Prophets, Priests, and Promises Essays on the Deuteronomistic History, Chronicles, and Ezra-Nehemiah 9004444858, 9789004444850

Citation preview

Prophets, Priests, and Promises

Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Editor in Chief Christl M. Maier Editorial Board N. Calduch-Benages – D. M. Carr – J. Hutton – L. C. Jonker – C. Körting – S. L. McKenzie – M. Nissinen – W. T. van Peursen – J. Schaper – A. Schellenberg – N. Wazana

volume 186

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/vts

Prophets, Priests, and Promises Essays on the Deuteronomistic History, Chronicles, and Ezra-Nehemiah

By

Gary N. Knoppers (†) Editors

Christl M. Maier H. G. M. Williamson

LEIDEN | BOSTON

The Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available online at http://catalog.loc.gov LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020052263

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. ISSN 0083-5889 ISBN 978-90-04-44485-0 (hardback) ISBN 978-90-04-44489-8 (e-book) Copyright 2021 by Gary N. Knoppers (†), Christl M. Maier and H. G. M. Williamson. Published by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi, Brill Sense, Hotei Publishing, mentis Verlag, Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh and Wilhelm Fink Verlag. Koninklijke Brill NV reserves the right to protect this publication against unauthorized use. Requests for re-use and/or translations must be addressed to Koninklijke Brill NV via brill.com or copyright.com. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents Preface xi Sources xiii Abbreviations xiv Introduction 1 H.G.M. Williamson

Part 1 History and Historiography in Ancient Judah 1

Constructing the Israelite Past in Ancient Judah (I) 7 1 Introductory Observations 10 2 Chronological Segmentation and Typology in Deuteronomistic Historiography 21

2

From Israel to Judah in the Deuteronomistic Writing: A History of Calamities? 28 1 Challenges Posed by Deuteronomy’s Mandate for the Unification of Yahwistic Worship 35 2 From the Steppes of Moab to the City of David 41 3 “Cast from My Presence”: The Promises Annulled? 46 4 From Solomon to the End of the Davidic Kingdom 50 5 Conclusions 54

3

Constructing the Israelite Past in Ancient Judah (II) 57 1 Introductory Observations 59 2 Selectivity and Segmentation in Ezra-Nehemiah 64 3 Selection and Segmentation in the Chronistic Writing 69 4 Conclusions 79

Part 2 Mimesis, Prophetic Succession, and Scribal Prophecy 4

Synoptic Texts, Mimesis, and the Problem of “Rewritten Bible” 83 1 Old is Good: An Overview of Mimesis in the Ancient World 86

vi

Contents

2

Reliving the Past? Examples of Mimetic Literature in the Ancient World 93 3 Rewritten Bible or Mimesis? 103 4 Out with the Old, In with the New: Disputes and Dangers in the Use of Mimesis 108 4.1 Parody 109 4.2 Plagiarism 111 5 Conclusions 118 5

Theft or Mimesis? The Non-Citation of Older Writings in Chronicles 120 1 Chronicles and Joshua 121 2 The Source Citations in Chronicles and in Kings 128 3 Conclusions 134

6

“As It is Written”: What Were the Chronicler’s Prophetic Sources? 137 1 Prophetic Sources in Chronicles: Recent Studies 140 2 Written Prophetic Works—Unity amid Diversity? 147 3 Prophetic Sources and the Evaluation of the Past 153 4 Conclusions 159

7 “Yhwh will Raise Up for You a Prophet like Me”: Prophetic Succession in Chronicles 162 1 Introduction 162 2 The Prophetic Legislation in Deuteronomy and Its Afterlife in Chronicles 165 3 Overview of Prophetic Succession in the Monarchy 174 4 The United Monarchy 180 5 The Judahite Monarchy from Rehoboam to Ahaz 184 6 Regeneration and Degeneration: From Hezekiah to the Babylonian Exile 190 7 Conclusions 194

Contents

vii

Part 3 David, the Torah, and the Temple 8

David’s Relation to Moses: The Contexts, Contents, and Conditions of the Davidic Promises 201 1 Temple, Dynasty, and People in 2 Samuel 7 205 2 Unconditional and Conditional: The Davidic Promises in Chronicles 211 3 Conditional and Promissory: The Davidic Promises in Psalm 132 218 4 Unconditional yet Renounced: The Davidic Promises in Psalm 89 224 5 Conclusions 227

9

Blood, Toil, and Treasure: Royal (Mis)appropriations in Samuel-Kings and Chronicles 232 1 The Deuteronomistic Depiction of the Monarchy 235 1.1 Solomon 235 1.2 The Dual Monarchies 237 1.3 The Babylonian Conquests 240 2 The Chronistic Writing 245 2.1 The United Monarchy 248 2.2 The Judahite Monarchy 252 2.3 The Babylonian Exile(s) 259 2.4 Renewal in the Persian Period 261

10 Yhwh’s Rejection of the House Built for His Name: On the Significance of Anti-temple Rhetoric in the Deuteronomistic History 263 1 Israel in Exile: The Last Petition in Solomon’s Prayer 266 2 “Once So Exalted”: The Temple in the Second Theophany to Solomon 269 3 Do Manasseh’s Sins Level the Differences between Israel and Judah? 272 4 Conclusions 278

viii

Contents

Part 4 From Exile to Diaspora 11

Defeat, Depopulation, and Displacement: The Judahite Exile of the Eighth Century BCE 283 1 Judah’s Demise in the Context of Monarchic History 285 2 Judah Much Diminished: The Reign of Ahaz (743–728 BCE) 287 3 From “Terror and Desolation” to Renewal: The Reign of Hezekiah (727–698 BCE) 294 4 Hezekiah’s Reign in Context 301 5 Conclusions 307

12

“Wrath without Remediation”: The Babylonian Exile and the Question of Immediate Retribution in Chronicles 312 1 Immediate Retribution vs. Accumulation of Guilt 314 2 “He Humbled Himself Greatly”: Manasseh (697–642 BCE) 324 3 The Early Manasseh Redivivus: Amon (642–640 BCE) 328 4 “He Walked in the Ways of David his Ancestor”: Josiah (639–609 BCE) 329 5 A Private Exodus to Egypt: Jehoahaz (609 BCE) 337 6 Banished to Babylon: Jehoiakim (609–598 BCE) 339 7 A Personal Exile: Jehoiachin (598–597 BCE) 342 8 The Democratization of Responsibility for Exile under Zedekiah (597–586 BCE) 343 9 Conclusions 350

13

Whodunit? The Unlikely Disappearance of Zerubbabel 353 1 A Restoration Realized or a Restoration Rejected? 357 2 Royal Davidic Hopes in the Persian/Early Hellenistic Period 365 3 Royal Ideology in Ezra-Nehemiah: Native or Imperial? 373 4 A New Axis Mundi for Judah 385 5 Conclusions 390

14

Argumentum e silentio? Mizpah and Ramat Raḥel in Ezra-Nehemiah 392 1 The Problem 392 1.1 Tell en-Naṣbeh (Mizpah) 393 1.2 Ramat Raḥel 394 1.3 Ramat Raḥel and Mizpah in Ezra-Nehemiah 396

ix

Contents

2 3 15

Four Possible Reasons for the Silence 400 Ezra-Nehemiah’s Reorientation of the Centre and the Periphery 405

Ethnicity and Change: The Judean Communities of Babylon and Jerusalem in the Story of Ezra 408 1 The Genealogy of Identity: Introducing the Person and Mission of Ezra 410 2 Teaching and Practicing Torah in the Homeland 419 3 Ethnicity, Geography, and Community Identity 422 4 Conclusions 428 Index of Ancient Sources 433

Preface In researching and preparing this book, I was aided by many different colleagues, students, and institutions. I am very grateful for their assistance, good counsel, insights, and encouragement. Eight chapters in the present volume are entirely new, while seven are revised, updated, and expanded versions of previously published papers. Thanks go to the publishers in question for allowing me to republish materials from these earlier essays. The author is pleased to acknowledge his gratitude to the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, especially Matthew Adams, Margaret Cohen, and Sarah Fairman, for their kind hospitality during my fellowship stay in Spring 2017 and in early Spring 2018. The Albright Institute of Archaeological Research is an unparalleled resource in archaeology, epigraphy, and ancient Near Eastern studies in Jerusalem. Thanks also go to the École biblique et archéologique française de Jérusalem, in particular its librarian, Pawel Trzopek, OP, for graciously allowing me to use the excellent St. Stephen’s Library in biblical studies. Alan Krieger, the Theology Librarian at the University of Notre Dame and his administrative staff have shown an uncanny ability to acquire monographs from little known publishers and have them promptly delivered to my mailbox in the Theology Department. I am grateful both for this kindness and for the first-rate holdings of the Hesburgh Libraries. In preparing this volume, I was assisted by graduate students in the Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity subsection of the Theology Department at the University of Notre Dame, Jon Boling, Pauline Buisch, Raleigh Heth, and Mark Lackowski, who copy-edited some of the essays. Members of the Société d’Études Samaritaines kindly provided comments upon earlier versions of two of the chapters in this volume. Participants in the Persian Period section of the international meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature offered helpful questions about an earlier version of one chapter of this collection, while participants in the Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah section of the Society of Biblical Literature presented me with valuable feedback on an earlier version of another. Members of the Biblical Colloquium graciously offered their commentary and insights on an earlier iteration of the last chapter in the volume. I would like to express my sincere thanks to Christl M. Maier, the editor-inchief of the Supplements to Vetus Testamentum series of E. J. Brill publishing

xii

Preface

house, who accepted the present volume in this venerable series. Finally, I dedicate this volume to the memory of my late colleague and cherished friend at Penn State University, Paul B. Harvey. South Bend, Indiana G. N. K. 2018

Due to Gary Knoppers’ untimely death in December 2018, the task to publish this volume of his collected essays was left to us. Fortunately, the material was already in reasonably good order so that, beyond the correction of occasional slips and the finding of citations in German original works, it has effectively been necessary only to introduce consistency to the format of bibliographical references in the footnotes, to compile a list of abbreviations, to prepare the index, and so on. It may be noted here that, since it is likely that this work will mostly be referred to for an individual article here or there, bibliographical references are given in full on their first occurrence in each separate chapter and then by a short title thereafter only within that same chapter. We thank Oded Lipschits, who first recovered this material from Knoppers’ computer and sent it on to us, Sarah Döbler for her meticulous work in copy-editing and preparing lists and the index as well as Liesbeth Hugenholtz and Dirk Bakker for leading us through the publication process at Brill. Christl M. Maier H. G. M. Williamson

Sources Eight of the chapters in this book are previously unpublished. The remaining seven have all been (sometimes very) extensively revised and updated but are based on the following previous publications for which the copyright was permitted: 1 and 3 “Periodization in Ancient Israelite Historiography,” in Periodisierung und Epochenbewusstein im Alten Testament und in seinem Umfeld (ed. J. Wiesehöfer and T. Krüger; OeO 20; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2012), 121–45. 4 “The Synoptic Problem? An Old Testament Perspective,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 19 (2009), 11–34. 8 “David’s Relation to Moses: The Context, Content, and Conditions of the Davidic Promises,” in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Papers from the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (ed. J. Day; JSOTSup 270; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998), 91–118. 9 “Treasures Won and Lost: Royal (Mis)appropriations in Kings and Chronicles,” in The Chronicler as Author (ed. M. P. Graham and S. L. McKenzie; JSOTSup 263; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 181–208. 10 “Yhwh’s Rejection of the House Built for his Name: On the Significance of Anti-temple Rhetoric in the Deuteronomistic History,” in Essays on Ancient Israel in Its Near Eastern Context: A Tribute to Nadav Na‌ʾaman (ed. Y. Amit, E. Ben Zvi, I. Finkelstein, and O. Lipschits; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 221–38. 15 “Ethnicity, Genealogy, Geography, and Change: The Judean Communities of Babylon and Jerusalem in the Story of Ezra,” in Community Identity in Judean Historiography: Biblical and Comparative Perspectives (ed. G. N. Knoppers and K. A. Ristau; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 147–71.

Abbreviations AASF AB ABG ABRL ABS AcBib ADPV AfO AIL AJBA AJSL AJT ANEM AOAT AOTC AOTAT AOS AP AS ATANT ATD ATSAT AusBR AYBRL AzTh BA BAR BASOR BBB BBET BDB BE

Annales Academiae scientiarum fennicae Anchor Bible Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte The Anchor Bible Reference Library Archeology and Biblical Studies Academica Biblica Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins Archiv für Orientforschung Ancient Israel and its Literature Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures American Journal of Theology Ancient Near East Monographs/Monografías sobre el Antiguo Cercano Oriente Alter Orient und Altes Testament Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries Altorientalische Texte zum Alten Testament. Edited by H. Greßmann. 2nd ed. Berlin, 1926 American Oriental Series Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. Edited by A. E. Cowley. Oxford 1923 Assyriological Studies Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments Das Alte Testament Deutsch Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament Australian Biblical Review Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library Arbeiten zur Theologie Biblical Archaeologist Biblical Archaeology Review Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bonner biblische Beiträge Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie Brown, F., S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford, 1907 Biblische Enzyklopädie

Abbreviations BEATAJ

xv

Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentums BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by K. Elliger and W. Rudolph. Stuttgart, 1983 BHQ Biblia Hebraica Quinta. Edited by A. Schenker et al. Stuttgart, 2004– Bib Biblica BibEnc Biblical encyclopedia. An English translation of Biblische Enzyklopädie BibInt Biblical Interpretation BJS Brown Judaic Studies BJSUCSD Biblical and Judaic Studies from the University of California, San Diego BKAT Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament BN Biblische Notizen BSOAS Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies BWANT Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament BZ Biblische Zeitschrift BZAR Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft CANE Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Edited by J. Sasson. 4 vols. New York, 1995 CAT Commentaire de l’Ancien Testament CahRB Cahiers de la Revue biblique CBET Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly CEJL Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature CHANE Culture and History of the Ancient Near East ConBOT Coniectanea biblica: Old Testament Series COS The Context of Scripture. Edited by W. W. Hallo. 4 vols. Leiden, 1997–2017 CRINT Compendia rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum. Section 2, The Literature of the Jewish people in the period of the Second Temple and Talmud CTM Concordia Theological Monthly CurBS Currents in Research: Biblical Studies CUSAS Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology DCLS Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert DSD Dead Sea Discoveries DSS Dead Sea Scrolls

xvi EB EdF EDSS

Abbreviations

Echter Bibel Erträge der Forschung Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam. 2 vols. New York, 2000 ErIsr Eretz Israel ET English translation ETS Erfurter Theologische Studien FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament FOTL Forms of the Old Testament Literature FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments FTS Freiburger Theologische Studien GAT Grundrisse zum Alten Testament GKC Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Edited by E. Kautzsch. Translated by A. E. Cowley. 2nd. ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1910 GTA Göttinger theologische Arbeiten HAE Handbuch der althebräischen Epigraphik. J. Renz and W. Röllig. 3 vols. Darmstadt, 1995 HALOT The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm. Translated and edited under the supervision of M. E. J. Richardson. 4 vols. Leiden, 1994–1999 HAR Hebrew Annual Review HAT Handbuch zum Alten Testament HBM Hebrew Bible Monographs HBS Herders Biblische Studien HCOT Historical Commentary on the Old Testament HeBAI Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel Hen Henoch HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs HThKAT Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament HTR Harvard Theological Review HTS Harvard Theological Studies HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual ICC International Critical Commentary IECOT International Exegetical Commentary on the Old Testament IEJ Israel Exploration Journal IEKAT Internationaler Exegetischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament Int Interpretation JAJ Journal of Ancient Judaism JAJSup Supplements to the Journal of Ancient Judaism JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society

Abbreviations JBL JETS JHS JJS JNES JNSL Joüon

xvii

Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Journal of Hebrew Scriptures Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Joüon, P., A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Translated and revised by T. Muraoka. 2 vols. Subsidia biblica 14/1–2. Rome, 1991 JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods JSJSup Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism JSNTSup Journal for the Study of New Testament: Supplement Series JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series JSP Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha JSS Journal of Semitic Studies JTS Journal of Theological Studies KAI Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften. Edited by H. Donner and W. Röllig. 2nd ed. Wiesbaden, 1966–1969 KAT Kommentar zum Alten Testament KHC Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament KStTh Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie KTU Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit. Edited by M. Dietrich et al. AOAT 24/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1976. 2nd enlarged ed.: The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani, and Other Places. Edited by M. Dietrich et al. Münster, 1995 (= CTU) LA Liber annuus LAI Library of Ancient Israel LCL Loeb Classical Library LD Lectio divina LHBOTS Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies LS Louvain Studies LSTS The Library of Second Temple Studies LTQ Lexington Theological Quarterly LXX Septuagint MdB Le Monde de la Bible MT Masoretic Text MVAG Mitteilungen der vorderasiatisch-ägyptischen Gesellschaft NCB New Century Bible NCBC New Century Bible Commentary

xviii NEA NICOT NJPS

Abbreviations

Near Eastern Archaeology New International Commentary on the Old Testament Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures: The New Jewish Publication Society’s Translation according to the Traditional Hebrew Text OBO Orbis biblicus et orientalis ÖBS Österreichische biblische Studien OeO Oriens et Occidens OL Old Latin Or Orientalia OrNS Orientalia. New Series OTE Old Testament Essays OTG Old Testament Guides OTL Old Testament Library OTS Old Testament Studies OtSt Oudtestamentische Studiën PEGLMBS Proceedings, Eastern Great Lakes and Midwest Biblical Societies PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly RB Revue biblique RC Religion Compass RIMA The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods RS Ras Shamra SAA State Archives of Assyria SBAB Stuttgarter biblische Aufsatzbände SBLEJL Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series SBLMS Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series SBLSCS Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies SBB Stuttgarter Bibelstudien SBT Studies in Biblical Theology SBTS Sources for Biblical and Theological Study ScrHier Scripta Hierosolymitana Sem Semitica SemeiaSt Semeia Studies SHCANE Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East SHANE Studies in the History of the Ancient Near East SJ Studia Judaica SJOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament SP Samaritan Pentateuch SPB Studia Post-Biblica

Abbreviations SR SSN StBL STDJ StudBib StSam SymS Syr. TA TAD

xix

Studies in Religion Studia Semitica Neerlandica Studies in Biblical Literature Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Studia Biblica Studia Samaritana SBL Symposium Series Syriac translation = Peshitta Tel Aviv Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt. Edited by B. Porten, 4 vols., Jerusalem, 1986–1999 TB Theologische Bücherei TBC Torch Bible Commentaries TBT The Bible Today TLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung Transeu Transeuphratène TynBul Tyndale Bulletin TZ Theologische Zeitschrift UCOP University of Cambridge Oriental Publications UF Ugarit-Forschungen VT Vetus Testamentum VTSup Supplements to Vetus Testamentum WAW Writings from the Ancient World WAWSup Writings from the Ancient World. Supplement Series WBC Word Biblical Commentary WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament WTJ Westminster Theological Journal ZAR Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft ZBK Zürcher Bibelkommentare ZDPV Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins ZThK Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

Introduction Gary Knoppers was a scholar who made three areas of Hebrew Bible and related fields especially his own. On each he published numerous articles and substantial books as well as tirelessly editing related volumes. A forthcoming memorial volume, to be published in the Forschungen zum Alten Testament Series (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck), The Formation of Biblical Texts: Chronicling the Legacy of Gary Knoppers, edited by Deidre Fulton, Kenneth Ristau, Jonathan Greer, and Margaret Cohen, will contain a full list of his numerous publications. He first came to international prominence by the publication of his two volume monograph on the Deuteronomistic History.1 Later, he added to this an interest in the books of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, on part of which he wrote a massive commentary, again in two volumes.2 Stimulated, no doubt, through the study of these historiographical works, he turned his attention also to the early centuries of Samari(t)an history and the relation of that community with the one centred on Jerusalem; his monograph and other studies contributed valuably to the debunking of older and misguided views as well as to offering new insights.3 At the date of his untimely death in December 2018 he had projects in hand to develop this work further, especially the completion of his Anchor Bible commentary on Chronicles and, in collaboration with Oded Lipschits, the Hermeneia commentary on Ezra and Nehemiah. Some of his published and unpublished articles on Samarian-Judean relations were prepared by Knoppers for publication and appeared posthumously in 2019.4 As a member of the Editorial Board of Vetus Testamentum, he had also already made plans to publish a further volume of studies on the historical books in the Hebrew Bible in its Supplements series. His initial list proved to be far longer than could practicably be included and so he promised to prepare a new selection, his notes on which showing that he was working on the 1 G. N. Knoppers, Two Nations Under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies (2 vols.; HSM 52–53; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993–94). 2 G. N. Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9 (AB 12; New York: Doubleday/New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), and I Chronicles 10–29 (AB 12A; New York: Doubleday/New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004). 3 G. N. Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans: The Origins and History of Their Early Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013). 4 G. N. Knoppers, Judah and Samaria in Postmonarchic Times: Essays on Their Histories and Literatures (FAT 129; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019).

©  GARY N. KNOPPERS (†), Christl M. Maier and H. G. M. Williamson, 2021 |  doi:10.1163/9789004444898_002

2

Introduction

revisions as late as November 2018. This was never submitted, however, even though the editor of the series had already accepted the volume in principle, and great gratitude is due to Oded Lipschits who, on a visit to Gary’s widow Laura in November 2019, “found” the files on Gary’s computer and sent them on to Christl M. Maier for publication. The volume as a whole displays many of the strengths of Gary Knoppers’ scholarship. His attention to text-critical detail is evident in the footnotes even if none of the articles (unlike several of his elsewhere) is narrowly focussed on it. As always, he shows a fine sensitivity for literary-critical analysis, less radical than some but always using the results positively in order to reconstruct a history of the growth of the text that illuminates the development in the thinking of the authors and editors in religious, social, political or other directions. He makes better and more constructive use than some of classical sources by way of comparative evidence (and this may serve also as a reminder of his use of particularly Ugaritic and Akkadian sources in some of his other articles that are not included here). He shows that he is knowledgeable about archaeological data, and though he does not undertake primary research in that subject he is able to dragoon some of its results into the reconstruction of social history. But above all, what shines through all this technical expertise is his fine historical sense which time and again helps bring fresh light to bear on controversial topics raised by the texts, often the subject of previous fraught and contradictory hypothesizing. He sees how the literature develops to fit with ongoing change in economic, social, religious, and political circumstances. On working through all this material there have been many times when I should have relished the chance to talk through this or that suggestion with him, the kind of conversation I think we both enjoyed enormously: have you thought about this? have you taken into account what so-and-so said about that? why do you not refer to this text or that inscription? is your conclusion the most probable? If, sadly, that kind of dialogue is no longer possible we must be thankful that at least we have this volume that contains so much that has not previously been published to stimulate our further thinking. The first section appropriately discusses method in the study of the historical works under discussion in all that follows. The three chapters (which in themselves are the length of a small book) move far beyond the usual introductory technical matters boldly to present fresh comparisons (both similarities and differences) between them in particular with regard to the issue of the ancient authors’ self-identity, a subject of recurring interest in so much of Knoppers’ writing. It serves as a fine example of the way which history writing

Introduction

3

in antiquity could be used in the service of wider agenda in differing social and ideological settings. The second section looks in particular at the reuse of earlier texts to create new literary compositions. To the question that has been reopened in recent decades both by the publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls and by the revival of an older theory that both DtrH and the Chronicler drew independently on a common original rather than that the latter drew directly on the former, Knoppers introduces for the first time, so far as I am aware, a comparison with the notion of mimesis from the classical world. While this may not itself resolve the question of literary dependency and the like, it certainly has the potential, which he begins carefully to outline, to help distinguish between various different types of borrowing and adaptation and how they may have been valued or denigrated by contemporaries at the time. The third section, which has the highest proportion of previously published work, albeit substantially revised here, turns to several prominent but distinct themes in Chronicles. This was the approach to Chronicles which Knoppers seems first to have adopted, judging by a number of other earlier articles not included here. In all of them he usually showed what a keen eye he had to discern and make sense of themes that others had missed and how they could draw together and explain varied otherwise isolated-seeming or even apparently contradictory elements in the book.5 Apart from the inherent exegetical value of these articles, they serve to advance our understanding of the work as a whole, often correcting proposals based on passages that had not previously been connected with others or showing how the themes make better sense in the circumstances at the time of composition than previously realized. The final section, looking from various angles at the nature of the relationship between the communities in Babylon and in the land, brings some of Knoppers’ most recent thinking to bear on parts of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, and shows just how much new potential research we have lost by his death. I can hardly improve on his own note on this section, however laconically expressed: “Renegotiation of power relations among diaspora and homeland in postmonarchic period. Renegotiation of past relationships with royal authority, lay authority, and priestly authority in a post-Davidic age.” In almost ecumenical spirit Knoppers seeks to overcome some of the too-hastily 5 An example from DtrH not included here but which has always been one of my favourites among his articles is “‘There was None Like Him’: Incomparability in the Books of Kings,” CBQ 54 (1992), 411–31.

4

Introduction

and even polemically formulated depictions of relationships between the various post-exilic communities, and here his understanding of relationships with the inhabitants of the former northern kingdom also comes significantly into play. Like Knoppers the man, so Knoppers the scholar: he always tried to see the best in people. H. G. M. Williamson

Part 1 History and Historiography in Ancient Judah

∵

Chapter 1

Constructing the Israelite Past in Ancient Judah (I) The issue of historiography in ancient Israel and Judah is complex and multifaceted, because ancient Israelite and Judahite authors wrote about the past in so many different ways. Virtually all of the prose works in the Hebrew Bible are devoted to speaking about a past. One immediately thinks of the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, and Ezra-Nehemiah. Taking a larger view, one could also include significant portions of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, even though Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy also contain much legal material, because these books include long narratives about Israel’s origins.1 In this context, one could speak of a broadly defined Deuteronomistic historical writing that incorporates an earlier non-priestly exodus narrative, stretching from Exodus 1* through Kings.2 Or, alternatively, one could speak of a Deuteronomistic historical writing, extending from Proto-Deuteronomy through Kings to which a Deuteronomisticlike foundational prehistory of origins has been prefaced, extending from Exodus to Deuteronomy.3 Or, again, one could speak simply of a Primary 1 So, for example, J. Van Seters, Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1992); idem, The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1994). 2 K. Schmid, Erzväter und Exodus: Untersuchungen zur doppelten Begründung der Ursprünge Israels innerhalb der Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testaments (WMANT 81; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999 [trans. J. D. Nogalski and rev. ed., Genesis and the Moses Story: Israel’s Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible (Siphrut 3; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010)]; R. G. Kratz, “Der vor- und nachpriesterliche Hexateuch,” in Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion (ed. J. C. Gertz, K. Schmid, and M. Witte; BZAW 315; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002), 295–323; E. A. Knauf, Josua (ZBK 6; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2008); J. C. Gertz, “Tora und Vordere Propheten,” in Grundinformation Altes Testament: Eine Einführung in Religion und Geschichte des Alten Testaments (3rd ed.; ed. J. C. Gertz, A. Berlejung, K. Schmid and M. Witte; UTB 2745; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009), 193–311; idem, “The Overall Context of Genesis–2 Kings,” in T&T Clark Handbook of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Literature, Religion and History of the Old Testament (ed. A. Berlejung, K. Schmid, and M. Witte London: T&T Clark, 2012), 237–71. 3 E. Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW 189; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990), 7–218; idem, “Die literarische Verbindung von Erzvätern und Exodus: Ein Gespräch mit neueren Endredaktionshypothesen (2002),” in Textgestalt und Komposition: Exegetische Beiträge zu Tora und Vordere Propheten (ed. W. Oswald; FAT 69; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 85–121; idem, “Das exilische deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk,” in Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk (ed. H.-J. Stipp; ÖBS 39; Frankfurt a. M.: Lang, 2011), 269–94; D. M. Carr, The ©  GARY N. KNOPPERS (†), Christl M. Maier and H. G. M. Williamson, 2021 |  doi:10.1163/9789004444898_003

8

Chapter 1

History, Enneateuch, or “Great Historical Opus,” extending from Genesis through Kings.4 To this list one could add the Esther novella, featuring some interests in the eastern diaspora of the Persian period, but likely dating to the early Hellenistic period, or one could discuss materials from the prophetic books, such as Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Zephaniah, and Jeremiah, containing extended discussions of and theological reflections on the past.5 The same prophetic works include editorial comments that historicize prophetic oracles by situating them at particular times and places. Finally, the so-called historical Psalms contain long litanies, celebrations of, and laments about Israel’s past.6 It would seem, then, that a variety of Israelite and Judean scribes, working at different times and places, possessed not only a strong consciousness of the past, but also strong views about its importance. The creative expression of scribal concerns with

Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 256, 290–91. 4 This topic has been the subject of much creative discussion in recent years. See K. Schmid, “Das Deuteronomium innerhalb der ‘deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke’ in Gen–2 Kön,” in Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk (ed. E. Otto and R. Achenbach; FRLANT 206; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 193–211; R. G. Kratz, Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments: Grundwissen der Bibelkritik (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000 [trans. J. Bowden, The Composition of the Narrative Books of the Old Testament (London: T&T Clark, 2005)]; E. Otto, Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch: Studien zur Literaturgeschichte von Pentateuch und Hexateuch im Lichte des Deuteronomiumrahmens (FAT 30; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000); idem, “The Pentateuch in Synchronical and Diachronical Perspectives: Protorabbinic Scribal Erudition Mediating Between Deuteronomy and the Priestly Code,” in Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk, 14–35; H.-C. Schmitt, “Dtn 34 als Verbindungsstück zwischen Tetrateuch und Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk,” in Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk, 181–92; E. Aurelius, Zukunft jenseits des Gerichts: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zum Enneateuch (BZAW 319; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003); H. Ausloos, The Deuteronomist’s History: The Role of the Deuteronomist in Historical-Critical Research into Genesis-Numbers (OtSt 67; Leiden: Brill, 2015). One of the often-overlooked problems in positing the primacy of the (Judean) Enneateuch from which other works, such as the Pentateuch, purportedly developed is explaining the rise of the Samaritan Pentateuch, which is very close to the Judean Pentateuch, even allowing for a late thin sectarian layer in the former. The common theory that the Samaritan Pentateuch represents a late and massive borrowing from the Judean Pentateuch is implausible historically. See further G. N. Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans: The Origins and History of Their Early Relations (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013). 5 On the development and dating of Esther, see J.-D. Macchi, Le livre d’Esther (CAT 14; Genève: Labor et Fides, 2016). 6 Additionally, the superscriptions introducing some psalms (e.g., Ps 51:2) historicize these poems by situating them at a particular moment in a famous leader’s career.

Constructing the Israelite Past in Ancient Judah ( I )

9

the relevance of the past for present and future circumstances took a variety of literary forms. My work in this essay and in the following two essays will concentrate on three historical writings: the Deuteronomistic History (this chapter and the next) and Chronicles, and Ezra-Nehemiah. It must be acknowledged at the outset that this approach has its distinct limitations, because the contours, compositional history, and unity of each of these three works have been much debated. Indeed, the very existence of a Deuteronomistic History is under question.7 Nevertheless, there are also advantages to looking at the whole and 7 The questions have come from a variety of different vantage points: A. Rofé, “Ephraimite versus Deuteronomistic History,” in Storia e Tradizioni di Israele: Scritti in Onore di J. Alberto Soggin (ed. D. Garrone and F. Moscati; Brescia: Paideia, 1991), 221–35 [repr. Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History (ed. G. N. Knoppers and J. G. McConville; SBTS 8; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 462–74]; C. Westermann, Die Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testaments: Gab es ein deuteronomistisches Geschichtswerk? (TB 87; Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser, 1994); E. A. Knauf, “L’‘Historiographie Deutéronomiste’ (DtrG) existe-t-elle?” in Israël construit son histoire: l’historiographie deutéronomiste à la lumière des recherches récentes (ed. A. de Pury, T. Römer, and J.-D. Macchi; MdB 34; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1996), 409–18 [trans. Israel Constructs its History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research (JSOTSup 306; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000), 388–98]; H. N. Rösel, Von Josua bis Jojachin: Untersuchungen zu den Deuteronomistischen Geschichtsbüchern des Alten Testaments (VTSup 75; Leiden: Brill, 1999); C. Edenburg and J. Pakkala (eds.), Is Samuel among the Deuteronomists? Current Views on the Place of Samuel in a Deuteronomistic History (AIL 16; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013), and many of the works cited in nn. 3–5. It may be readily admitted that the diverse literary and theological evidence can be (and is) accounted for in a variety of ways. Within the large corpus of material extending from the first human couple to the Babylonian exile, arguments can be made for the existence of a Tetrateuch, Pentateuch, Hexateuch, Deuteronomistic History, Former Prophets, and Enneateuch. One can argue that lineaments of each work may be discerned within the complex of literary features found within Genesis through Kings. The divergence among scholarly positions on this question is one indication of literary heterogeneity and complexity within Genesis– Kings. Yet, the appearance of vocabulary, style, and ideology reminiscent of Deuteronomy in various passages within the Former Prophets favors the supposition of links (some weaker, some stronger) between these books and Deuteronomy. Particularly lacking in the narratives stretching from Joshua through Kings is major Priestly or Priestly-like editing, excepting a few chapters near the beginning of Joshua, the second half of Joshua, and a few verses in 1 Kgs 8. The paucity of Priestly and Priestly-like passages fundamentally distinguishes Deuteronomy and the Former Prophets from the Tetrateuch. Deuteronomy 1–3 serves as the introduction to this work, even if it possesses its own compositional history and engages other traditions. See further T. C. Römer, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological and Literary Introduction (London: T&T Clark International, 2005), 13–43; idem, “Entstehungsphasen des ‘deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerkes’,” in Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke: Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur “Deuteronomismus”—Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten (ed. M. Witte, K. Schmid, D. Prechel, and J. C. Gertz; BZAW 365; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006), 45–70; idem, “From Deuteronomistic History to Nebiim and Torah,”

10

Chapter 1

making comparisons among larger works.8 When speaking of the composition of these writings, I shall speak of authors, writers, and scribes, because there is good reason to believe that each of these works is composite in character. I would like to begin with some observations about all three literary works before turning in this chapter to the distinct ways the Deuteronomistic composition imagines, segments, and assesses the past.9 1

Introductory Observations

None of the writers responsible for the Deuteronomistic work, Chronicles, and Ezra-Nehemiah came to his subject matter with a tabula rasa. Each approached his task with particular presuppositions, perspectives, interests, and commitments. None of these authors lived in a historical vacuum. All were inevitably influenced by their own times and circumstances. Historical experience was not ‫תהו ובהו‬, “a formless void” (Gen 1:2). When these scribes worked, there was a variety of traditions and beliefs about the past. The point is that the variant points of view found in each of these complicated literary works cannot all be attributed diachronically to a series of writers, who each had a hand in the formation of these writings. To be sure, stages of literary growth are evident in each work. Yet, some of the literary and ideological diversity must be attributed synchronically to authors who intentionally engaged traditional or contrary beliefs about the past and incorporated such understandings into

in Making the Biblical Text: Textual Studies in the Hebrew and the Greek Bible (ed. I. Himbaza and M.-G. Roth-Mouthon; OBO 275; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 1–18; E. Blum, “Pentateuch-Hexateuch-Enneateuch? Or: How can One Recognize a Literary Work in the Hebrew Bible?” in Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch: Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings (ed. T. B. Dozeman, T. Römer, and K. Schmid; AIL 8; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 43–71; J. J. Krause, Exodus und Eisodus: Komposition und Theologie von Josua 1–5 (VTSup 161; Leiden: Brill, 2014). Of the three works discussed in this essay and the next, the Deuteronomistic writing is the most literarily and theologically diverse. 8 Within the footnotes, I shall try to refer readers to recent studies on the compositional histories of these longer literary works. Nevertheless, the scholarship on these matters, especially the debates about the Pentateuch, Hexateuch, and Enneateuch, is so immense that these references will of necessity be only partial and selective. For recent statements on the issues, see, e.g., the various contributions to Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke (see n. 7); Les dernières rédactions du Pentateuque, de l’Hexateuque et de l’Ennéateuque (ed. T. C. Römer and K. Schmid; BETL 203; Leuven: Peeters, 2007) and Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch (see n. 7). 9 If one wishes to take a wide view of the Deuteronomistic historical corpus (e.g., Exodus 1*–2 Kings 25*; see nn. 3–4 above), it would not materially affect many of the issues at hand.

Constructing the Israelite Past in Ancient Judah ( I )

11

their own writings (sometimes in the form of speeches by certain characters) as a means to acknowledge or contest such views in their own writings. In any case, given that the writers of the Deuteronomistic historical work, the Chronistic writing, and Ezra-Nehemiah chose to write about a past, in some cases a distant past, the question is: with what past do the authors of these works choose to engage or not to engage? What are the important gaps in each writing and what do these gaps tell us about the principles governing its type of historiography? Attention also needs to be paid to the very subject of who is covered. Whom do the authors privilege as the focus of their historical writings? Is the subject stable or unstable during the past being portrayed? These questions are partly historical, partly literary, and partly ideological, but history writing is a form of literature and ideological questions are of great import for understanding ancient historical writings and the societies that produced them. It may prove useful to begin with ten broad generalizations about the three works under review before discussing the elaborate segmentation in the Deuteronomistic writing. First, all three works are anonymous, undated, untitled, and contain no explicit discussions of methodology or perspective. This is in contrast, for example, to the Histories of Herodotus (1.1) and to the History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides (1.1–23), which do contain such introductory discussions.10 Both the Deuteronomistic History and Chronicles are written from the vantage point of a third-person (not altogether) omniscient narrator. No large-scale authorial admissions of doubt or ignorance can be found in these works. Even Ezra-Nehemiah, which contains autobiographical narratives, is initially set up according to a third person point of view. Second, each of the works is concerned with the larger group or nation.11 The primary focus is ethnographic, rather than on a particular polity. Israel, 10

Another contrast between the Israelite and Greek traditions may be found in the use of sources. All of the biblical writings in question call attention to the use of written sources and place great emphasis on documentation (annals, letters, lists, and other documents). In contrast, the writers draw little, if any, attention to their use of oral sources. Such oral sources were undoubtedly employed, but not openly acknowledged. In Judean historiographical tradition oral sources evidently did not carry nearly the same weight as did written documents. 11 In this context, some of the best parallels to literary conventions found in Hebrew historiography occur in Greek historiography; see J. Van Seters, In Search of History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), 8–54; G. N. Knoppers, “Greek Historiography and the Chronicler’s History: A Reexamination,” JBL 122 (2003), 627–50; R. Bichler, “Über die Periodisierung griechischer Geschichte in der griechischen Historie,” in Periodisierung und Epochenbewusstein im Alten Testament und in seinem Umfeld (ed. J. Wiesehöfer and Thomas Krüger; OeO 20; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2012), 87–119.

12

Chapter 1

however that entity may be defined, is the subject of all three writings.12 The polity governing that entity may change over time in the course of the narrative work and there are a variety of leaders, such as chieftains, prophets, kings, priests, scribes, and governors, who play substantial roles in these writings, but the larger focus is on the people.13 Third, a corollary of the interest in the larger group or nation is a relative lack of interest in other peoples as a topic in and of itself. Other nations and countries are only mentioned insofar as they have contacts with Israelites. Thus, the Deuteronomistic authors depict an Israel encamped upon the Plains of Moab, but say little about Moab itself. The speeches in Deuteronomy speak of Israel’s past servitude in Egypt, but say virtually nothing about Egypt. Selectively drawing from Genesis, the genealogies of Chronicles commence with a universal canvas and the first person—Adam—but quickly narrow their focus to the descendants of the patriarch Israel.14 The contrast here would be to the Histories of Herodotus, which devotes a major section to Egypt (Book 2). Fourth, each narrative work is written mainly about a corporate entity called Israel, but each stems from Judah. In the Deuteronomistic History, Israel may refer to the northern tribes, the territory of northern Israel, the united kingdom of Saul, David, and Solomon, the northern kingdom, the armed forces, and the Israelite people composed of various tribes, yet the term Israel normally does not refer to Judah alone. Judah belongs to a larger ethnographicreligious entity called Israel, but Judah is not called Israel. The work lays claim 12

On the import of the authors’ broad pan-tribal definition of Israel, see E. Ben Zvi, “Inclusion and Exclusion from Israel as Conveyed by the Use of the Term Israel in Post-Monarchic Biblical Texts,” in The Pitcher is Broken: Memorial Essays for Gösta W. Ahlström (ed. S. W. Holloway and L. K. Handy; JSOTSup 190; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995), 95–149; J. Linville, Israel in the Book of Kings: The Past as a Project of Social Identity (JSOTSup 272; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998); S. S. Scatolini Apóstolo, “On the Elusiveness and Malleability of ‘Israel’,” JHS 6 (2006), 1–27; K. Weingart, Stämmevolk—Staatsvolk— Gottesvolk? Studien zur Verwendung des Israel-Namens im Alten Testament (FAT II/68; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014); L. C. Jonker, Defining All-Israel in Chronicles: Multi-levelled Identity Negotiation in Late Persian-period Yehud (FAT 106; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016). 13 The concern with the people’s relationship to Israel’s patron deity is consistent with the concerns expressed in the literary contextualization of the (expanded) Covenant Code, the Deuteronomic law collection, the Priestly corpus, and the Holiness Code. There, too, the people’s relationship to the deity is primary. 14 T. Willi, Chronik (BKAT XXIV/1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991), 10–53; G. N. Knoppers, “‘Shem, Ham, and Japheth’: The Universal and the Particular in the Genealogy of Nations,” in The Chronicler as Theologian: Essays in Honor of Ralph W. Klein (ed. M. P. Graham, S. L. McKenzie, and G. N. Knoppers; JSOTSup 371; London: T&T Clark International, 2003), 13–31; E. Assis, Identity in Conflict: The Struggle between Esau and Jacob, Edom and Israel (Siphrut 19; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2016).

Constructing the Israelite Past in Ancient Judah ( I )

13

to an Israelite patrimony for Judah, while also distancing Judah from aspects of northern Israel’s past. Never directly calling Judah by the name Israel allows the writers both to associate Judah with Israel and to distinguish Judah from its northern neighbor. Thus, Judah worships Yhwh the God of Israel and is part of Israel (considered as a composite ethnos), but Judah is not Israel. In the later work of Chronicles, there is an important shift. Israel may designate the apical ancestor, the Israelite people composed of various tribes claiming genealogical descent from Jacob/Israel, the united kingdom, and the northern kingdom, but the term Israel is also used for Judah. There is another important shift in usage in Ezra-Nehemiah, which may be contrasted both with the Deuteronomistic work and with Chronicles. In Ezra-Nehemiah, Israel usually refers to the “children of the exile.”15 The interest shown by the Deuteronomistic and Chronistic writers in a much larger corporate entity named Israel and the cultural patrimony associated with the name of Israel is important. Indeed, sections of the Deuteronomistic writing, such as Judges and Kings (until the end of the northern monarchy), allocate far more coverage to northern Israel than to Judah.16 Northern Israel is, therefore, a major concern.17 The attention given by these writers to matters Israelite becomes all the more remarkable, when one considers that many scholars no longer think that a united Israel, composed of twelve looselyallied sodalities, including Judah, or a united kingdom, consisting of Israel and Judah, ever existed historically.18 If one assumes, for the sake of argument, that 15 This matter will be discussed in chapter 3 on historiography in Chronicles and EzraNehemiah. 16 Admittedly, the use of sources, later interpolations, and multiple redactions come into play. Was an older northern source, e.g., employed as the base text for the composition of the book of Judges? Were northern legends pertaining to Elijah and Elisha interpolated in later redactions of the book of Kings? If so, the issues only become more acute. Why did writers in Judah make use of northern Israelite sources in preparing their compositions? Similarly, why did Judahite redactors insert and edit northern prophetic sources, thus rendering the coverage of the northern monarchy even more extensive than before? 17 A point stressed by D. E. Fleming, The Legacy of Israel in Judah’s Bible: History, Politics, and the Reinscribing of Tradition (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012). 18 The bibliography on this issue has become enormous. For easy reference, see P. R. Davies, In Search of “Ancient Israel” (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 72–73; I. Finkelstein and N. A. Silverman, The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and Its Sacred Texts (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2001), 150–52; V. Fritz, Die Entstehung Israels im 12. und 11. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (BE 2; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1996 [trans. The Emergence of Israel in the 12th and 11th Centuries BCE (BibEnc 2; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012]); R. G. Kratz, “Israel als Staat und als Volk,” ZThK 97 (2000), 1–17; I. Finkelstein and A. Mazar, The Quest for the Historical Israel (ed. B. B. Schmidt; ABS 17; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007); N. Na’aman, “The Israelite-Judahite Struggle

14

Chapter 1

the Israel of David and Solomon was a projection of later scribes, why did they fashion such a projection in the first place? Moreover, why did they allocate such a large selection of coverage to the northern tribes and the northern monarchy? Did they consciously attempt to appropriate the legacy of Israel and bond Judah to it? Was the name Israel, historically associated with the much larger, more populous, and wealthier northern kingdom, a prestige marker?19 The concern with cultural appropriation and with positing different layers of self-identity (e.g., Jerusalemite, Judahite, Israelite) raises questions of communication and transmission. What was the role, whether small or great, of the cultic center of Bethel in diffusing Israelite traditions to Judah?20 Did the area of Benjamin play a critical role in Judah claiming Israelite ancestry?21 Did members of the Judahite literati identify at a basic level with members of the Israelite literati, due to their common Hebrew language, perceived shared cultural traits, common worship of Yhwh, or shared experiences of foreign subjugation?22 Or, by the time the Deuteronomistic authors wrote, was the belief in a shared affinity with northern Israelites already common among the elite in Judah? In other words, did Judahites believe their own myths? There are many continuing questions about the appropriation of the name Israel within Judah, but it is not possible, given the present state of material and literary evidence, to answer all of these questions. Rather, recognizing the legitimacy of the questions raised, we may take special note of the different ways the Former Prophets, Chronicles, and Ezra-Nehemiah configure Israel, for the Patrimony of Ancient Israel,” Bib 91 (2010), 1–23; M. Leonard-Fleckman, The House of David: Between Political Formation and Literary Revision (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016); A. Faust, “An All-Israelite Identity: Historical Reality or Biblical Myth?” in The Wide Lens in Archaeology: Honoring Brian Hesse’s Contributions to Anthropological Archaeology (ed. J. Lev-Tov, P. Wapnish, and A. Gilbert; Atlanta: Lockwood Press, 2017), 169–90. 19 Fleming discusses many of the issues, Legacy of Israel, 3–33. 20 J. Blenkinsopp, “The Judaean Priesthood during the Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid Periods: A Hypothetical Reconstruction,” CBQ 60 (1998), 25–43; idem, “Bethel in the Neo-Babylonian Period,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period (ed. O. Lipschits and J. Blenkinsopp; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 93–107; E. A. Knauf, “Bethel: The Israelite Impact on Judean Language and Literature,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period (ed. O. Lipschits and M. Oeming; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 291–349. 21 P. R. Davies, The Origins of Biblical Israel (LHBOTS 485; London: T&T Clark, 2007); idem, “The Trouble with Benjamin,” in Reflection and Refraction: Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honour of A. Graeme Auld (ed. R. Rezetko, T. H. Lim, and W. B. Aucker; VTSup 113; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 93–111; O. Sergi, “The Emergence of Judah as a Political Entity between Jerusalem and Benjamin,” ZDPV 133 (2017), 1–23. 22 Na’aman, “Israelite-Judahite Struggle,” 1–23; idem, “The Jacob Story and the Formation of Biblical Israel,” TA 45 (2014), 95–125.

Constructing the Israelite Past in Ancient Judah ( I )

15

imagine its development over the centuries, and portray Judah’s changing associations with Israel. Fifth, each of the three literary works understands Israel to exist in a special relationship with its national deity and each evaluates the past accordingly. In line with the stress placed on the ongoing relationship between the people and Yhwh, the histories are all heavily theological in character. Whether directly or indirectly, Yhwh is involved in history. In some cases, the Deuteronomistic and Chronistic works speak of Yhwh acting directly in history.23 Yet, in others they explain the deity’s involvement in Israelite affairs by recourse to dual causality.24 For instance, in explaining the massive northern defection from the united kingdom during the time of Rehoboam, the Deuteronomistic work acknowledges (likely following a traditional source) that Rehoboam critically misjudged the depth of Israelite discontent with Solomon’s corvée policies (1 Kgs 12:1–14, 16). Yet, the work also insists that disunion fulfilled a royal oracle to Jeroboam, dating to the time of Solomon (1 Kgs 11:31–38; 12:15). Thus, the same work registers two causes for the same event it posits in the past: an immediate cause—profound Israelite disgruntlement with the Davidides— and an ultimate cause—Yhwh working his will indirectly through human events. The interest in divine action in human history also means, among other things, that all three works take an avid interest in cultic affairs, whether negatively (e.g., worshiping other gods) or positively (e.g., supporting the Jerusalem temple). Sixth, each history covers a lengthy period of time divided into several segments. The Deuteronomistic writing is by far the longest and most ambitious of the three. Its writers and editors create a storyline that postulates several centuries of Israelite and Judahite history. The other works—Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah—address shorter periods, but are also focused on the longue durée. All three writings are punctuated by public speeches, editorial comments, prayers, or summarizing reflections that lend some sense of coherence to the larger presentation of the people’s past. Such speeches, commonly thought to reflect, at least in part, the views of the writers, rehearse the past, comment on present conditions or look toward the future. The very attention 23 The writers of Ezra-Nehemiah, in contrast, are more reticent to speak of direct divine action in human affairs. The few exceptions are telling, because they include first-person reminiscences about the past (e.g., Ezra 9:3–15; Neh 9:6–37). 24 I. L. Seeligmann, “Menschliches Heldentum und göttliche Hilfe: Die doppelte Kausalität im alttestamentlichen Geschichtsdenken,” TZ 19 (1963), 385–411; Y. Amit, “The Dual Causality Principle and Its Effects on Biblical Literature,” VT 37 (1987), 385–400; eadem, “Dual Causality: An Additional Aspect,” in eadem, Praise of Editing in the Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays in Retrospect (HBM 39; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2012), 105–21.

16

Chapter 1

to the longue durée means that the writers, whether one situates them in the eighth, seventh, sixth, fifth, fourth, third, or second centuries BCE (or some combination of the above), lived at some temporal distance from much of their own subject matter.25 The contrast here would be with the work of Thucydides (1.1–23), who self-consciously eschewed the attempt to reconstruct the distant past, because he could not interrogate its (eyewitness) sources. Seventh, for these particular writers there is basically no Israelite history without land. I shall elaborate on this point in what follows, but it is useful to state it at the beginning. Whatever the differences among the perspectives, dates, and methods of these authors, the associations among deity, people, and territory are essential to their historiography. The people can precede the occupation of the land and even postdate it, but the focus of each literary work is on the people’s existence in the land.26 In the book of Kings, to be cast away from the land of Israel is to be cast away from the presence of Yhwh (e.g., 1 Kgs 9:7; 2 Kgs 13:22–23; 17:18, 20, 23; 23:27; 24:3, 20).27 Thus, the history about the people presupposes both that the people had a history before their emergence in the land and that the people have a history, when they no longer reside in the land, but the history written about the people’s history is land-bound. To be clear, the Deuteronomistic and Chronistic works do not claim that history came to an end in the northern and southern exiles.28 On the contrary, the very existence of these literary works presumes that life continued for those who managed to survive. The historiographic writings simply do not attempt to tell the stories of those remnants, who endured the disasters. It is often said that the biblical writers ignore those who continued to reside within the land.29 This is true. The writers of Kings, Chronicles, and Ezra-Nehemiah do not devote any coverage to those who remained in the land following the Babylonian and Egyptian exiles. Yet, the same writers also largely do not 25 On recent dates given to layers within the Deuteronomistic work, see, e.g., Römer, So-Called Deuteronomistic History, 67–183. 26 This calculation changes, if one redefines the Deuteronomistic historical corpus as a larger literary work stretching from Exodus 1* through 2 Kings 25* (see n. 3). In this reconstruction, much of the first part of the composition (Exodus 1*–Joshua 12*) is devoted to Israel’s peregrinations outside the land. Yet, even so, these travels occur with a view to the people arriving eventually in the land. 27 M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972), 347 (no. 11). 28 Contra M. Noth in his classic treatment of Judah’s demise in the Deuteronomistic History, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien: Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament (2nd ed.; Tübingen: M. Niemeyer, 1957), 107–8 [pp. 1–110 trans. The Deuteronomistic History (JSOTSup 15; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981), 97–98]. 29 On this issue, see section 2 below.

Constructing the Israelite Past in Ancient Judah ( I )

17

discuss the plight of the deportees in other lands. They give both sets of groups the silent treatment. For this reason, Ahlström typed the Neo-Babylonian period “a dark age.”30 The three literary works manifest, therefore, clear typological dimensions.31 History starts with the Israelites entering the land or with the people already in the land. By the same token, history stops with the people in the land (Ezra-Nehemiah) or with the people’s exit from the land (Kings, Chronicles). Eighth, in each writing the criteria applied to the evaluation of historical epochs are external to the characters depicted and are presented as established instructions and statutes from Israel’s past.32 No leaders, including monarchs, are above the law, but rather are subject to it. Each leader is judged by (what are presented as) preexisting external standards. In the case of the Deuteronomistic History, the old Deuteronomic law code, incorporated at the very start of the work, ostensibly plays this role. In this respect, history is textually driven or is, at least, partially textual in character. The story of Israel is keyed to how a written text functions, or fails to function, within the developing life of a people.33 Consistent with the principle of assessing popular and royal conduct according to an established set of external norms, the Israelite and Judahite kings populating the Deuteronomistic and Chronistic works do not issue written decrees, create royal law collections, or authorize new sacral law codes.34 30 G. W. Ahlström, The History of Ancient Palestine from the Palaeolithic Period to Alexander’s Conquest (JSOTSup 146; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 304. 31 On this matter, see further section 2 below. 32 The great interest in drawing from and recovering features of the distant past is paralleled in many Mesopotamian and Egyptian royal inscriptions (see chapter 5 on mimesis in Chronicles). On the recovery of a lost writing as an impetus to reform, a literary motif common to a number of ancient Mediterranean cultures, see T. C. Römer, “Transformations in Deuteronomistic and Biblical Historiography: On ‘Book Finding’ and Other Literary Strategies,” ZAW 109 (1997), 1–11; N. Na’aman, “The ‘Discovered Book’ and the Legitimation of Josiah’s Reforms,” JBL 130 (2011), 47–62. 33 There are, however, some complications to this pattern in the Ezra and Nehemiah first-person narratives (as discussed in chapter 3 on historiography in Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah). 34 One exception is sometimes thought to be King Jehoshaphat of Judah (2 Chronicles 17–20), who implements a number of legal reforms, but see my “Jehoshaphat’s Judiciary and the Scroll of Yhwh’s Torah,” JBL 113 (1994), 87–108. Another exception might be the Chronistic David, who presents his successor with a plan (‫ )תבנית‬for the Temple (1 Chr 28:11–18), reminiscent of the plan (‫ )תבנית‬given to Moses for the Tabernacle (Exod 25:9, 40), declaring: “Everything in writing (has come) to me from the hand of Yhwh” (1 Chr 28:19), G. N. Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29 (AB 12A; New York: Doubleday/ New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), 917–42. Yet, because David’s ‫ תבנית‬stems from Yhwh, David does not claim it as his own authoritative addition to preexisting

18

Chapter 1

Rather, major figures in Israelite society are expected to adhere to an established standard external to themselves and, if need be, to bring their errant communities back into conformity with this set of preexisting norms.35 In the case of the Deuteronomistic work, the norms (the collection of laws in Deuteronomy) are positioned at the beginning of the work to function as a standard against which to evaluate major characters. Thus, Solomon in his role as an unrivalled internationally acclaimed sage is credited with authoring three thousand proverbs and one thousand and five songs (1 Kgs 5:12), but not with creating any new laws. Rather, the peaceable king comes under severe criticism in his later years for violating the mandate for centralization (Deut 11:31–12:31) by building high places for other gods and for worshiping at them (1 Kgs 11:1–10).36 He “did not do that which Yhwh commanded,” failing to observe, the deity declares, “my covenant and my statutes” (1 Kgs 11:10–11). Assuming the principle of transgenerational punishment

legislation. A yet better case for an exception are the royal decrees, driving the plot in Ezra (1:2–4; 5:13–16; 6:2–5, 6–12; 7:12–26). On this important motif, see T. C. Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose: A Literary Approach to Ezra-Nehemiah (SBLMS 36; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988); C. Karrer, Ringen um die Verfassung Judas: Eine Studie zu den theologischpolitischen Vorstellungen im Esra-Nehemia-Buch (BZAW 308; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2001); J. L. Wright, “Seeking, Finding, and Writing in Ezra-Nehemiah,” in Unity and Disunity in Ezra-Nehemiah: Redaction, Rhetoric, and Reader (ed. M. J. Boda and P. L. Reddit; HBM 17; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2008), 277–304. Yet, the monarchs in question are not indigenous, but rather external (Persian). 35 The role that Ur-Deuteronomium plays (or does not play) in the actual narration of the monarchy is, however, complicated by at least four related factors. First, scholars disagree about the shape, extent, and compositional history of Deuteronomy. Second, reconstructions differ widely on how many different layers of Deuteronomistic editing may be found in Deuteronomy. Third, scholars disagree about the relations, if any, of Deuteronomistic layers in Deuteronomy to those found in the rest of the Deuteronomistic historical writing and to the Enneateuch as a whole. Fourth, the Deuteronomistic editors in the Former Prophets both allude to Ur-Deuteronomium as a prestigious source and move beyond it in several respects. See G. N. Knoppers, “The Deuteronomist and the Deuteronomic Law of the King: A Reexamination of a Relationship,” ZAW 108 (1996), 329–46; idem, “Rethinking the Relationship between Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History: The Case of Kings,” CBQ 63 (2001), 393–415; B. M. Levinson, “The Reconceptualization of Kingship in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History’s Transformation of Torah,” VT 51 (2001), 511–34; R. Müller, Königtum und Gottesherrschaft: Untersuchungen zur alttestamentlichen Monarchiekritik (FAT II/3; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 197–213. 36 G. N. Knoppers, Two Nations Under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies (2 vols.; HSM 52–53; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993–94), 1.135–68; T. C. Römer, “Salomon d’après les Deutéronomistes: un roi ambigu,” in Le roi Salomon, un héritage en question: Hommage à Jacques Vermeylen (ed. C. Lichtert and D. Nocquet; Livre et le rouleau 33; Brussels: Lessius, 2008), 98–130.

Constructing the Israelite Past in Ancient Judah ( I )

19

(Exod 20:5 [//Deut 5:9]; 34:7), the work blames Solomon for disunion, which occurs only after his death (1 Kgs 12:1–19), because of his cultic transgressions.37 Ninth, each of these works was subject both to literary reuse and to expansion over time. Each is composite. The reworking could take multiple forms. In some cases, scribes added new material to existing literary works or interpolated older sources, perhaps with some editing, into the Deuteronomistic History, the Chronistic History, and Ezra-Nehemiah. Indeed, on the basis of the text-critical evidence alone (MT, LXX, DSS, OL), one should posit a long history of composition and editing of the books that make up these longer works.38 In other cases, writers employed existing literary works to create new compositions. Thus, as is well known, the Chronicler employed a version of the Deuteronomistic History in preparing his own writing.39 In another case, dating to the second century BCE, the author of 1 Esdras employed versions of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah (read as one continuous work), albeit selectively, to fashion a new literary work.40 In short, the Deuteronomistic History, 37

The Chronistic version of Solomon’s reign takes direct issue with this two-stage construction of the transition to the dual monarchies by, among other things, removing the second stage altogether, see G. N. Knoppers, “Rehoboam in Chronicles: Villain or Victim?” JBL 109 (1990), 423–40. 38 To take Joshua as one example, see A. Rofé‚ “The End of the Book of Joshua according to the Septuagint,” Hen 4 (1982), 17–36; E. C. Ulrich, “4QJoshuaa and Joshua’s First Altar in the Promised Land,” in New Qumran Texts and Studies (ed. G. J. Brooke; STDJ 15; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 89–104; idem, “4QJoshua (Pls. XXXII–XXXIV),” in Qumran Cave 4, Vol. 9: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings (ed. E. C. Ulrich, F. M. Cross, et al.; DJD 14; Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 143–52; idem, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible (VTSup 169; Leiden: Brill, 2015), 47–65, 215–27; E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (3rd rev. ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 294–99; idem, “The Literary Development of the Book of Joshua as Reflected in the Masoretic Text, the Septuagint, and 4QJosha,” in Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, Septuagint: Collected Essays (VTSup 167; Leiden: Brill, 2015), 132–53; J. C. Trebolle Barrera, “Textual and Literary Criticism on Josh 3–4 (MT–LXX),” in A Pillar of Cloud to Guide: Text-critical, Redactional, and Linguistic Perspectives on the Old Testament in Honour of Marc Vervenne (ed. H. Ausloos and B. Lemmelijn; BETL 269; Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 471–91; T. B. Dozeman, Joshua 1–12 (AB 6B; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2015), 5–43. 39 G. N. Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9 (AB 12; New York: Doubleday/New Haven Yale University Press, 2004), 66–72; idem, “The Relationship of the Deuteronomistic History to Chronicles: Was the Chronicler a Deuteronomist?” in Congress Volume, Helsinki 2010 (ed. M. Nissinen; VTSup 148; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 307–41; C. Edenburg, “‘Overwriting and Overriding,’ or What is Not Deuteronomistic,” in Congress Volume, Helsinki 2010, 443–60. 40 The compositional history of 1 Esdras is highly contested: A. Schenker, “La relation d’Esdras A’ au texte massorétique d’Esdras-Néhémia,” in Tradition of the Text: Studies Offered to Dominique Barthélemy in Celebration of his 70th Birthday (ed. G. Norton and S. Pisano; OBO 109; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1991), 218–49; D. Böhler, Die heilige Stadt in Esdras α und Esra-Nehemia: Zwei Konzeptionen der Wiederherstellung Israels (OBO 158; Göttingen:

20

Chapter 1

Chronicles, and Ezra-Nehemiah should not be thought of as closed or ossified literary creations incapable of admitting additions, interpolations, and alterations. In the last centuries BCE, scribes intervened within these writings, mined them for phraseology and style, and employed them as sources to create new literary works.41 Finally, the existence of the three historical writings in view belies the truth of the common cliché that “history is written by the winner.” The Deuteronomistic historical work and the Chronistic writing conclude with conquest and victory not by the forces of Judah, but by its imperial enemy Babylon. The endings of Kings and Chronicles find the people of Judah defeated, depopulated, and deported to other lands.42 Both writings deal, albeit in different ways, with the utter destruction of the vanquished state, but both are written from the vantage points of the vanquished. Remarkably, neither work pillories the imperial forces of Babylon, but rather blames Israelites and Judahites for the tremendous losses that they incurred.43 To be sure, the Deuteronomistic writing and the Chronistic writing contain stories of Israelite conquest, for instance, in the time of Joshua in the former and in the time of David in the latter.44 Yet, both works contain more tales of disappointment, military defeat, and enemy invasions than they do of military victories. Moreover, both uphold an unprecedented time of international

41 42 43

44

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997); idem, I Esdras (IEKAT; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2015); Z. Talshir, I Esdras: From Origin to Translation (SBLSCS 47; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999); eadem, 1 Esdras: A Text Critical Commentary (SBLSCS 50; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001). My own view may be found in D. N. Fulton and G. N. Knoppers, “Lower Criticism and Higher Criticism: The Case of 1 Esdras,” in Was First Esdras First? An Investigation into the Priority of First Esdras (ed. L. S. Fried; AIL 7; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 11–29. Thus, the line between scribes and editors can be a blurry one, pace J. Van Seters, The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the “Editor” in Biblical Criticism (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006). Chronicles softens the impact of this devastation by ending with the decree of Cyrus (2 Chr 36:22–23; cf. Ezra 1:1–4), inviting the people of Yhwh to return home to rebuild the Jerusalem temple. Thus, oracles against the nations, which are standard fare in the Latter Prophets (e.g., Isa 10:5–19; 13:1–23:18; 46:1–47:15; Jer 46:2–51:64; Ezek 25:1–32:32; Amos 1:3–2:16; Zeph 2:4– 15; Obad), are largely absent from the three works in question. One exception is the diatribe against Sennacherib (2 Kgs 19:20–28//Isa 37:21–29). K. L. Younger, Ancient Conquest Accounts: A Study in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical History Writing (JSOTSup 98; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990); G. N. Knoppers, “Changing History: Nathan’s Dynastic Oracle and the Structure of the Davidic Monarchy in Chronicles,” in Shai le-Sara Japhet: Studies in the Bible, Its Exegesis, and Its Language (ed. M. Bar-Asher, D. Rom-Shiloni, E. Tov, and N. Wazana; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2007), 99*–123*.

Constructing the Israelite Past in Ancient Judah ( I )

21

peace and security (Solomon) as a (or the) highpoint in the people’s existence within the land. In the case of Ezra-Nehemiah, the work does not discuss any conquests or military successes whatsoever. Largely lacking attention to martial matters, the writing focuses on particular moments in the history of one small sub-province (Yehud), situated on the southwestern frontier of the immense international Persian empire. The book presupposes international conditions in which Judeans did not enjoy political autonomy either in the diaspora or in the homeland, upholding the efforts of members of the eastern diasporic communities, chiefly Babylon, to work within an imperial network to rebuild the homeland community. In short, there is legitimate disagreement about the reasons why these three historical writings were composed, but precious few, if any, would contend that these works were written principally to celebrate Israelite military achievements. Quite the contrary, they offer perspectives of those who had to negotiate life in a world dominated by others. We have been discussing subject matter, allocation of coverage, criteria of assessment, and related topics in the Deuteronomistic History, Chronicles, and Ezra-Nehemiah. This exercise is useful in gaining a better understanding of commonalities among the three works, but the drive to recognize similarities may also result in misimpressions if one does not also address differences. It may prove helpful, therefore, to examine in detail the particular ways in which the largest, most comprehensive, and most ambitious of the three literary works constructs, organizes, and assesses the Israelite and Judahite past. 2

Chronological Segmentation and Typology in Deuteronomistic Historiography

The Deuteronomistic History is a sprawling and heterogeneous literary work characterized by many voices, perspectives, genres, and sub-genres.45 One cannot help but be impressed with the comprehensiveness of the attempt to

45

A classic statement is that of Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (see n. 28), 1–110 [trans. The Deuteronomistic History]. A helpful history of interpretation may be found in T. Römer and A. de Pury, “L’historiographie deutéronomiste (HD): Histoire de la recherche et enjeux du débat,” in Israël construit son histoire, 9–120 [trans. Israel Constructs its History, 24–141]. On the multiplicity of theological perspectives, see, e.g., N. Lohfink, “Kerygmata des Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks,” in Die Botschaft und die Boten: Festschrift H. W. Wolff (ed. J. Jeremias and L. Perlitt; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981), 87–100; Römer, So-Called Deuteronomistic History.

22

Chapter 1

formulate several centuries of continuous history.46 Living in an age that valued pedigree and tied pedigree to identity, the Deuteronomists posit an ancient ancestry for their people.47 During the course of this long uninterrupted continuum, the people undergo a series of major transformations. At the beginning of the work Israel appears as a highly unified people, entering the land (Joshua), while at the end of the work the survivors from this divided people among the northern tribes (Israel) and southern tribes (Judah) are dispersed to other lands (2 Kings 17, 24–25). There is no attempt to reconcile this paradox.48 In the course of their work, the authors narrate a series of major political transitions from a time of non-dynastic authoritative rulers (Moses, Joshua) to a tribal chiefdom, from a tribal chiefdom to a united monarchy, from a united monarchy to a divided monarchy, from a divided monarchy to Israel’s forced expulsion from the land in the late eighth century and Judah’s forced expulsions from the land in the early sixth century. History starts and ends with land. 46 The nature of the history engaged by the history has become a major issue in historical criticism. Compare: H. Donner, Geschichte des Volkes Israel und seiner Nachbarn in Grundzügen (2 vols.; GAT 4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984–1986); R. Albertz, Religionsgeschichte Israels in alttestamentlicher Zeit (2 vols.; GAT 8; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992) [trans. J. Bowden, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period (2 vols.; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1992–1994)]; T. L. Thompson, Early History of the Israelite People: From the Written and Archaeological Sources (SHANE 4; Leiden: Brill, 1992); B. Halpern, “The State of Israelite History,” in Reconsidering Israel and Judah, 540–65; Z. Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches (London: Continuum, 2001); J. M. Miller and J. H. Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (2nd ed.; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006); I. Finkelstein, The Forgotten Kingdom: The Archaeology and History of Northern Israel (ANEM 5; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013); R. G. Kratz, Historisches und biblisches Israel. Drei Überblicke zum Alten Testament (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013) [trans. P. M. Kurtz, and rev., Historical and Biblical Israel: The History, Tradition, and Archives of Israel and Judah (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015)]; C. Frevel, Geschichte Israels (KStTh 2; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2016); L. L. Grabbe, Ancient Israel: What Do We Know and How Do We Know It? (rev. ed.; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017). The primary focus of both this chapter and the next two is on ancient Judean writing about the past and segmenting that past (hence, on literary matters). 47 My work posits two primary editions of Kings, one late preexilic (Josianic) and the other Neo-Babylonian, as well as other additions. See Knoppers, Two Nations under God, 1.17– 54, and chapter 10, “On the Significance of Anti-temple Rhetoric in the Deuteronomistic History.” It is not out of the realm of possibility that the second edition stems from the early Persian period. Among the scholars who date the Deuteronomistic work to the Persian period, see, e.g., R. F. Person, The Deuteronomic School: History, Social Setting, and Literature (StBL 2; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002); idem, The Deuteronomic History and the Book of Chronicles (AIL 6; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010). 48 Hence, J. R. Linville types the perspective embodied by the end of Kings as exilicist, “Rethinking the ‘Exilic’ Book of Kings,” JSOT 75 (1997), 21–42.

Constructing the Israelite Past in Ancient Judah ( I )

23

In this respect, the composition distinguishes between the people, who predate and postdate the occupation of the promised land, and the story of the people in the land. Political and territorial considerations are fundamental to the structure of the writing, but ethnographic, cultic, and demographic considerations are fundamental, as well. The writers’ complex depiction involves positing a series of periods, each of which is characterized by its own geo-political and religious traits. Commencing with Israel encamped upon the steppes of Moab (Deuteronomy 1–3, 29–31), the nation of Israel addressed by Moses enters the Cisjordan territory en masse under Joshua.49 Preparations: Israel on the steppes of Moab The All-Israelite Conquest The Chieftains Era The United Monarchy The Dual Monarchies Judah Alone

Deuteronomy Joshua Judges 1–1 Samuel 1250 1 Samuel 13–1 Kings 1151 1 Kings 12–2 Kings 17 2 Kings 18–25

As the outline indicates, the literary work maintains an interest in corporate identity throughout, but this typological focus on the people, as opposed to individual tribes, clans, and individual families, is both a means to distinguish among epochs and a means to posit continuity through disparate times. The 49

50

51

The book of Joshua, more so than any other book in the Former Prophets, has received a significant amount of Priestly-style editing, E. Cortese, Josua 13–21: Ein priesterschriftlicher Abschnitt im deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk (OBO 94; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990); E. Noort, Das Buch Josua: Forschungsgeschichte und Problemfelder (EdF 292; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1998); R. Albertz, “The Canonical Alignment of the Book of Joshua,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E. (ed. O. Lipschits, G. N. Knoppers, and R. Albertz; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 287–303; S. Boorer, “The Envisioning of the Land in the Priestly Material: Fulfilled Promise or Future Hope?” in Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch, 99–125; Krause, Exodus und Eisodus, 135–73, 297–402. The place of Judges in the development of the Deuteronomistic historical work has been the subject of much debate in recent years. Some view Judges as one of the latest major blocks to be added to the developing corpus, Römer, So-Called Deuteronomistic History, 90–91, 118–19, 136–39. There is good reason to believe that much, if not all, of Samuel’s final speech (1 Sam 12) is an addition or a series of additions. See Müller, Königtum und Gottesherrschaft, 177–96; C. Nihan, “1 Samuel 8 and 12 and the Deuteronomistic Edition of Samuel,” in Is Samuel among the Deuteronomists? Current Views on the Place of Samuel in a Deuteronomistic History (ed. C. Edenburg and J. Pakkala; AIL 16; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013), 225–73.

24

Chapter 1

writers sometimes acknowledge social diversity by mentioning individual tribes, clans, patronymics, and families, especially in depicting the era of the chieftains and in portraying civil conflicts (e.g., Judges 19–21); yet, in many cases the text simplifies the complex and shifting socio-political relations among groups within northern Israel and Judah.52 In any event, the authors never lose their broad focus. After a decisive split between the northern and southern tribes occurs in the late tenth century, centuries after the Israelites enter the land, the writers follow the fortunes of both the northern and the southern kingdoms.53 By synchronizing northern and southern royal tenures, the authors maintain a larger focus on all twelve tribes in spite of the permanent division between the northern and southern kingdoms. Only near the end of the literary work, when the northern monarchy falls and the northern tribes exit the land, do the writers narrow their focus to the southern kingdom, tracing its history until its fall in the early sixth century. This means that of the six to seven centuries sketched in the work, only the last century and a half deal exclusively with the history of the geo-political region from which the editors originate. The typological focus on the relations among people, deity, territory, and polity is evident in the depiction of the Israelite monarchy’s demise. The residents of “the entire region of Naphtali” are deported by Tiglath-pileser III (2 Kgs 15:29) in the eighth century BCE and are never heard from again. Another Assyrian king, probably Sargon II, deports the rest of the Israelites to Assyria (2 Kgs 17:6) in the late-eighth century BCE.54 What happens to 52 S. Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and its Place in Biblical Thought (BEATAJ 9; Frankfurt a.M.: Lang, 1989), 302–8; Fleming, Legacy of Israel, 39–176; J. M. Hutton, “Southern, Northern, and Transjordanian Perspectives,” in Religious Diversity in Ancient Israel and Judah (ed. F. Stavrakopoulou and J. Barton; London: T&T Clark, 2010), 149–74; D. Nocquet, La Samarie, la Diaspora et l’achèvement de la Torah: Territorialités et internationalités dans l’Hexateuque (OBO 284; Fribourg: Academic Press, 2017), 115–78. 53 Given the weight the literary work attributes to the united monarchy, the northern kingdom does not appear as an independent geo-political entity originating in its own right, but rather as something derivative of the Davidic-Solomonic kingdom centered in Jerusalem. 54 The work makes no direct mention of Israelites remaining in the land and provides no coverage of expatriate life. Ironically, the long, multi-layered Deuteronomistic reflection on the northern kingdom’s fall contains two supplements, the first of which discusses how Assyrian state-sponsored immigrants survive Yhwh-sent lion attacks in the land emptied of Israelites by learning from (a) repatriated Bethel priest(s) how to imitate northern Israelite cultic practices (2 Kgs 17:24–34a). The strange tale indirectly reaffirms the links between the land of Israel and the God of Israel, even if that land is ostensibly bereft of Israelites. The second narrative takes issue with the first by disputing that the “descendants of Jacob” (truly) worship Yhwh in accordance with the covenant Yhwh

Constructing the Israelite Past in Ancient Judah ( I )

25

the northern tribes after the Assyrian deportations is not addressed. The typological focus on people, territory, and polity also holds true for Judahite history. In the Deuteronomistic construction, all of Judah’s surviving population is banished to Babylon (2 Kgs 24:3, 14–16, 20; 25:11–12, 19–21) in two forced population displacements or scatters to Egypt (2 Kgs 25:26) in the early-sixth century BCE.55 No mention is made of the Judahites, who remained in the land. What happens to the southern tribes after their deportations comprises a final gap in the Deuteronomistic coverage.56 made with them, when he delivered them from Egypt (2 Kgs 17:34b–40). The presupposition of the second story is that the postexilic residents of Samaria are ethnic Israelites, who fail to honor Yhwh by worshiping other gods. In neither the first anecdote nor the second do the writers provide any information about those Israelites who found themselves deported to various sites in other lands, G. N. Knoppers, “Cutheans or Children of Jacob? The Issue of Samaritan Origins in 2 Kings 17,” in Reflection and Refraction, 223–39; idem, Jews and Samaritans, 18–44. 55 Only the appendix to Kings (2 Kgs 25:27–30), which mentions the mercies afforded to King Jehoiachin by King Evil-merodach, deals in any way with the Judahite expatriates. Although some have interpreted these verses as a harbinger of new hope for the deity’s renewal of the Davidic promises, the long-range significance of the release from prison and imperial support of the displaced king is not altogether clear. The notice offers some short-term good news in exilic circumstances, especially for this particular figure and his family within the Davidic lineage, but it leaves the future open. See chapter 8, “David’s Relation to Moses: The Contexts, Contents, and Conditions of the Davidic Promises.” 56 On the larger historical problems associated with the assertion of an empty land and the reconstruction of life during the Neo-Babylonian and early Persian periods, see C. E. Carter, The Emergence of Yehud in the Persian Period: A Social and Demographic Study (JSOTSup 294; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998); R. Albertz, Die Exilszeit: 6. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (BE 7; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2001) [trans. D. Green, Israel in Exile: The History and Literature of the Sixth Century B.C.E. (StBL 3; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003)]; J. Kiefer, Exil und Diaspora: Begrifflichkeit und Deutungen im antiken Judentum und in der hebräischen Bibel (ABG 19; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2005); O. Lipschits, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem: Judah under Babylonian Rule (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005); idem, “Shedding New Light on the Dark Years of the ‘Exilic Period’: New Studies, Further Elucidation, and Some Questions Regarding the Archaeology of Judah as an ‘Empty Land’,” in Interpreting Exile: Displacement and Deportation in Biblical and Modern Contexts (ed. B. E. Kelle, F. R. Ames, and J. L. Wright; AIL 10; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 57–90; J. A. Middlemas, The Troubles of Templeless Judah (Oxford Theological Monographs; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005); Miller and Hayes, History of Ancient Israel and Judah, 478–97; B. Becking, “A Fragmented History of the Exile,” in Interpreting Exile, 151–69; A. A. Burke, “An Anthropological Model for the Investigation of the Archaeology of Refugees in Iron Age Judah and Its Environs,” in Interpreting Exile, 41–56; A. Faust, “Deportation and Demography in Sixthcentury B.C.E. Judah,” in Interpreting Exile, 91–103; idem, Judah in the Neo-Babylonian Period: The Archaeology of Desolation (ABS 18; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012); C. Levin, “The Empty Land in Kings,” in Re-reading the Scriptures: Essays on the Literary

26

Chapter 1

One of the characteristics of Deuteronomistic compositional technique is the deployment of speeches, prayers, and summarizing reflections to unify the literary work.57 Yet, contrary to expectations, the writing does not contain a final Deuteronomistically worded summarizing reflection, oration, or prayer to comment upon the Davidic kingdom’s demise and to assess the people’s future prospects.58 Thus, there is no speech at the end of the work corresponding either to Moses’s speech on the steppes of Moab at the beginning of Deuteronomy (Deut 1:6–3:29) or to Yhwh’s speech to Joshua prior to Israel’s crossing into the land (Josh 1:2–9). The comments blaming Judah’s downfall on the sins of Manasseh (2 Kgs 21:10–16; 23:26–27; 24:3–4) explain why the deportations and destruction occurred, in spite of Josiah’s unprecedented reforms, but the text of 2 Kings 24–25 addresses neither the people’s life in exile nor that of its surviving priests and Davidic dynasts, except somewhat ambiguously for Jehoiachin (2 Kgs 25:27–30).59 In the end, the work situates the people back where they started in the beginning—outside the land. The typological depiction of the northern and southern exiles marks, therefore, another case in which Kings shows its indebtedness to Ur-Deuteronomium. Declared authoritative before the people enter the land, the stipulations and curses of Ur-Deuteronomium are proven true, when the Israelites and Judahites exit the land several centuries later.60 Nevertheless, it would be reductive to view the final form of the Deuteronomistic History simply as a validation of Deuteronomy, because the Deuteronomistic History moves beyond Deuteronomy in a number of key respects. As we shall see in the following

57 58

59

60

History of the Old Testament (FAT 87; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 195–220; Frevel, Geschichte Israels, 270–86. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 3–12 [trans. Deuteronomistic History, 4–11]; H. N. Rösel offers a dissenting opinion, “Why 2 Kings 17 Does Not Constitute a Chapter of Reflection in the ‘Deuteronomistic History,’” JBL 128 (2009), 85–90. Noth (Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 100–10 [trans. Deuteronomistic History, 89–99]) argued that the additions to the long commentary on the fall of the northern kingdom (2 Kgs 17:7–23), relating to Judah (2 Kgs 17:13–17, 19–20), fulfilled this function proleptically. By contrast, Chronicles finds fault with a variety of figures, including “the priests” (‫ ;הכהנים‬2 Chr 36:14). The lack of sacerdotal criticism in Kings may provide an important clue to the authorship of Kings’ closing chapters, Albertz, Die Exilszeit, 210–31 [Israel in Exile, 271–302]. See also n. 55 above. Similarly, J. C. Gertz, “The Partial Compositions,” in T&T Clark Handbook of the Old Testament (see n. 2), 293–382 (352); K. Schmid, Literaturgeschichte des Alten Testaments: Eine Einführung (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2008), 120–22 [trans. L. M. Maloney, The Old Testament: A Literary History (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012) 160– 62]; L. J. Hoppe, “The Strategy of the Deuteronomistic History,” CBQ 79 (2017), 1–19.

Constructing the Israelite Past in Ancient Judah ( I )

27

chapter, the Deuteronomistic writing not only draws from Deuteronomy as a prestigious source in critical ways, but it also selectively extends and applies its stipulations to fashion very particular arguments about the course of Israelite and Judahite history. For this reason and others, the work is better termed as a Deuteronomistic History than as a Deuteronomic History, as it is sometimes also called.

Chapter 2

From Israel to Judah in the Deuteronomistic Writing: A History of Calamities? In this essay, I wish to address some challenges posed by the content, organization, and flow of argumentation in the Deuteronomistic work. Three particular questions are of interest. First, why does the work incorporate Deuteronomy and selectively apply its ordinances to the life of the monarchy? Second, why does this writing stemming from Judah devote copious attention to northern Israel? Third, is the work best characterized as a history of calamities? The three questions may be explicated as follows. The first has to do with the relationship between Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History. Noth influentially argued that the Deuteronomist employed Ur-Deuteronomium as foundational to his project, a critical measure by which the author assessed, albeit selectively, the behavior of Israel during the different periods he created within his work.1 The importance of (Proto-) Deuteronomy may thus be granted, but why use it in the first place?2 The employment of the law collection embedded in Deuteronomy is by no means necessary to fashion a theological narrative about Israelite history. The histories of Herodotus and Thucydides do not begin with (or include) law collections. The practice is also not common to biblical tradition. Neither Ezra-Nehemiah nor Chronicles begins with (or includes) a law code. The second question has to do with the pan-Israelite thrust of the Deuteronomistic writing. Why do its southern authors take such an avid interest in northern affairs?3 Much of the historical writing does not pertain directly to Judah. By contrast, the authors of the Chronistic work begin the narrative portion of their writing with the end of Saul’s kingdom and the transfer of 1 M. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien: Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament (2nd ed.; Tübingen: M. Niemeyer, 1957), 3–18, 27–40 [trans. The Deuteronomistic History (JSOTSup 15; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981), 4–17, 26–35]. On segmentation in the Deuteronomistic writing, see chapter 1, “Constructing the Israelite Past in Ancient Judah (I).” 2 The question remains, even if one does not consider Deuteronomy to begin the Deuteronomistic historical work and prefers instead to view the work as commencing with an Exodus/ Moses myth of origins (see chapter 1), because such a larger work nevertheless includes the Deuteronomic law collection. 3 See section 1 in chapter 1. ©  GARY N. KNOPPERS (†), Christl M. Maier and H. G. M. Williamson, 2021 |  doi:10.1163/9789004444898_004

From Israel to Judah in the Deuteronomistic Writing

29

power to the kingdom of David (1 Chr 10:1–14) and the capture of Jerusalem (1 Chr 11:4–9). Given that the authors stemmed from Jerusalem, these literary choices make eminent sense, but the Deuteronomistic narrative begins much earlier with Joshua and the people preparing to enter the promised land. A contrast may be also drawn with Ezra-Nehemiah, which commences with the decree of Cyrus the Great permitting expatriates to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple of Yhwh (Ezra 1:1–4). Again, the beginning makes sense, given that the writers were Judean and focus on what they uphold as key developments in the Persian period community of Yehud. The organization of Chronicles and of Ezra-Nehemiah throws the heavily segmented organization of the Deuteronomistic History into sharper relief. If the writers, however one dates their origins and development, were based in (or originated from) Jerusalem, why do they allocate so much attention to the northern tribes, especially near the beginning of their work? The third question has to do with whether the literary work comprises, as some scholars hold, a history of doom, a lengthy descent toward destruction.4 4 The concern here is with the final edition of the Deuteronomistic writing, rather than with earlier redactions. The effort to discern such earlier editions is certainly a legitimate enterprise, but is not the focus of the present essay, which examines the work as a literary whole. On the multiple Deuteronomistic layers theory (DtrH, DtrP, and DtrN) associated with the socalled Göttingen tradition, see R. Smend, “Das Gesetz und die Völker: Ein Beitrag zur deuteronomistischen Redaktionsgeschichte,” in Probleme biblischer Theologie: Festschrift Gerhard von Rad (ed. H. W. Wolff; München: Kaiser, 1971), 494–509 [trans. “The Law and the Nations: A Contribution to Deuteronomistic Tradition History,” in Reconsidering Israel and Judah: The Deuteronomistic History in Recent Thought (ed. G. N. Knoppers and J. G. McConville; SBTS 8; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 95–110]; idem, Die Entstehung des Alten Testaments (4th ed.; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1989); W. Dietrich, Prophetie und Geschichte (FRLANT 108; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972); idem, “Niedergang und Neuanfang: Die Haltung der Schlussredaktion des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerkes zu den wichtigsten Fragen ihrer Zeit,” in The Crisis of Israelite Religion: Transformation of Religious Tradition in Exilic and Post-Exilic Times (ed. B. Becking and M. C. A. Korpel; OtSt 42; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 45–70; T. Veijola, Die ewige Dynastie: David und die Entstehung seiner Dynastie nach der deuteronomistischen Darstellung (AASF B 193; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1975); idem, Das Königtum in der Beurteilung der deuteronomistischen Historiographie (AASF B 198; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1977). On the block theory of two Deuteronomistic redactions, one major (Dtr1) and one minor (Dtr2) associated with the so-called Harvard tradition, see F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), 274–89; R. E. Friedman, The Exile and Biblical Narrative (HSM 22; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981); R. D. Nelson, The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History (JSOTSup 18; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981); B. Halpern, The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988); G. N. Knoppers, Two Nations Under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies (2 vols.; HSM 52–53; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993–94); idem, “Theories of the Redaction(s) of Kings,” in The Book of Kings: Sources, Composition, Historiography, and Reception (ed. B. Halpern, A. Lemaire, and M. J. Adams;

30

Chapter 2

In this view, the entire story of Israel from the period of the Judges to the time of Judah’s banishment from the land is an example of Unheilsgeschichte, a history of calamities.5 Whereas the time of Joshua, or the period of Exodus through Joshua if you will, represents Heilsgeschichte, a history of salvation, the time of the chieftains and the monarchy represents a prolonged descent to ruin.6 The first relatively short part of the literary work marks an idyllic and normative era, while the second much longer part marks the loss of national institutions, state, and land.7 The long record of Israel in the land is thus thought to be an extensive etiology of exile.

VTSup 129; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 68–88; M. A. Sweeney, King Josiah of Judah: The Lost Messiah of Israel (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001). The recent analysis of T. C. Römer posits a preexilic (Josianic) edition, a major exilic edition, and a Persian period edition; see idem, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological and Literary Introduction (London: T&T Clark International, 2005). 5 K. Schmid, Erzväter und Exodus: Untersuchungen zur doppelten Begründung der Ursprünge Israels innerhalb der Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testaments (WMANT 81; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999, 22–24, 102–29, 245–46 [trans. J. D. Nogalski and rev. ed., Genesis and the Moses Story: Israel’s Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible (Siphrut 3; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 19–22, 117–51, 253–54]; idem, Literaturgeschichte des Alten Testaments: Eine Einführung (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2008), 120–22 [trans. L. M. Maloney, The Old Testament: A Literary History (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 160–62]; J. C. Gertz, “The Overall Context of Genesis–2 Kings,” in T&T Clark Handbook of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Literature, Religion and History of the Old Testament (ed. A. Berlejung, K. Schmid, and M. Witte; London: T&T Clark, 2012), 263–68, 352–77. 6 In the view of E. Blum, a Deuteronomistic-like foundational prehistory of origins, extending from Exodus to Deuteronomy, has been added as a prequel to the Deuteronomistic History, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW 189; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990), 7–218; idem, “Die literarische Verbindung von Erzvätern und Exodus: Ein Gespräch mit neueren Endredaktionshypothesen (2002),” in Textgestalt und Komposition: Exegetische Beiträge zu Tora und Vordere Propheten (ed. W. Oswald; FAT 69; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 85– 121; idem, “Das exilische deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk,” in Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk (ed. H.-J. Stipp; ÖBS 39; Frankfurt a. M.: Lang, 2011), 269–94. Schmid views the (reconstructed) corpus as extending from Exodus 1* through 2 Kings 25* as a continuous work, Erzväter und Exodus, 102–29 [trans. Genesis and the Moses Story, 117–51]; idem, “Das Deuteronomium innerhalb der ‘deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke’ in Gen-2 Kön,” in Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk (ed. E. Otto and R. Achenbach; FRLANT 206; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 193–211. 7 In this negative assessment, the theory is not too far from the older theory of Noth, except that Noth speaks of the “complete annihilation (völligen Vernichtung)” of the people, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 109–10 [trans. Deuteronomistic History, 98–99]. Noth likely meant the end of Israel as a people, rather than total depopulation, as he thought that the Deuteronomist was one of those who survived the Babylonian invasions and remained in the land, probably at Mizpah. Cf. A. Jepsen, Die Quellen des Königsbuches (2nd ed.; Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1956), 95.

From Israel to Judah in the Deuteronomistic Writing

31

The calamity hypothesis admirably attempts to come to terms with the organization and meaning of the sprawling work as a whole, rather than focus discretely on each of its constituent parts. The theory about Heilsgeschichte and Unheilsgeschichte also insightfully recognizes that the histories of Israel and Judah end in disgrace—the loss of life, land, and state. Concluding with the sack of Jerusalem, the destruction of the house of Yhwh, the humiliation of the Davidic dynasty, and the dispossession of the people from the land, the Deuteronomistic writing does not gloss over tremendous losses in Israelite and Judahite history.8 Quite the contrary, it calls attention to them. One could counter, of course, that the writers had little choice, if they were to provide an accounting of the past.9 In discussing the histories of the northern and southern monarchies, they had to deal with major catastrophes, such as the successful conquest of Tiglath-pileser III in northern Israel, the campaigns of Shalmaneser V and Sargon II against Samaria, the campaign of Sennacherib against Judah, and the Neo-Babylonian invasions of Judah, which caused considerable destruction, death, and population displacement in the southern Levant.10 Yet, should the entire monarchic era be characterized as a series of regressions? Is not such a judgment somewhat one-sided and unbalanced, assessing the character of the work based on the outcomes narrated in the work? Are there no major achievements in geo-politics and cultic practices that were of lasting interest to the writers? Granted that the chieftains era represents a low point in the literary work, is not the lengthy presentation of the monarchy more nuanced and theologically complex?11 Indeed, the second question about the allocation of coverage given to northern Israel becomes especially 8

According to the theory, the story of Israel’s demise in the land in the Former Prophets is intentionally balanced in the Hebrew Canon by the hopes for Israel’s future in the Latter Prophets. The books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve offer the prospect of a renewed salvation history, following the history of perdition depicted in Judges, Samuel, and Kings (Schmid, Erzväter und Exodus, 246 [trans. Genesis and the Moses Story, 254]). 9 A point stressed by E. Ben Zvi, “Malleability and its Limits: Sennacherib’s Campaign against Judah as a Case Study,” in ‘Like a Bird in a Cage’: The Invasion of Sennacherib in 701 BCE (ed. L. L. Grabbe; JSOTSup 363; European Seminar in Historical Methodology 4; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2003), 73–105. 10 Recently, P. Dubovský, “Suspicious Similarities: A Comparative Study of the Falls of Samaria and Jerusalem,” in The Fall of Jerusalem and the Rise of the Torah (ed. P. Dubovský, D. Markl, and J.-P. Sonnet; FAT 107; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 47–71. 11 That the Judahite chieftain Othniel escapes criticism (Judg 3:7–11) is unlikely to be accidental. In the Judahite-edited book of Judges, which likely draws on older northern sources, Othniel’s record stands out over against the desultory records of northern chieftains, except for Deborah. See M. Z. Brettler, The Book of Judges (Old Testament Readings; London: Routledge, 2002), 25–28.

32

Chapter 2

acute, if one considers most of the writing to comprise a lengthy descent toward destruction. One may grant the use of sources, some of them extensive, the editing and extension of those sources, and a complicated redaction history. Nevertheless, such a long history of composition and editing only heightens the question as to why Judahite scribes would create such an extensive literary work, positing some six to seven centuries of landed existence, if much of that doomed existence pertained to non-Judahites? To gain a better understanding of how the work approaches, defines, and structures the past, close attention must be paid to how the Deuteronomistic narrative couches the nation’s achievements in the land and how it couches the terms of Israel and Judah’s declines. According to what criteria does the work commemorate and problematize the past? In assessing the causes of Israelite and Judahite setbacks, how does the writing characterize the roles, for good or for ill, played by the people’s leaders and societal institutions? The end of the story is important, but to focus only on the end may be to miss the point of the story itself. The answers to the three questions, I would argue, are related. Each has to do with the heritage of Deuteronomy and its proper application to the history of Israel and Judah. The inclusion of Ur-Deuteronomium allows the authors to make particular arguments about the development of both northern Israel and Judah, the former of which the authors acknowledge to be historically far larger, more powerful, and more populous than the latter. Moreover, one has to assume that the interpretive arguments made about Ur-Deuteronomium were not obvious to at least some portion of the writers’ anticipated audience(s). That is, even if one conceded, for the sake of argument, that the anticipated readers of the work accepted key demands made by Deuteronomy, the practical application of some of these demands, such as the centralization of Yahwistic sacrifice, is not spelled out in Deuteronomy itself. My essay will argue against the thesis of unremitting decline and continual divine judgment, suggesting that the work upholds certain accomplishments of the united monarchy as integral to the crystallization of Israelite identity. The monarchy includes achievements, as well as failures. The writers employ Proto-Deuteronomy both to endorse particular features of the monarchy and to criticize others. The people’s emergence in the land comprises one major step in fulfilling some of Deuteronomy’s demands and promises, but it leaves others incomplete. Once safely established in the land, the Israelites are expected to implement a specific set of critical cultic policies, namely the centralization of Israelite sacrifice at the place of God’s own choosing and the elimination of all rival cultic places, whether Yahwistic or non-Yahwistic (Deut 11:31–12:31).

From Israel to Judah in the Deuteronomistic Writing

33

In Deuteronomistic perspective, as we shall see, Deuteronomy’s conditions for realizing the mandate for the unification of Israelite worship are met in the time of Solomon.12 David, Solomon’s father, wins many battles, unites the fractious northern and southern tribes, expands the kingdom, captures Jerusalem, and ushers the ark into Jerusalem. The first part of Solomon’s reign witnesses an unprecedented period of peace, stability, and prosperity, a propitious time to build the long-awaited place “for the name of Yhwh” (1 Kgs 8:16). In the configuration of the Deuteronomistic work, these developments complement Israel’s successful conquest centuries earlier in fulfilling the divine promises given to the Israelite people on the steppes of Moab. The definition of these accomplishments in writing is enduring, even if the accomplishments in history prove not to be. I am not suggesting that the Deuteronomistic work upholds the united monarchy as an unbridled success. The Deuteronomistic writing differs markedly in this regard from the later Chronistic work.13 In the literary construction of a common Israelite past, the legacy of Judah’s most famous leaders—David and Solomon—is decidedly mixed. The portrait of David, in particular, is

12 There are hints in the editing process of Joshua that this was a matter of debate. Some texts speak of a completely successful conquest (Josh 11:23; 21:43–45), while others speak of lands yet to be conquered. Smend contends that the latter group of passages (Josh 1:7–9; 13:1b–6; 23; Judg 1:1–2:5, 17, 20–21, 23) evince the hand of a later nomistic Deuteronomistic editor (DtrN), “Das Gesetz und die Völker,” 494–509. 13 I hold to the common view that the writers of Chronicles drew upon an older version of Samuel-Kings, I Chronicles 10–29 (AB 12A; New York: Doubleday/New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), 785–88. This does not mean that after the writers borrowed from their Vorlage of Samuel-Kings to create their own distinctive work, that Vorlage remained unchanged. To the contrary, changes and additions could continue to be made in the late Persian and Hellenistic age. For the alternative view that the authors of Samuel-Kings and Chronicles both borrowed from a common source in the postexilic period, see A. G. Auld, “Salomo und die Deuteronomisten—eine Zukunftsvision?,” TZ 48 (1992), 343–54; idem, Kings Without Privilege: David and Moses in the Story of the Bible’s Kings (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994); idem, Life in Kings: Reshaping the Royal Story in the Hebrew Bible (AIL 30; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017). For more specialized studies dealing with the topic, see my I Chronicles 1–9 (AB 12; New York: Doubleday/New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), 66– 68; idem, “Projected Age Comparisons of the Levitical Townlists: Divergent Theories and Their Significance,” Textus 22 (2005), 21–63; idem, “Changing History: Nathan’s Dynastic Oracle and the Structure of the Davidic Monarchy in Chronicles,” in Shai le-Sara Japhet: Studies in the Bible, Its Exegesis, and Its Language (ed. M. Bar-Asher, D. Rom-Shiloni, E. Tov, and N. Wazana; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2007), 99*–123*; idem, “The Relationship of the Deuteronomistic History to Chronicles: Was the Chronicler a Deuteronomist?” in Congress Volume, Helsinki 2010 (ed. M. Nissinen; VTSup 148; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 307–41.

34

Chapter 2

multifaceted and variegated.14 In accordance with the Deuteronomic principle that all Israelites are accountable to Yhwh, the corpus includes material critical of both monarchs. The characterization of the united monarchy is, therefore, far more thematically complex than the highly positive characterization of Israel’s entrance into the land and the negative characterization of the chieftains era.15 Nevertheless, the literary work locates no small part of Israel’s common cultural patrimony in key achievements and institutions of the united monarchy. I wish to return to the Deuteronomistic configuration of the united monarchy, in particular its construction of the first phase of Solomon’s reign, but first it will be helpful to explore why the Deuteronomists wished to devote so much effort to tying the Jerusalem temple to the mandate for cultic unification in Deuteronomy. What problems did Ur-Deuteronomium present 14 W. Dietrich, Die frühe Königszeit in Israel: 10. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (BE 3; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1997) [trans. J. Vette, The Early Monarchy in Israel: The Tenth Century B.C.E. (BE 3; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007)]; idem, “Das Ende der Thronfolgegeschichte,” in Die sogenannte Thronfolgegeschichte Davids: Neue Einsichten und Anfragen (ed. A. de Pury and T. Römer; OBO 176; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 38–69; idem, “König David—biblisches Bild eines Herrschers im altorientalischen Kontext,” in König David— biblische Schlüsselfigur und europäische Leitgestalt (ed. W. Dietrich and H. Herkommer; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2003), 3–31; S. L. McKenzie, King David: A Biography (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000); T. Naumann, “David als exemplarischer König—der Fall Urias (2 Sam 11f) vor dem Hintergrund altorientalischer Erzähltraditionen,” in Die sogenannte Thronfolgegeschichte, 136–67; idem, “David und die Liebe,” in König David, 51–83; B. Halpern, David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King (The Bible in its World; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001); R. Hunziker-Rodewald, “David der Hirte: Vom ‘Aufstieg’ eines literarischen Topos,” in König David, 165–77; J. R. Short, The Surprising Election and Confirmation of King David (HTS 63; Cambridge, MA: Harvard Divinity School, 2010); J. S. Baden, The Historical David: The Real Life of an Invented Hero (New York: HarperOne, 2013). 15 Given that David’s later rule is marked by some disastrous decisions (e.g., 2 Samuel 9–12, 21, 24), familial rebellions, and deteriorating health (1 Kings 1–2), J. Van Seters views all of this material as a postexilic anti-Davidic and anti-messianic interpolation, In Search of History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), 277–91; idem, “The Court History and DtrH: Conflicting Perspectives on the House of David,” in Die sogenannte Thronfolgegeschichte, 70–93; idem, The Biblical Saga of King David (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009). For more nuanced views, see Halpern, David’s Secret Demons, 3–53, 73–103, 345–424; O. Kaiser, “Das Verhältnis der Erzählung vom König David zum sogenannten Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk,” in Die sogenannte Thronfolgegeschichte, 94–122; Dietrich, Die frühe Königszeit in Israel, 259–73 [trans. Early Monarchy, 298–316]; O. Sergi, “The United Monarchy and the Kingdom of Jeroboam II in the Story of Absalom and Sheba’s Revolts (2 Samuel 15–20),” HeBAI 6 (2017), 329–53; N. Na’aman, “Game of Thrones: Solomon’s ‘Succession Narrative’ and Esarhaddon’s Accession to the Throne,” TA 45 (2018), 89–113.

From Israel to Judah in the Deuteronomistic Writing

35

for the Deuteronomists as they attempted to defend and promote the rise of Jerusalem’s preeminence among all of the sanctuary towns in ancient Israel? 1

Challenges Posed by Deuteronomy’s Mandate for the Unification of Yahwistic Worship

The interpretation of Deuteronomy’s centralization legislation in the Deuteronomistic writing is a fascinating issue in its own right. Although some have seen close affinities between Deuteronomic legislation and the literary presentation in Kings, the situation is certainly more complex.16 It can be argued, in fact, that the legislation mandating the unification of Israelite worship at one undisclosed location posed a series of critical challenges for the writers of the Deuteronomistic work.17 The mandate for the centralization of Yahwistic sacrifice in Deuteronomy is remarkably vague. The writers of Deuteronomy repeatedly stress that the Israelites are to sacrifice only at the place of God’s own choosing, but they do not say precisely where Israelites are to implement this new form of orthopraxis.18 16 Given that Noth (Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 27–40 [trans. Deuteronomistic History, 26–35]) argued that the exilic Deuteronomist employed the old Deuteronomic law code as a measure to judge the course of Israelite history, it is surprising that he did not devote more attention to Deuteronomy itself. On this question, see further T. C. Römer, “Le Deutéronome à la quête des origines,” in Le Pentateuque: Débats et recherches (LD 151; Paris: Cerf, 1992), 65–98 [trans. “Deuteronomy in Search of Origins,” in Reconsidering Israel and Judah, 112–38]; R. I. Thelle, Approaches to the “Chosen Place”: Accessing a Biblical Concept (LHBOTS 564; London: T&T Clark International, 2012), 13–14. 17 Although some have seen a close linkage between Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History, the situation is more complex. The Deuteronomists both draw upon Proto-Deuteronomy as a prestigious source and move beyond it in a number of important respects. See my Two Nations Under God; idem, “Solomon’s Fall and Deuteronomy,” in The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium (ed. L. Handy; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 392–410. 18 On the texts in MT Deuteronomy (always ‫יבחר‬, where the SP always reads ‫)בחר‬, see Deut 12:5, 11, 14, 18, 21, 26; 14:23, 24, 25; 15:20; 16:2, 6, 7, 11, 15, 16; 17:8, 10; 18:6; 26:2; 31:11. So also Josh 9:27 reads ‫יבחר‬, the final occurrence of the phrase prior to the depiction of Solomon’s temple dedication. See M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972), 324 (no. 1a). The difference between ‫ בחר‬and ‫ יבחר‬was long thought to represent a sectarian difference between the MT and the SP, but this is no longer certain. A. Schenker points out there are witnesses to the LXX, the OL, the Bohairic, and the Coptic, which support the SP lemma, “Le Seigneur choisira-t-il le lieu de son nom ou l’a-t-il choisi? L’apport de la Bible grecque ancienne à l’histoire du texte samaritain et massorétique,” in Scripture in Transition, Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo (ed. A. Voitila and J. Jokiranta; JSJSup 126; Leiden:

36

Chapter 2

In Deuteronomy and in Joshua, the situation is ambiguous and open-ended.19 On the steppes of Moab, Yhwh promises that he will choose (‫“ )יבחר‬the place” (‫ )המקום‬from all of the Israelite tribes to designate as his dwelling “to put his name there” (‫ ;לשום את שמו שם‬MT Deut 12:5).20 But neither in Deuteronomy nor in Joshua does Yhwh mention a specific site. The self-consistent usage throughout the work suggests that the ambiguity in Deuteronomy was deliberate and that Deuteronomy could be (was and is) read in different ways.21 Most scholars assume that the text alludes to Jerusalem and does not refer specifically to the site’s name to maintain the literary fiction that Deuteronomy is a series of speeches delivered by Moses on the steppes of Moab, as the Israelites prepare to enter the land. Such a position assumes, however, what it needs to prove. The authors of Deuteronomy never refer to Jerusalem in their work, even though they do refer to a limited number of other sites.22 To complicate matters, Jerusalem is not explicitly mentioned elsewhere in the Pentateuch.23

19

20 21 22 23

Brill, 2008), 339–51; idem, “Textgeschichtliches zum Samaritanischen Pentateuch und Samareitikon,” in Samaritans: Past and Present (ed. M. Mor and F. V. Reiterer; StSam 5; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010), 105–20. It is unlikely that the SP influenced the readings of the minor witnesses to the LXX, OL, Bohairic, and Coptic translations, because the SP would have probably not been known by these translators. If the formulae only occurred a few times, they might be deemed to be of little consequence, but they are repeated many times and in a consistent way within Deuteronomy and Joshua on the one hand and in Kings on the other hand; see Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 324 (nos. 1, 1a). S. L. Richter, The Deuteronomistic History and the Name Theology: lešakkēn šemô šām in the Bible and the Ancient Near East (BZAW 318; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002). G. N. Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans: The Origins and History of Their Early Relations (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 169–216. G. N. Knoppers, “The Northern Context of the Law-Code in Deuteronomy,” HeBAI 4 (2015), 162–83. It is quite possible that ‎‫( שלם‬Salem) in Gen 14:18 refers to Jerusalem (if one construes ‫שלם‬, as a hypocoristic; HALOT 1539b), but Jerusalem is not itself explicitly named and both the text and its interpretation were contested within antiquity. Cf. SP and Sam. Tg. Gen 14:18 (‫)מלך שלם‬. In Ps 76:3 Salem appears parallel to Zion (so also Tg. Ket. 76:3), but LXX Ps 76:3 interprets ‫ שלם‬as an adjective. 1QapGen 22:13, Josephus (Ant. 1.180; J. W. 6.438), Tg. Onq., Tg. Neof. and Tg. Ps.-J. Gen 14:18 identify Salem with Jerusalem, but some early Christian interpreters speak of a place named Sālim (HALOT 1539b). LXX Gen 33:18 depicts Jacob traveling to “Salem, a city of Shechem” (Σαλημ πόλιν Σικιμων). Similarly, the presentation of SP (‫ )שלום עיר שכם‬and Sam. Tg. Gen 33:18 (‫)שלם קרית שכם‬. The lemma of the MT, ‎‫שלם עיר שכם‬, can be interpreted either as “safe [to] the city of Shechem” or “[to] Salem, the city of Shechem.” Jubilees 30:1 reflects the former option, “Salem, which is east of Shechem.” E. C. Campbell suggests Sâlim on the flanks of Jebel el-Kebîr, Shechem II: Portrait of a Hill Country Vale (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 28–32, 112. Extending the traditions attested in the SP and LXX, Pseudo-Eupolemus asserts that

From Israel to Judah in the Deuteronomistic Writing

37

The matter may be put differently. Even if one granted, for the sake of argument, that the authors of Ur-Deuteronomium intended for Jerusalem to be the intended designee of the place for the name of Yhwh formula, they did not indicate as much. Once a literary work is written and begins circulation, it becomes subject to different interpretations. In the hands of readers living in different times and circumstances and operating with different presuppositions and commitments, a literary work takes on a life of its own, irrespective of whatever intentions its original authors may have had. Although this is true for any literary text, it is all the more so for literary compositions with significant gaps and ambiguities, such as Deuteronomy. In short, the editors of the Deuteronomistic History had to make a case for Jerusalem as Yhwh’s chosen place. They could not simply assume it. Subscribing to a broad understanding of Israelite identity, the authors had to demonstrate that a relatively late arrival in Israelite history—Jerusalem— secured exceptional divine favor over against a series of much older and established cultic precincts. The work readily acknowledges that a variety of sites, most of them located in northern Israel, successfully hosted corporate worship.24 Gilgal (Josh 4:20; 5:1–10; 1 Sam 7:15; 11:14–15; 13:4), Shechem (Josh 8:30–35 [Mt. Ebal]; 24:1–28), Ophrah (Judg 6:7–24); Shiloh (Judg 18:31; 21:19; 1 Sam 1:3, 9, 24; 2:14; 3:23; 4:3–4, 12; 14:3; 1 Kgs 2:27), Mizpah (Judg 20:1– 2; 1 Sam 7:5, 15; 10:17–27); Bethel (Judg 20:18, 26–28; 21:2–4; 1 Sam 7:15; 10:3),

24

Melchizedek was received by Abraham at the temple of Mt. Gerizim (Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.17). It has sometimes been claimed that the aside (or gloss) in 1 Kgs 3:2, mentioning the people’s “sacrificing at the high places, because a temple for the name of Yhwh had not been built in those days,” marks a disapproval of the practice. Rather than a blanket condemnation of high place worship at any time, the comment may be better viewed as an explanation of why people were sacrificing at a variety of shrines before the temple was built. In Deuteronomistic perspective, following the timing of centralization dictated in Deut 12:8–12, Israelites were to cease worshiping at Yahwistic shrines other than the assigned site of central sacrifice, once the place for the name of Yhwh had been established. Similarly, the qualified endorsement of Solomon, namely that “although he loved Yhwh, following in the statutes of David his father, he was sacrificing and making offerings at the high places” (1 Kgs 3:3), has a similar effect, introducing and explaining Solomon’s pilgrimage to Gibeon, “because it was the great high place” (‫;כי היא הבמה הגדולה‬ 1 Kgs 3:4). Solomon is not condemned for worshiping at Gibeon. To the contrary, the Deuteronomistically edited theophany that follows (1 Kgs 3:5–14) establishes the agenda for Solomon’s reign. He is condemned, however, for building high places and worshiping other gods at these sites, once the temple had been completed (1 Kgs 11:7–8). On the problems in translating ‫ במה‬in both cultic and non-cultic contexts, see W. B. Barrick, Bmh As Body Language: A Lexical and Iconographical Study of the Word Bmh When Not a Reference to Cultic Phenomena in Biblical and Post-Biblical Hebrew (LHBOTS 477; London: T&T Clark, 2008).

38

Chapter 2

Nob (1 Sam 21:1–10; 22:6–23), and Gibeon (2 Sam 21:1–14; 1 Kgs 3:4–14; 9:2) served, at least for a time, as effective venues for corporate sacrifice and divine-human communication.25 According to tradition, several locales accommodated the ark of the covenant (Josh 7:6–9; 8:30–35; Judg 20:26–28; 1 Sam 3:3; 4:3; 6:21; 7:1–2; 2 Sam 6:3).26 To be sure, Jerusalem belongs to this list, but it is highly significant that Jerusalem comes at the list’s end. There are many debated issues with respect to the setting(s), composition, and redaction history of Deuteronomy.27 Also unclear is when legal writings, such as the Covenant Code and Deuteronomy, transitioned from being scribal teachings or collections of legal principles to literary works enjoying prestigious status among the elite.28 In any event, the promulgation of Deuteronomy as a literary work is unlikely to have led the supporters of various Yahwistic shrines in the land to cease frequenting those shrines. The concept of cultic unity was undoubtedly controversial. Other points of view are embedded within the Pentateuch. The writers of Proto-Deuteronomy would not have taken such great care to draw from and rewrite the multiple altar legislation of the Covenant Code (Exod 20:24–26), unless they recognized both the prestige of established tradition and the need to justify their innovations beyond earlier teachings.29 Whether the tradents of the Priestly tradition presupposed the validity of the centralization dogma, as Wellhausen clearly supposed, is under dispute.30 25 Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 96 [trans. Deuteronomistic History, 85]; idem, Könige 1 (BKAT IX/1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1968), 44–50; D. Edelman, “Cultic Sites and Complexes beyond the Jerusalem Temple,” in Religious Diversity in Ancient Israel and Judah (ed. F. Stavrakopoulou and J. Barton; London: T&T Clark, 2010), 82–103. 26 The point is explicitly acknowledged in the historical retrospect of Nathan’s dynastic oracle: “I have not lived in a house (‫ )בית‬since the day I brought up the people of Israel from Egypt up to the present day, but I have been moving about in a tent (‫ )אהל‬and a tabernacle” (‫ ;משכן‬2 Sam 7:6). 27 E. Otto, Deuteronomium (4 vols.; HThKAT; Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2012–2016). 28 The process likely took several centuries to complete. See G. N. Knoppers and B. M. Levinson, “How, Where, When, and Why did the Pentateuch become the Torah?” in The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance (ed. G. N. Knoppers and B. M. Levinson; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 1–19; C. Nihan, “The Emergence of the Pentateuch as Torah,” RC 4/6 (2010), 353–64. 29 B. M. Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997); idem and J. Stackert, “Between Covenant Code and Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty: Deuteronomy 13 and the Composition of Deuteronomy,” JAJ 3 (2012), 123–40. 30 J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (6th ed.; Berlin: Reimer, 1905), 35–40 [trans. of 2nd ed. (1883) by J. S. Black and A. Menzies, Prolegomena to the History of Israel (Edinburgh: A. & C. Black, 1885), 34–38].

From Israel to Judah in the Deuteronomistic Writing

39

The question is pertinent, because consideration of the Priestly tradition, however one dates its origins and development, brings the possibility of a third perspective on Yahwistic sanctuaries into view.31 Kaufmann, followed by Milgrom, contends that the legislation affecting the tent of meeting in the Priestly Writing and the Holiness Code signifies the prominence of regional sanctuaries (e.g., Shiloh and later Jerusalem).32 Reflecting a limited, rather than absolute, doctrine of centralization, the weight given to a regional sanctuary does not preclude the existence of other regional sanctuaries. Others view the portable nature of the tabernacle as a literary attempt to resist identifying the tent of meeting implicitly or explicitly with any fixed place.33 Propp goes a step further, arguing that the Priestly conception, protesting against the temple hierocracy, is inherently anti-temple in nature.34 The point, in this context, is not to decide among these disparate views, but rather to acknowledge them. It cannot be assumed that the Deuteronomistic editors shared similar concepts of centralization with the Priestly editors or that the Priestly editors simply adhered to the Deuteronomic/Deuteronomistic model.35 If the Deuteronomistic editors wished to advance the Deuteronomic conception of cultic unity and apply it to the history of Jerusalem, they would have to do so actively and deliberately, recognizing that there were competing points of view. Less clear is when exactly one or more claimants, other than Jerusalem, arose for the privileged status of being called the place for Yhwh’s name.36 31

32 33 34 35 36

The origins and date of the Priestly work have been long debated. I view it as a developing tradition, beginning in the preexilic period and extending into the postexilic period. The Holiness Code is dependent upon earlier P legislation, as well as upon Deuteronomic legislation. See C. Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus (FAT 25; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007); J. Stackert, Rewriting the Torah: Literary Revision in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation (FAT 52; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007). Y. Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel: From Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960), 175–199; J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991), 28–34. T. C. Römer, “Cult Centralization in Deuteronomy 12: Between Deuteronomistic History and Pentateuch,” in Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk, 168–80 (178–80). W. H. C. Propp, Exodus 19–40 (AB 2A; New York: Doubleday, 2006), 732. So also in J. Milgrom’s view, H allows for multiple sanctuaries, “Does H Advocate the Centralization of Worship?” JSOT 88 (2000), 59–76. For one proposal, see N. Na’aman, “The Law of the Altar in Deuteronomy and the Cultic Site near Shechem,” in Rethinking the Foundations: Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible: Essays in Honour of John Van Seters (ed. S. L. McKenzie and T. Römer; BZAW 294; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000), 141–61 [repr. Ancient Israel’s History and Historiography: The First Temple Period (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 339–58].

40

Chapter 2

The one historically attested case stemming from Samaria dates to the postexilic period, although some have argued that Ur-Deuteronomium itself has its roots in Samaria.37 Inasmuch as some northern Israelites came to embrace the standards of Ur-Deuteronomium (the date, but not the fact, is disputed), they construed its call for centralization rather differently from how Judeans did so.38 These Yahwistic Samarians also laid claim to the legacy of ancient Israel, but disagreed with the interpretation of this legacy in Judah.39 Due to a paucity of good recent archaeological excavations and a lack of surviving ancient literature, scholars are not as well informed about the religious 37

The view has had a long list of defenders: C. F. Burney, The Book of Judges with Introduction and Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings (London: Rivingtons, 1918 [repr. New York: Ktav, 1970]), xlv–xlvi; A. C. Welch, The Code of Deuteronomy: A New Theory of its Origin (London: Clarke, 1924); A. Alt, “Die Heimat des Deuteronomiums,” in idem, Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel (3 vols.; München: Beck, 1953–1957), 2.250–75; R. E. Clements, “Deuteronomy and the Jerusalem Cult Tradition,” VT 15 (1965), 300–12; F. R. McCurley, “The Home of Deuteronomy Revisited: A Methodological Analysis of the Northern Theory,” in A Light unto My Path: Old Testament Studies in Honor of Jacob M. Myers (ed. H. N. Bream et al.; Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1974), 295–317; H. L. Ginsberg, The Israelian Heritage of Judaism (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1982); S. Schorch, “The Samaritan Version of Deuteronomy and the Origin of Deuteronomy,” in Samaria, Samarians, Samaritans: Studies on Bible, History and Linguistics (SJ 66; StSam 6; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 23–37; J. Dušek, “Mt. Gerizim Sanctuary, Its History and Enigma of Origin,” HeBAI 3 (2014), 111–33; I. Hjelm, “Northern Perspectives in Deuteronomy and its Relation to the Samaritan Pentateuch,” HeBAI 4 (2015), 184–204. C. Edenburg and R. Müller provide a critical review, “A Northern Provenance for Deuteronomy?” HeBAI 3 (2015), 148–61. Some recent scholarship also credits Samaria with a major role in the formation of the Pentateuch (or Hexateuch). See, e.g., E. Nodet, A Search for the Origins of Judaism: From Joshua to the Mishnah (JSOTSup 248; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997); R. G. Kratz, “Temple and Torah: Reflections on the Legal Status of the Pentateuch between Elephantine and Qumran,” in The Pentateuch as Torah (see n. 28), 77–103; C. Nihan, “The Torah between Samaria and Judah,” in The Pentateuch as Torah, 187–223; B. Adamczewski, Retelling the Law: Genesis, Exodus-Numbers, and Samuel-Kings as Sequential Hypertextual Reworkings of Deuteronomy (European Studies in Theology 1; Frankfurt a. M.: Lang, 2012); D. R. Nocquet, La Samarie, la Diaspora et l’achèvement de la Torah: Territorialités et internationalités dans l’Hexateuque (OBO 284; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017), 97–108, 313–22. 38 Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans, 120–34; idem, “Northern Context,” 162–83. 39 If, as seems likely, the town of Bethel fell into Judahite hands in the late monarchy and remained so in the postexilic period (2 Kgs 23:4; Ezra 2:28 [//Neh 7:32]; Neh 11:31; 2 Chr 13:18–19; 15:8–9; 17:2), supporters of the Israelite sanctuary in the area of Bethel found themselves in the kingdom and, subsequently, province of Judah. It is unclear how long the Bethel sanctuary lasted, in spite of the claims that Josiah definitively destroyed it (2 Kgs 23:4, 15–18). See recently, O. Lipschits, “Bethel Revisited,” in Rethinking Israel: Studies in the History and Archaeology of Ancient Israel in Honor of Israel Finkelstein (ed. O. Lipschits, Y. Gadot, and M. J. Adams; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2017), 233–44.

From Israel to Judah in the Deuteronomistic Writing

41

history of Samaria in late Neo-Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, and Persian times as they would like to be.40 Nevertheless, given the material and literary evidence for Yahwism in Samaria, dating to the Persian and Hellenistic periods, it seems clear that the Yahwistic community had longstanding roots in northern Israel.41 The Yahwistic Samarians residing in the vicinity of Mt. Gerizim did not arise on the scene de novo.42 Indeed, the great attention the Deuteronomists devote to northern Israel represents a tacit admission on their part that they discerned fundamental ethnographic, linguistic, and cultural affinities between Judahites and Israelites, in spite of the many criticisms they leveled against northern royal cultic practices. Appreciation of this centuries-long social, religious, and historical dynamic among various Yahwists in Israel and in Judah illumines why the Deuteronomists expend so much effort to reimagine their people’s sacred geography. The particular application of the Deuteronomic usage in Kings suggests that the Deuteronomistic writers wished to make the case that what some might view as an unlikely candidate (Jerusalem), a relatively late arrival in comparison with other established cultic sites, did indeed become the singular recipient and beneficiary of divine election.43 2

From the Steppes of Moab to the City of David

To make the argument for Jerusalem, the Deuteronomistic writing creates a long narrative arc that extends from a northern Israelite centered body politic in the time of Joshua-Judges to a Judahite-centered body politic in Samuel-Kings.44 In orchestrating a centuries-long shift in which the South eventually comes to dominate the North, at least for a short time, the literary work advances a Jerusalem-centered interpretation and application of Ur-Deuteronomium. 40 41

An overview may be found in Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans, 102–20. Indeed, one reason Römer thinks the Priestly writers avoided associating the tabernacle with any particular site was to avoid tilting toward either Jerusalem or Mt. Gerizim, “Cult Centralization,” 178–80. 42 So also B. Hensel, “Die Bedeutung Samarias für die formative Periode der alttestamentlichen Theologie- und Literaturgeschichte,” SJOT 32 (2018), 20–48. 43 The considerations become particularly relevant, if one posits a major redaction, or series of redactions, of the Deuteronomistic work in the Persian period (or later). 44 Northern Israel so dominates the texts that A. Rofé argues that Joshua 1–1 Samuel 12* originally comprised a northern anti-monarchic history of Israel, “Ephraimite versus Deuteronomistic History,” in Storia e Tradizioni di Israele: Scritti in Onore di J. Alberto Soggin (ed. D. Garrone and F. Moscati; Brescia: Paideia, 1991), 221–35 [repr. Reconsidering Israel and Judah, 462–74].

42

Chapter 2

While recognizing that a variety of sacred precincts hosted Yahwistic sacrifice in the past, the writers insist that Yhwh did not instruct Israel’s leaders “to build a house for the name of Yhwh”45 at any of these locations, as he did for Jerusalem. None of these venerable sites attracted sustained divine favor to such an extent that Yhwh designated it as the “place at which he would make his name dwell.”46 But the work does more than present the temple as the fulfilment of Deuteronomy’s mandate for the unification of Yahwistic worship. It also presents the inauguration of the Jerusalem shrine as a new point of departure in Israelite history. The arrival of the temple is not simply a cultic event; it is also a historic event of the first order, a milestone in the story of Israel’s landed existence. To some extent, Israel’s temple history is evaluated, therefore, differently from its pre-temple existence. Any attempt to assess what the highpoints and lowpoints are in the Deuteronomistic work, or more broadly in the Enneateuch, needs to consider the place and role of Jerusalem and its temple in national life. The erection of what the work advertises as the long-awaited central sanctuary occurs auspiciously during an unprecedented time of international peace (1 Kgs 5:15–26). Thus, Solomon explains his plan to build a house for the name of Yhwh by telling his colleague, King Hiram of Tyre: “Now, Yhwh has granted me rest on every side (‫ ;)ועתה הניח יהוה אלהי לי מסביב‬there is neither adversary nor misfortune” (‫ ;אין שטן ואין פגע רע‬1 Kgs 5:18). The editors associate Yhwh giving rest to Solomon from all of his enemies as the realization of the divine promise of repose for Israel, the time in which Israel was instructed to build its central sanctuary (Deut 12:8–12; cf. 2 Sam 7:1, 11–16). Hence, Solomon declares during the temple dedication: “Blessed be Yhwh, who has given rest (‫ )מנוחה‬to his people Israel, just as he promised; not a single word has gone unfulfilled of every good promise he made through Moses his servant” (1 Kgs 8:56). As such, the first period in Solomon’s reign signals a decisive change in conditions over against the uncertainty and upheaval characterizing the chieftains’ period and the early monarchy. Accordingly, the work pauses to devote extensive attention to the building of the temple (1 Kgs 6:1–38; 7:13–51) and its public dedication (1 Kgs 8:1–66). The chronological notice of the temple construction, dating the building of 45

46

The Deuteronomists, who edit Kings, prefer the expression “to build a house for the name of Yhwh” (2 Sam 7:13; 1 Kgs 3:2; 5:17, 18, 19; 8:17, 18, 19, 20, 44, 48) over against the expression, “the place at which Yhwh will choose to make his name dwell” (‫המקום אשר יבחר‬ ‫ )יהוה אלהיכם בו לשכן שמו שם‬familiar from Deuteronomy (12:11; 14:23; 16:2, 11; 26:2). Differently, the temple sermon of Jeremiah (7:12) in which Yhwh avers that “at Shiloh I caused my name to dwell at first” (‫)בשילו אשר שכנתי שמי שם בראשונה‬.

From Israel to Judah in the Deuteronomistic Writing

43

the temple to 480 years after the exodus typologically ties the two together as definitive in Israelite history. In Deuteronomistic perspective, the linkage underscores the importance of the temple to Israel’s corporate life (1 Kgs 6:1).47 Additionally, the connections drawn among the exodus (e.g., 1 Kgs 8:9, 16, 21, 51, 53), the ark (1 Kgs 8:1, 3–9*), and the Jerusalem temple imply a line of cultic continuity extending over the centuries from the time of Moses to the time of the temple’s inaugural ceremonies.48 Similarly, there is simply nothing comparable elsewhere in the Former Prophets to the technical account of sanctuary construction found in Kings. The literary portrayal discusses ground plans (1 Kgs 6:2–3), the structural work carried out in stone and wood (6:4–10), the paneling and ornamentation of the nave (6:14–22), the golden gilding, furnishings, interior carvings, and furnishings of the inner sanctum (6:23–30), the carved and gilded doors to the nave (6:31–32) and courtyard (6:33–36), the courtyard works in bronze: the two columns (7:15–22), the “sea” (7:23–26), the ten stands and basins set along either side of the sanctuary building (7:27–39), and the smaller bronze and golden objects (7:40–50).49 Comparatively speaking, little attention is given to the adjacent palace complex that dwarfs the sanctuary in size and takes almost twice as long to build (7:1–12). Among other things, the extensive discussion of the temple—its structure, furnishings and décor—sets this cultic site apart from all others. In so doing, the writers redefine core features of Israel—its foundational institutions, internal power dynamics, and sacred geography. Given the inner-Israelite divisions that characterize the early monarchy, the editors underscore widespread support for the new institution. The Israelite dignitaries who assemble at Jerusalem stem from various quarters of the kingdom, all the way from Lebo-hamath to the Wadi of Egypt (1 Kgs 8:2–3, 65–66). That such a wide representation of the 47 In 1 Kgs 6:1, I am reading with the MT; LXXL: 440. 48 N. Na’aman, “The Deuteronomist and Voluntary Servitude to Foreign Powers,” JSOT 65 (1995), 37–53 [repr. Ancient Israel’s History and Historiography: The First Temple Period (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 259–73]. 49 Th. A. Busink, Der Tempel von Jerusalem, von Salomo bis Herodes: Eine archäologischhistorische Studie unter Berücksichtigung des westsemitischen Tempelbaus (2 vols.; Studia Francisci Scholten memoriae dicata 3; Leiden: Brill, 1980); W. Zwickel, Der salomonische Tempel von seiner Gründung bis zur Zerstörung durch die Babylonier (Mainz: von Zabern, 1999); E. Blum, “Der Tempelbaubericht in 1 Könige 6, 1–22: Exegetische und historische Überlegungen,” in Temple Building and Temple Cult: Architecture and Cultic Paraphernalia of Temples in the Levant (2.–1. mill. B.C.E.) (ed. J. Kamlah with H. Michelau; ADPV 41; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012), 291–316; O. Keel, “Paraphernalia of Jerusalem Sanctuaries and their Relation to Deities Worshiped therein during the Iron Age IIA–C,” in Temple Building and Temple Cult, 317–42.

44

Chapter 2

body politic participates in the festivities underscores the Deuteronomistic argument that the Jerusalem temple is a sanctuary in which all Israelites, northern and southern, have a stake: “the king and all of the descendants of Israel dedicated the house of Yhwh” (1 Kgs 8:63).50 If the provision of details about the temple architecture and furnishings distinguish the temple from other Yahwistic shrines mentioned in the work, the portrayal of the sanctuary dedication is written, at least in part, to establish the temple dedication as a turning point within Israelite history. The ascent of the ark into Jerusalem and its incorporation into the sanctum mark the beginning of a new era, because the work casts the stationary sanctuary as the divinely blessed successor to the portable palladium attributed to the age of Moses (1 Kgs 8:1–13). The hierophany, as the priests carry the ark into the sanctuary, confirms that Yhwh takes possession of the new sanctuary (1 Kgs 8:10–13). In Deuteronomistic historiography, the ark has achieved its purpose and is not mentioned again.51 Consistent with the view that the arrival of the central sanctuary signifies the arrival of a new era, the two temple blessings and dedicatory prayer carry a prospective force, distinguishing between a pre- and a temple phase of Israel’s existence within the land. That the temple dedication marks a milestone in Israelite history is evident in the first blessing, when Solomon quotes the deity. From the day I brought my people Israel from Egypt I never chose any city from any of the tribes of Israel to build a house for my name to be there and I never chose any man to be ruler over my people Israel, but I chose Jerusalem for my name (to be there) and I chose David to be in charge of Israel. (4QKgsa; cf. 1 Kgs 8:16; 2 Chr 6:5–6)52

The speech does not deny that there were better established cultic centers hosting Yahwistic worship; nevertheless, it declares that only Jerusalem is divinely 50 Yet, the text neither claims that Solomon established cultic unity, eliminating all other Yahwistic shrines (Deut 12:4–14, 17–18, 26–28), nor that he established cultic purity, eliminating all non-Yahwistic shrines (Deut 12:2–3, 29–31). 51 The lack of any overt mention during the dual monarchies hardly seems accidental (cf. Jer 3:16; 2 Chr 35:3; 2 Macc 2:4–8). 52 The MT has suffered whole-phrase haplography. On the reconstructed text, see J. Trebolle Barrera, “Light from 4QJudga and 4QKgs on the Text of Judges and Kings,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (ed. D. Dimant and U. Rappaport; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 315–24; idem, “4QKgs,” in Qumran Cave 4. Vol. 9: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings (ed. E. C. Ulrich et al.; DJD 14; Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 171–83; R. W. Klein, 2 Chronicles (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2012), 81, 88.

From Israel to Judah in the Deuteronomistic Writing

45

elect.53 The deity’s decision to choose Jerusalem as the residence for his name represents a formative turn in the narrative, the first time Yhwh speaks of having chosen (‫ )בחר‬the place for his name, rather than promising to do so (‫)יבחר‬, as he repeatedly did on the steppes of Moab.54 In the Judahite monarchy, the divine election of Jerusalem (always ‫ )בחר‬is cited at critical moments in the life of the Davidic kingdom (1 Kgs 8:44, 48; 11:13; 32, 36; 14:21; 2 Kgs 21:7; 23:27). Consistent with the deity’s designation of the Jerusalem sanctuary as the place for his name, Solomon leads a national celebration of “the Feast” (of Sukkôt; 1 Kgs 8:2, 65–66). The Deuteronomists thus draw a clear link with the observance of Deuteronomic legislation. Solomon fulfills, albeit in a specifically royal manner, one of Deuteronomy’s directives about centralizing this festival as a pilgrimage feast, lasting seven days “at the place Yhwh will choose” (‫ ;במקום אשר יבחר יהוה‬Deut 16:13–15).55 The observance of a centralized Sukkôt as part of the dedicatory ceremonies signals that a new era has begun in which the Jerusalem sanctuary appears as the abode of God’s name promised in Ur-Deuteronomium. In its promotion of the temple’s centrality to Israelite identity, the temple dedication also advances beyond the Deuteronomic template, upholding the Jerusalem sanctuary as a central site for national intercessions. The casting of Solomon’s detailed seven-petition dedicatory prayer (1 Kgs 8:22–53), bounded by two blessings (8:14–21, 54–61) and communal sacrifices (8:5, 62–64), underscores the relevance of the royally-sponsored shrine for the lives of ordinary Israelites.56 The focus on prayer complements that on a multitude of sacrifices by promoting the temple as an effective channel for divine-human 53

Although Samuel repeatedly speaks of David’s divine election (1 Sam 10:24; 16:8, 9, 10; 2 Sam 6:21), this is the only reference in Kings to do so (1 Kgs 8:16//2 Chr 6:6). 54 Previous to the temple dedication, the election formula consistently appears (in the MT) in the qal prefix (nonperfective) conjugation, ‫המקום אשר יבחר יהוה‬, “the place Yhwh will choose” (Deut 12:5, 11, 14, 18, 21, 26 14:23, 24, 2; 15:20; 16:2, 6, 7, 11, 15, 16; 17:8, 10; 18:6; 26:2; 31:11; Josh 9:7). 55 Deuteronomy does not stipulate that the feast should occur in the seventh month (MT 1 Kgs 8:2), but this notation is lacking in the LXX*. On the eight-day length of the festival in the Holiness Code, see Lev 23:33–43. On the Deuteronomistic commendation of royal responsibility for implementing Deuteronomic mandates addressed to the Israelite body politic, see G. N. Knoppers, “The Deuteronomist and the Deuteronomic Law of the King: A Reexamination of a Relationship,” ZAW 108 (1996), 329–46; idem, “Rethinking the Relationship between Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History: The Case of Kings,” CBQ 63 (2001), 393–415; B. M. Levinson, “The Reconceptualization of Kingship in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History’s Transformation of Torah,” VT 51 (2001), 511–34. 56 G. N. Knoppers, “Prayer and Propaganda: The Dedication of Solomon’s Temple and the Deuteronomist’s Program,” CBQ 57 (1996), 229–54 [repr. Reconsidering Israel and Judah,

46

Chapter 2

communication. In addressing a variety of predicaments that Israelites might experience, ranging from famine and blight to defeat in war and exile, the king repeatedly petitions Yhwh to hear the intercessions and supplications offered at or toward this house (1 Kgs 8:29, 30, 32, 34, 36, 39, 43, 45, 49, 52). The literary work thus actively encourages readers to view the shrine not simply as a site of royal or priestly prayer, but also of popular prayer. In so doing, the Deuteronomistic writing innovates beyond what the centralization legislation of Deuteronomy mandates. The subsequent theophany (1 Kgs 9:1–3; cf. 1 Kgs 3:4–13) confirms the sanctuary’s reception as a historic event in the life of the people. The resonance with Deuteronomy’s name theology is unmistakable, when Yhwh declares: “I have heard your prayer and your supplication … I have consecrated this house, which you have built to place my name there forever” (‫לשום שמי שם‬ ‫ ;עד עולם‬1 Kgs 9:3) and the resonance with Solomon’s petition for the temple is unmistakable, when Yhwh continues: “My eyes and heart will be there in perpetuity” (‫ ;והיו עיני ולבי שם כל הימים‬1 Kgs 9:3). The deity responds affirmatively to the Solomonic proposition that the sanctuary would be acceptable as the site for his name and to the repeated Solomonic petition that the eyes of Yhwh “would be open to this house” (1 Kgs 8:29, 53). 3

“Cast from My Presence”: The Promises Annulled?

Against this line of interpretation, underscoring the election of Jerusalem and the divine affirmation of the temple, it could be objected that the second theophany to Solomon qualifies, if not abrogates, the divine promises, conditioning both the sanctuary’s longevity and the people’s residence in the land upon royal and popular adherence to Yhwh’s commandments and statutes (1 Kgs 9:6–9).57 Addressing Solomon and his sons, Yhwh predicates Israel’s expulsion from the land and the destruction of the temple upon their disobedience (1 Kgs 9:6–7). Assuming the sanctuary’s ruination, 1 Kgs 9:8–9 portrays the taunts of outsiders who see the sacred precinct remains as evidence that

57

370–96]; L. J. Hoppe, “The Afterlife of a Text: The Case of Solomon’s Prayer in 1 Kings 8,” LA 51 (2001), 9–30. The composite text of 1 Kgs 9:4–9 contains a series of conditions, extending from Solomon (vv. 4–5) and Solomon and his sons (vv. 6–7) to the Israelite people (vv. 8–9). The first section (1 Kgs 9:4–5) conditions Solomon’s possession of “the throne of Israel” upon the conduct of Solomon (cf. 1 Kgs 2:3–4; 8:25–26).

From Israel to Judah in the Deuteronomistic Writing

47

“Yhwh has abandoned them,” concluding that: “They [the Israelites] abandoned Yhwh their God, who brought them out of the land of Egypt, and they took hold of other gods, worshiped them, and served them.”58 Three comments may be made in response to such an objection. First, it is true that the text subordinates residence in the land and the survival of the “exalted” house to royal and popular observance of Yhwh’s statutes and decrees.59 No institution is inviolable.60 That king and subjects alike are accountable to divinely issued commandments is a hallmark of the Deuteronomic and Deuteronomistic traditions.61 Yet, by the same token, the extended theophany does not state that the land, Jerusalem, and the temple lack any inherent or abiding value, because Israel’s possession of them is contingent upon covenantal fidelity. Second, the divine abandonment of the very sanctuary he consecrated and his cutting off Israel from the land presuppose the singular status of the temple, the land, and the people. In other words, the very terms of divine judgment confirm the earlier pronouncements about the temple’s unique status before Yhwh, much like the land and the people of Israel enjoy a unique status before Yhwh. The people’s relationship to Yhwh is affirmed in the outsiders’ reference to Israel as the nation he delivered out of Egypt (1 Kgs 9:9). Divine reprobation presupposes, in this case, divine election. Third, in Deuteronomistic perspective the humiliation wrought by sanctuary destruction and the curse of banishment from the land are devastating developments (1 Kgs 8:46; 9:7–9). Yet, these disasters, however horrific, do not exhaust, much less terminate, the temple’s relevance to Israelites. By foreseeing

58

On the use of typical Deuteronomistic phraseology, see S. L. McKenzie, The Trouble with Kings: The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History (VTSup 42; Leiden: Brill, 1991), 140. 59 So the MT of 1 Kgs 9:8 (‫)עליון‬. Supposing metathesis and a wāw/yôd confusion, Jepsen (BHS) reconstructs ‫לעיין‬, “ruins” (cf. OL, Syr., and Tg.). 60 This includes prophecy; see T. C. Römer, “From Deuteronomistic History to Nebiim and Torah,” in Making the Biblical Text: Textual Studies in the Hebrew and the Greek Bible (ed. I. Himbaza and M.-G. Roth-Mouthon; OBO 275; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 1–18. 61 A point recently stressed by J. C. Gertz, “The Partial Compositions,” in T&T Clark Handbook of the Old Testament, 293–382 (352); Schmid, Literaturgeschichte des Alten Testaments (see no. 5), 120–22 [trans. The Old Testament, 160–62]; D. Markl, “No Future without Moses: The Disastrous End of 2 Kings 22–25 and the Chance of the Moab Covenant (Deuteronomy 29– 30),” JBL 133 (2014), 711–28; L. J. Hoppe, “The Strategy of the Deuteronomistic History,” CBQ 79 (2017), 1–19.

48

Chapter 2

the people’s possible expulsion from the land, the text also addresses such a predicament. As Levenson observes, the relevance of the temple to ancient Judahites in general and to the Deuteronomistic writers in particular was not limited to its material reality.62 The sanctuary was more than a building. The temple also enjoyed a spiritual, even cosmic significance for its backers. This meant that Jerusalem and its sanctuary continued to be important to those who survived the Neo-Babylonian conquests. Even as a site of devastation, the temple remains a point of religious orientation.63 The view of the house of Yhwh as something more than simply a physical structure inheres within the depiction of its dedication. Solomon’s prayer repeatedly speaks of Yhwh hearing from the heavens the prayers of Israelites spoken at or in the direction of the Jerusalem sanctuary (1 Kgs 8:32, 34, 36, 39, 43, 45, 49). In this presentation, the temple affords the king and the people a channel of access to the divine.64 Hence, the very text celebrating the temple’s dedication speaks of the deity’s dual relationship to this edifice.65 From a Deuteronomistic vantage point, the Jerusalem temple is the place built “for the name of Yhwh” (1 Kgs 8:16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 29, 44, 48) and the place where Yhwh

62 J. D. Levenson, “The Jerusalem Temple in Devotional and Visionary Experience,” in Jewish Spirituality: From the Bible through the Middle Ages (ed. A. Green; World Spirituality 13; New York: Crossroad, 1986), 32–61; idem, Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987), 181–84. 63 Hence, the prophetic programs react to past and present circumstances in innovative ways, yet they do not begin all over again with a tabula rasa. The visions of Second Isaiah (40–55), the so-called Book of Consolation in Jeremiah (30:1–31:40), and the reconstruction prophecies in Ezekiel (34, 36, 37, 40–48), however much they differ from each other, include features, such as repopulation, a reversal in the people’s fortunes, an ingathering of the people from foreign lands, the rebuilding of Jerusalem and its temple, and the reconstitution (or reformation) of the sanctuary cultus. These visionary platforms presuppose, much like the editors of Kings do, that Jerusalem and the temple site continued to be significant, in spite of the damage done by the forces of Nebuchadnezzar. Given the realities of diasporic life and the relatively impoverished conditions of Yehud in Persian and Ptolemaic times, it is not surprising that the push to rebuild the homeland continued to be a prominent theme within a number of the Minor Prophets, K. A. Ristau, Reconstructing Jerusalem: Persian-period Prophetic Perspectives (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2016). 64 On the celestial associations of Yhwh, see Z. Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches (London: Continuum, 2001), 280–81. 65 The concept of dual divine domiciles is amply attested elsewhere in ancient Near Eastern writings; see V. Hurowitz, I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings (JSOTSup 115; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992).

From Israel to Judah in the Deuteronomistic Writing

49

“sets his name” (1 Kgs 9:3).66 Yet, Yhwh attends to the petitions of his people directed at or toward the temple from his residence in the heavens.67 That the land, Jerusalem, and the temple have enduring value, even in the event of temple destruction and forced expulsion from the land, is evident in the seventh petition of Solomon’s prayer. This final petition plays on the nuances of the verbs, ‫שבה‬, “to capture, to take captive,” and ‫שוב‬, “to turn, return, repent,” to envision Israelites repenting in “the land of their captors,” praying to Yhwh in the direction of their land, Yhwh’s chosen city, and the house, which Solomon built for Yhwh’s name (1 Kgs 8:46–51).68 A fully functioning temple, much less a native monarch, is not necessary for the petition to be efficacious.69 Jerusalem and its sanctuary are of continuing relevance, even after they have suffered devastation. The people may be compelled to live in new international circumstances within “an enemy land, far or near” (1 Kgs 8:46), but the ancestral land remains “their land,” Jerusalem remains the city that Yhwh elected, and the temple site remains an effective long-range conduit for popular prayer.70 In 66 The Deuteronomic and Deuteronomistic name theologies affirm a clear connection between Yhwh and the temple, but do not spell out precisely what the attachment of Yhwh’s name to the sanctuary comes to. M. Hundley argues that the authors deliberately leave the nature of the connection ambiguous, “To Be or Not to Be: A Reexamination of Name Language in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History,” VT 59 (2009), 533–55. 67 In his addresses to Yhwh Solomon describes the heavens as the “place of your residence” (‫ ;מקום שבתך‬1 Kgs 8:30) and as the “foundation of your residence” (‫ ;מכון שבתך‬1 Kgs 8:39, 43, 49). Yet, the text also qualifies the proposition that the heavens can serve as an adequate domicile for Yhwh (1 Kgs 8:27). 68 J. D. Levenson, “The Paronomasia of Solomon’s Seventh Petition,” HAR 6 (1982), 135–38. 69 The text is only one of three texts in Deuteronomy (4:25–31; 30:1–10) and the Deuteronomistic History to address what deportees are to do, when they find themselves in exile. See H. W. Wolff, “The Kerygma of the Deuteronomic Historical Work,” in The Vitality of Old Testament Traditions (ed. W. Brueggemann and H. W. Wolff; Atlanta: John Knox, 1975), 83–100 [repr. Reconsidering Israel and Judah, 62–78]. Each of these three passages differs in important ways from the others. That Solomon’s temple dedicatory prayer is the only one of the three to link the exiles’ behavior to their stance toward Jerusalem and its temple is not accidental, because the Solomonic prayer is the only passage of the three, which appears in the Deuteronomistic History and not in Deuteronomy itself. 70 Some have followed Noth (Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 66–72 [trans. Deuteronomistic History, 57–62]) in thinking that the Deuteronomist devalues the temple, because he putatively presents it as a place of prayer, not of sacrifice. The importance given to prayer is an important Deuteronomistic innovation, adumbrating the significance of prayer in early Judaism and early Christianity. See J. D. Levenson, “From Temple to Synagogue: I Kings 8,” in Traditions in Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith: Essays Presented to Frank Moore Cross, Jr. (ed. B. Halpern and J. D. Levenson; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981), 143–66; Hoppe, “Afterlife of a Text,” 9–30. Yet, the Deuteronomistic writing does not present prayer and sacrifice as an either/or proposition. Given that Deuteronomy (11:31–12:31) calls for the unification of Israelite worship, the abolition of all rival

50

Chapter 2

Deuteronomistic thought, the land, Jerusalem, and the temple thus make critical contributions to defining Israel’s identity and enduring legacy.71 4

From Solomon to the End of the Davidic Kingdom

We have been discussing how the Deuteronomistic writing applies Deuteronomic legislation to position Jerusalem as the divinely chosen place repeatedly promised in Deuteronomy. Recognition that the work heralds the Israelite residence in the land, the divine selection of Jerusalem, and the establishment of the temple as highpoints in the history of landed Israel illumines how the work casts the dual monarchies. Because the work portrays the temple, and no sacral institution before it, as the divinely authorized fulfillment of the Deuteronomic demand for the construction of a central sanctuary, the place at which Yhwh “sets his name,” the work treats post-dedication history differently from pre-dedication history. The issue of enforcing cultic purity (Kultusreinheit) becomes acute after the central sanctuary is constructed and accepted by the deity, as the temple builder himself discovers to his kingdom’s considerable demerit (Deut 12:2–3, 29–31; 1 Kgs 11:1–13, 31–38; 12:1–19). Precisely because Solomon wantonly violates the exclusive status of the very state cultus he founded, the northern tribes are warranted in sundering David’s political domain. In this respect, the Deuteronomists concede that Israel had a legitimate, divinely authorized, independent political status over against Judah. Finding great fault with one of Jerusalem’s legendary monarchs paradoxically advances the work’s procentralization, pro-temple agenda. The mandate for observing centralized Yahwistic worship (Kultuseinheit) becomes operative, when Yhwh grants the people rest in the land and the central sanctuary is built (Deut 12:8–12; 1 Kgs 3:2–3; 5:1–5, 15–26; cf. 2 Sam 7:1), as Jeroboam I discovers to the northern kingdom’s great demerit (1 Kgs 12:26–33; shrines (Yahwistic or not), and allows for secular slaughter, it revolutionizes earlier cultic practice. The Deuteronomistic highlighting of temple prayer as a complement to sacrifice may be viewed, at least in part, as a compensatory development responding to Deuteronomy’s centralization program. See my “Prayer and Propaganda” (see n. 56), 229–54. 71 The trope of temple centered prayers and supplications, evident in other, mainly later (Deuteronomistically influenced), texts, is too large a topic to deal with in this context. See, e.g., Isa 56:7; Ps 5:8; 84:1–13; 141:1–2; Neh 1:4–11; 11:17; 2 Chr 7:12–15; 20:6–12; 30:27; 32:20; 33:12–13, 18; 1 Esd 4:58–60; Dan 6:10–11; 9:15–19; 3 Macc 1:16–29; 2:1–20; 3:4; Pr Man 1:1–15; 11Q5 24:3–4 [11QPsa 155:3–4//Syr. Ps 3]; Josephus, Ant. 8.111–117. Josephus also retrojects the concept to the tabernacle, depicting it as a portable and itinerant temple at which God would “be present at our prayers” (Ant. 3.100).

From Israel to Judah in the Deuteronomistic Writing

51

13:1–3, 33–34; 14:1–17).72 The work freely acknowledges that the northern Israelite state cultus, like the Jerusalem temple cultus, laid claim to the exodus heritage (1 Kgs 12:28). This shared patrimony is one of many commonalities that the work acknowledges between the residents of the two states. In some contemporary reconstructions of ancient Israelite and Judahite history, the establishment of the Israelite monarchy actually antedated the rise of the southern monarchy headquartered in Jerusalem by a century or more.73 Yet, in the world of the text, the investiture of Israel’s official centers of worship at Bethel and Dan appears as a reactionary and ultimately doomed maneuver on the part of the first northern Israelite monarch, motivated by his fear that “the kingdom would revert to the house of David,” if his constituents would go up to offer their sacrifices at the house of Yhwh in Jerusalem (1 Kgs 12:26).74 Accordingly, Jeroboam establishes his own festival “like the festival that was in Judah,” for the benefit of northern residents (1 Kgs 12:32). As for the link with the exodus, the establishment of the golden calves in the state sanctuaries at Bethel and Dan recalls the ill-fated creation of the golden calf at Sinai.75 In this literary conceit, the Israelite counter-cultus was an odd amalgamation of older cults, partially derivative of the Jerusalem state cultus and partially derivative of the idolatrous counter-cultus purged at Sinai.76 By cultic criteria, the entire history of the northern monarchy is thus deemed to be flawed, because the northern kings invest and support their own 72 References to the sins Jeroboam committed and which he caused Israel to commit punctuate the Deuteronomistic commentary on the course of the northern kingdom (1 Kgs 14:16; 15:26, 30, 34; 16:13, 19, 26; 22:53; 2 Kgs 3:3; 10:29, 31; 13:2, 6, 11; 14:24; 15:9, 18, 24, 28; 17:21; 23:15). See further Knoppers, Two Nations Under God, 2.13–120. 73 See C. Frevel, Geschichte Israels (KStTh 2; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2016), 148–71, and the further references listed there. 74 Knoppers, Two Nations Under God, 2.35–44. 75 This calculation changes if one holds the position, as some do, that the Jeroboam account was written before the Aaron account(s) was/were. In that scenario, the addition of the Aaron narrative anticipates, to some degree, the Jeroboam narrative and offers an alternative in dealing with national failure. So N. MacDonald, “Aaron’s Failure and the Fall of the Hebrew Kingdoms,” in The Fall of Jerusalem and the Rise of the Torah (ed. P. Dubovský, D. Markl, and J.-P. Sonnet; FAT 107; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 197–209. On the many textual issues in the Kings narrative, see Knoppers, Two Nations Under God, 2.13–29. 76 G. N. Knoppers, “Aaron’s Calf and Jeroboam’s Calves,” in Fortunate the Eyes That See: Essays in Celebration of David Noel Freedman on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday (ed. A. H. Bartelt et al.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 92–104; C. Berner, “The Egyptian Bondage and Solomon’s Forced Labor: Literary Connections between Exodus 1–15 and 1 Kings 1–12?” in Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch: Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings (ed. T. B. Dozeman, T. Römer, and K. Schmid; AIL 8; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 211–40.

