2 Chr 32:5). Marie-Joseph Lagrange (Le Livre des Juges [Paris: Victor Lecoffre, 1903], 165) suggests more generally that it refers to a fortied part of the city. 84. E. F. Campbell, Jr. “Judges 9 and Archaeology,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of his Sixtieth Birthday (ed. C. Meyers and M. O’Connor; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 264. 85. Soggin, Judges, 168–69; Gray, Joshua, Judges and Ruth, 317–18; Brensinger, Judges, 108. 86. Martin, The Book of Judges, 115–16; Block, Judges, Ruth, 313. 1

78

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

parties involved. It may be better, then, to see the lords of Shechem as representatives of the nobility, while Beth-Millo represents the wider citizenry of Shechem.87 Therefore, “all the lords of Shechem” and “all of Beth-Millo” would function as a type of merism, indicating the comprehensive nature of those gathered to make Abimelech king. The circle of those who have accepted Abimelech’s kingship has moved from those in his mother’s household, to the larger family ( , 9:1), to the lords of Shechem (9:2, 3), and now the entire city (9:6). The complete acceptance of Abimelech as king prepares the reader for Abimelech’s complete destruction of the city of Shechem.88 The narrator draws special attention to Abimelech’s ascension to kingship through the repetition of the root mlk—“they made king” () “Abimelech” (  ) “king” ( ). This coronation takes places at the oak of the pillar (  ),89 which may well suggest that the narrator conceived of the coronation taking place inside the connes of the Temple of Baal-Berith.90 This coronation then identies Abimelech not only with the Shechemites, but also with their deity.

87. Support for this view may be found in the excavations of the roughly contemporaneous so-called Stepped-Stone Structure, usually identied with the Millo, excavated in Jerusalem. Jane Cahill (“Jerusalem in David and Solomon’s Time,” BARev 30, no. 6 [2004]: 20–31, 62–63 [25–28]) notes that in the tenth century, parts of the Stepped-Stone Structure were removed and houses (Ahiel’s House and the Burnt Room House) were built into the structure. Cahill suggests that these houses belonged to part of a newly constructed residential quarter. Thus, “Beth-Millo” may refer to a specic residential quarter of the city near the Millo and, by implication, the people who live there (cf. 2 Kgs 12:21, where Beth-Millo seems to be a particular quarter of the city near the place where the road to Silla begins). Cf. also HALOT 1:127, which identies “Beth-Millo” with a district in Jerusalem. 88. The Shechemites’ coming () to make Abimelech king (9:6) parallels Abimelech’s coming ( ) to Shechem to request his family’s aid in becoming king and envelops the narrative exposition. This reciprocation also suggests narratively the Shechemites’ full acceptance of Abimelech. 89. The MT has  (“palisade”), however, following most commentators and translations, a simple emendation yields   (“pillar”); cf. Gen 35:4; Josh 24:26; see also Campbell, “Judges 9 and Archaeology,” 264–65. A stone pillar would then provide an ironic parallel to the stone upon which Abimelech slaughtered his brothers, contra Boling (Judges, 171–72), who follows the LXXB and sees haplography here. Martin (The Book of Judges, 115–16) suggests the reading “the old propped-up terebinth.” However, the age of the tree is not in view here. 90. Wright, Shechem, 101–2, 123–28; Campbell, “Judges 9 and Archaeology,” 264–65. Lawrence Stager supports the conclusions of Wright and Campbell; see Stager, “The Fortress-Temple at Shechem,” 228–49, and “The Shechem Temple,” 26–35, 66, 68–69. 1

3. Narrative Analysis of Judges 9

79

Thus, by bringing together all the constituent parties—the lords of Shechem, the people of Shechem, their king (Abimelech), and their patron deity/treaty partner—the narrative emphasizes Abimelech’s complete identication with his mother’s household and the complete rejection of his father’s household. Abimelech has embraced the Shechemites, and they in turn have received him willingly and whole-heartedly at every level of Shechemite society. b. Judges 9:7–22—The Complication The transition to the story’s complication comes with a different character assemblage. Jotham, mentioned in passing in 9:5, now takes centre stage, with 9:7b–20 portrayed as Jotham’s extended address. The quick succession of three verbs, “they told…” (), “he went…” ( ), “and he stood…” (), suggests that Jotham’s speech occurs simultaneous to Abimelech’s coronation.91 The narrator does not reveal the identity of those who reported Abimelech’s coronation to Jotham, though presumably they were loyal to the house of Jerubbaal. Their implicit loyalty contrasts with the condemnation of the Shechemites for their lack of loyalty to Jerubbaal and his household in the following verses. Jotham cries out to the Shechemites from a safe distance on a peak of Mt. Gerizim92 to address his audience. Presumably, Abimelech is also present, though Jotham does not name him directly or even clearly acknowledge him. The omission of Abimelech’s name from Jotham’s address furthers the narrative’s attempt to delegitimize Abimelech’s reign, for here the sole remaining legitimate heir of Jerubbaal refuses to acknowledge Abimelech, in contrast to the previous verse (9:6), where all of Shechem gathers to make Abimelech king. Many commentators have noted that Jotham’s fable and its interpretation sit loosely within the chapter, and so many see it as a secondary.93 91. Note also the “this day” of 9:19. 92. The word  can refer to the summit of a mountain, or merely one of its peaks; see HALOT 2:1165; cf. Isa 42:11; Ps 72:16. The reader should then imagine Jotham standing on one of the lower peaks of Mt. Gerizim rather than at the very top. Cf. Moore, Judges, 246; Hertzberg, Die Bucher Josua, Richter, Ruth, 206; Gray, Joshua, Judges and Ruth, 318; Boling, Judges, 172. Lagrange, Le Livre des Juges, 166, notes that the Arabic ras can mean “promontory.” 93. A developing consensus holds that the fable (9:8–15) has been adapted to its present context, though the consensus begins to break down over how closely 9:16b–19a is bound to its surrounding context: Richter, Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, 251; Veijola, Das Königtum, 113; Fritz, “Abimelech und Sichem,” 132–33; Becker, Richterzeit und Königtum, 196–97; Jans, Abimelech und sein Königtum, 321–28. Note, however, the arguments of Rüdiger Bartelmus, “Die 1

80

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

However, Jotham’s cry, “Listen to me, O lords of Shechem, so that94 God will listen to you” (9:7), builds upon the theme of reciprocation already introduced to the plot in Judg 9:2.95 A favourable response to Jotham will presumably result in God’s/the god’s96 favourable response to them. Implicit within Jotham’s statement is also the reverse—that if they do not listen to Jotham, God/the god will not listen to them. This theme reverberates throughout Jotham’s speech and the rest of the chapter,97 linking the fable to its larger narrative context. The fable (9:8) itself begins with a qtl plus innitive absolute (  ). This construction is unusual at the beginning of a narrative98 but its paronomastic use here at the transition point between the genres of narrative and poetry may serve as a transitional marker, emphasizing the break from the preceding material, breaking the wayyiqtol chain begun in 9:3. The fable itself exhibits a three-and-four structure.99 Three times the trees approach a likely candidate with an offer of kingship, uttered in the

sogenannte Jothamfabel—Eine politisch-religiöse Parabeldictung: Anmerkungen zu einem Teilaspeckt der vordeuteronomistischen israelitischen Literaturgeschichte,” TZ 41 (1985): 105–6; Assis, Self-Interest or Communal Interest, 141–52; Burney, The Book of Judges, 275; Block, Judges and Ruth, 317. 94. After a volitional, the weyqtl form carries a consequential force (IBHS 33.4.b). 95. Cf. Judg 9:15, 16, 19–20, 24, 25, 28–29, 38–39, 48, 56–57. 96. Schneider (Judges, 138) notes that the name of the deity used here is generic, , so that the deity in view here may be Yahweh, or it may be the Shechemites’ deity. 97. If the narrator envisions Jotham’s speech occurring at some point during the actual enthronement ceremony, then his comments here may have come at a point when the Shechemites addressed El-Berith, seeking the blessing of their deity upon Abimelech. 98. Bartelmus (“Die sogenannte Jothamfabel,” 108) uses this unusual beginning to argue that this construction serves as a macro-syntactical marker connecting the fable (he suggests it is actually a parable) with what precedes. The pre-positive paronomastic use of the innitive absolute with a nite verb using the root  only occurs elsewhere in Ps 126:6, but there it is used with the prex conjugation. In postpositive use, it occurs in Gen 26:13; Judg 14:9; 1 Sam 14:19; 19:23; 2 Sam 3:16, 24; 5:10; 13:19; 18:25; 2 Kgs 2:11; Zech 8:21; 1 Chr 11:9. See Moore, Judges, 249, and cf. GKC §113.o, which suggests that this is an instance where the innitive absolute carries very little emphasis. 99. For a different analysis of the structure of the fable, see Jan de Waard, “Jotham’s Fable: An Exercise in Clearing Away the Unclear,” in Wissenschaft und Kirche: Festschrift für Eduard Lohse (ed. Kurt Aland and Siegfried Meurer; Bielefeld: Luther-Verlag, 1989), 363–70; Hanna Liss, “Die Fabel des Yotam in Ri 9,8–15—Versuch einer Strukturellen Deutung,” BN 89 (1997): 16–17. 1

3. Narrative Analysis of Judges 9

81

imperative (9:8, 10, 12). Three times the candidates refuse (9:9, 11, 13), until at the fourth attempt (9:14) the thorny tree accepts. The fable begins with a short introduction, “The trees went to anoint a king over themselves” (       ). Anointing was an important aspect of sacral legitimation for kings in ancient Israel and the ancient Near East.100 The anointing here may suggest that, from the standpoint of the fable, the quest for a king was a legitimate endeavour, or at least that the trees went about it in the proper manner (particularly in light of its absence in 9:6), and so suggests that the intention of the fable is not to question the institution of the monarchy.101 The trees approach the olive tree, the g tree, and the vine in turn with an offer of kingship. The offer in each case is structured similarly, with the trees speaking to each candidate: Table 3.1 Judges 9:8 “They said to the olive tree ‘reign over us’ ”

    []

Judges 9:10 “The trees said to the g tree, ‘come, you reign over us’ ”

      

Judges 9:12 “The trees said to the vine, ‘come, you reign over us’ ”

    []  

The offers to the g tree and the vine exhibit a slightly different structure than the offer to the olive tree through the repetition of the second person singular, implied in the imperative (), and explicit in the second person independent pronoun ( ). The inclusion of the second person independent pronoun is emphatic, signalling an increasing sense of urgency after the rst rejection. The three responses by the olive tree, g tree, and vine also exhibit a similar structure:

100. Z. Weisman, “Anointing as a Motif in the Making of the Charismatic King,” Bib 57 (1976): 378–98; R. de Vaux, “The King of Israel, Vassal of the LORD,” in The Bible and the Ancient Near East (trans. D. McHugh; London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1972), 162–65; Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, King and Messiah: The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings (ConBOT; Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1976), 185–232. 101. Contra Soggin, Judges, 176–77; cf. Leslie Hoppe, Joshua, Judges (OTM; Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1982), 160, who states, “It is hard to see this text as anything but an outright rejection of the monarchy in principle”; McKenzie, The World of the Judges, 140, who states, “the story itself is the most candid antimonarchic declaration in the entire OT.” 1

82

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule Table 3.2

Judges 9:9 But the olive tree said to them,

Judges 9:11 But the g tree said to them,

Judges 9:13 But the vine said to them,

“Should I cease102 giving my yield which honours both the gods and humans

“Should I cease producing my sweetness and my good fruit

“Should I cease producing my new wine which gladdens the gods and humans

to come to wave over the trees?”

to come to wave over the trees?”

  

                

    

              

  

          

to come to wave over the trees?”

   

The characterization of these three trees is important for the understanding of the point of the fable. In each case, the candidate asks if it should give up producing its distinctive contribution in order to “wave” () over the trees. Each candidate’s distinctive contribution benets humanity. The olive tree and vine yield produce that “honours” ( , literally “fattens”) and that “gladdens” ( ) both the gods and humans. The g tree’s response does not explicitly mention its function in relation to the gods and humans, though in this poetic context it may be implied by ellipsis, as the other two responses, which make mention of this point envelope the g tree’s response. In addition, the g tree asks if it should give up its “sweetness and good produce” (       ), which also implies a pleasurable human response to their yield. Moreover, these three trees not only benet some,103 but all levels of human society, 102. Reading !    as a Qal, perfect, rst person common singular with an interrogative he, following Boling (Judges, 173). Burney (The Book of Judges, 273) proposes that the qamets has changed to a hateph-qamets through emphasis. The verb could also be read as a Hiphil rst person common singular, though one would expect a hateph-segol or shwa under the , or a Hophal with the  vocalized with a segol by dissimilation, or that the  has been superseded by the interrogative particle. However, Jan Joosten (“!    forma mixta?,” ZAW 102 [1990]: 96–97) suggests that this form is a forma mixta, whereby the Masoretes indicated two possibilities for reading the verbal form—as either a Qal with an interrogative he or as a Hiphil. However, if this is a Hiphil form, it is the only occurrence of the Hiphil with the root  in the Hebrew Scriptures. The use of the perfect here reects the use of the perfectum condentiae, used to “express facts which are undoubtedly imminent, and, therefore, in the imagination of the speaker, already accomplished” (GKC §106.n). 103. So Burney, The Book of Judges, 273; Matthews, Judges, 105; Schöpin, “Jotham’s Speech and Fable,” 14. 1

3. Narrative Analysis of Judges 9

83

divine and human, rich and poor.104 Thus, the rst three trees, in their rejection of the offer of kingship, emphasize their own fecundity, productivity, and intrinsic value in terms that illustrate their benets for all levels of human existence. Each tree goes on to juxtapose the benets they produce with waving over the trees ( ). The sense that  carries is not completely clear in the passage, though it has usually been viewed negatively. The basic sense of the word is simply “to move back and forth.” While the semantic eld of  includes a pejorative sense, as in stumbling about like a drunkard or a lost wanderer,105 the word can also be used in a neutral sense, as when Hannah’s lips move in prayer without any sound coming out (1 Sam 1:13) or the movement of a tree blowing in the wind (Isa 7:2).106 Furthermore, the candidates’ reference to waving “over” () the other trees may serve as a contrast between the function of the trees in producing fruit and a protective function. A protective function was sometimes attributed to trees, particularly when associated with kings. The image of the king of the trees providing shade (), a common ancient Near Eastern metaphor associated with the protective functions of kings,107 is taken up later in 9:15. This protective function

104. King and Stager (Life in Biblical Israel, 97) note that olive oil was a dietary staple and used as medicine, fuel for ceramic lamps, a base for cosmetics, perfumes, oils, in ritual contexts such as anointing of kings at their coronation, in libation offerings, and as fuel for sanctuary lamps. In addition, when planted on terraces, olive trees helped to prevent soil erosion. After the grape, the g was the most valued fruit in Israel, for it produced several harvests throughout the year. Its high sugar content made it especially nutritious, particularly for travellers who appreciated the portability that g cakes brought. The g tree was also appreciated for its dense foliage and broad leaves, which offered shade in the heat of the day (p. 104). In addition to its usefulness as a fruit, or when dried into raisin cakes for portability, the grape was made into wine, which was used on special feast days. It also served as the commonly consumed beverage in ancient Israel, as water may have often been contaminated (pp. 98–101). 105. The word  is used of the staggering of a drunkard (Isa 24:20; Ps 107:27) or someone’s inability to walk in a straight line (Prov 5:6). It can also be used of those who wander without reaching a specic destination (Gen 4:12, 14; Num 32:13; 2 Sam 15:20; Ps 59:12; Lam 4:14–15). D. Crown (“A Reinterpretation of Judges IX in the Light of Its Humour,” AbrN 3 [1961/62]: 94) noting that  can mean “stagger,” suggests this word functions as a sarcastic remark about kingly dignity. 106. H. Ringgren, “ nûa!,” TDOT 9:264. 107. A. Leo Oppenheim, “The Shadow of the King,” BASOR 107 (1947): 7–11; Crüsemann, Der Widerstand gegen das Königtum, 21–22; and Younger, Judges and Ruth, 223 n. 20, also note the protective function of the king’s shadow in Akkadian 1

84

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

can be combined with height, fecundity, strength, and nourishment in another common biblical and ancient Near Eastern image of the king as a cosmic tree. The king, or cosmic tree, towers over all the other trees, in fact the entire earth, as it protects and nourishes all those that seek shelter underneath its branches.108 The image of the cosmic tree is not directly in view in this fable. Nevertheless, a positive, protective function for the king of the trees may be in view given the later emphasis upon shade as protection (9:15), and the recognition in the fable of the king of the trees’ position over the other trees. Thus, to “wave over the trees” evokes the image of a tree towering over other more vulnerable trees, and whose branches wave about in the wind (presumably in sheltering the other trees). The king of the trees would then function as a protective windbreak for other, fruit-producing trees. When viewed this way, the refusal of the trees to take up kingship lies simply in giving up one benecial function (production of fruit for divine and human enjoyment) in order to take up another, different and more indirect benecial function (protection of other trees), rather than directly beneting humans. The fable’s use of the three-and-four structure places emphasis upon the fourth, contrastive element. It is here (9:14–15) that we nd the focal point of the parable.109 Thus, the fable goes on to describe how the trees extend a fourth offer (9:14), this time to the thorny tree (). The structure of the fourth request is similar to the rst three, but the difference is telling. In this case, “all the trees” (vs. “the trees”), possibly as a sign of their increasing urgency or persistence, approach the thorny tree with an offer of rule. The change in the structure of the offer foreshadows the change in its reception. The fourth response also differs from the previous three in that this time, it is accepted—though the acceptance is conditional, and the sincerity of the offer is questioned. The botanical referent for the  is not literature (COS, 1.128). Cf. Eberhard Ruprecht (Die Jothamfabel und außerisraelitische Parallelen [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003], 17–25) for further ancient Near Eastern examples. 108. Cf. Dan 4:10–12 (7–9 MT); Ezek 31:2–18. Simo Parpola (“The Assyrian Tree of Life: Tracing the Origins of Jewish Monotheism and Greek Philosophy,” JNES 52 [1993]: 167–68) points out that image of the king as tree is ubiquitous throughout the ancient world and that the tree symbolized the divine world order. The king and tree could be interchanged in Assyrian iconography, showing the close identity between them. 109. Therefore, the fable does not criticize the worthy and capable for failing to take up kingship, contra Eugene Maly, “The Jotham Fable—Anti-monarchical?” CBQ 22 (1960): 299–305; Barnabas Lindars, “Jotham’s Fable—A New Form-Critical Analysis,” JTS 24 (1973): 365; Liss, “Die Fabel des Yotam in Ri 9,8–15,” 18. 1

3. Narrative Analysis of Judges 9

85

clear, for this word only appears in three biblical passages (Gen 50:10– 11; Judg 9:14–15; Ps 58:9 [10 MT]). Consequently, a number of potential candidates have been suggested.110 The  is usually identied as the buckthorn, Lycium europaeum,111 a thorny plant with few leaves and little practical value. This would then make the offer of kingship ironic, as the  is not really a tree, and cannot really offer any shade.112 However, Silviu Tatu, after a thorough examination of the potential cognates and the historical identication of the , effectively argues that a stronger candidate is the Crown of Thorns, Ziziphus spina-christi, a thorny tree growing in semi-arid regions up to a height of 10 meters and producing sour but edible fruit, with leaves 3 to 5 cm long and 2 cm wide, though it is also highly combustible.113 Thus, the offer of kingship to this thorny tree need not represent a last resort, but a potentially viable, though less desirable, fourth alternative. The thorny tree, however, questions the sincerity of the offer, “If you are really anointing me as king over you” (         ). The issue of sincerity ( , literally “truth”) links the fable and its application,114 but in the context of 9:15, it draws attention to the seriousness of the offer. The reason the thorny tree questions the sincerity of the offer becomes evident in the conditions it attaches to its acceptance: “If you are really anointing me as king over you, then come, seek shelter in my shade, but if not, may re come out from the thorny tree and consume the cedars of Lebanon” (9:15). The thorny tree warns the other trees that potential 110. For a discussion of the various plants possibly identied with the , see Würthwein (“Abimelech und der Untergang Sichems,” 26–27) and Silviu Tatu (“Jotham’s Fable and the Crux Interpretum in Judges IX,” VT 56 [2006]: 105–24). 111. HALOT 1:37. See Tatu (“Jotham’s Fable and the Crux Interpretum,” 111– 13) for an overview of how the various commentators and English translations have interpreted this word. 112. Moore, Judges, 248; Lindars, “The Jotham Fable,” 261; Martin, The Book of Judges, 118; Liss, “Die Fabel des Yotam in Ri 9,8–15,” 18; Amit, The Art of Editing, 109; Bluedorn, Yahweh Versus Baalism, 219–20. 113. Tatu, “Jotham’s Fable and the Crux Interpretum,” 117–22; cf. Würthwein, “Abimelech und der Untergang Sichems,” 26–27; Irene and Walter Jacob, “Flora,” ABD 2:805. Tatu acknowledges that identication cannot be made with absolute certainty, but notes the use of  in Gen 50:10–11, which describes a seven-day, solemn ceremony in the sun at Atad (an oasis presumably named for the abundance of  trees there). Such a ceremony hardly makes sense if Atad is not associated with shade-producing trees. 114. Fokkelman, “Structural Remarks on Judges 9 and 19,” 37; Olson, “Introduction, Commentary, and Reections,” 816–67; M. Wilcock, The Message of Judges (BST; Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity, 1992), 96. 1

86

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

risks also come with its benets, which the trees should be aware of before consummating the offer. At a literal level, the  hereby draws attention to its capability to bring shade and shelter to those who seek refuge under its branches. For the weary traveler moving through the arid regions of ancient Israel, the  could have provided valuable and much appreciated protection from the oppressive rays of the sun through the shade supplied by its leaves. However, the  was also well known for its combustibility, and so also carried a concomitant potential threat.115 At a symbolic level, it was noted above that the metaphor of a king offering shade () was common in the ancient Near East. At this level, the shade provided by a king referred to a king’s role in providing protection, not from the sun, but from injustice. Fire, on the other hand, was often a poignant image of destruction.116 Thus, the  personies the two-fold nature of kingship—it carries the potential for great good, but it also embodies a distinct threat that can bring tremendous destruction. In the fable, the thorny tree’s destructive potential is directed specically against the cedars of Lebanon (  ). At rst the reference to the cedars of Lebanon seems surprising, as they do not receive mention earlier in the fable and have no intrinsic connection to the thorny tree. However, the reference to the cedars of Lebanon may stem from not only their frequent associations with royalty,117 but also the fact that the cedar’s massive trunk and horizontal branches made it an apt symbol of strength, prosperity, and eternity.118 Indeed, it was the prime symbol of earthly utility and wealth.119 Their destruction by re would represent a grievous loss and a harsh punishment.120 The cedars of Lebanon function as a synecdoche, where the pre-eminent tree stands for all the trees. 115. Cf. Ps 58:9 (10 MT). 116. E.g. Pss 21:9; 89:46; Prov 16:27; Isa 10:16; 30:27; Jer 21:12; Lam 2:3; Joel 2:3; Amos 5:6. Cf. also Jer 29:22 for re as an image of destruction brought by kings. 117. Both David and Solomon had palaces constructed of the cedars of Lebanon (2 Sam 5:11; 7:2, 7; 1 Kgs 7:8; 1 Chr 17:1) and Solomon constructed the temple (1 Kgs 6:9, 15, 16, 18, 20, 36), as well as the Hall of the Forests of Lebanon (1 Kgs 7:2) and the throne room (1 Kgs 7:7) of cedar. The Second Temple was also constructed of cedar (Ezra 3:7). The cedars of Lebanon can stand for the glory of the temple (Isa 60:13). King Jehoash compares himself to a cedar of Lebanon in order to emphasize his superiority (2 Kgs 14:9). Jeremiah derides Josiah’s son, Shallum, for his assumption that his use of cedar would give him regal status (Jer 22:14). 118. King and Stager, Life in Biblical Israel, 110. 119. “Lebanon,” in Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (ed. Leland Ryken, James C. Wilhoit, and Tremper Longman, III; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1998), 499— “the cedars of Lebanon represent the nest of earthly materials.” 120. Jer 22:7; Zech 11:1–2. 1

3. Narrative Analysis of Judges 9

87

Thus, contra Assis, the thorny tree’s threat here is not an indication of its eagerness to rule,121 but a self-admission of its own destructive potential. In this way Jotham’s words serve as a strong warning for the Shechemites to consider the consequences of the road they have now embarked upon—if they are truly sincere in extending an offer of kingship to Abimelech, they must be aware that he could be the undoing of them all. Thus Jotham’s fable does not condemn the institution of the monarchy,122 but rather recognizes that it could fulll a valuable function. However, it also recognizes that monarchic reign can yield the opposite result—the destruction of those it aims to protect and serve.123 The fable itself may have originally come from another context124 before its adaptation to this particular situation.125 While there are many points of tension between the fable and its application, as well as its larger context within Judg 9,126 some of these may derive from the nature of adapting the fable to its specic context here. Furthermore, a fable, by its very nature, does not correspond exactly to reality, but uses talking plants and animals to teach by analogy and metaphor. Its goal is to illustrate a specic moral rather than to correspond to every detail in its surrounding context.127 121. Assis, Self-Interest or Communal Interest, 148. 122. Contra Buber (The Kingship of God, 75) who said that Jotham’s fable was “the strongest anti-monarchical poem of world literature.” Similarly, Veijola, Das Königtum, 112–13; Crüsemann, Der Widerstand gegen das Königtum, 127–29; Soggin, Judges, 176–77; Becker, Richterzeit und Königtum, 192; Moenikes, Die grundsätzliche Ablehnung des Königtums, 125. 123. Cf. the conclusions of Niditch, “Judges, Kingship and Political Ethics,” 59– 70. Niditch suggests that Judges holds a complex and ambivalent attitude towards kingship, though it might be more accurate to suggest that Judges recognizes both the potential as well as the pitfalls associated with kingship—depending upon the king. 124. Ann Vater Solomon (“Fable,” in Saga, Legend, Tale, Novella, Fable: Narrative Forms in Old Testament Literature [ed. George W. Coats; JSOTSup 25; Shefeld: JSOT, 1985], 124) has noted that due to the specic function of fables in critiquing power structures, it is “highly unlikely” that fables existed independently. 125. Following Lindars’ suggestion (“Jotham’s Fable,” 359–60) that v. 15b may have been added to the fable in order to link it to Jotham’s application. For a similar explanation, see Graham S. Ogden, “Jotham’s Fable: Its Structure and Function in Judges 9,” BT 46 (1995): 301–8. If the fable has been adapted to its context, this may explain the switch from the rst to the third person in 9:15b. 126. For a summary of these tensions, see David Jobling, The Sense of Biblical Narrative: Structural Analysis in the Hebrew Bible II (JSOTSup 39; Shefeld: JSOT, 1986), 70–75; Soggin, Judges, 174–75; Block, Judges, Ruth, 316–17; Bluedorn, Yahweh Versus Baalism, 217–18. 127. Assis, Self-Interest or Communal Interest, 15. 1

88

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

This is not to say that the fable and its application do not cohere at all. Jotham’s speech differentiates the fable from its application by the shift from poetry to prose and the use of the temporal particle “so now” ( ). However, Jotham’s application of the fable does take up the conditional statements of 9:15 and the idea of reciprocation introduced at the beginning of Jotham’s speech,128 as well as the motif of mutual destruction implied in the fable. In addition, Jotham makes use of the theme of “sincerity” ( ) from 9:15 in order to link his speech with the fable. Jotham, however, intensies the idea of sincerity through the addition of the word “integrity” ( ),129 forming a hendiadys to express pure and blameless conduct. To this, Jotham adds two additional conditional clauses, “If you have acted in good faith130 towards Jerubbaal and his household,” and “if you have acted according to what he deserves” (9:16). These three conditional clauses take up the three-and-four structure of the preceding fable. Together they lay out the conditions under which Abimelech’s coronation could (theoretically) be viewed as legitimate. Jotham names both Abimelech and Jerubbaal, making conduct ( —repeated three times in 9:16) towards each of them the point of comparison. The narrative has already indicated Abimelech’s full afliation with his mother’s household in Shechem (9:1–6) and their decision to make him king. By placing conduct towards Abimelech and Jerubbaal side by side, Jotham realigns the options, forcing the Shechemites to choose between kinship loyalty to Abimelech and loyalty to Jerubbaal based upon a prior commitment. Jotham’s speech assumes some sort of obligation on the part of the Shechemites towards Jerubbaal. The narrator does not specify the exact nature of the obligation, though it apparently involved Jerubbaal’s battling on their behalf against the Midianites, at the risk of his own life (9:17).131 128. Similarly, Alter, Language as Theme, 11. 129. Literally “blamelessness,” “without fault,” “free of blemish,” here used substantively; see HALOT 2:1750. 130. Literally “goodness.” The use of “good faith” ( ) in Judg 8:35 is an echo issuing a similar charge against Israel for failing to show “good faith” to the house of Gideon/Jerubbaal. 131. Some commentators assume a type of covenant between Gideon/Jerubbaal and the Shechemites: Bernard W. Anderson, “The Place of Shechem in the Bible,” BA 20 (1957): 14; Gray, Joshua, Judges and Ruth, 316. Bryant Wood (“The Role of Shechem in the Conquest of Canaan,” in To Understand the Scriptures: Essays in Honor of William H. Shea [ed. David Merling; Berrien Springs, Mich.: Institute of Archaeology/Sigfried H. Horn Archaeological Museum, 1997], 245–56) makes a strong case, however, for a patron–client relationship between Israel and Shechem. This possibility need not be restricted only to the fteenth century, as Wood suggests, but may also relate to the thirteenth or twelfth centuries B.C.E. 1

3. Narrative Analysis of Judges 9

89

As noted above, Jotham’s application mirrors the three-and-four structure of the fable.132 Jotham’s apparent digression (9:16b–19a), explaining the history behind the options that he has laid out before the Shechemites, interrupts the pattern of three conditional clauses and thereby delays the apodosis. This delay not only serves to heighten the reader’s anticipation of the nal element, but it also takes up the idea of reciprocation introduced by Jotham in 9:8 and highlighted in the fable (9:15). Jotham’s digression lays out the rationale behind the various options that the Shechemites face. It thereby invites the reader to compare and contrast the decision to make Abimelech king based upon kinship ties (“he is our brother,” 9:3, 18) with Gideon/Jerubbaal’s action—deliverance from the hand of the Midianites (9:17). Further, Jotham points out that in contrast to his father, Jerubbaal, who lay down his life on behalf of the Shechemites (     , literally, “cast down his life before [the Shechemites]”), “you” (emphatic, with the independent personal pronoun plus the sufx conjugation), however, “rose up” ( ) against Jerubbaal and his house. Jotham’s speech betrays his point of view through his repeated reference to Jerubbaal as “my father” (9:17, 18) and a derogatory reference to Abimelech’s mother as Jerubbaal’s “servant-girl” ().133 Here again, the narrative pits loyalty to the house of Jerubbaal against loyalty to the Shechemites. Through this speech, Jotham “loads the terms” of his comparison, specifying the reasons for the expectation of reciprocal loyalty: Jerubbaal’s actions on behalf of the Shechemites in liberating them from the Midianites (9:17). He also goes on to show how the Shechemites neglected that loyalty: by facilitating Abimelech’s murder of the seventy sons of Jerubbaal, and by elevating Abimelech, the son least qualied to succeed his father to the position of king based upon their kinship connection with him (9:18). In doing so, he takes up the question of the trees’ (i.e. the Shechemites) sincerity from the fable (9:15). Jotham has just characterized the Shechemites as ckle in failing to show loyalty to Jerubbaal. This places the faithfulness of the Shechemites in now offering kingship to Abimelech also in question, and so sets the stage for the apodosis of Jotham’s own conditional statements from 9:16, intimating that all the Shechemites can expect from Abimelech is destruction. Having made the point clear before actually bringing the Shechemites to the point of the three conditional clauses in 9:16, the narrative leads readers to the conclusion that there is only one possible way one could see the enthronement of Abimelech—as ill-conceived and illegitimate. 132. 133. 1

See above, pp. 66–68. Judg 8:31 calls Abimelech’s mother Gideon’s “concubine” ( ).

90

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

Jotham then comes back to his original conditional statements from 9:16, but modies them slightly. Having recounted the past actions of Jerubbaal and the Shechemites, Jotham repeats his rst conditional clause from 9:16, dropping “make Abimelech king” and “good” and inserting the phrase “this day.” This repetition not only brings the reader back to his original three conditional clauses, but also reminds readers of the expectation of reciprocal loyalty towards Jerubbaal. The insertion of “this day,” however, suggests that past actions that reect actual loyalties will have a present impact. The double apodosis to Jotham’s conditions, and the fourth element to the three-and-four structure of Jotham’s conditional clauses (9:19), suggests that if they had acted in accord with the expectation of loyalty, then Abimelech and the Shechemites could rejoice in each other (presumably as they were doing at that moment, as suggested by “this day”). Jotham has just made clear, however, in 9:17–18 that neither party could legitimately fulll such a condition. Consequently, mutual destruction will replace the present rejoicing in the indeterminate future (9:20).134 This threat of mutual destruction in the form of re consuming both parties links Jotham’s application with the fable (9:15; cf. 9:23–24). It also heightens the reader’s sense of anticipation as he/she waits to see how this complication will play itself out in the following narrative. The reference to “the lords of Shechem and Beth-Millo” also links the fable to the coronation of Abimelech in 9:6. Thus, the application of the fable both looks back to 9:1–6 and 9:8–15, and ahead to 9:22–55, thereby serving an important function in the plot—the transition to the change in relations predicted by Jotham. While the fable and its application do not cohere in every detail, they are clearly linked together135 and function together in preparation for the plot transition. Assis makes a helpful observation when he notes that the fable and its application address different “audiences” and so serve different functions in the plot.136 The fable portrays Abimelech as a dangerous 134. The use of the imperfect ( ) suggests that the mutual destruction lay sometime in the future. 135. To summarize, they are linked by their common use of conditional clauses (9:15//9:16, 19–20); their common reference to re as a mode of destruction (9:15// 9:20); their use of  (9:15//9:16, 19); their use of the motif of mutual destruction (9:15, where the thorny tree consumes itself and the cedars of Lebanon, and 9:20, where re destroys Abimelech and the Shechemites); their common view of Abimelech as an unworthy choice of king (9:15//9:18); and their common use of the three-and-four motif. 136. Assis, Self-Interest or Communal Interest, 151–52. 1

3. Narrative Analysis of Judges 9

91

candidate for kingship whose elevation could result in mutual destruction. Jotham’s application of the fable targets the Shechemites for their lack of delity to Jerubbaal while deriding their choice of Abimelech as king. It should also be noted that neither the fable nor Jotham’s application directly question the institution of monarchy.137 The fable, with its focus upon the choice of a dangerous candidate, warns of the choice of Abimelech as king. Neither does Jotham’s speech question whether the Shechemites should have anointed a king over themselves. Rather, Jotham questions their choice of Abimelech based upon kinship ties, thereby foregoing loyalty to Jerubbaal, and so warning of the potential destructive consequences of this lack of loyalty. The narrative does not recount the Shechemites’ response to Jotham’s speech. The absence of a Shechemite reply contrasts Jotham’s speedy response, emphasized through the rapid succession of four verbs—he “ran away and ed and went to Beer and stayed there…” (9:21). Jotham realizes that “his brother” remains a decided threat, but the emphasis upon his dwelling in Beer may suggest that the Shechemites have also become a threat.138 In light of Jotham’s prediction of mutual destruction, proximity to Shechem becomes a danger to all those in its vicinity (witness Thebez in 9:50–55) and so Jotham’s speedy departure to Beer may hint at the widespread destruction to come.139 Narratively, the departure of Jotham also indicates that this scene has come to an end but leaves the reader with questions about how the predictions of mutual destruction will come to fruition.

137. So Maly, “The Jotham Fable—Anti-Monarchical,” 299–305; Halpern, “The Rise of Abimelech,” 93; Fritz, “Abimelech und Sichem,” 139–40; G. E. Gerbrandt, Kingship According to the Deuteronomistic History (SBLDS 87; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 129–43; Webb, The Book of Judges, 159; O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 164; Block, Judges, Ruth, 321; J. Clinton McCann, Judges (Interpretation; Louisville: John Knox, 2002), 72. 138. In speaking of the role of space in biblical narrative, Amit (Reading Biblical Narratives, 117) says, “When we look at the depictions of spatial objects, we must consider the functional aspect—namely, when and why the authors lingered over this aspect and what use they made of it—as well as their minimalist technique.” By spatial object, she not only means “objects” but “places” as well (cf. pp. 118–25). 139. Contra Jobling (The Sense of Biblical Narrative II, 83–84), who sees the departure of Jotham as the embodiment of the olive, g, and vine of Jotham’s parable. Jotham is the “worthy refuser” who, though he has a legitimate claim to the throne, chooses to reject his birthright. However, as seen above, the fable targets Abimelech as unworthy of elevation and incapable of supplying what he offers. 1

92

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

The narrator’s remark about Abimelech’s three-year reign over Israel (9:22) is unusual for several reasons. First, the narrator equates Abimelech’s reign over Shechem with rule over all Israel. All other indications in the narrative suggest that Abimelech’s reign was a local affair, much like the kings of the city-states during the Amarna period.140 T. Ishida has noted, however, that the term “Israel” carries a double meaning in the book of Judges, where it can refer to the entire confederation as well as to smaller groups within this larger conception.141 It is in this second sense that the term is likely used here. Second, by noting Abimelech’s short tenure as leader immediately after Jotham’s prediction of mutual destruction, the narrative intimates the coming demise of both Abimelech and the Shechemites. The compression of time here also serves to link Jotham’s prediction of destruction with God’s intervention in the next verse, and so serves as an effective bridge between the two narrative sections. The choice of words to describe Abimelech’s rule may also bring into question the legitimacy of Abimelech’s rule. Abimelech is said to have “reigned” ( ) over Israel.142 The use of this verb is unique in the book of Judges, and here suggests the uniqueness of Abimelech’s form of rule. Also, by choosing to use this verb instead of the more usual  or  , the narrative may implicitly question the validity of Abimelech’s reign, and certainly blunts the audience’s perception of Abimelech’s reign as truly in a kingly fashion.143 When taken together, the fable and its interpretation point back to 9:1–6 to suggest the danger inherent in Abimelech’s ascension to the throne. But the threat of mutual destruction, the ight of Jotham, and the short description of Abimelech’s reign point forward to elements in the narrative that require further explanation and fulllment, preparing readers for the actual initiation of a change in the present situation.

140. Cf. Walter Harrelson, “Shechem in Extra-Biblical References,” BA 20 (1957): 2–10; H. Reviv, “The Government of Shechem in the El Amarna Period and in the Days of Abimelech,” IEJ 16 (1966): 252–57; E. F. Campbell, Jr., “Two Amarna Notes: The Shechem City-State and Amarna Administrative Terminology,” in Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God (ed. Frank Moore Cross, Werner E. Lemke, and Patrick D. Miller, Jr.; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1976), 39–54. 141. T. Ishida, “The Leaders of the Tribal Leagues ‘Israel’ in the Pre-Monarchic Period,” RB 80 (1973): 524. 142. From the root  , Qal, imperfect, meaning “to rule, reign,” or “to have oversight of”; see HALOT 2:1362. 143. The irony of this semantic choice is highlighted by the juxtaposition of with Abimelech’s name (which contains the root ). 1

3. Narrative Analysis of Judges 9

93

c. Judges 9:23–24—The Change Judges 9:23–24 recounts the sending of an evil spirit from God as retribution for Abimelech and the Shechemites’ treachery. The appearance of an evil spirit from God (Elohim) marks the point of change in the relationship between Abimelech and the Shechemites foreshadowed in Jotham’s speech.144 The conuence in 9:23–24 between the views of God, the narrator, and Jotham is the highest possible afrmation of Jotham’s words145 and indicates that what was predicted is now sure to come to pass. It is at this moment that Abimelech’s doom is sealed. This theological evaluation does not contradict the descriptions in the following passages, but rather presents a theological assessment of the human actions described in 9:25–55, and should be understood as an example of dual causality.146 As Assis points out, narratively, this proleptic theological description of the coming animosity between the two parties prevents the build-up of tension so that there is no doubt about the interpretation of the coming events.147 The syntax of Judg 9:24 is very awkward. However, rather than serving as an indication of redactional clumsiness, the normal Hebrew syntactical structure has been set aside here in the interests of artistic and communicative effect, in order to afrm Jotham’s charge that both Abimelech and the Shechemites carry equal responsibility for the death of Jerubbaal’s seventy sons. The syntax can be illustrated as follows: Judg 9:24a A  , “to come” (Qal innitive) B , “the violence” C   

, “[against] the seventy sons of Jerubbaal” B , “and the bloodguilt” A  , “to place” (Qal innitive)

144. Cf. the empowering God’s spirit for Gideon (6:34). 145. The viewpoint of the narrator is omniscient and always reliable, but God’s perspective trumps that even of the narrator; see Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 19; and cf. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 182–83; Amit, Reading Biblical Narratives, 94. 146. Yairah Amit, “The Dual Causality Principle and Its Effects on Biblical Literature,” VT 37 (1987): 385–400. Dual causality is the method used in Hebrew narrative to attribute human actions and events simultaneously to both human volition and divine intervention. Cf. Soggin, Judges, 165. Robin Routledge (“ ‘An Evil Spirit from the Lord’—Demonic Inuence or Divine Instrument?,” EQ 70 [1998]: 3–22) similarly notes that divine causality may simply imply that God causes evil, which is already present, to increase and so inaugurate divine judgment. 147. Assis, Self-Interest or Communal Interest, 155–56. 1

94

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule Judg 9:24b D  , “upon Abimelech” E , “their brother” F     , “who killed them” D ›  , “and upon the lords of Shechem E    , “who strengthened his hand” F   , “to kill his brothers”

The chiasm in Judg 9:24a highlights Jerubbaal’s seventy sons as the objects of an injustice. Judges 9:24b draws attention to how both Abimelech and the Shechemites were responsible for this injustice using parallel syntactical constructions. This explains their mutual culpability and narratively justies their mutual destruction. The repetition of “brother(s)” (9:24b) in relation to both Abimelech and the Shechemites returns to the motif of kinship relations highlighted in both 9:3 (“for he is our brother”) and 9:18 (“for he is your brother”). Here, at the moment of transition in the plot, the narrator aligns Abimelech with his brothers, the sons of Jerubbaal, an alignment he was unwilling to allow earlier in the narrative.148 This justication for the rift that God brings into the Abimelech–Shechemite alliance parallels the format of Jotham’s application, where a digression substantiating Jotham’s indictment against the Shechemites (9:17–18) interrupts the ow of thought. However, in both cases, the digressions justify the charge and function to leave the reader without doubt as to the appropriateness of the punishment. The justication in 9:24 also serves to heighten the reader’s curiosity by delaying the effects of this “evil spirit from God” upon the relationship between Abimelech and the Shechemites. d. Judges 9:25–55—The Unravelling (1) Gaal and Shechem’s Challenges (9:25–29). After linking the Shechemites with the bloodguilt of the murder of Abimelech’s seventy brothers in Judg 9:24, an alliance sealed by the money from the temple of Baal-Berith (9:4), it is appropriate that the undoing of that relationship begins with a conict related to money. While Abimelech instigated the alliance with Shechem (9:1), the Shechemites instigate its undoing by planting ambushes upon the hilltops (  ) near Shechem (9:25), thereby challenging Abimelech’s sovereignty over the area under his 148. Until this point the narrator has carefully distanced Abimelech and the Shechemites from the seventy sons of Jerubbaal by the consistent “kinship pairing” of Abimelech with the Shechemites. Here, the narrator hints at the coming split between Abimelech and the Shechemites through the narrative (re)alignment of Abimelech with his brothers. 1

3. Narrative Analysis of Judges 9

95

control and, by implication, hampering his ability to guarantee safe passage and thus, implicitly, to collect taxes. A second treachery echoes the planting of ambushes.149 Some unspecied informant told Abimelech of this challenge to his authority (9:25), suggesting not only a split between Abimelech and the lords of Shechem, but also a division within the ranks of the Shechemites themselves. Redactional approaches to Judg 9 often view the Gaal episode in Judg 9:26–41 as an independent, and often early, layer in the Abimelech story.150 In part, this disjunction depends upon the observation that 9:42 relays Abimelech’s (presumed) retribution for the ambushes reported in 9:25, while 9:26–41 interrupts this sequence, only to be taken up again in 9:42 through resumptive repetition151 using the verb  (9:25, 42). However, while both verses employ the same root, 9:25 uses the Hophal stem and 9:42 uses the Hiphil stem.152 Moreover, the delayed retribution may be explained by other literary means, and as we shall see, 9:26–41 plays an important role within the overall development of the plot, for the ambushes begin a set of three challenges to Abimelech’s authority, challenges which Abimelech answers with three responses. Additionally, the Gaal episode has many thematic links to the preceding and following material in the chapter, suggesting that there may be another explanation for the tensions noted above. The planting of ambushes (9:25) is a clear challenge to Abimelech’s authority.153 The reader expects some sort of response from Abimelech, but none is immediately forthcoming. Instead, the narrative diverts the reader’s attention to another breach in the Abimelech–Shechemite alliance, thereby forestalling Abimelech’s response, and making it that much more intense when he nally does take action. This delayed response has several functions. It raises the curiosity of the reader, as the reader must

149. Noted by Younger (Judges and Ruth, 225). 150. So Richter, Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, 263–71; Fritz, “Abimelech und Sichem,” 129–44; Becker, Richterzeit und Königtum, 201–6; Würthwein, “Abimelech und der Untergang Sichems,” 19; de Castelbajac, “Histoire,” 166–73. Edgar Jans (Abimelech und sein Königtum, 187–246) divides the Gaal episode into two parts, “Gaal I” = Judg 9:26ab, 27–34a, 43c–g, and “Gaal II” = 9:34–42. 151. Resumptive repetition is the recurrence of key words or story elements in a narrative in order to create continuity after a digression or interpolation (Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 215). 152. Noted by Bluedorn, Yahweh Versus Baalism, 236. 153. See, for example, the discussion in Heffelnger, “ ‘My Father is King,’ ” 277–92 (289). 1

96

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

wait to see how Abimelech will react.154 In addition, the Gaal episode provides a stronger motive for Abimelech’s destruction of the city. Without the intervening Gaal narrative, the Shechemite offense against Abimelech would come only indirectly, as an implicit challenge of his authority. The Gaal narrative, however, makes plain their realigned allegiance (9:26), explicitly rejecting Abimelech’s authority in favour of Gaal. This much stronger treachery does not fully explain Abimelech’s destruction of the city in 9:42–45, but it does strengthen and clarify the precipitating factors. The initial description of Gaal as the son of Ebed (9:26) picks up the narrative’s emphasis upon kinship relationships, as does the description of his entrance in to the city with his “brothers.”155 The ambiguities surrounding the ancient witnesses’ understanding of Gaal’s name156 preclude the simple identication of terms. However, the MT rendering of Gaal’s name suggests an intentional characterization on the part of the narrative—“Loathsome son of a Slave”157—indicating the narrator’s contempt for Gaal and his treachery. For his part, Gaal lives up to this billing in the following verses, playing one party off against the other in order to further his own personal agenda. Gaal’s easy passage ( ) into the city (9:26) contrasts with the difculties experienced by all those who attempted to pass through ( ) the Shechemite ambushes erected on the roads surrounding Shechem (9:25). This keyword links the two passages, suggesting that the Gaal episode is symptomatic of the Shechemite treachery illustrated in the previous verse. The lords of Shechem’s easy trust ( ) in Gaal son of Ebed, this time without even the motive of kinship ties, and without any signicant temporal indications, underlines their ckle loyalty and in 154. Sternberg (The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 283–85) notes that in order to produce curiosity, the narrator must deform the chronological order of a narrative. The narrator entangles and delays information in order to open gaps about what has already come to pass in terms of the natural time-line. Most often, curiosity gaps bear on internal motives, schemes, and character, which the narrator is under no obligation to tell in his guise as historian. 155. The term “brothers” () may function as a double entendre here. Martin (The Book of Judges, 124) notes that the term also referred to a group of mercenaries in the Amarna period. Cf. Boling, Judges, 178. 156. The ancient witnesses fail to agree on rendering of Gaal’s name. Josephus suggests (VB MIK, probably from " Á, while LXXB suggests his father’s name is *XCIM, which Burney (Judges, 278) suggests is possibly an uncial error, *8#)- for 8#)%. LXXA has "CFE for Gaal’s father, partially supporting the MT. 157. From  Á, “to loathe, to feel disgust” (HALOT 1:199), and    , “slave, servant” (HALOT 1:774–75). 1

3. Narrative Analysis of Judges 9

97

light of the fable, foreshadows coming destruction. Moreover, these two examples of the Shechemites’ lack of loyalty in consecutive verses (9:25 and 26) justify Jotham’s charge of disloyalty in 9:8–20, and illustrate the effects of the evil spirit from God (9:23). The narrator goes on to illustrate a third example of treachery that unites Gaal and the Shechemites. After going out to harvest and process their grapes, the Shechemites proceed to celebrate a festival (9:24). The narrator notes that this festival took place in the house of “their god,” betraying his point of view, and so distancing himself from the actions of the Shechemites in the narrative. The narrator does not specify the deity in view here, thereby emphasizing the activities of the Shechemites rather than serving as an explicit attempt to delegitimate their deity.158 Emboldened by the Shechemites’ disparaging159 comments (9:27), Gaal seizes the opportunity to state his allegiance to Shechem and to push himself forward as an alternative to Abimelech (9:28). The structure of the verse is awkward but can be unravelled. Its awkwardness may stem from the narrator’s portrayal of Gaal as a drunken braggart, so drunk that he cannot speak effectively; thus, he is not to be taken seriously. Judges 9:28 revolves around the question of whom Gaal the son of Ebed ( ), and presumably his men (“we” cf. 9:26), should “serve” ( ).160 Gaal mentions “Shechem” to refer to the eponymous ancestor of the Shechemites, the son of the founder and ruler of the city, Hamor (cf. Gen 34). Gaal uses a modied insult formula intended to deride Abimelech, asking, “Who is Abimelech and who is Shechem161 that we 158. If it were the express intention of the narrator, this could serve as an excellent opportunity to bring the name of Baal or Baal-Berith to the reader’s consciousness by naming him specically. The fact that the narrative merely uses a generic designation for the Shechemite deity argues against the specic intent of the narrative to delegitimate Baalists and Gaal as a Baalist in particular, contra Bluedorn (Yahweh Versus Baalism, 235–45 [239–41]). 159. The use of  with the Piel carries a basic meaning of “make small, deprive someone of their stature or importance (through words or actions), make contemptible,” or more specically, “To curse, revile,” usually in association with  and in contrast to  (see J. Scharbert, “ qll,” TDOT 13:39). The meaning, “to denigrate (verbally), to demean,” often needs to be determined by context (so J. K. Aitken, The Semantics of Blessing and Cursing in Ancient Hebrew [ANES 23; Louvain: Peeters, 2007], 242). In this case, the lack of other words associated with blessing and cursing suggests the more general meaning of “revile, insult.” 160. The root   occurs four times in this verse. 161. Both LXX versions have “Who is the son of Shechem?,” possibly through dittography (the word  is used twice in Judg 9:28). This reading is unlikely, as Gaal wants to compare loyalty to Abimelech the son of Jerubbaal with loyalty to Shechem the son of Hamor. 1

98

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

should serve him?”162 Thereby, Gaal signals his attempt to compare service to Abimelech with service to Shechem.163 Gaal rst attempts to delegitimate Abimelech by suggesting that he is only the son of Jerubbaal. Despite Abimelech’s best attempts to identify himself with the Shechemites through his mother’s family and to divorce himself from his father’s family, Gaal points out the inescapable fact that Abimelech remains the son of Jerubbaal, an “outsider.” Gaal’s argument here builds upon and depends upon Abimelech’s use of his kinship connections with the Shechemites in 9:1–3 and Jotham’s disparagement of Abimelech’s use of his kinship ties in 9:16–20. However, the narrative’s emphasis upon kin-relationships pays dividends here for Gaal, who argues that Abimelech is not a true Shechemite, but only a half-Shechemite, the son of an Israelite. Consequently, Gaal claims that he does not recognize Abimelech’s authority, or that of his lieutenant, Zebul. The reference to Zebul appears unannounced in the narrative here, but his presence may have been foreshadowed through the ambiguous reference in 9:25, possibly marking Zebul as the informant who reported the Shechemite ambushes to Abimelech. Gaal’s reference to Zebul serves a double purpose: it disparages Abimelech, who must rely upon a deputy, and by diminishing Abimelech’s authority, Gaal also removes the basis for loyalty to Zebul. In contrast to serving this “outsider,” as indicated by his descent, Gaal aligns himself with a far more ancient and “authentic” Shechemite— Hamor, the father of Shechem. Gaal challenges his followers to “serve164 162. See IBHS 18.2.g. The expected format would be, “Who is Abimelech that we should serve him?” (cf. Judg 9:38 and Exod 5:2). The narrator has added a second noun clause, “Who is Shechem?,” in order to facilitate a comparison between two options: serving Abimelech and serving Shechem. 163. Contra R. Boling, “And Who is S-K-M? (Judges IX 28),” VT 13 (1963): 479–84, who emends the text here to read “the Shechemite.” “The Shechemite” in question would then refer to Zebul. However, the narrative’s consistent emphasis upon kinship relationships, and especially here with reference to Abimelech as the “son of” Jerubbaal, and Hamor as the “father of” Shechem, points to a desire to contrast Abimelech and Shechem, at least in part, according to their kinship connections. 164. The LXX and Vulgate read the same consonants as the MT, but instead of the MT Qal, imperative, plural, they repoint   as a noun, “his servant,” in apposition to “his lieutenant.” However, this reading makes “his servant” redundant. The MT is to be preferred here, as supported in part by the Targums and possibly the Syriac. See Dominique Barthélemy, Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. I. Josué, Juges, Ruth, Samuel, Rois, Chroniques, Esdras, Néhémie, Esther (OBO 50/1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 99–100; Boling, Judges, 178, and “Who is S-K-M?,” 481. 1

3. Narrative Analysis of Judges 9

99

the men of Hamor, the father of Shechem,” anticipating Gaal’s nal question—“why should we serve him?”165 Hamor, the father of Shechem contrasts Jerubbaal, the father of Abimelech. Hamor, as the founder and father of Shechem (Gen 33:19; 34:6–31), represents an older, more “Shechemite” lineage than that of Abimelech, thereby outdoing Abimelech’s claims. Having declared his “loyalty” to the Shechemites (as the descendants or “men” of Hamor), Gaal makes a direct appeal for a change of leadership, stating his desire to supplant Abimelech (9:29). At this point, the narrator intrudes in order to indicate a shift in addressee from the Shechemites to Abimelech. Gaal’s challenge becomes even more direct— “multiply your army and come out”—implying that Abimelech does not have the manpower or capability to reply to Gaal’s challenge. The challenge to “come out” is a taunt directed at Abimelech, presumably residing in Arumah (9:41), to come out and take up his challenge. But when Abimelech does attack, instead of needing to “multiply” his army, the units required to defeat Gaal and the Shechemites constantly decrease.166 Thus, the narrator uses Gaal’s belligerent challenge to question the legitimacy of Abimelech’s claim to lead. However, Gaal’s challenge also sows the seeds of his own demise when Abimelech does take up his challenge. (2) Abimelech’s First Counter-Attack (9:30–41). Abimelech’s response to Gaal’s bellicosity initiates the mutual retribution intimated by Jotham. Abimelech’s three attacks of retribution against the city (9:34–40, 42–45, 46–49) mirror the Shechemites’ three acts of treachery (9:25, 26, 27–29), each increasing in intensity. Zebul, Abimelech’s lieutenant and the governor of the city167 overhears Gaal’s challenge and alerts Abimelech by sending word “covertly” 165. Following Boling, Judges, 178. 166. Abimelech begins with four units (9:34), though Gaal only perceives three (9:36–37). A later attack utilizes three groups (9:43); two groups attack the people in the elds while one stands watch at the gate (9:44). In the nal attack on a Shechemite outpost, all of Abimelech’s troops function together as one group (cf. 9:48). Thus, instead of a “multiplying” of troops, the narrative describes Abimelech as utilizing a decreasing number of groups to accomplish the defeat of the Shechemites. 167. The two terms “lieutenant” () and “governor” ( ) are not contradictory. The rst represents Gaal’s point of view, and though it is intended as derogatory, it does not contradict the second term. Both point to Zebul as the administrative overseer of the city who functions as the king’s representative. Cf. Nahman Avigad, “The ‘Governor of the City’ Bulla,” in Ancient Jerusalem Revealed 1

