The Abimelech Account (9)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CHAPTER TWO THE ABIMELECH ACCOUNT (9) The Abimelech account is preceded by a passage that deals with transgression (8:33–35), and contains details related to the Abimelech account. In the structure of the Book of Judges, the description of transgression is generally followed by the deliverance by the judge. Hence, the author wished to create the expectation that Abimelech would deliver Israel. The Abimelech account, however, is not a deliv- erance account. It differs from all the deliverer accounts in the Book of Judges, and does not correspond to their cyclical pattern, as out- lined at the beginning of the Book (2:11–23). The Abimelech account is preceded by the information that the people again abandoned God and worshipped another god (8:33), but there is no account of punishment by God in the form of an oppressor who fights against Israel. Unlike the other protagonists in the book, Abimelech does not deliver the people.1 What then is the function of the account in 1 Because of the fact that the Abimelech account is not in the historiosophic framework of the Book of Judges, as presented at the beginning of the book (2:11–23), several scholars concluded that it was inserted by a late redactor. See: Budde, Das Buch der Richter, p. 50; Moore, Judges, p. 238; Burney, The Book of Judges, p. 268; Cooke, The Book of Judges, p. 98. Soggin ( Judges, pp. 163–164) considers that, unlike the other judge accounts, this account is not in the Deuteronomistic framework and does not deal with theological aspects. He therefore concluded that it is based on historical material such as chronicles and annals and its main importance is in the historical aspects. For historical conclusions from the account, see ibid., pp. 169–170. On the other hand, Abramsky (“Abimelech’s Leadership—King, Chief and Ruler”, pp. 163–176) sees Abimelech as Israel’s deliverer from the oppression of Canaanites living in Shechem (see p. 165). In his opinion, the author did not call him deliv- erer because of the circumstances of his accession to the kingship and because of the murder of his brothers. However, in the account there is no mention of the people’s plight and of a confrontation with Shechem. Likewise, nowhere in the account is it indicated that the war was between groups of different peoples. Even if the Bible did not wish to emphasize that Abimelech was a deliverer there is no satisfactory explanation as to why it also concealed the nature of the war described in the account. In Abramsky’s opinion, the information that “after Abimelech there arose to save Israel Tola the son of Puah” (10:1) is evidence of the deliverance by Abimelech. Similarly, see also Kimchi on 10:1. However, the meaning of the verse is not necessarily that Abimelech delivered Israel, but that Tola delivered Israel and that he succeeded Abimelech. Amit (The Book of Judges, pp. 40–42) sees the Abimelech account as an element of the punishment after the idolatry described prior to the 132 chapter two the Book of Judges and how does it fit into the framework of the other deliverance accounts in the book?2 The Abimelech account is the continuation of the Gideon account.3 It commences with reference to information about Abimelech given at the end of the Gideon account (8:31). Abimelech’s desire to be king derives from the fact that he considers that Gideon was king; the ques- tion now is which of his sons will succeed him. The monarchy issue was raised explicitly when the people asked Gideon to rule (8:22), and Gideon adopted royal manners prior to and above all after this request. Abimelech, in his character and actions, to a very great extent recalls his father, whether by similarity or by contrast. The connections Gideon account. She sees the Tola son of Puah account as the deliverance account. This explanation seems very unrealistic. Amit seems prepared to ascribe improba- ble meanings to passages as long as this explains the redactional layer. Heller con- siders that the account corresponds to the emphasis of the Book of Judges. R. L. Heller, “The Disappearing Deity and the Wages of Sin: The Theology of Divine Retribution in the Books of Judges,” Berkeley at Yale 1 (1999), pp. 10–13. The account describes Israel’s oppression by Abimelech, but this account is presented from the oppressor’s viewpoint. The killing of Abimelech by the woman at Thebez was the deliverance, and the information that Abimelech ruled over Israel for three years is not parallel to the years of peace after the Judge but the years of oppression at the beginning of the judge accounts (3:8, 14; 4:3; 6:1). 2 Malamat (History of Biblical Israel, pp. 168–170) considers that the Abimelech account was included in the Book of Judges in order to present an anti-judge model, which is the antithesis of the charismatic judge. In Marais’ opinion (Representation in Old Testament Narrative Texts, pp. 113–118) the aim of the account is to present an anti-monarchic view. Similarly, see: M. Weinfeld, “Zion and Jerusalem as Religious and Political Capital: Ideology and Utopia”, R. E. Friedman (ed.), The Poet and the Historian: Essays in Literary and Historical Biblical Criticism (Harvard Semitic Studies), Chicago 1983, p. 86. In Klein’s opinion (The Triumph of Irony in the Book of Judges, p. 78) the meaning of the account is to warn Israel not to enter into relations with non-Israelites. Abimelech the son of a concubine from Shechem does not deliver the Israelites, but kills them. In Boogaart’s opinion, the object of the account is to present the idea of retribution. T. A. Boogaart, “Stone for Stone: Retribution in the Story of Abimelech and Shechem”, JSOT 32 (1985), pp. 43–56. O’Brien con- siders that the Abimelech account is the culmination of the Book of Judges. This account relates an attempt to change the leadership system in Israel and its failure because the change was not instituted by God. M. A. O’Brien, The Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis: A Reassessment (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis), Göttingen 1989, p. 31. Although this insight is correct, we will see below that the account discusses the attributes of the leader who is suited to rule over Israel. In Gray’s opinion ( Joshua, Judges, Ruth, p. 316), the purpose of the Abimelech account is to criticize the monar- chic institution. For a summary of the research into the Abimelech account and its meaning, see: Bluedorn, Yahweh Versus Baalism, pp. 15–50. On humour, ambiguity and wordplay in the Abimelech account, see: A. D. Crown, “A Reinterpretation of Judges IX in the Light of its Humour”, Abr-Nahrain 3 (1961–62), pp. 90–98. 3 See also: Kaufmann, Sefer Shoftim, p. 195..