Samuel-Kings: A Hypertextual Commentary 9783631852040, 9783631852163

Citation preview

Samuel–Kings

EUROPEAN STUDIES IN THEOLOGY, PHILOSOPHY AND HISTORY OF RELIGIONS Edited by Bartosz Adamczewski

VOL. 28

Bartosz Adamczewski

Samuel–Kings A Hypertextual Commentary

Bibliographic Information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available online at http://dnb.d-nb.de. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. This publication was financially supported by Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw.

ISSN 2192-1857 ISBN 978-3-631-85204-0 (Print) E-ISBN 978-3-631-85216-3 (E-PDF) E-ISBN 978-3-631-85217-0 (EPUB) E-ISBN 978-3-631-85218-7 (MOBI) DOI 10.3726/b18288 © Peter Lang GmbH Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften Berlin 2021 All rights reserved. Peter Lang – Berlin ∙ Bern ∙ Bruxelles ∙ New York ∙ Oxford ∙ Warszawa ∙ Wien All parts of this publication are protected by copyright. Any utilisation outside the strict limits of the copyright law, without the permission of the publisher, is forbidden and liable to prosecution. This applies in particular to reproductions, translations, microfilming, and storage and processing in electronic retrieval systems. This publication has been peer reviewed. www.peterlang.com

Acknowledgments I thank my dear Mother, Jolanta Adamczewska, MSc; my relatives and friends; my Diocese of Warszawa-​Praga; and the community of the Catholic Parish of St Mark in Warsaw for their encouragement, prayers, and spiritual support during my writing this book. My thanks also go to the staff of the Tübingen University Library for their help during my summer bibliographical research. Their openness before the pandemic was especially important because during the pandemic not all bibliographic resources were available to me. Last but not least, I want to thank Mr Łukasz Gałecki and the members of the staff of the Publisher who helped turn the electronic version of the text into a book.

Contents Introduction ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  11

Sequential hypertextuality �����������������������������������������������������������  12



Samuel–​Kings and Deuteronomy ������������������������������������������������  18



Date of composition ����������������������������������������������������������������������  23



Place of composition ���������������������������������������������������������������������  27

Chapter 1. First Samuel as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1–​7 �����������������������������������������������������������  31

1.1. 1 Sam 1 (cf. Deut 1:1–​11) ����������������������������������������������������  31



1.2. 1 Sam 2 (cf. Deut 1:12–​39) ��������������������������������������������������  35



1.3. 1 Sam 3:1–​4:1a (cf. Deut 1:40–​43) �������������������������������������  41



1.4. 1 Sam 4:1b–​7:2 (cf. Deut 1:44–​2:7) ������������������������������������  43



1.5. 1 Sam 7:3–​17 (cf. Deut 2:8–​9) ��������������������������������������������  47



1.6. 1 Sam 8–​15 (cf. Deut 2:10–​16) �������������������������������������������  48



1.7. 1 Sam 16 (cf. Deut 2:17–​29) ������������������������������������������������  54



1.8. 1 Sam 17 (cf. Deut 2:30–​36d) ���������������������������������������������  57



1.9. 1 Sam 18 (cf. Deut 2:36e–​3:14) �������������������������������������������  59



1.10. 1 Sam 19 (cf. Deut 3:15–​4:49) ���������������������������������������������  61



1.11. 1 Sam 20:1–​27:6 (cf. Deut 5:1–​21) �������������������������������������  65



1.12. 1 Sam 27:7–​29:11 (cf. Deut 5:22–​6:25) ������������������������������  71



1.13. 1 Sam 30–​31 (cf. Deut 7) �����������������������������������������������������  76

Chapter 2. Second Samuel as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 8:1–​13:6 �������������������������������������������������  81

2.1. 2 Sam 1 (cf. Deut 8) ��������������������������������������������������������������  81

8

Contents



2.2. 2 Sam 2–​4 (cf. Deut 9:1–​8) ��������������������������������������������������  84



2.3. 2 Sam 5 (cf. Deut 9:9–​10:3) �������������������������������������������������  88



2.4. 2 Sam 6–​7 (cf. Deut 10:4–​17a) �������������������������������������������  91



2.5. 2 Sam 8–​10 (cf. Deut 10:17a–​22) ���������������������������������������  95



2.6. 2 Sam 11–​19 (cf. Deut 11:1–​15b) ���������������������������������������  97



2.7. 2 Sam 20–​23 (cf. Deut 11:15c–​23) �����������������������������������  104



2.8. 2 Sam 24 (cf. Deut 11:24–​13:6) ����������������������������������������  107

Chapter 3. First Kings as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 13:7–​27:25 �����������������������������������������������������������������  113

3.1. 1 Kgs 1–​2 (cf. Deut 13:7–​14:2c) ���������������������������������������  113



3.2. 1 Kgs 3–​4 (cf. Deut 14:2d–​29) ������������������������������������������  117



3.3. 1 Kgs 5–​7 (cf. Deut 15:1–​16:12) ���������������������������������������  119



3.4. 1 Kgs 8–​9 (cf. Deut 16:13–​16) ������������������������������������������  125



3.5. 1 Kgs 10–​11 (cf. Deut 16:17–​17:20) ���������������������������������  128



3.6. 1 Kgs 12 (cf. Deut 18:1–​20) �����������������������������������������������  133



3.7. 1 Kgs 13:1–​14:29 (cf. Deut 18:21–​19:21) �������������������������  136



3.8. 1 Kgs 14:30–​16:34 (cf. Deut 20–​22) ���������������������������������  142



3.9. 1 Kgs 17 (cf. Deut 23:1–​26:11) �����������������������������������������  146



3.10. 1 Kgs 18 (cf. Deut 26:12–​27:7) �����������������������������������������  151



3.11. 1 Kgs 19 (cf. Deut 27:8–​16) �����������������������������������������������  155



3.12. 1 Kgs 20–​22 (cf. Deut 27:17–​25) ��������������������������������������  158

Chapter 4. Second Kings as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 27:26–​34:12 ����������������������������������������  163

4.1. 2 Kgs 1–​5 (cf. Deut 27:26–​28:22) �������������������������������������  163



4.2. 2 Kgs 6–​7 (cf. Deut 28:23–​58) ������������������������������������������  169



4.3. 2 Kgs 8–​10 (cf. Deut 28:59–​68) ����������������������������������������  174

Contents

9



4.4. 2 Kgs 11–​15 (cf. Deut 28:69–​29:15b) �������������������������������  177



4.5. 2 Kgs 16–​17 (cf. Deut 29:15c–​28) ������������������������������������  180



4.6. 2 Kgs 18–​20 (cf. Deut 30:1–​31:1) �������������������������������������  184



4.7. 2 Kgs 21 (cf. Deut 31:2–​9) �������������������������������������������������  187



4.8. 2 Kgs 22 (cf. Deut 31:10–​27) ���������������������������������������������  189



4.9. 2 Kgs 23 (cf. Deut 31:28–​32:40) ���������������������������������������  191



4.10. 2 Kgs 24 (cf. Deut 32:41–​34:1b) ���������������������������������������  197



4.11. 2 Kgs 25 (cf. Deut 34:1c–​12) ���������������������������������������������  200

General conclusions ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  205 Bibliography ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  213

Primary sources ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  213



Secondary literature �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������  213

Index of ancient sources �������������������������������������������������������������������������������  232

Introduction The books of Samuel and Kings are regarded in the Hebrew and Western canonical traditions as four books, forming two groups of writings: two books of Samuel and two books of Kings. However, the tradition of the Septuagint regards them as one group of writings, namely, the four books of Kingdoms. Taking into consideration the relatively weak boundaries between them,1 they can be regarded as one literary work. The narrative unity between the books of Samuel and Kings is provided, for example, by the continuity of the story of the old David in 2 Sam 23:1–​1 Kgs 2:11. Moreover, this monograph demonstrates that the books of Samuel–​Kings, taken together, resulted from a consistent hypertextual reworking of the book of Deuteronomy. This fact decisively proves that the whole narrative of Samuel–​Kings should be regarded as one long literary work. The style of this monograph is highly repetitive, resembling that of the repetitively formulated summaries in 1 Kgs 11:41–​43; 14:19–​20.29–​31; etc. This ‘minimalistic’ style of scholarly analysis directs the attention of the reader to the hitherto unknown phenomenon of almost two thousand sequentially arranged, conceptual, but often also linguistic, hypertextual correspondences between Samuel–​Kings and Deuteronomy. The discovery of this phenomenon radically changes our understanding of the narrative of Samuel–​Kings: its origin, literary character, and theological ideas. It reveals that Samuel–​Kings as a whole, and not just some fragments thereof (the story of the inauguration of the sanctuary etc.), was consistently written as a hypertextual reworking of Deuteronomy. The English translations of the Hebrew words, phrases, and sentences of Samuel–​Kings, which are used in this monograph, are often as literal as possible, even at the cost of incorrectness of English grammar and style (‘land’ instead of ‘earth,’ ‘do’ instead of ‘make,’ etc.), to show the linguistic and conceptual

1 Cf. C. Levin, ‘On the Cohesion and Separation of Books within the Enneateuch,’ in T. B. Dozeman, T. Römer, and K. Schmid (eds.), Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings (AIL 8; SBL: Atlanta 2011), 127–​154 (esp. 132); M. Avioz, ‘The Literary Structure of the Books of Samuel: Setting the Stage for a Coherent Reading,’ CurBR 16.1 (2017) 8–​33 (esp. 11–​12, 25). Pace J. Hutzli, ‘The Literary Relationship between I–​II Samuel and I–​II Kings: Considerations Concerning the Formation of the Two Books,’ ZAW 122 (2010) 505–​519 (esp. 508–​513).

12

Introduction

connections between Samuel–​Kings and Deuteronomy, which are often only detectable in the original Hebrew text.

Sequential hypertextuality The methodological approach adopted in this monograph is not based on any widely used modern exegetical method. These methods are generally based on various presuppositions, for example, that the biblical texts are similar to other ancient texts, that they have some diachrony, that they have some internal narrative coherence, that they convey some coherent ideas, etc., which are not necessarily true. The approach adopted in this monograph is therefore based on close reading and comparative analysis of the biblical texts as we have them, with paying particular attention to the order of their ideas and to their minor, somewhat surprising details, which are rarely scrutinised by other scholars. Thus, in a critical and verifiable way, it explains numerous data of the biblical texts which are very difficult to explain with the use of more widely known biblical methods, a feature which from a general methodological point of view constitutes its greatest advantage over them.2 This methodological approach was already adopted and refined in my earlier monographs concerning various biblical writings. These studies revealed that the sequentially arranged, hypertextual connections between the New Testament Gospels and their hypotexts can be counted not in tens, as I had earlier thought, but in hundreds.3 The present monograph likewise presupposes and develops the results of my earlier study on Samuel–​Kings, in which I argued that there

2 Cf. L. Alonso Schökel and J. M. Bravo Aragón, Apuntes de hermenéutica (Trotta: Madrid 1994), 138: ‘Un método se afirma por sus resultados.’ 3 See B. Adamczewski, The Gospel of Mark: A Hypertextual Commentary (EST 8; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2014), 31–​197; B. Adamczewski, The Gospel of Luke: A Hypertextual Commentary (EST 13; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2016), 35–​204; B. Adamczewski, The Gospel of Matthew: A Hypertextual Commentary (EST 16; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2017), 29–​201; B. Adamczewski, The Gospel of John: A Hypertextual Commentary (EST 17; Peter Lang: Berlin [et al.] 2018), 29–​205. Cf. also B. Adamczewski, Genesis: A Hypertextual Commentary (EST 25; Peter Lang: Berlin [et al.] 2020), 37–​225; B. Adamczewski, Exodus–​Numbers: A Hypertextual Commentary (EST 26; Peter Lang: Berlin [et al.] 2020), 41–​208; B. Adamczewski, Deuteronomy–​Judges: A Hypertextual Commentary (EST 27; Peter Lang: Berlin [et al.] 2020), 37–​214.

Sequential hypertextuality

13

are forty-​four sequentially arranged, hypertextual connections between Samuel–​ Kings and Deuteronomy.4 According to the French literary theorist Gérard Genette, hypertextuality can be defined as any relationship uniting a text B (which is in such a case called hypertext) to an earlier text A (which is called hypotext), upon which it grafts itself in a manner that is not that of commentary.5 Accordingly, a hypertextual relationship of a given text to a hypotext by definition does not consist in directly commenting on the hypotext, its ideas, literary features, phraseology, etc. Therefore, a hypertextual relationship may include some linguistic connections between the hypertext and the hypotext, but it may also be purely conceptual. For this reason, although the presence of shared language, especially unique to two given texts, is a useful preliminary indicator of some kind of literary relationship between them, the volume of shared language should not be regarded as the primary criterion for detecting literary dependence between two given texts, especially ancient Near Eastern texts.6 My analyses of the phenomenon of hypertextuality in biblical writings reveal that the most important criterion for detecting a hypertextual relationship between two given biblical writings is the criterion of the order of their hypertextual correspondences. If two given works reveal conceptual and/​or linguistic correspondences which follow a sequential pattern, it is reasonable to argue that the author of one of these works in a hypertextual way reworked the other work, preserving the basic sequence of its ideas, concepts, literary motifs, etc. In such a case, the relationship between these works may be called sequential hypertextuality.

B. Adamczewski, Retelling the Law: Genesis, Exodus-​Numbers, and Samuel-​Kings as Sequential Hypertextual Reworkings of Deuteronomy (EST 1; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2012), 225–​280. 5 G. Genette, Palimpsestes: La littérature au second degré (Seuil: [s.l.] 1982), 13: ‘Hypertextualité [:]‌J’entends par là toute relation unissant un texte B (que j’appellerai hypertexte) à un texte antérieur A (que j’appellerai, bien sûr, hypotexte) sur lequel il se greffe d’une manière qui n’est pas celle du commentaire.’ 6 Cf. J. R. Kelly, ‘Identifying Literary Allusions: Theory and the Criterion of Shared Language,’ in Z. Zevit (ed.), Subtle Citation, Allusion and Translation in the Hebrew Bible (Equinox: Sheffield · Bristol 2017), 22–​40 (esp. 27–​33). See also G. D. Miller, ‘Intertextuality in Old Testament Research,’ CurBR 9.3 (2010) 283–​309 (esp. 295–​298). 4

14

Introduction

Jeffrey M. Leonard makes use of this criterion in his identification of the allusive technique called ‘narrative tracking.’7 Leonard’s criterion of detecting the mimicking of the narrative structure of an earlier text in a later text can certainly be applied to the narrative parts of Deuteronomy and Samuel–​Kings (the Israelites coming to a sanctuary, protecting the socially weak ones, the ‘original sin’ in the sanctuary, the positive character of a young man, Yahweh foretelling the punishment on the old Israelite leader, etc.). However, the phenomenon of the common order of ideas, concepts, motifs, specific vocabulary, etc. can be much broader than that of the presence of ‘narrative tracking’ because it can also be detected in non-​narrative or only partly narrative texts. In the cases in which the level of verbal agreement between the conceptually corresponding fragments of two given works is very low, and consequently the relationship between both works is truly hypertextual, the criterion of order is particularly useful. In such cases, the weakness of purely linguistic signals of literary dependence (quoted or imitated sentences, reproduced characteristic phrases, characteristic vocabulary, etc.) is recompensed by the consistency of the strictly sequential reworking of the conceptual elements (ideas, images, arguments, references to time, directions of movement in space, actions taken, features of the characters, etc.) of one work in the other one. The criterion of the common order of the conceptually and/​or linguistically corresponding elements is particularly compelling if it refers not only to larger thematic sections or pericopes, but also to individual sentences or even clauses, phrases, and words. In such cases, the argumentative force of this criterion is very high, even if the level of verbal or formal agreement between the compared texts is quite low. It should be admitted that the detection of a sequence of several similar elements, which is often used in structuralist-​oriented scholarship for postulating the existence of various chiastic, concentric, or parallel patterns in biblical texts (ABCDC’B’A’ etc.),8 can be regarded as more or less subjective. However, the degree of interpretative objectivity is much higher if the detected common sequence of conceptually corresponding elements consists of tens, hundreds, or thousands of sequentially arranged items. 7 J. M. Leonard, ‘Identifying Subtle Allusions: The Promise of Narrative Tracking,’ in Z. Zevit (ed.), Subtle Citation, 91–​113 (here: 97): ‘By narrative tracking, I refer to the process by which one text alludes to another by mimicking its narrative structure.’ 8 See e.g. B. J. M. Johnson, ‘Characterizing Chiastic Contradiction: Literary Structure, Divine Repentance, and Dialogical Biblical Theology in 1 Samuel 15:10–​35,’ in M. A. Sweeney (ed.), Theology of the Hebrew Bible, vol. 1, Methodological Studies (RBS 92; SBL: Atlanta 2019), 185–​211.

Sequential hypertextuality

15

Moreover, instead of placing great emphasis on the presence or absence of shared language in two given texts, the analysis of literary dependence, especially that of a highly creative, hypertextual kind, may be based on the criterion of noticing and explaining the presence of somewhat surprising features in the later text.9 David M. Carr points to the presence of such features in the so-​called ‘blind motifs.’10 Such particular, surprising, innovative, atypical features, which go beyond evoking general associations with other texts (achieved with the use of familiar motifs, formulaic language, type-​scenes, literary genres, etc.), point to literary, reinterpreting dependence upon an earlier text, and not merely oral transmission of traditional material, which could be freely used by the author in his creative literary activity.11

9 Cf. C. Edenburg, ‘Intertextuality, Literary Competence and the Question of Readership: Some Preliminary Observations,’ JSOT 35.2 (2010) 131–​148 (here: 144): ‘For allusion to fulfill its purpose as a signifying device, it must be accompanied by textual markers that alert the audience to an underlying significance. The marker is an element that is “borrowed” from another context where it is at home, and then planted in a new, foreign context. The foreignness of the marker hampers superficial comprehension of the text’s overt significance, and intimates that full comprehension of the text will be attained only after identifying the function and significance of the marker in its original textual context. […] Since allusion invokes a specific text, rather than a general motif or genre, there is no guarantee that members of the text’s audience will succeed in identifying the allusion, and attain full appreciation of the text.’ 10 D. M. Carr, ‘Method in Determining the Dependence of Biblical on Non-​Biblical Texts,’ in Z. Zevit (ed.), Subtle Citation, 41–​53 (here: 46): ‘One criterion that does not seem to be highlighted in Hays’s or Fishbane’s discussions, but that can be particularly helpful, is that of a place where particularly odd features of a biblical text can be explained as blind motifs resulting from the appropriation in that biblical text of elements from a […] precursor. A “blind motif ” is an element or theme from a borrowed tradition appearing in a later text that does not fit well in the new context.’ 11 Cf. C. Edenburg, ‘Intertextuality,’ 147: ‘Thus, preservation of literary innovations is dependent upon scribal activity and a readership with sufficient literary competence to appreciate the innovation. From this I surmise that texts that elicit intertextual associations stemming from parallel accounts, allusion, implicit citation and inner-​biblical interpretation, were designed by highly literate scribes for reading audiences who had the means to peruse and reread texts in order to recognize the associative device, recall the association, and finally identify the alluded text. […] If so, then such texts were not designed for the purpose of enculturalization, but were created, in part, as pieces of learning and scribal art with the aim of commenting upon or revising other texts.’

16

Introduction

The not easily perceivable, rarely noticed, somewhat surprising features of a given literary work can often be explained if this work is an imperfect literary reworking of another text, in which such problems and surprising features are absent. In fact, every reworking of something else leaves some traces, and even a gifted and creative author is not always capable of eliminating all of them, especially if they are barely noticeable.12 A careful analysis of such minor, intriguing literary features, which are often neglected or only superficially explained by most commentators, may give important clues to the discovery of a hypertextual relationship of a given text to a hypotext. Moreover, it can help to ascertain the direction of literary dependence between two given writings.13 In particular, in the analysis of the phenomenon of sequential hypertextual reworking in the Hebrew Bible it is important to pay close attention to various intriguing linguistic phenomena in the Hebrew text of its writings: the use of the same Hebrew root in semantically apparently unrelated words, plays with the meaning of proper names, the use of ambiguous words and phrases, surprising combinations of words in phrases, linguistic differences between parallel accounts, the interpretative function of the masoretic punctuation of Hebrew homographs,14 etc.

12 Pace G. Genette, Palimpsestes, 555, who has argued that the hypertext, being semantically autonomous, does not contain any perceivable internal ‘ungrammaticality.’ Genette’s general idea does not always refer to all minor details of the hypertext because the inevitable tension between the intratextual and intertextual levels of the meaning of the hypertext often results in some consciously or unconsciously created disruptions to its intratextual logic. On the other hand, the hypertext does not necessarily contain aberrant features, ungrammaticalities, anomalies, inconsequences, non sequiturs, the loss of narrativity, etc. which are so evident that they function as really sylleptic, and consequently compulsory in their impelling the reader to pursue the search for a hypotext, as was argued by M. Riffaterre, Fictional Truth (Parallax: Re-​visions of Culture and Society; 2nd edn., The John Hopkins University: Baltimore · London 1993), 90–​91. 13 In my opinion, this criterion is much better than the partly reversible criteria adopted by other scholars, e.g. M. Bauks, ‘Intratextualität, Intertextualität und Rezeptionsgeschichte: Was tragen “transpositional techniques” und “empirical evidences” zur literarischen Genese der Urgeschichte aus?,’ in M. Bauks [et al.] (eds.), Neue Wege der Schriftauslegung (ATM 24; Lit: Berlin 2019), 13–​63 (esp. 24). 14 On the phenomenon of numerous homographs in the Hebrew Bible before the invention of the masoretic pointing, see S. Schorch, ‘Dissimilatory Reading and the Making of Biblical Texts: The Jewish Pentateuch and the Samaritan Pentateuch,’ in R. F. Person, Jr. and R. Rezetko (eds.), Empirical Models Challenging Biblical Criticism (AIL 25; SBL: Atlanta 2016), 109–​127 (esp. 111).

Sequential hypertextuality

17

It should also be noted that the crucial hermeneutical disposition for analysing hypertextual correspondences in the Bible consists in the use of the faculty of imagination15 in order to detect imaginative, creative, at times purely conceptual correspondences between various ideas, images, statements, and words in the biblical texts.16 In imagination, as is well known, the sky is the limit. Therefore, in this respect the methods of midrashic and allegorical interpretation used by ancient rabbis and church fathers at times better reflected the complex meaning of the biblical texts, with their metaphors, allusions, word-​plays, hidden polemic, and narrative illustrations of various theological and legal ideas, than do modern, often too ‘arid’ exegetical methods, which aim at being scholarly objective, and consequently prefer the more evident, but in fact more superficial level of meaning. Therefore, if the Bible resembles a work of art, then the exegete needs a good, gifted, and trained ‘ear’ or ‘eye,’17 but also broad scholarly knowledge (and not merely following a widely used interpretative procedure), to detect signals of creative, hypertextual reworking of another work in a given biblical writing.18 The problem of adequate scholarly interpretation of the Bible, including Samuel–​Kings, is additionally complicated by the question how typical the Bible is among ancient literary works. Modern biblical methodology assumes that the biblical writings generally resemble other ancient literary works of similar literary genres (literary legends, folk tales, family sagas, historical narratives, lists of heroes, royal chronicles, prophetic oracles, etc.), and therefore it is possible to understand adequately the biblical writings by using methods developed in literary criticism to interpret literary works which belong to a given literary genre. However, my own research on the phenomenon of sequential hypertextuality in biblical writings shows that the Bible may be quite unique in its extensive, systematic, detailed use of the procedure of sequential hypertextual reworking of earlier texts. Therefore, in order to maintain the standards of interpretative objectivity, the biblical writings should be analysed against the background of other writings

15 Cf. I. J. de Hulster, ‘Imagination: A Hermeneutical Tool for the Study of the Hebrew Bible,’ BibInt 18 (2010) 114–​136 (esp. 132–​134). 16 Cf. L. Alonso Schökel and J. M. Bravo Aragón, Apuntes, 156: ‘Hay que leer con fantasía lo que se escribió con fantasía.’ 17 Cf. G. D. Miller, ‘Intertextuality,’ 298. 18 Cf. G. Hepner, Legal Friction: Law, Narrative, and Identity Politics in Biblical Israel (StBibLit 78; Peter Lang: New York [et al.] 2010), 51: ‘identifying verbal resonances is no less an art than a science.’

18

Introduction

of the same kind, so in this case other biblical, hypertextual writings, and not merely other ancient texts of only apparently similar literary genres.

Samuel–​Kings and Deuteronomy As is well known, the books of Samuel and Kings are generally regarded by modern scholars as somehow related to Deuteronomy. Recent research on the origin of the Former Prophets is generally dominated by discussions concerning variants of literary-​theological hypotheses which assign Samuel–​Kings to the larger literary compositions of the Deuteronomistic History or the Enneateuch. In these hypotheses, the books of Samuel and Kings are regarded as para-​ Deuteronomic, in terms of the presence of common literary strata, and possibly also partly post-​Deuteronomic.19 Overviews of recent research on the composition of the books of Samuel and Kings can be found in numerous publications.20 Therefore, the following survey will only refer to selected, recent scholarly opinions which somehow concern the issue of possible literary dependence of Samuel–​Kings on Deuteronomy or vice versa. Felipe Blanco Wißmann is of the opinion that there are no motifs connecting Deuteronomy and the original of the books of Kings. He suggests that such parallels can only be found in some texts in 1–​2 Kings (e.g., 1 Kgs 14:22–​24; 2 Kgs 21:7–​9; and 2 Kgs 17:7–​20), which employ the language of the Deuteronomistic stage of the book of Deuteronomy.21 Serge Frolov argues that 1 Samuel 1–​7 is literarily based on Deut 18:3–​5 because there are verbal and conceptual correspondences between these texts, 19 See e.g. W. Dietrich, ‘The Layer Model of the Deuteronomistic History and the Book of Samuel,’ in C. Edenburg and J. Pakkala (eds.), Is Samuel among the Deuteronomists? Current Views on the Place of Samuel in a Deuteronomistic History (AIL 16; SBL: Atlanta 2013), 39–​65 (esp. 39–​45); C. Levin, ‘Nach siebzig Jahren: Martin Noths Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien,’ ZAW 125 (2013) 72–​92 (esp. 76–​82, 86–​89); G. Braulik, ‘Theorien über das Deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk (DtrG) im Wandel der Forschung,’ in C. Frevel (ed.), Einleitung in das Alte Testament (9th edn., KST 1,1; W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2016), 233–​254 (esp. 239–​251). 20 See e.g. G. Hentschel, ‘Die Samuelbücher,’ in C. Frevel (ed.), Einleitung, 298–​299 (esp. 293–​297); G. Hentschel, ‘Die Königsbücher,’ in C. Frevel (ed.), Einleitung, 300–​ 311 (esp. 304–​309). 21 F. Blanco Wißmann, ‘ “He Did What was Right”: Criteria of Judgment and Deuteronomism in the Books of Kings,’ in T. B. Dozeman, T. Römer, and K. Schmid (eds.), Pentateuch, Hexateuch, 241–​259 (esp. 254).

Samuel–Kings and Deuteronomy

19

and ‘there was no obvious reason for the creators of Deuteronomy to use verbatim quotations from 1 Samuel 1–​7.’22 Likewise, he suggests that 1 Sam 8:5 in an anti-​Deuteronomic, anti-​monarchic way echoes the Deuteronomic law of the king (Deut 17:14), so that the whole section 1 Sam 1–​8 is an anti-​Deuteronomic addition to the Deuteronomistic substrate of the Former Prophets.23 Erhard Blum opts for the classical hypothesis of the existence of a late exilic Deuteronomistic historical work, reaching from Deuteronomy to 2 Kings, in which both Deuteronomy and Samuel–​Kings were parts of the same writing. Blum’s main argument for this hypothesis is the thematic flow from the Deuteronomic ‘Torah’ through the history of Joshua and the time of the judges to the time of the kings.24 Alas, the German scholar does not take into consideration the fact that any story with a well-​written sequel would display the same literary features: continuous narrative flow, analepses, recurrent motifs, etc. Isaac Kalimi, on the other hand, states that ‘the Former Prophets, particularly Kings, were composed against the background of Deuteronomy and inspired by it.’25 Konrad Schmid claims that Deut 12, with its demand for cult centralisation, presupposes and systematises the royal assessments from the book of Kings, which would explain the differences in wording between these texts.26 In his opinion, the later stages of redaction of Deuteronomy correspond to the later stages of redaction of Genesis–​2 Kings.27 Juha Pakkala somewhat similarly suggests that the redaction histories of Deuteronomy and 1–​2 Kings developed in parallel steps, but 1–​2 Samuel developed in a different way.28 22 S. Frolov, ‘ “Certain Men” in Judges and Samuel: A Rejoinder to Mark Leuchter,’ CBQ 73 (2011) 251–​264 (here: 260). 23 S. Frolov, ‘Certain Men,’ 262. 24 E. Blum, ‘Das exilische Deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk,’ in H.-​J. Stipp (ed.), Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk (ÖBS 39; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2011), 269–​295 (esp. 289). 25 I. Kalimi, ‘Kings with Privilege: The core source(s) of the parallel texts between the Deuteronomistic and Chronistic histories,’ RB 119 (2012) 498–​517 (here: 517). 26 K. Schmid, ‘Deuteronomy within the “Deuteronomistic Histories” in Genesis–​2 Kings,’ in K. Schmid and R. F. Person, Jr. (eds.), Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch, Hexateuch, and the Deuteronomistic History (FAT 2.56; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2012), 8–​30 (esp. 23, 27). 27 K. Schmid, ‘Deuteronomy,’ 28–​30. 28 J. Pakkala, ‘Deuteronomy and 1–​2 Kings in the Redaction of the Pentateuch and Former Prophets,’ in K. Schmid and R. F. Person, Jr. (eds.), Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch, 133–​162 (esp. 135–​153).

20

Introduction

Avigdor Shinan and Yair Zakovitch, on the other hand, have rightly argued that Elijah’s biography was influenced by Moses’ life story in the books of Deuteronomy and Exodus.29 A. Graeme Auld opts for the dependence of the Deuteronomic text concerning a haughty prophet (Deut 18:20–​22) on Nathan’s oracle in 2 Sam 7 because of the use of the same rare and distinctive phrase ‫ דבר דבר‬in both Deut 18:20–​22 and 2 Sam 7:7.25. However, he offers no convincing argument for this particular direction of influence.30 Likewise, he claims that as concerns the motif of the chosen ‘place,’ Deuteronomy reformulated the book of Kings, for in Kings the idea of ‘setting’ the name of Yahweh is loosely accompanied by that of ‘dwelling’ (1 Kgs 8:12), whereas in Deuteronomy the idea of ‘making dwell’ occurs in a fixed formula.31 This argument is evidently not very compelling because also an earlier fixed formula can be variously illustrated in a later narrative. Likewise, reversible is Auld’s argument of the change of the meaning of the noun ‫ שבט‬from ‘staff/​scepter’ in 2 Sam 7:7 to ‘tribe’ in Deut 12:14.32 Similarly reversible is the argument that in Kings the ‘place’ is chosen forever, whereas in Deuteronomy it is not.33 Michael A. Grisanti argues that the text 1 Kgs 8:46–​53 summarises the main ideas of the Deuteronomic text Deut 29:1–​30:10, preserving their sequence.34 K. L. Noll, on the other hand, claims that the author of 1–​2 Samuel had knowledge of the evolving book of Deuteronomy but little regard for it.35

29 A. Shinan and Y. Zakovitch, From Gods to God: How the Bible Debunked, Suppressed, or Changed Ancient Myths & Legends, trans. V. Zakovitch (Jewish Publication Society: Philadelphia 2012), 183. 30 A. G. Auld, ‘Reading Deuteronomy after Samuel; Or, Is “Deuteronomistic” a Good Answer to Any Samuel Question?,’ in C. Edenburg and J. Pakkala (eds.), Is Samuel, 93–​104 (esp. 98–​99). 31 A. G. Auld, Life in Kings: Reshaping the Royal Story in the Hebrew Bible (AIL 30; SBL: Atlanta 2017), 197–​198. It should be noted, however, that in his translations of the Hebrew phrase ‫ לשום‬the scholar smoothly passes from ‘to set [his name]’ to ‘to place [his name],’ in order to suggest that the book of Kings merges it with the Deuteronomic idea of ‘place’ (A. G. Auld, Life in Kings, 198). 32 A. G. Auld, Life in Kings, 198. 33 A. G. Auld, Life in Kings, 199. 34 M. A. Grisanti, ‘The Impact of Deuteronomy on the Books of the Deuteronomistic History,’ in J. S. DeRouchie, J. Gile, and K. J. Turner (eds.), For Our Good Always, Festschrift D. I. Block (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2013), 223–​245 (esp. 241–​243). 35 K. L. Noll, ‘Is the Scroll of Samuel Deuteronomistic?,’ in C. Edenburg and J. Pakkala (eds.), Is Samuel, 119–​148 (esp. 121–​122).

Samuel–Kings and Deuteronomy

21

Andreas Kunz-​Lübcke, noting some terminological overlap and a common motif sequence, has argued that the story of Tamar’s rape (2 Sam 13:1–​22) depends on the older Deuteronomic juridical text Deut 22:13–​24.36 Christoph Nihan, somewhat similarly, has argued for highly selective reuse of the Deuteronomic law of the king (Deut 17:14–​15a.16–​17.20) in the Samuel account 1 Sam 8 and 1 Sam 10:17.20–​27; 16:1–​13.37 Thomas Römer, on the contrary, opts for the dependence of the Deuteronomic law of the king (Deut 17:14–​15) on the accounts of the institution of the monarchy in Israel (1 Sam 8–​12) because the latter accounts do not quote the Deuteronomic law. Likewise, he argues that Deut 17:16–​17 is dependent on 1 Kgs 10:14–​11:10.38 On the other hand, in his opinion 1 Kgs 11:2 freely alludes to Deut 7:3–​4.39 Harald Samuel suggests that the redactor of Deut 18:3 knew and used the text 1 Sam 2:13b.14, regarded by him as depicting erroneous cultic activity which required correction.40 Joshua Berman has argued that 1 Sam 15:2 conflates Deut 25:17–​19 with the thematically related text Exod 17:14–​16.41 In his opinion, the author of 1 Sam 15:2 did not simply invoke the language of Deuteronomy, but he creatively interpreted it in light of the passage from Exodus. In a similar way, Berman has argued that 1 Sam 28:3–​25 conflates Deut 18:11 with Lev 19:31; 20:6.27, and that 2 Kgs 4:1–​7

36 A. Kunz-​Lübcke, ‘Behind Closed Doors and Between the Lines of Deuteronomy: Tamar’s Rape in 2 Sam 13:1–​22 as a Narrative Rereading of the Juridical Text Deut 22:13–​29,’ ZABR 19 (2013) 235–​248 (esp. 237). 37 C. Nihan, ‘1 Samuel 8 and 12 and the Deuteronomistic Edition of Samuel,’ in C. Edenburg and J. Pakkala (eds.), Is Samuel, 225–​273 (esp. 231–​257); C. Nihan, ‘Rewriting Kingship in Samuel: 1 Samuel 8 and 12 and the Law of the King (Deuteronomy 17),’ HBAI 2 (2013) 315–​350 (esp. 325–​339). 38 T. Römer, ‘La loi du roi en Deutéronome 17 et ses fonctions,’ in O. Artus (ed.), Loi et Justice dans la Littérature du Proche-​Orient ancien (BZABR 20; Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden 2013), 99–​111 (esp. 105–​107). 39 T. Römer, ‘La loi,’ 107. 40 H. Samuel, Von Priestern zum Patriarchen: Levi und die Leviten im Alten Testament (BZAW 448; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2014), 117. 41 J. Berman, ‘The Legal Blend in Biblical Narrative (Joshua 20:1–​9, Judges 6:25–​31, 1 Samuel 15:2, 28:3–​25, 2 Kings 4:1–​7, Jeremiah 34:12–​17, Nehemiah 5:1–​12),’ JBL 134 (2015) 105–​125 (esp. 112–​113); J. Berman, Inconsistency in the Torah: Ancient Literary Convention and the Limits of Source Criticism (Oxford University: New York 2017), 155–​156.

22

Introduction

conflates Deut 24:10–​11 with Exod 22:22–​26.42 Accordingly, in the opinion of the Jewish scholar these fragments of Samuel–​Kings are post-​Deuteronomic.43 Eckart Otto, on the other hand, claims that Deut 17:14b combines elements of the narratives of the rise of Saul to kingship in 1 Sam 8:5.19–​20 and 1 Sam 10:19a. Therefore, in his opinion also Deut 17:15 is dependent on 1 Sam 10:24, and Deut 17:16–​17 is dependent on 1 Kgs 5:6; 10:14–​29; 11:1.3.44 Stephen Germany somewhat similarly argues for the hypothesis of the dependence of numerous Deuteronomic laws on narrative materials from the Enneateuch (Genesis–​2 Kings). In particular, in his opinion some texts concerning Solomon (1 Kgs 4:26; 5:6; 10:14–​15.26–​29; 11:1–​8) and the narratives in 1 Sam 8; 10 influenced the Deuteronomic law of the king Deut 17:14–​20 (esp. 17:14.16–​17).45 Alas, he does not offer any persuasive arguments for this direction of literary dependence. On the other hand, he notes that since the references to forced labour in 1 Kgs 9:15.21 are combined with the idea of the extermination of the Canaanites, they must be dependent on the Deuteronomic laws concerning both the forced labour (Deut 20:10–​14) and the extermination (Deut 20:15–​18).46 Accordingly, he postulates the reciprocal nature of the relationship between Deuteronomy and the rest of the Enneateuch.47 Hermann-​Josef Stipp, somewhat similarly to Erhard Blum, opts for the classical hypothesis of the existence of a pre-​exilic Deuteronomistic historical work, in which the core texts of both Deuteronomy and Samuel–​Kings were parts of the same writing.48 This survey of recent research on possible dependence of Samuel–​Kings on Deuteronomy or vice versa reveals that in the opinion of most scholars there are some literary connections between various parts of these works. Some scholars explain them as resulting from the literary dependence of Samuel–​Kings on Deuteronomy. Other scholars suggest that these connections imply the presence of common literary Deuteronomistic strata, containing the cores of Deuteronomy

4 2 J. Berman, ‘The Legal Blend,’ 117–​123; J. Berman, Inconsistency, 160–​167. 43 J. Berman, Inconsistency, 165, 167–​168. 44 E. Otto, Deuteronomium 12–​34, vol. 1, 12,1–​23,15 (HThKAT; Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2016), 1454, 1481–​1482, 1485–​1486. 45 S. Germany, ‘Die Bearbeitung des deuteronomischen Gesetzes im Lichte biblischer Erzählungen,’ ZAW 131 (2019) 43–​57 (esp. 44–​45). 46 S. Germany, ‘Bearbeitung,’ 46. 47 S. Germany, ‘Bearbeitung,’ 55–​56. 48 H.-​J. Stipp, ‘Die Deuteronomisten und das Exil: Historische Erfahrungen und theologische Lernprozesse,’ MTZ 70 (2019) 2–​23 (esp. 6).

Date of composition

23

and Samuel–​Kings. Another group of scholars postulates the influence of parts of Samuel–​Kings on Deuteronomy. Moreover, some scholars try to combine these main options in complex models of interrelations, including gradual formation of both works and their reciprocal literary dependence. Therefore, it is evident that the problem of the literary relationships between Samuel–​Kings and Deuteronomy has not hitherto been solved in a satisfactory way.

Date of composition The internal dating of Samuel–​Kings to the time after the thirty-​seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin king of Judah (2 Kgs 25:27), so to mid-​sixth century bc at the earliest, is evident. However, more precise dating of the composition of Samuel–​Kings is much more speculative. As is consistently argued in this monograph, Samuel–​Kings is a Judaean reworking of Deuteronomy,49 but it also contains various motifs borrowed from Genesis (cf. 1 Sam 19:13 and Gen 31:34; 1 Sam 28:22–​25 and Gen 18:5–​8; 2 Sam 13:1–​22 and Gen 38:6–​26; 2 Sam 13:18–​19 and Gen 37:3.23; etc.). Therefore, the composition of Genesis, which can be dated to c.350–​340 bc,50 constitutes the terminus a quo for the composition of Samuel–​Kings. Accordingly, Samuel–​ Kings should be dated to the Hellenistic period,51 when the Ptolemaic pharaohs ruled in Egypt and governed Judaea. On the other hand, dating Samuel–​Kings quite late in the Hellenistic period implies dating Chronicles yet later. This is rather implausible because Sir 44–​ 49 (written c.195–​180 bc)52 alludes to the combined Israelite–​Judaean story (Genesis–​2 Kings) which is already present in Chronicles. Moreover, the text of the first book of Samuel is witnessed in the manuscript 4QSamb (4Q52), which

4 9 See also B. Adamczewski, Retelling, 225–​280. 50 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Genesis, 25–​29. 51 Cf. B. J. Diebner, ‘Forschungsgeschichtliche Einführung: Plädoyer für einen anderen Zugang zum “Alten Testament”,’ in B. J. Diebner, Seit wann gibt es „jenes Israel“? Gesammelte Studien zum TNK und zum antiken Judentum (BVB 17; Lit: Berlin 2011), 9–​30 (esp. 21); N. P. Lemche, ‘How does one date an expression of mental history? The Old Testament and Hellenism,’ in N. P. Lemche, Biblical Studies and the Failure of History: Changing Perspectives 3 (CISem; Routledge: London · New York 2014), 289–​ 306 (esp. 305). 52 Cf. B. G. Wright III, ‘Ben Sira, Book of,’ in J. J. Collins and D. C. Harlow (eds.), The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism (William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI · Cambridge 2010), 436–​438 (esp. 436–​437).

24

Introduction

can be dated to c.250 bc.53 Therefore, dating Samuel–​Kings to the second half of the third century bc is rather implausible. The argument that some parts of Samuel–​Kings reflect the territorial claims of Judaea under the Hasmoneans54 is hardly convincing in view of the fact that Samuel–​Kings is greatly interested in royal and not priestly ideology. The merging of priestly and royal functions was invented by the Hasmoneans not earlier than around 100 bc,55 so evidently too late for the composition of Samuel–​Kings. The linguistic dating of Samuel–​Kings to the pre-​exilic period on the basis of its extensive use of Classical Biblical Hebrew is methodologically questionable,56 not least because ‘there is a significant gap in the external, non-​biblical corpora for Hebrew from the 6th to 2nd centuries b.c.e.,’57 so that ‘we are not able to define a clear terminus ante quem for CBH from the external evidence.’58 Likewise, it is difficult to date Samuel–​Kings with the use of the argumentum ex silentio as concerns the apparent absence of Late Biblical Hebrew features or loanwords.59 It is true that in Samuel–​Kings it is difficult to find vocabulary and phraseology which is exclusively characteristic of the post-​exilic period, thus being 53 Cf. F. M. Cross, D. W. Parry, and R. J. Saley, ‘4QSamb,’ in F. M. Cross [et al.] (eds.), Qumran Cave 4. XII: 1–​2 Samuel (DJD 17; Clarendon: Oxford 2005), 219–​246 (esp. 220). 54 Cf. J. Strange, ‘Solomon and His Empire: Fact or Fiction?,’ SJOT 29 (2015) 11–​21 (esp. 16), as concerns 1 Kgs 4:7–​19. 55 Cf. B. Adamczewski, ‘ “Ten Jubilees of Years”: Heptadic Calculations of the End of the Epoch of Iniquity and the Evolving Ideology of the Hasmoneans,’ QC vol. 16, no. 1–​2 [July 2008], 19–​36 (esp. 34–​35). 56 Cf. R. Rezetko, ‘What Happened to the Book of Samuel in the Persian Period and Beyond?,’ in E. Ben Zvi, D. V. Edelman, and F. Polak (eds.), A Palimpsest: Rhetoric, Ideology, Stylistics, and Language Relating to Persian Israel (PHSC 5; Gorgias: Piscataway, NJ 2009), 237–​252. 57 K. Schmid, ‘How to Identify a Persian Period Text in the Pentateuch,’ in R. J. Bautch and M. Lackowski (eds.), On Dating Biblical Texts to the Persian Period: Discerning Criteria and Establishing Epochs (FAT 2.101; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2019), 101–​118 (here: 105). 58 K. Schmid, ‘How to Identify,’ 105. 59 Cf. E. Blum, ‘The Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts: An Approach with Methodological Limitations,’ in J. C. Gertz [et al.] (eds.), The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America (FAT 111; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016), 303–​325 (esp. 311–​313); R. Albertz, ‘Die Identifikation von nachexilischen Redaktionsschichten im Pentateuch,’ in R. Albertz, Pentateuchstudien, ed. J. Wöhrle and F. Neumann (FAT 117; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2018), 429–​447 (esp. 438–​439).

Date of composition

25

clearly post-​exilic linguistic innovations. For example, the noun ‫( מלכות‬vs. ‫)ממלכה‬ referring to ‘kingdom’ in 1 Sam 20:31; 1 Kgs 2:12 is used in the Hebrew Bible almost exclusively in post-​exilic texts, but it also occurs three times in the book of Jeremiah (Jer 10:7; 49:34; 52:31),60 so it can only prove that Samuel–​Kings is not pre-​exilic. However, the phrase ‫‘( הכין לבב‬set one’s heart:’ 1 Sam 7:3) elsewhere in the Bible occurs only in late post-​exilic texts (Ezra 7:10; 1 Chr 29:18; 2 Chr 19:3; 20:33; 30:19). Likewise, the prepositional phrase *‫ עד ל‬in the meaning ‘until,’ ‘as much as’ (1 Kgs 18:29) elsewhere in the Bible occurs only in late post-​exilic texts in Ezra and 1–​2 Chronicles (Ezra 3:13; 9:4.6; 1 Chr 4:39; etc.).61 These facts suggests that although the Hebrew language of Samuel–​Kings generally displays numerous classical or classicising features, it also includes some evidently late ones. Moreover, it should be noted that the late, non-​classical linguistic features of the text describing the post-​exilic Samaritans (2 Kgs 17:24–​41) perform the rhetorical function of stylistically presenting them as not following Israel’s classical religious traditions (2 Kgs 17:34). On the other hand, the corrective, ‘orthodox’ speech of Yahweh which is contained in this fragment (2 Kgs 17:35–​39) does not exhibit such non-​classical features.62 This fact implies that the conscious use of Classical Biblical Hebrew in most parts of Samuel–​Kings is a rhetorical device which aims at presenting this narrative as a ‘classical,’ ‘orthodox’ portrait of Israel’s and Judah’s past, so it cannot function as evidence of a pre-​exilic date of this work. As concerns the relationship between Samuel–​Kings and the historical data, ‘[it] is not sufficient to point to early elements in a text to demonstrate an early date for it. Early elements can be found in late texts, but not vice versa. Ultimately, judging the date of a text depends on a variety of factors, but the final form of a text can be no earlier than the latest element in it.’63 60 Cf. D.-​H. Kim, Early Biblical Hebrew, Late Biblical Hebrew, and Linguistic Variability: A Sociolinguistic Evaluation of the Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts (VTSup 156; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2013), 137; A. Hurvitz, A Concise Lexicon of Late Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Innovations in the Writings of the Second Temple Period (VTSup 160; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2014), 165, 169. 61 Cf. A. Hurvitz, Concise Lexicon, 196–​197. 62 Cf. M. Kartveit, ‘The Date of II Reg 17,24–​41,’ ZAW 126 (2014) 31–​44 (esp. 34–​37); B. Hensel, Juda und Samaria: Zum Verhältnis zweier nach-​exilischer Jahwismen (FAT 110; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016), 379–​382, 385–​386. 63 L. L. Grabbe, ‘Exodus and History,’ in T. B. Dozeman, C. A. Evans, and J. N. Lohr (eds.), The Book of Exodus: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation (VTSup 164; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2014), 61–​87 (here: 84).

26

Introduction

For example, John Van Seters has argued that the references to peltasts in David’s army (2 Sam 8:18 etc.) implies that Samuel–​Kings was written not earlier than in 400 bc.64 Moreover, the description of Goliath’s spear being like a beam of the weavers’ loom (1 Sam 17:7), which suggests that it was heavy and stable, and not quickly moving like that of a Greek hoplite, reflects a relatively immobile, horizontally directed Macedonian sarissa rather than an easily movable Persian period spear. Moreover, since Goliath needed a shield-​bearer to protect him (1 Sam 17:7), his both hands were most probably occupied with wielding the long sarissa. Otherwise, he would have had his shield bound to his left forearm to protect himself while fighting. Accordingly, the description of the offensive and defensive military equipment of Goliath points to the Hellenistic period as the time of the writing of Samuel–​Kings.65 It is always possible for an educated and gifted author to imitate in a selective way the vocabulary, style,66 cultural phenomena, and historical references which could be found in earlier texts, but it is rather impossible to imitate the vocabulary and style which came to be used only later. Therefore, it should be argued that the author of Samuel–​Kings deliberately used archaising elements in his story about Israel’s and Judah’s distant past, but he did not avoid using some linguistic and historical elements which were more contemporary to his, much later world.67 Consequently, taking all these arguments into consideration, Samuel–​Kings was most probably written in the first half of the third century bc. This dating does not mean, of course, that the author of Samuel–​Kings had no earlier historical sources or other literary works at his disposal. In fact, in 64 J. Van Seters, The Biblical Saga of King David (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2009), 106, 116–​119; J. Van Seters, ‘A Revival of the Succession Narrative and the Case against It,’ JSOT 39.1 (2014) 3–​14 (esp. 11–​13). 65 It should be admitted, however, that this type of dating is not very reliable. Cf. S. Hasegawa, ‘David and Goliath: Toward a Dialogue between Archaeology and Biblical Studies,’ in A. Baruchi-​Unna [et al.] (eds.), “Now It Happened in Those Days”, Festschrift M. Cogan [vol. 2] (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2017), 607–​622 (esp. 611–​613). 66 For example, the language of Esther and 1QM can be regarded as classicizing. Cf. J. Screnock, ‘The Syntax of Complex Adding Numerals and Hebrew Diachrony,’ JBL 137 (2018) 789–​819 (esp. 803). 67 The presence of late features in a given text is often explained by attributing them to late layers, redactions, additions, textual errors, etc., as is done, for example, by C. D’Angelo, Davide e Mical: Studio sulla redazione e la teologia di 1–​2 Samuele (SRSB; Cittadella: Assisi 2019). However, such supportive hypotheses should generally be avoided because they too easily suit modern scholarly perceptions of literary coherence.

Place of composition

27

his literary activity the author of Samuel–​Kings could use the earlier prophetic works of Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Micah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Deutero-​Isaiah. As is consistently argued in this monograph, he used the post-​exilic book of Deuteronomy as his main structure-​giving hypotext. Besides, he used the whole sacred post-​exilic Israelite Heptateuch Genesis–​Judges68 and the book of Jonah. Moreover, he may also have used the books of Job, Proverbs, post-​exilic Judaean prophets (esp. Zechariah), and some early Psalms (e.g., Ps 18).

Place of composition It seems to be methodologically impossible to identify the place of the composition of Samuel–​Kings on the basis of the postulated dialectal differences between the Hebrew spoken in Israel and in Judah.69 Therefore, in order to identify the place of the composition of Samuel–​Kings, the allusive narrative rhetoric of this work should be taken into due consideration. In contrast to the sacred Israelite Heptateuch Genesis–​Judges, which highlights the importance of Shechem, Joseph, Ephraim, Gerizim, and Shiloh,70 the narrative of Samuel–​Kings clearly points to Judah and Jerusalem as the places particularly chosen by Yahweh. Moreover, the rhetoric of Samuel–​Kings is evidently supersessive. The story begins in the hill country of Ephraim (1 Sam 1:1) and in Shiloh (1 Sam 1:3),71 but then its main narrative thread passes (via Benjamin)72

68 For the idea of the sacred Israelite Heptateuch Genesis–​Judges, see B. Adamczewski, Deuteronomy–​Judges, 217–​218. 69 See N. Pat-​El, ‘Israelian Hebrew: A Re-​Evaluation,’ VT 67 (2017) 227–​263 (esp. 242–​248). 70 Cf. B. Adamczewski, ‘The Roles of Gerizim and Jerusalem in the Israelite Heptateuch Genesis–​Judges,’ RB [forthcoming]. 71 For a view that the name Shiloh in 1 Sam 1–​4 functions as something of an alias for the Samarian sanctuary at Shechem, on Mount Gerizim, see D. Jericke, ‘Shiloh between Shechem and Jerusalem,’ in B. Hensel, D. Nocquet, and B. Adamczewski (eds.), Yahwistic Diversity and the Hebrew Bible: Tracing Perspectives of Group Identity from Judah, Samaria, and the Diaspora in Biblical Traditions (FAT 2.120; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2020), 245–​261 (esp. 258). 72 The tribe of Benjamin, with its first Israelite king Saul (1 Sam 9–​31), is presented in Samuel–​Kings as related first to Israel (2 Sam 2:9; 19:17–​21; 20:1; etc.) and then to Judah (1 Kgs 12:21–​23). Cf. O. Sergi, ‘The United Monarchy and the Kingdom of Jeroboam II in the Story of Absalom and Sheba’s Revolts (2 Samuel 15–​20),’ HBAI 6 (2017) 329–​353 (esp. 345–​346). This ambiguous presentation reflects the post-​exilic rivalry between Judaea and Samaria as concerns the control over the territory of Benjamin. Cf. B. Adamczewski, Genesis, 165–​166 n. 125. Pace N. Na’aman, ‘Source

28

Introduction

to Judah and Jerusalem. Likewise, the Ephraimite (1 Sam 1:1) Samuel anoints the Benjaminite (1 Sam 9:1) Saul, and then, after his rejection by Yahweh, the Judahite (1 Sam 16:1) David. The passage of divine election and grace from Ephraim to Judah and from Shiloh to Jerusalem is narratively justified by means of supernatural, so presumably divine interventions. The passage of divine election from Ephraim to Judah is marked by the transfer of the ark of God. After its taking from the Ephraimite (cf. Judg 21:19.21) Shiloh (1 Sam 4:4) and its seizing by the Philistines (1 Sam 4:11), two cows without any human guidance bring it back not to Shiloh, but straight to the Judaean border town (cf. Josh 15:10) of Beth-​shemesh (1 Sam 6:9.12–​14).73 Therefore, the election of Judah in place of Ephraim can be regarded as both punishment to Ephraim and divine favour to Judah.74 The idea of the divine election of the Judaean Jerusalem in place of the Ephraimite Shiloh (cf. Jer 7:12.14; 26:6.9) is narratively justified with a yet more evident divine intervention. At the culmination of a plague, Yahweh relents from the punishment, and his angel stops at the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite, which marks the location of the new altar of burnt offerings to Yahweh (2 Sam 24:16–​25). Accordingly, in the following parts of the narrative of Samuel–​ Kings the Jerusalem temple is referred to as the location of the Deuteronomic cultic ‘place’ (‫המקום‬: 1 Kgs 8:29–​30) of Yahweh’s name (‫שם‬: 1 Kgs 8:16.29; 2 Kgs 23:27). Likewise, Jerusalem, chosen by Yahweh out of all the tribes of Israel, is the location of the presence of Yahweh’s name (‫שם‬: 1 Kgs 11:36; 14:21; 2 Kgs 21:4.7). In contrast to the prominent role of Jerusalem in Samuel–​Kings, and in contrast to the importance of Shechem and Gerizim in the Israelite sacred Heptateuch Genesis–​ Judges, Shechem is mentioned in Samuel–​ Kings only twice (1 Kgs 12:1.25), as the place of the sinful ‘breach’ of Israel against the house of David (1 Kgs 12:19).75 Likewise, in Samuel–​Kings Mount Gerizim is and Composition in the Story of Sheba’s Revolt (2 Samuel 20),’ RB 125 (2018) 340–​ 352 (esp. 343–​344), who fails to notice the rhetorical features of the presentation of Benjamin in Samuel–​Kings. 73 Pace I. Finkelstein and T. Römer, ‘The Historical and Archaeological Background behind the Old Israelite Ark Narrative,’ Bib 101 (2020) 161–​185 (esp. 181–​183), who suggest other reasons for the transfer of the ark from Shiloh to Beth-​Shemesh, not taking into consideration the ‘miraculous’ rhetoric of the story, which is widely used in justifying the locations of various religious holy places throughout the world. 74 Cf. I. Hjelm, Jerusalem’s Rise to Sovereignty: Zion and Gerizim in Competition (JSOTSup 404; T&T Clark: London · New York 2004), 26–​27. 75 Cf. A. Frisch, ‘The Attitude toward Jerusalem in Two Rebellion Narratives: A Literary and Theological Investigation,’ BN, nf 150 (2011) 35–​48 (esp. 38–​41).

newgenprepdf

Place of composition

29

omitted completely. This damnatio memoriae of the most important post-​exilic cultic place of (northern) Israel can be regarded as a Judaean counterpart to the Israelite damnatio memoriae of Jerusalem in the Pentateuch and to the disparaging remarks concerning this city in Joshua–​Judges.76 These facts strongly suggest that Samuel–​Kings was written in Judaea, most probably in Jerusalem, and not in (northern) Israel. The repeatedly expressed interest of Samuel–​Kings in kings and their theological role, with only secondary roles attributed to Judaean priests (1 Sam 21:2–​10; 23:9; 30:7; etc.), suggests that the Sitz im Leben of Samuel–​Kings should be traced in the Judaean secular elite77 rather than in priestly circles. Moreover, the fully developed, post-​Deuteronomic idea of the written law (and not the temple, the priests, the prophets, or the kings) as the only factor which unambiguously and reliably maintains Yahwism in Judah and Israel78 implies a crucial role of the Judaean literati in the formation of Samuel–​Kings.

7 6 For the latter ideas, see B. Adamczewski, ‘The Roles of Gerizim and Jerusalem.’ 77 On the presence of a secular literate elite in Judaea in the Hellenistic period, see T. M. Bolin, ‘1–​2 Samuel and Jewish Paideia in the Persian and Hellenistic Periods,’ in D. V. Edelman (ed.), Deuteronomy–​Kings as Emerging Authoritative Books: A Conversation (ANEM 6; SBL: Atlanta 2014), 133–​158 (esp. 137–​138). 78 Cf. T. Römer, ‘The Case of the Book of Kings,’ in D. V. Edelman (ed.), Deuteronomy–​ Kings, 187–​201 (esp. 199–​201); L. J. Hoppe, ‘The Strategy of the Deuteronomistic History: A Proposal,’ CBQ 79 (2017) 1–​19 (esp. 18).

Chapter 1. First Samuel as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1–​7 The contents of the first book of Samuel sequentially, in a hypertextual way illustrate the contents of Deuteronomy 1–​7.

1.1. 1 Sam 1 (cf. Deut 1:1–​11) The opening section 1 Sam 1 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding opening section Deut 1:1–​11. The opening idea of there being one man (1 Sam 1:1a) illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of one man, Moses, speaking to all Israel (Deut 1:1ab). The particular motif of there being one man from a certain region (*‫ויהי איש אחד מ‬: 1 Sam 1:1) was borrowed from Judg 13:2.1 The subsequent, otherwise unknown toponymic Ramathaim, referring to ‘two hights’ (1 Sam 1:1a),2 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic topographical references to the region beyond the Jordan and the wilderness (Deut 1:1b). The subsequent idea of the man being from the otherwise unknown Zuphim (‫)צופים‬, in the following context related to Zuph (‫צוף‬: 1 Sam 1:1ab),3 conceptually and partly linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses being opposite Suph (‫סוף‬: Deut 1:1b). The subsequent idea of (a) the man having two wives, the name of one wife being Hannah, related to grace,4 and (b) the name of the second wife, having several children, being Peninnah, related to precious pearls of corals (1 Sam 1:2),5 sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses 1

2 3 4 5

Pace K. Spronk, ‘From Joshua to Samuel: Some Remarks on the Origin of the Book of Judges,’ in J. van Ruiten and J. C. de Vos (eds.), The Land of Israel in Bible, History, and Theology, Festschrift E. Noort (VTSup 124; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2009), 137–​149 (esp. 142–​143), who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. Cf. R. D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel (NAC 7; Broadman & Holman: Nashville, TN 1996), 63; D. T. Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel (NICOT; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI · Cambridge 2007), 107. Cf. S. Ackerman, ‘Who Is Sacrificing at Shiloh? The Priesthoods of Ancient Israel’s Regional Sanctuaries,’ in M. A. Leuchter and J. M. Hutton (eds.), Levites and Priests in Biblical History and Tradition (AIL 9; SBL: Atlanta 2011), 25–​43 (esp. 37). Cf. R. D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 64. Cf. R. D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 64.

32

First Samuel as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1–​7

being between one place, namely Paran, related to Yahweh’s shining theophany (cf. Deut 33:2; Hab 3:3), and (b) several places, namely Tophel, Laban, Hazeroth, and ‘golden’ Di-​zahab (Deut 1:1b). The particular motif of a man having two wives, one loved and one less loved, and the less-​loved one bearing children first (‫ אהב‬+ ‫ ילד‬+ ‫ אחת‬+ ‫ שתי נשים‬+ ‫ל‬: 1 Sam 1:2.4–​8) was borrowed from Deut 21:15. The subsequent idea of (a) the man going up (b) from (‫ )מן‬his city (c) a period of days (‫ )יום‬after a period of days (‫( )יום‬d) to worship and to sacrifice to Yahweh of hosts in the sanctuary at Shiloh, in which there were priests of Yahweh (1 Sam 1:3), conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) eleven travel (c) days being (b) from Horeb (d) to the ‘holy’ sanctuary at Kadesh-​barnea (Deut 1:2). The particular motif of a pre-​monarchic sanctuary in Shiloh (‫שלה‬: 1 Sam 1:3) continues the narrative thread of Josh 18:10–​Judg 18:31 (cf. Judg 21:12.19.21). The motif of an Ephraimite priest named Phinehas (‫ כהן‬+ ‫פינחס‬: 1 Sam 1:3) was borrowed from Josh 22:13; 24:33 etc. The subsequent narrative introduction, ‘And it happened’ (‫יהיו‬: 1 Sam 1:4a) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic narrative introduction, ‘And it happened’ (Deut 1:3a). The subsequent quantitative idea of Elkanah sacrificing and giving numerous counted portions to Peninnah and to all her sons and daughters, and a counted portion for two (‫)*ים‬6 to Hannah (1 Sam 1:4b–​6) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic quantitative idea of, counting from the cultic mountain of Horeb (cf. Deut 1:2), forty (‫*ים‬: Deut 1:3a). The particular idea of being barren, in distress, provoked to anger, and depressed (1 Sam 1:5c–​ 6)7 additionally illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of being forty years in the wilderness (Deut 1:3a). The subsequent, repetitively formulated idea of year (‫ )שנה‬by year (‫)שנה‬, while going up to the house of Yahweh, Hannah being provoked, weeping, and not eating (1 Sam 1:7) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the many years of going up to Canaan, spent in the wilderness (Deut 1:3a).

6 Cf. A. I. Abasili, ‘Hannah’s Ordeal of Childlessness: Interpreting 1 Samuel 1 through the Prism of a Childless African Woman in a Polygynous Family,’ OTE 28 (2015) 581–​605 (esp. 588). 7 Cf. A. I. Abasili, ‘Hannah’s Ordeal,’ 588–​589.

1 Sam 1 (cf. Deut 1:1–11)

33

The subsequent idea of Elkanah being to his wife more than ten (*‫)עשר‬ sons (1 Sam 1:8) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of one-​and-​tenth month (Deut 1:3a). The subsequent, narratively redundant idea of Hannah arising (1 Sam 1:9a) by means of the hypertextual procedure of transsexuation (in this case, feminisation)8 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses authoritatively speaking to the sons of Israel (Deut 1:3bc). The subsequent, narratively redundant idea of Hannah acting after (‫)אחרי‬ eating and after (‫ )אחרי‬drinking (1 Sam 1:9bc) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses acting after defeating (Deut 1:4a). The subsequent idea of (a) Eli (b) the priest (c) sitting (‫( )ישב‬d) on the throne9 (e) by the doorpost of the temple of Yahweh (1 Sam 1:9d)10 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Sihon (b) king of the Amorites, who (c) sat (d) in the royal Heshbon, and (a’) Og (b’) king of Bashan, who (c’) sat (e) in the deity-​related Ashtaroth in Edrei (Deut 1:4bc). The subsequent idea of (a) being embittered, praying, presumably outside the temple (cf. 1 Sam 1:9),11 and (b) weeping (1 Sam 1:10) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) being beyond the Jordan, outside Canaan, (b) in the exilic land of Moab (Deut 1:5a). The correlation between the idea of weeping (‫בכה‬: 1 Sam 1:10c) and that of the land of Moab (Deut 1:5a) originates from Deut 34:8. The subsequent idea of (a) Hannah making a vow (diff. Judg 13:3–​7), (b) saying (‫אמר‬: 1 Sam 1:11ab), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses beginning to enact the law, (b) saying (Deut 1:5a–​c). The particular motif of a barren woman begetting a son, who should belong to Yahweh all the days of his life, and no razor should come upon his head (‫ומורה לא־יעלה על־ראשו‬: 1 Sam 1:11) was borrowed from Judg 13:3.5.7.

8 See G. Genette, Palimpsestes: La littérature au second degré (Seuil: [s.l.] 1982), 423–​424. 9 Cf. R. D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 67 n. 19. 10 Cf. D. Jericke, ‘Shiloh between Shechem and Jerusalem,’ in B. Hensel, D. Nocquet, and B. Adamczewski (eds.), Yahwistic Diversity and the Hebrew Bible: Tracing Perspectives of Group Identity from Judah, Samaria, and the Diaspora in Biblical Traditions (FAT 2.120; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2020), 245–​261 (esp. 249). 11 Cf. R. W. Klein, 1 Samuel (2nd edn., WBC 10; Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI 2000), 8.

34

First Samuel as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1–​7

The subsequent idea of Hannah (a) appealing to Yahweh (‫)יהוה‬, (b) thrice referring to herself as a maidservant of Yahweh (‫)*ך‬,12 and (c) uttering a vow (1 Sam 1:11c–​h) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses (a) referring to Yahweh (b) as the God of the Israelites (‫)*נו‬, who (c) spoke to them at Horeb, speaking, presumably the obliging law (Deut 1:6ab). The subsequent idea of Hannah praying much (‫ ;רבה‬1 Sam 1:12; diff. 1:10.26–​ 27), apparently too much (1 Sam 1:13–​14), but in fact expressing much (‫)רב‬ worry and grief before Yahweh until now (1 Sam 1:12–​16; esp. 1:16) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites spending already much time at Horeb (Deut 1:6c). The particular motif of the mother of a Nazirite not drinking wine or beer (‫ שתה‬+ ‫יין ושכר‬: 1 Sam 1:15) was borrowed from Judg 13:4.7. The subsequent idea of commanding Hannah to (a) go away from (b) the God of Israel (1 Sam 1:17) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of saying that the Israelites (a) sat enough (b) at this mountain, that is, Mount Horeb (Deut 1:6d). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly formulated idea of the woman going her way, eating, and her face (‫ )פנה‬being no longer, presumably as it was before (1 Sam 1:18),13 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of commanding the Israelites to turn their faces (‫פנה‬: Deut 1:7a). The subsequent idea of Elkanah and Hannah rising early in the morning, worshipping before Yahweh, and going back (1 Sam 1:19a–​c) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of commanding the Israelites to break camp for their way from Horeb (Deut 1:7b). The subsequent idea of Elkanah and Hannah (a) coming (‫( )*באו‬b) to their house, to the ‘height’ (sing.) of Ramah (1 Sam 1:19d; diff. 1:1: Ramathaim), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of commanding the Israelites (a) to come (b) to the mountain (sing.) of the Amorites, to the land which Yahweh gave them, (a’) to come there (Deut 1:7c–​8c). The subsequent idea of (a) Elkanah knowing his wife Hannah, and (b) Yahweh (‫ )יהוה‬remembering her (1 Sam 1:19ef) sequentially illustrates the subsequent

1 2 Cf. R. D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 68. 13 Cf. D. T. Tsumura, First Samuel, 121 n. 93.

1 Sam 2 (cf. Deut 1:12–39)

35

Deuteronomic idea of commanding the Israelites (a) to take possession of the land which (b) Yahweh swore to their ancestors to give them (Deut 1:8d–​f). The subsequent idea of Hannah conceiving and bearing a son (1 Sam 1:20) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the ancestors’ descendants after them (Deut 1:8f). The particular motif of the righteous, Moses-​like character of Samuel (‫שמואל‬: 1 Sam 1:20) was borrowed from Jer 15:1. The subsequent idea of (a) the man Elkanah going up (b) with all his house (c) to offer a sacrifice of the days (1 Sam 1:21) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses speaking (b) to the Israelites (c) at that time (Deut 1:9a). The subsequent idea of (a) Hannah saying (‫ )אמר‬that (b) the young man should not be brought with the man Elkanah until he is weaned, so the woman nursed her son until she weaned him (*‫את‬: 1 Sam 1:22–​23), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses saying that (b) he alone was not able to carry them (*‫)את‬, that is, the Israelites (Deut 1:9b–​d). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly formulated idea of weaning the young man, the young man becoming a young man, the young man being brought to Eli, and Yahweh having given this young man (1 Sam 1:24–​27) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh God making the Israelites increase (Deut 1:10a). The subsequent idea of lending the young man to Yahweh all the days (‫)הימים‬ which he is (1 Sam 1:28a–​c) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites being this day (‫ )היום‬as the stars of heaven in multitude (Deut 1:10b). The concluding idea of worshipping Yahweh together in the sanctuary (1 Sam 1:28d) illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh increasing the Israelites and blessing them, presumably from the sanctuary (Deut 1:11).

1.2. 1 Sam 2 (cf. Deut 1:12–​39) The section 1 Sam 2 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 1:12–​39. The opening, somewhat surprisingly introduced idea of (a) Hannah’s heart alone (diff. 1 Sam 1:28: together; 2:11: Elkanah), but presumably aided by Yahweh (cf. 1 Sam 1:27), exulting in Yahweh, (b) her horn/​strength14 rising in Yahweh,

14 Cf. D. T. Tsumura, First Samuel, 141.

36

First Samuel as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1–​7

and (c) her mouth opening itself wide against her enemies thanks to Yahweh (1 Sam 2:1–​2; esp. 2:1) sequentially, in a positive way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses alone not being able to raise the Israelites’ burden, (b) load, and (c) strife (Deut 1:12). The particular motif of rejoicing in Yahweh’s salvation (*‫ בישועת‬+ ‫שמח‬: 1 Sam 2:1) was borrowed from Isa 25:9. The motif of there being no God beside Yahweh, and no rock like him (‫ואין צור‬: 1 Sam 2:2) was borrowed from Isa 44:8. The subsequent idea of (a) telling the Israelites (plur.)15 not to talk proudly, and (b) no arrogance going out of their mouth, (c) for Yahweh is the God of knowledge (‫ דעה‬plur.: 1 Sam 2:3a–​d),16 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) telling the Israelites (plur.) to choose men who are wise, (b) discerning, and (c) knowing (‫ ידע‬plur.: Deut 1:13–​15; esp. 1:13.15). The subsequent idea of human deeds being examined (1 Sam 2:3e) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of hearing cases and judging with justice (Deut 1:16). The subsequent, repetitively formulated idea of reversing the social status by (a) downgrading the mighty ones and (b) upgrading the weak ones (1 Sam 2:4–​ 9b) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) not showing partiality, presumably towards the mighty ones, but (b) hearing the small one just as the great one (Deut 1:17ab). The subsequent idea of a man (‫ )איש‬not prevailing by strength (1 Sam 2:9c) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of not being afraid of a man (Deut 1:17c). The subsequent idea of Yahweh judging the ends of the earth (1 Sam 2:10a–​ c) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the judgement being God’s (Deut 1:17d). The subsequent idea of Yahweh giving might to his authorised representative, namely his king, his anointed one (1 Sam 2:10de), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of God’s judgement in harder cases being transferred to Moses, who had the authority to command in Yahweh’s name (Deut 1:17e–​18). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly introduced (diff. 1 Sam 1:24)17 idea of Elkanah going (‫ )ו*לך‬to the ‘hight’ of Ramah over his house (1 Sam 2:11a)

1 5 Cf. D. T. Tsumura, First Samuel, 144. 16 Cf. D. T. Tsumura, First Samuel, 144. 17 Cf. A. F. Campbell, 1 Samuel (FOTL 7; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI · Cambridge 2003), 40.