100

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

( ).168 Zebul’s covert message to Abimelech may have been obliquely paralleled in the mysterious note in 9:25 suggesting that someone tipped off Abimelech about the Shechemite ambushes. Zebul’s warning is punctuated by the use of . This expression also draws attention to Zebul’s perceptions and interpretation of the events of 9:26– 29, where he asserts that Gaal is agitating () against Abimelech. Strictly speaking, Zebul’s use of , from the root , means that Gaal is “besieging, encircling” the city.169 This literal meaning does not t the context, but when understood metaphorically to suggest that Gaal is cutting off outside access to the city, particularly to Abimelech, who rules Shechem but resides in Arumah (9:41), the word choice is an apt description of the effects of Gaal’s words. Zebul instructs Abimelech to rise up () and set an ambush ( ) against the city (9:32), instructions which the narrator reports Abimelech followed (9:34).170 The choice of terms here reects the Shechemites (ed. Hillel Geva; rev. ed.; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000), 138–40; Gabriel Barkay, “A Second ‘Governor of the City’ Bulla,” in Geva, ed., Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, 141–44. 168. Interpreters have mostly taken one of two tracks in the interpretation of this hapax legomenon. The rst takes the verb as a substantive from the root  in the Piel (“to betray”), in the sense of “with deception, covertly.” The Versions support this reading, though not uniformly (cf. HALOT 2:1793): Eduard Nielsen, Shechem: A Traditio-Historical Investigation (2d ed.; Copenhagen: G. E. C. Gad, 1959), 156; Cundall, Judges, 132; Boling, Judges, 178; Soggin, Judges, 187; Block, Judges, Ruth, 328; and Budde, Das Buch der Richter, 75–76, though Budde holds that the word refers to a toponym. Barthélemy (Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 101–2), also holds to the idea of covert communication, but suggests instead that the root word is , meaning “in an aside.” An Akkadian parallel adduced by G. Dossin (“L’inscription de fondation de Iadhun-Lim: roi de Mari,” Syria 32 [1955]: 1–28) was thought to support the MT reading. However, Rykle Borger (“Hebr. tormâ, mirmâ und die grosse Lahdun-Lim-Inschrift,” Zeitschrift für Althebräistik 8 [1995]: 294–98) points out that this reading is untenable. Consequently, some interpreters have proposed that  is a corruption of  from 9:41; so Moore, Judges, 259; Lagrange, Le Livre des Juges, 174; Zapletal, Das Buch der Richter, 155; Gray, Judges, 323; Martin, The Book of Judges, 125; O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 469. Hertzberg (Die Bucher Josua, Richter, Ruth, 201) prefers “Arumah” but counts the text as hopelessly corrupt. Either option is a viable possibility, though I lean towards the rst due to the possible parallel with 9:25 and the previous message delivered to Abimelech, which also alerted him to the Shechemites’ challenge. If this is a viable parallel, then the information about Gaal’s threat to Abimelech parallels the Shechemites’ threat. 169. BDB 848. 170. Klein (The Triumph of Irony, 75) suggests that the narrative portrays Abimelech’s success against Gaal as a response to Zebul’s advice in order to 1

3. Narrative Analysis of Judges 9

101

transgressions. Jotham accused the Shechemites of rising up against Jerubbaal (, 9:18) by killing his seventy sons and by making Abimelech king. Now, Jerubbaal’s son Abimelech will rise up against the Shechemites to repay them for their betrayal (cf. 9:34–35, 43). Abimelech’s ambush also reciprocates the Shechemite ambushes ( ) against Abimelech (9:25).171 Zebul’s counsel instructs Abimelech to attack in the morning, when Gaal and his people will meet Abimelech and his people. At that point, Abimelech is to do to Gaal whatever his hand nds to do (9:33). Zebul’s expression here also contrasts Gaal’s wish that someone would give “this people” into his hands (9:29). Instead, Gaal will be given into Abimelech’s hand. When coupled, these parallels lead the reader to see that Abimelech’s attack against Gaal and the Shechemites initiates the repayment against the Shechemites predicted by Jotham. However, by pitting Gaal’s people (   , 9:33) against Abimelech’s people (   , 9:32) the narrator also suggests that the lines between these two belligerents cannot be too rigidly drawn. In Judg 9:35, Gaal stands at the entrance to the city gate, the boundary between inside and outside the city. The narrator indicates that Gaal had crossed over ( ) into the city (9:26), but it seems that Gaal now does not care to go beyond the city gate. The city gate is the most vulnerable part of the city, and so is the most heavily fortied part of the city’s defensive structure. It serves as the boundary between the safety of the city and the danger that lies beyond its walls to those living in Shechem. 172 Moreover, city gates were the sites of major announcements by authority gures and the place where questions of justice were settled. Thus, city gates were symbolically associated with scenes of power and justice in Israel and the ancient Near East.173 When Gaal nally realizes that the preclude any praise of Abimelech. However, Abimelech’s division of his troops into four groups (9:34) deviates from Zebul’s plan and provides the diversion necessary to draw Gaal out of the city (9:39). Thus, rather than portraying Abimelech as an incapable military leader who only follows Zebul’s strategy, the narrator’s report of Abimelech’s compliance, but with a “twist,” indicates that Abimelech’s future excesses in attacking the city stem from his own initiative and cannot be blamed upon another. 171. Butler (Judges, 246) similarly notes, “As they had rst shown their treachery against Abimelech, so he would defeat them with the same treacherous tactics.” 172. Mieke Bal, Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative (2d ed.; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997), 215–16. 173. See Victor H. Matthews, “Entrance Ways and Threshing Floors: Legally Signicant Sites in the Ancient Near East,” Fides et Historia 19 (1987): 25–40. For gates as places of announcement, see Gen 34:21–23; 1 Kgs 22:10; Neh 8:1; 1

102

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

city is under attack, it is Zebul who reminds Gaal of his earlier boast (9:28–29). It was there that Gaal challenged Abimelech to “come out” () with his army and ght. Ironically, it is now Gaal who is reluctant to “go out” () and must be goaded by Zebul, who says, “Where, O where was your mouth when you said, ‘Who is Abimelech that we should serve him?’ Is not this people whom you rejected174 with him?” Zebul then commands Gaal to “go out” (), to leave the safety of the city and ght with Abimelech. Gaal’s complete rout illustrates the dangers “outside” the city,175 where the slain lie strewn all the way up to (but not inside!) the edge of the city gate (9:40). Gaal’s exchange with Zebul at the city gate characterizes Gaal negatively. Gaal looks out and perceives some people coming down from the tops of the mountains (9:36). Ironically, it was on the tops of the mountains that the Shechemites planted ambushes against Abimelech (9:25). Here, it is from an ambush on the top of the mountains that Abimelech moves against the city, but rather than robbery, death results, escalating the conict between Abimelech and Shechem. Zebul’s response, “You are confusing the shadow () of the mountains with people” (9:36), picks up the imagery of Jotham’s fable, where the thorn bush offers his shadow () as protection (9:15). In this retribution phase of the narrative, the shadow associated with the king now does not connote safety, but represents danger to his subjects, linking Abimelech functionally with the thorny tree. Gaal perceives “some” people coming down from the navel of the land and another division from the direction of the diviner’s oak,176 while the narrator is more specic—it is “the Jer 17:19; 19:2. For gates as places of legal justice, see, for example, Deut 17:5; 21:19–21; 22:15, 24; 25:7; Josh 20:4; Ruth 4:1; Jer 26:10–11; 38:7–10. 174. The Hebrew word , usually translated “reject, refuse,” may carry overtones of “to despise”; see BDB 549.2. 175. Abimelech’s pursuit and Gaal’s ight are emphasized through a chiasm in v. 40: subject = Abimelech; verb = pursued (#); object = him (Gaal); subject = he (Gaal); verb = ed (); object = from before him (i.e. Abimelech). 176. For a discussion of the possible direction of these landmarks, see P. J. van Wachter, “Zur Lokalisierung des sichemitischen Baumheilitums,” ZDPV 103 (1987): 1–12 (8–11). The reference to the “navel of the land” is ambiguous. The phrase occurs elsewhere only in Ezek 38:12, where it refers to a central place in the land. Gray (Joshua, Judges and Ruth, 324) suggests it refers to Shechem’s central position at the intersection of major north–south and east–west highways. However, Judg 9:37 indicates that Abimelech’s people were coming down from the mountains. Consequently, most have seen the phrase either as a reference to an unspecied hill: Moore, Judges, 260; Zapletal, Das Buch der Richter, 156–57; Burney, The Book of Judges, 283; Martin, The Book of Judges, 125; Block, Judges, Ruth, 328. Others have posited, more specically, Mt. Gerizim: Anderson, “The Place of Shechem in 1

3. Narrative Analysis of Judges 9

103

people” (9:36; cf. 9:36–37). The difference suggests that Gaal’s perception is incomplete; he perceives a threat, but does not understand its full implications until Zebul makes it clear for him—he must go out and ght. This confusion ultimately aids Abimelech’s purposes. Gaal’s words only reluctantly meet with action, suggesting that Gaal’s “leadership” exhibited itself in bluster and talk, rather than effective action.177 Gaal’s resounding defeat, as well as his expulsion by Zebul (9:41) rather than Abimelech’s armed force,178 shows Gaal for the inept leader that he really is. EXCURSUS: SAFETY INSIDE THE CITY—DANGER OUTSIDE THE CITY The motif of “safety inside” vs. “danger outside” continues throughout the rest of the narrative. In each of Abimelech’s subsequent attacks, he moves further into the city. In the next battle, Abimelech and his men take possession of the city gate (9:44), suggesting that the boundary between safety and danger has been breached for the Shechemites. Indeed, the crossing of this boundary enables Abimelech to take the city and destroy it (9:45). In a third attack (9:46–49), Abimelech attacks the Tower of Shechem. The narrator’s conception of the location of Migdal-Shechem remains a matter of continuing debate. One group of interpreters locate Migdal-Shechem outside of the city proper in light of the notice in 9:45 that Abimelech destroyed the entire city, the apparent difference between Baal-Berith and El-Berith, and the indication that the lords of Shechem only “heard” about Abimelech’s destruction of the city. This suggests that they did not “see” it due to their distance from the city.179 However, the Bible,” 10–12; Goslinga, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 369; Boling, Judges, 178–79. John M. Wilkie (“The Peshitta Translation of Tabbur Ha’ares in Judges ix 37,” VT 1 [1951]: 144) suggests that the Peshitta supports the idea of “navel of the land” referring to a central place. 177. Similarly Alter, “Language as Theme in Judges,” 13. 178. This situation may be roughly analogous to Gideon’s deferment of the slaughter of the two Midianite kings to his young son in an effort to humiliate them (Judg 8:20–21). Abimelech’s leaving the expulsion of Gaal and his “brothers” to his subordinate, Zebul, may thus indicate either that he was so soundly defeated and discredited that force was not necessary, or that Abimelech meant to humiliate him by leaving the king’s subordinate to deal with this illegitimate leader. 179. So Budde, Das Buch der Richter, 77; Moore, Judges, 264; Zapletal, Das Buch der Richter, 159; Soggin, Judges, 192–93. More recently, Soggin has associated Migdal-Shechem with Adam Zertal’s nd on Mt. Ebal of a massive altar or tower complex: Soggin, “The Migdal Temple,” 115–19. Soggin points to some Egyptian references and the Amarna letters, which suggest there were two cities bearing the name Shechem. Note Zertal’s rejoinder: Adam Zertal, “A Cultic Center with a Burnt-Offering Altar from Early Iron Age I Period at Mt. Ebal,” in Augustin and Schunck, eds., Wünschet Jerusalem Frieden, 137–47. Cf. the discussion about this nd: Adam Zertal, “Has Joshua’s Altar Been Found on Mt. Ebal?,” BARev 11, 1

104

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

another group of interpreters make a strong case for placing Migdal-Shechem inside the city and identify it with the temple of El-Berith.180 In this case, it seems that the narrator conceived of Abimelech moving further into the city to take another level of the city’s defences. Abimelech’s fourth attack takes place at another tower in the city of Thebez (9:50–54). The citizens of Thebez seek safety inside the tower, while Abimelech, hoping to repeat his earlier “outside” successes, again does not immediately cross the boundary of the city, but comes up to its gate. However, outside of the city of Shechem, the tables are turned and it is Abimelech standing, outside the city whose life is endangered by a falling millstone thrown from inside the tower (9:53), while those inside the tower remain safe. Thus, the use of the three-and-four structure in 9:50–54 turns the motif of “perceived safety inside and threat from outside” on its head. In each case, the gate or door serves as an important boundary between those who are safe and those who are in danger. This motif then unites the various descriptions of Abimelech’s rampages into the overall plot of Judg 9.

(3) Abimelech’s Second Counter-Attack (9:42–45). The phrase “The next day” (  , Judg 9:42) links Abimelech’s second response to the Shechemites’ treachery to the previous one under Gaal, while at the same time marking a new phase in Abimelech’s response. The phrase consistently means “the following day” and does not refer to a vague or general temporal period (cf. Lev 19:6; 23:11; 1 Sam 20:27; 31:8). The Shechemites’ surprising exit from the safety of the city the day after a major battle, in combination with the informing of Abimelech as an echo of 9:25, leads some to see a disjunction between 9:41 and 9:42.181 no. 1 (1985): 26–43; Aharon Kempinski, “Joshua’s Altar—An Iron Age I Watchtower,” BARev 12, no. 1 (1986): 42–53; Adam Zertal, “How Can Kempinski Be So Wrong!,” BARev 12, no. 1 (1986): 43–53. 180. Wright (Shechem, 80–102, 124–28) following a proposal by Mazar, identied the LB Temple 2b at ancient Shechem with Migdal-Shechem. Wright was followed by Boling, Judges, 180; Cundall, Judges, 135; Herbert Wolf, “Judges,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (ed. Frank E. Gaebelein; 12 vols.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 3:444–45; cf. Campbell, “Judges 9 and Archaeology,” 263–67 and Amihai Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 10,000–586 B.C.E. (New York: Doubleday, 1990), 251. Stager, however, suggests that Wright’s Temple 2, which is based upon fragmentary evidence, did not exist and that the MB II FortressTemple continued in use until its destruction ca. 1100 B.C.E. (Stager, “The FortressTemple at Shechem,” 228–49, and “The Shechem Temple Where Abimelech Massacred a Thousand,” 26–35, 66, 68–69). However, Campbell (Shechem III, 176– 85) still holds to Wright’s conclusions. 181. So Moore, Judges, 263; Würthwein, “Abimelech und der Untergang Sichems,” 17; Fritz, “Abimelech und Sichem,” 133; Bluedorn, Yahweh Versus Baalism, 251; de Castelbajac, “Histoire,” 173. 1

3. Narrative Analysis of Judges 9

105

However, there are several reasons for reading Judg 9:42–45 in continuity with the preceding materials. First, the partition of Abimelech’s forces into divisions ( , 9:43//9:34), the escalated violence, and the further penetration into the city develop and intensify the tactics of the previous battle in 9:30–41. Second, 9:41 has just indicated that Abimelech was in Arumah and not nearby (supported by 9:42c), suggesting that the “coast was clear.” Third, it is not unreasonable, given the absence of an explicit threat, for the people to leave the safety of the city the next day in order to continue their agricultural work or to gather and bury the slain. Fourth, in terms of the plot structure, Abimelech’s battle with Gaal only answers Gaal’s challenge to Abimelech’s authority. The two Shechemite challenges (9:25, 26–27) also warrant response. By setting the battle with Gaal in close temporal proximity to the battle against the city proper, the narrator taps into the reader’s curiosity about how the retribution for the Shechemites’ treachery will be satised, and suggests that as Gaal and the Shechemites banded together against Abimelech, so Abimelech will respond to both parties. Abimelech’s tactics parallel in part those of 9:33–34, suggesting that this action is a continuation of the previous one against Gaal. Similar to the division of his forces into four units (9:34), Abimelech here partitions his troops into three units ( ).182 Abimelech again sets an ambush for the people in the eld (cf. 9:32), just as the Shechemites set ambushes against Abimelech (9:25). However, this time, rather than only carrying the battle up to the entrance to the city gate (9:40), Abimelech and the unit with him183 rst secure the city gate against a retreat before attacking those in the elds. Whereas Abimelech failed to penetrate the city in the rst attack, this time he penetrates and captures the city. The narrator not only describes the capture of the city, but also indicates that Abimelech razed it and sowed it with salt (9:45). The destruction of the city recalls Jotham’s earlier prediction of destruction (9:20). However, the fable and its interpretation have created the expectation of destruction by re, which suggests that Abimelech’s destructive work may yet continue. Abimelech does not salt the city with the 182. J. R. Bartlett (“The Use of the Word  as a Title in the Old Testament,” VT 19 [1969]: 1–10) notes that the metaphorical use of the word  originally applied to the leader of a group of warriors and, by extension, the company they led; cf. Judg 7:16, 20; 1 Sam 11:11; 13:17–18; Job 1:17. 183. Following the Vulgate and LXX. The MT indicates that more than one unit ( ) fought with Abimelech, possibly by mistakenly reading the plural from 9:44b. Judg 9:43 indicates that he divided his troops into three units and 9:44c indicates that two units fought against the people in the elds. 1

106

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

intention of avoiding bloodguilt,184 but rather in order to curse the city to perpetual infertility and desolation.185 Stanley Gevirtz examines similar ancient Near Eastern accounts and proposes that Abimelech’s razing of Shechem and sowing it with salt may be an act of consecration, intended perhaps as part of Üerem warfare.186 However, there is no clear language or indication to suggest that this was Abimelech’s intent. Rather, when the razing and salting of the city is understood as a way of cursing it, then its function in the narrative becomes clearer. As the Shechemites reviled Abimelech during a festival celebrating fertility (9:27), so Abimelech responds by cursing the city to perpetual infertility. As a result, there is a certain poetic justice to Abimelech’s actions, though Abimelech has escalated the retribution from a verbal slight to complete destruction. Abimelech’s destruction of Shechem functions as both a positive and a negative characterization. His actions are far more brutal and vicious than is required to regain his honour. Indeed, his overzealousness deprives him of the seat of his own power. Furthermore, he has again forsaken his kinship ties to further his own ends.187 At the same time, however, it must be recognized that various hints188 as to the Canaanite ethnicity of the Shechemites mean that in an oblique way, Abimelech’s destruction of the city accomplishes a goal that is consistent with the mission of the other judges. Abimelech has destroyed a potential snare for the Israelites and eliminated a Canaanite city from contention with Israel for the land. In this sense, the portrayal of Abimelech here parallels not only the ideals expressed in the introduction to Judges,189 but also 184. So A. M. Honeyman, “The Salting of Shechem,” VT 3 (1953): 192–95, followed by Gray, Joshua, Judges and Ruth, 325. 185. F. C. Fensham, “Salt as Curse in the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East,” BA 30 (1962): 48–50. Cf. salt as a sign of infertility in Deut 29:23; Job 39:6; Jer 17:6; Zeph 2:9. 186. Stanley Gevirtz, “Jericho and Shechem: A Religio-Literary Aspect of City Destruction,” VT 13 (1963): 53–62. 187. Butler (Judges, 248) poignantly summarizes, “Abimelech makes the center of his own empire incapable of supporting a population, apparently destroying even his own mother’s residence.” 188. Factors that suggest Shechem may be considered a Canaanite city include the veneration of Baal-Berith, the fact that the setting is at a major city (the Israelite settlement/occupation of a major city in the central highlands of Canaan is not described in Judges, particularly one with a fortress-temple [9:46]), and the absence of any conquest traditions related to Shechem. 189. Note the relatively positive portrayal of Judah in Judg 1:2–20 and the negative portrayal of Manasseh in Judg 1:27–28. Manasseh did not drive out the Canaanites in its vicinity, but only put them to forced labour. Ephraim, Zebulun, 1

3. Narrative Analysis of Judges 9

107

comports with the actions of Deborah and Barak (Judg 4:23–24), whose leadership eventually results in the elimination of Hazor as a threat to Israel.190 (4) Abimelech’s Third Counter-Attack (9:46–49). The story of Abimelech’s third response begins with a narrative gap. It is not clear when the events of 9:46–49 occur—if they occur sometime after the events of 9:42–45 or if they record a different phase in Abimelech’s attack on the city on the same day as 9:42–45. It is also not clear how the lords of the tower of Shechem “heard” or what they “heard,” though it is possible that they heard of Abimelech’s battle outside the walls of the city (cf. 9:44) and sought refuge in the citadel or inner-most part of the city—the temple of El-Berith.191 The fact that they did not “see” this coming, but only “heard” of it, has suggested to some that the temple of El-Berith lay outside the city proper.192 However, as I argued earlier, an identication can be made between the temple of El-Berith (9:46) and the temple of Baal-Berith (9:4).193 Consider also 1 Kgs 1:38–41, where the coronation of Solomon raises such a tumult that Adonijah and those feasting with him inside the city heard (  ) the sound but did not see the actual event. In any case, escape into the temple of their patron deity is an illusion, for the evil spirit from God is accomplishing its work, unseen and unheard, in order to bring retribution (cf. 9:23). Abimelech’s destruction of the temple of El-Berith highlights the futility of trust in El-Berith. He is unable to protect not only his followers, but his own house as well. The reference to the “lords of the tower of Shechem” (Judg 9:46) introduces a group of people not mentioned to this point in the narrative. This may simply be, however, another name for the lords of Shechem.194 Asher, and Naphtali (1:29–33) lived among the people, while Dan (1:34–36) was forced to abandon its inheritance in the land due to Canaanite oppression. Note also the perspective in 3:1–6, which relates the role of the indigenous populations in testing Israel, and in particular the role of intermarriage and religious apostasy (cf. Gideon in 8:31). 190. It is possible that this was one of the factors leading to the inclusion of the Abimelech narrative into the deliverer cycles, even though in most other respects Abimelech functions as an anti-judge. Cf. also Klein, The Triumph of Irony, 70–80. 191. In this understanding of the text, the account of Abimelech’s taking of the city is only partial, with the citadel still holding out. The description of the razing and salting of the city in 9:45 anticipates the complete conquest of the city. 192. See above, p. 103 n. 179. 193. See above, pp. 74–75. 194. The lords of Shechem approve the distribution of monies from the temple of (Baal) El-Berith for Abimelech (9:4). The temple of El-Berith has been identied as a Migdal-temple or a temple that doubled as a fortication—so Mazar 1

108

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

These lords seek refuge in the tower-temple of El-Berith, a temple that the narrator seems to have conceived of as the citadel of the city.195 The narrative highlights the people’s desire for safety by specifying that they enter the stronghold ()196 of the temple. The narrator, however, suggests that the news given to Abimelech had a different tenor. Abimelech is told that all the lords of the tower of Shechem had gathered together (  , 9:47). The Hithpael of this verb occurs only eight times in the MT,197 and in each case it is used for the gathering of a coalition, usually for armed resistance and opposition.198 Thus, when describing those seeking refuge in the tower-temple, the narrator suggests a defensive intention, but when describing Abimelech’s perspective of this same event, the narrator hints that Abimelech could have understood the gathering of the lords of Shechem in the tower-temple as an act of resistance. This may in part explain the continuation of hostilities, but probably also

(Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 251, and 292 n. 17). Thus, the lords of the tower of Shechem may serve as a euphemism for the lords of Shechem, for both groups of people are connected with, and seemingly have authority over, the temple in Shechem. The change in designation may refer to their diminished sphere of inuence, for if Abimelech has taken the rest of the city, the sole area over which they can “lord” is the Migdal-temple. 195. The Shechem MB tower-temple continued in use through the LB period and even into the Iron Age. A similar tower-temple in Megiddo also continued in use into the LB period and was separated from the rest of the city in a (fortied) sacred area; Volkmar Fritz, The City in Ancient Israel (The Biblical Seminar 29; Shefeld: Shefeld Academic, 1995), 31. 196. The identity of the  is not certain. 1 Sam 13:6 suggests that it was some sort of subterranean vault or cave over which the temple was built; so Lagrange, Le Livre des Juges, 178; Gray, Joshua, Judges and Ruth, 325. However, K. Jaros (“Zur Bedeutung von  in Ri 9,46.49,” AUSS 15 [1977]: 57–58) notes that, based on Aramaic and Nabatean inscriptions, the word should best be understood in a more general sense of “eine abgeschlossene-eingeschlossene Räumlichkeit” (“a closed-in space,” p. 58). Thus, in Judg 9, the word seems to refer to an inner part of this fortied temple. Stager (“The Fortress-Temple at Shechem,” 229) notes that the foundation walls of the MB Temple in ancient Shechem were 5.10 m thick, which would certainly give a “cave-like” feel to the temple. Stager (“The Shechem Temple,” 32) suggests that the  may have been the ambulatories that anked the large central room of the temple. 197. Josh 9:2; Judg 9:47; 1 Sam 7:7; 8:4; 22:2; 2 Sam 2:25; Isa 44:11; Jer 49:14. 198. There are two possible exceptions. In the case of 1 Sam 8:4, there is no hint of armed conict, though the elders do gather to confront Samuel about his wayward sons and ask for a king. Isa 44:11 is much more ambiguous. However, the intent behind gathering the artisans who make idols seems to be some sort of confrontation that brings shame. 1

3. Narrative Analysis of Judges 9

109

points (from the perspective of the implied author) to the action of the “evil spirit” from God. The narrator portrays Abimelech as not without some resourcefulness by describing his climb up Mt. Zalmon to gather wood and to smoke out those hiding in the tower-temple. Thus, Abimelech recognizes a viable counter-measure to the temple fortications. Furthermore, Abimelech’s speech, “What you have seen me do, hurry, do likewise” (9:48), is effective, for the people comply (9:49). In addition, the narrator points out that Abimelech does have followers, acknowledging that Abimelech is not without some who recognized his leadership. This mixed portrait of Abimelech should warn interpreters that a simple anti-monarchic point of view cannot be laid upon Abimelech without some difculties. Abimelech’s third battle against the lords of the tower of Shechem balances the three challenges to his authority as king (9:25, 26–27, 28–29): Table 3.3 Challenge to Abimelech’s Authority Judg 9:25—the Shechemites set ambushes outside the city Judg 9:26–27—the Shechemites curse Abimelech during a festival celebrating fertility Judg 9:28–29—Gaal challenges Abimelech to “multiply his army and come out” (—Qal, imperative, second person, masculine, singular)

Abimelech’s Response Judg 9:46–49—Abimelech burns the fortress of El-Berith inside the heart of the city Judg 9:42–45—Abimelech curses Shechem with perpetual desolation by sowing salt Judg 9:30–41—Abimelech divides his army into four groups and Gaal “goes out” (—Qal, masculine, plural, participle) to ght with Abimelech’s army.

In this case, though, there is not even a hint of “poetic justice” or that the punishment ts the crime. Abimelech’s actions are portrayed simply as gratuitous violence that punctuates the divide between Abimelech and the Shechemites. The narrative further emphasizes the devastating nature of Abimelech’s actions not only by indicating a specic death toll (1,000), but by also including both men and women in this number (9:49). Abimelech’s burning of the lords of the tower of Shechem, along with the 1,000 other people fullls Jotham’s prediction of destruction for the Shechemites by re (9:20). Kinship is no guarantee of delity, nor is it a reason for mercy. Such is the fate of all those who rely on kinship ties as the source of their power in Judg 9. 1

110

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

(5) Abimelech’s Humiliation (9:50–55). With the destruction of all of Shechem by re, Jotham’s prediction of mutual destruction is only partially played out. The fate of Abimelech remains to be fullled. Abimelech’s attack on Thebez has many similarities with his battles at Shechem. In both cases, Abimelech captures () the city (9:45/50); both cities have a tower (), (9:46/51); the lords of the city, as well as men and women seek refuge within the tower (9:46, 49/51); both groups ee () Abimelech (9:40/51); and Abimelech attempts to use re in his battle against each city (9:49/52). These similarities link the attack on Thebez with Abimelech’s battles in Shechem and invite comparisons between them. At the same time, however, several important differences presage a different result this time. First, all three of the previous battles have taken place at Shechem, but the narrator highlights the change in location by the repetition of the name of Thebez in 9:50. Second, Abimelech besieges the city (9:50), a tactic that contrasts with the ambushes in the battles against Shechem. Third, the besieging (, literally “to camp”) of the city implies a drawn-out confrontation, while 9:45 suggests that Abimelech took Shechem within a day. Fourth, instead of a temple-fortress, 9:51 says that the citizens of Thebez took refuge in a “strong tower.”199 Fifth, the citizens of the city “close up” the tower behind them and go up onto its roof (9:51) as opposed to waiting inside the building for Abimelech to destroy them. Sixth, the narrative indicates that the people in the tower of Thebez actively resist ( , “[Abimelech] fought against it,” 9:52), while 9:46–49 gives no indication that the Shechemites actively resisted Abimelech’s attack. These differences indicate a divergence from the pattern of the three previous battles, and presage a different outcome for Abimelech and the citizens of Thebez. The complete destruction of Shechem and its environs by re also indicates that Abimelech has more than paid back the Shechemites for their challenge of his authority, so that his attack on Thebez then illustrates his brutality. The narrator quickly moves the narrative forward to its climax by compressing the narrative time of Abimelech’s extended action against the city into a quick succession of three verbs—“He came…he besieged… he captured” (9:50). The pacing slows down, however, in 9:52, allowing the narrator to focus on Abimelech’s demise. Here, the narrator slowly draws Abimelech into increasing proximity to the tower through another 199. The narrative foregrounds the strong tower through a break in the usual word order. The usual Hebrew prose word order of verb–subject–object has been altered here, by placing the subject (“a strong tower”) rst, in order to highlight the rst element in the sentence. 1

3. Narrative Analysis of Judges 9

111

series of three verbs, “He came up…he fought…he approached.” Abimelech’s intent is to burn the tower, as he did with the temple of El-Berith. What follows comes as a surprise and a reversal of expectations. The rst surprise is that the identity of the “hero” is a certain,200 unnamed201 woman. After the descriptions of Abimelech’s martial successes and his seeming invincibility in the battles against Shechem, it comes as a surprise that a woman is the one to deal Abimelech the deathblow. The “weapon” used to kill Abimelech is also surprising. The unnamed woman threw an upper millstone, which crushes Abimelech’s head. A millstone was so valuable that a lender could not accept it in pledge, “For that would be taking a life in pledge” (Deut 24:6, NRSV). Abimelech treated the lives of his brothers in Ophrah cheaply, trading one life for one piece of silver. However, in Thebez, the equivalent value of one life bought the freedom of many. The use of a millstone, a domestic utensil, as the instrument of death only adds to Abimelech’s humiliation. The surprising choice of weapon suggests the work of the evil spirit from God (9:23), working behind the scenes to bring about God’s purposes. The manner of Abimelech’s death is also surprising, given Jotham’s prediction of mutual destruction by re (9:20). However, when re is understood not only literally, but also as a metaphor indicating something like “painful/violent demise,” then Abimelech’s death surely ts these parameters both for physical as well as psychological pain. Furthermore, at a more literal level, re does indirectly lead to Abimelech’s demise, as it is his intention to burn the tower of Thebez that draws him near enough for the woman of Thebez to strike him down (9:52). Finally, the indication in 9:55 that the men of Israel were observing, and possibly participating in, Abimelech’s battle with Thebez is unexpected, for the narrator has gone to great pains to cut Abimelech’s ties with his Israelite family and to associate him with his Shechemite relatives. However, the narrator has already indicated in 9:22 that Abimelech’s reign was in some way connected not only with Shechem, but with 200. GKC §125b notes that Judg 9:53 is one of the few passages where a noun is expressly made indeterminate through the addition of  in the sense of an indenite article. 201. Bal (Death and Dissymmetry, 219) names this unnamed woman from Thebez Pelah (after the Hebrew word for the millstone dropped upon Abimelech) in order to avoid consigning her to obscurity. Cf. Exum, Was Sagt das Richterbuch den Frauen?, 31. However, absence of a name is intended by the narrative to highlight the unexpected identity of Abimelech’s assailant. 1

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

112

Israel also. By doing so, the narrator has been careful to show that the story of Abimelech describes not only the misadventures of a local despot, but also suggests that these local activities have national impact. Local leaders can have a national impact and inuence, for better or, in the case of Abimelech, for worse.202 These surprising “twists” have several narrative functions. First, they serve to place the narrative “spotlight” on Abimelech. The previous three battle scenes have illustrated Jotham’s prediction of destruction with regard to the Shechemites, but 9:50–55 focuses upon Abimelech’s death. Second, they keep the reader’s attention by adding a measure of suspense, so that the reader does not know exactly how Abimelech will meet his demise until the very end of the story. Third, these changes indicate that the narrative has nally arrived at its climax. The three Shechemite challenges to Abimelech’s authority have been “balanced” narratively by Abimelech’s answering battles, preparing the reader for a resolution involving Abimelech’s demise. Moreover, these changes are not completely unexpected, as they provide the fourth element in the now common three-and-four structure. e. Judges 9:56–57—The Ending The narrator’s interpretation of this story is very unusual. Fokkelman points out that the narrator, Is rarely willing to disclose the “moral of the tale” at the end of his story. Good narrators are usually frugal with this; something should be left to guesswork. In fact, this process of weighing and guessing might be the very job the writer wants us to do. This draws us more actively into the story, so that we participate in the never-ending debate between various interpretations.203

This is not the case in Judg 9. The narrator has expressly interpreted the events of Judg 9 in order to guide the reader’s interpretation and to diminish debate. Bar-Efrat indicates that such explicit instances of the narrator’s intrusion serve to reduce the readers’ emotional involvement, inuence their opinions, and emphasize certain points.204 Consequently, we must ask why the narrator felt this case warranted his direct involvement and what he wanted to emphasize. First, the narrator emphasizes that though these events seemed to proceed via Abimelech’s and the Shechemites’ machinations, ultimately, 202. 203. 204. 1

Cf. p. 207 n. 121 for further discussion on the regional nature of the judges. Fokkelman, Reading Biblical Narrative, 148–49. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 30.

3. Narrative Analysis of Judges 9

113

God was responsible for their demise. In this light, the rift between Abimelech and the Shechemites, the appearance of Gaal, and Abimelech’s military success must be interpreted as the workings of God. The unnamed woman of Thebez also becomes an agent of God. In this way, the narrator points to the sovereignty of God. Second, it is important to note that the narrator does not criticize Abimelech for becoming king, or the Shechemites for making him king. Rather, the narrator emphasizes the manner in which they did so. Nathan Klaus has pointed out that Judg 9:56–57 exhibits a pattern found at the ending of a number of stories in the former prophets—the pivot pattern or chiasm. The Former Prophets frequently use pivot patterns when relating stories about murder in order to show the intimate relationship between action and outcome. Klaus notes the following pivot structure in these verses: A. B. A.

Thus God repaid (

) the wickedness () that Abimelech had done to his father by murdering his seventy brothers. God also made the men of Shechem pay (  ) for all their wickedness ().205

Klaus points out “by utilizing this device, the narrator diverts his reader’s attention from the sequence of the plot. The explanatory remarks of the narrator are a powerful tool in his hand for transmitting his message to his readers and for conveying his world view unequivocally and with utmost clarity.”206 In this case, the narrator explicitly condemns the murder of Abimelech’s brothers and equally implicates both the pretender to the throne and those who enthroned him,207 just as Jotham’s fable and its interpretation did. Furthermore, the middle element of the chiasm spotlights the kin relationship that the victims had with Abimelech. The “evil” was committed against Abimelech’s “father” and his seventy “brothers.” This reference brings to mind the narrative’s delegitimization 205. Klaus, Pivot Patterns, 98. 206. Ibid., 99. 207. The reference to the “men of Shechem” as opposed to “the lords of Shechem” seems unusual at rst. However, the reference is in keeping with the realia of the narrative. It was suggested above that Judg 9:6 attempts to present a comprehensive picture of the participants at Abimelech’s coronation through the mention of the lords of Shechem and Beth-Millo, which functions as a reference to the wider citizenry of Shechem. This inclusivity is then paralleled in Abimelech’s destruction of Shechem, where he kills both the lords of Shechem and the common people, the men and women who sought refuge in the tower-temple of Shechem (9:49). Thus, the “men of Shechem” functions as a reference to both the lords of Shechem and the wider citizenry. 1

114

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

of Abimelech’s use of his kinship relationships to ascend to the throne in Shechem. The elimination of Abimelech’s seventy brothers was a necessary step in achieving legitimacy as the heir of Jerubbaal in ruling over Shechem. However, by referencing this move, readers come to realize that not only will such attempts result in mutual destruction, but also that God will orchestrate this result. In contrast to the narrator’s reference to Abimelech’s illegitimate rise to power, the narrative ends with a reference to the legitimate heir of Jerubbaal, “So the curse of Jotham, the son of Jerubbaal came to them” (9:57). At rst, the reference to the “curse” of Jotham is surprising, for the narrative does not explicitly refer to any curse uttered by Jotham. 208 However, a closer look at Jotham’s speech in 9:19–20 reveals that Jotham lays out two options: (19) So if () you have acted in sincerity and integrity towards Jerubbaal and his household this day, rejoice in Abimelech and may he also rejoice in you. (20) But if not (), re will come out from Abimelech and consume the lords of Shechem and Beth-Millo, and re will come out from the lords of Shechem and from Beth-Millo and consume Abimelech.

The sequence “if…(positive action/consequence)…but if…(negative action/consequence)” can simply express two options.209 But, this same sequence appears in the context of covenant blessings and curses, where the speaker lays out blessings for compliance—“if () you will really listen…” (Deut 28:1–14) and curses for non-compliance—“but if not…” (, Deut 28:15–44). On occasion, there may even be a symmetrical relationship between blessing and curse, where potential blessings mirror potential curses.210 Thus, the form of Jotham’s speech in Judg 9:19–20 has similarities with the form of covenant blessings and curses. On this basis, the narrator of Judg 9 may have proceeded to interpret Jotham’s speech as an implied curse.211 The implications of this interpretation by the narrator should not be overlooked. Jotham’s speech indicts Abimelech and the Shechemites for bypassing legitimate processes and using illegitimate means (9:18) of 208. The Shechemites utter the only implicit curse in Judg 9:27. 209. E.g. Lev 13:20–21; Ruth 4:4; 1 Sam 20:21–22; 2 Kgs 2:10. 210. Cf. Deut 28:3–6, which is mirrored by Deut 28:16–19. 211. Aitken (The Semantics of Blessing and Cursing, 249) notes that  may denote either an imprecation for evil to befall someone (usually as an antonym to blessing) or a negative condition (which may entail social embarrassment) that might arise from verbal denigration. It is most likely in this rst sense that Jotham’s curse should be viewed. 1

3. Narrative Analysis of Judges 9

115

securing power (kinship ties). By interpreting this indictment as a curse, the narrator clearly sends a warning to all those who would seek leadership or support the rise of local leaders based upon kinship ties—they and those who support them will destroy each other. Not only that, but they stand in opposition to God, and God himself will work against them! 4. Conclusions This chapter began by suggesting that Judg 9 reects a pediment plot structure. The pediment structure illustrates the dangers of utilizing kinship ties as a basis for power, both for those seeking power, and for those who support their rise. Jotham’s fable and its application together warn of the dangers of elevating an inappropriate king, for such acts result in mutual destruction for both claimant and supporters. The unravelling graphically illustrates the effects of this warning through a series of increasingly violent confrontations between the belligerents, until both parties not only come to their end, but do so in a spectacularly humiliating and violent way. However, the focal point of the pediment structure is the change (9:23–24). Elohim’s intervention makes Jotham’s prediction of mutual destruction efcacious. At a number of points in the unravelling, the narrator subtly hints at the hidden work of God in bringing retribution upon Abimelech and the Shechemites. Moreover, the ending of the story suggests that God’s intervention in the case of illegitimate ascension to power amounts to affecting a curse upon the parties involved (9:57). Thus, the plot structure of Judg 9 serves as clear warning for anyone who might want to use illegitimate kinship ties as a means of securing power. Indeed, for the parties that attempt to do so, a violent and ignominious end is all that they can expect. The theme of retribution was explicitly evident in a number of places in the chapter.212 The concept of reciprocation213 lay behind Abimelech’s approach to his Shechemite family in 9:1–2, the making of Abimelech as king (9:4–6), and Jotham’s appeal (9:7). The idea of reciprocal benet laid the foundation for Jotham’s introduction of the idea of retribution in his fable and its application (9:16–18, 19–20). God’s intervention activates the foreshadowed retribution (9:23–24), so that the rest of the narrative describes the three Shechemite challenges to Abimelech’s position 212. In Jotham’s fable (9:15) and its application (9:20) and in the two notices of God’s intervention (9:23–24; 9:56–57). 213. Reciprocation involves a mutual benet for both parties, though the benet need not be equally distributed. 1

116

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

as king (9:25–29), which are mirrored by Abimelech’s three responses (9:30–49). It is the fourth battle against Thebez that seals Abimelech’s doom (9:50–55). The narrator explicitly connects the demise of both Abimelech and the Shechemites with God’s retribution (9:56–57). This structure draws these seemingly disparate and disjointed elements of Judg 9 together into a coherent storyline and argues in favour of reading the Abimelech narrative as a unied whole, rather than as simply the amalgamation or accumulation of various originally unrelated traditions. T. A. Boogaart, followed by Webb,214 has posited that the theme of exact retribution unites the various elements of Judg 9 together into a coherent narrative. However, G. Janzen points out that the retribution of Judg 9 has a measure of exibility to it.215 To Janzen’s observation, we could add that Abimelech is “technically” not killed by a Shechemite, but by his armour-bearer; Abimelech does not die by re but by a blow to the head and a sword thrust; the lords of Shechem aid in the murder of Abimelech brothers (9:4), yet the narrator holds all of Shechem (9:57) culpable for the murder of the seventy sons of Jerubbaal (though all of Shechem did participate in Abimelech’s coronation—9:6). These differences do not take away from the overall theme of retribution, but merely indicate that we should understand the retribution a bit more generally than envisioned by Boogaart and Webb. The theme of kingship also plays a leading role in Judg 9. The narrative focus upon kingship is strongest in 9:1–6 and 7–21, though Gaal’s challenge (9:28–29) and the descriptions of Abimelech as the leader of his troops in battle assume it. The theme of kingship does not overshadow or compete with the theme of retribution, but complements it.216 Illegitimate kingship based upon kinship ties serves as the motif that propels Abimelech to kingship. As part of that emphasis, the narrative foregrounds Abimelech’s attempt to identify with his Shechemite family and to work against his family based in Ophrah. It is in this context of pitting Abimelech’s one family against his other family that Abimelech’s murder of his seventy brothers occurs. Jotham, the lone survivor returns to condemn not only the act of murder, but also the use of kinship ties to accomplish this end (9:18). The rest of the account then serves to 214. Boogaart, “Stone for Stone,” 47–53; Webb, The Book of Judges, 158. 215. Janzen, “A Certain Woman,” 36. 216. Contra Jans, Abimelech und sein Königtum, 458–63, who sees these two themes as stemming from different hands that cannot be reconciled by synchronic means. Abimelech’s rise to kingship provides the motive for God’s retribution (9:23–24, 56–57) and serves as the implicit focus of the Shechemites dissatisfaction (9:25–29). 1

3. Narrative Analysis of Judges 9

117

illustrate the effects of alliances forged in such a manner—mutual destruction of both leader and people. The alliance that bound Abimelech and the Shechemites to the murder of the seventy sons of Jerubbaal also unites them in their own destruction, as orchestrated by God. It is important to note, however, that the portrayal of Abimelech, while negative, is not exclusively critical. Abimelech’s destruction of the (probably) Canaanite city of Shechem has some similarities with Deborah, Barak, and Yael and the account of the deliverance of the Israelites from the hand of the Canaanite rulers of Hazor (Judg 4–5). Further, in the depiction of the destruction of the temple of El-Berith (9:46–49), Abimelech becomes an instrument of God, not only to punish the Shechemites, but also illustrating El-Berith’s inability to protect those who take refuge in his temple, thereby serving the interests of a Yahwistic author. Additionally, while Abimelech is portrayed as a brutal despot whose overzealous anger destroys not only himself but also his subjects, he is not portrayed as a comic op. Abimelech did have some positive traits, as seen by his successful battle tactics and his battleeld innovations (9:48). Moreover, Abimelech motivates his followers by his example, rather than by brute force (9:48–49). The fact that some Israelites may have even aided in the destruction of Shechem also did not escape the narrator’s comment (cf. 9:54), suggesting that this action had some value for Israel. Consequently, the characterization of Abimelech is much more complex than is often admitted, and does not lead to a facile anti-monarchicalism, as advocated by J. Marais: Abimelech does not do one good thing or have one positive character trait. The world of Abimelech’s story is evil, degenerative and, disjunctive with anarchy looming… [I]t is a eld of reference depicting a world as it should not be. It communicates by representing the monarchy or people in monarchical positions so negatively, that its only message can be anti-monarchical.217

The above observations suggest that other intentions may lie behind the portrayal of Abimelech in this account.218 A clearer grasp of the goals of the Abimelech narrative requires readers to look beyond the emphases of the plot structure and narrator’s characterizations and to look to the rhetorical techniques of the narrator.

217. Marais, Representation in Old Testament Narrative Texts, 115; cf. Hoppe, Joshua, Judges, 165; McKenzie, The World of the Judges, 144. 218. Cf. Assis (Self-Interest of Communal Interest, 172), who posits that the account portrays an egocentric leader “who is only concerned with his own good, and who is unworthy of leadership.” 1

118

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

These will enable readers to examine not only the rhetorical strategy by which the narrator of Judg 9 convinces readers of his arguments, but may also bring further insight into the type of audience that this narrative addressed.

1

Chapter 4

READING THE RHETORIC OF JUDGES 9

Judges 9 is quite ruthless in its treatment of Abimelech ben Jerubbaal. The story is told with great skill and artistry, but this telling is not a neutral, dispassionate account of events. The story attempts to affect its audience’s perceptions, to shape its attitudes, and even to provoke a response. An analysis of the rhetoric or argumentative structure and persuasive means utilized in Judg 9 allows readers not only to appreciate the literary artistry of the passage, but also to recognize how this literary artistry has been harnessed to achieve the persuasive aims of its implied author. 1. The Rhetoric of the Exposition in Judges 9:1–6 a. The Rhetoric of Judges 9 and the Framework of Judges In biblical narrative, the exposition (i.e. the introductory matters of a story) differentiates the current narrative from the previous one through the introduction of new characters, settings, and plot lines. Rhetorically, the exposition also introduces the initial conditions and arguments for an audience’s evaluation. If we explore Judg 9 in relation to the framework of the book of Judges, the initial argument comes not from what is stated but from what is left unstated. The descriptions of the various deliverers in the book of Judges contain a number of repeating elements that link the narratives together, so that the audience considers each narrative in light of those that precede and follow. While there are variations in the framing elements of the deliverer narratives, these elements can generally be set out as follows: 1. Israel does evil in the eyes of Yahweh. 2. Yahweh sells the Israelites into the hand of X (a group oppressing Israel). 3. The Israelites cry out to Yahweh.

120

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

4. Yahweh humbles X before the Israelites. 5. The land rests for Y years.1 When taken together, this cluster of elements forms the general model or paradigm for the deliverer narratives. This associational cluster also forms an argument that “establishes a structure of reality.” C. Perelman explains that such arguments “are those which, starting from a known specic case, allow the establishment of a precedent, model or general rule, such as enable reasoning by model for example.”2 However, none of these framing elements appears in Judg 9. This sets Judg 9 apart from the other deliverer narratives, preparing the audience to see Abimelech as an anti-model or foil, which “deters people from a particular kind of behaviour.”3 The Abimelech narrative’s complete lack of conformity to the paradigmatic introduction to the book of Judges in 2:11–19 functions similarly. Nevertheless, one of the key elements in both the introductory paradigm (Judg 2:11–19) and the framework of the rst few deliverer narratives in Judges is Yahweh’s action in raising up a deliverer (Judg 2:16; 3:9, 15). Yahweh’s direct commissioning of both Gideon and Samson (Judg 6:11–18; 13:1–24) functions in a similar manner, indicating Yahweh’s sanction of these judges. Yahweh’s command to Barak at the beginning of Judg 4 through the prophetess Deborah (Judg 4:6) also indicates his sanction of Barak as leader. The Jephthah narrative lacks any reference to Yahweh raising him up to leadership, but it does refer to Yahweh’s spirit coming upon Jephthah (Judg 11:29), indicating a form of Yahwistic enabling.4 None of these forms of Yahwistic legitimation, however, appears in the Abimelech narrative. In fact, there is no reference to Yahweh anywhere

1. Following Greenspahn, “The Theology of the Framework of Judges,” 388. Greenspahn notes that the phrase “Yhwh raised up a deliverer” is absent in the Deborah and Gideon narratives but present in the description of Tola (10:1), while 10:12 describes Yahweh as deliverer. The use of this phrase in the book is inconsistent and so not included here, though undoubtedly it is an important element in the legitimation of the judges. The last appearance of the phrase describing the rest of the land occurs at the end of the Gideon cycle (Judg 8:28). Thus, even the inclusion of this phrase within the general “framework” of the deliverer narratives is tentative. Its omission in the Jephthah and Samson cycles likely serves as an indication of the increasing degeneration of the judges as a viable form of leadership, for they can no longer bring rest to the land. 2. Perelman, The Realm of Rhetoric, 51. 3. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, 366. 4. Cf. Judg 3:10; 6:34; 13:25; 14:6; 16:9. 1

4. Reading the Rhetoric of Judges 9

121

in Judg 9. The complete absence of Yahweh in Judg 9 forms another type of argument, an argument by dissociation. This mode of arguing attempts to show that a link considered to have been accepted, assumed, or hoped for by the audience does not exist.5 In this case, the absence of any mention of Yahweh in Judg 9 suggests that Abimelech’s kingship in Shechem lacks Yahwistic sanction. This contrasts strongly with later forms of kingship and argues against Abimelech as a legitimate leader in Israel.6 When these various elements are taken together, they set up the implied audience to view Abimelech’s rise to kingship negatively and point towards the illegitimacy of his actions. The story of Abimelech’s rise to kingship conrms these initial arguments. b. The Rhetoric of Kinship (9:1–6) The Abimelech narrative proper begins with a play of perspectives. The narrator describes Abimelech as the son of Jerubbaal (9:1). This designation serves as a rhetorical association, in this case establishing the “reality” of Abimelech’s kinship relationship with Jerubbaal/Gideon. However, the narrator immediately works to dissociate Abimelech from Jerubbaal. The narrative begins to distance Abimelech from his father through a change in location. Ophrah has been the home and base of operations for Jerubbaal and his family (8:27, 32). However, Abimelech’s journey to his mother’s father’s house (    , 9:1) in Shechem separates Abimelech spatially from Jerubbaal and his family’s home, so that the audience begins to see Abimelech independently of Jerubbaal. The narrator goes on to describe Abimelech’s association with his mother’s kinfolk. In contrast to the single kinship reference to Jerubbaal, the narrator links Abimelech with multiple levels of kinship groups in Shechem. Abimelech goes and speaks “to his mother’s brothers…and to the entire family of his mother’s father’s household” (9:1). In this way, the narrator describes Abimelech’s identication with not only the individuals in his mother’s household, but also with the two most signicant localized kinship groups within ancient Israel’s social structure, the

  and the  .7 This high concentration of kinship terminology in 9:1 is an “associational cluster,” giving the idea of kinship ties 5. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, 411. 6. See, for example, Mettinger, King and Messiah. 7. On the importance of these various levels of kinship in ancient Israel, see Francis I. Anderson, “Israelite Kinship Terminology and Social Structure,” BT 20 (1969): 34–37. 1

122

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

“presence” in the overall argument of the narrative. This associational technique prolongs the attention given to a subject and increases its presence in the consciousness of the audience.8 In this way, the narrator alerts the implied audience to the importance of kinship relationships in the narrative, preparing them for an evaluation of Abimelech’s reliance upon these means to secure his rule. Aristotle identied three modes of persuasion common to rhetoric: (1) the use of logos—persuasion through reason; (2) the use of pathos— persuasion through emotional appeal; and (3) the use of ethos—persuasion based upon the personality and stance of the speaker.9 The stance of a persuader refers to the position or viewpoint taken by the persuader and the tone taken towards a particular topic.10 In biblical narrative, the narrator persuades through his stance, his choices in presenting a topic, or, more directly, through his evaluation of a situation or character. The narrator’s direct evaluation is the most explicit means available in biblical narrative for persuading an audience.11 Abimelech instructs his kinfolk to address “all the lords ( ) of Shechem” (9:2). The implied author’s choice of the term  serves as part of the rhetorical strategy in the characterization of the Shechemites. The term  has a broad semantic range, meaning “husband,” “owner” (of a person/slave), “land owner,” “citizen,” “community partner,” or it can be used as a status word indicating the owner of an object, which may embody his manner, character, or occupation (e.g. “lords of the horses” = “cavalrymen” in 2 Sam 1:6).12 The term also appears in Judges as a designation for a spectrum of non-Yahwistic deities when used with the denite article (“the baals”),13 as a reference to a specic Baal-deity,14 or to Baal-Berith.15 The implied author of Judges condemns the worship of deities other than Yahweh in a number of places in the book.16 The nearest example of this condemnation appears at the end of the Gideon narrative, where the narrator indicates that after the death of Gideon, the Israelites “prostituted themselves to the baals and made Baal-Berith their god” (Judg 8:33).

