Righteous Jehu and His Evil Heirs the Deuteronomist’S Negative Perspective on Dynastic Succession

Home , Jehu, Kirta, Menahem, Mesha Stele, Nimshi, Tibni

OXFORD THEOLOGICAL MONOGRAPHS

Editorial Committee M. McC. ADAMS M. J. EDWARDS P.M.JOYCE D.N.J.MACCULLOCH O.M.T.O’DONOVAN C.C.ROWLAND OXFORD THEOLOGICAL MONOGRAPHS

RICHARD HOOKER AND REFORMED THEOLOGY A Study of Reason, Will, and Grace Nigel Voak (2003) THE COUNTESS OF HUNTINGDON’S CONNEXION Alan Harding (2003) THE APPROPRIATION OF DIVINE LIFE IN CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA Daniel A. Keating (2004) THE MACARIAN LEGACY The Place of Macarius-Symeon in the Eastern Christian Tradition Marcus Plested (2004) PSALMODY AND PRAYER IN THE WRITINGS OF EVAGRIUS PONTICUS Luke Dysinger, OSB (2004) ORIGEN ON THE SONG OF SONGS AS THE SPIRIT OF SCRIPTURE The Bridegroom’s Perfect Marriage-Song J. Christopher King (2004) AN INTERPRETATION OF HANS URS VON BALTHASAR Eschatology as Communion Nicholas J. Healy (2005) DURANDUS OF ST POURC¸ AIN A Dominican Theologian in the Shadow of Aquinas Isabel Iribarren (2005) THE TROUBLES OF TEMPLELESS JUDAH Jill Middlemas (2005) TIME AND ETERNITY IN MID-THIRTEENTH-CENTURY THOUGHT Rory Fox (2006) THE SPECIFICATION OF HUMAN ACTIONS IN ST THOMAS AQUINAS Joseph Pilsner (2006) THE WORLDVIEW OF PERSONALISM Origins and Early Development Jan Olof Bengtsson (2006) THE EUSEBIANS The Polemic of Athanasius of Alexandria and the Construction of the ‘Arian Controversy’ David M. Gwynn (2006) Righteous Jehu and his Evil Heirs The Deuteronomist’s Negative Perspective on Dynastic Succession

DAVID T. LAMB

1 3 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford ox26dp Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With oYces in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York ß David T. Lamb 2007 The moral rights of the author have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) First published 2007 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover and you must impose the same condition on any acquirer British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Data available Typeset by SPI Publisher Services, Pondicherry, India Printed in Great Britain on acid-free paper by Biddles Ltd., King’s Lynn, Norfolk

ISBN 978-0-19-923147-8

13579108642 Dedicated to my parents, Richard and Jane Lamb This page intentionally left blank Acknowledgements

I am deeply grateful to the many people who have contributed to the completion of this work, Wrst as a doctoral thesis and now as a monograph. My supervisor, Sue Gillingham, is a gifted teacher and it has been a privilege to be her student. Her insightful analysis and probing questions gradually raised the standard of my writing and her encouragement enabled me to persist until the end. Hugh Williamson graciously agreed to supervise me during Sue’s sabbaticals. My research beneWted signiWcantly from his impressive command of not only the Hebrew language, but also the relevant secondary literature. Paul Joyce, my college advisor, sponsor, and friend, frequently oVered wise counsel. From John Barton, John Day, and Jill Middlemas, I learned about both the Old Testament and the world of biblical studies. I have also appreciated the expertise of Stephanie Dalley and Lawson Younger, who were willing to examine aspects of my research on Assyrian inscriptions. My fellow students at Oxford (Peter Balaam, Hywel CliVord, Madhavi Nevader, Stephen Russell, Francesca Stavra- kopoulou, and Lena Tiemeyer) read over sections of my work and gave me invaluable feedback. In the transition from thesis to monograph, Robert Gordon, John Jarick, and Robert Wilson uncovered numerous Xaws and oVered helpful suggestions. James Butler, Bobby Clinton, and John Goldingay (professors from Fuller Seminary) provided the initial inspiration for my love of the academic study of the Old Testament. I must, however, accept full responsibility for any errors that still remain in the book, in spite of this wealth of input, due either to my refusal to heed sound advice or to my own carelessness. I have also profoundly appreciated the prayers, support, and encouragement of friends and family both in England and in the US. My own two ‘heirs’, Nathan and Noah, contributed uniquely to this process by distracting me from work, thus allowing me to return to writing with fresh insights. My extraordinary wife, Shannon, was willing to move from sunny Pasadena to rainy Oxford, has provided for her slacker husband and family for six years, has pretended to be viii Acknowledgements interested in his research (often successfully), and has even read over his work. My parents, Richard and Jane Lamb, in addition to passing on their faith to this son, have communicated their deep love throughout this process. They frequently called, generously funded, consistently prayed, and always encouraged. It is to them therefore that this book is dedicated. Contents

List of Tables xi Abbreviations xii

1 Introduction 1 1.1 The Uniqueness of Jehu’s Dynasty 1 1.2 History of Research 2 1.3 Narrative DeWnition, Methodology, and Organization 11

2 Righteous Jehu 15 2.1 Jehu’s Righteous Regnal Evaluation 15 2.2 Jehu’s Fathers: Jehoshaphat, Nimshi, and Omri 27 2.3 Jehu’s Prophetic and Divine Anointing 47 2.4 Jehu’s Divine Election 57 2.5 Jehu’s Violent Obedience 81 2.6 Jehu’s Contracting Borders 110 2.7 Jehu’s Omitted Tribute 119 2.8 Dtr’s Positive Perspective on Jehu 128

3 Jehu and David: Two Charismatic Kings 130 3.1 Parallels between Jehu and David 130 3.2 The Two Most Charismatic Kings 144 3.3 Dtr’s Positive Perspective on Charismatic Rulers 151

4 Jehu’s Evil Heirs 155 4.1 Unrighteous Evaluations 155 4.2 Royal Longevity 164 4.3 Military Success 177 4.4 Dtr’s Negative Perspective on Jehu’s Heirs 204 x Contents 5 Jehu’s Dynasty and Dtr’s Perspective on Dynastic Succession 206 5.1 Dynasty in the ANE 206 5.2 Dynasty in the DH: Observations and Questions 213 5.3 Dtr’s Explanation: Dynastic Oracles 223 5.4 Dtr’s Negative Perspective on Dynastic Succession 241

6 Conclusion 256 6.1 Summary: Dtr’s Critique of Dynastic Succession 256 6.2 Two Additional Implications and Three Unresolved Questions 259

Bibliography 263 Index 287 List of Tables

2.1A. A northern regnal formula (Jehoahaz) 18 2.1B. Regnal formulas for northern kings 20 2.1C. Jehu’s regnal formula 23 2.2A. Israelite references in Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions 34 2.3A. Anointing (hWm) references in the DH 49 2.3B. The repetition of Jehu’s anointing 53 2.4A. Divine election references in ANE sources 70 2.4B. Divine election references in the DH 75 2.5A. Prophecy and fulWllment in Jehu’s narrative 93 2.5B. Deuteronomistic phrases in prophetic texts related to Jehu’s narrative 98 2.5C. Scholarly views on redaction of prophetic texts in 2 Kings 9–10 99 2.6A. Political changes of Israel and Judah in 1–2 Kings 114 2.7A. Tribute and plunder from rulers of Israel and Judah 122 3.1A. Deuteronomistic nature of David/Jehu parallel material 141 3.2A. Charismatic attributes of Israelite and Judean kings 149 4.2A. Regnal years of Jehuite rulers 175 4.3A. Prophetic support for and opposition to rulers in the DH 188 5.2A. The royal dynasties of Israel and Judah 214 5.3A. Royal dynastic promises 224 5.3B. Royal dynastic judgments 227 5.3C. ‘Lamp’ (tjn:) oracles 229 5.3D. Priestly dynastic oracles 231 5.4A. Charismatic attributes of non-royal leaders of the DH 253 Abbreviations

AB Anchor Bible. ABR Australian Biblical Review. ANEP The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament, ed. J. B. Pritchard, 2nd edn. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969. ANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, ed. J. B. Pritchard, 3rd edn. with supplement. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969. AnSt Anatolian Studies. ARAB D. D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyrian and Babylonia, 2 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1926–7. ARM Archives royales de Mari. Paris: Geuthner, 1941. ATANT Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments. ATD Das Alte Testament Deutsch. ATSAT Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament. AUSS Andrews University Seminary Studies. BAR Biblical Archaeology Review. BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. BBB Bonner biblishe Beitra¨ge. BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium. BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1983. Bib Biblica. BibInt Biblical Interpretation. BJS Brown Judaic Studies. BN Biblische Notizen. BO Bibliotheca Orientalis. BWANT Beitra¨ge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament. Abbreviations xiii

BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fu¨r die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. CANE Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, ed. J. Sasson, 4 vols. New York: Scribner, 1995. CBC Cambridge Bible Commentary. CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly. CBQMS Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monography Series. CC Continental Commentaries. ConBOT Coniectanea biblica: Old Testament Series. COS The Context of Scripture, ed. W. W. Hallo, 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997–2002. CRBR Critical Review of Books in Religion. EA El-Amarna tablets. According to the edn. of J. A. Knudtzon, Die el-Amarna-Tafeln. Leipzig: J. C. Hinriches, 1908–15. Continued in A. F. Rainey, El-Amarna Tablets, 359–379, 2nd rev. edn. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercher, 1978. EI Eretz-Israel. ET English text. FOTL Forms of the Old Testament Literature. FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments. GTA Go¨ttinger theologischer Arbeiten. HR History of Religions. HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs. HTR Harvard Theological Review. HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual. ICC International Critical Commentary. IEJ Israel Exploration Journal. Int Interpretation. JA Jewish Antiquities of Josephus in The Loeb Classical Library, ed. H. St J. Thackeray, R. Marcus, A. Wikgren, and L. H. Feldman. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1926–65. JANESCU Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University. JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society. xiv Abbreviations

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature. JBQ Jewish Bible Quarterly. JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies. JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies. JQR Jewish Quarterly Review. JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series. JSS Journal of Semitic Studies. JTS Journal of Theological Studies. KAT Kommentar zum Alten Testament. KD Kerygma und Dogma. LXX Septuagint. Luc. Lucianic recensions of LXX. MT Masoretic Text. NCB New Century Bible. NIBCOT New International Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament. NIV New International Version. NJB The New Jerusalem Bible. NRSV New Revised Standard Version. Numen Numen: International Review for the History of Religions. OBO Orbis biblicus et orientalis. OLZ Orientalistische Literaturzeitung. OTG Old Testament Guides. OTL Old Testament Library. OTS Old Testament Studies. PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly. Proof Prooftexts: A Journal of Jewish Literary History. RA Revue d’assyriologie et d’arche´ologie orientale. RANE Records of the Ancient Near East. RB Revue biblique. Abbreviations xv

REB Revised English Bible. RIMA The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods. RTP Revue de the´ologie et de philosophie. SAA State Archives of Assyria. SBT Studies in Biblical Theology. SEA˚ Svensk exegetisk a˚rsbok. SJOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament. SJT Scottish Journal of Theology. STAT.AASF. Suomalainen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia. Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae. Sumer Sumer: A Journal of Archaeology and History in Iraq. TA Tel Aviv. TB Theologische Bu¨cherei: Neudrucke und Berichte aus dem 20. Jahrhundert. TCS Texts from Cuneiform Sources. TLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung. TNK Jewish Publication Society Tanakh. TOTC Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. TRev Theologische Revue. TZ Theologische Zeitschrift. UF Ugarit-Forschungen. VF Verku¨ndigung und Forschung. VT Vetus Testamentum. VTSup Vetus Testamentum Supplements. WAW Writings from the Ancient World. WBC Word Biblical Commentary. WO Die Welt des Orients. ZA Zeitschrift fu¨r Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archa¨ologie. ZAW Zeitschrift fu¨r die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. ZBK Zu¨rcher Bibelkommentare. ZDMG Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenla¨ndischen Gesellschaft. This page intentionally left blank 1

Introduction

1.1 THE UNIQUENESS OF JEHU’S DYNASTY

The position of Jehu’s dynasty among those of the northern kingdom of Israel is unparalleled. According to the regnal formulas in the book of Kings,1 the Wve Jehuite rulers (Jehu, Jehoahaz, Jehoash, Jeroboam II, and Zechariah) control the throne for over a century.2 They remain in power over twice as long as the second longest northern dynasty (Omri’s), enduring for nearly half the history of divided Israel. The individuals comprising the dynasty are also distinctive.3 Except for Jehu, no northern ruler is described as righteous, as anointed, or as a recipient of an unconditional dynastic promise.4 Jehu’s historical signiWcance within the ancient Near East (ANE)5 is attested by his image on the Black Obelisk, the oldest known pictorial representation of a biblical character.6 No northern ruler besides Jehoahaz is recorded as having a prayer answered.7 Prophets generally opposed Israelite kings, but three Jehuite rulers received prophetic support (Jehu, Jehoash, and Jeroboam).8 From Jeroboam I until

1 The terms ‘book of Kings’ and ‘book of Samuel’ will be used (not ‘books’) because each of these was a single unit originally in the Hebrew (see also Cogan 2001: 84). However, for references the conventional divisions will be used. 2 See 4.2.5 below. 3 Zechariah’s reign, however, was more typical of northern kings: brief, evil, and ending in a conspiracy (2 Kgs. 15: 8–12). 4 See 2.1.3, 2.3.3, and 3.1.6 below. 5 The acronym ANE will be used both for the noun (ancient Near East) and the related adjective (ancient Near Eastern). While the Hebrew Bible was deWnitely a product of its context, ANE will be used to refer to extra-biblical literature of the period. 6 See ANEP 120–2 and 2.7.2 below. 7 See 4.3.1 below. 8 See 4.3.2.2 below. 2 Introduction the Assyrian exile, Israel’s borders gradually contracted, but the military success of Jehoash and Jeroboam II allowed uncharacteristic territorial expansion.9 However, little scholarly work has been done on this curious northern dynasty. This examination of Jehu’s unique dynasty not only Wlls a void in research on the subject, but also investigates the attitude of the Deuteronomistic redactor (Dtr) toward dynasty. In the book of Kings, Dtr repeatedly informs his readers that he10 edits his sources selectively,11 which invites the question why he includes or excludes certain source material. This analysis of how Dtr shapes the Jehuite narrative reveals his negative perspective on dynastic succession speciWcally and on monarchy more generally. A brief critical review of the extensive scholarship on the Deuter- onomistic History (DH) itself is therefore Wrst required (1.2.1), which can then be followed by an examination of the much more limited scholarship related to the dynasty of Jehu (1.2.2). In the last section of this chapter (1.3), after textually deWning the Jehuite narrative, the methodology and organization of the book will be laid out.

1.2 HISTORY OF RESEARCH

1.2.1 The Deuteronomistic History

The name most typically associated with research on the DH is that of Martin Noth,12 although his work (1957, ET 1991) was built on theories of previous scholars who had noticed language in the historical books that echoed Deuteronomy (de Wette, Vater,

9 See 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 below. 10 Since scribal Wgures were typically male during Dtr’s historical context (e.g. 2 Sam. 8: 16, 17; 20: 24, 25; 1 Kgs. 4: 3; 2 Kgs. 18: 18; 22: 3), masculine pronouns will be used for Dtr. 11 For his sources in Kings, Dtr mentions annals for Solomon (1 Kgs. 11: 41), for the Israelite kings (e.g. 1 Kgs. 14: 19), and for the Judean kings (e.g. 1 Kgs. 14: 29). 12 While Noth included Deuteronomy 1–3(/4) and sections of chapters 31–4 in the Deuteronomistic History (Noth 1957: 14, ET 1991: 29), in this book, the DH is understood to incorporate only the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings. Introduction 3 Wellhausen).13 What was unique to Noth, however, was his perspective of a uniWed history, coming from the hand of a single redactor working during the Babylonian exile.14 Noth thought that the purpose of Dtr’s work was to show how Israel had not followed the law of Deuteronomy and therefore deserved their exilic punishment. Noth argued that Dtr’s view of the monarchy was strongly negative and that only in several notable exceptions (e.g. Josiah) was good accomplished by it.15 Scholars generally accepted Noth’s theory initially, although, as Noth’s detractors observed,16 his perspective has signiWcant problems. First, Noth’s understanding of Dtr is too pessimistic about Israel’s future (but not pessimistic enough about dynastic succession).17 Second, Noth’s focus on the unity of the DH does not take seriously the unique methodologies utilized by Dtr in each of the books. In the book of Samuel, most of the Deuteronomistic material is concentrated in a few chapters (1 Sam. 7–12), whereas in Judges and Kings this material is evenly distributed. Finally, Noth’s mid- sixth century bce date for Dtr’s composition (1957: 91, ET 1991: 122) is diYcult to support. The detailed chronological information included prior to Gedaliah’s assassination (2 Kgs. 25: 1, 3, 8, 25) and the twenty-six-year gap between this murder and Jehoiachin’s release (2 Kgs. 25: 27–30) suggests an early exilic date (585–580 bce) for

13 For recent summaries of the history of Deuteronomistic scholarship, see Ro¨mer and de Pury 1996, ET 2000 (on the DH generally) and McKenzie 1994: 286–97 (on Kings speciWcally). 14 Jepsen’s Die Quellen des Ko¨nigsbuches, completed in 1939, but not published until 1953, is typically cited as independent conWrmation of Noth’s thesis (e.g. Ro¨mer and de Pury 1996: 37, ET 2000: 53), yet signiWcant disagreement exists between the two (see also McKenzie 1994: 286–7), since Jepsen sees two redactional layers (RI,a priestly redactor, and RII, a prophetic redactor). The supposed conWrmation may derive from Jepsen’s harmonizing, but rather tentative comments in his Nachwort (1953: 116): ‘So kann vielleicht mein Arbeit Noths AuVassung noch etwas sta¨rken, wenn sie das noch no¨tig hat’ (‘So my work perhaps can still somewhat strengthen Noth’s view, if it still has need of that’). 15 Noth 1957: 95, ET 1991: 127. 16 See Ro¨mer and de Pury 1996: 44–5, 84–6, ET 2000: 60–2, 101–4. 17 Von Rad and WolV both saw a greater element of hope in the DH than Noth did. Von Rad (1947, ET 1953) noted that the recurring theme of a Davidic promise (2 Sam. 7; 1 Kgs. 11: 13, 32, 36; 15: 4, etc.) involved an element of divine grace and thus did not Wt the bleak Deuteronomistic perspective of which Noth spoke. WolV focused on the theme of a return (bfW) to YHWH, which subsequently could lead to a better future for Israel (1961, ET 1975). 4 Introduction Dtr’s work,18 with the Wnal four verses of the book being included some time after the release.19 As problems emerged in Noth’s theory, two distinct alternative theories of multiple layers of Deuteronomistic redaction originated from the so-called ‘schools’ of Cross and Smend.20 In 1968, Cross (recalling similar theories of Wellhausen and Ewald) proposed a two- part Deuteronomistic redaction and his theory was further developed by Nelson (1981, 2005). Cross’s Wrst layer (Dtr1) is Josianic, with a favorable perspective on the monarchy, particularly toward the reign of Josiah (Cross 1973: 287–8). According to Cross, this layer ends with a summary, praising Josiah above his predecessors (2 Kgs. 23: 25). Since the end of 2 Kings describes events at the beginning of the exilic period, Cross theorizes a second, exilic redaction (Dtr2) which involved the addition of the remaining section of 2 Kings (23: 26–25: 30) as well as a reworking of the Dtr1 material to explain the exile. In order to justify YHWH and place the blame for the exile on Israel, Dtr2’s perspective on Israel’s history (including the monarchy) was negative. Cross argued that Dtr2’s redaction was slight in comparison to Dtr1, so his perception of the overall tone of the DH is much more positive than that of Noth (1973: 285–9). Ironically, the scholar most commonly associated with the theory of a triple redaction did not originally conclude that the DH had three Deuteronomistic layers. Smend (1971, ET 2000; 1978) initially observed two perspectives on the conquest in texts from Joshua and Judges, which led him to conclude that there was a second, ‘nomistic’ redactor concerned with obedience to the law (DtrN) who made additions to the Wrst layer (DtrH).21 Unlike Cross, he kept this primary layer (DtrH) in the exilic period (about 560 bce),22 but thought it was probable that, ‘die Arbeit der deuteronomistischen Schule auch mit

18 Both McKenzie (1996: 294–5, ET 2000: 313, for Dtr) and Dietrich (1972: 143, for DtrH) arrive at similar dates for Dtr’s work. 19 In support of the view that 2 Kgs. 25: 27–30 is post-Dtr, Wu¨rthwein notes that these verses are not particularly Deuteronomistic (1984: 484). 20 Cross’s theory was initially put forth in an essay (1973: 274–89, reprinted from the original 1968 article). For references to Smend and his followers, see the next paragraph. 21 In his 1978 work, Smend switched from the term DtrG (Geschichte) used in his 1971 work, to the more widely used siglum, DtrH. 22 Smend 1978: 124. Introduction 5 DtrN nicht beendet war’ (‘the work of the Deuteronomistic School was not even Wnished with DtrN’).23 Thus, he allowed for an ongoing series of redactional layers. Two of Smend’s students (Veijola and Dietrich) continued to develop his basic theory. Veijola (1975, 1977) developed the idea of a DtrN layer, looking at the books of Samuel and Kings, and generally attributed greater amounts of material to Dtr than previous scholars, particularly in Samuel. While Dietrich also worked on DtrN, he perceived an additional layer, coming from a prophetic redactor (DtrP), with an emphasis on fulWllment of prophecy (1972, 1977). Dietrich kept the dates for all three layers in the exilic period (DtrH: c.580; DtrN: c.560; DtrP: between 580 and 560).24 While the views of Cross have been favored in the US and those of Smend in Germany, there is no general consensus about which perspective best Wts the material.25 Cross accounts well for the problem of an overly skeptical outlook on Israel’s history associated with Noth’s view by rightly emphasizing the signiWcance of the Davidic dynastic promise for Dtr (see also 5.3.1, 5.4.1 below). However, his theory also has signiWcant weaknesses. First, while Cross appears to be building on Noth, his work is in fact a major departure.26 Cross claims that his Wrst layer and Noth’s Dtr are the same,27 but his second layer is actually more similar to Noth’s redactor. They are both exilic, primarily concerned with theodicy, and have a negative historical outlook. Chronologically speaking, moving the primary layer to the pre-exilic period is a major shift away from Noth. Noth explicitly states that a terminus a quo of 562 bce should not apply to a second stage of Deuteronomistic editing, yet this is exactly what Cross does.28 Second, Cross concludes that ‘little hope’ remains for Judah in the Wnal form of the DH,29 but he does not adequately