1 Sam 2 (cf. Deut 1:12–39)

37

conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites going through the wilderness on the way to the mountainous region of the Amorites (Deut 1:19a–​d). The subsequent, cultic18 idea of the young man ministering Yahweh in the presence of Eli the priest, so presumably in the sanctuary (1 Sam 2:11b), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites coming to the sanctuary of Kadesh-​barnea (Deut 1:19e). The subsequent idea of (a) the wicked sons of Eli (‫ )עלי‬not (b) knowing Yahweh (1 Sam 2:12) conceptually and partly linguistically, in a sequential but negative way illustrates the subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites being called to go up (‫ )עלה‬to the land promised to their ancestors and (b) not to be afraid or dismayed (Deut 1:20–​21). The subsequent idea of (a) the regulation concerning the priests regarding (b) all (‫ )כל‬men19 (diff. Deut 18:3) who offered a sacrifice (1 Sam 2:13a) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the approaching/​offering to Moses of (b) all the Israelites (Deut 1:22a). The particular motif of the regulation concerning the priests regarding the people who offered a sacrifice (‫ זבח זבח‬+ ‫משפט הכהנים *את העם‬: 1 Sam 2:13) was borrowed from Deut 18:3.20 The subsequent idea of (a) a servant of the priest coming (‫( )בוא‬b) when the meat was boiling, so ready to eat (1 Sam 2:13bc), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the spies, among them the servant of Moses (cf. Exod 33:11: ‫)נער‬, coming (b) to the fertile ‘valley of grapes’ and spying it out (Deut 1:22b–​24). The subsequent idea of (a) the servant having a fork in his hand (*‫ )ביד‬and (b) thrusting edible portions to pots of various size (1 Sam 2:13d–​14b) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the spies taking in their hands (b) some of the fruit of the land (Deut 1:25a).

18 Cf. P. K. McCarter, Jr., I Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 8; Doubleday: New York 1980), 82; J. T. Noble, ‘Cultic Prophecy and Levitical Inheritance in the Elijah–​Elisha Cycle,’ JSOT 41.1 (2016) 45–​60 (esp. 57). 19 Cf. S. Ackerman, ‘Who Is Sacrificing,’ 41. 20 Cf. S. Frolov, ‘ “Certain Men” in Judges and Samuel: A Rejoinder to Mark Leuchter,’ CBQ 73 (2011) 251–​264 (esp. 260). Pace H. Samuel, Von Priestern zum Patriarchen: Levi und die Leviten im Alten Testament (BZAW 448; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2014), 117, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing.

38

First Samuel as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1–​7

The subsequent idea of (a) the priest taking the edible portions (b) when the Israelites came to the sanctuary in Shiloh (1 Sam 2:14c–​e) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the spies bringing the fruit of the land to Moses and (b) the Israelites in Kadesh-​barnea (Deut 1:25b). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly repeated (cf. 1 Sam 2:13) idea of (a) the servant of the priest saying (‫ )ו*אמר‬that (b) someone should give (‫ )נתן‬good, not boiled but raw for roasting, meat to the priest (1 Sam 2:15) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the spies saying that (b) Yahweh gives a good land to the Israelites (Deut 1:25c–​f). The subsequent idea of the servant not (‫ )לא‬following Yahweh’s regulation concerning sacrifices (1 Sam 2:16; cf. Lev 7:31) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites not wanting to go up, as Yahweh commanded them (Deut 1:26ab; cf. 1:21). The subsequent idea of the sin of the servants being very great in the face of Yahweh (‫)את־פני יהוה‬, for the men disrespected the offering of Yahweh (‫את‬ ‫ יהוה‬... : 1 Sam 2:17), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites rebelling against the mouth of Yahweh (‫את־פי‬ ‫יהוה‬: Deut 1:26c). The subsequent, childish idea of Samuel being a boy, being girded with merely an ephod (cf. 2 Sam 6:14.20: uncovered),21 and wearing a little robe, made for him by his mother (1 Sam 2:18–​19a),22 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites lacking manly courage against the Amorites (Deut 1:27). The subsequent idea of Samuel’s mother bringing up (‫ )עלה‬the robe when she went up (‫ )עלה‬with her husband to offer a sacrifice (1 Sam 2:19b–​d) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites asking where they could go up (Deut 1:28a). The subsequent idea of (a) Eli blessing Elkanah (diff. 1 Sam 2:19.21: Hannah) and his dear wife, (b) saying (‫ )אמר‬that (c) Yahweh would give him other, presumably more manly offspring from (‫ )מן‬this woman in place of the devoted, childlike Samuel (1 Sam 2:20), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites’ brothers

21 Cf. K. Hügel, ‘King Davidʼs Exposure while Dancing: A Queer Reading of 2 Samuel 6,’ SJOT 30 (2016) 249–​260 (esp. 253). 22 Cf. M. Verman, ‘Royalty, Robes and the Art of Biblical Narrative,’ SJOT 30 (2016) 30–​43 (esp. 31).

1 Sam 2 (cf. Deut 1:12–39)

39

melting their hearts, (b) saying that (c) the other people are greater and taller from (‫ )מן‬them (Deut 1:28b–​d). The subsequent idea of (a) Hannah bearing three sons (‫ )בנים‬and two daughters, and (b) the young man Samuel becoming great (‫גדל‬: 1 Sam 2:21) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the sons of (b) the presumably great (cf. Deut 1:28de; 2:10.21; 9:2) Anakim (Deut 1:28ef). The subsequent idea of (a) Eli perceiving the evil which his sons did to all Israel and to those on duty (b) at the entrance to the tent of meeting (1 Sam 2:22)23 sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) seeing the presumably dangerous (cf. Deut 9:2) sons of the Anakim (b) there, so at the entrance to the land of Canaan (Deut 1:28f). The particular motif of the women on duty at the entrance to the tent of meeting (‫ פתח אהל מועד‬+ ‫הצבאות‬: 1 Sam 2:22) was borrowed from Exod 38:8. The subsequent idea of (a) Eli reproachfully saying to them (‫)ויאמר להם‬, asking (b) why they do such things (‫דבר‬: 1 Sam 2:23ab), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses reproachfully saying to them (‫ואמר אלכם‬: Deut 1:29a) that (b) they should not be terrified or afraid, seeing the thing (Deut 1:32) which Yahweh did (Deut 1:29–​ 33; esp. 1:29b–​33). The subsequent idea of (a) Eli hearing their words/​things (‫ דבריכם‬+ ‫ את‬+ ‫)שמע‬, which (b) were evil (1 Sam 2:23c), and (a’) Eli hearing a report (‫ שמע‬+ ‫)שמעה‬ (b’) concerning things which cannot be pardoned (1 Sam 2:24–​25d), but (a”) the sons not hearing the voice (‫ קול‬+ ‫ )שמע‬of their father (1 Sam 2:23c–​25e; esp. 2:25e) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh hearing the voice of their words and (b) being angry (Deut 1:34ab). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh desiring (b) to kill them (1 Sam 2:25fg) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh swearing that (b) no man of this evil generation will see the promised land, so that they will presumably die in the wilderness (Deut 1:34c–​35; cf. 2:14). The subsequent idea of (a) the young Samuel (b) walking, (c) growing, and (d) being good in the sight of Yahweh and the people (1 Sam 2:26) sequentially

23 Pace E. Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible (VTSup 169; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2015), 84, who suggests that the shorter reading (without the remark concerning the location at the entrance to the tent of meeting) in 4QSama is original.

40

First Samuel as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1–​7

illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the presumably young Caleb son of Jephunneh (b) treading upon the promised land and (c) having sons who will be given it, for (d) he fully followed Yahweh (Deut 1:36). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly introduced idea of (a) a man of God coming to Eli and (b) saying (‫ )אמר‬that Yahweh said (‫ )אמר‬that (c) he had presumably in vain revealed himself to the house of his ancestor in Egypt (1 Sam 2:27) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent, likewise surprisingly introduced Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh being angry with Moses, (b) saying that (c) he will not enter the promised land (Deut 1:37). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh choosing Eli’s ancestor out of all the tribes of Israel (b) to be priest and to wear an ephod (c) before (‫ )לפני‬Yahweh (1 Sam 2:28), and (a’) saying to the house of Eli and the house of his father that (b’) they would walk (c’) before (‫ )לפני‬Yahweh (1 Sam 2:28–​30c; esp. 2:30) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh making a promise concerning Joshua son of Nun, (b) who stands (c) before Moses (Deut 1:38a). The particular motif of Yahweh choosing the priest out of all the tribes of Israel (*‫ מכל־שבטי‬+ ‫בחר‬: 1 Sam 2:28) was borrowed from Deut 18:524 and conflated with Deut 18:3 (‫)כהן‬. The motif of choosing the sons of Aaron to offer incense (‫להקטיר קטרת‬: 1 Sam 2:28) was borrowed from Num 17:5. The motif of Yahweh giving to the priests the offerings made by fire (‫אשי‬: 1 Sam 2:28) was borrowed from Deut 18:1. The following motif of giving first fruits to the priest (‫ראשית‬: 1 Sam 2:29) was borrowed from the following text Deut 18:4.25 The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh honouring those who honour him, but (b) cursing those who despise him, namely, by cutting off Eli’s arm, making the old man die, and making him see an attack on the habitation (1 Sam 2:30d–​ 32a) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the faithful Joshua entering the promised land, and (b) the old, dying Moses making him strong (Deut 1:38bc). The subsequent idea of someone doing good to Israel (‫י* את־ישראל‬: 1 Sam 2:32b) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Joshua giving inheritance to Israel (Deut 1:38d). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly repeated (cf. 1 Sam 2:31) idea of there being (‫ )יהיה‬no old men in Eli’s house forever, and sparing only someone out of all loved people in Eli’s house, who will be killed (1 Sam 2:32c–​33), conceptually

2 4 Cf. S. Frolov, ‘Certain Men,’ 260. 25 Cf. S. Frolov, ‘Certain Men,’ 260.

1 Sam 3:1–4:1a (cf. Deut 1:40–43)

41

and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of sparing the Israelites’ little children, of whom the Israelites said that they would be spoil (Deut 1:39ab). The subsequent idea of (a) a sign which will come upon Eli’s sons (*‫)בניכ‬, that (b) in one day (‫)*יום‬26 (c) they will die (1 Sam 2:34), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites’ sons, (b) who do not know this day good and (c) evil (Deut 1:39c). The concluding idea of (a) Yahweh raising up a faithful priest, and the one left in Eli’s house (b) coming (*‫( )יבוא‬c) to bow down to him, asking for (d) a payment in money or (e) a loaf of bread (1 Sam 2:35–​36), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of (a) those remaining (b) coming there, and (c) to them Yahweh giving the land, so that (d) they will inherit (e) the land (Deut 1:39d–​f).

1.3. 1 Sam 3:1–​4:1a (cf. Deut 1:40–​43) The section 1 Sam 3:1–​4:1a sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 1:40–​43. The opening idea of Samuel serving Yahweh before the face (‫ )פנה‬of Eli (1 Sam 3:1a) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of commanding the Israelites to turn their face (‫ )פנה‬to themselves (Deut 1:40a). The subsequent idea of (a) the word of Yahweh becoming scarce, and (b) there being no vision that would spread wide (1 Sam 3:1b–​d)27 sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh commanding the Israelites to move away to the wilderness (b) by the way of the Sea of Reeds (Deut 1:40bc). The subsequent idea of (e) Yahweh having called Samuel, (a) Samuel answering, (b) saying (‫ )ו*אמר‬that (d) he is ready, (a’) running (c’) to (‫ )אל‬the old Eli, and (b’) saying (‫ )ו*אמר‬that (d’) he is ready, (e’) just as (*‫ )כ‬Eli called him (1 Sam 3:2–​5d; esp. 3:4–​5d), conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way, which follows the chronological order of events, illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites answering and (b) saying (c) to the old Moses that (d) they are ready to go up and fight, (e) just as Yahweh commanded them (Deut 1:41). The subsequent, repetitively formulated idea of (a) Eli saying (‫ )ויאמר‬that (b) he did not (‫( )לא‬c) call Samuel, that he should not get up but lie down (1 Sam

2 6 Cf. D. T. Tsumura, First Samuel, 164 n. 145. 27 Cf. P. K. McCarter, Jr., I Samuel, 97.

42

First Samuel as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1–​7

3:5e–​9c), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh saying that (b) the Israelites should not (c) go up and fight, for he is not in the midst of them (Deut 1:42). The subsequent, repetitively formulated idea of (a) Yahweh speaking (‫)דבר‬, and (b) Samuel (but not Eli)28 listening (‫שמע‬: 1 Sam 3:9d–​10); (a’) Yahweh doing a word/​deed (‫)דבר‬,29 and (b’) everyone listening (‫שמע‬: 1 Sam 3:11); but also (a”) Yahweh fulfilling what he spoke (‫ )דבר‬to Eli’s house (1 Sam 3:9d–​12; esp. 3:12) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential but corrective way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses speaking, and (b) the Israelites not listening (Deut 1:43ab). The particular motif of God calling a certain character by repeating his name, and the character saying (‫ )ויאמר‬that he is ready (1 Sam 3:10) was borrowed from Gen 22:11; 46:2; Exod 3:4.30 The motif of Yahweh speaking a word, and everyone who listens it, his ears will resonate (‫ אזניו‬+ ‫ כל־שמע* תצלינה‬+ ‫דבר‬: 1 Sam 3:11), was borrowed from Jer 19:3. The subsequent idea of (a) Eli knowing but not reacting to the guilt of his sons, (b) who deserved a curse (1 Sam 3:13–​14), sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites rebelling against the uttering of Yahweh and (b) behaving presumptuously (Deut 1:43cd). The particular motif of atoning for a sin by sacrifice (‫ זבח‬+ ‫כפר‬: 1 Sam 3:14) could have been borrowed from Lev 4:26.31.35. The concluding, partly repeated (cf. 1 Sam 3:4–​10) idea of (a) Samuel getting up, growing up, Yahweh not letting his words fall (1 Sam 3:15–​19),31 and (b) all Israel in its territorial extension knowing that Samuel is a prophet in Shiloh, whence his word came to all Israel (1 Sam 3:15–​4:1a; esp. 3:20–​4:1a), sequentially illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites going up (b) to the mountains, presumably of Israel (Deut 1:43e). The particular motif of all Israel extending from Dan to Beer-​sheba (‫ מדן ועד־בער שבע‬+ ‫ ישראל‬+ ‫כל‬: 1 Sam 3:20) was borrowed from Judg 20:1.

28 Cf. S. Bar, ‘Incubation and Traces of Incubation in the Biblical Narrative,’ OTE 28 (2015) 243–​256 (esp. 252). 29 Cf. D. T. Tsumura, First Samuel, 179. 30 Cf. J. E. Harvey, Retelling the Torah: The Deuteronomistic Historian’s Use of Tetrateuchal Narratives (JSOTSup 403; T&T Clark: London · New York 2004), 46, 53. 31 Cf. H. Bezzel, ‘Samuel’s Political Career,’ in K. Pyschny and S. Schulz (eds.), Debating Authority: Concepts of Leadership in the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets (BZAW 507; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2018), 248–​261 (esp. 251).

1 Sam 4:1b–7:2 (cf. Deut 1:44–2:7)

43

1.4. 1 Sam 4:1b–​7:2 (cf. Deut 1:44–​2:7) The section 1 Sam 4:1b–​7:2 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 1:44–​2:7. The opening, repetitively formulated idea of (a) Israel going out (‫( )ויצא‬b) against (‫ )לקראת‬the Philistines, and (a’) the Philistines drawing up a battle formation (b’) against (‫ )לקראת‬Israel (1 Sam 4:1b–​2b) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Amorites going out (b) against the Israelites (Deut 1:44ab). The subsequent idea of (a) Israel being defeated by the Philistines (1 Sam 4:2c–​10b), so that (b) the Israelites fled (c) to their, somewhat surprisingly, tents (1 Sam 4:2c–​10; esp. 4:10c–​e; diff. 1:19 etc.: houses), sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Amorites chasing the Israelites and (b) scattering them (c) in Seir (Deut 1:44c–​e). The particular motif of taking the ark of the covenant of Yahweh to a battle, and Israel raising a shout (‫ וירעו כל־* תרוע גדולה‬+ ‫ארון ברית יהוה‬: 1 Sam 4:3–​5) was borrowed from Josh 6:5.8.20. The military motif of Yahweh of hosts, who sits among the cherubim (‫ ישב הכרבים‬+ ‫יהוה צבאות‬: 1 Sam 4:4),32 was borrowed from Isa 37:16. The military motif of the ark of the covenant of God, and Phinehas being with it (‫ ופינחס‬+ ‫ארון ברית האלהים‬: 1 Sam 4:4) was borrowed from Judg 20:27–​28. The motif of Yahweh striking Egypt (‫ את־מצרים‬+ ‫נכה‬: 1 Sam 4:8) was borrowed from Exod 3:20 etc. The subsequent idea of the ark being taken away, and the priests dying (1 Sam 4:11) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the ‘ban’ of Hormah (Deut 1:44e). The subsequent idea of a certain Benjaminite running and coming to the sanctuary in Shiloh (1 Sam 4:12) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites returning to the sanctuary of Kadesh-​barnea (Deut 1:45a). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 1 Sam 4:10–​11) idea of human reactions to the tragic events (a great slaughter among the people, Eli’s two sons dying, and the ark of God being captured): all the city crying out, Eli falling down and dying,33 and his daughter-​in-​law suffering birth pangs and dying (1 Sam 4:13–​20a) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites weeping before Yahweh (Deut 1:45b). The particular motif of someone, in the days of the Philistines, judging

32 Cf. R. Eichler, ‘The Meaning of ‫יֹ שֵ ׁב הַ כְ ּרֻ בִ ים‬,’ ZAW 126 (2014) 358–​371 (esp. 366–​367). 3 3 Cf. Y. Berger, ‘On Patterning in the Book of Samuel: “News of Death” and the Kingship of David,’ JSOT 35.4 (2011) 463–​481 (esp. 466–​467).

44

First Samuel as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1–​7

Israel for several tens of years (‫והוא שפט את־ישראל *ים שנה‬: 1 Sam 4:18) was borrowed from Judg 16:31 (cf. 15:20). The subsequent idea of (a) women speaking, but Eli’s daughter-​in-​law not (‫ )ולא‬answering, (b) and not (‫ )ולא‬giving heed in her heart (1 Sam 4:20b–​22; esp. 4:20b–​g) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh not listening to the Israelites’ voice, (b) and not giving ear to them (Deut 1:45cd). The subsequent idea of the ark of Yahweh being taken to a non-​Israelite sanctuary (1 Sam 5:1–​2)34 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites remaining in the border sanctuary of Kadesh (Deut 1:46a). The particular motif of Dagon being the god of the Philistines (‫דגון‬: 1 Sam 5:2–​7) could have been borrowed from Judg 16:23. The subsequent idea of a custom in the sanctuary of Ashdod lasting much time, to this day (‫יום‬: 1 Sam 5:3–​5; esp. 5:5), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of remaining in the border sanctuary of Kadesh many days (Deut 1:46a). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh’s punishment for Ashdod lasting thus (*‫)כ‬ as long as (b) the ark of the God of Israel remained (‫ )ישב‬in Ashdod (1 Sam 5:6–​ 7) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the punishment for the Israelites lasting as long as (*‫)כ‬ the days of (b) their remaining in Kadesh (Deut 1:46b). The subsequent idea of (a) the Philistines sending and gathering all the lords to themselves, (b) hesitantly asking what they should do, (c) and the lords saying (1 Sam 5:8a–​e) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites turning and (b) departing to the wilderness, (c) as Yahweh spoke to Moses (Deut 2:1a–​c). The particular motif of all the lords of the Philistines (‫כל‬ ‫סרני פלשתים‬: 1 Sam 5:8) was borrowed from Judg 16:27. The subsequent, repetitively formulated idea of the Philistines saying that the ark of the God of Israel should go around (‫ )*סב‬to Gath, so letting the ark of the God of Israel go around (‫ )ו*סב‬to Gath, and after they let it go around (‫ )סבב‬to Gath, letting the ark of the God of Israel go around (‫ )סבב‬to Ekron (1 Sam 5:8f–​ 10) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites going around the pagan territory of Seir for many days (Deut 2:1d). The particular motif of Yahweh causing among the pagans a great dismay (‫מהומה גדולה‬: 1 Sam 5:9) was borrowed from Deut 7:23.

34 Cf. P. K. McCarter, Jr., I Samuel, 121; R. D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 97.

1 Sam 4:1b–7:2 (cf. Deut 1:44–2:7)

45

The subsequent idea of (a) all the lords of the Philistines saying (*‫ )ויאמר‬that (b) the Philistines should send away the ark of the God of Israel and (c) let it return to its place (1 Sam 5:11a–​e) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh saying that (b) it is enough for the Israelites to go around this pagan mountain, so (c) they should turn northward, presumably returning to Israel (Deut 2:2–​3). The subsequent idea of the Philistines’ city expressing fatal dismay and cry for help (1 Sam 5:11f–​12) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the pagan sons of Esau, dwelling in Seir, being afraid of the Israelites (Deut 2:4). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly repeated (cf. 1 Sam 5) idea of the ark of Yahweh being in the field35 (diff. 1 Sam 5: cities) of the Philistines (1 Sam 6:1) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh giving the land of the sons of Esau to them as a possession (Deut 2:5). The subsequent, financial, repetitively formulated idea of (a) the Philistines’ priests and diviners commanding them to give to the God of Israel tumours of gold and (b) mice of gold (1 Sam 6:2–​12; esp. 6:4.8.11.15.17–​18) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic financial idea of (a) Yahweh commanding the Israelites to buy food from the Edomites for silver and (b) to purchase water from them for silver (Deut 2:6). The particular motif of not sending someone away empty (‫ ריקם‬+ ‫תשלח*ו‬: 1 Sam 6:3) was borrowed from Deut 15:13. The motif of the Pharaoh hardening his heart (‫ לב‬+ ‫ פרעה‬+ ‫כבד‬: 1 Sam 6:6) was borrowed from Exod 7:14 etc. The motif of taking a cow on which a yoke has never come (‫ אשר לא־עלה עליה* על‬+ ‫ פרה‬+ ‫*קחו‬: 1 Sam 6:7) was borrowed from Num 19:2. By means of the story of Yahweh by two cows bringing the ark back not to the Ephraimite (cf. Judg 21:19.21) Shiloh (1 Sam 4:4) but straight to the Judaean border town (cf. Josh 15:10)36 Beth-​shemesh (1 Sam 6:9.12–​14), the author of Samuel–​Kings expressed the clearly Judaean theological idea of the transfer of Yahweh’s election and grace from the northern territory of Ephraim, with its sanctuary in Shiloh, to the southern territory of Judah, with its sanctuary in Jerusalem (cf. Jer 7:12.14; 26:6.9). The subsequent agricultural idea of reapers during the wheat harvest rejoicing while seeing the ark (1 Sam 6:13), together with the cultic idea of a place with a large stone, the Levites acting there, and the people offering burnt offerings and

3 5 Cf. P. K. McCarter, Jr., I Samuel, 132; R. W. Klein, 1 Samuel, 56. 36 Cf. K. Bodner, 1 Samuel: A Narrative Commentary (HBM 19; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2009), 59.

46

First Samuel as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1–​7

making sacrifices to Yahweh there (1 Sam 6:13–​15; esp. 6:14–​15)37 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh blessing the Israelite in all the work of his hand (Deut 2:7a). The otherwise unknown character of Joshua from the Judaean town of Beth-​ shemesh, related to a large stone, and offering a burnt offering to Yahweh (‫יהושע‬ ‫ אבן גדולה‬+: 1 Sam 6:14–​15.18) is a clearly Judaean reworking of the northern, Ephraimite character of Joshua son of Nun, related to a large stone in the sanctuary of Yahweh in Shechem, so the place of offering burnt offerings to Yahweh (Josh 24:26–​27.30). The use of the northern motifs borrowed from Josh 24:26–​ 27.30 in 1 Sam 6:14–​15.18 additionally illustrates the Judaean theological idea of the transfer of Yahweh’s election and grace from the northern sanctuary in Shechem to the southern territory of Judah, with its sanctuary in Jerusalem. The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly repeated (cf. 1 Sam 6:3–​5.9.14) idea of the five generous lords of the Philistines seeing what happened among the Israelites, and a great stone being a witness of it (1 Sam 6:16–​18) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh knowing what happened to the Israelites (Deut 2:7b). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh striking very many,38 presumably most inhabitants of Beth-​shemesh with a great (‫ )גדול‬plague (1 Sam 6:19), and (b) the people of Beth-​shemesh asking who can stand before Yahweh God, the holy one, this one (‫הזה‬: 1 Sam 6:19–​20; esp. 6:20), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites going through the great and presumably terrible (cf. Deut 1:19) wilderness, (b) this one (Deut 2:7c). The subsequent idea of the ark of Yahweh moving to the border town of Kiriath-​jearim39 and remaining there a long time, twenty years (‫*ים שנה‬: 1 Sam 6:21–​7:2d; esp. 7:2d), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites remaining in the wilderness these forty years (‫*ים שנה‬: Deut 2:7c). The particular motif of the Judaean border town Kiriath-​jearim (‫קרית‬ ‫יערים‬: 1 Sam 6:21) could have been borrowed from Josh 15:9; 18:14. The narrative character of the Judaean consecrated priest named Eleazar (‫ )אלעזר‬from 3 7 Cf. R. D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 102. 38 Cf. R. D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 103. 39 Cf. P. K. McCarter, Jr., I Samuel, 137; I. Finkelstein [et al.], ‘Excavations at Kiriath-​jearim near Jerusalem, 2017: preliminary report,’ Sem 60 (2018) 31–​83 (esp. 38); I. Finkelstein and T. Römer, ‘The Historical and Archaeological Background behind the Old Israelite Ark Narrative,’ Bib 101 (2020) 161–​185 (esp. 183–​184).

1 Sam 7:3–17 (cf. Deut 2:8–9)

47

Kiriath-​jearim (1 Sam 7:1) is, similarly to that of Joshua from Beth-​shemesh (cf. 1 Sam 6:14.18), a clearly Judaean reworking of the character of the Ephraimite priest named Eleazar (Josh 24:33 etc.). The concluding idea of all the house of Israel sticking to Yahweh (1 Sam 7:2e) illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh, the God of Israel, being with him, so that he lacked nothing (Deut 2:7de).

1.5. 1 Sam 7:3–​17 (cf. Deut 2:8–​9) The section 1 Sam 7:3–​17 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 2:8–​9. The opening idea of the Israelites putting away pagan gods from (‫)מן‬ their midst (1 Sam 7:3–​4) illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites turning away from the pagan sons of Esau (Deut 2:8ab). The particular motif of the Israelites returning to Yahweh with all their hearts (*‫בכל־לבבכ‬ ‫ שוב‬+: 1 Sam 7:3) was borrowed from Deut 30:2. The motif of a leader of all Israelites calling them to put away foreign gods from among them and direct their hearts to Yahweh (‫ לבבכם אל־יהוה‬+ ‫ *כם‬+ ‫הסירו את־אלהי הנכר‬: 1 Sam 7:3) was borrowed from Josh 24:23. The motif of the Israelites serving the Baals and the Astartes (‫את־הבעלים ואת־העשתרות‬: 1 Sam 7:4; cf. 7:3) was borrowed from Judg 10:6 (cf. 2:13). The subsequent, quite surprising idea of the Israelites drawing water and pouring it out before Yahweh (1 Sam 7:5–​6c)40 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites passing by Elath and Ezion-​geber, places located at the sea (Deut 2:8b). The subsequent, likewise surprising in this context (1 Sam 7:6bc), idea of the Israelites fasting as sinners (1 Sam 7:6d–​g) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites passing through the wilderness of Moab (Deut 2:8cd). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites saying (*‫( )ויאמר‬b) to (‫ )אל‬Samuel that (c) he should not (*‫ )אל־ת‬be silent from crying out41 that Yahweh (and not the Israelites: 1 Kgs 7:7) might deliver them from the Philistines (1 Sam 7:8), so that he offered a sacrifice to Yahweh and cried out to Yahweh, and Yahweh answered him (1 Sam 7:7–​9) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh saying (b) to the Israelites that (c) they should not fight Moab (Deut 2:9ab). 40 Cf. P. K. McCarter, Jr., I Samuel, 144. 4 1 Cf. P. K. McCarter, Jr., I Samuel, 145; S. Noll, ‘Rereading Samuel’s Silence in 1 Samuel 7:8,’ VT 66 (2016) 393–​405 (esp. 404–​405).

48

First Samuel as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1–​7

The subsequent thought that while Samuel was offering a sacrifice, the Philistines drew near for battle (‫ )מלחמה‬against (‫ )ב‬the Israelites (1 Sam 7:10)42 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh saying to the Israelites that they should not engage in battle against the Moabites (Deut 2:9c). The subsequent idea of the Israelites striking the Philistines as far as a certain Hebrew-​named point, and Yahweh helping the Israelites only as far as the Hebrew-​named border place Ebenezer (cf. 1 Sam 4:1; 5:1), thus establishing a border between the territory of the Israelites and that of the Philistines, so that the Philistines did not (‫ )לא‬come anymore to the territory of the Israelites (1 Sam 7:11–​13),43 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh saying to the Israelites that he did not give them any of the land of Moab as a possession (Deut 2:9d). The subsequent idea of cities (*‫ )ער‬being restored to (‫ )ל‬Israel, so that there was peace between Israel and, somewhat surprisingly, the Amorites (1 Sam 7:14), conceptually and linguistically, with the use of the motif of the Amorites (‫ )האמרי‬living in Transjordan north of Moab (cf. Deut 2:24 etc.), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh giving the city of Ar (‫ )ער‬to the Transjordanian sons of Lot (Deut 2:9e). The concluding idea of Samuel going from year to year on a circuit to various Israelite cities and then returning to the city with his house, where he built an altar to Yahweh (1 Sam 7:15–​17), illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh giving a city as a possession (Deut 2:9e).

1.6. 1 Sam 8–​15 (cf. Deut 2:10–​16) The section 1 Sam 8–​15 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 2:10–​16. The opening idea of (a) Samuel’s sons perverting justice (1 Sam 8:1–​3), the Israelites having a harshly ruling, not Yahweh-​related king, thus being like all the pagan nations (1 Sam 8:4–​20a); (b) the king going out before (*‫)לפני‬44 the Israelites (1 Sam 8:20b–​d); and (c) the Israelites, each of them, living in a city 4 2 Cf. R. W. Klein, 1 Samuel, 68. 43 The following parts of the narrative (1 Sam 13:19 etc.) show that the statement concerning the Philistines as not coming anymore to the territory of the Israelites is not true. Cf. A. Tobolowsky, ‘The »Samuel the Judge« Narrative in 1Sam 1–​7,’ ZAW 129 (2017) 376–​389 (esp. 376). 44 Cf. D. T. Tsumura, First Samuel, 261.

1 Sam 8–15 (cf. Deut 2:10–16)

49

(‫עיר‬: 1 Sam 8; esp. 8:22; diff. 4:10: tent; 10:25: house) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) the ‘terrifying’ pagan Emim (b) living before (c) in Ar (Deut 2:10a; cf. 2:9). The particular motif of taking bribes and twisting judgement (‫ שחד‬+ ‫לקח‬ ‫ משפט‬+ ‫ נטה‬+ : 1 Sam 8:3) was borrowed from Deut 16:19.45 The motif of the Israelites saying that they want to set over them a king, like all the nations do (*‫ עלי‬+ ‫ ככל־הגוים‬+ ‫ מלך‬+ ‫ *שימה‬+ *‫ו*אמר‬: 1 Sam 8:5.19–​20), was borrowed from Deut 17:14.46 The motif of setting commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties (‫ שרי חמשים‬+ ‫ שרי אלפים‬+ ‫שים‬: 1 Sam 8:12) was borrowed from Exod 18:21.25 (cf. Deut 1:13.15). The subsequent idea of a ‘right-​hand’ Benjaminite powerful man and his ancestors (1 Sam 9:1) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of a great and numerous people (Deut 2:10b). The subsequent idea of a very tall man, taller than the Israelites (1 Sam 9:2), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Emim being a tall people, like the Anakim (Deut 2:10b). The subsequent idea of an ancient-​type (‫לפנים‬: 1 Sam 9:9)47 seer (1 Sam 9:3–​21; esp. 9:9.11.18–​19) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the ancient-​type (cf. Deut 2:10) ‘dead spirits’ Rephaim (Deut 2:11a). The subsequent idea of Saul being a quasi-​priest (1 Sam 9:22–​24; 10:1.4)48 and a pagan-​style quasi-​prophet (1 Sam 10:5–​6.10–​12), like the priestly and prophetic ‘seer’ Samuel (1 Sam 9:22–​10:16), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Emim being regarded as the ‘dead spirits’ Rephaim (Deut 2:11a). The particular motif of the priest receiving the shank of a sacrificed animal (‫שוק‬: 1 Sam 9:23–​24) was borrowed from Lev 7:32–​34 etc. The motif of taking

45 Cf. C. Nihan, ‘1 Samuel 8 and 12 and the Deuteronomistic Edition of Samuel,’ in C. Edenburg and J. Pakkala (eds.), Is Samuel among the Deuteronomists? Current Views on the Place of Samuel in a Deuteronomistic History (AIL 16; Society of Biblical Literature: Atlanta 2013), 225–​273 (esp. 230); C. Nihan, ‘Rewriting Kingship in Samuel: 1 Samuel 8 and 12 and the Law of the King (Deuteronomy 17),’ HBAI 2 (2013) 315–​350 (esp. 323). 46 Cf. S. Frolov, ‘Certain Men,’ 262; C. Nihan, ‘Rewriting Kingship,’ 325–​339. Pace T. Römer, ‘La loi du roi en Deutéronome 17 et ses fonctions,’ in O. Artus (ed.), Loi et Justice dans la Littérature du Proche-​Orient ancien (BZABR 20; Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden 2013), 99–​111 (esp. 105–​106), who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 47 Pace Y. Zakovitch, ‘On Incoherency and Its Causes: Explanatory Notes as a Test Case,’ HBAI 9 (2020) 247–​261 (esp. 255), who regards this remark as a later explanatory note. 48 Cf. P. K. McCarter, Jr., I Samuel, 180, 186.

50

First Samuel as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1–​7

oil and pouring it on the head of a quasi-​priest, thus anointing him (+ ‫ את־‬+ ‫לקח‬ ‫ משח‬+ ‫ ויצק* על־ראשו‬+ ‫שמן‬: 1 Sam 10:1), was borrowed from Exod 29:7. The motif of Rachel’s tomb in the territory of Benjamin (‫ בנימן‬+ ‫קברת־רחל‬: 1 Sam 10:2) was borrowed from Gen 35:18–​20. The motif of an Israelite hero approaching the Philistines, and the spirit of Yahweh rushing on him (*‫ ו*צלח עלי‬+ ‫פלשתים‬ ‫רוח יהוה‬: 1 Sam 10:5–​6; cf. 10:10) was borrowed from Judg 14:19; 15:14. The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly partly repeated idea of the people making the very tall (1 Sam 10:23–​24; cf. 9:2) Saul a harshly ruling (1 Sam 10:25; cf. 8:11–​18) king (1 Sam 10:17–​27)49 illustrates the subsequent, likewise partly repeated (cf. Deut 2:10b) Deuteronomic idea of being like the tall Anakim (Deut 2:11a). The particular motif of a prophet saying, ‘Thus says Yahweh, the God of Israel, “I brought up Israel out of Egypt, and I delivered you from the hand of Egypt and from the hand of all those who oppressed you” ’ (‫ כה־אמר יהוה אלהי ישראל אנכי העליתי‬+ ‫ויאמר‬ ‫ לחצי* *כם‬+ ‫ ואציל אתכם מיד מצרים ומיד כל־‬+ ‫את* ממצרים‬: 1 Sam 10:18) was almost verbatim borrowed from Judg 6:8–​9.50 The motif of an Israelite leader making all the tribes of Israel come near, and one tribe being selected, then making one tribe come near, and one clan being selected, then one man, a son of someone, being selected, and being related to some hidden vessels, and then some Israelites running and taking the hidden one from that place (‫ ויקרב‬+ ‫ וילכד שבט‬+ ‫ ישראל‬+ *‫ שבטי‬+ ‫ את‬+ ‫ויקרב‬ *‫ ויקח* מ‬+ ‫ וירצו‬+ ‫ כלים‬+ ‫ בן־‬+ ‫ וילכד‬+ ‫ משפחת ה*י‬+ ‫ ו*לכד‬+ ‫את‬: 1 Sam 10:20–​23) was borrowed from Josh 7:11.16–​17.22–​23. The subsequent, again somewhat surprisingly partly repeated (cf. 1 Sam 10:24–​ 25)51 idea of (a) a Transjordanian Ammonite (b) causing the Israelites to make the terrifying Saul (1 Sam 11:6–​7) king (1 Sam 11:1–​12:2a; esp. 11:12–​12:2a) sequentially illustrates the subsequent, likewise partly repeated (cf. Deut 2:10a) Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Transjordanian Moabites (b) calling them the ‘terrifying’ Emim (Deut 2:11b). The particular motif of cutting a body, cutting it in pieces, and sending throughout all the territory of Israel (‫ וישלח בכל גבול ישראל‬+ *‫ וינתחה‬+ ‫ויקח‬: 1 Sam 11:7) was borrowed from Judg 19:29.52 The motif of mustering the Israelites, and

4 9 Cf. A. F. Campbell, 1 Samuel, 111–​113. 50 Cf. C. Nihan, ‘Rewriting Kingship,’ 340–​341. 51 Cf. J. Jacobs, ‘ “And There Renew the Kingship”: The Double Coronation of Saul (1 Samuel 10–​11),’ SJOT 32 (2018) 189–​200 (esp. 190–​194). 52 Pace L. A. S. Monroe, ‘Disembodied Women: Sacrificial Language and the Deaths of Bat-​Jephthah, Cozbi, and the Bethlehemite Concubine,’ CBQ 75 (2013) 32–​52 (esp. 49–​50); S. J. Milstein, ‘Saul the Levite and His Concubine: The “Allusive” Quality

1 Sam 8–15 (cf. Deut 2:10–16)

51

the Israelites being a few hundred thousand (‫ מאות אלף‬+ ‫ ישראל‬+ ‫פקד‬: 1 Sam 11:8) was borrowed from Judg 20:17 and supplemented with the motif of Judah being counted separately from Israel. The subsequent idea of (a) Samuel being old and grey-​headed,53 (b) the sons (‫ )ובני‬of Samuel being with the Israelites, and (c) Samuel having walked before (*‫ )לפני‬the Israelites until this day (1 Sam 12:2b–​e) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the ancient Horites having dwelt in Seir before, and (b) the sons of Esau (c) dispossessing them and exterminating them from before them (Deut 2:12a–​c). The subsequent idea of the old Samuel having no cattle or property of the Israelites (1 Sam 12:3–​5) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the sons of Esau dwelling in place of the ancient Horites (Deut 2:12d). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly formulated idea of Yahweh, as he did (‫ ;*אשר עשה‬diff. 1 Sam 12:8: sent) Moses and Aaron,54 as (‫ )*אשר‬he brought the Israelites’ ancestors up out of the land of Egypt, and as he did (‫ )*אשר עשה‬righteous deeds to the Israelites and to their ancestors (1 Sam 12:6–​7), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel, just as he did (Deut 2:12e). The subsequent idea of Israel dwelling (‫ )ישב‬in Canaan (1 Sam 12:8–​11; esp. 12:8.11) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel thus doing to the land of his possession, which presumably means dwelling (Deut 2:12e; cf. 2:12d). The particular motif of Yahweh sending Moses and Aaron, but also bringing the Israelites’ ancestors out of Egypt (‫ ו*וציא* את־אבתיכם‬+ ‫ את־משה ואת־אהרן‬+ ‫ו*שלח‬ ‫ממצרים‬: 1 Sam 12:8), was borrowed from Josh 24:5–​6.55 The motif of Yahweh selling the Israelites into the hand of Sisera, commander of the army of Hazor (‫ חצור‬+ *‫ שר־צבא‬+ ‫ ביד סיסרא‬+ ‫ *ם‬+ *‫וימכר‬: 1 Sam 12:9), was borrowed from Judg 4:2. The motif of Yahweh selling the Israelites into the hand of the Philistines (‫ ביד־פלשתים‬+ * ‫וימכר‬: 1 Sam 12:9) was likewise borrowed from Judg 10:7. The motif of Yahweh delivering the Israelites to the power of the king of Moab, and the Israelites crying out to Yahweh (‫ אל־יהוה‬+ ‫ ויזעקו‬+ ‫מלך מואב‬: 1 Sam 12:9–​10)

of Judges 19,’ VT 66 (2016) 95–​116 (esp. 101–​102), who suggest the reverse direction of borrowing. 53 Cf. R. D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 140. 54 Cf. P. K. McCarter, Jr., I Samuel, 215. 55 Cf. C. Nihan, ‘1 Samuel 8 and 12,’ 259–​262; C. Nihan, ‘Rewriting Kingship,’ 346.

52

First Samuel as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1–​7

was similarly borrowed from Judg 3:12.15. The motifs of Jerubbaal and Jephthah (‫ יפתח‬+ ‫ירבעל‬: 1 Sam 12:11) were borrowed from Judg 6:32; 11:1; etc. The motif of Yahweh rescuing the Israelites out of the hand of their enemies on every side (‫ איבי*ם מסביב‬+ ‫ *ם מיד‬+ ‫נצל‬: 1 Sam 12:11; cf. 12:10) was borrowed from Judg 8:34 and conflated with Deut 12:10 (‫ בטח‬+ ‫)ישב‬. The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 1 Sam 8:7.19; 11:1) idea of the king whom (‫ )אשר‬Yahweh gave (‫נתן יהוה‬: 1 Sam 12:13), but also the thunder and rain which Yahweh gave (‫ יהוה‬+ ‫נתן‬: 1 Sam 12:12–​25; esp. 12:17–​18) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the land which Yahweh gave (Deut 2:12f). The particular motif of exhorting the Israelites to obey Yahweh’s voice and not to rebel against the command of Yahweh their God (‫ אלהיכם‬+ ‫ תמרו את־פי יהוה‬+ ‫ ולא‬+ ‫שמעתם בקלו‬: 1 Sam 12:14–​15) was borrowed from Deut 9:23. The motif of the Israelite leader calling to Yahweh, and Yahweh sending thunders and rain (‫ ו*מטר‬+ ‫ קלת‬+ ‫ נתן‬+ ‫יהוה‬: 1 Sam 12:17–​18) was borrowed from Exod 9:23. The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly inserted and ambiguously formulated chronological remarks, referring to short periods of time, ‘Saul was one year in his being the king, and he reigned two years’ (1 Sam 13:1)56 illustrate the subsequent, chronologically ambiguous Deuteronomic remark, ‘And now’ (Deut 2:13a). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of letting the Israelites go to their tents (1 Sam 13:2) but then summoning all the Israelites to fight (1 Sam 13:2–​6; esp. 13:3–​4) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of calling the Israelites to rise (Deut 2:13a). The subsequent idea of (a) the ‘crossing over’ Hebrews (‫;ועברים‬57 diff. 1 Sam 13:4–​6: Israel) (b) crossing over (‫( )עבר‬c) a (‫ )את־‬river to the Transjordanian land of Gad and Gilead (1 Sam 13:7) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) exhorting the Israelites to cross over (*‫( )ועבר‬c’) a river, and (b) the Israelites crossing over (c) a river, presumably to the Transjordanian territory of Gad and Gilead (Deut 2:13bc; cf. 3:12). The thought that some people did not cross over the river (1 Sam 13:7c–​8) illustrates the Deuteronomic thought that the ‘men of war’ did not cross over the river (Deut 2:14).

56 Cf. D. T. Tsumura, First Samuel, 333; R. Gilmour and I. Young, ‘Saul’s Two Year Reign in 1 Samuel 13:1,’ VT 63 (2013) 150–​154 (esp. 152). 57 Cf. K. Bodner, 1 Samuel, 120.

1 Sam 8–15 (cf. Deut 2:10–16)

53

The subsequent idea of (a) Saul waiting several days (‫ימים‬: 1 Sam 13:8.11) for Samuel, (b) the people being scattered from him, (c) Saul offering a burnt offering, and departing from (‫ )מן‬the sanctuary (cf. 1 Sam 10:8 etc.)58 at Gilgal (1 Sam 13:8–​16; esp. 13:15) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the many days of (b) the travelling of the Israelites, presumably through the wilderness, (c) from the sanctuary at Kadesh (Deut 2:14a). The subsequent idea of the ‘crossing over’ Hebrews (‫עברים‬: 1 Sam 13:19; 14:11.21) being at the crossing place (‫ )מעבר‬of Michmash (1 Sam 13:23), Jonathan crossing over (‫ )עבר‬to the Philistines on the other side (‫עבר‬: 1 Sam 14:1.4.6.8), and the Israelites after him crossing over (‫ )עבר‬to Beth-​aven (1 Sam 13:17–​ 14:23; esp. 14:23) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites crossing over the Wadi Zered (Deut 2:14b). The particular motif of great dismay among Israel’s enemies (‫מהומה גדולה‬: 1 Sam 14:20) was borrowed from Deut 7:23. The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of (a) the militant men (‫ )איש‬of Israel being oppressed (1 Sam 14:24a; cf. 14:28.31), and (b) Saul putting the people under an oath (‫שבעה‬: 1 Sam 14:26), making them swear the oath (‫שבע‬: 1 Sam 14:24–​31; esp. 14:27–​28), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the perishing of all the generation of the men of war, (b) just as Yahweh swore to them (Deut 2:14cd). The subsequent idea of the people sinning against Yahweh (1 Sam 14:32–​ 35) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the hand of Yahweh being against the Israelites (Deut 2:15a). The particular motif of sinfully eating something with blood (‫ על־הדם‬+ ‫אכל‬: 1 Sam 14:32–​33) was borrowed from Lev 19:26. The subsequent idea of a priest and Saul calling the Israelites to come to the midst (‫)קרב‬, to God (1 Sam 14:36), but God not answering (1 Sam 14:36–​38) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh bringing the people into confusion from the midst of the camp (Deut 2:15b). The subsequent idea of Yahweh showing that the sinful Jonathan should die (1 Sam 14:39–​46) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh

58 Cf. F. H. Polak, ‘Negotiations, Social Drama and Voices of Memory in Some Samuel Tales,’ in A. Brenner and F. H. Polak (eds.), Performing Memory in Biblical Narrative and Beyond (BMW 25; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2009), 46–​71 (esp. 61); Ł. Niesiołowski-​ Spanò, Origin Myths and Holy Places in the Old Testament: A Study of Aetiological Narratives, trans. J. Laskowski (CISem; Equinox: London · Oakville 2011), 213.

54

First Samuel as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1–​7

letting the sinful militant Israelites perish (Deut 2:15c). The particular motif of a sinner being selected by lot, and the Israelite leader saying to him, ‘Tell me what you have done’ (‫ לי מה עשיתה‬+ ‫ נגד‬+ ‫ אל־‬+ ‫ ויאמר‬+ ‫וילכד‬: 1 Sam 14:42–​43) was borrowed from Josh 7:18–​19.59 The subsequent idea of (c’) Saul making war (‫לחם‬: 1 Sam 14:47), (a) it coming to pass (*‫ )ויהי‬that (b) Saul’s genealogy surprisingly went not forwards but backwards from his sons (1 Sam 14:49–​51), (c) the war (‫ )המלחמה‬being hard (1 Sam 14:52), and Saul taking every mighty man (‫)איש‬60 to war (1 Sam 14:47–​52; esp. 14:52) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) it coming to pass that (b) there perished (c) all the men of war (Deut 2:16ab). The concluding idea of Saul being rejected from being king over the people (‫עם‬: 1 Sam 15; esp. 15:1.4.9.15.21.24.30) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of the sinful men of war dying off from among the people (Deut 2:16c). The particular motif of Yahweh reminding what Amalek did to Israel on the way when he came out of Egypt (‫ בדרך ב* ממצרים‬+ *‫ ל‬+ ‫ עמלק‬+ ‫את אשר־עשה‬: 1 Sam 15:2) was borrowed from Deut 25:17.61 The motif of Havilah being as far as Shur, which is facing Egypt (‫ שור אשר על־פני מצרים‬+ ‫מחוילה‬: 1 Sam 15:7), was borrowed from Gen 25:18. The motif of Yahweh not so much delighting in burnt offerings or sacrifices, in the fat of rams (‫ אילים‬+ ‫ חלב‬+ ‫ זבחים‬+ ‫ עלות‬+ ‫חפץ‬: 1 Sam 15:22), was borrowed from Isa 1:11.

1.7. 1 Sam 16 (cf. Deut 2:17–​29) The section 1 Sam 16 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 2:17–​29. The opening idea of Yahweh speaking to the Israelite leader Samuel (*‫וי‬ *‫יהוה אל‬: 1 Sam 16:1a) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh speaking to the Israelite leader Moses (Deut 2:17).

59 Pace G. Auld, ‘Reading Joshua after Samuel,’ in J. K. Aitken, K. J. Dell, and B. A. Mastin (eds.), On Stone and Scroll, Festschrift G. I. Davies (BZAW 420; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2011), 305–​315 (esp. 308–​310), who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 60 Cf. D. T. Tsumura, First Samuel, 386. 61 Cf. J. Berman, ‘The Legal Blend in Biblical Narrative (Joshua 20:1–​9, Judges 6:25–​31, 1 Samuel 15:2, 28:3–​25, 2 Kings 4:1–​7, Jeremiah 34:12–​17, Nehemiah 5:1–​12),’ JBL 134 (2015) 105–​125 (esp. 112–​113); J. Berman, Inconsistency in the Torah: Ancient Literary Convention and the Limits of Source Criticism (Oxford University: New York 2017), 156.

1 Sam 16 (cf. Deut 2:17–29)

55

The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh addressing Samuel, ‘You’ (‫)אתה‬, and (b) telling him to go to the territory of Judah (1 Sam 16:1b–​4c) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh addressing Moses, ‘You,’ and (b) telling him to cross over the border of Moab (Deut 2:18). The particular motif of Jesse being the ancestor of the Davidic dynasty (‫ישי‬: 1 Sam 16:1.3) was borrowed from Isa 11:1. The motif of Bethlehem being the origin of the Davidic dynasty (‫בית לחם‬: 1 Sam 16:1.4) was borrowed from Mic 5:1. The subsequent idea of the elders of the Judahite city (‫עיר‬: 1 Sam 16:4d) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Moabite city of Ar (‫ער‬: Deut 2:18). The subsequent idea of (a) Samuel meeting the Judahites, (b) the Judahites asking whether Samuel comes peaceably, and (c) Samuel saying that he comes peaceably (1 Sam 16:4e–​5d) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses approaching (b) opposite the Ammonites, and (c) Yahweh saying that Moses should not fight them or engage in battle against them (Deut 2:19a–​c). The subsequent idea of dedicating Jesse and his sons (*‫בני‬: 1 Sam 16:5e) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of not giving from the land of the sons of Ammon to Moses as a possession, and giving it to the sons of Lot as a possession (Deut 2:19de). The subsequent idea of calling them (‫)*יקרא* להם‬, namely Jesse’s sons, to the sacrifice (*‫ז‬: 1 Sam 16:5f) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of calling them, namely Rephaim, Zamzummim (*‫ז‬: Deut 2:20). The subsequent idea of Eliab’s remarkable appearance and the height of his stature (1 Sam 16:6–​7b) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Rephaim being a people as great, numerous, and tall as the Anakim (Deut 2:21a). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh rejecting the named Eliab, for (b) not as man sees,62 for (c) the man sees by the eyes,63 and (d) Yahweh sees by the heart, presumably below (1 Sam 16:7c–​f), sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh exterminating the named Rephaim (b) before the face of the Ammonites, and (c) the Ammonites dispossessing them and (d) dwelling below them (Deut 2:21b–​d). The subsequent idea of (a) making the named Abinadab pass before (‫)*פני‬ Samuel, and (b) Samuel saying that Yahweh has not chosen him (1 Sam 16:8)

6 2 Cf. D. T. Tsumura, First Samuel, 418 n. 28. 63 Cf. D. T. Tsumura, First Samuel, 418–​419.

56

First Samuel as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1–​7

illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (b) Yahweh exterminating the named Horites (a) from before the sons of Esau (Deut 2:22). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh not having chosen the named Shammah and (b) seven of Jesse’s sons, who were within the city, but (c) waiting till (‫)עד־‬ the coming of the small one from outside the city (1 Sam 16:9–​11; esp. 16:11) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the named Avvim, (b) who dwelt in settlements (c) till Gaza (Deut 2:23a). The subsequent idea of a ruddy, so evidently non-​Hebrew64 man with beautiful eyes and attractive appearance (1 Sam 16:12a–​c) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Caphtorim (Cretans), who came from Caphtor (Crete), exterminating the Avvites (Deut 2:23b–​d). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh ordering Samuel, ‘Rise’ (‫)קום‬, and Samuel arising (‫ )קום‬and (b) going (c) to Ramah, so from the territory of Judah to the territory of Ephraim (1 Sam 16:12d–​13), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh ordering the Israelites, ‘Rise, (b) set out on a journey, and (c) cross over the Wadi Arnon’ (Deut 2:24a–​c). The name of David (‫דוד‬: 1 Sam 16:13) is traditional (cf. Isa 7:2 etc.). The subsequent idea of Saul ordering his servants to look (‫ )ראה‬for a good player (1 Sam 16:17), and one of Saul’s young men seeing (‫ )ראה‬a skilful player (1 Sam 16:14–​18c; esp. 16:18c) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh ordering the Israelites to look/​see (Deut 2:24d). The subsequent, somewhat surprising (diff. 1 Sam 17:33–​39) idea of (a) David being a man of war (‫)מלחמה‬,65 and (b) Yahweh being with him (1 Sam 16:18de) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh ordering the Israelites to make war and (b) putting the dread and fear of Israel upon the nations (Deut 2:24e–​25). The subsequent idea of (a) Saul sending (‫( )ו*אשלח‬b) messengers (‫)מלאכים‬ (c) to (‫ )אל‬Jesse (1 Sam 16:19a), (d) uttering his polite request, Jesse answering wholeheartedly, Saul and David loving each other (1 Sam 16:19b–​21), and (a’) Saul sending (‫( )ו*אשלח‬c’) to (‫ )אל‬Jesse, (e) saying (‫לאמר‬: 1 Sam 16:19–​22b;

64 Cf. M. Basiuk, ‘King David’s Fatherhood –​the Bright and Dark Sides,’ BPT 11 (2018) 447–​461 (esp. 450). 65 Cf. P. K. McCarter, Jr., I Samuel, 281; B. J. M. Johnson, ‘David Then and Now: Double-​ Voiced Discourse in 1 Samuel 16.14–​23,’ JSOT 38.2 (2013) 201–​215 (esp. 209–​211).

1 Sam 17 (cf. Deut 2:30–36d)

57

esp. 16:22b), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses sending (b) messengers (c) to King Sihon (d) with words of peace, (e) saying (Deut 2:26). The subsequent idea of Saul politely requesting that David might stand before him, for he found favour in Saul’s eyes (1 Sam 16:22cd), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses politely requesting that he might pass straightforwardly, presumably having the way before his eyes (Deut 2:27). The concluding idea of the spirit of God coming to Saul, Saul’s heart becoming wide and good, and the evil spirit departing from him (1 Sam 16:23) illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of Moses promising that he will deal peacefully with Sihon, and he will do no harm to him (Deut 2:28–​29).

1.8. 1 Sam 17 (cf. Deut 2:30–​36d) The section 1 Sam 17 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 2:30–​36d. The opening idea of the Philistines gathering their camp to battle and encamping in Judah (1 Sam 17:1) illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of Sihon’s heart being hardened and obstinate against Israel (Deut 2:30). The subsequent idea of Saul and Israel gathering, encamping, and lining up for battle against the Philistines, so that they were facing each other (1 Sam 17:2–​ 3),66 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh giving Sihon before Israel (Deut 2:31). The subsequent idea of (b) the named Goliath (a) coming out (‫ )ויצא‬from the camp of the Philistines (1 Sam 17:4–​7; esp. 17:4) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (b) the named Sihon (a) coming out from his land (Deut 2:32a). The subsequent idea of (a) Goliath standing and shouting (‫ )קרא‬to the ranks of Israel, asking (d’) why they line up for battle (‫)מלחמה‬, (b) him (pers. pron.) being (c) a Philistine (1 Sam 17:8) and (d) being ready to battle (‫לחם‬: 17:9–​10) (e) together (*‫יח‬: 1 Sam 17:8–​10; esp. 17:10d), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Sihon wanting to meet (‫ )קרא‬the Israelites, (b) he (pers. pron.) and (c) all his people, (d) for battle (e) at Jahaz (*‫יח‬: Deut 2:32b).

66 Cf. J. Lemański, ‘Dawid i Goliat, czyli spór o to, jaki obraz Dawida prezentuje 1 Sm 17, 1–​18, 5?,’ RocB [BibAn] 2 (2010) 77–​121 (esp. 86).

58

First Samuel as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1–​7

The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh (1 Sam 17:37.45–​46), (b) the God of Israel’s ranks (*‫אלהי‬: 1 Sam 17:45–​46), (c) giving (‫( )נתן‬d) the Philistines (pers. pron.) (e) in the hand of the Israelites (‫*נו‬: 1 Sam 17:11–​47; esp. 17:47)67 conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the (c) giving of (d) Sihon (suff. pers. pron.) by (a) Yahweh (b) the God of the Israelites (e) before the Israelites (Deut 2:33a). The particular motif of the Israelites being dismayed and afraid of the pagan inhabitants of Canaan (‫ ירא‬+ ‫חתת‬: 1 Sam 17:11) was borrowed from Deut 1:21 etc. The motif of a ruler in Israel being an Ephrathite originating from Bethlehem in Judah (‫ יהודה‬+ ‫ בית לחם‬+ ‫ מן‬+ *‫אפרת‬: 1 Sam 17:12) was borrowed from Mic 5:1. The subsequent idea of David striking the (*‫ )ו*ך את‬Philistine (1 Sam 17:48–​ 51f; esp. 17:49–​50) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites striking Sihon (Deut 2:33b). The particular motif of the Israelite killing the enemy not with his sword (*‫לא בחרב‬: 1 Sam 17:47; cf. 17:39.45.50–​51) was borrowed from Josh 24:12. The subsequent idea of (a) the Philistines seeing that their mighty man was dead, so (b) fleeing (1 Sam 17:51g–​i), sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) striking Sihon’s sons and (b) all his people (Deut 2:33b). The subsequent idea of the Israelites pursuing the Philistines as far as the entrance to Gath (1 Sam 17:52 LXX) and as far as the gates of Ekron (1 Sam 17:52a–​c) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites capturing all Sihon’s cities (Deut 2:34a). The subsequent idea of (a) the pierced Philistines falling (b) on the way of the gates as far as Gath and as far as Ekron (1 Sam 17:52d) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (b) the Israelites utterly destroying every city, (a) men, women, and little children (Deut 2:34bc). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites turning back from pursuing the Philistines, and (b) plundering their camp (1 Sam 17:53) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) only, presumably having killed the humans, (b) the livestock the Israelites plundering for themselves (Deut 2:35a). The subsequent idea of (a) David taking the head of the Philistine and, (b) quite surprisingly, bringing it to Jerusalem (1 Sam 17:54; diff. 2 Sam 5:5–​7: conquered later)68 sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a)

6 7 Cf. J. Lemański, ‘Dawid i Goliat,’ 110. 68 Cf. P. K. McCarter, Jr., I Samuel, 294; R. W. Klein, 1 Samuel, 181; J. Lemański, ‘Dawid i Goliat,’ 113.

1 Sam 18 (cf. Deut 2:36e–3:14)

59

the spoil of the cities which they captured, and (b) the Israelites conquering many cities (Deut 2:35b–​36b). The concluding, quite surprising idea of David being an unknown (diff. 1 Sam 16:18–​23: known)69 young man but having the head of the Philistine in his hand (1 Sam 17:55–​58) illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of there being no city that would be too strong for the Israelites (Deut 2:36cd).

1.9. 1 Sam 18 (cf. Deut 2:36e–​3:14) The section 1 Sam 18 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 2:36e–​3:14. The opening idea of David (b’) being given (‫נתן‬: 1 Sam 18:4) (a) the love of Jonathan, his robe, his garment, even his sword, even his bow, and even his belt;70 David being admired by all (‫ )כל‬the people, the servants of Saul, and the women from all (‫ )כל‬the cities of Israel (1 Sam 18:5–​6), who (b) gave (‫ )נתן‬him ten thousands of people (1 Sam 18:8); and (c) Yahweh (‫ )יהוה‬being with David (1 Sam 18:12.14) (d) before (*‫ )לפני‬the people (1 Sam 18:1–​16; esp. 18:13.16) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) all (b) being given by (c) Yahweh the Israelites’ God (d) before them (Deut 2:36e). The particular motif of all the Israelite women coming out to sing a song of victory with dances and tambourines, answering (+ ‫ שיר‬+ ‫ כל‬+ ‫ הנשים‬+ ‫ותצאנה‬ *‫ ותענ‬+ ‫ בתפים‬+ ‫מחלות‬: 1 Sam 18:6–​7), was borrowed from Exod 15:20–​21. The subsequent, repetitively formulated idea of (a) a daughter (‫ )בת‬of Saul being offered to David as a son (‫ )בן‬of the king, (b) the Philistines being hostile (1 Sam 18:17), and (c) David not accepting the proposal concerning king’s daughter, so that he did not approach her (1 Sam 18:18–​19); (a’) another daughter (‫ )בת‬of Saul loving David (1 Sam 18:20),71 (b’) the Philistines being hostile (1 Sam 18:21), and (c’) David not accepting the proposal concerning king’s daughter (1 Sam 18:17–​24; esp. 18:23–​24) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential

6 9 Cf. J. Lemański, ‘Dawid i Goliat,’ 115. 70 Cf. I. Himbaza, A. Schenker, and J.-​B. Edart, The Bible on the Question of Homosexuality, trans. B. M. Guevin (Catholic University of America: Washington, DC 2012), 30–​31; O. Keren, ‘David and Jonathan: A Case of Unconditional Love?,’ JSOT 37.1 (2012) 3–​23 (esp. 8). 71 Cf. J. Dekker, ‘ “May the Lord Make the Woman Like Rachel”: Comparing Michal and Rachel,’ TynBul 64 (2013) 17–​32 (esp. 20–​21).

60

First Samuel as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1–​7

way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the land of the sons (plur.) of (b) Ammon (c) Israel not approaching (Deut 2:37). The subsequent idea of thinking that David will fall by the hands of the uncircumcised Philistines (1 Sam 18:25) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the pagan king of Bashan coming out against the Israelites for battle (Deut 3:1). The subsequent, somewhat surprising (diff. 1 Sam 18:18.23) idea of David accepting the proposal to kill a hundred Philistines (1 Sam 18:26) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites having no fear of Og and his people (Deut 3:2). The subsequent idea of (a) David arising, going against the Philistines, and (b) striking (‫ )נכה‬two hundred (diff. 1 Sam 18:25; 2 Sam 3:14: one hundred)72 men of the Philistines (1 Sam 18:27a–​c) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh delivering Og and his people into the hand of the Israelites, and (b) the Israelites striking them until no survivor remained (Deut 3:3). The subsequent idea of (a) David bringing (b) the (‫ )את־‬foreskins (*‫ )ער‬and (c) counting them in a full number (1 Sam 18:27d) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites capturing (b) the pagan cities (*‫( )ער‬c) in the full number of sixty (Deut 3:4–​7; esp. 3:4). The subsequent idea of (a) David becoming a son-​in-​law, so presumably heir, (b) of the king (‫מלך‬: 1 Sam 18:27e) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites taking the land (b) from two kings (Deut 3:8), of the kingdom (*‫ )*מלכ‬of Og (Deut 3:10), who was king (‫ )מלך‬of Bashan (Deut 3:8–​12a; esp. 3:11). The subsequent idea of (a) Saul giving (‫ )נתן‬to (‫ )ל‬David (b) Michal as a wife (1 Sam 18:27f) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (b) half the mountains of Gilead (a) Moses giving to the Reubenites and the Gadites, and (b’) the rest of Gilead (a’) Moses giving to half the tribe of Manasseh (Deut 3:12b–​13). The subsequent idea of (a) Saul being afraid (‫ )ירא‬of the Israelite champion David, Yahweh being with David, and (b) the daughter of (‫ )בת־‬Saul loving him (1 Sam 18:28) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite champion Jair (‫)יאיר‬, (b) the son of (‫ )בן־‬Manasseh (Deut 3:14a).

72 Cf. D. T. Tsumura, First Samuel, 487.

1 Sam 19 (cf. Deut 3:15–4:49)

61

The subsequent idea of (a) Saul being afraid of the Israelite champion David and being an enemy of David (b) all (‫ )כל‬the days (1 Sam 18:29) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite champion Jair taking (b) all the region of Argob (Deut 3:14a). The subsequent idea of (a) the princes of the Philistines going out, David being more successful than all the servants of Saul, and (b) his name (‫ )שמו‬being highly esteemed (1 Sam 18:30) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Jair conquering, presumably more than other Israelites, as far as the territory of the Geshurites and the Maacathites, and (b) calling them after his name, the ‘villages of Jair,’ to this day (Deut 3:14b).

1.10. 1 Sam 19 (cf. Deut 3:15–​4:49) The section 1 Sam 19 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 3:15–​4:49. The opening idea of Saul persuading his son (‫ )בן‬Jonathan to kill David, but Jonathan, with the redundantly repeated remark that he was Saul’s son (‫)בן‬, politically favouring73 David (1 Sam 19:1–​2d; esp. 19:1) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of the border of non-​aggression between the Israelites and the sons of Ammon (Deut 3:15–​16; esp. 3:16). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of (a) David being on his guard (b) in the morning (1 Sam 19:2e) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites’ border being (b) towards the sunrise (Deut 3:17). The subsequent idea of David staying (‫ )ישב‬in a refuge place and hiding himself (1 Sam 19:2f) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites going to war, but their relatives staying in their cities (Deut 3:18–​19; esp. 3:19). The subsequent idea of Jonathan showing his love and loyalty (cf. 1 Sam 18:1.3; 19:1) to David (1 Sam 19:3–​4) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Transjordanians showing loyalty to their Cisjordanian brothers (Deut 3:20a).

73 Cf. E. E. Fleming, ‘Political Favoritism in Saul’s Court: ‫חפץ‬, ‫נעם‬, and the Relationship between David and Jonathan,’ JBL 135 (2016) 19–​34 (esp. 28).

62

First Samuel as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1–​7

The subsequent idea of David killing the Philistine (1 Sam 19:5ab) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Cisjordanians taking possession of the land in Cisjordan (Deut 3:20b). The subsequent idea of Yahweh bringing about great salvation to all Israel (1 Sam 19:5c) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh giving the land to both Cisjordanian and Transjordanian Israelites (Deut 3:20c–​e). The subsequent idea of (a) Saul seeing (‫ )ראה‬and (b) rejoicing (1 Sam 19:5de) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Joshua seeing (b) all that Yahweh did to the two Amorite kings (Deut 3:21a–​d). The subsequent idea of Saul sinning against innocent blood by killing without cause (1 Sam 19:5fg) negatively illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh doing likewise to all the presumably obstinate and aggressive (cf. Deut 2:30–​32; 3:1) Cisjordanian kingdoms, to which Joshua is crossing over (Deut 3:21ef). The subsequent idea of (a) Saul swearing by Yahweh that (b) David will not be killed, and David trustfully being before him (1 Sam 19:6–​7) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (b) Joshua not being afraid (a) because of Yahweh (Deut 3:22a). The subsequent idea of the war (‫ )מלחמה‬continuing to be, and David fighting (‫ )לחם‬against the Philistines (1 Sam 19:8a–​d) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh fighting for the Israelites (Deut 3:22b). The subsequent idea of David striking the Philistines with a great (‫)גדול‬ blow (1 Sam 19:8e) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh showing his greatness (‫ )גדל‬and his mighty hand (Deut 3:23–​24b; esp. 3:24ab). The subsequent idea of (a) the Philistines fleeing (b) before David (1 Sam 19:8f) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh doing his works and his mighty deeds, and (b) Moses wanting to cross over to Canaan (Deut 3:24c–​25). The subsequent idea of (a) an evil spirit of Yahweh coming to Saul, (b) Saul sitting with a spear while David played, (c) Saul trying to kill David, but (d) David escaping before (‫ )*פני‬him, and (e) the spear striking the wall (1 Sam 19:9–​10d) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh being angry against Moses, (b) not listening to him while he spoke, (c) foretelling that he will die, but (d) Joshua crossing over before the people and (e) causing them to inherit the land which Moses saw (Deut 3:26–​28).

1 Sam 19 (cf. Deut 3:15–4:49)

63

The subsequent idea of (a) David fleeing, escaping that night, and (b) remaining, somewhat surprisingly, in his house (‫בית‬: 1 Sam 19:10e–​11a) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites remaining in a valley opposite (b) Beth-​ peor, which means ‘the house of Peor’ (Deut 3:29). The subsequent idea of Saul commanding to keep (‫ )לשמר‬David (1 Sam 19:11b) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses commanding to keep the commandments (Deut 4:1–​2; esp. 4:2). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of (a) intending to kill David (b) in the morning, so presumably the following day (1 Sam 19:11c), sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea (a) Yahweh exterminating the followers of Baal of Peor (Deut 4:3), but (b) the Israelites being alive today (Deut 4:3–​8; esp. 4:4.8). The subsequent idea of (a) Michal warning David that (b) he should save himself (‫( )נפשך‬c) this night (1 Sam 19:11d–​f) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses warning the Israelite that he should take care and (b) watch over himself, so that (c) he should not forget what his eyes saw during the days of his life (Deut 4:9). The subsequent idea of saying that (a) the following day (b) David will be killed (1 Sam 19:11g) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) on that day (b) teaching the Israelites to fear (Deut 4:10). The subsequent idea of letting David down (1 Sam 19:12a) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites standing under the mountain (Deut 4:11ab). The subsequent idea of David fleeing away and saving himself (1 Sam 19:12b–​ d) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the mountain, like a volcano, burning with fire to the midst of heaven, with darkness, cloud, and thick darkness, and Yahweh God speaking out of the fire (Deut 4:11c–​12a). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of (a) Michal taking the pagan human-​form figures,74 (b) putting a goat-​like object, and (c) covering with a garment (1 Sam 19:13) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites making no idol image in the form of a man or a woman (Deut 4:12b–​16), (b) in the likeness of any animal (Deut 4:17–​18), and (c) peoples being under the heaven (Deut 4:12b–​19; esp. 4:19). The particular motif of

74 Cf. P. K. McCarter, Jr., I Samuel, 326; R. D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 208; D. T. Tsumura, First Samuel, 494.

64

First Samuel as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1–​7

a named woman taking the human-​form figurines and putting them (‫ את־‬+ ‫לקח‬ *‫התרפים ותשמ‬: 1 Sam 19:13) was borrowed from Gen 31:34.75 The subsequent idea of (a) Saul’s messengers taking (‫ )לקח‬David, (b) who was weak/​sick (1 Sam 19:14), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh taking the Israelites (b) out of the iron-​smelting furnace (Deut 4:20). The subsequent idea of (a) Saul’s messengers bringing David up in the bed, and (b) Saul wanting to make him die (‫מות‬: 1 Sam 19:15) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh not letting Moses cross over the Jordan and come, presumably on his feet, to the good land, so (b) Moses being about to die (Deut 4:21–​22b). The subsequent, repeated (cf. 1 Sam 19:13) idea of (a) the messengers coming and (b) seeing pagan human-​form figures and a goat-​like object (1 Sam 19:16) sequentially illustrates the subsequent, likewise repeated (cf. Deut 4:17–​18) Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites crossing over to Canaan and (b) making no idol image in the form of anything (Deut 4:22c–​25d). The subsequent idea of (a) Michal betraying Saul and (b) sending Saul’s enemy away (1 Sam 19:17a–​c) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites doing evil in the sight of Yahweh and provoking him to anger, and (b) Yahweh scattering the Israelites away from Canaan (Deut 4:25e–​28). The subsequent idea of David saving himself (1 Sam 19:17d) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites returning to Yahweh and to Canaan (Deut 4:29). The subsequent idea of (a) Michal obeying the speech of David, (b) who did not want to kill her (1 Sam 19:17e–​h), sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites obeying the voice of Yahweh, (b) who is merciful and not exterminating Israel (Deut 4:30–​31). The subsequent, repeated (cf. 1 Sam 19:12)76 idea of David fleeing away and saving himself (1 Sam 19:18ab) illustrates the subsequent, likewise repeated (cf. Deut 4:12a) idea of God speaking out of the fire (Deut 4:32–​33). The subsequent idea of David coming (‫ )בוא‬to Samuel to the Israelite Ramah (1 Sam 19:18c) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of God coming to the Israelites (Deut 4:34ab).