8. Perelman, The Realm of Rhetoric, 35–37. 9. Cockcroft and Cockcroft, Persuading People, 3. 10. Ibid., 9. 11. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 476. 12. HALOT 1:142–44. 13. Judg 2:11, 13; 3:7; 8:33; 10:6, 10. 14. Judg 6:25, 28, 30–32. 15. Judg 8:33; 9:4; cf. 9:46. 16. Judg 2:2–3, 11–13; 3:6, 7; 6:10; 10:6–7; 17:5–6. 1

4. Reading the Rhetoric of Judges 9

123

The implied author’s choice of the term  in Judg 9:2, particularly in light of its semantic range and its very negative connotations in the book of Judges, signals the implied author’s attempt to persuade his audience of the anti-Yahwistic character of the Shechemites. While the narrative seems to use the term to refer the lords of Shechem, the term  is a “loaded term,” chosen for its rhetorical impact as an implied characterization, which negatively shapes the audience’s perception of the Shechemites. The association of the citizens of Shechem with the temple of BaalBerith in 9:4 strengthens this characterization. As argued earlier,17 BaalBerith is likely an epithet for El (Baal-Berith = “Lord of the Covenant” = “El”). However, the implied author’s decision to use the epithet “Baal” to describe this deity suggests a polemical intention designed to disparage the Shechemites’ deity. Abimelech’s acceptance of seventy pieces of silver from the treasury of Baal-Berith directly links him with this negative characterization, so that the terms “Baal,” “the lords (Baalim) of Shechem,” and “Abimelech” form an associational cluster, drawing the audience to see these three elements negatively and in contrast to faithful obedience to Yahweh. Abimelech’s words in Judg 9:2 attempt to persuade three different audiences concurrently. In the context of the narrative, Abimelech’s immediate audience is his extended family. However, within this speech is an embedded address to the lords of Shechem. At the same time, Abimelech’s speech also addresses the implied audience, though in a different manner. The fact that Abimelech initiates his ascension to kingship with an approach to his kinfolk and then the lords of Shechem does not formally constitute an argument in and of itself. However, it does tie Abimelech to the support of local groups and local leaders. This association becomes important in Judg 9, as the implied author helps his implied audience to examine whether local alliances can serve as a stable basis for leadership. In this way, the implied author can have Abimelech address three audiences (his kinfolk, the lords of Shechem, and the implied audience) simultaneously. In order to persuade his family and the lords of Shechem of the wisdom of making him king, Abimelech arranges the terms of his argument using the question, “Which is better for you?” (9:2). This argument forces the audience to evaluate two options by comparing them with each

17. See pp. 74–75. 1

124

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

other. This is a “quasi-logical” argument,18 for such arguments lack the rigour and precision of formal reasoning. In this form of argumentation, the persuader points out incompatibilities, whereby “the afrmation of a rule, assertion or thesis, or adoption of an attitude involves us, even against our own will, in a conict with either a previously afrmed thesis or rule, or with a generally accepted thesis to which we as members of a group are expected to adhere.”19 Abimelech then goes on to describe the options: the rule of seventy men—“all the sons of Jerubbaal”—or the rule of one man. According to Abimelech’s line of argumentation, one of these two options is incompatible with the best interests of the Shechemites. However, he makes sure to tip the scales in his favour. Abimelech amplies20 the implications of the rule of the seventy men by specifying that this would involve all the sons of Jerubbaal, thereby giving additional presence to the fact that these men have no kinship relationship with the Shechemites. This amplication also aids Abimelech by establishing the numerical disparity between the seventy and the one at a lexical level, where Abimelech describes the rule of the seventy using seven Hebrew words, but only uses ve to describe the rule of the one. In order to tip the scales further in his favour, Abimelech adds an additional quasi-logical argument—an argument by identity, whereby a persuader focuses on features or traits shared with the audience.21 Abimelech reminds his audience(s) that in addition to the contrast between the rule of the seventy and the rule of one, he is the Shechemites’ “bones and esh” (9:2), focusing attention upon his kinship bond with his primary audience—his family, and secondarily with the Shechemites, in contrast to the seventy sons of Jerubbaal, who have no such bond. In this manner, Abimelech attempts to persuade the Shechemites of the incompatibility of the rule of the seventy sons of Jerubbaal with the best interests of the Shechemites. At the same time, Abimelech also argues for the advantages of appointing himself as ruler over them based upon his kinship connections. Two of Abimelech’s audiences, his family and the lords of Shechem, accept these arguments and nd them persuasive. 18. See Hauser (Introduction to Rhetorical Theory, 271) for different types of quasi-logical arguments. 19. Perelman, The Realm of Rhetoric, 54. 20. In rhetorical argumentation, amplication is the use of “more words than grammatically necessary to expand presence” (Katz, The Structure of Ancient Arguments, 130). 21. Hauser, Introduction to Rhetorical Theory, 271. 1

4. Reading the Rhetoric of Judges 9

125

We noted above that Abimelech’s speech simultaneously addresses a third audience—the implied audience. Abimelech’s arguments putting himself forward as a candidate for kingship are also presented to the implied audience for evaluation. However, the implied author is able to add a new form of argumentation that further affects the audience’s perception of Abimelech’s line of reasoning—an analogy. The use of analogy is another method of argumentation that aims at establishing the structure of reality. Its goal is the evaluation of one element (the theme) by comparison with a second, often better-known element (the phoros).22 Ronald Katz, in his exploration of the development of ancient arguments, notes, “The key to advanced thinking which grapples with the condition of the non-physical or spiritual universe is the use of theme and phoros, the building blocks of the analogy, in argument.”23 When read in light of Judg 8:22–23, where Gideon/Jerubbaal rejects kingship, Abimelech’s comments take on a different tone. Both passages use similar vocabulary to describe rule (  in 8:22–23/9:2). The question of succession also links the two passages (“Neither I, nor my son will rule over you, Yahweh will rule over you” [8:23] vs. Abimelech’s speech assuming that the Shechemites have the opportunity and ability to choose a ruler from among the descendants of Jerubbaal, presumably after some sort of rule by Jerubbaal [cf. 9:16–17]). Moreover, the issue of kingship is central to both Judg 8 and Judg 9. However, the differences in terms of narrative pattern between the two passages are telling. There is no indication in Judg 8 of Yahweh’s sanction of the offer of kingship, and so Gideon is right to reject it. In fact, Gideon goes further, and asserts that neither he, nor his son will take up the offer of rule over Israel, for Yahweh rules over them (8:23). By contrast, Abimelech, the son of Gideon/Jerubbaal, pursues rule despite the absence of Yahwistic sanction. Moreover, he puts himself forward as a viable candidate for kingship based upon his kinship ties with the Shechemites and in contrast to the seventy sons of Jerubbaal. However, Abimelech leaves unstated a second and different kinship connection— he too is a son of Gideon/Jerubbaal. In this manner, Abimelech contradicts his father’s assertion that neither he nor his son will rule. Using the criteria from Chapter 1 (pp. 14–15), these two passages share similar genres, linguistic parallels, and the question of legitimate rule is integral to both passages, though the narrative patterning is different in order to contrast the two passages. Thus, when taken together, these factors 22. Perelman, The Realm of Rhetoric, 115; cf. also Hauser, Introduction to Rhetorical Theory, 273. 23. Katz, The Structure of Ancient Arguments, 8. 1

126

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

suggest the use of a negative analogy here, arguing against the legitimacy of Abimelech’s attempt to ascend to the throne in Shechem. Abimelech’s argument in Judg 9:2 exhibits a rhetorical contrast with the Gideon narrative when Abimelech contrasts himself with the seventy sons of Jerubbaal. This same distinction is present in Judg 8:30–31, where the narrator refers to Gideon’s seventy sons by many wives. There, he contrasts Abimelech with these seventy sons by: (1) naming Abimelech while leaving the seventy sons unnamed; and (2) by specifying his mother’s birthplace, in contrast to the unspecied birthplaces of the seventy sons. The narrator’s reference to Gideon/Jerubbaal’s seventy sons in Judg 8 is in the context of numerous indications that Gideon does in fact assume some sort of rule in Israel despite his verbal assertion to the contrary.24 This tension between Gideon’s words in 8:22–23 and his actions creates a play of perspectives and generates ambiguity for the reader about the narrative’s view of kingship, which is not resolved in Judg 8.25 Abimelech’s arguments revive this ambiguity regarding the narrator’s view of kingship by reference to Gideon/Jerubbaal’s sons, and continue the “discussion” with regards to the validity or legitimacy of kingship in Israel, which through Abimelech’s words, gets off to a negative start. Edgar Jans, in his redactional study of Judg 9, points to an analogy between Abimelech’s ascension to kingship in Shechem and David’s return to Jerusalem after Absalom’s rebellion in 2 Sam 19:11–15.26 The similarities may be summarized in the following table: Table 4.1 Judges 9:1–3 Abimelech uses his kinsmen to sway the people in his favour (9:2–3) Abimelech instructs his followers to “speak” ( ) to his (future) subjects (9:2) Abimelech reminds the people “I am your bone and esh” (   , 9:2)

2 Samuel 19:12–15 (11–14) David uses Amasa, his kinsman,27 to sway the people (19:15) David instructs his followers to “speak” ( ) to his subjects (19:12) David reminds the people “you are my bone and esh” (    , 19:13; cf. 2 Sam 5:1)

24. See above, pp. 58–64. 25. Signicantly, the narrator, the most reliable and authoritative voice in the narrative, does not explicitly afrm Gideon’s assertion in Judg 8:22–23, and even works to subvert it through his portrayal of Gideon’s king-like actions (cf. 8:27). 26. Jans, Abimelech und sein Königtum, 306–7. 27. Cf. 1 Chr 2:16–17. 1

4. Reading the Rhetoric of Judges 9 The people “extend their hearts” to Abimelech (  , 9:3) The people recognize Abimelech is their kinsman ( , 9:3) The exchange leads to Abimelech’s coronation (9:6)

127

Amasa convinces the people to “extend their hearts” to David (

  , 19:15) David reminds the people that they are his kinfolk (  , 19:13) The exchange leads to David’s return as king (19:16)

While these similarities exhibit both linguistic and plot-level commonalities, with some similar patterning of elements, there are also some obvious differences. Yahweh has unequivocally chosen David while Abimelech lacks Yahweh’s sanction. Abimelech seeks to establish his claim to the throne, while David seeks to re-establish his hold upon the throne; Abimelech’s ascension eventually foments a rebellion while 2 Sam 19 exhibits the claims of the rightful ruler in the aftermath of a rebellion. In addition, Judg 9 is critical of Abimelech and his style of kingship while 2 Sam 19 largely assumes the legitimacy of David as king. The larger narrative context of 2 Sam 19 is set against the backdrop of a son (Absalom) wrongfully attempting to seize kingship, so that the commonalities may point towards a right way and a wrong way to secure one’s throne. This may account for some of the differences in tone between the two examples, yet it is clear that Abimelech functions as the negative counterpart to David here. This becomes particularly evident when we examine the analogical criterion of patterning by looking at actions after these two kings secure the throne. David’s magnanimous actions upon his return (his pardoning of Shimei [2 Sam 19:17–24] and Mephibosheth [2 Sam 19:25–31] and his honouring of Barzillai [2 Sam 19:32–41]), combined with the people’s desire to reinstate David, point to the values of a just king. By contrast, Abimelech annihilates his subjects. Thus, both passages have common linguistic and plot elements, which are important to the plot of each story, while the narrative pattern breaks into contrasting responses after a rise (return) to kingship. Together, these elements suggest an analogy whereby Abimelech’s destructive rampages after becoming king (Judg 9:30–55) point towards his unworthiness to serve as a national leader, for such leaders destroy their own people. Abimelech’s acceptance of seventy pieces of silver from the temple of Baal-Berith (9:4) functions as a negative characterization in the narrative and adds another argument against Yahweh’s sanction of Abimelech’s actions. We have already seen the negative freight carried by the term “Baal” in the book of Judges,28 with its implications of apostasy and 28. See above, p. 122. 1

128

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

veneration of other, indigenous gods. The narrative does not directly implicate Abimelech in the veneration of Baal-Berith, but utilizes an argument based on transitivity to associate Abimelech with Baal-Berith. An argument of transitivity expresses the relationship between a number of elements in such a way that the properties or characteristics of one element can be transferred to another element through association. This syllogism can be expressed in the following manner: if term A is related to term B, and term B is related to term C, then, by implication, term A is related to term C.29 In Judg 9:4, the lords of Shechem give silver, originally associated with the temple of Baal-Berith, to Abimelech, thereby linking him with Baal-Berith. This transference associates Abimelech with overt, non-Yahwistic forms of worship, and further argues for the illegitimacy of the means of his ascension. The implied author of Judg 9 uses another argument to persuade his readers of the hazards of the type of leadership embodied by Abimelech. Abimelech takes the “tainted” money from the Shechemites and uses it to hire a band of “unprincipled and reckless men” (9:4). This direct evaluation by the narrator is quite unusual30 and is the most overt method at the narrator’s disposal for affecting his audience’s evaluation of a narrative element.31 In this case, the narrator clearly wishes the audience to perceive these men negatively, as seen by his use of two similar epithets, “unprincipled” and “reckless,” to characterize them, thereby intensifying the evaluation.32 This becomes a negative characterization of Abimelech by association, for they follow him ( ). This negative characterization is borne out when Abimelech travels to Ophrah to kill his seventy brothers (9:5). This is a drastic action exemplifying Abimelech’s brutality. Sternberg notes that such drastic acts speak for themselves, and can serve as a means by which the narrator can add an implicit judgment upon previous actions or characterizations.33 In this case, the murder of his seventy brothers serves as a strongly negative characterization of Abimelech. The implied author uses several additional arguments to lead his audience to see the heinousness of this act. First, the narrator emphasizes Abimelech’s relationship with his victims through the accumulation of 29. Perelman, The Realm of Rhetoric, 70. 30. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 30. 31. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 476. 32. This is the only place in the Hebrew Bible where both words occur together. The root  (“reckless”) occurs elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible only in Gen 49:4 and Zeph 3:4. The root  occurs forty-ve times. In Judg 11:3, it also refers negatively to a group of brigands who join Jephthah. 33. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 476–77. 1

4. Reading the Rhetoric of Judges 9

129

several relational terms. He travels to “his father’s house” (   ), where he murders “his brothers” (), “the sons of Jerubbaal” (

 ), “seventy men” (  

). This accumulation of detail gives presence and emphasis to Abimelech’s kinship relationship with his victims. Second, the narrator emphasizes Abimelech’s dissociation from his family in Ophrah via the sequence of terms in Judg 9:5. Sternberg points out that the order in which a narrator presents his terms may also reect persuasive intent, for “each ordering choice assumes signicance against the background of the rejected options.”34 Judges 9:5 rst describes his victims as “his brothers,” emphasizing Abimelech’s bond with his family members. However, the second term used to describe this relationship, “the sons of Jerubbaal,” acknowledges a certain level of distance between Abimelech and his brothers, for now, the narrator highlights that their bond is only through their father. Abimelech’s distance from this group is further emphasized by the next description—they are now “seventy men” with no direct link to Abimelech. Thus, the narrator’s use of increasingly less intimate terms of relationship intimates Abimelech’s afliation with his Shechemite relatives. By the end of this sequence, they are no longer brothers, but merely a group of seventy men. The narrator uses this sequence to break the links between Abimelech and his brothers, contradicting the expected cultural norm of brotherly delity.35 Thus, the implied author here makes his argument by dissociation, suggesting that certain kinship ties, assumed by the audience to imply loyalty and delity, do not hold true when leaders such as Abimelech seek power. Third, the narrator argues for the brutality of leaders like Abimelech through another argument of sequence. Having dissociated Abimelech relationally from his brothers, the narrator juxtaposes the numerical designation “seventy men” with a second numerical element—their slaughter “upon one stone.” By particularizing the place of death for all seventy men, the narrator uses graphic language to engage the audience’s emotions. Persuaders arouse an emotional response (or make use of an argument from pathos) when the audience must use their imagination to picture circumstances or occasions in which emotional responses are inherent. To facilitate this, persuaders use graphic language that appeals to the senses in order to help their audience vividly imagine such 34. Ibid., 478–79. 35. Each of the following incidents assumes brotherly loyalty as the norm by pointing to the “exceptions that prove the rule”: Gen 27:41–42; 37:26–27; 2 Sam 14:5–7. 1

130

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

situations.36 The phrase “one stone” is emotionally charged, for it allows the audience to conjure up a vivid and concrete image of the place of death, and so brings to mind feelings of abhorrence and disgust at the slaughter of seventy men in this one place. A potential analogy may further characterize Abimelech’s actions negatively here, and thereby aid in the presentation of the narrative’s overall argument. In Judg 8:18–19, when Gideon questions the Midianite kings Zebah and Zalmunna about the people they killed () at Tabor, they respond, saying, “They were just like you, each one in the form of the sons of the king” (       ). Gideon responds, saying, “They were my brothers, the sons of my mother” (   ). Judges 8:18–19 and 9:5 share a common vocabulary (, , ), the victims also share a kinship connection with Gideon/Jerubbaal, and both groups were killed by a king (or prospective king), though larger narrative patterning is not evident due to the brief nature of the analogy. Thus, using the criteria from Chapter 1 (pp. 14–15), Judg 8:18–19 is a fairly strong analogy, whereby the death of Gideon’s brothers at the hands of the Midianite kings parallels the death of his sons at the hand of Abimelech. This analogy characterizes Abimelech in a similar manner to these Midianite kings—killing wantonly, without need or justication. However, in the case of Abimelech, the murder of this group of Israelites comes not by the hand of a foreign enemy, but by their own relative, thereby characterizing Abimelech as even worse than these foreign kings. Abimelech’s slaughter of his brothers is an attempt to secure his claim to the throne in Shechem. By eliminating any possible contender who could lay claim to power, Abimelech would thereby establish himself as the sole heir, and therefore the only legitimate choice for kingship. The fact that Jotham, the youngest son of Jerubbaal,37 survives (9:5) disrupts the audience’s expectations, given the emphasis upon the thoroughness and brutality of Abimelech’s actions, as well as the aid of Abimelech’s “unprincipled and reckless men” (9:4). This disruption draws attention not only to Jotham, whose speech factors so prominently in the next part of the story, but also to the fact that a second, legitimate option for kingship exists. By doing so, the implied author further brings into question the legitimacy of Abimelech’s machinations.

36. Cockcroft and Cockcroft, Persuading People, 45. 37. Note that this is the same designation used for Abimelech in Judg 9:1, where he is also a “son of Jerubbaal.” 1

4. Reading the Rhetoric of Judges 9

131

The narrative implies the participation of all of the Shechemites in Abimelech’s coronation through the repetition of several terms. The narrator indicates that “all” the lords of Shechem and “all” of BethMillo38 “gathered together” (9:6), pointing to a comprehensive and unied action on the part of the Shechemites. Their part in bringing Abimelech to the throne is further emphasized through the use of paronomasia. In this case, the narrator uses the repetition of the root  in three successive words to give presence to the Shechemites role in making Abimelech king: “they made [king]” () “Abimelech” (  ) “king” ( ). This combination brings to the foreground the Shechemites’ role in elevating Abimelech to kingship, and so submits them for the audience’s judgment. This comprehensive and united action also prepares the audience for Abimelech’s thorough retribution against the entire population of Shechem (9:42–45, 46–49). At the same time, this sequence culminates with making Abimelech “king” (Judg 9:6), an epithet summarizing his new status. Katz notes that in the development of Hebrew rhetoric, the epithet became a signicant rhetorical tool for particularizing an object,39 though he understands the Hebrew epithet broadly, encompassing pronouns, nouns, substantive verbs, participles, and adjectives.40 Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca note a similar phenomenon when they remark upon the relationship between a person and his/her actions. For them, people manifest themselves by their actions, and, similarly, actions reect a person’s character. With persuasion, an act is “everything that can be considered an emanation of the person, be it an action, a mode of expression, an emotional reaction, an involuntary twitch, or a judgment.”41 These manifestations are an integral part of the conception of a person. Of course, such a conception is not a fully “stable” reection of reality. In reality, individuals have the capability to change or transform their actions, or they may use certain actions to deceive. Thus, for the purposes of persuasion, Linguistic techniques will help to stress the impression of permanency, the most important of these being the use of the proper noun. Designation of the person in terms of certain traits (your miser of a father), hypostasis of certain emotions (she whose fury pursued you through childhood), can also

38. See the discussion in Chapter 3 (see p. 78 n. 87), where “Beth-Millo” serves as a reference to a district or “neighbourhood” in Shechem, and, when placed in tandem with the lords of Shechem, serves as a hendiadys to refer to all the citizens of Shechem, both “leaders” and “commoners.” 39. Katz, The Structure of Ancient Arguments, 49. 40. Ibid., 45–50. 41. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, 297. 1

132

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule help. Qualication and the use of epithet (this hero, Charlemagne, with the white owing beard) aim at rendering certain characteristics immutable so that their stability will reinforce that of the person referred to.42

Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca note a similar relationship between act and essence. Whereas a person may be classied on the basis of certain characteristic acts, which help to stabilize the audience’s picture of him/her, a similar phenomenon may occur through the use of a verb, adjective, or some other expression designating a starting point. From these descriptors, essences may be formed (e.g. “the hero,” “the chef,” “the thief”). These essences help to characterize and explain the actions of certain classes of people or beings.43 As noted earlier, the narrator uses the repetition of the root  during Abimelech’s coronation. This coronation culminates with the Shechemites making him “king,” using both the verbal root and the nominal form of . Using Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s concept of the relationship between act and essence and the role of nouns as epithets, we can suggest that the use of the verb and noun here draws a connection between Abimelech and his “essence” as king. This is the rst of ten occurrences44 of this root in Judg 9 (outside of the name of Abimelech). The establishment of this relationship is essential for the rest of the narrative, for after this moment in the text, Abimelech’s actions are evaluated and explained in light of his role (or “essence”) as king. Having established the relationship between Abimelech and kingship, the implied author is able to go on to evaluate the consequences of this relationship, which Abimelech and the Shechemites have established. Though the narrator is careful to point to the establishment of Abimelech as king, he is just as careful not to extend his approval, and even tacitly raises some questions about the process. The absence of explicit Yahwistic sanction was noted above.45 Also pointedly absent from the description of Abimelech’s coronation is any reference to the anointing of Abimelech. While this omission may simply reect the exigencies of the implied author’s telling of the story, the double reference to the 42. Ibid., 294. 43. Ibid., 327. 44. The root  occurs eight times in Jotham’s speech (9:8 [2×], 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18). Other than Judg 9:6, where the root also occurs twice, these are the only times the root appears in Judg 9. However, rhetorically speaking, its appearance is not strictly necessary, since the relationship between Abimelech and kingship has already been established in 9:6 and carries over throughout the account. Thus, its use in Jotham’s speech is for rhetorical effect. 45. See above, pp. 188–89. 1

4. Reading the Rhetoric of Judges 9

133

anointing of a king in 9:8, 15 suggests otherwise. As noted earlier, Perelman’s argumentative technique of dissociation attempts to show that relationships or links between elements assumed by the audience do not actually exist, thereby altering the audience’s perception of the reality described. Anointing was key to ancient Israelite views of legitimate leadership, particularly kingship, for it was seen to confer sacral legitimation upon the one anointed.46 Its omission here casts suspicion upon the validity or legitimacy of Abimelech’s coronation.47 An analogy with Gideon may add further suspicion to the legitimacy of Abimelech’s coronation. The narrative indicates that Abimelech was made king at “the oak” () of the pillar in Shechem” (9:6). The angel of Yahweh also appeared to Gideon under “the terebinth” ()48 in Ophrah (6:11). Gideon apparently recognizes that he is speaking with some sort of divine being, for he offers to bring him a food offering and libation (6:17–18). It is not until after the angel of Yahweh vaporizes the offerings and disappears that Gideon realizes that he has been speaking with Yahweh (6:22). Given Gideon’s delayed ability to recognize Yahweh’s presence, the repetition of the location of this scene—“under the terebinth”—is curious. However, the use of sacred groves for the worship of other deities was ubiquitous throughout the history of ancient Israel.49 In this light, the repetition of the location of the encounter in Judg 6 may implicitly point to the worship of non-Yahwistic deities under this tree.50 This might then explain Gideon’s lack of surprise at encountering a divine visitor in this location and might also explain his failure to recognize Yahweh, who was hardly expected to frequent such non-Yahwistic sites, at least from the perspective of the implied author. Gideon’s failure to recognize Yahweh under the terebinth may then serve to characterize Abimelech and the Shechemites negatively also, making Abimelech king in a location associated with non-Yahwistic worship. However, when we apply the criteria for analogies (Chapter 1, pp. 14– 15), this analogy cannot be considered very strong. The linguistic parallel based on the use of “terebinth” may be incidental to the 46. See, for example, Weisman, “Anointing as a Motif,” 378–98; cf. also Mettinger, King and Messiah, 185–232. 47. On the rhetoric of breaking patterns, see Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 480. 48. Both  and  refer to a similar type of tree, a type of terebinth, and come from the same root (); see BDB 18. 49. Hos 4:13; Ezek 6:13; cf. also Deut 12:2; 1 Kgs 14:23; 2 Kgs 16:4; 17:10; Isa 57:5; Jer 2:20; 3:6, 12; 17:12; 2 Chr 28:4. 50. Cf. Victor H. Matthews, Judges and Ruth (NCBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 104. 1

134

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

narratives51 and the plot lines and narrative patterns are quite different. Thus, the analogy must be held very tentatively in the examination of the argumentative structure of Judg 9. Abimelech’s coronation at Shechem brings to the fore another important event at Shechem that may function as a rhetorical analogy between Judg 9 and Josh 24: Table 4.2 Judges 9 The lords of Shechem gather (#) at Shechem (9:6) to crown Abimelech

Joshua 24 Joshua gathers (#) the Israelites at Shechem to renew the covenant (24:1) The gathering is comprehensive—“all The gathering is comprehensive—“all the lords of Shechem” and “all Beththe tribes of Israel” along with the Millo” attend (9:6) elders, heads, judges and ofcers of Israel attend (24:1) Abimelech’s coronation takes place at Joshua seals the covenant with a stone set up under the terebinth (, the oak of the pillar (  ,52 9:6) 24:26–27) Jotham expresses the expectation that Joshua expresses the expectation that the Shechemites would act in “truth the Israelites would act with and sincerity” (   , 9:16, “sincerity and truth” (    , 19)53 24:14) A lack of “truth and sincerity” results Forsaking Yahweh will result in his in God sending an evil spirit ( ) sending “evil” () upon Israel upon the parties (9:23) (24:20) Doing “good” ( ) as a sign of “Doing good” ( ) as a sign of delity and faithfulness (9:16) delity and faithfulness (24:20) Abimelech’s association with BaalFidelity to Yahweh alone as the Berith, a foreign deity, as a sign of his hallmark of the covenant (24:14, 16, unfaithfulness to Yahwistic practices 23) (8:33; 9:4) The Shechemites incline their hearts Israel is to incline their hearts (  ) to Abimelech (9:3) (

  ) towards Yahweh (24:23)

In addition to these linguistic parallels, the setting of both chapters at Shechem opens up the possibility that Josh 24 may serve as a rhetorical 51. Particularly in light of the fact that Abimelech’s coronation at the oak in Shechem may suggest temple precincts (see above, p. 78 n. 90) while the sacral connections of the terebinth in Judg 6:11 are implicit at best. 52. Following the LXX UIKTUBTFXK =  . 53. As Boling (Judges, 174) notes, this combination only occurs in these two passages in the MT. 1

4. Reading the Rhetoric of Judges 9

135

analogy for Judg 9. If this is the case, then Abimelech’s actions undo many of the commitments espoused in Josh 24: the people incline their hearts to Abimelech and not Yahweh, and Abimelech fails to show any faithfulness whatsoever to Yahweh, so that one might say that Abimelech’s actions set in motion a chain of events that “eat the heart out of the covenant from the middle.”54 However, the reversal between “good” and “evil” is integral to Josh 24:20; forsaking Yahweh brings about a change so that Yahweh will no longer “do good” but “bring harm” upon Israel. In Judg 9:16, it is the Shechemites who were expected to do “good” to Jerubbaal. While Yahweh later sends an evil spirit between Abimelech and the Shechemites (9:23), there is no indication in Judg 9 that the reverse was true—that Yahweh “did good” to the Shechemites. Additionally, using the criterion of plot parallels and pattern of presentation, we see that the two narratives differ signicantly. Joshua 24 recounts a covenant renewal ceremony, while the theme of covenant is at best tangential to Judg 9.55 Judges 9 focuses upon kingship and illustrates Yahweh’s retribution when the Shechemites act as party to Abimelech’s murderous rampage, as emphasized by the narrator (9:23–24, 56–57). Moreover, the narrative’s conception of the Shechemites’ status within the covenant community of Israel is ambiguous, so that it is not clear that the covenant renewal ceremony of Josh 24 would have applied to them. Though there are linguistic parallels between Judg 9 and Josh 24, they are not consistently used in the two narratives and the similarities are not borne out at the level of plot or narrative patterning. Thus, using the criteria discussed in Chapter 1, Josh 24 is not a strong analogy for Judg 9. There is another potential analogy that we might explore at this point. The coronation of Abimelech in Shechem and its subsequent results recounted in Judg 9 has a number of parallels with another coronation at Shechem recounted in 1 Kgs 12: Table 4.3 Judges 9 Abimelech travels to Shechem (     ) with the intention of becoming king (9:1) Abimelech lacks Yahwistic sanction

1 Kings 12 Rehoboam travels to Shechem (   ) with the intention of becoming king (12:1) Rehoboam carries implicit Yahwistic sanction as a “son” of David (11:43)

54. Patricia Dutcher-Walls, verbal communication. 55. Contra Bluedorn, Yahweh Versus Baalism, 203. The word “covenant” only occurs twice in Judg 9 (9:4, 46) in connection with Baal/El-Berith. 1

136

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

Abimelech’s subjects rebel after he becomes king (9:25–29) The rift between king and people is predicted beforehand (9:15, 20) Abimelech’s subjects rebel in relation to a(n) (implicit) taxation issue (9:25)56 Divine intervention brings about the rift between king and people (9:23– 24) Abimelech uses his army to ght and destroy his kinsmen (9:30–55; cf. 9:3 “he is our brother” [ ]) Abimelech does not acknowledge Yahweh and destroys his kinfolk

Rehoboam’s potential subjects rebel before he becomes king (12:4–14) The rift between king and people is predicted beforehand (11:29–39) Rehoboam’s potential subjects rebel in relation to taxation issues (12:4– 14) Divine intervention brings about the rift between king and people (12:24) Rehoboam musters his army to ght his kinsmen (12:21–24; cf. 12:24 “you shall not…ght your kinsmen” []) Rehoboam obeys the word of Yahweh and does not destroy his kinsmen (12:24)

While there are only a few semantic parallels between the two stories, setting (at Shechem), context (coronation), and plot similarities link these two stories together. In both cases, the crowning of a king is central to the subsequent “action” of the story. Also, the pattern of coronation, prediction, rift, and (potential) armed conict among “brothers” (with some temporal displacement) unites the stories. While in both narratives the people rebel, Rehoboam serves as the more positive example, for he eventually obeys the word of Yahweh (12:24) by not engaging his brethren in battle, and thereby retains a portion of his kingdom. By contrast, Abimelech never acknowledges Yahweh and destroys both his kinfolk, losing his kingdom. Thus, in light of the criteria of Chapter 1, 1 Kgs 12 has a number of similar plot elements (e.g. location at Shechem, rebellious subjects after coronation) and a similar narrative pattern (coronation at Shechem, rebellion of subjects, divine intervention bringing a rift) that are strongly anchored in both Judg 9 and 1 Kgs 12. However, there are few linguistic parallels. As a result, we cannot be dogmatic about the analogical relationship between the two chapters, though the similar shape of the two narratives suggests that 1 Kgs 12 may serve as an echo of Judg 9, illustrating the effects of kings who refuse to acknowledge Yahweh.57 In summary, Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, in speaking of the ordering of an argument, note that in rhetoric, the exordium (or exposition) is 56. Cf. p. 95, and Heffelnger, “Chiey Politics,” 289. 57. Cf. Butler’s observations (Judges, 235, 242) regarding the analogies between Judg 9 and 1 Kgs 12. 1

4. Reading the Rhetoric of Judges 9

137

very important, for it is the section of the argument most specically crafted to inuence the audience. “The purpose of the exordium is to make the audience well disposed towards the speaker and to secure its goodwill, attention, and interest. It also provides certain elements that will give rise to spontaneous arguments dealing with the speech and the speaker.”58 Judges 9:1–6 achieves this by forwarding two key arguments. First, the implied author dissociates Abimelech from his family in Ophrah through various arguments of association, linking him with his kinfolk in Shechem. This issue repeats itself throughout Judg 9, as the narrative explores the stability of local kinship relationships as a base for power. Second, the exposition of Judg 9 also argues for the illegitimacy of Abimelech’s rise to power. This is primarily seen through the lack of Yahwistic sanction in Abimelech’s rise, as well as through several associations with non-Yahwistic places of worship. This lack of sacral legitimation prepares the audience for the implied author’s argument that God will work against such forms of kingship (Judg 9:23–24). 2. The Rhetoric of the Complication in Judges 9:7–22 a. The Rhetoric of Jotham’s Fable (9:7–15) Jotham’s escape from Abimelech’s violent putsch (9:5) sets the stage for the plot complication in Judg 9:7–21. Jotham’s mere presence indicates that Abimelech’s attempt to eliminate all his legitimate competitors for kingship has failed, and thus presents another option to the Shechemites, and thereby the implied readers, to consider with regard to kingship. Jotham begins his address by calling out to the Shechemites from a peak on Mt. Gerizim, “Listen to me, O lords of Shechem, so that God will listen to you” (9:7). Jotham uses an argument by authority here. Such arguments utilize the prestige and credibility of a person or group in order to support their case, usually in cases where there is no demonstrable proof.59 In this case, through a claim of reciprocal response suggesting that adherence to his words will then ensure a favourable response by Elohim, Jotham claims a certain level of authority. Adherence to his words, he argues, is the key to this response, and so claims a level of authority as a representative of Yahweh to whom his audience (both the Shechemites and the implied audience) must listen.60 58. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, 495. 59. Perelman, The Realm of Rhetoric, 94; cf. also Perelman and OlbrechtsTyteca, The New Rhetoric, 305–10. 60. A similar argument may also implicitly lie behind the narrator’s use of Jotham’s name in this verse. The narrator only mentions Jotham’s name at the beginning and end of the narrative describing his speech (9:7, 21), thereby forming an 1

138

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

Jotham’s initial argument takes the form of a fable, a specic type of analogy, intended to bring clarity to the coronation of Abimelech. Fables are frequently used in political contexts for the purposes of confrontation,61 partly for their persuasive effect, and partly for their usefulness in distancing the speaker from a confrontational situation by recasting the issue through the personication of a plant or animal.62 In Judg 9, Jotham’s use of a fable as a rhetorical tool allows him to challenge the Shechemites to consider their actions in making Abimelech king in a more detached manner and with less initial emotional investment.63 The fable (9:8–15) leads the Shechemites to recognize the folly of the trees that make the potentially dangerous thorny tree () king. For the implied audience, however, the fable combines with the events of Judg 9:1–6 to provide a cumulative argument against the legitimacy of Abimelech’s kingship. The fable is presented using a three-and-four structure. Three times (9:8, 10, 12) the trees approach a potential candidate with the request, “Be king over us.” Three times (9:9, 11, 13) the candidate demurs, on the grounds that it would need to give up its production of fruit and come “wave” () over the trees. The three-fold repetition of the offer of kingship, along with the responses by the three candidates, emphasizes their valuable contribution to ancient agrarian life. An ancient Israelite audience would have appreciated the value of each plant, and so could understand why it was approached, as well as why it might demur.64 inclusio, and so highlighting his name. Jotham’s name is a combination of the theophoric “Yo,” a short form for Yahweh (), and  , “perfect, blameless,” meaning, “Yahweh is blameless” or “Yahweh is perfect.” These connotations may bring to mind Yahweh’s absence from the story, except for the name Jotham, which gives it some presence. This may then indicate the implied author’s use of Jotham as a representative of Yahweh in the narrative. 61. Cf. Jehoash’s response to Amaziah’s request to meet face-to-face by relating a fable in 2 Kgs 14:9. 62. Alter (Language as Theme in the Book of Judges, 8–9) speaks of the powerful rhetorical effect of the fable: “As a studied exploitation of the fable-form, it is the most elaborate, the most cunningly artful instance of political rhetoric in the whole Book of Judges… The art of rhetoric here is employed, as in the Prophets, to make the truth powerfully evident to the occluded vision of a self-deceived people, and it is no accident that there are prophetic overtones at the very beginning and at the end of Jotham’s address.” 63. According to Cockcroft and Cockcroft (Persuading People, 64–65), “Comparison is one of the dramatist’s basic resources, especially when criticizing their own society. An audience is invited to compare their own situation with that represented or stated.” 64. Cf. p. 83 n. 104. 1

4. Reading the Rhetoric of Judges 9

139

The three unsuccessful offers of kingship contrast with a fourth, successful offer of kingship to the thorny tree65 in a number of ways. First, while the form of the offer to the thorny tree is similar to the other three offers, its response is very different. It responds with a series of conditional statements, while the other three candidates respond with a question. These conditional clauses not only signal a change in tone, but also draw the audience into an evaluation of this fourth offer, a technique not directly utilized in the rst three offers. Second, the thorny tree cannot point to any direct benets that it may offer, in contrast to the rst three candidates, but instead points to its potential ability to provide shade. Thus it, like the other trees, provides some benet, though it is less direct than the other three candidates’ benets. Third, in contrast to the contributions of the three other candidates, the thorny tree indicates its own destructive potential through a threatened destruction of the most majestic of trees by re, the cedar of Lebanon. Fourth, the contrast with the rst three candidates is also highlighted by the thorny tree’s own words, which question the sincerity of the offer, “If you are really anointing me as king over you…” (9:15). The rst three candidates do not question the sincerity of the offer, making the thorny tree appear unduly suspicious. These factors indicate that the thorny tree serves as a dangerous candidate; it offers some prospective benet, but also carries a signicant risk of potential disaster. Yairah Amit notes the rhetorical impact of the three-and-four structure: “This structure is often used to convey confrontation and persuasion and for effecting a change of attitude. It entails four events sharing a common denominator, the last of which entails a change in position; in other words, after three ineffective occurrences, there is an effective fourth.”66 Thus, rhetorically, the persuasive impact of this literary device stems from the contrast between the rst three elements and the fourth element. The constellation of differences between the rst three offers and the fourth offer argues against the wisdom of choosing someone like the thorny tree to rule. The fable and Judg 9:1–6 share a number of commonalities that facilitate a link between the coronation of Abimelech and the coronation of the thorny tree. Most obviously, both refer to the making of a king. Both situations assume that the people have some options in terms of whom they may choose. Both situations assume some sort of derivative benet 65. Tatu (“Jotham’s Fable and the Crux Interpretum,” 105–24) makes a strong case for identifying the  as the Crown of Thorns, Ziziphus spina-christi, a tall, shady tree which produces sour but edible fruit. 66. See Amit, Reading Biblical Narratives, 62. 1

140

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

to those who sit under the rule of a king.67 The fable and Judg 9:1–6 both intimate the destructive potential of an unsuitable candidate.68 Though there are also a number of differences between the two passages,69 the similarities enable the audience to recognize the comparison and link Abimelech with the thorny tree. The “syllogism” reected by this comparison exhibits the following structure: just as the trees chose a king who represents a real danger to his subjects, so Abimelech represents an unsuitable choice for king, for he will serve as a danger to those who facilitate his rise. While this argument may contain an implicit denigration of the Shechemites for choosing such a king, the greatest weight of the argument falls upon the changed element, the unsuitable king. b. The Rhetoric of Jotham’s Application of the Fable (9:16–22) The use of the adverb   in Judg 9:16 signals the shift from poetry to prose, from fable to application. The shift between genres is common in the ancient Near East, and carries a signicant rhetorical force. James W. Watts notes this phenomenon and opines, “Persuasion was not limited to particular genres of discourse and literature but was frequently a stimulus leading authors to combine genres to create more persuasive forms. In this process, the rhetorical capacities of many different kinds of literature were harnessed for overtly persuasive purposes.”70 Here, a mixture of

67. Abimelech argues that the Shechemites will receive some benet from making him king, implied in his question, “Which is better for you?” (9:2). The fable assumes that the coronation of a king would bring some sort of protective benet, possibly through the reference to the three worthy candidates “waving” over the other trees as protection from the wind, and through the double entendre in the reference to “shade” offered by the thorn bush (9:15). 68. The fable suggests the destructive potential of the thorny tree through its threat of destruction by re, directed at the cedars of Lebanon (9:15). Similarly, the description of Abimelech’s murder of his seventy brothers by his own hand (9:5) foreshadows the destructive capabilities of an unsuitable king such as Abimelech. 69. In Judg 9:1–6, Abimelech approaches his potential subjects, while in the fable, the subjects approach a potential king. Abimelech only makes one appeal to his subjects while the fable describes four appeals. The fable indicates that anointing was part of the process of appointing a king (9:8), while this fact is curiously absent from Judg 9:1–6. Abimelech secures the aid of a band of “unprincipled and reckless men” to help him (9:4), while no such outside aid is implied in the fable. 70. James W. Watts, “Story-List-Sanction: A Cross-Cultural Strategy of Ancient Persuasion,” in Lipson and Binkley, eds., Rhetoric Before and Beyond the Greeks, 197. Watts examines the particular combination of narratives, lists, and sanctions, though his observation holds true for other combinations of genres as well. 1

4. Reading the Rhetoric of Judges 9

141

two genres allows the implied author to combine the effect of the fable’s argument with the following narrative interpretation, thereby making a stronger case. Jotham’s arguments in 9:16–20 are somewhat different from those of the fable. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca note that in informal argumentation, this is not unexpected or unusual. Various arguments may appear within a given discourse because they are targeted at different audiences or situations, or they may simply be variations on the same basic argument.71 In this case, Jotham continues to address the Shechemites, but makes a slightly different argument than the one found in the fable, building a case for the Shechemites’ responsibility for Abimelech’s rise. Jotham’s application of the fable evidences a number of links between 9:16–20 and 9:8–15. Both passages use a three-and-four structure, albeit a modied one in Judg 9:16–20. Jotham’s speech picks up the use of , a Leitwort from the fable (9:15) to draw the arguments together.72 Similarly, the use of three conditional clauses in 9:16 takes up the conditional elements from 9:15. The rst conditional clause, which makes reference to the Shechemites crowning Abimelech as king, also reintroduces the element of kingship from the fable. Additionally, Jotham’s application also takes up the Leitmotifs of destruction by re (9:20; cf. 9:15), and reciprocation, introduced in 9:8, related in 9:15, and picked up again in 9:19–20. Jotham’s three conditional statements in 9:16 make three very similar arguments. They are all introduced by the particle  and utilize the verb   to describe the Shechemites’ actions. These three conditional statements challenge the Shechemites to consider their actions from an ethical standpoint, as opposed to the pragmatic arguments made by the fable.73 71. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, 477. 72. On the rhetorical role of the Leitwort, see Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 480. Katz’s examination of the development of ancient arguments also suggests that repetitions such as these are a key to early biblical rhetoric; see Katz, The Structure of Ancient Arguments, 37–45. 73. Veijola (Das Königtum, 113) noted that the addition of  to  introduces a moral nuance to Jotham’s speech. This tone holds true for the next conditional clause, where the phrase     , “if you have acted in good faith,” using the word order of substantive-verb, only occurs three times in the Old Testament. In Ezek 18:18, to “not act in good faith” is linked with various unethical practices such as extortion and robbery, while in Ps 119:65, Yahweh’s keeping his word stands parallel to “doing good.” Similarly, the idea of acting according to what someone deserves (    ) carries the idea of a just reward for ethical or unethical actions (cf. Isa 3:11; Prov 12:14). Consequently, it seems that “acting in 1

142

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

When combined, the repetition of the conditional clauses and the ethical perspectives forwarded by Jotham challenge not only the Shechemites, but the intended audience also, to evaluate their actions according to the standards of expected conduct. Jotham goes on to argue in Judg 9:17–19 that the Shechemites have violated these standards. The arguments in Judg 9:16b–19a have often been viewed as secondary to this section, because they are a digression using resumptive repetition to link v. 19a with v. 16a.74 However, from an argumentative standpoint, Jotham’s digression serves an important role: it interrupts the culmination of the three-and-four pattern of the conditional clauses in 9:16, which is a strong rhetorical technique75 that allows the implied author to give presence to, or “showcases,” the intervening arguments in 9:17–18. The interrupted pattern also allows Jotham to specify the source of the Shechemites’ ethical violations and persuade the audience of why the Shechemites cannot expect to receive benet from the coronation of Abimelech. In this manner, they set the groundwork for Jotham’s prediction of mutual destruction in 9:20. Jotham’s argument in Judg 9:17, 18 introduces an emotional appeal. His repeated references to his father allow the implied audience to identify with him, particularly when compared with Abimelech, who persistently attempts to dissociate himself from Jerubbaal. Jotham’s appeal here comes in the form of an argument by contrast. In 9:17, he builds a positive picture of his father’s actions on behalf of the Shechemites through the use of three staccato verbs. Jotham points out that Jerubbaal “fought” (, Niphal) for the Shechemites, “laid down” (  , Hiphil) his life for them, and “delivered” (, Hiphil) them from the Midianites. Together they illustrate the benet the Shechemites derived from Jerubbaal’s actions on their behalf and suggest that the Shechemites had some sort of obligation, whether through a formal, unspecied covenant or an informal “debt” to Jerubbaal and his legitimate heirs. Conversely, the Shechemites have violated their relationship with Jerubbaal for their own benet. Jotham emphasizes their violation,

good faith” is not just a negative argument against Abimelech and the Shechemites, but stands as a real and viable alternative to their actions. This may suggest that kingship can potentially be established “in good faith” and thereby indicate that the evaluation need not imply an anti-monarchic stance, but simply a charge of unethical conduct in this case. 74. E.g. Richter, Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, 251; Veijola, Das Königtum, 113; Fritz, “Abimelech und Sichem in Jdg. 9,” 132–33; Becker, Richterzeit und Königtum, 196–97; Jans, Abimelech und sein Königtum, 321–28. 75. See Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 480. 1

4. Reading the Rhetoric of Judges 9

143

saying, “But you have rebelled against my father’s house today” (9:18). He gives presence to the part played by the Shechemites through the emphatic use of the second person independent pronoun  , “but you,” already inherent in the verb. Furthermore, the term “rebellion” ( , literally “rise up”) is a loaded term. He states the specics of this rebellion using an argument based upon relations of coexistence, an argumentative strategy that utilizes the structure of reality currently accepted by the audience as a bridge to new assertions that the persuader wants to promote.76 In this case, Jotham makes use of the events of 9:1–6, which the audience has now come to accept as “reality,” in order to illustrate how the Shechemites have rebelled against Jotham’s father. First, Jotham implicates the Shechemites in the murder of Jerubbaal’s seventy sons, “You killed his sons, seventy men, upon one stone” (9:18). This is a form of argument whereby the group is evaluated by the actions of one of its members, and where the actions of individual members of a group act as an expression of the group as a whole. Thus, fault in an individual may compromise or implicate the entire group.77 Here, then, the narrative utilizes the mutual identication of Abimelech and the Shechemites in 9:1–6, to argue for the culpability of the Shechemites in the murder of Jerubbaal’s seventy sons, even though Abimelech actually did the deed. This argument for the Shechemites’ complicity and culpability in the murder of Jerubbaal’s seventy sons is in keeping with the ethical tone of 9:16. Similarly, Abimelech’s mother’s association with the Shechemites has already been established (9:1–2). Jotham uses the pejorative term    , “son of his servant-girl,”78 to describe Abimelech’s mother. Though this may be hyperbole (cf. Judg 8:31), Jotham’s comment is meant to denigrate both Abimelech and his mother by implying their lowly status. Thus, based upon the “reality” of Abimelech’s kinship ties 76. Hauser, Introduction to Rhetorical Theory, 272–73. 77. Ibid.; Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, 322–23; Cockcroft and Cockcroft, Persuading People, 71–74. 78. The word  refers to a slave who served as the possession of her master or mistress and could be bought or sold, which is not evidenced for a concubine ( ), the term used for Abimelech’s mother in Judg 8:31; cf. Exod 21:7, 20–21; Lev 25:44; Deut 5:14; 15:12–17. The lowly legal status of a “son of a servant-girl” is seen in Exod 23:12 where the “son of a servant-girl” has the same status as a farmer’s work animals. Thus, by calling him the “son of a servant-girl,” Jotham degrades Abimelech to the lowest status possible, a son with virtually no legal rights and minimal if any possibilities of inheritance. Cf. Crown, “A Reinterpretation of Judges IX,” 96. Chaim Rabin (“The Origin of the Hebrew Word Plegeš,” JJS 25 [1974]: 363) also notes the different legal status. 1

144

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

with the Shechemites, Jotham argues that they have elevated the least likely and the least worthy of Jerubbaal’s sons to be their king. Thereby the entire group, not just Abimelech, is in rebellion against Jerubbaal. By elevating such a lowly candidate to take over Jerubbaal’s leadership position, and thereby contravening customary inheritance practices, Jotham presents his audience with the unethical nature of the Shechemites’ actions and leads them to evaluate these actions negatively. Jotham’s arguments in Judg 9:17–18 are therefore essential in establishing the responsibility of the Shechemites for the events of Judg 9:1– 6. They establish the Shechemites’ role in Abimelech’s rise, and when coupled with the argument of the fable, present a strong case for mutual responsibility in Abimelech’s illegitimate rise to power in Shechem. Jotham’s nal charge in 9:19–20 builds upon his previously assembled arguments. He resumes his previous line of argumentation by taking up a combination of elements from the rst two conditional clauses of 9:16. Having already established the “reality” of the Shechemites’ lack of “sincerity and integrity” (9:17–18), as well as Abimelech’s unworthiness for kingship (9:8–15), Jotham makes a very pragmatic argument based upon this reality-structure. He invites his audience to evaluate the actions of both Abimelech and the Shechemites in terms of either favourable or unfavourable consequences, or a new, resultant reality (9:19– 20).79 The rst apodosis opens the possibility that, if the Shechemites acted with “sincerity and integrity,” mutual joy could result. However, as Jotham has already argued that the prerequisite to this condition lay unfullled, the audience (both the Shechemite audience and the implied audience) must accept Jotham’s second apodosis that the relationship between Abimelech and the Shechemites could only result in mutual destruction (9:20). Jotham’s persuasive tactics have mixed results. Abimelech and the Shechemites choose to ignore the force of Jotham’s arguments, as insinuated by their silence and the following narratorial comment mentioning Abimelech’s three-year rule in Shechem (9:21–22). Their refusal to listen to Jotham’s arguments suggests that they are unwilling to heed human and divine reproach (9:7). This prepares the audience for the upcoming negative divine intervention in 9:23–24, and further serves to characterize Abimelech and the Shechemites as stubborn and obdurate. This negative characterization is strengthened through a possible analogy with David and Nathan in 2 Sam 12:1–13. Both Judg 9 and 2 Sam 12 use a mixture of genres to address a king (and his supporters in the case of Judg 9) after his direct hand in the murder of others. Both 79. Cf. Hauser, Introduction to Rhetorical Theory, 272. 1

4. Reading the Rhetoric of Judges 9

145

Jotham and Nathan serve as the spokesmen of Yahweh (or represent Yahweh’s perspective). Both Jotham and Nathan attempt to lead their audience to implicate themselves.80 However, David’s positive response— “I have sinned against Yahweh” (2 Sam 12:13)—strongly contrasts Abimelech and the Shechemites’ lack of response when similarly confronted. This analogy would then further the negative characterization of Abimelech and the Shechemites and argue for their hardness to Yahweh’s word and instruction. However, there are no strong lexical parallels between the passages or similarities in narrative patterning, and so the analogy must be tentative, if accepted. Jotham’s lack of success with the Shechemites, however, may prove to be the implied author’s triumph in terms of the implied audience. Abimelech’s and the Shechemites’ muted reactions characterize them as heedless and deant, even when presented with the illegitimacy of their actions. This hardness may then serve the implied author’s persuasive goals by adding to Jotham’s arguments a further illustration of the charge that Abimelech and the Shechemites have failed to act uprightly. For the implied audience, this failure to respond only serves as a further conrmation of Jotham’s point, this time reecting the added weight of the implicit evaluation of the implied author, for he has chosen to order and arrange the narrative to demonstrate this point. 3. The Rhetoric of the Change in Judges 9:23–24 The appearance of God in Judg 9:23 signals an important shift in the rhetoric of Judg 9. The absence of God’s direct involvement in the previously narrated events gives signicant rhetorical presence to his actions here. The narrative describes God as working against both Abimelech and the Shechemites. This report conrms Jotham’s initial claim in 9:8 that listening to him would bring a positive response, while failure to hear (and take action on) Jotham’s words would bring the opposite result. Rhetorically, it also brings Jotham’s words in line with God’s and the narrator’s perspective. This constellation of the narrator’s evaluation, Jotham’s words, and God’s actions is a powerful rhetorical argument, for it aligns Jotham’s words with two of the most explicit persuasive perspectives in the narrative, the narrator’s and God’s.81 The implied author’s reference to God’s dispatching of an evil spirit ( ) allows him to make a number of arguments by analogy. First, the work of this evil spirit from God contrasts with the spirit of Yahweh 80. Similarly, Saski, The Concept of War, 84. 81. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 476. 1

146

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

( ) that comes upon Gideon in Judg 6:34.82 It is after the onset of the spirit of Yahweh that Gideon nally begins to take action upon Yahweh’s commission, given in 6:11–14, to deliver Israel from the Midianites. Furthermore, in Judg 6, it is the onset of the spirit that leads to the marshalling of several tribal groups, which work together for a common purpose and against a common enemy. These positive effects contrast the work of the evil spirit from God, which brings division and leads to the Shechemites’ treachery against Abimelech. Instead of ghting against the enemies of Israel, the coming of the evil spirit makes enemies of people who formerly were joined together in an alliance. These plot level similarities, along with the importance of the role of the spirit from Yahweh in both texts, suggest the implied author draws a further negative characterization of Abimelech and the Shechemites here, pointing to the short-lived nature of alliances formed without divine sanction and based on local kinship ties. However, the lack of multiple points of equivalence or similar patterning suggests the analogy is only a potential parallel and so must only be used tentatively in reconstructing the argument of Judg 9. Comparing the evil spirit that comes upon King Saul (1 Sam 16:14) with the evil spirit of Judg 9 can make for a different kind of analogy. In Judg 9, the sending of the evil spirit from God marks the point of change in the fortunes of Abimelech’s relationship with the Shechemites. The manifestation of the work of the evil spirit is evidenced in the Shechemites’ rebellion against Abimelech (9:29) and Abimelech’s ruthless destruction of the Shechemites (9:42–49). These descriptions have an analogy in the life of Israel’s rst national king, Saul. First Samuel 16:13–14 relates the departure of the spirit of Yahweh from Saul and the coming of an evil spirit marking the beginning of Saul’s decline,83 a decline that ends in his death at the hands of his armour-bearer (1 Sam 31; cf. Judg 9:50–55). In both cases, the advent of the evil spirit from God springs from a failure to act under Yahweh’s sanction (implicitly absent in Judg 9; cf. 1 Sam 15:24), it coincides with a rift between the king and his followers (Judg 9:23; 1 Sam 18:10–14), and it also coincides with a transfer of the people’s support (gradual in 1 Samuel; more dramatic in Judg 9) to another leader (Judg 9:26; 1 Sam 18:6–16). The evil spirit from Yahweh, which torments Saul, manifests itself through Saul’s actions—his irrational attempts to kill his follower, David (1 Sam 18:10–11; 19:9–10; cf. Judg 9:34–55). The strong plot-level parallels 82. Cf. the role of the spirit of Yahweh in Judges in empowering the exploits of Othniel (3:10), Jephthah (11:29), and Samson (13:25; 14:6, 19; 15:14). 83. P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., 1 Samuel (AB 8; New York: Doubleday, 1980), 282. 1

4. Reading the Rhetoric of Judges 9

147

between Saul and Abimelech, the relatively rare linguistic link of the “evil spirit” from God, and the similar pattern of events that parallel the demise of both kings present a strong analogy. These analogies are suggestive for Judg 9, warning the audience that Yahweh will work against, and ultimately bring on the swift demise of, those who may choose to act without Yahweh’s sanction. The nature of the events that precipitated such strong opposition from God is related in 9:24. The implied author’s stance is indicated through his choice of several emotionally charged terms. The narrator describes the action against Abimelech’s brothers as “violence” (), a term that can connote “extreme wickedness.”84 The other phrase used to describe Abimelech’s actions against his brother is “to incur bloodguilt” or “to turn back their bloodguilt” (  ).85 These two phrases are mirrored in 9:24 by the double use of “murder” (), once referring to Abimelech, and once referring to the actions of the Shechemites. Rhetorically, this accumulation of detail gives presence to the malevolence associated with the death of the seventy sons of Jerubbaal. B. Kedar-Kopfstein writes, “To destroy a human life is the greatest evil, but the actual shedding of blood in murder imposes a special burden,”86 meaning a murderer must prepare for blood vengeance. The responsibility of avenging the blood, or seeking blood vengeance for a murder victim, usually fell to the “avenger of blood” (Num 35:9–34; Deut 19:6; 2 Sam 14:11), normally the nearest blood relative. However, in some cases, God himself could intervene and take up the cause of the powerless or those unable to bring about blood vengeance (Gen 4:15; 1 Kgs 21:19; 2 Kgs 9:7; Pss 9:12 [13 MT]; 72:14; Ezek 3:18, 20; 33:6).87 This is the case here, where God takes up the cause of the seventy sons of Jerubbaal. When these loaded terms, chosen by the narrator for their emotional impact and their connotative associations, are then combined with the work of the evil spirit from God, they represent a very effective argument by the implied author designed to persuade his audience to evaluate Abimelech’s actions negatively. Moreover, the implied author suggests that, with the murder of the seventy sons of Jerubbaal along with Jotham’s ight to Beer, there was no one to seek retribution for the actions of Abimelech and the Shechemites. Consequently, the narrator implies that God himself has taken up their cause and that God himself will work to bring about retribution. This argument warns the implied audience 84. 85. 86. 87. 1

TWOT 1:297. Cf. Deut 22:8; 1 Kgs 2:5. B. Kedar-Kopfstein, “ dm,” TDOT 3:242. Kedar-Kopfstein, TDOT 3:249.

148

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

against similar actions. Anyone contemplating the exploitation of kinship ties in order to secure power through murder must face the prospect of a divine avenger who will inexorably bring about retribution. 4. The Rhetoric of the Unravelling in Judges 9:25–55 a. The Shechemites’ Challenges to Abimelech’s Kingship (9:25–29) The practical outworking of the rift in the relationship between Abimelech and the Shechemites exhibits itself in a series of three challenges to Abimelech’s role as king. The similar setting for Judg 9:25 and 9:7 on the top of a mountain creates a link between these two scenes.88 The Shechemite ambushes are the rst concrete acts of rebellion against Abimelech. The implied author species that these ambushes take place atop the mountains surrounding Shechem. This setting is rather curious, for travelers would not usually travel atop undulating hills, but rather through the valleys between them. Thus, the ambushes probably took place not on the tops of the hills, but in the valleys below. The implied author’s decision to situate the Shechemites’ rst act of rebellion upon the hill tops seems to be a rhetorical device designed to link this act with Jotham’s speech. If this is the case, the similar settings point the audience to the content of Jotham’s speech, particularly Jotham’s prediction of a coming rift between Abimelech and the Shechemites resulting in their mutual destruction (9:20). This rst act of rebellion conrms Jotham’s words and launches the initial phases of its outworking. The second Shechemite act of rebellion (9:26) is linked to the rst through the shared use of the verb  . The Shechemites rob “all who pass by” (  ) during their ambushes (9:25). Gaal and his band of brothers have no trouble, however, “passing through” ( ) into Shechem (9:26). Gaal’s ready acceptance is indicated not only by his easy entrance into the city, but also by the speed with which the lords of Shechem place their “trust” in him. The same lords of Shechem who needed to be convinced of Abimelech’s case for kingship (9:1–3) here offer no clear rationale for their trust in Gaal. By omitting any sort of deliberation on the part of the Shechemites, the implied author not only suggests the speed by which the rift between Abimelech and the Shechemites developed, but also insinuates the Shechemites’ ckle loyalty.