23 Smend 1971: 506, ET 2000: 107. Smend thought it was possible, although not likely, that there were at least four Deuteronomistic layers in the texts he examined from Joshua (1971: 502, ET 2000: 103). 24 Dietrich writes (1972: 143), ‘Diese beiden Zahlen [580 and 560] sind zugleich die termini post und ante quem fu¨r die Wirksamkeit von DtrP’ (‘These two dates are at the same time the termini post and ante quem for the activity of DtrP’). 25 Hereafter, the two primary individuals (Cross and Smend) will be referred to as representatives of the respective theories. 26 See also Ro¨mer and de Pury 1996: 56, ET 2000: 73. 27 Cross 1973: 289. 28 Noth 1957: 12, ET 1991: 27. 29 Cross 1973: 288. 6 Introduction explain how such a signiWcant theme as the hope of Dtr1 could become so eVectively silenced by the minor redactional work of Dtr2. Third, Cross does little work outside the book of Kings.30 While Cross rightly sees the importance of Kings because of its signiWcant Deuteronomistic redaction and its ultimate position in the DH, any comprehensive redactional theory of the DH needs to take into greater account the books of Joshua, Judges, and Samuel. Smend’s theory rightly recognizes some of the complexity of the redactional process, but it too has signiWcant weaknesses. First, Smend’s complexity undermines the unity of the DH. Noth’s theory was based on the uniformity of Dtr’s style in contrast to the diversity of the non-Dtr material.31 If Deuteronomistic redaction can be divided into three distinct styles, one of the main arguments for a uniWed DH disappears. As the number of redactional layers increases, one of the strengths of Noth’s theory, its simplicity, is lost. Second, Smend’s nomist Deuteronomist sounds redundant. If DtrN is uniquely concerned about the law, this suggests that other redactional layers lack a concern for Deuteronomic law, making them not particularly Deuteronomistic. One of the most signiWcant weaknesses in the views of both Smend and Cross is that they speak of a pro-monarchical Deuteronomistic layer while the text lacks evidence to support such a claim (see 5.4 below). Cross in particular stresses the importance of the promise to David for Dtr’s understanding of monarchy, but he ignores the equally signiWcant dynastic curse to David (see also 5.3 below). Both Cross (1973: 176) and Nelson (2005: 320, 323) refer to ‘the’ oracle of Nathan, apparently unaware of Nathan’s other dynastic oracle (2 Sam. 12: 10–14). Cross also acknowledges that the Deuteronomic tradition includes anti-monarchical elements (particularly Deut. 17: 14–20).32 Therefore, a pro-monarchical Deuteronomist would

30 O’Brien correctly observes that Cross and Nelson do not engage in a ‘thorough- going analysis of the Josianic history from beginning to end’ (1989: 12). 31 Noth 1957: 10–11, ET 1991: 24–5. The views of scholars that propose either a Deuteronomistic school (Weinfeld 1972) or an ongoing series of redactional layers (Lemaire 1986, ET 2000) share these Wrst two weaknesses of Smend’s theory. 32 Cross 1973: 282. The law of the king emphasizes the problematic aspects of kingship (Deut. 17: 16–17), but the people are still allowed to establish a monarchy (Deut. 17: 15). See also 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 below. Introduction 7 be, in this regard, un-Deuteronomic. Noth’s argument for a negative assessment of the monarchy throughout the DH is more persuasive than the alternative views of Cross and Smend. The lack of consensus has given rise to a variety of alternative perspectives on the DH. Provan (1988) retains a Josianic layer, but his version ends with the narrative of Hezekiah (2 Kgs. 19: 37). O’Brien (1989) appears to combine the views of Cross and Smend with his proposal of a Josianic edition followed by three exilic redactions. In his monograph on Kings, McKenzie (1991) modiWes Noth’s theory by situating Dtr during the reign of Josiah and, instead of proposing a second Deuteronomistic redactor, he merely refers to post-Dtr additions.33 However, his later works (1994; 1996, ET 2000; 2000) shift toward a Nothian perspective with an exilic redactor. McKenzie writes, ‘I question whether it is possible to accept the unity of the Deuteronomistic History without acknowledging its essential unity of authorship’ (1994: 297). Several recent scholars follow the option not taken by McKenzie and challenge the theory of a uniWed DH (Wu¨rthwein 1994: 1–11; Knauf 1996, ET 2000; Ro¨sel 2000). Other scholars choose to approach the DH synchronically (Polzin 1980, 1989, 1993; HoVmann 1980; Van Seters 1983) and view Dtr as more of an author than a redactor. The continuing divergence in scholarly opinion is addressed by both Knoppers and Ro¨mer in the introductions to two separate collections of essays published in 2000 devoted to Deuteronomistic research: Most of these same scholars [from the volume], while disagreeing with Noth and with one another about a variety of issues, continue to aYrm the existence of a Deuteronomistic History. (Knoppers 2000: 3) More and more scholars are inclined to deny the existence of a Deuterono- mistic History as elaborated by Noth. (Ro¨mer 2000: p. viii) Scholars apparently cannot even agree on how much they agree. While the two statements are not entirely contradictory, they are moving in opposite directions. Until a better model emerges that manages to obtain a moderate level of consensus, Noth’s basic theory, despite its weaknesses, remains the most compelling (a single, exilic,

33 For McKenzie’s conclusions regarding Dtr and post-Dtr additions, see 1991: 151–2. 8 Introduction Deuteronomistic redaction). Despite major disagreements about the number of layers of redactions, scholars generally agree that two features of Deuteronomistic material distinguish it from source material: a high value on obedience (particularly to the law of Deuteronomy) and the repetition of key words and phrases (particularly those used in Deuteronomy).34 However, a modiWcation to Noth’s date needs to be made since evidence suggests that Dtr completed his work (through 2 Kgs. 25: 26) prior to 582 bce.35 The events of 2 Kings 25: 1–26, typically dated to 587 bce, include unusually precise chronological details, such as the exact month and date (2 Kgs. 25: 1, 2, 8), indicating that the recording took place soon after the actual events. However, at 25: 27 the text jumps forward approximately twenty-Wve years, omitting any information about this period, including the third deportation of 582 bce (Jer. 52: 30). A chronological omission of this duration is unprecen- dented in the book of Kings, supporting the view that Dtr’s history originally ended at 25: 26. The Wnal four verses of Kings also lack any Deuteronomistic material. Thus, this examination will assume a single Deuteronomist working in the early exile. The implications of this conclusion for determining the Deuteronomistic attitude toward succession in the Jehu dynasty are as follows. First, redactional analysis will involve merely distinguishing Dtr’s material from his sources, a process that can appear subjective, yet it is more objective than attempting to dissect various layers of redaction that are all characterized as Deuterono- mistic (see also 1.3 below). Second, historical analysis will seek to identify what Dtr intends to emphasize from the Jehuite narrative that would apply to his exilic context.

1.2.2 The dynasty of Jehu

In contrast to the extensive research done on the redaction of the DH, no monograph or journal article focuses speciWcally on the dynasty

34 See WeinWeld’s appendix (1972: 320–65). 35 Thus, my conclusions are similar to those of McKenzie’s later works (1994; 1996, ET 2000; 2000). Introduction 9 of Jehu.36 Scholars have examined Jehu’s revolution (Minokami 1989; Mulzer 1992; Gugler 1996) or the relationship of his revolution to the material that immediately precedes or succeeds it (Barre´ 1988; White 1997; Otto 2001). Before reviewing the views of these six scholars, J. B. Knott’s 1972 unpublished dissertation (‘The Jehu Dynasty: An Assess- ment Based upon Ancient Near Eastern Literature and Archeology’) needs to be discussed as the only scholarly work that looks at the Jehu dynasty as a whole. Knott examines the dynasty historically, politically, and archaeologically, but his analysis of the primary narrative itself (2 Kgs. 9–10; 13; 14: 8–29; 15: 8–12) is extremely brief (1972: 19–34). Knott devotes more space to his discussion of Amos, Hosea, and Chronicles (1972: 40–60), and yet he rarely mentions Jehuite rulers in this material. He engages in minimal redactional analysis of the text (1972: 12–18), tends to follow the views of Miller (1966) uncritically (see below 4.3.2.3 and 4.3.4) and draws no distinctive conclusions concerning the dynasty (1972: 143–52). Three scholars focus exclusively on Jehu’s rebellion. Minokami (1989), a follower of the Smend school, separates redactional layers and identiWes the original Jehu narrative, which he suggests was written to justify Jehu’s coup. He argues that Jehu was not motivated by zeal for YHWH, nor was his rebellion popularly supported (1989: 167, 169); however, as will be shown below (2.5.1), these arguments are unconvincing. Mulzer (1992) makes meticulous textual, literary, and structural observations about the Jehu narrative (2 Kgs. 8: 25–10: 36), yet draws no signiWcant conclusions based upon his research. He perceives that the original narrative had a threefold primary message (1992: 356–7): Jehu becomes king (2 Kgs. 9: 1–15), removes potential obstacles to his kingship (2 Kgs. 9: 17–10: 14), and expresses zeal for YHWH (2 Kgs. 10: 25–8). Gugler (1996) approaches the narrative synchronically, analyzing Jehu’s revolution in three parts (the Omride background, the revolution itself, and the consequences) and concluding that the coup was motivated by Jehu’s ambition. He thinks that the ‘epilogue’ (2 Kgs. 10: 28–33) views Jehu critically and Hosea’s condemnation of the bloodshed of Jezreel (Hos. 1: 4) is not targeted at Jehu (1996: 266–71), but neither of

36 The review of scholarship on Jehu’s dynasty will therefore be shorter than the review on the DH (1.2.1). 10 Introduction these conclusions are persuasive (see 2.1.3, 2.5.1, 2.6.4, and 3.1.6 below). Three other scholars examine Jehu’s rebellion in the context of either the preceding or the succeeding material. Barre´ (1988) argues that the original narrative of 2 Kings 9–11 was a unit, composed after the coup led by Jehoiada to install Jehoash on the throne, and the purpose of the narrative was to contrast Jehoash’s virtuous coup to the unrighteous one led by Jehu.37 However, as will be shown below (2.5.2), both the source and the Deuteronomistic material view Jehu’s actions favorably. White (1997) and Otto (2001, 2003) both examine the narrative of Jehu’s rebellion to support theories concerning the composition of the Elijah/Elisha cycles.38 White argues that the Elijah legends were composed to legitimate Jehu’s military coup.39 Otto thinks the Jehu narrative originated during the reign of Jeroboam II and that it demonstrated fulWllment of prophecy and the presence of Baal worship in the northern kingdom. Ishida only discusses Jehu’s dynasty brieXy (e.g. 1977: 175, 179–81), but his monograph is particularly relevant because of his focus on royal dynasties. He argues convincingly that Israelite, Judean, and ANE monarchies primarily functioned dynastically. His detailed research on dynastic succession and divine election in the ANE (1977: 6–25) provides helpful background for his analysis and lays a foundation for the research included below (see 2.4.3–4). However, Ishida is not concerned about issues related to Deuteronomistic redaction (1977: 4–5) and he devotes the vast majority of his work to David’s dynasty (1977: 55–170) and only a third of a chapter to the northern kingdom (1977: 171–82) whose instability creates a problem for his thesis of a dynastic monarchy.40 While Jehu’s rebellion has received attention (particularly by Ger- man scholars), the preceding survey has revealed a void in recent

37 Thus, Barre´ and Minokami arrive at contradictory conclusions about the perspective of the text toward Jehu’s rebellion. 38 The connections between the narratives of Jehu and Elijah are discussed below in the context of Jehu’s anointing (2.3.3 and 2.3.4), his divine election (2.4.7), and his obedience (2.5.2). 39 White’s conclusion that Jehu’s rebellion was not popularly supported is refuted below (2.5.1.5). 40 For a discussion of Ishida’s views on northern dynastic instability, see also 5.2.2 below. Introduction 11 scholarship on Jehu’s dynasty as a whole, as well as on dynasty in general since Ishida (1977). Except for Knott (1972), discussion of extra-biblical material in relation to Jehu’s dynasty has been suY- ciently limited to warrant further research (see 1.3 below). Nor has anything been written focusing on Dtr’s attitude toward dynastic succession. The lack of consensus concerning Deuteronomistic redaction suggests that new approaches need to be taken to gain greater clarity.

1.3 NARRATIVE DEFINITION, METHODOLOGY, AND ORGANIZATION

Before I explain the methodology and organization of this book, the Jehuite narrative Wrst needs to be deWned. While this process is complicated by the pattern in the book of Kings of alternating between Judean and Israelite rulers, appropriate outer limits for the narrative are set by Elisha’s commissioning of the young prophet to anoint Jehu (2 Kgs. 9: 1) and by the fulWllment notice for Jehu’s dynastic promise after the death of Zechariah, the Wnal Jehuite king (2 Kgs. 15: 12). Within these chapters, material focusing on Judean kings (2 Kgs. 11: 1–12: 22 (ET 11: 1–12: 21); 14: 1–8; 15: 1–7) will only be examined as it relates to Jehuite rulers. Thus, the primary Jehuite narrative includes 2 Kings 9: 1–10: 36 (Jehu), 13: 1–25 (Jehoahaz and Jehoash), 14: 8–29 (Jehoash and Jeroboam II), and 15: 8–12 (Zechariah). Other biblical texts mentioning Jehuites will also be discussed when relevant (1 Kgs. 19: 16–17; 2 Chr. 22: 7–9; 25: 17–24; Hos. 1: 1, 4; Amos 7: 9–11). The methodology used in this monograph to analyze the narrative of Jehu’s dynasty will primarily involve contextual, historical, and redactional approaches. The signiWcance of the ANE context for this research can be seen in how it sheds light on the dynasty of Jehu historically (references to the tributes of Jehu and Jehoash only occur in Neo-Assyrian sources, see 2.7.2), politically (while unusual in Israel, Jehuite royal longevity would have only been average in Egypt, see 5.1.1), religiously (the anointings of Jehu, David, and Saul were unusual both in the DH and the ANE, see 2.3.1 and 2.3.2), and 12 Introduction sociologically (divine mandates, like Jehu’s, typically justiWed violence within ANE society, see 2.5.1).41 Therefore, contextual parallels will be examined Wrst in the ANE, and then the focus will gradually narrow to the Hebrew Bible (HB), the DH, the narrative of the Jehuite dynasty, and Wnally Dtr’s redaction of this material. In each instance, aspects of kingship relevant to Jehuite rulers (e.g. divine election, royal prayer, dynastic oracles) will be discussed. While several scholars have recently taken a skeptical approach toward the historicity of the books of the DH (e.g. Davies 1992; Thompson 1999), this work follows the views of scholars who argue for greater levels of historical reliability associated with these texts (e.g. Halpern 1988, 2000; Dever 2001, 2003, 2004; Kitchen 2003). An argument for the historical nature of the book of Kings in particular is strengthened by extensive external validation in ANE sources, much of which will be discussed in this analysis.42 While not always corroborating the biblical account in precise detail, these sources generally agree with the book of Kings. At least nine Neo-Assyrian inscriptions mention Israelite rulers by name (including Jehu and Jehoash) and locate them at the appropriate time historically (see 2.2.2). The tributes of Wve rulers from the book of Kings are also mentioned in Neo-Assyrian sources (see 2.7.2). Sennacherib’s murder is recorded both in Kings and ANE sources (see 5.1.1). The Mesha Stele (COS ii. 137–8) not only mentions Omri, but also validates the DH’s description of the decline of Israel during the reign of Jehu (see 2.6.4). The Tel Dan Inscription (COS ii. 161–2), in addition to referring to the house of David and the nation of Israel, appears to record the deaths of the two rulers that were killed by Jehu according to the book of Kings (see 2.5.3 on the apparent discrepancy between these two sources). While this monograph will argue that the DH has tendentious elements, the book of Kings in particular was clearly historical in nature and therefore can be approached as such. As the climax to the DH, the book of Kings is understandably a focus of Dtr’s redactional interest, and therefore it includes more Deuteronomistic material than the other books of the DH. Even

41 Hallo also argues for the relevance of ANE texts for biblical studies in the introduction to COS i (pp. xxiii–xxviii). 42 See also Kitchen 2003: 7–64. Introduction 13 though there was probably only one Deuteronomistic redactor, the process of distinguishing Dtr’s material from his sources can still be diYcult. However, Dtr’s own comments about his redaction simplify the process. Perhaps no book of the HB includes as many explicit references to the redactional eVorts of an editor as Kings. The narratives of most post-Davidic rulers (33 of 39) conclude with Dtr referring to his source.43 Dtr informs his readers that to write his history he not only had access to sources he assumes they were aware of, but that he also omitted material from them (e.g. 2 Kgs. 10: 34; 13: 8). In addition to decisions about what to include and omit, Dtr had to decide what to repeat and compose. As Dtr’s inclusions, omissions, repetitions, and compositions are examined, his redactional intentions can be determined. While Dtr occasionally includes source material that does not support one of his minor points (e.g. unrighteous Jehoahaz praying to YHWH, see 4.3.1),44 presumably he excluded information that was either irrelevant or undermining to one of his major points. DeWnitive conclusions about the nature of Dtr’s omissions prove elusive, yet comparisons can be made to other royal narratives of the DH to determine what is typically included from Dtr’s sources.45 Dtr’s distinctive use of vocabulary allows for more deWnitive conclusions about his compositions. Repetition of formulaic expressions from the book of Deuteronomy or elsewhere in the DH usually suggests that Dtr was the author.46 The remainder of the book will be organized as follows. The second chapter observes how Dtr legitimates the usurper Jehu by emphasizing positive aspects of the narrative (righteous evaluation, prophetic anointing, divine election, and obedience) and by omitting or de-emphasizing negative aspects (lineage, contracting borders,

43 Thirty-four times Dtr mentions his source (the narrative of Jehoash of Israel has two references): 1 Kgs. 11: 41; 14: 19, 29; 15: 7, 23, 31; 16: 5, 14, 20, 27; 22: 39, 46 [ET 45]; 2 Kgs. 1: 18; 8: 23; 10: 34; 12: 20 [ET 19]; 13: 8, 12; 14: 15, 18, 28; 15: 6, 11, 15, 21, 26, 31, 36; 16: 19; 20: 20; 21: 17, 25; 23: 28; 24: 5. The narratives of six post-Davidic rulers lack a reference to Dtr’s source (from Israel: Jehoram and Hoshea; from Judah: Ahaziah, Jehoahaz, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah). 44 Dtr’s respect for traditional sources is observed by various scholars (e.g. Noth 1957: 95, ET 1991: 128; Carlson 1964: 22). 45 e.g. Dtr often includes battle details, and while Dtr informs the reader that the northern annals include this information for Jeroboam II (2 Kgs. 14: 28), Dtr excludes it from the narrative (see 4.3.3 below). 46 For examples of Dtr’s formulaic expressions, see 2.1.2, 2.5.2.5, and 5.3.5 below. 14 Introduction and Assyrian tribute). The third chapter builds upon these observations by exploring the striking positive parallels between Jehu and David, suggesting that Dtr favors charismatic rulers. The fourth chapter investigates the incongruity of Dtr’s evil evaluations of Jehu’s heirs with their favorable portrayals in the source material. The Wfth chapter broadens the focus to examine both Dtr’s attitude toward dynasty and his use of dynastic oracles within the context of the ANE and the DH generally. The sixth chapter summarizes the conclusions of this research regarding Dtr’s negative perspective on dynastic succession and brieXy discusses further implications and unresolved questions. 2

Righteous Jehu

2.1 JEHU’S RIGHTEOUS REGNAL EVALUATION

This chapter reveals how Dtr has shaped the narrative of Jehu (2 Kgs. 9–10) to portray the ruler favorably. Since Dtr’s positive perspective is seen most clearly in the righteous regnal evaluation of Jehu, it will be discussed Wrst (2.1), despite its location toward the end of the narrative (2 Kgs. 10: 30). Jehu’s ancestry will then be investigated, in both Hebrew and Assyrian sources (2.2). Jehu’s anointing and divine election are mentioned at the beginning of the narrative (2 Kgs. 9: 1– 13) and therefore they will be analyzed in the next two sections (2.3 and 2.4). The following two sections discuss Jehu’s violent rebellion (2.5), which dominates the narrative (2 Kgs. 9: 14–10: 27), and Jehu’s contracting borders (2.6), which is limited to a few verses (2 Kgs. 10: 32–3). Jehu’s Assyrian tribute is then discussed (2.7) before the Wndings of the chapter are summarized (2.8).