7 5 Cf. J. E. Harvey, Retelling the Torah, 53, 59; J. Dekker, ‘May the Lord,’ 25–​28. 76 Cf. D. T. Tsumura, First Samuel, 495.

1 Sam 20:1–27:6 (cf. Deut 5:1–21)

65

The subsequent idea of David recounting all that Saul did to (*‫)כל אשר עשה ל‬ him (1 Sam 19:18de) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of narrating all that Yahweh God did to the Israelites (Deut 4:34c–​40; esp. 4:34d). The subsequent idea of David and Samuel going and settling in Naioth, which means ‘townships’ (1 Sam 19:18fg), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses setting apart three cities beyond the Jordan (Deut 4:41). The subsequent idea of Saul being told that David is in Naioth/​townships in Ramah, so three times sending messengers to seize David, but the spirit of God protecting him (1 Sam 19:19–​21), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of an innocent criminal fleeing to one of the three cities and remaining alive thanks to the Mosaic law (Deut 4:42–​45). The concluding idea of (a) the spirit of God in a quasi-​pagan way overcoming Saul, and (b) Saul stripping off his clothes and lying naked before Samuel (1 Sam 19:22–​24) sequentially illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses defeating the pagan king Sihon and (b) taking possession of his land (Deut 4:46–​49; esp. 4:46–​47a).

1.11. 1 Sam 20:1–​27:6 (cf. Deut 5:1–​21) The section 1 Sam 20:1–​27:6 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 5:1–​21. The opening idea of (a) David coming before Jonathan and (b) asking what he has done, (c) what his guilt is, and what his sin is (1 Sam 20:1) sequentially illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel being called to Moses but also (b) hearing prescriptions and (c) judgements (Deut 5:1a–​c). The subsequent idea of (a) Jonathan’s father doing no great thing/​word (‫)דבר‬ or small thing/​word (‫( )דבר‬b) without opening Jonathan’s ears (*‫)אזני‬, and (c) not hiding this (*‫ )את‬thing (‫דבר‬: 1 Sam 20:2) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses speaking (‫( )דבר‬b) to the Israelites’ ears, and (c) Israel learning these matters (Deut 5:1de). The subsequent idea of Jonathan saying that he will do (‫ )עשה‬whatever David says (1 Sam 20:4), David instructing Jonathan, and asking him to do (‫ )עשה‬loyalty to him (1 Sam 20:3–​8a; esp. 20:8a) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel diligently doing Moses’ prescriptions (Deut 5:1fg). The subsequent idea of (a) a covenant (‫ )ברית‬of (b) Yahweh (‫ )יהוה‬for (c) Jonathan’s servant (d) with (‫ )עם‬Jonathan (1 Sam 20:8b) conceptually and

66

First Samuel as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1–​7

linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (b) Yahweh, (c) the Israelites’ God, making (d) with them (a) a covenant (Deut 5:2). The subsequent idea of Jonathan not bringing David to his father (‫אב‬: 1 Sam 20:8c–​13) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of not making a covenant with the Israelites’ fathers (Deut 5:3a). The subsequent idea of (a) David not cutting off (‫ )כרת‬his loyalty from the house of Jonathan when (ab) Yahweh cuts off (‫ )*כרת יהוה‬the enemies of David (1 Sam 20:15), and (a) Jonathan cutting (‫ )כרת‬a covenant with the house of David, namely, that (b) Yahweh (‫ )יהוה‬will require from the hand of David’s enemies (1 Sam 20:14–​ 17; esp. 20:16) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (b) Yahweh (a) cutting a covenant with the Israelites (Deut 5:3a). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of (a) after the day of the new moon, on the third day, David going down to a particular place, apparently a cultic one under the mountain (cf. Exod 19:1.16–​17), (b) as it was on a certain day (‫יום‬: 1 Sam 20:19), and (c) the arrows missing the target, thus showing the way to remain alive (1 Sam 20:18–​22; esp. 20:20–​22), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites being here (b) this day (c) alive (Deut 5:3b). The subsequent idea of (a) speaking (‫ )דבר‬a word (‫)דבר‬, and (b) Yahweh being between (*‫ )בינ‬Jonathan (c) and (*‫ )ובינ‬David (1 Sam 20:23) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh speaking with the Israelites (Deut 5:4), and (b) Moses standing between Yahweh (c) and the Israelites (Deut 5:4–​5a; esp. 5:5a). The subsequent idea of things occurring on the first and the second day of the festival of new moon (1 Sam 20:24–​34; esp. 20:24.27.34) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of things occurring at that time (Deut 5:5a). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of (a) Jonathan secretly (diff. 1 Sam 20:41: directly), by shooting/​teaching (‫ירה‬: 1 Sam 20:36–​37), informing David about (b) the word of Saul (‫דבר‬: 1 Sam 20:35–​40; esp. 20:39) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) informing the Israelites about (b) the word of Yahweh (Deut 5:5b), that is, presumably, his teaching (cf. Exod 24:12). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of David with extraordinary reverence falling on his face to the ground and bowing down three time before

1 Sam 20:1–27:6 (cf. Deut 5:1–21)

67

Jonathan (1 Sam 20:41)77 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites being afraid because of the theophanic fire of Yahweh (Deut 5:5c). The subsequent idea of David going away in peace (1 Sam 20:42ab) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites not going up to the mountain (Deut 5:5de). The subsequent idea of (a) them (pers. pron.) both swearing (b) in the name of Yahweh (‫ )יהוה‬that Yahweh (‫ )יהוה‬shall be (c) between Jonathan and David (‫)*ך‬, between the descendants of Jonathan and the descendants of David (‫)*ך‬, forever (1 Sam 20:42c–​e) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) him (pers. pron.), (b) Yahweh, being (c) the God of Israel (‫*ך‬: Deut 5:6a). The subsequent idea of (a) David arising and going away from (b) the city of Saul (1 Sam 21:1) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) bringing Israel out of (b) the house of slavery (Deut 5:6b). The subsequent idea of (a) Ahimelech trembling and stating that David is alone, and (b) there is no man with him (1 Sam 21:2)78 sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel being ordered to have no other gods before Yahweh and (b) make no image in the form of any human (Deut 5:7–​9b). The subsequent idea of (a) the king (‫ )אנכי‬commanding that no one should know his business and (b) directing the young men to a certain place (1 Sam 21:3) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh (‫ )אנכי‬being a jealous God, (b) punishing the sons to the fourth generation, presumably by sending them into exile (Deut 5:9c–​e). The subsequent idea of (a) the priest offering holy bread on condition that (c) the young men (b) keep themselves (d) away from women (1 Sam 21:4–​5) conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh showing graciousness (c) to the thousandth generation of (d) those who love him and (b) keep his commandments (Deut 5:10). The subsequent idea of (a) the equipment of the young men being always holy, (b) even if the way is profane (1 Sam 21:6a–​f), sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite not taking the holy name of Yahweh (b) to something worthless (Deut 5:11).

7 7 Cf. R. D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 219. 78 Cf. R. D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 221.

68

First Samuel as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1–​7

The subsequent idea of (a) especially this day (‫( )יום‬b) being holy (‫)קדש‬, and the priest giving something holy (‫קדש‬: 1 Sam 21:6g–​7a) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) keeping the day of the Sabbath (b) to make it holy (Deut 5:12ab). The subsequent idea of the priest fulfilling the commandment concerning setting the bread of the presence before Yahweh (cf. Exod 25:30: + ‫לחם *פנים‬ ‫)לפני‬, apparently on a certain day (‫יום‬: 1 Sam 21:7b–​e; cf. Lev 24:8; diff. Exod 25:30: continually), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of acting on the day of the Sabbath (cf. Deut 5:12a) as Yahweh commanded (Deut 5:12c). The subsequent idea of (a) one of the slaves/​workers (‫ )עבד‬of Saul (b) on that day (‫( )יום‬c) being restrained79 (d) before Yahweh (‫)ל* יהוה‬, and (e) being an ‘anxious’ (Doeg) (f) Edomite, (g) the chief of Saul’s shepherds, evidently not doing his work now (1 Sam 21:8), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) working six days (Deut 5:13), and (b) the seventh day (c) being the Sabbath (d) to Yahweh, and there being no work for (e) the slave, (f) the resident alien, and (g) the slave having rest (Deut 5:13–​14d; esp. 5:14a–​d). The subsequent idea of (a) David’s sword (fem.) of Goliath being wrapped in a cloth and lying behind the ephod, and (b) there being nothing like it (‫כמוה‬: 1 Sam 21:9–​10; esp. 21:10) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite’s female slave resting (b) like him (‫כמוך‬: Deut 5:14d). The subsequent idea of (a) David, surprisingly called king of the land (‫ארץ‬: 1 Sam 21:12),80 taking these words to his heart and (b) being afraid of the pagan king of the, somewhat surprisingly, westward-​located Gath (1 Sam 21:11–​ 16; esp. 21:13)81 sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite remembering that (b) he was a slave in the westward-​located land of Egypt (Deut 5:15ab). The subsequent idea of (a) David going away (b) from there (‫)משם‬, and (c) his brothers and all his father’s house joining him (1 Sam 22:1) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh bringing the Israelite out (b) from there (c) with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm (Deut 5:15c).

79 Cf. K. Bodner, 1 Samuel, 227. 8 0 Cf. P. K. McCarter, Jr., I Samuel, 356; R. D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 223. 81 Cf. D. Pioske, ‘Material Culture and Making Visible: On the Portrayal of Philistine Gath in the Book of Samuel,’ JSOT 43.1 (2018) 3–​27 (esp. 17).

1 Sam 20:1–27:6 (cf. Deut 5:1–21)

69

The subsequent idea of all distressed, indebted, and embittered people joining David, who became their commander (1 Sam 22:2), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh commanding to make the day of the Sabbath, presumably as the day of lifting the burdens (Deut 5:15de; cf. 5:14–​15c). The subsequent idea of (a) David providing royal protection to (b) his father (*‫( )אבי‬c) and (‫ )ו‬his mother (*‫( )אמ‬d) until he knows what God (‫ )אלהים‬will do for him (1 Sam 22:3), so that (e) they dwelt with the king of Moab all the days (*‫ )ימי‬of his being in a stronghold (1 Sam 22:3–​4; esp. 22:4), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite honouring (b) his father (c) and his mother, (d) as Yahweh God commanded him, so that (e) his days might be prolonged (Deut 5:16a–​c). The subsequent, somewhat surprising (diff. 1 Sam 22:3–​4: dwelling safely in Moab) idea of (a) a prophet advising David that he would better go for himself (‫( )לך‬b) to the land of Judah, so that he went to a forest in Judah (1 Sam 22:5), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) it being well for him, that is, the Israelite (b) on the Israelite ground (Deut 5:16d). The subsequent idea of Saul asking the Benjaminites whether the son of Jesse will give (‫ )נתן‬to (‫ )ל‬all of them fields and vineyards (1 Sam 22:6–​7; esp. 22:7) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the ground which Yahweh gives to the Israelite (Deut 5:16e). The particular motif of commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds (‫שרי *אלפים‬ ‫ושרי *מאות‬: 1 Sam 22:7) could have been borrowed from Num 31:14. The subsequent accounts of Saul unjustly killing all the priests at Nob, but his Israelite servants not (‫ )לא‬wanting to strike the priests of Yahweh (1 Sam 22:8–​ 23; esp. 22:17),82 David justly striking the Philistines at Keilah (1 Sam 23:1–​6),83 Saul unjustly wanting to destroy Keilah (1 Sam 23:7–​13), God not (‫ )לא‬giving David into Saul’s hand (1 Sam 23:14), Jonathan predicting that David will not (‫ )לא‬be killed (1 Sam 23:15–​18; esp. 23:17), the Ziphites unjustly helping to kill David (1 Sam 23:19–​24), Saul unjustly wanting to kill David (1 Sam 23:25–​ 28), and David not (‫ )לא‬killing Saul (1 Sam 22:8–​24:23; esp. 24:7.11–​14.19)84

82 Cf. D. T. Tsumura, First Samuel, 546; S. Hildebrandt, ‘The Servants of Saul: “Minor” Characters and Royal Commentary in 1 Samuel 9–​31,’ JSOT 40.2 (2015) 179–​200 (esp. 192–​193). 83 Cf. P. K. McCarter, Jr., I Samuel, 372. 84 Cf. A. L. Kagunge, ‘Pitie et Non-​violence dans 1S 24–​26: Cas de David Versus Saül et Nabal,’ OTE 32 (2019) 155–​173 (esp. 158–​160).

70

First Samuel as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1–​7

conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite not murdering (Deut 5:17). The subsequent account of (a) David not (‫ )לא‬harming and not (‫)לא‬ dispossessing the ‘foolish’ Nabal (1 Sam 25:1–​21; esp. 25:7.15.21), not (b) taking his submissive85 wife while Nabal was alive (1 Sam 25:22–​38), but only after his death taking her and another unmarried woman as wives (1 Sam 25:39–​43; cf. 27:3; diff. 2 Sam 11: committing adultery),86 and Saul unjustly giving Michal, David’s wife, to another man (1 Sam 25; esp. 25:44) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite (a) not (b) committing adultery, that is, not taking another man’s wife (Deut 5:18). The particular motif of Yahweh turning someone’s evil on his head (*‫ בראש‬+ ‫ השיב‬+ ‫ רעת‬+ ‫ואת‬: 1 Sam 25:39) could have been borrowed from Judg 9:57. The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 1 Sam 23:14–​15.19; 24:3–​17)87 account of David not stealing Saul’s property (diff. 1 Sam 24:5–​7.12: not taking his life) while he lay asleep by night (1 Sam 26:7.11–​12.16.22; diff. 24:4: while he was alone by day), and Abner not (‫ )לא‬guarding his master and his property (1 Sam 26:1–​22; esp. 26:15–​16; diff. 24:9–​16: no such remark) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite not stealing (Deut 5:19). The subsequent, likewise partly repeated (cf. 1 Sam 24:18–​23) idea of (a) David, because of his righteousness and trustworthiness, not (‫ )לא‬wanting to (b) stretch out his hand in retribution (cf. 1 Sam 26:8–​9.11) (c) against (*‫ )ב‬Saul (1 Sam 26:23), thus (d) making the life of Saul valued, and his life being valued, blessed, and able to accomplish various things (1 Sam 26:23–​25; esp. 26:24) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent

85 Cf. M. Garsiel, ‘The Story of David, Nabal and Abigail (1 Samuel 25): A Literary Study of Wordplay on Names, Analogies and Socially Structured Opposites,’ in D. Bodi (ed.), Abigail, Wife of David, and Other Ancient Oriental Women (HBM 60; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2013), 66–​78 (esp. 75–​77); Y.-​k. Kim, ‘Deferential Self-​Reference in the Book of Samuel,’ VT 65 (2015) 588–​605 (esp. 593, 601). 86 Cf. A. Shinan and Y. Zakovitch, From Gods to God: How the Bible Debunked, Suppressed, or Changed Ancient Myths & Legends, trans. V. Zakovitch (Jewish Publication Society: Philadelphia 2012), 252–​253, 258. 87 Cf. J. Van Seters, ‘Two Stories of David Sparing Saul’s Life in 1 Samuel 24 and 26: A Question of Priority,’ SJOT 25 (2011) 93–​104 (esp. 94–​95); G. J. Wearne, ‘Reading Samuel as Folklore: 1 Samuel 23.19–​24.22 and 26.1–​25, a Case Study,’ JSOT 41.3 (2017) 337–​354 (esp. 343–​346).

1 Sam 27:7–29:11 (cf. Deut 5:22–6:25)

71

Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite not (b) answering (c) against his neighbour (d) worthless witness (Deut 5:20). It seems that the thematically correlated stories 1 Sam 24–​26, which contain important recurrent motifs (not murdering, not stealing someone else’s property, etc.), commonly illustrate the Deuteronomic commandments Deut 5:17–​20. The subsequent idea of (a) Saul desisting from seeking David, who could escape out of his hand (1 Sam 27:1), (b) David going over with his men (‫ )איש‬to Achish (‫א*יש‬: 1 Sam 27:2), every (‫ )איש‬man (‫ )איש‬being with his household, and David dwelling with his wives (‫אשה‬: 1 Sam 27:1–​3; esp. 27:3) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite not coveting (b) his neighbour’s wife (Deut 5:21a). The subsequent idea of David fleeing to Gath, presumably with his house (‫בית‬: cf. 1 Sam 27:3), and Saul not (‫ )ולא‬seeking him (1 Sam 27:4) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite not craving for his neighbour’s house (Deut 5:21b). The subsequent idea of (a) David politely asking Achish that he might give him a place in a field (‫)שדה‬, so that (b) Achish’s servant (‫ )עבד‬would dwell there (1 Sam 27:5), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) not craving for the neighbour’s field or (b) his servant (Deut 5:21b). The concluding, repetitively formulated idea of (a) Achish giving to (*‫( )ל‬b) David Ziklag, (a’) therefore Ziklag belonging to (*‫( )ל‬b’) the kings of Judah to this day (1 Sam 27:6) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of (a) not craving for all that belongs to (b) the neighbour (Deut 5:21c).

1.12. 1 Sam 27:7–​29:11 (cf. Deut 5:22–​6:25) The section 1 Sam 27:7–​29:11 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 5:22–​6:25. The opening idea of David remaining in (*‫ )ב‬the field around one year (1 Sam 27:7) illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of the assembly of the Israelites being assembled at (*‫ )ב‬the mountain (Deut 5:22a), presumably around one year (cf. Num 10:11). The subsequent idea of (a) David and his people spreading out to 1. the Geshurites (*‫)ה‬, 2. the Girzites (*‫)ה‬, and 3. the Amalekites (*‫)והע‬, (b) who remained (surprisingly fem.)88 in the land which is from eternity between Shur 88 Cf. P. K. McCarter, Jr., I Samuel, 413.

72

First Samuel as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1–​7

and Egypt, so in Sinai (1 Sam 27:8), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh speaking with a great voice from the midst of 1. the fire, 2. the cloud, and 3. the thick darkness, (b) and writing his words on the tablets of stone (fem.), presumably taken from the ground of Sinai (Deut 5:22a–​d). The subsequent idea of (a) David striking the (*‫ )את־ה‬land, (b) not leaving any human alive, but also (c) taking grazing animals, including wilderness camels, and (d) covering garments (1 Sam 27:9a–​c) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) hearing the voice of Yahweh (b) from the midst of darkness, while (c) the mountain, presumably the wilderness Mount Horeb, (d) was burning with fire (Deut 5:23a–​c). The subsequent idea of David coming to (‫ )אל‬Achish (1 Sam 27:9de) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite leaders coming near to Moses (Deut 5:23d). The subsequent, surprisingly formulated idea of (a) Achish saying (‫( )ו*אמר‬b) to (‫ )אל‬those taking off (clothes) (c) today (‫)היום‬, and (d) David saying that 1. over the Negeb of Judah, 2. over the Negeb of the ‘God having mercy’ Jerahmeelites, and 3. over the Negeb of the Kenites (*‫ק‬: 1 Sam 27:10) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the leaders saying that (b) God (*‫ )אל‬showed (c) today, and (d) they saw, presumably in Sinai, 1. his glory, 2. his greatness, and 3. his voice (*‫ק‬: Deut 5:24a–​d). The subsequent idea of David not letting any man or woman live (‫ )חיה‬and come to Gath (1 Sam 27:11ab) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the human, hearing God speaking to him, being basically able to live, but then dying and not living (Deut 5:24e–​26; esp. 5:24f.26). The subsequent idea of David thus doing (‫)עשה‬, and this being his judgement all days (1 Sam 27:11c–​h) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites doing all that Yahweh told Moses (Deut 5:27). The subsequent idea of (a) Achish having trust in (*‫ )ב‬David, (b) saying (‫)אמר‬ that (c) David became odious89 in his people (‫)עם‬, in Israel (1 Sam 27:12a–​c), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh hearing the voice of the Israelites in their speaking, and (b) saying that (c) he heard the distancing (cf. Deut 5:25–​26) words of this people, presumably Israel (Deut 5:28a–​d).

89 Cf. R. D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 262.

1 Sam 27:7–29:11 (cf. Deut 5:22–6:25)

73

The subsequent idea of David becoming a servant of Achish forever (1 Sam 27:12d) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites doing right things towards Yahweh in all that they say (Deut 5:28e–​g). The subsequent idea of David showing loyalty to Achish (1 Sam 28:1–​2), along with all Israel and Saul showing loyalty towards Yahweh (1 Sam 28:1–​3; esp. 28:3) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites having such a loyal heart towards Yahweh (Deut 5:29ab). The particular motif of removing the necromancers and soothsayers from the land (1 Sam 28:3) was borrowed from Deut 18:11 etc.90 The subsequent idea of Saul being afraid (‫)ירא‬, and his heart trembling (1 Sam 28:4–​5; esp. 28:5) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites being afraid of Yahweh (Deut 5:29c). The subsequent idea of Saul consulting Yahweh, and Yahweh not answering 1. by dreams, 2. by the Urim, or 3. by the prophets (1 Sam 28:6)91 in a negative way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites diligently doing all 1. the commandments, 2. the statutes, and 3. the judgements of Yahweh, but also listening to him (Deut 5:29d–​6:3). The particular motif of consulting Yahweh by the Urim (‫ אורים‬+ ‫שאל‬: 1 Sam 28:6) was borrowed from Num 27:21. The subsequent idea of (a) Saul’s servants seeking a female Baal/​Lady of dead spirits, (b) Saul questioning with (*‫ )ב‬her, and (c) the servants saying to him that a female Baal/​Lady of dead spirits is there (1 Sam 28:7) sequentially, in a negative way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel hearing that Yahweh is alone, (b) the Israelite loving Yahweh with all his heart, and (c) these words being in his heart (Deut 6:4–​6). The subsequent idea of (a) Saul putting on other, presumably ordinary clothes, (b) going (‫ )הלך‬with two men, (c) coming at night, and (d) wanting to bring up someone (1 Sam 28:8) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite repeating these words, presumably in another form, to children and (b) speaking about them while going on the way, (c) lying down, and (d) getting up (Deut 6:7). The subsequent idea of (a) the ordinary man certainly knowing that (b) Saul cut off the necromancers and soothsayers from the land (‫הארץ‬: 1 Sam 28:9a–​ d) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite showing public signs of faithfulness to

9 0 Cf. J. Berman, ‘Legal Blend,’ 117. 91 Cf. P. K. McCarter, Jr., I Samuel, 420; D. T. Tsumura, First Samuel, 620.

74

First Samuel as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1–​7

Yahweh (Deut 6:8–​9), and (b) Yahweh bringing the Israelite into the land (Deut 6:8–​11; esp. 6:10). The subsequent idea of Saul catching himself in snares (1 Sam 28:9e) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite taking care not to forget Yahweh (Deut 6:12). The subsequent idea of the woman being afraid of being killed (1 Sam 28:9f) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite fearing Yahweh (Deut 6:13ab). The subsequent idea of Saul swearing (‫ )שבע‬by (*‫ )ב‬Yahweh (1 Sam 28:10ab) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite swearing by the name of Yahweh (Deut 6:13c). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh living, and (b) the woman not happening to be guilty (1 Sam 28:10cd) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh being jealous, and (b) the Israelite possibly avoiding the anger of Yahweh (Deut 6:14–​15; esp. 6:15). The subsequent idea of Saul wanting to bring up Samuel (1 Sam 28:11) with the use of the motif of Yahweh forbidding such practices (cf. Deut 18:11)92 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites tempting Yahweh (Deut 6:16a). The subsequent idea of Saul beguiling the woman by invoking the once-​ living Samuel (1 Sam 28:12) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites once tempting Yahweh at Massa (Deut 6:16b). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of (a) the woman obediently saying that (b) she sees gods (‫)אלהים‬93 (c) going up (d) from the land (‫הארץ‬: 1 Sam 28:13) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites diligently keeping the commandments of Yahweh (b) their God (‫אלהים‬: Deut 6:17), but also (c) coming and possessing (d) the land (Deut 6:17–​19; esp. 6:18). The subsequent idea of (a) Saul asking (‫)אמר‬, (b) ‘What (‫ )מה‬is his form?’ (1 Sam 28:14ab) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite’s son asking, (b) ‘What are the testimonies which Yahweh commanded?’ (Deut 6:20).

92 Cf. W. Bührer, ‘Die Totenbefragung in 1 Sam 28 in ihrem literarischen und religionsgeschichtlichen Kontext,’ BZ, nf 61 (2017) 203–​218 (esp. 214, 218). 93 Cf. R. W. Klein, 1 Samuel, 271; R. D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 267–​268; D. T. Tsumura, First Samuel, 624–​625.

1 Sam 27:7–29:11 (cf. Deut 5:22–6:25)

75

The subsequent idea of (a) the woman answering (‫ )אמר‬that (b) an old man (c) is going up and (d) wrapping himself with a sleeveless outer garment (1 Sam 28:14c–​e)94 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite answering that (b) in the past the Israelites were slaves in Egypt, and (c) Yahweh brought them out of Egypt (d) with a mighty hand (Deut 6:21). The subsequent idea of (a) Saul knowing that it is Samuel, (b) bowing down to the ground, and worshipping (1 Sam 28:14f–​h) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh doing great signs and wonders (b) before the Israelites’ eyes (Deut 6:22). The subsequent idea of (a) Saul bringing Samuel up, (b) fighting with the Philistines, and (c) calling out to (‫ )ל‬the old Samuel (1 Sam 28:15a–​i) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh bringing the Israelites out of Egypt, (b) bringing them to give them the land of which (c) he swore to the Israelites’ ancestors (Deut 6:23). The subsequent idea of (a) Samuel instructing (b) Saul (‫( )*ני‬c) what he should do (‫עשה‬: 1 Sam 28:15jk) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh commanding (b) the Israelites (‫( )*נו‬c) to do (Deut 6:24ab). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 1 Sam 15:16.18.28)95 idea of Samuel explaining Yahweh’s decisions, of which he spoke by Samuel (1 Sam 28:16–​19), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of all these stipulations (Deut 6:24b). The subsequent idea of (a) Saul being greatly afraid (‫ )ירא‬because of (b) the words of Samuel (1 Sam 28:20a–​c) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites being afraid of (b) Yahweh (Deut 6:24c). The subsequent idea of (a) there being no strength in Saul because he did not eat bread (b) all day (‫ )כל־היום‬and all night (1 Sam 28:20de) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential but negative way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) it being well with the Israelites (b) all days (‫כל־‬ ‫הימים‬: Deut 6:24d).

9 4 Cf. R. D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 268. 95 Cf. P. K. McCarter, Jr., I Samuel, 421; D. T. Tsumura, First Samuel, 627; M. Michael, ‘The Prophet, the Witch and the Ghost: Understanding the Parody of Saul as a “Prophet” and the Purpose of Endor in the Deuteronomistic History,’ JSOT 38.3 (2014) 315–​346 (esp. 324–​325).

76

First Samuel as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1–​7

The subsequent idea of the woman setting food before Saul and before his servants, and them eating it (1 Sam 28:21–​25) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh preserving the Israelites alive (Deut 6:24e). The particular motif of a woman bringing a morsel of bread before the important guest goes, hastily killing a good calf, taking flour, kneading it, making cakes, setting the food before the guests, and the guests eating it (‫ קמח‬+ ‫ ו*מהר‬+ ‫פת־לחם‬ ‫ ויאכלו‬+ *‫ לפני‬+ ‫ *ות‬+ ‫ לוש‬+: 1 Sam 28:22.24–​25) was borrowed from Gen 18:5–​8. The subsequent idea of Achish saying that he found in David nothing wrong during the days (‫ )יום‬to this day (‫היום הזה‬: 1 Sam 29:1–​3; esp. 29:3), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of things being as it is this day (Deut 6:24e). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 1 Sam 21:12)96 idea of (a) the Philistines saying that David should not be to them (‫( )*היה־לנו‬b) an adversary (1 Sam 29:4), and Achish saying that David is upright (1 Sam 29:4–​6; esp. 29:6) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (b) righteousness (a) being to them, that is, the Israelites (Deut 6:25a). The subsequent idea of David doing (‫ )עשה‬no evil (1 Sam 29:7–​8c) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites diligently doing this entire commandment (Deut 6:25bc). The subsequent idea of David being before (‫לפני‬: diff. 1 Sam 29:3.6)97 his lord the king (1 Sam 29:8d–​f) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites acting before Yahweh (Deut 6:25c). The subsequent idea of David being as good as an angel of God (‫אלהים‬: 1 Sam 29:9) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites acting before their God (Deut 6:25c). The particular motif of an angel of God (‫מלאך אלהים‬: 1 Sam 29:9) was borrowed from Gen 21:17. The concluding idea of David acting as Achish commanded him (1 Sam 29:10–​11) illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites acting as Yahweh commanded them (Deut 6:25d).

1.13. 1 Sam 30–​31 (cf. Deut 7) The section 1 Sam 30–​31 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 7.

9 6 Cf. P. K. McCarter, Jr., I Samuel, 427; D. T. Tsumura, First Samuel, 634. 97 Cf. P. K. McCarter, Jr., I Samuel, 427.

1 Sam 30–31 (cf. Deut 7)

77

The opening idea of David and his men coming (‫ )בוא‬to Ziklag (1 Sam 30:1ab) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh making Israel come into the land which Israel comes to possess (Deut 7:1a–​c). The subsequent idea of the Amalekites invading Ziklag, striking it, and burning it down (1 Sam 30:1c–​e) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Canaanite nations being greater and mightier than Israel (Deut 7:1de). The subsequent idea of (a) the Amalekites taking captive the Israelites’ wives, (b) sons (‫)בן‬, and daughters (‫בת‬: 1 Sam 30:2–​6d) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite not intermarrying with the Canaanites and (b) not giving his daughter or son to a Canaanite (Deut 7:2–​3). The subsequent idea of (a) David being strengthened in Yahweh (b) his God (‫*יהלא‬: 1 Sam 30:6e) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite being faithful to Yahweh and (b) not serving other gods (Deut 7:4). The subsequent idea of Yahweh by the priestly ephod answering David what he should do to the Amalekites (1 Sam 30:7–​8e) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses instructing the Israelites what they should do to the Canaanites (Deut 7:5a). The subsequent idea of commanding David to (a) pursue, (b) reach, and (c) pull out (1 Sam 30:8f–​h) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses commanding the Israelites to (a) demolish, (b) smash, and (c) hew off (Deut 7:5b–​e). The subsequent idea of David being with four hundred men only (1 Sam 30:9–​10) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh loving and choosing Israel not because of their being more numerous than all other peoples, because they are the least of all the peoples (Deut 7:6–​8c). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites finding an exhausted Egyptian (*‫)מצרי‬ in the field and (b) bringing him to David (1 Sam 30:11ab) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh with a mighty hand redeeming Israel from the hand of the king of Egypt (Deut 7:8de) and (b) keeping kindness (Deut 7:8d–​12; esp. 7:9.12). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites giving him bread and water, but also (b) giving a cake of figs and two cakes of dried grapes, so (c) his spirit returning to him (1 Sam 30:11c–​12), sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh blessing Israel with grain and (b) new wine (c) on the ground of which he swore to Israel’s ancestors (Deut 7:13).

78

First Samuel as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1–​7

The subsequent idea of (a) the young man being an Egyptian (*‫ )מצרי‬and (b) being sick (*‫חלי‬: 1 Sam 30:13) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel being blessed above all peoples, and (b) Yahweh taking away from Israel all sickness and all evil diseases of (a’) Egypt (Deut 7:14–​15c). The subsequent idea of a band of the Amalekites invading the Negeb of Judah, burning down Ziklag, and David wanting to repay them (1 Sam 30:14–​16a) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh punishing those who hate Israel (Deut 7:15de). The subsequent idea of (a) the Amalekites consuming (‫ )אכל‬and drinking (b) all (‫( )כל‬c) the great spoil which they took from the Philistines and from Judah (1 Sam 30:16b–​e) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel consuming (b) all (c) the peoples which Yahweh gives him (Deut 7:16ab). The subsequent idea of (a) David striking the Amalekites from twilight until the next evening, so that (b) there did not (‫ )לא‬escape (c) even one of them (‫מהם‬: 1 Sam 30:17ab), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite’s eye having no pity on the Canaanites (Deut 7:16c), and (b) the Israelite not being afraid (c) of them (Deut 7:16c–​19; esp. 7:18). The subsequent idea of only four hundred young men riding camels and fleeing (1 Sam 30:17cd) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh sending hornets against the survivors who hid themselves, and causing dismay among Israel’s enemies (Deut 7:20–​24). The subsequent idea of David only recovering all that the Amalekites took away (1 Sam 30:18–​19) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite not coveting the Canaanites’ silver or gold (Deut 7:25ab). The subsequent idea of (a) David taking (‫ )לקח‬the Amalekites’ flocks and herds as spoil (1 Sam 30:20), but (b) giving the spoil to (*‫ )ל‬other soldiers (1 Sam 30:22), to (*‫ )ל‬the elders of Judah, to (*‫ )ל‬his friends, to (*‫ )ל‬those in numerous localities, and to (*‫ )ל‬all the places in which he and his men roamed (1 Sam 30:20–​31; esp. 30:26–​31) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite not taking the spoil (b) to himself (Deut 7:25c). The subsequent idea of the uncircumcised Philistines surrounding Saul (1 Sam 31:1–​6; esp. 31:3–​4) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite being ensnared by pagan objects (Deut 7:25d). The particular motif of an Israelite king telling his armour-​bearer, ‘Draw your sword and kill me,

1 Sam 30–31 (cf. Deut 7)

79

lest people abuse me’ (‫ פן י*ו‬+ ‫ שלף חרבך ו*ני‬+ ‫ נשא כליו‬+ ‫ויאמר‬: 1 Sam 31:4) was borrowed from Judg 9:54. The subsequent idea of the Philistines dwelling in Israel and dealing with Saul’s corpse in an abhorrent pagan way (1 Sam 31:7–​10) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the paganism being an abomination (Deut 7:25e). The concluding idea of (a) the inhabitants of Jabesh-​gilead taking the corpse of Saul and the corpses of his sons from the ‘house’ of Beth-​shan (*‫)בית‬, coming (‫ )בוא‬to Jabesh (1 Sam 31:11–​12d), (b) burning them there (1 Sam 31:12e), (c) burying the bones under a tree, and (d) fasting seven days (1 Sam 31:11–​13; esp. 31:13) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite not letting an abomination come to his house, but (b) this being banned to destruction, so (c) the Israelite utterly detesting and abhorring it as unclean because (d) this is a banned thing (Deut 7:26).

Chapter 2. Second Samuel as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 8:1–​13:6 The contents of the second book of Samuel sequentially, in a hypertextual way illustrate the contents of Deut 8:1–​13:6.

2.1. 2 Sam 1 (cf. Deut 8) The section 2 Sam 1 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 8. The opening idea of (a) David, after the death of Saul, (b) returning from striking the Amalekites and then (c) dwelling in Ziklag (2 Sam 1:1) sequentially illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites living, (b) coming, and taking possession of (c) the promised land (Deut 8:1). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 1 Sam 4:12–​13)1 idea of (a) on the third day (b) an Israelite man coming (c) in clothes torn and dust on his head, (d) falling to the ground, prostrating himself, and confessing that he escaped from the camp of Israel (2 Sam 1:2–​3) in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (b) remembering all the way that Yahweh led the Israelites (a) these forty years (c) in the wilderness (d) to humble him (Deut 8:2a–​c). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 1 Sam 4:16–​17)2 idea of Israel fleeing, many falling and dying, and Saul and Jonathan dying as well (2 Sam 1:4) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh putting Israel to the test (Deut 8:2d). The subsequent idea of (a) David asking how the young man knows (‫ )ידע‬that Saul and Jonathan died (2 Sam 1:5), and (b) the young man seemingly telling lies (2 Sam 1:6–​8),3 (c) apparently fulfilling king’s order (2 Sam 1:9–​10b) because (d) he knew that Saul would not (‫ )לא‬live (2 Sam 1:5–​10; esp. 1:10cd; diff. 1 Sam 1 Cf. P. K. McCarter, Jr., II Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 9; Doubleday: New York 1984), 58; A. F. Campbell, 2 Samuel (FOTL 8; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI · Cambridge 2005), 18. 2 Cf. A. A. Anderson, 2 Samuel (WBC 11; Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI 2000), 7. 3 Cf. G. Andersson, Untamable Texts: Literary Studies and Narrative Theory in the Books of Samuel (LHBOTS 514; T&T Clark: New York · London 2009), 179–​184.

82

Second Samuel as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 8:1–​13:6

31:3–​4), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) knowing (b) what is in the Israelite’s heart, (c) whether he keeps Yahweh’s commandments (d) or not (Deut 8:2ef). The subsequent idea of David and all the men who were with him tearing their clothes, mourning, and weeping (2 Sam 1:11–​12b) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh humbling Israel (Deut 8:3a). The subsequent idea of (a) David and his men fasting (b) until evening (2 Sam 1:12cd) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh starving Israel and (b) letting him eat (Deut 8:3bc). The subsequent idea of (a) the (*‫ )ה‬young man who (*‫ )ה‬informed David being (b) from (‫ )מן‬a family of an unknown alien (2 Sam 1:13) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the (b) manna/​something (‫מן‬: Deut 8:3c). The subsequent idea of (a) the young man not fearing (‫ )לא י*ת‬to stretch out his hand (b) to destroy Yahweh’s anointed (2 Sam 1:14) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel not knowing (‫)לא י*ת‬, and (b) his ancestors not knowing (Deut 8:3de). The subsequent idea of (a) David calling one of the Israelite young men and (b) telling him to kill the Amalekite (2 Sam 1:15) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh letting Israel know that (b) the man does not live by bread alone (Deut 8:3fg). The subsequent idea of (a) the Amalekite’s blood being on (‫ )על‬his head because (b) his mouth (*‫ )פי‬testified against him that (c) he killed the anointed one of Yahweh (‫יהוה‬: 2 Sam 1:16) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential but negative way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic thought that (a) on all (b) the uttering of the mouth of (c) Yahweh shall the man live (Deut 8:3hi). The subsequent idea of (a) David singing a self-​composed (not hired) funeral song4 over (b) Saul and his son (‫)בן‬, (c) ordering to teach the sons (‫ )בן‬of Judah a difficult thing, and (d) this being written in the ‘book of the upright one’ (2 Sam 1:17–​18) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) during the forty years in the wilderness (Deut 8:4) Israel knowing in his heart that (b) as a man disciplines his son, so (c) Yahweh disciplines Israel (Deut 8:5), and (d) Israel keeping the commandments of Yahweh, to walk in his ways and to fear him (Deut 8:4–​6; esp. 8:6). The

4 Cf. Z. Niu, «The King Lifted up His Voice and Wept»: David’s Mourning in the Second Book of Samuel (TGST 200; Pontificia Università Gregoriana: Roma 2013), 58.

2 Sam 1 (cf. Deut 8)

83

particular motif of this being written in the ‘book of the upright one’ (‫כתובה על־‬ ‫ספר הישר‬: 2 Sam 1:18) was borrowed from Josh 10:13. The subsequent, poetically formulated idea of (a) the beauty of Israel (b) on its high places, contrasted with the territories of the Philistines (2 Sam 1:19–​ 20), sequentially illustrates the subsequent, likewise poetically formulated Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh bringing Israel to a good/​beautiful land, (b) a presumably mountainous land of streams, springs, and underground water (Deut 8:7a). The subsequent, poetically formulated idea of (a) the hills (‫ )הר‬of Gilboa (b) having fields which normally give contribution (2 Sam 1:21a) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent, likewise poetically formulated Deuteronomic idea of (a) water in Israel flowing out of valleys and hills, and (b) Israel being a land of wheat, barley, vines, fig trees, and pomegranates (Deut 8:7b–​8). The subsequent, poetically formulated idea of the shield of Saul being no more anointed with oil (‫שמן‬: 2 Sam 1:21b) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent, likewise poetically formulated Deuteronomic idea of Israel being a land of olive trees and oil (Deut 8:8). The subsequent, poetically formulated idea of (a) the bow of Jonathan not (‫ )לא‬withdrawing back, and (b) the sword of Saul (c) not withdrawing without success (2 Sam 1:22) sequentially illustrates the subsequent, likewise poetically formulated Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites not eating in poverty, (b) Israel being a land in whose stones there is iron and copper/​bronze, and (c) the Israelite eating and being satisfied (Deut 8:9–​10b). The subsequent idea of (a) Saul and Jonathan (so the royal figures) being loved and beneficent,5 (b) not being separated, but also (c) being light/​insignificant and (d) strong (2 Sam 1:23) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel blessing Yahweh on the good land which Yahweh gave him, and (b) not forgetting Yahweh, (c) by not keeping his commandments, which (d) Moses commands him (Deut 8:10c–​11). The subsequent idea of (a) the daughters of Israel wearing crimson, (b) jewellery, and (c) ornaments of gold (‫( )זהב‬d) on their garments (2 Sam 1:24) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel becoming rich, and (b) having much silver, (c) gold, and (d) all other things (Deut 8:12–​13).

5 Cf. E. E. Fleming, ‘Political Favoritism in Saul’s Court: ‫חפץ‬, ‫נעם‬, and the Relationship between David and Jonathan,’ JBL 135 (2016) 19–​34 (esp. 33).

84

Second Samuel as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 8:1–​13:6

The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 2 Sam 1:19)6 idea of the mighty ones falling, and Jonathan being slain on high places (2 Sam 1:25) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite’s heart not being lifted up (Deut 8:14). The subsequent idea of being afflicted because of Jonathan (2 Sam 1:26a) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel suffering in the wilderness (Deut 8:15–​16). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 2 Sam 1:23) idea of Jonathan being beneficent,7 and his covenantal love (cf. 1 Sam 18:3; 20:16–​17: ‫ )ברית‬surpassing the love of women (2 Sam 1:26bc) illustrates the subsequent, likewise partly repeated (cf. Deut 8:10c–​11b) Deuteronomic idea of remembering Yahweh, who gives to Israel power to get wealth and confirms his covenant with Israel (Deut 8:17–​18; esp. 8:18). The concluding, partly repeated (cf. 2 Sam 1:19.25)8 idea of (a) the mighty ones falling, and (b) the weapons of war perishing (‫אבד‬: 2 Sam 1:27) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel forgetting Yahweh, and therefore (b) surely perishing (Deut 8:19).

2.2. 2 Sam 2–​4 (cf. Deut 9:1–​8) The section 2 Sam 2–​4 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 9:1–​8. The opening idea of (a) David asking whether (b) he should go up (c) to one of the cities (*‫ )ערי‬of Judah (2 Sam 2:1) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) instructing Israel (b) to cross over the Jordan, go in, and (c) dispossess great nations and great cities (Deut 9:1). The subsequent idea of (a) David taking his wives and the men who were with (*‫ )עמ‬him with their households, and (b) dwelling in the cities (plur.)9 of Hebron (2 Sam 2:2–​3) with the use of the motif of the sons of Anak/​Anakim dwelling in Hebron (cf. Josh 11:21; 14:12–​15; 15:13–​14; Judg 1:20; Num 13:22) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) a great and tall people (*‫)עמ‬, (b) the sons (plur.) of the Anakim (Deut 9:2a). 6 Cf. R. D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel (NAC 7; Broadman & Holman: Nashville, TN 1996), 293; A. F. Campbell, 2 Samuel, 24; Z. Niu, King Lifted, 62–​63. 7 Cf. E. E. Fleming, ‘Political Favoritism,’ 33. 8 Cf. R. D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 293; Z. Niu, King Lifted, 62–​63. 9 Cf. A. A. Anderson, 2 Samuel, 24.

2 Sam 2–4 (cf. Deut 9:1–8)

85

The subsequent idea of the men of Judah, so David compatriots, anointing him king over the house of Judah (2 Sam 2:4ab)10 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite knowing them, that is, the Anakites (Deut 9:2a). The subsequent idea of (a) telling David about the men of Jabesh-​gilead (b) that they buried Saul (cf. 1 Sam 31:11–​13), and (c) them being sons (‫ )בני‬of strength (2 Sam 2:4c–​7; esp. 2:7) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite hearing that (b) who could stand before (c) the sons of Anak (Deut 9:2bc). The subsequent idea of (a) Abner, the commander of hosts, (b) taking Ishbosheth and making him cross over (‫ )עבר‬to the ‘military camps’ Mahanaim (2 Sam 2:8) and back to Gibeon, as a stronger one (2 Sam 2:8–​13), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh, the God of Israel, (b) crossing over, presumably in a militant way (Deut 9:3ab; cf. 9:3cd). The subsequent idea of (a) young men displaying strength before (*‫ )לפני‬the Israelite armies (2 Sam 2:14), passing over (‫עבר‬: 2 Sam 2:15), and (b) each one attacking his opponent’s head and side, so that (c) they all fell down (2 Sam 2:14–​ 16), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh crossing over before Israel (b) as a devouring fire and (c) exterminating his opponents (Deut 9:3bc). The subsequent idea of Abner’s army being struck before (*‫ )לפני‬the servants of David (2 Sam 2:17) and fleeing before them (2 Sam 2:17–​24) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh humbling Israel’s enemies before him (Deut 9:3d). The particular motif of a great battle at Gibeon (‫)בגבעון‬, with pursuing (*‫ )וירדפ‬the enemies (2 Sam 2:16–​24), was borrowed from Josh 10:10. The subsequent idea of Joab’s army no longer pursuing the Benjaminite troops, who crossed over to Transjordan (2 Sam 2:25–​29), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites dispossessing their enemies (Deut 9:3e). The subsequent idea of (a) the servants of David striking and killing three hundred and sixty enemy warriors, burying Asahel in Bethlehem (2 Sam 2:30–​ 31), and (b) going all night until dawn (2 Sam 2:30–​32; esp. 2:32) illustrates the

10 Pace M. Leonard-​Fleckman, ‘Judah Bookends: The Priority of Israel and Literary Revision in the David Narrative,’ VT 65 (2015) 401–​413 (esp. 407–​408), who suggests that this remark is secondary to the story of David’s double anointing in 2 Sam 2:1–​5:3.

86

Second Samuel as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 8:1–​13:6

subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites destroying their enemies (b) hastily (Deut 9:3f). The subsequent idea of David growing stronger, and Abner doing just as Yahweh swore to David (*‫ יהוה ל‬... ‫כאשר‬: 2 Sam 3:1–​9; esp. 3:9) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel doing just as Yahweh said to him (Deut 9:3g). The subsequent idea of Yahweh taking away the kingdom from the house of Saul (2 Sam 3:10–​12) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh thrusting away Israel’s enemies from Israel (Deut 9:4ab). The subsequent idea of Abner seeing the face of (‫ )פני‬David only if he brings Michal before the face of (‫ )לפני‬David (2 Sam 3:13), so Abner sending her husband back (2 Sam 3:13–​16), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of thrusting Israel’s enemies from before the face of Israel (Deut 9:4b). The subsequent idea of Israel and Yahweh choosing David to be king over Israel, and David making a feast for Abner and sending him in peace (2 Sam 3:17–​21) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of apparently Israel’s righteousness leading him to possess the land of Israel (Deut 9:4c–​e). The subsequent idea of Joab apparently justly, but in fact deceitfully killing Abner (2 Sam 3:22–​27)11 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the iniquity of the non-​Israelite nations (Deut 9:4f). The subsequent idea of David’s manifested guiltlessness in the case of killing Abner (2 Sam 3:28–​33)12 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of apparently Israel’s righteousness letting him come and possess the land of Israel (Deut 9:5ab). The subsequent idea of Abner being killed by Israel’s enemies (2 Sam 3:34; cf. 7:10)13 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the iniquity of the non-​ Israelite nations (Deut 9:5c). The subsequent idea of David swearing (‫שבע‬: 2 Sam 3:35) something that was good in the eyes of all the people (2 Sam 3:35–​36) conceptually and linguistically 11 Cf. Z. Niu, King Lifted, 90–​91; C. Quine, ‘On Dying in a City Gate: Implications in the Deaths of Eli, Abner and Jezebel,’ JSOT 40.4 (2016) 399–​413 (esp. 408–​409). 12 Cf. P. K. McCarter, Jr., II Samuel, 120–​121; Z. Niu, King Lifted, 124; Y. Zimran, ‘ “Look, the King Is Weeping and Mourning!”: Expressions of Mourning in the David Narratives and their Interpretive Contribution,’ JSOT 41.4 (2018) 491–​517 (esp. 495–​499). 13 Cf. Z. Niu, King Lifted, 120–​121.

2 Sam 2–4 (cf. Deut 9:1–8)

87

illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh swearing a word of promise to Israel’s ancestors (Deut 9:5de). The subsequent idea of (a) all the people and all Israel knowing (*‫( )וידע‬b) that, manifestly, not (‫ )כי לא‬the king’s order killed Abner (2 Sam 3:37), (a’) the king’s servants knowing (‫( )ידע‬b’) that (‫ )כי‬a great man fell that day (2 Sam 3:38), and (c) David being anointed king (2 Sam 3:37–​39b) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel knowing (b) that not because of his righteousness (c) Yahweh gives him the land to possess (Deut 9:6a–​c). The subsequent idea of the sons of Zeruiah being hard (‫קשה‬: 2 Sam 3:39c) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel being a people of a hard neck (Deut 9:6d). The subsequent, proverbial idea of Yahweh (‫ )יהוה‬repaying the evildoer according to his evil (2 Sam 3:39de) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel remembering, and not forgetting, how he provoked Yahweh to anger in the wilderness (Deut 9:7a–​c). The subsequent idea of (a) Rechab and Baanah setting out, (b) coming (‫)בוא‬ (c) during the day (‫היום‬: 2 Sam 4:5), and (b’) coming (‫( )בוא‬d) as far as (‫( )עד‬e) the middle of the house (2 Sam 4:1–​6; esp. 4:6) conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (c) the day on which (a) the Israelites departed from Egypt and (b) came (d) as far as (e) this place (Deut 9:7de). The subsequent idea of Rechab and Baanah deceitfully killing a man in his house (2 Sam 4:7) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites behaving rebelliously against Yahweh (Deut 9:7f). The subsequent idea of (a) Rechab and Baanah coming to Hebron (*‫ )ח‬and (b) saying that Yahweh (‫ )יהוה‬allegedly gave retribution to the king (2 Sam 4:8) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) at Horeb (*‫( )ח‬b) the Israelites provoking Yahweh to anger (Deut 9:8a). The subsequent idea of David invoking Yahweh (‫ )יהוה‬against (*‫ )ב‬past evildoers (2 Sam 4:9–​10) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh being angry against the Israelites (Deut 9:8b). The concluding idea of David removing them (‫)אתכם‬, that is, the evildoers from the earth (2 Sam 4:11–​12; esp. 4:11) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh exterminating them, that is, the evil Israelites (Deut 9:8c).

88

Second Samuel as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 8:1–​13:6

2.3. 2 Sam 5 (cf. Deut 9:9–​10:3) The section 2 Sam 5 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 9:9–​10:3. The opening idea of all the elders of Israel coming, directionally, to Hebron (‫*ה‬: 2 Sam 5:1–​3a; esp. 5:1a.3a; diff. 3:20; 4:8 etc.: ‫ )חברון‬conceptually and linguistically illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of Moses going up, directionally, to the mountain (‫*ה‬: Deut 9:9a). The subsequent idea of King David making (‫ )כרת‬a covenant (‫ )ברית‬with the Israelites before Yahweh (2 Sam 5:3bc) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the tablets of the covenant which Yahweh made with the Israelites (Deut 9:9bc). The subsequent idea of David being thirty (‫ )*ים‬years old and ruling forty (‫ )ארבעים‬years (2 Sam 5:4)14 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses remaining on the mountain forty days and forty nights, but also receiving the tablets of stone (Deut 9:9d–​10). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 2 Sam 5:4) idea of David ruling thirty-​ three (‫ )*ים‬years over all Israel and Judah (2 Sam 5:5) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent, likewise partly repeated (cf. Deut 9:9) Deuteronomic idea of Moses remaining on the mountain forty days and forty nights, and receiving the tablets of the covenant, presumably with all Israel (Deut 9:11). The subsequent idea of David going to Jerusalem to the pagan Jebusites, who dwelt in the land (2 Sam 5:6ab),15 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses going down to the Israelites who made themselves a pagan idol (Deut 9:12). The subsequent idea of (a) someone (sing.) saying (‫( )ויאמר‬b) to David, (c) saying (‫ )לאמר‬that (d) David will not come in to Jerusalem because the ritually unclean blind and lame will repel him, that he will not come in there (2 Sam 5:6c–​h), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh saying (b) to Moses, (c) saying that (d) the Israelites are a stiff-​necked people (Deut 9:13).

14 Pace E. Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible (VTSup 169; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2015), 84, who suggests that the shorter reading in 4QSama (without 2 Sam 5:4–​5) is original. 15 Cf. N. Na’aman, ‘Jebusites and Jabeshites in the Saul and David Story-​Cycles,’ Bib 95 (2014) 481–​497 (esp. 485).

2 Sam 5 (cf. Deut 9:9–10:3)

89

The subsequent idea of David capturing the stronghold of Zion (2 Sam 5:7) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh exterminating the rebels (Deut 9:14ab). The subsequent idea of (a) smiting the Jebusites and striking them with a powerful stream of water (‫צנור‬: cf. Ps 42:8),16 the obstinate blind and lame being hated by David, forbidding them from coming into the house (2 Sam 5:8),17 and (b) David naming the captured stronghold of the Jebusites with his own name18 and (c) building all around from the filled structure inward (2 Sam 5:8–​9; esp. 5:9) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) wiping out (b) the rebels’ name (c) from under heaven (Deut 9:14c). The particular motif of a blind and a lame not coming in (‫ לא‬+ ‫ *ופסח‬+ ‫עור‬ *‫י‬: 2 Sam 5:8) was borrowed from Lev 21:18. The motif of calling Jerusalem the city of David (‫עיר דוד‬: 2 Sam 5:7.9) could have been borrowed from Isa 22:9. The motif of Millo and its house (‫ בית‬+ ‫מלוא‬: 2 Sam 5:9) could have been borrowed from Judg 9:6.20. The subsequent idea of (a) David becoming greater and greater because Yahweh was with him, which was acknowledged by the pagan king of Tyre (2 Sam 5:10–​12), and (b) having with the Jerusalemite, so presumably pagan, concubines and wives more sons and daughters, none of whom had a Yahwistic name (2 Sam 5:10–​16; esp. 5:13–​16; diff. 3:4), sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh making Moses a nation mightier and (b) more numerous than the pagans (Deut 9:14d). The particular motif of the names of the Israelite leaders, with Shammua as the first one (*‫ ל‬+ ‫ואלה שמות‬ ‫שמוע‬: 2 Sam 5:14), was borrowed from Num 13:4. The motif of King Solomon (‫שלמה‬: 2 Sam 5:14) can also be found in Prov 1:1 etc. The subsequent idea of (a) David hearing about the Philistines (*‫ )ו‬and (b) going down (‫( )ו*רד‬c) to the stronghold (2 Sam 5:17) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses turning to the Israelites and (b) going down with (c) two tablets of stone (Deut 9:15). The subsequent idea of the pagan Philistines spreading out in the valley of the pagan Rephaim (2 Sam 5:18) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of 16 Cf. J. Grossman, ‘Did David Actually Conquer Jerusalem? The Blind, the Lame, and the Ṣinnôr,’ VT 69 (2019) 46–​59 (esp. 58). 17 Cf. C. W. Tyson, ‘Who’s In? Who’s Out? II Sam 5,8b and Narrative Reversal,’ ZAW 122 (2010) 546–​557 (esp. 553). 18 Cf. R. Gilmour, ‘The Function of Place Naming in 2 Samuel 5–​6: A Study in Collective Memory,’ JSOT 39.4 (2015) 405–​431 (esp. 412–​415).

90

Second Samuel as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 8:1–​13:6

the sinful Israelites, presumably in a valley (cf. Deut 9:21), making themselves a pagan moulded calf (Deut 9:16–​17). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 1 Sam 14:37; 23:2) idea of David inquiring of Yahweh (‫יהוה‬: 2 Sam 5:19a–​d) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses prostrating himself before Yahweh and praying (Deut 9:18–​19c). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 1 Sam 23:2) idea of Yahweh giving a positive answer to David (2 Sam 5:19e–​g) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh listening to Moses that time also (Deut 9:19d). The subsequent idea of David being successful with the help of Yahweh at the presumably idolatrous place of Baal-​perazim (2 Sam 5:20; diff. Isa 28:21: Mount Perazim) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses successfully praying to Yahweh for the sinful, presumably idolatrous Aaron (Deut 9:20; cf. Exod 32:21–​25). The subsequent idea of (a) the Philistines leaving their idols, and (b) David and his men carrying them (2 Sam 5:21) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the sinful thing which the pagan Israelites made, the calf, (b) Moses taking (Deut 9:21ab). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly repeated (cf. 2 Sam 5:18)19 idea of the Philistines spreading out in the valley of the pagan Rephaim (2 Sam 5:22) illustrates the subsequent, likewise partly repeated (cf. Deut 9:17) Deuteronomic idea of Moses destroying the pagan object of the Israelites in a valley (Deut 9:21c–​22; esp. 9:21c–​g). The subsequent idea of (a) David inquiring of Yahweh (‫)יהוה‬, and (b) Yahweh saying (‫ )אמר‬that (c) David should not go up (‫ )עלה‬but (d) go around to their rear and (e) come to them opposite the ‘weeping’ plants (‫בכא‬: 2 Sam 5:23) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh sending the Israelites from the sanctuary at Kadesh-​barnea, (b) saying that (c) they should go up to the promised land, but (d) the Israelites rebelling against the command of Yahweh and (e) not believing him, presumably weeping (Deut 9:23a–​g; cf. Num 14:1: ‫)בכה‬. The subsequent idea of (a) exhorting David to hear (‫( )שמע‬b) the voice (‫)קול‬ of (c) someone advancing in the tops of the plants (2 Sam 5:24ab)20 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites not hearing (b) the voice of (c) Yahweh (Deut 9:23h).

1 9 Cf. A. A. Anderson, 2 Samuel, 93. 20 Cf. R. D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 326.

2 Sam 6–7 (cf. Deut 10:4–17a)

91

The subsequent idea of (a) at that time (b) David striving in his heart (2 Sam 5:24c) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) from the day on which Moses knew the Israelites, but also during the forty days and the forty nights, (b) Moses prostrating himself and praying to Yahweh (Deut 9:24–​25b). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh going out (‫ )יצא‬before the Israelites (b) to strike the camp of the Philistines (2 Sam 5:24de) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh making the Israelites go out of Egypt (b) with a mighty hand (Deut 9:26–​29; esp. 9:26.28–​29). The subsequent idea of (a) David doing (‫( )ו*עש‬b) just as Yahweh commanded him (2 Sam 5:25ab) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (b) Yahweh commanding Moses to hew two tablets of stone, to come up to him, and to make the ark, and (a) Moses doing it (Deut 10:1–​3c). The concluding idea of David striking the pagan Philistines (2 Sam 5:25c) illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of Moses having the two tablets in his hand (Deut 10:3d).

2.4. 2 Sam 6–​7 (cf. Deut 10:4–​17a) The section 2 Sam 6–​7 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 10:4–​17a. The opening idea of (a) David gathering (*‫)וי‬, apparently doing something again (‫ויסף עוד‬: cf. 2 Sam 2:22 etc.),21 (b) all the chosen men of Israel, thirty thousand (2 Sam 6:1), sequentially illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh writing on the tablets, as he did before, (b) the words which he had spoken on the day of the assembly (Deut 10:4). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly formulated and partly repeated (cf. 1 Sam 4:4)22 idea of (a) David and all the people arising (*‫( )ו‬b) and going (*‫( )ו‬c) from (‫ ;מן‬diff. 1 Sam 4:4) Baale-​judah to bring up from (‫ )מן‬there (d) the ark (‫)ארון‬ of God, (e) which (‫ )אשר‬is called (diff. 1 Sam 4:4) (f) by name/​there (‫)שם‬, by the name (‫ ;שם‬diff. 1 Sam 4:4) of (g) Yahweh (‫ )יהוה‬of hosts (2 Sam 6:2), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses turning (b) and going (c) from the mountain, and (d) putting

2 1 Cf. A. A. Anderson, 2 Samuel, 101. 22 Cf. A. F. Campbell, 2 Samuel, 65.

92

Second Samuel as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 8:1–​13:6

the tablets in the ark (e) which (‫ )אשר‬he made, and (f) them being there (‫)שם‬, just as (g) Yahweh commanded (Deut 10:5). The subsequent idea of (a) the people preparing a cart and bringing the ark from (‫ )מן‬the house of Abinadab, (b) the sons (‫ )בני‬of Abinadab driving the cart (2 Sam 6:3–​4), and (c) the people coming to the threshing floor of Nacon (2 Sam 6:3–​6a) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites setting out from Beeroth of (b) the sons of Jaakan (c) to the ‘chastisement’ Moserah (Deut 10:6a). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of (a) God striking Uzzah there (‫)שם‬,23 and (b) Uzzah dying (‫( )מות‬c) there (‫שם‬: 2 Sam 6:6b–​7c) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent, likewise somewhat surprising Deuteronomic idea of (a) there (b) Aaron dying, and (c) being buried there (Deut 10:6b–​d). The subsequent idea of (a) Uzzah being with the ark (‫ )ארון‬of God (2 Sam 6:7c), and (b) David being angry that Yahweh stroke down Uzzah,24 so (c) calling the place Perez-​uzzah (d) to this day (‫עד היום הזה‬: 2 Sam 6:7c–​8; esp. 6:8), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh choosing the tribe of Levi to carry the ark of Yahweh, (b) to stand before Yahweh, to serve him, and (c) to bless in his name (d) to this day (Deut 10:7–​8; esp. 10:8). The subsequent idea of David asking how the ark of Yahweh might come to him (2 Sam 6:9) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh, so presumably also the ark of Yahweh, being the inheritance of the tribe of Levi, who has no inheritance with his brothers (Deut 10:9). The subsequent idea of (b) David (a) not wanting (‫( )לא־אבה‬c) to remove the ark (2 Sam 6:10), and Yahweh blessing the house of the pagan Obed-​edom (2 Sam 6:10–​11; esp. 6:11)25 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (b) Yahweh (a) not wanting (c) to destroy the sinful Israel (Deut 10:10).

23 First Chronicles 13:10 provides an explanation for this fact. Cf. M. A. Lyons, ‘Standards of Cohesion and Coherence: Evidence from Early Readers,’ HBAI 9 (2020) 183–​208 (esp. 199). 24 Cf. R. D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 330; R. Gilmour, ‘Divine Violence and Divine Presence: Reading the Story of Uzzah and the Ark in 2 Samuel 6 with Slavoj Žižek,’ VT 27 (2019) 1–​19 (esp. 16–​17). 25 Cf. P. K. McCarter, Jr., II Samuel, 170; É. Nodet, ‘Édom, c’est l’Idumée! Le rejet littéraire d’Édom hors de Juda,’ RB 126 (2019) 161–​206 (esp. 191).

2 Sam 6–7 (cf. Deut 10:4–17a)

93

The subsequent idea of (a) speaking (‫ )אמר‬to David, and (b) David going (‫)*לך‬ and (c) bringing up the ark of God from the house of Obed-​edom to the city of David (2 Sam 6:12) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh speaking to Moses that he should (b) arise, go, and (c) make departure (Deut 10:11a–​c). The subsequent idea of David offering sacrifices and dancing before (‫)לפני‬ Yahweh, resembling a priest (2 Sam 6:13–​14; esp. 6:14),26 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses going before the people (Deut 10:11c–​g). The subsequent idea of (a) David and all the house of Israel (‫( )ישראל‬b) bringing the ark of Yahweh (‫( )את־* יהוה‬c) with jubilation and (d) the sound of the trumpet (2 Sam 6:15), and (c’) Michal despising David in her heart (*‫לב‬: 2 Sam 6:15–​16; esp. 6:16) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) exhorting Israel (b) to fear Yahweh, to walk in his ways, and (c) to love him with all his heart and (d) all his breath (Deut 10:12). The subsequent idea of following the Mosaic cultic precepts by setting the ark of Yahweh in its presumably cultic place (‫מקום‬: cf. Deut 12:5 etc.) in the midst of the tent (‫ אהל‬+ ‫ארון‬: cf. Num 7:89 etc.), but also offering burnt offerings and peace offerings (2 Sam 6:17–​18b; cf. Judg 20:26: ‫ ושלמים‬+ ‫ לפני יהוה‬+ ‫ עלות‬+ *‫)ויעל‬ illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel keeping the commandments of Yahweh and his statutes, which Moses commands (Deut 10:13ab). The subsequent idea of (a) David blessing the people and distributing (b) to (*‫ )ל‬the people, to (*‫ )ל‬the whole multitude of Israel, to (*‫ )ל‬every man and woman, to (*‫ )ל‬everyone a portion of food, and the people going to (*‫ )ל‬their homes (2 Sam 6:18c–​19; esp. 6:19) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) it being good (b) to Israel (Deut 10:13c). The subsequent idea of (a) the king of Israel being glorious and (b) revealing himself before the eyes of lowly humans (2 Sam 6:20) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh, the God of Israel, being in heaven and the heaven of heavens, but also (b) on the earth with all that is on it (Deut 10:14). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh (‫( )יהוה‬b) choosing David (*‫( )בחר ב‬c) in place of Michal’s father (*‫ )אב‬and (d) above all (‫ )מכל־‬his household (2 Sam 6:21ab) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the

26 Cf. A. A. Anderson, 2 Samuel, 105; R. D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 332.

94

Second Samuel as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 8:1–​13:6

subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh (b) choosing the descendants (*‫( )בחר ב‬c) after the fathers (d) above all the peoples (Deut 10:15). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 2 Sam 6:5) idea of (a) Yahweh commanding David as ruler over his people, over Israel, and (b) David being merry before Yahweh (2 Sam 6:21cd) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites circumcising the foreskin of (b) their heart (Deut 10:16a). The subsequent idea of (a) David making himself lowly (b) more and more (‫עוד‬: 2 Sam 6:22a–​c) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites not hardening their neck (b) more and more (Deut 10:16b). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 2 Sam 6:20) idea of David being glorious (2 Sam 6:22d–​23; esp. 6:22d) illustrates the subsequent, likewise partly repeated (cf. Deut 10:14) Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh, the God of Israel, being God of gods (Deut 10:17a). The subsequent idea of Yahweh establishing the house of the king (2 Kgs 7:1–​17; esp. 7:1–​3), and King David being a lowly servant27 of the Lord (‫)אדני‬28 Yahweh (2 Sam 7:1–​20; esp. 7:18–​20) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh being the Lord of lords (Deut 10:17a). The particular motif of it coming to pass that Yahweh gave to the Israelite rest from his enemies all around (*‫ מכל־איבי‬+ ‫ מסביב‬+ *‫ ל‬+ ‫ הניח‬+ ‫ יהוה‬+ ‫ היה‬+ *‫ו‬: 2 Sam 7:1.11) was borrowed from Deut 25:19. The motif of the ark being inside tent curtains, in a tent and in a tabernacle (‫ משכן‬+ ‫ אהל‬+ ‫יריעה‬: 2 Sam 7:2.6), was borrowed from Exod 26:1–​13; 36:8–​17; etc.29 The motif of judges being leaders of Israel (‫שפטים‬: 2 Sam 7:11) was borrowed from Judg 2:16–​18 etc. The motif of Yahweh promising a descendant who will come from the Israelite’s body (‫זרעך‬ ‫ יצא ממעיך‬+: 2 Sam 7:12) was borrowed from Gen 15:4–​5. The motif of Yahweh establishing the throne of the kingdom of David’s descendant forever, and the

27 Cf. A. A. Anderson, 2 Samuel, 126; R. D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 343; Y.-​k. Kim, ‘Deferential Self-​Reference in the Book of Samuel,’ VT 65 (2015) 588–​605 (esp. 594, 597–​598). 28 Cf. A. A. Anderson, 2 Samuel, 126; R. D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 342–​343; T. M. Willis, ‘The Curious Case of κύριέ μου κύριε in 2 Kingdoms 7:18–​29,’ JBL 132 (2013) 515–​526 (esp. 517–​521). 29 Cf. T. A. Rudnig, ‘König ohne Tempel: 2 Samuel 7 in Tradition und Redaktion,’ VT 61 (2011) 426–​446 (esp. 432).

2 Sam 8–10 (cf. Deut 10:17a–22)

95

descendant being a son (‫ בן‬+ ‫ עד־עולם‬+ ‫ כסא‬+ ‫ ממלכתו‬+ *‫הכינ‬: 2 Sam 7:12–​16) was borrowed from Isa 9:5–​6 and conflated with Gen 49:10 (‫ מן‬+ ‫ לא־יסור‬+ ‫)שבט‬.30 The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh doing a great thing (‫גדולה‬: 2 Sam 7:21.23), being great (‫גדל‬: 2 Sam 7:22.26), and (b) being the God (*‫האל‬: 2 Sam 7:28; cf. 7:22–​ 27) who is unique (2 Sam 7:21–​29) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh being (b) the God (a) who is great (Deut 10:17a). The particular motif of there being no God except Yahweh (‫אין‬ *‫ זולת‬+ ‫אלהים‬: 2 Sam 7:22) was borrowed from Isa 45:5.

2.5. 2 Sam 8–​10 (cf. Deut 10:17a–​22) The section 2 Sam 8–​10 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 10:17a–​22. The idea of (a) David striking the Philistines, (b) acting cruelly by killing the majority of the Moabites (2 Sam 8:2),31 hamstringing most Zobahite horses (2 Sam 8:4), and killing twenty-​two thousand Aramaeans (2 Sam 8:1–​5; esp. 8:5) sequentially illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh being (a) mighty and (b) fearsome (Deut 10:17a). The subsequent idea of (a) the Aramaeans raising (‫ )נשא‬tribute (2 Sam 8:6), (b) David taking (‫ )לקח‬the spoil of gold and bronze (2 Sam 8:7–​8), but dedicating to Yahweh the gifts of silver, gold, and bronze, along with the spoil of Hadadezer (2 Sam 8:6–​12; esp. 8:9–​12) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh not raising the face and (b) not taking a bribe (Deut 10:17bc). The subsequent idea of David making (‫ )עשה‬himself a name (2 Sam 8:13–​ 14), making judgement (‫ )עשה משפט‬and justice to all his people (2 Sam 8:15), the ‘judging’ Jehoshaphat (‫ )*שפט‬being secretary (2 Sam 8:16), and the ‘just’ Zadok being a priest (2 Sam 8:13–​18; esp. 8:17) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh making judgement (Deut 10:18a). The subsequent idea of (a) David showing kindness of God to Mephibosheth, the crippled son of the dead Jonathan (2 Sam 9:1–​6), so that (b) he might eat bread (‫ )לחם‬at David’s table always (2 Sam 9:1–​7; esp. 9:7), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea 30 Cf. R. C. Steiner, ‘Four Inner-​Biblical Interpretations of Genesis 49:10: On the Lexical and Syntactic Ambiguities of ‫ עַד‬as Reflected in the Prophecies of Nathan, Ahijah, Ezekiel, and Zechariah,’ JBL 132 (2013) 33–​60 (esp. 45–​47). 31 Cf. A. A. Anderson, 2 Samuel, 132.

96

Second Samuel as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 8:1–​13:6

of (a) Yahweh executing justice for the fatherless, (b) giving him bread (Deut 10:18–​19; esp. 10:18). The subsequent idea of (a) Mephibosheth bowing down before David and (b) referring to himself as a servant (‫עבד‬: 2 Sam 9:8), David telling Ziba that he and his servants (‫ )עבד‬should serve (‫ )עבד‬to the son of his master (2 Sam 9:10), Ziba referring to himself as a servant (‫עבד‬: 2 Sam 9:11), and all his house being servants (‫ )עבד‬of Mephibosheth (2 Sam 9:12), who (c) dwelt in Jerusalem with the king (2 Sam 9:8–​13; esp. 9:13), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite fearing Yahweh, (b) serving him, and (c) clinging to him (Deut 10:20). The subsequent idea of David, in contrast to the Ammonites, praising the father of the ‘merciful’ Hanun for his graciousness (2 Sam 10:1–​6; esp. 10:2) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh being Israel’s praise (Deut 10:21a). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh being the Israelites’ God (‫ )אלהינו‬and (b) doing (‫ )עשה‬what is good in his sight (2 Sam 10:7–​12; esp. 10:12) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh being Israel’s God (‫ )אלהיך‬and (b) doing with Israel various things (Deut 10:21bc). The subsequent idea of Israel’s enemies three times unexpectedly fleeing before Israel (2 Sam 10:13–​18a; esp. 10:13.14.18a) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh doing to Israel great things (Deut 10:21c). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly partly repeated (cf. 2 Sam 8:4–​5) idea of David acting cruelly by killing seven hundred Aramaean chariot-​horses and forty thousand horsemen (2 Sam 10:18b–​d) illustrates the subsequent, likewise partly repeated (cf. Deut 10:17a) Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh doing to Israel fearsome things (Deut 10:21c). The subsequent idea of (a) the Aramaean kings having seen (‫ )*ראו‬that they were struck (b) before Israel (2 Sam 10:19ab) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the things which (b) Israel’s eyes (a) have seen (Deut 10:21d). The concluding idea of the Aramaean kings making peace with Israel, serving them (plur.), and being afraid of them (2 Sam 10:19c–​f) illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites being as the stars of heaven in multitude (Deut 10:22).

