The Politics of Dead Kings: Dynastic Ancestors in the Book of Kings and Ancient Israel [Illustrated] 3161504739, 9783161504730, 9783161511462

Citation preview

Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe Edited by Bernd Janowski (Tübingen) · Mark S. Smith (New York) Hermann Spieckermann (Göttingen)

48

Matthew J. Suriano

The Politics of Dead Kings Dynastic Ancestors in the Book of Kings and Ancient Israel

Mohr Siebeck

Matthew J. Suriano, BA in History from University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign; MA in Ancient History from Jerusalem University College, MA and PhD in Hebrew Bible and Northwest Semitics from University of California, Los Angeles; has taught at University of Southern California’s School of Religion and was a Lecturer in Near Eastern Languages and Cultures at UCLA with a visiting faculty appointment in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara; currently Visiting Lecturer in Hebrew Bible and Ancient Judaism in the Department of Religious Studies at Indiana University, Bloomington.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-151146-2 ISBN 978-3-16-150473-0 ISSN 1611-4914 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 2. Reihe) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. © 2010 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Nehren on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

For Lisa, for Alexander

Preface This work originated as a doctoral dissertation submitted to the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures at the University of California, Los Angeles. I am indebted to my advisor and friend, William M. Schniedewind, who supervised and guided this work. I would also like to recognize and thank all members of the committee, from its inception to its completion, beginning with Aaron Burke, Sarah Morris, and including Robert Englund and Elizabeth Carter. Part of my dissertation research was conducted at the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem while I was the annual George A. Barton Fellow, and I would like to acknowledge and thank the institute’s director, Seymour (Sy) Gitin, for his support during this time. In my effort to give adequate acknowledgement, I must include a bit of the book’s history. My interest in the subject of this study goes back to the beginning of my graduate education in Jerusalem and it is a credit to two of my earliest mentors, Anson Rainey and Gabriel Barkay. Gaby stoked my interest into the broader issues of death and burial in ancient Israel and Anson made me aware of the issues involved in the sources. The present book represents a revised, re-organized and augmented version of the dissertation. This revision includes the addition of Chapter Three as well as revised material in what has become Chapter Six. In the latter case, much of the research from the original chapter will appear as an article in the journal Aula Orientalis. I would like to thank Bernd Janowski, Mark S. Smith, and Hermann Spieckermann, the editors of the series Forschungen zum Alten Testament II, as well as Henning Ziebritzki, the Editorial Director of Theology and Jewish Studies at Mohr Siebeck, for accepting this work. In particular, I would like to express a sincere debt of gratitude to Mark S. Smith for his insight and invaluable comments during the manuscript’s continued phase of research, post-dissertation. My gratitude also extends to Herbert Niehr for generously sharing articles that I had difficulty accessing. Likewise, I want to thank Sara Brumfield for her careful reading and checking of sources, and to Tanja Mix at Mohr Siebeck for her enduring editorial assistance.

VIII

Preface

Finally, I would like to thank my wife Lisa and my family for their patient yet enthusiastic support, which remained constant throughout each stage of the book’s development. Matthew J. Suriano

Bloomington, Indiana

Table of Contents Preface ................................................................................................... VII List of Figures ....................................................................................... XIII Abbreviations ........................................................................................ XIV

Chapter One: The Royal Epilogues and the Politics of Dead Kings ................................................................................................. 1 1.2. Research Objectives ............................................................................ 3 1.2.1. Interpretive Model ........................................................................... 7 1.2.1.1. Theoretical Precepts ........................................................... 8 1.2.1.2. Transition Rituals and Funerary Rites ............................... 13 1.2.2. Theory, Artifact and Text: A Synthesis .......................................... 16 1.3. Conclusion... ..................................................................................... 21

Chapter Two: The Formulaic Epilogues in the Book of King ... 22 2.1. Introduction....................................................................................... 22 2.2. History of Research into the Epilogue Formulary ............................. 23 2.2.1. The Study of the Deuteronomistic History...................................... 24 2.2.2. The Epilogue Formulae: A Brief History of Research .................... 26 2.3. To Be Gathered to/Lie with the Ancestors ......................................... 32 2.3.1. Interpreting the Phrase: A History of Scholarship ........................... 34 2.3.1.1. The Biblical Interpretation .............................................. 35 2.3.1.2. The Archaeological Interpretation ................................... 36 2.3.1.3. The Interpretative Problems ............................................ 40 2.3.2. A New Approach ............................................................................ 41 2.3.2.1. The Social Context ........................................................... 42 2.3.2.2. The Biblical Context ........................................................ 42 2.3.2.3. The Literary Order ........................................................... 42 2.3.3. The Inheritance Implications of “Gathered to His People” ............. 46 2.3.3.1. The Death of Jacob.......................................................... 46

X

Table of Contents

2.3.3.2. Ishmael, Moses and the Death of Aaron .......................... 47 2.3.3.3. “Gathered to their Fathers” in Judges 2:10 ....................... 48 2.4. Concluding Remarks......................................................................... 49

Chapter Three: The Socio-Political Significance of Funerary Rites ................................................................................. 51 3.1. Introduction....................................................................................... 51 3.2. Reconstructing the Royal Tombs of Israel and Judah ........................ 51 3.2.1. Elite Burials in Iron Age II Judah ................................................... 52 3.2.2. Royal Tombs in the Ancient Levant ............................................... 53 3.2.2.1. Intramural Burials ............................................................ 55 3.2.2.2. Secondary Rites................................................................ 59 3.3. The Desecration of Royal Tombs ....................................................... 63 3.4. The Eradication of the House of Saul ................................................ 67 3.5. Summary Observations ...................................................................... 69

Chapter Four: The Dynastic Notice .......................................... 71 4.1. Introduction....................................................................................... 71 4.2. The Northern Kingdom ...................................................................... 72 4.2.1. The House of Omri and the Death of Ahab ..................................... 73 4.2.2. The House of Jehu .......................................................................... 74 4.3. The Kingdom of Judah....................................................................... 75 4.3.1. The United Monarchy and the Establishment of the Dynasty.......... 75 4.3.1.1. The Dynastic Oracle ......................................................... 76 4.3.1.2. The Succession Narrative ................................................. 77 4.3.1.3. The Transition of Solomon (1 Kings 11:21) ..................... 82 4.3.2. The Lineage of David and the Kingdom of Judah ........................... 83 4.3.2.1. The Interregnum of Athaliah ............................................ 84 4.3.2.2. The Death of Amaziah...................................................... 84 4.3.2.3. The Ritual Politics of Irregular Succession....................... 87 4.3.3. The Latter Kings of the House of David ......................................... 88 4.3.3.1. The Death of Josiah and Huldah’s Prophecy .................... 89 4.3.3.2. The Fate of Jehoiakim ...................................................... 92 4.3.3.3. Dynastic Legitimacy as an Exilic Theme.......................... 96

Table of Contents

XI

4.4. Conclusion ........................................................................................ 96

Chapter Five: The Burial Notice .............................................. 98 5.1. Introduction....................................................................................... 98 5.2. The Archaeological Quest for the Tombs of David .......................... 100 5.2.1. Royal Burial in the City of David ................................................. 104 5.2.1.1. Weill’s Royal Necropolis ............................................... 104 5.2.2. Burial in the Garden of Uzza ........................................................ 108 5.2.2.1. The Tombs of Saint Étienne .......................................... 115 5.2.2.2. The Western Hill ........................................................... 117 5.3. Samaria and the Royal Tombs of the Israelite Kings ....................... 118 5.4. The Formulaic Burial Notices in Kings ........................................... 120 5.5. Synthesis.......................................................................................... 123

Chapter Six: The Notice of the Successor .................................... 127 6.1. Introduction..................................................................................... 127 6.2. Formulaic Terminology ................................................................... 128 6.2.1. To “Sit upon the Throne” ............................................................. 128 6.2.2. To “Rule in One’s Stead” ............................................................. 131 6.3. Jeroboam II and the Dynastic Throne of Jehu ................................. 135 6.4. The Edomite King List ..................................................................... 138 6.5. Royal Ancestors and Succession at Ugarit ...................................... 140 6.6. Concluding Remarks........................................................................ 148

Chapter Seven: Rephaim and Royal Ancestors ........................... 149 7.1. Introduction..................................................................................... 149 7.2. The Rephaim in Near Eastern Literature ......................................... 149 7.2.1. The rapi’ma at Ugarit ................................................................ 151 7.2.2. The Rephaim in Phoenician Sources............................................. 154 7.3. The Rephaim in the Hebrew Bible ................................................... 158 7.3.1. Rephaim and the Royal Dead in Prophetic Literature ................... 160

XII

Table of Contents

7.3.1.1. Isaiah 14 ......................................................................... 161 7.3.1.2. Ezekiel 32....................................................................... 163 7.4. Royal Ancestors, a Genealogical Perspective.................................. 165 7.4.1. The Genealogical Perspectives of Genesis.................................... 168 7.4.2. The “Fathers” as Royal Ancestors ................................................ 171 7.5. The Epilogues within Kings and the Hebrew Bible .......................... 172

Chapter Eight: The Epilogues and the Royal Ancestors ............ 175 Conclusion ............................................................................................. 175 Bibliography........................................................................................... 177 Scripture Index ....................................................................................... 197 Source Index .......................................................................................... 202 Author Index .......................................................................................... 204 Subject Index.......................................................................................... 209

List of Figures Figure 1. The Royal Epilogue Formulary of the Book of Kings ............... 23 Figure 2. Trajectory of Dynastic Legitimacy ............................................ 33 Figure 3. David’s Epilogue and its Literary Allusions.............................. 81 Figure 4. Jeroboam II, the Fourth Generation of the House of Jehu........ 136 Figure 5. KTU 1.161 and Dynastic Succession....................................... 141 Figure 6. The Common Heritage of Royal Ancestors ............................. 151 Figure 7. The Royal Epilogues and Eshmunazor’s Sarcophagus ............ 158 Figure 8. The “Fathers” as the Ancestral Identity of Royal Houses ........ 171

Abbreviations AB ABD AfO ANET ARA AS AulaOr BA BAR BASOR Bib BHT BJS BN BWANT BZAW CBQMS CIS CRAIBL COS 1 COS 2 DNSI 1 DNSI 2 DUL I

DUL II

FOTL FRLANT GL

Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary Archiv für Orientforschung Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 3rd ed. Ed. J. Pritchard. Princeton, 1969. Annual Review of Anthropology Assyriological Studies Aula orientalis Biblical Archaeologist Biblical Archaeological Review Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Biblica Beiträge zur historischen Theologie Brown Judaic Studies Biblische Notizen Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series Corpus inscriptionum semiticarum Comptes rendus de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres The Context of Scripture, volume 1. Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World. Eds. W. W. Hallo and K. L. Younger. Leiden, 2003. The Context of Scripture, volume 2. Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World. Eds. W. W. Hallo and K. L. Younger. Leiden, 2003. Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions. Part One: ’–L. By, J. Hoftijzer and K. Jongeling. (HdO I) Leiden and New York, 1995. Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions. Part Two: M–T. By, J. Hoftijzer, and K. Jongeling. (HdO I) Leiden and New York, 1995. A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition. Part One [(a/i/u)-K]. By G. del Olmo Lete, and J. Sanmartín. Trans. by W. G. E. Watson. (HdO I). Leiden and Boston, 2003. A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition. Part Two [L-]. By G. del Olmo Lete, and J. Sanmartín. Trans. by W. G. E. Watson. (HdO I). Leiden and Boston, 2003. Forms of Old Testament Literature Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Lucianic recension

Abbreviations HALOT 1

HALOT 2

HdO I HSM HSS HTR HUCA ICC IEJ JAOS JBL JNES JNSL JSOT JSOTSupp JSS JTS KAI LXX MT NCBC NEAEHL OBO OG OLA OTL OTS PEQ RA RSR SAAB SAOC SBL SBLDS SBLMS SBT SHANE SJOT TA UF VT VTSup ZA

XV

The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Vol. 1. By L. Köhler and W. Baumgartner. Trans. by M. E. J. Richardson. New York, 2001. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Vol. 2. By L. Köhler and W. Baumgartner. Trans. by M. E. J. Richardson. New York, 2001. Handbook of Oriental Studies, Section One: The Near and Middle East Harvard Semitic Monographs Harvard Semitic Studies Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual International Critical Commentary Israel Exploration Journal Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of the Northwest Semitic Languages Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Studies Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften. 3 vols., eds. H. Donner and W. Röllig. Wiesbaden, 1966. Septuaginta, ed. A. Rahlfs. 2 vols. 9 th ed. Stuttgart, 1971. According to the Leningrad Codex as published in the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Eds. K. Elliger and W. Rudolph. 4th ed, Stuttgart, 1990. New Century Bible Commentary New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Ed. E. Stern. Jerusalem, 1993. Orbis biblicus et orientalis Old Greek Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta Old Testament Library Oudtestamentische Studiën Palestine Exploration Quarterly Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale Religious Studies Review State Archives of Assyria Bulletin Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization Society of Biblical Literature Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Studies in Biblical Theology (2nd Series) Studies in the History of the Ancient Near East Scandinavian Journal for the Old Testament Tel Aviv Ugarit Forschungen Vetus Testamentum Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Zeitschrift für Assyriologie

XVI ZAH ZAW

Abbreviations Zeitschrift für Althebraistik Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

Chapter One

The Royal Epilogues and the Politics of Dead Kings 1.1. Introduction In the narrative of ancient Israel found in the Book of Kings, the end of a king’s life is summed up in a series of formulaic statements that begin with the poetic expression for death: “and [the king] lay with his fathers.” The summary statements all revolve around the problem of royal death and succession, encapsulated in a closing statement that consisted typically of a notice of burial (in the royal tombs) and the introduction of the succeeding ruler. Within the block of literature known as the Deuteronomistic History (henceforth, the DtrH),1 these summary notices play a small, yet significant, role. Together with a series of introductory statements, the literary units serve as prologues and epilogues that frame the various accounts of individual kings in Israel and Judah. The formulaic summaries, however, are more than merely generic literary-bookends that demark the conclusion of one king’s reign and the subsequent beginning of the next, the epilogues are also ideological statements that reflect the manner in which political power was devised in ancient Israel and the Levant. Death, burial and succession: taken together, this complex affects the sovereignty of a given dynasty, marking their patrimonial claims of power by means of royal tombs and the patrilineal descent of leadership. The key formula of the epilogue is the opening notice: “and PN1 lay with his fathers.” This phrase is used throughout Kings (though with some selectivity) to acknowledge the death of a ruler in Israel or Judah. The phrase is expressed through the combination of a term related to mortuary practices (bk#$, “to lie [down]”2) and an ancestral image (twb), “the fathers”).3 But does this phrase represent a specific allusion to the act of burial? If so, 1

N OTH, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien. Citation in this study will follow the English translation (published in 1981), Deuteronomistic History. 2 BEUKEN, art. bk@a#$; ekab, 664–667. The specific verb, of course, is rbq (“bury”) found in either the Qal or Niphal stems. The verb in question, bk#$, connotes burial (and thus, death), through the image of [the dead] lying down inside the tomb. 3 Although some modern translations avoid gender specific language regarding the term twb) (the NRSV renders it as “ancestors”), this study will consistently translate the term as “fathers” in order to better convey its patrimonial sense.

2

Chapter One: The Royal Epilogues and the Politics of Dead Kings

why is it typically followed by a description of burial? If it is not related to mortuary practices, why does the phrase draw upon a verb commonly used for interment in order to describe an individual’s death? More importantly, what is the formulaic significance of this phrase? It is proposed in this study that the phrase “lay with fathers” served as a literary means of expressing undisrupted dynastic succession. Although the phrase holds its own unique meaning, its semantic sense is relayed through the statements that follow it in the epilogue, which describe the place of burial and introduce the successor. To understand this relationship is to understand a key aspect of the socio-political structure of power in ancient Israel, where sovereignty was built upon kinship-models and legitimacy was expressed through genealogical constructs.4 The formula’s unique terminology represented a ritual process termed here royal funerary rites.5 This is not to reduce the phrase to a single act, burial, but rather to equate it with a series of social actions that were initiated by the death of a king. The rites and ceremonies subsumed under the term “royal funerary rites” focused on the departure of the dead, the defunct king,6 from the world of the living.7 As such, the ritual process 4 See the analysis by F. M. Cross of kinship terminology in the monarchy of Judah (C ROSS, Epic to Canon, 3–21). The discussion, however, is concerned more with divine covenant and what Cross calls “kinship-in-law,” which involves the inclusion of nonblood relations into a larger group (either through marriage or adoption). 5 The ritual itself remains vague at best, as burial practices and mourning rites are both known, but their larger context is not. Furthermore, it is not clear how (and when) commemorative rites would have fit into this ritual context. Therefore, this study will not attempt to define ritual more than a culturally established set of actions “that [are] designed and orchestrated to distinguish and privilege what is being done in comparison to other, usually more quotidian, activities.” BELL, Ritual Theory, 74; cf. also Perspectives and Dimensions, 136–137. This definition of what Bell calls “ritualization,” is quoted by David Wright (Ritual in Narrative, 11–13) in his discussion of the term. In other words, ritual is created through the intrinsic relationship between meaning and action within a specific context; cf. similarly LANERI, Funerary Rituals, 2–3. For a recent attempt to define ritual within a larger study of royal funerary rituals in early Mesopotamia, see C OHEN, Death Rituals, 7–14. 6 The literature on the subject of death in past cultures frequently uses the term “defunct,” for the deceased ruler (who is effectively decommissioned by death). An explanation of the term in this sense, where it is applied to the dead in general and called the “sociology of death,” is found in B OTTÉRO, Mesopotamia, 268. 7 The term “funerary-rite” is used to distinguish the act of burial from ancestor cults. This terminology follows that of the M ORRIS, archaeology of ancestors, 150. The terminological distinction is discussed in SCHMIDT, Beneficent Dead, 4–12. Schmidt defines four general categories, with funerary rituals (along with mourning customs) and mortuary cults placed alongside the cult of the dead (roughly equivalent to ancestor worship) and necromancy. See also, SKAIST, Ancestor Cult, 127–128, n. 3. (Both Schmidt and Skaist base their classifications on the anthropological work of Meyer Fortes.) The distinction

1.2. Research Objectives

3

would have included acts of mourning, commemorative rites and other ceremonies, as well as all requisite mortuary practices. When the phrase is understood in such a manner, it becomes possible to recognize the integral relationship that this initial formula has with the two formulaic phrases it precedes in the typical epilogue within the Book of Kings. The most lasting symbol of a funerary rite is the tomb, which itself served as a tangible image of patrimony.8 Thus, the phrase is followed immediately by the description of the burial site (in most cases). Rather than negating the funereal sense encoded within the language of the epilogue’s first notice, the burial notice that follows confirms the first notice’s significance by stating that the defunct king was interred within his patrimony; in essence it localizes the meaning and significance that is created through the ritual process. The third and final statement introduces the succeeding son and expresses the consequences of the ritual process, which are related to division of inheritance and succession of power. Socio-anthropological studies of funerary rites have shown that they often represented a transformative process in which the identity of the participants underwent conversion.9 This transformative nature is evident in both the first and last statements of the royal epilogue, as the defunct king becomes an ancestor (by joining his “fathers”) and the crown prince becomes the new king (“and…his son ruled in his stead”).

1.2. Research Objectives The study of the royal epilogues, with their reference to the burial of a king, must rely in part upon the archaeological exploration of ancient mortuary practices. Since the early 1970s, archaeological research into mortuary practices has shifted to the study of death within its social context.10 This shift has slowly made an impact on the various studies of death-ways in ancient Israel, where the concern has been typically theological.11 It is between the occasional rituals associated with burials (funerary rites) and the regular observance of mortuary cults (ancestor cults) in ancient Ugarit is discussed in SALLES, Rituel Mortuaire, 171–184; see also P ARDEE, Marzihu, 273–287. 8 The manner in which funerary rites are illustrative of succession and inheritance, as expressed through patrilinear concepts of ancestry, is discussed in PARKER PEARSON, Archaeology of Death, 114–115. 9 See, for instance, T URNER, Forest, 93–111. A full discussion of these theories is given below. 10 See the collection of essays in B ROWN, Approaches. For a review of this work and its impact, see C HAPMAN, Death, society and archaeology, 306–312; LANERI, Funerary Rituals, 1–10; and B ROWN, Third Millennium, 301–305. 11 For instance, S PRONK, Beatific Afterlife; see also J OHNSTON, Shades.

4

Chapter One: The Royal Epilogues and the Politics of Dead Kings

not surprising therefore, that few studies have addressed the political problems caused by the death of a ruler in the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah. In fact, there have been only a limited number of works that examine the topic of death in the ancient Near East within a royal (i.e., political) context,12 and even fewer that move beyond the subject of royal tombs.13 This fact is reflective of the paucity of written sources that deal with the death of a king in Mesopotamia and the Levant,14 which itself may reveal the political delicacy of the topic.15 Aside from the odd literary sources concerned with the dead king in the afterlife,16 the few Mesopotamia sources that deal with royal funerals consist almost entirely of administrative documents (lists of funerary provisions and offerings) and are from a diverse range of cultures.17 In the Levant there are even fewer sources, although there are ritual texts from Ugarit, written in Ugaritic and Hurrian, which are concerned with the problem of dead kings.18 Yet these texts are 12 The exceptions include H ALLO, Death of Kings, 148–165; R ICHARDSON, Assyrian Garden, 145–216; C HARPIN, “Le Roi et Mort, Vive Le Roi!” 69–95. One of the few scholars who have made several contributions to the study of the royal dead is Herbert Niehr, whose works will be cited throughout this dissertation. 13 The interest in royal tombs has been stoked by recent discoveries in modern Syria and Iraq, and only a select bibliography can be given here (though the scholarship will be reviewed in Chapter Three). For the MB II–LB tombs of the palace at Qana, see ALM AQDISSI et al., Königliche Hypogäum, 189–218; cf. more recently, N IEHR, Royal Funeral, 1–24. On the discovery of additional tombs in the palace at Kalhu (Nimrud, Iraq) and their historical significance, see D ALLEY, Yabâ, Atalaya, 83–98; and D AMERJI and K AMIL, Gräber Assyrischer Königinnen. 14 One notable exception is the extended ritual for the cremation of a Hittite king or queen, which exists in several sources that describe the fourteen-day ceremony, see O TTEN, Hethitische Totenrituale. For a recent translation, see K ASSIAN, K OROLEV, and SIDEL'TSEV, Hittite Funerary Ritual. Another exception is the death and commemoration of Panamuwa, the king of Sam‘al, which is described in KAI 215 1:16–23. This inscription, however, does not describe how the king was buried. 15 On this problem in Mesopotamian sources, see briefly M ICHALOWSKI, Death of Shulgi, 224. William Hallo’s qualifying remarks about the nature of the literature are appropriate, see H ALLO, Death of Kings, 164 n. 138. 16 Notably, K RAMER, Death of Ur-Nammu, 104–122. 17 For instance, from southern Mesopotamia during the ED IIIb periods there are Sumerian documents that list funerary provisions: the so-called “funeral of Baranamtara” (= TSA 09 [CDLI P221370] and VS 14, 137 [CDLI P020152) as well as Nik 1, 134 (CDLI 221903) – all of which are from Lagash/Girsu. (The citation of Sumerian texts will include the numbering of the Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative [http://cdli.ucla.edu/].) These texts were recently analyzed in COHEN, Death Rituals. The Old Sumerian texts compare with a later document from northern Mesopotamia, dating to the Neo-Assyrian period, that lists funerary offerings; see M CG INNIS, Neo-Assyrian Text, 1–15 and D ELLER, Sealed, 69–71. 18 For the Ugaritic ritual, KTU 1.161, see P ARDEE, Les textes rituels 2, 816–825. (This ritual text is discussed in Chapter Six.) For the Hurrian ritual, KTU 1.125, written

1.2. Research Objectives

5

difficult to understand, let alone relate to the archaeologically attested remains of royal tombs at Ugarit (Ras Shamra, Syria).19 Because of the limited nature of the written sources regarding the death and burial of a king (what few texts exist are usually ambiguous and difficult to interpret), it becomes essential to analyze the material record of royal tombs, which provide a solid (though still limited) source for understanding the political implications of dead kings. There are no royal tombs within the archaeological remains of the Kingdom of Judah, although certain structures in Samaria have been proposed to be the tombs of the kings of Israel. Given the paucity (and uncertainty) of evidence, the insight drawn from the archaeology of death and burial is restricted in its manner of approach, which are: analogues drawn from elsewhere in the ancient Levant (such as Qana and Ugarit), and the analysis of elite (albeit non-royal) customs indigenous to the southern Levant. This limitation is not as drastic a problem as it may initially appear. To begin with, the initial statement of the royal epilogues, “he lay with his fathers,” is euphemistic; it is an indirect way of stating that the king died.20 The observation is certainly consistent with the more-or-less furtive attitude concerning a king’s death in written sources found elsewhere in the ancient Near East. But the poetic aspect of the euphemism draws from burial customs found throughout the southwestern Levant, from the Middle Bronze through the Iron Age. To address the problem of royal funerary rites in the kingdoms of Israel and Judah it is imperative to begin by recognizing the social significance of death and burial specific to this part of the Levant. The household was the defining symbol in the societies of ancient Israel and much of the Levant.21 Furthermore, burial was a symbolically charged action and the family tomb was emblematic of the kin-based social structure of ancient Israel.22 Thus, the manipulation of images drawn in the alphabetic-cuneiform script of Ugarit, see D IETRICH and M AYER, Hurritisches Totenritual 79–89. 19 For one of the few attempts to reconstruct the royal cult of the dead at Ugarit, see N IEHR, Topography of Death, 219–242. This insightful essay deals specifically with the cult of royal ancestors and not the ritual process of the royal funerary ritual; see also IDEM., Beitrag zur Konzeption, 173–174. 20 In one sense, the use of a politically expedient expression for a king’s fate that avoids stating directly that he has died, is seen in the well-known Hittite phrase used of a defunct king: “When in attua a great sin has occurred, in which the King or Queen becomes a god.” This is the first line of the fourteen-day ritual, see O TTEN, Hethitische Totenrituale, 18–19. 21 SCHLOEN, House of the Father, 45–48. Scholoen uses the term “root,” as in rootmetaphor or root-symbol, following the work of Paul Ricouer. 22 The connection between the family tomb and patrimony in ancient Israel has been recognized and studied, see BRICHTO, Kin, 10; and VAN DER T OORN, Family Religion, 207–208.

6

Chapter One: The Royal Epilogues and the Politics of Dead Kings

from social practices (burial) was a deliberate tactic of political dynasties in ancient Israel. For this reason, the proceeding study will employ the term “socio-political” throughout its discussion.23 It is important to establish a theoretical basis in approaching the subject of death and burial in the biblical world.24 Because the evidence for funeraryrites in ancient Israel is so pervasive, the small number of studies that have addressed royal death-rites in this area have used the material record of burial remains as an analogue to better understand the tombs of David, as cited in the Hebrew Bible. These studies raise certain conceptual issues that will be addressed in later chapters, yet it should be noted here that their objectives were circumscribed by questions that served religious or literary agendas and not problems that reflected the social and political context of the tombs.25 Two recent essays devoted to the study of royal death-rites in the Hebrew Bible only investigated the question of royal ancestor-worship,26 despite the fact that the evidence for ancestor worship in 23

Schloen uses the term “socio-historical” because the nature of his study is society as a whole, SCHLOEN, House of the Father, 49–63. In contrast, the project here is conducted top-down and the focus is entirely upon royal dynasties; therefore the term “socio-political” is appropriate. Note the following quote (albeit focused on divine kingship): “The historians want to know how the ceremonial image and the stability of the state relate to each other, whereas the anthropologists want to know how a society constructs a transcendent symbolic idiom, and how human beings are transformed into divine kings.” C ANNADINE, Introduction, 14. The “transcendent symbolic idiom,” constructed through royal funerary rites, is the ancestral image of the ruling dynasty, which is evoked in terms that are constitutive for Israelite society as a whole. 24 One of the first studies of death in the Hebrew Bible that engaged social scientific theory, the Oxford doctoral thesis of Brian Schmidt (published originally in 1994), devoted only a small section the topic of royal ancestors. S CHMIDT, Beneficent Dead, 276– 278. Schmidt draws from Mesopotamian examples of ancestor cults, using a definition that is similar to Durkheim’s concept of the cult of the dead, in order to dismiss any royal funerary rites (or mortuary cults) in ancient Israel and Judah. The point of Schmidt’s work is to refute the existence of ancestor worship in ancient Israel. Although this present work will not engage in any reconstruction of ancestor worship (or Israelite cult of the dead), it will seek to show that the concept of royal ancestry is, in fact, enforced by dynastic succession, and specifically located within the royal capital (and thus, grounded within the realm of the palace). 25 Two recent examples are N A’AMAN, Death Formulae, 245–254; and the response in STAVRAKOPOULOU, Exploring, 1–21. The discussion of these studies is one of religious practices that relate either to cultic purity or a cult of the dead. For Na‘aman the question stems directly from the change in literary style found in the formulaic statement of burial in the epilogues of Kings (beginning with Hezekiah). These two studies will be fully analyzed in the subsequent chapters of this work. 26 HALLO, Royal Ancestor Worship, 381–401. Hallo redefined the question by theorizing a concept of “ancestor veneration” that was distinct from the normative practice of worship in ancient Israel, however the essay by the venerable Assyriologist placed most of its emphasis on Mesopotamian sources. The essay by Francesca Stravrakopoulou is a

1.2. Research Objectives

7

ancient Israel is sketchy and vague (at best).27 The purpose of this present study is to explore the existence of funerary rites, not the putative existence of ancestor cults. Yet ancestors and funerary rites are interrelated phenomena and the archaeological evidence for the latter proves that the former held an important status in ancient Israel (regardless of whether the Israelites worshipped them). The political context of death in ancient Israel was centered upon the concept of ancestry, and funerary rites were critical to this concept as a means of constructing the appropriate political identity. Therefore, it is unnecessary to engage in academic speculation regarding the existence of royal ancestor-veneration or worship. Royal ancestors were probably venerated, but their importance lay in the political roles they played in the formation of royal lineages. 1.2.1. Interpretive Model The biblical notice ostensibly acknowledged the death of a king, but ultimately it served to signify the completion of a ritual process that produced social meaning. Of the biological absolutes that govern the human experience, death is (and has always been) the most disruptive.28 Ritual action represents one means by which a culture confronted the disruptive power of death and realigned itself in the wake of its loss. Thus, funerary rites can be termed “transition rituals” as they provided the structure for the appropriate social transformation necessitated by the event of death.29 As the initial statement of death in the royal epilogue, the notice “and PN lay with his fathers” introduced notices of burial and succession. This aspect, along with the strong burial connotations involved in the phrase, indicates that

literary study that suggests a form of ancestor worship lies behind the phrasing of 1 Kg 1:47; S TAVRAKOPOULOU, Ancestral Advocacy, 10–24. 27 The point of Schmidt’s work (Beneficent Dead) was to deny the existence of ancestor cults in ancient Israel prior to the late Assyrian or Exilic-periods. Although his conclusions are disputed, they do highlight the ambiguous nature of the evidence as well as the tenuous attempts by past scholarship to reconstruct such cults. For a critical review of Schmidt’s work, see L EWIS, How Far, 187–202. Herbert Niehr’s recent discussion of Israelite ancestor worship, which takes an opposite stand to Schmidt’s, discusses the decline (and apparent abolition) of the “royal cult of dead ancestors” within the framework of the political changes that occurred in Jerusalem from the Iron Age II through the Persian Period. Accordingly, the abolition of the royal ancestor cult is related to the deteriorating status of the House of David during this time of historical change, N IEHR, Changed Status, 138–140. Niehr’s work, however, was more concerned with the question of royal ancestor worship, as he interprets it largely through Ezek 43:7–9. The political focus of Niehr’s discussion is important and will be taken up in the conclusion of this book. 28 For a thorough discussion of death as a universal problem, see G ULDE, Tod, 3–5. 29 See the general discussion of transition rituals in B ELL, Perspectives and Dimensions, 94–102.

8

Chapter One: The Royal Epilogues and the Politics of Dead Kings

the sense and meaning of the initial formula, and ultimately the royal epilogue, was originally tied to funerary rituals. In the Book of Kings, the epilogue served as a transitional notice, completing the depiction of a king and beginning the description of his successor. In accord with this literary purpose, the short block of scribal formulae schematically represented a ritual process (i.e., funerary rites) that can be defined as rites of passage. The purpose of the epilogues, however, was not to give a descriptive account of a royal funeral. These descriptions are few and far-between in ancient Near Eastern sources, let alone the Hebrew Bible. Furthermore, the political nature of funerary rites can vary from culture to culture,30 thus it is untenable to engage in extensive reconstructions based upon a foundation made up of a few oblique notices. Several factors, however, support an interpretation that ties the phrase “lay with fathers” to political legitimacy. First of all, in Kings, the phrase is only used of rulers whose sons follow them to the throne. This aspect coheres well with the patrimonial politics of the ancient Levant where power was devised by means of patrilinear descent. Furthermore, in ancient Israel, burial sites often served to mark patrimonial claims, a phenomenon that can be observed in the royal burial notices that follow the dynastic notice. The key aspect of the epilogue, however, was not the patrimonial ideology of ancient Israel, but rather the mode by which funerary rites would have enforced the patrimonial principle. The manner becomes apparent when it is realized that funerary rites in ancient Israel functioned as transition rituals, essentially transforming the identity of the actors involved. The completion of the royal funerary rites would mark the conversion of both the bereaved and the dead: the prince would become king and the defunct king would join his ancestors. 1.2.1.1. Theoretical Precepts The point of emphasis in the study of transition rituals is the process by which an individual actor’s identity becomes changed through a series of rites and ceremonies. The theoretical model can be traced back to the work of Robert Hertz and Arnold van Gennep, who both published their work in the first decade of the twentieth century, as well as the subsequent research of Victor Turner.31 According to the paradigm first developed by van Gennep, the rite of passage first removes the actor from society and once isolated allows the individual to change and assume a new identity

30

M ETCALF and H UNTINGTON, Celebrations, 131–188. For a survey of these theorists, see Metcalf and Huntington, Celebrations, 28–37, PARKER PEARSON, Archaeology of Death, 22; and briefly L ANERI, Funerary Rituals, 3–6. 31

1.2. Research Objectives

9

before being readmitted.32 While the work of van Gennep, Les Rites de Passage, covered all rituals that marked a transitional period (initiation rites, marriage rituals, funerals, etc.), the extended essay by Hertz examined rituals that involved primary and secondary burials. Hertz and van Gennep were distinct in their respective approaches, yet the theories of each are complimentary in their analyses of transition rituals. A brief review of the theoretical precepts developed by these scholars will provide sufficient basis for understanding the prime objective of the royal epilogue and the ritual process for which it stands, the construction of identity. The general survey of van Gennep showed that the multiple stages of the various types of transition rituals held discrete meaning,33 which he organized into a model that consisted of three stages: separation, marginality and aggregation (or reintegration). The broad overview offered by van Gennep allowed him to carefully observe within each type of ritual the differing degrees of importance that was assigned to each stage. These observations revealed (among other things) that the greatest emphasis in funerary rituals was typically placed on the middle phase, rather than the final phase. Hertz’s analysis was more specific than van Gennep, although he too examined the multi-phase activities associated with the disposal of the dead. According to Hertz’s study of secondary burials, the cultural response to death was reified in the extensive rituals associated with the treatment and disposal of the dead, which ultimately showed (according to Hertz) how rituals could serve as the means of insuring the survival of a social group when confronted by death.34 Like van Gennep’s rites of passage, the ritual process identified by Hertz was transitional by nature, where the natural decay of the corpse represented the soul’s afterlife passage and the completion of this decay marked the final stage for the dead.35 The study of transition rituals was furthered by the anthropological work of Victor Turner, who focused largely on the middle phase of the rites of

32

Van Gennep defined the process using both general terminology (separation, margin, reaggregation) as well as terminology that represented each phase as preliminal, liminal and postliminal (discussed in TURNER, Ritual Process, 166–167). The similarities between Van Gennep and Hertz will be discussed below. 33 The general approach by van Gennep sought out basic patterns that were common in the rituals of various (and different) cultures; H OCKEY, Importance, 211–212. 34 Hertz was a student of Emile Durkheim and viewed society as an organic whole. Thus he saw secondary burial rituals as a productive venue for the development of this sociological viewpoint. Note, for instance, the comments in H ERTZ, Contribution, 56–57. See also the discussion in P ARKIN, Dark Side, 87–88; and D AVIES, Robert Hertz, 97–98. 35 D AVIES, Robert Hertz, 97–102.

10

Chapter One: The Royal Epilogues and the Politics of Dead Kings

passage.36 Turner analyzed this phase, termed by him “liminality,” as a key period during which the actor’s identity was marginalized.37 For Turner, these ritual actions generated social significance in (re-)assigning identities, rather than simply preserving social order. Turner’s focus on the individual, and the social significance of their actions within the ritual process, compares with David Schloen’s description of the patrimonial societies of the ancient Levant, which emphasizes the role of the social agent by identifying the symbols that they enacted. For Schloen, the defining symbol in the patrimonial society of ancient Israel was the basic household-unit, or b)f tyb@' (“house of the father”).38 Schloen’s emphasis is important because social order and structure are created through the symbolically governed interaction of social actors. Relationships of power and authority were expressed through the symbol of kinship. Therefore, all levels of society were characterized by the rootmetaphor of the house of the father, from the most basic clan-level of the villages to the ruling houses of the entire kingdom. The “kingdom” was simply the king’s household with the king as the patriarchal head, or “father.” Although Max Weber’s model of patrimonialism is the foundation of Schloen’s socio-historical framework,39 as nuanced by S. N. Eisenstadt,40 it is adapted for the ancient Levant under the rubric of the Patrimonial Household Model (= PHM).41 The PHM is presented as an alternative to the systems models and functionalist approaches that took root following

36 M ETCALF and H UNTINGTON, Celebrations, 32–33; cf. also H OCKEY, Importance, 215–216. See T URNER, Ritual Process, 94–96. Turner’s discussion of this middle phase corresponds to Hertz’s description of body’s temporary status prior to secondary burial. 37 In other words, the ritual actor had left their former status, but had not yet gained a new status. To use Turner’s words (and the title of one of his chapters), the actor was “betwixt and between,” see T URNER, Forest, 93–111; see also Ritual Process, 94–130. 38 SCHLOEN, House of the Father, 52–54. Schloen’s use of concept rootedness (specifically in terms of root symbols) can be loosely compared with Steven Grosby’s term “quasi-primordial,” G ROSBY, Kinship, 14 (see n. 38). In his study of the connection between kinship, territory, and shared traditions and beliefs, Grosby uses the term “quasiprimordial” to describe the third category. 39 W EBER, Economy. Schloen, however, is forced to somewhat redefine patrimonialism (hence his term “Patrimonial Household Model”) in order to rid it of the anachronistic European feudel aspects that influenced Weber, see S CHLOEN, House of the Father, 52. 40 Eisenstadt’s work on the Axial and pre-Axial ages provided the necessary Near Eastern adaptation of Weber’s patrimonialism; EISENSTADT, Observations, 21–33, and IDEM., Axial Age Breakthrough, 1–25. 41 SCHLOEN, House of the Father, 52.

1.2. Research Objectives

11

the work of Durkheim and his students, which have become predominant in studies of society in the ancient Levant.42 The PHM is particularly useful for the present study because it does not posit an overarching system, but instead stresses social action that is symbolically constituted and grounded within the referential dimension of the family in ancient Israel.43 Furthermore, the PHM is fractal, that is, equally applicable in any strata of a given society.44 The symbols that gave definition to the family (extended or nuclear) in Israel and Judah, defined also the governing structure of the respective kingdoms. This is important because the family tomb symbolized the ancestral identity of a kinship group, and funerary rites would have enabled the group to reassign important family roles in response to its loss. According to the fractal model of the patrimonial household, the symbols involved in royal funerary rites were the same as those observed in non-royal contexts reflected in biblical traditions and the archaeological remains.45 Thus, Schloen’s programmatic socio-historical study, which was effective in his analysis of domestic architecture,46 provides a useful paradigm for the analysis of funerary rites in ancient Israel. The operative symbols in the royal epilogues of the Book of Kings, with its repeated stress on the patrimonial tombs, were those of kinship involving the royal house’s father, his son, and their ancestors. The ancestral eponym served as the basis for the Israelite clan (i.e., the house of the father), in the same manner the royal ancestors (the “fathers”) provided a foundation of power and legitimacy for the Israelite dynasties.

42

Accordingly, ancient society is not a concept that was transcendent and abstracted from the realities of life, only to be reconstructed by modern scholars according to overarching set of principles. 43 SCHLOEN, House of the Father, 26–28. Although he takes his cue from Weber’s interpretative approach to socio-historical research, Schloen develops this further by defining the interpretive element of his study through the use of Paul Ricoeur’s theory of hermeneutics (House of the Father, 7). 44 SCHLOEN, House of the Father, 57–59. 45 Various studies have acknowledged that the divine right of kingship (and thus any “transcendent” claim to authority) was often culturally grounded by means of royal ritual; therefore the ritual process would have been integral to the structure of a given society; see C ANNADINE, Introduction, 2–7. Given the prominence of elite burial customs in Judah and Jerusalem during the Iron Age II, and the fact that the imagery of the biblical epilogues seems to reflect this element of culture, S. R. F. Price’s interpretation of the Imperial Roman funerary rites offers a useful analogy, P RICE, From Noble Funerals, 56– 105. According to Price, the funerary rites for the defunct emperor emulated those of the Roman elite in a deliberate attempt to incorporate images of traditional culture on behalf of an institution (the imperial cult) that was not traditional. 46 SCHLOEN, House of the Father, 317–341. Indeed Schloen discusses the importance of the family tomb within the domestic architecture of Ugarit (House of the Father, 342–347).

12

Chapter One: The Royal Epilogues and the Politics of Dead Kings

While the ideal of kingship in the ancient Levant (and Israel in particular) was founded upon a concept of ancestral identity, the king himself embodied this identity as the living representative of the dynastic line. In recognition of this aspect of kingship, it is important to note the work of Mark Hamilton on the image of the royal body (published in 2005). In this study, the social meaning of the royal body was explored through the semiotics of the Israelite experience. Following Ernst Kantorowicz’s work on medieval kingship,47 Hamilton develops a theory of embodiment that focuses on the king, and notions of kingship, in ancient Israel and the Hebrew Bible. According to this study, the king’s body was a culturally mediated object and as such it served as a metaphor for political power that governed the king’s relationship with his peers, subjects and rivals.48 Aside from Hamilton’s careful examination of the royal psalms, the social meaning of a king’s body is examined within various situational settings (i.e., important events in the life and death of a king) that are narrated in the Books of Samuel and Kings.49 Although this present work will not engage in semiotic theory, it will analyze the construction and understanding of socially meaningful symbols through the conception of royalty in ancient Israel. Furthermore, the analysis here is not focused on the king’s body, but on the event of his burial and its reflection in literature. Hamilton’s work is useful in its sense of embodiment, which itself is akin to much of Robert Hertz’s work on secondary burial practices.50 It was through this symbolically charged ritual process of secondary rites (typical of Judah during the Iron Age II) that the mortal remains of an individual would be physically manipulated to create a sign of unity, either on the level of the clan or the royal house. 1.2.1.2. Transition Rituals and Funerary Rites The theoretical model of transition rites is directly applicable to the study of funerary-rites in ancient Israel. The basic tripartite scheme of van Gen47

H AMILTON, Body Royal; K ANTOROWICZ, King’s Two Bodies. Other studies of the ancient Near East have drawn upon Kantorowicz’s important work, such as L ORETZ, Götter, 691–714, which is cited by Hamiltion, as well as VAN DEN H OUT, Death as a Privilege, 37–75; and more recently N IEHR, Der Sarkophag 240–241. 48 Hamilton begins with Kantorowicz’s recognition that “governance in past societies did not always, or even primarily, center upon the allegedly rational arts of bureaucratic administration.” H AMILTON, Body Royal, 10. This recognition, of course, goes back to Weber’s interpretive sociology and his concept of patrimonialism. 49 To quote Hamilton (Body Royal, 29): “[T]he Israelites themselves understand what we would call politics and governance (and, of course, religion) at least partly in terms of bodily practices.” 50 D AVIES, Robert Hertz, 97–98; see also R OBB, Burial Treatment, 287–297. Hamilton (Body Royal, 148–149) does address burial practices, although not in detail.

1.2. Research Objectives

13

nep can be adapted easily to mortuary practices discovered largely in the southern Levant that date to the second and first millennia BCE.51 The transition from one category (life) to another (death) is facilitated by multiple stages inside the tomb that included burial and secondary rites.52 Furthermore, Hertz’s effort to elucidate what might be called the semiotics of death through the embodiment of the dead used secondary burial-rites as its empirical model.53 This mode of interment parallels in many ways burial practices in the southern Levant during the Iron II period. Yet there have been few attempts to contextualize the Iron Age mortuary practices that are otherwise observable in the material record of the western Palestine.54 The lack of contextualized analysis of funerary rites is remarkable given the fact that Iron Age burials in the region show indication of some process, or ritual activity, that would have occurred within the confines of the tomb. The signs are borne out in the manifold grave goods and the evidence for secondary rites that have been discovered in numerous excavations. Archaeologists are aware of the social significance of the mortuary practices, yet they tend to assign static (although valid) significance to remains of what were certainly dynamic processes. For instance, several scholars have drawn upon the material remains of communal burials to explain the collective identities invoked by biblical expressions for death

51 The use of the term “adapted” here is intentional. The model proposed by van Gennep represents a broad outline of general characteristics rather than universal values, and as such it must be adapted to the specifics of a given culture. To quote Metcalf and Huntington (Celebrations, 112): “In following this theoretical approach, it is necessary not merely to apply an old formula to new rituals, but in a sense to create anew the rites of passage in a dynamic relationship among the logic of the schema (transitions need beginnings and ends), biological facts (corpses rot), and culturally specific symbolizations.” See also the discussion in P ARKER PEARSON, Archaeology of Death, 22. 52 See Chapter Three for a discussion of this type of burial. 53 M ETCALF and H UNTINGTON, Celebrations, 34. Of course, the “rites of passage” would occur even in funerary rituals that did not involve secondary interment. Yet rituals are notoriously difficult to discern in the material remains of ancient cultures. The entire process of funerary rites would have involved multiple activities that remain invisible in the archaeological record and relatively indistinct in the textual and iconographic sources, O LYAN, Biblical Mourning, 28–29. For this reason, secondary rites become an optimal model for the analysis of ancient rituals because they typically leave behind discernable evidence of their practice. 54 The only archaeological work to engage in theory is Robert Cooley’s dissertation (discussed below). The important work of Gabriel Barkay is descriptive of the process of burial, although it does not rely on theory (see e.g., Iron Age II–III, 359). An excellent example of the discussion of transition rituals in the study of biblical mourning rites is found in the work of Saul Olyan, see O LYAN, Shaving Rites, 611–622; IDEM., Biblical Mourning, 6–13.

14

Chapter One: The Royal Epilogues and the Politics of Dead Kings

such as: “gathered to his people” and “lay with his fathers.”55 This parallel is certainly appropriate, yet it does not offer a comprehensive explanation of the means by which ancestral identity is affirmed and reified through social action (the funerary rites).56 The interpretive difficulty results from the tendency of literary sources to reduce “dynamic structure to stable mentality,” to quote the classicist Ian Morris.57 Although Morris’s concerns were different than those of this present study,58 his quote provides a corrective to the functionalist tendency to interpret ritual as a static practice that is unchanged in history and that tend to emphasize social structure to the neglect of cultural meaning.59 Thus, ritual theory is an appropriate paradigm for the combination of text and artifact because it can explain in a much fuller manner the social and political significance of death in the ancient world.60 One of the only studies of ancient mortuary practices to utilize transition rituals as an interpretive model was Robert Cooley’s 1968 New York University doctoral dissertation.61 This study is important to note, because it ultimately related ritual process to the reification of the ancestral identity 55

B ARKAY, Iron Age II–III, 359. See his extended essay, in Burial Caves, 106–115. See also C OOLEY, Gathered, 47–58. Robert Wenning offers a different explanation, suggesting instead that the repository is nothing more than a clearing area, and thus unassociated with being reunited with dead kin, W ENNING, Grab, 944 and IDEM., Begruben, 14–15. 56 See the discussion of the multiple phase-aspect of primary burials and secondary rites, B ARKAY, Burial Caves, 112–113. For a different approach, and one that denies secondary rituals associated with the repository, see W ENNING, Grab, 944. 57 M ORRIS, Death-Ritual, 21. Although the quote addresses concerns that are diachronic (see below), they still are applicable here. 58 For Morris the study of death as a symbol could only be done within the wider archaeological context of mortuary practices, however his comments are useful for textbased studies (such as this present exercise) that draw extensively from the material record. 59 B ELL, Perspectives and Dimensions, 59–60. On the various problems with the studies of ritual that are socially de-contextualized and/or ahistorical, see the brief comments in C ANNADINE, Introduction, 4. 60 In fact, the interpretative crux of ritual is the dichotomy of thought and action, discussed in B ELL, Ritual Theory, 47–48. Although Bell has developed this concept further (Perspectives and Dimensions, 61–89), the basic conceptual dichotomy mirrors the evidential parity of text and artifact. Therefore in the study of ancient cultures, where the researcher lacks direct observation and living informants, ritual theory can provide a dialectic between the subjective statements contained in primary sources and the (relatively) objective quality of the material record. For a synthetic analysis of death-rites within a ritual context (though one that privileges material remains) see M ORRIS, Death-Ritual, 202–203. This approach is similar to Schloen’s dialectic of fact and symbol, based on the hermeneutical theories of Ricouer, which analyzed society in the ancient Levant on a macro-scale using the root-metaphor of the “house of the father,” SCHLOEN, House of the Father, 40–45. Ritual action is symbolically charged, thus it is imperative for the researcher to be aware of the symbols that are created and manipulated through such action. 61 C OOLEY, Contribution. See also his brief comments in Gathered, 56–58.

1.2. Research Objectives

15

evoked in “gathered to his people,”62 which is the biblical death-idiom that parallels “lay with his fathers” found in the royal epilogues. Cooley drew upon van Gennep’s three-fold “rite of passage” paradigm in order to explain the Late Bronze Age–Iron I burial activity inside Tomb 1 at the western cemetery of Dothan.63 Accordingly, the primary interment of the dead marked the first phase (the “rites of separation”),64 the sustenance of the dead inside the tomb marked the second phase (“rites of segregation”), and the secondary disposal of the bones within a collective pile along the cave walls represented the final phase (“rites of incorporation”).65 For Cooley, this process was instigated by the “fear of the dead,” which necessitated the confinement and placation of the deceased. The finalization of this process marked the completion of the dead individual’s journey to the netherworld, a motif common in ancient literature.66 Cooley was also careful to develop a parallel image of the living participants, who themselves experienced the various phases of transition through mourning rites and other means.67 Cooley’s theory represents a unique contribution to the 62 C OOLEY, Contribution, 181–183. The interpretation is evident in the titles of two Festschrift articles, see Gathered, 47–58; and C OOLEY and P RATICO, Gathered, 70–92. 63 C OOLEY, Contribution, 190–198. 64 C OOLEY, Contribution, 191–193. 65 C OOLEY, Contribution, 193–198. 66 In Cooley’s words (Contribution, 198): “The tomb was not considered as the permanent residence of the dead, but a temporary way to the netherworld.” For a an overview of the motif in biblical and Near Eastern literature, see S URIANO, Descent, 710–712. 67 Again, this touches upon the invisibility of ritual activity in the material record. Rites of passage could take place in a funeral that were otherwise not apparent in the burial remains, see O LYAN, Biblical Mourning, 28–29. The biblical sources reflect aspects of the ritual response of the living to death, albeit in de-contextualized form. For instance, Israelite regulations of cultic purity defined corpse contamination as the most severe form of defilement requiring a seven-day process of purification, see Num 19:11– 20; W RIGHT, Disposal, 169–172. These purity laws, which defined the corpse as highly communicable, essentially established a period during which the participants in funerary rites would exist in a temporary state that excluded them from cultic activities. Furthermore, different acts of mourning that produced visible changes in appearance (such as wearing sackcloth) represented a temporary status delimited within a socially accepted timeframe. These mourning customs would also include an unkempt appearance produced by abstinence from washing (and anointing) as well as letting the hair down. Certain degrees of undress could also define the changed status of the mourner, such as going barefoot or even naked (2 Sam 15:30; Mic 1:9). Shaving rites (tonsure) and selfmutilation would have produced an altered status that would have lasted as long as it took for the hair to grow back and the wounds to heal, see O LYAN, Biblical Mourning, 116. In other words, certain parameters existed in Israelite culture that governed the response of the living to death. These parameters allowed the bereaved to readjust and reorient themselves over a ritually defined period. Eventually, the survivors would emerge from this period as transformed individuals – sons would become patriarchs and princes would become kings.

16

Chapter One: The Royal Epilogues and the Politics of Dead Kings

field, though it does suffer from certain limitations. For example, too much emphasis is placed upon the “fear of the dead,” the idea that the deceased were restless and troublesome until they were mollified and safely stowed in the netherworld.68 Instead, the importance of the ritual should be sought in the changed identities of those involved, both the living and the dead.69 1.2.2. Theory, Artifact and Text: A Synthesis The process observed in mortuary remains from western Palestine is certainly consistent with the rites of passage, as first deduced by Cooley. The end of this process, marked by the transfer of disarticulated remains, may relate to a belief in a completed journey;70 however, the apparent change in attitude shown by the living toward the dead bones (versus their earlier treatment of the corpse) signified the changed status of the dead. In fact, the material remains indicate that this final phase seemed to have been perfunctory (and its execution sometimes even careless);71 thus, it may not necessarily have entailed any ritual or ceremonial activity. The gathering of bones inside the tomb in a collective mass symbolized the finality of an individual’s existence. This manner of burial effectively created a distinct group identity by breaking down (almost literally) the individual identities of those interred.72

68

Hertz also used the “fear of the dead” as a determinative factor of his analysis, though he addressed various sides of human fear as it related to both concepts of the supernatural as well as the structure of society, see M ETCALF and H UNTINGTON, Celebrations, 79–83. For a brief history of this concept, and its effect upon the study of ancient death-ways, see B INFORD, Mortuary Practices, 6–9. A useful critique of the prevalence of the “primitive fear of the dead” in early scholarship and how it led to ideas of ancestor cults is found in SCHMIDT, Afterlife Beliefs, 237. In fact, one of the significant points of Schmidt’s work is that it reveals that much Near Eastern scholarship regarding death was based upon anachronistic anthropological theories, see IDEM., Beneficent Dead. 69 To be fair, Cooley certainly recognized that the collective mass of bones represented a corporate identity, C OOLEY, Contribution, 82. This point is stressed as well in Gathered, 47–58 and, C OOLEY and P RATICO, Gathered, 70–92. 70 Schmidt objects to Cooley’s paradigm on different grounds, rejecting the implied permanency of the dead soul’s transition to the netherworld because Mesopotamian sources indicate that the dead could return to the world of the living as ghosts (Akkadian ete mmu), S CHMIDT, Beneficent Dead, 194–196. 71 C OOLEY and P RATICO, Gathered, 88–89. 72 PORTER, Communities 166. Cf. B ROWN, On Mortuary Analysis, 4–6. Note also Binford’s brief comments on the “invisible society” that the dead are initiated into through secondary rites (following Hertz’s observation), B INFORD, Mortuary Practices, 7. It should be stated, however, that secondary rites and collective/communal interment could occur in cultures without the same implications, see note 88 below.

1.2. Research Objectives

17

The diagrammed discussion found in Peter Metcalf and Richard Huntington’s important work Celebrations of Death is a useful model for describing the complexities of Hertz’s description regarding the living, the corpse and the soul.73 In this pyramid schema, three explanations are offered that associate each entity to each other: 1. The living relate to the corpse through mortuary practices (disposal of the dead), which can reflect aspects of social order symbolized by burials and tomb architecture. 2. The corpse relates to the soul through certain mortuary practices, such as secondary treatment of burial remains, which transfigure the image of the dead through the manipulation of the body. 3. The living disassociate themselves from the dead through acts of mourning and commemorative rites, allowing the restructuring of social order.

All three of these explanations cohere with the formulaic notices of the royal epilogues. The dead king is buried in his capital (inside the royal tomb), symbolizing the political order of the kingdom. Inside the royal tomb, the interment of the king within the collective burial site allows him to join his ancestral lineage. Among the living, certain rites and ceremonies would have conferred the authority of the defunct king upon his heir. Without written sources as a guide it is extremely difficult (if not impossible) to reconstruct a royal funerary-rite in ancient Israel. For example, the specific rites and ceremonies by which the living realign themselves in the third explanation (above) remains unclear. Certainly, the lament is an important literary form in the Hebrew Bible, and the images of various mourning practices are found in biblical sources (including legal proscriptions). These features of Israelite culture, however, do not have any larger social context; for instance, it is difficult to ascertain when and where a lament was performed. Although biblical descriptions of royal mourning exist and royal commemorative rites are mentioned (such as the great fires referenced in Jer 34:5 and 2 Chr 16:14; 21:19; 32:33), the specifics of the ritual process that transformed the crown prince into the new king remain unclear. Yet, the final component of the epilogue (the notice of the successor) makes this ritual process implicit. The liminal aspect of funerary rites is most evident in biblical references to extended periods of mourning and fasting, which can last from a single day to a week, and even forty days. Indeed, visible manifestations of mourning such as tonsure and self-laceration imply a period of liminal-

73

M ETCALF and H UNTINGTON, Celebrations, 79–85; cf. 83, Fig. 73. See also the charted schematic in COHEN, Death Rituals, 18 Fig. 1. Cohen builds upon the paradigm established by Metcalf and Huntington and further observes that the separation of the dead involves reorganization and reallocation of rank and resources.

18

Chapter One: The Royal Epilogues and the Politics of Dead Kings

ity,74 during which the active mourner recovers their former appearance (hair grows back and wounds heal).75 Again, lack of context hinders any effort to understand Israelite mourning customs, as it is not apparent what governs the decision to mourn for seven days or forty. The liminal period of mourning could be related to a person’s status, although this is not required,76 and it does make it reasonable to assume that it provided a royal house with the temporal framework for the renegotiation of social and political relations.77 This liminal period would have also been necessary for the removal of any cultic impurity incurred due to corpse contamination.78 Yet the biblical evidence for liminality in funerary rites provides only a limited picture and it is impossible to establish an official order and protocol for a royal funerary rite in ancient Israel. The limited biblical evidence, however, does strongly suggest that participation in rites of mourning were related to the transformation of an individual’s identity. Based on the biblical sources and archaeological remains, the existence of liminality in ancient Israelite funerary rituals is a reasonable assumption. Furthermore, this aspect of ritual was directly related to (and effectively addressed) the problem of identity caused by death and bereavement. But liminality can also be contrasted with stability in the ritual process. The binary nature of Israelite funerary rituals (liminality versus stability) proves a useful corrective to problems in theoretical perspective. It is 74

For male shaving rites, see (for example): Jer 16:6b; Ezek 27:31; Mic 1:16; cf. Job 1:20. For laceration, see Jer 16:6b (and Deut 14:1), represented by the word dd"wOgt;hi: “to gash oneself.” Job 2:8a probably also represents this rites, using the verb dr"g%Ft;hil; (“to scrape”), see S CHMIDT, Beneficent Dead, 169. Schmidt (Beneficent Dead, 177) stresses another form of identity involved with these customs–the identification of the living with the dead; see also L EWIS, Cults, 43–44; and O LYAN, Biblical Mourning, 39–45. This form of identity reflects the polyvalent sense of the customs. For a thorough review of these customs in the mourning of the dead, see O LYAN, Biblical Mourning, 39–45. 75 O LYAN, Shaving Rites, 616–617. 76 For instance, a culture could mourn for a prolonged period of time for the death of an individual who was not in a leadership position and for reasons other than succession. Indeed, the social disruption of an individual’s death is correspondent to “who the deceased was, his or her age, the cause of death, the presence of an institutionalized mode of succession, and the nature of the the social system itself.” To quote C OHEN, Death Rituals, 17. 77 For example: 2 Sam 10:1–2; see A RTZI, Mourning, 161–170, and the discussion in O LYAN, Biblical Mourning, 48–49 and 55–56. This, of course, is separate from the functionalist approach which often assigned an enabling role to funerary rites where the problem of death created/strengthened social cohesion and political power, PARKER PEARSON, Archaeology of Death, 21. A good example of a ritual period dedicated to the disposal of a king’s mortal remains is the fourteen-day Hittite ritual, see O TTEN, Hethitische Totenrituale; for a description see H AAS, Hittite Thought, 2024–2027; and also VAN DEN H OUT, Death as a Privilege, 37–75, Image of the Dead?, 195–211. 78 See W RIGHT, Disposal, 169–172.

1.2. Research Objectives

19

only by coincidence that the models used here are tripartite in nature, whether the three sides of Hertz’s study (the corpse, living and the soul) or the three phases of Van Gennep’s rites of passage (separation, liminality and aggregation). The three-part divisions are nothing more than a matter of modern perspectives that fully recognizes that the funerary-rites were dynamic and complex.79 For example: of the relational explanations regarding the three sides of Metcalf and Huntington’s paradigm (above), the first explanation corresponds to the initial act of interment and, by-itself, is hardly liminal. The liminality follows, involving the dead (reposed inside the tomb) and the living (who are bereaved by death).80 While the dead and the living endured this liminality, what remained stable was the existence of the tomb and the ancestors interred within.81 Given the prominence of ancestral identities and family tombs in ancient Israel, the stable (or, unchanging) aspect of Israelite funerary-rites reveals their importance within the patrimonial world of the first millennium.82 This study builds upon the significance of ritual activity (i.e., funerary rites) that is transitory by nature, yet it is important to maintain a certain focus on the stable nature of tomb and ancestor. Although biblical sources contain some details regarding mourning customs, much of the information about the manner in which the living related to the dead is unrecoverable. In contrast to this limitation, archaeological research makes it possible to gain some insight into the first and second explanations, which involve burial sites and the manner in which the corpse related to the soul. The discovery of human remains inside a tomb does not always necessitate an 79

The three-part framework devised by van Gennep can be an effective interpretive guide specifically because of its generality – all events have a beginning, middle and end; M ETCALF and H UNTINGTON, Celebrations, 111–112, P ARKER PEARSON, Archaeology of Death, 22. 80 This interpretation contrasts with Metcalf and Huntington’s statement that liminality corresponds only to the third explanation (the relation of the living to the dead), M ETCALF and H UNTINGTON, Celebrations, 83–84. 81 Thus, for the dead, the initial interment in the tomb provides the location for the rites of separation and the status necessary for aggregation (the ancestors). Yet for the living the initial interment holds a different meaning. 82 In other words, funerary rites related directly to mortuary remains (manifested in the family tomb) that could be preserved for an extended period of time. Thus, the makeup of a kinship group could change through time, yet the tomb would remain as a stable symbol of their ancestral eponym. To get a better sense for the concept of identity that is so closely woven into the fabric of funerary rites (as transition rituals), short reference should be made to the Patriarchal traditions of the Cave of Machpelah (ref. Gen 49:29–32). The cave-tomb served as the burial grounds for Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (and their wives), all of whom are “gathered to their people.” The tradition of the Cave of Machpelah is comparable to the royal epilogue’s repeated reference to the king’s burial in his royal capital.

20

Chapter One: The Royal Epilogues and the Politics of Dead Kings

interpretation of “ancestors.”83 Yet the deliberate manner in which human remains are amassed inside the tomb (in Iron II Judah), through communal interment, indicates that the interred collectively represented the ancestral claim that a tomb symbolically marked.84 This is particularly evident in the construction of repositories inside typical Iron II rock-cut tombs in Judah, but even in cases where constructed repositories are absent the point still stands: the tomb was intended as the final resting place for multiple generations.85 The bones of previous generations were not destroyed, discarded or removed; instead they were safely stored. This purpose is clear in the intentional plan and design of a rock-cut tomb.86 The intention was not simply to facilitate multiple burials over an extended period of time, but to construct an ancestral identity that linked a kinship group with the land. It is necessary, therefore, to build a connection between this manner of funerary rite and the biblical phrase “lay with his fathers” (as well as the related phrase “gathered to his people”). The recognition of the relational aspects of the living and the corpse // the corpse and the dead (soul) hold profound implications for the study of death-ways in ancient Israel and the Hebrew Bible.87 The implications involved will inform this study precisely because the political context of death in ancient Israel engaged questions of status and identity that were addressed through the manipulation of the king’s body. Thus, the recognition of the symbolic power of the dead in funerary-rites sheds light not only on theological perspectives of death (eschatology), but also the manner and course by which power was created and sovereignty was maintained. Royal lineage was an important component of political legitimacy in the ancient Near East, and in this component the question of identity re83

PORTER, Dynamics, 8–10. This is nicely discussed in VAN DER T OORN, Family Religion, 207–208. (Although he combines burial practices with ancestor cults and necromancy into a larger entity that he refers to as the “cult of the dead,” Family Religion, 206–235.) See the quote by Laneri (Funerary Rituals, 4): “The actual practice of funerary rituals is a fundamental moment during which the social cohesion of the living community and/or household is reinforced, and the physical remains of this act, for example, the tomb, stand as a focal point in the social and mnemonic landscape of the society.” See also the archaeological studies of B LOCH-SMITH, Judahite, 111–112; B ARKAY, Burial Caves, 106–107. 85 B ARKAY, Burial Caves, 108. 86 K AMLAH, Grab, 274–275. 87 It should be noted that secondary burial-customs are not always indicative of any detailed concept of a soul and the afterlife existence of the dead, as indicated by ethnographic studies in Madagascar; M ETCALF and H UNTINGTON, Celebrations, 111–112. This does not negate a belief in some form of afterlife identity, however, but demonstrates instead the general nature of symbols in burial customs. The symbols do not reflect universal aspects of eschatology, though they can in cultures where some manner of belief in an afterlife identity is pervasive (such as in ancient Israel). 84

1.3. Conclusion

21

lated directly to the deceased in what might be called the politics of dead kings. But to understand the question of identity that underlies a royal funerary-rite, the terminology must be adjusted to reflect the socio-political valence of death and burial where the dead are viewed on one side as a defunct individual and on the other as part of a collective identity.

1.3. Conclusion The royal epilogues of the book of Kings, and the funerary rituals they reflect, represent the transitional rituals that were a necessary component of political life in the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. As described above, the central aspect of transition rituals is the problem of identity. Royal funerary rituals, through the performance of various acts such as burial, mourning and commemoration, addressed the roles of the defunct king and his successor. The recently deceased king would be removed from his office to a place (the royal tomb) where he could begin his transition to a new political status among the ancestry. Likewise, the succeeding son would initiate his own transformation from crown prince to king through participation in the ritual process (though this role is not entirely clear in the ancient sources). The question of identity relates, ultimately to the royal lineage that tied into the ruling house’s ancestral eponym. This identity serviced the ruling house in manifold ways: it was a privileged status in the afterlife to which a defunct king could ascend, and it indemnified the new king’s assumption of power. The ascension to the throne by the crown prince meant the continuation of the royal house and its ancestral lineage, of which the defunct king had become part; when the new king was installed upon the throne, he became seated firmly in line with an ancestral lineage referred to in the epilogues as the “fathers.”

Chapter Two

The Formulaic Epilogues in the Book of Kings “And Jehoshaphat lay with his fathers and he was buried with his fathers in the City of David, his father, and Jehoram his son ruled in his stead.” (1 Kings 22:51)

2.1. Introduction The death of a king in antiquity was a time of potential anxiety, the end of an era and the unpredictable beginning of a new one.1 The fact that few descriptions of royal funerals survive in biblical literature and ancient Near Eastern sources hardly negates this observation. It is reasonable to assume that public ceremonies and rituals existed in order to assuage the fears of the constituency and demonstrate to outside powers that the rule of the land remained strong. The essence of these rituals would have been the ideals of continuity and stability. The primary goal of this study, however, is not to reconstruct putative rituals and ceremonies in order to assign political value to hypothetical events. Instead, this study will focus on each of the three formulaic motifs expressed in the epilogue, here termed: the dynastic notice (“and PN1 lay with his fathers”), the burial notice (“and he was buried in …”) and the notice of successor (“and PN2 his son ruled in his stead”).2 Each of these motifs will be carefully analyzed in Chapters Four, Five and Six, respectively. The literary paradigm used to introduce each chapter is 1 Kg 22:51, Jehoshaphat’s epilogue, which represents one of the fullest forms of the formulaic notices. The interrelationship of these formulaic motifs within a single literary construct (the epilogue) is best explored using theoretical models adapted from social scientific and anthropological studies. The theoretical precepts of this study, however, will serve only as a heuristic guide in a larger syn1

Similar observations are found in H AMILTON, Body Royal, 146–147. Because the epilogue naturally follows the account of the respective king’s life, it also follows any necessary references to sources in the Book of Kings. These references, however, are unrelated to the royal epilogues (in a literary sense) and therefore are not treated in this study. Ernst Würthwein includes the source citation as part of a four-part closing sequence (combining the reference with the epilogues), see W ÜRTHWEIN, 1. Kön. 1–16, 146. Similiarly, E YNIKEL, Reform, 129; SWEENEY, I & II Kings (OTL), 8. See also TIMM, Dynastie, 45–49. Timm’s primary goal was the analysis of the source referenced for Ahab in 1 Kg 22:39, although he does not discuss the formulaic epilogue (Abschlußformel). 2

2.2. History of Research into the Epilogue Formulary

23

thetic work that will combine the multiple disciplines of biblical criticism, the archaeology of the Levant, and the comparative analysis of ancient Near Eastern cultures. This organization will allow the study to approach various aspects related to the socio-political response to death and to address questions that are both literary (“how does the terminology relate to concepts of inheritance”) and archaeological (“what was the significance of royal tombs”). The focus and organization of this research, centering on the royal epilogues, will present the opportunity to address the topic of death within a socio-political context. Figure 1. The Royal Epilogue Formulary of the Book of Kings The Three-part Formulaic Pattern Based on 1 Kings 22:51 1. 2. 3.

The dynastic notice: The burial notice: The notice of the successor:

wytfb o) j- M(i +pf# $fwOh y: bk@a# $;y,IwA wybi) f dwid @F ry(ib @; wytfb o) j- M(i rb'q @Fy,IwA wyt@fx ;t @a wOnb@; MrFwOh y: K7Ol m;y,IwA

2.2. History of Research into the Epilogue Formulary In order to understand the purpose of this study, and the necessity involved in the analysis of the epilogue formulae in the Book of Kings, it is important to review briefly the history of scholarship regarding the Deuteronomistic History.3 The Book of Kings played an important role in Noth’s “Deuteronomistic History” (henceforth, DtrH),4 therefore the critical analysis of the biblical book (and its literary devices) often finds its place within larger studies of the DtrH.5 Thus, the survey of research presented here is necessary, in spite of the current tendency of biblical scholars to disassociate the Book of Kings from Noth’s hypothetical construct.6 The 3

Furthermore, the dynastic oracle (2 Samuel 7), which is analyzed in Chapter Four, had a prescient role in the narrative trajectory established (in part) by the epilogues in the Book of Kings: all of which, not surprisingly points to the legitimacy of the House of David. Thus, the analysis here focuses on Kings, but begins in Samuel. Although Noth considered 2 Samuel 7 as pre-Deuteronomistic, others have incorporated it into the theory, see M CC ARTHY, II Samuel 7, 131–138. For a discussion of the role of 2 Samuel 7 in the DtrH, refer S CHNIEDEWIND, Society, 31–33. 4 M CK ENZIE, Book of Kings, 281–307; and S CHNIEDEWIND, Problem, 22–27. See the overview in J ONES, Kings Vol. 1 (NCBC), 28–46 and R ÖMER, So-Called, 145–163. 5 Or at the least, with the purpose of better understanding the DtrH; see H ALPERN and V ANDERHOOFT, Editions, 179–244. 6 It is beyond the parameters of this study to engage in any extensive critique of Noth’s theories, either to defend or deny them, nor is it possible to fully explore the role

24

Chapter Two: The Formulaic Epilogues in the Book of Kings

survey will set the general stage and will be followed by a specific discussion of the brief scholarly attempts to address the epilogues, in order to establish the epistemological framework of this work. 2.2.1. The Study of the Deuteronomistic History The term “Deuteronomistic History” refers to the historical narrative of Joshua through Kings, as first proposed by Martin Noth in his seminal work.7 Although Noth attributed this narrative to a single tradent who had earlier sources at his disposal, subsequent scholarship has divided the literature among multiple redactors. This development in DtrH research has resulted in two interpretive paradigms: the Schichtenmodell and the Blockmodell.8 These methods of approach are so termed because they involve reading strategies that focus on either theme (Blockmodell) or layer/thought-unit (Schichtenmodell). The Blockmodell paradigm is usually associated with Frank Moore Cross Jr., who initially proposed a doubleredaction of the DtrH that began with the reign of Josiah and continued in the exile (following the destruction of the Temple in 586 BCE).9 Cross’s theory holds relevance for this study because it places much emphasis upon the royal ideology of the House of David, specifically the interpretation of the Dynastic Oracle (2 Samuel 7) and its role in shaping Kings.10 The second paradigm is associated with Rudolf Smend11 and Walter Dietrich12 and postulates a Deuteronomistic History (their DtrG) that was subjected to multiple levels of redaction termed: nomistic (DtrN) and pro-

of the Book of Kings within this academic discourse. For recent work, focusing on Kings, that question the book’s place with the DtrH, see B ARRICK, Cemeteries, 13–14; STAVRAKOPOULOU, King Manasseh, 18–21; and N OLL, Kings Deuteronomistic? 49–72. 7 N OTH, Deuteronomistic; a translation of Noth’s chapter “The Central Theological Ideas,” (with introduction) is found along with a collection of important essays on the topic) in: K NOPPERS and M CC ONVILLE eds., Reconsidering, 20–30. 8 These terms were introduced by Helga Weippert (Deuteronomistische, 217–249), see also M CK ENZIE, Book of Kings, 281–307. 9 The essay was originally published as CROSS, Structure, 9–24. It was subsequently revised and republished under the title: “The Themes of the Book of Kings and the Structure of the Deuteronomistic History” in his Canaanite Myth, 274–289. 10 C ROSS, Canaanite Myth, 278–285. According to Cross, the DtrH was primarily composed during the Josianic reforms, and consisted of dual themes that involved the judgment of the northern kingdom (“the sin of Jeroboam”) and the “eternal promise to David” (2 Samuel 7). The final exilic-redaction served to address the theological concerns that resulted from the destruction of the kingdom of Judah. For a discussion of Cross’s important work on 2 Samuel 7, see S CHNIEDEWIND, Society, 82–83. 11 SMEND, Das Gesetz, 494–509; Law (ET), 95–110. See also I DEM., Entstehung. 12 D IETRICH, Prophetie. Most recently, I DEM., Future, 153–175.