2.1.1 Royal formulations in the ANE

In order to show the distinctive nature of Dtr’s righteous evaluation of Jehu, royal formulations in the ANE and in the book of Kings will Wrst be examined. Within both Egyptian and Mesopotamian historiographic sources one Wnds royal formulations, but they are typically merely lists of kings.1 Thus, the book of Kings’ combination of extensive narrative material and formulaic statements concerning

1 The Ugaritic King List (COS i. 356–7) appears to be mainly a list of royal names, but the tablet is badly damaged so comparisons to the book of Kings are diYcult. 16 Righteous Jehu kings (e.g. ancestry, synchronisms, regnal years, and successors) is unique within the ANE.2 Egyptian king lists generally consist of series of names organized into dynasties (e.g. Karnak, Abydos, and Sakkara: COS i. 69–71).3 However, the Turin Canon (COS i. 71–3) more closely resembles the regnal formulas of the book of Kings as it also includes regnal years.4 Since these Egyptian sources consist primarily of royal names, rulers are easily clustered into dynasties. The book of Kings has no obvious parallel dynastic feature because the inclusion of narrative material and the dual focus on Judah and Israel prevents dynastic categorization. Mesopotamian king lists (Babylonian King Lists A and B, and Assyrian King Lists5) typically include the king’s name, his ancestry, and his regnal years.6 However, the reverse side of the Babylonian King List B is primarily a list of rulers’ names with little else (ANET 271d). The Assyrian King Lists occasionally include a narrative phrase: ‘[he] went to Babylonia; he came back from Babylonia, seized the throne’ (ANET 565d); however for the vast majority of the kings no narrative is present. Similarly to the Egyptian king lists, the Mesopotamian rulers are listed by dynasty, although these lists typically also include the number of rulers within a dynasty. Five other Mesopotamian sources share limited similarities to the regnal formulas of Kings. Similarly to the book of Kings, the Syn- chronistic Chronicle (ANET 272–4) focuses on two nations by including synchronisms for the rulers of Babylon and Assyria.7 However, it is primarily a list of synchronized names, omitting ancestry, royal and dynastic longevity, and narrative. The Babylonian Chronicle (Grayson 1975a: 69–111; ANET 301–7; COS i. 467–8)

2 Niskanen also argues that direct connections between Hebrew historiography and Herodotus are diYcult to maintain (2004: 13–20). 3 For a discussion of Egyptian king lists, see Van Seters 1983: 135–8. 4 Although the Turin Canon is more speciWc than Kings since it includes the month and the day. 5 References for these texts are: Babylonian King List B (ANET 271), Babylonian King List A (ANET 272; COS i. 462), Assyrian King Lists (ANET 564–6; COS i. 463–5). 6 For a discussion of Mesopotamian king lists and chronicles, see Van Seters 1983: 68–76, 79–92. 7 While Babylon had many dynastic changes (like Israel), Assyria was characterized by greater dynastic stability (like Judah). See COS i. 461. Righteous Jehu 17 includes a combination of formulaic statements and brief narrative, yet several features distinguish it from Kings. Chronological information is included not just at the beginning or end of the ruler’s reign, but for many years. The narrative is also particularly terse, with a predominantly militaristic focus. The Dynastic Chronicle (Grayson 1975a: 139–44) includes information about the dynasty (name and longevity) and about the ruler (name, lineage, longevity, and burial place), but almost no narrative.8 While the Sumerian King List (ANET 265–6) combines both formulaic statements and narrative, it has a mythological, not historical character, as the reigns of many kings are supernaturally long (e.g. Alulim ruled 28,000 years: ANET 265c). The Weidner Chronicle (COS i. 468–70) describes how the fate of kings depends upon whether or not they honor the god Marduk, but it includes little formulaic information. While some parallel features are found in ANE sources, particularly regnal years, the book of Kings’ combination of formulaic information and narrative is unique. Additionally, unlike Dtr’s regnal formulas, ANE king lists are not generally concerned with assessing the righteousness of the rulers included, but merely with recording royal information.9

2.1.2 Regnal formulas in the DH

The Deuteronomistic regnal formulas are the primary structural feature distinguishing the book of Kings from the other books of the DH.10 In his summary of scholarship on the regnal formulas of Kings, Provan discusses the divergent opinions regarding their

8 The Dynastic Chronicle is also badly damaged (see Grayson 1975a: 40). 9 However, occasionally rulers are criticized. For example, Ashur-dugul is called a ‘son of a nobody, without right to the throne’ in the Assyrian King Lists (ANET 564d). 10 Certain elements of the regnal formulas are given in the book of Samuel for Saul (e.g. 1 Sam. 13: 1; 15: 19), Ishbaal (2 Sam. 2: 10), and David (e.g. 2 Sam. 5: 4–5; cf. 1 Kgs. 2: 10–12), but Samuel’s regnal information is much less formulaic than that of Kings. The cycles from the book of Judges are the closest structural parallel within the DH to Kings’ regnal formulas. However, the cyclical information in Judges is less formulaic and focuses more on the people of Israel than the judge: they do evil, YHWH’s anger is kindled against them, they are oppressed, and they cry out (e.g. Judg. 2: 11–18; 3: 7–11). 18 Righteous Jehu

Table 2.1A. A northern regnal formula (Jehoahaz)

Description gh aFej´ Jehoahaz of Israel (2 Kgs. 13: 1–2, 8–9) ˝ ˝ 1 Judean WaFjl´ en¸W WlW ´f zjt:W´ p` vnW´ b: In the twenty-third year of Joash the ˝ ˝ ˝ ¯ synchronism ed¸ fej´ Ll` m` fej´hg aˇ¯wb` son of Ahaziah, king of Judah (13: 1) ˝ ¯ 2 Name and la¨ t¸W´ j:¯lp afej¨¯wb`ghaFej´ Llm¸ Jehoahaz the son of Jehu reigned over patronymic ¯ ˝ ˝ w Ftm´ Xb¯ ´ Israel in Samaria (13: 1) 3 Regnal years en¸W eSW´ p` pbW´ seventeen years (13: 1) 4 Evaluation ef¸ej´ jn¨jp¨ b˝´ pt e Up¯jf He did evil in the eyes of YHWH (13: 2) 5 Explanation . . . zpbt¸j vaIh th¯ a˝ Ll`¯¨j¯¯f he followed the sins of Jeroboam . . . he ˝ ¨ ˝ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ en¸m` m: to¸¯aL did not turn from them (13: 2) Narrative ...la¨ t¸W´ j:b´ ef¸ej´ Þa¯th jf The anger of YHWH was kindled material ¯ ¯ ˙¯ against Israel . . . (13: 3–7) 6 Book reference . . . gh aFej´ jS b4 tv``j´f Now the rest of the acts of Jehoahaz

˙ ¨ tq`o¨ lp˝zjb˝ fvk´ ze¨ a Fleˇ . . . are they not written in the book of ¯ ˙ ¯ la¨ t¸U´ j:¯jk¨ l´ ml´ zjm: j¸e jS b4 the annals of the kings of Israel? (13: 8) ˆ ¯ ¯ ˙ ¨ 7 Death notice fetb´ s´ jf fjv¸Baˇ ¯zp: gh aFej´ bkW´ jf So Jehoahaz slept with his ancestors, fjvh´˙v¯ Fnb´ WaFj LLm˝ ´˝jf wFtm¯´ Xb˙´¯ and they buried him in Samaria and his ˝ ¯ ˝ ˙¯ son Joash succeeded him (13: 9) redactional history and concludes that none of the views are entirely convincing (1988: 33–55). However, he acknowledges that scholars agree that the formulas are Deuteronomistic and not from a source (1988: 54). Formulas are given for thirty-eight kings of the divided monarchy.11 While the regnal formulas for the southern and northern kingdoms are similar, only the latter will be examined because of the focus on Jehu’s dynasty.12 Table 2.1A displays an example of a northern regnal formula (for Jehoahaz). Non-formulaic narrative material typically divides the regnal information given about Israelite kings into two parts. The Wrst part is usually located at the beginning of a ruler’s narrative and includes Wve elements: (1) Judean synchronism, (2) name and patronymic, (3) regnal years, (4) evaluation, and (5) explanation. The second part typically concludes the king’s section and includes two elements: (6) book reference, and (7) death notice.

11 The only rulers who lack a regnal formula are Tibni (1 Kgs. 16: 21–2) and Athaliah (2 Kgs. 11: 1–20). 12 The formulas for the southern kings typically also include the king’s ascension age and the name of his mother. Southern kings are not compared to Jeroboam I, but generally to David, while other individuals or groups are also used as points of comparison (e.g. fathers, the kings of Israel). Righteous Jehu 19 A second table (2.1B) shows the pattern of the regnal formulas for all northern kings,13 Wrst listing the king’s name and the textual reference, then a column for each of the seven elements from Table 2.1A. An ‘X’ is included in the appropriate column for rulers with a synchronism (1), a patronymic (2), an explanation (5), a book reference (6), or a death notice (7). Regnal years (3) are given in whole numbers except when a king reigns for less than a year (e.g. Zimri reigns seven days; 7/365 ¼ 0.02 years). The evaluations (4) are either ‘Evil’ (pt e) ¯ or ‘Right’ (tW j).14 The explanation is divided into two parts (5a and˝ 5b) since it takes˝ ˝ two distinct forms.15 For explanations that occur twice, a ‘2’ is included in parenthesis (Nadab, Baasha, and Jehu). Aside from the diverse narrative material that is typically included between the two sections (e.g. 2 Kgs. 13: 3–7), the formulas for the nineteen northern kings are highly consistent. Only two kings lack synchronisms (Jeroboam I and Jehu)16 and only two lack patronymics (Zimri and Omri). Every formula includes the regnal years of the king (RY). All kings except Elah and Shallum receive evaluations17 and these two plus Hoshea are the only kings without explanations.18 Book references are absent for only two of these kings (Jehoram, Hoshea). Finally, all of the Israelite kings who die naturally (i.e. are not killed in battle or conspiracy) receive the formulaic death notice (‘he slept with his ancestors’: fjv¸Baˇ ¯zp: bkW´ j:f ) except Ahaziah of Israel (2 Kgs. 1: 17).19 ¯ ¯ There are only twelve total omissions in Table 2.1B: two synchronisms, two patronymics, two evaluations, three explanations, two

13 While Ishbaal rules over Israel (2 Sam. 2: 9), he is not included in this table since the only element of his ‘regnal formula’ is his regnal years. 14 For Jeroboam I, the verb ppt¸ (‘he did evil’) is used (1 Kgs. 14: 9) instead of the collocation pt e Upjf (‘he did evil’)¯ which is used for the other ‘evil’ rulers. 15 The two forms¯ ˝ ¯ of¯¯ explanations are: ‘walking in the sins of Jeroboam’ or ‘not departing from the sins of Jeroboam’.These two forms will be discussed in detail in this section. 16 The patronymics for Jehu and Jeroboam do not come in the midst of their regnal formulas (1 Kgs. 11: 26; 2 Kgs. 9: 2, 14). 17 The short reigns of Elah (two years: 1 Kgs. 16: 8) and Shallum (one month: 2 Kgs. 15: 13) might have precluded an assessment. (Although Elah lacks an evaluation, the text refers to his sins and the sins he caused Israel to commit: 1 Kgs. 16: 13.) However, Zimri receives an evaluation with an explanation and he reigns only one week (1 Kgs. 16: 15). 18 Cross incorrectly states that each king of Israel is condemned for walking in the ways of Jeroboam (1973: 280). 19 Despite his death on the Weld of battle, Ahab receives a ‘natural’ death notice (1 Kgs. 22: 40). (See 4.3.4 below.) Hoshea’s death is not mentioned in the text. Table 2.1B. Regnal formulas for northern kings

# King Referencea 1. Sync. 2. Pat. 3. RY 4. Eval. 5a. Exp. 5b. Narr. 6. BR 7. DN

1 Jeroboam I 1 Kgs. 14: 20 X 22 Evilb Xc XX 2 Nadab 1 Kgs. 15: 25 X X 2 Evil X (2) X 3 Baasha 1 Kgs. 15: 33 X X 24 Evil X (2) X X 4 Elah 1 Kgs. 16: 8 X X 2 X 5 Zimri 1 Kgs. 16: 15 X 0.02 Evil X X 6 Omri 1 Kgs. 16: 23 X 12 Evil X X X 7 Ahab 1 Kgs. 16: 29 X X 22 Evil X X X 8 Ahaziah 1 Kgs. 22: 52d X X 2 Evil X X 9 Jehoram 2 Kgs. 3: 1 X X 12 Evil Xe 10 Jehu 2 Kgs. 10: 36 X 28 Right. X (2)f XX 11 Jehoahaz 2 Kgs. 13: 1 X X 17 Evil Xg XXX 12 Jehoash 2 Kgs. 13: 10 X X 16 Evil X X X X 13 Jeroboam II 2 Kgs. 14: 23 X X 41 Evil X X X 14 Zechariah 2 Kgs. 15: 8 X X 0.5 Evil X X 15 Shallum 2 Kgs. 15: 13 X X 0.08 X 16 Menahem 2 Kgs. 15: 17 X X 10 Evil X X X 17 Pekahiah 2 Kgs. 15: 23 X X 2 Evil X X 18 Pekah 2 Kgs. 15: 27 X X 20 Evil X X 19 Hoshea 2 Kgs. 17: 1 X X 9 Evil Omissions 2/19 2/19 0/19 2/19 3/19h 2/19 1/10i a Textual references are for the regnal years, which are typically included at the beginning of a ruler’s narrative. b Unlike other kings, Jeroboam’s evil is not said to be done in the eyes of YHWH (1 Kgs. 14: 9). c Jeroboam I is compared unfavorably to David (1 Kgs. 14: 8–9), while his successors on the northern throne are compared to him. d 1 Kgs. 22: 51 in ET. e Jehoram is not described as walking in, but rather clinging to (sbd) and not departing from the sins of Jeroboam (2 Kgs. 3: 3). f Twice the text says Jehu did not turn from the sins of Jeroboam (2 Kgs. 10: 29, 31), but the explanation for his righteous evaluation is that he did all that was in YHWH’s heart to the house of Ahab (2 Kgs. 10: 30). See also 2.1.3 below. g Both forms of the explanations (5a and 5b) are repeated a second time in the narrative of Jehoahaz (2 Kgs. 13:2, 6), but these appear to be focused on the people (see 4.1.2 below). h Columns 5a and 5b are considered together. i Column 7 has only ten possible elements, since the other rulers did not die naturally. Righteous Jehu 21 book notices, and one death notice (for Ahaziah). Since this section of the table includes one hundred and twenty-four possible elements,20 it is 90 percent Wlled. If one were to eliminate the rulers who reign for a month or less (Zimri and Shallum), this percentage would be even higher. Thus, the consistency of the formulaic pattern is striking. However, and this must be the main observation for this study, in the midst of this uniformity, Dtr’s solitary righteous evaluation of Jehu stands out against the backdrop of sixteen evil evaluations. Cross, who states ‘the kings of Israel were always condemned, each having done ‘‘that which is evil in the eyes of Yahweh’’’ (1973: 283), was apparently unaware of not only the two rulers without evaluations, but also of Jehu’s positive evaluation. As was noted above, regnal formulas are generally considered Deuteronomistic. Since Dtr’s style is typically described as repetitive, the uniformity of the cycles is consistent with a Deuteronomistic construction of the formulas.21 The more objective elements appear to have come from Dtr’s sources (synchronisms, patronymics, regnal years, and death notice) since they include no Deuteronomistic language. However, the more subjective elements (evaluations and explanations) appear to be the work of Dtr as they are expressed in classic Deuteronomistic terminology. All the evaluations refer to righteous or evil actions done in the ‘eyes of YHWH’. For Deuteronomy and the DH, Weinfeld lists nineteen occurrences of ’e jnjpb (bfief) tuje eup, ‘to do that which is right (and which is good) in the eyes of YHWH’ and over Wfty occurrences of efej jnjpb pte eup, ‘to do evil in the eyes of YHWH’.22 Regnal explanations take two forms (5a and 5b above), but both are Deuteronomisticinstyle.EightIsraelitekingswalkinthesinsofJeroboam (5a:Nadab,Baasha,Zimri,Omri,Ahab,Ahaziah,Jehoahaz,andJehoash) andninedonotdepartfromhissins(5b:Jehoram,Jehu,Jehoahaz,Jehoash, JeroboamII,Zechariah,Menahem,Pekahiah,andPekah).23Weinfeld lists the eight occurrences of vfaih tha / vfaihb / vaihb xle,‘togoin/

20 There are six columns with nineteen elements (#1–6) and one column with ten elements (#7). 21 Noth speaks of the uniform nature of the Deuteronomistic sections, which contrasts with the diversity of the traditional material (1957: 10–11, ET 1991: 24–5). 22 Weinfeld 1972: 335 n. 15, 339 n. 1. Weinfeld leaves the text unpointed. 23 Jehoahaz and Jehoash are described as both walking in and not departing from the sins of Jeroboam. 22 Righteous Jehu after the sin/sins of’ and the twelve occurrences of (v)aihm (jtham) tfo, ‘to depart from (behind) the sin’.24 Of the seven elements within regnal formulas, Dtr’s evaluation is the focal point. The Wrst three elements give historical background and the last two elements summarize the kings’ reign and burial. However, the two elements in the middle (four and Wve) include the only Deuteronomistic language in the formulas and they focus on Dtr’s primary concern for obedience to YHWH.25 These two elements are also linked since the explanation usually justiWes Dtr’s evaluation. As the ultimate and most Deuteronomistic book of the DH, Kings appears to be the one about which Dtr is most concerned. Since the Deuteronomistic regnal formulas are the primary structural feature of Kings and the focus of these formulas is the evaluation, Dtr’s dominant concern during this period of Israel’s history is the righteousness of their kings. Thus, the history of the northern kingdom in particular takes on a tragic tone as Dtr almost exclusively describes its rulers as evil.

2.1.3 Jehu: Dtr’s only righteous northern king

However, Dtr evaluates one northern king as righteous, Jehu. During the period of the divided monarchy (1 Kgs. 12–2 Kgs. 17), the text gives prominence to Israel, primarily because of the extended narratives of Jeroboam I, Elijah, Elisha, and Jehu.26 Additionally, from the united monarchy, the northern kingdom keeps the name Israel and most of the tribes and territory (1 Kgs. 11: 31, 35; 12: 20). Israel, not Judah, is the focus of the narrative during this period, making Jehu’s isolated positive assessment particularly signiWcant. The elements of Jehu’s regnal formula are listed in Table 2.1C. Jehu’s regnal formula is unusual for several reasons. The Judean synchronism is absent (#1)27 and Jehu’s patronymic (#2) is given separately from the rest of his formula (2 Kgs. 9: 2, 14). The remaining three elements of the Wrst part (3–5) come near the end of Jehu’s

24 Weinfeld 1972: 340 n. 7; 337 n. 20. 25 Noth observes how Dtr emphasizes obedience (1957: 6, ET 1991: 20). 26 Sweeney notes how, after the Solomonic narratives, the northern narratives ‘dominate the historical account of the books of Kings’ (2001: 77). 27 The Lucianic recension includes a synchronism for Jehu at the end of 2 Kings 10: 36. Righteous Jehu 23

Table 2.1C. Jehu’s regnal formula

# Description afej¨ Jehu (2 Kgs. 9: 2, 14; 10: 30, 34–6)

1 Judean synchronism 2 Name and jWmń:¯wb` iq¸ WFej´¯wb` afej¨ Jehu the son of Jehoshaphat the patronymic ˙ ˝ son of Nimshi (9: 2, 14) 3 Regnal years la¨ t¸U´ j:¯lp afej¨ Llm¸ Jehu reigned over Israel 28 years : ¯ ¯ wFtm´ Xb´ en¸W¯en`MW´ f zjt:U´ p` in Samaria (10: 36) 4 Evaluation jnjp¨ b´: tW j¸e˝v FUpˇ l v¸Bji e˜ You have done well to do what is ¯ ˝ ¯ ¯ ˙ right in my eyes (10: 30) 5 Explanation v¸jUp jbb¸l´ b tW` aˇ lK k´ according to all that is in my heart ˙ ˝ ˙ ˙bahá vjb¨l´ you did to the house of Ahab (10: ˝ ¯ 30) afej¨jS b4 tv``j´f 6 Book reference . . . ˙ Now the rest of the acts of ¨ tqò¨¯lp zjbfvk´ze¨ ¯aFleˇ Jehu . . . are they not written in the la¨ t¸U´ j¯ jk¨ l´˙ml´ zjmj¸e jSb4 : : ˙ book of the annals of the kings of ¯ ¯ ¨ Israel? (10: 34) 7 Death notice fjv¸Baˇ¯zp: afej¨bkW´ jf So Jehu slept with his ancestors, wFtm´ Xb´: FvA ftb¯´:s´ j˙¯f and they buried him in Samaria fjvh´ v Fnb´: ghaFej´ LLm´ ˙j¯f and his son Jehoahaz succeeded ˝ ¯ ˝ ˝ ˙¯ him (10: 35) section (2 Kgs. 10: 30, 36) so that most of the narrative material precedes it. Finally, the order is diVerent; regnal years are given last, not third (2 Kgs. 10: 36). Despite these variations, Jehu’s formula is still similar to other northern formulas as it includes six of the seven formulaic elements. However, the primary unique aspect of Jehu’s regnal formula is his righteous evaluation.28 Of the nineteen northern kings, sixteen are described as evil (pt or ppt¸).29 Elah and Shallum are not said ¯ to be evil or righteous, but the¯ text speaks of ‘the sins of Elah’ (1 Kgs. 16: 13: ela¨ vfaIh) and Shallum reigns for only one month (2 Kgs. ¯ 15: 13). Jehu˝ is the only Israelite king described as righteous (tWj: 2 Kgs. 10: 30) and the only king of either kingdom to be told he was˝ ˝ righteous directly by YHWH.30 In his interaction with Jehonadab,

28 While Jehu’s evaluation is not located at the beginning of his narrative, it is similar to other evaluations since it is expressed in typical Deuteronomistic evaluation language (doing right in the eyes of YHWH) and combined with reference to Jeroboam’s sins. 29 Tibni is not included since the text includes no elements of a regnal formula for him (1 Kgs. 16: 21–2). 30 Josephus has this address to Jehu come from a prophet (JA 9. 139). See also Begg 2000: 163. 24 Righteous Jehu Jehu also describes his own heart as righteous (tW j: 2 Kgs. 10: 15). Just as the positive assessments of Hezekiah and˝ ˝ Josiah are based on speciWc actions of religious reforms undertaken by these two rulers (2 Kgs. 18: 3–4; 22: 2; 23: 24–5), Jehu’s favorable evaluation is given because of his eradication of the idolatrous house of Ahab (2 Kgs. 10: 30). Dtr supports the righteous evaluation of Jehu in a variety of ways. He omits elements that reXect negatively upon Jehu (e.g. his tribute to Shalmaneser III) and focuses on aspects of the narrative that reXect positively upon Jehu (e.g. his anointing).31 His emphasis on Jehu’s positive features can be seen in how much material Dtr chooses to include. The narratives of most Israelite kings are limited to less than ten verses, but Jehu is one of only three northern kings who have a much longer section (73 verses for Jehu). For these two other kings (Jeroboam I and Ahab), Dtr makes the focus of the extended sections their surpassing evilness (1 Kgs. 14: 9; 16: 30), while Jehu’s longer section shows how he deserves to be considered the only righteous Israelite king. The distinctiveness of Jehu’s regnal formula may be attributed to the unusual length of his narrative since Jeroboam I has an extended narrative and the regnal formulas of these two kings are similar. The formulas of both Jehu and Jeroboam lack the synchronism and place the patronymic separately (1 Kgs. 11: 26; 2 Kgs. 9: 2, 14). Regnal years are given for both kings with the death notice (1 Kgs. 14: 19–20; 2 Kgs. 10: 36). The evaluations of Jehu and Jeroboam are also distinctive since they appear in the context of direct speech (1 Kgs. 14: 9; 2 Kgs. 10: 30). While Dtr qualiWes Jehu’s righteous evaluation by stating that Jehu did not depart (afej¨to¸¯Al) from the sins of Jeroboam (10: 29, 31) and that he was not careful to walk (vk`l` l tmW Al) in the law of YHWH (10: 31),32 since the vast majority˝ of¯ ˝ the northern kings continue in the sins of Jeroboam, a similar reference for Jehu is not unusual.33 Dtr also implies that Jehu’s involvement in Jeroboam’s sins

31 For discussions of Jehu’s anointing and his tribute, see 2.3.4 and 2.7.4 below. 32 The sins of Jeroboam I are also mentioned twice for four other Israelite kings (Nadab: 1 Kgs. 15: 26, 30; Baasha: 1 Kgs. 15: 34; 16: 2; Jehoahaz: 2 Kgs. 13: 2; Jehoash: 2 Kgs. 13: 11). 33 Dtr does not mention Jeroboam’s sins in connection to Elah, Shallum, and Hoshea, but the Wrst two reigned only brieXy (2 years and 1 month, respectively), and Hoshea was Israel’s Wnal king, so his regnal formula is unusual. Righteous Jehu 25 is not as wicked as that of his predecessors.34 Earlier Israelite kings walked (xle) in the sins of Jeroboam, but the pattern changes beginning with Jehoram (2 Kgs. 3: 3; see Table 2.1B), where the text says the ruler (like Jehu) did not depart (to¸¯a˙l) from Jeroboam’s sins. While the distinction is subtle, the latter judgment is not as harsh, as Cortese observes (1975: 47).35 By walking after the sins of Jeroboam, the kings prior to Jehoram and Jehu actively engage in a religious practice condemned by Dtr as idolatrous, but the later kings who do not turn from this sin, appear to be more passive as they merely refrain from removing the golden calves set up by Jeroboam in Dan and Bethel.36 Interestingly, after Jehu’s narrative, the harsher form of Jeroboam reference (xle) reappears for his sons, Jehoahaz and Jehoash (see Table 2.1B above and 4.1.6 below).37 Therefore, for Dtr to mention Jehu in connection with the sins of Jeroboam need not be a sign of Deuteronomistic disfavor, particularly in light of the negative things the text states about other favorably portrayed rulers. David commits murder and adultery (2 Sam. 11). Hezekiah gives tribute to Assyria and shows oV his treasury to Babylon (2 Kgs. 18: 15; 20: 13). Just as the reforms of Josiah cannot wipe out the sins of Manasseh (2 Kgs. 23: 25–6), Jehu’s reforms do not extend to the sins of Jeroboam. What is unusual in Jehu’s formula is how the comparison to Jeroboam I is mentioned. For other Israelite kings, a connection to Jeroboam’s sins explains their evil assessment. However, for Jehu these sins are mentioned to qualify positive statements about Jehu. Not only is Jehu deemed righteous, he is also praised for eradicating Baal worship and for purging Ahab’s house (2 Kgs. 10: 28, 30). Jehu is described in such unusually positive language for an Israelite king that it appears Dtr is not content to leave Jehu’s righteous deeds unqualiWed.