88. On the scenic nature of rhetorical argumentation, see Hauser (Introduction to Rhetorical Theory, 279–82). 1

4. Reading the Rhetoric of Judges 9

149

The implied author reinforces this point through his naming of Gaal. There is a lack of unanimity among the early witnesses about Gaal’s name.89 However, in the MT’s version, Gaal son of Ebed functions as an epithet manifesting his essence,90 meaning something like “loathsome, son of a servant,” reecting the implied author’s stance.91 Sternberg points out that biblical names may carry two functions: they can directly characterize someone, and they can lay the ground for future plot developments, enhancing their predictability or intelligibility within the larger scope of a narrative.92 In this case, the use of Gaal’s name reects an effort on the part of the implied author to characterize Gaal as an unworthy, even repugnant choice for leadership. Gaal’s unworthiness and unsuitability for leadership, reected in his name, is borne out by his unwillingness to make good on his bravado (cf. 9:28–29 and 38). Thus, the implied author’s naming of Gaal here is designed to bring his audience to a negative evaluation of Gaal right from his rst appearance in the narrative. The Shechemites’ third act of rebellion takes place in “the temple of their god” (  , 9:27). This comment reects the implied author’s stance towards the Shechemites’ deity and thus reveals his desire to sway the implied audience’s view of this deity. The narrator attempts to dissociate himself and his audience from this deity by linking it to the Shechemites. It is “their” nameless deity, not his (presumably Yahweh or Elohim), and by implication, not one he wishes his audience to serve. It is within the temple precincts that the Shechemites belittle (, Piel) Abimelech (9:27). Gaal, emboldened by the Shechemites’ derision, puts forward several arguments that ridicule Abimelech and at the same time put himself forward as an alternative candidate for leadership. Gaal’s opening salvo, “Who is Abimelech and who is Shechem that we should serve him?” (      ), amplies the Shechemites derision. G. Coats has shown that this type of question is actually an insult formula taken from the realm of the court (or cult) and used to demean an enemy.93 In such cases, the question carries an implied

89. See p. 96 n. 156. 90. Katz, The Structure of Ancient Arguments, 49; Perelman and OlbrechtsTyteca, The New Rhetoric, 297, 327. 91. From , “to loathe, to feel disgust” (HALOT 1:199), and  , “slave, servant” (HALOT 1:774–75). 92. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 331. 93. George W. Coats, “Self-Abasement and Insult Formulas,” JBL 89 (1970): 14–26 (14–15). Coats describes the structure of these formulas as containing two elements: (1) a nominal sentence, introduced by an interrogative particle (either  or

1

150

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

negative answer to the verb that follows the  clause. Thus, in Judg 9:28, when Gaal asks, “Who is Abimelech and who is Shechem that we should serve him?,” the implied answer is that Gaal and his audience should not serve Abimelech. The implication behind the comment is that Abimelech is unworthy of their service.94 This derision is carried even further when Gaal asks, “Is he not the son of Jerubbaal and Zebul his lieutenant?” (9:28), for the use of the patronymic “son of X,” without reference to a personal name, reects scorn or, in this case, heightened scorn.95 Gaal continues to attempt to diminish Abimelech’s authority through an argument of dissociation, showing that Abimelech’s association with Shechem in “appearance,” does not reect “reality.” Gaal points to the “reality” that Jerubbaal, an Israelite with no inherent links to Shechem except his recent exploits on behalf of the city, is the father of Abimelech. Consequently, Abimelech’s attempt at identication with Shechem, Gaal argues, is in appearance only. He is still the son of Jerubbaal, and not authentically (or fully) Shechemite. The observation that Zebul is Abimelech’s lieutenant supports this contention. Abimelech does not reside in Shechem, but Arumah (9:41), and so must rely upon his Shechemite lieutenant, Zebul, to keep order (cf. Zebul’s role in safeguarding Abimelech’s interests in 9:30–31, 36–38, 41). By contrast, Gaal claims his loyalty is to the men of Hamor (presumably the descendants of Hamor—the Shechemites),96 the father of Shechem (cf. Gen 34). This is a reference to an older, more ancient, and more “authentically Shechemite” point of loyalty. After his arguments making light of Abimelech’s claim to authority and his own stated loyalty to Hamor, Gaal concludes, “Why should we97 serve him,” indicating his view that Abimelech has been thoroughly discredited, thereby preparing the way for his own appeal. Thus, rhetorically, Gaal’s speech ) followed by a personal pronoun, proper name, or noun, and (2) a verbal sentence, connected to the introductory question by a , an ›, or a waw-consecutive with an imperfect verb. 94. Cf. 1 Sam 17:26, “Who is this uncircumcised Philistine that he should defy the armies of the living God,” clearly implying not only that Goliath should not defy the armies of God, but also an intention to insult or demean him. 95. David J. Clark, “ ‘Surnames’ in the Old Testament? Or: How to be Rude Politely,” BT 56 (2005): 232–38. 96. Cf. the “men of Israel” or the “men of Judah,” referring to a group of descendants stemming from an eponymous ancestor, as in 1 Sam 17:52. 97. The repetition of the independent plural personal pronoun, already inherent in the verb, here carries rhetorical emphasis, underscoring his contention that they should not serve Abimelech. 1

4. Reading the Rhetoric of Judges 9

151

undoes the description of Abimelech’s efforts to dissociate himself from his Ophrahite family and to unite himself with his Shechemite kinsmen. This play of perspectives leads the audience to re-examine the strength of Abimelech’s association with Shechem, and sets the stage for his coming murderous actions against the city and its inhabitants. Unlike Jotham’s speech, which the narrator corroborates giving it heightened credibility and persuasive force, the narrator diminishes Gaal’s credibility through subtle ridicule. Perelman stresses the persuasive effect of ridicule by noting, “A person becomes laughable when forced into an incompatibility without being aware of it. Laughter penalizes his blindness. Ridicule is a powerful instrument in controversy…the fear of ridicule and of the disrepute it involves is an effective means of argumentation—and of education.”98 The implied author repeatedly refers to Gaal as “Gaal son of Ebed” (“loathsome son of a servant/ slave”). Biblical narrative often introduces new characters by using their patronymic for the purposes of identication, while subsequent references only utilize the character’s given name.99 Gaal’s patronymic appears in 9:26 at his introduction to the story, and so its repetition100 is unnecessary in terms of identifying him. Thus, the implied author utilizes this fuller appellative in order to illustrate his lowly roots and emphasize his pretensions for leadership, thereby seeking to lead his audience to a negative perception of Gaal. Interpreters have noted the “bumpiness” of Gaal’s speech in 9:28– 29.101 While this may indicate redactional activity or a possible textual corruption, it comes after a description of the Shechemites eating and drinking (9:27). In this context, Gaal’s awkward speech may reect the implied author’s attempt to ridicule Gaal as a drunken braggart.102 The implied author’s use of ridicule to characterize Gaal suggests that he is not a viable leadership candidate and also heightens the Shechemites’ folly in putting their trust in him. In turn, the Shechemites’ blindness to this fact illustrates their repeated inability to choose effective leaders. When taken together, these three episodes add a play of perspectives to the initially solid alliance between Abimelech and the Shechemites. The initial portrait of a strong alliance between Abimelech and the

98. Perelman, The Realm of Rhetoric, 55. 99. Cf. Ehud son of Gera (Judg 3:15), Barak son of Abinoam (Judg 4:6). 100. Judg 9:26, 28, 30, 31, 35. 101. See above, pp. 97–99. 102. Crown (“A Reinterpretation of Judges IX,” 95) suggests we see here “a man in his cups.” Cf. the characterization of Gaal as a braggart in 9:38. 1

152

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

Shechemites is countered by the Shechemites’ seemingly unprovoked words and actions that challenge Abimelech’s authority, culminating in Gaal’s speech. The implied author’s negative portrayal of the Shechemites culminates with their trust in Gaal, who gives voice to their acts of rebellion. The implied author, however, uses ridicule to lead his audience into viewing Gaal as a completely inept and inappropriate candidate for leadership. This also negatively characterizes the Shechemites, for he is their choice (cf. 9:26). These acts of rebellion diminish Abimelech’s authority in the eyes of the implied audience. They do not, however, build sympathy for Abimelech. Rather, they portray the Shechemites as ckle and changeable in their loyalties. b. Abimelech’s First Counter-Attack (9:30–41) The implied author uses a number of Leitwörter to link or continue arguments between scenes. Zebul, who receives brief mention in Gaal’s speech (9:28), features more prominently in Judg 9:30–41. Zebul not only hears of Gaal’s outburst, but also instructs Abimelech to rise up () and take action (9:32), just as the Shechemites rose up () to rebel against Jerubbaal (9:18), thereby linking Abimelech’s response to Jotham’s speech. Furthermore, Zebul instructs Abimelech to set up an ambush ( ) against Gaal and the city, thereby repaying the Shechemites’ ambushes ( ) against Abimelech (9:25). Consequently, Abimelech divides his troops into four units ( , 9:34) and begins his attack from the tops ( ) of the hills surrounding Shechem (9:36) while one unit ( ) attacks from the direction of the soothsayers’ tree (9:37).103 These key words not only link the various scenes of the narrative together, but function rhetorically to illustrate the reciprocal nature of the Shechemites’ offense and Abimelech’s response. Though 9:1–6 gave the appearance of a strong union between Abimelech and the Shechemites, Zebul’s words in 9:31 express a different reality. This dissociation is foregrounded when Zebul explicitly states that Gaal is agitating the city against Abimelech. This division is given added presence through Zebul’s repeated use of the deictic particle  (twice in 9:31), indicating his efforts to persuade Abimelech, and doing double-duty for the implied author by drawing the implied audience’s attention to the reality of Gaal’s efforts at subverting Abimelech’s authority. This division is played out in the events of the accompanying

103. The use of the root  links Abimelech’s actions here to the Shechemite ambushes set up on the hills around Shechem (9:25) and Jotham’s speech from the top of Mt. Gerizim (9:7). 1

4. Reading the Rhetoric of Judges 9

153

scene, when Zebul counsels Abimelech to set ambushes against Gaal (and presumably the lords of Shechem, cf. 9:39), so that they will come out and battle against him. The implied author gives additional presence to this division between Abimelech and the Shechemites through a number of wordplays. Already mentioned above are Abimelech’s ambushes against Shechem (9:32, 34), mirroring the Shechemite ambushes on the mountain (9:25). Furthermore, the name “Shechem” is repeated throughout the scene (9:31, 34, 39), while the verb  (“to rise early,” 9:33) gives additional presence to Abimelech’s actions against the Shechemites (9:33). These wordplays point to the division between Abimelech and the Shechemites, again implying the efcacious work of the evil spirit and thus the active work of God against both parties. The implied author makes another type of argument through the portrayal of Gaal in this scene. While Abimelech is setting up his ambush, Gaal comes to stand at the entrance of the city gate (9:35). To sit at the gate of a city implied prominence and honour in the community.104 Thus, the reference here to Gaal’s standing (vs. sitting) at the gate may serve as a subtle derisive comment by the implied author, poking fun at Gaal’s leadership pretensions (cf. 9:29). The implied author further ridicules Gaal through his conversation with Zebul at the city gate (9:35). Gaal correctly perceives Abimelech’s ambush advancing down from the mountainsides, but is diverted from taking action by Zebul’s comment, “You are confusing the shadow of the mountains with people” (9:36).105 The repetition of Gaal’s perception of troops (9:37), this time coming from multiple directions, gives prominence to Gaal’s words. Gaal’s words, however, do not result in action, revealing his earlier challenge to Abimelech as mere bluster. Zebul uses metonymy here to make fun of Gaal, “Where was your mouth when you 104. “Gate,” in Ryken, Wilhoit, and Longman, III, eds., Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, 321; cf. Gen 19:1; Prov 31:23. The king would sit at the city gate (2 Sam 18:24; 19:8; 1 Kgs 22:10//2 Chr 18:9; Jer 38:7), and it was where one could nd the elders (Deut 21:19; 22:15; 25:7; Josh 20:4; Ruth 4:11; Lam 5:14). 105. Zebul’s reference to the “shadow” () of the mountains may reect a subtle wordplay upon the use of the word “shade” () in Jotham’s parable (9:15). In Jotham’s parable, the word “shade” makes use of a double entendre, where in addition to its literal meaning, the word serves as a metaphorical reference to a king’s protection of his subjects. Ironically, here, the thorny tree can injure those who come near. Jotham intends this parable to reect negatively upon Abimelech. In Judg 9:36, the shadow of the mountains offers protection (concealment) to king’s troops as they advance towards Shechem, but the result will ultimately be to the detriment of the city. 1

154

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

said, ‘Who is Abimelech that we should serve him?’ ” (9:38), implying that it is not possible he was not present because his own mouth uttered the challenge directed at Abimelech. Further, Zebul points out that Gaal asked why he and his men should “serve” Abimelech, yet Gaal himself is the “son of a servant” (9:30, 35). These points of irony reveal Gaal as a man quick with words, but without the credentials to back them up. Furthermore, it is only after Zebul points out the incompatibility of his former words with his present lack of action that Gaal (reluctantly) sets out to oppose Abimelech in battle (9:39). Gaal’s total defeat at the hands of Abimelech (9:40) further discredits and humiliates him in the eyes of the audience. His nal humiliation comes when Zebul, and not Abimelech, drives him out of the city (9:41), suggesting he is not even worth Abimelech’s effort, and can be left to his subordinates to deal with. Thus, Gaal leaves the city thoroughly ridiculed and discredited before both the Shechemites and the implied audience. This retribution in response to Gaal’s seditious boasting falls in line with the audience’s expectations for a king. Rebellious polemic cannot go unchallenged when it becomes known to the king, otherwise he will be perceived as a weak and ineffective leader.106 This complicates the ascription of a simple anti-monarchic outlook to Judg 9.107 Abimelech’s actions in this case are justied by his role as king, as well as by the implied author’s denigration and ridicule of Gaal. Here, the implied author’s interests coincide with those of Abimelech and he utilizes Abimelech and his lieutenant Zebul to accomplish his own persuasive goals. The theme of retribution against Gaal links 9:30–41 not only with 9:26, but also with the larger theme of retribution introduced in the fable (9:15) and its application (9:20), as well as the Shechemites rebellious acts (9:25), for Gaal acts as their representative. Moreover, the various rhetorical links and Leitwörter within this scene intimate its interconnectedness with the events of the rest of the chapter, which should draw the readers’ attention to the danger of too quickly ascribing a simple antimonarchic tenor to the story of Abimelech and alert readers to other possible rhetorical objectives. Nor should the Gaal episode in 9:26–41 be viewed as the foundational kernel of the Abimelech story (emphasizing

106. Cf. Solomon’s desire to kill Jeroboam once his rebellious activities become known (1 Kgs 11:26–40). Rehoboam, on the other hand, tolerates Jeroboam’s presence (1 Kgs 12:2–3), and ultimately loses a large part of his kingdom to Jeroboam. 107. This need not imply the presence of various redactional layers here. Rather, it is reective of the implied author’s complex characterization of the rift between Abimelech and the Shechemites. 1

4. Reading the Rhetoric of Judges 9

155

the futility of rebellion against the king).108 The rhetorical connections beyond the Gaal story, particularly as part of a pattern of three rebellious acts against Abimelech (9:25–29) and as the rst of a series of three reprisals (9:30–41, 42–45, 46–49) by Abimelech, as well as the lack of any direct reference to Abimelech’s kingship, suggest that Judg 9:30–41 functions in concert with information revealed elsewhere in the chapter, and thus is more tied to the larger whole of Judg 9 than some may suspect. c. Abimelech’s Second Counter-Attack (9:42–45) Once again, the implied author uses a number of Leitwörter and Leitmotifs to connect his arguments in this scene to the preceding ones. Abimelech stages his attack against the city of Shechem proper when he sees the people come out of the city, as was the case in 9:33. Abimelech’s division of his troops into three units ( ) recalls the use of this same root in 9:7, 25, and 34. Similarly, Abimelech’s attack, formerly reaching up to the gate (9:40), now penetrates the city (9:44–45). In addition, the burning of Shechem (9:45) fullls Jotham’s prediction of destruction by re (9:15, 20). These Leitwörter draw this scene into the larger narrative and portray it as a partial fulllment of Jotham’s prediction of mutual destruction. In this way, the implied author presents another set of circumstances for the audience to evaluate in light of previous arguments. Abimelech’s division of his troops into three different units ( ), which lie in ambush and attack the people of Shechem (9:43), decimating the entire population, presents a number of analogies which may serve as aids in understanding the implied author’s description here. Gideon’s night attack against the Midianites (Judg 7:15–23) holds in common with Judg 9:42–45 a number of analogous elements. As Abimelech divides his troops into three units ( , 9:43) so Gideon also divides his troops into three units ( , 7:16). As Gideon tells his troops to arise () in preparation for battle (7:15), so does Abimelech (9:43). As Gideon decimates the entire Midianite camp (7:22), so Abimelech decimates the entire city of Shechem (9:45). However, in Gideon’s case, Yahweh clearly ghts on his behalf (6:14; 7:7, 9, 14, 15, 18, 22). In Judg 9, Yahweh does not ght for Abimelech; instead, the narrator afrms God’s work against Abimelech (cf. 9:24). In addition, both attacks are important parts of the surrounding narrative (though the relationship to the enemy is different). The linguistic parallels and the 108. For example, Mayes, Judges, 26; cf. other similar approaches, such as that of Fritz, “Abimelech und Sichem in Jdg. 9,” 130–31. 1

156

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

similar pattern of presentation suggest that this is an analogy that allows the implied author to show his audience that Abimelech’s actions lack divine sanction and that, though temporarily successful, they will ultimately lead to his doom. Abimelech’s attack upon Shechem is not unexpected, for kings must take steps to deal with rebellious subjects. Furthermore, his actions in killing the Shechemites, razing the city, and sowing it with salt (9:45) as an act of cursing the city to perpetual barrenness,109 while stringent, nd parallels in other ancient Near Eastern accounts of the destruction of a (rebel) city.110 However, this drastic negative act serves two rhetorical purposes for the implied author: (1) it informs the audience that those who rebel against the king can expect reprisals, and (2) it also serves as an argument by dissociation that allows the implied author to reshape the audience’s original perceptions of the security of kinship relations in attaining power and maintaining one’s favourable position once a kinsman rises to power. The fact that Abimelech is willing to destroy completely the city of Shechem, the seat of his own power and the dwelling place of his kinfolk, points to a different reality. Judges 9:42–45 argues that such local kinship bonds are not a stable source of power and in no way guarantee the security of the ruled from the whims of the ruler, and vice versa. d. Abimelech’s Third Counter-Attack (9:46–49) Several Leitwörter once again link this scene to previous scenes. The reference to the “lords of the tower of Shechem” (   ) is reminiscent of the reference to the lords of Shechem (  ) who initially crowned Abimelech as king (9:46; cf. 9:6).111 Similarly, the Temple of Baal-Berith (9:4) can be identied as a variant of the temple of El-Berith (9:46).112 These rhetorical associations facilitate the contrast between the apparent bond linking Abimelech and the Shechemites in Judg 9:1–6 and the hostility of 9:46–49. The narrator’s description of Abimelech’s cutting and then raising a tree branch onto “his shoulder”

109. See above, pp. 105–6. 110. See the discussion in Gevirtz, “Jericho and Shechem,” 53–62, especially the chart on p. 60. Gevirtz’s view that Abimelech’s actions reect the methods of Üerem warfare goes beyond the evidence in Judg 9, but his study does show that Abimelech’s actions are not unique in the ancient Near East for the destruction of a city. 111. For a discussion of the relationship between the “lords of Shechem” and the “lords of the tower of Shechem,” see pp. 107–8. 112. See Lewis, “The Identity and Function of El/Baal Berith,” 401–23. 1

4. Reading the Rhetoric of Judges 9

157

( ), a homonym for Shechem ( ), is not strictly necessary for the development of the plot, and so reects a particular point of emphasis. The use of this homonym gives additional presence to the division between Abimelech and the Shechemites, and subtly reminds the audience that these actions continue Abimelech’s battle against Shechem. Abimelech’s utilization of a tree branch to set re to the tower-temple (9:49) also recalls Jotham’s predictions of mutual destruction by re (9:15, 20). In this way, the implied author continues to give presence to Jotham’s words, pointing to Abimelech’s unworthiness and destructive potential as well as the prediction of mutual destruction. The role of “the people” () in this scene also unites it with the previous scenes. Gaal rst invokes “the people” when he states his wish to become king (9:29). Thereafter, the narrative associates “the people” at times with Gaal (9:33), at times with Shechem (9:42, 43, 45), and at times with Abimelech (9:32, 34–38, 43, 48–49). This amorphous group somehow encompasses both sides and yet is also pitted against itself, creating an air of disorientation for the audience. Elie Assis interprets this ambiguity as a sign that both Abimelech and the Shechemites were motivated by self-interest, with the people caught as pawns in the middle.113 However, the term  has a wide semantic range, referring to relationships as broad as a national body or as narrow as one’s uncle.114 In theory at least, each level of meaning encompassed by the term  implied some sort of kinship relationship.115 I suggest that the implied author is utilizing these various nuances in order to display the unstable nature of local kinship ties as a source of power at a variety of levels. By pitting Abimelech against his Ophrahite and then his Shechemite family, with the people caught in the middle, the implied author is able to lead his audience to see that the support of leaders such as Abimelech or Gaal has a signicant detrimental impact that reaches beyond the initial parties. They too, as members of “the people,” may be caught in the crossre of these local hostilities. Abimelech’s actions in Judg 9:46–49 nd a potential analogy in Gideon’s actions towards the people of Succoth and Penuel (Judg 8:4–9, 13–17). There, as retribution for not feeding his army as they pursued the Midianite kings Zebah and Zalmunna, Gideon punished his own people

113. Assis, Self-Interest or Communal Interest, 171. 114. HALOT 1:837–38. 115. Anderson, “Israelite Kinship Terminology,” 31. Flanagan (“Chiefs in Israel,” 47–73) points out that these kinship relationships were not always stable and exhibit some uidity. 1

158

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

with briars and thorns, and destroyed the tower of Penuel. Abimelech’s oppression of his kinsmen and destruction of the tower of Shechem, when held up to the actions of Gideon, show a similar ruthlessness and destructiveness. However, these few plot-level similarities do not constitute a strong analogy. The lack of verbal parallels and the lack of similar narrative patterning militate against its inclusion as a strongly persuasive analogy. This scene may make use of a second analogy. Saul is the rst king to rule over all Israel, while Abimelech is the rst Israelite king (cf. 9:22). King Saul in 1 Sam 11 comes to the aid of the people of Jabesh-gilead by dividing his army into three units ( ) and cutting down the Ammonites (1 Sam 11:11). When faced with dissenters to his kingship, Saul grants clemency (1 Sam 11:11–12). By contrast, Abimelech’s attack on Shechem shows no signs of mercy and leads to the disintegration of his kingship, rather than his conrmation. Thus, Saul’s early exercise of kingly power contrasts Abimelech’s brutality. However, O’Connell notes another later analogy with the actions of King Saul in 1 Sam 22:18–21, where Saul orders the destruction of his own people, the priests of Nob, as well as the entire population of the city.116 While Abimelech’s destruction is brutal in its thoroughness, 1 Sam 22 describes Saul’s destruction of Nob in even greater detail, noting the slaughter of eighty-ve priests, as well as its men and women, children and infants, cattle, donkeys, and sheep (1 Sam 22:19). These parallels with Saul come in the context of an overall narrative pattern of increasing violence against the king’s own people, a pattern that is part of the king’s eventual downfall, in addition to the inclusion of some verbal similarities. Thus, these parallels suggest an analogy that acts as a signicant illustration of the dangers of choosing an inappropriate king and serve to dissuade the audience from choosing such a king. There is an accumulation of terms in this scene related to defensive fortications. The tower-temple as the locus of the Shechemites’ defensive retreat appears three times (9:46 [twice], 49) in these four verses. Similarly, the people’s retreat into the stronghold () of the towertemple also occurs three times (9:46, 49 [twice]). The clustering of these terms emphasizes the strength of the Shechemites’ defences, yet Abimelech overcomes them with relatively little (narrated) exertion and no description of active resistance. The ease with which he overcomes these signicant obstacles does two things for the implied audience. First, it builds the expectation that it will be very difcult to deter Abimelech

116. 1

O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 292.

4. Reading the Rhetoric of Judges 9

159

and even more difcult to stop his rampages. Second, it directs the audience’s attention to Abimelech’s ferocity. The narrator’s note about the death of 1,000 men and women in the tower-temple of Shechem (9:49) only adds to this perception. e. Abimelech’s Humiliation (9:50–55) With the complete destruction of the Shechemites in the tower-temple of Shechem, the implied author has illustrated Abimelech’s answer to each of the three challenges to his authority (9:25–29). His “honour” has been avenged and each wrong has been repaid in turn. The audience could expect Abimelech to stand down. Therefore, given the use of the threeand-four structure throughout the chapter, his attempted destruction of Thebez presages a different result. As before, several Leitmotifs draw this scene into the larger argumentative structure. A similar context links this episode with Abimelech’s previous attacks. Abimelech takes the city (9:50; cf. 9:45) but must overcome a defensive tower (9:51; cf. 9:46), to which the lords of the city (9:51; cf. 9:46) and all the men and women of the city ee (9:51; cf. 9:49). In response, Abimelech attempts to burn them out of the tower (9:52), as he did before (9:49). However, the many differences point to a different result this time. Similar rhetorical connections draw Abimelech’s death into comparison with his previous exploits. The verbal root ( , 9:53) serves to link this scene with the rest of the chapter.117 The prominence given to a certain unnamed woman who ends Abimelech’s kingship (9:53) brings to mind the emphasis upon Abimelech’s unnamed mother in his rise to kingship (9:1). Furthermore, his demise via a millstone crushing his head recalls the one stone upon which Abimelech secured his kingship via the murder of his brothers (9:5). These links, noted by T. A. Boogart and G. Janzen,118 provide for not only a certain measure of poetic justice, but also unite Abimelech’s demise to his rise. Just as the implied author used ridicule to discredit Gaal, so he uses it here to discredit Abimelech. Upon realizing that a blow from the hand of a woman had mortally wounded him, Abimelech quickly calls his armour-bearer to dispatch him, saying, “Draw your sword, and kill me, lest they say, ‘a woman killed him,’ about me” (9:54). His armour-bearer complies, but, ironically, Abimelech cannot escape this stigma, for the

117. Cf. Judg 9:7, 25, 34, 36, 37, 43, 44. 118. Boogaart, “Stone for Stone,” 45–56; Janzen, “A Certain Woman in the Rhetoric of Judges 9,” 33–37. 1

160

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

memory of his fate is repeated every time this story is recounted.119 Rather than rescuing his prestige, Abimelech’s words further diminish it. Abimelech’s death at the hands of a woman nds a potential analogy in the death of Sisera at the hands of Yael (Judg 4:21–22). Both Abimelech and Sisera function as leaders of their troops, yet both perish due to inattentiveness to danger. In both cases, their death at the hands of a woman is ignominious and ridicules their status as “great warriors,” robbing them of any prestige normally afforded by their position. Perelman points out that it is a person’s prestige that leads others to imitate their acts, and so an appeal to someone as a model is an argument of authority.120 By disparaging Abimelech through an analogy with the Canaanite warrior Sisera, the implied author diminishes Abimelech’s prestige, making him an anti-model, or one whose actions should not be followed or emulated. However, this analogy lacks strong linguistic links and similar narrative patterning, though the role of women in felling a warrior is key to both texts, and so the parallel needs to be utilized carefully as a tentative argument in Judg 9. A stronger analogy may be seen in Abimelech’s appeal to his armourbearer (  ) to draw his sword (  # ) and kill him after receiving a mortal wound (9:54), which carries similarities to the death of King Saul in 1 Sam 31.121 Saul also appeals to his armour-bearer (  ) to draw his sword (  # ) and kill him after receiving a mortal wound (1 Sam 31:4). Both also served as a king in Israel122 and both receive an “accidental” wound. However, Saul’s armour-bearer refuses to kill him and Saul must kill himself. More importantly, Saul’s suicide stems from different motives than Abimelech’s suicide. Saul’s concern was that the Philistines would torture ( ) him, and so his suicide was an attempt to retain some dignity. Abimelech’s concern was with what others thought of him, revealing his self-seeking concern for his own status rather than an honourable death. The similar plot elements and linguistic parallels, as well as the earlier narrative indications of the king’s demise (Judg 9:15, 20; 1 Sam 13:15; 15:26–29; 28:16–19),

119. Cf. 2 Sam 11:21. 120. Perelman, The Realm of Rhetoric, 94–95. 121. A second version of the death of Saul is found in 2 Sam 1:1–16. However, the differences between 1 Sam 31 and 2 Sam 1 can be accounted for if we presume that the Amalekite is lying, following P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., II Samuel (AB 9; New York: Doubleday, 1984), 63–64. 122. Abimelech rules over Israel in a representative sense, where his small kingdom seems to be thought of as representative of the larger whole (cf. 9:22). Saul is the rst king of the united tribes of Israel. 1

4. Reading the Rhetoric of Judges 9

161

suggest that the two accounts present the king to the audience for similar evaluation, though casting Abimelech in a more negative light. Second Samuel 11:21 functions as a very strong inter-textual link to Judg 9 in that 2 Sam 11:21 seems to refer directly to elements in the Abimelech narrative, paralleling the pattern of Uriah’s death with Abimelech’s death. Joab explains Uriah’s death near the wall of Rabbah by reference to Abimelech’s death at the foot of the tower of Shechem. However, the lack of any linguistic parallels or similar narrative patterning in Judg 9 suggests that the implied author of Judg 9 is not drawing on an awareness of 2 Sam 11:21 to further his argument here.123 One further potential analogy needs to be explored. The story of Abimelech’s illegitimate rise to power and his subsequent demise contains some plot elements similar to the story of Athaliah in 2 Kgs 11: Table 4.4 Judges 9 Abimelech is descended from questionable heritage (his mother is from Shechem, which is not clearly Israelite, 8:31; 9:1, 18) Abimelech kills seventy (potential) rivals to secure his hold on the throne (9:5) One rival escapes (9:5, 7) Abimelech experiences the treachery of his subjects (9:23) The temple of El-Berith is destroyed (9:46–49) The king is killed by his subjects (9:54)

2 Kings 11 Athaliah is descended from questionable heritage (the granddaughter of Omri, 2 Kgs 8:26; cf. 1 Kgs 16:25– 26) Athaliah destroys potential rivals to secure her hold on the throne (11:1) One rival escapes (11:2) Athaliah experiences the treachery of her subjects (11:14) The temple of Baal is destroyed (11:18) The queen is killed by her subjects (11:16)

Upon further examination, these similarities at the level of the plot are rather general and break down in many of the specics, as illustrated in Table 4.5 below. Nor do they extend to the linguistic level:

123. This is also the conclusion of Hava Shalom-Guy (“Three-Way Intertextuality: Some Reections of Abimelech’s Death at Thebez in Biblical Narrative,” JSOT 34 [2010]: 419–32), who suggests that the author of 2 Sam 11 has the text of Judg 9 before him. Shalom-Guy also notes a third parallel with Judg 9 in 2 Sam 20, though 2 Sam 20 is an inversion of Judg 9. 1

162

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule Table 4.5

Judges 9 Abimelech kills his seventy brothers (9:5, 18, 24, 56) Abimelech divides his troops into three companies ( , 9:43) “They acted treacherously” =   (9:23) Abimelech divides his troops into three companies to attack Shechem (9:43) The temple of Baal/El-Berith is burned with re (   , 9:46–49) The king is mortally wounded by a woman and killed by his armourbearer (9:54–55)

2 Kings 11 Athaliah kills an indeterminate number of family members (11:1) The troops were divided into thirds (   , 11:6) “Conspiracy” =   (11:14) Three groups participate in the action against Athaliah (11:5–6) The temple of Baal is torn down ($ , 11:18) Athaliah is killed by the captains of the temple guard (11:15–16)

In terms of narrative patterning, it is signicant that Joash’s survival is central to 2 Kgs 11, while Jotham’s (Joash’s counterpart in Judg 9) survival is not pursued in Judg 9. These differences, along with other obvious dissimilarities, such as the lack of mutual destruction, Athaliah as queen vs. Abimelech as king, location in Jerusalem vs. Shechem, Abimelech’s “accidental” defeat at the hands of a woman vs. Athaliah’s well planned defeat through professional soldiers, and so on, suggest that Judg 9 does not draw directly upon the Athaliah narrative as part of its argumentative structure in characterizing Abimelech.124 5. The Rhetoric of the Conclusion in Judges 9:56–57 The Conclusion both draws the arguments of the narrative to a close, yet also furthers the argumentative aims of the narrative through an analogy: Table 4.6 Abimelech in Judges 9 Ruler of a city who comes to an end at the hands of a woman from another city (9:53–54) Murdered seventy potential rulers (9:5) Divine justice accomplished in a way that humiliates the king (9:54, 56) 124. 1

Adoni-Bezek in Judges 1:4–7 Ruler of a city who comes to an end at the hands of another group (1:7) Humiliated seventy kings by cutting off their thumbs and big toes (1:7) Divine justice accomplished in a way that humiliates the king (1:7)

Cf. Jans, Abimelech und sein Königtum, 309.

4. Reading the Rhetoric of Judges 9 Fails to recognize God’s () reprisal for his evil deeds (9:56) Dies at another city (in battle)

163

Acknowledges God’s () reprisal for his deeds (1:7) Dies at another city (after battle)

The similar emphases upon seventy (potential) rulers, the common use of Elohim, and the motif of divine retribution suggest that these two episodes may be read in light of each other, though the similarities do not extend to similar narrative patterning. Consequently, the strength of the analogy lies in its juxtaposition within the book of Judges. When viewed in light of each other, the analogy illustrates the Abimelech narrative’s role in the “canaanization” pattern within the book of Judges, suggesting Abimelech’s murder of his seventy brothers is typical of Canaanite-style local rulers.125 The emphasis upon God’s retribution is central to both passages and serves notice to the audience that God will bring about just repayment for oppressive localized rulers. Furthermore, even this Canaanite king acknowledged the role of God’s justice in his fate. By contrast, Abimelech never recognizes God in any way. Abimelech’s ignorance of God not only warns of the folly of bypassing (Yahwistic) sacral support in order to seize power by murder, but also signals the signicant perils for those who do so. Wolfgang Richter noted another potential analogy between the Abimelech narrative and the Jehu narrative in his redactional study of Judges.126 The strength of this analogy lies in the murder of the seventy sons of Ahab (2 Kgs 10:1, 7) as a parallel to Abimelech’s murder of the seventy sons of Jerubbaal (Judg 9:5, 18, 24, 56) in order to secure the throne. Similarly, if the term “lords” ( ) functions as a rhetorical characterization of the Shechemites as “Baalists,” then Abimelech’s destruction of the Shechemites (Judg 9:45, 49), along with the burning of their temple (9:46–49) offers a further parallel to Jehu’s destruction of the prophets of Baal. However, Richter himself notes the difculties of a direct correlation, pointing out that Jehu neither destroys a city nor dies abruptly while in power. As a result, Richter suggests that the Abimelech

125. Cf. Daniel I. Block, “The Period of the Judges: Religious Disintegration Under Tribal Rule,” in Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration (ed. Avraham Gileadi; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 39–57 (51–52); specically on the role of AdoniBezek, see Wong, Compositional Strategy of the Book of Judges, 204–6. 126. Richter, Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, 315–16. Richter noted a variety of bloody conicts for the throne in Israel, but suggests that Jehu’s murder of the seventy sons of Ahab (2 Kgs 9–10) was the last event experienced by the redactor of Judg 9. Judges 9 would then have served as a type of prophecy of the bloody demise of one who unjustly usurps power for Richter. 1

164

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

story targets a constellation of concerns rather than the specic events of Jehu’s reign.127 Moreover, the motif of the murder of a group of seventy regal candidates as a literary topos128 weakens the strength of the analogy and the absence of other strong semantic or plot-level analogies or overall narrative patterning does not make this a strong analogical parallel. The rhetorical tone of the Conclusion switches to that of the Change (9:23–24). Here, the implied author relies upon the most powerful means available to him to draw his arguments to a conclusion and persuade the audience of his interpretation of the events in the story of Abimelech— the authority of the narrator coupled with the actions of God.129 The narrator’s negative evaluation of Abimelech and the Shechemites is seen in his choice of loaded terminology, such as the word “evil” () for the actions of both Abimelech (9:56) and the Shechemites (9:57). This is the only time that this word appears in the narrative, with the exception of 9:23 ( ), and so gives presence to the narrator’s evaluation. Its use serves as a very negative evaluation of both parties. In addition, describing Abimelech’s actions as committed against his father highlighted by the murder of his seventy brothers brings a strong emotional charge to the events. These words create a vivid image of Abimelech’s actions, one which seeks to arouse strong negative emotions such as disgust or outrage within the audience.130 These emotions, when accompanied by the narrator’s negative evaluation of Abimelech and the Shechemites, represent a very strong persuasive tool designed to lead the audience to evaluate the actions of both parties negatively. The reference to the curse () of Jotham the son of Jerubbaal (9:57) reinforces this evaluation in a number of ways. First, it draws the reader’s focus back again to Jotham’s predictions of mutual destruction (9:15, 20), conrmed by the narrator’s description of God’s intervention (9:23– 24), which now have indeed come true. The fulllment of the predictions justies Jotham’s and the narrator’s initial negative evaluations. Second, the comment gives presence to the contrast between Jotham’s status as Jerubbaal’s last surviving full heir and Abimelech’s lower status (cf. 9:18). Third, it is a subtle way of giving presence to Abimelech’s murder of the sons of Jerubbaal, highlighting Abimelech’s kinsmen as the victims of his ambitions. Fourth, it also directs the reader’s attention back to 127. Richter, Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, 315–16. Cf. Jans, Abimelech und sein Königtum, 307–9. 128. Cf. Fensham, “The Numeral Seventy,” 113–15; de Moor, “Seventy!,” 199–203. 129. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 476. 130. Cockcroft and Cockcroft, Persuading People, 45. 1

4. Reading the Rhetoric of Judges 9

165

the Shechemites’ belittling () Abimelech (9:27), and thereby also explicates the destruction of the Shechemites. In this way, by drawing from key words situated at various points in the narrative, the implied author draws the entire story together here at the end. The reference to the murder of Abimelech’s seventy brothers illustrates the awful fruits of Abimelech’s abuse of kinship ties. Additionally, the reference to the wickedness of the Shechemites alludes to their support of Abimelech’s rise, their ckle loyalty, and the implied author’s arguments about the dangers of supporting a candidate based upon such kinship ties. Furthermore, by concluding with the narrator’s nal, very negative evaluation of the story, the implied author musters the most persuasive means available to him to show how the abuse of local kinship ties results in mutual destruction effected by God. This convergence of argumentative streams makes for a very powerful argument and here serves as a very strong caution for those who may want to consider such a base of power for themselves.131 6. Summary of the Rhetorical Strategy of Judges 9 In Judg 9, the implied author utilizes two primary means to persuade his audience: the overall literary structure of Judg 9 and various methods of argumentation that employ associational and dissociational techniques. These two means of argumentation do not function independently of each other, but combine in a united effort to persuade the audience. The implied author of Judg 9 does not attempt to prove his point by force of logic as much as he attempts to persuade his audience to come around to his point of view.132 The audience comes to see the illegitimacy of Abimelech’s ascension to kingship through the implied author’s utilization of a variety of rhetorical arguments, ranging from subtle to explicit. It is the interplay of these arguments that shapes the audience’s perceptions and evaluations of the characters and events recounted, and gives them clues as to his rhetorical goals. The most clear-cut indications of an implied author’s rhetorical intentions can be seen through the narrator’s evaluations.133 Interestingly, the 131. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (The New Rhetoric, 471–87) note that the convergence of various quasi-logical (informal) arguments strengthens their persuasive force. 132. This is typical for quasi-logical arguments, which proceed on the basis of non-formal theses often in the form of a narrative; see Perelman, The Realm of Rhetoric, 49–50; cf. Hauser, Introduction to Rhetorical Theory, 21. 133. Sternberg, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 476. 1

166

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

only example of the narrator’s direct evaluation of any of the characters appears in 9:4, describing Abimelech’s hired mercenaries as “unprincipled and reckless.” The narrator’s only other direct evaluations occur in 9:22– 23 and 56–57 where they emphasize that it is not only Abimelech, but the Shechemites also, who come up against God’s retribution. In both cases, the narrator’s evaluations point to the consequences of the illegitimate seizure of power: mutual destruction through God’s direct intervention. The overall plot structure also serves as an indicator of the implied author’s rhetorical goals. The Exposition (9:1–6) takes pains to portray Abimelech’s rise to kingship as a joint venture by Abimelech and the Shechemites. The author uses a variety of techniques to associate Abimelech with his Shechemite family and to dissociate him from his Ophrahite family. In addition, the implied author uses a number of subtle strategies, including rhetorical analogies, to highlight the illegitimacy of the Abimelech–Shechemite alliance. The combination of poetic fable and narrative evaluation by Jotham in the Complication (9:7–22) also serves as a forceful rhetorical condemnation of both Abimelech and the Shechemites. Similarly, the Change (9:23–24) condemns both Abimelech and the Shechemites, and indicates God’s work against both these parties. The Unravelling (9:25–55) illustrates the consequences God’s intervention, pointing to the mutual undoing of both Abimelech and the Shechemites in very dramatic and gruesome detail. The Unravelling also picks up on some of the arguments made by Jotham and illustrates them for the audience. Jotham pointed to the Shechemites’ inability to remain faithful to commitments they make (9:17–18), which the narrative then illustrates in the Shechemites’ speedy rejection of Abimelech and acceptance of Gaal (9:25–29). Similarly, Jotham argued for Abimelech as a potentially dangerous candidate for kingship, one who could bring about the destruction of those who made him king (9:15), as seen in Abimelech’s destructive rampages, which eliminated all of the Shechemites (9:30– 55). The Conclusion (9:56–57) also condemned both Abimelech and the Shechemites for their ruthlessness in bringing Abimelech to power. The implied author’s use of a variety of Leitwörter to link the different narrative sections further unites these arguments. It is therefore important to note that the plot structure emphasizes the means through which Abimelech comes to power. The narrative consistently attempts to disparage both Abimelech and the Shechemites, both before and after Abimelech’s ascension, suggesting that the issue for the implied author is not kingship per se, but the means by which a king comes to power. This is conrmed by the fact that the plot, until the point of change, gives a great deal of rhetorical weight to the means by 1

4. Reading the Rhetoric of Judges 9

167

which Abimelech becomes king.134 Abimelech’s activities after becoming king highlight reasons why he should not have risen to such a position in the rst place, as already illustrated in the Exposition and Complication. The implied author also uses a variety of other, more subtle means to direct the audience’s perceptions of the events of Judg 9. Techniques such as the use of analogy are very subtle, for they do not draw directly on material recounted in the actual telling of Judg 9. These analogies not only aid in characterizing Abimelech or the Shechemites, but also serve to extend the implied author’s “narrative eld.” They allow the implied author to use subtle positive and negative analogies from other events or stories that the audience is familiar with in order to develop a negative picture of Abimelech and the Shechemites. These subtle arguments do not function independently of each other, but come together in a convergence of arguments135 to further the overall goals of the implied authors. Together, they attempt to persuade the audience of the dangers of illegitimately usurping power. 7. The Rhetorical Situation Implied by Judges 9 A reconstruction of the rhetorical situation implied by a story like that of Abimelech and the Shechemites in Judg 9 involves a reconstruction of the argumentative context in which the issues and concerns it expresses may reasonably nd a context. Gerard Hauser points out, For stories to exert persuasive force, they must partake of the emplotted accounts that community members actively share. They are an important source of our identity and how it is manifested through words and deeds. By developing rhetorical appeals in ways that are sensitive to these elements, we inuence how our audience’s interests are engaged, emotions aroused, and thoughts channelled.136

Thus, a reconstruction of the rhetorical situation may provide some insight into the actions, values, and situations that the implied author of Judg 9 was trying to address. However, the reconstruction of the rhetorical situation implied in Judg 9 is no easy matter. By its very nature, such a reconstruction involves some “educated guesswork” and supposition. Moreover, the complex redactional history of the book of Judges warns 134. The root , in both its nominal and verbal forms and independent of the name Abimelech, occurs ten times between 9:6 and 9:18 (9:6 [2×], 8 [2×], 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18), but then is not used again throughout the rest of the narrative. This repetition gives particular focus to the process of Abimelech’s ascension to kingship. 135. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, 471. 136. Hauser, Introduction to Rhetorical Theory, 192. 1

168

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

of any easy identication, for a text such as Judg 9 may have been utilized in a number of different milieux. However, a careful consideration of the argumentative goals of the passage, the assumptions shared by the author and audience, and the rhetorical analogies used may serve as guides in sketching a general outline of the rhetorical situation. a. The Argumentative Goals of Judges 9 We saw above that one of the main features of the argumentation of Judg 9 was the negative portrayal of both Abimelech and the Shechemites. The particular bone of contention, emphasized at key points (9:1–6, 17– 18, 23–24 and 56–57), was Abimelech’s rejection of his father’s family through the murder of his seventy brothers in order to secure his rule in Shechem. The portrayal of this drastic action encapsulates Abimelech’s attempts to dissociate himself completely from his Ophrahite family in order to identify fully with his kinfolk in Shechem in Judg 9:1–6. The Shechemites’ unprovoked rebellion against Abimelech (9:25–29) and Abimelech’s subsequent slaughter of the Shechemites (9:42–49) furthered the argument against the long-term stability of local kinship ties in sustaining power. Thus, through the example of Abimelech and the Shechemites, the narrative attempts to convince the implied audience of Judg 9 of the instability of local kinship relationships as a source or base of power. Jotham’s fable, in which the trees go searching for a king, pointed to the dangers of choosing the wrong candidate for kingship. The thorny tree’s own words (Abimelech’s alter ego in the fable) emphasized the destructive potential (9:15) of kingship in the wrong hands. Jotham’s application of the fable illustrated a similar danger, but added an ethical component in pointing to the folly of elevating an undeserving candidate (9:16). It also attributed to the Shechemites culpability for elevating the unworthy Abimelech to a position of kingship (9:18). The implications of such actions were then played out in 9:25–55 in the mutual destruction of both Abimelech and the Shechemites. Mutual culpability coupled with the prospect of mutual destruction for both ruler and ruled suggests that the implied author intended to dissuade both potential leaders and those who would support them from entering into similar types of arrangements. A closely related argument made by Judg 9 stems from the Unravelling (9:25–55), where the very same people who supported Abimelech’s bid for kingship turned against him. At the same time, Abimelech exterminated his own kinfolk with whom he worked so hard to identify, before he himself was killed. The narrator ultimately attributed this result to 1

4. Reading the Rhetoric of Judges 9

169

God’s workings (9:56–57). Thus, the narrative argues that God himself brings about retribution in the form of mutual destruction upon those who illegitimately seek power, even if kinship ties unite them. A subsidiary aim that supports these main argumentative aims is that local power-holders can have signicant negative supra-local impact. Throughout Judg 9, the sphere of Abimelech’s inuence was restricted to sites in the central hill country of Manasseh and Ephraim. Yet in Judg 9:55, the narrator suggested that after Abimelech’s attack on Thebez, the men of Israel saw that Abimelech had died, so they all went to their own homes. Similarly, Judg 9:22 suggested that Abimelech’s rule extended over Israel for three years, yet there were no other explicit indications in the narrative that Abimelech’s reign extended much beyond the region immediately surrounding Shechem. Rhetorically, this forms an argument of the inclusion of the part within the whole, where the attributes of the part are synonymous with or attributed to the whole.137 The plight of “the people” further illustrated this issue, for this amorphous group was portrayed throughout the narrative as caught in the middle of this struggle. Through these arguments, the implied author contends that Abimelech’s actions, localized around Shechem, have a negative national impact on Israel. Thus, while the narrative indicates that Abimelech’s kingship is localized to Shechem, it also argues that such local power holders have a supra-local impact and can even inuence national concerns. From these argumentative aims, we may conclude that Judg 9 is set within an argumentative context where the audience relies upon and accepts the importance of local kinship ties. The implied author of Judg 9 does not attempt to undercut all kinship ties, but merely points to the long-term instability of kinship ties as a stable base of support for power. The implied author also attempted to persuade his audience that both ruler and ruled share in the culpability for elevating a dangerous and unworthy candidate to power. Moreover, the implied author presumes that his audience will recognize the undesirability of divine opposition to those who may attempt to establish such power relationships based upon kinship ties. In addition, the need to establish the supra-local impact of such relationships presumes that the audience may not fully appreciate the value of, or accept the legitimacy of, national interests at the expense of local relationships, and so the narrative must convince its audience of this reality.

137. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, 231–33; Hauser, Introduction to Rhetorical Theory, 271. 1

170

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

b. The Assumptions Shared by the Implied Author and the Implied Audience The process of argumentation challenges an audience to transfer their assent from premises that they already accept to a conclusion they do not necessarily hold, or of which they are not yet fully convinced.138 Consequently, the wise persuader begins by choosing premises that the audience already holds or accepts.139 In the informal context of persuasion within a narrative, we may posit that premises shared by the implied author and the implied audience are those that the implied author does not need to qualify, explain, or expand upon, for these may be implicitly agreed upon by the persuader and his audience and serve as a common beginning point. It would not be helpful here to catalogue all of the possible assumptions made by the implied author. However, an examination of some key assumptions may prove useful for our examination of the argumentative situation implied by Judg 9. First, the implied author and the implied audience share a familiarity with the institution of kingship, even though the period of the judges is ostensibly set in a time when Israel lacked kingly leadership. While surprising in light of Gideon/ Jerubbaal’s previous rejection of rule over Israel (Judg 8:22–23), Abimelech’s desire to become king does not elicit any further explanation. Second, Jotham’s fable utilizes a double entendre for “shade” (9:15) to refer to a king’s protective function without needing to explain the metaphor.140 Indeed, the irony of Abimelech’s destruction of Shechem is that his actions exemplify the polar opposite to the king’s protective function. Third, Jotham’s fable implies that the audience is familiar with the importance of the anointing of kings, likely as a symbol of divine sanction.141 These assumptions suggest that the implied audience was familiar with the institution and trappings of kingship. Similarly, the implied author seems to presume the audience’s familiarity with and approval of the principle of legitimacy by divine selection.142 The lack of Yahwistic sanction in Abimelech’s rise is conspicuous, 138. Perelman, The Realm of Rhetoric, 21. 139. Ibid., 23. 140. See pp. 83–84 for further discussion. 141. Cf. 1 Sam 9:16; 10:1; 16:12–13; 2 Sam 12:7; 1 Kgs 1:39; 2 Kgs 9:6; cf. Isa 61:1; Ps 89:21. 142. This may be inferred by a hint given in the passage: the coronation of Abimelech by an oak and near a standing stone, which symbolizes divine presence (9:6). However, it has been argued that these references point to the temple of BaalBerith, an illegitimate sanction (if any) for the editor of Judges. Susan Niditch (Judges [OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008], 115) similarly notes that 1

4. Reading the Rhetoric of Judges 9

171

particularly when compared with the Yahwistic sanction of many of the other leaders in the book of Judges. This becomes even more noticeable when viewed in light of the overt description of God’s work against Abimelech (9:23–24). The narrative also presumes that kings or leaders may still be chosen. Abimelech’s attempt to persuade the lords of Shechem of the benets of choosing him as king, in contrast with the seventy sons of Jerubbaal (9:2), suggests a context where the representatives of the people may still chose their leaders. A similar assumption lies behind Jotham’s fable, where the trees, which represent the Shechemites, or possibly the people in general, approach various candidates for kingship. This assumption also lies behind the Shechemites support of Gaal (9:26). Thus, it seems that the narrative presumes a context for the implied audience in which there is some measure of choice with regard to national leaders.143 c. The Narrative Analogies Utilized by the Implied Author of Judges 9 The narrative analogies utilized in the story also give some insight into the argumentative situation presupposed by the implied author of Judg 9, for they rely upon the implied audience’s familiarity with the situations described in these other narratives. The challenge in utilizing these analogies to reconstruct the argumentative situation requires us to proceed with caution, for the audience’s familiarity with a given narrative analogy need not require that it existed in written form. Furthermore, it is not always easy to determine the direction of dependence for the narrative analogies utilized. Thus, the narrative analogies can at best be suggestive for the argumentative context presupposed in Judg 9. The following analogies were noted in the examination of the rhetoric of Judg 9 above: Table 4.7 Judges 9 vv. 1–3 vv. 1–6, 16–19, 23 vv. 1–57 v. 2 v. 5 v. 6

Analogy David *Joshua * Rehoboam Gideon Zebah and Zalmunna *Gideon

Biblical Reference 2 Sam 19:12–15 Josh 24 1 Kgs 12:1–24 Judg 8:22–32 Judg 8:18–19 Judg 6:11–22

implicit in the passage is the view that divine selection is key to the legitimacy of leaders and that murder is not an acceptable means of gaining power. 143. Cf. Assis, Self-Interest of Communal Interest, 245–46. 1

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

172 vv. 7–21 v. 23 v. 23 vv. 42–45 vv. 46–49 vv. 46–49 vv. 50–54 vv. 50–54 vv. 50–54 vv. 50–54 vv. 56–57 vv. 56–57

*Nathan *Gideon Saul Gideon *Gideon Saul *Sisera *Uriah Saul *Athaliah *Adoni-Bezek *Jehu

2 Sam 12:1–13 Judg 6:34 1 Sam 16:14; 18:10–11; 19:9–16 Judg 7:1–23 Judg 8:4–9, 13–17 1 Sam 11:1–15; 22:18–21 Judg 4:21–22 2 Sam 11:21 1 Sam 31:1–5 2 Kgs 11:1–20 Judg 1:4–7 2 Kgs 10:1, 7

* Tentative analogies based on the criteria from Chapter 1, pp. 14–15. Note also Gaal’s possible reference to Gen 34 in Judg 9:28.

The preponderance of analogies within the book of Judges connects Judg 9 with the Gideon narrative in Judg 6:1–8:33. These analogies are almost uniformly negative, so that Abimelech is portrayed as the anti-type to Gideon. Outside the book of Judges, a signicant number of parallels corresponding to the period of the early monarchy were observed. These analogies suggest that the Abimelech narrative, highlighting correspondences in order to portray proleptically Saul in a negative light, may have shaped the portrait of Saul.144 These parallels, however, go beyond King Saul and extend to David and possibly even to the portrait of Rehoboam’s coronation at Shechem.145 These analogies thus suggest that the story of Abimelech served as a useful foil against which biblical writers could compare and contrast the actions of kings attempting to establish or solidify their reign in Israel. This conception seemed to be particularly useful for biblical writers portraying the early stages of the monarchy in Israel. d. The Argumentative Context of Judges 9 In light of these aims and assumptions, we can outline a general argumentative context for Judg 9. The story of Abimelech and the Shechemites presumes a context in which the implied audience has some choice 144. Cf. Sam Dragga, “In the Shadow of the Judges: The Failure of Saul,” JSOT 38 (1987): 43–44; O’Connell, The Rhetorical of the Book of Judges, 7–8. 145. Contra O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 303–4, who places the rhetorical situation for the book of Judges in the period just before David’s ascension to kingship over all Israel (as reected in 2 Sam 4). 1

4. Reading the Rhetoric of Judges 9

173

or at least inuence upon the choice of key leaders (including kings), for a key persuasive aim of Judg 9 was to inculcate the mutual responsibility of both leader and people for elevating dangerous and unworthy candidates to leadership and to warn of the potential consequences of doing so. We can go on to add that the implied author believed that such choices at a local level could have a detrimental impact at the national level. In particular, the implied author targeted local leaders who rely upon kinship relationships to secure their positions. Alliances built upon such a foundation are no guarantee of mutual benet, and indeed may bring mutual destruction—a destruction orchestrated by God.