2.2. History of Research into the Epilogue Formulary

25

phetic (DtrP). A third school is associated with Helga Weippert13 (who is responsible for the terms Blockmodell and Schichtenmodell) and includes important research by Andre Lemaire,14 Anthony Campbell,15 as well as the recent work of Erik Eyinkel.16 This school of interpretation placed its emphasis on the formal aspects of Kings, specifically the judgment formula found in the prologues.17 For this group of scholars, variation in the formal structure of the book (prologue or epilogue) offered evidence of multiple authors and (according to their diachronic perspective) different historical stages of redaction. Because these interpreters used the variations observed in the formulaic notices of Kings to reconstruct a redaction history for the DtrH, they directed some attention toward the epilogue formulae, specifically the burial notices. This concern is most apparent in the Cambridge doctoral thesis of Iain Provan (published in 1988),18 as well as an extended essay by Baruch Halpern and David Vanderhooft.19 The first and third interpretive schools dealt largely with the Book of Kings,20 and their redaction models were defined by means of larger themes (Frank Moore Cross Jr.) or changes in the formal style within the Book of Kings’ framework (Weippert, et al.). The present work approaches the formal structures in Kings (namely the epilogues) from a thematic standpoint. The research objective is achieved through the careful explication of the stock phrases in the epilogues. Because the epilogues begin with the expression “lay with his fathers,” the phrase will be studied in both its formulaic and idiomatic expression.21 13

W EIPPERT, Die ‘deuteronomistischen’, 301–339. See also I DEM., Geschichten, 116–131; translated and republished as, “Histories” (English Translation), 47–61. Cf. SCHNIEDEWIND, Problem, 22–23. 14 L EMAIRE, Vers l’Histoire; republished as I DEM., Toward, 446–461 15 C AMPBELL, Prophets, followed by that of his student O’B RIEN, Deuteronomistic. O’Brien’s work, however, is a synthesis of the various approaches and thus defies any basic categorization. 16 E YNIKEL, Reform. 17 See WEIPPERT, Die ‘deuteronomistischen’, 309–312; and LEMAIRE, Toward, 449–455. 18 PROVAN, Hezekiah. It is difficult to categorize Provan’s study, as it specifically addresses larger thematic concerns in Kings (like Cross’s earlier work), with its focus on the “high-place”-judgments. The basic structure of Provan’s analysis, however, is indebted to Weippert’s article on the judgment formula. 19 H ALPERN and V ANDERHOOFT, Editions, 182–183. 20 The importance of the Book of Kings is reflected in the title of Stephen McKenzie’s 1991 work (the revised and published form of his Harvard dissertation) as well as in William Schniedewind’s review article on the state of DtrH research (up to 1996); M CK ENZIE, Trouble, and S CHNIEDEWIND, Problem, 26. For a full discussion of the role of Kings in the DtrH, refer M CK ENZIE, Book of Kings, 281–307. 21 In this sense, the analysis represents a departure from Illman’s study of “death formulae,” where a literary distinction was made between the formulaic and idiomatic means of portraying death, ILLMAN, Formulas, 18–19; refer also K NIBB, Life, 411–413.

26

Chapter Two: The Formulaic Epilogues in the Book of Kings

Thus, in a sense this research project deals with a thematic element in the DtrH at the sentence level. Unlike the Smend-Dietrich school, however, this study will not engage in form-critical analysis of the material.22 The Sitz im Leben of the epilogues was clearly the ritual process that involved the burial, commemoration and mourning of the defunct king; however, the concern of this work is to understand the epilogues’ ideological import. As transitional sections, the epilogues indeed served purposes of demarcation and delineation; yet it is important to study them not as the skeletaloutline of a redactional work,23 but as a literary means of shaping narratives within a specific ideological framework.24 2.2.2. The Epilogue Formulae: A Brief History of Research Few studies have focused either on the dynastic notice or the burial notice,25 and even these works are limited in their scope, typically isolating the phrases from the epilogue as a whole, which ultimately detaches the formulaic phrases from their larger context of meaning. The history of scholarThe ideology of the phrase was expressed in the literature in both idiomatic (cf. 1 Kg 1:21) and formulaic styles. 22 For this school, the interpretation of specific phrases served a redactional purpose that involved the concerns of a post-exilic community (i.e., land, cultural identity). This is best articulated in SMEND, Das Gesetz, 95–110. The difficulty with this approach is that it reconstructed a socio-historical context based on elaborate literary theories (redaction-critical) involving small, and often isolated, words and phrases. The analysis presented in this dissertation differs in that it focuses on a specific set of phrases that are formulaic and appear in a standardized literary order. Furthermore, the socio-political context of the phrases (the royal epilogues) reflects a literary image that is the deliberate intent of the Book of Kings–the narrative of the kings of Israel and Judah. 23 H ALPERN and V ANDERHOOFT, Editions, 183. 24 In one of the few departures from typical redactional criticisms of the judgment formulae that accompany the royal prologues, Patricia Dutchter-Walls states: “the primary characteristic of the regnal formulas [is] that they bring the ideology imbedded in the narrative into the foreground and use it to shape the impact of the whole account.” D UTCHER-W ALLS, Narrative, 136; refer 135–139. Similar statements are found in C AMPBELL, Prophets, 140 (cited by Dutcher-Walls). 25 For instance, the dynastic notice is the focus in A LFRINK, bk@a#$;y,IwA, 106–118; D RIVER, Plurima, 128–143. The articles, however, are concerned only with the meaning of the phrase (and not the epilogue as a whole). Two recent studies have appeared that have examined the literary aspects of the dynastic notice; STEUERNAGEL and SCHULZE, Zur Aussage, 267–275; and K RÜGER, Weg, 137–150. The burial notice is discussed in Y EIVIN, Sepulchres, 30–45; and P ROVAN, Hezekiah, 134–138. These works are concerned with the location of the royal tombs or the redaction of the DtrH, and not necessarily the specific epilogues. See also, H ALPERN and V ANDERHOOFT, Editions, 179–244. This article (discussed below) is significant in that it combines the study of both the dynastic notice and the burial notice, see the survey of Halpern and Vanderhooft found in E YNIKEL, Reform, 132–135.

2.2. History of Research into the Epilogue Formulary

27

ship into the prologue/epilogue framework of the Book of Kings reveals that they were often assigned ancillary roles within larger explanatory models that addressed literary and historical problems.26 These roles, however were concerned less with the framework itself and more with results that related to literary sources, redactional histories or biblical chronologies. While these research paradigms addressed important problems and served legitimate purposes, their results were extrinsic to the sense and meaning of the regnal framework that structured Kings, in particular the royal epilogues. Furthermore, researchers often drew from problematic interpretations, most notably the explanation of the dynastic notice as a formula signifying natural death,27 which made it difficult to understand the political significance of the royal epilogues. A review of past research into the epilogues will demonstrate that it is methodologically necessary to begin any formal and syntactical analysis of the closing formulae by first discerning their ideological importance. Although scholars have been aware of the importance of the epilogues in portraying the continued existence of the monarchies in Israel and Judah,28 they have never drawn from these statements the political significance of death and burial. In fact, previous research into the framework of Kings has given preference to the prologues.29 Among the variable information carried in the running prologues are the king’s age at accession, regnal lengths and synchronistic data (when possible), making them an invaluable source of information for reconstructing the historical perspective of the biblical writers. For instance, regnal and synchronistic data are the primary sources for work that sought to establish the chronology of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah.30 Along with the historical data, the prologues also contain theological assessments, or as they are more commonly known: judgment formulae. The variations in these judgment formulae 26 One exception is Hamilton’s work, which briefly discuss the significance of the formulaic expressions, H AMILTON, Body Royal, 147–149. 27 The essays that are often cited are: ALFRINK, bk@a#$;y,IwA, 106–118; and D RIVER, Plurima, 128–143. The interpretation was advanced by several other studies, however, and a full history of the problem is given below. 28 ILLMAN, Formulas, 37–48. See also L ONG, 1 Kings (FOTL), 22–28, and the comments in R ICHTER, Richtern Israels, 47–48. An example is A. F. Campbell’s monograph, which is focused primarily on the judgment formula, but briefly discussed the epilogue (which he calls the “linear system”) alongside the prologue (“the synchronistic system”), cf. C AMPBELL, Prophets, 161–163. Campbell describes the epilogues as “a stereotyped and rather monotonous formula, [that] serves usefully to keep a clear and steady indicator running through the tangled combination of the two kingdoms.” IDEM., Prophets, 139. 29 For instance, in his work on the redaction of the book, Jepsen only dealt with the synchronistic prologues and the source citations, J EPSEN, Die Quellen, 41–60. 30 Notably THIELE, Mysterious. See also, the overview in J ONES, Kings Vol. 1 (NCBC), 9–28; and the monograph treatment in G ALIL, Chronology.

28

Chapter Two: The Formulaic Epilogues in the Book of Kings

have been analyzed in order to build theories about the redaction history of the Book of Kings, seen notably in the work of Helga Weippert.31 This last approach typifies such modes of inquiry into the epilogues, where the methodologies are either source or redaction critical. Given the sparse data that are intrinsic to the epilogues, the studies that have dealt with them have been rather limited in themselves.32 The restricted manner in which the epilogues were analyzed is apparent in the work of Joachim Begrich.33 Aside from brief references in commentaries and standard introductions to biblical literature,34 Begrich’s monograph was one of the first studies to isolate and analyze the epilogues in Kings. This work was predominantly text-critical and approached the epilogues in an attempt to establish an Urtext in order to reconstruct the chronologies of Israel and Judah, offering little insight into the meaning of the formulaic notices. The limits of Begrich’s work are similarly seen in an essay by Julio Trebolle Barrera,35 which sought to integrate text-critical analysis with literary approaches.36 This article used the prologue/epilogue framework to 31 W EIPPERT, Die ‘deuteronomistischen’, 301–339. More recently, see L EMAIRE, Vers l’Histoire, 446–461 as well as the treatment of this and other formal conventions in H ALPERN and V ANDERHOOFT, Editions, 199–212. 32 For instance, in affirming Shoshana Bin-Nun’s assertion that the epilogues for both Judah and Israel were identical in their basic form (see below), Erik Eynikel states: “in such closing formula there is little else that can be put than references to the death, burial and succession.” EYNIKEL, Reform, 130. Yet it will be shown that these three elements represent an ideological complex that underscored the political stability of a dynasty. 33 B EGRICH, Chronologie. The epilogues have some value in text-critical studies because they represent a standard literary form in the Book of Kings. The variations seen in the parallel epilogues in the biblical book of Chronicles as well as in the ancient versions (particularly the Lucianic translation [= GL]) enable scholars to build theories of textual variation, as in the case of Begrich and Julio Trebolle Barrera (see below). This same concern is seen in source-critical studies that examine the parallel epilogues in order to understand the Chronicler’s sources, such as E. J. Smit’s 1966 essay (discussed below). Yet, these studies fail to establish the epilogues basic meaning. 34 For commentaries and treatments of the Book of Kings, see for example, B ENZINGER, Könige, xiii–xiv; B URNEY, Notes, x–xi; M ONTGOMERY and G EHMAN, Kings (ICC), 31–32. D RIVER, Introduction, 362–363. See also the discussion of the schematischen Rahmen in Kings found in S TEUERNAGEL, Lehrbuch, 344–345 § 376, 341. 35 T REBOLLE B ARRERA, Redaction, 475–492. 36 Trebolle Barrera’s work engaged in formal analysis in order to establish a redactional model by which the MT and the LXX could be compared. This model allowed him to examine the variant sequences of the prologue/epilogue framework in selected passages of Kings in order to establish the existence of a Hebrew textual tradition (preserved in the LXX and Old Latin versions) that was separate from the MT. The essay cited above is one of several important contributions by Trebolle Barrera to the study of the Book of Kings. To quote Stephen McKenzie: “Trebolle has maintained that there was no firm line between the actual composition of the text and its transmission.” M CK ENZIE, Book of Kings, 295.

2.2. History of Research into the Epilogue Formulary

29

deduce a proper literary structure, by which the text of Kings could be assessed. Like Begrich, Trebolle Barrera’s work reduced the epilogues (and prologues) to literary conventions that served a generic function within a larger textual framework. Yet these studies never addressed the most basic question: why was it imperative to close out a king’s reign in such a structured and formulaic literary-style? Several studies sought to identify the sources underlying the canonical Book of Kings by subjecting the epilogues to formal analysis, rather than textual analysis (which privilege questions of early texts, variant readings, and manuscript traditions). E. J. Smit’s short article on the parallel epilogues in Kings and Chronicles exemplifies this agenda.37 Smit’s work carefully examined the variation between the use of the Niphal and Piel forms of rbq in the burial-notices.38 Yet the essay hardly addressed the meaning of the burial-notices,39 as it was concerned solely with the question of sources. Like Begrich’s earlier work, Smit’s study was compelled by the variations in the diction of the burial notices as witnessed in multiple sources and textual variants. Yet in their efforts to establish the credibility of the sources behind Chronicles or the text of the LXX, the existence of the epilogue became merely a stock literary-form that was manipulated by a tradent. Work on the redaction history of the Book of Kings and the DtrH relegated the epilogues to the same role. For instance, Martin Noth’s commentary on Kings isolated the extended epilogue for David in 1 Kg 2:10–12, but only to question the redaction history of the chapter.40 Here the epilogue functioned solely as a literary seam, attaching David’s final account (1 Kg 2:1–9) with the beginning of Solomon’s reign (1 Kg 2:13–46).41 The literary significance of the formulaic notices played little role in Noth’s critical work, where the relevance of the epilogue was confined to questions regarding the formation of the extant text.42 This limited perspective regarding the epilogues caused Noth to miss important allusions that are embedded within 1 Kg 2:10–12 (discussed in Chapter Four).

37

SMIT, Death, 173–177. See also ZEWI, Parallels, 240–242, which briefly examined a sample of burial notices from Kings and Chronicles in order to make observations regarding passive versus active verb use within a larger study devoted to issues of Hebrew syntax. 39 Brief reference is made to Yeivin’s 1948 article on the royal tombs (discussed below); S MIT, Death, 175. Furthermore, Smit (Death, 173) adheres to the peaceful-death interpretation of “lay with his fathers.” 40 N OTH, Könige, 10–12, cf. 11. 41 This passage will be discussed in Chapter Four. 42 “Als ganzer aber steht er hinter der ersten Schluß-Formel (12b); und so muß mindestens die Frage gestellt werden, ob nicht auch er schon nachträglich hinzugesetzt ist.” N OTH, Könige, 11. 38

30

Chapter Two: The Formulaic Epilogues in the Book of Kings

The sources for the Book of Kings played into later studies by Shoshana Bin-Nun and John Van Seters.43 Both scholars drew upon the epilogues (as well as the prologues) in order to postulate that king-lists were the original sources for the basic outline of the biblical book.44 These studies only succeeded in producing hypothetical sources (though their theoretical existence remains plausible) and they offered little insight into the epilogues themselves.45 The larger question of meaning is addressed only briefly and obliquely. Bin-Nun suggests that it was the heir’s initiative to record the epilogue, thus explaining the formulaic variations observed following a coup.46 Van Seters compares the information contained in the epilogues with the record of death and burial information in Mesopotamian kinglists.47 These studies were limited in their perspectives, however, because they utilized the “peaceful death-theory” (discussed below) to inform their understanding of the epilogues.48 The concept of a peaceful passage from this world entails a theological ideal, yet the studies of Bin-Nun and Van Seters fail to establish why this ideal would have been politically important to a royal house. Like the dynastic notices, the burial notices of the royal epilogues have received individual attention in several studies. These studies tend to be topical, however, addressing mainly the existence of the royal tombs and their location in Jerusalem. The burial notices occasionally played a role in larger studies of the composition of the DtrH, but this role is only redactional,49 offering little insight into the political importance of the epilogues. Although a full survey of scholarship will be offered in Chapter Five, a brief review will indicate the importance of the burial notice and the necessity of further research. 43

B IN-N UN, Formulas, 414–432; V AN SETERS, Search. See similarly the redaction-critical study of Erik Eynikel, whose discussion of the epilogues is concluded with the observation that they bear evidence of redaction because the tradent did not create the formulaic notices, but rather drew upon pre-existing sources such as king-lists, EYNIKEL, Reform, 135. Like Noth, Eynikel limits the epilogues to literary devices that are useful only in determining the history of the text. 45 A. F. Campbell offers an objection to Bin-Nun’s work, arguing instead that the epilogue (his linear system) originated in an early prophetic-source, C AMPBELL, Prophets, 139–140. This concept is more problematic than Bin-Nun’s thesis because it only multiplies sources, relying upon a document (his “prophetic record”) even more hypothetical than royal annals and king lists. 46 B IN-N UN, Formulas, 430. 47 V AN SETERS, Search, 298. 48 B IN-N UN, Formulas, 429. For Van Seters, the manner of death signified by the formula “lay with his fathers” is comparable with the descriptions of irregular deaths found in the Babylonian king-lists, V AN SETERS, Search, 298. 49 Notably, H ALPERN and V ANDERHOOFT, Editions, 191–197; and also P ROVAN, Hezekiah, 138. 44

2.2. History of Research into the Epilogue Formulary

31

An essay published in 1948 by Shmuel Yeivin was one of the earliest attempts to use the burial notices to reconstruct a history of royal funerary rituals in Jerusalem.50 Yeivin drew upon the fact that the burial sites mentioned in the royal epilogue changed before and after Hezekiah.51 His research, along with more recent studies such those of Gabriel Barkay52 and Luc Dequeker,53 were concerned primarily with the problem of the royal tombs’ location. This is certainly an important issue, yet the significance of the tombs’ location cannot be fully appreciated if the burial notices are isolated from the context of the royal epilogues. The shift in the location of burials recorded in the royal epilogues has played a key role in several redaction-critical studies of the composition of Kings. Iain Provan utilized this aspect of change in the epilogues in order to support his thesis of a double redaction of the DtrH.54 Provan’s work was entirely literary, however, leaving the political importance of the burial notices unexplored. The seminal work of Baruch Halpern and David Vanderhooft approached the material in a similar fashion in order to propose a triple-redaction model beginning with the reign of Hezekiah.55 The extended essay published in 1991 is noteworthy because it gave the royal epilogues precedence in a formal analysis of Kings, carefully examining each individual notice.56 Furthermore, the essay is one of the few studies of the epilogues that took into consideration the larger context of death and burial in the Hebrew Bible.57 More recently, Nadav Na’aman published a contextual study of the royal epilogues’ burial notices that drew upon the archaeological phenomenon of royal tombs in the ancient Near East in order to reach conclusions that were both historical and literary.58 These and other studies represent important advancements in the exploration of the Book of 50

Y EIVIN, Sepulchres, 30–45. IDEM., Sepulchres, 33–34. 52 B ARKAY, Problem, 75–92 (Hebrew); and I DEM., Necropoli, 233–270 (Hebrew). 53 D EQUEKER, Tomb, 77–92. 54 PROVAN, Hezekiah, 138. 55 H ALPERN and V ANDERHOOFT, Editions, 179–244. Halpern and Vanderhooft’s thesis is essentially an adaptation of Frank Moore Cross’s two-redaction theory for the DtrH, refer C ROSS, Canaanite Myth, 278–289. Thus, the work stands in the tradition of Noth’s Blockmodell in reconstructing the creation of the DtrH. 56 H ALPERN and V ANDERHOOFT, Editions, 183–197. 57 Despite the thorough manner in which they approached the material, Halpern and Vanderhooft subjected the epilogue to an assessment that was theological rather than political because they followed the peaceful death interpretation of the dynastic notice. 58 N A’AMAN, Death Formulae, 245–254. For instance, Na’aman (Death Formulae, 246 n. 7) explicitly states that his study follows the Blockmodell school in DtrH scholarship. The article reconstructs a historical context in order to explain the shift in royal burial-practices and in turn provides a foundation for the redaction of the book of Kings, Death Formulae, 253–254. 51

32

Chapter Two: The Formulaic Epilogues in the Book of Kings

Kings and ancient Jerusalem. Yet, aside from a recent Festschrift essay by Rolf Hachmann,59 minimal attention was paid to the burial notices, themselves.60 Why was it politically important to record data concerning the royal tombs, and how does this burial notice fit within the wider context of the royal epilogues? The final notice of the epilogue, the notice of succession, has received the least amount of attention. Surprisingly, the most thorough discussion of the royal epilogues, the article by Vanderhooft and Halpern, ignores this final notice, focusing solely on the dynastic and burial notices.61 Aside from a few short remarks found in commentaries,62 Bin-Nun’s essay was one of the only works to discuss the third notice,63 drawing parallels with the Edomite king-list found in Gen 36:31–43. In fact, a few studies have noted the important similarities between the epilogue’s notice of successor and the Edomite king-list;64 yet none explain the significance of the parallel or note the similarities these biblical texts share with other Near Eastern sources. Thus, they fail to address the importance of appending the heir’s introduction to the formulaic statements of death and burial. The establishment of identity is the critical function of royal funerals, which is the ritual process that the epilogues signify. Therefore, the introduction of the ruler’s son as king “in his stead” (wytxt) indicates a clear and evident change of status.

2.3. To Be Gathered to/Lie with the Ancestors The defining feature of the epilogue is the opening phrase “and PN lay with his fathers” (wytfbo)j-M(i [PN] bk@a#$;y,IwA), here termed the dynastic notice, which effectively served as a statement of death. But given the poetic imagery evoked by this expression, can it reasonably be expected to function as merely a gloss for death? Several other phrases existed in classical He59

H ACHMANN, Die Gräber, 375–394. Brian Schmidt briefly addresses the larger political concerns of the royal tombs, discussing both the dynastic notice and the burial notice, see S CHMIDT, Beneficent Dead, 252–254. Some scholars, such as Francesca Stavrakopoulou, assign theological importance to the change in burial location, beginning with the ‘evil’ king Manasseh, STAVRAKOPOULOU, King Manasseh, 18–21. Thus, the change in burial sites reflects a deliberate judgment (and negative assessment) of the defunct king. 61 H ALPERN and V ANDERHOOFT, Editions, 183–197. 62 For instance, W ÜRTHWEIN, 1. Kön. 1–16, 146. From an archaeological perspective, Robert Wenning (Begruben, 8; and Bestattungen, 89) refers to all three notices, and the final notice specifically, as “der dreiteiligen Toledotformel (Geschlechterformel).” 63 B IN-N UN, Formulas, 428–429. 64 C AMPBELL, Prophets, 139. 60

33

2.3. To Be Gathered to/Lie with the Ancestors

brew for just this purpose, for instance: “and he breathed [his last]” ((wag:y,IwA; cf. Gen 49:33b). Furthermore, the phrase appears in a fairly rigid formulaic-pattern within Kings, where it conveys the death of a king. The rigid pattern does give sway on occasion and in a few select instances the formula is noticeably absent from a ruler’s epilogue. Clearly the use of the formula stands for something more than simply: “and he died.” Furthermore, the biblical use of “lie with fathers” is rather exclusive, and outside of a few exceptions, the phrase is found only in the Book of Kings (along with the parallel accounts in Chronicles) where it applies solely to a ruler of Israel or Judah. The semantic cognate of “lie with fathers” is the expression “gathered to people,” which is used primarily as epilogues for the Patriarchs.65 The meaning of the phrase wytfbo)j-M(I bk@a#$;y,IwA therefore, is political; but its meaning is to be understood separate from the other formulaic notices contained in the epilogue. The royal epilogue, which closed the reign of one king and introduced the name of his heir, marked the proper order of dynastic succession. Furthermore, the repeated use of the epilogue formulary in Kings effectively created a linear trajectory of royal continuity (refer to Figure 2). Figure 2. Trajectory of Dynastic Legitimacy

Ancestors

the King

progeny

On one level, the phrase “lie with fathers” was a scribal formula signifying rightful succession, yet the ideology involved in this expression underscored the very existence of the respective dynasty. The manifest content of each formula in the epilogue signified proper succession and burial, and together the formulaic chain symbolized a type of legitimacy that is similarly expressed in royal genealogies and king lists from Mesopotamia and the Levant. The epilogue begins and ends with formulae that signified succession, but the initial statement of the dynastic notice signified the entire process that involved the King’s death and his heir’s accession to of65

For a brief discussion of this phrase, see G OOD, Sheep, 90–92. See also T ROMP, Primitive, 168–169; and L EVENSON, Resurrection, 73–76.

34

Chapter Two: The Formulaic Epilogues in the Book of Kings

fice. Even in the instance of the initial statement’s absence, the partial appearance of the epilogue can be explained by the extenuating circumstances of a king’s death (and its description in the literature) and the special means necessary for the installation of his heir. Thus, to accurately understand the royal epilogues it is critical to focus first on the initial statement “and PN lay with his fathers.” 2.3.1. Interpreting the Phrase: A History of Scholarship The interpretation defended here runs counter to those offered in previous studies, therefore it will be necessary not only to survey past research and explore the rationale behind earlier analyses, but also to demonstrate how the formulaic meaning introduced in this study works within the larger literary-corpus of the Hebrew Bible. In essence, the scholarship on the phrase “lay with his fathers” is divided between biblical scholars and archaeologists, two general groups who address the phrase from either religious or cultural perspectives. Biblical scholars have drawn upon the tranquil image of “sleep” and have focused on the absence of the phrase in Josiah’s epilogue (following his violent end),66 affecting the view that the formula symbolizes the natural death of a king.67 Archaeologists, however, have drawn different conclusions from this poetic idiom. Apprised by the modern rediscovery of ancient death rites in western Palestine, and informed by the burial connotations found within the formula’s wording, archaeologists have related the phrase “lay with fathers” to secondary rites and collective burial customs commonly practiced in the Iron Age.68 According to these scholars, the formulaic statement (together with the phrase “gathered to his people”) is reflective of a cultural practice that is tied to the social matrix of ancient Judah. The archaeological interpretation, however, does not sufficiently explain the literary meaning of the phrase. Why was the formula used to describe a king’s death? Likewise, the explanation offered by biblical scholars fails on several different levels and neglects the cultural significance imbedded within the idiom. The interpretation offered in this chapter will build upon the fundament of cultural practice, initially elucidated by archaeologists, and will demonstrate that the meaning behind the formulaic phrase “lay with his fathers” is a political ideal grounded within the social structure of the ancient Levant.

66

A LFRINK, Psf)vnE, 119–120; see also P RIEST, Huldah’s Oracle, 366–368. DRIVER, Plurima, 137–142; HALPERN and VANDERHOOFT, Editions, 188; NA’AMAN, Death Formulae, 245. 68 M EYERS, Secondary, 15–17. B ARKAY, Iron Age II–III, 359; see further IDEM., Burial Caves, 106–115. 67

2.3. To Be Gathered to/Lie with the Ancestors

35

2.3.1.1. The Biblical Interpretation By the early twentieth-century, biblical scholars had recognized that the phrase “lay with his fathers” represented a formulaic expression. The standard interpretation of this formula was that it signified the peaceful death of a king.69 In addition, scholars frequently denied the similar sense that this phrase shared with the death notice used of the Patriarchs: “gathered to his people.”70 Although it is difficult to ascertain the exact origin of the interpretive tradition, it is important to review its history given the prevalence of the theory in modern biblical scholarship. Two essays published by Bernhard Alfrink in the 1940s were among the first to comprehensively deal with both phrases.71 These studies acknowledged that the phrases may have originated in burial customs; however, Alfrink argued that their literary sense in the Hebrew Bible eventually became distinct from burial customs, symbolizing only a tranquil passing from this world.72 If this manner of death did not occur, the biblical writers would omit the phrase “lay with his fathers” from the person’s death notice.73 Additional studies by Alexander Heidel followed by G.R. Driver advanced interpretations that were similar to Alfrink’s conclusions.74 These scholars began by noting that the phrase “lay with his fathers” described the deaths of individuals who were never buried with their ancestors (for instance Moses and David).75 Furthermore, the phrases frequently appear with a supplementary description of burial, which indicated to them a separate nuance. Therefore, wytfbo)j-M(i bk@a#$;y,IwA should be understood as “he lay like his fathers,” rendering the M( as a comparative particle.76 While Heidel maintained that both phrases indicated death (specifically, the status of the soul as it made its transition into the afterlife),77 Driver further argued that “lay with his fathers” carried a specific meaning that signified the manner of death.78 Driver compared the biblical phrase with Akkadian 69

D RIVER, Introduction, 186 (originally published in 1891). IBID., Plurima, 141. 71 A LFRINK, bk@a#$;y,IwA, 106–118; Psf)vnE, 118–131. 72 A LFRINK, bk@a#$;y,IwA, 109–110. See also Psf)vnE, 129–130. 73 A LFRINK, bk@a#$;y,IwA, 110. 74 H EIDEL, Gilgamesh, 144–146, 187–188; D RIVER, Plurima, 137–142. It should be noted that Heidel’s work was published in 1946, around the same time as Alfrink’s essays. (Curiously, Driver does not refer to Alfrink in his seminal 1962 article.) 75 H EIDEL, Gilgamesh, 144–145, 187. D RIVER, Plurima, 137. 76 H EIDEL, Gilgamesh, 146; cf. D RIVER, Plurima, 139. Heidel cites Job 3:13–15 in support of his translation. 77 According to Heidel, the phrase simply meant, “he died,” and as such, is comparable with the biblical idiom: “go the way of all the earth” (CrE)fhf-lk@f K7rEdEb@; K7l'h;o cf. 1 Kg 2:2), H EIDEL, Gilgamesh, 144–146, 187. 78 D RIVER, Plurima, 139–140. 70

36

Chapter Two: The Formulaic Epilogues in the Book of Kings

ana mtî illik, “he went to his fate,”79 which served as a legal formula for natural death in the Codex ammurapi.80 Thus, the phrase represented a formula for “peaceful death” and did not apply to any king who was assassinated or killed in battle.81 The theory has become the predominant interpretation for the phrase “lay with his fathers” in biblical scholarship.82 As a result, the peaceful death-theory has found its place in several important historical studies.83 For example, John Van Seters used the theory to help explain the paratactic method of history writing he proposed for Kings, comparing the royal epilogues with death and burial notices in Mesopotamian king-lists (in particular, the Babylonian Chronicle). According to this analogue, the formulaic means by which the epilogue marks a king’s death (either peacefully or by violent means) compares with cuneiform sources where king lists note the irregular death (and burial) of a king.84 The peaceful death-theory persists even in epigraphic and archaeological studies,85 despite the alternative explanation offered by archaeologists (see below).86 2.3.1.2. The Archaeological Interpretation Archaeological research on death and burial in the southern Levant has produced an alternative theory for the biblical expressions “lay with his fathers” and “gathered to his people.” According to this interpretation, the phrases reflect collective-interment within a family burial site. Eric Mey-

79

IDEM., Plurima, 141. Cf. CAD , Part III, s.v., mtu3, 16–18. D RIVER and M ILES, Babylonian Laws, 158, 206. 81 In the case of a king who died violently, the narrative form of  twm would apply. 82 To cite only a few examples, note the following studies: SMIT, Death, 173. T ROMP, Primitive, 170. P ROVAN, Hezekiah, 135; VAN K EULEN, The Meaning, 256–260; JOHNSTON, Shades, 33–35; and N A’AMAN, Was Ahab killed, 461–474. 83 For instance, the theory is referred to in J. Maxwell Miller’s important and influential historical analysis of the Elijah Cycle, see M ILLER, Elisha Cycle, 445 n. 420. , 313. More recently, MILLER and HAYES, History, 315–316. The theory is also featured prominently in the important essay by HALPERN and VANDERHOOFT, Editions, 224–225 n. 108a. 84 V AN SETERS, Search, 298. 85 B LOCH-SMITH, Judahite, 110. This important monograph, however, does separately explain the phrase “gathered to his people” as a reflection of collective burials. The peaceful death-theory is used to interpret the phrase in the Tel Dan Stele (although in a variant form and partially reconstructed); see BIRAN and NAVEH, Aramaic Stele 92; EMERTON, Two Issues, 30–32. 86 However, some biblical scholars have noted that the interpretation is problematic, ILLMAN, Formulas, 42–45; S EITZ, Theology, 110; S CHMIDT, Beneficent Dead, 253; see also R AINEY, Stones, 145–146. 80

2.3. To Be Gathered to/Lie with the Ancestors

37

ers was one of the first to defend the interpretation archaeologically,87 although earlier scholars had already noted the connection between the phrases and burial customs.88 According to Meyers, the phenomenon of collective/communal interment originated with secondary burials and collective graves as far back as the Neolithic period.89 Meyers traced these practices through later developments in collective burials observed in the Bronze and Iron Ages,90 where remains were re-deposited within a single communal setting (an act referred to as “ossilegium”).91 According to Meyers, this manner of burial continued to develop in Jewish burial rites during the Second Temple Period, as observed in the use of ossuaries (or bone-boxes).92 In order to defend his theories about the origin of ossuaries Meyers’ developed a diachronic schema that explained their development, but his study is important here because it stressed the connection between the “gathered” and “lay” phrases and collective burials.93 Archaeological studies, subsequent to Meyer’s, have continued to advance the theoretical relationship between the biblical expressions for death and collective burial-practices.94 The archaeological interpretation of the biblical phrase is found in Gabriel Barkay’s textbook survey of the Iron

87

M EYERS, Secondary, 2–29. An earlier (but brief) reference to the relationship between the biblical idioms and collective burials in the southern Levant appears in C ALLAWAY, Burials, 75. 88 PEDERSEN, Israel, 462. It should be noted that many biblical scholars correctly perceived the expressions as originating from burial customs, cf. W ÄCHTER, Der Tod, 71. Scholars like Alfrink, however, argued that this cultural meaning was lost over time and that the phrases eventually assumed an entirely different nuance in the biblical literature, A LFRINK, Psf)vnE, 121–122; see also H EIDEL, Gilgamesh, 144. 89 M EYERS, Secondary, 3–10. 90 IDEM., Secondary, 10–17. 91 For this term, refer D EVER, Funerary, 11. See also, R AHMANI, Ossuaries, 191. 92 M EYERS, Secondary, 17–18. See most recently, M AGNESS, Ossuaries, 122–124. 93 Meyers’ thesis was dependent upon a connection between ossuaries from the Second Temple Period and earlier practices of secondary and collective burials (such as the Neolithic skull-cults of Jericho, or the use of domicile-style ossuaries in the Chalcolithic Period). The development of burial practices, however, has been disputed by some who see the use of ossuaries as a reflective of cultural changes in Second Temple Judaism, and related to a nascent concept of resurrection, see R AHMANI, Ossuaries, 193–195. For a discussion of this theory, refer M AGNESS, Ossuaries, 131–133. Finally, it should be noted that the practice of secondary burials and ossilegium are not always identical. The act of relocating human remains within a single location, which is how elite burials worked in Iron II Judah, is better explained as collective burials. 94 Meyer’s study continues to influence research into burial customs during the preand proto-historic periods; see, e.g., L ONDON, Homage, 73.

38

Chapter Two: The Formulaic Epilogues in the Book of Kings

Age,95 based on his important excavation work at the late Iron II burial-site of Ketef Hinnom in Jerusalem.96 Robert Cooley also used the phrase “gathered to his people” to explain the interment ideology behind the Late Bronze Age burials at Dothan.97 These archaeological explanations are important because they attribute the biblical terminology to communal burialpractices from historical periods closer to the biblical narrative. Furthermore, these studies were specific in equating the imagery of the phrase(s) to the performance of collective burial.98 In other words, the final resting place of the collective remains reified the biblical imagery of being “gathered” or “lying” with one’s ancestor, whether it was the bones piled along the cave walls of Tomb 1 in Dothan’s western cemetery (for Cooley) or the repository of Chamber 25 in Cave 24 at Ketef Hinnom (for Barkay).99 According to the archaeological interpretation, the collective remains found within a family tomb reflect the collective identities invoked in the biblical phrases: the “fathers/ancestors” and the “kin/people.”100 In fact, the specific use of verb and noun in each phrase is consistent with their archaeological interpretation. The semantic range of bk#$, which can include both sex and sleep,101 often describes death and can specifically depict the recumbent state of a corpse.102 Even the classical Hebrew term for “burial bench” (more commonly “bed”), bkf#$;mi, is based upon this verbal root.103 This term has a similar meaning in Phoenician/Punic (“resting 95

B ARKAY, Iron Age II–III, 359. See Barkay’s extended essay, Burial Caves, 96– 164, where he articulates his interpretation and draws upon the phrases to explain social structure and funerary architecture in Iron II Judah (IBID., Burial Caves, 106–115). 96 B ARKAY, Excavations, 95. 97 C OOLEY, Contribution, 181–183; IDEM., Gathered, 47–58; see also C OOLEY and PRATICO, Gathered, 70–92. 98 This interpretation was also articulated by Rahmani, who wished to distinguish the Iron Age practice from the later usage of ossuaries, R AHMANI, Ossuaries, 191–192; Funerary: Part One, 174. 99 Robert Wenning (Bestattungen, 89; and Begruben, 11) makes a distinction between primary interment/burial and “bone gathering” (Begraben und Gebeinesammlung), however he would disassociate the final collective dead in the repository with the deathidioms. For him, the repository represents Sheol; IDEM., Grab, 944. 100 The implications of the collective identities, invoked in the phrases, (twb), “fathers,” and Mm(, “peoples”) are discussed in Chapter Six. 101 The phrase is often translated: “and he slept with his fathers.” On the various nuances of the verbal form, see M CA LPINE, Sleep, 85–92, 96–103, B EUKEN, art. bk@a#$; ekab. 102 This sense is acknowledged and discussed in D RIVER, Plurima, 137. 103 The mem-preformative noun is a miqal-form derived from bk#, technically a nomen loci, and in this sense should be understood as the “place of lying down,” see B EUKEN, art. bk@a#$; ekab; JOÜON and M URAOKA, Grammar, 256–257 § 288L, d. Avishur has tried to argue that bkf#$;mi could mean “grave,” yet this interpretation is imprecise; A VISHUR, Phoenician, 66. In two of the three references in the Hebrew Bible (Ezek 32:25 and 2 Chr 16:25) that Avishur cites, the term bkf#$;mi is distinct from the tomb/burial place

2.3. To Be Gathered to/Lie with the Ancestors

39

place”) where it connotes the place of the dead inside the tomb.104 Likewise, in the Hebrew Bible Ps) (“gather”) has a specific nuance that relates to death and burial,105 a nuance seen also in Ugaritic and in Phoenician/Punic cognates.106 Two passages in Jeremiah and another in Ezekiel associate being “gathered” with being “buried” (Jer 8:2; 25:33; Ezek 29:5).107 Furthermore, the account of David’s burial of Saul’s executed sons states that their remains are “gathered” (Ps)) along with those of Saul and Jonathan to the family tomb of Kish (2 Sam 21:13; discussed in the next chapter).108 In summary, these biblical metaphors for death consist of a verbal phrase that combines a term associated with burial and a plural noun associated with kinship, thus producing a literary image that is con(in both instances: hrFbuq; [discussed in Chapter Five]). In the Chronicles passage, Asa is laid down (byk@i#$;hi), inside his burial place, on his bkf#$;mi. It seems best to interpret the term as a burial bench, common in Iron Age II rock-cut tombs found in Judah. Note the discussion of the term in Isa 57:8 found in BLOCH-SMITH, Judahite, 119–120. The cognate term in Phoenician/Punic, usually translated “resting place,” refers to the general locus of the dead body. (In royal inscriptions it is where the coffin/sarcophagus rests, see page 107 below.) 104 The term is common in Phoenician and Punic, see K RAHMALKOV, Dictionary, 316; under “mkb II,” which is defined as “resting place/grave.” In the royal inscriptions of Tabnit and Eshmunazor (KAI 13 and 14), the Phoenician kings “lie” (kb) in their sarcophagus (’rn), or coffin (tl), which is located on their “resting place” (mkb) apparently inside the tomb (qbr). Eshmunazor’s inscription in particular makes it difficult to get a more precise image of the term as it is used seven times, but the extended curse (KAI 14: 8) seems to contrast it with burial (see Chapter Six). For the occurrence of this term in Northwest Semitic inscriptions, see H OFTIJZER and JONGELING, DNSI 2, 1132. 105 See the description in D RIVER, Plurima, 141. 106 In the Ugaritic epic of Kirta, the verbal-root ’sp is used in poetic fashion to describe the untimely destruction of King Kirta’s patrimony, stating ytsp rp = “[they] were gathered to Reshep [the Canaanite god ‘pestilence’]” in KTU 1.14:I 18-19, cited also in G OOD, Sheep, 91. In this Ugaritic example, the Gt-stem corresponds to the Hebrew niphal form (N-stem) of Psa)vnE. For a Punic example, see CIS 6000 bis / RES 13 et 236 Line 4a: lskr ‘l m’spt ‘my n’t (“as a memorial upon the gathering-place of my bones, I have erected…”); L IDZBARSKI, Ephemeris, 165–166; B ENICHOU-SAFAR, Tombes, 230–231. The phrase m’spt ‘my, however, might also be translated “the collection of my bones” if m’spt is understood as an adjectival noun governing ‘my; cf. KRAHMALKOV, Phoenician-Punic, 146. Note also a Late Punic text from Algeria (Ksiba Mraou) Lines 4–5: ’n b’mqm st n‘sp’ ‘my‘ br [–]y’ (“Behold in this place were gathered her bones in the earth…”); see the translation and treatment in in JONGELING and KERR, Late Punic, 50–51 [their text Ksiba Mraou N 3]; note also the earlier remarks in the editio princeps of CHABOT, Punica xiv, 13–15 (particularly 15). 107 Jeremiah is quite clear on this issue, stating that the slain will not be “lamented, gathered, or buried” (Jer 25:33), see B ARKAY, Iron Age II–III, 359; Burial Caves, 112–113. 108 B ARKAY, Iron Age II–III, 359. Barkay (Burial Caves, 112) has argued that the specific sense of Psa)vnE in the phrase means “to be brought (in),” drawing upon other occurrences of the verbal root as examples; Josh 20:4 (Qal), Judges 19:18 (Piel), 2 Sam 12:28 (Qal), to cite a few; see similarly, G OOD, Sheep, 91.

40

Chapter Two: The Formulaic Epilogues in the Book of Kings

sistent with the archaeological picture of collective/communal burials in the ancient Levant. 2.3.1.3. The Interpretative Problems The interpretations offered by biblical scholars and archaeologists alike have attributes that are both beneficial and problematic. Essentially, the archaeological theory is incomplete and provides only a partial understanding of the two phrases while the literary interpretation (so-called in this study the “peaceful death-theory”) is deficient in its basic analysis. A review of the interpretive problems involved in the various theories will reveal that it is necessary to relate these biblical idioms more closely with the socio-political essence of patrimony. Biblical scholars were correct in identifying the phrase “lay with his fathers” as a scribal formula. Yet, the phrases’ meaning as advanced by these scholars is strictly eschatological and offers little insight into the political ramifications of a king’s death.109 Driver’s comparison of the biblical phrase “lay with his fathers” with the Akkadian legal metaphor “he went to his fate” is insufficient for several reasons. Not only is the eschatological ideology dissimilar, as going to one’s singular fate differs significantly from joining one’s collective ancestry, the comparison suffers also considering that the Akkadian phrase lacks any mortuary connotations.110 It is also unclear whether the phrase carries the same nuance in royal inscriptions (such as the Babylonian Chronicle) as it does in the legal code of ammurapi. Van Seter’s brief comparison suffers from the same imprecision, as the Babylonian Dynastic Chronicle reports the location of the respective ruler’s burial place, not their manner of death, and does so in a non-formulaic manner.111 Regarding the dynastic notice, specifically, 109 In other words, a peaceful death would assure that a king would join his fathers in the afterlife. 110 The Akkadian verb alku(m) implies a transition from life to death, but is otherwise unassociated with the physical act of burial. In this sense, the Akkadian phrase is comparable (though not identical) with the biblical phrases: “you shall go to your fathers” (Gen 15:15) and “[the soul] shall go until the generation of his fathers” (Ps 49:20). The indirect object of the Akkadian phrase, imum (“fate”), however, implies a general status in the afterlife but does not involve any manner of identity (or kinship affiliation). 111 In column 5 of the Dynastic Chronicle, the dynastic cycle for each city contains the ruler’s patronym, length of reign and a statement regarding their burial in the royal palace. For instance, Col. 5, lines 2´, 4´: “Simbar-ipak, the son of Erba-Sîn … was buried in Sargon’s palace” ( Isim-bar-i-pak DUMU Ieri-ba-d30 … ina E2-GAL LUGAL-GI-NA qi2-bir). The lone exception, Ea-mukn-zri, is a usurper who ruled for only 3 months, is buried in the marshland of the Bt-Hamar (Col. 5, lines 5´–6´: e2-mu-kin-NUMUN LUGAL … ina raq-qa-ti a2 E2-Ia-mar qi2-bir). Van Seters was influenced by A. Kirk Grayson (Assyrian, 41), who interpreted the burial of Ea-mukn-zri as a sign of illegitimacy. Yet

2.3. To Be Gathered to/Lie with the Ancestors

41

Van Seters was correct in his observation that they represent paratactic statements that contain a historical datum; however, he was misled as to what event the notices signified. The biblical formula only occurs in cases where a son followed his father to the throne, thus the event marked was dynastic succession and not manner of death. In fact, the most glaring flaw of the peaceful-death theory is that the phrase “lay with his fathers” (and the variant “gathered to his fathers”) describes the deaths of several kings whose lives end violently: Ahab, Amaziah, Josiah (in a variant, nonformulaic occurrence) and possibly Jehoiakim. Ultimately the peacefuldeath theory is deficient because it is detached from the cultural background of the biblical phrase and it is inconsistent with the narrative description of royal death in the Hebrew Bible. Archaeologists, on the other hand, are undoubtedly correct in recognizing the burial imagery contained within the first notice, yet they seldom recognize the formulaic application of the phrase in the Book of Kings and fail to explain why it typically precedes an explicit statement of burial. Furthermore, like the biblical scholars before them, archaeologists have seldom offered any insight into the phrases’ meaning beyond a spiritual (or eschatological) image of the afterlife.112 One archaeologist, who noted the phrases’ connection with collective burials, commented: “happiness in the afterlife was intimately linked to the preservation of the patrimonial estate by his descendants.”113 While this is certainly a valid observation, it still leaves open the question of the social significance involved when one is “gathered to” or “laying with” one’s ancestors. 2.3.2. A New Approach The problems inherent with the traditional interpretation of the phrases “gathered to his people” and “lay with his fathers” (i.e., status in the afterlife or manner of death) suggest that a new approach is necessary, specifically one in which the phrases are understood within a socio-anthropological context. The approach offered here will begin with the cultural and biblical context of the phrases followed by a careful analysis of “gathered to his people,” the cognate phrase of “lay with his fathers.” The literary explicaburial in the wetlands of Babylonia need not be interpreted as a sign of ignominy, see B EAULIEU, Swamps. 112 Even Cooley’s ritual-outline of mortuary practices at Dothan, in the end, stressed only the passage of the soul into the afterlife. C OOLEY, Contribution, 198–201. 113 STAGER, Archaeology, 23. The phrases certainly had theological significance as the deceased were conceived as assembled amongst previous generations of kinsmen in some form of the afterlife. It must be emphasized, however, that this theological conceptualization was itself largely dependent upon burial customs, B RICHTO, Kin, 8–9; against A LFRINK, Psf)vnE, 129–130.

42

Chapter Two: The Formulaic Epilogues in the Book of Kings

tion will show that in every occurrence, the phrase relates to inheritance, specifically succession rights. This new approach is evident not only in the narrative context of the phrase, but also in their syntactical order. The specific order of mention, where the phrases precede the description of burial, indicates that these literary expressions reflected a larger ritual process. 2.3.2.1. The Social Context Before the literary sources can be analyzed, a few remarks are in order about funerary rituals and the theoretical concepts that inform the interpretation presented here. As discussed in Chapter One, funerary rituals represent a process that engaged three sides: the living, the dead and the soul (or the ancestors). Although much of the focus of this study has been on the ancestors, and the manner in which the corpse makes its transition to this status, it is important not to neglect the role of the living within the funerary rite. While the funerary rituals centered upon the event of death, they were often social actions that were complicated, involved and not necessarily related to a burial site directly. For instance, it is not always necessary to perform visible and vocal acts of mourning at a burial site, and these actions are hardly involved in the physical disposal of the dead (although they may accompany it). For these reasons, it is difficult to reconstruct the manner in which the living related to the dead during the funerary rites. Artifacts recovered from tombs, such as ceramic assemblages (typically consisting of bowls, cups and jugs), may bear witness to funerary repasts;114 but the evidence is ambiguous. In fact there is debate whether these grave goods represent provisions for the dead (i.e., feeding the dead), offerings to appease ancestors, or the remnants of repasts consumed by the living.115 The biblical evidence of mourning customs, as mentioned in Chapter One, lacks context and is of limited use in locating the living within the wider ritual process. It will become clear in the review of the phrase “gathered to his people,” however, that the presence of an heir was an important component in the various biblical accounts involving the phrases. 2.3.2.2. The Biblical Context The biblical phrases, “gathered to his people” and “lay with his fathers,” invoke a patrimonial ideology expressed through burial customs. Both

114 115

B LOCH-SMITH, Judahite, 63–108. Compare IBID., Judahite, 122–126, S CHMIDT, Beneficent Dead, 198.

2.3. To Be Gathered to/Lie with the Ancestors

43

phrases carry the same meaning and are semantically identical;116 the first (“gathered to…”) is Priestly, while the second (“lay with…”) is Deuteronomistic.117 This relationship is supported not only by their grammatical similarity and their identical literary order, but also by the appearance of the rare combined form, “gathered to his fathers,” found in Judg 2:10 and 2 Kg 22:20.118 The ideology invoked by these phrases relates to ancient funerary-rites and the manner in which they preserved and reproduced order in society. In the southern Levant, a burial site often represented a visible symbol of entitlement, demarking the inheritance rights of a particular group. In the same sense, actions related to the burial of the dead, such as mourning, could constitute visible means of resolution where issues of inheritance and succession were decided. It is important to understand this nature of funerary rites in order to understand better the symbolic power of the biblical phrases. A survey of the syntactical order of the phrases in the Hebrew Bible, followed by a review of “gathered to his people” (and its variant forms) will demonstrate their essential nature. 2.3.2.3. The Literary Order The main problem faced by scholars in their effort to interpret the death phrases has been their inability to explain the fact that burial descriptions typically followed the biblical phrases. While biblical scholars highlighted this fact to advance their interpretations, archaeologists generally neglected to discuss the literary placement in their own treatments.119 It is necessary, however, to first address the syntactical order of the phrases “gathered to his people” and “lay with his fathers” before discussing their social implications. The extensive list of death metaphors used in the Hebrew Bible indicates that the patriarchal epilogues and royal epilogues carried a meaning that went beyond a simple statement of death. Yet, the same logic that disassociates the respective phrases from mortuary practices (because of their separate references) can also be used to distinguish 116

For instance, both phrases are used to describe the death of Jacob, as noted in ILLMAN, Formulas, 44. 117 K RÜGER, Weg, 149. 118 Both verbs of burial in the biblical death-idioms also appear in conjunction with one another in a late Phoenician funerary inscription; refer S TARCKY, Une inscription, 259–273. 119 Barkay has suggested that the separate phrases for death and burial represented a repetition of burial activities associated with ossilegium, B ARKAY, Burial Caves, 112– 113; cf. similarly W ENNING, Bestattungen, 89. Accordingly, the biblical idioms dealt with here reflect primary interment, and the subsequent statement of burial ( rbq) reflects the redepositing of the bones within a repository. Although this suggestion is denied by some (H ALPERN and V ANDERHOOFT, Editions, 224–225 n. 108a), it is useful in that it suggests a ritual framework to better understand the phrase.

44

Chapter Two: The Formulaic Epilogues in the Book of Kings

the meaning of these phrases in expanded death descriptions, such as: “he breathed his last and died, and was gathered to his people” (Gen 25:17).120 In other words, the phrase “gathered to his people” in Gen 25:17 carries a meaning that is more than a simple euphemism for death, something otherwise expressed by (wg (“die; gasp [one’s last breath]”).121 Biblical scholars recognized that the appearance of the phrases in the biblical narrative, couched within an extended listing of death metaphors, indicated a progression of action.122 These scholars, however, overstate the progressive image of the soul’s departure, neglect the physical aspect of the concept (as related to burial), and fail to understand the significance of the changing status of the dead.123 The separate references to burial that supplement the phrases actually accentuate their inheritance implications. A burial site, such as a tomb or cemetery, would often serve as a boundary marker, establishing the land rights of a kinship group.124 If the phrases represented inheritance rights (along with the proper order of succession), it makes sense that a specific notice of a burial site would accompany the individual phrase. The application of the each type of phrase to a patriarch or king indicated that their inheritance remained intact, a significance that was enforced by the description of the respective individual’s burial within their patrimony. In almost every example of a burial reference that follows the death phrase, the objective of the statement is to indicate the place of burial (and not necessarily the act of burial).125 For the Patriarchs, the Cave of Machpelah represented their patrimonial claim to the land that YHWH promised Abraham. The sons of Abraham and Isaac bury their fathers in this cave tomb in Hebron (Gen 49:30–32), as do the sons of Jacob despite the fact that he perished in Egypt. 120

wym@f( a- l)e Pse) fy,” wA tmfy,FwA (wag:y,IwA (see Gen 25:17; regarding Ishmael’s death). This translation renders the essence of (wg (“die”) with the English idiom “breathed his last.” 121 Driver overstates this point in his conclusion: “… breathing one’s last breath and dying and being gathered to one’s ancestors or one’s people and being buried in the grave are four separate processes which must be kept distinct in attempting to discover Hebrew views on the subject of death.” D RIVER, Plurima, 143. Driver would recognize the phrase, in this passage, as indicating the status of the dead. 122 T ROMP, Primitive, 212. See also G OOD, Sheep, 90, which suggests that the phrase means either burial or afterlife reunion. 123 To quote Heidel (underlining his): “To be gathered to one’s people or fathers is a sequel of death … It denotes something that follows upon death but precedes burial.” H EIDEL, Gilgamesh, 188. While the theological value of the biblical death-idioms should not be denied, it is important to highlight the social significance that their literary usage reflects. 124 See B ARKAY, Burial Caves 106–107; and S URIANO, Death, 52–53. This aspect of burial will be discussed in Chapter Four. 125 See the description of burial statements found in I LLMAN, Formulas, 37–42.

2.3. To Be Gathered to/Lie with the Ancestors

45

The same sense and order follows with the dynastic and burial notices of the epilogues in the Book of Kings. The royal capitals of the Israelite kings symbolized their patrimony; whether it was Jerusalem (the City of David), or Samaria (the hill acquired by Omri).126 Therefore, burial inside the royal tombs within the royal capital represented a political action that symbolized a dynastic claim.127 This concept is clearly observable in the royal epilogues for the kings of Judah (prior to Hezekiah) preserved in the Book of Kings. In the fullest form of this statement (e.g., the epilogue for Jehoshaphat used in this study), the dynastic notice “lay with his fathers,” is followed by a record of burial that asserts: “and he was buried with his fathers in the City of David, his father.” The image of collective burials, evoked in the phrases, symbolized a specific ideal, that of burial in the family tomb.128 This ideal related to a more general concern about the preservation of one’s patrimony by future generations. Funerary rituals confronted this general concern through the physical manifestation of the specific ideal. The imagery evoked in the death phrases reflects this specific ideal, through the symbol of burial, though the idioms themselves became literary and were utilized to address the general concern for patrimony.129 While it is important not to disassociate the phrases from mortuary practices, it is also unnecessary to insist on a direct equation between the idioms and any actual performance of interment. The use of the idioms is strictly literary and their imagery is figurative, though the words themselves conjure a stark visage of burial.130 A literal interpretation of the death phrases results in a narrow definition that 126

Although the king’s claim to power was expressed in patrimonial terms, the land itself was not part of his patrimony (although he ruled over it). This paradox is evident in the story of Ahab and Naboth’s vineyard (1 Kg 21). Thus, the foundation of a royal city that was separate from any tribal inheritance became a critical political strategy for the Israelite kings. 127 See similarly, H AMILTON, Body Royal, 148–149. 128 SPRONK, Good death, 991. 129 One of the most curious passages is the blessing of Reuben in Gen 49:3–4, where Jacob divests his firstborn of his birthright because he went up to (i.e., shamed) the “bed of your father” (K1ybi)f yb'k@;#$;mi [v.4a]). The noun yb'k@;#$;mi should be read as a singular (not a plural construct), with a paragogic vowel (the so-called hiriq compaginis), which here serves as a type of genitive suffix. (Note also, wOnto)j ynib@;, “the son of his female equid” in v.11.) Although this phrase represents the conjugal bed of the patriarch, the poetic text clearly plays on the formula “lay with his fathers” and its inheritance inference. 130 A similar observation was made by Theodore Lewis: “Expressions like [“gathered to his kin” and “lying with one’s ancestors”] help me to appreciate the familial and clan solidarity that was seen to transcend life, yet they do not tell me of physical death or interment. In contrast, archaeologists can not only point to the physical gathering of the deceased to his kin in secondary burials, but they can also chart patterns concerning [funerary remains].” Quoted from L EWIS, How Far, 173–174.

46

Chapter Two: The Formulaic Epilogues in the Book of Kings

limits the social significance of the respective phrase. The biblical phrases signify the completion of a ritual process relating to death. Within this social enactment, the location of burial represents the most durable symbol.131 2.3.3. The Inheritance Implications of “Gathered to His People” A careful examination of the use of “gathered to his people” shows that the patriarchal epilogue related to the problem of inheritance, specifically succession rights. Of the six individuals that were “gathered” (Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, Moses and Aaron), four had their heirs present at their burial, indicating the proper order of succession. For instance, in Gen 25:5, before the death of Abraham, the dying patriarch gave all of his estate (wOl-r#$e)j-lk@f) to Isaac, in contrast to the “gifts” [tnOt@fma] given to the children of his concubines in v. 6. Following the death of Abraham and the occurrence of the phrase “gathered to...”(v. 8), Isaac and Ishmael buried their father in the cave of Machpelah (vv. 9–10), before mention is made of Isaac’s divine blessing (v. 11). Likewise, Gen 35:27 states that Jacob came to Isaac at Hebron (the location of the burial cave), and that after Isaac died and was “gathered...” (vv.28–29a), Jacob and his brother Esau buried their father (v.29b). Although the specific burial place is not mentioned in the case of Isaac, the narrative background clearly places his interment in the cave located in the field of Machpelah (cf. Gen 49:30–31). 2.3.3.1. The Death of Jacob The account of Jacob’s ultimate demise serves as an important example of the social implications of the phrases found in both types of biblical epilogues (patriarchal or royal).132 Immediately following Jacob’s death in Egypt, the narrative states that he was “gathered to his people” (Gen 49:33). Joseph, the designated heir, then goes through lengthy measures to specially prepare his father’s body (Gen 50:2–3). Earlier in the account of the patriarch on his deathbed, however, the cognate phrase “lay with fathers” appears in Jacob’s own words. Jacob’s instructions to Joseph is prefaced by the statement: “when I lie with my fathers” (ytabo)j-M(i yt@ib;ka#$fw:

131

In other words, the death-idioms enlist burial imagery in order to represent a larger ritual process (funerary rites) that revolve around burial, but include other rites such as mourning rites and commemorative acts. 132 The extensive description of the end of Jacob’s life is probably because he represented the “last ancestor of all of Israel,” to quote S KINNER, Genesis (ICC), 502. The account of Jacob’s passing has the three basic attributes of the “death report”: (1). Description of the character’s lifespan that introduces the impending death; (2). The last words of the character; (3). Description of death and burial; L ONG, 1 Kings (FOTL), 42.

2.3. To Be Gathered to/Lie with the Ancestors

47

[Gen 47:30]).133 The phrase – Jacob’s final instructions to his designated heir Joseph – begins with the verb bk#$ in the first person (as a consecutive suffix-form). The context of the phrase is a form of testament, including final instructions that required an oath from Joseph (47:31). The fact that the phrase occurs in direct discourse between the dying patriarch and his heir shows that the idiom was filled with patrimonial implications. The appearance of the semantically parallel phrases “lay (+ fathers)” in Gen 47:30 and “gathered (+ people)” in Gen 49:29 brackets Jacob’s blessings in Genesis 48 and 49. Furthermore, the use of the phrase “lay...” preludes Jacob’s blessing of his grandsons, Ephraim and Manasseh (Genesis 48), occurring before the other sons are blessed (Gen 49:1–27). The use of the expressions along with the literary order of blessings in Genesis 48 and 49 highlighted Joseph’s accession as patriarch.134 2.3.3.2. Ishmael, Moses and the Death of Aaron In the cases of Ishmael, Aaron and Moses there are no related descriptions of burial that accompany the patriarchal epilogue, and of these three cases, only in the death of Aaron is a son (Eleazar) present. While the death and burial of Moses is deliberately obscured (Deut 34:6), the notice of Ishmael’s death (Gen 25:17) comes within a wider description of his descendants (Gen 25:12–18) that follow the genealogical listing of his progeny (vv.12–16). For all three of these figures the phrase appears in a highly stylized literary fashion under one formulaic principle in order to emphasize the deceased’s legacy, as best exemplified in the death of Aaron. Aaron’s fate on Mt. Hor in the Transjordan portrays the observation of dynastic succession in a non-royal context (Num 20:24). When Moses, Aaron and the Israelites arrive at Mt. Hor (Num 20:22), YHWH informs Moses: “Aaron will be gathered to his people” (vv. 23–24). The deity then instructs Moses that he is to remove publicly the priestly vestments from Aaron and dress them upon Eleazar (atop Mt. Hor). The instructions are clear: once the son (Eleazar) has received the items that symbolized the 133

In fact, the full statement indicates that “lying” with one’s fathers and burial in a family tomb are interrelated actions. Following the phrase, Jacob continues: “and you shall carry me from Egypt, and you shall bury me in their tomb” ( MtfrFbuq;b@i ynIt@ar:baq; [47:30a]), where the plural referent are the “fathers.” In fact, Jacob instructs his sons that he “will be gathered to [his] people” (49:29) followed by a detailed description of his family tomb (vv. 29b–33), the place where he is to be buried with his “fathers” – stated plainly: tfbo)j-l)e yti)o w%rb;qi (v. 29a). It is unclear why Joseph later quotes his father, however, stating that he (Jacob) hewed his own tomb (Gen 50:5). 134 It is possible that the phrase “lay with his fathers” in the death account of Jacob and Moses may have served the purpose of creating a connection between the Patriarchs and the House of David; see similarly, B EUKEN, art. bk@a#$; ekab, §§ 1313–1314.

48

Chapter Two: The Formulaic Epilogues in the Book of Kings

power and authority of his father (Aaron), the father “will be gathered and die there” (M#$f tm'w% Ps')fy” [v. 26b]). Aside from the necessity of Aaron’s death, prior to the Israelite’s entry into the Promised Land,135 the purpose of this passage is to demonstrate Eleazar’s assumption of his father’s role as High Priest, which was signified when he received the priestly vestments (v.28).136 Eleazar’s installation is public (on Mt. Hor) and the Israelites witness the actions and mourn Aaron for thirty days (v. 29). Thus, the passage describes an extended period of public mourning, although it does not mention Aaron’s burial. The act of burial is inconsequential in the account of Aaron’s death. As a Levite, Aaron’s inheritance did not include land and therefore his tomb would not necessarily have served as a territorial marker.137 Aaron’s Levitical patrimony was the leadership of the priesthood, and the use of “gathered to his people” signifies the preservation of this patrimonial right. It was the prerogative of the heir to see that the father was given proper burial. With Aaron, as in the case of Moses,138 the function of the phrase “gathered to his people” is purely literary and was intended to highlight his successor (and not necessarily his burial). 2.3.3.3. “Gathered to their Fathers” in Judges 2:10 A unique example of the inheritance implications of the expressions appears in Judges 2:10, where the hybrid form “gathered to their fathers” describes the passing of a generation. This hybrid phrase is observed in only one other passage of the Hebrew Bible, in Huldah’s Oracle, 2 Kg 22:20 (discussed in Chapter Three). The verse immediately follows the death of Joshua (Judg 2:8–9), Moses’ ideological heir, and describes the passing of the first generation in the Promised Land. The writer syntactically marks 135 The death of Aaron in Transjordan, outside of Canaan, is because Y HWH had forbidden him from entering the Promised Land (v. 24). 136 This point is made clear in the alternative tradition of Aaron’s death, reiterated in Deut 10:6b, which refers to his death at Moserah. Although the brief passage does not utilize either death-phrase, it does state that Aaron was buried and that priestly succession occurred with the office of Eleazar: “and he was buried there [Moserah] and Eleazar his son served as priest [waw-concecutive of Nhk] in his stead” (wyt@fx;t@a wOnb@; rzf(fl;)e Nh'kay:wA M#$f rb'q @Fy,IwA) . 137 Aaron died in Transjordan, which P did not consider part of the Promised Land. 138 The case of Moses is highly unique, in that he and Jacob are the only non-kings associated with the idiom “sleep with [ones] fathers” (cf. Deut 31:16 and Gen 47:30, respectively). Along with the mystery surrounding Moses’ fate, we must account for the fact that he is not buried in a family tomb (because he died in Transjordan), as noted in D RIVER, Plurima, 137. In addition, there is no family member indicated in the passage as his heir. However, in regards to the last point, Deuteronomy 31 may have used the phrase “sleep [+ fathers]” to reinforce the status of Joshua as Moses’ ideological heir. The phrase falls within the account of Joshua’s commissioning (Deut 31:14–23) and may be related to the account of Joshua’s death in Judges 2.

2.4. Concluding Remarks

49

the statement by beginning the sentence without a waw-consecutive, thus breaking the normal narrative flow.139 The writer is not concerned with the manner of death suffered by the entire generation, nor is the focus of the statement on the collective status of the deceased in the afterlife. The significance of the phrase is that the Israelites had been able to take possession of their inheritance, the land that YHWH had promised their fathers.140 The passing of Joshua and his generation and the succession of the following generation signified that the proper rite of inheritance was not only observed, but also instituted. This last point is crucial when one considers that Judg 2:10 marks an important transition point in the Deuteronomistic History.141

2.4. Concluding Remarks The importance of the epilogues lies in the ideology that is expressed in its formulaic statements. This ideology reflects a social and political perspective that can be termed patrimonial. The incorrect interpretation of the dynastic notice “lay with his fathers” prevents the full recognition of the epilogues’ importance. Each individual statement (or notice, as they are called in this study) is a component of a larger construct of political ideology that was embodied by the passage of power from father to son. With each passing epilogue, the lineage that is assembled through the combined number of royal predecessors is part of a greater cultural phenomenon observed in royal genealogies and king lists from the Levant and Mesopotamia dating back at least to the Middle Bronze Age. In these sources, various eponymous figures are collected into an aggregate whole that was used 139

Judg 2:10a: )w%hha rwOd@ha-lk@f MgAw:. This runs counter the idea that the verse signified nothing more than the passing of Joshua’s generation, A LFRINK, bk@a#$;y,IwA, 107. Furthermore, the phrase was meant to recall Ex 1:6, which recounts the death of “Joseph and all of his brothers, and all of that generation.” Halpern and Vanderhooft attempted to show that the parallel of Judg 2:10 with 2 Kg 22:20 was meant to highlight the apostasy of Judah prior to the Josianic reform, HALPERN and VANDERHOOFT, Editions, 223. Judges 2:10, however, serves a different purpose and is an integral component of vv. 8-9, which describes the death and burial Joshua. Following this detailed description the biblical writer fronts the sentence with a verb-less clause from Ex 1:6b ()w%hha rwOd@ha lkow:), and attaches the verbal formula l)e w%ps;)enE wytfwOb )j- , in order to emphasize the introduction of the next generation. To quote Brevard Childs, concerning Ex 1:6 and Judg 2:10: “The beginning of the new age is marked by the ending of the old,” C HILDS, Exodus (OTL), 3. 141 N OTH, Deuteronomistic, 21. John Priest has suggested that Judg 2:10 is a later P insertion (because the terminology is uncharacteristic of the DtrH), and it reflects a redactional linking vv. 6–9 with 11–19; see P RIEST, Huldah’s Oracle, 366–368. 140

50

Chapter Two: The Formulaic Epilogues in the Book of Kings

to buttress the lineage of a ruling house.142 Once this political perspective is made clear, it becomes apparent why the epilogues were a critical element in the structure of Kings, effectively creating a temporal design that facilitated the narrative histories of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel.143 This design also shaped the ideological framework in the presentation of the House of David by linking each succeeding king with the past and thus with the divine promises that had been endowed upon the eponym of the ruling house of Judah.144

142

For instance, the Assyrian King List at one point summarizes an early lineage listed in its ranks as: “total: ten kings that were fathers” (napar 10 arrni a abb unni [written: PAB 10 LUGALME -ni a ADME u-nu-ni]), translation mine; cf. G RAYSON, Königslisten, 86–120. 143 On this temporal effectiveness of the closing statements, see the brief remarks of N ELSON, Anatomy, 44–45. See also the short review of the structural factors in A VIOZ, Kings, 18. 144 On the development of 2 Samuel 7, the dynastic oracle for the House of David, see SCHNIEDEWIND, Society, 17–50. The ancestor could serve as an object of divine blessing that continued through their surviving progeny, thus a foundation oracle associated with a dynastic eponym would hold a certain significance relating the living to the dead. For a similar description of the importance of ancestors in ancient Israel, see LEVENSON, Resurrection, 65–66.

Chapter Three

The Socio-Political Significance of Funerary Rites 3.1. Introduction The analysis of the formulaic epilogues cannot be done in isolation, and it is important to first establish a basic understanding of funerary rites and their social significance in the ancient Near East. This manner of approach is essential in order to recognize why it was necessary to introduce the end of a king’s reign using imagery drawn from burial customs, and why it was essential to record the king’s place of burial in a programmatic fashion. Therefore, in order to observe the social and political ramifications of the statement “the king lay with his fathers,” it is necessary to examine the prevailing burial customs of western Palestine as well as the different manifestations of royal tombs found throughout related cultures. The best evidence for interment practices in this region comes from the Kingdom of Judah during the Iron Age II. Although the material evidence represents the burials of only one stratum of the population (the elite), it still provides insight into predominant symbols operative in the ideologically charged act of disposing the dead. Yet it is equally important to understand the various traits apparent in the royal burials found throughout the ancient Levant. It is undeniable that the burial of a king was a politically symbolic act, but what should be recognized further is that royalty operated in a culture of power that utilized symbols common among their peers (other kings), and one that was purposefully distinct from their constituents. All of these factors indicate the complex nature of royal burials, where exclusive practices were interwoven with indigenous customs.

3.2. Reconstructing the Royal Tombs of Israel and Judah The royal tombs of Jerusalem are currently unknown factors because their location is yet undiscovered or (most probably) no longer exists, thus any reconstruction is incumbent upon a proper awareness of funerary rites in ancient Judah and the Levant. A survey of burial remains from Iron II Judah will provide a sense of the local concepts that relate to the dead and their disposal. Furthermore, it is imperative that the reconstruction of any

52

Chapter Three: The Socio-Political Significance of Funerary Rites

aspect of the royal tombs of Judah or Israel should be conversant with the archaeological exploration of royal tombs discovered at different locations in the Levant. A brief survey of the various styles and the general nature of royal burials in the ancient Levant, as well as Mari, will not only provide a more informed review of previous research into the royal tombs mentioned in the Book of Kings, but also provide a set of predictions regarding their critical attributes. 3.2.1. Elite Burials in Iron Age II Judah The disposal of the dead in Iron II Judah involved practices that go back to at least the Middle Bronze Age, if not earlier.1 Several attributes of these mortuary practices are evident in second millennium BCE burials and continue into the first millennium long after the Iron Age, such as their extramural location, along with the practice of communal interment and secondary rites. The cave tomb of the second millennium was the basic template for Iron Age II rock-cut tombs. The specific features built into the architectural plan of these Iron II tombs – the burial benches and the repository – effectively crystallized a type of funerary practice that went back to earlier periods. In fact, the burial practices specific to Judah beginning in the ninth, and predominantly through the eighth and seventh centuries BCE, represented a significant development due to the architectural phenomenon of the rock-cut bench tomb.2 The typical Iron II rock-cut tomb consisted of an architectural plan that included burial benches hewn out of the sidewalls of the tomb (usually the three walls facing the entrance) along with a carved space for the secondary storage of burial remains known as the repository.3 In the initial (or 1

Specifically, the use of cave tombs as well as the secondary treatment of the dead; see G ONEN, Structural, 151–160; I DEM., Burial Patterns; and earlier, M EYERS, Secondary, 2–29. 2 Burial benches, carved out of the side-walls of a cave tomb actually emerge first in the Late Bronze Age, G ONEN, Burial Patterns, 24. By the Iron Age II, elite tombs in Judah included a general layout that consisted of rock-cut burial benches replete with repositories for the re-deposited remains, B LOCH-SMITH, Judahite, 39–40. For the cultural background of the bench tomb, see IDEM., Life, 120–130. On the interpretation of the rock-cut tombs in Iron II Judah as an indication of an “elite” class, see FANTALKIN, Appearance, 21–23. 3 For recent descriptions of this type of tomb, see N UTKOWICZ, L'homme, 204–208; and FAUST and B UNIMOVITZ, Rock-Cut Tomb, 151–153. An Aramaic inscription on a limestone plaque, possibly a lid to an ossuary, which refers to the bones of King Uzziah, may indicate a practice of attending to the mortal remains that continued into the Second Temple Period, reflective of secondary rites. The late date of the inscription (second century BCE to first century CE) and its lack of context make any interpretation tenuous at best, see A LBRIGHT, Discovery, 8–10.