2 Sam 11–19 (cf. Deut 11:1–15b)

97

2.6. 2 Sam 11–​19 (cf. Deut 11:1–​15b) The section 2 Sam 11–​19 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 11:1–​15b. The opening idea of David guiltily making love to Bathsheba,32 the wife of ‘Yahweh my light’ Uriah (‫*יה‬: 2 Sam 11:1–5), illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of Israel being called to love Yahweh (Deut 11:1a). The subsequent idea of Uriah apparently keeping guard at the entrance of the king’s house with the servants of his master (2 Sam 11:6–​13; esp. 11:9.13) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel keeping Yahweh’s guard (Deut 11:1b). The subsequent idea of Uriah fulfilling David’s order (2 Sam 11:14), Joab fulfilling David’s written order (2 Sam 11:15–​17), and Joab’s messenger fulfilling Joab’s order (2 Sam 11:14–​27d; esp. 11:18–​25) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel keeping Yahweh’s presumably written decrees (Deut 11:1b). The particular motif of a woman killing Abimelech by throwing upon him a movable millstone, so that he died at Thebez (+ *‫ על‬+ ‫ שלך‬+ ‫ אשה‬+ ‫אבימלך‬ ‫ בתבץ‬+ ‫ וימת‬+ ‫פלח רכב‬: 2 Sam 11:21), was borrowed from Judg 9:50.53–​54.33 The subsequent idea of Yahweh judging David (2 Sam 11:27ef), and David judging himself (2 Sam 11:27e–​12:7b; esp. 12:1–​7b)34 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel keeping Yahweh’s judgements (Deut 11:1b). The subsequent idea of (a) David transgressing Yahweh’s commandments of the Decalogue: Yahweh being Israel’s God, who delivered him from oppression (*‫ אנכי ה*תיך מ‬+ *‫יהוה אלהי‬: 2 Sam 12:7c–​e; cf. Deut 5:6); Yahweh giving much to Israel (‫ לך‬+ ‫נתן‬: 2 Sam 12:8; cf. Deut 5:16); David murdering (2 Sam 12:9; cf. Deut 5:17); David committing adultery (2 Sam 12:9–​10; cf. Deut 5:18);35 and (b) Yahweh punishing him before all (‫ )כל‬Israel, (c) before the sun (2 Sam 12:7c–​ 12; esp. 12:12), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential but negative way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel keeping Yahweh’s commandments (b) all (c) days (Deut 11:1b).

32 Cf. A. I. Abasili, ‘Was it Rape? The David and Bathsheba Pericope Re-​examined,’ VT 61 (2011) 1–​15 (esp. 8). 33 Cf. H. Shalom-​Guy, ‘Three-​Way Intertextuality: Some Reflections of Abimelech’s Death at Thebez in Biblical Narrative,’ JSOT 34.4 (2010) 419–​432 (esp. 421–​426). 34 Cf. P. K. McCarter, Jr., II Samuel, 305; R. D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 370; S. Iwańczak, ‘La controversia giuridica (rîb) di 2 Sam 11,27b–​12,15a,’ BPT 9 (2016) 163–​181 (esp. 171–​175). 35 Cf. S. Iwańczak, ‘Controversia,’ 169–​170.

98

Second Samuel as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 8:1–​13:6

The subsequent idea of (a) David acknowledging his sin, and (b) Yahweh allowing David’s sin to pass, so David not dying, presumably at that time (2 Sam 12:13),36 sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites knowing (b) this day (Deut 11:2a). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of David’s son (‫בן‬: 2 Sam 12:14) dying,37 and David not (‫ )לא‬wanting to receive food (2 Sam 12:14–​19; esp. 12:17–​ 18) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of not referring to the Israelites’ sons (Deut 11:2b). The subsequent idea of (a) David not knowing (‫ )ידע‬whether Yahweh will show favour to him (2 Sam 12:22), and (b) the child dying and not (‫ )לא‬returning (2 Sam 12:20–​23; esp. 12:23) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites’ sons (a) not knowing and (b) not seeing (Deut 11:2cd). The subsequent idea of (a) Bathsheba bearing and naming the ‘complete/​perfect’ Solomon, (b) Yahweh (‫ )יהוה‬loving him (2 Sam 12:24), and David calling Solomon ‘beloved’ Jedidiah (‫ )*יה‬because of Yahweh (‫יהוה‬: 2 Sam 12:24–​25; esp. 12:25)38 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the disciplinary activity for the Israelites originating from (b) the presumably loving (cf. Deut 8:5) Yahweh (Deut 11:2d). The subsequent idea of (a) David capturing Rabbah, placing a precious royal crown on his head, taking very much spoil (2 Sam 12:30), (b) forcing the people to do handwork with iron tools, and (c) subduing all the cities of the Ammonites (2 Sam 12:26–​31; esp. 12:31) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh’s greatness, (b) mighty hand, and (c) outstretched arm (Deut 11:2d). The subsequent idea of (a) doing (‫עשה‬: 2 Sam 13:2.12.16.29) harm to the children of David,39 (b) now almost always called the king (‫מלך‬: 2 Sam 13:1–​14:24;

36 Cf. B. Biberger, ‘ “Du wirst nicht sterben.” Vergebung und Vergeltung in 2Sam 12,13–​14,’ BN, nf 151 (2011) 47–​62 (esp. 51). 37 Cf. J. Jacobs, ‘The Death of David’s Son by Bathsheba (II Sam 12:13–​25): A Narrative in Context,’ VT 63 (2013) 566–​576 (esp. 567). 38 Cf. P. K. McCarter, Jr., II Samuel, 304; R. D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 376; Z. Niu, King Lifted, 168–​171. 39 Cf. Y. Amit, ‘The Story of Amnon and Tamar: Reservoir of Sympathy for Absalom,’ in Y. Amit, In Praise of Editing in the Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays in Retrospect, trans. B. Sigler Rozen (HBM 39; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2012), 205–​219 (esp. 211); J. Stiebert, First-​Degree Incest and the Hebrew Bible: Sex in the Family (LHBOTS 596; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: London · New York 2016), 111.

2 Sam 11–19 (cf. Deut 11:1–15b)

99

esp. 13:21–​14:24), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh doing harmful deeds to (b) the king of Egypt (Deut 11:3). The particular motif of a Judahite leader’s love affair with a woman named Tamar (‫תמר‬: 2 Sam 13:1–​32) was borrowed from Gen 38:6–​24.40 The motif of the victim of sexual assault saying, ‘No, my brother, do not do this disgraceful thing’ (‫ אל־תעש* את־הנבלה הזאת‬+ *‫ אל־אחי אל־ת‬+ ‫ו*אמר‬: 2 Sam 13:12) was borrowed from Judg 19:23 and conflated with Deut 22:21 (‫)בישראל‬.41 The motif of a body-​ covering tunic that reached hands and feet, which was on a young person (‫כתנת‬ *‫ כתנת הפסים אשר עלי‬+ ‫פסים‬: 2 Sam 13:18–​19), was borrowed from Gen 37:3.23. The motif of two men fighting, and there being no one to rescue the one and his brother (‫ אחיו‬+ ‫ האחד‬+ ‫ *ציל‬+ ‫*ינצו‬: 2 Sam 14:6–​7) was borrowed from Deut 25:11 and conflated with Deut 25:7 (‫)שם‬. The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of the praised, glorious (2 Kgs 14:25–​26) Absalom burning Joab’s plot of land (2 Sam 14:25–​33; esp. 14:30–​ 31) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh doing harm to the king’s land (Deut 11:3). The subsequent idea of (a) Absalom doing (‫( )עשה‬b) to (*‫ )ל‬himself (c) a chariot (*‫ )*רכב‬and horses (‫סוסים‬: 2 Sam 15:1–​6; esp. 15:1) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh doing things (b) to the army of Egypt and to (c) the king’s horses and chariot (Deut 11:4a). The surprising idea of Absalom after forty years requesting the king’s permission to go, pay his vow, and serve Yahweh by offering sacrifices (2 Sam 15:7–​12; esp. 15:7–​8) with the use of the traditional motif of Moses after around forty years spent in the land of Midian (cf. Jub. 48:1) requesting Pharaoh’s permission to go, celebrate a festival, and sacrifice to Yahweh (Exod 5:1.3) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the time when (‫ )אשר‬the Israelites went out of Egypt (Deut 11:4b). The subsequent idea of all the people, including proselytes, crossing over before the king (2 Sam 15:18–​23b), the king crossing over the Wadi Kidron (2 Sam 15:23c), and all the people crossing over before the way to the wilderness (2 Sam

40 Cf. J. E. Harvey, Retelling the Torah: The Deuteronomistic Historian’s Use of Tetrateuchal Narratives (JSOTSup 403; T&T Clark: London · New York 2004), 53, 56. 41 Cf. A. Kunz-​ Lübcke, ‘Behind Closed Doors and Between the Lines of Deuteronomy: Tamar’s Rape in 2 Sam 13:1–​22 as a Narrative Rereading of the Juridical Text Deut 22:13–​29,’ ZABR 19 (2013) 235–​248 (esp. 241–​242).

100 Second Samuel as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 8:1–​13:6 15:23d), with the priest and all the Levites carrying the ark of the covenant and pouring/​placing it until the people crossed over (2 Sam 15:13–​24; esp. 15:24), with the use of the motifs of the crossing over of the sea (cf. Exod 15:16 etc.: ‫עבר‬ ‫ עם‬+) and the crossing over of the Jordan (Josh 3:14–​4:24; esp. 4:10–​11: + ‫עבר‬ ‫ עד־תם‬+ ‫ ארון‬+ ‫ נשא‬+ ‫ )כל־העם‬illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites crossing the flowing waters of the Sea of Reeds (Deut 11:4b). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of carrying the ark and sending agents back to the enemy city, but also Yahweh saving David from his enemies while he was on his way to the wilderness (2 Sam 15:25–​16:4) with the use of the motif of the angel of God going behind the Israelites, and the pillar of cloud standing behind them, thus protecting them from the Egyptians (Exod 14:19–​ 20), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the waters flowing over the Egyptians (Deut 11:4b). The subsequent idea of Shimei and Absalom persecuting the fleeing David (2 Sam 16:5–​23), and Ahithophel wanting to pursue (‫רדפ * אחרי‬: 2 Sam 17:1) David (2 Sam 16:5–​17:4; esp. 17:1–​4) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Egyptians pursuing the Israelites (Deut 11:4c). The subsequent idea of Yahweh bringing evil on Absalom (2 Sam 17:14) when he pursued David and the people, who crossed over the water at night (2 Sam 17:5–​26; esp. 17:21–​22), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh destroying the Egyptians when they pursued the Israelites, who crossed over the water of the Sea of Reeds at night (Deut 11:4d; cf. Exod 14:21–​24). The subsequent idea of (a) people from Transjordan doing good to (*‫ )ל‬David and to (*‫ )ל‬his people (b) when they were hungry, weary, and thirsty in the wilderness (‫במדבר‬: 2 Sam 17:27–​29; esp. 17:29) with the use of various wilderness motifs (Exod 16:14–​17:6 etc.) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh doing various things to the Israelites (b) in the wilderness (Deut 11:5). The subsequent idea of (a) what (‫ )אשר‬is good, (b) the king doing (‫ )עשה‬it (2 Sam 18:1–​4; esp. 18:4) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of recalling (a) what (b) Yahweh did (Deut 11:6a). The subsequent, quite surprising idea of (a) the king ordering that the commanders should do gently to (*‫ )ל‬the young man (diff. 2 Sam 15:7: at least forty years old), (b) to Absalom (*‫לאב‬: 2 Sam 18:5), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh doing something (a) to Dathan and (b) to Abiram, presumably young sons of Eliab (Deut 11:6a).

2 Sam 11–19 (cf. Deut 11:1–15b)

101

The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of the battle taking place in the forest of the named Israelite tribe of Ephraim (diff. 2 Sam 17:26–​27: in Transjordan),42 and the people of Israel being struck (2 Sam 18:6–​7) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the named Israelite tribe of Reuben (Deut 11:6a). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of (a) the battle being dispersed (‫ )*פצת‬over the face of (b) all the earth (‫)ארץ‬, and the forest (c) consuming more than the sword consumed (2 Sam 18:8) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the opening (*‫ )פצת‬of the mouth of (b) the earth, which (c) swallowed the guilty Israelites (Deut 11:6bc). The subsequent idea of a great tree catching the king’s son (2 Sam 18:9–​ 14) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the earth swallowing the Israelites’ households (Deut 11:6c). The subsequent idea of ten armour-​ bearers surrounding the still-​ living Absalom, striking him, and killing him, presumably already on the earth (2 Sam 18:15),43 and the people throwing Absalom into a great pit in the forest and placing upon him a very great heap of stones, thus making the earth ‘swallow’ him (2 Sam 18:15–​17c; esp. 8:16–​17c), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the earth swallowing the Israelites’ living beings, which were on their feet (Deut 11:6d). The subsequent idea of all Israel (‫ )כל ישראל‬fleeing, everyone to his tent (2 Sam 18:17d–​18; esp. 18:17d), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the punishment occurring in the midst of all Israel (Deut 11:6d). The particular motif of a sonless man saying that he has no son, having a monument for his name, and making his name everlasting (‫ אמר‬+ ‫ יד‬+ ‫ שם‬+ ‫בן‬: 2 Sam 18:18) was borrowed from Isa 56:3.5. The subsequent idea of (a) the watchman lifting his eyes (*‫עיני‬: 2 Sam 18:24) and (b) seeing (‫ )ראה‬messengers (2 Sam 18:24.26–​27), who saw (‫ראה‬: 2 Sam 18:29) (c) a great (‫ )גדול‬tumult (2 Sam 18:29), meaning that (d) Yahweh vindicated David (2 Sam 18:19–​32; esp. 18:31), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites’ eyes (b) seeing (c) every great deed of Yahweh (d) which he did (Deut 11:7). The subsequent idea of all the people hearing and following the king, who covered his face and cried out with a loud voice (2 Sam 19:1–​5), illustrates the

4 2 Cf. P. K. McCarter, Jr., II Samuel, 405. 43 Cf. P. K. McCarter, Jr., II Samuel, 407.

102 Second Samuel as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 8:1–​13:6 subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites keeping the entire commandment, presumably concerning hearing Yahweh and being merciful (Deut 11:8a). The subsequent idea of Joab rebuking the king for what he did today (‫היום‬: 2 Sam 19:6–​8; esp. 19:6–​7) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses commanding Israel today (Deut 11:8b). The subsequent idea of the king growing strong in all the tribes of Israel and in Judah (2 Sam 19:9–​15)44 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites growing strong (Deut 11:8c). The subsequent idea of (a) the king coming (‫ )בוא‬to the Jordan, (b) Judah coming to meet the king, (c) to make the king cross over (‫ )עבר‬the Jordan (2 Sam 19:16), and (d=b’) Shimei with a thousand Benjaminites coming down with Judah to meet the king (2 Sam 19:16–​21; esp. 19:17.21) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites coming, presumably to the Jordan, (b) to possess the land which (c) they cross over (d=b’) to possess (Deut 11:8d–​g). The particular motif of Gera being a Benjaminite (*‫ בנ*ימינ‬+ ‫גרא‬: 2 Sam 19:17) was borrowed from Gen 46:21. The subsequent idea of (a) Shimei not dying (b) this day (‫ )יום‬because David knew this day (‫ )יום‬that he was king (c) over (‫ )על‬Israel (2 Sam 19:22–​23; esp. 19:23) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites prolonging (b) their days (c) over the land (Deut 11:9a). The subsequent idea of (a) the king swearing (‫( )שבע‬b) to (*‫ )ל‬Shimei (2 Sam 19:24) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh swearing (b) to the Israelites’ ancestors and giving to them (Deut 11:9b–​d). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 2 Sam 19:16–​17.21) idea of Mephibosheth coming down to meet the king (2 Sam 19:25ab) illustrates the subsequent, likewise partly repeated (cf. Deut 11:8e.g) Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites going to possess the land (Deut 11:10ab). The subsequent idea of (a) Mephibosheth not (‫( )לא‬b) doing (c) his feet (‫)רגל‬,45 (d) not trimming his moustache, and (e) his clothes leaving without treading (2 Sam 19:25c–​e) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the land of Israel not being like the

44 Pace M. Leonard-​Fleckman, ‘Judah Bookends,’ 410, 412, who suggests that this fragment is an addition to the story 2 Sam 15–​19. 45 Cf. P. K. McCarter, Jr., II Samuel, 421.

2 Sam 11–19 (cf. Deut 11:1–15b)

103

land of Egypt, (b) which Israel sowed and watered (c) by foot (d) like a garden of (e) vegetables (Deut 11:10c–​f). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 2 Sam 19:16–​17.21.25b) idea of (a) the king coming from Transjordan (2 Sam 19:25fg), and (b) Mephibosheth coming to meet the king (2 Sam 19:25f–​26; esp. 19:26) sequentially illustrates the subsequent, likewise partly repeated (cf. Deut 11:8e.g.10b) Deuteronomic idea of (a) the land which the Israelites cross over (b) to possess (Deut 11:11ab). The subsequent idea of Mephibosheth limping (2 Sam 19:27) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel being a land of hills and valleys (Deut 11:11cd). The subsequent idea of (a) the king being like the angel of God (‫ )אלהים‬and (b) doing what is good in his eyes (*‫עיני‬: 2 Sam 19:28) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh God caring for the land, and (b) the eyes of Yahweh being always on it (Deut 11:12ab). The subsequent idea of the house of Mephibosheth’s father being about to die (2 Sam 19:29a) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the end of the year, so presumably the time of pre-​harvest scarcity (Deut 11:12b). The subsequent idea of (a) the king setting his servant (‫ )עבד‬among those (b) eating at his table, so that (c) he cannot complain (2 Sam 19:29b–​e), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites serving Yahweh, (b) who gives them grain, (c) new wine, and oil (Deut 11:13–​14). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of the king ordering that Mephibosheth and Ziba should receive the field (‫שדה‬: 2 Sam 19:30–​31; esp. 19:30) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh giving grass to the Israelite’s field (Deut 11:15a). The subsequent idea of Barzillai the Gileadite being very rich (2 Sam 19:32–​ 33)46 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh giving growth to the Israelite’s livestock (Deut 11:15a). The subsequent idea of the king inviting Barzillai to eat (‫אכל‬: 2 Sam 19:36) in Jerusalem (2 Sam 19:34–​40), and the men of Judah apparently eating (‫אכל‬: 2 Sam 19:43) from the king (2 Sam 19:34–​44; esp. 19:41–​44)47 conceptually and

46 Cf. R. D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 431. 47 Pace M. Leonard-​Fleckman, ‘Judah Bookends,’ 411–​412, who suggests that the fragment 2 Sam 19:41–​44 is an addition to the story 2 Sam 15–​19.

104 Second Samuel as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 8:1–​13:6 linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite eating, presumably the food originating from Yahweh (Deut 11:15b).

2.7. 2 Sam 20–​23 (cf. Deut 11:15c–​23) The section 2 Sam 20–​23 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 11:15c–​23. The opening idea of the ‘abundance’ Sheba (‫שבע‬: 2 Sam 20:1–​2) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite being satiated (Deut 11:15c). The subsequent idea of David putting his ten concubines, who guarded (‫)שמר‬ the house, in a house under guard (‫)משמרת‬,48 in which he sustained them (2 Sam 20:3a–​f), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites guarding themselves (Deut 11:16a). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of David not going in to the concubines, so that they lived in widowhood (2 Sam 20:3g–​j), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites’ heart not being seduced (Deut 11:16b). The subsequent idea of Amasa delaying from the appointed meeting/​festival, thus apparently abandoning David (2 Sam 20:4–​5), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites turning aside from Yahweh (Deut 11:16c). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of (a) Abishai taking the servants (‫ )עבד‬of (b) his lord (2 Sam 20:6a–​c; diff. 18:2 etc.: David) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites serving (b) gods (Deut 11:16d). The subsequent idea of the Israelites going after (‫ )אחרי‬Sheba and after (‫)אחרי‬ Joab (2 Sam 20:6d–​14; esp. 20:6d–​7.10–​11.13–​14) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of other (*‫ )אחרי‬objects of pursuit (Deut 11:16d). The subsequent idea of the people destroying (‫*שחיתם‬: 2 Sam 20:15), and Joab apparently wanting to destroy (‫*שחית‬: 2 Sam 20:15–​22; esp. 20:20)49 conceptually and partly linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites bowing down (‫ *שח*יתם‬read as hithpael: Deut 11:16e). The subsequent idea of various persons being officials, and Ira being a priest to (*‫ )ל‬David (2 Sam 20:23–​26; esp. 20:26) conceptually and linguistically 48 Cf. R. D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 435; I. Hamley, ‘ “Dis(re)membered and Unaccounted For”: ‫ פילגש‬in the Hebrew Bible,’ JSOT 42.4 (2018) 415–​434 (esp. 431). 49 Cf. R. D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 437.

2 Sam 20–23 (cf. Deut 11:15c–23)

105

illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites bowing down to them (Deut 11:16e). The subsequent idea of there being a famine for three years (2 Sam 21:1a) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh shutting up the heavens, there being no rain, and the ground yielding no produce (Deut 11:17a–​d). The subsequent idea of Yahweh punishing Saul and his house, for Saul killed the Gibeonites (2 Sam 21:1b–​2), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh making the Israelites perish (Deut 11:17e). The particular motif of the Israelites swearing to the Gibeonites (‫*שבעו להם‬: 2 Sam 21:2) was borrowed from Josh 9:15.50 The subsequent idea of (a) the Gibeonites blessing (b) the inheritance of Yahweh (2 Sam 21:3) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the good (b) land (Deut 11:17e). The subsequent idea of (a) the Gibeonites requesting that seven of Saul’s sons be given (‫( )נתן‬b) to (*‫ )ל‬them, and (a’) David giving (‫ )נתן‬them (2 Sam 21:4–​ 6; esp. 21:6) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh giving (b) to the Israelites (Deut 11:17f). The subsequent idea of (a) the king sparing Mephibosheth (b) because of the oath which was (c) between (‫ )בין‬them, between (‫ )בין‬David and (‫ )בין‬Jonathan (2 Sam 21:7), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites putting Moses’ words in their heart and in their soul, and (b) them being as reminding frontlets (c) between the Israelites’ eyes (Deut 11:18). The subsequent idea of (a) the king taking two Saul’s sons (‫ )בני‬and (b) five sons (‫ )בני‬of Saul’s daughter (2 Sam 21:8)51 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites teaching their sons (plur., so at least two: Deut 11:19), and (b) the multiplying of the days of the Israelites and their sons (Deut 11:19–​21a; esp. 11:21a). The subsequent idea of the king giving (‫ )נתן‬them into the hands of the Gibeonites (2 Sam 21:9a–​c) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the

5 0 Cf. J. Van Seters, ‘David and the Gibeonites,’ ZAW 123 (2011) 535–​552 (esp. 539). 51 If the reading Merab (‫מרב‬: cf. 1 Sam 18:17–​19) and not Michal is original in 2 Sam 21:8, then this name would linguistically illustrate the Deuteronomic idea of multiplying (*‫רב‬: Deut 11:21a). For an analysis of various aspects of this text-​critical problem, see R. P. Hays, ‘A Problematic Spouse: A Text-​Critical Examination of Merab’s Place in 1 Samuel 18:17–​19 and 2 Samuel 21:8,’ ZAW 129 (2017) 220–​233.

106 Second Samuel as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 8:1–​13:6 subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the ground of which Yahweh swore to the Israelites’ ancestors to give them (Deut 11:21bc). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly introduced idea of them being killed in the days (‫ )*ימי‬of harvest (2 Sam 21:9d) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of being like those days (Deut 11:21c). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of (a) Rizpah spreading a sack cover until water was poured on them from the heavens (‫)השמים‬,52 and not allowing the birds of the heavens (‫( )השמים‬b) to rest upon (‫ )על‬them by day, nor (c) the beasts of the field by night (2 Sam 21:10) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the heavens (b) upon (c) the earth (Deut 11:21c). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 1 Sam 31:11–​13)53 idea of (a) Rizpah doing (‫ )עשה‬this thing (2 Sam 21:11), and David and his people acting similarly, doing (‫( )עשה‬b) all (‫( )כל‬c) that (‫( )אשר‬d) the king commanded (‫צוה‬: 2 Sam 21:11–​14c; esp. 21:14bc) conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (b) the Israelites carefully keeping all this commandment (c) that (d) Moses commands the Israelites (a) to do (Deut 11:22a–​c). The subsequent idea of God (‫ )אלהים‬being internally positively moved (2 Sam 21:14d) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites loving Yahweh God, walking in his ways, and clinging to him (Deut 11:22d–​f). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 1 Sam 17:4–​10.49–​50) but surprisingly modified idea of (a) David being faint (2 Sam 21:15),54 other warriors killing four Philistine giants (2 Sam 21:16–​21; diff. 1 Sam 17:4–​10.49–​50), and (b) these (‫)אלה‬ four being born to the giant in Gath (2 Sam 21:15–​22; esp. 21:22) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh (and not the Israelites) dispossessing all the pagan nations, (b) these ones, from before the Israelites (Deut 11:23a). The concluding idea of (a) Yahweh making David strong against his enemies among pagan nations (‫גוים‬: 2 Sam 22:1–​23:7; esp. 22:44.50), (b) David’s three and one warriors prevailing over more numerous enemies in acts of great deliverance (2 Sam 23:8–​19; esp. 23:10.12: ‫)גדול‬, and (c) other warriors prevailing

5 2 Cf. P. K. McCarter, Jr., II Samuel, 442. 53 Cf. J. Van Seters, ‘David and the Gibeonites,’ 542. 54 Cf. G. Ko, ‘2 Samuel 21–​24: A theological reflection on Israel’s kingship,’ OTE 31 (2018) 114–​134 (esp. 124).

2 Sam 24 (cf. Deut 11:24–13:6)

107

over mightier enemies (2 Sam 22–​23; esp. 23:20–​39) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites dispossessing pagan nations, (b) greater and (c) mightier than the Israelites (Deut 11:23b). The particular motif of David speaking the words of this song (‫ את־דברי השירה הזאת‬+ ‫וידבר‬: 2 Sam 22:1) was borrowed from Deut 31:30. If Ps 18 was composed earlier than 2 Sam 22,55 than the latter text was almost verbatim borrowed from the former.

2.8. 2 Sam 24 (cf. Deut 11:24–​13:6) The section 2 Sam 24 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 11:24–​13:6. The opening idea of (a) David telling Joab to roam around in all the tribes of Israel, (b) from (‫ )מן‬Dan (c) to (‫ )ועד‬Beer-​sheba, (d) to make an inspection of the people, to know their number (2 Sam 24:1–​2; esp. 24:2), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) every place on which the Israelites’ foot treads being theirs, (b) from the wilderness and the Lebanon, from the River Euphrates (c) to the Western Sea (d) being their territory (Deut 11:24). The subsequent idea of (a) David’s word prevailing over Joab’s reservations,56 so (b) Joab and the commanders of the army going out before (‫ )*פני‬the king (2 Sam 24:3–​4; esp. 24:4), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) no man resisting (b) before the Israelites (Deut 11:25a). The subsequent idea of (a) Joab coming to various regions of Israel, roaming around in (*‫( )ב‬b) all the land (‫כל־הארץ‬: 2 Sam 24:5–​8a; esp. 24:8a), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (b) Yahweh putting the dread and fear of the Israelites upon all the land (a) which the Israelites tread in it (Deut 11:25bc). The subsequent, retrospective idea of Joab after some time (cf. 2 Sam 24:1–​ 2) coming back to Jerusalem (2 Sam 24:8b) illustrates the subsequent, likewise

55 On this issue, suggesting the dependence of Ps 18 on 2 Sam 22, see B. Weber, ‘Das königlich-​davidische Danklied 2 Samuel 22 /​Psalm 18 im Kontext von Psalm 1–​18: Eine (proto)kanonische Lesung vom Ende der Samuelbücher her zum Anfangsbereich des Psalters hin,’ in S. M. Attard and M. Pavan (eds.), „Canterò in eterno le misericordie del Signore” (Sal 89,2), Festschrift G. Barbiero (AnBibSt 3; Gregorian & Biblical: Roma 2015), 187–​204 (esp. 188–​190). 56 Cf. R. D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 476.

108 Second Samuel as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 8:1–​13:6 retrospective (cf. Deut 11:24) Deuteronomic idea of referring back to the fact that Yahweh had said (Deut 11:25d). The subsequent idea of (a) Joab giving (‫( )נתן‬b) to the king (c) very great numbers of the men of Israel and the men of Judah (2 Sam 24:9)57 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses giving (b) before the Israelites (c) a blessing (Deut 11:26–​27). The subsequent idea of (a) the heart of David striking him, so (b) David saying to Yahweh (‫ )יהוה‬that he greatly sinned and that (c) Yahweh should allow his guilt pass over because he behaved foolishly (2 Sam 24:10), sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the curse, if the Israelites (b) do not obey the commandments of Yahweh and (c) turn aside from his way (Deut 11:28a–​c). The subsequent idea of the prophet and seer Gad telling David the word of Yahweh (2 Sam 24:11) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses commanding the Israelites (Deut 11:28d). The subsequent idea of Gad going (‫ )הלך‬and speaking to David (2 Sam 24:12ab) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites going after other gods (Deut 11:28e). The subsequent idea of David being confronted with three unspecified burdens (2 Sam 24:12c–​f) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites not knowing the pagan gods (Deut 11:28f). The subsequent idea of (a) Gad coming (‫( )בוא‬b) to (‫ )אל‬David and asking him (c) what should come (‫( )בוא‬d) to him (2 Sam 24:13a–​d) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh making Israel come (b) to the land which (c) he comes (d) there to possess (Deut 11:29a–​d). The subsequent idea of laying before David three options to choose (2 Sam 24:13d–​g) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of laying before Israel two options to choose (Deut 11:29e). The particular motif of seven years of famine coming to the land (‫ בארץ‬+ ‫ *בוא‬+ ‫שבע שני* *רעב‬: 2 Sam 24:13) could have been borrowed from Gen 41:36.54. The subsequent idea of (a) the first and the last options being located in the land (‫( )בארץ‬b) of David (2 Sam 24:13d.g), and (c) David knowing and seeing these options (2 Sam 24:13g–​k) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the two options being located in the land (b) of the Canaanites, (c) in the presumably known place opposite Gilgal, beside the oaks of Moreh (Deut 11:30).

57 Cf. P. K. McCarter, Jr., II Samuel, 510; A. A. Anderson, 2 Samuel, 285.

2 Sam 24 (cf. Deut 11:24–13:6)

109

The subsequent, internally contrasted idea of (a) David being greatly restricted, (b) Yahweh’s love being great, and (c) David not wanting to fall into the hand of man (2 Sam 24:14) sequentially illustrates the subsequent, likewise internally slightly contrasted Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel crossing over the Jordan, (b) Yahweh giving to the Israelites the land, and (c) Moses giving before the Israelites the divine prescriptions and judgements (Deut 11:31–​12:1c). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh giving (‫( )*תן יהוה‬b) a plague in Israel (c) from the morning (d) till the appointed time of dying, (e) from Dan to Beer-​sheba (2 Sam 24:15), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh giving (b) to Israel, (c) all the days (d) that they live (e) on the ground (Deut 12:1d–​f). The subsequent idea of (a) the presumably destroying angel stretching out his hand (b) against Jerusalem (‫( )ירושלם‬c) to destroy (d) it (2 Sam 24:16ab)58 conceptually and partly linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites utterly destroying (b) all the places of the nations which they should dispossess (‫)ירשים‬, (c) destroying their cultic objects from (d) that place (Deut 12:2–​3). The subsequent idea of Yahweh relenting from the evil (2 Sam 24:16c) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites not so destructively doing to Yahweh (Deut 12:4). The subsequent idea of Yahweh telling the angel to stop in a particular place (2 Sam 24:16d–​h) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh choosing a particular place, and the Israelites going there (Deut 12:5). The subsequent idea of (a) David speaking to Yahweh, (b) confessing his sin and (c) his guilt, (d) referring to his flock, that (e) Yahweh’s hand (*‫ )ידכ‬should be in him and (f) in the house (‫ )בית‬of his father (2 Sam 24:17), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites bringing to the cultic place (b) their burnt offerings, (c) their sacrifices, (d) their tithes, (e) the contribution of their hand, and rejoicing in all the undertaking of their hand (f) with their houses (Deut 12:6–​12; esp. 12:6–​7.11–​12). The subsequent idea of (a) Gad saying to (*‫ )ל‬David that (b) he should go up (‫עלה‬: 2 Sam 24:18a–​c) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses commanding the

58 Cf. P. K. McCarter, Jr., II Samuel, 511. Pace A. Rofé, ‘Writing, Interpolating and Editing: 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21 as a Case Study,’ HBAI 3 (2014) 317–​326 (esp. 318–​321), who suggests that 2 Sam 24:16 is a later interpolation into the text.

110 Second Samuel as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 8:1–​13:6 Israelite that he should take heed to himself (Deut 12:13a) (b) to bring up (‫ )עלה‬his burnt offerings (‫ )עלה‬in the chosen place (Deut 12:13–​27a; esp. 12:13b–​14.27a). The subsequent idea of Gad saying to David that he should erect an altar (‫)מזבח‬ to Yahweh (‫ )יהוה‬in the particular place (2 Sam 24:18d) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses commanding the Israelite that he should offer his offerings on the altar of Yahweh and pour out the blood of his sacrifices on the altar of Yahweh (Deut 12:27a–​c). The subsequent idea of (a) David obediently (cf. 2 Sam 24:18)59 going up (b) according to the word (‫ )דבר‬of Gad, (c) which (‫( )*אשר‬d) Yahweh commanded (‫צוה‬: 2 Sam 24:19), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite diligently obeying (b) the words (c) which (d) Moses commands (Deut 12:28). The subsequent idea of the pagan Araunah60 seeing the king and his servants (‫)עבד‬, but also bowing down to the king, referring to himself as a servant (‫ )עבד‬of his lord the king (2 Sam 24:20–​21b), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the pagan nations serving their gods (Deut 12:29–​30; esp. 12:30). The subsequent idea of David, in contrast to the pagan Araunah, in the particular place building an altar to Yahweh (‫ליהוה‬: 2 Sam 24:21c–​e) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite, in contrast to the pagans, not doing so to Yahweh (Deut 12:31a). The subsequent idea of (a) restraining the plague (b) from upon the Israelite people (2 Sam 24:21f) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) every abomination to Yahweh, which he hates, (b) the pagans (but not the Israelites) doing to their gods (Deut 12:31bc). The subsequent idea of (a) the pagan Araunah suggesting that David may offer up whatever seems good to him, the cattle being (b) for the burnt offering, and (c) the threshing sledges and the yokes being for the firewood, so that (d) Yahweh his God (*‫ )אלהי‬might be favourable to him (2 Sam 24:22–​23), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) even the pagans’ sons and daughters, (b) the pagans burning them (c) in the fire (d) to their gods (Deut 12:31d). The subsequent idea of (a) the king saying to the pagan Araunah that (b) he will not (‫ )לא‬offer up so much, but (c) he will buy a sacrifice for a proper price (d) and not (‫( )ולא‬e) offer to Yahweh burnt offerings with no value, so that (f=c’)

5 9 Cf. R. D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 479. 60 Cf. P. K. McCarter, Jr., II Samuel, 512; A. A. Anderson, 2 Samuel, 286.

2 Sam 24 (cf. Deut 11:24–13:6)

111

he bought the particular place and a sacrifice for fifty shekels, built there an altar to Yahweh, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings (2 Sam 24:24–​25b), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite diligently doing every word which Moses commands, (b) not adding above (c) it, the prescribed thing, (d) and not (e) taking away from (f=c’) it, the prescribed thing (Deut 13:1). The motif of paying fifty shekels of silver for a sacrifice for an adult man (‫ חמשים‬+ *‫ שקל‬+ ‫*כסף‬: 2 Sam 24:24) could have been borrowed from Lev 27:3. The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 2 Sam 21:14d) idea of Yahweh being internally positively moved as concerns the land of Israel (2 Sam 24:25c) illustrates the subsequent, likewise partly repeated (cf. Deut 11:22d–​f ) Deuteronomic idea of Israel loving Yahweh God, walking after Yahweh, and clinging to him (Deut 13:2–​5; esp. 13:4–​5). The concluding, partly repeated (cf. 2 Sam 24:21f) idea of (a) the plague being restrained (b) from (‫ )מן‬upon (c) Israel (2 Sam 24:25d) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the concluding, likewise partly repeated (cf. Deut 12:31bc) Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel removing the pagan evil (b) from (c) its midst (Deut 13:6).

Chapter 3. First Kings as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 13:7–​27:25 The contents of the first book of Kings sequentially, in a hypertextual way illustrate the contents of Deut 13:7–​27:25.

3.1. 1 Kgs 1–​2 (cf. Deut 13:7–​14:2c) The section 1 Kgs 1–​2 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 13:7–​14:2c. The opening idea of a very beautiful young virgin standing before the king and sexually exciting David,1 lying in his bosom (‫*חיקך‬: 1 Kgs 1:1–​4; esp. 1:2), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of someone enticing the Israelite, for example a woman of his bosom (Deut 13:7a). The subsequent idea of (a) the king’s son exalting himself, (b) presumably secretly saying (‫ )לאמר‬that (c) he will be king, making other people serve him (1 Kgs 1:5), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite’s friend who is as his own soul (b) secretly saying that (c) the Israelites should serve other gods (Deut 13:7b–​e). The subsequent idea of (a) Adonijah not (‫( )לא‬b) being rebuked by (c) his father (‫אב‬: 1 Kgs 1:6a) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite not (b) knowing, he and (c) his fathers (Deut 13:7f–​8; esp. 13:7f). The subsequent idea of (a) the king not expressing disapproval2 because (b) Adonijah (b) was very attractive in (c) appearance (1 Kgs 1:6b–​d)3 sequentially,

1 Cf. D. B. Schreiner, ‘ “But He Could Not Warm Himself ”: Sexual Innuendo and the Place of 1 Kgs 1,1–​4,’ SJOT 32 (2018) 121–​130 (esp. 129). Pace R. L. Meek, ‘The Abishag Episode: Reexamining the Role of Virility in 1 Kings 1:1–​4 in Light of the Kirta Epic and the Sumerian Tale “The Old Man and the Young Woman”,’ BBR 24.1 (2014) 1–​14 (esp. 9), who argues that the servants’ attempt to revive David was not sexual in nature. 2 Cf. J. Willis, A. Pleffer, and S. Llewelyn, ‘Conversation in the Succession Narrative of Solomon,’ VT 61 (2011) 133–​147 (esp. 140). 3 Cf. M. Noth, Könige, vol. 1, I Könige 1–​16 (3rd edn., BKAT 9/​1; Neukirchener: Neukirchen-​ Vluyn 2003), 16.

114

First Kings as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 13:7–​27:25

but in a negative way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite not giving consent, and (c) his eye (b) not showing pity (Deut 13:9a–​c). The subsequent idea of Adonijah being born after the dead Absalom, so presumably evoking the father’s compassion (1 Kgs 1:6e), in a negative way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite not having compassion for the enticer (Deut 13:9d). The subsequent idea of Zadok and others not (‫ )לא‬being in the secret conspiracy with Adonijah (1 Kgs 1:7–​8) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite not concealing the enticer (Deut 13:9e). The subsequent idea of (a) Adonijah slaughtering animals (b) with (‫( )עם‬c) ‘the stone (‫ )אבן‬of (d) a crawling one’ (Zoheleth), (e) which is by ‘the spring of (f) the one who goes on foot’ (En-​rogel: 1 Kgs 1:9ab), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite forcefully killing the enticer, his hand being against him to kill him, (b) the hand of all the people (‫ )עם‬being after him, and (c) the Israelite stoning him with stones (d) until he dies because he tried to entice the Israelite from (e) Yahweh his God, who (f) made him go out of the land of Egypt (Deut 13:10–​11e). The subsequent idea of (a) Adonijah calling all his brothers, the king’s sons, and all the man of Judah, (b) slaves (‫ )עבדים‬of the king (1 Kgs 1:9c), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the house of (b) slaves (Deut 13:11e). The subsequent idea of (a) Nathan, Benaiah, the warriors, and Solomon (b) not (‫( )לא‬c) being called to join the conspiracy (1 Kgs 1:10) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) all Israel (b) not (c) doing such evil matter in the midst of Israel (Deut 13:12). The subsequent idea of (a) Bathsheba hearing (‫ )שמע‬that (b) the son (‫ )בן־‬of Haggith became king, and (c) David does not know (*‫לא ידע‬: 1 Kgs 1:11) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite hearing that (b) sons of Belial seduce the Israelites to serve other gods, whom (c) they do not know (Deut 13:13–​14). The subsequent idea of (a) Bathsheba going, (b) coming, and (c) asking (‫)ו*ת‬ (d) whether the king did not swear to his maidservant (*‫אמת‬: 1 Kgs 1:12–​21; esp. 1:13.17) conceptually and partly linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite searching, (b) exploring, and (c) asking (d) whether it is true (*‫אמת‬: Deut 13:15a–​d).

1 Kgs 1–2 (cf. Deut 13:7–14:2c)

115

The subsequent idea of (a) Nathan asking whether the king ordered (1 Kgs 1:22–​26)4 (b) this thing (‫הדבר‬: 1 Kgs 1:22–​27; esp. 1:27) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) establishing (b) this thing (Deut 13:15d). The subsequent idea of (a) the king doing (‫ )עשה‬so (b) on the day, this one (‫הזה‬: 1 Kgs 1:28–​30; esp. 1:30), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) doing such an abomination, (b) this one (‫הזאת‬: Deut 13:15e). The subsequent idea of (a) Bathsheba bending down to the ground, (b) bowing down in worship to (*‫ )ל‬the king, and wishing that her lord the king might live (c) forever (‫*עולם‬: 1 Kgs 1:31) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite striking the inhabitants of the city, utterly destroying it, but also (b) burning the city and all its spoil as dedicated to Yahweh, so that (c) it shall remain a heap forever (Deut 13:16–​17; esp. 13:17). The subsequent idea of the king making Solomon ride on the mule which belonged to him (1 Kgs 1:32–​33d) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of none of the dedicated things clinging to the Israelite’s hand (Deut 13:18a). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of bringing Solomon to the ‘gushing’ spring of Gihon (1 Kgs 1:33e; diff. 1:35: David’s throne) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh turning from the heat of his anger (Deut 13:18b). The subsequent idea of (a) Zadok and Nathan (‫ )נתן‬anointing Solomon (b) to be (*‫ )ל‬king (1 Kgs 1:34), (c) Solomon sitting on David’s throne and being king in his place, and (d) David appointing him leader over Israel and over Judah (1 Kgs 1:34–​35; esp. 1:35) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh giving (‫( )נתן‬b) to the Israelite mercy, (c) tenderly loving him with his bowels, and (d) multiplying him (Deut 13:18c–​e). The subsequent idea of Benaiah wishing that Yahweh might be with Solomon, just as (‫ )כאשר‬he was with his father David (1 Kgs 1:36–​37; esp. 1:37), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh acting just as he swore to the Israelite’s fathers (Deut 13:18f). 4 Cf. T. M. Steiner, ‘From David to Solomon, from Crisis to Leadership,’ in K. Pyschny and S. Schulz (eds.), Debating Authority: Concepts of Leadership in the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets (BZAW 507; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2018), 288–​301 (esp. 296–​297).

116

First Kings as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 13:7–​27:25

The subsequent idea of (b’) the people shouting, the earth splitting at their voice (*‫בקול‬: 1 Kgs 1:40),5 and (a) Adonijah hearing (‫( )שמע‬b) the voice (‫ )קול‬of the city (1 Kgs 1:38–​45; esp. 1:41.45) conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite hearing (b) the voice of Yahweh (Deut 13:19a). The subsequent idea of the people referring to David’s God (‫אלהיך‬: 1 Kgs 1:46–​47e; esp. 1:47d K.) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite’s God (Deut 13:19a). The subsequent idea of (a) the king worshipping and blessing Yahweh, the God of Israel, (b) who (‫( )אשר‬c) gave today (‫היום‬: 1 Kgs 1:47f–​48c), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite keeping all the commandments of Yahweh his God, (b) which (‫( )אשר‬c) Moses commands today (Deut 13:19bc). The subsequent idea of (a) Solomon sitting on David’s throne, and (b) David’s eyes (‫ )עיני‬seeing it (1 Kgs 1:48de) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite doing what is right (b) in the eyes of Yahweh (Deut 13:19d). The subsequent idea of (a) Adonijah possibly being a son (‫ )בן‬of (b) power, so (c) not (‫ )לא‬one of his hears falling down, otherwise (d) Adonijah being dead (‫*מת‬: 1 Kgs 1:49–​52; esp. 1:52), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites being sons of (b) Yahweh, so (c) not cutting themselves and not making a bald patch for (d) the dead (Deut 14:1). The subsequent idea of (a) bringing Adonijah down from the altar, and (b) Adonijah bowing down to (*‫ )ל‬the king (1 Kgs 1:53) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel being a holy people (b) to Yahweh his God (Deut 14:2a). The subsequent idea of (a) David commanding Solomon to be strong and (b) to be (‫( )*הי*ת‬c) to (*‫ )ל‬a man (1 Kgs 2:2) faithful to Yahweh (1 Kgs 2:3–​4)6 and to David’s last will concerning doing to various people according to what they did to (*‫ )ל‬David (1 Kgs 2:1–​10; esp. 2:5–​10) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh choosing Israel (b) to be (c) to him (Deut 14:2bc).

5 Cf. M. Noth, Könige, vol. 1, 26. 6 Pace T. M. Steiner, ‘From David,’ 298–​299, who regards the call to obedience to Yahweh as a secondary insertion into 2 Kgs 2:3–​4.

1 Kgs 3–4 (cf. Deut 14:2d–29)

117

The particular motif of the Israelite keeping the charge of Yahweh his God, to keep his statutes, his commandments, and his judgements (‫ משמרת‬+ ‫ ושמרת‬+ ‫ משפטיו‬+ ‫ מצותיו‬+ ‫ חקתיו‬+ ‫יהוה אלהיך‬: 1 Kgs 2:3), was borrowed from Deut 11:1 and conflated with Deut 6:17 (‫)ועדותיו‬, Josh 8:31 (‫)ככתוב ב* תורת משה‬, Deut 29:8 (‫למען‬ *‫)תשכיל * את כל־אשר תעש‬, and Deut 9:5 (‫ את־*דבר * אשר‬+ ‫ יהוה‬+ ‫)למען *קים‬. The motif of Yahweh saying that a man will not be cut off to David from the throne of Israel (‫ ישראל‬+ ‫ *על כסא‬+ ‫ לא יכרת ל* איש‬+ ‫אמר‬: 1 Kgs 2:4) was borrowed from Jer 33:17. The subsequent idea of David and Solomon being kings over Israel (1 Kgs 2:11–​12) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel being a people (Deut 14:2c). The subsequent idea of Adonijah wanting to have the king’s personal female servant Abishag (cf. 1 Kgs 1:2–​4),7 thus provoking Solomon’s vengeance (1 Kgs 2:13–​46), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh’s personal property (Deut 14:2c).

3.2. 1 Kgs 3–​4 (cf. Deut 14:2d–​29) The section 1 Kgs 3–​4 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 14:2d–​29. The opening idea of Solomon marrying an anonymous8 daughter of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and taking her to the City of David (1 Kgs 3:1) illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of Israel being above all the peoples who are on the face of the earth (Deut 14:2d). The subsequent idea of the people and Solomon slaughtering animals for sacrifices at the high places (1 Kgs 3:2–​4) negatively illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel not eating anything abhorrent (Deut 14:3). The subsequent idea of Yahweh giving Solomon a heart discerning between good and evil (1 Kgs 3:5–​14) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses telling the Israelites which animals they are allowed to eat (Deut 14:4ab). According to this hypertextual connection, understanding the abstract Israelite dietary regulations (Deut 14:4ab) requires particular wisdom obtained through

7 Cf. J. Willis, A. Pleffer, and S. Llewelyn, ‘Conversation,’ 136. 8 Cf. T. Davidovich, ‘Emphasizing the Daughter of Pharaoh,’ SJOT 24 (2010) 71–​84 (esp. 71); Y. H. Jeon, ‘The Retroactive Re-​Evaluation Technique with Pharaoh’s Daughter and the Nature of Solomon’s Corruption in 1 Kings 1–​12,’ TynBul 62 (2011) 15–​40 (esp. 38).

118

First Kings as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 13:7–​27:25

a supernatural dream (1 Kgs 3:5–​14). This fact can be regarded as revealing a particular sense of humour of the author of Samuel–​Kings. The subsequent idea of Solomon offering peace offerings and making a feast of for all his servants (1 Kgs 3:15) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites eating ritually clean animals (Deut 14:4b–​5). The subsequent idea of (a) two (*‫ )שתי‬women (1 Kgs 3:16a) (b) who were prostitutes living together (1 Kgs 3:16–​18) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the animals which have two hooves separated for each other being clean, but (b) those which have hooves not separated from each other being unclean (Deut 14:6–​20; esp. 14:6–​7). The subsequent idea of a woman having a child who died because she lay on him (1 Kgs 3:19–​23) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite not eating any corpse (Deut 14:21a). The subsequent idea of the king commanding to give (‫ )נתן‬a half of the killed child to (*‫ )ל‬the presumably unrelated woman (1 Kgs 3:24–​25; esp. 3:25) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses commanding to give the corpse to an alien, who will eat it, or to sell it to a foreigner (Deut 14:21b–​d). The subsequent idea of the real mother being filled with compassion for her son (1 Kgs 3:26) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel being a holy people to Yahweh (Deut 14:21e). The subsequent idea of (a) Solomon commanding to give the living child to the crying woman, and not (‫ )לא‬to kill him, because (b) she, the suffering woman, is (c) his mother (‫אמו‬: 1 Kgs 3:27–​28; esp. 3:27)9 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses commanding not to boil a kid (b) in the milk of (c) his mother (Deut 14:21f). The subsequent idea of the king and his priestly, administrative, and other officials, including two-​and-​ten (‫ )עשר‬governors, being over all Israel (1 Kgs 4:1–​7a; esp. 4:7a) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel paying a tenth (Deut 14:22a). The subsequent idea of sustaining the king and his house with food (1 Kgs 4:7b) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of tithing all the produce of the seed, inasmuch as it comes from the field (Deut 14:22b).

9 Cf. P. R. House, 1, 2 Kings (NAC 8; Broadman & Holman: Nashville, TN 1995), 113; S. J. De Vries, 1 Kings (2nd edn., WBC 12; Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI 2004), 60.

1 Kgs 5–7 (cf. Deut 15:1–16:12)

119

The subsequent idea of a month in the year (‫ )שנה‬being for each one for the contribution (1 Kgs 4:7c) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of paying the tithe year by year (Deut 14:22b). The particular motif of the villages of Jair son of Manasseh being in Gilead, and the region of Argob being in Bashan, sixty cities with walls and bars (‫חות‬ ‫ ובריח‬+ ‫ חומה‬+ ‫ ערים‬+ ‫ ששים‬+ ‫ בשן‬+ ‫ חבל ארגב‬+ ‫ גלעד‬+ ‫ בן מנשה‬+ ‫יאיר‬: 1 Kgs 4:13), was borrowed from Deut 3:4–​5.13–​14. Likewise, the motif of the land of Sihon king of the Amorites and of Og king of Bashan (‫ עג מלך‬+ ‫ סיחון מלך האמרי‬+ ‫ארץ‬ ‫הבשן‬: 1 Kgs 4:19) was borrowed from Num 32:33 etc. The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 1 Kgs 4:7b) idea of sustaining the court, presumably in Jerusalem (1 Kgs 4:7d), illustrates the subsequent, likewise partly repeated (cf. Deut 14:22b) Deuteronomic idea of eating the tithe before Yahweh, in the place which he chooses to make his name dwell there (Deut 14:23a–​c). The subsequent idea of (a) the contributing governors being in various regions of Israel (1 Kgs 4:8–​19a),10 and (b) there being one overseer in the land (1 Kgs 4:8–​19; esp. 4:19b) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the national tithe consisting of various goods: grain, new wine, oil, herds, and flocks, so that (b) Israel might learn to fear Yahweh his God always (Deut 14:23d–​f). The subsequent idea of (a) Judah and Israel being as numerous (‫( )רב‬b) as the sand by the sea in multitude (‫רב‬: 1 Kgs 4:20ab) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the way to the place which Yahweh chooses being long (‫ )רבה‬because (b) Yahweh will bless Israel (Deut 14:24). The concluding idea of Judah and Israel (a) eating (‫)אכל‬, drinking, (b) and rejoicing (*‫ושמח‬: 1 Kgs 4:20c–​e) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel buying various kinds of food in the place which Yahweh chooses, eating before Yahweh, (b) and rejoicing (Deut 14:25–​29; esp. 14:26).

3.3. 1 Kgs 5–​7 (cf. Deut 15:1–​16:12) The section 1 Kgs 5–​7 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 15:1–​16:12. 10 Cf. É. Nodet, ‘Édom, c’est l’Idumée! Le rejet littéraire d’Édom hors de Juda,’ RB 126 (2019) 161–​206 (esp. 192); A. Tobolowsky, ‘Othniel, David, Solomon: Additional Evidence of the Late Development of Normative Tribal Concepts in the South,’ ZAW 131 (2019) 207–​219 (esp. 216).

120

First Kings as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 13:7–​27:25

The opening, idealised idea of (a) Solomon ruling (‫( )משל‬b) over (*‫( )ב‬c) all the kingdoms from the Euphrates to the border of Egypt, who (d) brought tribute and served Solomon (1 Kgs 5:1),11 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening, likewise idealised Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel ruling (b) over (c) many nations, who (d) will not rule over Israel (Deut 15:1–​6; esp. 15:6). The subsequent idea of (a) there being (‫( )היה‬b) Solomon’s food for one day (‫אחד‬: 1 Kgs 5:2) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) there being (b) one of the Israelite’s brothers living in one of Israel’s gates (Deut 15:7ab). The subsequent idea of thirty cors of fine flour (1 Kgs 5:2) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of a rich Israelite not hardening his heart but generously giving to his brother (Deut 15:7c–​11). The subsequent idea of the double amount of sixty (*‫ )שש‬cors of ordinary flour (1 Kgs 5:2) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of a Hebrew slave serving six years, and this being worth double wages of a hired labourer (Deut 15:12–​18; esp. 15:12.18). The subsequent idea of giving to Solomon (a) ten fatted animals of a herd (‫)בקר‬, twenty pasture animals of a herd (‫)בקר‬, and (b) one hundred animals of a flock (‫צאן‬: 1 Kgs 5:3) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) every firstborn male from the herd and (b) from the flock being consecrated to Yahweh (Deut 15:19–​20; esp. 15:19). The subsequent idea of (a) Solomon also eating animals from deer (‫ )איל‬and (b) gazelles (‫צבי‬: 1 Kgs 5:3) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (b) eating a blemished animal like a gazelle or (a) like a deer (Deut 15:21–​22; esp. 15:22). The particular motif of the Israelite eating deer, gazelle, and roebuck (‫*איל וצבי ויחמור‬: 1 Kgs 5:3) was borrowed from Deut 14:5. The subsequent idea of Solomon (a) ruling beyond the river (b) from Tiphsah (‫ )*פסח‬over all the kings crossing over the river, (c) peace being to (*‫ )ל‬him from all the crossing over ones around him (1 Kgs 5:4), (d) giving confidence to Judah and Israel from Dan to Beer-​sheba, but also (e) having the incredible number of forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots and (f) the symbolic number of twelve thousand horsemen (1 Kgs 5:4–​6; esp. 5:6) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the

11 Cf. S. J. De Vries, 1 Kings, 72.

1 Kgs 5–7 (cf. Deut 15:1–16:12)

121

Israelite (a) pouring out blood like water on the ground (Deut 15:23) and (b) making the ‘passing over’ Pesach (‫( )*פסח‬c) to (d) Yahweh (e) the God of (f) him, that is, Israel (Deut 15:23–​16:1b; esp. 16:1ab). The subsequent idea of supplying the king, everyone in his month (‫חדש‬: 1 Kgs 5:7), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of being in the month (Deut 16:1c). The subsequent idea of barley and straw for the horses (1 Kgs 5:8a) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Abib, that is, ‘ears of grain’ (Deut 16:1c). The subsequent idea of bringing (1 Kgs 5:8a) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of bringing Israel out of Egypt (Deut 16:1c). The subsequent idea of (a) the place which will (*‫ )*מקום אשר י‬be (b) there (‫שם‬: 1 Kgs 5:8b) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) sacrificing the Passover in the place which Yahweh will choose (b) to make his name dwell there (Deut 16:2). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 1 Kgs 3:9–​12)12 idea of God giving Solomon very great wisdom and discernment (1 Kgs 5:9) illustrates the subsequent, likewise partly repeated (cf. Deut 14:4b) Deuteronomic idea of Moses telling Israel what bread he is allowed to eat (Deut 16:3ab). The subsequent idea of (a) Solomon’s wisdom being greater from (‫ )מן‬the wisdom of all the men of the east and from (‫ )מן‬all the wisdom of (b) Egypt (‫מצרים‬: 1 Kgs 5:10–​11; esp. 5:10) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel in haste coming out from the land of (b) Egypt (Deut 16:3c). The subsequent idea of Solomon uttering many proverbs and songs (1 Kgs 5:12) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel remembering (Deut 16:3d). The subsequent idea of Solomon speaking of the hyssop which comes out (‫ )יצא‬in the wall (1 Kgs 5:13) with the use of the motif of hyssop (‫ )אזוב‬being related to the Israelites’ doors during their exodus from Egypt (Exod 12:22) and to killing the foreigners from the socially highest one to the socially lowest prisoner and to the animals (‫בהמה‬: Exod 12:29) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel coming out (Deut 16:3e). The subsequent idea of (a) the coming of those from (‫ )מן‬all the peoples and from (‫ )מן‬all the kings of (b) the land (‫ארץ‬: 1 Kgs 5:14) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) coming from (b) the land (Deut 16:3e).

12 Cf. S. J. De Vries, 1 Kings, 73–​74.

122

First Kings as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 13:7–​27:25

The subsequent idea of the king (*‫ )מ‬of Tyre (‫צור‬: 1 Kgs 5:15a–​c; diff. 5:20: Sidonians) conceptually and partly linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Egypt (‫מצרים‬: Deut 16:3e). The subsequent idea of Hiram being a friend of David all the days (*‫)כל *ימי‬, presumably of David’s life (1 Kgs 5:15d), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of all the days of the Israelite’s life (Deut 16:3e). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of Hiram knowing David (1 Kgs 5:16–​17a; diff. 2 Sam 5:11; 24:7; 1 Kgs 5:15: through messengers)13 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of everyone seeing that there is no leaven in all the territory of Israel (Deut 16:4). The subsequent idea of (a) David not being permitted to (*‫)לא *כל ל‬14 (b) build a temple for the name of Yahweh (1 Kgs 5:17bc) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel not being permitted to (b) sacrifice the Passover (Deut 16:5ab). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of the ritually unclean situation of (a) the war (sing.) (b) which surrounded (plur.)15 (c) David (1 Kgs 5:17d) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the ritually unclean realm of (a) one (sing.) of (b) the gates (plur.), presumably surrounding Israel in the time of war, of (c) him, that is, Israel (Deut 16:5b). The subsequent idea of (a’) the giving (‫ )נתן‬by (b’) Yahweh (1 Kgs 5:17e), and of the (a) giving rest (b) by Yahweh the God of (*‫ )יהוה אלהי‬Solomon (c) to him (*‫ל‬: 1 Kgs 5:17e–​18; esp. 5:18) conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (b) Yahweh, the God of Israel, (a) giving (c) to him (Deut 16:5c). The subsequent idea of (a) Solomon resolving to build a house, (b) just as (‫( )*אשר‬d) Yahweh the God of (*‫ )יהוה אל‬David, his father, (c) spoke that (e) his son will build a house for (f) Yahweh’s name (*‫שמ‬: 1 Kgs 5:19) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) going to the place (b) which (‫( )אשר‬d) Yahweh the God of him, that is, Israel (c) chooses (e) to make dwell (f) his name there (Deut 16:6ab).

1 3 Cf. S. J. De Vries, 1 Kings, 81. 14 Cf. G. Goswell, ‘Why did God say no to David? (2 Samuel 7),’ JSOT 43.4 (2019) 556–​570 (esp. 568). 15 Cf. S. J. De Vries, 1 Kings, 81.

1 Kgs 5–7 (cf. Deut 15:1–16:12)

123

The subsequent idea of (a) servants cutting wood for Solomon (b) from (‫)מן‬ Lebanon (1 Kgs 5:20ab) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel offering a Passover sacrifice at the time of Israel’s going out (b) from Egypt (Deut 16:6c–​8). The subsequent idea of Solomon’s and Hiram’s servants being together (1 Kgs 5:20c) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the time of harvest (Deut 16:9). The subsequent idea of (a) the wages of the servants (b) Solomon giving (‫ )נתן‬to Hiram, (c) as much (*‫( )כ‬d) as (‫( )אשר‬e) he might say for his extraordinary work (1 Kgs 5:20d–​i), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel making the festival of weeks with a freewill offering of his hand, (b) giving (c) just (*‫( )כ‬d) as (‫( )*אשר‬e) Yahweh God blesses him (Deut 16:10). The subsequent idea of (a) Hiram rejoicing (‫ )שמח‬and (b) blessing Yahweh (‫)יהוה‬, who (c) gave to David (d) a son (‫ )בן‬over (e) this great people (1 Kgs 5:21), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite rejoicing (b) before Yahweh, (c) he, (d) his son, and (e) his daughter (Deut 16:11a). The subsequent idea of (a) Hiram’s servants (‫ )עבד‬descending, and (b) Hiram setting them as rafts driven away (c) in (*‫ )ב‬the sea (1 Kgs 5:22–​23b; esp. 5:23ab) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite’s servants of descending social status, and (b) a resident alien (c) in Israel (Deut 16:11a–​c). The subsequent idea of (a) Hiram sending wood to the place which (‫*מקום‬ ‫( )אשר‬b) Solomon indicates, and (c) breaking up the rafts (d) there (‫שם‬: 1 Kgs 5:23cd) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the place which (b) Yahweh chooses (c) to make his name dwell (d) there (Deut 16:11de). The subsequent idea of Solomon responding to Hiram’s generosity, being wise, and entering into a covenant with Hiram (1 Kgs 5:23d–​26) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite remembering (Deut 16:12a). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites doing forced labour, like in Egypt (cf. Exod 1:11: ‫)מס‬,16 (b) in (*‫ )ב‬Lebanon (1 Kgs 5:27–​28c) conceptually and 16 Pace C. Berner, ‘The Egyptian Bondage and Solomon’s Forced Labor: Literary Connections between Exodus 1–​15 and 1 Kings 1–​12?,’ in T. B. Dozeman, T. Römer, and K. Schmid (eds.), Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings (AIL 8; Society of Biblical Literature: Atlanta 2011), 211–​240 (esp. 227), who argues that there is no intentional connection between these texts.

124

First Kings as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 13:7–​27:25

linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel being a slave (b) in Egypt (Deut 16:12b). The subsequent idea of the king and his officials overseeing, ruling, and commanding people in their work (1 Kgs 5:28d–​32) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite watching over, presumably others (Deut 16:12c). The subsequent idea of Solomon doing (‫עשה‬: 1 Kgs 6:4 etc.) the construction of the house of Yahweh and his house, but also all the utensils of the house of Yahweh, thus walking in Yahweh’s statutes (*‫חק‬: 1 Kgs 6–​7; esp. 16:12), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite doing these statutes (Deut 16:12d). The particular motif of the porch being twenty cubits long (‫ עשרים אמה‬+ ‫האולם‬ ‫ ארך‬+: 1 Kgs 6:3) was borrowed from Ezek 40:49. Likewise, the motif of closed windows (*‫ אטמ‬+ *‫חלונ‬: 1 Kgs 6:4) was borrowed from Ezek 40:16 etc. Similarly, the motif of side chambers, the lowest story, and the middle story (‫ צלעות‬+ ‫ *תיכנה‬+ ‫התחתנה‬: 1 Kgs 6:5–​6) was borrowed from Ezek 41:6–​9.26. The motif of the temple being built with untouched stones, with no use of iron tool (+ ‫אבן‬ ‫ ברזל‬+ ‫שלם‬: 1 Kgs 6:7), was borrowed from Deut 27:5–​6. The motif of Yahweh dwelling in the midst of the sons of Israel (‫ושכנתי בתוך בני ישראל‬: 1 Kgs 6:13) was borrowed from Exod 29:45.17 The motif of overlaying the sanctuary and the cherubim with gold (‫ זהב‬+ ‫צפה‬: 1 Kgs 6:20–​22.28.30.32.35) was borrowed from Exod 36:34 etc. The motif of the cherubim stretching out the wings (‫ פרש‬+ ‫ הכרובים‬+ *‫כנפי‬: 1 Kgs 6:27) was borrowed from Exod 25:20; 37:9. The motif of carving palm trees inside and outside (‫ *פנימ* ו*חיצון‬+ *‫תמר‬: 1 Kgs 6:29) was borrowed from Ezek 41:17–​18. The motif of an inner court (*‫החצר הפנימי‬: 1 Kgs 6:36) was borrowed from Ezek 40:19 etc. The motif of the House of the Forest (‫בית *יער‬: 1 Kgs 7:2) was borrowed from Isa 22:8. The motif of a porch with a canopy on the front (‫ *ל־‬+ ‫ ועב‬+ ‫אולם‬ *‫פני‬: 1 Kgs 7:6) was borrowed from Ezek 41:25. The motif of an artisan, son of another artisan, from an Israelite tribe, being filled with wisdom, understanding, and knowledge to do all the craftsmanship in bronze (‫ חכמה‬+ ‫ ו*מלא‬+ ‫ מטה‬+ ‫ בן‬+ ‫ בנחשת‬+ ‫ כל־מלאכה‬+ ‫ דעת‬+ ‫תבונה‬: 1 Kgs 7:14) was borrowed from Exod 31:2–​4. The motif of King Solomon making two pillars of bronze, eighteen cubits being the height of one pillar, the cord of twelve cubits surrounding it, and capitals of bronze being on them, five cubits being the height of a capital, the same

17 Cf. M. Cogan, I Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 10; Doubleday: New York 2001), 241.

1 Kgs 8–9 (cf. Deut 16:13–16)

125

being with the second one, latticework and pomegranates being on it, the same being with the second one, the lattice work being ornamented with hundreds of pomegranates all around, a sea, twelve oxen under it, its thickness being a handbreadth, and making stands (‫ שמנה עשרה אמה קומת העמוד‬+ ‫ נחשת‬+ ‫ העמודים‬+ *‫שני‬ + ‫ הקתרת‬+ ‫ קומת‬+ ‫ חמש אמות‬+ ‫ נחשת‬+ *‫ על‬+ ‫ קתרת‬+ *‫האחד וחוט שתים־עשרה אמה יסב‬ + ‫ שני* עשר‬+ ‫ הים‬+ ‫ סביב‬+ ‫ מאה‬+ ‫ הרמונים‬+ ‫ השבכה‬+ *‫ השני‬+ ‫ רמנים‬+ ‫ שבכה‬+ *‫השני‬ ‫ המכנות‬+ ‫ עשה‬+ ‫ ועביו‬+ ‫בקר‬: 1 Kgs 7:15–​18.20.23.25–​28) can also be found in Jer 52:20–​23. The motif of a lion, cherubim, and four wheels (*‫ ארבעה אופני‬+ *‫ כרוב‬+ *‫ארי‬: 1 Kgs 7:29–​30) was borrowed from Ezek 10:9.14. The motif of a basin (‫כיר‬: 1 Kgs 7:30) was borrowed from Exod 30:18 etc. The motif of pots, shovels, and craters (‫ ואת־המזרקות‬+ ‫את־ה*רות ואת־היעים‬: 1 Kgs 7:40) can also be found in Jer 52:18. Likewise, the motif of not ascertaining the weight of bronze which Solomon used (*‫ משקל *נחשת‬+ ‫ לא‬+ ‫שלמה‬: 1 Kgs 7:47) can also be found in Jer 52:20. The motif of all the utensils, an altar of gold, a table with the bread of the presence on it, the lampstands, and lamps (+ ‫ לחם הפנים‬+ ‫ את־השלחן‬+ ‫ את מזבח הזהב‬+ *‫את כל־*כלי‬ ‫ נרת‬+ ‫את־המנרות‬: 1 Kgs 7:48–​49) was borrowed from Exod 39:36–​38. The motif of making snuffers of gold (‫ זהב‬+ ‫מלקחים‬: 1 Kgs 7:49) was borrowed from Exod 37:23. The motif of the bowls and the firepans of gold (‫ זהב‬+ ‫ המחתות‬+ *‫הספ‬: 1 Kgs 7:50) can also be found in Jer 52:19.

3.4. 1 Kgs 8–​9 (cf. Deut 16:13–​16) The section 1 Kgs 8–​9 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 16:13–​16. The opening idea of (a) Solomon assembling all the men of Israel in Jerusalem at the festival (‫ )חג‬in the seventh month (1 Kgs 8:2), and (b) the priests taking the ark (1 Kgs 8:1–​4; esp. 8:3–​4) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel keeping the festival of booths and (b) gathering (Deut 16:13). The subsequent idea of all the congregation of Israel slaughtering flocks and herds which could not be counted or numbered for multitude (1 Kgs 8:5) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel rejoicing (Deut 16:14a). The particular motif of all the congregation of Israel (‫כל־עדת ישראל‬: 1 Kgs 8:5) was borrowed from Exod 12:3 etc. The subsequent idea of (a) placing the ark in the temple (1 Kgs 8:6–​13), and (b) Solomon blessing all the assembly of Israel (1 Kgs 8:6–​14; esp. 8:14) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the festival of (b) Israel (Deut 16:14a).

126

First Kings as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 13:7–​27:25

The particular motif of two tablets of stone being in the ark (‫ שני לחות‬+ ‫בארון‬ ‫*אבנים‬: 1 Kgs 8:9) was borrowed from Deut 10:1–​2. The motif of the cloud filling the house of Yahweh (‫ בית‬+ ‫ מלא‬+ ‫הענן‬: 1 Kgs 8:10) was borrowed from Ezek 10:4. The motif of the glory of Yahweh filling the house of Yahweh (‫מלא כבוד־יהוה את־‬ ‫בית יהוה‬: 1 Kgs 8:10) was borrowed from Ezek 44:4. The motif of Yahweh dwelling in thick darkness (‫ערפל‬: 1 Kgs 8:12) was borrowed from Deut 5:22. The motif of the established place for Yahweh’s dwelling forever (‫ עולם‬+ ‫מכון לשבתך‬: 1 Kgs 8:13) was borrowed from Exod 15:17–​18. The subsequent idea of Yahweh speaking to David (1 Kgs 8:15–​18) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite himself, presumably of the older generation (Deut 16:14a). The subsequent idea of David’s son (‫בנך‬: 1 Kgs 8:19–​21; esp. 8:19) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite’s son (Deut 16:14a). The subsequent idea of Yahweh’s servant (‫עבדך‬: 1 Kgs 8:22–​30; esp. 8:23–​26.28–​ 30) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite’s servant (Deut 16:14a). The particular motif there being no other god in heaven above and on earth below (‫ בשמים ממעל ועל־הארץ‬+ ‫ אלהים‬+ ‫אין‬ ‫מתחת‬: 1 Kgs 8:23) was borrowed from Deut 4:39. The motif of directing attention to the place which Yahweh indicated to have his name there (‫ יהוה‬+ ‫אל־המקום אשר‬ ‫ שמ* שם‬+: 1 Kgs 8:29) was borrowed from Deut 12:5; 16:6; 26:2. The subsequent idea of judging the Israelites (1 Kgs 8:31–​32), praying that Yahweh might forgive Israel’s sin (1 Kgs 8:33–​36b), teaching good ways similarly to the Torah (‫ירה‬: 1 Kgs 8:36c–​f ), praying for Yahweh’s compassion and forgiveness (1 Kgs 8:37–​39), and teaching the Israelites to fear Yahweh (1 Kgs 8:31–​40; esp. 8:40) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Levite, presumably in his tasks (Deut 16:14a). The particular motif of judging, pronouncing wicked the wicked one, and pronouncing righteous the righteous one (‫ *הצדיק* *צדק‬+ ‫ *הרשיע* *רשע‬+ *‫ושפט‬: 1 Kgs 8:32) was borrowed from Deut 25:1. The motif of the heaven being shut up, and there being no rain (‫ שמים ולא־יהיה מטר‬+ ‫עצר‬: 1 Kgs 8:35) was borrowed from Deut 11:17. The motif of there being famine, plague, blight, mildew, and locust (‫ רעב‬+ ‫ ארבה‬+ ‫ ירקון‬+ ‫ שדפון‬+ ‫דבר‬: 1 Kgs 8:37) was borrowed from Deut 28:21–​22.38.48. The subsequent idea of a non-​Israelite foreigner coming to Israel from a distant land (1 Kgs 8:41–​43)18 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of a resident alien (Deut 16:14b).