52

Chapter 2

cultic establishments, chiefly the state sanctuaries at Bethel and Dan. Applying Deuteronomy’s call for centralized Yahwistic worship at the place of Yhwh’s own choosing (Deut 12:4–14) to Jerusalem, the work finds fault with the entire course of northern Israelite history. To be sure, the writers acknowledge that the northern kingdom was much larger, more militarily powerful, and more prosperous than its southern counterpart. In their discussion of the dual monarchies, the authors also concede that Judah often functioned politically and militarily as Israel’s junior partner. Accordingly, the northern kingdom receives much more narrative attention than does the southern kingdom. Nevertheless, the editors critique each monarch to the extent that he perpetuates (or extends) the “sin(s) of Jeroboam.”77 By the application of such cultic criteria, the entire record of the Israelite monarchy is cast in a negative light. The massive amount of prophetic material incorporated into northern history comes to serve, in part, a similar purpose. The various stories about the prophets Elijah and Elisha, for instance, comprise fascinating literature in their own right, but inasmuch as these prophets are often at loggerheads with the (northern) monarchs of their own time, the tales about prophetic-royal conflicts cast aspersions on the course of northern Israel.78 Applying the standards of Ur-Deuteronomium to the Davidic kingdom, the Deuteronomists also find fault with Judahite history. To be sure, in contrast with the record of the northern monarchy, the record of the southern monarchy is mixed. As opposed to the sense of inevitable doom pervading the course of the northern Israelite monarchy, the course of the Judahite monarchy is, initially at least, open-ended. From the tenth century to the late seventh century, good kings (1 Kgs 15:11; 22:43; 2 Kgs 12:2–3; 14:3–4; 15:3–4, 34–35; 77 1 Kgs 12:30; 13:34; 14:16; 15:26, 30, 34; 16:2, 13, 19, 26, 31; 21:22; 22:53; 2 Kgs 3:3; 10:29, 31; 13:2, 6, 11; 14:24; 15:9, 18, 24, 28; 17:21–22; 23:15. 78 McKenzie, The Trouble with Kings, 81–100; M. Alvarez Barredo, Las Narraciones sobre Elías y Eliseo en los Libros de los Reyes: Formación y Teología (Publicaciones Instituto Teológico Franciscano Serie Mayor 21; Murcia: Espigas y Azucenas, 1996); M. C. White, The Elijah Legends and Jehu’s Coup (BJS 311; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997); W. Dietrich, “Prophetie im deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk,” in The Future of the Deuteronomistic History (ed. T. C. Römer; BETL 147; Leuven: Peeters, 2000), 47–65; S. Otto, Jehu, Elia, und Elisa: Die Erzählung von der Jehu-Revolution und die Komposition der Elia-Elisa-Erzählungen (BWANT 152; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2001); M. Köckert, “Elia: Literarische und religions­ geschichtliche Probleme in 1 Kön 17–18,” in Der eine Gott und die Götter: Polytheismus und Monotheismus im antiken Israel (ed. M. Oeming and K. Schmid; ATANT 82; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2003), 111–44; G. N. Knoppers and E. L. Welch, “Friends or Foes? Elijah and Other Prophets in the Deuteronomistic History,” in Enemies and Friends of the State: Ancient Prophecy in Context (ed. C. Rollston; University Park, PA: Penn State Press/ Eisenbrauns, 2018), 219–56.

From Israel to Judah in the Deuteronomistic Writing

53

18:3–6; 22:2) largely balance bad kings (1 Kgs 14:23–24; 15:3; 21:2; 2 Kgs 8:18; 16:2–4; 21:2, 21–22).79 The two types regularly alternate with positively evaluated monarchs slightly outnumbering negatively evaluated monarchs. The balanced pattern between good and bad kings ceases, however, at the end of the seventh century and the beginning of the sixth century. Each of the four post-Josianic monarchs is evaluated negatively (2 Kgs 23:32, 37; 24:9, 19).80 Manasseh (2 Kgs 21:1–18), who introduces various kinds of heteropraxis, appears as Judah’s worst king and is blamed for Judah’s eventual fall (2 Kgs 21:1–18; 23:26–27; 24:3–4).81 By contrast, neither the reforms of the earlier Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1–20:21) nor those of the later Josiah (22:1–23:30), who attempt in varying degrees to implement the mandate for centralization, prove to be enduring. Thus, the biblical writers portray monarchic Judah coming to an ignoble end, just as monarchic Israel did centuries earlier. Exile would seem to be the great equalizer, levelling the differences between the two regimes. Indeed, in

79 One of the criticisms leveled at Judahite kings, including good ones, is that they tolerate (or even build) other cult places, ‫במות‬, traditionally translated as “high places” (1 Kgs 11:8–9; 15:11–15, 35; 22:43–44; 2 Kgs 12:3–4; 14:3–4; 15:3–4, 34–35; 16:4). On the problems with the older understanding, see W. B. Barrick, “On the Meaning of ‫ּבמֹות‬/ ָ ‫ית־ה‬ ַ ‫ֵּב‬ and ‫י־ה ָּבמֹות‬ ַ ‫ ָּב ֵּת‬and the Composition of the Kings History,” JBL 115 (1996), 621–41; idem, The King and the Cemeteries: Toward a New Understanding of Josiah’s Reform (VTSup 88; Leiden: Brill, 2002). The criticism of ‫ במות‬represents another Deuteronomistic innovation beyond Deuteronomy in which ‫ במה‬rarely appears, and not with the meaning with which it has in Kings. See my “Establishing the Rule of Law: The Editing of Numbers and the Composition of the Pentateuch,” in Deuteronomy between Torah and Deuteronomistic History (ed. E. Otto and R. Achenbach; FRLANT 206; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 135–52. 80 The laconic narration of Judah’s fall in 2 Kings 24–25 is a topic in its own right. See my “History as Confession? The Fall of Jerusalem and Judah in Deuteronomistic Perspective,” in Writing, Rewriting and Overwriting in the Books of Deuteronomy and of the Former Prophets: Essays in Honour of Cynthia Edenburg (ed. I. Koch, O. Sergi, and T. C. Römer; BETL 302; Leuven: Peeters, 2019), 287–308. 81 Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 285–87; P. S. F. van Keulen, Manasseh through the Eyes of the Deuteronomists (OtSt 38; Leiden: Brill, 1996); E. Eynikel, “The Portrait of Manasseh and the Deuteronomistic History,” in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C. H. W. Brekelmans (ed. M. Vervenne and J. Lust; BETL 133; Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 233–61; K. Schmid, “Manasse und der Untergang Judas: ‘Golaorientierte’ Theologie in den Königsbüchern?” Bib 78 (1997), 87–99; B. Halpern, “Why Manasseh is Blamed for the Babylonian Exile: The Evolution of a Biblical Tradition,” VT 48 (1998), 473– 514; F. Stavrakopoulou, King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice: Biblical Distortions of Historical Realities (BZAW 338; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004); M. A. Sweeney, I & II Kings: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2007), 424–32.

54

Chapter 2

both cases, the writing accentuates the loss, positing an empty land.82 Yet, one has to examine carefully how the Deuteronomistic work couches the terms of the losses incurred by Israel and Judah. Close analysis of Kings suggests that the very definitions of the declines suffered by the united monarchy, the northern Israelite state, and the Davidic state appropriate key pronouncements of Deuteronomy to make critical distinctions between them. The very criteria Kings employs to evaluate Israelite and Judahite conduct vindicate a Jerusalem-based reading of Deuteronomy. 5 Conclusions In its depiction of Israel’s ethnogenesis within the land, the Deuteronomistic writing orchestrates and authorizes a major shift in power, prestige, and cultural patrimony from northern Israel to Judah. If the northern tribes dominate the era of the chieftains, Judah dominates the era of the united kingdom.83 The history of the monarchy is not a history of calamities, although the history ultimately ends in calamities. The literary work authorizes and defends the ascent of Jerusalem to a position of preeminence within a larger Israelite framework. The construction and dedication of the temple appears as a highlight of Israelite history, the long-awaited realization of the divine mandate delivered to the Israelites on the steppes of Moab. Even though the chosen city and its sanctuary fall under divine wrath some four centuries hence, the divine verdicts rendered against them do not erase the deity’s decision to privilege them in the first place. The evaluative judgments made about the people and their political leaders registered in the Deuteronomistic work are not self-evident; many in Israel and even some in Judah would undoubtedly disagree with them. The history of the monarchy contends for a critical distinction between Israel and Judah, even though they both end with destruction and displacement. The northern monarchy falls because of its official cult, whereas the Davidic monarchy falls in spite of its official cult. The history of Israel’s life in the land valorizes the divine election of Jerusalem and the divine affirmation of the temple in the very story of their rise and fall. The collapse of both the northern and the southern realms paradoxically confirms Deuteronomistic standards of exclusive 82

In the case of the northern kingdom the condition is temporary, given the Neo-Assyrian policy of bi-directional deportations (2 Kgs 17:24–41). The historical situation was, however, considerably more complex, Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans, 18–44. 83 Knoppers, Two Nations Under God, 1.57–134.

From Israel to Judah in the Deuteronomistic Writing

55

devotion to Yhwh, the prohibition of worshiping other gods, the enduring importance of Jerusalem to national identity, the abiding value of the central sanctuary, the abolition of rival cult places, the destruction of illicit cult objects, and the validity of the statutes bequeathed to the people by Yhwh through Moses.84 In this literary construction of historical destruction, there was nothing intrinsically wrong with the temple, Jerusalem, or the instructions Moses rehearsed to the people on the steppes of Moab. The people and their leaders fail their institutions; their institutions do not fail them.85 Recognition of the specific arguments the Deuteronomistic writers wished to make about the application of Ur-Deuteronomium to Israel’s past illumines why they alone of all the authors of the three major historical writings incorporated a major collection of laws into their work.86 For the Deuteronomistic editors, Deuteronomy should never be read without Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings.87 One provides the essential interpretive guide to understanding the other. By stressing the links among deity, people, land, and the major institutions established in the land, the work redefines the people’s historical identity beyond that sketched in Deuteronomy. It is one measure of the success of the Deuteronomistic project that most early and modern readers have taken the writing as a historical orientation for their own understanding of the past. In this respect, the common understanding of Israelite and Judahite history may be characterized as “sub-Deuteronomistic” and “sub-Chronistic.”88 It may be better to recognize, however, that the Deuteronomistic writing represents one particularly 84 For a discussion of how the work defends the temple’s unique status, while explaining its unseemly demise, see chapter 10, “On the Significance of Anti-temple Rhetoric in the Deuteronomistic History.” 85 The one notable exception is the Davidic monarchy, because a Davidide (Manasseh) is held responsible for the ruination of the Judahite kingdom and the defenestration of Davidic rule. This is one of the principal reasons why the future of the Davidic monarchy is unclear at the end of the Deuteronomistic writing, in spite of the lack of any explicit divine rejection of the Davidic dynasty and the kindnesses afforded to exiled Jehoiachin in the work’s appendix (2 Kgs 25:27–30). See chapter 8, “David’s Relation to Moses: The Contexts, Contents, and Conditions of the Davidic Promises.” 86 In an age in which the anger of Yhwh is manifest (1 Kgs 8:46; 2 Kgs 17:18; 22:13, 17; 24:3, 20), the writers ensure that survivors have both “(the book of) the torah of Moses” (Josh 8:31, 32; 23:6; 1 Kgs 2:3; 2 Kgs 14:6), that is Deuteronomy, and the historical writing applying the torah of Moses (Joshua through Kings) to guide them. 87 A point also recognized by Nihan, “The Torah between Samaria and Judah” (see n. 37), 187–223; idem, “Garizim et Ebal dans le Pentateuque,” Sem 54 (2012), 185–210. 88 K. Schmid, “Overcoming the Sub-Deuteronomism and Sub-Chronicism of Historiography in Biblical Studies: The Case of the Samaritans,” in The Bible, Qumran, and the Samaritans (ed. M. Kartveit and G. N. Knoppers; SJ 104; StSam 10; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2018), 17–29.

56

Chapter 2

formative interpretation and application of its Deuteronomic source. With a few cautious exceptions (e.g., 1 Kgs 8:46–51), the Deuteronomistic writing does not address the future in any detail.89 But the work does attempt to set the terms of debates about the future by establishing core features of historic Israelite identity, such as the divine election of Jerusalem and the temple as the place for the name of Yhwh, in fulfilment of the ambiguously phrased mandates promulgated in the old Deuteronomic law code. As such, it participates in a wider discussion among Yahwists in northern and southern Israel, and in the diaspora as well, about the cultural patrimony of ancient Israel. That discussion begun in antiquity continues to the present day. 89

See n. 69 above.

Chapter 3

Constructing the Israelite Past in Ancient Judah (II) Both the Chronistic work, comprising 1 and 2 Chronicles, and Ezra-Nehemiah, were written, when the Judean homeland was under foreign occupation during late Persian or early Hellenistic times. Chronicles was most likely composed in Jerusalem, but the situation is less clear with respect to Ezra-Nehemiah, which could have been written, at least in part, in the Babylonian diaspora.1 Without repeating the points made in the first section of chapter 1, it may be useful to point out some common features and contrasts among the three works—the Deuteronomistic History, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles—in perspective, subject matter, and coverage. The chapter will then proceed to discuss particular historiographic features of Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles in more detail. As was the case in the previous chapter, my focus will be on these works as complete writings.2 1 Some scholars would distinguish between Ezra and Nehemiah as consisting of two basically separate literary works. See, e.g., J. C. VanderKam, “Ezra-Nehemiah or Ezra and Nehemiah?” in Priests, Prophets, and Scribes: Essays on the Formation and Heritage of Second Temple Judaism in Honour of Joseph Blenkinsopp (ed. E. C. Ulrich, J. W. Wright, R. P. Carroll, and P. R. Davies; JSOTSup 149; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 55–75; B. Becking, “Ezra on the Move: Trends and Perspectives on the Character and His Book,” in Perspectives in the Study of the Old Testament and Early Judaism: A Symposium in Honour of Adam S. van der Woude on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday (ed. F. García Martínez and E. Noort; VTSup 73; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 154–79 [repr. Ezra, Nehemiah, and the Construction of Early Jewish Identity (FAT 80; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 1–23]; idem, “Continuity and Community: The Belief System of the Book of Ezra,” in The Crisis of Israelite Religion: Transformation of Religious Tradition in Exilic and Post-Exilic Times (ed. B. Becking and M. C. A. Korpel; OtSt 42; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 256–75 [repr. Construction of Early Jewish Identity, 24–42]; N. Amzallag, “The Authorship of Ezra and Nehemiah in Light of Differences in Their Ideological Background,” JBL 137 (2018), 271–97. The various contributions in M. J. Boda and P. L. Redditt (eds.), Unity and Disunity in Ezra-Nehemiah: Redaction, Rhetoric and Reader (HBM 17; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2008), discuss the issues in some detail. 2 Examples of studies, which discern redactional layers affecting the editing of both works include H. G. M. Williamson, “The Composition of Ezra i–vi,” JTS ns 34 (1983), 1–30 [repr. Studies in Persian Period History and Historiography (FAT 38; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 244–70]; idem, Ezra, Nehemiah (WBC 16; Waco, TX: Word, 1985); G. Steins, Die Chronik als kanonisches Abschlussphänomen: Studien zur Entstehung und Theologie von 1/2 Chronik (BBB 93; Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, 1995), 415–44; G. N. Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9 (AB 12; New York: Doubleday/New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), 72–100. ©  GARY N. KNOPPERS (†), Christl M. Maier and H. G. M. Williamson, 2021 |  doi:10.1163/9789004444898_005

58

Chapter 3

In an age concerned with pedigree and antiquity, Chronicles begins with an extensive exposition in genealogical form of Israel’s internal ethnic makeup and relations to other peoples (1 Chr 1:1–9:34) before reimagining the story of the Davidic monarchy centered in Jerusalem (1 Chr 10:1–2 Chr 36:23). In its discussion of the monarchy the work borrows heavily from earlier editions of Samuel and Kings, but supplements this literature with its own considerable additions and editorial interventions. The focus of Ezra-Nehemiah, by contrast, is on the Persian period community in Yehud: its origins, contours, and development. Which writing was composed first is disputed and, to complicate matters, one or more layers of editing may have affected both works.3 At a later stage within the Second Temple period the two writings were brought together, at least in one tradition of interpretation, as can be seen in the organization of the second century BCE deuterocanonical writing of 1 Esdras.4 The sequence of 1 Esdras begins with Josiah’s Passover and later reign (1 Esd 1:1–31// 2 Chr 35:1–27), the story of the last four kings of Judah and the Babylonian exile (1 Esd 1:32–55//2 Chr 36:1–21), and continues with the decree of Cyrus (1 Esd 2:1–6//Ezra 1:1–4) and the return of the first wave of returnees, accompanied by the restored temple furnishings, to Judah (1 Esd 2:7–14//Ezra 1:5–11). Although the composition of 1 Esdras reflects a particular literary context in which Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah were read together in sequence as one extended writing, most scholars believe that the two were originally separate works.5 The compositional histories of both books have been much debated.6

3 For dates given to the Chronicler’s work, see my I Chronicles 1–9, 101–17; for dates given to Ezra-Nehemiah, see D. Böhler, Die heilige Stadt in Esdras α und Esra-Nehemia: Zwei Konzeptionen der Wiederherstellung Israels (OBO 158; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997), 382–97; idem, I Esdras (IEKAT; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2015 [trans. I Esdras (IECOT; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2016)]), 16–20; L. S. Fried, Ezra: A Critical Commentary (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2015), 4–5. 4 Z. Talshir, 1 Esdras: A Text Critical Commentary (SBLSCS 50; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001); Böhler, I Esdras. 5 S. Japhet, “The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah Investigated Anew,” VT 18 (1968), 330–71 [repr. From the Rivers of Babylon to the Highlands of Judah: Collected Studies on the Restoration Period (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 1–37]; eadem, I & II Chronicles (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993), 3–7; H. G. M. Williamson, Israel in the Books of Chronicles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 5–82; Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, 72–89; R. W. Klein, 1 Chronicles (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2006), 6–10; Fried, Ezra, 2–4. 6 On the issue of editions within the Chronicler’s work, see Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, 90–100; Klein, 1 Chronicles, 11–13. On Ezra-Nehemiah, see section 2 below.

CONSTRUCTING THE ISRAELITE PAST IN ANCIENT JUDAH ( II )

1

59

Introductory Observations

Like the Deuteronomistic work, the Chronistic work is written from the vantage point of a third-person (virtually) omniscient narrator. Only in Ezra-Nehemiah does one find sustained first-person narratives and the recording of autobiographical experiences, feelings, and judgments. Hence, many scholars have talked about documentary sources, labeled the Ezra and Nehemiah memoirs, which have been selectively incorporated and edited into this book.7 But even Ezra-Nehemiah is initially set up according to a third person point of view and at critical points in the narrative, such as the reading of the torah by Ezra and 7 The definitions of these sources and the understandings of their development vary enormously. In the work of W. Rudolph, for instance, the Ezra memoir comprises Ezra 7:12–8:36; Neh 7:72b–8:18; Ezra 9:1–10:44; Neh 9:1–2, Esra und Nehemia, samt 3 Esra (HAT 20; Tübingen: Mohr, 1949), xxiv. By contrast, J. Pakkala views the original Ezra source as comprising only Ezra 7:1aβbα, 6a, 8; Neh 8:1(a)b, 2a, 3*, 9*, 10, 12a; Ezra 9:1*; 10:1bα, 2a, 3a, 4, 10–14a, 16b–17, Ezra the Scribe: The Development of Ezra 7–10 and Nehemia 8 (BZAW 347; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), 227–31. Some scholars, e.g., L. L. Grabbe, think that the Ezra memoir, if it ever existed, has been so thoroughly reworked that it is impossible to recover its original contours, Ezra-Nehemiah (Old Testament Readings; London: Routledge, 1998), 133, 152–53. J. Blenkinsopp takes the Nehemiah memoirs as basically comprising the first-person accounts in Neh 1:2–2:20; 3:33–7:5; 12:31–43; 13:4–31, Ezra-Nehemiah (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988), 46–47. To this material were added third-person accounts dealing with several of the same incidents (Neh 3:1–32; 11:1–2; 12:27–30, 44–47; 13:1–3), several lists and genealogies (7:6–72; 11:3–12:26), and editorial comments (e.g., 1:1; 12:27–29, 33–36, 41–42, 43). Some scholars, including Blenkinsopp, also see some of the first-person material in Nehemiah (e.g., the prayer in 1:5– 11a) as editorial. In his reconstruction, Williamson posits two stages in the composition of the Nehemiah memoir (the second stage containing 1:4–11; 3:36–37; 5:14–19; 6:14; 13:4–14, 15–22, 23–31), Ezra, Nehemiah, xxiv–xxviii. Like Blenkinsopp, Williamson thinks that a series of editorial additions were made to the work (e.g., Neh 10; 11:1–2, 3–20, 21–36; 12:1–26, 27–43; 13:1–3). Developing and extending the view of Williamson, T. Reinmuth distinguishes between a wall-building narrative and a memorial composition, Der Bericht Nehemias: Zur literarischen Eigenart, traditionsgeschichtlichen Prägung und innerbiblischen Rezeption des Ich-Berichts Nehemias (OBO 183; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002). Similarly, K.-D. Schunck, Nehemia (BKAT 23.2; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2009), 403–7. Some recent analyses have contended for a longer process of composition and for more editorial interventions in the first person materials. See, e.g., R. G. Kratz, Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments: Grundwissen der Bibelkritik (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 68–74 [trans. J. Bowden, The Composition of the Narrative Books of the Old Testament (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 62–68]. Similarly, J. L. Wright contends that the original Nehemiah memorial was actually quite short (a few verses), Rebuilding Identity: The Nehemiah Memoir and its Earliest Readers (BZAW 348; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004). S. Burt regards the Nehemiah memoir as a developing tradition, rather than a one- or two-stage work, The Courtier and the Governor: Transformation of Genre in the Nehemiah Memoir (JAJSup 17; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014). See, further, section 2 below.

60

Chapter 3

the centralized celebration of the Feast of Sukkôt (Neh 8:1–18), the work returns to the third-person voice. Like the Deuteronomistic History, each of these two works is concerned with Israel, however that entity may be defined, but each takes a distinctive approach to the topic at hand. Chronicles neither shows an interest in the chieftains era, in which the northern tribes dominate, nor an interest in the history of the independent northern Israelite kingdom, unless it affects the history of the southern kingdom.8 But Chronicles devotes concerted attention to a wide array of northern tribes and sub-sections thereof within its genealogical introduction to the descendants of Israel (1 Chr 2:3–8:40): Simeon (4:24–42), Reuben, Gad, and Transjordanian Half-Manasseh (5:1–26), Issachar (7:1–5), Dan (7:12), Naphtali (7:13), Manasseh (7:14–19), Ephraim (7:20–29), and Asher (7:30–40).9 Interestingly, the writing asserts tremendous internal ethnic diversity within Judah itself (1 Chr 2:3–4:23).10 The work also portrays some important encounters between Judah and Israel that are unknown to Samuel-Kings, for instance, the story of the good Samarian (2 Chr 28:9–15). Thus, Chronicles embraces a large and comprehensive, albeit variegated, concept of Israel. By contrast, Ezra-Nehemiah neither discusses the northern tribes nor mentions them. That the authors are aware of traditional regional and tribal distinctions is evident in the occasional references to Judah and Benjamin (Ezra 1:5; 4:1; 10:9; Neh 11:4, 31, 36). On more than one occasion an allusion is made to a larger Israel (Ezra 6:17; 8:35), but the text does not spell out what this comes to. Like the Deuteronomistic History, Chronicles makes mention of a liminal category of people in society: ‫גרים‬, that is, sojourners or resident aliens (e.g., 1 Chr 22:2; 2 Chr 2:16; 30:25).11 The contrast, here again, lies with Ezra-Nehemiah, which never refers to sojourners or resident aliens. Hence, the two works agree nominally in the choice of their subject matter (Israel), but disagree markedly about what Israel is. In Chronicles Israel may 8

In this context, some of the best parallels to literary conventions found in later Hebrew historiography occur in Greek historiography, J. Van Seters, In Search of History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), 8–54; G. N. Knoppers, “Greek Historiography and the Chronicler’s History: A Reexamination,” JBL 122 (2003), 627–50; R. Bichler, “Über die Periodisierung griechischer Geschichte in der griechischen Historie,” in Periodisierung und Epochenbewusstein im Alten Testament und in seinem Umfeld (ed. J. Wiesehöfer and T. Krüger; OeO 20; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2012), 87–119. 9 The mention of Dan is a textual reconstruction, Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, 453–54. 10 G. N. Knoppers, “Intermarriage, Social Complexity, and Ethnic Diversity in the Genealogy of Judah,” JBL 120 (2001), 15–30; idem, “‘Great Among His Brothers’, but Who is He? Heterogeneity in the Composition of Judah,” JHS 3/4 (2000), http://www.purl.org/jhs. 11 In 1 Chr 29:15, the term is used figuratively to apply to Israelites. See G. N. Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29 (AB 12A; New York: Doubleday/New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), 954.

CONSTRUCTING THE ISRAELITE PAST IN ANCIENT JUDAH ( II )

61

designate the eponymous ancestor, the united kingdom, the northern kingdom, and the Israelite people composed of various tribes, but importantly the term Israel is also used for Judah.12 In applying the appellative Israel to Judah, the work avers that Judah stands in continuity with the patriarch Israel, the Israel of Sinai, the Israel of the united monarchy, and the Israel of the northern tribes. In Judah the foundational institutions created during the time of David and Solomon—Jerusalem as the town chosen by Yhwh, the temple as the sanctuary chosen by Yhwh as the place for his name, and the Levites (consisting of priests and Levites) chosen by Yhwh as his officiants—all find a proper home.13 Ethnographically, Israel is greater than Judah, but Judah is Israel. The usage in Ezra-Nehemiah may be contrasted, in turn, both with the Deuteronomistic work and with Chronicles. In Ezra-Nehemiah, Israel usually refers to the “children of the exile.” Ostensibly, the work is about the gradual reconstitution of the Israelite community after the depredations of the Neo-Babylonian period, but the authors’ definition of what constitutes Israel is very circumscribed. When the writers speak of the protagonists in their story, they refer to repatriated expatriates, the ‫בני הגולה‬, “the children of the exile” (Ezra 4:1; 6:19–20; 8:35; 10:7, 16; cf. ‫ בני־גלותא‬in Ezra 6:16), ‫העלים משבי הגולה‬, “the ones who came up from the captivity of the exile” (Ezra 2:1//Neh 7:6), or more succinctly as ‫הגולה‬, “the exile(s)” (Ezra 1:11; 9:4; 10:6; Neh 7:6).14 The use of this specialized terminology is important. The authors are referring 12 G. A. Danell, Studies in the Name Israel in the Old Testament (Uppsala: Appelbergs boktrykeri-a.-b., 1946); Williamson, Israel, 87–140; S. Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought (BEATAJ 9; Frankfurt a. M.: Lang, 1989), 267–334; eadem, “People and Land in the Restoration Period,” in Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit (ed. G. Strecker; GTA 25; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), 103–25 [repr. From the Rivers of Babylon, 96–116]; T. Willi, Juda—Jehud—Israel: Studien zum Selbstverständnis des Judentums in persischer Zeit (FAT 12; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1995); S. S. Scatolini Apóstolo, “On the Elusiveness and Malleability of ‘Israel,’” JHS 6 (2006), 1–27; K. Weingart, Stämmevolk—Staatsvolk—Gottesvolk? Studien zur Verwendung des Israel-Namens im Alten Testament (FAT II/68; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014); L. C. Jonker, Defining All-Israel in Chronicles: Multi-levelled Identity Negotiation in Late Persian-period Yehud (FAT 106; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016). 13 The unique character of the people is linked to the unique character of Israel’s God, M. Lynch, Monotheism and Institutions in the Book of Chronicles: Temple, Priesthood, and Kingship in Post-exilic Perspective (FAT II/64; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014). 14 Note also the “assembly of the exile” (‫ )קהל הגולה‬in Ezra 10:8, 12–16 and the “assembly of God” (‫ )קהל האלהים‬in Neh 13:1. On the association of the “children of the exile” with Israel, see Ezra 2:1–2; 3:1; 6:16; 7:28; 8:25, 29, 35; 9:1–2, 4; 10:2, 6, 8; Neh 1:6–9; 7:72b; 9:1–2 (cf. Ezra 4:3; Neh 8:1; 10:34; 12:47; 13:18). In some instances, the term Israel is understood in a more restricted sense as referring to laity, as opposed to priests and Levites (e.g., Ezra 2:2, 70 [//Neh 7:7, 73]; 6:16; 7:7, 10, 13; 9:5; 10:25; Neh 2:10). The two meanings are by no means mutually exclusive, because the latter is a subset of the former.

62

Chapter 3

to one specific elite, ‫זרע הקודש‬, “the holy seed” (Ezra 9:2).15 The genealogical lists in Ezra-Nehemiah play, therefore, an important role in authenticating the pedigree of the émigrés to Yehud (Ezra 2:1–70//Neh 7:6–72; Ezra 8:1–14; Neh 12:1–26).16 Others, who are neither repatriates nor their descendants, are referred to as “the people(s) of the land(s).”17 The existence of such different ethnographic concepts of Israel in Persian and Hellenistic times is testimony to the diversity of viewpoints coexisting within early Judaism. Though too often typed as a period of legalistic tendencies and narrow parochialism, the era is actually witness to lively debates on a variety of core issues. The survival of both Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah and their eventual inclusion into the canon of the Hebrew Bible are testimony that not only did the members of the Judean community acknowledge diverse perspectives, but also that they honored them. Another contrast in coverage may be drawn between the Deuteronomistic History on the one hand and Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah on the other hand. Unlike the Deuteronomistic writing, which pursues a storyline that covers some six to seven centuries of continuous history, Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah focus on shorter periods of time: the Davidic monarchy (Chronicles) and the Persian period (Ezra-Nehemiah). The writers of these two Second Temple writings are, therefore, selective and telescopic in the past they choose to engage. But the focus in Ezra-Nehemiah, as we shall see, is even more particular in that it only addresses what it considers to be exceptional moments within two centuries of Persian rule.

15 Cf. ‫ זרע קדש‬in Isa 6:13. In the first-person sections of Nehemiah, traditionally referred to as the Nehemiah Memoir, the terminology differs. Nehemiah refers to his constituents as “the Judeans” (‫ ;היהודים‬Neh 1:2; 2:16; 4:1, 2, 12; 6:6; 11:4, 31, 36; 13:23) or simply as “the people” (‎‫ ;העם‬e.g., Neh 4:7 [ET 4:13]; 4:8 [ET 4:14]; 4:13 [ET 4:19]; 5:1, 13). In the account of Neh 7:5–6 a link is, however, made between “the people” and those who came up from the exile generations earlier (Ezra 2:1–70; Neh 7:6–72). 16 T. C. Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose: A Literary Approach to Ezra-Nehemiah (SBLMS 36; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988). 17 E.g., Ezra 3:3; 4:4; 9:1, 2, 11, 14; 10:2, 11; Neh 9:24, 30; 10:29, 31, 32. Cf. ‫גוי־הארץ‬/‫כל־הגויים‬ in Ezra 6:21; Neh 6:16. On the larger issues within a postmonarchic context, see recently S. Grätz, “The Adversaries in Ezra/Nehemiah—Fictitious or Real?” in Between Cooperation and Hostility: Multiple Identities in Ancient Judaism and the Interaction with Foreign Powers (ed. R. Albertz; JAJSup 11; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 73– 87; D. Rom-Shiloni, Exclusive Inclusivity: Identity Conflicts Between Exiles and the Peoples Who Remained (6th–5th Centuries BCE) (LHBOTS 543; London: T&T Clark, 2013); R. Heckl, Neuanfang und Kontinuität in Jerusalem: Studien zu den hermeneutischen Strategien im Esra-Nehemia-Buch (FAT 104; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016); B. Hensel, Juda und Samaria: Zum Verhältnis zweier nach-exilischer Jahwismen (FAT 110; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), although I do not agree with all of their conclusions.

CONSTRUCTING THE ISRAELITE PAST IN ANCIENT JUDAH ( II )

63

Whereas Joshua, Judges, Samuel-Kings, and Chronicles employ sequential tenures of Israelite leaders to structure their ordering of the past, EzraNehemiah does not do so. To be sure, Sheshbazzar, Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Ezra, and Nehemiah play the roles of governors, priests, scribes, or reformers, but the editors neither formally introduce them nor evaluate them.18 Moreover, the writers of Ezra-Nehemiah, unlike the writers of Joshua, Judges, SamuelKings, and Chronicles, do not reveal the fate of individual characters to readers. Sheshbazzar, Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Ezra, and Nehemiah appear on the scene and initiate major actions, yet at some point they disappear from view and their deaths are not recorded.19 By comparison, Kings and Chronicles provide third-person regnal evaluations and death notices for virtually every king. Finally, a contrast in the use of scriptural sources may be drawn between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah on the one hand and the Deuteronomistic work on the other hand. We have seen that the Former Prophets are written with a view, whether to a greater or lesser extent, to select standards enunciated in the old Deuteronomic law-code. Only in a few places is there compelling evidence to speak of Priestly-style textual interventions (e.g., Joshua 13–22; 1 Kings 8). The situation differs in Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah. In the case of the Chronistic History and Ezra-Nehemiah, the authors creatively draw from both Deuteronomic and Priestly(-like) legislation.20 In the case of Ezra, the value of prestigious older Israelite legislation (Priestly and non-Priestly) is openly stressed. He is said to “have set his heart to seek out the torah of Yhwh, to practice (it), and to teach statute and ordinance in Israel” (Ezra 7:10). The character, interests, and ideologies of Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles differ, but both ingeniously enlist what they present as authoritative measures to enhance the prestige of their own accounts. The exception to this pattern is, for the most part, the first-person sections of Nehemiah (the so-called Nehemiah memoir). Even when the cupbearer to the king has good warrant to cite earlier pentateuchal legislation, for example in his social reforms (Neh 5:1–13), he does not explicitly do so.21 18 An exception may be the incorporation of a long ascending linear genealogy for Ezra (7:1–5), tracing his pedigree to “Aaron the high priest.” 19 In the history of modern interpretation, this has proved to be an issue for Sheshbazzar, but especially for Zerubbabel, given that prophetic texts associate him with the mandate for (re)building of the temple. In Ezra he and Jeshua the priest both disappear from view before the temple is completed. See chapter 13, “Whodunit? The Unlikely Disappearance of Zerubbabel.” 20 See K. L. Spawn, “As It is Written” and Other Citation Formulae in the Old Testament (BZAW 311; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002) and the references cited there. 21 An exception to the exception is Nehemiah’s opening prayer (Neh 1:5–11), which alludes to passages in Deuteronomy (esp. 30:1–10), but this prayer shows evidence of being edited, if not composed, by a later hand. Another exception may be the casting of Nehemiah’s

64 2

Chapter 3

Selectivity and Segmentation in Ezra-Nehemiah

At first glance, the segmentation of the past in Ezra-Nehemiah, like that of the Deuteronomistic History, seems to be centered on the issues of statehood, God, national institutions, people, and land. The authors of Ezra-Nehemiah avoid dealing directly with the Neo-Babylonian period by citing the prophecy of Jeremiah forecasting the people’s eventual return to the land, linking preexilic times to postexilic times (1:1).22 The work neither addresses the fate of expatriates during Neo-Babylonian times nor the experiences of those who remained in the land during Neo-Babylonian rule. Nevertheless, the writing does not presuppose an empty land, as some have claimed. The opening chapters of Ezra speak ambiguously of “the people(s) of the land(s),” at least some of whom are Yahwists (Ezra 4:3). Indeed, if the land was bereft of human inhabitation, the opposition the returnees encounter from locals, as they attempt to rebuild the temple, would make little sense. The writing begins with the decree of Cyrus allowing followers of Yhwh, wherever they may be found throughout the kingdom, to journey to Jerusalem to build Yhwh a temple (Ezra 1:2–4; cf. 5:13–15; 6:3–5). Following a brief

22

last reforms in accordance with earlier legislation. See B. Becking, “Nehemiah as a Mosaic Heir: Nehemiah 13 as an Appropriation of Deuteronomy 7,” in Construction of Early Jewish Identity (see n. 1), 97–108. Again, this material evinces signs of editorial interventions. Discussions of the general social and historical context may be found in P. Briant, Histoire de l’Empire perse: de Cyrus à Alexandre (Paris: Fayard, 1996) [trans. P. T. Daniels, From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002)]; M. J. W. Leith, “Israel among the Nations,” in The Oxford History of the Biblical World (ed. M. D. Coogan; New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 276–316; A. Lemaire, “Épigraphie et religion en Palestine à l’époque achéménide,” Transeu 22 (2001), 97–113; idem, “Fifthand Fourth-century Issues: Governorship and Priesthood in Jerusalem,” in Ancient Israel’s History: An Introduction to Issues and Sources (ed. B. T. Arnold and R. S. Hess; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2014), 406–25; D. S. Vanderhooft, “New Evidence Pertaining to the Transition from Neo-Babylonian to Achaemenid Administration in Palestine,” in Yahwism after the Exile: Perspectives on Israelite Religion in the Persian Era (ed. R. Albertz and B. Becking; Studies in Theology and Religion 5; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2003), 219–35; L. L. Grabbe, A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period (LSTS 47; London: T&T Clark, 2004), 298–301; R. G. Kratz, Das Judentum im Zeitalter des Zweiten Tempels (FAT 42; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004); O. Lipschits, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem: Judah under Babylonian Rule (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 134–84; M. D. Knowles, Centrality Practiced: Jerusalem in the Religious Practice of Yehud and the Diaspora in the Persian Period (ABS 16; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006); P. van der Veen, “Sixth-century Issues: The Fall of Jerusalem, the Exile, and the Return,” in Ancient Israel’s History, 383–405; C. Frevel, Geschichte Israels (KStTh 2; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2016), 283–86; D. Laird, Negotiating Power in Ezra-Nehemiah (AIL 26; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016), 15–26.

65

CONSTRUCTING THE ISRAELITE PAST IN ANCIENT JUDAH ( II )

discussion of the first return, including the temple furnishings, under Sheshbazzar and the description of the community’s struggles to build the Second Temple, the writing proceeds to portray the migration of Ezra and his efforts to make “the scroll of the torah” the constitution of the people (Ezra 7–10).23 The actualization of the written word, whether imperial decrees or the torah, is a major theme in Ezra 1–10.24 The work concludes with the governorship of Nehemiah in the mid- to late-fifth century BCE and his efforts to defend, strengthen, and reform the province of Yehud. The work thus seems to mark a progression through much of the Persian period. Segment

Source

Dates

Sheshbazzar and the Temple Vessels Zerubbabel, Jeshua, and the Temple Mission of Ezra

Ezra 1:1–11 Ezra 2:1–6:22 Ezra 7:1–10:44;  Neh 7:72b–8:18 Neh 1:1–7:72a; 12:27–13:3 Neh 13:4–31

538–537 BCEa 520–515 BCE 458 BCE

Nehemiah’s First Term Nehemiah’s Second Term

445–433 BCEb 428–426 BCE?c

a How long the enigmatic Sheshbazzar (lacking a patronymic) served as leader (‫ )נשיא‬or governor (‫ )פחה‬of Yehud is unclear. The later retrospective on his tenure does not address the issue (Ezra 5:13–16), averring that he laid the foundation of the temple but did not complete it. b Within Neh 9:1–12:26 the corporate covenant (‫ ;אמנה‬Neh 10:1–37) evidently relates to the time of Nehemiah (Neh 10:2), whereas the other materials relate to different times. c The dates of 428–426 BCE are only an approximation. Nehemiah returned to King Artaxerxes I in his thirty-second regnal year (433 BCE). Given the substantial problems with which Nehemiah had to contend upon his return to Jerusalem, one must allow that some years elapsed between his two terms as governor. How long Nehemiah may have remained as governor in his second term is unknown, but Artaxerxes died in 423 BCE.

23

In spite of the wide mandate given to Ezra in Artaxerxes’ rescript (Ezra 7:11–26), much of Ezra’s attention centers on mixed marriages (Ezra 9:1–10:44). The compositional history of this material is rather involved, S. Grätz, Das Edikt des Artaxerxes: Eine Untersuchung zum religionspolitischen und historischen Umfeld von Esra 7,12–26 (BZAW 337; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004); G. N. Knoppers, “Beyond Jerusalem and Judah: The Commission of Artaxerxes to Ezra in the Province Beyond the River,” in Eretz-Israel—Archaeological, Historical and Geographic Studies: Ephraim Stern Volume (ed. J. Aviram, A. Ben Tor, I. Ephʿal, S. Gitin, and R. Reich; ErIsr 29; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2009), 78–87. 24 Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose; J. L. Wright, “Seeking, Finding, and Writing in Ezra-Nehemiah,” in Unity and Disunity in Ezra-Nehemiah (see n. 1), 277–304.

66

Chapter 3

Unlike the case in the Former Prophets and in the Chronistic Writing, there is no variation in the larger geo-political situation under review. The topic remains the small polity of Yehud, located on the southwestern periphery of the Persian empire. The transitions among periods or sub-periods thus have to do with something more than changes in territorial dominion or changes in the mode of governance. There is another important feature of Ezra-Nehemiah that bears close examination, namely the fact that the work is not a continuous history. Close study of the book reveals major lacunae. Between the time of the first migration narrated beginning in Ezra 1 (538–537 BCE) and the actual construction of the temple (520–515 BCE) stands a period of some seventeen years not addressed in the text (Ezra 4:23–24). The brief transitional remark, ‫ואחר הדברים האלה‬, “and after these things” (Ezra 7:1), introducing the travels of Ezra, is an understatement, because it marks a period of some 57 years since the dedication of the rebuilt temple under the leadership of the Judean elders (Ezra 6:19–22).25 There is another gap of thirteen years from the time of Ezra’s mission (Ezra 7:1; 458 BCE) to the time of Nehemiah’s arrival (Neh 1:1; 2:1; 445 BCE). An editorial attempt has been made to overcome this segmentation by placing the two together for the reading of the torah and the celebration of Sukkôt narrated in Nehemiah (Neh 7:73b–8:18), but pertaining to the time of Ezra.26 Yet, the theological accomplishment in linking the work of the one reformer to the other does not overcome the chronological gap between the two periods represented by the work of these two separate individuals.27 A final gap in the book of uncertain duration, probably a few years in number, separates Nehemiah’s first term in Yehud from the activities of his later

25

I am following the traditional chronology of Ezra (458 BCE) and Nehemiah (445 BCE). If one wished to place Ezra after Nehemiah, as some do, the work would still display one major lacuna from 515 BCE, the estimated completion of the temple, to 445 BCE, the arrival of Nehemiah, and another major lacuna from 426 BCE, the approximate end of Nehemiah’s second term, to 398 BCE, the estimated year of Ezra’s arrival in the reign of Artaxerxes II (Mnemon). 26 The penitential service (Neh 9:1–5) and so-called Levitical confession in Neh 9:6–37, which mention neither Ezra nor Nehemiah, are an additional issue, Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 167–71; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 300–19; Schunck, Nehemia, 259–82; B. Becking, “Nehemiah 9 and the Problematic Concept of Context (Sitz im Leben),” in Construction of Early Jewish Identity (see n. 1), 85–96. I am reading Neh 9:6 with the MT (lectio brevior). LXX Neh 9:6 adds “and Ezra said” at the beginning of the verse, but this lemma is likely an expansion of clarification. 27 Indeed, the conjoining of the activities of these two reformers shows an awareness on the part of an editor of the gap between the two. Similarly, Neh 12:26, 36.

CONSTRUCTING THE ISRAELITE PAST IN ANCIENT JUDAH ( II )

67

return (Neh 13:6–7).28 In short, of the approximately 112 years addressed by the book, there are gaps totaling some ninety years.29 The engagement with the past in Ezra-Nehemiah is highly selective, dealing with only some twentytwo years of Achaemenid history. The lacunae are enough to give one pause, because they may be more telling than the brief, non-contiguous periods depicted by the book. It may well be that the editors of Ezra-Nehemiah intended this work to be a history of highlights. In each of the moments depicted, the leaders who drive the action—Sheshbazzar, Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Ezra, and Nehemiah—are transplanted exiles.30 Each segment is defined by a leader, or leaders, and a major challenge or set of challenges. In many cases, opposition (more often external than internal) is encountered, but gradually overcome. The captured temple furnishings are returned from Babylon, sacrifices are resumed at the rebuilt altar, the sanctuary is built, the torah is publicly read, intermarriage is outlawed, the town wall is rebuilt, social reforms are enacted, Jerusalem is partially repopulated, and the community commits itself to upholding torah stipulations. Achaemenid rulers play a critical role in sanctioning the rebuilding of the community and are depicted largely as benefactors. Judeans exist within a number of different communities within this vast empire, but Judeans in the eastern diaspora prove especially adept in taking advantage of the imperial framework to the great benefit of the homeland community. The major opposition to initiatives in Ezra-Nehemiah stems from the peoples of the land, satrapal officials, and local rulers of neighboring regions, such as Sanballat of Samaria, Geshem the Arab, and Tobiah the Ammonite. On some occasions, the

28

Consistent with the focus on people and homeland territory, the work says virtually nothing about what Nehemiah did, while he was away from the land (Neh 13:6). 29 If one counts the priestly genealogy in Neh 12:22, which ends with Yaddua, serving in the time of Darius (likely Darius III), the gaps in coverage are even more considerable. See J. C. VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004), 44–99; L. S. Fried, “A Silver Coin of Yohanan Hakkôhen,” Transeu 26 (2003), 65–85 (Pls. II–V). 30 I am including Sheshbazzar, mentioned as the leader (‫ )נשיא‬and governor (‫ )פחה‬of early Yehud (Ezra 1:8; 5:15–16) in this list, even though he lacks a patronymic. Some argue that Sheshbazzar functions simply as another name for Zerubbabel. S. Japhet provides a thorough discussion of the problems, “Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel—Against the Background of the Historical and Religious Tendencies of Ezra-Nehemiah, I,” ZAW 94 (1982), 66–98 [repr. From the Rivers of Babylon, 53–84]; eadem, “Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel—Against the Background of the Historical and Religious Tendencies of Ezra-Nehemiah, II,” ZAW 95 (1983), 218–29 [repr. From the Rivers of Babylon, 85–95]. For the case that Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel are distinct, see VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 5–10.

68

Chapter 3

resistance stems from people within the community itself.31 In each case, the words of opponents are treated with a hermeneutic of suspicion. The episodic presentation of the past in Ezra-Nehemiah promotes a particular view of Judean life in the international context of foreign occupation. Achieving independent statehood is not necessary for the community to achieve most of its goals. On the contrary, under the auspices of the Persian authorities, the Judeans make major strides in defining and protecting their own distinctive identity. In spite of opposition, setbacks, and delays, the community with divine assistance effectively meets its challenges and presses ahead. But what about the gaps, the long periods not covered? In contrast to the detailed depictions of the progress made during 22 years of Achaemenid history, the scattered remarks made about the 90 years of community life that go unnarrated depict such times either as periods of non-accomplishment or of regression. So, for example, a narrator explains the gap in coverage from 537 to 520 BCE by noting that work on the temple ceased during this time (Ezra 4:24). Torah literate officials in Yehud speak to Ezra shortly after his arrival about the problem of mixed marriages that had been developing in the community (Ezra 9:1–2).32 Nehemiah’s decision to go to Jerusalem is justified by recourse 31 E.g., Ezra 9:1; 10:15; Neh 5:1–19; 6:10–14, 17–19; 13:4–5, 7, 17–18, 20–21, 23–28. The social context, nature, and means of this internal resistance deserve further study. See L. L. Grabbe, “Triumph of the Pious or Failure of the Xenophobes,” in Jewish Local Patriotism and Self-Identification in the Graeco-Roman Period (ed. S. Jones and S. Pearce; JSPSup 31; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998), 55–65; idem, History of the Jews, 298–301; G. N. Knoppers, “Nehemiah and Sanballat: The Enemy Without or Within?” in Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century (ed. O. Lipschits, G. N. Knoppers, and R. Albertz; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 305–31; idem, Jews and Samaritans: The Origins and History of Their Early Relations (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 135–68; Laird, Negotiating Power, 285–344, and the references listed in these works. 32 One should not suppose that this was a phenomenon (or issue) limited to the homeland. Recent study of the Al-Yahudu cuneiform texts (dating to the Neo-Babylonian and early Persian periods) indicates that intermarriage occurred among Judean commoners, who were settled in Babylonia, K. Abraham, “West Semitic and Judean Brides in Cuneiform Sources from the Sixth Century BCE—New Evidence from Āl-Yahudu,” AfO 51 (2005–2006), 198–219; eadem, “An Inheritance Division among Judeans in Babylonia from the Early Persian Period (from the Moussaieff Tablet Collection),” in New Seals and Inscriptions: Hebrew, Idumean, and Cuneiform (ed. M. Lubetski; HBM 8; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2007), 148–82; L. E. Pearce, “New Evidence for Judeans in Babylonia,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period (ed. M. Oeming and O. Lipschits; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 399–411; L. E. Pearce and C. Wunsch, Documents of Judean Exiles and West Semites in Babylonia in the Collection of David Sofer (Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 28; Bethesda, MD: CDL, 2014).

CONSTRUCTING THE ISRAELITE PAST IN ANCIENT JUDAH ( II )

69

to a report about the dire conditions there (Neh 1:3; 2:3, 5). Nehemiah speaks of Yehud’s former governors as laying heavy burdens upon their subjects (Neh 5:15).33 Similarly, he cites all kinds of mischief during his brief absence from Jerusalem to justify further reforms (Neh 13:4–13). As far as the editors are concerned, the omissions in coverage may relate to lowpoints in Yehud’s history and, as such, are unworthy of inclusion into their work. Whatever the case, they make no attempt to provide a continuous account of the Persian period. Their work comprises a local history within a local history. In Ezra-Nehemiah, selectivity in allocation of coverage proves to be a powerful device to define and categorize history. By focusing readers’ attention on select vignettes from the past, the authors establish present priorities and a larger view of how a minority community can survive in a world dominated by others. On one level, the story is all about postexilic Yehud, the struggles of its people and their renewed ties to temple, torah, town, and land. On another level, the story is all about how some members of the eastern diaspora came to influence events in Yehud over against internal resistance and local opposition. The work’s carefully segmented allocation of coverage conspires toward a well-defined view of community identity and validates the actions of one particular group within the Jerusalem elite. Over against detractors, the work shows how diasporic leaders rebuild, reform, and reclaim the community’s heritage with the support of their Persian overlords. In this manner, the work defends and promotes a certain identity for Yehud, at least an identity as the authors would like to have it. Yet, even as the work memorializes the laudatory behaviors of repatriates in their ancestral homeland, the work also acknowledges remaining challenges. The final narratives in the book, detailing problems Nehemiah faces upon his return to Jerusalem (Neh 13:4–31), intimate that the kinds of problems faced by expatriate leaders cannot simply be relegated to the past, but would likely continue in the future. 3

Selection and Segmentation in the Chronistic Writing

Like the authors of Ezra-Nehemiah, the authors of Chronicles likely write in the late Achaemenid/early Hellenistic period, but their work touches very little

33

Given that the list of former governors would include Sheshbazzar (Ezra 1:8; 5:13–16) and Zerubbabel, Nehemiah’s claim is striking.

70

Chapter 3

on the Persian era and the Hellenistic era not at all.34 Like Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles is written during a time of foreign occupation, but focuses on a past in which the community enjoyed political autonomy—the Davidic monarchy.35 Drawing from older versions of Joshua, Samuel-Kings, as well as from a variety of other earlier writings, including materials in the Pentateuch, the writers revisit the history of the Jerusalemite monarchy, an era which is for them already ancient history.36 In this respect, the Chronistic work, even more than the Deuteronomistic work, is textually oriented. Chronicles is both a new story about Israel’s past and an exegesis, reworking, and application of older texts dealing with that past. The subject of attention, as the genealogies (1 Chronicles 2–8) make clear, is a national entity of twelve (or more) geographically-dispersed tribes tied together by a common descent from a single eponymous ancestor. The authors of Chronicles focus on only two historical epochs—the united kingdom and the Judahite kingdom. The writers do not question the existence of these two eras as they appear in Samuel-Kings, but they do redefine them. The result is a shorter, less heterogeneous, and more consistent writing than the Deuteronomistic History is. The book naturally falls into three parts. Topic

Source

Genealogical Introduction The United Monarchy The Judahite Monarchy

1 Chronicles 1–9 1 Chronicles 10–2 Chronicles 9 2 Chronicles 10–36

34 The two obvious exceptions are the Davidic genealogy in 1 Chr 3:1–23, which extends well into the fourth century BCE, and the list of Jerusalem’s postexilic inhabitants in 1 Chr 9:1–34; see G. N. Knoppers, “The Davidic Genealogy in Chronicles: Some Contextual Considerations from the Ancient Mediterranean World,” Transeu 22 (2001), 35–50; idem, “Sources, Revisions, and Editions: The Lists of Jerusalem’s Residents in MT and LXX Nehemiah 11 and I Chronicles 9,” Textus 20 (2000), 141–68. For a somewhat different view, see Klein, 1 Chronicles, 259–81. 35 In the sustained interest they take in the Davidic monarchy, the Deuteronomistic and Chronistic writings may be contrasted with Ezra-Nehemiah, which takes virtually no interest in the political legacy of the Davidic dynasty; see Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, 80–82 and chapter 13, “Whodunit? The Unlikely Disappearance of Zerubbabel.” 36 Biblical sources selected and used are sometimes greatly abridged (e.g., Genesis), sometimes rewritten, augmented, and recontextualized (e.g., Samuel-Kings), but are hardly ever, if ever, explicitly cited. See chapter 5 on mimesis in Chronicles.

CONSTRUCTING THE ISRAELITE PAST IN ANCIENT JUDAH ( II )

71

As the outline indicates, the narrative portions of the literary work ignore virtually all of premonarchic history.37 References are made to the matriarchs and patriarchs, to Moses, Aaron, and Joshua, but tales about these figures are not retold from earlier scriptures. The periods of the exodus, wilderness journeys, conquest, and chieftains do not appear in this writing. To be sure, the argument has been made that the genealogical introduction constitutes an alternative narrative to that of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua of how Israel emerges in the land.38 In this theory, the genealogies present the story of an autochthonous Israel slowly developing within its own land until the time of the monarchy. It is true that the genealogies contain anecdotes about settlements,—population growth, migrations, deportations, and skirmishes—some of which are at variance with the stories found in the Enneateuch.39 But the genealogies do not comprise a separate period at all, but relate to several different periods including the ancestral era, the united monarchy, the dual monarchies, and the Persian period.40 The heavily segmented lineages in 1 Chronicles 1–9, which can be compared in some respects with the literary works attributed to the sixth and fifth century Greek genealogists, primarily deal with issues of identity, ethnicity, status, land, and relationships.41 The multi-linear genealogies function as a kind of prologue to the work—identifying the international context of the people who will be the focus of the history, addressing the relations among the many different sodalities that make up this people, detailing some of their settlements and migrations, and sketching their near and extended kinship relations.42 37 That the oblique allusion to Israel’s anarchic past in the oracle of Azariah son of Oded (2 Chr 15:1–7) refers to the era of chieftains, as many commentators claim, may be near the mark, but the references within the speech are so general that the specific historical era, if one is intended, is well-nigh impossible to ascertain. 38 S. Japhet, “Conquest and Settlement in Chronicles,” JBL 98 (1979), 205–18 [repr. From the Rivers of Babylon, 38–52]. 39 It is also true that Chronicles does not stress either the exodus or the conquest, although the work occasionally alludes to these themes, Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, 463–65. More generally, see T. C. Römer, Israels Väter: Untersuchungen zur Väterthematik im Deuteronomium und in der deuteronomistischen Tradition (OBO 99; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1990). 40 The lines of descent from Jacob/Israel are a kind of historical writing insofar as genealogies are histories of generations, but these lines of descent together do not comprise one discrete historical epoch. 41 In my judgment, the closest counterparts to the phenomenon of 1 Chronicles 1–9 may be found in the works of the Greek genealogists. The mass of ancient Greek genealogical literature was originally quite considerable, but only survives in fragmentary and testimonial form, Knoppers, “Greek Historiography,” 627–50. 42 M. Kartveit, Motive und Schichten der Landtheologie in I Chronik 1–9 (ConBOT 28; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1989); M. Oeming, Das wahre Israel: Die ‘genealogische

72

Chapter 3

In spite of beginning with the primal human (1:1) and providing a universal genealogy (1:1–54), the genealogies quickly narrow down to the descendants of the eponymous ancestor Jacob/Israel (2:3–8:40). Even so, the writers do not provide a continuous set of lineages that would cover (in genealogical form) Israel’s entire history up to the authors’ own time.43 Instead, they select (what they consider to be) a limited set of representative lineages for each of the sodalities they address.44 Within the Chronicler’s larger tribal schema—Judah, Levi, and Benjamin— the dominant tribes of the authors’ own time in late Persian/early Hellenistic period Yehud receive privileged positions and the bulk of the attention. In this respect, the cultural patrimony of Israel is centered upon these three key sodalities. Yet, as we have seen, the northern tribes remain an integral part of Israel. The work consistently displays a comprehensive, rather than a restrictive, view of Israelite identity. Insofar as Yahwists could be found in Yehud, Samaria, Idumea, Babylon, Egypt, and other lands at the time in which Chronicles was written, its large vision of Israel expressed in genealogical form provides an alternative reality to its readers.45 Because the writers take the nation’s segmentation into sundry tribes as the starting point (2:1–2) for their lineages of Israel’s descendants, the genealogies display a cyclical quality. Of greatly varying length, the individual tribal genealogies move forward in time, but the subject always returns to the offspring of the progenitor Israel.46 That the genealogies end with a list of Persian period repatriates (9:2–34) signifies a continuity between Israel’s ancient heritage and the authors’ own times. The importance of the ancestral period can also be seen in the lineages the author provides for individual families or groups. Genealogical registers appear for the priests (5:27–41) and the Levitical singers (6:1–33) as part of the larger presentation of the Levitical tribe, yet each of these lines takes the patriarch Levi as a starting point. Similarly, the Judahite lineages contain a family Vorhalle’ 1 Chronik 1–9 (BWANT 128; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1990); Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, 245–65; J. T. Sparks, The Chronicler’s Genealogies: Towards an Understanding of 1 Chronicles 1–9 (AcBib 28; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008). 43 Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, 245–65. 44 The interest in tribes, large agnatic kinship (or fictive kinship) groups or ancestral houses (‫)בית אבות‬, and families continues in the narratives about the united monarchy and the Judahite monarchy. Hence, the work that initially begins with the first person (1 Chr 1:1) and a universal perspective ends as a local history (2 Chr 10:1–36:23). 45 S. J. Schweitzer, Reading Utopia in Chronicles (LHBOTS 442; London: T&T Clark, 2007). 46 The apical ancestor is almost always called Israel, rather than Jacob. Jacob appears in only two verses (1 Chr 16:13, 17), both of which are borrowed from Ps 105:1–15 (//1 Chr 16:8–22). In both cases, the anthroponym Israel parallels Jacob.

73

CONSTRUCTING THE ISRAELITE PAST IN ANCIENT JUDAH ( II )

Topic

Source

a The peoples of the world b The tribe of Judah c Simeon and the Transjordanian tribes d The tribe of Levi c’ The northern tribes b’ The tribe of Benjamin a’ The Persian period inhabitants of Jerusalem

1 Chr 1:1–54 1 Chr 2:3–4:23 1 Chr 4:24–5:26 1 Chr 5:27–6:66 1 Chr 7:1–40 1 Chr 8:1–40 1 Chr 9:2–34a

a More elaborate schematics of various lineages and sub-lineages may be found in Sparks, The Chronicler’s Genealogies, 29–268.

tree for the descendants of David (1 Chr 3:1–23), but David’s own pedigree is traced back to the ancestor Judah (2:3–5, 9–17). In the narrative portions of their work, the authors’ selective use of periodization allows them to focus attention on the polity that is most important to them—the monarchy. Indebted to the Deuteronomistic work, the Chronistic work concentrates on the relations among land, people, deity, state, and cult.47 For this reason, the text says virtually nothing about the Neo-Babylonian period. This cannot be accidental, as a few texts in Chronicles directly touch on the Persian period. Because both the genealogies and the narratives about the Judahite monarchy end with the Babylonian deportation and announce a return from exile to the land (1 Chr 9:1–34; 2 Chr 36:13–23), the Chronistic work tilts toward the Babylonian diaspora over against the Egyptian diaspora and the Judahites who survived in the land. But what happens to the deportees in other lands is with one important exception—the temporary Babylonian exile of Manasseh (2 Chr 33:11–13)—not addressed by the work.48 47 In spite of its emphasis on centralization, the Deuteronomistic work does not devote much attention to cultic matters—how Israel worships its deity, organizes its rituals, and cares for its sacred realia. The Chronistic work rectifies this perceived deficiency by devoting much attention to the details of orthopraxis. Many of the additions in the Chronistic treatment of the united monarchy have to do with matters of priesthood, temple staffing, and central administration (e.g., 1 Chronicles 23–27). In this manner, particular understandings of how the priestly and Levitical rota should operate at the Jerusalem sanctuary during the Second Temple period are ratified by recourse to their founding during the First Temple period. 48 To take another example, following the forced deportation of the Transjordanian tribes, briefly presented in 1 Chr 5:23–26, these tribes are never discussed again.

74

Chapter 3

The historiographical interests of the writers in landed Israelite history are quite specific. They choose not to deal with the entire monarchy, but rather focus attention on the Davidic monarchy. Depicting the reign of the first king Saul as one of the lowpoints of history, the writers carry over just one scene from Saul’s entire life—the story of his tragic death in battle (1 Chr 10:1–14)— to present his reign typologically as a time of rebellion, disintegration, and national loss.49 Similarly, because the writers regard the northern kingdom as illegitimate, an unauthorized defection from the Kingdom of Yhwh in the hands of the Davidides (2 Chr 13:4–12), they do not engage its independent history.50 Hence, another major gap in attention is the northern monarchy. If allocation of coverage is an indication of authorial priorities, the united kingdom of David and Solomon represents the greatest priority. The attention devoted to this relatively short chronological period of less than a century (1 Chronicles 11–29; 2 Chronicles 1–9) is greater than that given to the entire Judahite monarchy of some three and a half centuries (2 Chronicles 10–36). Portraying the united kingdom as Israel’s most illustrious, the writers borrow heavily from Samuel-Kings, but pass over most of the negative material about David and Solomon.51 By means of omission, selection, rewriting, recontextualization, and supplementation, the authors create their own distinctive portrait of this era.52 Living in an age that treasured the past, the authors create a past that their readers could treasure. The highly fractious Israel depicted in the reigns of Saul and David in Samuel does not appear in Chronicles. Instead, a highly unified Israel repeatedly rallies around David and his divinely chosen son.53 Signifying its importance to all Israelites, the capture of Jerusalem is 49 G. N. Knoppers, “Israel’s First King and ‘the Kingdom of Yhwh in the Hands of the Sons of David’: The Place of the Saulide Monarchy in the Chronicler’s Historiography,” in Saul in History and Tradition (ed. C. S. Ehrlich and M. White; FAT 47; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 187–213; B. D. Giffone, ‘Sit at My Right Hand’: The Chronicler’s Portrait of the Tribe of Benjamin in the Social Context of Yehud (LHBOTS 628; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016), 169–228. 50 In contrast, the founding of the separate northern kingdom is presented in Kings as a legitimate enterprise, a turn of events explicitly decreed by God (1 Kgs 11:1–13, 31–38; 12:15, 21–24). 51 The stress falls on public performance—the implementation of building projects, the waging of foreign conflicts, the formation of national administrative arrangements, and the plans for constructing the house of Yhwh. Little interest is shown in private lives of leaders (e.g., David and Bathsheba in Samuel), Japhet, Ideology, 424–44, 467–91. 52 The portrayals of Saul, David, and Solomon indicate how different the Chronistic and Deuteronomistic writings are in spite of the former’s imitatio of the latter. 53 The idealization of David and Solomon may be compared to the idealization of Imhotef in Egyptian tradition. David and Solomon never come close, however, to deification. See further G. N. Knoppers, “Changing History: Nathan’s Dynastic Oracle and the Structure

CONSTRUCTING THE ISRAELITE PAST IN ANCIENT JUDAH ( II )

75

the first priority when David becomes king.54 During the reigns of David and Solomon, all of the tribes repeatedly support the movement to bring the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem and to establish a centralized sanctuary there.55 Why give so much attention to the concept of Israel at a time in which Yehud was a poor and underpopulated sub-province within a world dominated by others? Chronicles was composed during a time in which more than one community claimed to be the heir of ancient Israel. To the north of Yehud was situated the much larger and populous province of Samaria. Its Yahwists had their own temple at Mt. Gerizim, a venerated site explicitly mentioned in the Pentateuch (Deut 11:29; 27:11–13),56 and laid claim to an antique pedigree in the tribes of Joseph, Benjamin, and Levi. The claim on the name Israel by Yahwistic Samarians is evinced, for example, in the late third/early second century BCE Samarian inscription discovered on the Aegean island of Delos, mentioning Mt. Gerizim, spelled as one word as in Samari(t)an tradition (ΑΡΓΑΡΙΖΕΙΝ), and employing the term “Israelites” (ΙΣΡΑEΛEΙΤΑΙ) to refer to the Samari(t)ans, “who dispatch contributions to holy Argarizein” (ΙΕΡΟΝ ΑΡΓΑΡΙΖΕΙΝ).57 A second inscription, dating to the second half of the second century (or the early first century) BCE likewise mentions “Israelites” (ΙΣΡΑHΛΙΤΑΙ), “who dispatch contributions to holy sacred Argarizein” (ΙΕΡΟΝ AΓΙΟΝ AΡΓΑΡΙΖΕΙΝ).58 That the members of the group self-identify as Israelites, rather than as Samarians, is significant, because it confirms the importance of

54

55 56

57

58

of the Davidic Monarchy in Chronicles,” in Shai le-Sara Japhet: Studies in the Bible, Its Exegesis, and Its Language (ed. M. Bar-Asher, D. Rom-Shiloni, E. Tov, and N. Wazana; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2007), 99*–123*. To be sure, the work recognizes that things were more complicated than the order of its presentation would initially suggest, but the very reworking of David’s reign underscores the priority of Jerusalem in Israel’s corporate self-consciousness. See I. Kalimi, The Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History in Chronicles (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 18–21, 282–83; idem, An Ancient Israelite Historian: Studies in the Chronicler, His Time, Place and Writing (SSN 46; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2005), 95–112. The writers thus create a model for the geographically dispersed Israelites of their own times to rally around Jerusalem as the center of their ancestral religion, Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans, 71–101. That the former instance (Deut 11:29) closely precedes the call for centralization (Deuteronomy 12) and the latter follows the conclusion to the main law collection (Deuteronomy 12–26) is important in Samaritan tradition, Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans, 194–216. P. Bruneau, “‘Les Israélites de Délos’ et la juiverie délienne,” Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 106 (1982), 465–504; L. M. White, “The Delos Synagogue Revisited: Recent Fieldwork in the Graeco-Roman Diaspora,” HTR 80 (1987), 133–60. M. Kartveit contends that this inscription should be dated on paleographic grounds to the early second century, The Origin of the Samaritans (VTSup 128; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 218–19. Bruneau, “Israélites de Délos,” 469–74.

76

Chapter 3

the name Israel in the last centuries BCE to expatriates living far away from the homeland. The concern found in Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, and other late texts with the meaning of the name Israel should be understood, therefore, as a matter of current concern, rather than as simply a matter of historic usage or of abstract speculation. To complicate matters further, one has to recognize that there were both Judean and Samarian diasporas.59 In addition to the community in Yehud, there were Judean communities in Egypt and in Babylon.60 For the authors of Chronicles to lay recourse to the age of the ancestors and to Sinai was vital to their program, because antiquity held the key to pedigree. Yet, laying claim to the ancestors and the torah given at Mt. Sinai could not be enough because more than one community claimed that same heritage. The literary work thus makes the case that the most remote times in history were not necessarily the most important, at least in all respects. The ancestral age was important to explain Israel’s origins as a people and the Sinaitic age was important for the gift of instruction from Yhwh, but the foundational events of the united kingdom were normative for defining Israel’s major political and religious institutions.61 In this schema, the united 59

On the Samarian communities in other lands, see A. D. Crown, “The Samaritan Diaspora to the End of the Byzantine Era,” AJBA 2 (1974), 107–23; R. Pummer, “The Samaritans in Egypt,” in Études sémitiques et samaritaines offertes à Jean Margain (ed. C.-B. Amphoux, A. Frey, U. Schattner-Rieser; Histoire du texte biblique 4; Paris: Éditions du Zèbre, 1998), 213–32. 60 A. Vincent, La Religion des Judéo-Araméens d’Éléphantine (Paris: P. Geuthner, 1937); B. Porten, Archives From Elephantine (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968); I. Ephʿal, “The Western Minorities in Babylonia in the 6th–5th Centuries B.C.: Maintenance and Cohesion,” Or 47 (1978), 74–90; idem, “The Babylonian Exile: The Survival of a National Minority in a Culturally Developed Milieu,” in Gründungsfeier des Centrum Orbis Orientalis am 16. Dezember 2005 (ed. R. G. Kratz; Göttingen: Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2006), 21–31; T. M. Bolin, “The Temple of Yahu at Elephantine and Persian Religious Policy,” in The Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms (ed. D. V. Edelman; CBET 13; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1995), 127–42; F. Joannès and A. Lemaire, “Trois tablettes cunéiformes à l’onomastique ouest-sémitique,” Transeu 17 (1999), 17–34; Kratz, Das Judentum im Zeitalter des Zweiten Tempels; D. S. Vanderhooft, “New Evidence Pertaining to the Transition from Neo-Babylonian to Achaemenid Administration in Palestine,” in Yahwism After the Exile, 219–25. See also the sources mentioned in n. 32. 61 In contrast with the privileged attention given to Jerusalem, the Yahwistic shrines at Gilgal, Shiloh, Bethel, and Dan are never mentioned by name, although the northern cult is alluded to in King Abijah’s remonstration with King Jeroboam during the early divided monarchy (2 Chr 13:4–12). Mt. Gerizim, the site of the Samarian sanctuary built during the Persian period and greatly expanded during the Hellenistic period, never appears in the book. See Y. Magen, “Mt. Gerizim—A Temple City,” Qadmoniot 33 (120) (2000), 74–118 (Hebrew); Y. Magen, H. Misgav, and L. Tsfania, Mount Gerizim Excavations I: The Aramaic,

CONSTRUCTING THE ISRAELITE PAST IN ANCIENT JUDAH ( II )

77

kingdom represents a critical epoch in the history of the entire Israelite people.62 Institutions associated with Israel’s corporate identity—the Davidic dynasty, the divinely elect city, the house for Yhwh’s name, and the priestly and Levitical courses—come into being during this time. The state of Judah and, by implication, the province of Yehud in Achaemenid times represent the divinely approved continuation of the authoritative institutions established in the time of David and Solomon, which are, in turn, the divinely blessed heirs of the authoritative arrangements revealed at Mt. Sinai. The first time in which other Yahwistic sanctuaries and non-Yahwistic sanctuaries appear, aside from the mention of the Gibeon sanctuary in Benjamin serving as the temporary home of the tabernacle in the early united monarchy (1 Chr 16:39–42; 2 Chr 1:3–13), is during the speech of King Abijah to King Jeroboam and northern Israel during the early Judahite monarchy.63 There, the Judahite king decries the independent northern Israelite cultus (2 Chr 13:8–12). The first time in which other sanctuaries and cult objects are explicitly mentioned in Judah is during one of the reform periods in Asa’s reign (2 Chr 14:1). The appearance of such rival practices and symbols to the Jerusalem temple is one indication that Israel’s golden age has passed and that the divided monarchy marks a significant decline.64 The Judahite kingdom is a mixture of highpoints and low points. Commensurate with the importance given to the united monarchy, David and Solomon set the standard for all kings to follow. During this period, the tribes of Judah, Levi, and Benjamin play key roles in preserving the classical heritage bequeathed from the time of the united monarchy.65 By the same token, the Hebrew and Samaritan Inscriptions (JSP 2; Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2004); G. N. Knoppers, “What has Mt. Zion to do with Mt. Gerizim? A Study in the Early Relations between the Jews and the Samaritans in the Persian Period,” SR 34 (2005), 307–36; idem, “Revisiting the Samarian Question in the Persian Period,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period (see n. 36), 265–89. 62 If the Israel sketched in this book is a theocracy, the theocracy is a Davidic monarchy. On the larger issues, see E. M. Dörrfuss, Mose in den Chronikbüchern: Garant theokratischer Zukunftserwartung (BZAW 219; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994), 18–118. 63 Reconciling Deuteronomistic and Priestly theology, Chronicles places the tabernacle at Gibeon in the time of David (1 Chr 16:39–42). When the temple is built, both the tent of meeting and the ark in Jerusalem make their ceremonial way into Israel’s central shrine (2 Chr 5:1–14) and the Gibeon sanctuary is never mentioned again. 64 J. Tiňo, King and Temple in Chronicles: A Contextual Approach to their Relations (FRLANT 234; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010). 65 In this respect, the epoch of the Judahite monarchy is strategic to the work’s larger narrative designs. The line of cultic continuity stemming from the Sinaitic age is to be found in Jerusalem. See Schweitzer, Reading Utopia in Chronicles, 76–131.

78

Chapter 3

work never loses sight of their larger concept of Israel.66 During its history, the state centered in Jerusalem has a series of contacts with northern Israelites that do not cease with the northern kingdom’s demise. In other words, Chronicles, unlike Kings, does not depict a northern Israel bereft of Israelites. On the contrary, a northern remnant survives, maintains its Israelite identity, is the home of Yahwistic prophets, and occasionally engages in contacts with its southern neighbor. During the reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah, some members of the northern tribes even came to Jerusalem to support the Jerusalem sanctuary.67 Descendants of Ephraim, Manasseh, Asher, Issachar, and Zebulun participate in the festivals of Unleavened Bread and Passover hosted by King Hezekiah (2 Chr 30:1–27). Manasseh, Ephraim, and “all the remnant of Israel” contribute to the repair of the Jerusalem temple during the reforms of Josiah (2 Chr 34:8). And if northern Israelites were welcome to journey to southern Israel and support the Jerusalem temple throughout the monarchy, so the narrative logic suggests, there is no reason why they should not do so in later times. Indeed, in postexilic times, members of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh settle in Jerusalem (1 Chr 9:3).68 For writers working in the late Persian/early Hellenistic period, the creation of a new theological history embracing a broad concept of the people of Israel and highlighting the united monarchy had many advantages. When the writers lived, the practice of Judaism had already become an international phenomenon. Living in a variety of foreign lands for centuries, expatriates not only survived the ravages of history, but also made the necessary adjustments to sustain their lives far away from their traditional homeland. One cannot assume the realities of late Second Temple times in which Jerusalem became a central pilgrimage site for diasporic Judeans as a given and project this

66

Hence, the northern kingdom remains an integral part of Israel. See Japhet, “People and Land,” 103–25; eadem, Ideology, 308–24; Williamson, Israel, 87–140; Ben Zvi, “Inclusion and Exclusion,” 142–43; Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans, 71–101; idem, “Israel or Judah? The Shifting Body Politic and Collective Identity in Chronicles,” in Rethinking Israel: Studies in the History and Archaeology of Ancient Israel in Honor of Israel Finkelstein (ed. O. Lipschits, Y. Gadot, and M. J. Adams; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2017), 173–88; Weingart, Stämmevolk, 138–54; Jonker, Defining All-Israel, 186–90. 67 Similarly, other Judahite kings such as Asa, Jehoshaphat, and Joash appear as reformers, attempting to recover something of Jerusalem’s centrality enjoyed under David and Solomon. Conversely, regressive kings such as Ahaz (2 Chronicles 28) and Manasseh (2 Chr 33:1–20) are deemed to be Judah’s worst, because they support other cults and, even worse, shutter the Jerusalem temple. 68 This is not the case in the partial parallel of Neh 11:4. See further, Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, 494, 501.

CONSTRUCTING THE ISRAELITE PAST IN ANCIENT JUDAH ( II )

79

phenomenon back into Jerusalemite history of earlier Second Temple times.69 In spite of many different prophetic hopes of a mass return from exile, there was no mass return. Having made the many difficult adjustments to residing in foreign lands, most expatriate Judeans remained in those lands.70 To the Yahwists scattered in various locales and to the Yahwists living north of Yehud in Samaria, the authors found themselves in the position of having to make the case for the centrality of the land, town, state, and temple to their religion. Inasmuch as the torah was important to Judeans living in other lands, the work reminds those readers that the torah upholds the importance of the land, the unification of worship, the place for the name of Yhwh, and the observance of pilgrimage festivals at the site of Yhwh’s own choosing. Embracing a broad, diverse, and transtemporal concept of Israel, the writers argue that the land, Jerusalem, the Davidic legacy, the house of God, the priests and the Levites are integral to corporate identity and deserve support from all those who self-identify as Israelites. 4 Conclusions Due to the tremendous range of materials employed to depict Israel’s past in the Hebrew Bible, some modern scholars have characterized Israelite religion as being profoundly historical and have seen this historical consciousness as a distinguishing mark of the small provincial states of Israel and Judah over against their surrounding neighbors. In this way, Israelite civilization was dialectically set apart from other societies in the ancient Near East. The truth is, as many have pointed out, that numerous other civilizations in the ancient Mediterranean world were also deeply conscious of history and its value for their societies. In the ancient world to have a documented past was itself a mark of distinction. Novelty was too often the object of suspicion and mistrust.71 As for early Judean religion, the clues we gain from reading certain historical writings in the Hebrew Bible need to be complemented and complicated by 69

On the elite attempt within prophetic circles to present Jerusalem as such a center, see K. A. Ristau, Reconstructing Jerusalem: Persian-Period Prophetic Perspectives (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2016). 70 G. N. Knoppers, “Exile, Return, and Diaspora: Expatriates and Repatriates in Late Biblical Literature,” in Texts, Contexts and Readings in Postexilic Literature: Explorations into Historiography and Identity Negotiation in Hebrew Bible and Related Texts (ed. L. C. Jonker; FAT II/53; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2011), 29–61. 71 Or, as Celsus puts it, “ancient” may be equated with “wise” (ap. Origen, Contra Celsum 1.14). Indeed, as H. Chadwick argues, in Celsus’ thought nothing can be both true and new, Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition: Studies in Justin, Clement, and Origen (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966), 23.

80

Chapter 3

the important evidence supplied by legal, sapiential, prophetic, psalmic, and other writings in the Hebrew Bible, as well as by the vital evidence supplied by epigraphy, archaeology, and art history.72 These clues suggest that religious beliefs and practices were complex, shifting, and multi-faceted in character. Nevertheless, few would deny that the construction, ordering, and critical assessment of the past was an important part of the group identity constructed by ancient scribes. For these writers, discussing the past was an active, rather than a passive, process.73 The reimagining of history was both a conservative and a creative exercise. In composing their writings, the authors of the Deuteronomistic History, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles creatively differed in their definition of their subject matter (Israel), their choices of chronological coverage, and in their characterization of the periods they posited in the past, even though they agreed that possession of the land, with or without political autonomy, was a key to the very understanding of Israel’s past. Segmentation and differentiation brought depth, emphasis, and texture to the reimagining of the past, allowing authors to highlight particular eras and to draw contrasts among the consequences of various behaviors. By means of definition, differentiation, and periodization, history became exemplary in both the positive and the negative sense. History moves both forward and backward. At one level, the writings move forward, narrating the people’s relationship to Yhwh in various circumstances. On another level, the writings are backward-looking, evaluating popular and elite conduct with select reference to established communal stipulations. This is itself testimony to the prestige attached to the past in ancient Judah. If history is to move forward, it has to move backward, because the body politic has to be brought back into conformity with long-established ordinances. To be sure, the writers of the Deuteronomistic historical opus, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles differ in many of their assumptions, methods, commitments, and in their use of earlier texts. Nevertheless, it is one indication of the lure and remarkable power of history that when the community faced new challenges in the present, at least some of its scribes kept returning to the past.

72 The importance of poetic works, sapiential writings, novellas, and the like to gaining a better understanding of the diversity of early Judean life is stressed by E. S. Gerstenberger, Israel in der Perserzeit: 5. und 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (BE 8; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2005) [trans. S. S. Schatzmann, Israel in the Persian Period: The Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C.E. (BE 8; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011)]. 73 L. C. Jonker, “Reforming History: The Hermeneutical Significance of the Books of Chronicles,” VT 57 (2007), 21–44.

Part 2 Mimesis, Prophetic Succession, and Scribal Prophecy

∵

Chapter 4

Synoptic Texts, Mimesis, and the Problem of “Rewritten Bible” A common question put to me by students in introductory Hebrew Bible/ Old Testament classes is: “Why does Deuteronomy start all over again and repeat so much of what is said in Exodus and Numbers?”1 When we get to Chronicles in our survey, a common question is: “Why did the Chronicler decide to write another history in addition to that of Samuel-Kings?” Similarly, when I teach a course on Jewish and Christian Foundations, a very common question is: “Why are there four gospels in the New Testament and not just one?” The phenomenon of multiple, parallel stories is neither a uniquely New Testament issue, nor a new issue. There are many cases of parallel stories, parallel poems, parallel laws, and parallel lists in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament.2 The number of such parallels is, in fact, stunning. One thinks immediately of the extensive parallels between Samuel-Kings and Chronicles, but there are also long parallel sections between books such as Kings and Isaiah, dealing with Hezekiah and the prophet Isaiah (2 Kings 18–20//Isaiah 37–38), Kings and Jeremiah, dealing with the fall of Judah (2 Kings 25//Jeremiah 39:1–10; 52), and Genesis and Chronicles, dealing with universal and Israelite genealogies. There are also parallels between some of the Judahite lineages in Chronicles and the genealogy that appears near the end of Ruth (e.g., 1 Chr 2:9//Ruth 4:18; 2:10–17// Ruth 4:19b–22). There is an instance in which the same poem appears both within the book of Psalms and within one of the historical books (Ps 18:1–51// 2 Sam 22:1–51). A list of Levitical towns appears both in Joshua 21 and in slightly different form in 1 Chronicles 6. There are, of course, many parallels between laws found in Deuteronomy and those found in earlier law collections within the Pentateuch. There is a fascinating case in which a medley of Psalm excerpts appears within a narrative context (e.g., 1 Chr 16:8–36; cf. Ps 105:1–15; 96:1b–13; 106:1, 47–48). There are also cases in which we find significant parallels within 1 Abbreviations of ancient Greek and Roman works follow those used by the Oxford Classical Dictionary (ed. S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth; 3rd ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), xxix–liv. 2 A useful (albeit not altogether complete) set of comparisons may be found in A. Bendavid, Parallels in the Bible (Jerusalem: Carta, 1972). ©  GARY N. KNOPPERS (†), Christl M. Maier and H. G. M. Williamson, 2021 |  doi:10.1163/9789004444898_006

84

Chapter 4

a single book (e.g., the tabernacle accounts of Exod 25:1–31:17 and 35:1–40:33).3 The edict of Cyrus appears both within Chronicles (2 Chr 36:22–23) and within Ezra (1:1–4). There are actually three versions of the Cyrus edict within the book of Ezra itself (1:1–4; 5:13–15; 6:3–5). Similar, but by no means identical, lists of Jerusalem’s residents can be found in Nehemiah 11 and 1 Chronicles 9. This list of parallels could be extended with other examples, but the larger point seems clear. The synoptic problem is not simply a New Testament issue, but also an Old Testament issue. My concern in this essay is not to attempt to trace the possible lines of dependence from one particular text to another, but rather to explore the significance of the phenomenon of parallel literary works in the ancient world. Such parallels have been dealt with in a variety of different ways in the history of biblical exegesis.4 In my judgment, the fact that we have so many parallel stories, laws, poems, and lists within the Hebrew scriptures, the DeuteroCanon, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the New Testament, and the Pseudepigrapha cannot be accidental. To have one or two parallels between OT books or parts thereof would not be unusual. The existence of such a parallel or two could be explained in any number of different ways. For example, there is the possibility that two different writers were each employing a common source. Such a hypothesis seems to hold true in some cases.5 But the more parallels that exist, 3 So the MT. The situation is more complicated in the LXX insofar as the LXX account of Exod 35:1–40:33 lacks certain elements found in the MT, sometimes follows a variant order from that of the MT, and is generally shorter than the MT. See J. W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus (SBLSCS 30; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990); B. E. Bruning, The Making of the Mishkan: The Old Greek Text of Exodus 35–40 and the Literary History of the Pentateuch (PhD diss.; University of Notre Dame, 2014). W. H. C. Propp provides a helpful list of the divergences between the two accounts, Exodus 19–40 (AB 2A; New York: Doubleday/New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), 631–36. 4 M. P. Graham, The Utilization of 1 and 2 Chronicles in the Reconstruction of Israelite History in the Nineteenth Century (SBLDS 116; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990); K. Peltonen, History Debated: The Historical Reliability of Chronicles in Pre-Critical and Critical Research (2 vols.; Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 64; Helsinki: The Finnish Exegetical Society, 1996). 5 For instance, one of the few texts in Chronicles that explicitly deals with the Persian period (1 Chr 9:2–18) is partially paralleled by Neh 11:3–19. Both passages list various residents of Jerusalem, mention assorted genealogical connections of Judahites, Benjaminites, priests, and Levites, and follow a similar order. A common source seems to underlie both accounts, yet each work contains unique material contextualizing the list in its own way, G. N. Knoppers, “Sources, Revisions, and Editions: The Lists of Jerusalem’s Residents in MT and LXX Nehemiah 11 and I Chronicles 9,” Textus 20 (2000), 141–68. In Chronicles the list appears as a catalogue of returnees to Jerusalem, whereas in Nehemiah the list is associated with the results of Nehemiah’s efforts to repopulate Jerusalem. The testimony of LXX Nehemiah is also important for comparative purposes, because this text is significantly

SYNOPTIC TEXTS, MIMESIS, AND “ REWRITTEN BIBLE ”

85

the less likely that the common source hypothesis could be valid in each and every instance. To have so many clear parallels, word by word, clause by clause, sentence by sentence, pericope by pericope, and so forth indicates that at least in some instances a conscious process of reuse by one or more authors of older literary works was in play. Moreover, given the different genres represented by the parallels in the Hebrew Bible, as well as the variety of dates typically assigned to the books containing these passages, it may be safe to say that the interest in recontextualizing, developing, and supplementing older works in new works extended over a long period of time. To be sure, there seems to be more of an intensified interest in drawing upon older writings in the later biblical books, the Deuterocanonical (or Apocryphal) Books, and the Dead Sea Scrolls than there is in some of the earlier biblical materials. This intellectual interest likely stems, at least in part, from a cultural perception of the time that the writers, like their contemporaries elsewhere in the ancient Mediterranean world, were living in a postclassical world.6 But, in any case, the parallels are neither confined to one genre of literature nor to one particular period in the history of biblical composition. In this study, I would like to look at the literary technique of creative imitation (Latin: imitatio) or mimesis (Greek: μίμησις) in the classical, biblical, and ancient Near Eastern worlds to see what the employment of this technique may tell us about why ancient writers reused, retold, recontextualized, and expanded select older works in creating new compositions and how their ancient audiences may have construed the relationships among such (partially) parallel literary works. The practice of imitatio or mimesis was widespread in antiquity, but has not received the kind of sustained attention it deserves in biblical studies. Discussions of inner-biblical exegesis, rewritten scriptures, Fortschreibung, and parabiblical texts in recent decades have been very productive in illumining the different ways in which writers reworked and extended older scriptures in later scriptures. Yet, such discussions have been hampered by their limited focus on biblical texts. Many of the literary operations by which older scriptures shorter than MT Nehemiah 11. On the important differences between MT and LXX Nehemiah, see D. N. Fulton, Reconsidering Nehemiah’s Judah: The Case of MT and LXX Nehemiah 11–12 (FAT II/80; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015). 6 Greek literature dating to Hellenistic times onwards became increasingly archaistic and classicizing, neglecting earlier Hellenistic writers and the writers’ own contemporaries in favor of works in the archaic and classical periods. Much of the Greek literature stemming from this era is mimetic, drawing its inspiration not so much from its immediate predecessors as from the works of older classical writers, R. Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship: From the Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968), 203.

86

Chapter 4

were reworked are not unique to early Judaism and early Christianity, but are paralleled elsewhere in the ancient world. Analyses of the phenomenon of rewritten scriptures would profit greatly from careful consideration of the much wider phenomenon of mimetic composition in the ancient world. In recent decades, John Van Seters has written an insightful treatment of literary imitation and I would like to expand on his brief discussion, while touching on a number of additional points.7 Particularly helpful to the fields of ancient history, biblical studies, Jewish studies, and early Christian studies are the debates in the ancient classical world about the practice and goals of mimesis. Some of the issues affecting the use and abuse of literary imitation, such as sycophancy, parody, and plagiarism were discussed already in ancient times and are still valid today.8 These complications to our understanding of mimesis may be profitably discussed in this broader context. 1

Old is Good: An Overview of Mimesis in the Ancient World

The terms mimesis (μίμησις) and imitatio cover a broad range of related ways by which later writers made conscious reuse of older material.9 Mimesis basically designates a later writer’s relation of acknowledged dependence upon

7 J. Van Seters, “Creative Imitation in the Hebrew Bible,” SR 29 (2000), 395–409. For examples of how Van Seters understands literary imitation functioning within the Hebrew Bible (not all of which I agree with), see his “The Redactor in Biblical Studies: A Nineteenth Century Anachronism,” JNSL 29 (2000), 12–19; idem, Law Book for the Diaspora: Revision in the Study of the Covenant Code (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003). 8 These early discussions are abundantly documented, as we shall see, in sources stemming from the classical world. Even though the phenomenon of literary imitation is amply attested in ancient Egypt and in the city states of ancient Mesopotamia, the surviving literary evidence from these great civilizations does not furnish us with nearly as much information relating to the intellectual reflections upon and the debates about literary imitation as we can draw from classical and late antique sources. 9 There is a related, but distinct use of mimesis in antiquity. Plato (Resp. 10.595–607) and Aristotle (Poetica) use mimesis (μίμησις) to refer to the relation by which language and art represent their objects, W. J. Verdenius, Mimesis: Plato’s Doctrine of Artistic Imitation and its Meaning to Us (Philosophia antiqua 3; Leiden: Brill, 1949). However interesting and philosophically important, this particular use of mimesis lies beyond the scope of my essay. In the context of biblical studies, see, for example, E. Auerbach, Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1953); J. Licht, “Mimesis in the Bible,” in ‫הצבי ישראל‬: Studies in the Bible Dedicated to the Memory of Israel and Zvi Broide (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv School for Jewish Studies, 1976), 133–42 (Hebrew).

SYNOPTIC TEXTS, MIMESIS, AND “ REWRITTEN BIBLE ”

87

an earlier one.10 The models chosen by later writers to emulate were old dialects, well-established poems, styles of writing, and prose works that enjoyed high standing in the writers’ intellectual community.11 In mimesis, an earlier writer’s work (or works) serves as the exemplar for one’s own. That is, although a given writer may have learned from a variety of earlier writings, the writer was normally expected to focus on one particular work, one particular style of writing, or one particular kind of genre to perpetuate and extend in his or her own work.12 It was rare, however, for the mimetic writer or poet to cite his or her main source overtly. The relationship between the two works was implicit, not explicit.13 One objective in the process of imitatio was to understand and absorb the original model, while another was to develop it skillfully and imaginatively.14 One of the complaints lodged against the second-century BCE Roman playwright Terence by his elder contemporary and competitor Luscius Lanuvinus was that Terence had added material from Menander’s Perinthia (“The Woman from Perinthos”) to his adaptation of Menander’s Andria (“The Woman from Andros”). For Luscius Lanuvinus, this was an act of contaminatio, an improper

10

The point about the self-conscious reuse of an established literary work (or works) is critical, because examples of imitation involving two parties may on some occasions be perceived by a third party (but not by the second party, the one responsible for the imitation itself). Some literary critics term the kind of imitation perceived by a third party as comparatio (rather than as imitatio). So, for instance, P. Green, Classical Bearings: Interpreting Ancient History and Culture (London: Thames and Hudson, 1989), 194. 11 H. Flashar, “Die klassizistische Theorie der Mimesis,” in Le Classicisme à Rome, aux 1ers siecles avant et après J.-C. (ed. T. Gelzer et al.; Entretiens sur l’Antiquité classique 25; Geneva: Fondation Hart, 1979), 79–97. Whether one should speak of the exemplar as a code, rather than as a model (so G. B. Conte, The Rhetoric of Imitation: Genre and Poetic Memory in Virgil and other Latin Poets [Cornell Studies in Classical Philology 44; Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986], 29–31) is an intriguing proposal the discussion of which lies beyond the scope of this essay. 12 Nevertheless, it has to be acknowledged that within the ancient world there are numerous exceptions to and complications of this common practice. That is, there may be many intertexts alluded to or cited in a work that develops according to the plan of one older model, C. W. Macleod, “Horatian imitatio and Odes 2.5,” in Creative Imitation and Latin Literature (ed. D. West and A. J. Woodman; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 89–102; F. Cairns, “Self-Imitation within a Generic Framework: Ovid, Amores 2.9 and 3.11 and the renuntiatio amoris,” in Creative Imitation and Latin Literature, 121–41. 13 R. A. Derrenbacker, Ancient Compositional Practices and the Synoptic Problem (BETL 186; Leuven: Peeters, 2005), 44–46, 51–76. 14 Flashar, “Theorie der Mimesis,” 83–95.

88

Chapter 4

importation of alien elements from one literary work into another.15 To be sure, there are certain complex genres, such as historiography, that can themselves incorporate several genres or sub-genres. Hence, the Chronistic work, which imitates, in part, the Deuteronomistic History, or more broadly the Primary History (the Enneateuch), incorporates a variety of literary sub-genres— poems, lists, speeches, prayers, and genealogies—just like its exemplar does.16 The larger point is, however, that mimesis does not normally operate on a globally intertextual level, but more with a view to extending and developing an established model. In one respect, mimesis is similar to the fashioning of a summary or “epitome” (ἐπιτομὴ) of an older work, because both involve the studious reuse of at least one older, well-known literary writing.17 Beginning in the Hellenistic period, it was common for some writers to compose convenient abridgements or potted histories of much longer works.18 Nevertheless, the literary technique of epitomizing long writings is substantially different from the literary technique of mimesis. The former simply involves the condensation of an older work, but the latter involves the selective reuse, reworking, supplementation, and recontextualization of older material such that the borrowed material is recreated as the borrower’s “own property” (privati iuris) in a new work.19 15 This information stems from the prologue Terence wrote for his version of Andria (lines 9–14), as well as from the prologue to his play, H(e)autontimorumenos (“The Self-Tormentor”), 16–34. This aesthetic expectation on the part of Luscius Lanuvinus was not universally shared, however, in the ancient world. See also section 4 below. 16 Moreover, the Chronicler’s intertextual allusions are not confined to his selective reuse of Samuel-Kings (see n. 5). His work is also informed by a variety of earlier biblical texts. Citations from or allusions to Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Psalms appear in the work, G. N. Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9 (AB 12; New York: Doubleday/New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), 66–71. 17 In the history of early biblical interpretation, this epithet was applied to Chronicles. The Chronicler’s reuse of a wide variety of earlier biblical writings led St. Jerome to comment: “The book of Chronicles, the epitome of the old dispensation, is of such quality and importance that if anyone wishes to claim knowledge of the scriptures apart from it, he should laugh at himself” (Ep. 53.8). See further G. N. Knoppers and P. B. Harvey, “Omitted and Remaining Matters: On the Names Given to the Book of Chronicles in Antiquity,” JBL 121 (2002), 227–43. 18 The editor of 2 Maccabees claims as much for his work, putatively an abridgement of a much longer five-volume work by Jason of Cyrene (2:19–32). Yet, D. R. Schwartz argues that the writer was an author, rather than simply an epitomator, because he interpolated a series of his own contributions into the older work, 2 Maccabees (CEJL; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008), 16–37, 170–81. On epitome preparation, see further Derrenbacker, Ancient Compositional Practices, 66–69. 19 Horace, Ars 131.

SYNOPTIC TEXTS, MIMESIS, AND “ REWRITTEN BIBLE ”

89

In some respects, mimesis resembles what scholars have called innerbiblical exegesis in that inner-biblical exegesis also involves the conscious reuse and reinterpretation of an older text.20 There is clear overlap between the two phenomena. But whereas inner-scriptural interpretation can center on the citation and reuse of something as small as a phrase or a clause, imitation usually involves something as broad as the continuation and perpetuation of a genre, the reuse of an older style of writing poetry, a sustained use of archaizing language, or the extensive reuse of dramatic and narrative texts. Moreover, in the process of mimesis a writer is expected to go beyond interpreting and commenting on an inherited literary work, although such an exercise is certainly part of the picture. In mimesis, one also actively produces one’s own new and distinctive literary work. In literary imitation, the new work may even compete with or rival the established work. As Russell comments, in mimesis one should create one’s own distinctive work by selecting from and modifying the model and “at all costs” avoid “treading precisely and timidly in the footprints of the man in front.”21 Although mimesis is attested in a variety of ancient Mediterranean cultures, the best and most fully documented evidence for what ancient writers thought about the literary technique stems from the classical world. In classical antiquity, ancient imitation is usually directed to an author (or authors) grouped together by genre.22 The genres need not to be the same. Thus, Herodotus incorporates and develops a series of epic conventions from Homer, even though the genre of Herodotus’ work differs markedly from that of

20 This phenomenon has received careful attention in recent decades. See, for instance, T. Willi, Die Chronik als Auslegung; Untersuchungen zur literarischen Gestaltung der historischen Überlieferung Israels (FRLANT 106; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972); M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985); J. L. Kugel, “Early Interpretation: The Common Background of Late Forms of Biblical Exegesis,” in Early Biblical Interpretation (ed. J. L. Kugel and R. A. Greer; Library of Early Christianity 3; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 9–106; M. Z. Brettler, The Creation of History in Ancient Israel (London: Routledge, 1995); B. M. Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997); B. D. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998); I. Kalimi, Early Jewish Exegesis and Theological Controversy: Studies in Scriptures in the Shadow of Internal and External Controversies (Jewish and Christian Heritage Series 2; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2002); J. Schaper, “Rereading the Law: Inner-biblical Exegesis of the Divine Oracles in Ezekiel 44 and Isaiah 56,” in Recht und Ethik im Alten Testament (ed. B. M. Levinson and E. Otto; Altes Testament und Moderne 13; Münster: Lit Verlag, 2004), 125–44. 21 D. A. Russell, “De Imitatione,” in Creative Imitation and Latin Literature (see n. 12), 16. 22 G. B. Conte and G. W. Most, “Imitatio,” in Oxford Classical Dictionary (see n. 1), 749.

90

Chapter 4

Homer.23 Virgil also draws on Homer, while Ovid draws upon Virgil.24 In the first century BCE, Sallust develops a style based on pre-classical writers and in particular on the style of the elder Cato (Censorius). In later centuries, Arruntius, among many others, imitates the style of Sallust.25 In the first century BCE, Lucretius freely adopts a style patterned after that of the third- to secondcentury BCE poet Quintus Ennius.26 The third- to fourth-century CE teacher of rhetoric Arnobius, in turn, models his style after Lucretius.27 These few examples reveal that mimesis involves more than simply alluding to or borrowing from one isolated feature in an earlier work. Conte and Most write that imitatio is “the study and conspicuous deployment of features recognizably characteristic of a canonical author’s style or content, so as to define one’s own generic affiliation.”28 The use by these scholars working in classical studies of the term, “canonical author,” is deliberate. Mimesis works best when readers or listeners can readily recognize the model being imitated. To be eligible to serve as a model, a literary work needs to become well-known and established in the writer’s broader intellectual community.29 In his studies on literary criticism in the ancient classical world, Donald Russell provides a longer definition of imitatio involving a series of five principles. 1) One should choose an appropriate model to imitate (the object must be worth imitating). 2) The imitation should be tacitly acknowledged as an imitation and be recognizable as such.

23 K. L. Bratt, Herodotus’ Oriental Monarchs and their Counsellors: A Study in Typical Narration (PhD diss.; Princeton University, 1985); S. Hornblower, “Introduction,” in Greek Historiography (ed. S. Hornblower; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 65–67. 24 Homer’s widespread influence on later writers is captured in the title of the short study of W. J. Verdenius, Homer, the Educator of the Greeks (Mededelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, afd. Letterkunde [Nieuwe Reeks] 33/5; Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing, 1970). 25 Seneca the Younger, Ep. 114.17–19. 26 The Annales of the early Latin poet Ennius were closely studied by a variety of writers including Cicero, Catullus, Virgil, Ovid, and Lucan. Ennius himself was very much affected by past usage, having rendered Euripidean language in Latin for his (tragic) dramatic scripts. Awareness—and heightened appreciation—of what Ennius does depends, of course, on the reader’s knowledge of the Greek original. 27 P. R. Hardie, “Classicism,” in Oxford Classical Dictionary (see n. 1), 336. 28 Conte and Most, “Imitatio,” 749. 29 Hence, D. M. Carr speaks of transgenerational, “long-duration” works, literary writings that a given community holds to be worthy of preservation, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 10.

SYNOPTIC TEXTS, MIMESIS, AND “ REWRITTEN BIBLE ”

91

3)

One should avoid slavish copying in content or style; the writer should make his or her mark on the material and so make the borrowing his or her own property. This should include providing a new literary setting and meaning to the borrowed material. 4) What should be imitated should not be simply one particular feature of the older work, but a sign of the general excellence perceived in the model which could be achieved anew in a fresh setting. 5) One may aspire to compete with the established model and even offer a rival version of the borrowed work.30 At this point in the discussion, one might inquire as to what benefits a writer might gain from so closely studying and emulating a prestigious literary work. Would not it make more sense for a new writer simply to begin afresh and compose a work with no implicit or explicit ties to previous literary works? Would not a concentrated dedication to understanding, absorbing, and imitating the achievements of the past detract from one’s own artistic efforts? Such questions are perfectly understandable and, as we shall see, were raised by some ancients themselves. Indeed, some did not seem overly receptive to or cognizant of the tradition of mimesis. Yet, at least for some others, the questions may assume too much. That is, the extent to which ancient authors, poets, and artists could begin from scratch (or would want to do so) with no ties to past traditions or styles may be avidly debated.31 It may also not have been an easy task for writers, poets, and artists to establish themselves without the support of patrons, teachers, and sponsors, who themselves had ties to or preferences for certain earlier works.32 In any case, the author employing literary imitation could benefit in different ways from exploiting this form of composition. The association with a well-established and much-admired composition could bring luster to one’s own creation. The idea, according to Seneca the Elder was “not so much to pilfer, but to borrow openly in the hope of being noticed.”33 In a world that valued antiquity, such a 30 This list is compiled from two separate treatments of Russell: “De Imitatione,” 16, and Criticism in Antiquity (London: Duckworth, 1981), 112–13. 31 Indeed, there are some, e.g., A. K. Petersen, who argue that every literary composition engages, whether implicitly or explicitly, antecedent texts, “Textual Fidelity, Elaboration, Supersession or Encroachment? Typological Reflections on the Phenomenon of Rewritten Scripture,” in Rewritten Bible after Fifty Years: Texts, Terms, or Techniques? A Last Dialogue with Geza Vermes (ed. J. Zsengellér; JSJSup 166; Leiden: Brill, 2014), 30–31. 32 The system of artistic patronage is defended, for example, by the playwright Terence in his prologue to Adelphi (“Brothers”), 15–21. 33 Seneca the Elder, Suasoriae 3.7. The comment is made with reference to the use of Virgil’s work by Ovid.

92

Chapter 4

connection with a prestigious predecessor could go a long way to promote the success of one’s own work. The widespread interest in literary imitation within the ancient world was itself intimately tied to the value the ancients placed upon learning from the past as a necessary foundation for embarking on any successful endeavor in the present. “One learns (one’s) skill from another, both long ago and now.”34 In such a traditional system of education, poets are “listeners or readers before they become singers or writers.”35 In Hesiod’s Theogony, the Muses are the daughters of “Memory” (Mnēmosynē).36 Literary imitation is, therefore, something that was part and parcel of scribal educational systems in a variety of ancient cultures. As Niditch and Carr point out, in ancient Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt, such scribal education would commonly take the form of copying, memorizing, and reciting older texts.37 Translation, paraphrase, and commentary were related skills taught to young scribes. Much of this educational training was primarily centered on school texts, letters, and administrative documents. But, at least some students progressed from studying and copying economic and administrative texts to studying longer literary compositions that were taken to represent the classical or canonical texts of an earlier age (or ages).38 Such texts would be carefully studied, copied, committed to memory, and orally recited. The deployment of imitatio thus connoted the high esteem of authors for older well-established literary works.39 To be clear, the emulation of the past in mimesis is not invariably conservative, although some element of conservation distinguishes mimesis from new literary creations without forbearers. The degree to which mimetic writings closely follow the style, content, or structure of their sources varies from composition to composition. Some are bolder than others in competing with an established model and in offering a successful rival to the borrowed

34 Baccylides, Paen fr. 5. On the text, see H. Maehler, Bacchylidis carmina cum fragmentis (Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana; Munich: K. G. Saur, 2003), 87. 35 Conte and Most, “Imitatio,” 749. 36 Hesiod, Theogony 54. Zeus was the father of the Muses, Theogony 36. Further references and commentary may be found in M. L. West, Theogony (Oxford: Clarendon, 1966), 174–77. 37 S. Niditch, Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite Literature (LAI; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996); Carr, Tablet of the Heart. 38 Y. K. Too, The Idea of Ancient Literary Criticism (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 61–69; L. M. McDonald, The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority (rev. 3rd ed.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2006), 38–48; K. van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007), 51–108. 39 Conte, Rhetoric of Imitation, 23–96.

SYNOPTIC TEXTS, MIMESIS, AND “ REWRITTEN BIBLE ”

93

work. But, in any case, the careful use of imitatio was a mark of erudition and distinction in an age that prized the past. The importance of antiquity within antiquity is a point that is often forgotten or neglected in some contemporary discussions of parallel texts and synoptic scriptures. Our own contemporary culture places such an emphasis on originality, inventiveness, and creativity that it makes it difficult for us to fathom the extent to which many of the ancients were concerned with antiquity, continuity, and pedigree.40 In a contemporary cultural setting, the word imitation can carry negative connotations of derivation, counterfeit status, and artificiality. But for many (albeit not all) in the ancient world, imitation was one way by which admired older works could be illumined, perpetuated, and improved.41 As Beaulieu observes: “Typically, ancient civilizations turned their back on the future, but they saw the past spread in front of them as the sole reality, always in view as an ideal to emulate.”42 2

Reliving the Past? Examples of Mimetic Literature in the Ancient World

Within antiquity there were certain periods in which the interest in the past was especially acute. These have been described by some scholars in 40 So, for example, when discussing the importance of learning from the past, Diodorus Siculus calls history the “prophetess of truth” and the “metropolis of philosophy,” Bibliothēkē 1.2.2. See also Isocrates, In sophistas 12–13; Cicero, De inventione rhetorica 1.2.1–2; Tacitus, Dialogus de oratoribus 32.5–7; 33.1–34.4; Plutarch, De liberis educandis 1–4; Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica 10.2. 41 Manifest in the different ways by which later writers reuse the works of earlier writers (extended quotation, simple quotation, modified citation, refutation, conflation, reformulation, amplification, supplementation, and so forth) is a range of literary dependency. This means, among other things, as Bill Arnold points out (personal communication), that redaction criticism might be considered as one model, among others, to understand relationships between certain texts. He helpfully points to the studies of S. A. Kaufman, “The Temple Scroll and Higher Criticism,” HUCA 53 (1982), 29–43, esp. 34–42, and P. R. Noble, “Synchronic and Diachronic Approaches to Biblical Interpretation,” in Literature and Theology 7/2 (1993), 130–48. In this respect, there is a connection between the study of mimesis and traditional forms of historical criticism. On the many abuses of redaction criticism, see J. Van Seters, The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the “Editor” in Biblical Criticism (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 244–97. The proposal of Van Seters to do away with the categories of “editor” and “redactor” in biblical criticism altogether has, however, little to commend itself. 42 P.-A. Beaulieu, “Mesopotamian Antiquarianism from Sumer to Babylon,” in World Antiquarianism: Comparative Perspectives (ed. A. Schnapp et al.; Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute, 2013), 121–22.

94

Chapter 4

Egyptology and ancient Near Eastern studies as periods of antiquarianism and by some scholars in classical studies as periods of classicism.43 These were times in which scribes and artists consciously revived the art, architecture, language, styles, and tropes of literature in the past, usually some distant past, and reclaimed them in their own time. Such instances of self-conscious archaizing were not simply conservative attempts to recover and relive the past, but could marshal the prestige of past achievements to authorize new literary and artistic innovations. The history of ancient Egypt is replete with examples involving the deliberate reuse of art, architecture, style, and language to link the present age with the venerated past. Artists, architects, and writers consciously imitated scenes, styles, or certain kinds of linguistic usage that they associated with a particular period (or periods) in the past.44 Although it may be assumed that the ancient Egyptians constantly revisited the past with a view to restoring the glories of the monarchs they most ardently admired, there were also a number of other more practical, nationalistic factors at work in their reuse of older motifs and styles. Antiquarian tendencies were especially prominent in the architecture, sculpture, and painting of the New Kingdom, Third Intermediate, Kushite, and Saite periods.45

43

The modern use of classicism to refer to the art and literature of a particular period (or to the conscious imitation of works stemming from such an era) as marking a peak in quality or as achieving a state of perfection may be traced back to the work of the second century CE orator, M. Cornelius Fronto, who employed the term classicus (literally, “belonging to the highest class of citizens”) to denote the work of those ancient writers whose linguistic practices were authoritative for imitators, Hardie, “Classicism,” 336. On the general phenomenon, see T. Gelzer, “Klassizismus, Attizismus, und Asianismus,” in Le Classicisme à Rome, aux 1ers siecles avant et après J.-C. (ed. T. Gelzer et al.; Entretiens sur l’Antiquité classique 25; Geneva: Fondation Hart, 1979), 1–41; G. W. Bowersock, “Historical Problems in Late Republican and Augustan Classicism,” in Le Classicisme à Rome, 57–75. 44 A. Loprieno, Topos und Mimesis: Zum Ausländer in der ägyptischen Literatur (Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 48; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1988); J. Assmann, Ägypten: Eine Sinngeschichte (München: Hanser, 1996); J. A. Josephson, “Archaism,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (3 vols.; ed. D. B. Redford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 1.109–113; D. B. Redford, A History of Ancient Egypt in Context (Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt, 2006). 45 For examples, see R. A. Fazzini, Egypt Dynasty XXII–XXV (Leiden: Brill, 1988); P. Der Manuelian, Living in the Past: Studies in Archaism of the Egyptian Twenty-sixth Dynasty (Studies in Egyptology; London: Kegan Paul, 1994); J. A. Josephson, Egyptian Royal Sculpture of the Late Period, 400–246 B.C. (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1997).

SYNOPTIC TEXTS, MIMESIS, AND “ REWRITTEN BIBLE ”

95

The literary presentation of the Josianic period in the Deuteronomistic work is another example of mimetic archaism.46 Here, one reads an account of the (re)discovery of a lost document (Ur-Deuteronomium), resulting in a state crisis.47 This complicated and fascinating case bears some extended discussion. Having heard the “words of the scroll of the torah” recited to him, the Judahite king tears his clothes, and fearing divine wrath, because “our ancestors did not heed the words of this scroll,” the king requisitions a prophetic consultation (2 Kgs 22:11–13).48 In this literary conceit, the torah scroll was written not simply as a reflection of ideals pertinent to a past age; it was “written concerning us” (‫ ;הכתוב עלינו‬2 Kgs 22:13).49 A concerted royal attempt to reform Judahite society and the system of worship in Jerusalem (2 Kgs 23:4–14) follows, according to the demands for centralization—both Kultuseinheit and Kultusreinheit—as spelled out in the prestigious writing.50 Given that the torah scroll is directed to Israel as a whole, and not simply to one part (Judah) of that multi-tribal entity, the southern king extends his campaign into the former northern kingdom (2 Kgs 23:15–20). To be sure, Josiah’s reforms in Bethel and in the “towns of Samaria” were prophesied centuries earlier (1 Kings 13), but the reformer king is unaware of these prophecies, when he ventures north from Judah.51 He proceeds on the basis of the demands of the scroll that was recited to him and 46 For discussions, see D. M. Howard, Jr., An Introduction to the Old Testament Historical Books (Chicago: Moody, 2007); T. C. Römer, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological and Literary Introduction (London: T&T Clark International, 2005), 13–43; idem, “Entstehungsphasen des ‘deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerkes,’” in Die deutero­ nomistischen Geschichtswerke: Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur “Deuteronomismus”-Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten (ed. M. Witte, K. Schmid, D. Prechel, and J. C. Gertz; BZAW 365; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006), 45–70; and the essays in M. R. Jacobs and R. E. Person, Jr. (eds.), Israelite Prophecy and the Deuteronomistic History: Portrait, Reality, and the Formation of a History (AIL 14; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013). 47 On the literary motif, see T. C. Römer, “Transformations in Deuteronomistic and Biblical Historiography: On ‘Book Finding’ and Other Literary Strategies,” ZAW 109 (1997), 1–11; N. Na‌ʾaman, “The ‘Discovered Book’ and the Legitimation of Josiah’s Reforms,” JBL 130 (2011), 47–62. 48 The use of the source citation is significant, underscoring the written warrant for implementing unprecedented actions. See K. L. Spawn, “As It is Written” and Other Citation Formulae in the Old Testament (BZAW 311; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002). 49 Thus, the authority and textual priority of the ancient scroll are confirmed by prophecy, Na‌ʾaman, “Discovered Book,” 62. 50 G. N. Knoppers, Two Nations Under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies (2 vols.; HSM 52–53; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993–1994), 2.121–228. 51 This is true, regardless of whether one views 2 Kgs 23:16–18 as representing a later layer in the larger account, E. Eynikel, The Reform of King Josiah and the Composition of the Deuteronomistic History (OtSt 33; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 278–87.

96

Chapter 4

is only informed of the centuries-old prophecies during the course of his campaigns (2 Kgs 23:16–17). The larger point is that the Judahite monarch takes the initiative to recast his society according to the dictates of an older, venerable scripture.52 Prophecy, worship, kingship, and the body politic are all subordinated to the authority of the book.53 Among the ironies in this story about Judahite antiquarianism in the late monarchy is the mimetic basis of the royal reforms. The prestigious scroll, whose discovery precipitates a crisis for the Judahite state, is itself, at least in part, an erudite, sophisticated, and radical reworking of an older literary work—the Covenant Code of Exodus (20:22–23:19).54 My chief concern in this discussion is not with the historicity, non-historicity, or partial historicity of the Josianic reforms, which have been the subject of extensive debate.55 Rather, my concern is with the presuppositions undergirding the story. The narrative only works, if there is an expectation on the readers’ part that the “scroll of the torah” should enjoy a normative status in guiding the corporate 52 The sequence varies in interesting ways in Chronicles, H. G. M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 396–403; S. Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and its Place in Biblical Thought (BEATAJ 9; Frankfurt a. M.: Lang, 1989), 308–24; eadem, I & II Chronicles (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993), 1017–37; R. W. Klein, 2 Chronicles (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 489–529. 53 T. C. Römer, “From Deuteronomistic History to Nebiim and Torah,” in Making the Biblical Text: Textual Studies in the Hebrew and Greek Bible (ed. I. Himbaza; OBO 275; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 10–11. 54 J. Van Seters proposes to reverse this line of dependence, Law Book for the Diaspora (see n. 7), 41–172, but see B. M. Levinson, “Is the Covenant Code an Exilic Composition? A Response to John Van Seters,” in In Search of Pre-Exilic Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (ed. J. Day; JSOTSup 406; London: T&T Clark Continuum, 2004), 272– 325 [repr. in his “The Right Chorale”: Studies in Biblical Law and Interpretation (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 276–330]. The literature on Deuteronomy’s reuse of the Covenant Code is voluminous. See, e.g., E. Otto, “Vom Bundesbuch zum Deuteronomium: Redaktion in Dtn 12–26*,” in Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel: Für Norbert Lohfink SJ (ed. G. Braulik, W. Gross, and S. McEvenue; Freiburg: Herder, 1993), 260–78; idem, Die Tora: Studien zum Pentateuch: Gesammelte Schriften (BZAR 9; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009). The work of Levinson, Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation, 11–151, is especially important in documenting the care and sophistication of the Deuteronomic authors in reinterpreting, reworking, and supplementing the Covenant Code. 55 The literary accounts in Kings present certain challenges for interpretation, but I do not see these challenges as sufficiently daunting to dismiss completely the historicity of the reforms. A convenient overview and discussion may be found in Römer, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History (see n. 46), 67–106. For a somewhat different view, see R. G. Kratz, Historisches und biblisches Israel. Drei Überblicke zum Alten Testament (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013) [trans. P. M. Kurtz, and rev., Historical and Biblical Israel: The History, Tradition, and Archives of Israel and Judah (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015)].

SYNOPTIC TEXTS, MIMESIS, AND “ REWRITTEN BIBLE ”

97

life of the people. Studying texts, learning from the past, and acting upon esteemed instruction are necessary steps in reforming society. An additional irony in this story about the late Judahite monarchy reconnecting with its textualized Israelite roots is the fact that the Covenant Code, whose legislation Deuteronomy substantially reformulates and expands, may itself be dependent, at least in part, upon a long tradition of ancient cuneiform law, in particular, the so-called Code of Hammurapi.56 To be sure, the Covenant Code authors are discriminating in what they select and do not select from the cuneiform corpus they have studied.57 The result is a new literary work that reflects both their indebtedness to an older prestigious writing and their own distinctive contributions arranged in a sequence and structure of their own choosing.58 The relationship between the Covenant Code and Deuteronomy, on the one hand, and between Deuteronomy and Kings, on the other hand, are major topics in their own right.59 Nevertheless, the formulation of the Covenant Code with a partial view to the Code of Hammurapi, the creation of Ur-Deuteronomium with a partial view to the Covenant Code, and 56 See C. Houtman, Exodus (4 vols.; HCOT; Kampen: Kok, 1993–2002), 3.78–98, with further references. The argument has been made most extensively and systematically by D. P. Wright, Inventing God’s Law: How the Covenant Code of the Bible Used and Revised the Laws of Hammurabi (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), although I do not agree with all of his analysis. For a rather different view, see E. Otto, “Das Bundesbuch und der ‘Kodex’ Hammurapi: Das biblische Recht zwischen positiver und subversiver Rezeption von Keilschriftrecht,” ZAR 16 (2010), 1–16. 57 Demonstrating both the dependence of the work upon its ancient Near Eastern predecessors and its independence from them are the foundational treatments of J. J. Finkelstein, The Ox That Gored (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 71/2; Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1981); M. Greenberg, “Some Postulates of Biblical Criminal Law,” in his Studies in the Bible and Jewish Thought (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1995), 25–41. 58 The Covenant Code itself underwent expansion over time. For a source-critical and redaction-critical reconstruction, see E. Otto, Wandel der Rechtsbegründungen in der Gesellschaftsgeschichte des antiken Israel: Eine Rechtsgeschichte des “Bundesbuches” Ex XX 22–XXIII 13 (StudBib 3; Leiden: Brill, 1988). 59 The promotion of the centralization program of Deuteronomy in Kings by the Judahite reformer kings Hezekiah and Josiah is itself innovative insofar as it expects kings (rather than the populace) to implement Deuteronomic legislation, G. N. Knoppers, “The Deuteronomist and the Deuteronomic Law of the King: A Reexamination of a Relationship,” ZAW 108 (1996), 329–46; idem, “Solomon’s Fall and Deuteronomy,” in The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium (ed. L. Handy; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 392–410; idem, “Rethinking the Relationship between Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History: The Case of Kings,” CBQ 63 (2001), 393–415; B. M. Levinson, “The Reconceptualization of Kingship in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History’s Transformation of Torah,” VT 51 (2001), 511–34.

98

Chapter 4

the composition of Kings with a partial view to the standards articulated in Ur-Deuteronomium reveal a scribal culture in Judah in which literary imitation plays a formative role. To account for this phenomenon, one must acknowledge a tradition of mimesis in the training of literary scribes.60 The archaism attributed to the late monarchy itself evinces textual precedents. In each of these cases, scribes do not create new literary works ex nihilo, but work with existing texts, which they studiously employ in composing their own works. By selecting from and reworking its principal legal source, Deuteronomy grants initial priority to its Vorlage. Deuteronomy clearly borrows specific language, legal formulae, and ideas from the Covenant Code. Yet, granted the use of additional sources by the authors and their ingenious reworking and extensive supplementation of the Covenant Code, one may safely conclude that Deuteronomy can only be partially defined by its dependent relationship on the Covenant Code. Moreover, some would argue that Deuteronomy subverts the very source from which it draws authority.61 Discussion of Deuteronomy’s relationship with the Covenant Code sheds further light on the significance of the story of Josiah’s reforms in Kings. Whether the authors of Deuteronomy deliberately intended for their creation to surpass the Covenant Code in popularity or even to displace the earlier work is unknown to us.62 The desire to compete with, if not surpass, an established predecessor would hardly be unprecedented, given other attested examples of mimesis in the ancient world, but the writers of Deuteronomy do not overtly comment upon their appropriation of their source.63 Nevertheless, judging by the way the story is couched in Kings, one may safely infer that its authors had the dictates of Deuteronomy, not those of the Covenant Code, primarily in mind.64 That is, one must assume that for the writers of Kings, certain statutes of Ur-Deuteronomium had become foundational for their evaluations of royal conduct. The writers clearly approve of only one central Yahwistic altar (Deuteronomy 12) and not of several Yahwistic altars located at different 60

A tradition, not necessarily a single scribal school. For cautions about positing the latter, see S. W. Crawford, “Rewritten Scriptures as a Clue to Scribal Traditions in the Second Temple Period,” in Rewritten Bible after Fifty Years (see n. 31), 105–17. 61 E.g., B. M. Levinson and J. Stackert, “Between the Covenant Code and Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty: Deuteronomy 13 and the Composition of Deuteronomy,” JAJ 3 (2012), 123–40. 62 For an extended argument that this was precisely the aim, see Levinson and Stackert, “Covenant Code,” 125–26. 63 On the element of competition in the composition of mimetic texts, see section 4 below. 64 In addition to sundry texts in Deuteronomy, there may be select statutes in Exodus and Leviticus that come in view, Römer, “Nebiim and Torah,” 9–10.

SYNOPTIC TEXTS, MIMESIS, AND “ REWRITTEN BIBLE ”

99

places (Exod 20:22–26). This means that in the literary competition between this work of mimesis and one of its principal sources, the work of mimesis had gained the upper hand, at least for the writers of Kings. That Deuteronomy emerged as a formative literary source in its own right is borne out by other literary evidence, such as the presumption of the mandate for the unification of worship in the composition of later narrative works (e.g., Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles). This neither means that the Covenant Code was no longer cited nor that people no longer had recourse to this prestigious corpus of statutes embedded within Exodus. The survival of the Covenant Code and its citation prove otherwise. Nevertheless, given the allusions to and quotations of Deuteronomy among the early interpreters (e.g., in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament), Deuteronomy far surpassed the Covenant Code in its long-term impact. In short, the creation, preservation, and reception of Deuteronomy and other mimetic texts may tell us something both about the popularity of new literary works and the status of the originals upon which they were based. A third example of deliberate movements to appropriate (what was deemed to be) the cultural attributes of a classical past occurs in Babylon during the Neo-Babylonian period (626–539 BCE). There are only a few occasions in ancient history, when the city state of Babylon was able to extend political and military influence far beyond its territory.65 When the state did so during the Neo-Babylonian period, its scribes looked to rare eras in the past in which Babylon’s territorial reach extended beyond its traditional borders, focusing especially on the Old Babylonian period. It is fitting to speak of archaizing movements, as opposed to a single movement, because the classicizing tendencies characterizing the Neo-Babylonian period take different forms during the reigns of its different kings, most famously: Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar II, and Nabonidus.66 Attempts were made to emulate the architectural, religious,

65 F. Joannes, The Age of Empires: Mesopotamia in the First Millennium BC (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2004), 190–98; D. S. Vanderhooft, “Babylonia and the Babylonians,” in The World around the Old Testament (ed. B. T. Arnold and B. A. Strawn; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2016), 126–33. 66 Since the last figure stands out, in many respects, from his Neo-Babylonian predecessors, the complexities of his case will not be dealt with here. See P.-A. Beaulieu, The Reign of Nabonidus King of Babylon: 556–539 BC (Yale Near Eastern Researches 10; Cambridge: Yale University Press, 1990); idem, “Antiquarianism and the Concern for the Past in the Neo-Babylonian Period,” Bulletin of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 28 (1994), 37–42.

100

Chapter 4

social, and scientific achievements of Hammurapi’s dynasty more than a millennium before.67 In material, cultural, and epigraphic terms, the antiquarianism included excavating third- and second- millennium foundation inscriptions of Babylonian kings, resuscitating the Old Babylonian lapidary script for use in royal inscriptions, copying and forging Old Babylonian inscriptions, copying and studying the Laws of Hammurapi, reviving ancient rituals, recovering obscure deities, and employing archaistic orthographies in writing royal texts.68 Within the royal inscriptions, especially those prepared during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II (605–562 BCE), scribes were fond of employing archaizing language and of framing royal titular and royal epithets in terms evocative of those favored in the Old Babylonian period, including calling Nebuchadnezzar “king of justice,” an epithet first coined by King Hammurapi himself.69 Also noteworthy is the tendency of scribes during the reigns of Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar, as Vanderhooft points out, to eschew royal epithets and titles favored by the Neo-Assyrian monarchs, even those epithets and titles that had originated in much earlier Babylonian cultural contexts.70 The keen attention paid to the literature and inscriptions of the Old Babylonian period enabled scribes to draw links between their own time and Babylon’s past glories, in particular between Hammurapi’s reign and that of Nebuchadnezzar II. The latter is the only known king to have replicated Hammurapi’s declamation: “I directed them in the proper path and the correct way of life.”71 Focusing on the greats of the past, literary imitation was, as it was in the classical world, “an imitation of the ancients” (μίμησις τῶν ἀρχαίων).72 In mimicking the language deployed by Hammurapi, Nebuchadnezzar associates 67 P.-A. Beaulieu, “King Nabonidus and the Neo-Babylonian Empire,” CANE 2 (1995), 969–79. Also of importance, although less so, was the reign of Nebuchadnezzar I (1125–1104 BCE), the fourth ruler of the so-called Second Dynasty of Isin (1157–1026 BCE). 68 D. S. Vanderhooft, The Neo-Babylonian Empire and Babylon in the Latter Prophets (HSM 59; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), 9–59; R. Da Riva, The Neo-Babylonian Royal Inscriptions: An Introduction (Guides to the Mesopotamian Textual Record 4; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2008). More broadly, see G. Rubio, “Scribal Secrets and Antiquarian Nostalgia: Writing and Scholarship in Ancient Mesopotamia,” in Reconstructing a Distant Past: Ancient Near Eastern Essays in Tribute to Jorge R. Silva Castillo (ed. D. A. Barreyra Fracaroli and G. del Olmo Lete; Aula Orientalis Supplementa 25; Barcelona: Ausa, 2009), 155–82. 69 M. J. Seux, Épithètes royales akkadiennes et sumériennes (Paris: Letouzey et Ane, 1967), 316–17; Vanderhooft, Neo-Babylonian Empire, 44. 70 Vanderhooft, Neo-Babylonian Empire, 19–23. 71 P.-R. Berger, Die neubabylonischen Königsinschriften: Königsinschriften des ausgehenden babylonischen Reiches (626–539 v. Chr.) (AOAT 4/1; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1973), 95; Vanderhooft, Neo-Babylonian Empire, 44. 72 Russell, “De imitatione,” 2.

SYNOPTIC TEXTS, MIMESIS, AND “ REWRITTEN BIBLE ”

101

himself with a much-celebrated king in Babylon’s distant past. Yet, alert readers would also notice a major contextual difference between the two claims. The objects of Hammurapi’s assertions were the Babylonians, but the objects of Nebuchadnezzar’s assertions were the various peoples, including the Babylonians, subject to him throughout his empire.73 The erudite recourse to precedent reflects well on the Neo-Babylonian monarch. In one particular tablet published by Lambert, exhibiting several mimetic features and stemming in all likelihood from Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, the writer maintains that the king promulgated “regulations for the betterment of all the peoples and the settling of the land of Akkad” and thus to have upheld the administration of justice throughout his domain.74 The declaration that the monarch instituted justice on behalf of the gods is, of course, hardly unique; many Mesopotamian royal inscriptions assert the same. Yet, this text goes to claim that the king drafted and implemented a collection of laws and had the law court rebuilt (II.22–27). The inscription extols the king’s virtues as a judge and provides specific examples of the king’s judicial wisdom (III.3–IV.26). On the basis of these and other literary allusions, the text portrays the monarch as a second Hammurapi.75 In one of the particular cases cited, involving an unsubstantiated charge of murder considered as slander (III.21), the wording of the royal ruling resonates with that of the first statute in the Code of Hammurapi, dealing with the same crime.76 In mimicking this older phraseology, the royal inscription does not hide its dependence upon a classic Babylonian writing. Quite the contrary, the work calls attention to it. Yet, the judgment—the river ordeal—implemented by the Neo-Babylonian monarch replicates that prescribed in the second statute in the Laws of Hammurapi, addressing the charge of sorcery. Even so, the text does not slavishly follow the script of the prestigious source to which it alludes. There is a further judicial innovation. In passing his sentence, the Hammurapi redivivus decrees that both the accused and the accuser be subject to the river ordeal (III.22–24).77 In its repeatedly borrowing from the language 73 Vanderhooft, Neo-Babylonian Empire, 44. 74 W. G. Lambert, “Nebuchadnezzar King of Justice,” Iraq 27 (1965), 1–11. The dating of the anonymously-authored text to Nebuchadnezzar’s reign is based on the particular deities cited (III.17), the late orthography employed, the listing of the king’s specific conquests, including most notably Egypt (V.20), parallels with Nebuchadnezzar’s Wadi Brisa inscription, and other factors. 75 Lambert, “King of Justice,” 3. 76 M. T. Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor (2nd ed.; WAW 6; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 81. 77 In the Laws of Hammurapi (no. 2), only the accused is subject to the river ordeal.

102

Chapter 4

and content of the Laws of Hammurapi, the inscription derives authority from a legal precursor written over a millennium before, yet the inscription also promotes Nebuchadnezzar as innovating beyond his illustrious forbearer, reapplying his statutes to a new setting. A fourth example of a trend to return to the classics occurred in the world of Latin literature during a number of periods, especially during the so-called imperial age (from the time of Augustus to the reign of Constantine).78 One form classicism repeatedly took was reviving and deliberately employing obsolete diction in one’s own work.79 One goal in using such archaizing diction, in line with the general Roman respect for the past, was to impart solemnity and a sense of importance to a new literary creation. This held true even when the usage had not been solemn in its original context.80 Another goal was to mark one’s own education and erudition. During the second century CE, writers studied the works of earlier writers as important subjects in their own right and as sources for vocabulary and linguistic constructions to revive.81 One implication of these four case studies is to point to the larger importance ancients ascribed to works of quality, authority, and prestige within their own tradition(s). There were certain standard literary works that writers were expected to master and emulate in form, subject matter, language, or style. The rhetorical culture of the first four centuries of our era has been called a civilization of “the books.”82 In one instance, Dionysius of Halicarnassus even refers to this corpus of model compositions as ta biblia, “the books,” a fascinating literary parallel to the term employed in early Jewish and Christian circles for the scriptures.83 By the same token, such usage should remind scholars in biblical 78 Russell, “De imitatione,” 3; idem, “Literary Criticism in Antiquity,” in Oxford Classical Dictionary, 870. 79 Occasionally, such usage is overtly eschewed (e.g., Quintilian, Inst. 11.1.6). 80 So L. A. Holford-Strevens, “Archaism in Latin,” in Oxford Classical Dictionary (see n. 1), 143. See, for example, Cicero, De or. 3.153. 81 Hardie, “Classicism,” 336. 82 Russell, “De imitatione,” 3. 83 Rhet. 298.1. See also his Pomp. 3 in which he describes the work of Herodotus as the best “canon” (kanōn) of historical writing in Ionic Greek and the work of Thucydides as the best in Attic Greek. Lists of works comprising the Greek and Roman literary canons may be found in Quintilian, Inst. 10.1.46–84 and 10.1.85–131, respectively. See G. A. Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric and its Christian and Secular Traditions from Ancient to Modern Times (2nd rev. ed.; Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1999), 132–33; E. Fantham, “Latin Criticism of the Early Empire,” in The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism, 1: Classical Criticism (ed. G. A. Kennedy; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 286–91. To be sure, the make-up of the canon in the first centuries of our era is not entirely a clear matter. The composition of the canon may have not been so much a fixed constant as a constant flux. For example, the literary canon embraced by a circle of

SYNOPTIC TEXTS, MIMESIS, AND “ REWRITTEN BIBLE ”

103

studies that issues of canon and canonicity were not unique to early Judaism and early Christianity. This phenomenon has another point of relevance for biblical studies. The very existence of a plurality of gospels in the antique era, for instance, tells us that the gospel form was a powerful and popular genre of literature within the early churches. Before mimesis can occur, there has to be something approaching a consensus as to what important works, literary styles, or genres are worthy of imitation.84 That the gospel genre was repeatedly mimicked, adapted, and transformed within the space of a few centuries is important. It seems evident that not only were the early gospels carefully read and studied, but they also became the basis for the creation of new and different types of gospels in a variety of cultural and religious settings.85 3

Rewritten Bible or Mimesis?

The recognition that mimesis was a widespread practice in the ancient world sheds welcome light on the debate about the so-called “rewritten Bible” texts.86 What texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls belong to the category of “rewritten rhetoricians might differ from the canon embraced by a circle of historians living at the same time, McDonald, Biblical Canon, 39–44. Moreover, the content of canons changed in accordance with new settings, the rising popularity of certain works (and the waning popularity of others), and new social, economic, and historical circumstances, Flashar, “Theorie der Mimesis,” 79–97; P. Parsons, “Identities in Diversity,” in Images and Ideologies: Self-Definition in the Hellenistic World (ed. A. Bulloch et al.; Hellenistic Culture and Society 12; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), 157–62. For the history of antique and medieval Christianity, see the extensive treatment of McDonald, Biblical Canon, 190–429 (and the references cited there). 84 My concern in this context is not to trace the individual directions of dependence, but rather to point to the relevance of the general phenomenon itself. See also Petersen, “Typological Reflections,” 35–44. Derrenbacker provides a convenient overview of theories analyzing the relationships among the synoptic gospels, Ancient Compositional Practices, 120–258. 85 J. G. Campbell, “Rewritten Bible: A Terminological Reassessment,” in Rewritten Bible after Fifty Years (see n. 31), 72–73; Petersen, “Typological Reflections,” 35–42. 86 The terminology was coined by G. Vermes in his Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies (SPB 4; Leiden: Brill, 1961), 95. For later reflections, see his “The Genesis of the Concept of ‘Rewritten Bible,’” in Rewritten Bible after Fifty Years, 3–9. D. K. Falk (The Parabiblical Texts: Strategies for Extending the Scriptures among the Dead Sea Scrolls [LSTS 63; London: T&T Clark, 2007], 3–17) and Petersen (“Typological Reflections,” 19–27) provide good histories of scholarship. In spite of the widespread acceptance of the concept of “rewritten Bible,” scholars employing this terminology cannot agree what it means (Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, 129–34).

104

Chapter 4

scripture” is disputed, but most lists include the (Aramaic) Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen), the Temple Scroll (4Q524; 11QTa–c), and perhaps some of the socalled Reworked Pentateuch manuscripts (4Q158; 4Q364–367).87 To these compositions could be added other well-known writings within the history of early Judaism, such as the books of 1 Esdras (Esdras α) and (Greek) Esther in the Deuterocanon, Jubilees, Josephus’ Judean Antiquities, and Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (“Book of Biblical Antiquities”). Yet, within the larger context of literary compositions stemming from the ancient world, most of these works may be subsumed under the larger rubric of mimesis. This realization does not necessarily invalidate the use of terms such as rewritten Bible, rewritten scriptures, parabiblical texts, and so forth, but it would help to situate them within their ancient Mediterranean context.88 It is often claimed, for instance, that rewritten scriptural compositions as a matter of definition give priority to the source text.89 In this understanding, rewritten scriptures do not attempt to replace or supersede their textual antecedents.90 This may be true of some writings generally and of others as a starting point, but the situation varies from case to case. Mimetic compositions do not conform to any one single pattern. They range greatly in the amount of reworking 87

Whether the Reworked Pentateuch manuscripts (4QRP) all belong to this category or to others (e.g., expanded scripture or scripture) is a point of contention. The texts do not identify themselves by means of content, perspective, or voice as anything other than pentateuchal manuscripts, M. Segal, “4QReworked Pentateuch or 4QPentateuch?” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years After Their Discovery (ed. L. H. Schiffmann, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000), 391–99; M. J. Bernstein, “‘Rewritten Bible’: A Generic Category that has Outlived Its Usefulness?” Textus 22 (2005), 169–96 [repr. in Reading and Re-reading Scripture at Qumran (2 vols.; STDJ 107 Leiden: Brill, 2013), 39–62]; Falk, Parabiblical Texts, 107–19; M. M. Zahn, “The Problem of Categorizing the 4QReworked Pentateuch Manuscripts: Bible, Rewritten Bible, or None of the Above?” DSD 15 (2008), 315–39; eadem, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture (STDJ 95; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 25–134. 88 The usage “parabiblical text” is sometimes used to categorize texts that follow their biblical sources less closely than do texts narrowly assigned to the rewritten Bible category. See, e.g., Bernstein, “Generic Category,” 188–89. Differently, Falk, “Parabiblical Texts,” 3–17. 89 E.g., G. J. Brooke, “Rewritten Bible,” EDSS 780. 90 Aside from the work of Brooke (previous note), see, e.g., P. S. Alexander, “Retelling the Old Testament,” in It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, SSF (ed. D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988 [repr. 2008]), 116–18; H. Najman, Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism (JSJSup 77; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 44–50; eadem, Past Renewals: Interpretative Authority, Renewed Revelation, and the Quest for Perfection in Jewish Antiquity (JSJSup 53; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 54; J. Berman, “Supersessionist or Complementary? Reassessing the Nature of Legal Revision in the pentateuchal Law Collections,” JBL 135 (2016), 201–22.

SYNOPTIC TEXTS, MIMESIS, AND “ REWRITTEN BIBLE ”

105

they evince, the creativity they display, and the influence that they exert. Some mimetic compositions remain close to their sources, a practice that was criticized by some in ancient literary circles.91 Others move far beyond their source texts to the extent that they resituate, rearrange, revoice, and substantially augment their Vorlagen. Not a few come to rival their originals and some even surpass them in popularity. As we have seen, Deuteronomy’s relationship with the Covenant Code is a case in point.92 Admittedly, there is a problem with the usage of rewritten Bible. If one treats these kinds of writings as sui generis to Second Temple Judaism, one inevitably confronts problems of categorization and definition. In explaining the concept of rewritten Bible, Nickelsburg speaks of “literature that is very closely related to the biblical texts, expanding and paraphrasing them and implicitly commenting on them.”93 This loose definition allows for the inclusion of a variety of genres: long paraphrases (e.g., Jubilees), narrative sections in larger works (e.g., 1 Enoch), narratives shaped by non-narrative genres (e.g., the Apocalypse of Moses), and poetic versions of biblical stories (e.g., Philo the Elder, Theodotus, Ezekiel the Tragedian).94 Yet, some have criticized this definition as too amorphous and indistinct.95

91 Detailed discussion of creativity, plagiarism, and competition in classical and antique sources follows in section 4 below. 92 Whether a new work comes to overshadow its Vorlage depends, of course, upon the work’s history of reception. 93 G. W. E. Nickelsburg, “The Bible Rewritten and Expanded,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus (ed. M. E. Stone; CRINT 2; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984), 89. Similarly, D. J. Harrington, “The Bible Rewritten (Narratives),” in Early Judaism and Its Modern Interpreters (ed. R. A. Kraft and G. W. E. Nickelsburg; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 239–47. Similarly, Brooke (“Rewritten Bible,” 777) refers to “any representation of an authoritative scriptural text that implicitly incorporates interpretive elements, large or small, in the retelling itself.” The alternative approach of Campbell is much more open-ended in that it emphasizes rewriting as a widely available process of literary production, whether the text in question enjoyed scriptural status or not, “Rewritten Bible,” 49–81. Campbell proposes largely to set aside use of the terms rewritten Bible and rewritten scripture in favor of terms such as rewritten composition or “Rewritten Popular Narrative” (italics his), “Rewritten Bible,” 73–77. 94 Nickelsburg, “Bible Rewritten,” 89–156. 95 Rewritten Bible becomes an “excessively vague all-encompassing term.” Thus, Bernstein, “Generic Category,” 187. Yet, disagreements of definition are not altogether surprising, because there is an inherent ambiguity in the meaning of rewritten. The verb “rewrite” can mean “to write again” or “to write differently” (Oxford English Reference Dictionary [ed. J. Pearsall and B. Trumble; 2nd ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003], 1234). The former denotes a more conservative literary operation than does the latter.

106

Chapter 4

Other scholars contend for a more restrictive definition of Rewritten Bible as a particular genre of Second Temple literature.96 Yet, if the literary works in question belong exclusively to the category of “Rewritten Bible,” to which Bible is one referring? Some would say the Jewish Bible. Thus, Crawford thinks that the criteria for inclusion in the genre should specify a “close attachment, either through narrative or through themes, to some book contained in the Jewish canon of Scripture and some type of reworking, whether through rearrangement, conflation, or supplementation, of the present canonical biblical text.”97 Yet, the Tanakh did not yet exist as a widely accepted canon in early Judaism, when these literary works were created. The issue is not whether many Jews shared a concept of canon (they likely did), but rather the content and limits of such a canon. Here, there seems to have been some serious differences of opinion among the different early Judean communities of the ancient world.98 If one wishes to speak of religiously defined canons of sacred literature, what of works, such as 1 Esdras and Greek Esther, which belong to most versions of the Deuterocanon? With some justification, many scholars treat these books as examples of rewritten scripture. Why should scholarly classifications of rewritten Bible be limited solely to the Jewish Bible and not consider the different versions of the Christian canon? Similarly, what of the book of Jubilees, which belongs to the canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church?99 If the terminology “rewritten Bible” is to be retained, what of books, such as Deuteronomy and Chronicles, which not a few scholars contend belong to the genre? Does 96 The initial definition of Vermes was not so chronologically defined. He included, for example, the Palestinian Targums to the Pentateuch and the medieval midrashic work sēper ha-yāšār. In his reexamination of the issues some five decades later, Vermes reaffirmed his choices and stressed the need to include within the category of “Rewritten Bible” a variety of literary works, aside from those appearing in the Dead Sea Scrolls, “Genesis,” 8–9. 97 S. W. Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 1. 98 J. C. VanderKam, “The Wording of Biblical Citations in Some Rewritten Scriptural Works,” in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries (ed. E. D. Herbert and E. Tov; New Castle, DE: Oak Knoll Press, 2002), 41–56; idem, “Questions of Canon Viewed through the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Canon Debate (ed. L. M. McDonald and J. A. Sanders; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), 91–109; idem, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 49–71; E. C. Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999); idem, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible (VTSup 169; Leiden: Brill, 2015); T. H. Lim, The Formation of the Jewish Canon (AYBRL; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013), 74–188. 99 See further J. C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001) and idem, Jubilees: A Commentary on the Book of Jubilees (2 vols., Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2018).

SYNOPTIC TEXTS, MIMESIS, AND “ REWRITTEN BIBLE ”

107

the fact that these books appear in all biblical canons ipso facto disqualify them as examples of the genre?100 If so, would this not have the ironic effect of excluding older literary exemplars of rewritten scriptures that undoubtedly influenced the rewriting techniques evinced in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in other early Jewish writings? Moreover, what of the substantial amount of reworking, extension, and reinterpretation that occurs within various biblical writings, such as Joshua, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel? As Ulrich comments: “Many, if not virtually all books of the Bible are themselves ‘rewritten scripture.’”101 The types of reworking and expansion in these biblical writings vary, but the kinds of literary operations appearing in rewritten scriptures need to be understood, at least in part, against the background of the literary techniques evinced in the composition of older biblical books. In confronting the problems associated with the nomenclature of rewritten Bible, there is an additional question that must be confronted. If rewritten Bible refers to a particular genre, and not to an interpretive process, what genre is it? Vermes speaks of “a narrative that follows Scripture but includes a substantial amount of supplements and interpretative developments.”102 What, then, of the Temple Scroll (4Q524; 11QTa–c), a non-narrative work that takes as its point of departure pentateuchal laws from Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy? In this work, the authors select from, interpret, comment on, rework, and go beyond their literary precursors.103 Most scholars employing the terminology of rewritten Bible accept this fascinating complex of laws as an example of rewritten scripture.104 Yet, if so, does not the category of rewritten Bible involve multiple genres and would this realization not entail that the 100 “If it is [or was intended to be] a biblical text, then it is not rewritten Bible,” Bernstein, “Generic Category,” 175 (italics his). 101 E. C. Ulrich, “Crossing the Borders from ‘Pre-scripture’ to Scripture (Rewritten) to ‘Rewritten Scripture,’” in Rewritten Bible after Fifty Years (see n. 31), 85. In the reconstructions of R. G. Kratz, the amount of reworking and expansion within most biblical texts is massive, Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments: Grundwissen der Bibelkritik (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000) [transl. J. Bowden, The Composition of the Narrative Books of the Old Testament (London: T&T Clark, 2005)]. 102 G. Vermes, “Biblical Midrash,” in E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, Vol. 3.1 (rev. ed. by G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Goodman; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986), 326. 103 See recently, Zahn, Rewritten Scripture, 179–228; B. M. Levinson and M. M. Zahn, “The Hermeneutics of ‫ כי‬and ‫ אם‬in the Temple Scroll,” in B. M. Levinson, A More Perfect Torah: At the Intersection of Philology and Hermeneutics in Deuteronomy and the Temple Scroll (Critical Studies in the Hebrew Bible 1; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 1–43. 104 Thus, e.g., Bernstein, “Generic Category,” 193–95 and Vermes (“Genesis,” 8), who points out that the Temple Scroll was not yet published, when he wrote his initial study.

108

Chapter 4

rewriting in question involves, among other things, a process of interpreting and extending one or more base texts? This brings us back to consideration of the wider phenomenon of mimesis in the ancient Mediterranean world. It may be time to consider the phenomenon of rewritten texts in the broader context of literary conventions evident in the composition of ancient Near Eastern, biblical, and classical literature. To be sure, such considerations do not eliminate all issues of classification and definition, but such considerations shed light on many literary operations evident within these texts. Moreover, some of the issues debated in current scholarship of the Hebrew Bible, the Deuterocanon, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the New Testament were anticipated within antiquity. To these, we now turn. 4

Out with the Old, In with the New: Disputes and Dangers in the Use of Mimesis

Mimesis was itself a topic of study and discussion within classical antiquity.105 Indeed, by the first century CE, a number of rhetorical schools had developed in the classical world. The Controversiae by Seneca the Elder and a similar type of collection ascribed to Quintilian, Declamationes minores (“The Minor Declamations”), consist of model speeches of various genres—forensic, deliberative, epideictic, panegyric—that students were supposed to imitate,

105 Thus, for instance, Isocrates, In sophistas 14–18; Cicero, Ad Herrenium 1.2.3; idem, Inv. 1.1.2; idem, De or. 1.4.14; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 1.1.1–5; idem, De imitatione; Seneca the Elder, Controversiae 1.6–10; 2.2.8–12; 3 (Preface); Seneca the Younger (Lucius Annaeus Seneca, II), Ep. 40; 100; 114; Petronius, Satyrica 4; Longinus, Peri hypsous (“On the Sublime”), 13–14; Quintilian, Inst. 10.1, 2, 3, 10; Horace, Ep. 1.19.21; Hermogenes, Peri ideōn 4.409–411; Aulus Gellius, Noct. Att. 9.9. See further W. Kroll, Studien zum Verständnis der römischen Literatur (Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 1924 [repr. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1973]), 146–78; G. M. A. Grube, The Greek and Roman Critics (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1965 [repr. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1995]); T. Woodman, “SelfImitation and the Substance of History,” in Creative Imitation and Latin Literature (see n. 12), 143–55; G. Nagy, “Early Greek Views of Poets and Poetry,” in The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism (see n. 83), 2–77; D. C. Innes, “Augustan Critics,” in The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism, 246–73; D. A. Russell, “Greek Criticism of the Empire,” in The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism, 299–329. The name of Longinus is often placed within quotation marks, because the actual author of the first- or second-century CE work Peri hypsous is debated, D. A. Russell, ‘Longinus’ On the Sublime (Oxford: Clarendon, 1964), xxii–xxx.

SYNOPTIC TEXTS, MIMESIS, AND “ REWRITTEN BIBLE ”

109

when assigned a certain topic.106 In other words, the rhetorical schools, as they emerged in the (Greek) Hellenistic world after Alexander and in Rome, were living examples of how mimetic art was explicitly and consciously practiced.107 Given the practice of literary imitation in a number of different periods, it is not surprising that one comes across a range of comments about the standards governing the practice. Certainly, training students in the art of mimesis was not without its critics. For instance, the practice of reviving and employing archaic diction and classical style was eschewed by some. Quintilian (ca. 35–95 CE) decries the use of antique language as unsuitable in many circumstances.108 Similarly, Seneca the Younger (ca. 4 BCE–65 CE) complains about those in his own time, who employ obsolete, unknown, and old-fashioned words as unbecoming to achieving good style.109 He pronounces such archaizing usage by contemporary orators as “corrupt” (corruptum), and “mistaken” (peccare).110 These sorts of comments are important, because they illumine ancient debates about the proper goals, methods, and limitations of mimesis. Thus, one may ask: what is the boundary, if there is such a thing, between mimesis and plagiarism? Where does copying stop and thievery begin? Are there any cases of plagiarism within biblical and postbiblical literature? Moreover, what is the relationship between mimesis and parody, if any? Does parody, which presumes close study of a literary work, a particular set of works, or an entire genre, constitute a form of mimesis? It will be useful to engage these questions, however briefly, because they inevitably affect how scholars may understand the relationships among synoptic scriptures. 4.1 Parody At first glance, parody would seem to be an obvious form of mimesis. Parody seems to be a kind of imitation that is designed to amuse and intended to be recognized as such.111 The success of a parody depends in large measure on readers (or listeners) knowing a good deal about the original that the new 106 D. R. Schackleton Bailey, Declamationes pseudo-Quintilianeae (Minores)/Quintilian: The Lesser Declamations (2 vols.; LCL; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006); G. A. Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric, 115–18. 107 Quintilian, Inst. 2.10; 12.1, 10. 108 Yet, he also criticizes the practice of coining many new words and speaking in metaphorical language, Quintilian, Inst. 11.6–7. 109 Seneca the Younger, Ep. 114.10–11. 110 By the same token, he finds fault with well-worn common usage and the employment of an overly-elaborate poetical style, Seneca the Younger, Ep. 114.13–14. 111 K. J. Dover, “Greek Parody,” in Oxford Classical Dictionary (see n. 1), 1114–15; Van Seters, “Creative Imitation,” 398–99.

110

Chapter 4

work parodies. In fact, some audience recognition is essential for allusions to have good effect. An example is the play Ranae (“Frogs”; 405 BCE) by the Greek playwright Aristophanes in which Aeschylus and Euripides deliver bombastic speeches. The humor in these orations depends, in no small part, on auditors having seen and heard plays by the respective poets.112 Other examples may be found in Ovid’s work Fasti (“Calendar”). For instance, Ovid’s highly-allusive and disjointed relation of the fall of the Tarquins and, for that matter, the tradition of Lucretia and Brutus, are practically incomprehensible, unless one knows the received tradition as set out in the Roman history of Livy.113 In short, the concise and witty tales that Ovid offers in this work often evoke established texts and are sensible only if one knows the standard tradition(s) upon which they are based. The primary form parody takes is comedy, but parody also plays a role in other forms of literature. A striking example is the collection of “biographies” of the second-third centuries (CE) Roman emperors known as the Scriptores historiae Augustae. Purportedly a continuation of the biographies of Roman emperors (De vita Caesarum) written by Suetonius (ca. 70–130 CE), the individual biographies are cast in a Suetonian format and are said to be written by no less than six different authors. In fact, a wealth of clues suggests that the biographies were written by one author, writing (probably) in the late fourth century (ca. 395 CE).114 It is relevant to observe both that this author has created some fictitious emperors within his larger work and that his mimesis does not involve any acknowledged dependence upon an older work. The success of the parody depends on the existence of a circle of well-educated readers (cognoscenti), who would recognize and appreciate the author’s sober, echtbiographical mask. The target of parody thus may be an individual author, a particular writing, a set of works, or an entire genre. In line with Russell’s definition of imitatio, parody can involve the principle of competition or rivalry (ζῆλος) with an established model. In parody the model imitated may be even turned into its mirror image. Yet, literary imitation normally assumes some admiration on the part of a writer for an older, well-established work, whereas parody may assume the

112 Similarly, irony and satire depend heavily on allusion for their effectiveness. 113 Livy, Ab urbe condita libri (“Books from the Foundation of the City”), 1.39–54; 2.2–19; Ovid, Fasti 2.685–852. 114 R. Syme, Ammianus and the Historia Augusta (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968); idem, Emperors and Biography: Studies in the ‘Historia Augusta’ (Oxford: Clarendon, 1971); idem, Historia Augusta Papers (Oxford: Clarendon, 1983).