34 Josephus diminishes Jehu’s involvement in these practices and omits the connection to Jeroboam I (JA 9. 139). See also Feldman 1998b: 358 and Begg 2000: 163. 35 Additional support for viewing the ‘did not depart’ explanation less negatively is that it Wrst occurs for Jehoram, whose evil evaluation is qualiWed by Dtr because he removes the Baal pillar constructed by his father Ahab (2 Kgs. 3: 2). 36 In 2 Kgs. 10: 31, instead of lpm¨, a few manuscripts, the Oriental tradition, and ¯ the Targum have lb˙ m: (‘from all’), suggesting that Jehu may have departed from some, but not all of Jeroboam’s sins (see BHS). 37 However, Jehoahaz and Jehoash of Israel are guilty both of walking in, and not departing from the sins of Jeroboam (2 Kgs. 13: 2, 11; see 4.1.6 below). 26 Righteous Jehu Dtr qualiWes his positive evaluations for seven of the nine righteous kings of Judah: David (1 Kgs. 15: 5), Asa (1 Kgs. 15: 14), Jehoshaphat (1 Kgs. 22: 43), Jehoash of Judah (2 Kgs. 12: 4 (ET 12: 3)), Amaziah (2 Kgs. 14: 3–4), Azariah (2 Kgs. 15: 4), and Jotham (2 Kgs. 15: 35). Surprisingly, even David does not escape Dtr’s criticism. Only the regnal formulas for two southern kings (Hezekiah and Josiah) lack a negative statement (2 Kgs. 18: 1–7; 22: 1–2).38 Solomon, who is ultimately condemned by Dtr (1 Kgs. 11: 6), has an early positive assessment qualiWed (1 Kgs. 3: 3). Dtr also qualiWes the negative evaluations of two northern kings (Jehoram and Hoshea: 2 Kgs. 3: 2; 17: 2). For both Jehu and the good Judean kings who overlap with the Jehuites (Jehoash, Amaziah, Azariah, and Jotham), their righteous appraisals are followed by st (‘except’),39 then a ¯ statement about the continuation of improper religious practices (vFmb, ‘high places’ for southern kings).40 Dtr’s mixed assessment ˙ of Jehu˝ is therefore consistent with the pattern seen for most other righteous rulers in Kings, including Dtr’s ideal king, David. Dtr tends to evaluate Judean kings more favorably than Israelite kings. During the period of the divided monarchy, Judean kings receive eight righteous evaluations and only two Xawless ones. Thus, it is not surprising for a king to receive qualiWed praise since this is true of most righteous rulers. However, given the general context of unrighteous northern kings, it is striking that Dtr describes Jehu as righteous. Fritz concludes that the overall judgment on Jehu in 2 Kings 10: 28–33 is negative (1998: 58, ET 2003: 292). However, a stronger argument can be made that these verses speak positively about Jehu. The only negative reXection on Jehu in these verses, a connection to Jeroboam I, is typically included for northern kings. The elements that reXect favorably, Jehu’s righteous evaluation and his dynastic promise (2 Kgs. 10: 30), are unique and thus unusually positive indicators of Dtr’s favor toward Jehu. Fritz also ignores the signiWcance of Jehu’s accomplishments eliminating the Ahabites and Baal worship and

38 Although, as will be argued later (5.3.2), Hezekiah still receives a dynastic judgment after showing oV his wealth to the Babylonian envoys (2 Kgs. 20: 16–18). 39 The conjunction st only occurs in 2 Kgs. 10: 29, not in 10: 31. 40 Provan discusses the¯ theme of high places at length (1988: 57–90). Righteous Jehu 27 how these are viewed favorably by Dtr throughout the narrative (see 2.5.2 below). The remainder of this chapter will show how Dtr’s favorable perspective on Jehu is not limited to his righteous regnal evaluation. Aspects of the narrative that could damage Jehu’s reputation are ignored (his loss of territory, see 2.6.4), explained (his violence, see 2.5.2), and omitted (his relationship to Omrides and his foreign tribute, see 2.2.2 and 2.7), while aspects that reXect positively on Jehu are emphasized (his anointing, his divine election, and his obedience, see 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5.2). However, the Deuteronomistic favor shown to Jehu does not extend to his royal descendants who are all evaluated negatively (see Chapter 4). The next section (2.2) will continue the examination of Dtr’s pro-Jehu perspective, focusing speciWcally on Jehu’s ancestors.

2.2 JEHU’S FATHERS: JEHOSHAPHAT, NIMSHI, AND OMRI

2.2.1 Hebrew sources 2.2.1.1 Jehu’s double patronymic To understand the background of Jehu’s dynasty one must Wrst discuss his problematic ancestry, where in various sources he is described as either a son of Jehoshaphat, Nimshi, or Omri. Schneider concludes that Jehu was a descendant of Omri, based on Neo-Assyr- ian sources (1995, 1996). While scholars have generally been critical of Schneider (e.g. Sasson 1996; Dion 1997; Na’aman 1998), this section will show that her perspective is more compelling than that of her critics. It is therefore reasonable to assume that Jehu had royal blood from the line of Omri. However, since a record of this would reXect negatively upon Jehu, apparently Dtr omitted it (along with Jehu’s tribute, see 2.7 below) in order to portray Jehu more favorably. The Wrst problem of Jehu’s lineage concerns his unusual patronymic (jWm´ n: wb`iq¸W Fej´ wb` afej¨: ‘Jehu the son of Jehoshaphat ˙ ¯ ¯ the son of Nimshi’,MTof˝ 2 Kgs. 9: 2, 14). Only one other patronymic 28 Righteous Jehu foranorthernkingincludesthreegenerations.41Severalcommentators suggest that an additional generation was necessary to diVerentiate between Jehoshaphat the father of Jehu and the Judean king of the same name.42 However, while many individuals share the same name in the DH, longer patronymics are not used as a method of clariWcation. Kings with the same name are typically distinguished by their national aYliation (e.g. 2 Kgs. 14: 1: ‘King Joash son of Joahaz of Israel, King Amaziah son of Joash of Judah’). Other individuals are distinguished by citing their tribe or their city (e.g. 1 Kgs. 15: 27, 29: ‘Baasha son of Ahijah, of the house of Issachar. . . according to the word of YHWH that he spoke by his servant Ahijah the Shilonite’). When used in the DH, longer patronymics primarily show royal ancestry (e.g. Saul: 1 Sam. 9: 1; Mephibosheth: 2 Sam. 9: 6; Ben- hadad: 1 Kgs. 15: 18; Jehoash:43 2 Kgs. 14: 8; Amaziah: 2 Kgs. 14: 13; Ishmael: 2 Kgs. 25: 25).44 In none of the double patronymics is an extra generation necessary to distinguish the individual from someone else with the same name. Thus, it would be unusual to use a longer patronymic in preference to giving the nation, tribe, or city for purposes of diVerentiation. Additionally, Clines (1972) shows that single patronymics are rarely used for purposes of clarity and are most frequently used where the relationship between son and father is particularly mean- ingful in the context. While Jehu’s double patronymic may be included for purposes of clariWcation, it is more likely that its presence is included to show his relationship to Nimshi.

41 Jehoash of Israel also has a double patronymic (2 Kgs. 14: 8). Schneider incorrectly states that Jehu was the only Israelite king with a patronymic that includes a grandfather (1996: 101). 42 See Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 106; Wiseman 1993: 219. 43 While Jehoash has the same name as a Judean king, the text here distinguishes him already by calling him king of Israel. 44 Of the nine double patronymics in the book of Kings, six are connected to rulers. Some scholars think the longer patronymic is necessary for Shaphan (see Wiseman 1993: 297; Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 282) since they perceive two individuals named Shaphan in 2 Kgs. 22: 12. However, it is unreasonable to assume two distinct individuals named Shaphan in the same verse. In the immediate context he is referred to as both ‘Shaphan the scribe’ (22: 3, 8, 9, 10, 12) and merely ‘Shaphan’ (22: 8, 10, 12, 14). If there were two Shaphans, the text does not even clearly distinguish between them. Righteous Jehu 29 2.2.1.2 Jehu: son of Jehoshaphat or Nimshi? While Jehoshaphat appears to have been Jehu’s father, the argument for Nimshi’s fatherhood receives strong textual support. Only two MT references describe Jehu as a son of Jehoshaphat (2 Kgs. 9: 2, 14), while three times the MTsays Nimshi is Jehu’s father (1 Kgs. 19: 16; 2 Kgs. 9: 20; 2 Chr. 22: 7). Additionally, for the two MTreferences that say he is the son of Jehoshaphat, the Syriac omits ‘son of Jehoshaphat’ and a Lucianic manuscript makes Nimshi his father and Jehoshaphat his grandfather.45 Finally, twice Josephus calls him a son of Nimshi (˝Æı) but never a son of Jehoshaphat.46 However, Otto correctly retains the MT of 2 Kings 9: 2 and 9: 14 as the lectio diYcilior, supporting the case for Jehoshaphat’s fatherhood (2001: 29 n. 2). If Jehoshaphat is Jehu’s father, why is Jehu more commonly called the son of Nimshi? The most reasonable explanation is that, due to its additional length, Jehu’s patronymic is shortened to the name that was more famous (i.e. Nimshi).47 A similar phenomenon occurs with Mephibosheth, who is referred to both as lfaW¯wb`wv¸n¸Fej´¯wb` , ‘the son ˝ of Jonathan the son of Saul’ (2 Sam. 21: 7), and also simply as lfaW¯wb` , ‘the son of Saul’ (2 Sam. 19: 24).48 Jonathan is excluded in the second˝ patronymic because of Saul’s greater prominence. Mephibosheth’s royal lineage is emphasized in the shortened version. Therefore, while Jehoshaphat was most likely Jehu’s father, Nimshi appears to be more important. A possible reason for Nimshi’s greater prominence can be found in Assyrian sources which link Jehu to Omri.

2.2.2 Neo-Assyrian sources 2.2.2.1 Jehu: son of Omri? Four Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions from the reign of Shalmaneser III (858–82449) describe Jehu not as the son of Jehoshaphat or

45 On the basis of these variants, BHS suggests deleting ibWFej´¯wb` , making Jehu the son of Nimshi. ˝ ˝ 46 JA 8. 352 and 9. 105. 47 Gray (1964: 486) also suggests that Nimshi was more prominent than Jehoshaphat. 48 For a discussion of the patronymics of Jehu and Mephibosheth, see Porter 1966: 59–61. 49 All dates in this section are bce. 30 Righteous Jehu Nimshi, but as the son of Omri, the king whose dynasty he supposedly cut oV. The four sources are:50 Annals: Calah Bulls (841?51) I received tribute (ma-da-tu) from the people of Tyre, Sidon, (and) from Jehu (mia-u´-a) son of Omri (DUMU mhu-um-ri-i).52 ˘ Kurba’il Statue (839-83853) I received tribute (ma-da-tu) from the people of Tyre, Sidon, (and) from Jehu (mia-u´-a) son of Omri (DUMU mhu-um-ri-i).54 ˘ Annals: Marble Slab (83855) I received tribute (ma-da-tu) from Ba’ali-manze¯ri of Tyre (and) from Jehu (mia-a-u´56) son of Omri (DUMU mhu-um-ri-i).57 ˘ Black Obelisk (828–82758) I received tribute (ma-da-tu) from Jehu (mia-u´-a59) son of Omri (DUMU mhu-um-ri-i).60 ˘ Traditionally scholars have concluded that the phrase, ‘son of Omri’ means basically ‘Israelite’, since later inscriptions often connect Israel to the house of Omri, long after the Omrides ceased to rule.61 Assyrians typically referred to a nation by the name of the ruling dynasty when they Wrst encountered them. Accordingly, since Shal- maneser III’s father, Ashurnasirpal II (883–859), campaigned in Lebanon,62 it is assumed that he made contact with Israel, which would have then been ruled by either Omri or Ahab.

50 For these inscriptions, literal English translations will be given, which will include transliterations of key Akkadian words or phrases. For the transliterations, the formatting style of the source will be followed, despite inconsistencies of style (e.g. ma¯r, ‘son’, might be given as the logogram DUMU, dumu or (dumu)). 51 For this date, see Grayson 1996: 42. 52 Grayson 1996: 48, ll. 25’’–27’’. See also ANET 280c and COS ii. 267c. 53 Grayson 1996: 58. 54 Grayson 1996: 60, ll. 29–30. See also COS ii. 268d. 55 Safar 1951: 3. 56 This spelling of Jehu (mia-a-u´) is slightly diVerent from the other three references (mia-u´-a). 57 Grayson 1996: 54, col. 4, ll. 10–11. See also COS ii. 268c. 58 Grayson 1996: 63. 59 McCarter’s (1974: 5–7) perspective that these Assyrian sources refer to Jehoram and not Jehu was refuted by both Weippert (1978) and Halpern (1987). 60 Grayson 1996: 149 (A.0.102.88). See also ANET 281b and COS ii. 270a. 61 e.g. see Winton Thomas 1958: 49 and Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 106. 62 For the Lebanon reference, see Grayson 1991: 217, col. 3, l. 70 and ANET 275b. Righteous Jehu 31 Schneider, however, concludes that Jehu was an actual descendant of Omri, but not through the line of Ahab (1995, 1996). In order to determine whether ‘son of Omri’ should be understood geographic- ally or ancestrally, one needs to examine the references to Omri, Israel, and Samaria in other Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions.63 These are listed in approximate chronological order below, by the Assyrian ruler.64

Shalmaneser III (858–824) Kurkh Monolith (852?65) 10,000 troops of Ahab (ma-ha-ab-bu) of the land of Israel (KUR66 sir-’a-al- a-a).67 ˘

Adad-nirari III (810–783) Tell al-Rimah Stele (797?68) I (text ‘he’) received tribute (ma-da-tu) from Joash (mia- a-su69), of the land of Samaria (KUR Sa-me-ri-na-a-a) and (of the people) of the land of Tyre and of the land of Sidon.70 Calah Orthostat Slab (790?71) I subdued . . . the land of Tyre, the land of Sidon, the land of Omri (KUR hu-um-ri-i).72 ˘

63 Neo-Assyrian references to Israel from letters, contracts, and ‘horse lists’ are not included in these references. For a similar list of Israelite references in Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions, see Kelle 2002. 64 Unclear references from restored texts are not included here (e.g. [sa]-me-ri-na- a-a, ‘[Sa]maria’, from Sargon’s Nimrud Prism, col. 4, l. 25; see Gadd 1954: 179). All of these expressions are translated literally, including terms with gentilic endings (-a-a), to distinguish between the various determiners. Otherwise, the two phrases ‘of the land of Samaria’ (kurSa-me-ri-i-na-aþa) and ‘of the city of Samaria’ (uruSa-me-ri-na- aþa) would both be translated as ‘the Samaritan’ and would therefore be indistin- guishable. 65 See Grayson 1996: 11. 66 KUR is the logogram for ma¯tu, ‘land’. 67 Grayson 1996: 23, ll. 91–2 (A.0.102.2). See also ANET 279a and COS ii. 263d. 68 Grayson dates this inscription no earlier than 797 (1996: 210). 69 Malamat (1971) argues for a diVerent transliteration (Iu-’a-su). Albright proposes Ya-’u-su (1970: 35). Both Malamat and Albright still understand the Israelite king to be Jehoash. 70 Grayson 1996: 211, l. 8. See also COS ii. 276a. 71 This date is very uncertain, since the original slab’s location is unknown, see Grayson 1996: 212. 72 Grayson 1996: 213, l. 12. See also ANET 281d and COS ii. 276b. 32 Righteous Jehu Tiglath-pileser III (744–727) Calah Annal 13*73 (73874) I received the tribute (ma-da-at-tu)of...RezinofDamascus,Menahem(mMe- ni-hi-im-me) of the city of Samaria (uruSa-me-ri-na-aþa),75 Hiram of Tyre.76 Stele from Iran (73777) Rezin of Damascus, Menahem (mMi-ni-hi-im-me) of the land of Samaria (kurSa-me-ri-i-na-aþa), Tuba’il of Tyre.78 Summary Inscription 4 (730?79) the land of the house of Omri (kurBı¯t-Hu-um-ri-[a])80 the land of the house of Omri (kurBı¯t-Hu-um-ri-a)81 Summary Inscription 9 (730?) the land of the house of Omri (kurBı¯t-mHu-um-ri-a)82 Summary Inscription 13 (730?) . . . and had spared the city of Samaria (uruSa-me-ri-na) alone.83

Shalmaneser V (727–722)84 Babylonian Chronicle 1 (500?85) He (Shalmaneser V) ravaged the city of Samaria (uruSˇa´-ma/ba-ra-’-in).86

Sargon II (721–705) Annals from Khorsabad Palace (710?87)

73 See Tadmor 1994: 31 (Ann. 13*). 74 Tadmor dates this inscription about 738 (1994: 29, Wg. 3; also 274–6). 75 URU is the logogram for a¯lu, ‘city’. 76 Tadmor 1994: 68–9, Ann. 13*, l. 10. See also ANET 283a and COS ii. 285c. 77 Tadmor 1994: 92. 78 Tadmor 1994: 106, 107, stele III A, l. 5. See also COS ii. 287a. 79 Tadmor concludes that the summary inscriptions (except 1 and 6) come from the end of Tiglath-pileser’s reign (1994: 118). 80 Tadmor 1994: 138–9, l. 6’. See also ANET 283d and COS ii. 288a. 81 Tadmor 1994: 140–1, l. 15’. See also ANET 284a and COS ii. 288a. 82 Tadmor 1994: 186–7, l. 4. See also COS ii. 291b. 83 Tadmor 1994: 202–3, l. 18’. See also ANET 283c and COS ii. 292d. Tadmor proposes ‘the land of the house of Omri’ in the previous line (17’), but as a restored text, it will not be examined here. 84 While this source is not an Assyrian inscription, it Wts the Assyrian pattern of terms used for Israel. 85 The ‘best preserved copy’ of this chronicle dates from Darius’s twenty-second year (500?), according to Grayson (1975a: 69). 86 Grayson 1975a: 73, l. 28. Tadmor concludes that this refers to Samaria (1958: 39–40). 87 Since Sargon’s palace Dur-Sarrukin (modern Khorsabad) was built from 717 to 707, approximate dates are given for these Wve texts as 710. Righteous Jehu 33

In the city of Samaria (uruSa-me-ri-na) I caused them to dwell.88 Great ‘Summary’ Inscription from Khorsabad, rooms 4, 7, 8, and 10 (710?) I besieged and conquered the city of Samaria (uruSa-me-ri-na).89 He caused the cities of Arvad, Simirra, Damascus and Samaria (uruSa-me-ri- na) to desert me.90 Small ‘Summary’ Inscription from Khorsabad, room 14 (710?) I plundered ...thecity of Samaria (uruSa-mer-i-na) and all (gi-mir) the land of the house of Omri (ma¯t (kur) Bı¯t(e´)-Hu-um-ri-a).91 Pavement Inscription 4 from Khorsabad (710?)˘ (Sargon II) who conquered the city of Samaria (uruSa-mer-i-na) and all (gi- mir) the land of the house of Omri (ma¯t (kur) Bı¯t(e´)-Hu-um-ri-a).92 Cylinder Inscription from Khorsabad (710?) ˘ (Sargon II) who subjugated the extensive land of the house of Omri (ma¯t (kur) Bı¯t(e´)-Hu-um-ri-a) . . . the remainder I removed and settled in the land of the house˘ of Omri (ma¯t (kur) Bı¯t(e´)-Hu-um-ri-a).93 The Assur ‘Charter’ (720?94) ˘ He gathered Arpad and the city of Samaria ([a¯]lsa-me-ri-n[a]).95 Nimrud Prisms D and E (duplicates) (708?96) The city of Samaria (URU Sa-ma-ri-na) I resettled.97

2.2.2.2 Observations about Israelite references Table 2.2A summarizes the data from these Neo-Assyrian references, listing the Assyrian ruler, the source, the approximate date of the source, the Israelite ruler, and the reference to the Israelite land, city,

88 Fuchs 1994: 110 and 320, l. 123. See also ANET 286a and COS ii. 293d. 89 Fuchs 1994: 197 and 344, l. 23 (rooms 10, 4, 7, and 8). See also ANET 284d and COS ii. 296b. 90 Fuchs 1994: 201 and 345, l. 33 (only rooms 10 and 4 since room 7 is damaged here and room 8 does not have this text). There is a slight variation between the text of room 10 (uruSa-me-ri-na) and room four (uruSa-mer-i-na). See also ANET 285c and COS ii. 296b. 91 Fuchs 1994: 76 and 308, l. 15. See also ANET 285b and COS ii. 297d. 92 Fuchs 1994: 261 and 359, ll. 31–2. See also ANET 284b and COS ii. 298a. 93 Fuchs 1994: 34 and 290, ll. 19–20. See also COS ii. 298b. 94 The text refers to events from Sargon II’s second regnal year, according to Saggs 1975: 14–15, l. 16. 95 Saggs 1975: 14–15, l. 19. See also COS ii. 295c. 96 This inscription must come from the end of Sargon’s reign since it describes events as late as 708, see Gadd 1954: 181. 97 Tadmor 1958: 34, Nimrud Prism, fragment D, col. 4, l. 37. See also Gadd 1954: 179–80, l. 37 and COS ii. 295–6. 34 Righteous Jehu

Table 2.2A. Israelite references in Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions

Israelite Land/city/ Assyrian Ruler Source Date ruler dynasty

Shalmaneser III Kurkh Monolith 852 Ahab land of Israel (858–824) Calah Bulls 841 Jehu son of Omri Kurba’il Statue 838 Jehu son of Omri Marble Slab 838 Jehu son of Omri Black Obelisk 827 Jehu son of Omri Adad-nirari III Tell al-Rimah 797 Joash land of Samaria (810–783) Calah Slab 790 land of Omri Tiglath-pileser III Calah Annal 13 738 Menahem city of Samaria (744–727) Iran Stele 737 Menahem land of Samaria Summary 4 730 land of the house of Omri Pekah, land of the house of Omri Hoshea Summary 9 730 [Hoshea] land of the house of Omri Summary 13 730 [Peka]h city of Samaria Shalmaneser V Babylonian 500? city of Samaria (727–721) Chron. Sargon II Khorsabad Annals 710 city of Samaria (721–705) Great ‘Summary’ 710 city of Samaria city of Samaria Small ‘Summary’ 710 city of Samaria land of the house of Omri Pavement 4 710 city of Samaria land of the house of Omri Cylinder 710 land of the house of Omri land of the house of Omri Assur Charter 720 city of Samaria Nimrud Prisms 708 city of Samaria or dynasty. Similarities are found in the four Jehu inscriptions.98 They are dated between 841–827 during the reign of Shalmaneser III (858–824) and they mention Jehu’s tribute (841?),99 calling him a son of Omri. However, they are not verbatim copies since there is variety in the inclusion of tributaries other than Jehu, particularly on the Black Obelisk inscription.100

98 The inscriptions on the Calah Bulls annals and the Kurba’il statue are identical at this point. 99 For a discussion of the dating of Jehu’s tribute, see below 2.7.1. 100 Three inscriptions mention Tyre’s tribute and two mention Sidon’s. The Black Obelisk only mentions Jehu’s in this epigraph. Righteous Jehu 35 In regard to all these Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions, the ones before the fall of Israel (722) can be distinguished from the ones after the fall in two aspects. First, the earlier texts generally include a speciWc Israelite king and a modiWer (e.g. ‘Menahem of the land of Samaria’),101 while the later texts mention no individuals. The lack of post-fall references to individuals is explained by the fact that Israel- ite kings no longer ruled. Since the earlier references include a king and a modiWer, the text focuses on the individual, but in the absence of the king, the focus shifts to the land. Second, the pre-fall references do not use consistent terminology as Wve distinct terms are used to modify the individual kings (‘land of Israel’,‘son of Omri’,‘land of Samaria’,‘land of Omri’,and ‘land of the house of Omri’). In contrast to this, the post-fall inscriptions consistently refer to the nation as ‘the land of the house of Omri’ and the capital city as ‘the city of Samaria’. While one might think the uniformity of the later inscriptions should be merely attributed to their setting within the reign of Sargon II, within the individual reigns of Shalmaneser III, Adad-nirari III, and Tiglath-pileser III distinct modiWers are used. Even with the two references to Mena- hem, there is variety (‘land/city of Samaria’). Other reasons may explain why the references to individuals are characterized by greater variety than those that are exclusively geographical in nature. It is possible that there were speciWc reasons for the distinct modiWers that were chosen.102 Despite the variation of the tributaries on the inscriptions mentioning Jehu and the modiWers on the pre-fall Is- raelite inscriptions, Jehu is consistently called a son of Omri. Since no other Israelite king is mentioned more than twice, these four references serve to emphasize Jehu’s connection to Omri. Except for the references to Jehu, all these inscriptions use geographic terminology (‘land’ or ‘city’). In light of this pattern, one could assume that ‘son of Omri’ should be understood, not relationally (i.e. Jehu was an actual descendant of Omri), but as a gentilic (i.e. ‘a man from the land of Omri’). However, this assumption is not

101 All of the pre-fall texts except Adad-nirari’s Calah Slab appear to mention an Israelite king. 102 Kelle also argues that the distinct designations for the northern kingdom were chosen for speciWc reasons, but he attributes the variation to geographical and political factors (2002). 36 Righteous Jehu required since ma¯r could have been used intentionally for another purpose. In the absence of an obvious geographical reference, one cannot rule out the possibility that ma¯r should be taken literally as ‘son’ since in addition to being used as a gentilic form, it can also be used relationally, which will be argued below.

2.2.2.3 ‘The land of the house of Omri’ The argument for understanding the phrase ‘son of Omri’ as referring to Jehu’s nationality and not his ancestry is based on later references to Omri which clearly signify the nation of Israel (ma¯tBı¯t-Hu-um-ri-a, ‘the land of the house of Omri’). This seems ˘ to Wt a general Assyrian pattern of naming lands after an initial dynast (e.g. Bı¯t-A-di-ni, ‘house of Adini’, or Bı¯t-A-gu-si, ‘house of Agusi’) and then individuals from this land are referred to as a son of this dynast (ma¯r A-di-ni, ‘son of Adini’, or ma¯r A-gu-si, ‘son of Agusi’).103 However, in the other inscriptions that mention northern kings (Ahab, Joash, Menahem, Pekah, and Hoshea), none is called a ma¯r mhu-um-ri-i, ‘son of Omri’. For these Wve kings, geographical information˘ is only given by mentioning the land (ma¯t) or the city (a¯lu). Thus, the pattern seen with Bı¯t-A-di-ni and Bı¯t-A-gu-si does not Wt most of the Israelite kings, which suggests that ‘son of Omri’ does not need to be taken as a gentilic.

2.2.2.4 ‘Ahab of the land of Israel’ The Kurkh Monolith includes the only other reference from the reign of Shalmaneser III to the northern kingdom: ‘Ahab of the land of Israel’.104 (If Assyria Wrst contacted Israel during the reign of Omri, then Ahab should have been called a ‘son of Omri’,not from ‘the land of Israel’,105 particularly given the broader context of the Kurkh

103 Ahunu is called a ‘son of Adini’ and his nation is ‘the land of Bit-Adini’ (Grayson˘ 1991: 216, ll. 55, 51). Mati’il is called a ‘son of Agusi’ and his nation is ‘the land of Bit-Agusi’ (Tadmor 1994: 132–3, l. 17’; 102–3, l. 4’). 104 Gugler thinks the Kurkh Monolith does not refer to Ahab of Israel (1996: 267–8), but most scholars think otherwise (e.g. COS ii. 261; Cogan 2001: 420). 105 See Schneider 1995: 32. Righteous Jehu 37

Monolith where ma¯r A-di-ni is used so frequently.)106 Thus, a precedent was already set in this royal inscription of Shalmaneser for describing northern rulers as being from the ‘land of Israel’, which could have been followed for Jehu. Therefore, the shift from ‘land of Israel’ for Ahab to ‘son of Omri’ for Jehu appears to be intentional, suggesting the inscription is claiming that Jehu was a literal descendant of Omri. Ahab’s status as Shalmaneser’s enemy and Jehu’s status as a loyal Assyrian vassal do not adequately explain the diVerence between these two inscriptions.107 The Israelite tributaries, Joash and Menahem, are not described as ‘sons of Omri’ while the rulers, Ahunu, Aramu, Ba’asa, and Ianzu are all called ‘sons’ of the founders of their respective dynasties, even when they are engaged in conXict with Assyria.108

2.2.2.5 Ma¯r can mean ‘descendant’ While ma¯r-A-di-ni clearly refers to a person from bı¯t-Adini, the term ma¯r does not always refer to a person from a geographical area, but sometimes literally means son or descendant. When used for Assyr- ian rulers, ma¯r (DUMU) means son: ‘Sˇamsˇ¯-Adadı . . . the son (DUMU) of Shalmaneser’;109 ‘Shalmaneser. . . the son (DUMU) of Ashurnasirpal’;110 ‘Ashurnasirpal . . . the son (DUMU) of Tukultı¯- Ninurta’.111 Additionally, Hazael of Aram is called ‘the son (DUMU) of a nobody’ (Grayson 1996: 118, l. 26).112 For this Hazael reference, DUMU/ma¯r signiWes his status as a commoner (i.e. his father is unknown) and lacks any geographical connotations. Scholars thus translate it literally as ‘son’ (e.g. COS ii. 270b; ANET 280d; Pitard 1987: 135).

106 The phrase ‘son of Adini’ is repeated twelve times in the Kurkh Monolith and each instance appears to refer to a person from this land. See Grayson 1996: 15–16, col. 1, ll. 30, 32 (2), 38, 43, 53, etc. 107 See also 2.2.3.3 below. 108 See Mattila and Radner 1998 and Radner 1998a; Grayson 1996: 23, l. 95; 68, l. 125. Aramu and Ahunu were also Assyrian tributaries at other points in time. 109 Grayson 1996: 182–3, col. 1, ll. 26, 34. 110 Grayson 1996: 13, ll. 5–11. 111 Grayson 1996: 224, ll. 1–2. 112 Nabopolassar called himself ‘the son of a nobody’ (COS ii. 307a) and the Assyrian King List mentions eight usurpers (each literally a ‘son of a nobody’) who seize power (ANET 564d–565a). 38 Righteous Jehu In reference to Aramean states, Sader helpfully distinguishes between the various terms, concluding that the term Bı¯t-PN refers to the land and the term ma¯r-PN to the dynasty (1987: 272–3). (Sader also argues that the practice of transcribing the form DUMU-PN as Bı¯t-PN leads to confusion between the territory, Bı¯t-PN, and the dynasty, ma¯r-PN.113) Therefore, an understanding of Jehu as an actual descendant of Omri, the eponymous original dynast, is consistent with the pattern observed by Sader in reference to other non- Assyrian rulers. In many other instances referring to non-Assyrians, ma¯r is used in conjunction with geographical qualiWers, making an understanding of ma¯r as an exclusive locative determiner unnecessary: I received tribute (ma-da-tu)...fromLabturu, the son (DUMU) of Tupusu ˙ (of) the land (KUR) of Nirdun.114 I received tribute (ma-da-tu) from Ahi-ramu, the son (DUMU) of Iakhiri, ˘ of the land (KUR) of Zallu (and) the son (DUMU) of Bahia¯ni of the land ˘ (KUR) of Hatti.115 ˘ I approached the city Madara, the fortiWed city of Labturu, the son (DUMU) ˙ of Tupusu.116 1,500 troops of Akhlame of the land (KUR) of Aram from Ammi-pa’li, the son (DUMU) of Zamani.117 Ba’asa, the son (DUMU) of Ruhubi of the land of Ammon.118 He defeated 300 cities of Sarsina, son (DUMU) of Meqdiara.119 I fought a pitched battle with them—with Atarsˇumki, son (A120) of Adramu of the city (URU) of Arpad . . . They erected a boundary stone between Usˇpilulume, king of the Kummuhites, and Qalparuda, son (A) of Palalam, king of Gurgumites.121 Since each of these references already has a geographical term, it is reasonable to assume that the term ma¯r has no geographical connotations, but is meant simply to refer to the person’s ancestry.

113 Therefore, these expressions are translated literally as ‘son of PN’. 114 Grayson 1991: 202, l. 13. 115 Grayson 1991: 203, ll. 21–2. 116 Grayson 1991: 259, l. 64. 117 Grayson 1991: 261, ll. 95–6. 118 Grayson 1996: 23, l. 95. 119 Grayson 1996: 184, ll. 23–4; cf. l. 38. 120 A is the logogram for aplu which is often used synonymously for ma¯r (DUMU). 121 Grayson 1996: 205, ll. 11, 17–18. Righteous Jehu 39

Likewise, in the northern Syrian dynasty of Agusi the term ma¯r is used relationally. Assyrian royal inscriptions mention four generations of rulers from this dynasty (Agusi, Aramu, Atarsumki, and Mati’el).122 First, Agusi gives tribute (870?) to Assurnasirpal II,123 then his son gives tribute to Shalmaneser III (852?: Aramu ma¯r Agusi).124 Agusi’s grandson appears in later inscriptions (800?), both as Atar- sumki aplu Adramu125 and as Atarsumki ma¯r Aramu.126 (In the latter inscription, Grayson uncharacteristically translates ma¯r as ‘son of’, emphasizing the literal meaning of the word.) Additionally, on the basis of these inscriptions, Millard and Tadmor speak of a line of kings from A(d)ramu (1973: 61).127 The Wnal ruler from this house is connected to the eponymous founder of the dynasty, who is not his actual father (740: Mati’el ma¯r Agusi).128 On a treaty inscription, Mati’el is repeatedly called the son of Atarsumki.129 Cogan and Tad- mor conclude Mati’il is the son or grandson of Atar-sumki (1988: 151 n. 4). Thus, within this non-Assyrian dynasty, one observes that ma¯r-PN is used for sons (Aramu, Atarsumki) as well as for a descendant (Mati’il). In an interesting parallel to Israel, the expression kurBı¯t-A-gu-si, ‘land of the house of Agusi’130 is twice used (737 and 730)131 to refer to the nation after it had been conquered and annexed into the Assyrian empire (740).132 The Wrst reference to Israel as ‘the land of the house of Omri’ was after Tiglath-pileser III defeated them and installed Hoshea as king. Thus, one Wnds support for an interpretation of Jehu as an actual descendant of Omri in the dynasty of Agusi. In both instances, ma¯r appears to mean descendant and immediately following its conquest the nation is referred to as the land of the house of the original

122 Luukko 1998: 56. 123 Grayson 1991: 218, col. 3, l. 77. 124 Grayson 1996: 23, col. 2, l. 83. 125 Grayson 1996: 203, l. 5; p. 204, l. 9. Adramu is an alternate spelling of Aramu. 126 Grayson 1996: 206, l. 9’. In this inscription, the reference to Atarsumki is restored. For a defense of this restoration, see Millard and Tadmor 1973: 61. 127 Millard and Tadmor refer to the king as ‘Arame’. 128 Tadmor 1994: 132, ll. 16’–17’. 129 COS ii. 213b, 213b, 213d, 214c. These two names are spelt slightly diVerently in the treaty, see COS ii. 213 nn. 3, 4. 130 Tadmor 1994: 102, l. 4’; 186, l. 24’. 131 For these dates, Tadmor 1994: 92 (737) and 118 (730). 132 Luukko 1998: 56c. 40 Righteous Jehu dynast.133 If ma¯r can be used to refer both to an individual from a region and to an actual descendant, one can only determine the meaning by looking at the context of how individuals from that nation are referred to otherwise. Therefore, within these Neo-Assyr- ian inscriptions, ma¯tBı¯t-Hu-um-ri-a must refer to the nation of ˘ Israel, but in the four inscriptions that mention Jehu, ma¯rHumri ˘ suggests that he was an actual descendant of Omri.

2.2.3 Reconciling the sources 2.2.3.1 Jehu, son of Omri: chronologically impossible? According to Dion, Schneider’s hypothesis that Jehu was a descendant of Omri is impossible chronologically for it does not allow Jehu to acquire the maturity of years he would need in order to lead a successful coup (1997: 230 n. 36). However, if one assumes Nimshi was a sibling (or half-sibling) of Ahab then Jehoshaphat would be the same generation as Ahaziah (and Jehoram) and Jehu would be the next generation, which would synchronize easily with his long twenty-eight-year reign (2 Kgs. 10: 36). In order to show how Schneider’s hypothesis is possible one can construct a hypothetical time-line of these events. Since Deuterono- mistic regnal formulas include the age of accession for southern kings and not northern kings, one can determine the age at death only for the southern kings.134 However, these numbers can still be used as a guide for determining averages for the northern kings.135 According to a table constructed by Ishida, the Judean kings who die of natural causes136 (like Omri) live, on average, 53.4 years and most kings were about age 20 at the birth of their Wrst son.137 One can safely assume that, in a polygamous family, Nimshi could have been born soon

133 The initial conquest by Tiglath-pileser III is recorded in 2 Kgs. 15: 29–30. 134 The death age for southern kings can be obtained by adding ascension age to regnal years. 135 Abijam and Asa are excluded since their regnal formulas omit their ascension age. 136 The death age of Judean rulers who receive a natural death notice (‘he slept with his ancestors’; see also 2.1.2 above) are as follows: David (70), Solomon (57), Rehoboam (58), Jehoshaphat (60), Jehoram (40), Azariah (52), Jotham (41), Ahaz (36), Hezekiah (54), Manasseh (67), and Jehoiakim (36). 137 See Ishida 1977: 153–4. Righteous Jehu 41 Omri (924−871, 53 years)

Ahab (904−852) Nimshi (903−?)

Ahaziah Jehoram Jehoshaphat (883−?)

(884−851) (883−842) Jehu (863−814, ascends 842, age 21)

Figure 2.2A. Possible Omride family tree.

after Ahab. Ahab himself must have begotten children early and often to sire the seventy sons he is reported to have had (2 Kgs. 10: 1). Working with these Wgures and starting backwards from Omri’s death in 871,138 the time-line could look like Figure 2.2A. The only problematic aspect of this time-line is Jehu’s young age at his accession (age 21). Based on this, Dion concludes that Schneider’s theory makes the chronology impossible. However, Jehu must have been young when he ascended to the throne since he reigned twenty- eight years. Usurpers did not tend to reign long, since they were typically older at their accession age than most kings, but Jehu reigned longer than any other usurper. His young age could also be explained by the royal status he would have had if he were the great- grandson of Omri. Even using these average Wgures from Ishida, the chronology is far from impossible and can be resolved without major diYculty. If one makes an adjustment and assumes Omri was 60 at his death (still less than David, Azariah, and Manasseh), it would allow Jehu to ascend at 28 and die at 56, ages which Wt well into the chronology.139 If one assumes, as Dion apparently does, that Jehu needed to be much older at his accession, it makes his death age much higher than average, thus creating a new problem.

138 See the chronology of Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 341. 139 Jehu claims that he fought alongside Ahab (2 Kgs. 9: 25), but a slightly older death age for Omri (60) would make this reasonable as Jehu could have been about 18 at Ahab’s death (852). 42 Righteous Jehu 2.2.3.2 Resolving problematic aspects of the Jehu narrative The Jehu narrative includes several elements that are diYcult to explain. However, if Jehu were a descendant of Omri, as these Assyrian inscriptions suggest, some of the tensions within the narrative are resolved. Schneider argues that if Jehu were a descendant of Omri, it would explain his familiarity with the royal household and why the text speaks of Jehu cutting oV the house of Ahab and not the house of Omri.140 Other scholars have tried to explain this anomaly (e.g. Ishida 1975; White 1997: 74 n. 62), yet the most persuasive explanation is the simplest: only Ahab’s descendants were cut oV. The Omrides were not eliminated since Jehu survived. Despite being described as more evil than all the kings who were before him (1 Kgs. 16: 25), Omri is the Wrst dynastic founder of the northern kingdom not to receive a Deuteronomistic dynastic judgment (see also 5.2.1 below). Jeroboam, Baasha, and Ahab each have their dynasties cut oV because of their sins (1 Kgs. 14: 7–14; 16: 1–4, 7; 21: 20–4). During the united monarchy, Saul, David, and Solomon also receive versions of a dynastic judgment (1 Sam. 13: 14; 2 Sam. 12: 10–11; 1 Kgs. 11: 11–13). Therefore, Jehu’s royal lineage would explain this unusual absence of an Omride dynastic judgment since Omri’s descendants continue to rule through the seed of Jehu. If Jehu were a descendant of Omri, parallels could also be then made to two other DH leaders (Abimelech and Ishmael). First, Jehu’s killing of his seventy cousins would establish a connection to Abimelech’s slaughter of his seventy brothers (Judg. 9: 5).141 Second, Jehu would share several striking similarities with the usurper, Ishmael (2 Kgs. 25: 25). Ishmael is a member of the royal family (ek¸ flm´ e pt g`m:) with a ¯ ¯ double patronymic (the son of Nethaniah the son of Elishama) who leads a rebellion by slaying the current ruler (Gedaliah).142 A relationship between Jehu and Omri would also explain Nim- shi’s prominence over Jehoshaphat (see 2.2.1.2 above) since he would

140 Schneider 1996: 101–3. 141 The Panumuwa Inscription records that a brother of Panamuwa of Sam’al attempted to seize power by killing his seventy brothers and his father (COS ii. 158d). For discussions about groups of seventy relatives, see Fensham 1977 and de Moor 1998. 142 Lemaire lists bullae that mention Gedaliah and Ishmael (2004: 376). Righteous Jehu 43 be Ahab’s brother.143 The Wrst reference to Nimshi is found in YHWH’s commission to Elijah to anoint Jehu son of Nimshi (1 Kgs. 19: 16). The text speaks of Nimshi at this point because his lineage is chosen in preference to his brother Ahab’s, just as Solomon was selected as successor over his older brothers (1 Kgs. 1: 30).144 The presence of royal blood in Jehu’s lineage would make sense of the bizarre incident when Jehu’s fellow oYcers instantly declare Jehu as king based on the anointing by a person they consider a ‘madman’, p¸Wc ˆ m´ e (2 Kgs. 9: 11–13).145 If Jehu had royal ancestry, it would give ¯ him the additional credibility necessary to stage a successful coup, since rebellions are often led by individuals with royal blood (e.g. Absalom: 2 Sam. 15: 10; Adonijah: 1 Kgs. 1: 5; Athaliah: 2 Kgs. 11: 1; Ishmael: 2 Kgs. 25: 25).146 A connection between Jehu and Omri would help to explain Jehu’s surprising concern for Jezebel’s royal lineage (aje Ll` m` ¯vb jk, ‘for she is the daughter of a king’; 2 Kgs. 9: 34) in his request˙ for¯ her˙ burial, since she would be his relative. Jehu appears to be Jehoram’s primary commander since the young prophet approaches him initially, an indication that Jehu was in charge.147 Support for this assumption is found in Josephus, who describes Jehu as in command of the whole army.148 Typically, kings of Israel and Judah assigned a relative who was not a brother as

143 While there is uncertainty about the derivation of the names of Omri, Ahab, and Nimshi (cf. Gray 1964: 330, 332), Noth suggests that they all may have an Arabic etymology (1928: 63, 230; cf. Montgomery and Gehman 1951: 290; Gray 1964: 486). The names jt:m´ p (Omri) and jWm´ n: (Nimshi) in particular look and sound similar and neither have a YHWH-istic˝ theophoric˙ element. The similarity between the names and their potential Arabic derivation also lends support to a familial connection between Omri and Nimshi. 144 Typically, dynastic judgments are carried out during the reign of the king’s son (1 Kgs. 14: 14; 15: 27; 1 Kgs. 16: 3, 9). 145 While mad prophetic behavior can be interpreted positively (e.g. 1 Sam. 10: 9–13), forms of the root pcW (used in 2 Kgs. 9: 11) typically have negative connotations (Deut. 28: 28, 34; 1 Sam. 21: 15–16 (ET 21: 14–15); Jer. 29: 26; Hos. 9: 7; Zech. 12: 4). See also 3.1.4 below. 146 See also Sasson 1996: 554. 147 The following scholars suggest that Jehu was in charge of the army: Olyan (1984: 665), Miller and Hayes (1986: 284), Ahlstro¨m (1988: 161), Minokami (1989: 168), White (1997: 46), and Dion (1999: 151). 148 Josephus (JA 9. 105): ŒÆÆºØg K ﬁ B `æÆŁﬁ c æÆØa –ÆÆ ŒÆd ªÆ e ˝Æı ÆEÆ F, ‘[Joram] left his whole army behind in Aramathe¯ with their commander Jehu son of Nimshi.’ See also Feldman 1998b: 353–4 and Begg 2000: 131, 165. 44 Righteous Jehu commander of the army.149 Abner was Saul’s cousin and he served as the commander of the army (ab¸r¯tU) for both Saul and Saul’s son, Ishbaal (1 Sam. 14: 50; 2 Sam. 2:¯ 8).¯150 Joab was David’s nephew (1 Chr. 2: 13–17) and his commander-in-chief (2 Sam. 8: 16). Amasa was Absalom’s cousin and his commander (2 Sam 17: 25; 1 Chr. 2: 13–17). After Absalom’s failed rebellion, David tells Amasa he will promote him over Joab because Amasa is his relative (2 Sam. 19: 13).151 In light of this pattern of nepotism, it would be unusual if Jehu were not a relative of Jehoram.152

2.2.3.3 Assyrian and Israelite propaganda Na’aman argues that Shalmaneser III would want to connect Jehu to Omri’s dynasty even if he were not an actual descendant (1998: 238). Since these inscriptions are a means of royal propaganda, portraying Jehu as a ‘son of Omri’ would suit his purposes well as it would legitimize the reign of Jehu as Shalmaneser’s loyal vassal. While Na’aman’s argument makes sense and he is able to cite three examples to substantiate his point, his perspective does not fully Wt the material. As noted above, other loyal Israelite vassals are not called ‘sons’ of a dynast (Joash and Menahem), while several of Shalmane- ser’s enemies are (Ahunu, A(bi)ramu, Ba’asa, and Ianzu).153 The example of Menahem is particularly applicable, since he was both a usurper and a tributary like Jehu. It is not clear that it would further Shalmaneser’s propagandizing purposes for tributaries to be seen as legitimate dynastic rulers. Therefore, one cannot assume Shalman- eser would misrepresent the historical facts of Jehu’s lineage since what would be gained by doing so is of questionable value.