1

Chapter 5

THE SOCIAL WORLD(S) OF JUDGES 9

As we saw in the previous chapter, the story of Abimelech and the Shechemites attempts to persuade its audience to reject certain behaviours and adopt others. This rhetoric implies a socio-cultural context in which the story is set and in which the rhetoric of the story functions. At times, Judg 9 may specically describe socio-cultural realities that lie near the surface of the story. At other times, however, due to our cultural, temporal, and social distance as interpreters from the worlds of the story and the story-teller, these socio-cultural realities may lie further beneath the surface, embedded in the cultural matrices familiar to the implied author and implied audience, but foreign to modern readers. As modern interpreters of this ancient text, we do not share the sociocultural context of the implied author and the implied audience, and so, either consciously or unconsciously, we bring our own models of social reality with us to the text. It is here that I must also acknowledge my own socio-cultural context as a Canadian male Caucasian Christian who identies himself as an Evangelical within the broader spectrum of North American Christianity. This context has inuenced my approach to the text so that, while aware of and in conversation with others who approach the text within a different interpretive matrix, I bring my own presuppositions about the social, literary, and theological context of Judg 9 to this story. The value of a social-scientic analysis is that, not only can it help interpreters to enter more fully the story world described in the text, but by consciously choosing appropriate models to apply to the biblical text, we become more aware of the interpretive assumptions we are applying to the ancient socio-cultural context described in Judg 9. Social-scientic analyses can aid us in understanding socio-cultural phenomena and structures through comparison with other cultures and social situations, some of which are roughly contemporaneous with ancient Israel, and some of which come from different temporal and geographical areas but share similar cultural, social, or structural

5. The Social World(s) of Judges 9

175

characteristics. Thus, a social-scientic analysis of the socio-cultural realities inherent in Judg 9 can serve as another interpretive tool that can help us in further understanding this story. There are two different levels at which a social-scientic analysis may operate. The rst and more concrete level at which we can examine Judg 9 lies at the level of the story-world. Thus, a social-scientic analysis can illuminate things like the role of kinship relations in societies such as ancient Israel, illustrating how they may have functioned and suggesting typical and atypical relational patterns, which can then help us to grasp better how Abimelech’s actions reect or violate the customs and mores of his day.1 There is, however, another level of social-scientic analysis that we can apply to this narrative. Through the previous analyses, we saw that the descriptions of Abimelech and the Shechemites in Judg 9 have been artistically shaped. This shaping had a persuasive intent, which allowed us to sketch out some broad parameters for possible argumentative situations in which the story of Abimelech and the Shechemites could have functioned for an implied audience. This argumentative context stands outside of the socio-cultural world described in the text, and moves into the world of the implied author and presumably also his implied audience.2 Thus, in addition to inquiring about the socio-cultural world described in the text, we must also examine the socio-cultural context presupposed by the rhetoric of the text—the world of the implied author and his implied audience. This distinction assumes that Judg 9 not only describes socio-cultural realities, but that it also functions as a type of “social reality,” in that its persuasive intent reects a certain vision of life that it intends its audience to adopt. This assumption is based not only upon the rhetorical intent discerned in the previous chapter, but also upon the recognition that in rhetorical contexts, persuasion works most effectively when it

1. For example, Steinberg, “Social Scientic Criticism,” 45–64. 2. I suggest that the story world and the world of the implied author and implied audience had a great deal in common, for the narrative makes many assumptions about such things as kinship, kingship, and the geography surrounding Shechem that the implied author does not bother to explain to his audience. This supposes a high level of familiarity with the social (and geographical) context of the story. This familiarity allows the implied author and his audience to identify (though not necessarily agree) with the situations described in the text. However, the story also has a rhetorical intent, which aims at persuading the implied audience to adopt certain behaviours, attitudes, and conceptions that are not (yet) shared by the implied audience. 1

176

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

builds upon assumptions and presuppositions already latent in the belief system of the implied audience.3 The relationship between these two worlds can be illustrated using a diagram borrowed from the literary analysis of Judg 9 (see Fig. 5.1, opposite).4 As seen in Figure 5.1, while the implied author and the implied audience share many of the socio-cultural structures and assumptions of the story-world, the world of the implied author and the implied audience also differs from it. To a large degree, these two worlds are intertwined in the text, and to pull them apart is an articial enterprise. Moreover, the story world and the world of the implied author/audience share many social structures, mores, and assumptions. However, the two worlds may be carefully differentiated for analytical purposes by examining the “forms” of the social realities described in the text (e.g. the role of kinship in structuring social relationships, the role of shame in ancient cultures), and then looking at the social function of Judg 9 as a whole in the world of the implied author and implied audience (e.g. how Judg 9 may have been used to legitimate monarchic structures within the setting of an implied audience). 1. A Social-Scientic Analysis of the Story World of Judges 9 A helpful model for analyzing the story world of Judg 9 stems from the work of Sociologist Max Weber. Weber described cultures based upon observations of human behaviour with relation to others, or “social action,” which can be described as “a type of behaviour that is oriented to the behaviour of another actor, and to which the actor attaches a meaning.”5 One specic type of social action is domination, “The probability that certain specic commands (or all commands) will be obeyed by a given group of persons.”6 For Weber, every social relationship of domination (or power) requires a belief in the legitimacy of that power relationship. However, different types of legitimacy will result in different types of obedience, different types of administrative staffs required to guarantee such power and different modes by which that power is exercised.7 3. Cf. Perelman, The New Rhetoric and the Humanities, 14. 4. Adapted from Tolmie (Narratology and Biblical Narratives, 6), who adapted this illustration from Chatman, Story and Discourse, 147. 5. Swedberg, “Social Action,” 246. 6. Weber, Economy and Society, 1:212. 7. Ibid., 1:212–13. 1

Author’s World Real Author

World of the Implied Author Implied Narrator Author

Story World Events Characters Point of View Setting Time

Figure 5.1

World of the Implied Audience Implied Narratee Reader

Reader’s World Real Reader

178

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

Weber classied diverse societies based upon three major types of legitimation used to under-gird authority. It should be noted, however, that there is a considerable amount of overlap between these three ways of justifying relationships of domination and that most societies will exhibit a combination of all three, though their exact mixture is particular to each society: 1. Legal Authority 2. Traditional Authority 3. Charismatic Authority8 Charismatic authority rests in some personal quality exhibited by a leader, as a result of which others willingly submit to their authority. It exists as long as a power holder endowed with the specic quality(ies) venerated by an individual or group continues to exhibit those qualities. Whenever the expression of those qualities comes into question for more than a brief period of time, authority is lost. Consequently, charismatic domination is inherently unstable, and its routinization usually involves a shift towards traditional forms of legitimation.9 Abraham Malamat described the story world of the judges using Weber’s model of charismatic domination. Malamat pointed out that for each of the major judges: (1) there was a situation of major crisis that led to the judge’s ascension; (2) there was direct contact with a transcendental power (e.g. religious revelations or envelopment by the Spirit of Yahweh); (3) there were occasional public signs to conrm authority; (4) there was a spontaneous bestowal of authority which was not transferable; (5) authority was not dependent upon social class, age, sex, or status; (6) authority was not linked to important religious or civil centres; (7) the relationship between the judge and the people was not based upon formal rules or administrative coercion, but upon an emotional reverence of the leader.10 Malamat rightly pointed out that Abimelech’s kingship does not fall in line with this type of domination. His attempt to secure leadership over the Shechemites: (1) is not preceded by a military crisis; (2) is not a spontaneous appointment; (3) lacks Yahwistic sanction; (4) is based 8. Ibid., 1:215. Cf. p. 23 for a fuller description of these types of authority. 9. Ibid., 1:247. 10. Abraham Malamat, “Charismatic Leadership in the Book of Judges,” in Cross, Lemke, and Miller, eds., Magnalia Dei, 161–63; cf. Peter A. Munch, “The Judges of Ancient Israel: An Exploration in Charismatic Authority,” in Time, Place, and Circumstance: Neo-Weberian Studies in Comparative Religious History (ed. William H. Swatos, Jr.; Contributions to the Study of Religion 24; New York: Greenwood, 1990), 57–69. 1

5. The Social World(s) of Judges 9

179

upon an elliptical connection with both his mother’s and father’s social standing; (5) is located in an urban centre; and (6) is cast in the traditional pattern of a Canaanite-style kingship. Consequently, Malamat concluded that Abimelech’s rule was not charismatic in nature, but rather one that drew heavily upon a Canaanite city-state model of domination.11 We can point out further that Abimelech’s kingship does not generally reect the characteristics of Weber’s legal authority, where power relationships are legitimized by reference to a system of codied rules. This is not the place to delve into a full exposition of Weber’s conception of legal authority, though we can note the following important discrepancies between Weber’s conception of legal authority and the description of Abimelech’s kingship in Judg 9. Weber proposed that under a legal type of authority, the “superior” is himself subject to an impersonal order that orients and/or constrains his actions in light of this order.12 Abimelech’s actions in Judg 9 do not reect any consideration of such an impersonal order that constrains his actions, nor is such an expectation explicitly stated in the narrative. Furthermore, Weber’s model indicates that with legal-rational authority, obedience is usually directed towards a system of laws.13 By contrast, the entire premise of Judg 9 is that loyalty and action are driven by personal loyalty—or lack thereof (9:3, 17–18, 25, 26). Furthermore, Abimelech’s reign does not exhibit the extensive bureaucratic staff typical of legal authority.14 With these distinctions in mind, we can then explore the hypothesis that the description of the story world in Judg 9 largely comports with Weber’s traditional form of domination. In this form of authority, legitimacy is claimed on the basis of age-old beliefs and traditions where rulers are obeyed because their authority is rooted in traditions from the past. 11. Malamat, “Charismatic Leadership,” 163–64. 12. Weber, Economy and Society, 1:217. 13. Ibid., 1:217–18. Weber also notes two other main ideas: (1) that legal norms may be established by agreement or imposition, which then has a claim to obedience on the members of the community; (2) that every body of laws is a consistent body of rules, which has been established intentionally. However, there is no evidence of these types of rules in Judg 9. 14. In legal authority relations, a staff displays the following characteristics: (1) personally free and not necessarily personally loyal to the ruler; (2) organized in a clearly dened hierarchical order of ofces; (3) has clearly dened spheres of competence; (4) may freely select each ofce; (5) is selected on the basis of technical qualication; (6) is remunerated by xed salaries; (7) the ofce is the primary ofce of the incumbent; (8) the ofce is the staff person’s “career,” and so on. See Weber, Economy and Society, 1:220–21. 1

180

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

Weber distinguished between different types of traditional authority. Gerontocracy occurs when power is localized in the hands of a group of elders familiar with the sacred traditions. Such groups are not primarily organized on economic or kinship lines. Patriarchalism occurs among groups that are organized on both economic and kinship lines, where a particular individual governs, usually designated by inheritance. In biblical Israel, this typically took the form of a “father’s house” (   ) or household. Crucial in both cases is that rule is exercised in the interest of all of members, so that the master(s) exert(s) authority based upon the willingness of the members to comply with his/their orders. A third form of this type of domination, patrimonialism, occurs whenever traditional domination acquires the use of a military force that functions at the sole discretion of the master, and when an administrative structure reaching beyond the master’s personal oversight begins to develop. It is through these instruments that a ruler can extend the range of his powers, granting favours that allow him to push back some of the tradition-bound constraints to his power. Patrimonial domination is a form of patriarchal domination that has been decentralized and is based upon personal relationships structured along the lines of a patriarchal household,15 which are sanctioned by tradition.16 Patrimonialism and patriarchalism both require personal subjection and loyalty to the leader, but patrimonialism utilizes an extended administrative staff to achieve its goals while patriarchalism tends to depend upon kinship relationships for its organization.17 While the details of the application of Weber’s model to Judg 9 will be played out in the following pages, Abimelech’s rule can be broadly 15. Weber (Economy and Society, 2:1007) describes this form of authority as “based upon personal relations that are perceived as natural. This belief is rooted in lial piety, in the close and permanent living together of all dependents of the household which results in an external and spiritual ‘community of fate.’ ” 16. Ibid., 1:331–35. Weber outlined a subtype of this form of domination as estate domination. Estate domination occurs when a ruler’s administrative staff begin to appropriate some power and economic assets for themselves in the exercise of their own power. Similarly, he suggests that sultanism is another form of patrimonial authority, where authority operates solely on the basis of the ruler’s discretion, with minimal (if any) mitigating inuence by tradition. Both types are distinguished from gerontocracy and patriarchalism by the presence of a personal staff. 17. Vatro Murvar, “Patrimonialism, Modern and Traditionalist: A Paradigm for Interdisciplinary Research on Rulership and Legitimacy,” in Theory of Liberty, Legitimacy and Power: New Directions in the Intellectual and Scientic Legacy of Max Weber (ed. Vatro Murvar; London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985), 62–63. 1

5. The Social World(s) of Judges 9

181

situated in relation to Weber’s description of patrimonial domination. Weber’s patrimonial model indicates that key to an army’s patrimonial character is whether the army is supplied and outtted from the supplies and revenues of the king.18 While not decisive, Judg 9:4 suggests this condition. Abimelech acquires a personal force that functions at his discretion, as seen by his hiring of the “unprincipled and reckless men.” These “hired guns” follow Abimelech and take their cues from him, rather than the Shechemites, though the Shechemites supply the funds for their hire. Later, Gaal challenges Abimelech to raise up “your army” (  , 9:29), and throughout 9:30–55 there is a martial group () obedient to Abimelech’s instructions. While it is not possible to state denitively that these designations refer to the same group, or even whether they are personally loyal to Abimelech, the second person singular possessive pronouns used to associate them with Abimelech and their obedience to his commands are suggestive. Additionally, the presence of Zebul in Shechem as its governor (  , 9:30) points to a minimal, personally loyal administrative structure which extends Abimelech’s personal authority. It is Zebul who functions on behalf of Abimelech by driving Gaal and his followers out of the city (9:41). Moreover, Zebul’s personal loyalty to Abimelech is reected in his message alerting him of Gaal’s seditious comments (9:30). This loyalty stands in contrast to the Shechemites, who fail to remain loyal to Abimelech, casting their lot in with Gaal after only three years (9:26). Furthermore, given the narrator’s interests in kinship relationships, it is suggestive that the narrative does not indicate that Zebul was Abimelech’s kinsman, and so the depiction of Abimelech’s kingship in Judg 9 contains descriptions consistent with elements of patrimonialism. In Weber’s model, the primary or most elementary level of traditional domination is the patriarchal household. All of its constituents work to maintain and provide for the wants of the master through all available means. The master, in return, provides protection and the redistribution of goods or other beneces.19 This type of domination can also be extended to take on the form of a patrimonial state, where just as in the patriarchal household, the fundamental obligation of the subject is to provide for the wishes and needs of the ruler. Tradition legitimates the ruler’s position, but at the same time constrains it. The ruler’s demands may be legitimized partly in terms of past traditions, which determine the boundaries of his authority,

18. Weber, Economy and Society, 2:1019. 19. Ibid., 2:1010–11. 1

182

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

and partly through the ruler’s discretion in areas not directly addressed by tradition, giving him a degree of latitude in the exercise of his power. The constraints imposed upon the master by tradition primarily include an expectation of reciprocation on the part of the master in the form of: (1) protection; (2) humane treatment; (3) “customary” limitation on the master’s economic exploitation.20 Both the administrative apparatus of the state and the military are the personal instruments of the ruler, for they are personally loyal to him because they are usually connected to him through kinship, whether real or ctive.21 The ruler’s administrative staff can either be recruited from those who are his kinsmen, slaves, or some other form of personal relationship (i.e. patrimonial recruitment). He may also use extra-patrimonial recruitment through “personal favourites” like vassals or freemen who volunteer their loyalty. These retainers have no clearly dened sphere of competence dened by abstract rules of government, no rationally established hierarchy, no regular system of appointments, nor any xed salaries or technical training requirements.22 A further characteristic is the central ruler’s continuous struggle with various local power-holders. These local power-holders compete with the ruler for power by attempting to gain immunity from various forms of taxes and by demanding that the ruler not interfere with their exercise of patrimonial power. The ruler in turn attempts to curb the local leaders’ power through limiting the terms of grants and beneces.23 Lawrence Stager has used Weber’s patrimonial model to describe ancient Israel’s social structure in Iron Age I,24 and into the period of the United Monarchy.25 Stager indicates that the social structure of early ancient Israel is best described as a series of nested patrimonial households, where Israel and Judah were conceived as extensions of the patrimonial household of God.26 David Schloen has extended Stager’s investigations to include not only ancient Israel, but also the ancient Near East, and particularly Ugarit. Schloen has shown that the “father’s house” is a “root metaphor” which is ubiquitous through the ancient Near Eastern world and can be applied to the various levels of social organization in ancient Israel, for there was no distinction between “urban” and

20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 1

Ibid. Ibid., 2:1006–10. Ibid., 1:226–31. Ibid., 2:1055–59. Stager, “The Archaeology of the Family,” 25. Stager, “The Patrimonial Kingdom of Solomon,” 63–74. Stager and King, “Of Fathers, Kings and the Deity,” 42–45, 62.

5. The Social World(s) of Judges 9

183

“rural” settings and between “private” and “public” sectors, because political authority and economic dependency were everywhere patterned upon a household model of social relationships.27 This type of social organization characterized ancient Israel and Judah until the seventh century B.C.E.28 a. Abimelech’s Rise—The Abuse of Kinship According to Weber’s model as applied by Stager and Schloen, we would expect a preference for patriarchal household organization in ancient Israel. This is indeed the case, as ancient Israel had a distinct preference for endogamous patrilocal marriages.29 These marriages usually entailed a union between a father’s son and the daughter of a father’s brother. Inheritance considerations also formed a key part of marriage customs. Inheritance was passed on through patrilineal lines in ancient Israel, so that a father passed on his possessions, position, and land (or patrimony) to his sons. This arrangement allowed families to keep their property within the family and also allowed for stable succession of familial power and authority. The most common means for a father to designate a primary heir was through primogeniture. The designation of the rst-born son reduced competition between the other men and women in the household, though in times of sudden change or when the rst-born was unable to protect and provide for the family, land, or children of the household, a stronger or more suitable heir could be designated. However, inheritance customarily passed rst to the son(s) of

27. Schloen, The House of the Father. Schloen notes, “The household model is replicated throughout the social hierarchy because each political subject is himself a patriarchal ruler whose domain differs in scale but not in structure from that of his master” (p. 67). 28. Ibid., 51–54, 64, 94–95. Schloen borrows S. N. Eisenstadt’s terminology to differentiate between pre-seventh-century social organization in Israel as “preAxial” and post-seventh century social organization as “Axial.” Pre-Axial social structures are based upon traditional legitimation of power, while Axial social structures reect Weber’s legal-rational justication of power. Schloen’s work broadly nds support in the work of S. Bendor, who also argued that ancient Israel retained its fundamental kinship structure well into the monarchic period. S. Bendor, The Social Structure of Ancient Israel: The Institution of the Family (Beit ’Ab) from the Settlement to the End of the Monarchy (Jerusalem Biblical Studies 7; Jerusalem: Simor, 1996), 31–33, 216–27. 29. Steinberg, “Judges 9 and Issues of Kinship,” 50–51; Schloen, The House of the Father, 121–22; King and Stager, Life in Biblical Israel, 36–38; Victor H. Matthews and Don C. Benjamin, The Social World of Ancient Israel 1250–587 BCE (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1993), 15–16. 1

184

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

the father’s primary wife, and then to other wives or possibly concubines30 and sons born by slaves (if specically designated by the father).31 When examined in light of the typical relationships in a patrimonial household along with its usual means of designating inheritance rights, Abimelech’s actions in Judg 9 stand out as a contravention of normal protocol. While matrilineal and matrilocal kinship structures are known in the Hebrew Bible,32 Abimelech’s approach to his uncles, his mother’s brothers (9:1), violates the norm of patrilineal kinship relations in several ways. First, as seen above, Israel privileged patrilineal kinship relationships, which were designed to keep the inheritance of goods, property, and position within the father’s family. Abimelech’s successful discussions with his mother’s family in Shechem would have meant that his father Jerubbaal’s position of leadership and power, which is assumed in Judg 9 despite his avowed rejection of hereditary leadership (9:2; cf. 8:23), would have passed from his hands into the hands of Abimelech’s mother’s family. Such a situation would have been highly irregular. More to the point for an Israelite audience, such a situation implied that a prominent position of leadership over a strategic urban area would have been depicted as passing from Israelite hands into the hands of a group whose afliation with Israel was ambiguous at best. Second, and closely related, is Abimelech’s attempt to circumvent normal means of inheritance procedures. Judges 8:31 describes Abimelech’s mother as a concubine ( ), indicating her secondary status. Jotham’s polemical description of Abimelech’s mother further diminishes her status by calling her Jerubbaal’s “servant-girl” (, 9:18). The status of a concubine, such as Abimelech’s mother (8:31), is ambiguous. However, it seems that royal concubines and their offspring had a lower status than full status wives and their children.33 V. Matthews notes that

30. Raymond Westbrook and Bruce Wells, Everyday Law in Biblical Israel: An Introduction (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2009), 65: “The main characteristic of concubinage is that, unlike marriage, it does not produce legitimate heirs,” though a father had some exibility to designate heirs (pp. 101–4). 31. Matthews and Benjamin, The Social World of Ancient Israel, 110–11. 32. A matrilocal kinship structure may be reected in Gen 2:24 and possibly in Jacob’s sojourn with his mother’s brother, Laban (Gen 28–30), while Absalom’s quest for sanctuary from his father’s wrath among his mother’s kinfolk in Geshur (2 Sam 13:37) may also reect matrilocal considerations. 33. Alison Salvesen, “Royal Family,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books (ed. Bill T. Arnold and H. G. M. Williamson; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2005), 846–47. Salvesen cites 2 Sam 15:16, where David leaves behind his ten concubines to look after his palace, something he would not likely have done 1

5. The Social World(s) of Judges 9

185

some women came to their husbands without a dowry—usually for the purpose of producing an heir—and so were considered a secondary wife or a concubine. A husband would have still needed to provide for his concubine’s necessities (Exod 21:10), but when it came to questions of succession and inheritance rights, the sons of a concubine were not typically recognized as heirs of their father and did not receive a share in his estate.34 Only in situations where a father specically added the son of his concubine or servant-girl to his inheritance roster could those sons receive a portion of their father’s inheritance.35 Thus, while primogeniture was the dominant means of distributing an inheritance among the sons of a father, under certain conditions a provision could allow for the sons of secondary status wives to receive a portion of the inheritance. In this light, the motivation behind Abimelech’s murder of his seventy brothers (9:5, 18) becomes clearer. Normal inheritance procedures would see Jerubbaal’s wealth and likely his position of inuence over the city of Shechem (cf. 9:17–18) passed on to the son(s) of a full wife. A special provision by Jerubbaal could also have included Abimelech in this inheritance. However, in the absence of such an explicit provision, the narrative portrays Abimelech as taking matters into his own hands in order to secure a position of power in Shechem. Abimelech’s murder of his seventy brothers, the sons of Jerubbaal, in Ophrah (9:5) then becomes an attempt to legitimate his claim to rule in Shechem. Though the Shechemites express their preference for the rule of Abimelech in lieu of his seventy brothers, he still feels compelled to ensure that no doubt remains about the legitimacy of his succession. By eliminating all of the seventy sons of Jerubbaal, his father’s primary and legitimate heirs, Abimelech could then pave the way for his own “legitimate” assumption of his father’s position on the grounds that he was the sole surviving heir. At this point, it is noteworthy that, while Abimelech’s actions here are brutal and vicious, they would not come as a complete surprise to an

with a full wife. One might add to Salvesen’s comment that such a situation would help explain why some of David’s sons (e.g. Shephatiah son of Abital, Ithream son of Eglah, 2 Sam 3:4–5/1 Chr 3:3) drop from contention in the Succession Narrative. 34. Matthews, Judges and Ruth, 103–4. 35. T. Frymer-Kensky (“Patriarchal Family Relationships and Near Eastern Law,” BA 44 [1981]: 213) notes that in ancient Near Eastern contexts, even in situations of childlessness where a father has adopted a son, this adopted son would be displaced in the event of other natural-born sons of the father, unless the father specically designated his adopted son as an heir (cf. Laws of Hammurabi 170–71). Thus, “When there was a contest between the sons of a prime wife and the children of a slave, there was in fact no contest.” 1

186

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

ancient audience, particularly to a usurper making a play for the throne. The elimination of rivals to power by an eventual victor was well known in Israel and the ancient Near East,36 though its setting in the pre-monarchic period is unexpected. In his attempt to secure his “legitimate” position as Jerubbaal’s heir, however, Abimelech violates a third social convention. Weber’s patrimonial model describes social interaction as relationships within and between “households.” Patrimonialism, modeled on patriarchal households, required loyalty towards patriarchal authority and fellow members of one’s household. Thus, households exhibited solidarity in dealing with those “outside” the household and a communal attitude towards property and the consumption of goods within the household.37 This concept of household can be identied with the Israelite   and to a certain extent the  , and characterized both “urban” and “rural” settlements in Iron Age ancient Israel.38 In ancient Israel and the ancient Near East, the ideal was that families functioned as protective associations,39 with the responsibility to aid and defend each other (e.g. Gen 14:14). If kinfolk () fell on hard times, a family member was to take them into his home (Lev 25:35), redeem his kinfolk’s eld or even family members from debt-slavery (Lev 25:47–53; Ruth 2:20; 4:1–12). Similarly, family members were not to shed each other’s blood (cf. Gen 4:1–15). Instead, if a family member was murdered, it was the family’s responsibility to avenge the death (Num 35:16–21; 2 Sam 14:11; cf. 2 Sam 3:30). Even the ideology of protection and mutual support at the level of international relations, where nations would make pacts of protection with “brother” nations, was fundamentally “an enlargement of the mechanisms of mutual support and protection that are typical of family and local community.”40 Consequently, Abimelech’s brutal murder of his 36. Fensham (“The Numeral Seventy,” 113–15) cites examples from Jehu’s usurpation of Ahab’s throne (2 Kgs 10:1–7) and Panammuwa’s ascension to the throne as other examples of the elimination of seventy rivals to power. Other related examples include 1 Kgs 15:27–29; 16:10–11, 21–22; 2 Kgs 11:1–3. 37. Weber, Economy and Society, 1:359. 38. Schloen, The House of the Father, 135–83. Schloen suggests that this conguration existed not only in Iron Age Israel, but extended back into the Bronze Age, pointing to archaeological evidence from Ugarit for further support (140–41, cf. 317–47). 39. This usually happened either at the level of the   or by extension the  . The interplay between these various levels of protective association may be seen in 2 Sam 14:5–7. 40. Mario Liverani, International Relations in the Ancient Near East, 1600–1100 BC (New York: Palgrave, 2001), 128. 1

5. The Social World(s) of Judges 9

187

seventy brothers in Ophrah violates the custom of familial protectiveness and the norm of mutual support that were fundamental to ancient Israelite society. Doing so may have irrevocably demonstrated Abimelech’s loyalties to his mother’s Shechemite family, thereby legitimating him in their eyes, but he violated the norm of family support and protection, which was fundamental to Israel’s social structure.41 Abimelech’s recruitment of “reckless and unprincipled men” (   , 9:4) further exemplies his abandonment of his familial solidarity. Such men lacked kinship ties or land, or both, and operated as mercenaries “hiring themselves and their gangs to local potentates in exchange for territorial holdings, acquiring their patrimony (which traditional society could or would not grant them) through brigandage and brutality.”42 These gangs represented alternate “protective associations,” highlighting Abimelech’s abandonment of his primary family in favour of an alternate “family,” one that existed on the shady margins of Israel’s social structure.43 Jotham’s survival of the massacre at Ophrah (9:5), however, complicates Abimelech’s plan. Jotham, presumably a son of one of Jerubbaal’s primary wives, was legally eligible to succeed his father. Abimelech, as the son of Gideon/Jerubbaal’s concubine and in the absence of any explicit account of Jerubbaal’s designation of Abimelech as a primary heir, would not have had the same legitimate claims to inheritance. Jotham’s speech (9:16–20) emphasizes this very point when he labels Abimelech the son of Jerubbaal’s servant-girl (9:18). By doing so, he draws attention to how Abimelech’s attempt to secure his status as Jerubbaal’s heir through the murder of his seventy brothers stands in contravention of the norms of inheritance procedures and thus violates Israelite socio-cultural mores. There is yet a fourth means described in the portrayal of Abimelech by which he attempts to secure his position as king in Shechem. Judges 9:6 indicates that the lords of Shechem and all Beth-Millo came and made Abimelech king by the oak of the pillar at Shechem. P. van Wächter locates this site outside of the city, near the spring at Askar.44 However, G. E. Wright, followed by E. Campbell, situates the oak of the pillar inside the Late Bronze Age temple complex dedicated to Baal-Berith in 41. At the level of the world of the implied author and his audience, this action serves the opposite purpose—it delegitimates him in their eyes. 42. Mobley, The Empty Men, 38. 43. Cf. Rainer Kessler, The Social History of Ancient Israel: An Introduction (trans. Linda M. Maloney; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008), 62. 44. Van Wachter, “Zur Lokalisierung des sichemitischen Baumheiligtums,” 12. 1

188

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

Shechem.45 Stager also noted the presence of a large   in the temple courtyard complex and that other temples commonly had temple gardens where an oak () might grow.46 In addition, Stager noted evidence from the city of Aravis suggesting the use of temples in treaty ratication ceremonies.47 Thus, the narrator may have pictured Abimelech’s coronation taking place within the precincts of the temple of Baal-Berith. This cultic setting is not unexpected, for the coronation of a king placed him in a unique relationship with his patron deity. Roland de Vaux has argued that, from the Israelite perspective, the crowning of a king made him a vassal of the deity.48 In ancient Israel’s “nested household” social structure,49 a suzerain–vassal relationship implied that, upon coronation, a king was conceived of as entering into a kin-like relationship with the deity.50 Thus, by locating Abimelech’s coronation by the oak of the pillar, and so suggesting a cultic context, the narrator of Judg 9 insinuates Abimelech’s attempt to mirror elements of a typical ancient Near Eastern monarch’s coronation, and thereby legitimate his authority. However, while indicating Abimelech’s attempt to secure his rule by seeding the description of his coronation with some elements typical of legitimate ancient Near Eastern kingship, the narrator suggests Abimelech’s lack of full comportment with the elements typical of other kings’ ascensions to power by withholding key pieces of information about Abimelech’s coronation. The narrative nowhere mentions Abimelech’s anointing, a key element signifying divine sanction in both Israel and the ancient Near East.51 In fact, Z. Weisman notes six elements 45. Wright, Shechem, 101–2, 123–28; Campbell, “Judges 9 and Archaeology,” 264–65. Note, however, the critique of Mervyn D. Fowler (“A Closer Look at the ‘Temple of El-Berith’ at Shechem,” PEQ 115 [1983]: 49–53). 46. Stager, “The Fortress-Temple at Shechem,” 228–49, and “The Shechem Temple Where Abimelech Massacred a Thousand,” 26–35, 66, 68–69. 47. Stager, “The Shechem Temple Where Abimelech Massacred a Thousand,” 66. 48. De Vaux, “The King of Israel,” 155–56. De Vaux also notes similar traditions in Mesopotamia and in Egypt in the El-Amarna tablets where the king becomes the “servant” ( ) of his patron. Cf. Gary Beckman (“Royal Ideology and State Administration in Hittite Anatolia,” CANE 1:530–31), where the king is assigned a personal deity, who stands in a parental-type relationship with the king. 49. King and Stager, “Of Fathers, Kings and the Deity,” 42–45, 62. 50. Cf. Cross, “Kinship and Covenant in Ancient Israel,” 3–21 (20–21). Other biblical passages that support this conception of kingship include but are not limited to 2 Sam 7:14; Ps 2:7. 51. Ilya Yakubovich, “Were Hittite Kings Divinely Anointed? A Palaic Invocation to the Sun God and Its Signicance for Hittite Religion,” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religion 5 (2006): 107–37 (123–35). 1

5. The Social World(s) of Judges 9

189

common to the descriptions of Saul (1 Sam 9:1–10:16) and David’s (1 Sam 16:1–13) anointing:52 1. A divine instruction to a prophet preceding the anointing. 2. The anointing was performed by a prophet. 3. The anointing came as a surprise to the designate. 4. It was carried out at an occasional place where the designate happened to be and not necessarily at a central sanctuary. 5. It involves privacy or secrecy. 6. The anointing was followed by a sudden appearance of the Spirit of Yahweh on the anointed. It is instructive to note that none of these elements occurs in Judg 9. This omission is made all the more notable by Jotham’s reference to this ritual in Judg 9:8, 15. The narrative never mentions Yahweh’s sanction of Abimelech’s rise, and instead indicates God’s opposition (9:23, 56). Divine sanction was vital for genuine kings in the ancient Near East.53 This lack of Yahwistic sanction, along with other “irregularities” in his coronation, strongly suggests that Abimelech’s kingship is portrayed as lacking full legitimation. The portrayal of Abimelech’s coronation, likely within the connes of the temple of Baal-Berith, combined with the missing elements common to other coronations in ancient Israel, suggests that, from the perspective of the story’s narrator, Abimelech’s rise to power outed key traditions associated with genuine kings. Similarly, the portrayal of Abimelech’s violations of cultural norms in securing his bid for kingship also points to transgressions of key Israelite customs. Weber’s model suggests that in societies with traditionally justied relationships of domination, it is conformity to past tradition and custom that justies authority.54 While an authority legitimated by traditional means does have some leeway in terms of improvization, this freedom lies in areas not directly addressed by past tradition. This is not the case in the narrator’s description of Judg 9. The story world of Judg 9 exhibits Abimelech’s multiple transgressions of cultural mores and traditions embedded in ancient Israel and ancient Near Eastern culture in order to secure his authority in Shechem. By doing so, the narrative portrays his authority as questionable.

52. Weisman, “Anointing as a Motif,” 379–80. 53. On the importance of the ideological relationship between king and deity, see Meyers, “David as Temple Builder,” 357–76 (360–64); Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods, 264–69. 54. Weber, Economy and Society, 1:226. 1

190

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

b. Abimelech as King—The Abuse of Power Not only does Abimelech’s ascension to kingship in Shechem contain several breaches of tradition, but his exercise of kingly power also exhibits several abuses of traditional patterns of authority. Judges 9 does not specify the reasons for the Shechemites’ short-lived support of Abimelech or the reasons behind their support ( ) of Gaal (9:26). However, the text does suggest reasons for Abimelech’s attacks against Shechem. First, the Shechemites “dealt treacherously” ( , 9:23) with Abimelech, a term often used to describe a failure to live up to an agreement, treaty, or standard.55 In this case, by agreeing to Abimelech’s kingship, the Shechemites had voluntarily submitted themselves to his leadership. Judges 9:23 describes their failure to honour that commitment of loyalty and support. Second, the city of Shechem sat at the junction of several key east–west and north–south trade routes,56 and the collection of “taxes” for safe transit was the prerogative of a king or chief.57 The Shechemites’ ambushes along the roads around Shechem (Judg 9:25) would have disrupted caravan trafc through this key transit area. This disruption would not only have resulted in personal embarrassment,58 but would have hampered the king’s ability to extract taxes for “safe passage” and so weakened his authority.59 Third, the Shechemites not only support Gaal instead of Abimelech, but they also belittle him (, Piel, 9:27). Gaal echoes the Shechemites’ mutinous attitude by questioning Abimelech’s credentials, “Who is Abimelech and who is Shechem that we should serve him? Is he not the son of Jerubbaal and Zebul his lieutenant?” (9:28). Gaal then escalates the rebellion, putting himself forward as a candidate for kingship, and challenging Abimelech to “multiply your army and come out” (9:29).

55. Seth Erlandsson, “ Ê% bgadh,” TDOT 1:472–73. 56. David A. Dorsey (“Shechem and the Road Network of Central Samaria,” BASOR 268 [1987]: 57–70) notes that in addition to the two major highways that ran by Shechem, a network of twenty roads intersected in various ways at Shechem; cf. Yohanan Aharoni, The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography (trans. and ed. Anson Rainey; rev. ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979), 44–45, 57–62. 57. Cf. Heffelnger, “ ‘My Father is King,’ ” 277–92 (289). 58. Davis, Such a Great Salvation, 125. 59. Carney, The Shape of the Past, 61; Martin, The Book of Judges, 123–24; Arthur Cundall, Judges: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1968), 130–31. Kostiner (“Introduction,” 4) notes similarly that modern Middle Eastern rulers’ success hinged upon their ability to organize defence and the caravan trade. 1

5. The Social World(s) of Judges 9

191

Each of these rebellious acts targets Abimelech directly: the Shechemites deal treacherously “with Abimelech” (    , 9:23), they set up ambushes “against him” (, 9:25), they belittle Abimelech (, 9:27), and Gaal insults Abimelech (9:28), challenging him personally (   , 9:29) to “come out.” In patrimonial contexts, dissatisfaction is directed towards the master personally, rather than towards the system in general.60 The language of Judg 9 reects this context by directing these attacks at Abimelech himself, and not his ofce. When confronted with such acts of rebellion (9:23, 25–29), a king must respond decisively, though according to our model of patrimonial authority, his responses are constrained by tradition and custom. Mario Liverani’s study of international relations in the Late Bronze Age may shed some light upon the customs of military action in this period.61 While the narrative of Judg 9 may have been written down during the Iron Age, it is set in the period of either the end of the Late Bronze Age or in Iron Age I. Moreover, several biblical texts (seen below) seem to echo elements of the Late Bronze Age ideology described by Liverani, and so it may have been familiar to the implied audience. In addition, basic elements of battle strategy remained consistent over long periods of time.62 Liverani points out that in battles to suppress rebels, a key ideological precursor to battle was the need to reassure an army not only of its military superiority, but also of the moral correctness of its actions.63 Ancient audiences understood that rebellious acts, such as a failure to submit, a failure to show loyalty (often sworn in an oath), or interference with a master’s ability to collect tribute or taxes, constituted acts of rebellion and presaged an attempt by the master to reassert his position of authority

60. Weber, Economy and Society, 1:227. 61. Liverani (International Relations, 12) notes that the chronological limits of his study (1600–1100 B.C.E.) are bounded somewhat by the availability of ideological texts written in the Late Bronze Age. Thus, the end of the Late Bronze Age was marked by a signicant decrease in documents to work with. However, Liverani’s study also makes use of some documents from later ages to illustrate how the ideology of the Late Bronze Age persisted in later periods. 62. Bevin Alexander, How Wars Are Won: The 13 Rules of War—From Ancient Greece to the War on Terror (New York: Crown, 2002). 63. Liverani, International Relations, 86–87: “Spreading the conviction that the enemies are evil and sinful, and thus the authors of their own punishment and annihilation” achieved this prerequisite. The portrayal of the Shechemites’ rebellion as well as the portrayal of Abimelech’s murder of his brothers (9:5) fullls this function in Judg 9. 1

192

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

and regain his honour.64 Textually, the description of the Shechemites’ hilltop ambushes (9:25), their new allegiance to Gaal (9:26), and their belittling of the king (9:27) could t this ideological requirement, illustrating how they have brought about their own destruction. Liverani’s study also proves useful in examining Abimelech’s reprisals (9:30–55), drawing together various facets of the “rules of war” in the Late Bronze Age in the ancient Near East. He points out that like any other social activity, war must follow accepted rules so as not to disrupt the social order.65 A “model” war must be “righteous” (theologically justied)66 and “correct” (conducted according to the rules of engagement).67 Such wars include both legal/verbal68 and martial components. Gaal’s challenge to Abimelech, “Multiply your army and come out” (Judg 9:29) is similar to the ofcial challenge issued by kings. An Old Hittite Zukrashi text intones, “I came against you; come out!” A challenge by Tukulti-Ninurta also has similarities to Gaal’s challenge: “So come out to me on the battleeld of the servants, and let us investigate the case together. From this festival of battle, may the transgressor of oath not rise up, may they cast away his corpse.”69 This challenge also has similarities to Amaziah’s challenge to Jehoash, “Come, let us meet face to face” (2 Kgs 14:8). Thereafter, Liverani suggests, both parties would have had opportunity to present their case on the eld of battle prior to actual physical hostilities, for “war is a legal procedure and not a mere search for material advantages.”70 This requirement also seems to be reected in Jepthah’s exchange with the Ammonite king (Judg

64. Liverani, International Relations, 88; cf. 1 Kgs 11:26, 40; 2 Kgs 3:4–6; 18:13–16; Isa 36:4–20; Ps 2; cf. also the many prophetic warnings for rebellion against Israel’s heavenly king and covenant partner, Yahweh (e.g. Isa 1:19–20; Jer 2:29, etc.). 65. “All over the area the rules seem to have been known and more or less accepted, but of course the dosage of the centralized and symmetrical ideologies are different” (ibid., 112). 66. Cf. the theological justication of the Israelites’ campaign against the Canaanites in Deut 7:1–4; 20:16–18; Josh 11:20. 67. Liverani, International Relations, 108. 68. The Hittites viewed battle as a legal ordeal proving the justice of one’s position: see Boyd Severs, “The Practice of Ancient Near Eastern Warfare with Comparison to the Biblical Accounts of Warfare from the Conquest to the End of the United Monarchy” (Ph.D. diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1998), 147. 69. Quoted from Liverani, International Relations, 110. 70. Ibid., 108; cf. Israel Eph‘al, The City Besieged: Siege and Its Manifestations in the Ancient Near East (CHANE 36; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 44–45. 1

5. The Social World(s) of Judges 9

193

11:12–33).71 Ideally, victory was to be determined by righteousness, courage, and personal valour. As a result, a “fair” battle took place in a particular space, at a xed time and according to balanced chances, where each side could have a clear view of each other. This meant that the preferred battle time was during the day, though night or dawn raids were occasionally justied.72 From the perspective of the wronged party, deception, fraud, and subterfuge were viewed as “against the rules” and not utilized by “civilized peoples.” Only barbarians would resort to such tactics, thereby illustrating their inferiority. However, this likely reects the perspective of large and victorious armies, for ruse and subterfuge were in fact common tactics throughout the ancient Near East and in Israel.73 Abimelech’s engagement with Gaal and the Shechemites in Judg 9 does not always follow the “rules of war” outlined above. Abimelech does not battle with Gaal and the Shechemites in a prescribed location but instead attacks by dividing his resources into four different companies (9:34). He attacks at dawn after marching all night (9:32–33), setting up ambushes against the Shechemites (9:34). Though Gaal’s inability to discern Abimelech’s troop movements (9:36–37) may reect the narrator’s portrayal of his own unsuitability for leadership, Abimelech’s movements may also have been masked by the morning shadows (9:36), using a ruse to disguise his movements. Similarly, in the second battle of Shechem (9:42–45), Abimelech uses ambushes to defeat the people (9:43) of Shechem. In the third battle of Shechem (9:46–49), Abimelech besieges the tower of Shechem, this time using re to kill all the citizens hiding in the tower. In some ways, Abimelech’s actions show insight and cleverness, for he uses the terrain surrounding Shechem and the element of surprise to

71. A similar background may lie behind the exchange between Ben-Hadad and Ahab in 1 Kgs 20:1–12 and the Rabshakeh’s ultimatum to Hezekiah in 2 Kgs 18:17– 35/Isa 36:4–20. The prophetic covenant lawsuit (the rîb) utilized against rebellious Israel may also serve as a modied version of this procedure (e.g. Hos 4:1–19; Mic 6:1–16). 72. Cf. Saul in 1 Sam 11:11; Gideon’s night attack in Judg 7:19; Mesha’s night attack against Israel (ANET 320, line 15); Murshili II’s forced march and dawn attack noted in Severs, “The Practice of Ancient Near Eastern Warfare,” 154. 73. Severs, “The Practice of Ancient Near Eastern Warfare,” 108–10; cf. Josh 8:1–29; Judg 7:15–25; 20:29–45; 2 Sam 11:1; 20:15 and the examples in Severs (ibid., 98, 152). Note also the use of oracular inquiry regarding the use of stratagems to capture a besieged city by the Assyrians (Eph‘al, The City Besieged, 2, 102–3) and the key role of deception (Alexander, How Wars Are Won, 74–75, 94–95, 301). 1

194

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

his best advantage.74 However, even if the description of the Shechemites’ rebellious acts serves as a type of “narrative legal charge” against the rebels, the story does not present any formal charge voiced by Abimelech himself against Gaal or the Shechemites at any point in the narrative. Moreover, while Abimelech’s military actions against Gaal and the Shechemites may be justied as the attempts of a king to bring rebels back into line, the means by which he does so remains questionable. His tactics are neither praised nor condemned in Judg 9, but he systematically exterminates the Shechemites (his kinsmen and women) and turns his wrath upon Thebez (9:50–55), moving beyond mere justice. In this way, the account of the Shechemites’ rebellion against Abimelech and Abimelech’s ill-fated reprisals holds both parties culpable, and thereby explains the fate of both. Additionally, by illustrating Abimelech’s violation of custom, rst in his rise to power and then in the exercise of his kingly ofce, the narrative suggests the illegitimacy of Abimelech’s kingship. c. Abimelech’s Death—Shaming the “Shamer” Just as Abimelech’s rise to power and his exercise of power reect contraventions of socio-cultural norms, so too the narrative’s portrayal of Abimelech’s death exhibits breaches of tradition that are designed to denigrate Abimelech. Judges 9 culminates the story of Abimelech’s misdeeds by capping his tumultuous reign with an account of his ignominious death. However, in order to appreciate fully the implications of Abimelech’s shameful death, we must go back in the story to the insults that precipitated these events. We noted above the various Shechemite challenges to Abimelech’s authority, such as their ambushes, their support of Gaal, and their ridicule of Abimelech, culminating in Gaal’s challenge in 9:28–29: Who is Abimelech and who is Shechem that we should serve him? Is he not the son of Jerubbaal and Zebul his lieutenant? Serve the men of Hamor, the father of Shechem. Why should we serve him? If only someone would give this people into my hand, then I would remove Abimelech.” To Abimelech he said, “Multiply your army and come out.”

Gaal’s question, “Who is Abimelech and who is Shechem that we should serve him?,” utilizes an insult formula intended to demean Abimelech,75 74. T. R. Hobbs (A Time For War: A Study of Warfare in the Old Testament [Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1989], 169–71) notes that Abimelech uses sophisticated tactics, including the use of terrain and surprise to his advantage. 75. Coats, “Self-Abasement and Insult Formulas,” 14–26 (14–15). 1

5. The Social World(s) of Judges 9

195

as does his next question, “Is he not the son of Jerubbaal?”76 Both comments are intended to shame Abimelech publicly before the Shechemites (and the implied audience). Shane Kirkpatrick’s examination of shame and honour in Judg 8:1–2 and 12:1–4 notes that reputation was one of the most important valuables one could possess in ancient Israel. The ancient world conceived of honour and shame as a limited commodity, so that one could only gain or lose honour at the expense of another, either by acquiring it from another or having it ascribed by a social group at the expense of another.77 Thus, not only had the Shechemites challenged Abimelech’s authority as king, but Gaal had also attempted to diminish his honour. Lyn Bechtel notes that a prevalent response to shaming is revenge, or to shame the shamer, reversing the positions of those involved and thereby “saving face.”78 Abimelech’s response to Gaal’s and the Shechemites’ challenges may be viewed, at least in part, as an attempt to restore his honour.79 It is also in this context of returning shame upon the head of the shamer that we may see Abimelech’s salting of Shechem (9:45) as an attempt not only to return a curse upon the Shechemites,80 but also an attempt to add to their shame by extending their downfall into “perpetuity.”81 However, Abimelech’s zeal in this matter is far more excessive than is necessary to restore his honour, and this ultimately leads to his own downfall at Thebez (9:50–55). As noted above, Thebez has no discernable link to the Shechemites’ rebellion against Abimelech, and so his attack of the city is gratuitous and excessive—it no longer has any recognizable link to restoring his honour. It is in this context of attempting to shame the shamers that Abimelech is further shamed. Not only does Abimelech’s attempt to capture the tower of Thebez fail, but he is also mortally wounded when an unnamed woman drops a millstone upon his head. For a man styling himself as a mighty warrior, death outside of the context of battle was a blow to his 76. Clark (“ ‘Surnames’ in the Old Testament?,” 232–38) points out that the use of the patronymic “son of X” without reference to the target’s “personal” name reects derision, insult, and scorn. 77. Shane Kirkpatrick, “Questions of Honor in the Book of Judges,” Koinonia 10 (1998): 22–23. 78. Lyn M. Bechtel, “Shame as a Sanction of Social Control in Biblical Israel: Judicial, Political, and Social Shaming,” JSOT 49 (1991): 50, 76. 79. Note that, ironically, Jotham accuses Abimelech and the Shechemites of a similar sin committed against Jerubbaal and his family (9:16–19), which precipitates this whole cycle of mutual retribution. 80. See the discussion on pp. 105–6. 81. Gevirtz, “Jericho and Shechem,” 61. 1

196

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

honour.82 Ironically, the instrument of his death is not an instrument usually used to take a life, but to sustain it.83 Additionally, death at the hand of a non-combatant woman was considered shameful and tantamount to being “unmanned.”84 In Judg 9, Abimelech immediately realizes not only his imminent death, but more importantly to him, the threat to his honour that the mode of his death represents. He immediately asks his armour-bearer to dispatch him, “Draw your sword and kill me, lest they say, ‘a woman killed him,’ about me” (9:54). However, despite his best attempts, Abimelech cannot escape his imminent death or the dishonour that accompanies it. Within the story world of Judg 9, the shaming of Abimelech through his death at the hands of a woman exacerbates questions about the viability of his ascension and rule.85 He is here not a vaunted warrior but a disgraced leader who destroys his own people before being destroyed himself. As Bechtel’s model notes, one of the important functions of shaming was to create and preserve social cohesion by creating social distance between deviant members of society and the group.86 In describing how Abimelech’s attempt to redeem his honour only furthers his dishonour, the story portrays Abimelech as a social pariah, whose actions threaten social cohesion. When we take all of Abimelech’s deciencies and add them together, we see that the portrait of Abimelech in this passage has been crafted to show how Abimelech falls short of traditional norms of conduct. Abimelech’s rise to kingship depends upon matrilineal kinship ties and circumventions of normal inheritance procedures. Abimelech’s exercise of power, particularly his use of questionable military tactics, casts suspicion upon his rule. Moreover, he uses power to excess, going well beyond putting down a rebellion or even appropriate retribution, in order to satisfy a personal vendetta. Thus, while the Shechemites fail to exhibit the loyalty expected in patrimonial relationships between authorities and those under their authority, Abimelech fails to offer the protection expected from masters in patrimonial societies. The portrayal of Abimelech’s death also reects an attempt to shame him and so depicts him as a 82. Mobley, The Empty Men, 50–51; cf. the sardonic description of Sisera’s death at the hand of Yael in Judg 5:24–27. 83. Bal, Death and Dissymmetry, 220–21. 84. See Yee, “By the Hand of a Woman,” 115. 85. Bechtel (“Shame as a Sanction,” 76) notes: “Shaming was predominantly a public experience; its power stemmed from its ability to reveal publicly inadequacy or failure to meet societal or religious ideals.” 86. Ibid., 53. 1

5. The Social World(s) of Judges 9

197

dishonoured leader. In all aspects of his kingship—his rise, the exercise of his kingship, and his demise—Judg 9 portrays Abimelech as in conict with Israelite and ancient Near Eastern social mores. d. Abimelech as Illegitimate Ruler We have already seen how even within the story-world of Judg 9, the account of Abimelech’s rise, brief reign, and demise suggests his illegitimacy. At this point, we need to extend Weber’s concept of the legitimation of patrimonial power and ask how these shortcomings might specically serve to delegitimize Abimelech. Judges 9 does not mention the concept of legitimation, nor does Classical Hebrew reect any lexical awareness of the concept, and so some may argue that we are imposing a concept that is foreign to the story-world of the text. However, questions about who rightfully should hold power, how it should be exercised, and under what circumstances were clearly questions that ancient Israel debated.87 Moreover, as with the concept of rhetoric, absence of the term does not necessarily imply absence of the concept. Max Weber makes a helpful observation in his discussion on legitimacy when he notes that there is a “generally observable need of any power, or even of any advantage of life, to justify itself.”88 Thus, it is appropriate to inquire into the negative portrayal of Abimelech in Judg 9 by asking more specically how the story leads readers to conclude that Abimelech’s ascension to and exercise of power was illegitimate. Weber’s concept of legitimacy holds that in social contexts where there is a power differential, the relationship is justied on the basis of a belief in its legitimacy on the part of both the dominant and the subordinate.89 We have already noted in Chapter 1 David Beetham’s critique

87. For support, we could point to the debate in 1 Sam 8–12 about the values of a king and what qualities a godly king should exhibit. The circumscription of the king in Deut 17:14–20 also served to place limits on the king’s exercise of power, thereby indicating a conception of what was a legitimate, and what was an illegitimate use of power. Similarly, comparisons between the ideological components of ancient Israelite kingship and kingship in other ancient Near Eastern polities suggest an awareness and expectation that kings “do” certain things which set them apart from others and that justify their exercise of power (e.g. the ideological nexus of king, patron deity, temple building, and the founding of a dynasty). Cf. Victor Hurowitz, I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings (JSOTSup 115; Shefeld: JSOT, 1992). 88. Weber, Economy and Society, 2:953. 89. Ibid., 1:31, 213. 1

198

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

of Weber’s concept of legitimation.90 Beetham points out that legitimation is multidimensional, and so he expands upon Weber’s concept, proposing that power is legitimate if:91 (1) it conforms to established rules (or is acquired and exercised in accordance with established rules which may be either formal laws or informal traditions); (2) the rules can be justied by reference to beliefs shared by both the dominant and the subordinate; (3) there is evidence of consent by (qualied) subordinates to the particular power relation.92 Each “rule” also has a corresponding non-legitimate form of power, so that their relationship can be illustrated as follows: 93 Table 5.1 Criteria of Legitimacy Conformity to rules Justiability in terms of shared beliefs Legitimation through expressed consent

Form of Non-legitimate Power Illegitimacy (breach of rules) Legitimacy decit (discrepancy between rules and supporting beliefs, absence of shared beliefs) Delegitimation (withdrawal of consent)

Beetham emphasizes that these three elements do not function independently of the institutions and individuals that embody them, so that legitimacy does not merely amount to a sum of “legitimations” that the powerful foist upon their subordinates. “Legitimacy is not the icing on the cake of power, which is applied after baking is complete, and leaves the cake itself essentially unchanged. It is more like the yeast that permeates the dough, and makes the bread what it is.”94 In addition, we should note here that legitimacy is not a static concept, but is a dynamic process that may wax and wane depending upon the actions of a power holder. Power holders must not only do things that confer legitimacy, they must also continue to act in ways that retain and build upon their legitimacy, or risk losing it. Consequently, when power holders do or say things that subvert these three components, they erode their legitimacy. Conversely, actions or words that reinforce the shared beliefs of the dominant and subordinate with regard to the power structure, or that strengthen consent, 90. Cf. pp. 27–28. 91. Beetham, The Legitimation of Power, 20. 92. Beetham (ibid., 21) holds that these three elements of legitimacy cut across cultures and historical periods. 93. Ibid., 20. 94. Ibid., 39. 1

5. The Social World(s) of Judges 9

199

can solidify and augment a power holder’s legitimacy.95 Therefore, legitimacy is not an all-or-nothing affair. A given power holder may exhibit some characteristics of legitimate rule without being fully legitimate or while losing legitimacy over the course of his tenure. Thus, negative actions also play an important role in establishing or maintaining the level of a ruler’s legitimacy. Beetham also points out that in the social construction of legitimacy,96 “Power relations often involve negative features—of exclusion, restriction, compulsion, etc.—which stand in need of justication if the powerful are to enjoy moral authority as opposed to a merely de facto power.”97 For example, rulers can command taxes that are then used for the ruler’s consumption. This economic benet is usually justied on the basis of reciprocity.98 Such a justication not only eases a ruler’s ability to collect and utilize these taxes, but it can also add to the ruler’s overall level of legitimacy. A given power relationship will therefore attempt to justify these negative features by using the following strategies: (1) a principle of differentiation which reveals the dominant as specically qualied or deserving or possessing the resources that form the basis of their power, and shows the subordinate as unsuited or unt to do so; (2) a demonstration of how the power differential is in the common interest; and (3) a 95. For example, the ninth-century Mesha Stele commemorates Moab’s emancipation from Israelite rule under King Mesha, but also mentions the many building accomplishments of King Mesha under the aegis of his god, Chemosh (lines 22–30). Bruce Routledge (“Learning to Love the King: Urbanism and the State in Iron Age Moab,” in Urbanism in Antiquity: From Mesopotamia to Crete [ed. Walter E. Aufrecht, Neil A. A. Mirau, and Steven W. Gauley; JSOTSup 244; Shefeld: Shefeld Academic, 1997], 138–40) has pointed out that these building projects were designed to foster loyalty in the towns that he conquered, making consent to his rule easier and thereby building his legitimacy in these towns. Conversely, if enough time passes with enough of a legitimacy decit, the legitimacy of the ofce itself can come into question. 96. Legitimacy is a social construction in that it stems from the voluntary consent of the ruled to a given power structure. It cannot be seized by a person or group, but must be awarded by a given society or segment thereof, though rulers can engage in activities which augment or diminish the likelihood that the ruled will obey the rulers’ commands; cf. the discussion in Wrong, Power, 85–87. 97. Beetham, The Legitimation of Power, 57. 98. Reciprocity is a condition under which the ruled may confer certain rights and concrete privileges upon a ruler, such as a different economic status or the ability to make decisions on their behalf in exchange for other, usually less tangible benets, such as protection, the guarantee of fertility, or the enactment of justice. Cf. Henry Orenstein, “Assymetrical Reciprocity: A Contribution to the Theory of Political Legitimacy,” Current Anthropology 21 (1980): 69–91. 1