SYNOPTIC TEXTS, MIMESIS, AND “ REWRITTEN BIBLE ”

111

opposite.115 Mimesis may involve the veneration of a canonical work, whereas parody may lampoon the older work and undermine it. To take one example, Aristophanes claimed that Eupolis’ comedy Maricas (ca. 421 BCE) was his own Equites (“Knights”; 424 BCE) “worn inside out” and that other comic writers were “imitating” (mimoumenoi) his comparisons.116 The use of the term imitation by Aristophanes is clearly negative. Parody is rejected as an illegitimate form of mimesis.117 In this instance, mimesis, if this is what we may call it, may have worked too well. The relationship between an older work and a new work was readily acknowledged by the original author himself.118 The deliberate reuse of the content, form, or style of an older literary work by a younger playwright brought some unwelcome recognition to the new work. In sum, parody may be regarded as a legitimate form of literary imitation, but it was not universally accepted, much less appreciated, as such in the ancient world. 4.2 Plagiarism Within classical antiquity, a more fiercely debated and complicated issue than parody was plagiarism. But, given that mimesis by definition involves the reuse of an older work in a new work, how should one define plagiarism? What constituted the “theft” (Greek κλοπὴ; Latin furtum) of another’s writing? The more nuanced and sophisticated of the ancient literary critics distinguished between the imitatio of earlier writers’ works and the plagiarism of those works.119 115 A point stressed by Conte and Most, “Imitatio,” 749. On this basis, they view parody as a neglected art form in Latin literature. But others (with good reason) strenuously disagree, P. G. Fowler and D. P. Fowler, “Latin parody,” in Oxford Classical Dictionary (see n. 1), 1115. 116 Aristophanes, Nubes (“Clouds”), 553–54, 559. 117 To complicate matters further, there are several works surviving in the Homeric tradition that are both parodies and advertisements of the (often anonymous) author’s Homeric skills. The Batrachomyomacchia (“Battle of Frogs and Mice”), a (probably) fourth century BCE work, is a brief “Homeric” epic parody, which does not so much make fun of the master work as it imitates its depictions of warfare in an amusing fashion. Categorized by modern scholars as an epyllion (a kind of miniature epic), the Batrachomyomacchia contains many entertaining epithets, comical terms for armor, and so forth, H. G. Evelyn-White, Hesiod, The Homeric Hymns and Homerica (new rev. ed.; LCL; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1936), 541–63. 118 It could be argued, in this case, that Eupolis’ mistake was to parody the work of a living playwright. Perhaps it was a sign of disrespect for a younger playwright to mimic the work of an older competitor. But, as Paul B. Harvey pointed out (personal communication), Aristophanes himself parodies two works of an elder playwright, Euripides’ Andromache (ca. 426 BCE) and Helena (412 BCE), in Aristophanes’ own work Thesmophoriazusae (411 BCE). 119 The following discussion is indebted to M. S. Silk, “Plagiarism,” in Oxford Classical Dictionary (see n. 1), 1188. More broadly, see E. Stemplinger, Das Plagiat in der griechischen Literatur (Leipzig: Teubner, 1912).

112

Chapter 4

For these literati, theft constituted slavish and derivative copying and was to be condemned.120 Plagiarism was despised as thievery.121 By contrast, creative imitation was an acceptable and normal reuse of older material that resulted in the borrowed material becoming the borrower’s own property in a new literary setting. Because the original was presumably well known and informed the new context, the relationship between the old and the new was implicitly acknowledged, rather than concealed. When Seneca the Elder suggests that Ovid imitated Virgil “not as a pilferer, but as an open appropriator” (non subripiendi causa sed palam mutuandi), the difference between mimesis and plagiarism seems clear.122 Indeed, one could argue that the newer work is complementary to the older work and leads readers to understand the old work in a new light.123 A similar distinction between mimesis and plagiarism seems evident when Longinus praises a whole tradition of writers from Stesichorus and Archilochus to Plato for their clever and informed reuse of Homer.124 Nevertheless, the boundary between the proper appropriation of an older work and outright plagiarism is not always clear. Indeed, such a boundary seems to have been unknown to many in the ancient world. The question is very much connected to a related issue, namely the link between tradition and innovation. Is the ultimate goal of mimesis to learn from the excellent minds of the past, to study, absorb, and master much-admired classics or is it to innovate beyond, compete with, and even surpass the originals? Is the highest goal of mimesis the melding of a student’s personality with his model’s or the production of a new and better work than that produced by the model? When many modern critics speak of imitatio, they emphasize emulation and competition (ζῆλος), rather than servile dependence. They speak of the need for critical study and the use of a plurality of models, rather than the uncritical reworking of a single older work. It has to be admitted, however, that when many ancient writers speak of “imitātiō,” they usually mean: 1) the “action of imitating an 120 So, for instance, Horace, Ars 132–34. 121 In the opinion of Van Seters, the Chronicler employed a form of imitation in writing his work, but one that amounts to plagiarism, “Creative Imitation,” 399–400. The issues are admittedly complex, but I disagree with Van Seters’ claim and shall deal with the matter in chapter 5, “Theft or Mimesis? The Non-Citation of Older Writings in Chronicles.” 122 Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Suasoriae 3.7. Cf. Cicero, Brutus (De Claris Oratoribus), 76. 123 On this matter, see the extended discussion of A. Lange, “In the Second Degree: Ancient Jewish Paratextual Literature in the Context of Graeco-Roman and Ancient Near Eastern Literature,” in In the Second Degree: Paratextual Literature in Ancient Near Eastern and Ancient Mediterranean Culture and Its Reflections in Medieval Literature (ed. P. S. Alexander, A. Lange, and R. J. Pillinger; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 3–42. 124 Longinus, Peri hypsous, 13.

SYNOPTIC TEXTS, MIMESIS, AND “ REWRITTEN BIBLE ”

113

example”; 2) the “action of producing a copy or an imitation, mimicking”; or 3) the “result of imitating, a copy, counterfeit, imitation.”125 To be sure, it is important to point out that some ancient commentators speak of the need to go beyond imitating an older model. As Quintilian points out, if one sets out to reproduce an older literary work, no matter how highly esteemed and worthy that excellent model may be, one will end up reproducing both its strengths and its weaknesses. Moreover, an older literary work, no matter how highly esteemed that work may be, will inevitably exhibit certain oddities and peculiarities that would be unsuitable to reproduce in one’s own writing.126 According to Quintilian, a student needs to go beyond imitation and aspire to produce a better product. Better, then, to learn from more than one past master in preparing one’s own literary work.127 Similarly, in the view of Horace, it is important to learn from the best of tradition, but not to imitate it slavishly.128 It is clear that many writers aspired to produce better works than those written by their ancestors and peers. Jerome, for example, in composing his Life of Paul, the First Hermit, seems to have been determined to upstage the work of Athanasius, Life of Anthony, by creating a forerunner to Anthony.129 In so doing, Jerome advertises that he (Jerome) is more knowledgeable than the master Athanasius. Whether such an attempt “to aspire to compete with the model and even offer a rival version of the borrowed work” is better termed aemulatio, rather than imitatio, as Green has argued, is unclear.130 The process of aemulatio can be not only competitive, but also hostile.131 The argument is important, but the shortcoming of this view resides in the fact that aemulatio normally refers 125 Oxford Latin Dictionary (ed. P. G. W. Glare; Oxford: Clarendon, 1988), 833. See Cicero, Ad Herennium 1.3; idem, De Or. 3.53.204; idem, Phil. 14.6.17; idem, Off. 3.1.1; Seneca the Younger, Ep. 65.3, and the discussion by Green, Classical Bearings, 194 (with further references). 126 Cicero, De Or. 2.90–91; Horace, Ep. 1.19.15; Seneca the Younger, Ep. 114.17. 127 Quintilian, Inst. 10.2.25–26. 128 Horace, Ars 119–39. 129 R. J. Deferrari, Early Christian Biographies (The Fathers of the Church 15; Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America, 1952); P. B. Harvey, “Jerome Life of Paul, the First Hermit,” in Ascetic Behavior in Greco-Roman Antiquity (ed. V. L. Wimbush; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 357–69. 130 Green, Classical Bearings, 194. From Green’s perspective, the literary technique of aemulatio can include imitatio as one of its methods, but it is not necessary for aemulatio to do so (with reference to Livy, Ab urbe condita 28.21.4; Velleius, Paterculus 1.17.5–7; Cicero, Tusculanae disputationes 4.3.7; 18.7; 26.1–2; Pliny (the Elder), Nat. 13.21.70, and other works). 131 Livy, Ab urbe condita 26.38.10; 44.25.2; Pliny (the Elder), Nat. 13.70; Cicero, Tusc. 4.26.56. Conte stresses, however, that traditio and aemulatio need not be seen as diametrically opposed to one another, Rhetoric of Imitation, 37–39.

114

Chapter 4

to the effort to rival another person (usually a contemporary) in terms of personal character and above all in public persona.132 This contrasts with the attempt to rival or to surpass another literary work. In any case, the larger point is that many of those praising literary imitation were also aware of its inherent dangers. These critics stress the need to equal or better the accomplishments of one’s predecessors.133 Such expectations on the part of the ancients may be contrasted with the views of some modern analyses of rewritten scriptures that conceive of such compositions as inherently (or only) conservative, respectful, and complimentary. To be sure, a mimetic work calls attention to the prestige of the work it mimics and implicitly grants authority to that work.134 It is also true that many works of mimesis do not equal or better their prestigious precursors. Yet, in the view of Longinus, the contest with the greats of the past is itself a noble one and in the company of such illustrious figures, “it is no disgrace to be worsted by one’s elders.”135 The nuanced distinction between mimesis and plagiarism advanced by some literary critics seems to have been lost on others in the ancient world, who seem to have reacted against the practice of mimesis itself. Not a few of the literati seem to have deemed any substantial reuse of older compositions as improper. Hence, what might be viewed by one ancient critic as a brilliant imitatio might be condemned by another critic as derivative copying or the “theft” (κλοπὴ) of another author’s creation. For some writers, the appropriation of their work by other writers was a delicate issue. The sixth-century (BCE) Greek poet Theognis purportedly placed a seal (σφραγίς) on his verses in an attempt to avert their misappropriation.136 The fourth-century BCE Greek orator Isocrates intimates that because other orators had (mis)used his work, he was 132 See the Oxford Latin Dictionary, 64, which defines aemulātiō as: 1) “Desire to equal or excel others, ambition, emulation”; 2) “Unfriendly rivalry, emulation, envy”; 3) “An attempt to imitate (a person) or reproduce (a thing), imitation.” Cf. aemulātus (ibid, 64) “Rivalry, emulation.” 133 Hence, Russell argues that imitatio and aemulatio can be (and should be) complementary literary processes, “De imitatione,” 9–10. 134 A point underscored by G. J. Brooke, “Hypertextuality and the ‘Parabiblical’ Dead Sea Scrolls,” in In the Second Degree (see n. 123), 43–64. 135 Longinus, Peri hypsous 13.4. Similarly, Statius, Thebais 12.816–17; Tacitus, Dialogus de oratoribus 25–27. Quintilian assesses the mimetic plays of Terence and Plautus as only pale shadows of the originals, Institutio Oratoria 10.1.99. But these sorts of pessimistic evaluations may be compared with the more optimistic assessment of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, De antiquis oratoribus (preface), D. A. Russell, “Greek Augustans,” in Ancient Literary Criticism (ed. D. A. Russell and M. Winterbottom; Oxford: Clarendon, 1972), 305–7; Grube, Greek and Roman Critics, 207–30. 136 Some would date him earlier to the seventh century, M. L. West, Greek Lyric Poetry (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993), xiv, 64–73.

SYNOPTIC TEXTS, MIMESIS, AND “ REWRITTEN BIBLE ”

115

free to reuse it himself.137 The first-century CE poet Horace dismissed those poets who imitated him as a “servile herd” (servum pecus).138 The Roman historian Polybius wrote that one should engage only in the writing of recent history, lest one repeat or plagiarize the works of earlier historians, as he accused many others of having done.139 Some applied the damaging label plagiarism fairly mechanically to imitation in general. In this context, a number of Greek writers produced dissertations entitled “On Plagiarism” (Peri klopēs). The earliest known list stems from the third- to second-century BCE scholar Aristophanes of Byzantium.140 The title of his work is revealing, Parallēloi Menandrou te kai aph’ hōn eklepsen eklogai (“Parallels between Menander and Those from whom He Stole”). A later and much more extensive list is provided by the third-century CE scholar and philosopher Porphyry.141 In both cases, one comes across numerous charges of plagiarism. In fact, in the case of Porphyry, one finds the astonishing claim that the major Greek thinkers and writers were all plagiarists.142 As serious as such allegations may be, they are rarely complicated by any recognition of the nuanced relationships that existed among some similar texts. Philosophers as eminent as Anaxagoras, Plato, and Epicurus were accused in the third-century CE writing of Diogenes Laertius of stealing other thinkers’ ideas.143 In any case, it is revealing that such serious charges were leveled, even at a relatively late date, against a variety of highly-esteemed intellectuals from much earlier times. In Rome, Terence was accused of theft for reworking older Greek material already translated or adapted by his predecessors, especially the Greek playwright Menander (ca. 392–344 BCE).144 It may be helpful to discuss his case in some depth, because the actual situation was certainly more complex than 137 Isocrates, Philippus 5.94 (ca. 346 BCE). 138 Horace, Ep. 1.19.20. 139 Polybius, Histories 9.2. Yet, as Van Seters observes (“Creative Imitation,” 399), the fashioning of such narratives about past events left a lot of scope for imitating the form, style, and content of the works of previous historical writers. In other words, ancient historians did not employ the writings of their predecessors merely as historical sources. 140 Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship, 190–91. 141 Eusebius, Praep. ev. 10.3.12. 142 A charge with which Eusebius and some of the church fathers very much agreed, Eusebius, Praep. ev. 10.1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 14. 143 Diogenes Laertius, Vitae philosophorum 3.37 (Plato); 9.34 (Democritus); 10.7, 14 (Epicurus). It is very difficult to assess the validity of the accusations registered in the work of Diogenes Laertius, because the nature and reliability of many of his sources are uncertain. 144 Terence, Eun. 1–45; idem, Ad. 6.

116

Chapter 4

his chief critic made it out to be.145 In the prefaces to his plays, Terence openly acknowledged his indebtedness to the works of past poets and playwrights. He made no attempt to hide the fact that he borrowed from past literary works and retained many of their original titles. Nevertheless, such open declarations about sources did not stop his elder contemporary and rival Luscius Lanuvinus from repeatedly accusing him of contaminating and spoiling well-admired older plays. When evaluating the charges of the little-known Luscius Lanuvinus, it is difficult to make an independent assessment of the degree to which Terence and another Roman playwright Plautus adapted Menander’s comedies for the Roman stage, because only a few of Menander’s plays survive. Moreover, one would have to examine each instance of borrowing on a case-by-case basis, because the extent of reuse may have varied in each instance. Study of the fragments of Menander’s Dis exapaton (“The Double Deceiver”) suggests that Plautus’ adaptation of this work took more liberties with this comedy than previous scholarship had imagined.146 In the case of Terence, he seems to have retained most of the names of the plays he took over from earlier Greek and Roman playwrights. While being generally more conservative in modifying the plots of his borrowed plays than Plautus was, Terence also innovated in a number of ways beyond his sources, including adding material from other plays into some of his plays, creating his own contributions, converting monologues to dialogues, changing the endings of plays, avoiding the use of direct address, increasing the amount of lines with musical accompaniment, and using prologues to combat his critics (as opposed to employing prologues to inform his audience about the structure of the plays).147 In sum, even though Terence presented himself as an honest 145 K. Büchner, Das Theater des Terenz (Bibliothek der klassischen Altertumswissenschaften, n.F. 1/4; Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1974); S. M. Goldberg, Understanding Terence (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986); E. Fantham, “The Growth of Literature and Criticism at Rome,” in The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism (see n. 83), 223–27; E. Karakasis, Terence and the Language of Roman Comedy (Cambridge Classical Studies; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005). 146 Plautus, Bacchides (“The Bacchis Sisters”), 492–562. See D. Bain, “Plautus uortit barbare: Plautus, Bacchides 526–61 and Menander, Dis exapaton 102–12,” in Creative Imitation and Latin Literature (see n. 12), 17–34; W. G. Arnott, “Menander,” in Oxford Classical Dictionary (see n. 1), 956–57. 147 Terence, Andr. 1–27; idem, Eun. 1–45; idem, Haut. 35–39; idem, Phorm. 1–34. The degree of innovation (as opposed to conservation) is somewhat difficult to ascertain, both because most of the original plays Terence adapted have been lost and because Terence integrated his additions so carefully into his plays that there are few literary seams, indicating possible insertions or changes, Fantham, “Growth of Literature,” 224–27; P. G. M. Brown, “Terence,”

SYNOPTIC TEXTS, MIMESIS, AND “ REWRITTEN BIBLE ”

117

and open appropriator of earlier well-established literary works and evidently left his own distinctive stamp on the materials he borrowed and developed, this compliance with the traditional conventions of literary imitation did not prevent his work from being assailed as derivative and counterfeit. As Silk comments, “[t]he preoccupation with plagiarism over many centuries serves as a reminder that, contrary to some modern misstatements, ancient literature, especially poetry, was expected to be ‘new.’ Certainly many writers, Greek and Roman, are anxious to assert the originality of their own claim to it.”148 Much of the modern discussion about imitation and plagiarism assumes clearly available and agreed-upon rules across the spectrum of ancient writing during a variety of times, but no universally recognized arbiter of definitions and standards existed in antiquity.149 There was no central authority to whom writers and poets could appeal and there was, of course, no such thing as copyright and no widespread notion of the sanctity of intellectual property.150 Working within diverse traditions, diverse times, and diverse settings, ancient critics were sure to disagree. One problem was that ancient authors were employing different, if not competing and contradictory, aesthetic principles of what constituted a great work of literary art. For some, clever appropriations of the styles, genres, or motifs of earlier, formative works were highly prized. In this view, the cultured reuse of older literary tradition was itself a contribution to the continuation and livelihood of that tradition. Imitation was the sincerest form of flattery.

in Oxford Classical Dictionary (see n. 1), 1483–84. In any event, Luscius Lanuvinus seems to have expected Terence to create and produce his own plays altogether. He also seems to have thought that Terence was not equal to the task. His reworking and combination of older material spoiled and ruined that older material. Hence, Terence’s reuse (and translation) of older plays, no matter how important and prestigious those plays may have become, was unacceptable. Terence, however, had his own pointed criticisms to make of the productions of Luscius Lanuvinus, Haut. 3; idem, Phorm. 6–10. 148 Silk, “Plagiarism,” 1188. Among those asserting the originality of their works are: Pindar, Ol. 9.48–49; Aristophanes, Nubes 547; Callimachus, Aetia, fr. 1.25–28; Lucretius, De rerum natura 1.921–30; Virgil, Georgics 3.291–93; Horace, Ep. 1.19.21–34; Propertius, Elegiorum 3.1.1–6; Diodorus Siculus, Bibliothēkē 40.7.8; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Antiquitates Romanae 1.2.1; 3.1–3; 4.1–5. Whether, in fact, each of these works was completely original is another matter. 149 This reality bedevils the many attempts to define what a “rewritten Bible” is. Given the freedom with which ancient writers worked, there was (and could not be) no one standard definition of what such a composition might be to which all had to conform. The disagreements among scholars reflect, in part, the diversity of the ancient evidence itself. 150 Derrenbacker provides a good overview of the stages in the production and “publication” of books in the Greco-Roman world, Ancient Compositional Practices, 39–44.

118

Chapter 4

To a greater or lesser degree, all literary works employing mimesis are, however, by definition derivative. Each borrows from past authors and each stands in a clear line of dependence upon one or more previous literary works. It is precisely the derivative property inherent in imitatio that was prized by some ancient commentators, but objected to by others. For the latter, originality was an essential key to establishing the value of a new work. A clear relation of dependence upon an older work was deemed to be a liability, not an asset. The reuse and incorporation of the style, content, or genres inherent in received materials threw into question whether such works were actually new. A demonstrable connection to and reliance upon older writings, no matter how well-established or famous, could be viewed as plagiarism and theft. These two views (and others) of what constituted excellence in literature coexisted within antiquity and the inherent contradiction between them was never resolved. Indeed, the two views (and others) still exist today.151 Nevertheless, it is surely relevant that some of the writers practicing mimesis continued to do so despite the criticism they received from others. This suggests at least two things. First, it indicates that there were those within the broader intellectual community, who could distinguish between derivative copying and creative borrowing and appreciate the difference between them. Second, it demonstrates that there was a receptive audience for mimesis during a variety of times and places. In spite of the literary appetite of some for completely new and original writings, there were others whose literary appetite favored ingenious appropriations of the classics. 5 Conclusions Study of the ancient practice of mimesis holds much promise for elucidating the significance of parallel laws, poems, lists, and stories in the Hebrew Bible, Deuterocanon, Dead Sea Scrolls, New Testament, and Pseudepigrapha.152 Given that many biblical writings were anonymous, undated, and untitled, it would 151 In an article (“Her Life, His Art, Your Call”) on ever-expanding notions of plagiarism and the plethora of public lawsuits pertaining to alleged instances of plagiarism, C. Isherwood asks: “If, in today’s climate, a mere few words corresponding too closely to a few others in a previously published work can bring you newspaper headlines, will all written records of contemporary experience eventually become off-limits to other writers?” New York Times 156 (No. 53,782), December 3, 2006, section 4, p. 3. 152 See, e.g., O. D. Baban, On the Road Encounters in Luke-Acts: Hellenistic Mimesis and Luke’s Theology of the Way (Paternoster Biblical Monographs; Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2006); Petersen, “Typological Reflections,” 35–44.

SYNOPTIC TEXTS, MIMESIS, AND “ REWRITTEN BIBLE ”

119

seem that they readily lent themselves to imitation. Van Seters comments: “What is remarkable in biblical studies is that scholars can treat intertextuality, source criticism, form-criticism and tradition history and completely avoid any discussion of the presence and significance of literary imitation in the text.”153 Indeed, the recognition of mimesis within the larger context of a variety of writings stemming from the ancient world leads one to expect to see mimesis at work in the history of the composition of literary writings both in ancient Israel and in early Judaism. That the authors of the Temple Scroll should see fit to revisit the laws of the Pentateuch by ingeniously reworking legal material from Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy in the first-person divine voice should not occasion great surprise. Similarly, that the writers of the Genesis Apocryphon draw on Genesis, 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and other writings to reimagine stories from the Noah and Abraham cycles is readily understandable, when the range of compositional techniques associated with mimesis in the ancient world is taken under careful consideration. To be sure, the Temple Scroll can be read without recourse to Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy as a work of literature in its own right and the Genesis Apocryphon can be read without recourse to Genesis, 1 Enoch, and Jubilees, as a work of literature in its own right. Nevertheless, the authors of the Temple Scroll and the Genesis Apocryphon would likely have assumed that their educated readers would know something of their sources and thus would appreciate their inventive reuse of older literary works. For this reason alone, a strong case can be made for the study of mimesis. Scholars can gain an added appreciation of the literary craft practiced by the authors of synoptic scriptures, rewritten texts, parabiblical texts, and paratexts through an acute awareness of their sources.154 After all, what one of the ancient writers said still rings true: “One learns (one’s) skill from another, both long ago and now.” 153 Van Seters, “Creative Imitation,” 397. 154 Lange (“Second Degree,” 19–20) discusses the terminology.

Chapter 5

Theft or Mimesis? The Non-Citation of Older Writings in Chronicles In the previous chapter, I argued that consideration of the ancient compositional technique of mimesis (μίμησις) practiced in the various scribal cultures of the ancient Mediterranean world elucidates why some biblical writers found it advantageous to create new literary works by reusing, recontextualizing, modifying, and extending older prestigious literary works. In the ancient Near Eastern and Classical worlds, mimesis could focus upon a particular work, a particular diction, a particular style of writing, or a particular kind of literary genre to perpetuate, develop, revise, and augment. The literary imitation of an older recognized work was self-conscious, open, and studious, rather than unconscious and secretive, even though the new work might not directly cite the older work. Mimesis normally involves going beyond interpreting and commenting upon an individual feature discerned in the established model. Rather, in mimesis a writer would actively employ an older work to produce his own new and distinctive literary creation. The new writing might even compete with or best its literary antecedent. In the current study, I would like to expand the discussion by taking a close look at a couple of practical examples of mimesis to illumine how early Judean authors practiced this literary craft. Two case studies follow, dealing with parallel biblical texts. Both of these examples involve the book of Chronicles, which most scholars agree is indebted to a variety of older writings—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and so forth.1 The first case study deals with the Levitical town lists in Joshua and Chronicles, while the second deals with the systems of regnal source citations found in Samuel-Kings and Chronicles. In each case study, the texts are not precisely parallel. That is, there are some significant differences between the two sets of texts, as well as many detailed similarities. The differences have puzzled commentators, precisely because the similarities are so striking. Over the years, different theories have arisen to explain the incongruities in setting, order, and content. In each instance, I think that the literary

1 G. N. Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9 (AB 12; New York: Doubleday/New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), 66–72. ©  GARY N. KNOPPERS (†), Christl M. Maier and H. G. M. Williamson, 2021 |  doi:10.1163/9789004444898_007

The Non-Citation of Older Writings in Chronicles

121

practice of mimesis helps to explain both the similarities and the differences between the parallel accounts. 1

Chronicles and Joshua

That the lists of Levitical towns found in Joshua 21 and 1 Chronicles 6 are somehow related is not in doubt, even though there are a number of important discrepancies between the two accounts.2 The register of Levitical towns is the only large-scale passage in Joshua that also appears in Chronicles. The two books have otherwise little in common except for the mention of tribal names and individual figures, who appear in the Israelite lineages (1 Chr 2:3–9:1). The dissimilarities between the lists in Joshua and in Chronicles can be summarized under three rubrics: 1) context; 2) length; and 3) order. In Joshua, the allocation of Levitical towns becomes an issue after the land distributions occur among the nine and a half Cisjordanian tribes (Josh 14:1–19:51).3 In the aftermath of the conquest, the various Israelite sodalities are given their specific territorial allotments and the towns of refuge are established throughout the land (Josh 20:1–9). Because the tribe of Levi remains without a landed inheritance (Josh 21:1–2), the ancestral heads of the Levites approach Joshua, the priest Eleazar, and the ancestral heads of the other Israelite tribes at Shiloh to request that the Levites might be granted their towns, as well as their surrounding estates (‫)ומגרשיהן‬, just as they had been promised by Yhwh through Moses (Num 35:1–8; cf. Num 18:20–24; Deut 10:8–9; Josh 13:14, 33; 18:7). The town register, which situates Levitical residences within a variety of designated Israelite sites in the Transjordan and in the Cisjordan, is thus the non-Levitical response to the Levites’ appeal (Josh 21:3). Chronicles situates the Levitical town list in an entirely different literary context. Although the work does not directly address how the Israelites emerged in the land, it does deal with the issue of the Levitical inheritance, contextualizing the Levitical town list at the conclusion of Levi’s lineages. 2 On the textual relationships between these two particular passages, see in much greater detail my “Projected Age Comparisons of the Levitical Townlists: Divergent Theories and Their Significance,” Textus 22 (2005), 21–63. 3 Generally considered to be part of the so-called Priestly portions of the book, E. Cortese, Josua 13–21: Ein priesterschriftlicher Abschnitt im deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk (OBO 94; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990); R. Albertz, “The Canonical Alignment of the Book of Joshua,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E. (ed. O. Lipschits, G. N. Knoppers, and R. Albertz; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 287–303; J. J. Krause, Exodus und Eisodus: Komposition und Theologie von Josua 1–5 (VTSup 161; Leiden: Brill, 2014).

122

Chapter 5

Given that Levi, along with Judah (2:3–4:23) and Benjamin (8:1–40; 9:35–44), plays a strategic role in anchoring the other tribes in the Chronistic introduction to the people of Israel (2:1–9:1), the work furnishes the Levitical settlements with a more central role within Israel’s wide-ranging tribal legacy than does Joshua. Indeed, the genealogical introduction to the people of Israel (1:1–9:1), addressing Israel’s forebears, links to other peoples, and the identity of Israel’s descendants—internal tribal affiliations, filial relations with other peoples, and residences—places Levi at the center of all of Jacob/Israel’s lineages (5:27–6:66 [ET 6:1–81]).4 a The peoples of the world (1 Chr 1:1–54) b Judah (1 Chr 2:3–4:23) c Simeon and the Transjordanian tribes (1 Chr 4:24–5:26) d The tribe of Levi (1 Chr 5:27–6:66 [ET 6:1–81]) c’ The northern tribes (1 Chr 7:1–40) b’ Benjamin (1 Chr 8:1–40) a’ The Persian period inhabitants of Jerusalem (1 Chr 9:2–34)

In this schema, the Levitical sites appear before many of the tribal lineages and their places of residence are presented—Issachar, Dan, Naphtali, Manasseh, Ephraim, Asher, and Benjamin (7:1–8:40; 9:35–44). While in Joshua Levi’s landed inheritance is almost an afterthought, following the successful territorial distributions given to the other tribes, in Chronicles land is a constituent component of Levi’s historic legacy. In contrast with the extensive introduction appearing in Joshua, Chronicles offers a very brief introduction: “These are their places of residence according to their settlements within their territories” (‫;ואלה מושבותם לטירותם בגבולם‬ 1 Chr 6:39a). In other words, the literary work introduces the tribe of Levi by discussing its lineages, both priestly and otherwise, before proceeding to inform readers about the settlements of this tribe within the territories of the other tribes. The interest shown in the locations of the Levitical habitations is,

4 On the pivotal place of these Levitical lineages (1 Chr 5:27–6:66) at the heart of the genealogical introduction to the people of Israel (1 Chr 2:1–9:1), see M. Kartveit, Motive und Schichten der Landtheologie in I Chronik 1–9 (ConBOT 28; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1989), 69–87; M. Oeming, Das wahre Israel: Die ‘genealogische Vorhalle’ 1 Chronik 1–9 (BWANT 128; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1990), 142–57; Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, 245–65, 400–50; R. W. Klein, 1 Chronicles (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2006), 172–213; J. T. Sparks, The Chronicler’s Genealogies: Towards an Understanding of 1 Chronicles 1–9 (AcBib 28; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2008), 29–162.

The Non-Citation of Older Writings in Chronicles

123

therefore, consistent with the larger Chronistic concern to underscore the ties between the people and the land.5 Turning to matters of length, (MT) Joshua offers an extensive and detailed depiction, including anecdotes, explanations, comments, and numerical summaries that are unattested in Chronicles. References to the towns of refuge (Josh 21:13, 21, 27, 32, 38), the account (Josh 20:1–9) of which does not appear in Chronicles, occur only twice (1 Chr 6:42, 52). Some eight towns in MT Joshua do not appear in Chronicles, although some of these towns do appear in LXX Joshua. Chronicles also lacks many (but not all) of the summaries found in Joshua (21:4, 26, 33, 38, 39, 40).6 Joshua and Chronicles share similar content, but offer different sequences of presentation. Having provided a detailed historical context for the assignment of Levitical towns (21:1–3), the author of the Joshua account summarizes the number and tribal sources of the towns to be assigned to each of the Levitical groups and sub-groups: the Aaronide Qohathites (21:4), the rest of the Qohathites (21:5), the Gershonites (21:6), and the Merarites (21:7). Following a concluding summary (21:8), the text details these towns by name (21:9–38), according to both the order and the categorization provided in the earlier introduction: the Aaronide Qohathites (21:9–19), the rest of the Qohathites (21:20–26), the Gershonites (21:27–33), and the Merarites (21:34–38). The account ends with numerical summaries (21:39–40).7 5 This important theme is discussed at length by S. Japhet, “People and Land in the Restoration Period,” in Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit (ed. G. Strecker; GTA 25; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), 103–25 [repr. From the Rivers of Babylon to the Highlands of Judah: Collected Studies on the Restoration Period (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 96–116]; eadem, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and its Place in Biblical Thought (BEATAJ 9; Frankfurt a. M.: Lang, 1989), 270–85; eadem, I & II Chronicles (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993), 143–65. See also Kartveit, Motive und Schichten, 110–17. 6 For the sake of comparison, it is important to point out that there are some significant differences in the names and numbers of towns found in LXX Joshua compared with those found in MT Joshua. The account of LXX Joshua is, on the whole, shorter than that of MT Joshua. The variants lie beyond the scope of this essay. See further, Knoppers, “Projected Age Comparisons,” 27–29, 51–60; idem, I Chronicles 1–9, 430–36; A. G. Auld, Joshua: Jesus, Son of Nauē in Codex Vaticana (Septuagint Commentary Series; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 202–8; Klein, 1 Chronicles, 208–16. On the important ways in which the major LXX witnesses differ from the MT, see E. Tov, Textual Criticism (3rd rev. ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 294–99, and the further references listed there. 7 Promise-fulfillment notices (21:43–45) follow the summaries (21:41–42), but these probably belong with the next account (Josh 22:1–6): J. A. Soggin, Joshua (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972), 206; A. Rofé, “The End of the Book of Joshua According to the Septuagint,” Hen 4 (1982), 35; T. C. Butler, Joshua 13–24 (2nd ed.; WBC 7B; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014), 234–39. For a different view, see H. N. Rösel, Joshua (HCOT; Leuven: Peeters, 2011), 340–41. LXX Josh 21:42a–d presents an additional summation, centering on Israel’s inheritance

124

Chapter 5

Compared with the orderly presentation in Joshua, the presentation in Chronicles seems, at first glance, to be disorderly. Chronicles surprises with its sequence of pericopes. In fact, the sequence seems to be so disjointed that some have spoken of textual corruption or of poor editing.8 Others have surmised that the Levitical town list has undergone a series of redactions.9 Given the differences between the two lists, Graeme Auld has gone so far as to argue that the version in Chronicles must be earlier than that found in Joshua.10 After all, why would the author of Chronicles take such a coherent and wellorganized passage and deliberately introduce incoherence and disorganization into this register?11 A more likely explanation, Auld thinks, is that the authors of Joshua attempted to correct the problems inherent within the earlier text of Chronicles. The longer text of Joshua 21 is thus a later, well-integrated, reorganized, but derivative product. As for the list in Chronicles, Auld views it as a composite text, a collage that developed gradually and haphazardly in a series of stages. The point about length is a legitimate one. Chronicles is very much the shorter text in this comparison. Yet, I argue that the writer worked with an earlier version of Joshua than that preserved in the MT.12 Taking the other comments into consideration, it will be useful to pay some close attention to the two presentations. For the sake of convenience, it may be helpful to begin with Joshua as a reference point. and that of Joshua himself, which brings closure to the section devoted to the assignment of inheritances begun in Joshua. There is a parallel between the material found in this LXX plus and the summation found in MT (and LXX) Josh 19:49–51. See Rofé‚ “End of the Book of Joshua,” 34–35; idem, “The Editing of the Book of Joshua in Light of 4QJosha,” in New Qumran Texts and Studies (ed. G. J. Brooke; STDJ 15; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 73–75; Auld, Joshua: Jesus, Son of Nauē, 208–9. 8 E. L. Curtis and A. A. Madsen speak of “infelicitous” editing, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Chronicles (ICC; New York: Charles Scribner, 1910), 137. 9 I. Benzinger, Die Bücher der Chronik (KHC 20; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1901), 24–26; W. Rudolph, Chronikbücher (HAT I/21; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1955), 61, 63; R. L. Braun, 1 Chronicles (WBC 14; Waco, TX: Word, 1986), 99–100. 10 A. G. Auld, “Cities of Refuge in Biblical Tradition,” JSOT 10 (1978), 26–40; idem, “The ‘Levitical Cities’: Texts and History,” ZAW 91 (1979), 194–207; idem, “The Cities in Joshua 21: The Contribution of Textual Criticism,” Textus 15 (1990), 141–52. The articles on Joshua by Auld have been conveniently assembled in his book, Joshua Retold: Synoptic Perspectives (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998). In what follows, relevant citations of Auld’s work will be to this book. 11 Ibid., 25–36, 49–57. 12 Knoppers, “Projected Age Comparisons,” 51–60; idem, I Chronicles 1–9, 442–50.

125

The Non-Citation of Older Writings in Chronicles

Introduction Overview: Qohathite Aaronides Overview: Qohathites in Ephraim, Dan, and East Manasseh Overview: Gershonites, Issachar, Asher, Naphtali, and Manasseh in Bashan Overview: Merarites in Reuben, Gad, and Zebulun Summary Introduction: Settlements in Judah, Simeon, and Benjamin Qohathite Aaronide Towns in Judah, Simeon, and Benjamin Summary: Qohathite Aaronides Qohathite Towns in Ephraim, Dan, and East Manasseh Summary: Other Qohathites Gershonite Towns in East Manasseh, Issachar, Asher, and Naphtali Summary: Gershonites Merarite Towns in Zebulun, Reuben, and Gad Summary: Merarites Summary Total of Levitical Towns

Joshua

1 Chronicles

21:1–3 21:4 21:5

6:39a – 6:46

21:6

6:47

21:7 21:8 21:9

6:48 6:49 6:50

21:10–18

6:39b–45a

21:19 21:20–25

6:45b 6:51–55

21:26 21:27–32

– 6:56–61

21:33 21:34–37 21:38 21:39–40

– 6:62–66 – –

The order in Chronicles requires some commentary. Having provided a brief introduction to the Levitical settlements, the work skips the introductory enumeration of Levitical towns awarded to the Qohathite Aaronides (21:4), the introductory tallies of Levitical towns awarded to the other Qohathites (21:5), the Gershonites (21:6), and the Merarites (21:7), the summary (21:8), and the introduction to the Levitical towns in Judah, Simeon, and Benjamin (21:9). Instead, the work begins with the list of towns set apart for the Qohathite Aaronides (1 Chr 6:39b–45a//Josh 21:10–18). It is important to note that over against his pattern elsewhere, the genealogist includes the numerical summary of thirteen Qohathite Aaronide towns found in his source (6:45b//Josh 21:19). This explains why he later omits the introductory overview of the Qohathite Aaronide

126

Chapter 5

settlements (Josh 21:4), when he returns to the earlier material in his source (Josh 21:4–8).13 Having situated the detailed listing of the Qohathite Aaronide settlements at the beginning of his own presentation (1 Chr 6:39b–45), he returns to the earlier sections of his source. He proceeds with the introductory tallies and summary for the remaining three groups to be covered: the other Qohathites, the Gershonites, and the Merarites (21:5–8//1 Chr 6:46–49). Since he includes the introductory tallies for the remaining Qohathites (v. 46), the Gershonites (v. 47), and the Merarites (v. 48), he can omit the summary tallies for them occurring after the actual town lists: the Qohathites (Josh 21:26), the Gershonites (Josh 21:33), and the Merarites (Josh 21:38). In this respect, the writer is consistent, listing only one summary tally for each of the four groups in the Levitical towns account. But the makeup and placement of those summaries vary and his procedure can only be explained by recognizing that he has reorganized his source (an older version of Joshua 21).14 There are also some transitions that are taken over from the Joshua account into the new Chronistic setting that no longer make good sense, when transferred to their new locations. In other words, the genealogist reworks his source in a number of ways, but he does not do so thoroughly. The writer does not attempt to hide the fact that he has deployed a prestigious source within his own work. Consistent with the conventions of literary imitation, the writer provides his readers with numerous hints about his dependence on an earlier account, even though he nowhere directly cites his source. The peculiar expressions found in his source, peculiar in the sense of being foreign to his own vocabulary and style, are retained in his own text.15 Similarly, some of the transitions in his writing, inasmuch as they do not fit their new context particularly well, point readers back to his Vorlage.16 The scribe could easily have overwritten his source and created a smoother and more harmonious product, but chose not to do so. For informed readers, 13 14 15 16

This overview was unnecessary in the literary context of Chronicles, because it duplicates the content of the summary (1 Chr 6:45b//Josh 21:19). Knoppers, “Projected Age Comparisons,” 60–63. On the terminology that is surprising and unusual in a Chronistic context, see my “Projected Age Comparisons,” 30–41; idem, I Chronicles 1–9, 444–45 (with further references). The Joshua text includes an introduction to the Qohathite settlements in Judah, Simeon, and Benjamin (Josh 21:9). The Chronicler includes this introduction within the context of his own presentation (6:50) but its position is odd, because the enumeration of these settlements has already occurred (6:39b–45). In conformity with its source (Josh 21:9), 1 Chr 6:50 speaks of specifying certain towns by name, but the relevant towns appear earlier. As the text stands, the towns go unspecified in the following verses. Instead, the subject switches to the remaining allotments for the three Levitical phratries (Knoppers, “Projected Age Comparisons,” 46–51).

The Non-Citation of Older Writings in Chronicles

127

these oddities are pointers to the author’s dependence upon an older text that he employed to construct his own distinctive work. But a question may be raised: why does the literary work advance such a different arrangement at the beginning of its account, situating the Aaronide inheritance in the foreground of its presentation? In my view, the new sequence highlights the assignments given to the sons of Aaron, contextualized within the Qohathite phratry, and honors the distinction that Chronicles observes between the tribe of Levi and those specific members (the Aaronides) of this sodality, who serve as priests.17 Such a reordering brings the Chronicles text into line with his larger presentation of the Levitical lineages. There, the genealogist presents one particular priestly succession—the sons of Qohath through Amram and Aaron (5:27–41)—before he presents the lineages for the other descendants of Levi, including the other Qohathites (6:7ff.). In other words, the sequence of the Levitical town list makes perfectly good sense within its literary milieu. In conformity with the canons of mimesis, the writer has taken older material and recontextualized it within the setting of his own composition. The genealogist has selected from one of his sources, given the extract a new framework, partially reworked it, and reordered some of its content to suit his own particular compositional interests. The inclusion of this material dealing with the Levitical settlements from Joshua underscores that the tribe of Levi, no less than any of the other tribes, is entitled to its own ancestral patrimony in the land of Israel. Because Levi sits at the center of the lineages devoted to Israel’s sons, the Levitical towns and their estates lie at the center of Israel’s classical heritage. Rather than considering the Levitical inheritance as an appendix to the landed patrimonies accorded to the other tribes (Josh 21:1–40), the genealogist positions the Levitical inheritance as critical to Israel’s identity. In discussing the work’s recycling and recontextualization of an older text, one should bear in mind an additional consideration. The Chronicler, or any other imitator for that matter, does not normally interfere with or alter the source text itself. The well-established model remains as an exemplar that preceded the new text and (presumably) continues to exist alongside the new text.18 One of the advantages of imitatio is that it leaves the original intact. 17 On the matter of situating the Aaronides squarely within the tribe of Levi, see G. N. Knoppers, “Hierodules, Priests, or Janitors? The Levites in Chronicles and the History of the Israelite Priesthood,” JBL 118 (1999), 49–72. 18 To be sure, given the vagaries of history, this does not always happen. For instance, Menander may have written as many as one hundred plays, a few of which were later reused by Plautus and Terence. Yet most of Menander’s plays, including almost all of those reworked by Plautus and Terence, do not survive except in fragmentary form.

128

Chapter 5

Readers can judge on their own whether the new writer understood his model well and composed a new work that both recalls the prestigious older text and develops beyond this older text intelligently in new ways. 2

The Source Citations in Chronicles and in Kings

The second case study involves the source citations in Chronicles, which both resemble and depart from the patterns established in Kings. At first glance, the source citations, comprising part of the larger system of regnal formulae, would seem to be a rather dry, arcane, and uninteresting topic. But, in spite of this or because of this, the source citations have become the subject of a lively scholarly debate about how Chronicles uses, misuses, or fails to use its literary precursors. For some, the source citations offer tantalizing hints about the non-biblical materials employed by the writer, while for others the source citations are primarily of interest as a literary issue.19 For yet others, the source citations demonstrate that the Chronicler plagiarized from the Deuteronomistic work.20 In this view, the author was engaged in a willful act of deception, alerting readers to sources that he did not possess and failing to provide references to sources that he did possess. In what follows, I wish to concentrate on the literary and theological dimensions of the source citations, that is, how the placement, wording, and thematic significance of these formulae function within the larger work. Paying close attention to these issues should enable us to determine whether the Chronicler was attempting to evade giving proper attribution to his primary source(s) or whether he had broader literary designs in composing his own story of the monarchy. To anticipate my conclusions, I think that the Chronistic source citations are themselves a form of literary imitation of the source citations known from Kings. They comprise an integral part of how the writer construes and evaluates the reigns of monarchs already known from his principal source.21 To begin with, it is worth observing that the Chronistic regnal formulae, including the source citations, are clearly dependent upon those found in Kings.22 That this is so can be seen from a variety of different vantage points. First, almost all of the source citations seem to be at least partially adapted from the 19 Rudolph, Chronikbücher, x–xiii. 20 J. Van Seters, “Creative Imitation in the Hebrew Bible,” SR 29 (2000), 399–400. 21 So also D. Glatt-Gilad, “Regnal Formulae as a Historiographic Device in the Book of Chronicles,” RB 108 (2001), 184–209; Klein, 1 Chronicles, 39–44. 22 S. J. De Vries, 1 and 2 Chronicles (FOTL 11; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 231.

The Non-Citation of Older Writings in Chronicles

129

author’s Vorlage.23 Second, the citations appear precisely at the same point in the narration of a monarch’s reign as they appear in Kings. Even in those instances in which the source citations in Kings appear anomalously (not at the end of a monarch’s reign), Chronicles follows the example set by Kings (2 Chr 16:11–14; 20:34; 25:26).24 This is important, because the writer could have easily reworked and systematized each of the irregularly placed source citations in his Vorlage to place each one within the expected context of the relevant monarch’s reign. Such a procedure would have resulted in a more coherent presentation, yet he evidently chose not to restructure his source to achieve such internal consistency.25 Third, with only two possible exceptions (1 Chr 9:1 and 1 Chr 29:29), Chronicles does not add new source citations to those appearing in Samuel-Kings.26 Even in these two cases, the new source citations, dealing with the genealogical registrations of the Israelite tribes: “and their (records) were written in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah” (‫ ;והנם כתובים על ספר מלכי ישראל ויהודה‬1 Chr 9:1), and with the reign of David: “The acts of King David, former and latter, are written in the records of Samuel the seer, in the records of Nathan the prophet, and in the records of Gad the visionary” (‫ודברי דויד המלך הראשנים והאחרנים הנם‬ ‫ ;כתובים על דברי שמואל הראה ועל דברי נתן הנביא ועל דברי גד החזה‬1 Chr 29:29) mimic and extend the style of older citations.27 Fourth, there are several cases in Kings in which incomplete regnal formulae appear. The reigns of Ahaziah,

23 1 Chr 29:29; 2 Chr 9:29; 12:15; 13:22; 16:11; 20:34; 24:27; 25:26; 26:22; 27:7; 28:26; 32:32; 33:18,19; 35:27; 36:8. 24 The relevant source texts are 1 Kgs 15:23–24; 22:46–47; 2 Kgs 14:18. 25 The Chronistic compositional technique pertaining to the source citations may thus be contrasted somewhat with that used with the Levitical town list in which a significant reordering of the older passage occurred. On the variety of ways in which Chronicles reworks its biblical sources, see T. Willi, Die Chronik als Auslegung: Untersuchungen zur literarischen Gestaltung der historischen Überlieferung Israels (FRLANT 106; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972); I. Kalimi, Zur Geschichtsschreibung des Chronisten (BZAW 226; Berlin: de Gruyter 1995); idem, The Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History in Chronicles (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005). 26 There are some text-critical issues in 1 Chr 9:1, but they do not affect the larger point (Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, 479–80). 27 In the case of 1 Chr 9:1, compare the regular references to “the book of the kings of Judah and Israel” (2 Chr 16:11; 24:27; 25:26; 28:26; 32:32) or to “the book of the kings of Israel and Judah” (2 Chr 27:7; 35:27; 36:8). On the use of the formulae in 1 Chr 29:29 (cf. 1 Kgs 2:11–12) to underscore David’s accomplishments, see my I Chronicles 10–29 (AB 12A; New York: Doubleday/New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), 958–59.

130

Chapter 5

Athaliah, Jehoahaz, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah all lack source citations.28 Similarly, these monarchs also lack source citations in Chronicles.29 In spite of all of the aforementioned similarities, there are a number of major differences between the source citations in the two works. In discussing the monarchy, the author repeatedly refers his readers to what appear to be a whole range of non-canonical materials that are unattested in Samuel-Kings.30 Moreover, the notations within the Chronistic source citations are often much more extensive than those found in the earlier work.31 Let me give one example, focusing on the prophetic source citations that do not appear in Kings. Precisely because they exhibit such variety, the prophetic source citations need to be carefully scrutinized. In David’s case, the writer refers his readers, as we have seen, to “the acts of Samuel the seer, the acts of Nathan the prophet, and the acts of Gad the visionary” (1 Chr 29:29). In the case of Rehoboam, the writer refers his readers to “the acts of Shemaiah the prophet and Iddo the seer” (2 Chr 12:15). With respect to the reign of Abijah, one finds a reference to a “midrash of the prophet Iddo” (‫ ;מדרש הנביא עדו‬2 Chr 13:22).32 Such citations of prophetic works are, in fact, quite common in the treatment of the Judahite monarchy (2 Chr 12:15; 13:22; 20:34; 26:22; 32:32; 33:19; cf. 35:25).33 To sum up the discussion thus far, we have seen on the one hand that the source citations closely follow Kings in occurrence, placement, and the use of formulaic language. On the other hand, the Chronistic source citations are sometimes significantly longer than those in Kings and refer readers to a variety of otherwise unknown works that are unattested in the concluding regnal formulae appearing in Kings. The Chronistic references to records kept about Jerusalem’s monarchs markedly vary from those found in Kings. How should one explain the similarities, as well as the differences? Both can be best explained, in my view, by recognizing that the Chronicler employed the literary 28 29 30 31 32 33

In the case of Queen Athaliah (2 Kgs 11:1–16), regnal formulae are entirely lacking, because her reign is cast as an interregnum. Chronicles follows suit (2 Chr 22:10–23:15). In one case, a standard source citation appears in Kings for Jehoram (2 Kgs 8:23), while Chronicles lacks any source citation at all (2 Chr 21:20). 1 Chr 9:1; 29:29; 2 Chr 9:29; 12:15; 13:22; 16:11; 20:34; 24:27; 25:26; 26:22; 27:7; 28:26; 32:32; 33:18,19; 35:27; 36:8. My focus in this section is on literary issues. On the question of what sorts of noncanonical sources to which the Chronicler may have had access, see my I Chronicles 1–9, 120–23. With respect to the reign of Joash, one finds a reference to a “midrash of the book of Kings” (‫ ;מדרש ספר המלכים‬2 Chr 24:27). On the fascinating references to these prophetic sources, which have attracted a good deal of scholarly attention in recent decades, see chapter 6, “‘As It is Written’: What were the Chronicler’s Prophetic Sources?”

The Non-Citation of Older Writings in Chronicles

131

technique of mimesis. His presentation both replicates elements in Kings and innovates beyond them. Chronicles provides a new literary setting for the material drawn from its principal literary antecedent. Yet, the very placement, sequence, and formulaic language employed in his source citations provide ample hints to educated readers about the work’s dependence upon the older presentation in Kings. There is another view of the Chronistic citations that merits some serious discussion. In the opinion of Van Seters, the Chronicler employed a form of imitation in composing his work, but a form of imitation that amounts to plagiarism.34 The source references peculiar to Chronicles purportedly constitute a deliberate system of fabrication. Van Seters comes to this conclusion, because he thinks that the imitation was obvious, but not acknowledged as such. The mimesis was disguised by misleading source citations that give readers the false impression that the writer was employing authentic extra-biblical sources, when he actually did not have access to any. By the same token, the author was drawing readers’ attention away from the fact that he was borrowing heavily from earlier biblical writings, especially Samuel-Kings, which he does not cite in his own work. Seen from this perspective, the Chronicler was a plagiarist, one who imitated “by stealth, plagiarizing to claim credit for the labours of others.”35 Van Seters is correct that Chronicles does not openly cite its biblical sources. The writing borrows heavily from earlier biblical books, but hardly ever draws readers’ attention explicitly to this fact. In the genealogical prologue (1 Chronicles 1–9), readers are never informed that the author is quoting from portions of Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Joshua, and other books. Similarly, in the narration of the monarchy (1 Chronicles 10–2 Chronicles 36), the work never explicitly discloses to its readers that it quotes extensively from SamuelKings. Chronicles sometimes uses “the book of the torah,” “the torah of Moses,” or “the torah of Yhwh” as a cipher by which to judge the actions of major figures.36 In this context, the work refers readers to written sources not included within the work. Another example is the reference to the laments of Jeremiah composed following the death of Josiah (2 Chr 35:25). But in these cases, the writer refers his audience to literary compositions that are not included within his own writing. As for those compositions that he includes within his work, he rarely, if ever, directly names them. 34 Van Seters, “Creative Imitation,” 399. 35 Ibid., 406. 36 Most recently, K. L. Spawn, “As It is Written” and Other Citation Formulae in the Old Testament (BZAW 311; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002).

132

Chapter 5

There is at least one possible exception to this pattern. In two contexts, the prophetic writings referred to are said to be contained within the “book of the kings of (Judah and) Israel” (2 Chr 20:34; 32:32).37 In both of the instances, Williamson contends that the author may be alluding to the (biblical) book of Kings, because Kings incorporates many prophetic stories and speeches.38 If Williamson’s point is on the mark, the author is directly alluding to prophetic accounts within his major biblical source and not to an extra-biblical source. Whatever the case, there is evidence within the work itself to indicate that the source citations are not an attempt “to justify all the fictions that he has added to his account.”39 Rather, as Glatt-Gilad observes, the Chronicler’s source citations are part of a larger pattern by which the author (re)configures the careers of the kings in the united and Judahite monarchies.40 He takes a consistent formulation in the Deuteronomistic coverage of the monarchy and employs it in new ways. The references to prophets and prophetic figures seem to fall into a larger pattern. Such mentions almost always occur for rulers whom the work evaluates positively: David (1 Chr 29:29), Solomon (2 Chr 9:29), Abijah (2 Chr 13:22), Jehoshaphat (2 Chr 20:34), Uzziah (2 Chr 26:22), Hezekiah (2 Chr 32:32), and Josiah (2 Chr 35:25).41 To have a prophet appear in one’s reign is a mark of status. How the memory of a monarch’s reign is registered, preserved, and memorialized is itself important. Hence, when the concluding formulae to the presentation of Solomon’s reign mention the “chronicles of Nathan the prophet, the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and the visions of Yedo the seer concerning Jeroboam son of Nebat” (2 Chr 9:29; cf. 1 Kgs 11:41), this is a mark of distinction.42 The allusions to prophetic sources pertaining to three different prophetic figures underscore the gravity of this monarch’s tenure. It bears mentioning that there are only two instances in which the author provides prophetic source citations for monarchs whom he basically rates 37 There is, however, a textual issue in 2 Chr 32:32. Whereas the MT reads “upon (‫ )על‬the book of the kings of Judah and Israel,” the versions (the LXX, Vg., Tg., Arab) preface the copula, “and upon” (= ‫)ועל‬. In other words, the versions speak of two separate sources, “the vision of Isaiah son of Amoz the prophet” (‫ )חזון ישעיהו בן אמוץ הנביא‬and “the book of the kings of Judah and Israel” (‫)ספר מלכי יהודה וישראל‬, not one large source containing both royal and prophetic materials. 38 H. G. M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 18–20. In the case of both of these monarchs, prophets play a major role in their reigns. 39 Van Seters, “Creative Imitation,” 400. 40 Glatt-Gilad, “Regnal Formulae,” 198–201. 41 In the case of Josiah, the Chronicler’s reference to Jeremiah’s laments sung after the reformer king’s death occurs before the concluding regnal formulae (2 Chr 35:26–27). 42 Reading ‘Yedo’ (‫ )יעדו‬with the qere; the ketiv has ‘Yedi’ (‫)יעדי‬.

The Non-Citation of Older Writings in Chronicles

133

negatively: Rehoboam (2 Chr 12:14) and Manasseh (2 Chr 33:18–19).43 In both cases, Chronicles provides more complex, nuanced, and temperate accounts of their careers than are found in Kings and in both cases, prophecies or prophetic figures play major roles in arresting or reversing negative trends in their reigns (2 Chr 11:2–4; 12:7; 33:10, 18). Prophets are key to holding these potentates to account, speaking truth to power. In the case of Rehoboam, this sort of prophetic confrontation happens not once, but twice. In other words, prophetically attributed sources are not extraneous to the work’s compositional technique. Rather, the prophetic source citations are one means by which the author shapes his coverage of particular reigns. Careful study of the manner in which Chronicles employs source citations reveals that the work employs them differently from how Kings employs them. The source citations in Kings have clearly been the subject of careful study by the Chronicler, who has both emulated and transformed the source citations in his own account of the monarchy.44 When the Chronicler comments on the fall of the Davidic kingdom that “Yhwh the God of their fathers sent (word) to them by the hand of his messengers early and often” (2 Chr 36:15), he is only summarizing what he has already narrated in his portrayal of the tenures of individual monarchs throughout the course of Judahite history. To sum up, the reuse and adaptations of source citations in Kings provide modern scholarship with one indication of how an early interpreter understood and construed the source citations provided by an earlier composition. Yet, the Chronicler has clearly developed his own work beyond the pattern of his model. In commenting on mimesis in Classical sources, DuQuesnay points out that the technique of mimesis involves a paradox: “the imitator strives to be as different from the model as possible while at the same time he contrives to be always reminiscent of his model.”45 Given that the writer situates 43 In the latter case, there are no final judgment formulas in Chronicles (cf. 2 Kgs 21:17). In Kings, Manasseh is the most harshly condemned Judahite monarch (2 Kgs 21:2–18), but the Chronistic account is much more nuanced. Manasseh repents, reverses course, and institutes some reforms (B. E. Kelly, Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles [JSOTSup 211; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1996]). The case of Manasseh is discussed at greater length in G. N. Knoppers, “Saint or Sinner? Manasseh in Chronicles,” in Rewriting Biblical History: Essays on Chronicles and Ben Sira in Honour of Pancratius C. Beentjes (ed. H. W. M. Grol and J. Corley; DCLS 7; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 211–29. 44 Similar arguments may be made about the thematic concerns evident in his source references to the “book of the kings of Israel and Judah” and to “the book of the kings of Judah and Israel” (Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, 123–26). 45 I. M. Le M. DuQuesnay, “From Polyphemus to Corydon: Virgil, Ecologue 2 and the Idylls of Theocritus,” in Creative Imitation and Latin Literature (ed. D. West and A. J. Woodman; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 68.

134

Chapter 5

his versions of the source citations in precisely the same places as Kings does, even when those citations are, technically speaking, out of order, one may conclude that the Chronicler intended his readers, or at least his well-trained readers, to recognize both his indebtedness to his literary forebears and his innovation beyond them. Rather than hiding his dependence on Samuel-Kings, the Chronicler was demonstrating his reliance on this older work, while also pointing to the many ways in which his own writing moved beyond that of his major model. The employment of mimesis, the deliberate reuse of older works, expresses the writer’s respect for and admiration of a variety of older biblical writings. By the same token, his skillful reuse, rearrangement, reinterpretation, and major supplementation of his Vorlagen conspire to create a very different work. The parallels position the author’s writing, both defining and bringing recognition to his composition. The result is the creation of a new literary work designed to address the writer’s own times and interests in the late Persian/early Hellenistic age. 3 Conclusions At the end of this discussion, it may be useful to discuss briefly how consideration of the technique of literary imitation sheds some light on the purpose(s) of the Chronistic work, a writing that is by all accounts substantially indebted to a variety of earlier writings. The debate about how best one should understand the creation of the Chronicles shows no signs of abating.46 Among the interpretations offered are four: 1) An exegesis or a theological interpretation of the older writings it reworks; 2) A replacement for the Deuteronomistic History, a new composition for a new time; 3) A distinctive literary work best interpreted within its own literary framework and read on its own terms without reference to the books that make up the Enneateuch and the other writings upon which Chronicles draws; 4) A piece of literary propaganda designed to support the reemergence (or consolidation) of a Davidic state. 46

Such a discussion is already evident in the works of the early Jewish and Christian interpreters. See G. N. Knoppers and P. B. Harvey, “Omitted and Remaining Matters: On the Names Given to the Book of Chronicles in Antiquity,” JBL 121 (2002), 227–43; I. Kalimi, Das Chronikbuch und seine Chronik: Zur Entstehung und Rezeption eines biblischen Buches (Fuldaer Studien 17; Freiburg: Herder, 2013).

The Non-Citation of Older Writings in Chronicles

135

If the recognition of mimesis in the Chronistic work is well-taken, it speaks against the third view. The author would have assumed that his educated readers would know something of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and so forth, and thus would appreciate his careful and selective reuse of these older writings. Indeed, the repeated appearance of different forms of mimesis within the ancient world leads one to expect to see mimesis at work in the history of the composition of literary writings in ancient Israel and Judah. To be sure, Chronicles can be read without recourse to a variety of older, established compositions as a work of literature in its own right, much like Deuteronomy can be read without recourse to the Covenant Code as a work of literature in its own right.47 Nevertheless, one may gain an added appreciation of the literary craft practiced by the authors of Deuteronomy and Chronicles through an acute awareness of their biblical sources.48 As we have seen, the literary imitation is tacitly acknowledged by the author and is recognizable as such. The text provides a variety of unmistakable hints about its dependence upon older writings. For similar reasons, the recognition of mimetic technique in Chronicles speaks against the second view. One may readily acknowledge, for the sake of argument, that Chronicles was written, at least in part, to compete with its literary precursor, but its author likely would not have wished to witness the complete disappearance of Joshua and Samuel-Kings. If these literary works were to vanish, readers would be deprived of a critical means by which to judge the author’s distinctive literary craft. In examining the role of imitatio in the classical world, Conte and Most comment that reverence for past canonical works is a fundamental feature of ancient Mediterranean cultures.49 They point out that the practice of imitating the works of established authors “contributed importantly to the later notion of the pedagogical value of antiquity as a whole and decisively shaped the classical tradition.”50 The proposition that we not only may, but also should, learn from and emulate the great figures and literary achievements of the ancient past is an extremely important one. Such

47

On the latter issue, see chapter 4, “Synoptic Texts, Mimesis, and the Problem of ‘Rewritten Bible.’” 48 Indeed, the process of rereading the primary sources may be different after one has read the Chronicler’s imitatio of those writings (C. Mitchell, “The Dialogism of Chronicles,” in The Chronicler as Author: Studies in Text and Texture [ed. M. P. Graham and S. L. McKenzie; JSOTSup 263; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999], 311–26). 49 G. B. Conte and G. W. Most, “Imitatio,” in Oxford Classical Dictionary (3rd ed.; ed. S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 749. 50 Ibid., 749.

136

Chapter 5

a proposition is itself indebted to the value the ancients placed on the importance of antiquity. Mimesis was one important way by which the achievements of the past were honored, enjoyed, commemorated, and perpetuated in new circumstances. Seen in this light, the highest compliment the Chronicler could have paid to the authors of Joshua and of Samuel-Kings was to reuse portions of their writings in preparing his own distinctive composition.

Chapter 6

“As It is Written”: What Were the Chronicler’s Prophetic Sources? One of the most striking and unusual features of the Chronistic writing is the assortment of prophets and prophetic figures, who play formative roles in shaping events during the monarchy.1 Some are well-known from earlier biblical writings, such as Samuel, Isaiah, and Jeremiah.2 Indeed, a number of 1 The prophetic phenomenon in Chronicles has been the subject of much diligent study. See G. von Rad, Das Geschichtsbild des chronistischen Werkes (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1930); I. L. Seeligmann, “Die Auffassung von der Prophetie in der deuteronomistischen und chronistischen Geschichtsschreibung,” in Congress Volume, Göttingen 1977 (ed. J. A. Emerton; VTSup 29; Leiden: Brill, 1978), 254–84 [repr. Gesammelte Studien zur Hebräischen Bibel (FAT 41; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 265–92]; R. Micheel, Die Seher- und Prophetenüberlieferungen in der Chronik (BBET 18; Frankfurt a. M.: Lang, 1983); S. Japhet, I & II Chronicles (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993), 14–23; R. K. Duke, The Persuasive Appeal of the Chronicler: A Rhetorical Analysis (JSOTSup 88; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1990); H. V. Van Rooy, “Prophet and Society in the Persian Period according to Chronicles,” in Second Temple Studies, 2: Temple and Community in the Persian Period (ed. T. C. Eskenazi and K. H. Richards; JSOTSup 175; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 163–79; W. M. Schniedewind, The Word of God in Transition: From Prophet to Exegete in the Second Temple Period (JSOTSup 197; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1995); idem, “Prophets and Prophecy in the Book of Chronicles,” in The Chronicler as Historian (ed. M. P. Graham, K. G. Hoglund, and S. L. McKenzie; JSOTSup 238; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1997), 204–24; R. W. Klein, “Prophets and Prophecy in the Books of Chronicles,” TBT 36 (1998), 227–32; A. Hanspach, Inspirierte Interpreten: Das Prophetenverständnis der Chronikbücher und sein Ort in der Religion und Literatur zur Zeit des Zweiten Tempels (ATSAT 64; St. Otillien: EOS, 2000); E. S. Gerstenberger, “Prophetie in den Chronikbüchern: Jahwes Wort in zweierlei Gestalt?” in Schriftprophetie: Festschrift für Jörg Jeremias zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. F. Hartenstein, J. Krispenz, and A. Schart; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2004), 351–67; Y. Amit, “The Role of Prophecy and Prophets in the Chronicler’s World,” in Prophets, Prophecy and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Judaism (ed. M. H. Floyd and R. L. Haak; LHBOTS 427; London: T&T Clark, 2006), 80–101; L. C. Jonker, “The Chronicler and the Prophets: Who were his Authoritative Sources?” in What was Authoritative for Chronicles? (ed. E. Ben Zvi and D. Edelman; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 145–64; A. K. Warhurst, “The Chronicler’s Use of the Prophets,” in What was Authoritative for Chronicles?, 165–81. The works listed in the following notes are also relevant. 2 T. Willi, Die Chronik als Auslegung: Untersuchungen zur literarischen Gestaltung der historischen Überlieferung Israels (FRLANT 106; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972); Seeligmann, “Die Auffassung von der Prophetie in der deuteronomistischen und chronistischen Geschichtsschreibung”; R. B. Dillard, 2 Chronicles (WBC 15; Waco, TX: Word, 1987), 74, 109– 10; C. T. Begg, “The Classical Prophets in the Chronistic History,” BZ 32 (1988), 100–7; S. Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and its Place in Biblical Thought (BEATAJ 9; Frankfurt ©  GARY N. KNOPPERS (†), Christl M. Maier and H. G. M. Williamson, 2021 |  doi:10.1163/9789004444898_008

138

Chapter 6

prophets and one prophetess mentioned in Kings also make appearances in Chronicles, including Nathan (1 Chr 17:1–15//2 Sam 7:1–16; cf. 1 Kgs 1:22) and Gad (1 Chr 21:9–13, 18–19//2 Sam 24:11–13, 18–19) in the time of David, Shemaiah (1 Kgs 12:21–24//2 Chr 11:2–4) in the time of Rehoboam, Micaiah (1 Kgs 22:8–28// 2 Chr 18:4–27) in the time of Ahab and Jehoshaphat, and Huldah (2 Kgs 22:14– 20//2 Chr 34:22–28) in the time of Josiah.3 Other prominent seers, such as Samuel (1 Chr 9:22; 26:28; 2 Chr 35:18), Ahijah (2 Chr 10:15//1 Kgs 12:15), Jehu (2 Chr 19:2–3; 20:34), Elijah (2 Chr 21:12–15), and Isaiah (2 Chr 32:20) are mentioned, although the legacies of these figures are significantly recast by means of major omissions, additions, and recontextualizations.4 That there are virtually no prophets appearing in the Deuteronomistic presentations of the united monarchy and the Judahite monarchy who do not also appear in Chronicles is one indication of the work’s interest in the prophetic phenomenon.5 Other prophets and prophetic types are unique to Chronicles or are unattested elsewhere in biblical writings as being active in Judah.6 These include Azariah the prophet (‫ )נביא‬and Hanani the seer (‫)ראה‬, during the reign of Asa (2 Chr 15:1–7; 16:7–10), various anonymous prophets during the time of King Joash (2 Chr 24:19), both an anonymous man of God (‫ )איש־האלהים‬and an anonymous prophet (‫ )נביא‬during the reign of Amaziah (2 Chr 25:7–9, 15–16), Oded the northern prophet (‫ )נביא‬during the tenure of Ahaz (2 Chr 28:9–11), an anonymous prophet and prophetic figure(s) during the reign of Manasseh a. M.: Lang, 1989); R. A. Mason, Preaching the Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990); J. Kegler, “Prophetengestalten im deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk und in den Chronikbüchern: Ein Beitrag zur Kompositions- und Redaktionsgeschichte der Chronikbücher,” ZAW 105 (1993), 481–97; H. V. Van Rooy, “Prophet and Society in the Persian Period according to Chronicles,” in Second Temple Studies, 2, 163–79; P. Beentjes, “Prophets in the Book of Chronicles,” in The Elusive Prophet: The Prophet as a Historical Person, Literary Character and Anonymous Artist (ed. J. C. de Moor; OtSt 45; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 45–53. 3 But they often function differently in their new literary contexts; see G. N. Knoppers, “Democratizing Revelation? Prophets, Seers, and Visionaries in Chronicles,” in Prophecy and the Prophets in Ancient Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (ed. J. Day; LHBOTS 531; London: T&T Clark Continuum, 2010), 391–409. 4 Jehu ben Hanani the visionary (‫ )חזה‬is active during the reign of Jehoshaphat, but in the Deuteronomistic work Jehu ben Hanani the prophet (‫ )נביא‬is active during the reign of the northern king Baasha, the contemporary of Asa, Jehoshaphat’s father (1 Kgs 16:1, 7, 12). In Chronicles Hanani the seer (‫)הראה‬, Jehu’s father, is active during Asa’s reign (2 Chr 16:7). 5 Perhaps the most notable prophet from Samuel-Kings missing from the work is Elisha, but he resides in the northern kingdom, the independent history of which Chronicles does not recount. 6 One of these (Jehu) is, as we have seen, attested in Kings as a prophet active in the northern kingdom. Micheel (Prophetenüberlieferungen, 71–80) provides an overview of the seers, who appear in Chronicles.

WHAT WERE THE CHRONICLER ’ S PROPHETIC SOURCES ?

139

(2 Chr 33:10, 18 [‫]החזים‬, 19 [‫)]חוזי‬, and a number of unnamed prophets mentioned in the treatment of the last king of Judah, Zedekiah (2 Chr 36:15–16).7 The range of prophets, seers, and visionaries active during the monarchy is thus quite remarkable. The Chronistic work also includes several instances of persons, including priests, Levites, and evidently laypeople, who function in a prophetic capacity.8 These may be regarded not as professionals, but rather as pro tem prophets, who prophesy in response to a challenge or crisis. Such figures include Zechariah son of Jehoiada the priest (2 Chr 24:20–22) and Jehaziel, an Asaphite Levite (2 Chr 20:14–15). An example of a layperson functioning temporarily as a prophet is evidently Eliezer son of Dodavahu from Mareshah, who delivers a terse declamation during Jehoshaphat’s reign (2 Chr 20:37).9 Clearly, the work does not declare that priests, Levites, and laypersons are all prophets. Rather, individuals who are not themselves prophets may be called upon by the deity to fulfill (temporarily) a prophetic role for the benefit of the body politic.10 The history of the southern kingdom in Chronicles thus forms a marked contrast to that of Kings. Unlike the Deuteronomistic portrayal in which few, if any, prophets appear between the late tenth century (the time of the I am assuming that when 2 Chr 33:10 states that Yhwh “spoke (‫ )דבר‬to Manasseh and the people,” he did so through a prophet or through a plurality of prophets. It would seem that 2 Chr 33:6 abbreviates its source text of 2 Kgs 21:10 that “Yhwh spoke (‫ )דבר‬by his servants the prophets….” If not, one would be dealing with a direct speech from the deity to the errant Manasseh. Such a phenomenon is not entirely unprecedented (note the theophanies to Solomon; 2 Chr 1:7; 7:12), but would be unique in the Chronistic depiction of the Judahite kingdom. It is relevant that one of the concluding notes to Manasseh’s reign mention “the visionaries (‫ )החזים‬who spoke to him” (2 Chr 33:18). This confirms that the divine communication to Manasseh was relayed through intermediaries, rather than through a direct revelation. 8 See, for instance, G. von Rad, “Die levitische Predigt in den Büchern der Chronik,” in Festschrift für Otto Procksch zum 60. Geburtstag am 9. August 1934 (ed. A. Alt; Leipzig: Deichert’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1934), 113–24 [trans. E. W. Trueman Dicken, “The Levitical Sermon in I and II Chronicles,” in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966), 267–80]; D. L. Petersen, Late Israelite Prophecy: Studies in Deutero-Prophetic Literature and in Chronicles (SBLMS 23; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977), 55–96; J. P. Weinberg, “Die ‘außerkanonischen Prophezeiungen’ in den Chronikbüchern,” Acta Antiqua 26 (1978), 387–404; Mason, Preaching the Tradition, 7–140; Schniedewind, Word of God, 31–129. 9 His prophesying (‫)התנבא‬, “Because you have allied yourself with Ahaziah [of Israel], Yhwh has broken up your work,” rivals that of Jonah to the people of Nineveh (3:4): “Forty days more and Nineveh will be overthrown,” as being one of the shortest prophetic oracles attested in the Hebrew scriptures. 10 Micheel, Prophetenüberlieferungen, 39–70; Mason, Preaching the Tradition, 13–122; Schniedewind, Word of God, 31–129; Amit, “Role of Prophecy,” 84–87. 7

140

Chapter 6

division) until the late eighth century (the time of Hezekiah), the Chronistic portrayal of the Judahite monarchy is punctuated by a wide variety of prophets and prophetic figures. But Chronicles also differs from Samuel-Kings in that Chronicles refers to a variety of written prophetic works. What do these prophetic source citations come to? Both this chapter and the following chapter deal with prophets in Chronicles, but the focus in this essay is solely on references to prophetic writings. The issue, I would argue, is more complex than it initially seems to be. It may be useful to review some recent theories before taking a closer look at the references themselves. 1

Prophetic Sources in Chronicles: Recent Studies

The references to prophetic writings have been much-debated in past scholarship. Each of the major theories contains at least some measure of truth. According to one interpretation, which may be labeled the Samuel-Kings theory, the prophetic sources cited refer readers to the prophetic materials found in the Deuteronomistic History.11 Thus, for example, when readers are referred to “the words (‫ )דברי‬of Nathan the Prophet” (‫ ;נביא‬1 Chr 29:29) in the concluding regnal formulae to David’s reign (1 Chr 29:26–30), the reference point is the stories about Nathan and his royal encounters in Samuel-Kings. In two later contexts—the reigns of Jehoshaphat and Hezekiah—the prophetic writings cited are said to be contained within the “book of the kings of (Judah and) Israel” (2 Chr 20:34; 32:32).12 In both of these instances, the allusion might be to the (biblical) book of Kings, because Kings incorporates many prophetic stories and speeches.13 If the theory is on the mark, the author is directly alluding to prophetic accounts within his major biblical source and not to an otherwise unattested extra-biblical source. This hypothesis admirably calls attention to the fact that the Chronicler borrows heavily from Samuel-Kings, but often omits material extraneous to his larger narrative designs. So for example, Chronicles does not contain the oracle of the prophet Ahijah to Jeroboam, delivered during the second part of Solomon’s reign, legitimating his ascent to kingship over (northern) Israel (1 Kgs 11:31–39). Consistent with its idealization of the Davidic-Solomonic 11 E.g., H. G. M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 18–20, 236–37. 12 But in the latter instance (2 Chr 32:32), there is a text-critical issue (LXX 2 Chr 32:32 points to the existence of two sources) that affects the interpretation of the concluding notice. See further below. 13 In the case of both of these monarchs, prophets play substantial roles in their reigns.

WHAT WERE THE CHRONICLER ’ S PROPHETIC SOURCES ?

141

kingdom, Chronicles does not portray any regression in Solomon’s conduct (cf. 1 Kgs 11:1–40). Yet, the work alludes to the prophecy’s fulfillment in its narration of disunion (2 Chr 10:15//1 Kgs 12:15). The reference to the “prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite” in the concluding regnal formulae to Solomon’s tenure (2 Chr 9:29), a reference not found in Kings, thus may alert readers to Ahijah’s oracle in the principal source employed by the Chronicler.14 A related strength of this theory is its potential for explaining the lack of additional prophetic material (i.e., prophetic stories and oracles) in the Solomonic narrative in Chronicles compared with the situation in Samuel-Kings.15 Most of the new material Chronicles contributes has to do with the furnishings, dedication, and staffing of the temple, topics not normally associated with the Hebrew prophets.16 Yet, this theory also has its drawbacks. It does not explain, for instance, why certain prophetic works are associated with seers, who are not found in Samuel-Kings.17 Given, for example, that one of the prophetic source citations at the close of Solomon’s reign refers to the “visions of Yedo the visionary” (‫ ;בחזות יעדי החזה‬2 Chr 9:29), one would expect to see an oracle by such a Yedo

14 Although it must be admitted that the precise referent to “the prophecy of Ahijah” (‫ ;נבואת אחיה‬2 Chr 9:29) is not entirely clear within the context of Chronicles. Whether this is a reference to Ahijah’s judgment oracle against Solomon found in Kings (1 Kgs 11:29– 39) or to some other source is not expressly stated. 15 Indeed, the only sources cited for David and Solomon are prophetic source citations (1 Chr 29:29–30; 2 Chr 9:29). There is no reference to a “book of the deeds of Solomon” (‫ )ספר דברי שלמה‬as there is in Kings (1 Kgs 11:41). The death and burial notice for David in Kings lacks any reference to written annals (1 Kgs 2:12). 16 Hence, in this theory, even though the concluding formulas for Solomon’s reign, in contradistinction from the formulae appearing in 1 Kgs 11:41, mention prophetic sources pertaining to Nathan, Ahijah, and Yedo (2 Chr 9:29), Chronicles makes these references to point readers back to Samuel-Kings, Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 236–37. 17 Curiously, the prophets appear in the concluding formulae to Manasseh’s reign: “The words of the seers, who spoke to Manasseh, may be found in the (book of the) deeds of the kings of Israel” (2 Chr 33:18). At first glance, this citation would seem to support the validity of the Samuel-Kings theory, because it alludes to the messages of “his servants the prophets” in a source (2 Kgs 21:10) pertaining to the kings of Israel. But there is an additional source mentioned in the concluding regnal formulae (2 Chr 33:19) that points readers to “the words of Hozai.” In this case, one has to deal also with the possibility of textual corruption. One Heb MS and the LXX have “visionaries” (‫)חוזים‬, but this reading (the lectio facilior) may have been affected by the appearance of ‫ החזים‬in v. 18. The Syr. has “Hanan the prophet” (‫)חנן הנביא‬. Positing a haplography (‫)ו‬, W. Rudolph (Chronikbücher [HAT 21; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1955], 316) reconstructs “his visionaries” (‫)חוזיו‬. Even if one were to accept, for the sake of argument, this proposal, the reference still points to an additional prophetic source.

142

Chapter 6

appear in the book of Kings or at least find a minimal mention of such a figure.18 Another shortcoming of this theory has to do with the distribution of the prophetic source references. If the references were simply to Samuel-Kings, one would expect to see consistently more of such references in the concluding regnal formulae. After all, Samuel-Kings (or an earlier version thereof) is the Chronicler’s major source for the monarchy. There is a related complexity. Some Judahite monarchs experience prophetic encounters, yet the accounts of their reigns lack prophetic source references.19 A second line of interpretation, which may be typed the biblical exposition theory, is related to (or constitutes a variant of) the first theory. The writer refers his readers to written sources that are in actuality earlier biblical books. So when readers are referred to “the vision (‫ )חזון‬of Isaiah son of Amoz the prophet (‫)נביא‬,” in the concluding regnal formulae of Hezekiah’s reign (2 Chr 32:32), the reference is thought to be the book of Isaiah (or some version thereof).20 Similarly, when the author speaks of “the Laments” (‫ )הקינות‬in the concluding comments on the reign of Josiah (2 Chr 35:25), the source designates the biblical book of Lamentations, or some earlier version thereof.21 This second theory differs somewhat from the first theory, because it allows for multiple (biblical) sources, rather than one omnibus source (Samuel-Kings) that happens to contain stories about and oracles by sundry prophets (Samuel, Gad, Nathan, Ahijah, Elijah, Isaiah, and so forth). Favoring this theory is the fact that at least one prophetic source title resembles the superscription given to an earlier prophetic book, the aforementioned reference to the “vision of Isaiah” in the concluding formulae to Hezekiah’s reign.22 A related strength of this theory involves its potential to elucidate the 18 This is one reason why some believe that the Vorlage of Samuel-Kings for Chronicles was an expanded version of Samuel-Kings (or a commentary thereon), E. L. Curtis and A. A. Madsen, The Books of Chronicles (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1910), 22; P. R. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century B.C. (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968), 506; F. Michaeli, Les Livres des Chroniques, d’Esdras et de Néhémie (CAT 16; Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Nestlé, 1967), 10–11. Such a larger work could incorporate material not found in either MT or LXX Samuel-Kings. 19 E.g., Asa (2 Chr 16:13–14; cf. 2 Chr 15:1–7; 16:7–9); J(eh)oash (2 Chr 24:25–27; cf. 2 Chr 24:19, 20–22); Amaziah (2 Chr 25:26–28; cf. 2 Chr 25:7–9, 15–16). 20 In 2 Chr 32:32, I am reading (with the versions) the copula (‫ )ו‬before the preposition ‫על‬. The MT lacks the conjunctive. The regnal formulae for Manasseh include both an annalistic source (containing, among other things, prophetic messages) and a prophetic source (see n. 17 above). 21 I am following MT and LXX 2 Chr 35:25 (maximum differentiation). The citation in 1 Esd 1:31 differs: “recorded in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah” (ἱστόρηται ἐν τῷ βυβλίῳ τῶν βασιλέων Ισραηλ καὶ Ιουδα). 22 The citation is discussed in further detail in section 3 below.

WHAT WERE THE CHRONICLER ’ S PROPHETIC SOURCES ?

143

Chronistic adaptation and reuse of earlier scriptures. In explaining to king and people alike the significance of their actions and the future circumstances that follow from them, prophetic figures sometimes draw from and cite older sayings.23 To be more precise, the oracles draw upon parts of the Pentateuch, the Former Prophets, and the prophetic writings. For instance, Jehaziel’s address to King Jehoshaphat and the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judah creatively combines citations from 1 Sam 17:47 (2 Chr 20:15) and Exod 14:13 (2 Chr 20:17).24 Prophetic characters can function, therefore, as expositors of scripture. This reuse of and dependence upon earlier texts has some unusual, if not ironic, results. King Jehoshaphat of the mid-ninth century BCE anachronistically quotes an eighth century oracle from Isaiah (7:9), “trust (‫)האמינו‬ in Yhwh your God and you will be established” (‫ ;ותאמנו‬2 Chr 20:20).25 In any case, the many borrowings from earlier scriptures would seem to heighten the chances that some of the Chronistic prophetic source citations are, in fact, allusions to earlier biblical books. There are, however, some shortcomings to the prophetic exposition theory. One issue is that the prophetic speakers never directly quote their sources.26 Jehaziel’s speech (2 Chr 20:15–17) borrows from both 1 Sam 17:47 and Exod 14:13, but cites neither. The quotations are covert, not overt. If readers were unfamiliar with the books of Exodus and Samuel, the imaginative reuse of earlier scriptures in 2 Chr 20:15–17 would be lost on them. This consideration does not negate the value of the theory, but it does mean that the text of Chronicles does not itself confirm it. More importantly, the biblical exposition theory fails to explain why there is unique material in the Chronistic oracles and prophetic source citations. This unparalleled material cannot all be convincingly viewed 23 This fascinating topic has attracted a good deal of attention in recent decades. See, e.g., M. Z. Brettler, The Creation of History in Ancient Israel (New York: Routledge, 1995); I. Kalimi, Zur Geschichtsschreibung des Chronisten (BZAW 226; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995); W. M. Schniedewind, “The Chronicler as an Interpreter of Scripture,” in The Chronicler as Author: Studies in Text and Texture (ed. M. P. Graham and S. L. McKenzie; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 158–80; Amit, “Role of Prophecy,” 80–101; Hanspach, Inspirierte Interpreten; Beentjes, “Prophets,” 45–53 (with an extensive bibliography on p. 46 [n. 11]). 24 On the creative combination of quotations from earlier biblical texts, see G. N. Knoppers, “Jerusalem at War in Chronicles,” in Zion, City of Our God (ed. R. S. Hess and G. J. Wenham; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 57–76 [editorial note: Knoppers had revised this essay with the new title “Jerusalem and Judah in Crisis: The Reinvention of Divine Warfare in Chronicles” for possible inclusion in the present volume but in the end he chose not to include it]. 25 In 2 Chr 20:20 the borrowed text is supplemented with: “Trust (‫ )האמינו‬in his prophets and you will succeed (‫)והצליחו‬.” 26 G. N. Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9 (AB 12; New York: Doubleday/New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), 118–28.

144

Chapter 6

as simply the exegesis of earlier biblical sources. In one case, the work cited, “the midrash (‫ )מדרש‬of the prophet Iddo” (2 Chr 13:22), seems to refer to some sort of prophetic commentary or learned study of earlier prophetic writings.27 In either scenario, the reference would be to an extrabiblical work. A third theory, which may be labeled the prophetic source theory, varies markedly from the first two. Some scholars have drawn a connection between the prophetic source citations in Chronicles and the prophetic stories and oracles appearing in the Chronistic account of the monarchy, which do not appear in Kings. Chronicles bears clear witness to what some have called the textualization or “literarization” of the prophetic word.28 The written nature of prophecy is especially evident in the Chronicler’s source citations, which form part of his regnal formulae.29 Prophecy thus takes both oral and written forms. Might the references to prophetic writings elucidate the unparalleled prophetic tales and prophetic speeches found within the same literary work? In this theory, the writer was privy to prophetic sources that were unavailable to or unused by the writers of Samuel-Kings. Chronicles integrates these sources and refers to them in its prophetic source citations. If so, the question arises as to whether the prophetic records were preexilic, exilic, or postexilic in dating. Naturally, those adhering to the prophetic source hypothesis do not agree about how to answer this question. Some believe that the author had access to preexilic or exilic sources.30 Others hold that the writer only had access to postexilic sources. There is also no unanimity of opinion about the putative character of such extrabiblical documentation. Were they collections of prophetic oracles, prophetic tales, commentaries on earlier Compare “the midrash of the book of kings” (‫)מדרש ספר מלכים‬, cited later in the work (2 Chr 24:27), Rudolph, Chronikbücher, 238. The reference in 2 Chr 24:27 is, however, not textually secure. For MT ‫מדרש‬, the LXXB has γραφὴν (LXXL adds βιβλίου) and the Vg. similarly reads liber. See further, Willi, Auslegung, 52–53; K. Peltonen, History Debated: The Historical Reliability of Chronicles in Pre-Critical and Critical Research (2 vols.; Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 64; Helsinki: The Finnish Exegetical Society, 1996), 365–70. 28 M. Nissinen, “How Prophecy became Literature,” SJOT 19 (2005), 153–72; J. Schaper, “Exilic and Post-exilic Prophecy and the Orality/Literacy Problem,” VT 55 (2005), 324–42. 29 K. L. Spawn discusses the specific citation formulae employed, As it is Written and Other Citation Formulae in the Old Testament: Their Use, Development, Syntax and Significance (BZAW 311; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002), 219–25, 250–51. 30 B. Halpern, for instance, argues that the Deuteronomist and the Chronicler had access to a common source, dating to the time of Hezekiah, upon which the Chronicler relied more heavily than the Deuteronomist did, “Sacred History and Ideology: Chronicles’ Thematic Structure—Indications of an Earlier Source,” in The Creation of Sacred Literature, Composition and Redaction of the Biblical Text (ed. R. E. Friedman; Near Eastern Studies 22; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981), 35–54.

27

WHAT WERE THE CHRONICLER ’ S PROPHETIC SOURCES ?

145

prophetic works, or some combination of the above? Wellhausen defended the view of a postmonarchic midrash or commentary employed by the Chronicler, which reflected the time in which it was written.31 But others have thought that the source, although dating to the postmonarchic age, contained valuable information about some facets of monarchic Judahite life.32 The strength of the prophetic source theory is its potential to explain unique material, some of which is odd in comparison with the prophetic materials in Samuel-Kings. Moreover, given that the prophetic source citations found in Chronicles do not appear in Kings, it might make sense that the Chronicler had access to some sort of prophetic source(s). Yet, it must also be acknowledged that the unique prophetic oracles employ typical Chronistic vocabulary, expressions, and style. The positions promoted in the speeches comport well with major Chronistic themes. If extrabiblical sources were employed, one has to concede that they have been significantly shaped and edited. Williamson comments that “overall the Chronicler shows himself as the master, not the servant, of his sources.”33 The work’s prophets and prophetic figures speak with a consistent voice.34 A fourth point of view, which may be labeled the literary license theory, advocates the opposite position of the prophetic source theory. Like the prophetic source theory, it connects the source citations with the unique prophetic stories and speeches, but it contends that the prophetic source citations are literary fictions. The prophetic documents alluded to in Chronicles are figments of authorial imagination. In this view, the prophetic citations were formulated to give credence to the unique stories and prophetic speeches contained within the work. The source citations were intended not only to impress readers with the author’s knowledge about the prophetic phenomenon in the nation’s past, but also to lend a prophetic stamp to a new work.35 Citations of the prophets of 31 J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (6th ed.; Berlin: Reimer, 1905), 222–23 [trans. of 2nd ed. (1883) by J. S. Black and A. Menzies, Prolegomena to the History of Israel (Edinburgh: A. & C. Black, 1885), 226–27]. 32 E.g., O. Eissfeldt, Einleitung in das Alte Testament (3rd ed.; Tübingen, Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1964), 721–26 [trans. P. R. Ackroyd, The Old Testament: An Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell, 1965), 531–35]. 33 Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 23. 34 A. C. Welch, The Work of the Chronicler: Its Purpose and Date (The Schweich Lectures 1938; London: Oxford University Press, 1939), 42–54; Micheel, Prophetenüberlieferungen, 75–82; M. A. Throntveit, When Kings Speak: Royal Speech and Royal Prayer in Chronicles (SBLDS 93; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 127–29. 35 Put negatively, the source citations were intended to mislead readers about the author’s access to (non-existent) written sources, J. Van Seters, “Creative Imitation in the Hebrew Bible,” SR 29 (2000), 395–409. On this matter, see chapter 5 on mimesis in Chronicles.

146

Chapter 6

old (Samuel, Gad, Nathan, Ahijah, Shemaiah, Jehu, Elijah, Isaiah, and so forth) authorize a new literary creation. To the credit of the literary license view, it calls attention to the prophetic dimensions of the Judahite monarchy. When compared with the negligible role attributed to prophets in the chieftains and the Judahite monarchy in the Deuteronomistic History, the prominent role attributed to prophets during the Judahite monarchy in the Chronistic writing is rather striking.36 The paucity of coverage given to prophecy in relevant parts of Kings could leave the impression that prophets were of little or no importance during much of southern history.37 The many references to prophets and prophetic writings effectively counter such an impression. Where the literary license theory may be judged to fall short is its failure to explain the uneven distribution of the prophetic source citations. If the references to prophetic sources represent merely literary artifice, why did the author not include many more of them? Surely, a plentitude of such references would make a stronger impression on his audience. Of the last six kings of Judah, for example, only one has a prophetic source mentioned in a concluding regnal report. This would be entirely puzzling if the author wanted to make a major impression on his readers with a multitude of references to prophetic documents. Moreover, if the prophetic notations found within the regnal summaries are situated within their particular contexts to explain the unique prophetic speeches found within the portrayals of relevant rulers, it must be conceded that there are numerous exceptions to the practice. There are many more prophets and prophetic figures than there are prophetic sources listed in the concluding royal résumés.38 To complicate matters further, there is at least one case of a disconnect in drawing a correlation between a regnal summary and the prophetic speeches found within the portrayal of that reign. There are no prophetic speeches or prophetic stories in the depiction of Solomon’s 36

One might be tempted to add the period of conquest under Joshua to this list, but Joshua was likely considered by at least some early readers as the prophetic successor to Moses (Deut 18:15–22; cf. Josh 1:1–10; Sir 46:1). Whether he was conceived by the Deuteronomistic writers in this manner is a matter of debate. 37 In this context, E. Ben Zvi calls attention to the lack of attention paid to prophets and prophecy in the regnal formulae in Kings and the import of texts, such as 2 Kgs 14:26, “Prophets and Prophecy in the Compositional and Redactional Notes in I–II Kings,” ZAW 105 (1993), 331–51; idem, “Are There Any Bridges Out There? How Wide was the Conceptual Gap between the Deuteronomistic History and Chronicles?” in Community Identity in Judean Historiography: Biblical and Comparative Perspectives (ed. G. N. Knoppers and K. A. Ristau; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 59–86. 38 For a table of all the prophets and prophetic figures, see chapter 7, “‘YHWH will Raise Up for You a Prophet like Me’: Prophetic Succession in Chronicles.”

147

WHAT WERE THE CHRONICLER ’ S PROPHETIC SOURCES ?

tenure, yet the concluding regnal report mentions three separate prophetic writings pertaining to his reign (2 Chr 9:29).39 Clearly, literary license is amply evident in the work, but literary license alone cannot explain all of the prophetic source citations. In sum, each of the four theories has its strengths and its weaknesses. Each sheds some light on the writer’s literary craft, but nevertheless leaves questions unanswered. In what follows, I would like to take a somewhat different approach, focusing on the internal organization of the work and the content of the prophetic writings. Topics to be considered include the titles, placement, distribution, and contexts of the prophetic source references. Discussion of such matters may clarify how Chronicles construes the authorship, nature, and purpose of such prophetic works. My working assumption, in line with the insightful study of Glatt-Gilad, is that the concluding regnal formulae are not extraneous to the larger thematic aspects of monarchical history.40 In my view, the prophetic source citations are part of a larger pattern by which the literary work (re)configures individual reigns and, indeed, the united and Judahite monarchies. Prophetic writings are a mark of distinction, a sign of the importance of a particular tenure. Yet, to attract the attention of a prophetic writer, and not simply the appearance of a prophet or a prophetic figure, the reign of a king must be worth writing about. 2

Written Prophetic Works—Unity amid Diversity?

It will be useful to begin with questions of titles, contexts, and placement. The names of the written prophetic compositions and their placement are as follows. King

Prophetic Writings

Source

David

The Words of Samuel the Seer (‫)ראה‬ The Words of Nathan the Prophet (‫)נביא‬ The Words of Gad the Visionary (‫)חזה‬ The Words of Nathan the Prophet (‫)נביא‬ The Prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite

1 Chr 29:29 1 Chr 29:29 1 Chr 29:29 2 Chr 9:29 2 Chr 9:29

Solomon

39 And no annalistic source whatsoever (cf. 1 Kgs 11:41). 40 D. Glatt-Gilad, “Regnal Formulae as a Historiographic Device in the Book of Chronicles,” RB 108 (2001), 184–209, esp. 198–201.

148

Chapter 6

(cont.)

King

Rehoboam Abijah Jehoshaphat Uzziah Hezekiah Manasseh Josiah

Prophetic Writings

Source

The Visions (‫ )חזות‬of Yedo the Visionary (‫)חזה‬ about Jeroboam ben Nebat The Words of Shemaiah the Prophet (‫)נביא‬ (The words of) Iddo the Visionary (‫)חזה‬ The Midrash of the Prophet (‫ )נביא‬Iddo The Words of Jehu ben Hanani recorded on the Scroll of the Israelite Kingsa (The Writing of) Isaiah ben Amoz the Prophet (‫)נביא‬ The Vision (‫ )חזון‬of Isaiah ben Amoz the Prophet (‫)נביא‬ The Words of Hozai (‫)חוזי‬ The Laments (of Jeremiah)

2 Chr 9:29 2 Chr 12:15 2 Chr 12:15 2 Chr 13:22 2 Chr 20:34 2 Chr 26:22 2 Chr 32:32b 2 Chr 33:19c 2 Chr 35:25

a Reading the hophal of ‫עלה‬, with the MT (maximum variation). LXX* κατέγραψεν; Vg. digessit. See HALOT 829a–830b. b MT 2 Chr 32:32 associates such a prophetic text with “the book of the kings of Judah and Israel,” H. G. M. Williamson, Isaiah 1–5 (ICC; London: T&T Clark International, 2006), 19. But it seems likely, given the testimony of the versions, that a slight haplography has occurred and thus it seems better to read a copula (‫ )ו‬before the preposition ‫על‬. Thus, two separate works are referenced. c So the MT (‫)חוזי‬. The textual issue is discussed in n. 17.

A few comments may be made about the various source citations. First, there are many references to prophetic writings, but the references are not all of one piece. A variety of different kinds of prophetic works—a letter (‫)מכתב‬, visions (‫)חזות‬, words/deeds (‫)דברים‬, prophecy (‫)נבואה‬, midrash (‫)מדרש‬, and laments (‫—)קינות‬are attested.41 The diversity of genres is itself telling.42 The prophets 41

In one case, it is unclear whether one is dealing with a written source at all. During the cultic reforms of Hezekiah, we read that “he stationed the Levites at the house of Yhwh with shields, harps, and lyres at the command of David and of Gad, the seer of the king, and of Nathan the prophet, because the commandment (‫ )מצוה‬was through Yhwh and through his prophets” (‫ ;נביאיו‬2 Chr 29:25). Whether this instruction involves a written source, an oral source, or a traditional precedent is uncertain. Given that there is no mention of an inscribed text, it would seem that an oral source or a customary precedent is the most likely possibility. 42 The reference to the otherwise unattested letter (‫ )מכתב‬is often taken as a sign of increased scripturalization in Achaemenid times. A tendency toward greater textualization seems evident in the development of the later biblical writings (e.g., Ezekiel, Daniel,

WHAT WERE THE CHRONICLER ’ S PROPHETIC SOURCES ?

149

did not confine themselves to one literary form. But, of the forms listed above, words/deeds (‫ )דברים‬predominate (1 Chr 29:29; 2 Chr 9:29; 12:15; 20:34; 33:19). The genre of a vision (‫ )חזון‬or set of visions (‫ )חזות‬appears twice (2 Chr 9:29; 32:32) and the remaining genres appear only once each.43 Second, there is a partial correlation between the titles of the prophetic writings and the reigns in which said prophets appear. That is, when prophetic compositions are referred to in concluding regnal résumés, these written works sometimes relate to prophets or prophetic figures whom the writer associates with that reign. So, for example, the concluding remarks to David’s reign (1 Chr 29:29) refer his readers to “the words of Samuel the seer (‫)ראה‬, the words of Nathan the prophet (‫)נביא‬, and the words of Gad the visionary (‫)חזה‬.” Having read the Chronistic narratives about the united monarchy, readers will know that each of these prophetic figures lived during David’s time (1 Chr 11:3, 38; 12:15; 14:4; 17:1–3, 15; 21:9,11, 13, 18–19; 26:28). But the correlation is not absolute. Some prophets (or prophetic figures) are only attested as writing prophets. Individuals, such as Yedo and Iddo only appear as authors of written compositions. Even Isaiah appears mainly as a writing prophet (2 Chr 26:22; 32:32).44 His only other action consists of co-authoring a prayer with Hezekiah (2 Chr 32:20). This is not to say that the writing denies the possibility that these individuals could have delivered oral speeches to Esther, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles). Yet, it seems unwarranted to posit a great divide between monarchic and postmonarchic times. Taking the form of written communications, literary prophecy was, for example, very common in Neo-Assyrian times. In fact, most prophetic messages delivered to Assyrian kings were written, rather than oral, in nature, S. Parpola, Assyrian Prophecies (SAA 9; Helsinki: University of Helsinki Press, 1997); S. W. Cole and P. Machinist, Letters from Priests to Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal (SAA 13; Helsinki: University of Helsinki Press, 1998); M. Nissinen, References to Prophecy in Neo-Assyrian Sources (SAA 7; Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1998); idem, Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East (WAW 12; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2003). J. Schaper discusses the situation in Judah, “The Death of the Prophet: The Transition from the Spoken to the Written Word of God in the Book of Ezekiel,” in Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Judaism (LHBOTS 427; ed. M. H. Floyd and R. D. Haak; New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 63–79; idem, “Exilic and Post-exilic Prophecy” (see n. 28), 324–42. 43 One possibility is that the formulaic use of “words (‫ )דברי‬of PN” was derived from the superscriptions of certain prophetic writings (e.g., Amos 1:1; Jer 1:1). Thus, Schniedewind, Word of God, 218. Another possibility is that both the superscriptions and the titles in Chronicles reflect common literary conventions in the postmonarchic period. 44 “This is solid evidence that the Chronicler is more interested in the (text of the) Book of Isaiah than in the prophet Isaiah as a historical person or even as a literary figure.” So P. C. Beentjes, “Isaiah and the Book of Chronicles,” in Tradition and Transformation in the Book of Chronicles (SSN 52; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 92–93. On the issue, see also P. Höffken, “Der Prophet Jesaja beim Chronisten,” BN 81 (1996), 82–90; Warhurst, “The Chronicler’s Use of the Prophets” (see n. 1), 166–75.

150

Chapter 6

their designated recipients. Rather, the point is the existence of inscribed prophetic texts that do not have to be viewed as secondary reflections of speeches originally delivered in oral settings. The written can exist as a primary medium in its own right. The references to such literary compositions underscore the textualization of prophecy in the time of the Second Commonwealth. Third, most, albeit not all, of the prophets, seers, or visionaries named in the prophetic sources are figures known either from within the work or from within earlier writings. Samuel, Nathan, Gad, Ahijah, Shemaiah, Jehu, Elijah, Isaiah, and Jeremiah are all prophets, seers, or visionaries, who appear either in Samuel-Kings or in other biblical texts.45 In any case, it is interesting that none of the so-called non-professional, temporary prophetic figures—persons who are called upon to deliver a prophetic message at a certain occasion—are listed as the authors of written prophetic compositions.46 Fourth, many of the prophetic sources refer to otherwise unknown prophetic works, even though a few seem to quote the superscriptions of known prophetic books.47 The writer seems to cite the title of the book of Isaiah when in the concluding formulae to his account of Hezekiah’s reign he refers his readers to a written work entitled, “the vision (‫ )חזון‬of Isaiah son of Amoz the prophet” (‫ ;הנביא‬2 Chr 32:32).48 The wording appears to abbreviate and slightly rewrite the longer superscription that opens the book: “The vision of Isaiah son of Amoz, which he saw (‫ )חזון ישעיהו בן אמוץ אשר חזה‬concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah” (Isa 1:1).49 The possibility of a direct citation becomes even more likely, when the concluding formulae of King Uzziah in Chronicles are brought into view. There, the text refers readers to what “Isaiah son of Amoz the prophet wrote” (‫ ;כתב ישעיהו בן אמוץ הנביא‬2 Chr 26:22). In each case, a prophet is associated with a prophetic writing and each citation is correlated to a particular reign or to a series of reigns. The exceptions are Yedo, Iddo, and Hozai. But some view Yedo (‫)יעדו‬, the qere in 2 Chr 9:29 (ketiv Yedi [‫)]יעדי‬, and Iddo (‫ ;עדו‬2 Chr 12:15; 13:22) as the same figure and emend, therefore, Yedo to Iddo. But see M. Noth, Die israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen Namensgebung (BWANT 3/10; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1928), 182, 204. 46 Schniedewind, Word of God, 227. 47 Ibid., 218. 48 See my earlier discussion in section 1 above. 49 A briefer and earlier introduction appears at the beginning of Isa 2:1: “The word (‫)הדבר‬, which Isaiah son of Amoz saw (‫ )חזה‬concerning Judah and Jerusalem,” H. G. M. Williamson, The Book Called Isaiah (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 153–54. Cf. Isa 6:1; 13:1; 14:28; Sir 48:22. 45

WHAT WERE THE CHRONICLER ’ S PROPHETIC SOURCES ?

151

But the referents for many of the prophetic works are not at all clear. Readers of the story of Solomon’s reign are referred to the “words (‫ )דברי‬of Nathan the prophet” (‫ ;נביא‬2 Chr 9:29). In the Chronistic version of Solomon’s reign, Nathan does not otherwise appear.50 Might the reference be to the activities and prophecies of Nathan in Kings?51 Perhaps so, but the other prophetic reference at the conclusion to Solomon’s reign—the “visions (‫ )חזות‬of Yedo the visionary (‫ )חזה‬concerning Jeroboam son of Nebat” (2 Chr 9:29)—raises further questions. Yedo is not otherwise attested either in Kings or in Chronicles, although a seer named Iddo is mentioned later in Chronicles.52 To complicate matters further, Iddo is mentioned in reference to Rehoboam and in reference to his son and successor Abijah, and not in reference to Jeroboam (2 Chr 12:15; 13:22).53 In the first case, Iddo is called a prophet (‫ )נביא‬and in the second case a seer (‫)חזה‬. Given that both Rehoboam and Abijah had direct dealings with Jeroboam, it is conceivable that the writer casts Iddo as penning a literary work about the northern kingdom’s most nefarious monarch. But in the second case, Iddo is said to have authored a study (‫ )מדרש‬of the deeds and ways of Abijah (2 Chr 13:22).54 Hence, two separate works are in view. The references to prophetic writings in Chronicles thus appear to be more diverse than they might initially seem to be. Fifth, given the general correlation between prophets and prophetic writings, on the one hand, and the reign of certain kings, on the other hand, it stands to reason that each of the prophetic figures cited was viewed as both

50 51

52 53 54

On the individuation of Nathan’s promises to David, speaking of a divinely-given son and successor (1 Chr 17:1, 2, 3, 15), see G. N. Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29 (AB 12A; New York: Doubleday/New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), 661–77. It is curious that in the last public scene in David’s life, following the anointing of Solomon as king and Zadoq as priest, all of David’s sons, the officials, and warriors cast their support in favor of the new king (1 Chr 29:22–25), Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29, 942–59. Nathan is, however, not mentioned as being present at this pan-Israel celebration (cf. 1 Kgs 1:8, 10–14, 22–27, 34, 38, 44–45). Josephus (Ant. 7.371) includes a reference to Nathan in one of David’s later speeches, but does so with a reference to the dynastic promises. On the textual issues, see n. 45 above. Elsewhere the name appears in Zech 1:1 (as the grandfather of Zechariah), and 1 Chr 6:6 (a Gershonite Levite). The citations in Ezra (5:1; 6:14) may telescope Iddo’s genealogy, because they list Zechariah as his son/descendant (‫)בן‬. In the former case, it is interesting that the work is associated with genealogical registration (‫ ;להתיחש‬2 Chr 12:15). The specialized use of the hithpael of ‫ יחש‬recalls the frequent use of this verb in the genealogies, P. C. Beentjes, “The Importance of Being Registered: The Role and Meaning of the verb ‫ יחש‬in the Book of Chronicles,” in Tradition and Transformation (see n. 44), 187–91.

152

Chapter 6

an interpreter of history and a literary scribe. In these source citations, prophets thus appear as quasi-historians, who composed written records, interpretations, and reflections for posterity.55 Such interpretations may pertain to particular political, biographical, or cultic issues, but a few may deal more broadly with international issues as well. In the case of Uzziah, the work of Isaiah cited relates “the rest of the deeds of Uzziah, first and last” (2 Chr 26:22). But, in the case of Manasseh, the work of Hozai (‫ )חוזי‬cited relates the content of Manasseh’s prayer, the account of his sin and his rebellion, and details about the places in which he built shrines and installed asherahs and images (2 Chr 33:19).56 Sixth, the contextualization of the prophetic source citations in the concluding regnal formulae gives the impression that the prophetic writers, much like the authors of the royal annals, enjoyed officially-recognized positions in their kingdom’s corporate life. To this line of interpretation, it could be objected that most of the Chronistic prophets deliver their messages in oral form. This is true, but one should not draw a sharp line between the oral and the written. On the contrary, in a few cases there is a clear connection between the oral and the written. Among the concluding comments to Josiah’s reign, reference is made to Jeremiah’s laments over the tragic death of King Josiah (2 Chr 35:25). Initially, these laments appear to take oral form, because they were “sung to this day” and were made “a statute (‫ )חק‬over Israel” (2 Chr 35:25).57 But the spoken relates to the written. The narrator informs readers that “they [the prophet’s words] were written in the Laments” (‫ ;כתובים על־הקינות‬2 Chr 35:25). The implication seems to be that the composition was regarded as being so important that it was written down for the sake of posterity. When it comes to prophecy, the written stands in line with the oral, but goes beyond it. The inscription of the Laments creates a permanent record of these songs and facilitates their reuse and study in the future. If confirmation of the general point were needed, it appears in a couple of literary contexts. Thus, in the concluding regnal report of David, readers

55 56 57

Cf. Willi, Chronik als Auslegung, 231–41; Schniedewind, Word of God, 209–30; J. Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel (rev. ed.; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 8–39; R. W. Klein, 1 Chronicles (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 42. On the textual issue, see n. 17. Or “were chanted according to established custom,” if one reads the verb in 2 Chr 35:25 as ‫( תנה‬in the piel) instead of ‫( נתן‬cf. Judg 5:11; 11:40; Ps 8:2; HALOT 1759b–1761a), J. M. Myers, II Chronicles (AB 13; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965), 214.

WHAT WERE THE CHRONICLER ’ S PROPHETIC SOURCES ?

153

are referred to the “deeds of David—first and last—in the words of Samuel the seer (‫)ראה‬, the words of Nathan the prophet (‫)נביא‬, and the words of Gad the visionary (‫)חזה‬, with all his kingdom and his power and the times through which he and Israel passed, and likewise all of the kingdoms of the lands” (1 Chr 29:29–30). In this set of concluding formulae, the prophetic writings are concerned not simply with the delivery of speeches to royal and popular Israelite audiences, although this is definitely part of the overall picture. Samuel, Nathan, and Gad appear as chroniclers of their own times, narrating the glories of David’s reign and making observations about foreign affairs, as well.58 The creation of an inscribed text commemorates aspects of David’s tenure for the sake of posterity. By commenting on David’s reign in some detail, the prophetic scribes shape, conserve, and publicize the memory of his age for later generations. 3

Prophetic Sources and the Evaluation of the Past

Having looked at the titles of the prophetic works and the work of the prophets associated with such compositions, it may be useful to look at the distribution of the prophetic writings within the monarchic age. Such an analysis may shed light on how Chronicles employs such works to present distinct images for each of the periods the work portrays. The following table supplements the earlier table in this essay (section 2), by referencing the prophetic writings in their chronological contexts, and listing those reigns in which no such prophetic source citations occur. The time of Athaliah and Jehoiada is included, because this period enjoys its own narrative space, even though the authors of Kings and Chronicles treat it as an interregnum.59

58 Not evidently oracles against the nations along the lines one finds in Amos, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, but rather discussions of neighboring kingdoms and their interactions with Israel during David’s time. 59 The comment (2 Kgs 11:3//2 Chr 22:12) that “Athaliah was ruling over the land” certainly points in this direction. That the concluding formulae pertaining to Jehoiada appear only in Chronicles (2 Chr 24:15–16) reinforces the impression that the work employs the concluding regnal formulae to promote (or, much less often, to cast aspersions on) the performances of leaders in Jerusalem.

154 King Saul David

Solomon

Rehoboam Abijah Asa Jehoshaphat Jehoram Ahaziah Athaliah Jehoiada Joash Amaziah Uzziah Jotham Ahaz Hezekiah Manasseh Amon Josiah Jehoahaz Jehoiakim Jehoiachin Zedekiah

Chapter 6

Prophetic Writings

Source

The Words of Samuel the Seer The Words of Nathan the Prophet The Words of Gad the Visionary The Words of Nathan the Prophet The Prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite The Visions of Yedo the Visionary about Jeroboam ben Nebat The Words of Shemaiah the Prophet (The Words of) Iddo the Visionary The Midrash of the Prophet Iddo

1 Chr 29:29 1 Chr 29:29 1 Chr 29:29 2 Chr 9:29 2 Chr 9:29 2 Chr 9:29

The Words of Jehu son of Hanani recorded on the Scroll of the Israelite kings The Letter from Elijah the Prophet

2 Chr 20:34

(The Writing of) Isaiah ben Amoz the Prophet

2 Chr 26:22

The Vision of Isaiah ben Amoz the Prophet The Words of Hozai

2 Chr 32:32 2 Chr 33:19

The Laments (of Jeremiah)

2 Chr 35:25

2 Chr 12:15 2 Chr 12:15 2 Chr 13:22

2 Chr 21:12–15

WHAT WERE THE CHRONICLER ’ S PROPHETIC SOURCES ?

155

Almost all of the prophetic sources listed are contextualized within concluding regnal formulae.60 This underscores the image of prophets as chroniclers of and commentators on the times in which they lived. Indeed, granted that in some cases (e.g., Solomon) the prophetic sources replace annalistic sources (1 Kgs 11:41), the literary work presents prophetic writers as having a kind of public position in recording, framing, and adjudicating how the memory of monarchs and the times in which they lived were to be preserved. As such, prophets enjoy an official status as an independent social institution (not subordinate to the monarchy), shaping memories of Israel’s challenges, failures, and accomplishments for consideration by later generations. A number of comments may be made about the allocation of prophetic writings across the spectrum of the united and Judahite monarchies. First, given that some prophets lived through two or more reigns (Nathan, Iddo, and Isaiah), their written works may not have been confined to dealing with the affairs of a single king and his generation. Conversely, a prophet (e.g., Iddo) could write more than one work, but do so in connection with different reigns. Second, there is quite an uneven distribution of prophetic works during the several centuries of monarchical rule. Many royal tenures are not associated with any prophetic writings at all. In fact, some twelve Judahite kings lack prophetic source citations in their concluding regnal formulae. This sum represents the majority of the royal tenures (nineteen in total) in the Judahite monarchy.61 Third, of those reigns associated with prophetic writings in the Judahite monarchy, the vast majority (six) feature just one prophetic work.62 Only one has two writings (Rehoboam) and none has more than two. Fourth, the united monarchy of David and Solomon stands out over against the Judahite monarchy in the gauge of prophetic attention. That David and 60

61

62

An exception to the larger literary pattern, contextualizing prophetic writings within concluding regnal résumés, is the letter of Elijah, which is quoted in the course of Jehoram’s reign. The northern prophet’s sending King Jehoram of Judah a letter (‫ )מכתב‬of reprimand (2 Chr 21:12a) is unattested in Kings. The prophecy (2 Chr 21:12b–15) is very much conceived and presented as a written phenomenon. No explicit reference is made to an oral recitation either by a messenger or by the king himself (cf. 2 Kgs 23:1–3). The delimitation of genre is telling, because the terminology signifies an ad hoc missive, rather than an extensive written composition. I am not counting, for the sake of argument, the tenures of Athaliah and Jehoiada in this calculation, because the reign of Athaliah is cast in Kings and Chronicles as an interregnum and Jehoiada is a priest, not a monarch. If one were to include the tenures of Athaliah and Jehoiada, along with the reign of Saul in the united monarchy, the total number would be fourteen. It should be mentioned that not all of the kings in the Judahite monarchy have concluding formulae. More on this below. The tally increases to seven, if one adds the letter of Elijah to Jehoram (2 Chr 21:12–15).

156

Chapter 6

Solomon each elicit three prophetic writings is commensurate with the great attention David (1 Chronicles 11–29) and Solomon (2 Chronicles 1–9) command in the work. How the memory of a monarch’s reign (or the memory of that reign as part of a larger era) is registered and preserved is, therefore, important. When the concluding formulae to Solomon’s reign mention the “chronicles of Nathan the prophet, the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and the visions of Yedo the seer concerning Jeroboam son of Nebat” (2 Chr 9:29; cf. 1 Kgs 11:41), this is a mark of distinction. Allusions to prophetic sources pertaining to three different prophetic figures in the concluding formulae of a single monarch is one way of underscoring the gravity of this particular monarch’s tenure as significant in Israelite history. In short, prophetic writings are one way in which the literary work individuates the relatively short era of the united kingdom as Israel’s most glorious. Fifth, the references to prophetic writings almost always occur for rulers whom the Chronicler views positively: David (1 Chr 29:29), Solomon (2 Chr 9:29), Abijah (2 Chr 13:22), Jehoshaphat (2 Chr 20:34), Uzziah (2 Chr 26:22), Hezekiah (2 Chr 32:32), and Josiah (2 Chr 35:25).63 To have a prophetic writing associated with one’s reign is a mark of status. Conversely, to lack such written prophetic coverage of one’s reign may indicate failure and disappointment. Thus, those monarchs judged to have performed badly—Jehoram (2 Chr 21:20), Ahaziah (2 Chr 22:8–9), Ahaz (2 Chr 28:26–27), Amon (2 Chr 33:21–25), Jehoiakim (2 Chr 36:5–9), Jehoiachin (2 Chr 36:9–10), and Zedekiah (2 Chr 36:11–20)— have no prophetic writings authored about them. Sixth, there are only two instances in which the literary work provides prophetic source citations for monarchs, who are rated negatively: Rehoboam (2 Chr 12:14) and Manasseh (2 Chr 33:18–19).64 In both cases, Chronicles provides more complex, nuanced, and temperate accounts of their careers than does Kings. What is more, in both cases, prophecies or prophetic figures play major roles in turning around negative segments of their reigns (2 Chr 11:2– 4; 12:7; 33:10 [Yhwh], 18). In the case of Rehoboam, this sort of prophetic 63 In the case of Abijah, there is no explicit regnal evaluation, but all of the material provided about Abijah’s reign is positive. In this respect, Chronicles completely reverses the brief and negative impression left by Kings. 64 In the latter case, there are no final judgment formulas in Chronicles. In Kings, Manasseh is the most harshly condemned Judahite monarch (2 Kgs 21:2–18), but the Chronicles account is much more complex in that Manasseh repents, reverses course, and institutes reforms, B. E. Kelly, Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles (JSOTSup 211; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1996); G. N. Knoppers, “Saint or Sinner? Manasseh in Chronicles,” in Rewriting Biblical History: Essays on Chronicles and Ben Sira in Honour of Pancratius C. Beentjes (ed. H. W. M. Grol and J. Corley; DCLS 7; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 211–29.

WHAT WERE THE CHRONICLER ’ S PROPHETIC SOURCES ?

157

confrontation happens not once, but twice. In other words, the prophetically attributed sources are not extraneous to the work’s larger compositional design. Rather, the prophetic source citations are one means by which the writing shapes its coverage of particular reigns. Seventh, the relative lack of prophetic source citations during certain periods may be understood as indicating a generally negative judgment upon those periods. If the united monarchy features three kings and six prophetic source citations and the first five kings of the early Judahite monarchy feature five prophetic compositions, the last nine kings (Ahaz through Zedekiah) feature only three written prophetic compositions in total. Such a distribution clearly favors the united and early Judahite monarchies over against the late Judahite monarchy, although the first king of the united monarchy (Saul) also looks bad in the comparison. If having a prophetic composition written about one’s reign is a mark of distinction, the relative absence of prophetic compositions for most kings ruling from the eighth to the early-sixth centuries does not speak well for the last two centuries of Davidic rule.65 One caveat must be offered, however. As argued in chapter 5 on mimesis in Chronicles, the regnal formulae are heavily dependent upon those found in the Deuteronomistic work.66 Their placement in the narration of a monarch’s reign follows the pattern set by Kings rather closely. With one exception (1 Chr 29:29), Chronicles does not add sets of new concluding regnal formulae to those appearing in Samuel-Kings.67 This affects how one approaches the question of prophetic sources, because those monarchs lacking concluding regnal formulae (Ahaziah, Athaliah, Jehoahaz, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah) will ipso facto lack prophetic source citations. If so, one cannot leap to the conclusion that the lack of prophetic source citations for these monarchs necessarily indicates condemnation of these monarchs’ reigns. Even with this important caveat, the general point still holds. The paucity of references to written prophetic works in the latter part of the Judahite kingdom reflects a generally negative judgment upon this period.68 To begin 65

Even allowing for a couple of important exceptions (e.g., Hezekiah and Josiah), the general judgment still stands. 66 1 Chr 29:29; 2 Chr 9:29; 12:15; 13:22; 16:11; 20:34; 24:27; 25:26; 26:22; 27:7; 28:26; 32:32; 33:18, 19; 35:27; 36:8. I would argue that the placement is no accident. 67 There is a concluding formula to the Chronistic genealogical introduction to Israel (1 Chr 9:1), but the content of this formula, dealing with the genealogical registration of the people and their exile to Babylon, differs understandably from the regnal formulae and lacks any reference to a prophetic source, Knoppers, 1 Chronicles 1–9, 479–80. 68 A very interesting, but difficult, question to get at is whether the Chronicler interpreted the lack of concluding regnal formulae for certain monarchs (assuming that his Vorlage resembled that of MT Kings) as indicating a negative judgment against those monarchs.

158

Chapter 6

with, three kings with negative evaluations and concluding regnal data lack prophetic source citations: Ahaz (2 Chr 28:27), Amon (2 Chr 33:24–25), and Jehoiakim (2 Chr 36:8). Moreover, if the writer wished to refer to written prophetic works, he could have still done so by referring to them in the body of his coverage of each relevant reign. We have already seen that he does this with respect to Jehoram’s reign, directing his readers’ attention to an otherwise unattested letter from the prophet Elijah (2 Chr 21:12–15).69 The point may be reinforced by an additional consideration. The author could have easily cited additional prophetic works by name, but evidently chose not to do so. It seems inconceivable that the Chronicler was unaware of all the prophetic writings that are associated elsewhere with the latter part of the Judahite monarchy (e.g., Micah, Nahum, Zephaniah, Habakkuk, Ezekiel, and Obadiah). Some have argued, in fact, that certain aspects of Chronistic theology were profoundly influenced by those of Ezekiel.70 But the work does not directly quote any of these earlier prophets. While some of these prophetic writings may not have been of any particular interest due to their specific interests and ideological tendencies, it seems unlikely that they all were of no value.71 Indeed, the commentary on the fall of Judah mentions a plurality of (unnamed) prophets who were sent by Yhwh “early and often” to admonish the people and the priests (2 Chr 36:15). Clearly, the text asserts that the last generations of Judah, no less so than previous generations, were held accountable for their actions by prophetic admonitions and calls to repentance. It seems more plausible, then, to hold that the relative dearth of prophetic writings cited in the latter part of the Judahite monarchy reflects a negative judgment upon this era as a whole.72 Focusing on the positive, the writer allocates the bulk of his coverage to those kings he esteems the most (David, Solomon, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and Josiah). Most, albeit not all, of those royal tenures that he deems to be particularly deficient (Ahaziah,

69 B. J. Diebner, “Überlegungen zum ‘Brief des Elia’ (2 Chr 21,12–15),” Hen 9 (1987), 199–227. In Jehoram’s case, Chronicles lacks any concluding source citation (2 Chr 21:20), whereas a standard source citation appears in Kings (2 Kgs 8:23). 70 E.g., Japhet, Ideology, 176–91. 71 In this I differ somewhat from the position of Begg (“Classical Prophets” [see n. 2], 100–7), even though there is much value in his overall treatment of the issue. 72 Given the content of Huldah’s oracle forecasting the Judahite exile and the nature of Josiah’s tragic death, it may be no accident that the last cited prophetic source in the work (2 Chr 35:25) is entitled “the Laments.” See further K. A. Ristau, “Reading and Re-Reading Josiah: The Chronicler’s Representation of Josiah for the Postexilic Community,” in Community Identity in Judean Historiography (see n. 37), 219–47.

WHAT WERE THE CHRONICLER ’ S PROPHETIC SOURCES ?

159

Amon, Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, Zedekiah) receive short shrift.73 Even the notable exceptions to this rule—Ahaz and Manasseh—receive comparatively less coverage than do their illustrious successors—Hezekiah and Josiah. 4 Conclusions Chronicles presents a scenario in which certain prophets wrote about the times in which they lived and commented in detail about the tenures of the most important kings under whom they lived.74 Literary prophets are not lonely, misunderstood, and isolated individuals, who have little regular contact with leaders and the body politic. Quite the contrary, the writing prophets appear as public intellectuals, who are actively engaged in national life. Their inscribed works represent a level of national discourse that goes beyond the discourse created by oral messages characteristic of each generation. In this imagined past, the body politic is held accountable to Yhwh by a variety of prophets and prophetic figures throughout the course of the monarchy.75 Yet, the focus of these particular seers, prophets, and visionaries is set toward a specific task, namely commenting on the affairs of king, cult, people, and state for the sake of future generations. As such, these literary scribes have an important social, historical, and pedagogical role to play in shaping, evaluating, and perpetuating the memory of Israel’s corporate life. The allocation of prophetic source citations constitutes one important means by which Chronicles shapes its distinctive portrayal both of individual kings and of larger epochs.

73 This is especially true of the post-Josianic kings (Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah). On the brief coverage of this time, see Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 1060–77; I. Kalimi, An Ancient Israelite Historian: Studies in the Chronicler, His Time, Place and Writing (SSN 46; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2005), 115–23. 74 To be sure, the oral dimension does not disappear in conjunction with the rise in the use of written texts. The oral and written continue to coexist. See R. Thomas, Oral Tradition and Written Record in Classical Athens (Cambridge Studies in Oral and Literate Culture 18; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989); eadem, Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece (Key Themes in Ancient History; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992); D. M. Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005); S. Niditch, Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite Literature (LAI; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1996); K. van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007). Nevertheless, the very distribution of the written lends to it a certain gravity that the oral (by itself) does not possess. 75 This issue is the focus of chapter 7 on prophetic succession in Chronicles.

160

Chapter 6

The point has important implications for how one may understand the reception of prophecy and of written prophetic works in the late Persian and early Hellenistic period. It seems clear that by the time the Chronicler wrote, not only were some collections of prophetic oracles available in written form, but also that the Chronicler considered the textualization of prophecy as directly involving the prophets themselves.76 In the regnal résumés, prophetic books do not appear as collections of scattered oral prophecies that were gathered, augmented, and edited by later students or temple officials.77 Rather, the prophets appear themselves as poets, quasi-historians, and theological commentators, who composed written reflections dealing with their own times. Inscribed works are part and parcel of the nation’s legacy. The written portrayals of the interaction between Yhwh and the people of Israel create useful pedagogical guides for readers in future generations both to learn from the past and to assess their own conduct. As such, the prophetic compositions 76 This represents a very important development, especially when the long history of prophecy in ancient Israel is taken into account, F. Gonçalves, “Les ‘Prophètes Écrivains’ étaient-ils des ‫ ”?נביאים‬in The World of the Aramaeans (3 vols.; ed. P. M. Michèle Daviau, J. W. Wevers, and M. Weigl; JSOTSup 324–326; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 1:144–85. 77 My concern in this analysis is to understand the Chronistic presentation of the past, not how earlier prophetic books were actually compiled and edited. The latter issue has occasioned much discussion in recent decades. See J. Lindblom, Prophecy in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1962); J. Blenkinsopp, Sage, Priest, Prophet: Religious and Intellectual Leadership in Ancient Israel (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1995); L. L. Grabbe, Priests, Prophets, Diviners, Sages: A Socio-historical Study of Religious Specialists in Ancient Israel (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity, 1995); R. E. Clements, Old Testament Prophecy: From Oracles to Canon (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1996); Nissinen, “How Prophecy became Literature” (see n. 28), 153–72; R. G. Kratz, “Die Redaktion der Prophetenbücher,” in Rezeption und Auslegung im Altem Testament und in seinem Umfeld: Ein Symposion aus Anlass des 60. Geburtstags von Odil Hannes Steck (ed. R. G. Kratz and T. Krüger; OBO 153; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1997), 9–27 [repr. in Prophetenstudien (FAT 74; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 32–48]; E. Ben Zvi, “Beginning to Address the Question: Why Were Prophetic Books Produced and ‘Consumed’ in Ancient Yehud?” in Historie og konstruktion: Festskrift til Niels Peter Lemche i anledning af 60 års fødselsdagen den 6. september 2005 (ed. M. Müller and T. L. Thompson; Forum for Bibelsk Eksegese 14; Copenhagen: Kobenhavens Universetet, 2005), 30–41; A. Lange, “Literary Prophecy and Oracle Collection: A Comparison between Judah and Greece in Persian Times,” in Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Judaism (ed. M. H. Floyd and R. D. Haak; LHBOTS 427; London: T&T Clark, 2006), 248–75; idem, “Greek Seers and Israelite-Jewish Prophets,” VT 57 (2007), 461–82; M. H. Floyd, “The Production of Prophetic Books in the Early Second Temple Period,” in Prophets, Prophecy and Prophetic Texts, 276– 97; A. Hagedorn, “Looking at Foreigners in Biblical and Greek Prophecy,” VT 57 (2007), 432–48; H. B. Huffmon, “The Oracular Process: Delphi and the Near East,” VT 57 (2007), 449–60.

WHAT WERE THE CHRONICLER ’ S PROPHETIC SOURCES ?

161

contribute to the larger effort of conserving, evaluating, publicizing, and commemorating Israel’s corporate history. Finally, it may be useful to situate the Chronistic work in the context of the larger dynamic the writing portrays as occurring repeatedly in the past. The composition may be considered as exemplary of the prophetic writings cited in the body of the writer’s own work.78 Like the prophets and prophetic figures the Chronistic work portrays, the writer strikes an independent stance, evaluating kings and people alike, less often priests and Levites.79 To be sure, the focus is not simply on writing about a particular reign, much less only upon the reigns worthy of prophetic memorialization but upon the entire monarchy. His treatment includes both kings, who are commemorated in writing by prophets of their times, and kings, whose inglorious reigns elicit no written prophetic compositions at all. Yet, given the prominent role he attributes to the prophetic writers, the prophetic stance he himself adopts in theologically critiquing the monarchy, and the importance he ascribes to learning from the pattern of Yhwh’s involvement in Israelite history, the Chronicler likely wished for his own writing to become associated with the respected prophetic writings of the past. 78 So also Schniedewind, “Interpreter of Scripture” (see n. 23), 222; Amit, “Role of Prophecy,”  6. 79 S. J. Schweitzer provides a balanced discussion of those occasions in which the performance of priests or Levites is critiqued, Reading Utopia in Chronicles (LHBOTS 442; London: T&T Clark International, 2007), 132–75.

Chapter 7

“Yhwh will Raise Up for You a Prophet like Me”: Prophetic Succession in Chronicles 1 Introduction In his seminal study of postexilic prophecy, Barton points out that most early interpreters assumed a basic definition of prophecy as foretelling and not as forthtelling.1 His argument is not that prophets in ancient Israel and Judah were unconcerned with events in their own time. Quite the contrary, he accepts the contemporary historical understanding of ancient Israelite prophesying as intimately related to social, economic, and religious contexts. The prophets spoke the truth (as they saw it) to their contemporaries and dealt with circumstances in their own societies. The prophetic texts associated with these figures enjoyed, however, their own afterlife in the history of early Judaism and early Christianity. Such writings were construed in later eras as having a primarily futuristic orientation. Texts dealing with particular issues in ancient Israel and Judah were reinterpreted as if they were speaking of far distant times. Although the understanding of prophecy as foretelling is usually associated with the work of the early interpreters, this understanding may be found occasionally within the Hebrew scriptures. Moses speaks, for example, of the future in the legislation of Deuteronomy dealing with the creation of a prophetic office, promising the Israelites: “A prophet from your midst (‫)נביא מקרבך‬, from your kin (‫)מאחיך‬, like me (‫ … )כמני‬Yhwh your God will establish for you. To him you must listen” (‫ ;תשמעון‬Deut 18:15).2 To be sure, the words of Moses do not address far distant times, but rather subsequent generations, addressing an anticipated need in the Israelite community.3 Who will speak for God, when 1 J. Barton, Oracles of God (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1986). 2 Along with most commentators, I am construing the force of Deut 18:15 as distributive (involving a succession of prophets), even though the text speaks of a single prophet. “The promised prophet is to meet a continuous and permanent need of the people,” S. R. Driver, Deuteronomy (ICC; 3rd ed.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902), 228–29 (italics his). 3 Many, but not all, of the early interpreters interpreted Deut 18:15 as pertaining to a distant time and as applying to a single individual (e.g., John 1:21, 45; 6:14; 7:40; Acts 3:22–24; 7:37). See C. Nihan, “‘Un prophète comme Moïse’ (Deutéronome 18,15): Genèse et relectures d’une construction deutéronomiste,” in La construction de la figure Moïse (ed. T. C. Römer; ©  GARY N. KNOPPERS (†), Christl M. Maier and H. G. M. Williamson, 2021 |  doi:10.1163/9789004444898_009

Prophetic Succession in Chronicles

163

Moses is no longer living? The stipulation announced in Deuteronomy, if realized, will allow for continuity in the process of divine communication in Israelite history. Although Moses makes the promise, the actual appointment is not his to make. Divine election will be the critical factor in establishing a prophetic succession. Moses will eventually die, but someone else will take his place and communicate God’s messages to the people. In this essay, I would like to offer some comments on the prophetic phenomenon in Chronicles with a special view to the distribution of prophets throughout the course of the monarchy.4 I shall argue that the work adheres to the promise delivered in Deuteronomy that Yhwh would raise up prophets like Moses to follow him. To say that Deuteronomy plays a formative role in shaping the Chronistic presentation of authentic Yahwistic prophecy may seem like a surprising claim to make, because the work never directly quotes Deuteronomy’s prophetic legislation. Moreover, the text never explicitly speaks of a prophetic succession or of divine promises pertaining to the same. I shall argue, however, that the Chronistic writing largely assumes the presentation in Deuteronomy—both the understanding of prophecy and the prophetic promise—and presents Israelite history as repeatedly instantiating the fulfillment of the divine pledge.5 Such a succession is not prophetically driven. It does not rely on the existence of prophetic schools (e.g., 1 Kgs 20:35; 2 Kgs 2:3–7, 15; 4:1, 38; 9:1–2) or on one prophet passing his mantle to another (e.g., 1 Kgs 19:16, 19–21). There is no one single office of prophet for which several individuals may compete. Rather, the succession is divinely driven. Yhwh periodically endows Israel with those who deliver his word, whether in oral or in written form.6 In its implicit recourse to the legislation presented in Deuteronomy, the Chronistic depiction should be distanced from that of the Deuteronomistic

Supplément 13 à Transeuphratène; Paris: Gabalda, 2007), 43–76. This is also true of Samaritan tradition, F. Dexinger, “Eschatology,” in The Samaritans (ed. A. D. Crown; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [P. Siebeck], 1989), 266–92; idem, “Taheb,” in A Companion to Samaritan Studies (ed. A. D. Crown, R. Pummer, and A. Tal; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [P. Siebeck], 1993), 224–26. 4 The prophetic phenomenon in Chronicles has been the subject of much careful study. See the references in chapter 6, “‘As It is Written’: What were the Chronicler’s Prophetic Sources?” 5 On the many different kinds of literary allusion and types of literary dependence, see recently J. M. Leonard, “Identifying Biblical Allusions: Psalm 78 as a Test Case,” JBL 127 (2008), 241–65. 6 References to specific prophetic writings are usually found within concluding regnal formulae. Such citations are not incidental notices, but form an integral part of the work’s construction of individual reigns (see chapter 6).

164

Chapter 7

work.7 The Chronistic portrayal of the prophetic legacy differs quite markedly from that of its Vorlage, even though it is generally indebted to Samuel-Kings and affirms some important features of this earlier work.8 It may even be suggested that the Chronicler’s distinctive perspective toward prophecy responds, in part, to the perceived deficiencies of his principal source.9 As in Deuteronomy, prophecy represents an institution that is largely independent of other social institutions, such as the monarchy, tribal leadership, central judiciary, local elders, and priesthood. Prophets often speak directly to kings, but prophets also speak to the people. Prophecy is not an institution that is largely subordinated to or controlled by the Israelite monarchy. Kings and queens do not summon prophets; rather, prophets (in the Chronistic Sondergut) appear on the scene unsolicited.10 Most prophets function as free-lance spokespersons for the deity. Because prophecy is first of all a divine provision to the Israelite people and not a provision to the monarchy or to any other social institution, some monarchs, including a few good ones, never directly encounter a prophet. In this respect, the presentation is stylized, but not entirely mechanical in nature. The work does not construe the Mosaic prophecy as implying a strict sequence (e.g., only one prophet per generation), but it does

7 Indeed, Moses himself is not mentioned often in the books of the Deuteronomistic History, with the exception of Joshua. When Moses is mentioned, it is often in connection with torah and not with prophecy: D. L. Petersen, “The Ambiguous Role of Moses as Prophet,” in Israel’s Prophets and Israel’s Past: Essays on the Relationship of Prophetic Texts and Israelite History in Honor of John H. Hayes (ed. B. E. Kelle and M. B. Moore; LHBOTS 446; New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 311–24. 8 Whether one can speak of a single perspective toward prophecy in the Deuteronomistic work (or even within Samuel-Kings) is questionable. Prophecy in this corpus is complex and takes a variety of forms. See W. Dietrich, “Prophetie im deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk,” in The Future of the Deuteronomistic History (ed. T. Römer; BETL 147; Leuven: Peeters, 2000), 47–65 (and the references listed there). 9 See also T. Willi, Die Chronik als Auslegung: Untersuchungen zur literarischen Gestaltung der historischen Überlieferung Israels (FRLANT 106; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972), 216–44; C. T. Begg, “The Classical Prophets in the Chronistic History,” BZ 32 (1988), 100–101. 10 On the importance of paying special attention to the Chronistic Sondergut, see A. Hanspach, Inspirierte Interpreten: Das Prophetenverständnis der Chronikbücher und sein Ort in der Religion und Literatur zur Zeit des Zweiten Tempels (ATSAT 64; St. Otillien: EOS, 2000); L. C. Jonker, “Who Constitutes Society? Yehud’s Self-understanding in the Late Persian Era as Reflected in the Books of Chronicles,” JBL 127 (2008), 706–7. One also has to do justice, of course, to the writer’s recontextualization and reshaping of older material found in his Vorlage, but the new material may provide particular insight into motifs that the writer wished to stress.

Prophetic Succession in Chronicles

165

present a long-term prophetic succession to which a variety of prophetic figures contribute.11 Stemming from divine initiative, prophecy is a consistent feature of Judahite life. My essay will begin by sketching the nature of the prophetic office and prophetic succession in Deuteronomy. Given the diversity of prophets and prophetic figures appearing in Chronicles, it will be important to pay some attention to the different titles given to prophetic figures and the distinction between regular prophets, individuals whose occupation it is to prophesy, and non-professional prophets, pro tem figures from other walks of life who are led to prophesy in a particular setting. Having distinguished between regular prophets and temporary prophets, I shall explore how the prophetic succession operates within different periods of the monarchy.12 The essay will conclude by exploring the import of the claim for prophetic succession within the postmonarchic age. 2

The Prophetic Legislation in Deuteronomy and Its Afterlife in Chronicles

One of the unusual features of the constitutional separation of powers in Deuteronomy, affecting various offices and office-holders (16:18–18:22), is the subordination of prophecy to law (18:9–22).13 The authors formulate specific legislation to define, administer, and contain the phenomenon of prophecy,

11 R. Wilson discusses the one prophet per generation line of interpretation of Deut 18:15, 18, Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 165. 12 It is interesting that the prophetic sequence in the list of ancient Israelite heroes narrated in Sirach is indebted to, but also moves beyond, the Deuteronomistic pattern—Joshua, “attendant to Moses in prophecy” (46:1), Samuel (46:13–20), Nathan (47:1), Elijah (48:1–11), Elisha (48:12–15), and Isaiah (48:20–25). The succession continues with Jeremiah (49:7), Ezekiel (49:8), and concludes with Job and the Twelve (49:9–10), P. C. Beentjes, “Prophets and Prophecy in Ben Sira,” in Prophets, Prophecy and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Judaism (ed. M. H. Floyd and R. L. Haak; LHBOTS 427; London: T&T Clark, 2006), 135– 50. Two brief points may be made. First, the sequence includes the preexilic, exilic, and postexilic periods. Second, the sequence does not involve a strict (one prophet per generation) succession, because some of the Twelve were basically contemporaneous with each other or with one or more of the so-called major prophets. 13 There are other legal texts proscribing certain forms of prophetic activity and necromancy (e.g., Exod 22:17; Lev 19:31; 20:1–6, 27), but the authors of these texts do not devote the concerted attention to regulating the prophetic phenomenon that the writers of Deuteronomy do, B. M. Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997).

166

Chapter 7

an institution that is deemed to be directly instituted by Yhwh.14 Within this legislation about as much attention is given to specifying what prophecy should not be (Deut 18:9–14) as to specifying what prophecy is (Deut 18:15–22). Illicit prophecy is associated with various kinds of deductive divination involving the use of sorcery, charms, necromancy, and augury. This is, in itself, quite revealing, because the concern in this legislation is not with broader social issues or with economic justice, but strictly with accessing information from the divine world. Certain kinds of attempts to procure hidden knowledge from the supernatural realm through illicit means are repeatedly associated with the practices of the indigenous peoples and, as such, are strictly prohibited (Deut 18:9, 12, 13). The legislation does not deny the possibility that such methods might actually work or that legitimate Yahwistic prophets might exhibit mantic behaviors or employ omens, signs, and the like, but it does not mention such mantic behaviors, signs, and omens in connection with the proper function of

14 On the structure, composition, and dating of this section of Deuteronomy, see the proposals of N. Lohfink, “Die Sicherung der Wirksamkeit des Gotteswortes durch das Prinzip der Schriftlichkeit der Tora und durch das Prinzip der Gewaltenteilung nach den Ämtergesetzen des Buches Deuteronomium (Dt 16,18–18,22),” in Testimonium Veritati: Festschrift Wilhelm Kempf (ed. H. Wolter; Frankfurter Theologische Studien 7; Frankfurt a. M.: Knecht, 1971), 143–55 [repr. in and cited from his Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur, 1 (SBAB 8; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1990), 305–23]; U. Rüterswörden, Von der politischen Gemeinschaft zur Gemeinde: Studien zu Dt 16,18–18,22 (BBB 65; Frankfurt a. M.: Athenäum, 1987); S. D. McBride, “Polity of the Covenant People,” Int 41 (1987), 229–44; J. C. Gertz, Die Gerichtsorganisation Israels im deuteronomischen Gesetz (FRLANT 165; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994), 28–97; R. Albertz, Religionsgeschichte Israels in alttestamentlicher Zeit (GAT 8; 2 vols.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), 304–360 [trans. J. Bowden, A History of Religion in the Old Testament Period (2 vols.; OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 195–226]; E. Otto, “Von der Gerichtsordnung zum Verfassungsentwurf: Deuteronomische Gestaltung und deuteronomistische Interpretation im ‘Ämtergesetz’ Dtn 16,18–18,22,” in “Wer ist wie du, HERR, unter den Göttern?” Studien zur Theologie und Religionsgeschichte für Otto Kaiser zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. I. Kottsieper et al.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995), 142–55; idem, “Von der Programmschrift einer Rechtsreform zum Verfassungsentwurf des Neuen Israel: Die Stellung des Deuteronomiums in der Rechtsgeschichte Israels,” in Bundesdokument und Gesetz: Studien zum Deuteronomium (ed. G. Braulik; HBS 4; Freiburg: Herder, 1995), 92–104; W. S. Morrow, Scribing the Center: Organization and Redaction in Deuteronomy 14:1–17:13 (SBLMS 49; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995); J. H. Tigay, Deuteronomy (The JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 159–78; Levinson, Deuteronomy, 98–143; idem, “The First Constitution: Rethinking the Origins of Rule of Law and Separation of Powers in Light of Deuteronomy,” Cardozo Law Review 27 (2006), 1853–88.

Prophetic Succession in Chronicles

167

the prophetic office (18:15–22).15 Indeed, in another context, the writers readily concede that a “sign or wonder” (‫ )אות או מופת‬performed by “a prophet or a dreamer of dreams” might actually work, but if that prophet were to advocate worshiping and serving other gods, the people are not to heed his words. Instead, that “prophet or dreamer of dreams must die” (Deut 13:2–3, 6). Israel must purge such evil from its midst (Deut 13:6). Thus, prophecy is itself circumscribed by law. The statutes of Yhwh delivered through Moses trump the miracles of seditious prophets (Deut 13:5).16 The text does not speak of signs and wonders wrought by the prophet Yhwh is to raise up after Moses. Instead, the prophet becomes the “voice of Yhwh” (‫ ;קול יהוה‬Deut 18:16). The stress falls on prophecy’s verbal component, rather than on the prophet’s personal qualities. As defined by Deuteronomy, the prophetic office is fundamentally charismatic, rather than dynastic, in nature. Moses speaks of a prophet “like me” (‫)כמני‬, that is, one who is appointed by God to speak God’s word to the people (Deut 18:15–20).17 Such an appointed mouthpiece serving on behalf of the God of Israel was deemed to be necessary, because the people themselves had requested such an intermediary at Mt. Horeb. There, the people expressed their clear wish for someone to serve as a spokesperson for the awesome deity, who had spoken directly to them and manifested himself in a great fire (Deut 18:16). Fearing death as a consequence of such an unmediated divine encounter, the people requested that Yhwh no longer reveal himself directly to them (Deut 18:17). Because Yhwh willingly assented to this popular request and deemed it to have merit—“they have done well (‫ )היטיבו‬by what they have spoken” (Deut 18:17)—the institution of prophecy may be considered as a form of divine assistance to the Israelite people.18 15

Although the authors of Deuteronomy’s epilogue maintain that one of the distinguishing marks of Moses’ unparalleled prophetic career was the performance of signs (‫ )אתות‬and wonders (‫ )מופתים‬in Egypt (Deut 34:11). 16 On this remarkable passage (Deut 13:2–6), see the incisive discussion of Levinson, Deuteronomy, 102–35. A helpful overview may be found in U. Rüterswörden, “Dtn 13 in der neueren Deuteronomiumforschung,” in Congress Volume, Basel 2001 (ed. A. Lemaire; VTSup 92; Leiden, Brill, 2002), 185–203. 17 On this prophetic role in comparative context, see Wilson, Prophecy and Society, 89–134; T. W. Overholt, Channels of Prophecy: The Social Dynamics of Prophetic Activity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989); B. Pongratz-Leisten, Herrschaftswissen in Mesopotamien: Formen der Kommunikation zwischen Gott und König im 2. und 1. Jahrtausend v.Chr. (SAA 10; Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1999); M. Köckert and M. Nissinen (eds.), Propheten in Mari, Assyrien und Israel (FRLANT 201; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003); A. Lenzi and J. Stökl (eds.), Divination, Politics, and Near Eastern Empires (ANEM 7; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014). 18 So the MT (lectio brevior). The affirmation is even more strongly put in the longer reading of a few witnesses to the LXX, Tg., the Syr., and the Vg., “they have done well (‫ )היטיבו‬by all

168

Chapter 7

Prophecy does not originate either from the fact that some people possess a natural ability to access the preternatural realm or from the fact that some individuals have acquired highly technical skills that enable them to decode and interpret puzzling signals inherent within the world of nature. Rather, prophets are a gift bequeathed by Yhwh to preserve and enhance his relationship with his people. Moses becomes the first in a line of message-bearers, who serve as human conduits of divine communication to Israel. If the prophet does Yhwh’s bidding and fulfills his proper role, Yhwh will hold the people responsible for how they treat his spokesperson (Deut 18:19). As someone appointed directly by the deity, the spokesperson of Yhwh carries authority and deserves respect from the other members of Israel’s body politic. The institution of prophecy in Deuteronomy does not preclude the possibility of Israelites making direct requests of information or action from the deity. The text does not proscribe prayer. By the same token, the legislation does not establish a mechanism whereby Israelites might approach prophets to intervene on their behalf with the deity. Authentic prophecy is inherently verbal and unidirectional in nature. Yhwh’s declaration that “I shall set my words in his mouth and he will speak to them all that I command him” (Deut 18:18) creates a channel for mediated messages from the divine realm to the human realm, but the converse does not hold. It does not create a warrant, explicitly at least, for Israelites to employ such a channel to petition the divine realm. As with other positions in Deuteronomy’s constitution of office-holders, the position of prophet is not attainable by all and carries certain conditions. Like Levitical priests and kings, prophets are to be native Israelites—“from your midst, from your kin” (Deut 18:15). Yet, in a number of respects, prophets (Deut 18:15–22) differ from other officials in Deuteronomy’s “office-bearers of the theocracy” (Deut 16:18–18:22).19 The prophetic office differs from the priesthood, because the priesthood entails membership in a certain tribe (Deut 18:1–8). The institution of prophecy differs from the monarchy, because the monarchy normally involves a dynastic succession within a single bloodline (Deut 17:14–20). The laws dealing with prophecy do not foreclose the prospect of a series of prophets stemming from one particular family. Yet, if this were to happen, each would have to be individually appointed by the deity.20 (‫ )כל‬what they have spoken” (Deut 18:18). By contrast, no such divine affirmation appears in response to the (anticipated) popular wish for a king (Deut 17:14). The request for a monarch is associated with the popular wish to be like the other nations (Deut 17:14). 19 Driver, Deuteronomy, 135. 20 As is the case, so it seems, in the successive reigns of Asa and Jehoshaphat in which a father (Hanani; 2 Chr 16:7–10) and his son (Jehu; 2 Chr 19:1–3; 20:34) prophesy (see section 4 below).