149 Presumably, kings did not make a brother commander-in-chief since a sibling would be more likely to usurp the throne. 150 David was also an oYcer in Saul’s army (1 Sam. 18: 5), though still under Abner’s authority. 151 Although David already had a relative in this position, Joab had disobeyed David’s orders when he had Absalom killed and David probably thought that Amasa could use his inXuence to bring Judah back to David. 152 A possible exception to this pattern is Omri who served commander of the army (1 Kgs. 16: 16). He was apparently not related to Elah, since the text states that all the males of Baasha’s household are killed by Zimri (1 Kgs. 16: 11). 153 See above, n. 108. Elsewhere Ahunu and A(bi)-ramu give tribute to Assyria, yet unlike Jehu, they are apparently not ‘loyal vassals’, to use Na’aman’s terminology. Righteous Jehu 45 While Na’aman is generally critical of Schneider, at times his argument supports her theory. He argues that these inscriptions make Jehu appear to be an actual son of Omri and not merely an ‘Israelite’. Na’aman concludes that Jehu’s designation ‘described him as a ‘‘son’’ of the former dynasty’ (1998: 238). If Na’aman is correct that this is what is meant by Jehu’s designation, and if there is no reason to think Jehu’s lineage was used as propaganda, then the logical conclusion is that Jehu actually was a descendant of Omri. Additionally, two other scholars interpret the title ‘son of Omri’ literally. Sasson thinks that the Black Obelisk is saying that Jehu was actually a son of Omri, but that this statement was merely mistaken (1996: 551; 552). He also disagrees with Schneider because he thinks something as important as Jehu’s bloodline could not have been left out of the biblical sources (1996: 551 n. 9). However, Jehu’s tribute to Assyria is also signiWcant and it was omitted (see 2.7.5 below). If Dtr was attempting to make Jehu appear more righteous, it is reasonable that a connection to Omri would be left out. On the basis of his literal understanding of this phrase, McCarter argues that the four references to ia-u´ -a/ia-a-u´ do not refer to Jehu, but to Jehoram since he was Omri’s grandson (1974: 6).154 One does not need to agree with the conclusions of McCarter, Sasson, or Na’aman to see, however, that their discussions show that a literal interpretation of ma¯rHumri is possible.155 ˘ If Jehu were a descendant of Omri, as these Assyrian inscriptions suggest, then why is this not mentioned by the biblical sources? The most reasonable explanation for its omission is that it would dis- credit Jehu to be associated with an evil king such as Omri. (How- ever, omitting Jehu’s relationship to Nimshi would not be necessary, since a connection between Nimshi and Omri would probably not be remembered in Dtr’s exilic context.) The two Judean kings that ascend to the throne before Jehu’s accession (Jehoram and Ahaziah) are both condemned primarily because of their relationship to the Omrides:

154 McCarter’s suggestion to read ‘Jehoram’ over ‘Jehu’ has not been generally accepted (see above, n. 59). 155 Additionally, Schniedewind (1996: 84) lends support to Schneider’s perspective. 46 Righteous Jehu eW¸ a:l´ Fl¯ev¸jé bahá¯vb jk, ‘for the daughter of Ahab was [Jehoram’s] wife’ ¯ (2 Kgs. 8: 18)˝ ˝ ¯ ˙ afebahá¯vjb¨ wvhˇ jk, ‘for [Ahaziah] was son-in-law to the house of Ahab’ ¯ (2 Kgs.˝ 8: 27) ¯ ˙ These two negative assessments are particularly unusual, since Jehoram and Ahaziah are the only southern kings evaluated by Dtr as evil (pt ) among the eight who rule, starting with Asa (1 Kgs. 15: 9) ¯ and ending with Jotham (2 Kgs. 15: 38). Dtr repeatedly states that he does not include everything from his sources, the northern and southern annals (e.g. 1 Kgs. 14: 19, 29; 15: 7, 23, 31). One can therefore assume he omitted information that earlier sources had included. Dtr appears to ignore Jehu’s Assyrian tribute (see 2.7 below), so to not mention his relationship to Omri would Wt a broader pattern of making Jehu appear more righteous. Despite the absence of a reference to Jehu’s tribute in the biblical text, few scholars question its historicity, as the accounts of both sources can be reconciled easily. In a similar manner, Jehu’s direct lineage from Omri is supported by Assyrian inscriptions and it makes sense of the biblical narrative, so it too appears to be historical. Authors will either omit or include information to strengthen their main point. Until something arises that calls aspects of this information into question, there is no reason necessarily to assume it is untrue. Propaganda may involve both inaccurate statements as well as the omission of relevant data. While the former can easily be proven wrong, checking for bias that results from the latter is much harder to gauge, which makes the latter a more subtle and eVective form of propaganda.156 Since the biblical and the Assyrian sources do not conXict, one does not need to conclude that either is inaccurate. However, the data they choose to include and omit diVer due to their unique purposes. Highlighting Jehu’s tribute serves as propaganda for Assyria, but not for Israel. Jehu’s connection to Omri does not conclusively elevate the status of Shalmaneser within Assyrian sources, but it would clearly lower Jehu’s standing as a righteous king in the context of the DH, something Dtr apparently wants to avoid. However, with Jehu’s

156 For a discussion on propaganda in the ancient world, see Taylor 1995: 1–22. Righteous Jehu 47 anointing, Dtr was able to emphasize Jehu’s righteousness, as will be shown in the following section.

2.3 JEHU’S PROPHETIC AND DIVINE ANOINTING

2.3.1 Royal anointing in the ANE

To support the portrayal of Jehu as a righteous ruler, Dtr not only avoids mentioning a familial connection to Omri, but he also repeats Jehu’s anointing (2.3.3, 2.3.4, and 2.3.5), showing how Jehu’s accession receives both divine and prophetic support. Many ANE texts speak of a divine election for a king (see 2.4.3 and 2.4.4 below), but outside biblical sources, relatively few texts clearly refer to royal anointing (see also 2.3.2), making the repetition of Jehu’s anointing particularly unusual within its context. Kutsch argues that there is no clear record of royal anointing in Egypt or Mesopotamia (1963: 40–52; cf. Veenhof 1966: 311; Mettin- ger 1976: 209). Weisman brieXy discusses possible Mesopotamian anointing practices as seen in reliefs (1976: 387–95), but his argument is speculative as he is forced to support his position based on ‘some suggestive evidence’ (1976: 387). Mettinger (1976: 209; cf. Kutsch 1963: 34) calls the anointing by Thutmose III of Taku as king over Nuhasˇsˇe157 (EA 51; Moran 1992: 224, ll. 4–9) the only unequivocal Canaanite˘ royal anointing. As Mettinger notes, this anointing should be understood primarily as a rite of vassalage between the pharaoh and his designated ruler.158 Several scholars speak of royal anointing among the Hittites (Kutsch 1963: 36–9; Veenhof 1966: 311; Mettinger 1977: 209–10). Kutsch lists the three texts that refer to anointing (1963: 36). A fragmentary text seems to mention King Tuthalija IV’s royal anointing, another speaks of his anointing to the priesthood, and a third refers to a substitute king who is anointed, then handed over to the

157 Nuhasˇsˇe is in Syria, see also COS ii. 88, n. 42. 158 Thompson˘ (1994) argues that Egyptians did not anoint oYcials and that for Taku’s anointing Pharaoh is copying an Asian practice, not bringing in an Egyptian one. 48 Righteous Jehu gods.159 Weisman thinks the third text includes the only clear example of a royal Hittite anointing ceremony (1976: 384), but since the anointing is used to avert an evil omen, one cannot be certain it represents a normal coronation. With such limited data, it is diYcult to argue that royal anointing was usually performed among the Hittites. One can therefore conclude that royal anointing was not typically practiced in the ANE outside of Israel and Judah.160 Additionally, since Thutmose III lived about 1479–1425 bce and Tuthalija lived about 1200 bce, none of the other possible examples of ANE anointing is contemporary to the Israelite or Judean monarchies.

2.3.2 Royal anointing in the DH

An analysis of royal anointing in the DH will show that Jehu’s anointing is unusual not only in the ANE but also within the biblical context, since most rulers in the DH were not anointed. Mettinger argues that royal anointing was performed in Judah until the exile (1976: 193) and in Israel it became standard practice between the reigns of Jeroboam I and Jehu (1976: 197). He also concludes that from Solomon forwards it was performed by a priest.161 However, an examination of the verb hWm (‘anoint’) reveals that relatively few royal anointings are recorded in the text and most of these are performed by prophetic Wgures, not priests.162 Table 2.3A lists the twenty-eight occurrences of hWm in the DH.163 The references within the table have been sorted by the object of the anointing. (The object of the verb hWm is the recipient of the anointing and the subject is the performer of the anointing.) The table also includes the number of references per object (in parenthesis), the textual reference, the object’s oYce, the subject of the anointing, the

159 ANET includes the third text (355c). 160 Vigano` gives an example of the anointing of a queen of Ebla at her enthrone- ment and oil being poured on a king, but not as a part of a ceremony (2000: 17, 20) 161 Mettinger 1976: 197, 208. 162 Kutsch also argues that the Hebrew Bible lacks clear evidence for regular royal anointing (1963: 52–63). 163 The form found in 1 Sam. 1: 21 (h jWm¸) is not included here. See Mettinger 1976: 191. The root hWm occurs an additional¯ 41˙ times in the Hebrew Bible outside the DH. Righteous Jehu 49

Table 2.3A. Anointing (hWm) references in the DH

Object / Object’s Subject/performer Subject’s recipient References oYce (# of occurrences) oYcea olive tree (2) Judg. 9: 8, 15 king the trees (2) peopleb (2) Saul (4) 1 Sam. 9: 16; 15: 1 ruler Samuel (2) prophetc (2) 1 Sam. 10: 1; 15: 17 king YHWH (2) YHWH (2) David (9) 1 Sam. 16: 3, 12, 13 king Samuel (3) prophet (3) 2 Sam. 2: 4, 7; 3: 39 over Judah people of Judah people (3) (3) 2 Sam. 5: 3, 17 over Israel elders of Israel (2) elders (2) 2 Sam. 12: 7 YHWH (1) YHWH (1) Absalomd (1) 2 Sam. 19: 11 kinge people of Israel (1) people (1) (ET 19: 10) Solomon (4) 1 Kgs. 1: 34, 39, 45; 5: king Zadok (3) and priest (3) 15 (ET 5: 1) Nathanf (2) ? prophet (2) ? Hazael of 1 Kgs. 19: 15 king Elijah (1) prophet (1) Aram (1) Elisha (1) 1 Kgs. 19: 16 prophet Elijah (1) prophet (1) Jehu (4) 1 Kgs. 19: 16 king Elijah; (1) prophet (1) 2 Kgs. 9: 3, 6, 12 YHWH (3) YHWH (3) Jehoash of 2 Kgs. 11: 12 king people and (1) people (1) Judah (1) Jehoiadag (1) priest (1) Jehoahaz of 2 Kgs. 23: 30 king people of land (1) people (1) Judah (1) a The oYces of the people and YHWH are simply ‘people’ and ‘YHWH’, respectively. The following are included under ‘people:’ zjr¨pe, ‘the trees’, ed¸fej´ jW¨ ´na , ‘men of Judah’, ed¸fej´¯vjb¨ , ‘house of Judah’, and zpe, ‘the people’ of Israel, Judah,˙ ˝ and the land. ¯ b Since˝ ˝ ‘the trees’ anoint a king over themselves (Judg. 9: 8, 15) whose ‘reign’ involves ‘swaying over the trees’, ‘the trees’ are meant to represent the people. c Samuel also acts as a judge (1 Sam. 7: 6, 15–17; 8: 1–3) and a priest (1 Sam. 2: 18; 7: 9, 17; 10: 8; 16: 2–5; cf. Jer. 15: 1). However, he is never called a priest and the text calls Samuel a prophet (1 Sam. 3: 20) and the leader of the company of prophets (1 Sam. 19: 20, 24), as well as the prophetic titles: zj eLa˜e¯Wja: , ‘man of God’ (1 Sam. 9: 6, 7, 8, 10) and ea` De, ‘the seer’ (1 Sam. 9: 9, 11, 18, 19), thus emphasizing˙ ˝ his primary role as prophet. The text equates seer˝ with prophet (1 Sam. 9: 9) and it is in his role as seer that Samuel is commanded to anoint Saul. d The text does not narrate Absalom’s anointing, but the people of Israel say they anointed him. e During Absalom’s unsuccessful coup, he is referred to as king (2 Sam. 15: 10, 34, 35; 16: 16). f Based on 1 Kgs. 1: 39 which only mentions Zadok, Gray (1964: 84) suggests eliminating the reference to Nathan in 1: 34 as a gloss. However, Jones (1984: 99) and Cogan (2001: 161) correctly keep the reference to Nathan since he is also mentioned in 1 Kgs. 1: 45 as participating in the anointing and there is no textual support for the deletion. g Individuals involved with this anointing include the captains, the guards, the people, and Jehoiada the priest, but no clear antecedent exists for the subject of fehˆWm´ jf ‘and they anointed him’ (2 Kgs. 11: 12; cf. 2 Chr. 23: 11). ˝ ˙¯ 50 Righteous Jehu number of occurrences for each subject (in parentheses), and the subject’s oYce. In the DH, anointing is predominately a royal rite as Elisha is the only object of an anointing who is not a king.164 Three rulers could be described as divinely anointed (Saul, David, and Jehu) since YHWH is the subject of hWm when they are the object.165 Surpris- ingly, Jehu has more divine anointing references (3) than Saul (2) and David (1).166 Each of the three kings anointed by YHWH have references in which a prophet is also the subject of hWm, thus divine anointings are associated with prophetic, but not priestly anointings. In the DH, the human mediator for divine anointings is a prophet. The most frequently held oYce for the subjects of the anointings is that of prophet (10 times), followed by priest (4 times) and elder (twice).167 However, since all of the divine anointings (six references) are performed by prophets (either Samuel or the young prophet of 2 Kings 9),168 prophetic Wgures are directly connected with sixteen of the twenty-eight occurrences of hWm.169 Mettinger’s conclusion that anointings were usually performed by priests is therefore not supported by the data of the DH since anointings are connected more frequently to prophets than priests. Jehu and three other rulers (Saul, David, and Solomon) are anointed by prophets. The anointed rulers can be divided into those with a single anointing reference (Absalom, Hazael, Jehoash, and Jehoahaz) and those with multiple references (Saul, David, Solomon, and Jehu). All of the kings in the latter group have at least four references. Thus, the anointings of Saul, David, and Jehu share several unique similarities

164 The olive trees anoint one of the trees to be king. Saul’s anointing makes both ‘ruler’, djc¸n (1 Sam. 9: 16; 10: 1) and king (1 Sam. 15: 1, 17). 165 Mettinger˙ also discusses these divine anointings (1976: 203–8). 166 While the MT of 1 Sam. 10: 1 only mentions YHWH’s anointing of Saul once, the LXX includes a second reference. 167 The primary subjects of the other anointings do not have oYces, per se: the people (8 times) and YHWH (6 times). The text is unclear about the oYce of the subject in 1 Kgs. 5: 15 (ET 5: 1). 168 Since YHWH commands Samuel to anoint David (1 Sam. 16: 12), this anointing is presumably the one to which 2 Sam. 12: 7 refers. 169 Because of its ritualistic nature, one might assume that anointing should be associated with priests and not prophets (see Mettinger 1976: 208), but in most of these references within the DH, others are included as subjects of hWm who apparently do not actually pour the oil (Nathan, the elders, the people, and YHWH). Righteous Jehu 51 that emphasize their righteousness.170 The divine nature of their anointings implies that YHWH himself has chosen them to rule; the prophetic nature of their anointings gives them a human legitimation to rule and the textual repetition of their anointings highlights their worthiness to rule. While the vast majority of Israelite and Judean rulers have no anointing reference (36 out of 43 ¼ 84 percent),171 Cogan and Tadmor conclude that anointing was a typical feature of the coronation ritual and it is only mentioned by the text when ‘a dynasty is founded or the succession contested’.172 While all anointed kings either founded dynasties (Saul,173 David, and Jehu) or could be described as having a contested succession (Absalom, Solomon, Jehoash, and Jehoahaz), many other kings Wt these criteria, but the text does not include anointings for them.174 Since Jehu was anointed, other northern kings could presumably have been anointed, yet the text records no anointings for the other eight Israelite usurpers, each of whom would have attempted to establish a dynasty. Even if one only counts as a founder kings with sons who actually succeed to the throne, four are not anointed (Jeroboam I, Baasha, Omri, and Menahem) and only three are (Saul, David, and Jehu). Using Cogan and Tadmor’s criterion for a ‘contested succession’, one could also argue that the text could have recorded anointings for Wve other rulers (Abijam, Jehoram of Israel, Ahaziah of Judah, Jehoiakim, Zedekiah).175 Therefore, Cogan and Tadmor’s theory does not adequately explain the lack of anointings in the

170 While it may seem unusual to associate Saul, who is generally portrayed negatively (e.g. 1 Sam. 13: 13; 15: 19) with David and Jehu, during the early period of Saul’s reign he is described favorably (1 Sam. 10: 6, 10–12, 24; 11: 15; 15: 24, 30; see also 3.3.1 below). 171 The 43 kings include all individuals called king (Ll` m` ) or who are said to reign (xlm), including Ishbaal and Athaliah (2 Sam. 2: 9; 2 Kgs. 11: 3). 172 Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 106; cf. Mettinger 1976: 185–7; Naveh 2002. 173 Saul’s son Ishbaal ruled over Israel for two years (2 Sam. 2: 10). 174 Cogan and Tadmor assume the absence of primogeniture constitutes a contested succession, since they list Jehoahaz of Judah’s anointing to support their conclusion (1988: 106). While the text records no dispute concerning his ascension, Jehoahaz was younger than his brother Jehoiakim who reigns after him (2 Kgs. 23: 31, 36). 175 Each of the following kings was related to, but not the eldest son of, the preceding king, and therefore had a ‘contested succession’ (according to the criterion of Cogan and Tadmor): Abijam (not Rehoboam’s eldest son: 2 Chr. 11: 18–22; cf. Ishida 1977: 154), Ahaziah of Judah (Jehoram’s youngest son: 2 Chr. 21: 17; 22: 1) 52 Righteous Jehu text since the majority of the kings who either founded dynasties or had contested successions are not said to be anointed. The sources may have included anointings for other kings that Dtr chose to omit, but this conjecture is diYcult to substantiate. One can assume, however, that Dtr views favorably the anointings he includes, in particular the divine ones, otherwise he could have omitted them.176 Because of the relative scarcity of anointings in the DH, the signiWcance of those rulers who are anointed is emphasized. Dtr’s inclusion of the narrative of Jehu’s anointing supports the portrayal of Jehu as a righteous ruler.