200

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

demonstration of consent on the part of those qualied to give it.99 These three strategies correspond to Beetham’s three elements of legitimation. Beetham’s concept of legitimacy may be protably applied to an analysis of Judg 9 in order to examine the narrative’s portrait of Abimelech’s short-lived rule in Shechem. First, according to Beetham, for power to be considered legitimate, it must conform to established “rules of power” (or must be acquired and exercised in accordance with established rules). These rules may be unwritten, informal conventions or they may consist of formal legal codes which originate either “externally,” such as from a transcendent divine source, from natural law or from laws of science, or they may originate “internally,” from either societal traditions in the past or current practices to which people give their assent.100 Conversely, power can be considered illegitimate when it is acquired through means that contravene socio-cultural conventions or is exercised in a way that is in breach of or exceeds these conventions.101 While a formal protocol for the accession of leaders to power is not evident in the book of Judges,102 Abimelech’s accession to the throne in Shechem does share some commonalities with other ancient Near Eastern conventions of kingship. His people acclaim Abimelech as king (9:6) in his capital city after the elimination of his rivals. The coronation likely takes place within the precincts of the temple of Baal-Berith,103 thereby bringing a (Baalistic) form of sacral sanction to his ascension (though not from the perspective of the narrator, cf. 8:33–34). As well, the concept of leadership succession from father to son was well known in the ancient Near East. Similarly, we saw above how Abimelech’s exercise of power in attempting to put down Gaal and his rebel followers falls within the 99. Beetham, The Legitimation of Power, 60. 100. Ibid., 71–76. 101. Ibid., 16. 102. While the narrative reects the interests of a monarchic context, there may be a number of reasons for the writer/compiler’s failure to include a fuller description of the “rules of power”: (1) for the sake of brevity; (2) in order to focus upon the negative aspects of Abimelech’s succession; (3) the writer/compiler was savvy enough to not include the full accoutrements of kingship in a description of the pre-monarchic era; (4) the “rules of power” for kingship had not yet been fully developed; (5) the narrator was attempting to illustrate the illegitimate rise of a Canaanite-style king. The third option seems to the most likely—the monarchic writer was concerned to lend enough credibility to the process and so show how Abimelech might have been accepted as king, but leaving enough out, so as to be careful not to give full legitimacy to his reign. In this manner, a writer in a monarchic context could still afrm the legitimacy of a current ruler’s position, while simultaneously illustrating the negative effects of a past, illegitimate leader. 103. See above, p. 78 n. 90. 1

5. The Social World(s) of Judges 9

201

expected duties of a king. In this way, Abimelech’s ascension to and exercise of power does exhibit a measure of legitimacy as it does conform in some measure to the conventions of kingship in the ancient Near East. However, we also saw previously the wide variety of “irregularities” in Abimelech’s acquisition of power in Shechem. In light of Beetham’s observations about the necessity of power holders to acquire and exercise power in accordance with the general conventions of a society, we may conclude that these irregularities would have suggested to the implied audience that Abimelech’s rise to power lacked full legitimacy. Furthermore, the pattern of leadership within the book of Judges itself could also function as another standard against which we might measure the degree of Abimelech’s conformity to the “rules of power” and therefore his legitimacy or illegitimacy from the standpoint of the compilers of the book of Judges. Key to legitimate forms of leadership in Judges is Yahweh’s sanction. The empowering of the Spirit of Yahweh (),104 and/or Yahweh’s raising up (, Hiphil) of a judge/deliverer105 evidences Yahweh’s initial sanction of a leader within a given narrative in Judges. The absence of these indicators in Judg 9, as well as the working of an “evil spirit” ( ) from God against Abimelech and the Shechemites in 9:23 suggest that, within the era portrayed in the book of Judges, Abimelech’s machinations occur without divine sanction, and thus illegitimately.106 Abimelech’s acceptance of seventy pieces silver from the temple of Baal-Berith in 9:4 further highlights his alignment with this deity. The juxtaposition of allegiance to Baal or Yahweh in the preceding Gideon narrative (Judg 6:25–32) as well as the explicitly negative comment in Judg 8:33 regarding Israel’s veneration of Baal-Berith suggest that, from the perspective of the implied author, Abimelech’s alignment with BaalBerith and not Yahweh means his reign does not carry Yahwistic sanction, and thus his reign does not conform to the “rules of power” inherent in the book of Judges. 104. Judg 3:10; 6:34; 11:29; 13:25; 14:6, 19; 15:14. 105. Judg 2:16, 18; 3:9, 15. The Deborah narrative (Judg 4–5) contains neither element, probably because she serves as a prophetess, and carries implicit divine sanction in accordance with that role. 106. See Beetham, The Legitimation of Power, 71. This is also highlighted by the complete absence of the name Yahweh from the story, while the more generic designation for Israel’s God () only occurs three times (Judg 9:23, 56, 57), each time in the context of a negative stance towards Abimelech. The name also occurs in Judg 9:7, 9, and 13. However, it is unclear whether the word refers to Israel’s God or the gods in general. 1

202

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

Beetham’s second criterion for legitimacy says that the “rules of power” must be justied by reference to beliefs shared by both the dominant and the subordinate. Such beliefs centre upon the conviction that the (political) power derives from a valid source, that the power is appropriately exercised, and that the power structure serves a recognizable general interest, rather than merely serving the interests of the powerful. The inverse to legitimate power occurs when an exercise of power cannot be justied on the basis of shared beliefs, when changes in belief take away the basis of the supporting convictions, or when changing circumstances make belief in the existing rules implausible, resulting in a legitimacy decit or weakness in legitimacy.107 It is Abimelech’s appeal to the Shechemites’ common interests that leads to their consideration of him as king. He asks the Shechemites to consider “What is better for you?,” pitting the rule of the seventy sons of Jerubbaal against the rule of one man, Abimelech, their own “bone and esh” (9:2). It is on this basis that Abimelech’s subsequent coronation moves forward. In addition, the decision to make Abimelech king has a second grounding point, which in the context of Judg 9 also points towards the justiability of choosing Abimelech as king. Abimelech is able to put himself forward as a viable candidate for leadership in Shechem because he is, whatever his technical legal status, a son of Jerubbaal. Judges 9 presumes that Jerubbaal exercised authority over the city of Shechem, whether as king or in some other form of leadership.108

107. Ibid., 17–18. 108. Cf. Judg 9:16–20, where Jotham suggests that Jerubbaal had incurred some sort of “debt of honour” with the Shechemites in the form of required allegiance. The status of Shechem vis-à-vis its relationship with Israel remains rather murky. The biblical record indicates that the Israelite patriarchs often sojourned near Shechem (Gen 12:6; 33:18–19; 34:1–31; 35:4; 37:12–14). Josh 20:7 indicates that Shechem was among the cities of refuge. Moses commanded Joshua to renew the covenant on Mt. Ebal and Mt. Gerizim (Deut 11:29; 27:4–8), within sight of Shechem. Josh 8:30–35 depicts Joshua building an altar upon Mt. Ebal to renew the covenant and again renewing the covenant at Shechem in Josh 24. Nowhere, however, do the biblical texts indicate the city’s subjugation or its incorporation into the Israelite tribal federation. This accords with the archaeological record, for archaeologists at Tell Balâtah (ancient Shechem) have found that the LBII city of Shechem continues into the early Iron Age (Wright, Shechem, 78; Campbell, Shechem III, 181). Opinion remains divided on Shechem’s status during the period of the Judges. John McKenzie proposes that, like Gibeon (Josh 10), Shechem accepted Yahwism and joined the Israelite tribal league, later extending a contract for protection to Gideon and his army (McKenzie, The World of the Judges, 137–39; cf. Reviv, “The Government of Shechem,” 256). Wood (“The Role of Shechem,” 245–56) suggests 1

5. The Social World(s) of Judges 9

203

This could suggest that, at least in part, the origins of Abimelech’s power may have been derived from a valid source—his father’s position of inuence—and so aided him as a candidate for leadership. It seems apparent that Abimelech’s power in Judg 9 was justied largely on the basis of his kinship connections. While Judg 9 initially suggests that Abimelech’s power came through kinship ties, the rest of the narrative calls this power source into question. Theologically, the intervention of God caused a falling out between Abimelech and the Shechemites, though the specic conditions that led to a shift in the Shechemites’ beliefs, and thus a legitimacy decit for Abimelech are not stated. Jotham’s fable (9:8–15) highlights both Abimelech’s unsuitability as king (via his alter-ego in the fable, the thorny tree), as well as the folly of Abimelech’s kinfolk in crowning their unworthy kinsman. Jotham’s interpretation of the fable in 9:16–20 also questions the legitimacy of reliance upon certain kinship relationships. Jotham contrasts the Shechemites’ lack of delity ( ) to Jerubbaal, a proven leader whose actions have brought concrete benets in the form of freedom from Midianite oppression to the Shechemites (9:16, 19), with their support of Abimelech, their “brother.” Such support will result in mutual destruction according to Jotham, illustrating the instability of alliances based upon questionable kinship alliances. Beetham also emphasizes the importance not only of a shared belief in an appropriate source of power, but also a belief in its proper exercise. The delegitimation of Abimelech’s exercise of power in Judg 9 becomes evident in the chapter’s emphasis upon Abimelech’s ruthlessness. Abimelech hires a band of “worthless and reckless men” (   ) who travel with him to Ophrah in 9:4, but the use of the third masculine singular () at the moment of slaughter (9:5) suggests that Abimelech himself actually kills each of his seventy brothers upon a single stone. Abimelech’s direct hand in the matter intimates his destructive capabilities. These capabilities come into full bloom during his destructive spree that ends with the obliteration of Shechem (9:45), all the men and women of the Tower of Shechem (9:49), and the attempted destruction of Thebez (9:52). As was noted, the city of Thebez does not

that Israel entered into a patron–client relationship with the king of Shechem, where Israel made use of its cultic sites for covenant ceremonies (Josh 8; 24) and, in return, they would then help the king of Shechem expand his territories. In any case, Judg 9:16–17 seems to assume Jerubbaal exercises some sort of authority over the city of Shechem. 1

204

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

have an easily recognizable connection to the city of Shechem, and so its attempted destruction appears gratuitous and without basis. Furthermore, the complete destruction of Shechem deprives Abimelech of the very seat of his own power, highlighting the results of such excesses. The inappropriateness of Abimelech’s exercise of power is also emphasized through his alter ego in Jotham’s fable. In the fable, the thorny tree invites the other trees to come seek shelter under his “shade” (9:15), a common ancient Near Eastern metaphor for a king’s protection of his subjects.109 But as the fable and its application go on to indicate, acceptance of such an offer from a questionable candidate may result in the destruction of those who seek “protection.” The complete destruction of both parties and their inability to maintain a common purpose indicate the (potential) aws and dangers of such localized power structures. Beetham’s third criterion of legitimacy emphasizes the need for consent by those qualied to give it in order for power to be considered legitimate. For Beetham, however, consent is not merely mental assent. Consent that confers legitimacy expresses itself in actions, often in the form of either participation in the selection of a leadership candidate or in a public ritual conrming that candidate’s authority. Consent aids in the establishment of legitimacy in that it carries a subjectively binding force that “ties in” the subordinates, as well as symbolic or declaratory force that visibly signies their support.110 Conversely, when consent is withdrawn, a leadership candidate’s authority is delegitimized.111 In Judg 9, the Shechemites’ consent is implied in the narrator’s comment that they “inclined their hearts to Abimelech” (9:3).112 This consent becomes explicit when they provide monies from the coffers of the Temple of Baal-Berith (9:4) to support Abimelech’s bid for kingship. Similarly, the presence of a wide spectrum of Shechemite society, including all the “lords of Shechem” and all Beth-Millo at Abimelech’s coronation when they join together to “make king” (, Hiphil) Abimelech (9:6), ties the Shechemites to Abimelech and implies their consent. 109. Oppenheim, “The Shadow of the King,” 7–11; cf. the instances cited in Younger, Judges, Ruth, 223 n. 20 and Assis, Self-Interest or Communal Interest, 148 n. 36; cf. also Lam 3:20; Ps 91:1. 110. It is helpful to note that legitimate authority carries with it a paradox, whereby submission to authority is seen as voluntary and by consent, but felt to be compulsory. Compliance may be viewed as voluntary by the collectivity of subordinates, yet perceived as compulsory by individual members (Wrong, Power, 50– 51). 111. Beetham, The Legitimation of Power, 18–20. 112. Cf. Josh 24:23; 2 Sam 19:15; 1 Kgs 8:58; Ps 119:36, 112. 1

5. The Social World(s) of Judges 9

205

Judges 9 does not explicitly narrate a subsequent withdrawal of this consent, though one can infer such a situation from the story. Judges 9:25 indicates that the lords of Shechem, who initially made Abimelech king (9:6), also set up ( ) ambushes on the hills around Shechem “against him” ().113 This is a direct challenge of Abimelech’s authority by the lords of Shechem. A more explicit withdrawal of consent is evident in the very next verse when the lords of Shechem put their “trust” ( ) in Gaal (9:26) instead of Abimelech. Such trust carries connotations of “nding security in” someone or something,114 indicating a lack of trust, or security, in Abimelech. The same lords of Shechem who made Abimelech king ironically seek protection from him in the person of Gaal. When Gaal and Abimelech nally meet in a head-to-head confrontation on the battleeld, the lords of Shechem indicate their realigned support by marching out to battle with Gaal, against Abimelech (9:39). A further indication of the Shechemites’ withdrawal of consent may be found in Judg 9:27, where they belittle () Abimelech. Bruce Lincoln’s study of legitimate authority points to the role of corrosive discourse in undermining legitimate authority. Corrosive speech, such as rumour, sarcasm, mockery, lampoon, and curses, works at undermining an audience’s regard for an individual or group. When an audience becomes irreverent, authority begins to crumble.115 This portrayal of the Shechemites’ withdrawal of consent indicates that Abimelech’s reign no longer has legitimacy, not just in the eyes of the narrator, but also in the eyes of the Shechemites. When we examine Beetham’s three components of legitimacy together, we see that the description of Abimelech’s ascension to power does conform in some ways to ancient Near Eastern expectations for legitimate kingship. Similarly, the Shechemites (at least initially) believed Abimelech’s elevation to power to be in their mutual interest, and the narrative also gives indication of their consent. This rudimentary degree of legitimacy allows the implied audience to enter into the story and 113. This is an example of the lamed of disadvantage (dativus incommodi), HALOT 1:508–9; also IBHS 11.2.10d. 114. The verb  can carry the sense of “nding security in,” as in the following examples: 2 Kgs 19:10/Isa 30:12; 37:10; 47:10; Jer 5:17; Pss 52:9; 115:8–11; 118:8. Such “trust” suggests that the lords of Shechem now seek security or protection from Gaal. He too, like Abimelech’s alter ego in Jotham’s fable, offers his protective services to the Shechemites (9:29), but fails miserably in this regard (9:39–41). 115. Bruce Lincoln, Authority: Construction and Corrosion (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), 78–79. 1

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

206

builds enough common ground to facilitate comparisons with other fully legitimate versions of kingship. However, even though Abimelech attains a minimal veneer of legitimacy, the rest of the account quickly underscores the overall illegitimacy of his power. Abimelech’s kingship does not carry Yahwistic sanction. He attempts to ground his rise to kingship in the interests of his subordinates, but when they turn against him, his own interests in retaliation and restoring his own honour overcome any thought for his subordinates’ protection or well-being. Similarly, the Shechemites’ withdrawal of consent leaves Abimelech without legitimacy in the eyes of the implied readers. When taken as a whole, these elements suggest that the implied author of Judg 9 was attempting to persuade his audience of the illegitimacy of Abimelech’s rise and rule as king in Shechem. 2. Social-Scientic Analysis of the World of the Implied Author a. Abimelech as Illegitimate Local Ruler In light of the attempt to delegitimate Abimelech in the story world of Judg 9, a number of questions arise: Whose interests would such a story serve? Why would someone tell a story about an illegitimate king in Israel’s pre-monarchic period? Who would be interested in telling such a story and why? In order to answer these questions, we must now begin to move into the world of the implied author to see how the story world depicted in Judg 9 might serve the interests of the implied author. We noted above that elements of the story world not only serve to further the narrative artistry of the story, but also point to the rhetorical interests of the implied author.116 These rhetorical interests have an argumentative context, in which the implied author and his audience participate. A social-scientic analysis can aid us in examining the sociocultural setting of this argumentative context, and so explore the world of the implied author. There are several elements within the story world that overlap with the world of the implied author. First, the rhetorical analysis briey noted that the story world of Judg 9 depicts Abimelech’s kingship as regional in scope.117 The geographical extent of Abimelech’s sphere of inuence is not known, but Abimelech himself seems to reside in Arumah (9:41), generally identied with Khirbet el-‘Ormah, ve miles southeast of

116. 117. 1

Cf. pp. 165–67. Cf. p. 169.

5. The Social World(s) of Judges 9

207

Shechem.118 The location of Ophrah (9:5) has not been determined with certainty, but may be identied with modern ‘Affuleh in the Jezreel Valley,119 and Thebez is often identied with modern Tubas (nine miles north-east of Shechem), though Aharoni holds that it reects a corrupted spelling of Tirzah (Tell el-Far‘ah—six miles north-east of Shechem).120 The geographical reach of Abimelech’s sphere of inuence is thus restricted to a relatively small area in central Manasseh. The regional nature of Abimelech’s activities also comports well with the regional spheres of inuence related in the other judge/deliverer narratives in Judges.121 The strongest evidence against a regional understanding of Abimelech’s kingship are the two narratorial observations mentioning Abimelech’s three-year rule over Israel (       ) in Judg 9:22, and that the men of Israel (  ) returned to their homes after Abimelech’s death in Judg 9:55. We shall examine Judg 9:55 rst. The mention of the “men of Israel” as Abimelech’s accomplices in the attack on Thebez initially seems out of place in a narrative where the only implicit Israelite presence up to this point has been Abimelech, who is obliquely described as half-Israelite and half-Shechemite (9:1; cf. 8:30–31). V. Zapletal suggests that the mention of the “men of Israel” functions to place Abimelech’s rule over “all Israel.”122 However, in light of the regional scope of the other judges, the more likely view is that the narrator envisioned members of the local Israelite population joining

118. Henry O. Thompson, “Arumah,” ABD 1:467–68. 119. Aharoni, The Land of the Bible, 263; cf. J. M. Hamilton, “Ophrah,” ABD 5:27–28; Block, Judges, Ruth, 258. 120. Aharoni, The Land of the Bible, 263–65; also Boling, Judges, 182; cf. Elmer Dyck (“Thebez,” ABD 6:443), who locates Tubas thirteen miles north-east of Shechem. 121. The reach of Deborah’s inuence extends the furthest, for she lives in southern Ephraim (4:4–5), where she “judged Israel” (4:4). Deborah’s inuence is such that she is able to summon Barak from Kedesh in Naphtali, north of Hazor. She travels with him to Kedesh to muster Zebulun and Naphtali, before travelling south to the region of Mt. Tabor and the Kishon River (Judg 4:12–13). Furthermore, the expectation is that at least ten of the tribes should have participated in the battle against Sisera: Naphtali, Zebulun, Ephraim, Benjamin, Reuben, Dan, Makir (= Manasseh); Gilead (= Gad); Asher, Issachar (5:13–18). However, the conict itself seems to be conned to the region near Mt. Tabor and the Kishon, and not all of the tribes participate. The activities of the other judges/deliverers seem to be largely localized, and involve no more than ve tribes (Manasseh, Asher, Zebulun and Naphtali [6:35] while Ephraim refuses to get involved [7:24–25]). 122. Zapletal, Das Buch Der Richter, 162. 1

208

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

Abimelech in an attack against their Canaanite rivals.123 This possibility is heightened by Hayim Tadmor’s observation that in texts describing early Israel, “men of Israel” refers to a small military group that represents the larger whole. This is consistent with other instances at Mari and in Israel itself, where a small representative sample may stand in place of the whole.124 Thus, the reference to the “men of Israel” likely functions as a reference to a select, representative group of Israelite ghters who join Abimelech in attacking Thebez, and not a coordinated inter-tribal action. The description of Abimelech’s three-year reign over Israel in Judg 9:22 also need not impugn our understanding of the regional scope of Abimelech’s operations. This verse has sometimes been attributed to the hand of the Deuteronomist,125 but it is better understood as a synecdoche, where Abimelech’s negative actions in Shechem, from the perspective of the narrator, are seen to impact the whole of Israel.126 When understood this way, the two references to “Israel” in the Abimelech narrative do not contradict the regional nature of Abimelech’s kingship. We may then ask why the implied author would be interested in portraying this local leader as having national scope and impact. How might these references function within the world of the implied author? Second, the analysis of the story world of Judg 9 above noted a particular emphasis in delegitimating Abimelech. The implied author told the story of Abimelech in such a way as to illustrate the illegitimacy of Abimelech’s rise, reign, and demise within the context of the story world of Judg 9. This goal has an important effect in the world of the implied author and his audience—it delegitimates him in their eyes as well. Thus, we may ask, under what circumstances and in what type of social setting would someone want to delegitimate a local “king” like Abimelech in the eyes of his audience? 123. Cf. Moore, Commentary on Judges, 268–69; Burney, The Book of Judges, 289. 124. Hayim Tadmor, “Traditional Institutions and the Monarchy: Social and Political Tensions in the Time of David and Solomon,” in Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays (ed. Tomoo Ishida; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1982), 242–43, and n. 14; cf. also 8:22. Tadmor also mentions the “men of Qa” at Mari, who are military representatives of a larger whole, and the elders in Judg 11:11 and 2 Sam 5:3 acting on behalf of the whole nation. 125. Gray, Joshua, Judges, and Ruth, 321; Veijola, Das Königtum, 107. 126. Cf. Judg 3:13–14, where Eglon’s possession of Jericho is viewed as an eighteen-year oppression of “the Israelites” though his incursion barely penetrates past the western bank of the Jordan. Similarly, Samson begins the deliverance of “Israel” from the hand of the Philistines (13:5) and leads “Israel” (15:20; 16:31), yet his activities are conned the Shephelah and the region of the Philistine pentapolis. 1

5. The Social World(s) of Judges 9

209

A third element of the story world that overlaps with the world of the implied author is the emphasis upon kinship relationships, evident in the repetition of kinship terminology throughout Judg 9. The story world emphasized Abimelech’s utilization of his kinship connections in Shechem to secure his throne while simultaneously distancing himself from his Ophrahite kin (9:1–6, 17–18, 23–24, 56–57). Such reliance upon local kinship structures, however, proved not to serve as a stable platform for power in Judg 9, and eventually resulted in the divine instigation of the mutual destruction of both ruler and ruled. We may again ask whose interests would be served in undermining the importance of local kinship ties as a basis for power. Under what circumstances might an implied author seek to depict the use of such a fundamental institution in such a subversive manner? When taken together, each of these overlapping elements serve in some way to question the legitimacy of Abimelech’s reign as king in Shechem. David Beetham observes that studies on legitimacy have tended to focus upon the ongoing process of legitimation, rather than its origins. He points out, “To say that the study of origins is less important, however, is not to say that stories about origins may not have a crucial part to play in legitimation… Therefore, who tells them, or who controls their telling, is of great consequence… Historical accounts are signicant and contentious precisely because of their relationship to the legitimacy of power in the present, and because of their contribution to disputes about it.”127 Thus, in order to ask about the world of the implied author of Judg 9, we must ask who might be interested in delegitimizing Abimelech and the Shechemites in this way. b. The Sitz im Leben of the World of the Implied Author An exploration of the world of the implied author can begin by recalling that the rhetorical situation of Judg 9 pointed to a time when kinship, kingship, and the choice of local leadership as inuencing national concerns were an issue in ancient Israel.128 Within a monarchic milieu, there are several possible contexts in which these concerns may have surfaced. Among the reforms of Josiah was an attempt to centralize worship in Jerusalem by eliminating the various local high places scattered throughout the land, thereby putting local priests out of work (2 Kgs 23:8–9). He even tore down Jeroboam’s altar in Bethel (23:15) and the surrounding area (23:19). Thus, one of the effects of Josiah’s 127. Beetham, The Legitimation of Power, 103. 128. Cf. the discussion above (pp. 167–73) of the rhetorical situation presupposed by Judg 9. 1

210

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

reforms was to subvert local religious institutions and loyalties in an attempt to transfer them towards a renewed nationalized centre.129 The emphasis in Judg 9 upon delegitimating local leadership and to some extent the local deity at Shechem, in favour of God’s efcacy, could lend itself well to the interests of Josiah. However, the Josiah narrative did not evidence any rhetorical links to Judg 9, nor did we nd any strong analogical parallels after the period of the early Divided Monarchy in our examination of the rhetorical situation implied by Judg 9. Furthermore, 2 Kgs 22–23 does not display an overt interest in kinship relationships or an emphasis on their instability.130 As a result, while Judg 9 may comport with some of the larger interests of the Josianic period, there are other periods during the monarchy that may provide a closer “t.” Another possible candidate for the setting of the implied author of Judg 9 is the period of the United Monarchy. Signicantly, an analysis of the rhetorical situation of Judg 9 noted that the greatest number of analogies stemmed from the biblical description of this period. The biblical text relates the memory of several local rebellions in this period as having national signicance. The rebellion of Absalom (2 Sam 15:1– 18:33) resulted in inter-tribal warfare (1 Sam 18:1–8), while the rebellion of Sheba the Benjaminite (2 Sam 20:1–22) is described as dividing the nation. Note also the resentment against David expressed by Shimei, who was a Benjaminite loyal to the house of Saul (2 Sam 16:5–13)131 as

129. Cf. Lowery, The Reforming Kings, 200–215. 130. The reforms of Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18–20) present similar concerns in terms of a possible context for Judg 9. Guillaume (Waiting for Josiah, 55–74) proposes that Judg 9 was written at Bethel shortly after Sennacherib’s invasion as part of a pro-Assyrian “Book of Saviours.” However, see the discussion below for difculties with this hypothesis. 131. The rhetorical analysis in Chapter 4 noted a number of analogies to King Saul. Dragga (“In the Shadow of the Judges,” 39–46) has noted multiple analogies between Saul and the deliverers of the book of Judges, proposing that the Saul stories have been shaped in light of these narratives to show how Saul fails to live up to the standards of even the judges. Similarly, O’Connell (The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 344) noted many other analogies with Saul and held that the book of Judges was written to idealize Davidic, Judahite kingship at the expense of Saul, suggesting a rhetorical setting early in the United Monarchy. Thus, the “anti-Saul” polemic ts well with the interests of the Early United Monarchy; cf. P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., “The Apology of David,” JBL 99 (1980): 489–504. For an additional, post-exilic context containing possible anti-Saul polemic, see Yairah Amit, “The Saul Polemic in the Persian Period,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period (ed. Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 647–61. 1

5. The Social World(s) of Judges 9

211

well as the questions about the loyalty of Mephibosheth, Jonathan’s son (2 Sam 19:24–30). The reinstatement of David after Absalom’s rebellion belies tensions between national concerns and local kinship ties (2 Sam 19:41–43), as do the inter-tribal tensions described in 2 Sam 21:1–9. These multiple localized rebellions may have served as a backdrop against which an implied audience may have heard the story of a localized leader setting himself up as king in Shechem. The description of the period of the early Divided Monarchy described in 1 Kgs 12–14 may also serve as a potential candidate for the setting of the concerns expressed in Judg 9. The biblical portrayal of this period suggests that Israel still exercised an ability to choose its leadership at this time. The kinship tensions during the United Monarchy continued to simmer until they nally boiled over in the schism at Shechem (1 Kgs 12). It is at Shechem that the ten northern tribes called an assembly to “make [Jeroboam] king” (, 1 Kgs 12:20), the same place that Abimelech is “made king” (, Judg 9:6). In this way, the city is linked with the dissolution of the tribal union. The city of Shechem, which gured so prominently in Judg 9 as the location of Abimelech’s illegitimate rise and reign, was also the initial capital city of “upstart” Jeroboam and the ten northern tribes of Israel. Indeed, Jeroboam is remembered as the king who rebuilt Shechem (1 Kgs 12:25; cf. Judg 9:45) and ruled from there for a short time. As a result of Jeroboam’s religious improprieties, Yahweh promises to burn (with anger?) against Jeroboam and destroy his family (1 Kgs 14:10; cf. the destruction of Abimelech and his family though “re,” Judg 9:15, 20, 45, 49), though border skirmishes between these two factions became a xture of the schism (1 Kgs 14:30; cf. the schism between Abimelech and the Shechemites and its resultant warfare, Judg 9:34–49).132 These memories of the early period in Israel’s experience of the monarchy comport with the major interests exhibited in the story world of Judg 9. Thus, the early state period may then serve as a potential backdrop against which to investigate the interests of the implied author. c. The Delegitimation of Local Leaders in Early State Contexts It is particularly here that another social-scientic model of legitimation might prove useful in investigating the concerns of the implied author against the backdrop of Israel’s early experience of the monarchy.

132. Irwin, “Not Just Any King,” also notes rhetorical links with this period in Israel’s history, though he places the composition of Judg 9 in the post-exilic period. However, note the discussion above, p. 51. 1

212

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

Anthropological studies that examine early and developing states have noted the particular importance of legitimation in establishing the ideology of the state.133 Though there is overlap between state and pre-state legitimation strategies and concerns,134 early states in particular must expend a great deal of energy in legitimating the new form of polity represented by the state. They must show how they are in continuity with the past and how the developing power differential between local and national leaders is justied, particularly for local power-holders who must give up some power in the new context of a state. In addition, early states must justify a new form of centralized political power. Indeed, one of the greatest challenges for new states is to transfer loyalty and authority from local levels to a centralized government.135 Legitimation in this context is particularly crucial because local loyalties will pull groups away from state interests in pursuit of their own interests, seeking their own advantage, unless they can be convinced of the benets of remaining in allegiance with the national polity. These conditions carry a number of similarities with the ndings above about the interests of the implied author of Judg 9 in attempting to delegitimate Abimelech as local leader. Thus, the role of legitimation in early states warrants further consideration in examining the interests of the implied author exhibited in Judg 9. Anthropological studies by Ronald Cohen and Donald Kurtz on the role of legitimation in state formation point out that the conguration of the relationship between central ruler and local leaders is particularly important among early and developing states. Cohen and Kurtz have shown that one of the distinguishing characteristics of a state (as opposed to a chiefdom136) is the ability of a state to prevent ssioning.137 Fissioning 133. Claessen and Skalník, “Ubi sumus?,” 475–80; Henri J. M. Claessen and Jarich G. Oosten, “Introduction,” in Claessen and Oosten, Ideology and the Formation of Early States, 1–2. 134. Claessen and Skalník, “Ubi sumus?,” 479. 135. Donald V. Kurtz, “Cultural Identity, Politics and Legitimation in State Formation,” in Pivot Politics: Changing Cultural Identities in Early State Formation Process (ed. Martin Van Bakel, Renée Hagesteijn, and Pieter van de Velde; Amsterdam: Het Spinhius, 1994), 37. 136. The process of “cycling” in paramount chiefdoms described by Heffelnger (“‘My Father is King,’ ” 283–84) would t well with the process of ssioning described by Cohen and Kurtz below. 137. Cohen, “State Origins,” 35–36, and “Evolution, Fission, and the Early State,” 87; Kurtz, “The Legitimation of the Aztec State,” 170, 186; “Strategies of Legitimation and the Aztec State,” 148–49; and Political Anthropology, 61; Kurtz with Showman, “The Legitimation of Early Inchoate States,” 179; cf. Claessen and Skalník, “The Early State,” 639, 645. 1

5. The Social World(s) of Judges 9

213

is the tendency inherent within political systems to break up and form other similar units in response to conicts over such resources as land, and from disputes over issues such as succession. Thus, a local population will at times work against the goals of a state in its attempts to retain autonomy and authority via attempts to resolve its disputes independently of state apparatus, through participation in local kin-based military units, through support for local political ofcials or through the propitiation of local deities.138 As a result, local centres of power often compete with the state’s attempts to centralize power. The fact that loyalties often lie with familiar local leaders rather than with distant, invisible leaders exacerbates this situation.139 Consequently, “Legitimacy is the result of a dialectical process, legitimation, by which leaders try to resolve the contradictions between more diffuse sources of authority at the local level and the more centralized and independent authority to which leaders aspire.”140 While this may be accomplished by brute force, a more efcient means occurs when a polity attempts “to subvert local sources of authority and to shift alliances and the support of the population to the structures and values they are attempting to establish. Since social institutions provide the fulcrum at which the state and local levels articulate, state functionaries attempt to acquire control of these institutions and mobilize them in the service of their legitimacy.”141 This processual model is different from, though not incompatible with, a Weberian ideal-type model.142 While Weber’s model focuses upon the structuring of social relationships and the means to legitimate relationships of power, a processual model for the development of states can offer points of comparison for a different set of questions.143 A processual model based upon cross-cultural comparisons of the phases through which pre-industrial states may pass over time can shed light upon issues 138. Kurtz, “The Legitimation of Early Inchoate States,” 181–82. 139. Henri J. M. Claessen, “The Internal Dynamics of the Early State,” Current Anthropology 25 (1984): 369. 140. Kurtz, Political Anthropology, 60–61 (emphasis Kurtz’s). 141. Kurtz, “The Legitimation of Early Inchoate States,” 181–82. 142. Cf. Schäfer-Lichtenberger, “Sociological and Biblical Views,” 78–105 (86–89). 143. This is part of the nature of utilizing “ideal-types.” Ideal-types are not exhaustive theoretical systems or reconstructions of empirical reality, but are an idealized, abstracted model of reality, constructed from select factors in order to facilitate comparison and explicate social factors of a given society. As a result, ideal-types are useful to the extent they help explicate social realia in a given society. See Brennan, Max Weber, 20–25; Breiner, “Ideal-Types,” 89–116. 1

214

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

such as what sorts of priorities are reected in the ideology of early states as opposed to more mature states. A growing consensus describes the political organization reected in Judges and parts of 1 Samuel using the rubric of chiefdom144 or complex chiefdom,145 based in part upon Elman Service’s evolutionary typology, which sees societies developing from tribes to chiefdoms to states.146 Social- and ethno-anthropologists have expanded Service’s typology in order to reect a more nuanced understanding of the transition from chiefdom to state. Thus, social anthropologists typically differentiate between primary and secondary state development.147 Primary or pristine state development occurs in contexts where the process leading to the development of the state occurs indigenously, free from the inuence of outside models or examples. Secondary states are those that have been inuenced by surrounding states in the process of their political development. Ancient Israel ts this second description (cf. 1 Sam 8:5). The work of Cohen and Kurtz is strongly inuenced by the research of Henri Claessen and Peter Skalník. Two volumes by Claessen and Skalník, using Murdock and White’s “standard world sample,” examined the development of pre-modern states from diverse geographical areas and temporal periods, and attempted to classify the stages through which these developing states progressed. They proposed that the early states they examined typically progressed through the following developmental stages: (1) inchoate state, (2) typical state, and (3) transitional state.148 Claessen and Skalník’s typology has been inuential among biblical scholars attempting to examine the transition to statehood recounted in 144. Flanagan, “Chiefs in Israel,” 47–73, and David’s Social Drama: A Hologram of Israel’s Early Iron Age (SWBAS 7; Shefeld: Almond, 1988); Frick, The Formation of the State in Ancient Israel, 76–98, and “Social Science Methods and Theories of Signicance for the Study of the Israelite Monarchy: A Critical Review Essay,” Semeia 37 (1986): 9–52 (17–26). 145. Miller, Chieftains of the Highland Clans; Heffelnger, “ ‘My Father is King,’ ” 277–92. 146. Elman R. Service, Origins of the State and Civilization: The Process of Cultural Evolution (New York: W. W. Norton, 1975), 303–4. 147. Barbara Price, “Secondary State Formation: An Explanatory Model,” in Origins of the State: The Anthropology of Political Evolution (ed. Ronald Cohen and Elman R. Service; Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues, 1978), 161–86; cf. E. A. Knauf, “The Cultural Impact of Secondary State Formation: The Cases of the Edomites and the Moabites,” in Early Edom and Moab: The Beginning of the Iron Age in Southern Jordan (ed. P. Bienkowski; Shefeld: J. R. Collis, 1992), 47–54. 148. Claessen and Skalník, “Models and Reality,” 637–50, and “The Study of the State Conference in Retrospect,” 469–510. 1

5. The Social World(s) of Judges 9

215

the biblical texts and in the archaeological record. There is some disagreement, however, as to which king(s) brought Israel into full statehood.149 Several studies suggest that the biblical description of the monarchy towards the end of the tenth century largely reects the transition to mature statehood, though undoubtedly there was some reorganization that took place after the division of the United Monarchy, while others suggest that statehood was not reached until the eighth century.150 In part, the distinction between tribe and state, especially in ancient Israel, is complicated by the fact that tribal structures and ideology seems to have persisted into the “state” period of Israel’s history.151 In fact, tribal and state structures can overlap to a signicant degree, so that there can be a considerable amount of integration between the two types of structures.152 The difculty in pinpointing the exact moment of statehood signals caution in applying this model to ancient Israel, though it does not negate its use in pointing us towards a general time-frame or period

149. Cf. McNutt, Reconstructing the Society of Ancient Israel, 112–42. 150. Israel Finkelstein initially held that ancient Israel reached statehood by the time of Solomon’s reign; cf. his “The Emergence of the Monarchy in Israel,” 43–74. However, Finkelstein later rejected this position, positing that Israel did not become a state until the eighth century, following David Jamieson-Drake; see Finkelstein, “State Formation in Israel and Judah,” 35–52, and “City-States to States,” 75–83; cf. Pfoh, “Dealing with Tribes and States in Ancient Palestine,” 86–113, and David W. Jamieson-Drake, Scribes and Schools in Monarchic Judah: A Socio-Archaeological Approach (SWBAS 9; Shefeld: Almond, 1991). Ze’ev Herzog and Lily SingerAvitz (“Redening the Centre: The Emergence of State in Judah,” TA 31 [2004]: 209–44) propose that the archaeological record points in the direction of a two-stage development in the process of state formation during the Iron Age IIA that began in the tenth century and lasted into the early eighth century B.C.E.; cf. Alexander H. Joffe (“The Rise of Secondary States in the Iron Age Levant,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 45 [2002]: 425–67), who also suggests a gradual emergence of state structures beginning in the tenth century and lasting about two centuries. While state structures may have developed over time, the process does seem to have begun in the tenth century; cf. Avraham Faust, “Settlement Patterns and State Formation in Southern Samaria and the Archaeology of (a) Saul,” in Saul in Story and Tradition (ed. Carl Ehrlich and Marsha White; FAT 47; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 14–38. 151. Frith Lambert, “The Tribe/State Paradox in the Old Testament,” SJOT 8 (1994): 20–44. 152. Jeffrey Szuchman, “Integrating Approaches to Nomads, Tribes, and the State in the Ancient Near East,” in Nomads, Tribes, and the State in the Ancient Near East: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives (ed. Jeffrey Szuchman; The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Seminars 5; Chicago: University of Chicago, 2009), 5; cf. Kostiner, Middle East Monarchies, 2–3. 1

216

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

in Israel’s past when interests reected in Judg 9 may have been a current concern. Anthropological critiques also suggest the cautious use of Claessen and Skalník’s model. Philip Kohl, while admitting that such classication has some value, questioned the reduction of a complex process like the formation of a state to simplistic categories, pointing out that each state’s development is unique. Moreover, the formation of states also includes other transformations, such as the use of technology, which are not fully accounted for in processual models.153 Paul Roscoe pointed out that while societies may go through similar transitions, processual models must remain open to the actions of individual agents who impact social structures and institutions. Thus, he points out that models of social development must also allow for the actions of individuals as agents of change.154 Peter Skalník himself reassessed the model that he developed with Henri Claessen. Skalník struggled with the determinism inherent within the model described by him and Claessen. Skalník recognized that a variety of political organizations could fall under the category of “early,” though they do not develop into a state as we know it.155 He also noted that the concept of the state reects a later, Eurocentric understanding of political organization. Thus, Skalník presents a modied view of his understanding of early states, “The concept of the early state is theoretically implausible. Nevertheless, I was always prepared to admit that if it is understood as a broad category of non-modern forms of political centralization which usually does not develop into the modern state as we know it today, the category of the early state could be useful.”156 Claessen himself also responded to criticisms of his model’s assumptions about unilinear progression, though afrming much of its initial validity. Claessen’s modied thesis reects the core of his initial suggestion through accounting for greater diversity in the interaction of factors that spur the development of states.157 153. Kohl, “State Formation,” 27–34; cf. Yoffee (“Too Many Chiefs?,” 60–78), who points out that the transitions between tribe, chiefdom, and state are not always easily evident and that the development to statehood is not unilinear. 154. Roscoe, “Practice and Political Centralisation,” 111–40 (113–15). 155. Skalník, “Ideological and Symbolic Authority,” 84–98. 156. Ibid., 84. 157. Claessen presented an initial expansion of his thesis in Claessen, “The Internal Dynamics of the Early State,” 365–79, but with a more developed version appearing in Henri J. M. Claessen and Pieter van de Velde, “Sociopolitical Evolution as Complex Interaction,” in Development and Decline: The Evolution of Sociopolitical Organization (ed. Henri J. M. Claessen, Pieter van de Velde, and M. Estellie 1

5. The Social World(s) of Judges 9

217

A further consideration when utilizing Claessen and Skalník’s model in the context of the ancient Near East are the observations recorded in Philip Khoury and Joseph Kostiner’s collection of essays about state formation in Middle Eastern contexts. Khoury and Kostiner echo Skalník’s concern about Eurocentrism, pointing out how denitions of a state usually assume a bounded territory with a monopoly on authority. They show that Middle Eastern polities, with their tribal structures and loyalties, may exhibit some state-like qualities and yet remain heavily inuenced by kin-based, tribal realities, which tend to undercut centralizing tendencies. Consequently, centralizing tendencies may wax and wane depending upon a centralized ruler’s ability to form and maintain alliances. Moreover, they note that in Middle Eastern tribal contexts, the degree of legitimacy attained by a state depends upon a leader’s ability to legitimate his/her position not through a formal state ideology, but by forming and managing broad-based coalitions.158 Kostiner, in a subsequent publication, again pointed out that, structurally, Middle Eastern monarchies retained many of their tribal characteristics, such as an emphasis upon kinship loyalties. Consequently, monarchs wishing to centralize power needed to be adept at bargaining, negotiation, and forming personalized ad hoc arrangements as they helped various tribal factions to coalesce.159 Thus, in modern Middle Eastern tribal contexts, states must walk a delicate line between centralizing authority and distributing it between various tribes. This observation comports with Cohen and Kurtz’s observations about the desire

Smith; South Hadley, Mass.: Bergin & Garvey, 1985), 246–63. This revised version of Claessen’s model continues to prove useful in later social anthropological research; see Claessen and Oosten, “Introduction,” 1–23. Kristian Kristiansen (“Chiefdoms, States, and Systems of Social Evolution,” in Chiefdoms: Power, Economy, and Ideology [ed. Timothy Earle; School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991], 16–43) argues for the value of retaining evolutionary models such as that of Claessen and Skalník; cf. Kurtz (Political Anthropology, 176), who accepts the essential validity of Claessen’s paradigm, though he wishes to rene some of its aspects. Dmitri Bondarenko and Andrey Korotayev (“ ‘Early State’ in Cross-Cultural Perspective: A Statistical Reanalysis of Henri J. M. Claessen’s Database,” Cross Cultural Research 37 [2003]: 105–32) show how statistical analysis largely bears out Claessen and Skalník’s typology with the exception of the development of personal property as an indicator of the formation of states. 158. Khoury and Kostiner, “Introduction,” 18–19; cf. Richard Tapper, “Anthropologists, Historians, and Tribespeople on Tribe and State Formation in the Middle East,” in Khoury and Kostiner, eds., Tribes and State Formation, 65. 159. Kostiner, Middle East Monarchies, 4–5. 1

218

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

of early states to prevent local groups from breaking away from the centralizing attempts of the state and ssioning, though we may expect a greater emphasis upon alliance building and personal loyalty in a Middle Eastern context. Consequently, when adapting Claessen and Skalník’s model to the biblical materials, we must be cautious to place signicant weight upon the importance of alliance formation and maintenance as a key factor in legitimation along with awareness of inter-tribal struggles for power.160 With this theoretical foundation from political anthropology, we can return to the question of how Judg 9 reects the interests of the implied author. We noted above how the portrayal of Abimelech in Judg 9 attempts to convey the illegitimacy of Abimelech’s rise and reign. Moreover, the portrayal of Abimelech contains a number of supra-local references (9:22, 55), while still limiting and localizing the events of Judg 9 to Shechem and its immediate surroundings. These two references invite the audience to recognize the supra-local impact of regional power alliances such as the one between Abimelech and the Shechemites. Cohen and Kurtz’ research suggested that localized alliances within the context of a centralized monarchy, such as those of Abimelech, compete with a centralized government for power. From the perspective of an implied author writing within a centralized polity, the activities described in the Abimelech narrative as a whole exemplify the way in which localized power struggles may draw in and negatively affect other regions within the larger whole (cf. 9:22). Several examples of this reality may be evident in Judg 9. Abimelech commands his own personal army (in contrast to a standing army found in states), hired with seventy pieces of silver from the temple of BaalBerith (9:4). They aid in Abimelech’s personal feud with the rival seventy sons of Jerubbaal, traveling with him to the town of Ophrah to kill the sons of the Israelite hero Jerubbaal. At least four military units afliated with Abimelech also join in the destruction of cities within Israel’s borders (9:34). While the destruction of Shechem may be understood, from the perspective of the narrator, as repayment for the lack of delity to Jerubbaal (9:16, 19, 24), the attempted destruction of Thebez, which has no discernable connection with Shechem in the narrative, 160. W. G. Dever (“From Tribe to Nation: State Formation Processes in Ancient Israel,” in Nuove fondazioni nel Vicino Oriente Antico: Realta e ideological [ed. Stefania Mazzoni; Pisa: University of Pisa, 1994], 213–28, and “Archaeology, Urbanism, and the Rise of the Israelite State,” in Aufrecht, Mirau, and Gauley, eds., Urbanism in Antiquity, 172–93) also recognized the modifying effect that tribal inuences have upon state formation. 1

5. The Social World(s) of Judges 9

219

exemplies the excesses of such local warlords. They are a threat to social order and the well-being of the populace in general, for the objects of their rages cannot be predicted, causing collateral damage in innocent towns. Furthermore, the planting of ambuscades in the hills surrounding Shechem (9:25) would prove disruptive for caravans traveling through the region of Shechem, a vital transportation hub in the central highlands.161 Attacks on caravans could divert trafc to other, “safer,” routes and hamper the collection of taxes for “safe passage.” In a state context, the narrator’s reference to these ambushes after Jotham’s prediction of mutual destruction (9:20) sends a powerful rhetorical warning about the perils of co-opting a government’s prerogatives and interests for one’s own purposes. In addition, the veneration of local deities, which is implied in Judg 9:4, 46 and explicit in 9:27, stands in opposition to the interests of a centralized government seeking to standardize worship, for they may siphon tithes and tribute, diverting them for localized purposes (as in 9:4) rather than national interests. Judges 9, therefore, undercuts the ability of local deities to protect their adherents by depicting the complete destruction of all those who seek refuge in the temple of El-Berith (9:46–49). El-Berith’s inability to protect his devotees is thus made evident for the audience, thereby directing them away from the veneration of local deities, and implicitly pointing to the patron deity of the centralized government—Yahweh. Kurtz’s model suggests that centralized leaders in early states will attempt either to subvert or co-opt local institutions and redirect them to centralizing concerns. Judges 9 does not attempt to delegitimize the institution of local kinship ties, for it is fundamental to Israel’s social structure—but it does attempt to illustrate how such an institution, particularly when appealed to in contravention of typical social practice, can serve as an unstable source of support for those who may wish to seize power. The narrative initially portrays Abimelech’s kinsmen as fully supportive of his (illegitimate) seizure of power in Shechem (9:1– 3). While ubiquitous in the ancient Near Eastern world, kinship loyalties may at times stand at odds with loyalties to the centralizing interests of the state.162 Therefore, the perils for family members supporting such illegitimate seizures of power are emphasized in 9:16–20. Here, delity ( ) to a legitimate leader, Jerubbaal and his family, is said to result in 161. Cf. Dorsey, “Shechem and the Road Network,” 68. 162. For example, Sheba’s support of his kinsman Saul over and against the Judahite King David (2 Sam 20:1–6). 1

220

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

joy (9:16) for the people. By contrast, Jotham forecasts nothing but destruction for kinfolk who support an inadequate and unsuitable leader like Abimelech (9:20). Jotham’s forecast of mutual destruction quickly materializes when Abimelech turns upon his kinfolk and brings about the destruction of Shechem and all its inhabitants. This portrayal comes on the heels of Abimelech’s murder of seventy of his Ophrahite kinsmen (9:5), illustrating the ckle platform such bonds may provide when power is at stake. Such a portrayal warns of the perils of placing local kinship ties ahead of loyalty to a centralized monarch. Furthermore, kings do not stand outside of Israel’s kinship structure, but at its head. The king acted as national paterfamilias within a series of nested household structures.163 Thus, loyalty to the monarch and loyalty to local kin-groups may stand in opposition to each other, even though both relationships were envisaged in terms of kinship ties. Moreover, Judg 9 points to the potential pitfalls of such local coalitions. Not only do they lack sanction by the national patron deity, but the Shechemites’ lack of delity also intimates a lack of long-term support for such local leaders. Both sides are driven by selfinterest,164 which ultimately drives their coalition apart. Finally, Judg 9 emphasizes that local leaders such as Abimelech are not viable leaders whose power will benet the people. In the story world of Judg 9, the Shechemites trust in Gaal (9:26) after growing dissatised with Abimelech. Gaal boasts of his deep loyalty (9:28) to the Shechemites and his willingness to defend them against Abimelech (9:29). However, when it comes time to make good on his boasts, Gaal is at rst unwilling (9:38), and then unable (9:39–41), to follow through, showing him to be a loquacious braggart unable to deliver on his boasts. Gaal’s leadership localized in Shechem only results in the death of the Shechemites (9:40), as he fails to protect those loyal to him, despite initial boasts to the contrary. Similarly, Jotham’s fable raises the expectation that a king will protect his subjects (9:15), but instead Abimelech destroys his subjects (9:42–49). Indeed, as we have seen, Abimelech contravenes some accepted practices in warfare in order to do so, thereby further bringing into question the exercise of his power. Thus, none of the leadership candidates in Judg 9 bring benets to the people, arguing that these are the results one can expect from local coalitions. It is in this manner that Judg 9 reects the interests of a centralized polity and can be seen to undercut localized interests and institutions. Judges 9 illustrates the use of coalition building in order to establish 163. Stager, “The Patrimonial Kingdom of Solomon,” 70. Cf. Kostiner, Middle East Monarchies, 4. 164. Cf. Assis, Self-Interest or Communal Interest, 170–71. 1

5. The Social World(s) of Judges 9

221

power. However, these are localized coalitions that fall apart, not only because of the unworthiness of the pretenders for power, but also because of a lack of divine sanction for such local coalitions. Attempts at ssioning, as illustrated in Judg 9, result in the mutual destruction of both leader and people. The delegitimation of such local interests by illustrating the negative results of aligning oneself with such leaders, benets a centralized polity seeking to subvert local bases of power and directs them towards concerns more amenable to monarchic interests (cf. 9:22, 55). By delegitimating local “kings” such as Abimelech, a centralized polity can then utilize this negative example in order to legitimate its centralization of power. Early states in particular exhibit a strong need not only for legitimation, but also for legitimating their power at the expense of local leaders. The story of Abimelech and the Shechemites’ abuses of local kinship connections to further their own interests exemplify local leadership at its worst. Supporting local “kings” ultimately carries great danger. Such alliances are built upon illegitimate foundations, and so ultimately will fail. It is only legitimate (monarchic) leadership, which carries Yahweh’s sanction and which has both local and supra-local interests at heart that deserves the allegiance of local populations. In the context of an early state, an implied author could thereby make a strong case for the values of a centralized monarchy, particularly when faced with ongoing kinship loyalties that tended to pull the national coalition apart. Moreover, the context of the early state of Israel assumes that the people (or at least their representatives) still have some measure of choice in terms of leadership (1 Kgs 12; cf. Judg 9:2, 8–15, 16, 26). Thus, by delegitimating the choice of some local leaders, the implied author can then point the implied audience towards a better choice— centralized kingship. 3. Implications for Role of Judges 9 in the Book of Judges These ndings have some important implications for the study of the book of Judges. First, the interest in Judg 9 in delegitimating local leaders and their alliances with local populations in favour of centralized, monarchic structures means that Judg 9 should not be classied as antimonarchic literature. It certainly portrays a self-styled “king” (Abimelech) in a very negative light, but Abimelech’s “kingship” is restricted to only a small area and so functions as an example of local, self-styled kingship gone awry, rather than a condemnation of the monarchy in general. When viewed in this light, Judg 9 falls in line with the book 1

222

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

of Judges’ exploration of various modes of leadership.165 Each “major judge” ultimately serves as a local/regional leader who may impact various portions of Israel, but no one judge is able to unite all the tribes into a cohesive whole. In fact, the nal judge, Samson, only begins to deliver Israel (Judg 13:5), and, unlike the other deliverers, does not mobilize any tribal coalitions against Israel’s enemies. Moreover, as the book of Judges progresses, the deliverers grow increasingly ineffective, and increasingly oppress their own people.166 Thus, the entire book points to the limited success of the judges as an effective mode of leadership. By placing the story of an illegitimate local leader at the turning point of the book,167 the book of Judges leads its readers to the conclusion that local leadership ultimately will fail Israel. This sets the stage for the concluding refrain pointing to the value of a different type of leadership—national kingship (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25). Second, Abimelech’s ascension to kingship is often read as the antithesis of Gideon’s theologically motivated rejection of such a position (Judg 8:22–23). Indeed, while Abimelech oppresses his own people, Gideon delivers them, and while Abimelech lacks Yahwistic sanction, Gideon proceeds under Yahwistic direction (6:14, 25–26; 7:2–8, 9–10) and through divine inspiration (6:34). 165. Judg 1 explores a mode of leadership in which every tribe functions on its own, apart from a larger coalition. This mode of regional, tribal-level leadership does meet with a measure of success for some tribes (Judah and Simeon), but the diminishing ability to take full possession of the land in Judg 1 points towards the ultimate failure of this type of polity (cf. 2:1–3). Judg 2, then, introduces another mode of leadership—Yahweh-appointed judges (2:11–19). However, the audience already knows that this mode of leadership will ultimately not succeed (2:18–19). This leadership style fails at various levels, as seen in the progressive degeneration of the paradigm; cf. Exum, “The Centre Cannot Hold,” 410–31; Block, “The Period of the Judges,” 39–57. Abimelech, as a local, self-styled king without Yahwistic legitimacy serves as a third, undesirable, mode of leadership that Judges explores. The nal “mode” of leadership returns to the motif of “judgeless” leadership, but the resulting chaos leads to the conclusion that a new mode of leadership—nationalized kingship—is needed. 166. Gideon humiliates the elders of Succoth and leaves the people of Penuel defenceless against enemy attack (8:16–17); Abimelech murders his brothers and the Shechemites (Judg 9); Jephthah slaughters 42,000 Ephraimites (12:6); and a coalition of tribal Israel almost eradicates the Benjaminites (20:46). Thus, the absence of a leader of the national coalition results in increasing social disintegration within tribal Israel. 167. Gooding (“The Composition of the Book of Judges,” 75) argues that the Gideon/Abimelech narrative complex is the key turning point in the book; cf. J. Paul Tanner, “The Gideon Narrative as the Focal Point of Judges,” BibSac 149 (1992): 146–61. 1

5. The Social World(s) of Judges 9

223

However, Judg 8:24–32 suggests obliquely that Gideon may have indeed taken up kingly rule. Gideon also disrupts the social order by oppressing his own people (8:16–17) for failing to support his leadership. Gideon’s dedication to Yahweh is not whole-hearted, as he doubts the words of the divine messenger (three times—6:13, 15, 17; cf. 6:10), questions explicit divine instructions (6:36–40), only haltingly obeys Yahweh’s commands (6:27; 7:9–10), and leads Israel into idolatrous worship (8:27). Gideon is also a regional leader and not a national leader, for the description of his actions against the Midianites only includes the tribes of Manasseh, Asher, Zebulun, and Naphtali (6:35). Thus, even though Gideon is portrayed in a relatively positive light, and serves as a divinely sanctioned deliverer, this local leader was only able to bring temporary relief from foreign oppression (8:28) and led the people into religious apostasy by creating a local religious installation (8:27, 33). In this light, while Gideon’s portrayal fares much better than Abimelech’s, both can be seen as examples of local leaders who head local coalitions. A divinely appointed local deliverer such as Gideon is neither able to bring lasting freedom from external oppression nor maintain internal unity, and even oppresses elements within the larger tribal coalition. By placing the narratives of Gideon and Abimelech side-by-side, the implied audience can see that while local leadership has tremendous potential (e.g. Gideon’s defeat of the Midianites), it cannot bring the long-term stability necessary to establish lasting peace beyond the leader’s tenure, and it can even threaten social order through its unpredictable and selfserving applications of power. Moreover, such leaders may say that they acknowledge the ultimate kingship of God, but their actions belie their words. Third, W. Richter interpreted Judg 9 as the capstone of an anti-monarchic Book of Saviours (Retterbuch), in large part due to the negative portrayal of Abimelech’s kingship in Judg 9.168 P. Guillaume has recently presented a modied form of Richter’s Book of Saviours based upon a similar understanding of the role of Judg 9. Rather than Richter’s late ninth-century setting, Guillaume posits a setting in Bethel just after the Assyrian destruction of Israel. In support, he points towards possible Assyrian inuence by positing a hypothetical Syrian fable circulating as part of a collection of Syrian proverbs xed ca. 750–650 B.C.E., or possibly circulating independently, before incorporation into Judg 9 as “Jotham’s” fable.169 Similarly, he suggests that Judg 9:27 may include a 168. Richter, Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, 337–42. 169. Guillaume, Waiting for Josiah, 60–64. However, the proposed Syrian version is hypothetical and based upon an Aramaic proverb incorporated into the 1