Prophetic Succession in Chronicles

169

Thus defined, the prophetic office is to become one of the standard institutions in Israelite polity.21 The legislation in Deuteronomy acknowledges that not all those who claim to speak on Yhwh’s behalf may have been actually authorized by Yhwh to do so. If a prophet speaks in God’s name, but has not actually been told by God to do so, or speaks in the name of other gods, “that prophet will die” (Deut 18:20).22 The framers explicitly recognize another problem with the attempt to regulate an inherently charismatic phenomenon: how does one know whether an oracle spoken in Yhwh’s name was in fact given by Yhwh to that would-be spokesperson (Deut 18:21)? The determining factor is fulfillment or non-fulfillment. If a prophet speaks in the name of Yhwh and his words are not fulfilled, his oracle did not stem from Yhwh and the prophet who spoke it may be deemed to have behaved insolently (Deut 18:22).23 The very criterion of authenticity proposed in Deuteronomy presupposes an understanding of prophecy as foretelling.24 If a prophet’s prediction does not come true, he is not a prophet. The impact of the legislation found in Deuteronomy on the presentation of prophecy in Chronicles is, I would submit, profound. Although Chronicles innovates beyond Deuteronomy in a number of important ways, it is greatly indebted to this earlier work.25 The Deuteronomic influence has both negative and positive dimensions. Negatively, it means that Yhwh forbids necromancy, augury, sorcery, and a range of mantic behaviors.26 Even miracles, signs,

21

To be sure, the authors of the final verses of Deuteronomy aver that “there never did rise again in Israel a prophet like Moses (‫)כמשה‬, whom Yhwh knew face to face” (Deut 34:10). The editors safeguard the incomparability of the Mosaic prophetic personae, but they do not deny that there were prophets after Moses. The use of the incomparability formula assumes, in fact, that there were such prophets, G. N. Knoppers, “‘There was None Like Him’: Incomparability in the Books of Kings,” CBQ 54 (1992), 411–31. 22 The exact means or judicial apparatus by which the individual would be held accountable for such a capital offense is not spelled out. 23 The community should therefore “have no fear of him” or “of it” (‫ ;ממנו‬Deut 18:22). 24 On these issues, especially as they relate to the discussions about true and false prophecy in Jeremiah, see C. J. Sharp, Prophecy and Ideology in Jeremiah (OTS; London: T&T Clark, 2003). 25 The perspective toward Israelite kingship, for example, differs remarkably in Chronicles from that of the law of the king in Deut 17:14–20. See chapter 8, “David’s Relation to Moses: The Contexts, Contents, and Conditions of the Davidic Promises.” 26 This is a very important consideration, but one that lies beyond the scope of this essay. In any case, such forms of illicit prophetic behavior do not loom large in the Chronistic depiction of the monarchy, which concentrates on the positive: G. N. Knoppers, “Democratizing Revelation? Prophets, Seers, and Visionaries in Chronicles,” in Prophecy

170

Chapter 7

portents, strange clothing, frenzied behavior, and dramatic actions are rare.27 Not a few prophetic texts depict the prophets as particularly endowed or enabled by the deity to see things (visions, new realities) ordinary people are incapable of seeing (2 Kgs 8:13; Jer 24:1–10; 38:20–23; Ezek 11:25; 40:1–4; Amos 7:1, 4, 7; 8:1; Hab 1:3; Zech 2:3; 3:1). The work contains many “seers” (‫ ;ראים‬1 Chr 9:22; 26:28; 29:29; 2 Chr 16:7, 10; 29:8; 30:7) and “visionaries” (‫ ;חזים‬1 Chr 21:9; 25:5; 29:29; 2 Chr 9:29; 12:15; 19:2; 29:25, 30; 33:18; 35:15), but there are no cases in the Chronistic Sondergut in which seers dream dreams and visionaries see visions. Chronistic prophets do not perform miracles.28 There are many instances in ancient Near Eastern literature in which prophets are distinguished by special proficiency in oneiromancy, astronomy, augury, or extispacy.29 The Chronistic prophets exhibit no such specialized skills of deductive science. There are many instances in the ancient Classical world in which prophetic figures exhibit proficiency in intuitive divination, defined as a special ability to perceive more acutely or deeply than others do. Such an unusual capacity has sometimes been referred to as a sixth sense or a second sight.30 But the seers (‫)ראים‬ and visionaries (‫ )חזים‬of Chronicles, in spite of their names, do not display such special talents. Positively, the influence from Deuteronomy means that authentic Yahwistic prophecy is construed as inherently a verbal phenomenon that is directed toward all Israelites, no matter their rank, lineage, or position.31 Prophecy

27

28

29 30 31

and the Prophets in Ancient Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (ed. J. Day; LHBOTS 531; London: T&T Clark Continuum, 2010), 391–409. If they appear, they almost always appear in material drawn from the Chronicler’s Vorlage, J. Kegler, “Prophetengestalten im deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk und in den Chronikbüchern: Ein Beitrag zur Kompositions- und Redaktionsgeschichte der Chronikbücher,” ZAW 105 (1993), 485–97. On such prophetic behaviors in other literary and cultural contexts, see B. Becking, “The Prophets as Persons,” in Hearing Visions and Seeing Voices: Psychological Aspects of Biblical Concepts and Personalities (ed. G. Glas et al.; Dordrecht: Springer, 2007), 53–63. So the Isaianic sign given to Hezekiah in Kings (2 Kgs 20:1–11) becomes a divinely given sign to Hezekiah in Chronicles (2 Chr 32:24). One should not think of a straight historical line through which the miraculous becomes downplayed. On the contrary, propheticallyinduced miracles and the prophetic access to the preternatural are celebrated in Ben Sira’s ancestral hall of fame (46:4–5, 17–18, 20; 48:2–10, 12–15, 21, 23, 25). M. Nissinen, References to Prophecy in Neo-Assyrian Sources (SAA 7; Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1998); idem, Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East (WAW 12; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2003). A. Lange, “Greek Seers and Israelite-Jewish Prophets,” VT 57 (2007), 461–82. On the emphasis on popular (in addition to royal) culpability, see the important treatment of S. Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and its Place in Biblical Thought

Prophetic Succession in Chronicles

171

represents a vital pillar of the larger Israelite polity that provides an independent check on the activities of king and people alike (e.g., 2 Chr 12:1–5). In Chronicles, as in Deuteronomy, prophets function as the mouthpieces of God. The stress falls entirely on the communications of the seers and not on their idiosyncratic experiences, social pedigrees, technical skill sets, or private lives.32 Rather than rely on mystical experiences, fantastic dreams, or extraordinary talents, prophets rely on direct divine revelation. Moreover, the messages delivered are clear, direct, and unambiguous.33 In conformity with the criterion of authenticity forwarded in Deuteronomy, the predictions made by Chronistic prophets always come true.34 As spokespersons on behalf of the divine realm, the mediating status of prophets is unidirectional.35 It is the role of kings to appeal to Yhwh on behalf of the body politic. In line with the picture presented in Deuteronomy, prophets do not normally intercede on behalf of royalty, priests, Levites, and the people.36 The prophetic task is to inform, predict, encourage, caution, warn,

(BEATAJ 9; Frankfurt a. M.: Lang, 1989), 85–198, 416–28; eadem, I & II Chronicles (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993), 14–23. 32 Japhet, Ideology, 176–91. 33 Such is, of course, not always the case in the ancient Near East, H. Huffmon, “The Oracular Process: Delphi and the Near East,” VT 57 (2007), 457. 34 In Chronicles, see, e.g., 1 Chr 12:19; 17:1–15; 21:9–13; 2 Chr 16:9; 18:16, 18–22; 20:17, 37; 21:12–15; 25:15; 34:22–25, 26–28; 36:21, 23, and the discussions of I. Kalimi, Zur Geschichts­ schreibung des Chronisten (BZAW 226; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995), 143–48; Z. Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches (London: Continuum, 2001), 504–6. On the same motif at work in the Deuteronomistic work, see G. von Rad, Deuteronomium-Studien (FRLANT 58; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1947), 52–64 [trans. E. W. Trueman Dicken, “The Deuteronomic Theology of History in I and II Kings,” in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966), 205–21]; H. Weippert, “Geschichten und Geschichte: Verheissung und Erfüllung im deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk,” in Congress Volume: Leuven, 1989 (ed. J. A. Emerton; VTSup 43; Leiden: Brill, 1991), 116–31 [trans. “‘Histories’ and ‘History’: Promise and Fulfillment in the Deuteronomistic History,” in Reconsidering Israel and Judah: The Deuteronomistic History in Recent Thought (ed. G. N. Knoppers and J. G. McConville; SBTS 8; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 47–61]. 35 Monarchs are not subordinated to prophets in Chronicles the way they are in Samuel-Kings, Y. Amit, “The Role of Prophecy and Prophets in the Chronicler’s World,” in Prophets, Prophecy and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Judaism (ed. M. H. Floyd and R. L. Haak; LHBOTS 427; London: T&T Clark, 2006), 94, 99. 36 There is one exception in which Isaiah and Hezekiah together petition the deity “and cry out to the heavens” in response to Sennacherib’s shocking invasion of Judah (2 Chr 32:20). See section 6 below.

172

Chapter 7

and rebuke.37 Prophets are national leaders in the sense that they represent Yhwh to the people and their leaders, but as spokespersons of the deity they do not normally function as consultants and advisors. Most prophetic messages are unsolicited and most seers, visionaries, and men of God exhibit a certain independence from royalty, community leadership, and the populace at large. Prophets typically arrive on the scene, deliver their messages, and leave. In times of tumultuous change or regression, they uphold the foundational standards of the community.38 Their basic messages display much consistency, in spite of the many changes that occur in the evolution of the Jerusalemite monarchy.39 The prophets are not the primary focus of the story, but they affect history and are an integral part of Israel’s corporate life. In conformity with the divinely instituted provisions announced by Moses in Deuteronomy, prophecy represents a divinely authorized independent institution in Israelite polity. Prophets may serve (or not) in the royal court, but they do not do the king’s bidding.40 Prophets may speak directly to the people, but prophets are not beholden to the people. There are no instances in the work in which prophets are fed or sustained by ordinary folk (cf. 2 Kgs 4:8– 44). Prophets are responsible to Yhwh, but neither to king nor people. In one setting, the intimate linkage between prophecy and the divine is explicitly affirmed. During an international crisis, King Jehoshaphat declares to the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem: “Trust (‫ )האמינו‬in Yhwh your God and you will be entrusted (‫ ;)ותאמנו‬trust (‫ )האמינו‬in his prophets (‫ )בנביאיו‬and you will succeed” (‫ ;והצליחו‬2 Chr 20:20).41 When the people trust Yhwh’s prophets, they

37

More often than not, prophetic speeches warn or admonish their recipients. Prophecies of salvation or encouragement are less common (e.g., 2 Chr 20:14–17). 38 As articulated, usually with allusions to the torah, in the literary world of the text. 39 The themes they promote largely comport with and exemplify Chronistic theology A. C. Welch, The Work of the Chronicler (The Schweich Lectures 1938; London: Oxford University Press, 1939), 42–54; R. Micheel, Die Seher- und Prophetenüberlieferungen in der Chronik (BBET 18; Frankfurt a. M.: Lang, 1983), 75–82; M. A. Throntveit, When Kings Speak: Royal Speech and Royal Prayer in Chronicles (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 127–29; Kegler, “Prophetengestalten,” 492–95. 40 The one clear counter-example to this pattern is the institution of musical or cultic prophecy associated with the Jerusalem temple (see section 3 below). 41 The source text in Isaiah (7:9) puts things negatively, “If you do not trust (‫)תאמינו‬, indeed you will not be entrusted” (‫)תאמנו‬, but the basic message remains the same. The citation of Isaiah (late-eighth century) by Jehoshaphat in the mid-ninth century is, of course, anachronistic, but it underscores the influence of select prophetic texts on the Chronistic perspective on the prophetic phenomenon.

Prophetic Succession in Chronicles

173

trust Yhwh himself.42 Given that the monarch alludes to an Isaianic prophecy delivered in the midst of a different international crisis, the royal commendation of prophecy encapsulates both oral and written dimensions.43 The unequivocal affirmation is not diametrically opposed to the life of the cult, but is in fact linked to the temple.44 The earlier instructions and assurance delivered on behalf of the divine realm stem from an Asaphite Levite, who serves in this context as a pro tem prophet (2 Chr 20:14–17). It is quite important to recognize that prophets are not the only figures, who speak on behalf of the divine realm. Kings sometimes deliver Yhwh’s word to the people.45 Similarly, priests and Levites may be called upon, on occasion, to pronounce a message on behalf of the deity (e.g., 2 Chr 20:14–17). Each of these institutions is also beholden to Yhwh. In this respect, prophets do not enjoy a monopoly on the divine word. Yahwistic prophecy in Chronicles is a rich and diverse phenomenon. But when speaking of a prophetic succession, I shall not include, for the sake of argument, temporary prophets (priests, Levites, laypersons, foreign kings). By this, I do not wish to dismiss the use of such figures to deliver divinely authored messages as inconsequential to the larger narrative designs of the book. To the contrary, the inclusion of a variety of pro tem prophetic figures is one of the distinctive features of monarchic history.46

42

43 44 45

46

The citation of the torah (Exod 14:11–14) in Jahaziel’s address (2 Chr 20:15–17) coupled with Jehoshaphat’s reuse and supplementation of Isa 7:9 communicate the complementarity of torah and prophecy: E. S. Gerstenberger, “Prophetie in den Chronikbüchern: Jahwes Wort in zweierlei Gestalt?” in Schriftprophetie: Festschrift für Jörg Jeremias zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. F. Hartenstein, J. Krispenz, and A. Schart; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2004), 351–67. Japhet, Ideology, 181–83; eadem, I & II Chronicles, 796–97; H. G. M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 33, 299. A point stressed by D. L. Petersen, Late Israelite Prophecy: Studies in Deutero-Prophetic Literature and in Chronicles (SBLMS 23; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977), 68–77, and Huffmon, “Oracular Process,” 449–60. J. D. Newsome, “Toward a New Understanding of the Chronicler and His Purposes,” JBL 94 (1975), 201–17; Throntveit, When Kings Speak, 11–50; Begg, “Classical Prophets,” 102–3; W. M. Schniedewind, The Word of God in Transition: From Prophet to Exegete in the Second Temple Period (JSOTSup 197; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1995), 189–208; idem, “Prophets and Prophecy in the Book of Chronicles,” in The Chronicler as Historian (ed. M. P. Graham, K. G. Hoglund, and S. L. McKenzie; JSOTSup 238; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1997), 204–24; Amit, “Role of Prophecy,” 86–91, 95–96. These “inspired messengers,” as Schniedewind calls them, are a topic in and of themselves. See his Word of God, 108–29, 231–41 and Hanspach, Inspirierte Interpreten (see n. 10).

174

Chapter 7

Monarch

Pro tem Prophet

Occupation

Source

David Asa Jehoshaphat Joash Josiah None

Amasai Azariah Jahaziel Zechariah Pharaoh Cyrus

Soldier Contesteda Levite Priest Egyptian king Persian king

1 Chr 12:19 2 Chr 15:1–7 2 Chr 20:14–17 2 Chr 24:17–22 2 Chr 35:20–22b 2 Chr 36:22–23c

a In MT 2 Chr 15:8, his father Oded is said to be a prophet, although the syntax is rough. W. Rudolph (Chronikbücher [HAT 21; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1955], 244), Schniedewind (Word of God, 70–72), Japhet (I & II Chronicles, 715), R. W. Klein (2 Chronicles [Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012], 222) and others contend that the relevant phrase (‫ )עדד הנביא‬is a gloss. b Even foreign kings may be employed in this role: E. Ben Zvi, “When the Foreign Monarch Speaks,” in The Chronicler as Author: Studies in Text and Texture (ed. M. P. Graham and S. L. McKenzie; JSOTSup 263; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 209–28 [repr. History, Literature and Theology in the Book of Chronicles (Bible World; London: Equinox, 2006), 270–88]. c On Cyrus as a temporary mouthpiece of Yhwh, see Ben Zvi, “Foreign Monarch,” 219–28. For a different view, see Schniedewind (Word of God, 22, n. 34), who contends that the decree of Cyrus does not present itself as a prophetic speech.

The appearance of such temporary spokespersons of the deity underscores the larger point that prophetic figures are essentially conduits of messages sent from on high. The fact that many, albeit by no means all, of these individuals are neither people of great importance nor figures who have received special training in the prophetic arts demonstrates that prophecy is intimately tied to the phenomenon of divine revelation. Nevertheless, the inclusion of the various non-professional prophets who appear in Chronicles is not necessary to make the case for a larger prophetic succession. 3

Overview of Prophetic Succession in the Monarchy

Before surveying the activities of different prophets, who appear in Israelite and Judahite history, one should clarify what prophets are (and are not). Distinguishing between professional and non-professional (or temporary) prophets does not settle the question of what constitutes a prophet. When reading Chronicles, one comes across a range of different figures, who speak explicitly on behalf of the deity, including the nābîʾ (‫)נביא‬, “prophet,” the rōʾeh

Prophetic Succession in Chronicles

175

(‫)ראה‬, “seer,” the ḥōzeh (‫)חזה‬, “visionary,” and the ʾîš hāʾĕlōhîm (‫)איש האלהים‬, “man of God.”47 Given the usage of different terms, should any of these be excluded from the prophetic rubric? It is interesting that in the reign of an individual monarch, that monarch may be faced with more than one type of prophet or prophetic figure. Indeed, those kings who encounter a prophet (‫ )נביא‬encounter usually, but not always, no more than one prophet (defined as a ‫)נביא‬.48 If a monarch encounters more than one prophetic figure, that other prophetic figure will most likely be a “seer” (‫)ראה‬, a “visionary” (‫)חזה‬, or a “man of God” (‫)איש האלהים‬.49 The “visionary” (‫ )חזה‬tends to be associated with the royal court.50 Thus, we read about the “visionary of the king” (‫;חזה המלך‬ 1 Chr 25:5; 2 Chr 29:25; 35:15) and of the “visionary of David” (‫ ;חזה דויד‬1 Chr 21:9). Some have seen in this distribution of prophetic figures an implicit hierarchy in which the ‫ נביא‬is the highest-order prophetic figure.51 The deliberate use of varied terminology is certainly fascinating, but it should be remembered that such varied usage is already found in some of the sources employed in

47 Kegler, “Prophetengestalten,” 484–96. 48 Micheel, Prophetenüberlieferungen, 19, 68–69. The pattern is not followed, however, in all instances. In the reign of David, both Samuel and Nathan are referred to as prophets (1 Chr 11:3; 17:1–15), while both Gad and Heman are referred to as visionaries (1 Chr 21:9–13, 18–19; 25:5). One could conceivably argue that there are so many prophetic figures appearing in David’s reign that the author ran out of prophetic labels, but no “man of God” (‫ )איש האלהים‬appears during David’s tenure. 49 King Zakkur of Hamath and Luʿath recounts how Baʿalšamayn answered his plaintive plea “through seers” (‫ )חזין‬and through messengers” (‫ ;אדדן‬KAI 202.11–12). The extrabiblical inscriptions from Deir ʿAllā refer to Balaam as “a seer of the gods” (‫)חזה אלהן‬, who saw a vision (‫)מחזה‬, because the gods came to him (I.1; J. Hackett, The Balaam Text from Deir ʿAllā [HSM 31; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984], 26–27). In biblical sources, Balaam is not given a prophetic title (Num 22:5–24:25; 31:8, 16; Deut 23:5–6; Josh 24:9–10; Mic 6:5; Neh 13:2), although he is once referred to as “the augur” (‫ ;הקוסם‬Josh 13:22). In the New Testament he is once called a prophet (προφήτης; 2 Pet 2:15–16), but is otherwise untitled (Jude 11; Rev 2:14), There may be a reference to a vision (‫ )חזן‬in one of the Lachish letters (21.B.4), but the context is quite fragmentary. Renz prefers to read ‫( יזן‬HAE I, 437), but see the analysis of F. W. Dobbs-Alsopp, et al., Hebrew Inscriptions: Texts from the Biblical Period of the Monarchy with Concordance (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005), 338. An unnamed prophet (‫ )הנבא‬is mentioned in one of the Lachish letters (3.rev.4). Either this prophet or another with a Yahwistic name (‫ )]י]הו הנבא‬appears in another Lachish letter (16.A.5). 50 Z. Zevit, “A Misunderstanding at Bethel: Amos vii 12–17,” VT 25 (1975), 783–90. 51 Thus Micheel, Prophetenüberlieferungen, 71–82. Others have thought of a basic taxonomy in which temporary prophets are understood to be akin to (postmonarchic) inspired interpreters. See, for instance, Schniedewind, Word of God, 31–162. The evidence is, however, complex. See my review of Schniedewind’s book in JJS 49 (1998), 133–35.

176

Chapter 7

the work.52 Of the titles discussed, “prophet(s)” is by far the most commonly employed.53 But if the terms ‫נביא‬, ‫ראה‬, and ‫ חזה‬referred to distinctly prophetic and non-prophetic figures at one time in Israel’s earlier past, such distinctions seem to have largely disappeared by the time of the Chronistic writing. That this is so can be seen by the use of different terminology to refer to the same prophetic figure. Thus, Samuel is called both a seer (‫ ;ראה‬1 Chr 9:22; 26:28; 29:29) and a prophet (‫ ;נביא‬2 Chr 35:18). Heman appears as one prophesying (qere; 1 Chr 25:1; ketiv “prophet,” ‫)נביא‬, a visionary (‫ ;חזה‬1 Chr 25:5), and a seer (‫ ;ראה‬1 Chr 9:22; 26:28; 29:29).54 Shemaiah is called a “man of God” in one context (‫ ;איש־האלהים‬2 Chr 11:2) and a “prophet” in another (‫ ;נביא‬2 Chr 12:5–8). That the first reference (‫ ;איש־האלהים‬2 Chr 11:2) is derived from the Chronicler’s biblical source (1 Kgs 12:22), while the second is the Chronicler’s own, suggests that the author construed Shemaiah the man of God as a prophet (2 Chr 12:5). Another example of varied terminology involves Iddo in the early Judahite monarchy. He is described as a “visionary” (‫ ;חזה‬2 Chr 12:15) in the reign of Rehoboam and as a “prophet” (‫ ;נביא‬2 Chr 13:22) in the reign of Abijah. In Chronicles, then, the title ‫ נביא‬is the most common, but the titles “prophet” (‫)נביא‬, “seer” (‫)ראה‬, “visionary” (‫)חזה‬, and “man of God” (‫ )איש האלהים‬are functionally interchangeable.55 The one possible exception to this pattern is the usage of ‫איש האלהים‬, since this phrase can designate a prophetic figure, but need not necessarily do so.56 The use of ‫איש האלהים‬, for instance, as a title for Moses does not entail that the writers employing such terminology thought of Moses as a prophet.57

52 Recently, M. J. de Jong, Isaiah among the Ancient Near Eastern Prophets (VTSup 117; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 318–44. 53 For “prophet” (‫)נביא‬, see 1 Chr 17:1; 29:29; 2 Chr 9:29; 12:5, 15; 13:22; 15:8; 18:6; 21:12; 25:15, 16; 26:22; 28:9; 29:25, 32:20, 32; 34:22 (prophetess); 35:18; 36:12. For “prophets,” see 1 Chr 25:1 (ketiv); 2 Chr 18:5, 11, 12, 19, 21; 20:20; 24:19; 29:25; 36:16. On the particular usage in 1 Chr 16:22, see my I Chronicles 10–29 (AB 12A; New York: Doubleday, 2004), 647. 54 The others depicted as prophesying (so qere; 1 Chr 25:1) or as “prophets” (ketiv; ‫;נביאים‬ 1 Chr 25:1) are Asaph, elsewhere termed a visionary (‫ ;חזה‬2 Chr 33:18; 35:15), and Jeduthun, elsewhere termed a visionary (‫ ;חזה‬2 Chr 35:15). 55 That this is so may also be indicated by the translations found in the LXX. The title ‫ חזה‬is sometimes rendered προφήτης (2 Chr 19:2; 29:25; 33:18; 35:15) as is the title ‫( ראה‬1 Chr 26:28; 2 Chr 16:7, 10). 56 Schniedewind, Word of God, 49–51. 57 See Schniedewind (Word of God, 196), although it is possible that the appositive ‫איש‬ ‫ האלהים‬designates Moses as a prophetic lawgiver (1 Chr 23:14; 2 Chr 30:16; Ezra 3:2). See also the comments of E. M. Dörrfuss, Mose in den Chronikbüchern (BZAW 219; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994), 165–67, 234–35; The title ‫ איש האלהים‬is also applied to David in Chronicles (2 Chr 8:14) and in Nehemiah (12:24, 36).

177

Prophetic Succession in Chronicles

In distinction from Kings, Chronicles presents many prophets as being active during the Judahite monarchy. In Kings there is a prophetic gap between the time of the early Judahite monarchy in the late tenth century (the time of Rehoboam) and the late eighth century (the time of Hezekiah). Whereas the Deuteronomistic writing portrays very few active prophets in the southern kingdom until after the fall of the northern kingdom (2 Kings 17), the Chronistic writing portrays many. The range of prophetic figures and prophetic speeches during monarchic times, whether depicted or alluded to, is evident in the table below. Those oracles that have parallels in the Deuteronomistic History have single asterisks. Those passages that allude to a prophetic oracle, but do not contain the actual oracle itself, are marked with a double asterisk. The prophecies and references to prophetic figures that are unique (that is, those having no parallels in Samuel-Kings) are not marked by any asterisks.58 If a figure is assigned a specific title, such as ‫נביא‬, ‫ראה‬, ‫חזה‬, or ‫איש האלהים‬, that title is given in parentheses. Monarch

Reign

Prophet

Source

Saul David

02a 40

Samuel Samuel (‫)נביא‬

1 Chr 10:13*b 1 Chr 11:3; 2 Chr 35:18 1 Chr 9:22; 26:28; 29:29 1 Chr 17:1–15*; 29:29 1 Chr 21:9–13, 18–19*; 29:29 1 Chr 25:1–3

Samuel (‫)ראה‬ Nathan (‫)נביא‬ Gad (‫)חזה‬ Heman, Jeduthun, and Asaph (‫)הנבאים‬ Heman (‫ )חזה‬

1 Chr 25:5

a So MT 1 Sam 13:1, but the reading is not secure. The chronological note does not appear in LXXB. There are no concluding regnal formulae for Saul in Samuel. Nor is the length of Saul’s reign given in Chronicles. b The specific reference in 1 Chr 10:13 is to Samuel’s ghost (‫)אוב‬. See the discussion below. 58

Some of the references are to writing prophets, as opposed to prophets who deliver their messages orally. The two categories are not mutually exclusive. See chapter 6, “‘As It is Written’: What were the Chronicler’s Prophetic Sources?”

178

Chapter 7

(cont.)

Monarch

Reign

Prophet

Source

Solomon

40

Rehoboam

17

Abijah Asa

03 41

Jehoshaphat

25

Jehoram Ahaziah Athaliah/Jehoiada J(eh)oash Amaziah

08 01 06 40 29

2 Chr 9:29 2 Chr 9:29 2 Chr 9:29 2 Chr 10:15** 2 Chr 11:2–4* 2 Chr 12:5–8, 15 2 Chr 12:15 2 Chr 13:22 2 Chr 15:1–7 2 Chr 16:7–9 2 Chr 18:4–27* 2 Chr 19:2–3; 20:34 2 Chr 21:12–15

Uzziah Jotham Ahaz Hezekiah Manasseh

52 16 16 29 55

Amon Josiah

02 31

Jehoahaz Jehoiakim Jehoiachin

03 months 11 03 months

Nathan (‫ )נביא‬ Ahijah Yedo Ahijah Shemaiah (‫)איש־האלהים‬ Shemaiah (‫)נביא‬ Iddo (‫)חזה‬ Iddo (‫)נביא‬ Azariah (‫)נביא‬c Hanani (‫ )ראה‬ Micaiah (‫)נביא‬ Jehu (‫)חזה‬ Elijah (‫)נביא‬ – – Various (‫)נביאים‬ Anonymous (‫)איש־האלהים‬ Anonymous (‫)נביא‬ Isaiah (‫)נביא‬ – Oded (‫)נביא‬d Isaiah (‫)נביא‬ Anonymous (‫)חזים‬ Hozai – Huldah (‫)נביאה‬ Huldah Jeremiah [Various] (‫)נביאים‬ [Various] (‫ )נביאים‬ [Various] (‫ )נביאים‬

2 Chr 24:19** 2 Chr 25:7–9 2 Chr 25:15–16 2 Chr 26:22 2 Chr 28:9–11 2 Chr 32:20* 2 Chr 33:18* 2 Chr 33:19e 2 Chr 34:22–25 2 Chr 34:26–28 2 Chr 35:25 2 Chr 36:15 2 Chr 36:15 2 Chr 36:15

c Oded in 2 Chr 15:8 is also said to be a prophet, but there is a text-critical issue (see p. 174, note a). d A northern prophet, who prophesies to the advantage of Judahite prisoners of war in northern Israel (see below). e So the MT (‫)חוזי‬. One Hebrew MS and the LXX have “visionaries” (‫)חוזים‬. See section 6 below.

179

Prophetic Succession in Chronicles (cont.)

Monarch

Reign

Prophet

Source

Zedekiah

11

Exile End of Exile

70

Jeremiah (‫)נביא‬ Various (‫)נביאים‬ Jeremiah Jeremiah

2 Chr 36:12 2 Chr 36:15 2 Chr 36:21 2 Chr 36:22f

f The source citation is complex (see section 5 below).

As the table indicates, a great many prophets, seers, and visionaries are active during the monarchy. This historical transformation is accomplished through a number of complementary means. First, Chronicles includes relevant prophets mentioned in its Vorlage. Chronicles may rework, greatly condense, or supplement Samuel-Kings, but the work includes the pertinent prophets (or at least their names or references to their activity) from its principal source. That there are virtually no prophets appearing in the Deuteronomistic account of the Judahite monarchy, who do not also appear in Chronicles is one indication of the work’s sustained interest in the prophetic phenomenon.59 Second, the work adds prophets and prophecies to those found in SamuelKings. Some (e.g., Jeremiah) of these appear in other biblical sources, but others (mostly anonymous prophets) do not. Third, the writing alludes to a variety of prophetic discourses, mostly of a written nature that do not appear in Samuel-Kings. Fourth, Chronicles depicts certain northern prophets, such as Elijah (2 Chr 21:12–15), as participating in the life of the southern kingdom.60 Fifth, the work converts one prophetic figure (Jehu, son of Hanani) within a northern Israelite context (1 Kgs 16:1–4) into two prophetic figures (father and son) and presents them as both participating within southern Israelite affairs. Hanani the “seer” (‫ )ראה‬confronts Asa (2 Chr 16:7–9), while his son Jehu, the “visionary” (‫)חזה‬, confronts Asa’s son, Jehoshaphat (2 Chr 19:2–3; 20:34). It may be useful to examine the history of prophetic succession in some more detail.

59

The one exception is Elisha, who appears in the context of a joint Israelite-Judahite military campaign against Moab (2 Kings 3). Both Elisha’s blessing of the northern-southern military initiative and his unfulfilled prophecy would have bothered the Chronicler. 60 Via missive: B. J. Diebner, “Überlegungen zum ‘Brief des Elia’ (2 Chr 21,12–15),” Hen 9 (1987), 199–227.

180 4

Chapter 7

The United Monarchy

As in the book of Samuel, Samuel is the seer associated with the reign of Saul (1 Chr 10:13), yet Chronicles spends relatively little time with Saul’s tenure. Focusing greatly on the era of David and Solomon, Chronicles presents only the last scene of Saul’s life, his death in battle (1 Chr 10:1–12; cf. 1 Sam 31:1–13). The evaluation of Saul’s reign alludes, however, to his seeking out (‫ )דרש‬a ghost (‫)אוב‬, that is, the ghost of Samuel, for counsel (1 Chr 10:13).61 This irregular action contrasts with the desired action of seeking (‫ )דרש‬Yhwh, which Saul failed to do (1 Chr 10:14). Saul’s only prophetic contact is, therefore, deemed to have been conducted illicitly. In contrast with the Saulide era, the Davidic era features many prophets and prophetic figures. Samuel is referred to on multiple occasions, but often not in the same way as in the book bearing his name. He appears as a seer (‫)ראה‬, who along with David established the gatekeepers in their positions of trust at the house of God (1 Chr 9:22). Samuel the seer (‫ )ראה‬is one of the dignitaries who made dedications to the (future) house of God during David’s reign (1 Chr 26:28), as well as one of the prophetic authors who wrote about David’s career (1 Chr 29:29).62 Some other prophets and prophecies appearing in the Deuteronomistic History reappear in Chronicles. These include the dynastic oracle of Nathan (1 Chr 17:1–15//2 Sam 7:1–16; cf. 1 Kgs 1:22) and the prophecy of Gad (1 Chr 21:9–13, 18–19//2 Sam 24:11–13, 18–19).63 The close association between this prophetic figure and the king is evident in his title “the visionary of David” (‎‫ ;חזה דויד‬1 Chr 21:9//2 Sam 24:11). Like Samuel, Nathan and Gad were also literary authors, who wrote about David’s exploits and the times in which he lived (1 Chr 29:29). 61

The very borrowing from the book of Samuel and the allusion to Saul’s necromancy indicate the Chronicler’s familiarity with the stories of earlier contacts between Saul and the prophet, G. N. Knoppers, “Israel’s First King and ‘the Kingdom of Yhwh in the Hands of the Sons of David’: The Place of the Saulide Monarchy in the Chronicler’s Historiography,” in Saul in History and Tradition (ed. C. S. Ehrlich and M. White; FAT 47; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 187–213. The connection with Samuel is made explicit in the plus of the LXX, which states, καὶ ἀπεκρίνατο αὐτῷ Σαμουηλ ὁ προφήτης, “and the prophet Samuel answered him.” 62 By implication, his dedications are directed to the Jerusalem cult, rather than to the Shiloh temple he served during his youth (1 Sam 1:11–21; 3:1–18). The time of Samuel the prophet (‫ )נביא‬also appears as the occasion of the greatest Passover in the history of Israel prior to the great Passover observed by Judah and Israel in the time of Josiah (2 Chr 35:18). But Chronicles does not provide a regnal context (whether during the reign of Saul or that of David) for this Passover. 63 Micheel, Prophetenüberlieferungen, 18–23; Kegler, “Prophetengestalten,” 495–96.

Prophetic Succession in Chronicles

181

Another set of prophets are associated with the reign of David and the plans for constructing the promised sanctuary under David’s successor.64 The Levites Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun prophesy, while serving as musicians under King David. One of the initiatives implemented by the founding father and the officers of the army is to “set apart (‫ )בדל‬the sons of Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun for service (‫)לעבדה‬, those prophesying (‫ )הנביאים‬to the accompaniment of lyres, harps, and cymbals” (1 Chr 25:1).65 Because the text refers to the “sons of Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun,” and not simply to the individuals themselves, it is evident that a regular office is being instituted.66 In the short Levitical census that accompanies the royal appointments, we read of a chain of command involving the sons of Asaph under the direction of Asaph, who, in turn, “prophesied (‫ )הנבא‬under the direction of the king” (1 Chr 25:2).67 Similarly, the sons of Jeduthun “were under the direction of Jeduthun, who prophesied (‫ )הנבא‬in thanksgiving and praise to Yhwh to the accompaniment of the lyre” (1 Chr 25:3).68 One of David’s legacies in the final stage of his reign is thus to

64 As part of a major administrative reorganization and expansion in preparation for Solomon’s tenure, J. W. Wright, “The Legacy of David in Chronicles: The Narrative Function of 1 Chronicles 23–27,” JBL 110 (1991), 229–42; idem, “The Founding Father: The Structure of the Chronicler’s David Narrative,” JBL 117 (1998), 45–59; G. N. Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29, 788–98. 65 In 1 Chr 25:1, I am reading with the qere (niphal plural participle). The ketiv (‫)הנביאים‬ has the nominal plural form (“the prophets”). In either case, the sons of Heman, Jeduthun, and Asaph are presented as in the business of prophesying, Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29, 844. 66 For further discussions and references, see G. von Rad, Das Geschichtsbild des chronis­ tischen Werkes (BWANT 4/3; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1930), 98–115; idem, “Die levitische Predigt in den Büchern der Chronik,” in A. Alt et al., Festschrift Otto Procksch zum sechzigsten Geburtstag überreicht (Leipzig: Deichert, 1934), 113–24 [trans. “The Levitical Sermon in I and II Chronicles,” in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (see n. 34), 267–80]; Petersen, Late Israelite Prophecy, 55–87; H. V. Van Rooy, “Prophet and Society in the Persian Period according to Chronicles,” in Second Temple Studies, 2: Temple and Community in the Persian Period (ed. T. C. Eskenazi and K. H. Richards; JSOTSup 175; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994), 176–79; Schniedewind, Word of God, 163–88. 67 On the text-critical issues in 1 Chr 25:2, see my I Chronicles 10–29, 844. 68 But the text does not spell out how Levitical singing was a kind of prophecy. It is not clear whether accompanied choral song resembled accompanied prophetic song (cf. 1 Sam 10:5–6; 2 Kgs 3:10–19) and hence the Levitical singers could be said to prophesy or whether accompanied choral song, as practiced by the Levitical musicians, was itself a divine revelation to Israelites as to how Yhwh was to be praised, Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29, 856–60.

182

Chapter 7

create a regular rotation of officials at the sanctuary his divinely elect son is commissioned to build.69 The case of the Levitical musicians is basically the only context in which Chronicles alludes to a type of prophecy involving membership within a certain Israelite tribe or tribal phratry, but this type of musical prophecy is not entirely unique to David’s reign.70 During the cultic reforms implemented by King Hezekiah, Asaph is referred to as “the visionary” (‫ ;החזה‬2 Chr 29:30). Similarly, in the context of Josiah’s cultic reforms, Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun are referred to as “visionaries of the king” (2 Chr 35:15).71 The text thus intimates that the policies of the two greatest reformers in the Judahite monarchy— Hezekiah and Josiah—recalled the classical arrangements established under David. These late passages bear witness to the different nuances that prophecy can take in postmonarchic times. In sum, the reign of David appears as a golden age in the history of prophecy. Rather than presenting the monarchy as inimical to prophecy, the literary work portrays the Davidic age as a time in which prophecy flourishes. No other monarch is associated with so many prophets, seers, and visionaries. Moreover, the fact that so many of the prophecies are of a constructive nature befits the larger presentation of David’s reign as formative. If the institution of prophecy represents one of Yhwh’s gifts to Israel, the reign of David represents a time in which Yhwh was particularly generous. Diversity in prophecy contributes to the larger depiction of David’s tenure as a classical era in Israel’s past.72 When compared with the illustrious record of David’s reign, the record of his successor would seem, at first glance, to be deficient. Solomon’s reign is largely bereft of prophecies. This might seem especially odd, because his reign is presented as the most glorious in Israelite history (1 Chr 29:25; 2 Chr 1:12, 15; 9:5–8). One could even contend that the peaceable king’s forty-year tenure is an exception to the case for a prophetic succession throughout the monarchy, because he neither meets any prophets nor receives oracles from any prophets. The situation is, however, more complex. One of the distinctive features of Solomon’s reign is the two theophanies through which Yhwh speaks to the

69 J. W. Kleinig, The Lord’s Song: The Basis, Function and Significance of Choral Music in Chronicles (JSOTSup 156; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993); Van Rooy, “Prophet and Society,” 175–79; J. W. Hilber, Cultic Prophecy in the Psalms (BZAW 352; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005). 70 With the exception of the Levitical musicians (1 Chr 25:1–3, 5; 2 Chr 29:30; 35:15). 71 Reading ‎‫( חוזי‬see LXX, οἱ προφῆται, and the other versions). Cf. MT ‎‫ ;חֹוזֵ ה‬1 Esd 1:15 οἱ θυρωροί. 72 Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29, 532–966.

Prophetic Succession in Chronicles

183

“man of rest” directly (2 Chr 1:7–12; 7:12–22; cf. 1 Kgs 3:4–14; 9:1–9).73 This kind of unmediated direct encounter between the human and the divine is extraordinarily rare in Chronicles. In any event, the concluding regnal formulae to Solomon’s reign mention the writings of no less than three different prophetic figures: Nathan, Ahijah, and Yedo (2 Chr 9:29).74 These three are said to have written about the deeds of Solomon “first and last” (‫)הראשנים והאחרונים‬. Hence, it is clear that there were prophets active during his tenure. The fact that one of these (Nathan) is a holdover from David’s time demonstrates prophetic continuity from one extraordinarily long reign to another. The second name (Ahijah) represents a prophetic figure associated with the latter period of Solomon’s tenure in Kings (1 Kgs 11:26–39). The third figure, Yedo (‫)יעדו‬, is otherwise unattested, unless his name is to be emended to Iddo (‫ ;עדו‬2 Chr 12:15; 13:22).75 In Chronicles, the written complements the oral. As is the case elsewhere in the ancient Near East, oral prophecy and written prophecy are not stark opposites.76 To be sure, there is some merit in the theory of a gradual shift 73 Both passages have parallels in Kings, but there are many differences between them, A. G. Auld, “Salomo und die Deuteronomisten—eine Zukunftsvision?” TZ 48 (1992), 343–54; idem, Kings Without Privilege: David and Moses in the Story of the Bible’s Kings (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994). This issue need not detain us here. 74 Recent studies have insightfully stressed the concluding regnal formulae as an integral part of the larger Chronistic presentation, J. Kegler, “Prophetengestalten,” 487; D. Glatt-Gilad, “Regnal Formulae as a Historiographic Device in the Book of Chronicles,” RB 108 (2001), 184–209; Y. Amit, “Role of Prophecy,” 80–101. 75 Reading ‘Yedo’ (‫ )יעדו‬with the qere (ketiv; ‘Yedi’ ‫ )יעדי‬in 2 Chr 9:29. On the basis of LXX Ιωηλ, Rudolph reconstructs Ιωηδ, Chronikbücher, 225, 235. Tg. 2 Chr 9:29 has Iddo (‫ )עדו‬in accordance with 2 Chr 12:15; 13:22. On the latter appellative, note also ‫ עדוא‬in Zech 1:7; Ezra 5:1; 6:14; Neh 12:4, 16 (qere). M. Noth views Iddo as a hypocoristicon of ‫עדיה‬, Die israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen Namensgebung (BWANT 3/10; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1928), 39, 182. Alternatively, Zevit suggests that Iddo (‫ )עדו‬is a hypocoristicon of Oded (‫)עודד‬, “Misunderstanding at Bethel,” 786–87, n. 15. The name ‘Yedo’ (‫ )יעדו‬or ‘Yedi’ (‫)יעדי‬, if it is original, may reflect ‫יעדה‬, Noth, Personennamen, 204. Note LXXB 1 Chr 9:42 Ιαδα = ‫( יעדה‬cf. ‫ יהועדה‬in the parallel of 1 Chr 8:36; Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, 479). It may be, as some contend, that metathesis has occurred, affecting the first two letters of the name: F. Delitzsch, Die Lese- und Schreibfehler im Alten Testament nebst den dem Schrifttexte einverleibten Randnoten klassifiziert: Ein Hilfsbuch für Lexikon und Grammatik, Exegese, und Lektüre (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1920), §53a; K. Hognesius, The Text of 2 Chronicles 1–16 (ConBOT 51; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2003), 143. The proposal presumes an internal mater lectionis in the lemma before metathesis occurred. While the possibility of a scribal error is real, the fact that Yedo/Iddo is associated with a prophetic writing in three consecutive reigns (2 Chr 9:29; 12:15; 13:22) may have led some (e.g., Tg. 2 Chr 29:29) to conflate the two personal names. 76 S. Parpola, Assyrian Prophecies (SAA 9; Helsinki: University of Helsinki Press, 1997); S. W. Cole and P. Machinist, Letters from Priests to Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal

184

Chapter 7

in emphasis over the centuries from the oral to the written, yet the oral does not disappear with the ascent of the written.77 Scriptural prophecy represents a continuation of the prophetic process of communication, albeit in a different form.78 Indeed, in some cases during the Persian and early Hellenistic period, written prophetic works may stand on their own. To have a prophet write about a royal tenure stands, as we have seen, as an accolade to the monarch in question. To have three prophetic figures write about Solomon’s reign is thus quite a compliment to the temple builder. Apart from Solomon, only David attracts so many prophetic compositions relating to his life and times. Many reigns, whether brief reigns or longer reigns contributing to large-scale decline, attract no prophetic authors at all. Taken together, the prophetic writings associated with the reigns of David and Solomon underscore the gravity of the united monarchy as definitive, a golden era in which formative national institutions take shape and flourish. 5

The Judahite Monarchy from Rehoboam to Ahaz

The Chronistic depiction of the early Judahite monarchy is much more detailed, nuanced, and positive than its Deuteronomistic counterpart.79 The era is witness to a variety of prophets and prophetic figures. Like Samuel and Nathan (SAA 13; Helsinki: University of Helsinki Press, 1998); M. Nissinen, Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars (SAA 10; Helsinki: University of Helsinki Press, 1993); idem, “How Prophecy became Literature,” SJOT 19 (2005), 153–72. 77 The matter is briefly discussed in chapter 6, section 2. 78 J. Schaper, “The Death of the Prophet: The Transition from the Spoken to the Written Word of God in the Book of Ezekiel,” in Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Judaism (ed. M. H. Floyd and R. D. Haak; LHBOTS 427; New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 63–79; N. Wyatt, “Word of Tree and Whisper of Stone: El’s Oracle to King Keret (Kirta), and the Problem of the Mechanics of Its Utterance,” VT 57 (2007), 507. 79 Whereas Kings follows synchronistically the course of the northern and southern kingdoms, Chronicles concentrates its attention upon the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi, who make up the kingdom of Judah (2 Chr 11:1–23). Israel continues to encompass all of the traditional tribes, but Judah, Benjamin, and Levi perpetuate the normative institutions established during the united monarchy. See S. Japhet, “The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah Investigated Anew,” VT 18 (1968), 330–71; eadem, “People and Land in the Restoration Period,” in Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit (ed. G. Strecker; GTA 25; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), 103–25 [both repr. From the Rivers of Babylon to the Highlands of Judah: Collected Studies on the Restoration Period (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 1–37 and 96–116]; P. Welten, Geschichte und Geschichtsdarstellung in den Chronikbüchern (WMANT 42; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1973), 9–24, 115–52; H. G. M. Williamson, Israel in the Books of Chronicles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 5–86; G. N. Knoppers,

Prophetic Succession in Chronicles

185

before him, Ahijah traverses the reigns of two successive kings (Solomon and Rehoboam) and provides continuity from one era to another. Consistent with the function of prophets in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History, one function of prophets in Chronicles is to forecast the future. In Samuel-Kings, the prophecy/fulfillment schema punctuates the era of the monarchy. So also in Chronicles, prophecy/fulfillment is an important motif, demonstrating the power of the divine word in Israelite history.80 Yet, an additional prophetic function in Chronicles is to warn and, if need be, reprimand king and people.81 Shemaiah fulfills both of these roles, cautioning Rehoboam against launching a campaign against the newly established northern kingdom (2 Chr 11:2–4//1 Kgs 12:21–24) and rebuking Rehoboam and his fellow Judahite leaders in the wake of Shishaq’s invasion (2 Chr 12:5–8). Shemaiah also serves as one of two prophetic biographers of Rehoboam (2 Chr 12:15). The other prophetic figure factoring in Rehoboam’s life is Iddo, whose career carries over into the short reign of Abijah.82 As with Rehoboam, Iddo functions as a prophetic commentator, authoring a study (‫ )מדרש‬of Abijah’s “ways and deeds” (2 Chr 13:22). The long and positively-evaluated reigns of Asa and Jehoshaphat are each associated with two prophetic figures, while the negatively-evaluated and relatively short reign of Jehoram witnesses a letter of royal reprimand from the prophet Elijah (‫ ;נביא‬2 Chr 21:12–15). Neither the very brief and ill-fated tenure of Ahaziah (2 Chr 22:1–9; one year) nor the short reign of Athaliah (2 Chr 22:10–23:21; six years) are associated with the activity of any prophets or prophetic writings. Given that many of the work’s better kings are witness to at least one prophetic revelation some time during their reign, the absence of such revelations during the tenures of Ahaziah and Athaliah is telling. The activity of Elijah during the time of Jehoram and the presence of anonymous prophets (‫)נביאים‬, who later admonish Joash and the people (2 Chr 24:19),

“Rehoboam in Chronicles: Villain or Victim?” JBL 109 (1990), 423–40; idem, “‘Battling against Yahweh’: Israel’s War against Judah in 2 Chr 13:2–20,” RB 100 (1993), 511–32. 80 E.g., the prophecy of Ahijah (1 Kgs 11:29–39) is fulfilled in the secession of Jeroboam (1 Kgs 12:15//2 Chr 10:15), even though Ahijah’s oracle does not appear in Chronicles. 81 In addition to 2 Chr 11:2–4, see also 2 Chr 24:19; 25:9, 15; 28:9–11; 33:10; 36:15. The prophetic responsibility to warn of the negative consequences of following a certain course of action is stressed by Japhet, Ideology, 184–90. 82 In Chronicles, unlike in Kings (1 Kgs 15:1–8), Abijah does not receive a regnal evaluation. It is clear from the depiction of Abijah’s reign that the work portrays his tenure quite positively.

186

Chapter 7

suggest, however, that there were active prophets during the short tenures of Ahaziah and Athaliah.83 It will be useful to discuss some of the seers, visionaries, prophets, and men of God, who appear during this era in Judahite history, a period that begins with promise but becomes a time of increasing crisis, especially for the Davidic house.84 The prophet (‫ )נביא‬Azariah and Hanani the seer (‫ )ראה‬are active during the reign of Asa (2 Chr 15:1–7; 16:7–10), while Micaiah the prophet (2 Chr 18:4–27//1 Kgs 22:8–38) and Jehu the seer (‫ )חזה‬are active during the reign of Jehoshaphat (2 Chr 19:2–3).85 One could also mention, in this context, Zedekiah and the 400 prophets (‫ )נביאים‬in the employ of King Ahab appearing in the story of the joint military pact between Kings Ahab and Jehoshaphat (2 Chr 18:4–27//1 Kgs 22:8–38). The tale includes a symbolic action performed by the prophet Zedekiah before Ahab and Jehoshaphat, but the symbolic action has no enduring value except to point to the potential untrustworthiness of such performative acts. Zedekiah is portrayed both in the source text of Kings and in Chronicles as a sycophant to the northern king (1 Kgs 22:11// 2 Chr 18:10).86 It seems clear contextually that neither work regards Zedekiah and his followers as true prophets, because their optimistic prophecies prove false. Returning to our discussion of the prophets appearing in the tenures of Asa and Jehoshaphat, Jehu serves an additional function as Jehoshaphat’s prophetic biographer (2 Chr 20:34). Azariah and Hanani are unattested elsewhere in biblical writings as being active in Judah, but the situation is more complex than it initially might appear to be. Like Micaiah, Jehu appears in Kings as a northern prophet. In his one appearance, he denounces King Baasha of Israel (1 Kgs 16:1–4). Given the Chronistic concentration on Judahite history, Jehu’s

83 A long reign, lasting a generation or more, is another matter (e.g., Uzziah, Ahaz, Manasseh). In each of these cases, the text makes clear that there were prophetic witnesses during these extensive tenures. 84 S. J. De Vries, “The Schema of Dynastic Endangerment in Chronicles,” PEGLMBS 7 (1987), 59–78. 85 Micheel, Prophetenüberlieferungen, 23–29; K. Strübind, Tradition als Interpretation in der Chronik (BZAW 201; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1991), 155–98. An otherwise unknown and untitled Eliezer also prophesies (‫ )התנבא‬against Jehoshaphat (2 Chr 20:37). Given that he is not labeled as a prophet, seer, man of God, or visionary, he may be regarded as a pro tem prophet. 86 The symbolic action carries, therefore, no added value or enduring force in either literary work. If anything, the performative gesture appears deceptive or foolish (as contextualized in Chronicles), because the prophecy proves wrong.

Prophetic Succession in Chronicles

187

judgment oracle against Baasha does not appear. Nevertheless, Jehu is active in Judah, as is his father Hanani (2 Chr 16:7–10; 19:2–3; 20:34).87 Interestingly, the work does not deny that Jehu and Hanani were northern prophets. Although the writer does not normally list prophetic tribal or regional affiliations, one may assume that if he disagreed with the regional affiliation indicated by Kings, he would have indicated as much. If one presumes, as seems natural, that Jehu and his father were both northern prophets, this means that there are four northern prophets (Hanani, Micaiah, Jehu, and Elijah), who rendered verdicts during the reigns of three successive southern kings (Asa, Jehoshaphat, and Jehoram).88 Considering that the reigns of Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Ahaziah, and Athaliah represent the era of the Davidide-Omride alliance, a relationship that Chronicles decries, there may be a deliberate irony in the Chronistic presentation.89 In any event, the involvement of a series of northern prophets in southern affairs has important implications for our understanding of the path of prophetic succession in the united and dual monarchies. That some of the prophets raised up by Yhwh to speak in the South stemmed from the North underscores the fundamental Israelite identity of residents in both realms.90 The divine promise to provide prophets was not delivered simply to a particular tribe, but to his people as a whole (Deut 18:15, 18). As such, the promise could be fulfilled in both southern and northern Israel. Indeed, the political boundaries that developed in the course of Israelite history between northern and southern realms could be ignored if the need arose to proclaim a divinely authorized prophetic message to a specific situation in Judah. On the basis of such prophetic interventions, one may assume (among other things) that the Chronicler wished his readers to acknowledge the foundational Israelite identity they shared with their northern kin. The activities of northern prophets in southern Israel indicate that Yhwh was still active in northern Israel and more specifically that the northern realm, like the southern realm, had its own authentic prophetic tradition. But even as northern royalty pursued close

87

The relationship is unusual as most prophets are unrelated to each other and have nothing to do with other prophets. The only other exception to this pattern are the Levitical musicians functioning as prophets (1 Chr 25:1–3). See section 4 above. 88 To these northern prophets may be added Oded in the time of Ahaz (see below). 89 On the long-term relationship between the two royal houses, see De Vries, “Dynastic Endangerment,” 59–78. 90 Japhet, Ideology, 267–325; Williamson, Israel in the Books of Chronicles, 87–118; R. Braun, “A Reconsideration of the Chronicler’s Attitude toward the North,” JBL 96 (1977), 59–62.

188

Chapter 7

ties with their southern counterparts, northern prophets were warning their southern kin about the folly of such unholy alliances.91 The reign of Amaziah, lasting some twenty-nine years, begins a period of greater royal stability in Judahite history.92 Unlike his predecessors, Amaziah learns to stay clear of entering into protracted alliances with the northern kingdom. Intending to hire some 100,000 Israelite mercenaries to assist him in his campaign against Edom (2 Chr 25:6), Amaziah receives a stiff reprimand from an anonymous “man of God” (‫ ;איש־האלהים‬2 Chr 25:7–9). Taking the warning to heart, the king disbands the Israelite mercenaries and experiences victory over Edom (2 Chr 25:11–12; cf. 2 Kgs 14:7). But like many kings in Chronicles, Amaziah begins well and falters later.93 When Amaziah goes astray, he is sent another message, in this case from an anonymous figure (‫)נביא‬, who rebukes him and accurately predicts his ruin (2 Chr 25:15). The royal demise is linked, in part, to the flagrant disregard of prophetic counsel (2 Chr 25:16–28). Like the reign of Amaziah, the long reign of Uzziah and the shorter reign of Jotham are rated positively (2 Chr 26:4; 27:2), but neither Uzziah nor Jotham experiences any direct prophetic encounter. The period represented by these two successive royal tenures would thus seem to be an exception to the thesis of a continuous prophetic succession, because Uzziah’s tenure is one of the longest (52 years) in Judahite history (2 Chr 26:3) and Jotham’s reign, although significantly shorter (2 Chr 27:1), is of substantial length (16 years). But the concluding regnal résumé to Uzziah’s tenure makes clear that there was an active prophet during this time. For further details about Uzziah’s reign, readers are referred to what “Isaiah son of Amoz the prophet wrote” (2 Chr 26:22). The reference to Isaiah’s service in the time of Uzziah is particularly interesting, because no such activity is mentioned in Kings. The information is likely drawn from the superscript to the book of Isaiah (1:1), which posits that the period of Isaiah’s experiencing visions (‫ )חזה‬extended from the time of Uzziah to the time of Hezekiah. 91 G. N. Knoppers, “‘Should You Help the Wicked and Love those who Hate Yhwh?’ Alliances, Foreign Subjugation, and Empire in Chronicles,” in Judah and Samaria in Postmonarchic Times: Essays on Their Histories and Literatures (FAT 129; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019), 37–73. 92 The reign of Amaziah receives a qualified endorsement in Chronicles, “Amaziah did what was right in the sight of Yhwh, only not wholeheartedly” (2 Chr 25:2; cf. 26:4). On the carefully-constructed arrangement of his reign, see M. P. Graham, “Aspects of the Structure and Rhetoric of 2 Chronicles 25,” in History and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of John H. Hayes (ed. M. P. Graham; J. P. Brown, and J. K. Kuan; JSOTSup 173; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 78–89; E. Ben Zvi, “A House of Treasures: The Account of Amaziah in 2 Chronicles 25 – Observations and Implications,” SJOT 22 (2008), 63–85. 93 J. Jarick, 2 Chronicles (Readings; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2007), 63–87.

Prophetic Succession in Chronicles

189

A similar conclusion may be drawn about Jotham, although he lacks any prophetic source notice in the treatment of his reign (2 Chr 27:1–9; cf. 2 Kgs 15:32–38). As Amit argues, the text implies the activity of Isaiah during the reign of Jotham, because it refers to the writing of Isaiah both with respect to Uzziah (2 Chr 26:22), who lived before Jotham, and with respect to Hezekiah (2 Chr 32:32), who lived after Jotham and Ahaz (the successor to Jotham).94 Along with Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah are all mentioned in the editorial introduction to the book of Isaiah (1:1).95 In conformity with the superscription to Isaiah, the prophet’s long career spans the lives of four successive Judahite monarchs. With respect to the reign of Ahaz, a nadir in Judahite history, an additional prophet (‫ )נביא‬is mentioned: Oded (2 Chr 28:9–11).96 This otherwise unknown figure, a northern prophet living in Samaria, represents something of a special case, because he never actually confronts Ahaz or writes about his era. Oded rebukes the victorious army of northern Israel as they return to Samaria with 200,000 captives—men, women, and children—in tow, after trouncing the Judahite forces in battle (2 Chr 28:5b–8). The sharp prophetic denunciation achieves its intended effect, resulting in his northern compatriots clothing, feeding, and releasing the Judahites to Jericho (2 Chr 28:12–15). The encounter with Oded ushers in a brief respite during an otherwise dismal period in which the southern kingdom repeatedly loses blood, territory, and treasure to external adversaries (2 Chr 28:5–7, 16–25).97 This episode represents, therefore, an instance in which the deity employs a prophet for the benefit of the Judahite people, if not for the hapless monarch who leads them.

94 95

Amit, “Role of Prophecy,” 81–82. If this is so, one could legitimately raise the question of why the Chronicler did not explicitly say as much. That is, why not add a regnal conclusion that explicitly cited the book written by Isaiah? The answer lies, in my judgment, in the author’s particular reuse and selective rewriting of the regnal source citations found in his Vorlage of Samuel-Kings. See chapter 5 on mimesis in Chronicles. 96 E. Ben Zvi, “A Gateway to the Chronicler’s Teaching: The Account of the Reign of Ahaz in 2 Chr 28,1–27,” SJOT 7 (1993), 216–49 [repr. History, Literature and Theology, 210–42]; idem, “Chronicles and its Reshaping of Memories of Monarchic Period Prophets: Some Observations,” in Prophets and Prophecy and Ancient Israelite Historiography (ed. M. J. Boda and L. W. Beal: Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 167–88; P. S. Evans, “Prophecy influencing History: Dialogism in the Chronicler’s Ahaz Narrative,” in Prophets and Prophecy and Ancient Israelite Historiography, 143–65. 97 The tremendous loss of life, population displacements, and territorial shrinkage create a major crisis in Judah. See chapter 11, “Defeat, Depopulation, and Displacement: The Judahite Exile of the Eighth Century BCE.”

190 6

Chapter 7

Regeneration and Degeneration: From Hezekiah to the Babylonian Exile

The reign of Hezekiah begins a short period of cultic, political, and administrative renewal. The temple is purified, the priests and Levites are restored, centralization is communally enforced, and public infrastructure is rebuilt (2 Chr 29:1–26; 31:1–21; 32:1–8, 30). An unparalleled national Passover attended by both southern Israelites and northern Israelites is one of the highlights of Hezekiah’s reign (2 Chr 30:1–27). Indeed, some of Hezekiah’s achievements recall those of David and Solomon.98 The prophet Isaiah figures in the reign of Hezekiah, as he does in Kings, but Isaiah is only a minor character.99 None of the many Isaianic comments and prophecies appearing in Kings (2 Kgs 19:6–7, 19:20–34, 20:1–2, 4–6, 9–11, 14, 17–18) appear within Chronicles, although the text mentions a prayer offered by Isaiah and Hezekiah in response to the Assyrian crisis (2 Chr 32:20).100 The contents of the joint communiqué are not divulged, but Yhwh responds by sending his messenger (‫ )מלאך‬to vanquish “every warrior, commander, and officer in the Assyrian camp” (2 Chr 32:21–22).101 Isaiah’s other principal function is that of a prophetic chronicler, who writes about Hezekiah’s reign and times.102 98 M. A. Throntveit, “The Relationship of Hezekiah to David and Solomon in the Books of Chronicles,” in The Chronicler as Theologian: Essays in Honor of Ralph W. Klein (ed. M. P. Graham, S. L. McKenzie, and G. N. Knoppers; JSOTSup 371; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2003), 105–121. 99 Begg, “Classical Prophets,” 100–7; P. Höffken, “Der Prophet Jesaja beim Chronisten,” BN 81 (1996), 82–90; P. C. Beentjes, Tradition and Transformation in the Book of Chronicles (Studia Biblica Neerlandia 52; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 92–93. 100 “Isaiah is significantly ‘downscaled’ by the Chronicler.” Thus L. C. Jonker, “The Chronicler and the Prophets: Who were his Authoritative Sources?” in What was Authoritative for Chronicles? (ed. E. Ben Zvi and D. Edelman; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 146. See also the comments of A. K. Warhurst, “The Chronicler’s Use of the Prophets,” in What was Authoritative for Chronicles?, 165–81. 101 In 2 Kgs 19:14–19 Hezekiah prays by himself. The joint prayer of Hezekiah and Isaiah is not itself included within Chronicles. This may be the only time in which a prophet publicly intercedes with the deity on behalf of the people, but he does so in conjunction with the king. 102 In fact, the author apparently cites the title of the book of Isaiah in his regnal résumé for Hezekiah: “the vision (‫ )חזון‬of Isaiah son of Amoz the prophet” (‫ ;הנביא‬2 Chr 32:32). The citation may be compared with the longer superscription that opens the book of Isaiah: “The vision (‫ )חזון‬of Isaiah son of Amoz, which he saw (‫ )חזה‬concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah” (Isa 1:1), Schniedewind, Word of God, 218. That Chronicles cites Isaiah’s writing in its concluding regnal résumé for Uzziah (2 Chr 26:22) confirms the possibility of a direct citation.

Prophetic Succession in Chronicles

191

As we have seen, many kings experience some sort of prophetic engagement, whether for encouragement, instruction, or admonition. This is especially true of good kings, such as David, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Amaziah, and Hezekiah, but it is also sometimes true of errant monarchs.103 King Manasseh, who undid a good many of his father’s reforms and “committed much evil in the sight of Yhwh so as to provoke him” (2 Chr 33:6), belongs in the latter category. Manasseh’s misdeeds included practicing “soothsaying, divination, and sorcery” as well as the art of “a ghost and a medium” (2 Chr 33:6//2 Kgs 21:6).104 Ironically, the divine realm was attempting to establish a line of communication with the Judahite monarch and his subjects, but they disregarded the message: “Yhwh spoke (‫ )דבר‬to Manasseh and to his people, but they did not listen” (2 Chr 33:10). That prophetic mediation is in mind, rather than a direct divine theophany, seems evident from the concluding comments to Manasseh’s reign.105 For the other events in Manasseh’s reign, including “his prayer and the words of the visionaries (‫)החזים‬, who spoke to him in the name of Yhwh the God of Israel,” readers are referred to the “chronicles of the kings of Israel” (2 Chr 33:18). There is an additional reference to a written source about Manasseh’s reign (2 Chr 33:19), which sends readers to the “chronicles of Hozai” (‫)חוזי‬.106 Although the brief two year-reign of King Amon is not associated with any prophets or prophetic writings, the long reign of Josiah is associated with two major prophetic figures. The first figure, the prophetess (‫ )נביאה‬Huldah, is well known from Kings. Her two oracles (2 Chr 34:22–25, 26–28) largely follow their Vorlagen (2 Kgs 22:14–17, 18–20).107 But the Chronistic depiction of Josiah’s reign also contains a reference to the ministry of Jeremiah, a prophet who goes unmentioned in Kings. Jeremiah lamented over Josiah (after his 103 This function of prophecy is also evident in one of the latest layers of Kings (e.g., 2 Kgs 17:13–14, 22–23), P. A. Viviano, “2 Kings 17: A Rhetorical and Form-Critical Analysis,” CBQ 49 (1987), 548–59; M. Z. Brettler, The Creation of History in Ancient Israel (New York: Routledge, 1995); E. Ben Zvi, “‘The Prophets’—Generic Prophets and their Role in the Construction of the Image of the ‘Prophets of Old’ within the Postmonarchic Readership of the Book of Kings,” ZAW 16 (2004), 555–67; idem, “Are There Any Bridges Out There? How Wide Was the Conceptual Gap between the Deuteronomistic History and Chronicles,” in Community Identity in Judean Historiography: Biblical and Comparative Perspectives (ed. G. N. Knoppers and K. A. Ristau; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 59–86. 104 The text of MT 2 Kgs 21:6 does not include the reference to sorcery (‫)כשף‬, but this could have easily been lost by haplography (homoioarkton) after “and divination” (‫)ונחש‬. 105 It would seem that 2 Chr 33:6 abbreviates its source text (2 Kgs 21:10) that “Yhwh spoke (‫ )דבר‬by his servants the prophets.” 106 So the MT (‫)חוזי‬. On the text-citical issues in this verse, see my comments in chapter 6, n. 17. The concluding formulae of MT and LXX of 2 Kgs 21:17 lack any prophetic references. 107 S. L. McKenzie, The Chronicler’s Use of the Deuteronomistic History (HSM 33; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), 166.

192

Chapter 7

untimely death) and these laments are said to have been sung by male and female singers “up to this day” (2 Chr 35:25). Jeremiah appears, in fact, as the dominant prophet in the final decades of the southern kingdom.108 Chronicles condemns the failures of Judah’s last king: “He [Zedekiah] did what was evil in the sight of Yhwh his God; he did not humble himself (‫ )נכנע‬before the prophet Jeremiah (who spoke) from the mouth (‫ )מפי‬of Yhwh” (2 Chr 36:12). The basic criticism of Zedekiah (“he did what was evil in the sight of Yhwh his God”) is derived from Kings (2 Kgs 24:19), but the depiction of Jeremiah as the “mouth” of Yhwh is unique to Chronicles. The comment about a royal lack of humility is particularly pertinent. In one of the divine assurances given to King Solomon, following his temple dedicatory prayer outlining all kinds of circumstances in which Israelites may err or find themselves in special need of assistance from on high, Yhwh pledges that if “my people, who are called by my name, humble themselves (‫)ויכנעו‬, pray, seek my face, and turn from the wicked ways, I, I shall hear from the heavens, forgive their sins, and heal their land” (2 Chr 7:14). The divine promise, not found in Kings, is cited a number of times in the Chronistic depiction of the monarchy.109 What is particularly striking in this case is not simply the allusions to a series of incidents in Jeremiah between the prophet and Zedekiah, but also the close connection drawn between Jeremiah and the mouth of God.110 The clear implication is that in defying Jeremiah, Zedekiah was defying Yhwh. The two cases in which a direct connection is made between the mouth (‫)פי‬ of Jeremiah and the word of Yhwh fit the definition of a prophet in Deut 18:18 as someone to whom Yhwh bestows his word: “And I shall place (‫ )ונתתי‬my word in his mouth” (‫)בפיו‬. First, Judah’s deportation is said to have occurred “to 108 Micheel, Prophetenüberlieferungen, 66–67; Begg, “Classical Prophets,” 106–8; K. A. Ristau, “Historiography and Reshaping Community Identity: Josiah’s Reforms in Chronicles,” in Community Identity in Judean Historiography, 219–47; Warhurst, “Use of the Prophets.” 109 References may be found in R. B. Dillard, 2 Chronicles (WBC 15; Waco, TX: Word, 1987), 58–59, 76–81; Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 614–17. 110 See, e.g., Jer 21:1–7; 24:1–10; 27:3–15; 37:1–27; 38:8–22; 39:1–7. Japhet raises the possibility that certain prophecies of Ezekiel lie in the background to this passage (I & II Chronicles, 1069–70), but a connection with Deutero-Isaiah also very much needs to be (re) considered, B. Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia übersetzt und erklärt (3rd ed.; HAT III/1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1914), 8–9; O. H. Steck, Gottesknecht und Zion: Gesammelte Aufsätze zu Deuterojesaja (FAT 4; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1992), 197–204; R. G. Kratz, “Der Anfang des Zweiten Jesaja in Jes 40,1f. und das Jeremiabuch,” ZAW 106 (1994), 243–61 [repr. Prophetenstudien (FAT 74; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 216–32]; K. Schmid, Buchgestalten des Jeremiabuches: Untersuchungen zur Redaktions- und Rezeptionsgeschichte von Jer 30–33 im Kontext des Buches (WMANT 72; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1996), 315–19.

Prophetic Succession in Chronicles

193

fulfill the word of Yhwh (spoken) by the mouth (‫ )בפי‬of Jeremiah” (2 Chr 36:21; cf. Jer 25:11; 27:7; 29:10). Second, the end of the exile, announced by the decree of Cyrus in the first year of his reign, is said “to complete (‫ )לכלות‬the word of Yhwh (spoken) through the mouth (‫ )בפי‬of Jeremiah” (2 Chr 36:22//Ezra 1:1).111 As the divine judgment through Jeremiah predicts the exile, so the divine promise delivered through Jeremiah announces the exile’s end.112 Jeremiah lives up to his calling as a prophet commissioned both “to uproot and … to plant” (Jer 1:10). As we have seen, the portrayal of Judah’s demise calls attention to the prophet’s pivotal role as a divinely appointed spokesperson in the Neo-Babylonian period. But Jeremiah is not alone. A range of unnamed prophets are mentioned in the Chronistic commentary on the fall of Judah situated within the context of criticisms leveled against Judah’s last king Zedekiah (2 Chr 36:12– 13). The editorial retrospectively blames the people and the priestly leaders (‫ )שרי הכהנים‬for the kingdom’s demise (2 Chr 36:14). In this commentary, the role of the prophets, who bear the unusual title “his (Yhwh’s) messengers” (‫)מלאכיו‬, is prominent (2 Chr 36:15–16).113 One reads that “Yhwh the God of their fathers sent word to them again and again through his messengers, because he felt compassion for his people and for his dwelling-place (‫)מעונו‬, but they were deriding the messengers of God (‫)מלאכי האלהים‬, despising his words, and scoffing at his prophets (‫ )נבאיו‬until the wrath of Yhwh rose up against his people without remedy.”114 Jeremiah was, therefore, not alone in his 111 Reading with the MT. The Tg. and 1 Esd 1:1 reflect ‫מפי‬. The ‫ב‬/‫ מ‬confusion is very common in textual transmission. On the role of Jeremiah, see further, I. Kalimi, An Ancient Israelite Historian: Studies in the Chronicler, His Time, Place, and Writing (SSN 46; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2005), 143–57; Jonker, “The Chronicler and the Prophets,” 152–64. 112 J. Middlemas, The Troubles of Templeless Judah (Oxford Theological Monographs; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005). 113 That such references are lacking in early biblical literature is not surprising, given the periodic mistreatment of messengers in the ancient Near East, S. A. Meier, The Messenger in the Ancient Semitic World (HSM 45; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988). Reflecting a changed situation in the Persian and early Hellenistic period are references to the prophets as messengers in Chronicles and late prophetic writings (e.g., Hag 1:13; Mal 1:1; 2:7; 3:1): R. A. Mason, “The Purpose of the “Editorial Framework” in the Book of Haggai,” in Prophecy in the Hebrew Bible: Selected Studies from Vetus Testamentum (Brill’s Readers in Biblical Studies 5; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 115–23; J. Kessler, The Book of Haggai: Prophecy and Society in Early Persian Yehud (VTSup 91; Leiden: Brill, 2002). The new usage may have been influenced by the successful implementation of the Persian messenger system: Gerstenberger, “Prophetie in den Chronikbüchern,” 351–67. The nomenclature continued in later times. In Islamic tradition, for instance, the prophets, especially Muhammad, are called messengers of God (Qurʾān, sura 1.285; 2.135–39, 180; 37.70–180; 73.15ff.). 114 On the adverbial use of ‫ השכם‬in the expression ‫וישלח השכם ושלוח‬, see HALOT 1494a.

194

Chapter 7

role as a divine spokesperson in the final decades of the southern monarchy. The tragedy of late Judahite history was not a shortage of prophets admonishing the populace, but rather the careless and defiant behavior of the people, their officials, and their priests. 7 Conclusions Many prophets and prophetic figures enrich and complicate the Chronistic depiction of the monarchy. To highlight the distinctive features of this portrait, the work may be compared with that of its principal source: the Deuteronomistic History. In Samuel-Kings prophecy is prominent during the reign of David (Nathan, Gad), disunion (Ahijah, Shemaiah, the old prophet from Judah), the northern monarchy (e.g., Elijah, Obadiah, Elisha, Jehu, Jonah), and the late Judean monarchy (Isaiah, Huldah).115 Strikingly absent from the Deuteronomistic History are references to prophets in Judah from the time of King Abijam in the late tenth century up to the time of King Hezekiah in the late eighth century. For literary scribes working in the late Persian or early Hellenistic period, the Deuteronomistic presentation likely posed a series of challenges. The issue was not the presence of prophets in the northern kingdom. The writing openly acknowledges the ministry of northern prophets, such as Elijah and Micaiah, even though it does not recount the independent history of the northern monarchy. In one case, the work even adds, as we have seen, a reference to the service of a Samarian prophet (Oded), who is unattested in Kings. Rather, the issue for the writer was the absence of prophetic activity in the south for much of the Judahite monarchy. This absence would have raised some troubling questions. Was prophecy historically, politically, and theologically insignificant within monarchic Judah? Or was Judah, unlike Israel, largely bereft of prophets? How was it that a miscreant, such as Jeroboam I, would gain the attention of two prophets, including one from Judah (1 Kings 13), but well-regarded kings

115 Most of the prophetic stories and speeches in Kings deal with events in the northern kingdom, W. Dietrich, Prophetie und Geschichte (FRLANT 108; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972); idem, “Prophetie im deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk,” 47– 65; S. L. McKenzie, The Trouble with Kings: The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History (VTSup 42; Leiden: Brill, 1991); Kegler, “Prophetengestalten,” 484–85.

Prophetic Succession in Chronicles

195

in Judah, such as Asa and Jehoshaphat, both of whom enjoyed long reigns, would gain the attention of no prophets at all?116 To complicate matters further, one of the source texts (Deuteronomy) employed by the Chronicler in evaluating the history of his people likely raised additional questions, because it speaks, as we have seen, of a prophetic succession beginning with Moses. It may be thus suggested that the deficiency of prophets and prophecy in the Deuteronomistic presentation of Judahite history was troubling to the author, because he believed that continuity in prophecy was one of Yhwh’s promises to his people. The Chronistic portrayal of prophets and prophetic figures may be viewed, in part, as an attempt to address anew the issue of the prophetic succession. If, as in Kings, such continuity could not be found in the history of Judah for much of the dual monarchies, did God’s word fail? For the writer(s), such questions were undoubtedly existential and not simply historical or theological in nature. A substantial Yahwistic community is known to have existed in the province of Samaria north of the province of Judah.117 This Yahwistic community had its own central sanctuary at Mt. Gerizim, just as the Judean community had its central sanctuary in Jerusalem. Both communities laid claim to the name and heritage of ancient Israel.118 Both shared (or came to share) virtually the same basic set of prestigious scriptures in the Pentateuch.119 Hence, it could be said that Samuel-Kings, 116 The prophets appearing in the story of the joint northern-southern alliance (1 Kgs 22:2– 33//2 Chr 18:8–27) all appear within a northern context. 117 Y. Magen, “Mt. Gerizim—A Temple City” (Hebrew), Qadmoniot 33/2 (2000), 74–118; idem, “The Dating of the First Phase of the Samaritan Temple at Mount Gerizim in Light of the Archaeological Finds,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century (ed. O. Lipschits, G. N. Knoppers, and R. Albertz; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 157–211; G. N. Knoppers, “What has Mt. Zion to do with Mt. Gerizim? A Study in the Early Relations between the Jews and the Samaritans in the Persian Period,” SR 34/3–4 (2005), 307–36; idem, “Revisiting the Samarian Question in the Persian Period,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period (ed. O. Lipschits and M. Oeming; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 265–89; idem, Jews and Samaritans: The Origins and History of Their Early Relations (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013). 118 It seems likely that certain narratives in Chronicles reflect an engagement (indirectly) with such issues: I. Kalimi, “The Land of Moriah, Mount Moriah, and the Site of Solomon’s Temple in Biblical Historiography,” HTR 83 (1990), 345–62; idem, Early Jewish Exegesis and Theological Controversy (Jewish and Christian Heritage 2; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2002), 48–58. 119 J. D. Purvis, The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origin of the Samaritan Sect (HSM 2; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968); E. Tov, “The Proto-Samaritan Texts and the Samaritan Pentateuch,” in The Samaritans (ed. A. D. Crown; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1989), 397–407; idem, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (3rd rev. ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 74–93; R. Pummer, “The Samaritans and Their Pentateuch,” in

196

Chapter 7

however much it was a Judahite and not a northern Israelite work, posed its own issues for Judeans living in Yehud. Did the line of prophecy pass from the united monarchy to the northern monarchy only to restart in Judah during the late-eighth century? Was the rise of prophecy in eighth-seventh century Judah linked somehow to the demise of the much larger northern kingdom at the hands of the Assyrians? If so, did this imply that the northern kingdom was more Israelite or more central to Yhwh’s purposes than was the much smaller southern kingdom?120 It may be suggested, then, that the much fuller and richly-detailed Chronistic account of prophecy was designed to address these types of issue. Consistent with his upholding of the united monarchy as formative in the history of his people, the Chronicler adds references to prophetic figures to those mentioned in the Deuteronomistic presentation and edits material pertaining to the prophets he includes in his own writing. But his work also mentions many prophets, seers, visionaries, and men of God in the course of the Judahite monarchy, who go unmentioned in Kings. In fact, Chronicles presents such figures as active in every era of Judah’s history. Whether in oral or in written form, a prophetic witness is available to practically each generation. To be sure, the promise given through Moses in Deuteronomy is given to the Israelite community, not to its leadership. Yhwh ensures that there are a series of successors to Moses, who deliver messages from on high to Israel throughout the centuries. Such a divine pledge does not entail, however, that each monarch will actually encounter a prophet. To experience a prophetic visit or to have a prophet The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance (ed. G. N. Knoppers and B. M. Levinson; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 237–69; G. N. Knoppers, “Parallel Torahs and Inner-Scriptural Interpretation: The Jewish and Samaritan Pentateuchs in Historical Perspective,” in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research (ed. T. B. Dozeman, K. Schmid, and B. J. Schwartz; FAT 78; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 507–31. 120 It is important to recall that even the book of Kings, authored and edited in Judah, presents the northern kingdom as the kingdom of Israel. When Yhwh passes judgment on Solomon, he informs Solomon: “Surely, I am tearing the kingdom away from you and giving it to your servant” (1 Kgs 11:11), G. N. Knoppers, Two Nations Under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies (2 vols.; HSM 52–53; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993–1994), 1.135–223. It is only for the sake of David and for the sake of Jerusalem that Yhwh does not give Jeroboam everything. Solomon’s son will receive merely one tribe out of the total (1 Kgs 11:13). Basically, the same message is relayed to Jeroboam by the prophet Ahijah through a symbolic action and prophecy (1 Kgs 11:29–38). Both northern and southern kingdoms find continuity with the united kingdom; nevertheless, the northern kingdom, consistent with its size, importance, and status, receives the bulk of coverage until its fall to the Assyrians.

Prophetic Succession in Chronicles

197

write about one’s times is a privilege, not an inalienable right. Some of the worst and shortest-reigning monarchs in Judahite history do not experience such a prophetic witness. The fact that so many different prophets appear through the centuries is due to Yhwh dispatching prophets to speak or write for him. The work assumes that monarchs should be familiar with what Yhwh demands of them. When they err, they should know how to respond to such a failure by turning back to God and changing their policies.121 If they need deliverance from trouble, they may ask for such help from on high.122 To accomplish this, they do not need, however, a prophet. To receive a visit from a prophet is a mark of distinction, even if the message is one of admonition. Dispatching a prophet in such circumstances is an initiative of divine grace. The claim for a prophetic succession pertaining to life in southern Israel represents, therefore, one area in which Chronicles departs markedly from the pattern of Samuel-Kings. That Yhwh regularly sends prophets to speak to (or write about) the body politic establishes one vital form of continuity in the history of the community. Both the nature of the prophetic proclamations and the manner in which they are delivered recall the authoritative prophecy about prophecy that Moses spoke to the people of Israel. The history of Judah ultimately vindicates the legislation of Deuteronomy. The prophetic legacy is one critical means through which the people of Judah stands in unbroken tradition with the people of Israel encamped upon the steppes of Moab. Fulfilling the predictions made by Moses, the word of Yhwh is delivered throughout the generations (Deut 18:16). 121 In this respect, David shows the way, G. N. Knoppers, “Images of David in Early Judaism: David as Repentant Sinner in Chronicles,” Bib 76 (1995), 449–70. 122 E.g., 2 Chr 14:10; 18:31; 20:5–12; 32:20; 33:12–13. See O. Plöger, “Reden und Gebete im deutero­ nomistischen und chronistischen Geschichtswerk,” in Festschrift für Günther Dehn zum 75. Geburtstag (ed. W. Schneemelcher; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967), 35–49 [trans. “Speeches and Prayers in the Deuteronomistic and Chronistic Histories,” in Reconsidering Israel and Judah (see n. 34), 31–46]; Throntveit, When Kings Speak; A. Ruffing, Jahwekrieg als Weltmetapher: Studien zu Jahwekriegstexten des chronistischen Sondergutes (SBB 24; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1992).

Part 3 David, the Torah, and the Temple

∵

Chapter 8

David’s Relation to Moses: The Contexts, Contents, and Conditions of the Davidic Promises In an insightful survey of modern scholarship on the Davidic promises, Jon Levenson distinguishes between two fundamentally different approaches to the relationship between the Sinaitic (or Mosaic) covenant and the Davidic covenant.1 Those scholars pursuing an “integrationist” approach posit common traits between the Sinaitic and Davidic covenants and draw links between the two.2 Some even see the latter—the Davidic covenant—as a modification of or codicil to the former—the Sinaitic covenant. Those scholars advocating a “segregationist” approach stress differences between the two covenants and see few, if any, similarities between them. While the Mosaic pact structures God’s relationship with Israel through the instrument of law, the Davidic covenant announces God’s grace to a particular dynasty.3 The former is obligatory and conditional, while the latter is promissory and unconditional. Given this way of understanding the issue, many segregationists view the two covenants as antithetical to one another.4 One can press Levenson’s point about the contrast between segregationists and integrationists a step further. The longstanding differences between these two approaches have not been eased by the publication and discussion of thousands of diplomatic texts stemming from various lands in the ancient Near East. Indeed, proponents of both the integrationist and the segregationist approaches appeal to ancient Near Eastern, mainly Hittite and Neo-Assyrian,

1 J. Levenson, “The Davidic Covenant and Its Modern Interpreters,” CBQ 41 (1979), 205–19. 2 E.g., G. Widengren, “King and Covenant,” JSS 2 (1957), 1–32; A. H. J. Gunneweg, “Sinaibund und Davidsbund,” VT 10 (1960), 335–61; K. Seybold, Das davidische Königtum im Zeugnis der Propheten (FRLANT 107; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972), 44. 3 E.g., L. Rost, “Sinaibund und Davidsbund,” TLZ 72 (1947), cols. 129–34; G. E. Mendenhall, The Tenth Generation: The Origins of the Biblical Tradition (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973); M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972), 77–81; idem, “Bĕrît—Covenant vs. Obligation,” Bib 56 (1975), 120–28; J. Bright, Covenant and Promise (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), 56–77. 4 J. Bright, A History of Israel (3rd ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981), 224–27, 294–98; G. E. Mendenhall, “The Monarchy,” Int 29 (1975), 155–70; M. Weinfeld, “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East,” JAOS 90 (1970), 185. ©  GARY N. KNOPPERS (†), Christl M. Maier and H. G. M. Williamson, 2021 |  doi:10.1163/9789004444898_010

202

Chapter 8

evidence to buttress their positions.5 Integrationists have proposed analogies of ancient Near Eastern vassal treaties with both the covenant (‫ )ברית‬between Yhwh and Israel at Mt. Sinai (Exodus 19–24), renewed in Deuteronomy, and the covenant between Yhwh and David (2 Sam 7:1–17; Pss 89 and 132; 1 Chr 17:1– 15).6 Some integrationists have viewed the absolute divine pledge to continue David’s dynasty as analogous to a suzerain’s pledge to support his client’s dynasty in Hittite vassal treaties.7 Segregationists disagree. While conceding that the Hittite and Neo-Assyrian treaties may form some sort of parallel to the Sinaitic covenant, segregationists have been most hesitant to employ Hittite or Neo-Assyrian treaties as any sort of parallel to the Davidic promises. These scholars view the Davidic promises as distinctly different from any ancient Near Eastern treaties.8 Some segregationists have proposed, however, a different ancient Near Eastern model for the Davidic promises: royal land grants.9 Like royal grants in the ancient Near East, the covenants with Abraham and David are purportedly gifts bestowed upon individuals who distinguished themselves by serving their masters loyally. As with the Davidic covenant, such land grants allegedly represent pledges from superiors to clients that are not subject to any conditions.

5 D. J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant (2nd ed.; AnBib 21A; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1978), 29–153, provides a detailed and helpful overview. See also more recently, R. J. Bautch, Glory and Power, Ritual and Relationship: The Sinai Covenant in the Postexilic Period (LHBOTS 471; London: T&T Clark, 2009), 1–42. 6 Helpful surveys are provided by D. J. McCarthy, Old Testament Covenant: A Survey of Current Opinions (Oxford: Blackwell, 1972); R. A. Oden, “The Place of Covenant in the Religion of Israel,” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (ed. P. D. Miller, P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 429–47; K. A. Kitchen, “The Rise and Fall of Covenant, Law and Treaty,” TynBul 40 (1989), 118–35; S. L. McKenzie, Covenant (St. Louis: Chalice, 2000); M. Pietsch, “Dieser ist der Spross Davids …”: Studien zur Rezeptionsgeschichte der Nathanverheissung im alttestamentlichen, zwischentestamentlichen und neutestamentlichen Schrifttum (WMANT 100; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2003); M. Avioz, Nathan’s Oracle (2 Samuel 7) and Its Interpreters (Bible dans l’histoire 5; Bern: Lang, 2005). 7 P. J. Calderone, Dynastic Oracle and Suzerainty Treaty (Logos 1; Manila: Ateneo University Publications, 1966), 41–71; R. de Vaux, “Le Roi d’Israël, vassal de Yahvé,” in Mélanges Eugène Tisserant, I: Écriture sainte. Ancien Orient (Studi e testi 231; Vatican City: Biblioteca apostolica vaticana, 1964), 119–33. 8 D. R. Hillers, Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1969), 98–119; R. E. Clements, Abraham and David (SBT 5; Naperville: Allenson, 1967), 47–60; H. Kruse, “David’s Covenant,” VT 35 (1985), 148–49. 9 First and foremost, M. Weinfeld, “Covenant of Grant,” 184–203; idem, “Addenda to JAOS 90 (1970), 184ff.,” JAOS 92 (1972), 468–69.

Contexts, Contents, and Conditions of the Davidic Promises

203

My purpose in this essay is not to revisit the ancient Near Eastern evidence for either the integrationist or the segregationist positions.10 Nor is it my intention to try to settle the fundamental differences in scholarly definitions of covenant.11 Rather, this essay will focus on the principal references to the Davidic promises—2 Samuel 7, Psalms 89 and 132, and 1 Chronicles 17. Specifically, I wish to contest a number of assumptions underlying the integrationist and isolationist positions. In so doing, I hope to call attention to some neglected features of the royal Davidic charter, such as the significant differences among the four versions and the various ways in which these disparate texts link the Davidic promises to traditional institutions, the orders of creation, and events in Israelite life. First, there is a common assumption that the Davidic promises are unconditional.12 Yhwh informs David that his descendants will continue to reign, even though these descendants may sin (2 Sam 7:14–16; Ps 89:30–38, ET 29–37). Commentators recognize, of course, that some of the texts dealing with the Davidic promises (e.g., Ps 132) are clearly conditional, but these texts are deemed to be later revisions of an earlier (and normative) unconditional decree.13 Secondly, there is a common assumption that the issue of 10

In my essay, “Ancient Near Eastern Royal Grants and the Davidic Covenant: A Parallel?” JAOS 116 (1996), 670–97, I take issue with the land grant analogy to the Davidic promises. The structure, form, and content of royal grants are much more complicated than the proposed typology allows. The evidence for language parallels between the Davidic covenant and ancient Near Eastern land grants is misconstrued. Some of the best parallels to the dynastic promises stem from international treaties regulating the relations between major powers and their client states. There is, moreover, significant evidence that ancient Near Eastern land grants were predominately conditional in nature and function. All of these considerations render doubtful the proposition that land grants are the best analogy for the royal Davidic charter. The edition of K. A. Kitchen and P. J. N. Lawrence provides transcriptions, translations, and commentary relating to almost all of the available treaty and treaty-related texts, Treaty, Law and Covenant in the Ancient Near East (3 vols.; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012). 11 Some scholars conceive of covenant as an obligation validated by an oath, while others conceive of covenant as an agreement. I incline toward a bilateral understanding of covenant, but recognize that biblical authors employ ‫ ברית‬in various ways. See further J. Barr, “Some Semantic Notes on the Covenant,” in Beiträge zur alttestamentlichen Theologie: Festschrift für Walther Zimmerli zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. H. Donner, R. Hanhart, and R. Smend; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977), 25–34; Bautch, Glory and Power, 26–32. 12 This “was a kind of covenant which was simply a promise of God and was valid despite anything Israel might do,” McCarthy, Survey, 47. 13 In this, the position of T. Veijola is unusual, because he situates the origin of the unconditional dynastic promises in the Babylonian exile, Verheißung in der Krise: Studien zur Literatur und Theologie der Exilszeit anhand des 89. Psalms (AASF B 220; Helsinki:

204

Chapter 8

unconditionality is intimately related to the Davidic covenant’s ongoing importance in the life of ancient Israel. If biblical authors present Yhwh’s provisions for David as conditional, they weaken the force of the Davidic covenant. Moreover, by predicating the continuance of Davidic rule upon the fidelity of David, Solomon, or their descendants, biblical authors allegedly mitigate the political ramifications of the Davidic promises beyond the end of Davidic rule in the Babylonian conquest of 586 BCE. In other words, there is a tacit linkage between conditionality, the termination of the Davidic kingdom, and the (future) irrelevance of the Davidic promises. So, for example, those passages in the postexilic book of Chronicles predicating the future of the Davidic dynasty upon the obedience of Solomon (1 Chr 22:12–13; 28:7–10; 2 Chr 7:17–18) are construed as limiting David’s enduring social and political significance. The Davidic house may have had a proper role to play in the conquest of Jerusalem, the appointment of Levites and priests, and the construction of the long-awaited temple, but the Davidic promises have neither present (programmatic, royalist) nor future (messianic, eschatological) import for the residents of Yehud.14 Finally, some scholars presume that the Davidic promises deal essentially with succession. The issue of continuity in Davidic rule is thought to lie at the heart of the divine commitments to David. For this very reason, Levenson can argue that the whole debate about the Davidic promises is overdrawn.15 As to which covenant—Sinaitic or Davidic—is more important, the answer seems relatively simple. One deals with the divine administration of the Israelite people, “the basis for law and morality in a whole society,” while the other deals only with succession within one lineage, “the question of what family is to retain the throne.”16 Close study of the contexts and content of the four major passages dealing with the Davidic promises will complicate each of these assumptions. Beginning with the issue of unconditionality, this essay argues that the very definition of the divine commitments made to David was a matter of dispute Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1982); idem, “Davidverheißung und Staatsvertrag: Beobachtungen zum Einfluß altorientalischer Staatsverträge auf die biblische Sprache am Beispiel von Psalm 89,” ZAW 95 (1983), 9–31. See also more recently, J. Rückl, A Sure House: Studies on the Dynastic Promise to David in the Books of Samuel and Kings (OBO 281; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016). 14 See, e.g., W. Riley, King and Cultus in Chronicles: Worship and the Reinterpretation of History (JSOTSup 160; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993); K. E. Pomykala, The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 69–111; R. W. Klein, 1 Chronicles (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 380–82. 15 Levenson, “Davidic Covenant,” 216–17. 16 Ibid., 215, 217.

Contexts, Contents, and Conditions of the Davidic Promises

205

within ancient Israel. Some of the very authors who champion David’s importance also cite Yhwh’s commandments. What the references to the Sinaitic law indicate, among other things, is that the issue of integration—the relation of the Davidic promises to the Mosaic covenant—is not simply a modern preoccupation. A variety of ancient Israelite authors sought to relate one to the other. By the same token, the significance of whether the Davidic promises are unconditional or conditional has been overplayed. One can make the case that authors of both types of passages promote the importance of the Davidic dynasty. The attention modern scholars have devoted to the issue of royal succession is also somewhat misplaced, evincing an essentialist approach to the Davidic promises—the attempt to get at the core of Yhwh’s commitments to David. Such a concern is understandable, but inherently problematic. Close study of the principal passages dealing with the Davidic promises will reveal that these promises do not exhibit a consistent structure, form, and content but vary according to how different biblical authors configure them. While it is true that the subject of succession appears in all four passages, each of these texts contextualizes succession in a distinctive way. Moreover, each text manifests a concern with much more than royal rotation, tying the deity’s pledges to David to other important subjects in Israelite life.17 One should not cite, therefore, the issue of succession to marginalize the importance of the Davidic promises. On the contrary, the links ancient Israelite authors draw between the fate of the Davidic dynasty and the fate of other institutions demonstrate the relevance of the Davidic promises for national identity. 1

Temple, Dynasty, and People in 2 Samuel 7

The Deuteronomistic History gives extensive coverage to the inauguration of the Davidic promises and to how these promises affect the history of the united monarchy, the rise of the northern monarchy, and the independent history of Judah. That the writers’ concern lies with much more than just royal succession within one particular lineage is clear at the beginning of 2 Samuel 7. 17

Following the lead of some so-called anti-monarchic passages in the Hebrew scriptures (e.g., Deut 17:14–20; Judg 9:1–57; 1 Sam 8:1–3; 12:19), some scholars have viewed monarchic rule as inherently foreign to the constitution of Israelite polity. Yet, such passages only represent one particular strand of thought within the Hebrew scriptures and are largely attested in Deuteronomy and portions of the Deuteronomistic History. See N. Wyatt, “Royal Religion in Ancient Judah,” in Religious Diversity in Ancient Israel and Judah (ed. F. Stavrakopoulou and J. Barton; London: T&T Clark, 2010), 61–81.

206

Chapter 8

There, a dynasty is nowhere in view. Having been successful at war, David, like any good ancient Near Eastern monarch, wishes to build his patron deity a temple.18 Nathan’s responses (2 Sam 7:2–16) greatly complicate David’s plan, but the issue of a temple continues to drive the plot. Nathan’s dynastic oracle has Yhwh initially question David’s plan to build a stationary sanctuary (2 Sam 7:5–7). The following historical retrospect, in which Yhwh stresses his provisions for David (2 Sam 7:8), introduces the deity’s promises pertaining to the future of Israel, the construction of the temple, and the establishment of an enduring dynasty (2 Sam 7:9–16). Nathan’s oracle assures David of the defeat of his enemies (v. 9), the establishment of rest for Israel (vv. 10–11), and the construction of the temple by one of David’s seed (vv. 12–13). Whereas the version of the Davidic promises in Psalm 89 never mentions the Jerusalem sanctuary, 2 Sam 7:1–16 plays on the various connotations of “house” (‫ )בית‬to link the successful construction of the temple (‫ )בית‬by one of David’s seed to the divine establishment of an enduring dynasty (‫)בית‬. In short, Nathan’s promises address a variety of interrelated themes: the defeat of David’s enemies, the succession of one of his sons, the inauguration of an era of national peace, the construction of a central shrine, and the establishment of an enduring throne. David, for his part, is not passive. The very acceptance by one party of a solemn pledge from another party normally entails a degree of involvement in the life of the recipient, his family, or his realm by the other party. David welcomes such divine involvement. In his prayer, David responds to Nathan’s oracle by repeatedly petitioning Yhwh to effect his promises in the life of Israel and David’s house (2 Sam 7:18–29). Nathan’s promises and David’s petitions find continuity in Solomon’s reign. Indeed, as many scholars have recognized, the dynastic oracle of 2 Samuel 7 plays a formative role in the Deuteronomistic editing of Samuel-Kings.19 Solomon’s accession, the establishment of secure 18 V. Hurowitz, I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings (JSOTSup 115; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 171–223; M. B. Hundley, Gods in Dwellings: Temples and Divine Presence in the Ancient Near East (WAWSup 3; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2013). 19 D. J. McCarthy, “II Samuel 7 and the Structure of the Deuteronomic History,” JBL 84 (1965), 131–38; F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), 249–60; T. Veijola, Die ewige Dynastie: David und die Entstehung seiner Dynastie nach der deuteronomistischen Darstellung (AASF B 193; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1975), 32–48; T. N. D. Mettinger, King and Messiah: The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings (ConBOT 8; Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1976), 48–63; B. Halpern, The Constitution of the Monarchy in Israel (HSM 25; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981), 19–20; J. Van Seters, In Search of History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), 271–77 [repr. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997]; idem, The Biblical Saga of King David (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 241–67; P. K. McCarter, II Samuel (AB 9; Garden

Contexts, Contents, and Conditions of the Davidic Promises

207

borders, and a prosperous economy fulfill some of Nathan’s pledges and create the requisite conditions for consummating the Davidic hope of a royal shrine. Solomon’s missive to Hiram, which redefines Nathan’s objections to the temple, elucidates this Deuteronomistic interpretation of history (1 Kgs 5:17–19, ET 3–5).20 Nathan had initially rejected David’s bid to build the temple because Yhwh had been perfectly content to “have gone about in a tent” (2 Sam 7:3–7), but in the Deuteronomistic version of events David’s plan was simply premature. Construction had to await the divinely promised time of peace, the occasion of his son’s succession (1 Kgs 5:17, ET 3). The attainment of such rest in the time of Solomon provides impetus toward temple construction. As Solomon explains to Hiram, he can hardly ignore such propitious conditions for building a “house for the name of Yhwh” (1 Kgs 5:17).21 The successful construction and dedication of this edifice in Jerusalem inaugurate an age in which the temple plays a central role in Israelite life. Kings are judged positively or negatively on the basis of their exclusive fidelity to this particular shrine.22 The Davidic promises engage, therefore, much more than the issue of royal succession. In the united monarchy, they have much to do with Israel’s fate and national well-being. Granted the multi-faceted nature of the Davidic promises in Samuel-Kings, are these promises unconditional? A quick glance at the cardinal passage portraying these divine assurances—2 Samuel 7—would seem to justify such an City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), 217–31; H. Kruse, “David’s Covenant,” 148–55; G. H. Jones, The Nathan Narratives (JSOTSup 80; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 59–92; G. N. Knoppers, Two Nations Under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies (2 vols.; HSM 52–53; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993–1994), 1.61–71; T. C. Römer and A. de Pury, “L’historiographie deutéronomiste (HD): Histoire de la recherche et enjeux du débat,” in Israël construit son histoire: L’historiographie deutéronomiste à la lumière des recherches récentes (ed. A. de Pury, T. Römer, and J.-D. Macchi; MdB 34; Geneva, Labor et Fides, 1996), 9–120 [trans. Israel Constructs its History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research (JSOTSup 306; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000), 24–141]; T. C. Römer, The So-called Deuteronomistic History (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 97, 146–47; P. Kasari, Nathan’s Promise in 2 Samuel 7 and Related Texts (Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 97; Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 2009); O. Sergey, “The Composition of Nathan’s Oracle to David (2 Sam 7:1–17) as a Reflection of Royal Judahite Ideology,” JBL 129 (2010), 261–79; A. L. Joseph, Portrait of the Kings: The Davidic Prototype in Deuteronomistic Poetics (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015); Rückl, A Sure House. 17–191. 20 M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985), 394–96. 21 Indeed, given the Deuteronomic mandate to construct a central sanctuary when Israel finds rest in its promised land (Deut 12:10), it is incumbent upon Solomon to begin building the temple. 22 G. N. Knoppers, “Aaron’s Calf and Jeroboam’s Calves,” in Fortunate the Eyes That See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday (ed. A. H. Bartelt, A. B. Beck, C. A. Franke, and P. R. Raabe; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 92–104.

208

Chapter 8

assumption. Nathan’s oracle emphasizes the close relationship between God and David’s successor and underscores the indefeasibility of the dynastic promises. I shall become his father and he will become my son. When he commits evil, I shall chastise him with the rod of men and with the stripes of the sons of man, but I shall not withdraw my loyalty from him as I withdrew it from Saul before you. Your house and your kingship are sure before me forever and your throne will be established forever. (2 Sam 7:14–16)23

As ancient Near Eastern parallels make clear, the use of father—son terminology is significant.24 The employment of the adoption formula, “I shall become his father and he will become my son,” to depict Yhwh’s relationship to David’s successor is remarkable, because it expresses a high royal theology.25 Moreover, the adoption of David’s heir is linked to the granting of an enduring dynasty.26 Through the prophet Nathan, Yhwh assures David that his throne will be confirmed forever (‫)עד־עולם‬. The absolute promise of succession within a particular dynasty is a striking feature of the presentation of the Davidic promises in both Nathan’s oracle and in Psalm 89. In neither case, however, are the recipients of the promises devoid of obligations. Second Samuel 7 and Psalm 89 also contain a bilateral element. In both texts David’s descendants have a responsibility to obey Yhwh 23 In 2 Sam 7:14, I read ‫( ובהעותו‬cf. ‫ ובסכלותה‬in the Syriac). The MT reads ‫אשר בהעותו‬. In 2 Sam 7:15, I follow a few Hebrew MSS, the LXX, the Syriac, and the Vulg., reading ‫אסור‬. The MT has ‫יסור‬. In 2 Sam 7:16, the MT has ‫“( ביתך‬your house”), while the LXX reads ‫“( ביתו‬his house”). I follow the MT (maximum variation). Later in this verse (2 Sam 7:16), I follow the argument of McCarter (II Samuel, 195) for reading ‫( לפני וכסאך‬cf. the LXX, Cyprian, and the Syriac) instead of the MT’s ‫לפניך כסאך‬. 24 F. C. Fensham, “Father and Son as Terminology for Treaty and Covenant,” in Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright (ed. H. Goedicke; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1971), 121–28; P. Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant (AnBib 88; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1982), 98–99; J. Day, Psalms (OTG; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 99–100. 25 On the Akkadian expressions for adoption (e.g., ana māri epēšu, “to make as a son,” ana mārūti epēšu, “to make into the status of sonship,” and ana mārūti leqû, “to take into the status of sonship”), see the survey of S. M. Paul, “Adoption Formulae: A Study of Cuneiform and Biblical Legal Clauses,” Maarav 2 (1979–80), 176–85; E. C. Stone and D. I. Owen, Adoption in Old Babylonian Nippur and the Archive of Mannum-mešu-liṣṣur (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1991), 1–92. Similar language appears in KTU 1.15.II:25–28, Isa 9:5 (ET 9:6) and Ps 2:7–8. 26 Weinfeld contends that the “house” (= dynasty), land, and people given to David could only be legitimized by adoption, “Covenant of Grant,” 191; idem, “Addenda,” 469.

Contexts, Contents, and Conditions of the Davidic Promises

209

(2 Sam 7:14; Ps 89:31–33, ET 30–32). The disobedience of David’s heirs will bring divine chastisement.27 To be sure, the guarantee of succession is not predicated upon the loyalty of the descendants, but the descendants will be held accountable for “committing evil.” Hence, the divine promises are not without conditions. Nor do the promises exempt David from personal accountability before Yhwh. The omission of any direct reference to David’s own conduct in Nathan’s oracle is striking. Nathan’s oracle provides assurances pertaining to victory, peace, succession, dynasty, and temple, but it does not assure David himself of peace, success, or prosperity.28 Nor does it immunize him from the effects of any future perfidy, which he might commit. Indeed, as the account of David’s sin with Bathsheba demonstrates, David’s own responsibility before Yhwh is all too apparent (2 Sam 11:1–12:12). The issue of accountability also plays a prominent role in the Deuteronomistic presentation of disunion. There, the author blames Israel’s decline on Solomon’s flouting of divine commands—his sexual relations with foreign women, his building high places for his wives, and his worshiping their gods (1 Kgs 11:1–8).29 Solomon’s misconduct infuriates Yhwh, the deity who “appeared to him twice” (1 Kgs 11:9; cf. 1 Kgs 3:4–14; 9:1–9). The resulting punishment affects both foreign and domestic affairs. The revolts of foreign monarchs formerly under the hegemony of David and Solomon end the pax Solomonica (1 Kgs 11:14–25), while the revolt of Solomon’s servant, Jeroboam, ends the united monarchy (1 Kgs 11:26–12:20). The author is able to present this dramatic turn of events as divinely sanctioned because of an ambiguity inherent within the dynastic promises. Nathan mentions the establishment of the heir’s kingdom (2 Sam 7:12), but the pledge itself is directed at his kingship (‫ )ממלכה‬and throne (‫ ;כסא‬2 Sam 7:14–16).30 Because he interprets Nathan’s oracle as addressing David’s lineage, and not the Israelite kingdom as a whole, the writer can present Judah’s survival under Davidic leadership as paradoxically confirming Nathan’s promises.31 One tribe remains under the domain of Solomon’s son,

27 28

Levenson, “Davidic Covenant,” 211–12; Halpern, Constitution, 45–50. Unless exemptions from such responsibility are expressly stated, we should not suppose that the prophet intends to bestow them. 29 The actual legal citation in 1 Kgs 11:1–2 draws on both the traditum of Deut 7:3–4 and the traditio of Josh 23:12, G. N. Knoppers, “Sex, Religion, and Politics: The Deuteronomist on Intermarriage,” HAR 14 (1994), 121–41. 30 The omission of border delineations, given that many vassal treaties mention them, is probably deliberate; see B. Halpern, The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), 157–67; Knoppers, Two Nations Under God, 1.151–60. 31 1 Kgs 11:11–13, 34; 12:15; Knoppers, Two Nations Under God, 1.167–223.

210

Chapter 8

not for the sake of Solomon, but for the sake of the divine assurances given to David (1 Kgs 11:13, 32, 34–36; 12:15). The same understanding of Nathan’s oracle allows the Deuteronomist to present a hopeful beginning to the northern kingdom. Consistent with his blaming the united monarchy’s demise on Solomon’s misconduct, the Deuteronomist has the prophet Ahijah offer the future king of the ten northern tribes the opportunity to secure “an enduring dynasty” (‫ )בית נאמן‬like that of David, should he prove obedient to God’s commands (1 Kgs 11:31–38).32 Clearly, the text construes Nathan’s dynastic oracle (2 Sam 7:8–16) as having conditions and limits. Even though continuity in the dynasty is assured, individual monarchs are subject to the rule of (divinely administered) law and the extent of their domain is not vouchsafed by the basic dynastic pledge. There is one further aspect of the Deuteronomistic coverage of the monarchy that pertains to grasping David’s legacy. The book of Kings promotes David as a model of obedience to Yhwh. It is true that the many references to David’s merit (1 Kgs 3:6; 11:4, 6, 33, 34, 38; 14:8; 15:3, 11; 2 Kgs 14:3; 16:2; 18:3; 22:2) do not all speak directly to the Davidic promises themselves.33 But they are relevant in at least two respects. First, the introduction to the rise of the northern monarchy associates the divine bequest of an everlasting dynasty to David with David’s loyalty to the deity (1 Kgs 11:37–38; 14:8–11).34 Hence, the work posits a relationship between the comparative and promissory aspects of David’s patrimony.35 Second, the construction of David as a paradigmatic king addresses the relationship between David and Moses. By upholding both the Davidic promises and David as a paradigm of loyal conduct, the Deuteronomistic work balances two concerns legitimating the Davidic monarchy and exhorting its audience to observe Yhwh’s commands.36 The citation, reapplication, and structural use of the Davidic promises in the editing of Kings speak to the gravity of the Davidic legacy.37 What this history of inner-scriptural interpretation shows is that the authors and editors of this lengthy work did not view the commands of Yhwh and the promises made to David as somehow antithetical to one another. Integration was very much an ancient issue and not simply a modern preoccupation. The pertinent The use of “enduring dynasty” (‫ )בית נאמן‬alludes to 2 Sam 7:16. Levenson, “Davidic Covenant,” 216–17. Knoppers, Two Nations Under God, 1.186–206. On the distinction between the comparative and promissory uses of David in Kings, see I. Provan, Hezekiah and the Book of Kings (BZAW 172; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988), 93–99. 36 Knoppers, Two Nations Under God, 2.101–20. 37 Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 465–67; J. D. Levenson, Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), 209–16.

32 33 34 35

Contexts, Contents, and Conditions of the Davidic Promises

211

question for most writers seems to have been not whether the Sinaitic covenant was relevant to the Davidic covenant, but how. 2

Unconditional and Conditional: The Davidic Promises in Chronicles

The Chronistic work, like the Deuteronomistic work, devotes significant coverage to the inauguration of the Davidic promises, their redefinition in Solomon’s reign, and their role in structuring the history of the early divided monarchy. The Chronistic development of Nathan’s oracle differs, however, from that of Samuel-Kings. Especially in its presentation of the united monarchy and disunion, the Chronistic work reinterprets and reapplies Nathan’s assurances to David in a distinctive way. The additions to and recontextualization of the material drawn from Samuel-Kings provide a unique perspective on Yhwh’s provisions for David. As in Samuel-Kings, the negotiation of the Davidic promises within Israelite and Judahite history has major ramifications for understanding the configuration of the larger work. The Chronicler’s versions of Nathan’s oracle (1 Chr 17:1–15) and David’s prayer (1 Chr 17:16–27) are largely drawn from the Chronicler’s Vorlage of 2 Samuel 7.38 The relevant differences between the two may be summarized as follows. There is a strong link between David and the work of his son (1 Chr 17:11–14). Yhwh declares, “I shall establish your seed after you, one of your own sons, and I shall establish his kingship” (1 Chr 17:11). Unlike 2 Samuel 7, there is no codicil addressing the behavior of David’s seed. There is no mention of the possibility of the son(s) committing misdeeds. Nathan has Yhwh simply announce, “I shall establish his throne forever…. I shall not withdraw my loyalty from him as I withdrew it from your predecessor” (1 Chr 17:12–13). Hence, if one wishes to speak of an absolute and unconditional form of the Davidic promises, 1 Chronicles 17 is a better candidate than is 2 Samuel 7. Like the Deuteronomistic work, the Chronistic work posits a fatherson analogy between Yhwh and David’s heir (1 Chr 17:13; 22:10; 28:6).39 But 38

The precise nature of the Chronicler’s Vorlage for 2 Sam 7:1–16 is disputed. Given the evidence provided by the various textual witnesses to Samuel and Chronicles, one should not assume that the source employed was identical to MT Samuel, S. L. McKenzie, The Chronicler’s Use of the Deuteronomistic History (HSM 33; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), 63–64; G. N. Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9 (AB 12; New York: Doubleday/New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), 52–65; Klein, 1 Chronicles, 26–30. 39 G. N. Knoppers, “Judah, Levi, David, Solomon, Jerusalem, and the Temple: Election and Covenant in Chronicles,” in Covenant and Election in Exilic and Post-Exilic Judaism:

212

Chapter 8

Chronicles goes a step further in positing Yhwh’s direct election (‫ )בחר‬of Solomon (1 Chr 28:5, 6). David does not simply hear the divine promises from Nathan; he focuses upon them in his remaining time as king. Much of David’s latter reign is spent, in fact, preparing his divinely chosen son for his duties (1 Chr 22:7–16; 28:2–10, 20–21). Whereas in the so-called Succession Narrative (2 Samuel 9–20; 1 Kings 1–2), David hardly gives any thought to preparing one of his sons to rule after him, the opposite is true in Chronicles.40 Having received Nathan’s dynastic oracle, David commits himself to doing his utmost to prepare his court, family, and nation for Solomon’s rule. To aid the work of the “man of rest” (‫ ;איש מנוחה‬1 Chr 22:9), David establishes a national administration for his use, galvanizes support from the body politic for the succession, and assembles material for the “house of rest” (‫ ;בית מנוחה‬1 Chr 28:2) his son is charged to build. Through his unstinting efforts, David ensures a smooth and seamless transition (1 Chr 29:1–25). All of Israel’s leaders, warriors, and officials pledge their loyalty to the divinely-designated heir (1 Chr 29:22–24). Even David’s other sons pledge their fidelity to the crown-prince (1 Chr 29:24). The kingdom Solomon inherits from David is, however, not simply the kingdom of Israel. In Nathan’s oracle, Yhwh declares, “I shall appoint him in my house and in my kingship forever” (1 Chr 17:14). The reference to a connection between the Davidic-Solomonic kingdom and Yhwh’s kingdom is not accidental.41 On three other occasions the literary work associates the Davidic kingdom with God’s kingdom (1 Chr 28:5; 29:11; 2 Chr 13:8). Similarly, on three occasions the text associates the throne of Yhwh with that of David and Solomon (1 Chr 28:5; 29:23; 2 Chr 9:8). Given that Chronicles was likely written during the late Persian/Early Hellenistic Age, some two centuries or more after the fall of the Davidic state, such declarations are remarkable. The unique contributions to David’s reign underscore the importance of the dynastic promises (1 Chr 22:6–10; 28:6, 10, 20; 29:1, 19). Consistent with its highly positive portrayal of David and the link between David and his heir in Nathan’s oracle (1 Chr 17:1–15), Chronicles ties the reigns of David and Solomon together

Studies of the Sofja Kovalevskaja Research Group on Early Jewish Monotheism, Vol. V (ed. N. MacDonald; FAT II/79; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 139–68. 40 G. N. Knoppers, “Changing History: Nathan’s Dynastic Oracle and the Structure of the Davidic Monarchy in Chronicles,” in Shai le-Sara Japhet: Studies in the Bible, Its Exegesis, and Its Language (ed. M. Bar-Asher, D. Rom-Shiloni, E. Tov, and N. Wazana; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2007), 99*–123*. 41 The reference to “my house” plays on the different nuances of ‫( בית‬house, temple, dynasty) with a view, in this context, to the Jerusalem temple, Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29, 672–73.

Contexts, Contents, and Conditions of the Davidic Promises

213

as a unique era of Israelite consolidation, prosperity, and accomplishment.42 But Chronicles, unlike Samuel-Kings, employs both David and Solomon in a comparative sense as setting a standard for others to follow (2 Chr 30:26; 33:7; 35:3, 4). In defining the rotations of the Levites in the time of Josiah’s reforms, the writing (‫ )כתב‬of David and the writing (‫ )מכתב‬of Solomon serve as complementary authorities (2 Chr 35:3–4).43 Such usage is, of course, consistent with the earlier construction of the united kingdom. The highly positive presentation of Solomon’s tenure plays an important structural function in evaluating the people’s course during the Judahite monarchy. Chronicles does not exclude unpleasant details about Solomon’s life simply to sanitize his image or to satisfy the aesthetic tastes of a postmonarchic audience. Pairing the reigns of David and Solomon as a classical age in Israel’s past establishes a continuing standard for later generations that effectively ties territory, polity, Israelite identity, and Jerusalem together.44 In this respect, the appropriation and reworking of the Davidic promises is relevant to the issue of (un)conditionality. The Chronistic work includes, as we have seen, a version of the dynastic promises of 2 Sam 7:11–16 that is unconditional in nature (1 Chr 17:10–14), but it also includes, reworks, and recontextualizes a number of passages found in the final edition of Kings (1 Kgs 2:3–4; 8:25–26; 9:4–5) that render the realization of the Davidic promises dependent upon either the obedience of Solomon (1 Chr 22:12–13; 28:7–10; 2 Chr 7:17–18) or the obedience of David’s descendants (2 Chr 6:16–17).45 The Chronistic writing accords these texts a prominent position by placing these conditional reformulations into the mouths both of David (1 Chr 22:10–13; 28:7–10) and Solomon (2 Chr 6:16–17).46 The text presents, therefore, a paradox: the dynastic promises 42 R. L. Braun, “Solomonic Apologetic in Chronicles,” JBL 92 (1973), 503–16; idem, “Solomon, the Chosen Temple Builder: The Significance of 1 Chronicles 22, 28 and 29 for the Theology of Chronicles,” JBL 95 (1976), 581–90; H. G. M. Williamson, “The Accession of Solomon in the Books of Chronicles,” VT 26 (1976), 351–61 [repr. Studies in Persian Period History and Historiography (FAT 38; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 141–49]; cf. R. Mosis, Untersuchungen zur Theologie des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes (FTS 92; Freiburg: Herder, 1973), 82–163. 43 See, in much greater detail, M. A. Throntveit, “The Relationship of Hezekiah to David and Solomon in the Books of Chronicles,” in The Chronicler as Theologian: Essays in Honor of Ralph W. Klein (ed. M. P. Graham, S. L. McKenzie, and G. N. Knoppers; JSOTSup 371; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2003), 105–21; J. Tiňo, King and Temple in Chronicles: A Contextual Approach (FRLANT 234; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010), 35–107. 44 A point underscored by M. Lynch, “The Davidic Covenant and Institutional Integration in Chronicles,” in Covenant and Election in Exilic and Post-Exilic Judaism (see n. 39), 169–88. 45 Knoppers, Two Nations Under God, 1.64–65, 99–103, 109–12. 46 In the Deuteronomistic writing, these texts appear only in Solomon’s reign. To complicate matters further, Chronicles, like Kings (1 Kgs 9:6–9), presents Yhwh in the second

214

Chapter 8

are both unconditional and conditional. There is some scholarly disagreement as to what to make of this. Since the conditional reformulations make repeated mention of the temple, some commentators believe that the Davidic promises are fulfilled when Solomon completes this edifice.47 Others contend that the dynastic promises really have to do with something other than the future of David’s seed. In one view, for example, the pledge given to David and to Solomon supports the position of the Levites in the postexilic era.48 Yet others argue that the promises are reaffirmed (or even ratified) precisely because Solomon successfully completes the temple.49 Of the three views, the last one is the most compelling for a variety of reasons. First, Chronicles, unlike Kings, portrays Solomon as consistently faithful throughout his reign.50 As directed by his father, Solomon stays the course, happily building and dedicating the long-awaited temple. Both the beginning and the end of Solomon’s tenure are smooth and without incident (1 Chr 28:1– 29:25; 2 Chr 1:1–2; 9:1–28). Unlike the situation in Kings, in which Solomon’s reign is divided into two periods—one good (1 Kings 1–10), the other bad (1 Kings 11)—Solomon does not lapse in Chronicles. His reign represents an unprecedented age of peace and international prestige (1 Chr 17:8–9; 22:9, 18;

47 48 49 50

theophany to Solomon as threatening “you” (2nd masc. pl.) with exile and the temple’s destruction, if “you turn and abandon my statutes and commandments … and worship other gods” (2 Chr 7:19–22). Most commentators understandably take the object of the verb to be the descendants of David, but vv. 8–9 switch to the third person, depicting the reaction of passers-by to the destroyed sanctuary, concluding that “they abandoned Yhwh their God.” Thus, the people seem to be in view, Knoppers, Two Nations Under God, 1.109–10. E.g., R. L. Braun, 1 Chronicles (WBC 14; Waco, TX: Word, 1986). S. J. De Vries, “Moses and David as Cult Founders,” JBL 107 (1988), 638. See the foundational treatment of H. G. M. Williamson, “Eschatology in Chronicles,” TynBul 28 (1977), 115–54 [repr. Studies in Persian Period History and Historiography, 162–95]. H. G. M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 132–37, 192–237. More recently, see M. J. Boda, “Identity and Empire, Reality and Hope in the Chronicler’s Perspective,” in Community Identity in Judean Historiography: Biblical and Comparative Perspectives (ed. G. N. Knoppers and K. A. Ristau; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 249–72; idem, “Gazing through the Cloud of Incense: Davidic Dynasty and Temple Community in the Chronicler’s Perspective,” in Chronicling the Chronicler: The Book of Chronicles and Early Second Temple Historiography (ed. P. S. Evans and T. F. Williams; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 215–45; M. Lynch, Monotheism and Institutions in the Book of Chronicles: Temple, Priesthood, and Kingship in Post-exilic Perspective (FAT II/64; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014); L. C. Jonker, “‘The Ark of the Covenant of the Lord’: The Place of Covenant in the Chronicler’s Theology,” in Covenant in the Persian Period: From Genesis to Chronicles (ed. R. J. Bautch and G. N. Knoppers; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015), 409–37.

Contexts, Contents, and Conditions of the Davidic Promises

215

29:25; 2 Chr 1:7–18). Because Solomon, in accordance with his father’s admonitions (1 Chr 28:9), never abandons Yhwh, there are no grounds whereby the conditions of these texts (referring to Solomon) would take effect. Second, Chronicles employs the (still valid) Davidic promises to structure the history of the early divided monarchy. In Chronicles Solomon is not blamed for the division.51 As we have seen, Solomon ends his reign in glory (2 Chr 8:1–9:31). Rehoboam, Jeroboam, and “the riffraff and scoundrels” (‫)אנשים רקים בני בליעל‬, who surrounded him, together bear responsibility for Israel’s defection (2 Chr 13:6–7).52 The human dimension thus adds another complexity to understanding the application of the divine promises to David. The decision of a majority of Israelites to break away from Davidic rule and launch their own independent monarchy is accepted by the writers both as a historical fact and as a choice that was predicted by a Yahwistic prophet.53 Such a decision by the great majority of the population in the distant past to chart their own independent political and cultic course does not mean, however, that the decision conformed to the deity’s best provisions for his people. In fact, the material pertaining to the early period of the dual kingdoms that is unique to Chronicles explicitly cites the royal Davidic charter to denounce the northern secession as seditious. In the speech of King Abijah to “King Jeroboam and all Israel” (2 Chr 13:4–12), widely believed to be a Chronistic composition, the Judahite monarch plays on the different senses of the name Israel by asking, “Do you not know that Yhwh the God of Israel gave the kingship over Israel to David and to his sons (as) a covenant of salt?” (‫ ;ברית מלח‬2 Chr 13:5).54 Abijah reaffirms in principle the eternal validity of the Davidic promises for 51 G. von Rad, Das Geschichtsbild des chronistischen Werkes (BWANT 40.3; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1930), 125–32. 52 See further, G. N. Knoppers, “Rehoboam in Chronicles: Villain or Victim?,” JBL 109 (1990), 429–32. For a different view, see E. Ben Zvi, “The Secession of the Northern Kingdom in Chronicles: Accepted ‘Facts’ and New Meanings,” in The Chronicler as Theologian (see n. 43), 61–88 [repr. History, Literature and Theology in the Book of Chronicles (Bible World; London: Equinox, 2006), 117–43]. 53 Although some have contended that a reunification of the northern and southern tribes occurs under Hezekiah, I argue that this (partially successful) reunification is primarily of a cultic character and of a temporary nature, G. N. Knoppers, “Israel or Judah? The Shifting Body Politic and Collective Identity in Chronicles,” in Rethinking Israel: Studies in the History and Archaeology of Ancient Israel in Honor of Israel Finkelstein (ed. O. Lipschits, Y. Gadot, and M. A. Adams; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2017), 173–88. 54 S. R. Driver, “The Speeches in Chronicles,” The Expositor, I (1895), 241–56; II (1895), 286– 308; W. Rudolph, Chronikbücher (HAT 21; Tübingen: Mohr, 1955), 236–37; S. Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought (BEATAJ 9; Frankfurt a. M.: Lang, 1989), 454–55; eadem, I & II Chronicles (OTL; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1993), 691.

216

Chapter 8

all who would go by the name of Israel (2 Chr 13:4–8). Chronicles, unlike Samuel-Kings, admits of no territorial qualification of the Davidic promises. As opposed to the situation in Kings in which the application of the Davidic promises becomes restricted to one tribe (1 Kgs 11:11–13, 31–38), in Chronicles David is divinely elected (‫ )בחר‬to be king over Israel (1 Chr 28:4) and the prophetic assurances accorded to David relate to all of Israel. Hence, in explaining the later survival of the Davidic house in a time of dynastic crisis, Chronicles comments: “But Yhwh was not willing to destroy the house of David, because of the covenant that he had cut with David (‫ )הברית אשר כרת לדויד‬and according to his promise to give a dominion to him (‫ )וכאשר אמר לתת לו ניר‬and to his descendants in perpetuity” (‫ ;ולבניו כל־הימים‬2 Chr 21:7).55 By contrast, the source text declares: “But Yhwh was not willing to destroy Judah, because of David his servant according to his promise to give a dominion to him and to his descendants in perpetuity” (2 Kgs 8:19). Both Kings and Chronicles are internally consistent. In accordance with the reduction of the applicability of the dynastic promises to one tribe, Kings speaks of Yhwh’s reluctance to destroy Judah. In accordance with the Davidic covenant’s applicability to all of the people, Chronicles speaks more generally of Yhwh’s reluctance to destroy the house of David. If one takes the position that the work considers the Davidic promises to be realized in the building of the temple, one is unable to make any coherent sense out of the unique features of its depiction of disunion and the history of the Judahite monarchy.56 To put it another way, why would the writer bother to change so many features of the late united monarchy and early divided monarchy, over against the presentation found in his principal source (Kings), if he did not wish to convey his own distinctive interpretations of key figures, institutions, and events? The Chronistic construal of Nathan’s oracle has geo-political, dynastic, and sacral implications. The insistence that the Davidic promises remain valid, in principle, for all elements of Israel explains why Chronicles, unlike Kings, does not narrate the independent history of the northern monarchy. One final point should be made about the handling of the royal Davidic charter. Like the Deuteronomistic work, Chronicles explains the survival of the Davidic family by recourse to the promissory aspect of the Davidic promises. On the translation of ‫ ניר‬as “(territorial) dominion” or “fief” (instead of “light” or “lamp”), see P. D. Hanson, “The Song of Heshbon and David’s nêr,” HTR 61 (1968), 297–320; E. Ben Zvi, “Once the Lamp Has Been Kindled: A Reconsideration of the Meaning of the MT ‫ניר‬ in 1 Kgs 11:36; 15:4; 2 Kgs 8:19 and 2 Chr 21:7,” AusBR 39 (1991), 19–30. 56 G. N. Knoppers, “‘Battling against Yahweh’: Israel’s War against Judah in 2 Chr 13:2–20,” RB 100 (1993), 516–18. 55

Contexts, Contents, and Conditions of the Davidic Promises

217

So, for instance, in the aftermath of the coup d’état that sweeps Queen Athaliah from office, we read (2 Chr 23:3): “And the entire assembly cut a covenant with the king (‫ )ויכרת כל־הקהל ברית בבית האלהים עם־המלך‬at the house of God. And he [Jehoiada] said to them, ‘Behold, the son of the king will reign as Yhwh promised concerning the sons of David’” (‫)כאשר דבר יהוה על־בני דויד‬. Even though Chronicles contextualizes and interprets the Davidic promises differently from Samuel-Kings, both works accord a prominent role to these promises within their histories. In each case, Yhwh’s provisions for David have to do with much more than succession. Chronicles employs the Davidic promises to engage a variety of national interests—the humbling of Israel’s enemies, the creation of a central administration, the accession of David’s divinely-elected son, the achievement of rest for all of Israel, the construction of the temple by David’s heir, and the establishment of his kingdom. The Davidic promises are embedded within the context of a continuing narrative, which reinterprets and redefines the terms of the relationship established by Nathan’s oracle. That this record contains conditional reformulations of the unconditional dynastic promises matters little in appreciating that the Davidic promises play a formative role in the Chronistic presentation of the united monarchy, the division, and the independent history of Judah.57 Like the Deuteronomistic writing, the Chronistic writing is very much concerned with the issue of integration—how Sinai relates to Zion—but the Chronistic work coordinates the two somewhat differently. The history of the Judahite kingdom becomes not so much a commentary on Yhwh’s relationship to David as a commentary on Yhwh’s relationship both to David and to Solomon.

57

The conditions of 2 Chr 6:16–17, drawn from 1 Kgs 8:24–26, are another matter, because they address the conduct of both Solomon and his sons. How much weight should be placed on this one passage is unclear, because later texts in Chronicles affirm the ongoing validity of the Davidic promises. I am following the principle that clear texts should interpret unclear texts, not vice versa. It may well be, however, that the retention of this material from Kings allowed the editors the option of blaming, at least in part, the downfall of Davidic rule on the perfidy of the descendants of David and Solomon, rather than on any arrangements made during their formative tenures. Certainly, most Davidic kings in the last two centuries of the southern kingdom, beginning with Ahaz, perform poorly; see chapter 11 below, “Defeat, Depopulation, and Displacement: The Judahite Exile of the Eighth Century BCE.” Nevertheless, the problem resists a facile solution, because Chronicles blames a variety of leadership groups for the Babylonian exile; see chapter 12 below, “‘Wrath without Remediation’: The Babylonian Exile and the Question of Immediate Retribution in Chronicles.”

218 3

Chapter 8

Conditional and Promissory: The Davidic Promises in Psalm 132

After 2 Samuel 7 and the Chronicler’s work, Psalm 132 presents a third distinct perspective on the Davidic promises. The author of Psalm 132 commemorates the connections among David’s efforts to find a “place for Yhwh” (‫)מקום ליהוה‬, the ascent of the ark, the participation of the priests, the deity’s provisions for David, and Yhwh’s selection of Zion.58 Comparison among 2 Samuel 7, 1 Chronicles 17, and Psalm 132 reveals the extent to which Judean authors contextualized and defined the Davidic promises differently. Unlike the Chronicler, who ties the dynastic promises to the accession and activities of Solomon, the psalmist ties the dynastic promises to David’s labors on behalf of the cult (vv. 1–5), the ritual procession of the ark (vv. 6–8), and Yhwh’s election of Zion (vv. 13–16).59 Whereas the authors of 2 Samuel 7 have Yhwh promise David an everlasting throne regardless of the behavior of David’s descendants, the author of Psalm 132 has Yhwh predicate a dynasty upon the loyalty of these descendants. Chronicles has Yhwh directly choose (‫ )בחר‬Solomon, but Psalm 132 has Yhwh choose (‫ )בחר‬Zion as his resting place in perpetuity (‫ ;עדי־עד‬vv. 13–14). Whereas the Deuteronomistic work links David’s loyalty to the divine award of a dynasty to David’s offspring (1 Kgs 11:37–38; 14:7–9), Psalm 132 links the divine bequest of a dynasty (vv. 11–12) to Yhwh’s choice of Zion (vv. 13–16). In spite of these and other differences, the psalm shares with 58

This combination of features has given rise to a form-critical debate: is Psalm 132 a pilgrimage song, a song of Zion, a royal psalm, or some combination of the above? See H.-J. Kraus, Psalmen 60–150 (5th ed.; BKAT XV/2; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978), 1061 [trans. H. C. Oswald, Psalms 60–150 (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1993), 478]. 59 T. E. Fretheim, “Psalm 132: A Form-Critical Study,” JBL 86 (1967), 289–300; D. R. Hillers, “The Ritual Procession of the Ark and Psalm 132,” CBQ 30 (1968), 48–55; L. Perlitt, Bundestheologie im Alten Testament (WMANT 36; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969), 51–52; Cross, Canaanite Myth, 256–57; Halpern, Constitution, 32–33; Veijola, Verheißung, 161–62; H. Kruse, “Psalm CXXXII and the Royal Zion Festival,” VT 33 (1983), 279–97; C. L. Seow, Myth, Drama, and the Politics of David’s Dance (HSM 44; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 145–203; Kraus, Psalmen 60–150, 1053–66 (trans, Psalms 60–150, 472–83); C. L. Patton, “Psalm 132: A Methodological Inquiry,” CBQ 57 (1995), 643–54; F.-L. Hossfeld, “König David im Wallfahrtspsalter,” in Ein Herz so weit wie der Sand am Ufer des Meeres: Festschrift für Georg Hentschel (ed. S. Gillmayr-Bucher, A. Giercke, and C. Niessen; ETS 90; Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 2006), 219–33; F.-L. Hossfeld and E. Zenger, Psalmen 101–150 (HThKAT; Freiburg: Herder, 2008), 610–31 [trans. L. M. Maloney, Psalms 3: A Commentary on Psalms 101–150 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011), 454–68; G. Barbiero, “Psalm 132: A Prayer of ‘Solomon,’” CBQ 75 (2013), 239–58; A. Berlin, “Psalm 132: A Prayer for the Restoration of Judah,” in Marbeh Ḥokmah: Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East in Loving Memory of Victor Avigdor Hurowitz (ed. S. Yona, E. L. Greenstein, M. I. Gruber, P. Machinist, and S. M. Paul; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015), 65–72.

Contexts, Contents, and Conditions of the Davidic Promises

219

the Deuteronomistic work and the Chronistic work a concern with Yhwh’s provisions for David, succession in the Davidic ranks, and integration between the Davidic promises and Yhwh’s commandments.60 That the psalm begins with a plea to Yhwh to remember David (Ps 132:1) and ends with Yhwh promising to make a horn sprout for David (Ps 132:17) is highly important, but much of the attention is focused on the ark and Zion’s status. The psalm starts with a supplication: “Remember, O Yhwh, to David all of his self-denial” (‫)זכור־יהוה לדוד את כל־ענותו‬, followed by David’s oath to Yhwh that he would find him an appropriate sanctuary.61 David avoids his house and abstains from sleep until he finds a domicile for “the Mighty One of Jacob” (vv. 3–5). After quoting a summons to worship, “We have heard it in Ephrathah … let us worship at the footstool of his feet” (v. 7), the psalmist implores Yhwh and the ark to go to his resting place (v. 8). The priests are clothed in righteousness and his loyal ones shout for joy (v. 9). Having alluded to the ritual procession of the ark to Jerusalem, the psalmist returns to David, the man responsible for finding a “place (‫ )מקום‬for Yhwh.”62 On account of David, the psalmist appeals to Yhwh not to turn from the face of his anointed (‫ ;משיח‬v. 10). Just as the psalmist earlier recalls David swearing (niphal of ‫ )שבע‬an oath to Yhwh (vv. 2–5), he now recounts Yhwh swearing (niphal of ‫ )שבע‬an oath to David. The dynastic promises, the “truth he (Yhwh) will not revoke” (‫ ;אמת לא־ישוב ממנה‬v. 11), are, however, explicitly conditional. Psalm 132 predicates the enthronement of David’s descendants upon their fidelity to Yhwh. God declares to David that he will place the fruit of David’s womb upon his throne “if your sons observe my covenant and my testimonies, 60 C. Dempsey, “Poems, Prayers and Promises: The Psalms and Israel’s Three Covenants,” in Covenant in the Persian Period (see n. 50), 332–36. 61 On the translation of the pual of ‫ ענה‬in v. 1 as referring to humility or self-denial, see my “Ancient Near Eastern Grants,” 680. 62 In the conclusion to the Chronistic version of the census and plague story, David purchases the “place” (‫ )מקום‬of the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite (1 Chr 21:18–25) and announces, following the theophany at the altar he built (1 Chr 21:26): “This will be the house of Yhwh God and this will be the altar of the burnt offering for Israel” (1 Chr 22:1), Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29, 742–64. The term ‫ מקום‬also carries cultic connotations elsewhere (e.g., Hos 5:15; Isa 60:13; Jer 7:12; Ps 24:3; Ezra 9:8; HALOT 627a), prominently so in the centralization legislation of Deuteronomy (12:2, 5; 14:23, 25), B. M. Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 23–52. Given that the psalm speaks of a “place for Yhwh” (‫)מקום ליהוה‬, the verbiage in the psalm may well have influenced the Chronistic rewriting of the census and plague story. The repeated use of ‫ מקום‬in 1 Chr 21:22, 25 does not appear in the source text of 2 Sam 24:21, 24. Moreover, it is clear that the psalm was familiar to the book’s writers, because one portion (Ps 132:8–10) is quoted in conjunction with Solomon’s temple dedication (2 Chr 6:41–42).

220

Chapter 8

which I teach them” (‫ ;אם ישמרו בניך בריתי ועדתי זו אלמדם‬v. 12). The promise extends to their sons as well: “So also their sons in perpetuity will sit on your throne” (‫ ;גם בניהם עדי עד ישבו לכסא לך‬v. 12). Two points are relevant here. The first concerns integration. The psalmist links two monarchical institutions—Davidic kingship and Zion—to two earlier institutions—Yhwh’s covenant and the ark.63 The mention of “my covenant” in v. 12 (‫ )בריתי‬refers not to the Davidic charter, but to a divinelyinstituted covenant which the Davidides are to observe. The psalmist does not identify the covenant; but, given the parallel reference to “my testimonies” (‫)עדתי‬, the Sinaitic covenant would seem to be the most likely referent. In any case, there is neither a stated nor a suggested opposition between the covenant the Davidides are to keep and the Davidic promises themselves. Continuity and coordination characterize David’s oath to Yhwh, the movement of the ark (and Yhwh) to Zion, Yhwh’s oath to David, and the election of Zion. The content of Psalm 132 plays havoc with simplistic or one-sided definitions of the Davidic charter. The dynastic promises structure God’s relationship with David and his descendants through the instrument of law, yet these promises announce God’s grace to a particular lineage. The arrangement is both promissory and conditional. The second point concerns the issue of conditionality. That the perdurability of the dynastic pledge is contingent upon the fidelity of David’s descendants is of little consequence in assessing the importance of the divine assurances in this particular psalm. The contingent nature of the dynastic pledge is not presented as devaluing the pledge itself. The mood of Psalm 132 is celebratory, commemorative, and prayerful. Not only does the psalmist proclaim Yhwh’s election (‫ )בחר‬of Zion (vv. 13–16), but he also presents this divine commitment to Zion as the basis for Yhwh’s commitments to David. It was David who vowed to find a place for the ark (vv. 2–5) and David is the basis for divine consideration of Yhwh’s “anointed” (v. 10), yet the psalm associates Yhwh’s promises to David with Yhwh’s election of Zion.64 Zion is Yhwh’s resting place “in perpetuity” (‫“ ;)עדי־עד‬here I shall dwell, because I have desired it” (‫ ;אותיה‬v. 14). The twice repeated use of the adverbial phrase “in perpetuity” (‫ )עדי־עד‬in reference to the perdurability of Davidic rule (v. 12) and of Zion as the resting place 63 H. Gese, “Der Davidsbund und die Zionserwählung,” in Vom Sinai zum Zion (München: Kaiser, 1974), 113–29; Mettinger, King and Messiah, 256–57; A. Laato, “Psalm 132 and the Development of the Jerusalemite/Israelite Royal Ideology,” CBQ 54 (1992), 49–66. 64 In this regard, the use of the conjunction ‫ כי‬at the beginning of v. 13 is telling: T. E. Fretheim, “The Ark in Deuteronomy,” CBQ 30 (1968), 1–14; Patton, “Psalm 132,” 652–53; Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 3, 465 [Psalmen 101–150, 626].

Contexts, Contents, and Conditions of the Davidic Promises

221

of Yhwh (v. 14) underscores the connections between the two institutions.65 The poem ends, in fact, with Yhwh issuing a favorable pronouncement about Zion that centers on David. There, I shall make a horn sprout for David (‫)שם אצמיח קרן לדוד‬. I shall arrange a dominion for my anointed (‫)ערכתי נר למשיחי‬. His enemies I shall clothe in shame, And his crown will sparkle upon him. (Ps 132:17–18).

In this version of the Davidic promises, Zion has become the setting for royal dynastic hopes.66 The compositional history, setting, and form of Psalm 132 continue to be the subject of considerable debate.67 But there is no clear evidence by which to assume that the conditional formulation of the dynastic promises detracts from their significance. Against this interpretation, it could be countered that the very conditionality of the Davidic promises has negative implications for their political application beyond the end of Davidic rule in 586 BCE. Assuming for a moment that the psalm is preexilic and that the Babylonian exile was understood as a judgment against Davidic kingship, it could be argued that the termination of the Davidic kingdom ipso facto ends the conditional arrangement propounded in Psalm 132.68 Two points may be raised in response to such an objection. First, the Sinaitic covenant is expressly conditional, but few scholars speak of the Sinaitic covenant as having been decisively terminated in the Babylonian exile.69 Biblical writers blame the Babylonian deportations on assorted Judahite offenses, but they do not construe this catastrophe as signaling the definitive end of the Mosaic covenant. Similarly, the divine promises made with respect to the Jerusalem temple are explicitly conditional (1 Kgs 9:1–9), even in the more expansive and positively-phrased Chronistic version of these promises (2 Chr 7:12–22), yet most do not construe these qualifications and warnings as signaling that the temple is of no enduring significance for the biblical writers.70 65 Zion is “the place where the promises to David continue to live,” Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 3, 468 [Psalmen 101–150, 631]. 66 Veijola see this reversal in Davidic fortunes as responding to the lament concluding Psalm 89, Verheißung, 72–75. 67 Kraus provides an overview, Psalmen 60–150, 1055–62 (ET, Psalms 60–150, 474–79). 68 But many recent scholars view the psalm as postmonarchic (see n. 89 below). 69 A point also raised by Levenson, “Davidic Covenant,” 212. 70 In this respect, the decidedly pessimistic assessment of M. Noth is exceptional, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien: Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten

222

Chapter 8

Second, on the basis of ancient Near Eastern and biblical evidence, one may question whether the connection between disloyalty and covenant dismissal necessarily holds. That a liegeman failed to honor the terms of a treaty does not automatically mean that the treaty itself would be nullified or terminated. To be sure, a breach could lead to the agreement’s annulment, but other scenarios are possible. An overlord could choose to ignore the infraction.71 Or, if a pact had been abrogated by a client, that client could petition for renegotiation and renewal.72 The overlord could elect to amend the treaty or to impose a penalty.73 Another option, not mutually exclusive with the previous options, would be for the suzerain to honor the dynastic principle by replacing one monarch with another from the same lineage.74 Alternatively, the suzerain could simply choose to renew the pact itself.75 Testament (2nd ed.; Tübingen: M. Niemeyer, 1957), 104–10 [trans. The Deuteronomistic History (JSOTSup 15; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981), 93–99]. For a different way of construing this material, see chapter 10 below, “Yhwh’s Rejection of the House Built for his Name: On the Significance of Anti-Temple Rhetoric in the Deuteronomistic History.” 71 For example, in his treaty with Kupanta-Kurunta of Mira-Kuwaliya, Muršili II of Ḫatti reinforces the right of Kupanta-Kurunta to his (adopted) father’s house and land (including the same borders) despite the transgressions of Mašḫuiluwa his father, J. Friedrich, Staatsverträge des Hatti-Reiches in hethitischer Sprache, I, MVAG 31 (1926), 95–179; G. M. Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts (2nd ed.; WAW 7; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), 70–71 (no. 11, §§4–8); Kitchen and Lawrence, Treaty, Law and Covenant, 1.506–9 (no. 65, §§4–8); 2.52. 72 With respect to the Sinaitic pact, see Exod 32:11–14; 33:4–6; 34:1–28; Deut 7:6–10:5; 2 Kgs 23:1–3; cf. 2 Kgs 11:17–20. 73 So Suppiluliuma I elects to replace Šuttarna III (of Mitanni) with Šattiwaza, even though Šattiwaza was the son of Suppiluliuma’s former foe Tušratta, E. F. Weidner, Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien: Die Staatsverträge in akkadischer Sprache aus dem Archiv von Boghazköi (Boghazköi-Studien 8; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1923), 2–27; Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 40 (no. 6A, §6 [A obv. 48–58]); Kitchen and Lawrence, Treaty, Law and Covenant, 1.370–71 (no. 55A, §6.48–58), 2.43–44. Within biblical literature, the formulation of the new covenant in Jer 31:31–34 announces the deity’s aid in enabling Israelites to observe “my torah,” that is, the torah of the old covenant. 74 McCarthy (Treaty and Covenant, 131–32) calls attention to the Neo-Assyrian treatment of Ashdod. Sargon replaces Azuri, king of Ashdod (after he revolted against Assyria) with his full brother Aḫimitu, D. D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, II: Historical Records of Assyria from Sargon to the End (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1927), 13–14 (no. 1, §30); K. Lawson Younger, Jr., “Sargon II (2.118): The Annals (2.118A),” COS 2:294 (lines 249–262). Similarly, Neco deposes Jehoahaz and replaces him with Eliakim, another son of Josiah, whom Neco renames as Jehoiakim (2 Kgs 23:31–34). In the case of Nebuchadnezzar replacing the deported Jehoiachin with Zedekiah, the Babylonian king elects to install a Davidide (Jehoiachin’s uncle) from a corollary line (2 Kgs 24:8–17). 75 McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 259–61, 297–98; K. Baltzer, Das Bundesformular (WMANT 4; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1960) [trans. D. E. Green, The Covenant

Contexts, Contents, and Conditions of the Davidic Promises

223

For these and other reasons, it seems plausible that at least some people in the postmonarchic period could hear or read Psalm 132 and ponder the restoration of the Davidic monarchy. Writers working in the Persian Period, such as those responsible for Ezra-Nehemiah, laud the benefits of Persian rule, but even the writers of Ezra-Nehemiah acknowledge voices in the community (e.g., Neh 9:36–37) that find the foreign yoke oppressive. Given the centuries during which Yehud was subject to Neo-Babylonian, Persian, Ptolemaic, and Seleucid occupation, it is not surprising that some Judeans yearned for a return to some form of political autonomy.76 Such a scenario becomes even more likely upon consideration of the literary movement within the psalm. David’s unstinting efforts may have led to the retrieval of the ark and its ascent to Zion, but Zion becomes the basis for Yhwh’s oath to David.77 It is “there,” after all, that Yhwh will “make a horn sprout for David” and “arrange a dominion for my anointed” (v. 17). One institution was instrumental in the founding of another. Now the latter becomes the foundational hope of renewing the former. To be sure, the normal context for the psalm’s use in the postexilic period would be the cultus. But the recitation of Psalm 132 within the temple courts does not entail that all of its hearers understood the poem in purely cultic terms. On the contrary, the use of the psalm may have given rise to certain political aspirations. Given the successful rebuilding and consecration of the sanctuary in Zion, there may well have been Judeans who desired that Yhwh would take the next step and renew his oath to David.78 Formulary in Old Testament, Jewish, and Early Christian Writings (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971)]. 76 Indeed, the renewed interest in the royal Davidic oracle during the Maccabean era would not have occurred unless those disaffected by current conditions conceived it possible that Yhwh could (and would) renew his promises in the future. See further S. Talmon, “The Concepts of māšîaḥ and Messianism in Early Judaism,” in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity—The First Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Christian Origins (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 79–115; Pomykala, Davidic Dynasty, 79–229; J. J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1995), 49–73; idem, “The Royal Psalms and Eschatological Messianism,” in Aux origines des messianismes juifs: actes du colloque international tenu en Sorbonne, à Paris, les 8 et 9 juin 2010 (ed. D. Hamidović; VTSup 158; Leiden: Brill, 2013), 73–89; J. A. Fitzmyer, The One Who is to Come (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 33–133; T. C. Römer, “Les interrogations sur l’avenir de la dynastie davidique aux époques babylonienne et perse et les origines d’une attente messianique dans les textes de la Bible hébraïque,” in Aux origines des messianismes juifs, 47–59. 77 So also recently Barbiero, “Psalm 132,” 252–55; Berlin, “Psalm 132,” 66. 78 Some view vv. 17–18 as a later addition to the text, e.g., C. A. Briggs, and E. G. Briggs, The Book of Psalms, II (ICC; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1907), 472–73. Assuming, for

224 4

Chapter 8

Unconditional yet Renounced: The Davidic Promises in Psalm 89

As with the three other major presentations of the Davidic promises, Psalm 89 exhibits its own particular structure, form, and content. The psalm contains an acclamation of Yhwh’s fidelity (vv. 2–3, ET 1–2), a declaration of Yhwh’s granting of an everlasting throne to David (vv. 4–5, ET 3–4), a celebration of Yhwh’s incomparable status among the gods (vv. 6–8, ET 5–7), a summation of his creative activity (vv. 9–15, ET 8–14), a reflection on Israel’s privileged position (vv. 16–19, ET 15–18), a lengthy description of the Davidic promises (vv. 20–38, ET 19–37), and a lament that bemoans Yhwh’s rejection of his covenant with David (vv. 39–52, ET 38–51). Of the four principal passages dealing with the Davidic promises, Psalm 89 is the most elaborate and presents, initially at least, the most exalted picture of David’s position. The context of the Davidic charter in Psalm 89 differs from that of the three other texts. The prophecy of Nathan in 2 Samuel 7 and 1 Chronicles 17 addresses David’s request to build Yhwh a sanctuary by tying the construction of the temple by one of David’s seed to the establishment of his dynasty. Psalm 132 ties the founding of the dwelling place for Yhwh to David’s relentless search for the appropriate resting place for the ark. But the Jerusalem temple is never mentioned in Psalm 89. The divine pledge to David in Psalm 132 is associated with the elevation of the ark and Yhwh’s election of Zion, while Chronicles speaks of Yhwh’s election of David’s successor, Solomon. Nevertheless, the ark, Zion, and David’s immediate successor do not appear in Psalm 89. The blessings bestowed upon David are set against the background of Yhwh’s peerless status and omnipotence. Psalm 89 associates Yhwh’s promises to David with Yhwh’s incomparability in the heavenly council (vv. 6–8, ET 5–7), Yhwh’s creative achievements (vv. 9–15, ET 8–14), and the security he provides for his people (vv. 16–19, ET 15–18). Instead of referring to Yhwh’s election of Zion or of Solomon, the poem repeatedly calls attention to Yhwh’s election of David (vv. 4, 20, ET 3, 19).

the sake of argument, the validity of this objection, the remaining psalm (vv. 1–16) would still be a positive acclamation of the relationships among Yhwh, the ark, Zion, and David. Even as a possible gloss, these verses are important for the history of interpretation. Since vv. 17–18 speak of a fief for Yhwh’s anointed and the humiliation of David’s enemies, this addition would be expressing a hope for the return of some sort of Davidic rule. For a similar interpretation of the psalm’s ending, see Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalmen 101–150, 627–29 [Psalms 3, 466–67]. Barbiero (“Psalm 132,” 255–58) vigorously argues for the literary unity of the psalm.

Contexts, Contents, and Conditions of the Davidic Promises

225

To be sure, the description of the Davidic promises (vv. 20–38, ET 19–37) recalls that of 2 Samuel 7.79 Like 2 Samuel 7, Psalm 89 combines the depiction of divine adoption with the granting of a sure inheritance (vv. 27, 29–30, ET 26, 28–29). Along with 2 Samuel 7 and 1 Chronicles 17, and over against Psalm 132, the overlord’s promise of dynastic succession is not contingent upon continuing client loyalty (vv. 31–33, ET 30–32). Yhwh declares that David’s descendants are subject to “my torah” (‫ )תורתי‬and to “my judgments” (‫ ;משפטי‬v. 31, ET 30). Nevertheless, as in 2 Samuel 7, the basic dynastic pledge is not contingent upon the good behavior of said descendants (vv. 34–37, ET 33–36). In spite of these parallels with 2 Samuel 7, there are also important differences. The authors of Psalm 89 blend various formulae into their portrayal of Davidic kingship. Divine adoption and the granting of a sure inheritance do not exhaust Yhwh’s provision for his anointed. Yhwh anoints David with holy oil and confers first-born status upon him, “highest among the kings of the earth” (Ps 89:21, 28, ET 20, 27).80 The psalmist upholds Yhwh’s extraordinary status in the heavens to highlight the status of his anointed on earth. The same deity who “confirms” (‫ )כון‬his loyalty in the heavens (v. 3, ET 2) also “confirms” (‫ )כון‬David’s throne “throughout the generations” (‫ ;לדר־ודור‬v. 5, ET 4). God both establishes his faithfulness in the heavens (v. 3, ET 2) and declares that “I shall establish his seed in perpetuity, his throne as the days of the heavens” (v. 30, ET 29). Israel enjoys a privileged position before Yhwh (vv. 16–19, ET 15– 18), but the author singles out David for special treatment: “chosen from the people (‫ )בחור מעם‬I have exalted (one)” (v. 20, ET 19). The God whose “hand is strong,” whose “right hand is exalted” (v. 14, ET 13), pledges that: (22, ET 21) My hand will abide with him, my arm will strengthen him. (23, ET 22) The enemy will not lay claim to him, and the wicked will not humble him. (24, ET 23) I shall crush his foes before him, and strike down those who hate him.

79 N. Sarna, “Psalm 89: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis,” in Biblical and Other Studies (ed. A. Altmann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963), 29–46 [repr. Studies in Biblical Interpretation (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2000), 377–94]. 80 H. Gunkel, Die Psalmen (HAT; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1926), 384–96; Sarna, “Psalm 89,” 38; F.-L. Hossfeld and E. Zenger, Psalmen 51–100 (HThKAT; Freiburg: Herder, 2000), 576–601 [trans. L. M. Maloney, Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51–100 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 399–415]; W. H. Bellinger Jr., “The Psalms, Covenant, and the Persian Period,” in Covenant in the Persian Period (see n. 50), 309–26.