18 Cf. P. R. House, 1, 2 Kings, 146.

1 Kgs 8–9 (cf. Deut 16:13–16)

127

The subsequent idea of the defeated, taken captive, and exiled Israelites making supplications (1 Kgs 8:44–​53) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of an orphan and a widow (Deut 16:14b). The particular motif of Yahweh bringing Israel out of Egypt, from the iron furnace (‫ מ*מצרים מ*כור הברזל‬+ *‫הוצא‬: 1 Kgs 8:51), was borrowed from Jer 11:4. The motif of Yahweh having spoken by Moses (‫ ביד משה‬+ *‫כאשר דבר‬: 1 Kgs 8:53) was borrowed from Exod 9:35; Num 17:5; 27:23. The subsequent idea of Yahweh giving rest to Israel and fulfilling the words of his good promise to him (1 Kgs 8:54–​61), but also Solomon consecrating the middle of the courtyard (1 Kgs 8:54–​64; esp. 8:62–​64)19 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel’s gates (Deut 16:14b). The particular motif of Yahweh giving rest to Israel according to all that he promised, so that not a word failed of all the good word which he spoke (‫ לא־נפל‬+ ‫ ככל אשר‬+ *‫ ל‬+ ‫ *נוח‬+ ‫יהוה‬ ‫ מכל דבר* הטוב אשר דבר‬+ ‫דבר‬: 1 Kgs 8:56), was borrowed from Josh 21:44–​45. The motif of knowing that Yahweh is God, and there is no other (‫ כי יהוה הוא‬+ ‫ל*דעת‬ ‫האלהים אין עוד‬: 1 Kgs 8:60) was borrowed from Deut 4:35. The subsequent idea of (a) Solomon at that time (b) holding a festival (‫)*חג‬ with all Israel (c) before Yahweh their God (*‫( )יהוה אלהי‬a’) seven days (‫שבעת‬ ‫ )ימים‬and seven days (‫)שבעת ימים‬, that is, fourteen days (‫יום‬: 1 Kgs 8:65) conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) seven days (b) Israel celebrating a festival (‫( )*חג‬c) to Yahweh his God in the place which Yahweh chooses (Deut 16:15ab). The particular motif of the territory of Israel extending from the entrance of Hamath to the Wadi of Egypt (‫ נחל* מצרים‬+ ‫לבוא חמת‬: 1 Kgs 8:65) was borrowed from Num 34:5.8. The subsequent idea of (a) the people blessing (*‫ )*יברכ‬the king and (b) going to their tents (1 Kgs 8:66a–​c) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh blessing Israel (b) in all his produce and in all the work of his hands (Deut 16:15c). The subsequent idea of the Israelites rejoicing (‫ )שמח‬and being glad of heart (1 Kgs 8:66cd) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel surely rejoicing (Deut 16:15d). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 1 Kgs 3:14)20 idea of (a) Yahweh appearing to Solomon for a second time, now in the temple (1 Kgs 9:1–​9; esp. 9:2–​3), at the

1 9 Cf. M. Noth, Könige, vol. 1, 191; P. R. House, 1, 2 Kings, 150. 20 Cf. B. O. Long, 1 Kings (FOTL 9; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI 1984), 108–​109.

128

First Kings as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 13:7–​27:25

end of a certain period of time Solomon acting (1 Kgs 9:10–​14), Solomon not leading the Israelites out as forced slave labour (1 Kgs 9:15–​21; diff. 5:27)21 but making them to ‘third soldiers’ (*‫שלש‬: 1 Kgs 9:22–​24; esp. 9:22),22 three times a year (‫ )שלש פעמים בשנה‬offering (b) burnt offerings and (c) peace offerings (d) on the altar (e) which (‫( )אשר‬f) he built for Yahweh, but also (g) causing smoke to cover (h) the object before the face of Yahweh (‫ *פני יהוה‬+ *‫את‬: 1 Kgs 9:1–​ 25; esp. 9:25) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) three times a year (b) every male Israelite seeing (c) the face of Yahweh (d) in the place (e) which (f) he chooses, and (g) not seeing (h) the face of Yahweh (Deut 16:16a–​d). The particular motif of Yahweh placing his name there, that is, in the sanctuary (‫לשום שמ* שם‬: 1 Kgs 9:3) was borrowed from Deut 12:21; 14:24. The motif of Israel becoming a proverb and a byword among all peoples (‫ למשל ולשנינה‬+ *‫והי‬ ‫בכל־העמים‬: 1 Kgs 9:7) was borrowed from Deut 28:37. The motif of everyone passing by the Jerusalem temple being appalled and hissing (‫כל עבר עלי* ישם‬ ‫ו*שרק‬: 1 Kgs 9:8) was borrowed from Jer 19:8. The motif of people saying, ‘Why has Yahweh done thus to this land?,’ and answering, ‘Because they abandoned Yahweh their God, who brought them out of the land of Egypt’ (‫ על־מה‬+ ‫ואמרו‬ ‫עשה יהוה ככה לארץ הזאת ואמרו על אשר עזבו את־* יהוה אלהי* *ם אשר הוציא* את*ם מארץ‬ ‫מצרים‬: 1 Kgs 9:8–​9) was borrowed from Deut 29:23–​24. The motif of the king building storage cities (‫ בנה‬+ ‫ערי *מסכנות‬: 1 Kgs 9:19) was borrowed from Exod 1:11.23 The subsequent idea of King Solomon making ships, and his servants bringing great amounts of gold to him (1 Kgs 9:26–​28)24 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of not coming to Yahweh empty-​handed (Deut 16:16d). The particular motif of the gold of Ophir (‫אופיר‬: 1 Kgs 9:28) could have been borrowed from Job 28:16.

3.5. 1 Kgs 10–​11 (cf. Deut 16:17–​17:20) The section 1 Kgs 10–​11 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 16:17–​17:20.

21 Cf. M. Noth, Könige, vol. 1, 218; W. J. Houston, ‘Corvée in the Kingdom of Israel: Israelites, “Canaanites”, and Cultural Memory,’ JSOT 43.1 (2018) 29–​44 (esp. 35–​36). 22 Cf. M. Noth, Könige, vol. 1, 217. 23 Cf. C. Berner, ‘Egyptian Bondage,’ 238. 24 Cf. M. Noth, Könige, vol. 1, 222.

1 Kgs 10–11 (cf. Deut 16:17–17:20)

129

The opening idea of (a) the queen of Sheba testing the fame of Solomon with riddles, but also (b) giving gifts (1 Kgs 10:1–​3) sequentially illustrates the opening, somewhat enigmatic Deuteronomic idea of (a) a man being (b) as the gift of his hand (Deut 16:17a). The particular motif of a royal character coming to Jerusalem from Sheba with retinue, camels, and gold (‫ גמלים‬+ ‫ חיל‬+ ‫ שבא‬+ *‫מלכ‬ ‫ זהב‬+: 1 Kgs 10:1–​2) was borrowed from Isa 60:3.5–​6. The subsequent idea of (a) the queen of Sheba seeing Solomon’s wisdom and achievements (1 Kgs 10:4–​8) and saying that Yahweh his God (‫ )יהוה אלהיך‬should be (b) blessed (‫)ברך‬, (c) who (‫( )אשר‬d) delighted in him (‫*ך‬: 1 Kgs 10:4–​9b; esp. 10:9ab), conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (b) the blessing (‫ )ברכה‬of (a) Yahweh his, that is, the Israelite’s God (c) which (‫( )אשר‬d) he gave him (Deut 16:17b). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh setting him (‫)*תתך‬, that is, Solomon (b) on the throne of Israel (c) because of Yahweh’s (‫ )יהוה‬love for Israel forever, and (d) making him king to do (e) judgement (‫ )משפט‬and (f) justice (*‫צדק‬: 1 Kgs 10:9c–​f)25 conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (b) judges and officials (a) Israel setting himself (‫( )תת*ך‬c) in all his gates which Yahweh gives him for his tribes, (d) who will judge the people with (e) judgement which is (f) just (Deut 16:18). The subsequent idea of the queen of Sheba giving Solomon very many gifts (1 Kgs 10:10), Hiram’s (diff. 1 Kgs 9:26: Solomon’s) fleet bringing Solomon very many goods (1 Kgs 10:11–​12), Solomon giving the queen of Sheba all that she desired (1 Kgs 10:13), Solomon receiving much gold (1 Kgs 10:14–​15), making numerous objects of gold (1 Kgs 10:16–​21), and the king’s fleet with Hiram’s fleet bringing many goods to the king (1 Kgs 10:10–​22; esp. 10:22) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite not taking a bribe (Deut 16:19). The subsequent idea of Solomon in his wealth and wisdom being greater than all the kings of the land (‫הארץ‬: 1 Kgs 10:23), and all the land (‫ )הארץ‬seeking Solomon (1 Kgs 10:23–​24a; esp. 10:24a), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite following justice and thus taking possession of the land (Deut 16:20a–​c). The subsequent idea of the wisdom which (b) God (‫( )אלהים‬a) gave (‫ )נתן‬in Solomon’s heart (1 Kgs 10:24bc), (a’) people bringing sevenfold and twelvefold gifts to Solomon (1 Kgs 10:25–​26),26 and (b’) the king (a”) giving (‫ )נתן‬silver 25 Cf. W. J. Houston, ‘Doing Justice: The Ideology, Theology and Distribution in the Hebrew Bible of ‫משׁפט וצדקה‬,’ ZABR 22 (2016) 75–​99 (esp. 80). 26 Cf. J. A. Davies, ‘Heptadic Verbal Patterns in the Solomon Narrative of 1 Kings 1–​11,’ TynBul 63 (2012) 21–​34 (esp. 25).

130

First Kings as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 13:7–​27:25

in Jerusalem (1 Kgs 10:24b–​27; esp. 10:27) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the giving of (b) Yahweh God (Deut 16:20d). The subsequent idea of importing horses to (*‫ )ל‬Solomon, to (*‫ )ל‬all the kings of the Hittites, and to (*‫ )ל‬the kings of Syria (1 Kgs 10:28–​29) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of giving to the Israelite (Deut 16:20d). The subsequent idea of Solomon loving foreign women, who turned away his heart to their gods (1 Kgs 11:1–​4b), negatively illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite not planting for himself any Asherah (Deut 16:21a). The particular motif of the king having numerous wives, who turned away his heart (*‫ לבב‬+ ‫ לו נשים‬+ *‫רב‬: 1 Kgs 11:1–​4), was borrowed from Deut 17:1727 and conflated with Deut 7:3–​4 (‫ אלהי*ם‬+ ‫ *אחרי‬+ ‫ ב*ם‬+ ‫ לא‬+ ‫)בן‬.28 The subsequent idea of Solomon’s heart not being whole with Yahweh his God (*‫יהוה אלהי‬: 1 Kgs 11:4cd) conceptually and linguistically, in a negative way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite not planting any Asherah beside the altar of Yahweh his God (Deut 16:21ab). The subsequent idea of (a) Solomon going after Ashtoreth (fem.)29 and (b) after the detestable thing of the Ammonites (1 Kgs 11:5) sequentially, in a negative way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite not setting up an upright stone (fem.) and (b) not offering any blemished sacrifice, which is an abomination to Yahweh (Deut 16:22–​17:1). The subsequent idea of (a) Solomon doing (‫( )עשה‬b) evil in the sight of Yahweh (‫הרע בעיני יהוה‬: 1 Kgs 11:6a) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) someone in Israel doing (b) evil in the sight of Yahweh (Deut 17:2a–​c). The subsequent idea of (a) Solomon not fully following Yahweh (1 Kgs 11:6bc), building a high place for the gods from the other side of the Jordan and from other foreign countries, so that Yahweh was angry with him because his heart turned away from (1 Kgs 11:7–​9b) (b) Yahweh, the God of Israel, who appeared to him twice and commanded him (1 Kgs 11:6b–​10a; esp. 11:9b–​10a), 27 Cf. J. E. Harvey, Retelling the Torah: The Deuteronomistic Historian’s Use of Tetrateuchal Narratives (JSOTSup 403; T&T Clark: London · New York 2004), 53, 74–​75. Pace T. Römer, ‘La loi du roi en Deutéronome 17 et ses fonctions,’ in O. Artus (ed.), Loi et Justice dans la Littérature du Proche-​Orient ancien (BZABR 20; Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden 2013), 99–​111 (esp. 106–​107), who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 28 Cf. T. Römer, ‘La loi du roi,’ 107. 29 Cf. M. Noth, Könige, vol. 1, 248; P. R. House, 1, 2 Kings, 168.

1 Kgs 10–11 (cf. Deut 16:17–17:20)

131

sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) an Israelite transgressing (b) the covenant of Yahweh (Deut 17:2d). The subsequent idea of (a) Solomon going (‫( )הלך‬b) after (c) other gods (‫אלהים‬ ‫( )אחרים‬d) and not keeping what (‫( )אשר‬e) Yahweh commanded (‫צוה‬: 1 Kgs 11:10b–​d) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) an Israelite going, (b) serving (c) other gods, and (d) worshipping them, what Yahweh did not (e) command (Deut 17:3). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh saying to (*‫ )ל‬Solomon that (b) truly there was this (‫ )זאת‬thing with Solomon, that he did not keep Yahweh’s covenant (1 Kgs 11:11a–​d), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) someone reporting to the Israelite, and (b) the Israelite ascertaining that this abomination was done in Israel (Deut 17:4). The subsequent idea of violently punishing the idolatrous Solomon (1 Kgs 11:11ef) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of violently punishing the idolatrous Israelite (Deut 17:5–​6a). The subsequent idea of (a) not (‫ )לא‬executing punishment in Solomon’s days and not (‫ )לא‬violently punishing Solomon’s son completely, but (b) giving one (‫)אחד‬, in itself not reliable, tribe to him (1 Kgs 11:12–​13) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) not executing punishment (b) on the testimony of one, presumably not reliable witness (Deut 17:6b). The subsequent idea of Yahweh raising two militant adversaries against Solomon because of Israel’s past slaughters of their peoples (1 Kgs 11:14–​25)30 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the hand of the two of three witnesses (cf. Deut 17:6) being against the guilty Israelite to kill him (Deut 17:7ab). The subsequent idea of (a) the ‘increasing people’ Jeroboam (‫( )*עם‬b) lifting up his hand (‫( )יד‬c) against (*‫ )ב‬Solomon (1 Kgs 11:26) conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (b) the hand of (a) all the people (c) being afterwards, presumably against the guilty Israelite (Deut 17:7cd; cf. 17:7a). The subsequent idea of (a) the matter (‫)דבר‬, the cause of strife, being (b) some disputable consequences of Solomon’s building activity, consisting in shutting a gap (c) in the city (1 Kgs 11:27), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) a matter being (b) too difficult to judge (c) within Israel’s gates (Deut 17:8a).

30 Cf. M. Noth, Könige, vol. 1, 251; P. R. House, 1, 2 Kings, 169.

132

First Kings as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 13:7–​27:25

The subsequent idea of (a) Jeroboam being mighty and socially rising, but also (b) going out of Jerusalem and (c) meeting a prophet, who (d) pronounced a verdict in the name of Yahweh, (e) giving to him (‫ )לך‬ten tribes (1 Kgs 11:28–​ 31), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite rising and (b) going up (c) to the priests, who should (d) pronounce the sentence of judgement (e) to him (Deut 17:8b–​10b). The subsequent idea of (a) Jerusalem being the city (b) which (‫( )אשר‬c) Yahweh chose (‫ )בחר‬out of all the tribes of Israel (1 Kgs 11:32) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the place (b) which (c) Yahweh chooses (Deut 17:10c). The subsequent idea of (a) Israel guiltily abandoning Yahweh and not walking in his ways (b) to do (‫( )לעשות‬c) what is right in his sight, (d) his statutes, and (e) his judgements (‫משפט‬: 1 Kgs 11:33) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) exhorting the Israelite to keep (b) to do (c) according to all that the priests teach him, (d) their law/​instruction, and (e) the judgement which they pronounce (Deut 17:10d–​13; esp. 17:10d–​11b). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh leaving to Solomon a part of the kingdom and (b) setting (*‫ )אש‬him ruler (c) all (‫ )כל‬the days of his life (1 Kgs 11:34ab) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh giving to Israel the land which he should possess, and (b) Israel setting (*‫ )אש‬over himself a king like (c) all the nations around him (Deut 17:14). The subsequent idea of (a) David being the one (b) whom (‫( )אשר‬c) Yahweh chose (‫בחר‬: 1 Kgs 11:34cd) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel setting a king (b) whom (c) Yahweh will choose (Deut 17:15ab). The subsequent idea of Yahweh giving ten tribes to Jeroboam, but giving one tribe, so the tribe of Judah, to Solomon’s son (1 Kgs 11:35–​36) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the king being one of the Israelite’s brothers (Deut 17:15b). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh making Solomon reign (‫ )מלך‬and be king (‫( )מלך‬b) over (‫ )על‬Israel (1 Kgs 11:37) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (b) Israel setting over himself (a) a king (Deut 17:15c). The subsequent idea of Yahweh building a Judahite dynasty, and Solomon ruling in Israel (1 Kgs 11:38) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of one of the Israelite’s brothers ruling over Israel (Deut 17:15d–​f).

3.6. 1 Kgs 12 (cf. Deut 18:1–20)

133

The subsequent idea of Yahweh humiliating the descendance of David (1 Kgs 11:39)31 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the king not multiplying horses for himself (Deut 17:16a). The subsequent idea of Jeroboam fleeing to Egypt (‫)מצרים‬, to the king of Egypt (‫)מצרים‬, and being in Egypt (‫ )מצרים‬until the death of Solomon (1 Kgs 11:40) conceptually and linguistically, in a negative way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the king not returning the people to Egypt (Deut 17:16b–​17). The subsequent idea of (a) the rest of the acts of Solomon (b) being written (‫( )כתב‬c) in the book (‫ )על־ספר‬of (d) the words/​deeds (‫ )דברי‬of Solomon (1 Kgs 11:41) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the king sitting on the throne of his kingdom and (b) writing a copy of the law (c) in the book (Deut 17:18) containing (d) the words of this law (Deut 17:18–​19; esp. 17:19). The subsequent idea of (a) the presumably long days (‫ )ימים‬in which (b) Solomon was king (‫ )מלך‬over (‫ )על‬all Israel (1 Kgs 11:42) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the king prolonging days (b) over his kingdom (*‫*מלכ‬: Deut 17:20a–​c). The concluding idea of (a) Solomon lying down with his fathers, being buried in the city of his father, and (b) his son (*‫ )בנ‬reigning in his place (1 Kgs 11:43) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite, presumably of the older generation, and (b) his sons in the midst of Israel (Deut 17:20c).

3.6.  1 Kgs 12 (cf. Deut 18:1–​20) The section 1 Kgs 12 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 18:1–​20. The opening idea of (a) the Judahite Rehoboam going to the Ephraimite Shechem because (b) all Israel (‫ )ישראל‬came to Shechem (c) to inaugurate his office (1 Kgs 12:1) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) the tribe of Levi having no inheritance (b) with Israel but (c) living from his office (Deut 18:1). The particular motif of the Israelites going and making someone king in Shechem (*‫ *מליכ‬+ ‫ שכם‬+ *‫וילכ‬ *‫את‬: 1 Kgs 12:1) was borrowed from Judg 9:6.

31 Cf. M. Noth, Könige, vol. 1, 262.

134

First Kings as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 13:7–​27:25

The subsequent idea of Jeroboam being still in exile in Egypt and dwelling in Egypt (1 Kgs 12:2) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Levi’s inheritance not being in the midst of the Israelites (Deut 18:2a). The subsequent idea of (a) sending and calling Jeroboam, but also (b) speaking (‫ )דבר‬to him (1 Kgs 12:3) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh being his inheritance, (b) as he spoke to him (Deut 18:2bc). The subsequent idea of the old king imposing upon the Israelites a heave yoke (1 Kgs 12:4) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses obliging the people to give to the priest his due parts and the first fruits of their produce (Deut 18:3–​4). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of Rehoboam commanding the people to go away for three days (1 Kgs 12:5) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh choosing the priest out of all Israel’s tribes (Deut 18:5). The subsequent idea of (a) the more experienced elders standing (‫)עמד‬ before the face of Rehoboam’s father Solomon (1 Kgs 12:6) and (b) persuading Rehoboam to serve the people, so that (c) the people will serve him all days (‫כל־‬ ‫הימים‬: 1 Kgs 12:6–​7; esp. 12:7),32 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the more experienced priest standing and (b) serving, he and (c) his sons all days (Deut 18:5). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly formulated idea of (a) the less experienced boys, (b) who were the standing ones (‫( )העמדים‬c) before (*‫ )לפני‬him (1 Kgs 12:8–​10; esp. 12:8), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the less experienced Levites (b) being the standing ones (c) before Yahweh (Deut 18:6–​7; esp. 18:7). The subsequent idea of (a) Rehoboam saying that his father (‫( )אב‬b) laid upon (‫ )על‬the people a heavy yoke (‫)על‬, and he will add upon (‫ )על‬their yoke (‫על‬: 1 Kgs 12:11) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (b) an incoming Levite receiving another part from the tribute of the people, not from the sale upon (a) the things originating from his fathers (Deut 18:8). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly repeated (cf. 1 Kgs 12:3) idea of (a) Jeroboam, presumably from Egypt (cf. 1 Kgs 12:2), and the people coming (‫)בוא‬ (b) to (‫ )אל‬Rehoboam (c) on the third day, presumably as commanded (1 Kgs 12:12a; cf. 12:5), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates

32 Cf. S. J. De Vries, 1 Kings, 158.

3.6. 1 Kgs 12 (cf. Deut 18:1–20)

135

the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel, presumably from Egypt, coming (b) to the promised land (Deut 18:9ab) and (c) being complete/​loyal with Yahweh (Deut 18:9–​14; esp. 18:13). The subsequent idea of the people doing (a) just as the king told them, (b) to come to him (c) on the day (‫( )ביום‬d) the third one (*‫ה‬: 1 Kgs 12:12b–​d), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel hearing Yahweh’s prophet (b) according to all they asked from Yahweh at Horeb (c) on the day of (d) the assembly (Deut 18:15–​16b). The subsequent idea of (a) the king rejecting the advice of the elders (1 Kgs 12:13–​14) and not (‫( )לא‬b) hearing (‫ )שמע‬the people (1 Kgs 12:13–​15a; esp. 15:15a) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel not again (b) hearing the voice of Yahweh (Deut 18:16c–​f). The subsequent idea of Yahweh (‫ )יהוה‬making a turn of affairs (1 Kgs 12:15b)33 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh saying that, paradoxically (cf. Deut 18:16), what the people say is good (Deut 18:17). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 1 Kgs 11:29–​30) idea of (a) Yahweh raising (‫( )*קים‬b) his word (*‫ )דבר‬which (c) he spoke (‫ )דבר‬by a prophet (d) to (‫ )אל‬Jeroboam (1 Kgs 12:15cd) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh raising a prophet and (b) putting his word (c) in the prophet’s mouth, so that he will speak (d) to the Israelites (Deut 18:18). The subsequent idea of (a) the king not listening (‫( )לא־*שמע‬b) to (‫ )אל‬the people, so (c) the people bringing back a word (‫)דבר‬, (d) saying (1 Kgs 12:16a–​ d), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) a man not listening (b) to (c) Yahweh’s word, (d) which the prophet will speak (Deut 18:19a–​c). The subsequent idea of the guilty Rehoboam losing the major part of his kingdom (1 Kgs 12:16e–​21) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh requiring account from the guilty Israelite (Deut 18:19d). The subsequent idea of (a) a word (‫ )דבר‬of God coming (diff. 1 Kgs 12:15: Yahweh speaking) to a prophet (1 Kgs 12:22), saying that (b) thus spoke Yahweh (1 Kgs 12:22–​24a; esp. 12:24a), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) a prophet daring to speak a word (b) in the name of Yahweh (Deut 18:20ab).

33 Cf. M. Noth, Könige, vol. 1, 276.

136

First Kings as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 13:7–​27:25

The subsequent, somewhat ambiguously formulated idea of Yahweh commanding (a) not (‫ )לא‬to go up and not (‫ )לא‬to fight against the Israelites because (b) this word (‫ )דבר‬occurred from him, so that the Israelites heard the word (‫)דבר‬ of Yahweh and returned to go according to the word (‫ )דבר‬of Yahweh (1 Kgs 12:24b–​h), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) a thing which Yahweh did not command (b) to speak (‫דבר‬: Deut 18:20cd). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of Jeroboam going out from Shechem and building Penuel,34 that is, ‘the face of God’ (‫*אל‬: 1 Kgs 12:25); making two calves of gold; saying that here are Israel’s gods (*‫אלהי‬: 1 Kgs 12:28); setting one of them in Bethel, that is, ‘the house of God’ (‫*אל‬: 1 Kgs 12:29); making shrines on high places; making non-​Levitical priests; making a false festival; and sacrificing to the golden calves (1 Kgs 12:25–​32) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of a prophet speaking in the name of other gods (Deut 18:20c). The particular motif of sinfully making a calf of gold (‫ זהב‬+ ‫עגל‬: 1 Kgs 12:28) was borrowed from Exod 32:24 and conflated with Exod 32:4 (‫)אלהיך ישראל אשר העלוך מארץ מצרים‬.35 The concluding, somewhat surprising idea of Jeroboam going up upon the altar which he made, making a festival, and going up upon the altar to make smoke (1 Kgs 12:33) disparagingly illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of the false prophet dying (Deut 18:20d).

3.7. 1 Kgs 13:1–​14:29 (cf. Deut 18:21–​19:21) The section 1 Kgs 13:1–​14:29 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 18:21–​19:21. The opening idea of (a) a man of God coming with a word (‫ )דבר‬of Yahweh (1 Kgs 13:1–​2.5.9) and (b) showing a sign which (‫( )אשר‬c) Yahweh has spoken

34 Cf. M. Noth, Könige, vol. 1, 281; D. Dormeyer, ‘Die Ausgrabung auf den Tulul adh Dhahab: Hat Thomas Pola das vorexilische Pnuel (Gen 32,23–​33; 1Kön 12,25) und die Amathoûs-​Ruine der Jesuszeit (Jos. Bell I 86f) gefunden?,’ TBei 47 (2016) 70–​80 (esp. 73–​74). 35 Pace M. Konkel, ‘Exodus 32–​34 and the Quest for an Enneateuch,’ in T. B. Dozeman, T. Römer, and K. Schmid (eds.), Pentateuch, Hexateuch, 169–​184 (esp. 177–​178); T. Römer, ‘How Jeroboam II became Jeroboam I,’ HBAI 6 (2017) 372–​382 (esp. 375–​ 376); A. M. Wilson-​Wright, ‘Bethel and the Persistence of El: Evidence for the Survival of El as an Independent Deity in the Jacob Cycle and 1 Kings 12:25–​30,’ JBL 138 (2019) 705–​720 (esp. 718), who suggest the reverse direction of borrowing.

1 Kgs 13:1–14:29 (cf. Deut 18:21–19:21)

137

(‫דבר* יהוה‬: 1 Kgs 13:1–​10; esp. 13:3) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential but positive way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) an Israelite asking how to know the word (b) which (c) Yahweh has not spoken (Deut 18:21). The particular motif of a prophet from Judah speaking against Bethel, against Jeroboam, and against the altar in Bethel, that it will be torn to pieces (*‫ על־*מזבח‬+ ‫ ירבעם‬+ ‫ בית־אל‬+ ‫יהודה‬: 1 Kgs 13:1–​3), was borrowed from Amos 3:14; 7:9–​13. The subsequent idea of (a) an unreliable (cf. 1 Kgs 12:29–​13:10)36 prophet (‫ )נביא‬from Bethel (1 Kgs 13:11.18) (b) speaking (‫דבר‬: 1 Kgs 13:12.18.27) (c) allegedly the word (‫ )דבר‬of Yahweh (‫יהוה‬: 1 Kgs 13:18),37 (c’) the word (‫ )דבר‬of Yahweh (‫ )יהוה‬coming to (1 Kgs 13:20) (a’) the unreliable prophet (‫הנביא‬: 1 Kgs 13:20.23.25–​26.29), and (a”) the man of God (1 Kgs 13:21.26.29.31) (c”) receiving the true word (‫ )דבר‬of Yahweh (‫יהוה‬: 1 Kgs 13:11–​31; esp. 13:21–​22.26) conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the (b) speaking of (a) the unreliable prophet (c) in the name of Yahweh (Deut 18:22a). The subsequent idea of the word of the man of God taking place (‫יהיה‬ ‫הדבר‬: 1 Kgs 13:32) conceptually and linguistically, in a positive way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the word of the false prophet not taking place or coming true (Deut 18:22bc). The subsequent idea of things happening after this word (‫הדבר‬: 1 Kgs 13:33) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of this being the word (Deut 18:22d). The particular motif of filling someone’s hand, so that he became priest (‫ כהן‬+ ‫ ויהי‬+ ‫ את־יד‬+ ‫ימלא‬: 1 Kgs 13:33), was borrowed from Judg 17:5.12. The subsequent idea of (a) the sinful word (‫ )רבד‬becoming (b) a sin of the house of Jeroboam (1 Kgs 13:34a) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) a thing which Yahweh

36 Cf. D. Kim, ‘The Old Prophet’s Deceit, Jeroboam’s Golden Calves and the Disobedience of the Man of God (1 Kgs 12:25–​13:34),’ VT 69 (2019) 490–​497 (esp. 493–​495). The rhetorical function of the preceding context, expressing harsh criticism of the whole place of Bethel (1 Kgs 12:29–​13:10), has not been taken into due consideration by G. Hentschel, ‘Gottesmann, König und alter Prophet (1 Kön 13),’ in A. Michel and N. K. Rüttgers (eds.), Jeremia, Deuteronomismus und Priesterschrift: Beiträge zur Literatur-​ und Theologiegeschichte des Alten Testaments, Festschrift H.-​J. Stipp (ATSAT 105; EOS: Sankt Ottilien 2019), 217–​231 (esp. 220–​222). 37 Cf. M. Noth, Könige, vol. 1, 300; Z. Pawłowski, ‘To Eat or Not to Eat: Politics, Religion, and Eating in 1 Kings 13,’ BPT 12 (2019) 71–​89 (esp. 82).

138

First Kings as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 13:7–​27:25

did not speak (‫)רבד‬, which (b) the false prophet spoke (‫ )רבד‬in presumptuousness (Deut 18:22ef). The subsequent idea of effacing and exterminating the house of Jeroboam from the face of the ground (1 Kgs 13:34bc) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel not being afraid of the false prophet (Deut 18:22g). The subsequent chronological idea of the sickness of Jeroboam’s son happening at that time (1 Kgs 14:1) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic chronological idea of the time when Yahweh cuts off the pagan nations (Deut 19:1–​3c). The subsequent idea of (a) Jeroboam commanding his wife to disguise herself38 and secretly go (b) to the sanctuary in Shiloh because there (‫ )שם‬dwells Ahijah the prophet (1 Kgs 14:2a–​g) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses commanding to flee (b) there, that is, to a city of refuge (Deut 19:3de). The subsequent idea of (a) him, the prophet, (b) uttering an authoritative, positive word (‫ )דבר‬concerning the future of Jeroboam (1 Kgs 14:2h) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) this being (b) the authoritative, positive word concerning the future of a manslayer (Deut 19:4a). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 1 Kgs 14:2fg) idea of saying that Jeroboam’s wife should come to the prophet (1 Kgs 14:3ab) illustrates the subsequent, likewise partly repeated (cf. Deut 19:3e) Deuteronomic idea of saying that the manslayer shall come there, to the city of refuge (Deut 19:4b). The subsequent idea of the prophet uttering a verdict concerning the young man (1 Kgs 14:3cd; diff. 14:12: child) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of uttering a verdict concerning a manslayer without knowledge (Deut 19:4cd). The subsequent idea of (a) Ahijah not (‫ )לא‬being able to see (b) since (‫)מן‬ his old age (1 Kgs 14:4) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the manslayer not hating his neighbour (b) since yesterday and three days ago (Deut 14:4e). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh describing the case of the wife of Jeroboam, who will come (‫( )בוא‬b) to (*‫ )ל‬seek a word because (c) her son was sick, and (d) suggesting a verdict (1 Kgs 14:5a–​e) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses describing the case of the manslayer, who came (b) to (*‫ )ל‬cut wood but (c) his neighbour died, and (d) pronouncing a verdict (Deut 19:5).

38 Cf. M. Noth, Könige, vol. 1, 313.

1 Kgs 13:1–14:29 (cf. Deut 18:21–19:21)

139

The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 1 Kgs 14:2c)39 idea of Jeroboam’s wife coming unrecognisably (1 Kgs 14:5f–​6f) illustrates the subsequent, likewise partly repeated (cf. Deut 19:3e) Deuteronomic idea of the manslayer being pursued by the avenger of blood (Deut 19:6). The subsequent idea of (a) him (‫)אנכי‬, the prophet, (b) being sent with hard words to Jeroboam, (c) saying (‫ )אמר‬to him in the name of Yahweh, the God of Israel (1 Kgs 14:6g–​7c), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) him, Moses, (b) commanding Israel, (c) saying (Deut 19:7ab). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh making Jeroboam ruler over Israel, and (b) tearing away the kingdom from the house of David (1 Kgs 14:7d–​8a) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) three cities, presumably in various regions of Israel (cf. Josh 20:7), (b) Israel separating for himself (Deut 19:7c). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh giving (‫ )נתן‬the kingdom of Israel (b) to him (‫)לך‬, Jeroboam (1 Kgs 14:8b), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh enlarging Israel’s territory and giving it (b) to Israel, as (a’) he promised to give it (b’) to Israel’s ancestors (‫ל*ך‬: Deut 19:8). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh’s servant David keeping (‫( )שמר‬b) Yahweh’s commandments (‫ )מצוה‬and (c) walking (‫ )הלך‬after him (d) with all his heart, (e) to do (‫ )לעשות‬what is right in his sight (1 Kgs 14:8c–​g), conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite keeping (b) this entire commandment, (e) to do what Moses commands, (d) to love Yahweh, and (c) to walk in his ways (Deut 19:9). The subsequent idea of (a) Jeroboam doing evil, (b) provoking Yahweh to anger and throwing him behind his back (1 Kgs 14:9), sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) an Israelite shedding innocent blood, intentionally killing his neighbour, and then (b) fleeing to a city of refuge (Deut 19:10–​11). The particular motif of the Israelite making for himself a cast idol to provoke Yahweh to anger (‫ להכעיסני‬+ ‫ מסכה‬+ *‫ לכ‬+ ‫עשה‬: 1 Kgs 14:9) was borrowed from Deut 9:16.18. The motif of Israel throwing Yahweh behind his back (‫ אתי‬+ ‫ אחרי גוך‬+ *‫השלכ‬: 1 Kgs 14:9) was borrowed from Ezek 23:35. The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh bringing evil to the house of Jeroboam by (b) destroying to Jeroboam (c) all males, bond and free, in Israel (1 Kgs 14:10a–​ c) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the elders of

39 Cf. B. O. Long, 1 Kings, 154.

140

First Kings as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 13:7–​27:25

the city taking the guilty man and handing him over to the avenger of blood, so that (b) he will die, (c) with no pity on him (Deut 19:12–​13a). The subsequent idea of clearing away (*‫ )ובערת‬after the house of Jeroboam, just as one clears away (‫ )בער‬dung until it perishes (1 Kgs 14:10d–​12; esp. 14:10d–​f ), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of clearing away presumably unclean blood (Deut 19:13b). The subsequent idea of (a) all Israel (‫ )ישראל‬mourning after the child (diff. 1 Kgs 14:3: young man) and burying him because (b) a good (‫ )טוב‬thing was found in him (1 Kgs 14:13) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) being innocent in Israel, and (b) this being good for him (Deut 19:13bc). The subsequent idea of Yahweh raising a king over the presumably northern Israel (1 Kgs 14:14–​15c) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of not displacing the boundaries in Israel (Deut 19:14a–​c). The subsequent idea of (a) the good ground (b) which (‫( )אשר‬c) Yahweh gave to (*‫ )נתן ל‬the Israelites’ ancestors (1 Kgs 14:15cd) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the land (b) which (c) Yahweh gave to Israel (Deut 19:14c–​e). The particular motif of Yahweh driving Israel out of the ground (‫ אדמה‬+ ‫ מעל‬+ ‫נתש‬: 1 Kgs 14:15) was borrowed from Deut 29:27. The subsequent idea of scattering the Israelites because they made Asherahs, provoking Yahweh to anger (1 Kgs 14:15e–​ g), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of convicting a man of his iniquity (Deut 19:15a). The subsequent idea of (a) Jeroboam’s sins (‫)חטאת‬, (b) which he committed as sin (‫ )חטא‬and (c) in which he caused to sin (‫אשר *חטא‬: 1 Kgs 14:16), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) any sin, (b) any sin (c) in which he sinned (Deut 19:15a–​c). The subsequent idea of (a) the standing up (‫ )קום‬of (b) the woman (*‫ )אש‬of Jeroboam, (c) her coming to the threshold of her house, and (d) the young man dying (1 Kgs 14:17) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the standing up of a witness (b) against a man, (c) to testify against him (d) falsehood/​apostasy (Deut 19:16). The subsequent idea of (a) lamenting for the young man (b) according to the word of Yahweh (‫ )יהוה‬which he spoke (c) by the prophet (1 Kgs 14:18) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) two men in conflict (b) standing before Yahweh, (c) before the priests (Deut 19:17ab). The subsequent idea of (a) the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, which (‫ )אשר‬he fought and which (‫ )אשר‬he ruled, (b) being written in the book of the days (‫;ימים‬

1 Kgs 13:1–14:29 (cf. Deut 18:21–19:21)

141

diff. 1 Kgs 11:41: no such remark) of the kings of Israel (1 Kgs 14:19) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the judges who (‫ )אשר‬will be (b) in those days (Deut 19:17c). The subsequent idea of (a) two mutually opponent kings reigning simultaneously (cf. 1 Kgs 14:30–​15:1), but only one of them reigning in the city which Yahweh chose out of all the tribes of Israel, and (b) being a son of his mother (1 Kgs 14:20–​21) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the judges detecting the false witness (b) against his brother (Deut 19:18). The subsequent idea of (a) Judah (and not only the king)40 doing (‫( )עשה‬b) the evil (‫ )הרע‬in the sight of Yahweh and (c) annoying him from (‫ )מן‬all that their ancestors did (1 Kgs 14:22) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites (plur.) doing harm to the false witness, just as he planned to do to his brother, thus (b) Israel putting away the evil (c) from his midst (Deut 19:19). The subsequent idea of (a) the Judahites building high places and doing (‫ )עשה‬according to all the abominations of the pagan nations whom Yahweh drove out before (b) the sons of Israel (1 Kgs 14:23–​24; esp. 14:24) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential but negative way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the remaining ones not continuing to do such evil (b) in the midst of Israel (Deut 19:20). The particular motif of the Israelites building sacred pillars and Asherahs on every high hill and under every green tree, just as did the nations whom Yahweh shall drive out (‫ ותחת‬+ ‫ גבעה‬+ ‫ על‬+ ‫מצבות ואשרי*ם‬ ‫ ירש‬+ ‫ הגוים אשר‬+ ‫כל־עץ רענן‬: 1 Kgs 14:23–​24), was borrowed from Deut 12:2–​3. The subsequent idea of King Shishak coming up against Jerusalem and taking everything (1 Kgs 14:25–​26)41 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of showing no pity to the guilty Israelite (Deut 19:21a). The concluding idea of (a) King Rehoboam substituting shields of gold with shields of bronze, and (b) handing them over to the hand (‫ )יד‬of the officers of (c) the running ones (1 Kgs 14:27–​29; esp. 14:27–​28)42 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of (a) 40 Cf. Z. Talshir, ‘Formulaic Creativity: The Structure of the Synchronic History of Israel and Judah (1 Kings 12–​2 Kings 17),’ in A. Baruchi-​Unna [et al.] (eds.), “Now It Happened in Those Days”, Festschrift M. Cogan [vol. 1] (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2017), 105–​156 (esp. 127); S.-​W. Lee, ‘Die Königsbeurteilungen und die Literargeschichte des Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks Anmerkungen zu einer kontroversen Diskussion,’ VT 68 (2018) 581–​605 (esp. 587). 41 Cf. M. Noth, Könige, vol. 1, 331. 42 Cf. M. Noth, Könige, vol. 1, 332.

142

First Kings as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 13:7–​27:25

retributing life with life, an eye with a presumably artificial eye, a tooth with a presumably artificial tooth, (b) a hand with a hand, and (c) a leg with a leg (Deut 19:21b).

3.8. 1 Kgs 14:30–​16:34 (cf. Deut 20–​22) The section 1 Kgs 14:30–​16:34 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 20–​22. The opening idea of war (‫ )מלחמה‬being between a king of Judah and a king of Israel (1 Kgs 14:30) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite going out to war against his enemies (Deut 20:1a). The subsequent idea of (a) Abijam being younger and weaker than his northern enemy, and (b) being a descendant of the ‘peaceful father’ Abishalom (1 Kgs 14:31–​15:2) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite seeing horses, chariots, and people more numerous than his own, so (b) being possibly afraid (Deut 20:1bc). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 1 Kgs 11:4.36) idea of David being whole with Yahweh his God (*‫ יהוה אלהי‬+ ‫עם‬: 1 Kgs 15:3), Yahweh his God (*‫)יהוה אלהי‬ giving him a lamp in Jerusalem (1 Kgs 15:4), and the heart of Asa being whole with Yahweh (‫ יהוה‬+ ‫עם‬: 1 Kgs 15:3–​15; esp. 15:14)43 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh the Israelite’s God being with him (Deut 20:1d). The subsequent idea of (a) Ben-​hadad making Baasha go up (‫( )עלה‬b) from (‫( )מן‬a’) upon (*‫ )על‬Asa (1 Kgs 15:19) and invading regions as far as (c) the south-​ western land (‫ )ארץ‬of Naphtali (1 Kgs 15:16–​31; esp. 15:20) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh making Israel go up (b) from (c) the south-​western land of Egypt (Deut 20:1e). The subsequent, repeated (cf. 1 Kgs 15:16;44 cf. also 14:30; 15:6–​7)45 idea of (a) war (‫( )מלחמה‬b) being (‫ )היה‬between a king of Judah and a king of Israel (1 Kgs 15:32–​34; esp. 15:32) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (b) it coming to be that (a) the Israelites come closer to war (Deut 20:2ab). 43 Cf. A. L. Joseph, ‘Who Is like David? Was David like David? Good Kings in the Book of Kings,’ CBQ 77 (2015) 20–​41 (esp. 28, 31–​33). 44 Cf. Z. Talshir, ‘Formulaic Creativity,’ 130–​131. 45 Cf. B. O. Long, 1 Kings, 167.

1 Kgs 14:30–16:34 (cf. Deut 20–22)

143

The subsequent idea of (a) the speech (‫ )דבר‬of Yahweh coming (b) to (‫ )אל‬the prophet Jehu, (c) saying (‫אמר‬: 1 Kgs 16:1), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the priest approaching and speaking (b) to the people, (c) saying to them (Deut 20:2c–​3a). The subsequent idea of Yahweh raising Baasha out of the dust (1 Kgs 16:2a) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the priest calling the Israelites not to be afraid or terrified because Yahweh is with them (Deut 20:3b–​4). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh making Baasha ruler (b) over his people (‫ )עם‬Israel (1 Kgs 16:2b–​e) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the officials speaking (b) to the people (Deut 20:5ab). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh clearing away after Baasha and after his house (‫)בית‬, and (b) making his house (‫)בית‬, retrospectively, like the house (‫)בית‬ of Jeroboam (1 Kgs 16:3) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) a man building a new house but not dedicating it, so (b) going back to his house (Deut 20:5c–​g). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 1 Kgs 14:11)46 idea of (a) the one dying (‫ )מות‬to Baasha in the city, (b) the dogs shall eat (1 Kgs 16:4ab) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) someone dying in the war, and (b) another man dedicating his city house, presumably taking possession of it (Deut 20:5hi). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 1 Kgs 14:11) idea of (a) the one dying (‫)מות‬ to Baasha in the field, (b) the birds of the air shall eat (1 Kgs 16:4cd) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) someone planting a vineyard but dying in the war, and (b) another man making profane use of it, presumably eating of it like birds do (Deut 20:6). The subsequent idea of (a) the rest of the acts of Baasha, (b) which (‫)אשר‬ he did (‫)*שה‬, (c) possibly not (‫ )לא‬being written (1 Kgs 16:5), and (d) Baasha lying with his ancestors (1 Kgs 16:5–​6; esp. 16:6) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) a man (b) who (‫ )אשר‬betrothed a woman (‫( )*שה‬c) not (d) taking her as a wife (Deut 20:7a–​c). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly inserted and partly repeated (cf. 1 Kgs 16:3) idea of the word of Yahweh coming to Baasha and to his house (‫ )ביתו‬for being, retrospectively, like the house (‫ )ביתו‬of Jeroboam (1 Kgs 16:7a–​d) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic, likewise partly

46 Cf. S. J. De Vries, 1 Kings, 195; M. Noth, Könige, vol. 1, 345.

144

First Kings as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 13:7–​27:25

repeated (cf. Deut 20:5fg) idea of Moses commanding the man to go back to his house (Deut 20:7de). The subsequent, somewhat ambiguously formulated idea of (a) striking (diff. 1 Kgs 14:14: cutting off) him, that is, the house of Jeroboam, and (b) Elah reigning over Israel (1 Kgs 16:7e–​8; diff. 16:6: in his place) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) dying in the battle, and (b) another man taking her (Deut 20:7fg). The subsequent idea of Zimri being a commander of half of the chariots (1 Kgs 16:9a) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the officials speaking to the people (Deut 20:8a–​c). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly introduced (not typically annalistic) idea of Baasha drinking himself drunk in the house of one of his subjects (1 Kgs 16:9b–​d) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of someone being afraid and weak in his heart (Deut 20:8de). The subsequent idea of Zimri coming to Baasha and killing him (1 Kgs 16:10) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the man going to a house (Deut 20:8f). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 1 Kgs 15:29) idea of (a) Zimri sitting (‫)ישב‬ on his throne (diff. 1 Kgs 15:29: no such remark)47 and (b) killing all the house (‫ )בית‬of Baasha, (c) not (‫ )לא‬leaving any male or (d) his redeeming relatives (‫ )*יו‬or (e) his friend (‫*ו‬: 1 Kgs 16:11; diff. 14:10; 15:29: no such remarks), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the man returning/​sitting (‫( )*ישב‬b) to his house and (c) not melting the heart of (d) his brothers as (e) his heart (Deut 20:8gh). The subsequent idea of (a) Zimri exterminating the house of Baasha, (b) according to the word (‫ )דבר‬of Yahweh which he spoke (‫( )דבר‬c) to (‫ )אל‬Baasha (1 Kgs 16:12–​14; esp. 16:12), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the officials bringing to an end (b) the speaking (c) to others (Deut 20:9a–​c). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly inserted idea of the people (‫)העם‬ encamping at Gibbethon, and the people (‫ )העם‬hearing that Zimri killed the king (1 Kgs 16:15–​16e) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the people, presumably hearing the officials speaking (Deut 20:9c). The subsequent idea of (a) all Israel installing as king (b) Omri, the commander of the army (*‫)שר* צבא‬, (c) over Israel in the camp (1 Kgs 16:16f)

47 Cf. M. Noth, Könige, vol. 1, 348.

1 Kgs 14:30–16:34 (cf. Deut 20–22)

145

conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) appointing (b) commanders of the armies (c) at the head the people (Deut 20:9d). The subsequent idea of (a) the going up (*‫ )על‬of Omri and (b) all (‫ )כל־‬Israel (c) with him and (d) besieging (*‫ )ו*צר * על‬Tirzah (1 Kgs 16:17) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel drawing near upon (*‫ )על‬a city (Deut 20:10), (b) all the people serving Israel (Deut 20:11), and (c) if not making peace with him but making war with him, then (d) Israel besieging the city (Deut 20:10–​12; esp. 20:12). The subsequent idea of (a) Zimri seeing that the city was overpowered, (b) (someone?) burning the king’s house over him with fire,48 and Zimri dying (1 Kgs 16:18), sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh giving the city in Israel’s hand, so (b) Israel not leaving anyone from it alive but putting them under a ban, presumably burning the city with fire (Deut 20:13–​17; esp. 20:16–​17; cf. 13:16–​17). The subsequent idea of (a) the sins (*‫ )חטאת‬which Zimri sinned (‫ )חטא‬by (b) committing (‫ )לעשות‬evil, imitating (a’) the sins (*‫ )חטאת‬which (b’) Jeroboam committed (‫)עשה‬, (a”) making Israel sin (‫חטא‬: 1 Kgs 16:19–​20; esp. 16:19), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (b) the pagans not teaching the Israelites to commit all the abominations which they committed, (a) sinning against Yahweh (Deut 20:18–​20; esp. 20:18). The subsequent idea of (a) the division of (b) the people of Israel (‫)עמ* ישראל‬ into halves, (c) half of the people (‫ )עם‬following the ‘straw man’ Tibni on one side and half on the other (1 Kgs 16:21–​22c), and (d) the ‘straw man’ Tibni dying (1 Kgs 16:21–​23; esp. 16:22d) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) someone dying in the field between Israelite cities (Deut 21:1–​7), (b) Yahweh providing atonement for the people of Israel and (c) not putting innocent blood in the midst of the people of Israel (Deut 21:8), but also (d) Israel removing innocent blood from its midst (Deut 21:1–​9; esp. 21:9). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of (a) Omri buying the hill of the ‘kept’ Samaria (b) for (*‫( )ב‬c) two talents of silver (‫כסף‬: 1 Kgs 16:24–​30; esp. 16:24) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) not selling the captive woman (b) for (c) silver (Deut 21:10–​14; esp. 21:14).

48 Cf. M. Noth, Könige, vol. 1, 349.

146

First Kings as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 13:7–​27:25

The subsequent idea of (a) Ahab taking a Sidonian wife (‫)אשה‬, (b) serving her god Baal, and making his female partner Asherah (1 Kgs 16:31–​33a)49 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) a man having two wives, (b) one of them loved (Deut 21:15ab). The subsequent idea of Ahab provoking the anger of Yahweh, the God of Israel (1 Kgs 16:33b–​e), with the use of the motif of the marital relationship between Yahweh and Israel (Hos 2:18 etc.) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of one wife being hated (Deut 21:15c). The subsequent idea of (a) Hiel laying the foundations of Jericho with Abiram his firstborn (‫ )בכר‬and (b) installing its doors with his younger one (1 Kgs 16:34a–​c) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the firstborn son being of the hated wife, and (b) the less important son being of the loved wife (Deut 21:15d–​17). The concluding idea of the condemning verdict of Yahweh which he spoke by the Israelite lay leader Joshua (1 Kgs 16:34d) illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of condemning verdicts being pronounced at the gate by the Israelite elders (Deut 21:18–​22:29; esp. 21:19–​21; 22:15–​24). The particular motif of Joshua cursing the man who would build Jericho, laying its foundations with his firstborn and installing its doors with his younger one (‫ את־יריחו‬+ ‫בנה‬ ‫ צעירו *ציב דלתיה‬+ * ‫ וב‬+ ‫ יסד*ה‬+ ‫ בכרו‬+ * ‫ ב‬+ : 1 Kgs 6:34), was borrowed from Josh 6:26.

3.9. 1 Kgs 17 (cf. Deut 23:1–​26:11) The section 1 Kgs 17 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 23:1–​26:11. The opening idea of the otherwise unknown, confessing ‘Yahweh is my God’50 Elijah (‫אליהו‬: 1 Kgs 17:1a) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of various people possibly entering the assembly of Yahweh (*‫יהו‬: Deut 23:2–​9), and Yahweh Israel’s God (‫ )יהוה אלהיך‬walking in the midst of Israel’s camp (Deut 23:1–​15; esp. 23:15).

49 Cf. S. J. Park, ‘The Cultic Identity of Asherah in Deuteronomistic Ideology of Israel,’ ZAW 123 (2011) 553–​564 (esp. 561, 563). 50 Cf. P. R. House, 1, 2 Kings, 213; S. J. De Vries, 1 Kings, 216.

1 Kgs 17 (cf. Deut 23:1–26:11)

147

The subsequent idea of Elijah being a Tishbite/​dweller (‫)תשבי‬,51 of the dwelling aliens (‫ )תושב‬of Gilead (1 Kgs 17:1a),52 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of a fugitive foreigner dwelling (‫ )ישב‬with Israel in its midst (Deut 23:16–​21; esp. 23:17). The subsequent idea of (a) Elijah taking an oath by Yahweh, the God of Israel (*‫)יהוה אלהי‬,53 (b) before whom he stands (1 Kgs 17:1bc), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel making a vow to Yahweh his God, and (b) Yahweh requiring its fulfilment (Deut 23:22a–​d). The subsequent, punishing idea of there being no dew or rain in these years (1 Kgs 17:1d) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel incurring guilt (Deut 23:22e). The subsequent thought that the time of draught will last (a) if (‫ )כי‬not (b) Elijah’s mouth (‫( )פי‬c) speaks a word (‫דבר‬: 1 Kgs 17:1e) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic thought that (a) if the Israelite does not vow, he will not incur guilt, but (b) the pronouncement of the his lips he should perform, (c) of which he spoke (b’) with his mouth (Deut 23:23–​26; esp. 23:24). The subsequent idea of Yahweh sending Elijah away from (‫ )מן‬here to a barren place (1 Kgs 17:2–​4; esp. 17:3) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of a husband/​master divorcing his wife and sending her away from his house (Deut 24:1–​2a). The subsequent idea of (a) Elijah going (*‫ )ו*לכ‬and (b) dwelling in the barren place (1 Kgs 17:5–​6) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the divorced wife going and (b) being with another man (Deut 24:2bc). The subsequent idea of the wadi in the barren place drying up as well, just as it was in Elijah’s former land (1 Kgs 17:7), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the latter man hating the woman as well (Deut 24:3a). The subsequent idea of Yahweh, similarly to the previous situation (cf. 1 Kgs 17:2–​4), sending Elijah to Zarephath by Sidon to dwell there (1 Kgs 17:8–​9d) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the latter man, similarly to the 5 1 Cf. S. J. De Vries, 1 Kings, 216. 52 Cf. S. Wyatt, ‘Jezebel, Elijah, and the Widow of Zarephath: A Ménage à Trois that Estranges the Holy and Makes the Holy the Strange,’ JSOT 36.4 (2012) 435–​458 (esp. 444–​447). 53 Cf. H.-​S. Bae, ‘Elijah’s Magic in the Drought Narrative: Form and Function,’ BN, nf 169 (2006) 11–​26 (esp. 13).

148

First Kings as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 13:7–​27:25

previous situation (cf. Deut 24:1), sending the woman away from his house (Deut 24:3b–​d). The subsequent idea of Yahweh referring to a widowed woman (‫אשה‬: 1 Kgs 17:9ef) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the dying of the man who took the woman as his wife (Deut 24:3ef). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 1 Kgs 17:9) idea of (a) Elijah going away to Zarephath, and (b) a widowed woman (‫ )אשה‬being there, alone providing for herself by gathering wood (1 Kgs 17:10a–​e), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the former husband, who sent his wife away, not being permitted to take her again (b) to be his woman/​wife (Deut 24:4). The subsequent, progressively formulated idea of (a) Elijah, subtly persuading to marriage (cf. Gen 24:17: ‫ מעט־מים‬+ ‫)נא‬, asking that the woman might take (‫)לקח‬ him a little water in her vessel and, (b) while she was going away to take (‫)לקח‬ it, (c) subtly erotically asking that she might take (‫ )לקח‬him a morsel of bread in her hand (1 Kgs 17:10f–​11) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent, likewise progressively formulated Deuteronomic idea of (a) a man taking a new woman/​wife, so (b) not going out to war, but (c) making erotically merry his woman/​wife whom he took (Deut 24:5). The subsequent idea of (a) the woman having no provisions, (b) only a handful of flour (c) to prepare some food for herself (1 Kgs 17:12a–​g), sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) not seizing as a pledge (b) a millstone (c) because this is life sustenance (Deut 24:6). The subsequent idea of (a) the woman caring for her son (‫)*בני‬, and both of them eating and (b) dying (*‫ומת‬: 1 Kgs 17:12g–​i) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) punishing the kidnapping of one of the sons of Israel, so that (b) the kidnapper shall die (Deut 24:7). The subsequent idea of (a) Elijah commanding the woman not to be afraid, but (b) to come and to do (‫( )עשה‬c) according to (*‫( )כ‬d) her word (1 Kgs 17:13a–​ d) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses commanding the Israelite to be on his guard (b) to do (c) according to (d) all that the priests teach him (Deut 24:8). The subsequent idea of (a) surely (b) the woman doing (‫( )עשה‬c) to Elijah (d) from there (‫מ*ם‬: 1 Kgs 17:13e) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) remembering (b) what Yahweh did (c) to Miriam when the Israelites came out (d) from Egypt (‫מ*ם‬: Deut 24:9).

1 Kgs 17 (cf. Deut 23:1–26:11)

149

The subsequent, quite surprising idea of requesting from the destitute woman that she should bring a small loaf of bread first to Elijah (1 Kgs 17:13e) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of making a loan to the neighbour and coming to his house to take the deposit (Deut 24:10). The subsequent idea of the widow bringing the loaf of bread out (‫ )*וצא‬to Elijah (1 Kgs 17:13fg) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the poor man bringing the deposit out to the creditor outside (Deut 24:11–​17; esp. 24:11). The subsequent idea of the speech of Yahweh, the God of Israel (‫יהוה‬ *‫אלהי‬: 1 Kgs 17:14a), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh, the God of Israel, bringing him out of Egypt (Deut 24:18). The subsequent, twice formulated idea of (a) flour and (b) oil not ceasing to be for the widow (1 Kgs 17:14b–​16b; cf. 17:9–​10.20: ‫ )אלמנה‬sequentially illustrates the subsequent, likewise twice formulated Deuteronomic idea of (a) leaving a sheaf and (b) olives for the resident alien, the orphan, and the widow (Deut 24:19–​21; esp. 24:19–​20). The subsequent idea of the word (‫ )דבר‬of Yahweh which he spoke (‫ )דבר‬by Elijah (1 Kgs 17:16c) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses commanding Israel to do this word (Deut 24:22). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly introduced idea of (a) the son (‫ )בן‬of the woman becoming sick/​weak, and (b) his sickness being very severe, so that there was no breath left in him (1 Kgs 17:17), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) a wicked man being a ‘son’ of beating, so the judge making him lie down and (b) beating him (Deut 25:1–​2d; esp. 25:2a–​d). The subsequent idea of (a) the widow saying that the man of God came (b) to make her (otherwise unknown) iniquity known and therefore (c) to kill her son (1 Kgs 17:18) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) in the presence of the judge (b) the blows should correspond to the man’s wickedness (c) in their number (Deut 25:2d). The subsequent idea of Elijah taking the woman’s sick son from her womb (1 Kgs 17:19a–​c) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the judge stopping the beating at the number of forty blows (Deut 25:3a–​d). The subsequent idea of Elijah taking the woman’s son up (*‫)על‬, to a chamber above (*‫)על‬, and laying him upon (‫ )על‬his bed (1 Kgs 17:19d–​f) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the number of blows being above these (Deut 25:3d).

150

First Kings as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 13:7–​27:25

The subsequent idea of Elijah lamenting that Yahweh brings evil upon the widow by killing her son (1 Kgs 17:20) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of a plague (Deut 25:3d). The subsequent, somewhat surprising54 idea of (a) Elijah stretching himself upon the child three times and (b) praying for the child (1 Kgs 17:21; diff. 17:17–​ 20: son) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) being numerous/​great, and (b) the brother being little/​insignificant in the Israelite’s sight (Deut 25:3de). The subsequent idea of Yahweh hearing the voice of Elijah (1 Kgs 17:22a) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of not muzzling an ox while it is threshing (Deut 25:4). The subsequent idea of (a) the life of the child (‫ )ילד‬coming back (b) upon (‫)על‬ his midst, so that (c) he lived longer (1 Kgs 17:22bc), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the firstborn whom the wife of a dead Israelite bears (‫( )ילד‬b) shall arise upon the name of the dead brother, so that (c) his name would not be wiped out in Israel (Deut 25:5–​19; esp. 25:6). The subsequent idea of Elijah taking (‫ )לקח‬the child (1 Kgs 17:23a) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite and the priest taking the basket (Deut 26:1–​4; esp. 26:2.4). The subsequent idea of Elijah making the child go down (‫ )ירד‬from the upper room of the woman’s house (1 Kgs 17:23b) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite’s father going down, presumably from Canaan, to Egypt (Deut 26:5–​8; esp. 26:5). The subsequent idea of Elijah giving the child to (*‫ )ויתנ* ל‬his mother (1 Kgs 17:23c) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh giving the land to the Israelites (Deut 26:9ab). The subsequent idea of Elijah persuading the woman to see that her son lives (1 Kgs 17:23d–​f) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses persuading the Israelites that Canaan is a land flowing with fat and honey (Deut 26:9b). The subsequent idea of (a) the woman now (‫ )עתה‬acknowledging that (b) Elijah is a man of God (‫אלהים‬: 1 Kgs 17:24a–​c) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite now acknowledging that (b) Yahweh God gave him this ground, therefore setting

54 Cf. P. R. House, 1, 2 Kings, 215; A. R. Davis, ‘Rereading 1 Kings 17:21 in Light of Ancient Medical Texts,’ JBL 135 (2016) 465–​481 (esp. 466).

1 Kgs 18 (cf. Deut 26:12–27:7)

151

the basket before Yahweh God and worshipping Yahweh God (Deut 26:10). The particular motif of someone saying that he/​she now, after the revival of the son, knows that the main hero is a man of God (‫ אלהים‬+ ‫ ידעתי כי‬+ ‫ עתה‬+ ‫ו*אמר‬ ‫אתה‬: 1 Kgs 17:24) was borrowed from Gen 22:12.55 The concluding idea of (a) the woman confessing that the word of Yahweh (b) in the mouth of God’s representative is truth (1 Kgs 17:24d) sequentially illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite rejoicing in all the bounty which Yahweh gave him, he and (b) the Levite (Deut 26:11).

3.10. 1 Kgs 18 (cf. Deut 26:12–​27:7) The section 1 Kgs 18 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 26:12–​27:7. The opening chronological idea of the passage of many days (1 Kgs 18:1a) illustrates the opening Deuteronomic chronological idea of the time when the Israelite has completed laying aside all the tithe (Deut 26:12ab). The subsequent idea of the word of Yahweh coming to Elijah in the third year (‫בשנה השלישית‬: 1 Kgs 18:1bc) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the third year being the year of the tithe (Deut 26:12b). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh giving (‫ )נתן‬desired rain on the ground (1 Kgs 18:1d–​2), and (b) Obadiah sustaining Yahweh’s prophets with food (1 Kgs 18:1d–​4; esp. 18:3–​4) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite giving food (b) to the Levite (Deut 26:12c–​e). The subsequent idea of (a) Obadiah bowing down, saying (‫ )ו*אמר‬before Elijah (1 Kgs 18:7.9), and (b) swearing by Yahweh his God (‫יהוה אלהיך‬: 1 Kgs 18:5–​10a; esp. 18:10a)56 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite saying before (b) Yahweh his God (Deut 26:13a). The subsequent idea of Ahab and Obadiah not finding the prophet Elijah in Israel, in any nation or kingdom, or on earth (1 Kgs 18:10b–​12) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite removing the holy object from the house (Deut 26:13b).

55 Cf. A. Kalmanofsky, ‘Women of God: Maternal Grief and Religious Response in 1 Kings 17 and 2 Kings 4,’ JSOT 36.1 (2011) 55–​74 (esp. 66). 56 Cf. H.-​S. Bae, ‘Elijah’s Magic,’ 13.

152

First Kings as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 13:7–​27:25

The subsequent idea of (a) Obadiah verbatim recounting (cf. 1 Kgs 18:4) the fact that he sustained Yahweh’s prophets with food (1 Kgs 18:13), but also (b) going to Ahab, as Elijah commanded him (1 Kgs 18:13–​16; esp. 18:14–​16), sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite verbatim recounting (cf. Deut 26:12c) the fact that he gave food to the Levite (b) according to Yahweh’s entire commandment, which he commanded him (Deut 26:13cd). The subsequent idea of (a) Elijah reproaching Ahab and his house for their forsaking (b) the commandments (‫ )מצות‬of Yahweh and for (c) going after the Baals (1 Kgs 18:17–​18; esp. 18:18) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite not transgressing (b) Yahweh’s commandments and not (c) forgetting them (Deut 26:13ef). The subsequent idea of (a) Ahab gathering pagan prophets, who eat (‫( )אכל‬b) at the presumably unclean Jezebel’s table (1 Kgs 18:19), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite not eating or removing from the tithe (b) in the state of uncleanness (Deut 26:14a–​c). The subsequent idea of Ahab gathering the Israelites and the prophets on Mount Carmel, as Elijah commanded him (1 Kgs 18:20; cf. 18:19), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite obeying the voice of Yahweh and doing according to all that Yahweh commanded him (Deut 26:14d–​f). The subsequent idea of (a) Elijah approaching (b) all the people (‫ )עם‬and (c) persuading them not to limp on two crutches (1 Kgs 18:21a–​c)57 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh blessing (b) his people Israel (Deut 26:15), and (c) Moses persuading Israel to observe Yahweh’s statues and judgments with all his heart and all his soul (Deut 26:15–​16; esp. 26:16). The subsequent idea of (a) Elijah stating that if Yahweh (‫ )יהוה‬is (b) God (‫)אלהים‬, (c) the Israelites should walk (‫( )הלך‬d) after him, and (e) if allegedly Baal, then they should walk after him (1 Kgs 18:21d–​g) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses stating that Yahweh is (b) Israel’s God, and that (c) the Israelites should walk (d) in his ways and (e) keep his statutes, his commandments, and his judgements (Deut 26:17a–​d).

57 Cf. S. J. De Vries, 1 Kings, 228.

1 Kgs 18 (cf. Deut 26:12–27:7)

153

The subsequent idea of the people not answering a word (1 Kgs 18:21h) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel listening to Yahweh’s voice (Deut 26:17e). The subsequent idea of (a) Elijah persuading (‫( )אמר‬b) the people (‫ )עם‬that (c) he alone remains (d) a prophet to Yahweh, and (e) the prophets of Baal are four hundred and fifty (1 Kgs 18:22)58 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh persuading Israel to be to him (b) a people of (c) his personal property, as (d) Yahweh spoke to him, (e) to keep all his commandments (Deut 26:18). The subsequent, repetitively formulated idea of (a) giving (‫ )נתן‬two bulls, (b) placing one of them upon (‫( )על‬c) the woods (‫)ה*ים‬, and (d) Elijah making (‫)עשה‬ the other one and (a’) giving (‫ )נתן‬it (b’) upon (‫( )על‬c’) the woods (‫ה*ים‬: 1 Kgs 18:23) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh giving Israel (b) high (‫ )עליון‬upon (c) all the nations (‫ )ה*ים‬which (d) he made (Deut 26:19ab). The subsequent, repetitively formulated idea of (a) the pagan prophets calling on (b) the name (‫ )שם‬of their gods, (a’) Elijah calling on (b’) the name (‫ )שם‬of Yahweh, and (c) God answering in fire (1 Kgs 18:24a–​e) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) praise, (b) name, and (c) radiance (Deut 26:19b). The subsequent idea of (a) all the people (‫ )עם‬answering that (b) Elijah’s word is good (1 Kgs 18:24f–​h) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel being a people (b) which is holy (Deut 26:19c). The subsequent, ironically formulated idea of (a) the prophets of Baal calling on the name of Baal (1 Kgs 18:25–​26), and (b) Elijah mocking Baal as only apparently being God (‫אלהים‬: 1 Kgs 18:25–​29c; esp. 18:27) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh (b) Israel’s God (Deut 26:19c). The subsequent, ironically formulated idea of the pagan god giving no voice, no answer, and no attention (1 Kgs 18:29d–​f)59 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh having spoken (Deut 26:19d). The subsequent idea of (b) Elijah (a) saying (*‫( )וי‬c) to all the people (‫)העם‬, all the people (‫ )העם‬coming closer to him, and (d) repairing the altar of Yahweh

58 It is possible that at the time of the writing of Samuel–​Kings the number of Yahweh’s commandments in the law of Moses was estimated to be around four hundred and fifty. 59 Cf. S. J. De Vries, 1 Kings, 229.

154

First Kings as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 13:7–​27:25

which was broken in pieces (1 Kgs 18:30) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (b) Moses and the elders of Israel (a) commanding (*‫( )וי‬c) all the people (d) to keep the entire commandment (Deut 27:1). The subsequent idea of (a) Elijah taking twelve stones (‫( )אבנים‬b) according to the number of the sons of Jacob, of (c) which (‫ )אשר‬there was (d) the word of Yahweh (‫ )דבר יהוה‬that (e) Israel shall be his name (‫*ך‬: 1 Kgs 18:31), conceptually and linguistically, with the use of the motif of Joshua, while crossing over the Jordan, taking twelve stones (‫ שתים עשרה אבנים‬+ ‫לקח‬: Josh 4:20) in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) on the day of crossing over the Jordan Israel setting up large stones, (c) according to what (‫( )*אשר‬d) spoke Yahweh (‫)דבר יהוה‬, (b) the God of Israel’s fathers, (e) to him (‫*ך‬: Deut 27:2–​4). The subsequent idea of (a) Elijah building (‫( )ו*בנה‬b) with the stones (‫)אבנים‬ (c) an altar (‫( )מזבח‬d) in the name of Yahweh (‫)יהוה‬60 and (e) making a large distancing trench61 around (f) the altar (‫מזבח‬: 1 Kgs 18:32) conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel building there (c) an altar (d) to Yahweh, (c’) an altar of (b) stones, (e) untouched stones, of them (a’) building (f) the altar (Deut 27:5–​6a). The subsequent, repetitively formulated idea of (a) Elijah preparing and laying a bull (b) on (‫ )על‬the wood (1 Kgs 18:33), (a’) the Israelites pouring water (b’) on (‫ )על‬the offering and on (‫ )על‬the wood (1 Kgs 18:34), and (a”) at the time of offering (‫ )עלה‬the sacrifice (b”) Elijah approaching and praying (1 Kgs 18:33–​37; esp. 18:36) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel offering (b) on the altar (Deut 27:6b). The particular motif of Yahweh being the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel/​ Jacob (‫ יצחק‬+ ‫ אברהם‬+ ‫ אלהי‬+ ‫יהוה‬: 1 Kgs 18:36) was borrowed from Exod 3:15–​16. The subsequent idea of the fire of Yahweh falling and consuming the burnt offering (‫ )עלה‬and everything around it (1 Kgs 18:38) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of burnt offerings (Deut 27:6b). 60 Cf. A. Schenker, ‘Der Ort, an dem Jhwhs Name wohnt: Eine oder mehrere Stätten?,’ HBAI 4 (2015) 219–​229 (esp. 223). 61 Cf. M. A. Sweeney, ‘Prophets and Priests in the Deuteronomistic History: Elijah and Elisha,’ in M. R. Jacobs and R. F. Person Jr. (eds.), Israelite Prophecy and the Deuteronomistic History: Portrait, Reality, and the Formation of a History (AIL 14; SBL: Atlanta 2013), 35–​49 (esp. 38); C. E. Baukal, Jr., ‘Hydrotechnics on Mount Carmel,’ SJOT 29 (2015) 63–​79 (esp. 74).