224

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

reference to an Akitu festival based upon a LXXB reading, “They introduced [something] in the house of their god.”170 Guillaume points to a variety of ways in which Abimelech’s activities parallel the misdeeds of Israel’s kings, so that the story of Abimelech functions as a parody preguring the entire Israelite monarchy. Assyrian overlords ruling in Samaria (for Judg 9 pokes fun at all the Israelite petty kings), would have welcomed Judg 9. As the conclusion to the Book of Saviours, Judg 9 could not have been a call to overthrow these Assyrian overlords, but rather was a call for peaceful integration into the Assyrian empire.171 Guillaume’s position has some afnities with the ndings above in that both studies see Judg 9 as attempting to persuade its audience to integrate with the larger political structure of the time. Grammatically, however, Guillaume’s LXXB reading in support of an Assyrian Akitu festival in Judg 9:27 lacks an object as it now stands and so is suspect. Also, its lack of widespread attestation does not present a strong argument in its favour. Guillaume’s hypothesis about a Syrian proto-Jotham fable lacks similar support, as its existence is purely conjectural, requiring a shift in genre from Aramaic proverb to Hebrew fable. Moreover, Guillaume’s analogies between Abimelech and the kings of Israel must be tempered with positive analogies, such as David’s re-establishment of his throne in Jerusalem in 2 Sam 19:12–15 (cf. Abimelech’s attempt to establish his rule in Shechem, Judg 9:1–3). Thus, Guillaume’s evidence for Assyrian inuence in Judg 9 is unconvincing. Moreover, in considering a putative anti-monarchic Book of Saviours, it is important to note that all of the kings who are portrayed negatively (or their direct representatives, as in the case of Sisera) are foreigners.172 These negative portrayals serve as the foil for a relatively more positive portrayal of the Israelite judges. Thus, we might say the putative Book of Saviours is “anti-foreign monarchs,” but it is not anti-monarchic in general, and its label as anti-monarchic must then stem from the Gideon and Abimelech narratives. However, if the above proposal about the function of the Abimelech narrative holds, the anti-monarchic nature of Ahiqar story mentioning a thorn in conict with a pomegranate tree. The transposition of genres does not make for a strong parallel. He also points to a fable in Aesop’s collection, “Trees and the Olive,” as a later example of a fable possibly founded upon Jotham’s fable. 170. Ibid., 64–67. Instead of the MT    , the LXXB reads LBJ FJTIOFHLBO FJK PJ>LPO RFPV BVUXO. 171. Ibid., 69–72. 172. These kings include corpulent and gullible Eglon (3:17–23); Sisera, who is defeated by a woman (4:17–22); Jabin, king of Hazor (Judg 4:17); and Zeba and Zalmunna (8:4–21). 1

5. The Social World(s) of Judges 9

225

this identication falls by the wayside, and the Book of Saviours posited by Guillaume and Richter comes further into question. Finally, seeing Judg 9 as the delegitimation of local leadership has some implications for understanding the denouement of Judges (Judg 17–21). The repeated refrain at the end of the book noting the absence of a king (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25) has usually been interpreted as exhibiting a positive stance towards human kingship.173 When Judg 9 is read in light of the interests of early states in attempting to direct local leadership and institutions towards the goals of a state by delegitimating local interests, the interests of Judg 9 do not clash with the argument in Judg 17–21 for the values of a king. By undercutting the legitimacy of localized leaders such as Abimelech, Judg 9 can function to support the argument in Judg 17–21, which calls for a strong, centralized king. In contrast to Abimelech, whose rule is illegitimate from the start, and whose reign brings destruction, a legitimate, centralized king can bring order out of chaos and can protect the interests of those over whom he rules. Gregory Wong, in his excellent rhetorical study of the book of Judges, has argued that the reference to the absence of a king in Judg 17–21 should best be understood as a reference to Yahweh as opposed to a human king. Wong proffers this view based upon several observations: (1) several early passages portray Yahweh as king (Exod 15:18; Num 23:21; Deut 33:5); (2) the chaos of Judg 17–21 illustrates Israel’s failure to honour Yahweh as king (cf. the description of Israel in 2 Chr 15:3–6); (3) the phrase “everyone did what was right in their own eyes” ts with Deut 12:8 and illustrates the results of not doing what is right in Yahweh’s eyes; and (4) Yahweh’s role in the epilogue is greatly reduced, illustrating another result of doing right in one’s own eyes.174 In response, we might observe that Yahweh’s kingship does not necessarily rule out human kingship, for the ideology of Yahweh’s sacral legitimation of the monarchy is ubiquitous.175 In this ideology, the king was seen as Yahweh’s co-regent, so that human kingship does not 173. For example, Buber, The Kingship of God, 79–83; Cundall, “Judges— An Apology for the Monarchy?,” 180; Crüsemann, Der Widerstand gegen das Königtum, 162; Gerbrandt, Kingship According to the Deuteronomistic History, 135; O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 266. 174. Wong, Compositional Strategy, 212–23. 175. For example, Deut 17:14–20; 2 Sam 7; Ps 2, and other royal psalms (Pss 20; 21; 45). For a helpful summary, see Keith W. Whitelam, “Israelite Kingship: The Royal Ideology and Its Opponents,” in The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives (ed. R. E. Clements; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 119–39. Cf. Whitelam, “The Symbols of Power,” 166–73. 1

226

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

contradict divine kingship but serves as an extension of it. Furthermore, even with Yahweh’s grudging176 and limited involvement in Judg 17–21, his continued presence and limited activity (20:18, 23, 28, 35; 21:15) do not comport well with the plain sense of the phrase    — “there was no king in Israel.” The particle , normally used to express negation in the sense of non-existence or non-possession,177 is difcult if it refers to Yahweh’s kingship.178 The Israelites also continue to consult Yahweh in Judg 17–21, albeit with questionable motives, nominally acknowledging his leadership (20:18, 23, 27–28; 21:3, 5, 8). Furthermore, Wong’s appeal to 2 Chr 15:1–7 may point to the period of the judges, though this is not entirely clear. But this passage describes a general abandonment of Yahweh and not a rejection of his kingship.179 Thus, if the referent for this phrase is Yahweh, it is at best only a partial rejection.180 In addition to arguing that the absence of a king indicates a divine referent, Wong also argues against a human referent. In support, he points to Judg 9, which clearly refers to Abimelech as king, and the references to his rule over “Israel” imply that his reign was more extensive than just local rule.181 Moreover, Judg 9 portrays Abimelech’s reign as one of chaos and anarchy, which is hardly a positive picture of the value of a king. Indeed, analogies with Adoni-Bezek (Judg 1:5–7) suggest that Abimelech is depicted as “out-canaanizing” the Canaanites in

176. Wong (Compositional Strategy, 217) suggests that Yahweh’s involvement in Israel’s affairs in Judg 17–21 is “grudging at best.” 177. GKC § 152.l; Bill T. Arnold and John H. Choi, A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 4.4.1.a. 178. The phrase could be read to indicate there was no king at all (including Yahweh), but would be contradicted by Yahweh’s involvement in Judg 17–21. If, as Wong suggests, the issue is not treating Yahweh was king, it is curious that this was not expressed more directly. The grammar of this phrase does not lend itself well to Wong’s suggestion. 179. The phrase     , which suggests there was no “true God” for Israel (2 Chr 15:3), implies the worship of non-Yahwistic, and hence not truly Israelite deities (cf. the return to Yahweh, the God of Israel in 15:4), not the absence of the acknowledgment of Yahweh as king, while     implies the absence of a king, with no reference to deities. 180. The use of a similar phrase which notes the absence of leadership and the chaos that followed in order to legitimate the reign of Setnakhte also points towards the use of the phrase in Judges in reference to a human king. Cf. Greenspahn, “An Egyptian Parallel,” 129–30. 181. Wong, Compositional Strategy, 202–3, though see the arguments above for the use of this phrase in Judg 9. 1

5. The Social World(s) of Judges 9

227

his atrocities.182 However, given the depiction of Abimelech as a local warlord, this depiction may actually argue for the interests of a centralized state. The text depicts Abimelech as a local leader who sets himself up to be king, and by acting just like, if not worse than, the “Canaanite” kings, it illustrates the dangers of such petty, local “Canaanite-style” kings (as opposed to authentic Israelite kings, legitimated by Yahweh and with national interests at heart). Further, we noted above the narrative’s multiple depictions of Abimelech as an illegitimate king: his rise lacks sacral legitimation; it relies on the illegitimate use of kinship ties; his followers quickly withdrew their consent; and his actions revealed his unsuitability as king. Thus, while he acts as a “king,” Judg 9 makes clear that his kingship was not truly legitimate from the start, and the implied audience should not rightly view him as a true king. Judges 9 itself buttresses this conclusion through the various terms used to describe Abimelech’s reign. The Shechemites “make Abimelech” king () in Shechem (9:6). However, the narrator himself describes Abimelech’s reign over Israel using the term   (9:22), which is a denominative of  , the word used to describe Abimelech’s subordinate, Zebul’s, rule over Shechem ( , 9:30).183 This choice of terminology suggests the implied author ascribed a different status to Abimelech’s reign than the one envisioned by the Shechemites. The difference in status may be hinted at in the implied author’s juxtaposed description of Abimelech’s role and Zebul’s role as governor. The choice of the root  in 9:22 places Abimelech’s leadership at a similar level to that of Zebul, suggesting that Abimelech’s reign over Israel was also a subordinate, limited type of rule, rather than denoting national rule that extended to all Israel. Thus, Judg 9 as the depiction of the rise and fall of an illegitimate local leader does not contradict the refrain of Judg 17–21 remarking upon the absence of a king. When seen as the delegitimation of a local leader, it not only points out the dangers inherent in relying upon such a form of leadership, but it also would serve well the interests of a centralized state attempting to co-opt local interests for state purposes.

182. Ibid., 204–9. “Given that the only Israelite king found in the book is one whose embrace of Canaanized values and behaviour is exactly the problem that gave rise to the kind of depravity found in Gibeah, it is hard to see how the refrain can possibly be viewed as a recommendation of human kingship in Israel” (p. 209). 183. H. Niehr (“‡ ar,” TDOT 14:193) points out that the West Semitic  only rarely refers to a king, and most often points to a subordinate leader. Similarly, Niehr notes that the verb  appears only in Judg 9:22 in relation to the rule of a king. In all other instances, it refers to a subordinate level of leadership. 1

228

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

4. Summary To summarize, social-scientic studies examining the socio-cultural phenomena described in the story of Abimelech point to a variety of ways in which Abimelech’s actions either contravene or make questionable use of traditional mores in ancient Israelite society. The accumulation of these breaches of tradition leads readers to evaluate Abimelech’s words and actions negatively and suggest the illegitimacy of Abimelech’s kingship. When we apply the social-scientic model of legitimacy developed by David Beetham to Judg 9, we see that Abimelech’s rise to kingship includes a few elements that confer a small measure of legitimacy. However, many key aspects of legitimate rule normally associated with kingship were missing from the story. Beetham’s three key elements of legitimate power relationships were either absent or had been withdrawn by the end of the account, so that the narrative demonstrates not only the illegitimacy of Abimelech’s rule, but also his unsuitability for such a position of power. Furthermore, when we apply the insights of Cohen and Kurtz regarding the legitimating interests of new and developing states to concerns evident in Judg 9, we see that Abimelech’s brief kingship centred in Shechem may be viewed as an example of a localized attempt to seize power through an inappropriate coalition. States concerned with centralizing power must guard against such ssioning attempts. Thus, the delegitimation of Abimelech’s brief irtation with kingship is a powerful example of the destructive effects of such ssioning attempts, ultimately resulting in the mutual destruction of both ruler and ruled. A centralized monarchy could use this story to argue for the value of a coalition led by a centralized authority, which could benet both people and king. Therefore, when viewed in light of social-scientic studies on legitimacy, the portrait of Abimelech serves as a strong warning against local leaders who would seek to seize power and utilize it for themselves. Such leaders do not bring tangible benets, but rather bring mutual destruction for both them and their followers. Furthermore, Judg 9 cannot rightly be classied as antimonarchic literature, as is usually supposed. Its interests do not lie in critiquing the monarchy. Rather, its interests lie in delegitimating local leaders, and, by this negative example, pointing towards the values of a centralized monarchy.

1

Chapter 6

CONCLUSION

The story of Abimelech son of Jerubbaal and the Shechemites is a fascinating account of an illegitimate quest for power and the dangers inherent in supporting such a quest. Most interpreters rightly underline the narrative’s negative stance towards Abimelech’s kingship. However, as we have seen, this negative stance targets a particular form of rule. We have viewed Judg 9 through three different methodological lenses, which have highlighted diverse aspects of the story, and yet each method underscored the illegitimacy of Abimelech’s reign. When we combine these methodological approaches, they help us to see that the story of Abimelech and the Shechemites, while negative, serves to dissuade its implied audience from supporting local, self-styled kings, and through this negative analogy, argues for the values of a centralized polity. 1. The Contribution of Each Method The narrative analysis of Judg 9 brought to light the role of the plot structure. The story was set in motion in the Exposition (9:1–6) through Abimelech’s activities in securing his position as king in Shechem. The three-and-four structure of the fable (9:8–15) was used to point towards the threat of mutual destruction for those who back a questionable candidate for leadership. The modied use of the three-and-four structure in Jotham’s application of the fable (9:16–20) similarly illustrated the theme of mutual destruction, highlighting the close relationship between the fable and its application. This double use of the three-and-four structure in the Complication (9:7–22) was mirrored in the Unravelling (9:25–55), bringing the foreshadowed destruction to completion. The four Shechemite challenges to Abimelech’s authority (9:25–29) were matched by Abimelech’s four responses. As readers, we were not caught off guard by this development because the Change (9:23–24) pointed to God’s impending intervention in order to bring about retribution for the murder of the seventy sons of Jerubbaal, while the Ending (9:56–57)

230

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

conrmed God’s retribution upon both Abimelech and the Shechemites. Thus, the plot of Judg 9 hangs together well, drawing different aspects of the story together into a coherent whole. The narrative analysis also called attention to the key role of kinship ties throughout the narrative. Abimelech manipulated his maternal kinship ties in Shechem in order to ensure his bid for leadership (9:2–3). At the same time, he emphatically rejected his paternal kinship ties through the cold-blooded murder of his seventy brothers (9:5). The Shechemites also leaned upon their ties with Abimelech (9:3) at the expense of loyalty to Jerubbaal (9:16–18). Both Abimelech and the Shechemites, however, reneged on their initial alliance forged on kinship ties, illustrating the instability of such alliances as a platform for sustained leadership. While attention to the themes of retribution, kingship, and kinship are not new, we saw that each of these themes was integrated into the literary fabric of the whole chapter and that together they moved the story forward.1 Moreover, we saw that all three of these emphases work together to delegitimate Abimelech’s kingship. The rhetorical analysis of the Abimelech narrative illustrated how a story like Judg 9 can function to persuade an audience of the instability of coalitions relying upon questionable family associations instead of divinely sanctioned leaders. W. Bluedorn’s theological reading of the combined Gideon–Abimelech narratives posited that the theological theme of the Gideon narrative revolved around whether Baal really was god or not. If Baal could respond to Gideon’s destruction of his shrine, then he really was god (, Judg 6:31–32). Similarly, Bluedorn argued that Judg 9 revolved around the question of whether Yahweh was god () in relation to Abimelech’s usurpation of power.2 The 1. Contra Jans (Abimelech und sein Königtum, 458–63), who suggests that we must choose between kingship and retribution as the main theme of Judg 9 and advocates that only by recourse to diachronic methods can we adequately explain the presence of both of these themes within the whole chapter. Similarly, Steinberg (“Social Scientic Criticism,” 61–62) holds that Abimelech’s misstep was the misuse of kinship structures for personal advantage. 2. Bluedorn, Yahweh Versus Baalism, 50: “It is claimed that the Gideon– Abimelech narrative does not merely focus on YHWH’s kingship, his deliverance, his relationship with Israel, or retribution, but rather identies YHWH as Israel’s god instead of Baal and voices YHWH’s claim to be worshipped as god. In this context, the themes of deliverance, kingship, and retribution serve as minor themes within the theological topic, as the deliverance and kingship is attributed to YHWH and retribution is used to demonstrate that abandoning YHWH and worshipping other gods will rebound on the idolaters and lead to mutual destruction.” 1

6. Conclusion

231

rhetorical study also noted the importance of God’s work behind the scenes. Rhetorically, however, these actions were not in response to religious apostasy or a challenge to Yahweh’s role as Israel’s deity. The narrator’s shaping of the story at key moments (9:23–24, 56–57) suggested that God’s actions were in response to Abimelech and the Shechemites’ murderous actions rather than any challenge to his role or position as deity in Israel. Thus, in terms of the rhetorical impact and intent of Judg 9, Bluedorn overstates the importance of religious apostasy in the Abimelech narrative. The rhetorical analysis of Judg 9 also suggested that the rhetorical force of the passage focused on persuading the implied audience of the illegitimacy of the alliance between Abimelech and the Shechemites. The implied author accomplished this through a number of different, interrelated persuasive means. The absence of Yahweh’s sacral legitimation argued strongly against the legitimacy of Abimelech’s ascension to power, particularly when viewed against the backdrop of Yahweh’s empowering of the deliverers in Judges. Furthermore, we noted the conspicuous absence of a deity throughout most of the narrative,3 with the exception of Abimelech and the Shechemites’ association with BaalBerith (9:4, 6), which heightened the brief but poignant appearance of God to work against both Abimelech and the Shechemites (9:23–24, 56–57). The reference to God at these strategic points in the narrative presented a strong argument for God’s active opposition to those who misuse kinship ties to secure power. Jotham’s fable and its interpretation (9:8–15, 16–20) also argued for the illegitimacy of Abimelech’s alliance with the Shechemites. The rhetorical force of the fable fell upon the nal element, the offer of kingship to the thorny tree (9:14–15). Here, through the juxtaposition of shade (protection) and re (destruction), the fable issued a powerful warning about the destructive potential of the Shechemites’ choice of king. Jotham echoed this same warning in his application of the fable, but also indicted the Shechemites for their lack of delity (9:16–19). Jotham’s warnings came to fruition in 9:25–55 with the destruction of both Abimelech and the Shechemites. When coupled with the two references to God’s active intervention in the narrative (9:23–24, 56–57), Judg 9 not only emphasized the destructive potential of unions such as that of Abimelech and the Shechemites, but argued powerfully for God’s

3. Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist, 170–74, also notes the absence of Yahweh from the narrative, though, for Polzin, it signals narratively an increasing inability to distinguish between Israel’s own God and other gods. 1

232

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

direct action to thwart such illegitimate uses of local kinship ties. Thus, Judg 9 targets a particular kind of leadership (self-styled “kings”) rather than the monarchy per se. The analysis of the socio-cultural setting of Judg 9 built upon the interests discerned in the narrative and rhetorical analyses, pointing to a patrimonial context for Judg 9. Through this lens, we saw how the various social phenomena referenced in the text cumulatively pointed towards Abimelech’s consistent side-stepping of traditional mores, thereby indicating his illegitimate exercise of power. David Beetham’s denition and description of legitimacy and illegitimacy helped show how Abimelech’s rise lacked key components of legitimacy common across many cultures. An inquiry as to whose interests may have been served by delegitimizing a leader such as Abimelech and his association with the Shechemites suggested that early states were particularly concerned with delegitimating local leaders. Local leaders and their support groups tend to ssion, or break off from early states, and so early states attempt to co-opt local institutions and social structures in order to survive. In this light, it was suggested that Judg 9 could serve the interests of the monarchy by illustrating the perils of supporting local leaders and the alliances they forge, and in contrast point towards the benets of a centralized monarchy. 2. Combining the Sight Lines While each individual method shed its own unique light upon the interests reected in Judg 9, they also reinforced each other. This combining of “sight lines” is an important part of the multi-disciplinary process, for when we utilize one method of interpretation, certain aspects of Judg 9 may come to light. However, by combining the sight lines of Judg 9, we gain a fuller, more rounded appreciation of the interests and overall message communicated in the Abimelech narrative. Together, these various methodological approaches to Judg 9 show how the chapter can portray Abimelech and the Shechemites negatively and yet also serve the interests of a centralized monarchy. The impact of combining different methodological viewpoints of the same text can be seen when examining the use of kinship language and imagery in Judg 9. The narrative study illustrated how the story initially pitted Abimelech against his Ophrahite family in favour of his Shechemite kin in order to win his bid for kingship in Shechem, while the sociocultural study illustrated how this rejection breached general cultural norms in ancient Israel. Both methods illustrated how the narrative 1

6. Conclusion

233

denigrates Abimelech’s use of kinship structures. However, when combined, they point towards the important social ramications of Abimelech’s actions. From the standpoint of the implied author, this was not just a question of personal afliation with his mother’s family instead of his father’s family, or simply a political manoeuvre, for were Abimelech’s actions legitimated, they would challenge the social fabric of the day. Thus, his actions not only carry undesirable political ramications, but also threaten the social order. The chapter can then serve the political interests of a centralized monarchy attempting to further its political agenda while also speaking to the interests of the implied audience, for whom a stable social order is also desirable, though for different reasons.4 The structure of Judg 9 also stressed the culpability of both Abimelech and the Shechemites. The narrative analysis showed how the four descriptions of the Shechemites’ rebellious acts (9:25–29) were matched by Abimelech’s three acts of retribution against the Shechemites (9:30– 41, 42–45, 46–49), before a fourth attack against Thebez led to his downfall (9:50–54). This three-and-four structure for relating retribution mirrors the three-and-four structure of the fable (9:8–15) and its application (9:16–20), which announced the retribution upon both parties. The rhetoric of Judg 9 also accentuated the persuasive role of the narrator’s evaluations (9:24, 56–57), which argued for God’s role in bringing retribution upon both Abimelech and the Shechemites. These perspectives emphasized that retribution falls upon both Abimelech and the Shechemites. Commentators such as Boogart, Janzen, Webb, Jans, and Heller5 note that the theme of retribution includes both Abimelech and the Shechemites, but in practice focus mostly upon Abimelech. This skews the focus of the chapter towards the role of kingship and retribution against Abimelech without taking adequate account of the chapter’s focus upon mutual destruction and its indictment of both parties. Moreover, based upon our structural and rhetorical observations, God’s

4. Such interests may include the maintenance of patrilocal inheritance patterns for land and wealth disposition, the retention of structured protective associations, or simply the maintenance of community structure. 5. Boogaart, “Stone for Stone,” 45–56; Janzen, “A Certain Woman in the Rhetoric of Judges 9,” 33–37; Webb, The Book of Judges, 158–59; Jans, Abimelech und sein Königtum, 447, 458–59. Heller (“What is Abimelek Doing in Judges?,” 225–35) also notes the important theme of retribution, combining it with the theme of the oppression of Israel by foreign king in Judges. Within the book of Judges, Judg 9 acts as a critique of retribution theology, illustrating how God does not always punish evil and reward good. 1

234

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

retribution against both parties is central to the passage, for it is their alliance that precipitates God’s actions. This becomes even more evident when considered in light of anthropological observations about the importance of managing local coalitions and channelling them towards the centralizing interests for early states. Abimelech’s alliance with the Shechemites to secure power serves as a strong warning to both parties in a local coalition of the instability of such coalitions as well as the potential destruction that awaits participants in such alliances. One of the other areas where the combination of sight lines opened up new vistas on Judg 9 was in the understanding of the story’s delegitimation of Abimelech as king. An examination of the rhetoric of Judg 9 showed how the narrative attempted to persuade its readers of the illegitimacy of Abimelech’s kingship. Narrative analogies with other “Canaanite” kings illustrated the illegitimacy of Abimelech’s machinations to become king, as well as portraying him negatively while acting as king and in his death. However, this negative portrayal was tempered by the story’s attempts to persuade its implied audience of God’s actions in bringing retribution upon those who manipulate improper kinship alliances to secure power. The reach of Abimelech’s immediate power, however, did not extend very far, suggesting that the description of Abimelech as king was intended as a portrayal of a local or regional leader. Research from political anthropology pointed out that such negative portraits of local leaders could be used in the context of early states attempting to legitimate the centralization of power away from local leaders towards a centralized polity. State rulers attempting to solidify power do so by managing coalitions that suit their purposes. They also attempt to bend participation in local institutions (like local militia, local festivals, and the veneration of local deities) towards national concerns.6 Thus, it is in the context of the combination of these three methodologies that the depiction of Abimelech’s kingship in Judg 9 can best be understood as that of a local leader whose kingly pretensions result in mutual destruction. The combination of narrative and rhetorical analyses also helps us to appreciate the negative portrayal of Abimelech as king in Judg 9. The narrative portrait of Abimelech is indeed quite negative so as to persuade its audience of the dangers of this type of “king.” Not only do they lack divine sanction, but may even incur divine opposition and divine retribution. It is upon this basis that the story of Abimelech has been

6. Kurtz with Showman, “The Legitimation of Early Inchoate States,” 181–82; Kurtz, “Strategies of Legitimation and the Aztec State,” 155–58. 1

6. Conclusion

235

interpreted, in whole or in part, as a piece of anti-monarchic literature.7 However, we must also remember that the portrait of Abimelech is not completely negative. He initially acted as one might expect an ancient Near Eastern king to act in punishing rebellious subjects. His rise to kingship did contain some elements of legitimacy,8 for he obtained the consent of the people of Shechem (9:3, 6), justied (at least ostensibly) his rise on the basis of a common benet for both himself and the Shechemites (9:2), and his coronation included some of the common trappings of kingship (e.g. it occurs in or near the sanctuary of a deity [9:6]). Moreover, Abimelech’s destruction of the city of Shechem could explain the elimination of a Canaanite city-state within Israelite territory, and thus suit the perspective of the other judge/deliverer narratives, which also recount the neutralization of non-Israelites within the book of Judges (e.g. the neutralization of the city-state of Hazor in Judg 4 and 5). These considerations should caution us against too quickly casting Abimelech within a completely anti-monarchic mould. Furthermore, the rhetorical and social-scientic studies presented a plausible context in which the story of Abimelech and the Shechemites could actually have served the interests of a monarchy trying to delegitimize local leaders who form coalitions that work against centralizing interests. Thus, there is a much more complex dynamic involved in Judg 9 than has previously been acknowledged, and which has been harnessed to centralizing goals. When Judg 9 is viewed in light of its desire to delegitimate local leaders and how this message could serve well the interests of a centralized early state, the role of Judg 9 within the book of Judges becomes clearer. The narrative analysis showed that though Judg 8:22–23 is often understood to express antimonarchic sentiments, this reality is far from clear within the larger context of the chapter. Gideon’s afrmation of Yahweh’s kingship was contradicted by the narrator’s portrayal of Gideon’s king-like actions.9 This created ambiguity around the text’s actual message of the relationship between divine and human kingship,10 and so was not obviously anti-monarchic. When viewed alongside Judg 9 as

7. Three recent examples include: Karin Schöpin, “Jotham’s Speech and Fable,” 15, 20; Guillaume, Waiting for Josiah, 53–74; Assis, Self-Interest or Communal Interest, 244–45. 8. Cf. Beetham, The Legitimation of Power, 20. 9. This led Henton Davies (“Judges VIII 22–23”) to propose that Gideon tacitly accepted the offer of kingship. 10. The narrator’s always reliable voice carries more authority than a character’s speech or viewpoint. Cf. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 476–77; Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 116–17; Amit, Reading Biblical Narratives, 75–76. 1

236

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

functioning to serve the interests of a centralized monarchy, the ambiguity of Judg 8 becomes more understandable. The portrayal of Gideon in Judg 8 not only illustrates the general pattern of the gradual degeneration of the people and their deliverers in the book,11 but also points to the potential dangers inherent among such failed regional leaders. These deliverers may bring temporary relief from foreign oppression, but they do not lead the people back to Yahweh in repentance. Their words may point the people towards Yahweh (8:23), but their actions can also lead the people astray (8:27). This generally comports with the interests of Judg 9, so that neither the interests of Judg 8, or Judg 9 need contradict the interests of a centralized monarchy. When Judg 9 is understood as furthering the arguments for a centralized monarchy embodied in a human king, the relationship of Judg 9 (traditionally viewed as anti-monarchic) to Judg 17–21 (traditionally viewed as pro-monarchic) also comes into sharper focus. Both parts of the book of Judges illustrate the chaos that comes without proper leadership. Judg 9 illustrates the potential destruction brought about by a local leader who lacked legitimacy and based his efforts upon questionable alliances. Similarly, Judg 17–21 illustrates the chaos that comes without a centralized leader, and thereby argues for the values of a king.12 Furthermore, the theme of deteriorating kinship relationships in Judg 9 is part of a larger schema of degenerating kinship relationships at all levels of Israel’s social structure that runs throughout the book of Judges. This schema culminates in Judg 17–21, where, similar to Judg 9, Israelites not only threaten their fellow Israelites with violence (Judg 18:25), but where a household dispute (19:1) eventually leads to the rape (19:25) of a woman from another tribe, leading to the attempted annihilation of the Benjaminites by a tribal coalition of Israelites (20:46; 21:3).13 Abimelech’s murder of his kinsmen then develops a theme of degenerating

11. Cf. Daniel Block, “Will the Real Gideon Please Stand Up? Narrative Style and Intention in Judges 6–9,” JETS 40 (1997): 353–66, and “The Period of the Judges,” 41–57. 12. Cf. Exum, “The Centre Cannot Hold,” 410–31; Cundall, “Judges—An Apology for the Monarchy?,” 178–81; O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, 344; Sweeney, “Davidic Polemics in the Book of Judges,” 527–28. 13. According to Susan Niditch (“The ‘Sodomite’ Theme in Judges 19–20: Family, Community and Social Disintegration,” CBQ 44 [1982]: 371–72), “The author has traced a progression from trouble between a man and his wife, to a symbolically potent instance of trouble between anti-social Israelites and the man, which in turn leads to a massive civil war, the disintegration of Israelite society as a whole”. Cf. Niditch, Judges, 190–91. 1

6. Conclusion

237

kinship relationships that runs throughout the book of Judges.14 Thus, when Judg 9 is read in the proposed manner, the chapter’s role within the larger scope of the book of Judges becomes clearer, and illustrates how the story of Abimelech and the Shechemites actually works to further the message of the book as a whole. The story of Abimelech’s rise to kingship in Shechem and his subsequent demise does not stand in opposition to the claims of Judg 17–21. Abimelech’s kingship, like the leadership of the judges/deliverers, utilizes a local coalition to achieve its ends. Through the narrative’s deliberate and emphatic portrayal of Abimelech’s violent rejection of his Ophrahite (i.e. Israelite) family in favour of his Shechemite kin and because of his lack of Yahwistic sanction, Abimelech’s rise to and exercise of kingship in Judg 9 was illegitimate. Judges 9 does not stand in opposition to the pro-monarchic position of Judg 17–21, which advocates the merits of a different kind of leadership—one that moves beyond the abuses of local kinship groups and, indeed, by illustrating the negative effects of local coalitions, stands as an argument for the values of a centralized monarchy which can guard against excesses such as those of Abimelech and the Shechemites.

14. Cf. Gordon Oeste, “Butchered Brothers and Betrayed Families: Degenerating Kinship Structures in the Book of Judges,” JSOT 35 (2011): 295–316. 1

BIBLIOGRAPHY Agevall, Ola. “Thinking About Congurations: Max Weber and Modern Social Science.” Etica & Politica/Ethics & Politics 7, no. 2 (2005): 1–20. Cited December 31, 2010. Online: http://www.units.it/etica/2005_2/AGEVALL.htm. Aharoni, Yohanan. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Translated and edited by Anson Rainey. Rev. ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979. Aichele, George, and Gary A. Phillips. “Introduction: Exegesis, Eisegesis, Intergesis.” Semeia 69–70 (1995): 7–18. Aitken, J. K. The Semantics of Blessing and Cursing in Ancient Hebrew. ANES 23. Louvain: Peeters, 2007. Alexander, Bevin. How Wars Are Won: The 13 Rules of War—From Ancient Greece to the War on Terror. New York: Crown, 2002. Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, 1981. ———. Language as Theme in the Book of Judges. Cincinnati, Ohio: University of Cincinnati, Judaic Studies Program, 1988. Amit, Yairah. The Book of Judges: The Art of Editing. Translated by Jonathan Chipman. Biblical Interpretation Series 38. Leiden: Brill, 1999. ———. “The Dual Causality Principle and Its Effects on Biblical Literature.” VT 37 (1987): 385–400. ———. Reading Biblical Narratives: Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. ———. “The Saul Polemic in the Persian Period.” Pages 647–61 in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period. Edited by Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2006. ———. “The Use of Analogy in the Study of the Book of Judges.” Pages 387–94 in Augustin and Schunck, eds., Wünschet Jerusalem Frieden. Anderson, Bernard W. “The Place of Shechem in the Bible.” BA 20 (1957): 10–19. Anderson, Francis I. “Israelite Kinship Terminology and Social Structure.” BT 20 (1969): 29–39. Arnold, Bill T., and John H. Choi. A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Assis, Elie. Self-Interest or Communal Interest: An Ideology of Leadership in the Gideon, Abimelech and Jephthah Narratives (Judg. 6–12). VTSup 106. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Aufrecht, Walter E., Neil A. A. Mirau, and Steven W. Gauley, eds. Urbanism in Antiquity: From Mesopotamia to Crete. JSOTSup 244. Shefeld: Shefeld Academic, 1997. Augustin, Matthias, and Klaus-Dietrich Schunck, eds. Wünschet Jerusalem Frieden: Collected Communications of the XIIth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Jerusalem, 1986. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1988.

Bibliography

239

Auld, Graeme. “The Deuteronomists and the Former Prophets, or What Makes the Former Prophets Deuteronomistic?” Pages 116–26 in Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism. Edited by Linda S. Shearing and Steven L. McKenzie. JSOTSup 268. Shefeld: Shefeld Academic, 1999. ———. “The Deuteronomists Between History and Theology.” Pages 353–67 in Congress Volume: Oslo, 1998. Edited by A. LeMaire and M. Sœbø. VTSup 80. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Avigad, Nahman. “The ‘Governor of the City’ Bulla.” Pages 138–40 in Geva, ed., Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Bal, Mieke. Death and Dissymmetry: The Politics of Coherence in the Book of Judges. CSJH. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988. ———. Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative. 2d ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997. Barbalet, J. M. “Power and Resistance.” The British Journal of Sociology 36 (1985): 531–48. Bar-Efrat, Shimon. Narrative Art in the Bible. London: T&T Clark, 1989 (2004). Barkay, Gabriel. “A Second ‘Governor of the City’ Bulla.” Pages 141–44 in Geva, ed., Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Barr, James. “The Synchronic, the Diachronic and the Historical: A Triangular Relationship?” Pages 1–14 in de Moor, ed., Synchronic or Diachronic? Bartelmus, R. “Die sogenannte Jothamfabel—Eine politisch-religiöse Parabeldictung: Anmerkungen zu einem Teilaspeckt der vordeuteronomistischen israelitischen Literaturgeschichte.” TZ 41 (1985): 97–120. ———. “Forschung am Richterbuch seit Martin Noth.” TRu 56 (1991): 221–59. Barthélemy, Dominique. Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament: 1. Josué, Juges, Ruth, Samuel, Rois, Chroniques, Esdras, Néhémie, Esther. OBO 50/1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. Bartlett, J. R. “The Use of the Word › as a Title in the Old Testament.” VT 19 (1969): 1–10. Batto, Bernard F. “Images of God in Joshua and Judges.” TBT 39 (2001): 217–23. Bechtel, Lyn M. “Shame as a Sanction of Social Control in Biblical Israel: Judicial, Political, and Social Shaming.” JSOT 49 (1991): 47–76. Becker, Uwe. Richterzeit und Königtum: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Richterbuch. BZAW 192. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990. Beckman, Gary. “Royal Ideology and State Administration in Hittite Anatolia.” Pages 529–43 in vol. 1 of Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Edited by Jack M. Sasson. 2 vols. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1995. Beetham, David. The Legitimation of Power. London: Macmillan, 1991. Bendor, Shunya. The Social Structure of Ancient Israel: The Institution of the Family (Beit ’Ab) From the Settlement to the End of the Monarchy. Jerusalem Biblical Studies 7. Jerusalem: Simor, 1996. Berlin, Adele. Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative. Shefeld: Almond, 1983. Beyerlin, Walter. “Gattung und Herrkunft des Rahmens im Richterbuch.” Pages 1–29 in Tradition und Situation: Studien zur alttestamentlichen Prophetie, Festschrift A. Weiser. Edited by E. Würthwein and O. Kaiser. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963. Block, Daniel I. Judges, Ruth. NAC. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999. 1

240

Bibliography

———. “The Period of the Judges: Religious Disintegration Under Tribal Rule.” Pages 41–57 in Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Roland K. Harrison. Edited by A. Gileadi. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988. ———. “Will the Real Gideon Please Stand Up? Narrative Style and Intention in Judges 6–9.” JETS 40 (1997): 353–66. Bluedorn, Wolfgang. Yahweh Versus Baalism: A Theological Reading of the Gideon– Abimelech Narrative. JSOTSup 329. Shefeld: Shefeld Academic, 2001. Boling, Robert G. “And Who is S-K-M? (Judges 9:28).” VT 13 (1963): 479–82. ———. “In Those Days There Was No King in Israel.” Pages 33–48 in A Light Unto My Path. Edited by Howard N. Bream, Ralph D. Heim, and Carey A. Moore. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1974. ———. Judges: Introduction, Translation and Commentary. AB 6A. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1975. Bondarenko, Dmitri M., and Andrey V. Korotayev. “ ‘Early State’ in Cross-Cultural Perspective: A Statistical Reanalysis of Henri J. M. Claessen’s Database.” Cross Cultural Research 37 (2003): 105–32. Boogaart, Thomas A. “Stone for Stone: Retribution in the Story of Abimelech and Shechem.” JSOT 32 (1985): 45–56. Borger, Rykle. “Hebr. tormâ, mirmâ und die grosse Lahdun-Lim-Inschrift.” Zeitschrift für Althebräistik 8 (1995): 294–98. Bowman, Richard G. “Narrative Criticism of Judges: Human Purpose in Conict with Divine Presence.” Pages 17–44 in Yee, ed., Judges and Method. Breiner, Peter. “Ideal-Types as ‘Utopias’ and Impartial Political Clarication: Weber and Mannheim on Sociological Prudence.” Pages 89–116 in Max Weber’s “Objectivity” Reconsidered. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007. Brennan, Catherine. Max Weber on Power and Social Stratication: An Interpretation and Critique. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1997. Brenner, Athalya, ed. A Feminist Companion to Judges. FCB 4. Shefeld: JSOT, 1993. Brensinger, Terry L. Judges. BCBC. Waterloo, Ont.: Herald, 1999. Brettler, Marc Zvi. “The Book of Judges: Literature as Politics.” JBL 108 (1989): 395–418. ———. The Creation of History in Ancient Israel. New York: Routledge, 1995. Brown, Cheryl A. “Judges.” Pages 121–289 in Joshua, Judges, Ruth. NIBC 5. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2000. Brueggemann, Walter. “Of the Same Flesh and Bone (GN 2, 23a).” CBQ 32 (1970): 532–42. Buber, Martin. The Kingship of God. 3d ed. Translated by R. Scheimann. London: G. Allen & Unwin, 1967. Budde, Karl. Das Buch der Richter. Freiburg: J. C. B. Mohr, 1897. Burney, C. F. The Book of Judges. 2d ed. London: Rivingtons, 1920. Butler, Trent. Judges. WBC 8. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2009. Cahill, Jane. “Jerusalem in David and Solomon’s Time.” BARev 30, no. 6 (2004): 20–31, 62–63. Campbell, Edward F., Jr. “Judges 9 and Archaeology.” Pages 263–67 in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by Carol Meyers and Michael O’Connor. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1983. 1

Bibliography

241

———. Shechem III: The Stratigraphy and Architecture of Shechem/Tell Balâtah. Vol. 1, Text. Boston: ASOR, 2002. ———. “Two Amarna Notes: The Shechem City-State and Amarna Administrative Terminology.” Pages 39–54 in Cross, Lemke, and Miller, eds., Magnalia Dei. Carney, Thomas F. The Shape of the Past: Models and Antiquity. Lawrence, Kans.: Coronado, 1975. Carter, Charles E. “A Discipline in Transition: The Contribution of the Social Sciences to the Study of the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 3–36 in Carter and Meyers, eds., Community, Identity, and Ideology. Carter, Charles E., and Carol L. Meyers, eds. Community, Identity, and Ideology: Social Science Approaches to the Hebrew Bible. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1996. Chalcraft, David J., ed. Social-Scientic Old Testament Criticism. The Biblical Seminar 47. Shefeld: Shefeld Academic, 1997. Chatman, Seymour. Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1978. Chazan, Naomi, and Michel Abitbol. “Myths and Politics in Precolonial Africa.” Pages 28–59 in The Early State in African Perspective. Edited by S. N. Eisenstadt, Michal Abitbol, and Naomi Chazan. Studies in Human Society 3. Leiden: Brill, 1988. Ciobanu, Monica. “Theoretical and Historical Dimensions of the Concept of Political Legitimacy: Lessons from Socialist and Post-Socialist Societies.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Philadelphia, 2005. Cited June 18, 2007. Online: www.allacademic.com/meta/ p18984_index.html. Claessen, Henri J. M. “The Internal Dynamics of the Early State.” Current Anthropology 25 (1984): 365–79. Claessen, Henri J. M., and Jarich G. Oosten., eds. Ideology and the Formation of Early States. Studies in Human Society 11. Leiden: Brill, 1996. ———. “Introduction.” Pages 1–23 in Claessen and Oosten, eds., Ideology and the Formation of Early States. Claessen, Henri J. M., and Peter Skalník, eds. The Early State. Studies in the Social Sciences 32. New York: Mouton, 1978. ———. “The Early State: Models and Reality.” Pages 637–50 in Claessen and Skalník, eds., The Early State. ———. eds. The Study of the State. Studies in the Social Sciences 35. The Hague: Mouton, 1981. ———. “Ubi sumus? Retrospect.” Pages 475–80 in Claessen and Skalník, eds., The Study of the State. Claessen, Henri J. M., and Pieter van de Velde. “Sociopolitical Evolution as Complex Interaction.” Pages 246–63 in Development and Decline: The Evolution of Sociopolitical Organization. Edited by Henri J. M. Claessen, Pieter van de Velde, and M. Estellie Smith. South Hadley, Mass.: Bergin & Garvey, 1985. Clark, David J. “ ‘Surnames’ in the Old Testament? Or: How to be Rude Politely.” BT 56 (2005): 232–38. Clements, R. E. “Baal-Berith of Shechem.” JSS 13 (1968): 21–32. Clines, David J. A. “Beyond Synchronic/Diachronic.” Pages 52–71 in de Moor, ed., Synchronic or Diachronic? Coats, George W. “Self-Abasement and Insult Formulas.” JBL 89 (1970): 14–26. Cockcroft, Robert, and Susan M. Cockcroft. Persuading People: An Introduction to Rhetoric. London: Macmillan, 1992. 1

242

Bibliography

Cogan, Mordechai, and Hayim Tadmor. II Kings. AB 11. New York: Doubleday, 1988. Cohen, Ronald. “Evolution, Fission, and the Early State.” Pages 87–115 in Claessen and Skalník, eds., The Study of the State. ———. “State Origins: A Reappraisal.” Pages 31–75 in Claessen and Skalník, eds., The Early State. Cohen, Ronald, and Elman R. Service, eds. Origins of the State: The Anthropology of Political Evolution. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues, 1978. Comas, James. “The Question of Dening ‘Rhetoric.’ ” No pages. Cited December 30, 2010. Online: http://web.missouri.edu/~engjnc/rhetoric/dening.html. Craig, Kenneth M. “Judges in Recent Research.” Currents in Biblical Research 1 (2003): 159–85. Cross, Frank Moore. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973. ———. “Kinship and Covenant in Ancient Israel.” Pages 3–21 in From Epic to Canon. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998. Cross, Frank Moore, Werner E. Lemke, and Patrick D. Miller, eds. Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Memory of G. Ernest Wright. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1976. Crown, D. “A Reinterpretation of Judges IX in the Light of Its Humour.” AbrN 3 (1961/62): 90–98. Crüsemann, Frank. Der Widerstand gegen das Königtum. Die antiköniglichen Texte des Alten Testamentes und der Kampf um den frühen israelitischen Staat. WMANT 49. Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978. Cundall, Arthur E. “Judges—An Apology for the Monarchy.” Expository Times 81 (1969–70): 178–81. ———. Judges: An Introduction and Commentary. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1968. Davis, Dale Ralph. Such a Great Salvation. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990. De Castelbajac, Isabelle. “Histoire de la rédaction de Juges ix: une solution.” VT 51 (2001): 166–85. De Vaux, Roland. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. Translated by John McHugh. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997 (1961). ———. “The King of Israel, Vassal of the LORD.” Pages 152–66 in The Bible and the Ancient Near East. Translated by Damian McHugh. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1972. Dever, William G. “Archaeology, Urbanism, and the Rise of the Israelite State.” Pages 172–93 in Aufrecht, Mirau, and Gauley, eds., Urbanism in Antiquity. ———. “From Tribe to Nation: State Formation Processes in Ancient Israel.” Pages 213– 28 in Nuove fondazioni nel Vicino Oriente Antico: Realta e ideological. Edited by Stefania Mazzoni. Pisa: University of Pisa, 1994. Dever, William G., and Seymour Gitin, eds. Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2003. De Waard, Jan. “Jotham’s Fable: An Exercise in Clearing Away the Unclear.” Pages 363– 70 in Wissenschaft und Kirche: festschrift für Eduard Lohse. Edited by Kurt Aland and Siegfried Meurer. Bielefeld: Luther-Verlag, 1989.

1

Bibliography

243

Dietrich, Walter. Prophetie und Geschichte: Eine redactionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum deuteronomistischen Geshichtswerk. FRLANT 108. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972. Dorsey, David A. “Shechem and the Road Network of Central Samaria.” BASOR 268 (1987): 57–70. Dossin, G. “L’inscription de fondation de Iadhun-Lim: roi de Mari.” Syria 32 (1955): 1–28 Dragga, Sam. “In the Shadow of the Judges: The Failure of Saul.” JSOT 38 (1987): 39–46. Dyck, Elmer. “Thebez.” ABD 6:443. Eliaeson, Sven. “Max Weber’s Methodology: An Ideal-Type.” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 36, no. 3 (2000): 241–63. Emerton, John A. “Gideon and Jerubbaal.” JTS 27 (1976): 289–312. Endris, Vince. “Yahweh Versus Baal: A Narrative Critical Reading of the Gideon/ Abimelech Narrative.” JSOT 33 (2008): 173–95. Eph‘al, Israel. The City Besieged: Siege and Its Manifestations in the Ancient Near East. CHANE 36. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Exum, J. Cheryl. “The Centre Cannot Hold: Thematic and Textual Instability in Judges.” CBQ 52 (1990): 410–31. ________. Was Sagt das Richterbuch den Frauen? SBS 169. Stuttgart: Katholishes Bibelwerk, 1997. Faust, Avraham. “Settlement Patterns and State Formation in Southern Samaria and the Archaeology of (a) Saul.” Pages 14–38 in Saul in Story and Tradition. Edited by Carl Ehrlich and Marsha White. FAT 47. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Fensham, F. Charles. “The Numeral Seventy in the Old Testament and the Family of Jerubbaal, Ahab, Panammuwa and Athirat.” PEQ 109 (1977): 113–15. ———. “Salt as Curse in the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East.” BA 30 (1962): 48–50. Finkelstein, Israel. “City-States to States: Polity Dynamics in the 10th–9th Centuries B.C.E.” Pages 75–83 in Dever and Gitin, eds., Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past. ———. “The Emergence of the Monarchy in Israel: The Environmental and SocioEconomic Aspects.” JSOT 44 (1989): 43–74. Repr. pages 337–403 in Carter and Meyers, eds., Community, Identity, and Ideology. ———. “State Formation in Israel and Judah: A Contrast in Context, a Contrast in Trajectory.” NEA 62 (1999): 35–52. Flanagan, James W. “Chiefs in Israel.” JSOT 20 (1981): 47–73. ———. David’s Social Drama: A Hologram of Israel’s Early Iron Age. SWBAS 7. Shefeld: Almond, 1988. Fokkelman, Jan P. Reading Biblical Narrative: An Introductory Guide. Translated by Ineke Smit. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999. ———. “Structural Remarks on Judges 9 and 19.” Pages 33–45 in “Sha‘arei Talmon”: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon. Edited by M. Fishbane and E. Tov with W. W. Fields. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992. Fowler, Mervyn. “A Closer Look at the Temple of El-Berith at Shechem.” PEQ 115 (1983): 49–53. 1

244

Bibliography

Frankfort, Henri. Kingship and the Gods: A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the Integration of Society and Nature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948. Freidman, Jonathan. “Myth, History, and Political Identity.” Cultural Anthropology 7 (1992): 194–210. Frick, Frank. The Formation of the State in Ancient Israel. SWBA 4. Shefeld: Almond, 1985. ———. “Social Science Methods and Theories of Signicance for the Study of the Israelite Monarchy: A Critical Review Essay.” Semeia 37 (1986): 9–52. Fritz, Volkmar. “Abimelek und Sichem in Jdg. 9.” VT 32 (1982): 129–44. ———. The City in Ancient Israel. The Biblical Seminar 29. Shefeld: Shefeld Academic, 1995. Fritz, Volkmar, and Philip R. Davies, eds. The Origins of the Ancient Israelite State. JSOTSup 228. Shefeld: Shefeld Academic, 1996. Frolov, Serge. “Fire, Smoke, and Judah in Judges: A Response to Gregory Wong.” SJOT 21 (2007): 127–38. Frymer-Kensky, Tikva. “Patriarchal Family Relationships and Near Eastern Law.” BA 44 (1981): 209–14. Gerbrandt, G. E. Kingship According to the Deuteronomistic History. SBLDS 87. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1986. Geva, Hillel, ed. Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Rev. ed. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000. Gevirtz, S. “Jericho and Shechem: A Religio-Literary Aspect of City Destruction.” VT 13 (1963): 52–62. Gillmayr-Bucher, Susanne. “Framework and Discourse in the Book of Judges.” JBL 128 (2009): 687–702. Gitay, Yehoshua. “Rhetorical Criticism.” Pages 135–49 in To Each Its Own Meaning. Edited by Steven L. McKenzie and Stephen R. Haynes. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993. Gooding, David W. “The Composition of the Book of Judges.” ErIsr 16 (H. M. Orlinsky Memorial Volume) (1982): 70–79. Goslinga, C. J. Joshua, Judges, Ruth. BSC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986. Gray, John. Joshua, Judges and Ruth. NCB. London: Thomas Nelson, 1967. Greenspahn, Frederick E. “An Egyptian Parallel to Judg 17:6 and 21:25.” JBL 101 (1982): 129–30. ———. “The Theology of the Framework of Judges.” VT 36 (1996): 385–96. Guest, Pauline Deryn. “Can Judges Survive Without Sources? Challenging the Consensus.” SJOT 78 (1998): 43–61. ———. “Dangerous Liaisons in the Book of Judges.” SJOT 11 (1997): 241–69. Guillaume, Philippe. Waiting for Josiah: The Judges. JSOTSup 385. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Gunn, David M. Judges. BBC. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 2005. Haag, Herbert. “Gideon-Jerubbaal-Abimelek.” ZAW 79 (1967): 305–14. Halpern, Baruch. “The Rise of Abimelek Ben-Jerubbaal.” HAR 2 (1978): 79–100. Hamilton, Jeffries M. “Ophrah.” ABD 5:27–28. Harrelson, Walter. “Shechem in Extra-Biblical References.” BA 20 (1957): 2–10. Hauser, Gerard. Introduction to Rhetorical Theory. 2d ed. Prospect Heights, Ill.: Waveland, 2002. 1

Bibliography

245

Heffelnger, Katie M. “ ‘My Father is King’: Chiey Politics and the Rise and Fall of Abimelech.” JSOT 33 (2009): 277–92. Heller, Roy L. “What Is Abimelek Doing in Judges?” Pages 225–35 in Raising Up a Faithful Exegete: Essays in Honor of Richard D. Nelson. Edited by K. L. Noll and Brooks Schramm. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2010. Henton Davies, G. “Judges VIII 22–23.” VT 13 (1963): 151–57. Hentschel, Georg. “Abimelech—Two Sides of the Story (Judges 9).” Pages 41–56 in With Wisdom as a Robe: Qumran and Other Jewish Studies in Honour of Ida Fröhlich. Edited by Károly Dániel Dobos and Miklós Köszeghy. HBM 21. Shefeld: Shefeld Phoenix, 2009. Herion, Gary A. “The Impact of Modern and Social Science Assumptions on the Reconstruction of Israelite History.” Pages 230–57 in Carter and Meyers, eds., Community, Identity, and Ideology. Hertzberg, H. W. Die Bücher Josua, Richter, Ruth. ATD 9. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965. Herzog, Ze’ev, and Lily Singer-Avitz. “Redening the Centre: The Emergence of State in Judah.” TA 31 (2004): 209–44. Hirsch, E. D., Jr. Validity in Interpretation. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1967. Hobbs, T. R. A Time For War: A Study of Warfare in the Old Testament. Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1989. Honeyman, A. M. “The Salting of Shechem.” VT 3 (1953): 192–95. Hoppe, Leslie. Joshua, Judges. OTM. Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1982. Hurowitz, Victor. I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings. JSOTSup 115. Shefeld: JSOT, 1992. Irwin, Brian. “Not Just Any King: Evolving Polemic, Abimelek, and the Final Form of Judges.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies. Vancouver, B.C., June 1, 2008. Ishida, Tomoo. “The Leaders of the Tribal Leagues ‘Israel’ in the Pre-Monarchic Period.” RB 80 (1973): 514–30. Jacob, Irene, and Walter Jacob. “Flora.” ABD 2:803–17. Jamieson-Drake, David W. Scribes and Schools in Monarchic Judah: A SocioArchaeological Approach. SWBAS 9. Shefeld: Almond, 1991. Jans, Edgar. Abimelech und sein Königtum: Diachrone und Synchrone Untersuchungen zu Ri 9. ATSAT 66. St. Ottilien: EOS, 2001. Janzen, J. Gerald. “A Certain Woman in the Rhetoric of Judges 9.” JSOT 38 (1987): 33–37. Jaros, K. “Zur Bedeutung von  in Ri 9,46.49.” AUSS 15 (1977): 57–58. Jenni, Ernst. “Zwei Jahrzehnte Forschung an den Büchern Josua bis Könige.” TRu 27 (1961): 1–32, 97–146. Jobling, David. The Sense of Biblical Narrative: Structural Analysis in the Hebrew Bible II. JSOTSup 39. Shefeld: JSOT, 1986. Joffe, Alexander H. “The Rise of Secondary States in the Iron Age Levant.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 45 (2002): 425–67. Joosten, Jan. “!    forma mixta?” ZAW 102 (1990): 96–97. Katz, Ronald C. The Structure of Ancient Arguments: Rhetoric and Its Near Eastern Origin. New York: Shapolsky, 1986. 1

246

Bibliography

Kearns, Michael. Rhetorical Narratology. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1999. Keil, C. F., and F. Delitzsch. “Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I & II Samuel.” In Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 2. Translated by James Martin. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, n.d. Kempinski, Aharon. “Joshua’s Altar—An Iron Age I Watchtower.” BARev 12, no. 1 (1986): 42–53. Kessler, Rainer. The Social History of Ancient Israel: An Introduction. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008. Khoury, Philip S., and Joseph Kostiner. “Introduction: Tribes and the Complexities of State Formation in the Middle East.” Pages 1–22 in Khoury and Kostiner, eds., Tribes and State Formation. Khoury, Philip S., and Joseph Kostiner, eds. Tribes and State Formation in the Middle East. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1990. King, Philip, and Lawrence E. Stager. Life in Biblical Israel. LAI. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. ———. “Of Fathers, Kings and the Deity: The Nested Households of Ancient Israel.” BARev 28, no. 2 (2002): 42–45, 62. Kirkpatrick, Shane. “Questions of Honor in the Book of Judges.” Koinonia 10 (1998): 19–40. Klaus, Nathan. Pivot Patterns in the Former Prophets. JSOTSup 247. Shefeld: Shefeld Academic, 1999. Klein, Lillian R. The Triumph of Irony in the Book of Judges. BLS 14. Shefeld: Almond, 1988. Knauf, E. A. “The Cultural Impact of Secondary State Formation: The Cases of the Edomites and the Moabites.” Pages 47–54 in Early Edom and Moab: The Beginning of the Iron Age in Southern Jordan. Edited by Piotr Bienkowski. Shefeld: J. R. Collis, 1992. Knudtzon, J. Die El-Amarna Tafeln. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1915. Kohl, Philip L. “State Formation: Useful Concept or Idée Fixe?” Pages 27–34 in Power Relations and State Formation. Edited by Thomas C. Patterson and Christine W. Gailey. Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association, 1987. Kostiner, Joseph. “Introduction.” Pages 1–20 in Middle East Monarchies: The Challenge of Modernity. Edited by Joseph Kostiner. London: Lynne Rienner, 2000. Kristiansen, Kristian. “Chiefdoms, States, and Systems of Social Evolution.” Pages 16–42 in Chiefdoms: Power, Economy, and Ideology. Edited by Timothy Earle. School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Kurtz, Donald V. “Cultural Identity, Politics and Legitimation in State Formation.” Pages 31–46 in Pivot Politics: Changing Cultural Identities in Early State Formation Process. Edited by Martin Van Bakel, Renée Hagesteijn, and Pieter van de Velde. Amsterdam: Het Spinhius, 1994. ———. “The Legitimation of the Aztec State.” Pages 169–89 in Claessen and Skalník, eds., The Early State. ———. Political Anthropology: Paradigms and Power. Boulder, Colo.: Westview, 2001. ———. “Strategies of Legitimation and the Aztec State.” Pages 146–65 in Anthropological Approaches to Political Behavior. Edited by Frank McGlynn and Arthur Tuden. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1991. 1