3.2. Reconstructing the Royal Tombs of Israel and Judah

53

primary) stage of burial, the dead body would repose upon a bench inside the tomb. After a period of time, or most probably when that space was needed for subsequent burials, the disarticulated mortal remains and all associated grave goods would be removed from the bench and stored in a collective mass inside the repository.4 In this type of tomb, the burial benches and the repository, are important for understanding the symbolic actions associated with the disposal of the dead in the Kingdom of Judah. This is because the architectural features facilitated a communal sense in burial. The term “communal” is appropriate because the means for storing the collective remains of former burials was not merely a pragmatic strategy designed to accommodate the accumulation of human remains (due to the ongoing event of death and burial). The recognition that the rock-cut tomb employed an architectural design that emulated the four-room house, the typical domestic space in the southern Levant, is clear indication that this form of tomb (defined by its method of burial) was representative of a larger collective identity.5 To quote Avraham Faust and Shlomo Bunimovitz,6 regarding the rock-cut tomb: “Since the ‘house’ relates both to the physical structure and to the family, the ‘sign’ of the four-room house (the structure) that was carved in stone signified the continuation of the family.” 3.2.2. Royal Tombs in the Ancient Levant In order to understand the political significance of the royal tombs in Jerusalem and Samaria it is important to analyze briefly the various types of royal tombs in the ancient Levant by focusing on two aspects: intramural interments (along with the specific placement of the dead) and communal interments facilitated through secondary rites. In the ancient Near East, royal cemeteries were often built within an intramural location, with notable exceptions in Egypt and Anatolia (the Hittites and the Kingdom of 4

See the general description in B ARKAY, Iron Age II–III, 359–360; and also B LOCHSMITH, Judahite, 48–49, 148–149. In some cases, where no repository was present, the collective remains would be secondarily massed on the floor of the chamber next to the bench; for example a tomb discovered west of Jaffa Gate in Jerusalem, REICH, Ancient Burial Ground, 111–118. Statements made in the Hebrew Bible indicate the importance of burial with dead kin, within the family tomb (see, for instance, 2 Sam 19:38 and Neh 2:3). An interesting example of communal burial is found in the story of the man of God from Judah and the old prophet from Bethel, where the dead body of the man of God is brought back to Bethel to be buried in the old prophet’s family tomb, although they were unrelated (1 Kg 13:28–31). The old prophet instructs his sons, “cause my bones to rest beside his bones [inside the tomb]” (v. 31). In other words, the tomb provided a communal experience in death that was reified through specific burial practices. 5 This point has been stressed by several scholars, most notably B ARKAY, Burial Caves, 96–102; and F AUST and B UNIMOVITZ, Rock-Cut Tomb, 150–170. 6 FAUST and B UNIMOVITZ, Rock-Cut Tomb, 162.

54

Chapter Three: The Socio-Political Significance of Funerary Rites

Sam‘al). This general practice may be indicative of cultural traits common among West Semitic cultures, and its spread may be associated with groups such as the Amorites beginning in the early second-millennium 7 BCE. The point should not be over emphasized, however, as intramural burials located beneath structures both private and public can be observed in southern Mesopotamia even during the third millennium BCE.8 In fact, royal tombs of the Levant during the second millennium (MB–LB periods) display a remarkable range of variation in both architectural style and location. The same observations can be made of royal tombs in the ancient Near East during the Iron Age, such as those found in Assyria,9 the northern Levant and the Syro-Phoenician coast.10 Yet the prevailing theme among royal burials of the Levant was a close proximity to the palace, either beneath the structure or near by (safe within the confines of the royal capital’s fortifications). Furthermore, these royal tombs could employ various modes of interment styles such as single occupancy sarcophagi utilized by Assyrian kings as well as the Phoenician kings of Byblos and 7

This can be observed in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period, in the intramural burials discovered at the Hyksos capital of Avaris (Tell el-Daba’); see VAN DEN B RINK, Tombs. The custom in ancient Egypt was to maintain extramural cemeteries, a well-known fact given the monumentality of Egyptian funerary architecture. The influx of West Semitic groups (the Hyksos) introduced, although temporarily, a different mortuary custom. 8 POSTGATE, Early Mesopotamia, 99. The putative “Royal Tombs of Ur,” discovered by Sir Leonard Woolley, are the prominent example, albeit unusual monumental example from the Early Dynastic III-period, W OOLLEY, Ur Excavations, and P OLLOCK, Of Priestesses, 171–189. 9 D AMERJI and K AMIL, Gräber Assyrischer Königinnen. Interestingly, Stephanie Dalley has tried to identify two of the queens buried in Kalu as Israelite princesses (who were married to Assyrian kings); see D ALLEY, Yabâ, Atalaya, 83–98. Dalley makes the following correlations: fAtal = w%hyFl;ta(j and fYab/pâ = hpfyF (as a feminine name), although these readings are not without problems, refer the cautionary review in Y OUNGER JR., Yahweh, 216–218. As Younger notes, the onomastic evidence for female Yahwistic names is lacking in Akkadian sources, yet (with male names) the Yahwistic theophoricsuffix is written with either the u2 or u (Winkelhaken) sign; see also the comments in A CHENBACH, Jabâ und Atalja, 29–38. Dalley acknowledges the difficulties, but argues that the historical context makes her suggestion plausible, D ALLEY, Recent, 394–396. The inscription on Yabâ’s sarcophagus, however reads “she went the way of her fathers” (ana uru abb tallik); see FADHIL, Nimrud/Kalu, 464 and 466 (Fadhil notes that the incription should read: ana uru abb…). The statement is an unusual variation on the standard Akkadian idiom for death, “he went to his fate” (ana mt illik), where the indirect object is the collective plural “fathers” rather than “fate” (imimum). See IDEM., Nimrud/Kalu, 466; and KRÜGER, Weg, 144–145; her conclusion that Yabâ was of Levantine origins (i.e, non-Mesopotamian) supports Dalley’s hypothesis. 10 Byblos (Jebeil, Lebanon), H ACHMANN, Das Königsgrab V, 93–114. Guzana (Tall Halaf, Syria), O PPENHEIM, Tell Halaf, 219–222.

3.2. Reconstructing the Royal Tombs of Israel and Judah

55

Sidon; yet the practice of communal interment in a royal tomb is well attested in the Levant during the second and first millennia BCE. 3.2.2.1. Intramural Burials Although intramural interment was the general rule for royal burials in the ancient Levant, it is imperative to begin by acknowledging that this manner of burial manifested itself in different forms. For instance, the intrapalatial tombs of both Mari (found beneath the palace of the akkanakku) and Ugarit are built in the classic vaulted-ceiling style, while the multiplechambered tombs hewn into the bedrock beneath the palaces at Ebla and Qana represent a fundamentally different style. This difference in architecture could relate to specific mortuary practices, most notably secondary rites (see below). The undisturbed tomb-system discovered at Qana bears clear witness to this practice, while the relatively empty tombs at Mari and Ugarit (plundered in antiquity) reveal few indications of secondary rites. The variation in construction, however, is probably geographically determined and relate to the physical setting of the palaces. Where it was impossible to create a tomb system by hewing chambers out of bedrock (or by adapting natural caves) the burial site had to be constructed of stone.11 Thus, the geological situation of Tell Hariri (Mari),12 as well as RasShamra (Ugarit), required special building strategies in order to insure that the subterranean tomb would not collapse.13 This observation indicates the high level of importance, culturally and politically, that was assigned to the containment of royal interments beneath, or near, the palace. The placement of the royal tombs inside or outside a palatial structure may indicate different political strategies employed by a dynasty. An example of this phenomenon is Mari during the MB (= Old Babylonian period), where intramural burial customs were prevalent.14 Yet fundamental differences are apparent in the two main palaces at Mari during this his11 This is clear at the tombs of the southern palace of Ugarit; see Y ON, La Cité, 63. The slab stone-ceiling of the tomb in Room 213 is evident in S CHAEFFER, Mission, 26, Fig. 20, cf. the description on page 123. 12 According to the excavators of Mari, the palace of the akkanakku was built in an artificial foundation that was excavated below ground level and then filled. The tombs were constructed at the base of this foundation, using bricks and stone slabs to create a vaulted ceiling; see M ARGUERON, Une Tombe, 408–410, Mari, 362, Fig. 346. 13 Note for instance in the Sumerian text “The Death of Bilgamesh,” the legendary king of Uruk constructs his own burial place by building a vaulted tomb deep in the river bed of the Euphrates (which he temporarily diverted). Although this tomb was obviously not beneath a palace, it was still located within the king’s city (Uruk). 14 M ARGUERON, Mari, 399–406. The intramural cemeteries fall into three general groups; the area around the temple of Ishtar, the area around the Ziggurat and the palatial zone. P ARAYRE, Les sepultures, 13.

56

Chapter Three: The Socio-Political Significance of Funerary Rites

torical period: the small Eastern Palace, or palace of the akkanakku, and the Great Palace, so-called the Palace of Zimri-Lim.15 The royal burials are located beneath the structure of the older palace of the akkanakku while the much more famous palace of Zimri-Lim at Mari, in fact, did not contain royal tombs.16 The palace of the akkanakku was built at the end of the third millennium, and thus the burials contained within its structure may have held a certain prestige that was maintained until the end of the Middle Bronze Age (when the forces of Hammurapi, king of Babylon, destroyed both palaces). The plan of the tombs of the palace of the akkanakku at Mari is comparable to the LB period Palais royale at Ugarit where a large subterranean tomb was constructed beneath the floor of a unit,17 Room 28, conjoining a large court (Court II).18 The architectural style of this tomb is the same vaulted style as seen at Mari and elsewhere.19 Furthermore, the proximity and relationship of Room 28 (with its tombs) and the court indicate that this part of the palace was dedicated to the royal ancestors.20 In contrast to Ugarit, where the veneration and entombment of the royal ances15

For a narrative description of the palace’s royal splendor, see M ARGUERON, Portrait, 885–899. 16 André Parrot had initially misinterpreted a cistern as a grave inside the Great Palace, PARROT, La XXIe campagne, 96. See D URAND, L’organisation, 67 n. 74. Furthermore, Y. M. Al-Khalesi has suggested (rather implausibly) that Rooms 117–119/124–126 of the palace of Zimri-Lim were burial sites, A L-K HALESI, Bt-Kispim, 71. This suggestion was influenced by the presence of jar-types that are used for infant burials and was a component of Al-Khalesi’s problematic interpretation of a funerary shrine (Bˆœt-Kispim) within the palace. 17 The tomb structure is roughly 11.5m in length along an east-west axis, SCHAEFFER, Reprise, 16. The tomb system is composed of two chambers, with each chamber built beneath a segment of Room 28. The western chamber is composed of two units, the southernmost (and largest) measuring, roughly 4.5 x 2m and the second unit measuring 2 x 2.5m, while the dimensions of the eastern chamber are, approximately, 3 x 4m. Based on IDEM., Reprise, Fig. 8. A complete floor plan is lacking, however, which allows only estimated dimensions. See also the schematic site plan in Y ON, La Cité, 47, Fig. 20. 18 Room 28 aligns with the northern wall of the palace and communicates with Court II. The eastern segment of the room connects with Court II near the pillared, forward section of the court, Y ON, La Cité, 47, Fig. 20. 19 In fact, this style typifies intramural burials in Ugarit. Similar intra-mural burials are found in the MB vaulted-tombs of Megiddo, see G ONEN, Structural, 153–155. 20 The larger, extended court would allow any necessary rituals before an audience, as stated by Y ON, La Cité, 52. The tombs of the southern palace are also found in rooms adjoining a larger court. The tomb beneath Room 213 originally communicated with two courts, Rooms 212 (along with Room 210) and 203, though in the former phase the entrance to Room 212 was blocked. It is interesting to note that Room 212 connected with Room 210 via a wide, double pillared access, creating a court similar to Court II in the royal palace, La Cité, 61.

3.2. Reconstructing the Royal Tombs of Israel and Judah

57

tors apparently occurred in one place,21 the various palaces at Mari probably held different functions. It would seem that the palace of the akkanakku served as the location of the royal burials where there were actually two sets of tombs.22 The palace of Zimri-Lim, conversely, served as the seat of the cult of royal dead as attested in several cuneiform texts that mention the kispim a arrni, or royal kispum.23 This event, a repast on behalf of the dead, seems to have been located within the sprawling confines of the palace.24 Thus, at Mari different strategies (funerary rites versus the cult of the dead) were used at separate locations to address the single concept of political legitimacy as it related to royal ancestors.25 The examples at Mari thus may offer some perspective on the royal necropolis of Jerusalem, its change in location between the eighth and seventh centuries BCE,26 and the veneration of royal ancestors by the dynasty of Judah.27 The fact that royal tombs in the Levant were predominantly intramural burials however does not require that they were always located beneath a palatial structure. Burial sites within a royal compound, but adjacent to 21 Most recently, see N IEHR, Topography of Death, 219–242. This present work does not relate ancestor cults with funerary/mortuary rites, but instead focuses upon their critical component: the concept of ancestors. 22 The first tomb is beneath Room I and the second beneath the Throne Room, M ARGUERON, Mari, 448, Fig. 424. 23 See, conveniently T SUKIMOTO, Untersuchungen, 57–78; I DEM., Aspekte, 128–138. 24 The evidence suggests that there could be different locations for the royal kispum; administrative texts (e.g., ARM 11, 266: Rev. ll. 3–5) list food supplies intended “for the Kispum of the Kings in the garden(?)” (ana kispim a arrni ina rpiqtim), while a kispum ritual-text (MARI 12803 Col. I: 7, 10) refers to the “hall of thrones,” bt kussî (=EGU.ZAI.A). 25 Cf. M ORRIS, archaeology of ancestors, 154. Interestingly, Morris observes in his Taiwan example that funerary rites addressed concerns and problems with social structure and the basic social-unit (the household) while ancestor cults were used to indemnify the lineage system as a whole. Al-Khalesi interpreted the area south of the forecourt (Room 131) as the funerary shrine, or bˆœt kispim (usually written E2 KI.SI3.GA), of the kings of Mari. A L-K HALESI, Bt-Kispim, 68–72. Several problems exist with this theory, however, including the fact that there is no reference to the bt kispim in any of the Mari texts, see TSUKIMOTO, Untersuchungen, 60–61; and the brief comments on the speculative nature of the theory in M OOREY, Where, 15. Furthermore, the kispum-ritual represented the cult of the dead and, as such, it was not necessary to perform this ritual in (or near) a burial site, S CHMIDT, Beneficent Dead, 35. 26 Ishida observes that the entire City of David was roughly twice the size of the palace of Zimri-Lim at Mari, I SHIDA, Royal Dynasties, 135. This observation was not meant to be a negative comparison between the MB Kingdom of Mari and the Iron Age Kingdom of Judah, but to highlight the fact that the entire Eastern Hill of Jerusalem (the City of David) was in fact royal domain similar to the Amorite/Old Babylonian palatial compounds found in Mesopotamia and the northern Levant. 27 For instance, the memorial monument of the erstwhile king Absalom (MOl#$fb;)a dya), described in 2 Sam 18:18, was apparently located in one of the valleys outlying Jerusalem.

58

Chapter Three: The Socio-Political Significance of Funerary Rites

the palace, occur at several sites in the southern Levant that date to the second and first millennia.28 Notable examples include the necropolis at Guzana (Tall Halaf, Syria) and possibly Byblos (Jebeil, Lebanon). The necropolis at Byblos consisted of a series of rock-cut tombs that originated in the Middle Bronze Age and continued in use into the early Iron Age.29 The problem at Byblos is the absence of any architecture above the seaworn bedrock of the site, yet the necropolis consists of nine tombs carved into the bedrock scattered in a circular pattern and it is unlikely that a single palatial structure stood on top of all of them. The clearest illustration of this type of royal necropolis is found at Guzana, the royal capital of Bit Bahiani, which was an Iron Age kingdom in the northern Levant that is roughly contemporaneous with ancient Israel.30 The royal tombs at Guzana were intramural burials, although they were all outside the central palace, the so-called bit-ilani palace of Kapara. These burials consist of two vaulted tombs (that contained inhumation burials) located inside the royal citadel, but adjacent to the palace, and two shaft graves (that contain cremation burials accompanied by statues of females) located near the southern gate.31 Regarding the two vaulted tombs, the earlier southern tomb pre-dates the palace while the northern tomb system was contemporary with the palace.32 Furthermore, the general practice of burial at Guzana did not include intramural interments (aside from the royal tombs) until late in the Iron Age when the city was under Assyrian dominion.33 These factors at Guzana bear relevance to the question of 28 Examples include the LB palace at Kumidi (Kamid el-Loz in Lebanon) and possibly the royal tombs at Jebeil, ancient Byblos/Gebal, which originated in the Middle Bronze Age, H ACHMANN, Kumidi und Byblos, 1–40. 29 H ACHMANN, Das Königsgrab V, 93–114. See also the two-part work: R EHM, Dynastensarkophage: Teil 1.1, 3–22; L EHMANN, Dynastensarkophage: Teil 1.2, 39–42; as well as N IEHR, Der Sarkophag, 231–243. 30 The early Iron Age at Tell Halaf is divided into two broad phases, the Altbau period and the Kapara period, the latter named after the ruler whose inscriptions mark the bitilani palace. See O RTHMANN, Aramäisch-Assyrische Stadt 35–40. This chronological schema corresponds to the twelfth-through-ninth centuries, BCE; IDEM., AramäischAssyrische Stadt 15–23. 31 O PPENHEIM, Tell Halaf, 219–222. For a third group of burials (inside the southern gate area and poorly preserved), see O RTHMANN, Aramäisch-Assyrische Stadt 50–52, S ADER, Les États, 34–35. 32 O PPENHEIM et al., Tell Halaf II, 100–103, 103–104. The archaeological periodization of Tell Halaf in the early Iron Age is defined by the construction of the royal acropolis (“die Altbau”) and the palace (“the palace of Kapara”). 33 O RTHMANN, Aramäisch-Assyrische Stadt 47. This custom certainly indicates a cultural shift at Guzana between the early and late phases of the Iron Age and possibly reflects a change from a society composed largely of Luwians (who did not practice intramural interment) to one dominated by an Assyro-Aramean population (who did).

3.2. Reconstructing the Royal Tombs of Israel and Judah

59

royal tombs in Jerusalem, as the ruling dynasty of Judah possessed intramural tombs that stood in contrast to the extramural cemeteries that surrounded the capital.34 The biblical texts do not reveal how the tombs served the House of David (or the northern dynasties), although the burial notices indicate that they were intramural. In post-exilic texts (Neh 3:16), as well as latter sources (Acts 2:29), the royal tombs were Jerusalem landmarks, which may indicate that they were freestanding structures and not constructed beneath a palace. It is possible that the ruling house of Judah utilized several tombs, which at various historical phases served different ancestral strategies. The example of the palaces at Mari may offer some insight into the occurrences of royal tombs that were separate from the main palace. This is not to argue that a fully developed cult of the dead existed in the southern Levant, such as the royal kispum at Mari,35 but to stress that change in locality may have held a distinct socio-political significance. The basic fact remains, however, that intramural royal-tombs were politically important symbols even where intra-palatial tombs are absent. 3.2.2.2. Secondary Rites The normative mortuary practice among the elite in Iron Age Judah included secondary rites, which involved the transfer of disarticulated remains to another area of the tomb. This custom is related to earlier mortuary practices in the southern Levant that occurred in cave tombs during the Middle and Late Bronze Age.36 Thus, while there is a dearth of evidence for royal funerals in Israel or Judah, in light of the relationship proposed between secondary rites and the poetic imagery of the dynastic notice (“lay with fathers”) it is important to investigate the occurrence and role of this manner of mortuary practice in known cases of royal tombs. Evidence for secondary rites may be interpreted among the Middle Bronze remains at Ebla (Tell Mardikh, Syria). The subterranean burials of Palace Q at Ebla were originally natural caves in the bedrock of the palace’s foundation that were adapted according to a basic plan (an entrance shaft and burial chamber), which is typical of Middle Bronze Age burial

34

B ARKAY, Iron Age II–III, 259; W ENNING, Bestattungen, 84–85. The kispum actually appears to be a phenomenon that was isolated to greater Mesopotamia. For instance, the kispum is not mentioned in any Ugaritic source, despite attempts to reconstruct it at this important Bronze Age kingdom; see the negative assessment in PARDEE, Marzihu, 273–287. For a different assessment, although one that still denies the existence of the kispum in the Levant, see S CHMIDT, Beneficent Dead, 41–46. 36 G ONEN, Burial Patterns. See also the Late Bronze–Iron Age I burial cave at Tell Dothan, briefly described in C OOLEY and P RATICO, Dothan, 374. 35

60

Chapter Three: The Socio-Political Significance of Funerary Rites

caves.37 All of the burials date to the nineteenth and eighteenth centuries 38 BCE (Mardikh levels IIIA–IIIB), and are labeled by the excavators: the 39 Tomb of the Princess (78 A), the Tomb of the Lord of the Goats (78 B-1, 2 and C),40 and the Tomb of the Cisterns (79 B-C). The preliminary reports imply that each tomb contained a single burial, though the human remains were usually in a disarticulated state, mixed among the debris of the chamber. The tomb system of Palace Q at Ebla was clearly collective, to the extant that multiple burials occurred in one general location. It is possible, however, that the burial activity of this tomb-system included both primary and secondary interment. The reasons for this proposal include the large size of the burial caves, the fact that tombs consisted of interconnected chambers,41 and the disarticulated state of the human remains.42 Furthermore, it is likely that the construction of the main complex occurred in a single phase. The multi-period remains of the tomb-system would thus indicate several phases of mortuary activity, rather than multiple stages of construction. The most unambiguous evidence of secondary rites and collective interment within a royal burial-context is the tomb system discovered (undisturbed) beneath the palace at Qana (Tell Mirefe, Syria), which spanned the Middle Bronze II through Late Bronze Ages.43 An entrance inside the 37 M ATTHIAE, New Discoveries, 22–24; IDEM., Princely Cemetery, 564–565. The tomb-system was disturbed in antiquity and the most damage occurred in the Tomb of the Cisterns. The other two tombs contained partial remains, including jewelry, ceramic and stone vessels along with other objects; IBID., New Discoveries, 23–29. Matthiae also notes that a possible fourth burial cave was located elsewhere in the palace, though this structure was used for the disposal of waste. 38 The excavators suggest that the Tomb of the Princess is the earliest burial site, built around 1800 BCE, while the Tomb of the Lord of the Goats dates to 1750. M ATTHIAE, New Discoveries, 23. The latest burial was the adapted cistern, thus called the Tomb of the Cistern, and is dated to 1700, I DEM., New Discoveries, 23–24. 39 Named for the female remains it contained, M ATTHIAE, New Discoveries, 24. 40 The Tomb of the Lord of the Goats, so-named for the two bronze, goat-headed ornaments found among its remains, also contained an array of weapons that included a duck-billed axe; M ATTHIAE, New Discoveries 25–29. 41 In fact, the so-called “short gallery” of the Tomb of the Lord of the Goats (78 B2), may have served as a repository for secondary burials. 42 The partially robbed state of the tomb complex may explain why the chambers contained only a limited amount of human remains. The group that was responsible for the palace’s destruction may have removed the burials for the purpose of desecration, or the palace’s occupants may have relocated the burials for their protection. This may also explain, however, the disarticulated state of the human remains. 43 The palace, along with the royal tombs contained within, originated in the late eighteenth-century and was destroyed by the Hittites in 1340 BCE. See N OVÁK and PFÄLZNER, Ausgrabungen, 133–135. P FÄLZNER, Archaeological Investigations, 55–60. The joint German-Syrian archaeological-team discovered the undisturbed tomb-system,

3.2. Reconstructing the Royal Tombs of Israel and Judah

61

palace grants access to the tomb by way of a long narrow 40m corridor (labeled AQ).44 This passage terminates at the antechamber of the tombsystem. The tomb itself consists of four, rock-cut chambers: a central chamber and three side chambers. Because of the tomb’s state of preservation, and the amount of remains found in situ, it is possible to determine the function of each chamber. Inside the antechamber, two seated figures flanked the entrance into the central chamber.45 The central chamber (Chamber 1), the first chamber entered, is the largest room and contained access to the three side chambers with openings on each wall opposite the main entrance.46 The artifacts inside Chamber 1 include a series of benches, some with ceramic vessels stacked on top. The excavators also discovered human remains, mixed with the remnants of what were probably four wooden biers in addition to an ossuary that contained the disarticulated remains of three individuals.47 Other remains include animal bones, found in close proximity to the benches and ceramic vessels, which led the archaeologists to suggest that the room served as the location of a funerary repast.48 The southwestern side-chamber, Chamber 2, housed a stone ossuary and two benches. The ossuary did not have a lid and contained the remains of two people, a man and a woman, both middle-aged.49 The two benches consisted of a limestone slab resting upon two basalt basins.50 The chamber served the preparation of the cadavers before their secondary storage beneath the palace, N OVÁK and PFÄLZNER, Ausgrabungen, 138–145; AL-MAQDISSI et al., Königliche Hypogäum, 189–191. See also the popular report, LANGE, Unearthing, 108–123. 44 N OVÁK and PFÄLZNER, Ausgrabungen, 138–145, Figs. 5, 6, 8 and 9. The description of the tomb-system presented in this paper is based upon the preliminary report, ALM AQDISSI et al., Königliche Hypogäum, 191–192. 45 N OVÁK and P FÄLZNER, Ausgrabungen, 145–146, Figs. 10–11. 46 The size of the room is roughly 8 x 6m in diameter with a ceiling height of 2.5m, supported by four stone-pillars (three of which rested on basalt bases), AL-M AQDISSI et al., Königliche Hypogäum, 192–198. 47 Königliche Hypogäum, 193–195. The term “sarcophagus” is used by the excavators, and in the artist’s rendering of the tomb (see LANGE, Unearthing, 116), although “ossuary” might be a more precise term. Likewise, the artist’s reconstruction uses the term “ossuary” for Chamber 4, whereas the term “repository” is more appropriate. 48 AL -M AQDISSI et al., Königliche Hypogäum, 198. The excavation team has suggested that these remains (along with the ceramic vessels of the central chamber) are the archaeological evidence of a kispum ritual, IDEM., Königliche Hypogäum, 209–210. 49 AL -M AQDISSI et al., Königliche Hypogäum, 201–202, Fig. 209. 50 IDEM., Königliche Hypogäum, 202. The second bench was positioned approximately 45cm from the wall, which allowed approach from all sides, IDEM., Königliche Hypogäum, 202–203, Fig. 210. Upon this bench, the excavators discovered the wooden remains of a coffin and a woman’s body that had undergone a treatment involving the use of fire to heat the corpse, which probably served to reduce the odor of putrefication, IDEM., Königliche Hypogäum, 202–203; 208–209.

62

Chapter Three: The Socio-Political Significance of Funerary Rites

inside the ossuary. Chamber 4 contained remains of both human and animal bones, dispersed across the floor.51 The numerous bones found in Chamber 4 indicate that this was probably the final resting place for the disarticulated remains of the dead, serving as a type of repository.52 In fact, the only chamber that did not contain human remains is Chamber 3,53 the largest of the three side-chambers (measuring 2.8 x 3.8m).54 Due to its size, the orientation of its entrance, and the single resting place, the excavators have suggested that Chamber 3 housed the most recently deceased king and have termed it the “throne room.”55 The content and function of each chamber of the Qatna tomb-system allows the interpretation of a sequential process of funerary rites.56 When the king died, the initial interment of his remains would have been inside Chamber 3, representing the primary ritual.57 This chamber was probably a single-occupancy burial unit and marked the status of the interred, the defunct king and predecessor of the current king (in most cases, his father). With the passage of time it would be necessary to re-use Chamber 3, and thus, to transfer the remains of the former burial.58 This transfer, or secon51

AL -M AQDISSI et al., Königliche Hypogäum, 203. The chamber housed two stone benches and contained the remains of several ceramic vessels. In the center of the chamber, the excavators detected traces of smoke and charcoal remains, indicating that there had been a small fire in this room, IDEM., Königliche Hypogäum, 203. 52 The excavators use the term “ossuary” (Ossuarium). The excavators also propose that this chamber also served part of the kispum-ritual due to the amount of ceramic remains and animal bones, AL-M AQDISSI et al., Königliche Hypogäum, 209–210. 53 Animal remains were discovered in Chamber 3, probably the vestige of food offerings, IDEM., Königliche Hypogäum, 199. 54 IDEM., Königliche Hypogäum, 198–200. The contents of this chamber included a wooden bed as well as funerary offerings such as stone and ceramic vessels, and two duck-head figurines made of gold. 55 IDEM., Königliche Hypogäum, 206–208. The label “Throne room: for the spirit of the dead king” is used in the illustrated reconstruction of this tomb found in L ANGE, Unearthing, 116. This interpretation is supported by the fact that the two columns at the immediate entrance to Chamber 3 frame the view into the chamber (and the burial place), an effect created also by the two enthroned figures at the main entrance. 56 The central chamber bore evidence of feasting, although it is not possible to tell whether these repasts were part of a regularly occurring ancestor cult (such as the kispum), as suggested by the excavation team, AL-M AQDISSI et al., Königliche Hypogäum, 205–206. The suggestion is plausible, although they could have been associated with the irregular ritual activity of disposing the dead (primary and secondary burials). 57 IDEM., Königliche Hypogäum, 206–208. It is possible that the king’s body temporarily remained in Chamber 2 where special treatment of the body would occur in order to counteract the odor produced as the corpse began to putrefy. The evidence of ritual meals, however, indicates the social significance of this tomb-system. 58 Burial activity within the tomb-system certainly occurred throughout the lifespan of the palace, and during this period of over 350 years, the burial site accumulated the col-

3.3. The Desecration of Royal Tombs

63

dary rite, may have required the special preparation of the human remains, such as the disassembling of the skeleton, in order to accommodate burial inside one of the ossuaries. The preparation stage of the funerary rite would have occurred in Chamber 2, which would temporarily house the remains before final interment in the repository of Chamber 4. The Qana palace-tomb was not limited to individual kings, as indicated by the number of human remains contained within the tomb-system. Chamber 4 would have facilitated additional burials for members of the royal family, such as the queen (female remains were discovered), as well as other members of the royal family. It is also possible that the primary burials of these individuals occurred elsewhere, and with their disinterment and transfer to the palace tomb their remains would have been processed in Chamber 2 (if necessary) before secondary burial in Chamber 4.59 Inside this complex, the burials assumed a type of anonymity, as they were collectively interred in secondary burial rites. The only apparent means of marking an individual’s identity would have been the singular burial of the king in Chamber 3. Yet even this identity would have been ephemeral, as the chamber (3) most likely served as the impermanent resting place for only one king at a time. The status marked by the burials of the interpalatial tombs at Qana was one of group identity, as the individuals interred within the tomb-system collectively became part of the dynasty’s royal ancestry.60

3.3. The Desecration of Royal Tombs The political importance of burial sites, and the act of properly disposing the mortal remains of defunct kings, is apparent also in the inverse act of desecrating royal tombs. The act is well attested in the epigraphic record, from Assyrian royal inscriptions to imprecations on Phoenician royal sarcophagi that warn against violators (see Chapter Seven), yet the act of desecration as a political policy is rarely given any systematic treatment.61 lective remains of multiple generations of Qatna’s ruling class. See the discussion of the tomb-system’s date in Königliche Hypogäum, 210–211. 59 In other words, the mortal remains would be manually disarticulated and treated through different means, such as through heat, P FÄLZNER, Die Politik, 101. 60 Another set of tombs have been recently discovered in the palace at Qana, see: http://www.unituebingen.de//aktuell/pressemitteilungen/2009-09-21qatna-english.html. This discovery offers further evidence for the importance of communal burials within palatial complexes. 61 Recent studies have examined the deliberate practice of burial disruption, see R ICHARDSON, Death and Dismemberment, 189–208; as well as the practice as a political act, underlying the visions of Ezekiel, in S TAVRAKOPOULOU, Gog’s Grave, 67–84.

64

Chapter Three: The Socio-Political Significance of Funerary Rites

Indeed, the various texts present evidence that bears indirectly on questions regarding the royal tombs of Jerusalem (specifically the location of the Garden of Uzza) as well as the specific order of the formulaic epilogues (as will be demonstrated later in the discussion of Eshmunazor’s sarcophagus). What follows is a brief survey of disinterment curses found in Assyrian royal inscriptions and the Hebrew Bible, that includes a discussion of the end of the House of Saul, which is described in several different texts the Book of Samuel using terms drawn from both disinterment curses as well as the royal epilogues of Kings. By the late Iron II period (roughly corresponding to the Neo-Assyrian period), the destruction of royal burials was a genuine concern in the Near East. The practice of desecrating burials of enemies, however, was a military action witnessed as early as the third millennium in Mesopotamia and the northern Levant.62 The construction of barrows composed of slain enemy soldiers was a common tactic in the Umma-Lagash border war and is featured in the Stele of Vultures, where it is both described and depicted.63 In this stele, the naked bodies of the dead are piled up and covered with debris by kilted men (similar to those depicted elsewhere building temples).64 The fact that the bodies are naked represents the ignoble nature of this project, making it unlikely that the stele depicts the burial of the honored dead of Lagash.65 The term used in this, and other royal inscriptions, is the SAAR.DU6.TAG4 (roughly “ruin-mound of detritus”), which is a compound term in Sumerian composed of “dust” (SAAR), “ruin heap; tell” (DU6) and the verbal root “to leave [behind]” (TAG4). This term appears in several royal inscriptions from Lagash, a southern Mesopotamian citystate, and is depicted in the Stele of Vultures.66 Furthermore, the Enna-

62

The classic article on this subject is W ESTENHOLZ, Dead Enemies, 27–31. See also G ELB, 73–74. Most recently, see R ICHARDSON, Death and Dismemberment, 193–200. For the depiction, see FRANKFORT, Art and Architecture Plates 34–35; P ARROT, Sumer, Figures 163–166. 63 See Ean 1. Obv. Col.11, 14. CDLI no. P222399. The nomenclature of Early Dynastic royal inscriptions from Lagash and Girsu follows that of COOPER, Presargonic. See also the publication of these inscriptions in S TEIBLE and B EHRENS, Inschriften. 64 W INTER, After, 17–18. 65 Contra FRANKFORT, Art and Architecture 34, P ARROT, Sumer, 136; and more recently, S ELZ, Early Dynastic, 196–197. 66 Its earliest occurrence is in the inscriptions of Urnane (ca. 2550 BCE), a ruler of Lagash who gives the names of individual enemies and rival leaders that he seized and buried within this structure, such as the Ensi of Umma; see CRAWFORD, Inscriptions, 193 n. 15. This reference is unusual in that in all the other occurrences of the term the reference seems to be of anonymous mass burials. For instance, in the royal inscriptions of subsequent rulers of Lagash, such as Entemena (Ent 28 [CDLI no. P222532]; A Obv., Cols. 1, 30; 3, 25) and Eanatum (Ean 11, A [CDLI no. P222411]; Obv. Cols. 3, 8; 4, 4

3.3. The Desecration of Royal Tombs

65

dagan letter from Ebla refers to the construction of what were certainly similar landmarks that are referred to as DU6-SAAR2 (“tell of dust?”). In this letter (found at Tell Mardikh and dated to the ED IIIa), Enna-Dagan of Mari claims that he heaped up (DUB) several mounds (DU6-SAAR2) in enemy lands as part of his conquests.67 Although scholars have tended to relate the third millennium Mesopotamian phenomenon with the actions in the first millennium by the Assyrian empire,68 the Assyrian tactic represents an innovation in the political act of desecrating burials. The earlier (Early Dynastic period) custom created a bounded sense of sovereignty through the appropriation of enemy funerary rituals,69 while the Assyrian policy was one of public destruction that symbolized the eradication of any claim of political patrimony. According to Assyrian documents, specifically treaties and royal annals, their policy of destroying royal tombs did not involve plunder alone, but also the destruction of burial content by means of exposure and other actions. The intended purpose was the public destruction of any ancestral claims made by their rivals. This purpose was achieved through the disruption of funerary rituals by grinding into dust the bones of royal ancestors, or by exposing them to the elements and the ravages of nature. The annals of Ashurbanipal speak of his desecration of Elamite royal tombs (and the interred mortal remains of their kings), as well as the Aramean tribe of the Gambulu. In these inscriptions the Assyrian claims that he desecrated the royal tombs, exposing the remains and taking their remnant hostage to Aur where they were defiled further.70 It is this form of desecration that lies behind the earlier actions of Merodach-Baladan II of Babylon in 700, the contemporary (and ally) of Hezekiah. Assyrian royal inscriptions claim that Merodach-Baladan, in response to Sennacherib’s

and 8), the claim is made only that they erected multiple barrows with no specification of the names of their victims. 67 ARET 13, 04 [CDLI no. P241924]; e.g., Obv. Col. 2, 5 and Col. 3, 7. 68 Richardson’s discussion is insightful in that it stresses the social disruption caused by the disturbance of normal burial customs as represented in the Early Dynastic barrows and the later Assyrian destruction of tombs, RICHARDSON, Death and Dismemberment, 193–200. For a discussion of the distinction between third and first millennium customs in Mesopotamia, see W ESTENHOLZ, Dead Enemies, 29-31. 69 It is important to keep in mind that the Umma-Lagash war was essentially a protracted boundary dispute over water rights in the area known as the GU2.EDEN.NA (“the bank of the steppe”). The boundary marking function of the SAAR.DU6.TAG4 is apparent in a slightly later (Old Akkadian period) field plan from Girsu (Telloh, Iraq), RTC 156 [CDLI no. P216932], which was the religious center of Lagash. In this field plan, a barrow is marked in the corner plot of land; see T HUREAU-D ANGIN, Recueil, 156. 70 See ARAB § 810 (the Rassam Cylinder) and 866 (Cylinder B).

66

Chapter Three: The Socio-Political Significance of Funerary Rites

advance into Babylonia, took specific actions to preserve the integrity of his ancestors.71 “[Merodach-Baladan] fled alone to the Sea-land and the gods of his whole land, with the bones of his fathers, (who lived) before (him), he gathered from their tombs, and his people, he loaded on ships.” ana mt tamtim edi ipparidma ilni maal mtu itti merti abbu marti ultu qereb kima ipirma niu ana qereb elippte uelima.

In one sense, the Assyrian policy demonstrates the inextricable link between funerary rituals and ancestor worship. Both cultural phenomena represent separate means of addressing the concerns of a single ideology, in this case an ideology of ancestors. For instance, regarding his destruction of the Elamite royal tombs and their burial content, Ashurbanipal states that he “…laid [them] restlessness upon their shades” by cutting off their supply of food and drink offerings.72 The impact of this practice is clear from several texts in the Hebrew Bible that evoke images reminiscent of the Assyrian descriptions. For instance (see below), the curse of exposed remains found in Esarhaddon’s vassal treaty with Tyre (Text A) appears also in Deut 28:26 (Text B).73 Text A. The Vassal Treaty of Esarhaddon “[May he–Ninurta–fill] the land [with your corpses]; may he feed your flesh to the vulture [and] jackal.” [pagrkunu limalla] mtim rka iru zbu [li]kil

Text B. Deuteronomy 28:26 “Your corpse shall be as food for all the birds of the heavens and the beasts of the earth, with none to disburse them.” dyrIx jm a Ny)': CrE) fh f tmah vb el ;w% MyIm a# @$fh a PwO( -lkfl ; lkf) jm al ; K1t ;l fb ;nI htfy:h wf

The image of exposed bodies that is utilized by the prophet Jeremiah effectively ties together the Deuteronomic curse with images evocative of 71 Cited from LUCKENBILL, Annals (the Nebi Yunus inscription, OIP 2, 85 Col. VI b:8–10); cf. C OGAN, Note, 31–32. 72 L UCKENBILL, § 810 (henceforth, ARAB); cf. C OGAN, Note, 30–31. For a discussion of this motif, as well as the act of desecrating tombs in Judah, see IDEM., Note, 29– 34; and B ARRICK, Cemeteries, 179–180. 73 W ISEMAN, Vassal-Treaties, Col. 6, 426–427; see also W EINFELD, Deuteronomic School, 116–129.

3.4. The Eradication of the House of Saul

67

Ashurbanipal’s treatment of the Elamite royal tombs in Jer 7:32–34 and 8:1–3.74 The literary image in the Hebrew Bible of disinterment and desecration underscores what was certainly a political concern of the ruling dynasties of Israel and Judah regarding their royal tombs.

3.4. The Eradication of the House of Saul The political expediency of desecrating the remains of the royal dead is an important factor in the biblical traditions regarding the end of Saul’s dynasty, found dispersed throughout the Book of Samuel (2 Sam 21:1–14 and 16:5–8). In 2 Samuel 21:1–14, the bodies of seven male heirs from the House of Saul are left exposed, yet the extraordinary actions of Saul’s concubine Rizpah (the mother of two of the executed individuals, Armoni and Mippiba‘al)75 prevented the bodies from becoming fodder for wild animals.76 The account is complicated and its interpretive issues are beyond the scope of this study.77 Regardless, it should be noted that two factors are at work in David’s action: execution as an act of divine mandate, and the eradication of a rival dynastic line. The biblical writer promotes the first factor by alluding to a violation by Saul of the covenant treaty between Israel and Gibeon (2 Sam 21:1), an action otherwise unaccounted for in Israel’s narrative history in the Hebrew Bible. This factor is obviously enforced by the realization of a curse (exposed corpses) described elsewhere in Deut 28:26 and Assyrian vassal-treaties. The parallel, however, is unusual in that the account in 2 Samuel 21 involves royal progeny, while the curse involves (by implication) the mortal remains of royal forbearers.78 The entire account of 2 Sam 21:1–14, however, ultimately draws upon royal burial in a way similar to the Assyrian accounts and consistent with 74

W EINFELD, Deuteronomic School, 140; and C OGAN, Note, 29–34. Similarly, Josiah’s desecration of the priestly tombs of Bethel, which involved the burning of human remains upon an altar, are reminiscent, if not exactly parallel, with Ashurbanipal’s defilement of the Gambulu remains at Nineveh; see B ARRICK, Cemeteries, 173–181. 75 Following M CC ARTER, II Samuel (AB), 439. 76 The curse in Deut 28:26 mentions the “beasts of the land” (CrE)fhf tmahvbel;), while 2 Sam 21:10 lists “the animals of the field” (hdE#@&fha ty,axa). The essence of 2 Sam 21:10 parallels Deut 28:26, where the curse of exposed bodies is actualized, although Rizpah serves the role of the “one who frightens away [scavenging wildlife]” (participle form of dyrIxvhe) – a role that is denied in the Deuteronomic curse. The verb, however, is not used in 2 Sam 21:10, which states simply that Rizpah did not allow (or “give”) the scavengers to “rest” upon the corpses, day or night. 77 See M CC ARTER, II Samuel (AB), 436–446 (with bibliography). 78 The description of the execution does bare some affinities to accounts of human sacrifice, see T ATLOCK, How, 176–177.

68

Chapter Three: The Socio-Political Significance of Funerary Rites

the ideology of the formulaic epilogues of the Book of Kings. When David is told of Rizpah’s actions, he decides to rebury Saul and his royal house in proper fashion. David brings the remains of Saul and those of his sons that were killed by the Philistines at Mt. Gilboa (2 Sam 21:12) to the tribal territory of Benjamin from Jabesh-Gilead (in Transjordan). In Benjamin, the “bones” (twOmc;(a) of Saul and his son Jonathan are given final interment where they “gather (Ps)) with the bones” of the seven executed sons (v. 13).79 Collectively, the remains of Saul and his sons are buried in Saul’s ancestral tomb (“the tomb of Kish, his father” [v. 14]). The ideological perspective that underlies the events surrounding the death of a king and dynastic succession are refracted through the proDavidic account of 2 Sam 21:1–14. The account engages the three principle components of dynastic succession: the dead king (Saul), the successors (his sons), and the ancestors (Kish), yet the legitimacy conveyed through burial inside an ancestral tomb is defused by the fact that David takes authority over the burials. The simple fact is that the narrative motive seeks to absolve David of any guilt in the execution of the seven, which is the only case where David seems to have held a direct role in the death of a member of the House of Saul. The events of 2 Sam 21:1–14 sheds light on the condemnation of Shimei, a man from the family of the House of Saul, recounted in 16:5–8. Although the Shimei’s curse occurs in the narrative before the execution of the seven sons of Saul, the chronology of events seems to have been transposed for literary purposes.80 The blood that David is accused of shedding in 16:7–8 is probably that of those executed in 21:6–9,81 which would then highlight the political significance David’s actions. Shimei’s accusation is made explicit in 2 Sam 16:8, when he states that YHWH is punishing David (who is in flight from his rebellious son Absalom) due to the blood David had shed from the House of Saul. This act of bloodshed stems from David’s efforts to “rule in its [the House of Saul’s] stead” (v. 8). The terminology here is identical to the third, and final, formula used in the dynastic epilogues of the Book of King, K7Olm;y,IwA wyt@fx ;t @a (“and he ruled in his stead”), although the phrasing is slightly different: wyt@fx;t@a82 t@fk;lamf r#$e)j (“of which you have ruled in its place”). The accusation of Shimei openly questions the legitimacy of David’s ruling 79 The MT vocalizes the verb as a Qal 3rd m. pl wayyiqol–form, “and they gathered with the bones of the impaled ones” (My(iqFw%m@ha twOmc;(a-t)e w%ps;)ay,awA). The form of  Ps) that is typically found in death notices (primarily for the Patriarchs) is Niphal, thus one would expect Pse)fy,"wA. The verbal root in the Qal-stem, however, usually takes the prepositional t) (as is the case in 2 Sam 21:13). 80 M CC ARTER, II Samuel (AB), 443. 81 H ALPERN, Secret Demons, 84–87. 82 Following the Q ere, wyt@fx;t@a, instead of wOt@x;t@a.

3.5. Summary Observations

69

house through the manipulation of terms that otherwise convey the rightful succession of power. The image of the treaty curse evoked in the execution of the seven sons may have been intended to address questions regarding the legitimacy of the House of David as a successor to the House of Saul. The complexity at the heart of the issue is the exploitation of funerary rites (non-burial versus burial) in order to resolve the politically sensitive problems faced by one ruling house replacing another.

3.5. Summary Observations The survey of archaeological remains of burial practices, as well as the textual evidence for the desecration of the dead, is representative of the socio-political factors that stand in the background of the royal epilogues in the Book of Kings. The formulaic means of expressing a ruler’s fate throughout Kings utilized imagery that stood for much more than death. The culture of power, within which the royal houses of the Levant operated, involved a set of symbols that could express the solvency of a dynasty despite the death of its titular figure – the king. Likewise, the denial or disruption of royal burials represented a political action that expressed the insolvency and demise of a dynasty. Therefore it is reasonable, and expected, to draw from ancient Near Eastern sources (material and textual) in order to reconstruct even the bare essence of royal tombs in the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. The material remains of royal tombs represent symbolic actions, and these symbols draw light on the manner by which the Book of Kings summarily closed the reign of a king. As stated in the previous chapter, the prevailing theme in royal funerary rites was one of identity, and this theme is optimized through the location of the burial site (the royal capital) as well as the means of interring the dead (notably through collective burials). The excavated remains at Qana, for example, bear strong evidence that a royal tomb could contain the collective remains of the dead. Likewise, the collective interment of the dead typified elite burials in the kingdom of Judah during the Iron Age II. Therefore it is quite plausible that the collective image evoked in the initial statement of the epilogue, the fathers, reflects this custom of communal burial along with all of the social implications attached to the custom. Furthermore, the representative survey of royal tombs has shown that intramural burial-sites were desirable regardless of the geological setting or local customs. The latter point is important, particularly in the case of Guzana during the early Iron Age, because it implies that intramural burials of royalty could occur in cultures where extramural burials were the rule. The epilogues repeat the generic statement “and he was buried in

70

Chapter Three: The Socio-Political Significance of Funerary Rites

[Tirzah, Samaria or the City of David],” which indicates that the royal tombs were within the confines of the respective capital, this in spite of the fact that burials in ancient Israel were typically extramural in location. The Assyrian and biblical descriptions of desecrating the royal dead is also important for understanding the formulaic notices found throughout Kings. The statements of the epilogues serve as testimony to the importance of the royal dead as symbols of dynastic integrity underling the narrative of the Book of Kings. Yet, the denial of burial is a potent image used in oracles of doom, found in Kings, which portend the downfall of northern dynasties. The stock statements of wildlife and the elements consuming the remains of the royal dead that is found in the Book of Kings appears to be part of a redactional effort to undermine the legitimacy of northern rule (or at least their legacy).83 The fact that burial was the trope that served to illustrate political legitimacy in the Book of Kings (and elsewhere), strongly suggests a critical role for the formulaic epilogues in the Book of Kings.

83 For the oracles, see 1 Kgs 14:7–16; 16:1–4; 21:21–24; 2 Kgs 9:6–10; for the fulfillment, see 1 Kgs 15:27–30; 16:11–13; 2 Kgs 9:25–26; 36–37; 10:10 and 17. Stephen McKenzie he suggests that these oracles were part of a Josianic redaction, rather than part of an original prophetic source; M CK ENZIE, Trouble; reprinted conveniently in Dog Food, 397–420.

Chapter Four

The Dynastic Notice “And Jehosphaphat lay with his fathers…”

4.1. Introduction The phrase “lay with his fathers” is a characteristic formula of the Deuteronomistic History (= DtrH), and although it is found once in Genesis (Gen 47:30), it occurs most commonly in the Book of Kings where it is applied exclusively to monarchs. Not only is the phrase a constituent component of the closing reference to a monarch’s career in the Book of Kings, but a variation of the phrase even appears in an Old Aramaic royal inscription from Tel Dan.1 The question becomes one of essence when the poetic expression “lay with his fathers” is isolated from the otherwise straightforward language found in the royal notices in Kings (both prologues and epilogues).2 The phrase had political connotations and its formulaic meaning becomes apparent when the full range of its literary usage is examined. The basic fact that the phrase occurs only with kings who are followed by their sons to the throne indicates that it signified dynastic integrity. Royal funerary rituals would have been the appropriate venue for addressing the critical problem of dynastic succession. The phrase “lay with his fathers” represents a scribal formula for dynastic succession and the application of this interpretation will provide further insight into the narrative accounts of kings and their deaths in the Book of Kings.3 1

The partially reconstructed Old Aramaic reads: wykb.’by.yhk.’l[.’bhw]h (KAI 310: 3); B IRAN and N AVEH, Tel Dan Inscription, 12–13. The parallel between the inscription and the book of Kings is commented on in M URAOKA, 78. See also the discussion of the phrase in S URIANO, Apology of Hazael, 164–166. 2 Wisdom literature often presents a peaceful death as the result of a moral and upright existence (e.g., Prov 10:7); in contrast, a key component of the royal notices in the DtrH is the presentation of a chronological framework that is otherwise devoid of moral evaluation; N OTH, Deuteronomistic, 18. (This is of course setting aside the judgment formulae.) The essential nature of the framework runs against the basic premise of interpretations of peaceful death signification. 3 For a semiotic analysis of the representation of a king’s death in the Book of Kings, see also HAMILTON, Body Royal, 146–182. Hamilton’s study discusses much of the same literature (from Kings) that is covered in this chapter, albeit from a different perspective.

72

Chapter Four: The Dynastic Notice

The phrase begins with the wyql-form of the root bk#$,4 which has the meaning of “to lie down.” Within the context of death and burial, the verb typically indicates action in side the tomb. The verb is also used outside the formulaic phrase to allude to a king’s death,5 most notably in prophetic oracles that appear to emulate (if not mock) royal dirges. Two oracles in particular, Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 32, draw upon the sense of bk#$ to portray the death of a foreign king (Babylonian and Egyptian, respectively) and their plight in the afterlife (discussed in Chapter Seven). Likewise, kb appears in royal funerary inscriptions from Phoenician (typically inscribed on sarcophagi) where it describes the situation of the dead king (KAI 9A–B, 13, and 14). Finally, the variation of the phrase “to lie with fathers” found in the Tel Dan inscription also demonstrates the political implications of the phrase. The clause “and my father lay and he went to his [fathers]” (line 3) appears alongside a series of apologetic motifs that were used to establish the legitimacy of Hazael.6 Thus, the Tel Dan Inscription bears witness to the utility of the phrase in political propaganda, legitimizing a king – Hazael – known in Assyrian sources as the “son of nobody.”7

4.2. The Northern Kingdom The appropriate beginning for this analysis is the northern kingdom, where the DtrH records the rise and fall of several rulers and five royal dynasties. Within this narrative chronology it is possible to test the viability of the phrase as a scribal formula for royal succession. Furthermore, scholars often use the royal epilogues of the northern kingdom as an example of how the specific application of “lay with his fathers” signified type and

4 See the lexical entries in K ÖHLER and B AUMGARTNER, HALOT 2, 1487; B EUKEN, art. bk@a#$; ekab, §§ 1306–1318. 5 The following examples from Isaiah and Ezekiel, as well as the Phoenician royal funerary inscriptions will be discussed in full in Chapter Six. Note also the appearance of the verb at the beginning of the passage in Job 3:13–14; “For now would I lie down [bk#$] and be quite so that I would sleep? Then it will be rest for me with kings and counselors of the land who build ruins for themselves.” The passage comes within Job’s statement that he regrets he had not been stillborn (3:11–12). The verb begins Job’s description of death and relates his current status (relative to the imminent death he expects) in order to contrast the burial of the elite (vv. 14–15) with those without status (v. 16), in this case, children who had never lived. For the rhetoric of death and burial in Job’s speeches, see SURIANO, Death, 49–66. 6 Apology of Hazael, 172, cf. 164–166. 7 Refer the discussion in Y OUNGER JR., Hazael, 245–270.

4.2. The Northern Kingdom

73

manner of death.8 As Shoshana Bin-Nun first observed, however, a usurper to the throne would not necessarily be concerned with the recording of a predecessor’s burial.9 The interpretation presented here finds further support in the referential consistency of the phrase, appearing only in epilogues where dynastic succession occurs. Without exception, the phrase is applied to every dynasty of Israel; beginning with Jeroboam, through the extended dynasties of Omri and Jehu, and including the obscure and shortlived houses of Baasha and Menahem.10 The inverse is also true, as the phrase is never applied to any king whose death marked the end of his dynasty.11 4.2.1. The House of Omri and the Death of Ahab The death of Ahab is the classic example of the problems inherent with the peaceful-death interpretation.12 Various stylistic reasons and historical difficulties indicate that the story of Jehoshaphat and the “King of Israel” in 1 Kings 20–22 is a literary reworking of older traditions,13 and it is not surprising that the occurrence of the phrase in 1 Kg 22:40 has resulted in much discussion.14 The account of the king’s death, contained within the Elijah-Elisha Cycle, consists of his mortal wound (sustained in battle) and subsequent loss of blood eventuating in his ultimate demise (22:34–35). 8

D RIVER, Plurima, 139–140. B IN-N UN, Formulas, 430. Despite this observation, Bin-Nun (Formulas, 429) still followed the peaceful death-theory. See also the similar remarks (regarding the absence of the dynastic oracle) found in the earlier work of S TEUERNAGEL, Lehrbuch, 345 § 76, 1. 10 Jeroboam (1 Kg 14:40); Baasha (1 Kg 16:6); Omri (1 Kg 16:28); Ahab (1 Kg 22:40); Jehu (2 Kg 10:35); Jehoahaz (2 Kg 13:9); Joash (2 Kg 13:13 and 14:16); Jeroboam II (2 Kg 14:29); and Menahem (2 Kg 15:22). The stock phrase begins with Jeroboam I, where it does not contain a burial reference. This version of the phrase, minus burial information, occurs also with Ahab (1 Kg 22:40) and Menahem (2 Kg 15:22); see B EGRICH, Chronologie, 190. Refer Jeroboam II (2 Kg 14:29), where the clause “with the kings of Israel” appears in place of the burial notice. The references to royal tombs (first Tirzah and then Samaria) appear with the reign of Baasha; BIN-NUN, Formulas, 427. 11 See the closing notices of Nadab (1 Kg 15:27–31); Elah (1 Kg 16:10–14); Joram (2 Kg 9:24–26); Zechariah (2 Kg 15:10–11); Shallum (2 Kg 15:14–15); Pekahiah (2 Kg 15:25–26); Pekah (2 Kg 15:30–31); and the captivity of Hoshea in 2 Kg 17:4. 12 D RIVER, Plurima, 139–140. See the discussion of the symbolic representation of the “king” of Israel (versus the King of Judah) in this account, see H AMILTON, Body Royal, 170–174. 13 For a good discussion of the issues, see P ITARD, Ancient Damascus, 115–125. 14 Note, for example, the attempts to interpret the account in M ILLER, Elisha Cycle, 441–454; see also JEPSEN, Israel, 153–172; J ONES, Kings Vol. 2 (NCBC), 360–362; NA’AMAN, Was Ahab, 461–474. The peaceful-death interpretation leads Jones (Kings Vol. 2 [NCBC], 373; cf. 338) to surmise that the Dtr historian applied the phrase, unaware of the account of Ahab’s death in battle (which would then be a later addition). 9

74

Chapter Four: The Dynastic Notice

The narrative continues with the transportation and return of Ahab’s body back to Samaria and its burial in the royal capital (v. 37). A statement follows that relates Ahab’s death to an earlier prophecy,15 invoking a dishonorable image of the royal chariot covered in blood (v. 38). Finally, the record summation of Ahab’s reign occurs, culminating with the royal epilogue (v. 40). The use of the dynastic notice in Ahab’s case is one of the few instances in which the formula is applied to a king after the account of his burial (cf. 1 Kg 22:37).16 The death and burial of Ahab, however, are important components in the narrative structure of his demise and the insertion of the standard epilogue into this structure would have been intrusive. The source citation and the abbreviated epilogue in vv. 39–40 were simply appended to the account in order to introduce Ahab’s son and successor Ahaziah (vv. 51–53) and to provide a historical synchronism with Jehoshaphat of Judah (vv. 41–50). Ahab’s son Ahaziah succeeded him to the throne, thus representing the continuation of the Omride dynasty.17 4.2.2. The House of Jehu The longest-lived northern dynasty, the House of Jehu, lasted almost a century and shows the consistency of the dynastic formula in signifying the legitimate lineage of a royal house where the right of kingship passed from father to son. Indeed, the specific application of the dynastic notice in the accounts of the later kings of the House of Jehu is quite revealing, and the occurrence of this formula for each king in the line of Jehu (save the last, Zechariah) reveals much about the phrase’s political currency.18 The formulaic phrase is applied twice to the third king of this dynasty, Joash (2 Kg 13:13 and 14:16), and represents the only repeated occurrence of the dynastic notice for a king other than David. The double use of the formula in fact points to Joash’s heir, Jeroboam II, who was the penultimate king of the House of Jehu. The dynastic formula, in the case of Joash and his son Jeroboam, is tied to the phrases used for the notice of the successor and relates directly to Jehu’s dynastic charter (discussed in Chapter Six).

15

See 1 Kg 21:19. The other occurrence is in the account of Amaziah (2 Kg 14:20, 22), which will be treated below. 17 A similar conclusion is reached in SWEENEY, I & II Kings (OTL), 262, although he does not discuss it further. 18 From the rise of Jehu to the reign of Jeroboam II, the formula occurs at the end of each reign until the assassination of Zechariah (2 Kg 15:10), which ended the long lasting northern dynasty’s tenure at almost a hundred years. 16

4.3. The Kingdom of Judah

75

4.3. The Kingdom of Judah The ruling dynasty of the Kingdom of Judah, the House of David, extended over several hundred years and its description purposefully dominated the Book of Kings, making its example much more complicated than that of the northern kingdom. For instance, the specific mention and naming of the crown prince’s mother, upon his accession to the throne, shows that maintaining the integrity of the rite of succession was critical in Judah.19 Furthermore, due to the prominence of the House of David in the Book of Kings, the phrase is found in idiomatic form in several key passages revolving around the figures of David and, in one case, Josiah. A review of the various uses of the dynastic notice, in its various manifestations, will demonstrate the linear manner in which the phrase represented the political legitimacy and divine endorsement of the House of David extending across a chain of multiple generations. The appearance of the phrase in idiomatic form in the important dynastic traditions of 2 Samuel 7 and 1 Kings 2, and its repeated use in formulaic form in the epilogues of Kings creates an image of a divinely sanctioned royal lineage that extends over several centuries. 4.3.1. The United Monarchy and the Establishment of the Dynasty The regnal account of David and Solomon, as depicted in the Book of Kings, is a literary construct of the late monarchy and later (postmonarchal) periods.20 The purpose of this narrative is to present a picture of a unified Israel (the United Monarchy) that was ruled by one royal dynasty, the House of David. As such, literary traditions such as the Dynastic Oracle (2 Samuel 7) and the Succession Narrative confirmed the sovereignty of the dynasty and the legitimacy of the royal line. The dynastic notice, “lay with his fathers,” is featured prominently within this literature and is used on four different occasions for David, which is hardly surprising, given that he is the eponymous founder of the royal lineage of Judah. Twice the phrase is addressed to David in direct discourse, first by the court prophet Nathan (2 Sam 7:12) and then by Queen Bathsheba (1 Kg 1:21). Twice the phrase is used in a more formulaic manner, first in the epilogue of David’s reign and then in an account of the early reign of Solomon. In the first two instances, the phrase was manipulated in key texts

19

Discussed in H ALPERN and V ANDERHOOFT, Editions, 197–199. For a recent suggestion that places the creation of this literary construct during the reign of Hezekiah, see SCHNIEDEWIND, How the Bible; see also, IBID., Jerusalem, 375– 393; and similarly F INKELSTEIN and S ILBERMAN, Temple and Dynasty, 259–285. 20

76

Chapter Four: The Dynastic Notice

that legitimated the royal house, while the second two instances served to introduce Solomon as the first sign of dynastic fulfillment. 4.3.1.1. The Dynastic Oracle The occurrence of the succession-formula in Nathan’s prophecy (2 Sam 7:1–17) is meant to invoke a strong sense of dynasty.21 This prophecy consists of two oracles that deal with the construction of the Temple (vv. 4–7) and the foundation of the dynasty (vv. 8–16).22 In the second oracle, representing the dynasty’s royal grant,23 YHWH makes known to David that he “will make a house for you” (2 Sam 7:11). Immediately following this verse YHWH refers to David’s eventual demise, stating “when your days are complete and you lie with your fathers, I will raise up your seed after you, who will come forth from your loins and I will establish his kingdom” (2 Sam 7:12).24 The inheritance implications of the phrase “lay with fathers” are enlisted here to legitimate David’s dynasty.25 Following the application of this phrase, David is promised progeny and a royal house. The terminology (in particular Nwk) conveys the establishment of the dynasty by combining terms for sovereignty (hkflfm;ma and )s@'k@i) with symbols of lineage and patrimony such as (rAzE, and most importantly tyIb.@f 26 The position of v. 12 is important because it is followed by an exegetical insertion regarding Solomon and the construction of the Temple in v. 13. This inner-textual exegesis is an interpretive play upon the word “house” (tyIb@f) in v. 11b,27 and is prompted by the reference to David’s heir in v. 12.28 The exegetical insertion is marked by Wiederaufnahme in 21 It is significant that 2 Sam 7:11 represents the only occurrence of the phrase in the book of Samuel, noted already in A LFRINK, bk@a#$;y,IwA, 108. 22 SCHNIEDEWIND, Society, 34–35. The dynastic ideology is discussed in ISHIDA, Royal Dynasties, 81–117. 23 SCHNIEDEWIND, Society, 28–39. A third motif of the 2 Sam 7:1–16 is the divine endorsement of the ruling dynasty, I DEM., Society, 28. 24 Halpern and Vanderhooft have correctly observed that 2 Kg 7:12a begins with an expression signifying the completion of events within an ordered period of time: “when your days are fulfilled” (K1ymeyF w%)l;m;yI yk@i). Thus, they are correct in stating that this passage emphasizes succession (and thus, dynasty) by rendering K1ytebo)j-t)e t@fb;ka#$fw: as “the sequel to the fulfillment of David’s days…,” H ALPERN and V ANDERHOOFT, Editions, 185. 25 The early function of Nathan’s prophecy was to legitimate the Davidic Dynasty, for a full discussion refer S CHNIEDEWIND, Society, 47–50. 26 ISHIDA, Royal Dynasties, 107. 27 SCHNIEDEWIND, Society, 35. For a full survey of the political sense of tyb in this oracle, refer ISHIDA, Royal Dynasties, 100–103. 28 The pronoun “he” ()w%h) refers to Solomon, but also functions as a marker (or introduction) of the exegetical insertion, S CHNIEDEWIND, Society, 35; see also F ISHBANE, Biblical Interpretation, 44–46 (cited by Schniedewind). This use of the pronoun is further

4.3. The Kingdom of Judah

77

the repetition of similar phrases built upon the verbal root Nwk: “I will cause to be established (Nykih'*) his kingdom” (v. 12b) // “I will establish (Nn"wOk*) the throne of his kingdom” (v. 13b). The insertion links the two oracles and continues the portrayal of the promised dynasty by describing David’s son, though the purpose of the insertion is to refer to the Temple. 4.3.1.2. The Succession Narrative Since the classic study of Leonhard Rost,29 scholars have labeled the narrative of 2 Samuel 9–20 and 1 Kings 1–2 the “Succession Narrative,” due to its subject matter; the rise of the Davidic monarchy culminating in Solomon’s accession to his father’s throne. The scholarship on the Succession Narrative, subsequent to Rost’s work, is vast and has resulted in new questions over the date and the coherence of the text.30 In particular, the relationship between 2 Samuel 9–20 and 1 Kings 1–2 has been challenged.31 Indeed, the problem of succession (and the rise of Solomon) is not even addressed until 1 Kings 1–2, thus some have preferred the term “Court History” for this specific block of narrative.32 But legitimate succession is the main topos of 1 Kings 1–2, and it is not surprising that the dynastic notice appears twice in this part of the story. The first appearance occurs in a crucial speech by Bathsheba (1 Kg 1:21) and the second appearance comes in David’s epilogue (2:10), which occurs within an extended account of his last days that recapitulates the narrative as a whole (vv. 1–13).33 distinguished by its syntax, as it does not follow the normal narrative pattern of wyql verbal-forms, but instead begins with the subject followed by the verb. 29 R OST, Überlieferung; the English translation, R OST, Succession Narrative (1982) will be cited in this study. 30 It is beyond the purpose of this study to offer a full review of the scholarship regarding the Succession Narrative. For a brief bibliography, refer the works of WHYBRAY, Succession Narrative, and, WÜRTHWEIN, Erzählung; cf. the collection of essays in DE PURY and RÖMER, eds., Sogenannte Thronfolgegeschichte; and BARTON, Dating, 95–106. 31 To quote one scholar: “Whatever the origins of 1 Kings 1–2, this material has clearly been written as the completion to the court history of David.” K NOPPERS, Two Nations, Vol. 1, 63. McKenzie (So-Called Succession, 129–131) notes that the Succession Narrative is a complicated literary work that was probably created through a compilation of earlier sources with 1 Kings 1–2 as a critical component in unifying the narrative. See also the brief comments in S TAVRAKOPOULOU, Ancestral Advocacy, 10–11. 32 See F ORSHEY, Court Narrative, 1172–1179. 33 Rost had suggested that 1 Kings 2 was secondary, though strands such as vv. 13–25 represent the conclusion to important plot developments in 1 Kings 1. As such, vv. 1–12 provide necessary closure by describing the end of David’s life. See R OST, Succession Narrative, 67–73. See also the scholarship cited in footnotes 30–31 (above), and in particular the works of Gary Knoppers and Steven McKenzie. It seems evident that 1 Kings 1–2 was designed and fitted in the present text to conclude 2 Samuel 9–20 in order to bring necessary closure to the reign of David and commence his dynastic line.

78

Chapter Four: The Dynastic Notice

Bathsheba, in her response to Adonijah's attempt at the throne, refers to an oath that the dying king had sworn, designating Solomon as the crown prince (1 Kg 1:17).34 Bathsheba ends her brief speech by referring to the elderly king’s imminent death, stating that when David “lies with his fathers” she and her son will be “sinners” (= My)i+@fxa; 1 Kg 1:21). In this passage the phrase is rendered using the consecutive infinitive form of bk#. This grammatical form follows the consecutive perfect form of the copula hyh, which establishes the temporal context of the clause along with the _k particle. Thus, her statement refers to the results of a future event that has significant ramifications for Bathsheba and her son: “and it will be when the King, my lord, is lying with his fathers.” It is an oversimplification of the matter to say that the phrase here refers to the cessation of David’s life;35 the completion of a ritual action is what threatens the life of Bathsheba and Solomon. The end result of this action is expressed through the substantive adjective My)i+@fxa, which is also modified by a consecutiveperfect form of the copula (effectively concluding Bathsheba’s statement). It was not simply the death of the king that would have rendered Bathsheba and Solomon “sinners,” but the fact that the king’s oath would be abrogated.36 Bathsheba’s implication is that Adonijah’s finalization of the succession (involving David’s interment) will breach the dead king’s oath and place Bathsheba and her son in violation. The phrase follows the statement: “the eyes of all Israel are upon you, to tell them who shall sit on the throne of my lord the king after him” (1 Kg 1:20).37 The phrase “sit upon the throne” ()s@'k@i-l(a b#$ayF) is an important motif in 1 Kings 1–2 and is found throughout the literary block, with v. 20 as the climax of the story.38 Yet, v. 20 should not be read in isolation, because Bathsheba further specifies the acute problem of dynasty and proper succession in the following verse (v. 21) when she makes idiomatic reference to the dynastic notice. The dynastic notice assumes its standard form in David’s epilogue (1 Kg 2:10). The epilogue itself, however, is conflated and includes only the 34

Again, like the accounts of Joseph and Eleazar, the passage here implies that it was the prerogative of the heir to bury his father and carry out his last wishes. 35 Thus, H ALPERN and V ANDERHOOFT, Editions, 185–186. The end of David’s life is inevitable and the event of his death is a given fact in this dialogue. 36 Gray states correctly that the term )+@fxa has a more specific nuance of “defaulters,” such as the default of a pledge, G RAY, I & II Kings (OTL), 89; see also, J ONES, Kings Vol. 1 (NCBC), 95–96. 37 According to Jones, the statement indicates that succession was not automatically decided according to the right of the firstborn, but by the decision of the king; JONES, Kings Vol. 1 (NCBC), 95. 38 R OST, Succession Narrative, 68. The essence of the Succession Narrative is Bathsheba’s statement of 1 Kg 1:20, first noted by Rost and discussed in L ONG, 1 Kings (FOTL), 36.

4.3. The Kingdom of Judah

79

dynastic notice and an abbreviated burial notice.39 The burial notice in v. 10b places David’s burial in the City of David, but omits the prepositional phrase “with his fathers” (see Chapter Five). The introduction of the heir and successor, Solomon, comes later and appears in an irregular fashion (v. 12). Before Solomon is introduced, however, a retrospective statement occurs: “the days that David ruled over Israel were forty, in Hebron he reigned seven years and in Jerusalem he reigned thirty-three” (v. 11). The verse establishes the fulfillment of David’s sovereign reign, equating his life (literally, his “days”) with the symbolic number for a full generation (“forty years”). Finally, Solomon is introduced in the statement that he “sat upon the throne of David, his father, and the kingdom was established greatly” (v. 12). The epilogue complex of 1 Kg 2:10–12 is built upon a shifting syntactical structure that contains important allusions to the Dynastic Oracle.40 The literary unit begins and ends with waw-consecutive verbal forms (first with the dynastic and burial notices), but within this bracket the unit contains several phrases that do not use this narrative style. The first set of such clauses describe in detail the fulfillment of David’s days as king (v. 11), which is an allusion to a phrase in the Dynastic Oracle that immediately precedes the dynastic notice: “And when your days are fulfilled…” (2 Sam 7:12a).41 The second subject-verb statement concerns Solomon sitting upon the throne, which alludes back to 1 Kings 1 (cf. v. 20) and draws upon the Dynastic Oracle (2 Sam 7:13b; cf. 12b). These allusions refer to passages that involve an idiomatic form of the dynastic notice (2 Sam 7:12b and 1 Kg 1:21), highlighting the legitimizing purpose of the literature involved. The extended notice ends with the 3rd f.sg waw-consecutive form (1 Kg 2:12b), which is the Niphal of Nwk, “prepare; establish,” serving also as a frame with hnFwOknF in v. 46b (“and the kingdom was established in Solomon’s hand”). Thus, the Niphal form of Nwk brackets the story of 39 Jones notes that the epilogue represents “an integral part of the narrative” as the notification of David’s death, JONES, Kings Vol. 1 (NCBC), 109; rather than a redactional insertion, so M ONTGOMERY and G EHMAN, Kings (ICC), 90. 40 Earlier studies had noted connections with 2 Sam 7, see for instance the second chapter of R OST, Succession Narrative, 35–56. Scholarship today generally recognizes that the passage reflects the work of the Deuteronomist, purposefully drawing upon the ideology of the dynastic oracle, see K NOPPERS, Two Nations, Vol. 1, 64–65. M CK ENZIE, So-Called Succession, 129–130. 41 C OGAN, 1 Kings (AB), 175. Cogan does not observe the connection with 2 Sam 7:12a, however he notes that 1 Kg 2:11 is a repetition of 2 Sam 5:5 (which begins David’s reign from his royal capital). Rost (Succession Narrative, 73) had suggested that v. 11 was not part of the original source because of its chronological nature (and thus, its resemblance to other passages). Yet, the reference to 2 Sam 7:12a makes Rost’s suggestion unnecessary. The verse was part of the extended epilogue of 1 Kg 2:10–12.

80

Chapter Four: The Dynastic Notice

Solomon rise in vv. 13–45 and concludes the account of his accession that runs through 1 Kings 1–2.42 The use of this root intentionally draws upon the Dynastic Oracle, specifically the two statements regarding “the seed that he [YHWH] will raise up from your loins after you” (2 Sam 7:12a).43 The first statement immediately follows the introduction of David’s heir (v.12a), where the king is told that YHWH “will make established [ytinOykih'] his [the heir’s] kingdom” (v. 12b). In 2 Sam 7:13b (following the exegetical gloss of v. 13a), the divine establishment of the Davidic heir’s sovereign power is again promised using a Polel form of the same root (Nwk): “and I will establish [yt@in:nAk]44 the throne of his kingdom.” The Dynastic Oracle ends with the assurance of perdurable sovereignty: “before you, your throne shall be established [NwOknF] for ever” (2 Sam 7:16b). The verbs used in both statements (Nykih' and Nn"wOk) are from the same root used (Nwk) to describe the inception of Solomon’s royal dominion in 1 Kg 2:12b and 46b.45 Additionally, the epilogue concludes the final account of David, as 1 Kg 2:1–12 represents a literary style of “death report” seen not only in the story of 42

In addition to its descriptive function introducing the inception of the dynasty, the first two chapters of Kings represent the introduction to Solomon’s reign, which follows through 1 Kings 1–11; see B RETTLER, Structure, 87–89. 43 Long distinguishes v.12b as the beginning of the account of Solomon’s transition, and hence a new unit, LONG, 1 Kings (FOTL), 46–48. The MT marks 1 Kg 2:12 as the end of the literary unit, inclusive of both 12a–b. Cogan comments on the verse, although he seems to follow the G L, which marks off a new literary unit beginning with this verse. On this version of Kings, see also the earlier discussion in M ONTGOMERY and G EHMAN, Kings (ICC), 91. Cogan notes in support of this division the fact that the wording is repeated in vv. 44 and 45b, again with the use of Nwk in the Niphal stem to describe the firm establishment of Solomon’s kingdom and his throne, C OGAN, 1 Kings (AB), 175. Montgomery and Gehman argue that the syntax makes the nominal clause anticipatory, translating it as: “and Solomon having taken his seat upon his father David’s throne, and his rule being well established …” (v.12). Thus, leading into the account of Adonijah; see M ONTGOMERY and G EHMAN, Kings (ICC), 91. The literary structure of the passage, however, is not marked by source division, but rather by the transitional nature of vv. 10–12. The account of Solomon’s political efforts to solidify his nascent rule follows organically from the epilogue statements, which introduce him as king. 44 The Polel of Nwk is used in the Song of the Sea, the prominent archaic poem of Exodus 15, where w%nn:wOk@ (“[your hands] have established,” v.17b) refers to the establishment of the sanctuary. What is notable here is that Psalm 78, which has the root Nwk, draws heavily from Exodus 15 (cf. Ps 78:44–55) and is related thematically to 2 Samuel 7 as well, S CHNIEDEWIND, Society, 68. Note that in Ps 78:37 the Niphal participle NwOknF in v. 37 appears alongside Nma)vnE. 45 Baruch Halpern discusses the parallel between 1 Kings 2 and 2 Samuel 7 and notes that Nwk only occurs in Kings to describe Solomon’s reign, H ALPERN, First Historians, 145. Contrast the verb use in 2 Kg 14:5 where qzx (“to be strong”) is used to describe the stable condition of Amaziah’s kingdom once he had secured power.