1 Kgs 19 (cf. Deut 27:8–16)

155

The subsequent, repetitively formulated idea of (a) all the people confessing that Yahweh (‫( )יהוה‬b) is God (‫)אלהים‬, (a’) Yahweh (‫( )יהוה‬b’) is God (‫אלהים‬: 1 Kgs 18:39) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh (b) Israel’s God (Deut 27:6b). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of (a) Elijah bringing the prophets of Baal to the Wadi Kishon and slaughtering them (b) there (‫שם‬: 1 Kgs 18:40) conceptually and partly linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel slaughtering (b) peace offerings (‫ש*ם‬: Deut 27:7a). The subsequent, repetitively formulated, somewhat surprising idea of (a) Elijah exhorting Ahab to go up,62 (b) eat (‫)אכל‬, and drink, and (a’) Ahab going up, (b’) eating (‫)אכל‬, and drinking (1 Kgs 18:41–​42c) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (b) Moses exhorting Israel to eat (a) there, presumably on the mountain (Deut 27:7b; cf. 27:4). The subsequent idea of the desired great rain coming, and Ahab going to the ‘sowing’ Jezreel (1 Kgs 18:42d–​45) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel rejoicing (Deut 27:7c). The concluding idea of (a) Elijah running before (‫ )לפני‬Ahab as far as (b) the ‘God sowing’ Jezreel (‫י*אל‬: 1 Kgs 18:46) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel being before (b) Yahweh his God (*‫י* אל‬: Deut 27:7c).

3.11. 1 Kgs 19 (cf. Deut 27:8–​16) The section 1 Kgs 19 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 27:8–​16. The opening, repetitively formulated idea of Ahab recounting to Jezebel all the things (‫ )את כל‬which Elijah did, and all the (‫ )את כל‬killing of all the (‫)את כל‬ prophets (1 Kgs 19:1) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of Israel writing on the stones all the words of this law, explaining it well (Deut 27:8). The subsequent idea of (a) Jezebel sending a messenger (b) to (‫ )אל‬Elijah, (c) saying (‫לאמר‬: 1 Kgs 19:2ab), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses and the priests, the Levites, speaking (b) to all Israel, (c) saying (Deut 27:9ab).

62 Cf. S. J. De Vries, 1 Kings, 217.

156

First Kings as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 13:7–​27:25

The subsequent idea of Jezebel threatening Elijah, and the otherwise courageous (cf. 1 Kgs 18) Elijah being afraid,63 going away for his life, going alone to the wilderness, wanting to die, lying down, and sleeping (1 Kgs 19:2c–​5b) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel being silent (Deut 27:9c). The subsequent, repetitively formulated idea of an angel touching Elijah and speaking to him (1 Kgs 19:5c–​7) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel hearing (Deut 27:9d). The subsequent idea of Elijah arising and going forty days (‫ )יום‬and forty nights (1 Kgs 19:8a–​d) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel acting this day (Deut 27:9d). The particular motif of an Israelite leader spending, without eating bread and drinking water, forty days and forty nights at Mount Horeb (‫ הר‬+ ‫ ארבעים יום וארבעים לילה‬+ ‫ שתה‬+ ‫ אכל‬+ ‫מים‬ ‫ חרב‬+: 1 Kgs 19:6–​8) was borrowed from Deut 9:8–​9. The subsequent idea of (a) Elijah coming to Horeb the mount of God, the word of Yahweh coming to him, and Elijah becoming very zealous (b) for Yahweh, the God of (*‫ )ליהוה אלהי‬hosts (1 Kgs 19:8d–​10b), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel becoming the people (b) for Yahweh, the God of Israel (Deut 27:9e). The particular motif of an Israelite leader coming to the mountain of God, Horeb (‫הר האלהים חרב‬: 1 Kgs 19:8), was borrowed from Exod 3:1. The subsequent, somewhat surprising in the preceding context (cf. 1 Kgs 18:4.13.39–​40),64 idea of (a) the Israelites forsaking the covenant of Yahweh, (b) tearing down his altars (*‫)את־מ‬, and (c) killing his (‫ )ואת־‬prophets, (d) Elijah (‫ )אנ*י‬alone remaining, and (e) the Israelites, presumably now, seeking his life to take it (1 Kgs 19:10c–​h) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential but negative way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel obeying the voice of Yahweh, (b) doing his commandments (*‫( )את־מ‬c) and his statutes, which (d) Moses (‫ )אנ*י‬commands them (e) today (Deut 27:10). The particular motif of the Israelites forsaking Yahweh’s covenant (‫ ברית‬+ ‫עזבו‬: 1 Kgs 19:10) was borrowed from Deut 29:24. The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh saying (‫ )אמר‬to Elijah, (b) commanding him to go out (1 Kgs 19:11ab), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the 63 Cf. S. J. De Vries, 1 Kings, 235; T. S. Hadjiev, ‘Elijah’s Alleged Megalomania: Reading Strategies for Composite Texts, with 1 Kings 19 as an Example,’ JSOT 39.4 (2015) 433–​ 449 (esp. 435). 64 Cf. T. S. Hadjiev, ‘Elijah’s Alleged,’ 436; G. Hens-​Piazza, ‘Dreams Can Delude, Visions Can Deceive: Elijah’s Sojourn in the Wilderness of Horeb (I Kings 19:1–​21),’ BTB 48 (2018) 10–​17 (esp. 14).

1 Kgs 19 (cf. Deut 27:8–16)

157

subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (b) Moses commanding the people, (a) saying (Deut 27:11). The subsequent idea of (a) commanding Elijah to stand (‫( )עמד‬b) on the mountain (‫ )הר‬before Yahweh, and (c) Yahweh crossing over (‫עבר‬: 1 Kgs 19:11cd) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) commanding the Israelites to stand (b) to bless the people on Mount Gerizim, (c) once they cross over the Jordan (Deut 27:12a–​c). The particular motif of Yahweh on Mount Horeb passing before the main hero (‫ עבר‬+ ‫ יהוה‬+ ‫הר‬: 1 Kgs 19:11) was borrowed from Exod 34:4–​6. The subsequent idea of (a) three powerful phenomena and (b) one silent, small one (1 Kgs 19:11e–​12), sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of, among others, (a) three most powerful post-​exilic tribes: Levi, Judah, and Joseph, and (b) the insignificant, small post-​exilic tribe of Benjamin (Deut 27:12c). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 1 Kgs 19:11) idea of Elijah standing (‫)*יעמד‬ at the entrance of the cave (1 Kgs 19:13; diff. 19:11: on the mountain)65 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Deut 27:12) Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites standing somewhere (Deut 27:13). The subsequent, verbatim repeated (cf. 1 Kgs 19:10)66 idea of Elijah becoming very zealous for Yahweh the God of hosts but complaining that the Israelites forsook the covenant of Yahweh, they tore down his altars and killed his prophets, Elijah alone remained, and the Israelites seek his life to take it (1 Kgs 19:14) illustrates the subsequent, partly repeated Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites uttering a curse on sinful Israelites (Deut 27:13). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of (a) Yahweh sending Elijah presumably east to the wilderness and (b) far north to Damascus and Aram (1 Kgs 19:15) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the tribes of (a) Reuben, Gad, (b) Asher, Zebulun, Dan, and Naphtali (Deut 27:13). The subsequent idea of (a) Elijah anointing Jehu as (b) king over Israel (‫ישראל‬: 1 Kgs 19:16a) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Levites speaking to (b) all the men of Israel (Deut 27:14ab). The subsequent idea of Elijah anointing Elisha as a presumably speaking prophet in his place (1 Kgs 19:16b) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of a loud voice (Deut 27:14b).

6 5 Cf. J. T. Walsh, 1 Kings (BerOl; Liturgical: Collegeville, MN 1996), 276. 66 Cf. P. R. House, 1, 2 Kings, 224.

158

First Kings as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 13:7–​27:25

The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of the one escaping from the sword of Hazael being killed by Jehu, and the one escaping from the sword of Jehu being killed by Elisha (1 Kgs 19:17) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of a cursed man (Deut 27:15a). The subsequent idea of (a) those who (‫ )אשר‬did not (b) bow down to Baal or (c) kiss him (1 Kgs 19:18) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential but positive way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the one who (b) makes a divine image and a cast image, (c) an abomination to Yahweh (Deut 27:15b). The subsequent idea of (a) Elisha cutting in the soil (‫)חרש‬, and (b) Elijah throwing his mantle over him, thus covering him (1 Kgs 19:19),67 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the work of the hands of one cutting in, and (b) the Israelite putting in secret (Deut 27:15bc). The subsequent idea of (a) Elisha positively answering to the calling by running after Elijah, (b) saying (‫ו*אמר‬: 1 Kgs 19:20a–​c), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) all the people positively answering and (b) saying, ‘Amen’ (Deut 27:15de). The subsequent idea of (a) Elisha wanting to kiss (b) his father (*‫( )אבי‬c) and his mother (*‫ו*אמ‬: 1 Kgs 19:20d) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) cursed being the one who treats contemptuously (b) his father (c) and his mother (Deut 27:16ab). The subsequent idea of (a) Elijah saying (‫ )ו*אמר‬that Elisha should come back to him (1 Kgs 19:20e–​h), along with (b) Elisha giving the meat of the offering to the people (‫)עם‬, (c) following Elijah, and becoming his servant (1 Kgs 19:20e–​ 21; esp. 19:21) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the saying of (b) all the people, (c) ‘Amen’ (Deut 27:16c).

3.12. 1 Kgs 20–​22 (cf. Deut 27:17–​25) The section 1 Kgs 20–​22 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 27:17–​25. The opening idea of (a) the evil king Ben-​hadad of Aram and thirty-​two kings68 (b) going up and laying siege to Samaria, wanting to take all its property 67 Cf. C. M. Fetherolf, ‘Elijah’s Mantle: A Sign of Prophecy Gone Awry,’ JSOT 42.2 (2017) 199–​212 (esp. 206). 68 The number 33, in contrast to 7000 (2 Kgs 20:15) and 7 (2 Kgs 20:29), may function here as a sign of curse (cf. the number 6 in 2 Kgs 2:24). For the importance of symbolic

1 Kgs 20–22 (cf. Deut 27:17–25)

159

(1 Kgs 20:1–​21), and again attacking Israel, but then restoring to Israel the conquered Israelite cities (1 Kgs 20:1–​34; esp. 20:22–​34) sequentially illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) cursed being the one who (b) moves a boundary marker (Deut 27:17ab). The subsequent idea of a certain man speaking to his neighbour (‫רעהו‬: 1 Kgs 20:35a) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of one’s neighbour (Deut 27:17b). The subsequent idea of (a) the man saying (‫ )ו*אמר‬by the word of Yahweh that one should obey the voice of Yahweh (1 Kgs 20:35b–​37c), and (b) another man obeying his command (1 Kgs 20:35b–​37; esp. 20:37de) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) all the people saying, (b) ‘Amen’ (Deut 27:17c). The subsequent idea of (a) the prophet standing before the king on the road (‫)דרך‬, and (b) making himself unrecognisable (c) due to a band on his eyes (1 Kgs 20:38) conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (b) cursed being the one who misleads (c) a blind man (a) on the road (Deut 27:18ab). The subsequent idea of (a) the prophet saying (‫ )ו*אמר‬to the king that someone brought a man to him, saying (‫ )ו*אמר‬that (b) he will give his life for not keeping him (1 Kgs 20:39), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) all the people saying, (b) ‘Amen’ (Deut 27:18c). The subsequent idea of (a) the prophet being busy here and there,69 and (b) the king saying to him that so shall be his judgement (‫)משפט‬, he himself determined it (1 Kgs 20:40), but (c) in fact he was one of the presumably protected prophets (1 Kgs 20:40–​41; esp. 20:41) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) cursed being the one who twists (b) the judgment of (c) the protected alien, the orphan, and the widow (Deut 27:19ab). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 1 Kgs 20:39) idea of (a) the prophet saying (‫ )ו*אמר‬that (b) the king shall give his people (‫ ;עם‬diff. 1 Kgs 20:39: no such remark) for the guarded man’s people (‫עם‬: 1 Kgs 20:42), and (c) the king

numbers in 1 Kgs 20, cf. A. van der Deijl, Protest or Propaganda: War in the Old Testament Book of Kings and in Contemporaneous Ancient Near Easter Texts (SSN 51; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2008), 128. 69 Cf. T. S. Hadjiev, ‘The King and the Reader: Hermeneutical Reflections on 1 Kings 20–​21,’ TynBul 66 (2015) 63–​74 (esp. 66).

160

First Kings as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 13:7–​27:25

being ill-​humoured and furious because of the punishment (1 Kgs 20:42–​43; esp. 20:43) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent, likewise repeated Deuteronomic idea of (a) the saying of (b) all the people, (c) ‘Amen’ (Deut 27:19c). The subsequent idea of (a) Ahab being ill-​humoured and furious (1 Kgs 21:1–​ 4d), so (b) lying (‫ )שכב‬on his bed (1 Kgs 21:4e–​g); (c) his wife (*‫ )אשת‬coming to him (1 Kgs 21:5–​7); (d) Ahab going down to take possession of Naboth’s vineyard, which was the inheritance of his fathers (1 Kgs 21:8–​16; cf. 21:3–​4: *‫;)אב‬ and (e) Ahab being in Naboth’s vineyard, which was the inheritance of his fathers (1 Kgs 21:1–​18; esp. 21:17–​18; cf. 21:3–​4: *‫)אב‬, conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) cursed being the one who (b) lies (c) with the wife of (d) his father because (e) he uncovered the skirt of his father (Deut 27:20ab). The particular motif of two witnesses making someone die (‫ מות‬+ * ‫ עד‬+ ‫שנים‬: 1 Kgs 21:10) was borrowed from Deut 17:6. The subsequent idea of (a) the prophet saying (‫ )ו*אמר‬to Ahab that (b) he is guilty of murder and dispossession (1 Kgs 21:19a–​e) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) all the people saying, (b) ‘Amen’ (Deut 27:20c). The subsequent, ambiguously formulated idea of (a) Yahweh cursing Ahab by saying that (b) dogs will lick his blood, and he likewise (1 Kgs 21:19f–​k) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) cursed being the one who (b) lies with any animal (Deut 27:21ab). The subsequent idea of (a) the prophet saying (‫ )ו*אמר‬to Ahab that (b) he found him because he is guilty of doing evil in the sight of Yahweh (1 Kgs 21:20) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) all the people saying, (b) ‘Amen’ (Deut 27:21c). The subsequent idea of (a) bringing evil upon Ahab by (b) cutting off from him every male (1 Kgs 21:21), along with (c) making his house like the house of Jeroboam son (‫ )בן‬of Nebat and (d) like the house of Baasha son (‫ )בן‬of Ahijah (1 Kgs 21:21–​22; esp. 21:22) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) cursed being the one who (b) lies with his sister, (c) the daughter (‫ )בת‬of his father or (d) the daughter (‫)בת‬ of his mother (Deut 27:22a–​c). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 1 Kgs 14:11; 16:4)70 idea of (a) Yahweh saying (‫ )ו*אמר‬that (b) Jezebel and those belonging to Ahab will be punished

70 Cf. S. J. De Vries, 1 Kings, 257.

1 Kgs 20–22 (cf. Deut 27:17–25)

161

(1 Kgs 21:23–​24) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) all the people saying, (b) ‘Amen’ (Deut 27:22d). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 1 Kgs 21:20) idea of (a) Ahab doing evil in the sight of Yahweh, being incited by his wife (1 Kgs 21:25), and (b) acting abominably by going after the idols images of his wife (1 Kgs 21:26), therefore later lying (‫ )שכב‬in sackcloth (1 Kgs 21:25–​27; esp. 21:26), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) cursed being the one who (b) lies with the mother of his wife (Deut 27:23ab). The subsequent idea of (a) the word of Yahweh saying (‫ו*אמר‬: 1 Kgs 21:28) that (b) Ahab humbled himself, so Yahweh bringing evil on his house (1 Kgs 21:28–​ 29; esp. 21:29), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) all the people saying, (b) ‘Amen’ (Deut 27:23c). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 1 Sam 28; 31; 1 Kgs 20–​21)71 idea of (a) prophetically saying that Israel will be dispersed (1 Kgs 22:1–​23; esp. 22:17–​23), (b) the prophet Zedekiah striking (‫ )נכה‬the prophet Micaiah (1 Kgs 22:24–​28; esp. 22:24), and (c) the king of Israel disguising himself (1 Kgs 22:29–​33), but someone unexpectedly striking (‫ )נכה‬him (1 Kgs 22:1–​34b; esp. 22:34ab)72 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) cursed being the one who (b) strikes his neighbour (c) secretly (Deut 27:24ab). The particular motif of Micaiah speaking the word of Yahweh (‫ דבר־‬+ * ‫מיכ‬ ‫יהוה‬: 1 Kgs 22:15.19) and saying, ‘Hear, you peoples, all of you’ (‫שמעו עמים‬ ‫כלם‬: 1 Kgs 22:28) was borrowed from Mic 1:1–​2.73 The subsequent idea of (a) Ahab saying (‫ )ו*אמר‬that (b) he is actually wounded (1 Kgs 22:34c–​f) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) all the people saying, (b) ‘Amen’ (Deut 27:24c). 71 Cf. C. Quine, ‘Reading Micaiah’s Heavenly Vision (1Kgs 22:19–​23) and 1 Kings 22 as Interpretive Keys,’ ZAW 130 (2018) 204–​216 (esp. 210); D. Kim, ‘Ahab and Saul (1 Kgs 22.1–​38),’ JSOT 43.4 (2019) 525–​538 (esp. 528–​534). 72 Cf. Y. L. Keumeni Ngounou, ‘Yhwh est-​il un menteur? Une lecture narrative de 1 R 22,1–​40,’ SJOT 32 (2018) 236–​246 (esp. 242); W. Thiel, ‘Struktur und Eigenart von 1 Kön 22,1–​38,’ in S. Grätz, A. Graupner, and J. Lanckau (eds.), Ein Freund des Wortes, Festschrift U. Rüterswörden (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2019), 325–​336 (esp. 333). 73 Cf. A. van der Deijl, Protest or Propaganda, 161.

162

First Kings as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 13:7–​27:25

The subsequent idea of (a) the king being supported in his chariot (diff. 1 Kgs 22:34: carried out), (b) dying, the blood (‫ )דם‬of the stroke (‫ )מכה‬running out (1 Kgs 22:35–​37; esp. 22:35), and (c) the dogs licking out his blood (‫דם‬: 1 Kgs 22:35–​48; esp. 22:38) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) cursed being the one who takes a bribe (b) to strike someone’s life, (c) innocent blood (Deut 27:25ab). The subsequent idea of (a) Ahaziah saying (‫ )אמר‬that (b) his servants will go with Jehoshaphat’s servants, but (c) Jehoshaphat accepting the destruction of his ships (1 Kgs 22:49–​54; esp. 22:50)74 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the saying of (b) all the people, (c) ‘Amen’ (Deut 27:25c).

74 Cf. T. Forti and D. A. Glatt-​Gilat, ‘At the Intersection of Intellect and Insolence: The Historiographic Significance of Solomon’s and Jehoshaphat’s “Tarshish Ships” in the Light of a Wisdom Motif,’ in A. Baruchi-​Unna [et al.] (eds.), Now It Happened, 67–​80 (esp. 77).

Chapter 4. Second Kings as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 27:26–​34:12 The contents of the second book of Kings sequentially, in a hypertextual way illustrate the contents of Deut 27:26–​34:12.

4.1. 2 Kgs 1–​5 (cf. Deut 27:26–​28:22) The section 2 Kgs 1–​5 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 27:26–​28:22. The opening, somewhat surprisingly introduced idea of two calamities, namely, (a) Moab rebelling against Israel (cf. 2 Kgs 3:5) and Ahaziah unexpectedly falling down through the grid of (b) his upper room (2 Kgs 1:1–​2; esp. 1:2)1 sequentially illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) cursed being the one who (b) does not put up (Deut 27:26ab). The subsequent idea of the angel of Yahweh speaking (‫ )דבר‬to Elijah, and Elijah speaking (‫ )דבר‬these words (*‫ )את־*דברי‬to the king of Samaria (2 Kgs 1:3–​7; esp. 1:3.6–​7) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the words (Deut 27:26b). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of Elijah having the appearance of a man of wilderness (2 Kgs 1:8; cf. Gen 3:21: ‫ ;)עור‬the Israelites, like at Mount Horeb, being grouped in fifties and having over them leaders of fifties (2 Kgs 1:9–​ 14; cf. Deut 1:15: ‫ ;)שר* חמשים‬Elijah remaining, like Moses on Mount Sinai, on the top of the mountain (2 Kgs 1:9; cf. Deut 9:9: ‫ ;ישב‬Exod 34:2: ‫ ;)על־ראש ההר‬and a consuming fire, like on Mount Sinai, coming down from heaven (2 Kgs 1:8–​14; esp. 1:10.12.14; cf. Deut 5:25; Exod 24:17: ‫ אכל‬+ ‫ )אש‬illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of this, presumably Mosaic, law being done (Deut 27:26bc). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh saying (‫ )אמר‬to the king (2 Kgs 1:16), (b) and the king being ultimately punished by dying and not having a son (2 Kgs 1:15–​18; esp. 1:17–​18) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) all the people saying (b) ultimately, ‘Amen’ (Deut 27:26d).

1 Cf. P. R. House, 1, 2 Kings (NAC 8; Broadman & Holman: Nashville, TN 1995), 243.

164 Second Kings as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 27:26–​34:12 The subsequent idea of (a) it coming to pass (‫ויהי‬: 2 Kgs 2:1a) that (b) Elijah obeyed the repetitively formulated commands which Yahweh (‫ )יהוה‬gave him (2 Kgs 2:1–​6; esp. 2:2.4.6)2 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) it coming to pass (‫ )והיה‬that (b) the Israelite obeys the voice of Yahweh (Deut 28:1ab). The subsequent idea of fifty men of the sons of the prophets observing Elijah and Elisha, as they crossed over the Jordan (2 Kgs 2:7–​8), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite watching (Deut 28:1c). The particular motif of the Israelites crossing over the Jordan on dry ground (‫ בחרבה‬+ ‫עבר‬: 2 Kgs 2:8) was borrowed from Josh 3:17. The subsequent idea of Elijah asking Elisha what he might do (‫ )עשה‬for him (2 Kgs 2:9a–​f) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite doing all the commandments (Deut 28:1d). The subsequent idea of Elisha wanting to have two mouthfuls of Elijah’s spirit,3 that is, to be his heir as the spiritual leader of Israel (2 Kgs 2:9g–​10)4 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses commanding Israel today (Deut 28:1e). The particular motif of the firstborn son receiving two portions of the father’s inheritance (‫פי שנים‬: 2 Kgs 2:9) was borrowed from Deut 21:17. The subsequent idea of (a) a chariot of fire and horses of fire (b) making Elijah go up (‫ )*על‬in a whirlwind to heaven as the military chariot and horsemen of Israel (2 Kgs 2:11–​12c),5 and (c) Elisha, left on the earth, tearing his clothes into pieces (2 Kgs 2:11–​12; esp. 2:12d–​f ) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh God (b) raising Israel up (*‫ )על‬above (‫( )על‬c) all the nations of the earth (Deut 28:1f). The subsequent idea of (a) Elijah’s mantle falling from upon (‫ )*על‬him to Elisha, and (b) Elisha taking Elijah’s mantle (a’) which fell from upon (‫ )*על‬him (2 Kgs 2:13–​14b) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) all these blessings coming upon the Israelite and (b) reaching him (Deut 28:2ab). The subsequent idea of Elisha invoking Yahweh, the God of (‫ )יהוה אלהי‬Elijah (2 Kgs 2:14c–​h), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent 2 Cf. P. R. House, 1, 2 Kings, 257. 3 Cf. Ł. Popko, ‘‫ פי־שׁנים‬in 2 Kgs 2:9 as a Metaphor of Double Speech,’ RB 125 (2018) 353–​374 (esp. 357–​362). 4 Cf. T. R. Hobbs, 2 Kings (WBC 13; Word Books, Dallas, TX 1985), 21. 5 Cf. T. R. Hobbs, 2 Kings, 22; K. Weingart, ‘ “My Father, My Father! Chariot of Israel and Its Horses!” (2 Kings 2:12 //​13:14): Elisha’s or Elijah’s Title?,’ JBL 137 (2018) 257–​270 (esp. 264–​266).

2 Kgs 1–5 (cf. Deut 27:26–28:22)

165

Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite obeying the voice of Yahweh, the God of Israel (Deut 28:2c). The subsequent idea of the sons of the prophets bowing down to Elisha as the spiritual heir of Elijah (2 Kgs 2:15–​18) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite being blessed (Deut 28:3a). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly introduced idea of (a) the men of the city (‫ )עיר‬saying that (b) the site of the city (‫ )עיר‬is good (2 Kgs 2:19a–​c) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite being blessed in the city and (b) being blessed in the landscape (Deut 28:3a). The subsequent idea of Yahweh making the land healed and not childless (2 Kgs 2:19d–​22) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of blessed being the fruit of the Israelite’s womb and the fruit of his ground (Deut 28:4–​5; esp. 28:4). The subsequent thought that (a) Elisha went up from there to the sanctuary of Bethel, and (b) while he was going on the way (‫)בדרך‬, (c) youths came out (‫ )יצאו‬from the city and made fun of him (2 Kgs 2:23), but (d) he turned his face (‫ )פנה‬and cursed them in the name of Yahweh (‫)יהוה‬, so that (e) forty-​two, that is, seven times six6 of them were split by bears (2 Kgs 2:23–​25; esp. 2:24), conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic thought that (a) blessed being the Israelite in his coming in and in his going out (Deut 28:6), so that (d) Yahweh will cause the Israelite’s enemies to be struck before his face (*‫)*פני‬, (b) on one way (c) they will come out, and (e) on seven ways, presumably split, they will flee (d’) before his face (Deut 28:6–​7; esp. 28:7). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 1 Kgs 22:4–​16; 2 Kgs 1:1)7 idea of Yahweh apparently calling three kings to deliver them into the hand of Moab (2 Kgs 3:1–​ 13), but ultimately making water come to the Israelites and delivering Moab into their hand (2 Kgs 3; esp. 3:14–​27)8 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh commanding a blessing upon Israel (Deut 28:8a). 6 The number 6, in contrast to 7, may function here as a sign of curse (cf. the number 33 in 1 Kgs 20:1). 7 Cf. B. O. Long, 2 Kings (FOTL 10; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI 1991), 46–​47; O. Sergi, ‘The Omride Dynasty and the Reshaping of the Judahite Historical Memory,’ Bib 97 (2016) 503–​526 (esp. 519–​521). 8 Cf. J. Pakkala, ‘Water in 1–​2 Kings,’ in E. Ben Zvi and C. Levin (eds.), Thinking of Water in the Early Second Temple Period (BZAW 461; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2014), 299–​315 (esp. 305).

166 Second Kings as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 27:26–​34:12 The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 1 Kgs 17:12–​16)9 idea of Elisha making widow’s oil in a jar (*‫אס‬: 2 Kgs 4:2; diff. 1 Kgs 17:12.14.16: ‫ )צפחת‬flow into many vessels (2 Kgs 4:1–​7) conceptually and partly linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of a blessing in the Israelite’s stores (*‫אס‬: Deut 28:8a–​c). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 1 Kgs 17:24) idea of (a) the woman of Shunem respecting Elisha as (b) a holy (‫ ;קדוש‬diff. 1 Kgs 17:24: no such remark)10 man of God (2 Kgs 4:9), so (a’) preparing for him an upper room (2 Kgs 4:8–​11; esp. 4:10–​11), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh raising Israel for himself as (b) a holy people (Deut 28:9a). The subsequent idea of (a) Elisha causing the barren woman to have a son at (*‫ )כ‬the time of which (‫( )אשר‬b) Elisha spoke (c) to her (2 Kgs 4:12–​17; esp. 4:17) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh doing just as (‫( )כאשר‬b) he promised (c) to the Israelite (Deut 28:9b). The particular motif of promising to a barren woman that at this season next year she will have a son (‫ בן‬+ ‫ כעת חיה‬+ ‫למועד הזה‬: 2 Kgs 4:16–​17) was borrowed from Gen 17:21; 18:10.14.11 The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 1 Kgs 17:17–​18) idea of the believing mother of a dead child going (‫הלכת‬: 2 Kgs 4:23; cf. 4:24–​25; diff. 1 Kgs 17:18: no such remark) to the men of God (2 Kgs 4:18–​28), and Gehazi and Elisha going (‫הלך‬: 2 Kgs 4:29–​30; diff. 1 Kgs 17:18: no such remark) to her home, persuaded by the presence of Yahweh (2 Kgs 4:18–​30), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite keeping Yahweh’s commandments and going on the ways of Yahweh (Deut 28:9cd). The traditional, pre-​exilic motif of the correlated new moon and the sabbath (+ ‫חדש‬ ‫שבת‬: 2 Kgs 4:23) could have been borrowed from Hos 2:13 etc. The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 1 Kgs 18:29; 17:19–​22)12 idea of (a) Elisha in the Shunamite house (b) praying to Yahweh (‫יהוה‬: 2 Kgs 4:31–​35; esp. 4:33) 9 Cf. T. R. Hobbs, 2 Kings, 46; P. R. House, 1, 2 Kings, 265; J. F. Parker, Valuable and Vulnerable: Children in the Hebrew Bible, Especially the Elisha Cycle (BJS 355; Brown University: Providence, RI 2013), 134. 10 Cf. J. F. Parker, Valuable and Vulnerable, 141. 11 Cf. J. E. Harvey, Retelling the Torah: The Deuteronomistic Historian’s Use of Tetrateuchal Narratives (JSOTSup 403; T&T Clark: London · New York 2004), 39. Cf. also G. Rosenberg, ‘‫כעת חיה‬: An Allusion Connecting Genesis 18:10, 14 and 2 Kings 4:16–​ 17,’ JBL 139 (2020) 701–​720, who does not ascertain the direction of borrowing. 12 Cf. A. R. Davis, ‘Rereading 1 Kings 17:21 in Light of Ancient Medical Texts,’ JBL 135 (2016) 465–​481 (esp. 467–​468).

2 Kgs 1–5 (cf. Deut 27:26–28:22)

167

conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) all the nations of the earth seeing that (b) the name of Yahweh is active (Deut 28:10ab). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 1 Kgs 17:23) idea of Elisha calling (‫;קרא‬ diff. 1 Kgs 17:23: no such remark) Gehazi, telling him to call (‫ ;קרא‬diff. 1 Kgs 17:23: no such remark) the woman, and Gehazi calling (‫ ;קרא‬diff. 1 Kgs 17:23: no such remark) her (2 Kgs 4:36) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of being called upon the Israelite (Deut 28:10b). The subsequent idea of the Shunamite woman falling at Elisha’s feet, bowing to the ground, taking her son, and going away (2 Kgs 4:37) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the nations of the earth being afraid of the Israelite (Deut 28:10c). The subsequent idea of Elisha making left-over fruits of a wild vine into healthy food for the sons of the prophets (2 Kgs 4:38–​41), along with Yahweh (‫ )יהוה‬saying that the people will eat new bread and have left over (*‫והותר‬: 2 Kgs 4:38–​44; esp. 4:43–​44) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh having left over to Israel for good (Deut 28:11a). The subsequent idea of a little girl from the land of Israel giving advice concerning the body of the mighty Aramaean Naaman (2 Kgs 5:1–​4; esp. 5:2–​4)13 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh blessing the Israelite in the fruit of his womb (Deut 28:11a). The subsequent idea of healing a man in Israel (2 Kgs 5:5–​7); a prophet being in Israel (2 Kgs 5:8–​9); and the leper, without invoking Yahweh (2 Kgs 5:11; cf. 5:15),14 bathing merely in a river, but in Israel (2 Kgs 5:5–​15; esp. 5:10–​15),15 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh blessing Israel in the fruit of its ground (Deut 28:11a). The subsequent idea of (a) giving (‫ )נתן‬to Naaman (b) some soil (‫)אדמה‬, and (c) Naaman solemnly declaring that he will offer sacrifices (d) exclusively to Yahweh (‫יהוה‬: 2 Kgs 5:16–​17; esp. 5:17) conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (b) the soil of which (c) it was sworn by (d) Yahweh (a) to give it to the Israelite (Deut

13 Cf. J. F. Parker, Valuable and Vulnerable, 160–​161; S. K. Berman, ‘Greatness versus Smallness: A Postcolonial Analysis of the Healing of Naaman (2 Kings 5),’ OTE 29 (2016) 403–​418 (esp. 407–​409). 14 Cf. S. K. Berman, ‘Greatness,’ 411. 15 Cf. I. Cranz, ‘Naaman’s Healing and Gehazi’s Affliction: The Magical Background of 2 Kgs 5,’ VT 68 (2018) 540–​555 (esp. 549).

168 Second Kings as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 27:26–​34:12 28:11bc). The particular motif of the Israelite refusing to take anything valuable from a pagan (‫לקח‬: 2 Kgs 5:16) was borrowed from Deut 7:25 etc. The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of Naaman’s master leaning on his hand (*‫יד‬: 2 Kgs 5:18a–​d) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh blessing every deed of the Israelite’s hand and making him the head, so that he will be above others (Deut 28:12–​13; esp. 28:12). The subsequent idea of Naaman not really worshipping in the temple of the pagan god Rimmon (2 Kgs 5:18e–​19) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite not going after other gods to serve them (Deut 28:14). The subsequent idea of (a) Gehazi invoking Yahweh but violating Elisha’s prohibition (b) not to take anything from a pagan (2 Kgs 5:20; cf. 5:15–​16) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite not obeying the voice of Yahweh (b) to observe carefully all his commandments (Deut 28:15a–​f). The subsequent idea of (a) the sinful Gehazi pursuing Naaman, who fell down from upon (‫)*על‬16 his chariot, and (b) meeting him (2 Kgs 5:21) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) curses coming upon the Israelite and (b) reaching him (Deut 28:15gh). The subsequent idea of (a) the sinful Gehazi coming in (‫ )בוא‬to the citadel, coming in (‫ )בוא‬to his master, Elisha asking him where from, and (b) Gehazi answering that he did not go anywhere (2 Kgs 5:22–​25; esp. 5:24–​25) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite being cursed in his coming in and (b) in his going out (Deut 28:16–​19; esp. 28:19). The subsequent idea of Elisha rebuking Gehazi for what he did (2 Kgs 5:26) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh sending a rebuke because of the evil of his deeds (Deut 28:20). The subsequent idea of (a) Elisha threatening Gehazi that the leprosy of Naaman will cling (‫( )*דבק‬b) to him (‫ )בך‬and (c) to his descendants forever, and (d) Gehazi becoming as leprous as (e) snow (2 Kgs 5:27) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses threatening the Israelite that Yahweh will make the plague cling (b) to him (c) until it destroys him from the ground (Deut 28:21), and that (d) Yahweh will strike him with consumption, fever, along with (e) blight and mildew (Deut 28:21–​22; esp. 28:22).

16 Cf. S. K. Berman, ‘Greatness,’ 414.

2 Kgs 6–7 (cf. Deut 28:23–58)

169

4.2. 2 Kgs 6–​7 (cf. Deut 28:23–​58) The section 2 Kgs 6–​7 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 28:23–​58. The opening idea of (a) the place where the sons of the prophets sit/​dwell being too cramped for them, so the sons of the prophets making a wooden roof above them (2 Kgs 6:1–​4),17 and (b) the iron (‫ )ברזל‬falling down, but Elisha making the iron (‫ )ברזל‬float (2 Kgs 6:1–​7; esp. 6:5–​6) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel’s sky which is over his head being bronze, and (b) the earth which is under him being iron (Deut 28:23–​24; esp. 28:23). The subsequent idea of (a) the man of God thwarting the military plans of the king of Aram by (b) showing the place where the Aramaeans go down, and (c) the king warning his troop not one and not two, presumably times (2 Kgs 6:8–​ 10), sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh causing the Israelite to be defeated before his enemies, so that (b) while he goes out against them, (c) he will flee seven ways (Deut 28:25–​27; esp. 28:25). The subsequent idea of the heart (*‫ )לב‬of the king of Aram being stirred up (2 Kgs 6:11a) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh striking the Israelite with madness and horror of heart (Deut 28:28). The subsequent idea of (a) the servants of the king of Aram not (‫ )ל*א‬telling him who of them (b) sides with his enemy (2 Kgs 6:11b–​e) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite not being successful in his ways, but (b) being always oppressed and robbed (Deut 28:29). The subsequent idea of Elisha telling the king of Israel the presumably erotic words which the king of Aram speaks in the intimate bedroom of his sleeping (*‫*שכב‬: 2 Kgs 6:12) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite betrothing a wife, but another man sleeping with her (Deut 28:30). The subsequent idea of (a) enemy forces surrounding Elisha, and (b) his servant not knowing what (*‫ )אי‬to do (2 Kgs 6:13–​15; esp. 6:15) conceptually and partly linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite’s cattle being given to his enemies, and (b) there being no one (*‫ )אי‬to help him (Deut 28:31).

17 Cf. T. R. Hobbs, 2 Kings, 76.

170 Second Kings as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 27:26–​34:12 The subsequent idea of those with Elisha being more numerous than the Aramaeans (2 Kgs 6:16) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite’s sons and daughters being given to another nation (Deut 28:32a). The subsequent idea of (a) Elisha praying for his servant that Yahweh might open his eyes (*‫( )עיני‬b) to see (‫)ראה‬, and (a’) Yahweh opening the eyes (*‫ )עיני‬of the young man, so that (b’) he saw (‫( )ראה‬c) horses and chariots of fire around Elisha (2 Kgs 6:17), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite’s eyes (b) seeing and (c) destroying (‫ כלות‬also read as piel) them (Deut 28:32bc). The subsequent idea of Yahweh striking the Aramaeans with sudden blindness (2 Kgs 6:18) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite’s hand being powerless (Deut 28:32d). The subsequent idea of Elisha leading the Aramaeans to Samaria, presumably far into the territory of Israel (2 Kgs 6:19), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite being oppressed and crushed by the people whom he does not know (Deut 28:33). The subsequent idea of (a) it coming to be (‫ )ויהי‬that (b) the Aramaeans came to the enemy city of Samaria (2 Kgs 6:20ab) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite being (*‫( )והי‬b) driven mad (Deut 28:34ab). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 2 Kgs 6:17)18 idea of (a) Elisha praying for the Aramaeans that Yahweh might open their eyes (*‫( )עיני‬b) to see (‫)ראה‬, and (a’) Yahweh opening their eyes (*‫)עיני‬, so that (b’) they saw (‫ )ראה‬that (c) they were, alas, inside Samaria (2 Kgs 6:20c–​h), conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent, likewise partly repeated (cf. Deut 28:32bc) Deuteronomic idea of (c) the horrifying sight that (a) the Israelite’s eyes (b) saw (Deut 28:34c). The subsequent idea of the king of Israel asking whether he should strike (‫)נכה‬ the Aramaeans (2 Kgs 6:21a–​c) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh striking the Israelite (Deut 28:35). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of the king of Israel calling Elisha his father (*‫אב‬: 2 Kgs 6:21c) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh bringing the king of Israel to a nation whom he and his fathers did not know (Deut 28:36–​37; esp. 28:36).

18 Cf. R. Gilmour, ‘A note on the horses and chariots of fire at Dothan,’ ZAW 125 (2013) 308–​313 (esp. 311).

2 Kgs 6–7 (cf. Deut 28:23–58)

171

The subsequent idea of (a) the king of Israel not (‫ )לא‬killing those whom (b) he took captive (*‫שבי‬: 2 Kgs 6:22a–​c) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite begetting sons and daughters, but them not being his because (b) they will go into captivity (‫שבי‬: Deut 28:38–​41; esp. 28:41). The subsequent idea of (a) the king of Israel acting with his sword and his bow, and (b) possibly killing the Aramaeans (2 Kgs 6:22cd) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) an alien rising above the Israelite, curses pursuing and reaching the Israelite, and (b) the Israelite being exterminated (Deut 28:42–​46). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of the king of Israel making a great feast19 for the Aramaeans (2 Kgs 6:22e–​23c)20 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite serving Yahweh with joy and gladness of heart for the abundance of everything (Deut 28:47). The subsequent idea of (a) the king of Israel sending (*‫ )*ישלח‬the Aramaeans (b) to their master (2 Kgs 6:23d) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh sending enemies, and (b) the Israelite serving them in an iron yoke (Deut 28:48a–​c). The subsequent idea of the Aramaeans no longer (‫ )עוד‬being in the land of Israel (2 Kgs 6:23ef) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh acting as long as (‫ )עד‬he exterminates the Israelite (Deut 28:48d). The subsequent, somewhat surprising in the preceding context (cf. 2 Kgs 6:23)21 idea of the king of Aram gathering all his army and going up (*‫ )על‬to Israel (2 Kgs 6:24a–​c) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh bringing upon (*‫ )על‬Israel a nation from afar (Deut 28:49–​51; esp. 28:49). The subsequent idea of the king of Aram besieging (‫ )*צר‬Samaria, and the enemies besieging (*‫ )צר‬Samaria (2 Kgs 6:24d–​25b) conceptually and linguistically

19 The understanding of the problematic noun ‫ כרה‬as ‘pile’ (of food) does not affect the overall meaning of 2 Kgs 6:23. Cf. R. Goldstein, ‘The Provision of Food to the Aramaean Captives in II Reg 6,22–​23,’ ZAW 126 (2014) 101–​105 (esp. 103). 20 Cf. R. Nyirimana Mukansengimana, ‘You Shall Not Kill Them: Reading 2 Kings 6:8–​ 23 in the Context of the Conflict in the African Great Lakes Region,’ OTE 30 (2017) 103–​127 (esp. 117). 21 Cf. T. R. Hobbs, 2 Kings, 74; B. O. Long, 2 Kings, 91.

172 Second Kings as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 27:26–​34:12 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the pagan nation besieging Israel in all his gates (Deut 28:52a).22 The subsequent idea of the famine being great (a) until (‫( )עד‬b) there was shortage of more and more repulsive items (2 Kgs 6:25cd)23 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of besieging Israel (a) until (b) the going down (Deut 28:52b). The subsequent idea of (a) the king of Israel walking on the wall (‫)חמה‬, and (b) a woman crying out for help to her lord, (c) the king (2 Kgs 6:26), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel’s high and fortified walls, (b) in which he trusts (c) in all his land (Deut 28:52bc). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh (‫ )יהוה‬possibly helping the woman, and (b) the king not helping her from the threshing floor or from the wine press (2 Kgs 6:27) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (b) besieging Israel in all his gates, in all his land, which (a) Yahweh God gave him (Deut 28:52de). The subsequent idea of (a) a woman being requested to give her son (*‫( )בנ‬b) to eat (‫ )אכל‬him, (a’) another woman suggesting that her son (*‫( )בנ‬b’) they will eat (‫ )אכל‬tomorrow, so (a”) both women boiling the first woman’s son (*‫ )בנ‬and (b”) eating (‫ )אכל‬him (2 Kgs 6:28–​29b), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (b) the Israelite eating (a) the flesh of his sons and his daughters (Deut 28:53).24 The subsequent idea of (a) the woman in vain requesting that the other woman (‫אשה‬: cf. 2 Kgs 6:28) would give (‫( )נתן‬b) her son (*‫( )בנ‬c) to eat (‫ )אכל‬him (2 Kgs 6:29c–​e) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite not giving to his brother or to his woman (b) the flesh of his sons (c) whom he eats (Deut 28:54–​55; esp. 28:55). The subsequent idea of the other woman hiding her son (‫בנ*ה‬: 2 Kgs 6:29f) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of an Israelite woman eating her sons secretly (Deut 28:26–​57c; esp. 28:57c). The subsequent idea of the king walking on the wall and having sackcloth as his underwear (2 Kgs 6:30) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the siege (Deut 28:57c).

22 Cf. K. Garroway, ‘2 Kings 6:24–​30: A Case of Unintentional Elimination Killing,’ JBL 137 (2018) 53–​70 (esp. 66 n. 55). 23 Cf. T. R. Hobbs, 2 Kings, 79; M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 11; Doubleday: New York 1988), 79. 24 Cf. K. Garroway, ‘2 Kings 6:24–​30,’ 66 n. 55.

2 Kgs 6–7 (cf. Deut 28:23–58)

173

The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of (a) sending someone to kill Elisha, and (b) Elisha saying that the son of a murderer sent someone to kill him and that (c) the murderer’s master is behind him (2 Kgs 6:31–​33) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the oppression with which (b) there will oppress him (c) the Israelite’s enemy (Deut 28:57d). The subsequent idea of the end of famine being at the gate (‫ )בשער‬of Samaria (2 Kgs 7:1),25 and leprous men sitting at the entrance of the gate (‫שער‬: 2 Kgs 7:1–​3; esp. 7:3) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the oppression being at the Israelite’s gates (Deut 28:57d). The subsequent, repetitively formulated idea of the lepers saying that if (‫)אם‬ they enter the city, they will die; if (‫ )אם‬they sit here, they will die; if (‫ )אם‬the Aramaeans let them live, they will live, and if (‫ )אם‬the Aramaeans make them die, they will die (2 Kgs 7:4) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of a condition if the Israelite does something (Deut 28:58a). The subsequent idea of the lepers going through the Aramaean camp and hiding precious things (2 Kgs 7:5–​8) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite keeping (Deut 28:58a). The subsequent idea of the lepers saying that they are not doing (‫ )עשה‬the right thing (2 Kgs 7:9ab) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of exhorting the Israelite to do the prescribed thing (Deut 28:58b). The subsequent idea of (a) this day being a day of good news, not to be silent but to tell them to (b) the house of the king (2 Kgs 7:9c–​i), sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) all the words of (b) this law (Deut 28:58b). The subsequent, repetitively formulated idea of the lepers calling/​reading to the gatekeepers, and the gatekeepers calling/​reading to the house of the king (2 Kgs 7:10–​11) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of being written, presumably to be read to Israel, in a book (Deut 28:58c). The subsequent idea of messengers seeing the garments and the objects which the Aramaeans threw away in their haste in fear (2 Kgs 7:12–​15) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of fearing this glorious and awesome name (Deut 28:58d).

25 Cf. T. R. Hobbs, 2 Kings, 89.

174 Second Kings as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 27:26–​34:12 The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 2 Kgs 7:1) idea of the fulfilment of the word of Yahweh (‫יהוה‬: 2 Kgs 7:16) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the name of Yahweh (Deut 28:58d). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 2 Kgs 7:1–​2) idea of the fulfilment of the word of the man of God (‫*אלהים‬: 2 Kgs 7:17–​20; esp. 7:17–​19)26 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the name of Israel’s God (Deut 28:58d).

4.3. 2 Kgs 8–​10 (cf. Deut 28:59–​68) The section 2 Kgs 8–​10 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 28:59–​68. The opening idea of Yahweh (‫ )יהוה‬calling a famine upon the land for seven years (2 Kgs 8:1–​2) illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh bringing extraordinary plagues upon Israel and his offspring (Deut 28:59a). The subsequent idea of (a) a woman crying to the king (2 Kgs 8:3), and (b) the king wanting to know all the great things (‫ )*גדלות‬which Elisha did (2 Kgs 8:3–​4; esp. 8:4) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) plagues which are (b) great (Deut 28:59a). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 2 Kgs 4:32–​36)27 and surprising in the context of Gehazi’s illness (cf. 2 Kgs 5:27)28 idea of the mother of the dead and revived son, along with the revived son himself, confirming the account of Gehazi (2 Kgs 8:5–​6)29 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of being reliable/​lasting (Deut 28:59b). The subsequent idea of the king of Aram being ill (*‫חל‬: 2 Kgs 8:7) and asking the man of God whether he will recover from this illness (‫חלי‬: 2 Kgs 8:7–​10; esp. 8:8–​ 9) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of illnesses (Deut 28:59c). The subsequent idea of Hazael doing evil (*‫ )רע‬to Israel (2 Kgs 8:11–​12; esp. 8:12) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of being evil (Deut 28:59c).

2 6 Cf. P. R. House, 1, 2 Kings, 281. 27 Cf. J. F. Parker, Valuable and Vulnerable, 191, 194. 28 Cf. M. Mulzer, ‘Der kranke und der gesunde Gehasi: Zum Verhältnis von 2Kön 5 und 2Kön 8,1–​6,’ BN, nf 153 (2012) 19–​27 (esp. 20). 29 Cf. J. F. Parker, Valuable and Vulnerable, 195.

2 Kgs 8–10 (cf. Deut 28:59–68)

175

The subsequent idea of the fulfilment of the word of Yahweh spoken by Elisha (2 Kgs 8:13–​15) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of being reliable (Deut 28:59c). The subsequent idea of (a) the southern country of Edom revolting against Judah (2 Kgs 8:20),30 (b) Joram attacking Edom by night, but (c) Edom successfully surrounding him (2 Kgs 8:16–​24; esp. 8:21) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh bringing back against Israel all the sicknesses of the southern country of Egypt, (b) the Israelite being afraid before their face, and (c) them clinging to him (Deut 28:60). The particular motif of Yahweh not wanting to exterminate (‫לא־אבה יהוה *השחית‬: 2 Kgs 8:19) was borrowed from Deut 10:10. The subsequent idea of Joram being ill (*‫ ;חל‬diff. 2 Kgs 9:15–​16: lying) because of the wounds which the Aramaeans inflicted him (2 Kgs 8:25–​29; esp. 8:29) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of every illness (Deut 28:61a). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 1 Kgs 18:4;31 21:21–​24;32 22:34;33 2 Kgs 8:29)34 idea of (a) Jehu striking (‫ )נכה‬the house of Ahab (2 Kgs 9:7), Joram recovering from the strokes (‫ )מכה‬which the Aramaeans stroke (‫ )נכה‬him (2 Kgs 9:15), Jehu striking (‫ )נכה‬Joram with an arrow (2 Kgs 9:24), the followers of Jehu striking (‫ )נכה‬Ahaziah (2 Kgs 9:27), along with (b) uttering some not previously recorded oracles (2 Kgs 9; esp. 9:25–​26;35 9:37)36 conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) every stroke (b) which is not recorded (Deut 28:61a). The subsequent, threatening idea of (a) Jehu writing (‫( )כתב‬b) letters/​books (*‫ )ספר‬to Samaria (2 Kgs 10:1), so that this letter/​book (‫ )ספר‬should come to

30 Cf. É. Nodet, ‘Édom, c’est l’Idumée! Le rejet littéraire d’Édom hors de Juda,’ RB 126 (2019) 161–​206 (esp. 194). 31 Cf. B. O. Long, 2 Kings, 119. 32 Cf. B. O. Long, 2 Kings, 119. 33 Cf. M. K. Y. H. Hom, ‘On the Use of ‫ עם־אבתיו‬+ ‫ וישׁכב‬and ‫ קבר‬Formulae in the Book of Kings,’ BN, nf 172 (2017) 3–​12 (esp. 5). 34 Cf. B. O. Long, 2 Kings, 115. 35 Cf. L. M. Wray Beal, The Deuteronomist’s Prophet: Narrative Control of Approval and Disapproval in the Story of Jehu (2 Kings 9 and 10) (LHBOTS 478; T&T Clark: New York · London 2007), 87. 36 Pace J. T. Walsh, ‘On ‫ היה‬in 2 Kings 9:37,’ VT 60 (2010) 152–​153 (esp. 153); G. A. Rendsburg, ‘Notes on 2 Kings 9:36–​37,’ VT 66 (2016) 317–​323 (esp. 319–​320), who downplay the importance of the expansion of 2 Kgs 9:36 in 9:37.

176 Second Kings as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 27:26–​34:12 them (2 Kgs 10:2), along with (a’) Jehu writing (‫( )כתב‬b’) a second letter/​book (*‫ )ספר‬to them (2 Kgs 10:6), so that the letter/​book (‫ )ספר‬came to them (2 Kgs 10:1–​7; esp. 10:7), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of strokes (a) being written (b) in the book (Deut 28:61a). The particular motif of an Israelite ruler having seventy sons (*‫ול‬ ‫ שבעים בנים‬+: 2 Kgs 10:1) was borrowed from Judg 8:30. The subsequent idea of laying heads in two (and not one) piles (2 Kgs 10:8), and the people being righteous and not killing (2 Kgs 10:8–​9; esp. 10:9) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of this law, presumably written on two tablets, providing righteousness to the people, and forbidding killing (Deut 28:61a). The subsequent idea of (a) there not falling anything of (b) the word of Yahweh (‫)יהוה‬, which Yahweh (‫ )יהוה‬spoke (c) upon (‫ )על‬the house of Ahab (2 Kgs 10:10), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the (a) bringing up (b) by Yahweh (c) upon the Israelite (Deut 28:61b). The subsequent, repetitively formulated idea of Jehu killing various groups of people of the house of Ahab and of the house of Ahaziah, leaving none of them remaining (2 Kgs 10:11.14.17a–​c), until he exterminated him (sing. *‫עד־השמ*ד‬: 2 Kgs 10:11–​17; esp. 10:17d), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh acting against the Israelite until he exterminates him (‫ השמדך‬read as hiphil: Deut 28:61c–​63; esp. 28:61c.63). The particular motif of Jehonadab son of Rechab (‫יהונדב בן־רכב‬: 2 Kgs 10:15) was borrowed from Jer 35:8.14.16. The subsequent idea of (a) Jehu gathering (*‫( )ו * יהו‬b) all the people (‫כל־‬ *‫העמ‬: 2 Kgs 10:18a) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential but positive way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh dispersing (*‫)ו * יהו‬ Israel among (b) all the peoples (Deut 28:64a). The subsequent idea of Ahab serving (‫ )עבד‬Baal, Jehu apparently serving (‫)עבד‬ Baal, and other people serving (‫ )עבד‬Baal (2 Kgs 10:18b–​23) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel serving other gods (Deut 28:64b). The subsequent idea of (a) Jehu appointing eighty men outside, saying that (b) for any fugitive they will give soul (‫ )נפש‬for soul (‫נפש‬: 2 Kgs 10:24), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel finding no rest among the pagans, and (b) Yahweh giving him languish of soul (Deut 28:65).

2 Kgs 11–15 (cf. Deut 28:69–29:15b)

177

The subsequent, violent idea of Jehu’s soldiers killing every man who worshipped Baal, and Jehu exterminating Baal (2 Kgs 10:25–​29)37 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite’s life being suspended and in fear (Deut 28:66). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh saying (‫ )אמר‬that Jehu (b) did what is right (c) in the eyes of (‫ )*עיני‬Yahweh, (d) according to all that was in his heart (*‫לבב‬: 2 Kgs 10:30), conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential but positive way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite saying that (b) morning should become evening, and evening should become morning because of (d) the fear in his heart and (c) the sight which his eyes see (Deut 28:67). The concluding idea of (a) Yahweh (‫ )יהוה‬cutting off parts of Israel, and (b) Hazael defeating the Israelites in all the territory of Israel, beginning from the east (2 Kgs 10:31–​36; esp. 10:32–​33),38 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh bringing Israel back (b) to Egypt (Deut 28:68).

4.4. 2 Kgs 11–​15 (cf. Deut 28:69–​29:15b) The section 2 Kgs 11–​15 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 28:69–​29:15b. The opening idea of (a) Jehoiada taking men and bringing them (‫ )אתם‬to the house of Yahweh, (b) making (‫ )כרת‬with them (c) an additional covenant (‫)ברית‬, and (d) making them take an oath (e) in (*‫ )ב‬the house of Yahweh (2 Kgs 11:1–​4e; esp. 11:4a–​e) conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (c) these being the words of the additional covenant which (b) Moses made (a) with the sons of Israel in the land of Moab, beside (c’=d) the covenant which (b’=d) he made (a’) with them (e) in Horeb (Deut 28:69). The subsequent idea of (b) Jehoiada letting the people (‫( )אתם‬a) see (‫( )ראה‬c) the (‫ )את‬son of the king (2 Kgs 11:4f) conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (b) Moses telling all Israel that they (‫( )אתם‬a) saw (c) the things which Yahweh did to Pharaoh (Deut 29:1), the tests which their eyes (a’) saw (Deut 29:1–​7; esp. 29:2–​3).

37 Cf. A. M. King, ‘Did Jehu Destroy Baal from Israel? A Contextual Reading of Jehu’s Revolt,’ BBR 27.3 (2017) 309–​332 (esp. 330). 38 Cf. T. R. Hobbs, 2 Kings, 131.

178 Second Kings as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 27:26–​34:12 The subsequent idea of (a) Jehoiada commanding the men that (b) this (‫)זה‬ is (c) the word (‫( )דבר‬d) that they shall do (‫אשר תעשון‬: 2 Kgs 11:5a–​d) conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses exhorting the Israelites to keep (c) the words of (b) this (‫ )הזאת‬covenant (d) and do them, that they may prosper in all that they shall do (Deut 29:8). The subsequent idea of (a) various groups of men coming on the Sabbath and (b) keeping watch in the house of the king and in the house of Yahweh (‫ )יהוה‬around the king (2 Kgs 11:5e–​8) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites standing this day, all of them, (b) before Yahweh their God (Deut 29:9a). The subsequent idea of the captains of the hundreds with their men (‫איש‬: 2 Kgs 11:9–​10) and the gendarmes (2 Kgs 11:9–​11; esp. 11:11) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the leaders of the Israelites’ tribes, their elders, and their officers, all the men of Israel (Deut 29:9b). The subsequent idea of bringing out the seven-​year-​old (cf. 2 Kgs 11:2–​4) king’s son (2 Kgs 11:12a; diff. 11:7–​ 8.11: king) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites’ little children (Deut 29:10). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of (a) the people putting upon Joash the crown and (b) the testimony, and (c) praising him as their king (2 Kgs 11:12b–​g) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel entering into covenant with Yahweh his God (b) and into his oath, which (c) Yahweh his God makes with him today (Deut 29:11). The subsequent idea of (a) Athaliah hearing the praise of the people (‫ )עם‬and coming to the people (‫עם‬: 2 Kgs 11:13), (b) the king standing in his proper honourable place according to the law, and (a’) all the people (‫ )עם‬of the land rejoicing (2 Kgs 11:13–​14; esp. 11:14) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh establishing Israel as his people, and (b) Yahweh being to Israel as God (Deut 29:12ab). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly formulated idea of (a) Jehoiada commanding the officers to do something (b) because he had said this (2 Kgs 11:15–​16; esp. 11:15) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh speaking to Israel (b) just as he had sworn to his ancestors (Deut 29:12cd). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 2 Kgs 11:4.12b–​g) idea of (a) Jehoiada (b) making (‫( )כרת‬c) the covenant (‫( )את־הברית‬d) between Yahweh, the king, and the people, to be the people of Yahweh, and between the king and the people (2 Kgs 11:17) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the

2 Kgs 11–15 (cf. Deut 28:69–29:15b)

179

subsequent, likewise repeated (cf. Deut 28:69; 29:11) Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses (b) making (c) the covenant, (d) this one (Deut 29:13). The subsequent idea of the people showing loyalty to Yahweh, to the house of Yahweh, and to the king (2 Kgs 11:18–​20) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of this oath, presumably taken by the people (Deut 29:13). The particular motif of the Israelites tearing down pagan altars and smashing pagan cultic objects (‫ *שברו‬+ *‫ מזבחתי‬+ ‫*תצ*ו‬: 2 Kgs 11:18) was borrowed from Deut 7:5. The subsequent idea of Jehoash doing what is right in the sight of Yahweh all the days which the priest Jehoiada instructed him by the law (2 Kgs 12:1–​4; esp. 12:3) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the one being now present, presumably taught by Moses (Deut 29:14a). The subsequent idea of (a) lay people bringing money to the house of Yahweh (2 Kgs 12:5–​7) and (b) being responsible for strengthening the house of Yahweh (2 Kgs 12:5–​22; esp. 12:8–​16) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) being here, (b) standing with the Israelites (Deut 29:14a). The particular motif of the high priest (‫הכהן הגדול‬: 2 Kgs 12:11) was borrowed from Josh 20:6 etc. The subsequent idea of Yahweh giving the sinful Israelites into the hand of the kings of Aram all the days (*‫הימ‬: 2 Kgs 13:1–​3; esp. 13:3) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of things occurring on the day of making the covenant, this day (‫היום‬: Deut 29:14ab). The subsequent idea of Jehoahaz appeasing the face of Yahweh (‫*פני יהוה‬: 2 Kgs 13:4–​13; esp. 13:4) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of being before the face of Yahweh (Deut 29:14b). The particular motif of a king appeasing the face of Yahweh (‫ את־פני יהוה‬+ ‫ויחל‬: 2 Kgs 13:4) was borrowed from Jer 26:19. The motif of Yahweh hearing the Israelites because he saw their oppression (*‫ את־לחצ‬+ ‫ ראה‬+ ‫ יהוה‬+ ‫וישמע‬: 2 Kgs 13:4) was borrowed from Deut 26:7. The motif of Yahweh giving to the Israelites a deliverer, so that the Israelites went out from under the hand of Aram (*‫ ל‬+ ‫וי* יהוה‬ ‫ ארם‬+ ‫ יד‬+ *‫ ויצא‬+ ‫ מושיע‬+ ‫ישראל‬: 2 Kgs 13:5), was borrowed from Judg 3:9–​10. The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly inserted here (cf. 2 Kgs 9:1–​3) idea of Elisha dying, but his power being still present in Israel in reviving the dead and, thanks to Yahweh’s covenant with Israel’s ancestors,39 defeating the king of Aram (2 Kgs 13:14–​25) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of an Israelite 39 Cf. J. W. Olley, ‘2 Kings 13: A Cluster of Hope in God,’ JSOT 36.2 (2011) 199–​218 (esp. 208–​210).

180 Second Kings as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 27:26–​34:12 participating in Yahweh’s covenant but not being here with the Israelites today (Deut 29:14c). The particular motif of burying a man in a grave, touching the bones, and the dead one reviving and standing on his feet (*‫ ויחי* וי‬+ ‫ עצמות‬+ ‫קבר‬ *‫על־רגלי‬: 2 Kgs 13:21) was borrowed from Ezek 37:1–​14. The motif of Yahweh’s covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (‫ יעקב‬+ ‫ יצחק‬+ ‫בריתו את־אברהם‬: 2 Kgs 13:23) was borrowed from Exod 2:24. The subsequent idea of exactly quoting something that was written in the law of Moses (2 Kgs 14:1–​6; esp. 14:6)40 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites knowing the scriptural story of Israel (Deut 29:15a). The particular motif of acting according to what is written in the book of the law of Moses (‫ככתוב‬ ‫בספר תורת־משה‬: 2 Kgs 14:6) was borrowed from Josh 8:31. The quotation, ‘Fathers shall not be killed for the sons, and sons shall not be killed for the fathers, but a man shall be killed for his sin’ (‫ איש בחטאו‬+ ‫לא־יומתו אבות על־בנים ובנים לא־יומתו על־אבות‬ *‫יומת‬: 2 Kgs 14:6) was taken from Deut 24:16.41 The subsequent idea of (a) the king of Judah dwelling (‫( )ישב‬b) in (*‫ )ב‬his house in Judah (2 Kgs 14:7–​29; esp. 14:10), and (a’) another king of Judah dwelling (‫)ישב‬ (b’) in (*‫ )ב‬a house of isolation, and (c) his son judging the people of the land (‫ארץ‬: 2 Kgs 14:7–​15:7; esp. 15:5) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites dwelling (b) in (c) the land (Deut 29:15b). The motif of the border of Israel reaching Lebo-​hamath (‫ לבוא חמת‬+ ‫גבול‬: 2 Kgs 14:25) was borrowed from Num 34:7–​8 and conflated with Deut 3:17 (‫)ים הערבה‬. The motif of the word of Yahweh concerning the greatness of Israel coming to Jonah son of Amittai (‫ יונה בן־אמתי‬+ ‫דבר־יהוה‬: 2 Kgs 14:25) was borrowed from Jonah 1:1–​2. The subsequent idea of a variously named (so that his name may be regarded as unimportant) king of Assyria oppressing Israel (2 Kgs 15:8–​38; esp. 15:19–​20.29)42 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Egypt (Deut 29:15b).

4.5. 2 Kgs 16–​17 (cf. Deut 29:15c–​28) The section 2 Kgs 16–​17 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 29:15c–​28.

40 Cf. T. R. Hobbs, 2 Kings, 176. 4 1 Cf. T. R. Hobbs, 2 Kings, 179; M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings, 155. 42 Cf. P. Dubovský, ‘Why Did the Northern Kingdom Fall According to 2 Kings 15?,’ Bib 95 (2014) 321–​346 (esp. 333–​334).

2 Kgs 16–17 (cf. Deut 29:15c–28)

181

The opening, otherwise unattested idea of (a) Ahaz making his son pass (‫)עבר‬ through fire,43 (b) according to the abominations of the nations whom (‫)הגוים אשר‬ (c) Yahweh dispossessed before the Israelites (2 Kgs 16:1–​3; esp. 16:3), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites passing (b) through the midst of the nations whom (c) they passed through (Deut 29:15cd). The particular motif of an Israelite making his son pass through fire (‫ באש‬+ ‫ *עביר‬+ ‫בנו‬: 2 Kgs 16:3) was borrowed from Deut 18:10. The subsequent idea of (a) Ahaz making pagan sacrifices and (b) burning pagan incense (c) under every green tree (‫עץ‬: 2 Kgs 16:4) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites seeing pagan abominations and (b) idols (c) made of tree/​wood (Deut 29:16a). The subsequent idea of (a) Ahaz giving silver (‫ )כסף‬and (b) gold (‫ )זהב‬to the pagan king of Assyria (2 Kgs 16:5–​9; esp. 16:8) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) pagan idols made of silver and (b) gold (Deut 29:16ab). The particular motif of Rezin king of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah going up to Jerusalem to make war against Ahaz but not being able to conquer (‫*עלה רצין מלך־ארם ופקח בן־רמליהו מלך־ישראל‬ ‫ ולא יכל* להלחם‬+ *‫ על‬+ ‫ירושלם למלחמה‬: 2 Kgs 16:5) was almost verbatim borrowed from Isa 7:1. The motif of conquering Damascus and making its people go into exile to Kir (‫ קירה‬+ ‫ גלה‬+ ‫דמשק‬: 2 Kgs 16:9) was borrowed from Amos 1:5. The subsequent idea of (a) Ahaz making a copy of the pagan altar in Damascus and offering sacrifices on it (2 Kgs 16:10–​13), (b) removing the bronze altar away from (‫( )מן‬c) the front of the house of Yahweh (‫יהוה‬: 2 Kgs 16:14), (d) putting it under his presumably pagan-​style cultic regulations (2 Kgs 16:15), and making other cultic changes because of the king of Assyria (2 Kgs 16:10–​20; esp. 16:18–​ 19) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite’s heart turning away (b) from (c) Yahweh and (d) serving the gods of the pagan nations (Deut 29:17). The particular motif of the stands, the sea, and the bronze oxen which were under it (‫ הים‬+ ‫ המכנות‬+ *‫ נחשת אשר תחת‬+ ‫הבקר‬: 2 Kgs 16:17) can also be found in Jer 52:20. The subsequent idea of (a) Hoshea sending messengers to Egypt and (b) offering no tribute to Assyria (2 Kgs 17:1–​4; esp. 17:4) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) an Israelite wanting to have peace even if (b) he walks in the stubbornness of his heart (Deut 29:18).

43 Cf. T. R. Hobbs, 2 Kings, 213; M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings, 186.

182 Second Kings as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 27:26–​34:12 The subsequent idea of (a) the king of Assyria besieging Samaria for three years, conquering it, and (b) making Israel (‫ )ישראל‬go into exile (2 Kgs 17:5–​ 6) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the anger of Yahweh smoking against the Israelite (Deut 29:19), and (b) Yahweh separating him from all the tribes of Israel (Deut 29:19–​20; esp. 29:20). The subsequent idea of (a) explaining that Yahweh punished the Israelites because44 (b) they sinned against Yahweh their God (*‫)יהוה אלהי‬, (c) who brought them up out of the land of Egypt (‫)אתם מארץ מצרים‬, (c’) from under the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt (‫מצרים‬: 2 Kgs 17:7a–​c), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses explaining that Yahweh punished the Israelites because (b) they forsook the covenant of Yahweh the God of their ancestors, which he made with them (c) when he brought them out of the land of Egypt (Deut 29:21–​24; esp. 29:24). The subsequent idea of the Israelites fearing other gods (‫אלהים אחרים‬: 2 Kgs 17:7c), going (‫ )וילכו‬in the statutes of the pagan nations (2 Kgs 17:8), serving (‫ )ויעבדו‬idols (2 Kgs 17:12), going (‫ )וילכו‬after vain idols (2 Kgs 17:15), worshipping (*‫ )וישתחוו ל‬all the host of heaven, and serving (‫ )ויעבדו‬Baal (2 Kgs 17:7d–​17; esp. 17:16) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites going, serving other gods, and worshipping them (Deut 29:25). The particular motif of Yahweh sending to the Israelites his servants, the prophets (‫ עבדי הנביאים‬+ ‫שלחתי אליכם‬: 2 Kgs 17:13), was borrowed from Jer 29:19. Likewise, the motif of the Israelites hardening their neck, like that of their ancestors (‫ *אבותם‬+ ‫ויקשו את־ערפם‬: 2 Kgs 17:14), was borrowed from Jer 7:26. Similarly, the motif of the Israelites going after vain things and becoming vain (‫וילכו אחרי ההבל ויהבלו‬: 2 Kgs 17:15) was borrowed from Jer 2:5. The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh being angry (‫( )וי* יהוה‬b) against (*‫( )ב‬c) Israel (2 Kgs 17:18a) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the anger of Yahweh arousing (‫)וי* יהוה‬ (b) against (c) this land (Deut 29:26). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh removing the Israelites (‫( )וי*ם‬b) from (‫ )מעל‬his face (2 Kgs 17:18b), (c) not leaving anyone except the tribe of Judah,

44 The syntactical construction at the beginning of 2 Kgs 17:7 (‫ )ויהי כי־חטאו‬can be regarded as awkward. Cf. N. Lovell, ‘A Text-​Linguistics Approach to the Literary Structure and Coherence of 2 Kings 17:7–​23,’ VT 68 (2018) 220–​231 (esp. 225). In fact, this awkwardness is one of the effects of the hypertextual reworking of Deut 29:24.

2 Kgs 16–17 (cf. Deut 29:15c–28)

183

(d) which was not better than Israel, so (e) rejecting all the descendants of Israel (2 Kgs 17:18b–​20c), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh uprooting the Israelites (‫)וי*ם‬ (b) from their ground (c) in anger, (d) wrath, and (e) great fury (Deut 29:27a). The particular motif of Yahweh giving the Israelites in the hand of plunderers (‫ויתנם ביד־שסים‬: 2 Kgs 17:20) was borrowed from Judg 2:14. The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh casting the Israelites (‫ )*שליכם‬from his sight (2 Kgs 17:20d) (b) to Assyria (c) until this day (‫*יום הזה‬: 2 Kgs 17:20d–​23; esp. 17:23) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh casting the Israelites (b) to another land (c) as it is this day (Deut 29:27b). The subsequent idea of (a) the new inhabitants of Samaria not knowing the law of (b) the God of (*‫( )אלהי‬c) the land (2 Kgs 17:24–​26; esp. 17:26) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the secret things belonging to (b) Yahweh the God of (c) the Israelites (Deut 29:28a). The subsequent idea of (a) a priest teaching the people the law of the God of (b) the land, (c) how to fear Yahweh (2 Kgs 17:27–​28), sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the revealed things belonging to (b) the Israelites (c) forever (Deut 29:28b). The subsequent idea of every nation doing (‫ )עשה‬their gods, the Samaritans doing (‫ )עשה‬a cultic house (2 Kgs 17:29),45 the particular nations doing (‫)עשה‬ their particular gods (2 Kgs 17:30–​31), doing (‫ )עשה‬priests, doing (‫ )עשה‬cult (2 Kgs 17:32), doing (‫ )עשה‬their former laws, but not doing the law (‫ )תורה‬or the commandments which Yahweh commanded Israel (2 Kgs 17:34), being called to do (‫ )לעשות‬the written law (‫תורה‬: 2 Kgs 17:37), but doing (‫ )עשה‬their former law (2 Kgs 17:40), as their ancestors did (‫)עשה‬, them also doing (‫עשה‬: 2 Kgs 17:29–​ 41; esp. 17:41), conceptually and linguistically, in a negative way46 illustrates the 45 This Samaritan ‘house (sing.) of the high places’ (2 Kgs 17:29.32) probably refers to the sanctuary on Mount Gerizim. Cf. T. Römer, ‘The Case of the Book of Kings,’ in D. V. Edelman (ed.), Deuteronomy–​ Kings as Emerging Authoritative Books: A Conversation (ANEM 6; SBL: Atlanta 2014), 187–​201 (esp. 190); B. Hensel, ‘Das jhwh-​Heiligtum am Garizim: ein archäologischer Befund und seine literar-​und theologiegeschichtliche Einordnung,’ VT 68 (2018) 73–​93 (esp. 88). 46 The fragment 2 Kgs 17:29–​41 rhetorically presents the post-​exilic Samaritan worship of Yahweh as violating Israel’s religious law. Cf. M. Kartveit, ‘The Date of II Reg 17,24–​41,’ ZAW 126 (2014) 31–​44 (esp. 42–​43); K. Weingart, ‘What Makes an Israelite an Israelite? Judean Perspectives on the Samarians in the Persian Period,’ JSOT 42.2 (2017) 155–​175 (esp. 160–​162).