226

Chapter 8 (25, ET 24) My faithfulness and loyalty will be with him, and in my name will his horn be exalted.81

Images of military victory are also present in 2 Samuel 7 and 1 Chronicles 17, but the power conferred upon David in Psalm 89 goes beyond the human variety. The God who tames the sea and crushes the sea monster Rahab (vv. 10–11, ET 9–10), declares concerning David, “I shall set his hand on the sea, and his right hand upon the rivers” (v. 26, ET 25). As for David’s throne, Yhwh declares that it will endure “like the sun before me” (v. 37, ET 36). Hence, the psalm speaks of David’s position in mythical terms.82 In this respect, the royal ideology expressed in Psalm 89 is similar to ideologies of Canaanite kingship, in which the king enjoys a degree of kinship with the divine realm.83 The king, although human and vulnerable, is mythologically paired with the gods.84 Like the king of Hubur in the Kirta legend, the David of Psalm 89 enjoys a critical position in divine-human affairs.85 Associating Yhwh’s handiwork in the heavens and earth with the establishment of David’s sons accentuates the dynastic pledge in Ps 89:20–38 (ET 19–37).86 Precisely because the psalm applies such a high royal theology to David, the conclusion to the psalm, a lament that Yhwh has repudiated his covenant with David (vv. 39ff., ET 38ff.), is all the more poignant. After recounting the Davidic promises at considerable length (vv. 20–38, ET 19–37), the poet complains that Yhwh has spurned, rejected, and become furious with his anointed

81 In Ps 89:23 (ET 22) the MT reads ‫לא יעננו‬, while the LXX, οὐ προσθήσει τοῦ κακῶσαι αὐτόν (= ‫)לא יוסיף לענותו‬, assimilates toward 2 Sam 7:10 (cf. 1 Chr 17:9). I follow the MT (lectio difficilior). 82 J. Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in the Old Testament (UCOP 35; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 25–28. 83 K.-H. Bernhardt, Das Problem der altorientalischen Königsideologie im Alten Testament (VTSup 8; Leiden: Brill, 1961), 67–90; J. Gray, “Sacral Kingship in Ugarit,” Ugaritica VI (1969), 289–302; G. W. Ahlström, Royal Administration and National Religion in Ancient Palestine (SHANE 1; Leiden: Brill, 1982), 1–25. 84 H. Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods: A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Kingship as the Integration of Society and Nature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948), 251–74. 85 KTU 1.16.II:40–44. See further my, “Dissonance and Disaster in the Legend of Kirta,” JAOS 114 (1994), 572–82. 86 E. Lipiński, Le Poème royal du Psaume lxxxix 1–5. 20–38 (CahRB 6; Paris: Gabalda, 1967), 21–81; Mettinger, King and Messiah, 51–55; Halpern, Constitution, 33–38; Veijola, Verheissung, 32–46; Kraus, Psalmen 60–150, 777–94 (ET Psalms 60–150, 197–211); H. U. Steymans, Psalm 89 und der Davidbund: eine strukturale und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (ÖBS 27; Frankfurt a. M.: Lang, 2005).

Contexts, Contents, and Conditions of the Davidic Promises

227

(v. 39, ET 38).87 “You have renounced (piel of ‫ )נאר‬the covenant of your servant, and have profaned (piel of ‫ )חלל‬his crown in the dust’ (v. 40, ET 39). Psalm 89 speaks of the Davidic promises in the most exalted terms, yet it is this psalm, and not the conditional formulation of Psalm 132, that speaks of Yhwh “casting his throne to the ground” (v. 45, ET 44). Indeed, while the first part of the psalm mentions the divine punishment of David’s seed, should they abandon God’s torah (vv. 31–33), the second part of the psalm does not mention any Davidic transgressions. The focus is on the divine. Apparently, even a covenant in which the dynastic pledge is perpetual could be broken. The same God who earlier declared that “I shall not abrogate my covenant, nor change what comes forth from my lips” (v. 35, ET 34) stands accused of doing just that. Whereas the psalm earlier spoke of “the enemy not laying claim to him and the wicked not humbling him” (v. 23, ET 22), the lament speaks of Yhwh “exalting the right hand of his enemies and causing all of his foes to rejoice” (v. 43, ET 42). In spite of depicting God’s rejection of his irrevocable covenant with David in such strong and unambiguous terms, the psalm does not end with the termination of the Davidic covenant. The series of questions (vv. 47–50, ET 46–49), which follow the author’s complaint (vv. 38–46, ET 37–45), implore God to consider the plight of his servant. Implicit in such questions about the duration of Yhwh’s hiding himself and the status of “your former loyalties (‫)חסדיך הראשנים‬, which in your truth you swore to David” (‫;נשבעת לדוד באמונתך‬ vv. 47, 50, ET 46, 49), is the possibility that the period of divine wrath might end and that Yhwh might look again upon his anointed with favor. Hence, the author reminds God of the abuse that his anointed has endured and that the number of days left before his servant’s death are limited (vv. 48–49, 51, ET 47–48, 50). 5 Conclusions It has become customary to refer to the Davidic promises as a covenant and to draw comparisons between this covenant and the Mosaic covenant. In some cases, the two covenants are presented as stark opposites—one obligatory and 87

Coming at the end of Book Three of the Psalter, with the Davidic lament concluding the poem, the positioning of this psalm is significant. See G. H. Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter (SBLDS 76; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985), 116–21; P. W. Flint, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms (STDJ 17; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 141–43; Tiňo, King and Temple in Chronicles, 108–19. For a somewhat different view, see Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalmen 51–100, 594–97, 600–1 [Psalms 2, 405–6, 413]; Bellinger, “Psalms, Covenant, and the Persian Period,” 319–20.

228

Chapter 8

conditional, the other promissory and unconditional. But this neat typology breaks down upon close scrutiny. In dealing with the Davidic covenant one is confronted with four principal passages and many ancillary references.88 If the Davidic covenant ever existed as a legal document, it is no longer extant. None of the principal passages is strictly juridical in nature. The different versions of the royal Davidic charter occur in the setting of historical narratives and poems and do not manifest a consistent, much less a uniform, structure. Each of the writers draws upon a repertoire of traditional imagery and sources—mythological, legal, diplomatic, and, in the case of the Chronicler, scriptural. Each has contextualized, shaped, and defined the Davidic promises in its own distinctive way. That two of the principal passages—2 Samuel 7 and 1 Chronicles 17—are embedded within larger narrative frameworks, which redefine and reapply Nathan’s promises in new historical contexts, further complicates any attempt to speak simply of the Davidic covenant. Given the wide range of evidence, it may be more accurate to speak of Davidic covenants than to speak of a single pact. A fairly common response to this diversity is to regard two of the principal texts—Psalm 132 and 1 Chronicles 17—as later revisions and qualifications of an earlier unconditional decree. There are at least two major problems with this approach. First, scholars have been unable to agree on the dating of the four texts in question. In the case of Psalm 132, for example, proposed dates of composition range from the tenth century to the Maccabean age.89 Given the sharp disagreement, a neat chronological typology becomes more difficult to maintain. One could just as well argue that there were disparate, even competing, notions of the Davidic promises within ancient Israel. Second, the unconditional/conditional typology of the Davidic covenant cannot adequately account for the range of evidence. Despite the late date of Chronicles and its obvious dependence on Samuel-Kings, this narrative 88 Indeed, whether all of the biblical authors who discussed the Davidic promises viewed them as constituting a covenant is doubtful. Of the four extended references to the Davidic promises—2 Samuel 7, Psalms 89 and 132, and 1 Chronicles 17—only Psalm 89 explicitly refers to these promises as a ‫( ברית‬vv. 4, 29, 35, 40, ET 3, 28, 34, 39). In its history of Judah, Chronicles twice uses the term ‫ ברית‬in referring to Nathan’s dynastic oracle (2 Chr 13:5; 21:7). See further my “Battling against Yahweh,” 515–22. 89 M. Dahood dates the psalm to the tenth century, Psalms III: 101–150 (AB 17A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1970), 241. Fretheim also posits an early date, “Ark in Deuteronomy,” 1–14. Kraus (Psalmen 60–150, 1057 [ET Psalms 60–150, 475]) and Gese (“Der Davidsbund,” 113–29) opt for a preexilic date, while Patton (“Psalm 132,” 653–54), Hossfeld and Zenger (Psalms 3, 458–60; Psalmen 101–150, 616–18), Barbiero (“Psalm 132,” 239–40), and Dempsey (“Israel’s Three Covenants,” 336) suggest postexilic composition. Briggs and Briggs date the completion of the psalm to the late Maccabean age, Psalms, II, 468–69.

Contexts, Contents, and Conditions of the Davidic Promises

229

history contains both unconditional and conditional versions of the Davidic promises.90 The primary version of the royal Davidic charter (1 Chr 17:1–17) is, in fact, more unconditional than that of 2 Samuel 7. Unlike 2 Samuel 7 and Psalm 89, which subject David’s descendants to Yhwh’s statutes, 1 Chronicles 17 does not contain any such condition. To confound the typology further, Psalm 132 is both promissory and conditional, while Psalm 89 speaks of Yhwh repudiating the (unconditional) Davidic covenant. The point is not that each of these passages places the same emphasis on human commitment and divine obligation. They clearly do not. Rather, these considerations suggest that the sharp contrast between unconditional and conditional versions of the Davidic covenant has been overdrawn. To this it could be objected that the lament in Psalm 89 and the material in Kings represent later reworkings of a more original version of the Davidic promises found in Nathan’s oracle. There may be some validity to this argument.91 There is legitimate disagreement about the composition of 2 Samuel 792 and the Deuteronomistic historical work, as there is about the redaction of Psalm 89 itself. Yet, as we have seen, Nathan’s oracle is not without conditions. Individual kings face divine chastisement, should they prove disloyal to Yhwh (2 Sam 7:14; Ps 89:31–33, ET 30–32). To be sure, one could take the objection a step further and contend that the codicils of 2 Sam 7:14 and Ps 89:31–33 (ET 30–32) are themselves later additions to the text. One might then be left with a pure unconditional promise, untainted by complication or allusion to divine rules.93 But what would be the rationale and thrust of such a sourcecritical or redaction-critical analysis? There are no compelling literary or historical reasons to dissociate the dynastic pledge from the legal qualification. Both the dynastic promise and the accompanying codicil, for example, are attested together in the client treaties formulated between Tudḫaliya IV(?) 90

This dependence has been questioned by A. G. Auld, who speaks of the Deuteronomist(s) and the Chronicler as drawing upon a common source. Auld commendably raises a series of important questions about the relationship between Samuel-Kings and Chronicles, Kings Without Privilege: David and Moses in the Story of the Bible’s Kings (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994). Nevertheless, I do not believe that his central thesis can be sustained. See my I Chronicles 1–9, 66–68. 91 In the case of Ps 89:20–38, dependence upon the author’s source text of 2 Samuel 7 seems likely, as Sarna (“Psalm 89,” 29–46) argues. 92 A. Caquot and P. de Robert, Les Livres de Samuel (CAT 6; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1994), 421–33; Sergey, “Composition,” 261–79; Rückl, A Sure House, 123–91. 93 So L. Rost, e.g., isolates 2 Sam 7:11b, 16 as representing the oldest layer within the Davidic promises, Die Überlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids (BWANT 3; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1926), 106–7 [trans. M. D. Rutter and D. M. Gunn, with an introduction by E. Ball; The Succession to the Throne of David (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1982), 86–87].

230

Chapter 8

and Kurunta of Tarḫuntašša and between Ḫattušili III of Ḫatti and Ulmi-Tešup of Tarḫuntašša.94 Even assuming, for the sake of argument, the plausibility of a source-critical strategy that would recover a purely unconditional pledge, how much weight should be placed on such a speculation? It would be a mistake, of course, to confuse the earliest reconstructed layer with the most significant and formative rendering of the text.95 Most of the passages dealing with the Davidic promises relate these promises in some fashion to Yhwh’s commandments. Integration was an ancient concern, not simply a modern one. If one wishes to discuss the place of the Davidic covenant within the Hebrew scriptures, as well as its relationship to the Sinaitic covenant, it seems illogical to skirt most of the evidence pertaining to the matter at hand. The question of integration raises a larger issue—that of the relative importance of the Mosaic and Davidic covenants. While it would be ill-advised to trivialize the Sinaitic covenant, it is also ill-advised to marginalize the Davidic promises as engaging only the matter of succession. The modern preoccupation with issues of (un)conditionality and royal continuity obscures the extent to which biblical writers tie the Davidic promises to other major aspects of Israelite life. The issue in each of the four principal passages is not simply succession within the Davidic line, but its relation to other national interests. It is precisely because the writers of Samuel-Kings and Chronicles are interested in more than royal lineage that they employ the Davidic promises as a cipher to structure and evaluate the united monarchy, the division, and the Judahite monarchy. For the same reason, the considerable modern interest in the Davidic promises cannot be wholly explained by recourse to the messianic concerns of early Jewish and Christian interpreters. Rather, the attention given to the Davidic 94 Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi 4.10. See de Vaux, “Le Roi d’Israél,” 119–33; Calderone, Dynastic Oracle, 56–57; G. M. Beckman, “Inheritance and Royal Succession Among the Hittites,” in Kaniššuwar: A Tribute to Hans G. Güterbock on his Seventy-fifth Birthday (ed. H. A. Hoffner and G. M. Beckman; AS 23; Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1986), 19–20; idem, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 113–14 (no. 18C, §19 [ii 84–94]; §20 [ii 95–iii 20]); 104 (no. 18b, §1 [obv. 7–14]); Kitchen and Lawrence, Treaty, Law and Covenant, 1.620–21 (no. 73, §19 [ii 84– 94]; §20 [ii 95–iii 20]); 2.61–62; 1.632–35 (no. 74, §2 [4–14]); 2.62–64. Ulmi-Tešup was evidently the successor to Kurunta, rather than the same person as Kurunta (pace Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 102). On this matter, see T. P. J. van den Hout, Der Ulmitešub-Vertrag: Eine prosopographische Untersuchung (Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten 38; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1995), 11–19; Kitchen and Lawrence, Treaty, Law and Covenant, 2.63. 95 Such a reconstruction could also mislead scholars into placing undue weight upon a hypothetical oracle as empirical evidence by which to rewrite the history of Israelite religion.

Contexts, Contents, and Conditions of the Davidic Promises

231

promises is best explained by the connections between these promises and broader themes in Israelite life—the achievement of rest for the people of Israel, the ritual procession of the ark to its permanent home, the election of Zion, divine incomparability, Yhwh’s handiwork in the heavens, victory in war, power over nature, the establishment of the Jerusalem temple, the relation of northern Israel to southern Israel, the survival of the southern kingdom, political autonomy, and so forth. The rich associations between the royal Davidic charter and Israelite life lend gravity to the Davidic legacy. Indeed, these associations may actually shed some light on why early interpreters took such an interest in the figure of David. The diversity of messianic expectations in early Judaism and Christianity may be attributed, at least in part, to the diversity of associations within the Hebrew Bible itself.

Chapter 9

Blood, Toil, and Treasure: Royal (Mis)appropriations in Samuel-Kings and Chronicles Among the imperial archives of the Neo-Assyrian palaces at Nineveh are detailed records, documenting the receipt, inventory, and disbursement of precious metals and semi-precious stones.1 That the range of items on these lists is rather restricted reflects the fact that precious metals and stones served as the “regular currency of elite exchange” between the royal palace and its clients both inside and outside the state.2 The meticulous records scribes kept of silver, gold, and semi-precious stones, perhaps under direct royal supervision, indicate the great value that these objects held for the crown. Aside from palaces, the other major repositories of wealth in ancient Nineveh were temples. Indeed, some Neo-Assyrian palace records register disbursements of a variety of gold and silver objects to “the gods.”3 In serving as great storehouses of wealth, the palaces and temples of Nineveh were, of course, hardly unique. In the ancient Near East, palace and temple complexes served as the homes for some of the state’s most valuable treasures.4 In this respect, ancient temples were important not only as places of worship, but also as banks. Considering the high value of the precious items located in ancient Near Eastern temples and palaces, it comes as no great surprise that these same structures attracted the attention of foreign invaders. The authors of ancient Near Eastern royal inscriptions often take delight in promoting the plunder gained through the defeat and pillaging of their nation’s foes. For example, in the third campaign of Šamšī-Adad V against

1 F. M. Fales and J. N. Postgate, Imperial Administrative Records I: Palace and Temple Administration (SAA 7; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1992). 2 Fales and Postgate, Imperial Administrative Records, xxiv. 3 Fales and Postgate, Imperial Administrative Records, §§62, 81. 4 Including divine images, which could become objects of interest to foreign raiders. See recently, L. S. Fried, Ezra: A Critical Commentary (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2015), 28–30.

©  GARY N. KNOPPERS (†), Christl M. Maier and H. G. M. Williamson, 2021 |  doi:10.1163/9789004444898_011

ROYAL ( MIS ) APPROPRIATIONS IN SAMUEL-KINGS AND CHRONICLES

233

Nairi and the Medes, Šamšī-Adad claims to have captured the fortified city of Uraš: I surrounded that city, captured it, (and) with the blood of their warriors I dyed their city red like red wool. I massacred six thousand of them. I captured Pirisati their king, together with twelve hundred of his fighting men. I carried off from them countless quantities of booty, possessions, property, oxen, sheep, horses, utensils of silver (and gold), (and) pieces of bronze.5

But not all plunder was given up through sheer force. On some occasions, kings surrendered their wealth voluntarily. Confronted with an invasion (or the real prospect thereof) by a powerful foreign potentate, a native monarch might choose to empty his treasuries and dispatch their contents in the hope that his tribute would convince the invader to desist from launching a hostile takeover of his domain. Or, if a minor monarch was faced with a foreign invasion, he might appeal to a third party to deliver him.6 In this scenario, the minor monarch would be expected to surrender tribute to the third party and become his client.7 Hence, when Niqmaddu II of Ugarit was confronted with an attack by hostile neighbors, he journeyed to Šuppiluliuma of Ḫatti, prostrated himself before the Great King, and agreed to pay tribute.8 The ancient interest in how state wealth is gained, managed, and lost sheds light on why the history of the treasuries (‫)אוצרות‬, whether of temple or palace,

5 A. K. Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC, I (858–745 BC) (Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia: Assyrian Rulers 3; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996), A.O.103.1.iii.11–15 (p. 185). 6 Such appeals for military intervention were not uncommon in ancient Near Eastern history: S. B. Parker, Stories in Scripture and Inscriptions: Comparative Studies on Narratives in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions and the Hebrew Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 76–104, esp. 89–94. 7 This assumes, of course, that the minor monarch was not already a client to the king. If this were the case, the client would have been submitting tribute regularly. Hence, in the El Amarna letters, Labʾayu defends himself to his Egyptian patron: “I am a loyal servant of the king. I am not a rebel or negligent (lā arnāku u lā ḫatāku). Neither do I withhold my tribute” (u lā akalli bilātiya; EA 254.10–13). See W. L. Moran, The El Amarna Letters (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992), 306–7. 8 RS 12.227.13–16, 44–46; 17.340:20–24a; 17.340.rev.:13–14; KTU 3.1:10–12; G. N. Knoppers, “Treaty, Tribute List, or Diplomatic Letter?: KTU 3.1 Re-examined,” BASOR 289 (1993), 81–94.

234

Chapter 9

is a consistent concern of the Deuteronomists9 and the Chronicler.10 These writers take an interest in how monarchs amass wealth or lose it. Both works chart the history of the treasuries during the heyday of the united monarchy, the repeated despoliations in the era of the dual monarchies, and the disaster of the Neo-Babylonian invasions. What is particularly revealing in comparing these two writings is the extent to which the Chronistic portrait of the treasuries—their distribution and history—diverges markedly from that of the Deuteronomistic work. Employing a variety of literary techniques, such as omission, addition, revision, and recontextualization, Chronicles generates a substantially different presentation from that of Samuel-Kings.11 Much more so than its Vorlage, Chronicles closely integrates royal actions toward palace and temple treasuries into its presentation of particular periods and reigns. This achievement is all the more remarkable, because Chronicles is heavily indebted to Samuel-Kings for much of the information it includes about endowments, tribute payments, and disbursements. But the interest of this essay 9 1 Kgs 7:51; 14:26; 15:18–20; 2 Kgs 12:18–19; 14:14; 16:8–9; 18:14–16; 20:13–15; 24:13; 25:8–10, 13–17. By the Deuteronomists, I basically mean the Josianic Deuteronomist (Dtr1), who edited Samuel-Kings, and the later Deuteronomist(s) (Dtr2), who finished the basic work sometime in the Neo-Babylonian period or later. To the works of these writers in Kings, other mostly smaller additions were made. For the purposes of this essay, I am concentrating on the edition of the Deuteronomistic work that was likely available to the writer in the late Persian/early Hellenistic period. The actual history of composition of this extensive work is likely to have been rather involved. See provisionally my Two Nations Under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies (HSM 52–53; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993–1994), 1.17–56; and more recently the extensive treatments of T. C. Römer and A. de Pury, “L’historiographie deutéronomiste (HD): Histoire de la recherche et enjeux du débat,” in Israël construit son histoire: L’historiographie deutéronomiste à la lumière des recherches récentes (ed. A. de Pury, T. C. Römer, and J.-D. Macchi; MdB 34; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1996), 9–120 [trans. Israel Constructs its History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research (JSOTSup 306; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000), 24–141]; T. C. Römer, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical and Literary Introduction (London: T&T Clark, 2005). On the text of Kings employed by the Chronicler, see also fn. 80 below. 10 1 Chr 9:26; 26:20–26; 27:25–28; 28:12; 29:8; 2 Chr 5:1; 8:15; 11:11; 12:9; 16:2, 4; 25:24; 32:27–29; 36:7, 10, 17–19. I am using “the Chronicler” to refer to the author(s) of the base text of 1 and 2 Chronicles, G. N. Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9 (AB 12; New York: Doubleday/New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), 73–101 (with further references). 11 I. Kalimi provides extensive discussions of the compositional techniques appearing in the work, Zur Geschichtsschreibung des Chronisten (BZAW 226; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994); idem, An Ancient Israelite Historian: Studies in the Chronicler, His Time, Place and Writing (SSN 46; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2005); idem, The Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History in Chronicles (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005). See also the important earlier treatment of T. Willi, Die Chronik als Auslegung (FRLANT 106; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972), 111–75.

ROYAL ( MIS ) APPROPRIATIONS IN SAMUEL-KINGS AND CHRONICLES

235

is neither limited to a comparison between Samuel-Kings and Chronicles nor to an examination of how the latter work employs certain modes of composition. My study is also interested in how the fate of the nation’s wealth is tied to larger themes of cultic centralization, state (de)formation, corporate identity, and future hope in both literary works. 1

The Deuteronomistic Depiction of the Monarchy

In Samuel-Kings David has little or no role to play vis-à-vis the national treasuries. To be sure, Solomon’s endowment of the temple is made possible, in part, by David’s beneficence (2 Sam 8:10–13), but the Deuteronomistic treatment of David does not contain any explicit reference to endowments for the national coffers. In Samuel-Kings, the reign of Solomon, and not that of David, features unrivaled prosperity. There is, however, a marked contrast between the reign of Solomon and the period of the dual monarchies. The former is portrayed as a time of unprecedented prosperity, peace, and prestige, while the latter is largely portrayed as a time of decline.12 In the former, wealth is accumulated at a dizzying pace and tribute flows into Jerusalem. In the latter, wealth in the form of tribute and plunder repeatedly leaves Jerusalem for other lands. This process of decline continues until the temple itself is ransacked and destroyed in the second Babylonian invasion of 586 BCE. 1.1 Solomon In the first period of Solomon’s reign, the temple and palace are built (1 Kings 6–7), the temple is dedicated (1 Kings 8), and various potentates send their tribute to Jerusalem (1 Kgs 10:1–29).13 Solomon appears as an extraordinarily wealthy king. From Hiram of Tyre, Solomon accepts one hundred and twenty talents of gold as his tribute (1 Kgs 9:14) and from the Queen of Sheba, Solomon receives one hundred and twenty talents of gold, as well as large quantities of spices and precious stones (1 Kgs 10:10). In dispatching tribute 12

My focus in this essay is on wealth and the national treasuries. Attention to other considerations, such as the regnal evaluations of certain kings, such as Asa, Jehoshaphat, Joash, Amaziah, and Hezekiah, yields a more temperate view of Judahite history during much of the divided monarchy. See D. Glatt-Gilad, “Regnal Formulae as a Historiographic Device in the Book of Chronicles,” RB 108 (2001), 184–209. 13 V. A. Hurowitz, “Solomon’s Golden Vessels (I Kings 7:48–50) and the Cult of the First Temple,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom (ed. D. P. Wright et al.; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 151–64.

236

Chapter 9

to Israel’s king, Hiram and the Queen of Sheba are by no means alone: “All the kings of the earth sought the face of Solomon … each bringing his tribute (‫—)המה מבאים איש מנחתו‬articles of silver, articles of gold, robes, weapons, spices, horses, and mules—according to the amount due each year” (1 Kgs 10:24–25).14 Successful trade practices contribute to the peaceable king’s affluence. Hiram’s and Solomon’s joint trading expedition nets the Israelite monarch the enormous sum of four hundred and twenty talents of gold from Ophir (1 Kgs 9:26–28).15 Aside from the wealth derived through trade with other nations, Solomon receives six hundred and sixty-six talents of gold annually (1 Kgs 10:14). When the bullion gained through trade is coupled with the income gained through tribute, the result is a period of untrammeled prosperity. In Solomon’s fabled reign: “All of the king’s drinking cups were gold and all the articles in the Lebanon Forest Palace were of pure gold. Silver did not count for anything in the days of Solomon.”16 Fabulous wealth, in turn, enables Solomon to furnish the new palace and temple lavishly. Golden shields and bucklers are deposited into the Lebanon Forest House (1 Kgs 10:15–16). An incomparable ivory throne, overlaid with gold, is fashioned for royal use (1 Kgs 10:18–19). This age of endowments, tribute, and riches is unique in the story of the Israelites within their land (Joshua-Kings). The wealth of nations flows toward Israel’s new center and Jerusalem becomes a great beneficiary of national solidarity, royal prosperity, and international peace. No other time in Israel’s history approximates the affluence depicted in the first phase of Solomon’s reign.17 Nor is this splendor an accidental motif. Solomon’s peerless status, confirmed in the summary of 1 Kgs 10:23, “and King Solomon was greater than all the other kings of the earth in riches and in wisdom” (‫ויגדל המלך ׁשלמה מכל מלכי‬ ‫)הארץ לעׁשר ולחכמה‬, marks the realization of the divine promise of matchless wisdom, wealth, and glory given to Solomon at Gibeon in the theophany that marks the beginning of his reign (1 Kgs 3:4–14).18 14 In 1 Kgs 10:24 I read ‫ כל מלכי הארץ‬with the LXX, the Syriac, and MT 2 Chr 9:23 (lectio facilior). The MT has ‫כל־הארץ‬. In 1 Kgs 10:25 I read with the MT, ‫כלי כסף וכלי זהב‬. The LXX, which reads ‫ כלי זהב‬has lost ‫ כסף וכלי‬through haplography (homoioteleuton). 15 The LXXB presents a figure of 120, while MT 2 Chr 8:18 presents a figure of 450. I read with the MT (maximum variation). The reading of the LXXB assimilates to the figure in 1 Kgs 9:14 and 10:10. 16 At the beginning of 1 Kgs 10:21, I read with the LXX. The MT reads ‫ שלמה‬after ‫( המלך‬an explicating plus) and omits by haplography (homoioteleuton) ‫ וכירות זהב‬following ‫זהב‬. Later in 1 Kgs 10:21, I am reading with MT 2 Chr 9:20 (… ‫ )אין כסף נחשב‬over against MT Kings (… ‫)אין כסף לא נחשב‬. 17 1 Kgs 3:4–14; 10:23–24; G. N. Knoppers, “ ‘There was None like Him’: Incomparability in the Books of Kings,” CBQ 54 (1992), 411–17. 18 Knoppers, Two Nations Under God, 1.118–34.

ROYAL ( MIS ) APPROPRIATIONS IN SAMUEL-KINGS AND CHRONICLES

237

1.2 The Dual Monarchies Israel’s relatively brief time of incomparable bounty comes to an abrupt end with the advent of the divided monarchy (1 Kgs 11:1–12:20).19 In its portrayal of Judahite history, the Deuteronomistic work mentions a series of temple and palace plunderings by a variety of monarchs.20 If, economically speaking, the first period of Solomon’s reign marks a time of unparalleled wealth and glory, the dual monarchies mark a time of repeated exploitation and looting.21 The raids are carried out by foreign, Israelite, and domestic kings. The first foreign monarch to ravish the treasuries is Shishak, who expropriates bullion from the palace and temple storehouses during the reign of Rehoboam (1 Kgs 14:26).22 He “took everything; he also took all of the golden shields that Solomon had made” (1 Kgs 14:26).23 In addition to this incursion by the Egyptian monarch, King Jehoash of Israel plunders the Jerusalem treasuries during the reign of Amaziah (2 Kgs 14:14). As with Shishak’s campaign, this pillaging occurs in the context of an invasion of Judah. The writing also speaks of southern kings pillaging their own storehouses to ward off real or potential foreign attacks. Asa does this by sending booty gained by seizing “all the silver and the gold remaining in the treasuries of the house of Yhwh and the treasuries of the royal palace” and dispatching them to Ben-hadad of Damascus to induce the Aramean king to counter an attack against Judah led by King Baasha of Israel (1 Kgs 15:18). Joash takes a more direct approach. He seizes all of the dedicated gifts (‫ )כל־הקדשים‬of his predecessors—Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, and Ahaziah—along with the gold found in the palace and temple treasuries and sends them all to the Aramean king Hazael to convince him to desist from launching a campaign against Jerusalem (2 Kgs 12:18–19). Ahaz employs a similar strategy to that successfully deployed by Asa. He sends the silver and gold from the palace and temple repositories to Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria as a bribe (‫ )שחד‬to ward off a joint attack by Rezin of Aram and Pekah of Israel (2 Kgs 16:8).

19 Knoppers, Two Nations Under God, 1.135–223. 20 M. Delcor, “Le trésor de la maison de Yahweh des origines à l’exil,” VT 12 (1962), 353–77; E. T. Mullen, “Crime and Punishment: The Sins of the King and the Despoliation of the Treasuries,” CBQ 54 (1992), 231–48; N. Na’aman, “The Deuteronomist and Voluntary Servitude to Foreign Powers,” JSOT 65 (1995), 37–53 [repr. in his Ancient Israel’s History and Historiography: The First Temple Period (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 259–73]. 21 All of the treasury raids in Kings (and Chronicles) have to do with Jerusalem. There are no accounts of raids on the treasuries of the northern capitals. 22 Mullen, “Crime and Punishment,” 236–37. 23 The author also mentions that Rehoboam replaced Solomon’s golden shields, which were delivered as booty to Shishak, with bronze shields (1 Kgs 14:27).

238

Chapter 9

One of Judah’s two great reformer kings—Hezekiah—also exploits the temple and palace treasuries as part of a larger defensive strategy. Faced with a massive Assyrian invasion, which had devastated all of Judah’s fortified towns, Hezekiah sends Sennacherib three hundred thousand talents of silver and thirty talents of gold (2 Kgs 18:13–14). He also delivers all of the silver found in the temple and palace storehouses to Sennacherib (2 Kgs 18:15). Finally, Hezekiah’s tribute includes bullion gained by stripping the temple doors and posts, which Hezekiah himself had plated (2 Kgs 18:16). Hezekiah’s raids on his own state resources are, therefore, comprehensive. There is one other Hezekian incident that involves the national coffers; the king is faulted for showing off his treasuries to the Babylonian embassies of Merodach-baladan (2 Kgs 20:13–15).24 The Deuteronomistic commentary stigmatizes this international diplomatic exchange by linking it to a future Babylonian deportation (2 Kgs 20:14–18).25 To summarize: the dual monarchies may be characterized as a time in which tribute, in the form of silver and gold, leaves Jerusalem for other destinations. Rather than attracting wealth from monarchs in other lands to enhance their own positions, Judah’s kings dispatch their nation’s wealth to ward off invasions and potential threats. Of all the Judahite kings, only two institute major temple renovations: Joash (2 Kgs 12:5–17) and Josiah (2 Kgs 22:3–8). Of all Judah’s monarchs only one, Asa, actually makes a donation of dedicated gifts (those of his father) to the temple, presumably to the temple treasuries (1 Kgs 15:15).26 But this same king soon takes “all of the silver and gold left (‫ )ויקח אסא את־כל־הכסף והזהב הנותרים‬in the temple and palace treasuries” and dispatches them to Ben-hadad as a treaty incentive (1 Kgs 15:18). There is some debate as to what to make of this pattern of Judahite kings dispatching tribute to other kings. According to many commentators, royal raids on the national treasuries are an integral element in the evaluation of a king’s reign. Dispatching bullion to a foreign state is purportedly an offense deserving of divine retribution.27 Yet, in spite of its popularity, there is some reason to doubt the validity of this proposition. If dispatching valuables in the 24 M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings (AB 11; New York: Doubleday, 1988), 258–63. 25 Since this essay is largely focused on the final shape of the Deuteronomistic edition of Kings, the much debated composition of this oracle need not detain us. See N. Na’aman, “Hezekiah and the Kings of Assyria,” TA 21 (1994), 235–54 [repr. in his Ancient Israel and its Neighbors: Interaction and Counteraction (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 98–117]. 26 For secondary references, see my Two Nations Under God, 2.125–35. 27 Mullen, “Crime and Punishment,” 235; cf. E. Würthwein, Die Bücher der Könige: 1 Könige 1–16 (ATD 11/1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977), 187–91; idem, Die Bücher der Könige: 1 Könige 17–2 Könige 25 (ATD 11/2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 352–58, 370–71, 421–22; Parker, Stories in Scripture, 89–99.

ROYAL ( MIS ) APPROPRIATIONS IN SAMUEL-KINGS AND CHRONICLES

239

royal and temple storehouses to foreign states was an essential component of assessing royal conduct in Kings, the verdict would have to tilt toward the complimentary. Four out of six kings associated with treasury raids are rated positively—Asa (1 Kgs 15:11–14), Joash (2 Kgs 12:3–4), Amaziah (2 Kgs 14:3–4), and Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:3–6). Moreover, the one king—Hezekiah—who is associated with two negative treasury incidents happens to be one of the most highly esteemed monarchs in the Deuteronomistic portrayal of Judahite history (2 Kgs 18:3–6). Only Josiah is accorded higher praise (2 Kgs 22:22; 23:25). How could this be? In the international world of Realpolitik, it may be argued that the royal exploitation of the treasuries plays a strategic function in relieving pressure on Judah and its capital (e.g., 2 Kgs 12:19). In times of international crises, minor potentates, such as those that governed Jerusalem, found themselves having to make extremely difficult choices. Negotiating for the survival of their small states in a world dominated by much larger states, Judah’s kings likely considered deploying the contents of their palace and temple treasuries as a necessary measure to prevent destruction to state infrastructure and terrible loss of life. The cost in national treasures was worth the savings in blood and toil. To be sure, losing the bullion stored in these institutions would impoverish the state and there was no guarantee that the diplomatic gambits undertaken were destined to succeed, but hard calculations suggested that the risks were sometimes worth taking. Defenders of such a pragmatic policy could point to the longevity of the Davidic dynasty’s reign in Jerusalem as proof that the practice had enabled the regime to survive over the centuries, when other states, including the northern Israelite monarchy, had lost their independence altogether. Hence, although hardly any writers in the ancient world would look upon despoliations of their national treasuries as a welcome development, some recognized that in times of national emergencies, drastic measures were needed to bolster the strategic position of their armed forces and national leaders. One is reminded of the comment by Thucydides (in reference to the preparations of Pericles) that the considerable sums of money stored in the temples could be used to support the war effort and that even the gold on the statue of Athena in the Parthenon, weighing forty talents, could be easily removed for this purpose.28 In a national emergency, why desperately try to hold on to public resources if those resources could be productively marshalled to stave 28 Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War (transl. R. Warner; New York: Penguin, 1954), 2.13.5. Pericles pointed out, however, that if they removed the gold on the statue of Athena, they would need to restore it in the same (or greater) quantity after the successful prosecution of the war.

240

Chapter 9

off tremendous loss of life, a humiliating national defeat, and the imposition of hostile rule by one’s adversaries? These considerations lead to two possible conclusions: either the Deuteronomist was inclined to view treasury raids as a positive factor in rating monarchs or such raids did not inform his regnal evaluations. There is, in my judgment, much to be said for the second conclusion. The Deuteronomistic judgments of northern and southern kings center on whether kings support the centralization of the Yahwistic cultus in Jerusalem (Kultuseinheit) and whether they eliminate other cults (Kultusreinheit).29 One could argue, however, with some legitimacy that the repeated pattern of treasury lootings contributes to a sense of decline in the Deuteronomistic depiction of the Judahite monarchy. After the glorious age of Solomon, good news about the national coffers is hard to come by. Nevertheless, whether a given monarch raided the temple and palace treasuries is not a productive theological concern in evaluating the record of that monarch. 1.3 The Babylonian Conquests In his narration of Judah’s final years, a later editor of Kings (Dtr2) draws a number of parallels between the age of Solomon and that of Judah’s final decline. Whereas the depiction of temple construction, furnishing, and decoration (1 Kings 6–7) contains detailed coverage devoted to the building and its fixtures, the depiction of the Babylonian invasions (2 Kings 24–25) contains detailed coverage devoted to their destruction and plunder. While it is true that the preexilic Deuteronomist (Dtr1) mentions both foreign and domestic kings despoiling the temple treasuries, the later Deuteronomistic editor (Dtr2) consistently highlights the connection with Solomon.30 A pessimistic outcome to the fate of Judah, Jerusalem, and the central sanctuary is forecast in the divine commentary, which appears as an epilogue to Josiah’s reign.31 In blaming Manasseh for the Babylonian exile, Yhwh 29 H-.D. Hoffmann, Reform und Reformen: Untersuchungen zu einem Grundthema der deuteronomistischen Geschichtsschreibung (ATANT 66; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1980); B. Halpern, The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), 207–40; Knoppers, Two Nations, 2.232–54; Römer, So-Called Deuteronomistic History, 97–104, 149–64. 30 1 Kings 6–7; 2 Kgs 24:13; 25:8–10, 13–17. See also the more general discussions of Delcor, “Le trésor de la maison de Yahweh,” 358–77; and Mullen, “Crime and Punishment,” 247–48. 31 Huldah’s first oracle (2 Kgs 22:16–17) also mentions Yhwh’s bringing evil against “this place” (‫)המקום הזה‬. Scholars disagree whether this refers to the temple in particular or to Jerusalem in general, Knoppers, Two Nations Under God, 2.140–57. On the sins of Manasseh, see B. Halpern, “Why Manasseh is Blamed for the Babylonian Exile: The Evolution of a Biblical Tradition,” VT 48 (1998), 473–514.

ROYAL ( MIS ) APPROPRIATIONS IN SAMUEL-KINGS AND CHRONICLES

241

announces: “I shall even turn my face away from Judah as I turned away from Israel and I shall reject (‫ )ומאסתי‬this city, Jerusalem, which I chose (‫ )בחרתי‬and the house of which I said, ‘my name shall be there’” (‫ ;יהיה שמי שם‬2 Kgs 23:27).32 The intriguing declaration of divine judgment alludes to a number of earlier passages, among them Solomon’s first temple blessing (1 Kgs 8:16).33 Yhwh’s speech recalls the traditum announcing the choice of Jerusalem for the presence of Yhwh’s name (‫ ;להיות שמי שם‬1 Kgs 8:16), but only to rescind it.34 The final humiliations of Judah, Jerusalem, and the temple begin with Jehoiachin’s surrender to Nebuchadnezzar II in 598 BCE (2 Kgs 24:12). In his judgment oracle to Hezekiah, Isaiah predicted that everything in the royal palace would be carried off to Babylon (2 Kgs 20:17–18).35 Nebuchadnezzar’s spoils are, however, even more extensive than Isaiah forecast.36 The Babylonian king not only removes treasures (‫ )אוצרות‬from the palace, but he also removes all of the treasures (‫ )אוצרות‬from the temple and strips all of the golden utensils that

32

Conspicuously absent from this series of rejections is an explicit rejection of the Davidic house itself. This topic is best left to another study. 33 MT 1 Kgs 8:16 has suffered a textual disturbance. The reading of 2 Chr 6:5–6, partially attested by LXX 1 Kgs 8:16, is shared by 4QKgsa. MT 1 Kgs 8:16 lacks ‫לא־בחרתי בעיר מכל‬ ‫שבטי ישראל לבנות בית להיות שמי שם‬, because of a haplography (homoioteleuton from ‫ להיות שמי שם‬to ‫)להיות שמי שם‬. See further J. Trebolle Barrera, “4QKgs,” Qumran Cave 4. Vol. 9: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings (ed. E. C. Ulrich et al.; DJD 14; Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 177. 34 1 Kgs 8:16 (//2 Chr 6:5), 29 (cf. 2 Chr 7:16) are the only other texts in the Deuteronomistic edition of Kings featuring a combination of the verb ‫ היה‬and the name (‫ )שם‬applied to the temple. 2 Chr 6:6 and 33:4 refer to Jerusalem, T. N. D. Mettinger, The Dethronement of Sebaoth: Studies in the Shem and Kabod Theologies (ConBOT 18; Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1982), 39. The divine declaration about Jerusalem’s divine election, cited in 1 Kgs 8:16, is critical to the Deuteronomistic argument that Jerusalem was the “place” that Yhwh “will choose” (‫)יבחר‬, as spoken of often in MT Deuteronomy. See S. L. Richter, The Deuteronomistic History and the Name Theology (BZAW 318; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002); B. D. Giffone, “According to Which ‘Law of Moses’? Cult Centralization in Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles,” VT 67 (2017), 1–16. Other texts referring to Yhwh’s election of Jerusalem include 1 Kgs 8:44, 48; 11:13, 32, 36 [MT]; 14:21; 2 Kgs 21:7. 35 R. E. Clements convincingly argues that Isaiah’s speech refers not to the Babylonian exile of 586 BCE, but to the despoliation of Jerusalem and the exile of some Davidides in 598– 587 BCE, Isaiah and the Deliverance of Jerusalem (JSOTSup 13; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980), 64–69. For a similar argument, see H. Tadmor and M. Cogan, “Hezekiah’s Fourteenth Year: The King’s Illness and the Babylonian Embassy,” ErIsr 16 (1982), 198–201; Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, 260–63. 36 According to the Babylonian version of these events, Nebuchadnezzar simply took “vast tribute” and brought it to Babylon, A. K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (Texts from Cuneiform Sources 5; Locust Valley, NY: Augustin, 1975), 102 (Chron. 5.13).

242

Chapter 9

King Solomon of Israel made (‫)ויקצץ את־כל־כלי הזהב אשר עשה שלמה מלך־ישראל‬ in the temple (‫ )היכל‬of Yhwh (2 Kgs 24:13).37 The long history of despoliations ends with the temple’s destruction during the tenure of Zedekiah. Nebuzaradan, chief guard of Nebuchadnezzar, burns down and destroys the sanctuary (2 Kgs 25:8–10). Both of Nebuchadnezzar’s invasions involve deportations that depopulate the land (2 Kgs 24:10–12, 14–17; 25:1–7, 11–12, 18–21).38 The configuration of destruction lends a sense of finality to the coverage of the national treasuries. The editorial concern is typological. Solomon carefully prepares and implements the construction of the long-awaited central sanctuary, while in the Babylonian invasion of 598 BCE the demolition of that sanctuary begins. All that Solomon built is dismantled, pilfered, or destroyed in the Babylonian conquests of 598 and 586 BCE. The studied parallel with the golden age of temple construction is also evident in the detailed description of the temple’s doom (2 Kgs 25:9, 13–17). García López points to an “undeniable” parallel between 1 Kgs 3:1 and 2 Kgs 25:9a, 10.39 In the portrayal of Solomon’s reign, the author refers to Solomon’s construction of his palace (‫)ביתו‬, the temple of Yhwh (‫)בית יהוה‬, and the wall surrounding Jerusalem (‫)חומת ירושלם סביב‬. Aside from a reference to Solomon’s corvée to build them (1 Kgs 9:15), these three public works projects are not mentioned together again until the narration of their destruction. Nebuzaradan burns the temple of Yhwh (‫)בית־יהוה‬, the royal palace (‫)בית המלך‬, all the houses of Jerusalem, and every great house, while the entire Chaldean army tears down the wall surrounding Jerusalem (‫)חומת ירושלם סביב‬. The parallel between the period of Solomon and the period of destruction is followed by another dealing with temple paraphernalia (2 Kgs 25:13– 17; cf. 1 Kgs 7:15–26).40 The writing documents how the Chaldeans break up the bronze columns, the bronze stands, and the bronze tank, which Solomon .

37 The last assertion conflicts with the notice in 1 Kgs 14:25–26. 38 O. Lipschits, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem: Judah under Babylonian Rule (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005). The book of Kings also narrates a dislocation to Egypt (2 Kgs 25:22– 26), which is also connected to the larger theme of divine judgment. This voluntary relocation to Egypt is associated with the realization of a Deuteronomic curse, R. E. Friedman, “From Egypt to Egypt: Dtr1 and Dtr2,” in Traditions in Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith: Essays Presented to Frank Moore Cross, Jr. (ed B. Halpern and J. D. Levenson; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981), 167–92. 39 F. García López, “Construction et destruction de Jérusalem: Histoire et prophétie dans les cadres rédactionnels des livres des rois,” RB 94 (1987), 226–32. 40 The parallels with 1 Kgs 7:15–26 are not always exact. The reason for the discrepancies is unclear, because the relationships among the textual witnesses to 1 Kings 7 and 2 Kings 25 are complex: J. Trebolle Barrera, Salomón y Jeroboán: Historia de la recensión y redacción de 1 Reyes 2–12, 14 (Institución San Jeronimo 10; Valencia: Investigación Biblica, 1980), 307–20.

ROYAL ( MIS ) APPROPRIATIONS IN SAMUEL-KINGS AND CHRONICLES

243

made for the house of Yhwh (1 Kgs 7:15–26).41 In other words, Kings portrays the actual obliteration of many temple artifacts.42 The plunder, stripping, and destruction of sacred realia in the Babylonian exile of 586 BCE, like their manufacture in the time of Solomon, is definitive. Having rifled the bronze from various temple artifacts, the Chaldeans transport the bullion to Babylon (2 Kgs 25:13, 16–17).40 The Chaldeans also plunder sundry bronze objects (2 Kgs 25:14), while the chief of the guards takes “whatever was of gold and whatever was of silver” (2 Kgs 25:16). The fall of the temple is complete.43 The portrayal of the palace and temple treasuries in the final years of the Davidic state contributes to (late) Deuteronomistic themes of decline and disintegration in the story of the Judahite monarchy. The correspondences developed between the formative age of temple construction (1 Kgs 3:1; 6:1–9:9) and the disgrace of temple destruction lend closure to the larger depiction of Judahite history. If the Solomonic age establishes Jerusalem’s major national institutions, the Neo-Babylonian age humiliates them. The last chapters of Kings expose the once-exalted institutions of palace and temple as vulnerable and fallible institutions. Yet, one may inquire further about what the act of Deuteronomistic writing comes to. Why depict the crushing losses the Davidic monarchy suffered in its final decades in such detail? The same literary work that documents the processing of some temple furnishings into bullion for plunder and the dislocation of other furnishings to a far-away imperial center also makes its own contributions to that temple’s legacy by itemizing what those furnishings were in the first place. In this respect, the Deuteronomistic inventory of palatial and sanctuary furnishings ensures that not everything is lost. Most treasures are pillaged or destroyed and some dislocated to Babylon, but what once existed in Judah’s capital city continues to exist in a composition written about that city’s history. Moreover, the manner by which the literary work blames Manasseh (2 Kgs 21:1–18; 23:26–27; 24:3–4) and the people themselves (1 Kgs 9:6–9; 2 Kgs 17:13, 19–20; 24:20) for Judah’s demise paradoxically validates the statutes 41 J. Van Seters believes that the information about temple plunder may have been derived from records of temple income and disbursements, In Search of History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), 300–1. If so, those scribal records survived the temple’s destruction. 42 The situation differs in many interesting ways in Jeremiah (cp. 2 Kgs 24:13–14 with Jer 27:19–22 and 2 Kgs 25:13–17 with Jer 52:17–23), but the topic is too large to discuss here. See W. L. Holladay, Jeremiah 2 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 114–23, 437–44; W. McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah (2 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986–1996), 2.693–4, 703–4, 1368–76. 43 As threatened in the second theophany to Solomon (1 Kgs 9:8–9).

244

Chapter 9

by which Israel and its institutions are judged. These standards prevail, even if the institutions and the people in the land do not. One might generalize by saying that the kingdom, the temple, and the people’s existence in the land are subordinated to torah. This is certainly true, because the work repeatedly speaks of the need for kings and people alike to observe “his statutes, his commandments, his customs, and his testimonies, as written in the instruction of Moses” (1 Kgs 2:3–4; cf. 8:25–26, 56–60; 9:4–9; 2 Kgs 17:19–20). Yet, the formulation is simplistic. The question is: how does the work subordinate the temple to torah statutes? Which statutes? Does the work speak of the priests defiling the temple artefacts, polluting the altar, presenting improper sacrifices, or otherwise abrogating their duties?44 Does the work accuse the populace of practicing gross injustices or of failing to offer their tithes?45 The final chapters of Kings define royal and popular failures in such a way as to vindicate the cause of (what the work presents as) the central sanctuary. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with Jerusalem, the temple, the priesthood, and the furnishings that adorn the temple. The criticisms leveled in the story of Judah’s fall are not aimed at the quality of the palace or temple furnishings, the sanctity of the temple, or the fact that Jerusalem served as Judah’s center. Quite the opposite, Yhwh cares so much about the city that he elected and the house associated with his name that he allows them to be destroyed by the Chaldeans and his people to be forcibly displaced from the land. The people and their political leaders fail their institutions; their institutions do not fail them.46 In the history written about Judah in Kings, the demise of the sanctuary furnishings demonstrates the enduring value of the standards by which Yhwh holds his people accountable, most notably the worship of Yhwh, the prohibitions against worshiping other gods, and the observance of centralization. These standards survive, indeed are demonstrated to have continuing validity, even if most of the temple objects do not themselves survive the Babylonian onslaughts.

44 By contrast, Chronicles accuses the leaders of the priests and the people of being exceedingly unfaithful, “following all of the abominations of the nations” and “polluting the house of Yhwh, which he had consecrated” (2 Chr 36:14). Cf. Mal 1:7; 3:3–4, 8–12. 45 The accusation that Manasseh “shed very much innocent blood until he filled Jerusalem from one end to the other (with innocent blood)” (2 Kgs 21:16; 24:3–4) is a rare, if not unique, social criticism of a Davidide. 46 See chapter 10, “Yhwh’s Rejection of the House Built for his Name: On the Significance of Anti-temple Rhetoric in the Deuteronomistic History.”

ROYAL ( MIS ) APPROPRIATIONS IN SAMUEL-KINGS AND CHRONICLES

2

245

The Chronistic Writing

Unlike the preexilic (Josianic) Deuteronomist and the later exilic or early postexilic Deuteronomistic editor(s), the Chronicler lived at a time in which Judah had been under direct foreign rule for over two centuries. That his subprovince was a small part of an immense international imperial state could not have but affected how he interpreted the travails of the palace and temple furnishings, as depicted in Kings, when Judah survived for centuries as an autonomous and semi-autonomous monarchy, navigating its way among substantially larger regimes in northern Israel, Aram, Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon. The leaders of Yehud had to make their own difficult choices over the centuries, but foreign policy was the proper domain of the imperial state, rather than that of its many provinces and sub-provinces. As a lover of Jerusalem and avid supporter of the temple, the Chronicler will have been disturbed by a number of features in the Deuteronomistic presentation. First, the repeated precedent of domestic and foreign kings plundering the Jerusalem treasuries would not set an inspiring example for his audience, at least some of whom were keen to view the Davidic monarchy as belonging to Israel’s classical past.47 The negative effects of such actions are, of course, attested in extra-biblical sources, dating closer to the Chronicler’s own time. For instance, the ransacking and razing of the Judean temple at Elephantine was the cause of great distress for the Judean community situated there.48 Not only was the temple itself destroyed, but “as for the gold and silver (offering) bowls and the (other) things which were in that sanctuary—everything they took and made their own” (‫ומזרקיא זי זהבא וכסף ומנדעמתא זי הוה באגורא זך כלא‬ ‫)לקחו ולנפשהום עבדו‬.49 To take a second example, the large despoliation of the Jerusalem sanctuary at the hands of Antiochus Epiphanes IV, occurring in 169 BCE, is portrayed as scandalous by the writers of 1 and 2 Maccabees. According to these authors, 47 G. N. Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29 (AB 12A; New York: Doubleday/New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004). 48 The story of the sanctuary’s demise is related in letters petitioning the Jerusalem and Samarian authorities for their help in reconstruction, A. E. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1923), §§30.4–29; 31.5–28; B. Porten and J. C. Greenfield, Jews of Elephantine and Arameans of Syene: Aramaic Texts with Translation (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, 1984), 91–101; B. Porten and A. Yardeni, Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt (4 vols.; Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1986– 1999), A4.7.4–29; A4.8.5–28. 49 AP 30.12–13; 31.11–12; TAD A4.7.12–13; A4.8.11–12; Porten and Greenfield, Jews of Elephantine, 97. On the ‫ מזרק‬as an offering bowl used in ritual contexts, see J. S. Greer, “An Israelite Mizrāq at Tel Dan?” BASOR 358 (2010), 27–45.

246

Chapter 9

the Seleucid king plundered the sanctuary thoroughly, pilfering the golden altar (τὸ θυσιαστήριον τὸ χρυσοῦν), the lampstand together with all of its utensils (τὴν λυχνίαν τοῦ φωτὸς καὶ πάντα τὰ σκεύη αὐτῆς), the table of presentation (τὴν τράπεζαν τῆς προθέσεως), the libation jars, the bowls, the golden ladles, the curtain, and the crowns, and stripping the gold decoration located on the front of the temple (1 Macc 1:20–24). According to the version in 2 Macc 5:21, Antiochus hauled off eighteen hundred talents from the temple, before he departed from Jerusalem and traveled on to Antioch.50 To summarize: the looting of the Judean temple at Elephantine in the fifth century BCE and the later pillaging of the temple at Jerusalem in the second century BCE were lamented by the victims of these foreign incursions. But while it is bad enough for adversaries to pillage one’s sacred institutions, it is even more disconcerting for domestic leaders repeatedly to do the same.51 Second, the Deuteronomistic pattern is almost uniformly negative. There is only one counter-example of new dedications being made to the temple (Asa) and there are no examples of new wealth flowing into Jerusalem. It may have been difficult to gather support for the Second Temple, given the unhappy record of the First. To be sure, the sanctuary built by Zerubbabel and Jeshua had its defenders. The prophet Haggai urges his listeners to support the temple rebuilding project headed by Zerubbabel, Jeshua, the ancestral heads, and the elders (Ezra 3:1–4:5; 5:1–6:20) by forecasting that in a little while “the precious things of all the nations (‫ )חמדת כל־הגוים‬will come in” (Hag 2:7).52 Silver and gold both belong to Yhwh, the prophet declares (Hag 2:8). The authors of Ezra highlight the benefactions made to the Jerusalem shrine at various stages of Persian-period history (Ezra 1:6; 2:68–69 [cf. Neh 7:69–71]; 6:4; 7:15–22; 8:24– 30, 33–34).53 Yet, if judging by the pattern exhibited by Kings, the fate of such

50 J. A. Goldstein, I Maccabees (AB 41; New York: Doubleday, 1976), 208–11; idem, II Maccabees (AB 41A; New York: Doubleday, 1984), 257–62; D. R. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees (CEJL; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008), 249–51. Cf. Dan 11:28; Josephus, C. Ap. 2.84; Ant. 12.246–249. 51 The point is underscored by P. S. Evans, “The Function of the Chronicler’s Temple Despoliation Notices in Light of Imperial Realities in Yehud,” JBL 129 (2010), 31–47. 52 I am construing this prophecy in a literal (rather than in a purely eschatological) sense, namely that the text awaits a major transformation in the life of postexilic Judah, when the temple is successfully completed. See further J. Kessler, The Book of Haggai: Prophecy and Society in Early Persian Yehud (VTSup 91; Leiden: Brill, 2002). 53 It should be observed, however, that the two terms of Nehemiah’s governorship are not associated with any such gifts or endowments to the Jerusalem temple. There are a number of indications in the first-person Nehemiah materials that Nehemiah’s relationship to the temple authorities in Jerusalem was fraught. See L. S. Fried, The Priest and the Great King: Temple-Palace Relations in the Persian Empire (BJS 10; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,

ROYAL ( MIS ) APPROPRIATIONS IN SAMUEL-KINGS AND CHRONICLES

247

benevolence is ultimately to enrich the coffers of foreign potentates, what incentive would there be to make dedications at all? Third, the fact that some of Judah’s better kings indulge in this activity complicates the attempt to argue against the morality of the strategy. It is one thing for a series of bad kings to plunder their own treasuries, but it is another for a series of good kings to do so. In the Deuteronomistic work, four out of six monarchs associated with temple ransacking are evaluated positively. To complicate matters further, the one king who is associated with two treasury incidents happens to be one of the two most highly decorated kings in Judahite history. Fourth, the same work that highlights the importance of cultic purity and promotes the cause of cultic centralization evidently contains counterexamples to the very doctrines the work espouses. If the reigns of four out of six monarchs, whose reigns are rated positively are associated with temple despoliations, why are these kings commended to readers? If Jerusalem is indeed the place that Yhwh has chosen, the one divinely-consecrated location for sacrificial worship, do not these four monarchs undermine the unique standing of the chosen place? Fifth, in every case the domestic pillaging achieves the desired effect. The strategic deployment of palace and temple treasures allows Judah to survive and its leadership to enjoy a measure of continuing, albeit limited, selfautonomy. If the ploy works every time, there is something to be said for the ploy itself. Finally, the picture of unmitigated destruction, which characterizes the closing decades of the Judahite monarchy in Kings, would pose problems for postmonarchic writers, such as the authors of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, who wished to emphasize continuity between the first and second temple eras. With the exception of those temple treasures that were sent to Babylon with King Jehoiachin (2 Kgs 24:13), everything else in the palace and temple treasuries is purloined, cut apart, or destroyed during the Babylonian conquests of 598 and 586 BCE. The bleak presentation of Kings offers few grounds for hope, based on the fate of the temple, the palace, and their associated contents. The testimony of Chronicles is at once more complex and more hopeful than that of the Deuteronomistic writing. The differences between the works are of a literary, theological, and historiographic nature. Each of the Chronistic compositional techniques—additions, omissions, recontextualizations, revisions, and corrections—contributes to shaping a unique perspective on the history of the national treasuries. The work does not deny that spoils repeatedly left 2004), 193–212; G. N. Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans: The Origins and History of Their Early Relations (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 153–68.

248

Chapter 9

Jerusalem for destinations in other lands during the monarchic period, but its glowing presentation of the united kingdom, rewriting of treasury incidents, balancing of declines with recoveries, inclusion of new temple endowments, exaltation of Hezekiah, constrained portrayal of the Neo-Babylonian period, and acclaim of the advent of Persian rule all succeed in generating a distinctively different portrait to the long descent sketched in Samuel-Kings. 2.1 The United Monarchy Chronicles dwells on the establishment and endowment of the treasuries in the united kingdom, most notably in David’s tenure. Whereas the Deuteronomistic work first raises the issue of the temple treasuries in its presentation of Solomon’s reign (1 Kgs 7:51), the Chronistic treatment of David contains a series of extended references to the treasuries in particular and to Israel’s wealth in general. In its depiction of David’s string of military conquests, Chronicles, unlike Samuel, overtly connects David’s war dedications (1 Chr 18:7–8a, 9–11// 2 Sam 8:7–11) with Solomon’s sanctuary.54 The bronze David captures from Hadad-ezer is employed by Solomon to construct “the bronze sea, the columns, and the bronze articles” (1 Chr 18:8b). The emphasis on the complementarity of David and Solomon’s reigns is, of course, a hallmark of the Chronistic presentation.55 As soon as the site of the future temple is selected (1 Chr 22:1), David begins preparations for its eventual construction. David sets aside (‫)כון‬ huge quantities of gold, silver, and bronze for the use of his son and successor 54 Given the lavish promises afforded him in Nathan’s dynastic oracle, forecasting military victory, dynastic succession, and the construction of the sanctuary by David’s heir (1 Chr 17:1–15), how could David not show his gratitude by helping his son and endowing the temple project? In Chronistic perspective, David would be derelict in his duty, if he failed to follow through on the privileged information divulged to him by the prophet by preparing for the construction of the temple that he was forbidden from building himself. See further G. N. Knoppers, “Changing History: Nathan’s Dynastic Oracle and the Structure of the Davidic Monarchy in Chronicles,” in Shai le-Sara Japhet: Studies in the Bible, Its Exegesis, and Its Language (ed. M. Bar-Asher, D. Rom-Shiloni, E. Tov, and N. Wazana; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2007), 99*–123*. 55 R. L. Braun, “Solomonic Apologetic in Chronicles,” JBL 92 (1973), 503–16; idem, “Solomon, the Chosen Temple Builder: The Significance of 1 Chronicles 22, 28 and 29 for the Theology of Chronicles,” JBL 95 (1976), 581–90; H. G. M. Williamson, “The Accession of Solomon in the Books of Chronicles,” VT 26 (1976), 351–61 [repr. Studies in Persian Period History and Historiography (FAT 38; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 141–49]; M. A. Throntveit, “Hezekiah in the Books of Chronicles,” in Society of Biblical Literature 1988 Seminar Papers (ed. D. J. Lull; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 302–11; idem, “The Relationship of Hezekiah to David and Solomon in the Books of Chronicles,” in The Chronicler as Theologian: Essays in Honor of Ralph W. Klein (ed. M. P. Graham, S. L. McKenzie, and G. N. Knoppers; JSOTSup 371; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2003), 105–21.

ROYAL ( MIS ) APPROPRIATIONS IN SAMUEL-KINGS AND CHRONICLES

249

(1 Chr 22:2–4, 14). Because “the house that is to be built for Yhwh must be exceedingly great” (‫ ;להגדיל למעלה‬1 Chr 22:5), the head of state secures enormous quantities of raw materials for the construction project.56 David does much more to ensure the success of his divinely elect son and designated temple builder.57 In preparation for the transition to the reign of the “man of rest,” an aging, but still lucid David establishes a national administration (1 Chr 23:1–27:34).58 In Chronicles, the institutions established in the united kingdom are cast as normative for the people of Israel. The temple complex in Jerusalem is thus an integral part of Israelite identity. Part of the central planning undertaken by David involves the appointment of Levitical supervisors for the treasuries of the house of God (‫ )אוצרות בית־האלהים‬and for the treasuries of the dedicated gifts (‫ ;אוצרות הקדשים‬1 Chr 26:20–26). The Gershonites are put in charge of the former, while the Qohathites are put in charge of the latter. David not only anticipates various needs of the promised temple and its associated treasuries, but he also—through the aegis of God’s spirit—presents a design for these structures.59 In his second speech to Solomon, Israel’s reverend king delivers the pattern (‫ )תבנית‬for the entire temple complex, including the temple courts, chambers, furniture, and utensils (1 Chr 28:11–19).60 Much like inspired Moses before him (Exod 25:9, 40), who produces a plan (‫)תבנית‬ for the tabernacle, David bequeaths a plan for the temple to his son. The grand architectural design, committed in writing “from the hand of Yhwh,” includes 56 On the deployment of fabulous (high, rounded, even) numbers—“100,000 talents of gold and 1,000,000 talents of silver, as well as iron and bronze beyond weighing,” see R. W. Klein, “How Many in a Thousand?” in The Chronicler as Historian (ed. M. P. Graham, K. G. Hoglund, and S. L. McKenzie; JSOTSup 238; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1997), 270–82; Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29, 569–71. 57 Knoppers, 1 Chronicles 10–29, 765–88; R. W. Klein, 1 Chronicles (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 430–42. 58 Among other scholars, I view a good deal of 1 Chronicles 23–27 as an integral part of the Chronistic work; see S. Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and its Place in Biblical Thought (BEATAJ 9; Frankfurt a. M.: Lang, 1989), 428–30; eadem, I & II Chronicles (OTL; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1993), 907; J. W. Wright, “The Legacy of David in Chronicles: The Narrative Function of 1 Chronicles 23–27,” JBL 110 (1991), 229–42; idem, “From Center to Periphery: 1 Chronicles 23–27 and the Interpretation of Chronicles in the Nineteenth Century,” in Priests, Prophets, and Scribes: Essays on the Formation and Heritage of Second Temple Judaism in Honour of Joseph Blenkinsopp (ed. E. C. Ulrich et al.; JSOTSup 149; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 20–42; W. M. Schniedewind, The Word of God in Transition: From Prophet to Exegete in the Second Temple Period (JSOTSup 197; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1995), 165–70; Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29, 788–98; Klein, 1 Chronicles, 11, 444–47. 59 The many parallels created between David and Moses draw the temple closer to the tent of meeting, Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29, 930–42. 60 Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29, 917–42.

250

Chapter 9

a scheme for “the treasuries of the house of God and of the treasuries of the dedicated gifts” (1 Chr 28:12, 19).61 A related part of David’s strategic planning involves endowments. The contributions do not simply focus on David. According to 1 Chr 26:26, the treasury of the dedicated gifts houses donations made by David, the ancestral heads, and the commanders of thousands and hundreds. War spoils are used to strengthen the house of Yhwh (1 Chr 26:27). Those benefactors whose dedications make their way to the treasury include Samuel the seer, Saul son of Qish, Abner son of Ner, and Joab son of Zeruiah (1 Chr 26:28). It seems that any Israelite leader who ever waged war during the reigns of Saul and David makes a dedicatory gift.62 In his speech to the entire assembly (1 Chr 29:1–5), David makes much the same point publicly. He speaks of his personal generosity toward the sanctuary project, including setting aside his own considerable supply (‫ )סגלה‬of gold and silver, but he also beckons those gathered to make their own freewill offerings. The national assembly (‫ )קהל‬does not disappoint. The military, clan, and tribal leaders all make incredible donations to the work of the temple, involving thousands of talents of gold, darics, silver, bronze, iron, and (precious) stone (1 Chr 29:6–8). Israel under David enjoys extensive wealth, but dedicates it to a higher purpose. The endowments provided by David are put to good use by Solomon, who brings David’s dedicatory gifts, the silver, the gold, and all of the articles into the temple treasuries (2 Chr 5:1). Solomon studs the house of Yhwh with precious stones and overlays its interior with gold (2 Chr 3:4–9). Similarly, the divinely designated “man of rest” plates many of the sanctuary furnishings with gold (1 Chr 22:9; 2 Chr 3:10–13; 4:8, 19–22). David’s provisions for the Levitical supervisors are also implemented. In Solomon’s reign there was no departure from “the command of the king concerning the priests and the Levites in any matter, including the treasuries” (2 Chr 8:15). As in Kings, Solomon’s reign is a

61 In addition to the appointments for the temple treasuries, appointments are made for the royal treasuries and for the treasuries in the country, towns, and citadels (1 Chr 27:25). Here, again, the presentation differs from that of Samuel-Kings. While the Deuteronomistic treasuries consist of the palace and temple storehouses, the Chronistic treasuries include regional storehouses as well. When Rehoboam, following the disaster of Israel’s secession, recovers and oversees a number of reforms (2 Chr 11:5–23), these reforms include strengthening the fortified towns and locating storehouses (‫ )אצרות‬of food, wine, and oil within them (2 Chr 11:11–12). In tending to the provincial storehouses, Rehoboam renews a precedent set by his grandfather (1 Chr 27:25). 62 E. L. Curtis and A. A. Madsen, The Books of Chronicles (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1910), 287.

ROYAL ( MIS ) APPROPRIATIONS IN SAMUEL-KINGS AND CHRONICLES

251

time of heightened prosperity (2 Chr 1:15; 9:22, 27).63 Trade with other lands enriches the state coffers (2 Chr 1:16–17; 8:17–18; 9:21, 28) and tribute flows in from the nations (2 Chr 9:1–14, 23–24). As in Kings, Solomon furnishes the Lebanon Forest House with golden shields, golden bucklers, and assorted golden vessels (2 Chr 9:15–16, 20). Similarly, he fashions an incomparable ivory throne, overlaid with gold, for his palace (2 Chr 9:17–19; cf. 1 Kgs 10:18–19). Even Huram of Tyre, following twenty years of successful temple and palace construction, donates twenty towns in Galilee to Solomon (2 Chr 8:1).64 Together with the material in David’s reign, the references in Solomon’s reign create a highly positive image of the way in which the united monarchy generates an enduring legacy for subsequent generations. Unlike the Deuteronomistic David, the Chronistic David has a formative role to play in establishing this legacy. Solomon’s wealth becomes, in part, a Davidic bequest. The united monarchy is, however, more than a time of sustained wealth. Much of the treasure acquired is dedicated to future generations. Both as the head of state and as a private citizen, David contributes enormous quantities of precious metals to the cause of Israel’s national institutions. The self-denial practiced by David and by Israel’s leaders is validated by Solomon’s achievements. Self-sacrificial giving thus has its long-term rewards. The lavish temple furnishings are made possible, in part, by earlier bequests. In this intergenerational story, the people have an active role to play. The sanctuary is not simply a royal chapel planned by one Davidic king and built by another, but also the patrimony of all the people.65 Similarly, the very success of Israel’s national institutions 63 L. C. Jonker, “The Chronicler’s Portrayal of Solomon as the King of Peace within the Context of the International Peace Discourses of the Persian Era,” OTE 21 (2008), 653–69; J. Tiňo, King and Temple in Chronicles: A Contextual Approach (FRLANT 234; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010), 35–107. 64 Thus, the reverse of the situation sketched in 1 Kgs 9:13–14, G. N. Knoppers, “More than Friends? The Economic Relationship between Huram and Solomon Reconsidered,” in The Economy of Ancient Judah in Its Historical Context (ed. M. Miller, E. Ben Zvi, and G. N. Knoppers; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015), 49–72. 65 H. G. M. Williamson, “The Temple in the Books of Chronicles,” in Templum Amicitiae: Essays on the Second Temple Presented to Ernst Bammel (ed. W. Horbury; JSNTSup 48: Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 15–31 [repr. Studies in Persian Period History and Historiography, 150–61]; W. Johnstone, 1 and 2 Chronicles (2 vols.; JSOTSup 253–254; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997), 1.306–60; J. E. Dyck, The Theocratic Ideology of the Chronicler (BibInt 33; Leiden: Brill, 1998); J. Jarrick, “The Temple of David in the Book of Chronicles,” in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel (ed. J. Day; LHBOTS 422; London: T&T Clark, 2005), 365– 81; S. J. Schweitzer, “The Temple in Samuel-Kings and Chronicles,” in Rewriting Biblical History: Essays on Chronicles and Ben Sira in Honour of Pancratius C. Beentjes (ed. H. W. M. Grol and J. Corley; DCLS 7; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 123–38; M. Lynch, Monotheism and Institutions in the Book of Chronicles (FAT 2/64; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 72–135.

252

Chapter 9

results from a consistent pattern of both royal and popular largess. Over against the disparate presentations of David and Solomon in Samuel-Kings, the presentation of David, Solomon, and Israel in Chronicles establishes an intergenerational argument for supporting and enhancing the temple. 2.2 The Judahite Monarchy The planning and endowments of David are properly exploited by Solomon, but the era of the dual monarchies is not such a success.66 In its depiction of Judahite history, Chronicles follows Kings in mentioning a series of Jerusalem temple despoliations by domestic and foreign potentates (2 Chr 12:9; 16:2; 25:24). In agreement with Kings, Chronicles records raids on the temple or palace treasuries during the reigns of Rehoboam (1 Kgs 14:26//2 Chr 12:9), Asa (1 Kgs 15:18//2 Chr 16:2), Amaziah (2 Kgs 14:14//2 Chr 25:24), and Ahaz (2 Kgs 16:8//2 Chr 28:21). Nevertheless, these parallels suggest more congruence between the two works than actually exists. The despoliations vary from those of Kings in a number of important ways. To begin with, the Chronicler recontextualizes his Vorlagen in new settings. In the case of Asa, whom he evaluates positively (2 Chr 14:1–3), he situates his contributions to the treasury in the productive period of Asa’s reign, while he consigns the withdrawal from the treasuries to the regressive period of his reign.67 The work distances the two incidents from one another by placing them within two distinct phases of the monarch’s reign, one long and progressive (2 Chr 14:1–15:19) and the other short and regressive (2 Chr 16:10). Similarly, in the case of Amaziah, whom the Chronicler also evaluates positively, the work consigns the raid of the Israelite Joash to a regressive period in Amaziah’s reign (2 Chr 25:14–28).68 The work presents Asa and Amaziah as good kings without commending their exploitation of the national treasuries. On the contrary, the editorial commentary on both episodes is negative. Asa’s pact with Ben-hadad is criticized by Hanani the seer as foolish reliance upon Aram (2 Chr 16:7–9) 66 N. Dennerlein, Die Bedeutung Jerusalems in den Chronikbüchern (BEATAJ 46; Frankfurt a. M.: Lang, 1999), 201–29. 67 R. B. Dillard, “The Reign of Asa (2 Chr 14–16): An Example of the Chronicler’s Theological Method,” JETS 23 (1980), 207–18; L. C. Jonker, “The Cushites in the Chronicler’s version of Asa’s Reign: A Secondary Audience in Chronicles?” OTE 19 (2006), 863–81. 68 The reign of Amaziah is artfully arranged, M. P. Graham, “Aspects of the Structure and Rhetoric of 2 Chronicles 25,” in History and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of John H. Hayes (ed. M. P. Graham; JSOTSup 173; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 78–89. Cf. E. Ben Zvi, “Observations on Ancient Modes of Reading Chronicles and their Implications, with an Illustration of their Explanatory Power for the Study of the Account of Amaziah (2 Chronicles 25),” in his History, Literature and Theology in the Book of Chronicles (Bible World; London: Equinox, 2006), 44–77.

ROYAL ( MIS ) APPROPRIATIONS IN SAMUEL-KINGS AND CHRONICLES

253

and the appeal to Ben-hadad is also ultimately ineffective.69 Because he did not rely on Yhwh, Asa is continually beset by wars (2 Chr 16:9). In the case of Rehoboam, whom the literary work evaluates basically negatively (2 Chr 12:14), the same principle holds. The writing consigns Shishak’s raid on the treasuries to a regressive phase of Rehoboam’s tenure (2 Chr 12:1–9), while it contextualizes the king’s construction of provincial fortified towns in one of the reform periods of his tenure (2 Chr 11:1–23).70 Shishak’s incursion appears as divine punishment for the backsliding of Rehoboam and Judah (2 Chr 12:5). The writing disputes the inference from Kings that Rehoboam’s actions spared Jerusalem from Shishak’s assault.71 Judah’s capital survives the campaign of the Egyptian king because of Yhwh’s compassion upon Judah’s leaders and king after they had humbled themselves before him (niphal of ‫;כנע‬ 2 Chr 12:6–7).72 In this manner, Chronicles does more than offer a variant picture from that of Kings. The work integrates royal actions toward the treasuries into its evaluation of a king’s reign. If recontextualization is one technique deployed to create a different treasuries story from that of Kings, rewriting is another. The reign of Joash (Jehoash in Chronicles) serves as the first example. An Aramean army invades Judah and takes booty from Judah (2 Chr 24:23) during a regressive phase in the king’s reign (2 Chr 24:17–24). The palace and temple treasuries are not mentioned in discussing this incident.73 Nor does the gain of booty on the Arameans’ part result from a conscious choice on Joash’s part. In the Deuteronomistic writing, the strategic decision of the Judahite king saves Jerusalem from a 69

As almost all covenants with other nations are in Chronicles. See my “‘Should You Help the Wicked and Love those who Hate Yhwh?’ Alliances, Foreign Subjugation, and Empire in Chronicles,” in Judah and Samaria in Postmonarchic Times: Essays on Their Histories and Literatures (FAT 129; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019), 37–74. 70 Rehoboam’s reign encapsulates a number of distinct segments. In Chronistic perspective, the inconsistency in Rehoboam’s actions stems from a lack of resolve on his part: “he did what was evil, because he had not set his heart to seek Yhwh” (2 Chr 12:14). See further, my “Rehoboam in Chronicles: Villain or Victim?” JBL 109 (1990), 423–40; C. T. Begg, “‘Seeking Yahweh’ and the Purpose of Chronicles,” LS 9 (1982), 128–41; H.-S. Bae, Vereinte Suche nach Jhwh: Die hiskianische und josianische Reform in der Chronik (BZAW 355; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005). 71 Shishak comes up against Jerusalem and takes tribute (1 Kgs 14:25–26), but the text does not speak of an actual siege or invasion of Jerusalem. The implication seems to be that Rehoboam uses the palace and treasury contents to accommodate the Egyptian king. Further, M. Cogan, 1 Kings (AB 11; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 2001), 389–91. 72 D. Glatt-Gilad provides a detailed study, “The Root knʿ and Historiographic Periodization in Chronicles,” CBQ 64 (2002), 248–57. 73 The Chronistic treatment of Joash (2 Chr 24:1–27) also makes no mention of King Hazael (2 Kgs 12:18–19).

254

Chapter 9

direct Aramean assault (2 Kgs 12:18–19), but in Chronicles the success of the Arameans has nothing to do with superior strength or military strategy. On the contrary, “the Aramean army came with just a few men,” but Yhwh delivered the larger Judahite army into their hands, because “they [the people of Judah] abandoned Yhwh, the God of their fathers” (2 Chr 24:24).74 The reworking of this episode has a number of complementary effects. By leaving the fate of Jerusalem out of the equation, Chronicles refuses to concede the point of Kings. The work severs the link between Joash’s actions in dealing with the Arameans from the difficult world of Realpolitik. The negative results of the invasion are totally unnecessary. The foreign victory is subordinated to the perfidy of Joash and Judah’s leaders, which elicited divine wrath (2 Chr 24:17–18). Another good example of revision is the tenure of Ahaz, recast as a record of unmitigated decline (2 Chr 27:9–28:27).75 In the aftermath of a series of successful foreign invasions, a beleaguered Ahaz does not reverse course, but petitions the kings of Assyria “to help (‫ )לעזר‬him” (2 Chr 28:16).76 But the appeal for aid from a third party (Tiglath-pileser III) does not work.77 The Assyrian monarch comes not to deliver Ahaz from danger, but rather to oppress him (‫ ;ויצר לו‬2 Chr 28:20).78 It is at this point that Ahaz plunders temple and palace to pay the Assyrian king. But, whereas in the Deuteronomistic writing, the plunder of the Jerusalem temple treasuries successfully extricates Ahaz from the threat posed by the Syro-Ephraimite coalition (2 Kgs 16:5–10), in Chronicles it comprises a futile attempt to relieve Judah from Assyrian coercion. Punning on the root ‫“( עזר‬to help”), the author remarks that Ahaz’s expropriation of the 74 Consistent with its reappropriation of holy war ideology, Chronicles does not present large numbers as the key to military success. If anything, the size of Judah’s armies in victories (e.g., 2 Chr 13:13–21; 14:7–14) bears an inverse proportion to the size of those involved in defeat (e.g., 2 Chr 24:23–24; 28:6; 32:8). 75 On Ahaz’s distinction as the worst Judahite monarch, see E. Ben Zvi, “A Gateway to the Chronicler’s Teaching: The Account of the Reign of Ahaz in 2 Chr 28,1–27,” SJOT 7 (1993), 216–49 [repr. in History, Literature and Theology, 210–42]. 76 I follow the MT’s ‫מלכי אשור‬, rather than the LXX’s ‫( מלך אשור‬lectio difficilior). Note the use of ‫ מלכי־ארם‬in 2 Chr 28:23 and see L. C. Allen, The Greek Chronicles: The Relation of the Septuagint of I and II Chronicles to the Masoretic Text (2 vols.; VTSup 25, 27; Leiden: Brill, 1974), 2.94; R. W. Klein, 2 Chronicles (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 391. 77 The reworking of the Vorlage is rather complex, Ben Zvi, “Gateway,” 227–30 [repr. in History, Literature and Theology, 217–20]; M. E. W. Thompson, Situation and Theology: Old Testament Interpretations of the Syro-Ephraimite War (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1982), 79–124. 78 The addition of the MT, ‫ולא חזקו‬, “and he did not strengthen him” or “and he did not overtake him” (Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 907), may be an expansion. I read with the LXX (lectio brevior). Alternatively, the words may have been lost by haplography, Klein, 2 Chronicles, 391.

ROYAL ( MIS ) APPROPRIATIONS IN SAMUEL-KINGS AND CHRONICLES

255

treasuries “was of no help to him” (‫ ;ולא לעזרה לו‬2 Chr 28:21).79 Ahaz’s petition to Tiglath-pileser is an abject failure. The thorough reworking of the Vorlage sheds light on the Chronistic handling of treasury despoliations. The writing does not deny that there were such despoilments by Ahaz and other Judahite monarchs. Like Kings, Chronicles concedes that a series of native kings surrendered spoils to other monarchs either by force of invasion or by voluntary concession. But this negative paradigm is not determinative for those living in the writer’s own time. Things could have been otherwise. The Vorlage is rewritten to undermine, if not reverse, its force. Exploitation of the treasuries is a sign of abject weakness and moral turpitude, rather than a defensive strategy in the context of international diplomacy. Moreover, the literary work neither endorses nor admits to an ineluctable linkage between despoliation and the alleviation of foreign bondage. In Rehoboam’s time Jerusalem is saved by divine mercy and not by draining Solomon’s treasuries. In the reign of Asa, the pact with Ben-hadad leads to further military conflicts. In the case of Ahaz, the stratagem of voluntary tribute backfires. A third compositional technique Chronicles employs to generate a distinctive history of the national treasuries is omission. The work simply does not mention all of the despoliations recorded in Kings.80 The sanitizing changes to 79 H. G. M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 348. 80 My assumption is that the Chronicler had access to most, if not all, of the treasury incidents in Kings (1 Kgs 14:26; 15:18; 2 Kgs 12:18; 14:14; 16:8; 18:15; 20:13–15; 24:13; 25:8–10, 13–17). It is possible that the Chronicler’s Vorlage of Kings did not contain all of these references. On this matter, see the proposal of S. L. McKenzie, The Chronicler’s Use of the Deuteronomistic History (HSM 33; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), 181–88, and the more radical theories of A. G. Auld, Kings Without Privilege: David and Moses in the Story of the Bible’s Kings (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), and R. F. Person, The Deuteronomic History and the Book of Chronicles: Scribal Works in an Oral World (AIL 6; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010). I am not convinced, however, that the Chronicler and the Deuteronomists drew from a common source. See my I Chronicles 1–9, 66–69 (with further references). Where the work of Person and that of D. Carr (Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature [New York: Oxford University Press, 2005]) may be credited is the recognition that the text of Samuel-Kings was not entirely set at the time in which the Chronicler wrote. Comparative study of the various textual witnesses among the MT, the LXX, the OL, and the biblical manuscripts among the DSS indicates that the scriptures were not yet fixed in all of their details in the late Persian and Hellenistic periods. Many literary works, including Samuel-Kings, continued to experience growth, although the number of additions and the extent of reediting varied among different biblical writings. See J. C. Trebolle Barrera, Jehú y Joás: texto y composición literaria de 2 Reyes 9–11 (Institución San Jerónimo 17; Valencia: Institución San Jerónimo, 1984); idem, Centena in libros Samuelis et Regum: variants textuales y composición literaria en los libros de Samuel y Reyes (Textos y estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” 47; Madrid: Consejo

256

Chapter 9

the Deuteronomistic portrayal of Hezekiah’s reign include omitting Hezekiah’s looting of “all of the silver found in the temple of Yhwh and in the treasuries of the royal palace” as a tribute payment to King Sennacherib (2 Kgs 18:15). Nor does Chronicles mention that Hezekiah stripped the temple doors and posts to augment his shipment of spoils to the Assyrian king (2 Kgs 18:16). In short, the entire tribute episode in Kings (2 Kgs 18:13–15) is missing. Quite the opposite, Hezekiah builds treasuries and endows them (see below). The other treasury incident in Hezekiah’s reign, his reception of the Babylonian envoys of Merodach-baladan, in which he showed them his entire storehouse, the silver, gold, spices, and fine oil—“all that was found in his treasuries” (2 Kgs 20:12–13)—is also largely omitted in Chronicles. The whole matter of the Babylonian envoys is obliquely mentioned at the conclusion of his reign as a divine examination of Hezekiah’s character: “and so in the (matter) of the envoys of the Babylonian officials, those sent to him to inquire about the sign which occurred in the land, God abandoned him to test him, to know all what was in his heart” (2 Chr 32:31). The implication seems to be that Hezekiah passed this divinely administered test, but the matter is shrouded in some ambiguity.81 In any event, the circumstances surrounding the foreign visit have to do with the sign that Hezekiah received from Isaiah (2 Kgs 20:8–11). The diplomatic visit has nothing at all to do with the national treasuries. Nor is there any connection made between this particular incident and a future Babylonian exile. The two omissions directly affect how one understands the story of monarchic Judah, substantially reducing the number of negative treasury incidents and altering the larger pattern of treasury raids found in Kings. One of the Judahite kings whom both the authors of Kings and Chronicles evaluate Superior de Investigaciones Científicas Instituto de Filología, 1989); E. C. Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999); idem, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible (VTSup 169; Leiden: Brill, 2015); A. Schenker, Septante et texte massorétique dans l’histoire la plus ancienne du texte de 1 Rois 2–14 (Cahiers de la Revue biblique 48; Paris: J. Gabalda, 2000); idem, Älteste Textgeschichte der Königsbücher: Die hebräische Vorlage der ursprünglichen Septuaginta als älteste Textform der Königsbücher (OBO 199; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004); E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (3rd rev. ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012). 81 R. B. Dillard, 2 Chronicles (WBC 15; Waco, TX: Word, 1987), 259–60; Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 387–88; P. R. Ackroyd, “The Biblical Interpretation of the Reigns of Ahaz and Hezekiah,” in In the Shelter of Elyon: Essays on Ancient Palestinian Life and Literature in Honor of G. W. Ahlström (ed. W. B. Barrick and J. R. Spencer; JSOTSup 31; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), 247–59; Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 995–96; Klein, 2 Chronicles, 468–69. For a different view, see A. Shinan and Y. Zakovitch, “Midrash on Scripture and Midrash within Scripture,” ScrHier 31 (1986), 268–69.

ROYAL ( MIS ) APPROPRIATIONS IN SAMUEL-KINGS AND CHRONICLES

257

most positively does not employ domestic spoils to ward off foreign kings. Two negative treasury episodes in Kings are replaced by one positive episode in Chronicles. In this manner, the work both reduces the number of good kings who despoil the treasuries and succeeds in presenting a significantly more temperate account of the Judahite monarchy than that appearing in Kings. The fourth compositional technique employed is the selective addition of new material. The work depicts times of economic renewal for Jerusalem and Judah, most of which are unparalleled in the Deuteronomistic writing. The first such reformer is the one king of Judah in Kings, who also makes significant temple dedications. King Asa institutes a series of positive reforms (2 Chr 14:4– 6; 15:8–18), including consecrating silver, gold, and other items to the central sanctuary (2 Chr 15:18). But, as in Kings, Asa’s legacy vis-à-vis the treasuries is mixed. He subsequently empties the temple and royal treasuries to convince Ben-hadad to attack an invading Baasha of Israel (2 Chr 16:2). The short period of decline at the end of Asa’s reign is reversed by one of recovery, attending the beginning of the reign of his successor Jehoshaphat.82 In the first phase of his tenure (unparalleled in Kings), Jehoshaphat rebuilds his kingdom by implementing reforms, deploying troops, and fortifying towns (2 Chr 17:1–2).83 In so doing, Jehoshaphat grows stronger and becomes more widely respected. All of Judah brings tribute (‫ )מנחה‬to the new king, who, like Solomon, experiences “riches and honor in abundance” (2 Chr 17:5).84 Some of the Philistines send gifts (‫ )מנחה‬and silver (as) tribute (‫ )כסף משא‬to the Judahite king (2 Chr 17:11). Jehoshaphat, in turn, builds fortresses and storagetowns (‫ )ערי מסכנות‬within his state (2 Chr 17:12–13a). To be sure, Jehoshaphat’s recovery is not explicitly linked to new contributions for the Jerusalem treasuries, but the larger picture is clear. The record of despoliations by some kings is balanced by reconstruction and the amassing of wealth by others. The positive contributions made by one reformer—Jehoshaphat—are renewed by another—Hezekiah (2 Chr 32:27–29). Following the disaster of Ahaz’s reign, Hezekiah begins a period of recovery. His first priority is rebuilding the 82 K. Strübind, Tradition als Interpretation in der Chronik: König Josaphat als Paradigma chronistischer Hermeneutik und Theologie (BZAW 201; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1991); G. N. Knoppers, “Reform and Regression: The Chronicler’s Presentation of Jehoshaphat,” Bib 72 (1991), 500–24. 83 Jehoshaphat’s reforms—a major feature of the Chronicler’s account of his reign—have been used in a variety of ways for historical reconstruction, not all of them convincing, G. N. Knoppers, “Jehoshaphat’s Judiciary and the Scroll of Yhwh’s Torah,” JBL 114 (1994), 59–80. 84 Popular support, riches, and tribute all suggest divine favor; see Japhet, Ideology, 150– 76; R. B. Dillard, “Reward and Punishment in Chronicles: The Theology of Immediate Retribution,” WTJ 46 (1984), 164–72.

258

Chapter 9

house of God and reinstituting the traditional system of cultic service. Hence, unlike Kings, Chronicles lists three kings: Joash (2 Chr 24:4–14), Hezekiah (2 Chr 29:3–36), and Josiah (2 Chr 34:8–17), as launching temple repairs. Hezekiah also builds himself treasuries (‫ )אצרות‬to house silver, gold, precious stones, shields, and a variety of expensive utensils (2 Chr 32:27).85 This is but one indication of the prosperity that attends his latter reign, following the divinely instituted humiliation of Sennacherib’s invasion force (2 Chr 32:28–30). That King Hezekiah builds and endows treasuries marks a complete reversal of the picture presented in Kings. There, as we have seen, Hezekiah despoils the temple storehouses to ward off an invading Sennacherib (2 Kgs 18:13–15). In Kings, the end of Hezekiah’s reign is marred by the specter of a future Babylonian exile, but in Chronicles the end of Hezekiah’s reign recalls some of the glories of the united monarchy.86 The point in discussing the accomplishments and wealth of Judah’s kings is not that Chronicles portrays the Judahite monarchy as a glorious age. It clearly does not. While the time of David and Solomon is the highpoint of Israelite history, the history of Judah’s economic fortunes is mixed—a record of both declines and recoveries.87 The combination of omissions and additions creates a sense of balance.88 Until the late monarchy, virtually every regression is followed by a time of renewal. The Chronistic work is so consistent on this matter that its treatment of palace and temple treasuries could be considered as of one of many topoi found in his writing. Through its use of such topoi, the Chronistic work structures, reinterprets, and unifies the past. The patterning of history lends an exemplary status to this writing.89 The management of the 85

Their location is, however, unspecified, G. N. Knoppers, “History and Historiography: The Royal Reforms,” in The Chronicler as Historian (see n. 56), 192–97 [repr. Israel’s Past in Present Research (ed. V. P. Long; SBTS 7; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999), 557–78]. 86 R. Mosis interprets Hezekiah as a second David, Untersuchungen zur Theologie des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes (FTS 92; Freiburg: Herder, 1973), 164–69, whereas Williamson sees the Chronicler’s Hezekiah as a second Solomon, Israel in the Books of Chronicles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 119–25. It seems better to recognize that in his actions Hezekiah resembles both David and Solomon. See the discussions by Throntveit, “Hezekiah,” 302–11; idem, “Relationship,” 105–21. 87 R. H. Lowery, The Reforming Kings: Cult and Society in First Temple Judah (JSOTSup 120; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 62–209; Knoppers, “History and Historiography,” 187–203. 88 See also E. Ben Zvi, “A Sense of Proportion: An Aspect of the Theology of the Chronicler,” SJOT 9 (1995), 37–51 [repr. in History, Literature, and Theology, 160–73]; L. C. Jonker, “Reforming History: The Hermeneutical Significance of the Books of Chronicles,” VT 57 (2007), 21–44. 89 P. R. Ackroyd, “History and Theology in the Writings of the Chronicler,” CTM 38 (1967), 501–15; idem, “The Chronicler as Exegete,” JSOT 2 (1977), 2–32; Willi, Chronik als

ROYAL ( MIS ) APPROPRIATIONS IN SAMUEL-KINGS AND CHRONICLES

259

treasuries presents both an ideal of investment, devotion, construction, and endowments, which contributes to the nation’s well-being, and a chronicle of divestment, failure, destruction, and plunder, which contributes to the nation’s decline. The work accepts the fact that history includes regressions, but insists that leaders and the community at large can also recover, progress, and make new contributions to their nation’s legacy.90 Whereas Chronicles relegates despoliations to negative phases in kingly careers, it promotes dedications as illustrative of loyal conduct. Although each new monarch does not begin with a clean slate, because each monarch has to address the legacy of his predecessor(s), each monarch has the wherewithal to reverse the course set by his ancestors and, indeed, to reverse his own course.91 In this, the Chronistic writing departs markedly from the pattern evident in the final edition of the Deuteronomistic edition of Kings, a work which has been described by one scholar as “a history of destruction.”92 Chronicles provides its audience with positive examples to follow. The ravishing of the palace or temple treasuries by some kings is offset by the prosperity and dedications of others. 2.3 The Babylonian Exile(s) The distinctive aspects of the Chronistic perspective on the people’s past are, perhaps, no more in evidence than in its depiction of Judah’s final years. The portrayal of events leading up to the Babylonian invasions, which draws upon Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, is less severe than that of the Deuteronomistic writing. Whereas the final chapters of Kings depict a series of devastating forced dislocations and temple lootings, the final chapter of Chronicles briefly depicts three plunders: one by Nebuchadnezzar during the reign of Jehoiakim, which sends some temple furnishings (‫ )מכלי בית יהוה‬to Auslegung, 160–69; R. K. Duke, The Persuasive Appeal of the Chronicler: A Rhetorical Analysis (JSOTSup 88; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1990); idem, “A Rhetorical Approach to Appreciating the Books of Chronicles,” in The Chronicler as Author: Studies in Text and Texture (ed. M. P. Graham and S. L. McKenzie; JSOTSup 263; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 100–35. 90 This commendation of creativity includes innovation beyond previously acceptable older practices, Knoppers, “Historiography and History,” 178–203; S. J. Schweitzer, Reading Utopia in Chronicles (LHBOTS 442; London: T&T Clark International, 2007), 76–131. 91 Thus, the important claims of G. von Rad, Theologie des Alten Testaments, Bd 1 (8th ed.; München: Chr. Kaiser, 1982), 360–62 [trans. of 1st ed. (1957) by D. M. G. Stalker, Old Testament Theology (2 vols.; New York: Harper & Row, 1962), 1.349–50], need to be qualified. 92 Japhet, Ideology, 364.

260

Chapter 9

Babylon (2 Chr 36:7),93 another during the reign of Jehoiachin in which the precious articles of the temple (‫ )כלי חמדת בית־יהוה‬accompany Jehoiachin into exile (2 Chr 36:10), and a third during the reign of King Zedekiah, which dispatches all of the temple furnishings, whether great or small (‫כל כלי בית האלהים‬ ‫)הגדלים והקטנים‬, to Babylon (2 Chr 36:18). The last deportation is definitive. In this respect, the influence of Jeremiah (Jer 27:19–22*; 28:6), over against Kings, is evident.94 The temple treasures, the royal treasures, and those of the officials leave Jerusalem; “everything” is brought intact to Babylon (2 Chr 36:18). In comparison with the detailed contrasts developed in Kings between the age of temple construction and the age of temple destruction, the overthrow of the temple and its contents is discussed in only three verses.95 This unique portrait of temple plunder and destruction has two complementary effects. It plays down the devastation wrought by the Babylonian invasions in Kings96 and it creates an open-ended future for the temple artifacts.97 Whereas Kings presents two temple lootings, the first of which results in the deportation of the temple and palace treasures (2 Kgs 24:13) and the second of which results in the destruction of the temple and everything in it (2 Kgs 25:9, 13–17), Chronicles consistently portrays a Babylonian destination for both the temple vessels (2 Chr 36:7, 10) and the temple and palace treasures (2 Chr 36:18). This version of Judah’s final years offers readers grounds for hope, based on the fate of the sanctuary and palace artifacts. The DavidicSolomonic temple is razed, but the Davidic-Solomonic legacy does not end 93

In this context, the influence of Chronicles upon Daniel (1:1–2; 5:2–3, 23) is pronounced, J. J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 130–34, 244–45. 94 As J. G. Janzen (Studies in the Text of Jeremiah [HSM 6; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973], 46–47, 69–75) and Holladay ( Jeremiah 2, 114, 123) observe, the LXX of Jer 27:19–22 is to be preferred (lectio brevior) over against the MT. On the use of Jeremiah in Chronicles, see further I. Kalimi and J. D. Purvis, “King Jehoiachin and the Vessels of the Lord’s House in Biblical Literature,” CBQ 56 (1994), 452–56; M. Leuchter, “Rethinking the ‘Jeremiah’ Doublet in Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles,” in What was Authoritative for Chronicles? (ed. E. Ben Zvi and D. Edelman; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 183–200. 95 2 Chr 36:17–19; cf. 2 Kgs 25:9, 13–17. The attention given to all of the post-Josianic kings in Chronicles is substantially reduced when compared with the presentation in Kings, Kalimi and Purvis, “King Jehoiachin and the Vessels,” 449–52; S. E. Baines, “The Cohesiveness of 2 Chronicles 33:1–36:23 as a Literary Unit Concluding the Book of Chronicles,” in Chronicling the Chronicler: The Book of Chronicles and Early Second Temple Historiography (ed. P. S. Evans and T. F. Williams; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 141–58. 96 See Japhet, Ideology, 364–73; eadem, I & II Chronicles, 1060–77, although I do not agree with all of her conclusions. 97 P. R. Ackroyd, Studies in the Religious Tradition of the Old Testament (London: SCM, 1987), 46–60.

ROYAL ( MIS ) APPROPRIATIONS IN SAMUEL-KINGS AND CHRONICLES

261

with the destruction of this shrine. It continues in the deported temple utensils and furnishings. In Ezra and in select sections of Nehemiah there is a consistent emphasis on the return and reuse of temple artifacts.98 The temple vessels have been called, in fact, a “continuity theme” in Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah.99 Given this and other evidence, one can say that there is a clear line of continuity between the first and second temple Jerusalem communities. As in the Chronistic depiction of the Judahite monarchy, a period of decline is followed by a period of recovery. 2.4 Renewal in the Persian Period The positive fate for the temple vessels in Ezra is adumbrated in Chronicles itself. This brings us to another important way in which the work’s handling of the national treasuries differs from that of Kings. The genealogical introduction to the people of Israel (1 Chr 1:1–9:1) concludes by mentioning Judah’s cultic infidelity (‫ )מעל‬and deportation from the land (1 Chr 9:1). Yet, it also contains an account of the (postexilic) residents of Jerusalem (1 Chr 9:2–34).100 This complex passage, which contains lists, genealogies, and duty rosters, gives special attention to the priests, Levites, gatekeepers, and their service at the 98 Ezra 1:7–11; 5:13–15; 6:5. There are also new contributions made to the sanctuary (or vowed as much): Ezra 7:19–20; 8:26–30, 33–34; Neh 10:38–39; cf. 13:5–9(!); W. Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia (HAT 20; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1949); J. Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988). So also 1 Esd 1:43, 45, 54; 2:10–15; 4:44, 57; 8:17, 55; Jdt 4:3. 99 Ackroyd, Studies, 56–59. The fate of the temple articles remains an interest in later tradition (e.g., 2 Macc 2:5; 2 Baruch 6; 4 Baruch 3). Some early Jewish and Samaritan interpreters thought that the temple vessels were hidden and would not be revealed until some point in the future when cultic services would be restored, I. Kalimi and J. D. Purvis, “The Hiding of the Temple Vessels in Jewish and Samaritan Literature,” CBQ 56 (1994), 679–85. 100 Along with a number of other commentators, I view much of the genealogical material in 1 Chronicles 1–9 as integral to the Chronicler’s work. See S. Japhet, “Conquest and Settlement in Chronicles,” JBL 98 (1979), 205–18; eadem, I & II Chronicles, 1–10; Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 37–40; M. Kartveit, Motive und Schichten der Landtheologie in I Chronik 1–9 (ConBOT 28; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1989); Y. Levin, “Understanding Biblical Genealogies,” CurBS 9 (2001), 11–46; idem, “Who was the Chronicler’s Audience? A Hint from His Genealogies,” JBL 122 (2003), 229–45; Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, 245–65; Klein, 1 Chronicles, 20–23; J. T. Sparks, The Chronicler’s Genealogies (AcBib 28; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2008). For a different view, see A. C. Welch, The Work of the Chronicler: Its Purpose and Date (The Schweich Lectures 1938; London: Oxford University Press, 1939); M. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien: Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament (2nd ed.; Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 1957), 110–31 [trans. H. G. M. Williamson, The Chronicler’s History (JSOTSup 50; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), 29–50]; W. Rudolph, Chronikbücher (HAT 21; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1955), 6–91.

262

Chapter 9

Jerusalem sanctuary.101 Melding features of the temple with those of the tabernacle, the account archaizes the “house of Yhwh” (‫ )בית יהוה‬by identifying it with the “house of the tent” (‫ ;בית האהל‬1 Chr 9:23).102 Thus, the services for the (Second) Temple (1 Chr 9:23–33) recall those obtaining at ancient Israel’s tent of meeting. Among the steps taken is the appointment of four chief gatekeepers (‫ )גבורי השערים‬to be in charge of the chambers and treasuries (‫על־הלשכות‬ ‫ )ועל האצרות‬of the house of God (1 Chr 9:26).103 The pattern of disruption and recovery, characterizing the history of the Judahite monarchy, is also present here. Although the story of Israel’s development in the land ends with the Babylonian deportations (1 Chr 2:1–9:1), it resumes in the Persian period (1 Chr 9:2–34). The exile becomes only an interruption, albeit a major interruption, in the ongoing story of the people of Israel and their national institutions. The theme of continuity in spite of upheaval is also present at the end of the work. Although Chronicles briefly portrays the disaster of the Babylonian exile, along with the destruction of the temple, the book ends with the summons of King Cyrus of Persia to rebuild the Jerusalem temple (2 Chr 36:22–23).104 In this respect, the Chronicler’s treatment of the fate of the temple is a good example of his generally optimistic view of history. By highlighting Cyrus’s announcement that Yhwh had appointed Cyrus “to build for him a temple in Jerusalem” (‫)לבנות־לו בית בירושלים‬, Chronicles ends by pointing back, however allusively, toward the foundations first laid by David and Solomon centuries earlier. 101 The material in 1 Chr 9:2–18 is paralleled to some extent by Neh 11:3–19. The overlap between the two passages has been overstated, however. See G. N. Knoppers, “Sources, Revisions, and Editions: The Lists of Jerusalem’s Residents in MT and LXX Nehemiah 11 and I Chronicles 9,” Textus 20 (2000), 141–68. 102 Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, 505–7. 103 R. L. Braun, 1 Chronicles (WBC 14; Waco, TX: Word, 1986), 141–44. 104 M. Kartveit, “2 Chronicles 36.20–23 as Literary and ‘Theological’ Interface,” in The Chronicler as Author (see n. 89), 395–403; Leuchter, “Rethinking the ‘Jeremiah’ Doublet,” 183–200.

Chapter 10

Yhwh’s Rejection of the House Built for His Name: On the Significance of Anti-temple Rhetoric in the Deuteronomistic History In one of the appendices to the account of Josiah’s reign, the God of Israel declares: “I shall reject (‫ )ומאסתי‬Jerusalem, this city, which I have chosen (‫העיר‬ ‫)הזאת אשר־בחרתי‬, and the temple, of which I said, “My name shall be there” (‫( ”)הבית אשר אמרתי יהיה שמי שם‬2 Kgs 23:27). The oracle is curious, not only because Yhwh turns against Judah in spite of Josiah’s unprecedented reforms, but also because Yhwh spurns his own sanctuary. The same deity who elected Jerusalem elects to reject this city. What should one make of this reversal? Negative commentary on cult is, of course, not unique to our passage. There are many texts in the Deuteronomistic History that seem to give short shrift to religious institutions and symbols. The strident polemic against Asherah and the asherahs is, for example, unparalleled in the Hebrew Scriptures.1 The attacks on other gods and the proscribed artifacts are one matter; but, in the view of some scholars, the negative Deuteronomistic disposition toward cultic affairs is nowhere more evident than in the presentation of the Jerusalem temple. The classic treatment of Noth may serve as an example. According to Noth, the Deuteronomist disregarded sacrifice and viewed the house of Yhwh as “little more than a place towards which one turns in prayer.”2 To be sure, Noth 1 S. M. Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel (SBLMS 34; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988); C. Frevel, Aschera und der Ausschließlichkeitsanspruch Jhwhs. Beiträge zu literarischen, religionsgeschichtlichen und ikonographischen Aspekten der Ascheradiskussion (2 vols.; BBB 94; Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, 1995); R. Kletter, The Judean Pillar-Figurines and the Archaeology of Asherah (BAR International Series 636; Oxford: Tempus Reparatum, 1996); T. Binger, Asherah: Goddesses in Ugarit, Israel and the Old Testament (JSOTSup 232; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997). 2 M. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien: Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament (2nd ed.; Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1957), 102–7 [trans. D. J. A. Clines, The Deuteronomistic History (JSOTSup 15; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981), 91–97]; idem, Könige 1 (BKAT 9/1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1968), 168–93. I argue the opposite position, namely that the Deuteronomistic trope of the temple as the divinely authorized site for national prayer actually advances the temple’s prestige, G. N. Knoppers, “Prayer and Propaganda: The Dedication of Solomon’s Temple and the Deuteronomist’s Program,” CBQ 57 (1995), 229–54 [repr. in Reconsidering Israel and Judah: The Deuteronomistic History in Recent Thought (ed. G. N. Knoppers and J. G. McConville; SBTS 8; Winona Lake, IN: ©  GARY N. KNOPPERS (†), Christl M. Maier and H. G. M. Williamson, 2021 |  doi:10.1163/9789004444898_012

264

Chapter 10

acknowledges that the temple’s completion was of “fundamental importance to the Deuteronomist’s theological interpretation of history.”3 Nevertheless, the Deuteronomistic interest in the house of Yhwh during the dual monarchies is, with “a few pleasant exceptions,” primarily “how the temple was stripped of its wealth by its own kings.”4 The ending of Kings, which focuses on death, destruction, and deportation, does not offer much reason to hope. All that Solomon built is dismantled, pilfered, or destroyed in the Babylonian exiles of 598 and 586 BCE.5 The postscript announcing Babylonian mercies to the exiled King Jehoiachin (2 Kgs 25:27–30) offers a glimmer of hope to anyone interested in the fate of the Jehoiachin branch within the larger Davidic line, but the same work offers no such good news about the Jerusalem cult. There are no prophecies predicting the shrine’s restoration.6 Because of such traits, some have even characterized the Deuteronomistic agenda as one of desacralization, demythologization, or secularization.7 Eisenbrauns, 2000), 370–96]. The depiction of various petitions that are to be offered at the temple popularizes this institution, championing it as a unifying symbol in Israelite worship. 3 Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, 5 [Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 5]. 4 Ibid., 66 [Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 77]. See also the specialized studies of M. Delcor, “Hinweise auf das samaritanische Schisma im Alten Testament,” ZAW 74 (1962), 281–91; E. T. Mullen, “Crime and Punishment: The Sins of the King and the Despoliation of the Treasuries,” CBQ 54 (1992), 231–48; N. Na’aman, “The Deuteronomist and Voluntary Service to Foreign Powers,” JSOT 65 (1995), 37–53 [repr. Ancient Israel’s History and Historiography: The First Temple Period (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 259–73], and L. S. Fried, “The Land Lay Desolate: Conquest and Restoration in the Ancient Near East,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period (ed. O. Lipschits and J. Blenkinsopp; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 21–54. Cf. also chapter 9, “Blood, Toil, and Treasure: Royal (Mis)appropriations in Samuel-Kings and Chronicles.” 5 Compare 2 Kgs 24:13–14 with Jer 27:19–22 and 2 Kgs 25:13–17 with Jer 52:17–23. See also 2 Kgs 25:8–10. As J. G. Janzen (Studies in the Text of Jeremiah [HSM 6; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973], 46–47, 69–75) and W. L. Holladay ( Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 26–52 [Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1989], 114, 123) observe, LXX Jer 27:19–22 is likely the older reading (lectio brevior) over against the MT. 6 One of the appendices to Chronicles contains such a clear pointer, announcing Cyrus’s decree allowing Judean expatriates to return home and authorizing the sanctuary’s reconstruction (2 Chr 36:22–23). The same book contains a list of postmonarchic returnees, who resided in Jerusalem and in other towns (1 Chr 9:2–34). See G. N. Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9 (AB 12; New York: Doubleday/New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), 492–514. 7 E. W. Nicholson, Deuteronomy and Tradition (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967), 94–101; idem, “Deuteronomy’s Vision of Israel,” in Storia e tradizioni di Israele: Scritti in onore di J. Alberto Soggin (ed. D. Garrone and F. Moscati; Brescia: Paideia, 1991), 191–203; M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972), 44–45, 190–232; idem, “On ‘Demythologization’ and ‘Secularization’ in Deuteronomy,” IEJ 23 (1973), 230–33; idem,

Anti-temple Rhetoric in the Deuteronomistic History

265

In past discussions about Deuteronomistic attitudes toward cult, rarely has the question been asked how these attitudes would have played out in the context of the Neo-Babylonian era, whether in a diasporic setting or in the land itself. If the views of Noth and others are at all close to the mark, would not Yhwh’s rejection of his chosen town and temple have strengthened the position of other towns and shrines in the former kingdom of Judah? Would not the Deuteronomistic statements comparing Manasseh’s cultic policies to the policies of Ahab in the Northern Kingdom (2 Kgs 21:3) damage the credibility of whatever remained of the traditional Jerusalemite cultic establishment? The same work that champions the privileged place of Jerusalem also acknowledges the past existence of a legitimate Yahwistic sanctuary at Shiloh (Josh 18:8–10; 1 Samuel 1–3). No less a prominent king than Solomon was the recipient of a theophany at “the great high place” (‫ )הבמה הגדולה‬of Gibeon (1 Kgs 3:4–14). By comparison, the second theophany to Solomon (1 Kgs 9:1–9), delivered after the temple dedication, is full of ominous warnings and conditions.8 With the demise and exile of the Davidic line in the early sixth century, there may have been individuals who saw a need to make a new beginning. Considering the fact that the royal family connected to the Jerusalem temple was captive in another land and the local government was now headquartered at Mizpah, perhaps it was time to turn one’s attention to another town or to another shrine. Because of the Bethel shrine’s proximity to Mizpah, the shrine may have experienced enhanced status during the early Neo-Babylonian period.9 If the damage done to the sanctuary was divinely wrought, would this fact not open the way for other Yahwistic sanctuaries to (re-)emerge or gain in prestige among the Judahites and Benjaminites who were left in the land? In this essay, I would like to review some of the Deuteronomistic judgments rendered against the Jerusalem temple. What is the nature of the negative coverage and what are the assumptions that lie behind it? If one does not Deuteronomy 1–11 (AB 5; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1991), 44–53. For reservations, see J. Milgrom, “The Alleged ‘Demythologization and Secularization’ in Deuteronomy,” IEJ 23 (1973), 156–61; B. M. Levinson, “The Hermeneutics of Innovation: The Impact of Centralization Upon the Structure, Sequence, and Reformulation of Legal Material in Deuteronomy” (PhD diss., Brandeis University, 1991), 230–32. 8 The connection with the Gibeonite theophany is made explicit in 1 Kgs 9:2. It is no wonder that, when the Chronicler provided his own version of the (second) theophany, he included a much longer and more positive divine response, specifically addressing the petitions in Solomon’s prayer (2 Chr 7:12–22). 9 J. Blenkinsopp, “Bethel in the Neo-Babylonian Period,” in Judah and the Judeans (see n. 4), 93– 108; O. Lipschits, “Bethel Revisited,” in Rethinking Israel: Studies in the History and Archaeol­ ogy of Ancient Israel in Honor of Israel Finkelstein (ed. O. Lipschits, Y. Gadot, and M. J. Adams; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2017), 233–44.

266

Chapter 10

see the catastrophes of 598 and 586 BCE as the end of Israel (as Noth does), one should explore what results the Deuteronomistic statements may have achieved in a Neo-Babylonian setting. My assumption is that the book of Kings was edited at least once during the late monarchy and was supplemented and (re-)edited during exilic times.10 Further additions were made to this work during the Achaemenid and Hellenistic eras.11 In what follows, my focus will be on a few passages that most scholars would date to the Neo-Babylonian period or later: Solomon’s petition dealing with the prospect of exile (1 Kgs 8:46–51), the second theophany to Solomon (1 Kgs 9:1–9), and the judgment oracles tying Manasseh’s policies to Judah’s demise (2 Kgs 21:10–16; 23:26–27). I concede that not all of these texts may have stemmed from the same hand. Nevertheless, I argue that there are enough common traits among them for us to gain a sense of how the Deuteronomists who edited Kings wanted the temple’s demise to be understood. 1

Israel in Exile: The Last Petition in Solomon’s Prayer

In surveying the predicaments addressed by Solomon’s petitions, one is struck by how closely they tie recourse to Yhwh “at this house” to the particular plight being addressed. But if the people are forcibly removed from the land, does the shrine still retain any value? One is tempted to say no, but a close examination of the seventh and final petition (1 Kgs 8:46–51) provides a different, 10 G. N. Knoppers, Two Nations under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies (HSM 52–53; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993–1994), 1.17–54. To put matters somewhat differently, even if the editing (or re-editing) actually took place in the Persian period, the stance taken at the end of the book reflects the outlook of an author who has been influenced by the experience of exile. So J. Linville, “Rethinking the ‘Exilic’ Book of Kings,” JSOT 75 (1997), 21–42. On a series of possible Persian period editions of the Deuteronomistic work, see the different proposals of E. Würthwein, Studien zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk (BZAW 227; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994), 1–11; R. F. Person, The Deuteronomic School: History, Social Setting, and Literature (StBL 2; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2002); T. C. Römer, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical and Literary Introduction (New York: T&T Clark, 2005). 11 In dealing with the temple, one may take 1 Kgs 6:11–14 as one example of a late interpolation: Noth, Könige 1, 118; E. Würthwein, Die Bücher der Könige: 1 Könige 1–16 (ATD 11/1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977), 65; S. L. McKenzie, The Trouble with Kings: The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History (VTSup 42; Leiden: Brill, 1991), 138; V. Hurowitz, I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings (JSOTSup 115; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 264. The text of 1 Kgs 6:11–14, not found in any form in the LXXB, has been introduced by the literary technique of resumptive repetition, Knoppers, Two Nations, 1.96–97.

Anti-temple Rhetoric in the Deuteronomistic History

267

more complex perspective. Most agree that these verses, at least in their present form, date to the sixth century or later.12 Indeed, the very wording of this petition, “and they pray to you in the direction of …” (1 Kgs 8:48), means that the actual existence of the sanctuary structure is not necessary for the petition to be efficacious. Positing the inevitability of human transgression, the monarch envisions Yhwh as becoming angry with his people and delivering them over to their enemies, who take them captive to an enemy land “far or near” (1 Kgs 8:46). The text features the “anger-formula” pattern found in a number of other Deuteronomistic contexts.13 After the people (or their leader) commit transgression, God becomes enraged and abandons them to their enemies. The dire situation continues until either the people repent or God raises up a new leader. These anger formulae, together with the set-pieces of which they are a part, usually appear in clusters, for instance in the framework to Deuteronomy (31:6), the beginning of the Judges period (Josh 23:16; Judg 2:14, 20), the division (1 Kgs 11:9–10), and the end of the Hebrew kingdoms (2 Kgs 17:15–18; 21:2–6; 22:17; 23:26; 24:3 [LXX], 20). The Deuteronomistic editors employ this trope as one means to differentiate among the major epochs they posit in the past. The stylized description of sin, divine anger, and punishment in the prayer is therefore highly significant, pointing toward repentance as the next step for the exiles. The paronomastic play on the root ‫“( שוב‬to repent, return, restore”) and the verbal root ‫“( שבה‬to take captive”) accentuates the need for the deportees to turn back to Yhwh in the land of “their captors.”14 It advises them to 12

A few scholars, such as C. F. Burney (Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings with an Introduction and Appendix [Oxford: Clarendon, 1903], 113–14), J. A. Montgomery (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings [ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1951] 187– 201), and B. Halpern (The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History [San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988], 168–74), view 1 Kgs 8:46–51 as preexilic. E. Talstra (Solomon’s Prayer: Synchrony and Diachrony in the Composition of I Kings 8,14–61 [trans. G. Runia-Deenick; CBET 3; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1993], 123–26, 216–25) contends that vv. 46–51 contain both exilic and postexilic material. 13 My discussion of the anger formulas is indebted to D. J. McCarthy, “The Wrath of Yahweh and the Structural Unity of the Deuteronomistic History,” in Essays in Old Testament Ethics (ed. J. L. Crenshaw and J. T. Willis; New York: Ktav, 1974), 97–110, even though my understanding of their role and function differs somewhat from his (Knoppers, Two Nations, 1.146–49). N. Lohfink provides an insightful discussion of the anger theme in the larger work, “Der Zorn Gottes und das Exil: Beobachtungen am deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk,” in Liebe und Gebot: Studien zum Deuteronomium. FS L. Perlitt (ed. R. G. Kratz and H. Spieckermann; FRLANT 190; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 135–55. 14 See J. D. Levenson, “The Paronomasia of Solomon’s Seventh Petition,” HAR 6 (1982), 135–38. This author is much more circumspect than the writers of Deut 30:1–10 and 2

268

Chapter 10

“return” to Yhwh, pray in the direction of their land, city, and temple, and say: “We have sinned and committed iniquity; we have done evil” (1 Kgs 8:47). Even though the king prays for the prospect of God’s forgiveness and compassion upon the people in the sight of their oppressors, no assurance is given that the people will be able to return to their land (1 Kgs 8:49–50). At first glance, the thesis of Wolff seems to be well taken.15 The editor(s) cautions against ill-founded expectations of restoration and offers expatriates only a muted hope. But surely the issue is not only the limited hope that this petition offers, but also the premises inherent in the prayer and the literary context in which the promise is framed. Most of Solomon’s petitions address matters of Israel’s existence in the land, but his final petition addresses Israel’s existence in a foreign land. By having the temple-builder engage the issue of mass deportation during the very act of temple dedication, the writers contain it. Should exile occur, it will have been long anticipated. Already in the imagined setting of the tenth century, Solomon raises the prospect of a tragedy that will confront Israel in the eighth century and Judah in the sixth century. Is the seventh petition an instance of desacralization or of resacralization? It appears to be the latter. The writers extend the scope of popular religious practice to encompass an international setting. The assumptions of the petition are that Yhwh the national God of Israel is willing and able to operate in foreign jurisdictions and that Yhwh’s chosen town and the place of his name may gain a following in other lands. There has been much speculation about whether some sort of system of sacrifices was resumed at the Temple Mount during the Neo-Babylonian period.16 In spite of the great damage done to the sanctuary, were offerings still made in the precinct’s ruins? Scholars have also long debated whether Judeans in the diaspora established their own sanctuary in the vicinity of Babylon or elsewhere.17 The king does not address these sorts of questions, but it is relevant that he mentions the relationship of the Chr 30:6–9 are in offering hope to the exiles. See G. N. Knoppers, “What Does Mt. Zion Have to Do with Mt. Gerizim? A Study in the Early Relations between the Jews and the Samaritans in the Persian Period,” SR 34 (2005), 307–36; idem, Jews and Samaritans: The Origins and History of Their Early Relations (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 82–92. Like 1 Kgs 8:46–51, Deut 4:25–31 is guarded in what it promises expatriates. 15 H. W. Wolff, “The Kerygma of the Deuteronomic Historical Work,” in The Vitality of Old Testament Traditions (ed. W. Brueggemann and H. W. Wolff; Atlanta: John Knox, 1975), 91–93. 16 The treatment of O. Lipschits, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem: Judah under Babylonian Rule (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005), provides a thorough discussion along with references to other studies. 17 J. H. Chong, “Were there Yahwistic Sanctuaries in Babylon?” AJT 10 (1996), 198–217; R. Albertz, Die Exilszeit: 6. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (BE 7; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2001 [trans.

Anti-temple Rhetoric in the Deuteronomistic History

269

land, city, and temple to deportees. The shrine is to remain a focal point of popular piety, even for those who find themselves far away from this site. The centralization legislation (Deuteronomy 12) is incumbent on Israelites, when they come to reside in the land, but Solomon extends the sanctuary’s relevance to Israelites residing in foreign lands. In this context, the reference to the ancestors’ being delivered from Egypt (1 Kgs 8:51) is noteworthy because in Deuteronomistic theology the Israelites were not autochthonous to Canaan.18 To an Israel that predated and now postdates its occupation of the land, the reason given for divine compassion— “because they are your people and your inheritance” (‫כי־עמך ונחלתך הם‬, 1 Kgs 8:51)—is appropriate to the circumstance. The expatriates are to retain their focus not only on the land, just as their ancestors encamped on the steppes of Moab were called to do, but also on their town and sanctuary. The question thus becomes not the survival of the deportees, but how these deportees will react to their predicament.19 2

“Once So Exalted”: The Temple in the Second Theophany to Solomon

In its very portrayal of the newly dedicated temple, Kings defines the terms by which its destruction could come about. Like the final petition in Solomon’s prayer, the question-and-answer schema of 1 Kgs 9:4–9 addresses the prospect of exile. In his second direct appearance to the king (compare with 1 Kgs 3:4–14), the deity begins with a most encouraging response (1 Kgs 9:3) to the royal pleas for divine oversight of the temple (for example, 1 Kgs 8:29, 52). Yet, the oracle goes on to address Solomon’s possession of “the throne of Israel,” conditioning this everlasting throne upon the conduct of Solomon alone (1 Kgs 9:4–5; cf. 2:4, 8:25–26). Another shift follows. The text of 1 Kgs 9:6–7 ambiguously addresses not Solomon but the plural “you (‫ )אתם‬and your sons.” These D. Green, Israel in Exile: The History and Literature of the Sixth Century B.C.E. (StBL 3; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2003)]. 18 T. C. Römer, Israels Väter: Untersuchungen zur Väterthematik im Deuteronomium und in der deuteronomistischen Tradition (OBO 99; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990). Compare the oracle of Ezekiel to Jerusalem, “Your origin and your birth were in the land of the Canaanites. Your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite” (Ezek 16:3). 19 Judging by texts in Chronicles (2 Chr 7:12–22; 20:5–12; 33:10–13), Ezra (7:27–28; 8:15–31), Nehemiah (1:4–11), Daniel (6:11), and 1 Esdras (4:58), this Jerusalem-focused trope had a substantial influence on later Judean writers.

270

Chapter 10

verses, added by a late Deuteronomistic editor, focus on cult, not on dynasty.20 The traditio qualifies the traditum of 1 Kgs 9:3, “And my eyes and my heart will be there in perpetuity,” predicating the people’s deportation and the temple’s destruction upon disobedience. God initially informed Solomon: “I have heard your prayer and your supplication … and I have consecrated this house (‫)הקדשתי את־הבית הזה‬, which you have built to place my name there forever” (‫לשום־שמי שם עד־עולם‬, 1 Kgs 9:3).21 Yet, the deity now announces that transgressing his statutes and worshiping other gods will lead him to take drastic action: “I shall cut off Israel from the land22 that I gave to them. As for this house,23 which I consecrated for my name (‫)הקדשתי לשמי‬, I shall cast (it) away24 from my presence. And Israel will become a proverb25 and a taunt among all the nations” (1 Kgs 9:7).26 The scenario sketched in this text is harsher than the scenario sketched in Solomon’s seventh petition. First, Israel not only is forcibly deported, but also becomes the subject of ridicule among the nations. Second, the sanctuary itself is distanced from Yhwh’s presence.27 The very deity who consecrated this house casts it away. The text of 1 Kgs 9:8–9, which assumes the destruction of the once-exalted temple, portrays the verbal abuse of outsiders who see the sanctuary remains as evidence that “Yhwh has abandoned them” (1 Kgs 9:8–9). Using language typical of both the Deuteronomistic History and Jeremiah, the passers-by infer that “they abandoned Yhwh their God, who brought their ancestors out of the land of Egypt, and they took hold of other gods, worshiped them, and served them.”28 Although the passage does not explicitly identify “they,” the most 20

Of the three levels in the compositional history of this passage: (1) 1 Kgs 9:1–3; (2) 1 Kgs 9:4– 5; (3) 1 Kgs 9:6–9, I would attribute only vv. 1–3 to the work of the preexilic Deuteronomist (Knoppers, Two Nations, 1.109–10). 21 I read with the MT (lectio brevior). LXX 1 Kgs 9:3 is significantly longer than the MT, containing an additional affirmation that the deity has acted according to Solomon’s prayer (cf. 2 Chr 7:12–22). 22 So the LXX (lectio brevior). The plus of the MT (‫ )פני‬may assimilate toward the use of ‫פני‬ later in the verse. 23 Thus the LXX (= ‫)הבית הזה‬. The MT’s ‫ הבית‬has suffered haplography (homoioarkton). 24 In reading ‫אשליך‬, I am following the versions and 2 Chr 7:20. The MT has ‫אשלח‬. The expression (the hiphil of ‫ שלך‬with ‫ מפניו‬/ ‫ )מעל פניו‬seems to be Deuteronomistic (2 Kgs 13:23, 17:20, 24:20; Jer 7:15, 52:3). 25 The MT has ‫למשל‬, while the LXX has εἰς ἀφανισμὸν. Montgomery (Books of Kings, 204) and the BHS follow the LXX and reconstruct ‫לשממה‬, but it seems better to read with the MT (cf. Deut 28:37; Jer 24:9; Ps 69:12; 2 Chr 7:20). 26 For the Deuteronomistic locutions in this verse, see Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 325 (no. 7), 347 (no. 11), 348 (no. 20). 27 Hence, there is some reason to doubt that the editor responsible for the final wording of Solomon’s seventh petition is also responsible for these clauses. 28 In 1 Kgs 9:9 I read ‫ וישתחוו‬with the qere (ketiv: ‫)וישתחו‬.

Anti-temple Rhetoric in the Deuteronomistic History

271

likely candidate is Israel. The author blames the sanctuary’s destruction on the people themselves. To be sure, this revelation neither explicitly predicts nor ordains Israel’s banishment and the devastation of its central shrine. The second theophany to Solomon may thus be contrasted with the judgment oracles against Jeroboam’s cultus (1 Kgs 13:1–3, 31–34) and the Israelite Kingdom (1 Kgs 14:7–16), which justify and predict catastrophe.29 Instead, the theophany establishes the general terms under which these disasters could occur. Far from being anti-cultic in character, the explanation is profoundly cultic. The potential downfall of the house of God has nothing to do with economic conditions, machinations in international affairs, or military interventions and everything to do with how Israelites relate to their patron deity. In modifying the earlier traditum (1 Kgs 9:3), the traditio paradoxically safeguards some aspects of the temple’s integrity. Yhwh discards his shrine, but the temple’s overthrow does not become an argument in favor of secularization, other sanctuaries, or a templeless religion. Far from it, the desolation afflicting the city does not nullify historic Deuteronomistic tenets, such as centralization, the divine election of Jerusalem, the observance of Yhwh’s commandments, or the proscription of worshiping other gods. Historically, the devastating carnage associated with the Neo-Babylonian conquests led to an existential crisis both for those who survived the onslaughts in the land and for those who were forcibly displaced to other territories. The question that needed to be addressed was how such a terrible tragedy could be explained and accepted. As Jeremiah’s debate with the Judahite women exiled in Pathros attests, a variety of reasons could be given for the defeat, famine, and death that had come upon the people (Jer 44:15–30). Was worship of the Queen of Heaven a key to Judah’s decline or a key to Judah’s earlier prosperity? But in the second theophany there is no hermeneutical dilemma either for Israelites or for outsiders. In both cases, the conclusion is clear. Should the house of Yhwh fall, it will not be because of blemished sacrifices, exclusive Yhwh worship, or a corrupt priesthood. The work does not find fault with the attention Solomon lavished on this shrine, nor does it question the building’s location. Even the Chronicler, whom no one accuses of being anti-temple, assigns some responsibility for the sack of Jerusalem to the highest echelons of the Jerusalem sacerdocy: “Even all the leaders of the priests” (‫גם כל־שרי הכה־‬ ‫ )נים‬and the people “multiplied infidelity upon infidelity according to all the abominations of the nations” (2 Chr 36:14).30 29 Knoppers Two Nations, 2.45–112. 30 It is likely that the longer lemma of LXX 2 Chr 36:14 (καὶ πάντες οἱ ἔνδοξοι Ιουδα) and that of 1 Esd 1:47 (καὶ οἱ ἡγούμενοι δὲ τοῦ λαοῦ) bear witness to a slightly longer Vorlage that is to be preferred over the shorter text of MT 2 Chr 36:14 (haplography). See R. W. Klein, 2

272

Chapter 10

But Kings does not censure any members of the Jerusalem priesthood.31 Rather than being an example of anti-temple rhetoric, the text may better be understood as an example of pro-temple sentiments, an attempt to defend and redefine the mythology of the sanctuary in the aftermath of its humiliation. According to the question-and-answer schema, there was nothing intrinsically wrong with the house that Solomon built. Nor were Yhwh’s provisions for Israel in any way deficient. The very rationale for disaster validates Deuteronomistic theology about the house of Yhwh and the nature of worship to be observed by Israelites. To put matters somewhat differently, the sorry fate of the house of Yhwh becomes an object lesson for Israelites on how not to practice their religion.32 3

Do Manasseh’s Sins Level the Differences between Israel and Judah?

The final chapters of Kings devote considerable attention to the Babylonian plunder and demolition of the Jerusalem temple. This debasement occurs in two stages: the invasion of 598 BCE and the conquest of 586 BCE. The book subsumes these catastrophes under the rubrics of divine judgment, Manassite guilt, and Judahite culpability.33 Threats of exile (1 Kgs 9:4–9) and allusions to exile (2 Kgs 20:17–18) appear earlier, but the definitive divine decree that

Chronicles (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 533. Chronicles thus blames three groups for the exile: the notables of Judah, the priests, and the people. 31 This may provide a clue to the identity of these Deuteronomistic writers. See further R. Albertz, Religionsgeschichte Israels in alttestamentlicher Zeit (GAT 8; 2 vols.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), 1.310–12, 1.360–72, 2.398–401 [trans. J. Bowden, History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period (2 vols.; trans. J. Bowden; OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 1.201–3, 1.231–42; 2.388–90]. Compare the censure of the Levites in Ezek 44:10–14 (cf. vv. 15–31) and the complaints of the Persian-period prophet Malachi (1:6–2:9) about priests and sacrifices at the Jerusalem sanctuary. The debates in Trito-Isaiah about the function, purpose, and staffing of the temple also come to mind. See J. Schaper, Priester und Leviten im achämenidischen Juda (FAT 31; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000). 32 Na’aman (“Voluntary Servitude,” 46–47) is therefore right to insist that continuity of cult is one of the major themes of the Deuteronomistic treatment of the monarchy. 33 P. S. F. van Keulen, Manasseh through the Eyes of the Deuteronomist (OtSt 38; Leiden: Brill, 1996); E. Eynikel, The Reform of King Josiah and the Composition of the Deuteronomistic History (OtSt 33; Leiden: Brill, 1996).

Anti-temple Rhetoric in the Deuteronomistic History

273

destruction and deportation would occur does not appear until the time of Manasseh.34 Of all the southern kings, Judah’s longest reigning monarch receives the harshest editorial criticism. The king’s iniquity is defined in typically Deuteronomistic terms: rebuilding the high places, erecting altars for Baʿal, fashioning an asherah (and constructing an image [‫ ]פסל‬of the same), worshiping the host of heaven, erecting altars in the sanctuary, building altars in the temple courts for all the host of heaven, and practicing child sacrifice, augury, and divination.35 As this summary indicates, the Deuteronomistic writers show a keen interest in, one might even say a preoccupation with, matters of cultic unity and cultic purity.36 The editors employ incomparability formulas to assess three northern monarchs—Jeroboam (1 Kgs 14:9), Omri (1 Kgs 16:30), and Ahab (1 Kgs 16:33)—to charge these leaders with unparalleled wrongdoing.37 But Manasseh is the only southern monarch deemed to have “misled them [the people] to do more evil than the nations committed that Yhwh destroyed before the people of Israel” (2 Kgs 21:9).38 In the Deuteronomistic 34 There are, however, additions to the long Deuteronomistic editorial on the fall of the Northern Kingdom that speak of the exile of Judah as a past fact (2 Kgs 17:13–17, 19–20). On the contested authorship of these verses, which contain no mention of the temple, see McKenzie, Trouble with Kings, 140–42; M. Z. Brettler, The Creation of History in Ancient Israel (London: Routledge, 1995), 119–28; Eynikel, Reform of King Josiah, 70–71; Albertz, Die Exilszeit, 227–28 [Israel in Exile, 297–98]. 35 Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 320–25, 347; T. N. D. Mettinger, The Dethronement of Sabaoth: Studies in the Shem and Kabod Theologies (ConBOT 18; Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1982), 41–62; van Keulen, Manasseh, 89–127; Eynikel, Reform of King Josiah, 238–45; B. Halpern, “Why Manasseh is Blamed for the Babylonian Exile: The Evolution of a Biblical Tradition,” VT 48 (1998), 473–514. 36 Some of Manasseh’s sins, as R. E. Friedman (The Exile and Biblical Narrative [HSM 22; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981], 10–12, 26) and E. Eynikel (“The Portrait of Manasseh and the Deuteronomistic History,” in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature [ed. M. Vervenne and J. Lust; BETL 133; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997], 253–61) show, were already part of Dtr1’s edition. The crime of shedding innocent blood (2 Kgs 21:16, 24:4) clearly stems, however, from a later editor (perhaps Dtr2). Manasseh is the only Judahite monarch tainted with this socioeconomic offense. See H. Tadmor and M. Cogan, II Kings: A New Translation and Introduction with Commentary (AB 11; New York: Doubleday, 1988), 269; Eynikel, Reform of King Josiah, 272–73. On the gravity of the charge, which does not appear in Chronicles, see Halpern, “Manasseh,” 487. 37 There may be a fourth monarch to whom this distinction applies: Hoshea (so the Lucianic witness to 2 Kgs 17:2). J. C. Trebolle Barrera contends that this negative incomparability formula is original, “The Text-critical Use of the Septuagint in the Books of Kings,” in VII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Leuven 1989 (ed. C. E. Cox; SBLSCS 31; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 285–99. 38 This negative evaluation is stronger than the similar evaluation of 2 Kgs 21:2: “He did what was evil in the sight of Yhwh, according to the abominations of the nations whom

274

Chapter 10

version of Judahite history, the unprecedented crisis caused by Manasseh’s sins forces Yhwh to turn against his own city.39 I shall extend to Jerusalem the plummet line40 of Samaria and the weight of the house of Ahab. I shall wipe out Jerusalem as one wipes a dish, wiping and turning (it)41 upside down. I shall uproot the remnant of my inheritance and deliver them over to their enemies. They will be plunder and prey to all of their enemies. (2 Kgs 21:13–14).42

The announcement links the fate of Jerusalem to the fate of fallen Samaria, but it does not directly mention the house of God. For a clear statement on the fate of the central sanctuary, one must turn to the divine speech couched in Deuteronomistic idiom found in the epilogue to Josiah’s reign.43 Only Yhwh would not turn from the heat of his great wrath by which he was incensed with Judah on account of all the vexations by which Manasseh vexed him. And Yhwh said, “I shall turn away even Judah from my face as I turned my face from Israel. I shall reject Jerusalem, this city, which I have chosen, and the temple, of which I said, ‘My name will be there.’” (2 Kgs 23:26–27)44 Yhwh drove out from before the Israelites.” One may attribute the evaluation of 2 Kgs 21:2 to the Josianic Deuteronomist and the more severe evaluation of 2 Kgs 21:9 to a later Deuteronomist. See also Eynikel, Reform of King Josiah; idem, “Portrait of Manasseh,” 253–61. 39 Not so in Chronicles. There, Manasseh’s reign is a serious crisis (not the definitive crisis), the consequences of which are partially mitigated by Manasseh’s own reforms (2 Chr 33:1–20); see G. N. Knoppers, “Saint or Sinner? Manasseh in Chronicles,” in Rewriting Biblical History: Essays on Chronicles and Ben Sira in Honour of Pancratius C. Beentjes (ed. H. W. M. Grol and J. Corley; DCLS 7; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 211–29. 40 The MT reads ‫קו‬‎ ָ , but I am following many Hebrew MSS in reading the construct ‫ ַקו‬. 41 The MT has ‫פְך‬‎‎ָ ַ ‫ ָמ ָחה וְ ה‬. Along with many, I am reading these forms as absolute infinitives, ‫ ָמחֹה וְ ָהפְֹך‬. 42 This oracle, like others in the postmonarchic Deuteronomistic work, is attributed to “his/ my servants the prophets” (2 Kgs 21:8; 24:2; cf. 2 Kgs 9:7; 17:13, 23). See R. D. Nelson, The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History (JSOTSup 18; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981), 58–59. In spite of the allusion to one of the northern royal houses (Ahab), a rejection of the Davidic house (compare with 1 Kgs 8:16), is conspicuously absent from the series of judgments. On the larger issues, see chapter 8, “David’s Relation to Moses: The Contexts, Contents, and Conditions of the Davidic Promises.” 43 Huldah’s first oracle (2 Kgs 22:16–17) mentions Yhwh’s bringing evil “against this place” (‫)במקום הזה‬. Whether this refers to the temple in particular or to Jerusalem in general is unclear. 44 The author of this interjection combines what McCarthy (“Wrath of Yahweh,” 100) calls the provocation formula with the anger formula. Manasseh’s sins so vex Yhwh that he

Anti-temple Rhetoric in the Deuteronomistic History

275

The intriguing oracle alludes to two different earlier passages: Solomon’s first temple blessing (1 Kgs 8:16) and the editorial on Israel’s fall (2 Kgs 17:18).45 Employing the anger formula, an earlier (Josianic) edition of Kings ties Jeroboam’s influential sins to the deity’s turning his face away from Israel (2 Kgs 17:18). Seen from this perspective, Israel’s exile left only the tribe of Judah behind. But the postmonarchic Deuteronomist has Yhwh proclaim a similar fate for Judah. The second part of the judgment speech alludes to the traditum announcing the divine choice of Jerusalem (4QKgsa; 1 Kgs 8:16; 2 Chr 6:5–6), but only to announce Yhwh’s rejection of the city he chose.46 The remarkable assertion of 2 Kgs 23:27 involves a paradox. The writer employs the divine voice to level the differences between Israel and Judah. Yhwh ostensibly treats the latter precisely as he treated the former. The deity prophesies the destruction of the very institutions that were formerly promoted as everlasting. These immortals—the place for Yhwh’s name and the chosen city—are exposed as quite mortal. Older verities espoused about Jerusalem’s election are quoted but subordinated to new revelations. Jerusalem and its temple are doomed. For many, the parallel between Israel and Judah is a key to understanding the Deuteronomistic presentation of the monarchy.47 Jerusalem shares the same ignominious fate as Samaria. There is some merit to drawing these parallels, not least because the Deuteronomists themselves do so. Manasseh is linked to Ahab as Jerusalem is linked to Samaria. In both cases, the deity is directly implicated and the demise of the people is royally induced. During the international crisis of Hezekiah’s reign, Yhwh miraculously becomes incensed and rejects both the house built for his name and his elected town. Judg 2:11–14 and 2 Kgs 22:17 are the only two other instances in the Deuteronomistic History, that I am aware of, that feature similar combinations of these two formulas. On the Deuteronomistic clichés in 2 Kgs 23:27, see Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 324 (no. 1a), 325 (no. 5), 347 (no. 11b). 45 1 Kgs 8:16 (//2 Chr 6:5), 29 (cf. 2 Chr 7:16) are the only other texts in Kings featuring a combination of the election formula (‫ )בחר‬and the name formula (‫)יהיה שמי שם‬. By contrast, 2 Chr 6:6 and 33:4 apply the name formula to Jerusalem (Mettinger, Dethronement of Sabaoth, 39). 46 Knoppers, Two Nations, 1.118–19. 47 See, e.g., Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 63–87 [The Deuteronomistic History, 55–74]; H. Hoffmann, Reform and Reformen: Untersuchungen zu einem Grundthema der deuteronomistischen Geschichtsschreibung (ATANT 66; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1980), 127–30, 157–67; G. Savran, “1 and 2 Kings,” in The Literary Guide to the Bible (ed. R. Alter and F. Kermode; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987), 161; B. O. Long, 2 Kings (FOTL 10; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 247–50; E. T. Mullen, Narrative History and Ethnic Boundaries (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 266–81; J. Werlitz, Die Bücher der Könige (Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar Altes Testament 8; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2002), 299–302.

276

Chapter 10

intervened against Sennacherib and his forces on behalf of Jerusalem and David (2 Kgs 19:31–37; 20:6), an action that distinguished Judah’s fate under the Assyrians from Israel’s fate (2 Kgs 18:28–30, 34–35). The fact that, in the case of Manasseh, Yhwh appears not to deliver but to damn would seem to level the differences between Yhwh’s treatment of the Northern Kingdom and his treatment of the Southern Kingdom. However, a careful reading of the judgment oracles against Judah’s most wayward king suggests that the parallels between Israel and Judah have been overdrawn. The references to Yhwh’s chosen city and to the place for Yhwh’s name belie any claim that the two situations are entirely comparable. In the Deuteronomistic work, there is only one town and sanctuary of which Yhwh says, “In this house and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen from all of the tribes of Israel, I shall place my name forever” (2 Kgs 21:7). In Samuel-Kings there is never any suggestion that Shechem, Gilgal, Gibeon, or Shiloh is divinely elect; nor do the authors of Kings ever intimate that the sanctuaries at Bethel, Dan, and Samaria are legitimate.48 On the contrary, the end of the northern cult is announced soon after its inception (1 Kgs 12:26–33; 13:2–3, 33–34). The work editorializes extensively on the influential cultic policies of Jeroboam and ties these formative sins to Israel’s demise (2 Kgs 17:7, 21–33; 18:9–12). Hence, the authors need not provide an extensive description of Samaria’s fall (2 Kgs 17:5). The overthrow of Israel was long ago predicted and justified (1 Kgs 14:7–16). By linking the perdition of the Jerusalem temple to the sins of Manasseh and their formative influence on the people, the authors carefully avoid giving the impression, appearances to the contrary, that Gilgal, Shiloh, Shechem, Bethel, Jerusalem, and other sacred sites are all somehow interchangeable. In his very denunciation of Manasseh’s rule, Israel’s God reaffirms that he chose to elect Jerusalem. The affirmation is no accident. Other passages in Kings that speak of the exalted status of Jerusalem and its sanctuary appear in two types of literary settings: contexts establishing the status of town and temple and contexts in which this status would most likely be questioned (for example, a national or international crisis). The texts that refer to Yhwh’s election (‫)בחר‬ of Jerusalem include occasions of national celebration, such as Solomon’s dedicatory celebration (1 Kgs 8:16) and temple prayer (1 Kgs 8:44, 48) and occasions of national trial, such as disunion (1 Kgs 11:13, 32, 36; 14:21) and Manasseh’s rule (2 Kgs 21:7; 23:27).49 Because times of crisis would be the contexts in which 48

By contrast, the Jeremianic diatribe against false confidence in the Jerusalem temple does make such a claim. In this sermon, Yhwh declares: “Go to my place (‫ )לכו נא אל מקומי‬at Shiloh, where I made my name dwell (‫ )שכנתי שמי שם‬in the beginning” (Jer 7:12). 49 Eynikel, Reform of King Josiah, 297–329.

Anti-temple Rhetoric in the Deuteronomistic History

277

the verities of chosen town and temple would be most in doubt, it is striking that the divine affirmations are concentrated at precisely these junctures in Judahite history. The references that speak of “building a house for the name of Yhwh” (‫ )בנה בית לשם יהוה‬follow a similar pattern, appearing in the contexts of Nathan’s dynastic oracle (2 Sam 7:13), Solomon’s construction of the temple (1 Kgs 5:17, 18, 19), the temple dedication (1 Kgs 8:17, 18, 19, 20), the Solomonic prayer (1 Kgs 8:44, 48), and the second theophany to Solomon announcing the possibility of the temple’s destruction (1 Kgs 9:7).50 Similarly, the texts that refer to Yhwh’s “placing his name there” (‫ )לשום שמו שם‬appear in particularly momentous times in Israelite and Judahite history, including the centralization legislation (Deut 12:5, 21; 14:24), the second theophany to Solomon (1 Kgs 9:3), the division of the kingdom (1 Kgs 11:36, 14:21), and Manasseh’s reign (2 Kgs 21:4, 7). The texts that refer to the need “that his [Yhwh’s] name be there” (‫ )להיות שמו שם‬are less frequent, appearing in the positive context of the temple dedication (8:16) and prayer (8:29) and in the negative context of a referring to Manasseh’s offenses (2 Kgs 23:27). The distribution of these references sheds some light on the judgments rendered against Manasseh. Paradoxically, the manner in which Yhwh justifies his rejection of “the house built for his name” defends its singular virtue. Even though Yhwh decrees that his favored town be destroyed, this negative judgment does not mean that the remaining Judahites should either decentralize or worship at other sanctuaries. It is the temple’s corruption through the introduction of illicit cultic artifacts, prohibited worship practices, and the royal sponsorship of other shrines that dooms Judah.51

The last text (‫ )הבית אשר הקדשתי לשמי‬speaks of “the house which I [Yhwh] have consecrated for my name.” The variation from the normal formula is understandable, considering the fact that the deity is the speaker and Solomon has recently dedicated the sanctuary. 51 That the literary work subordinates the longevity of the sanctuary to adherence to Yhwh’s commandments is an important development. See T. C. Römer, “Transformations in Deuteronomistic and Biblical Historiography: On ‘Book Finding’ and Other Literary Strategies,” ZAW 109 (1997), 1–11; N. Na’aman, “The ‘Discovered Book’ and the Legitimation of Josiah’s Reform,” JBL 130 (2011), 47–62. The deity’s spurning of the very edifice dedicated to his worship protects, if not validates, the authenticity of the statutes he bequeathed to his people through Moses. Law triumphs over temple. Yet, this situation involves a paradox. The statutes that triumph in the temple’s downfall champion the centralization of Yhwh’s worship and mandate the elimination of all kinds of non-Yahwistic worship. Hence, the very laws validated in the temple’s ruination document the exclusive rights of Israel’s central sanctuary.

50

278

Chapter 10

The Deuteronomistic interpretation of Jerusalem’s demise thus contrasts with the interpretation given to Bethel’s demise.52 There is nothing licit about the Bethel sanctuary and nothing illicit about the Jerusalem sanctuary. Zion will suffer because of royal heteropraxis. The fall of the North occurred because of its state cultus; the fall of the South will occur in spite of its state cultus. 4 Conclusions For the Judahites who survived the Neo-Babylonian conquests, the sack of the house of Yhwh was not a theoretical possibility but a painful fact. The humiliations of 598 and 586 BCE must have been particularly difficult for the Deuteronomistic defenders of the Jerusalem sanctuary. For them, the damage was both physical (to the shrine) and theological. Given their particular beliefs about Yhwh’s sovereignty and Yhwh’s direct involvement in history, the Deuteronomists could only explain the temple’s downfall as an act of divine wrath. It was this admission that has misled some scholars into thinking that the Deuteronomistic writers were dismissive of the house of Yhwh as an institution. The depiction of the sanctuary’s downfall was confused with the Deuteronomistic stance toward this downfall. As we have seen, the Deuteronomistic analysis of history is profoundly concerned with cultic orthopraxis and cultic heteropraxis. By devoting so much attention to the Jerusalem sanctuary, the story of the monarchy underscores the shrine’s importance. Both the divine command to build and the divine decision to destroy affirm the temple’s unique status. It has been argued that the writers espouse a “generally pessimistic view of the possibilities of men’s worship.”53 Yet, if this is true, it is the kind of worship practiced outside the temple and the kind of illicit worship practiced at the temple. As for the house of Yhwh itself, the writers carefully reaffirm the integrity of town and temple in the very judgment oracles they write into their work. Israel’s central sanctuary does not fall because of location, unfaithful officiants, or illegitimate status. Nor is the temple a faulty means of divine-human communication. People and king alike betray the temple; the temple does not betray them.

52 Josiah’s demolition of the Bethel cultus (2 Kgs 23:4, 15–20) vindicates both the judgment oracle of the man of God from Judah (1 Kgs 13:1–3) and the asseveration of the old prophet from Bethel (1 Kgs 13:31–32) some three centuries earlier (Knoppers, Two Nations, 2.73–120). 53 Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, 92 [Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 103–4].

Anti-temple Rhetoric in the Deuteronomistic History

279

A question that may be raised is why those, who edited and expanded Kings during or shortly following the Neo-Babylonian period, insisted on defending the fallen shrine. After much of Jerusalem’s public infrastructure had been destroyed, and largely remained so for centuries, what was at stake for these writers? One may surmise that the Deuteronomists were anxious not only about the nature and extent of the crisis confronting their people, but also about future generations of those who survived. Because of the destruction, the continuation or revival of a Yahwistic cultic center in Jerusalem was not a given. To be sure, they do not predict a renascence for Jerusalem, Benjamin, and Judah, but their very judgments against other gods, cultic artifacts, shrines, and symbols suggest that they are engaged in a debate about what kind of cult (or cults) will emerge from the havoc of the early sixth century. Carrying on many motifs from their Deuteronomic and Deuteronomistic predecessors, their literary work contributes to a larger discussion. Vindicating the house of Yhwh and blaming cultic heteropraxis for Judah’s decline, the Deuteronomists seek to affect the direction of their community. The Deuteronomistic presentation defends the temple’s reputation for posterity and discourages the advancement of competing claims by the proponents of other sanctuary traditions. The scope and force of the Deuteronomistic pronouncements inscribed in the book written about the kingdoms of Israel and Judah thus endure even though the kingdoms are themselves destroyed. The standards rejected by Manasseh and the people triumph in the story written about Manasseh and the people. The written narrative safeguards the reputation of the temple as an institution so that, if conditions ever allow, there will be no question about whether and where to rebuild. After all, the God who rejected the house built for his name might someday again look kindly upon his people.