81

4.3. The Kingdom of Judah

Jacob (Gen 49–50:1–13), but also with Joshua’s passing (Josh 23–24:30).46 Rost even refers to 1 Kg 2:1–12 as “David’s testament,”47 as the passage brings the closure (David’s death) necessary for the transition of Solomon’s reign.48 The death report-genre does not occur for any other king but David, and here it clearly serves an important role in the tradition of the royal house’s founding ancestor. Figure 3. David’s Epilogue and its Literary Allusions First Kings 2:10–12 and 2 Samuel 7 v. v. v. v.

10a 11 12a 12b

Dynastic notice  bk# Mwyo The days that David reigned )s@'k @i- l(a b#$ay Solomon sits upon the throne The kingdom is firmly established Nwk

> > > >

2 2 2 2

Sam 7:12b; cf. 1 Kg 1:19 Sam 7:12a Sam 7:13b; cf. 1 Kg 1:20 Sam 7:12b, 13b, 16

The dynastic notice was engaged in 1 Kings 1–2 to present the legitimacy of the House of David in its nascent state. These chapters focus on the political question of dynastic succession and, thus, relate to the apologetic nature of 2 Samuel 9–25, which addressed various issues related to David.49 While there is certainly early source material in 1 Kings 1–2,50 in its present form the Succession Narrative represents an extensive Deuteronomistic reworking that was intent on presenting the inception of the dynasty. Thus, the primary concern behind this work was the House of 46

L ONG, 1 Kings (FOTL), 42. R OST, Succession Narrative, 71; S WEENEY, I & II Kings (OTL), 59–60, (following Long) stretches the comparison to the farewell address common throughout the DtrH (including Samuel in 1 Samuel 12). The words of the dying king in vv. 1–9 (and 10–11), may bear similarities to the DtrH speech-form, but the declaration is rather short and conforms better in its basic features to that of Jacob’s testament. 48 R OST, Succession Narrative, 71–73. 49 Several studies have analyzed the point and purpose of the apology in 2 Sam 9–20; see M CC ARTER, 1 Samuel (AB), 27–30; V ANDERK AM, Davidic Complicity, 521–539. The nine major points of these studies are surveyed in M CK ENZIE, So-Called Succession, 127–129. For a full discussion, see H ALPERN, Secret Demons, 73–103. 50 The apologetic material may be early, as studies of this type of literature in the ancient Near East indicate that they usually functioned to address questions of a ruler’s legitimacy when the time came to choose his heir. This point is discussed specifically in TADMOR, 37–38. For a study of Hittite apologetic literature, see HOFFNER, Propoganda, 49–62. See also the work of Tomoo Ishida for a thorough comparative study of ancient Near Eastern royal-apologies and the Succession Narrative; ISHIDA, Solomon, 145–153, and Succession Narrative, 166–173. In fact, the Tel Dan inscription provides a salient example of the use of the formula in royal apologies found in extra-biblical sources, see SURIANO, Apology of Hazael, 171–173. 47

82

Chapter Four: The Dynastic Notice

David,51 a concern apparent in the fact that the Dynastic Oracle does not specify Solomon as the scion of David (despite the exegetical gloss in 2 Sam 7:13a that alludes to Solomon as the Temple builder).52 In fact, the accession of Adonijah would have certainly fulfilled Nathan’s prophecy; therefore, the narrative presupposes a historical time frame when Solomon’s legitimacy had become established.53 4.3.1.3. The Transition of Solomon (1 Kings 11:21) The reign of Solomon is given a negative depiction in 1 Kings 11 as the king is portrayed as veering from the Deuteronomistic norm with regards to both marital and cultic practices. The result of Solomon’s multiple foreign-wives (vv. 1–4) and sacrilege (vv. 5–10) is divine punishment in the form of foreign opponents (vv. 14–22 and 23–25). One adversarial figure, Hadad, is described as a prince of Edom in Egyptian exile who sought to return to his homeland when he heard that David “lay with his fathers” (1 Kg 11:21). The dynastic notice here was not narrowly confined to a simple report of David’s death and burial, but in a broader sense, functioned to indicate the political significance of Solomon’s assumption of power. A king’s accession to the throne often represented a period of political weakness and instability, providing an opportune time for a political opponent like Hadad.54 The dynastic grant given to David (the so-called “eternal promise”) is one of the principal themes of the DtrH,55 and Solomon’s succession

51

Similarly, R. N. Whybray noted that the literature’s greater purpose was “the stability of the dynasty and regime.” W HYBRAY, Succession Narrative, 51–53. 52 K NOPPERS, Two Nations, Vol. 1, 64–65, 69–71. 53 Knoppers (Two Nations, Vol. 1, 69–71) refers to the oath of 1 Kg 2:24 (cf. 1:17) as an anachronistic insertion that asserts Solomon’s divine appointment, which was retrospective in its confirmation of a royal lineage that was already several generations past Solomon’s era. 54 Contra H ALPERN and V ANDERHOOFT, Editions, 186. In the passage, “the critical element” implied by the phrase is not David’s death, but rather the vulnerability of the kingdom during the initial stage of Solomon’s reign. See similarly the discussion in Parker Pearson (Archaeology of Death, 58–59) of elaborate Egyptian royal funerary rites as a means of addressing the political uncertainty following the death of a ruler (in this case Tutankhamen), which is relevant for understanding the sense of 1 Kg 11:21. 55 VON RAD, Studies, 74–75. The theme, first stressed by von Rad, is discussed in CROSS, Canaanite Myth, 276–277. The point is expressed in Cross’s statement (Canaanite Myth, 278): “The persistence of the Deuteronomistic stress upon the eternal decree of Davidic kingship cannot be explained as a survival of royal ideology taken over mechanically from monarchist sources. It must be pertinent to the Deuteronomistic theology of history.” Solomon plays a part in the major theme of the DtrH, that being the centralization of the cult (Deuteronomy 12). Thus, Solomon’s role as the Temple-builder,

4.3. The Kingdom of Judah

83

marked an important phase in the history of the royal dynasty of Judah and a critical stage in the fulfillment of the dynastic theme.56 The narrative of 1 Kings 11, however, does not fit well with earlier comments, such as 1 Kg 5:8, that portray Solomon’s reign as peaceful and enlightened.57 One obvious function of the narrative unit of 1 Kings 11 is that it establishes the setting for the division of the kingdom under Solomon’s son Rehoboam. Thus, the presentation of the United Monarchy’s eventual downfall is foreshadowed in YHWH’s reprimand of Solomon in 1 Kg 11:11–13, the description of his sins, and the rise of the King’s adversaries. Just as Solomon’s reign marked the beginning of the Davidic lineage, the account of his sacrilegious practices established a type of linear culpability of the monarchy that resulted in the division of the kingdom and eventually the fall of Jerusalem.58 The dynastic notice’s appearance in 1 Kg 11:21 further advances the concept of David’s lineage while also introducing the punishment of the dynasty’s (eventually fateful) disobedience.59 4.3.2. The Lineage of David and the Kingdom of Judah The line of Davidic rulers is found in a relatively stable lineage that runs throughout the book of Kings. The dynastic notice appears consistently with each new ruler, following the normative son-succeeding-father pattern. This structural pattern presents in a rough form a single line that extends from David through Manasseh (with its final appearance in the epi-

along with his position as first in the line of David, explain his importance in the DtrH’s depiction of the United Monarchy; see also S WEENEY, Critique, 609–610. 56 Sweeney’s contention that Solomon failed the Dtr ideal, in part, because he was never nominated by the people is disputed in G LATT-G ILAD, Deuteronomistic Critique, 702. Glatt-Gilad counter-argues that nomination by assembly is only necessary for the dynasty’s founder–all following kings within this dynasty follow the principle of dynastic succession. 57 Although it is possible to date the chapter as late and post-DtrH, the literary unit is difficult to date as it contains no internal clues such as anachronistic imagery or philologically late (or even early) material. 58 Sweeney interprets the passage’s negative character in light of Deut 17:14–20 and suggests that Solomon is presented as an antitype for the Dtr’s positive portrayal of Josiah, S WEENEY, Critique, 607–622; see also G LATT-G ILAD, Deuteronomistic Critique, 700–703. 59 The account, however, is telescoped as the return of the adversary (Hadad) occurs at Solomon’s accession but is used to describe his punishment for sins committed throughout the length of his reign. Thus, in one sense the dynastic notice in 1 Kg 11:21 is meant to draw attention to the theological reasons behind Solomon’s political deficiency. The primary reason, however is to establish a linear description of the House of David, despite the narration of the past that results in temporal displacement.

84

Chapter Four: The Dynastic Notice

logue of Jehoiakim),60 which collectively symbolizes the patrimonial integrity of the royal house of Judah. The royal epilogues for each member of this line, however, do contain some variation as seen notably in the burial notices (discussed in Chapter Five). Furthermore, there are two phases of disruption: the period associated with the interregnum of Athaliah and during the fateful time of the latter kings of Judah. Following the period of Athaliah’s reign, the dynastic notice is not reinstated until its occurrence with Amaziah (used in this instance in an unusual manner). This phase of dynastic disruption, where the dynastic notice is absent from the royal epilogues, provides further basis for understanding the dynastic symbolism imbued within the introductory formula of the royal epilogues (“and PN lay with his fathers”). 4.3.2.1. The Interregnum of Athaliah Athaliah’s bloody rise to power (2 Kg 11:1–2), initiated with the death of Ahaziah, signified an interruption of the paternal descent of power in Jerusalem. In fact, the eradication of all male heirs in the palace was a blatant attempt to eliminate the House of David.61 Therefore, it would have been inappropriate (and incorrect) for the Deuteronomistic tradent to assign the dynastic notice to the epilogues of Ahaziah (or Athaliah, for that matter). Ahaziah’s death and Athaliah’s subsequent coup marked the nadir of the royal dynasty, which was only revived with the installation of the young prince Jehoash (2 Kg 11:4–20). Because of this phase of dynastic disruption, the dynastic notice is absent from Ahaziah’s epilogue and is not applied to Athaliah (who does not have an epilogue).62 Furthermore, it is likely that this disruption in patrilinear descent led to a temporary halt in certain rituals associated with the death of a king, resulting in the formula’s absence in Jehoash’s epilogue (2 Kg 12:22a) and its idiomatic application to his son Amaziah (2 Kg 14:22). 4.3.2.2. The Death of Amaziah As discussed above, the dynastic notice is absent for both Ahaziah and Jehoash (aside from Athaliah) and only reappears with Amaziah (2 Kg 60

Thus, the dynastic notice marks the lineage of David at each stage of succession, from David until Manasseh (the interregnum of Athaliah aside), contra Nadav Na’aman who claims that this notice stops at Hezekiah; ref. N A’AMAN, Temple Library, 141. 61 See the discussion of dynasty in D UTCHER-W ALLS, Narrative, 127–135. 62 For the classic study of the pericope of Jehoash, see LIVERANI, L’histoire, 438–453. Liverani compares the account with the Statue of Idrimi regarding what might be called the apologetics of usurpation. In his conclusion, he suggests that the preservation of the House of David was so important that it could have superseded the questionable pedigree of Jehoash as a true descendant of the royal line, see L’histoire, 452.

4.3. The Kingdom of Judah

85

14:22), where it occurs out of its normal syntactical order. Although all three were assassinated, G. R. Driver is incorrect in his observation that this fact indicates the formulaic significance of “lay with this fathers” meant a peaceful death.63 In the case of Ahaziah, the absence is because his son did not succeed him to the throne. Furthermore, Driver’s interpretation is complicated by his interpretation that v. 22 refers to a king other than Amaziah.64 The awkward chronological arrangement of 2 Kg 14:17–22 is probably due to the extraordinary manner of dynastic succession during the reign of Amaziah and his son Azariah (Uzziah).65 The young prince be63 D RIVER, Plurima, 139. In his earlier study, Alfrink focused on these three kings (again denying the phrase in 2 Kg 14:22 to Amaziah), though he suggested the phrase’s omission was in part due to the sins of Athaliah, being visited upon her offspring for three generations, A LFRINK, bk@a#$;y,IwA, 112–114. 64 The problems of the “peaceful-death” interpretation, combined with the difficult syntax of 2 Kg 14:22, have led to some unusual suggestions concerning the passage’s historical background. For instance, Alfrink argued that “the king” was the ruler of Edom, and that only after the decline in power in the southern Transjordan, with the death of this monarch, could Azariah have asserted control over Elath, see A LFRINK, bk@a# $;y,IwA, 109. This suggestion is implausible because the DtrH never uses the dynastic notice to describe the death of a non-Israelite king, as noted in HALPERN and V ANDERHOOFT , Editions, 187. Nadav Na’aman has attempted to resolve the problem by suggesting a hegemonic relationship between the northern kingdom and Judah, NA'AMAN, Azariah, 229. According to this theory, the death of Jehoash in Samaria (14:22, per Na’aman) would have been the occasion for Azariah to reclaim Jerusalem’s authority over Elath. But the narrative progression of vv.19–22 indicates that Amaziah is the “king” of v. 22 (the final verse of the account of Amaziah that begins in v. 17). Why would the biblical tradent use a death idiom for anyone other than Amaziah at the end of the description of Amaziah’s death? In fact, the narrative account of Amaziah’s in vv.19–22 follows the brief note of v.17 and the standard source-citation (v.19), serving in place of the royal epilogue. Halpern and Vanderhooft observed the order of the source citation of v.19, but reinterpreted the subject of v. 22 as Amaziah, instead of Azariah, because the former was assassinated, H ALPERN and V ANDERHOOFT, Editions, 186–188. Furthermore, Halpern and Vanderhooft suggest that 2 Kg 14:7 and 22 forms an inclusio regarding the expansion of Judah in the south. Begrich, in his discussion of the chronological difficulties with the end of Amaziah’s reign, had noted similarly that the loss of Elath was probably a result of the loss of Edom (due to Amaziah’s defeat and capture at Beth-Shemesh), B EGRICH, Chronologie, 150–151. These historical theories are correct in stressing the geographical connection between Sela and Elath, however, they require too much to be read into the text. Furthermore, they raise too many historical questions. Are we to assume that Amaziah, after years of captivity, was capable of resuming his exploitation of the Transjordan? The passage (Kg 14:22) begins with the pronoun ()w%h [v. 22a]) in the first position, which shows that the verse is a gloss attached to v.21. Thus, the subject pronoun of v. 22 is Azariah, following the syntax of v. 21. For these reasons, it is much easier to admit that 2 Kg 14:17–22 concerned only Amaziah and his son Azariah signifying the transfer of power in Jerusalem. 65 C OGAN and TADMOR, II Kings (AB), 157. This passage and the account of Ahab’s death (see above) are the only passages that utilize the succession formula after the de-

86

Chapter Four: The Dynastic Notice

came the de facto ruler of Judah when his father Amaziah was captured in battle by the Israelite king Jehoash at Beth-shemesh (vv. 11–13). The statement of 2 Kg 14:22 indicates that Azariah was able to consolidate his control over the kingdom and engage in expansive policies only after the proper funerary rituals were performed on behalf of the previous king, his father. The custody of Elath and control over the Red Sea shipping routes were often used as a high-water mark in the description of Israelite kings.66 Therefore, in the case of Amaziah in v. 22, the phrase “lay with fathers” had nothing to do with any type of death,67 but rather the political significance of succession. The order and wording of 2 Kg 14:22 indicates that it is an editorial insertion that marks reworked material. This observation is evident not only in the deictic pronoun )w%h that begins the verse, but also in the syntax of the dynastic notice, which is not given in its normal formulaic fashion. The second verbal clause begins with a temporal marker followed by an infinitive construct form of bk# (the short form) that governs the nomen rectum, translated as: wytfbo)j-M(i K7lem@eha-bka#$; yr"xj)a (“after the lying of the king with his fathers” [v. 22b]). The infinitive construct refers to a completed event that marks a specific point in the early history of Azariah’s reign. The order and syntax of 2 Kg 14:22b is similar to that of 1 Kg 1:21a in the speech of Bathsheba where the infinitive of bk# is marked by a temporal particle (bka#$;k@i) and refers to the completion of an event of significance.68 The event was not the peaceful death of any king, but the political actions involved in the funeral of a king and the full recognition of his heir. The account of Azariah’s installment as king in v. 21, which serves the place of the notice of successor offers additional support for the redaction of the Amaziah narrative in 2 Kings 14.69 Commentaries have noted that scription of burial. But, like Ahab’s account, the description of Amaziah’s burial is an essential narrative component of his reported fate. 66 A HARONI, 16. See 1 Kg 9:26, cf. also 2 Kg 16:6. 67 Cf. the similar statement by S CHMIDT, Beneficent Dead, 253. 68 In both 1 Kg 1:21a and 2 Kg 14:22b, the infinitive governs the same subject (K7lem@eha). The examples use the short form of the Qal infinitive, see G ESENIUS, K AUTZSCH, and C OWLEY, Hebrew Grammar, 122, § 145 a. 69 Amaziah’s epilogue is unusual in that it is found piecemeal in references scattered throughout the final account of his life. The burial notice appears in a curious form at the end of v. 20, a variation of the notice of successor (his son Azariah) occurs at the end of v. 21, and the dynastic notice is referenced in v. 22. The reasons for this abnormality relate to the literary composure and redactional composition of Amaziah’s final account. The king’s burial notice is extended and begins with the atypical statement that that “he was buried in Jerusalem” (MIla#$fw%ryb@i rb'q@Fy,IwA), before ending in a more standard manner with the statement “with his fathers in the City of David” (v. 20b). But this statement is the natural conclusion to the account of the king’s death, in Lachish (v. 19b), and the

4.3. The Kingdom of Judah

87

the description of Azariah’s installment to the throne by the “people of Judah” seems to be chronologically displaced, as this event may have occurred earlier as a result of Amaziah’s capture by the Jehoash, King of Israel, at Beth-Shemesh. Furthermore, as noted above, v. 22 appears to be an editorial insertion, marked by the deictic )w%h and appended to the description of the popular king-making of Azariah in v. 21. Thus, the displacement of v. 21 was accomplished with the scribal insertion of v. 20b and the note of v. 22. The temporal adverb refers to the completion of the political ritual that began in v. 20b with the proper funeral of a king otherwise killed in a conspiracy. The result of this scribal activity is that vv. 20b–22 replaced the standard epilogue concluding the account of the r#$eqE (vv. 19–20b).70 4.3.2.3. The Ritual Politics of Irregular Succession The dynastic notice resumes its normal place in the royal epilogues after Amaziah and continues without disruption until the reign of Amon in the mid-seventh century. The biblical accounts of an irregular succession, precipitated by a king’s assassination (or capture, in the case of Amaziah), typically lead to the omission of the dynastic notice “lay with fathers.” This does represent opposite evidence, to a certain extent, which might prove that the notice was a scribal formula for a king’s peaceful death. Yet, the traditional interpretation overlooks other details included within the final accounts of kings who die violently. As Vanderhooft and Halpern have noted, in cases of assassination for the kings of Judah the conspiracy account follows the source citation but precedes the epilogue with the exception of Amon.71 The point of this literary order is simple; the r#$eqE always results in the death of the king and therefore necessitates an irregular act of installment to the throne. Thus, the conspiracy accounts with all that they involve offer a type of closure that makes the epilogues otherwise redundant. The epilogues do appear (as in the examples of Jehoash and

transportation of his body to Jerusalem, where it was buried (v. 20). The additional phrasing that appears after the statement of burial in Jerusalem is nothing more than an appendage. The account of Amaziah’s death ends with his burial in Jerusalem, thus the burial notice typical of the epilogue would have been redundant. The tradent simply appended the important ideological phrasing of the burial notice to the final description of Amaziah’s body. 70 The conceptual unity of the brief r#$eqE account is seen in the symmetry of its beginning and end, both of which are set in Jerusalem (vv. 19a and 20b, respectively). 71 H ALPERN and V ANDERHOOFT, Editions, 212–213. For Jehoash: 2 Kg 12:20 (source citation), vv. 21–22a (conspiracy), and v. 22a (incomplete epilogue). For Amaziah: 2 Kg 14:18 (source citation) and vv. 19–20b (conspiracy). For Amon: 2 Kg 21:23–24 (conspiracy), v. 25 (source citation) and v. 26 (incomplete epilogue).

88

Chapter Four: The Dynastic Notice

Amon), but only in partial form where they conclude the assassinated king’s reign by noting the place of burial and successor son.72 The assassination of a king certainly marked an unnatural break in the linear continuity of a dynasty, thus this act of political violence contradicted the very essence of the dynastic notice. This aspect, however, does not indicate that “lay with his fathers” was a scribal formula for a peaceful death. What was implied in the absence of the full formulaic epilogue was the disruption of the normal (ritual) process of succession. This problem is reflected in the special accounts of the installation of the murdered king’s son, usually expressed through the Hiphil form of Klm.73 Additionally, the problems inherent with assassination often involve the participation of an outside party in placing a new king on the throne. In the accounts of Jehoash, Azariah, as well as Josiah and his son Jehoahaz, a political group (usually the “people of the land”) played a part in the king-making process, often taking a direct role.74 Thus, the irregularity of these events probably meant that certain protocols and ceremonial activities were bypassed. Given the fact that the new ruler’s legitimacy in these situations was based upon popular support, it may not have been imperative to draw upon ritual activity that would invoke a patrimonial concept of the linear descent of power. For these reasons, it is possible to account for the inconsistencies in the epilogues with regard to assassinated kings and the unusual ascension of their successors. 4.3.3. The Latter Kings of the House of David The final years of Judah were marked by political intrigue that cut to the heart of the ruling dynasty’s sovereignty, ultimately destroying the kingdom. The House of David’s fate was cast about within the tumultuous political climate created by the advance and decline of regional super powers, such as Assyria, the 26th dynasty of Egypt and Babylon. Following the de72 For Jehoash, it was necessary to conclude with the burial notice and notice of successor, likewise for Amon (who was buried in the Garden of Uzza), while elements of the epilogue are interspersed throughout the final verses of Amaziah’s account. 73 SEYBOLD, art. K7lem@E; melek, 356–357. The Hiphil of this verbal root typically occurs when the installation of the king is predicated by extenuating circumstances (such as a palace coup); a notable example is found in the Tel Dan Stela (KAI 310:4); see S CHNIEDEWIND, Tel Dan Stela, 87 n. 89; and S URIANO, Apology of Hazael, 166–167. 74 In the coup that installed Jehoash, the “people of the land” (CrE)fhf M(a) only played a supporting role (2 Kg 11:14, 18 and 20), while Azariah is installed by the “people of Judah” (hdFw%hy: M(a; cf. 2 Kg 14:21). Additionally, the interference by foreign powers in propping up a new king also results in the absence of the dynastic notice, as seen with the Egyptians’ installation of Jehoiakim and the Babylonians’ installation of Zedekiah. None of these kings, however, follow their father (Josiah, in both cases), but instead replace a brother on the throne.

4.3. The Kingdom of Judah

89

feat and death of Josiah by the Egyptian forces of Pharoah Necho at Megiddo, the individual fates of his successors were controlled by foreign powers. Among these kings, the dynastic-notice plays an important, yet often misunderstood, role in their literary depiction. A prophetic oracle addressed to Josiah uses the rare hybrid form, “gather to your fathers” (2 Kg 22:20a), which evokes the idiomatic sense of the dynastic notice, although the standard formula does not appear in Josiah’s epilogue (ref. 2 Kg 23:30a). The manner of Josiah’s death, killed by Necho, seems to gainsay the oracle regarding both the dynastic idiom and the phrase “in peace.” Indeed, the dynastic notice is not applied to Josiah in its typical form (in fact his account in Kings lacks a standard-form epilogue altogether). Yet, a death “in peace” is also promised to Judah’s final king, Zedekiah (Jer 34:5a), who is exiled and tortured (2 Kg 25:6–7). Furthermore, the epilogue of another king, Jehoiakim, includes the dynastic notice despite the fact that his fate has remained a mystery. The narrative of the latter kings of the House of David shows that the dynastic notice and its variant forms is symbolic of political legitimacy and not manner of death. This realization in turn sheds new light on the final days of the Davidic monarchy and the royal house in exile. 4.3.3.1. The Death of Josiah and Huldah’s Prophecy Josiah’s sudden and violent death, which comes at the climax of his great reform, has both intrigued and confused interpreters both ancient and modern.75 The political tragedy of this event also appears to contravene the prophetic words addressed to Josiah in 2 Kg 22:15–20.76 This oracle, uttered by an obscure prophetess named Huldah, is also one of the more problematic passages in the Hebrew Bible.77 Josiah’s violent end at Megiddo certainly does not fit the fate that is read into Huldah’s oracle (to die a natural death in the time of peace), and presents problems for the “prophecy-and-fulfillment” motif that typifies the DtrH. The phrase is packaged in a hybrid form of the two synonymous biblical-phrases for death, “I will gather you unto your fathers [cf. Jdg 2:10] and you will be 75 The classic study on the Deuternomistic “reaction” to Josiah’s death is FROST, Death, 369–382. For instance, the Chronicler made much effort to make sense of the good king’s tragic death, 2 Chr 35:20–27; see W ILLIAMSON, Death of Josiah, 242–248. 76 This appearance of contradiction has made Josiah’s fate problematic for biblical scholars; note the bibliography in VAN K EULEN, The Meaning, 259, nn. 251–252. See also, P RIEST, Huldah’s Oracle, 366–368. 77 “Das Orakel der Prophetin Hulda gehört zu den umstrittensten Abschnitten innerhalb des an Problemen wahrlich nicht armen Textes 2 Kg 22ff.” H OFFMANN, Reform, 181. See also Halpern’s remark that begins his analysis of the oracle in H ALPERN, Why Manasseh, 493, cf. 493–508.

90

Chapter Four: The Dynastic Notice

gathered into your graves in peace” (2 Kg 22:20).78 Later in the biblical narrative, Josiah suffers an inglorious end, killed in battle by the Egyptians (2 Kg 23:29–30; 2 Chr 35:24) and his body is brought back to Jerusalem and laid to rest with his fathers. The account of Josiah lacks the standard epilogue (as it is defined in this study); standing in its place is the report of the transportation of Josiah’s body (by chariot) to his royal capital, his burial “in his tomb” (wOtrFbuq;b@i), as well as the emergency installation of his son Jehoahaz on the throne by the “people of the land.” The interpretive problem with Huldah’s oracle is due to the wording of v. 20a, which includes the phrase “in peace” (MwOl#$fb@;) along with poetic language drawn from the biblical idiom “gathered to his people” and the dynastic notice “lay with his fathers.” The quandary stems, in part, from the idea that these phrases imply a peaceful death. As a result, several biblical commentators often label the oracle of Huldah a prophecy left unfulfilled.79 The idea that a discordant prophecy remains in the biblical text has contributed to multiple-redaction theories, which postulate that the oracle’s core was a pro-Josianic utterance that offered divine endorsement and the promise of a peaceful end.80 Accordingly, the oracle is dissected into two parts: the prediction of destruction (and exile) in vv.16–17, which is a later, exilic/post-exilic appendage to the pre-exilic oracle addressed to the king (vv.18–20).81 This division is unnecessary, however, because the biblical idioms involved were not intended to predict Josiah’s death, but instead indicate inheritance and the preservation of his political patrimony. Indeed, the coherence of the oracle seems interrupted by the direct address

78 MwOl #$fb @; K1yter ob ;q i- l)e t@fp ;s a) vnEw: K1yteb o) j- l(a K1p ;s i) o (2 Kg 22:20). The reference to multiple tombs in v. 20a probably indicates the existence of several royal tombs (belonging to the House of David) in Jerusalem at this point in history, e.g., the City of David and the Garden of Uzza. This aspect will be analyzed in Chapter Five. Note, however, that the parallel account in 2 Chr 35:24 probably adds that Josiah was “buried in the tombs [twOrb;qib@;] with his fathers” in order to harmonize with Huldah’s prophecy. 79 See, for instance, F ROST, Death, 372–373; C OGAN and TADMOR, II Kings (AB), 295; M CK ENZIE, Trouble, 111–112; and similarly, J ONES, Kings Vol. 2 (NCBC), 614. Hermann Spieckermann seems to turn this viewpoint on its head by referring to v. 20 as a vaticinium ex eventu (“Josias tragischer Tod scheint vorausgesetzt werden zu müssen”), SPIECKERMANN, Juda, 64. 80 C ROSS, Canaanite Myth, 286 n. 245; see the review of this interpretation H ALPERN, Why Manasseh, 499–501. Halpern, however, argues for the conceptual unity of the oracle. 81 SPIECKERMANN, Juda, 60–71; and J ONES, Kings Vol. 2 (NCBC), 613–614. For an overview, see MCKENZIE, Trouble, 111. For this reason, the reverse argumentation is made by Hans Detlef Hoffman, who argues that v. 20 only implies burial, and thus, the oracle should be viewed as a single pericope that is post-exilic, H OFFMANN, Reform, 170–189. This idea is followed by V AN SETERS, Search, 318–319.

4.3. The Kingdom of Judah

91

of the king in v.17,82 but this proves the point of the prophecy. Despite the ensuing destruction, the king and his line would receive divine forbearance. Another interpretation takes v. 20a as a statement that Josiah would be given a proper burial, because the verbal root (Ps)) holds a clear burial sense.83 This viewpoint is interesting because it highlights the role in which the peaceful-death theory influences the historical-critical interpretation of Josiah and his reign. When the words of the prophetess are no longer seen as default, it obviates a pre-exilic date (i.e., prior to Josiah’s death).84 Yet these interpreters still unnecessarily parse the sense of the verse by separating v. 20a (“I will gather you upon your fathers”) from v. 20a (“and you will be gathered to your grave”),85 despite the fact that the explanation renders the oracle a conceptual unity. The poetic language of the oracle uses parallel verbal-clauses that employ the same root (Ps)) to form a hendiadys qualified by a single prepositional phrase.86 The central problem with Huldah’s words is the phrase “in peace,” which is difficult to explain. The phrase could specify some form of treaty-covenant condition, although it is used also of Zedekiah, which makes this explanation more difficult to comprehend.87 Despite the tension that the oracle creates, it may have been included in the description of the latter kings because of its emphasis on burial (v. 20a) and its endorsement of Josiah’s lineage. The poetic reflection of the dynastic notice from the royal epilogue entailed that Josiah’s progeny would succeed him. Certainly, the oracle implied that divine judgment would not occur until after Josiah’s death, which guaranteed that the kingdom would not fall during his reign.88 But 82

This coherence is indicated by the repeated use of an address formula (“thus says Y HWH” [hwfhy: rma)f-hk@o]) in vv.15a, 16a and 18b, as well as the frequent reference to “this place” (hz@eha MwOqm@fha) in vv.16a, 17b as well as 20a. The repetition of phrases such as these is an indication of literary style, and though it could indicate a secondary structuring by a redactor it does not necessarily require an interpretation of multiple hands, as many commentators assume; see, e.g., S PIECKERMANN, Juda, 60 n. 63. 83 The idea behind this school of thought is essentially divided into two opinions. The first is that Josiah will be buried in a time of peace, so P ROVAN, Hezekiah, 149. Yet this is hardly the case at the end of the seventh-century BCE. The second suggestion is that v. 20 implies Josiah will be given a royal burial, see S PIECKERMANN, Juda, 67. According to Hoffman, the reference to burial is meant to stand in contrast with the curse of disinterment and exposure leveled against the ill-fated rulers of the northern kingdom, H OFFMANN, Reform, 185; note particularly 183–185. 84 This factors in H OFFMANN, Reform, 183–185; and V AN SETERS, Search, 318. 85 For instance, Provan (in acknowledging the peaceful-death theory) suggests that MwOl #$fb is dependant upon v. 20a only, P ROVAN , Hezekiah, 149. See also, A LFRINK , bk@a# $;y,IwA, 119–120, H OFFMANN , Reform, 181–187, VAN K EULEN , The Meaning, 258–259. 86 Cf. K1ytebo)j-l(a K1p;si)o together with K1yterob;qi-l) t@fp;sa)vnEw (v. 20a–). 87 Jer 34:5. H ALPERN, Why Manasseh, 502–503 (with references). 88 See also VAN K EULEN, The Meaning, 256–257 with earlier sources.

92

Chapter Four: The Dynastic Notice

the oracle held a much deeper sense in that it assured the continued existence of the dynasty. The fact of the matter is that a series of sons succeeded Josiah, beginning briefly with Jehoahaz and ending with Zedekiah. Indeed, another son, Jehoiakim was succeeded by his own son (Josiah's grandson), and was given the epitaph “lay with his fathers.” Thus, the political solvency of the kingdom is expressed in the oracle implying the dynasty’s survival – even if it would hardly last another generation. 4.3.3.2. The Fate of Jehoiakim Of Josiah’s sons and successors, Jehoiakim is the only one that is given any semblance of a royal epilogue. Not surprisingly, Jehoiakim is the only one of Josiah’s sons who himself is succeeded by a son, Jehoiachin. Yet Jehoiakim’s fate is shrouded in mystery, as his death is not described in the Hebrew Bible nor is his burial referred to in his epilogue in Kings.89 To understand the significance behind the royal epilogue of Jehoiakim, however, it is necessary to understand the political context in which he ruled.90 Following Josiah’s death, the stability of the House of David was severely undermined as a series of sons (and one grandson) were installed or dethroned by foreign powers. Jehoahaz was made king by the “people of the land,” a powerful, yet little understood, political force in Judah (2 Kg 23:30b). The installation of Jehoahaz by the “people of the land” marked the second consecutive ruler propped up by this group, the first being Jehoahaz’s father Josiah (2 Kg 21:24). Thus, the normal protocol of dynastic succession was preempted by the actions of an entity outside the royal house (instigated by the untimely death of the former king). Pharoah Necho quickly deposed Jehoahaz (after a reign of three months), exiled the deposed king to Egypt, and replaced him with Jehoiakim (2 Kg 23:33–34). Jehoiakim eventually became a vassal of the Babylonians following the battle of Carchemish (605 BCE). Jehoiakim’s eleven-year reign was followed by the brief rule of his son (and Josiah’s grandson), Jehoiachin. The reign of Jehoiachin in Jerusalem lasted only three months before the Babylonians exiled him and installed as king his uncle (another son of Josiah) Zedekiah. The collapse of Zedekiah’s reign marked the end of the Kingdom of Judah. All four of the final rulers of Judah were made king in an irregular manner and all were deposed by a foreign power. Although three of these 89

The Greek versions record that Jehoiakim was buried in the Garden of Uzza, a datum found in the additional material of the epilogues in Kings (G L and OG, in 4 Kingdoms) and Chronicles (LXX, in 2 Paralipomenon). The Garden of Uzza, and the traditions behind these textual variants will be discussed and analyzed below in Chapter Five. 90 For an overview of the historical period of Jehoiakim’s reign, see M ILLER and H AYES, History, 493.

4.3. The Kingdom of Judah

93

four kings were sons of Josiah (and thus, legitimate claimants to the throne), in only one instance of these kings (Jehoiakim) did succession follow from father to son (with Jehoiachin). Furthermore, none of these rulers were given royal burials in Jerusalem (according to the MT of the Book of Kings).91 Therefore, the standard epilogue is lacking in the closing statement of each king. The historical circumstances make it clear that dynastic succession was disrupted and eventually dismantled. Yet a conflated form of the epilogue is applied to Jehoiakim, following his removal from the throne, which states: “And Jehoiakim lay with this fathers, and Jehoiachin his son reigned in his place” (2 Kg 24:6). Thus, the epilogue for Jehoiakim included the first and third elements, the dynastic notice and the notice of the successor: Jehoiachin.92 The point of this statement is that Jehoiakim had a rightful heir, even if this successor’s reign in Jerusalem was abbreviated by the intervention of Nebuchadnezar, who exiled the young king Jehoiachin (2 Kg 24:12–16). Nebuchadnezar’s actions resulted in Zedekiah’s occupancy of the throne of David, which in effect created a political dilemma of having (at the least) two living kings of Judah – Jehoiachin and Zedekiah. In fact, it is unclear how (or when) the former kings Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim died.93 If Jehoahaz survived into the sixth century in an Egyptian exile, there would have been three surviving kings of Judah at the time of Zedekiah’s installation.94 Given the lack of data, this scenario is speculative; however, the DtrH ends with the clemency of Jehoiachin in exile by the Babylonians (2 Kg 25:27–30 = Jer 52:31–34).95 91

In fact, Smit in his brief analysis of the final four kings of Judah and their fates as recorded in 2 Chronicles, notes that none of them were buried in the Kingdom of Judah (according to the Chronicler); S MIT, So How, 54. 92 Only the third notice is cited in 2 Chr 36:8; however the LXX (2 Par 36:8), which records that Jehoiakim was buried in the Garden of Uzza, includes all three notices, beginning with: kai« e˙koimh/qh Iwakim meta» twn pate÷rwn. 93 The final description of Jehoahaz in 2 Kings 23:34b states simply that Necho came and “took Jehoahaz, and he came to Egypt and he died there” ( MyIrAc;mi )Oby,FwA xqFlf zxf)fwOhy:-t)ew: M#$f tmfy,fwA) . This note lacks all but the essential details (manner of death; place of burial) and represents a conflated historical note (the exiled king’s death is not synchronized with any other event), thus it is impossible to say how long Jehoahaz survived in Egyptian exile. 94 SCHNIEDEWIND, How the Bible, 149–153. 95 It is difficult to understand more precisely the role that this pericope has within the Book of Kings. It is safest to conclude that the story of Jehoiachin’s rehabilitation in Babylon during his captivity in 2 Kg 25:27–30 does involve some level of prestige, although it serves a more general purpose of reporting an event that was important to the exilic community, C OGAN and TADMOR, II Kings (AB), 329–330. This line of interpretation follows Martin Noth, who denied that the passage describing Jehoiachin’s clemency amounted to a message of salvation, N OTH, History, 282–283. For a brief overview of the debate between Noth and Gerhard Von Rad (who saw vv. 27–30 as a message of hope), along with more recent interpreters, see M URRAY, Of All, 245–247.

94

Chapter Four: The Dynastic Notice

The rehabilitation of the king of Judah in Babylon, along with other clues from the biblical text, makes it clear that Jehoiachin continued to hold prominence in exile even while Zedekiah sat upon the throne of David in the royal capital of Jerusalem.96 The implication of Jehoiachin’s clemency is quite profound for understanding the politics of the Exile and the final redaction of the DtrH. The Books of Jeremiah and Kings offer differing portrayals of Jehoiakim and his son Jehoiachin versus Zedekiah. Jehoiakim’s fate is shrouded in mystery,97 as Kings contains no description of his death, while the parallel passage in Chronicles informs that Nebuchadnezzar took him, bound and captive, to Babylon (2 Chr 36:6; cf. Dan 1:1–2; 1 Esd 1:37–38).98 The ancient versions preserve a tradition that Jehoiakim was buried in the Garden of Uzza (the burial site of Manasseh and Amon). It is difficult to assess the veracity of these textual variants,99 for they hardly harmonize anything and even create a tension with Jeremiah’s prophecy concerning Jehoiakim. In the prophet’s threat, directed at both Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin, the denial of proper funerary rituals potently signifies the end of their royal lineage (Jer 22:18–19; 36:30–31).100 The graphic image of non-burial in Jer 22:19 stands in contrast with the silence of the Book of Kings regarding Jehoiakim’s death.101 Conversely, Kings narrates in detail the terrible fate of Zedekiah, describing how the Babylonians captured the king and blinded him after killing his sons (2 Kg 25:4–7). Jeremiah, on the other hand, had 96

Akkadian administrative lists found in Babylon register rations for “Jehoiachin, king of the land of Judah,” see ANET 308; discussed in SCHNIEDEWIND, How the Bible, 151–152. The prominence of Jehoiachin is also seen in the book of Ezekiel, which counts years according to the dates of his exile (cf. Ezek 1:2), N OTH, History, 282–283. 97 SEITZ, Theology, 105–120 and, Y EIVIN, Sepulchres, 34. For an excellent discussion of the historical problems involved with Jehoiakim’s fate, see L IPSCHITS, Jehoiakim. 98 SMIT, So How, 48–51; and L IPSCHITS, Jehoiakim, §§ 4.1–4.4. 99 According to 4 Kingdoms 24:6 of the OG and G L and 2 Par 36:8 (LXX); see B ROOKE, M CL EAN, and T HACKERAY, Old Testament in Greek, 384. 100 L IPSCHITS, Jehoiakim, §§ 3.1.1–3.1.2. Josephus Ant 10:97 adds that the king of Babylon had Jehoiakim killed and that his body “thrown before the walls, without any burial.” This account represents an attempt to harmonize with Jer 22:19 and stands in contrast with Greek versions (discussed above). According to Smit, the oracles in Jeremiah that address the fates of Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin belong to the category of unconditional doom. Therefore, the fate of these two kings was tied to the destruction of Jerusalem (reflecting the apostasy of the Kings and their kingdom), S MIT, So How, 50–51. 101 See JONES, Kings Vol. 2 (NCBC), 635. Seitz uses the phrase “conspiracy of silence” in reference to Jehoiakim’s death, recalling the classic 1968 article by Stanley Brice Frost on the death, see S EITZ, Theology, 105–120. For an analysis of the death of Jehoiakim in Kings, Chronicles and Jeremiah, that gives priority to Jeremiah’s prediction (i.e., violent death), see S MIT, So How, 45–56. For a discussion of the imagery used in Jer 22:19, within the wider context of Assyrian practices, see to C OGAN, Note, 29–34.

4.3. The Kingdom of Judah

95

a more ambivalent attitude toward the last king of Judah and even promised Zedekiah post-mortem honors (Jer 34:5).102 It would be overly reductive to state that the DtrH supported Jehoiakim and his son, while Jeremiah endorsed Zedekiah. The Book of Jeremiah portrays Zedekiah as a ruler both weak and indecisive. The image of Jehoiakim presented in Kings is even more complicated, as the final two rulers are given religious evaluations based on “the evil that Jehoiakim had done” (2 Kg 23:37 [Zedekiah]; cf. 24:19 [Jehoiachin]). The epilogue for Jehoiakim in 2 Kg 24:6, however, is certainly related to the short account of Jehoiachin’s rehabilitation (2 Kg 25:27–30). The exilic redaction of Kings was shaped by the presence of Jehoiachin in exile, and Jehoiakim’s epilogue was added in order to give a sense of legitimacy to Jehoiachin.103 This redaction also included the account of Zedekiah’s capture, humiliation and the execution of his sons in order to represent the elimination of his line in the royal house.104 The account, along with Jehoiakim’s epilogue and the note regarding his son’s clemency, indicate that there was a 102

A PPLEGATE, Fate, 137–160. The ambivalence of Jeremiah is in part a change in attitude, and inter-textual discourse. For instance Jer 34:5 conflicts with 21:7, which is a message of doom pronounced against Zedekiah. Applegate places Jer 21:7 between the final exilic redaction of the DtrH and the early formation of Chronicles, IDEM., Fate, Part II, 305–306. According to this theory, the negative statement is part of the debate within the text of Jeremiah and represents a development from the DtrH’s assessment of Zedekiah, upon which the Chronicler was dependent. “Compared with the Deuteronomistic History’s account of Jerusalem’s fall and Zedekiah’s capture, the accounts of [Jer 21 and 2 Chr 36] are more generalized, more negative and more obviously theologically controlled” (quoted from IDEM., Fate, Part II, 305). An excellent example of the discourse in Jeremiah about Zedekiah is discussed by Michael Fishbane (Biblical Interpretation, 471– 474), who attributes Jer 23:5–6 to the king’s coronation and interprets 33:14–16 as its necessary re-construal during the Exile. 103 The wording of vv. 29–30, which employs suffix verbal-forms in conjunction with the temporal marker “all the days of this life” (wyy,fxa ym'y:-lk@f; v. 29b and 30b), may indicate the final description of Jehoiachin’s life. A conclusion cannot be reached firmly based solely on the syntax of this sparse passage, an account that lacks any further element of closure (there is no comment regarding death or burial); M URRAY, Of All, 260. Certainly, as Murray points out, there is no indication of a continued prominence for the House of David in exile. 104 Juha Pakkala has tried to argue that 2 Kg 24:18–25:1–7 represents an attempt to destroy the legitimacy of Zedekiah in exile in favor of Jehoiachin; PAKKALA, Zedekiah's Fate, 443–452. This purpose is most apparent in the description of the execution of Zedekiah’s sons, which Pakkala takes as a literary creation. Thus, the problem of succession of leadership, within the exilic community, was resolved by creating a tradition in which Zedekiah’s offspring were eradicated. The thesis is interesting, however it operates with a problematic view of how written sources originate, and ultimately it cannot explain why none of Jehoiachin’s offspring were given description at the end of Kings, a point discussed by M URRAY, Of All, 262–263.

96

Chapter Four: The Dynastic Notice

genuine concern about proper lineage among the members of the House of David in exile.105 4.3.3.3. Dynastic Legitimacy as an Exilic Theme The exilic redaction of Kings and the presentation of the latter kings, which ends with a sense of legitimacy surrounding the exiled Jehoiachin, probably reflects the pro-Babylonian policy of the tradent(s).106 The prologue of each of the latter kings contains a standard condemnation, and Jehoiachin’s release is tempered by the fact that he remains captive in Babylon. The continuation of the line of David, however, is a structuring theme in the description of latter kings and it is nowhere more apparent than in the final four verses of Kings. This theme is consistent also with Huldah’s oracle, which promises the continuation of the royal lineage. Josiah was promised progeny and that he would be given royal honors in death. The line of Josiah (and the House of David) would continue, even in captivity, despite the impending destruction. Therefore, Huldah’s oracle is probably part of the exilic redaction of Kings, which sought to explain not only the destruction of the kingdom and cult, but also to define the continued role of the royal house in exile. Within this secondary theme in 2 Kings, the dynastic notice (and its idiomatic reference) plays a key role in marking the continuation of the royal line.

4.4. Conclusion The dynastic notice forms a continuity of political ideology that shapes the presentation of royal houses in the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. In the case of the northern kingdom, the dynastic notices established a linear reference in the DtrH’s description of the rise and fall of several ruling houses. This same manner of linear reference, for the House of David, effectively traced the continuation of the dynasty’s divine blessing as marked by the dynastic notice’s important role in 2 Samuel 7. A similar sense is evoked in the dynastic notice with the House of Jehu, where the repeated use of the formula for Jehoash draws attention to the generational limits of the dynasty’s divine endorsement. The linear representation of 105 Smit had noted also that the terms used to allude to Jehoiakim’s death (specifically, our dynastic notice) serve to indicate the legitimacy of Jehoiachin’s rule in exile as the continuation of the House of David, through his father Jehoiakim; S MIT, So How, 52–53. 106 Several scholars see the passage as advocating a conciliatory attitude towards the imperial powers of the exile, thus justifying the subjugated role of the Davidic line in captivity; B EGG, Significance, 49–56, L EVENSON, The Last Four, 353–361, M URRAY, Of All, 264–265.

4.4. Conclusion

97

legitimacy is apparent in Solomon, the first king of the dynasty (following its eponymous founder, Solomon’s father David) and Jehoiachin, the penultimate king of Judah and the last ruler described in Kings. The multiple application of the dynastic notices for David served to stress the dynasty’s commencement with Solomon (for better [1 Kg 2:10] or worse [1 Kg 11:21]), while the formula’s appearance in Jehoaikim’s epilogue served the purpose of legitimizing the House of David in exile, represented by the figure of Jehoiachin (Jehoiakim’s son). Thus, the lineage of David flows from Solomon to Jehoiachin, although it is disrupted at two phases in the dynasty’s history. The periods of disruption occur around the interregnum of Athaliah and the final years of the Kingdom of Judah. But these disruptions only prove the point of the dynastic notice, for they represent political phases of the dynasty when its existence was jeopardized.107 The dynastic notice signified the inheritance of a political authority that was divinely backed. For this reason, idiomatic reference to the notice occurs in the dynastic oracle addressed to David (2 Samuel 7), as well as the tradition regarding his death and the succession of his son Solomon (1 Kg 1:21). Likewise, the variant form of the dynastic notice found in Huldah’s oracle (2 Kg 22:20) represents the divine endorsement of the House of David in exile. In other words, these idiomatic references to the dynastic notice found outside the normal formulaic pattern of the royal epilogues represent a literary strategy that affirmed and reinforced the patrimonial framework of the Book of Kings and its description of the House of David. In the period of dynastic disruption that marked the last fifty years of Judah’s ruling house, the dynastic notice is only used once (in the epilogue of Jehoiakim). The dynastic notice along with its literary allusion in Huldah’s oracle, however, served notice that the line of David continued in Josiah and his progeny despite the destruction of the kingdom and the cult.

107

By the seventh century, the system of dynastic succession had experienced more interference from outside forces; however Huldah’s oracle and the dynastic notice in Jehoiakim’s epilogue strongly suggest that the problem of dynastic succession remained during the exile.

Chapter Five

The Burial Notice “…and he was buried with his fathers in the City of David his father…”

5.1. Introduction The second component of the royal epilogue, the burial notice, describes the interment of the defunct king. The significant datum communicated through this statement is the reference to location: the royal capital. Implicit in this reference is the existence of a royal tomb, and although this manner of burial is occasionally mentioned in a few sources for the kings of Judah, they are never explicitly described for the kings of Israel. In contrast to the northern dynasties, the royal tombs of the House of David are described in several sources, albeit briefly, and always within Jerusalem. These sources include a few variant burial-notices in Kings, the expanded burial-notices found in the Chronicler’s parallel epilogues as well as other post-exilic biblical texts (Nehemiah) and latter sources.1 Furthermore, the royal tombs of Jerusalem have not been positively identified in the archaeological record, and though they are referenced in written sources, their lack of description leaves them as yet undiscovered.2 In contrast, architectural remains in Samaria (excavated in the previous century) have been recently re-identified as possible royal tombs.3 This identification is complicated by factors that include the present condition of the specific archaeological remains at Sebasti yeh, as well as the complete lack of literary descriptions. Despite the difficulty of the material record, the archaeological question of royal tombs in Israel and Judah is important for

1

See the general discussion in N UTKOWICZ, L’homme, 68–71. Raymond Weill uncovered structures that he identified as the royal tombs of David, however this identification has not met widespread acceptance (see the discussion below); see W EILL, La Cité, 127–139; Pls. 123, 125, 128A, 111–114, 117–119. 3 FRANKLIN, Tombs, 1–11. See also the response and counterpoint in U SSISHKIN, Megiddo, 49–70; and F RANKLIN, Response, 71–73. 2

5.1. Introduction

99

understanding the burial notices of the royal epilogues precisely because the question itself underscores the importance of location. 123 The tomb’s locality symbolized the political patrimony of the royal house,4 and the repetition of these terse and generic formulaic-notices reinforced the legitimacy of the king and his dynasty. The mere visage of a royal funerary monument was certainly enough to evoke images of cultural prestige and political power, yet their location alone could effectively symbolize sovereignty.5 The creation of designated areas for the disposal of the dead is often associated with a complex system of power that involves the control of valuable resources through ancestral claims.6 In other words, a royal tomb marked territory and symbolized a type of political legitimacy that was founded on the concept of lineal descent from royal ancestors. The royal tomb was the privileged burial-grounds for the ancestors of the dynasty, and this corporate entity conferred authority upon the head of the ruling house: the king. This is an important point for the study of the royal epilogues; the purpose of the burial notice was not to describe a visible monument, but rather to make explicit claims of burial location. It is no coincidence that in the ancient Levant, royal tombs were usually located adjacent to the palace, or beneath its foundation.7 The word “house” (tyIb@f) in Hebrew and other Semitic languages is synonymous with both “dynasty” (well-known in the form “house of PN”) and “palace,” and can even designate a tomb.8 The relation between the house and the dead is visible in intramural burial practices, as seen in the MB II (for example, at

1 2 3

4

As will be discussed, below, this aspect remains constant even while the actual burial site changes within the royal capital of Jerusalem. See also I SHIDA, Royal Dynasties, 134–136. Ishida correctly notes the relationship between patrimony and the collective burial-site (i.e., family tomb) resulting in the political claims of the ruling dynasty over its capital. 5 This is important to note in consideration of the fact that in Mesopotamia and the Levant, royal tombs were often built beneath palatial structures, and hence not publicly visible. See the brief survey in R ICHARDSON, Assyrian Garden, 166–171 and N A’AMAN, Death Formulae, 248–249 with sources. 6 The foundational study is S AXE, Social Dimensions, 39–57. Saxe’s study, which is based on his unpublished dissertation, has been influential on several studies; B ROWN, On Mortuary Analysis, 3–26, M ORRIS, archaeology of ancestors, 147–169. 7 See the important treatment in N IEHR, Royal Funeral, 1–24. 8 The term tyIb@a for palace occurs in the construct “house of the king” ( K7lemeha tyb@', cf. Jer 39:8), and is implicated in the royal title tyIbaha l(a r#$e)j cf. 2 Kg 18:18 (see also the tomb inscription from Silwan). For the nuance “tomb”, see e.g., Neh 2:3 (twOrb;qi-tyb@' ytab o) j) . The best example is Isa 14:18, where the term most likely references both a royal tomb and a palace (the one is contained in the other), FRANKLIN, Tombs, 2. For these nuances, see the references in K ÖHLER and B AUMGARTNER, HALOT 1, 124–125. For Ugaritic bt (2) “palace,” see DEL OLMO LETE and SANMARTÍN, DUL 1, 247–249.

100

Chapter Five: The Burial Notice

Megiddo) as well as at LB Ugarit.9 The proximity of the dead to the living, with burials placed inside tombs constructed beneath the floors of homes, suggests an ideology that was inclusive of defunct kin within the life of the family.10 Similar observations have been made regarding the extramural tombs of Iron II Judah and their manner of emulating living space reflective of the basic social unit of Judah, the house of the father.11 The political ideal represented by royal tombs in the ancient Levant was structured around the patrimonial concept of a lineage or house (the PHM),12 and this ideal is apparent in the burial notices for the dynasty of Judah, which often contain phrases such as “buried with his fathers” and/or “in the City of David his father.” In the ancient Levant, the royal tombs were located underneath the foundations of a palatial complex, or near the complex. Thus the expressed ideal involves the burial of the king within his royal capital (regardless of where the tombs were within the city). Yet this ideal, which is commonly expressed for the kings of Judah, disappears with the epilogue of Hezekiah. Moreover, this omission corresponds with a shift in which the burial notices switch from a general location to a specific one. But does this mean that the actual burial practices changed from collective to individual interment? Furthermore, does the shift that occurs after Hezekiah’s death reflect a change in scribal practices or a development in the burial customs of the House of David? The analysis of the burial notices, thus, must take into consideration not only their literary form and syntax within the epilogues of Kings, but also their cultural significance within the socio-political context of royal burials in the ancient Levant.

5.2. The Archaeological Quest for the Tombs of David The search for the tombs of David in Jerusalem has long captured the imagination of scholars since the beginning of the modern age of archaeological discovery in the Levant. This is seen notably in the archaeological

9

H ALLOTE, Tombs, 199–214. See, e.g., the House of Yabninu at Ugarit; Y ON, City, 52, Fig. 28. For Mesopotamia, during the third millennium, see C RAWFORD, Architecture, 37–38, and the cautious remarks in P OSTGATE, Early Dynastic, 65–66. Examples of intramural burials, beneath residential structures, is seen in the first millennium as well; see for example the late Iron Age burials at Guzana/Tell Halaf, O RTHMANN, AramäischAssyrische Stadt 47. 10 SCHLOEN, House of the Father, 342–347; H ALLOTE, Real, 105–111. 11 BARKAY, Burial Caves, 96–102; FAUST and BUNIMOVITZ, Rock-Cut Tomb, 150–170. 12 SCHLOEN, House of the Father, 52.

5.2. The Archaeological Quest for the Tombs of David

101

excavations of the City of David by Raymond Weil,13 conducted during the early 20th century, and done with the explicit purpose to locate the tombs of the House of David.14 Although Weill thought he had discovered these important tombs, few scholars have accepted his findings.15 Yet the tomb(s) of David remains an active topic of discussion, due largely to the prominence of the burial site’s eponymous ancestor, King David. Burial sites associated with the renowned figure of David are mentioned as Jerusalem landmarks during the period of the Second Temple, bearing witness to the continued prestige of the tomb (or tombs) through the Hellenistic and early Roman periods. Prior to the Greco-Roman period, the significance of these tombs in the City of David seems to be implied in the repeated reference of the burial notice reported in the royal epilogues of Kings. The change in the burial notice with the epilogue of Hezekiah (and all subsequent epilogues), therefore, has elicited explanations that are both historical and archaeological. Though scholars generally agree that the change in the burial notice is ostensibly a scribal phenomenon,16 various attempts have been made to explain the cultural motives behind this alteration.17 These explanations range from the suggestion that the tombs of the House of David were overcrowded by the time of Hezekiah,18 to the theory that the concern for cultic purity led to the removal of the royal tombs to a location outside the walls of Jerusalem.19 The analysis of royal burials in the ancient Levant (Chapter Three) provides the analogies necessary for making a more informed as13 W EILL, La Cité, see the abridged English translation: W EILL and V INCENT, The City, 3–120. This collection also includes a translation of the important work: V INCENT, Jérusalem. 14 R EICH, Weill’s Excavations, 123–124. One purpose of Weill’s expedition was to investigate an earlier theory by Charles Clermont-Ganneau who had suggested that the southern loop of Hezekiah’s Tunnel was intentional in order to avoid undermining the tombs of David, refer W EILL and V INCENT, The City, 7–8; S IMONS, Jerusalem, 221–225. 15 See e.g., S IMONS, Jerusalem, 198–200; cf. 221. Weill’s conclusions were accepted in a few prominent commentaries on the Book of Kings, see NOTH, Könige, 32; WÜRTHWEIN, 1. Kön. 1–16, 21. 16 PROVAN, Hezekiah; and also the bibliography in N A'AMAN, Death Formulae, 245, see n.1. Recently Francesca Stavrakapoulou has proposed that the change was theologically motivated (see below), S TAVRAKOPOULOU, King Manasseh, 43–45; IDEM., Exploring, 1–21. 17 Several scholars have offered theories that integrate both cultural factors (relating to burial customs) and literary considerations, see H ALPERN and V ANDERHOOFT, Editions, 191–197; cf. 195 n.135. See also N A’AMAN, Death Formulae, 245–247. 18 Y EIVIN, Sepulchres, 33. 19 This was initially proposed in W EILL, La Cité, 35–40; cf. W EILL and V INCENT, The City, 83; M AZAR, Archaeological, 40. More recently, see N A’AMAN, Death Formulae, 245–254.

102

Chapter Five: The Burial Notice

sessment of these cultural explanations. For instance, royal burials were often conducted in communal tombs (such as the notable example at Qana) and given the fact that this form of interment was quite common among elite burials in Judah it seems unlikely that the royal tombs of the David monarchy would have to be relocated due to lack of space. The hypothesized creation of a royal cemetery outside of Jerusalem’s walls is popular among scholars and is seemingly supported not only by the cultural preference for extramural burials in Iron II Judah, but also in the prophetic criticism of royal tombs found in Ezek 43:7–9 (text and translation below).20 This passage certainly condemns the royal practice of intramural interment inside Jerusalem, and near the sanctuary,21 as implied by the repeated reference to the “corpses of their kings” (Mheyk'l;ma yr"g:pi) in vv. 7ba and 9a.22 The offending activity in v. 8 is described using architectural imagery, “threshold” (Psa), “doorpost” (hzFw%zm;), and “wall” (ryq@I), combined with the prepositions (lce)' and Nyb') to give a spatial sense. This spatial sense is continued in v.9 with the jussive Piel stem of qxr, which has the sense of “distance.” Thus, the rebuke most likely reflects the in20

This is implied in M AZAR, Archaeological, 40. The idea is most recently advanced in N A'AMAN, Death Formulae, 245–254. According to Rahmani (Funerary: Part One, 173), Ezek 43:7–9 led to the creation of a royal cemetery outside of the walls, yet the Tomb of David still continued to remain inside! On the problems with these suggestions (based on Ezek 43:7–9), see S TAVRAKOPOULOU, Exploring, 7–8. 21 The issue at hand, for Ezekiel, is apparently corpse contamination caused by the royal tombs inside the same city walls as the Temple. The Piel-stem of )m+ is used twice (first as a negated jussive followed by the perfect), describing the improper actions done to the holy name. The phrase “corpses of their kings” is used twice (v.7ba and v.9a), specifying the offense and effectively framing the phrase “their abominations” (MtfwOb(jwOt), which describes the condition of the people and the kingdom. The concern is the purity of the Temple, which is apparent in the structure of the Ezekiel 41–43, where the description of the Temple in chapters 41–42 is capped off by the image of YHWH crossing into the sacred precinct from the east (43:1–12), Z IMMERLI, Ezekiel 2, 412. 22 This is the plainest sense of the phrase, see e.g., S PRONK, Beatific Afterlife, 150. Note, however, that in Ugaritic the cognate term pgr seems to parallel skn (“stela” [KTU 6.13:1 cf. 6.14:1]). Ezek 43:7 and 9, along with Gen 15:11 and Lev 26:30 are occurrences in the Hebrew Bible where rgepe may also mean stela. This interpretation was first proposed in N IEMAN, Pgr, 55–60. An alternative view is that pgr/rgepe represents a funerary offering, EBACH, Pgr = (Toten-)Opfer?, 365–368. See also Niehr’s work on this passage, where MtfwOmbf is understood as “their high places” and Mheyk'l;ma yr"g:pi as “the death offerings for their dead kings,” which sees it as directed against royal ancestor worship; N IEHR, Changed Status, 139. See also the discussion in L EWIS, Cults, 139–142. It is important to note David Wright’s discussion of the basic meaning “corpse” inherent in the term pgr/rgepe; W RIGHT, Disposal, 122–125. Furthermore, Brian Schmidt has noted that rgepe in biblical Hebrew is always used of human bodies, with the exception of Gen 15:11, SCHMIDT, Beneficent Dead, 250–252; see also Schmidt’s discussion of KTU 6.13 and 6.14, and the term pgr, IDEM., Beneficent Dead, 48–53.

5.2. The Archaeological Quest for the Tombs of David

103

tramural presence of royal tombs.23 What is unclear in this passage is whether it is related to any real change in the location of the royal tombs during the late monarchy to a place outside the city.24 The brief glimpse of the royal tombs of the House of David in the Book of Ezekiel indicates that they were intramural burials, which is consistent with the repeated reference to burial “in the City of David” (or “in Samaria,” for that matter).25 Therefore, any search for the royal tombs of Jerusalem should begin with areas that were enclosed within the city’s fortifications during the Iron II period. Nevertheless, the idea among scholars that the royal tombs were later relocated to an extramural area of the capital has fuelled speculation regarding Jerusalem’s elite Iron II cemeteries, such as the burial caves at St. Étienne. Furthermore, the paucity of material evidence from the areas within Iron Age Jerusalem’s fortifications (beginning with the Eastern Hill/City of David and then the Western Hill) makes the quest for the royal tombs even more problematic. Within the area of the City of David, the only candidate for royal tombs are those excavated by Raymond Weill. The Western Hill, first fortified in the latter half of the eighth century (most probably by Hezekiah), holds even less archaeological evidence for royal tombs due to its extensive history of occupation.26 The present state of the Western Hill, which bears the 23 The apparent controversy reflected in Ezek 43:7–9, and related to royal funerary rituals within the city walls, is related by M. Smith to Isaiah 28 and the “covenant with death” (vv. 15 and 18); S MITH, Recent, 18. For the Isaiah passage, see also the attempt to associate twm with the Egyptian goddess Mut (along with her associations with both royalty and the netherworld) in H AYS, Covenant with Mut, 212–240. 24 So N A'AMAN, Death Formulae, 245–254 (and sources listed above). It is equally unclear whether this prophetic passage bears any relationship to the Garden of Uzza, which Na‘aman places outside the walls of the city and identifies with the “Kings’ Garden” that was apparently opposite the Tombs of David (Neh 3:15–16), I DEM., Death Formulae, 249–250. 25 Kathleen Kenyon’s comment that the preposition -b can indicate “general vicinity” is not incorrect, but her further statement that the “Semites” did not practice intramural burials is erroneous, K ENYON, Digging, 32. Leaving aside the unique character of royal tombs, this manner of burial may not have been preferred in Phoenicia or Israel, but it was common place at Ugarit in the second millennium and Assyria in the first millennium and was typical of royal burials (as has already been demonstrated). 26 Benjamin Mazar discovered the remains of Iron Age tombs along the eastern slope of the Western Hill, which in later antiquity had been emptied of all human remains and reused for non-funerary purposes; see, conveniently, B LOCH-SMITH, Judahite, 226. The tomb architecture compares with eighth-seventh century Phoenician tombs at Achzib (the cemeteries for this site are located at Ez-Zib and Er-Ras, Israel). Curiously, Mazar surmised that the remains of these rock-cut tombs could be the royal tombs, suggesting further that they were vacated due to purity concerns (cf. Ezek 43:7), which resulted in the creation of new royal tombs, the Garden of Uzza, outside the city walls (probably near the Mt. of Olives), M AZAR, Archaeological, 40.

104

Chapter Five: The Burial Notice

name Mount Zion, includes a medieval structure that is the traditional site of the Tomb of David.27 Yet there are no relevant Iron Age remains associated with this specific locale.28 Thus, a survey of the proposed locations for the Tomb(s) of David and the Garden of Uzza will not only describe the problems involved with this archaeological endeavor, but also highlight the social, historical, and political considerations that were necessary in the creation of royal tombs. 5.2.1. Royal Burial in the City of David Aside from the royal epilogues of Kings and Chronicles, the search for the necropolis of the Davidic dynasty is dependent largely upon Neh 3:16. The epilogues themselves contain no information regarding the location of the tombs in the City of David.29 The account in Nehemiah, however, lists the Tombs of David (dywIdF yr"b;qi; v.16) alongside other Jerusalem landmarks in its description of the reconstruction of the city’s walls. As such, scholars generally place the necropolis on the eastern slopes of the City of David.30 Within this area, however, Raymond Weill’s excavation represents the only attempt to propose a location for the royal tombs within the archaeological remains of the City of David. 5.2.1.1. Weill’s Royal Necropolis In a series of excavations in the early twentieth-century, the French Egyptologist Weill uncovered nine subterranean features that he interpreted as tombs.31 Of these tombs, Weill identified three specifically as the “royal 27 For the archaeology of the traditional Tomb of David, which includes the remains of a possible pre-medieval synagogue, see H IRSCHBERG, Remains, 116–117. 28 Yet it is important to note that Iron Age remains have been found on the Western Hill. Gabriel Barkay has suggested that the presence of the traditional Tomb of David, and the re-identification of the hill as ‘Mount Zion’ during the Roman Period may indicate an earlier tradition of royal tombs (belonging to the House of David) on the Western Hill (see below). 29 Conversely, neither do the brief descriptions in Nehemiah and Chronicles, as noted in D EQUEKER, Tomb, 78. According to Dequeker, however, the ‘City of David’ in these references reflects a later Maccabean identification of the toponym with the Western Hill (and not the Eastern Hill). 30 Y EIVIN, Sepulchres, 30–45. Yeivin’s article appeared in response to A. Reifenberg’s suggestion that the royal tombs mentioned in Kings were located among the elite burials of the Iron Age cemetery at Silwan, outside of the fortifications of the City of David. Furthermore, Yeivin rejected Weill’s identification of T1–T3, in part, because these structures were too far south with respect to the royal citadel. Most recently, see Z ORN, Burials, 812; see briefly, H ACHMANN, Kumidi und Byblos, 38. 31 WEILL, La Cité, 127–139; Pls. 123, 125, 128A, 111–114, 117–119; cf. IDEM., deuxième campagne, 117; W EILL and VINCENT, The City, 65–76.

5.2. The Archaeological Quest for the Tombs of David

105

necropolis,” numbering them Tombs 1, 2 and 3 (T1–T3, respectively). Within this group, Tomb 1 is the best preserved and documented, and as such has received the most attention.32 Weill’s results, however, have not found much acceptance among archaeologists. David Ussishkin dismissed Weill’s structures as too crudely constructed and lacking features typical of Iron II funerary architecture in Judah (i.e., burial bench and repository).33 Ronny Reich noted that T1’s sloped ceiling was atypical of Iron Age tombs and further observed that the lamp niches and gray plaster on the tomb’s walls fit the early Roman period.34 These arguments, however, have certain deficiencies as has been pointed out in a recent essay by Jeff Zorn.35 To begin with, royal tombs can be idiosyncratic within a given culture and there are no data intrinsic to the kingdoms of Israel and Judah with which Weill’s structures can be compared.36 For these reasons, it is methodologically difficult to dismiss T1–T3 based on their lack of architectural features common among Iron II tombs in Judah. Instead, comparisons should be sought elsewhere in the Levant with tombs that are known to belong to a king (as has been done). Zorn used this rationale as a basis for his reconstruction of the historical and social context of Weill’s T1–T3. Zorn briefly surveyed royal tombs from the Levant that date to the MB–LB periods and observed that they were often modest, lacking the architectural refinement seen at elite burialsites in Iron II Judah.37 Tombs 1–3 were then compared with a shaft tombcomplex excavated at Hazor and dated to the MB period (Hazor Stratum IV).38 Based on these factors, Zorn concluded that the House of David occupied earlier Canaanite burials that had belonged to the previous rulers of Jerusalem. The basic problem that prompted Zorn’s hypothesis is that historically one would expect a burial-type for the tombs of David that was

32 This tomb consisted of a long horizontal shaft (ca. 16 m in length) with a stepped entrance, a sloped ceiling and a carved trough-like niche at the far end. The deep section at the entrance, which ends abruptly 4m from the niche, seems to have housed two levels. See the reconstruction in BAHAT, Illustrated Atlas, 33; and the description in ZORN, Burials, 802–803. 33 U SSISHKIN, Village, 298–299. Ussishkin’s conclusion was based upon his important survey of Jerusalem’s eastern Iron Age cemetery in Silwan (conducted with Gabriel Barkay). These elite tombs from the Iron II period served as a basis for comparison. 34 R EICH, Weill's Excavations, 136–139. Reich concluded that T1 was actually part of a miqwaot associated with a nearby synogogue. Cf. Kathleen Kenyon’s conjecture that Weill’s tombs were actually irregularly shaped cisterns, K ENYON, Digging, 156. 35 Z ORN, Burials, 804–805. 36 The tombs at Samaria, identified by Norma Franklin (Tombs, 1–11), may represent an exception to this lack of parallels. 37 Z ORN, Burials, 808–809. 38 IDEM., Burials, 809–812.

106

Chapter Five: The Burial Notice

earlier than the predominantly eighth-seventh century BCE cemeteries of Jerusalem.39 Zorn’s hypothesis raises legitimate issues with the arguments against Weill’s proposed royal necropolis at Tombs T1–T3. A parallel, which Zorn only touches upon, is found at Byblos (Jebeil, Lebanon), where the royal necropolis consists of a series of rock-cut tombs that originated in the Middle Bronze Age and continue into the early Iron Age. L. Y. Rahmani also noted the similarity between T1 and Tomb I at Byblos, but he dismissed the parallel because the Byblos examples were earlier in date (MB).40 Rahmani felt that Weill’s T1 and Byblos Tomb V (where the coffin of ’Ahirom was discovered) were in fact dissimilar in plan and style, and observed that the earlier Bronze Age (MB–LB) tombs from the Byblos necropolis were actually more similar to the City of David tombs. Therefore, according to Rahmani, Weill’s discovery cannot be compared with the Byblos tombs because any analogy would make the relevant archaeological remains on the Eastern Hill earlier than the required Iron Age date for the House of David (and their tombs). These objections, however, coincide with Zorn’s hypothesis that the House of David took over an earlier royal necropolis (originating in the MB). In fact, it seems that the burial of ’Ahirom, king of Byblos, by his son Ittoba‘al (KAI 1) required the reuse of a Late Bronze Age tomb and thus the subsequent disturbance of a former royal burial.41 This action likely resulted in the deliberate plunder of a former royal burial,42 with a current ruling dynasty displacing a former ruling house. Epigraphic work on the inscription and its locus, the sarcophagus, suggests that the writing

39

This historical theory has been suggested in the past and Zorn cites archaeologist Rolf Hachmann (Kumidi und Byblos, 39–40; cf. also Die Gräber, 387–389.) In addition, Zorn refers also to the popular work of Hershel Shanks, editor of Biblical Archaeologist Review, see, e.g., S HANKS, City of David, 106–108. 40 R AHMANI, Funerary: Part Two, 232. Unlike others who were opposed to Weill’s conclusions, Rahmani seemed to accept that T1 was an ancient tomb (for him it was simply earlier than the United Monarchy). 41 The sarcophagus of ’Ahirom is roughly dated to the eleventh century BCE (based on paleography), see briefly C OOK, Linguistic Dating, 33–36; and N IEHR, Der Sarkophag 232–233. The dating is general, however, and remains without a more exact point in history; L EHMANN, Dynastensarkophage: Teil 1.2, 18–19. The construction of the necropolis at Jebeil (Byblos) seems to span the MB–LB period (assuming that Tomb V is earlier than the burial of ‘Ahirom; refer R EHM, Dynastensarkophage: Teil 1.1, 17–19). 42 PORADA, Notes, 357–358. Additionally, ’Ahirom’s inscription (or even the lid of the sarcophagus containing the inscription) may be secondary, L EHMANN, Dynastensarkophage: Teil 1.2, 19; see also N IEHR, Der Sarkophag 236. This observation would indicate the appropriation of another king’s sarcophagus (in addition to the tomb’s reuse).