184 Second Kings as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 27:26–​34:12 subsequent Deuteronomic idea of exhorting the Israelites to do all the words of the law (Deut 29:28c). The particular motif of Yahweh giving to Jacob the name Israel (+ *‫ שמ‬+ ‫יעקב‬ ‫ישראל‬: 2 Kgs 17:34) was borrowed from Gen 32:29; 35:10. The motif of Yahweh bringing Israel out of Egypt with great power and an outstretched arm (*‫בכח‬ ‫*גדול ובזרוע* *נטויה‬: 2 Kgs 17:36) was borrowed from Deut 9:29. The concluding idea of things happening until the day, this one (‫הזה‬: 2 Kgs 17:41d), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of the law, this one (‫הזאת‬: Deut 29:28c).

4.6. 2 Kgs 18–​20 (cf. Deut 30:1–​31:1) The section 2 Kgs 18–​20 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 30:1–​31:1. The opening idea of (a) it coming to pass (‫ויהי‬: 2 Kgs 18:1) that (b) Hezekiah did what is right in the sigh of Yahweh (‫יהוה‬: 2 Kgs 18:3) and trusted in Yahweh, the God of (*‫ )יהוה אלהי‬Israel (2 Kgs 18:1–​5; esp. 18:3–​5), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) it coming to pass (‫והיה‬: Deut 30:1) that (b) Israel returns to Yahweh, the God of Israel (Deut 30:1–​2a; esp. 30:2a). The particular motif of smashing the pagan pillars (*‫ושבר* את־*מצבת‬: 2 Kgs 18:4) was borrowed from Deut 12:3. The motif of cutting down the pagans’ sacred pole (‫ את־האשרה‬+ ‫כרת‬: 2 Kgs 18:4) was borrowed from Judg 6:25–​30. The motif of the serpent of bronze which Moses made (‫ עש* משה‬+ ‫נחש *נחשת‬: 2 Kgs 18:4) was borrowed from Num 21:9. The subsequent idea of Hezekiah clinging to (*‫ )ב‬Yahweh and (b) keeping his commandments (*‫)מצו‬, which (‫ )אשר‬Yahweh commanded (‫ )צוה‬Moses (2 Kgs 18:6), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel listening to the voice of Yahweh, (b) according to all the things which Moses commands (*‫ )מצו‬today (Deut 30:2bc). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh being with Hezekiah, and (b) in every place that he went out, (c) Hezekiah prospering (2 Kgs 18:7a–​c) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh changing the fortune of (b) Israel’s captivity and (c) having compassion on Israel (Deut 30:3ab). The subsequent idea of (a) Hezekiah rebelling against the king of Assyria and not (b) serving him (2 Kgs 18:7de) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh gathering Israel from all the nations that (b) he scattered Israel there, even at the ends of the world (Deut 30:3c–​4).

2 Kgs 18–20 (cf. Deut 30:1–31:1)

185

The subsequent idea of (a) Hezekiah striking the Philistines (b) as far as Gaza and its territory (2 Kgs 18:8) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel possessing the land which his ancestors possessed, and (b) Yahweh making him more prosperous and numerous than his ancestors (Deut 30:5). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 2 Kgs 17:3–7.14–16)47 idea of (a) Shalmaneser besieging and conquering Samaria (2 Kgs 18:9–​12), but (b) Hezekiah trusting in Yahweh God (*‫יהוה אלהי‬: 2 Kgs 18:13–​19:4)48 and confessing Yahweh God (*‫יהוה אלהי‬: 2 Kgs 18:9–​19:19; esp. 19:14–​19) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh circumcising the Israelite’s heart, so that (b) he might love Yahweh God with all his heart and all his soul, and he might live (Deut 30:6). The story of Sennacherib’s invasion on Judah (2 Kgs 18:13; 18:17–​19:37) was probably borrowed from Isa 36–​37, although the reverse direction of borrowing cannot be excluded.49 The subsequent idea of Yahweh repeatedly mocking Sennacherib and defeating his army (2 Kgs 19:20–​37)50 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh putting all these curses on Israel’s enemies and on those who hate him, who pursued him (Deut 30:7). The subsequent idea of (a) a prophet speaking to Hezekiah (2 Kgs 20:1), (b) Hezekiah turning to (‫ )אל‬the wall and praying to Yahweh (‫יהוה‬: 2 Kgs 20:2), along with (c) walking before Yahweh with (*‫( )ב‬d) a whole heart (‫לבב‬: 2 Kgs 20:1–​3; esp. 20:3; diff. Isa 38:3: ‫ )לב‬conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite listening to the voice of Yahweh and (b) turning to Yahweh (c) with (d) all his heart and all his soul (Deut 30:8–​10; esp. 30:10).

4 7 Cf. B. O. Long, 2 Kings, 197. 48 Cf. J. T. Walsh, ‘The Rab Šāqēh between Rhetoric and Redaction,’ JBL 130 (2011) 263–​ 279 (esp. 272–​277). 49 On possible literary relationships between these texts, see J. E. Anderson, ‘The Rise, Fall, and Renovation of the House of Gesenius: Diachronic Methods, Synchronic Readings, and the Debate over Isaiah 36–​39 and 2 Kings 18–​20,’ CurBR 11.2 (2013) 147–​167 (esp. 149–​158); A. G. Auld, Life in Kings: Reshaping the Royal Story in the Hebrew Bible (AIL 30; SBL: Atlanta 2017), 22–​24, 182–​185. 50 Cf. D. Dziadosz, Gli oracoli divini in 1 Sam 8 –​2 Re 25: Redazione e teologia nella storia deuteronomistica dei re (Wydawnictwo Archidiecezji Przemyskiej: Przemyśl 2002), 96–​98.

186 Second Kings as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 27:26–​34:12 In comparison to its counterpart in Isa 38–​39, the story of Hezekiah’s illness and recovery (2 Kgs 20:1–​19) is modified and differently ordered, to suit the contents of its hypotext Deut 30:3–​19. It could therefore be argued that the Isaian story of Hezekiah trusting in Yahweh (Isa 38:7–​20) and therefore being healed (Isa 38:21–​39:8) became a story of being healed (2 Kgs 20:7) and therefore trusting in Yahweh (2 Kgs 20:8–​19). However, the reverse direction of borrowing is also plausible.51 The subsequent idea of (a) Isaiah not (‫ )לא‬going out of (b) the middle space (diff. Isa 38:4: no such remark), (c) the word (‫ )דבר‬of Yahweh coming to (*‫ )אלי‬him (2 Kgs 20:4), and Yahweh doing the word (‫ )דבר‬which he spoke (‫דבר‬: 2 Kgs 20:4–​ 9d; esp. 20:9cd) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the commandments not being far, not being in heaven, not being beyond the sea, but (b) being near (c) to the Israelite, the word being in his mouth and in his heart (Deut 30:11–​14; esp. 30:14). The subsequent idea of setting before Hezekiah two possibilities: shortening life or prolonging life (2 Kgs 20:9ef: diff. Isa 38:7–​8: no such idea) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of setting before the Israelite two possibilities: life or death (Deut 30:15). The subsequent idea of (a) the prophet crying out to Yahweh (diff. Isa 38:8: no such idea), so (b) life being prolonged (2 Kgs 20:10–​11),52 sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite loving Yahweh and therefore (b) living and multiplying (Deut 30:16a–​f). The subsequent, somewhat surprising in the preceding context (cf. 2 Kgs 18:15–​16) idea of Hezekiah showing his treasure-​house and his great riches (2 Kgs 20:12–​15) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh blessing the Israelite in the land which he goes to possess (Deut 30:16g–​i). The subsequent idea of (a) the prophet exhorting Hezekiah to hear (‫שמע‬: 2 Kgs 20:16) and warning that (b) days (‫ )ימים‬are coming in which all that is in his house will be carried to Babylon (2 Kgs 20:16–​18; esp. 20:17) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses warning that if the Israelite does not hear (Deut 30:17), (b) he will not prolong his days in his land (Deut 30:17–​18; esp. 30:18). The subsequent idea of (a) Hezekiah saying that the word of Yahweh is good because (b) he may have peace and (c) security in his days (‫*ימי‬: 2 Kgs 20:19)53

5 1 Cf. A. G. Auld, Life in Kings, 186–​189. 52 Cf. T. R. Hobbs, 2 Kings, 294. 53 Cf. M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings, 260; P. R. House, 1, 2 Kings, 375.

2 Kgs 21 (cf. Deut 31:2–9)

187

conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh setting before Israel the option to live, so (b) Israel choosing life and (c) the length of his days (Deut 30:19–​20). The subsequent idea of (a) the rest of (b) the words (*‫ )דברי‬of Hezekiah, (c) his public work of bringing water to the city (diff. 1 Kgs 11:41 etc.), (b’) being written in the book of the words (*‫ )דברי‬of the days of the kings of Judah (2 Kgs 20:20–​ 21; esp. 20:20) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses going on and (b) speaking (‫)דבר‬ these words (*‫( )דברי‬c) to all Israel (Deut 31:1).

4.7. 2 Kgs 21 (cf. Deut 31:2–​9) The section 2 Kgs 21 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 31:2–​9. The opening, somewhat surprising idea of Manasseh (‫ )מ*שה‬being 12 years old (‫ עשר* שנה‬+ ‫ )בן־‬when he was king (2 Kgs 21:1) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of Moses (‫ )משה‬being 120 years old (Deut 31:2). The subsequent idea of (a) Manasseh doing evil according to the abominations of the nations (‫ )הגוים‬which (b) Yahweh dispossessed (‫( )ירש‬c) from before (‫)מ*פני‬ the sons of Israel (2 Kgs 21:2–​5; esp. 21:2) conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh destroying these nations (c) from before Israel, and (b) Israel dispossessing them (Deut 31:3a–​c). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 2 Kgs 16:3)54 idea of Manasseh making his sons pass (‫ )עבר‬through fire (2 Kgs 21:6–​8; esp. 21:6) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent, likewise partly repeated (cf. Deut 29:15) Deuteronomic idea of Joshua passing over (Deut 31:3d). The particular motif of making the son pass through fire, practising soothsaying, seeking omens, along with consulting spirits and possessing them (‫ אוב‬+ ‫ עונן ו*נחש‬+ ‫ באש‬+ ‫ בנו‬+ ‫*עביר‬ *‫וידעני‬: 2 Kgs 21:6) was borrowed from Deut 18:10–​11. The subsequent idea of Yahweh exterminating the pagans before (‫ )*פני‬the sons of Israel (2 Kgs 21:9) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Joshua being before Israel (Deut 31:3d).

54 Cf. B. O. Long, 2 Kings, 249.

188 Second Kings as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 27:26–​34:12 The subsequent idea of Yahweh speaking (‫ )*דבר יהוה‬by the prophets (2 Kgs 21:10) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of things happening just as Yahweh spoke (Deut 31:3e). The subsequent idea of (a) Manasseh doing (‫ )עשה‬abominations and acting wickedly more than all (b) that did (*‫( )*אשר עש‬c) the Amorites (‫)האמרי‬, (d) involving Judah as well (2 Kgs 21:11), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh doing destructive things to the pagans like the things (b) that he did (c) to the kings of the Amorites and (d) to their land (Deut 31:4ab). The particular motif of linking Judah with the Amorites (‫האמרי‬: 2 Kgs 21:11) was borrowed from Ezek 16:3.45. The subsequent idea of Yahweh bringing evil upon the sinful Jerusalem and Judah (2 Kgs 21:12–​13) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh exterminating the pagan kings (Deut 31:4c). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh giving them (‫( )ונת*ם‬b) into the hand of their enemies (2 Kgs 21:14) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh giving them (b) before the Israelites (Deut 31:5a). The subsequent idea of the Judahites doing (‫ )עשה‬evil in the sight of Yahweh (2 Kgs 21:15–​20; esp. 21:15–​17.20) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites doing harm to the pagans (Deut 31:5bc). The subsequent idea of Amon going (‫ )הלך‬in all the way in which his father went (‫הלך‬: 2 Kgs 21:21) conceptually and linguistically, in a negative way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh going with the Israelite (Deut 31:6a–​e). The subsequent idea of Amon forsaking (‫ )*יעזב‬Yahweh (2 Kgs 21:22a) conceptually and linguistically, in a negative way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh not forsaking the Israelite (Deut 31:6fg). The subsequent idea of Yahweh being the God of the Israelites’ ancestors (*‫אבת‬: 2 Kgs 21:22a) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh having sworn to the Israelites’ ancestors (Deut 31:7). The subsequent idea of (a) Amon not going (‫( )הלך‬b) in the way of Yahweh (‫יהוה‬: 2 Kgs 21:22b) conceptually and linguistically, in a negative way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (b) Yahweh himself (a) going before the Israelite (Deut 31:8a). The subsequent idea of the people (‫ )עם‬of the land killing the assassinators of the king and making a new king (2 Kgs 21:23–​24) conceptually and partly

2 Kgs 22 (cf. Deut 31:10–27)

189

linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh being with (‫ )עם‬Israel, so Israel not being afraid or dismayed (Deut 31:8b–​f). The subsequent idea of (a) the rest of the acts of Amon being written (‫)כתב‬ in the book of the words55 of (b) the kings of Judah (2 Kgs 21:25–​26; esp. 21:25) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses writing the instruction and giving it to (b) the priests and all the elders of Israel (Deut 31:9).

4.8. 2 Kgs 22 (cf. Deut 31:10–​27) The section 2 Kgs 22 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 31:10–​27. The opening, somewhat surprising idea of the positive character of Josiah being eight years (‫ )שנה‬old when he was king (2 Kgs 22:1–​2; esp. 22:1)56 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of a new, positive epoch beginning after seven years (Deut 31:10a–​c). The subsequent idea of things happening (a) in the eighteenth year (‫ )ב* שנה‬of (b) the positive character of King Josiah (2 Kgs 22:3a) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of things happening (a) at the appointed time in the year of (b) release (Deut 31:10c). The subsequent idea of the king sending his scribe to the house of Yahweh (2 Kgs 22:3bc) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the pilgrimage festival of booths (Deut 31:10c). The particular motif of the scribe Shaphan (‫שפן‬ ‫ הספר‬+: 2 Kgs 22:3) was borrowed from Jer 36:10. The subsequent idea of the income brought (‫ )בוא‬by the people to the house of Yahweh (2 Kgs 22:4) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of all the people coming (‫ )בוא‬to the sanctuary (Deut 31:11a). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 2 Kgs 12:12–​16)57 idea of lay people doing the work in the house of Yahweh (‫)יהוה‬, and doing it with faithfulness (2 Kgs 22:5–​7) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of lay people seeing the face of Yahweh (Deut 31:11b).

55 Pace D. S. Holland, ‘The Form and Function of the Source Citations in 1–​2 Kings,’ ZAW 130 (2018) 559–​570 (esp. 559), who simply translates these ‘words’ as ‘chronicles.’ 56 Cf. T. D. Cudworth, ‘Yahweh’s Promise to David in the Books of Kings,’ VT 66 (2016) 194–​216 (esp. 208); N. Na’aman, ‘The Royal Dynasties of Judah and Israel,’ ZABR 22 (2016) 59–​73 (esp. 62–​63). 57 Cf. T. R. Hobbs, 2 Kings, 325; M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings, 282.

190 Second Kings as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 27:26–​34:12 The subsequent idea of the high priest Hilkiah finding the somewhat surprisingly apparently lost58 book of the law presumably in the innermost place (cf. Deut 31:26) in (*‫ )ב‬the house of Yahweh (2 Kgs 22:8ab) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of being in the place which Yahweh chooses (Deut 31:11c). The subsequent idea of (a) Hilkiah giving the book of the law (‫ )התורה‬to Shaphan (2 Kgs 22:8b), Shaphan reading (‫ )קרא‬it (2 Kgs 22:8cd), and again reading (‫ )קרא‬it (b) before the king (2 Kgs 22:8b–​10; esp. 22:10) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite reading this law (b) before all Israel (Deut 31:11d). The subsequent idea of (a) the king hearing (‫ )שמע‬the words of the book of the law, (b) tearing his clothes (2 Kgs 22:11), and commanding to inquire of Yahweh (‫ )יהוה‬because of the wrath of Yahweh (‫)יהוה‬, for the ancestors failed (c) to do all (‫( )לעשות *כל־‬d) that is written concerning the Israelites (2 Kgs 22:11–​ 13; esp. 22:13), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the people hearing the law (cf. Deut 31:11: ‫)התורה‬, (b) fearing Yahweh, and (c) being diligent to do all (d) the words of this law (Deut 31:12). The particular motif of Ahikam son of Shaphan, along with Achbor (‫ עכבור‬+ ‫אחיקם בן־שפן‬: 2 Kgs 22:12) was borrowed from Jer 26:22.24. The subsequent idea of the king’s male officials somewhat helplessly going to a prophetess (2 Kgs 22:14)59 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the sons not knowing but hearing (Deut 31:13ab). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 2 Kgs 22:13)60 idea of (a) telling the king (2 Kgs 22:15) that (b) Yahweh brings evil upon this place in his wrath (2 Kgs 22:15–​17; esp. 22:16–​17) sequentially illustrates the subsequent, likewise partly repeated (cf. Deut 31:12) Deuteronomic idea of (a) the sons learning (b) to fear Yahweh (Deut 31:13c–​g). The subsequent idea of (b’) as to (‫ )אל‬the king, (a) saying (‫( )אמר‬b) to (‫ )אל‬him that (a’) thus says Yahweh (‫*אמר יהוה‬: 2 Kgs 22:18) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh saying (b) to Moses (Deut 31:14a).

58 Cf. N. Na’aman, ‘The “Discovered Book” and the Legitimation of Josiah’s Reform,’ JBL 130 (2011) 47–​62 (esp. 53–​54). 59 Cf. E. Hamori, ‘The Prophet and the Necromancer: Women’s Divination for Kings,’ JBL 132 (2013) 827–​843 (esp. 838). 60 Cf. B. O. Long, 2 Kings, 263.

2 Kgs 23 (cf. Deut 31:28–32:40)

191

The subsequent idea of (a) the king being faint-​hearted, and therefore (b) Yahweh hearing him (2 Kgs 22:19) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses and Joshua obediently coming to the tent of meeting, and (b) Yahweh appearing to Moses and Joshua in a pillar of cloud (Deut 31:14b–​15). The particular motif of Israel becoming desolation (‫הי*ת‬ ‫לשמה‬: 2 Kgs 22:19) was borrowed from Deut 28:37.61 The subsequent idea of, (a) behold (*‫)הנ‬, (b) Yahweh gathering the king (c) to his ancestors (‫)ע*־אבתיך‬, and (b’) the king being gathered to his grave in peace (2 Kgs 22:20ab)62 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of, (a) behold, (b) Moses lying down (c) with his ancestors (Deut 31:16ab). The subsequent idea of Yahweh bringing the evil (‫ )הרעה‬upon this place (2 Kgs 22:20cd) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh’s anger being aroused against Israel, and many evils befalling him because of all the evil that he did (Deut 31:16c–​18). The concluding idea of (a) bringing to the king (b) a word (‫דבר‬: 2 Kgs 22:20e) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of (a) writing a song and teaching it to the Israelites (Deut 31:19–​22), and (b) Moses writing the words of this law in a book (Deut 31:19–​ 27; esp. 31:24–​27).

4.9. 2 Kgs 23 (cf. Deut 31:28–​32:40) The section 2 Kgs 23 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 31:28–​32:40. The opening idea of (a) the king commanding to gather (b) to him (*‫( )אלי‬c) all the elders (‫ )כל־זקני‬of (d) Judah and (e) Jerusalem (2 Kgs 23:1) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses commanding to assemble (b) to him (c) all the elders of (d) Israel’s tribes and (e) their officials (Deut 31:28a). The subsequent idea of (a) the king reading (b) in their hearing (‫( )באזניהם‬c) all the words of (‫( )את־*־דברי‬d) the book of the covenant (2 Kgs 23:2–​3), (e) this one (‫הזאת‬: 2 Kgs 23:2–​3; esp. 23:3), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential 61 Cf. J.-​P. Sonnet, ‘The Siege of Jerusalem between Rhetorical Maximalism (Deuteronomy 28) and Narrative Minimalism (2 Kings 25),’ in P. Dubovský, D. Markl, and J.-​P. Sonnet (eds.), The Fall of Jerusalem and the Rise of the Torah (FAT 107; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016), 73–​86 (esp. 78). 62 Cf. M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings, 284; M. K. Y. H. Hom, ‘On the Use,’ 8.

192 Second Kings as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 27:26–​34:12 way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses speaking (b) in their hearing (c) the words of (d) the written covenantal song, (e) this one (Deut 31:28b–​30; esp. 31:28b.30). The particular motif of all the people, from small to great (‫כל־העם למקטן ועד־גדול‬: 2 Kgs 23:2), was borrowed from Jer 42:8. The subsequent idea of (a) bringing out the utensils made for all the host of heaven (‫ )השמים‬and (b) burning them in the fields of (c) Kidron (2 Kgs 23:4a–​ d) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the heaven giving ear, and (b) the earth hearing (Deut 32:1), thus (c) bringing rain water (Deut 32:1–​2; esp. 32:2). The particular motif of commanding the high priest, the second priest, and the doorkeepers (‫ את־‬+ ‫ שמרי הסף‬+ ‫ ואת־‬+ ‫ כהנ* המשנה‬+ ‫ ואת־‬+ *‫כהן־ה‬: 2 Kgs 23:4) can also be found in Jer 52:24. The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of carrying the ash to Bethel, that is, the ‘house of God’ (‫*אל‬: 2 Kgs 23:4e) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of praising Yahweh as God (Deut 32:3–​4). The subsequent idea of (a) the pagan priests whom the kings of Judah ordained, and (b) those who made sacrifices to pagan divinities (2 Kgs 23:5) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the blemished Israelites behaving corruptly, (b) a twisted and perverse generation (Deut 32:5). The subsequent idea of bringing out the Asherah from the house of Yahweh (‫יהוה‬: 2 Kgs 23:6a) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of not doing thus to Yahweh (Deut 32:6–​7). The subsequent, somewhat surprising, repetitively formulated idea of (a) bringing the Asherah to the Wadi (‫ ;נחל‬diff. 2 Kgs 23:4: no such remark) (b) Kidron (‫)*ון‬, and (a’) burning it at the Wadi (‫( )נחל‬b’) Kidron (‫*ון‬: 2 Kgs 23:6ab) conceptually and partly linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the giving of inheritance (‫ )נחל‬by (b) the Most High (‫*ון‬: Deut 32:8a). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of (a) throwing the ash on the grave of the sons of (‫( )בני‬b) the people (‫עם‬: 2 Kgs 23:6cd; diff. Deut 9:21: to a brook) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh separating the sons of men and (b) fixing the boundaries of the peoples, with Yahweh’s portion being his people (Deut 32:8b–​9). The particular motif of crushing a pagan object to dust and throwing its dust somewhere (*‫*דק לעפר ו*שלך את־עפר‬: 2 Kgs 23:6) was borrowed from Deut 9:21. The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of (a) tearing down the houses of the consecrated ones (b) who were in the house of Yahweh (‫)יהוה‬, (c) where the women wove objects for Asherah (2 Kgs 23:7), conceptually and linguistically, in

2 Kgs 23 (cf. Deut 31:28–32:40)

193

a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel being homeless in the wilderness (Deut 32:10–​11), (b) Yahweh alone leading him, and (c) there being no foreign god with him (Deut 32:10–​12; esp. 32:12). The subsequent idea of Josiah defiling the high places (‫)במות‬, tearing down the high places (‫ )במות‬at the gates, and the priests of the high places (‫ )במות‬not going up to the altar in Jerusalem (2 Kgs 23:8–​9a)63 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh making Israel ride over the high places of the land (Deut 32:13a). The subsequent idea of (a) the priests eating (‫( )אכל‬b) unleavened bread (c) among their brothers (2 Kgs 23:9b) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel eating (b) the produce of the field, and (c) Yahweh making him suck (Deut 32:13bc). The subsequent idea of (a) making prophane Tophet, which is (b) in the Valley of the Sons (‫בני‬: 2 Kgs 23:10 K.; diff. Jer 7:31 etc.: ‫ )בן‬of Hinnom (2 Kgs 23:10), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) prophane fat of lambs and rams, (b) the sons of Bashan (Deut 32:14). The particular which motif of Tophet, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, and the Judahites burning their sons and their daughters in fire (‫ את־בנ* ואת־בת* באש‬+ ‫התפת אשר בגי* בנ*־הנם‬: 2 Kgs 23:10) was borrowed from Jer 7:31 and conflated with Jer 39:35 (‫ למלך‬+ ‫)להעביר‬. The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of (a) the horses dedicated by the kings of Judah (b) being by the hall of a eunuch (2 Kgs 23:11)64 sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Jeshurun kicking and (b) growing fat (Deut 32:15a–​e). The subsequent, quite surprising idea of (a) the altars which the kings of Judah made (‫ )עש*ו‬and the altar which Manasseh made (‫)עשה‬, (b) the king tearing down and running from there (2 Kgs 23:12) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Jeshurun forsaking God who made him and (b) treating the Rock in a foolish way (Deut 32:15f–​h). The subsequent, repetitively formulated idea of (a) the high places which Solomon built for Ashtoreth (b) the detested thing of the Sidonians, (a’) for Chemosh (b’) the detested thing of Moab, and (a”) for Milcom (b”) the

63 Cf. E. Nicholson, ‘Once Again Josiah and the Priests of the High Places (II Reg 23,8a.9),’ ZAW 124 (2012) 356–​368 (esp. 358); E. Nicholson, Deuteronomy and the Judaean Diaspora (Oxford University: Oxford 2014), 22–​26. 64 Cf. J. S. Everhart, ‘Jezebel: Framed by Eunuchs?,’ CBQ 72 (2010) 688–​698 (esp. 693).

194 Second Kings as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 27:26–​34:12 abomination (‫ )תועבת‬of the sons of Ammon (2 Kgs 23:13) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites making Yahweh jealous with foreign divinities (plur.), which are (b) abominations (Deut 32:16ab). The subsequent idea of sacred pillars and sacred poles, and their places being filled with bones of humans (2 Kgs 23:14) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of provoking Yahweh to anger (Deut 32:16b). The subsequent idea of (a) the sacrificial altar (‫( )*זבח‬b) which is in Bethel, that is, the house of God (‫)*אל‬, (a’) Josiah tearing down this sacrificial altar (‫*זבח‬: 2 Kgs 23:15) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites sacrificing to demons and not to (b) God, and Israel forgetting the God who brought him forth (Deut 32:17–​18). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of (a) Josiah turning and seeing (‫ )וירא‬tombs, (b) taking the bones out of the tombs, burning them on the altar, and defiling it (2 Kgs 23:16) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh seeing and (b) spurning (Deut 32:19). The subsequent, likewise somewhat surprising idea of (a) Josiah saying (‫)ויאמר‬, (b) ‘What (‫( )מה‬c) gravestone is over there that (d) I see (‫)ראה‬,’ and (e) people saying that it is the tomb of a man of God, so leaving his bones undisturbed (2 Kgs 23:17–​18d), conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh saying, (c) ‘I will hide my face from them and (d) see (b) what (e) their aftermath is’ (Deut 32:20a–​c). The subsequent idea of the prophet who came from Samaria (2 Kgs 23:18e; diff. 1 Kgs 13:11: Bethel)65 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the generation and the sons in whom there is no trustworthiness (Deut 32:20de). The subsequent idea of (a) the kings of Israel making the shrines of the high places (b) to provoke Yahweh to anger (‫כעס‬: 2 Kgs 23:19a–​c) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites making Yahweh jealous and (b) provoking him to anger (Deut 32:21ab). The subsequent idea of the righteous Josiah doing to them according to all the deeds that he did to Bethel (2 Kgs 23:19d–​20) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh making the Israelites jealous (Deut 32:21c).

65 Cf. M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings, 290.

2 Kgs 23 (cf. Deut 31:28–32:40)

195

The subsequent idea of all the people (‫ )עם‬making the Passover (2 Kgs 23:21–​25; esp. 23:21)66 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of a foolish nation not being the covenantal people (Deut 32:21cd). The particular motif of making the Passover for Yahweh Israel’s God (*‫עש‬ *‫פסח ליהוה אלהיכ‬: 2 Kgs 23:21) was borrowed from Deut 16:1. The motif of the previous Passover being held before the times of the judges (‫ פסח‬+ ‫עשה‬: 2 Kgs 23:21) was borrowed from Josh 5:10–​11 in combination with the book of Judges, in which no Passover is mentioned. The motif of the Israelite being with Yahweh with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his strength (‫ בכל־לבב* ובכל־‬+ ‫יהוה‬ *‫נפש * ובכל־מאד‬: 2 Kgs 23:25) was borrowed from Deut 6:5 and conflated with Deut 34:10 (*‫ כמ‬+ ‫)לא־קם‬.67 The subsequent, somewhat surprising in the preceding context (cf. 2 Kgs 23:21–​25)68 idea of Yahweh not turning from the heat of his great anger (*‫)אפ‬, by which his anger (*‫ )אפ‬was kindled (2 Kgs 23:26), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of a fire being kindled by Yahweh’s anger (Deut 32:22–​25; esp. 32:22a). The particular motif of Yahweh turning from the heat of his anger (‫ש*ב יהוה מחרון אפו‬: 2 Kgs 23:26) was borrowed from Deut 13:18; Josh 7:26. The subsequent idea of Yahweh pronouncing (‫ )אמר‬his judgement against Judah, similar to that against Israel, but also against Jerusalem (2 Kgs 23:27a–​e) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh pronouncing his judgement against the Israelites (Deut 32:26). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh saying (‫ )אמר‬about this house that (b) his name will be there (2 Kgs 23:27f–​28; esp. 23:27fg) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) people saying that it was not (b) Yahweh who performed all this (Deut 32:27). The subsequent idea of (a) King Josiah stupidly going against Pharaoh Necho on his way to Assyria, and (b) Pharaoh Necho killing him (c) at Megiddo, so

66 Cf. V. Wagner, ‘Eine antike Notiz zur Geschichte des Pesach (2 Kön 23,21–​23),’ BZ, nf 54 (2010) 20–​35 (esp. 29). 67 Cf. T. Römer, ‘Der Pharao als Gotteswortvermittler: Josia und Josef,’ in H. Jenni [et al.] (eds.), Nächstenliebe und Gottesfurcht, Festschrift H.-​P. Mathys (AOAT 439; Ugarit: Münster 2016), 339–​349 (esp. 340). 68 Cf. T. R. Hobbs, 2 Kings, 338; G. J. Venema, Reading Scripture in the Old Testament: Deuteronomy 9–​10; 31 –​2 Kings 22–​23 –​Jeremiah 36 –​Nehemiah 8 (OtSt 48; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2004), 93–​94.

196 Second Kings as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 27:26–​34:12 surprisingly far from Jerusalem (cf. 2 Kgs 23:8),69 (d) just when he saw him (2 Kgs 23:29) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites being a nation to whom advice is lacking, not having understanding or wisdom (Deut 32:28–​29), because (b) one cannot chase a thousand, or two put ten thousand to flight, unless (c) their Rock has sold them (Deut 32:30–​31), so (d) the day of their disaster is imminent and coming quickly (Deut 32:28–​ 35; esp. 32:35). The motif of Pharaoh Necho king of Egypt being by the River Euphrates (‫ על־נהל־פרת‬+ ‫פרעה נכו מלך־מצרים‬: 2 Kgs 23:29) was borrowed from Jer 26:2. The subsequent idea of (a) burying the dead Josiah, and the people (‫ )עם‬of the land (and not Pharaoh) taking his son and making him king in place of his father (2 Kgs 23:30),70 but (b) Pharaoh Necho keeping him bound (2 Kgs 23:30–​33; esp. 23:33) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh vindicating his people, seeing that (b) their power is gone, there is no bond or free (Deut 32:36). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of Pharaoh Necho changing the name of Eliakim, that is, ‘God raises’ (*‫ )אל‬to a Yahwistic one (2 Kgs 23:34ab)71 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh asking, ‘Where are their gods?’ (Deut 32:37). The subsequent idea of Pharaoh Necho giving to the king the name Jehoiakim, that is, ‘Yahweh raises’ (‫*יקים‬: 2 Kgs 23:34b) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh exhorting to rise (*‫יקומ‬: Deut 32:38). The subsequent idea of Pharaoh Necho taking Jehoahaz and bringing him to Egypt, so that he died (‫ )מות‬there (2 Kgs 23:34c–​e), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh making die (‫)מות‬ and making live, smashing and healing (Deut 32:39a–​g). The subsequent idea of Jehoiakim being forced to give silver and gold to Pharaoh, taxing the land to give silver to Pharaoh, and exacting silver and gold 69 Cf. M. Leuchter, Josiah’s Reform and Jeremiah’s Scroll: Historical Calamity and Prophetic Response (HBM 6; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2006), 101–​102; R. D. Nelson, Historical Roots of the Old Testament (1200–​63 BCE) (BibEnc 13; SBL: Atlanta 2014), 160; É. Nodet, ‘Édom,’ 195–​196. 70 Cf. D. Janzen, The Necessary King: A Postcolonial Reading of the Deuteronomistic Portrait of the Monarchy (HBM 57; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2013), 209; D. Janzen, ‘The Sins of Josiah and Hezekiah: A Synchronic Reading of the Final Chapters of Kings,’ JSOT 37.3 (2013) 349–​370 (esp. 365). 71 Cf. T. R. Hobbs, 2 Kings, 341; M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings, 304.

2 Kgs 24 (cf. Deut 32:41–34:1b)

197

to give it to Pharaoh Necho (2 Kgs 23:35–​37; esp. 23:35) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of no one delivering from the hand of Yahweh (Deut 32:39h–​40; esp. 32:39h).

4.10. 2 Kgs 24 (cf. Deut 32:41–​34:1b) The section 2 Kgs 24 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 32:41–​34:1b. The opening idea of (a) Jehoiakim turning (‫ )שוב‬and (b) rebelling against the king of Babylon (2 Kgs 24:1) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh returning vengeance to his enemies and (b) repaying those who hate him (Deut 32:41). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of (a) Yahweh destroying Judah (2 Kgs 24:2–​3b) for (b) the innocent blood (‫ )דם‬which Manasseh shed (2 Kgs 24:3c–​4a), (c) because he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood (‫דם‬: 2 Kgs 24:2–​ 4b; esp. 24:4b),72 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh making his arrows drunk with blood, (b) his sword devouring flesh with the blood of the enemy, and (c) Yahweh avenging the blood of his servants, rendering vengeance to his enemies (Deut 32:42–​43c). The subsequent idea of Yahweh not wanting to forgive Judah (2 Kgs 24:4c) negatively illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh making atonement for his land and his people (Deut 32:43d). The particular motif of Yahweh not wanting to forgive (‫לא־*אבה יהוה *סלח‬: 2 Kgs 24:4) was borrowed from Deut 29:19. The subsequent idea of (a) the rest of the words of (‫ )דברי‬Jehoiakim (b) and all (‫ )כל‬that he did (c) being written in the book of the words of (‫( )דברי‬d) the days of (‫( )ימים‬e) the kings of Judah (2 Kgs 24:5) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses speaking all the words of this song (Deut 32:44), (b) finishing speaking all these words (Deut 32:45), and (c) commanding to observe all the words of this, presumably written, law (Deut 32:46), so that (d) the Israelites may prolong their days (e) in the land which they are crossing over to possess (Deut 32:44–​47; esp. 32:47).

72 Cf. K. Schmid, ‘Outbidding the Fall of Jerusalem: Redactional Supplementation in 2 Kings 24,’ in S. M. Olyan and J. L. Wright (eds.), Supplementation and the Study of the Hebrew Bible (BJS 361; Brown University: Providence, RI 2018), 87–​103 (esp. 98–​100).

198 Second Kings as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 27:26–​34:12 The subsequent idea of Jehoiakim resting with his ancestors (2 Kgs 24:6) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses dying and being gathered to his people (Deut 32:48–​52; esp. 32:50). The subsequent idea of the king of Egypt no more coming from (‫ )מן‬his land, presumably from Sinai (2 Kgs 24:7ab; cf. 24:7cd), negatively illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh coming from Sinai, from Seir, and from Mount Paran (Deut 33:1–​4; esp. 33:2). The subsequent idea of the powerful king (‫ )מלך‬of Babylon73 taking the territory of Israel (2 Kgs 24:7c) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of there being a presumably powerful king in Jeshurun (Deut 33:5). The subsequent idea of the territory of Israel, somewhat surprisingly in the preceding context of the king of Babylon coming from the north (2 Kgs 24:7c), reaching from the Wadi of Egypt in the south to the River Euphrates in the north (2 Kgs 24:7cd) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of listing the tribes of Israel from Reuben in the south to Asher in the north (Deut 33:6–​24). The subsequent idea of the name of Jehoiachin’s mother being Nehushta, that is, ‘brazen’ (*‫נחשת‬: 2 Kgs 24:8–​9; esp. 24:8) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of iron and bronze (Deut 33:25a). The subsequent idea of Jerusalem being under siege (2 Kgs 24:10) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel having protective bars, and its days being its strength (Deut 33:25b). The subsequent idea of the king of Babylon himself (diff. 2 Kgs 24:10: his servants) coming to the city, while his servants besieged it (2 Kgs 24:11), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the majestic God riding to help (Deut 33:26). The subsequent idea of Jehoiachin going out to the king of Babylon, and the king of Babylon taking him (2 Kgs 24:12) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the eternal/​eastern God driving out the enemy (Deut 33:27a–​c). The particular motif of the going out of Jehoiachin king of Judah, his mother, his princes, and his officials (*‫ ו*סריסי‬+ *‫ שרי‬+ ‫ יהודה‬+ ‫צא* *יכין *מלך‬: 2 Kgs 24:12) was borrowed from Jer 29:2.

73 The idea of the king of Babylon acting in place of Yahweh (2 Kgs 24:7c cf. Deut 33:5; etc.) was borrowed from Jer 25:9 etc.

2 Kgs 24 (cf. Deut 32:41–34:1b)

199

The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of the king of Babylon not only carrying off, but also cutting in pieces all the objects of gold (2 Kgs 24:13ab)74 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the eternal/​eastern God commanding to destroy (Deut 33:27de). The subsequent idea of the ‘peaceful’ Solomon making things in the temple of Yahweh (2 Kgs 24:13cd) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel dwelling in safety (Deut 33:28). The particular motif of object being in the temple of Yahweh, and Nebuchadnezzar deporting all Jerusalem, the princes, the craftsmen, and the smiths (‫ החרש ו*המסגר‬+ *‫ שרי‬+ ‫ ירושלם‬+ ‫ גלה‬+ ‫היכל יהוה‬: 2 Kgs 24:13–​14) was borrowed from Jer 24:1. The subsequent idea of all Jerusalem, all the princes, and all the mighty men of wealth (2 Kgs 24:14a)75 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel being happy, whom being like him (Deut 33:29ab). The subsequent idea of the people (‫ )עם‬of the land remaining (2 Kgs 24:14b) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of a people saved by Yahweh (Deut 33:29c). The subsequent idea of Jehoiachin being accompanied by the mother of the king, the wives of the king, his officials, and the rulers of the land (2 Kgs 24:15) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the shield of help (Deut 33:29c). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. 2 Kgs 24:14)76 idea of seven thousand men of wealth/​army, the craftsmen, the smiths, and all the warriors fit to war (2 Kgs 24:16) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the sword of eminence (Deut 33:29c). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of (a) the king of Babylon making the presumably submissive uncle of Jehoiachin king in his place and (b) changing his name77 as a sign of suzerainty (2 Kgs 24:17–​19; esp. 24:17)78 sequentially, in a negative way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the enemies showing submission to Israel, and (b) Israel treading on their backs (Deut

74 Cf. M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings, 312; C. Levin, ‘The Empty Land in Kings,’ in E. Ben Zvi and C. Levin (eds.), The Concept of Exile in Ancient Israel and Its Historical Contexts (BZAW 404; De Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2010), 61–​89 (esp. 68). 75 Pace K. Schmid, ‘Outbidding,’ 96, who regards the reference to ‘all Jerusalem’ in 2 Kgs 24:14 as a later addition. 76 Cf. K. Schmid, ‘Outbidding,’ 96. 77 Cf. Ł. Toboła, ‘Imiona królów judzkich –​kilka spostrzeżeń,’ BibAn 6 (2016) 601–​610 (esp. 608). 78 Cf. K. Schmid, ‘Outbidding,’ 90.

200 Second Kings as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 27:26–​34:12 33:29de). The contents of the conclusive section 2 Kgs 24:18–​25:30 can also be found in Jer 52:1–​27.31–​34. The subsequent idea of (a) things happening upon (‫ )על‬the anger of Yahweh, so that (b) he cast Jerusalem and Judah from upon his face (*‫*על פני‬: 2 Kgs 24:20), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses going up (*‫ )על‬to the top of Pisgah, which is (b) upon the face of (‫ )על פני‬Jericho (Deut 34:1ab).

4.11. 2 Kgs 25 (cf. Deut 34:1c–​12) The concluding section 2 Kgs 25 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding concluding section Deut 34:1c–​12. The opening idea of Jerusalem being under siege, and there being no bread for, somewhat surprisingly, the people of the land (‫ארץ‬: 2 Kgs 25:1–​3; esp. 25:3; diff. Jer 39:2) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh showing to Moses all the land, with the land of Ephraim and Manasseh and all the land of Judah (Deut 34:1c–​2). The particular motif of in the ninth year of the king, in the tenth month, Nebuchadnezzar and all his army coming to Jerusalem against it (*‫בשנת התשעית ל‬ ‫ עליה‬+ ‫ וכל־חילו *ל ירושלם‬+ ‫ בא נבכדנאצר מלך־בבל‬+ ‫ בחדש העשירי‬+ *‫ מלכ‬+: 2 Kgs 25:1) was borrowed from Jer 39:1. The following motif of the city being under siege until the eleventh year of King Zedekiah (‫ עשתי עשר שנה ל* צדקיהו‬+ ‫*צור‬: 2 Kgs 25:2) was borrowed from the following text Jer 39:1–​2. The following motif of things happening on the ninth day of the month (‫בתשעה לחדש‬: 2 Kgs 25:3) was borrowed from Jer 39:2. The subsequent idea of the army of the Chaldeans reaching the king in the plains of Jericho (‫ירחו‬: 2 Kgs 25:4–​5; esp. 25:5) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the valley of Jericho (Deut 34:3). The particular motif of the city being made open, and all the men of war fleeing at night by the way of the gate between the two walls, which is by the king’s garden, by way of the Arabah (‫ דרך‬+ ‫ לילה‬+ ‫ וכל אנשי המלחמה‬+ ‫ ותבקע העיר‬+ ‫ דרך הערבה‬+ ‫ גן המלך‬+ ‫שער בין החמתים‬: 2 Kgs 25:4), was borrowed from Jer 39:2.4. The following motif of the army of the Chaldeans pursuing after the king and reaching him in the plains of Jericho (‫ וישגו את* בערבות‬+ *‫וירדפו חיל־כשדים אחר‬ ‫ירחו‬: 2 Kgs 25:5) was borrowed from Jer 39:5. The subsequent idea of (a) the Babylonians killing the sons of Zedekiah (b) before his eyes (*‫ )*עיני‬and blinding his eyes (‫עיני‬: 2 Kgs 25:6–​7b; esp. 25:7ab) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential but negative way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh giving the land to the Israelite’s descendants and (b) letting Moses see with his eyes (Deut 34:4a–​e).

2 Kgs 25 (cf. Deut 34:1c–12)

201

The particular motif of taking him and bringing him up to the king of Babylon at Riblah and pronouncing judgement on him (‫ מלך בבל‬+ ‫ אל־‬+ ‫וי*ו את* ויעל*ו‬ *‫ וידבר* אתו משפט‬+ ‫רבלתה‬: 2 Kgs 25:6) was borrowed from Jer 39:5. The following motif of killing the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes and blinding his eyes (‫את־בני‬ ‫ לעיניו‬+ ‫ *שחט‬+ ‫צדקיהו‬: 2 Kgs 25:7) was borrowed from Jer 39:6–​7. The subsequent idea of the king of Babylon binding Zedekiah and bringing him to Babylon (2 Kgs 25:7c–​ 20; esp. 25:7cd) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses not crossing over to the land of Canaan (Deut 34:4f). The particular motif of binding Zedekiah in bronze fetters and bringing him to Babylon (‫ בבל‬+ ‫ בוא‬+ ‫ויאסרהו בנחשתים‬: 2 Kgs 25:7) was borrowed from Jer 39:7. The following motif of the Chaldeans burning with fire the house of the king and the houses of the people (‫ באש‬+ *‫ שרפ‬+ ‫ בית‬+ ‫ ואת־‬+ ‫את־בית המלך‬: 2 Kgs 25:9) was borrowed from Jer 39:8.79 The following motif of the Chaldeans tearing down the walls of Jerusalem (‫ נתצו‬+ ‫ואת־חמות ירושלם‬: 2 Kgs 25:10) was borrowed from Jer 39:8. The following motif of Nebuzaradan, the captain of the bodyguards, deporting the rest of the people who remained in the city, the deserters who deserted to the king of Babylon, and the rest of the simple people (‫ואת יתר העם‬ ‫ הגלה נבוזראדן שר־טבחים‬+ * ‫הנשארים בעיר ואת־נפלים אשר נפלו על * ואת יתר ה‬: 2 Kgs 25:11) was borrowed from Jer 39:9. The following motif of the captain of the bodyguards leaving some of the poor population as vinedressers and farmers (‫ *יגבים‬+ ‫ *כרמים‬+ ‫ השאיר רב־טבחים‬+ *‫ דל‬+ *‫ומ‬: 2 Kgs 25:12) was borrowed from Jer 39:10. The subsequent idea of (a) putting one high official and other captives to death (*‫( )וימ*ת‬b) at Riblah, (c) in the land (‫ )בארץ‬of Hamath, and (d) Judah going into exile from upon (‫ )*על‬its ground (2 Kgs 25:21) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses dying (b) there, (c) in the land of Moab, (d) upon the word of Yahweh (Deut 34:5). The subsequent idea of the Judahites going to Egypt, with no remark concerning their fate there (2 Kgs 25:22–​26),80 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses being buried in the land of Moab, and no one knowing his grave to this day (Deut 34:6).

79 Pace R. Müller, J. Pakkala, and B. ter Haar Romeny, Evidence of Editing: Growth and Change of Texts in the Hebrew Bible (RBS 75; SBL: Atlanta 2014), 118–​119, who suggest the reverse direction of borrowing. 80 Cf. M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings, 327.

202 Second Kings as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 27:26–​34:12 The particular motif of the king of Babylon appointing as governor over the people who remained in Judah Gedaliah son of Ahikam son of Shaphan (‫העם‬ ‫ גדליה* בן־אחיקם בן־שפן‬+ ‫ פקד‬+ ‫ מלך בבל‬+ ‫ יהודה‬+ ‫הנשארים בארץ‬: 2 Kgs 25:22) was borrowed from Jer 40:5–​6. The following motif of all the captains of the armies, them and their men, hearing that the king of Babylon appointed Gedaliah as governor and coming to Gedaliah to Mizpah, Ishmael son of Nethaniah, Johanan son of Kareah, Seraiah son of Tanhumeth the Netophathite, and Jezaniah son of the Maacathite, them and their men (‫ המה ו*אנשי*ם כי־הפקיד‬+ ‫וישמעו כל־שרי החילים‬ ‫ בנ*־קרח ושריה‬+ ‫ ויבאו אל־גדליה* המצפ*ה וישמעאל בן־נתניה* ויוחנן‬+ ‫מלך־בבל את־גדליהו‬ ‫ הנטפתי וי*זניהו בן־המעכתי המה ואנשיהם‬+ ‫בן־תנחמת‬: 2 Kgs 25:23), was borrowed from Jer 40:7–​8. The following motif of Gedaliah swearing to them and their men, saying, ‘Do not be afraid of those serving the Chaldeans; dwell in the land and serve the king of Babylon, and it shall be well with you’ (‫ אמר‬+ ‫ ולאנשיהם‬+ ‫וישבע להם גדליהו‬ ‫ אל־תיראו מעב*ד* הכשדים שבו בארץ ועבדו את־מלך בבל ויטב לכם‬+: 2 Kgs 25:24) was borrowed from Jer 40:9. The following motif of it coming to pass in the seventh month that Ishmael son of Nethaniah son of Elishama, of the royal descent, and ten men with him stroke Gedaliah, so that he died, along with the Judahites and the Chaldeans who were with him at Mizpah (‫ויהי בחדש השביעי בא ישמעאל בן־נתניה‬ ‫ ואת־‬+ ‫ ואת־היהודים‬+ ‫ ויכו את־גדליהו וימת‬+ ‫ ועשרה אנשים אתו‬+ ‫בן־אלישמע מזרע המלוכה‬ ‫ במצפח‬+ ‫ אשר היו אתו‬+ ‫הכשדים‬: 2 Kgs 25:25) was borrowed from Jer 41:1–​3.81 The following motif of all the people and the captains of the armies coming to Egypt because they were afraid of the Chaldeans (+ ‫ *בא* מצרים‬+ ‫ ו*שרי החילים‬+ ‫כל־העם‬ ‫ מפני כשדים‬+ ‫כי יראו‬: 2 Kgs 25:26) was borrowed from Jer 41:14.16–​18. The subsequent idea of (a) it coming to pass in the thirty (‫)שלשים‬-​seventh year (‫ )שנה‬of (b) the exile of Jehoiachin (2 Kgs 25:27a) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses being one hundred and twenty years old, and (b) the Israelites weeping for him thirty days (Deut 34:7–​8). The subsequent idea of Evil-​merodach king of Babylon lifting the head of Jehoiachin king of Judah (2 Kgs 25:27b)82 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses laying his hands on Joshua, presumably on his head (Deut 34:9ab). 81 Cf. J. M. Tebes, ‘The Edomite Involvement in the Destruction of the First Temple: A Case of Stab-​in-​the-​Back Tradition?,’ JSOT 36.2 (2011) 219–​255 (esp. 225); Pace R. Müller, J. Pakkala, and B. ter Haar Romeny, Evidence of Editing, 131–​133, who suggest the reverse direction of borrowing. 82 Cf. T. R. Hobbs, 2 Kings, 367; M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings, 328.

2 Kgs 25 (cf. Deut 34:1c–12)

203

The subsequent idea of (a) the king of Babylon speaking to Jehoiachin (b) good things (2 Kgs 25:28a) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites listening to Joshua, as (b) Yahweh commanded Moses (Deut 34:9c–​e). The subsequent idea of the king of Babylon giving Jehoiachin a seat above the seat of the kings who were with him (2 Kgs 25:28bc) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of there not arising a prophet in Israel like Moses (Deut 34:10a). The subsequent idea of (a) Jehoiachin eating bread always before the face (‫ )*פני‬of the king of Babylon, (b) all (‫ )כל‬the days of (c) his life (2 Kgs 25:29), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses knowing Yahweh face to face, (b) in all the signs and wonders which (c) Yahweh sent him to perform in the land of Egypt (Deut 34:10b–​11b). The concluding, partly repeated (cf. 2 Kgs 25:29), optimistic83 idea of (a) provisions being always given to (*‫ )ל‬Jehoiachin by the king of Babylon, (b) all (‫ )כל‬the days of (c) his life (2 Kgs 25:30; diff. Jer 52:34: until the day of his death),84 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the concluding, likewise partly repeated (cf. Deut 34:11a), optimistic Deuteronomic idea of doing things (a) to Pharaoh, to all his servants, and to all his land (b) with all the mighty hand and all the great terror which (c) Moses performed in the sight of all Israel (Deut 34:11b–​12).

83 Cf. M. Pietsch, ‘Zwischen Restauration und Resignation: Die Amnestie Jojachins (II Reg 25,27–​30) als deuteronomistischer Programmtext?,’ ZAW 129 (2017) 390–​410 (esp. 408–​409). 84 Cf. T. R. Hobbs, 2 Kings, 368. Pace Y. Zakovitch, ‘On Incoherency and Its Causes: Explanatory Notes as a Test Case,’ HBAI 9 (2020) 247–​261 (esp. 260), who regards the final remark in 2 Kgs 25:30 as a later explanatory note.

General conclusions The analyses presented in this monograph demonstrate that Samuel–​Kings is a result of continuous, sequentially arranged, hypertextual, that is, highly creative reworking of Deuteronomy. In contrast to my earlier work on this subject, which revealed the presence of forty-​four sequentially organised correspondences between Samuel–​Kings and Deuteronomy,1 this monograph shows that there are almost 2000 (!)2 sequentially arranged, hypertextual links between these two works. On average, there is one correspondence per 1.5 verses of Samuel–​Kings (which contains 3042 verses) and per 0.5 verse of Deuteronomy (which contains 955 verses).3 The corresponding elements usually have a similar size in both works (one clause, one sentence, etc.). However, at times a large portion of material in Samuel–​Kings corresponds to a small element in Deuteronomy (1 Sam 8 illustrating Deut 2:10a; 1 Sam 11:1–​12:2a illustrating Deut 2:11b; 1 Sam 13:17–​ 14:23 illustrating Deut 2:14b; 1 Sam 15 illustrating Deut 2:16c; 1 Sam 22:8–​24:23 illustrating Deut 5:17; 1 Sam 25 illustrating Deut 5:18; 2 Sam 13:1–​14:24 illustrating Deut 11:3; 2 Sam 16:5–​17:4 illustrating Deut 11:4c; 2 Sam 22–​23 illustrating Deut 11:23b; 1 Kgs 6–​7 illustrating Deut 16:12d; 2 Kgs 9 illustrating Deut 28:61a; etc.). Likewise, at times a small element in Samuel–​Kings corresponds to a large portion of material in Deuteronomy (1 Kgs 16:34d illustrating Deut 21:18–​22:29; etc.). More than 900 of these sequentially arranged correspondences, so almost one-​half of them, are not purely conceptual, but they also have some linguistic components,4 although they seldom contain stereotypical Deuteronomic language. B. Adamczewski, Retelling the Law: Genesis, Exodus-​Numbers, and Samuel-​Kings as Sequential Hypertextual Reworkings of Deuteronomy (EST 1; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2012), 35–​181. 2 In fact, I was able to count 1942 correspondences between Samuel–​Kings and Deuteronomy which follow a strictly sequential pattern. 3 For these verse count totals, see A. Messmer, ‘A Possible Chiastic Center for Primary History (Genesis–​2 Kings),’ VT 69 (2019) 232–​240 (esp. 238). 4 It is difficult to give even an approximate number of the sequentially arranged linguistic correspondences between Samuel–​Kings and Deuteronomy because it is difficult to state what should be counted as linguistically matching between the two works: words, strings of words, verbal roots, or combinations of words, verbal roots, and/​or phrases. 1

206

General conclusions

Among them, the correspondences which are purely linguistic are relatively rare (cf. ‫[ עברים‬Hebrews] in 1 Sam 13:7.19 and ‫[ עבר‬cross over] in Deut 2:13–​14; ‫[ ערלת‬pagan foreskins] in 1 Sam 18:27 and ‫[ ערים‬pagan cities] in Deut 3:4; ‫עם‬ [with] in 2 Sam 2:3 and ‫[ עם‬people] in Deut 9:2; ‫[ נפצת‬was dispersed] in 2 Sam 18:8 and ‫[ פצתה‬opened] in Deut 11:6; ‫[ אמתך‬your maidservant] in 1 Kgs 1:13.17 and ‫[ אמת‬truth] in Deut 13:15; ‫[ נחל‬wadi] in 2 Kgs 23:6 and ‫[ נחל‬give inheritance] in Deut 32:8; etc.). Some of them occur as wordplays with geographical and proper names (cf. ‫[ בית‬house] in 1 Sam 19:11 and ‫[ בית פעור‬Beth-​peor] in Deut 3:29; ‫[ בית שן‬Beth-​ shan] in 1 Sam 31:12 and ‫[ בית‬house] in Deut 7:26; ‫[ שבע‬Sheba] in 2 Sam 20:1–​2 and ‫[ שבע‬being satiated] in Deut 11:15; ‫[ נתן‬Nathan] in 1 Kgs 1:34 and ‫[ נתן‬give] in Deut 13:18; ‫[ תפסח‬Tiphsah] in 1 Kgs 5:4 and ‫[ פסח‬Passover] in Deut 16:1; ‫[ תשבי‬Tishbite] with ‫[ תשבי‬dwelling aliens] in 1 Kgs 17:1 and ‫[ ישב‬dwell] in Deut 23:17; etc.). As has been noticed by many scholars, there are numerous Deuteronomic phrases, clauses, sentences, and combinations of words which are used in various sections of Samuel–​Kings (‫ זבח זבח‬+ ‫משפט הכהנים *את העם‬: 1 Sam 2:13 cf. Deut 18:3; ‫ אלהיכם‬+ ‫ תמרו את־פי יהוה‬+ ‫ ולא‬+ ‫שמעתם בקלו‬: 1 Sam 12:14–​15 cf. Deut 9:23; ‫ בדרך ב* ממצרים‬+ *‫ ל‬+ ‫ עמלק‬+ ‫את אשר־עשה‬: 1 Sam 15:2 cf. Deut 25:17; + ‫ היה‬+ *‫ו‬ *‫ מכל־איבי‬+ ‫ מסביב‬+ *‫ ל‬+ ‫ הניח‬+ ‫יהוה‬: 2 Sam 7:1.11 cf. Deut 25:19; ‫ את־דברי‬+ ‫וידבר‬ ‫השירה הזאת‬: 2 Sam 22:1 cf. Deut 31:30; ‫ מצותיו‬+ ‫ חקתיו‬+ ‫ יהוה אלהיך‬+ ‫ משמרת‬+ ‫ושמרת‬ ‫ משפטיו‬+: 1 Kgs 2:3 cf. Deut 11:1; *‫למען תשכיל* את כל־אשר תעש‬: 1 Kgs 2:3 cf. Deut 29:8; ‫ ובריח‬+ ‫ חומה‬+ ‫ ערים‬+ ‫ ששים‬+ ‫ בשן‬+ ‫ חבל ארגב‬+ ‫ גלעד‬+ ‫ בן מנשה‬+ ‫חות יאיר‬: 1 Kgs 4:13 cf. Deut 3:4–​5.13–​14; ‫*איל וצבי ויחמור‬: 1 Kgs 5:3 cf. Deut 14:5; ‫ שני לחות‬+ ‫בארון‬ ‫*אבנים‬: 1 Kgs 8:9 cf. Deut 10:1–​2; ‫ בשמים ממעל ועל־הארץ מתחת‬+ ‫ אלהים‬+ ‫אין‬: 1 Kgs 8:23 cf. Deut 4:39; ‫ שמ* שם‬+ ‫ יהוה‬+ ‫אל־המקום אשר‬: 1 Kgs 8:29 cf. Deut 12:5; *‫ושפט‬ ‫ *הצדיק* *צדק‬+ ‫ *הרשיע* *רשע‬+: 1 Kgs 8:32 cf. Deut 25:1; ‫ שמים ולא־יהיה‬+ ‫עצר‬ ‫מטר‬: 1 Kgs 8:35 cf. Deut 11:17; ‫ ארבה‬+ ‫ ירקון‬+ ‫ שדפון‬+ ‫ דבר‬+ ‫רעב‬: 1 Kgs 8:37 cf. Deut 28:21–​22.38.48; ‫ כי יהוה הוא האלהים אין עוד‬+ ‫ל*דעת‬: 1 Kgs 8:60 cf. Deut 4:35; ‫לשום שמ* שם‬: 1 Kgs 9:3 cf. Deut 12:21; ‫ למשל ולשנינה בכל־העמים‬+ *‫והי‬: 1 Kgs 9:7 cf. Deut 28:37; ‫ על־מה עשה יהוה ככה לארץ הזאת ואמרו על אשר עזבו את־* יהוה‬+ ‫ואמרו‬ ‫אלהי* *ם אשר הוציא* את*ם מארץ מצרים‬: 1 Kgs 9:8–​9 cf. Deut 29:23–​24; *‫ לכ‬+ ‫עשה‬ ‫ להכעיסני‬+ ‫ מסכה‬+: 1 Kgs 14:9 cf. Deut 9:16.18; ‫ אדמה‬+ ‫ מעל‬+ ‫נתש‬: 1 Kgs 14:15 cf. Deut 29:27; ‫ ירש‬+ ‫ הגוים אשר‬+ ‫ ותחת כל־עץ רענן‬+ ‫ גבעה‬+ ‫ על‬+ ‫מצבות ואשרי*ם‬: 1 Kgs 14:23–​24 cf. Deut 12:2–​3; ‫לא־אבה יהוה *השחית‬: 2 Kgs 8:19 cf. Deut 10:10; + ‫*תצ*ו‬ ‫ *שברו‬+ *‫מזבחתי‬: 2 Kgs 11:18 cf. Deut 7:5; *‫ את־לחצ‬+ ‫ ראה‬+ ‫ יהוה‬+ ‫וישמע‬: 2 Kgs 13:4 cf. Deut 26:7; *‫ איש בחטאו יומת‬+ ‫לא־יומתו אבות על־בנים ובנים לא־יומתו על־אבות‬: 2 Kgs 14:6 cf. Deut 24:16; ‫ באש‬+ ‫ *עביר‬+ ‫בנו‬: 2 Kgs 16:3 cf. Deut 18:10; *‫בכח* *גדול ובזרוע‬ ‫*נטויה‬: 2 Kgs 17:36 cf. Deut 9:29; *‫ושבר* את־*מצבת‬: 2 Kgs 18:4 cf. Deut 12:3; ‫*עביר‬

General conclusions

207

*‫ אוב וידעני‬+ ‫ עונן ו*נחש‬+ ‫ באש‬+ ‫ בנו‬+: 2 Kgs 21:6 cf. Deut 18:10–​11; ‫הי*ת לשמה‬: 2 Kgs 22:19 cf. Deut 28:37; *‫*דק לעפר ו*שלך את־עפר‬: 2 Kgs 23:6 cf. Deut 9:21; ‫עש* פסח‬ *‫ליהוה אלהיכ‬: 2 Kgs 23:21 cf. Deut 16:1; *‫ בכל־לבב* ובכל־נפש* ובכל־מאד‬+ ‫יהוה‬: 2 Kgs 23:25 cf. Deut 6:5; ‫ש*ב יהוה מחרון אפו‬: 2 Kgs 23:26 cf. Deut 13:18; ‫לא־*אבה יהוה‬ ‫*סלח‬: 2 Kgs 24:4 cf. Deut 29:19; etc.). Moreover, much post-​Deuteronomic phraseology was borrowed in Samuel–​Kings from the books of Joshua and Judges. Apart from such general use of Deuteronomic and post-Deuteronomic phrases and combinations of words in Samuel–​Kings, there are strings of words which occur in both Samuel–​Kings and Deuteronomy in the structurally corresponding sections of both works (‫ *פני יהוה‬+ *‫ את‬+ ‫שלש פעמים בשנה‬: 1 Kgs 9:25 cf. Deut 16:16a–​d; ‫הרע בעיני יהוה‬: 1 Kgs 11:6a cf. Deut 17:2c; ‫בשנה השלישית‬: 1 Kgs 18:1b cf. Deut 26:12b; ‫אתם מארץ מצרים‬: 2 Kgs 17:7c cf. Deut 29:24; etc.). Such common strings of words suggest direct literary borrowing with the purpose of sequential hypertextual reworking. Much more important than these numerous but rarely specific linguistic signs of literary borrowing from Deuteronomy is the fulfilment of the criterion of order. The conceptual and/​or linguistic correspondences between Samuel–​ Kings and Deuteronomy, which are presented in this monograph, occur in both works in the same relative order, and their number reaches two thousand. Moreover, they cover each work in its entirety, so that the whole narrative of Samuel–​Kings, from its beginning to its end, sequentially illustrates the whole book of Deuteronomy, from its beginning to its end. Such a very long series of conceptual and/​or linguistic correspondences, which follow one another in the same relative order in both complete works, cannot be a result of mere chance or of interpretative subjectivity in detecting similar themes in various fragments of both works. Another important criterion for detecting literary reworking, which is met by the analyses presented in this monograph, is the criterion of explaining numerous somewhat surprising features of Samuel–​Kings. These minor, somehow strange elements of the narrative of Samuel–​Kings can be explained as illustrating various ideas contained in Deuteronomy. The strictly sequential, detailed reworking of the ideas of Deuteronomy in Samuel–​Kings led to the presence of some narrative inconsistencies, ambiguities, strange expressions, and other surprising phenomena in the latter story. For example, the surprising idea of the Israelites drawing water and pouring it out before Yahweh (1 Sam 7:5–​6c) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites passing by Elath and Ezion-​geber, places located at the sea (Deut 2:8b). The ambiguously formulated chronological remarks, referring to short periods of time, ‘Saul was one year in his being the king, and he reigned two years’

208

General conclusions

(1 Sam 13:1) illustrate the chronologically ambiguous Deuteronomic remark, ‘And now’ (Deut 2:13a). The surprising idea of letting the Israelites go to their tents (1 Sam 13:2) but then summoning them to fight (1 Sam 13:3–​4) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of calling the Israelites to rise (Deut 2:13a). Saul’s genealogy surprisingly going backwards from his sons (1 Sam 14:49–​51) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of the militant generation perishing (Deut 2:16b). The surprising idea of the young David being a man of war (1 Sam 16:18d) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh ordering the Israelites to make war (Deut 2:24e). The surprising idea of David taking the head of the Philistine to Jerusalem (1 Sam 17:54) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites conquering many cities (Deut 2:35b–​36b). The surprising idea of David being an unknown man but having the head of the Philistine in his hand (1 Sam 17:55–​ 58) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of there being no city that would be too strong for the Israelites (Deut 2:36cd). The surprising idea of David fleeing and remaining in his house, guarded by Saul’s messengers (1 Sam 19:10e–​11a), illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites remaining in a valley opposite ‘the house of Peor’ (Deut 3:29). The surprising idea of intending to kill David in the morning (1 Sam 19:11c) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea the Israelites being alive today (Deut 4:4.8). The surprising idea of Jonathan secretly, by shooting/​teaching, informing David about the word of Saul (1 Sam 20:35–​39) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of informing the Israelites about the word of Yahweh (Deut 5:5b). The surprising idea of David with extraordinary reverence falling on his face to the ground and bowing down three time before Jonathan (1 Sam 20:41) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites being afraid because of the theophanic fire of Yahweh (Deut 5:5c). The surprising idea of a prophet advising David that he would better go for himself to the land of Judah (1 Sam 22:5) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of it being well for the Israelite on the Israelite ground (Deut 5:16d). The surprising idea of God striking Uzzah there, and Uzzah dying there (2 Sam 6:6b–​7c) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of Aaron dying there and being buried there (Deut 10:6b–​d). The surprising idea of the battle being dispersed over the face of the earth, and the forest consuming more than the sword consumed (2 Sam 18:8) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of the opening of the mouth of the earth, which swallowed the guilty Israelites (Deut 11:6bc). The surprising idea of the king ordering that Mephibosheth and Ziba should receive the field (2 Sam 19:30) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh giving grass to the Israelite’s field (Deut 11:15a). The surprising idea of David not going in to his concubines (2 Sam 20:3g–​j) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites’ heart not being seduced (Deut 11:16b). The surprising idea of David being faint,

General conclusions

209

and other warriors killing four Philistine giants (2 Sam 21:15–​21) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh dispossessing the pagan nations from before the Israelites (Deut 11:23a). The surprising idea of bringing Solomon to the ‘gushing’ spring of Gihon (1 Kgs 1:33e; diff. 1:35: David’s throne) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh turning from the heat of his anger (Deut 13:18b). The surprising idea of Baasha drinking himself drunk in the house of one of his subjects (1 Kgs 16:9b–​ d) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of an Israelite being afraid and weak in his heart (Deut 20:8de). The surprising idea of requesting from the destitute woman that she should bring a loaf of bread first to Elijah (1 Kgs 17:13e) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of making a loan to the neighbour and coming to his house to take the deposit (Deut 24:10). The surprising idea of Yahweh sending Elijah far north to Damascus (1 Kgs 19:15) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of the far northern tribes of Asher, Zebulun, Dan, and Naphtali (Deut 27:13). The surprising idea of the one escaping from the sword of Hazael being killed by Jehu, and the one escaping from the sword of Jehu being killed by Elisha (1 Kgs 19:17) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of a cursed man (Deut 27:15a). The surprising idea of Ahaziah unexpectedly falling down through the grid of his upper room (2 Kgs 1:2) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of cursed being the one who does not put up (Deut 27:26ab). The surprising idea of the men of the city saying that the site of the city is good (2 Kgs 2:19a–​c) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite being blessed in the city and being blessed in the landscape (Deut 28:3a). The surprising idea of Naaman’s master leaning on his hand (2 Kgs 5:18a–​d) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh blessing every deed of the Israelite’s hand and making him the head, so that he will be above others (Deut 28:12). The surprising idea of the king of Israel making a great feast for the Aramaeans (2 Kgs 6:22e–​23c) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite serving Yahweh with joy and gladness of heart for the abundance of everything (Deut 28:47). The surprising idea of Elisha dying, but his power being still present in Israel in reviving the dead and, thanks to Yahweh’s covenant with Israel’s ancestors, defeating the king of Aram (2 Kgs 13:14–​25) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of an Israelite participating in Yahweh’s covenant but not being here with the Israelites today (Deut 29:14c). The surprising idea of Hezekiah showing his treasure-​house and his great riches (2 Kgs 20:12–​15; diff. 18:15–​16) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh blessing the Israelite in the land which he goes to possess (Deut 30:16g–​ i). The surprising idea of Josiah being eight years old when he was king (2 Kgs 22:1) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of a new, positive epoch beginning after seven years (Deut 31:10a–​c). The surprising idea of carrying the ash to Bethel,

210

General conclusions

that is, the ‘house of God’ (2 Kgs 23:4e) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of praising Yahweh as God (Deut 32:3–​4). The surprising idea of Josiah turning and seeing tombs, taking the bones out of the tombs, burning them on the altar, and defiling it (2 Kgs 23:16) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh seeing and spurning (Deut 32:19). The idea of King Josiah stupidly going against Pharaoh Necho, who killed him at Megiddo, so surprisingly far from Jerusalem (2 Kgs 23:29), illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites being a nation not having wisdom, because one cannot chase a thousand or ten thousand, unless their Rock has sold them (Deut 32:28–​31). The surprising idea of the Pharaoh changing the name of Eliakim, that is, ‘God raises’ to a Yahwistic one (2 Kgs 23:34ab) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh asking, ‘Where are their gods?’ (Deut 32:37). The surprising idea of the king of Babylon cutting in pieces all the objects of gold (2 Kgs 24:13ab) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of the eternal/​eastern God commanding to destroy (Deut 33:27de). The idea of Jerusalem being under siege, and there being no bread for, surprisingly, the people of the land (2 Kgs 25:3) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh showing to Moses all the land (Deut 34:1c–​2). Some of these surprising elements reveal a particular sense of humour of the author of Samuel–​Kings. For example, the surprising image of Jeroboam going up upon the altar which he made, making a festival, and going up upon the altar to make smoke (1 Kgs 12:33) mockingly illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of the false prophet dying (Deut 18:20d). Likewise, the fact that understanding the abstract Israelite dietary regulations (Deut 14:4ab) requires particular wisdom obtained through a supernatural dream (1 Kgs 3:5–​14) can be regarded as somewhat ironic. From the theological point of view, the ideas of Samuel–​Kings generally well reflect the Deuteronomic ones. For example, the ideal of the king as obedient to Yahweh (David) and faithful to the law of Moses (Josiah) corresponds to the Deuteronomic regulations concerning the king (Deut 17:14–​20). The main theological difference between Deuteronomy and Samuel–​Kings lies in the explicit identification of the Deuteronomic cultic ‘place’ for the name of Yahweh with the Jerusalem temple. Whereas in Deuteronomy the location of this ‘place’ can be regarded as somewhat ambiguous (Deut 12:5 etc.), Samuel–​ Kings explicitly locates this cultic ‘place’ of the name of Yahweh in the sanctuary of Jerusalem (1 Kgs 8:29–​30; cf. 8:16; 11:36; 14:21; 2 Kgs 21:4.7; 22:16; 23:27). Moreover, following the Judahite pre-​exilic, exilic, and post-​exilic traditions (Isa 2:2–​3; Jer 7:10–​14; Ezek 40:5–​45:20; Hag 1:14; Zech 4:9; etc.), it refers to the Jerusalem sanctuary as the temple ‘house’ (‫בית‬: 1 Kgs 6:1–​9:1 etc.) and not merely the Israelite cultic ‘place’ (Deut 12:5 etc.), ‘tent,’ or ‘tabernacle’ (Exod 36:8–​40:35

General conclusions

211

etc.; cf. 2 Sam 7:6). The narrative rhetoric of Samuel–​Kings is in this respect so strong, that it gave rise to the false impression that Hebrew Bible as a whole points to the Jerusalem temple as the only legitimate cultic place of the worship of Yahweh. On the other hand, in Samuel–​Kings Mount Gerizim is omitted completely. The Ephraimite city of Shechem is mentioned in Samuel–​Kings only twice (1 Kgs 12:1.25), in a very negative context, as the place of the sinful ‘breach’ of Israel against the house of David (1 Kgs 12:19). In the text illustrating the idea of a city of refuge (Deut 19:2–​3), in which the reader could expect the presence of Shechem (cf. Josh 20:7), the story of Samuel–​Kings refers to Shiloh (1 Kgs 14:2). Accordingly, the author of Samuel–​Kings punished the most important post-​ exilic cultic place of (northern) Israel with almost complete damnatio memoriae. The particularly Judaean theological reworking of earlier Israelite ideas can also be seen in differing depictions of the relationships between the political entities of Israel and Judah, along with the tribes of Joseph (esp. Ephraim) and Judah. Whereas in Deuteronomy Judah is the separatist tribe which should be brought to its people (Deut 33:7), especially to the most blessed tribe of Joseph (Deut 33:13–​17), in Samuel–​Kings it is the kingdom of Israel and the tribe of Ephraim which are presented as rebellious and separated from the house of David and from the tribe of Judah (1 Kgs 11:26; 12:16–​20.25). Again, the narrative rhetoric of Samuel–​Kings is in this respect so persuasive, that for centuries the readers of the Hebrew Bible believed that it was the northern kingdom which distanced itself from the southern one, and not vice versa. However, critical analyses of the rhetoric of the biblical works have recently begun to change this misleading impression.5 It is our hope that this critical analysis of the origin, hypertextual features, and meaning of Samuel–​Kings, an important part of the Hebrew Bible, may change the superficial understanding of Israel and its theology as a branch of Judaism. Consequently, it may show that the Jews are not obliged to take possession of the whole land of Israel. In this way, it may contribute to finding peace in the land of Israel and in our modern world. 5 See e.g. B. Hensel, ‘Yahwistic Diversity and the Hebrew Bible: State of the Field, Desiderata, and Research Perspectives in a Necessary Debate on the Formative Period of Judaism(s),’ in B. Hensel, D. Nocquet, and B. Adamczewski (eds.), Yahwistic Diversity and the Hebrew Bible: Tracing Perspectives of Group Identity from Judah, Samaria, and the Diaspora in Biblical Traditions (FAT 2.120; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2020), 1–​ 44 (esp. 2–​30); J. L. Ska, ‘Why is the Chosen People Called Israel and Not Judah?,’ in B. Hensel, D. Nocquet, and B. Adamczewski (eds.), Yahwistic Diversity, 151–​167 (esp. 162–​163).