Bibliography

247

Kurtz, Donald V., with Margaret Showman. “The Legitimation of Early Inchoate States.” Pages 177–200 in Claessen and Skalník, eds., The Study of the State. Lagrange, Marie-Joseph. Le Livre des Juges. Paris: Victor Lecoffre, 1903. Lambert, Frith. “The Tribe/State Paradox in the Old Testament.” SJOT 8 (1994): 20–44. Lemche, Niels Peter. “From Patronage Society to Patronage Society.” Pages 106–20 in Fritz and Davies, eds., The Origins of the Ancient Israelite State. ———. “On the Use of ‘System Theory,’ ‘Macro Theories,’ and ‘Evolutionistic Thinking’ in Modern Old Testament Research and Biblical Archaeology.” Pages 273–86 in Carter and Meyers, eds., Community, Identity, and Ideology. Lewis, Theodore J. “The Identity and Function of El/Baal Berith.” JBL 115 (1996): 401–23. L’Heureux, Conrad. Rank Among the Canaanite Gods: El, Baal, and the Rephaim. HSM 21. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1979. Lilley, J. P. U. “A Literary Appreciation of the Book of Judges.” TynBul 17 (1967): 94–102. Lincoln, Bruce. Authority: Construction and Corrosion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994. Lindars, Barnabas. “Gideon and Kingship.” JTS 16 (1965): 315–26. ———. “Jotham’s Fable—A New Form-Critical Analysis.” JTS 24 (1973): 355–66. Lipson, Carol S., and Roberta A. Binkley. “Introduction.” Pages 1–24 in Lipson and Binkley, eds., Rhetoric Before and Beyond the Greeks. ———. eds. Rhetoric Before and Beyond the Greeks. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 2004. Liss, Hanna. “Die Fabel des Yotam in Ri 9,8–15—Versuch einer Strukturellen Deutung.” BN 89 (1997): 12–18. Liverani, Mario. International Relations in the Ancient Near East, 1600–1100 BC. New York: Palgrave, 2001. Longman, Tremper, III. Literary Approaches to Biblical Interpretation. FCI 3. Grand Rapids: Academie, 1987. Lowery, R. H. The Reforming Kings: Cults and Society in First Temple Judah. JSOTSup 120. Shefeld: JSOT, 1991. Malamat, Abraham. “Charismatic Leadership in the Book of Judges.” Pages 152–68 in Cross, Lemke, and Miller, eds., Magnalia Dei. Maly, Eugene. “The Jotham Fable—Anti-monarchical?” CBQ 22 (1960): 299–305. Marais, Jacobus. Representation in Old Testament Narrative Texts. Biblical Interpretation Series 36. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Martin, J. D. The Book of Judges. CBC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975. Master, Daniel M. “State Formation Theory and the Kingdom of Ancient Israel.” JNES 60 (2001): 117–31. Matheson, Craig. “Weber and the Classication of Forms of Legitimacy.” The British Journal of Sociology 38, no. 2 (1987): 199–215. Matthews, Victor H. “Entrance Ways and Threshing Floors: Legally Signicant Sites in the Ancient Near East.” Fides et Historia 19 (1987): 25–40. ———. Judges and Ruth. NCBC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Matthews, Victor H., and Don C. Benjamin. The Social World of Ancient Israel 1250–587 BCE. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1993. Mayes, A. D. H. Judges. OTG. Shefeld: JSOT, 1985, 1989, 1995. 1

248

Bibliography

Mazar, Amihai. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 10,000–586 B.C.E. New York: Doubleday, 1990. McCann, J. Clinton. Judges. Interpretation. Louisville: John Knox, 2002. McCarter, P. Kyle, Jr. 1 Samuel. AB 8. New York: Doubleday, 1980. ———. II Samuel. AB 9. New York: Doubleday, 1984. ———. “The Apology of David.” JBL 99 (1980): 489–504. McKenzie, John L. The World of the Judges. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice–Hall, 1966. McNutt, Paula M. Reconstructing the Society of Ancient Israel. LAI. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999. Mettinger, Tryggve N. D. King and Messiah: The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings. ConBOT. Lund: Gleerup, 1976. Meyers, Carol. “David as Temple Builder.” Pages 357–76 in Ancient Israelite Religion. Edited by Patrick D. Miller, Jr., Paul D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. ———. “Ephod.” ABD 2:550. Miller, Robert D., II. Chieftains of the Highland Clans: A History of the 12th and 11th Centuries B.C. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. ———. “Deuteronomistic Theology in the Book of Judges?” OTE 15, no. 2 (2002): 411–16. Mobley, Gregory. The Empty Men: The Heroic Tradition of Ancient Israel. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 2005. Moenikes, Ansgar. Die grundsätzliche Ablehnung des Königtums in der Hebräischen Bibel. BBB 99. Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, 1995. Moor, Johannes C. de. “Seventy!” Pages 199–203 in “Und Mose schrieb dieses Lied auf”: Studien zum Alten Testament und zum Alten Orient. Festschrift für Oswald Loretz zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahr mit Beiträgen von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen. Edited by M. Dietrich and I. Kottsieper. AOAT 250. Münster: Ugarit Verlag, 1998. ———. ed. Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis. OtSt 34. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Moore, George F. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges. 2d ed. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895. Muilenburg, James. “Form Criticism and Beyond.” JBL 88 (1969): 1–18. Mulder, Martin J. “Baal-Berith.” Pages 141–44 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Edited by Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and P. W. van der Horst. Rev. ed. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Müller, Reinhard. Königtum und Gottesherrshaft. FAT 2. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Munch, Peter A. “The Judges of Ancient Israel: An Exploration in Charismatic Authority.” Pages 57–69 in Time, Place, and Circumstance: Neo-Weberian Studies in Comparative Religious History. Edited by William H. Swatos, Jr. Contributions to the Study of Religion 24. New York: Greenwood, 1990. Murvar, Vatro. “Patrimonialism, Modern and Traditionalist: A Paradigm for Interdisciplinary Research on Rulership and Legitimacy.” Pages 40–85 in Theory of Liberty, Legitimacy and Power: New Directions in the Intellectual and Scientic Legacy of Max Weber. Edited by Vatro Murvar. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985. Nelson, Richard D. The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History. JSOTSup 18. Shefeld: JSOT, 1981. 1

Bibliography

249

———. “The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History: The Case is Still Compelling.” JSOT 29 (2005): 319–37. Niditch, Susan. “Historiography, ‘Hazards,’ and the Study of Ancient Israel.” Interpretation 57 (2003): 138–50. ———. Judges. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008. ———. “Judges, Kingship and Political Ethics: A Challenge to the Conventional Wisdom.” Pages 59–70 in Thus Says the Lord: Essays in the Former and Latter Prophets in Honor of Robert R. Wilson. Edited by John J. Ahn and Stephen L. Cook. LHBOTS 502. New York: T&T Clark International, 2009. ———. “The ‘Sodomite’ Theme in Judges 19–20: Family, Community and Social Disintegration.” CBQ 44 (1982): 365–78. Nielsen, Eduard. Shechem: A Traditio-Historical Investigation. 2d ed. Copenhagen: G. E. C. Gad, 1959. Noble, Paul R. “Esau, Tamar, and Joseph: Criteria for Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions.” VT 52 (2002): 219–52. Noth, Martin. The Deuteronomistic History. Translated by Jane Doull. Revised translation by John Barton. JSOTSup 15. Shefeld: JSOT, 1981. O’Brien, Mark A. “Judges and the Deuteronomistic History.” Pages 235–59 in The History of Israel’s Traditions: The Heritage of Martin Noth. Edited by S. L. McKenzie and M. P. Graham. JSOTSup 182. Shefeld: Shefeld Academic, 1994. O’Connell, Robert H. The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges. VTSup 63. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Oeste, Gordon. “Butchered Brothers and Betrayed Families: Degenerating Kinship Structures in the Book of Judges.” JSOT 35 (2011): 295–316. Ogden, G. S. “Jotham’s Fable: Its Structure and Function in Judges 9.” BT 46 (1995): 301–8. Olson, Dennis T. “Introduction, Commentary, and Reections on the Book of Judges.” Pages 723–888 in vol. 2 of The New Interpreter’s Bible. 12 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 1998. Oppenheim, A. Leo. “The Shadow of the King.” BASOR 107 (1947): 7–11. Orenstein, Henry. “Asymmetrical Reciprocity: A Contribution to the Theory of Political Legitimacy.” Current Anthropology 21 (1980): 69–91. Papineau, David. “Ideal Types and Empirical Theories.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 27, no. 2 (1976): 137–46. Parpola, Simo. “The Assyrian Tree of Life: Tracing the Origins of Jewish Monotheism and Greek Philosophy.” JNES 52 (1993): 161–208. Patrick, Dale, and Allen Scult. Rhetoric and Biblical Interpretation. JSOTSup 82. Shefeld: Almond, 1990. Perelman, Chaim. The New Rhetoric and the Humanities: Essays on Rhetoric and Its Applications. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel, 1979. ———. The Realm of Rhetoric. Translated by W. Kluback. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1982. Perelman, Chaim, and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Translated by J. Wilkinson and P. Weaver. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1969. Pfoh, Emanuel. “Dealing with Tribes and States in Ancient Palestine: A Critique on the Use of State Formation Theories in the Archaeology of Israel.” SJOT 22 (2008): 86– 113. 1

250

Bibliography

Polzin, Robert M. Moses and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomistic History. Part 1, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges. New York: Seabury, 1980. Powell, Mark Allan. What is Narrative Criticism? GBS. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. Price, Barbara. “Secondary State Formation: An Explanatory Model.” Pages 161–86 in Cohen and Service, eds., Origins of the State. Rabin, Chaim. “The Origin of the Hebrew Word Plegeš.” JJS 25 (1974): 353–64. Reviv, H. “The Government of Shechem in the El Amarna Period and in the Days of Abimelech.” IEJ 16 (1966): 252–57. Richter, Wolfgang. Die Bearbeitungen des “Rettersbuches” in der deuteronomistischen Epoche. BBB 21. Bonn: Hanstein, 1964. ———. Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Richterbuch. BBB 18. Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1963. Rodd, Cyril S. “On Applying a Sociological Theory to Biblical Studies.” Pages 22–33 in Chalcraft, ed., Social-Scientic Old Testament Criticism. Roscoe, Paul B. “Practice and Political Centralization: A New Approach to Political Evolution.” Current Anthropology 34 (1993): 111–40. Routledge, Bruce. “Learning to Love the King: Urbanism and the State in Iron Age Moab.” Pages 130–44 in Aufrecht, Mirau, and Gauley, eds., Urbanism in Antiquity. Routledge, Robin. “ ‘An Evil Spirit from the Lord’—Demonic Inuence or Divine Instrument?” EQ 70 (1998): 3–22. Ruprecht, Eberhard. Die Jothamfabel und außerisraelitische Parallelen. Göttingen: Vandehoeck & Ruprecht, 2003. Ryken, Leland, James C. Wilhoit, and Tremper Longman, III, eds. Dictionary of Biblical Imagery. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1998. Salvesen, Alison. “Royal Family.” Pages 845–50 in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books. Edited by Bill T. Arnold and H. G. M. Williamson. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2005. Sandmel, Samuel. “Parallelomania.” JBL 81 (1962): 1–13. Saski, Tetsuo. The Concept of War in the Book of Judges: A Strategical Evaluation of the Wars of Gideon, Deborah, Samson and Abimelech. Tokyo: Gakujutsu Tosho Shuppan-Sha, 2001. Schäfer-Lichtenberger, Christa. “Sociological and Biblical Views of the Early State.” Pages 78–105 in Fritz and Davies, eds., The Origins of the Ancient Israelite State. Schloen, David. The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol: Patrimonialism in Ugarit and the Ancient Near East. SAHT 2. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2001. Schneider, Tammi J. Judges. BO. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 2000. Schöpin, Karin. “Jotham’s Speech and Fable as Prophetic Commentary on Abimelech’s Story: The Genesis of Judges 9.” SJOT 18 (2004): 3–22. Sellin, Ernst. Wie wurde Sichem eine israelitische Stadt? Leipzig: A Deichertsche Verlagsbuchhandlung Dr. Werner Scholl, 1922. Service, Elman R. Origins of the State and Civilization: The Process of Cultural Evolution. New York: W. W. Norton, 1975. Severs, Boyd. “The Practice of Ancient Near Eastern Warfare with Comparison to the Biblical Accounts of Warfare from the Conquest to the End of the United Monarchy.” Ph.D. diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1998. Shalom-Guy, Hava. “Three-Way Intertextuality: Some Reections of Abimelech’s Death at Thebez in Biblical Narrative.” JSOT 34 (2010): 419–32. Simpson, Cuthbert. The Composition of the Book of Judges. Oxford: Blackwell, 1957. 1

Bibliography

251

Skalník, Peter. “Ideological and Symbolic Authority: Political Culture in Nanun, Northern Ghana.” Pages 84–98 in Claessen and Oosten, eds., Ideology and the Formation of Early States. Smend, Rudolf. “Das Gesetz und die Völker: Ein Beitrag zur deuteronomistischen Redaktionsgeschichte.” Pages 494–509 in Probleme biblisher Theologie: Festschrift Gerhard von Rad. Edited by H. W. Wolff. Munich: Kaiser, 1971. Soggin, J. Alberto. Judges: A Commentary. Translated by J. Bowden. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981. ———. “The Migdal Temple, Migdal Shekem Judg 9 and the Artifact on Mount Ebal.” Pages 115–19 in Augustin and Schunck, eds., Wünschet Jerusalem Frieden. Solomon, Ann M. Vater. “Fable.” Pages 115–25 in Saga, Legend, Tale, Novella, Fable: Narrative Forms in Old Testament Literature. Edited by George W. Coats. JSOTSup 25. Shefeld: JSOT, 1985. Spencer, Martin E. “Weber on Legitimate Norms and Authority.” The British Journal of Sociology 21, no. 2 (1970): 123–34. Stager, Lawrence E. “The Archaeology of the Family.” BASOR 260 (1985): 1–35. ———. “The Fortress-Temple at Shechem and the ‘House of El, Lord of the Covenant.’ ” Pages 228–49 in Realia Dei: Essays in Archaeology and Biblical Interpretation in Honor of Edward F. Campbell, Jr. at His Retirement. Edited by P. H. Williams Jr. and T. Hiebert. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999. ———. “The Patrimonial Kingdom of Solomon.” Pages 63–74 in Dever and Gitin, eds., Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past. ———. “The Shechem Temple Where Abimelech Massacred A Thousand.” BARev 29, no. 4 (July/August 2003): 26–35, 66, 68–69. Steinberg, Naomi. “Social Scientic Criticism: Judges 9 and Issues of Kinship.” Pages 46–64 in Yee, ed., Judges and Method. Sternberg, Meir. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1985. Stone, Ken. “Gender Criticism: The Un-Manning of Abimelech.” Pages 183–201 in Yee, ed., Judges and Method. Swedberg, Richard. The Max Weber Dictionary: Key Words and Central Concepts. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2005. Sweeney, Marvin A. “Davidic Polemics in the Book of Judges.” VT 47 (1997): 517–29. ———. King Josiah of Judah: The Lost Messiah of Israel. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Szuchman, Jeffrey. “Integrating Approaches to Nomads, Tribes, and the State in the Ancient Near East.” Pages 1–13 in Nomads, Tribes, and the State in the Ancient Near East: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives. Edited by Jeffrey Szuchman. The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Seminars 5. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009. Tadmor, Hayim. “Traditional Institutions and the Monarchy: Social and Political Tensions in the Time of David and Solomon.” Pages 239–57 in Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays. Edited by Tomoo Ishida. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1982. Tanner, J. Paul. “The Gideon Narrative as the Focal Point of Judges.” BibSac 149 (1992): 146–61.

1

252

Bibliography

Tapper, R. “Anthropologists, Historians, and Tribespeople on Tribe and State Formation in the Middle East.” Pages 48–73 in Khoury and Kostiner, eds., Tribes and State Formation. Tatu, Silviu. “Jotham’s Fable and the Crux Interpretum in Judges IX.” VT 56 (2006): 105–24. Thompson, H. O. “Arumah.” ABD 1:467–68. Tollington, Janet E. “The Book of Judges: The Result of Post-Exilic Exegesis?” Pages 186–96 in Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel. Edited by Johannes C. de Moor. OtSt 40. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Tolmie, D. F. Narratology and Biblical Narratives: A Practical Guide. Bethesda, Md.: International Scholars Publications, 1999. Trible, Phyllis. Rhetorical Criticism: Context, Method, and the Book of Jonah. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994. ———. Texts of Terror: Literary Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives. OBT. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. Tull, Patricia K. “Rhetorical Criticism and Intertextuality.” Pages 156–64 in To Each Its Own Meaning. Edited by Steven L. McKenzie and Stephen R. Haynes. 2d ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999. Turner, Stephen. “The Continued Relevance of Weber’s Philosophy of Social Science.” Etica & Politica/Ethics & Politics 7, no. 2 (2005): 1–20. Cited December 31, 2010. Online: http://www.units.it/etica/2005_2/TURNER.htm. Van Dam, Cornelis. “Priestly Clothing.” Pages 643–46 in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. Edited by T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2003. Vanhoozer, Kevin J. Is There a Meaning In This Text? The Bible, The Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge. Leicester, England: Apollos, 1998. Van Wachter, P. J. “Zur Lokalisierung des sichemitischen Baumheilitums.” ZDPV103 (1987): 1–12. Veijola, Timo. Das Königtum in der Beurteilung der deuteronomistischen Historiographie. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, Series B, Tom. 198. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1977. Watts, James W. “Story-List-Sanction: A Cross-Cultural Strategy of Ancient Persuasion.” Pages 197–212 in Lipson and Binkley, eds., Rhetoric Before and Beyond the Greeks. Webb, Barry G. The Book of Judges: An Integrated Reading. JSOTSup 46. Shefeld: JSOT, 1987. Weber, Max. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Edited by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich. Translated by Ephraim Fischoff et al. 2 vols. Berkley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1978. Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic School. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972. Repr., Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992. Weisman, Z. “Anointing as a Motif in the Making of the Charismatic King.” Bib 57 (1976): 378–98. Westbrook, Raymond, and Bruce Wells. Everyday Law in Biblical Israel: An Introduction. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009. Whitelam, Keith. “Israelite Kingship: The Royal Ideology and Its Opponents.” Pages 119–39 in The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives. Edited by R. E. Clements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. 1

Bibliography

253

———. “The Symbols of Power: Aspects of Royal Propaganda in the United Monarchy.” BA 49 (1986): 166–73. Wilcock, Michael. The Message of Judges. BST. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1992. Wilkie, John M. “Peshita Translation of Tabbur Ha’ares in Judges 9:37.” VT 1 (1951): 144. Wolf, Herbert. “Judges.” Pages 375–506 in vol. 3 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein. 12 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992. Wong, Gregory T. K. Compositional Strategy of the Book of Judges: An Inductive, Rhetorical Study. VTSup 111. Leiden: Brill, 2006. ———. “Is There a Direct Pro-Judah Polemic in Judges?” SJOT 19 (2005): 84–110. Wood, Bryant. “The Role of Shechem in the Conquest of Canaan.” Pages 245–56 in To Understand the Scriptures: Essays in Honor of William H. Shea. Edited by David Merling. Berrien Springs, Mich.: Institute of Archaeology/Sigfried H. Horn Archaeological Museum, 1997. Wright, G. Ernest. Shechem: The Biography of a Biblical City. London: Duckworth, 1965. Wright, Jacob L. “Military Valor and Kingship: A Book-Oriented Approach to the Study of a Major War Theme.” Pages 33–56 in Writing and Reading War: Rhetoric, Gender, and Ethics in Biblical and Modern Contexts. Edited by Brad E. Kelle and Frank Ritchel Ames. SBLSymS 42. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008. Wrong, Dennis H. Power: Its Forms, Bases and Uses. New York: Harper & Row, 1979. Würthwein, Ernst. “Abimelech und der Untergang Sichems: Studien zu Jdc 9.” Pages 12– 28 in Studien zum Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk. BZAW 227. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994. Yakubovich, Ilya. “Were Hittite Kings Divinely Anointed? A Palaic Invocation to the Sun God and Its Signicance for Hittite Religion.” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religion 5 (2006): 107–37. Yee, Gale A. “By the Hand of a Woman: The Metaphor of the Woman Warrior in Judges 4.” Semeia 61 (1993): 99–132. ———. “Ideological Criticism: Judges 17–21 and the Dismembered Body.” Pages 138– 43 in Yee, ed., Judges and Method. ———. ed. Judges and Method: New Approaches in Biblical Studies. 2d ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Yoffee, Norman. “Too Many Chiefs? (or, Safe Texts for the 90s).” Pages 60–78 in Archaeological Theory: Who Sets the Agenda? Edited by Norman Yoffee and A. Sherratt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Younger, K. Lawson. Judges and Ruth. NIVAC. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002. Zapletal, Vincenz. Das Buch Der Richter. EHAT. Münster: Aschendorff, 1923. Zertal, Adam. “A Cultic Center with a Burnt-Offering Altar from Early Iron Age I Period at Mt. Ebal.” Pages 137–47 in Augustin and Schunck, eds., Wünschet Jerusalem Frieden. ———. “Has Joshua’s Altar Been Found on Mt. Ebal?” BARev 11, no. 1 (1985): 26–43. ———. “How Can Kempinski Be So Wrong!” BARev 12, no. 1 (1986): 43–53.

1

INDEXES INDEX OF REFERENCES HEBREW BIBLE/ OLD TESTAMENT Genesis 2:24 184 4:1–15 186 4:12 83 4:14 83 4:15 147 10 72, 76 12:6 202 14:13 50, 71 14:14 186 19:1 153 26:13 80 27:41–42 129 28–30 184 30:38 60 33:18–19 202 33:19 99 34 97, 150, 172 34:1–31 202 34:6–31 99 34:21–23 101 35:4 78, 202 37:12–14 202 37:26–27 129 49:4 128 50:10–11 85 Exodus 2:1 5:2 15:18 21:7 21:10 21:20–21

71 98 225 143 185 143

23:12 24 28:4 29:5

143 62 60 60

Leviticus 13:20–21 19:6 23:11 25:35 25:44 25:47–53 27 27:3–7

114 104 104 186 143 186 75 75

Numbers 11:16 11:24–25 12:6 21:28 23:21 32:13 35:9–34 35:16–21

62 62 51 71 225 83 147 186

Deuteronomy 5:1–5 5:14 7:1–4 11:29 12:2 12:8 15:12–17 17:5 17:14–20 17:17

10 143 192 202 133 225 143 102 44, 197, 225 61

19:6 20:16–18 21:19–21 21:19 22:8 22:15 22:24 24:6 25:7 27:4–8 28:1–14 28:3–6 28:15–44 28:16–19 29:23 33:5 Joshua 8 8:1–29 8:30–35 9:2 10 11:20 20:4 20:7 24

24:1 24:14 24:15 24:16 24:20 24:23 24:26–27 24:26

147 192 102 153 147 102, 153 102 111 102, 153 202 114 114 114 114 106 225

203 193 202 108 202 192 102, 153 202 134, 135, 171, 202, 203 134 134 10 134 134, 135 134, 204 134 78

Index of References Judges 1–18 1 1:1–3:5 1:2–20 1:2 1:4–7 1:5–7 1:7 1:19 1:27–28 1:29–33 1:34–36 2 2:1–3 2:2–4 2:2–3 2:3 2:11–19 2:11–13 2:11 2:13 2:16 2:18–19 2:19 2:27 3–16 3–9 3 3:1–6 3:4–5 3:6–16:31 3:6 3:7–11 3:7 3:8 3:9 3:10 3:11 3:12 3:13–14 3:14 3:15

16, 18 42, 43, 222 48 106 43 162, 172 48 162, 163 17, 39, 43 106 107 107 18, 222 222 39 122 60 13, 18, 47, 120, 222 122 122 122 120 222 56 60 18 33 18 107 40 48 122 42 55, 122 55 55, 120 55, 120, 146, 201 55, 56 55 208 55 55, 120, 151

3:17–23 3:30 4–5 4 4:1 4:2 4:3 4:4–5 4:4 4:6 4:12–13 4:17–22 4:17 4:21–22 4:23–24 4:23 5:13–18 5:24–27 5:30 5:31 6–12 6–9 6–8 6 6:1–8:33 6:1 6:6 6:7–10 6:10 6:11–22 6:11–18 6:11–14 6:11 6:13 6:14 6:15 6:17–18 6:17 6:22 6:25–32 6:25–26 6:25 6:27 6:28 6:30–32

224 55, 56 117 120 55 55 55 207 207 120, 151 207 224 224 46, 160, 172 107 55 207 46, 196 60 55, 56 16 49 31, 35, 55, 57, 58, 64 146 172 55 55 10 122, 223 171 120 146 133 223 155, 222 223 133 223 133 201 222 122 223 122 122

255 6:31–32 6:32 6:34

6:35 6:36–40 6:37 7:1–23 7:1 7:2–8 7:7 7:9–10 7:9 7:14 7:15–25 7:15–23 7:15 7:16 7:18 7:19 7:20 7:22 7:24–25 7:42–45 8

8:1–2 8:4–21 8:4–9 8:5–9 8:9 8:13–17 8:16–17 8:18–21 8:18–19 8:18 8:19 8:20–21 8:20 8:21 8:22–32

230 57 93, 120, 146, 172, 201, 222 207, 223 223 60 172 57 222 155 222, 223 155 155 193 155 155 105, 155 155 193 105 155 207 155 56, 58–60, 63, 64, 66, 125, 126, 236 195 224 56, 157, 172 59 59 56, 59, 157, 172 222, 223 59 130, 171 59 59 59, 103 59 59, 62 171

256 Judges (cont.) 8:22–23 1, 35, 37, 49, 53, 125, 126, 170, 222, 235 8:22 56, 58, 59, 63, 208 8:23 51, 59, 63, 125, 184, 236 8:24–32 59, 223 8:24–25 60 8:24 35 8:27 56, 60–62, 121, 126, 223, 236 8:28 33, 55, 56, 120, 223 8:29–32 35 8:29 34, 56–58, 61, 62 8:30–31 126, 207 8:30 33, 61 8:31 61, 62, 89, 107, 143, 161, 184 8:32 61, 121 8:33–35 56, 57 8:33–34 200 8:33 34, 56, 122, 134, 201, 223 8:34–35 58 8:34 56 8:35 33, 34, 49, 56, 57, 88 8:56–57 35 9 1–5, 8, 9, 11–16, 19–21, 24–26, 28–32, 35, 37–41, 43, 44, 46, 48–50, 52–59,

Index of References

9:1–57 9:1–25 9:1–7 9:1–6

9:1–5 9:1–3

9:1–2 9:1

63–66, 70, 75, 87, 104, 108, 109, 112, 114–16, 118, 119, 121, 123, 125–28, 132, 134– 38, 144– 47, 154– 56, 160– 63, 165, 167–76, 179, 184, 188–91, 193, 194, 196, 197, 200–206, 208–12, 216, 218– 34, 236, 237 15, 19, 56, 171 32 35 66, 68, 70, 88, 90, 116, 119, 121, 137– 40, 143, 144, 152, 156, 166, 168, 171, 209, 229 33, 70 37, 98, 126, 148, 171, 219, 224 115, 143 33, 34, 57, 58, 66, 70, 71, 78, 94, 121, 130, 135, 159,

9:2–3 9:2

9:3

9:4–6 9:4–5 9:4

9:5

161, 184, 207 39, 77, 126, 230 33, 34, 40, 42, 50, 57, 58, 66, 71, 78, 80, 122–26, 140, 171, 184, 202, 221, 235 33, 34, 40, 50, 65, 66, 73, 75, 78, 80, 89, 94, 127, 134, 136, 204, 230, 235 115 37 34, 43, 49–51, 56, 66, 71, 73, 74, 76, 77, 94, 107, 116, 122, 123, 127, 128, 130, 134, 135, 140, 156, 166, 187, 201, 203, 204, 218, 219, 231, 235 33, 38, 42, 49, 52, 57, 58, 65, 66, 70, 71, 75–77, 79, 128–30, 137, 140, 159, 161– 63, 171, 185, 187, 191, 203,

Index of References

9:6

9:7–22 9:7–21

9:7–20 9:7–15 9:7

9:8–20 9:8–15

9:8

9:9 9:10 9:11

207, 230, 235 33, 37, 39, 40, 50, 66, 77–79, 81, 90, 113, 116, 127, 131–34, 156, 167, 170, 171, 187, 200, 204, 205, 211, 227, 231, 235 68, 69, 79, 166, 229 42, 66, 116, 137, 172 50, 79 70, 137 34, 50, 51, 80, 115, 137, 144, 148, 152, 155, 159, 161, 201 97 34, 37, 44, 48, 66, 79, 90, 138, 141, 144, 203, 221, 229, 231, 233 80, 81, 132, 133, 138, 140, 145, 167, 189 81, 82, 138, 201 81, 132, 138, 167 81, 82, 138

9:12 9:13 9:14–15 9:14 9:15–16 9:15

9:16–22 9:16–20

9:16–19

9:16–18 9:16–17 9:16

9:17–19 9:17–18

81, 132, 138, 167 81, 82, 138, 201 84, 85, 231 81, 84, 132, 167 35 34, 37, 48, 66, 80, 83–85, 87–90, 102, 115, 132, 133, 136, 139– 41, 153– 55, 157, 160, 164, 166–68, 170, 189, 204, 211 70, 140 33, 44, 50, 66, 67, 98, 141, 187, 202, 203, 219, 229, 231, 233 33–35, 70, 79, 89, 142, 195, 231 115, 230 125, 203 34, 37, 57, 58, 67, 80, 88–90, 132, 134, 135, 141– 44, 167, 168, 171, 203, 218, 220, 221 37, 142 67, 90, 94, 142, 144,

257

9:17 9:18

9:19–21 9:19–20

9:19

9:20

9:21–22 9:21 9:22–55 9:22–25 9:22–23 9:22

166, 168, 185, 209 88, 89, 142 50, 70, 89, 90, 94, 101, 116, 132, 142, 143, 152, 161–64, 167, 168, 184, 185, 187 35 80, 90, 114, 115, 141, 144 34, 37, 56–58, 67, 79, 90, 114, 134, 142, 203, 218 34, 37, 50, 67, 90, 105, 109, 111, 114, 115, 136, 141, 144, 148, 154, 155, 157, 160, 164, 211, 219, 220 144 70, 91, 137 90 32 166 1, 26, 32, 35, 37, 68, 92, 111, 158, 160, 169, 207, 208, 218, 221, 227

258 Judges (cont.) 9:23–26 50 9:23–24 37, 69, 70, 90, 93, 115, 116, 135–37, 144, 145, 164, 166, 168, 171, 209, 229, 231 9:23 31, 33–35, 42, 68, 69, 97, 107, 111, 134, 135, 145, 146, 161, 162, 164, 171, 172, 189–91, 201 9:24–25 71 9:24 33, 34, 57, 58, 68, 70, 80, 93, 94, 97, 147, 155, 162, 163, 218, 233 9:25–55 69, 70, 93, 94, 148, 166, 168, 229, 231 9:25–29 69, 94, 116, 136, 148, 155, 159, 166, 168, 191, 229, 233 9:25–26 39 9:25 31, 33, 34, 37, 40, 80, 94–102, 104, 105, 109, 136, 148, 152– 55, 159,

Index of References

9:26–41 9:26–29 9:26–27 9:26

9:27–34 9:27–29 9:27

9:28–29

9:28

9:29

9:30–55 9:30–49 9:30–41

9:30–31

190–92, 205, 219 33, 37, 95, 154 32, 38, 50, 100 105, 109 34, 35, 69, 70, 95–97, 99, 101, 146, 148, 151, 152, 154, 171, 190, 192, 205, 220, 221 34, 95 99 34, 50, 74, 97, 106, 114, 149, 151, 165, 190–92, 205, 219, 223, 224 80, 102, 109, 116, 149, 151, 194 34, 57, 58, 70, 97, 150–52, 172, 190, 191, 220 35, 69, 99, 101, 146, 153, 157, 190, 192, 205, 220 127, 136, 166, 192 116 32, 99, 105, 109, 152, 154, 155, 233 150

9:30 9:31 9:32–33 9:32

9:33–34 9:33

9:34–55 9:34–49 9:34–42 9:34–41 9:34–40 9:34–39 9:34–38 9:34–35 9:34

9:35

9:36–38 9:36–37 9:36

9:37 9:38–39 9:38

9:39–41 9:39

9:40

151, 154, 227 33, 69, 70, 151–53 193 100, 101, 105, 152, 153, 157 105 34, 35, 101, 153, 155, 157 146 211 34, 95 31, 69 99 34 157 101 99–101, 105, 152, 153, 155, 159, 193, 218 35, 70, 101, 151, 153, 154 150 103, 193 102, 103, 152, 153, 159 102, 152, 153, 159 80 98, 149, 151, 154, 220 34, 205, 220 50, 101, 153, 154, 205 102, 110, 154, 155, 220

Index of References 9:41

9:42–57 9:42–54 9:42–49 9:42–45

9:42–43 9:42

9:43

9:44–45 9:44

9:45

9:46–54 9:46–49

28, 69, 70, 99, 100, 103–5, 150, 154, 206 32 33, 38 146, 168, 220 37, 69, 96, 99, 104, 105, 107, 109, 131, 155, 156, 172, 193, 233 34 31, 34, 95, 104, 105, 157 34, 35, 95, 99, 101, 105, 155, 157, 159, 162, 193 35, 155 34, 99, 103, 105, 107, 159 31, 34, 42, 103, 105, 107, 110, 155–57, 159, 163, 195, 203, 211 35 34, 37, 59, 69, 77, 99, 103, 107, 109, 110, 117, 131, 155–57, 161–63, 172, 193, 219, 233

9:46

9:47 9:48–49 9:48 9:49

9:50–55

9:50–54 9:50 9:51 9:52 9:53–54 9:53 9:54–55 9:54

9:55

9:56–57

31, 49, 50, 71, 74, 107, 110, 122, 135, 156, 158, 159, 219 50, 108 117, 157 80, 99, 109, 117 42, 70, 109, 110, 113, 157– 59, 163, 203, 211 40, 69, 91, 110, 112, 116, 146, 159, 194, 195 37, 104, 172, 233 28, 110, 159 50, 71, 110, 159 110, 111, 159, 203 37, 162 104, 111, 159 162 37, 46, 52, 70, 117, 159–62, 196 26, 35, 37, 111, 169, 207, 218, 221 32, 37, 39, 49, 64, 66, 69, 70, 80, 112, 113, 115, 116, 135, 162, 166, 168,

259

9:56

9:57

10 10:1–5 10:1 10:6–7 10:6 10:7 10:8 10:10 10:12 11:3 11:11 11:12–33 11:29 11:33 12:1–4 12:6 13:1–24 13:1 13:5 13:25 14:6 14:9 14:19 15:10–11 15:14 15:20 16:1 16:9 16:31 17–21

17:5–6

169, 172, 209, 229, 231, 233 34, 46, 70, 162–64, 189, 201 33, 34, 57, 58, 114– 16, 164, 201 18 55 55, 120 122 55, 122 55 55 55, 122 120 51, 128 208 193 120, 146, 201 55 195 222 120 55 208, 222 120, 146, 201 120, 146, 201 80 146, 201 43 146, 201 208 71 120 208 1, 17, 30, 37, 48, 49, 225–27, 236, 237 122

Index of References

260 Judges (cont.) 17:5 60 17:6 1, 17, 43, 44, 53, 222, 225 17:7 17, 43, 44 17:8 44 17:9 44 18:1 1, 44, 53, 222, 225 18:14 60 18:17 60 18:18 60 18:20 60 18:25 236 19:1 1, 44, 53, 222, 225, 236 19:25 236 20:18 43, 226 20:23 226 20:27–28 226 20:28 48, 226 20:29–45 193 20:35 226 20:46 222, 236 21:3 226, 236 21:5 226 21:8 226 21:15 226 21:25 1, 17, 44, 53, 222, 225 Ruth 2:20 4:1–12 4:1 4:4 4:11

186 186 102 114 153

1 Samuel 1:13 2:18 7:7 8–12 8:4–22

83 60 108 44, 197 42

8:4 8:5 9:1–10:16 9:16 10:1 10:10 11 11:1–15 11:11–12 11:11 12:1–25 13:6 13:15 13:17–18 14:19 14:33–35 15:1 15:24 15:26–29 16:1–13 16:1 16:12–13 16:13–14 16:14 17:26 17:52 18:1–8 18:6–16 18:10–14 18:10–11 19:9–16 19:9–10 19:23 20:20–31 20:21–22 20:27 21:9 21:10 MT 22 22:2 22:7–8 22:18–21 22:18–20 22:18 22:19

108 214 189 27, 170 27, 170 27 158 172 158 105, 158, 193 42 108 160 105 80 76 27 146 160 189 27 170 27, 146 42, 146, 172 150 150 210 146 146 146, 172 172 146 80 42 114 104 60 60 158 108 42 158, 172 42 60 158

23:9 23:11–12 24:8–22 26:13–25 28:16–19 30:19–20 30:22 31 31:1–5 31:4–5 31:4 31:8

60 71 42 42 160 60 60 146, 160 172 46 160 104

2 Samuel 1–4 1 1:6 2:4 2:25 3:4–5 3:7 3:16 3:24 3:30 4 5:1–3 5:1 5:3 5:6 5:9 5:10 5:11 5:13 6:14 7 7:2 7:7 7:13–16 7:14 8:13 9:3 9:4 9:17–18 9:25 9:26 9:29 9:30–55

42 160 122 51 108 185 61 80 80 186 172 51 126 27, 208 71 77 80 86 61 60 27, 225 86 86 62 188 60 179 181 179 179 179, 181 181 181

Index of References 9:30 9:41 11 11:1 11:20–21 11:21 12 12:1–13 12:7 12:8 12:11 12:13 12:30 13:19 13:37 14:5–7 14:11 15:1–18:33 15:16 15:20 16:5–13 16:21–22 18:24 18:25 19 19:5 19:8 19:11–15 19:11–14 MT 19:12–15 19:12 19:13 19:15 19:16 19:17–24 19:24–30 19:25–31 19:32–41 19:41–43 20 20:1–22 20:1–6 20:3 20:15 21:1–9

181 181 161 193 38 161, 172 144 144, 172 170 61 61 145 60 80 184 129, 186 147, 186 210 61, 184 83 210 61 153 80 127 61 153 126 126 126, 171, 224 126 126, 127 126, 127, 204 127 127 211 127 127 211 161 210 219 61 193 211

21:12 1 Kings 1:38–41 1:39 2:5 2:10 2:24 6–9 6:9 6:15 6:16 6:18 6:20 6:36 7:2 7:7 7:8 8:20 8:25 8:58 10:7 11:3–8 11:11–13 11:26–40 11:26 11:27 11:29–39 11:40 11:43 12–14 12 12:1–24 12:1 12:2–3 12:4–14 12:20 12:21–24 12:24 12:25 14:10 14:23 14:31 15:8 15:24 15:27–29

71

107 27, 170 147 61 62 27 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 62 62 204 50 61 51 154 192 77 51, 136 192 61, 135 211 135, 136, 211, 221 171 71, 135 154 136 211 136 136 211 211 133 61 61 61 186

261 16:6 16:10–11 16:21–22 16:25–26 16:28 19:19 20:1–12 20:3–7 21:19 22:10 22:34 22:50

61 186 186 161 61 71 193 61 147 101, 153 46 61

2 Kings 2:10 2:11 3:4–6 8:24 8:26 9–10 9:1–3 9:6 9:7 9:12 9:28 10 10:1–7 10:1 10:7 10:35 11 11::2 11:1–20 11:1–3 11:1 11:5–6 11:6 11:12 11:14 11:15–16 11:16 11:18 12:19 12:21 13:9 13:13 14:8

114 80 192 61 161 163 51 170 147 27 61 61 186 163, 172 163, 172 61 161, 162 161 172 186 161, 162 162 162 27 161, 162 162 161 161, 162 61 61, 78 61 61 192

Index of References

262 2 Kings (cont.) 14:9 14:16 14:20 15:7 15:38 16:4 16:20 17:10 17:34 18–20 18:13–16 18:17–35 19:10 22–23 23:8–9 23:15 23:19 24:15

86, 138 61 61 61 61 133 61 133 62 210 192 193 205 210 209 209 209 61

1 Chronicles 1:43 1:46 1:50 2:16–17 3:3 3:9 11:4 11:8 11:9 14:3 17:1 20:2 26:27

61 61 61 126 185 61 71 77 80 61 86 60 60

2 Chronicles 10:1 11:21 13:4–12 13:4 13:5–6 13:6 13:7 13:21 15:1–7 15:3–6 15:3

71 61 50 51 50 50 51 61 49, 226 225 226

15:4 18:9 21:14 24:3 28:4 32:5

226 153 61 61 133 77

107:27 115:8–11 118:8 119:112 119:36 119:65 126:6

83 205 205 204 204 141 80

Ezra 3:7

86

Proverbs 5:6 5:7 7:24 8:32 12:14 16:27 31:23

83 51 51 51 141 86 153

Nehemiah 8:1 9:7

101 62

Esther 2:14

61

Job 1:17 13:6 13:17 21:2 34:2 34:10 39:6

105 51 51 51 51 51 106

Psalms 2 2:7 9:12 9:13 MT 20 21 21:9 34:11 34:12 MT 45 52:9 58:9 58:10 MT 59:12 68:13 72:14 72:16 89:21 89:46 91:1

192, 225 188 147 147 225 225 86 51 51 225 205 85, 86 85, 86 83 60 147 79 170 86 204

Song of Songs 6:8–9 61 Isaiah 1:19–20 3:11 7:2 10:16 24:20 30:12 30:27 33:23 36:4–20 37:10 42:11 44:11 46:3 46:12 47:10 49:1 51:1 51:7 55:2 57:5 61:1

192 141 83 86 83 205 86 60 192, 193 205 79 108 51 51 205 51 51 51 51 133 170

Jeremiah 2:20 2:29 3:6

133 192 133

Index of References 3:12 5:17 17:6 17:12 17:19 19:2 21:12 22:7 22:14 26:10–11 29:22 38:7–10 38:7 49:14

133 205 106 133 102 102 86 86 86 102 86 102 153 108

Lamentations 2:3 3:20 4:14–15 5:14

86 204 83 153

Ezekiel 3:18 3:20 6:13

147 147 133

18:18 31:2–18 33:6 38:12

141 84 147 102

263 Zephaniah 2:9 3:4

106 128

Zechariah 8:21 11:1–2

80 86

Daniel 1:7 4:7–9 MT 4:10–12 5:2–3

63 84 84 61

Hosea 4:1–19 4:13

193 133

INSCRIPTIONS Laws of Hammurabi 170–71 185

Joel 2:3

86

Amos 5:6

86

ANCIENT EGYPTIAN TEXTS Harris Papyrus 1 17

Micah 6:1–16

193

NEW TESTAMENT Luke 1:3 6

INDEX OF AUTHORS Abitbol, M. 45 Agevall, O. 22 Aharoni, Y. 190, 207 Aichele, G. 14 Aitken, J. K. 97, 114 Alexander, B. 191, 193 Alter, R. 3, 5, 47, 63, 72, 88, 93, 103, 138, 235 Amit, Y. 3, 14–16, 18, 63, 65, 66, 70, 85, 91, 93, 139, 210, 235 Anderson, B. W. 88, 102, 103 Anderson, F. I. 121, 157 Arnold, B. T. 226 Assis, E. 16, 48, 52, 57, 59, 68, 72, 80, 87, 90, 93, 117, 157, 171, 204, 220, 235 Auld, G. 15, 16 Avigad, N. 99, 100 Bal, M. 45, 101, 111, 196 Bar-Efrat, S. 3, 6, 63, 64, 70, 93, 95, 112, 128 Barbalet, J. M. 23 Barkay, G. 100 Barr, J. 4, 8 Bartelmus, R. 32, 79, 80 Barthélemy, D. 98, 100 Bartlett, J. R. 105 Batto, B. F. 74 Bechtel, L. M. 195, 196 Becker, U. 16, 33, 57, 58, 67, 70, 76, 79, 87, 95, 142 Beckman, G. 188 Beetham, D. 27, 28, 52, 198–202, 204, 209, 235 Bendor, S. 183 Benjamin, D. C. 183, 184 Berlin, A. 3, 62, 69 Beyerlin, W. 18 Binkley, R. A. 9 Block, D. I. 16, 53, 57, 59–61, 73, 75–77, 80, 87, 91, 100, 102, 163, 207, 222, 236

Bluedorn, W. 31, 32, 49, 53, 55, 57, 58, 62, 63, 71, 73, 76, 85, 87, 95, 97, 104, 135, 230 Boling, R. G. 16, 18, 56, 57, 60, 62, 73, 76, 78, 79, 82, 96, 98–100, 103, 104, 134, 207 Bondarenko, D. M. 217 Boogaart, T. A. 47, 69, 116, 159, 233 Borger, R. 100 Bowman, R. G. 54 Breiner, P. 22, 213 Brennan, C. 22, 213 Brenner, A. 45 Brensinger, T. L. 68, 76, 77 Brettler, M. Z. 1, 2, 17, 41–43, 52 Brown, C. A. 58 Brueggemann, W. 72, 73 Buber, M. 1, 56, 58, 87, 225 Budde, K. 57, 60, 74, 77, 100, 103 Burney, C. F. 18, 57, 60, 71, 76, 80, 82, 96, 102, 208 Butler, T. 16, 39, 77, 101, 106, 136 Cahill, J. 78 Campbell, E. F., Jr. 19, 77, 78, 92, 104, 188, 202 Carney, T. F. 20, 190 Carter, C. E. 20 Chatman, S. 6, 176 Chazan, N. 45 Choi, J. H. 226 Ciobanu, M. 23 Claessen, H. J. M. 28, 212–14, 216, 217 Clark, D. J. 150, 195 Clements, R. E. 74 Clines, D. J. A. 8 Coats, G. W. 149, 194 Cockcroft, R. 11, 122, 130, 138, 143, 164 Cockcroft, S. M. 11, 122, 130, 138, 143, 164 Cogan, M. 61 Cohen, R. 29, 212 Comas, J. 11 Craig, K. M. 32, 54

Index of Authors Cross, F. M. 16, 74, 75, 188 Crown, D. 83, 143, 151 Crüsemann, F. 1, 33, 39, 52, 54, 58, 83, 87, 225 Cundall, A. E. 1, 58, 76, 77, 100, 104, 190, 225, 236 Davis, D. R. 190 De Castelbajac, I. 16, 33, 37, 52, 95, 104 De Moor, J. C. 62, 164 De Vaux, R. 62, 81, 188 De Waard, J. 80 Delitzsch, F. 60 Dever, W. G. 218 Dietrich, W. 17 Dorsey, D. A. 190, 219 Dragga, S. 172, 210 Dyck, E. 207 Eliaeson, S. 21, 22 Emerton, J. A. 57 Endris, V. 49 Eph’al, I. 192, 193 Erlandsson, S. 190 Exum, J. C. 13, 45, 53, 111, 222, 236 Faust, A. 215 Fensham, F. C. 61, 106, 164, 186 Finkelstein, I. 39, 215 Flanagan, J. W. 39, 157, 214 Fokkelman, J. P. 3, 47, 64, 65, 70, 75, 85, 112 Fowler, M. 188 Frankfort, H. 53, 189 Freidman, J. 45 Frick, F. 39, 214 Fritz, V. 16, 33, 67, 74, 79, 91, 95, 104, 108, 142, 155 Frolov, S. 43 Frymer-Kensky, T. 185 Gerbrandt, G. E. 91, 225 Gevirtz, S. 106, 156, 195 Gillmayr-Bucher, S. 47 Gitay, Y. 11, 12 Görg, M. 61 Gooding, D. W. 47, 222 Goslinga, C. J. 60, 62, 103 Gray, J. 76, 77, 79, 88, 100, 102, 106, 108, 208

265

Greenspahn, F. E. 17, 18, 120, 226 Gross, H. 58 Guest, P. D. 38, 41 Guillaume, P. 33, 210, 223, 224, 235 Gunn, D. M. 32 Haag, H. 57 Halpern, B. 57, 62, 91 Hamilton, J. 207 Harrelson, W. 92 Hauser, G. 9–12, 124, 125, 143, 144, 148, 165, 167, 169 Heffelnger, K. 40, 52, 95, 136, 190, 212, 214 Heller, R. L. 53, 233 Henton Davies, G. 59, 235 Hentschel, G. 37 Herion, G. A. 20 Hertzberg, H. W. 57, 60, 76, 77, 79, 100 Herzog, Z. 215 Hirsch, E. D., Jr. 5 Hobbs, T. R. 194 Honeyman, A. M. 106 Hoppe, L. 81, 117 Hurowitz, V. 197 Irwin, B. 43, 50–53, 211 Ishida, T. 92 Jacob, I. 85 Jacob, W. 85 Jamieson-Drake, D. W. 215 Jans, E. 16, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 53, 56, 57, 67, 79, 95, 116, 126, 142, 162, 164, 230, 233 Janzen, J. G. 47, 69, 116, 159, 233 Jaros, K. 108 Jenni, E. 32 Jobling, D. 87, 91 Joffe, A. H. 215 Joosten, J. 82 Katz, R. C. 12, 124, 125, 131, 141, 149 Kearns, M. 10 Kedar-Kopfstein, B. 147 Keil, C. F. 60, 76, 77 Kempinski, A. 104 Kessler, R. 187 Khoury, P. S. 29, 217 King, P. 25, 71, 75, 83, 86, 182, 183, 188

266

Index of Authors

Kirkpatrick, S. 195 Klaus, N. 69, 113 Klein, L. R. 56, 73, 100, 107 Knauf, E. A. 214 Knudtzon, J. 62 Kohl, P. L. 28, 216 Korotayev, A. V. 217 Kostiner, J. 29, 41, 190, 215, 217, 220 Kristiansen, K. 217 Kurtz, D. V. 29, 42, 212, 213, 217, 234 L’Heureux, C. 74 Lagrange, M.-J. 77, 79, 100, 108 Lambert, F. 215 Lemche, N. P. 20, 39 Lewis, T. J. 49, 74, 75, 156 Lilley, J. P. U. 47 Lincoln, B. 205 Lindars, B. 57, 59, 84, 85, 87 Lipson, C. S. 9 Liss, H. 80, 84, 85 Liverani, M. 186, 191, 192 Longman, T., III 5, 6, 153 Lowery, R. H. 61, 210 Malamat, A. 178, 179 Maly, E. 84, 91 Marais, J. 38, 117 Martin, J. D. 76–78, 85, 96, 100, 102, 190 Master, D. M. 25, 39 Matheson, C. 24 Matthews, V. H. 82, 101, 133, 183–85 Mayes, A. D. H. 1, 155 Mazar, A. 104, 108 McCann, J. C. 91 McCarter, P. K., Jr. 146, 160, 210 McKenzie, J. L. 74, 76, 81, 117, 202 McNutt, P. M. 20, 21, 215 Mettinger, T. N. D. 81, 121, 133 Meyers, C. L. 53, 60, 61, 189 Miller, R. D., II 18, 40, 214 Mobley, G. 73, 187, 196 Moenikes, A. 57, 58, 87 Moore, G. F. 32, 57, 58, 60, 71, 74, 76, 79, 85, 100, 102–4, 208 Müller, R. 33 Muilenburg, J. 10 Mulder, M. J. 74 Munch, P. A. 178 Murvar, V. 180

Nelson, R. D. 16 Niditch, S. 41, 44, 45, 170, 236 Niehr, H. 227 Nielsen, E. 100 Noble, P. R. 15 Noth, M. 32, 33 O’Brien, M. A. 32 O’Connell, R. H. 2, 17, 41, 42, 47, 52, 71, 91, 100, 158, 172, 210, 225, 236 Oeste, G. 237 Ogden, G. S. 87 Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. 12, 120, 121, 131, 132, 137, 141, 143, 149, 165, 167, 169 Olson, D. T. 47, 85 Oosten, J. G. 212 Oppenheim, A. L. 83, 204 Orenstein, H. 199 Papineau, D. 22 Parpola, S. 84 Patrick, D. 9, 11 Perelman, C. 12, 120–22, 124, 125, 128, 131, 132, 137, 141, 143, 149, 151, 160, 165, 167, 169, 170, 176 Pfoh, E. 39, 215 Phillips, G. A. 14 Polzin, R. M. 56, 231 Powell, M. A. 5, 8 Price, B. 214 Rabin, C. 143 Reviv, H. 92, 202 Richter, W. 16, 33, 67, 79, 95, 142, 163, 164, 223 Ringgren, H. 83 Rodd, C. S. 21 Roscoe, P. B. 28, 216 Routledge, B. 199 Routledge, R. 93 Ruprecht, E. 84 Ryken, L. 153 Salvesen, A. 184 Sandmel, S. 14 Saski, T. 72, 145 Schäfer-Lichtenberger, C. 25, 213 Scharbert, J. 97 Schloen, D. 25, 26, 183, 186 Schneider, T. J. 45, 47, 62, 73, 80

Index of Authors Schöpin, K. 16, 82, 235 Scult, A. 9, 11 Sellin, E. 57, 71, 76 Service, E. R. 214 Severs, B. 192, 193 Shalom-Guy, H. 161 Showman, M. 29, 42, 212, 234 Simpson, C. 32 Singer-Avitz, L. 215 Skalník, P. 28, 212, 214, 216 Smend, R. 16, 17 Soggin, J. A. 1, 58, 60, 74, 77, 81, 87, 93, 100, 103 Solomon, A. M. V. 87 Spencer, M. E. 23 Stager, L. E. 19, 25, 71, 75, 78, 83, 86, 108, 182, 183, 188, 220 Steinberg, N. 39, 52, 72, 175, 183, 230 Sternberg, M. 3, 4, 13, 96, 122, 128, 129, 133, 141, 142, 145, 149, 164, 165, 235 Stone, K. 46 Swedberg, R. 22, 176 Sweeney, M. A. 2, 16, 17, 41, 42, 52, 236 Szuchman, J. 215 Tadmor, H. 61, 208 Tanner, J. P. 222 Tapper, R. 217 Tatu, S. 85, 139 Thompson, H. O. 207 Tollington, J. E. 16, 41 Tolmie, D. F. 5, 6, 176 Trible, P. 10, 45 Tull, P. K. 10, 13 Turner, S. 22

267

Van Dam, C. 60 Van Wachter, P. J. 102, 187 Vanhoozer, K. J. 5 Veijola, T. 1, 33, 58, 67, 79, 87, 141, 142, 208 Velde, P. van der 216, 217 Watts, J. W. 140 Webb, B. G. 32, 47, 53, 91, 116, 233 Weber, M. 22–25, 27, 176, 178–82, 186, 189, 191, 197 Weinfeld, M. 18 Weisman, Z. 81, 133, 189 Wells, B. 184 Westbrook, R. 184 Whitelam, K. 61, 225 Wilcock, M. 85 Wilhoit, J. C. 153 Wilkie, J. M. 103 Wolf, H. 104 Wong, G. T. K. 43, 48, 49, 53, 163, 225–27 Wood, B. 88, 202 Wright, G. E. 19, 74, 78, 104, 188, 202 Wright, J. L. 44 Wrong, D. H. 23, 199, 204 Würthwein, E. 33, 52, 85, 95, 104 Yakubovich, I. 188 Yee, G. A. 38, 41, 54, 196 Yoffee, N. 28, 216 Younger, K. L. 47, 53, 56, 57, 83, 95, 204 Zapletal, V. 60, 100, 102, 103, 207 Zertal, A. 103, 104

268

269

270

271

272

273

274