5.2. The Archaeological Quest for the Tombs of David

107

was produced at a stage later than the initial use of the artifact.43 In fact, usurpation and appropriation of the royal tomb seems to be the point of the curse that follows the standard identification of this epitaph. This sense of the inscription is abundantly clear in its second line, where a curse warns any subsequent ruler from acting in the same manner as the ruling house of ’Ahirom. The ’Ahirom Sarcophagus, KAI 1:2 w’l.mlk.bmlk.wskn.bsnm.wtm’.mnt.‘ly.gbl.wygl.’rn.zn.ttsp.r.mph.hthtpk.ks’.mlk h.wnt.tbr.‘l.gbl.wh’.ym.sprh.lpp.bl And if a king from among kings or a governor among governors or the commander of an army should come up against Byblos and uncover this coffin, may the scepter of his rule be broken, may the throne of his kingship be overturned, and may peace flee Byblos, and 44 as for him, may his inscription be effaced with the double edge of a chisel.

The arguments in favor of interpreting Weill’s structures as royal tombs are compelling, yet given the condition of the tombs and the context in which they were discovered, a definite conclusion cannot be reached. The layout and plan of these subterranean structures are a good indication that their construction occurred in the second millennium (most likely the MB period). Their reuse in the early Roman period, however, raises certain issues in their historical interpretation. Several later sources suggest that the Tombs of David were known in the first century, prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, although the validity of these traditions remains unclear.45 Nevertheless, the structures excavated by Weill were probably not those identified as the Tombs of David in the early Roman period if

43

See L EHMANN, Calligraphy, 122–123 (and 142–143), where it is observed that the inscription on the lid seems to be a secondary act that altered the surface of the sarcophagus; see also LUNDBERG, Editor’s Notes, 81–93. Lehmann suggests a mid-second millennium date, although he notes that the sarcophagus itself has been dated to the 13 th century by others, LEHMANN, Calligraphy, 120 n. 3; see R EHM, Dynastensarkophage: Teil 1.1. 44 The translation here follows that of M CC ARTER, ’Ahirom (COS 2.55), 181, henceforth, referred to as COS 2:2. Even slightly different interpretations still acknowledge the political significance of appropriating a royal burial site, e.g., LEHMANN, Dynastensarkophage: Teil 1.2, 26. For the curse formula and this particular inscription, see M ÜLLER , phönizische Grabinschrift, 127. 45 E.g., Acts 2:29. Josephus’s account of Hyrcanus’s plunder of the Tomb of David suggests that the burial site as it was identified remained intact (relatively speaking) up through the Hellenistic period (Antiq. VII. 393). What is noteworthy about this account is that the chamber is “one room of David’s sepulchre” (eºna oi•kon twn e˙n twˆ Daui÷dou mnh/mati ), which may indicate that the burial complex contained multiple chambers.

108

Chapter Five: The Burial Notice

they were being used as ritual bathing installations.46 The simple fact is that Weill’s structures are detached from any Iron Age context.47 Therefore it is impossible to know their exact history during the broad span of time between the Late Bronze Age (or even the earlier Middle Bronze) and the early Roman period.48 5.2.2. Burial in the Garden of Uzza In the line of the House of David, all kings subsequent to Hezekiah lack any reference to burial in the City of David in their burial notices; additionally, in the few burial notices that do appear in the epilogues for the latter kings of Judah, the phrase “buried with his fathers” ceases to appear. An alternative burial site, the Garden of Uzza, appears in the burial notices of Manasseh (2 Kg 21:18), Amon (21:26), and possibly Jehoiakim according to certain Greek versions.49 Although it is correctly assumed that this burial site was in Jerusalem (otherwise, it would have been noted),50 the specific location of the Garden of Uzza is unknown. Likewise, it is unclear why the burial trend shifts in the seventh century. Even the name itself, Uzza ()z@f(u), is unexplained and several theories exist that posit either a biblical etiology (cf. Perez Uzza, 2 Sam 6:3–7 [=1 Chr 13:7–11])51 or an

46

Weill’s attempt to explain this historical problem is unconvincing, W EILL and V INThe City, 82–84. It should also be noted that the later sources imply that the Tomb of David was a monument unassociated with any other structure (such as a palace), and thus self-standing. For instance, Acts 2:29 simply states: “… and his [David’s] tomb is with us to this day.” Thus, the later mention of the tomb(s) of David may refer to separate monuments built by the House of David subsequent to the use of Weill’s necropolis. 47 This point of objection was raised briefly in TARLER and C AHILL, David, City of, 64. As already noted, it was quite common in the Bronze and Iron Age Levant to construct royal tombs beneath the palace (e.g., Ugarit, Ebla, Qana, and possibly Samaria; refer above). The tombs in question, however, are not located in the part of the Eastern Hill that is traditionally identified as the location of the royal palaces at the northern end of the City of David. I would like to thank Aaron Burke for discussing this problem with me at length. 48 The Bronze Age tombs could have been plundered in the Iron Age; they could have been used for non-funerary purposes (or left unused), or remained undiscovered. 49 Found in 4 Kingdoms 24:6 of the OG and GL and 2 Par 36:8 (LXX). Refer B ROOKE, M CL EAN, and T HACKERAY, Old Testament in Greek, 384. 50 For example, Halpern and Vanderhooft (Editions, 195) insist that the Garden of Uzza was still located in the Eastern Hill. Joe Uziel and Itzhaq Shai suggest that the change in the burial notices is reflective of Jerusalem’s urban status that develops during the late monarchy, U ZIEL and SHAI, Iron Age Jerusalem, 168. Thus, the attitude towards Jerusalem changes (not the actual practice of burial). 51 B ARKAY, Problem, 77. Cf. also D EQUEKER, Tomb, 80. CENT ,

5.2. The Archaeological Quest for the Tombs of David

109

astral deity as its origin.52 Another suggestion is that the garden burial site originated with the separate burial of Uzziah (Azariah of Kings), the king who died a leper.53 The problems with this proposed origin touch upon the uncertainty regarding who was buried in the Garden of Uzza. Was this an individual funerary shrine dedicated to a few kings, or was it the dedicated location for every king after Ahaz? Indeed, this question raises the fundamental problem of the nature of this garden cemetery. These problems must be addressed before any attempt is made to locate the Garden of Uzza. The basic question with regard to this apparent royal cemetery is its nature and origin. One idea is that the cemetery originated as a royal garden, such as the King’s Garden, which is mentioned alongside the Tombs of the Sons of David in Neh 3:15–16.54 Nadav Na’aman recently advanced this theory, arguing that the royal tombs originally were located beneath the palace (as is typical in the Near East).55 According to Na’aman, the rise of more stringent purity regulations in the seventh century led to the relocation of the burials to the King’s Garden in the Kidron Valley, which was outside of the city’s walls (cf. Ezek 43:7–9). Yet, in light of the rise of Assyrian siege tactics (see Chapter Three), it seems implausible that royal tombs would be built outside of Jerusalem’s fortifications. Francesca Stavrakopoulou has drawn from Near Eastern parallels to suggest that the Garden of Uzza was the location for a type of ancestor worship that was looked upon unfavorably by the biblical writers.56 As a result, the garden burials assigned to Manasseh and Amon in Kings (in the Garden of Uzza) were intended to contrast these evil kings with their pious forefathers. Although it is important not to conflate ancestor cults with funerary rituals, the idea that the Garden of Uzza may have originated as a special location for the commemoration of royal ancestors is intriguing. Yet there are no descriptions of illicit rituals (such as ancestor worship) at this garden and the only activity that was depicted at the Garden of Uzza was the entomb52 Based on the epithet El ‘Uzza that is used for the deity ‘atr, see G RAY, Desert God, 81 n.85. The suggestion is followed by M CK AY, Religion. 53 Note also the late Second Temple period placard (apparently from Jerusalem) that was written in Aramaic marking the burial place of Uzziah. On Uzziah and the Garden of Uzza, see Y EIVIN, Sepulchres, 31–35. The theory that the garden originated with Uzziah is motivated, in part, by the variant burial notice in 2 Chr 26:23, which states that due to his leprosy, Uzziah was given a separate burial “in the field of burial belonging to the kings” [Mykilfm@;la r#$e)j hrFw%bq@;ha hd"#&;b@i]. 54 N A’AMAN, Death Formulae, 249–253. 55 Norma Franklin’s proposal of royal tombs at Samaria prompted Na’aman’s essay (which focused on Jerusalem), and he astutely notes several other Near Eastern examples, Death Formulae, 248–249. Note the objections in U SSISHKIN, Disappearance, 68– 70 and IDEM., Megiddo. 56 STAVRAKOPOULOU, Exploring, 1–21.

110

Chapter Five: The Burial Notice

ment of defunct kings.57 Furthermore, the Near Eastern parallels that Stavrakopoulou uses are not without their own problems.58 The selective information offered in Kings for the burials of the seventh century kings of Judah reveals a subjectivity that is comparable with that of Chronicles, where less favorable kings were denied burial in the royal tombs.59 Yet this subjectivity should not be confused with anything akin to the judgment formula, as the burial notice “and he was buried in the Garden of Uzza” lacks any qualifying remarks to distinguish the act as evil. Ultimately, the connection between Ezek 43:7–9 and the change in burial location is speculative, and nothing in the literature allows for any firmer relationship.60

57 Stavrakopoulou cites Isaiah 65:3–5 as evidence that certain burials (and by extension, ancestor cults) may have been in gardens, IDEM., Exploring, 8–10. Stavrakopoulou draws also from S TARODOUB-SCHARR, Royal Garden, 253*–268*, which is also speculative in its basic thesis regarding ancestral gardens and burials. 58 Seth Richardson (Assyrian Garden, 145–216) advances the fascinating thesis that the relocation of the Assyrian capital from Aur, where the royal tombs were located, to Kalu necessitated the creation of a memorial for the defunct kings in the Assyrian royal line (as defined by the Assyrian King List). The ancestral garden that Richardson proposes, however, is virtual and not real. Furthermore, it would have been a memorial site dedicated to royal ancestors, and not a burial site (like the Garden of Uzza). 59 B LOCH-SMITH, Judahite, 118. Thus, for Joram (2 Chr 21:20) and Joash (2 Chr 24:25) it states: Mykilfm@;ha twOrb;qib@; )Olw: dywId@F ry(ib@; w%hrUb@;q;y,Iwa (“they buried him in the City of David, but not in the tombs of the kings”). For Ahaz (28:27): yk@i MIla#$fw%ryb@i ry(ibf w%hrUb@;q;y,Iwa l)'r F# &;yI yk'l ;m a yr"b ;q il ; w%h )uybih v )Ol (“They buried him in the city, in Jerusalem, because they did not bring him to the tombs of the kings of Israel [!]).” This ambiguous reading, which is corrected in the versions, is difficult to explain. Bloch-Smith includes also kings who died of diseases, thus Asa (2 Chr 16:13–14) and Azariah/Uzziah (26:23). Like the assassinated rulers described in the Book of Kings, the extraordinary fates of these kings resulted in more elaboration in the literary accounts of their funerary rites. Thus, it is difficult to decide whether the Chronicler was evaluating the diseased kings, or stating the facts of their final days. A memorial fire is burned for Asa, while Uzziah’s fate is ambivalent: )w%h (rFwOcm; w%rm;)f yk@i Mykilfm@;la r#$e)j hrFw%bq@;ha hd"#&;b@i wytfbo)j-M(i wOt)o w%rb@;q;y,IwA (“they buried him with his fathers, in the field of the burial belonging to the kings because they said: ‘he is a leper’”). In all of these accounts, the Qal stem of rbq is used, similar to the narrative accounts of the conspiracies/coups in Kings. Ultimately, the variable burial notices in the Book of Chronicles divulge the fact that the Chronicler knew in his time of multiple burial sites (in Jerusalem) for the kings of Judah. 60 There is too much uncertainty involved, and no direct link between the texts. If the Garden of Uzza can be positively identified with an area outside of Jerusalem’s walls, then it may become possible to hypothesize further that this location was a result of purity concerns reflected in Ezekiel’s oracle. There is reason to doubt, however, whether there ever were royal tombs outside the city walls. If the Garden of Uzza was relocated elsewhere in Jerusalem, inside the city walls, it would have still contributed to the problem of purity that concerned the prophet.

5.2. The Archaeological Quest for the Tombs of David

111

Stavrakopoulou’s hypothesis highlights a problem with the garden cemetery of the House of David. How many kings were buried in the Garden of Uzza? In other words, did this location become the resting place for the mortal remains of all of the kings of Judah, from Hezekiah until (at least) Josiah? Although, this question will never move beyond speculation, it is elicited by the changes in the burial notices following Ahaz (and, by omission, his son Hezekiah). It cannot be stated that all of the latter kings of Judah were buried in the Garden of Uzza, because several died in exile (Jehoahaz in Egypt [2 Kg 23:34] as well as Jehoiachin and Zedekiah). The problem of the royal tombs, after the reign of Ahaz, is only complicated by the absence of burial notices for Hezekiah and Jehoiakim.61 The absence of any death account for Jehoiakim is curious in light of Jeremiah’s prophecy of non-burial that was leveled against the king. The prophet’s words regarding Jehoiakim’s death are quite pointed (Jer 22:19), he would be “buried like a donkey, dragged off and thrown beyond the gates of Jerusalem.”62 As Oded Lipchits has pointed out, if Jehoiakim was actually denied a proper funeral and left disinterred, it certainly would have been noted in the Hebrew Bible either in Jeremiah or in Kings (given the prominence of the prophecy-fulfillment motif in the DtrH).63 Furthermore, as previous scholars have noted,64 the variant orthography in the Greek versions reflect different approaches to a common Hebrew Vorlage; the term kh/pwˆ Oza in 4 Kingdoms (24:6) is a translation of )z@f(u-NgA@, while Ganoza in 2 Par 36:8 is a transliteration. Finally, burial in the Garden of Uzza would not have done much to improve Jehoiakim’s credibility. Therefore the omission of this particular datum would not have been deliberate. It probably represents an anomaly in the history of the MT text of 61 Several scholars have argued similarly that the absence of a burial notice in the epilogue for Hezekiah divulges a reluctance to associate Hezekiah with the evil kings Manasseh and Amon who were all buried in this new cemetery (indicated by the change in the formulaic epilogues); SCHMIDT, Beneficent Dead, 252–254. See similarly N A'AMAN, Death Formulae, 251–252 and, IBID., Temple Library, 141–142 (although Schmidt’s work is not cited by Na’aman). This sort of concern hardly qualifies for Jehoiakim, however, who is roundly condemned in Kings as well as in Jeremiah. 62 Jer 22:19; cf. 36:30. According to Cogan, the word pair “drag and throw” (bwOxsf K7l '# $;h aw:) are semantically paralleled in an Assyrian inscription that describes a similar fate of Aeri, king of Mannai, who was deposed in a rebellion. Thus, the terminology would imply (again, according to Cogan) that Jehoiakim was simply left unburied, rather than disinterred; C OGAN, Note, 33–34. See also, S EITZ, Theology, 113. 63 To quote Lipschits (Jehoiakim, § 3.2.9): “such a reference could have served the theological inclinations of the author towards Jehoiakim, by demonstrating the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy and highlighting the punishment that the king incurred because of his sins.” Strangely, as noted by Seitz (Theology, 106 n. 4), scholars have taken opposite view points on the variant readings. 64 A LBRIGHT, Seal, 90; more recently, see S TAVRAKOPOULOU, Exploring, 3.

112

Chapter Five: The Burial Notice

Kings. All of these factors suggest that Jehoiakim was buried in the Garden of Uzza, although they say nothing about how he met his fate. If Jehoiakim had in fact been buried in the Garden of Uzza, it would mean that three of the last five kings buried in Jerusalem were interred in this special location. Of these kings, there is a further element in common among their burial notices: the use of the term hrFbuq; as an individual burial site. The final resting place of Amon and his son Josiah is specified (“his own tomb/burial [= wOtrFbuq;b@i]”; 2 Kg 21:26a; 23:30a; cf. also 9:28b).65 The term is a qatl form of rbq with the feminine ending, which is generally interpreted as a noun of action (“the burial”).66 This particular word, however, seems to have become a specialized lexical form in certain instances. While it denotes the act of burial, its reference to the singular act of interment for a notable person gives it a substantive sense.67 It seems, then, that the hrFbuq; of Ahaziah, Amon and Josiah refers to an individual place of burial, possibly a funerary shrine, that was distinct from the general term rbeq e (“tomb”). Note also that Amon’s burial wOt rFb uq ;b @i parallels the location of his father Manasseh’s burial: “in the garden of his house” (wOtyb@'-NgAb@;),68 as both kings are buried in the Garden of Uzza. Furthermore, according to Kings, by the seventh century the royal burials seem to have ceased in the City of David; therefore, Josiah’s burial wOtrFbuq;b@i possibly occurred as well in this same garden cemetery. The name of this alternative royal cemetery, the Garden of Uzza, indicates that it was a burial site that was relatively separate from any structure (i.e., not found inside a palace). Furthermore, the consistent use of the 3rd m.sg possessive suffix on the specific burial location (wOtyb@'-NgAb@; and wOtrFbuq;b@i) indicates that the interment may have been single occupancy and not collective. The change in the burial notices coincides with the appearance of specialized tombs in Jerusalem, during the late Iron II period, which often had 65 In terms of literature, the information is listed because the fateful accounts were context specific and necessarily tied to the details of the respective king’s end, therefore the final account is fundamentally different than the generic formula of the burial notice with its general burial location. Yet, the term hrFbuq; that is used for the burial descriptions of Ahaziah, Amon and Josiah requires further explanation. 66 JOÜON and M URAOKA, Grammar, 249–250 § 288 E c; and F OX, Semitic, 197, 201. 67 The location “burial of Rachel” (lx'rF-trAbuq;), with hrFbuq; governing the proper noun in the construct form, is an excellent example and is best understood as simply “Rachel’s tomb.” As such, this construct term became a known landmark in Judah (Gen 35:20; 1 Sam 10:2). The point of mentioning Moses’s hrFbuq; in Deut 34:6 is not that “no one knows [of his] burial,” but that the location of the act is unknown. Thus, in regards to Moses, “his burial” ( wOtrFbuq;) had not become a place of veneration. 68 This reading is preserved in Chronicles, although all mention of the Garden of Uzza is lacking, 2 Chr 33:20. According to the MT, Manasseh is buried in “his house,” while the LXX states “he was buried in the garden of his house” (kai« e¶qayan aujto\n e˙n paradei÷s wˆ oi¶k ou aujtouv).

5.2. The Archaeological Quest for the Tombs of David

113

single benches and carved sarcophagi (but no repositories) incorporated into a larger, more grandiose design. Although this phenomenon appears already in the ninth century, it intensifies during the late-eighth and seventh centuries.69 Baruch Halpern has attributed this to the deconstruction of clan (i.e., corporate) identities and the rise of the so-called individual, representing a royal initiative to strengthen the central power of the monarchy.70 This social fracture, which involved a shift from extended clans to smaller, nuclear families, led to the rise of an urban aristocracy in Jerusalem that was affiliated with the monarchy. The socio-political context of Judah at this phase in history is apparent in Isaiah’s rebuke of the royal steward Shebna (Isa 22:15–16). Isaiah mockingly asks of Shebna regarding his tomb: “what have you here and who have you here?”71 The opening question of v.16a implies that Shebna did not hold any legitimate patrimonial claim to Jerusalem and its environs, lacking any inheritance (“what have you here”) or blood ties to the area (“who have you here”).72 The passage addressed the social tensions involved in the construction of ostentatious funerary monuments such as those found in Jerusalem’s eastern cemetery,73 and may be related to the Royal Steward’s Inscription.74 This 69 B LOCH-SMITH, Life, 128–129. Excellent examples of this are the “sarcophagi” carved into the inner chamber inside Tomb 2 at St. Étienne. 70 H ALPERN, Jerusalem, 71–73; cf. H ALPERN and V ANDERHOOFT, Editions, 195 n.135. See also (briefly), H ALPERN, 297–298. Halpern’s use of mortuary remains is inexact in that many of the tombs he uses as examples contained repositories (for instance the tombs at St. Étienne), or multiple burial benches. Furthermore, the architectural features built for individual interment appear already in the ninth century; BLOCH-SMITH, Life, 123, 128–129. Finally, the communal ideal of burials continued beyond the Iron Age in at least one example, the cemetery at Ketef Hinnom, which had tombs with repositories and multiple burial benches (some built for six people). For an archaeological assessment of Halpern’s theories, see F ANTALKIN, Appearance, 23–24. The grandiose, elaborate and often individualized tombs of Jerusalem in the late Iron II period (such as at Silwan and St. Étienne) offer some support for Halpern’s thesis in that they reflect the rise of an aristocracy in Jerusalem that was distinctly urban and lacking of clan affiliation. 71 The focus of v. 16a is clearly on the location of Shebna’s tomb, seen in the repetition of “here” (hpo), emphasizing the lack of patrimony and the tomb: t@fb;caxf-yk@i hpo K1l; ymiw% hpo K1l @;- hma rbeq F hp@o K1l @;. The verse continues in v. 16b with a description of the tomb’s construction, highlighting the audacity of the act itself: wOrb;qi MwOrmf ybic;xo\ (“hewing on high his tomb”), implying the heights of the Mt. of Olives to the east of the City of David. 72 B LOCH-SMITH, Burials, Israelite, 787. 73 Notably, the so-called “Tomb of Pharoah’s Daughter,” Tomb 3 in the survey of U SSISHKIN, Village 43-60. 74 The inscription has a lacuna where the proper noun once stood, thus there is some debate whether or not it should be reconstructed as *whynb# (> )nb#); see PUECH, 127; cf. R ENZ, 264 n 1. The kinship and inheritance implications of the Royal Steward’s Tomb inscription are unusual given that the deceased include the ‘maidservant’ (hm)) of the tomb’s owner, M CC ARTER, Royal Steward (COS 2.54), 180. According to Ussishkin, the

114

Chapter Five: The Burial Notice

epigraphic Hebrew inscription once adorned a finely carved tomb in Silwan that contained two square-shaped chambers (Tomb 35).75 Most important for the purposes of this study is the fact that the inscription refers to the tomb itself as a hrFbuq;.76 Thus, the elite tombs of Jerusalem’s eastern cemetery (such as Tomb 35 of the Royal Steward’s Inscription), which date to the late Iron II period, provide an example of what could be expected of the seventh century royal tombs of the Garden of Uzza. The initial and most apparent aspect of the Garden of Uzza is that it is a specific point of reference (as opposed to the general location of the previous burial notes). Moreover, when the Garden of Uzza replaces the City of David the additional phrase “with his fathers” also disappears. Furthermore, the philological and syntactical analysis of the use of hrFbuq; (as distinct from rbeqe) suggests that a type of individualized burial became a common custom for kings of Judah beginning with and/or following Hezekiah.77 In light of the general idea among scholars that Tomb 35 at Silwan once had a monumental façade, it is possible that the term “burial” (hrbq) in the inscription implied the entire visible funerary monument. Therefore, it seems most likely that the burials of Manasseh, Amon and Josiah occurred within an individualized funerary monument located in a royal cemetery. 5.2.2.1. The Tombs of Saint Étienne The lack of outside evidence makes it impossible to locate the Garden of Uzza more precisely; however, the modern archaeological rediscovery of term may be an honorific bestowed upon the wife of a high official, U SSISHKIN, Village, 249–250. The reference to the hm) may indicate the exogamous nature of family units that were establishing themselves in Jerusalem during the Iron IIb period. 75 Today it is in the British Museum. For a survey of the original tomb, Tomb 35, see U SSISHKIN, Village, 188–201. 76 The word is actually restored, in construct form, based on the f.sg particle t)z that begins the inscription (tybh l( r#) why[-PN trbq] t)z), see the latest translation in M CC ARTER, Royal Steward (COS 2.54), 180. The tomb actually contained two inscriptions, with a second inside the tomb that referenced both the inner chamber and the rock hewn tomb-system: [xy]rch ptkb [r]dx (“chamber on the side of the tomb-system …”); for the reconstruction and interpretation of xyrc (here) as a type of rock-hewn tomb, see U SSISHKIN, Village, 252–254. The specific word, hrFbuq;, is evident in the inscription from another tomb in the Silwan cemetery, which is fragmented but corroborates its sense and meaning: “[This is] the tomb [of PN] … whoever op[ens it] …” See the remarks in D OBBS-A LLSOPP et al., Hebrew Inscriptions, 406. 77 The examples of Rachel and Moses involve a single burial, however hrFbuq; could still denote a communal tomb, as evinced in the final instructions of Jacob to be buried with Abraham and Isaac “in their burial” (MtfrFbuq;bi@; Gen 47:30), where the f. sg noun again refers to a specific place, but in this case a communal burial site: the Cave of Machpelah.

5.2. The Archaeological Quest for the Tombs of David

115

Iron Age Jerusalem has led to new ideas regarding this enigmatic burial site. This is the case with the important surveys of Jerusalem’s extramural burial-grounds that were conducted largely in the 1970s and, specifically, the reanalysis of the tombs located at St. Étienne in the city’s northern cemetery. Jerusalem’s northern cemetery during the Iron II period was located in the area north of the modern Damascus Gate (Bab al-‘Amud), and the remains of these rock-cut tombs are preserved on the grounds of the Garden Tomb as well in the Dominican compound of the École biblique et archéologique française (EBAF).78 The most important remains of this cemetery are located immediately adjacent to the Couvent St. Étienne (of EBAF), represented by two main tomb-systems: Caves 1 and 2.79 Both tomb-systems consist of a similar layout with a main inner-court surrounded by multiple burial chambers, and together, represent some of finest examples of Iron Age funerary architecture in the southern Levant. The Iron II date of the tombs is indisputable, despite their uniqueness and the later re-use of the caves in late antiquity. The burial chambers consist of a typical Iron Age plan, with three burial-benches on each of the walls opposite the entrance. Most importantly, the burial chambers each contain a repository carved beneath a bench, which is a distinctly Iron Age feature. The tomb-systems are unique, however, due to their extensive layout with a large rectangular central court that gave access to the side chambers. Based on the amount of niches and carved space, these side chambers could accommodate seventeen and twenty-one primary burials, respectively. Although the basic layout of the burial chambers conforms to the typical Iron Age tomb-plan, the extensive nature, extraordinary size and fine craftsmanship of the burial caves at St. Étienne distinguish them from contemporary cemeteries in Judah. One architectural feature of note is found in the innermost burial chamber of Cave 2. Access to this inner chamber was concealed inside another burial chamber, which offered direct access from central court. In place of three benches, the inner chamber contained three trough-like sarcophagi; furthermore, the inner chamber did not contain a repository. The distinctiveness of these features (sarcophagi as opposed to benches), along with their lack of repository, has led to the interpretation that the inner chamber contained the chief ancestors of the group that used the tomb.80 Hence, the eponymous ancestors of the lineage group 78

B ARKAY, K LONER, and M AZAR, Northern Necropolis, 119–127. The tombs were discovered in excavations during the late nineteenth century in conjunction with the construction of the church of St. Étienne, ref. L AGRANGE, 110–117. The description of the tombs given in this present study is based on the author’s firsthand inspection of the remains; note also the description in BARKAY, K LONER, and M AZAR , Northern Necropolis, 119–123. 80 B ARKAY, K LONER, and M AZAR, Northern Necropolis, 121–122. “It seems as though these rock-hewn sarcophagi were reserved for particularly important persons such as the 79

116

Chapter Five: The Burial Notice

would permanently reside in the inner chamber; their status would be marked by their presence in each individual sarcophagus, and they would not undergo the secondary rites that were normally associated with repositories (and later, ossuaries). The monumental nature of Caves 1 and 2 indicates that they served an elite group. The question is whether they belonged to the ruling class of Jerusalem, specifically the House of David. Amos Kloner has proposed that the tombs of St. Étienne are the “caverns of the kings” (sphlai÷wn basilikwn) mentioned in Josephus’s description of Jerusalem’s third wall (War 5:147).81 This identification is plausible, given the proximity of St. Étienne to the monumental tomb of Queen Helena of Adiabene (located at the so-called Tomb of the Kings), which is mentioned in Josephus’s description. According to this proposal, these “caverns” (actually rock-cut tombs that originated in the late Iron II period), were known as royal burials and were revered until the destruction of the Second Temple.82 Kloner associates the tomb group with the House of David and relates their construction to the change in burial notices, post-Hezekiah, suggesting that they may be the tombs of the Garden of Uzza.83 Kloner’s identification of Cave 2 at St. Étienne as the Garden of Uzza is an intriguing hypothesis. Not only does the location of St. Étienne fit Josephus’s geographical description of the so-called “caverns of the kings,” but also the Iron Age tombs themselves share several features that could lead to an interpretation of “royal burial-site.” These features include: monumental size, finely crafted architecture, as well as the specialized burial-chamber (marking rank and status). The problem with the identification is the tomb-group’s position outside the walls of Jerusalem, raising certain issues in light of the political trend of intramural royal-tombs.84 An important motivating factor for the inclusion of royal burial-sites within the city’s fortification was to protect their content. By the late Iron Age, Assyrian inscriptions bear witness to the practice of desecrating the tombs of their enemies (discussed in Chapter Three). In addition, by the seventh century BCE the House of David had lasted several generations and would have been expansive requiring additional tombs for members of the ex-

father of the family owning the cave and his wives.” Quoted from IDEM., Northern Necropolis, 122. 81 K LONER, Third Wall, 121–129. 82 Kloner cites several inscriptional sources to render sphlai÷wn as “burial cave,” IDEM.Third Wall, 127–128; following A VI-Y ONAH, The Third, 121. 83 K LONER, Third Wall, 129. 84 If the tradition of an intramural royal necropolis was well established in Jerusalem (i.e., the City of David) by the seventh century, this exceptional custom may have held enough power to outweigh any developing sense of piety (although it certainly existed).

5.2. The Archaeological Quest for the Tombs of David

117

tended royal family.85 The tomb-group at EBAF certainly belonged to the Iron Age elite-class of Jerusalem, and possibly members of the royal family, but it is unlikely that they ever belonged to the kings of Judah. 5.2.2.2. The Western Hill Although the location of the Garden of Uzza remains uncertain due to lack of evidence, several circumstantial factors have contributed to an archaeological hypothesis that this burial site was located on the Western Hill of Jerusalem (modern Mount Zion). These factors include the rise of Assyrian siege tactics (and the desecration of royal tombs), the resulting fortification of Jerusalem’s expanded settlements, the chronological order of changes in the burial notices of the royal epilogues (within the Book of Kings’ narrative history); and finally the development of a late tradition (Roman Period) associating the Western Hill with Mount Zion and the Tomb of David. Despite the speculative nature of this suggestion, the first three factors roughly coincide in date (late eighth-through-seventh centuries) making it worthy of note. The suggestion that the Garden of Uzza was located on the Western Hill goes back to an essay published in 1977 by Gabriel Barkay.86 According to Barkay, the continued existence of this royal burial site into the Hellenistic and early Roman periods (the period of the Second Temple) led to the later association of the Western Hill with the traditions of the City of David and, thus, Mt. Zion.87 Several historical factors that relate to Jerusalem in the Iron Age offer further support for reconstructing the Garden of Uzza

85 See similarly Ishida’s suggestion that the royal necropolis in the City of David served the extended family of the Davidic dynasty, I SHIDA, Royal Dynasties, 135–136. 86 B ARKAY, Problem, 76–77; more recently, see I DEM., Necropoli, 236–237. Luc Dequeker, who argued unconvincingly that the royal tombs were always on the Western Hill, took a similar position. According to Dequeker, Hezekiah’s fortification of this area led to purity problems (see Ezek 43:7–9) because the tombs were now inside the city walls. Eventually, in the Maccabean period, the Western Hill was identified as the City of David and the generic burial notices were inserted into the Book of Kings. Thus, the Garden of Uzza was always the place of the royal tombs. The fundamental problem with Dequeker’s conjecture is that he fails to show why the phrase “he was buried in the City of David” was not the earliest form in Kings. He offers less support for his explanation that the expansions in Chronicles reflect the original form, which would have been “he was buried with his fathers with the kings of Judah/Israel” (see DEQUEKER, Tomb, 77–84). 87 In other words, the confusion of Mt. Zion (and the City of David) with the Western Hill originated with the fact that this hill contained royal tombs, B ARKAY, Problem, 76– 77. There is good evidence that the modern site of “David’s Tomb” (which is Medieval in origin) goes back to earlier traditions in late antiquity that associated the location to David, see H IRSCHBERG, Remains, 116–117.

118

Chapter Five: The Burial Notice

on the Western Hill.88 The expansion of Jerusalem to the Western Hill began in the Iron II period and during the late eighth-century the refortification of the city included this hill within its walls.89 This fortification project, attributed to Hezekiah, coincides with the period of time during which the epilogues in Kings cease to reference burial in the City of David. Ahaz, the father of Hezekiah, is the last king to have the standard burial notice statement that he was buried “in the City of David.”90 Following Hezekiah, the burials of Manasseh (2 Kg 21:18), Amon (21:26) and possibly Jehoiakim took place in the Garden of Uzza. The statement “in the City of David” never again appears in the burial notices of Kings. Thus, by the seventh century the Western Hill was firmly entrenched as an extension of Jerusalem and would have been considered part of the royal patrimony of the House of David. Burial on the Western Hill would have been consistent with the policy of establishing royal tombs within the city walls of Jerusalem, despite the change of location. The elevation and size of the Western Hill, along with its defense works, would have offered the additional advantage of protection. This last factor is important in light of the Assyrian practice of desecrating royal tombs. By the late-eighth century it became a royal imperative to protect Jerusalem’s resources from Assyrian siege tactics, as evident in the construction efforts to internalize and protect the capital’s water source.91 Thus, it is implausible that new tombs for the kings of Judah would be built outside the fortifications of Jerusalem. Therefore, the logical (albeit speculative) location for the Garden of Uzza outside of the City of David is somewhere within the protective confines of ancient Jerusalem’s Western Hill.

5.3. Samaria and the Royal Tombs of the Israelite Kings The problem of the royal tombs for the Kingdom of Israel differs from its southern counterpart. The tombs of these kings, which are referenced in their burial notices, lack any description. Furthermore, the northern kingdom was ruled by several successive dynasties up until 722 BCE, and 88 Remains of Iron II tombs have been uncovered on the Western Hill, refer M AZAR, Archaeological, 40. 89 The classic article on this subject is BROSHI, 21–26. The archaeological evidence for the Iron Age expansion of Jerusalem onto the Western Hill (current up to the mid1970s) is reviewed in B ARKAY, Problem, 78–79. For a discussion of this impact of this urbanization, see S CHNIEDEWIND, How the Bible, 68–73. 90 The burial notice, which employs the Niphal of rbq, includes the additional statement wytfbo)j-M(i, stating: “And Ahaz was buried with his fathers in the City of David” (2 Kg 16:20). 91 At least, this seems to be the sense of Isa 22:9–11.

5.2. The Archaeological Quest for the Tombs of David

119

throughout this history there were at least two capitals that contained royal burials: Tirzah (once, for the burial of Baasha [1 Kg 16:6]) and Samaria (beginning with Omri [1 Kg 16:28]). Both cities were excavated in the early twentieth-century,92 and although nothing akin to a royal acropolis was found at Tirzah (Tell el-Farah [North]), the remains at Samaria might include structures that held the mortal remains of Israelite kings. In an article published in 2003,93 Norma Franklin identified two subterranean features in the Iron Age palace of Samaria as possible tombs. The discovery of these features goes back to the early twentieth-century when George A. Reisner and Clarence S. Fisher excavated the palatial complex as part of the Harvard University expedition to Sebasti yeh.94 While the early excavators recognized one of the features as a tomb (Franklin’s Tomb B, Tomb 7 according to Reisner et al), the other was mislabeled as a cistern (Tomb A, originally Cistern 7). Furthermore, the excavators failed to recognize the political (i.e., royal) implications of Tomb B. Franklin’s interpretation of the structures as royal tombs is supported by her analysis of their construction history (in relation to the palace and royal complex) as well as her comparison with other Near Eastern inter-palatial tomb systems. Tombs A and B were constructed beneath the palace and their entry was cut into the foundation scarp (the “Omri Scarp”) that was covered by the initial construction of the complex. Thus, it is apparent that the tombs originated in Building Phase 1 and were part of the original plan of the palace. Furthermore, the structures are of comparable dimensions and they have similar alignment.95 Finally, special antechambers were created during Building Phase 2, when the acropolis was expanded, in order to ensure access into the tombs.96 The plan of the palace tombs of Samaria is comparable to the LB period Palais royale at Ugarit where a large subterranean tomb was constructed beneath the floor of a unit (Room 28),97 which con92 Samaria was excavated first from 1908–1910 by G. A. Reisner and C. S. Fisher (see above) and then 1931–1935 under J. W. Crowfoot, refer A VIGAD, Samaria (City), 1302. Tell el-Farah (north), identified as Tirzah, was excavated by R. de Vaux between 1946 and 1960, refer DE M IROSCHEDJI, Far’ah, Tell el- (North), 433. 93 FRANKLIN, Tombs, 1–11; a popular version of the essay has since appeared, IDEM., Lost Tombs, 26–35. 94 R EISNER, FISHER, and L YON, Harvard Excavations 1, Harvard Excavations 2. 95 The possibility that the subterranean structures (Tombs A and B) predated the palace is negated by two factors. First of all, their intentional position beneath specific rooms of the palace (such as Tomb A beneath Court 7) indicates that the aboveground structure and subterranean units were constructed in relation to one-another, see FRANKLIN, Tombs, Fig. 1. Secondly, the creation of antechambers during subsequent building phases indicates that the tombs were in use during the same phase as the palace. 96 Rooms 11–12 for Tomb A and Room 13 for Tomb B; Tombs, 4–7. 97 SCHAEFFER, Reprise, 16. The Samaria palace tombs were carved out of bedrock while the Ugarit tomb was constructed through vaulting techniques. The different styles,

120

Chapter Five: The Burial Notice

joins a large court (Court II).98 The disturbed state of the subterranean features inside the palace of Samaria makes it difficult to confirm Franklin’s interpretation. Unfortunately, both rooms were relatively vacant of any burial remains.99 The comparative data from Near Eastern royal tombs, however, lends support to Franklin’s proposal. Her interpretation of the subterranean features is also plausible based upon their context (located inside the palace) and other factors such as their uniform size and manner of access. The burial notices for the northern kings do not offer any additional information that could lend support to the study of Tombs A and B. The notices change their place of reference, from Tirzah to Samaria, when the royal capital moves from the one city to the other. Again, the rationale behind the burial notice is the practice of claiming patrimony through mortuary rites. Yet it should be noted that this second formulaic statement in the epilogues for the northern kings always lack the phrase “with their fathers,” thus the collective identity is never associated with their royal tombs except through the initial statement of the epilogues.100

5.4. The Formulaic Burial Notices in Kings The survey of royal tombs in the archaeological record of the ancient Levant draws to light, at the most basic level, the importance of interment within the royal capital. The royal tombs were symbolic of a king’s patrimony, to a certain extent. Therefore the burial notices in the royal epilogues served a key role in recording the king’s interment in Samaria or Jerusalem. The political significance of this act is stressed in the consistent pattern that the burial notices follow in the Book of Kings for both however, were dictated by the situation of the respective palace structures (the royal acropolis at Samaria was built upon bedrock). 98 See Figure 20 in Y ON, La Cité, 47, Fig. 20 (I DEM., City, 37, Fig. 20 [ET]). 99 These features, Tombs A and B, should be judged based upon a comparison with other ancient Near Eastern tombs, and not on later funerary architecture from the Kingdom of Judah. This problematic manner of interpretive analogy is found in a recent rejoinder to Franklin’s essay, USSISHKIN, Megiddo. See also the popular version IDEM., Disappearance, 68–70. Cf. F RANKLIN, Response, 72–73. 100 With the House of Jehu, however, Jehoash (2 Kg 13:13b; 14:16a) “was buried in Samaria with the Kings of Israel,” while Jeroboam II “lay with this fathers with the Kings of Israel” (2 Kg 14:28a). The collective identity (l)'rF#&;yI yk'l;ma) associated with the royal tombs of Samaria seems to be the aggregate total of kings, spanning multiple dynasties. According to Halpern and Vanderhooft, these two kings were the only rulers of Israel that had more than one predecessor, thus the unique collective identity was used in their epilogues, H ALPERN and V ANDERHOOFT, Editions, 192–193.

5.4. The Formulaic Burial Notices in Kings

121

kingdoms.101 By the seventh century (when only the Kingdom of Judah remained) the burial notices change. Given the regularity of the notices up until the reign of Hezekiah, the alterations that occur with the notices for the kings of Judah post-Hezekiah must signify an important development in the history of the House of David. The basic question is whether this change is literary or cultural. It is imperative, therefore, to further this historical-critical investigation by examining the formal aspects of the burial notices. This line of investigation will examine verbal variations in the burial notices, focusing on their basic syntax and their terminology. The basic form of the burial notice consists of a waw-consecutive verbal clause (like the other two notices) that includes a prepositional phrase indicating where the burial took place. Thus, for the kings of Judah, the burial notice takes the following form: dwid@F ry(ib@; wOt)o w%rb@;q;y,IwA/rb'q@Fy,IwA. While the same root (rbq) always occurs in the verbal clause of the burial notice, its stem varies between Niphal (the majority of occurrences) and Qal.102 It is uncertain why the formulaic usage varies between the Niphal and the Qal.103 Certain observations, however, can be made in regards to the manner of verb-stem variation of rbq in the narrative descriptions of a king’s death versus the standard formulaic epilogues. In the formulaic burial notices, the most commonly used stem is that of the Niphal, while the Qal is often found at the end of a narrative involving the special circumstances of a king’s death. In fact, the greater frequency of the waw-consecutive Qal (w%rb@;q;y,IwA) occurs in narrative accounts of a king’s violent death (either in battle or as a result of a conspiracy [r#$eqe]).104 For example, Ahab is mortally wounded in battle at RamothGilead and returns to his capital where “they buried the King in Samaria”

101

See, conveniently, the charts in B ARKAY, Necropoli, 234–235; and H ALPERN and V ANDERHOOFT, Editions, 189, Table 1. 102 The 3 m.pl Qal is used for Jehu (2 Kg 10:31) and his son Jehoahaz (2 Kg 13:9; although with the 3 m.sg suffix), and in both cases it is followed by the prepositional phrase “in Samaria.” The burial notice of Abijam (1 Kg 15:8) uses this Qal form followed by the prepositional phrase “in the City of David,” but only with Azariah (2 Kg 15:7) is the Qal followed by the collective phrase in a standard epilogue, that is, an epilogue with all three notices presented in the normal formulaic pattern. Within the standard epilogues, this form (with Qal) is used for both northern and southern kings, it ceases after Azariah, and it typically lacks the collective identity (“with the fathers”). These factors could indicate that this epilogue style was northern in origin, rather than a scribal convention from the Kingdom of Judah. 103 B EGRICH, Chronologie, 190–191. The specific question was investigated by SMIT, Death, 173–177. Most recently, Z EWI, Parallels, 240–242. 104 See the remarks on  r#$q in W HITE, Elijah Legends, 47–51.

122

Chapter Five: The Burial Notice

(1 Kg 22:37).105 Similarly, two kings of Judah, Ahaziah (2 Kg 9:28) and Josiah (2 Kg 23:30), are killed in the north and their servants transport their bodies by chariot back to Jerusalem.106 In these three instances (Ahab, Ahaziah and Josiah), the description of burial is a component of the larger narrative concerning the death of the king and the transportation of his body to the capital. Additionally, two other kings of Judah are killed in a conspiracy, Jehoash (2 Kg 12:22) and Amon (2 Kg 21:26), where the latter king’s burial is given the further specification “in the Garden of Uzza.” Thus, the narrative expresses the fact that the agency of burial is produced through the same agency of death, which requires the specific syntax that is encountered in the phrase: wOt)o w%rb@;q;y,IwA/w%hrUb@;q;y,Iwa.107 The conspiracy against Jehoash exemplifies this point: “his servants, smote him and he died and they buried him …” (2 Kg 12:22a).108 Thus, there is a plausible literary explanation for the unusual (or, at least, non-formulaic) burial accounts for kings who died violently. All of the burial notices for seventh century kings utilize the Qal stem of the verb “to bury” and all indicate an individualized burial place marked by the rare feminine noun, hrFbuq;. The literary observation, however, does not indicate that the change in the recorded burial location, from the City 105

The literary nature of this verse is apparent in the fact that the direct object of is “the King” (marked as K7lem@eha-t)e), which is how Ahab is referenced throughout the narrative. 106 In both accounts the royal servants mount the dead (or mortally wounded) king upon his chariot, and both verses begin with the 3rd pl. waw-consecutive of the same verb, bykir:hi: wOt rFb uq ;b i wOt )o w%r b@;q ;y,IwA hmfl f# $fw%r y: wydFb f( j wOt )o w%b k@ir :y,AwA (2 Kg 9:28) wOt rFb uq ;b @i w%h rUb @;q ;y,Iwa MIl a# $fw%r y: w%h )ub iy:wA wOd @gIm @;m i tm' wydFb f( j w%h buk @ir :y,AwA (2 Kg 23:30) The transportation of the mortal remains of the king by horse and chariot is reminiscent also of the fateful end of Ahab and Amaziah. The similarity is incidental, in that the primary means of transporting the king would have been the chariot. Nevertheless, the passages could reflect a common redactional effort, possibly exilic (or at least postJosianic), M CK ENZIE, Dog Food, 412 (with sources). Both verses, however, make a point in stating that the respective king was buried in the royal capital (Jerusalem) like all other kings of the House of David, despite the crisis situation surrounding their deaths. 107 In 2 Kg 12:22, the agency of death and burial is expressed in the Qal form of the narrative prefix verbs. This is not the case in the death of Amon, where is assassination account (which uses the Hiphil form of  twm) in 2 Kg 21:23 is linked to the statement in v. 24 that the unnamed assassins are in turn killed by the “people of the land,” who “make Josiah his son king in his stead” (wyt@fx;t@a wOnb; w%hy,f#$i)Oy-t)e CrE)fhf-M(a w%kylim;y,Aw)A . The next verse (25) is a source citation that is followed by the burial notice (v. 26), which closes the account of Amon. 108 wOt )o w%r b@;q ;y,IwA tmoy,FwA w%h k@uh i wydFb f( j (2 Kg 12:22a). Note the variation in verbal forms, where the waw-consecutive twm (and thus, rbq) is the resulting action of the suffix form of the Hiphil w%k@hi (“they smote”), which is preceded by the specific names of the culprits. w%r b@;q ;y,IwA

5.5. Synthesis

123

of David to the Garden of Uzza, was unrelated to actual burial practices. In contrast, it appears that a change in royal burial practices influenced the scribal conventions involved with summarizing a king’s reign. The historical and political period of Hezekiah’s reign and his son Manasseh offers the appropriate setting for the relocation of the royal tombs to another part of the newly fortified capital. This relocation is clearly associated with a different tomb-system and an individual manner of burial. Thus, it seems evident that the shift in burial notices that occurs after Hezekiah indicates the development of a new royal cemetery in the late Iron II-period, even if there had already been multiple royal tombs in existence prior to Hezekiah falling under the generic rubric: “in the City of David.” 109

5.5. Synthesis The shift in the burial notices that occurs after the reign of Hezekiah raises questions regarding both Jerusalem and the Book of Kings. The inquiry is simple: was the change in formula a scribal innovation, or was it motivated by the creation of a new set of royal tombs? On the surface, the issue may 109

The historical circumstances of Ahaziah are such that it is plausible to suspect that the subsequent ruler, the usurper queen Athaliah, denied him the full honors of the royal funerary ritual (and thus he was buried elsewhere in Jerusalem). A careful reading of Kings indicates that the death of Ahaziah represented a change in royal burial practices that probably involved the development of a different royal tomb-system. Although the Qal stem verbal-clause occurs once prior to Ahaziah with the epilogue of Abijam in 1 Kg 15:8, it appears first in the closing reference to Ahaziah with the additional phrase “with his fathers.” Additionally, Ahaziah is the first king of Judah to be interred “in his own burial” (wOtrFbuq;bi; 2 Kg 9:28b). Following Ahaziah, the identical verbal phrase ( w%rb@;q;y,IwA wytfb o) j- M(i wOt )o) appears with two of the next three kings of Judah (Jehoash and Azariah). In the case of Jehoash, the burial notice serves as a literary seam that attached the conspiracy account with the final notice of the royal epilogue (the notice of successor). The burial description of Amaziah uses the Niphal and has the unique reference “in Jerusalem with his fathers in the city of David” (2 Kg 14:20b). Although the prepositional phrase MIl a# $fw%r yb@i is most likely the end of the original narrative, it might also reflect the fact that Amaziah was buried in a different royal tomb (that of his father Jehoash). Only in the case of Azariah (the grandson of Jehoash) does this verbal phrase occur within the full formulaic context of the royal epilogues (2 Kg 15:8). It is possible that the unique interment of Ahaziah (“in his own burial”) began a tradition of an alternative royal tomb, although one that was still located inside the City of David. Interestingly, Joseph Blenkinsopp has related the existence of Iron Age Phoeniciantype tombs on the Western Hill in Jerusalem to the influx of Phoenician culture into the southern kingdom due to Ahaziah’s marriage to Athaliah (the daughter of the Phoenician princess Jezebel), B LENKINSOPP, Ahab, 1314–1315. The implication in Blenkinsopp’s brief observation is that the tombs of the eastern slope of the Western Hill are royal burial sites, see also M AZAR, Archaeological, 39–40.

124

Chapter Five: The Burial Notice

seem pedestrian, yet it calls into question the very nature of the epilogues. Were they simply literary devices that could be wielded according to the theological interests of the biblical writers? Or, were they ideologically charged political statements that related directly to the cultural world of the respective dynasties? To understand the significance of these notices, one must begin with the fact that the generic statements occur for kings of both the north (buried in Tirzah and Samaria) as well as the south (in the City of David). In terms of scribal practice, the equal attribution of the generic form of the burial notices for both kingdoms indicates their political import. Furthermore, this scribal/literary occurrence, with regard to the forms of the burial notices, took place within a distinct historical context. The eventual change in the Book of Kings, where the burial notices becomes more specific in its reference to location, occurs only after a historical sequence related to two events: the fall of Samaria and the expansion of Jerusalem. Any study of the burial notices in Kings must account for these literary and historical considerations. Iain Provan offers a systematic argument in favor of interpreting the different burial notices in Kings as literary stylizing. The main point of Provan’s theory is that the change reflects a shift in ideology related to the double-redaction of Kings. Thus, the special character of David was an important theme in the initial composition of Kings and was enforced by the notion that his heirs were “buried in the City of David.” As this ideology developed into a notion of the chosen-nature of Jerusalem, it became unimportant to the biblical writers to list the City of David as a burial place for the Kings of Judah. The recognition of multiple themes in the Book of Kings is certainly valid and Provan’s work represents an innovative means of integrating this theory into a larger formal analysis. The problem with Provan’s hypothesis, however, is the notion that the toponym City of David refers to the entire city of Jerusalem. In the Hebrew Bible, this place name refers only to the Eastern Hill of Jerusalem. The terms Jerusalem and City of David were certainly synonymous during periods in which occupation was confined only to the Eastern Hill,110 but in the biblical period the toponym never grew to an all-encompassing status in a manner similar to that of Zion (to use a notable example). The concerns apparent in Provan’s theory highlight the fundamental importance of the burial notices: the relationship between royal tombs and the capital. The theory that the formal statement “buried in the City of 110 Aside from the royal tombs, ‘City of David’ is used in the Hebrew Bible to denote either the area of Jerusalem initially conquered by David (i.e., the Jebusite City and the stronghold of Zion) or the oldest part of the city, TARLER and CAHILL, David, City of, 52– 53. In later phases, the term “City of David” becomes equated with all of Jerusalem (Josephus, Ant 7.3.2 §§ 65–67) and even Bethlehem (Luke 2:4).

5.5. Synthesis

125

David” expresses the theological importance of David hardly explains why the burial notices for the northern dynasties take a similar form. These burial notices state that Baasha was buried in Tirzah (1 Kg 16:6a), and that Omri and Ahab, followed by the kings of Jehu’s dynasty, were all buried in Samaria. The statements were not intended to highlight the chosen nature of Baasha, Omri (hardly) or Jehu. Just as the City of David was the royal capital of the Davidic Dynasty, so too were Tirzah and then Samaria the capitals of the respective dynasties of the northern kingdom. The biblical account of Samaria’s foundation (originally, “the Hill of Samaria” belonging to Shemer [1 Kg 16:24]) as the seat of Omri’s ruling house in some ways offers a parallel to David’s conquest of the Jebusite City/Jerusalem (2 Sam 5:6–11). The complex claim of legitimacy, made on both cities by the respective dynasties, drew upon traditional kinshipbased notions of patrimony, but at the same time it transcended the tribalsystem that defined Israelite society. Jerusalem, like Samaria, did not belong to any of the tribes of Israel; it was a royal capital that marked the dominion of the House of David.111 Provan is correct in his observation that the statement “buried in the City of David” was meant to highlight David. But, more so, the statement was meant to highlight the unique claim made by the House of David over Jerusalem, their royal capital that was conquered and renamed by their dynastic eponym. Ultimately, the transfer of the royal tombs during the time of Hezekiah (or following his death) led to the change in the formulaic epilogues. Several scholars, such as Brian Schmidt and Nadav Na’aman,112 have already proposed this theory. For these scholars and others, the absence of a burial notice in the epilogue for Hezekiah most likely reveals a certain reticence on the part of the biblical writers to associate this righteous king with the evil kings Manasseh and Amon. This selectivity may divulge a type of subjectivity on the part of the biblical tradent, but in and of itself it does not represent a judgment formula (which would otherwise contain explicit wording). Although the social change that occurred in Jerusalem during the late Iron II period affected the burial practices, the disassociation of the later kings of Judah with the traditional royal cemeteries inside the City of David may also have become a concern at some point in the redactional 111

Technically, Jerusalem (as the City of Jebus) was in Benjamin’s inheritance, Josh 18:28 (cf. Josh 15:63). Samaria was purchased by Omri (i.e., it was not inherited according to tribal patrimony), and developed into a royal capital (1 Kg 16:24). In the same way, the ruling houses did not claim tribal ancestors, but royal ancestors instead. Certainly, the lineage of David was tied to that of the Tribe of Judah (which would have secured a solid power base for the dynasty), but the kings of Judah represented the exclusive ancestral line of the House of David. 112 See S CHMIDT, Beneficent Dead, 252–254; see also, independently, N A’AMAN, Death Formulae, 251–252 and, Temple Library, 141–142.

126

Chapter Five: The Burial Notice

history of what became the Book of Kings. In addition, the fact that some of the last kings of Judah were never buried in the royal capital (Jehoahaz, possibly Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah) may have led the redactors to abandon any consistent formula for the second statement (the burial notice) of the epilogues in Kings. The primary concern was that the king was buried on his ancestral patrimony, representing a continued line of legitimate rulers that began with David.

Chapter Six

The Notice of the Successor “…and Jehoram, his son, ruled in his stead.”

6.1. Introduction The final component of the royal epilogue introduces a second personal noun that represents the son of the defunct king and the successor to the king’s throne. The statement of identification effectively concludes the ritual activities (such as the funerary rites), all of which are referenced either obliquely or outright in the first two formulaic components. The phrase in this final notice is likewise expressed through the waw-consecutive form, appearing in almost every occurrence that a son followed his father to the throne. The phrase is one of continuation and disjuncture in that it introduces a new subject (the son) and omits reference to the “fathers.” Yet it continues the notion of the linear descent of political power, logically concluding the social actions that would have solidified these concepts. Although the notice of succession appears in nearly every royal epilogue in Kings, this final notice has received the least amount of attention in scholarship.1 The few studies that have touched upon it have drawn parallels with the Edomite king-list found in Gen 36:31–43,2 yet none explain the significance of the parallel or note the similarities these biblical texts share with other Near Eastern sources. The short statement that concludes the epilogue compares with genealogies and king-lists that were politically operative throughout the ancient Near East, and their comparison highlights the critical nature of this final statement within the wider framework of the epilogues.

1 Aside from a few short remarks found in commentaries, such as W ÜRTHWEIN, 1. Kön. 1–16, 146. The most thorough discussion of the royal epilogues does not take into account this final notice, focusing solely on the dynastic and burial notices; H ALPERN and V ANDERHOOFT, Editions, 183–197. 2 B IN-N UN, Formulas, 428–429. C AMPBELL, Prophets, 139.

128

Chapter Six: The Notice of the Successor

6.2. Formulaic Terminology There are two types of statements used to introduce the dead king’s successor (PN2) in the royal epilogues of Kings. The first is an extremely rare form that is based upon an idiomatic expression of royal sovereignty and dynastic integrity, “PN2 sat upon his throne/the throne of PN1,” which is used twice (1 Kg 1:12 and 2 Kg 13:13). The second is the notice of successor, “and PN2 ruled in his place,” which appears frequently in a standardized formula for kings of Israel and Judah. The phrases differ slightly in their nuances, yet both serve a dynastic purpose in that they introduce the figure representative of the ruling house (i.e., the new king). Furthermore, the throne as a political symbol is sometimes associated with dead kings and royal ancestors as seen in an important Ugaritic document (KTU 1.161), which provides a ritual parallel to the royal epilogues in Kings.3 Therefore, it is necessary to review both literary forms that are used to introduce a new ruler in the Book of Kings. 6.2.1. To “Sit upon the Throne” The first phrase used to introduce a succeeding king appears in two instances: “and PN2 sat upon the throne” ()s@'k@i-l(a b#$ayF PN-w: [1 Kg 1:12 and 2 Kg 13:13]), occupying a position similar to the notice of successor. The phrase is more common as an idiom (cf. Jer 22:2, 4), where it usually refers to the individual reign of a king. Thus, it appears that the phrase, along with its variants, represented the individual rule of the sovereign who occupied it.4 An example of the individual nature of the phrase is 3 On the throne as a metaphor for kingship, see B RETTLER, God is King, 81–85; see also K EEL, Symbolism, 263–264. 4 ISHIDA, Royal Dynasties, 104–106. While Ishida stresses the symbolism of the throne in dynastic succession, he still concedes that the phrase “sit upon the throne” meant the assumption of kingship. (See also 2 Kg 11:19, where the palace coup that installed the young king Jehoash to power concludes with the statement “and he sat upon the throne of kings” [Mykilfm@;ha )s@'k@i-l( b#$ey,'wA], i.e., he became king.) Moreover, the blessings found in 1 Kg 1:37 and 47 that bless Solomon with a greater throne than that of his father highlight the individual nature of occupying a throne. Ishida also addresses the figurative mobility of the throne as a political symbol, where it can signify the transfer of power, citing 2 Sam 3:10: dwIdF )s@'k@i-t)e Myqihfl;w% lw%)#$f tyb@'mi hkflfm;m@aha rybi(jhal; (“…to cause the kingdom to turn from the dynasty of Saul and to raise up the throne of David”). The throne as a sign of individual sovereignty is clear near the end of the Succession Narrative, where 1 Kg 1:46 states that Solomon sat upon the hkfw%lm@;ha )s@'k@i (“throne of the kingdom”). The construct term here expresses the initial institution of Solomon’s reign, but it draws an interesting parallel with the ’Ahirom Sarcophagus (KAI 1:2). In the standard curse against any ruler who might violate his tomb, the inscription states that the “throne of his kingdom” (ksh.mlkh) will be overthrown. The construct refers to the individual sovereignty of the potential violator. The political implication of this curse shows that the

6.2. Formulaic Terminology

129

found in the instruction of the king in Deut 17:18, in which a second written copy of “the instruction” (hrFwOt@ha) is read to the new king “when he sits upon the throne of his kingdom.” Thus, theological indoctrination (according to Deuteronomy) is required of every single king within a respective dynasty. The phrase, here, as elsewhere, distinguishes the individual career of the ruler, not necessarily the ruling house. Yet the pivotal object in this expression – the throne – is usually qualified either by a possessive suffix or in construct with a second noun.5 The optimal concept is to occupy the throne of one’s fathers. Therefore this important object will often bear a dynastic name (i.e., the throne of David) or a national identity (i.e., throne of Israel).6 It is therefore important to recognize that while the expression still held a dynastic sense, it represented the survival of the collective entity (the ruling house) exemplified by the individual rule of the respective king who sat upon the throne. The phrases “sit upon the throne” and “…ruled in his stead” share a similar position, serving almost as the final statement of the new king’s ascension.7 Likewise, both statements reflect a similar ideology of dynasty and power, yet the two phrases each have a nuance distinct from the other.

plunder of royal tombs was an act of acquiring kingship (either by a rival king or usurper). 5 Most often the throne is governed by a possessive suffix, such as “my throne” (1 Kg 1:30, cf. v. 35); see also, “the throne of my lord the king” (vv. 20 and 27). In 2 Kg 13:13a, the possessive suffix in “his throne” (wO)s;k@i) refers to Joash and the dynastic notice of v.13a. The idea is that the throne is an object of power that could be possessed, given and taken, thus marking an exclusive domain of power. At any point in time, however, only one person could possess it; therefore the death of the king marked the occasion for the new king to occupy the dead king’s throne. An incumbent ruler, moreover, could consider any preemptive action by the heir as a threat. This is demonstrated in the Sefire inscription (KAI 222 B2: 7–8), where the kings secure an agreement of support against potential usurpation (or palace coup) staged by a prince: “and [if any of my sons will say I will sit upon the throne] of my father” (w[hn y’mr mn d bny ’b ‘l khs’] ’by), following the reconstruction in F ITZMYER, Sefire, 122–123; 128–129. 6 The expression “I sat upon the throne of my father” (ybt/wyb ’nk ‘l ks’ ’by) is found in the Phoenician inscriptions of the Anatolian kings Kulumuwa of Sam’al (KAI 24:9) and Azatiwada of Adana (KAI 26). See also the Sefire inscriptions, which are concerned with the posterity of the diplomatic relations established in the treaty (KAI 222 C: 17, br[y] zy yb ‘l khs’y “My son who will sit upon my throne”]), therefore the future proviso covers the progeny of the rulers involved. Biblical examples of dynastic names or national identities attached to thrones include: see 1 Kg 2:12, “throne of David, his father” (wybi)f dwid@F )s@'k)@i ; and l)'rF#&;yI )s@'k@i, e.g., 1 Kg 8:20 (in reference to the united monarchy) and 2 Kg 10:30 (the northern kingdom). 7 As will be shown, the subtle semantic distinction is that the throne-phrase emphasizes the individual sovereignty of the incumbent king, while the notice of the successor expresses the continuation of the sovereignty invested in the royal dynasty.

130

Chapter Six: The Notice of the Successor

The common utility of these phrases is seen in the Succession Narrative,8 where David conflates both expressions in his confirmation of Solomon as his successor, saying to Bathsheba: “…for Solomon your son shall rule after me, and he shall sit upon my throne in my stead,” (italics provided, 9 yt@fx ;t @a y)is ;k @i-l(a b#$'y" )w%h w: yrAx j) a K7Ol m;yI K7n"b ; hmoOl #$;-yk@i [1 Kg 1:30]). As such, the application of this phrase in the epilogues of David (1 Kg 2:12) and Joash (2 Kg 13:13), where it introduced Jeroboam II, highlighted the individual sovereignty of each king relative to their respective ruling house.10 While the reign of Solomon marked the first king of the dynasty of David (1 Kg 2:12),11 it will be shown that the reign of Jeroboam II marked the last complete reign of a king of the dynasty of Jehu (2 Kg 13:13).

8 As noted earlier, the motif of sitting upon the throne is found throughout the Succession Narrative. See also the use of the phrase in Jer 22:30, where it appears in an oracle proclaiming an end to Jehoiachin’s lineage. 9 The words are repeated in v. 35. Jones has suggested that the presence of txat,@a rather than wyrFxj),a indicates the secondary redaction and addition of vv. 30 and 35b; JONES, Kings Vol. 2 (NCBC), 51 and 97. Yet, the word choice seems to be a deliberate part of the narrative strategy describing Solomon as David’s rightful successor. The terminology is even reflected in Solomon’s speech in 1 Kg 8:20, where the new king declares that he “rose up in the stead of David, my father…” (ybi)f dwId@F txat@a MqU)fw)F . Note also the two uses of  Mwq in v. 20, where Solomon’s actions (1 c.sg Qal) reflect the fulfillment of the word of Y HWH that begins the verse: hwFhy: MqEy,fwA (waw-consecutive Hiphil). 10 An unusual example of both phrases used in the description of a king’s assumption to power is Zimri (1 Kg 16:9–20). The account of the one-week reign of Zimri begins with a description of his coup with the assassination of Elah, Baasha’s son and the last of this dynasty (v. 10a). The reference to Elah’s death is synchronized with the rule of Asa, king of Judah, in v. 10a– (cf. v. 15a) followed by the abbreviated formula: “and he ruled in his stead” /wyt@fx;t@a K7Olm;y,IwA (v. 10b). The account of Zimri’s usurpation of Elah continues in v. 11, where catastrophic end of the House of Baasha (by Zimri) is interpreted as a fulfillment of the prophetic word spoken against Baasha (1 Kg 16:1–4). The short prophecy-fulfillment schema of v. 11 (which is tied to v. 10), begins by establishing the setting during Zimri’s reign (“his kingship”) “when he sat upon his throne” (v. 11a). The unusual nature of the application of these particular phrases to a king who ruled for only a week is indicative of redactional activity that was primarily prophetic in its intent rather than political. For a comparison of the prophetic curses against the northern dynasties (Jeroboam, Baasha, Ahab and the House of Omri, and Jehu), see M CK ENZIE, Dog Food, 397–420. 11 Note that in 1 Kg 2:24, Solomon states that Y HWH enthroned him upon the throne of David his father, using the Hiphil stem of b#y. The fact that the House of David began with Solomon, the first successor of the dynastic eponym, accords with the tradition of 1 Kings 10:18–20, which describes his construction of an elaborate throne that compares with Iron Age iconographic depictions of thrones found at Byblos (on ’Ahirom’s sarcophagus) and from Sam’al, as well as in the LB ivory implement from Megiddo; T OOMBS, Throne (IDB), 637. For a discussion of the throne motif on the ‘Ahirom inscription, see R EHM, Dynastensarkophage: Teil 1.1, 33–38.

6.2. Formulaic Terminology

131

6.2.2. To “Rule in One’s Stead” As typical of the epilogues, the notice of the successor is a waw-consecutive verbal clause. Yet, the first two verbal clauses of the royal epilogues convey in a formulaic manner that the dead king joined his ancestors (the fathers), with whom he lies and is buried. The final verbal clause takes a different subject: the succeeding king. The formulaic introduction of the king’s son indicates a change of status: wyt@fx;t@a K7Olm;y,IwA ( “and he ruled in his stead”). In this sense, the purpose of the final notice is similar to the first two, where the status of the defunct king is subsumed into an aggregate identity (“the fathers”). In this final notice, the function of the notice is to indicate the rightful status of the new king and his position in line with his predecessors. Thus, the three formulaic notices within the full form of the epilogue combine to serve a single objective: the paternal descent of power. The last word of the third and final formula, wyt@fx;t@a is rendered throughout this study as “in his stead” because it best conveys the idea of dynastic continuity. The West Semitic term txt (Ugaritic tt)12 may have originally signified “place,” and this etymology can explain the common use of the preposition denoting “beneath” in the spatial sense.13 This spatial sense of the preposition can signify, metaphorically, the essence of being under one’s authority. The nuance here relates to official office and conveys an

12 The term txt/tt appears in Hebrew, Aramaic and Phoenician/Punic (it is also attested in Old South Arabian and Ethiopic, see briefly KÖHLER and B AUMGARTNER, HALOT 2, 1721–1723). For Phoenician and Punic (including Late Punic t’t and Neo-Punic t‘t), see F RIEDRICH, R ÖLLIG, and A MADASI, Phönizisch-Punische §§ 250 and 285; K RAHMALKOV, Phoenician-Punic, 257–258. The preposition is found in Ugaritic, see A ARTUN, Partikeln: Teil 2, 61 and P ARDEE, Preposition, 318; see also T ROPPER, Ugaritische, 769. The term also occurs once in Amarna Akkadian (Canaanite), EA 252, line 26, as ta-a-ta-mu, “among them” or “under them” (i.e., under their power); see R AINEY, Canaanite III, 1 and 40. 13 PARDEE, Preposition, 318; citing G REENFIELD, Prepositions, 226–228. Both studies are referenced in W ALTKE and O’C ONNOR, Introduction, § 11.12.15 n. 117. The early sense of “at the place of,” according to Pardee, gradually developed into “at the bottom/base of,” and “under,” PARDEE, Preposition, 318. The preposition txt can carry the meaning “below” with reference to either the grave or the netherworld. See for instance KAI 2, where it is inscribed at the entrance of ’Ahirom’s tomb in Byblos. Lehmann views tt here as a concrete reference (“stock-werk”) understood as an accusative of place, IDEM., Dynastensarkophage: Teil 1.2, 50; see 42–53. The denominative adjective ytxt serves as a noun in Isa 44:23 in the expression “depths of the earth” (CrE)f twOy,t@ix;t@a), i.e., the netherworld. The expression occurs similarly throughout Ezekiel 32, where it relates to lwO)#$;; cf. also the adjectival use in Deut 32:22; Sir 51:6; Ps 86:13 and Isa 14:9. The preposition can also be used to describe the treatment of the dead as in Isa 14:11 (“worms beneath you”) and the Deir ‘Allah inscription (KAI 312 B: 11): “I will place [--] beneath your head (tt.r’k), you will lay in your eternal resting place.”

132

Chapter Six: The Notice of the Successor

idea of political power.14 In examples where the preposition mediates both a human subject and object, the range of meaning includes “replacing,” “instead of,” and “in his/her stead.”15 Again, the translation “in his stead” is chosen for the third formula in Kings (the notice of the successor) because it emphasizes both the act of succession and the temporality of the human king’s life. Thus, “Jehoram his [Jehoshaphat’s] son ruled in his [Jehoshaphat’s] stead/wyt@fx;t@a (1 Kg 22:51b). The actions referenced in this formula do not introduce a replacement, as in an alternative candidate or rival figure, they introduce the son of the former king. Therefore, the preposition txat@a signifies the next in line occupying a single office, the new king in the defunct king’s stead. The paternal (patrimonial) intent of the epilogue is evident in the final notice through the reference to the defunct king in the pronominal suffixes attached to two terms: “his son”, wOnb@; and “in his stead”, wyt@fx;t@a. Each of these terms, both with a 3rd m.sg possessive suffix, plays a specific role in the epilogue. The first term wOnb@; follows the successor’s name, the proper noun that stands in the second position of the verbal clause as the subject, qualifying this figure as the legitimate heir by right of paternal descent. The second term, wyt@fx;t@a, the last word of the notice, is critical to the purpose and function of the royal epilogues in that it firmly places the successor in line with his father. Thus, the two terms serve to relate the new king with his predecessors by establishing his pedigree within a linear trajectory of power. Together, the terminology “his son…in his stead” is combined to convey an image of political patrimony that is consistent with linear genealogies that were so typical of ancient Near Eastern king-lists. But the prepositional phrase “in his stead,” by itself, was an important feature in the construction of lineages, as is apparent in the Edomite king list found in Gen 36:31–43 (and 1 Chr 1:43–50). The terminology “ruled in his place” 14

See, for example, Jdg 3:30; 2 Kgs 8:20; 13:5 and 17:7. This nuance is usually conveyed through the form “Y-dyA txat@a X,” for example see Gen 41:35, “And let them gather all the food of the good years to come, and let them lay up grain under the Pharoah’s authority (h(or:p@a-dyA txat).” This nuance can be expressed by the preposition alone in NeoPunic (i.e., without the syntactical arrangement); see the examples in K RAHMALKOV, Phoenician-Punic, 258. See in particular KAI 118, 2 (from Libya) is cited in FRIEDRICH, R ÖLLIG, and A MADASI, Phönizisch-Punische § 285, and translated with commentary in JONGELING and K ERR, Late Punic, 14–15 (listed as “Breviglieri N 1”). 15 Obviously, the nuance of the preposition is determined by its context, see the apt observations on this matter in PARDEE, Preposition, 282–285; and W ALTKE and O'C ONNOR , Introduction, § 11.12 (under “Semantics of Simple Prepositions”). So, for example, wyt@fx ;t @a in Ex 17:12 conveys the spatial sense as it describes the stone placed under Moses that he sat upon. See the list of the preposition with pronominal suffixes in GKC § 103 o. Note that this preposition, with suffix, takes on a “pseudo-plural” form (as seen in the third formula), JOÜON and M URAOKA, Grammar, 103 n.