Bibliography Primary sources Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, ed. K. Elliger and W. Rudolph [et al.] (5th edn., Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: Stuttgart 1997). Deuteronomy, ed. C. McCarthy (Biblia Hebraica Quinta 5; Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: Stuttgart 2007). Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graece: Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum, ed. A. Rahlfs and J. Ziegler [et al.], vol. 1–​16 (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 1931–​). Septuaginta: Editio altera, ed. A. Rahlfs and R. Hanhart (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: Stuttgart 2006). Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, ed. D. Barthélemy [et al.], vol. 1–​ 40 (Clarendon: Oxford 1955–​2011). The Book of Jubilees: A Critical Text, ed. and trans. J. C. VanderKam (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 510–​511: Scriptores Aethiopici 87–​ 88; Peeters: Lovanii 1989).

Secondary literature Abasili, A. I., ‘Hannah’s Ordeal of Childlessness: Interpreting 1 Samuel 1 through the Prism of a Childless African Woman in a Polygynous Family,’ Old Testament Essays 28 (2015) 581–​605. Abasili, A. I., ‘Was it Rape? The David and Bathsheba Pericope Re-​examined,’ Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011) 1–​15. Ackerman, S., ‘Who Is Sacrificing at Shiloh? The Priesthoods of Ancient Israel’s Regional Sanctuaries,’ in M. A. Leuchter and J. M. Hutton (eds.), Levites and Priests in Biblical History and Tradition (Ancient Israel and Its Literature 9; Society of Biblical Literature: Atlanta 2011), 25–​43. Adamczewski, B., Deuteronomy–​Judges: A Hypertextual Commentary (European Studies in Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions 27; Peter Lang: Berlin [et al.] 2020). Adamczewski, B., Exodus–​Numbers: A Hypertextual Commentary (European Studies in Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions 26; Peter Lang: Berlin [et al.] 2020).

214

Bibliography

Adamczewski, B., Genesis: A Hypertextual Commentary (European Studies in Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions 25; Peter Lang: Berlin [et al.] 2020). Adamczewski, B., The Gospel of John: A Hypertextual Commentary (European Studies in Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions 17; Peter Lang: Berlin [et al.] 2018). Adamczewski, B., The Gospel of Luke: A Hypertextual Commentary (European Studies in Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions 13; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2016). Adamczewski, B., The Gospel of Mark: A Hypertextual Commentary (European Studies in Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions 8; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2014). Adamczewski, B., The Gospel of Matthew: A Hypertextual Commentary (European Studies in Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions 16; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2017). Adamczewski, B., Retelling the Law: Genesis, Exodus-​Numbers, and Samuel-​Kings as Sequential Hypertextual Reworkings of Deuteronomy (European Studies in Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions 1; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2012). Adamczewski, B., ‘The Roles of Gerizim and Jerusalem in the Israelite Heptateuch Genesis–​Judges,’ Revue Biblique [forthcoming]. Adamczewski, B., ‘ “Ten Jubilees of Years”: Heptadic Calculations of the End of the Epoch of Iniquity and the Evolving Ideology of the Hasmoneans,’ Qumran Chronicle vol. 16, no. 1–​2 [July 2008], 19–​36. Albertz, R., ‘Die Identifikation von nachexilischen Redaktionsschichten im Pentateuch,’ in R. Albertz, Pentateuchstudien, ed. J. Wöhrle and F. Neumann (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 117; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2018), 429–​447. Alonso Schökel, L., and Bravo Aragón, J. M., Apuntes de hermenéutica (Trotta: Madrid 1994). Amit, Y., ‘The Story of Amnon and Tamar: Reservoir of Sympathy for Absalom,’ in Y. Amit, In Praise of Editing in the Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays in Retrospect, trans. B. Sigler Rozen (Hebrew Bible Monographs 39; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2012), 205–​219. Anderson, A. A., 2 Samuel (Word Biblical Commentary 11; Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI 2000). Anderson, J. E., ‘The Rise, Fall, and Renovation of the House of Gesenius: Diachronic Methods, Synchronic Readings, and the Debate over

Bibliography

215

Isaiah 36–​39 and 2 Kings 18–​20,’ Currents in Biblical Research 11.2 (2013) 147–​167. Andersson, G., Untamable Texts: Literary Studies and Narrative Theory in the Books of Samuel (Library of Hebrew Bible/​Old Testament Studies 514; T&T Clark: New York · London 2009). Auld, A. G., Life in Kings: Reshaping the Royal Story in the Hebrew Bible (Ancient Israel and Its Literature 30; SBL: Atlanta 2017). Auld, A. G., ‘Reading Deuteronomy after Samuel; Or, Is “Deuteronomistic” a Good Answer to Any Samuel Question?,’ in C. Edenburg and J. Pakkala (eds.), Is Samuel among the Deuteronomists? Current Views on the Place of Samuel in a Deuteronomistic History (Ancient Israel and Its Literature 16; Society of Biblical Literature: Atlanta 2013), 93–​104. Auld, G., ‘Reading Joshua after Samuel,’ in J. K. Aitken, K. J. Dell, and B. A. Mastin (eds.), On Stone and Scroll, Festschrift G. I. Davies (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 420; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2011), 305–​315. Avioz, M., ‘The Literary Structure of the Books of Samuel: Setting the Stage for a Coherent Reading,’ Currents in Biblical Research 16.1 (2017) 8–​33. Bae, H.-​S., ‘Elijah’s Magic in the Drought Narrative: Form and Function,’ Biblische Notizen, nf 169 (2006) 11–​26. Bar, S., ‘Incubation and Traces of Incubation in the Biblical Narrative,’ Old Testament Essays 28 (2015) 243–​256. Basiuk, M., ‘King David’s Fatherhood –​the Bright and Dark Sides,’ Biblica et Patristica Thoruniensia 11 (2018) 447–​461. Baukal, C. E., Jr., ‘Hydrotechnics on Mount Carmel,’ Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 29 (2015) 63–​79. Bauks, M., ‘Intratextualität, Intertextualität und Rezeptionsgeschichte: Was tragen “transpositional techniques” und “empirical evidences” zur literarischen Genese der Urgeschichte aus?,’ in M. Bauks [et al.] (eds.), Neue Wege der Schriftauslegung (Altes Testament und Moderne 24; Lit: Berlin 2019), 13–​63. Bergen, R. D., 1, 2 Samuel (New American Commentary 7; Broadman & Holman: Nashville, TN 1996). Berger, Y., ‘On Patterning in the Book of Samuel: “News of Death” and the Kingship of David,’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 35.4 (2011) 463–​481. Berman, J. A., Inconsistency in the Torah: Ancient Literary Convention and the Limits of Source Criticism (Oxford University: New York 2017).

216

Bibliography

Berman, J., ‘The Legal Blend in Biblical Narrative (Joshua 20:1–​9, Judges 6:25–​ 31, 1 Samuel 15:2, 28:3–​25, 2 Kings 4:1–​7, Jeremiah 34:12–​17, Nehemiah 5:1–​ 12),’ Journal of Biblical Literature 134 (2015) 105–​125. Berman, S. K., ‘Greatness versus Smallness: A Postcolonial Analysis of the Healing of Naaman (2 Kings 5),’ Old Testament Essays 29 (2016) 403–​418. Berner, C., ‘The Egyptian Bondage and Solomon’s Forced Labor: Literary Connections between Exodus 1–​15 and 1 Kings 1–​12?,’ in T. B. Dozeman, T. Römer, and K. Schmid (eds.), Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings (Ancient Israel and Its Literature 8; Society of Biblical Literature: Atlanta 2011), 211–​240. Bezzel, H., ‘Samuel’s Political Career,’ in K. Pyschny and S. Schulz (eds.), Debating Authority: Concepts of Leadership in the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 507; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2018), 248–​261. Biberger, B., ‘ “Du wirst nicht sterben.” Vergebung und Vergeltung in 2Sam 12,13–​14,’ Biblische Notizen, nf 151 (2011) 47–​62. Blanco Wißmann, F., ‘ “He Did What was Right”: Criteria of Judgment and Deuteronomism in the Books of Kings,’ in T. B. Dozeman, T. Römer, and K. Schmid (eds.), Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings (Ancient Israel and Its Literature 8; Society of Biblical Literature: Atlanta 2011), 241–​259. Blum, E., ‘Das exilische Deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk,’ in H.-​J. Stipp (ed.), Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk (Österreichische Biblische Studien 39; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2011), 269–​295. Blum, E., ‘The Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts: An Approach with Methodological Limitations,’ in J. C. Gertz [et al.] (eds.), The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 111; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016), 303–​325. Bodner, K., 1 Samuel: A Narrative Commentary (Hebrew Bible Monographs 19; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2009). Bolin, T. M., ‘1–​2 Samuel and Jewish Paideia in the Persian and Hellenistic Periods,’ in D. V. Edelman (ed.), Deuteronomy–​Kings as Emerging Authoritative Books: A Conversation (Ancient Near East Monographs 6; Society of Biblical Literature: Atlanta 2014), 133–​158. Braulik, G., ‘Theorien über das Deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk (DtrG) im Wandel der Forschung,’ in C. Frevel (ed.), Einleitung in das Alte Testament (9th edn., Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie 1,1; W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2016), 233–​254.

Bibliography

217

Bührer, W., ‘Die Totenbefragung in 1 Sam 28 in ihrem literarischen und religionsgeschichtlichen Kontext,’ Biblische Zeitschrift, nf 61 (2017) 203–​218. Campbell, A. F., 1 Samuel (Forms of the Old Testament Literature 7; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI · Cambridge 2003). Campbell, A. F., 2 Samuel (Forms of the Old Testament Literature 8; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI · Cambridge 2005). Carr, D. M., ‘Method in Determining the Dependence of Biblical on Non-​Biblical Texts,’ in Z. Zevit (ed.), Subtle Citation, Allusion and Translation in the Hebrew Bible (Equinox: Sheffield · Bristol 2017), 41–​53. Cogan, M., I Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible 10; Doubleday: New York 2001). Cogan, M., and Tadmor, H., II Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible 11; Doubleday: New York 1988). Cranz, I., ‘Naaman’s Healing and Gehazi’s Affliction: The Magical Background of 2 Kgs 5,’ Vetus Testamentum 68 (2018) 540–​555. Cross, F. M., Parry, D. W., and Saley, R. J., ‘4QSamb,’ in F. M. Cross [et al.] (eds.), Qumran Cave 4. XII: 1–​2 Samuel (Discoveries in the Judean Desert 17; Clarendon: Oxford 2005), 219–​246. Cudworth, T. D., ‘Yahweh’s Promise to David in the Books of Kings,’ Vetus Testamentum 66 (2016) 194–​216. D’Angelo, C., Davide e Mical: Studio sulla redazione e la teologia di 1–​2 Samuele (Studi e ricerche: Sezione biblica; Cittadella: Assisi 2019). Davidovich, T., ‘Emphasizing the Daughter of Pharaoh,’ Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 24 (2010) 71–​84. Davies, J. A., ‘Heptadic Verbal Patterns in the Solomon Narrative of 1 Kings 1–​ 11,’ Tyndale Bulletin 63 (2012) 21–​34. Davis, A. R., ‘Rereading 1 Kings 17:21 in Light of Ancient Medical Texts,’ Journal of Biblical Literature 135 (2016) 465–​481. De Vries, S. J., 1 Kings (2nd edn., Word Biblical Commentary 12; Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI 2004). Deijl, A. van der, Protest or Propaganda: War in the Old Testament Book of Kings and in Contemporaneous Ancient Near Easter Texts (Studia Semitica Neerlandica 51; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2008). Dekker, J., ‘ “May the Lord Make the Woman Like Rachel”: Comparing Michal and Rachel,’ Tyndale Bulletin 64 (2013) 17–​32. Diebner, B. J. , ‘Forschungsgeschichtliche Einführung: Plädoyer für einen anderen Zugang zum “Alten Testament”,’ in B. J. Diebner, Seit wann gibt es

218

Bibliography

„jenes Israel“? Gesammelte Studien zum TNK und zum antiken Judentum (Beiträge zum Verstehen der Bibel 17; Lit: Berlin 2011), 9–​30. Dietrich, W., ‘The Layer Model of the Deuteronomistic History and the Book of Samuel,’ in C. Edenburg and J. Pakkala (eds.), Is Samuel among the Deuteronomists? Current Views on the Place of Samuel in a Deuteronomistic History (Ancient Israel and Its Literature 16; Society of Biblical Literature: Atlanta 2013), 39–​65. Dormeyer, D., ‘Die Ausgrabung auf den Tulul adh Dhahab: Hat Thomas Pola das vorexilische Pnuel (Gen 32,23–​33; 1Kön 12,25) und die Amathoûs-​Ruine der Jesuszeit (Jos. Bell I 86f) gefunden?,’ Theologische Beiträge 47 (2016) 70–​80. Dubovský, P., ‘Why Did the Northern Kingdom Fall According to 2 Kings 15?,’ Biblica 95 (2014) 321–​346. Dziadosz, D., Gli oracoli divini in 1 Sam 8 –​2 Re 25: Redazione e teologia nella storia deuteronomistica dei re (Wydawnictwo Archidiecezji Przemyskiej: Przemyśl 2002). Edenburg, C., ‘Intertextuality, Literary Competence and the Question of Readership: Some Preliminary Observations,’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 35.2 (2010) 131–​148. Eichler, R., ‘The Meaning of ‫יֹ שֵ ׁב הַ כְ ּרֻ בִ ים‬,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 126 (2014) 358–​371. Everhart, J. S., ‘Jezebel: Framed by Eunuchs?,’ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 72 (2010) 688–​698. Fetherolf, C. M., ‘Elijah’s Mantle: A Sign of Prophecy Gone Awry,’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 42.2 (2017) 199–​212. Finkelstein, I. [et al.], ‘Excavations at Kiriath-​jearim near Jerusalem, 2017: preliminary report,’ Semitica 60 (2018) 31–​83. Finkelstein, I., and Römer, T., ‘The Historical and Archaeological Background behind the Old Israelite Ark Narrative,’ Biblica 101 (2020) 161–​185. Fleming, E. E., ‘Political Favoritism in Saul’s Court: ‫חפץ‬, ‫נעם‬, and the Relationship between David and Jonathan,’ Journal of Biblical Literature 135 (2016) 19–​34. Forti, T., and Glatt-​Gilat, D. A., ‘At the Intersection of Intellect and Insolence: The Historiographic Significance of Solomon’s and Jehoshaphat’s “Tarshish Ships” in the Light of a Wisdom Motif,’ in A. Baruchi-​Unna [et al.] (eds.), “Now It Happened in Those Days”, Festschrift M. Cogan [vol. 1] (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2017), 67–​80. Frisch, A., ‘The Attitude toward Jerusalem in Two Rebellion Narratives: A Literary and Theological Investigation,’ Biblische Notizen, nf 150 (2011) 35–​48.

Bibliography

219

Frolov, S., ‘ “Certain Men” in Judges and Samuel: A Rejoinder to Mark Leuchter,’ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 73 (2011) 251–​264. Garroway, K., ‘2 Kings 6:24–​30: A Case of Unintentional Elimination Killing,’ Journal of Biblical Literature 137 (2018) 53–​70. Garsiel, M., ‘The Story of David, Nabal and Abigail (1 Samuel 25): A Literary Study of Wordplay on Names, Analogies and Socially Structured Opposites,’ in D. Bodi (ed.), Abigail, Wife of David, and Other Ancient Oriental Women (Hebrew Bible Monographs 60; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2013), 66–​78. Genette, G., Palimpsestes: La littérature au second degré (Seuil: [s.l.] 1982). Germany, S., ‘Die Bearbeitung des deuteronomischen Gesetzes im Lichte biblischer Erzählungen,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 131 (2019) 43–​57. Gilmour, R., ‘Divine Violence and Divine Presence: Reading the Story of Uzzah and the Ark in 2 Samuel 6 with Slavoj Žižek,’ Vetus Testamentum 27 (2019) 1–​19. Gilmour, R., ‘The Function of Place Naming in 2 Samuel 5–​6: A Study in Collective Memory,’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 39.4 (2015) 405–​431. Gilmour, R., ‘A note on the horses and chariots of fire at Dothan,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 125 (2013) 308–​313. Gilmour, R., and Young, I., ‘Saul’s Two Year Reign in 1 Samuel 13:1,’ Vetus Testamentum 63 (2013) 150–​154. Goldstein, R., ‘The Provision of Food to the Aramaean Captives in II Reg 6,22–​ 23,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 126 (2014) 101–​105. Goswell, G., ‘Why did God say no to David? (2 Samuel 7),’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 43.4 (2019) 556–​570. Grabbe, L. L., ‘Exodus and History,’ in T. B. Dozeman, C. A. Evans, and J. N. Lohr (eds.), The Book of Exodus: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 164; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2014), 61–​87. Grisanti, M. A., ‘The Impact of Deuteronomy on the Books of the Deuteronomistic History,’ in J. S. DeRouchie, J. Gile, and K. J. Turner (eds.), For Our Good Always, Festschrift D. I. Block (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2013), 223–​245. Grossman, J., ‘Did David Actually Conquer Jerusalem? The Blind, the Lame, and the Ṣinnôr,’ Vetus Testamentum 69 (2019) 46–​59. Hadjiev, T. S., ‘Elijah’s Alleged Megalomania: Reading Strategies for Composite Texts, with 1 Kings 19 as an Example,’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 39.4 (2015) 433–​449.

220

Bibliography

Hadjiev, T. S., ‘The King and the Reader: Hermeneutical Reflections on 1 Kings 20–​21,’ Tyndale Bulletin 66 (2015) 63–​74. Hamley, I., ‘ “Dis(re)membered and Unaccounted For”: ‫ פילגש‬in the Hebrew Bible,’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 42.4 (2018) 415–​434. Hamori, E., ‘The Prophet and the Necromancer: Women’s Divination for Kings,’ Journal of Biblical Literature 132 (2013) 827–​843. Harvey, J. E., Retelling the Torah: The Deuteronomistic Historian’s Use of Tetrateuchal Narratives (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 403; T&T Clark: London · New York 2004). Hasegawa, S., ‘David and Goliath: Toward a Dialogue between Archaeology and Biblical Studies,’ in A. Baruchi-​Unna [et al.] (eds.), “Now It Happened in Those Days”, Festschrift M. Cogan [vol. 2] (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2017), 607–​622. Hays, R. P., ‘A Problematic Spouse: A Text-​Critical Examination of Merab’s Place in 1 Samuel 18:17–​19 and 2 Samuel 21:8,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 129 (2017) 220–​233. Hens-​Piazza, G., ‘Dreams Can Delude, Visions Can Deceive: Elijah’s Sojourn in the Wilderness of Horeb (I Kings 19:1–​21),’ Biblical Theology Bulletin 48 (2018) 10–​17. Hensel, B., ‘Das jhwh-​Heiligtum am Garizim: ein archäologischer Befund und seine literar-​und theologiegeschichtliche Einordnung,’ Vetus Testamentum 68 (2018) 73–​93. Hensel, B., Juda und Samaria: Zum Verhältnis zweier nach-​exilischer Jahwismen (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 110; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016). Hensel, B., ‘Yahwistic Diversity and the Hebrew Bible: State of the Field, Desiderata, and Research Perspectives in a Necessary Debate on the Formative Period of Judaism(s),’ in B. Hensel, D. Nocquet, and B. Adamczewski (eds.), Yahwistic Diversity and the Hebrew Bible: Tracing Perspectives of Group Identity from Judah, Samaria, and the Diaspora in Biblical Traditions (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2.120; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2020), 1–​44. Hentschel, G., ‘Gottesmann, König und alter Prophet (1 Kön 13),’ in A. Michel and N. K. Rüttgers (eds.), Jeremia, Deuteronomismus und Priesterschrift: Beiträge zur Literatur-​und Theologiegeschichte des Alten Testaments, Festschrift H.-​J. Stipp (Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament 105; EOS: Sankt Ottilien 2019), 217–​231. Hentschel, G., ‘Die Königsbücher,’ in C. Frevel (ed.), Einleitung in das Alte Testament (9th edn., Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie 1,1; W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2016), 300–​311.

Bibliography

221

Hentschel, G., ‘Die Samuelbücher,’ in C. Frevel (ed.), Einleitung in das Alte Testament (9th edn., Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie 1,1; W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2016), 298–​299. Hepner, G., Legal Friction: Law, Narrative, and Identity Politics in Biblical Israel (Studies in Biblical Literature 78; Peter Lang: New York [et al.] 2010). Hildebrandt, S., ‘The Servants of Saul: “Minor” Characters and Royal Commentary in 1 Samuel 9–​31,’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 40.2 (2015) 179–​200. Himbaza, I., Schenker, A., and Edart, J.-​ B., The Bible on the Question of Homosexuality, trans. B. M. Guevin (Catholic University of America: Washington, DC 2012). Hjelm, I., Jerusalem’s Rise to Sovereignty: Zion and Gerizim in Competition (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 404; T&T Clark: London · New York 2004). Hobbs, T. R., 2 Kings (Word Biblical Commentary 13; Word Books, Dallas, TX 1985). Holland, D. S., ‘The Form and Function of the Source Citations in 1–​2 Kings,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 130 (2018) 559–​570. Hom, M. K. Y. H., ‘On the Use of ‫ עם־אבתיו‬+ ‫ וישׁכב‬and ‫ קבר‬Formulae in the Book of Kings,’ Biblische Notizen, nf 172 (2017) 3–​12. Hoppe, L. J., ‘The Strategy of the Deuteronomistic History: A Proposal,’ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 79 (2017) 1–​19. House, P. R., 1, 2 Kings (New American Commentary 8; Broadman & Holman: Nashville, TN 1995). Houston, W. J., ‘Corvée in the Kingdom of Israel: Israelites, “Canaanites”, and Cultural Memory,’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 43.1 (2018) 29–​44. Houston, W. J., ‘Doing Justice: The Ideology, Theology and Distribution in the Hebrew Bible of ‫משׁפט וצדקה‬,’ Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 22 (2016) 75–​99. Hügel, K., ‘King Davidʼs Exposure while Dancing: A Queer Reading of 2 Samuel 6,’ Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 30 (2016) 249–​260. Hulster, I. J. de, ‘Imagination: A Hermeneutical Tool for the Study of the Hebrew Bible,’ Biblical Interpretation 18 (2010) 114–​136. Hurvitz, A., A Concise Lexicon of Late Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Innovations in the Writings of the Second Temple Period (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 160; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2014).

222

Bibliography

Hutzli, J., ‘The Literary Relationship between I–​II Samuel and I–​II Kings: Considerations Concerning the Formation of the Two Books,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 122 (2010) 505–​519. Iwańczak, S., ‘La controversia giuridica (rîb) di 2 Sam 11,27b–​12,15a,’ Biblica et Patristica Thoruniensia 9 (2016) 163–​181. Jacobs, J., ‘ “And There Renew the Kingship”: The Double Coronation of Saul (1 Samuel 10–​11),’ Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 32 (2018) 189–​200. Jacobs, J., ‘The Death of David’s Son by Bathsheba (II Sam 12:13–​25): A Narrative in Context,’ Vetus Testamentum 63 (2013) 566–​576. Janzen, D., The Necessary King: A Postcolonial Reading of the Deuteronomistic Portrait of the Monarchy (Hebrew Bible Monographs 57; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2013). Janzen, D., ‘The Sins of Josiah and Hezekiah: A Synchronic Reading of the Final Chapters of Kings,’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 37.3 (2013) 349–​370. Jeon, Y. H., ‘The Retroactive Re-​Evaluation Technique with Pharaoh’s Daughter and the Nature of Solomon’s Corruption in 1 Kings 1–​12,’ Tyndale Bulletin 62 (2011) 15–​40. Jericke, D., ‘Shiloh between Shechem and Jerusalem,’ in B. Hensel, D. Nocquet, and B. Adamczewski (eds.), Yahwistic Diversity and the Hebrew Bible: Tracing Perspectives of Group Identity from Judah, Samaria, and the Diaspora in Biblical Traditions (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2.120; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2020), 245–​261. Johnson, B. J. M., ‘Characterizing Chiastic Contradiction: Literary Structure, Divine Repentance, and Dialogical Biblical Theology in 1 Samuel 15:10–​35,’ in M. A. Sweeney (ed.), Theology of the Hebrew Bible, vol. 1, Methodological Studies (Resources for Biblical Study 92; SBL: Atlanta 2019), 185–​211. Johnson, B. J. M., ‘David Then and Now: Double-​Voiced Discourse in 1 Samuel 16.14–​23,’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 38.2 (2013) 201–​215. Joseph, A. L., ‘Who Is like David? Was David like David? Good Kings in the Book of Kings,’ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 77 (2015) 20–​41. Kagunge, A. L., ‘Pitie et Non-​violence dans 1S 24–​26: Cas de David Versus Saül et Nabal,’ Old Testament Essays 32 (2019) 155–​173. Kalimi, I., ‘Kings with Privilege: The core source(s) of the parallel texts between the Deuteronomistic and Chronistic histories,’ Revue Biblique 119 (2012) 498–​517. Kalmanofsky, A., ‘Women of God: Maternal Grief and Religious Response in 1 Kings 17 and 2 Kings 4,’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 36.1 (2011) 55–​74.

Bibliography

223

Kartveit, M., ‘The Date of II Reg 17,24–​41,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 126 (2014) 31–​44. Kelly, J. R., ‘Identifying Literary Allusions: Theory and the Criterion of Shared Language,’ in Z. Zevit (ed.), Subtle Citation, Allusion and Translation in the Hebrew Bible (Equinox: Sheffield · Bristol 2017), 22–​40. Keren, O., ‘David and Jonathan: A Case of Unconditional Love?,’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 37.1 (2012) 3–​23. Keumeni Ngounou, Y. L., ‘Yhwh est-​il un menteur? Une lecture narrative de 1 R 22,1–​40,’ Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 32 (2018) 236–​246. Kim, D., ‘Ahab and Saul (1 Kgs 22.1–​38),’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 43.4 (2019) 525–​538. Kim, D., ‘The Old Prophet’s Deceit, Jeroboam’s Golden Calves and the Disobedience of the Man of God (1 Kgs 12:25–​13:34),’ Vetus Testamentum 69 (2019) 490–​497. Kim, D.-​H., Early Biblical Hebrew, Late Biblical Hebrew, and Linguistic Variability: A Sociolinguistic Evaluation of the Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 156; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2013). Kim, Y.-​k., ‘Deferential Self-​Reference in the Book of Samuel,’ Vetus Testamentum 65 (2015) 588–​605. King, A. M., ‘Did Jehu Destroy Baal from Israel? A Contextual Reading of Jehu’s Revolt,’ Bulletin for Biblical Research 27.3 (2017) 309–​332. Klein, R. W., 1 Samuel (2nd edn., Word Biblical Commentary 10; Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI 2000). Ko, G., ‘2 Samuel 21–​24: A theological reflection on Israel’s kingship,’ Old Testament Essays 31 (2018) 114–​134. Konkel, M., ‘Exodus 32–​34 and the Quest for an Enneateuch,’ in T. B. Dozeman, T. Römer, and K. Schmid (eds.), Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings (Ancient Israel and Its Literature 8; Society of Biblical Literature: Atlanta 2011), 169–​184. Kunz-​ Lübcke, A., ‘Behind Closed Doors and Between the Lines of Deuteronomy: Tamar’s Rape in 2 Sam 13:1–​22 as a Narrative Rereading of the Juridical Text Deut 22:13–​29,’ Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 19 (2013) 235–​248. Lee, S.-​ W., ‘Die Königsbeurteilungen und die Literargeschichte des Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks Anmerkungen zu einer kontroversen Diskussion,’ Vetus Testamentum 68 (2018) 581–​605. Lemański, J., ‘Dawid i Goliat, czyli spór o to, jaki obraz Dawida prezentuje 1 Sm 17, 1–​18, 5?,’ Roczniki Biblijne [Biblical Annals] 2 (2010) 77–​121.

224

Bibliography

Lemche, N. P., ‘How does one date an expression of mental history? The Old Testament and Hellenism,’ in N. P. Lemche, Biblical Studies and the Failure of History: Changing Perspectives 3 (Copenhagen International Seminar; Routledge: London · New York 2014), 289–​306. Leonard, J. M., ‘Identifying Subtle Allusions: The Promise of Narrative Tracking,’ in Z. Zevit (ed.), Subtle Citation, Allusion and Translation in the Hebrew Bible (Equinox: Sheffield · Bristol 2017), 91–​113. Leonard-​Fleckman, M., ‘Judah Bookends: The Priority of Israel and Literary Revision in the David Narrative,’ Vetus Testamentum 65 (2015) 401–​413. Leuchter, M., Josiah’s Reform and Jeremiah’s Scroll: Historical Calamity and Prophetic Response (Hebrew Bible Monographs 6; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2006). Levin, C., ‘The Empty Land in Kings,’ in E. Ben Zvi and C. Levin (eds.), The Concept of Exile in Ancient Israel and Its Historical Contexts (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 404; De Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2010), 61–​89. Levin, C., ‘Nach siebzig Jahren: Martin Noths Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 125 (2013) 72–​92. Levin, C., ‘On the Cohesion and Separation of Books within the Enneateuch,’ in T. B. Dozeman, T. Römer, and K. Schmid (eds.), Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings (Ancient Israel and Its Literature 8; Society of Biblical Literature: Atlanta 2011), 127–​154. Long, B. O., 1 Kings (Forms of the Old Testament Literature 9; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI 1984). Long, B. O., 2 Kings (Forms of the Old Testament Literature 10; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI 1991). Lovell, N., ‘A Text-​Linguistics Approach to the Literary Structure and Coherence of 2 Kings 17:7–​23,’ Vetus Testamentum 68 (2018) 220–​231. Lyons, M. A., ‘Standards of Cohesion and Coherence: Evidence from Early Readers,’ Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 9 (2020) 183–​208. McCarter, P. K., Jr., I Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible 8; Doubleday: New York 1980). McCarter, P. K., Jr., II Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible 9; Doubleday: New York 1984). Meek, R. L., ‘The Abishag Episode: Reexamining the Role of Virility in 1 Kings 1:1–​4 in Light of the Kirta Epic and the Sumerian Tale “The Old Man and the Young Woman”,’ Bulletin for Biblical Research 24.1 (2014) 1–​14.

Bibliography

225

Messmer, A., ‘A Possible Chiastic Center for Primary History (Genesis–​2 Kings),’ Vetus Testamentum 69 (2019) 232–​240. Michael, M., ‘The Prophet, the Witch and the Ghost: Understanding the Parody of Saul as a “Prophet” and the Purpose of Endor in the Deuteronomistic History,’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 38.3 (2014) 315–​346. Miller, G. D., ‘Intertextuality in Old Testament Research,’ Currents in Biblical Research 9.3 (2010) 283–​309. Milstein, S. J., ‘Saul the Levite and His Concubine: The “Allusive” Quality of Judges 19,’ Vetus Testamentum 66 (2016) 95–​116. Monroe, L. A. S., ‘Disembodied Women: Sacrificial Language and the Deaths of Bat-​Jephthah, Cozbi, and the Bethlehemite Concubine,’ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 75 (2013) 32–​52. Müller, R., Pakkala, J., and Haar Romeny, B. ter, Evidence of Editing: Growth and Change of Texts in the Hebrew Bible (Resources for Biblical Study 75; SBL: Atlanta 2014). Mulzer, M., ‘Der kranke und der gesunde Gehasi: Zum Verhältnis von 2Kön 5 und 2Kön 8,1–​6,’ Biblische Notizen, nf 153 (2012) 19–​27. Na’aman, N., ‘The “Discovered Book” and the Legitimation of Josiah’s Reform,’ Journal of Biblical Literature 130 (2011) 47–​62. Na’aman, N., ‘Jebusites and Jabeshites in the Saul and David Story-​Cycles,’ Biblica 95 (2014) 481–​497. Na’aman, N., ‘The Royal Dynasties of Judah and Israel,’ Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 22 (2016) 59–​73. Na’aman, N., ‘Source and Composition in the Story of Sheba’s Revolt (2 Samuel 20),’ Revue Biblique 125 (2018) 340–​352. Nelson, R. D., Historical Roots of the Old Testament (1200–​63 BCE) (Biblical Encyclopedia 13; SBL: Atlanta 2014). Nicholson, E., Deuteronomy and the Judaean Diaspora (Oxford University: Oxford 2014). Nicholson, E., ‘Once Again Josiah and the Priests of the High Places (II Reg 23,8a.9),’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 124 (2012) 356–​368. Niesiołowski-​Spanò, Ł., Origin Myths and Holy Places in the Old Testament: A Study of Aetiological Narratives, trans. J. Laskowski (Copenhagen International Seminar; Equinox: London · Oakville 2011). Nihan, C., ‘1 Samuel 8 and 12 and the Deuteronomistic Edition of Samuel,’ in C. Edenburg and J. Pakkala (eds.), Is Samuel among the Deuteronomists? Current Views on the Place of Samuel in a Deuteronomistic History (Ancient

226

Bibliography

Israel and Its Literature 16; Society of Biblical Literature: Atlanta 2013), 225–​273. Nihan, C., ‘Rewriting Kingship in Samuel: 1 Samuel 8 and 12 and the Law of the King (Deuteronomy 17),’ Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 2 (2013) 315–​350. Niu, Z., «The King Lifted up His Voice and Wept»: David’s Mourning in the Second Book of Samuel (Tesi Gregoriana: Serie Teologia 200; Pontificia Università Gregoriana: Roma 2013). Noble, J. T., ‘Cultic Prophecy and Levitical Inheritance in the Elijah–​Elisha Cycle,’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 41.1 (2016) 45–​60. Nodet, É., ‘Édom, c’est l’Idumée! Le rejet littéraire d’Édom hors de Juda,’ Revue Biblique 126 (2019) 161–​206. Noll, K. L., ‘Is the Scroll of Samuel Deuteronomistic?,’ in C. Edenburg and J. Pakkala (eds.), Is Samuel among the Deuteronomists? Current Views on the Place of Samuel in a Deuteronomistic History (Ancient Israel and Its Literature 16; Society of Biblical Literature: Atlanta 2013), 119–​148. Noll, S., ‘Rereading Samuel’s Silence in 1 Samuel 7:8,’ Vetus Testamentum 66 (2016) 393–​405. Noth, M., Könige, vol. 1, I Könige 1–​16 (3rd edn., Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament 9/​1; Neukirchener: Neukirchen-​Vluyn 2003). Nyirimana Mukansengimana, R., ‘You Shall Not Kill Them: Reading 2 Kings 6:8–​23 in the Context of the Conflict in the African Great Lakes Region,’ Old Testament Essays 30 (2017) 103–​127. Olley, J. W., ‘2 Kings 13: A Cluster of Hope in God,’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 36.2 (2011) 199–​218. Otto, E., Deuteronomium 12–​34, vol. 1, 12,1–​23,15 (Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament; Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2016). Pakkala, J., ‘Deuteronomy and 1–​2 Kings in the Redaction of the Pentateuch and Former Prophets,’ in K. Schmid and R. F. Person, Jr. (eds.), Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch, Hexateuch, and the Deuteronomistic History (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2.56; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2012), 133–​162. Pakkala, J., ‘Water in 1–​2 Kings,’ in E. Ben Zvi and C. Levin (eds.), Thinking of Water in the Early Second Temple Period (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 461; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2014), 299–​315. Park, S. J., ‘The Cultic Identity of Asherah in Deuteronomistic Ideology of Israel,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 123 (2011) 553–​564. Parker, J. F., Valuable and Vulnerable: Children in the Hebrew Bible, Especially the Elisha Cycle (Brown Judaic Studies 355; Brown University: Providence, RI 2013).

Bibliography

227

Pat-​El, N., ‘Israelian Hebrew: A Re-​Evaluation,’ Vetus Testamentum 67 (2017) 227–​263. Pawłowski, Z., ‘To Eat or Not to Eat: Politics, Religion, and Eating in 1 Kings 13,’ Biblica et Patristica Thoruniensia 12 (2019) 71–​89. Pietsch, M., ‘Zwischen Restauration und Resignation: Die Amnestie Jojachins (II Reg 25,27–​30) als deuteronomistischer Programmtext?,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 129 (2017) 390–​410. Pioske, D., ‘Material Culture and Making Visible: On the Portrayal of Philistine Gath in the Book of Samuel,’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 43.1 (2018) 3–​27. Polak, F. H., ‘Negotiations, Social Drama and Voices of Memory in Some Samuel Tales,’ in A. Brenner and F. H. Polak (eds.), Performing Memory in Biblical Narrative and Beyond (The Bible in the Modern World 25; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2009), 46–​71. Popko, Ł., ‘‫ פי־שׁנים‬in 2 Kgs 2:9 as a Metaphor of Double Speech,’ Revue Biblique 125 (2018) 353–​374. Quine, C., ‘On Dying in a City Gate: Implications in the Deaths of Eli, Abner and Jezebel,’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 40.4 (2016) 399–​413. Quine, C., ‘Reading Micaiah’s Heavenly Vision (1Kgs 22:19–​23) and 1 Kings 22 as Interpretive Keys,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 130 (2018) 204–​216. Rendsburg, G. A., ‘Notes on 2 Kings 9:36–​37,’ Vetus Testamentum 66 (2016) 317–​323. Rezetko, R., ‘What Happened to the Book of Samuel in the Persian Period and Beyond?,’ in E. Ben Zvi, D. V. Edelman, and F. Polak (eds.), A Palimpsest: Rhetoric, Ideology, Stylistics, and Language Relating to Persian Israel (Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures and its Contexts 5; Gorgias: Piscataway, NJ 2009), 237–​252. Riffaterre, M., Fictional Truth (Parallax: Re-​visions of Culture and Society; 2nd edn., The John Hopkins University: Baltimore · London 1993). Rofé, A., ‘Writing, Interpolating and Editing: 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21 as a Case Study,’ Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 3 (2014) 317–​326. Römer, T., ‘The Case of the Book of Kings,’ in D. V. Edelman (ed.), Deuteronomy–​ Kings as Emerging Authoritative Books: A Conversation (Ancient Near East Monographs 6; Society of Biblical Literature: Atlanta 2014), 187–​201. Römer, T., ‘How Jeroboam II became Jeroboam I,’ Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 6 (2017) 372–​382. Römer, T., ‘La loi du roi en Deutéronome 17 et ses fonctions,’ in O. Artus (ed.), Loi et Justice dans la Littérature du Proche-​Orient ancien (Beihefte

228

Bibliography

zur Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 20; Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden 2013), 99–​111. Römer, T., ‘Der Pharao als Gotteswortvermittler: Josia und Josef,’ in H. Jenni [et al.] (eds.), Nächstenliebe und Gottesfurcht, Festschrift H.-​P. Mathys (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 439; Ugarit: Münster 2016), 339–​349. Rosenberg, G., ‘‫כעת חיה‬: An Allusion Connecting Genesis 18:10, 14 and 2 Kings 4:16–​17,’ Journal of Biblical Literature 139 (2020) 701–​720. Rudnig, T. A., ‘König ohne Tempel: 2 Samuel 7 in Tradition und Redaktion,’ Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011) 426–​446. Samuel, H., Von Priestern zum Patriarchen: Levi und die Leviten im Alten Testament (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 448; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2014). Schenker, A., ‘Der Ort, an dem Jhwhs Name wohnt: Eine oder mehrere Stätten?,’ Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 4 (2015) 219–​229. Schmid, K., ‘Deuteronomy within the “Deuteronomistic Histories” in Genesis–​ 2 Kings,’ in K. Schmid and R. F. Person, Jr. (eds.), Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch, Hexateuch, and the Deuteronomistic History (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2.56; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2012), 8–​30. Schmid, K., ‘How to Identify a Persian Period Text in the Pentateuch,’ in R. J. Bautch and M. Lackowski (eds.), On Dating Biblical Texts to the Persian Period: Discerning Criteria and Establishing Epochs (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2.101; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2019), 101–​118. Schmid, K., ‘Outbidding the Fall of Jerusalem: Redactional Supplementation in 2 Kings 24,’ in S. M. Olyan and J. L. Wright (eds.), Supplementation and the Study of the Hebrew Bible (Brown Judaic Studies 361; Brown University: Providence, RI 2018), 87–​103. Schorch, S., ‘Dissimilatory Reading and the Making of Biblical Texts: The Jewish Pentateuch and the Samaritan Pentateuch,’ in R. F. Person, Jr. and R. Rezetko (eds.), Empirical Models Challenging Biblical Criticism (Ancient Israel and Its Literature 25; SBL: Atlanta 2016), 109–​127. Schreiner, D. B., ‘ “But He Could Not Warm Himself ”: Sexual Innuendo and the Place of 1 Kgs 1,1–​4,’ Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 32 (2018) 121–​130. Screnock, J., ‘The Syntax of Complex Adding Numerals and Hebrew Diachrony,’ Journal of Biblical Literature 137 (2018) 789–​819. Sergi, O., ‘The Omride Dynasty and the Reshaping of the Judahite Historical Memory,’ Biblica 97 (2016) 503–​526.

Bibliography

229

Sergi, O., ‘The United Monarchy and the Kingdom of Jeroboam II in the Story of Absalom and Sheba’s Revolts (2 Samuel 15–​20),’ Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 6 (2017) 329–​353. Shalom-​Guy, H., ‘Three-​Way Intertextuality: Some Reflections of Abimelech’s Death at Thebez in Biblical Narrative,’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 34.4 (2010) 419–​432. Shinan, A., and Zakovitch, Y., From Gods to God: How the Bible Debunked, Suppressed, or Changed Ancient Myths & Legends, trans. V. Zakovitch (Jewish Publication Society: Philadelphia 2012). Ska, J. L., ‘Why is the Chosen People Called Israel and Not Judah?,’ in B. Hensel, D. Nocquet, and B. Adamczewski (eds.), Yahwistic Diversity and the Hebrew Bible: Tracing Perspectives of Group Identity from Judah, Samaria, and the Diaspora in Biblical Traditions (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2.120; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2020), 151–​167. Sonnet, J.-​ P., ‘The Siege of Jerusalem between Rhetorical Maximalism (Deuteronomy 28) and Narrative Minimalism (2 Kings 25),’ in P. Dubovský, D. Markl, and J.-​P. Sonnet (eds.), The Fall of Jerusalem and the Rise of the Torah (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 107; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016), 73–​86. Spronk, K., ‘From Joshua to Samuel: Some Remarks on the Origin of the Book of Judges,’ in J. van Ruiten and J. C. de Vos (eds.), The Land of Israel in Bible, History, and Theology, Festschrift E. Noort (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 124; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2009), 137–​149. Steiner, R. C., ‘Four Inner-​Biblical Interpretations of Genesis 49:10: On the Lexical and Syntactic Ambiguities of ‫ עַד‬as Reflected in the Prophecies of Nathan, Ahijah, Ezekiel, and Zechariah,’ Journal of Biblical Literature 132 (2013) 33–​60. Steiner, T. M., ‘From David to Solomon, from Crisis to Leadership,’ in K. Pyschny and S. Schulz (eds.), Debating Authority: Concepts of Leadership in the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 507; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2018), 288–​301. Stiebert, J., First-​Degree Incest and the Hebrew Bible: Sex in the Family (Library of Hebrew Bible/​Old Testament Studies 596; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: London · New York 2016). Stipp, H.-​J., ‘Die Deuteronomisten und das Exil: Historische Erfahrungen und theologische Lernprozesse,’ Münchener Theologische Zeitschrift 70 (2019) 2–​23.

230

Bibliography

Strange, J., ‘Solomon and His Empire: Fact or Fiction?,’ Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 29 (2015) 11–​21. Sweeney, M. A., ‘Prophets and Priests in the Deuteronomistic History: Elijah and Elisha,’ in M. R. Jacobs and R. F. Person Jr. (eds.), Israelite Prophecy and the Deuteronomistic History: Portrait, Reality, and the Formation of a History (Ancient Israel and Its Literature 14; Society of Biblical Literature: Atlanta 2013), 35–​49. Talshir, Z., ‘Formulaic Creativity: The Structure of the Synchronic History of Israel and Judah (1 Kings 12–​2 Kings 17),’ in A. Baruchi-​Unna [et al.] (eds.), “Now It Happened in Those Days”, Festschrift M. Cogan [vol. 1] (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2017), 105–​156. Tebes, J. M., ‘The Edomite Involvement in the Destruction of the First Temple: A Case of Stab-​in-​the-​Back Tradition?,’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 36.2 (2011) 219–​255. Thiel, W., ‘Struktur und Eigenart von 1 Kön 22,1–​38,’ in S. Grätz, A. Graupner, and J. Lanckau (eds.), Ein Freund des Wortes, Festschrift U. Rüterswörden (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2019), 325–​336. Toboła, Ł., ‘Imiona królów judzkich –​kilka spostrzeżeń,’ Biblical Annals 6 (2016) 601–​610. Tobolowsky, A., ‘Othniel, David, Solomon: Additional Evidence of the Late Development of Normative Tribal Concepts in the South,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 131 (2019) 207–​219. Tobolowsky, A., ‘The »Samuel the Judge« Narrative in 1Sam 1–​7,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 129 (2017) 376–​389. Tsumura, D. T., The First Book of Samuel (New International Commentary on the Old Testament; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI · Cambridge 2007). Tyson, C. W., ‘Who’s In? Who’s Out? II Sam 5,8b and Narrative Reversal,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 122 (2010) 546–​557. Ulrich, E., The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 169; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2015). Van Seters, J., The Biblical Saga of King David (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2009). Van Seters, J., ‘David and the Gibeonites,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 123 (2011) 535–​552. Van Seters, J., ‘A Revival of the Succession Narrative and the Case against It,’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 39.1 (2014) 3–​14. Van Seters, J., ‘Two Stories of David Sparing Saul’s Life in 1 Samuel 24 and 26: A Question of Priority,’ Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 25 (2011) 93–​104.

Bibliography

231

Venema, G. J., Reading Scripture in the Old Testament: Deuteronomy 9–​10; 31 –​ 2 Kings 22–​23 –​Jeremiah 36 –​Nehemiah 8 (Oudtestamentische Studiën 48; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2004). Verman, M., ‘Royalty, Robes and the Art of Biblical Narrative,’ Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 30 (2016) 30–​43. Wagner, V., ‘Eine antike Notiz zur Geschichte des Pesach (2 Kön 23,21–​23),’ Biblische Zeitschrift, nf 54 (2010) 20–​35. Walsh, J. T., 1 Kings (Berit Olam; Liturgical: Collegeville, MN 1996). Walsh, J. T., ‘On ‫ היה‬in 2 Kings 9:37,’ Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 152–​153. Walsh, J. T., ‘The Rab Šāqēh between Rhetoric and Redaction,’ Journal of Biblical Literature 130 (2011) 263–​279. Wearne, G. J., ‘Reading Samuel as Folklore: 1 Samuel 23.19–​24.22 and 26.1–​25, a Case Study,’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 41.3 (2017) 337–​354. Weber, B., ‘Das königlich-​davidische Danklied 2 Samuel 22 /​Psalm 18 im Kontext von Psalm 1–​18: Eine (proto)kanonische Lesung vom Ende der Samuelbücher her zum Anfangsbereich des Psalters hin,’ in S. M. Attard and M. Pavan (eds.), „Canterò in eterno le misericordie del Signore” (Sal 89,2), Festschrift G. Barbiero (Analecta Biblica Studia 3; Gregorian & Biblical: Roma 2015), 187–​204. Weingart, K., ‘ “My Father, My Father! Chariot of Israel and Its Horses!” (2 Kings 2:12 //​13:14): Elisha’s or Elijah’s Title?,’ Journal of Biblical Literature 137 (2018) 257–​270. Weingart, K., ‘What Makes an Israelite an Israelite? Judean Perspectives on the Samarians in the Persian Period,’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 42.2 (2017) 155–​175. Willis, J., Pleffer, A., and Llewelyn, S., ‘Conversation in the Succession Narrative of Solomon,’ Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011) 133–​147. Willis, T. M., ‘The Curious Case of κύριέ μου κύριε in 2 Kingdoms 7:18–​29,’ Journal of Biblical Literature 132 (2013) 515–​526. Wilson-​Wright, A. M., ‘Bethel and the Persistence of El: Evidence for the Survival of El as an Independent Deity in the Jacob Cycle and 1 Kings 12:25–​ 30,’ Journal of Biblical Literature 138 (2019) 705–​720. Wray Beal, L. M., The Deuteronomist’s Prophet: Narrative Control of Approval and Disapproval in the Story of Jehu (2 Kings 9 and 10) (Library of Hebrew Bible/​ Old Testament Studies 478; T&T Clark: New York · London 2007). Wright, B. G., III, ‘Ben Sira, Book of,’ in J. J. Collins and D. C. Harlow (eds.), The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism (William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI · Cambridge 2010), 436–​438.

232

Bibliography

Wyatt, S., ‘Jezebel, Elijah, and the Widow of Zarephath: A Ménage à Trois that Estranges the Holy and Makes the Holy the Strange,’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 36.4 (2012) 435–​458. Zakovitch, Y., ‘On Incoherency and Its Causes: Explanatory Notes as a Test Case,’ Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 9 (2020) 247–​261. Zimran, Y., ‘ “Look, the King Is Weeping and Mourning!”: Expressions of Mourning in the David Narratives and their Interpretive Contribution,’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 41.4 (2018) 491–​517.

Index of ancient sources (selected)

Old Testament Genesis  3:21  163 15:4–​5  94 17:21  166 18:5–​8  23, 76 18:10  166 18:14  166 21:17  76 22:11  42 22:12  151 24:17  148 25:18  54 31:34  23, 64 32:29  184 35:10  184 35:18–​20  50 37:3  23, 99 37:23  23, 99 38:6–​26  23 38:6–​24  99 41:36  108 41:54  108 46:2  42 46:21  102 49:10  95 Exodus  1:11  123, 128 2:24  180 3:1  156 3:4  42 3:15–​16  154 3:20  43 5:1  99 5:3  99

7:14  45 9:23  52 9:35  127 12:3  125 12:22  121 12:29  121 14:19–​20  100 14:21–​24  100 15:16  100 15:17–​18  126 15:20–​21  59 16:14–​17:6  100 17:14–​16  21 18:21  49 18:25  49 19:1  66 19:16–​17  66 22:22–​26  22 24:12  66 24:17  163 25:20  124 25:30  68 26:1–​13  94 29:7  50 29:45  124 30:18  125 31:2–​4  124 32:4  136 32:21–​25  90 32:24  136 33:11  37 34:2  163 34:4–​6  157 36:34  124 36:8–​40:35  210

234 36:8–​17  94 37:9  124 37:23  125 38:8  39 39:36–​38  125 Leviticus 4:26  42 4:31  42 4:35  42 7:32–​34  49 19:26  53 19:31  21 20:6  21 20:27  21 21:18  89 24:8  68 27:3  111 Numbers  7:89  93 13:4  89 13:22  84 14:1  90 17:5  40, 127 19:2  45 21:9  184 27:21  73 27:23  127 31:14  69 32:33  119 34:5  127 34:7–​8  180 34:8  127 Deuteronomy  1–​7  31–​79 1:1–​11  31–​5 1:12–​39  35–​41 1:13  49 1:15  49, 163 1:19  46

Index of ancient sources

1:21  58 1:40–​43  41–​2 1:44–​2:7  43–​7 2:8–​9  47–​8 2:8b  207 2:10–​16  48–​54 2:10  39 2:10a  205 2:11b  205 2:13–​14  206 2:13a  208 2:14  39 2:14b  205 2:16b  208 2:16c  205 2:17–​29  54–​7 2:21  39 2:24  48 2:24e  208 2:30–​36d  57–​9 2:30–​32  62 2:35b–​36b  208 2:36cd  208 2:36e–​3:14  59–​61 3:1  62 3:4–​5  119, 206 3:4  206 3:13–​14  119, 206 3:15–​4:49  61–​5 3:17  180 3:29  206, 208 4:4  208 4:8  208 4:35  127, 206 4:39  126, 206 5:1–​21  65–​71 5:5b  208 5:5c  208 5:6  97 5:16  97 5:16d  208 5:17  97, 205

Index of ancient sources

5:18  97, 205 5:22–​6:25  71–​6 5:22  126 5:25  163 6:5  195, 207 6:17  117 7  76–​9 7:3–​4  21, 130 7:5  179, 206 7:23  44, 53 7:25  168 7:26  206 8:1–​13:6  81–​111 8  81–​4 8:5  98 9:1–​8  84–​7 9:2  39, 206 9:5  117 9:8–​9  156 9:9–​10:3  88–​91 9:9  163 9:16  139, 206 9:18  139, 206 9:21  192, 207 9:23  52, 206 9:29  184, 206 10:1–​2  126, 206 10:4–​17a  91–​5 10:6b–​d  208 10:10  175, 206 10:17a–​22  95–​6 11:1–​15b  97–​104 11:1  117, 206 11:3  205 11:4c  205 11:6  206 11:6bc  208 11:15  206 11:15a  208 11:15c–​23  104–​7 11:16b  208 11:17  126, 206

11:22d–​f  111 11:23a  209 11:23b  205 11:24–​13:6  107–​11 12  19 12:2–​3  141, 206 12:3  184, 206 12:5  93, 126, 206, 210 12:10  52 12:14  20 12:21  128, 206 13:7–​27:25  113–​62 13:7–​14:2c  113–​17 13:15  206 13:16–​17  145 13:18  195, 206–​7 13:18b  209 14:2d–​29  117–​19 14:4ab  210 14:4b  121 14:5  120, 206 14:24  128 15:1–​16:12  119–​25 15:13  45 16:1  195, 206–​7 16:6  126 16:12d  205 16:13–​16  125–​8 16:16a–​d  207 16:17–​17:20  128–​33 16:19  49 17:2c  207 17:6  160 17:14–​20  22, 210 17:14–​15  21 17:14–​15a  21 17:14  19, 22, 49 17:14b  22 17:15  22 17:16–​17  21–​2 17:17  130 17:20  21

235

236 18:1–​20  133–​6 18:1  40 18:3–​5  18 18:3  21, 37, 40, 206 18:4  40 18:5  40 18:10–​11  187, 207 18:10  181, 206 18:11  21, 73 18:20–​22  20 18:20d  210 18:21–​19:21  136–​42 19:2–​3  211 20–​22  142–​6 20:8de  209 20:10–​14  22 20:15–​18  22 21:15  32 21:17  164 21:18–​22:29  205 22:13–​24  21 22:21  99 23:1–​26:11  146–​51 23:17  206 24:10–​11  22 24:10  209 24:16  180, 206 25:1  126, 206 25:7  99 25:11  99 25:17–​19  21 25:17  54, 206 25:19  94, 206 26:2  126 26:7  179, 206 26:12–​27:7  151–​5 26:12b  207 27:5–​6  124 27:8–​16  155–​8 27:13  209 27:15a  209

Index of ancient sources

27:17–​25  158–​62 27:26–​34:12  163–​203 27:26–​28:22  163–​8 27:26ab  209 28:3a  209 28:12  209 28:21–​22  126, 206 28:23–​58  169–​74 28:37  128, 191, 206–​7 28:38  126, 206 28:47  209 28:48  126, 206 28:59–​68  174–​7 28:61a  205 28:69–​29:15b  177–​80 29:1–​30:10  20 29:8  117, 206 29:14c  209 29:15  187 29:15c–​28  180–​4 29:19  197, 207 29:23–​24  128, 206 29:24  156, 207 29:27  140, 206 30:1–​31:1  184–​7 30:2  47 30:16g–​i  209 31:2–​9  187–​9 31:10–​27  189–​91 31:10a–​c  209 31:26  190 31:28–​32:40  191–​7 31:30  206 32:3–​4  210 32:8  206 32:19  210 32:28–​31  210 32:37  210 32:41–​34:1b  197–​200 33:2  32 33:7  211

Index of ancient sources

33:13–​17  211 33:27de  210 34:1c–​12  200–​3 34:1c–​2  210 34:8  33 34:10  195 Joshua  3:14–​4:24  100 3:17  164 4:10–​11  100 4:20  154 5:10–​11  195 6:5  43 6:8  43 6:20  43 6:26  146 7:11  50 7:16–​17  50 7:18–​19  54 7:22–​23  50 7:26  195 8:31  117, 180 9:15  105 10:13  84 11:21  84 14:12–​15  84 15:9  46 15:10  28, 45 15:13–​14  84 18:10–​Judg 18:31  32 18:14  46 20:6  179 20:7  139, 211 21:44–​45  127 22:13  32 24:5–​6  51 24:12  58 24:23  47 24:26–​27  46 24:30  46

24:33  32, 47 Judges  1:20  84 2:13  47 2:14  183 2:16–​18  94 3:9–​10  179 3:12  52 3:15  52 4:2  51 6:8–​9  50 6:25–​30  184 6:32  52 8:30  176 8:34  52 9:6  133 9:50  97 9:53–​54  97 9:54  79 9:57  70 10:6  47 10:7  51 11:1  52 13:2  31 13:3–​7  33 13:3  33 13:4  34 13:5  33 13:7  33–​4 14:19  50 15:14  50 15:20  44 16:23  44 16:27  44 16:31  44 17:5  137 17:12  137 19:23  99 19:29  51 20:1  42

237

238 20:17  51 20:26  93 20:27–​28  43 21:12  32 21:19  28, 32, 45 21:21  28, 32, 45 1 Samuel  1–​8  19 1–​7  18 1  31–​5 1:1  27–​8 1:3  27 1:19  43 1:24  36 2  35–​41 2:13  206 2:13b  21 2:14  21 3:1–​4:1a  41–​2 4:1  48 4:1b–​7:2  43–​7 4:4  28, 91 4:10  49 4:11  28 4:12–​13  81 4:16–​17  81 5:1  48 6:9  28 6:12–​14  28 7:3–​17  47–​8 7:3  25 7:5–​6c  207 8–​15  48–​54 8–​12  21 8  21–​2, 205 8:5  19, 22 8:19–​20  22 9–​31  27 n. 72 9:1  28 10  22 10:17  21

Index of ancient sources

10:19a  22 10:20–​27  21 10:24  22 10:25  49 11:1–​12:2a  205 12:14–​15  206 13:1  208 13:2  208 13:3–​4  208 13:7  206 13:17–​14:23  205 13:19  206 14:37  90 14:49–​51  208 15  205 15:2  21, 206 15:16  75 15:18  75 15:28  75 16  54–​7 16:1–​13  21 16:1  28 16:18–​23  59 16:18d  208 17  57–​9 17:4–​10  106 17:7  26 17:33–​39  56 17:49–​50  106 17:54  208 17:55–​58  208 18  59–​61 18:3  84 18:17–​19  105 n. 51 18:27  206 19  61–​5 19:10e–​11a  208 19:11  206 19:11c  208 19:13  23 20:1–​27:6  65–​71 20:16–​17  84

Index of ancient sources

20:31  25 20:35–​39  208 20:41  208 21:2–​10  29 21:12  76 22:5  208 22:8–​24:23  205 23:2  90 23:9  29 25  205 27:7–​29:11  71–​6 28  161 28:3–​25  21 28:22–​25  23 30–​31  76–​9 30:7  29 31  161 31:3–​4  81–​2 31:11–​13  85, 106 31:12  206 2 Samuel  1  81–​4 2:1–​5:3  85 n. 10 2–​4  84–​7 2:3  206 2:9  27 n. 72 2:22  91 3:4  89 3:14  60 3:20  88 4:8  88 5  88–​91 5:5–​7  58 5:11  122 6–​7  91–​5 6:6b–​7c  208 6:14  38 6:20  38 7  20 7:1  206 7:6  211

7:7  20 7:10  86 7:11  206 7:25  20 8–​10  95–​6 8:18  26 11–​19  97–​104 11  70 13:1–​14:24  205 13:1–​22  21, 23 13:18–​19  23 16:5–​17:4  205 18:8  206, 208 19:17–​21  27 n. 72 19:30  208 20–​23  104–​7 20:1–​2  206 20:1  27 n. 72 20:3g–​j  208 21:14d  111 21:15–​21  209 22–​23  205 22:1  206 23:1–​1 Kgs 2:11  11 24  107–​11 24:5–​7  70 24:7  122 24:12  70 24:16–​25  28 1 Kings  1–​2  113–​17 1:13  206 1:17  206 1:33e  209 1:34  206 1:35  209 2:3  206 2:12  25 3–​4  117–​19 3:5–​14  210 3:9–​12  121

239

240 3:14  127 4:13  206 4:26  22 5–​7  119–​25 5:3  206 5:4  206 5:6  22 5:27  128 6–​7  205 6:1–​9:1  210 8–​9  125–​8 8:9  206 8:12  20 8:16  28, 210 8:23  206 8:29–​30  28, 210 8:29  28, 206 8:32  206 8:35  206 8:37  206 8:46–​53  20 8:60  206 9:3  206 9:7  206 9:8–​9  206 9:15  22 9:21  22 9:25  207 9:26  129 10–​11  128–​33 10:14–​11:10  21 10:14–​29  22 10:14–​15  22 10:26–​29  22 11:1–​8  22 11:1  22 11:2  21 11:3  22 11:4  142 11:6a  207 11:26  211 11:29–​30  135

Index of ancient sources

11:36  28, 142, 210 11:41–​43  11 11:41  141, 187 12  133–​6 12:1  28, 211 12:16–​20  211 12:19  28, 211 12:21–​23  27 n. 72 12:25  28, 211 12:29–​13:10  137 n. 36 12:33  210 13:1–​14:29  136–​42 14:2  211 14:9  206 14:10  144 14:11  143, 160 14:14  144 14:15  206 14:19–​20  11 14:21  28, 210 14:22–​24  18 14:23–​24  206 14:29–​31  11 14:30–​16:34  142–​6 14:30–​15:1  141 16:4  160 16:9b–​d  209 16:34d  205 17  146–​51 17:1  206 17:12–​16  166 17:12  166 17:13e  209 17:14  166 17:16  166 17:17–​18  166 17:18  166 17:19–​22  166 17:23  167 17:24  166 18  151–​6 18:1b  207

Index of ancient sources

18:4  156, 175 18:13  156 18:29  25, 166 18:39–​40  156 19  155–​8 19:15  209 19:17  209 20–​22  158–​62 20:1  165 n. 6 21:21–​24  175 22:4–​16  165 22:34  175 2 Kings  1–​5  163–​8 1:2  209 2:19a–​c  209 2:24  158 n. 68 4:1–​7  21 4:32–​36  174 5:18a–​d  209 5:27  174 6–​7  169–​74 6:22e–​23c  209 8–​10  174–​7 8:19  206 9  205 9:1–​3  179 11–​15  177–​80 11:18  206 12:12–​16  189 13:4  206 13:14–​25  209 14:6  206 16–​17  180–​4 16:3  187, 206 17:3–​7  185 17:7–​20  18 17:7c  207 17:14–​16  185 17:24–​41  25 17:34  25

17:35–​39  25 17:36  206 18–​20  184–​7 18:4  206 18:15–​16  209 20:12–​15  209 20:15  158 n. 68 20:29  158 n. 68 21  187–​9 21:4  28, 210 21:6  207 21:7–​9  18 21:7  28, 210 22  189–​91 22:1  209 22:16  210 22:19  207 23  191–​7 23:4e  210 23:6  206–​7 23:16  210 23:21  207 23:25  207 23:26  207 23:27  28, 210 23:29  210 23:34ab  210 24  197–​200 24:4  207 24:13ab  210 25  200–​3 25:3  210 25:27  23 1 Chronicles  4:39  25 13:10  92 n. 23 29:18  25 2 Chronicles  19:3  25 20:33  25

241

242 30:19  25 Ezra  3:13  25 7:10  25 9:4  25 9:6  25 Psalms  18  27, 107 42:8  89 Proverbs  1:1  89 Sirach  44–​49  23 Isaiah  1:11  54 2:2–​3  210 7:1  181 7:2  56 9:5–​6  95 11:1  55 22:8  124 22:9  89 25:9  36 28:21  90 36–​37  185 37:16  43 38–​39  186 38:3  185 38:4  186 38:7–​20  186 38:7–​8  186 38:8  186 38:21–​39:8  186 44:8  36 45:5  95 56:3  101 56:5  101

Index of ancient sources

60:3  129 60:5–​6  129 Jeremiah  2:5  182 7:10–​14  210 7:12  28, 45 7:14  28, 45 7:26  182 7:31  193 10:7  25 11:4  127 15:1  35 19:3  42 19:8  128 24:1  199 26:2  196 26:6  28, 45 26:9  28, 45 26:19  179 26:22  190 26:24  190 29:2  198 29:19  182 33:17  117 35:8  176 35:14  176 35:16  176 36:10  189 39:1–​2  200 39:1  200 39:2  200 39:4  200 39:5  200–​1 39:6–​7  201 39:7  201 39:8  201 39:9  201 39:10  201 39:35  193 40:5–​6  202 40:7–​8  202

Index of ancient sources

40:9  202 41:1–​3  202 41:14  202 41:16–​18  202 42:8  192 49:34  25 52:1–​27  200 52:18  125 52:19  125 52:20–​23  125 52:20  125, 181 52:24  192 52:31–​34  200 52:31  25 52:34  203

Hosea  2:13  166 2:18  146

Ezekiel  10:4  126 10:9  125 10:14  125 23:35  139 37:1–​14  180 40:5–​45:20  210 40:16  124 40:19  124 40:49  124 41:6–​9  124 41:17–​18  124 41:25  124 41:26  124 44:4  126

Habakkuk  3:3  32

Amos  1:5  181 3:14  137 7:9–​13  137 Jonah  1:1–​2  180 Micah  1:1–​2  161 5:1  55, 58

Haggai  1:14  210 Zechariah  4:9  210 Other sources Jubilees  48:1  99

243

European Studies in Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions Edited by Bartosz Adamczewski

Vol.

1

Bartosz Adamczewski: Retelling the Law. Genesis, Exodus-Numbers, and Samuel-Kings as Sequential Hypertextual Reworkings of Deuteronomy. 2012.

Vol.

2

Jacek Grzybowski (ed.): Philosophical and Religious Sources of Modern Culture. 2012.

Vol.

3

Bartosz Adamczewski: Hypertextuality and Historicity in the Gospels. 2013.

Vol.

4

Edmund Morawiec: Intellectual Intuition in the General Metaphysics of Jacques Maritain. A Study in the History of the Methodology of Classical Metaphysics. 2013.

Vol.

5

Edward Nieznański: Towards a Formalization of Thomistic Theodicy. Formalized Attempts to Set Formal Logical Bases to State First Elements of Relations Considered in the Thomistic Theodicy. 2013.

Vol.

6

Mariusz Rosik: “In Christ All Will Be Made Alive” (1 Cor 15:12-58). The Role of Old Testament Quotations in the Pauline Argumentation for the Resurrection. 2013.

Vol.

7

Jan Krokos: Conscience as Cognition. Phenomenological Complementing of Aquinas's Theory of Conscience. 2013.

Vol.

8

Bartosz Adamczewski: The Gospel of Mark. A Hypertextual Commentary. 2014.

Vol.

9

Jacek Grzybowski: Cosmological and Philosophical World of Dante Alighieri. The Divine Comedy as a Medieval Vision of the Universe. 2015.

Vol.

10 Dariusz Karłowicz: The Archparadox of Death. Martyrdom as a Philosophical Category. 2016.

Vol.

11 Monika Ożóg: Inter duas potestates: The Religious Policy of Theoderic the Great. Translated by Marcin Fijak. 2016.

Vol.

12 Marek Dobrzeniecki: The Conflicts of Modernity in Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. 2016.

Vol.

13 Bartosz Adamczewski: The Gospel of Luke. A Hypertextual Commentary. 2016.

Vol.

14 Paweł Rytel-Andrianik: Manna – Bread from Heaven. Jn 6:22-59 in the Light of Ps 78:2325 and Its Interpretation in Early Jewish Sources. 2017.

Vol.

15 Jan Čížek: The Conception of Man in the Works of John Amos Comenius. 2016.

Vol.

16 Bartosz Adamczewski: The Gospel of Matthew. A Hypertextual Commentary. 2017.

Vol.

17 Bartosz Adamczewski: The Gospel of John. A Hypertextual Commentary. 2018.

Vol.

18 Tomasz Stępień & Karolina Kochańczyk-Bonińska: Unknown God, Known in His Activities. 2018.

Vol.

19 Joanna Kulwicka-Kamińska: Dialogue of Scriptures. The Tatar Tefsir in the Context of Biblical and Qur’anic Interpretations. 2018.

Vol.

20 Mariusz Rosik: Church and Synagogue (30-313 AD). Parting of the Ways. 2019.

Vol.

21 Magdalena Zowczac (ed.): Catholic Religious Minorities in the Times of Transformation. Comparative Studies of Religious Culture in Poland and Ukraine. 2019.

Vol.

22 Cezary Korzec (ed.): Bible Caught in Violence. 2019.

Vol.

23 Magdalena Zowczak: The Folk Bible of Central-Eastern Europe. 2019.

Vol.

24 Sławomir Henryk Zaręba / Marcin Zarzecki (eds.): Between Construction and Deconstruction of the Universes of Meaning. Research into the Religiosity of Academic Youth in the Years 1988 – 1998 – 2005 – 2017. 2019.

Vol.

25 Bartosz Adamczewski: Genesis. A Hypertextual Commentary. 2020.

Vol.

26 Bartosz Adamczewski: Exodus–Numbers. A Hypertextual Commentary. 2020.

Vol.

27 Bartosz Adamczewski: Deuteronomy–Judges. A Hypertextual Commentary. 2020.

Vol.

28 Bartosz Adamczewski: Samuel–Kings. A Hypertextual Commentary. 2021.

www.peterlang.com