Part 4 From Exile to Diaspora

∵

Chapter 11

Defeat, Depopulation, and Displacement: The Judahite Exile of the Eighth Century BCE On the question of exile, a controversial issue in the reconstruction of ancient Israelite and Judahite history, Kings and Chronicles contrast in important and fascinating ways. The northern exile is a case in point. The authors of Kings detail two major deportations in the history of Israel, one affecting the northern kingdom (2 Kings 17) and the other affecting the southern kingdom (2 Kings 24– 25). Each of the forced expulsions is presented as thorough, resulting in the complete displacement of the people from the land (2 Kgs 17:5–6; 25:21, 26). Focusing on the independent history of Judah during the monarchic period, Chronicles contains only indirect references to the northern exile of 722 BCE. Even so, the nature and impact of the Assyrian deportations depart from the paradigm established in Kings. The Deuteronomistic work speaks of a system of bi-directional deportations involving the eviction of the northern Israelites from the land and the replacement of these Israelites by Assyrian-sponsored settlers drawn from other lands (2 Kgs 17:24–34a).1 By contrast, Chronicles refers to uni-directional and partial deportations. The expulsion of the northern Israelites from the land involves only a portion of the populace. A remnant is left in the land (2 Chr 30:1, 5–14). There is no reference to the arrival of any Assyrian state-sponsored immigrants in either northern Israel or in southern Israel (cf. Ezra 4:2). Northern Israel’s social infrastructure remains intact in spite of the Assyrian conquests (e.g., 2 Chr 34:6–7, 21; 35:17–18). The significant ways in which Kings and Chronicles differ in their references to the Assyrian conquest of northern Israel should caution us against assuming that Chronicles follows Kings in its portrayal and assessment of Judah’s forced migration(s) from the land. Is there a single king to hold responsible, a series of 1 Kings also references a uni-directional deportation at the hands of Tiglath-pileser III (2 Kgs 15:29) in ca. 733–732 BCE, connected to his conquest of the regions of Gilead and Galilee—“all the land of Naphtali”—and the expatriation of their populations to Assyria (M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings [AB 11; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1988], 174–75). The deportation of the two and a half Transjordanian tribes also appears in the genealogical introduction to the people of Israel (1 Chr 5:6, 25–26). Like other major forced migrations in Chronicles, this exile is attributed to the people’s transgression (‫ )מעל‬against the God of their fathers (G. N. Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9 [AB 12; New York: Doubleday/New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004], 395–400). ©  GARY N. KNOPPERS (†), Christl M. Maier and H. G. M. Williamson, 2021 |  doi:10.1163/9789004444898_013

284

Chapter 11

kings, the people themselves, or some combination thereof? In Chronistic perspective, where, when, and why did Judah fall? In this chapter and the next, my work will stress that the portrayal of Judah’s removal from its land is more complex and nuanced than has been previously recognized. The conceptualization of the monarchy in general and the Judahite exile in particular are at issue. Many presume that Chronicles presents essentially the same story as Kings does, but with some new theological wrinkles. Yet, the Chronistic portrayal of the last two centuries of the Davidic monarchy differs in critical ways (chronology, demography, territory) from the portrayal in Kings. Chronicles makes a number of distinctive claims about the deterioration of Judah’s condition already in the eighth century. These claims need to be set, in turn, against the backdrop of developments in the united and early divided monarchies. In what follows, I shall argue that Chronicles presents not one, but two major exiles: the first seriously weakening the Davidic state and the other ending it. Two major cases of loss, depopulation, and deportation occur: one involving a series of foes (Aramean, Assyrian, Edomite, Philistine) in the eighth century and the other involving Babylon in the sixth century. This chapter deals with the first case during the reign of Ahaz, while the next chapter deals with the second during the reign of Zedekiah. In addition to these two national catastrophes, there are also smaller individualized losses and setbacks. The demise of the Davidic state is not a two- or three-stage event in the early sixth century, as it is in Kings, but a process that begins already in the eighth century and culminates in the early sixth century. In Kings, the southern exile refers to a series of massive deportations to Babylon and a mass migration to Egypt in the early sixth century, but in Chronicles a series of two major crises over the course of a hundred and fifty years effectively reduces the population of Judah through death in war, capture by the enemy, loss of territory due to foreign encroachment, and forced migrations. There are valiant attempts to stem the decline, most notably in the reigns of Hezekiah and Josiah, but two related questions should be pursued about each of these quintessential reformers (Hezekiah in this chapter and Josiah in the next). First, what is the extent to which these monarchs manage to stem, if not reverse, the losses Judah incurs under their predecessors and, if so, in what ways? Second, what is the long-term impact of the reforms? If one’s legacy is determined, to no small degree, by the actions of one’s successors, how do Hezekiah and Josiah fare? There seems little doubt that Chronicles presents these two kings as the very best in Judahite history. Nevertheless, what is the upshot of their reforms? Before proceeding to discussion of the eighth century, this essay will situate the portrayal of the late monarchy within the context of the larger history of

The Judahite Exile of the Eighth Century BCE

285

the monarchy. A key to grasping the losses suffered in the mid- to late-eighth century involves gaining a better understanding of how Chronicles constructs this particular period within the larger framework of Israelite history.2 My analysis will explore the means by which the work sets the late Judahite kingdom (mid-eighth to early-sixth century) apart from the united monarchy of David and Solomon and from the early Judahite kingdom (late tenth century to mid-eighth century). The study will then proceed to a discussion of two successive kings, Ahaz and Hezekiah, whose reigns directly affect the movement of Judahite history, albeit in diametrically opposite ways. 1

Judah’s Demise in the Context of Monarchic History

The construction of the monarchy in Chronicles diverges in critical ways from that of Kings. As is generally recognized, the united kingdom of David and Solomon appears as a series of great accomplishments—the rallying of all of the tribes to David, the successful procession of the ark into Jerusalem, the defeat of belligerent neighbors, the planning for the temple and the appointment of an administrative bureaucracy, the establishment of the priestly and Levitical orders for staffing the temple, the appointment of officials to supervise the royal estates, the arrival of international peace, the support of all the Davidic princes for Solomon’s accession to the throne, the gift of economic prosperity, the construction of the long-anticipated central sanctuary, the reception of tribute from Israel’s neighbors, and so forth.3 Unlike the Deuteronomistic work, Chronicles does not present the latter portion of Solomon’s reign as a period of cultic regression (2 Chr 1:1–9:44; cf. 1 Kgs 11:1–13).4 Quite the opposite, the peaceable king completes his reign, “ruling over all the kings from the River (Euphrates) to the land of the Philistines and to the boundary of Egypt” (2 Chr 9:26). Given the idealization of the united monarchy, the loss of the northern kingdom following the reign of Solomon is a tremendous blow to the unity

2 On the need for such distinctions, see S. J. Schweitzer, Reading Utopia in Chronicles (LHBOTS 442; London: T&T Clark International, 2007), 88–131. 3 See G. N. Knoppers, “More than Friends? The Economic Relationship between Huram and Solomon Reconsidered,” in The Economy of Ancient Judah in Its Historical Context (ed. M. L. Miller, E. Ben Zvi, and G. N. Knoppers; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015), 49–72, and the references listed there. 4 A recent exception is the work of Y. H. Jeon, Impeccable Solomon? A Study of Solomon’s Faults in Chronicles (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2013).

286

Chapter 11

of Israel.5 Solomon’s son Rehoboam misjudges and mishandles the northern Israelite challenge to his rule (2 Chr 10:1–19; 13:4–12). Nevertheless, Rehoboam and Judah are not guilty of tremendous wrongdoing.6 Rehoboam receives a negative evaluation, but the presentation of his reign is much more extensive and nuanced in Chronicles than is the case in Kings (2 Chr 10:1–12:14; cf. MT 1 Kgs 14:22–24).7 The other kings of the late tenth to the mid-ninth century (the reigns of Abijah, Asa, and Jehoshaphat) are generally depicted in a positive manner. Although Chronicles generally does not depart markedly from the regnal evaluations appearing in Kings, the work nevertheless presents a much more detailed, temperate, and positive depiction of the early Judahite monarchy. If allocation of coverage is one reasonable index of authorial interest, the considerable attention given to the early Judahite kingdom is significant. Whereas the tenure of King Abijam is treated very briefly and negatively in Kings (1 Kgs 15:1–8), its parallel account in Chronicles, where he is called Abijah, is characterized by a tremendous military conflict with and victory over the northern kingdom (2 Chr 13:1–23). Likewise, both Asa (2 Chr 14:1–16:14) and Jehoshaphat (2 Chr 17:1–20:37), who figure minimally in Kings, are major monarchs in Chronicles. Both benefit from expansion of territory at the expense of the northern regime (2 Chr 15:8; 17:1–2). Aside from Hezekiah (2 Chr 29:1–32:33) and Josiah (2 Chr 34:1–35:27), these two kings receive the most attention of any sovereigns in Judahite history. It would be misleading to imply that the presentation of Judahite history in the early monarchy is uniformly positive. Judah experiences periods of success and decline even within the reign of a single king (e.g., Rehoboam, Asa, and Jehoshaphat). Yet, there are occasions in which the state enjoys enlargement of its territory, mostly at the expense of the northern kingdom (2 Chr 13:19; 15:8; 17:2). The Davidic regime does not experience a sustained era of decline until the mid- to late-ninth century (the reigns of Jehoram, Ahaziah, and Athaliah). The recession largely involves the deleterious effects of an ill-begotten royal alliance between the house of David and the house of Ahab. The decline is serious, characterized by the near extinction of the Davidic dynasty, the neglect of the Jerusalem temple cultus, royal support for the temple of Baal, and the royally-sponsored introduction of high places in the Judahite hill 5 A point stressed by J. Tiňo, King and Temple in Chronicles: A Contextual Approach (FRLANT 234; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010), 94–107. 6 Compare 1 Kgs 12:1–20; 14:21–31 with 2 Chr 10:1–12:14; G. N. Knoppers, “Rehoboam in Chronicles: Villain or Victim?” JBL 109 (1990), 423–40. 7 P. Welten, Geschichte und Geschichtsdarstellung in den Chronikbüchern (WMANT 42; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1973), 127–28.

The Judahite Exile of the Eighth Century BCE

287

country (2 Chr 21:11; 24:7).8 Military defeats occur both in the time of Jehoram (2 Chr 21:8–10, 16–17) and in the time of Ahaziah (2 Chr 22:5). These losses are not associated, however, either with any large reduction in Judahite population or with any mass deportations to foreign territories. A major reform takes place in the time of Jehoiada (2 Chr 23:1–21) and continues for a time under King Joash (2 Chr 24:1–16). Each of the subsequent three monarchs—Amaziah (2 Chr 25:1–28), Uzziah (2 Chr 26:1–23), and Jotham (2 Chr 27:1–9)—is rated positively and achieves notable successes. There are some setbacks, such as the regression in the latter part of Amaziah’s reign (2 Chr 25:17–24), but the military victories (2 Chr 25:5–13; 26:6–7; 27:5), investment in public infrastructure (2 Chr 26:9–10, 15; 27:4), sanctuary renovations (2 Chr 24:4–14; 27:3), and territorial expansion (2 Chr 26:2, 6) are impressive. In sum, the picture of the Judahite monarchy from the late tenth century (the time of northern Israelite secession) to the mid-eighth century is basically a balanced one. There are some times of regression and loss, but such times of decline are followed by periods of recovery and expansion. On the whole, these centuries are characterized positively. The effects of royal initiatives often benefit the larger populace. The monarchs whose reigns are recommended to readers during this era far outnumber those whose reigns are not. To get a better picture of Judah’s large-scale and, to some extent, irretrievable decline, one must turn to the depiction of the later Judahite kingdom. 2

Judah Much Diminished: The Reign of Ahaz (743–728 BCE)

The first king who involves the Assyrian kingdom within internal Judahite political affairs—Ahaz—receives special attention and unrelenting condemnation (2 Chr 28:1). There follows a critical attempt to recover and reverse course in the reign of Hezekiah, perhaps the most exemplary reformer in the history of the Judahite monarchy. Both Kings and Chronicles rate the reign of Ahaz rather negatively, but Chronicles devotes more coverage to Ahaz’s rule than

8 The trend begins with Jehoshaphat, but it continues during the reigns of his successors. Rather than pursuing an alternative, more independent course of action, Jehoram and Ahaziah intensify the pattern of close cooperation with the Omride dynasty. See further G. N. Knoppers, “Reform and Regression: The Chronicler’s Treatment of Jehoshaphat,” Bib 72 (1991), 500–24; K. Strübind, Tradition als Interpretation in der Chronik: König Josaphat als Paradigma chronistischer Hermeneutik und Theologie (BZAW 201; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1991); S. Japhet, I & II Chronicles (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993), 804–37; R. W. Klein, 2 Chronicles (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 298–331.

288

Chapter 11

does Kings.9 Divergence in length of treatment does not reveal, however, the degree to which the two literary works differ in their portrayals of this monarch. Whereas Kings devotes only one verse to the so-called Syro-Ephraimite war, Chronicles devotes ten and speaks of two wars, not one (cf. 2 Kgs 15:37; Isaiah 7; Hos 5:8–6:6).10 Whereas Kings depicts Ahaz’s adoption and construction of an imitation of an altar seen in Damascus in considerable detail (2 Kgs 16:10–16), Chronicles lacks any mention of such an altar, but censures Ahaz’s worship of the deities of Damascus (2 Chr 28:23). Ahaz, whose reign is one of unremitting decline, is arguably Judah’s worst king.11 But more than comprising an unmitigated series of domestic and international disasters, Ahaz’s tenure marks a turning point in Judahite history. More so than any previous Judahite king, he leads his kingdom into an exilic predicament, losing hundreds of thousands of his citizens to defeat, death, and deportation. His reign is the first since that of Rehoboam whose tenure is associated with serious and permanent territorial loss. Characteristic terms dealing with forced migration—“to take captive” (‫ ;שבה‬2 Chr 28:1, 5, 8, 11, 17); “captive / captivity” (‫ ;שבי‬2 Chr 28:17; cf. 29:9); “captivity” (‫ ;שביה‬2 Chr 28:5, 11, 13, 14, 15)—abound in the narration of his reign.12 One irony in this litany of failures is that the setbacks are largely self-inflicted. For instance, Ahaz himself despoils the house of Yhwh, the royal palace, and (the house of) the officials.13 9

For the dates assigned to Judahite kings, I am following the reconstruction in J. M. Miller and J. H. Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (2nd ed.; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2006), 222–23. 10 M. E. W. Thompson, Situation and Theology: Old Testament Interpretations of the Syro-Ephraimite War (Prophets and Historians Series 1; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1982); N. Na’aman, “Royal Inscriptions and the Histories of Joash and Ahaz, Kings of Judah,” VT 48 (1998), 333–49 [repr. in his Ancient Israel’s History and Historiography: The First Temple Period (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 211–27]; H.-S. Bae, Vereinte Suche nach Jhwh: Die hiskianische und josianische Reform in der Chronik (BZAW 355; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005), 53–64, 106–110. 11 E. Ben Zvi, “A Gateway to the Chronicler’s Teaching: The Account of the Reign of Ahaz in 2 Chr 28,1–27,” SJOT 7 (1993), 216–49 [repr. History, Literature and Theology, 210–42]; Klein, 2 Chronicles, 407–8. 12 See more generally, L. C. Allen, “Kerygmatic Units in 1 and 2 Chronicles,” JSOT 41 (1988), 21–36. 13 I am reconstructing in 2 Chr 28:21 the piel of ‫חלץ‬, “despoil” (cf. Ps 7:5), rather than MT ‫חלק‬, “apportioned” (W. Rudolph, Chronikbücher [HAT 21; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1955], 292). LXX καὶ ἔλαβεν, “and he took,” reflects metathesis in the MT (= ‫( )לקח‬Klein, 2 Chronicles, 391). Theoretically, one could read the piel of ‫( חלק‬III), as in Lam 4:16 (HALOT 323a; cf. Isa 57:6). Compare Ug. ḫlq, Akk. ḫalāqu, “disappear”; Eth. ḫalqa, “perish”; Aram. ‫חלק‬, “pass away, perish”; Arab. ḫalu/iqa, “wear out” (J. Hackett, The Balaam Text from Deir ʿAllā

The Judahite Exile of the Eighth Century BCE

289

The relevant parallels and differences between Kings and Chronicles may be summarized as follows. Introduction Evaluation Cultic Impropriety Syro-Ephraimite War Aramean Invasion and Losses 120,000 Deaths in One Day Edom Takes Elath14 Israel Defeats Judah Prophetic Censure Positive Israelite Response Appeal to Assyria Temple Plunder Edomite Captivity Revolt of Philistia Territorial Losses Assyria Defeats Damascus Negative Review Assyrian Oppression Temple Plunder Judah Unaided New Altar Built Bronze Altar Moved Instructions to Uriah Sacrifice to Aramean Gods Temple Closed New Altars in Jerusalem New Shrines in Judah

2 Kgs 16:1–2a 2 Kgs 16:2b–3a 2 Kgs 16:3b–4 2 Kgs 16:5 – – 2 Kgs 16:6 – – – 2 Kgs 16:7 2 Kgs 16:8 – – – 2 Kgs 16:9 – – [2 Kgs 16:8] – 2 Kgs 16:10–13 2 Kgs 16:14 2 Kgs 16:15–16 – – – –

2 Chr 28:1a 2 Chr 28:1b–2a 2 Chr 28:2b–4 – 2 Chr 28:5 2 Chr 28:6 [2 Chr 28:17] 2 Chr 28:6–8 2 Chr 28:9–11 2 Chr 28:12–15 2 Chr 28:16 [2 Chr 28:21] 2 Chr 28:17 2 Chr 28:18 2 Chr 28:18 – 2 Chr 28:19 2 Chr 28:20 2 Chr 28:21a 2 Chr 28:21b – – – 2 Chr 28:22–23 2 Chr 28:24 2 Chr 28:24 2 Chr 28:24–25

Through omissions, additions, and an alternate sequence of presentation in comparison to Kings, Chronicles presents a strikingly variant account of the

14

[HSM 31; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984], 67–68). But such a reading would make little sense in context. Along with many, I read Edom (‫ )אדם‬and not Aram (‫ )ארם‬in 2 Kgs 16:6 (‫ד‬/‫ ר‬confusion).

290

Chapter 11

early part of Ahaz’s reign.15 In a literary work in which even the most nefarious kings exhibit some redeeming features, Ahaz is a remarkable exception. Ahaz begins his tenure by committing unprecedented cultic offenses, manufacturing molten images for the Baals, practicing child-sacrifice, making offerings in the Valley of Ben-Hinnom, at the high places, and “under every verdant tree” (2 Chr 28:2–4). Unlike Kings, Chronicles directly attributes the onslaughts by the forces of Aram and Israel to divine retribution for Ahaz’s cultic improprieties (2 Chr 28:5). The details of the Syro-Ephraimite war are also depicted rather differently in Chronicles. The kings of Damascus and Israel do not act in concert, as in Kings.16 Instead, there are two separate and distinct conflicts. The Aramean forces defeat Ahaz and capture a host of prisoners, literally, a “great captivity” (‫)שביה גדולה‬, and bring (them) to Damascus (2 Chr 28:5). Subsequently, Israel’s king defeats Ahaz with a “great slaughter” (‫ ;מכה גדולה‬28:5), killing 120,000 Judahites—“all men of valor” (‫—)הכל בני־חיל‬in a single day, capturing tremendous booty and seizing a vast number of captives (2 Chr 28:6–8). Hence, Chronicles turns the conflict with Israel into a “major war.”17 Even though the Judahite prisoners of war sent to Samaria are eventually returned, due to an extraordinary act of compassion by their (northern) Israelite kin (2 Chr 28:9–15), the underlying theme of death, defeat, and displacement recurs. Under Ahaz’s leadership, Judah’s position steadily erodes. The text plays on Ahaz’s recourse to others, rather than to Yhwh, in his attempt to arrest his kingdom’s decline.18 The search for help (‫ )עזר‬from foreign powers and other gods leads to further attacks and expulsions.19 Against the backdrop of his appeals to the kings of Assyria “to help him” (‫;לעזר לו‬ 15 The discrepancies between Kings and Chronicles reveal many instances in which Chronicles creatively reinterprets its Vorlage: P. R. Ackroyd, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah (TBC; London: SCM, 1973), 174–79; S. Japhet, Chronicles, 896. Yet, in spite of its indebtedness to Kings, Chronicles makes a series of claims about Ahaz’s adversaries—their activities and triumphs—that contrast with the claims made in the Deuteronomistic work. 16 Miller and Hayes, History of Ancient Israel and Judah, 371–74, 378–80, 393–400. 17 Ibid., 397. 18 Thus, pursuing the opposite stance from that advocated in Isaiah 7. So P. S. Evans, “Prophecy influencing History: Dialogism in the Chronicler’s Ahaz Narrative,” in Prophets and Prophecy and Ancient Israelite Historiography (ed. M. J. Boda and L. W. Beal: Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 143–65. 19 H. G. M. Williamson aptly notes the sarcastic play on ‫ עזר‬in 2 Chr 28:16, 21, and 23, 1 and 2 Chronicles (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 348. The negative play on ‫ עזר‬may be compared with the positive play on the same root (‫ )עזר‬in the early David narratives of 1 Chronicles 11–12. On the latter, see T. Willi, Die Chronik als Auslegung (FRLANT 106; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972), 224; P. B. Dirksen, 1 Chronicles (HCOT; Leuven: Peeters, 2005), 28.

The Judahite Exile of the Eighth Century BCE

291

2 Chr 28:16), the Judahite king is confronted with successive incursions by the Edomites and the Philistines (2 Chr 28:17–18).20 The Edomites invade and take Judahite captives (‫ ;וישבו־שבי‬2 Chr 28:17). For their part, the Philistines rebel against Ahaz in the Negev and the Shephelah, capture key Judahite towns and their satellites in the Shephelah, and take up residence at those sites (2 Chr 28:18).21 Illustrative of his propensity to discern linkages between historical events and divine action, the Chronicler ties the foreign conquests to Ahaz’s perfidy: “Indeed, Yhwh humbled (‫ )הכניע‬Judah on account of Ahaz king of Israel, because he removed restraint22 in Judah and transgressed wantonly (‫ )ומעול מעל‬against Yhwh” (2 Chr 28:19).23 Within Judahite history, such an uninterrupted sequence of failures and losses is unprecedented during the reign of a single king. The authors of Kings concede that the intervention by Tiglath-pileser III wins Ahaz a respite from the troubles caused by the Arameans and Israelites.24 Yet, in Chronicles Ahaz’s appeal to Assyria only exacerbates his predicament. Omitting the reference to Tiglath-pileser’s conquest of Aram, Chronicles presents the imperial Assyrian king as oppressing (‫ )ויצר לו‬Ahaz and not strengthening him (‫ ;לא חזקו‬2 Chr 28:20).25 It is only at this point that Ahaz plunders the temple, the royal palace, and the domiciles of Judahite officials to pay the I follow the MT’s ‫מלכי אשור‬, rather than the LXX’s ‫( מלך אשור‬lectio difficilior). See also the use of ‫ מלכי אשור‬in 2 Chr 28:23. 21 Some understand the revolts of Edom and Philistia (2 Chr 28:17–18) as precipitating Ahaz’s petition to Assyria (2 Chr 28:16) and therefore read the perfects of vv. 17–18 as pluperfects. Thus, e.g., Williamson, Chronicles, 347–48; R. B. Dillard, 2 Chronicles (WBC 15; Waco, TX: Word, 1987), 221–23. The use of perfects as pluperfects is unusual, but not impossible (Joüon §112c; cf. §118d). But if the writer wished to depict the Edomite and Philistine invasions as the occasion for Ahaz’s overture, why did he not follow the example of his Vorlage (2 Kgs 16:6) and simply mention the invasion(s) prior to Ahaz’s appeal? 22 The lack of an equivalent expression for ‫ הפריע ביהודה‬in LXX 2 Chr 28:19 may be due to haplography by homoioteleuton (from ‫ מלך־יהודה‬to ‫)הפריע ביהודה‬. BDB 829 translates the hiphil of ‫ פרע‬only here with the meaning to “shew a lack of restraint.” It is more likely that the verb is being used in the sense of “to remove restraint” (cf. Exod 32:25; Prov 29:18). On the formulaic use of the verb ‫כנע‬, see D. Glatt-Gilad, “The Root knʿ and Historiographic Periodization in Chronicles,” CBQ 64 (2002), 248–57. 23 I follow the LXX in interpreting ‫ מעול מעל‬as an inf. abs. intensifying a finite verb. Japhet (Chronicles, 906–7) basically follows the MT and interprets ‫ מעול מעל‬as a nominal clause with both Ahaz and Judah as subject. 24 For convenience, I refer to Tiglath-pileser. The MT of Chronicles reads ‫תלגת פלנאסר‬ (Tillegath-pilneser; some Heb MSS Tilgat-pilneser). See also 1 Chr 5:6, 26. 25 The phrase of the MT, ‫ולא חזקו‬, “and he did not strengthen him” or “and he did not overtake him” (Japhet, Chronicles, 907), does not appear in the LXX. The LXX has the lectio brevior, but the phrase may have been lost by whole phrase haplography (homoioteleuton) after ‫ויצר לו‬. 20

292

Chapter 11

Assyrian king. In Kings, the pillaging of the Jerusalem temple treasuries constitutes an inducement to the Assyrian king to attack the Syro-Ephraimite coalition, but in Chronicles it is a futile attempt to relieve Judah from Assyria’s tyranny. Continuing the wordplay on Ahaz’s quest for help (‫)עזר‬, the text states that Ahaz’s expropriation of the treasuries “was of no help to him” (‫ולא לעזרה‬ ‫ ;לו‬2 Chr 28:21). The attempt at international diplomacy is an abject failure. Both the appeal and the inducement elicit the opposite outcome intended by Ahaz. The Assyrian potentate never assents to an alliance, much less acts as an international patron. Quite the contrary, Tiglath-pileser responds to Ahaz’s diplomatic overtures by oppressing Ahaz.26 Chronicles does not detail what this oppression comes to, but the entire affair is one more indication of the ignominy that characterizes Ahaz’s tenure. Having worsened his nation’s predicament by petitioning the Assyrian kings, Ahaz takes another step backward: “At the time he [Tiglath-pileser] oppressed him, he added to his transgression (‫ )ויסף למעול‬against Yhwh, this same King Ahaz” (2 Chr 28:22).27 Ahaz sacrifices to the gods of Damascus, who had earlier defeated him in the belief that if they helped (‫ )עזר‬the Arameans, they might also help (‫ )עזר‬him (2 Chr 28:3).28 But these practices “were the ruin of Ahaz and all Israel with him” (2 Chr 28:23). In Kings it seems that Ahaz’s newly commissioned altar, modeled after one in Damascus, was designed for sacrifices to Yhwh (2 Kgs 16:10–16).29 Some argue that the Deuteronomists find no fault with this altar, while others believe that the new altar evinces Judahite syncretism.30 The picture is not entirely clear, 26 G. N. Knoppers, “‘Yhwh Is Not with Israel’: Alliances as a Topos in Chronicles,” CBQ 58 (1996), 601–26, esp. 608–11. 27 On the critical use of the root ‫ מעל‬at various points, signifying profound (cultic) betrayal, see R. Mosis, Untersuchungen zur Theologie des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes (FTS 92; Freiburg: Herder, 1973), 29–33; W. Johnstone, “Guilt and Atonement: The Theme of 1 and 2 Chronicles,” in A Word in Season: Essays in Honour of William McKane (ed. J. D. Martin and P. R. Davies; JSOTSup 42; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986), 116–26; G. N. Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29 (AB 12A; New York: Doubleday/New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), 523–24. 28 Whether Chronicles mentions worship of other gods (as opposed to building an Aramean-style altar) either as an interpretation of Kings (Japhet, Chronicles, 907–8) or as a way to heighten Ahaz’s apostasy (Williamson, Chronicles, 349) is unclear. To complicate matters, some of the material about the Aramean altar may be a later addition to the text of Kings (introduced by resumptive repetition). If so, the question may be raised as to whether the Chronicler found all of this material in his Vorlage. 29 Z. Zevit is not alone in thinking that it served as a model for Ezekiel’s temple altar, The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches (London: Continuum, 2001), 291–92. 30 On the issues, see R. D. Nelson, “The Altar of Ahaz: A Revisionist View,” HAR 10 (1986), 267–76; idem, First and Second Kings (Interpretation; Atlanta: John Knox, 1987), 225–28;

The Judahite Exile of the Eighth Century BCE

293

but in Chronicles there is no such ambiguity. Nor is partial cultural affiliation the problem, because in the latter portion of Ahaz’s rule, Ahaz abandons worship of Yhwh in favor of worshiping foreign gods. The standard established in the Davidic-Solomonic era, abandoned by northern Israelites under Jeroboam (2 Chr 13:4–12), is abandoned by a southern Israelite king, who collects the temple furnishings (‫)כלי בית־האלהים‬, cuts them into pieces (‫)קצץ‬, closes (‫ )סגר‬the doors to the sanctuary, and proceeds to “make altars for himself (‫)ויעש לו מזבות‬ in every corner of Jerusalem” (2 Chr 28:24).31 Like Jeroboam, Ahaz establishes his own alternative system of worship, except that there is no hint that his cult has anything to do with the God of Israel. Erecting “high places in every town to make offerings to other gods (‫)אלהים אחרים‬, he provokes (‫ )כעס‬Yhwh the God of his ancestors” (2 Chr 28:25). By the end of his tenure, Ahaz’s apostasy has compounded his people’s plight. Judah suffers a series of military debacles, a significant reduction of its territory, the death of many citizens, large numbers of people in captivity, the despoliation of royal, temple, and elite treasuries, and the closure of the central sanctuary (2 Chr 28:24). Arameans, Edomites, Philistines, and Assyrians all contribute to the Davidic state’s rapid decline.32 The mid- to late eighth century marks, therefore, a major turning point in Judahite history. Considering that military defeat, loss of life, territorial loss, temple plunder, temple closing, and banishment are constituent features of the Babylonian exile (2 Chr 36:17–21), the deterioration is remarkable.33 To be sure, the parallels between the eighth and sixth centuries are limited, because Judah still exists as a rump state and the Davidic monarchy retains power. Nevertheless, the larger picture is clear. Large numbers of Ahaz’s subjects have been either killed or involuntarily deported to other lands and Judah has been substantially reduced in size.34 The Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, 189–93. 31 The language used resembles that used to depict Nebuchadnezzar’s cutting (‫ )קצץ‬the palace and temple treasures into pieces (2 Kgs 24:13; cf. 2 Kgs 16:17; 18:16). In 2 Kgs 25:13, the verb differs (‫)שבר‬. See chapter 12, section 8. 32 N. Na’aman argues that the losses in the Shephelah effectively represent the limits of Yehud’s western borders in the Persian period, “In Search of the Reality behind the Account of the Philistine Assault on Ahaz in the Book of Chronicles,” Transeu 26 (2003), 47–63. This seems sensible especially because some of these sites in the Shephelah probably belonged to Israel and not to Judah. Yet, it is significant that Chronicles posits these losses already in the eighth century, and not later. 33 H. G. M. Williamson, Israel in the Books of Chronicles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 114–15. 34 The reign of Ahaz may be seen, at least in part, as verifying the coherence between actions and their effects in the operation of divine justice, but not without significant qualifications. Judah suffers a series of calamities within the course of a single generation, but Chronicles does not attribute any primary wrongdoing directly to the people. All of the major actions are royally initiated (2 Chr 28:2–4, 16, 21, 22–25), although one of Ahaz’s

294

Chapter 11

question is: does the Davidic regime ever fully recover from the devastating losses endured during the eighth century? 3

From “Terror and Desolation” to Renewal: The Reign of Hezekiah (727–698 BCE)

In his treatment of Chronistic theology, Gerhard von Rad writes that “each generation stands immediately before Jahweh, and stands or falls with its anointed.”35 Von Rad’s point is that each monarch begins with a new slate, an opportunity to succeed or fail irrespective of the merits or demerits of his ancestors. While this insight highlights the potential marked by the inauguration of each new king, important qualifications are needed, because each new king must also deal with the continuing effects of the previous generation’s actions. Some monarchs, such as Solomon, inherit a very strong kingdom— large, prosperous, and at peace with its neighbors. Others, such as Hezekiah, inherit a very weak kingdom—much diminished in size, resources, and population. Fundamental features of the state—its institutions, infrastructure, population, resources, and territorial limits—do not automatically adjust to the same equilibrium at the accession of each new monarch. On the contrary, each king must begin with what he has been dealt from previous generations. While Hezekiah begins his reign with a chance to start over, his options are determined to no small degree by the sorry legacy left from his predecessor. That this is so can be seen by the extent to which most of Hezekiah’s reign is devoted to rebuilding his nation’s cultic infrastructure.36 At stake is nothing misdeeds is to mislead his own people and Judahites suffer repeatedly because of royal actions (2 Chr 28:19, 23). A marked disparity exists, therefore, between what Ahaz experiences and what his subjects experience. While large portions of the populace suffer death or forced deportation, Ahaz himself suffers no ill-harm. Repeatedly defeated in war and in international diplomacy, the Judahite monarch survives relatively unscathed and dies a natural death (2 Chr 28:27). To complicate matters further, “Ahaz’s reign culminates in the ultimate outrage of the closure of the Temple in Jerusalem (v. 24), yet no subsequent punishment is recorded,” W. Johnstone, 1 and 2 Chronicles (2 vols.; JSOTSup 253–254; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997), 2.174. The only injury that Ahaz suffers is postmortem, the indignity of not having his body buried “in the tombs of the kings of Israel” (2 Chr 28:27). 35 G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 1.349 [trans. of 1st ed. (1957) by D. M. G. Stalker; G. von Rad, Theologie des Alten Testaments. Bd 1 (8th ed.; München: Chr. Kaiser, 1982), 361: “Vor Jahwe steht jede Generation ganz unmittelbar; jede Generation steht und fällt mit ihrem Gesalbten”]. 36 N. Dennerlein, Die Bedeutung Jerusalems in den Chronikbüchern (BEATAJ 46; Frankfurt a. M.: Lang, 1999), 217–23.

The Judahite Exile of the Eighth Century BCE

295

less than the future of Yahwistic worship in Judah. The new monarch devotes his resources to restoring the temple (2 Chronicles 29), celebrating a centralized Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread in Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 30), and implementing other cultic reforms (2 Chronicles 31).37 Only then does he confront additional issues, such as Sennacherib’s invasion (2 Chr 32:1–23), a life-endangering illness (2 Chr 32:24), and rebuilding public infrastructure (2 Chr 32:27–30).38 That both Kings and Chronicles rate Hezekiah in the highest terms (2 Kgs 18:3//2 Chr 29:2) masks, therefore, the degree to which these two literary works diverge both in their fundamental conceptions of this era and in their portrayals of this activist king.39 In Kings, Hezekiah’s reign is dominated by the foreign policy crisis posed by the Assyrian invasion, a crisis that occurs not long after the fall of the northern kingdom (2 Kgs 17:1–6).40 Indeed, the Deuteronomistic writers interrupt their coverage of Hezekiah to remind readers of the ill-fate of northern Israel (2 Kgs 18:9–12). Accordingly, Kings devotes much attention to Hezekiah’s rebellion against his overlord, Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah, the speeches of his officers, the prayer of Hezekiah, the intercession of Isaiah, and the decimation of the Assyrian camp.41 In Kings a major theme of Hezekiah’s tenure is his unwavering trust (‫ )בטח‬during the Assyrian crisis.42 In stark contrast 37

That Chronicles devotes more attention to Hezekiah than to any other king save for David and Solomon is one indication of authorial esteem: A. G. Vaughn, Theology, History, and Archaeology in the Chronicler’s Account of Hezekiah (SBLABS 4; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999); Bae, Vereinte Suche nach Jhwh, 111–37; Klein, 2 Chronicles, 412–14; S.-M. S. Park, Hezekiah and the Dialogue of Memory (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015), 197–253. 38 P. S. Evans discusses the creative ways Chronicles reinterprets the Kings narrative, “Historia or Exegesis? Assessing the Chronicler’s Hezekiah Narrative,” in Chronicling the Chronicler: The Book of Chronicles and Early Second Temple Historiography (ed. P. S. Evans and T. F. Williams; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 103–20. 39 The complimentary evaluation of 2 Chr 29:2 largely follows its source (2 Kgs 18:3), but Chronicles lacks the mention of Hezekiah’s unparalleled trust, a prominent feature in the Deuteronomistic individuation of Hezekiah’s reign (2 Kgs 18:5–6). Similarly, Chronicles lacks the incomparability statement applied to Josiah’s reforms (2 Kgs 23:25), about which see G. N. Knoppers, “‘There Was None Like Him’: Incomparability in the Books of Kings,” CBQ 54 (1992), 411–31. 40 R. Becking, The Fall of Samaria: An Historical and Archaeological Study (SHANE 2; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 47–60; W. R. Gallagher, Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah (SHCANE 18; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 129–274. 41 See recently, P. S. Evans, The Invasion of Sennacherib in the Book of Kings: A Source-critical and Rhetorical Study of 2 Kings 18–19 (VTSup 125; Leiden: Brill, 2009); R. A. Young, Hezekiah in History and Tradition (VTSup 155; Leiden: Brill, 2012); C. Frevel, Geschichte Israels (KStTh 2; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2016), 254–60, and the further references listed in these works. 42 Knoppers, “Incomparability,” 418–25.

296

Chapter 11

to Chronicles, Kings devotes only two verses to Hezekiah’s cultic reforms (2 Kgs 18:4, 22). The divergence of interests is apparent in the following table: Introduction Sterling Evaluation Corporate Reforms Incomparability Rebellion vs. Assyria Defeat of Philistines Exile of Israel Withholding of Tribute Temple Repair Oration to Levites Temple Purification Sacrifices Passover Set National Summons Mixed Response Celebration Corporate Reforms Contributions Commendation Sennacherib’s Invasion Jerusalem Repairs Tribute flows to Jerusalem Recovery from Illness New Facilities Possessions increase Water Works

2 Kgs 18:1–2 2 Kgs 18:3 2 Kgs 18:4 2 Kgs 18:5–6 2 Kgs 18:7 2 Kgs 18:8 2 Kgs 18:9–12 2 Kgs 18:14–16 – – – – – – – – [cf. 2 Kgs 18:4] – – 2 Kgs 18:13, 17–19:13 – – 2 Kgs 20:1–11 – – –

2 Chr 29:1 2 Chr 29:2 [cf. 2 Chr 31:1] – – – – – 2 Chr 29:3–4 2 Chr 29:5–11 2 Chr 29:12–19 2 Chr 29:20–36 2 Chr 30:1–4 2 Chr 30:5–9 2 Chr 30:10–14 2 Chr 30:15–27 2 Chr 31:1 2 Chr 31:2–19 2 Chr 31:20 2 Chr 32:1–2, 7–22 2 Chr 32:3–6 2 Chr 32:23 2 Chr 32:24–26 2 Chr 32:27–28 2 Chr 32:29 2 Chr 32:30

Given that the Chronistic depiction of Hezekiah is rather involved, the focus here will be on what Hezekiah is able to achieve and not achieve through his reforms. Following the debacle of Ahaz’s reign, what good does the new king accomplish in the areas of cult, public infrastructure, and external affairs? More specifically, what is Hezekiah able to do, if anything, about the demographic, material, and territorial losses that Judah incurred during the reign of his predecessor? The reforms gradually move forward in stages from reestablishing cultic purity (Kultusreinheit) at the temple to enforcing cultic unity (Kultuseinheit) in Judah and northern Israel, from purifying the temple and

The Judahite Exile of the Eighth Century BCE

297

observing a national Passover to removing illicit altars and incense stands in Jerusalem (2 Chr 30:14), shattering the standing-stones (‫)וישבר המצבות‬, hacking apart asherahs (‫)ויגדעו האשרים‬, and tearing down the high places (‫וינתצו‬ ‫ )את־הבמות‬in Judah and Israel (2 Chr 31:1).43 In the first month of the first year of his reign, Hezekiah reopens the doors of the house of Yhwh and reinforces them (2 Chr 29:3).44 Because the sanctuary requires restoration and consecration by the proper personnel, the reformer king assembles the priests and the Levites. Portraying Judah’s condition in bleak terms, the Hezekian instructions confirm Judah’s quasi-exilic plight. The Levites are to sanctify themselves and the house of God they serve, bringing out the filth (‫ )הנדה‬from the holy place, because “our ancestors transgressed (‫)מעל‬, did evil in the sight of Yhwh our God, abandoned (‫ )עזב‬him, turned their face away from the dwelling place (‫ )משכן‬of Yhwh, and turned (their) back (to him)” (2 Chr 29:5–6).45 They “shut the doors of the vestibule, extinguished the lights, and did not burn incense and make burnt offerings in the holy place to the God of Israel” (2 Chr 29:7; cf. 2 Chr 13:10–11). It is no wonder that Judah and Jerusalem find themselves under divine wrath (‫ ;קצף‬2 Chr 29:8). The royal commentary on heteropraxis presumes that ancestral demerit must be addressed and rectified. Drawing upon the traditional stock of curse language in older works, such as Deuteronomy and the prophetic books, the royal speech depicts Yhwh as having delivered Judah and Jerusalem over to “terror (‫)זעוה‬,46 desolation (‫)שמה‬,47 and hissing” (‫ ;שרקה‬2 Chr 29:8).48 The consequences of defeat have affected all sectors of the population: “Our fathers have fallen by the sword and our sons, 43 The terminology relating to centralization is indebted to Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic literature: M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972), 322–65. 44 In making cultic reconstruction his most immediate priority, Hezekiah follows the examples of David (1 Chr 13:1–4) and Solomon (2 Chr 1:1–18). 45 On the metaphorical use of ‫נדה‬, see Lev 20:21, Ezek 7:19–20; Lam 1:17 and the discussions of J. Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22 (AB 3A; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 1758–59; A. K. Warhurst, “The Chronicler’s Use of the Prophets,” in What was Authoritative for Chronicles? (ed. E. Ben Zvi and D. Edelman; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 170–71. The phrase ‫ נתן ערף‬occurs only here in Chronicles (cf. Exod 23:27; 2 Sam 22:41//Ps 18:41; HALOT 888a). 46 So the qere. The ketiv reads ‫( זועה‬so also SP Deut 28:25 [‫ ;]זועה‬cf. MT Deut 28:25; Ezek 23:46; Jer 15:4; 24:9; 29:18; 34:17. 47 On the use of ‫נתן לשמה‬, see also Jer 25:18; 29:18; Mic 6:16; 2 Chr 30:7 (cf. Deut 28:37; 2 Kgs 22:19; Isa 5:9; Jer 25:11, 38; 42:18; 44:12; 51:37; Ezek 23:33; Hos 5:9). There are especially close parallels between this verse and Jer 29:18, Klein, 2 Chronicles, 416–17. 48 See also Jer 19:8; 25:9, 18; 29:18; 51:37; Mic 6:16 [always //‫]שמה‬.

298

Chapter 11

our daughters, and our wives are in captivity” (‫ ;שבי‬2 Chr 29:9).49 In short, the new king confirms that Judah has entered an exilic predicament, characterized by tremendous loss of life, a substantial portion of the surviving population living in foreign lands, and a polluted central sanctuary in a state of complete disrepair. Given Judah’s plight, it is incumbent upon the remnant to halt, if not reverse, Judah’s downward spiral by assuaging “Yhwh, the God of Israel so that he might turn (‫ )שוב‬from his fierce wrath (‫ )חרון אפו‬against us” (2 Chr 29:10). Serious reform requires temple purification (2 Chr 29:12–19), the reinstitution of sacrifices by the Aaronide priests, and the reappointment of the Levitical musicians (2 Chr 29:20–36). The swift (re)establishment of “the service of the house of Yhwh” (‫ ;עבודת בית־יהוה‬2 Chr 29:35–36) effectively counters the neglect of, if not hostility toward, the house of Yhwh obtaining throughout Ahaz’s reign. We have been discussing how Hezekiah’s concerted efforts succeed in reestablishing temple orthopraxis. Yet, however commendable, his initiatives do not alter the fundamental demographic realities he inherited from his father. That this is so is evident in the next stage of Hezekiah’s reforms. The king dispatches letters and appeals to all surviving Israelites, including the remnant of the northern tribes, to participate in a national Passover. Observing the stipulations of Deut 16:1–7 in holding a centralized Passover, the king invites all Israelites “from Beersheba to Dan” to join the celebrations (2 Chr 30:5).50 Like the earlier assessment Hezekiah delivered to the priests and Levites (2 Chr 29:5–11), his new message is filled with allusions to and creative adaptations of earlier passages (e.g., Deut 4:25–31; 30:1–10; 1 Kgs 8:33–34, 46–52), depicting the consequences of defeat and forcible expulsion.51 His mention of the remnant left (‫ )הפליטה הנשארת‬at the hands of the Assyrian kings constitutes one of the few Chronistic allusions to the fall of Israel in 722/1 BCE.52 As in Kings, the Assyrian exile is a divine judgment, but in Chronicles this divine verdict affects both the (former) northern kingdom and the southern 49

So the MT. The LXX adds ἐν γῇ οὐκ αὐτῶν ὅ καὶ νῦν ἐστιν “in a land that is not theirs, as is now the case.” 50 The expression “from Beersheba to Dan” is a Chronistic merism for all Israel (1 Chr 21:2; 2 Chr 30:5). Compare 2 Chr 19:5, “from Beersheba to Mount Ephraim.” Involving northern Israelites in Jerusalemite cultic celebrations, Hezekiah follows a pattern set by a few of his predecessors (e.g., 2 Chr 11:13–17; 15:8; cf. 30:1; 31:1; 34:33). 51 G. N. Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans: The Origins and History of Their Early Relations (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 71–101. 52 In contrast, the collapse of Israel in Kings is the occasion for a series of Deuteronomistic sermonizing reflections and updates (2 Kgs 17:7–41), Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans, 45–70.

The Judahite Exile of the Eighth Century BCE

299

kingdom, albeit in somewhat different ways.53 Unlike Kings, Chronicles posits demographic continuity between the pre- and post-Assyrian exile population of Israel.54 Hezekiah addresses his letters to surviving Israelites, not to foreign colonists. Yhwh remains “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel.”55 In the missive, the Judahite monarch acknowledges wholesale loss, destruction, and deportation: “desolation (‫ )שמה‬as you now can see.”56 Whereas Kings laments the state of affairs following the Assyrian exile and criticizes the cultic practices of foreign settlers, Chronicles expresses a desire for a new era of concerted dedication to Yhwh and to his temple: “Do not stiffen your necks (‫)אל־תקשו ערפכם‬ as your fathers did; extend a hand57 to Yhwh58 and come to his sanctuary that he has consecrated forever (‫ )הקדיש לעולם‬and serve Yhwh your God.”59 At a time in which both northern Israelites and southern Israelites have had to adjust to living with the reality of expatriate populations in other lands, the Judahite monarch expresses hopes that extend beyond national reconciliation.

53 See Williamson, Israel, 66–67, 110–31; idem, Chronicles, 348, 366–67; S. Japhet, “People and Land in the Restoration Period,” in Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit (ed. G. Strecker; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), 103–25 [repr. From the Rivers of Babylon to the Highlands of Judah: Collected Studies on the Restoration Period (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 96–116]; Bae, Vereinte Suche nach JHWH, 44–52; Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans, 82–92. 54 A point stressed by S. Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought (BEATAJ 9; Frankfurt a. M.: Lang, 1989), 328; Williamson, Israel, 126–30. From a different perspective, but with some similar conclusions, see F. M. Cross, From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), 173–202. 55 The expression, used elsewhere by David (1 Chr 29:18), recalls the acclamation of Elijah at Mt. Carmel (1 Kgs 18:36). 56 So the MT (‫ )עתה‬of 2 Chr 30:8. The LXX expands by reading καὶ νῦν (= ‫)ועתה‬. 57 Whereas the MT reads ‫תנו־יד ליהוה‬, the LXX reads δότε δόξαν Κυρίῳ, “give glory to the Lord.” Syr. lacks the expression. The phrase ‫ נתן יד‬is found elsewhere in Chronicles (e.g., 1 Chr 29:24); however, the LXX may be rendering the orthographically similar (‫ו‬/‫ י‬confusion), but different Hebrew expression ‫( נתן הוד‬e.g., 1 Chr 29:25, where LXX renders ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ δόξαν. See also 2 Kgs 10:15; Ezra 10:19; Lam 5:6; Ezek 17:18 (HALOT 387a). L. C. Allen views the LXX as paraphrasing the MT “in a sophisticated manner,” The Greek Chronicles: The Relation of the Septuagint of I and II Chronicles to the Masoretic Text, Part I (VTSup 25; Leiden: Brill, 1974), 52. It seems more likely that the LXX translators were dealing with a slightly different Vorlage. See also Klein, 2 Chronicles, 428. 58 Thus the MT (lectio brevior). The LXX adds τῷ θεῷ, “to God,” perhaps by attraction to ‫ יהוה אלהים‬in 2 Chr 30:6, 8. Lacking in Syr. 59 In speaking of the “sanctuary that he has consecrated forever” (‫)הקדיש לעולם‬, the text alludes to the second theophany to Solomon, following the temple dedication. There, Yhwh assures Solomon that “I have chosen (‫ )בחרתי‬and consecrated this house (‫ )והקדשתי את־הבית הזה‬so that my name may be there forever” (2 Chr 7:16).

300

Chapter 11

Returning to (‫ )שובו אל־‬Yhwh may lead to the return (‫)וישב אל־‬60 of Yhwh to “the remnant (‫ )הפליטה‬left (‫)הנשארת‬61 from the hands of the Assyrian kings.”62 Since the punishment is already in effect, the repentance called for is rehabilitative in nature: “that he might turn (‫ )וישב‬his fierce anger (‫ )חרון אפו‬away from you” (2 Chr 30:7–8).63 The restoration promise effectively privileges the landed Israelites and Judahites, who survived the Assyrian conquests, and offers them hope that they might positively affect the circumstances of their deported kin: “If you return (‫ )בשובכם‬to Yhwh, your kin and your children will64 experience mercy from their captors (‫ )שוביהם‬and return (‫ )שוב‬to this land” (2 Chr 30:8–9).65 Especially within Judah, Hezekiah’s Passover invitation bears positive results. The unremitting pattern of decline under his predecessor has been arrested and a renewed commitment to Yhwh has good effect: “So there was great joy in Jerusalem, because there was nothing like this in Jerusalem since the days of Solomon, the son of David, the king of Israel” (2 Chr 30:26). Paradoxically, the surprising invasion of the most powerful military power in the ancient Near East does little to damage Judah’s position.66 Quite the contrary, the kingdom does not suffer the degradation of its infrastructure

So the MT, followed by the LXXA. The LXXBL read καὶ ἐπιστρέψατε τοὺς (= ‫)ושובו את‬. The LXXBL consistently stay with the second person. It is difficult to determine the most primitive reading; the MT and LXX may represent two ancient variants. 61 Reading with the LXX (lectio brevior). The addition of ‫ לכם‬in the MT is likely an expansion of specification. 62 As commentators (e.g., W. A. M. Beuken, Haggai-Sacharja 1–8: Studien zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der frühnachexilischen Prophetie [SSN 10; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1967], 84–115) have observed, the phraseology is similar to that found in Zech 1:3–4 and Mal 3:7. But there are also important differences. Each of these biblical authors contextualizes the divine summons, “return to me that I might return to you,” in a distinctive way. Zechariah links the stubbornness of the ancestors to their shunning of the prophetic word, while Malachi links the stubbornness of the ancestors to their shunning of divine statutes. In Chronicles the stubbornness of the ancestors is linked to their neglect or rejection of the Jerusalem temple. In referring to the Assyrian kings, I follow the MT. LXXAB and Syr. read the singular ‫מלך‬. It seems likely that the Chronicler attributed the devastation of Israel and Judah to a succession of Assyrian kings (1 Chr 5:6, 26; 2 Chr 28:16, 20–21; 30:6). 63 On this kind of repentance in the literature from Qumran, see B. Nitzan, “Repentance in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment (ed. P. W. Flint and J. C. VanderKam; 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 2.145–70. 64 Reading ‫ יהיו‬with the LXX (ἔσονται). The MT lacks the verb, which was lost by haplography (homoioarkton) following ‫יהוה‬. See Rudolph, Chronikbücher, 300. 65 In more detail, see Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans, 82–92. 66 Because Chronicles lacks the notice that Hezekiah rebelled (‫ )מרד‬against the king of Assyria and did not serve him (2 Kgs 18:7), Sennacherib’s invasion is completely unexpected. 60

The Judahite Exile of the Eighth Century BCE

301

that it suffers in Kings.67 Sennacherib enters Judah and “encamps against its fortified towns (‫ )ויחן על־הערים הבצרות‬thinking to conquer them for himself” (2 Chr 32:1), but the text does not say that Sennacherib actually seized these strategic assets.68 In the period following the dramatic intervention of Yhwh’s messenger “against every warrior, commander, and officer in the Assyrian camp” (2 Chr 32:21), Judah enjoys a time of recovery.69 There is no Assyrian exile in the time of Hezekiah; Sennacherib returns to his land in shame (2 Chr 32:21). Blessed with great riches, the Judahite king proceeds to refurbish Jerusalem’s infrastructure, build towns in the countryside, construct storehouses, and close the Upper Gihon spring, diverting its waters to an area west of the City of David (2 Chr 32:27–30).70 4

Hezekiah’s Reign in Context

Chronicles presents Hezekiah’s reign in a most positive light.71 The question thus arises as to what Hezekiah and the people he leads have regained during this time of unprecedented reforms. For many scholars, the time of Hezekiah 67

According to MT 2 Kgs 18:13, Sennacherib captured “all of Judah’s fortified towns,” before proceeding to Jerusalem. The LXX lacks “all” (‫)כל‬. 68 Sennacherib’s speech refers to those “residing in Jerusalem under siege” (‫;במצור‬ 2 Chr 32:10), a claim not found in Kings. Similarly, the Assyrian sources imply a blockade (esēru), trapping Hezekiah, “like a bird in a cage” within his royal city, W. Mayer, “Sennacherib’s Campaign of 701 BCE: The Assyrian View,” in “Like a Bird in a Cage”: The Invasion of Sennacherib in 701 BCE (ed. L. L. Grabbe; JSOTSup 363; European Seminar in Historical Methodology 4; London: Sheffield Academic, 2003), 179–81. If one takes the noun (‫ )מצור‬to refer to a siege, rather than to a fortress (on this possibility, see Williamson, Chronicles, 338) or to distress (on this possibility, see Klein, 2 Chronicles, 456), the reference may be understood as the projection of Assyrian propaganda. See Evans, “Historia or Exegesis,” 115–17; I. Kalimi, “Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah: The Chronicler’s View Compared with His ‘Biblical’ Sources,” in Sennacherib at the Gates of Jerusalem: Story, History and Historiography (ed. I. Kalimi and S. Richardson; CHANE 71; Leiden: Brill, 2014), 11–50. 69 Reading ‫וינח להם‬, based on LXX (and Vg.) 2 Chr 32:22 καὶ κατέπαυσεν αὐτοὺς. MT ‫וינהלם‬. 70 The text speaks of Hezekiah making towns (‫ )עשה ערים‬for himself (2 Chr 32:29), but the text does not say where. The reading is disputed. Rudolph (Chronikbücher, 312), followed by Klein (2 Chronicles, 458), proposes reconstructing ‫“( ועדרים‬and herds”) instead of ‫“( וערים‬and towns”). Similarly, Williamson thinks that the MT reading arose from a scribal confusion in connection with the appearance of “sheepfolds” (‫ )עדרים לאורות‬at the end of (MT) 2 Chr 32:28, Chronicles, 387. LXX 2 Chr 32:28 is similar to the MT, καὶ μάνδρας εἰς τὰ ποίμνια, “and folds for the flocks,” but this lemma is lacking in the Syr. and Arabic. 71 This reputation only increases in the readings of the early interpreters: P. R. Ackroyd, “The Biblical Interpretation of the Reigns of Ahaz and Hezekiah,” in In the Shelter of

302

Chapter 11

is decisive in turning around centuries of Judahite and Israelite separation. Mosis likens Hezekiah to David, while Williamson compares Hezekiah to Solomon.72 Throntveit points out that Hezekiah’s reign recalls certain features of both David and Solomon.73 If the tenures of David and Solomon mark a unique period of national unity, dedication to Jerusalem, and widespread support of the temple, the tenure of Ahaz marks Judah’s nadir. If northern Israel’s secession, following Solomon’s death, marks a low point at the very beginning of the Judahite monarchy, Hezekiah’s reforms represent a high point in the later Judahite monarchy. Williamson even suggests that Hezekiah restores “fully the position that was lost when the division took place” and “this remains the situation until the end of the monarchy.”74 Reflecting a similar interpretation, Allen divides the Judahite monarchy into two sub-periods, the time from the division through the reign of Ahaz (2 Chronicles 10–28) and the time from Hezekiah’s reign until the end of the Judahite kingdom (2 Chronicles 29–36).75 Indeed, he argues that the work accords to Ahaz’s reign “greater length” and “special features,” precisely because it marks the overall end of the divided monarchy.76 The aforementioned studies offer numerous insights. There can be little doubt that Hezekiah plays an exceptional role in addressing several failures of his ancestors, especially the chaos, defeat, and exile that attend the reign of his predecessor. Faced with a closed temple, the cessation of normal sacrifice, and the full-scale introduction of illicit cultic establishments, the reformer oversees the purification and reopening of the temple. He restores the priests and Levites to their proper positions, reinstates regular sacrifices, and invites all Israelites to a centralized Passover in Jerusalem. Under his supervision, the people demolish illicit shrines and cultic practices in Judah, Benjamin,

72 73

74 75 76

Elyon: Essays on Ancient Palestinian Life and Literature in Honour of G. W. Ahlström (ed. W. B. Barrick and J. R. Spencer; JSOTSup 31; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), 247–59. Mosis, Untersuchungen, 164–69; Williamson, Israel, 119–25; idem, Chronicles, 351. M. A. Throntveit, “Hezekiah in the Books of Chronicles,” in Society of Biblical Literature 1988 Seminar Papers (ed. D. J. Lull; SBLSP 27; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 302–11; idem, “The Relationship of Hezekiah to David and Solomon,” in The Chronicler as Theologian (ed. M. P. Graham, S. L. McKenzie, and G. N. Knoppers; JSOTSup 371; London: T&T Clark, 2003), 105–21; Schweitzer, Reading Utopia, 109–12. Williamson, Israel, 131; idem, Chronicles, 350–58. See also Dillard, 2 Chronicles, 219–21, 226–30; M. A. Throntveit, When Kings Speak: Royal Speech and Royal Prayer in Chronicles (SBLDS 93; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 113–120; Allen, “Kerygmatic Units,” 23. Allen, “Kerygmatic Units,” 23. Similarly, Klein writes, “The final unit of Chronicles, 2 Chronicles 29–36, is the history of the reunited monarchy” (2 Chronicles, 414). Allen, “Kerygmatic Units,” 33–34.

The Judahite Exile of the Eighth Century BCE

303

Ephraim, and Manasseh. Confronted with a massive and unprecedented invasion of Sennacherib, Judah and Jerusalem miraculously emerge unscathed. Nevertheless, it is important to recognize what is claimed and not claimed about this time of renewal. Hezekiah enjoys a welcome time of peace and prosperity, enabling him to rebuild elements of public infrastructure, but the literary evidence indicates that he still presides over a reduced state with a decreased population.77 Important elements of Judah’s legacy in the past continue in the present. The text does not claim that Hezekiah recovered the towns and their satellites in the Shephelah that Ahaz lost.78 As for Judah’s depopulation as a result of the forced exiles implemented by the Arameans (2 Chr 28:5) and the Edomites (2 Chr 28:17), there is no mention of deportees actually returning from foreign lands in connection with (or after) the centralized Passover. The state’s fundamental demography is not altered from the time of Ahaz.79 Hezekiah and the people implement cultic reforms throughout Judah, Benjamin, Ephraim, and Manasseh (2 Chr 31:1), but the text does not claim that Hezekiah begins to govern northern Israel politically and militarily. That the people enacted cultic reforms “from Beersheba to Dan” implies a projection of cultic influence far beyond the confines of traditional Yehud, but a one-time iconoclastic campaign is not tantamount to establishing enduring political, martial, and administrative hegemony over a given region. At the time of Hezekiah’s reorganization of the priests and the Levites within their divisions, the focus of attention returns to Judah (2 Chr 31:20). When Sennacherib attacks, he invades Judah (2 Chr 32:1, 9, 12, 23), not northern Israel or a greater reunited Israel headquartered in Jerusalem. The authors of Kings twice refer to the remnant (‫ )השארית‬in Hezekiah’s time (2 Kgs 19:4 [//Isa 37:14]; 19:30–31 [//Isa 37:32]) in the so-called B (prophetic) narrative of 2 Kgs 18:17– 19:37. The condition results from Sennacherib’s devastating invasion. The term ‫שארית‬ is not used of Judah before Hezekiah’s time. On its use in a Persian period context, see S. Japhet, “The Concept of the ‘Remnant’ in the Restoration Period: On the Vocabulary of Self-Definition,” in From the Rivers of Babylon to the Highlands of Judah, 432–49. 78 The assertion that Hezekiah “attacked the Philistines as far as Gaza and its territory, from watchtower to fortified town” (2 Kgs 18:8) does not appear in Chronicles. On the larger issues, see D. Ussishkin, “Sennacherib’s Campaign to Philistia and Judah: Ekron, Lachish, and Jerusalem,” in Essays on Ancient Israel in its Near Eastern Context: A Tribute to Nadav Na’aman (ed. Y. Amit et al.; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 339–57; idem, “Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah: The Archaeological Perspective with an Emphasis on Lachish and Jerusalem,” in Sennacherib at the Gates (see n. 68), 75–103. 79 For more detail, see G. N. Knoppers, “A Reunited Kingdom in Chronicles?” Proceedings, Eastern Great Lakes and Midwest Biblical Societies 9 (1989), 74–88; idem, “Israel or Judah? The Shifting Body Politic and Collective Identity in Chronicles,” in Rethinking Israel: Studies in the History and Archaeology of Ancient Israel in Honor of Israel Finkelstein (ed. O. Lipschits, Y. Gadot, and M. J. Adams; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2017), 173–88. 77

304

Chapter 11

A complementary way to test the reunited kingdom hypothesis is to examine the references to the polity that Hezekiah’s successors lead. Do those monarchs preside over a reunited Israel, consisting of both Judah and the former northern kingdom, or do these sovereigns rule over a much smaller domain, consisting of what remains of Judah and Benjamin? In the narration of Hezekiah’s descendants, the text presents these monarchs as governing the kingdom of Judah. Thus, when Manasseh rebels against Yhwh, “he misleads Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem” (2 Chr 33:9), rather than a reunited Israelite kingdom.80 Later when he repents and institutes reforms, Manasseh “commands Judah to serve Yhwh” (2 Chr 33:16). Again, the domain Manasseh directs is Judah, rather than a larger Israel. The northern Israelites do not come into view again until the time of Josiah. When Josiah begins his reign and launches a cultic campaign to enforce Kultusreinheit and Kultuseinheit not only in Judah and Jerusalem, but also in the towns of Manasseh, Ephraim, Simeon, and as far as Naphtali (2 Chr 34:3–6), the supposition is that these farflung areas had gone their own way for some time. What Josiah does in his own individual style recalls the pan-Israelite reforms implemented in Hezekiah’s time. Yet, there is no indication that the southern monarchs between the time of Hezekiah and the time of Josiah rule over a fully restored united kingdom. Quite the contrary, the literary work portrays Hezekiah and Josiah as exceptional. Moreover, both the Hezekiah narrative and the Josianic narrative assume that even Judah is not fully restored. A partial exile continues with some Judahites remaining in the land and others dispersed in foreign territories.81 What, then, should one make of the pan-Israelite reach of this great reformer? It may be suggested that in advancing a large vision of Israel in his depiction of the Judahite monarchy, a vision that encompasses a wide variety of sodalities traced genealogically to the patriarchal ancestor Jacob/Israel (1 Chr 2:3–9:1a), the Chronicler assumes something of the conditions of his own day in the late Persian/early Hellenistic period in which some Judeans resided within what they considered to be the traditional land of Israel, but outside of the borders of Yehud. For instance, the genealogist (1 Chr 8:12) places Benjaminites historically in Lod (or Lud) and Ono, even though these sites, which lie far to the northwest of traditional Benjamin, are only mentioned in postexilic sources.82 Lod (Lud) and Ono also appear among the sites associated with repatriates

80 Knoppers, “Reunited Kingdom,” 82–84. 81 For the Josianic material, see chapter 12, section 4. 82 Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, 483.

The Judahite Exile of the Eighth Century BCE

305

from Babylon (Ezra 2:33//Neh 7:37; Neh 11:35).83 What the text communicates in the stories about Hezekiah’s campaign for cultic unity and cultic purity in Judah, Benjamin, Ephraim, and Manasseh is, among other things, the abiding authority of the Jerusalem temple and the torah for all those who consider themselves Israelites. That authority extends beyond the physical borders of Judah, wherever those borders might be in a given period, to all of the descendants of the ancestor Jacob/Israel. In writing about the past, the Chronicler is likely encouraging his fellow Israelites in Samaria and in other regions to support the Jerusalem temple and observe Torah rites.84 Returning to the impressive accomplishments attributed to Hezekiah, it is important to place these within a larger perspective. Because of Judah’s reduced size and population, Hezekiah does not (and cannot) enjoy one of the benefits enjoyed by some earlier kings: a large and well-equipped army. Within the narrative world of Chronicles, having a great military is normally associated with national success and divine blessing.85 In the early united monarchy, some 340,622 warriors from the various Israelite tribes volunteer their services to David at Hebron (1 Chr 12:24–38).86 In the early Judahite monarchy, Abijah fields an army of 400,000 (2 Chr 13:3), while his successor Asa musters a militia of 580,000 (2 Chr 14:7). Asa’s son Jehoshaphat is credited with the largest muster of armed forces (at least 1,600,000; 2 Chr 19:13–19). Even Amaziah is able to field an army of 300,000 (2 Chr 25:5). The last king to muster a large army is the immediate predecessor to Ahaz, Uzziah, who boasts some 307,500 soldiers (2 Chr 26:13).87 Neither of the great reformers (Hezekiah, Josiah) nor any other post-Uzziah king is credited with a great army. No post-Uzziah monarch enjoys a wide array of weaponry, such as ‫רמחים‬, ‘spears’ or ‘lances’ (1 Chr 12:9, 25; 2 Chr 11:12; 14:7; 25:5; 26:14), ‫מגנים‬, ‘shields’ (1 Chr 5:18; 12:8; 23:9; 2 Chr 9:16; 12:9, 10; 14:7; 17:17; 83 For Ono, see also Neh 6:2; 11:35, and the larger discussions of O. Lipschits, “The Origins of the Jewish Population in Modʿin and Its Vicinity,” Cathedra 85 (1997), 7–32 (Hebrew); idem, “The History of the Benjamin Region under Babylonian Rule,” TA 26 (1999), 155–90. 84 As that torah is read and interpreted in Jerusalem: Knoppers, Samaritans and Jews, 178–216; idem, “How It Began and Did Not End: The History of Samari(t)an and Judean Relations in Antiquity,” in Conversations with the Biblical World: Proceedings of the Eastern Great Lakes Biblical Society and the Midwest Region Society of Biblical Literature 35 (2015), 189–211. 85 The connection is not ineluctable. Jeroboam of Israel enjoys a large army of 800,000 (2 Chr 13:3) and Joash of Judah musters a great number of warriors (the exact number is unspecified; 2 Chr 24:24), but both lose in battle because of divine disfavor. 86 On the typological use of incredibly high, rounded numbers, see my I Chronicles 10–29, 569–71. 87 This figure does not include the 2,600 ancestral heads of the warriors (2 Chr 26:12).

306

Chapter 11

23:9; 26:14; 32:5, 27), ‫צנות‬, ‘large shields’ (1 Chr 12:9, 25, 35; 2 Chr 9:15; 11:12; 14:7; 25:5), ‫קשתות‬, ‘bows’ (1 Chr 5:18; 8:40; 12:2; 2 Chr 14:7; 17:17; 26:14), ‫שריונות‬, ‘breastplates’ (2 Chr 18:33; 26:14), ‫קלעים‬, ‘slings’ or ‫אבני קלעים‬, ‘sling-stones’ (1 Chr 12:2; 2 Chr 26:14), ‫כובעים‬, ‘headgear’ (2 Chr 26:14), and the like. A partial exception needs to be made to this generalization, however, as one particular kind of weaponry is known to Hezekiah’s reign. Among the preparations Hezekiah makes for the Assyrian onslaught is to “fashion weaponry in abundance (‫)ויעש שלח לרב‬, as well as shields” (‫ ;ומגנים‬2 Chr 32:5). In the prosperous period following the divine intervention against Sennacherib, the storehouses (‫)אצרות‬ Hezekiah builds for himself “for all kinds of costly objects” include shields (‫ ;מגנים‬2 Chr 32:27). Thus, Hezekiah’s reign retains some of the positive martial terminology that punctuates many reigns of past Davidic kings. Yet, the recovery is limited. The studied references to the Israelite and Judahite remnant(s) and, concomitantly, the lack of references to large armies and varieties of armaments in post-Ahaz Judah are two ways in which Chronicles individuates the late Judahite monarchy from previous ages.88 There is one ominous sequence of events near the close of Hezekiah’s reign. Responding to royal prayer, Yhwh assures Hezekiah and provides a sign (‫)מופת‬ to the deathly-ill ruler (2 Chr 32:24).89 But the king becomes proud (‫)גבה לבו‬ after receiving the sign and because he represents the body politic, “wrath” (‫ )קצף‬descends upon not only him, but also “Judah and Jerusalem” (2 Chr 32:25). Hezekiah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem are able to stave off the effects of this divine anger, because “he humbled himself” (‫)נכנע‬, along with the inhabitants of Jerusalem (2 Chr 32:26). Thus, the “wrath (‫ )קצף‬of Yhwh did not come upon them in the days of Hezekiah” (2 Chr 32:26).90 The implication seems to be that future generations might not be so fortunate.

88 By contrast, there is only one reference in Kings to the remnant (‫ )שארית‬between the time of Hezekiah and the post-Josianic kings of Judah, dealing with the time of Manasseh (2 Kgs 21:14). Only in connection with the first and second invasions of Nebuchadnezzar does the remnant terminology appear with some regularity (2 Kgs 24:14; 25:11, 12, 22). The difference in usage between Kings and Chronicles is quite telling. 89 Thus the MT ‫( ויאמר‬lectio difficilior); LXX καὶ ἐπήκουσεν, “and he heard.” On the use of the verb ‫ אמר‬with the preposition (‫ )ל־‬to designate assurance, see 2 Kgs 8:19; 1 Chr 27:23; cf. Neh 9:15, 23 (HALOT 66b). 90 In Chronicles, Hezekiah’s actions anticipate those of another great reformer. Josiah is assured by the prophetess Huldah that because of his humbling himself (‫)נכנע‬, he will die in peace and not see “all the evil that I am bringing against this place and against its inhabitants” (2 Chr 34:26–28).

The Judahite Exile of the Eighth Century BCE

307

5 Conclusions Ackroyd suggests that the comment, “they [the royal deeds of sacrificing to other gods] were the ruin of him [Ahaz] and all Israel” (2 Chr 28:23), “may well point the reader forward to the disaster of the exile, interpreted as the result of the whole community’s failure.”91 Ackroyd interprets the statement about Ahaz, unparalleled in Kings, as reflecting a literary or theological topos, which ultimately anticipates the national chaos attending the fall of Judah.92 This approach, which has its strengths, elucidates the various theological messages the book conveys to readers. As the writing repeatedly indicates, exile need not be a final conclusion, but a condition from which it is possible to return (2 Chr 6:36–39; 7:12–16; 30:6–9; 33:12–13; 36:22–23). One important function of the Hezekiah narrative is to demonstrate positively how such a recovery may proceed from the center (the Jerusalem temple) to the periphery (Jerusalem, Judah, and beyond). Less attention has been paid, however, to the actual historical processes, as presupposed and imagined in the work, which led to a series of foreign invasions, destructions, and deportations. Indeed, a fixation on identifying recurring literary patterns may impede gaining a better understanding of the distinguishing features of particular reigns or sub-eras. The text offers not only theological comments and creative interpretations of its Vorlage, but also particular claims about the past. Recognizing dislocation as an important theological and literary topos should not preclude inquiring further about the world imagined or presupposed by the text. Chronicles presents the eighth century as a sea-change within Judahite history. In the reign of Ahaz, major transformations to Judahite demographics, public infrastructure, and territorial domain occur. These changes are attributed to a variety of causes, but primarily to foreign incursions of the Arameans, Israelites, Assyrians, Edomites, and Philistines. While acknowledging the impact of the Syro-Ephraimite war and other conflicts in the southern Levant, contemporary historians view things somewhat differently. Of the various developments in eighth-century Judah, the Assyrian invasion of Sennacherib is understood not simply as an extraordinary crisis for Judahites and other peoples in the southern Levant, but also as a far-reaching 91 Ackroyd, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, 179. 92 P. R. Ackroyd, “The Theology of the Chronicler,” LTQ 8 (1973), 101–16; idem, “The Chronicler as Exegete,” JSOT 2 (1977), 2–32 [both repr. in his The Chronicler in his Age (JSOTSup 101; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991), 273–89 and 311–43]; Mosis, Untersuchungen, 17–43; B. E. Kelly, Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles (JSOTSup 211; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1996), 216–41.

308

Chapter 11

military assault that adversely affected the physical infrastructure, demographics, and territorial extent of the Davidic state.93 The damage done to many towns, the decrease in population, the cost of the tribute that had to be sent to the Assyrian king(s), and the reduction in the Judahite state’s western borders due to the loss of the Shephelah all contribute to this assessment.94 Both Jerusalem and the Davidic dynasty survived, but Judah was no longer the same. Demographically, the Judahite state hits its peak in the mid-eighth century.95 A partial recovery occurs in the seventh century, especially within Jerusalem and its environs, but Judah does not fully recover from the population losses incurred during the eighth century for several centuries.96 93 S. Stohlmann, “The Judaean Exile after 701 B.C.E.,” Scripture in Context II: More Essays on the Comparative Method (ed. W. W. Hallo, J. C. Moyer, and L. G. Perdue; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 147–75; B. Halpern, “Jerusalem and the Lineages in the Seventh Century B.C.E.: Kingship and the Rise of Individual Moral Liability,” in Law and Ideology in Monarchic Israel (ed. B. Halpern and D. W. Hobson; JSOTSup 124; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 19–34; D. W. Jamieson-Drake, Scribes and Schools in Monarchic Judah: A Socio-Archaeological Approach (JSOTSup 155; The Social World of Biblical Antiquity 9; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1991), 48–73; N. Na’aman, “Population Changes in Palestine following Assyrian Deportations,” TA 20 (1993), 104–24; idem, “Hezekiah and the Kings of Assyria,” TA 21 (1994), 235–54 [both repr. in Ancient Israel and Its Neighbors: Interaction and Counteraction (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 200–19 and 98–117 respectively]; E. F. Campbell, “A Land Divided: Judah and Israel from the Death of Solomon to the Fall of Samaria,” in The Oxford History of the Biblical World (ed. M. D. Coogan; New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 236–40. 94 A. Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 10,000–586 B.C.E. (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1990), 438–62; G. W. Ahlström, The History of Ancient Palestine from the Palaeolithic Period to Alexander’s Conquest (JSOTSup 146; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 665– 740; M. Cogan, “Into Exile: From the Assyrian Conquest of Israel to the Fall of Babylon,” in The Oxford History of the Biblical World, 242–52; E. Stern, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, II: The Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Periods (732–332 B.C.E.) (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 2001), 130–215; Miller and Hayes, History of Ancient Israel and Judah, 371–74, 378–80, 392–421. The perspective offered in Chronicles is not unique. The Levitical confession speaks of “all of the suffering that has found us … from the days of the Assyrian kings until the present day” (Neh 9:32). 95 K. M. Broshi and I. Finkelstein, “The Population of Palestine in Iron Age II,” BASOR 287 (1992), 45–60; Na’aman, “Population Changes in Palestine following Assyrian Deportations”; A. Ofer, “‘All the Hill Country of Judah’: From a Settlement Fringe to a Prosperous Monarchy,” in From Nomadism to Monarchy (ed. I. Finkelstein and N. Na’aman; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994), 92–121. A. Faust offers a dissenting view: “Settlement and Demography in Seventh Century Judah and the Extent and Intensity of Sennacherib’s Campaign,” PEQ 140 (2008), 168–194. 96 O. Lipschits, “Demographic Changes in Judah between the Seventh and the Fifth Centuries BCE,” in Judah and Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period (ed. O. Lipschits and J. Blenkinsopp; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 323–76; idem, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem: Judah under Babylonian Rule (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005); A. Faust,

The Judahite Exile of the Eighth Century BCE

309

As we have seen, there are indications to suggest that the author acknowledged the eighth century as important for the course of the Davidic state; nevertheless, his construction of the past dislocates the transformational historical changes to the time of Ahaz, playing down the physical effects of Sennacherib’s invasion in 701 BCE.97 He executes this literary strategy in two complementary ways.98 First, he eliminates particular features of Hezekiah’s reign, as portrayed in Kings, which likely troubled him. Thus, he omits the rebellion of Hezekiah, the capture of Judah’s fortified towns, including the stronghold of Lachish, and the shipping of an enormous tribute to Sennacherib, consisting of 300,000 talents of silver and 30 talents of gold (2 Kgs 18:13–14).99 Similarly, he excludes the notice about how Hezekiah delivered all of the silver found in the temple and palace storehouses to Sennacherib (2 Kgs 18:15). Finally, Chronicles does not comment, as Kings does, that Hezekiah’s tribute includes bullion gained by stripping (‫ )קצץ‬the temple doors and posts, which Hezekiah himself had plated (2 Kgs 18:16). That Chronicles omits all of this material and yet claims that Sennacherib only “encamped against the fortified towns, thinking to seize them for himself” (2 Chr 32:1), indicates that the author wished to reassign the major changes in Judahite demography and territory from the reign of Hezekiah to that of Ahaz. Sennacherib’s invasion occurs during Hezekiah’s tenure, but it does little, if anything, to damage Judah’s material resources. By the same token, the Chronicles narratives shed some light on the Tendenzen reflected in the Kings narratives. As in Chronicles, Hezekiah appears as one of Judah’s very best kings (2 Kgs 18:3, 5–7a). Yet, the writers acknow­ ledge Hezekiah’s rebellion, the capture of Judahite fortresses, and Hezekiah’s dispatching of massive tribute (2 Kgs 18:7b, 13–16). Fronting this information at the beginning of their coverage allows them to devote most of their attention to Jerusalem’s survival and that of the Davidic state, against all odds, during the Assyrian campaign. In the section of the Rassam Cylinder, dealing with “Hezekiah the Judean,” Sennacherib boasts about taking some 200,150 people captive as spoil, and granting as spoil several unnamed towns to the kings of “Social, Cultural, and Demographic Changes in Judah during the Transition from the Iron Age to the Persian Period and the Nature of the Society during the Persian Period,” in From Judah to Judaea: Socio-economic Structures and Processes in the Persian Period (ed. J. U. Ro; HBM 43; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2012), 106–32. 97 So also Bae, Vereinte Suche nach Jhwh, 55–57. 98 When the Chronicler writes, presumably in late Persian/early Hellenistic period Jerusalem, at least some of the effects of earlier destructions, dating back to the eighth century and later, would still be felt. The area does not achieve a full recovery (in comparison with eighth century demographics) until Maccabean times. 99 The work is not alone in omitting the information about Hezekiah’s obeisance and tribute to the imperial king. The notices in 2 Kgs 18:14–16 are also lacking in Isa 36:1–39:8.

310

Chapter 11

Ashdod, Ekron, and Gaza, thus decreasing the size of the Judahite kingdom.100 The writers of Kings neither address the large population loss caused by Sennacherib’s invasion nor the loss of areas in the west (the Shephelah).101 No mention is made of the tremendous numbers of Judahite deportees or the specialized personnel (e.g., daughters of the king, male and female singers) Hezekiah was required to dispatch to the Assyrian king as part of his (re)submission to his Assyrian overlord.102 In short, the authors of Kings make some important concessions about Hezekiah’s insurrection, the Assyrian capture of Judahite fortresses, and Hezekiah’s sending of a heavy tribute, but they nevertheless modulate Judah’s losses in the uprising against the Assyrian king.103 They neglect the loss of valuable agricultural holdings in the west and the loss of large numbers of Judahites to death or forced deportation.104 By displacing the destruction, death, and territorial loss to the reign of Ahaz, the Chronicler was free to acknowledge more lasting damage to Judah than the authors of Kings chose to acknowledge. The point here is hardly to pit the heavily stylized, temple oriented, and theologically freighted narratives of Chronicles against the dense, multi-layered, and theologically freighted narratives of Kings, but rather to stress that the Chronicler, assuming that the eighth century was a turning point in the history of the Judahite state, selfconsciously restructured and reconfigured the reign of Ahaz to speak of many losses. This allowed him, in turn, both to remove troublesome details from the 100 M. Cogan, The Raging Torrent: Historical Inscriptions from Assyria and Babylonia relating to Ancient Israel (Jerusalem: Carta, 2008), §28.49–54 (115); idem, “Cross-examining the Assyrian Witnesses to Sennacherib’s Third Campaign: Assessing the Limits of Historical Reconstruction,” in Sennacherib at the Gates (see n. 68), 51–74; A. K. Grayson and J. Novotny (eds.), The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, King of Assyria (704–681 BC) (RIMA 3/1; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012), §4.49–54. 101 Mayer, “Sennacherib’s Campaign” (see n. 68), 168–200; C. Uehlinger, “Clio in a World of Pictures: Another Look at the Lachish Reliefs from Sennacherib’s Southwest Palace at Nineveh,” in Like a Bird in a Cage, 221–305; A. Faust, “The Shephelah in the Iron Age: A New Look on the Settlement of Judah,” PEQ 145 (2013), 203–19. 102 Cogan, Raging Torrent, §28.56–58 (115); Grayson and Novotny, Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, §4.56–58. 103 Hence, the cautions of L. L. Grabbe, “The Kingdom of Judah from Sennacherib’s Invasion to the Fall of Jerusalem: If we only had the Bible …,” in Good Kings and Bad Kings (ed. L. L. Grabbe; LHBOTS 393; European Seminar in Historical Methodology 5; London: T&T Clark, 2005), 78–122. 104 The impossibly high numbers (whether 200,150 or 205,105; cp. the Rassam Cylinder, the Chicago Prism, and the Taylor Prism), which include Ekronites, Judahites, small animals, and large animals, make it difficult to know how many Judahites were actually affected, Mayer, “Sennacherib’s Campaign,” 182. Highly exaggerated numbers of captives are unusual in royal Assyrian texts, M. De Odorico, The Use of Numbers and Quantifications in the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions (SAA 3; Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1995).

The Judahite Exile of the Eighth Century BCE

311

reign of Hezekiah (in Kings) and to promote Hezekiah’s reign as a highpoint in the Judahite monarchy. This brings us back to the comment of Ackroyd about Ahaz’s deeply troubled reign proleptically pointing to the Babylonian exile. There are parallels between Ahaz and Zedekiah, because Chronicles situates Judah’s first major exilic experience within Ahaz’s tenure. The comment that Ahaz’s actions “were the ruin of him and all Israel” (2 Chr 28:23) points first of all to the disaster of Ahaz’s reign itself.

Chapter 12

“Wrath without Remediation”: The Babylonian Exile and the Question of Immediate Retribution in Chronicles In explaining the Babylonian exile, the Deuteronomistic writing (in its final form) places an extraordinary amount of responsibility on the sins of Manasseh (2 Kgs 21:9–15; 23:25–26; 24:3–4).1 But Chronicles does not follow suit. The texts in Kings blaming Manasseh do not even appear in Chronicles. Instead of being culpable for the Judahite exile occurring approximately half a century after his death, Manasseh experiences his own private exile to Babylon, an expulsion that leads, as we shall see, to repentance, reinstatement, and reformation (2 Chr 33:11–16). Inasmuch as the case of Manasseh becomes a type for the larger community, he represents the possibilities of penitence, forgiveness, and restoration, rather than the primary cause of Judah’s demise. If not Manasseh, whom does Chronicles blame for bringing the Davidic state to an ignominious end? This essay begins by discussing and evaluating two important, but opposing views of Judah’s downfall in the Neo-Babylonian 1 F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), 274–89; B. Halpern, The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988); idem, “Why Manasseh is Blamed for the Babylonian Exile: The Evolution of a Biblical Tradition,” VT 48 (1998), 473–514; M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings (AB 11; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1988), 264–73; P. S. F. van Keulen, Manasseh through the Eyes of the Deuteronomists: The Manasseh Account (2 Kings 21:1–18) and the Final Chapters of the Deuteronomistic History (OtSt 38; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 161–204; E. Eynikel, “The Portrait of Manasseh and the Deuteronomistic History,” in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C. H. W. Brekelmans (ed. M. Vervenne and J. Lust; BETL 133; Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 233–61; M. A. Sweeney, “King Manasseh of Judah and the Problem of Theodicy in the Deuteronomistic History,” in Good Kings and Bad Kings (ed. L. L. Grabbe; LHBOTS 393; European Seminar in Historical Methodology 5; London: T&T Clark, 2005), 264–78; idem, King Josiah of Judah: The Lost Messiah of Israel (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 52–63; idem, I & II Kings: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2007), 424–32; F. Stavrakopoulou, “The Blackballing of Manasseh,” in Good Kings and Bad Kings, 248–63; eadem, King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice: Biblical Distortions of Historical Realities (BZAW 338; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004). There are comments among the Deuteronomistic reflections on the fall of the northern kingdom (2 Kgs 17:7–23) that blame the people of Judah for their own exile (2 Kgs 17:19–20). There is also one text that presents Manasseh as a southern version of Jeroboam and thus speaks of his sins by which “he caused Judah to sin” (2 Kgs 21:11). These particular texts do not appear in Chronicles, but there are many others, as we shall see, that do speak of corporate culpability. ©  GARY N. KNOPPERS (†), Christl M. Maier and H. G. M. Williamson, 2021 |  doi:10.1163/9789004444898_014

THE BABYLONIAN EXILE AND IMMEDIATE RETRIBUTION IN CHRONICLES

313

period—the immediate retribution theory and the accumulated guilt theory. In the former view the last king of Judah (Zedekiah) is faulted for Judah’s downfall, while in the latter view the blame is spread across a series of generations. Each of these perspectives exhibits particular strengths and offers useful insights, yet reflects profoundly different understandings of Chronistic historiography and theology. Given the pervasive dominance of the immediate retribution theory, this essay will devote significant attention to interrogating this hypothesis, both its strengths in dealing with individual kings and its limitations in accounting for the configuration of particular incidents and long-term trends. My analysis proceeds to discuss briefly the reigns of individual kings, beginning with Manasseh in the early seventh century and ending with the last Davidic king, Zedekiah, in the early sixth century. Reviewing the record of each monarch will furnish some insights into Judah’s broader decline during this era. Special attention will be paid to regnal judgments as they pertain to the issue of forced migrations and to the manner by which Chronicles integrates notions of inner-generational and intergenerational responsibility within its narrative presentation. Even though the work largely follows the pattern of regnal evaluations found in Kings, its omissions, additions, and restructuring of individual reigns lend a different cast to its portrayal of the monarchy. I shall argue that the Chronicler is not simply interested in the last generation (that of Zedekiah) in explaining Judah’s fall, but with larger trends and transgenerational influences as well. It is not a case of either/or, but of both/and. The literary work makes claims about both the actions of particular generations and the larger eras (or sub-eras) of which they are a part.2 In particular, my analysis will explore the means by which the work sets the late Judahite kingdom apart from previous eras as a period of decline, in spite of the achievements of two great reformers (Hezekiah and Josiah).3 In this schema, the Babylonian exile in the early sixth century is the last in a series of blows the Davidic state suffers during the last two centuries of its existence.

2 Thus, part of understanding what goes wrong in the late monarchy involves understanding what goes right in the united monarchy and, to a lesser extent, in the early Judahite monarchy; see chapter 11, “Defeat, Depopulation, and Displacement: The Judahite Exile of the Eighth Century BCE.” 3 In contrast to the balanced pattern evinced in the late-tenth, ninth, and early-eighth centuries, the pattern becomes a predominately negative one thereafter.

314 1

Chapter 12

Immediate Retribution vs. Accumulation of Guilt

Two major theories dominate scholarly discussions of how Chronicles explains Babylon’s conquest of Judah in the early sixth century. Sara Japhet provocatively argues that the Chronistic view of exile is readily explained by understanding the ties that the literary work posits between the people and the land. According to this reconstruction, Chronicles depicts Israel as autochthonous.4 Consistent with this emphasis on the eternal bonds between the Israelite people and their land, Chronicles completely downplays the Babylonian deportation(s).5 The literary work essentially reduces the Babylonian conquests of Judah from two (598–597 and 586 BCE) to one (586 BCE) and blames the last generation of Judahites (under King Zedekiah) for Judah’s fall (2 Chr 36:11–21).6 Hence, both literary works single out a particular individual (or generation)—Manasseh (Kings) and Zedekiah (Chronicles)—to blame for the Babylonian occupation. Following Rudolph, Japhet contends that the majority of the people actually remain in Judah; the damage inflicted by the Babylonians affects only Jerusalem and its immediate environs.7 Nebuchadnezzar “never harmed the kingdom as a whole.”8 The depiction of continuous occupation coupled with the quotation of Cyrus’ decree appearing at the end of the work (2 Chr 36:22– 23) minimizes the effect of the Babylonian invasion(s): “Foreign armies may come and go, but the people’s presence in the land continues uninterrupted.”9 Japhet’s work thus challenges the influential view of Torrey that the Chronicler (understood by him to be the author of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah) was largely responsible for the myth of the empty land, the notion that the people 4 S. Japhet, “Conquest and Settlement in Chronicles,” JBL 98 (1979), 205–18 [repr. From the Rivers of Babylon to the Highlands of Judah: Collected Studies on the Restoration Period (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 38–52]. 5 S. Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought (BEATAJ 9; Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1989), 363; eadem, I & II Chronicles (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993), 1060–77. 6 So also R. W. Klein, 2 Chronicles (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 547. 7 W. Rudolph, Chronikbücher (HAT 21; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1955), 337; Japhet, Ideology, 368– 69; eadem, Chronicles, 1074. 8 Japhet, Ideology, 369. 9 Japhet, Ideology, 373; eadem, Chronicles, 18. For the sake of this discussion, I am assuming that the Chronicler’s work includes 2 Chr 36:23, cf. also J. D. Newsome, “Toward an Understanding of the Chronicler and his Purposes,” JBL 94 (1975), 201–17. Some think that the original work ended earlier (e.g., 2 Chr 36:21); cf. H. G. M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 412–19; S. J. De Vries, 1 and 2 Chronicles (FOTL 11; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 12–13. See also the comments of Rudolph (Chronikbücher, 337–38), who works, however, with the hypothesis that Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah comprise a single work.

THE BABYLONIAN EXILE AND IMMEDIATE RETRIBUTION IN CHRONICLES

315

of Judah exited the land en masse in the early sixth century BCE.10 Quite the contrary, from the time of Israel’s ethno-genesis to the time of Cyrus, the people’s presence in the land is “continuous and abiding.”11 The second major theory of the southern exile, stressing corporate responsibility over the course of several generations, has been articulated independently by Brian Kelly and Baruch Halpern. Kelly contends that the Chronistic work portrays an intensification of popular and royal guilt during the reigns of Judah’s worst kings in the latter part of the monarchy, a continuous history that results in mounting divine wrath.12 The consequences of Judah’s sin may be delayed, but, following the regression of King Ahaz (2 Chronicles 28), national punishment is inevitable.13 The work acknowledges both corporate guilt and the possibility of deferred punishment. Kelly does not pursue the issue of exile at length, but states that the Chronistic presentation of the Babylonian deportation(s) augurs against the proposition that the last generation shoulders the blame for Judah’s banishment from the land.14 In his substantial study of Manasseh’s role in the Deuteronomistic History, Halpern questions whether the principle of immediate retribution applies in the case of the Chronistic depiction of Judah’s fall. Chronicles does not blame the last king (Zedekiah) for Judah’s demise, but rather cumulative guilt over several generations.15 Observing that responsibility before the deity may take either individual or corporate form, Halpern sees the principle of collective culpability as operative in the explanation for the Babylonian conquest (2 Chr 36:14–16).16 The disaster is announced by the prophetess Huldah during

10 C. C. Torrey, Ezra Studies (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1910 [repr. Ktav, 1970]), 285–87; idem, The Chronicler’s History of Israel (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1954), 370. 11 Japhet, Ideology, 386; eadem, Chronicles, 47. 12 B. E. Kelly, Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles (JSOTSup 211; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996), 108; idem, “‘Retribution’ Revisited: Covenant, Grace, and Restoration,” in The Chronicler as Theologian: Essays in Honor of Ralph W. Klein (ed. M. P. Graham, S. L. McKenzie, and G. N. Knoppers; JSOTSup 371; London: T&T Clark Continuum, 2003), 206–27. 13 Kelly, Retribution, 104, 220. 14 Kelly, Retribution, 102–9. 15 Halpern, “Manasseh” (see n. 1), 473–514. 16 For the view that retribution in Chronicles is fundamentally individual in nature, see G. von Rad, Das Geschichtsbild des chronistischen Werkes (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1930), 12–13; idem, Theologie des Alten Testaments. Bd 1 (8th ed.; München: Chr. Kaiser, 1982), 360–62 [trans. of 1st ed. (1957) by D. M. G. Stalker, Old Testament Theology (2 vols.; New York: Harper & Row, 1962), 1.349–50]. J. W. Wright provides a cross-cultural comparison, “Divine Retribution in Herodotus and the Book of Chronicles,” in Chronicling the

316

Chapter 12

the reign of Josiah, but occurs in the time of Zedekiah. Judah’s decline begins before the time of Josiah and culminates in the reigns of his successors. As this brief survey demonstrates, there are profound disagreements about the nature and causes of Judah’s dislocation from the land. One theory posits the implementation of divine wrath within the course of a single generation, while the other speaks of deferred punishment and the compounding of guilt across several generations. Both theories have their strengths. Where Japhet’s exegesis may be credited is its sensitive attention to the laconic depiction of the Judahite kingdom’s final decades. About as much attention is paid to post-Josianic history, including Cyrus’ decree authorizing a return (23 verses; 2 Chr 36:1–23), as is paid to one of the better kings (Abijah) in the early Judahite monarchy, who reigns only three years (23 verses; 2 Chr 13:1– 23). The brief portrayal of Judah’s final decades is therefore too consistent to be an accidental variation from the much more detailed and rather grim presentation in Kings.17 Since Chronicles neither reports a major Babylonian exile in the time of Jehoiachin (598/7 BCE) nor a mass migration to Egypt (ca. 582 BCE), the work’s divergence from its Vorlage deserves explanation. Nevertheless, two questions must be raised. First, what was left in Judah and Jerusalem to dislocate by the time of the early sixth century? The very assertion, for example, that the king of the Chaldeans “exiled (‫ )ויגל‬the remnant (‫ )השארית‬from the sword to Babylon” (2 Chr 36:20) in the time of Zedekiah presupposes that there was only a portion of the people left in the land in the early sixth century BCE to deport. The narration in Kings presupposes a larger, more populous, and militarily stronger state in the seventh and sixth centuries than does the presentation in Chronicles. As we have observed, a major case of depopulation and deportation occurs during the reign of Ahaz.18 The great loss of life, the forced deportations, and the decrease in Judah’s territory mean that Judah enters an exilic-style predicament during this time. Part of the surviving population remains in the land, while the other part of the surviving population finds itself forcibly dispersed to other lands. A marked recovery occurs during the Hezekian reforms, but that recovery is primarily, albeit not exclusively, cultic in character. From the eighth century (post-Ahaz) forward Judah endures, but only as a reduced state. Chronicler: The Book of Chronicles and Early Second Temple Historiography (ed. P. S. Evans and T. F. Williams; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 195–214. 17 See also E. Ben Zvi, “Toward a Sense of Balance: Remembering the Catastrophe of Monarchic Judah/(Ideological) Israel and Exile through Reading Chronicles in Late Yehud,” in Chronicling the Chronicler, 247–65. 18 See chapter 11, section 2.

THE BABYLONIAN EXILE AND IMMEDIATE RETRIBUTION IN CHRONICLES

317

Second, the declaration that Nebuchadnezzar “exiled those who survived the sword to Babylon” (2 Chr 36:20) is not simply limited to the residents of Jerusalem, but has broader connotations. In this conception, the collective deportation of the remaining Judahites to Babylon for seventy years (as prophesied by Jeremiah), allowed the land—during “all the days of the desolation” (‫—)כל־ימי השמה‬to keep its Sabbaths (2 Chr 36:21).19 Such a blanket pronouncement leaves little room for the claim that only a portion of the people (primarily Jerusalemites) was dislocated to Babylon.20 Quite the contrary, the allusion to Holiness legislation (Lev 25:1–22) portrays the fulfillment of a curse (exile) as an opportunity for the (personified) land to recoup its ritual obligations. Where the theories of Kelly and Halpern may be credited is their sensitivity to the ways in which the story of Judah’s fall does not accord easily with a single-generation perspective. There are clear adumbrations, for example, before the time of Zedekiah that Judah is in great trouble (2 Chr 34:21) and that an ill fate is approaching (e.g., 2 Chr 34:24–26). If so, is Zedekiah and his generation solely responsible for the loss of the kingdom? There are hints that some individual kings or the generations they represent do not receive their just deserts (e.g., 2 Chr 32:26). Are all punishments, then, immediate? Yet other texts (e.g., 2 Chr 36:15) stress how longsuffering and compassionate Yhwh was toward his people and his residence (‫)מענו‬. If so, would such divine mercy be limited to just a short time—some eleven years (2 Chr 36:11)—during the last generation of the Davidic state? In many respects, the debates about the Babylonian exile reflect different perceptions of the Chronicler’s compositional technique and theology of history. Japhet’s analysis valuably attempts to tie the presentation of Judah’s fall to the larger understanding of theodicy found within this literary work. In her view, there is a clear congruence between the construction of Babylonian destruction and what has been (infelicitously) called the Chronistic theory of immediate retribution, the principle that each generation rises or falls according to its own merits. Reacting against the foreboding account of the Israelite and Judahite monarchies in Kings, Chronicles stresses a more optimistic view of history. Each new king is presented with a chance to begin afresh. Each generation is afforded opportunities to succeed or fail in accordance with its choices 19 M. Kartveit, Motive und Schichten der Landtheologie in I Chronik 1–9 (ConBOT 28; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1989); idem, “2 Chronicles 36:20–23 as Literary and Theological Interface,” in The Chronicler as Author: Studies in Text and Texture (ed. M. P. Graham and S. L. McKenzie; JSOTSup 263; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 395–403; L. C. Jonker, “The Exile as Sabbath Rest: The Chronicler’s Interpretation of the Exile,” OTE 20 (2007), 703–19. 20 Pace Japhet, Ideology, 373; eadem, Chronicles, 18.

318

Chapter 12

and actions. If the story of the monarchy adhered closely to this principle, the last king of Judah, Zedekiah, would be responsible for Judah’s deportation, and this is, as we have seen, what Japhet argues.21 Yet, Halpern and Kelly contend that intergenerational grace and punishment punctuate the Chronistic work and that such intergenerational motifs are critical to grasping the force of events in the late Judahite monarchy. Since I take issue with various aspects of how the theory of immediate retribution has been broadly applied to Chronistic historiography, some discussion of this widely accepted interpretation is necessary.22 A classical formulation of immediate retribution is advanced by Wellhausen: “Never does sin miss its punishment, and never where misfortune occurs is guilt wanting.”23 The 21 Japhet, Ideology, 188–89, 364–73; eadem, Chronicles, 44–45, 1060–77; eadem, From the Rivers of Babylon to the Highlands of Judah (see n. 4), 331–41. 22 The doctrine is widely considered to be a major, if not the major, feature of Chronistic historiography. See J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (6th ed.; Berlin: Reimer, 1905), 198–205 [trans. of 2nd ed. (1883) by J. S. Black and A. Menzies, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (Edinburgh: A. & C. Black, 1885), 203–11]; M. Rehm, Die Bücher der Chronik (EB; Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1949), 5–7; von Rad, Geschichtsbild, 10–15; idem, Theologie des Alten Testaments, 1.359–65 [Old Testament Theology, 1.347– 54]; Rudolph, Chronikbücher, xix–xx; P. Welten, Geschichte und Geschichtsdarstellung in den Chronikbüchern (WMANT 42; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1973), 9–186; R. North, “The Theology of the Chronicler,” JBL 82 (1963), 369–81; Williamson, Chronicles, 31–33; R. B. Dillard, “Reward and Punishment in Chronicles: The Theology of Immediate Retribution,” WTJ 46 (1984), 164–72; idem, 2 Chronicles (WBC 15; Waco, TX: Word, 1987), 76– 81; Japhet, Ideology, 150–98; R. Braun, 1 Chronicles (WBC 14; Waco, TX: Word, 1986), xxxvii– xxxix; I. Kalimi, Zur Geschichtsschreibung des Chronisten: Literarisch-historiographische Abweichungen der Chronik von ihren Paralleltexten in den Samuel- und Königsbüchern (BZAW 226; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995), 165–72; idem, The Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History in Chronicles (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 186–93; R. W. Klein, 1 Chronicles (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 46–47. One dissenting view is that of E. Ben Zvi, “A Sense of Proportion: An Aspect of the Theology of the Chronicler,” SJOT 9 (1995), 37–51 [repr. History, Literature and Theology in the Book of Chronicles (Bible World; London: Equinox, 2006), 160–73]; idem, “Are There Any Bridges Out There? How Wide Was the Conceptual Gap between the Deuteronomistic History and Chronicles?” in Community Identity in Judean Historiography: Biblical and Comparative Perspectives (ed. G. N. Knoppers and K. A. Ristau; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 59–86. Another dissent, reflecting a different theological understanding of the Chronistic work, is that of W. Johnstone, “Guilt and Atonement: The Theme of 1 and 2 Chronicles,” in A Word in Season: Essays in Honour of William McKane (ed. J. D. Martin and P. R. Davies; JSOTSup 42; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986), 113–38; idem, 1 and 2 Chronicles (2 vols.; JSOTSup 253–254; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997); idem, Chronicles and Exodus (JSOTSup 275; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998), 122–23. 23 Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel, 203 [Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, 198: “Nie bleibt auf die Sünde die Strafe aus und nie mangelt dem Unglück die Schuld.”].

THE BABYLONIAN EXILE AND IMMEDIATE RETRIBUTION IN CHRONICLES

319

prophets purportedly have only the Law of Moses at their disposal, “setting before their hearers prosperity and adversity in conformity with the stencil pattern, just as the law is faithfully fulfilled or neglected.”24 Within such a theological framework: “Merit is always the obverse of success.”25 Although superficial, Wellhausen’s views can hardly be dismissed out of hand. There seems little doubt that the literary work reaches for what Brevard Childs calls “the coherence of action and effect” in Israel’s historical experience.26 The principle is articulated by Azariah, a prophetic figure upon whom “the spirit of God” temporarily alights: “Hear me, O Asa and all Judah and Benjamin: Yhwh is with you when you are with him. And if you seek (‫)דרש‬ him, he will be present to you. But if you abandon (‫ )עזב‬him, he will abandon (‫ )עזב‬you” (2 Chr 15:2). Thus, Jeroboam, the first northern king, who leads the Israelites in seceding from the Davidic state (2 Chr 10:1–19) and founds his own counter-cultus in northern Israel (2 Chr 13:4–12), is struck down by Yhwh and dies (‫ )ויגפהו יהוה וימת‬in the aftermath of Jeroboam’s catastrophic loss in battle to Abijah (2 Chr 13:20). In contrast, the Jeroboam of Kings “reigned for twenty-two years and slept with his fathers” (1 Kgs 14:20). The case of Jeroboam is one example of many in which a figure receives his comeuppance within his own time. Yet, however helpful the theory of immediate retribution may be in elucidating particular passages, the theory has its limitations. The hypothesis is insightful in what it affirms, but wrong in what it implicitly assumes. The “coherence of action and effect” in certain texts does not necessarily rule out the operation of transgenerational grace or deferred punishment in other texts. There are clear counter-examples to demonstrate the speciousness of the ‘no misfortune without guilt’-claim. The problems with such a blanket generalization are both inner-generational and intergenerational. Presupposing a closed system in which the king (or the king and the people) and Yhwh are the only actors in the historical arena, the immediate retribution theory oversimplifies matters to the point of distortion. Not only do many events not fit under the immediate retribution rubric, but the application of such a model reflects a mechanical and simplistic understanding of human and divine agency in the world imagined by the literary work. Yhwh, kings, 24 Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel, 203 [Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, 198: “… indem sie nach der Schablone Glück oder Unglück in Aussicht stellen, je nachdem das Gesetz treulich erfüllt oder vernachlässigt worden ist.”]. 25 Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel, 209 [Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, 204: “Der Erfolg ist nämlich stets die Kehrseite des Verdienstes.”]. 26 B. S. Childs, An Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 651–53.

320

Chapter 12

priests, Levites, elders, and laypersons are all active participants in Israelite history, but so are foreign monarchs, who are responsible for their own choices and actions. When, for instance, Judah faces a massive foreign invasion (unparalleled in Kings) by a coalition of regional powers during the latter reign of Jehoshaphat (2 Chr 20:1–30), the incursion occurs in a reform phase of his tenure. True to his name, ‫יהושפט‬, “Yhwh has judged,” Jehoshaphat implements a wide range of judicial initiatives in Jerusalem and Judah (2 Chr 19:4–11). If an enemy assault is the effect in an immediate retribution schema, what is the cause? To maintain that the Judahite king and his people deserve to confront a sudden foreign onslaught as the consequence of implementing domestic reforms flies in the face of the evidence. To take a second example, the Assyrian invasion led by Sennacherib in the latter reign of Hezekiah comes as a complete surprise (2 Chr 32:1–23), occurring without warning after the Judahite monarch, the priests, the Levites, and the people painstakingly implement an unprecedented series of cultic reforms (2 Chr 29:1–31:27). In the wake of Ahaz’s extraordinary apostasy (2 Chr 28:1–27), Judah’s leadership and laity work in concert to purify and reopen the temple, celebrate the festivals of Passover and Unleavened Bread, and stamp out illicit cultic practices. That the military invasion is an utter shock is signaled by the narrative transition (2 Chr 32:1): “After these faithful acts (‫אחרי הדברים‬ ‫)והאמת האלה‬, Sennacherib, King of Assyria, came and entered Judah.”27 If a massive enemy offensive is the punishment, what is the crime? At this point in his reign, Hezekiah has not committed any offenses. To be sure, there are instances elsewhere in the work in which Yhwh employs foreign kings to chastise his people (e.g., 2 Chr 12:5), warn them (e.g., 2 Chr 35:21), or bring them home from forced exile (2 Chr 36:22–23).28 Nevertheless, such cases of dual agency in divine-human affairs do not necessarily absolve foreign leaders of accountability for their actions.29 To turn to intergenerational issues, the single generation focus of the immediate retribution hypothesis encounters profound problems in elucidating major literary features in the work’s construction of Israel’s past. Such a stance is hard-pressed to explain how and why an elderly David can recite (and reinterpret) an intergenerational oracle: 27 28

29

The transitional note (2 Chr 32:1) is unique to Chronicles. I am hesitant to extrapolate from the one instance in which Yhwh tests (‫ )נסה‬Hezekiah (with respect to the Babylonian envoys in 2 Chr 32:31) that other unexplained foreign interventions are also cases of divine testing (pace Japhet, Ideology, 193–98). Such an explanation confuses cause and function. A truth Sennacherib himself discovers (2 Chr 32:21–22).

THE BABYLONIAN EXILE AND IMMEDIATE RETRIBUTION IN CHRONICLES

321

A son has been born to you; he, he will be a man of rest. I shall give him rest from all of his surrounding enemies; indeed, Solomon will be his name and peace and quiet I shall give to Israel in his days. As for him, he will build a house for my name. He, he will become my son and I shall become his father. And I shall establish the throne of his dominion over Israel forever. (1 Chr 22:9–10)

In this royal speech, unique to Chronicles, David begins to ready his son for the future succession and the tasks that await the future king.30 Playing on the terms of Nathan’s dynastic oracle (2 Sam 7:1–16//1 Chr 17:1–15) and the name of his son (‫)שלמה‬, the king identifies the international conditions and content of Solomon’s reign before his son has even acceded to the throne. In this case, David plays the part of a willing and active participant in a larger divinely initiated plan, but Solomon is, at this point, a passive recipient of promises and exhortations. If international peace, rest for Israel, divine adoption, and a perdurable throne for Solomon is the retribution, what is the cause?31 Solomon’s father attempts to secure the pledges disclosed through the prophet Nathan, yet these pledges have to do with Solomon and his generation. Up to this point, Solomon has not achieved anything. Only an intergenerational perspective can make sense of what Chronicles presents as the defining features of the united monarchy. To take a second example, Chronicles speaks of a variety of instances of divine election, perhaps a wider variety than may be found in any other biblical book. The types of divine intervention affect a people (the sons of Jacob), select individuals (David and Solomon), an ancestral house (that of Jesse), a group (the Levites), a sanctuary (the temple), and a town (Jerusalem). Aside from David, only a few other individual figures are divinely elect in the scriptures: Abram (Neh 9:7), Aaron (Ps 105:26), Saul (1 Sam 10:24), and Zerubbabel (Hag 2:23). Chronicles is the only book that explicitly speaks of Solomon’s election (1 Chr 28:5; 29:1) and implicitly speaks of God’s choice of the house of Jesse.32 Moreover, there are no cases in Chronicles in which Yhwh elects a 30

In more detail, see G. N. Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29 (AB 12A; New York: Doubleday/New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), 765–88. 31 Indeed, the work uniquely presents Solomon as divinely elect long before his reign (1 Chr 28:5; 29:1). If so, what role does such divine intervention play in an immediate retribution schema? See G. N. Knoppers, “Judah, Levi, David, Solomon, Jerusalem, and the Temple: Election and Covenant in Chronicles,” in Covenant and Election in Exilic and Post-Exilic Judaism: Studies of the Sofja Kovalevskaja Research Group on Early Jewish Monotheism, Vol. V (ed. N. MacDonald; FAT II/79; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 145–46. Similarly, Ben Zvi, “Sense of Proportion,” 163–65. 32 Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29, 927–42.

322

Chapter 12

given person and then later rejects the beneficiary of the divine beneficence. Such consistency underscores the positive import of the abiding choices that Yhwh makes. Thus, the operation of sacred history cannot be reduced to a “divine pragmatism.”33 Not everything is fungible. The transgenerational divine commitment to the Levites explains, for instance, why a reforming Hezekiah does not attempt to reinvent tradition, when he wishes to reopen the temple and renew sacrifices. Rather, an erudite Hezekiah cites a preexisting divine commitment to challenge the Levites of his time: “Now, my sons, do not be negligent, because Yhwh has elected you to stand before him to minister to him, and to be to him ministers and those who make offerings” (2 Chr 29:11). To be sure, the beneficiaries of divine election remain accountable for their actions to the deity who elected them. They are chosen for a purpose.34 Yet, the emphasis upon long-term divine commitment complicates the proposition that sacred history is defined by immediate retribution.35 That each generation can begin again with a fresh start is itself due to ongoing divine commitment and grace. Divine mercy creates the conditions by which each monarch may begin anew. In brief, the assumption that the operation of immediate retribution eliminates intergenerational commitment, responsibility, and (de)merit needs to be questioned. As the transition from David to Solomon demonstrates, transgenerational dedication, self-sacrifice, and sustained corporate solidarity lie at the heart of what makes the united monarchy so distinctive. In the views of many, the literary work advocates individual liability, rather than corporate liability, non-cumulative guilt, rather than cumulative guilt, direct blessing, rather than ancestral merit, and instantaneous punishment, rather than delayed retribution; yet accountability within one’s own generation does not rule out multigeneration (dis)loyalty and influence. I suggest that Chronicles works with and incorporates two established understandings of how divine justice operates in the relations between Yhwh and his people. According to what most scholars consider to be the older view, the God of Israel operates intergenerationally, “I, Yhwh your God am a zealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast loyalty to the 33 Pace Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel, 203 [Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, 198]. 34 Knoppers, “Election and Covenant in Chronicles,” 151–65. 35 Contra Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel, 203 [Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, 198].

THE BABYLONIAN EXILE AND IMMEDIATE RETRIBUTION IN CHRONICLES

323

thousandth (generation) of those who love me and keep my commandments” (Exod 20:5–6//Deut 5:9–10). In the theology enshrined within the Ten Words, vicarious punishment obtains in divine-human relations, although the emphasis falls on the perdurable, intergenerational loyalty of Yhwh toward those who are loyal to him.36 A later understanding of divine justice responds to and critiques the older view, proclaiming the direct accountability of individuals for their own actions. As applied to divine-human relations, the principle is articulated by the deity in Ezekiel (18:4): “Know that all lives belong to me. The life of the parent as well as the life of the child belongs to me; only the person who sins will die.”37 In Jer 31:29–30, the same principle of divine justice is projected to a future plane: “In those days they will no longer say, ‘The parents have eaten sour grapes and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’ Rather, each person will die for his own crime. The teeth of every person who eats sour grapes will be set on edge.”38 Discussion of these two understandings of divine retribution, one affirming vicarious punishment and the other disallowing it, sheds light on the broader discussion of how Chronicles (re)structures Israelite history. The work manifests both understandings without reconciling them. Rewriting the history bequeathed to him in Samuel-Kings, the Chronicler incorporates an innergenerational understanding of divine justice within his own work, but he does

36

In biblical law the principle applies to divine-human relations, not to inner-Israelite relations (e.g., Exod 34:7; Num 14:8; 16:31–33). See M. Greenberg, “Some Postulates of Biblical Criminal Law,” in Studies in the Bible and Jewish Thought (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1995), 333–52. Thus, “parents will not be put to death for their children, nor will children be put to death for their parents. A person (only) for his own crime will be put to death” (Deut 24:16). The text is directly cited in the case of Amaziah of Judah executing the conspirators, who murdered his father (2 Kgs 14:5–6//2 Chr 25:3–4). See A. D. H. Mayes, Deuteronomy (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 326; J. H. Tigay, Deuteronomy (The JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 227. For a different reading, see E. Nielsen, Deuteronomium (HAT 1/6; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1995), 229. 37 The influence of Ezekiel is stressed by Japhet, Ideology, 162–65; eadem, Chronicles, 44. To complicate matters further, the intergenerational formula found within the Ten Words is recited and rewritten within a later text in Deuteronomy (7:9–10) to posit God’s fidelity to the thousandth generation of those who love him, but requiting with destruction instantly those who reject him. This passage thus declares immediate divine recompense toward those who hate him, but transgenerational divine loyalty toward those who love him. See further, B. M. Levinson, Legal Revision and Religious Renewal in Ancient Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 72–79. 38 On how these later texts simultaneously cite and revise older authoritative texts, see M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985), 335–50; Levinson, Legal Revision, 57–84.

324

Chapter 12

not eliminate the older view.39 Rather, he affirms and works with both notions. To return to Zedekiah and his generation, they bear responsibility for their actions, yet they do not stand alone. They incur their share of guilt for Judah’s exit from the land, but so do others before them. In explaining the Babylonian exile, Chronicles blames several generations, not one. The same literary work that seeks coherence and proportion in divine-human relations also contains numerous exceptions to the operation of immediate retribution. These counterexamples are not mere accidents or unedited leftovers from Samuel-Kings (many are unique to Chronicles), but generate a sense of complexity and balance within the larger writing.40 The depiction of the Judahite monarchy contains both inner-generational and inter-generational motifs.41 2

“He Humbled Himself Greatly”: Manasseh (697–642 BCE)

The effects of Hezekiah’s many reforms are short-lived. Manasseh inherits a positive legacy from his father and serves as Judah’s longest reigning monarch, yet he receives a harsh evaluation (2 Chr 33:2//2 Kgs 21:2). As in Kings, 39 40 41

Such a concept is hardly unique: the books of Samuel-Kings also contain numerous examples of inner-generational punishment (e.g., 1 Sam 3:30–34; 5:9; 25:36–39; 28:16–19; 2 Sam 12:13–14; 21:1; 24:11–12; 1 Kgs 13:4; 2 Kgs 1:16–17; 2:23–24), Dillard, “Reward,” 170. So also Ben Zvi, “Bridges Out There,” 63–68. A quite particular example of a harmonistic redeployment of older sources in a new literary setting is the assimilation of the centralized Pilgrimage festival of Passover in the Deuteronomic calendar toward Priestly custom. Thus, the claim is made in Josiah’s time that “they boiled (‫ )ויבשלו‬the Passover (offering) in fire (‫ )באש‬according to the prescription” (‫ ;כמשפט‬2 Chr 35:13). See I. L. Seeligmann, “The Beginnings of Midrash in the Book of Chronicles,” Tarbiz 49 (1980), 14–32 (Hebrew); Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 135–37; B. M. Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 53–57, 154–55; Japhet, Chronicles, 1052–53. According to Exod 12:3– 8, the Paschal offering is to be drawn from unblemished yearling sheep or goats and roasted over the fire (‫)צלי־אש‬. The sheep or goat (‫ )שה‬is neither to be eaten “raw” (‫ )נא‬nor to be “boiled in any way with water” ‫ם‬ ‎ ‫ ;בשל מבשל במי‬Exod 12:9). By contrast, the Deuteronomic legislation (16:2), transforming Passover into a centralized pilgrimage feast, allows the Paschal offering to be drawn from the flock or the herd (‫ ;צאן ובקר‬Deut 16:1–2) and specifically mandates a different type of preparation. The Israelites are to boil (‫ )בשל‬and consume the offering “at the place, which Yhwh your God will choose” (MT Deut 16:7). Chronicles follows Kings in portraying Josiah’s Passover as a highly-centralized affair, but the unique assertion that the Paschal offering was “boiled (‫ )בשל‬in fire (‫ ”)באש‬attempts to reconcile two different pieces of pentateuchal legislation. On the creative exegesis and its application; see further Kalimi, Geschichtsschreibung, 142–43; E. Ben Zvi, “Revisiting ‘Boiling in Fire’ in 2 Chron. 35.13 and Related Passover Questions, Texts, Exegetical Needs, Concerns, and General Implications,” in Biblical Interpretation in Judaism and Christianity (ed. I. Kalimi and P. J. Haas; LHBOTS 439; London: T&T Clark, 2006), 238–50.

THE BABYLONIAN EXILE AND IMMEDIATE RETRIBUTION IN CHRONICLES

325

Manasseh’s cultic infractions are many: rebuilding the high places, erecting Baal altars, fashioning (an) asherah(s), worshiping the host of heaven, erecting altars (presumably for other gods) in the temple, practicing child sacrifice, augury, divination, and so forth (2 Kgs 21:3–7//2 Chr 33:2–7).42 The range of cultic abuses is extensive and unprecedented.43 Along with Ahaz, Manasseh appears as one of Judah’s worst monarchs. In fact, some of his offenses—acting in accordance with the abominations of the nations, making altars for the Baals, practicing child sacrifice, building high places, and provoking Yhwh—recall those of Ahaz.44 It must be remembered that a number of the early monarchs do not commit the kinds of infractions attributed to them in Kings.45 Hence, the number of Manasseh’s transgressions is unprecedented. Moreover, the gross misconduct in Manasseh’s reign is both individual and corporate in nature. He is the only king deemed to have “misled” (hiphil of ‫ )תעה‬the people into doing “more evil than the nations did, whom Yhwh destroyed before the descendants of Israel” (2 Chr 33:9//2 Kgs 21:9). But that is where the parallels end. In the Deuteronomistic version, the unprecedented crisis caused by Manasseh’s sins compels Yhwh to turn against his own people and chosen city, declaring definitively that he will “wipe out Jerusalem” and “uproot the remnant of my inheritance and deliver them over to their enemies” (2 Kgs 21:13–14).46 No such declaration appears in Chronicles, even though the possibility of such doom is implicit in the oracle (cited from the Vorlage): “I shall never again remove (‫ )ולא אוסיף להסיר‬the feet of Israel from upon the land, which I granted to your ancestors, if only they take care to practice all that I commanded them according to all the instruction, statutes, and judgments (delivered) by the hand of Moses” (2 Chr 33:8//2 Kgs 21:8). Indeed, the recitation of this oracle carries a special force in Chronicles, because part 42 The crime of shedding innocent blood (2 Kgs 21:16; 24:4) does not appear, however, in Chronicles. Manasseh is the only Judahite king charged with this malfeasance, M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings, 269; E. Eynikel, The Reform of King Josiah and the Composition of the Deuteronomistic History (OtSt 33; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 272–73; Halpern, “Manasseh,” 487. 43 See further my “Saint or Sinner? Manasseh in Chronicles,” in Rewriting Biblical History: Essays on Chronicles and Ben Sira in Honour of Pancratius C. Beentjes (ed. H. W. M. Grol and J. Corley; DCLS 7; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 211–29. 44 Klein, 2 Chronicles, 392–407. 45 See chapter 11, section 1. 46 This oracle, like others in the second edition of the Deuteronomistic work, is ambiguously attributed to “his/my servants the prophets” (2 Kgs 21:8; 24:2; cf. 2 Kgs 9:7; 17:13, 23); R. D. Nelson, The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History (JSOTSup 18; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981), 58–59. On the use of the locution, “my servants the prophets,” in Deuteronomistic literature, see Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 351 (no. 9).

326

Chapter 12

of Judah has already been exiled during the reign of Ahaz. The clear implication is, therefore, that if they (i.e., those who remain) do not take care to “practice all that I commanded them,” they too could find themselves dispersed to other lands. Only in Chronicles is there an explicit divine warning delivered both “to Manasseh and to his people” that goes unheeded (2 Chr 33:10), followed by a divinely imposed punishment that affects principally the king: “And Yhwh brought against them officers of the army belonging to the Assyrian king and they captured Manasseh with hooks, bound him in fetters, and led him away to Babylon” (2 Chr 33:11).47 The experience of a personalized Babylonian exile leads to a remarkable transformation: “He humbled himself greatly (‫ )ויכנע מאד‬before the God of his ancestors, prayed (‫ )ויתפלל‬to him and he received his entreaty (‫)ויעתר לו‬, and heeded (‫ )וישמע‬his petition” (2 Chr 33:12–13).48 Manasseh’s abject repentance not only leads to his repatriation (‫ ;וישיבהו‬cf. Deut 30:1–10; 2 Chr 6:36–38; 7:12–16), but also to a series of public reforms. What sets Manasseh apart from Ahaz before him is not the number of cultic abuses (more than those committed by Ahaz), but the fact that Manasseh reverses course and redirects his life.49 Negative Evaluation Enumeration of Sins Conditional Promise Unprecedented Iniquity Prophecy of Great Disaster Unheeded Divine Warning Royal Injustice Exile of Manasseh to Babylon Prayer Divine Restoration

2 Kgs 21:2 2 Kgs 21:3–6 2 Kgs 21:7–8 2 Kgs 21:9 2 Kgs 21:10–15 – 2 Kgs 21:16 – – –

2 Chr 33:2 2 Chr 33:3–7 2 Chr 33:7–8 2 Chr 33:9 – 2 Chr 33:10 – 2 Chr 33:11 2 Chr 33:12 2 Chr 33:13

47 There is a prophecy in Kings as well, but the message is one of doom and it is not said whether the oracle was ever delivered to Manasseh himself (2 Kgs 21:10). That the threat is delivered directly to Manasseh comports closely with a classical prophetic function in Chronicles, namely that of warning (Japhet, Ideology, 176–91). 48 The MT reads ‫ויעתר‬. The lemma of a few Hebr MSS, ‫ויחתר‬, “and it was dug,” reflects a confusion of laryngeals (‫ע‬/‫ ;)ח‬see I. L. Seeligmann, “Indications of Editorial Alteration and Adaptation in the Massoretic Text and the Septuagint,” VT 11 (1961), 202 [repr. in Gesammelte Studien zur Hebräischen Bibel (ed. E. Blum; FAT 41; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 450]. Tg. 2 Chr 33:13 contains a long plus, Klein, 2 Chronicles, 482. On the use of the niphal of ‫ עתר‬with the preposition ‫ל־‬, see HALOT 905b. 49 As an archetypal positive witness to early readers, see E. Ben Zvi, “Reading Chronicles and Reshaping the Memory of Manasseh,” in Chronicling the Chronicler (see n. 16), 121–40.

THE BABYLONIAN EXILE AND IMMEDIATE RETRIBUTION IN CHRONICLES

Fortifications Cultic Reforms Worship at Yahwistic High Places Concluding Notices

– – – 2 Kgs 21:17–18

327

2 Chr 33:14 2 Chr 33:15–16 2 Chr 33:17 2 Chr 33:18–2050

Inasmuch as Manasseh’s earlier perfidy involved his people, his reforms also affect the body politic. He removes foreign gods (‫ )אלהי הנכר‬and the image (‫)הסמל‬ from the temple (2 Chr 33:15).51 As for all the altars that he had earlier built on the temple mount and in Jerusalem, he cast them outside the city (2 Chr 33:15). In addition to making some moves toward cultic purity (Kultusreinheit), the king also makes some efforts to support cultic unity (Kultuseinheit): “he (re)established the altar of Yhwh and sacrificed upon it sacrifices of well-being and thanksgiving and told Judah to serve Yhwh the God of Israel” (2 Chr 33:16). To be sure, not everything changes. The people were still sacrificing at the high places, “but only to Yhwh their God” (2 Chr 33:17).52 Subsequent comments reveal that other kinds of heteropraxis persisted (2 Chr 33:22). In sum, Manasseh becomes an exemplary penitent, having begun his reign as a serial offender. There does not seem to be any further erosion of Judah’s position during his reign and no further harm comes to Judah. Much, albeit not all, of the blame for the Babylonian exile must be found elsewhere.53 Nevertheless, the citation of the divine oracle to David and Solomon clarifies what larger issue is at stake. The earlier deportations under Ahaz affected the populace, but not the king himself. The reign of Manasseh shows that the Davidides are not immune from the same threats that confront their subjects. There is no absolute or unconditional promise from Yhwh that either the people or the king will stay within the land, regardless of their conduct (2 Chr 7:17–22//1 Kgs 9:4–9). 50

The burial notice in LXX 2 Chr 33:20 (over against that of the MT) rehabilitates Manasseh’s reputation further: L. C. Jonker, “Manasseh in Paradise? The Influence of Ancient Near Eastern Palace Garden Imagery in LXX 2 Chronicles 33:20,” in Thinking of Water in the Early Second Temple Period (ed. E. Ben Zvi and C. Levin; BZAW 461; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014), 339–57. 51 His reforms also affect public infrastructure, namely construction within Jerusalem and the deployment of officers in all the fortified towns of Judah (2 Chr 33:14). 52 Hence, the work recognizes that Yahwistic worship could take place at these sites. The evaluation calls attention to the responsibilities of the body politic to observe the Deuteronomic demand for centralization. The king represents the people, but the people are also directly accountable to Yhwh (Japhet, Ideology, 270–91). 53 It seems unlikely that his generation escapes any blame whatsoever, because he initiated so many different kinds of cultic malpractice, some of which survived his reforms (e.g., 2 Chr 33:22; 34:25). In other words, his legacy for later generations is mixed (Knoppers, “Manasseh in Chronicles,” 219–24).

328

Chapter 12

The land is held conditionally; this truth Manasseh ignores to the point of his own eviction. 3

The Early Manasseh Redivivus: Amon (642–640 BCE)

Amon, the heir to and successor of Manasseh, does not build upon his father’s reforms. Quite the contrary, Amon chooses to follow the model of the earlier, rather than the later, Manasseh, “and did not humble himself (‫ )ולא נכנע‬before Yhwh” (2 Chr 33:23).54 Although much of the Chronistic portrait of Amon’s brief reign follows the slightly longer Kings account closely, the Chronistic account features its own distinctive accents. Introduction Negative Evaluation Offenses Committed Abandonment of Yhwh Multiplication of Guilt Conspiracy vs. Amon Josiah Installed by People of Land Concluding Notices

2 Kgs 21:19 2 Kgs 21:20 2 Kgs 21:21 2 Kgs 21:22 – 2 Kgs 21:23 2 Kgs 21:24 2 Kgs 21:25–26

2 Chr 33:21 2 Chr 33:22 2 Chr 33:23 – 2 Chr 33:24 2 Chr 33:25 2 Chr 33:25 –

The negative evaluation of Amon is brief, but devastating: “he did evil in the sight of Yhwh as Manasseh his father had done” (2 Chr 33:22//2 Kgs 21:20). Because Amon unambiguously sets Judah on a regressive course, Manasseh’s reforms have no staying power. As for “all the images that Manasseh his father made, Amon sacrificed and served them” (‫ ;זבח אמון ויעבדם‬2 Chr 33:22). Even though Amon reigned only two years (2 Chr 33:21//2 Kgs 21:19), Chronicles asserts that he “multiplied guilt” (‫)הרבה אשמה‬.55 As Halpern points out, the use of the verb ‫( רבה‬hiphil) in this context is important.56 In most cases, whether in the genealogies (1 Chr 4:10, 27; 7:4; 8:40), lists (1 Chr 23:11; 27:23), or monarchic 54 2 Kgs 21:22 reads differently: “He abandoned Yhwh the God of his ancestors and he did not walk in the way of Yhwh.” See Japhet, Chronicles, 1013–14; D. Glatt-Gilad, “The Root knʿ and Historiographic Periodization in Chronicles,” CBQ 64 (2002), 255; Klein, 2 Chronicles, 487. 55 The comment (2 Chr 33:23) is not found in Kings. 56 B. Halpern, “Sacred History and Ideology: Chronicles’ Thematic Structure: Indications of an Earlier Source,” in The Creation of Sacred Literature: Composition and Redaction of the Biblical Text (ed. R. E. Friedman; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981), 40; idem, “Manasseh,” 476–77.

THE BABYLONIAN EXILE AND IMMEDIATE RETRIBUTION IN CHRONICLES

329

narratives (1 Chr 20:2; 11:12; 14:12; 16:8; 25:9; 31:5; 32:27), the use of ‫ רבה‬is positive. An increase in progeny, arms, booty, offerings, and possessions normally indicates divine blessing, but in the depiction of the last kings of Judah the use of this verb turns negative. In fact, the only cases in which the verb is used (in the hiphil) refer to the rise in the number of wicked acts (Manasseh; 2 Chr 33:6), the multiplication of guilt (Amon; 2 Chr 33:23), and the increase in corporate transgressions (2 Chr 36:14). In sum, Amon returns to the unyielding course set by his great-grandfather Ahaz (2 Chr 28:1–27). Ignoring the lesson from his own father’s life, Amon worsens Judah’s plight. It might be said that Amon’s assassination in a conspiracy by “the people of the land” (2 Chr 33:24//2 Kgs 21:23) functions as divine retribution for Amon’s wrongdoing.57 That might be true for Amon, but it does not address the larger predicament faced by the body politic at the end of his rule. Whereas Manasseh’s repatriation and partial reforms undo some of the earlier mischief he led his people to commit, Amon’s murder does not remedy the collective guilt incurred by his people during his tenure. 4

“He Walked in the Ways of David his Ancestor”: Josiah (639–609 BCE)

The Chronicler’s ability to fashion his own distinctive portrait of a given king, while drawing heavily upon the older narratives in Kings, is very much in evidence in his depiction of this great reformer.58 Josiah does not begin his reign with a tabula rasa. If he did so, he would not have to deal with many problems caused by his predecessors. Chronicles reproduces the superlative Deuteronomistic endorsement of Josiah’s reign (2 Kgs 22:2//2 Chr 34:2), but deviates from its Vorlage in a number of important respects, including the progression of Josiah’s early reign. In so doing, the work underscores how a young king acts quickly to rectify the failures of the past. Yet, as we shall see, the quasi-exilic situation of Judah, which began during the reign of Ahaz, continues to be evident during Josiah’s time. The young king proves himself to be a 57

Popular disaffection often indicates royal mismanagement (e.g., 2 Chr 16:10; 21:19; 24:25– 26; 25:27–28; 28:27). 58 On the reforms, see L. C. Jonker, Reflections of King Josiah in Chronicles: Late Stages of the Josiah Reception in II Chr. 34f. (Textpragmatische Studien zur Literatur- und Kulturgeschichte der Hebräischen Bibel 2; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2003); H.-S. Bae, Vereinte Suche nach Jhwh: Die hiskianische und josianische Reform in der Chronik (BZAW 355; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005), 134–49, and the references cited in these sources.

330

Chapter 12

consummate reformer; nevertheless he presides over a depopulated state. That this is the case becomes apparent as his attempts to recover the past legacy of his people progress over the course of his reign. Introduction Evaluation Southern Reforms Northern Reforms Temple Restoration Discovery of Torah Huldah’s Oracles Covenant Renewal Southern Reforms Northern Reforms Summary Reform Passover Celebration Further Reforms Incomparability Sins of Manasseh Death by Neco

2 Kgs 22:1 2 Kgs 22:2 – – 2 Kgs 22:3–7 2 Kgs 22:8–13 2 Kgs 22:14–20 2 Kgs 23:1–3 2 Kgs 23:4–15 2 Kgs 23:16–20 – 2 Kgs 23:21–23 2 Kgs 23:24 2 Kgs 23:25 2 Kgs 23:26–27 2 Kgs 23:29–30

2 Chr 34:1 2 Chr 34:2 2 Chr 34:3–5 2 Chr 34:6–7 2 Chr 34:8–13 2 Chr 34:14–21 2 Chr 34:22–28 2 Chr 34:29–32 – – 2 Chr 34:33 2 Chr 35:1–19 – – – 2 Chr 35:20–24

Whereas in Kings Josiah begins his reforms in the eighteenth year of his reign, a young Josiah begins “to seek (‫ )דרש‬the God of David his ancestor” already in his eighth regnal year (2 Chr 34:3). As a pious Davidide (2 Chr 34:2), Josiah does not need the discovery of a prestigious text to tell him how he should comport himself.59 Josiah’s cultic reforms, beginning in the twelfth year of his reign, both in Judah (2 Chr 34:3–5) and in northern Israel (2 Chr 34:6–7), occur well before the torah scroll is discovered in the temple (2 Chr 34:14–21). Unlike Hezekiah, Josiah strives to enforce cultic unity (Kultuseinheit) before implementing cultic purity (Kultusreinheit). The first public action of the king who “walked in the ways of his father David without deviating to the left or to the right” was “to purge (‫ )טהר‬Judah and Jerusalem from the high places, asherahs, graven images and molten images” (2 Chr 34:3). After clearing Jerusalem and Judah of illicit cult places and symbols, the king turns his attention elsewhere: “In the towns of Manasseh, Ephraim, Simeon, and as far as Naphtali he burned down their sanctuaries

59 On how David’s education in torah is manifest early in David’s reign, see 1 Chr 15:2 (Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29, 613, 632–33).

THE BABYLONIAN EXILE AND IMMEDIATE RETRIBUTION IN CHRONICLES

331

roundabout” (2 Chr 34:6).60 Having destroyed the altars, asherahs, and molten images, having burned down the sanctuaries, and having torn down the incense stands “throughout the land of Israel,” Josiah returns to Jerusalem (2 Chr 34:6–7) and sets his sights on restoring the temple (2 Chr 34:8–13). The nature and extent of Josiah’s reforms are important, because they indicate the gravity of Judah’s decline. Chronicles is not simply parroting Kings in this context, because certain reforms that appear in Kings do not appear in Chronicles.61 Similarly, the fact that Josiah finds it necessary to oversee substantial sanctuary repairs (2 Chr 34:8–13) sheds unwelcome light on the failings of his predecessors. The reduced population of northern Israelites in the land is evident in the comment (unique to Chronicles) that the Levites collected funding for the temple repairs “from Manasseh and Ephraim, and from all the remnant (‫ )שארית‬of Israel, as well as from all of Judah and Benjamin and the inhabitants of Jerusalem” (2 Chr 34:9).62 Following the depiction of sanctuary restoration, Chronicles introduces the story detailing the discovery of the torah scroll. Josiah’s abject reaction to the reading of the document is telling, because it differs in at least two respects from Josiah’s reaction in Kings. The first involves Josiah’s directive: “Go, seek (‫ )דרש‬Yhwh on account of me and on account of the remnant (‫)הנשאר‬, which is in Israel and in Judah, concerning the words of the scroll that has been found” (2 Chr 34:21).63 By contrast, in Kings Josiah declares “Go, seek Yhwh on account of me, on account of the people (‫)העם‬, and on account of all Judah (‫)כל־יהודה‬, concerning the words of this scroll that has been found” (2 Kgs 22:13). Kings speaks of “the people and all Judah,” but Chronicles speaks 60 The MT of 2 Chr 34:6 is problematic—qere ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫“( ְב ַח ְרב ֵֹת‬with their swords”); ketiv ‫בחר‬ ‫“( בתיהם‬he chose their houses,” cf. BHS). Rudolph (Chronikbücher, 320) reconstructs ‫“( ברחובותיהם‬in their squares”) on the basis of the Syr. and Arabic. I am following Seeligmann (“Editorial Alteration,” 202), who supposes an interchange of laryngeals (‫ע‬/‫)ח‬ and reads ‫בער בתיהם‬, “he burnt down their temples.” See also Dillard, 2 Chronicles, 275; Japhet, Chronicles, 1016; Klein, 2 Chronicles, 489. Another possibility is to reconstruct ‫בח־‬ ‫“( רבתיהם‬in their ruined sites”), following I. Benzinger, Die Bücher der Chronik (KHC 20; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1901), 130. 61 Josiah does not remove the altars of Ahaz and Manasseh (2 Kgs 23:12), because in Chronicles Hezekiah and subsequently a repentant Manasseh removed these. Similarly, there is no need to demolish the high places Solomon built (2 Kgs 23:13), because the Chronistic Solomon does not erect high places. 62 By comparison, 2 Kgs 22:4 simply states “from the people” (‫)מאת העם‬. In 2 Chr 34:9, I am reading with the ketiv (‫ )וישבי‬and the versions; the qere, ‫וישבו‬, “and they returned (to Jerusalem).” 63 A pan-Israel concern is evident in Josiah’s reaction. See also 2 Chr 34:33; 35:3 (//1 Esd 1:3); 2 Chr 35:17 (//1 Esd 1:19); 2 Chr 35:18 (//1 Esd 1:20, 21).

332

Chapter 12

of “the remnant, which is in Israel and in Judah,” reflecting a liminal, quasiexilic situation.64 Second, Josiah’s explanation differs slightly in Chronicles: “for great is the wrath of Yhwh that has been poured out (‫ )נתכו‬against us, because our ancestors have not observed the word of Yhwh to practice all what is written in this scroll” (2 Chr 34:21). By contrast, in Kings Josiah says: “for great is the wrath of Yhwh that has been kindled (‫ )נצתה‬against us, because our ancestors have not heeded the words of this scroll to practice all what is written in it” (2 Kgs 22:13). Whereas the Deuteronomistic work speaks of the divine wrath as having been “kindled” (niphal of ‫ )יצת‬against the people, the Chronistic work speaks of divine wrath as having been “poured out” (niphal of ‫ )נתך‬against the people.65 One deals with the potential (or impending) exercise of divine anger against the populace, while the other speaks of divine anger as having already been unleashed (or at least partially so) against the people. There is, however, one crucial fact about which both Chronicles and Kings agree, namely that the long-term prospects appear hopeless. In her first oracle, Huldah declares: Thus says Yhwh, “Behold I am bringing evil against this place (‫ )המקום הזה‬and against its inhabitants, all the curses that are written upon the scroll, which was read before the king of Judah, because they have abandoned me (‫ )עזבוני‬and burned offerings to other gods to provoke me (‫ )הכעיסני‬according to all the works of their hands, so that my wrath (‫ )חמתי‬has been poured out (‫ )ותתך‬against this place and it cannot be quenched” (‫ ;ולא תכבה‬2 Chr 34:24–25).66

Huldah’s speech reveals that a negative divine decision has already been made. Such a pronouncement is not wholly unprecedented in Kings, because Yhwh had already declared his intention to exile Judah during the reign of Manasseh (2 Kgs 21:10–15); nevertheless, the pronouncement is a new development in Chronicles, because no such divine decree occurs during Manasseh’s reign. As we have seen, a divine warning does appear (2 Chr 33:10), but an unequivocal declaration of doom does not.67 64 In this state, some survivors remain in the land, but other survivors reside outside the land. See chapter 11, section 5. 65 Thus the MT (maximum differentiation). LXX 2 Chr 34:21 follows MT 2 Kgs 22:13. Cf. Jer 7:20. On the usage of ‫ יצת‬in the niphal, see HALOT 429b. 66 Again, I read with the MT (lectio difficilior). LXX 2 Chr 34:25 (καὶ ἐξεκαύθη) reflects the same verb as found in LXX 2 Chr 34:21 and LXX 2 Kgs 22:18 (cf. MT ‫)ונצתה‬. 67 Even so, one could argue, given the context in Chronicles, that such a national oracle is implicitly conditional (Halpern, “Manasseh,” 495–98).

THE BABYLONIAN EXILE AND IMMEDIATE RETRIBUTION IN CHRONICLES

333

The retention of Huldah’s first oracle from Kings is thus quite important. The prophetess informs the penitent royal that his grim surmise of the people’s plight, based on the recitation of the torah scroll, is unfortunately even more insightful than he could have imagined. The ultimate fate of “this place” has already been revealed some four decades before the actual Babylonian deportation (586 BCE).68 The appearance of an ominous prophetic decree in the reign of one of Judah’s greatest leaders plays havoc with simplistic notions of theodicy in Chronicles. If national disaster is the retribution, what is the cause in Josiah’s reign? In confronting a terrible catastrophe, such as the Babylonian exile, ancient authors may resist giving simplistic theological answers. In Chronicles, intergenerational responsibility plays a role. The generation of Zedekiah bears its own particular culpability, but it is by no means solely responsible for Judah’s demise. The piety of reformers, such as Hezekiah (2 Chr 32:26), the later Manasseh (2 Chr 33:11–13), and Josiah, may assuage divine wrath and delay the implementation of divine retribution, but it does not stave it off permanently. Huldah’s second oracle promises Josiah that because of his abject humility (‫)נכנע‬, he will be gathered to his ancestors and to his grave in peace so that his eyes will not see “all the evil that I am bringing against this place and against its inhabitants” (2 Chr 34:26–28).69 The divine assurance provides a personal reprieve for Josiah, but hardly a long-term assurance to the people he leads. The clear implication is that collective guilt remains. For this reason, Josiah redoubles his efforts at public reform. He leads a covenant renewal in Jerusalem and Judah in which the people pledge to follow Yhwh, observe his commandments, and practice “the terms of the covenant, which are written upon this scroll” (2 Chr 34:32). Josiah cannot control what happens after his death, but he can remain vigilant during his life. His efforts to ensure full compliance with the terms of the torah explain the inclusive summary (not found in Kings): 68 The text does not provide, however, a straightforward explanation of why Judah’s destiny is set by the time of the reading of the torah scroll in the midst of Josiah’s temple restoration project. The reason given is a general one—“they have abandoned me and burned incense to other gods to provoke me, according to all the works of their hands” (2 Chr 34:25//2 Kgs 22:17). The antecedent of the pronoun “they” (e.g., Manasseh and his generation in Kings) is not precisely identified. One must look for hints in the presentation of the late monarchy to gain a better grasp of Judah’s decline. 69 The inclusio formed by the end of Huldah’s second oracle (v. 28), “all of the evil I am bringing against this place and its inhabitants,” which cites the beginning of her first oracle (v. 24), “I am bringing evil against this place and its inhabitants,” contributes to the sense of inevitable doom, G. N. Knoppers, Two Nations Under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies (2 vols.; HSM 52–53; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993– 1994), 1.140–56.

334

Chapter 12

“He removed all the abominable things (‫ )כל־התועבות‬from all the territories (‫ )מכל־הארצות‬belonging to the children of Israel and he obliged (‫ )ויעבד‬all who were in Israel to serve (‫ )לעבוד‬Yhwh their God” (2 Chr 34:33; italics mine).70 In the wake of Huldah’s ominous prophecy, Josiah keeps his people in line: “Throughout his lifetime they did not desert Yhwh, the God of their ancestors” (2 Chr 34:33). The leadership exercised by Josiah is remarkable. Nevertheless, close analysis of Josiah’s reign and those of his immediate predecessors reveals a number of things about the late Judahite kingdom. First, Judah never experiences a complete recovery from the devastating effects of the losses incurred at the hands of the Arameans, Israelites, Edomites, Philistines, and Assyrians during the reign of Ahaz in the mid- to late eighth century. Whether in dealing with the former northern kingdom or his own subjects in Judah and Jerusalem, Josiah inherits a semi-exilic situation from his forbears. Only a remnant remains. The second point is related to the first. Josiah’s sweeping reforms are of a decidedly religious nature.71 Aside from his refurbishment of the house of Yhwh, he implements no major building projects. There is no expansion of Judah’s borders in spite of his northern cultic reforms.72 This is an important consideration, 70

71

72

The comment reveals an expectation or wish that all who self-identify as Israelites comply with torah statutes, wherever they live within the ancestral land of Israel, even if they reside outside of Yehud’s borders. An even more-embracing concept appears in one of the additions to the Artaxerxes rescript given to Ezra. There, Ezra is told to appoint magistrates and judges to administer justice to all the people in Transeuphratene, that is, to all “who know the laws of your God” (Ezra 7:25). All those, who do not “obey the law of your God and the law of the king, let judgment be executed upon them” (Ezra 7:26), G. N. Knoppers, “Beyond Jerusalem and Judah: The Commission of Artaxerxes to Ezra in the Province Beyond the River,” in Eretz-Israel—Archaeological, Historical and Geographic Studies: Ephraim Stern Volume (ErIsr 29; ed. J. Aviram, A. Ben Tor, I. Ephʿal, S. Gitin, and R. Reich; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2009), 78–87. Again, the remarkable statement is unparalleled in Kings. On Josiah’s legacy, see E. Ben Zvi, “Observations on Josiah’s Account in Chronicles and Implications for Reconstructing the Worldview of the Chronicler,” in Essays on Ancient Israel in Its Near Eastern Context: A Tribute to Nadav Na’aman (ed. Y. Amit, E. Ben Zvi, I. Finkelstein, and O. Lipschits; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 89–106; K. A. Ristau, “Reading and Rereading Josiah: The Chronicler’s Representation of Josiah for the Postexilic Community,” in Community Identity in Judean Historiography: Biblical and Comparative Perspectives (ed. G. N. Knoppers and K. A. Ristau; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 219–47. By contrast, in Japhet’s view, Josiah’s reign witnesses the reunification of a united Israel (Ideology, 298). During the course of the Judahite monarchy “Judah exercises more and more influence. Gradually all the tribes are returned to her.” The territorial summary in Josiah’s reign (2 Chr 34:33) shows Chronicles revitalizing the concept of all Israel “in its widest possible sense” (Ideology, 299). In my view, many of the same objections that are levelled against the notion of a permanently reunited kingdom under Hezekiah (see

THE BABYLONIAN EXILE AND IMMEDIATE RETRIBUTION IN CHRONICLES

335

because it provides us with some insight into how the work construes the people’s condition in the late monarchy. One of the cardinal features of David’s rise to power was his capture of Jerusalem with all Israel (1 Chr 11:4–9), his oversight of various construction projects (e.g., 1 Chr 14:1–3; 15:1), and his gradual consolidation of the Israelite state at the expense of its belligerent neighbors (1 Chr 14:8–17; 18:1–20:19).73 Even the “man of rest” (1 Chr 22:9) engages in major public construction activities, settles Israelites in the towns bequeathed to him by Huram of Tyre, fortifies sites, and leads a foray all the way to Hamath Zobah (2 Chr 8:1–6).74 There are times of expansion during the early Judahite kingdom. Abijah is able to incorporate a few northern Israelite towns into Judah, following his stunning victory against Jeroboam (2 Chr 13:19). Both Asa (2 Chr 15:8) and Jehoshaphat (2 Chr 17:2) control some territories that formerly belonged to the northern kingdom, but the last Judahite king who expands the territorial reach of his state is Uzziah (2 Chr 26:2, 6). No later kings are credited with large armies or successful forays into other lands, although some are credited, as we have seen, with sizeable investments in public infrastructure.75 The last Judahite king, who is blessed with a large family is Jehoshaphat (2 Chr 21:1–3).76 The last monarch with a large army is Uzziah (2 Chr 26:13). The last king to enjoy a victory in military conflict is Hezekiah (2 Chr 32:20–22).77 The generation

chapter 11, section 4) could be levelled at the notion of a permanently reunited kingdom under Josiah. Josiah’s reforms project cultic power to all quarters of historic Israel for a time, but they do not signal continuing political, administrative, and military control over all the territories ruled during the united monarchy of David and Solomon. See further my “Israel or Judah? The Shifting Body Politic and Collective Identity in Chronicles,” in Rethinking Israel: Studies in the History and Archaeology of Ancient Israel in Honor of Israel Finkelstein (ed. O. Lipschits, Y. Gadot, and M. J. Adams; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2017), 173–88. 73 G. N. Knoppers, “Changing History: Nathan’s Dynastic Oracle and the Structure of the Davidic Monarchy in Chronicles,” in Shai le-Sara Japhet: Studies in the Bible, Its Exegesis, and Its Language (ed. M. Bar-Asher, D. Rom-Shiloni, E. Tov, and N. Wazana; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2007), 99*–123*. 74 Thus, quite the opposite outcome envisioned in 1 Kgs 9:11–13, G. N. Knoppers, “More than Friends? The Economic Relationship between Huram and Solomon Reconsidered,” in The Economy of Ancient Judah in Its Historical Context (ed. M. L. Miller, E. Ben Zvi, and G. N. Knoppers; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015), 49–72. 75 See chapter 11, sections 1 and 3. Although Hezekiah is credited in Kings with “striking the Philistines as far as Gaza and its borders from watchtower to fortified town” (2 Kgs 18:8), he is not credited with a military or geo-political expansion in Chronicles. 76 Cf. 1 Chr 3:1–9; 14:2–7; 25:5; 26:4–5; 2 Chr 11:18–22; 13:21. 77 Cf. 1 Chr 11:2–9; 14:8–17; 18:1–20:8; 2 Chr 13:13–18; 14:8–15; 20:2–30; 25:14; 26:11–15; 27:5–7.

336

Chapter 12

of Hezekiah is the last to enjoy divinely awarded rest (1 Chr 22:7–10; 2 Chr 13:23; 14:4, 5; 15:15; 20:30; 32:22 [LXX]). If, as Wellhausen asserts, “Power is the index of piety, with which it accordingly rises and falls,”78 Josiah could be considered an abject failure, because he sires no large family, enjoys no great wealth (cf. 1 Chr 22:11, 13; 29:23; 2 Chr 14:7; 26:5; 31:21; 32:27–30), commands no great armies, and ends his life defeated and mortally wounded in war (2 Chr 35:20–24). Yet, given that Josiah receives one of the highest (if not the highest) commendations accorded to any Judahite king (2 Chr 34:2), one has to be careful not to flatten the particular dynamics of sub-eras imagined within the literary work to a simple dogmatic formula. Long-term trends and influences are evident in the monarchy. The configuration of the mid-eighth to early-sixth centuries differs in important respects both from the configuration of the united monarchy (Israel’s golden age) and from the configuration of the early Judahite monarchy. The Davidic state is in a substantially weaker position in the late kingdom than it was in earlier centuries. There are critical attempts at rebuilding and reform, but the rebuilding is focused on recovery and the reforms are largely cultic in nature. Third, a pattern emerges in the late Judahite monarchy, relating to the effects of repentance and reform. Like Hezekiah (2 Chr 32:26) before him, Josiah succeeds in postponing the implementation of divine wrath, but not in averting it altogether.79 To be sure, the fault for the impending expulsion from the land is consigned to others. Josiah manages to stabilize Judah for the remainder of his reign until his death (2 Chr 35:20–25). Nevertheless, Josiah’s reclamation of orthopraxis only suffices to win him and his people a reprieve. Divine wrath “cannot be quenched” (2 Chr 34:25). The recontextualization of Huldah’s oracles is thus highly significant in framing the final decades of the Judahite kingdom, alerting readers to the negative prospects for post-Josianic history.

78 Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel, 209 [Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, 204: “Die Macht ist der Gradmesser der Frömmigkeit und steigt und fällt mit dieser.”]. The specific examples Wellhausen provides of “reprobate” kings are Joram, Joash, and Ahaz. 79 Only in the case of his dealings with Neco of Egypt does Josiah come under criticism (2 Chr 35:22). The portrait of Josiah has, therefore, a tragic cast (Ristau, “Rereading Josiah,” 242–47).