6.2. Formulaic Terminology

133

expresses the succession of power regardless of whether it was passed through the paternal line. For instance, note the accidental death of Ahaziah king of Israel (son of Ahab) and the subsequent succession of his brother Jehoram (another son of Ahab) in 2 Kg 1:17, where it states that Ahaziah died “and Jehoram [Ahaziah’s brother]16 ruled in his stead … because he [Ahaziah] did not have a son.” The epilogue in 2 Kg 1:17 begins with a narrative prefix verb stating that Ahaziah died. A citation of Elijah’s prophecy immediately follows the brief verbal clause, before the notice of the successor introducing Jehoram. The verse continues with synchronistic data that is normally found in the royal prologues,17 but here it is attached to the notice of the successor.18 The epilogue ends with the statement “because he had no son,” where the referent is Ahaziah, qualifying the notice of successor introducing Jehoram. Thus, the expression wyt@fx;t@a [PN] K7Olm;y,IwA can be used to describe the legitimate transfer of power, even in cases where the passage of rule does not follow from father to son. An opposite example proves this point, as 1 Kg 16:22b states simply: yrIm;(f K7Olm;y,IwA ynIb;t@i tmfy,fwA (“And Tibni died and Omri ruled”).19 The preposition “in his stead” is not used because the bib16 The bracketed text is provided by the writer for clarity, however the G L and other versions (Syriac and the Vulgate) have “his brother” (aÓdelfo\n aujtouv) after the introduction of Jehoram in v. 17a. This reading may have fallen out of the MT due to haplography resulting from similarities in wyx) and wytxt; so C OGAN and TADMOR, II Kings (AB), 27; following older commentaries, see e.g., the comments in M ONTGOMERY and GEHMAN, Kings (ICC), 351. 17 The synchronistic information is inconsistent with 2 Kg 3:1, as noted in all the major commentaries: M ONTGOMERY and G EHMAN, Kings (ICC), 351. Cf. C OGAN and TADMOR , II Kings (AB), 27. A discussion of the problem of synchronisms and the variants found in the Greek versions (notably G L) are beyond the scope of this study. 18 The prepositional phrase (beginning with “in the year …” [tna#$;b]) is governed by the narrative prefix verb ( Klm) that comes before it in the notice. Thus, this epilogue is actually a fusion of the synchronistic prologue and the royal epilogue. The atypical nature of this literary closure to Ahaziah’s reign is seen further in the fact that the source citation follows in v. 18, while in normal usage it precedes the royal epilogues. These extraordinary literary aspects are reflected in the MT, where a p (the massoretic notation pisq’ bê ’ema‘ psûq) divides v. 17a from 17a-b; see C OGAN and TADMOR, II Kings (AB), 27. This later scribal division separated the death of Ahaziah’s (and its prophetic significance) from the augmented epilogue (introducing Jehoram). All of these anomalies are due to the unusual circumstance of brother succeeding brother (although this occurs under duress in Judah during the late monarchy). The dynastic notice was not used because of this point (dynastic succession is preserved through the ideal of the son). Nevertheless, the purpose of this particular epilogue is that the transfer of power was legitimate. 19 The verse comes at the end of a literary block (1 Kg 16:15–22) that begins with a conspiracy by Zimri and the assassination Elah (last of the House of Baasha) and ends with the establishment of Omri’s rule. Zimri’s reign is given the standard treatment de-

134

Chapter Six: The Notice of the Successor

lical tradent did not regard Tibni as a rightful ruler,20 thus the brevity of this epilogue that concludes the account of Omri’s rise to power. The notice of successor still applies in cases of usurpation, frequently encountered in the northern Kingdom. In these events, as discussed already with the burial notice, the formulaic notice is part of the narrative that describes the events of the former king’s assassination and the rise of the new king. The notice of the successor always follows a formulaic notice of death, either “and he [the defunct king] died” or “and he [the usurper] killed him.”21 The literary purpose of the notice in these accounts is to describe a continued line of rule, with one figure seizing power from the other. Bin-Nun suggested that the brief epilogues used for Israelite kings (“and he died … and [PN2] ruled in his place”) is a northern tradition that can be traced to the list of minor judges in Judg 12:7–15.22 The parallel is imprecise as the terminology is different,23 yet the basic purpose of

spite the fact that the usurper ruled for only seven days. In v. 15a, Zimri’s is re-introduced with the formulaic prologue that harmonizes his reign with that of Asa, king of Judah. Following the description of the usurper king’s death (by suicide), Zimri is given the standard summary notation that includes brief reference to his “conspiracy” (r#$eq)E ending with a source citation (v. 17). What follows in vv. 21–22, however, is not a description of the next person to take the throne, but an account of the power struggle between Omri and Tibni. The prepositional phrase wyt@fx;t@a is not used to introduce Zimri’s successor because the problem of rule had not been resolved at the time of his death (v. 18). Furthermore, the power struggle begins with the temporal particle plus the prefix verb ql'xfy" z)f, “this was when [the people of Israel] were divided…,” which is a redactional insertion indicating that Omri’s initial actions and his conflict with Tibni began before the death of Zimri, following RABINOWITZ, Redactional, 54–56. The particle was described as a redactional notation of an archival source by MONTGOMERY, Archival, 49. According to Rabinowitz (Redactional, 56), the particle marked an item of information that was “a temporally non-successive addition to what has previously been narrated.” 20 Bin-Nun notes this verse in her discussion of the notice of successor, BIN-N UN, Formulas, 429. The brief reference to Tibni in v. 21, however, states that he was “made king” ( Klm in the Hiphil). J. Maxwell Miller had suggested that the unexplained statement that Tibni died (ynIb;t@i tmfy,fw)A may indicate divesture of office and not the end of Tibni’s life, based on Hittite parallels, see M ILLER, Tibni, 392–394. More recent syntactical studies of the passage (RABINOWITZ, Redactional, 56 n. 6) do not support Miller’s suggestion, which he had made with some caution (see I DEM., Tibni, 394). 21 The account of Elah’s death (of the House of Baasha) includes synchronistic data (1 Kg 16:10): wyt@fx;t@a K7Olm;y,IwA hdFw%hy: K7leme )sf)fl; (ba#$ewF MyrI#&;(e tnA#$;b@i w%ht'ymiy:wA w%hk@'y,AwA yrIm;zI )Oby,FwA (“And Zimri came and struck him and killed him in the seventeenth year of Asa king of Judah, and he ruled in his place”). This data is usually contained in the prologues. 22 B IN-N UN, Formulas, 429. 23 Judg 12:7–15 uses the phrase “and he judged after him …” (wyrFxj)a +p@o#$;y,IwA) instead of the terminology of the notice of successor ( wyt@fx;t@a K7Olm;y,IwA). Judg 10:1–5 repeats the phrase “and he rose up after him …” (wyrFxj)a MqFy,fwA). Not only is there verbal dissimilarity, but in Judges the transition is marked by the temporal adverb (with possessive suffix) wyrFxj)a, .

6.3. Jeroboam II and the Dynastic Throne of Jehu

135

the minor judge-list is the same.24 The list in Judg 12:7–15 (and similarly 10:1–5) depicts a line of judges ruling in consecutive order (i.e., the office of judge is taken up when the previous judge dies).25 The individual judges are seemingly unrelated, yet the formulaic roster of their office presents a deliberate image of unilineal authority.26

6.3. Jeroboam II and the Dynastic Throne of Jehu As mentioned in Chapter Four, the dynastic notice is applied twice to the third king of this dynasty, Joash (2 Kg 13:13 and 14:16), and represents the only repeated occurrence of this initial formula for a king other than David. The entire epilogue of Joash is repeated, albeit in different order and utilizing different forms of the notice of successor (“sit upon the throne”). In fact, it is the utility of the notice of successor in the epilogue of Joash that drives its two appearances in the narrative account of the House of Jehu, serving an important literary role in highlighting both the fulfillment of prophecy and marking the end of a royal house. The terse description of Joash’s reign found in 2 Kg 13:9–13 is summarized in vv. 12–13. This epilogue, which is otherwise typical except for the clause “and Jeroboam sat on his throne,” is repeated in 14:15–16 (where it follows the normal protocol and states that Jeroboam “ruled in [Jehoash’s] stead”). The two nearly identical verses frame the account of Joash’s war with Amaziah, king of Judah (14:7–14; cf. the annalistic statement repeated in 13:12 and 14:14).27 Furthermore, the account of Elisha in 13:14– “after him,” and not the similarly marked preposition wyt@fx;t@a, “in his stead.” See the similar comments in N ELSON, Ideology, 354. 24 For example, the burial place is mentioned along with its location (usually a city), see Judg 10:2. For a discussion of the specific vocabulary, see RICHTER, Richtern Israels, 47–48. 25 According to Nelson (N ELSON, Ideology, 347–364), the minor Judge lists emulate dynastic succession, although they are fictive and not annalistic. For the classic treatment of these lists, see NOTH, Deuteronomistic, 42–44; and R ICHTER, Richtern Israels, 40–72; cf. H AUSER, Minor Judges, 190–200. 26 In a similar fashion, the various dynasties of the northern kingdom are strung together using the formulaic language of the epilogue’s final notice. In other words, the unrelated dynasties are listed in a unilineal fashion. This, of course, does not require that the formulaic lists of Judges or Kings are northern in origin, although Nelson has interpreted the minor Judge lists as northern anti-monarchic literature, see N ELSON, Ideology, 363–364. 27 One difference in the two epilogues is the orthography of the king’s name: #$)fwOy (in 13:13) and #$)fwOhy: (in 14:16). It is unclear if this is enough to indicate whether both passages have separate origins (i.e., different authors), however it seems that their repetition in the present text of Kings is deliberate and is akin to the known scribal device of repeti-

136

Chapter Six: The Notice of the Successor

21 and the Aramean wars in vv. 22–25 are insertions from the ElijahElisha Cycle that were intended to relate Joash and Jeroboam to the deliverer” (#$)fwOhy:) motif introduced in 13:3–7.28 Figure 4. Jeroboam II, the Fourth Generation of the House of Jehu The Inner Biblical Allusion of “Sit upon the throne” (= B1) Second Kings 13:13a  (+ 14:16b) > 2 Kings 10:30b//15:12a  B1 Second Kings 10:30, limited promise of dynasty to Jehu. B 1. Prophecy (v. 30b); l)'rF#&;yI )s@'k@i-l(a K1l; w%b#$;y" My(ibir: yn'b@; Second Kings 13:13, Joash’s first epilogue; pattern = A.B 1.C. A. Dynastic Notice (v. 13a); B 1. Notice of Successor (v. 13a)–Jeroboam II; wO)s;k@i-l(a b#$ayF M(fb;rFyFw C. Burial Notice (v. 13b); l)'rF#&;yI yk'l;ma M(i NwOrm;#$ob@; #$)fwOy rb'q@Fy,IwA

B1

Second Kings 14:16, Joash’s second epilogue; pattern = A.C.B 2. A. Dynastic Notice (v. 16a); C. Burial Notice (v. 16a); l)'rF#&;yI yk'l;ma M(i NwOrm;#$ob@; #$)fwOy rb'q@Fy,IwA B 2. Notice of Successor (v. 16b)–Jeroboam II; wyt@fx;t@a wOnb@; M(fb;rFyF K7Olm;y,IwA Second Kings 15:12, the dynasty’s end with the death of Zechariah. B 1´. Fulfillment (v. 12a); l)'rF#&;yI )s@'k@i-l(a K1l; w%b#$;y" My(ibir: yn'b

B 1´

The repeated epilogues are similar, except that the first notice introduces the son Jeroboam II in an unusual manner because it uses the alternate form of the notice of successor before the Burial Notice (2 Kg 13:13a–b), thus breaking the normal protocol for royal epilogues in the Book of Kings.29 The clause “sit upon the throne” does occur frequently in the Hetive-resumption (Wiederaufnahme) where the repetition of a phrase marks an editorial insertion. 28 Theodore Mullen has argued that the insertion of the deliverer motif was used to draw light on the promise of Y HWH to Jehu by portraying Jeroboam (the fourth generation of the dynasty) as the final and most successful deliverer, M ULLEN, 200–204. Although Mullen’s point may be valid, the literary structure and redactional history of the passage is complicated. Ultimately, 2 Kg 13–14 remains consistent with the DtrH’s presentation of prophecy as well as its cycled pattern of good kings of the south versus bad kings of the north; see briefly, M CK ENZIE, Trouble, 99. 29 Thus, it stands in place of the typical Notice of the Successor. For this reason, Jones saw it as secondary and “suspect” (where 2 Kg 14:16 is original); JONES, Kings Vol. 2 (NCBC), 501. See the text-critical remarks in B EGRICH, Chronologie, 191. Additionally, the introduction of the new king disrupts the summary’s normative syntax, by not using the typical narrative-verbal clause (the waw-consecutive), in order to mark the insertion.

6.3. Jeroboam II and the Dynastic Throne of Jehu

137

brew Bible, notably in the Succession Narrative regarding Solomon (cf. 1 Kg 2:12, see above). The phrase in 2 Kg 13:13, however, is intended to draw the reader’s attention to the founding prophecy (or royal grant) of the House of Jehu. The prophetic endorsement of Jehu’s coup states that his line will continue for four generations (2 Kg 10:30), a prophecy cited when the house is terminated by Shallum’s coup (15:12). The operative phrase in this prophecy is “sit upon the throne of Israel” ()s@'k@i-l(a w%b#$;y" l)'rF#&;yI). Therefore, the statement that “Jeroboam sat upon his throne” (v. 13a) plays a small, yet significant role in the depiction of the House of Jehu. The narrative account, in which this statement occurs, portrays the House of Jehu’s relative success and limited divine approval. Within this literary strand, v.13a marks Jeroboam II as the fourth and final ruler of this dynasty, which ended with the death of his son (Zechariah).30 The limited generational length of the House of Jehu was expressed in the literary note of v.13a, couched within the scribal formula for dynastic succession (refer Figure 4, above). The account of Jehu’s dynasty in Kings follows the prophecy-fulfillment pattern of the DtrH.31 Within this literary constellation the dynastic notice extends the royal line of Jehu and marks its final stages. The dual use of the dynastic notice for Joash in the MT of 2 Kg 13:13, and 14:16 highlights the floruit of the House of Jehu. The repetition frames the success of Joash as opposed to Amaziah of Judah, and it ultimately highlights the last great ruler of the dynasty, Jeroboam II. Yet, at the same time it consigns the political power of the royal house to the prophetic word of YHWH.32 Thus, Joash’s repeated epilogues, along with the use of the alternate form of the notice of successor, represent a

30

Jeroboam II is the fourth generation (counting Jehu as the first). W EIPPERT, Geschichten, 116–131, "Histories" (English Translation), 47–61. 32 Few scholars have offered explanations for this particular literary framing. For example, one scholar noted only that the closing formulae for “Joash of Israel, [is] strangely redundant.” N ELSON, Double Redaction, 35. Other scholars discuss the summaries within the context of redaction and source criticism. For instance, Steven McKenzie (Trouble, 91) used the summary statement of 2 Kg 13:10–13 to establish that the following Elisha traditions were later additions, although he does not address or comment on the standard for of the epilogue found in 14:15–16. John Gray, in his commentary, saw 2 Kg 14:15–16 as “displaced” and v.17 as a secondary synchronistic note that was used to draw attention to Amaziah, G RAY, I & II Kings (OTL), 612. This, despite the fact that the account glorifies Joash, which is noted by Ernst Würthwein, even though he views 14:15–16 as the original conclusion to 13:22–25, W ÜRTHWEIN, 1. Kön. 17–2. Kön. 25, 369. Burke O. Long, however, described the summaries as a method of “allusion that anticipates the account of war with Amaziah (vv.10–13; see 14:8–14).” L ONG, 2 Kings (FOTL), 166. 31

138

Chapter Six: The Notice of the Successor

deliberate literary strategy with a specific political purpose and not a confused textual tradition that somehow lacks order.33

6.4. The Edomite King List A list of Edomite kings found in the Book of Genesis (Gen 36:31–39) offers an unusual parallel to the royal epilogues of the Book of Kings, specifically with its final formulaic notice. This king list is unusual (for the Hebrew Bible) in that it records a lineage of non-Israelite kings and records the passage of rule through non-patrilineal succession. The Edomite king-list is couched within the greater genealogy of Esau/Edom that runs through Genesis 36 and is repeated in 1 Chr 1:35–54 inside a truncated and redacted genealogy (vv. 43–50) that ultimately relates the Transjordan polity to Abraham.34 As such, the list is fashioned in a literary manner unlike the prologue/epilogue formulary in the Book of Kings. First, the genealogical material is twice introduced with the statement “these are the generations [twOdl;t@o] of Esau” (36:1 and 9), which is the Priestly terminology that marked genealogical records throughout Genesis.35 Second, the king list commences with the temporal statement: “these were the kings who ruled the land of Edom before there ruled any king for the sons of Israel” (Gen 36:31 [= 1 Chr 1:43]). The passage that follows (Gen 36:32–39) offers a list of Edomite kings that bears structural similarities to the royal epilogues of Kings. Both the Edomite King List and the royal epilogues present a lineage of monarchs in a formulaic manner employing the same verb and preposition as the notice of successor. The list begins in v. 32 at Bela the son of Beor, with the additional “in Edom” (following the verb before the proper noun) along with the state33

Contra TREBOLLE B ARRERA, Redaction. Trebolle Barrera’s study implies that the G , and its versions (in addition to Josephus), represents an earlier text because the epilogue only occurs once and is found in its “correct position” at the end of Joash’s reign in 2 Kg 13:25, Redaction, 484. 34 An in-depth investigation of the Chronicler’s sources and the date of Genesis is beyond the scope of this study, however it is assumed here that Genesis 36 has priority over 1 Chr 1:35–54 for sake of discussion only. For a study of the genealogical material of Genesis 36 (minus vv. 31–39); see W ILSON, Genealogy, 167–183; and also W ESTERMANN , Genesis 12–36, 558–569. 35 twOd l;t @o hl@e) 'w :; see C ROSS , Canaanite Myth, 301–305; and K RATZ , Composition, 229– 232. For the use of this genealogical device in Chronicles, see O EMING, Das Wahre. A more detailed discussion of twOdl;t@o will be taken up in the conclusion of this dissertation. The term itself is difficult to translate (for instance “line” in the JPS and “descendant” in the NRSV) and is often simply transliterated (t leô) in different treatments of Genesis and genealogies, cf. W ILSON, Genealogy, 158–159 n 57. L

6.4. The Edomite King List

139

ment (after the king’s name) “and the name of his city was …” (concluding with a toponym). This initial form determines the scope (Edom) and provenience (the individual place name) of royal power, establishing a pattern that records each respective king with their seat of power. The place name listed is the ruler’s patrimony, akin to the royal capitals of the kings of Israel and Judah, although no burial information is listed for the Edomite kings. Thus, the basic form of the list contains the wawconsecutive verb (K7Olm;y,IwA), proper noun (the subject of the verb) and their place of origin, i.e., their patrimony. The progression of the list, however, is driven by the formulaic use of two narrative-prefix verbs K7Olm;y,IwA // tmfy,fwA, linked by the prepositional phrase wyt@fx;t@a , marking the transition from one king to the next. Although most of the kings are named along with their patronymic (such as “Bela the son of Beor” [rwO(b@;-Nb@e (lab@e]), the genealogy is comprised of segments listing rulers from different cities.36 Thus, the succession of power presented in this list does not follow from father to son.37 In this respect, the Edomite king list differs from the royal epilogues in Kings. The chronology of rule described in the Edomite king list is constructed through an affixed line of rulers from different cities, resulting in a lineage that bears signs of being a composite list.38 Thus, the Edomite king-list is probably an idealized lineage of rule encompassing an area throughout Transjordan.39 The comparison of the Edomite king list to the 36 The lack of kinship terminology (aside from the patronymic) led Wilson to exclude the king list from his study, focusing instead on the other Edomite material in Genesis 36, W ILSON, Genealogy, 167. 37 The movement in this list seems to pass from city to city, yet this progression does not define its perceived structure of power. For instance, Husham is said to be from “the land of the Temanites” (v. 34) while no seat of rule is given for Baal-Hanan son of Achbor (v. 38b–39a). This is not to deny any geographical role (or order) in the list, as the text does seem to reflect a wider image of Transjordian geo-politics, B ARTLETT, Edomite, 310–313. A famous example of a king list that is defined by the succession of rule from city-to-city is the Sumerian King List, encompassing southern Mesopotamia (plus Mari) from the third millennium into the early second; refer W ILCKE, Genealogical, 557–571. 38 These signs include variations in the ruler’s seat of power, using both wOry(i M#$'w: (“and the name of his city was [place name]”) in vv. 32b, 35b and 39a; versus the use of the preposition Nmi attached to the place name (“from …” / -m), B ARTLETT, Edomite, 302. Furthermore, the place names recorded using these styles may reflect a geographical logic that is divided between settlements north of Edom (in Moab) in the first and Edomite cities in the second, Edomite, 303–313. 39 In other words, the list is a combination of regional traditions of power, rather than an indication that early Edomite kingship was not dynastic, so W ESTERMANN, Genesis 12–36, 465. Furthermore, the list hardly shows that rule in early Edom was charismatic, such as seen in the Book of Judges (and with Saul). The analogy with Judges, however is appropriate given that the list of so-called minor judges (Judg 10:1–5; 12:7–15) is a collection of regional figures presented in sequential order.

140

Chapter Six: The Notice of the Successor

royal epilogues in Kings is appropriate given the common terminology (K7Olm;y,IwA and phrase wyt@fx;t@a ).40 In both lists, the introduction of the successor is expressed in identical terms, even though the political ideology is different. Indeed, the Hebrew Bible never gives a full epilogue for foreign rulers, even in cases where dynastic succession occurs. In two instances where the biblical narrative describes the succession of a foreign ruler,41 the description takes the following form: “and PN1 died [tmfy,fwA] and PN2 his son ruled in his place.” Thus, only the notice of the successor is used, as the Book of Kings was not concerned with statements that supported the legitimacy of foreign kings.42

6.5. Royal Ancestors and Succession at Ugarit The fact that the notice of the successor is the last formulaic statement of the royal epilogues reflects the natural circumstances of succession, which follows (or is the final component of) the rites of the royal funeral. Although the ritual process involved in this transfer of power is unclear, an important text from Ugarit can shed light on the subject. The ritual text KTU 1.161 (= RS 34.126) begins with the dedication of the defunct king Niqmaddu III,43 ends with the benediction of the new king ‘Ammurapi, and involves the invocation of royal ancestors (notably the Rephaim).44 Each type of figure is paralleled in the royal epilogues of Kings, beginning with the dead king and the royal ancestors and ending with the new king. 40

The initial statement of the list (v. 31), which establish its chronology as prior to the Israelite kings, elicits comparison ( K7leme-K7lfm; yn'p;li MwOd)v CrE)eb@; w%kl;mf r#$e)j Mykilfm@;ha hl@e)'w: l)'r F# &;yI yn'b ;l i) . This verse does not mean “before any king of the sons of Israel ruled [Edom],” but that the Edomites had kingship before the institution was established in Israel, W ESTERMANN, Genesis 12–36, 465. 41 Nahash king of the Ammonites (referred to as simply NwOm@(a yn'b@; K7leme), who is succeeded by his son Hanun in 2 Sam 10:1; Hazael king of Aram-Damascus, who is succeeded by his son Ben-Hadad (Bir-Hadad II) in 2 Kg 13:24. 42 A version of the dynastic notice does appear in the Tel Dan stele, an Old Aramaic inscription that is attributed to Hazael. KAI 310:3, wykb.’by.yhk.’l.[’bhw]h (partially reconstructed). This memorial inscription contains several apologetic motifs (including the dynastic notice), which lead to the indication that it was written during the time of Bir-Hadad II’s appointment as Hazael’s heir and successor to the throne of AramDamascus, see S URIANO, Apology of Hazael, 163–176. 43 An English translation of the text is found in LEVINE, DE T ARRAGON, and R OBERTSON , COS 1.105, 357–358. See also P ARDEE , Ritual and Cult, 87–88. 44 While a full historical discussion is not possible here, this study interprets the multiple references to Niqmaddu as the same individual, Niqmaddu III, the predecessor and (probably) father of ‘Ammurapi III, see K ITCHEN, King List, 131–142; and more recently, S INGER, Political History, 613.

141

6.5. Royal Ancestors and Succession at Ugarit

Figure 5. KTU 1.161 and Dynastic Succession The Ritual Entities of KTU 1.161 and the Royal Epilogues of Kings

KTU 1.161 1 Kings 22:51

Royal Ancestors

Dead King

New King

Rephaim and Ditanu the fathers

Niqmaddu Jehoshaphat

‘Ammurapi Jehoram

Although this Ugaritic parallel provides insight into the politics of the royal dead, the ceremony described in KTU 1.161 is ambiguous, leading to debate over the nature of the ritual. While scholars have offered a variety of interpretations, ranging from ancestor cults to funerary or commemorative rites,45 there is general agreement that the ritual was related to the death of Niqmaddu and the succession of ‘Ammurapi.46 To be more specific, however, it should be emphasized that the purpose of this text was not to appease the dead as part of a regular cult, but instead to serve the singular event of the king’s death.47 This emphasis is important because the ritual itself must be understood within the socio-political context of the kingdom of Ugarit.48 The ritual’s inclusion of the dead king and the royal ancestors, and the involvement of the new king, is comparable to the dy45 Some scholars have interpreted the ritual is a type of royal ancestor worship, akin to the kispum at Mari, where Niqmaddu is inducted into the ranks of the Rephaim. Notably, POPE, Notes, 178; and also H EALEY, 90. L EVINE and DE T ARRAGON, Dead Kings, 649–659. To be fair, Levine and Tarragon state: “[KTU 1.161] shares common objectives with the kispum, or sacrifice of the dead, although its overt orientation is somewhat different.” IDEM., Dead Kings, 654. Spronk treats this text as a death cult ritual, S PRONK, Beatific Afterlife, 189–193. In a later publication Spronk (Incantations, 283) referred to it as a ritual related to burial. See also the unique view that the text represents ritual necromancy, found in T ROPPER, Nekromantie, 141–150. 46 In one of the standard treatments of the text, the purpose was summarized as such: “Le début du texte RS.34.126 se référait donc au rituel funéraire accompli à l’intention de Niqmadou III lorsque «le Roi est mort!» et la fin du texte ferait allusion à un sacrifice salutaire présenté à l’intention de sa veuve ou de sa bru Tryl et à l’intention de son fils et successeur ‘Ammourapi pur que «vive le Roi!».” Quoted from BORDREUIL and PARDEE, Rituel funéraire, 128. 47 SCHMIDT, Beneficent Dead, 100–106. Note the following quote of H EALEY, Ritual Text, 87. “In the absence of other similar Ugaritic rituals it is preferable to see this ritual as connected with the death of Niqmaddu and with his successor’s ritual duties towards the late king.” Yet Healey does note that an annual ritual cannot be excluded; see IDEM., Ritual Text, 88. 48 For instance, P ARDEE, Marzihu, 274–276. Pardee cogently argues in favor of interpreting this text as a funerary ritual, rather than a part of an ancestor cult. Yet this leads him to deny the ritual’s relationship with the coronation of ‘Ammurapi. To quote Pardee: “The mention of the successor comes only at the end; the focus of the text is on the deceased king, not on his successor.” Marzihu, 275.

142

Chapter Six: The Notice of the Successor

nastic purpose found in the royal epilogues of Kings. The significance of this comparison is precisely because KTU 1.161’s objective is played out accordingly within a ritual setting. The roster of ancestors invoked at the beginning of the ritual (KTU 1.161: 2–12) is partially repeated in the second half of the ritual where each name precedes the preposition tt (lines 23–26).49 These lines are typically understood to signify the reunion of the dead king Niqmaddu with the royal ancestors, although the unnamed referent could also be the throne. The use of the preposition tt is thought to signify the spatial divide between the living and the dead, and as such the lines are typically translated: “beneath King Ammishtamru” (using line 25 as an example).50 The spatial rendering of tt in KTU 1.161 as “under,” is motivated by images of the dead descending into the netherworld. Yet the spatial sense is built upon an original nuance of being in the place of something,51 and this nuance lends itself easily to an idea of being “with something (in its place)” as some treatments of KTU 1.161 have indicated.52 The repeated use of the preposition emphasizes the collective nature of the recently dead kings along with the distant ancestors. Indeed, the nuance of “together with” in tt accords well with the collectivity of the royal dead, a communal concept that is akin to the biblical collectivities of the dead: the kinfolk (Mymi(a) and the fathers (tbo)f).53 The spatial rendering of this preposition effectively creates a link to the royal dead. Thus, the place represented by the preposition is one that is supported by an established ancestral claim to royalty evoked in each name of KTU 1.161: 22b–26. The sense of place in this ritual is important in light of the objects referenced throughout the text, specifically the throne (mentioned twice), as well as the term ’ara in line 20. The spatial importance of the ritual is evident in lines 20–22a, where the unnamed agent is twice told, ’ara ba‘alka. This line is generally translated “after your lord,” which implies an act of following the dead king (or ancestors) into another place–the 49

The initial invocation includes two groups (lines 2–3), the Rephaim of the netherworld (rapi’ ’a[ri]) and the council of the Ditanu (qib di[dni] ) as well as two individuals who are designated members of the Rephaim (’ulkn rap[i’u] and trmn rapi[’u] in lines 4–5); these invoked entities are noted mentioned in the second part of the ritual. 50 SMITH, Origins, 124. 51 G REENFIELD, Prepositions, 226–228; and P ARDEE, Preposition, 318. 52 This nuance of association (of place or position) in KTU 1.161: 23–26 is discussed in POPE, Notes, 168 and 178; D IETRICH and LORETZ, Grabbeigaben, 106 (“zusammen mit”); DEL O LMO L ETE, Canaanite Religion, 196 cf. n. 88 (“together with”); and S MITH, Origins, 266 n. 165. See also S URIANO, Dynasty Building. 53 In this sense, the repeated statements of lines 23–26 is similar to the biblical statements of being “gathered to…” or “lying down with…” the collective dead, Mark S. Smith (personal communication).

6.5. Royal Ancestors and Succession at Ugarit

143

realm of the dead.54 The term ’ara can also be understood as a noun, “to the place of your lord,” which is a sense that is seen Akkadian, particularly the Amarna Letters (EA).55 The sense of place, specifically the king’s position of power, is seen in these cuneiform letters in reference to the respective king’s vassalage to the Pharaohs’ of the 18th dynasty.56 The terminology in these letters offers some parallel to KTU 1.161, particularly in identifying and describing the establishment of legitimacy on the part of the king. This is clear in the letter from Abi-Milku, king of Tyre, who included a hymn of praise to the Pharaoh that acknowledged the source of the vassal king’s power. The idea behind this hymn is that the rule of the vassal is in compliance with the conditions set by the suzerain; they are kings, each in their respective places of power.57 This compliancy ensures 54 The idea may be one of emulating the dead through ritual acts of mourning. The notion of the living mimicking the dead through their mourning practices is discussed in L EWIS, Cults, 43–44; and also O LYAN, Biblical Mourning, 39–45. This proposed translation of lines 20–21a may be reflected in the Ba‘al Cycle, discussed below; see SMITH, Origins, 126–127; following L EVINE and DE T ARRAGON, Dead Kings, 657–658. 55 The idea of “place” can be seen in the L’Heureux’s translation “shrine,” L'HEUREUX, Rank, 188 and 191. The translation of “place” was first advanced by Wayne Pitard, who suggested it stood for the place for funerary offerings, P ITARD, Ugaritic Funerary, 71–72. The interpretation specifically called for postmortem libation offerings, which Pitard has since shown to be problematic (I DEM. Libation Installations, 20–37). More recently, David Tsumura (Interpretation, 45–46, see 43) has preferred the reading based on the Akkadian cognate. For the general sense of “place, site, location,” see CAD A, Part II (s.v. aru A). 56 In other words, the source of their power and legitimacy is their Egyptian overlords. For example, in EA 55:4–9, the king of Qana (Akizzi) declares not only his loyalty, but the loyalty of his dynasty to Egypt, stating: “My lord, in this place (ina ari annîm) I am the one who is your servant…from the time my fathers (abbtya) became your servants [Qana has remained faithful to the Pharoah].” In this example, Akizzi’s sovereignty is dynastic in the sense that he sits on the throne of his fathers. Yet the patrilinear descent of power at Qana (at least in the 14th century) included also vassal servitude to Egypt, in accordance to the agreement made by Akizzi’s ancestors with those of Amenhotep III. To this, compare also the statements of Rib-Addi (the erstwhile king of Byblos) regarding his dynasty’s loyalty to Egypt, where diplomacy is tied to the royal ancestors–specifically the “fathers” of both parties (EA 109:5–7). The exception that proves the rule is Abdi-Heba of Jerusalem, who makes it explicitly known that his position of power comes from his role as an Egyptian vassal, when he confesses (EA 286:9– 13): “as for me, neither my father nor my mother put me in this place (ina ari ann). The strong arm of the king installed me in the house of my father (ana bt abya).” This confession shows that even if Egyptian vassals in the southern Levant did not derive their power through dynastic succession, they would still describe the institution of their power in dynastic terms. In EA 286, the house of Abdi-Heba’s father was essentially the ruling house of Jerusalem. 57 The plural form of ari conforms to the rhetoric of the hymn and the multiplicity of the Pharaoh’s vassals.

144

Chapter Six: The Notice of the Successor

the wellbeing of the domain, dynasty and dynastic lineage of the vassal king. This last component stands behind the preservation of the king’s name. It is through rituals such as KTU 1.161 that the names of dead kings are invoked and that the sense of lineage and dynastic continuity come into play. Indeed, the reward for the loyal vassal is similar to the benediction at the end of KTU 1.161:31b–34. Just as the wellbeing (or “peace” [ulmu]) of the vassal is ensured through his loyalty to his suzerain (literally “his lord” [blu]), in the city-state of Ugarit the wellbeing of the dynasty is ensured through the successor’s loyal actions in the rituals honoring his lord (the former king) as the successor assumes his place of power upon the throne. The Letter of Abi-Milku, EA 147:41–51 “Whoever has obeyed the king, his lord, and serves him in his places (arnu), then the sun god comes forth over him and the sweet breath returns from the mouth of his lord. But whoever has not heeded the word of the king his lord, his city is destroyed and his dynasty (literally “house” [btu]) is destroyed, his name does not exist in all the land forever. Behold, the servant who has heeded his lord, peace (ulmu [passim]) for his city, peace for his dynasty, his name (umu) is eternal.” 58

The concept of place can be tied directly to the dead, as seen for example in one of the Neirab Stelae (KAI 225), where the term describes the place of the stele belonging to the priest Sinzeribni.59 Yet the underlying concept of place referred to in the Amarna Letters, and possibly KTU 1.161, is a static sense of power assumed by each new king; in other words, political stability.60 It is something that can be inherited and as an object of language it symbolized both the individual sovereignty of the king and the dynastic legitimacy that his reign represents. Note, for example, the Old Aramaic treaty texts from Sefire where the term ’r refers to the king’s place of power that his heirs will ascend at a point in the future (KAI 222 A1: 5).61 In this Iron Age text (probably eighth century), the king’s place 58

Translation by the author. The warning of the inscription reveals the spatial significance of the term “place” (’r [=’ara]), and the importance of not removing Sinzeribni’s “effigy and burial from their place” (lm’ znh w’rt’ mn ’rh [KAI 225: 6–8]). Here, the term marks the location of the defunct priest’s essence (tied to his image, and probably also his name, on the stele) as well as the physical presence of his mortal remains (buried beneath the stele). 60 SURIANO, Dynasty Building, 10–11. 61 KAI 222 A1: 5, “the sons who will come up in his place” (bnwh.zy. yskn.b’r[h]). See FITZMYER, Sefire, 67. The prospective reference to progeny who will rule in the stead (tt) of the king, is seen also in the Kulamuwa inscription, where the king warns future heirs who “will sit [rule] in my stead (yb ttn; [KAI 24:13–14]); cf. the translation 59

6.5. Royal Ancestors and Succession at Ugarit

145

(’r) stands for a position of dynastic power that transcends time and history. As such, the place to which the treaty refers is not only inclusive of the dynastic rulers past, present, and future, it also binds future kings of both ruling houses in a covenantal agreement.62 Given the foundational sense of place that plays out in the Ugaritic ritual, it is important to stress the role of the dead kings and royal ancestors, who are evoked twice in the text. The foundational sense of power in the ritual KTU 1.161 is made explicit in the lineage evoked in lines 2–12 and 22b–26. The kings of Ugarit sat in line with their predecessors as well as the specialized categories of royal ancestors: the Rephaim and the Ditanu.63 It is this idea that is enforced in the second invocation of the royal dead, where each name is listed following the preposition tt. The fact that the same term is used in the closing statement of the royal epilogues of Kings is no coincidence. Indeed, the general collective nuance of the preposition “[being] with…”) may suggest that it should be rendered “in the stead of Ammishtamru” (line 25). The problematic lines 22b–25 (exegetically speaking) are framed by direct discourse that is marked by the 2 m.sg imperative verbs of lines 20–22a and 27–30a,64 and each clause attaches the preposition directly to the proper noun in a manner that otherwise means “in place of /instead of…” in Ugaritic and Classical Hebrew. An Ugaritic administrative list, KTU 4.133, contains a short list of six proper nouns, two in each line mediated by the preposition tt. The preposition here can mean either “subordinate to…”65 or “replacing…/instead of…”66 All of the proposed meanings are grammatically acceptable, but the second sense (“replacing/instead”) is reflective of the original spatial nuance in Y OUNGER JR., Kulamuwa Inscription (2.30), 148. The verb preceding the preposition is instructive, as it refers specifically to sons who will occupy the office of power currently occupied by Kulamuwa. This same perspective is reflected in Ps 45:17, in the form of a blessing: K1ynebf w%yh;yI K1ytebo)j txat@a CrE)fhf-lkfb@; MyrI#&fl; wOmt'y#$it@; (“In your fathers’ stead shall be your sons that you may place them as princes in all the land.”) The prospective use of the preposition appears also in the words of David as he acknowledges Solomon as his successor (1 Kg 1:30, 35). 62 It is precisely because of this static sense that interpretations such as “among” or “in the place/stead of” work in this ritual, although the opposite was argued in W YATT, Religious, 439, n. 2. 63 The orthographical representation of this name varies in Ugaritic (ditnu vs. didnu), see G ARR, On voicing, 47; for the root, see HALOT 1, s.v. NtfdF. The proper noun will be rendered Ditanu for sake of consistency. 64 Interpreting the verbal form repeated in lines 27–30 as a‘ay, a 2.m.sg. imperative; see LEVINE and DE T ARRAGON, Dead Kings, 653. The alternative would be to interpret it as an infinitive form, although the imperatives of lines 20–22a suggest otherwise. 65 DEL O LMO L ETE and S ANMARTÍN , DUL II, 866. 66 SEGERT, Basic Grammar, 79 § 56.75. Both translations (“instead” and “replacing”) are listed in TROPPER, Ugaritische, 769. See also SURIANO, Dynasty Building, 14–15.

146

Chapter Six: The Notice of the Successor

of the term. Attached to a personal noun, the spatial sense of tt ties directly to the essence of the individual (and their office) as one person is put in the place of another. Every occurrence in Classical Hebrew, where the where the preposition is attached to a personal noun, it always means “in place of/in the stead of…” the referenced individual (e.g., dwId@F txat@a “in the stead of David”).67 If lines 22b–26 are in fact a declaration of the royal lineage, it may shed light on the identity of the object of the imperatives in lines 20–22a and 27–30a. The imperatives imply a participant in the ritual who remains anonymous up to that point. Most studies have suggested or implied that the imperatives are spoken to either the dead king or his throne,68 yet it is possible that these lines were directed at the new king who remains unnamed until the end of the rite.69 The act of mourning in lines 20–22a would have allowed him to take his place within the royal line, enacted through the declaration of the lineage in lines 22b–26. This declaration would then allow the new king to make the necessary sacrificial acts in lines 27–30 (corresponding to the ancestors in the previous section), resulting in the final declaration: the benediction of the new king, the royal family, and the city.70 If this reading is correct, it infers a binary purpose of the 67

The only instance in the Hebrew Bible, where the preposition is immediately followed by a proper noun is in Num 22:27, where Balaam’s donkey lies down “under Balaam” (M(fl;b@i txat@a Cb@ar:t@iwA). In this instance, the subject is an animal. Among funerary texts, there is one instance of a Palmyrene inscription (a sculptured bust of a man) that reads: qbyr b’r‘ gwmy ‘l ymyn np’ dh twt ‘l’ brt yry (“he was buried in the floor of the niche, to the right of this stele, under ‘Alâ’ the daughter of Yarai”); see the revised reading in INGHOLT, Corrections, 126; for photos, see IDEM., Palmyrene, Plate IX, 2. The text is cited in HOFTIJZER and JONGELING, DNSI 2, 1210. This single exception (which is quite late, and in Palmyrene) is insufficient to dismiss the observations regarding the syntactical arrangement in Ugaritic and Northwest Semitic, where the preposition tt followed by a proper noun (= PN) means (with minimal exceptions): “in the stead of PN.” 68 If lines 22b–26 are an acknowledgment that Niqmaddu has joined his dead ancestors, then the lines should read “under…”; P ARDEE, Ritual and Cult, 88. For the suggestion that the throne is being addressed, see T AYLOR, The First, 161–174. 69 The king’s name, ‘Ammurapi, which is the first name honored in the benediction, may have been a throne name that was only unveiled in this ritual. This tentative suggestion is based on the fact that the benediction forms a climax in the ritual, beginning with the declaration of the new king’s name. See the discussion of the importance of the name in the royal ritual in K EEL, Symbolism, 261–264. Keel uses the term “flourishing of the name,” drawing primarily from Egyptian sources. 70 This interpretation sees each action and declaration as successive, recognizing an alternation between rituals actions (first mourning in lines 20–22a and then sacrifice in 27–30) and declarations (the royal lineage in lines 22b–26 and the benediction in 31–34). Thus, it is reasonable to see lines 22b–26 as implying the new king, rather than the throne or the dead king (either his corpse or an effigy), neither of which would result in the benediction of line 30. For the suggestion that the new king, ‘Ammurapi, is descend-

6.5. Royal Ancestors and Succession at Ugarit

147

ritual in dedicating the defunct king (Niqmaddu) and acknowledging the new king (‘Ammurapi), a binary purpose that is similar to the royal epilogues.71 The Ugaritic ritual and the epilogues both share the same entities: the royal ancestors, the defunct king, and the new king. The Ugaritic text also involves the Shapshu, the sun goddess, whose invocation in the lines 18–19 separates the two principal halves of the ritual.72 The first part ends in lines 13–15 with a command to mourn directed at the implements of Niqmaddu’s royal sovereignty, which begins with his throne (kussi’ Niqmaddi [line 13]) and initiates the lament of the king in lines 16–17. The throne reappears in line 20, where it is described as “his throne” in reference to the “lord” (who is mentioned earlier in that line). If this lord is the dead king Niqmaddu, the two references to the throne likely represent the transfer of this royal symbol from father to son. The Ugaritic text KTU 1.161 represents a ritual response to the death of the king, regardless of how lines 22b–26 are translated and interpreted. Several studies have drawn comparisons between KTU 1.161 and motifs in the Ba‘al Cycle, specifically in KTU 1.5 VI–1.6 I.73 The comparison centers upon El’s act of mourning Ba‘al, and as Mark Smith states:74 “[Ba‘al’s] fate may reflect his affinity to the condition of Ugarit’s dynasty, both the deceased king and his living successor.” Smith rejects the “dying and rising god” reading of the Ba‘al Cycle in favor of a political understanding that recognizes the problematic relationship between royal ideology and human mortality.75 It is the death of the king, not the death of a deity, that influenced and shaped the mythic cycle that has Ba‘al die and ing into the netherworld in an act of mourning (cf. KTU 1.5 VI, 24b–25 and 1.6 I, 7b– 9a), see L EWIS, Cults, 43–45; followed by S MITH, Origins, 267 (n. 185). 71 At Emar, a dual focus can be observed in the succession of the high priestess of Ba‘al, involving both the defunct and living priestesses, FLEMING, Installation, 192–195. 72 See S URIANO, Dynasty Building, for a discussion of this three-part interpretation. 73 See SMITH, Origins, 126–127 (and n. 185); following L EVINE and DE T ARRAGON, Dead Kings, 656–658 and A NDERSON, A Time, 60–67. The comparison is made due to the shared terminology (yrd and ’ar) of KTU 1.5 VI 24b–25 and 1.6 I 7b–9a (which describe El’s acts of mourning Ba‘al), and KTU 1.161:20–21 (cf. also Gen 37:35) 74 See S MITH, Origins, 128. 75 SMITH, Death, 257–313; IDEM., Origins, 104–131; see also IDEM., Ugaritic Baal, 60–75. Similarly, the Sumerian deity Dumuzi (Tammuz) had been interpreted as a dying-and-rising god, see JACOBSEN, Treasures, 25–73. This interpretation was due, in part, to Dumuzi’s role within the sacred marriage ritual. Yet Dumuzi’s role here is better understood as representative of kingship in a ritual that represents the wedding of the divine (where a priestess represents Inanna) with the ranking symbol of profane authority (Dumuzi, represented by the king); see COOPER, Sacred Marriage, 90. Not only does this interpretation recognize that Dumuzi is “a liminal figure hovering between mortality and divinity” (to quote Cooper) but it also acknowledges his association with kingship in the Sumerian King List.

148

Chapter Six: The Notice of the Successor

then return to the living. The mytho-poetic interpretation offers valuable insight not only for KTU 1.161, but also as it relates to the political purposes of the Book of Kings’ royal epilogues. In the Ba‘al Cycle, the storm god is associated with kingship and his death and subsequent reappearance to life stands for the reality that the royal dynasty is composed of mortal kings.76 It is kingship that is undying, and the individuals who occupy this institution – kingship – will always die; yet they remain a part of the institution as royal ancestors.

6.6. Concluding Remarks The biblical depiction of the passage of political power frequently utilizes the preposition txat@a to stand for the office of kingship. In its genitival form (with possessive suffix) it clearly stood for the former office of a defunct king within a short generic list of successors. In this sense, the Edomite King List of Genesis compares with the royal epilogues of the Book of Kings, which both share identical verbs and prepositions in their respective description of lineages and lists of kings. The important difference lies in the fact that the notice of the successor always qualifies the person who “ruled” (Klm) in the defunct king’s “place/stead” as the predecessor’s son. The concern of the royal epilogues was the paternal line of the respective dynasty, thus the short notice of successor played a critical role within the formulaic statements of Kings. The epilogue’s concluding statement, the notice of successor, stood opposite its initial statement, the dynastic notice. The parity of these formulaic notices lies in the fact that they both mark an aspect of transition necessitated by dynastic succession. In an abstract sense, the ancestral stock that is common to KTU 1.161 and similar texts may indicate the manner in which the Israelite dynasties were politically related through the concept of the “fathers.”77 In the end, the final formula tied together the two accompanying statements to show that the political crisis created by the death of a ruler was abated through a ritual process that honored the dead and acknowledged the living. The purpose of the epilogue’s final statement, the notice of the successor, is to record the continuity of power. Hence, it embodies the greater objective of the epilogue formulary, which is the ability of the ruling house to survive the single lifespan of an individual king. 76 SMITH, Origins, 127–128; see his discussion of the royal ideology of the Ba‘al Cycle (Ugaritic Baal, 87–96) , where Ba‘al represents the royal dynasty of Ugarit. 77 The patrilineal perspective is apparent in the early portion of the list, where the summation occurs: “all ten kings that were fathers” (napar 10 arrni a abb unni). G RAYSON, Königslisten, 86–120. See the discussion in Y AMADA, Editorial, 15–19.

Chapter Seven

Rephaim and Royal Ancestors 7.1. Introduction The question of the Israelite royal ancestry, conveniently packaged in the collective noun tbo)f, can be answered in part by the enigmatic term rapi’ma (Ugartic)/My)ipfr:.1 The Rephaim do not appear in the Book of Kings, but the use of this term elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible along with Ugaritic literature and Phoenician inscriptions indicates that it stood for a specialized type of royal ancestry. In the Ugaritic sources, notably KTU 1.161 (discussed in the previous chapter), defunct kings were associated in death with the Rephaim and another group, the Ditanu. Likewise, as will be discussed below, a Phoenician inscription written on a king’s sarcophagus (the Eshmunazor inscription) contains a rough parallel to the dynastic notice where the Rephaim are referenced in place of the “fathers.” These examples compare with occurrences in the Hebrew Bible, where the Rephaim appear as characters both chthonic and autochthonous, depending on the type of literature involved. In these texts, it is possible to recognize the connection between the Rephaim and ideologies concerning royal ancestors, which can in turn provide further light on the concept of “fathers” as a descriptor of the royal dead in the Book of Kings.

7.2. The Rephaim in Near Eastern Literature References to the Rephaim occur outside the Hebrew Bible in the Levant (Ugarit and Phoenicia), but only appear in the onomastic record in Mesopotamian sources. Nevertheless, the Rephaim represent a concept of ancestry that is evident in Mesopotamian king lists and royal genealogies.2 The class of ancestors that stand behind the dynastic lineages of Israel and Judah are similar to (if not identical with) the ancestors evoked by the sec1 The literature on the Rephaim is too extensive to list here, see C AQUOT, 75–93, IDEM., Rephaïm, §§ 344–357; L IWAK, art. My)Ipfr: rep’îm, 602–614; S MITH, Rephaim, 674–676; R OUILLARD, Rephaim, 692–695. 2 The common ideology of royal ancestors probably came about with the rise of Amorite culture during the Old Babylonian period, if not earlier.

150

Chapter Seven: Rephaim and Royal Ancestors

ond millennium BCE royal houses of Mesopotamia and the northern Levant, such as seen in the Genealogy of the Hammurapi Dynasty (GHD) as well as a ritual text from Mari involving the royal cult of the dead (or kispum; see MARI 128403).3 This ancestral concept is quite clear in the Ugaritic ritual text KTU 1.161, where the names of royal ancestors are recited alongside the dead kings ‘Ammishtamru and Niqmaddu. Furthermore, the concept of a specialized class of royal ancestors is systematically charted in the Assyrian King List,4 where the Grundstock (ostensibly of the OB king ami-Adad I) is summated in various, distinct categories.5 Additionally, as will be shown, Phoenician royal funerary inscriptions from the fifth century BCE also invoke the same manner of ancestry, conceptualized in a single group: the Rephaim. Indeed, this concept of royal ancestry, which ultimately continued through the first half of the first millennium, can be traced back into the second millennium/Middle and Late Bronze Ages (see Figure 6). During the first millennium, Assyrian kings continued to claim eponymous ancestors seen in earlier sources, such as anû and Namû (written: Nuabu).6 Yet, in the Levant from the Late Bronze Age until the mid-first the concept of a specialized ancestor class was conflated in the form of the Rephaim. Thus, the Rephaim, who appear also in the Hebrew Bible, become the key to understanding the underlying concept of royal ancestors found in the “fathers” claimed by Israelite kings.

3 See, respectively, F INKELSTEIN, Genealogy, 95–118; and B IROT, Fragment, 139– 150. For a survey of the extensive (inscriptional) evidence for the kispu at Mari, see T SUKIMOTO, Untersuchungen, 57–78. 4 For a full version, with commentary, see G RAYSON, Königslisten, 101–115; and G LASSNER, Mesopotamian Chronicles, 136–145. The text is referred to as AssKL A in the typology of R ÖLLIG, Zur Typologie, 265–277. See also G ELB, Two, 209–230; and Y AMADA, Editorial, 13–23. 5 These categories include: “Total: 17 kings who lived in tents,” followed by “Total: 10 kings who were fathers,” and then “Total: 6 kings whose names are written on bricks but whose eponyms are not known.” Y AMADA, Editorial, 13–23. The term Grundstock goes back to the important work of Benno Landsberger, who interpreted the early portion of the AKL as the ancestors of ami-Adad I; refer to LANDSBERGER, Assyrische Königsliste, 33–38, and Assyrische Königsliste (Continued), 109–114; followed by YAMADA, Editorial, 11–13. According to Malamat (King Lists 165–69), the first twelve entries are tribal names that represent the “genealogical stock,” while the last five entries are the “determinative line,” a specific ancestral heritage. A different interpretation by Glassner (Mesopotamian Chronicles, 71–73), suggests that these were not the forefathers of ami-Adad, but rather, his brother Aminu, king of Ekallaœtum. The importance, however, is that similar ancestors are listed in the GHD, the ritual text from Mari, KTU 1.161 and the early portion of the AKL (where they are attributed to the second millennium Amorite-king ami-Adad); see Figure 6. 6 Likewise, the Did nu also are claimed both by the kings of Ugarit (in the Levant) and later by the Assyrian kings.

151

7.2. The Rephaim in Near Eastern Literature

Figure 6. The Common Heritage of Royal Ancestors AKL

GHD

udiya

[1]

adamu

[2]

yangi

[3]

sulmu

[4]

araru

[5]

mandaru

[6]

imu

[7]

aru

[8]

didnu anû zuabu nuabu

KTU 1.161

> ûbti-yamuta

[2]

> yamqu-zualamu

[3]

> aram-madara

[1]

> rapi’ma

namzu (?)

[5]

[9]

didnu

[6]

[10 ] [11 ] [12 ]

eana

[4]

zummabu

[7]

namû

[8]

didnu > rapi’ma

7.2.1. The rapi’ma at Ugarit Ugaritic texts frequently refer to the rapi’ma who appear as either figures that occupy a mythical past or members of the royal dead (notably in KTU 1.161), representing a rich corpus of literature regarding the Rephaim.7

Refer to L IWAK, art. My)Ipfr: R ep’îm, 602–614; S MITH, Rephaim, 674–676; R OUILLARD, Rephaim, 692–695. For an overview of the many different theories regarding the Rephaim, see S HIPP, Of Dead Kings, 114–123. The etymology of the term rp’u (along with its vocalization in Ugartic texts) remains an unresolved problem. Some studies assign an etymological origin in “healing,” in order to assign an interactive role to the Rephaim, yet there is no known source that associates them with healing, as noted in VAN DER T OORN , Funerary Rituals, 57; and L EWIS , Toward, 142; and I DEM ., Cults, 14. The name could be understood as a denominative form of an adjective meaning “pure” (van der Toorn), or a Qatal form rapa’ma meaning “healthy (ones)” (Pardee). Given the uncertainty of the term, its vocalization here as a Stative form (rapi’ma; “robust; healthy” see Lewis), is nothing more than an expedient convention made with the full knowledge that other interpretations are possible. See also A ARTUN, Studien, 219–221; and SURIANO, Dynasty Building, 7, n. 12. 7

152

Chapter Seven: Rephaim and Royal Ancestors

The various aspects of the Ugaritic rapi’ma are interrelated, although this might not always be readily apparent in the epic literature. Although it is not possible to offer here an exhaustive study of the Ugaritic Rephaim, a review of the two-fold manner in which the rapi’ma are portrayed will offer some insight into the manner in which royal ancestry was conceptualized in the ancient Levant. The epic literature typically portrays the Rephaim in an active manner relative to the contemporary (living) characters of the storyline, be they gods or heroes. In a related manner, the Rephaim texts (KTU 1.20/22)8 describe the characters riding chariots and gathering for feasts. Most notably, the mythic hero Dan’el is repeatedly referred to throughout the ’Aqhatu Legend (KTU 1.17), as “man of the Rephaim” (mutu rapi’i). The end of the Kirta Epic also associates the mythic king with the Rephaim, yet it states (more specifically) that Kirta was honored “amidst the Rephaim of the earth (rapi’ ’ari) and [among] the collective assembly of the Ditanu (bi-puru qib didni)” (KTU 1.15 iii: 3–4 and 14–15), which are precisely the two groups of distant ancestors that appear in the royal ritual KTU 1.161. The concept of ancestry at work in the epic literature relates directly to one of mythic time, a period in the distant past when the long dead once lived. Thus, the Rephaim played a role as temporal fixtures of Ugarit’s mythic history, and (furthermore) established an identity upon which royal claims could be founded. The Rephaim are recalled at the end of the Ba‘al Cycle (KTU 1.6 VI: 45–47) along with the dead, apparently in a passage directed towards Shapshu.9 Here, the rapi’ma are paralleled with “gods” (’ilnyima) and associated with the “divine ones” (’ilma) and the “dead” (mituma) in the next lines (48–49). The parallelism of the passage indicates that the Rephaim at Ugarit were accorded semi-divine status among the dead. Although the passage is damaged and not entirely clear (it probably addressed the living king), the sense and idea at work here relates to the wider theme of divine order that runs through the Ba‘al Cycle, which is extended to the dead (i.e., the ancestors) in this final homily. That the Rephaim played a role in the divine order was a point of significance in light of the Ba‘al Cycle’s political function,10 where the rise of Ba‘al and the construction of his palace serve as royal metaphors for the ruling dynasty of Ugarit. 8

PITARD, New Edition, 33–77; and IDEM., Rpum Texts, 259–269; L EWIS, Toward, 115–149; and Rapiuma, 196–205. 9 See L EWIS, Cults, 35–40; W IGGINS, Shapsh, 328–338; A NDERSON, A Time, 63–67; and A ARTUN, Studien, 220. 10 For a thorough discussion of the royal themes in this important epic work, see SMITH, Ugaritic Baal, 87–114.

7.2. The Rephaim in Near Eastern Literature

153

The political function of the Rephaim, and their ability to legitimate a new king (and thus his house) is seen in KTU 1.108, with its invocation of rpi’u malku ‘lami (“Rapi’u, king of eternity”).11 This figure appears to be both the eponymous founder of the Rephaim and their king.12 The significance of this text is that Rap’u is invoked (apparently) to bless the new king. Although the details of the text remain unclear,13 the beneficent words of the ritual (which includes the rapi’ ’ari) affirm the integral relationship between the ruling king and the royal ancestors. The importance of these figures is interwoven in their historical place in Ugarit’s foundational epics and myths. It is interesting to note that the rapi’ma do not appear in the Ugaritic king-lists, which may indicate a critical aspect of their existence.14 As a group, they represent an aristocracy of the dead to

11 For an edition of the text, refer to P ARDEE, Ritual and Cult, 192–193. Note also del Olmo Lete’s theory, which regards the text as a proclamation of the newly deceased king as a Rephaim (rpi’u malku ‘lami); DEL O LMO L ETE, Canaanite Religion, 185–186. This theory is based, in part, on the assumption that Yaqaru is the founder of the Ugaritic dynasty (and that he appears in KTU 1:108). Both assumptions are refuted by Pardee, first based on the syllabic king-list RS 94.2418 (which shows that Yaqaru is not the first king of the dynastic line), and secondly based on the interpretation of yqr as an adjective meaning “noble,” see PARDEE, Ritual and Cult, 204 n. 1. 12 Although he regarded both Raph’u and the Rephaim (at Ugarit) as divine healers, Simon Parker rejected any organic relation between the two, seeing them as an “approximation” of two similar divine concepts, P ARKER, 103–104. Pardee, on the other hand, vocalizes the first as rpi’u (a qatl form = “healer”), cf. rapa’ma (qatal = “hale ones”); P ARDEE, Ritual and Cult, 204–205 n. 6. This interpretation is inviting, even if one questions Pardee’s suggestion that rpi’u is the title of a chthonic deity Milku. The etymology of Rephaim remains a problem, yet Pardee’s interpretation does have the benefit of establishing the relationship between the two lexemes. 13 For the alphabetic and syllabic texts (RS 24.257 and RS 94.2418), refer to P ARDEE, Ritual and Cult, 195–204. The Akkadian version does lists the name, mrap-a-na (RS 94.2418: 3). 14 Equally ambiguous is the apparent association of the defunct kings of Ugarit with divinity in the king lists; PARDEE, Ritual and Cult, 195–204. These texts have been explained in various ways, to support or deny the concept of deified kings at Ugarit; see, e.g., S CHMIDT, Beneficent Dead, 67–71; and I DEM., Re-Evaluation, 289–304. The question of deified kings, known from southern Mesopotamia during the third millennium (i.e., Naram-Suen), is complicated and will not be entered upon in this study. The safest assumption is one of an exalted, i.e., semi-divine, status that distinguishes the defunct king from among the countless dead. This may explain also the even more enigmatic Ugaritic term ’ilib, which appears in god-lists and seems to combine the terms “god” and “father” (with the vocalization explained through vowel harmonization). As attractive as it might be to associate these figures with the tbo)f of the Hebrew Bible, it will be avoided as it is impossible to penetrate further into the complex meaning involved with the term, the texts, and indeed the ideology of Ugarit.

154

Chapter Seven: Rephaim and Royal Ancestors

which a dynastic lineage could be attached; the mythic dead as opposed to the historical dead whose names were recorded in the king lists.15 7.2.2. The Rephaim in Phoenician Sources The inscriptions found on the sarcophagi of two kings of Sidon, which date to the first half of the fifth century BCE,16 provide a window in the politics of royal ancestors that parallels the royal epilogues in the Book of Kings.17 These Phoenician sources are important as they are both royal and they are distinctly funerary in nature (again, each are inscribed on the king’s sarcophagus).18 The funerary inscriptions, which belong to the Sidonian kings Tabnit and his son Eshmunazor (KAI 13 and 14), include imprecations that deny final rest among the Rephaim to any one who disturbs the interred.19 Given the context of these inscriptions (they were found inside royal tombs), the point of the imprecation was not simply against robbers, for

15

See also the comments by William Hallo, with regard to KTU 1.161, where he contemplates the “historical kings and the “prehistoric ancestors of the dynasty” and the transference of status regarding the two categories; HALLO, Royal Ancestor Worship, 385; citing LEVINE and DE T ARRAGON, Dead Kings, 656. (Hallo’s comments come in reference to the title of their article: Dead Kings). 16 See, conveniently, GIBSON, TSSI 3, 101–102. Gibson dates Tabnit’s reign to 500– 490, and his son Eshmunazor (II) to 489–475 BCE. Refer also, the brief remarks in MCCARTER, ’’Ahirom (COS 2.55), 182 n. 1. 17 The discussion of the Rephaim’s political function is unrelated to any interpretation of them as a special class of warriors that were a part of the living society at Ugarit. The hypothesis is taken up in SCHMIDT, Beneficent Dead, 90–93. See similarly, L'H EUREUX, Ugaritic, 265–274; IDEM., yelˆ®de® haœraœpaœ}, 83–85; and, Rank, 189. The idea, however, goes back to John Gray (see Rephaim, 127–139; and Dtn and Rp’um, 39–41) and is based on a problematic approach to ancient Ugarit that was influenced by medieval European societies, see SCHLOEN, House of the Father, 215–216. It is equally difficult to interpret the Rephaim as a group of the dead that otherwise have no special political function, so F ORD, Living Rephaim, 73–101. 18 A third source, which often factors into discussion of the Rephaim, is a bilingual Neo-Punic and Latin inscription (KAI 117) from El-Amrni, Libya that dates to the first century CE. Not only is this inscription far removed from the current discussion, both temporally and geographically, but it also represents a slightly different concept of the Rephaim than that found on the royal sarcophagi of Sidon. Like later wisdom literature in the Hebrew Bible, the Rephaim in the lone Neo-Punic source seemed to have been “democratized” and are no longer associated with kings. This is probably more indicative of the fact that the concept of kingship prevalent in the ancient Levant (and Phoenicia proper) was not adopted in the Punic culture of North Africa. 19 Refer G IBSON, TSSI 1, 101–115. For instance, the Tabnit inscription reads: “may you have no seed among the living under the sun nor a resting place with the Rephaim” (’l yn l zr‘ tt m wbkb ’t rp’m [KAI 13:7–8]).

7.2. The Rephaim in Near Eastern Literature

155

plundering a royal tomb was often a political action.20 The curses inscribed on these sarcophagi are directed against usurpation; to deny the usurper any association with the Rephaim was to deny royal legitimacy. The political importance of the Rephaim as royal ancestors, and their relationship to the wider complex of death and dynastic succession, is evident in the curses invoked in the sarcophagus of Eshmunazor.21 The extended curse in this inscription is three-fold and is directed at aspects of royal funerary rites that corresponded with those of the epilogues in the Book of Kings. The order of the imprecation relates directly to the ideological complex of death-burial-succession, and thus offers a parallel to the epilogues (albeit negatively) as seen in the transliteration and translation below (and Fig. 7). The individual statements are enumerated to show the order of the imprecations and their correspondence to the royal epilogues.22 The Eshmunazor Sarcophagus, KAI 14: 7–9 ’l ykn lm mkb ’t rp’m w’l yqbr bqbr w’l lm bn wzr‘ ttnm 1. “May there not be for them a resting place with the Rephaim… 2. … and may they not be buried in a tomb, 3. … and may they have no son or seed in their stead.”

20

The imprecation of Eshumnazor’s sarcophagus addresses kl mmlkt wkl ’dm, which is rendered here “any prince and any man,” following ABOU SAMRA, Bénédictions, 66– 67 (see 63). Certainly both represent different classes of society, yet the same political opportunity would be presented to either type of individual regardless of their status at birth. Abou Samra follows the interpretation of the Rephaim as a group of dead that have achieved tranquility in the afterlife, thus the denial of joining them in death implies that one would be denied burial. This is not entirely incorrect, denial of burial (or disinterment) was an implication of this curse; yet more, precisely, the Rephiam represent a politically important status among the dead. 21 The sarcophagus actually contains multiple curses, with the repetition of one set of imprecations at the end of the inscription. For a full discussion of the curses (broken into three groups), see A BOU SAMRA, Bénédictions, 60–81. 22 In a similar note, see also Hans-Peter Müller’s comments on curses that reverse blessings, as found in Northwest Semitic funerary inscriptions (KAI 14 included); M ÜLLER, phönizische Grabinschrift, 121. For a discussion of the curses in lines 8–10, see A BOU SAMRA, Bénédictions, 72–74. Apart from Abou Samra’s discussion of the Rephaim, he also offered parallels for the two other cureses found in this section of Eshmunazor’s sarcophagus inscription. The parallels, however, are primarily Mesopotamian kudurru curses, or treaty curses (from Assyrian royal inscriptions), in addition to images drawn from later Syriac sources; yet no analogy is made with the Book of Kings.

156

Chapter Seven: Rephaim and Royal Ancestors

The terminology found in the extended curse of the Eshmunazor inscription and the royal epilogues is identical (refer Fig. 7 below):23 mkb (the dynastic notice bk#),24 the verb qbr (burial notice rbq), and the preposition tt (notice of the successor txt).25 The semantic and syntactical parallels between this curse and the epilogue formulary are striking. The curse inscribed on Eshumnazor’s sarcophagi begins with verbal clause that includes a direct object, mkb, that is derived from the verbal root that begins the epilogues in Kings (bk#). Furthermore, this object is part of a prepositional phrase that relates directly to royal ancestry. In the Book of Kings, the preposition M(i relates the subject of the verbal clause (the defunct king) with the royal ancestors (tbo)f). Likewise, in the Eshmunazor sarcophagus, a preposition (’t) relates the object (which is denied to any potential violator) with royal ancestors: the Rephaim.26 Following the introduction, the imprecation starts in line 3 with a statement that is begun by a verbal arrangement using kb. The Eshmunazor Sarcophagus, KAI 14: 3–4 wkb ’nk blt z wbqbr z wbmqm ’ bnt “I am lying in this coffin (box) and in this tomb and in the place that I built.” 23 A key element in this comparison is the common purview of both: they begin with an image of the dead joining the royal ancestors (the fathers or the Rephaim); they follow with a reference to burial; and finally, they associate the consequence of such actions with filial succession. 24 The term mkb, “resting place,” is used ten times in Tabnit’s sarcophagus inscription as well as on a funerary inscription belonging to the son of Shipit-Ba’al king of Byblos (KAI 9A-B, date unknown but either Iron II or Persian Period); see DONNER and R ÖLLIG, KAI II, 10–11. In both Tabnit and Eshmunazor, the expression occurs: “resting place with the Rephaim.” Furthermore, the noun appears five times in Shipit-Ba’al’s fragmentary inscription and ten times in Eshmunazor’s text, A VISHUR, Phoenician, 132. 25 For the nuance of the preposition in Phoenician, see KRAHMALKOV, PhoenicianPunic, 258 (for the orthography, see G IBSON, TSSI 1, 111). This nuance continued into Neo-Punic (see “Breviglieri N 1” in JONGELING and K ERR, Late Punic, 14–15 [KAI 118:2]), and was expanded to denote a position of authority (KAI 120:1). 26 Thus, the prepositional phrases are semantically parallel. Note also the similar syntax in 2 Sam 7:12, K1ytebo)j-t)e t@fb;ka#$fw:. Although the Phoenician inscriptions use a different preposition, it still provides a semantic parallel with the Hebrew of the Dynastic Notice. The Phoenician particle ’t (“with /together with”) should not be confused with the direct object marker, which is normally spelled ’yt; A BOU SAMRA, Bénédictions, 73. For the preposition, see KRAHMALKOV, Phoenician-Punic, 230. Avishur notes several interesting parallels in Ezekiel for the use of this preposition together with bk# (in relation to dead kings), see Ezek 32:28 (not v.25 as Avishur states): brExf-yl'l;xa-t)e bk@a#$;tiw: (“and you will lay with the slain by the sword”). Yet conceptually, there is no difference between “lying down with (M() fathers” and “lying down with (t)) the slain,” let alone having a “resting place with (t)) the Rephaim.”

7.2. The Rephaim in Near Eastern Literature

157

Within this constellation of funerary terminology, the participle kb establishes the setting,27 which is elaborated in the three relative clauses that follow in lines 3–4: blt z (“in this sarcophagus [lh]”); wbqbr z (“and in this tomb”); wbmqm (“and in the place”). The last clause, described as the “place that [Eshmunazor] built,” refers to the entire burial complex, which contains the defunct king’s tomb and the specific object that holds his mortal remains. Eshmunazor’s burial was individual, inside a single chamber that was carved out of the bedrock of Sidon. The burial-type was not collective (such as the case in the LB city of Qana),28 and the noun mkb (“resting place”) that appears throughout the rest of the curse becomes the reference point for Eshmunazor’s status inside the burial site.29 The second statement of Eshmunazor’s curse utilizes the verb qbr, cognate with that of the epilogue’s second statement (rbq). In the Phoenician curse, the second clause starts with a prefix imperfect (conditioned by the negative particle ’l) and preceding a prepositional phrase that begins with b- (-b). The indirect object of the Phoenician prepositional phrase is the generic noun qbr, while the burial notice in the Book of Kings places the activity in the royal capital (i.e., ry(ib@; dwid@F). This subtle difference is due to the different perspectives of each statement. The curse is directed at any potential usurper,30 where as the purview of the burial notice was one of dynastic lineage that was symbolized by the royal tomb. The final clause is verbless, but the use of the preposition tt and the noun bn “son” parallels the final statement of the royal epilogues. To summarize, any violator of Eshmunazor’s burial place will not join the royal ancestors, will not be buried, and will not have any progeny to follow them. Each of these denied aspects are expressed in the same successive order in the formulaic epilogues of Kings. This shared terminology (Fig. 7) indicates two important and interrelated aspects of political ideology found in the complex of death-burial-inheritance. The ideological complex was critical for royal legitimation, therefore its denial had political implications.

27

Translating kb as an active participle, following FRIEDRICH, R ÖLLIG, and A MAPhönizisch-Punische 84, § 139. 28 See the diagram in CIS I, pages 10–11, and J IDEJIAN, Sidon, Plate 5. 29 The mkb serves as the locus in which the sarcophagus rests; as such it (the mkb) cannot be opened, so that plunderers could not abscond with the sarcophagus. Furthermore, transfer of Eshmunazor’s body to another mkb is also forbidden. Therefore, the locus is what establishes Eshmunazor’s status in death, which partly explains the implications of being denied a mkb with the Rephaim. 30 The curse is directed against any potential usurper, regardless of who they were, which is stated in line 4: “any prince and any man” (kl mmlkt wkl ’dm); see A BOU SAMRA, Bénédictions, 63. DASI,

158

Chapter Seven: Rephaim and Royal Ancestors

Figure 7. The Royal Epilogues and Eshmunazor’s Sarcophagus Shared Terminology 1. Dynastic notice (with the fathers) bk# ~ mkb KAI 14:7 (with the Rephaim) 2. Burial notice rbq ~ qbr KAI 14:8 3. Notice of the Successor Nb / txt ~ tt / bn KAI 14:9

The image of royal ancestors, which in a patrimonial sense is evoked as the “fathers” in the royal epilogues, is evoked as the Rephaim in a categorical sense in the Phoenician texts. This image, or identity, was a foundational element in the ideological complex of death-burial-inheritance. Certainly, the kings of Sidon were vassals of the Persian Empire during the fifth century BCE, but they relied upon a political ideology that was common in the Levant among earlier Iron Age royal houses. While in the Iron Age rival dynasties claimed a common right to power, this claim was later manipulated by Phoenician rulers to insure that their heirs would inherit the same position (albeit as Persian vassals): the ancestral right of kings.

7.3. The Rephaim in the Hebrew Bible The extensive references to the Rephaim in the Hebrew Bible cannot be analyzed in full in this study, yet a review of a few critical points regarding these enigmatic features will show how they relate to wider concepts of royal ancestry and ultimately shed light on the royal epilogues of the Book of Kings. The biblical references to the Rephaim initially appear to be inconsistent, as they are described as either early denizens of the southern Levant (specifically Transjordan), or inhabitants of the netherworld.31 To add to the complicated portrayal of these figures, later versions of the Hebrew Bible misunderstood the references to the Rephaim’s physical stature and translated them as gi÷ganteß (“giants” [ref. LXX Isa 14:9]).32 Yet, great physical stature is often a royal attribute, and the point was not to depict them as giants but rather to present them in kingly terms (cf. 1 Sam 9:2).33 The fact that the Rephaim are often represented in royal terms indi31 On the (seemingly) different nature of the Rephaim in biblical literature, and various responses to this problem in scholarship, see L IWAK, art. My)Ipfr: R ep’îm, 609–614. 32 Se, IDEM., art. My)Ipfr: R ep’îm, 604–605. 33 Although Hamilton notes that “[p]hysical size is, in semiotic terms, an index of kingship, but by no means an unambiguous one.” H AMILTON, Body Royal, 127. Caquot (Les Rephaïm, 76) implies that the confused imagery of Rephaim and giants was a deliberate act by the biblical writers.