2.3.3 A repetitive anointing

The narrative of Jehu’s anointing includes several unusual features. The anointing is foretold twice, narrated once (the actual incident), and then retold one Wnal time. While three other kings have anointings that are repeated (Saul, David, and Solomon), the manner in which Jehu’s anointing is repeated is distinct as it involves a progres- sive pattern. Table 2.3B shows the textual repetitions of Jehu’s anointing. After giving the reference, the table includes the speaker, the listener, and the message, since each of Jehu’s four hWm references comes in the context of speech. In each subsequent version of Jehu’s anointing, the listener becomes the speaker (YHWH tells Elijah, who presumably tells Elisha, who tells the young prophet, etc.). The pattern therefore consists of a progression of Wve stages, involving six generations, from YHWH (1) to Elijah (2), to Elisha (3), to the young prophet (4), to Jehu (5), and Wnally to Jehu’s fellow oYcers (6). While the text does not record Elijah passing the message on to Elisha, it implies that this took place earlier, since three times it speaks of Elijah’s words being fulWlled (2 Kgs. 9: 36; 10: 10, 17)177 and Jehoram of Israel, Jehoiakim and Zedekiah (not the sons of the previous king: 2 Kgs. 1: 17; 23: 34; 24: 17). 176 Dtr presumably views Absalom’s anointing unfavorably since he does not include the actual incident. 177 These oracles focus on the elimination of the Ahabites and not explicitly on Jehu’s anointing, but in 2 Kgs. 9: 1–12 these two ideas are directly linked. Righteous Jehu 53

Table 2.3B. The repetition of Jehu’s anointing

# Reference Speaker Listener Message

1 1 Kgs. 19: 16 YHWH Elijah la¨ t¸U´ j:¯lp Ll` m` l´ hWm´ v: jWm´n:¯wb` afej¨va¨´f Jehu son of Nimshi¯ you shall¯anoint˙ as king over Israel 2 implied Elijah? Elisha? ? ¸ 3 2 Kgs. 9: 3 Elisha young la¨ t¸U´ j:¯la` Ll` m` l´ xjv: h´Wm´ef¸ej´ tma¯eK prophet Thus says YHWH, ‘I have anointed¯ you as king¯ ˝ over Israel.’ ¸ ´ 4 2 Kgs. 9: 6 young Jehu xjv: h´Wm´la¨ t¸Wj: je¨ La˜ ef¸ej´ tma¯eK ¯ ¯ ˝ prophet la¨ t¸U´ j:¯la` ef¸ej´ zp¯la` Ll` m` l´ Thus says YHWH, the God of Israel, ‘I¯ have anointed you as king over the people of YHWH, over Israel.’ ´ ¸ 5 2 Kgs. 9: 12 Jehu oYcers la¨ t¸Wj:¯la` Ll` m` l´ xjv: h´Wm´ ef¸ej´ tma eK Thus says YHWH, ‘I have anointed¯ you as king¯ ˝ over Israel.’ and Elisha himself attributes the anointing to YHWH (2 Kgs. 9: 3; cf. 1 Kgs. 19: 16). Additionally, the previous divine anointings were explicitly prompted by YHWH (1 Sam. 9: 16; 16: 3, 12). Presumably, this interchange is meant to have occurred sometime after Elisha became Elijah’s disciple (1 Kgs. 19: 21) and before Elijah’s accession (2 Kgs. 2: 11).178 A comparison of the messages reveals the repetitive nature of Jehu’s anointing. The messages of 2 Kings 9: 3 (Elisha to the young prophet) and 9: 12 (Jehu to the oYcers) are identical and the message of 9: 6 (young prophet to Jehu) is similar, but it also includes, la¨t¸W´ j: je¨ La˜ , ‘the God of Israel’ and ef¸ej´ zp¯la` ,179 ‘over the people of YHWH’.180 Interestingly, when Jehu tells¯ his fellow oYcers what the young

178 Jaruzelski doubts that Elisha could have served as the catalyst for Jehu’s anointing (2 Kgs. 9: 1) since he is said to die during the reign of Jehoash about forty years later (2004: 179). While a prophetic ministry of over forty years is unusual, seven rulers of Judah and Israel are said to have reigned for forty years or longer (David, Solomon, Asa, Jehoash, Azariah, Manasseh, and Jeroboam II), therefore Elisha’s involvement in Jehu’s anointing cannot be discounted merely on this basis. 179 For each of the anointings of 2 Kgs. 9 the MT has la¨ t¸W´ j:¯la` , ‘to Israel’ while 1 Kgs. 19: 16 has la¨ t¸W´ j:¯lp, ‘over Israel’. However, multiple MSS read la¨ t¸U´ j:¯lp,in 2 Kgs. 9: 3, 12 and a few MSS¯ and the Cairo Geniza read it in 9: 6. ¯ 180 The English of these two phrases from 2 Kgs. 9: 6 is italicized in Table 2.3B. 54 Righteous Jehu prophet said (2 Kgs. 9: 12), he quotes the shorter version that was spoken earlier to the young prophet (2 Kgs. 9: 3), not the expanded version that the text says was actually spoken to him (2 Kgs. 9: 6–10).181 Thus, as the text stands, Jehu quotes the wrong message, which suggests that Dtr inserted the reference of 2 Kings 9: 6 (see 2.3.4 below). The excessive repetition that characterizes Jehu’s anointing gives the narrative a redundant tone. The narrative progresses through four stages (and an implied Wfth stage) beginning with YHWH, through three generations of prophets, on to Jehu and then Wnally his oYcers. None of the narratives of the other royal anointings has this level of repetition. Even in the divine anointings of Saul and David, YHWH only tells Samuel to anoint the individual and then the text narrates the actual anointing.

2.3.4 A Deuteronomistic anointing

While the three anointing references in 2 Kings 9: 3–12 lack typical Deuteronomistic terminology, a strong argument can be made that Dtr contributed to the repetition of the narrative. Dtr’s tendency to repeat certain terms and phrases is one of his deWning characteristics (see 2.1.2 above).182 Jehu’s anointing is particularly repetitive because of its parallel phraseology and its density of references (three in ten verses). Of Jehu’s anointing references in this chapter, the most likely candidate for a Deuteronomistic addition is 2 Kings 9: 6, which comes in the context of the young prophet’s speech (9: 6b–10a). Scholars often attribute the Ahabite judgment (2 Kgs. 9: 7–10a) to Dtr, as well as the two phrases of 9: 6b that are absent from the speeches of 9: 3 and of 9: 12 (‘the God of Israel’ and ‘over the people of YHWH’).183 While it is possible that the original narrative of 2 Kings 9: 6 included a speech that was identical to the ones in 9: 3 and 9: 12, it

181 Concerning the idiom vaGk¸ f´ vaGk¸, ‘thus and thus’ (2 Kgs. 9: 12), see Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 108. 182 See e.g. Weinfeld’s appendix, ‘Deuteronomic Phraseology’ (1972: 320–65). 183 e.g. see Jones 1984: 456 and Otto 2001: 41–4. For a longer discussion of the Deuteronomistic character of 2 Kgs. 9: 7–10, see 2.5.2.5 below. Righteous Jehu 55 is more likely that Dtr added the entire speech from 9: 6–10a, including the anointing reference of 9: 6. No compelling reason exists for Dtr to make only the two limited additions in 9: 6. Since the remainder of the young prophet’s speech appears to be Deuterono- mistic, it is reasonable to assume he composed the entire speech. Thus, the original narrative may not have included any direct speech from the young prophet in 2 Kings 9: 6, merely a reference to his pouring the oil. Jehu’s anointing would then be parallel to the anointing of David, where YHWH tells Samuel directly to anoint David and then he anoints him with no textual record of direct speech (1 Sam. 16: 12–13). If the original Jehu narrative lacked the speech of 9: 6 as it now stands, the problem of Jehu quoting the wrong version of the message would be eliminated. While one might expect the text to include the actual words of the young prophet to Jehu, typically messages like these are not repeated in the DH; the text merely signals that the message is received (e.g. 1 Kgs. 20: 12: eg`e tb¸0e¯va` pMW´ k jej´f , ‘And it was, when hearing this ¯ ˙ ¯ word . . .’). Understandably,¯ many˙ ˙ messages¯ are not retold that are longer than a verse,184 but even ones that are less than a full verse are often not repeated.185 Twice in the book of Kings messages are given to a prophet from YHWH and the text does not even record the message being given to the intended party (1 Kgs. 12: 24; 2 Kgs. 20: 5–6).186 Thus, it would not be unusual if the original narrative of Jehu’s anointing omitted the contents of the message or it did not mention that it was given. Among the three individuals that YHWH commissions Elijah to anoint (1 Kgs. 19: 15–16), Jehu is the only one whose anointing is actually recorded by the text.187 Elisha and Hazael both step into their intended leadership roles (1 Kgs. 19: 19–21; 2 Kgs. 8: 7–15), but

184 References for unrepeated messages longer than a verse: 1 Sam. 3: 18; 2 Sam. 7: 17; 14: 3; 1 Kgs. 5: 21 (ET 5: 7); 14: 5; 2 Kgs. 14: 11; 20: 5–6. 185 References for unrepeated messages less than a verse: Judg. 11: 13; 1 Sam. 4: 19; 18: 26; 2 Sam. 11: 25; 1 Kgs. 12: 24; 20: 12; 2 Kgs. 6: 10; 7: 11. 186 However, the narrative implies both messages were received. 187 None of the narratives of these three leadership transitions appears to strictly fulWll YHWH’s commission of 1 Kgs. 19: 15–16. Elijah does not anoint Elisha, he throws him mantle over him (1 Kgs. 19: 19). Elisha (not Elijah) tells Hazael that he will be king (2 Kgs. 8: 13), but he does not anoint him. Jehu is anointed by the young prophet, not Elijah, nor Elisha. 56 Righteous Jehu the narratives of their leadership transitions are not as repetitive as Jehu’s narrative. The repetitiveness of Jehu’s anointing not only makes it distinctive, but it gives it the appearance of being done intentionally in order to emphasize his selection by YHWH. Dtr’s repetitive style and the textual tendency not to repeat even short messages suggest that Dtr contributed to the repetition of Jehu’s anointing. Dtr appears to have used the source material of Jehu’s anointing, inserted the Ahabite judgment and made the narrative more repetitive in order to emphasize Jehu’s anointing and thus portray him favorably.

2.3.5 Dtr repeats Jehu’s prophetic and divine anointing

Several aspects of Jehu’s anointing contribute to the portrayal of Jehu as righteous. Within the text, there is a positive correlation between royal anointing and righteousness. Jehu is the only northern king with a righteous (tWj) Deuteronomistic evaluation as well as the only one to be anointed.˝ ˝ Of the six Judean and Israelite kings who are anointed and have regnal evaluations, three are deemed righteous (David, Jehu, and Jehoash of Judah),188 thus anointed kings are more likely to be evaluated as righteous (3 out of 6 ¼ 50%) than those who are not anointed (7 out of 33 ¼ 21%).189 The prophetic nature of Jehu’s anointing also adds to his perceived righteousness. Since prophets frequently confront rulers in the DH (e.g. 1 Sam. 13: 13–14; 2 Sam. 12: 1–14; 1 Kgs. 14: 7–14), they are generally portrayed as outsiders to the royal court with higher levels of objectivity in their opinions of rulers than those on the inside.190 Therefore, prophetic involvement in an anointing provides external legitimation for a ruler. While Saul, David, and Solomon are

188 Absalom has no regnal formula (although the attitude of the text toward Absalom is clearly negative) and his anointing is not actually narrated. Saul also lacks a strict regnal formula (cf. 1 Sam. 13: 1), yet he receives a typical negative evaluation from the mouth of Samuel (1 Sam. 15: 19). 189 Seven kings with righteous evaluations are not anointed: Asa, Jehoshaphat, Amaziah, Azariah, Jotham, Hezekiah, and Josiah. Ishbaal, Elah, and Shallum are not given evaluations (see 2.1.2 above). 190 Notable exceptions include Nathan giving the promise to David (2 Sam. 7: 12–16) and the king of Israel’s court prophets (1 Kgs. 22: 6, 12). Righteous Jehu 57 anointed by a single prophet, three prophets are involved in Jehu’s anointing (Elijah, Elisha, and Elisha’s young apprentice). However, the factor that contributes most signiWcantly to Jehu’s positive portrayal is YHWH’s participation in his anointing. The divine nature of the anointing is emphasized by the triple repetition of both YHWH as the subject of hWm and the phrase ef¸ej´ tma¯eK, ‘Thus says YHWH’. YHWH’s involvement in Jehu’s anointing¯ ˝ includes both his speech and his actions. YHWH’s association with Jehu contributes to his righteous portrayal in the text because Dtr connects righteousness and relationship to YHWH, as is seen in the regnal formulas and other Deuteronomistic texts.191 In summary, Israel and Judah’s practice of royal anointing was unique within their ANE context and Jehu’s anointing is particularly unusual within the DH. Of the forty-three kings of Judah and Israel only seven are explicitly anointed (16%), four prophetically (9%), three divinely (7%), and Jehu is the only king who is said to be anointed by YHWH three times. Dtr involves YHWH, Elijah, Elisha, the young prophet, and Jehu’s oYcers in Jehu’s anointing process to emphasize his legitimacy to rule as he receives both human and divine support for his rebellion. Dtr’s use of repetition thus also contributes to the portrayal of Jehu as a righteous ruler.

2.4 JEHU’S DIVINE ELECTION

2.4.1 A distinction between divine election and anointing

Dtr also reveals his bias favoring Jehu in his portrayal of divine election. While royal heirs are frequently described as divinely chosen in ANE sources (see 2.4.4 and 2.4.6 below), no heirs are chosen by YHWH in the DH (see 2.4.7.1 below). YHWH is portrayed as not respecting the tradition of dynastic succession since he selects a new

191 Righteous behavior is equated to walking with YHWH (1 Kgs. 9: 4) and following YHWH with all one’s heart (1 Kgs. 14: 8; 2 Kgs. 10: 30). Righteous and evil deeds of the kings are performed in the eyes of YHWH (e.g. 2 Kgs. 8: 18, 27; 12: 2; 13: 2, 11; 14: 3). The reward of the righteous is the presence of YHWH (1 Kgs. 11: 38) and not acting righteously is equated with forsaking YHWH (1 Kgs. 11: 33). 58 Righteous Jehu ruler when the house of his dynastically selected predecessor has proven itself unWt to rule. This is seen particularly with Jehu as he is chosen by YHWH both to rule and to punish the Ahabites. Jehu’s anointing was said to be commissioned by YHWH (1 Kgs. 19: 16) and it designated him as king over Israel (2 Kgs. 9: 6), therefore it comprises his divine election. Since Jehu’s anointing and his election are synonymous, a discussion of his divine election could become redundant following the previous section on anointing. However, it is still necessary to examine divine election, since election and anointing are often distinct phenomena in both the ANE and the DH. The DH speaks of six kings as divinely elected (Saul, David, Jeroboam, Baasha, Jehu, and Hazael), but it only includes anointings for three of them (Saul, David, and Jehu).192 The verb hWm (‘anoint’) is used in less than half of the divine election references in the DH (11 out of 24; see Table 2.4B below). Four anointed kings are not described in the DH as being divinely elected (Absalom, Solomon, Jehoash of Judah, and Jehoahaz of Judah).193 Outside the HB, there are no clear examples of ANE rulers who are said to be both anointed and divinely elected.194 This absence is not due to a lack of references to divine election since many ANE kings refer to their selection by the gods. An extended examination of the relevant references is necessary to show how divine election is used to legitimate royal authority (2.4.2 and 2.4.3) in both ANE sources (2.4.4, 2.4.5, and 2.4.6) and the DH (2.4.7) and to provide the context for Dtr’s use of Jehu’s divine election to elevate his status (2.4.8). Conclusions from this section regarding divine election in the ANE and the DH will also be utilized later (particularly in 3.1.3, 3.1.7, 3.2.3, 4.2.2, and 5.4.2.3), justifying an in-depth analysis. However, the discussion of the narrative of Jehu’s election (2 Kgs. 9: 1–12) will be limited in this section to avoid repetition from the previous section on Jehu’s anointing (2.3).

192 Elijah is told by YHWH to anoint Hazael (1 Kgs. 19: 15), but the text does not refer to this commission again and when Elisha interacts with Hazael anointing is not mentioned (2 Kgs. 8: 9–14). 193 The anointings of these kings are discussed above (2.3.2). The Chronicler does include a reference to Solomon’s divine election (1 Chr. 28: 5). 194 The only rulers who are clearly anointed (see 2.3.1 above) are not described as divinely elected in extant sources (see 2.4.4, 2.4.5 below). Righteous Jehu 59 Divine election can be deWned as the selection of an individual by a deity (or deities) to reign over a nation. Each of the references below will therefore include a phrase with three components: (1) a verb implying an individual’s selection, (2) a god (or gods) as subject of this verb, and (3) a rule or realm that the deity has selected for the individual. Thus, corporate election of a people or individual election into oYces other than king will not be included in the following discussion.

2.4.2 Divine election as royal legitimation

Ishida notes that dynastic succession and divine election are the primary methods of establishing royal legitimacy in the ANE (1977: 25). Kings consistently had to defend against foreign and domestic threats to their reign and therefore needed ideological support to secure their rule. A prince could refer to both his royal lineage and the selection of the gods as he ascends to the throne. However, usurpers, like Jehu, could not claim royal lineage, so they relied on divine election to legitimate their rule (Ishida 1977: 7). Similarly, in the absence of primogeniture, a prince may also be more dependent on divine election (e.g. Esarhaddon, ANET 289a). While Ishida emphasizes the primary importance of dynastic succession for legitimation, the divine election of a successful usurper is presumably intended to ‘trump’ the dynastic selection of his defeated rival when the two claims come into conXict (e.g. 1 Sam. 13: 13–14). If dynastic continuity were sacred, then usurpers would rarely succeed. Apparently, the legitimacy established by divine election for a ruler extended beyond the end of his reign into the reigns of his descendants via the principle of dynastic succession until another divinely elected usurper emerges. One could argue that in the kingdoms of Judah and Assyria, dynastic selection was held in higher regard than it was in Israel and Babylon since the latter two nations were characterized by greater dynastic discontinuity (see COS i. 461).195 Surprisingly, Assyrian rulers also frequently claim divine election (see 2.4.4.2 below) while

195 See discussions below regarding divine election in Mesopotamia (2.4.4), the dynastic promise to David (3.1.6), and Alt’s thesis about Israelite instability (5.2.2). 60 Righteous Jehu no Judean king of the divided monarchy is described as divinely elected (see 2.4.7.1 below). The original narrative of Jehu’s selection by YHWH presumably would have been written during the reign of one of his heirs to validate the dynasty’s rule, but by Dtr’s era, Jehuites were no longer on the throne (nor in fact was there a northern kingdom). During Dtr’s exilic setting, the narrative of Jehu’s divine election no longer serves the purpose of protecting his dynasty from potential threats. However, it would still have emphasized how YHWH had speciWcally chosen him over the rejected house of Ahab and therefore it serves Dtr’s purpose of highlighting Jehu’s favored status.

2.4.3 Third-person witnesses and Wrst-person claims

While many ANE divine election references are found in royal inscriptions, they also occur in a diverse range of other contexts: myth, hymn, ritual, oracle, law code, prayer, and chronicle.196 However, these ANE references rarely occur in a similar context to that of the DH: third-person historical narrative. Thus, in addition to a list of these divine election references, texts will be discussed that could have provided a close parallel (third-person historical narrative) but do not mention divine election. In several texts in particular this absence is striking since the source speaks of a ruler’s accession or of gods who are actively involved in the aVairs of a ruler. In both of these contexts, a divine election reference might be expected. An implication of this diVerence is that the DH tends to refer to the selected ruler in third- or second-person contexts, while the ANE texts generally have the ruler himself speaking in Wrst-person contexts (see 2.4.6 below). Since a claim of divine election is theological in nature, an element of belief is necessary for it to be eVective in establishing a ruler’s authority. However, not all claims have the same rhetorical impact. A claim by a ruler in the Wrst-person (‘I was chosen by the gods’) sounds like a boast.197 It is diYcult to be objective when

196 Many of these ANE sources could be categorized into more than one of these genres. 197 Van Seters also suggests that Wrst-person singular language does not appear to be objective (1983: 67–8). Righteous Jehu 61 speaking about something that would beneWt oneself. Thus, claims made by the ruler himself will be less eVective as propaganda since readers would be understandably suspicious about the validity of the claim.198 References to a chosen ruler in second-person (e.g. ‘The gods chose you’) or third-person contexts (e.g. ‘The gods chose him’) appear more objective. The claimant takes on the role of a witness to the event. The value of a third-party witness is seen, among other places, in biblical law codes (Exod. 23: 2; Deut. 17: 6; 19: 15), in the Code of Hammurabi (e.g. ANET 166d), and in Hittite treaties (e.g. ANET 205c). A suspicious reader may still ask if the witness beneWts from his statement concerning the ruler’s selection; nevertheless, his testimony is more likely to be considered authoritative than one by the ruler himself. Therefore, a third-party witness lends greater legitimacy to a ruler’s claim of divine election. As each divine election reference is cited below, the genre and the manner in which the ruler is referred to (Wrst, second, or third person) will be noted. Fifty-three divine election references are included below for forty- six ANE rulers.199 The total references for each region are as follows: forty Mesopotamian, six West Semitic, four Hittite, and three Egyp- tian.200 This study makes no claim of exhaustiveness, but merely to be an expansion of Ishida who has twenty-one divine election references (1977: 6–24; 16 Mesopotamian references, 3 West Semitic, 0 Hittite, and 2 Egyptian). A greater quantity of references deepens the signiWcance of the observations and, in particular, allows a greater depth of comparison between the more stable kingdoms (Assyria and Judah) and the less stable ones (Babylon and Israel).

2.4.4 Divine election in Mesopotamian sources

Mesopotamian literature includes frequent references to royal divine election. Most of these references come in the context of royal inscriptions, particularly in titularies, where the divine election is

198 Similarly, it is diYcult to be unbiased when testifying about the divine election of one’s own child (e.g. the elections of Nabonidus (ANET 561b) and Solomon (1 Chr. 28: 5)). 199 Israelite rulers are not counted in this total. 200 Several rulers mention their divine election more than once within an inscription, but this will be only counted as one reference. However, references to diVerent 62 Righteous Jehu mentioned brieXy among various other royal epithets.201 Forty divine election references have been compiled below for thirty-three Mesopotamian rulers, which have been divided as follows: ten rulers from the early period (Sumerian, Akkadian, and Amorite), nineteen Assyrian rulers, and four Neo-Babylonian or Persian rulers.202

2.4.4.1 Early period (10 rulers and 12 references) Of the three Mesopotamian divisions, the early period’s divine election references display the greatest variety of genres (myth, hymn, law code, and chronicle). Four references come in mythological contexts: ‘Enlil . . . has destined thy fate, O Gilgamesh,203 for kingship’ (ANET 50d); ‘Gishganmesh the gods appointed as king’ (ANET 411c); Etana is granted kingship by Ishtar (COS i. 453d; ANET 115d); ‘While I (Sargon I: 2334–2279) was a gardener, Ishtar granted me (her) love, and for four and [ ...] years I exercised kingship’ (ANET 119c; COS i. 461b). Two references occur in Sumerian hymns: ‘Nunamnir, the god who . . . lifted his eyes over the people [looked with favor upon Ur-Nammu (2112–2095)], the shepherd; Enlil, the Great Mountain, [chose] him from among all his people’ (ANET 583c); ‘An set the holy crown upon my head, made me (Shulgi: 2094–2047) take the scepter in the ‘‘lapis-lazuli’’ Ekur’ (ANET 586c). Two rulers mention their divine election in law codes: ‘Enlil had called Lipit-Ishtar (1934–1924) . . . to the princeship of the land’ (ANET 159c; Ishida 1977: 6); ‘Hammurabi (1792–1750), the shepherd, called by Enlil, am I’ (ANET 164b; COS ii. 336b). The Weidner Chronicle includes four references, two for previously mentioned rulers, Sargon I and Shulgi, and two for rulers whose divine elections are not mentioned above: Ku-Baba,204 Utu-hegal205 rulers in one source will be considered separate references (see Weidner Chronicle, below). 201 For a discussion of Mesopotamian royal inscriptions, see Van Seters 1983: 60–8. 202 Since many of the royal titularies are repeated verbatim in other inscriptions, only one titulary reference is included per ruler in this study. 203 The initial occurrence of each ruler’s name is underlined for ease of identiWca- tion. 204 Ku-Baba was a queen of Kish (see Grayson 1975a: 223a). 205 Utu-hegal was a king of Uruk (see Grayson 1975a: 250b). Righteous Jehu 63 (Grayson 1975a: 148, ll. 45–8; 150, ll. 61–3; COS i. 468–70). Three of these rulers are granted sovereignty over all lands by Marduk (Ku- Baba, Sargon, and Shulgi). In terms of the contexts of these twelve early references, four are Wrst-person, one is second-person, and seven are third-person. Among these texts, the Weidner Chronicle is the most similar to the DH, since the divine election references occur in third-person contexts in a historical narrative examining the cultic piety of rulers.206 However, this chronicle concerns a much earlier period of history than the DH (third versus Wrst millennium bce) and it is more narrowly focused since it narrates the actions of only certain kings. The Weidner Chronicle is also unusual among Mesopotamian historical sources.207 The language of the chronicle appears more mythological than historical since Marduk is described as giving them control over the whole world. Grayson, observing its non- historical bias, refers to it as ‘a blatant piece of propaganda . . . this fanciful portrayal of the history of the cult of Esagil’ (1975a: 43–4). Of the twenty-four chronicles compiled by Grayson (1975a), it is also the only one to mention divine election. Thus, while the Weidner Chronicle does provide a parallel to the DH with four references, it is unique within its own context, which otherwise does not mention divine election in chronographic sources.