THE BABYLONIAN EXILE AND IMMEDIATE RETRIBUTION IN CHRONICLES

5

337

A Private Exodus to Egypt: Jehoahaz (609 BCE)

The Chronistic portrayal of Judah’s last four kings is much briefer and less detailed than the portrayal of 2 Kgs 23:30–25:30.80 The MT Kings account (57 verses) is almost two and a half times as long as the MT Chronicles account (23 verses).81 To make matters even more interesting, some of the material found in Chronicles alludes to prophecies appearing in Isaiah and especially in Jeremiah.82 Hence, the work’s distinctive perspective on late-seventh and early-sixth century Judah is informed by not only Kings (in some form), but also by Jeremiah and, to a lesser extent, Isaiah.83 The authors of 2 Kings 24–25 detail massive losses to Jerusalem and Judah in two major, but separate, Babylonian invasions and exiles (598/7 and 587/6 BCE) and one smaller Egyptian exile (ca. 582 BCE). Chronicles depicts only one major Babylonian invasion and 80 See the discussion of Japhet’s analysis of the Babylonian exile in section 1 above. 81 The LXX Chronicles (Paraleipomena B ́) account is longer than the MT Chronicles account, because of a series of supplements incorporated into this text, which show the influence (to a significant degree) of the narrative found in 4 Reigns (or that of its Vorlage). See R. W. Klein, “New Evidence for an Old Recension of Reigns,” HTR 60 (1967), 93–105; idem, “Supplements in the Paralipomena: A Rejoinder,” HTR 61 (1968), 492–95; idem, 1 Chronicles (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 26–28; idem, 2 Chronicles, 509–47; L. C. Allen, “Further Thoughts on an Old Recension of Reigns in Paralipomena,” HTR 61 (1968), 483–91; G. N. Knoppers, “20.3.1 Septuagint (Paraleipomena),” in Textual History of the Bible, vol. 1: The Hebrew Bible, part 1C: Writings (ed. A. Lange and E. Tov; Leiden: Brill, 2017), 670–76. 82 Although referring to Jeremiah, the citation in 2 Chr 36:22 (//Ezra 1:1; 1 Esd 2:1) draws upon the prophecies about Cyrus in Deutero-Isaiah (41:2, 25; 44:28; 45:1, 13). See H. G. M. Williamson, “The Composition of Ezra i–vi,” JTS ns 34 (1983), 12 [repr. Studies in Persian Period History and Historiography (FAT 38; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 254]; idem, Ezra, Nehemiah (WBC 16; Waco, TX: Word, 1985), 9–10; J. Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988), 74–75. More broadly, see P. C. Beentjes, “Isaiah in the Book of Chronicles,” in Isaiah in Context: Studies in Honour of Arie van der Kooij on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (ed. M. N. van der Meer et al.; VTSup 138; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 15–24. 83 The long debate about the nature and extent of the Chronistic Vorlage for this material has not been completely resolved. The work seems to reflect a version of 2 Kings 23:30–25:30 that was similar to but perhaps briefer than (and not completely identical with) the version preserved in the MT. See S. L. McKenzie, The Chronicler’s Use of the Deuteronomistic History (HSM 33; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985); H. G. M. Williamson, “The Death of Josiah and the Continuing Development of the Deuteronomistic History,” VT 32 (1982), 242–48; idem, “Reliving the Death of Josiah: A Reply to C. T. Begg,” VT 37 (1987), 9–15; B. Halpern and D. S. Vanderhooft, “The Editions of Kings in the 7th–6th Centuries BCE,” HUCA 62 (1991), 179–244; Klein, 2 Chronicles, 530–47. McKenzie later modified his views (The Trouble with Kings: The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History [VTSup 42; Leiden: Brill, 1991] 127–45).

338

Chapter 12

deportation (587/6 BCE). The treatment of Gedaliah’s governorship (2 Kgs 25:22– 25) and the mass migration to Egypt (2 Kgs 25:26) are lacking in Chronicles. Installed by “the people of the land” following Josiah’s death at the hands of Necho, Jehoahaz serves only three months before being deported to Egypt by the Egyptian king, who imposes an indemnity upon the land (2 Chr 36:1–3). Installation by the people of the land Introduction Evaluation Imprisonment in Riblah Deposed by Egyptian king in Jerusalem Fine levied on the land Appointment of Jehoiakim Jehoahaz exiled to Egypt Jehoahaz dies in Egypt Jehoiakim pays indemnity to Pharaoh

2 Kgs 23:30 2 Kgs 23:31 2 Kgs 23:32 2 Kgs 23:33 – 2 Kgs 23:33 2 Kgs 23:34 2 Kgs 23:34 2 Kgs 24:34 2 Kgs 24:35

2 Chr 36:1 2 Chr 36:2 – – 2 Chr 36:3 2 Chr 36:3 2 Chr 36:4 2 Chr 36:7 – –

In MT Chronicles and 1 Esdras (1:32–36 [ET 1:34–38]), Jehoahaz receives no regnal evaluation, but he receives a negative evaluation in MT (and LXX) 2 Kgs 23:32 and LXX 2 Chr 36:2b, καὶ ἐποίησεν τὸ πονηρὸν ἐνώπιον Κυρίου κατὰ πάντα, ἃ ἐποίησαν οἱ πατέρες αὐτοῦ, “and he did evil in the sight of Yhwh according to all what his fathers did.”84 In my view, the portrait of the Davidic state unraveling in the final decades of its existence is matched by the unraveling of the normal regnal formulae, marking the beginning and end of each reign. A similar phenomenon occurs in 2 Kings 24–25, but the breakdown is more pronounced in Chronicles. On a literary level, the dissolution of customary protocols dovetails with the disintegration of the state itself. 84

It is quite possible that the evaluation (… ‫ )ויעש הרע‬was lost from the textual tradition underlying the MT by haplography (homoioarkton before ‫[ ויאסרהו‬MT 2 Kgs 23:33] or ‫ =[ ויסירהו‬LXX 2 Kgs 23:33; MT 2 Chr 36:3). Yet, if so, the earlier evaluation was likely shorter than that which appears in LXX 2 Chr 36:2. That is, the regnal evaluation probably resembled, at least in part, the short evaluation formulae that appear in 2 Chr 36:5, 9 (‫)ויעש הרע בעיני יהוה‬, and the beginning of 2 Chr 36:12. In each case, the formula is briefer than the formula appearing in Kings. The evaluation in LXX 2 Chr 36:2 assimilates toward the longer formulation in 2 Kgs 23:32. My assumption, based on the introductory formulae relating to the other post-Josianic kings, is that the information about the queen mother found in LXX Chronicles (2 Chr 36:2a) is secondary. Because the so-called supplements to Paraleipomena in 2 Chronicles 35–36 were likely added to the Vorlage of Chronicles employed by the LXX translators, bringing that work into closer conformity to the text of Kings, the supplements are only of very limited value in reconstructing an older form of Chronicles. See further, Knoppers, “Paraleipomena,” 670–76.

THE BABYLONIAN EXILE AND IMMEDIATE RETRIBUTION IN CHRONICLES

339

Whatever the explanation for the textual discrepancies between MT Chronicles and LXX Chronicles, the brief tenure of Jehoahaz is depicted as one of decline. Jehoahaz suffers the indignity of being deposed by the Egyptian king soon after coming into office.85 The fine imposed on the land by the foreign king (2 Kgs 23:33, 35; 2 Chr 36:3) parallels a somewhat similar phenomenon in the story of the last decades of the northern monarchy (2 Kgs 15:19–20). The landed elite are required to pay the costs of a large indemnity to satisfy a foreign overlord.86 This is an additional indication of the kingdom’s weak state. By contrast, in some earlier times of blessing Israel receives tribute, bullion, and gifts from other nations.87 Ending his reign as a forced exile to Egypt places Jehoahaz under the sign of a curse (Deut 28:68). 6

Banished to Babylon: Jehoiakim (609–598 BCE)

In comparison with the detailed regnal account in 2 Kgs 23:36–24:6, the account in Chronicles (2 Chr 36:5–8; cf. Dan 1:1–2) is much condensed. Reigning for some eleven years, Jehoiakim receives a blanket negative evaluation, “he did evil in the sight of Yhwh his God” (2 Chr 36:5).88 Installed by Pharaoh Neco, Jehoiakim is undone by a different foreign king. There is no stated rebellion by the Judahite monarch as in Kings (2 Kgs 24:1). Rather, Jehoiakim confronts an invasion led by Nebuchadnezzar, which results (only in Chronicles) in Jehoiakim’s personal exile to Babylon. The language used (e.g., “bound him in fetters” [‫ ;]ויאסרהו בנחשתים‬2 Chr 36:6) is reminiscent of that used to depict Manasseh’s humiliating expulsion to Babylon (‫ ;ויאסרהו בנחשתים‬2 Chr 33:11). Introduction Evaluation Invasion of Nebuchadnezzar Rebellion Raiding Bands Banishment of Jehoiakim Temple Utensils to Babylon

2 Kgs 23:36 2 Kgs 23:37 2 Kgs 24:1 2 Kgs 24:1 2 Kgs 24:2 – –

2 Chr 36:5 2 Chr 36:5 2 Chr 36:6 – – 2 Chr 36:6 2 Chr 36:7

85 Given that Chronicles lacks the anecdote about Jehoahaz’s imprisonment in Riblah (2 Kgs 23:33), the implication is that Jehoahaz is deposed in Jerusalem. 86 The indemnity is paid by his successor in 2 Kgs 23:35. 87 See, e.g., 1 Chr 14:1; 18:2, 6, 10–11; 26:27; 2 Chr 9:1, 9–10, 13–14, 23–24; 17:5, 11; 26:8. 88 The parallel in 2 Kgs 23:36 adds, “according to all that his ancestors had done.”

340 Fault of Manasseh Concluding Notice Containment of Egyptian King

Chapter 12

2 Kgs 24:3–4 2 Kgs 24:5–6 2 Kgs 24:7

– 2 Chr 36:8 –

Not found in Kings is the displacement notice of some temple furnishings (‫ )מכלי בית יהוה‬to Babylon, where they find a home in the royal palace (2 Chr 36:7). The depictions of marauding bands of Chaldeans, Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites in the countryside (2 Kgs 24:2) and a broader Babylonian assault do not occur in Chronicles.89 The overall picture is certainly not as horrific as it is in Kings, but it must be remembered that only a portion of Judahites remain in the land at the time of Jehoiakim’s reign. Jehoiakim rules a weak state, reduced in population and power from earlier centuries. The Babylonian captivity of Jehoiakim and the Babylonian appropriation of some temple furnishings constitute just two of the many indignities that the Davidic realm suffers in its final decade. That Jehoiakim’s reign is viewed rather negatively is evident in the concluding comment: “The rest of the deeds of Jehoiakim and his abominations (‫)ותעבתיו‬, which he did, and that which was found concerning him, behold they are written upon the scroll of the kings of Israel and Judah” (2 Chr 36:8).90 What Jehoiakim’s abominations were is not spelled out. The term ‫ תועבה‬is employed often in Deuteronomy to designate actions (most often idolatry) or objects, which are repulsive to Yhwh and threaten the distinctive identity of the Israelite people.91 In the Holiness Code, the term is used with reference to abhorrent sexual practices (Lev 18:22, 26, 27, 29, 30; 20:13). In Ezekiel, where ‫ תועבה‬appears quite often, the most common meaning is some sort of idolatry.92 89 Reading ‫אדם‬, rather than ‫ד( ארם‬/‫ ר‬confusion) in 2 Kgs 24:2. On the important differences between Kings and Chronicles, see Japhet, Ideology, 370–72; eadem, Chronicles, 1064–67; I. Kalimi, An Ancient Israelite Historian: Studies in the Chronicler, His Time, Place and Writing (SSN 46; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2005), 115–23. 90 The parallel in 2 Kgs 24:5 reads, “The rest of the deeds of Jehoiakim and all which he did, are they not written upon the scroll of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?” The MT expression, “and that which was found concerning him” (‫ )והנמצא עליו‬does not appear in Syr. 2 Chr 36:8, 1 Esd 1:40, and 2 Kgs 24:5. LXX 2 Chr 36:8 translates 2 Kgs 24:5. The MT lemma may be a secondary addition (Klein, 2 Chronicles, 532). 91 Deut 7:26; 13:15; 14:3; 17:4; 32:16 (cf. 2 Kgs 23:13; Jer 7:10; 44:2). See O. Bächli, Israel und die Völker: Eine Studie zum Deuteronomium (ATANT 41; Zürich: Zwingli, 1962), 53–55; Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 323. 92 See, e.g., Ezek 5:9; 8:6, 9; 16:25, 50; 18:12; 22:11; 33:26, M. Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20 (AB 22; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983), 113. Less often, the charge has to do with sexual immorality (e.g., Ezek 22:11), M. Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37 (AB 22A; New York: Doubleday, 1997), 685.

THE BABYLONIAN EXILE AND IMMEDIATE RETRIBUTION IN CHRONICLES

341

Given the literary context in Chronicles, idolatry would seem most likely to be in view. The ‫ ת(ו)עבות‬motif only appears in the Chronistic depiction of the late monarchy (2 Chr 28:3; 33:2; 34:33; 36:8, 14). Given the strong ties Chronicles posits between the people and the land, the banishment of Jehoiakim to a foreign land, bound in fetters, is a mark of disgrace. Like other biblical and ancient Near Eastern literary works, Chronicles consistently associates exile with stigma and divine punishment. This is true for the Assyrian deportation of the Transjordanian tribes (1 Chr 5:25–26; cf. 5:6, 22), the Aramean deportation of Judahites during the reign of Ahaz (2 Chr 28:5–6), the forced (but temporary) dislocation of Judahites to Samaria during the Israelite civil war (2 Chr 28:8–14), the Assyrian expulsion of some northern Israelites (2 Chr 30:6–9), the (temporary) Babylonian captivity of Manasseh (2 Chr 33:11–13), the extradition of Jehoahaz to Egypt (2 Chr 36:3), the eviction of Jehoiachin to Babylon (2 Chr 36:10), and the Babylonian exile of Judah itself (1 Chr 9:2; 2 Chr 36:20). Jehoiakim’s exile is, however, personal in nature. The situation contrasts markedly with that pertaining in Ahaz’s sixteen-year reign. In the mid- to late eighth century, large numbers of people died during wars and foreign invasions, while others were deported to other lands. As for the king himself, Ahaz does not suffer any personal calamity. He dies within the land and is buried in Jerusalem, albeit “not among the graves of the kings of Israel” (2 Chr 28:27).93 There is, therefore, a disjunction between the fate of the king and of the people he leads astray. In the early sixth century, the opposite scenario unfolds. A series of three successive kings are forcibly exiled, while the people remain in the land. One might be tempted to conclude that this latter situation involves a series of individual divine retributions. Each king is punished for doing “evil in the sight of Yhwh.” Nevertheless, the situation may be more complicated. The people themselves may be liable, granted the Chronicler’s penchant for viewing royal actions as emblematic of a particular period. The punishment of a monarch by means of personal exile does not expunge the collective guilt of the people.94

93 The concluding regnal formulae in Chronicles form an integral component of how the work structures and evaluates the reign of each king, D. Glatt-Gilad, “Regnal Formulae as a Historiographic Device in the Book of Chronicles,” RB 108 (2001), 184–209; cf. Rudolph, Chronikbücher, xx. 94 Halpern, “Manasseh,” 483–84.

342 7

Chapter 12

A Personal Exile: Jehoiachin (598–597 BCE)

The reign of Jehoiachin is rather short (3 months, 10 days) and receives little attention (2 Chr 36:9–10). As in the case of Kings, Jehoiachin receives an unambiguous negative evaluation: “He did evil in the sight of Yhwh” (2 Chr 36:9).95 Jehoiachin is thus part of a larger pattern in the last century and a half in which most Judahite monarchs are rated disapprovingly. The parallel account in Kings recounts the seizure of Egyptian-held lands in the Levant by the Babylonian king, the siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar’s troops, the surrender of Jehoiachin, the plunder of the temple and royal treasuries, the deportation of some 10,000 people, and the extradition of various officers and crafts specialists, but the much briefer Chronicles account provides a much less humiliating depiction of Jehoiachin’s tenure. Introduction Negative Evaluation Invasion and Siege of Nebuchadnezzar Surrender Exile of Jehoiachin Plunder of Temple and Palace Choice Temple Utensils Extradited Deportation of Judahite Elite

2 Kgs 24:8 2 Kgs 24:9 2 Kgs 24:10–11 2 Kgs 24:12 2 Kgs 24:12 2 Kgs 24:13–14 – 2 Kgs 24:14–16

2 Chr 36:9 2 Chr 36:9 – – 2 Chr 36:10 – 2 Chr 36:10 –

In speaking of the Babylonian king having “sent” and “brought” Jehoiachin to Babylon, the text does not imply an actual Babylonian invasion (2 Chr 36:10).96 Similarly, the temple furnishings are extradited to Babylon, rather than seized by invading Babylonian troops (2 Chr 36:10). There is no siege of Jerusalem and Nebuchadnezzar’s forces do not ransack the sanctuary and palace, “cutting up into pieces (‫ )קצץ‬all of the golden objects Solomon made” in the process (2 Kgs 24:14).97 The difference in formulations is important. Whereas Kings speaks of a devastating invasion and a major deportation, accompanied by palace and temple looting, Chronicles speaks of the individual extradition of a Judahite king along with certain temple valuables.98 In Kings there is an 95

The evaluation in MT Kings is similar, but longer: “He did evil in the sight of Yhwh, according to what his father had done” (2 Kgs 24:9). 96 Japhet, Ideology, 366–67; eadem, Chronicles, 1067–68. 97 The only monarch cutting up (‫ )קצץ‬temple artifacts is Ahaz (2 Chr 28:24). 98 This presentation of Judah’s final years paradoxically creates one form of continuity between the monarchic and postmonarchic communities (Ezra 1:7–11). The DavidicSolomonic temple is repeatedly humiliated and eventually sacked, but the legacy of this

THE BABYLONIAN EXILE AND IMMEDIATE RETRIBUTION IN CHRONICLES

343

inclusio between the reign of Solomon and the reign of Jehoiachin in that many of the golden objects Solomon provided for the sanctuary are cut up by the Chaldeans during Jehoiachin’s brief tenure (2 Kgs 24:13), but in Chronicles the major temple looting occurs during Zedekiah’s reign (2 Chr 36:18). The palace treasuries are left untouched during Jehoiachin’s tenure. His reign is thus not nearly as calamitous for Judah in Chronicles as it is in Kings. It seems to be no accident, then, that the long exilic and postexilic succession within the Davidic lineage is traced through Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin/Jeconiah (1 Chr 3:16–17) and not through Zedekiah (1 Chr 3:15).99 In spite of greatly downplaying the national upheaval during Jehoiachin’s tenure, Chronicles does not present his reign positively. The forced exile of Jehoiachin and the compulsory conveyance of sanctuary artifacts represent two further indications of destabilization during the late monarchy. Indeed, one can discern a pattern in which the native monarch is killed (Josiah) or forced into exile (Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin), while the remnant within the land survives relatively unscathed. Unlike Hezekiah, Manasseh, and Josiah, these monarchs make no attempt to change direction and commit to a new course of reforms. They receive their comeuppance, but the people do not. By the same token, the people and officials do not undertake any rehabilitative actions of their own.100 8

The Democratization of Responsibility for Exile under Zedekiah (597–586 BCE)

As in Kings, the eleven-year reign of Zedekiah is depicted in unmistakably negative terms: “He did evil in the sight of Yhwh his God” (2 Chr 36:11).101 But Chronicles crucially appends the notice that Zedekiah “did not humble himself (‫ )נכנע‬before Jeremiah the prophet (who spoke) from the mouth of Yhwh” (2 Chr 36:12). The addition is critical, because it presents Zedekiah as classical era lives on in the temple utensils and furnishings, all of which are transported to Babylon (2 Chr 36:7, 10, 18). 99 G. N. Knoppers, “The Davidic Genealogy: Some Contextual Considerations from the Ancient Mediterranean World,” Transeu 22 (2001), 35–50; idem, I Chronicles 1–9 (AB 12; New York: Doubleday/New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), 317–20, 326–27. The appendix, detailing the kindness afforded to Jehoiachin in exile (2 Kgs 25:27–30) does not appear, however, in Chronicles. 100 As they do in many other cases (e.g., 2 Chr 12:6; 23:16–17; 28:12–15; 29:12–19, 31–36; 30:11–20). 101 The evaluation in Kings and Jeremiah is similar, but longer: “He did evil in the sight of Yhwh, according to all what Jehoiakim had done” (2 Kgs 24:18//Jer 52:2).

344

Chapter 12

a monarch in the Ahaz (2 Chr 28:6, 19, 22, 25) and Amon (2 Chr 33:23) mold. Like these earlier potentates, Zedekiah stubbornly clings to his failed policies despite prophetic warning. In this case, Jeremiah functions as God’s appointed mouthpiece, who unsuccessfully urges the Davidic king to repent.102 Introduction Negative Evaluation Divine Wrath Rebellion Intractability Priestly, Elite, and Lay Offenses Divine Warnings Unheeded Divine Wrath Invasion City under Siege Slaughter of Youths Exile of Royal and Temple Treasuries Breach of Wall Capture of Zedekiah Death of Zedekiah’s Sons Exile of Zedekiah Jerusalem Burned Walls Torn Down Remnant Exiled Poor Left Ruin and Exile of Temple Realia Execution of Officials Exile of Judah

2 Kgs 24:18 2 Kgs 24:19 2 Kgs 24:20 2 Kgs 24:20 – – – – 2 Kgs 25:1 2 Kgs 25:1–3 – – 2 Kgs 25:4 2 Kgs 25:5–6 2 Kgs 25:7 2 Kgs 25:7 2 Kgs 25:8–9 2 Kgs 25:10 2 Kgs 25:11 2 Kgs 25:12 2 Kgs 25:13–17 2 Kgs 25:18–21 2 Kgs 25:21

2 Chr 36:11 2 Chr 36:12 – [2 Chr 36:11] 2 Chr 36:13 2 Chr 36:14 2 Chr 36:15–16 2 Chr 36:16 2 Chr 36:17 – 2 Chr 36:17 2 Chr 36:18 – – – – 2 Chr 36:19 2 Chr 36:19 – – – – 2 Chr 36:20

The text presents Zedekiah’s violation of his vassal oath as a mark of disloyalty to the deity. Zedekiah “rebelled” (‫ )מרד‬against King Nebuchadnezzar, who had made him swear by God, and he stiffened his neck (‫ )ויקש את־ערפו‬and hardened his heart (‫ )ויאמץ את־לבבו‬from returning (‫ )שוב‬to Yhwh, the God of Israel” (2 Chr 36:13).103 Within the narrative world of Chronicles obstinacy 102 See, e.g., Jer 21:1–7; 24:1–10; 27:3–15; 37:1–27; 38:8–22; 39:1–7. Japhet raises the possibility that certain prophecies of Ezekiel may also lie in the background to this passage, Chronicles, 1069–70. 103 The text of 2 Kgs 24:20 (//Jer 52:3) mentions that Zedekiah “rebelled” (‫ )מרד‬against the king of Babylon, but does not speak of his recalcitrance. Zedekiah’s “stiffening his neck” and “hardening his heart” recall diatribes in Jeremiah and in Deuteronomistic literature.

THE BABYLONIAN EXILE AND IMMEDIATE RETRIBUTION IN CHRONICLES

345

is itself a sign of decline.104 A great dissimilarity may be observed between the major reforms undertaken under Hezekiah and the complete absence of such under Zedekiah. Following the many disasters defining Ahaz’s reign, Hezekiah urges the Judahite and Israelite remainees to repent (‫ )שוב‬and not to “stiffen your necks as your ancestors did” (‫;עתה אל־תקשו ערפכם כאבותיכם‬ 2 Chr 30:6–8). After the people respond positively and observe a centralized Passover in Jerusalem, the situation improves markedly. Indeed, when Hezekiah prays for most of the people (including many northern Israelites) who had not purified themselves before partaking of the Paschal sacrifice, “Yhwh heeded Hezekiah and healed the people” (‫וישמע יהוה אל יחזקיהו וירפא‬ ‫ ;את העם‬2 Chr 30:20). The use of the same expression (‫ )קשה ערף‬and verb (hiphil of ‫ )רפא‬with reference to Zedekiah and his generation, pointing out how he refused to repent (‫ ;שוב‬2 Chr 36:13), as did the people in spite of prophetic warnings, and how they incited divine wrath to the point where there was no healing (‫ ;עד־לאין מרפא‬2 Chr 36:16), suggest a point of deliberate contrast between the situation in the time of Hezekiah and that of Zedekiah. Zedekiah’s insurrection appears especially foolish, because each of Zedekiah’s immediate four predecessors found themselves publicly humiliated, if not killed, by powerful foreign kings: Josiah dies after ignoring Pharaoh Neco’s prophetic warning, Jehoahaz is deposed by the Egyptian king and expelled to Egypt, and both Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin are forcibly exiled to Babylon. In spite of the deportation of each monarch, neither the successors nor the subjects they lead repent and change course.105 That Zedekiah refused to humble himself before Yhwh and disregarded Jeremiah’s prophecies illumines why the Babylonian exile occurs during his watch (and is not postponed yet again).106 Yet, the theme of defiance does not apply simply to Zedekiah. The text goes on to blame a range of leaders and the populace itself for Judah’s decline.107 For “stiffening the neck,” see Deut 10:16; 2 Kgs 17:14; Jer 7:26; 17:23; 19:15. In later usage, see Job 9:4; Neh 9:16, 29; 2 Chr 30:8. For “hardening (‫ )אמץ‬the heart,” see Deut 2:30; 15:7. On Jeremiah’s attempts to convince Zedekiah not to violate his client status with his Babylonian suzerain, see, e.g., Jer 21:1–7; 27:1–12; 28:1–17. 104 Japhet, Ideology, 176–91; Kelly, Retribution, 110–34. 105 Johnstone, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 2.266. 106 The implication of the prophetic warning is that the deportation could have been avoided or, at least, delayed. On the importance of repentance (‫)שוב‬, see 2 Chr 15:4 and the discussion of Japhet, Ideology, 176–98. 107 Curiously, the litany of criticism in 2 Chr 36:14–16 does not include a rejection of the Davidic house itself (cf. 1 Chr 3:1–24; 17:10–14; 2 Chr 7:17–22; 13:4–8; 21:7). See chapter 8, “David’s Relation to Moses: The Contexts, Contents, and Conditions of the Davidic Promises.”

346

Chapter 12

From this point forward, the focus shifts to Judah and the fate of Jerusalem (2 Chr 36:14–21). The commentary on Judah’s demise (2 Chr 36:14–16), unparalleled in Kings, comprises the only editorial material explicitly addressing the mass dislocation to Babylon. As such, it merits close study. The evaluation of the officials and people is harsher than that rendered against Zedekiah.108 Ironically, the text never returns to the subject of what became of Judah’s last king.109 Set off from the preceding judgment against Zedekiah through the use of asyndeton (‫)גם‬,110 the commentary speaks of widespread recalcitrance: “Even (‫ )גם‬all the leaders of Judah, the priests, and the people (‫כל־שרי יהודה‬ ‫ )והכהנים והעם‬multiplied (‫ )הרבו‬infidelity upon infidelity (‫)למעול־מעל‬, according to all of the abominations (‫ )כל תעבות‬of the nations and they polluted (‫ )ויטמאו‬the temple of Yhwh, which he had consecrated (‫ )הקדיש‬in Jerusalem” (2 Chr 36:14).111 The assessment is remarkable in a number of ways.112 First, like the remark in the multilayered Deuteronomistic commentary on the fall of the northern kingdom (2 Kgs 17:19–20; cf. 1 Kgs 9:6–9), the Chronistic work blames the kingdom’s fall on the Judahites themselves.113 The people share collective 108 Halpern, “Manasseh,” 476–77. 109 In Kings the lack of final regnal notices is understandable, because Zedekiah’s sons are summarily executed by the Babylonian authorities following Zedekiah’s trial at Riblah. Zedekiah himself is deported to Babylon (2 Kgs 25:5–7). The work (2 Chr 36:4), as we have seen, does not address the fate of Jehoahaz in exile (cf. 2 Kgs 23:34). 110 B. K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), §38.1h. 111 The MT simply reads ‫שרי הכהנים והעם‬, “the leaders of the priests and the people.” But the longer lemma found in LXX 2 Chr 36:14, καὶ πάντες οἱ ἔνδοξοι Ἰούδα καὶ οἱ ἱερεῖς καὶ ὁ λαὸς τῆς γῆς, “and all the leaders of Judah, and the priests, and the people of the land,” and that appearing in 1 Esd 1:47, οἱ ἡγούμενοι δὲ τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ τῶν ἱερέων “the leaders of the people and of the priests,” bear witness to a longer text (however garbled) than may be found in MT 2 Chr 36:14. My reconstruction follows the BHS (see also Klein, 2 Chronicles, 533). Chronicles blames three groups for the exile: the notables of Judah, the leaders of the priests, and the people. A condemnation of the Levites and lower echelon priests is conspicuously absent from the series of the accused. Compare the censure of the Levites in Ezek 44:10–14 (cf. vv. 15–31) and the complaints of the Persian period prophet Malachi (1:6–2:9) about priests and sacrifices at the Jerusalem temple. See recently, N. MacDonald, Priestly Rule: Polemic and Biblical Interpretation in Ezekiel 44 (BZAW 476; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015). These comparative data may provide some insight into the circles from which the Chronicler stemmed. 112 On the critical use of the root ‫ מעל‬in 2 Chr 36:14 signifying profound betrayal, see Mosis, Untersuchungen, 29–33; Johnstone, “Guilt and Atonement,” 116–26; idem, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 1.19–20; Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29, 523–24. 113 In keeping with the democratizing tendency displayed elsewhere, Japhet, Ideology, 267–308.

THE BABYLONIAN EXILE AND IMMEDIATE RETRIBUTION IN CHRONICLES

347

responsibility with their elite leaders and their priests. In fact, Chronicles seems to criticize Zedekiah, as we have seen, for breaking his client oath to Nebuchadnezzar (2 Chr 36:13). In any case, the criticism is severe in that it accuses the Judahite populace of multiplying transgressions in accord with not some, but “all” of the abominable practices of other peoples. Second, Chronicles, which few would accuse of being anti-clerical, assigns some responsibility for the sack of Jerusalem to the Jerusalem priesthood. By comparison, Kings does not censure any priests.114 The sacerdocy is accused of multiple acts of profound cultic betrayal and disloyalty over an unspecified period of time. The text does not accuse foreign invaders or foreign cultic functionaries of invidiously defiling Jerusalem’s cultic centre. Quite the contrary, the very priestly executives who were in charge of the sanctuary are accused of acting in accordance with the abhorrent customs (‫ )תעבות‬of the nations. The Judahite leaders, priests, and people polluted (piel of ‫ )טמא‬the very sanctuary, whose sanctity they were supposed to safeguard.115 In Chronistic perspective, the Jerusalem sanctuary was not in and of itself culpable for its Babylonian 114 This may provide a clue as to the identity of these Deuteronomistic writers, R. Albertz, Religionsgeschichte Israels in alttestamentlicher Zeit (GAT 8; 2 vols.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), 310–12 [trans. J. Bowden, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, 1: From the Beginnings to the End of the Monarchy (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 201–3]; idem, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, 2: From the Exile to the Maccabees (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 388–90. The debates in Trito-Isaiah about the function, purpose, and staffing of the temple are also important in seeking to understand the multiplicity of perspectives toward the staffing and purposes of the Jerusalem sanctuary in Persian and early Hellenistic times. See J. Schaper, Priester und Leviten im achämenidischen Juda (FAT 31; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000); S. S. Tuell, “The Priesthood of the ‘Foreigner’: Evidence of Competing Polities in Ezekiel 44:1–14 and Isaiah 56:1–8,” in Constituting the Community: Studies on the Polity of Ancient Israel in Honor of S. Dean McBride Jr. (ed. J. T. Strong and S. S. Tuell; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 183–204; C. Nihan, “Ethnicity and Identity in Isaiah 56–66,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Achaemenid Period: Negotiating Identity in an International Context (ed. O. Lipschits, G. N. Knoppers, and M. Oeming; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 67–104. 115 On the use of the verb ‫ טמא‬with the tabernacle (‫ )משכן‬as object, see Lev 15:31; Num 19:13 and with the sanctuary (‫ )מקדש‬as object, see Lev 20:3; Num 19:20. In Ezekiel (5:11), Israel is accused of defiling (‫ )טמא‬the sanctuary with its abominations (cf. 8:1–18; 11; 9:7; 23:38). In Ps 79:1, the writer laments that the “nations (‫ )גוים‬have defiled (‫ )טמא‬your holy temple” (‫)היכל קדשך‬. In Jeremiah (7:30; 32:34), the children of Judah are accused of placing their ‫ שקוצים‬in the temple, thus defiling it. Jeremiah also accuses a wide swath of the populace of alienating Yhwh. Those who provoked Yhwh (Jer 32:32) include “their kings, their officials, their priests, their prophets, the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem” (‫)מלכיהם שריהם כהניהם ונביאיהם ואיש יהודה וישבי ירושלם‬. The Chronistic claim that the leaders of the people and the priests (along with the people), were guilty of polluting the sanctuary is thus extraordinary, but not entirely unprecedented.

348

Chapter 12

destruction. Indeed, the commentary affirms the temple as “his abode” (‫;מעונו‬ 2 Chr 36:15). The same term (rare in Chronicles) is used of Yhwh’s “holy abode” (‫ )מעון קדשו‬in the heavens (2 Chr 30:27).116 The fact that the Chaldean king could come up “against them and kill their young men with the sword in their sanctuary” (2 Chr 36:17), raze the structure, and extradite all of its remaining valuables to Babylon (2 Chr 36:18–19) does not indict the house of God, which was sanctified by Yhwh (2 Chr 36:14).117 The temple was sacked by foreigners after its own elite and populace had defiled it. Third, a history of insubordination (and not the sins of a single generation) culminates in expulsion from the land: “Yhwh the God of their ancestors sent (‫( )שלח‬word) to them again and again (‫ )השכם ושלוח‬through his messengers (‫)ביד מלאכיו‬, because he had compassion upon his people and upon his dwelling place” (2 Chr 36:15).118 The collocation, ‫שלח השכם ושלח‬, signifying repetition, “early and often,” occurs only here in Chronicles, but mimics a collocation that recurs in Jeremiah (7:25; 25:4; 29:19; 35:15; 44:4).119 For instance, Jeremiah declares: “Although Yhwh sent to you (‫ )ושלח יהוה אליכם‬all his servants the prophets early and often (‫)השכם ושלח‬, you have neither listened nor inclined your ears to hear” (Jer 25:4).120 The assertion that Yhwh repeatedly sent word through his messengers indicates that more than a single generation is in view. The point is that Yhwh is not a capricious god, who suddenly sprang news about Judah’s ill-fate to the people of Jeremiah’s generation without repeated warnings in earlier generations.121 In fact, the idiom is once deployed to assert 116 The usage in 2 Chr 30:27 recalls the formulation employed in Deut 26:15, ‫ממעון קדשך‬ ‫מן־השמים‬, “(Take notice) from your holy abode, from the heavens.” 117 The text alludes to the unique divine assurance given to Solomon during his second theophany (2 Chr 7:16, 20; cf. 30:8). 118 In context, the messengers sent by Yhwh may not be necessarily professional prophets, although these figures perform prophetic functions (e.g., 1 Chr 12:19; 2 Chr 15:1; 20:14; 24:20). The work may have both professional prophets and pro tem prophetic speakers in view. See chapters 6 and 7 on prophecy in Chronicles. 119 On the idiom, see HALOT 1494a and on the use of the inf. abs. of ‫שכם‬, see GKC §113k. L. C. Jonker (and others) term the Jeremianic expression the Unermüdlichkeitsformel (“indefatigability formula”), “The Chronicler and the Prophets: Who were his Authoritative Sources?” in What was Authoritative for Chronicles? (ed. E. Ben Zvi and D. Edelman; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 155. 120 In another context, the deity announces, “I have sent to you all my servants the prophets, sending them early and often” (Jer 35:15). On the influence of Jeremiah, see also S. L. McKenzie, 1–2 Chronicles (AOTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 2004), 370; A. K. Warhurst, “The Chronicler’s Use of the Prophets,” in What was Authoritative for Chronicles?, 175–80. 121 “[T]here has been a continuous and insistent (‫ )השכם ושלח‬prophetic witness from the earliest period to the present which has been met with an unyielding and perverse obstinacy whose dimensions have grown with the passing of time,” W. McKane, A Critical and

THE BABYLONIAN EXILE AND IMMEDIATE RETRIBUTION IN CHRONICLES

349

that Yhwh dispatched prophets to his people “from the day that your ancestors came out of the land of Egypt until this day” (Jer 7:25–26). Yhwh declares: “They [the people] have neither heeded me nor inclined their ear; they have stiffened their neck (‫ )ויקשו את־ערפם‬and done more evil than their ancestors” (Jer 7:26). As we have seen, Chronicles employs the same expression (“stiffen the neck”) to criticize Zedekiah for his obstinacy (2 Chr 36:13). The repeated recourse to Jeremiah plays an influential role in shaping the portrait of national decline. Jeremiah appears both as the prophet of Judah’s last decades in the land (2 Chr 35:25; 36:12, 21) and as the prophet of Judah’s future return (2 Chr 36:22). In its commentary on Judah’s fall, the work employs a Jeremianic locution to justify the people’s displacement from the land. By stressing the compassion of Yhwh (2 Chr 36:15), the text refutes the earlier judgment about Jehoiakim’s reign (‫ )ולא־אבה יהוה לסלח‬that “Yhwh was not willing to forgive” (2 Kgs 24:4).122 To the contrary, Yhwh was merciful toward his people’s plight and repeatedly sent messengers and prophets to warn them, but there were no takers: “They were deriding the messengers of God (‫)מלעבים במלאכי האלהים‬, despising their words, and scoffing at his prophets (‫ )ומתעתעים בנבאיו‬until the anger of Yhwh rose against his people and there was no remedy” (2 Chr 36:16).123 The text depicts a steadily worsening situation, rather than a single act (or set of acts) of insurrection within a short (eleven year) period. The work does not specify how long it took for Yhwh’s anger to become inflamed against Judah, but the very insistence on divine persistence suggests that multiple generations are in view. In speaking of officers, priests, and the populace “multiplying infidelity upon infidelity,” the text employs unusual terminology, relating to Judah’s adopting the abominable practices (‫ )תעבות‬of the nations.124 Such references to the ‫ תעבות‬are limited to the major period of Judahite decline, beginning with Ahaz’s apostasy (2 Chr 28:3), continuing with Manasseh’s cultic infractions (2 Chr 33:2) and Jehoiakim’s cultic infractions (2 Chr 36:8), and concluding with the summary statement on Judah’s fall (2 Chr 36:14). The major Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah (2 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986–1996), 1.175. Similarly, W. L. Holladay, Jeremiah 1 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1986), 262–63. 122 On the variety of intermediaries sent by Yhwh to his people, see G. N. Knoppers, “Democratizing Revelation? Prophets, Seers, and Visionaries in Chronicles,” in Prophecy and the Prophets in Ancient Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (ed. J. Day; LHBOTS 531; London: T&T Clark Continuum, 2010), 391–409, and the references listed there. 123 Compare the different version of the anger formula in 2 Kgs 24:20, “For the wrath of Yhwh was against Jerusalem and Judah until he sent them away from his presence.” 124 See section 4 above.

350

Chapter 12

counterweights to this trend, which prevails from the late-eighth to early-sixth centuries, are the Hezekian and Josianic reforms.125 The latter eliminate (temporarily) all of the abominations from the land (2 Chr 34:33). Given that these are the only references to the ‫ תעבות‬in the entire work, it would seem that the text marks out this period as largely degenerate. 9 Conclusions In his discussion of Chronistic theology and compositional technique, von Rad contends that the Chronicler intervened more readily in the sources that he incorporated within his work than the Deuteronomist did. The interventions lend a particular ideological cast to the work. Following Wellhausen, von Rad insists that Chronicles “raises this correspondence [between guilt and punishment] to the level of complete rational proof—no disaster without guilt, no sin without punishment.”126 Yet, paradoxically, “this did not lead to internal unity within the Chronicler’s work.”127 Von Rad implicitly recognizes that many passages, even texts without parallels in Kings, do not fit easily within an immediate retribution pattern. For von Rad, this discrepancy results from a “lack of consistency in the way that the writer carries out his purpose” and he concludes: “One cannot avoid the impression of a certain mental exhaustion—at least in the way the material is presented.”128 This essay has argued the contrary position that Chronicles exhibits a consistent, albeit complex, understanding of divine action within history. There are cases as we have seen, such as that of Manasseh, of inner-generational justice in which a single individual receives a prophetic warning and a divinely administered punishment before repenting and being restored. Yet, the depiction of the past consists of more than a series of many discrete and independent generations. Rather, it manifests a larger literary design in which 125 Although the Hezekian reforms do not explicitly mention ‫תעבות‬. 126 Von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 1.348 [Theologie, 1.360: “… ihr [der Chronik] geht es um den Aufweis eines Korrespondenzverhältnisses von Schuld und Strafe, nur daß sie diese Entsprechung bis zur vollkommenen rationalen Evidenz steigert: kein Unglück ohne Schuld, keine Sünde ohne Strafe.”]. 127 Von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 1.348 [Theologie, 1.360: “Trotzdem hat das nicht zu einer inneren Vereinheitlichung des Werkes geführt.”]. 128 Von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 1.348 [Theologie, 1.360: “oft vermißt der Leser … die Konsequenz in der Durchführung. Der Eindruck von einer gewissen geistigen Erschöpfung—mindestens hinsichtlich der darstellerischen Gestaltung—läßt sich nicht abweisen.”].

THE BABYLONIAN EXILE AND IMMEDIATE RETRIBUTION IN CHRONICLES

351

intergenerational factors matter. That the late Judahite monarchy appears, for the most part, as degenerate casts a pall over this era. Of the final nine kings in Judah, beginning with Ahaz and ending with Zedekiah, only two—the great reformers Hezekiah (2 Chr 29:2) and Josiah (2 Chr 34:2)—receive positive evaluations. Six receive explicitly negative evaluations—Ahaz (2 Chr 28:1), Manasseh (2 Chr 33:2), Amon (2 Chr 33:22), Jehoiakim (2 Chr 36:5), Jehoiachin (2 Chr 36:9), and Zedekiah (2 Chr 36:12). The remaining monarch—Jehoahaz (2 Chr 36:1)—receives no formal evaluation (in the MT), but his brief reign does not display any positive qualities. When compared with the glories of the united monarchy and the early Judahite monarchy (in which good kings far outnumber bad ones), the late monarchy is retrograde. The larger implication is that the reforms carried out by Hezekiah, Josiah, and a repentant Manasseh do not completely undo the harm done by others (and, if relevant, by the monarchs themselves). Eventually, the offenses committed by priests, notables, and laity catch up with them, as divine patience wears thin. It would seem, then, that Chronicles attributes the Babylonian exile to a preponderance of unrequited sins during the last generations of Judah’s independence. Within the late monarchy, the attempts at reform during the reigns of Hezekiah and Josiah, however important, have no staying power. In the aftermath of the disastrous depopulation and deportation, characterizing Ahaz’s reign, Hezekiah implements critical counter-measures. Yet, these reforms are undone by Manasseh. Manasseh’s later reforms are undone by Amon and Josiah’s reforms are followed by an unbroken sequence of four disastrous reigns. One of the strengths of the united monarchy is that David’s long and highly successful reign is followed by Solomon’s long and highly successful reign. The latter complements and builds upon the former. There is no such positive succession from the mid-eighth century to the early sixth century. In contrast to the balanced pattern evinced in the late-tenth, ninth, and earlyeighth centuries, the pattern becomes a predominately negative one thereafter. In the end, the reforms undertaken by the few prove to be no match for regressions caused by the many. Analysis of the late monarchy in the context of the larger literary work has implications for how one understands the messages conveyed by this book. The worldview of Chronicles is usually associated with notions of immediate and individual retribution, but the multivalent recasting of the late monarchy complicates such notions. Judah’s decline is neither predestined nor inevitable. It does not occur in one quick and sudden crash. The fall of Judah involves the course of several generations. If allocation of coverage is one indication of importance, the united monarchy takes pride of place, followed

352

Chapter 12

by the reigns of the reformers—Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and Josiah. By contrast, the reigns of Judah’s worst kings receive far less attention. Residing within the postmonarchic community of Yehud, the author evidently felt no compulsion to dwell on the low-points of the past. Whether positively (David and Solomon) or negatively (the last century and a half of the Judahite monarchy), the work makes the case for long-term commitment, communal responsibility, and transgenerational loyalty.

Chapter 13

Whodunit? The Unlikely Disappearance of Zerubbabel The fate of the early Persian period Judean governor Zerubbabel (r. ca. 522–? BCE) has been called “one of the greatest historical mysteries in the Hebrew Bible.”1 The unknown destiny of Zerubbabel is all the more confounding, because of the high praise this particular Judean official receives from two early Persian period prophets. In Haggai, Yhwh proclaims to Zerubbabel (Hag 2:21b–22): I am about to shake (‫ )אני מרעיש‬the heavens and the earth, I shall overthrow (‫ )והפכתי‬the throne of the kingdoms, I shall destroy (‫ )והשמדתי‬the strength of the kingdoms of the nations.

Alluding to the overwhelming force deployed by the divine warrior against the pharaoh’s army in the Song of the Sea (Exod 15:1), Haggai speaks of another great victory of Yhwh in which chaos within the ranks of the enemies leads to their self-inflicted slaughter: I shall overthrow the chariot and its riders, The horses and their riders will go down, Each man by the sword of his fellow. (Hag 2:22)

As for Zerubbabel, the God of Israel has some pointed good news. “‘On that day,’ declaration of Yhwh Sebaoth, ‘I shall take you, O Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel, my servant,’ declaration of Yhwh. ‘I shall set you as a signet (‫)חותם‬, for you I have chosen’ (‫)בך בחרתי‬, declaration of Yhwh” (Hag 2:23). As a number of scholars observe, the prophecy that Yhwh will establish Zerubbabel as a signet (ring) marks a dramatic reversal of the situation that led to the removal of King Jehoiachin as Yhwh’s signet ring (Jer 22:24–30).2 1 T. Lewis, “The Mysterious Disappearance of Zerubbabel,” in Seeking Out the Wisdom of the Ancients: Essays Offered to Honor Michael V. Fox on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday (ed. R. T. Troxel, K. G. Friebel, and D. R. Magary; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 301–14. 2 A. T. Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948), 137–39; S. Japhet, ‘Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel—Against the Background of the Historical and Religious Tendencies of Ezra-Nehemiah,’ ZAW 94 (1982), 66–98 and ZAW 95 (1983), 218–29 ©  GARY N. KNOPPERS (†), Christl M. Maier and H. G. M. Williamson, 2021 |  doi:10.1163/9789004444898_015

354

Chapter 13

The reference to divine election in Haggai is not only highly positive, but also highly unusual in that it refers to a specific person by name.3 This puts Zerubbabel in some elite company. Within biblical writings, only a few individuals, such as Aaron (Ps 105:26), Abram (Neh 9:7), Jacob (Ps 135:4), Judah (1 Chr 28:4), David (Ps 78:40; 1 Chr 28:4), and Solomon (1 Chr 28:5, 29:1), are said to be directly elected (‫ )בחר‬by Yhwh.4 Moreover, although most of these references stem from postexilic literary works, they apply to preexilic characters. Zerubbabel is the only postmonarchic figure presented as God’s elect. Haggai’s oracles thus exalt Zerubbabel and offer tremendous hope in anticipating the future. Zerubbabel is also mentioned by name in the prophecies of Zechariah, although the relevant texts of Zechariah are more abstruse than those of Haggai and reflect their own distinctive points of view. In one oracle (Zech 3:8–10), directed at Joshua (Jeshua) the high priest, Joshua and his associates are informed by Yhwh: “Indeed, I am about to bring (‫ )כי־הנני מביא‬my servant (‫)עבדי‬, the shoot” (‫)צמח‬.5 On another occasion, the word of Yhwh comes to Zerubbabel: “Not by might nor by power, but by my spirit, says Yhwh Sebaoth. Whoever you are, O great mountain before Zerubbabel, you will become a plain. And he will bring forth the head stonework (amid) shouts of ‘Grace, grace’ to it!” (Zech 4:6–7).6 The hands of Zerubbabel “will lay the foundation [repr. From the Rivers of Babylon to the Highlands of Judah: Collected Studies on the Restoration Period (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 53–84 and 85–95]; J. Kessler, ‘Persia’s Loyal Yahwists: Power, Identity, and Ethnicity in Achaemenid Yehud,’ in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period (ed. O. Lipschits and M. Oeming; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 113. Kessler also notes the overlap with the use of traditional coronation language (e.g., Psalm 2, 110). 3 The exceptional status of the named prophecies in Haggai and Zechariah is underscored by R. Rendtorff, Theologie des Alten Testaments: Ein kanonischer Entwurf (2 vols.; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999–2001). 4 G. N. Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29 (AB 12A; New York: Doubleday/New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), 927–28, 937–42; idem, “Judah, Levi, David, Solomon, Jerusalem, and the Temple: Election and Covenant in Chronicles,” in Covenant and Election in Exilic and Post-Exilic Judaism: Studies of the Sofja Kovalevskaja Research Group on Early Jewish Monotheism, Vol. V (ed. N. MacDonald; FAT II/79; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 139–68. 5 As in Hag 2:21, the active participle designates the immediate future. See GKC §116p; T. O. Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1971), §26. On the royal overtones of ‫צמח‬, see Isa 11:1 (cf. 53:2); Jer 23:5, 33:15 [MT]; Ps 132:17 (cf. Isa 9:2–7, 32:1–5). To complicate matters, ‫ צמח‬may also be taken as a proper name. 6 Understanding ‫ הוציא את־האבן הראשה‬to refer to the primary stonework of the First Temple, which had to be exposed to lay the foundations for the Second Temple. So A. Wolters, Zechariah (HCOT; Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 132–34.

The Unlikely Disappearance of Zerubbabel

355

of this house (‫ )יסדו הבית הזה‬and his hands will bring it to completion” (‫וידיו‬ ‫ ;תבצענה‬Zech 4:9). Indeed, the work of Zerubbabel is tied to that of the

prophet himself insofar as Zerubbabel’s success will redound to Zechariah’s good reputation and prove to the Judean community that Yhwh has sent Zechariah to them (4:9).7 Those who “despise a day of small things” will rejoice when they see the “stone of distinction (‫ )האבן הבדיל‬in the hand of Zerubbabel” (4:10). When Zechariah asks the messenger of Yhwh about the meaning of the fourth vision involving the lampstand and the “two olive trees” (‫ ;שני זיתים‬4:3, 11) with “two clusters of olives” (‫ ;שתי שבלי הזיתים‬4:12), the messenger reveals (4:14) that the two olive trees represent the “two sons of oil” (‫)שני בני־היצהר‬, who stand by the “Lord of the whole earth” (‫)אדון כל־הארץ‬. Whether the reference to the two “sons of oil” alludes to the diarchy of governor and high priest, as some have suggested, is unclear.8 In any event, the appearance of such personalized encomiums has contributed to the sense among many scholars that certain members of the early Persian period community pinned incredibly high hopes on the governorship of Zerubbabel and the high-priestly tenure of Jeshua. What the high hopes came to is, however, very much in dispute. Testimony from Ezra-Nehemiah is also commonly cited as evidence for Zerubbabel’s untimely demise. In this literary work, Zerubbabel seems to 7 Reading ‫ידעתם‬, with some Heb. MSS, the Syr., Vulg. and Tg. in Zech 4:9c and ‫אליכם‬, with all major witnesses in 4:9d. 8 In earlier texts, one finds references to both the anointing of priests (e.g., Exod 29:7; Lev 8:12, 21:10) and the anointing of kings (e.g., 1 Sam 9:16, 10:1, 16:3, 24:6; 1 Kgs 1:39; 2 Kgs 9:6, 11:12). The allusion in Zech 4:14 is viewed as diarchic in nature by some. So W. Rudolph, Haggai, Sacharja 1–8, Sacharja 9–14, Maleachi (KAT XIII/4; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag, 1976), 108; C. L. Meyers and E. M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8 (AB 25B; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987), 258–59; Lewis, “Mysterious Disappearance,” 304. Yet, the term ‫יצהר‬, “(freshly-pressed) oil,” employed in this context is not ‫שמן‬, “oil,” as one would expect with anointing. See E. Kutsch, Salbung als Rechtsakt im Alten Testament und im alten Orient (BZAW 87; Berlin: A. Töpelmann, 1963), 52–63; W. H. Rose, Zemaḥ and Zerubbabel: Messianic Expectations in the Early Postexilic Period (JSOTSup 304; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000), 188–93; idem, “Zechariah and the Ambiguity of Kingship,” in Let us Go up to Zion: Essays in Honour of H. G. M. Williamson on the Occasion of his Sixty-fifth Birthday (ed. I. Provan and M. J. Boda; VTSup 153; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 219–31. For some (e.g., B. Halpern, “The Ritual Background of Zechariah’s Temple Song,” CBQ 40 [1978], 177; H. Krimmer, Ich habe dich erwählt: Israel im Licht des Propheten Sacharja [Holzgerlingen: SCM Hänssler, 2010], 71), ‫ בני־היצהר‬signifies the “sons of Izhar” (cf. Exod 6:21; 1 Chr 5:28), especially so since the sons of Izhar were in charge of taking care of the tabernacle furniture, including the menorah (Num 3:27–31; 4:4, 15). On the issues, see further D. L. Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984), 272–81; Wolters, Zechariah, 152–55.

356

Chapter 13

vanish from the very source that charts his service and lauds his efforts. The emperor Darius may refer to the “governor of the Judeans (‫ )פחת יהדיא‬and the elders of the Judeans” in his decree (MT Ezra 6:7), allowing the temple reconstruction to proceed after regional opponents had blocked the rebuilding effort.9 Yet, only the elders, priests, Levites, and other exiles are mentioned in the ensuing narrative, dealing with the resumption of the construction campaign (Ezra 6:13–18).10 The rebuilding is said to have been completed by the “elders of the Judeans,” who were spurred on by the encouraging prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah (Ezra 6:14).11 As for the governor, he is not mentioned. Zerubbabel is not even referred to (by name) during the temple dedication ceremony and its attendant festivities (Ezra 6:14–22).12 To complicate matters further, the books of Haggai and Zechariah neither portray the completion of the temple nor its public dedication. Neither Zerubbabel nor Jeshua appears in the latter portion of Zechariah (9–14), generally acknowledged to date to a later time than the earlier portion of the book (Zechariah 1–8).13 This seems puzzling. Why does Zerubbabel vanish from view? Given that he plays such a prominent role in the efforts to build the Second Temple, how does one solve the puzzle of what happened to him?

9

The textual witnesses differ. The reference to the governor in MT Ezra 6:7 is not textually secure, because the phrase ‫ פחת יהודיא‬is lacking in 2 Esd (LXXAB) 6:7, which simply reads καὶ πρεσβύτεροι τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων. The LXX is the lectio brevior, but it is possible that a haplography by homoioteleuton occurred before ‫( ולשבי יהודיא‬from ‫ יהודיא‬to ‫)יהודיא‬. The partial parallel in 1 Esd 6:28 mentions “the servant of the Lord, Zerubbabel, governor of Judah, and the elders of the Judeans” (τὸν παῖδα Κυρίου Ζοροβάβελ, ἔπαρχον δὲ τῆς ᾿Ιουδαίας, καὶ τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων). W. Rudolph contends that the phrase in (MT) Ezra 6:7 represents a late gloss, Esra und Nehemia, samt 3 Esra (HAT 20; Tübingen: Mohr, 1949), 56. Similarly, D. Böhler argues that the appearances of Zerubbabel in 1 Esd 6:17, 26, 28 (cf. Ezra 5:14; 6:7, 9) are late redactional insertions, I Esdras (IEKAT; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2015), 155–56. 10 For more on the variants in 1 Esd 7:1–9, see Z. Talshir, 1 Esdras: A Text Critical Commentary (SBLSCS 50; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2001), 368–80; Böhler, I Esdras, 142, 157. 11 On the alternative possibility that the Second Temple construction was only finished at some historical distance after the time of Zerubbabel and Jeshua (mid-fifth century), see D. V. Edelman, The Origins of the ‘Second’ Temple: Persian Imperial Policy and the Rebuilding of Jerusalem (London: Equinox, 2005); B. Becking, Ezra, Nehemiah, and the Construction of Early Jewish Identity (FAT 80; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011). 12 But the same holds true for Jeshua (see below section 4). 13 Recently, P. L. Redditt, Zechariah 9–14 (IEKAT; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2012), 13–15; M. J. Boda, The Book of Zechariah (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 516–23. Wolters, Zechariah, 16–23, prefers to speak of a tripartite division (A: chs. 1–6; B: chs. 7–8; C: chs. 9–14). The issue need not detain us here.

The Unlikely Disappearance of Zerubbabel

1

357

A Restoration Realized or a Restoration Rejected?

In standard treatments of ancient Israelite history, the time following the Neo-Babylonian occupation or “templeless” era is referred to as the “Restoration.”14 Some have understandably objected to the use of such terminology on the grounds that there was no restoration.15 A true restoration would have involved the renewal of the Davidic monarchy and this did not happen.16 Albertz and others think that such a restoration was indeed attempted, but somehow thwarted. This brings us back to the fate of Zerubbabel. There is a silence about his later years in the sources. None of the relevant biblical writings actually describes his later career, destination, or death.17 Such a silence is, of course, notoriously difficult to assess. But to some commentators, the 14 See P. R. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century B.C. (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968); H. Donner, Geschichte des Volkes Israel und seiner Nachbarn in Grundzügen, II: Von der Königszeit bis zu Alexander dem Großen mit einem Ausblick auf die Geschichte des Judentums bis Bar Kochba (GAT 4/2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), 437–65. See also J. Middlemas, The Troubles of Templeless Judah (Oxford Theological Monographs; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005). 15 E.g., R. Albertz, Die Exilszeit: 6. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (BE 7; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2001 [trans. D. Green, Israel in Exile: The History and Literature of the Sixth Century B.C.E (StBL 3; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2003)]. 16 A few scholars contend that Davidic kingship extended from the time of the exile to the early postexilic period. See P. Sacchi, “L’esilio e la fine della monarchia davidica,” Hen 11 (1989), 131–48; idem, The History of the Second Temple Period (JSOTSup 285; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000), 46–62; idem, “Re vassalli o governatori? Una discussion,” Hen 23 (2001), 147–52; F. Bianchi, “Zorobabele re di Giuda,” Hen 13 (1991), 133–50; idem, “Le rôle de Zorobabel et de la dynastie davidique en Judée du VIe siècle au IIe siècle av. J.-C.,” Transeu 7 (1994), 154–65; H. Niehr, “Religio-Historical Aspects of the ‘Early Post-Exilic’ Period,” in The Crisis of Israelite Religion: Transformation of Religious Tradition in Exilic and Post-Exilic Times (ed. B. Becking and M. C. A. Korpel; OtSt 42; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 228– 44. In this view, Jehoiachin, Sheshbazzar, and Zerubbabel served as royal vassals to a succession of Neo-Babylonian and Persian kings. For a searching critique of this position, see N. Na’aman, “Royal Vassals or Governors? On the Status of Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel in the Persian Empire,” Hen 22 (2000), 35–64 [repr. Ancient Israel and Its Neighbors (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 403–14]. 17 Some refer to Zech 12:9–10, but these verses are very cryptic and do not mention the person being mourned. That the guesses include a range of figures from Josiah to Simon Maccabee may serve as one indication that the original allusion is oblique, perhaps deliberately so. See Rudolph, Haggai, 216–17; C. L. Meyers and E. M. Meyers, Zechariah 9–14 (AB 25C; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1993,), 333–42; P. L. Redditt, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 132–33; idem, Zechariah, 101–11; D. L. Petersen, Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 120–21; J. Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel (rev. ed.; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 233–35.

358

Chapter 13

silence is itself suspicious.18 Was Zerubbabel demoted, recalled, or executed by his Achaemenid superiors, who may have intervened to quell Judean unrest? If so, was there an actual insurrection or did the Persians intervene proactively in response to malicious gossip about Zerubbabel’s ambitions spread by his opponents? Or are all these speculations beside the point? Is it possible that Yhwh’s chosen lived out his term and came to no harm at all? It may be useful to review the major hypotheses. I shall begin with the different theories of Zerubbabel’s untimely demise and then discuss the case for Zerubbabel’s peaceful end. Following an assessment of these theories, taking into account the social, political, and economic conditions of the early Persian period, my study will reexamine the testimony presented by Ezra-Nehemiah about the activities of Zerubbabel and Jeshua. In my judgment, the peculiar historiographic, political, and theological interests of the writers of Ezra-Nehemiah have not been sufficiently taken into account in assessing the fate of Zerubbabel. The extent to which the ideological interests of the writers of Ezra-Nehemiah differ from those of Haggai and Zechariah deserves greater scrutiny. In particular, the theopolitical perspectives promoted by Ezra-Nehemiah toward the Davidic legacy, on the one hand, and the Achaemenid regime, on the other hand, need to be brought into a clearer focus. In the influential theory of Olmstead, Zerubbabel and his prophetic supporters hatched “a wild project for declaring Jewish independence.”19 If the “youthful Zerubbabel” did not himself foment rebellion (cf. Ezra 5:11–16), his supporters certainly did so in the context of renewed nationalism within the tiny province of Judah. Eventually, news of the projected rebellion reached Persian authorities, who intervened against him some time during the 518–517 BCE western campaign of Darius I.20 Although they differ with Olmstead’s view in some respects, Albright, Morgenstern, Waterman, Beyse, and Stern believe either that the Persians removed Zerubbabel from office (and deported him) or that they executed him.21 18 19 20 21

Lewis, “Mysterious Disappearance,” 306–7. Olmstead, Persian Empire (see n. 2), 137. Ibid., 135–42. W. F. Albright, “The Date and Personality of the Chronicler,” JBL 40 (1921), 108; J. Morgenstern, “A Chapter in the History of the High Priesthood,” AJSL 55 (1938), 360–77; L. Waterman, “The Camouflaged Purge of the Three Messianic Conspirators,” JNES 13 (1954), 73–78; K. M. Beyse, Serubbabel und die Königserwartungen der Propheten Haggai und Sacharja; Eine historische und traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (AzTh 1/48; Stuttgart: Calwer, 1972), 46–49, 102–3; E. Stern, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 2: The Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Periods 732–332 BCE (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 2001), 355.

The Unlikely Disappearance of Zerubbabel

359

The position of Albright, Stern, and others presupposes that the priests on the one hand and royalists (the supporters of Zerubbabel) on the other hand acted in concert. Members of both groups purportedly allied with one another and shared complementary goals. Both yearned for freedom and independence from the yoke of foreign occupation and since both constituencies stood to gain from the reintroduction of a full-fledged Davidic monarchy, they cooperated in achieving their aspirations. But not all hypotheses seeking to explain Zerubbabel’s mysterious disappearance suppose such a state of innerJudean harmony. Some suppose quite the opposite, namely marked dissension among leading elements within the community. One theory seeking to explain Zerubbabel’s disappearance posits a serious deterioration in civil-priestly relations. This hypothesis is based on the supposition that the Jerusalem priests were unhappy with the amount of influence Zerubbabel was beginning to wield in the community. In this view, Zerubbabel ran afoul of the sacerdotal authorities, in particular the reigning high priest Jeshua, who viewed Zerubbabel’s royal ambitions as a threat to his own power.22 These priestly families adamantly opposed the restoration of a hereditary Davidic regime. Could Zerubbabel have thus fallen victim to “a murderous plot by a power-hungry priesthood?”23 If so, was there a later cover-up, masking, if not erasing, what had actually happened?24 22 See, e.g., Olmstead, Persian Empire, 137–139; Lewis, “Mysterious Disappearance.” The priests associated with Jeshua were leagued, according to Olmstead (Persian Empire, 137), with the former colonizers, who were settled in the region centuries earlier by the Assyrian kings (Ezra 4:1–2). Zerubbabel’s rejection of their aid in helping to rebuild the temple alienated not only these “peoples of the land,” but also the Jerusalem priests who were sympathetic to their interests. In the view of J. M. Miller and J. H. Hayes, Zerubbabel represented a group rigorist in its orientation, while Jeshua represented a priestly group much more open to finding compromise, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (2nd ed; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006), 515–22. 23 Lewis, “Mysterious Disappearance,” 313. 24 The evidence for such a cover-up is often discerned within the difficult text of Zech 6:9–15. The comment of R. Albertz is telling: “The redactional corrections that can be seen in the books of Haggai and Zechariah … are a sound argument that Zerubbabel, and with him the whole Davidic family, lost their high political office rather abruptly,” “The Thwarted Restoration,” in Yahwism After the Exile: Perspectives on Israelite Religion in the Persian Era (ed. R. Albertz and B. Becking; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2003), 9n. See also Albertz’s earlier remarks in idem, Religionsgeschichte Israels in alttestamentlicher Zeit (GAT 8,2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), 483 [trans. J. Bowden, A History of Religion in the Old Testament Period, 2: From the Exile to the Maccabees (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 455]. The textual witnesses to Zech 6:9–15 show some possible editorial reworking, especially in vv. 11b–13 (as well as textual diversity), but I am not so sure that such reworking can be clearly connected with the loss of high office by the Davidides in

360

Chapter 13

Another scholarly analysis posits a different sort of inner-Judean strife. In this theory, Zerubbabel fell prey to a kind of inner-Judean coup d’état by people plotting against him from within his own leadership councils. Albertz, for instance, thinks that there were powerful interests in the Judean community, who were trenchantly opposed to any revival of full-scale Judean nationalism and to any reinstitution of a hereditary royal regime, even one with reduced gubernatorial powers for the scion of David.25 These anti-monarchic elements included reform-minded priests, elders, and influential laypeople. Albertz points out that the preexilic Davidic regime was not without its opponents within the Judahite elite and that there is no clear reason to suppose that the descendants of such opponents would think any differently during the early Persian period. In Albertz’s estimation, Zerubbabel was a clear threat to these people not only because he was of Davidic lineage, but also because he represented a return to the preexilic status quo. To them, even a diarchy consisting of a dynastic Davidic governor and a high priest resembled too much of the political arrangement that obtained during the Judean monarchy. Stressing their deep and abiding loyalty to the Persian crown, these antiroyalist leaders of the Judean community were able to convince the Persian authorities to take a highly unusual step, namely to dispatch the satrap of the province Beyond the River, Tattenai, to visit Jerusalem (Ezra 5:3–17). His intervention resulted in a new compromise: the Jerusalem temple could be rebuilt, but Zerubbabel “was removed from the political stage.”26 As part of the same suppression, the prophets Haggai and Zechariah were silenced and perhaps even killed.27 Hence, the earlier “high-flying nationalistic hopes had collapsed at a stroke.”28 Yet another theory, involving an inner-Judean conspiracy, is offered by Miller and Hayes.29 They contend that Zerubbabel was not of the Davidic line, the genealogical claims of Chronicles (1 Chr 3:17–24) notwithstanding, and that Zerubbabel was assassinated by members or supporters of the Davidic house. the late-sixth century BCE. Boda’s recent commentary provides an extensive discussion, Zechariah, 380–413. 25 R. Albertz, “Religion in Israel during and after the Exile,” in The Biblical World (2nd ed.; ed. J. Barton; London: Routledge, 2002), 104–24; idem, “Thwarted Restoration,” 1–17. 26 Albertz, “Thwarted Restoration,” 8. 27 See Waterman, “Camouflaged Purge,” 73–78; Albertz, “Religion in Israel,” 109; idem, “Thwarted Restoration,” 9. In contrast, Morgenstern (“History of the High Priesthood,” 184–85) thinks that the prophets survived, but quickly recalibrated their stance to focus simply on temple rebuilding. 28 Albertz, History of Religion, 454 [Religionsgeschichte Israels, 483: “Die hochfliegenden nationalistischen Hoffnungen waren mit einem Mal zerstoben.”]. 29 Miller and Hayes, Ancient Israel, 518.

The Unlikely Disappearance of Zerubbabel

361

According to this view, Zerubbabel was killed precisely because he was not a scion of David. There is historical precedent for such a murder of a non-Davidic governor orchestrated by a Davidide (Ishmael) in Neo-Babylonian times (2 Kgs 25:22–26).30 Yet, if Zerubbabel was not of Davidic roots and came to an ignominious end, it is unclear why his name was inserted into the extensive Davidic genealogy embedded within the Judahite lineages (1 Chr 2:3–4:23).31 The aforementioned theories posit some sort of internal community strife as the trigger that led to Zerubbabel’s demise, but there is another theory that envisions Zerubbabel’s end as being tied to external strife. According to this view, Zerubbabel was deposed during a regional power struggle. Bright, for example, thinks that the nobles of Samaria whom Zerubbabel putatively rebuffed (Ezra 4:1–5) were responsible for spreading malicious rumors about Zerubbabel’s intentions and bringing these rumors to the attention of the Persian authorities.32 In this view, Zerubbabel did not really foment rebellion. Rather, he fell victim to the negative effects of the seditious agitation attributed to him by his enemies. Although scholars have proposed every possible ill fate for this governor of Yehud, is it possible that all of their theories presuppose more tumultuous circumstances than historical, economic, religious, and social considerations warrant? Is it possible that Zerubbabel died a peaceful or, at least, natural death? There are some, who think that no harm whatsoever came to Zerubbabel. Grabbe stresses that we lack any first-person account of how Zerubbabel viewed himself that would provide clues as to whether he aspired 30 This disastrous development in early postmonarchic times is discussed and debated in great detail in Jeremiah (39:1–43:7). See Miller and Hayes, Ancient Israel, 462–87. 31 Within the Davidic genealogy, the continuing dynastic succession is traced through Zerubbabel (1 Chr 3:19), but otherwise no special attention is accorded to him. See G. N. Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9 (AB 12; New York: Doubleday/New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), 328–29. 32 J. Bright, A History of Israel (3rd ed; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981), 371. I say “putatively rebuffed,” because the text of Ezra 4:1–5 (cf. 1 Esd 5:66–73) does not actually say that Zerubbabel’s opponents were Samarians. The “adversaries of Judah” (4:1; cf. the “people of the land” in 4:4) brought “here” by the Assyrian king Esarhaddon in previous centuries could have been settled in Judah as well as in other areas of the southern Levant, such as Samaria. The composition of Ezra 4:1–5 is discussed in my “Archenemies? Samarians and Judeans in the Early Persian Period,” in Judah and Samaria in Postmonarchic Times: Essays on Their Histories and Literatures (FAT 129; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019), 15–36. In the reinterpretation of Josephus (Ant. 11.84–85), the opponents are overtly labelled as Samari(t) ans. This comports with his view that the Assyrian king in question was Shalmaneser (Σαλμανασσάρης), rather than Esarhaddon (MT Ezra 4:2 ‫ ;אסר חדן‬cf. 1 Esd 5:66 Ἀσβασαρὲθ; Syr. Sennacherib). On 1 Esd 5:66–70, see further Talshir, 1 Esdras, 317–22; Böhler, 1 Esdras, 126–35.

362

Chapter 13

to royal status or accepted prophetic acclaim.33 Grabbe thinks that Zerubbabel was more of a realist than the prophets were and thus that he probably finished his term in office.34 Meyers brings an additional series of considerations into view, stressing that the postexilic province of Yehud was very small, thinly inhabited, and relatively impoverished.35 Such austere conditions would have made it highly implausible for any pro-monarchist (Davidic) group to gain much social and political traction in the community. To campaign for independence, much less for insurrection, would be suicidal. Given the immense might of the Persian empire and the poor conditions in Yehud, it is thus unlikely that any sort of political rebellion occurred.36 To Meyers’ observations about the impoverished conditions of the province of Yehud, another demographic consideration of a different sort may be added. When Zerubbabel, Jeshua, and others returned to Judah in the early Persian period, they left many relatives behind in the diaspora. In the case of Zerubbabel, the textual evidence suggests that the Davidic family did not migrate en masse with him, even though he was accompanied by some of his kin (‫ ;ואחיו‬Ezra 3:2).37 Another expatriate member of the Davidic clan named 33 L. Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian (2 vols; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1992), 79; idem, A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period, 1: Yehud—A History of the Persian Province of Judah (LSTS 47; London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 281–82. 34 Grabbe, Cyrus to Hadrian, 128; idem, History of the Jews, 283. 35 E. M. Meyers, “Messianism in First and Second Zechariah and the ‘End’ of Biblical Prophecy,” in Go to the Land I will Show You: Studies in Honor of Dwight W. Young (ed. J. E. Coleson and V. H. Matthews; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 127–42. 36 See also the comments of B. G. Curtis, Up the Steep and Stony Road: The Book of Zechariah in Social Location Trajectory Analysis (AcBib 25; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2006). Other scholars, such as M. Noth, take a more agnostic approach to the question, Geschichte Israels (9th ed; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 282–83 [trans. of 2nd ed. (1954) by S. Godman, rev. by P. R. Ackroyd, The History of Israel (2nd ed.; London: A. & C. Black, 1960), 312–13]. Noth envisions the time of Haggai and Zechariah as one of “feverish” messianic excitement in which Judeans were looking for an impending and “final change” in their historical situation. The eschatological expectation of a “future Messiah” was applied to an actual historical figure (Zerubbabel). Nevertheless, following the resolution of the temporary crisis surrounding Darius’ accession to the throne, history soon resumed its normal course. Noth does not deny that some ill-fate could have possibly befallen Zerubbabel, but insists that the “whole affair was clearly of no great importance to the Persian authorities.” 37 It is curious that there is no “house of Zerubbabel” mentioned in the long list of returnees and settlements in Ezra 2:1–70 (//Neh 7:6–72), even though Zerubbabel himself heads the list (Ezra 2:2//Neh 7:7). Nor does Jerusalem, the ancestral seat of royal Davidic power, appear among the list of toponyms in Ezra 2:21–35 (//Neh 7:25–38). The other figure at the head of the list—Jeshua (Ezra 2:2//Neh 7:7)—is associated with his own house (Ezra 2:36//Neh 7:39).

The Unlikely Disappearance of Zerubbabel

363

Hattush (‫)חטוש‬, an ancestral head (Ezra 8:1), emigrated a few generations later with Ezra (Ezra 8:2).38 Given that Zerubbabel was an employee of the Persian state, it seems doubtful that he would have led a rebellion against his own government within his ancestral homeland, when he knew full well that he and his fellow émigrés had many relatives, who continued to reside in (or near to) one of the great urban centers of the Persian empire. These expatriates would be vulnerable to retaliation by the central authorities, if the repatriates launched a revolt against their superiors in one of the far-flung outposts of the empire. To be sure, such a consideration would not rule out an attempted insurrection altogether, given that some revolts occur for strange reasons in trying circumstances, but it does make an attempted revolution less likely. Substantial questions have also been raised about the supposed militancy of the early postexilic prophets. With respect to the prophecies of Haggai, Kessler argues that the prophet takes a “strikingly irenic approach,” counseling a provisional political accommodation to Persian rule, while clinging to the hope for future divine intervention.39 This theological compromise underscores the importance of temple construction, affirms the position that the Davidic line has not been rejected, and projects an open-ended role for Zerubbabel in the future.40 The hope expressed in Hag 2:23 is deliberately positive, but also general and ambiguous.41 Thus, Kessler’s reading of Haggai differs markedly from that of Olmstead, Albright, Albertz, and others: submission to the Persians “is no obstacle to faith and piety.”42 One may accept Persian hegemony in the present with the faith that the future will be dramatically different because of imminent divine action. In his treatments of Zechariah 1–8, Mason takes a similar approach to that of Kessler, arguing that the prophecies found within Zechariah actually 38

Unlike the case with Zerubbabel, the royal pedigree of Hattush is openly acknowledged (Ezra 8:1–2). In the long Davidic lineage centering the Chronistic Judahite genealogy (1 Chr 2:3–4:23), Hattush (‫ )חטוש‬is listed as one of the descendants of Zerubbabel (1 Chr 3:19–22). The Davidic succession is traced, however, through Hattush’s brother Neariah (1 Chr 3:23). See Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, 323, 330–31. 39 J. Kessler, The Book of Haggai: Prophecy and Society in Early Persian Yehud (VTSup 91; Leiden: Brill, 2002), 275. 40 P. R. Bedford, Temple Restoration in Early Achaemenid Judah (JSJSup 65; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 298–99, and Grabbe, Cyrus to Hadrian, 78; idem, History of the Jews, 283, also contend for subtlety in Haggai’s message. For instance, Grabbe states that Haggai’s reference to kingship is covert and does not specify a timetable. 41 J. Kessler, “Haggai, Zerubbabel and the Political Status of Yehud: The Signet Ring in Haggai 2:23,” in Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Judaism (ed. M. H. Floyd and R. D. Haak; LHBOTS 427; London: T&T Clark, 2006), 117–18. 42 Kessler, “Haggai, Zerubbabel,” 118.

364

Chapter 13

caution against fomenting a rebellion against the Persians.43 When Yhwh tells Zerubbabel: “Not by might nor by power, but by my spirit says Yhwh Sebaoth …” (Zech 4:6–7), the message is that military action is neither called for nor prudent.44 The first priority of the community has to be rebuilding the temple and purifying the community. Internal community issues are the main foci of Zechariah 1–8. Mason acknowledges that Zechariah 1–8 marks a shift toward greater powers of the high priesthood at the expense of the governor, but such a shift signals a focus toward cultic issues and a belief that the completion of the sanctuary “will inaugurate the new era of salvation.”45 The treatments of Kessler and Mason illustrate the many different ways in which the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah are interpreted in contemporary scholarship. In one line of interpretation, Haggai and (the original) Zechariah campaign for a full restoration and proclaim the dawn of a new age, while in another line of interpretation, these prophets caution against any insurrection against imperial authorities. In one interpretation the prophets are enmeshed within a broad political conspiracy, while in another interpretation the prophets speak allusively of Yhwh implementing a new order at a future time of his own choosing. Although they do not directly address the question of Zerubbabel’s fate, the treatments of Kessler and Mason provide no support for the view that there was any sort of internal or external (imperial) intervention against Zerubbabel and Jeshua. To the aforementioned considerations another may be added. The fact that the works of Haggai and Zechariah (1–8) end without depicting the completion and dedication of the temple represents a literary judgment on the part of the writers of these books, but such a literary judgment should not be cited as positive proof of some sort of foul play in early Persian period Judah.46 Arguments from silence are very difficult arguments to sustain. One may debate the various reasons why these two particular prophetic writings end the way they do. 43 R. A. Mason, Preaching the Tradition: Homily and Hermeneutic After the Exile (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 134–97; idem, “The Messiah in Postexilic Old Testament Literature,” in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Papers from the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (ed. J. Day; JSOTSup 270; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998), 343–49. 44 Similarly, Meyers (“Messianism,” 134) speaks of the quietistic, yet triumphal, tone of the messianism found in Second Zechariah. On the relationship of these oracles to foreign powers, see also M. J. Boda, “Terrifying the Horns: Persia and Babylon in Zechariah 1:7– 6:15,” CBQ 67 (2005), 22–41. 45 Mason, Preaching the Tradition, 210. 46 Pace A. F. von Gall, Basileia tou theou: Eine religionsgeschichtliche Studie zur vorkirchlichen Eschatologie (Religionswissenschaftliche Bibliothek 7; Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1926), 188–97.

The Unlikely Disappearance of Zerubbabel

365

For instance, were they both written before the Second Temple was completed? This is one possibility.47 But in the case of Zechariah, most scholars would acknowledge that later material (Zechariah 9–14 and perhaps Malachi) was added to the original work. If so, the later writers responsible for the additions chose to preserve the earlier historical contextualization as advanced in the older work. The material in Zechariah 1–8 is situated in the context of the reign of Darius (1:1, 7; 7:1), the time of Zerubbabel (4:6, 10) and Jeshua (3:1, 3, 8, 9; 6:11). Given that the (later) material found in Zechariah 9–14 does not establish a new historical setting, the older setting broadly sets the scene for all of the material in the book.48 One may debate why the later writers/editors did not introduce a new historical context for the new material they added, but it seems highly precarious to deduce from this important literary choice on their part broader historical conclusions about what happened or did not happen in the final decades of sixth century BCE Judah. 2

Royal Davidic Hopes in the Persian/Early Hellenistic Period

Before proceeding to discuss the ideological, political, and historiographic interests of the authors of Ezra-Nehemiah, it may be helpful to discuss, however briefly, the (im)plausibility of the presence of royal Davidic hopes in the Judean community. The treatments of Albertz, Lewis, and others helpfully remind us that the postmonarchic community was not monolithic, but was composed of different groups with different points of view, social standing, and theological perspectives.49 The question that should be addressed in this context is whether any of these groups in the Persian period hoped for some 47 48 49

E.g., Meyers and Meyers (Haggai, Zechariah, xlvii) contend that Zechariah 1–8 is a single composition that was designed to be published before the temple dedication in 515 BCE. Recently, Redditt, Zechariah 9–14, 148–50. Reconstructing the contours and social standing of each group is, however, no easy task. See the different analyses of O. Plöger, Theokratie und Eschatologie (WMANT 2; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1959) [trans. S. Rudman, Theocracy and Eschatology (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1968)]; P. D. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic: The Historical and Social Roots of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979); idem, The People Called: The Growth of Community in the Bible (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986); idem, “Israelite Religion in the Early Postexilic Period,” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (ed. P. D. Miller, Jr., P. D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 485–508; J. L. Berquist, Judaism in Persia’s Shadow (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995); Blenkinsopp, Prophecy in Israel; L. L. Grabbe, Judaic Religion in the Second Temple Period: Belief and Practice from the Exile to Yavneh (London: Routledge, 2000); idem, History of the Jews, and the references cited in these works.

366

Chapter 13

sort of a Davidic renaissance. It seems to me that the unequivocal answer to this question is yes. That said, the expectations are hardly of one piece and some arguments for discerning such hopes are stronger than others. To be clear, I am referring to royalist hopes and aspirations, rather than more broadly of messianic ones.50 Given the range of connotations that the term “messiah” takes on in the later Second Temple period, such as an anointed official (whether royal or priestly), a long expected, future deliverer(s) of the Judean people, an otherworldly liberator, a savior of humankind, and so forth, it seems prudent to restrict this short discussion of a large issue to Davidic royalism.51 One of the reasons 50 Messianic hopes in a Persian/early Hellenistic setting normally are thought to involve some form of “restorative monarchism,” J. Becker, Messiaserwartung im Alten Testament (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 83; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977), 42 [trans. D. E. Green, Messianic Expectation in the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 50]. The notion of a future, anointed “once-for-all figure,” rather than of many successive anointed figures, is a later phenomenon. See S. Gillingham, “The Messiah in the Psalms,” in King and Messiah (see n. 43), 209–37, esp. 211; D. E. Aune and E. Stewart, “From the Idealized Past to the Imaginary Future: Eschatological Restoration in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature,” in Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives (ed. J. M. Scott; JSJSup 72; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 147–77; J. A. Fitzmyer, The One Who is to Come (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 33–55. 51 On the broader development and varying contours of messianic hopes in the late biblical period, the following discussions are helpful: J. Coppens, Le Messianisme royal, ses origines, son développement, son accomplissement (LD 54; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1968); Becker, Messiaserwartung [Messianic Expectation]; S. Talmon, “The Concepts of māšîaḥ and Messianism in Early Judaism,” in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity—The First Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Christian Origins (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 79–115; J. J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1995); K. Pomykala, The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism: Its History and Significance for Messianism (SBLEJL 7; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995); A. Laato, A Star is Rising: The Historical Development of the Old Testament Royal Ideology and the Rise of the Jewish Messianic Expectations (International Studies in Formative Christianity and Judaism 5; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997); Aune and Stewart, “Idealized Past,” 147– 77; M. Avioz, Nathan’s Oracle (2 Samuel 7) and Its Interpreters (Bern: P. Lang, 2005); J. Blenkinsopp, Judaism: The First Phase: The Place of Ezra and Nehemiah in the Origins of Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009); idem, David Remembered: Kingship and National Identity in Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013); M. Hadas-Lebel, “Les débuts de l’idée messianique,” in Aux origines des messianismes juifs: actes du colloque international tenu en Sorbonne, à Paris, les 8 et 9 juin 2010 (ed. D. Hamidović; VTSup 158; Leiden: Brill, 2013), 93–100; A. Lemaire, “Messies non-israélites d’après la tradition biblique,” in Aux origines des messianismes juifs, 61–71; and T. Römer, “Les interrogations sur l’avenir de la dynastie davidique aux époques babylonienne et perse et les origines d’une attente messianique dans les textes de la Bible hébraïque,” in Aux origines des messianismes juifs, 47–59.

The Unlikely Disappearance of Zerubbabel

367

usually given for the origins of such native royal aspirations (in addition to the literary evidence discussed above) is the apparent disarray of the Persian empire in 522 BCE and the drawn-out power struggle during which Darius I ascended to the throne as a usurper, defeating and executing his rival Bardiya.52 Such an unstable international setting is thought to have given rise to stirrings of independence in various quarters of his kingdom.53 In the first year of his reign, Darius had to put down several revolts in different areas within his empire (Persia, Elam, Media, Assyria, Egypt, Parthia, Margiana, Sattagydia, and Scythia). Nevertheless, it must be remembered that by the time in which Haggai and Zechariah are said to have prophesied (ca. 520 BCE), Darius had the situation well in hand. His subsequent 518–517 BCE campaign to Egypt seems to have been highly successful.54 Still, Judeans may have recalled that the Neo-Babylonian Empire did not last very long. Its hold on certain areas within Syria-Palestine at times seems to have been tenuous.55 Some Judeans may have hoped that the Persian Empire would also be relatively short-lived. They did not have the benefit of hindsight in this matter to realize that the Achaemenid kingdom would prove to be highly durable, lasting over two centuries. Politically, the appointment of a Davidide (Zerubbabel) as a governor in Yehud may have encouraged some Judeans to think that the Persians might tolerate, if not endorse, the revival of hereditary rule. This was, after all, the long-established tradition in Judah during the centuries prior to the Neo-Babylonian invasions and deportations. To think that there were not conservative or nationalist elements in the Yehudite community who yearned for a return to tradition during an extended period of foreign occupation seems highly implausible. Although humiliated, dethroned, and displaced in the early Neo-Babylonian period, the Davidic family survived, at least in part (2 Kgs 25:27–30; cf. 25:4–8). The long Davidic lineage presented in 1 Chr 3:1–24 52 R. G. Kent, Old Persian: Grammar, Texts, Lexicon (2nd ed.; AOS 33; New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1989) DB, §§10–13.1.26–61; Herodotus, Historiae 3.61–79; J. Wiesehöfer, Ancient Persia: From 550 BC to 650 AD (London: I. B. Tauris, 1996), 13–21; P. Briant, Rois, tributs et paysans: études sur les formations tributaires du Moyen-Orient ancien (Annales littéraires de l’Université de Besançon 269; Centre de recherches d’histoire ancienne 43; Paris: Les Belles lettres, 1982), 109–18; idem, Histoire de l’Empire perse: de Cyrus à Alexandre (Paris: Fayard, 1996), 109–18 [trans. P. T. Daniels, From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002), 97–106]; A. Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East c. 3000–330 BC (2 vols; London: Routledge, 1995), 664–70; idem, The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period (London: Routledge, 2010), 141–77. 53 Briant, Cyrus to Alexander, 107–38. 54 Herodotus, Historiae 3.91, 4.44; Briant, Histoire, 488–500 [Cyrus to Alexander, 472–84]. 55 D. Vanderhooft, “New Evidence Pertaining to the Transition from Neo-Babylonian to Achaemenid Administration in Palestine,” in Yahwism after the Exile (see n. 24), 219–35.

368

Chapter 13

traces David’s descendants through the Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods until sometime in the early or late fourth century.56 The genealogy, the longest in the Hebrew Bible, is hardly a neutral accounting of passing generations, but argues for a particular succession within the Davidic line up to the point of the final generation (Elioenai).57 There would be no need to speak of a centurieslong royal pedigree long after the Davidides were forced out of office in the Neo-Babylonian era, unless the writers wished to underscore the dynasty’s resiliency and ongoing relevance in later times.58 Within the lineages of Judah (1 Chr 2:3–4:23), those of David (1 Chr 3:1–24) take center stage. In this literary conception, the Davidides are critical to a larger Judahite identity.59 The Davidic genealogy is one of many texts pointing to a continuing scribal attentiveness to the Davidic house in postmonarchic times. The contours of such royalist discourses vary, however, among psalmic and prophetic writings.60 The literary evidence does not speak with one voice. The lament following the highly elevated recounting of the dynastic promises in Psalm 89 asks, for instance, “O Lord, where is your covenant loyalty of old, that which you swore to David in your faithfulness?” (Ps 89:50). Given the poem’s references to Yhwh’s rejection of his anointed and his renouncing the covenant he made with his 56

Differences between the MT and LXX, as well as the calculation of an average generation, render the date of the last generation uncertain. See Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, 322–24. 57 Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, 318–36. 58 Within Babylon during the Persian period, a succession of Persian kings was incorporated into the royal succession of Babylonian kings, yet as the centuries passed there was real ambivalence on the part of Babylonian scribes toward the Persian monarchs, as well as a reevaluation of Babylon’s earlier royal legacy. See C. Waerzeggers, “Babylonian Kingship in the Persian Period: Performance and Reception,” in Exile and Return: The Babylonian Context (ed. J. Stökl and C. Waerzeggers; BZAW 478; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015), 181–222. In other words, questions of Babylon’s native royal legacy did not cease to exist with the arrival of Persian domination. 59 Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, 332–36. 60 The dating of the many royal psalms (e.g., Psalm 2, 18, 20, 21, 45, 47, 72, 93, 96–99, 110, 132, 144) is very difficult to ascertain. Yet, conceding, for the sake of argument, that many of these compositions are basically preexilic in date, one has to contend with their preservation, supplementation, and editing in later (Persian and Hellenistic) times. If these poetic compositions had lost all relevance in the postmonarchic period, it seems doubtful that they would continue to have been used by the community. To be sure, they were undoubtedly reinterpreted in a variety of new ways, whether historical, Zion-centered, symbolic, cultic, or futuristic in orientation. See Gillingham, “Messiah in the Psalms,” 212–25, 229–37; J. J. Collins, “The Royal Psalms and Eschatological Messianism,” in Aux origines des messianismes juifs (see n. 51), 73–89. Yet, however creative the (re)appropriations might have been, it is unlikely that the interpretive tropes involved identifying the human king with a foreign emperor. In this respect, the royal psalms remained, at least for some, a constitutive element of a broader Judean identity.

The Unlikely Disappearance of Zerubbabel

369

servant (Ps 89:39–40), the composition may be dated to the Neo-Babylonian period or later.61 Although the lament calls on God to act and not to neglect his servant any longer, the psalm does not spell out what such a divine act of restoration would all entail.62 Such a request for divine intervention on behalf of David is perfectly understandable. Native kingship was the only polity Jerusalemites had known for centuries before the stunning defeats and devastations of Neo-Babylonian times and it is historically unlikely that there were not at least some in Yehud, who preferred a firmer connection with the hereditary form of native rule in the past over against a series of appointments of unrelated individuals in the context of domination by non-indigenous forces. Indeed, those who accepted the status quo and cooperated actively with the Persian authorities may have been accused, at least by some, of collaborating with foreign occupiers. Whether a return to dynastic continuity in local rule would have actually offered a modicum of greater self-autonomy for the residents of Yehud may be avidly debated, but it is not unreasonable that at least some Judeans thought as much. The reinstitution of some sort of royal succession within Yehud would not necessarily have entailed some sort of revolution against broader imperial rule. To be sure, there may have been some in Yehud, who yearned for outright independence, but there were undoubtedly many others, who were more measured and realistic in their aspirations for the near-term future. Achaemenid administration in the West tolerated a variety of polities among subject peoples. Such diverse forms of governance included provinces (or sub-provinces), tribal federations, and petty kingdoms.63 Some Phoenician city-states, for 61

Cf. F.-L. Hossfeld and E. Zenger, Psalmen 51–100 (HThKAT; Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2000), 585–87 [trans. L. M. Maloney, Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51–100 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 402–7]. 62 See further chapter 8, “David’s Relation to Moses: The Contexts, Contents, and Conditions of the Davidic Promises.” 63 P. Briant, “Pouvoir central et polycentrisme culturel dans l’empire achéménide: quelques réflexions et suggestions,” in Sources, Structures, and Synthesis: Proceedings of the Groningen 1983 Achaemenid History Workshop (ed. H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg; Achaemenid History 1; Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1987), 1–31; A. Lemaire, “Histoire et administration de la Palestine à l’époque perse,” in La Palestine à l’époque perse (ed. E.-M. Laperrousaz et A. Lemaire; Études annexes de la Bible de Jérusalem; Paris: Cerf, 1994), 11–53; idem, “Zorobabel et la Judée à la lumière de l’épigraphie (fin du VIe s. av. J.- C.),” RB 103 (1996), 48–57; Grabbe, History of the Jews, 280–81; V. Jigoulov, “Administration of Achaemenid Phoenicia: A Case for Managed Autonomy,” in Exile and Restoration Revisited: Essays in Memory of Peter R. Ackroyd (ed. G. N. Knoppers, L. L. Grabbe, and D. N. Fulton; LSTS 73; London: T&T Clark Continuum, 2009), 138–51; idem, The Social

370

Chapter 13

example Byblos (KAI 10; 11) and Sidon (KAI 13; 14), maintained native monarchies under Persian authority. Indeed, there were advantages seen in dynastic rule insofar as such an arrangement could afford the central imperial regime and the regional satrap long-term continuity and stability in dealing with local leaders.64 The co-existence of small Syro-Palestinian dynastic regimes within a larger imperial context was not a radical new development in the Achaemenid era. Even in preexilic times, the Davidic state was often in league with other local monarchies in the southern Levant. In not a few cases, the small kingdom of Judah functioned as a client state to imperial regimes, such as Assyria, Egypt, and Babylon (e.g., 2 Kgs 18:13–16; 24:1, 17). Managing a client state was nothing new to the royal family. In short, the desire for a reinstitution of some form of Davidic administration with limited powers was neither something entirely new nor something inherently seditious. If, as some suppose,65 the early capital of the Neo-Babylonian jurisdiction in Yehud was Mizpah not Jerusalem, and the later political capital (at some point) in Persian times was Ramat Raḥel History of Achaemenid Phoenicia (London: Equinox, 2010); J. Elayi, Histoire de la Phénicie (Paris: Perrin, 2013), 237–302. 64 This was the case in Hecatomnid Caria, whose ruling dynasty continued to maintain allegiance to the Achaemenid authorities in the fourth century long after others had abandoned them. See S. Ruzicka, Politics of a Persian Dynasty: The Hecatomnids in the Fourth century B.C. (Oklahoma Series in Classical Culture 14; Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1992). Another possible example of a local dynasty serving in Persian times may be the family of Sanballat in Samaria (e.g., TAD A4.7.29, A4.8.28, A4.9.1; Josephus, Ant. 11.302–303, 310–311, 315, 321–324, 342). For this hypothesis in varying forms, see F. M. Cross, From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998); M. Mor, From Samaria to Shechem: The Samaritan Community in Antiquity (Jerusalem: The Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History, 2003) (Hebrew); idem, “Putting the Puzzle Together: Papyri, Inscriptions, Coins and Josephus in Relation to Samaritan History in the Persian Period,” in Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress of the Société d’Études Samaritaines, Helsinki, August 1–4, 2000: Studies in Memory of Ferdinand Dexinger (ed. H. Shehadeh and H. Tawa with R. Pummer; Paris: Paul Geuthner, 2005), 41–54; Ḥ. Eshel, “The Governors of Samaria in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C.E.,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century (ed. O. Lipschits, G. N. Knoppers, and R. Albertz; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 223–34. But J. Dušek offers a strongly dissenting view, Les manuscrits araméens du Wadi Daliyeh et la Samarie vers 450–332 av. J.-C. (CHANE 30; Leiden: Brill, 2007). 65 A. Lemaire, “Nabonidus in Arabia and Judah in the Neo-Babylonian Period,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period (ed. O. Lipschits and J. Blenkinsopp; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 285–98; O. Lipschits, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem: Judah under Babylonian Rule (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005); idem, “Achaemenid Imperial Policy, Settlement Processes in Palestine, and the Status of Jerusalem in the Middle of the Fifth Century B.C.E.,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period (see n. 2), 19–52.

The Unlikely Disappearance of Zerubbabel

371

not Jerusalem,66 this may have fed the desire of some Judeans for a return to Davidic rule. With the recovery of hereditary Davidic governance, it may have been reasoned, Jerusalem only stood to benefit. Perhaps, such governance would lead to greater investment in the traditional seat of Davidic rule and improve the poor and underpopulated status of Judah’s major population center. Similarly, the completion of the Second Temple in Jerusalem during the early Achaemenid period carried potential political implications.67 The reinstitution of a full sacrificial cult was viewed as benefiting not only the local economy of Jerusalem, but also as leading to other positive results.68 The end of the monarchy in the early-sixth century BCE, the deportations to Babylon, the migrations to Egypt and other lands, the depopulation within the land, and the destruction of Jerusalem caused a crisis in the worldview of Judahites, who had supposed that the Davidic monarchy, the temple, and Jerusalem constituted an axis mundi. If Yhwh the God of Israel was enthroned in heaven, his presence was felt at the house of God and his vicegerent was enthroned in Jerusalem. The divine-human connection was intrinsic to ancient Near Eastern royal theology and influenced the manner in which humans petitioned the divine. When these societal institutions were crippled, if not destroyed, the crisis was not simply historical, economic, and social, it was also cosmological, religious, and personal.69 Because the Davidic monarchy was responsible for building the shrine in the first place, some Judeans believed that the rebuilding of that sanctuary by a Davidic scion, working alongside a Zadokite (and Aaronide) priest (1 Chr 5:29– 41; Ezra 3:2, 8, 10:18; Neh 12:10–11, 26), would effectively renew the association between the Davidic line and the Jerusalem cultic establishment. From this perspective, the Second Temple was the carrier of Davidic hopes. Thus, some thought the restoration of (what they viewed as) the Davidic shrine would lead

66 O. Lipschits, Y. Gadot, B. Arubas, and M. Oeming, “Paradise and Village, Paradise and Oblivion,” NEA 74 (2011), 2–49; O. Lipschits, Y. Gadot, and D. Langgut, “Ramat Rahel during the Babylonian and Persian Periods,” Transeu 41 (2012), 57–79. 67 Although some have thought that temple building was an intrinsically seditious act, Bedford (Temple Restoration, 230–37) argues otherwise. 68 Thus, Haggai (2:7–9) speaks of precious goods from external centers flowing into Jerusalem, rather than tribute moving outward to external centers of power. Tribute from the nations benefiting Jerusalem during the better periods of Davidic rule is a recurring motif in the Chronistic work (1 Chr 14:1; 18:2, 6, 10–11; 26:27; 2 Chr 9:1, 9–10, 13–14, 23–24; 17:5, 11; 26:8). 69 M. H. Floyd, “The Production of Prophetic Books in the Early Second Temple Period,” in Prophets, Prophecy, and Prophetic Texts in Second Temple Judaism (ed. M. H. Floyd and R. D. Haak; LHBOTS 427; London: T&T Clark, 2006), 276–97.

372

Chapter 13

one day to the restoration of Davidic royalty.70 This point certainly seems to be the thrust of the final oracle in the book of Haggai. The leader chosen by name by Yhwh himself is about to be rewarded in the future in accordance with his status as Yhwh’s signet ring (Hag 2:21–23).71 Given the traditional typology, linking together David, Jerusalem, the temple, the people, and the land, it is not surprising to find prophetic texts other than those in Haggai and Zechariah, which depict some sort of future restoration or modification of Davidic rule. These texts in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, and Amos are, of course, notoriously difficult to date.72 Many, if not most, are considered to be late (postexilic) additions to the books in which they are situated. The topic is simply too large to deal with adequately in this context. Suffice it to say that each of these prophetic compositions exhibits its own structure and distinctive point of view. Nevertheless, each text articulates a view of the future that is in some way restorative. The envisioned future includes, at least in part, the recovery and transformation of conditions in the (imagined) past. The Davidic family will become again a constituent part of a larger axis mundi. To be sure, it is difficult to ascertain how much currency such texts enjoyed within the broader community. The popularity of such beliefs among some in the populace likely ebbed and flowed, depending on social, economic, and political circumstances. My argument is not that the hopes for some sort of a Davidic restoration represented the dominant view in Persian-Hellenistic period Judah.73 Other Judeans, both those in the land and those dislocated from the land, responded in a variety of ways to the painful crises of the past. 70 Psalm 132 can be also read in this way in postmonarchic times. See F.-L. Hossfeld and E. Zenger, Psalmen 101–150 (HThKAT; Freiburg et al.: Herder, 2008), 616–18 [trans. L. M. Maloney, Psalms 3: A Commentary on Psalms 101–150 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011), 458–60]. 71 J. Kessler, “The Shaking of the Nations: An Eschatological View,” JETS 30 (1987), 159–66; Mason, “The Messiah in Postexilic Old Testament Literature,” 340–42. 72 E.g., Isa 9:2–7, 11:1–11; Jer 23:5–6, 33:14–26 (MT); Ezek 34:23–31, 37:24–25, 43:6–12, 44:15–21, 45:1–9, 46:1–18, 48:8–22; Amos 9:9–11; Hos 3:5; Zech 12:7–14. See J. D. Levenson, Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40–48 (HSM 10; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1976); S. S. Tuell, The Law of the Temple in Ezekiel 40–48 (HSM 49; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992); D. I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel (2 vols; NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997–1998); P. M. Joyce, “King and Messiah in Ezekiel,” in King and Messiah (see n. 43), 323–37; idem, Ezekiel: A Commentary (LHBOTS 482; London: T&T Clark, 2007); H. G. M. Williamson, “Messianic Texts in Isaiah 1–39,” in King and Messiah, 238–70; Albertz, Die Exilszeit, 260–83 [Israel in Exile, 345–76]; J. Stromberg, “The ‘Root of Jesse’ in Isaiah 11:10: Postexilic Judah, or Postexilic Davidic King?” JBL 127 (2008), 655–69. 73 Given that some Judeans blamed the Davidides or at least one of the Davidides (Manasseh; 2 Kgs 21:1–18, 23:26–27, 24:3–4) for the terrible losses Judah incurred during

The Unlikely Disappearance of Zerubbabel

373

My argument is simply that royalist hopes in narrative, prophetic, and psalmic texts should be considered alongside others in the Judean community. Those who contend that Zerubbabel must have somehow fallen in harm’s way are, in my judgment, justified insofar as they suppose that a portion of the Judean population yearned for a time in which Judeans would once again be free from a foreign yoke.74 For some of these Judeans, the hope for future independence included some form of Davidic restoration. But the questions that must be faced are: does the evidence of Ezra-Nehemiah support the theory of an anti-Zerubbabel putsch? Given the wide-spread recognition that Ezra-Nehemiah does not present a straight-forward accounting of the early Persian period, but rather advances its own agenda in discussing the temple rebuilding effort, does that agenda resemble those of Haggai and Zechariah or does Ezra-Nehemiah go its own way? How do the writers of Ezra 1–6 choose to speak of Judah’s monarchic past, if at all? In what follows, I shall suggest that the perspectives of certain royal psalms and prophetic passages (e.g., Haggai and Zechariah) shed some indirect light on the approach taken by the editors of Ezra-Nehemiah in shaping the materials found in Ezra 1–6, yet do so in a different way from that imagined by many. The writers of Ezra-Nehemiah advocate a certain type of royalism, but that royalism is directed toward the Persian monarchy, rather than toward reinvesting the Davidic line. 3

Royal Ideology in Ezra-Nehemiah: Native or Imperial?

Even though the temple dedication account in Ezra 6 is often cited to prove that the Davidic scion Zerubbabel came to a bad end, the material in this chapter presents many difficulties for interpretation.75 Certainty eludes us. the last decades of the Jerusalemite monarchy, it would be perfectly understandable if such voices would not wish to see any sort of Davidic renascence in political form. 74 Indeed, the movement led by the Maccabees in the 2nd century BCE would not have gained traction, unless the nationalist impulse still carried currency among elements of the Judean population. See D. M. Goodblatt, Elements of Ancient Jewish Nationalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006). 75 Ezra 1–6 is generally considered to be one of the last, if not the last, sections produced in the compositional history of Ezra-Nehemiah, even though these chapters may incorporate and rework older sources. Some contend that within this corpus Ezra 4:8–6:18 was incorporated as a largely pre-existing unit. See Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia; H. G. M. Williamson, “The Composition of Ezra i–vi,” JTS ns 34 (1983), 1–30 [repr. Studies in Persian Period History and Historiography (FAT 38; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 244– 70]; idem, Ezra, Nehemiah (WBC 16; Waco, TX: Word, 1985); idem, “The Aramaic Documents

374

Chapter 13

Nevertheless, it may be possible to make some progress, as some hypotheses are more plausible than others. The theories about Zerubbabel’s untimely end presuppose some embarrassment on the part of the authors of Ezra-Nehemiah about his fate. Sympathizing with Zerubbabel’s quest for independence (or that of his followers) against the mighty forces of the Persian empire, the writers purportedly participate in a (literary) cover-up of Zerubbabel’s demotion, deportation, or death. This is, however, quite unlikely, given the historiographic, political, and theological proclivities exhibited by the writers of Ezra 1–6 and elsewhere in the book. The hypotheses about a failed insurrection, followed by a cover-up masking the deposition or death of Zerubbabel, make a critical error, in my judgment, by assuming that the writers of Ezra-Nehemiah shared many sympathies with the movement to reassert a new brand of Davidic hegemony (however one may define it) in Yehud. This is simply not so. As we shall see, the authors of Ezra-Nehemiah cannot (or should not) be classified as pro-Davidic in their political orientation.76 Underscoring the foundational importance of imperial authorization and Judean communal interests, the work effectively links

76

in Ezra Revisited,” JTS ns 59 (2008), 41–62; B. Halpern, “A Historiographic Commentary on Ezra 1–6: Achronological Narrative and Dual Chronology in Israelite Historiography,” in The Hebrew Bible and Its Interpreters (ed. W. H. Propp, B. Halpern, and D. N. Freedman; Biblical and Judaic Studies 1; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 81–141; D. Schwiderski, Handbuch des nordwestsemitischen Briefformulars: Ein Beitrag zur Echtheitsfrage der ara­ mäischen Briefe des Esrabuches (BZAW 295; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000); Bedford, Temple Restoration; J. L. Wright, Rebuilding Identity: The Nehemiah-Memoir and its Earliest Readers (BZAW 348; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004); L. L. Grabbe, “The ‘Persian Documents’ in the Book of Ezra: Are They Authentic?” in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period (see n. 2), 531–70; S. Grätz, “Die Aramäische Chronik des Esrabuches und die Rolle der Ältesten in Esr 5–6,” ZAW 118 (2006), 405–22; R. C. Steiner, “Bishlam’s Archival Search Report in Nehemiah’s Archive: Multiple Introductions and Reverse Chronological Order as Clues to the Origin of the Aramaic Letters in Ezra 4–6,” JBL 125 (2006), 641–85; S. Burt, The Courtier and the Governor: Transformations of Genre in the Nehemiah Memoir (JAJSup 17; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014); L. S. Fried, Ezra: A Critical Commentary (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2015), 210–64; Noth, Geschichte Israels, 276–77, 283–84 [History of Israel, 307–8, 314]; A. H. J. Gunneweg, Esra (KAT 19/1; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1985), 82–113; Böhler, I Esdras, 72–74, 150–52. For an argument that Ezra 5:1–6:15* constitutes the oldest section within Ezra 1–6, see R. G. Kratz, Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments: Grundwissen der Bibelkritik (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 56–67 [repr. The Composition of the Narrative Books of the Old Testament (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 51–62]; J. Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe: The Development of Ezra 7–10 and Nehemia 8 (BZAW 347; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), 140–44. So also recently Böhler, I Esdras, 20–21.

The Unlikely Disappearance of Zerubbabel

375

the two together.77 In the worldview promoted by this work, Jerusalem, the people, Judah, and the sanctuary are critical components of corporate identity, but the Davidic promises (2 Sam 7:1–16//1 Chr 17:1–15) are not. With divine encouragement, Persian kings take on some of the central duties exercised by native kings in earlier times, while various members of the Judean community take on others. The following discussion begins by exploring what Ezra-Nehemiah says and does not say about Zerubbabel and Jeshua (titles, positions) in comparison with the claims made about these two figures in Haggai, Zechariah, and 1 Esdras.78 Is royal titular a factor in explaining Zerubbabel’s identity and status? How do the writers situate Zerubbabel and Jeshua within the larger Judean body politic? Related to the question of Zerubbabel’s royal pedigree is the larger status of Judah’s monarchic past in Ezra-Nehemiah. Inasmuch as the writers speak of David and the Davidic monarchy, how do they configure David’s legacy for the Second Commonwealth? Following a discussion of how the royal interests of Ezra-Nehemiah differ from those exhibited by Samuel-Kings and Chronicles, we shall return to the portrayal of the Second Temple dedication ceremony and centralized Passover in Ezra 6. In contrast with the situation in Haggai and Zechariah, Ezra-Nehemiah supplies no professional information about Zerubbabel and Jeshua.79 Zerubbabel is, for instance, never explicitly called a governor. The references to him simply list his name (Ezra 2:2, 4:2–3, 5:2; Neh 7:7, 12:47) or his name and patronymic (Ezra 3:2, 8; 5:2; Neh 12:1).80 By contrast, Haggai (1:14; 2:2, 21) repeatedly 77

I am referring to imperial authorization as a theopolitical stance advanced by the writers of Ezra-Nehemiah, rather than as an actual policy promoted by the Persian central government. See K. Schmid, “The Persian Imperial Authorization as an Historical Problem and as a Biblical Construct: A Plea for Distinctions in the Current Debate,” in The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance (ed. G. N. Knoppers and B. M. Levinson; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 23–38. 78 The compositional history of 1 Esdras and its relationship to the compositional history of Ezra (and that of Ezra-Nehemiah) is a complex question. In a nutshell, I view the textual and literary evidence of 1 Esdras as pointing to the reuse of an older (pre-MT) version of Ezra. See D. N. Fulton and G. N. Knoppers, “Lower Criticism and Higher Criticism: The Case of 1 Esdras,” in Was First Esdras First? An Investigation into the Priority of First Esdras (ed. L. S. Fried; AIL 7; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2011), 11–29. 79 In this respect, the story of the three youths incorporated during the composition of 1 Esdras (1 Esd 3:1–5:6), which presents Zerubbabel in a very favorable light, supplies some of what is missing from Ezra-Nehemiah. See P. B. Harvey, “Darius’ Court and the Guardsmen’s Debate: Hellenistic Greek Elements in 1 Esdras,” in Was First Esdras First?, 179–90. 80 The usage is consistent throughout the book. The narratives, as well as the lists, and genealogies (Ezra 2:1–70//Neh 7:6–72; Neh 12:1–9, 10–11) lack titles for Zerubbabel and Jeshua.

376

Chapter 13

calls him the “governor of Judah” (‫)פחת יהודה‬. Similarly, in relaying the communique of King Darius, 1 Esdras twice refers to Zerubbabel’s political position: “the servant of the Lord, Zerubbabel, governor of Judea” (παῖδα τοῦ Κυρίου Ζοροβάβελ ἔπαρχον δὲ τῆς Ιουδαίας; 1 Esd 6:26) and “Zerubbabel the governor” (Ζοροβάβελ ἐπάρχῳ; 1 Esd 6:28).81 The restraint in Ezra is most curious. Comparisons with Ezra-Nehemiah likewise point to the unusual reticence with which Zerubbabel’s vocation is discussed. Even the enigmatic Sheshbazzar is called “the leader” (‫ )הנשיא‬in a narrative context (Ezra 1:8; cf. 1:11) and a “governor” (‫ )פחה‬in a missive (Ezra 5:14–16). For his part, Nehemiah appears first as a cupbearer to the king (Neh 1:11) and subsequently as a governor (Neh 5:14–16, 18; 12:28). Similar to the curious absence of titles for Zerubbabel is the absence of any titles for Jeshua, who is never called “the high priest” (‫ )הכהן הגדול‬or “the chief priest” (‫)הכהן הראש‬. Indeed, he is never even called a priest. The references to him simply list his name (Ezra 2:2 [//Neh 7:7]; 4:3; Neh 12:1, 7, 10) or his name and patronymic (Ezra 3:8, 5:2, 10:18; Neh 12:26). Again, the contrast is with Haggai (1:1, 12, 14; 2:2, 4) and Zechariah (3:1, 3, 6, 8; 6:11), who assign him high sacerdotal titular.82 The usage with Jeshua may also be contrasted with the usage employed for a number of other priests mentioned in Ezra-Nehemiah. Thus, Ezra is variously called a scribe (Ezra 7:6, 10, 21; Neh 8:1, 4, 13), a priest (Ezra 10:10, 16; Neh 8:2), and both a priest and a scribe (Ezra 7:11, 12; Neh 8:9; 12:26).83 After his long journey from Babylon, Ezra meets Meremoth the son of Uriah the priest at the temple and donates sacred objects dispatched from the king, his counselors, his officers, and “all Israel” (Ezra 8:25–33).84 In Ezra’s ascending linear genealogy, Aaron is referred to as “the chief priest” (‫;הכהן הראש‬ Ezra 7:5), while in Nehemiah Eliashib is repeatedly referred to as “the high priest” (‫ ;הכהן הגדול‬Neh 3:1, 20; 13:28). In short, a number of individuals are openly identified as priests, chief priests, or high priests. 81 In contrast, the parallels in Ezra mention simply “the governor of the Judeans” (MT Ezra 6:7) and “these men” (6:8). In the second case, the lemma of 1 Esd 6:28 includes a plus, over against Ezra: “to these men (τοῖς ἀνθρώποις), to Zerubbabel the governor” (Ζοροβαβελ ἐπάρχῳ). See further, Talshir, 1 Esdras, 357–362; Böhler, 1 Esdras, 136–152. The textual evidence of 2 Esdras complicates, however, the MT lemma of Ezra 6:7 (see n. 9 above). 82 Meyers and Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, 180–81. 83 The text-critical and literary evidence suggests development in the professional categorization of Ezra’s vocation. See Pakkala, Ezra the Scribe, 225–99. 84 In this literary context, Israel refers to the expatriates residing within the eastern diaspora. On the key roles these expatriates play in the ongoing revitalization of the homeland community, see G. N. Knoppers, “The Construction of Judean Diasporic Identity in Ezra-Nehemiah,” JHS 15 (2015) (http://www.jhsonline.org/).

The Unlikely Disappearance of Zerubbabel

377

The lack of any titles for Jeshua and Zerubbabel is, therefore, quite uncommon and must be explained. To be sure, the assignment of a patronymic for Zerubbabel and the reference to Jeshua’s kin as priests (Ezra 3:2) indicate that the writers knew quite well that Zerubbabel was a Davidide and that Jeshua was a priest. Yet, there would be no need to deny these two individuals professional labels in each and every instance in which they are mentioned, unless there was an issue. Moreover, if Zerubbabel and/or Jeshua had somehow become embroiled in an anti-Persian mutiny and had been either deposed or executed, it would seem odd that the book would mention them, but not identify their professional credentials. It would hardly dishonor their memories or participate in some sort of literary cover-up to identify their vocations. Something else seems to be at play. I wish to return to this matter later.85 In addition to averting the use of any titles for Zerubbabel and Jeshua, the writers rarely speak of these two individuals without embedding them within a web of social, religious, and kinship relations. In referring to the protagonists building the altar, the text speaks of ‫ישוע בן־יוצדק ואחיו הכהנים וזרבבל בן־שאל־‬ ‫תיאל ואחיו‬, “Jeshua son of Jozadaq and his kin the priests and Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel and his kin” (Ezra 3:2). It is this cohort, which presents offerings upon the altar, and it is this cohort, which pays silver to the stonemasons and carpenters for their labors in sanctuary construction (Ezra 3:6–7).86 This group, rather than a single individual, such as Solomon (1 Kgs 5:15–26), makes arrangements with the Tyrians and Sidonians to ship cedar from Lebanon to Joppa for the sanctuary building (Ezra 3:7). Again, when the construction commences, the text refers to ‫זרבבל בן־שאלתיאל וישוע בן־יוצדק ושאר אחיהם‬, “Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel and Jeshua son of Jozadaq together with the rest of their kin the priests and the Levites,” as well as all of the exiles, arranging and managing Levitical work assignments (Ezra 3:8). The literary work speaks, therefore, of a collective effort, rather than of any one individual’s accomplishments. The careful grouping of Zerubbabel and Jeshua with other Judean leaders and with the community at large continues when opposition develops from external forces to the sanctuary construction. Thus, the “adversaries of Judah and Benjamin” approach ‫זרבבל ואל־ראשי האבות‬, “Zerubbabel and the ancestral heads” (Ezra 4:1–2) and it is “Zerubbabel, Jeshua, and the rest of the ancestral heads of Israel,” who answer them (Ezra 4:3).87 When the people of the land 85 86 87

See section 4 below. Given the cultic nature of the action, Jeshua and his priestly relations appear first. In the case of Ezra 4:2, the witness of 1 Esd 5:65 (τῷ Ζοροβαβελ καὶ ᾿Ιησοῦ καὶ τοῖς ἡγουμένοις τῶν πατριῶν, “to Zerubbabel and Jeshua and the heads of the ancestral houses”) may bear witness to haplography (‫ )ואל־ישוע‬in the transmission of the text (homoioarkton before ‫)ואל־ראשי האבות‬. Cf. Ezra 4:3//1 Esd 5:66.

378

Chapter 13

successfully discourage temple construction, the object of their resistance is the “people of Judah” (Ezra 4:4). In short, Zerubbabel is contextualized within a larger network of social and kinship relations. He does not appear as the critical intermediary between the divine and human realms, as one might expect if the authors wished to suggest a linkage between Zerubbabel and traditional royal Judean ideology. Complementary to linking Zerubbabel and Jeshua to the laity is a focus upon the people themselves. As Japhet and Eskenazi point out, the editors of Ezra-Nehemiah exhibit a tendency to democratize their presentation, stressing the collective effort put forth by the people at large during key moments in the life of the community.88 I would argue that this tendency is especially prominent within Ezra 1–6. To be sure, a variety of different terms are employed to speak of the people.89 That the conventions vary in the Aramaic section (Ezra 4:8–6:18) may be explained by sources, perspective, voicing, and editing.90 88 Japhet, “Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel, 1,” 66–98; eadem, “Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel, 2,” 218–29; T. C. Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose: A Literary Approach to Ezra-Nehemiah (SBLMS 36; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988). From a different angle, see K. Min, The Levitical Authorship of Ezra-Nehemiah (JSOTSup 409; London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 72–91, 116–46. 89 One finds references to ‫בני הגולה‬, “the children of the exile” (Ezra 4:1; 6:19, 21), ‫בני המדינה‬ ‫העלים משבי הגולה‬, “the children of the province, the ones who came up from the captivity of the exile” (Ezra 2:1//Neh 7:6), and ‫הגולה‬, “the exile(s)” (Ezra 1:11). On the “children of the exile,” see elsewhere Ezra 8:35; 10:7, 16; on “the exile” as a demographic entity, see Ezra 9:4, 10:6. One also finds references to ‫בני ישראל‬, “the children of Israel” (Ezra 3:1, 6:21), ‫עם־יהודה‬, “the people of Judah” (Ezra 4:4), ‫העם‬, “the people” (Ezra 3:8, 9, 11; 4:15), and ‫ישבי יהודה וירושלם‬, “the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem” (Ezra 4:6). The narratives and lists occasionally speak of Judah and Benjamin as tribal entities with territorial associations (Ezra 10:9; Neh 11:1, 4, 7, 20, 25, 31, 36) and such locutions also appear in this section of the work (Ezra 1:5, 4:1). 90 There is one reference to the “children of the exile” (‫ ;בני־גולתא‬Ezra 6:16), but also to ‫יהודיא‬, “the Judeans” (Ezra 4:12, 23), ‫גבריא אלך‬, “these men” (Ezra 4:21), and to ‫יהודיא‬ ‫די ביהוד ובירושלם‬, “the Judeans who were in Judah and in Jerusalem” (Ezra 5:1). Finally, Jerusalem appears in an interpolated missive (see below) as a collective entity (Ezra 4:8, 15, 19). On the issues of voicing, vocabulary choice, and perspective(s) in the Aramaic section, see the insightful studies of B. T. Arnold, “The Use of Aramaic in the Hebrew Bible: Another Look at Bilingualism in Ezra and Daniel,” JNSL 22 (1996), 1–16, and J. Berman, “The Narratorial Voice of the Scribes of Samaria: Ezra iv 8–vi 18 Reconsidered,” VT 56 (2006), 313–26; idem, “The Narratological Purpose of Aramaic Prose in Ezra 4.8–6.18,” AS 7 (2007), 165–91. It is too simplistic, however, to speak of the outsiders’ perspective as gentile/ Samarian (so Berman), both because such nomenclature reduces the diversity of foreign voices to that of one group and because there is nothing distinctively Samarian about this perspective. On the Persian-period Yahwistic community in Samaria, see G. N. Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans: The Origins and History of Their Early Relations (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013).

The Unlikely Disappearance of Zerubbabel

379

But, whatever the case, the question to be addressed here concerns what the cumulative effect of employing such diverse nomenclature might be in its literary context. Two points may be made. The first is that the many references to the laity, which far outnumber those to Zerubbabel and Jeshua, underscore the people’s importance as the fundamental locus of attention. The second is that the people work together as a unit. Whether in the Hebrew sections or in the Aramaic section, the community faces resistance from without, but not from opponents within. If the work presents the community at large, rather than any particular individual(s), as pivotal to driving the plot, what does it do with the Davidic heritage, which looms so large in certain other historiographic writings (e.g., Samuel-Kings and Chronicles)? The writers of Ezra-Nehemiah neither mention the Davidic dynastic promises (2 Sam 7:1–16//1 Chr 17:1–15) nor allude to these promises in conjunction with Zerubbabel’s tenure.91 This stance may be contrasted with that of 1 Esdras (5:5), which does mention Zerubbabel’s affiliation with the house of David.92 The reconfiguration of the Davidic legacy in Ezra-Nehemiah, insofar as that legacy appears at all, is fascinating.93 Neither in the case of Sheshbazzar nor in the case of Zerubbabel do the writers discuss a genealogical link with David.94 Sheshbazzar receives professional credentials,

91

The contrast with another postexilic work, Chronicles, is striking (e.g., 1 Chr 17:4–15, 16–27; 22:7–13; 28:2–7; 2 Chr 6:7–17; 7:17–18; 13:5–8; 21:7). On the Davidic theme in Chronicles, see H. G. M. Williamson, “Eschatology in Chronicles,” TynBul 28 (1977), 115–54 [repr. Studies, 162–95]; M. J. Boda, “Identity, and Empire, Reality and Hope in the Chronicler’s Perspective,” in Community Identity in Judean Historiography: Biblical and Comparative Perspectives (ed. G. N. Knoppers and K. A. Ristau; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 219–47; see also chapter 8, “David’s Relation to Moses.” For a different view, see E. Ben Zvi, History, Literature, and Theology in the Book of Chronicles (London: Equinox, 2006). 92 Given this evidence, as well as the inclusion of the story of the three youths (1 Esd 3:1– 4:63), the perspective of 1 Esdras toward Zerubbabel in particular and the Davidic dynasty in general differs from that of Ezra-Nehemiah. See Böhler, 1 Esdras, 20. Harvey’s important study explores the origins of the three youths’ story within a broader Hellenistic historical and literary context, “Darius’ Court and the Guardsmen’s Debate,” 179–90. 93 In the lists and genealogies, which appear in the closing chapters of Nehemiah (11:1–12:26), there is nothing comparable for the Davidides (whether in list form or in genealogical form) to the list tabulating those priests and Levites who returned with Zerubbabel and Jeshua (11:1–9), the genealogical succession of priests (11:10–11), and the list of priestly and Levitical heads under Joiakim (12:12–26). This is one more indication of the relative lack of interest on the part of the editors in the Davidic family. 94 Yet, there are serious questions as to whether Sheshbazzar (‫)ששבצר‬, the governor preceding Zerubbabel, may be linked with Shenazzar (‫ ;שנאצר‬1 Chr 3:18) and was, therefore, a Davidide (Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, 327–28).

380

Chapter 13

as we have seen, but otherwise little attention.95 Zerubbabel is mentioned more prominently, but the text provides no clear hint that the rebuilding of the house of God will lead somehow to a new configuration of Judean polity and to economic prosperity, much less a reconstitution of a Davidic monarchy. After Zerubbabel exits the stage, the writers of Ezra-Nehemiah do not express any interest in the reestablishment of the Davidic line.96 The few stray references to David that appear in Ezra-Nehemiah deal with the City of David (Neh 3:16) and with David’s legacy as a musician and a cult founder (Ezra 3:10; Neh 12:24, 36, 45, 46). Thus, for example, when the builders lay the foundation of the Second Temple, the priests and Levites are stationed to praise Yhwh “as King David of Israel had ordained” (Ezra 3:10). In this conception, David functions as a reverend king, who establishes normative precedents for musical and cultic arrangements at the sanctuary.97 Insofar as the Davidic builder of the First Temple is explicitly discussed, his most prominent

95 For a refutation of the view that Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel were actually one and the same person, see J. VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004). Böhler (1 Esdras, 16–20, 57–74) argues that the editors of Ezra-Nehemiah deliberately suppressed Sheshbazzar’s importance and, to some degree, fused Sheshbazzar with Zerubbabel in the service of a larger tripartite typology of the Persian period. 96 U. Kellermann, Nehemia: Quellen, Überlieferung und Geschichte (BZAW 102; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1967), tries to prove that Nehemiah was of Davidic descent. Similarly, K. Schunck (Nehemia [BKAT 23/2; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2009]) surmises that Nehemiah must have been of a Davidic pedigree to undertake the major reforms accredited to him. Yet, these arguments are not strong, both because of the lack of textual evidence for a Nehemiah-David connection in Ezra-Nehemiah and because such a genealogical connection is unattested in the relevant Davidic lineage (1 Chr 3:17–24). These studies raise, however, valid questions about how many powers were accorded to and wielded by local governors. See also G. N. Knoppers, “An Achaemenid Authorization of the Torah in Yehud?” in Persia and Torah: The Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch (ed. J. W. Watts; SymS 17; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2001), 115–34; L. S. Fried, The Priest and the Great King: Temple-Palace Relations in the Persian Empire (BJSUCSD 10; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004); idem, “The Role of the Governor in Persian Imperial Administration,” in In the Shadow of Bezalel: Aramaic, Biblical, and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Bezalel Porten (ed. A. F. Botta; CHANE 60; Leiden: Brill, 2013), 317–31. 97 There are parallels with how David is remembered in Chronicles. See S. Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and its Place in Biblical Thought (BEATAJ 9; Frankfurt a. M.: Lang, 1989), 467–78; S. J. De Vries, “Moses and David as Cult Founders in Chronicles,” JBL 107 (1988), 619–39; J. Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988), 51; Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, 81–82, 96–98; idem, I Chronicles 10–29, 798–917. Yet, cultic and musical arrangements represent only one part of David’s legacy in this work.

The Unlikely Disappearance of Zerubbabel

381

mention is as a negative example of intermarriage (Neh 13:26).98 In sum, within Ezra-Nehemiah, David’s importance lies in the historic town that bears his name and in the religious arrangements he establishes for the central sanctuary. In this writing, even the work of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah is confined to the support these prophets lend to rebuilding the temple (Ezra 5:1–2, 6:14). The composition neither mentions the concern that these prophets express for an improvement in the status of Zerubbabel and Jeshua nor the hope that the book of Zechariah articulates for a massive ingathering of expatriates back to the land (e.g., 8:1–13, 10:4–12).99 In Ezra, the royal benefactors, who take the responsibility upon themselves to build the Jerusalem sanctuary, are gentiles, not Israelites. The work opens with the decree of a Persian potentate, King Cyrus, declaring that Yhwh the God of the heavens, who granted him all the kingdoms of the earth, had appointed Cyrus to build Yhwh a house in Jerusalem (Ezra 1:1–2).100 Hence, a foreign monarch, who aligns himself with the future temple in Jerusalem, takes center stage at the very outset of the story.101 Unlike Zerubbabel and Jeshua, who consistently lack titles, Cyrus is consistently called “King” (Ezra 1:7) or “the king of Persia” (Ezra 1:1–2, 8; 4:3; 5:14, 17; 6:3, 14).102 There is, therefore, only one monarch and no would-be monarchs in view. It is this non-Davidic sovereign who beckons Judean expatriates, wherever they may reside throughout the empire, to go up to Jerusalem and “(re)build the house of Yhwh” (Ezra 1:3). 98 H. G. M. Williamson, Israel in the Books of Chronicles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 60–61. 99 J. Kessler, “Diaspora and Homeland in the Early Achaemenid Yehud: Community, Geography, and Demography in Zechariah 1–8,” in Approaching Yehud: New Approaches to the Study of the Persian Period (ed. J. L. Berquist; SemeiaSt 50; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2007), 137–66; idem, “The Diaspora in Zechariah 1–8 and Ezra-Nehemiah: The Role of History, Social Location, and Tradition in the Formulation of Identity,” in Community Identity in Judean Historiography (see n. 91), 119–45; Wolters, Zechariah, 229–44, 328–45; Boda, Book of Zechariah, 469–99, 612–35. 100 Halpern, “Achronological Narrative,” discusses the operation of dual causality throughout this section of Ezra. 101 Stressing the foundational importance of this imperial declaration for the literary progression of the entire book are Eskenazi (Age of Prose; eadem, “Imagining the Other in the Construction of Judahite Identity in Ezra-Nehemiah,” in Imagining the Other and Constructing Israelite Identity in the Early Second Temple Period [ed. E. Ben Zvi and D. V. Edelman; LHBOTS 456; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014], 230–56) and C. Karrer, Ringen um die Verfassung Judas: Eine Studie zu den theologisch-politischen Vorstellungen im Esra-Nehemia-Buch (BZAW 308; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2001). 102 The same is true of the other Persian monarchs mentioned in Ezra: Darius (Ezra 6:1, 3, 14, 15), Xerxes (Ezra 4:6 [MT]), and Artaxerxes (Ezra 4:7, 8, 11, 23; 6:14). In some cases, Persian royalty is indicated through other means (e.g., Ezra 4:6 [MT], 7). In one instance, Cyrus is called the “king of Babylon” (Ezra 5:13).

382

Chapter 13

If Judean society in the Second Commonwealth is a theocratic monarchy, the monarchy is Persian in nature. The prayers to be offered at this sanctuary for “the life of the king and his sons” (‫ ;לחיי מלכא ובנוהי‬Ezra 6:10) involve petitions for imperial royals. But the difference between preexilic and postexilic conditions in Judah involves more than a change from a native king to a foreign one. There is also a reorganization of the native body politic in which the populace takes on greater responsibility before God and king. The imperial charge to build a sanctuary in a remote location, far away from any of the primary residences of the emperor, is delivered as a direct mandate to the body politic (Ezra 1:1–3). Rather than employ one lower-level surrogate to serve as his designated intermediary to implement this task, Cyrus issues his decree to the entire expatriate population. Thus, Cyrus requisitions the sanctuary furnishings looted by Nebuchadnezzar and dispatches them to Jerusalem at the hands of Sheshbazzar (Ezra 1:3–8), but he does not task Sheshbazzar with the primary responsibility of building the sanctuary.103 Within the Judean polity imagined by the writers, different individuals and groups (Sheshbazzar, Zerubbabel, Jeshua, the priests, Levites, elders, and populace) have their roles to play, but they are all ultimately responsible to their imperial overlord. There are two other contexts within Ezra 1–6 in which Judah’s legacy under the Davidides is addressed, albeit obliquely. Both instances appear in the Aramaic section (4:8–6:18). In the first account—situated achronologically within the literary context of material relating to the time of Zerubbabel and Jeshua, but actually relating to the later time of Artaxerxes (presumably, Artaxerxes I [μακρόχειρ; Longimanus] 465–424 BCE)—outside forces contest the fortification program underway in Jerusalem (Ezra 4:7–23*).104 These regional opponents accuse Jerusalem’s residents of repeatedly attempting to 103 The content of the Aramaic correspondence in Ezra 5:3–6:12 contrasts with this picture somewhat insofar as Cyrus informs Sheshbazzar, “Let the house of God be (re)built (‫ )יתבנא‬on its (original) site” (5:15). Given the use of the hithpael, it is not entirely clear who was to implement the imperial charge. See also the similarly phrased version of the Cyrus edict in 6:3–5: “Let the house be (re)built (‫ ”… )יתבנא‬But because Sheshbazzar is said to have lain the foundations of the temple structure (‫ ;יהב אשיא די־בית אלהא‬5:16), the text implies that he was in charge of the project. 104 On the insertion of this material as an example of achronological compositional technique, see D. Glatt-Gilad, Chronological Displacement in Biblical and Related Literatures (SBLDS 139; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 120–31. Even though this material represents a later interpolation into the text (by resumptive repetition), my concern is with the meaning of the exchange in the literary context in which the passage appears. The comment about a written protest during the reign of Ahasuerus (Xerxes) in Ezra 4:6 does not appear in 1 Esdras and likely represents a late addition into the textual tradition underlying the MT (Fulton and Knoppers, “Lower Criticism,” 18–26).

The Unlikely Disappearance of Zerubbabel

383

overthrow their foreign overlords in centuries past (Ezra 4:12–13, 15–16), a verdict the Persian king’s own inquiry confirms (Ezra 4:19–20). The history of such insurrections is said to demonstrate that Jerusalem is a “rebellious and wicked city” (‫ ;קריתא מרדתא ובאישתא‬Ezra 4:12). Indeed, the imperial investigation reveals that powerful monarchs once ruled Jerusalem and received tax revenues from all of Transeuphratene (Ezra 4:20). Casting Judahite conduct in unflattering terms, the report denigrates Jerusalemites as untrustworthy and insubordinate subjects of imperial rule. The editorial seam (Ezra 4:24) integrating the inserted account (Ezra 4:5b–23*) into the surrounding narrative paradoxically employs the Artaxerxes correspondence to explain the earlier delay in temple construction from the time of Cyrus to that of Darius, but it does not contest the uncomplimentary picture of Jerusalemite history under Davidic rule. The second account—an inquest led by Tattenai, the governor of Transeuphrates, dealing with the resumption of sanctuary construction during the time of Darius I (522–486 BCE)—differs from the other account in a number of ways. Tattenai and his allies within the satrapy question who, if anyone, had issued the order for temple construction and who was engaged in the building campaign (Ezra 5:3–4).105 The Judean response appeals to Cyrus’s edict, sanctioning temple construction (Ezra 5:13; cf. 1:2–4; 4:3).106 In so doing, the elders provide a brief explanation for the project, conceding that “our ancestors provoked the wrath of God, who delivered them into the hands of the Chaldean Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon” (Ezra 5:12). The Judean response is important in two respects. First, it offers to the Persian authorities an admission of corporate responsibility for the Davidic monarchy’s demise in the Neo-Babylonian period. Insiders, not outsiders, are blamed for the profound problems the Judahite state confronted. Second, the communique distances the present generation from generations past, who rebelled against their own patron deity. The implication is that the current cohort is trustworthy and loyal to its imperial superiors. To be sure, the Judean elders allude to the “great king,” who built the First Temple (Ezra 5:11), but otherwise the only royal characters they mention are Persian in nature (Ezra 5:13–15, 17). The letter thus signals a significant departure from 105 Whether the inquiry is hostile in intent (e.g., F. C. Fensham, Ezra-Nehemiah [NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979], 82) or not (e.g., Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 76; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 127) divides scholars. Berman argues that Tattenai’s stance, at least at the beginning, is calculatingly equivocal, “Narratological Purpose,” 13–14. 106 That the elders’ reply to Tattenai’s queries is couched within the literary context of Tattenai’s communication to King Darius complicates its interpretation, Berman, “Narratological Purpose,” 176–79.

384

Chapter 13

the past. The Judeans in the present are not treasonous; on the contrary, they are faithful subjects of the Persian crown.107 As such, they profess a desire to see what was promised by a former Persian emperor fully realized (Ezra 5:17).108 Inasmuch as the Judean message focuses simply on completing sanctuary construction, it signals a different agenda from that pursued in earlier centuries. The communication may also be distanced from the revolutionary expectations attending temple rebuilding in Haggai (2:21–23). The work evinces, therefore, a fundamentally different theological conception of the Second Temple and its relationship to political authority from that of Haggai. In Ezra-Nehemiah, “Yhwh rouses the spirit of Cyrus” (‫העיר יהוה את־‬ ‫ )רוח כרש‬to issue an international proclamation to summon expatriate Judeans home to build “the God of the Heavens” a house in Jerusalem (Ezra 1:1–3). The Second Temple is both divinely and imperially authorized.109 “God arouses the spirit of all” (‫)לכל העיר האלהים את־רוחו‬, who arose “to travel up to (re)build the house of Yhwh which is in Jerusalem” (‫ֹלעלות לבנות את־בית יהוה‬ ‫ ;אשר בירושלם‬Ezra 1:5). In Haggai, the chain of transmission differs. Yhwh repeatedly speaks to the prophet (1:1, 3, 2:1, 11, 20) and “arouses the spirit” (‫ )ויער יהוה את־רוח‬of Zerubbabel, the spirit of Jeshua, and the spirit of all the remnant of the people to commence work on the sanctuary (1:14–15). In the first case, the divine impetus for temple construction is channeled through a gentile king, who speaks directly to the dispersed people of Yhwh, whereas in the second case the divine impetus for temple construction is channeled through a Judean prophet, who communicates to the Davidic governor, high priest, and people. Haggai does not mention repatriated temple artifacts, imperial authorization of the temple project, or regional opposition to rebuilding.110 A larger international setting only comes into play at the end of the work, when Haggai announces to Zerubbabel that Yhwh is about to overthrow “the throne of the kingdoms” and “destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the nations” (Hag 2:21).

107 “The temple was built by a great king, whom they now emulate in the sacral realm, and hence, the reconquest of the region is not their aim,” Halpern, “Achronological Narrative,” 114. 108 Halpern, “Achronological Narrative,” 115. 109 As explicitly affirmed in Ezra 6:14, mentioning Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes (!). 110 J. Kessler, “Building the Second Temple: Questions of Time, Text, and History in Haggai 1:1– 15,” JSOT 27 (2002), 259–79; idem, “Temple Building in Haggai: Variations on a Theme,” in From the Foundations to the Crenellations: Essays on Temple Building in the Ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible (ed. M. J. Boda and J. Novotny; AOAT 366; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2010), 357–80.

The Unlikely Disappearance of Zerubbabel

385

Unlike the situation in Haggai in which a Davidic descendant plays an indispensable intermediary role, the key royal figure and temple sponsor in Ezra-Nehemiah is the Persian emperor. Cyrus and subsequently Darius step into the administrative role traditionally played by native kings. Within this theological construction, a Davidic dynast is no longer necessary to the identity and well-being of the body politic. To be sure, a few aspects of the Davidic legacy remain, but are confined to musical and cultic matters. Distancing themselves from their preexilic ancestors, who offended their deity, the Judeans of the late sixth century are “Persia’s loyal Yahwists,”111 dedicated to working within an imperial system to improve the life of their community. 4

A New Axis Mundi for Judah

As we have seen, the interpretive crux for understanding the sanctuary rebuilding narrative appears as the story nears its completion. Heeding a prophetic appeal, after the temple rebuilding effort stalls due to local opposition (Ezra 4:1–5, 23–24), Zerubbabel and Jeshua commence temple construction and receive support from Haggai and Zechariah (Ezra 5:1–2). Yet, in the account of a regional challenge to the project led by Tattenai the governor of the province of Transeuphratene, Shethar-bozenai, and their confreres (Ezra 5:3), Zerubbabel and Jeshua no longer appear, at least by name. The Judean elders take the lead in pursuing the project and in addressing the charges levelled against the Judean builders (Ezra 5:5, 9).112 The elders act as community representatives both to the king (Ezra 6:7) and to the satrapal authorities (Ezra 6:13).113 Upon discovering that the temple project had been authorized by Cyrus (Ezra 6:2–5), Darius orders Tattenai and his allies to allow the project to continue, to desist from traveling to the construction site, and to support the rebuilding with state tax revenues (Ezra 6:6–12).114 The governor goes unmentioned as the rebuilding continues (Ezra 6:14). Zerubbabel and Jeshua are neither credited with finishing the building 111 Kessler, “Persia’s Loyal Yahwists,” 91–121. 112 The elders’ claim that the building effort had actually never ceased (Ezra 5:14–16) may be designed to circumvent the necessity of requesting a new imperial decree, Berman, “Narratorial Voice,” 313–26. Cf. Ezra 4:23–24; 5:1–2. 113 The pivotal role played by the elders is lost by some early interpreters. The temple’s completion in the time of Zerubbabel and Jeshua is highlighted as a milestone in Sirach’s hymn in honor of the ancestors (49:11–12). 114 As we have seen (n. 9), the reference to “the governor and the elders of the Judeans” (‫ )פחת יהודיא ולשבי יהודיא‬in MT Ezra 6:7 is textually insecure.

386

Chapter 13

project nor with leading its dedication. Buoyed by the encouragement offered by Haggai and Zechariah, the Judean elders complete the rebuilding in the sixth year of King Darius (Ezra 6:15). As for Zerubbabel and Jeshua, they are not listed as being present at the sanctuary dedication (Ezra 6:16–18). Nor do they appear at the centralized celebrations of Passover and Unleavened Bread (Ezra 6:19–22).115 Is the failure to reference the two leaders an ominous, albeit cryptic, indication that something terrible happened to them? To this specific question, we now turn. The text of Ezra 6 does not directly address the issue of what became of Zerubbabel and Jeshua, but it seems unlikely for a variety of reasons that one or the other (or both) fell victim to a sinister plot.116 To begin with, there are no signs of internal social conflict among members of the Judean elite, even though a number of local leadership groups are active in the community. The priests and Levites (Ezra 3:2, 8, 9, 10, 12; 6:9, 10, 16, 18, 20) play prominent roles, as might be expected, in the altar, festival, and temple narratives. Other collectives mentioned are the heads of the ancestral houses (Ezra 3:12; 4:2, 3), the elders of the Judeans (‫ ;שבי יהודיא‬Ezra 5:5, 9; 6:7, 8, 14; cf. 10:8, 14), and the prophets (Ezra 5:1–2; 6:14). Yet, no priestly-gubernatorial-prophetic tensions appear.117 The obvious contrasts would be with the times of Ezra and Nehemiah, in which the scribe from Babylon confronts fellow expatriates caught up in mixed marriages (Ezra 9:1–10:44) and the royal wine steward from Susa regularly finds himself at odds with various leaders (priests, nobles, prefects, and a prophetess) of the homeland community.118 In the progression of 115 Hence, they are missing from both the end of the Aramaic source, concluding in Ezra 6:18, and from the ensuing Hebrew narrative (Ezra 6:19–22). 116 Bedford (Temple Restoration, 292–94) argues that the switch in leadership to the Judean elders occurs because Zerubbabel (as a Persian government employee of lesser rank than Tattenai) was liable to the charge of insubordination. There is neither any indication that Darius I had issued a decree authorizing (or reauthorizing) the sanctuary project nor that Zerubbabel and Jeshua had engaged in any consultation with officials of Transeuphrates. Aware of his vulnerable position, the Judean governor deftly allows the Judean elders to speak on the project’s behalf. While this theory has merit in illuminating Zerubbabel’s precarious position, it does not explain all aspects of the continuing narrative. Given the discovery of Cyrus’ decree in the fortress Ecbatana (Ezra 6:2) and Darius’ subsequent order that the temple reconstruction continue unimpeded by any sort of satrapal interference (Ezra 6:6–7), it is unclear why Zerubbabel’s name is not mentioned, even during the temple dedication ceremony (Ezra 6:16–18). Once the issue of temple authorization is definitively addressed at the highest possible level, the danger to Zerubbabel and Jeshua would seem to have passed. Yet, their names do not reappear even during the celebrations of Passover and Unleavened Bread (Ezra 6:19–22). 117 Eskenazi, “Imagining the Other,” 235–43. 118 Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans, 140–68.

The Unlikely Disappearance of Zerubbabel

387

the sanctuary project, the community faces resistance from local and regional opponents, but political machinations among priests, prophets, elders, and ancestral heads are lacking. Those who posit a priestly conspiracy or internal political turmoil are hard-pressed to find evidence of such upheaval in Ezra 1–6. Second, the distinctive theopolitical interests of the editors of Ezra-Nehemiah need to be kept in mind when analyzing the portrayal of the temple’s completion and dedication. The rebuilding of the Jerusalem sanctuary is a substantial development in establishing an axis mundi with respect to Judah, but there is, as we have seen, a major departure from the past in that there is no longer a Davidic potentate ruling in Jerusalem. Instead, Persian emperors (Cyrus, Darius) fulfill this traditional Davidic responsibility.119 Moreover, inasmuch as the people working on the project are repatriated expatriates (“children of the exile”), the temple becomes a joint enterprise, uniting the sponsoring communities in the eastern diaspora (Ezra 1:4, 6) and the homeland community. The very portrayal of the temple reconstruction effort projects, therefore, the positive benefits of repatriated Judeans contributing to the rebuilding of homeland life within a larger imperial context.120 Clearly, others in Yehud saw things differently. In Haggai, for instance, participation by the high priest (Jeshua) and the Davidic scion in the temple project completes an important restoration of preexilic royal and priestly roles. Symbolically, the preexilic axis mundi—consisting of a divinely-elect Davidide, a high priest, Jerusalem, and a sanctuary for Yhwh—is to be renewed and a new age is to dawn for Judah and its place among the kingdoms (Hag 2:21–23). The authors of Ezra-Nehemiah are likely aware of ongoing royalist aspirations among some portion of the Judean population. It is unlikely that the royalist sentiment suggested by Haggai and by some texts within Zechariah was a one-off phenomenon. Nevertheless, the writers of Ezra-Nehemiah consistently resist commending native royalist perspectives to the remaking of their community. They refuse to replicate, much less endorse, the ideological system advocated by Haggai. Indeed, the work references, as we have seen, the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah insofar as they support the building campaign

119 Floyd (“Production of Prophetic Books,” 286–87) speaks of a “bipolar axis mundi” coupled with a “bifocal perspective,” because residents of Yehud had to get used to perceiving their ancestral land from the point of view of other political (Persia) and demographic (Babylon) centers. 120 G. N. Knoppers, “What is the Core and What is the Periphery in Ezra-Nehemiah?” in Centres and Peripheries in the Early Second Temple Period (ed. E. Ben Zvi and C. Levin; FAT 108; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 269–96. See also chapter 15, “Ethnicity and Change: The Judean Communities of Babylon and Jerusalem in the Story of Ezra.”

388

Chapter 13

(Ezra 5:1–2, 14; 6:14), but makes no mention of the royalist trappings associated with Zerubbabel. The scrupulous avoidance of assigning professional titles to Zerubbabel and Jeshua in Ezra-Nehemiah is thus best explained as deliberate literary artifice. The writers are likely aware of traditional nationalistic tendencies within some quarters of the Judean community, but pursue a different path. Rather than returning to an old model, they promote a new one. Living within a vast international empire, these writers argue that Judeans need to work within the political confines of their own times. Appearing neither as a Davidic scion nor as a potential royal claimant, Zerubbabel labors, along with other Judean leaders, within an international imperial network to advance his homeland’s interests. Zerubbabel wins recognition for his contributions to the community, not for reviving Davidic hopes.121 From a literary perspective, the story of the sanctuary’s completion recalls the notice of its authorization (Ezra 1:1–3). The temple dedication by the Judean people brings the repatriation and temple construction story full circle, because Cyrus’ decree was directed to the expatriates at large and not specifically to any one individual political leader or priestly official (Ezra 1:1–3, 4:1–3, 6:3). In short, the narrative concludes as it should with the people fulfilling the imperial commission delivered to them. Third, to conclude from the absence of Zerubbabel and Jeshua that the text reflects the recall, overthrow, or execution of Zerubbabel misapprehends the ways in which Ezra-Nehemiah differs in its organization, interests, and scope from other historiographic writings, such as Samuel-Kings and Chronicles. Ezra-Nehemiah is not a continuous chronological composition, but a very select depiction of (what the writers consider to be) Persian period highlights. Of the century or more of Judean history presumed by the authors, the book only addresses some twenty-two years.122 Ezra-Nehemiah is, therefore, constructed along different principles from those governing the composition of Samuel-Kings and Chronicles. No concluding notices appear for Sheshbazzar, Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Ezra, and Nehemiah. Nor is any attempt made to produce a comprehensive account of their terms of service. Only certain activities associated with these figures appear. The rest of their careers are unknown to us. The highly segmented presentation differs from those of Kings and Chronicles in which a leader’s tenure is marked by introductory and closing regnal formulae, summing up a monarch’s reign, evaluating that reign, and marking the leader’s death. The fact, then, that the work provides copious 121 Hence, I would disagree with the judgment of Talmon (“Concepts of māšîaḥ,” 97), who entitles the first section of Ezra-Nehemiah (Ezra 1–6), “The Book of Zerubbabel.” 122 See chapter 3, “Constructing the Israelite Past in Ancient Judah (II).”

The Unlikely Disappearance of Zerubbabel

389

coverage to only two of Yehud’s governors—Zerubbabel and Nehemiah— is telling.123 Focusing on major challenges faced by the homeland community (altar reconstruction, temple rebuilding, intermarriage, the public dissemination of the Torah, rebuilding Jerusalem’s walls), the work does not provide continuous coverage of the tenures of any of the leaders, whose specific activities it highlights. The fact, then, that Zerubbabel and Jeshua disappear from the scene is not unusual. The lack of attention to their later lives does not entail that either of these individuals fell into disrepute or came to a bad end. The editors are largely uninterested in such matters as the upbringing of individuals, the span of their careers, and the circumstances leading up to their deaths. Whether all of these individuals even died in Yehud is unclear. Since each figure, with the likely exception of Jeshua, was directly subject to imperial authority, each served at the behest of his supervisor(s) for a limited duration of time. Such appointees could be reappointed, recalled, or deposed.124 In one case, that of Nehemiah, we are told that Nehemiah journeys back from Jerusalem to Susa for an unspecified amount of time, before he asks his superior for another leave (Neh 13:6). Otherwise, we are largely left in the dark about the course of each of these people’s careers. If one wishes to speak of a disappearance of Zerubbabel, one also has to speak of a disappearance of Jeshua, a disappearance of Ezra, and a disappearance of Nehemiah. Fourth, the claim that the writers of Ezra-Nehemiah are completely silent about the fate of Zerubbabel is not entirely accurate. Within the latter portions of the work, several references are made to Zerubbabel and Jeshua.125 Although none of these allusions provides details of Zerubbabel’s and Jeshua’s later lives, they do provide some indication of the reception history of these figures within the book’s development. According to Neh 12:47, “all Israel contributed the daily portions of the singers and gatekeepers and paid sacred contributions to the Levites and the Levites paid sacred contributions to the sons of Aaron (‫ )ומקדשים ללוים והלוים מקדשים לבני אהרון‬in the days of Zerubbabel and

123 Of all the other governors, only Sheshbazzar (Ezra 1:5–11; 5:14–16) receives any serious attention whatsoever. The name of a later governor—Bigvai (‫—)בגוי‬may be mentioned in the master ledger of the return (Ezra 2:2//Neh 7:7), if this name refers to the Bagohi (‫ )בגוהי‬of the Elephantine papyri (AP 30.1//31.1, 32.1; TAD A4.7.1//A4.8.1, A4.9.1). 124 Some (e.g., Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 200) have speculated that this was the case with Ezra, namely that his mandate was terminated or that he was recalled. 125 Many of the lists and genealogies in Nehemiah 11 and 12 are considered to be late additions to the book. The textual history of this material is complex, but telling. See D. N. Fulton, Reconsidering Nehemiah’s Judah: The Case of MT and LXX Nehemiah 11–12 (FAT II/80; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015).