7.3. The Rephaim in the Hebrew Bible

159

cates an important quality that these figures embodied. The biblical depiction of the Rephaim is similar to that of Ugaritic literature (regarding the rapi’ma),34 they are figures that once lived in mythic times but are now a special class of the dead.35 Yet, unlike Ugaritic literature, the biblical references to the Rephaim were negative, as they appear as either defeated foes in narrative accounts of the past, or as the enfeebled dead.36 The Rephaim are associated with dead kings in the Book of Deuteronomy (and repeated in passages in Joshua) as well as in Isaiah. Og, the Amorite king of Heshbon, is described in Deut 3:11 as the last of the Rephaim (see also Josh 12:4 and 13:12).37 This text does not require an interpretation of royal ancestor (or dead king, for that matter) as it merely states that Og was the last of these figures. Yet, the statement has a temporal effect, it places the characters in a distant past by associating Og with the Rephaim. Og is also the only character in the Hebrew Bible that is said to be a Rephaim, and it seems more than coincidence that he was a king. A similar phenomena occurs in 2 Sam 21:15–22, in an account of David and his mighty men verses the Philistine heroes of Gath.38 The four Philistine warriors (which include Goliath) are collectively referred to as the “ones who had been born to the rphâ” (hpfrFhf yd"liyb@i), two of whom are also individually counted among this group as those “that were born of the rphâ.”39 Orthographically, the two terms (My)ipfr: and hpfrFhf) are inexact 34

SMITH, Rephaim, 675–676; R OUILLARD, Rephaim, 695–700. In other words, from the perspective of the biblical writers, the Rephaim were assumed to have lived once in a different epoch but in their own time were dead. Note also the comments by William Hallo, regarding KTU 1.161 (in reference to the title of L EVINE and DE T ARRAGON, Dead Kings), on the historical kings and the “prehistoric ancestors of the dynasty…Yaqaru, the first historic king, may represent the transition from one class to the other.” H ALLO, Royal Ancestor Worship, 385; citing L EVINE and DE T ARRAGON, Dead Kings, 656. One study has observed that the Rephaim in Ugaritic and biblical literature are a type of cultural heritage indigenous to the ancient Levant, see SMITH, Recent, 19. Understood as such, the Rephaim assume a role that is claimed by Ugaritic royalty but denied by biblical writers (according to Smith, the “Rephaim signal cultural distance or “disidentification””). 36 Thus, the biblical characterization was an intentional turn on the heritage of the Rephaim in an attempt to differentiate them from what the biblical writers considered to be Israelite culture. Again, to quote M.S. Smith (Recent, 19): “Both the Ugaritic monarchy and the authors of Deuteronomy used (in opposite ways) the putatively ancient tradition of the Rephaim to lay claim to identity and authority.” 37 The text reads: My)ipfr:hf rtey,emi r)a#$;nI N#$fb@fha K7leme gwO(-qrA yk@i (“Thus, only Og king of Heshbon remained of the Rephaim’s remnant”). 38 hpfr Fh f yd”liyb@i r#$e) j. The group mentioned in the Book of Samuel (and Chronicles) consisted of warriors, not kings, yet they served as the opponents of a king (David) and his military entourage. 39 The two are named Ishbi-benob (v. 16) and Saph (v. 18), and are described in conditional clauses utilizing the prepositional -b attached a plural construct noun that is a 35

160

Chapter Seven: Rephaim and Royal Ancestors

matches, yet 1 Chr 20:6 and 8 offers a parallel account that spells the proper noun )pfrFhf, thus bringing this group of epic warriors in line with the ancient Rephaim.40 The point of these different depictions of the Rephaim, as defeated foes of Moses and David, was not only to establish a temporal referent for the heroic deeds of the Israelite protagonists but also to establish the superiority of one tradition over any prevailing concept of royal ancestors. In one sense, the ideological basis for the rapi’ma/Rephaim at Ugarit and in Israelite tradition was one and the same. Unlike the texts from Ras Shamra, however, Israelite literature negatively portrayed the Rephaim in order to undermine a politically potent element that was otherwise embraced in Ugaritic tradition. The equation of the Rephaim as dead royalty is clear in Isa 14:9, where they are equated with enthroned occupants of the netherworld who were “kings of the nations” (discussed below).41 The Rephaim in biblical tradition were recast as either a type of mythic figure or as occupants of the netherworld,42 and where their royal identity was apparent it was only so in a derisive sense. 7.3.1. Rephaim and the Royal Dead in Prophetic Literature The image of dead kings “lying down” (bk#$) with their royal ancestors is prominently featured in two oracles from Isaiah and Ezekiel. Although nominative-form of dly (although the orthography is slightly different, yd"yliyb@i in v. 16). The assessment in v. 22, on the contrary, uses a verbal form (3 m.pl. Qal passive), in a clause that begins with hl@e)' and attaches the preposition -l to the proper noun. The parallel in Chronicles (1 Chr 20:6, 8) differs both syntactically and philologically, utilizing the Niphal form of  dly (note also the alternative spelling of rph’, discussed below). 40 C AQUOT, Rephaïm, §§ 345–346. The Chronicler’s account represents an attempt to harmonize 1 Samuel 17 with 2 Sam 21:19, both of which state that Goliath was killed by different men. The warrior named in 1 Chr 6:8 is Lahmi, a brother of Goliath. Thus, it is also possible that the different spelling of the proper noun Rphâ is a revision and an attempt to equate the enigmatic group with a known entity (the Rephaim). The Greek versions transliterate the noun as Rafa in 2 Sam 21:16, 18 and 22, but render the proper nouns in 1 Chr 20:6 and 8 as gi÷ganteß, which is the typical gloss for My)ipfr: in the LXX. 41 The Rephaim are again referenced in the Book of Isaiah (26:14 and 19 in the socalled “Isaiah apocalypse”). According to Liwak (rt. My)Ipfr: R ep’îm, 611), Isa 26:14 interacts with a concept of Rephaim as an aristocracy of the dead (and rejects its efficacy), while v. 19 conceives of them as a general class of the dead. This observation is interesting as it reflects a development of the Rephaim as figures in ancient thought and literature. At the least, it shows (in a negative light) that the Rephaim were conceived as royal ancestor-types. Furthermore, the notion that YHWH “wiped out all memory [rkez'] of them” indicates the mnemonic function of the Rephaim in ideologies of the royal dead. 42 The Rephaim in wisdom literature, and related texts (i.e., Isa 26:14 [see above]), come to be known as a general class of the dead (Ps 88:11 [Hebrew]; Prov 2:18 and 9:18; Job 26:6. For similar sentiments, see also S CHMIDT, Beneficent Dead, 269.

7.3. The Rephaim in the Hebrew Bible

161

both oracles (Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 32) portray the death and transition to the afterlife of foreign kings, they reflect the same ideology that undergirds the biblical epilogues for Israelite kings. Like the Phoenician inscriptions of Tabnit and Eshmunazor, the oracles reflect an inverse sense of the ideological complex. Yet, unlike the Phoenician inscriptions, the prophetic oracles were not imprecations (nor were they meant to be warnings), but instead represent a prophetic critique of prevalent royal ideology.43 Thus, the oracles draw upon imagery that is indicative of the political importance of royal funerary rites in the ancient Levant, common to both the epilogues of Kings and Phoenician inscriptions. The analysis of this imagery in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 32 will reveal not only aspects of the individual images, but also expose trends within biblical literature regarding royal funerary rites and dead kings. 7.3.1.1. Isaiah 14 The oracle in Isaiah (14:4–23), which celebrates the death of the “King of Babylon” (quite possibly Sargon II of Assyria),44 mocks the disruption of proper funerary rites for the fated ruler. Isaiah begins with poetic images of the fallen king (vv. 4–6), and the rejoicing his fate elicits (vv. 7–8), before describing the dead king’s transition to the afterlife (vv. 9–17).45 At the start of this description (v. 9), the netherworld is roused as the dead king joins the royal ancestors. The royal ancestors are represented by the Rephaim (v. 9) and are clearly royal figures, as they rise up from their thrones to greet the dead king and are described using poetic parallelism: “chieftains of the earth … kings of the nations.”46 The king is then denied proper burial rites, as he is contrasted with kings of other countries, who (v. 18): “lay in glory” (w%bk;#$f dwObkfb;) // “each man in his house” (#$y)I 47 wOtyb'b @;). As a result (v. 20), he will “not be united [with the other kings] in a burial place” (hrFw%bq;b@i Mt@f)i dxat'-)Ol). Thus, the king’s fate precludes any afterlife reunion with his kinsman, which results in the eradication of

43 See also the comments comparing Isaiah 14, Ezekiel 32 and the inscriptions of Tabnit and Eshmunazor in G INSBERG, Reflexes, 51–52 n. 27. 44 G INSBERG, Reflexes, 47–53; (more recently S HIPP, Of Dead Kings). For a review of the various theories regarding the “king of Babylon,” see BLENKINSOPP, Deuteronomy, 286–287. 45 On the structure of the oracle, refer S HIPP, Of Dead Kings, 134–140 46 See Shipp’s discussion of 2 Kgs 14:9, CrE)f yd”w%t@(a // MyiwOg yk'l;ma lk@o (Of Dead Kings, 149–150). 47 The use of the term “house” (tyb) is quite interesting, in that it has a wide-semantic range. In the context of this passage it is usually interpreted “tomb” (see NRSV), however, it can also mean “dynasty.” This relationship can be seen in the use of rbeqe in 14:19a, which is parallel to tyb in verse 18b.

162

Chapter Seven: Rephaim and Royal Ancestors

his family’s name (14:20).48 The consequence (“because of the sin of their fathers” [MtfwOb)j NwO(jb@a]) is that his sons will be denied their inheritance (i.e., the empire) and will be killed (14:21). In summary, Isaiah says that YHWH “will cut off from Babylon [i.e., Assyria] name and remnant, offspring and posterity” (14:22b).49 The politics of death and burial infused within the royal epilogues in the Book of Kings are conceptually paralleled in Isaiah 14. Yet, in the prophetic passage the political ideology is portrayed from a negative standpoint, not unlike the curses found in Eshmunazor’s sarcophagus. Yet there are also points of difference between Isaiah 14 and the Phoenician royal inscriptions. In Isa 14:9, the state of the netherworld (“Sheol below was stirred [by the dead king’s arrival]” [hzfg:rF txat@ami lwO)#$;]) is described with a similar vocabulary that is found on the curses inscribed on Tabnit’s sarcophagus, which warns against stirring the defunct king of Sidon (KAI 13:7).50 Although the dead king joins the Rephaim (contrast KAI 13:8 and 14:8), in Isa 14:10 the chthonic figures tell the king “you too have become weak like us” (ht@f)a-Mg%A wnwOmkf tfyl@'xu). Thus, from the perspective of this biblical passage, there is little benefit for the king in joining the royal ancestors.51 Furthermore, the denial of burial actualizes the disruption that 48

B RICHTO, Kin, 25. The biblical imagery shows the conceptual structure of the “name” of an individual within a kinship group, as well as its preservation: dkenewF Nyniw: r)f#$;w% M#$' lbebfl; yt@irAk;hiw:. 50 The similarities shared by the prophetic oracles and Phoenician inscriptions are evident in the shared terminology, such as zgr, “stir” (Isa 14:9 and KAI 13:8) and bk@f#$;mi, “resting place” (Ezek 32:25). But the similarities go beyond terminology and are apparent in the ideological concerns that shape the images in the sources involved. Note also the use of zgr in 1 Sam 28:15, where it is placed in the mouth of the dead prophet Samuel: “why have you roused me to go up to you?” ( yti)o twOl(jhal; ynItaz:g%Ar:hi hm@flf). The account of 1 Samuel 28 is a clear example of necromancy, and thus it contrasts with tomb inscription (which are vestiges of funerary rites). Despite the different social locations (and functions) of funerary rites and necromancy, their commonalities are twofold (and interrelated) and can explain their similar vocabulary: they both involve the world of the dead, and the interference of the living with this particular world (either through disinterment or mantic rituals). Yet, 1 Samuel 28 (like Isaiah) represents a negative viewpoint, necromancy is portrayed as subversive and ultimately ineffective. Thus, it seems plausible that the particular word choice in the two biblical passages (regarding  zgr) was part of the polemic, relating (in essence) to the ugly act of grave robbing that Tabnit warns against. Greenfield had proposed that the use of zgr in Samuel was evocative of the curse formula (as seen in Tabnit), with the implication that the curses were applied to Saul. Because Saul disturbed the dead, he was not buried (initially) and his sons followed him in death; see G REENFIELD, Scripture and Inscription, 258–259. 51 For Shipp (Of Dead Kings, 150–151), the dead king is greeted by the Rephaim, but does not join them because they are properly buried. The suggestion has its logic, as the oracle is about inglorious death, and denial of the Rephaim is consistent with this theme (and the rest of the oracle). Yet, there is nothing within the passage that indicates that 49

7.3. The Rephaim in the Hebrew Bible

163

warranted imprecations in the Phoenician royal inscriptions (and described in Assyrian sources) as it flatly states: “you have been cast out of your burial-place” (K1r:b;q@imi t@fk;la#$;hf ht@f)aw:).52 The prophetic oracle refracts images typically produced in royal funerary rituals that were otherwise intended to address the political concerns created by the death of a king. In prophetic fashion, these concerns were creatively manipulated in order to address the social and political situation of the day.53 Yet the words of this oracle, with its similarities to Phoenician inscriptions and the biblical epilogues, certainly resonated in the contemporary geo-political realm of the Levant. 7.3.1.2. Ezekiel 32 The description of Pharaoh’s transition to the afterlife in Ezek 32:17–32 offers a view of dead kings in the netherworld that is more detailed than Isaiah 14.54 The vision is part of a larger series of oracles directed against Egypt and the Pharaoh, beginning in Ezekiel 30. The oracle in Ezekiel 31 ends with the dead king’s descent into the netherworld (31:15–18) that finishes with him lying (bk#$) with the dead.55 The concept of kings who lie down in death (or are laid to rest) is a common element in Ezek 32:17–32, as bk#$ occurs seven times as a verb (in the Hophal and Qal stems) and once in the noun bk@f#$;mi.56 Variations of the refrain “lie down [bk#$] the Rephaim are separate from the dead king in the netherworld, although Ezekiel 32 may prove this point. The oracle’s polemic was directed as much at the ritual politics of royal death as it was at the dead king himself. (At the least, it was not in the oracle’s interest to portray the afterlife concepts associated with dead kings in a positive manner.) Thus, the Rephaim’s statement in Isa 14:10 represents a polemical view of royal ancestry, a point that Schmidt glosses over in his attempt to redefine the Rephaim as passive (and powerless) figures in antiquity, S CHMIDT, Beneficent Dead, 267–269. Schmidt’s denial of the Rephaim as royal ancestors in Isaiah 14 (and elsewhere) is unconvincing. The Rephaim do “form [a] synonymous parallelism with Sheol,” and this does represent a change in focus between vv. 9a and 9b (mistyped as “v. 14a” and “v. 14b”). Yet, the poetry of the passage is meant to describe the place of the dead (v. 9a) and the dead themselves (v. 9b). This change in focus does very little to help Schmidt’s argument against interpreting the Rephaim as royal dead. 52 O LYAN, Was the... 423–426. 53 In particular, Mark Shipp has shown how Isaiah 14 compares with ancient Near Eastern royal dirges and yet contrasts with the form in a uniquely Israelite fashion (keeping in perspective that the oracle represents a stylized form of literature as preserved in the Hebrew Bible); S HIPP, Of Dead Kings, 136–138. 54 For a brief comparison of the two passages, refer Z IMMERLI, Ezekiel 2, 173. 55 The root appears in Ezek 31:18b, “you [Pharoah] will lay down …” (bk@a#$;t@i [Qal 2 m.sg prefix]). The series of oracles includes a dirge (hnfyqi) over Pharoah (Ezek 32:1–16), which appears between the initial description of Pharoah’s descent into Sheol (31:15–18) and the extended description of Sheol (32:17–32). 56 G REENBERG, Ezekiel 21–37 (AB), 668.

164

Chapter Seven: Rephaim and Royal Ancestors

among the uncircumcised, those slain by the sword” appear throughout the passage and give structure to the oracle. The image of joining the slain is used to describe the dead Pharaoh at the beginning and end of the oracle (vv. 19b–20a and 32b)57 and it is used to describe the kings of Assyria, Elam and Tubal-Meshech (v. 22b–26) as well as the kings of Edom and Sidon (vv. 29–30). Upon Pharoah’s arrival in the netherworld, the “mighty ones” (v. 21a) greet the dead ruler. The mighty ones (MyrIwOb@g%I) are described in the MT (Ezek 32:27) as “those fallen of the uncircumcised” (Mylir"(jm' Mylip;nO), but the LXX reads “with the giants, the fallen ones of old” (meta» twn giga¿ntwn twn peptwko/twn aÓpo\ ai˙w noß [= MlfwO(m']). Moshe Greenberg had accepted this reading and noted its similarity to Gen 6:4, where the Nephilim (LXX 58 giga¿ntwn) are described as “heroes of old, men of renown.” The Nephilim, as a group, are conflated with the Rephaim in the Pentateuch.59 The connection between the Nephilim and the primordial heroes of Mesopotamian and Greek mythology has been recognized before,60 but the point here is to stress the role these mythic heroes played as a specialized class of royal ancestors.61 The image conjured in this prophetic vision (particularly Ezek 32:27) indicates that there were levels of the netherworld, which may offer further support for the concept of separate categories of the dead. Although collectively, all occupants of Sheol (Pharaoh, the kings of nations, and the mighty ones) are described as “those who descend,” their location in the netherworld seems to be separate. Throughout, Pharaoh and the other kings are described as those who “descend the pit” [rwOb], into the “lowest land/netherworld” (twOy,t@ix;t@a CrE)e), while the graves of the Assyrian king (v. 23) are located in the “farthest recesses of the pit” (rwOb-yt'k@;r:yAb@;).62 In con57

Moshe Greenfield (Ezekiel 21–37 (AB), 668, cf. 661) observes that the Hophal form is found at the beginning and end of the oracle (v. 19a, where hbfk@;#$;hf is a long form of the imperative, and v. 32b). Within these brackets, the oracle consists of two basic parts: first, the dead greet Pharoah in Sheol (vv. 19–21); second, the kings of various nations are described as lying among the dead in Sheol (vv. 22–32). 58 Ezekiel 21–37 (AB), 665; see also Z IMMERLI, Ezekiel 2, 168, 176. Note the earlier comments in C OOKE, Ezekiel (ICC), 354. 59 Num 13:33 connects the Nephilim with the Anaqim, who are associated with the Rephaim in Deut 2:11. See H ENDEL, Of Demigods, 21–22, who states that these ancient figures were collectively known as the Rephaim; also C OXON, Nephilim, 620. 60 See for instance K RAELING, Significance, 196–197, discussing Ezek 32:17–32. See also K ILMER, Mesopotamian, 40–43. 61 With regards to dead kings, cf. also the refrain found in the Song of the Bow (lamenting Saul and his son Jonathan [noted by Hendel]), MyrIwOb@gI w%lp;nF K7y)' (“how the heroes have fallen” [2 Sam 1:19, 25, 27]). 62 The construct is only found elsewhere in Isa 14:15, in parallel with Sheol. See also Isa 14:19, where the disinterred king is cast out of his tomb and is like “those descending

7.4. Royal Ancestors, a Genealogical Perspective

165

trast, Pharaoh and the other kings will not “lie down with the mighty ones,” who are figures that are described as those “who descend to Sheol” (not the pit) with military regalia.63 The primary purpose of this distinction, however, is not necessarily to focus on any concept of gradation of the netherworld (reminiscent of Dante Alighieri’s Inferno and Purgatorio);64 the purpose is to undermine the effectiveness of the royal ancestors. The special pedigree that ancient Near Eastern rulers claimed is rendered moot in death.

7.4. Royal Ancestors, a Genealogical Perspective The repeated reference to “the fathers” in the epilogues of the Book of Kings establishes a pattern for the recognition of royal legitimacy. As has been argued earlier in this work, the omission of the phrase “lay with fathers” in the Book of Kings indicated that proper succession did not occur, typically resulting in the end of a dynasty. Similarly, denial of a “resting place with the Rephaim” in Phoenician royal funerary inscriptions was tantamount to a dismissal of political rights. Both of these sources reflect a royal ideology that was built upon a concept of ancestral identity. This ideology can be traced back to the second millennium and the great Amorite genealogies claimed by the kings of Babylon and Ugarit, as well as the kings of Assyria in the first millennium. Gradually, the eponymous ancestors that made up the Grundstock of royalty were conflated into ancestral categories, most notably the Rephaim.65 This trend, which can be observed already at Ugarit, became more common in the southern Levant during the first millennium as seen in the inscribed sarcophagi of the kings of Sidon.

to the stones of the pit” (rwOb-yn"b;)a-l)e yd"r:wOy). Interestingly, the image in both Isaiah and Ezekiel connects this region of Sheol with burials, as observed in G REENBERG, Ezekiel 21– 37 (AB), 663–664. 63 Greenberg (Ezekiel 21–37 [AB], 666) notes that the description of burial with “battle gear, swords beneath their heads” is reflected in LB-Iron Age I burials excavated at Tell es-Sa‘idiyeh, Jordan; for this site, see T UBB, Sa'idiyeh, Tell es-, 1299–1300. Yet, the burial of individuals with swords at their heads is a common feature of the so-called “warrior burials,” which date to the Bronze Age, see PHILIP, Warrior Burials, 140–154; and GARFINKEL, Warrior Burial, 143–162. This practice was widespread throughout the Near East, and went back to the third millennium BCE (but was most prevalent in the Middle Bronze Age). 64 Contra C OOKE, Ezekiel (ICC), 352. See G REENBERG, Ezekiel 21–37 (AB), 664. 65 Given the relationship of the Rephaim to a concept of primeval past as well as to funerary rituals (as clearly seen in the Phoenician inscriptions), Laneri’s comment (Funerary Rituals, 2) regarding such rituals is appropriate in highlighting that they are “a process that revives the memory and strongly links the present to an archetypal past.”

166

Chapter Seven: Rephaim and Royal Ancestors

Biblical literature is also reminiscent of this trend, yet the image of royal ancestors in the Hebrew Bible was not entirely positive. As a result, the Rephaim were reconceived as autochthonous inhabitants of Transjordan (and rarely Cisjordan/Western Palestine; 2 Sam 21:15–22 with parallels), or weak and ineffective members of the dead. Thus, the concept of royal ancestors in biblical literature was either suppressed or negatively portrayed, as exemplified in Isaiah 14 and Ezek 32:17–32. It is only in the Book of Kings that this concept of ancestral authority was employed in a positive manner, albeit without any direct reference to the Rephaim. The Book of Kings uses the formulaic epilogues to structure its narrative history of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. It is in this literary structure that the ancestral ideology is pressed into service in order to legitimize the House of David. Here, it becomes apparent why a concept of ancestry was significant to the composition of the Book of Kings. During the period of the divided monarchy, the rival kings of Israel and Judah both claimed royal legitimacy in the same ideological terms. These claims are systematized in the Book of Kings in a manner that favors Judah. Not only is the epilogue formulary for the kings of Judah much more consistent that those of Israel,66 but the parallel of the House of David with the various Israelite royal houses highlights the ephemeral nature of the northern dynasties. The contrast between the southern and northern royal houses is emphasized through the former’s link to, and lineage from, the dynastic promise (2 Samuel 7). David, the eponymous ancestor of Judah’s royal house, symbolized the divine endorsement upon which the dynasty was founded. David’s progeny (“seed”), whom YHWH promises to establish when the king “lies with his fathers” (2 Sam 7:12), is actualized in each king that sits on throne of David. Moreover, the perdurable promise to David’s house (which runs through vv. 13–16) endured through each king in this dynastic line. Alternately, this emphasis is apparent in the conditional manner of the oracles that are delivered to the founders of northern dynasties (i.e., 1 Kg 11:38), and the need to abrogate these oracles (1 Kg 14:6– 16). The curse of non-burial that is often applied to northern dynasties in the narrative account in Kings is a deliberate attempt to sever any ancestral ties, and thus limit (or eliminate) ideological claims. Furthermore, the concern in the Book of Kings to represent the House of David as a stable and constant political force led to the inter-textual exegesis of the House of Jehu, the longest-lived northern dynasty. In this case, the reference to Jehu’s “sons of the fourth generation” in 2 Kg 10:30 is interpreted as a di66

For example, the notice of burial occurs much more often for the lineage of David; note also the occasional full phrasing: “and he was buried with his fathers in the City of David his father” (wybi)f dwid@F ry(ib@; wytfbo)j-M(i rb'q@Fy,IwA [1 Kg 22:51a]). The paternal emphasis is never encountered in the few burial notices found for kings of Israel.

7.4. Royal Ancestors, a Genealogical Perspective

167

vinely sanctioned limit on the particular royal house; in other words, dynastic succession was to occur (and did occur) only for four kings in the lineage of Jehu. The House of David, unlike the northern dynasties, secured a lasting promise according to the terms expressed in 2 Sam 7:11b–16. Thus, the Book of Kings drew from the language of 2 Samuel 7 to enhance the status of the southern monarchy versus the northern monarchy (ruled by various dynasties). The historical context for this ideological strategy would have been the time of the divided monarchies, as well as the fall of the north and its aftermath during the late eighth century (corresponding to the reign of Hezekiah). Long after the fall of Samaria, the idea of a perdurable promise of dynasty would again become important for Jehoiachin and the royal house exiled in Babylon. The partial formulary used in Jehoiakim’s epilogue (2 Kg 24:6) associated dynastic succession, and thus legitimacy, to his son Jehoiachin. Therefore, the exiled king Jehoiachin could draw from the ideology of royal ancestors to claim the divine blessings conferred upon his dynasty’s eponymous founder–David. The concept of ancestry was central to the royal epilogues in the Book of Kings, and is apparent in the repeated invocation of the term tbo)f. The complex of death, burial and succession is built upon this foundational ideology and is consistent with the politics of the Levant during the Iron Age, where polities (particularly Aramean and Israelite kingdoms) were often labeled according to the ancestral identity of their ruling dynasty; e.g., the “House of Omri” for Israel. In effect, the political perspective establishes a pattern for the Book of Kings’ narrative history of Israel and Judah that was based upon a genealogical schema.67 The progressive perspective and genealogical schema is similar to the literary framework of the Book of Genesis, where the phrase “these are the generations of PN” (PN tdol;wOt@ hl@e)') serves as a structuring device for both the Primeval Cycle (Genesis 1–11) and the Ancestral Cycle (Genesis 12–50). In the Book of Chronicles, the royal epilogues in the Book of Kings are selectively paralleled in a narrative history that begins its historical perspective by borrowing from the genealogical framework of both Genesis and Kings.68 While 67

It is worthwhile to quote, in full, Halpern and Vanderhooft: “Having followed Alfrink and Driver as to the meaning of the phrase, we nevertheless stress that it must carry with it more than the meaning, ‘to die peacefully.’ That is, the invocation of the fathers for every king who expires peacefully, and for Israel [Jacob] and Moses, signifies a conceptual trajectory that exceeds the intention to note how the king passed on … Speculatively, the phrase may relate to the passage from life to significant status as an ancestor.” HALPERN and VANDERHOOFT, Editions, 188 n. 25. Although this present study disagrees with the peaceful death-hypothesis, it is in fundamental agreement with the basic observations made in this quote. 68 Regarding the royal epilogues, only the kings of Judah are recognized and the dynastic notice is not applied in a formulaic manner; furthermore, the burial notice is often

168

Chapter Seven: Rephaim and Royal Ancestors

the previous chapters have sought to divulge the meaning of the royal epilogue formulary, this chapter seeks to understand the greater role the epilogues held in the Book of Kings. This role within the literary work of Kings becomes more apparent in light of the genealogical perspectives found in the Book of Genesis. 7.4.1. The Genealogical Perspectives of Genesis The narrative structure of Genesis, and to a larger extent the Tetrateuch (that is, Genesis through Numbers), involves a chronological feature built upon genealogy. This is apparent in the genealogical prologues, 69 “these are the generations [tdol;wOt@ hl@e)'] of PN,” preceding a lineage that introduces the respective figure (PN).70 The term tdol;wOt@ essentially means “procreations” (dly),71 and is a chronological marker that measures time in terms of human lifespan, extended through the incremental buildup of successive progeny. Although there is debate over the literary nature of these prologues,72 the significance of their occurrence is apparent. The prologues establish humanity (Gen 5 [and creation in 2:4a]), create a linear descent of various peoples (e.g., Gen 11:10–26; 25:17),73 and ultimately define the ancestral identity of the Israelites in the form of the Patriarchs (Gen 25, 37; cf. 11:27). In the Patriarchal cycle, the phrase “gathered to his people” loosely parallels at one end the genealogical prologue (tdol;wOt@), filling the role of

manipulated for theological purposes. According to Sara Japhet, for the Chronicler “[t]he king who denied the righteous ways of his ancestors … is himself denied the least sign of respect by his subjects: the funerary rites which all of his fathers had received.” JAPHET, I & II Chronicles, 817. Furthermore, 1 Chronicles 1–9 consists of a series of genealogies that are patterned after the tdol;wOt formula (cf. 1 Chr 1:29); refer to O EMING, Das Wahre. 69 See, for example, the brief synopsis in B ARTON, Reading, 48–51. 70 SCHREINER, art. twOdalawOt; tôledôt, 582–588. 71 K RATZ, Composition, 230. 72 The discussion is whether the prologues represent a P source, or a later P redactional supplementation (the source/documentary hypothesis versus supplementary hypothesis); see O TTO, Forschungen, 125–155; and K RATZ, Composition, 229–232. 73 The genealogical structure introduced by this prologue is well defined in the Primeval Cycle (Gen 1–11) and the last two events of this cycle, the Deluge and the Tower of Babel incident, are framed by lineages that are 10 generations deep with a much larger segmented lineage occurring in between. The first 10 generation lineage occurs in Gen 5:1 in the idiosyncratic form “this is the Book of the lineage of Adam” (tdol;wOt@ rpes' hze MdF) f) , where it prefaces the genealogy of Adam until Noah (vv. 28–32), while the second occurs in Gen 11:10–32 in the lineage of Shem (M#$' tdol;wOt@ hl@e)'), which presents a 10 generation genealogy linking Shem (and thus, Noah) with Abram/Abraham.

7.4. Royal Ancestors, a Genealogical Perspective

169

counterpart and epilogue.74 This phrase, which is semantically cognate with “lay with his fathers,” serves a specific purpose together with the prologues in the construction of identity.75 The purpose is evident in the term 76 M(a (plural Mym@i( a ), usually translated “people,” which holds a range of meaning that relates to individual kinship as well as collective identities. Whereas, in their respective epilogues an Israelite king joins his “fathers,” a term with a clear patrimonial sense, the patriarchs join their Mym@i(a, which is a term that is not as easily defined. While the kinship sense of M(a is reflected largely in the onomastic record of the Hebrew Bible,77 interpreters often read this sense into the patriarchal epilogues based on the analogy of Mym@i( a/twOb )f in the biblical death-phrases; thus, Mym@i( a is understood as “ancestors” (i.e., the collectivity of dead kin).78 This interpretation is certainly plausible, yet the history of the word M(a has produced a much wider semantic range and this diachronic development can shed light on the apposition of Mym@i(a/twOb) in the phrases. The collective sense of the term refers to the assembled mass of peoples organized according to a geographical or social principle, such as tribal affiliation or urban settlement (as in Phoenician cultures).79 Certainly, the term’s collectivity can include both the living and the dead,80 and in this manner it can be related to the ability of fu74

The most succinct form of this prologue/epilogue framework is found in the lineage of Ishmael (Gen 25:12–17), where his genealogy (vv. 13–15) is framed by tdol;t@o hl@e)'w: Mhfr Fb ;) a-Nb@e l)('m f# $;yI (v. 12a) and wym@f( a- l)e Pse) fy,"wA (v. 17b). 75 For the funerary imagery of this phrase, and its comparison with “lay with fathers,” refer to Chapter Two. 76 Typically the plural form is used (with possessive suffix), however in Gen 49:29 the singular noun is used. 77 G OOD, Sheep, 51–52. The filial sense is sometimes interpreted as “eponymous ancestor” in its onomastic occurrence, LIPI SKI and VON SODEN, art. M(a; ‘am, 170. 78 This interpretation is implied in SPEISER, People, 159; see also G OOD, Sheep, 90– 92; and L IPI SKI and VON SODEN, art. M(a; ‘am, 170–171. Krüger suggests that the collective entity evoked in the P phrases (the peoples) is a deliberate choice to associate the death of the patriarchs with the ancestors and the land; KRÜGER, Weg, 137–142. She goes on to make the important observation that the fathers, evoked in the royal epilogues, represents the patrilinear passage of kingship associated with the royal tombs. Similarly, Nutkowicz sees the reference to the peoples as representative of a cultural entity much more expansive than the clan; N UTKOWICZ, L’homme, 234. 79 L IPI SKI and VON SODEN, art. M(a; ‘am, 167–168. See also the discussion of the term in Phoenician/Punic inscriptions found in G OOD, Sheep, 22–25. The tribal sense of M( occurs throughout the Book of Ruth, where it connotes a group that is semi-nomadic and defined by kinship ties. 80 Studies of the term often draw the inclusive sense of both living and the dead from the biblical trk-penalty, where the violator is cutoff from their M(. The implication is that the violator is not only isolated permanently from their community in life, but also in death because they would be denied burial in the family tomb; see G OOD, Sheep, 88–89; and LIPI SKI and VON SODEN, art. M(a; ‘am, 171.

170

Chapter Seven: Rephaim and Royal Ancestors

nerary rites and mortuary cults (tombs) to affirm social affiliation and territorial claims. Yet, as has been well noted in studies of the word, the development of the term’s collective sense eventually took on a much wider meaning, to the extent that it paralleled ywOg% (“nation”).81 Therefore, it seems advisable to briefly re-examine the term Mym@i(a in the phrase “and he was gathered to his people” (wym@f(a-l)e Pse)fy,"wA), in light of twOb)f in the dynastic notice of the Book of Kings (wytfbo)j-M(i bk@a#$;y,IwA). The collective identity evoked in the dynastic notice related to the paternal lineages of ancient Israel and Judah. Within this social structure, a nested hierarchy of social units encompassed individual components distinguished by clan, defined by Schloen as the PHM, and known by the term “house of the father” (b)f tyb'@).82 The Mym@i(a on the other hand, consisted of a larger social network that could be defined by consanguinity, although this was not always necessary.83 The ideology involved in the paternal lineage-system, reflected in the term twOb)f, was quite effective in a political realm where a royal dynasty could define itself using traditional kinship terminology, i.e., the House of PN.84 Thus, the dynasty could serve as the house of the father, on a much wider scale, encompassing all other kin-based lineages within its political authority.85 Furthermore, the ancestral identity evoked throughout the royal epilogues was exclusive by nature. The royal subjects of the House of David or the House of Omri (the designations often used of the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel) would not claim David or Omri as their ancestors. This basic observation sheds light on the sense of Mym@i(a used in the patriarchal epilogues. The Patriarchs were the ancestors of ancient Israel, therefore the collective identity invoked in their epilogues had an inclusive sense: the “peoples.” Thus, the lineage of political power claimed by Israelite dynasties through the “fathers” stood 81

L IPI SKI and VON SODEN, M(a; 'am, 174. See, e.g., Ezek 36:15. Speiser (People, 158) tried to argue for a distinction between the two terms, based on consanguinity, yet he was forced to admit that in later texts they were seemingly synonymous. 82 SCHLOEN, House of the Father (see to the discussion here in Chapter One). Research focused on the b)f tyb@' has been extensive in the last thirty years, see the review in R OGERSON, Anthropology, 3–16. The classic study is S TAGER, Archaeology, 20–23. 83 Lawrence Stager (Archaeology, 21–22) defines M(a as the largest level of social structure, in relative to the house of the father ( b)f tyb'). 84 Thus, in the ninth century, Jehoshaphat (King of Judah) would be the head (literally, “head of the house of the father” [b)f tyb'@ #$)ro]) of the House of David and his contemporary, Ahab (King of Israel) would be the head of the House of Omri. 85 Stager has advanced this point in several articles; see, e.g., S TAGER, Patrimonial Kingdom, 63–74. In the socio-historical sense, the “house of the father” in the ancient Levant (i.e., from Bronze Age Ugarit to Iron Age Israel) was the root-metaphor (in Schloen’s terms) that defined relationships and demarcated authority within a patrimonial polity. Thus, the household pattern (or PHM) is the operating set of symbols that gives structure to a patrimonial society, S CHLOEN, House of the Father, 52–53.

7.4. Royal Ancestors, a Genealogical Perspective

171

in contrast to the ethnic sense explicit in the term “peoples” that was applied (in the Hebrew Bible) not only to the southern Levant (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel), but also northwest Arabia (Ishmael). Figure 8. The “Fathers” as the Ancestral Identity of Royal Houses The Royal Dynasties of Israel and Judah

The “Fathers”

House of David

House of Jeroboam House of Baasha House of Omri House of Jehu House of Menahem

7.4.2. The “Fathers” as Royal Ancestors Given the consistency of the royal epilogues, and thus the evocation of the “fathers,” the notion of royal ancestors in the Book of Kings is monolithic and contributes to a greater ideological perspective in the narrative that supported the House of David. Yet, at the basic level of the text the royal ancestors are evoked for kings of both Judah and Israel in the systematic repetition of the epilogue’s formulary. Thus, the question remains: who were the fathers of the Israelite kings? Although this question was addressed in the previous chapter, the notion that the plural noun related (in part) to the direct line of a respective king (their father, grandfather, etc.) raises certain issues. What of kings such as David or Jehu who had no royal forefathers? It seems evident that the “fathers” represented a greater patrimony of kingship and served as a collective identity to which each Israelite dynasty would have attached their lineage, regardless of whether it was the House of David or the House of Jehu (see Fig. 8 above). Therefore, the term “fathers” designated not only the lineage of each dynasty but

172

Chapter Seven: Rephaim and Royal Ancestors

also a class of ancestors that were attached to the dynastic eponyms (the founders of each royal house, such as David or Omri).86

7.5. The Epilogues within Kings and the Hebrew Bible The meaning of epilogues and the ancestral identity they repeatedly invoke offers insight into their role within the Book of King. While it is important to recognize that the Book of Kings is a composite work, it is also essential to discern themes and devices that unify the work.87 Biblical scholars have discussed the major religious themes in the book beginning with Solomon and continuing through Josiah, yet their comments regarding the prologue/ epilogue formulary rarely ever goes beyond the unifying function of these literary forms.88 The royal epilogues, which are initiated by the statement that the king “lay with his fathers,” provides an ideological framework that guides the narrative history of the Book of Kings, beginning already in 2 Samuel 7. This framework evokes a kinship ideology that grounds the political legitimacy of the House of David firmly within the patrimonial politics of the ancient Levant. The recognition of the epilogues’ ideological trajectory makes it possible to interpret its vector of meaning. This patrimonial ideology establishes three points: 1. 2. 3.

Kingship is a legitimate and divinely controlled institution. For a royal dynasty, the legacy of kingship was expressed through traditional (i.e., patrilineal) modes of inheritance. This political inheritance related directly to an ancestral identity that was recognized individually by the name of the dynasty (House of David, House of Omri, etc.) collectively referred to as “the fathers” ( tbo)f).

86

This is, of course, to leave aside the question of who the “fathers” in the Book of Deuteronomy. On this topos, see R ÖMER, Israels Väter and IDEM., Le Deutéronome, reprinted in In Search of Origins, 65–98; see also IDEM., Book of Deuteronomy, 178–212. The political significance of the fathers as royal ancestors is reflected in the sarcophagus inscription of Yabâ (who was from the Levant, if not specifically Israelite), which states that she “went the way of her fathers”; see F ADHIL, Nimrud/Kalu, 464. Note also the Hurrian royal ritual text from Ugarit and its invocation of the “fathers” (atn, [KTU 1.125: 2–3]), D IETRICH and M AYER, Hurritisches Totenritual 80.÷ 87 M CK ENZIE, Trouble, 1–19; and S WEENEY, I & II Kings (OTL), 3–4. For a brief discussion, see W ILSON, Former Prophets, 84–85. 88 For instance, W ILSON, Unity and Diversity, 308–309. These themes are: (1) the centrality of Jerusalem and the avoidance of foreign influences corrosive to Yahwistic worship, and (2) the certainty of judgment as a problem in theological history. Yet, Wilson only notes that the prologue/epilogue formulary is a structural device that unifies the Book of Kings, and does not offer any further discussion on this topic.

7.5. The Epilogues within Kings and the Hebrew Bible

173

The three general points allow for a better understanding of how the epilogues as a whole worked within the Book of Kings as well as their relation to other literature in the Hebrew Bible. The patrimonial ideology outlined above was used to advance two specific points: the primacy of the House of David over all other Israelite dynasties, and the continuation of the dynasty’s divinely sanctioned role in Israel’s history even into the Exile.89 These two political themes comport well with multiple redaction theories regarding the Book of Kings, which presuppose a historical process that involved versions spanning the late Iron Age,90 through the exilic and post-exilic periods.91 The first point finds its place within the period of the divided monarchy, or immediately after the fall of the northern kingdom,92 and it is supported by the basic observation that the royal epilogues are equally applied to the respective dynasties of each kingdom.93 Although the second point certainly originated 89 The ideology is socio-political in that it is drawn from template of Israelite society in order to express political power and legitimacy. Kinship ideology is a critical factor in the epilogues, and although the synchronistic prologues will occasionally list the patronymic of the new king (e.g., 2 Kg 18:1), it is only in the epilogues that the genealogical data is consistently referenced. Therefore, the very nature of the epilogues is based upon their reference to the respective dynasty’s lineage. At the same time, the epilogues’ ideology is also religiously orientated as it expresses an explicit link to the ancestors and to traditions of divine endorsement tied to such ancestors (as in 2 Samuel 7). 90 H ALPERN and V ANDERHOOFT, Editions, 179–183; and S CHNIEDEWIND, Problem, 25–26. See also the discussion of versions in S WEENEY, I & II Kings (OTL), 3–32. 91 The historical process certainly continued into the post-exilic period, although the extent of this activity is debated. There is a current tendency to place much of the literary production behind Kings in the Persian Period (or later). For example, James Linville has suggested that the Book of Kings stems from a Jewish community living under imperial domination (i.e., the Persians) that sought to define their identity through the creation of a corpus of literary works about their own kings, L INVILLE, Rethinking, 28; see also IDEM., Israel, 42–43. But the ancestral identity of ‘Israel” are the Patriarchs, thus the identity constructed in Kings, revolving around the figure of David seems to be something entirely other. The idea that the icon of a king endured as a “cultural symbol” in the post-exilic period (as opposed to more obvious political agendas) unnecessarily pushes aside the historical and cultural context of the royal imagery, which was preexilic, and does not pay careful attention to the exclusivity of royal identities. Certainly, David was an important cultural symbol, but only certain parties could claim him as an ancestor. In other words, the Kings of Judah continued to hold some iconic value into the post-exilic periods, yet the Patriarchs were much more salient as iconic ancestors of all Israel. 92 Note, for instance, the concluding homily on the destruction of the northern kingdom in 2 Kings 17, reflecting a late-eighth century date, SCHNIEDEWIND, Problem, 26. See also the discussion in C OGAN and T ADMOR, II Kings (AB), 206–207. 93 The only inconsistency, between monarchies, is in the burial notices where the Kings of Judah are often said to be “buried with their fathers,” a notation that never appears for the kings of Israel.

174

Chapter Seven: Rephaim and Royal Ancestors

in the Iron II period, it would have become important following the Exile. An exilic date would possibly explain some of the inconsistencies (or selectivity) seen in the last few epilogues in the Book of Kings, at least from Hezekiah until Jehoiakim. Indeed, from Hezekiah onward the royal epilogues become more schematic, if they are not entirely omitted, and they appear either reconfigured or rewritten within more elaborate narratives regarding the removal and death of an incumbent king. Certainly, the epilogues themselves conveyed little else than a succinct image of political legitimacy, but this imagery shaped the message of Kings in subtle yet effective ways. The effectiveness of this message is apparent in the last epilogue recorded in Kings (Jehoiakim), which pointed to the legitimacy of a king whose rehabilitation account occupies the end of the book’s narrative history (Jehoiachin). The message itself is seen in the linear perspective the passes from the dynastic promise (2 Sam 7:12) through the line of David, with each epilogue, even into the Exile.

Chapter Eight

The Epilogues and the Royal Ancestors Conclusion This study began with the hypothesis that the phrase “lay with fathers” was a scribal formula for dynastic succession that was embedded within the narrative of the Book of Kings. The formula, along with the associated statements, recorded a king’s burial and acknowledged his successor (and son) in an epilogue that served an important political function within the literature of Kings. The purpose of these epilogues, as governed by the opening statement (the dynastic notice), was ultimately to present a progressive perspective on the narrative history of the Israelite monarchies, framing this narrative with a political ideology that legitimized David and his heirs. The progressive aspect in Kings compares with similar genealogical perspectives that guided the narratives in Genesis and Chronicles, and it contributed to an ideology of ancestral identities that is directly related to the political landscape of the Levant during the Iron Age. The response to death and the act of burial are part and parcel of the experiences that constitute a given society. The symbols enacted through burial customs contributed to a larger identity that was the foundational aspect within the patrimonial dialectic of ancient Israel: the fathers. The review of royal tombs in the ancient Levant shows that their political importance was not in their appearance as monuments, but in their location. Furthermore, these tombs were often communal and were built to accommodate multiple generations. Thus, the critical component of royal funerary rites was the implied fact that each king lay, in death, in their capital (indeed, usually within their palace). Throughout the history of a royal dynasty, the repeated act of burying successive kings in their capital reinforced this component. These two aspects of royal burials, their intramural location and their communal/collective nature, are reflected in the royal epilogues. Given the paucity of evidence, it is unnecessary to speculate further on what manner of burial custom served the kings of Israel and Judah. The symbolic essence of burial in ancient Israel was important, and it was this essence that the royal dynasties drew upon. Burial is a symbolically constituted social action and in Iron Age Israel (the northern and southern kingdoms) the referential dimension of this action was the patrimonial kin-

176

Conclusion

ship group, i.e., the “house of the father.” Thus, the symbols involved helped to define the overarching power structure of the ruling houses. The socially meaningful symbols of patrimony allowed the formulaic epilogues of Kings to convey royal legitimacy through the ideals of political continuity and the patrilinear descent of power. As such, the statements reflect the importance of funerary rituals and royal tombs as means of confronting the political problems posed by a king’s death and the subsequent act of dynastic succession. The royal tomb effectively marked the king’s patrimony, and the ability of a defunct king to safely assume ancestor status (through proper interment) concomitantly meant that his son could assume the title of king. Thus, the royal house in Israel and Judah was a political system built upon a concept of patrimony where the inheritance that the father left for his son was kingship. The central component to this political patrimony was the concept of ancestral identity, here expressed through the Hebrew term tbo)f (literally, “fathers”). Yet the political ideology at work in the biblical text is consistent with the politics of the Levant during the Iron Age, where polities (particularly Aramean and Israelite kingdoms) were often labeled according to the ancestral identity of their ruling dynasty, such as the ‘House of Omri’ for Israel. Ultimately, the royal epilogues in the Book of Kings stood for a ritual process that can be termed “funerary.” The initial phrase borrowed imagery drawn from mortuary practices in order to highlight the important symbols created through such actions. The second phrase was intended to record the fact that the dead king was interred within his royal patrimony. As such, the process was a rite of passage in that it was an event (or series of events) that assigned new identities to the principal actors involved: the dead king became one of the fathers and the son became the new king. The third statement marked the finality of this ritual process and the continuity of the dynasty. To summarize, the transition of a defunct king to ancestor-status marked the beginning of a political process that insured the future of a royal dynasty in ancient Israel. In one sense, the meaning of the phrase “lay with fathers” is counterintuitive: it draws from the past to point to the future. This sense, however, underscores the legitimizing function of royal ancestors in the ancient Near East, and their role in maintaining political status quo. The sense and purpose of the royal epilogues in the Book of Kings is reflected in Ps 45:17 (Hebrew), a royal wedding psalm that recites the blessing: “In your fathers’ stead shall be your sons that you may place them as princes throughout all the land.” CrE) fh f- lkfb @; MyrI# &fl ; wOm t'y#$it @; K1yneb f w%yh;yI K1yteb o) j txat @a

Bibliography A ARTUN, K. Die Partikeln des Ugaritischen. (AOAT). Kevelaer, 1978. ––. Studien zur ugaritischen Lexikographie: mit kultur- und religionsgeschichtlichen Parallelen. Wiesbaden, 2006. A BOU SAMRA, G. Bénédictions et Malédictions dans les inscriptions phénico-puniques. (Bibliothèque de l’université saint-esprit). Kaslik, Lebanon, 2005. A CHENBACH, R. “Jabâ und Atalja: zwei jüdische Konigstöchter am assyrischen Königshof?” BN 113 (2002), 29–38. A HARONI, Y. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Translated by A. F. Rainey. Philadelphia, 1979. A L-K HALESI, Y. M. “The Bt-Kispim in Mesopotamian Architecture: Studies of Form and Function.” Mesopotamia 12 (1977), 53–81. A LBRIGHT, W. F. “The Discovery of an Aramaic Inscription Relating to King Uzziah.” BASOR 44 (1931), 8–10. ––. “The Seal of Eliakim and the Latest Preexilic History of Judah, with Some Observations on Ezekiel.” JBL 51 (1932), 77–106. A LFRINK, B. “L’expression wytfbo)j-M(i bk@a#$;y,IwA.” OTS 2 (1943), 106–118. ––. “L’expression wym@f(a-l)e Psf)vnE.” OTS 5 (1948), 118–131. A NDERSON, G. A. A Time to Mourn, a Time to Dance: the Expression of Grief and Joy in Israelite Religion. University Park, Pa., 1991. A PPLEGATE, J. “The Fate of Zedekiah: Redactional Debate in the Book of Jeremiah, Part I.” VT 48 (1998), 137–160. ––. “The Fate of Zedekiah: Redactional Debate in the Book of Jeremiah, Part II.” VT 48 (1998), 301–308. A RTZI, P. “Mourning in International Relations.” In B. Alster, (ed.), Death in Mesopotamia. Copenhagen, 1980, 161–170. A VI-Y ONAH, M. “The Third and Second Walls of Jerusalem.” IEJ 18 (1968), 98–125. A VIGAD, N. “Samaria (City).” In E. Stern, (ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Jerusalem, 1993, 1300–1312. A VIOZ, M. “The Book of Kings in Recent Research (Part I).” Currents in Biblical Research 4 (2005), 11–55. A VISHUR, Y. Phoenician Inscriptions and the Bible. Tel Aviv-Jaffa, 2000. B AHAT, D. The Illustrated Atlas of Jerusalem. Translated by S. Ketko. Jerusalem, 1996. B ARKAY, G. “The Problem of the Burial of the Later Kings of the House of David.” In M. Broshi, (ed.), Between Hermon and Sinai: Memorial to Amnon (Binyaminovits). Jerusalem, 1977, 75–92 (Hebrew). ––. “The Iron Age II-III.” In A. Ben-Tor, (ed.), The Archaeology of Ancient Israel. New Haven, 1992, 302–373. ––. “Burial Caves and Burial Practices in Judah in the Iron Age.” In I. Singer, (ed.), Graves and Burial Practices in Israel in the Ancient Period. Jerusalem, 1994, 96–164 (Hebrew).

178

Bibliography

––. “Excavations at Ketef Hinnom in Jerusalem.” In H. Geva, (ed.), Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Jerusalem, 1994, 85–106. ––. “Burial Caves and Dwellings in Judah During Iron Age II: Sociological Aspects.” In A. Faust and A. M. Maeir, (eds), Material Culture, Society and Ideology: New Directions in the Archaeology of the Land of Israel. Ramat Gan, 1999, 96–102 (Hebrew). ––. “The Necropoli of Jerusalem in the First Temple Period.” In S. Ahituv and A. Mazar, (eds), The History of Jerusalem: The Biblical Period. Jerusalem, 2000, 233–270 (Hebrew). B ARKAY, G., A. K LONER, and A. M AZAR. “The Northern Necropolis of Jerusalem During the First Temple Period.” In H. Geva, (ed.), Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Jerusalem, 1994, 119–127. B ARRICK, W. B. The King and the Cemeteries: Toward a New Understanding of Josiah’s Reform. (VTSupp). Leiden and Boston, 2002. B ARTLETT, J. R. “The Edomite King-List of Genesis XXXVI. 31–39 and I Chron. I. 43– 50.” JTS 16 (1965), 301–314. B ARTON, J. Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study. Louisville, KY, 1996. ––. “Dating the ‘Succession Narrative’.” In J. Day, (ed.), In Search of Pre-Exilic Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar. London, 2004, 95–106. B EAULIEU, P.-A. “Swamps as Burial Places for Babylonian Kings.” NABU 1988–53, Article 53 (1988), 1–4. B EGRICH, J. Die Chronologie der Könige von Israel und Juda und die Quellen des Rahmens der Königsbücher. (Beiträge zur Historischen Theologie). Tübingen, 1929. B ELL, C. M. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. New York, 1992. ––. Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions. New York, 1997. B ENICHOU-SAFAR, H. Les tombes puniques de Carthage: topographie, structures, inscriptions et rites funéraires. (Etudes d’Antiquités africaines). Paris, 1982. B ENZINGER, I. Die Bücher der Könige. (Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament. Ab. IX). Freiburg, 1899. B EUKEN, W. A. M. “art. bk@a#$; ekab.” TWAT, 1993. B IN-N UN, S. “Formulas from Royal Records of Israel and Judah.” VT 18 (1968), 414–432. B INFORD, L. R. “Mortuary Practices: Their Study and Their Potential.” In J. A. Brown, (ed.), Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices. Washington DC, 1971, 6–29. B IRAN, A., and J. N AVEH. “An Aramaic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan.” IEJ 43 (1993), 81–98. ––. “The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Fragment.” IEJ 45 (1995), 1–18. B IROT, M. “Fragment de Rituel de Mari Relatif au Kispum.” In B. Alster, (ed.), Death in Mesopotamia. Copenhagen, 1980, 139–150. B LANCO W ISSMANN, F. “Er tat das Rechte…” Beurteilungskriterien und Deuteronomismus in 1Kön 12–2Kön 25. Zürich, 2008. B LENKINSOPP, J. “Deuteronomy and the Politics of Post-Mortem Existence.” VT 45 (1995), 1–16. ––. “Ahab of Israel and Jehoshaphat of Judah: The Syro-Palestinian Corridor in the Ninth Century.” In J. M. Sasson, (ed.), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Peabody, MA, 2000, 1309–1319. B LOCH-SMITH, E. “Burials, Israelite.” In D. N. Freedman, (ed.), Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York, 1992, 785–789. ––. Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs About the Dead. (JSOT/ASOR Monograph Series 7; JSOTSupp 123). Sheffield, 1992. ––. “Life in Judah from the Perspective of the Dead.” NEA 65 (2002), 120–130.

Bibliography

179

B ORDREUIL, P., and D. PARDEE. “Le rituel funéraire ougaritique RS.34.126.” Syria 59 (1982), 121–128. B OTTÉRO, J. Mesopotamia: Writing, Reasoning, and the Gods. Chicago, 1992. B RETTLER, M. Z. God is King: Understanding an Israelite Metaphor. (JSOTSupp 76). Sheffield, 1989. ––. “The Structure of 1 Kings 1–11.” JSOT 16 (1991), 87–97. B RICHTO, H. C. “Kin, Cult, Land and Afterlife – a Biblical Complex.” HUCA 44 (1973), 1–54. VAN DEN B RINK , E. C. M. Tombs and Burial Customs at Tell el-Dab’a. (Beiträge zür Ägyptologie). Vienna, 1982. B ROOKE, A. E., N. M CL EAN, and H. S. J. T HACKERAY, eds. Old Testament in Greek. Vol. 2 of The Later Historical Books. Part 2: 1 and 2 Kings. Cambridge, 1930. B ROSHI, M. “The Expansion of Jerusalem in the Reigns of Hezekiah and Manasseh.” IEJ 24 (1974), 21–26. B ROWN, J. A. “On Mortuary Analysis – with Special Reference to the Saxe-Binford Research Program.” In L. A. Beck, (ed.), Regional Approaches to Mortuary Analysis. New York, 1995, 3–26. ––. “Mortuary Practices for the Third Millennium: 1966–2006.” In Laneri, (ed.), Performing Death, 299–308. ––, ed. Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices. Vol. 25, Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology. Washington: Society for American Archaeology, 1971. BURNEY, C. F. Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings, with an Introduction and Appendix. Oxford, 1903. C ALLAWAY, J. A. “Burials in Ancient Palestine: From the Stone Age to Abraham.” BA 26 (1963), 74–91. C AMPBELL, A. F. Of Prophets and Kings: A Late Ninth Century Document (1 Samuel 1–2 Kings 10). (CBQMS). Washington, DC, 1986. C ANNADINE, D. “Introduction: Divine Rites of Kings.” In D. Cannadine and S. R. F. Price, (eds), Rituals of Royalty: Power and Ceremonial in Traditional Societies. Cambridge, 1987, 1–19. C AQUOT, A. “Les Rephaïm ougaritiques.” Syria 37 (1960), 75–93. ––. “Rephaïm.” Supplement au Dictionnaire de La Bible. Paris, 1981, 344–357. C HABOT, J. B. “Punica xiv.” Journal asiatique 11 (1917), 11–18. C HAPMAN, R. “Death, Society and Archaeology: the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices.” Mortality 8 (2003), 306–312. C HARPIN, D. ““Le Roi et Mort, Vive Le Roi!” Les Funérailles des Souverains Amorrites et L’avènement de Leur Successeur.” In R. J. van der Spek and G. Haayer, (eds), Studies in Ancient Near Eastern World View and Society: Presented to Marten Stol. Bethesda, Md., 2008, 69–95. C HILDS, B. S. The Book of Exodus; a Critical, Theological Commentary. (OTL). Philadelphia, 1974. C OGAN, M. “A Note on Disinterment in Jeremiah.” In I. D. Passow and S. T. Lachs, (eds), Gratz College, Anniversary Volume. Philadelphia, 1971, 29–34. ––. 1 Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. (Anchor Bible). New York, 2001. COGAN, M., and H. T ADMOR. II Kings. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. (Anchor Bible). New York, 1988. C OHEN, A. C. Death Rituals, Ideology, and the Development of Early Mesopotamian Kingship: Toward a New Understanding of Iraq’s Royal Cemetery of Ur. Leiden, 2005.

180

Bibliography

C OOK, E. M. “On the Linguistic Dating of the Phoenician Ahiram Inscription (KAI 1).” JNES 53 (1994), 33–36. C OOKE, G. A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel. (ICC). Edinburgh, 1936. C OOLEY, R. E. “The Contribution of Literary Sources to a Study of the Canaanite Burial Pattern.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 1968. ––. “Gathered to His People: A Study of a Dothan Family Tomb.” In M. Tuchand and R. Youngblood, (eds), The Living and Active Word of God: Studies in Honor of Samuel J. Schultz. Winona Lake, 1983, 47–58. C OOLEY, R. E., and G. D. PRATICO. “Dothan: the Western Cemetery.” In E. Stern, (ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Jerusalem, 1993, 374. ––. “Gathered to His People: An Archaeological Illustration from Tell Dothan’s Western Cemetery.” In M. D. Coogan, C. J. Exum and L. E. Stager, (eds), Scripture and Other Artifacts: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King. Louisville, 1994, 70–92. C OOPER, J. S. Presargonic Inscriptions. (Sumerian and Akkadian Royal Inscriptions ). New Haven, CT, 1986. ––. “Sacred Marriage and Popular Cult in Early Mesopotamia.” In E. Matsushima, (ed.), Official Cult and Popular Religion in the Ancient Near East. Heidelberg, 1993, 81–96. C OXON. “Nephilim.” In K. van der Toorn, B. Becking and P. W. v. d. Horst, (eds), Dictionary of Demons and Deities in the Bible. Leiden, 1999, 620. C RAWFORD, H. E. W. The Architecture of Iraq in the Third Millennium B.C. (Mesopotamia 5). Copenhagen, 1977. C RAWFORD, V. E. “Inscriptions from Lagash, Season Four, 1975.” JCS 29 (1977), 196. C ROSS, JR. F. M. “The Structure of the Deuteronomic History.” Perspectives in Jewish Learning. Chicago, 1968, 9–24. ––. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Cambridge, 1973. ––. From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel. Baltimore, 1998. D ALLEY, S. “Yabâ, Atalaya and the Foreign Policy of Late Assyrian Kings.” SAAB 12 (1998), 83–98. ––. “Recent Evidence from Assyrian Sources for Judaean History from Uzziah to Manasseh.” JSOT 28 (2004), 387–401. D AMERJI, M.S.B., and A. KAMIL. Gräber Assyrischer Königinnen aus Nimrud. Mainz, 1999. D AVIES, D.J. “Robert Hertz: The Social Triumph over Death.” Mortality 5 (2000), 97–102. DEL O LMO L ETE , G. Canaanite Religion: According to the Liturgical Texts of Ugarit. Winona Lake, 2004. DEL O LMO L ETE , G., and J. S ANMARTÍN . A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition. Part One [(a/i/u)-K]. Translated by W. G. E. Watson. (HdO I). Leiden and Boston, 2003 = DUL I. ––. A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition. Part Two [L-]. Translated by W. G. E. Watson. (HdO I). Leiden, 2003 = DUL II. D ELLER, K. “The Sealed Burial Chamber.” SAAB 1 (1987), 69–71. D EQUEKER, L. “The ‘Tomb of David’ in the ‘City of David’ – a Biblical Tradition Reconsidered.” In M. Augustin and K.-D. Schunck, (eds), “Wünschet Jerusalem Frieden” Collected Communications to the XIIth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Jerusalem 1986. Frankfurt am Main & New York, 1988, 77–92.

Bibliography

181

D EVER, W. G. “Funerary Practices in EB IV (MB I) Palestine: A Study in Cultural Discontinuity.” In J. H. Marks and R. M. Good, (eds), Love and Death in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Marvin H. Pope. New York, 1987, 9–20. D IETRICH, M., and O. L ORETZ. “Grabbeigaben für den verstorbenen König: Bemerkungen zur Neuausgabe von RS 34.126 = KTU 1.161.” UF 23 (1991), 103–106. D IETRICH, M., and W. M AYER. “Ein hurritisches Totenritual für ‘Ammitamru III. (KTU 1.125).” In B. Pongratz-Leisten, H. Kühne and P. Xella, (eds), Ana adî Labn ni l allik: Beiträge zu altorientalischen und mittelmeerischen Kulturen. Festschrift für Wolfgang Röllig. Kevelaer und Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1997, 79–89. D IETRICH, W. Prophetie und Geschichte: eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk. Göttingen, 1972. ––. “Martin Noth and the Future of the Deuteronomistic History.” In S. L. McKenzie, (ed.), The History of Israel’s Traditions, 153–175. D OBBS-A LLSOPP, F. W., J. J. M. R OBERTS, C. L. SEOW, and R. E. W HITAKER. Hebrew Inscriptions: Texts from the Biblical Period of the Monarchy with Concordance. New Haven and London, 2004. D ONNER, H., and W. R ÖLLIG. Kanaanäische und Aramäische Inschriften. Band 2: Kommentar. Wiesbaden, 1968 = KAI II. D RIVER, G. R. “Plurima Mortis Image.” In M. Ben-Horin, B. D. Weinryb and S. Zeitlin, (eds), Studies and Essays in Honor of Abraham Neuman. Leiden, 1962, 128–143. D RIVER, G. R., and J. C. M ILES. The Babylonian Laws. (Ancient Codes and Laws of the near East). Oxford, 1952. D RIVER, S. R. An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. New York, 1900. D URAND, J.-M. “L’organisation de l’espace dans le palais de Mari: Le témoignage des textes.” In E. Lèvy, (ed.), Le système palatial en Orient, en Grèce et à Rome. Leiden, 1987, 39–110. D UTCHER-W ALLS, P. Narrative Art, Political Rhetoric: the Case of Athaliah and Joash. (JSOTSupp). Sheffield, 1996. E BACH, J. “Pgr = (Toten-)Opfer? Ein Vorschlag zum Verständnis von Ez. 43, 7. 9.” UF 3 (1971), 365–368. E ISENSTADT, S. N. “Observations and Queries About Sociological Aspects of Imperialism in the Ancient World.” In M. T. Larsen, (ed.), Power and Propaganda: A Symposium on Ancient Empires. Copenhagen, 1979, 21–33. ––. “The Axial Age Breakthrough–Their Characteristics and Origins.” In S. N. Eisenstadt, (ed.), The Origins and Diversity of Axial Age Civilizations. Albany, 1986, 1–25. E MERTON, J. A. “Two Issues in the Interpretation of the Tel Dan Inscription.” VT 50 (2000), 27–37. E YNIKEL, E. The Reform of King Josiah and the Composition of the Deuteronomistic History. (OTS). Leiden, 1996. FADHIL, A. “Die Nimrud/Kalu Aufgefundene Grabinschrift der Jabâ.” Baghdader Mitteilungen 21 (1990), 461–470. FANTALKIN, A. “The Appearance of Rock-Cut Bench Tombs in Iron Age Judah as a Reflection of State Formation.” In A. Fantalkin and A. Yasur-Landau, (eds), Bene Israel: Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and the Levant During the Bronze and Iron Ages in Honour of Israel Finkelstein. Leiden and Boston, 2008, 17–44. F AUST, A., and S. B UNIMOVITZ. “The Judahite Rock-Cut Tomb: Family Response at a Time of Change.” IEJ 58 (2008), 150–170. FINKELSTEIN, I., and N. A. SILBERMAN. “Temple and Dynasty: Hezekiah, the Remaking of Judah and the Rise of the Pan-Israelite Ideology.” JSOT 30 (2006), 259–285. FINKELSTEIN, J. J. “The Genealogy of the Hammurapi Dynasty.” JCS 20 (1966), 95–118.

182

Bibliography

FISHBANE, M. A. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. New York, 1985. FITZMYER, J. A. The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire. (Biblica et Orientalia). Rome, 1995. FLEMING, D. E. The Installation of Baal’s High Priestess at Emar: A Window on Ancient Syrian Religion. (Harvard Semitic Studies). Atlanta, Ga., 1992. FORD, J. N. “The “Living Rephaim” of Ugarit: Quick or Defunct?” UF 24 (1992), 73–101. FORSHEY, H. “Court Narrative (2 Samuel 9–1 Kings 2).” In D. N. Freedman, (ed.), Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York, 1992, 1172–1179. FOX, J. Semitic Noun Patterns. (Harvard Semitic Studies). Winona Lake, 2003. FRANKFORT, H. The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient. (The Pelican History of Art). Harmondsworth, 1963. FRANKLIN, N. “The Tombs of the Kings of Israel: Two Recently Identified 9th Century Tombs from Omride Samaria.” ZDPV 119 (2003), 1–11. ––. “Lost Tombs of the Israelite Kings.” BARev 33 (2007), 26–35. ––. “Response to David Ussishkin.” BASOR 248 (2007), 71–73. F RIEDRICH, J., W. R ÖLLIG, and M. G. A MADASI. Phönizisch-Punische Grammatik. (Analecta Orientalia). Roma, 1999. FRITZ, V. 1 & 2 Kings. (Continental Commentaries) Trans. by Translated by Anselm C. Hagedorn. Minneapolis, 2003 FROST, S. B. “The Death of Josiah: A Conspiracy of Silence.” JBL 87 (1968), 369–382. G ALIL, G. The Chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah. (SHCANE). New York, 1996. G ARFINKEL, Y. “Warrior Burial Customs in the Levant During the Early Second Millennium B.C.” In S. R. Wolff, (ed.), Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Lands in Memory of Douglas L. Esse. Chicago - Atlanta, 2001, 143–162. G ARR, W. R. “On Voicing and Devoicing in Ugaritic.” JNES 45 (1986), 45–52. G ELB, I. J. “Two Assyrian King Lists.” JNES 13 (1954), 209–230. ––. “Prisoners of War in Early Mesopotamia.” JNES 32 (1973), 70–98. G IBSON, J. C. L. Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. Vol. 1: Hebrew and Moabite Inscriptions Oxford, 1971 = TSSI 1. ––. Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. Vol. 3: Phoenician inscriptions, including inscriptions in the mixed dialect of Arslan Tash Oxford, 1982 = TSSI 3. G INSBERG, H. L. “Reflexes of Sargon in Isaiah after 715 B.C.E.” JAOS 88 (1968), 47–53. G LASSNER, J.-J. Mesopotamian Chronicles. (Writings from the Ancient World). Atlanta, 2004. G LATT-G ILAD, D. A. “The Deuteronomistic Critique of Solomon: A Response to Marvin A. Sweeney.” JBL 116 (1997), 700–703. G ONEN, R. Burial Patterns and Cultural Diversity in Late Bronze Age Canaan. (ASOR Dissertation Series 7). Winona Lake, 1992. ––. “Structural Tombs in the Second Millennium B.C.” In A. Kempinski and R. Reich, (eds), The Architecture of Ancient Israel: From the Prehistoric to the Persian Periods. Jerusalem, 1992, 151–160. G OOD, R. M. The Sheep of His pasture: A Study of the Hebrew Noun ‘am(m) and its Semitic Cognates. Chico, CA, 1983. G RAY, J. “The Desert God ‘ATR in the Literature and Religion of Canaan.” JNES 8 (1949), 72–83. ––. “The Rephaim.” PEQ 81 (1949), 127–139. ––. “Dtn and Rp’um in Ancient Ugarit.” PEQ 84 (1952), 39–41. ––. I & II Kings: Commentary. (OTL). London, 1970. G RAYSON, A. K. Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. (Texts from Cuneiform Sources). Locust Valley, NY, 1975.

Bibliography

183

––. “Königslisten, Akkadisch.” In E. Ebeling, et al., (eds), Reallexikon der Assyriologie. Berlin, 1980, 86–135. G REENBERG, M. Ezekiel 21–37: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. (Anchor Bible). New York, 1997. G REENFIELD, J. G. “The Prepositions b...taat...in Jes 57:5.” ZAW 73 (1961), 226–228. ––. “Scripture and Inscription: The Literary and Rhetorical Element in Some Early Phoenician Inscriptions.” In H. Goedicke, (ed.), Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright. Baltimore, 1971, 253–268. G ROSBY, S. “Kinship, Territory, and the Nation in the Historiography of Ancient Israel.” ZAW 105 (1993), 3–18. G ULDE, S. U. Der Tod als Herrscher in Ugarit und Israel. (FAT2). Tübingen, 2007. H AAS, V. “Death and the Afterlife in Hittite Thought.” In J. M. Sasson, (ed.), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. New York, 1995, 2021–2030. H ACHMANN, R. “Das Königsgrab V von Jebeil (Byblos), Untersuchungen zur Zeitstellung des sogen. Ahiram-Grabes.” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 17 (1967), 93–114. ––. “Kumidi und Byblos: Spätbronzezeitliche Königsgräber im Küstengebiet östlich des Mittelmeers.” In W. Zwickel, (ed.), Biblische Welten: Festschrift für Martin Metzger zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. Freiburg, Schweiz und Göttingen, 1993, 1–40. ––. “Die Gräber der Könige aus dem Hause David in Jerusalem und ihr Totenritual.” In G. Arsebük, M. J. Mellink and W. Schirmer, (eds), Light on Top of the Black Hill: Studies Presented to Halet Çambel. Istanbul, 1998, 375–394. H ALLO, W. W. “The Death of Kings: Traditional Historiography in Contextual Perspective.” In M. Cogan and I. Eph’al, (eds), Ah, Assyria ... Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor. Jerusalem, 1991, 148–165. ––. “Royal Ancestor Worship in the Biblical World.” In M. A. Fishbane, E. Tov and W. W. Fields, (eds), Sha’arei Talmon. Winona Lake, Ind., 1992, 381–401. H ALLOTE, R. S. “Tombs, Cult, and Chronology: A Reexamination of the Middle Bronze Age Strata of Megiddo.” In S. R. Wolff, (ed.), Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Lands in Memory of Douglas L. Esse. Winona Lake, 2001, 199–214. ––. “Real and Ideal Identities in Middle Bronze Age Tombs.” NEA 65 (2002), 105–111. H ALPERN, B. The First Historians: the Hebrew Bible and History. San Francisco, 1988. ––. “Jerusalem and the Lineages in the Seventh Century BCE: Kinship and the Rise of Individual Moral Liability.” In B. Halpern and D. W. Hobson, (eds), Law and Ideology in Monarchic Israel. Sheffield, England, 1991, 11–107. ––. “Sybil, or the Two Nations? Archaism, Kinship, Alienation, and the Elite Redefinition of Traditional Culture in Judah in the 8th–7th Centuries B.C.E.” In J. S. Cooper and G. M. Schwartz, (eds), The Study of the Ancient Near East in the Twenty-First Century. Winona Lake, 1996, 291–238. ––. “Why Manasseh is Blamed for the Babylonian Exile: the Evolution of a Biblical Tradition.” VT 48 (1998), 473–514. ––. David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King. Grand Rapids, 2001. H ALPERN, B., and D. S. V ANDERHOOFT. “The Editions of Kings in the 7th–6th Centuries B.C.E.” HUCA 62 (1991), 179–244. H AMILTON, M. W. The Body Royal: the Social Poetics of Kingship in Ancient Israel. (Biblical Interpretation Series). Leiden, 2005. H AUSER, A. J. “The “Minor Judges”: A Re-Evaluation.” JBL 94 (1975), 190–200. H AYS, C. B. “The Covenant with Mut: A New Interpretation of Isaiah 28:1–22.” VT 60 (2010), 212–240. H EALEY, J. F. “Mlkm / Rp’um and the Kispum.” UF 10 (1978), 89–91.

184

Bibliography

––. “Ritual Text KTU 1.161 – Translation and Notes.” UF 10 (1978), 83–88. H EIDEL, A. The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels. Chicago, 1946. H ENDEL, R. S. “Of Demigods and the Deluge: Toward an Interpretation of Genesis 6:1– 4.” JBL 106 (1987), 13–26. H ERTZ, R. “A Contribution to the Study of the Collective Representation of Death.” Death and the Right Hand. Glencoe, Ill., 1960, 174 p. H IRSCHBERG, J. W. “The Remains of an Ancient Synagogue on Mount Zion.” In Y. Yadin, (ed.), Jerusalem Revealed: Archaeology in the Holy City, 1968–1974. Jerusalem, 1976, 116–117. H OCKEY, J. “The Importance of Being Intuitive: Arnold Van Gennep’s the Rites of Passage.” Mortality 7 (2002), 210–217. H OFFMANN, H. D. Reform und Reformen: Untersuchungen zu einem Grundthema der deuteronomistischen Geschichtsschreibung. (ATANT). Zürich, 1980. H OFFNER, H. A. J. “Propaganda and Political Justification in Hittite Historiography.” In H. Goedicke and J. J. M. Roberts, (eds), Unity and Diversity. Baltimore, 1975, 49–62. H OFTIJZER, J., and K. JONGELING. Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions, Part One: ’–L. (HdO I). Leiden and New York, 1995 = DNSI 1. ––. Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions, Part Two: M–T. (HdO I). Leiden and New York, 1995 = DNSI 2. H OFTIJZER, J., K. JONGELING, R. C. STEINER, A. M. M OSHAVI, B. PORTEN, and C.-F. JEAN. Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions. (Handbuch der Orientalistik. Erste Abteilung, Der Nahe und Mittlere Osten). Boston, 2003. VAN DEN H OUT , T. P. J. “Death as a Privilege. The Hittite Royal Funerary Ritual.” In J. M. Bremer, T. P. J. van den Hout and R. Peters, (eds), Hidden Futures: Death and Immortality in Ancient Egypt, Anatolia, the Classical, Biblical and Arabic-Islamic World. Amsterdam, 1994, 37–75. ILLMAN, K.-J. Old Testament Formulas About Death. Åbo, 1979. INGHOLT, H. “Palmyrene Sculptures in Beirut.” Berytus 1 (1934), 32–43. ––. “Corrections of and Additions to Palmyra Articles in Berytus I, Pages 32–43, and II, Pages 37–120.” Berytus 3 (1936), 126–127. ISHIDA, T. The Royal Dynasties in Ancient Israel: A Study on the Formation and Development of Royal-Dynastic Ideology. (BZAW). Berlin, 1977. ––. ““Solomon Who is Greater Than David”: Solomon’s Succession in 1 Kings i-Ii in the Light of the Inscription of Kilamuwa, King of Y’dy-Samal.” In J. A. Emerton, (ed.), Congress Volume: Salamanca 1983. Leiden, 1985, 145–153. ––. “The Succession Narrative and Esarhaddon’s Apology: A Comparison.” In M. Cogan and I. Eph’al, (eds), Ah, Assyria...Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor. Jerusalem, 1991, 166–173. JACOBSEN, T. The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion. New Haven, 1976. JAPHET, S. I & II Chronicles: A Commentary. (OTL). Louisville, 1993. JEPSEN, A. “Israel und Damaskus.” AfO 14 (1941–44), 153–172. ––. Die Quellen des Königsbuches. Halle (Saale), 1956. JIDEJIAN, N. Sidon, through the Ages. Beirut,, 1971. JOHNSTON, P. Shades of Sheol: Death and Afterlife in the Old Testament. Downers Grove, 2002. JONES, G. H. 1 and 2 Kings. (New Century Bible Commentary). London, 1984. ––. 1 and 2 Kings. (New Century Bible Commentary). London, 1984. JONGELING, K., and R. M. K ERR, eds. Late Punic Epigraphy: An Introduction to the Study of Neo-Punic and Latino-Punic Inscriptions. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005.

Bibliography

185

JOÜON, P., and T. M URAOKA. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Two Volumes (Subsidia Biblica). Rome, 1991. K AMLAH, J. “Grab und Begräbnis in Israel/Juda.” In A. Berlejung and B. Janowski, (eds), Tod und Jenseits im Alten Israel und in seiner Umwelt: theologische, religionsgeschichtliche, archäologische und ikonograpische Aspekte. Tübingen, 2009, 257– 297. K ANTOROWICZ, E. H. The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology. Princeton, 1957. K ASSIAN, A., A. K OROLEV, and A. SIDEL’TSEV. Hittite Funerary Ritual: alli Watai. (AOAT). Münster, 2002. K EEL, O. The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms. Translated by T. J. Hallett. Winona Lake, IN, 1997. K ENYON, K. M. Digging up Jerusalem. New York, 1974. K ILMER, A. D. “The Mesopotamian Counterparts of the Biblial N plîm.” In E. W. Conrad and E. G. Newing, (eds), Perspectives on Language and Text: Essays and Poems in Honor of Francis I. Andersen’s Sixtieth Birthday, July 28, 1985. Winona Lake, 1987, 40–43. K ITCHEN, K. A. “The King List of Ugarit.” UF 9 (1977), 131–142. K LONER, A. “The ‘Third Wall’ in Jerusalem and the ‘Cave of the Kings’ (Josephus War V 147).” Levant 18 (1986), 121–129. K NIBB, M. A. “Life and Death in the Old Testament.” In R. E. Clements, (ed.), The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological, and Political Perspectives. Cambridge, 1989, 395–415. K NOPPERS, G. N. Two Nations under God: the Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies. Vol. 1, the Reign of Solomon and the Rise of Jeroboam. (Harvard Semitic Monographs). Atlanta, Ga., 1993. K NOPPERS, G. N., and J. G. M CC ONVILLE, eds. Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History. Vol. 8, Sources for Biblical and Theological Study. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2000. K ÖHLER, L., and W. B AUMGARTNER. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Volume One. Trans. by M. E. J. Richardson. New York, 2001 = HALOT 1. ––. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Volume Two. Trans. by M. E. J. Richardson. New York, 2001 = HALOT 2. K RAELING, E. G. “The Significance and Origin of Gen. 6:1–4.” JNES 6 (1947), 193–208. K RAHMALKOV, C. R. Phoenician-Punic Dictionary. (OLA). Leuven, 2000. ––. A Phoenician-Punic Grammar. (HdO I). Leiden and Boston, 2001. K RAMER, S. N. “The Death of Ur-Nammu and His Descent in the Netherworld.” JCS 67 (1967), 104–122. K RATZ, R. G. The Composition of the Narrative Books of the Old Testament. Translated by J. Bowden. London, 2005. K RÜGER, A. “Auf dem Weg “zu den Vätern.”” In A. Berlejung and B. Janowski, (eds), Tod und Jenseits im Alten Israel und in seiner Umwelt: Theologische, religionsgeschichtliche, archäologische und ikonograpische Aspekte. Tübingen, 2009, 137–150. L’H EUREUX, C. E. “The Ugaritic and Biblical Rephaim.” Harvard Theological Review 67 (1974), 265–274. ––. “The Y elˆ®de® Haœraœpaœ} – a Cultic Association of Warriors.” BASOR 221, Memorial Issue: Essays in Honor of George Ernest Wright (1976), 83–85. ––. Rank among the Canaanite Gods: El, Ba’al, and the Rephaim. (Harvard Semitic Monographs). Missoula, MT, 1979. L AGRANGE, M.-J. Saint Etienne et Son Sanctuaire à Jérusalem. Paris, 1894.

186

Bibliography

L ANDSBERGER, B. “Assyrische Königsliste und “Dunkles Zeitalter”.” JCS 8 (1954), 31–45. ––. “Assyrische Königsliste und “Dunkles Zeitalter” (Cont.).” JCS 8 (1954), 106–133. L ANERI, N. “An Archaeology of Funerary Rituals.” In Laneri, (ed.), Performing Death, 1–13. LANERI, N., ed. Performing Death: Social Analyses of Funerary Traditions in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean, (Oriental Institute Seminars, 3). Chicago, 2007. L ANGE, K. E. “Unearthing Ancient Syria’s Cult of the Dead.” National Geographic 207 (2005), 108–123. LEHMANN, R. G. Dynastensarkophage mit szenischen Reliefs aus Byblos und Zypern: Teil 1.2: Die Inschrift(en) des ’Ahirom-Sarkophags und die Schachtinschrift des Grabes V in Jbeil (Byblos). (FPZP). Mainz, 2005. ––. “Calligraphy and Craftsmanship in the Arm.” Maarav 15 (2008), 119–164. L EMAIRE, A. “Vers l’Histoire de la Rédaction des Livres des Rois.” ZAW 98 (1986), 221–236. Translated by P.T. Daniels and reprinted as “Toward a Redactional History of the Book of Kings,” in Knoppers and McConville, (eds), Reconsidering Israel and Judah, 446–461. LEVENSON, J. D. Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: the Ultimate Victory of the God of Life. New Haven, 2006. LEVINE, B. A., and J.-M. DE T ARRAGON. “Dead Kings and Rephaim: The Patrons of the Ugaritic Dynasty.” JAOS 104 (1984), 649–659. LEVINE, B. A., J.-M. DE T ARRAGON, and A. R OBERTSON. “The Patrons of the Ugaritic Dynasty (KTU 1.161) (1.105).” In Hallo and Younger, (eds), COS 1, 2003, 357–358. LEWIS, T. J. Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit. (Harvard Semitic Monographs, No. 39). Atlanta, 1989. ––. “Toward a Literary Translation of the Rapiuma Texts.” In N. Wyatt, W. G. E. Watson and J. B. Lloyd, (eds), Ugarit, Religion and Culture: Essays Presented in Honour of Professor John C.L. Gibson. Münster, 1996, 115–149. ––. “The Rapiuma.” In S. Parker, (ed.), Ugaritic Narrative Poetry. Atlanta, 1997, 196–205. ––. “How Far Can Texts Take Us? Evaluating Textual Sources for Reconstructing Ancient Israelite Beliefs About the Dead.” In B. Gittlen, (ed.), Sacred Time, Sacred Place: Archaeology and the Religion of Israel. Winona Lake, 2002, 169–217. LIDZBARSKI, M. Ephemeris für semitische Epigraphik. Giessen, 1902. L INVILLE, J. R. “Rethinking the ‘Exilic’ Book of Kings.” JSOT 22 (1997), 21–42. ––. Israel in the Book of Kings: the Past as a Project of Social Identity. (JSOTSupp). Sheffield, England, 1998. LIPI SKI, E., and W. VON SODEN. “art. M(a; ‘am.” In G. J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren and H.-J. Fabry, (eds), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, 2001, 163–177. L IPSCHITS, O. ““Jehoiakim Slept with This Father…” (II Kings 24:6) – Did He?” JHS 4, Article 1 (2002). LIVERANI, M. “L’histoire de Joas.” VT 24 (1974), 438–453. L IWAK, R. “My)Ipfr: R ep ’îm.” In G. J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren and H.-J. Fabry, (eds), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, 2004, 602–614. LONDON, G. A. “Homage to the Elders.” BA 50 (1987), 70–74. LONG, B. O. 1 Kings. (FOTL). Grand Rapids, 1984. ––. 2 Kings. (FOTL). Grand Rapids, 1991. LORETZ, O. Götter - Ahnen - Könige als gerechte Richter. (AOAT 290). Münster, 2003. L UCKENBILL, D. D. The Annals of Sennacherib. (OIP). Chicago, 1924. ––. Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia. Chicago, 1926. L UNDBERG, M. J. “Editor’s Notes: The Airam Inscription.” Maarav 11 (2004), 81–93.

Bibliography

187

M AGNESS, J. “Ossuaries and the Burials of Jesus and James.” JBL 124 (2005), 121–154. M ALAMAT, A. “King Lists of the Old Babylonian Period and Biblical Genealogies.” JAOS 88 (1968), 163–173. AL -M AQDISSI, M., H. D OHMANN -P FÄLZNER , P. P FÄLZNER , and A. S ULEIMAN . “Das Königliche Hypogäum von Qatna.” MDOG 135 (2003), 189–218. M ARGUERON, J.-C. “Une tombe royale sous la salle du trone du palais des Shakkanakku.” MARI 6 (1990), 401–422. ––. “Mari: A Portrait in Art of a Mesopotamian City-State.” In J. M. Sasson, (ed.), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. New York, 1995, 885–899. ––. Mari, métropole de l’Euphrate au III e et au début II e millénaire av. J.-C. Paris, 2004. M ATTHIAE, P. “Princely Cemetery and Ancestors Cult at Ebla During Middle Bronze II: A Proposal of Interpretation.” UF 11 (1979), 563–569. ––. “New Discoveries at Ebla: The Excavation of the Western Palace and the Royal Necropolis of the Amorite Period.” BA 47 (1984), 18–32. M AZAR, B. “The Archaeological Excavations near the Temple Mount.” In Y. Yadin, (ed.), Jerusalem Revealed: Archaeology in the Holy City, 1968–1974. Jerusalem, 1976, 25–40. M CA LPINE, T. H. Sleep, Divine and Human, in the Old Testament. (Jsotsup). Sheffield, England, 1987. M CC ARTER, P. K. I Samuel: A New Translation. Garden City, NY, 1980. ––. II Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary. Garden City, 1984. ––. “The Royal Steward Inscription (2.54).” In Hallo and Younger, (eds), COS 2. Leiden, 2000, 180. ––. “The Sarcophagus Inscription of ’Ahirom, King of Byblos (2.55).” In Hallo and Younger, (eds), COS 2. Leiden, 2000, 181. M CC ARTHY, D. J. “II Samuel 7 and the Structure of the Deuteronomic History.” JBL 84 (1965), 131–138. M CG INNIS, J. “A Neo-Assyrian Text Describing a Royal Funeral.” SAAB 1 (1987), 1–15. M CK AY, J. W. Religion in Judah under the Assyrians 732–609 Bc. (Studies in Biblical Theology [2nd Series]). London, 1973. M CK ENZIE, S. L. The Trouble with Kings: the Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History. (VTSupp). Leiden, 1991. ––. “The Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History.” In S. L. McKenzie, (ed.), The History of Israel’s Traditions, 281–307. ––. “Dog Food and Bird Food: The Oracles against the Dynasties in the Book of Kings.” In G. N. Knoppers and J. G. McConville, (eds.), Reconsidering Israel and Judah, 397–420. ––. “The So-Called Succession Narrative in the Deuteronomistic History.” In A. de Pury and T. Römer, (eds), Die sogenannte Thronfolgegeschichte Davids. Freiburg, Schweiz; Göttingen, 2000. M CK ENZIE, S. L., ed. The History of Israel's Traditions: the Heritage of Martin Noth. (JSOTSupp, 182) Sheffield, 1994. M ETCALF, P., and R. H UNTINGTON. Celebrations of Death: the Anthropology of Mortuary Ritual. New York, 1991. M EYERS, E. M. “Secondary Burials in Palestine.” BA 33 (1970), 2–29. M ICHALOWSKI, P. “The Death of Shulgi.” Or 46 (1977), 220–225. M ILLER, J. M. “The Elisha Cycle and the Accounts of the Omride Wars.” JBL 85 (1966), 441–454. ––. “The Fall of the House of Ahab.” VT 17 (1967), 307–324. ––. “So Tibni Died (1 Kings XVI 22).” VT 18 (1968), 392–394.

188

Bibliography

M ILLER, J. M., and J. H. H AYES. A History of Ancient Israel and Judah. Louisville, 2006. DE M IROSCHEDJI , P. “Far’ah, Tell el- (North).” In E. Stern, (ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Jerusalem, 1993, 432–438. M ONTGOMERY, J. A. “Archival Data in the Book of Kings.” JBL 53 (1934), 46–52. M ONTGOMERY, J. A., and H. S. G EHMAN. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings. (ICC). Edinburgh, 1951. M OOREY, P. R. S. “Where Did They Bury the Kings of the IIIrd Dynasty of Ur?” Iraq 46 (1984), 1–18. M ORRIS, I. “The Archaeology of Ancestors: the Saxe/Goldstein Hypothesis Revisited.” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 1 (1991), 147–169. M ULLEN, E. T. J. “The Royal Dynastic Grant to Jehu and the Structure of the Books of Kings.” JBL 107 (1988), 193–206. M ÜLLER, H.-P. “Die phönizische Grabinschrift aus dem Zypern-Museum KAI 30 und die Formgeschichte des nordwestsemitischen Epitaphs.” ZA 65 (1975), 104–132. M URAOKA, T. “Again on the Tel Dan Inscription and Northwest Semitic Verb Tenses.” ZAH 11 (1998), 74–81. M URRAY, D. “Of All the Years the Hopes: Or Fears? Jehoiachin in Babylon (2 Kings 25:27–30).” JBL 120 (2001), 245–265. N A’AMAN, N. “Azariah of Judah and Jeroboam II of Israel.” VT 43 (1993), 227–234. ––. “Death Formulae and the Burial Place of the Kings of the House of David.” Bib 85 (2004), 245–254. ––. “The Temple Library of Jerusalem and the Composition of the Book of Kings.” In A. Lemaire, (ed.), Congress Volume Leiden, 2004. Leiden, 2006, 129–152. N ELSON, R. D. The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History. (JSOTSupp). Sheffield, 1981. ––. “The Anatomy of the Book of Kings.” JSOT 13 (1988), 39–48. ––. “Ideology, Geography, and the List of Minor Judges.” JSOT 31 (2007), 347–364. N IEHR, H. “The Changed Status of the Dead in Yehud.” In R. Albertz and B. Becking, (eds), Yahwism after the Exile: Perspectives on Israelite Religion in the Persian Era. Assen, 2003, 136–155. ––. “Der Sarkophag des Königs Airom von Byblos.” In N. Kreutz and B. Schweitzer, (eds), TEKMERIA. Archäologische Zeugnisse in ihrer kulturhistorischen und politischen Dimension. Beiträge für Werner Gauer. Münster, 2006, 231–243. ––. “Ein Beitrag zur Konzeption des Königtums in Ugarit.” In B. Truschnegg and P. W. Haider, (eds), Altertum und Mittelmeerraum: die antike Welt diesseits und jenseits der Levante: Festschrift für Peter W. Haider zum 60. Geburtstag. Stuttgart, 2006, 161–182. ––. “The Royal Funeral in Ancient Syria. A Comparative View on the Tombs in the Palaces of Qatna, Kumidi and Ugarit.” JNSL 32 (2006), 1–24. ––. “The Topography of Death in the Royal Palace of Ugarit. Preliminary Thoughts on the Basis of Archaeological and Textual Data.” In J.-M. Michaud, (ed.), Le royaume d’Ougarit de la Crète à l’Euphrate: nouveaux actes de recherche. Sherbrooke, Québec, 2007, 219–242. N IEMAN, D. “Pgr: A Canaanite Cult-Object in the Old Testament.” JBL 67 (1948), 55–60. N OLL, K. L. “Is the Book of Kings Deuteronomistic? And Is It a History?” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 21 (2007), 49 - 72. N OTH, M. Überlieferungsgeschichliche Studien. Tübingen, 1957. English translation; The Deuteronomistic History. Sheffield, 1981. ––. The History of Israel. London, 1960. ––. Könige. (BKAT). Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1964.

Bibliography

189

N OVÁK, M., and P. PFÄLZNER. “Ausgrabungen im bronzezeitlichen Palast von Tall Mirife – Qatna 2002.” MDOG 135 (2003), 131–165. N UTKOWICZ, H. L’homme face à la mort au royaume de Juda: rites, pratiques et représentation. Paris, 2006. O’B RIEN, M. A. The Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis: A Reassessment. (OBO). Freiburg, Schweiz & Göttingen, 1989. O EMING, M. Das Wahre Israel: die “Genealogische Vorhalle” 1 Chronik 1–9. (BWANT). Stuttgart, 1990. O LYAN, S. M. “What Do Shaving Rites Accomplish and What Do They Signal in Biblical Ritual Contexts?” JBL 117 (1998), 611–622. ––. Biblical Mourning: Ritual and Social Dimensions. Oxford, 2004. ––. “Was the “King of Babylon” Buried before His Corpse Was Exposed? Some Thoughts on Isa 14, 19.” ZAW 118 (2006), 423–426. O PPENHEIM, M. Tell Halaf: A New Culture in Oldest Mesopotamia. Translated by G. C. Wheeler. London and New York, 1933. O PPENHEIM, M., F. L ANGENEGGER, K. M ÜLLER, and R. N AUMANN. Tell Halaf II: Die Bauwerke. Berlin, 1950. O RTHMANN, W. Die aramäisch-assyrische Stadt Guzana: ein Rückblick auf die Ausgrabungen Max von Oppenheims in Tell Halaf. (Schriften der Max Freiherr von Oppenheim-Stiftung). Saarbrücken, 2002. O TTEN, H. Hethitische Totenrituale. Berlin,, 1958. O TTO, E. “Forschungen zum Nachpriesterschriftlichen Pentateuch.” TRu 67 (2002), 125– 155. PAKKALA, J. “Zedekiah’s Fate and the Dynastic Succession.” JBL 125 (2006), 443–452. PARAYRE, D. “Les Sepultures de Mari: Typologie Provisoire.” Akkadica 29 (1982), 1–29. PARDEE, D. “The Preposition in Ugaritic.” UF 8 (1976), 215–322. ––. “Marziu, Kispu, and the Ugaritic Funerary Cult: A Minimalist View.” In N. Wyatt, W. G. E. Watson and J. B. Lloyd, (eds), Ugarit, Religion and Culture: Essays Presented in Honour of Professor John C.L. Gibson. Münster, 1996, 273–287. ––. Les textes rituels. (Ras Shamra-Ougarit 12). Paris, 2000. ––. Ritual and Cult at Ugarit. Atlanta, 2002. PARKER PEARSON, M. The Archaeology of Death and Burial. (Texas A & M University Anthropology Series, 3). College Station, 2002. P ARKER, S. “The Ugaritic Deity Raœpi’u.” UF 4 (1972), 97–104. P ARKIN, R. The Dark Side of Humanity: The Work of Robert Hertz and Its Legacy. Amsterdam, 1996. PARROT, A. Sumer: the Dawn of Art. (Arts of Mankind). New York, 1961. ––. “La XXIe campagne des fouilles à Mari.” CRAIBL (1975), 96–97. PEDERSEN, J. Israel, Its Life and Culture. London, 1959. P FÄLZNER, P. “Die Politik und der Tod im Königtum von Qatna.” Nürnberger Blätter zur Archäologie 190 (2002–2003), 85–102. ––. “Archaeological Investigations at the Royal Palace of Qatna.” In D. Morandi Bonacossi, (ed.), Urban and Natural Landscapes of an Ancient Syrian Capital: Settlement and Environment at Tell Mishrifeh/ Qatna and in Central- Western Syria. Udine, 2007, 29–64. PHILIP, G. “Warrior Burials in the Ancient Near Eastern Bronze Age: The Evidence from Mesopotamia, Western Iran and Syria Palestine.” In S. Campbell and A. Green, (eds), The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East. Oxford, 1995, 140–154. P ITARD, W. T. “The Ugaritic Funerary Text RS 34.126.” BASOR (1978), 65–75. ––. Ancient Damascus. Winona Lake, IN, 1987.

190

Bibliography

––. “A New Edition of the “R pi’ma” Texts: KTU 1.20–22.” BASOR (1992), 33–77. ––. “The “Libation Installations” of the Tombs at Ugarit.” BA 57 (1994), 20–37. ––. “The Rpum Texts.” In W. G. E. Watson and N. Wyatt, (eds), Handbook of Ugaritic Studies. Leiden Boston, 1999, 259–269. P OLLOCK, S. “Of Priestesses, Princes and Poor Relations: The Dead in the Royal Cemetery of Ur.” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 1 (1991), 171–189. POPE, M. “Notes on the Rephaim Texts from Ugarit.” In M. de Jonge Ellis, (ed.), Essays on the Ancient Near East in Memory of Jacob Joel Finkelstein. Hamden, 1977, 163–182. PORADA, E. “Notes on the Sarcophagus of Ahiram.” JANES 5 (1973), 354–372. PORTER, A. “Communities in Conflict: Death and the Contest for Social Order in the Euphrates River Valley.” NEA 65 (2002), 156–173. ––. “The Dynamics of Death: Ancestors, Pastoralism, and the Origins of a ThirdMillennium City in Syria.” BASOR 325 (2002), 1–36. POSTGATE, J. N. “Early Dynastic Burial Customs at Abu Salabikh.” Sumer 36 (1980), 65–82. ––. Early Mesopotamia: Society and Economy at the Dawn of History. New York, 1994. PRICE, S. R. F. “From Noble Funerals to Divine Cult: the Consecration of Roman Emperors.” In D. Cannadine and S. R. F. Price, (eds), Rituals of Royalty: Power and Ceremonial in Traditional Societies. Cambridge, 1987, 56–105. PRIEST, J. “Huldah’s Oracle.” VT 30 (1980), 366–368. P ROVAN, I. W. Hezekiah and the Books of Kings: A Contribution to the Debate About the Composition of the Deuteronomistic History. (BZAW). Berlin, 1988. P UECH, E. “Palestinian Funerary Inscriptions.” In D. N. Freedman, (ed.), Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York, 1992, 126–135. DE P URY , A., and T. R ÖMER , eds. Die sogenannte Thronfolgegeschichte Davids: Neue Einsichten und Anfragen Bd. 176, OBO. Freiburg, Schweiz; Göttingen: Universitätsverlag; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. R ABINOWITZ, I. “‘z Followed by Imperfect Verb-Form in Preterite Contexts: A Redactional Device in Biblical Hebrew.” VT 34 (1984), 53–62. VON R AD , G. Studies in Deuteronomy. Chicago, 1953. R AHMANI, L. Y. “Ancient Jerusalem’s Funerary Customs and Tombs: Part One.” BA 44 (1981), 171–177. ––. “Ancient Jerusalem’s Funerary Customs and Tombs: Part Two.” BA 44 (1981), 229– 235. ––. “Ossuaries and Ossilegium (Bone-Gathering) in the Late Second Temple Period.” In H. Geva, (ed.), Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Jerusalem, 1994, 191–205. R AINEY, A. F. Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets: A Linguistic Analysis of the Mixed Dialect Used by Scribes from Canaan. Leiden & New York, 1996. R EHM, E. Dynastensarkophage mit szenischen Reliefs aus Byblos und Zypern. (FPZP). Mainz, 2004. ––. Dynastensarkophage mit szenischen Reliefs aus Byblos und Zypern. Teil 1.1 Der Ahiram-Sarkophag. (Forschungen zur Phönizisch-Punischen und Zyprischen Plastik, Band II.1.1.). Mainz am Rhein, 2004. REICH, R. “The Ancient Burial Ground in the Mamilla Neighborhood, Jerusalem.” In H. Geva, (ed.), Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Jerusalem, 1994, 111–118. ––. “Raymond Weill’s Excavations in the City of David (1913–1914)–a Reassessment.” In H. Shanks, (ed.), The City of David: Revisiting Early Excavations. English Translations of Reports by Raymond Weill and L.-H. Vincent. Washington, DC, 2004, 123–152.

Bibliography

191

R EISNER, G. A., C. S. FISHER, and D. G. L YON. Harvard Excavations at Samaria, 1908– 1910. Vol. 1: Text (Harvard Semitic Series). Cambridge, 1924. ––. Harvard Excavations at Samaria, 1908–1910. Vol. 2: Plans and plates (Harvard Semitic Series). Cambridge, 1924. R ENZ, J. Die Althebräischen Inschriften. (Handbuch der Althebräischen Epigraphik). Darmstadt, 1995. R ICHARDSON, S. “An Assyrian Garden of Ancestors: Room I, Northwest Palace, Kalhu.” SAAB 13 (1999–2001), 145–216. ––. “Death and Dismemberment in Mesopotamia: Discorporation between the Body and Body Politic.” In Laneri, (ed.), Performing Death, 189–208. R ICHTER, W. “Zu den «Richtern Israels».” ZAW 77 (1965), 40–72. R OBB, J. “Burial Treatment as Transformations of Bodily Ideology.” In Laneri, (ed.), Performing Death, 287–297. R OGERSON, J. W. “Anthropology and the Old Testament.” In R. E. Clements, (ed.), The World of Ancient Israel : Sociological, Anthropological, and Political Perspectives. Cambridge [England] ; New York, 1989, 3–16. R ÖLLIG, W. “Zur Typologie und Entstehung der Babylonischen und Assyrischen Königslisten.” In M. Dietrich and W. Röllig, (eds), Lian miturt. Kevelaer, 1969, 265–277. R ÖMER, T. Israels Väter: Untersuchungen zur Väterthematik im Deutoronomium und in der Deuteronomistischen Tradition. (Obo). Freiburg & Göttingen, 1990. ––. “Le Deutéronome à La Quête des Origines.” In P. Haudebert, (ed.), Le Pentateuque, Débats et Recherches. Paris, 1992, 65–98. Translated by P.T. Daniels and republished as “Deuteronomy in Search of Origins” in Knoppers and McConville, (eds), Reconsidering Israel and Judah: 112–138. ––. “The Book of Deuteronomy.” In S. L. McKenzie, (ed.), The History of Israel’s Traditions, 178–212. ––. The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical and Literary Introduction. London & New York, 2005. ROST, L. Die Überlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids. (Bwant). Stuttgart, 1926. ––. The Succession to the Throne of David. Translated by M. D. Rutter and D. M. Gunn. (Historic Texts and Interpreters in Biblical Scholarship). Sheffield, 1982. R OUILLARD, H. “Rephaim.” In K. van der Toorn, B. Becking and P. W. van der Horst, (eds), Dictionary of Demons and Deities in the Bible. Leiden, 1999, 692–700. SADER, H. Les États Araméens de Syrie. (Beiruter Texte und Studien). Beirut, 1987. SALLES, J.-F. “Rituel Mortuaire et Rituel Social à Ras Shamra / Ougarit.” In S. Campbell and A. Green, (eds), The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East. Oxford, 1995, 171–184. SAXE, A. A. “Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices in a Mesolithic Population from Wadi Halfa, Sudan.” In J. A. Brown, (ed.), Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices. Washington, 1971, 39–57. SCHAEFFER, C. F.-A. Ugaritica IV. (Mission de Ras Shamra XV). Paris, 1962. S CHAEFFER, C. F. A. “Reprise des Recherches Archéologiques à Ras Shamra-Ugarit Sondages de 1948 et 1949 et Campagne de 1950.” Syria 28 (1951), 1–21. SCHLOEN, J. D. The House of the Father as Fact and Symbol: Patrimonialism in Ugarit and the Ancient Near East. (Studies in the Archaeology and History of the Levant). Winona Lake, IN, 2001. SCHMIDT, B. B. “A Re-Evaluation of the Ugaritic King List (KTU 1.113).” In N. Wyatt, W. G. E. Watson and J. B. Lloyd, (eds), Ugarit, Religion and Culture: Essays Presented in Honour of Professor John C.L. Gibson. Münster, 1996, 289–304.

192

Bibliography

––. Israel’s Beneficent Dead: Ancestor Cult and Necromancy in Ancient Israelite Religion and Tradition. Winona Lake, 1996. ––. “Afterlife Beliefs: Memory as Immortality.” NEA 63 (2000), 236–239. SCHNIEDEWIND, W. M. “Tel Dan Stela: New Light on Aramaic and Jehu’s Revolt.” BASOR 302 (1996), 75–90. ––. “The Problem with Kings: Recent Study of the Deuteronomistic History.” Religious Studies Review 22 (1996), 22–27. ––. Society and the Promise to David: the Reception History of 2 Samuel 7:1–17. New York, 1999. ––. “Jerusalem, the Late Judahite Monarchy, and the Composition of the Biblical Texts.” In A. G. Vaughn and A. E. Killebrew, (eds), Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: the First Temple Period. Atlanta, 2003, 375–393. ––. How the Bible Became a Book: the Textualization of Ancient Israel. New York, 2004. SCHREINER, J. “twOdalawOt; tôledôt.” In G. J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren and H.-J. Fabry, (eds), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, 2001, 582–588. SEGERT, S. A Basic Grammar of the Ugaritic Language: With Selected Texts and Glossary. Berkeley, 1985. SEITZ, C. R. Theology in Conflict: Reactions to the Exile in the Book of Jeremiah. Berlin, 1989. SELZ, G. “Early Dynastic Vessels in ‘Ritual’ Contexts.” WZKM 94 (2004), 185–232. SEYBOLD, K. “art. K7lem@E; melek.” In G. J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren and H.-J. Fabry, (eds), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, 1997, 352–374. SHANKS, H. The City of David: A Guide to Biblical Jerusalem. Tel Aviv, 1973. SHIPP, R. M. Of Dead Kings and Dirges: Myth and Meaning in Isaiah 14:4b–21. (Academia Biblica). Atlanta, 2002. SIMONS, J. J. Jerusalem in the Old Testament. Leiden, 1952. SINGER, I. “A Political History of Ugarit.” In W. G. E. Watson and N. Wyatt, (eds), Handbook of Ugaritic Studies. Leiden and Boston, 1999, 603–733. SKAIST, A. “The Ancestor Cult and Succession in Mesopotamia.” In B. Alster, (ed.), Death in Mesopotamia. Copenhagen, 1980, 123–128. SKINNER, J. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis. (ICC). New York, 1910. SMEND, R. “Das Gesetz und die Völker: Ein Beitrag zur Deuteronomistischen Redaktionsgeschichte.” In H. W. Wolff, (ed.), Probleme Biblischer Theologie: Gerhard von Rad zum 70. Geburtstag. München, 1971, 494–509. Trans. by P.T. Daniels and republished as “The Law and the Nations: A Contribution to Deuteronomistic Tradition History,” in Knoppers and McConville, (eds), Reconsidering Israel and Judah, 95–110. ––. Die Entstehung des Alten Testaments. (Theologische Wissenschaft). Stuttgart, 1978. SMIT, E. J. “Death- and Burial Formulas in Kings and Chronicles Relating to the Kings of Judah.” Biblical Essays: Proceedings of the Ninth Meeting of the “Die OuTestamentiese Werkgemeenskap in Suid-Afrika.”. Ptschefstroom, 1966, 173–177. ––. “So How Did Jehoiakim die?” Journal of Semitics 6 (1994), 45–56. SMITH, M. S. “Rephaim.” In D. N. Freedman, (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York, 1992, 674–676. ––. The Ugaritic Baal Cycle. Leiden & New York, 1994. ––. “The Death of “Dying and Rising Gods” In the Biblical World: An Update, with Special Reference to Baal in the Baal Cycle.” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 12 (1998), 257–313. ––. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts. New York, 2001.

Bibliography

193

––. “Recent Study of Israelite Religion in Light of the Ugaritic Texts.” In K. L. Younger, (ed.), Ugarit at Seventy-Five. Winona Lake, Ind., 2007, 1–25. SPEISER, E. A. ““People” and “Nation” of Israel.” JBL 79 (1960), 157–163. SPIECKERMANN, H. Juda unter Assur in der Sargonidenzeit. (FRLANT). Göttingen, 1982. SPRONK, K. Beatific Afterlife in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East. Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1986. ––. “The Incantations.” In W. G. E. Watson and N. Wyatt, (eds), Handbook of Ugaritic Studies. Leiden and Boston, 1999, 270–286. ––. “Good Death and Bad Death in Ancient Israel According to Biblical Lore.” Social Science & Medicine 58 (2004). STAGER, L. “The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel.” BASOR 260 (1985), 1–35. ––. “The Patrimonial Kingdom of Solomon.” In W. G. Dever, Gitin, Seymour, (ed.), Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina. Winona Lake, 2003, 63–74. STARCKY, J. “Une inscription phénicienne de Byblos.” MUSJ 45 (Mélanges offerts à M. Maurice Dunand) (1969), 259–273. STARODOUB-SCHARR, K. “The Royal Garden in the Great Royal Palace of Ugarit: To the Interpretation of the Sacral Aspect of the Royalty in Ancient Palestine and Syria.” In R. Margolin and H. Weiss, (eds), Proceedings of the Twelfth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem. Jerusalem, 1999, 253*–268*. STAVRAKOPOULOU, F. King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice: Biblical Distortions of Historical Realities. (BZAW). Berlin, 2004. ––. “Ancestral Advocacy and Dynastic Dynamics in the Books of Kings.” In P. McCosker and H. Wansbrough, (eds), What is It That the Scripture Says? Essays in Biblical Interpretation, Translation, and Reception in Honour of Henry Wansbrough OSB. London, 2006, 10–24. ––. “Exploring the Garden of Uzza: Death, Burial and Ideologies of Kingship.” Bib 87 (2006), 1–21. ––. “Gog’s Grave and the Use and Abuse of Corpses in Ezekiel 39:11–20.” JBL 129 (2010), 67–84. STEIBLE, H., and H. B EHRENS. Die Altsumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften: Inschriften aus “Laga”. (Freiburger Altorientalische Studien). Wiesbaden, 1982. STEUERNAGEL, C. Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Tübingen, 1912. STEUERNAGEL, G., and U. SCHULZE. “Zur Aussage wytfbo)j-M(i bk@a#$;y,IwA in den Büchern der Könige sowie in II Chronik.” ZAW 120 (2008), 267–275. SURIANO, M. J. “The Apology of Hazael: A Literary and Historical Analysis of the Tel Dan Inscription.” JNES 66 (2007), 163–176. ––. “Dynasty Building at Ugarit: The Ritual and Political Context of KTU 1.161.” AuOr 27 (2009), 5–22. ––. “Underworld, Descent into the.” In K. D. Sakenfeld, (ed.), The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Nashville, TN, 2009, 710–712. ––. “Death, Disinheritance, and Job’s Kinsman-Redeemer.” JBL 129 (2010), 49–66. ––. “Historical-Geography of the Levant.” In A. Killebrew and M. Steiner, (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant (Ca. 8000–332 BCE). Oxford, forthcoming. SWEENEY, M. A. “The Critique of Solomon in the Josianic Edition of the Deuteronomistic History.” JBL 114 (1995), 607–622. ––. I & II Kings: A Commentary. (OTL). Louisville, 2007.

194

Bibliography

T ADMOR, H. “Autobiographical Apology in Royal Assyrian Literature.” In H. Tadmor and M. Weinfeld, (eds), History, Historiography and Interpretation. Jerusalem, 1983, 36–57. TARLER, D., and J. M. C AHILL. “David, City of “ In D. N. Freedman, (ed.), Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York, 1992, 52–67. TATLOCK, J. “How in Ancient Times They Sacrificed People: Human Immolation in the Eastern Mediterranean Basin with Special Emphasis on Ancient Israel and the Near East.” Unpublished Ph.D dissertation, University of Michigan, 2006. T AYLOR, J. G. “The First and Last Thing to Do in Mourning: KTU 1.161 and Some Parallels.” In L. M. Eslinger and G. Taylor, (eds), Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical & Other Studies in Memory of Peter C. Craigie. Sheffield, England, 1988, 151–177. T HIELE, E. R. The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. Grand Rapids, 1983. T HUREAU-D ANGIN, F. Recueil de Tablettes Chaldéennes. Paris, 1903. TIMM, S. Die Dynastie Omri: Quellen und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Israels im 9. Jahrhundert vor Christus. (FRLANT). Göttingen, 1982. T OOMBS, L. E. “Throne.” In G. A. Buttrick, (ed.), The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. New York, 1962, 636–637. VAN DER T OORN , K. “Funerary Rituals and Beatific Afterlife in Ugaritic Texts and in the Bible.” BiOr 48 (1991), 40–66. ––. Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria, and Israel. (SHCANE 7). Leiden, 1996. T REBOLLE B ARRERA, J. “Redaction, Recension, and Midrash in the Books of Kings.” BIOSCS 15 (1982), 12–35. Reprinted in Knoppers and McConville, (eds), Reconsidering Israel and Judah, 2000, 475–492. T ROMP, N. J. Primitive Conceptions of Death and the Netherworld in the Old Testament. (Biblica et Orientalia). Rome, 1969. TROPPER, J. Nekromantie: Totenbefragung im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament. (AOAT). Kevelaer, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1989. ––. Ugaritische Grammatik. (AOAT). Münster, 2000. T SUKIMOTO, A. “Aspekte von kispu(m) als “Totenbeigabe”.” In B. Alster, (ed.), Death in Mesopotamia. Copenhagen, 1980, 129–138. ––. Untersuchungen zur Totenpflege (kispum) im alten Mesopotamien. (AOAT Bd. 216). Kevelaer, 1985. TSUMURA, D. T. “The Interpretation of the Ugaritic Funerary Text KTU 1.161.” In E. Matsushima, (ed.), Official Cult and Popular Religion in the Ancient Near East. Heidelberg, 1993, 40–55. TUBB, J. N. “Sa’idiyeh, Tell es-.” In E. Stern, (ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Jerusalem, 1993, 1299–1300. T URNER, V. W. The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual. Ithaca, NY, 1967. ––. The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. (The Lewis Henry Morgan Lectures, 1966). New York, 1995. U SSISHKIN, D. The Village of Silwan: the Necropolis from the Period of the Judean Kingdom. Jerusalem, 1993. ––. “Megiddo and Samaria: A Rejoinder to Norma Franklin.” BASOR 348 (2007), 49–70. ––. “The Disappearance of Two Royal Burials.” BARev 33 (2007), 68–70. U ZIEL, J., and I. SHAI. “Iron Age Jerusalem: Temple-Palace, Capital City.” JAOS 127 (2008), 161–170. VAN G ENNEP , A. Les Rites de Passage. Paris, 1909. ––. The Rites of Passage. Translated by M. Vizedom and G. L. Caffee. Chicago, 1960. VAN K EULEN , P. S. F. “The Meaning of the Phrase WN’SPT ‘AL QBRTYK BSLWM in 2 Kings xxii 20.” VT 46 (1996), 256–260.

Bibliography

195

V AN SETERS, J. In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History. New Haven, 1983. V ANDERK AM, J. C. “Davidic Complicity in the Deaths of Abner and Eshbaal: A Historical and Redactional Study.” JBL 99 (1980), 521–539. V INCENT, L. H. Jérusalem de L’ancien Testament, Recherches D’archéologie et D’histoire. Paris, 1954. W ÄCHTER, L. Der Tod im Alten Testament. Stuttgart, 1967. W ALTKE, B. K., and M. P. O’C ONNOR. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, 1990. W EBER, M. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Translated by E. Fischoff. Berkeley, 1978. W EILL, R. La Cité de David, Compte-Rendu des Fouilles Exécutées, à Jérusalem, Sur Le Site de La Ville Primative, Deuxième Campagne 1913–1914. Paris, 1920. W EILL, R., and L.-H. V INCENT. The City of David: Revisiting Early Excavations. English Translations of Reports by Raymond Weill and L.-H. Vincent. Translated by R. Reich and H. Shanks. Washington, DC, 2004. W EINFELD, M. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Winona Lake, 1992. W EIPPERT, H. “Die ‘Deuteronomistischen’ Beurteilungen der Könige von Israel und Juda und das Problem der Redaktion der Königsbücher.” Bib 53 (1972), 301–339. ––. “Das Deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk: Sein Ziel und Ende in der Neueren Forschung.” TRu 50 (1985), 217–249. ––. “Geschichten und Geschichte: Verheißung und Erfüllung im Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk.” In J. A. Emerton, (ed.), Congress Volume: Leuven, 1989. Leiden, 1989, 116–131. Translated by P.T. Daniels and republished as ““Histories” and “History”: Promise and Fulfillment in the Deuteronomistic Historical Work,” in Knoppers and McConville, (eds), Reconsidering Israel and Judah, 47–61. W ENNING, R. “Grab.” In M. Görg and B. Lang, (eds), Neues Bibel-Lexikon. Zürich, 1991, 942–946. ––. “Bestattungen im königszeitlichen Juda.” ThQ 177 (1997), 82–93. ––. ““... und Begruben ihn im Grab Seines Vaters”. Zur Bedeutung von Bestattungen im Alten Israel.” Bibel und Kirche 61 (2006), 8–15. W ESTENHOLZ, A. “bertum, damtum, and Old Akkadian KI.GAL: Burial of Dead Enemies in Ancient Mesopotamia.” AfO 23, 27–31. W ESTERMANN, C. Genesis 12–36. (Continental Commentary) Trans. by J.J. Scullion. Minneapolis, 1985. W HITE, M. C. The Elijah Legends and Jehu’s Coup. (BJS 311). Atlanta, 1997. W HYBRAY, R. N. The Succession Narrative; a Study of II Samuel 9–20, and I Kings 1 and 2. (Studies in Biblical Theology, 2nd Series). Naperville, Ill.,, 1968. W IGGINS, S. A. “Shapsh, Lamp of the Gods.” In N. Wyatt, W. G. E. Watson and J. B. Lloyd, (eds), Ugarit, Religion and Culture: Essays Presented in Honour of Professor John C.L. Gibson. Münster, 1996, 327–350. W ILCKE, C. “Genealogical and Geographical Thought in the Sumerian King List.” In H. Behrens, D. Loding and M. T. Roth, (eds), Dumu-E 2-Dub-Ba-A: Studies in Honor of Åke W. Sjöberg. Philadelphia, 1989, 557–571. W ILLIAMSON, H. G. M. “The Death of Josiah and the Continuing Development of the Deuteronomic History.” VT 32 (1982), 242–248. W ILSON, R. R. Genealogy and History in the Biblical World. (Yale Near Eastern Researches). New Haven, 1977.

196

Bibliography

––. “The Former Prophets: Reading the Book of Kings.” In J. L. Mays, D. L. Petersen and K. H. Richards, (eds), Old Testament Interpretation: Past, Present, and Future. Essays in Honor of Gene M. Tucker. Nashville, 1995, 83–96. ––. “Unity and Diversity in the Book of Kings.” In S. Olyan and R. Culley, (eds), “A Wise and Discerning Mind.” Essays in Honor of Burke O. Long. Providence, 2000, 293–310. W INTER, I. “After the Battle is Over: The Stele of the Vultures and the Beginning of Historical Narrative in the Art of the Ancient Near East.” In H. Kessler and M. Simpson, (eds), Pictorial Narrative in Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Washington, DC, 1985, 11–32. W ISEMAN, D. J. The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon. London, 1958. W OOLLEY, C. L. Ur Excavations. London, 1934. W RIGHT, D. P. The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature. Atlanta, 1987. W ÜRTHWEIN, E. Die Erzählung von der Thronfolge Davids – Theologische Oder Politische Geschichtsschreibung? (Theologische Studien). Zürich, 1974. ––. Die Bücher der Könige: 1. Kön. 1–16. Göttingen, 1977. ––. Die Bücher der Könige: 1. Kön. 17–2. Kön. 25. Göttingen, 1984. W YATT, N. Religious Texts from Ugarit. (Biblical Seminar). London, New York, 2002. Y AMADA, S. “The Editorial History of the Assyrian King List.” ZA 84 (1994), 11–37. Y EIVIN, S. “The Sepulchres of the Kings of the House of David.” JNES 7 (1948), 30–45. Y ON, M. La cité d’Ougarit sur le tell de Ras Shamra. (Guides archâeologiques de l’Institut français d’archâeologie du Proche-Orient). Paris, 1997. ––. The City of Ugarit at Tell Ras Shamra. Winona Lake, 2006. Y OUNGER JR., K. L. “The Kulamuwa Inscription (2.30).” In Hallo and Younger, (eds), COS 2. Leiden, 2000, 147–148. ––. “Yahweh at Ashkelon and Calah? Yahwistic Names in Neo-Assyrian.” VT 52 (2002), 207–218. ––. “‘Hazael, Son of a Nobody’: Some Reflections in Light of Recent Study.” In P. Bienkowski, C. Mee and E. A. Slater, (eds), Writing and Ancient Near Eastern Society. New York ; London, 2005, 245–270. ZEWI, T. “Biblical Parallels in Biblical Hebrew Syntax.” ZAH 17–20 (2004–2007), 230– 246. ZIMMERLI, W. Ezekiel 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel. Translated by P. D. Hanson. (Hermeneia). Philadelphia, 1982. ZORN, J. R. “The Burials of the Judean Kings: Sociohistorical Considerations and Suggestions.” In A. M. Maeir and P. d. Miroschedji, (eds), “I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times.” Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday. Winona Lake, 2006, 801–820.

Scripture Index Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Genesis 1–11 1:43 2:4 5 5:1 5:28–32 6:4 11:10–26 11:10–32 11:27 12–50 15:11 15:15 25 25:5 25:6 25:8 25:9–10 25:11 25:12 25:12–16 25:12–17 25:12–18 25:13–15 25:17 35:20 35:27 35:28–29a 35:31 35:32 35:32 35:32–39 35:34 35:38–39 36:1 9 36:31–43

167 138 168 168 168 168 164 168 168 168 167 102 40 168 46 46 46 46 46 169 47 169 47 169 44, 47, 168, 169 112 46 46 139 138 35, 39, 139 138 139 139 138 32

36:31–39 36:31–43 37 37:35 41:35 47:30 48 49 49:1–27 49:3–4 49:11 49:29 47 49:30–31 49:30–32 49:33 33 49–50:1–13 50:2–3 50:5

138 127, 132 168 147 131 47, 48, 71 47 47 47 45 45 169 46 44 46 81 46 47

Exodus 1:6 15:17 17:12

49 80 132

Numbers 13:33 20:22 20:24 20:26b 20:28 20:29 22:23–24 22:27

164 47 47, 48 48 48 48 47 145

Deuteronomy 2:11 164

198

Scripture Index

3:11 10:6b 12 17:14–20 17:18 28:26 31:14–23 31:16 32:22 34:6 34:6

159 48 83 83 129 66, 67 48 48 131 47 112

Joshua 12:4 13:12 15:63 18:28 20:4

159 159 125 125 39

Judges 2:10 2:10 2:11–19 2:6–9 2:8–9 3:30 10:1–5 12:7–15

43 48 89 49 49 48, 49 131 134, 139 134, 139

1 Samuel 9:2 10:2 12 17

158 112 81 160

2 Samuel 1:19 3:10 5:5 5:6–11 6:3–7 7 7:4–7 7:8–16 7:11 7:11–16 7:1–16 7:1–17 7:12

25, 27, 164 128 79 125 108 23, 24, 50, 75, 80, 81, 96, 97, 166, 167, 172, 173 76 76 76 167 76 76 76 79 156 166 174

7:13 7:13–16 7:16 9–20 9–25 10:1 10:1–2 15:30 16:5–8 16:8 18:18 19:38 21:1 21:1–14 21:10 21:13 21:15–22 21:16 21:19 21:22 28:15

76 77 79 81 82 166 80, 81 77, 78, 81 81 140 18 15 67 69 57 53 67 67 67 39 159, 166 18, 159 160 160 162

1 Kings 1–2 1:12 1:17 1:20 1:20 1:21 1:30 1:35 1:37 1:46 2:1–9 2:1–12 2:1–13 2:2 2:10 2:10–11 2:10–12 2:11 2:12 2:13–25 2:13–45 2:13–46 2:24 82 2:46 5:8 8:20 9:26

77, 78, 80, 81 128, 130 78, 82 78, 79, 81 27, 129 26, 77, 78, 79, 86, 97 35, 129, 144 130 47, 128 128 29 81 81 77 35 77, 79, 97 81 79 79 79, 80, 129, 130, 136 77 80 29 130 80 83 129, 130 86

Scripture Index 10:18–20 10–12 11:11–13 11:1–4 11:14–22 11:21 11:23–25 11:38 11:5–10 13:28–31 14:40 14:6–16 14:7–16 15:27–30 15:27–31 15:8 16:10 16:10–14 16:11–13 16:1–4 70 16:15 16:15–22 16:17 16:18 16:21–22 16:22 16:24 16:28 73 16:6 16:9–20 20–22 21:21–24 22:34–35 22:37 74 22:38 22:39–40 22:39 22:40 22:41–50 22:51 22:51–53

130 29 83 82 82 82, 83, 97 82 166 82 53 73 166 70 70 73 121, 123 134 73 70 130 133 133 133 133 133 133 125 119 73, 119, 125 130 73 70 74 122 74 74 22 73, 74 74 22, 23, 132, 166 74

2 Kings 1:17 1:18 3:1 8:20 9:24–26 9:25–26 9:28

132 133 133 131 73 70 112, 122, 123

9:36–37 9:6–10 10:10 10:17 10:30 10:31 10:35 11:1–2 11:4–20 11:14, 18 11:20 11:19 12:19–20 12:20 12:21–22 12:22 12:25 12:26 13:3–7 13:5 13:9 13:9–13 13:10–13 13:12 13:13 13:14–21 13:22–25 13:24 13–14 14:5 14:7–14 14:8–14 14:11–13 14:14 14:15–16 14:16 14:17 14:17–22 14:18 14:19 14:19–20 14:19–22 14:20 14:20 14:20–22 14:21 14:22 14:28 14:29

199 70 70 70 70 129 136 167 121 73 84 84 88 88 128 87 87 87 84, 122 87 87 135 131 73, 121 135 137 135 73, 74, 120, 128, 129, 130, 135–137 135 135, 137 140 135 80 135 137 86 135 135, 137 73, 74, 120, 135, 136, 137 85, 137 85 87 86, 87 87 85 86, 123 22, 74 87 86, 88 84, 85, 86 120 73

200 15:7 15:10 15:10–11 15:12 15:14–15 15:22 15:25–26 15:30–31 16:6 16:20 17 17:4 17:7 18:1 18:18 21:18 21:23–24 21:23–26 21:24 21:26 22:15–20 22:16–17 22:18–20 22:20 23:29–30 23:30 23:33–34 23:34 23:37 24:6 24:12–16 24:18–25 24:19 25:4–7 25:6–7 25:27–30

Scripture Index 121 74 73 136 73 73 73 73 86 118 173 73 131 172 99 108, 118 87 122 92 108, 112, 118, 122 89 90 90 43, 48, 89, 91, 97 90 89, 92, 112, 122 92 93, 111 95 93, 95, 167 93 95 95 95 89 93 95

1 Chronicles 1–9 168 1:29 168 1:35–54 138 1:43 138 1:43–50 132, 138 6:8 160 13:7–11 108 20:6 8 160

2 Chronicles 16:13–14 110

16:14 16:25 21:19 21:20 24:25 26:23 32:33 33:20 35:24 36:6 36:8

17 38 17 110 110 109, 110 17 112 90 94 93

Isaiah 14 14:4–23 14:4–6 14:7–8 14:9 14:9–17 14:10 14:18 14:19 14:20 14:21 14:22 22:15–16 22:16 22:9–11 26:14, 19 44:23 57:8 65:3–5

161 161 161 161 131, 160, 161, 162, 163 161 163 99, 161 161, 165 161 162 162 113 113 118 160 131 39 110

Jeremiah 7:32–34 8:2 8:1–3 16:6 21:7 22:18–19 22:19 22:2, 4 22:30 23:5–6 25:33 33:14–16 34:5 36:30 36:30–31 39:8

67 39 67 18 95 94 111 128 130 95 39 95 17, 89, 95 111 94 99

201

Scripture Index 52:31–34

93

Ezekiel 1:2 27:31 29:5 31:15–18 31:15–18 31:18 32 161 32:1–16 32:17–32 32:19–20 32:19–21 32:21 32:22–26 32:22–32 32:23 32:25 32:27 32:28 32:29–30 32:32 32:37 36:15 41–43 43:1–12 43:7–9

94 18 39 163 32, 163 163 163 163 163, 164, 166 32, 164 164 164 164 164 165 38, 162 164 156 164 164 164 170 102 102 102, 109, 110, 117

Micah 1:9 1:16

15 18

Daniel 1:1–2

94

Job 1:20 2:8a 3:11–12 3:13–14 3:13–15 3:14–15 3:16 26:6

18 18 72 72 35 72 72 160

Psalms 45:17 49:20 78:37 78:44–55 86:13 88:11

144, 176 40 80 80 131 160

Proverbs 2:18 9:18

160 160

Nehemiah 2:3 3:15–16 3:16

53 103, 109 59, 104

Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books Sirach 51:6

131

1 Esdras 1:37–38

94

New Testament Luke 2:4

124

Acts 2:29

59, 107, 108

Source Index Akkadian ARET 13 Obv. Col. 2, 5

65

EA 286 9–13

143

ARM 11 266: Rev. ll. 3–5

57

MARI 128403

150

EA 55 4–9

143

OIP 2 85 Col. VI b 8–10

66

EA 109 5–7

RS 94.2418

153

143 VTE col. iv, 426–427

66–67

EA 147 41–51

144

Northwest Semitic KAI 1

106, 128

14:9

158

1:2

107

KAI 2

131

KAI 24 13–14

144

KAI 9A-B

72, 156

KAI 117

154

KAI 13 13:7 13:7–8 13:8

72 162 154 162

KAI 118 2

156

KAI 120 1

156

KAI 14 14:3–4 14:7 14:7–9 14:8

72 156 158 155 158, 162

KAI 215 1:16–23

4

KAI 222 A1 5

144

203

Source Index KAI 225 6–8

144

KAI 310 3 4

71, 140 88

KAI 312 B 11

131

Sumerian Ean 1 Obv. Col. 11, 14

Nik 1, 134

4

RTC 156

65

TSA 09

4

VS 14, 137

4

64

Ean 11 A Obv. Cols. 3, 8

65

Ent 28 A Obv., Col. 1, 30

65

Ugaritic KTU 1.5 1.5 VI 24b–25

147

KTU 1.6 1.6 I 7b–9a 1.6 VI 45–47 1.6 VI 48–49

147 152 152

KTU 1.108

153

KTU 1.125 125: 2–3

148

KTU 1.15 1.15 iii 14–15 KTU 1.161

1.161:2–3 1.161:4–5 1.161:2–12 1.161:20 1.161:20–21 1.161:20–21a

152 5, 128, 140– 142, 144, 145 147–152, 154, 159 142 142 141, 145 142 147 142

1.161:20–22a 1.161:22b–25

142, 145, 146 145

1.161:22b–26 1.161:23–26 1.161:25 1.161:27–30 1.161:31–34

142, 145, 146, 147, 164 142 142, 145 145, 146 143, 146

KTU 1.17

152

KTU 1.20 KTU 1.22

152 152

KTU 4.133

145

Author Index Aartun, K., 131, 152 Abou Samra, G., 155, 156, 157 Aharoni, Y., 86 Albright, W.F., 53, 111 Alfrink, B., 26, 27, 34, 35, 37, 41, 49, 76, 85, 91, 167 Al-Khalesi, Y.M., 56, 57 al-Maqdissi, M., 4, 61, 62 Amadasi, M.G., 131, 132, 157 Anderson, G., 147 Applegate, J., 95 Artzi, P., 18 Avioz, M., 50 Avishur, Y., 38, 39, 156 Avi-Yonah, M., 116 Bahat, D., 105 Barkay, G., 13, 14, 20, 31, 34, 37, 38, 39, 43, 44, 53, 59, 100, 104, 105, 108, 115, 116, 117–118, 121 Barrick, W.B., 24, 66, 67 Bartlett, J.R., 139 Barton, J., 77, 168 Baumgartner, W., 72, 99 Beaulieu, P.-A., 41 Begg, C.T., 96 Begrich, J., 28, 29, 73, 85, 121, 136 Behrens, H., 64 Bell, C., 2, 8, 14 Benichou-Safar, H., 39 Benzinger, I., 28 Beuken, W.A.M., 1, 38, 47, 72 Binford, L.R., 16 Bin-Nun, S., 28, 30, 32, 73, 127, 134 Biran, A., 36, 71 Blenkinsopp, J., 123, 161 Bloch-Smith, E., 20, 36, 39, 42, 52, 53, 103, 110, 113 Brettler, M.Z., 80, 128 Brichto, H.C., 6, 41, 162

van den Brink, E.C.M., 54 Brooke, A.E., 94, 108 Broshi, M., 118 Brown, James A., 4, 16, 99 Bunimovitz, S., 52, 53, 100 Burke, A.A., 108, 137 Burney, C.F., 28 Cahill, J.M., 108, 124 Callaway, J.A., 37 Campbell, A.F., 25, 26, 27, 30, 32, 127 Cannadine, D., 6, 11, 14 Caquot, A., 149, 158, 160 Chabot, J.B., 39 Chapman, R., 4 Charpin, D., 4 Childs, B., 49 Cogan, M., 66, 67, 79, 80, 86, 90, 94, 95, 111, 133, 173 Cohen, A., 2, 4, 17, 18 Cook, E.M., 106 Cooke, G.A., 164, 165 Cooley, R.E., 13, 14, 15, 16, 38, 41, 59 Cooper, J.S., 64, 147 Cowley, A.E., 86 Crawford, V.E., 64, 100 Cross, Jr., F.M., 2, 24–25, 31, 83, 90, 138 Dalley, S., 4, 54 Damerji, M.S.B., 4, 54 Davies, D.J., 9, 10, 12 Deller, K., 5 Dequeker, L., 31, 104, 108, 117 Dietrich, M., 5, 24, 26, 142 Driver, G.R., 26, 27, 28, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 44, 48, 73, 85, 167 Durand, J.-M., 56 Dutcher-Walls, P., 26, 84

Author Index Ebach, J., 102 Eisenstadt, S.N., 10 Emerton, J.A., 36 Eynikel, E., 22, 25, 26, 28, 30 Fadhil, A., 54, 172 Fantalkin, A., 52, 113 Faust, A., 52, 53, 100 Finkelstein, I., 75, 150 Fishbane, M.A., 76, 95 Fisher, C.S., 119 Fitzmyer, J.A., 129, 144 Fleming, D.E., 147 Forshey, H., 77 Fox, J., 112 Frankfort, H., 64 Friedrich, J., 131, 132, 157 Frost, S.B., 89, 90, 95 Galil, G., 27 Garfinkel, Y., 165 Garr, W. R., 145 Gehman, H.S., 28, 79, 80, 133 Gelb, I.J., 64, 150 Gesenius, W., 86 Gibson, J.C.L., 154, 156 Ginsberg, H.L., 161 Glassner, J.-J., 150 Glatt-Gilad, D.A., 83 Gonen, R., 52, 56, 59 Good, R.M., 33, 39, 44, 45, 169 Gray, J., 78, 109, 137, 154 Grayson, A.K., 40, 41, 50, 148, 150 Greenfield, J.G., 131, 142, 162, 164 Grosby, S., 10 Haas, V., 18 Hachmann, R., 32, 54, 58, 104, 106 Hallo, William, 4, 7, 154, 159 Hallote, R.S., 100 Halpern, B., 23, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36, 43, 49, 68, 75, 76, 78, 81, 82, 85, 87, 88, 90, 92, 101, 108, 113, 120, 121, 127, 167, 173 Hamilton, M., 12, 22, 27, 45, 71, 73, 158 Hauser, A.J., 135 Hayes, J.H., 36, 92 Hays, C.B., 103 Healey, J.F., 141 Heidel, A., 35, 37, 44

205

Hendel, R.S., 164 Hertz, R., 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 18 Hirschberg, J.W., 104, 118 Hoffmann, H.D., 90, 91 Hoffner, H.A., 81 Hoftijzer, J., 39, 146 van den Hout, T.P.J., 12, 18 Huntington, R., 8, 10, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20 Illman, K-.J., 25, 26, 27, 36, 43, 44 Ingholt, H., 146 Ishida, T., 57, 76, 81, 99, 117, 128 Jacobsen, T., 147 Japhet, S., 168 Jepsen, A., 27, 73 Johnston, Philip, 4, 36 Jones, G.H., 23, 27, 73, 78, 79, 90, 91, 95, 130, 136 Jongeling, K., 39, 132, 146, 156 Joüon, P., 38, 112, 132 Kamil, A., 4, 54 Kamlah, J., 20 Kantorowicz, E.H., 12 Kassian, A., 4 Kautzsch, E., 86 Keel, O., 128, 146 Kenyon, K.M., 103, 105 Kerr, R.M., 39, 132, 156 van Keulen, P.S.F., 36, 89, 91, 92 Kitchen, K.A., 140 Kloner, A., 115, 116 Knibb, M.A., 26 Knoppers, G.N., 24, 77, 78, 79, 82 Köhler, L., 72, 99 Korolev, A., 4 Krahmalkov, C., 39, 131, 132, 156 Kramer, S.N., 4 Kratz, R.G., 138, 168 Krüger, A., 26, 43, 54, 169 L’Heureux, C.E., 143, 154 LaGrange, M.-J., 115 Landsberger, B., 150 Laneria, Nicola, 2, 4, 9, 20, 165 Lange, K.E., 61, 62 Lehmann, R.G., 58, 106, 107 Lemaire, A., 25, 28 Levenson, J.D., 50, 33, 96

206

Author Index

Levine, B.A., 140, 141, 143, 145, 147, 154, 159 Lewis, T.J., 7, 18, 45, 102, 143, 147, 151, 152 Lidzbarski, M., 39 Linville, J.R., 173 Lipiski, E., 169, 170 Lipschits, O., 94, 111 Liverani, M., 84 London, G.A., 37 Long, B.O., 27, 46, 78, 80, 81, 137, 167 Loretz, O., 12, 142 Luckenbill, D.D., 66 Lundberg, M.J., 107 Lyon, D.G., 119 Magness, J., 37 Margueron, J.-C., 55, 56, 57 Matthiae, P., 60 Mayer, W., 5 Mazar, A., 115, 116 Mazar, B., 101, 102, 103, 118, 123 McAlpine, T.H., 38 McCarter, P.K., 67, 68, 81, 107, 114, 154 McCarthy, D.J., 23 McConville, J.G., 24 McGinnis, J., 5 McKay, J.W., 109 McLean, H., 94, 108 Metcalf, P., 8, 9, 10, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20 Meyers, E., 3, 34, 37, 52 Michalowski, Piotr, 4 Miller, J.M., 36, 73, 92, 134 de Miroschedji, P., 119 Montgomery, J.A., 28, 79, 80, 133, 134 Moorey, P.R.S., 57 Morris, Ian, 2, 14, 57, 99 Mullen Jr., E.T., 136 Müller, H.-P., 107, 155 Muraoka, T., 38, 71, 112, 132 Murray, D., 94, 95, 96 Na’aman, N., 6, 31, 34, 84, 85, 99, 101, 102, 103, 109, 111, 125 Naveh, J., 36, 71 Nelson, R.D., 50, 135, 137 Niehr, Herbert, 4, 5, 7, 12, 57, 58, 99, 102, 106 Nieman, D., 102

Noll, K.L., 24 Noth, Martin, 1, 24, 29, 94 Novák, M., 61 Nutkowicz, H., 52, 98, 169 O’Connor, M.P., 131 del Olmo Lete, G., 99, 142, 145, 153 Olyan, S.M., 13, 15, 18, 143, 163 Oppenheim, M., 54, 58 Orthmann, W., 58, 59, 100 Otten, Heinrich, 4, 5, 18 Otto, E., 168 Pakkala, J., 96 Parayre, D., 56 Pardee, D., 3, 5, 59, 131, 132, 140, 141, 142, 146, 151, 153 Parker Pearson, M., 3, 9, 13, 18, 19, 82 Parker, S.B., 3, 9, 13, 18, 19, 82, 153 Parkin, R., 9 Parrot, A., 56, 64 Pedersen, J., 37 Pfälzner, P., 61, 63 Pitard, W., 73, 143, 152 Pollock, S., 54 Pope, M., 141, 142 Porada, E., 106 Porter, A., 16, 19 Postgate, J.N., 54, 100 Pratico, G., 14, 16, 38, 59 Price, S.R.F., 11 Priest, J., 34, 48, 49, 89 Provan, I.W., 25, 26, 30, 31, 36, 91, 101, 124, 125 Puech, E., 114 de Pury, A., 77 Rabinowitz, I., 134 Rahmani, L.Y., 37, 38, 102, 106 Rainey, A.F., 36, 131 Rehm, E., 58, 106, 107, 130 Reich, R., 53, 101, 105 Reifenberg, A., 104 Reisner, G.A., 119 Renz, J., 114 Richardson, S., 4, 64, 65, 99, 110 Richter, W., 27, 135 Robb, J., 12 Robertson, A., 140 Rogerson, J.W., 170

Author Index Röllig, W., 131, 132, 150, 156, 157 Römer, T., 23, 77, 172 Rost, L., 77, 78, 79, 81 Salles, J–F., 3 Sanmartín, J., 99, 145 Saxe, A.A., 99 Schaeffer, C.F.A., 55 Schaeffer, J.-C., 56, 120 Schloen, J.D., 5, 6, 10–11, 14, 100, 154, 170 Schmidt, B.B., 2, 3, 6, 7, 16, 17, 32, 36, 42, 57, 59, 86, 102, 111, 125, 141, 153, 154, 160, 163 Schniedewind, W.M., 23, 24, 25, 50, 75, 76, 80, 88, 94, 118, 173 Schreiner, J., 168 Schulze, U., 26 Segert, S., 145 Seitz, C.R., 36, 94, 95, 111 Selz, G., 64 Seybold, K., 88 Shai, I., 108 Shanks, H., 106 Shipp, R.M., 151, 161, 162, 163 Sidel'tsev, Andrej, 4 Silberman, N.A., 75 Simons, J.J., 101 Singer, I., 140 Skaist, Aron, 3 Skinner, J., 46 Smend, R., 24, 26 Smit, E.J., 28, 29, 36, 93, 94, 95, 96, 121 Smith, M.S., 103, 142, 147, 148, 151, 152, 159 Speiser, E.A., 169, 170 Spieckermann, H., 90, 91 Spronk, Klaas, 4, 45, 102, 141 Stager, L.E., 41, 170 Starcky, J., 43 Starodoub-Scharr, K., 110 Stavrakopoulou, F., 6, 7, 24, 32, 64, 77, 101, 102, 109, 110, 111 Steible, H., 64 Steuernagel, G., 26, 28, 73 Suriano, M.J., 1, 15, 44, 71, 72, 82, 88, 140, 142, 144, 145, 147, 152 Sweeney, M.A., 22, 74, 81, 83, 172, 173

207

Tadmor, H., 81, 86, 90, 94, 133, 173 Tarler, D., 108, 124 de Tarragon, J.-M., 115, 140, 141, 143, 145, 147, 154, 159 Tatlock, J., 68 Taylor, J.G., 146 Thackeray, H. St J., 94, 108 Thiele, E.R., 27 Thureau-Dangin, F., 65 Timm, S., 22 Toombs, L.E., 130 van der Toorn, K., 6, 20, 151 Trebolle Barrera, J., 28, 29, 138 Tromp, N., 36 Tropper, J., 131, 141, 145 Tsukimoto, A., 57, 150 Tsumura, D.T., 143 Tubb, J.N., 165 Turner, Victor, 3, 9, 10 Uziel, J., 108 van Gennep, A., 8, 9, 15, 19 Van Seters, J., 30, 36, 40, 41, 91 Vanderhooft, D.S., 23, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36, 43, 49, 75, 76, 78, 82, 85, 87, 88, 101, 108, 113, 120, 121, 127, 167, 173 VanderKam, J.C., 81 Vincent, L.-H., 101, 104, 108 von Rad, G., 83 von Soden, W., 169, 170 Waltke, B.K., 131, 132 Weill, R., 98, 101, 103, 104–108 Weinfeld, M., 67 Weippert, H., 24, 25, 28, 137 Wenning, R., 13, 14, 32, 38, 43, 59 Westenholz, A., 64, 65 Westermann, C., 138, 139 Whybray, R.N., 77, 82 Wiggins, S.A., 152 Wilcke, C., 139 Williamson, H.G.M., 89 Wilson, R.R., 138, 139, 172 Winter, I., 64 Wiseman, D.J., 67 Woolley, C.L., 54 Wright, David, 2, 15, 18, 102 Würthwein, E., 22, 32, 77, 101, 127, 137

208

Author Index

Wyatt, N., 145

Younger Jr., K.L., 54, 72, 145

Yamada, S., 148, 150 Yeivin, S., 26, 29, 31, 94, 101, 104, 109 Yon, M., 55, 56, 100, 120

Zewi, T., 29, 121 Zimmerli, W., 102, 163, 164 Zorn, J.R., 104, 105, 106

Subject Index ‘Ammishtamru, 150 ‘Ammurapi, 140, 141, 146, 147, 150 Aaron, 46, 47, 48, 78, 108 Abijam, 121, 123 Abraham, 19, 44, 46, 114, 138, 168, 171 Absalom, 57, 68 Absalom's Pillar/Monument, 57 Adonijah, 78, 80, 82 Ahab, 22, 41, 45, 73, 86, 121, 122, 123, 125, 130, 133, 170 Ahaz, 109, 110, 111, 118 Ahaziah, King of Israel, 74, 133 Ahaziah, King of Judah, 84, 85, 112, 122, 123, 133 ’Ahirom, King of Byblos, 106, 107, 128, 130, 154 Amaziah, 41, 74, 81, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 122, 123, 135, 137 Amon, 87, 88, 94, 108, 109, 111, 112, 114, 118, 122, 125 Amorites, 57, 149, 150, 159, 165 Aram-Damascus, 140 Asa, 39, 110, 130, 134 Ashurbanipal, 65, 66, 67 Assyrian King List, 50, 110, 150 Athaliah, 84, 85, 97, 123 Avaris, 54 Azatiwada, 129 Ba‘al, 147, 148 Ba‘al Cycle, 143, 147, 148, 152 Baasha, 73, 119, 125, 130, 133, 134, 171 Bathsheba, 75, 77, 78, 86, 130 Ben-Hadad II, 140 Bethel, 53, 67 Bethlehem, 124 Beth-shemesh, 86 Byblos, 54, 55, 58, 104, 106, 107, 130, 143, 156

Carchemish, 93 City of David, 22, 45, 57, 70, 79, 90, 98, 100, 101, 103, 104, 106, 108, 117, 118, 123, 124, 125, 166 David, 2, 6, 7, 10, 23, 24, 29, 31, 35, 39, 47, 50, 57, 59, 67, 68, 74, 75–82, 83, 84, 87, 89, 90, 92, 93, 95, 96, 97, 98, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 116, 117, 118, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 128, 129, 130, 135, 145, 146, 159, 166, 170–173, 175 Death of Bilgamesh, 55 Ditanu, 145, 149, 152 Dothan, 15, 38, 41, 59 Dumuzi, 147 Durkheim, Émile, 6, 9, 11 Eanatum, 65 Ebla, 55, 59, 65, 108 El, 147 Elah, 73 Elah, son of Baasha, 130 Elath, 85, 86 Eleazar, son of Aaron, 47, 48 Enna-dagan, 65 Entemena, 65 Esarhaddon, 66 Eshmunazor, King of Sidon, 39, 64, 149, 154–158, 161, 162 Fear of the dead, 15, 16 Fortes, Meyer, 2 Gambulu, Aramean tribe of, 65, 67 Garden of Uzza, 64, 88, 90, 92, 93, 94, 103, 104, 108–117, 122, 123 Gilgamesh, 55 Girsu, 4, 65

210

Subject Index

Guzana, 54, 58, 59, 70, 100 Hadad, prince of Edom, 82, 83 Hammurapi, 56, 150 Hazael, King of Aram-Damascus, 71, 72, 82, 88, 140 Hebron, 44, 46, 79 Hezekiah, 6, 25, 26, 30, 31, 36, 45, 66, 75, 84, 91, 100, 101, 103, 108, 111, 114, 116, 117, 118, 121, 123, 125, 167, 174 Hoshea, 73 Huldah, 34, 48, 49, 89, 90, 91, 96, 97 Hyksos, 54 Isaac, 19, 44, 46, 114, 171 Ishmael, 44, 46, 47, 169, 171 Ittoba‘al, King of Byblos, 106 Jacob, 19, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 81, 114, 167, 171 Jehoahaz, King of Judah, 88, 90, 92, 93, 111, 126 Jehoash, King of Israel, 86, 87, 97, 130, 135 Jehoash, King of Judah, 84, 85, 88, 110, 122 Jehoiachin, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 111, 126, 130, 167, 174 Jehoiakim, 41, 84, 88, 89, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 108, 111, 112, 118, 126, 167, 174 Jehoram, King of Israel, 73, 133 Jehoram, King of Judah, 110 Jehoshaphat, 22, 45, 73, 132, 141, 170 Jehu, 73, 74, 97, 120, 121, 125, 130, 135, 136, 137, 167, 171 Jerusalem, 7, 11, 30, 31, 38, 45, 51, 53, 57, 59, 64, 75, 79, 83, 84, 85, 87, 90, 93, 95, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 143, 172 Jezebel, 123 Josiah, 24, 34, 41, 67, 75, 83, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 96, 97, 111, 112, 114, 122, 172 Kalhu, 4 Kantorowicz, Ernst, 12

Ketef Hinnom, 38, 113 Kulumuwa, King of Sam'al, 129 Kumidi, 58, 104, 106 Lachish, 87 Lagash, 64, 65 Machpelah, Cave of, 19, 44, 46, 114 Manasseh, 84, 94, 108, 109, 112, 114, 118, 123, 125 Mari, 52, 55, 56, 57, 59, 65, 139, 141, 150, 175 Megiddo, 56, 89, 90, 98, 99, 109, 120, 130 Menahem, 73, 171 Moses, 35, 46, 47, 48, 112, 114, 132, 160, 167 Nadab, 73 Nathan, 75, 76, 82 Nebi Yunus inscription, 66 Necho, 89, 92, 93 Necromancy, 2, 20, 141, 162 Nimrud, Iraq, 4 Niqmaddu III, 140, 141, 142, 146, 147 Omri, 45, 73, 119, 125, 130, 133, 167, 170, 171, 172, 173, 176 Panamuwa, 4 Pekah, 73 Pekahiah, 73 Qatna, 4, 60, 143 Qana, 5, 55, 63, 69, 102, 108, 157 Rehoboam, 83 Rephaim, 140, 141, 142, 145, 149, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 164, 165, 166 Reuben, 45 Ricouer, Paul, 5, 14 Rizpah, 67, 68 Royal Tombs of Ur, 54 Sam‘al, 4, 54 ami-Adad, 150 Sargon II, King of Assyria, 161 Saul, 13, 39, 64, 67, 68, 128, 139, 162, 164

Subject Index

211

Sennacherib, 66 Shallum, 73, 137 Shapshu, 147, 152 Sidon, 55, 154, 157, 158, 162, 164, 166 Solomon, 29, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 97, 128, 130, 137, 145, 172 Sumerian King List, 139, 148

147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 160, 165, 170 Umma, 64, 65 Urnane, 64 Uruk, 55 Uzziah, 52, 85, 86, 87, 88, 109, 110, 121, 123

Tabnit, King of Sidon, 39, 154, 156, 161, 162 Tel Dan Stele, 36, 72, 82 Tell Halaf. See Guzana Tell Hariri. See Mari Tell Mirefe. See Qatna Tibni, 133, 134

Weber, Max, 10, 11, 12

Ugarit, 3, 4, 5, 11, 55, 56, 100, 103, 108, 119, 120, 140, 141, 144, 145,

Zechariah, King of Israel, 73, 74, 136, 137 Zedekiah, 88, 89, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 111, 126 Zimri, 130, 133, 134 Zimri-Lim, 56, 57