390

Chapter 13

in the days of Nehemiah” (‫)בימי זרבבל ובימי נחמיה‬.126 In other words, the tenures of these two particular leaders stand out as times of popular dedication and cultic loyalty. If the editors thought that something untoward happened to Zerubbabel, it is doubtful that they would define his legacy so positively. The importance of Zerubbabel and Jeshua can also be seen by the fact that these two figures head a number of different lists and genealogies relating to the postmonarchic age (Ezra 2:2 [//Neh 7:7], 2:6 [//Neh 7:11], 3:8; Neh 12:1, 10– 11). The time of Zerubbabel and Jeshua—and not those of Sheshbazzar, Ezra, and Nehemiah—is most often presented as foundational.127 If the issue was simply one of leading an expedition to Yehud and returning temple artifacts, more attention would have been given to Sheshbazzar (Ezra 1:5–11, 5:14–16). If Zerubbabel was ousted in an ill-fated anti-Persian revolt or priestly conspiracy, it is doubtful, given the pro-Persian tenor of the book, that his time would have received such privileged attention in heading these lists and lineages. 5 Conclusions In Second Isaiah, Yhwh deems Cyrus to be “his anointed” (‫)משיחו‬, declaring, “I have grasped his right hand” (Isa 45:1). This foreign king will serve the purposes of Yhwh by “rebuilding my city” and “setting my exiled people free” (Isa 45:13). The same prophetic writing that exalts a foreign emperor and announces him to be Yhwh’s messiah shows no interest in reviving Davidic rule.128 In fact, Yhwh democratizes the Davidic promises, announcing to the people, “Let me cut with you an everlasting covenant (‫)ואכרתה לכם ברית עולם‬, the sure mercies of David” (‫ ;חסדי דוד הנאמנים‬Isa 55:3; cf. 2 Sam 7:14–16). Although Deutero-Isaiah and Ezra-Nehemiah are not usually thought of as cut from the same theological cloth, there is some overlap between these innovative writings. Both view a foreign king (or kings) as instrumental to divine purposes 126 This editorial notation (Neh 12:47) may be contrasted with the comments of Nehemiah (5:14–18), which distinguish his achievements from all those of the governors, who preceded him. The claim of Neh 12:47 also contrasts with Nehemiah’s first-person account of how he adjured the prefects (‫)ואריבה את־הסגנים‬, because “the house of God had been abandoned” (‫ )נעזב בית־האלהים‬and the portions of the Levites had not been paid (Neh 13:10–11). 127 The times of Joiakim (Jeshua’s son or descendant), Ezra, and Nehemiah serve as reference points in the summary of Neh 12:26. 128 K. M. Heim, “The (God-)Forsaken King in Psalm 89,” in King and Messiah (see n. 43), 296– 322, makes the unusual argument that Isaiah 55:1–3 comprises a pro-Davidic response to the lament ending Psalm 89. Yet, if so, the oracle is pro-Davidic only in the sense that all Israelites come to share a Davidic role among the nations.

The Unlikely Disappearance of Zerubbabel

391

in allowing dislocated Judeans to return home, both commend Cyrus rebuilding Jerusalem, and both embrace the possibilities for the homeland in a new imperial age. Historically, some Judeans may have been disappointed that the completion of the Jerusalem sanctuary did not lead to any sea change in the economic or social standing of Judah. There was no shaking of the nations that led to a complete reversal of popular fortunes (cf. Hag 2:21–22; Zech 7:7–8:13). If there was such a feeling of frustration with the continuing economic, demographic, and political state of the community, it would have been neither the first time nor the last in which political and religious authorities failed to realize the dreams of their most ardent supporters. Yet, the authors of Ezra 1–6 take a different view. For them, the Persian period inaugurates a successful reconfiguration of relationships among God, foreign monarchs (Cyrus, Darius), the Judean people, and their leaders—Sheshbazzar, Zerubbabel, Jeshua, the ancestral heads, priests, Levites, and elders. In this paradigm of international relations, the foreign king appears neither as an oppressor nor as an instrument of divine anger, but rather as a benefactor and source of blessing.129 The Persian monarchs adopt some of the traditional duties of native Davidic monarchs, while the community’s leaders adopt others. Operating within the periphery of a huge multinational realm, the Judeans successfully rebuild the altar, offer sacrifices, and convince the reigning emperor to (re)authorize the temple project and direct state resources to the betterment of those living in the Second Commonwealth. The ability of the Judean elders to prevail where Sheshbazzar had failed marks the sanctuary reconstruction and dedication as one of the highlights of the Persian period. The community’s perseverance in bringing the templeless age to an end demonstrates that the new paradigm of local relations to imperial authority can work successfully. Judeans had learned difficult lessons from their own past and were up to the task of living without a native monarch. 129 The comment of Williamson (Ezra, Nehemiah, 86)—“The problem of a state that forbade or distorted the worship of the God of the Bible was simply not a live issue in his [the author’s] day”—provides an accurate assessment of the ancient writers’ stance toward Persian rule. Whether others within Yehud would all share the same pro-Persian attitude may be doubted, however.

Chapter 14

Argumentum e silentio? Mizpah and Ramat Raḥel in Ezra-Nehemiah When one compares the material remains and the literary remains pertaining to the Neo-Babylonian, Persian, and Hellenistic periods in Judah, one has to confront a disjunction. Two sites enjoying administrative and political prominence during the Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods—Mizpah (usually identified as Tell en-Naṣbeh) and Ramat Raḥel (bêt hak-kārem)—are, as we shall see, largely absent from the main biblical text—Ezra-Nehemiah—that depicts the history of postexilic Judah. Why the silence? Why are the important economic, administrative, and political functions of Mizpah and Ramat Raḥel not addressed in Ezra-Nehemiah? Admittedly, these are fraught questions, because questions from silence are the most difficult to answer, but they are worth addressing nonetheless. In what follows, my study will sketch what is presently known about the roles Tell en-Naṣbeh and Ramat Raḥel played in the economy and administration of Yehud before discussing their tangential appearances in Ezra-Nehemiah. My work will proceed to discuss some possible reasons for the great neglect of Tell en-Naṣbeh and Ramat Raḥel in the literary remains. I wish to argue that the sharp disjunction between the material remains and the literary remains pertaining to the Neo-Babylonian, Persian, and early Hellenistic periods in Judah sheds welcome light on the nature and function of Ezra-Nehemiah. 1

The Problem

Analysis of the material remains from Tell en-Naṣbeh, usually identified with Mizpah of Benjamin (Judg 18:26), has revealed the changing function of this strategically situated site during the Iron II, Neo-Babylonian, and Persian periods. Much of Tell en-Naṣbeh, located some 12 km north northwest of Jerusalem, was excavated in the mid-twenties and early thirties of the 20th century. The official site reports were published some two decades later, yet the quality of those reports was limited by the paucity of comparative material data available, economic circumstances (chiefly, the Great Depression), the methodologies

©  GARY N. KNOPPERS (†), Christl M. Maier and H. G. M. Williamson, 2021 |  doi:10.1163/9789004444898_016

Mizpah and Ramat Raḥel in Ezra-Nehemiah

393

employed, and the untimely death of the chief excavator, W. F. Badè.1 In the last few decades, Jeffrey Zorn’s reanalysis of the physical remains has revealed new insights about the site’s stratification during the Iron II, Neo-Babylonian, and Persian periods.2 1.1 Tell en-Naṣbeh (Mizpah) Although Tell en-Naṣbeh served as an important border fortress in Iron II age Judah, the site underwent a physical transformation during the Neo-Babylonian era.3 Indicative of the changes are a reorientation of new physical structures in relation to the town’s earlier ring-road plan, the use of a substantial courtyardstyle building, the construction of two long chambers thought to be storerooms in the south central part of the tell, and the construction of larger and 1 C. C. McCown et al., Tell en-Naṣbeh: Excavated under the Direction of the Late William Frederic Badè, 1: Archaeological and Historical Results (Berkeley: Palestine Institute of Pacific School of Religion and American Schools of Oriental Research, 1947); J. C. Wampler et al., Tell en-Naṣbeh: Excavated under the Direction of the Late William Frederic Badè, 2: The Pottery (Berkeley: Palestine Institute of Pacific School of Religion and American Schools of Oriental Research, 1947). On the history of the site’s excavations, see J. R. Zorn, “This Old Site: Issues in the Reappraisal of Early Excavations,” in Archaeology’s Publication Problem (ed. H. Shanks; Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1996), 59–70. 2 J. R. Zorn, “Tell en-Naṣbeh: A Re-evaluation of the Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Early Bronze Age, Iron Age, and Later Periods” (PhD dissertation; University of California, Berkeley, 1993); idem, “Mizpah: Newly Discovered Stratum Reveals Judah’s Other Capital,” BAR 23/5 (1997), 29–38, 66; idem, “Tell en-Nasbeh and the Problem of the Material Culture of the Sixth Century,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period (ed. O. Lipschits and J. Blenkinsopp; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 93–107; idem, “Tell en-Naṣbeh,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible and Archaeology (2 vols.; ed. D. M. Master; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 400–8; idem, “Tell en-Naṣbeh in the 20th and 21st Centuries,” in “As for me, I will dwell at Mizpah …”: The Tell en-Naṣbeh Excavations after 85 Years (ed. J. R. Zorn and A. J. Brody; Gorgias Studies in the Ancient Near East 9; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2014), 1–21. See also A. Lemaire, “Populations et territoires de Palestine à l’époque perse,” Transeu 3 (1990), 39–40; O. Lipschits, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem: Judah under Babylonian Rule (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 87–115, 149–54; A. J. Brody, “Transjordanian Commerce with Northern Judah in the Iron II-Persian Period: Ceramic Indicators, Interregional Interaction, and Modes of Exchange at Tell en-Naṣbeh,” in I will dwell at Mizpah, 59–93. 3 O. Lipschits, O. Sergi, and I. Koch, “Judahite Stamped and Incised Jar Handles: A Tool for Studying the History of Late Monarchic Judah,” TA 38 (2011), 5–41. The administrative deployment of the rosettes are discussed at length by I. Koch and O. Lipschits, “The Rosette Stamped Jar Handle System and the Kingdom of Judah at the End of the First Temple Period,” ZDPV 129 (2013), 55–78. The lion stamp impressions are the subject of a study by T. Ornan and O. Lipschits, “The Lion Stamp Impressions from Judah: Typology, Distribution, Iconography, and Historical Implications. A Preliminary Report,” Semitica 62 (2020): 69–91.

394

Chapter 14

more finely built houses over the Iron II physical remains.4 Among the unusual artifacts discovered at the site were Mesopotamian-style bathtub shaped coffins and a bronze circlet bearing a fragmentary cuneiform inscription.5 There is no evidence of a destruction layer dating to the Neo-Babylonian period or the early Persian period. The leveling of certain older constructions at the end of the Stratum 3 period was likely designed to prepare for new building construction during the Stratum 2 phase of the site.6 Literary sources in Jeremiah and Kings indicate that Mizpah became the administrative center for the Neo-Babylonian jurisdiction established in this region, following the devastating second Babylonian campaign against Jerusalem (Jer 40:5–8; 2 Kgs 25:22–26).7 Complementing this literary evidence is the geographical and numerical distribution of the lion-stamped jar handles and the m(w)ṣh stamp impressions (some 32 of which were found in the Mizpah excavations), which point to Mizpah serving as an administrative center in this area.8 At some point in the Persian period, Ramat Raḥel likely replaced Mizpah as the main imperial administrative facility in the province, but Mizpah may have continued to function as a regional center in the area of Benjamin for some time afterward.9 1.2 Ramat Raḥel As is the case with Mizpah, analysis of the major archaeological discoveries at Ramat Raḥel has changed and enriched our understanding of the inner 4 The houses have been the subject of a specialized study by J. Balcells Gallarreta, Household and Family Religion in Persian-period Judah: An Archaeological Approach (ANEM 18; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017), 81–119. 5 D. S. Vanderhooft and W. Horowitz, “The Cuneiform Inscription from Tell en-Naṣbeh: The Demise of an Unknown King,” TA 29 (2002), 318–27. 6 Zorn, “Re-evaluation,” 332–38; A. J. Brody, “The Archaeology of the Extended Family: A Household Compound from Iron II Tell en-Nasbeh,” in Household Archaeology in Ancient Israel and Beyond (ed. A. Yasur-Landau, J. R. Ebeling, and L. B. Mazow; CHANE 50; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 237–54; Balcells Gallarreta, Household and Family Religion, 97–101. 7 O. Lipschits, “Nebuchadrezzar’s Policy in ‘Ḫattu-Land’ and the Fate of the Kingdom of Judah,” UF 30 (1998), 467–87; idem, “The History of the Benjamin Region under Babylonian Rule,” TA 26 (1999), 155–90; J. M. Miller and J. Hayes, History of Ancient Israel and Judah (2nd ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 2006), 478–85; C. Frevel, Geschichte Israels (KStTh 2; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2016), 279–82. 8 J. R. Zorn, J. Yellin, and J. Hayes, “The M(W)ṢH Stamp Impressions and the Neo-Babylonian Period,” IEJ 44 (1994), 161–83; Zorn, “Tell en-Nasbeh,” 97–103; Lipschits, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem, 84–122, 149–52, 237–41. 9 O. Lipschits and D. S. Vanderhooft, The Yehud Stamp Impressions: A Corpus of Inscribed Impressions from the Persian and Hellenistic Periods in Judah (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 41–45, 758–62.

Mizpah and Ramat Raḥel in Ezra-Nehemiah

395

workings of the Judean economy in Neo-Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, Persian, and Hellenistic times. Likely to be identified with biblical bêt hak-kārem, Ramat Raḥel was strategically positioned just a few kilometers to the southwest of Jerusalem.10 The large administrative center located at this site is attested archaeologically from the Late Iron Age II period (Stratum Vb) to the Hellenistic era (Stratum IVb).11 Unlike the situation at many other sites in Judah, there is neither evidence of destruction at Ramat Raḥel in the early sixth century BCE nor of a long occupational gap.12 The site’s geographical location at the eastern end of the Rephaim Valley on the main junction of roads leading to Jerusalem from the south and the west was advantageous, suggesting that the complex served as a terminus for agricultural goods stemming from the production zones to the west and south of Jerusalem.13 Constructed in a monumental style of architecture, the building complex was expanded in the Persian period, when a large rectangular addition was built on the structure’s northwestern side. During the Persian period, a substantial garden, equipped with pools, tunnels, channels, and other water installations, bordered the structure to the north, northeast, west, and southwest.14 To summarize, analysis of the material remains from Mizpah and Ramat Raḥel indicates that both of these sites served important administrative and economic functions within the succession of imperial Neo-Babylonian and Persian regimes. To be sure, at some point in the Persian period Ramat Raḥel 10 A. F. Rainey and R. S. Notley, The Sacred Bridge: Carta’s Atlas of the Biblical World (Jerusalem: Carta, 2006), 219; D. Edelman, “The Function of the mw(ṣ)h-Stamped Jars Revisited,” in “I Will Speak the Riddle of Ancient Times”: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday (2 vols.; ed. A. M. Maeir and P. de Miroschedji; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 2.659–71. 11 O. Lipschits, Y. Gadot, B. Arubas, and M. Oeming, “Palace and Village, Paradise and Oblivion: Unraveling the Riddles of Ramat Raḥel,” NEA 74/1 (2011), 2–49. 12 During the late monarchic period, Ramat Raḥel likely served as a collection center for the delivery of goods in kind, mainly agricultural products, such as wine and oil, as indicated by the 225 lmlk stamped jar handles dated to this period that were found there; see O. Lipschits, O. Sergi, and I. Koch, “Royal Judahite Storage Jars: Reconsidering the Chronology of the lmlk Stamp Impressions,” TA 37 (2010), 3–32. 13 O. Lipschits, Y. Gadot, and D. Langgut, “The Riddle of Ramat Rahel: The Archaeology of a Royal Persian Period Edifice,” Transeu 41 (2012), 57–79; O. Lipschits, Y. Gadot, B. Arubas, and M. Oeming, What are the Stones Whispering? Ramat Rahel: 3,000 Years of Forgotten History (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2017), 98–116. 14 D. Langgut, Y. Gadot, N. Porat, and O. Lipschits, “Fossil Pollen Reveals the Secrets of the Royal Persian Garden at Ramat Rahel, Jerusalem,” Palynology (2013), 1–15; B. Gross, Y. Gadot, and O. Lipschits, “The Ancient Garden at Ramat Raḥel and its Water Installations,” Cura Aquarum in Israel II: Proceedings of the International Conference on the History of Water Management and Hydraulic Engineering in the Mediterranean Region (ed. C. P. J. Ohlig and T. Tsuk; Siegburg: Schriften der Deutschen Wasserhistorischen Gesellschaft, 2014), 93–114.

396

Chapter 14

seems to have become the main administrative center of the province, replacing the pivotal role Mizpah had played in Neo-Babylonian times. Nevertheless, Mizpah continued to play an administrative role in the local economy of Benjamin during the Persian period, at least for a time.15 1.3 Ramat Raḥel and Mizpah in Ezra-Nehemiah When one examines the depiction of the Persian period community in Ezra-Nehemiah in the sixth and fifth centuries BCE, one finds hardly any mention whatsoever of Mizpah and Ramat Raḥel.16 The sites appear alongside several others in the third-person wall-building account of Neh 3:1–32, which most scholars regard as a source that has been edited and interpolated into the larger first-person account, dominating the Nehemiah story.17 There is no discussion in this particular literary text of Mizpah and Ramat Raḥel’s economic, 15 Miller and Hayes, History of Ancient Israel and Judah, 531. 16 In Jeremiah (6:1) the site of Ramat Raḥel is referred to as bêt hak-kerem, whereas it is vocalized as bêt hak-kārem in Neh 3:14. The latter vocalization is also reflected in the LXX (Josh 15:59a Καρεμ; Jer 6:1 Βαιθαχαρμα; Neh 3:14 Βηθαχαρμ). Cf. Gen Apoc (1QapGen), 22:13–14 (‫ ;)בית הכרם‬Copper Scroll (3Q15), 10:5 (‫ ;)בית הכרן‬m. Mid. 3:4 (‫ ;)בית כרם‬Jerome, Commentariorum in Jeremiam 6:1 (Beth-charma). On the identification of the site as Ramat Raḥel, see Y. Aharoni, The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography (ed. and trans. A. Rainey; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979), 351; Rainey and Notley, Sacred Bridge, 219, 252; Lipschits et al., Stones Whispering, 15–18. O. Lipschits and N. Na‌ʾaman argue that the site was referred to as “Baal-Perazim” (‫ ;בעל פרצים‬2 Sam 5:20//1 Chr 14:11) and “Mount Perazim” (‫ ;הר פרצים‬Isa 28:21) in earlier texts, “From ‘Baal-Perazim’ to ‘Beth-Haccerem’: Further Thoughts on the Ancient Name of Ramat Raḥel,” Beit Mikra 51 (2011), 65–86 (Hebrew). 17 The consensus on this matter is longstanding: J. Wellhausen, Israelitische und Jüdische Geschichte (9th ed.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1958), 168, n. 1; C. C. Torrey, The Composition and Historical Value of Ezra-Nehemiah (BZAW 2; Giessen: Rickers, 1896), 37–38; L. W. Batten, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1913), 206–7; G. Hölscher, “Die Bücher Esra und Nehemia,” in Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testaments, 2: Hosea bis Chronik (2 vols.; ed. E. Kautzsch and A. Bertholet; Tübingen: Mohr, 1923), 2.529–30; S. Mowinckel, Studien zu dem Buche Ezra-Nehemia, 1: Die nachchronische Redaktion des Buches—Die Listen (Skrifter utgitt av det Norske videnskapsakademi i Oslo 3; Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1964), 109–10; A. H. J. Gunneweg, Nehemia (KAT 2/19; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1987), 75–76; J. Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988), 231; J. L. Wright, Rebuilding Identity: The Nehemiah Memoir and Its Earliest Readers (BZAW 348; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), 118–20; Rainey and Notley, Sacred Bridge, 295–96; O. Lipschits, “Nehemiah 3: Sources, Composition, and Purpose,” in New Perspectives on Ezra-Nehemiah: History and Historiography, Text, Literature, and Interpretation (ed. I. Kalimi; Winona Lake: IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 73–99; idem, “The Rural Economy of Judah during the Persian Period and the Settlement History of the District System,” in The Economy of Ancient Judah in Its Historical Context (ed. M. L. Miller, E. Ben-Zvi, and G. N. Knoppers; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015), 237–64.

Mizpah and Ramat Raḥel in Ezra-Nehemiah

397

political, and administrative importance. On the contrary, insofar as these sites appear at all, they do so as Judean settlements whose leaders participate in a communal Judean effort to rebuild Jerusalem’s walls. In Ezra-Nehemiah, there is only one reference to bêt hak-kārem (Ramat Raḥel). Malkiyah ben Rechab, an officer of the district of bêt hak-kārem, supported the construction of the Dung Gate and was responsible for building and setting up its doors, bolts, and locks (Neh 3:14). This particular patron is credited for the reconstruction of one piece of Jerusalem’s fortifications, but one would never guess on the basis of the particular textual notation in the wall-building account that bêt hak-kārem played a central role in the economic and political administration of the province of Yehud.18 To be sure, bêt hak-kārem heads an administrative district within Judah, if, as seems likely, a ‫ פלך‬refers to a district rather than to a workforce.19 Nevertheless, the list provides no real indication of Ramat Raḥel’s importance as a regional Persian administrative center in its own right. 18 19

Lipschits and Vanderhooft, Yehud Stamp Impressions, 31–41. On the term ‫פלך‬, mentioned eight times in Nehemiah 3 (vv. 9, 12, 14–18), see E. Meyer, Die Entstehung des Judentums: Eine historische Untersuchung (Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1896), 166–67; Batten, Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, 212; M. Noth, Geschichte Israels (9th ed; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 294 [trans. of 2nd ed. (1954) by S. Godman, rev. by P. R. Ackroyd, The History of Israel (2nd ed.; London: A. & C. Black, 1960), 325]; S. Herrmann, Geschichte Israels in alttestamentlicher Zeit (München: Chr. Kaiser, 1973), 382–83 [trans. J. Bowden, A History of Israel in Old Testament Times (2nd ed.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 315–16]; Aharoni, Land of the Bible, 418; F. C. Fensham, Ezra-Nehemiah (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 175; D. J. A. Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (NCBC; London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1984), 150; G. W. Ahlström, The History of Palestine from the Palaeolithic Period to Alexander’s Conquest (JSOTSup 146; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 843; Miller and Hayes, History of Ancient Israel and Judah, 531. Compare E. A. Speiser’s fundamental discussion on the term pilku (“Akkadian Documents from Ras Shamra,” JAOS 75 (1956), 161–62), and see the comments of H. G. M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah (WBC 16; Waco, TX: Word, 1985), 206; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 232, 235–36; M. Weinfeld, “Pelekh in Nehemiah 3,” in Studies in Historical Geography and Biblical Historiography Presented to Zecharia Kallai (ed. G. Galil and M. Weinfeld; VTSup 81; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 249. Conversely, A. Demsky contends that ‫ פלך‬was an administrative term for a group of workers drafted for labor, “Pelekh in Nehemiah 3,” IEJ 33 (1983), 242–44; idem, “The Days of Ezra and Nehemiah,” in The History of the People of Israel, 5: The Return to Zion: The Period of Persian Rule (ed. H. Tadmor; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1983), 53. See also J. N. Graham, “‘Vinedressers and Plowmen,’ 2 Kings 25:12 and Jeremiah 52:16,” BA 47 (1984), 57; C. E. Carter, The Emergence of Yehud in the Persian Period: A Social and Demographic Study (JSOTSup 294; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 80; K. G. Hoglund, “The Material Culture of the Persian Period and the Society of the Second Temple Period,” in Second Temple Studies, 3: Studies in Politics, Class and Material Culture (ed. P. R. Davies and J. M. Halligan; JSOTSup 340; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 2002), 16; D. Edelman, The Origins of the “Second” Temple: Persian Imperial Policy and the Rebuilding of Jerusalem (London: Equinox, 2005), 213–16; Rainey and Notley, Sacred Bridge, 295. For

398

Chapter 14

Receiving significantly more attention than Ramat Raḥel does, Mizpah in the territory of Benjamin appears on three occasions in the third-person wall building account of Neh 3:1–32. In Neh 3:6–7, “Melaṭyah the Gibeonite and Yadon the Meronothite,” working with the men of Gibeon and Mizpah belonging to the seat of the governor of Transeuphratene” (‫פחת עבר הנהר‬‎ ‫)לכסא‬, cooperated with others in supporting the work of repairing the Mishneh Gate.20 Inherent in this scribal notation is the recognition that Mizpah belonged to the imperial rule of the satrapy of “Across the River.” As such, Mizpah was part of a much larger administrative network by which the Persians administered their immense empire. I wish to return to this matter later. On a second occasion, the list mentions Mizpah again. “Shallun son of Col-ḥozeh,” who was “an officer of the district of Mizpah” (‫פלך המצפה‬‎‫)שר‬, was responsible for supporting the repair of the Spring Gate, roofing it, and setting its doors, bolts, and bars in place (Neh 3:15). The same individual is credited with building the wall of the Pool of Shelaḥ belonging to the royal garden and (the wall) as far as the steps descending from the City of David. On the third occasion in which Mizpah appears, “Ezer son of Jeshua, who was an officer of Mizpah (‫)שר המצפה‬,” is credited with supporting the repair of a second section of the wall (Neh 3:19).21 In these latter two texts, Mizpah, like bêt hak-kārem, heads an administrative district within Judah.22 Nevertheless, the literary context in which all three references to Mizpah appear and the one reference to bêt hak-kārem appears must be borne in mind. In each case within the wallbuilding report Mizpah and bêt hak-kārem appear as outlying communities in Yehud whose leaders rally to support the reconstruction of Jerusalem’s

critiques of this view, see Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 206; N. Na‌ʾaman, “The Historical Background of the Philistine Attack on Ahaz in 2 Chronicles 28:18,” in Dor Le-Dor: Studies in Honor of Joshua Efron (ed. A. Kasher and A. Oppenheimer; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1995), 21, n. 39 (Hebrew); Weinfeld, “Pelekh in Nehemiah 3,” 249–50; M. Cogan, “Raising the Walls of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 3:1–32): The View from Dur-Sharrukin,” IEJ 56 (2006), 84–95, 89, n. 10; Lipschits, “Nehemiah 3,” 92–94. 20 Into the sequence of the MT Neh 3:7, ‫ועל ידם החזיק מלטיה הגבעני וידון המרנתי אנשי‬ ‫גבעון והמצפה לכסא פחת עבר הנהר‬, one should add the conj. -‫( ו‬following Syr.) before ‫אנשי גבעון‬, as the wāw was likely lost by haplography after the final yōd of the previous word, hence “with the men of Gibeon and Mizpah,” see W. Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia (HAT 20; Tübingen: Mohr, 1949), 116; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 196–97; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 230. 21 In line with verbiage of Neh 3:15b, Rudolph (Esra und Nehemia, 118) reconstructs officer of “the half-district of Mizpah” (‫פלך המצפה‬‎‫)חצי‬. 22 Lipschits and Vanderhooft, Yehud Stamp Impressions, 28–31.

Mizpah and Ramat Raḥel in Ezra-Nehemiah

399

fortifications. In these texts, Jerusalem appears as the center, while other settlements appear as constituent parts of the Judean periphery.23 Aside from their mention in this list, Mizpah and bêt hak-kārem do not appear elsewhere in the literary work. Hence, these important sites are not mentioned in conjunction with the time of the elusive Sheshbazzar, the time of Zerubbabel and Jeshua, or the time of Ezra. The virtual silence in Ezra-Nehemiah is all the more surprising, because other biblical texts speak to the historical significance of Mizpah, if not that of Ramat Raḥel. The authors of Kings and Jeremiah speak quite openly, as we have seen, of Mizpah becoming the governor’s seat in Judah after Nebuchadnezzar’s forces captured Jerusalem, overthrew the Davidic kingdom, destroyed the temple, debilitated Jerusalem’s public infrastructure, and deported much of its remaining elite (2 Kgs 25:23, 25; Jer 40:6–15; 41:1–16). The later text of 1 Maccabees (3:46) speaks of Mizpah taking on a renewed, if temporary, significance following the desecration and capture of the Jerusalem temple complex by the forces of Antiochus Epiphanes IV in the second century. Judas Maccabaeus and his kin regrouped and journeyed to Mizpah (Μασσηφα) opposite Jerusalem, because “Israel previously had a place of prayer in Mizpah” (ὅτι τόπος προσευχῆς ἦν ἐν Μασσηφα τὸ πρότερον τῷ Ισραηλ).24 At Mizpah, Judas Maccabeus and his forces fasted, dressed in sackcloth, sprinkled ashes on their heads, and tore their clothes. There, they consulted the Torah, brought the vestments of the priesthood, the first fruits, and the tithes, and there they lamented their collective plight (1 Macc 3:47–53).25 The recourse to Mizpah by Judas Maccabeus is defended both by its proximity to Jerusalem and by its former religious significance. If, then, earlier and later texts acknowledge Mizpah’s historic, religious, and administrative significance, why do the

23 24 25

How many districts may be actually represented in the original list is not the concern of the present essay. On this issue, see further Lipschits, “Rural Economy of Judah,” 240–45. The reference to a τόπος προσευχῆς, “place of prayer,” likely alludes to the use of Mizpah as the site of a penitential national assembly in the age of Samuel (1 Sam 7:2–14), J. A. Goldstein, I Maccabees (AB 41; New York: Doubleday, 1976), 261. Some think that the Mizpah alluded to in 1 Maccabees may actually be Nebī Samwīl, located several km northwest of Jerusalem. To equate Mizpah with this site in the context of the second or first century BCE is a historical possibility, given the archaeological remains dating to Hellenistic times. Nevertheless, both the geographical location of Nebī Samwīl and the paucity of substantial Iron II and Neo-Babylonian remains discovered at the site militate against identifying Nebī Samwīl with the Mizpah mentioned in Samuel, Kings, and Jeremiah, pace Y. Magen, “Nebi Samwil: Where Samuel Crowned Israel’s First King,” BAR 34/3 (2008), 24–36. See also the following note.

400

Chapter 14

authors of Ezra-Nehemiah not do so?26 Why do the writers not provide readers with a clear indication of Mizpah’s status as Yehud’s administrative capital in the early Persian period and of Ramat Raḥel’s likely status as the province’s administrative and economic center throughout much of the Persian period? 2

Four Possible Reasons for the Silence

Theoretically, there could be any number of reasons for the virtual silence. In what follows, I shall discuss and comment upon a number of possible explanations before turning to the explanation, or combination of explanations, I think are the most likely. 2.1 Do the writers of Ezra-Nehemiah simply share an ignorance of the important administrative roles played by Mizpah and Ramat Raḥel during the Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods? That is, do they live during a much later time, such as the late Maccabean period, in which Ramat Raḥel had fallen into desuetude as a major governmental center? If so, perhaps they were unaware of its great significance during earlier times and portray the earlier Persian period in accord with the assumption that the realities of their own times in the second or early first centuries BCE also obtained centuries earlier. That the authors of the literary work lived at a time far removed from the Persian period must be accepted as a historical possibility. Indeed, some scholars hold to such a late dating of the book or at least to its edition as we have it in the MT.27 Nevertheless, it seems doubtful that if the authors lived 26 In some earlier narrative texts, Mizpah appears as an important Israelite center. Here, the Israelites gather to deal with the Benjaminites following the outrage caused by the rape of the Levite’s concubine (Judg 20:1, 3; 21:1, 5, 8) and here Samuel assembles his fellow Israelites after they had been attacked by the Philistines (1 Sam 7:2–16). At this site, Saul is chosen king of Israel (1 Sam 10:17). In Kings, followed by Chronicles, Mizpah appears as a place fortified by King Asa of Judah, which functions for an indeterminate period of time as a border fortress situated between the northern and southern kingdoms (1 Kgs 15:22//2 Chr 16:6): Z. Kallai, Historical Geography of the Bible: The Tribal Territories of Israel (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986), 131–32, 402. 27 D. Böhler, Die heilige Stadt in Esdras α und Esra-Nehemia: Zwei Konzeptionen der Wiederherstellung Israels (OBO 158; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997), 307–401; idem, I Esdras (IEKAT; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2015), 16–20; I. Finkelstein, “Jerusalem in the Persian (and Early Hellenistic) Period and the Wall of Nehemiah,” JSOT 32 (2008), 501– 20 [repr. in Hasmonean Realities behind Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles: Archaeological

Mizpah and Ramat Raḥel in Ezra-Nehemiah

401

during this time, they would be so ignorant of the social, economic, and political realities that had obtained in Judah from the late seventh to the second century BCE. The Hasmoneans, no less than their Judean predecessors in the Ptolemaic and Seleucid periods, would have been aware of Ramat Raḥel’s strategic administrative and economic importance during earlier times of foreign occupation. To the contrary, the writers acknowledge, as we have seen, that Mizpah served an administrative purpose on behalf of the governor of Transeuphratene during the Persian period (Neh 3:6–7).28 The authors/editors were not ignorant. Rather, they chose not to call concerted attention to the role played by this particular habitation in satrapal administration. Moreover, even if one were to grant for the sake of argument that the authors/editors lived during the Hasmonean period, they would have had good cause, given their nationalistic interests, to document how Jerusalem eventually came to supplant Mizpah and Ramat Raḥel as the center of Judah.29 Hence, a very late date of composition and editing does not suffice in and of itself to explain the virtual absence of Mizpah and Ramat Raḥel from the stories of Ezra-Nehemiah.30 2.2 Are the authors of Ezra-Nehemiah so absorbed with promoting the contributions made by diasporic figures, such as Sheshbazzar, Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Ezra, and Nehemiah, to the rebuilding of religious institutions in the homeland that they are somehow oblivious to the actual sociopolitical circumstances of the sub-province of Yehud?

and Historical Perspectives (AIL 34; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2018), 3–27]; idem, “Geographical Lists in Ezra and Nehemiah in the Light of Archaeology: Persian or Hellenistic?” in Judah between East and West: The Transition from Persian to Greek Rule (ca. 400–200 BCE) (ed. L. L. Grabbe and O. Lipschits; LSTS 75; London: T&T Clark, 2011), 49–69. 28 That Mizpah was sparsely settled in the second century BCE (Stratum 1) is a further problem for this theory. See Zorn, “Tell en-Naṣbeh,” 400. 29 The systematic dismantling of the building structures at Ramat Raḥel in Maccabean times, probably during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus, lends further credence to the notion that the Maccabeans were aware of the importance of this site and its association with foreign administration in earlier times. See Lipschits et al., Stones Whispering, 117–18, 147–48. 30 There is text-critical evidence for growth within the lists, yet this same evidence suggests a history of composition and editing, rather than a onetime (late) confection. See D. N. Fulton, Reconsidering Nehemiah’s Judah: The Case of MT and LXX Nehemiah 11–12 (FAT 2/80; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015).

402

Chapter 14

There is some truth to this proposition. Each of the leaders featured in the book are expatriates, who stem from the eastern diaspora, and none of the leaders featured in the book are products of the homeland.31 The literary work, especially at its beginning and end, takes a special interest in cultic institutions, such as the construction of the main altar, the temple, the lineages of the priests (Neh 11:10–14) and Levites (Neh 11:15–18), and the places in which they resided (Ezra 2:1–70//Neh 7:6–72; Neh 11:36). In short, much of the energy in this book stems from Judeans rooted in the eastern diaspora—in particular, Sheshbazzar, Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Ezra, and Nehemiah—and their activities in the homeland dominate the work. It could even be argued that the writing was composed for an audience in the eastern diaspora to defend, if not valorize, the actions of repatriated expatriates in the homeland.32 Nevertheless, the stories about the interventions made by these figures contain claims made about physical infrastructure, demography, and socioeconomic issues in Yehud. Examples of interest in specific physical infrastructure include the temple building (Ezra 3:6–13; 4:1–5, 24; 5:1–17; 6:1–22), the efforts to rebuild the town (Ezra 4:7–23), and the communal efforts to rebuild Jerusalem’s walls (Neh 3:1–32).33 Examples of an interest in demography include the settlement/encampment lists of Ezra 2:1–70//Neh 7:6–72 and Neh 11:25–36. An example of a specific socio-economic issue taken up in the book is the story of Nehemiah’s campaign against Judean debt slavery (Neh 5:1–13). Hence, concerns with repatriated expatriates and cultic issues are certainly part of the story, but they are not the whole of it. I wish to return to this matter later. 2.3 Might it be that the modern-day scholars working with the material and epigraphic remains from Ramat Raḥel and Tell en-Naṣbeh inadvertently over-emphasize the actual significance of these sites in the economy, polity, and administration of Yehud? That is, in their enthusiasm for documenting and promoting the importance of these particular sites in the 31

32 33

Admittedly, Sheshbazzar’s origins are unclear, because he does not appear in any of the lists and genealogies within the book. Given that the traditions in Ezra (1:7–11; 5:13–16) attribute the return of the temple vessels from Babylon to Sheshbazzar, there is good reason to view him as a leader among the Judean expatriates in Babylon. Some have equated Sheshbazzar (‫ )ששבצר‬with the Davidide Shenazzar (‫ ;שנאצר‬1 Chr 3:18), but this identification is uncertain: G. N. Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9 (AB 12; New York: Doubleday/ New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), 327–28. See chapter 15, “Ethnicity and Change: The Judean Communities of Babylon and Jerusalem in the Story of Ezra.” One might add that the work takes an interest in appointments attained by expatriates in imperial administration (Ezra 1:7–11; 5:14–16; 7:12–26; Neh 5:14, 18; 12:26).

Mizpah and Ramat Raḥel in Ezra-Nehemiah

403

Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods, do archaeologists overestimate their historical significance? If so, the textual remains would function as a check against the contemporary interpretation of the material remains. That scholars, including the author of this essay, could be overstressing the importance of Ramat Raḥel and Tell en-Naṣbeh might be the case, but this is a difficult proposition to assess. The finds at Ramat Raḥel are quite recent and although the finds at Tell en-Naṣbeh are not recent, their evaluation and relevance have only recently come into better view. At present, we do not have the proper historical distance, say five decades to a century, from the discoveries to make a historical determination from the perspective of the longue durée whether the finds are less significant or more significant than we presently make them out to be. Part and parcel of making such a long-term historical judgment will be, of course, the impact of future archaeological and epigraphic discoveries in the southern Levant. Yet, there is another factor at play to bear in mind as well. The results of archaeological excavations in Jerusalem have affected our understanding of the nature, size, and economic status of this town during the Neo-Babylonian, Persian, and Hellenistic periods.34 The archaeological excavations carried out in the last five decades have revealed Jerusalem to be a small, lightly populated and relatively impoverished community in the Persian and early Hellenistic periods. Moreover, if one examines the distribution of the early and middle types of the Yehud jar stamp impressions, dating to the sixth/fifth centuries and the fourth/third centuries respectively, the percentage of those impressions discovered in Jerusalem are quite low, 16% and 21%, respectively.35 Only with the late type, dating to the late Hellenistic and Hasmonean period, does a major transformation occur, as Jerusalem becomes the dominant site in the

34 O. Lipschits and O. Tal, “The Settlement Archaeology of the Province of Judah,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century (ed. O. Lipschits, G. N. Knoppers, and R. Albertz; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 33–52; O. Lipschits, “Jerusalem between Two Periods of Greatness: The Size and Status of Jerusalem in the Babylonian, Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods,” in Judah between East and West (see n. 27), 163–75; I. Finkelstein, “Jerusalem and Judah 600–200 BCE: Implications for Understanding Pentateuchal Texts,” in The Fall of Jerusalem and the Rise of the Torah (ed. P. Dubovský, D. Markl, and J.-P. Sonnet; FAT 107; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 3–18. 35 D. S. Vanderhooft, and O. Lipschits, “A New Typology of the Yehud Stamp Impressions,” TA 34 (2007), 12–37. I have adjusted the percentages provided in this study in accordance with recent finds (with thanks to Oded Lipschits for the updated information).

404

Chapter 14

stamped jar distribution system with finds representing approximately 61% of the late types of the Yehud stamp impressions.36 The meager finds from Jerusalem add another dimension to the discussion, because the issues at hand involve not only the administrative and political prominence of Mizpah and Ramat Raḥel, but also the impoverished position of Jerusalem at this time.37 In other words, even if one grants that the historical and economic importance of Mizpah and Ramat Raḥel is currently being exaggerated, one still has to cope with the fact that the size, political importance, and population of Jerusalem during Neo-Babylonian, Persian, and early Hellenistic times has been exaggerated. Taken together, these considerations suggest that the discussion underway about adjusting our understanding of the internal power dynamics of Judah during the Neo-Babylonian, Persian, and Hellenistic periods is warranted. 2.4 Might it be possible that the authors of Ezra-Nehemiah are aware, at least to some degree, of the historical, political, and economic importance of the centers of Mizpah (Tell en-Naṣbeh) and bêt hak-kārem during the Neo-Babylonian, Persian, and early Hellenistic periods, but actively suppress this importance in favor of the center whose cause they wish to buttress, namely Jerusalem? In other words, do the authors self-consciously create a counter-narrative about the history of life in Persian period Yehud to the dominant political and economic realities obtaining during this particular time? There is, in my judgment, much to be said for this thesis, especially when it is combined with aspects of the second thesis, pointing to the foundational roles diasporic figures play in Yehud’s reconstruction. In this scenario, the writers of Ezra-Nehemiah create a literary work of cultural resistance, even as they advertise the abilities of diasporic Judeans to work within an imperial network to advance the cause of the homeland community. Ezra-Nehemiah comprises a set of stories, letters, genealogies, and lists set in Persian history, but Ezra-Nehemiah is not a work of Persian history. The writers’ main concern is 36 That some of the late finds stem from the western hill and its immediate environs suggests an expansion of Jerusalem in this period, Lipschits and Vanderhooft, Yehud Stamp Impressions, 12–17. 37 On this matter, see further G. N. Knoppers, “Exile, Return, and Diaspora: Expatriates and Repatriates in Late Biblical Literature,” in Texts, Contexts and Readings in Postexilic Literature: Explorations into Historiography and Identity Negotiation in Hebrew Bible and Related Texts (ed. L. C. Jonker; FAT II/53; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2011), 29–61 (with further references).

Mizpah and Ramat Raḥel in Ezra-Nehemiah

405

neither to discuss the course of Persian hegemony in the southern Levant nor to discuss Persian administrative, economic, and political policies. The point warrants some explication. 3

Ezra-Nehemiah’s Reorientation of the Centre and the Periphery

The primary concern of the writers of this literary work is to champion the gradual recovery of the Judean community in Jerusalem during the Persian era. Embracing a Jerusalem-centered approach to establishing a new core identity for the people of Judah, the writers valorize the efforts of a series of leaders from the eastern diaspora to rebuild the homeland community.38 Almost all of the major figures of the book—Sheshbazzar, Zerubbabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah—are subject to imperial Persian oversight. Accepting foreign occupation, at least for the period under view, the work champions the ability of diasporic leaders to leverage their administrative positions within the central imperial regime to work toward the betterment of the homeland population. The writers compose a literary work, written primarily in the subjugated people’s native language, to complicate the imperial power’s absolute hegemony in the people’s homeland.39 From the perspective of bureaucratic officials within the central Achaemenid regime, progress in the satrapy of Transeuphratene was likely marked by indices, such as the maintenance of regional peace, secure communications, and safe travel, successful military conscription, increase in trade, and growth in gifts, taxes, and tribute.40 Given that a resistant Egypt was a major challenge for the central regime, the pacification, (re)subjugation, and (re)incorporation 38 G. N. Knoppers, “The Construction of Judean Diasporic Identity in Ezra-Nehemiah,” JHS 15 (2015) (http://www.jhsonline.org/). 39 On the significance of the recourse to Hebrew in an Achaemenid or Hellenistic setting, see I. Kottsieper, “‘And They Did Not Care to Speak Yehudit’: On Linguistic Change in Judah during the Late Persian Era” in Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century (see n. 34), 95–124; W. M. Schniedewind, A Social History of Hebrew: Its Origins through the Rabbinic Period (ABRL; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013). 40 P. Briant, Histoire de l’Empire perse: de Cyrus à Alexandre (Paris: Fayard, 1996), 682–85, 837– 96 [trans. P. T. Daniels, From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002), 663–66, 817–71]. On such a context as the background for the portrayal of Solomon in Chronicles, see L. C. Jonker, “The Chronicler’s Portrayal of Solomon as the King of Peace within the Context of the International Peace Discourses of the Persian Era,” OTE 21 (2008), 653–69; G. N. Knoppers, “More than Friends? The Economic Relationship between Huram and Solomon Reconsidered,” in The Economy of Ancient Judah in Its Historical Context (see n. 17), 49–72.

406

Chapter 14

of Egypt into the imperial network was a continuing concern.41 Inasmuch as small interior sub-provinces in the southern Levant located on the periphery of the empire, such as Judah and Samaria, mattered at all to high-level Persian authorities, they were likely viewed within the context of this larger constellation of issues. The writers of Ezra-Nehemiah have a different agenda. The literary work freely acknowledges foreign domination, but it actively contests particular aspects of that domination. On one level, it lauds the actions of Persian emperors in allowing Judeans to emigrate to their ancestral homeland, build a new temple, celebrate the gift of the torah, and rebuild Jerusalem’s walls. Yet, on another level, the book memorializes the efforts of repatriated expatriates—Persia’s “loyal Yahwists” as Kessler describes them—to succeed in spite of centuries of foreign occupation.42 The efforts of a small ethnic and religious minority are the focus of the work, not the succession of Persian kings, not the economy in the southern Levant, not international wars, not Egyptian rebellions against foreign rule, and not the details of Persian administration in Yehud. The literary work constructs a new Jerusalem-centered version of Judean identity in the ancient Near East, marking the slow and intermittent recovery of Jerusalem’s position over the course of a century and a half. Beginning with the decree of Cyrus summoning the people of Yhwh to return home to rebuild the temple, the work ends with the reforms of Nehemiah in Jerusalem. This alternative reality partially intersects with the imperially constructed reality, but follows its own trajectory.43 The temple vessels are returned under Sheshbazzar, the main altar for animal sacrifices is constructed under 41 J. D. Grainger, Hellenistic Phoenicia (Oxford: Clarendon, 1991), 24–31; D. F. Graf, “The Persian Royal Road System in Syria-Palestine,” Transeu 6 (1993), 149−66; A. Lemaire, “La fin de la première période perse en Égypte et la chronologie judéene vers 400 av. J.-C.,” Transeu 9 (1995), 51–61; J. Wiesehöfer, Ancient Persia: From 550 BC to 650 AD (London: I. B. Tauris, 1996), 105–7; idem, “The Achaemenid Empire in the Fourth Century B.C.E.: A Period of Decline?” in Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century (see n. 34), 11–30; L. L. Grabbe, A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period (2 vols.; LSTS 47, 68; London: T&T Clark, 2004, 2008), 1.322–49; 2.267–87; D. B. Redford, “Some Observations on the Traditions Surrounding ‘Israel in Egypt,’” in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period (ed. O. Lipschits, G. N. Knoppers, and M. Oeming; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 279–373. 42 J. Kessler, “Persia’s Loyal Yahwists: Power, Identity and Ethnicity in Achaemenid Yehud,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, 91–121. 43 I would not term this narrative as utopian, however. Admittedly, there are different understandings of utopian thinking. See S. J. Schweitzer, Reading Utopia in Chronicles (LHBOTS 442; London: T&T Clark, 2007); F. Uhlenbruch, “Introduction,” in Worlds that Cannot Be: Utopia in Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah (ed. S. Schweitzer and F. Uhlenbruch; LHBOTS 620; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016), 1–9. For a critical application,

Mizpah and Ramat Raḥel in Ezra-Nehemiah

407

Zerubbabel and Jeshua, the rebuilding of the Temple is completed under the direction of the elders, the torah is made the community’s constitution under Ezra, and Jerusalem’s walls are rebuilt under Nehemiah. All of this occurs despite occasional local and internal opposition.44 Inasmuch as Mizpah and Ramat Raḥel factor at all in this story, they play only subsidiary roles. In the Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods, Mizpah and Ramat Raḥel were two imperial centers that controlled the political and economic administration of the province, but in Ezra-Nehemiah Jerusalem is the center that attracts support from the periphery, including on one occasion from Judean leaders in Mizpah and Ramat Raḥel.45 In the imperially constructed reality, Mizpah and Ramat Raḥel are imperial outposts within a small sub-province located in the satrapy of Transeuphratene, but in the alternative reality constructed in Ezra-Nehemiah Mizpah and Ramat Raḥel are tributaries of Jerusalem. Viewed in this context, the results of the excavations at Tell en-Naṣbeh and Ramat Raḥel prove to be very useful for getting a better sense of the particular nature of Ezra-Nehemiah—its ideological interests, literary genre, and historiographic limitations. The virtual silence about Mizpah and Ramat Raḥel in Ezra-Nehemiah is deliberate, because Ezra-Nehemiah is a counter-narrative written from the perspective of a small minority to the dominant narrative of foreign rule in the Persian empire. see J. Cataldo, “Utopia in Agony: The Role of Prejudice in Ezra-Nehemiah’s Ideal for Restoration,” in Worlds that Cannot Be, 144–68. 44 G. N. Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans: The Origins and History of Their Early Relations (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 135–68. 45 G. N. Knoppers, “What is the Core and What is the Periphery in Ezra-Nehemiah?” in Centres and Peripheries in the Early Second Temple Period (ed. E. Ben Zvi and C. Levin; FAT 108; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 269–96.

Chapter 15

Ethnicity and Change: The Judean Communities of Babylon and Jerusalem in the Story of Ezra In his book on early Jewish identity, Shaye Cohen provocatively declares that “Jewishness, like most—perhaps all—other identities, is imagined; it has no empirical, verifiable reality to which we can point and exclaim, ‘This is it!’ Jewishness is in the mind.”1 Confronting the challenges of defining Jewish identity in antiquity, Cohen draws attention to the subjectivity involved in attempting to pinpoint a community’s distinctive attributes. Ethnologists sometimes speak of ethnicities as “imagined communities,” because they believe that ethnicities are very much shaped, if not defined, by persons (not always people within the communities themselves), who want them to exist and believe that they do so.2 To complicate matters, the cultural and organizational traits of groups may shift and develop over time. Indeed, what characteristics make an identifiable group is a matter of dispute among sociologists and ethnographers. Some stress practical concerns, such as common customs, habits, food-ways, styles of clothing, institutions, religious practices, and languages, while others stress broader ideological concerns, such as a group’s attachment to a particular land, a sense of shared history, collective values, a common notion of group destiny, and a unique understanding of cultural distinctiveness. Yet others emphasize the definition of boundaries, whether mental or physical, setting one group apart from another and the maintenance (or redefinition) of such boundaries over time.3 On a literary level, a given writer may attempt to defend a group’s identity, redefine that group’s identity in a certain way, or play on competing definitions of identity.

1 S. J. D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Hellenistic Culture and Society 31; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), 5. 2 The work to which Cohen (The Beginnings of Jewishness, 5) refers is: B. R. Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (rev. ed.; London: Verso, 1991). 3 So, e.g., F. Barth, Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference (Boston: Little, Brown, 1969).

©  GARY N. KNOPPERS (†), Christl M. Maier and H. G. M. Williamson, 2021 |  doi:10.1163/9789004444898_017

THE JUDEAN COMMUNITIES OF BABYLON AND JERUSALEM IN EZRA

409

In the story of Ezra, one encounters not one but two imagined Israelite communities.4 One group, a relatively new community, is centered in the large city of Babylon, while another resides far away in the ancestral homeland of Judah. The native community receives the bulk of attention in the book, but the diasporic community drives the action.5 The narratives about Ezra—his background, his journey to Judah, and his interventions in the Jerusalem community—raise some interesting issues about developing notions of Judean ethnicity and community identity in the international context of the Achaemenid empire. One is dealing with multiple and overlapping relationships between Yahwistic groups located in widely different geographic areas. In most cases of interactions between related communities geographically set apart, the community rooted in the ancestral land would represent the established community and the diasporic community would represent a colony or dependent community, but in Ezra these roles are in many ways reversed.6 In this essay, I would like to read against the grain and focus on the eastern diaspora, specifically the Babylonian community, and its ongoing relations to the community in Yehud.7 The lineage of Ezra, the conception of his mission, the narrative about his travels back to his homeland, and his public reading of the torah may be set against the background of the stories about earlier migrations from the eastern diaspora during the reigns of Cyrus and Darius I (Ezra 1–6). The focus of this essay will not be on Ezra 7–10 (1 Esd 8:1–9:36) and Nehemiah 8 (cf. 1 Esd 9:37–55) as a whole, since recent monographs have devoted considerable attention to the form, structure, and compositional history of these curious and complicated texts.8 My focus will be limited to addressing 4 Or, one community geographically dispersed in at least two completely different geographic contexts. 5 H. G. M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah (WBC 16; Waco, TX: Word, 1985), xliv–lii; T. C. Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose: A Literary Approach to Ezra-Nehemiah (SBLMS 36; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988); T. Willi, Juda—Jehud—Israel: Studien zum Selbstverständnis des Judentums in persischer Zeit (FAT 12; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1995); P. R. Bedford, Temple Restoration in Early Achaemenid Judah (JSJSup 65; Leiden: Brill, 2001); idem, “Diaspora: Homeland Relations in Ezra-Nehemiah,” VT 52 (2002), 147–65; R. G. Kratz, Das Judentum im Zeitalter des Zweiten Tempels (FAT 42; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004). 6 G. N. Knoppers, “What is the Core and What is the Periphery in Ezra-Nehemiah?” in Centres and Peripheries in the Early Second Temple Period (ed. E. Ben Zvi and C. Levin; FAT 108; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 269–96. 7 In what follows, I will take Ezra 7–10 and Nehemiah 8 as a starting point, but occasionally I will pay some attention to the witness of 1 Esdras, especially when its text and sequence differ from those of the MT. 8 D. Böhler, Die heilige Stadt in Esdras α und Esra-Nehemia: Zwei Konzeptionen der Wiederherstellung Israels (OBO 158; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997); J. Pakkala, Ezra the

410

Chapter 15

certain questions raised by the ancestral lineage of Ezra, the introduction to his mission, his journey, and his expounding the torah (Ezra 7:1–10, 27–28; 8:1– 20; Neh 8:1–18).9 In what follows, I would like to stress two related points. First, I will argue that the Ezra narrative advocates a form of Judean identity that is trans-temporal and international in scope. Second, I will argue that the Ezra story promotes an intergenerational process of Judean identity (re)formation, which reshapes the homeland community according to mores developed and cultivated in the diaspora. 1

The Genealogy of Identity: Introducing the Person and Mission of Ezra

The brief transitional remark, “and after these things” (‫)ואחר הדברים האלה‏‬ during the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia” (Ezra 7:1), introducing the person and lineage of Ezra, may be classified as quite an understatement.10 The Scribe: The Development of Ezra 7–10 and Nehemia 8 (BZAW 347; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004); J. L. Wright, Rebuilding Identity: The Nehemiah-Memoir and Its Earliest Readers (BZAW 348; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004); S. Grätz, Das Edikt des Artaxerxes: Eine Untersu­ chung zum religionspolitischen und historischen Umfeld von Esra 7,12–26 (BZAW 337; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004); R. G. Kratz, Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments: Grundwissen der Bibelkritik (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 53–92 [trans. J. Bowden, The Composition of the Narrative Books of the Old Testament (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 49–86]. There are serious disagreements among these scholars, but they all argue for a complicated history of composition. Even if one takes issue with some of their presuppositions, analyses, and conclusions, they have successfully pointed to a number of stresses and strains in the text. 9 For the judicial aspects of the much-discussed rescript (Ezra 7:14, 25–26), see my “Beyond Jerusalem and Judah: The Commission of Artaxerxes to Ezra in the Province Beyond the River,” in Eretz-Israel—Archaeological, Historical and Geographic Studies: Ephraim Stern Volume (ed. J. Aviram, A. Ben Tor, I. Ephʿal, S. Gitin, and R. Reich; ErIsr 29; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2009), 78–87. 10 The classification of periods and the lacunae in coverage are significant, but constitute subjects in and of themselves. See S. Japhet, “Composition and Chronology in the Book of Ezra-Nehemiah,” in Second Temple Studies 2: Temple and Community in the Persian Period (ed. T. C. Eskenazi and K. H. Richards; JSOTSup 175; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 189–216; eadem, “Periodization between History and Ideology II: Chronology and Ideology in Ezra-Nehemiah,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period (ed. O. Lipschits and M. Oeming; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 491–508 [both repr. in From the Rivers of Babylon to the Highlands of Judah: Collected Studies on the Restoration Period (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 245–67 and 416–31 respectively]. Following the traditional chronology of Ezra (458 BCE) and Nehemiah (445 BCE), there is a gap of 13 years from the time of Ezra’s mission (Ezra 7:1; 458 BCE) to the time of Nehemiah’s arrival (Neh 1:1; 2:1; 445 BCE). An editorial attempt has been made to overcome this segmentation by placing the two together for the reading of the torah and the celebration of Sukkot narrated in

THE JUDEAN COMMUNITIES OF BABYLON AND JERUSALEM IN EZRA

411

temporal transition marks a period of some 57 years since the dedication of the temple under Zerubbabel and Jeshua with which the previous narrative concludes (Ezra 6:19–22).11 In the context of the book, not only has the historical period shifted from the late sixth to the mid-fifth century BCE, but the geopolitical scene has also shifted from postexilic Judah to a diasporic setting a long distance away in Babylon. This change in venues is significant as it points to the coexistence of Yahwistic communities in two very different parts of the Persian empire.12 Ties of birth, ties of blood, and ties to an ancestral land are three of the many ways by which a writer may seek to define ethnic identity. In this respect, it is relevant that the editors choose to employ a lengthy linear genealogy, immediately following the introductory chronological marker, to introduce the person of Ezra, his priestly pedigree, and his line of work.13 The ascending Nehemiah (Neh 7:73b–8:18; cf. 1 Esd 9:37–55), but pertaining to the time of Ezra. If one wishes to place Ezra after Nehemiah, as some do, the work would still display a major lacuna from the approximate end of Nehemiah’s second term (426 BCE?) to 398 BCE (the estimated year of Ezra’s coming to Yehud in the reign of Artaxerxes II), Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, xxxix–xliv; J. Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988), 139–44. In either reading of the chronology involved in dating the missions of Ezra and Nehemiah, there are very significant gaps in the coverage of the postmonarchic period. See further chapter 3, “Constructing the Israelite Past in Ancient Judah (II).” 11 Another important shift in scenes involves the introduction to Nehemiah. His story also begins in the eastern diaspora (Neh 1:1–2), where Nehemiah resides in the fortress of Susa as a cupbearer to the king. As with Ezra, Nehemiah professes a keen sense of solidarity with the people of Judah and Jerusalem, in spite of the great geographic distance that separates him from them. 12 Among the relevant pieces of extra-biblical evidence, one may refer to the recentlydiscovered cuneiform references to āl-Yāhūdu, “the town of Judah,” in Babylonia: F. Joannès and A. Lemaire, “Trois tablettes cunéiformes à l’onomastique ouest-sémitique,” Transeu 17 (1999), 17–34; D. S. Vanderhooft, “New Evidence Pertaining to the Transition from Neo-Babylonian to Achaemenid Administration in Palestine,” in Yahwism After the Exile: Perspectives on Israelite Religion in the Persian Era (ed. R. Albertz and B. Becking; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2003), 219–25; L. E. Pearce, “New Evidence for Judeans in Babylonia,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period (see n. 10), 399–411; eadem, “Looking for Judeans in Babylonia’s Core and Periphery,” in Centres and Peripheries (see n. 6), 43–63; L. E. Pearce and C. Wunsch, Documents of Judean Exiles and West Semites in Babylonia in the Collection of David Sofer (CUSAS 28; Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2014). From an ethnographic standpoint, one should also refer to the use of the term ‫ יהודין‬to refer to the members of the Elephantine colony (e.g., AP 6.3–10; 8.2; 10.3). See B. Becking, “Yehudite Identity in Elephantine,” in Ezra, Nehemiah, and the Construction of Early Jewish Identity (FAT 80; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 128–42. The Judean communities of Egypt are not referred to, however, either in Ezra-Nehemiah or in 1 Esdras. 13 The genealogy is introduced into the text through the literary technique of repetitive resumption, from ‫ עזרא‬in Ezra 7:1 to ‫ הוא עזרא‬in Ezra 7:6. I am not as confident as a variety of scholars are that many, if not most, of the lists and genealogies in Chronicles, Ezra, and

412

Chapter 15

lineage of Ezra 7:1–5 places Ezra in some illustrious company—Hilqiah, Zadoq, Phinehas, Eleazar, and others—before concluding with the relevant figure of the authoritative Sinaitic age, “the chief priest (‫ )הכהן הראש‬Aaron” (Ezra 7:5).14 Like the founding father (Aaron), Ezra had never actually lived in the land, at least up to this point.15 The genealogy establishes Ezra’s credentials as a priest, even though Ezra is not called a chief priest himself.16 The statement about pedigree serves multiple functions. To begin with, the family tree indicates that priestly lineages were maintained even in the diaspora. The great distance of expatriates from the Jerusalem temple does not lead to the dissolution of priestly succession in the Babylonian Judean community. Residing in a cosmopolitan city far from Jerusalem in Judah, the expatriate Ezra is a direct descendant of a distinguished series of Aaronide priests, who had served at the First Temple. The length of the lineage is itself important, because most genealogies from the ancient Near Eastern world extend to just two or three generations. The content of the genealogy thus establishes his pedigree, status, and ancestral roots in the land. Nehemiah are late additions to the text. Genealogies were used, for example, in the classical world to address questions about the pedigree and relations (or non-relations) among the characters discussed in literary narratives, G. N. Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9 (AB 12; New York: Doubleday/New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), 245–65. The inclusion of genealogical material adds depth and definition to the surrounding narratives. Hence, the judgment as to whether a genealogy or a list represents a later addition to a given narrative text should be addressed on a case-by-case basis. 14 The lemma of the MT may also be translated as “the first priest,” D. W. Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel (Oxford Theological Monographs; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 169–70. See also 1 Esd 8:2 πρώτου ἱερέως, “first priest” or “chief priest.” J. W. Watts discusses the importance of the Aaronide pedigree for a variety of priestly dynasties that served in the Yahwistic temples of the postmonarchic era: “The Torah as the Rhetoric of Priesthood,” in The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance (ed. G. N. Knoppers and B. M. Levinson; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 319–31. 15 The issues involved in the classification of the priests and Levites as well as the history of their relationships in postmonarchic times are much debated, J. Schaper, Priester und Leviten im achämenidischen Juda: Studien zur Kult- und Sozialgeschichte Israels in persischer Zeit (FAT 31; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 162–308. 16 He is, however, repeatedly referred to as such (ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς) in 1 Esd 9:39, 40, 49. In the work of Josephus (Ant. 11.121), which is dependent on 1 Esdras, Ezra is referred to as a chief priest (πρῶτος ἱερεὺς), residing in Babylon. For an argument that Ezra was actually a high priest, see K. Koch, “Ezra and Meremoth: Remarks on the History of the High Priesthood,” in Sha‘arei Talmon: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon (ed. M. Fishbane and E. Tov; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 105–10. Interestingly, Josephus, drawing on his main source (1 Esdras), speaks of Ezra functioning as a chief priest (πρῶτος ἱερεὺς) in Babylon at the same time as Joiaqim was functioning as a high priest (ἀρχιερεὺς). On this curiosity, see J. VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004), 45–46.

THE JUDEAN COMMUNITIES OF BABYLON AND JERUSALEM IN EZRA

413

The importance of Ezra’s lineage for understanding his identity can be viewed from another vantage point. The particular configuration of his immediate ancestors is significant and requires some commentary. The genealogist does not mention any Neo-Babylonian or Persian period predecessors for Ezra. The text lists Ezra’s most immediate predecessor as Seraiah son of Azariah.17 This means that there is over a century between the time of Ezra and that of his most recent priestly predecessor.18 Family trees can be highly selective and telescopic in character and thus skip over what genealogists consider to be insignificant generations.19 Genealogists can choose to omit the mention of those whom they consider to be embarrassing or malefic characters. Given the existence of these sorts of typical genealogical conceits, it is useful to study what the lineage contains and what it lacks (or omits). The books of Kings and Jeremiah mention that Seraiah was the “chief priest” (‫)כהן הראש‬ at the time of the second Babylonian deportation of 586 BCE (2 Kgs 25:18, 21// Jer 52:24, 27).20 Seraiah was captured and executed in that same year by the Babylonians at Riblah (2 Kgs 25:18–21//Jer 52:24–27). The author of the long priestly genealogy in Chronicles speaks of Jehozadaq as the successor to Seraiah, but mentions that Jehozadaq was banished to Babylon, when “Yhwh exiled Judah and Jerusalem by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar” (1 Chr 5:41).21 Jehozadaq, in turn, is mentioned in Haggai (1:1, 12, 14; 2:2, 4), Zechariah (6:11), and elsewhere in Ezra (3:2, 8; 5:2; 10:18) as the father of Jeshua, the high priest in the early postexilic period. The connection to Jehozadaq, and ultimately to Aaron, legitimates Jeshua’s priesthood and, by implication, that of his Persian-period successors.22 The familial ancestry furnished for Ezra thus indicates that Ezra 17 MT and LXX Ezra 7:1, as well as 1 Esd 8:1 and 2 Esd 1:3, have “Seraiah.” The name is lacking in both Josephus (Ant. 10.153) and 1 Chr 9:10–11, but not in Neh 11:11. The fact that Josephus speaks of a sequence of eighteen high priests in First Temple times, but provides only seventeen specific names (Ant. 10.152–153; 20.231) would seem to confirm the likelihood of a haplography. See further, Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, 496. 18 One branch of the family led by Jeshua returned to Jerusalem in the late sixth century, while a collateral branch of the family presumably chose to remain in Babylon. 19 Especially middle generations. The first and last names appearing in lineages are usually the most significant, R. Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Biblical World (Yale Near Eastern Researches 7; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977). 20 The fact that Ezra appears as a “son” of Seraiah may explain the rabbinic tradition that situates him in the exilic period and renders him a contemporary of Zerubbabel (Cant. Rab. 5.5). 21 G. N. Knoppers, “The Relationship of the Priestly Genealogies to the History of the High Priesthood in Jerusalem,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period (ed. O. Lipschits and J. Blenkinsopp; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 109–33. 22 In the table which follows, I am placing Ezra in the time of Eliashib, and not in the earlier time of Joiaqim. Admittedly, this is somewhat arbitrary, because the writers of the Ezra narrative do not disclose, perhaps deliberately, who was functioning as high priest

414

Chapter 15

was consanguineous with the priests serving at the Jerusalem temple. The different lines of descent, as they appear in select literary settings (including that of Josephus), may be compared in this context.23 1 Chr 5:29–41

Ezra 7:1–5

Levi Qohath Amram Aaron

Aaron

Josephus

Neh 12:10–11 Neh 12:22a

a The list of priestly names in MT (and LXX) Neh 12:22 is problematically introduced by the phrase, ‫“( הלוים בימי אלישיב‬The Levites in the days of Eliashib”). Text-critical solutions vary. Given the appearance of the participle (‫ )כתובים‬later in the verse, followed by the clause, “heads of the ancestral houses and the priests” (‫)ראשי אבות וכהנים‬, W. Rudolph reconstructs: “The heads of the ancestral houses of the priests in the days of Eliashib,” Esra und Nehemia (HAT 20; Tübingen: Mohr, 1949), 194. Blenkinsopp (Ezra-Nehemiah, 333) thinks that the present introduction to v. 22 is a gloss influenced by the introduction to v. 23 (“The sons of Levi, heads of ancestral houses, were recorded …”) and so omits ‫הלוים‬. Also assuming that v. 22 is corrupt, influenced by the introduction to v. 23, A. H. J. Gunneweg emends the text to read: “The priests in the days of Eliashib,” Nehemia (KAT 19/2; Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1987), 151. The NJPS translation presents another possibility, “The Levites and the priests were listed by heads of clans in the days of Eliashib …” Williamson basically maintains the MT reading, understanding the reference to the Levites as pertaining to the form of social organization (families) recorded for both the Levites (v. 23) and the priests in this specific instance, Ezra, Nehemiah, 356, 364. during the time of Ezra. On Joiaqim, see Neh 12:10, 12–13, 26; Jdt 4:6, 8; Josephus, Ant. 11.121, 158 (cf. 1 Esd 5:5; Bar 1:7). In the reconstruction of F. M. Cross, Eliashib (II) was born around 495 BCE, while his son Joiada (I) was born around 470 BCE, “A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration,” JBL 94 (1975), 4–18 (= Int 29 [1975] 187–203); idem, From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), 151–72. If so, Eliashib II would most likely be the high priest during the times of both Ezra and Nehemiah. His successor Joiada would be too young to be serving as high priest in the mid-fifth century. For an argument that “Johanan [grand]son of Eliashib” (Ezra 10:6) was the high priest of Ezra’s time, see L. S. Fried, “A Silver Coin of Yohanan Hakkôhen,” Transeu 26 (2003), 65–85, pls. II–V; eadem, Ezra: A Critical Commentary (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2015), 395. 23 The lists of priests appear chiefly in two contexts (Ant. 10.152–53; 20.224–34). Only the latter discussion deals with the beginning of the postmonarchic period. The references to the other high priests have to be gleaned from scattered comments in other settings— Joiaqim (Ant. 11.121); Eliashib (11.158); Joiada (11.297); Jonathan (11.297); Jaddua (11.302); Onias (11.347). Josephus speaks of a succession of fifteen high priests, beginning with Jeshua until the time of Antiochus Eupator at the beginning of the Hasmonean era (Ant. 20.234).

THE JUDEAN COMMUNITIES OF BABYLON AND JERUSALEM IN EZRA

415

(cont.)

1 Chr 5:29–41

Ezra 7:1–5

Eleazar Phinehas Abishua Buqqi Uzzi Zerahiah Meraioth Amariah Ahitub Zadoq Ahimaaz Azariah Johanan Azariah Amariah Ahitub Zadoq

Eleazar Phinehas Abishua Buqqi Uzzi Zerahiah Meraioth

Shallum Hilqia Azariah Seraiah Jehozadaq

Shallum Hilqiah Azariah Seraiah

Azariah Amariah Ahitub Zadoq

Ezra

Josephus

Neh 12:10–11 Neh 12:22

Sadokos Achimas Azarias Iōramos Iōs Axiōramos Phideas Soudaias Iouēlos Iōthamos Ourias Ōdaias Salloumos Elkias Azaros Iōsadakos Iēsous Iōakeimos Eliasibos Iōdas

Jeshua Joiaqim Eliashib Joiada

Eliashib Joiadab

b In the short list of Neh 12:23, Johanan is mentioned as a son of Eliashib; cf. Jehohanan ben Eliashib in Ezra 10:6 (Ιωαναν in 1 Esd 9:1, but Ιωαννες in Josephus, Ant. 11.147). The matter is complicated by the question of whether the priest(s) named Eliashib, who appears in the stories about control of certain temple chambers (Ezra 10:6; Neh 13:4) is a high priest (Rooke, Zadok’s Heirs, 169–70). But Rudolph (Esra und Nehemia, 203–4), Williamson (Ezra, Nehemiah,

416

Chapter 15

(cont.)

1 Chr 5:29–41

Ezra 7:1–5

Josephus

Neh 12:10–11 Neh 12:22

Iōannes Iaddous Onias

Jonathanc Jaddua

Johanan Jaddua

151–54, 386), and Blenkinsopp (Ezra-Nehemiah, 189–90, 336–41) think not. On Joiada, see, e.g., Neh 12:10–11, 22; 13:28 (cf. Ezra 10:6; Neh 12:23; 13:28; Josephus, Ant. 11.297 [Ιωδας]). VanderKam provides a useful discussion of high-priestly succession in the postexilic period, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 43–99. c In the genealogy of Neh 12:10–11 (and in Josephus, Ant. 11.297) Jonathan succeeds Joiada, while in the list of Neh 12:22 Johanan is mentioned after Joiada. In the view of VanderKam, Jonathan is a copyist’s error for Johanan, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 55. The issue is important and may be related to two other questions. The first is whether the list in Neh 12:22 functions as a genealogical sequence. The names in Neh 12:22 are connected to the reign of Darius the Persian (‫)על־מלכות דריוש הפרסי‬. Presumably, given the occurrence of the final name Jaddua, the reference is to Darius III (Codomannus). It may be, as some have argued, that the preposition (‫ )על‬can sometimes carry the force of “to” or “up to” (= ‫ )אל‬in Late Biblical Hebrew, A. Kropat, Die Syntax des Autors der Chronik verglichen mit der seiner Quellen: ein Beitrag zur historischen Syntax des Hebräischen (BZAW 16; Giessen: A. Töpelmann, 1909), 41–42. See also D. Marcus (‫ ;עזרא ונחמיה‬Ezra and Nehemiah [BHQ 20; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006], 47*). W. F. Albright (“The Date and Personality of the Chronicler,” JBL [1921], 113), followed by J. M. Myers (Ezra, Nehemiah [AB 14; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965], 195, 198–99), emends the text in Neh 12:22 to ‫( מעל‬the initial ‫ מ‬having been lost after ‫ )כהנים‬and connects this phrase with what follows in v. 23, pertaining to the time of Johanan son of Eliashib. More plausible is the proposal of Rudolph, who argues for a haplography (homoioarkton) and reconstructs ‫ד‬ ‎ ‫על־ספר דברי הימים ע‬, “upon the scroll of chronicles up to (the time of Darius the Persian),” Esra und Nehemia, 194. The second question involves whether the genealogy of Neh 12:10–11 is, as almost all commentators suppose, a high-priestly succession in genealogical dress. It may not be. See D. N. Fulton, “Jeshua’s ‘High Priestly’ Lineage? A Reassessment of Nehemiah 12:10–11,” in Exile and Restoration Revisited: Essays in Memory of Peter R. Ackroyd (ed. G. N. Knoppers, L. L. Grabbe, and D. N. Fulton; LSTS 73; London: T&T Clark Continuum, 2009), 94–115.

As the comparative table demonstrates, Ezra’s lineage bypasses the generations covered by all of the high priests of the Neo-Babylonian and early Achaemenid ages. At first glance, one might say that this is perfectly understandable, because Ezra and his immediate predecessors reside in Babylon and not in Jerusalem. Yet, there may be more to the story than that. In the case of Ezra, his genealogical proximity to Seraiah (with no mention of intervening ancestors of his line in Babylon) underscores his close connection to the preexilic succession of priests in Judah. The link with the First Temple lineage is

THE JUDEAN COMMUNITIES OF BABYLON AND JERUSALEM IN EZRA

417

vital, because it provides Ezra with a pedigree that is as stellar as that of Jeshua and his successors in Jerusalem. Both are ultimately tied to the same priestly family tree and both have undergone the experience of living in exile. The appearance of a lengthy Aaronide lineage for Ezra is thus no accident. As Ezra’s mission evolves, he and his confederates will do battle with a number of elite families in Jerusalem, including priestly and Levitical families, over the issue of intermarriage with foreign women (Ezra 9:1–10:44). One of the priestly families that becomes involved in this crisis is none other than that of Jeshua ben Jozadaq (Ezra 10:18). Members of Jeshua’s family are listed first among those priestly families who elect to divorce their foreign wives (Ezra 10:19). Ezra’s position on intermarriage, and that of the community at large, was to hold sway over a prominent, perhaps the prominent, priestly dynasty in Jerusalem.24 Apparently, the ties that bind are very strong. The fact that Ezra’s family had been in exile for some six generations from the time of the early sixth century to the time of the mid-fifth century has no ill effect on his ability to influence the course of events in his homeland. Indeed, one could argue that since Ezra is a recent arrival from Babylon, one of the centers of imperial power, and a direct appointee of the Persian king, he has an edge over against his priestly kin, who had been repatriated some generations earlier.25 The narrative introduction provides further information about “this Ezra” (‫)הוא עזרא‬. He was a scribe, “skilled in the torah of Moses, which Yhwh the God of Israel had given” (Ezra 7:6). Ezra was thus a scholar, rather than a scribe in a narrow or limited sense (e.g., a clerk or a copyist).26 This particular priest was not simply literate in the sense of being able to handle temple records, receipts, legal deeds, and such, but an expert in what the writers of Ezra-Nehemiah present as the foundational document or sacred constitution

24

The importance of Jeshua can be seen by his place at the forefront of a number of different lists and genealogies dealing with the postmonarchic age (Ezra 2:2//Neh 7:7; 2:6//Neh 7:11; 3:8; Neh 12:1, 10–11, 26). The time of Zerubbabel and Jeshua (and not that of Sheshbazzar and his generation—Ezra 1:8; 5:14–16) is presented as of primary importance, probably because the temple was rebuilt and dedicated during the age of Zerubbabel and Jeshua. 25 It is telling that in the communal covenant (‫)אמנה‬, the stipulations of which include a commitment not to intermarry (Neh 10:31), the name of the high priest is noticeably missing. J. Liver points out that some six priestly names found in Neh 12:1–21, most notably some belonging to the prominent Jedaiah lineage (cf. Ezra 2:36–39), are not found among the signatories to the corporate pledge in Neh 10:1–40, Chapters in the History of the Priests and Levites (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1968), 35–42 (Hebrew). 26 K. van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007), 78–82.

418

Chapter 15

of their people.27 Ezra may live far away from Jerusalem, but he identifies with Israel and the torah that the God of Israel had given to his people. The story presupposes, of course, that the Babylonian community had such a torah scroll and that Ezra (and others) not only read (or recited) it, but also made a point of studying it. The point about torah study relates to the kind of religiosity that could or could not be practiced in a diasporic setting. Ethnographers point out that the typical practices of a group at a certain time should not be interpreted as innate, ineffable, and immutable indications of permanent identity.28 Members of a given ethnicity may change their behaviors in response to shifting political, cultural, or social circumstances. This is not to discount the commonly cited factors of shared myths, social structures, ancestral ties, languages, religious institutions, political associations, and so forth in helping to define a people. Rather, the choice and content of such indices may be modified to meet new social, political, religious, or economic challenges. Group identity may be reframed and renegotiated in different times and settings.29 27 The presentation is at some variance with the presentation of Ezra in the Artaxerxes rescript (esp. 7:12–14, 21) as a Persian-appointed official sent by the imperial court to conduct an inquiry in Judah and Jerusalem. The expansion of the rescript in vv. 25–26 extends Ezra’s authority to “all who know your God’s laws” in Transeuphratene (Knoppers, “Beyond Jerusalem and Judah,” 78–88). In the reconstruction of L. S. Fried, Ezra’s original mission was to check whether the satrap and governors were conducting their duties in service to the king: “‘You shall Appoint Judges’: Ezra’s Mission and the Rescript of Artaxerxes,” in Persia and Torah: The Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch (ed. J. W. Watts; SymS 17; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2001), 63–89; eadem, Ezra and the Law in History and Tradition (Studies on Personalities of the Old Testament; Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 2014), 27; eadem, Ezra: A Critical Commentary, 311–20. It is likely, therefore, that the present form of the book conflates multiple images of Ezra in early Judean tradition, Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 136–57; idem, Judaism: The First Phase: The Place of Ezra and Nehemiah in the Origins of Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 48–61. 28 O. Patterson, “Context and Choice in Ethnic Allegiance: A Theoretical Framework and Caribbean Case Study,” in Ethnicity: Theory and Experience (ed. N. Glazer and D. P. Moynihan; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975), 308; M. G. Brett, “Interpreting Ethnicity,” in Ethnicity and the Bible (ed. M. G. Brett; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 3–22. 29 Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness, 1–10; J. Berquist, “Constructions of Identity in Postcolonial Yehud,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period (see n. 10), 53–66; B. Hensel, “Von ‘Israeliten’ zu ‘Ausländern’: Zur Entwicklung anti-samaritanischer Polemik ab der hasmonäischen Zeit,” ZAW 126 (2014), 475–93; K. Weingart, Stämmevolk— Staatsvolk—Gottesvolk? Studien zur Verwendung des Israel-Namens im Alten Testament (FAT II/68; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014); L. C. Jonker, Defining All-Israel in Chronicles: Multi-levelled Identity Negotiation in Late Persian-period Yehud (FAT 106; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016).

THE JUDEAN COMMUNITIES OF BABYLON AND JERUSALEM IN EZRA

419

Residing in Babylon over the generations, the Judean community had to make a number of adjustments. Ezra’s immediate priestly predecessors were not able to serve at the Jerusalem temple, yet they could maintain a priestly succession as if they still had access to the temple.30 Members of the diaspora could not easily journey to the Jerusalem sanctuary to bring offerings there, but they could send gifts and tribute to the temple (Ezra 1:4, 6; 7:16; 8:25–30). Given Ezra’s geographical location, it would not be feasible for Ezra to offer sacrifices at the Jerusalem temple. Nevertheless, he is able to study sacrifices in the book that prescribes how such sacrifices are to be offered (Ezra 7:10–11). When facing the challenge of embarking on a long unguarded journey from their encampment by the Ahava River to Jerusalem, Ezra and his compatriots do not resort to bringing offerings to the nearest sanctuary. Rather, Ezra proclaims a fast and seeks out the deity (‫)ונבקשה מאלהינו על־זאת‬, who becomes the object of entreaties by Ezra and his party (Ezra 8:21–23).31 In these and other ways, the authors of Ezra-Nehemiah highlight a certain kind of piety that is especially appropriate to an exilic setting, but need not be exclusive to that setting.32 2

Teaching and Practicing Torah in the Homeland

If the genealogy situates Ezra in a long succession of priests who served for centuries at the temple and before that at the tabernacle, the narrative

30

My assumption is that the Babylonian Judeans did not have their own temple. Some scholars have viewed the mention of “the place (‫ )המקום‬Casiphia” in Ezra 8:17 as indicating the existence of a Yahwistic sanctuary in Babylon. But an allusion, absent other evidence, is not much to go on: G. N. Knoppers, “‘The City Yhwh has Chosen’: The Chronicler’s Promotion of Jerusalem in the Light of Recent Archaeology,” in Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period (ed. A. Killebrew and A. Vaughn; SymS 18; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2003), 320, n. 55. B. A. Levine argues on the basis of Ezek 20:27–29, 32–44 that sacrificial worship of Yhwh was, in fact, deemed to be illicit in the Babylonian Judean community, “The Next Phase in Jewish Religion: The Land of Israel as Sacred Space,” in Tehillah le-Moshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg (ed. M. Cogan, B. L. Eichler, and J. H. Tigay; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 245–57. The oracle of Ezek 20:40 points the entire house of Israel back to worshiping “on my holy mountain.” 31 The phenomenon of preparatory fasts is attested in other late texts (Est 4:15–16; 2 Chr 20:3; Jer 36:9). 32 I. Ephʿal discusses a variety of other adjustments the Judean community could make in a Babylonian context, “The Babylonian Exile: The Survival of a National Minority in a Culturally Developed Milieu,” in Gründungsfeier des Centrum Orbis Orientalis am 16. Dezember 2005 (ed. R. G. Kratz; Göttingen: Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2006), 21–31.

420

Chapter 15

introduction stresses Ezra’s skill as a scribe of the torah.33 Reflecting this bipartite introduction, Ezra receives in a number of cases the dual title “the priest, the scribe” or “scribal priest” (‫ )הכהן הספר‬in the rescript and story to follow.34 But it is his expertise in “matters of the commandments of Yhwh and his statutes concerning Israel” (Ezra 7:11) that stands out.35 Indeed, in speaking of Ezra’s ambition, the text declares that Ezra “set his heart to seek out (‫ )לדרוש‬the torah of Yhwh, to observe (‫ )לעשת‬and to teach (‫ )ללמד‬statute and custom in Israel” (Ezra 7:10).36 Ezra envisions his task upon his return as residing not so much in the narrow sacerdotal realm, offering sacrifices or helping to administer the temple, as in the realm of education and law, practicing and teaching torah in his ancestral homeland. Moreover, his desire is not narrowly construed as teaching law to his fellow scribes at the temple. Rather, his ambition is broadly construed as teaching “statute and custom in Israel.” In other words, the fact that Ezra and his priestly forefathers have not been able to officiate and offer sacrifices at the Jerusalem temple for a number of generations is not the driving force leading him to journey to his ancestral land. The declaration is particularly striking, because in pentateuchal legislation, officiating at the altar, offering sacrifices, and safeguarding the sanctity of

33 The rescript, however, underscores his ties to the highest echelon of the central Achaemenid government (Ezra 7:12–14, 25–26). 34 Ezra 7:11 (//1 Esd 8:8), 12 (//1 Esd 8:9), 21(//1 Esd 8:19); Neh 8:9 (//1 Esd 9:49 [“high priest and reader”]); 12:26. As simply a priest, see Ezra 10:10 (the title is lacking in 1 Esd 9:7), 16 (//1 Esd 9:16). Ezra is first introduced as a scribe in Ezra 7:6 (//1 Esd 8:3). For the name Ezra accompanied by the title of scribe, see Neh 8:1 (cf. 1 Esd 9:39 “priest and reader”), 8:4 (cf. 1 Esd 9:42 “priest and reader of the law”), 8:13; 12:36. For the proper name, absent any titles, see Ezra 7:1 (//1 Esd 8:1), 7:10 (//1 Esd 8:7), 7:25 (//1 Esd 8:23); 10:1 (//1 Esd 8:88), 10:2 (//1 Esd 8:89), 10:5 (//1 Esd 8:92), 10:6 (//1 Esd 9:1), 1 Esd 9:7; Neh 8:5 (//1 Esd 9:45); 8:6 (//1 Esd 9:46). The range and different combinations of Ezra’s titles are discussed at some length by Pakkala (Ezra the Scribe, 42–44), who regards the use of the dual title as reflecting one of the latest layers in the development of the Ezra text. This is quite possible, but the situation may be more complicated, given the likelihood of haplography (homoioarkton) in the transmission of the text (‫)הכהן הספר‬. For this reason, I am not as inclined as Pakkala is to disregard the witness of 1 Esdras (9:39 [cf. Neh 8:1]; 9:42 [cf. Neh 8:4]), when it has a form (or a modified form) of the dual title in the two instances in which Ezra-Nehemiah reads only one of the two titles (“scribe”). 35 It is this expertise and skill, rather than the care and offering of sacrifices, which is celebrated in later tradition (e.g., b. B. Bat. 15a, 21b–22a; b. Qidd. 69a–b; b. Sanh. 21b; b. Sukkah 20a; t. Sanh. 4:7; j. Meg. 1:9). See further, G. Porten, “Ezra in Rabbinic Literature,” in Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives (ed. J. M. Scott; JSJSup 72; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 305–33. 36 On the specialized use of the verb ‫דרש‬, see my I Chronicles 10–29 (AB 12A; New York: Doubleday/New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), 524.

THE JUDEAN COMMUNITIES OF BABYLON AND JERUSALEM IN EZRA

421

the sanctuary are deemed to be central duties of priests (Exod 28:43; 29:1–46; 30:1–38; Lev 1:1–7:38; 8:14–9:24; Num 18:1–8). To be sure, there are a few texts in Deuteronomy that mention priestly instructions. Before Israel is to go to war, a priest is supposed to address the troops (Deut 20:1–3). The pedagogical duties of the sacerdocy may also be assumed in the so-called law of the king (Deut 17:14–20) insofar as the torah scroll that the king is obliged to study is in the possession of the Levitical priests (Deut 17:18). In one of his last actions, Moses writes down “this torah” and gives it to the priests and instructs the priests and all the elders of Israel so that they might read and teach “this torah” every seven years (Deut 31:9–13). Finally, in the poem of Deut 33:1–29 (the “Blessing of Moses”), teaching (‫ )יורו‬Yhwh’s instructions to Israel (‫ )תורתך לישראל‬is one of the major functions of the tribe of Levi (MT Deut 33:10a), along with offering sacrifices (Deut 33:10b).37 There are also some passages in the prophets, especially in the works of the later prophets, that speak, whether derisively or more positively, of requesting instruction (‫)תורה‬ from the priests (Jer 18:18; Ezek 7:26; Hag 2:11; Mal 2:6–7). Hosea 4:6 speaks of Yhwh rejecting the priest(hood), because “you have forgotten (‫ )תשכח‬the teaching )‫ )תורת‬of your God.” The writer of Ezek 22:26 has Yhwh declare that the priests “have violated (‫ )חמסו‬my instruction” (‫ ;תורתי‬cf. Zeph 3:4). Nevertheless, in the legislation dealing with priests in the Pentateuch, the sacerdotal obligation to provide instruction in torah is a relative rarity. In the statutes governing Israel’s office holders (Deut 16:18–18:22), the stipulations governing Levitical priests (Deut 18:1–8) mention the duty “to stand (and) to serve (‫ )לשרת‬in the name of Yhwh,” that is, to serve at the central altar (Deut 18:5, 7). These stipulations pertaining to the support and duties of the Levitical priests do not mention teaching. Speaking on behalf of the deity is a responsibility of the prophets (Deut 18:15–22). The prophet Yhwh will raise up is to be the successor to Moses (Deut 18:15–18): “If anyone should fail to heed the words he speaks in my [Yhwh’s] name, I myself will hold him accountable” (Deut 18:19). The transformations appearing in the book of Ezra ironically mean, among other things, that although Ezra the priest dedicates his life to teaching torah to his compatriots so that they could apply torah to their own lives, the torah he is advancing mentions such a pedagogical role for priests only in a few of its

37

The pedagogical duties of the priests and Levites are also mentioned in some late narrative texts (e.g., 2 Chr 17:7–9; Jub 31:13–17). In one of the rabbinic texts written about Ezra, Ezra is praised for his choice of training, because Torah study is deemed to be superior to temple worship (b. Meg. 16b).

422

Chapter 15

Deuteronomic (or Deuteronomistic) portions.38 In the case of Ezra, the wish to study and teach “the commandments of Yhwh and his statutes concerning Israel” (7:11) is, however, paramount. This evidence suggests that the definition of what it means to be a Judean (or an Israelite) not only has shifted in the diaspora, but also that (in Ezra’s view) the Judeans residing in the homeland may profit from undergoing such a shift themselves.39 3

Ethnicity, Geography, and Community Identity

At this point in the discussion, it may be helpful to pause and consider some controverted questions of identity, religion, and ethnicity. Within the first few 38

39

Given that the stipulations alluded to in Ezra 9:1–2 involve Deuteronomic law and other aspects of the Ezra narrative presuppose Priestly stipulations, my assumption is that the torah text referred to in the story of Ezra includes both Priestly and Deuteronomic elements. If, as some argue, the torah of Ezra was primarily Priestly in character, the content of that more limited code would undermine the positive legal basis for Ezra’s teaching mission. The secondary literature on the issue of the nature of Ezra’s torah is voluminous. See, e.g., S. Mowinckel, Studien zu dem Buche Ezra-Nehemia, 3: Die Esrageschichte und das Gesetz Moses (Skrifter utgitt av det Norske videnskaps-akademi i Oslo, II: Hist.-filos. Klasse, Ny serie 7; Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1965), 124–41; U. Kellermann, “Erwägungen zum Esragesetz,” ZAW 80 (1968), 373–85; R. Rendtorff, “Esra und das Gesetz,” ZAW 96 (1984), 165–84; A. H. J. Gunneweg, Esra (KAT 19/1; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn, 1985), 118–27; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 88–106; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 152–57; Kratz, Judentum, 6–22; I. Kalimi, Zur Geschichtsschreibung des Chronisten: Literarisch-historiographische Abweichungen der Chronik von ihren Paralleltexten in den Samuel- und Königsbüchern (BZAW 226; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995), 128; Willi, Juda—Yehud— Israel, 91–101; T. Veijola, Moses Erben: Studien zum Dekalog, zum Deuteronomismus und zum Schriftgelehrtentum (BWANT 149; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2000), 224–40; B. Becking, “The Idea of Thorah: A Functional Analysis,” ZAR 7 (2001), 273–86 [repr. Construction of Early Jewish Identity (see n. 12), 43–57]. For the sake of clarity, I refer to the residents of the exilic communities as Judeans. The text of Ezra often refers to them as “the children of the exile,” or simply as “Israel(ites).” In employing the latter usage, the writers of Ezra are not unique: H. G. M. Williamson, “The Concept of Israel in Transition,” in The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological, and Political Perspectives (ed. R. E. Clements; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 119–42; S. S. Scatolini Apóstolo, “On the Elusiveness and Malleability of ‘Israel,’” JHS 6 (2006), 1–27; R. Heckl, Neuanfang und Kontinuität in Jerusalem: Studien zu den hermeneutischen Strategien im Esra-Nehemia-Buch (FAT 104; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016); idem, “The Composition of Ezra-Nehemiah as a Testimony for the Competition Between the Temples in Jerusalem and on Mt. Gerizim in the Early Years of the Seleucid Rule over Judah,” in The Bible, Qumran, and the Samaritans (ed. M. Kartveit and G. N. Knoppers; SJ 104; StSam 10; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2018), 115–32; B. Hensel, Juda und Samaria: Zum Verhältnis zweier nach-exilischer Jahwismen (FAT 110; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016).

THE JUDEAN COMMUNITIES OF BABYLON AND JERUSALEM IN EZRA

423

lines of the Ezra narrative, one is introduced to two Judean groups coexisting in two completely separate geographic locales. The practice of Judaism has become an international phenomenon. One group is centered in Jerusalem in one part of the patrimonial territory of Israel, while another, consisting of expatriates, resides far away in one of the major centers of Mesopotamia. Neither community enjoys political hegemony. Both comprise but very small parts of an immense Achaemenid empire. In spite of the great distance between them and the two different geographic regions of which they are a part, each exhibits a very similar social-religious structure consisting of Israelites (understood to be laypeople), priests, Levites, singers, gatekeepers, and temple servants (Ezra 7:7).40 This common social structure is maintained over several generations with little development. At least, that would seem to be a valid inference from the nearly identical social classification of those who returned to Jerusalem under Zerubbabel and Jeshua—Israelites, priests, Levites, singers, gatekeepers, temple servants, sons of Solomon’s servants (Ezra 2:1–70// Neh 7:6–72a)—and those who returned under Ezra—Israelites, priests, Levites, singers, gatekeepers, and temple servants (Ezra 7:7; 8:1–20).41 Both groups also exhibit similar kinship structures, the ‫“( בית אבות‬ancestral houses”), marking units that are larger than families but smaller than tribes.42 This social organization of the people into ancestral houses is attested 40

The system of categorization is all the more intriguing, when one considers that Kings and Jeremiah do not depict preexilic Judah as having the same societal makeup, K. L. Sparks, Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Israel (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1998). To complicate matters, there is only partial overlap between the social presentation of Chronicles (which largely depicts the time of the monarchy) and that of Ezra-Nehemiah. 41 Although the gatekeepers (‫ )השערים‬are mentioned in Ezra 7:7, they do not appear in the list of Ezra 8:1–20. 42 J. P. Weinberg, “Das Bēit ʾĀbōt im 6.–4. Jh. v. u. Z.,” VT 23 (1973), 400–14 [“The Bēit ʾĀbōt in the Sixth to Fourth Centuries BCE,” in The Citizen-Temple Community (JSOTSup 151; trans. D. L. Smith-Christopher; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 49–61]; P.-E. Dion, “The Civic-and-Temple Community of Persian Period Judaea: Neglected Insights from Eastern Europe,” JNES 50 (1991), 281–87; J. Blenkinsopp, “Temple and Society in Achaemenid Judah,” in Second Temple Studies 1: Persian Period (ed. P. R. Davies; JSOTSup 117; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 22–53; B. A. Levine, “The Clan-Based Economy of Ancient Israel,” in Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina—Proceedings of the Centennial Symposium, W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research and American Schools of Oriental Research, Jerusalem, May 29–31, 2000 (ed. W. G. Dever and S. Gitin; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 445–53. H. G. M. Williamson argues, however, that one can discern some changes in familial structure within the development of Ezra-Nehemiah, “The Family in Persian Period Judah: Some Textual Reflections,” in Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past, 469–85.

424

Chapter 15

in Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, and certain parts of the Priestly work.43 To be sure, the ‫ בית אבות‬have been subject to much discussion over the past few decades with scholars disagreeing about the size and precise configuration of these agnatic kinship or quasi-kinship units.44 The issue does not have to be resolved in the context of the present discussion. Rather, it is enough to say that the ‫ בית אבות‬appear as social entities both within the Babylonian Judean community and within the Judean community centered in Jerusalem. Residents of the two communities share a number of important ethnic markers: the same languages (Hebrew and Aramaic), the same bloodlines, similar traditions, and common ties to a particular ancestral territory.45 This evidence suggests that in the view of the authors of Ezra-Nehemiah the Yahwistic communities in Jerusalem and Babylon shared much in common and developed up to a certain point in parallel fashion during the postexilic period. At first glance, the similar social-religious makeup of the two communities may seem absolutely remarkable, but it is not. In the narrative world of Ezra-Nehemiah, the Judean residents of the province of Yehud are actually repatriates from Babylon, Judeans who elected to return to the land of their ancestors in the late sixth century during the reigns of Cyrus the Great and Darius I (Ezra 1–3). One could thus argue that such strong similarities are only to be expected between the two groups. The very terms used to describe the Judean residents—the ‫בני הגולה‬, “the children of the exile” (Ezra 4:1; 6:19–20; 8:35; 10:7, 16), ‫העלים משבי הגולה‬, “the ones who came up from the captivity of the exile” (Ezra 2:1//Neh 7:6), and ‫הגולה‬, “the exile(s)” (Ezra 1:11; 9:4; 10:6)— reinforce this impression.46 When divorce proceedings are convened during the time of Ezra’s visit to deal with the problem of mixed marriages, the convocation is referred to as the “assembly of the exile” (‫ ;קהל הגולה‬Ezra 10:8, 12–16).47 In short, the very terms employed to refer to the Judean community underscore 43 D. S. Vanderhooft, “The Israelite mišpāḥâ, the Priestly Writings, and Changing Valences in Israel’s Kinship Terminology,” in Exploring the Longue Durée: Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager (ed. J. D. Schloen; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 485–96. 44 A brief discussion of relevant scholarship with further references may be found in my I Chronicles 10–29, 616–17. 45 A. D. Smith, The Ethnic Origins of Nations (Oxford: Blackwell, 1986); R. H. Thompson, Theories of Ethnicity: A Critical Appraisal (New York: Greenwood, 1989); Brett, “Interpreting Ethnicity,” 9–20. 46 The reference to the ‫ בני־גלותא‬in Ezra 6:16 is also relevant. On the references to the hendiadys ‫שארית ופליטה‬, “surviving remnant” (Ezra 9:14), the “remnant” (‫ ;פליטה‬9:8, 13, 15), and other terms for the community in the penitential prayer of Ezra, see M. J. Boda, Praying the Tradition (BZAW 277; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999), 68–70. 47 In the case of the “assembly of God” (‫ )קהל האלהים‬in the time of Nehemiah (13:1), the writers are citing the “Book of Moses,” that is, Deut 23:4–7.

THE JUDEAN COMMUNITIES OF BABYLON AND JERUSALEM IN EZRA

425

the links between this community and the diaspora.48 The nomenclature used (“the children of the exile”) underscores dislocation as the cardinal feature in shaping the group’s self-definition. The reference to the experience of exile becomes determinative in distinguishing between insiders and outsiders.49 The Israel of Ezra is geographically dispersed. The various people who identify with the name of Israel may all profess an attachment to the land of Israel, but only some actually reside there. Indigeneity is no longer a necessary criterion for Israelite identity. The term Israel takes on significant ethnic and religious overtones. When Ezra later speaks of his taking strength and assembling “leaders from Israel (‫ )מישראל ראשים‬to go up with me” to Jerusalem (Ezra 7:28), he is speaking of fellow expatriates and not of people in his homeland. The same point can be seen from another perspective. Ethnographers point out that some groups exhibit a clear sense of the self and the other, actively defining their own identities by articulating both their own ethnos and what they are not—the ethnē that are their opposites.50 In the case of Ezra, those who are neither repatriates nor their descendants are referred to as “the people of the land(s)” (‫ )עם הארץ‬or “the peoples of the land(s)” (‫עמי הארצות‬/‫)עמי הארץ‬.51 48 The situation is more complex in the so-called Nehemiah memoir, because Nehemiah often refers to his constituents as “(the) Judeans” (‫)היהודים‬, G. N. Knoppers, “Nehemiah and Sanballat: The Enemy Without or Within?” in Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century (ed. O. Lipschits, G. N. Knoppers, and R. Albertz; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 305–31. 49 I speak of a “reference to the experience of exile,” because most of the people that Ezra would be dealing with in mid-fifth century Yehud would not have experienced exile themselves. Most of these compatriots would be at least a couple of generations removed from the return under Sheshbazzar and the later migration under Zerubbabel and Jeshua. 50 In detail, see E. Ben Zvi, “Inclusion in and Exclusion from Israel as Conveyed by the Use of the Term ‘Israel’ in Post-Monarchic Biblical Texts,” in The Pitcher is Broken: Memorial Essays for Gösta W. Ahlström (ed. S. W. Holloway and L. K. Handy; JSOTSup 190; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995), 99–145. For the Greco-Roman realm, see J. Hall, Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997); I. Malkin, “Introduction,” in Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity (ed. I. Malkin; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001), 1–28; B. Isaac, The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004). 51 See, e.g., Ezra 3:3; 4:4; 9:1, 2, 11; 10:2, 11; Neh 9:24, 30; 10:29, 31, 32. Cf. ‫עמי התעבות האלה‬, “these abominable peoples” (Ezra 9:14); ‫גוי־הארץ‬, “nations of the land” (Ezra 6:21); ‫כל־הגוים אשר‬ ‫סביבתינו‬, “all the nations, which surround us” (Neh 6:16). L. S. Fried contends for a different view, namely that the ‫“( עמ הארץ‬people of the land”) are Persian-appointed governors and satrapal officials, whereas the ‫“( עמי הארץ‬peoples of the lands”) are neighboring population groups, “The ʿam-hāʾāreṣ in Ezra 4:4 and Persian Imperial Administration,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period (see n. 10), 123–45. There is such a distinction in preexilic texts, but I am not so confident that one can maintain the distinction in the postmonarchic text of Ezra-Nehemiah. See Willi, Juda—Jehud—Israel, 11–17 and the

426

Chapter 15

The very choice of nomenclature is important, indicating that residence in the land of Israel is no longer either a necessary or a sufficient criterion of Israelite identity.52 We have been discussing the depiction of the Judeans in Ezra as a transtemporal, international entity. Both the nomenclature referring to the people and the nomenclature referring to their God is identical, regardless of whether one is speaking of dislocated Israelites or of relocated Israelites. The use of such similar terminology is important, yet it does not tell the full story. It does not address the diachronic presentation of corporate life in Yehud over several generations. The book of Ezra-Nehemiah depicts snippets of time in the history of postexilic Judah from the late sixth century to the end of the fifth century. When Ezra and his compatriots elect to travel to Yehud in the mid-fifth century, almost six decades have elapsed since the time of the dedication of the temple under Zerubbabel and Jeshua. Interestingly, the authors of Ezra-Nehemiah do not present the ongoing life of the Judean communities of Babylon and Yehud in a static manner. Quite the contrary, there is a historical progression in the narration of the returns under Sheshbazzar, Zerubbabel and Jeshua, and Ezra. To be sure, there is a stress on the torah in Ezra 1–6. The narrators refer, for example, to the “torah of Moses” as an authoritative writing in connection with the sacrifice of burnt offerings at the Jerusalem altar (Ezra 3:2–3). The celebration of the festival of Sukkot is said to occur “as it is written” (‫ ;ככתוב‬Ezra 3:4). But, as we have seen, there is a new element introduced into the story, when the authors depict the arrival of Ezra the scribe, “skilled in the torah of Moses,” in Jerusalem (Ezra 7:6–9), because this scholar “set his heart to seek out the torah of Yhwh, to observe and to teach law and custom in Israel” (Ezra 7:10).53 In the narration of Ezra’s work in Jerusalem, the task of publicly teaching the torah stands out. Perhaps the parade example is Ezra’s reading from the “scroll of the torah of Moses by which Yhwh charged Israel” in front of the assembly gathered before the Water Gate (Neh 8:1–8). The communal nature of this undertaking is stressed: “The ears of all the people were (directed) to the scroll of the torah” (Neh 8:3). But the pedagogical task involves more than reading. The earlier discussion of S. Talmon, “The Judaean ʿam ha‌ʾareṣ in Historical Perspective,” in the Fourth World Congress of Jewish Studies, 1: Papers (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1967), 71–76. 52 D. Rom-Shiloni discusses the influence of Ezekiel on the mentality found in EzraNehemiah, “Ezekiel as the Voice of the Exiles and Constructor of Exilic Ideology,” HUCA 76 (2006), 1–45. 53 See also B. Becking, “Law as Expression of Religion (Ezra 7–10),” in Yahwism After the Exile (see n. 12), 18–31.

THE JUDEAN COMMUNITIES OF BABYLON AND JERUSALEM IN EZRA

427

Levites, who read from the scroll, were “making (it) distinct (‫ )מפרש‬and gave the sense (‫ )שום שכל‬so that they (the people) understood (‫ )ויבינו‬the reading” (Neh 8:8; cf. v. 12). Moreover, the occasion is presented as a solemn one. The people are repeatedly told not to mourn or weep, as they come to grasp the force of the texts read to them, because “this day is holy to Yhwh your God” (Neh 8:9; cf. v. 11). In the narrative that follows, the community translates its learning into practice, when the people observe Sukkot (Neh 8:13–18). “The entire assembly, those who had returned from the captivity, constructed booths and resided in the booths, for they had not done so since the days of Jeshua son of Nun” (Neh 8:17).54 Each day, during the celebrations, Ezra read to them from “the scroll of the torah of God” (Neh 8:18). Ezra’s instructing the people in the torah, along with the people’s concerted observance of the stipulations found in the torah scroll, are clearly presented as highlights of his work in the homeland. But the kind of public reading of the torah that one finds in connection with the observance of Sukkot is not unique. Another such public reading of the torah by the Levites involves the Israelites’ public confession of sins (Neh 9:1–3), which introduces the long Levitical prayer (9:4–37). The confession of the people’s sins and those of their ancestors leads, in turn, to the public formulation of a detailed covenantal “pledge” (‫ ;אמנה‬Neh 10:1–40). Nehemiah, the leaders, the priests and Levites, the ancestral heads, and the rest of the people all swear an oath in writing “to follow the torah of God, which was given through Moses the servant of God, and to take care to observe all of the commandments of Yhwh our God, his customs and statutes” (Neh 10:1, 30). In the case of the “pledge” (‫)אמנה‬, one written document validates the authority of another (the Torah), even if a number of the commitments of the communal covenant extend beyond the commandments found within the torah.55 One of the important aspects of the presentation of Ezra’s story, even as that story becomes linked to that of Nehemiah, is the stress laid upon the public 54

The incomparability statement is remarkable in light of the earlier assertion that the celebration of Sukkot in the time of Zerubbabel and Jeshua was conducted “as is written” (Ezra 3:4a). The claim made about this earlier celebration may relate directly, however, to the schedule and number of the daily burnt offerings (Ezra 3:4b), whereas the latter statement has to do with all of the people actually constructing booths and residing in them (Neh 8:13–17). For the specific citation base of each text, see K. L. Spawn, As It is Written and Other Citation Formulae in the Old Testament: Their Use, Development, Syntax and Significance (BZAW 311; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002), 97–101, 212–17. 55 Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, 172–81; D. J. A. Clines, “Nehemiah 10 as an Early Example of Early Jewish Biblical Exegesis,” JSOT 21 (1981), 111–17; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 320–40; Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah, 308–19; D. A. Glatt-Gilad, “Reflections on the Structure and Significance of the ʾamānāh” (Neh 10,29–40),” ZAW 112 (2000), 386–95.

428

Chapter 15

reading of, the popular assent given to, and the broad implementation of torah stipulations within the community. Here, one can see the desire felt by the editors of the book to integrate the story of Ezra into the larger framework of the story of Nehemiah, because the public proclamation and explication of torah statutes is not an emphasis in the so-called memoir of Nehemiah.56 The point of the story goes beyond one in which the law is being conceived of as an authoritative written text implemented by select leaders, as in the time of Zerubbabel and Jeshua. There is an additional dimension to the commitment given to the torah in the Ezra narrative insofar as the torah comes to be recited and enacted in a public setting.57 Laymen, laywomen, and children all participate in the exercise (Neh 8:2–3; 7–8) in conformity with one of the directives found in Deuteronomy (31:9–13). The parties who later “cut a covenant” (‫ )כרתים אמנה‬include not only the governor, gatekeepers, singers, and temple servants, but also their wives, sons, and daughters, “all who know (and) understand” (Neh 10:1–29). Yet another public reading from the scroll of Moses serves as a prelude to separation of “everything foreign from Israel” (Neh 13:1–3).58 Public lectures, group discussions, and the practice of authoritative writings thus affirm the authority of the torah for the ongoing life of the repatriated community.59 4 Conclusions In standard scholarly treatments of community identity in Ezra-Nehemiah, an emphasis is placed on the narrowing down of the concept of Israel to apply only to the exiles and their descendants. Whereas some postmonarchic texts, 56

For the view that Nehemiah 8 should be read as an integral part of the larger Nehemiah narrative, see Becking, “Idea of Thorah,” 273–85. 57 As J.-L. Ska observes, certain texts within the Pentateuch underscore the relevance of written law and the authority that such legislation is to have for the larger community, “From History Writing to Library Building: The End of History and the Birth of the Book,” in The Pentateuch as Torah (see n. 14), 145–69. J. Schaper explores the process whereby legal and other important texts were published and confirmed in the community, “The ‘Publication’ of Legal Texts in Ancient Judah,” in The Pentateuch as Torah, 225–36. 58 The number of public readings is stressed by M. W. Duggan, The Covenant Renewal in Ezra-Nehemiah (Neh 7:72b–10:40): An Exegetical, Literary, and Theological Study (SBLDS 164; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001), 108. 59 In such instances, one can discern a transition not so much from the oral to the written as from the written to the oral, G. N. Knoppers and P. B. Harvey, “The Pentateuch in Ancient Mediterranean Context: The Promulgation of Local Law-codes,” in The Pentateuch as Torah (see n. 14), 105–41.

THE JUDEAN COMMUNITIES OF BABYLON AND JERUSALEM IN EZRA

429

such as Chronicles, broadly employ the term Israel to designate anyone who is a resident of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah or who is a biological descendant of the eponymous ancestor Jacob/Israel, the editors of Ezra-Nehemiah restrict the usage of the term Israel to apply to the Judahite deportees to Babylon and their seed. There is much value in recognizing this distinction and in coming to terms with the manner in which different writers (re)define Israel during the Persian and Hellenistic periods.60 Far less attention has been devoted, however, to how the nomenclature employed in Ezra, although restrictive in one sense, is open-ended in another sense. The usage of “the children of exile” (‫ )בני הגולה‬for “Israel” (‫ )ישראל‬authorizes a transformation in the nature of the Judean people from one that is restricted to a certain land in the southern Levant to one that operates in different lands. In my essay, I have argued for a dynamic and complex view of identity formation in the story of Ezra that attempts to take into account the trans-temporal and international nature of the Israelite people. The story of Ezra is not only one of the gradual reconstitution of the formerly exiled Judean people in Jerusalem and Yehud, but also one of the establishment and confirmation of productive long-term relations between the Judean community of Babylon and the Judean community of Yehud.61 The identification of the exiles with Israel is thus not simply a slight against those Judeans who remained in the land during the Neo-Babylonian era, but also a privileging of the diaspora in the continuing history of the Judean people. That the usage remains in place, even though several generations of returnees have lived in the land by the time Ezra arrives in Jerusalem, suggests the primacy of the exilic designation as a symbol uniting the two communities. Indeed, the continuation of such usage over many generations by the authors/editors of Ezra-Nehemiah, who lived centuries after the first return, perpetuates a liminal state for the people residing back in the homeland. The returnees residing within their ancestral territory derive their primary identity neither from their homeland nor from their eponymous ancestor, but from their ancestral links to the diaspora. Such an intergenerational dynamic, which privileges the accomplishments of expatriates in the ongoing history of their ancestral commonwealth, points to a shortcoming of the standard approach, which focuses simply on the rebuilding of institutions in Yehud. Many scholars have construed the Leitmotiv 60 61

So also in the prophetic writings. See, e.g., R. G. Kratz, “Israel in the Book of Isaiah,” JSOT 31 (2006), 103–28. That the impetus to reform consistently stems from Judeans based in the eastern diaspora raises questions as to what the core and periphery are in this book: see my “What is the Core and What is the Periphery?” (see n. 6).

430

Chapter 15

of Ezra-Nehemiah to be the successful institution of a theocracy in Yehud.62 Accepting the fact of Persian imperial rule, the community concentrates on reconstituting itself after the disaster of the Babylonian deportations. When the people return to Judah and Jerusalem, rebuild the temple, and remove everything foreign from Jerusalem, the Judean community becomes the divinely ordained and divinely governed society it was supposed to be.63 In this view, the perspective of Ezra-Nehemiah (or of Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah, for that matter) is fundamentally un-eschatalogical, if not anti-eschatological, in nature.64 Given the fact that Israel has been restored, there is no longer any need for fundamental change. Nevertheless, the writers of Ezra-Nehemiah can only celebrate the accomplishments of Sheshbazzar, Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Ezra, and Nehemiah if they 62 So, e.g., M. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien: Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament (Tübingen: M. Niemeyer, 1943), 171–80 [trans. H. G. M. Williamson, The Chronicler’s History (JSOTSup 50; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), 97–119]; Rudolph, Esra und Nehemia, xxvii–xxx; idem, Chronikbücher (HAT 21; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1955), xviii–xxiv; K. Galling, Die Bücher der Chronik, Esra, Nehemia (ATD 12; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1954), 14–17; O. Plöger, Theokratie und Eschatologie (WMANT 2; Neukirchen: Kreis Moers, Neukirchener Verlag, 1959), 50–58 [trans. S. Rudman, Theocracy and Eschatology (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1968), 37–46]; J. M. Myers, I Chronicles (AB 12; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964), lxxviii–lxxx; idem, Ezra-Nehemiah, liii–lxii. E. M. Dörrfuss points to a number of serious conceptual problems with this longstanding view both with respect to its definition of theocracy and with theocracy being set in opposition to eschatology, Mose in den Chronikbüchern: Garant theokratischer Zukunftserwartung (BZAW 219; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994), 18–118. 63 Of course, as R. Albertz observes, the restoration was only such in name, because the Davidic monarchy was not returned to its former position of power in the community, Religionsgeschichte Israels in alttestamentlicher Zeit (GAT 8,2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), 461–83 [trans. J. Bowden, A History of Religion in the Old Testament Period, 2: From the Exile to the Maccabees (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 437–54]; idem, “The Thwarted Restoration,” in Yahwism After the Exile (see n. 12), 1–17. 64 The view of common authorship for Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah, predominant in the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth century, has been largely, although not entirely, abandoned. See S. Japhet, “The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah Investigated Anew,” VT 18 (1968), 338–71 [repr. From the Rivers of Babylon, 1–37]; eadem, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and its Place in Biblical Thought (BEATAJ 9; Frankfurt a. M.: Lang, 1989); H. G. M. Williamson, Israel in the Books of Chronicles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977); T. Willi, “Late Persian Period Judaism and its Conception of an Integral Israel according to Chronicles,” in Second Temple Studies 2 (see n. 10), 146–62; Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, 73–100; R. W. Klein, 1 Chronicles (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 6–11. But it does not appear that such a separation of Chronicles from Ezra-Nehemiah would affect the conclusions of these earlier scholars that the work (more narrowly construed as the book of Ezra-Nehemiah) is all about the establishment of a theocracy in Jerusalem and Judah.

THE JUDEAN COMMUNITIES OF BABYLON AND JERUSALEM IN EZRA

431

have accepted the ongoing fact of the Judean dispersion.65 For the “children of the exile” to provide repeatedly an active stimulus to the life of the “children of the exile” residing in the homeland, there has to be a longstanding diasporic community.66 The writers allow that the religious practices of the two groups, given their different locations, one with a temple in their midst and the other with a temple in another land, have to differ to some degree. Members of the Babylonian Judean community have to be largely content with supporting Jerusalem, the Jerusalem temple, and its clergy at a distance, whereas the Judeans residing within Yehud and its environs have to frequent the temple itself. Judaism has become an international religion, but the religious practices of the “children of the exile,” who live in different international settings, are not and cannot be completely identical. The stance of the Ezra narrative toward community identity has to do with more than an acceptance of the international nature of the Judean people. The writers also endorse the adoption of certain practices developed in other lands as helpful for the community in Yehud. Transformations that have taken place in the diaspora as a key to community survival are deemed to be relevant for the people in the homeland as well.67 To cast the story of Ezra conservatively as one of restoration is, therefore, misleading in some important respects. The writers of the Ezra story promote a set of behaviors that largely did not exist either in the monarchy or, for that matter, in early postexilic times.68 65 At least for the period under view. In this context, it is relevant that some texts in Ezra (9:7–9) and Nehemiah (9:32, 36–37) speak of the exile as an ongoing phenomenon, in spite of the migrations of some Babylonian Judeans to Yehud. See, further, P. R. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century B.C. (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968), 232–56; Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, 134; Albertz, Religionsgeschichte Israels, 483–87 [History of Religion, 454–58]. B. C. Gregory discusses the possible connections between these texts in Ezra-Nehemiah and related motifs in Third Isaiah, “The Postexilic Exile in Third Isaiah,” JBL 126 (2007), 475–96. 66 See further my “The Construction of Judean Diasporic Identity in Ezra-Nehemiah,” JHS 15 (2015) (http://www.jhsonline.org/). The pattern sketched in the book of Ezra-Nehemiah is not unique, but endures in subsequent centuries. In a later age, the importance of the eastern diaspora for the Judean community in the southern Levant is evident in the efforts of the Tannaim, the Amoraim, and later the Savoraim and the Gaonim in compiling, organizing, and editing the Babylonian Talmud, a monumental work that becomes one of the “Sources” of Judaism. 67 The inconclusive ending of the book (Neh 13:4–31) in which Nehemiah battles against a variety of problems (e.g., Sabbath observance, insufficient support for the Levites, intermarriage) also indicates that the community in Yehud has not yet achieved full restoration. Rather than depicting a society that has achieved all of its goals, the writers of Ezra-Nehemiah depict a society that is called to work toward further renewal. 68 One could hold that a number of Ezra’s actions are called for in different portions of the Pentateuch; but, even so, the point is that these mandates are implemented in Ezra’s time.

432

Chapter 15

The communal public readings and discussions of the torah, the priestly and Levitical instruction of the laity in the torah, and the public divorce and dispossession proceedings against those involved in mixed marriages are all cases in point. In the presentation of Ezra-Nehemiah, such phenomena appear as welcome developments, but they are also new developments.69 With the mission of Ezra, the torah takes on a broader role within provincial life. The same phenomenon can be viewed from another angle within the larger compass of the community’s history. In the narration of Ezra-Nehemiah, the passage of time is not entirely kind to the repatriates and their descendants in Yehud. Indeed, the very migration of Ezra and his cohort suggests a need in the homeland.70 In the age of Ezra, some of the expatriates become repatriates to reform the previously repatriated expatriates. The story of Ezra is, therefore, as much a justification of the ongoing relevance of the Babylonian Judean community and the positive contributions it makes to the refashioning of the homeland community as it is a story about the internal social and religious development of Yehud. The historical dynamic depicted in the book authorizes a role both for Judeans residing in the diaspora and for diasporic Judeans residing in Yehud to play in the ongoing development of the Israelite people.

69

70

The reforms of Josiah during which the king reads “all of the words of the covenant scroll” to all of the assembled from Judah and Jerusalem constitute a preexilic precedent for one of Ezra’s actions (2 Kgs 23:1–3), but this Josianic initiative, as presented in Kings, is a unique venture. The point about obedience to the Torah is stressed by Josephus in his retelling of Ezra’s mission (Ant. 11.141–158), L. H. Feldman, “Restoration in Josephus,” in Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives (ed. J. M. Scott; JSJSup 72; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 231–41. A point also emphasized by Bedford, “Diaspora: Homeland Relations,” 157–58.

Index of Ancient Sources Hebrew Bible Genesis 14:18 36 14:18 SP 36 33:18 LXX 36 33:18 SP 36 Exodus 12:3–8 324 12:9 324 14:13 143 15:1 353 19–24 202 20:5–6 323 20:5 19 20:22–23:19 96 20:20–26 99 20:24–26 38 25:1–31:17 84 25:9 17, 249 25:40 17, 249 28:43 421 29:1–46 421 35:1–40:33 84 Leviticus 1:1–7:38 421 15:31 347 18:22 340 23:33–43 45 25:1–22 317 Numbers 18:1–8 421 22:5–24:25 175 35:1–8 121 Deuteronomy 1:6–3:29 26 2:30 345 4:25–31 49, 298 5:9–10 323 7:9–10 323 10:16 345

11:31–12:31 18, 32 11:29 75 12 98 12:2–3 50 12:4–14 52 12:5 35, 36, 45, 277 12:8–12 37, 42, 50 12:29–31 50 13:2–3 167 13:5 167 13:6 167 14:27 277 16:1–7 298 16:1–2 324 16:2 35 16:13–15 45 17:14–20 168, 421 17:18 421 18:1–8 168, 421 18:5 421 18:7 421 18:9–22 165 18:9–14 166 18:15–22 146, 166 18:15–20 167–69 18:15–18 421 18:15 162, 168, 187 18:16 167 18:17 167 18:18 168, 192 18:19 168 18:20 169 18:21 169 18:22 169 20:1–3 421 23:4–7 424 24:16 323 26:2 35 26:15 348 27:11–13 75 28:68 339 30:1–10 49, 63, 267, 298, 326 31:6 267 31:9–13 421, 428

434 Deuteronomy (cont.) 33:10 421 34:10 169 Joshua 1:2–9 26 4:20 37 7:6–9 38 8:30–35 37 9:27 35 18:8–10 265 19:49–51 124 20:1–9 121, 123 21 83, 121, 124, 126 21:1–40 125 21:1–3 123 21:1–2 121 21:4 123 21:5–8 126 21:5 123 21:6 123 21:7 123 21:8 123 21:9 126 21:13 123 21:26 126 21:33 126 21:38 126 21:41–42 123 21:43–45 123 23:16 267 Judges 2:11–14 275 2:14 267 3:7–11 31 6:7–24 37 18:26 392 18:31 37 20:1–2 37 20:1 400 20:18 37 21:2–4 37 1 Samuel 1–3 265 7:2–16 400 10:17 400

Index of Ancient Sources 10:24 45, 321 17:47 143 21:1–10 38 31:1–13 180 2 Samuel 5:20 396 6:3 38 7 205–11, 219, 224–28 7:1–17 202 7:1–16 138, 206, 211, 321, 375 7:1 42 7:2–16 206 7:3–7 207 7:5–7 206 7:6 38 7:8 206 7:9–16 206 7:11–16 42 7:12 209 7:13 277 7:14–16 203, 208–10 7:14 209, 229 7:18–29 206 7:13 42 8:7–11 248 8:10–13 235 11:1–12:12 209 21:1–14 38 22:1–51 83 24:11–13 138 24:11 180 24:18–19 138 1 Kings 2:3–4 213, 244 2:12 141 3:1 242, 243 3:2–3 50 3:2 37 3:3 37 3:4 37 3:4–14 183, 236, 265 3:5–14 37 5:12 18 5:15–26 42

435

Index of Ancient Sources 5:17–19 207 5:17 207 5:18 42 6:1–9:9 243 6–7 235, 240 6 43 6:1–38 42–43 6:1 43 7:13–51 42–43 7:15–26 243 7:51 248 8:2 45 8:10–13 44 8:16 33, 44, 45, 48, 241, 275, 276 8:17 42 8:22–53 45 8:24–26 217 8:25–26 213 8:29 46 8:30 49 8:32 48 8:39 49 8:44 45, 276, 277 8:46–51 49, 266 8:46 49, 56, 267 8:47 268 8:48 267 8:49–50 268 8:51 269 8:56 42 8:63 44 9:1–9 183, 209, 221, 265–66 9:1–3 46, 270 9:2 265 9:3 46, 49, 269–71 9:4–9 46, 244, 269–70, 272, 327 9:4–5 213 9:6–9 46, 213, 243 9:6–7 269–70 9:7 16, 270, 277 9:8–9 46, 270–71 9:8 47 9:9 47 9:11–13 335 9:14 235

9:15 242 9:26–28 236 10:10 235 10:14 236 10:15–16 236 10:18–19 236 10:21 236 10:23 236 10:24–25 236 11:1–13 50, 74, 285 11:1–10 18 11:1–8 209 11:9–10 267 11:10–11 18 11:11–13 209, 216 11:13 196, 210, 276 11:14–25 209 11:26–39 183 11:29–38 196 11:31–39 140 11:31–38 15, 50, 210 11:37–38 210, 218 11:41 141, 155, 156 12:1–19 19, 50 12:1–14 15 12:15 15, 141 12:16 15 12:21–24 138, 185 12:22 176 12:26–33 276 12:26 51 12:28 51 12:32 51 13 95, 194 13:1–3 271, 278 13:31–34 271 14:7–16 271, 276 14:8–11 210 14:9 273 14:20 319 14:26 237, 252 15:1–8 286 15:11–14 239 15:14 238 15:18 237, 238, 252 15:22 400 15:23–24 129 16:1–4 179, 186

436 1 Kings (cont.) 16:1 138 16:30 273 16:33 273 18:13 301 18:36 299 22:8–38 186 22:8–28 138 22:11 186 22:46–47 129 2 Kings 4:8–44 172 8:13 170 8:19 216 8:23 130, 157 11:3 153 11:1–16 130 12:2–4 239 12:5–17 238 12:18–19 237, 254 13:4–12 293 13:22–23 16 14:3–4 52, 239 14:5–6 323 14:14 237, 252 14:18 129 14:26 146 15:19–20 339 15:29 24, 283 15:32–38 189 15:37 288 16:1–16 289 16:5–10 254 16:6 289 16:8 237 16:10–16 288, 292 16:18 252 17 16 17:5–6 283 17:5 276 17:6 24 17:7–41 298 17:14 345 17:15–18 267 17:18 275 17:19–20 346 17:24–34 24, 283

Index of Ancient Sources 17:34–40 25 18:1–20:21 53 18:1–20:11 296 18:3–6 239 18:3 295, 309 18:4 296 18:7 300, 309 18:8 335 18:9–12 295 18:13–16 309 18:13–15 256, 258 18:13–14 238, 309 18:15 238, 256, 309 18:16 238, 256, 309 18:18 303 18:20 83 18:22 296 18:28–30 276 18:34–35 276 19:4 303 19:6–7 190 19:14–19 190 19:30–31 303 19:31–37 276 20:1–11 170 20:6 276 20:8–11 256 20:12–13 256 20:13–15 238 20:14–18 238 20:17–18 241, 272 21:2–18 133, 326–27 21:2 273, 324 21:3–7 325 21:3 265 21:6 191 21:7 45, 276 21:8 325 21:9–15 312 21:9 273–74, 325 21:10–16 26, 266 21:10–15 332 21:10 139, 141, 326 21:13–14 274, 325 21:14 306 21:16 244, 325 21:19–26 328 21:19 329

437

Index of Ancient Sources 21:20 328 21:22 328 21:23 329 22:1–23:30 53 22:1–20 330 22:2 329 22:3–8 238 22:4 331 22:11–13 95 22:13 95, 331–32 22:14–17 191 22:16–17 274 22:17 275, 333 22:18–20 191 22:22 239 23:1–30 330 23:1–3 432 23:4–14 95 23:4 40, 278 23:12 331 23:13 331, 332 23:15–20 95 23:16–17 96 23:25–26 312 23:25 239, 295 23:26–27 26, 266, 274 23:27 16, 45, 241, 263, 275–76, 277 23:30–25:30 337 23:30–35 338 23:31–34 222 23:32 53, 338 23:33 339 23:35 339 23:36–24:6 339–340 23:36 339 23:37 53 24–25 240 24:1 339 24:2 340 24:3–4 26, 244, 312 24:3 25 24:4 349 24:5 340 24:8–17 222 24:8–16 342 24:9 53, 342 24:10–12 242

24:12 241 24:13 242, 247, 260, 343 24:14–16 25, 342 24:14 306, 342 24:18–25:21 344 24:18 343 24:19 53, 192 24:20 25, 344, 349 25 83 25:1–7 242 25:8–10 242 25:9 242, 260 25:11–12 25 25:13–17 242 25:13 243 25:14 243 25:16 243 25:18–21 413 25:18 413 25:19–21 25 25:21 283, 413 25:22–26 361, 394 25:22–25 338 25:23 399 25:26 25, 283, 338 25:27–30 25, 26, 55, 264, 343, 367 Isaiah 1:1 150, 188–89 2:1 150 6:13 62 7 288 7:9 172 9:5 207 28:21 396 37–38 83 37:14 303 37:32 303 40–45 48 41:2 337 45:1 390 45:13 390 55:3 390 Jeremiah 1:10 193 6:1 396

438

Index of Ancient Sources

Jeremiah (cont.) Haggai 7:12 42, 276 1:1 413 7:25–26 349 1:14–15 384 7:26 345 1:14 375 7:30 347 2:7–9 371 18:18 421 2:7 246 21:1–7 345 2:8 246 22:24–30 353 2:11 421 25:4 348 2:21–23 372, 384, 387 25:11 193 2:21–22 353, 391 27:19–22 260, 264 2:21 384 28:6 260 2:22 353 29:18 297 2:23 321, 353, 363 30:1–31:40 48 31:29–30 323 Zechariah 32:32 347 1–8 364–65 39:1–10 83 1:1 365 40:5–8 394 1:3–4 300 40:6–15 399 3:1 365 44:15–30 271 3:8–10 354 52 83 4:3 355 52:3 343, 344 4:6–7 354, 364 52:24–27 413 4:6 365 52:24 413 4:9 355 52:27 413 4:10 355 4:12 355 Ezekiel 4:14 355 5:9 340 6:9–15 359 7:26 421 6:11 413 18:4 323 9–14 365 22:11 340 12:9–10 357 22:26 421 34 48 Malachi 36 48 1:6–2:9 272, 346 37 48 2:6–7 421 40–48 48 3:7 300 44:10–14 272, 346 Psalms Hosea 2:7–8 208 4:6 421 18:1–51 83 5:8–6:6 288 76:3 LXX 36 78:40 354 Amos 79:1 347 1:1 149 89 202, 224–27 7:1 170 89:4 228 89:21 225 Jonah 89:22–25 225–26 3:4 139 89:23 26, 227

Index of Ancient Sources 89:26 226 89:28 225 89:29 228 89:30–38 203 89:31–33 209, 227, 229 89:35 227 89:37 226 89:39–40 369 89:40 227 89:43 227 89:45 227 89:47–50 227 89:50 368 105:1–15 72 105:26 321, 354 132 202, 218–23, 227–28, 372 132:1 219 132:12 220 132:13–16 220 132:13–14 218 132:14 220 132:17–18 221, 223 132:20–38 225–25 135:4 354 Ruth 2:10–17 83 4:18 83 4:19b–22 83 Esther Esther MT Esther LXX

8, 149 104, 106

Daniel 1:1–2 260 6:11 269 Ezra 1–6 373, 378, 382, 387, 388, 391, 409, 426 1:1–4 29, 58, 84 1:1–3 384, 388 1:1–2 381 1:1 64, 193 1:2–4 64 1:3–8 382

439 1:3 381 1:4 387, 419 1:5–11 58, 389, 390 1:5 60, 384 1:6 246, 387, 419 1:7–11 261, 342, 402 1:7 381 1:8 6, 376 1:11 61, 424 2:1–70 62, 402, 423 2:1–2 61 2:1 61, 424 2:2 362, 375, 376, 389, 390, 417 2:6 390 2:28 40 2:33 305 2:68–69 246 3:1–4:5 246 3:1 378 3:2–3 426 3:2 362, 371, 375, 377, 386, 413 3:4 426, 427 3:7 377 3:8 377, 378 3:10 380 4:1–12 377 4:1–5 361, 385 4:1–3 388 4:1–2 359 4:1 61, 378, 224 4:2 361 4:3 64, 377 4:4 378 4:6 378, 382 4:7–23 382, 402 4:8–6:18 373, 378, 382 4:12 383 4:20 383 4:23–24 66 4:24 68, 383 5:1–6:20 246 5:1–2 381, 385–86 5:1 378 5:3–4 383 5:3 385 5:3–16 360

440 Ezra (cont.) 5:5 386 5:11 347, 383 5:12 383 5:13–16 65 5:13–15 84 5:13 383 5:14–16 376, 385, 389 5:15–16 67 5:15 383 5:16 383 5:17 384 6 373–75 6:2 386 6:3–5 84, 382 6:3 388 6:6–7 386 6:7 356, 385, 386 6:10 382 6:13–18 356 6:13 385 6:14–22 356 6:14 356, 381, 386 6:15 386 6:16–18 386 6:16 61, 378, 424 6:17 60 6:19–22 66, 386, 411 6:19–20 61, 424 7:1–5 63, 412 7:1 66, 410, 413 7:1 LXX 413 7:5 376, 412 7:6–9 426 7:6 376, 417 7:7 423 7:10–11 419 7:10 63, 420, 426 7:11–26 65 7:11 376, 420, 422 7:12–14 418 7:25–26 418 7:25 333 7:26 333 7:28 425 8:1–20 423 8:1–14 62 8:1 363

Index of Ancient Sources 8:2 363 8:17 419 8:21–23 419 8:25–33 376 8:25–30 419 8:35 60, 422 9:1–10:44 65, 386, 417 9:1–2 68, 422 9:2 62 9:4 424 9:3–15 15 9:7–9 431 9:14 424 10:6 415 10:8 61, 424 10:10 376, 420 10:12–16 424 10:18 417 10:19 417 Nehemiah 1:1 66 1:2 62 1:3 69 1:5–11 63 1:6–9 61 1:11 376 2:1 66 2:3 69 2:5 69 3:1–32 396, 398, 402 3:6–7 398, 401 3:7 398 3:14 396, 397 3:15 398 3:16 380 3:19 398 5:1–13 63, 402 5:14–16 376 5:15 69 7:6–72 62, 402, 422 7:6 61, 424 7:7 362, 390 7:11 390 7:37 305 7:73–8:18 66, 411 8:1–18 60 8:1–8 426

Index of Ancient Sources 8:1 420 8:2–3 428 8:3 426 8:8 427 8:9 427 8:13–18 427 8:17 427 8:18 427 9:1–5 66 9:1–3 427 9:4–37 427 9:6–37 15, 66 9:6 LXX 66 9:7 321, 354 9:32 431 9:36–37 223 10:1–37 65 10:1–29 428 10:1 427 10:2 65 10:31 417 11 84 11:3–19 84, 262 11:4 60, 78 11:10–14 402 11:15–18 402 11:25–36 402 11:35 305 11:36 402 12:1–26 62 12:1 375, 390 12:10–11 371, 414–16 12:22 67, 414–16 12:23 415 12:24 176, 380 12:36 176 12:47 389, 390 13:1 61 13:1–3 428 13:4–31 69, 431 13:4–13 69 13:6–7 67 13:6 389 13:26 381 1 Chronicles 1–9 1:1–54

71, 131, 261 72, 122

441 1:1 72 2–8 70 2:1–2 72 2:3–9:1 121, 262, 304 2:3–8:40 60, 72 2:3–4:23 60, 122, 361, 368 2:3–5 73 2:9–17 73 2:9 83 3:1–24 368 3:1–23 73 3:15 343 3:16–17 343 3:17–24 360–61 3:18 402 3:19 361 3:23 363 4:24–5:26 73, 122 4:24–52 60 5:1–26 60 5:6 283, 300 5:18 305, 306 5:23–26 73 5:25–26 283, 341 5:26 300 5:27–6:66 73, 122 5:27–41 72, 127 5:29–41 371, 414–16 5:41 413 6 83, 121 6:1–33 72 6:39–66 125 6:39–45 125 6:39 122 6:42 123 6:45 125 6:46–49 126 6:50 126 6:52 123 7:1–5 60, 414–16 7:1–40 122 7:12 60 7:13 60 7:14–19 60 7:20–29 60 7:30–40 60 8:1–40 122 8:12 304

442 1 Chronicles (cont.) 9 84 9:1–34 73 9:1 129, 157, 261 9:2–34 72, 122, 261–62 9:2–18 84 9:2 341 9:3 78 9:10–11 413 9:22 138, 170, 180 9:23 262 9:26 262 10:1–14 29, 74 10:1–12 180 10:13 180 11:4–9 29, 335 12:2 306 12:9 305, 306 12:19 174 12:24–38 305 14:8–17 335 14:11 396 16:8–36 83 16:13 72 16:17 72 16:39–42 77 17:1–17 229 17:1–15 138, 177, 202, 211–14, 248, 321, 373, 379, 380 17:8–9 214 17:10–14 213 17:11 211 17:12–13 211 17:14 212 17:16–27 211 18:1–20:19 335 18:7–11 248 18:18 248 21:2 298 21:9–13 138 21:9 170, 175, 180 21:18–19 138 22:1 219 22:2–4 249 22:2 60 22:5 249 22:9–10 321

Index of Ancient Sources 22:9 212, 214, 250, 335 22:10–13 213 22:12–13 204 22:14 249 25:1 181 25:2 181 25:3 181 25:5 175 26:8 180 26:20–26 249 26:27 250 26:28 250 27:25 250 28:2 212 28:4 216, 354 28:5 212, 321, 354 28:6 211, 212 28:7–10 204 28:9 215 28:11–19 249 28:11–18 17 28:12 250 28:19 17, 250 29:1–5 250 29:1 321 29:6–8 250 29:11 212 29:15 60 29:18 299 29:22–25 151 29:23 212 29:24 212, 299 29:25 182, 299 29:29–30 153 29:29 129, 130, 132, 140, 149, 154, 157, 180 2 Chronicles 1:1–9:44 285 1:3–13 77 1:7–12 183 1:12 182 1:15 251 1:16–17 251 2:16 60 3:4–9 250 5:1–14 77 5:1 250

Index of Ancient Sources 6:5–6 44, 275 6:5 241 6:6 45 6:16–17 213, 217 6:36–39 307 6:36–38 326 7:12–22 221, 265 7:12–16 307, 326 7:14 192 7:16 299 7:17–22 327 7:17–18 204 7:19–22 214 8:1–9:31 215 8:1–6 335 8:1 251 8:14 176 8:15 250 9:1–14 251 9:8 212 9:15–16 251 9:20 251 9:23–24 251 9:26 285 9:29 132, 141, 147–49, 151, 154, 156, 183 10–28 302 10:1–19 286, 319 10:15 138, 141 11:1–23 253 11:2–4 133, 138, 156, 185 11:2 176 12:1–9 253 12:5–8 185 12:5 176, 253 12:6–7 253 12:7 133 12:9 252 12:14 133, 156, 253 12:15 130, 148, 151, 154, 176, 183, 185 13:1–23 286, 316 13:3 305 13:4–12 74, 76, 215, 286, 319 13:4–8 216 13:5 215, 228

443 13:6–7 215 13:8–12 77 13:8 212 13:19 286, 335 13:20 319 13:22 130, 132, 144, 148, 151, 154, 176, 185 14:1–3 252 14:1 77 14:4–6 257 14:7 305 15:1–7 71, 138, 174, 186–87 15:2 319 15:8 286, 335 15:18 257 16:2 252, 257 16:6 400 16:7–10 138, 186–87 16:7–9 178, 179, 252 16:10 252 16:11–14 129 17:1–2 257 17:2 286, 335 17:5 257 17:11 257 17:12–13 257 18:4–27 138, 178, 186 18:10 186 18:33 306 19:2–3 138, 179, 186–87 19:4–11 320 19:5 298 19:13–19 305 20:1–30 320 20:14–17 173–74 20:14–15 139 20:15–17 143, 173 20:15 143 20:17 143 20:20 143, 172 20:24 129 20:34 132, 140, 148, 154, 179, 186–87 20:37 139, 186 21:1–3 335 21:7 216, 228 21:8–10 287

444 2 Chronicles (cont.) 21:11 287 21:12–15 130, 138, 154, 155, 179, 185 21:12 155, 179 21:20 130, 157 22:10–23:21 185 22:10–23:15 130 22:1–9 185 22:12 153 23:1–21 287 23:3 217 24:4–14 258, 287 24:7 287 24:15–16 153 24:17–24 253 24:17–22 174 24:17–18 254 24:19 138, 185 24:20–22 139 24:23 253 24:24 254 24:27 130, 144 25:3–4 323 25:5 305 25:7–9 138, 188 25:14–28 252 25:15 188 25:17–24 287 25:24 252 25:26 129 26:2 335 26:3 188 26:4 188 26:9–10 287 26:13 305, 335 26:14 306 26:22 132, 148, 149, 150, 152, 154, 188, 190 27:1–9 189 27:1 188 27:2 188 27:4 287 28 315 28:1–27 320 28:1–25 289 28:1 287, 288 28:2–4 290

Index of Ancient Sources 28:3 292, 341, 349 28:5–8 189 28:5–6 341 28:5 288, 290, 303 28:6–8 290 28:8–14 341 28:9–15 60, 290 28:9–11 138, 178, 189, 289 28:12–15 189 28:16 254, 290, 300 28:17–18 291 28:17 288, 291, 303 28:19 291, 294 28:20 254, 291 28:21 255, 288, 290, 292 28:22 292 28:23 288, 289, 292, 294, 307, 311 28:24 293 28:25 293 28:27 294, 341 29–36 302 29–32 296 29:1–31:27 320 29:2 295, 351 29:3–36 258 29:3 297 29:5–11 298 29:5–6 297 29:7 297 29:8 297 29:9 298 29:10 298 29:11 322 29:12–19 298 29:20–36 298 29:25 148, 175 29:30 182 29:35–36 298 30:1–27 78, 190 30:1 283 30:5–14 283 30:5 298 30:6–9 307, 341 30:6–8 345 30:6 299 30:7–8 300 30:8–9 300

Index of Ancient Sources 30:8 299 30:14 297 30:20 345 30:26 213, 300 30:27 348 31:1 297, 303 31:20 303 32:1–23 295, 320 32:1 301, 303, 309, 320 32:5 306 32:20 138, 149, 190 32:20–22 335 32:21–22 190, 320 32:21 301 32:24 170, 295, 306 32:25 306 32:26 306, 336 32:27–30 295, 301 32:27–29 257 32:27 258, 306 32:28–30 258 32:28 LXX 301 32:29 301 32:31 256, 320 32:32 132, 140, 142, 148–49, 150, 154, 190 33:2–20 326–27 32:26 333 33:2 324, 349 33:3–7 325 33:6 139, 191, 329 33:8 325 33:9 304, 325 33:10 133, 139, 191, 326, 332 33:11–16 312 33:11–13 73, 333, 341 33:11 326, 339 33:12–13 307, 326 33:15 327 33:16 304, 327 33:17 327 33:18–19 133, 156 33:18 133, 139, 141, 191 33:19 141, 148, 152, 154, 178, 191 33:20 LXX 327

445 33:21–25 328 33:21 328 33:22 327, 328 33:23 328–29, 329 33:24 329 34:1–32 330 34:2 329, 330, 336, 351 34:3–6 304 34:3–5 330 34:3 330 34:6–7 283, 330–31 34:6 331 34:8–17 258 34:8–13 331 34:8 78 34:9 331 34:14–21 330 34:21 317, 331, 332 34:22–28 138, 191 34:24–25 332 34:25 333, 336 34:26–28 306, 333 34:32 333 34:33 334, 350 35:3–4 213 35:1–27 58 35:13 324 35:15 175, 182 35:18 180 35:20–24 336 35:20–22 174 35:22 336 35:25 131, 132, 142, 148, 152, 154, 158, 192, 349 36:1–23 316 36:1–21 58 36:1–7 338 36:1–3 338 36:2 LXX 338 36:3 339, 341 36:5 339 36:5–8 339–40 36:7 260, 340, 343 36:8 340–41, 349 36:9–10 342–43 36:10 260, 341, 342 36:11–21 314

446 2 Chronicles (cont.) 36:11–20 344 36:11 317, 343 36:12–13 193 36:12 192, 343 36:13–23 73 36:13 345, 347, 349 36:14–16 315, 346–48 36:14 193, 244, 271, 329, 346, 348, 349 36:14 LXX 271, 346 36:15–16 139, 192 36:15 133, 158, 348, 349 36:16 345, 349 36:17–21 293 36:17 348 36:18 260, 343 36:20 316 36:21 193, 317 36:22–23 84, 174, 262, 307, 314, 320 36:22 193, 337, 349 36:23 314 Early Jewish Writings 1 Esdras Entire work 19, 58, 104, 106, 375 1:1–31 58 1:1 193 1:3 331 1:19 331 1:20 331 1:21 331 1:31 142 1:32–55 58 1:32–36 338 1:40 340 1:47 271, 346 2:1–6 58 2:7–14 58 3:1–5:6 375 3:1–4:63 379 4:58–60 50 4:58 269 5:5 379

Index of Ancient Sources 5:65 377 5:66 361 6:17 356 6:26 356, 376 6:28 356, 376 8:1–9:36 409 8:1 413, 420 8:2 412 8:3 420 9:1 415 9:36 420 9:37–55 409 9:39 412, 420 9:42 420 9:49 420 2 Esdras 1:3 413 6:7 356 1 Maccabees Entire work 245–46 1:20–24 246 3:46 399 3:47–53 399 2 Maccabees Entire work 88, 245–46 2:4–8 44 2:5 261 2:19–32 88 5:21 246 Ben Sira 46:1 146, 165 46:4–5 170 46:13–20 165 46:17–18 170 46:20 170 47:1 165 48:1–11 165 48:2–10 170 48:12–15 165 48:20–25 165 48:21 170 48:23 170 48:25 170

447

Index of Ancient Sources 49:7 165 49:8 165 49:9–10 165 49:11–12 385 Josephus Contra Apionem / Against Apion 2.84 246 Antiquitates judaicae / Jewish Antiquities Entire work 104 1.180 36 3.100 50 7.371 151 8.111–117 50 10.152–153 413, 414 10.153 413 10.158 413 11.84–85 361 11.121 412, 414 11.141–158 432 11.147 415 11.158 414 11.297 414, 416 11.302–303 370 11.302 414 11.310–311 370 11.315 370 11.321–324 370 11.342 370 11.347 414 12.246–249 246 20.224–234 414 20.231 413 20.234 414 Bellum judaicum / Jewish War 6.438 36 Jubilees Entire work 104, 105, 106 30:1 36 31:13–17 421 Pseudo-Philo Liber antiquitatum  biblicarum

104

New Testament John 1:21 162 1:45 162 6:14 162 7:40 162 Acts 3:22–24 162 7:37 162 2 Peter 2:15–16 175 Jude 11 175 Revelation 2:4 175 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Royal Inscriptions of Assyria and Babylonia Code of Hammurapi 97, 100–102 Šamšī-Adad V 233 Sennacherib 310 Sargon II 222 Nebuchadnezzar II 100–102 El Amarna letters (EA) 254.10–13 233 Hittite Diplomatic Texts

222, 230

Ugaritic Texts (KTU) 1.15.II:25–28 208 1.16.II:40–44 226 3.1:10–12 233 Canaanite and Aramaic Inscriptions (KAI) 10 370 11 370 13 370 14 370 202.11–12 175

448

Index of Ancient Sources

Lachish letters 3.rev4 175 16.A.5 175 21.B.4 175 Aramaic Papyri AP 6.3–10 AP 8.2 AP 10.3 AP 30.1 AP 30.12–13 AP 31.1 AP 31.11–12 AP 32.1 TAD A4.7.1 TAD A4.7.4–29 TAD A4.7.12–13 TAD A4.7.29 TAD A4.8.1 TAD A4.8.5–28 TAD A4.8.11–12 TAD A4.8.28 TAD A4.9.1

411 411 411 389 245 389 245 389 389 245 245 370 389 245 245 240, 370 370, 389

Dead Sea Scrolls 1QapGen 36, 104, 396 3Q15 10:5 396 4QKgsa 44, 241, 275 4Q158 104 4Q364–367 104 4Q524 104, 107 11Q5 24:3–4 50 11QPsa 155:3–4 50 11QTa–c 104, 107 Rabbinic Texts Midrashim Cant. Rab. 5.5 413 Mishnah m. Mid. 3:4 396 Babylonian Talmud b. B. Bat. 15a 420 b. B. Bat. 21b–22a 420

b. Meg. 16b 421 b. Qidd. 69a–b 420 b. Sanh. 21b 420 b. Sukkah 20a 420 Palestinian Talmud j. Meg. 1:9

420

Targumim Sam. Tg. Gen 14:18 Sam. Tg. Gen 33:18 Tg. Ket. Ps 76:3

36 36 36

Tosefta t. Sanh. 4:7 420 Greek and Roman Literature Anonymous Scriptores historiae  Augustae 110 Aristophanes Equites 111 Nubes 547 117 553–54 111 559 111 Ranae 110 Thesmophoriazusae 111 Aristophanes of Byzantium Parallēloi Menandrou 115 Aristotle Poetica 86 Aulus Gellius Noctes atticae 9.9 108 Baccylides Paen fr. 5 92 Callimachus Aetia Cicero

117

449

Index of Ancient Sources Ad Herrenium 1.2.3 108 1.3 113 Brutus (De Claris Oratoribus) 76 112 De inventione rhetorica 1.1.2 108 1.2.1–2 93 De oratore 1.4.14 108 2.90–91 113 3.153 104 3.53.204 113 Orationes philippicae 14.6.17 113 De officiis 3.1.1 113 Tusculanae disputationes 4.3.7 113 4.26.56 113 18.7 113 26.1–2 113 Diodorus Siculus Bibliothēkē 1.2.2 93 40.7.8 117 Diogenes Laertius Vitae philosophorum 3.37 115 9.34 115 10.7 115 10.14 115 Dionysius of Halicarnassus Antiquitates romanae 1.1.1–5 108 1.2.1 117 3.1–3 117 4.1–5 117 Ars rhetorica 298.1 102 De antiquis oratoribus 114 De imitatione 108 Epistula ad Pompeium Geminum 3 102 Eupolis Maricas 111

Euripides Andromache Helena

111 111

Hermogenes Peri ideōn 4.409–411 108 Herodotus Historiae 1.1 11 2 12 3.61–79 367 3.91 367 4.44 367 Hesiod Theogony 36 92 54 92 Homeric Works Batrachomyomacchia 111 Horace Ars poetica 119–39 113 131 88 132–34 112 Epistulae 1.19.15 113 1.19.20 115 1.19.21 108 1.19.21–34 117 Isocrates Philippus 5.94 115 In sophistas 12–13 93 14–18 108 Livy Ab urbe condita libri 1.39–54 110

450

Index of Ancient Sources 2.2–19 110 26.38.10 113 28.21.4 113 44.25.2 113

Longinus Peri hypsous 13 112 13.4 114 13–14 108 Lucretius De rerum natura 1.921–30 117 Menander Andria Dis exapaton Perinthia

87 116 87

Ovid Fasti 2.685–852

110

Petronius Satyrica 4 108 Pindar Olymoionikai 9.48–49 117 Plato Res publica 10.595–607 86 Plautus Bacchides 492–562 116 Pliny the Elder Naturalis historia 13.18(21) 113 Plutarch De liberis educandis 1–4 93

Polybius Histories 9.2 115 Propertius Elegiorum 3.1.1–6 117 Quintilian Declamationes minores 108 Institutio oratoria 2.10 109 10.1 108 10.1.46–84 102 10.1.85–131 102 10.1.99 114 10.2 108 10.2.25–26 113 10.3 108 10.10 108 11.1.6 102 11.6–7 109 12.1 109 12.10 109 Seneca the Elder Controversiae 1.6–10 108 2.2.8–12 108 3 108 Suasoriae 3.7 91, 112 Seneca the Younger Epistulae morales 40 108 65.3 113 100 108 114 108 114.10–11 109 114.13–14 109 114.17–19 90 114.17 113 Statius Thebais

451

Index of Ancient Sources 12.816–17 114 Suetonius De vita Caesarum

110

Virgil Georgica 3.291–93 117

Tacitus Dialogus de oratoribus 25–27 114 32.5–7 93 33.1–34.4 93

Christian Writings

Terence Adelphi 6 115 15–21 91 Andria 1–27 116 9–14 88 Eunuchus 1–45 115, 116 H(e)autontimorumenos 3 117 16–34 88 35–39 116 Phormio 1–34 116 6–10 117

Eusebius Historia ecclesiastica 10.2 93 Praeparatio evangelica 9.17 37 10.1 115 10.3.12 115 10.5 115 10.6 115 10.7 115 10.14 115

Thucydides History of the Peloponnesian War 1.1–23 11, 16 2.13.5 239 Velleius Paterculus 1.17.5–7 113

Athanasius Vita Antonii /  Life of Anthony

113

Jerome Commentarium in Jeremiam 6.1 396 Epistulae 53.8 88 Vita S. Pauli, primi  eremitae 113 Origen Contra Celsum 1.14 79 Qurʾān Sura 1.285 193 Sura 2.135–39 193 Sura 2.180 193 Sura 37.70–180 193 Sura 73.15ff. 193