2.4.4.2 Assyrian (19 rulers and 22 references) Most Assyrian kings mention their divine election in titularies at the beginning of their inscriptions. A king’s titulary is usually formulaic and is often repeated verbatim in his inscriptions. Within these inscriptions, the ruler typically describes himself in third-person terminology in the titulary (e.g. ‘Ashurnasirpal . . . chosen of the gods’, Grayson 1991: 194, ll. 9–10), and then he switches to Wrst- person language to narrate his exploits (‘I, the king capable in battle, vanquisher of cities’, Grayson 1991: 196, ll. 34). Therefore, the divine

206 See Grayson 1975a: 43–5. 207 Grayson notes the uniqueness of this text among other chronographic Mesopotamian sources since it concerns a much earlier period and it includes direct divine speech (Grayson 1975 a: 43). See also Arnold (1994). 64 Righteous Jehu election references from these royal titularies will be considered to be coming from Wrst-person contexts, since the author of the entire inscription is meant to be the king. These divine election references tend to be brief and not given in narrative contexts. The following sixteen rulers claim divine election in their titularies: Sˇamsˇ¯-Adadı I208 (c.1813–1781; Grayson 1987: 52, ll. 1–6), Erı¯ba-Adad I (1392–1366; Grayson 1987: 108, ll. 1–5), Asˇsˇur- uballit (1365–1330; Grayson 1987: 110, ll. 13–15), Adad-na¯ra¯rı¯I (1307–1275; Grayson 1987: 131, ll. 1–3), Shalmaneser I (1274–1245; Grayson 1987: 182, l. 1), Tukultı¯-Ninurta I (1244–1208; Grayson 1987: 233, ll. 1–38), Asˇsˇur-re¯sˇa-isˇi (1133–1116; Grayson 1987: 310, ll. 1–2), Tiglath-pileser I209 (1115–1077; Grayson 1991: 13, ll. 20, 30–5), Asˇsˇur- be¯l-kala (1073–1056; Grayson 1991: 95, ll. 1–5), Ashurnasirpal I (1050–1032; Grayson 1991: 123, ll. 1–2), Asˇsˇur-da¯n II (934–912; Gray- son 1991: 132, ll. 1–4), Adad-na¯ra¯rı¯ II (911–891; Grayson 1991: 143, ll. 1–4), Assurnasirpal II (885–859; Grayson 1991: 194, ll. 9–10; cf. ANET 558c210), Shalmaneser III211 (858–823; Grayson 1996: 13, ll. 6–7), Sˇamsˇ¯ı -Adad V (823–811; Grayson 1996: 194, l. 2), and Adad-na¯ra¯rı¯ III (810–783; Grayson 1996: 202, ll. 2–3; cf. ANET 281c). The four earliest of these rulers (from Sˇamsˇ¯-Adadı I to Adad- na¯ra¯rı¯ I) are merely said to be a divine ‘appointee’ (ˇsa-ki-in), but gradually multiple divine election epithets are claimed by rulers (e.g. Tiglath-pileser I and Ashurnasirpal II). This trend continues as the divine election of several later kings is described in a less formulaic manner separate from their titularies. Sargon II (721–705) states, ‘the gods . . . granted [me] a kingship’ (COS ii. 299b). Esarhaddon (680–669) claims the gods pronounced him ‘king of Assyria (ever) since he was a youngster’ (ANET 289a). The divine election references of Ashurbanipal (668–627) display greater variety than those of other Assyrian rulers. He is named king by Ashur and Sin in his titulary (ARAB ii. 291). In one of Ashurbanipal’s prayers, Shamash is said to have commanded his kingship (ANET 387a, b–c). Ashur

208 Sˇamsˇ¯-Adadı is from the Amorite period. 209 In his titulary, Tiglath-pileser I claims the gods selected him, chose him, and gave him the scepter (Grayson 1991: 12–13, ll. 1–34). 210 Ashurnasirpal also mentions his divine election later in this inscription (ANET 558d). 211 Shalmaneser III is also described as ‘chosen by the god Enlil’ in this titulary. Righteous Jehu 65 pronounced his kingship according to a letter addressed to Ashur- banipal (ANET 627a). A coronation hymn describes Ashur giving the scepter to Ashurbanipal (COS i. 473a). Thus, except for these three late rulers (Sargon II, Esarhaddon, and Ashurbanipal), most Assyrian rulers only mention their divine election as epithets in their titularies. Among these texts, Ashurbanipal is the only Assyrian ruler to have one of his election references not in a Wrst-person context (a letter and a hymn). Assyria and Judah were both ruled by long dynasties, but none of the Judean kings after David are described as divinely elected in the DH while all the Assyrian rulers listed above who claim divine election have a royal lineage.212

2.4.4.3 Neo-Babylonian and Persian (4 rulers and 6 references) Four divine election references are listed below, two for Babylonian rulers and two for two Persian rulers. Nabopolassar (625–605) mentions his election Wrst in the royal titulary of an inscription (‘called by Marduk’; COS ii. 307a) and then a few lines later in his autobio- graphical section (‘[Shazu213] called me to the lordship over the country’; 307b). Nabonidus (555–539) refers to his divine election in the titulary of one inscription (‘Nabonidus . . . for whom Sin and Ningal in his mother’s womb decreed a royal fate as his destiny’; COS ii. 310d) as well as in the main section of another inscription (‘Sin called me to kingship’; ANET 562c). His mother also speaks of his selection on her tomb inscription (‘Sin, the king of all the gods . . . called Nabonidus, my only son...tokingship’ (ANET 561b; COS i. 478c). Cyrus II (538–530) claims that Marduk ‘declared him to be the ruler of all the world’ (ANET 315d; COS ii. 315a).214 Xerxes (485–465) attributes his divine election to Ahuramazda (‘who made Xerxes the king’; ANET 316c). Except for the tomb inscription of Nabonidus’s mother, all of these Babylonian and Persian references come in Wrst-person contexts.215

212 For references, see immediately above. 213 Shazu is another name for Marduk, see COS ii. 307 n. 6. 214 For Cyrus II, see also below (n. 235). 215 While Nabonidus has a reference in a third-person context, this has an even greater appearance of bias than a Wrst-person reference since it comes from his mother (see n. 198 above). See also David’s reference to the election of Solomon (1 Chr. 28: 5). 66 Righteous Jehu While many Mesopotamian sources refer to royal selection by the gods (forty references are cited above), among the many chronographical references only four are found in third-person historical narrative contexts and all of these come from the Weidner Chronicle, a unique historical source. Thus, Jehu’s divine election is distinct from the majority of Mesopotamian rulers. This pattern will continue as West Semitic, Hittite, and Egyptian sources are examined.

2.4.5 Divine election in West Semitic, Hittite, and Egyptian sources 2.4.5.1 West Semitic: six royal inscriptions Divine election is mentioned by six West Semitic rulers in their royal inscriptions.216 However, these references are less formulaic than Mesopotamian inscriptions, since they are not part of a titulary. The author of the Tel Dan Inscription (Hazael?,217 c.830) declares that ‘Hadad made me king’ (Biran and Naveh 1995: 13; COS ii. 161d). Zakkur of Hamath (c.800) states, ‘I was a man of ‘‘Anah and Ba lshamayn [raised] me and stood beside me, and Ba lshamayn made me king over Hazrach’ (COS ii. 155a). Panamuwa describes his divine election in the Hadad Inscription (c.750): ‘I am Panamu- wa . . . the gods Hadad and El and Rasap and Rakib-El and Samas supported me . . . and gave the scepter of dominion into my hands’ (COS ii. 156a). Bar-Rakib (c.720) attributes his accession to several factors including his god’s selection, ‘On account of the loyalty of my father and on account of my loyalty, my lord, Rakib-El, and my lord, Tiglath-Pileser, caused me to reign upon the throne of my father’ (COS ii. 161a). While less explicit than some of the other references, the context of the inscription of Azatiwada (c.700) seems to imply that Baal selected him as ruler: ‘I am Azatiwada, the blessed of Baal . . . Baal made me a father and a mother to the Danunians’

216 Divine election references from the DH will be discussed in a separate section below (2.4.7). 217 For a discussion of the Tel Dan Inscription and Hazael’s possible authorship, see 2.5.3 below. Righteous Jehu 67 (COS ii. 149a; cf. 124–5).218 Yehawmilk (Wfth or fourth century) also claimsdivineelection:‘IamYehawmilk,kingofByblos...whomthe Lady, Baalat/Mistress of Byblos made king upon Byblos’ (COS ii. 151a). Since all of these West Semitic divine election references come in royal inscriptions, they are expressed in Wrst-person language, unlike Jehu’s divine election references. While they are less formulaic than most of the Mesopotamian references, they are still expressed in a terse manner that is distinct from the longer narrative style of the books of Samuel and Kings, which contain many of the biblical references to divine election (see 2.4.7 below). The epic narrative of King Kirta (COS i. 333–43; Parker 1997: 12–42; ANET 142–9) would provide a closer parallel to the narrative of the DH than these royal inscriptions. It is a third-person narrative (albeit poetic) and the gods are described as actively involved in human aVairs, healing Kirta, and giving cities and children (COS i. 335b, 337d, 338a, 341–2), but the epic includes no clear references to divine election.219

2.4.5.2 Hittite: ‘sporadic’ references Divine election is mentioned less frequently in Hittite sources than in Mesopotamian sources, or even West Semitic sources. Gurney observes that references to the divine appointments of Hittite kings are ‘sporadic, but unmistakable’ (1958: 113). Four Hittite references have been compiled here. In his apology, Hattusˇili III (1267–1254) says, ˘ ‘Isˇtar, My Lady, had already early (fore)told kingship for me’ (COS i. 203b). Three references occur in ritualistic contexts. The Labarnas220 speaks thus in a building ritual, ‘To me, the king, have the gods— Sun-god and Storm-god—entrusted the land and my house. I, the king, shall rule over my land and my house’ (Gurney 1958: 114; ANET 357b). While the king is worshipping, the priest is to say, ‘[The Storm-god] has made the Labarnas, the king, his administrator and given him the entire Land of Khatti’ (Gurney 1958: 113). The

218 Azatiwada appears to rule under the authority of Awariku, king of the Danu- nians (COS ii. 124, 148). 219 A divine election reference may have occurred in the introduction, which appears to be missing. 220 Labarnas and Tabarnas are terms for the Hittite king, see Gurney 1958: 114. 68 Righteous Jehu Tabarnas Muwatallis (c.1450) is to speak this emergency prayer as a part of a ritual, ‘in the Hatti land thou (the Storm-god) madest me king’ (ANET 398c). Divine election references are absent in several Hittite sources where they might be expected since the gods are actively involved in human aVairs. In Hittite treaties, deities serve in several capacities; they oversee, witness, bless, and curse (Beckman 1995: 3, §§IV–VI); however, these treaties do not make explicit reference to the divine election of the ruler.221 Two historical sources written from a third-person perspective contain signiWcant divine intervention on behalf of royal Wgures, but no divine election references. In the Deeds of Sˇuppiluliuma (COS i. 185–91) the gods stand by the author’s father (186b), go before his grandfather in battle (187a), carry the people to Egypt (191a), and conclude a treaty (191a). The Proclamation of Telipinu (COS i. 194–5) speaks of the gods protecting (195b), seeking revenge (195b, 195d), handing over enemies (196c), and striking people (198c). In his proclamation, Telipinu gives guidance about royal dynastic succession, but does not mention selection by the gods (COS i. 196–7). Therefore, more like Egypt (see 2.4.5.3 below) than Mesopotamia, there are relatively few references to divine election among Hittite sources. With a small sample size, conclusions need to be tentative; however, references generally come in Wrst-person contexts (except the priest’s words) and in ritualistic contexts (except Muwatallis’s). None of the references comes from third-person narratives.

2.4.5.3 Egyptian: divine pharaohs and few references Since Egyptian kings are thought of as divine (see Fairman 1958: 75), they do not generally mention how the gods selected them to rule. However, divine support for dynastic succession is found in the Book of the Dead, as Atum tells Osiris (the recently deceased Pharaoh),

221 A reference to a hypothetical divine election occurs in a treaty between Tudhaliya IV of Hatti (1254–1220) and Kurunta: ‘If the gods recognize me, so that I become˘ king’ (COS ii. 103a; Beckman 1995: 118). Within these treaties several Hittite kings as well as Ramses II are described as the beloved of the gods (Beckman 1995: 37, 42, 59, 87, 96, 104). Righteous Jehu 69 ‘Your throne belongs to your son Horus, so says Atum’ (ANET 9c; COS i. 28c). This pattern continues as each king becomes Osiris at death and his successor then becomes Horus (Fairman 1958: 75). Despite their divine status, several pharaohs are still spoken about as divinely elected. In a royal inscription, Thutmose III (1490–1436) speaks of his own selection by Amon: ‘He commanded to me that I should be upon his throne’ (ANET 446b; cf. 374a). The god of the Great Sphinx tells Thutmose IV (1406–1398) of his selection: ‘Thou shall wear the southern crown and the northern crown on the throne of Geb’ (ANET 449b). Amon tells the Ethiopian222 oYcials that he has selected Aspalta (early sixth century bce) to rule their nation: ‘He is your king’ (ANET 448b).223 Thus, the divine election of rulers is not a signiWcant theme in Egyptian sources.224 In these three references, the chosen ruler is spoken about in the Wrst-person (Thutmose III), the second-person (Thutmose IV), and the third-person (Aspalta), so no clear pattern emerges, which is not surprising with a small sample size. However, all these Egyptian references occur in oracles (ANET 446–9) and none of them is recorded in the context of a historical narrative.

2.4.6 Summary of ANE divine election references

Table 2.4A summarizes the results from the ANE divine election references compiled above. It lists the source of the reference (categorized regionally, except for the DH), the numbers of rulers and references, the totals of references in Wrst-, second-, and third-person contexts, and Wnally the general context of the references. For purposes of comparison, the results from the DH (from 2.4.7 below) are included on the last line of the table. The majority of these divine

222 This Ethiopian reference is included with Egyptian ones following the divisions of ANET 440–9. 223 The divine election of Ramses IV (c.1164–1157) might be intended in an accession hymn: ‘Gracious is the Horus upon the throne of his father Amon-Re, the god who sent him forth’ (ANET 379b). 224 While it does not comprise a divine election, several pharaohs are described as beloved of the gods: Kamose, c.1550 (ANET 232c); Ramses II, 1279–1213 (ANET 29c); Tuthmose III (ANET 234c; 235d); Seti I, 1290–1279 (ANET 253c). Each of these references occurs in a royal titulary at the beginning of the source. 70 Righteous Jehu

Table 2.4A. Divine election references in ANE sources

# # 1st 2nd 3rd Source rulers Refs. per. per. per. General context

Mesopotamian Early: Sumerian, 10 12 4 1 7 Mixed: 4 myths; 2 hymns, 2 Akkadian, Amorite law codes, 1 chronicle Assyrian 19 22 20 2 0 19 royal inscr. (all titularies), 1 letter, 1 hymn, 1 prayer Babylonian / Persian 4 6 5 0 1 5 royal inscriptions, 1 tomb inscription Mesopotamian totals 33 40 29 3 8 W. Semitic 6 6 6 0 0 6 royal inscr. (not titularies) Hittite 4 4 3 0 1 3 ritual, 1 apology Egyptian 3 3 1 1 1 3 oracles ANE totals 46 53 39 4 10 DH (see 2.4.7 below) 6 24 2 12 10 Historical narrative election references come from Mesopotamian sources, particularly Assyrian ones. While this is partly due to the extensive number of Akkadian texts, one can generalize that divine election is mentioned more frequently in Mesopotamian and West Semitic sources than Hittite or Egyptian ones. While a signiWcant percentage of the references occur in royal inscriptions (particularly for the Assyrian and West Semitic sources), the range of genres is diverse as references are also found in myths, hymns, law codes, a chronicle, a prayer, a letter, rituals, and oracles.225 Within these genres, most ANE divine election references occur in Wrst-person contexts, where the ‘author’ of the inscription is claiming that his god has selected him to rule (39 of 53 ¼ 74 percent).226 The contrast to the DH where most references occur in second- and third-person contexts will be discussed below (2.4.7.3). The diVerence between the references in the ANE and the DH may partly result from the fact that royal inscriptions make up a signiWcant

225 Some of the categories overlap and some of the sources are diYcult to categorize into genres. Generally, precedents of categorization established in ANET or COS have been followed. 226 If all titulary references for Assyrian rulers were counted this percentage would be much higher. Righteous Jehu 71 percentage of the extant ANE sources. However, the less frequent occurrences in second- and third-person contexts show that it is feasible for divine election to be mentioned in other contexts. More importantly, however, no divine election references occur in historical texts that include signiWcant divine intervention (the Kirta Epic, Hittite Treaties, the Deeds of Sˇuppiluliuma, and the Proclamation of Telipinu) and only one of the twenty-four chronicles included in Grayson 1975a mentions divine election (the Weidner Chronicle). Even though Assyrian royal inscriptions may include elements of historical narrative (typically focused on the author’s conquests), the divine election references are usually only mentioned brieXy as part of a royal titulary. Despite a relatively broad spectrum of genres for these ANE divine election references, even a category combining both second- and third-person contexts is still a signiWcant minority of the total references (14 of 53 ¼ 26 percent). The closest parallel in style to the divine election of Jehu comes from the Weidner Chronicle, since it is written as a third-person historical narrative. None of the other references could easily be categorized in this manner, thus the narrative of YHWH’s selection of Jehu as king is unusual within its ANE context.

2.4.7 Divine election in the DH 2.4.7.1 Israelite rulers In order to understand the biblical context of Jehu’s selection, it is necessary to examine divine election references within the DH,227 starting with Israelite rulers and then foreign rulers.228 Deuteronomy’s

227 Only divine election references within the DH will be examined in order to understand Dtr’s attitude toward the phenomenon. Two kings have HB divine election references outside the DH: David (1 Chr. 11: 2 ( ¼ 2 Sam. 5: 2), 3; 17: 7 ( ¼ 2 Sam. 7: 8); 28: 4; 2 Chr. 6: 6 ( ¼ 1 Kgs. 8: 16); Ps. 78: 70) and Solomon (1 Chr. 28: 5). Thus, only four of these references are not also found in the DH (1 Chr. 11: 3, 28: 4, 5; Ps. 78: 70). Concerning Cyrus’s possible divine election (Isa. 44: 28–45: 1), see n. 235 below. Zerubbabel is also described as chosen by YHWH (Hag. 2: 23), but no realm is mentioned. 228 In this section, ‘Israelite’ includes both rulers of the united monarchy and the northern kingdom. No Judean kings of the divided monarchy are described as divinely elected. 72 Righteous Jehu so-called ‘law of the king’ gives general guidance for the selection of a monarch. The people are only allowed to set a king over themselves that is chosen by YHWH (Deut. 17: 15), thus one Wnds a Deutero- nomic value on divine election.229 Within the DH, twenty-four divine election references are found for six rulers (Saul, David, Jeroboam, Baasha, Jehu, and Hazael of Aram).230 (After the DH references for Israelite and foreign rulers have been presented, Table 2.4B is included below summarizing the results.) While the verb most frequently used to signify YHWH’s selection in these references is hWm (‘anoint’), a wide range of other verbs are used (thb, efr, eat, wvn, eje, and zfs)so that hWm is not used in a majority of the references (see Table 2.4B below). YHWH tells Samuel to anoint Saul as ruler (1 Sam. 9: 16), Samuel says three times to Saul that YHWH has anointed him as ruler (1 Sam. 10:1;231 15: 1, 17), and Samuel says this once to the people (1 Sam. 10: 24). Thus, two of the Wve references for Saul are found in third-person contexts and three are in second-person contexts. After Saul’s rejection, Samuel tells Saul that YHWH has selected another man to rule (1 Sam. 13: 14), then YHWH commands Samuel to anoint David as king (1 Sam. 16: 1, 12) and later Solomon tells the people YHWH selected his father (1 Kgs. 8: 16). Four references have people speaking to David about his divine election: Abigail (1 Sam. 25: 30), the people (2 Sam. 5: 2), YHWH (2 Sam. 7: 8), and Nathan (2 Sam. 12: 7). One divine election reference occurs in a Wrst-person context when David is speaking to Michal (2 Sam. 6: 21).232 Thus, the contexts of the nine references for David are as follows: four third- person, four second-person, and one Wrst-person.

229 The supposed promise of dynastic continuity in Deut. 17: 20 will be discussed below (4.2.2). 230 Judges will not be included in this analysis of divine election because their call from YHWH was not primarily to rule (Judg. 2: 16; 3: 9, 15) but to deliver the people from oppressors (e.g. Judg. 3: 9, 15; 6: 14; 13: 5). ¸ 231 The MT phrases this as a rhetorical question (ef¸ej´ xhˇ Wm´ ¯jk aFleˇ: ‘Has not YHWH anointed you?’), with the implication that YHWH has˝ anointed˙ him to rule. The LXX has a large addition in 1 Sam. 10: 1 that includes another reference to Saul’s divine election. 232 An additional Wrst-person divine election reference for David is found in 1 Chr. 28: 4. Righteous Jehu 73 While the text speaks of the divine elections of Jeroboam and Baasha, it does not say they were anointed. The prophet Ahijah tells Jeroboam that YHWH is taking the kingdom from Solomon and his son, and giving it to Jeroboam (1 Kgs. 11: 31–5). Later, Ahijah sends a condemning message to Jeroboam, Wrst reminding him of his selection by YHWH (1 Kgs. 14: 7) and then telling him that YHWH has selected a new king (i.e. Baasha) to rule over Israel (1 Kgs. 14: 14). Continuing the pattern of judgments begun with Saul (see also 2.4.8.1 below), the prophet Jehu tells Baasha that since YHWH made him leader over Israel (1 Kgs. 16: 2) his idolatry would be punished. In the four divine election references for Jeroboam and Baasha, one is from a third-person context and three are from second-person contexts. YHWH Wrst commissions Elijah to anoint Jehu as king over Israel (1 Kgs. 19: 16) and then Elisha commands the young apprentice to do it (2 Kgs. 9: 3).233 The young prophet then tells Jehu YHWH has anointed him king (2 Kgs. 9: 6) and Wnally Jehu retells his fellow soldiers what the young prophet said (2 Kgs. 9: 12). While the ¸ language of this Wnal reference is second-person (xjv: h´Wm´; ‘I anointed you’), since Jehu is speaking, it will be counted as W¯ rst-person.234 Therefore, the contexts of Jehu’s four references are: two third-person, one second-person, and one Wrst-person.

2.4.7.2 Foreign rulers Niehaus (1994) implies that the biblical text includes the divine election by YHWH of several foreign rulers. In the context of his discussion of divine election, he states, ‘Yahweh also raised up the kings of other nations’ (1994: 305 n. 38). He then lists Hadad of Edom (1 Kgs. 11: 14), Rezon of Damascus (1 Kgs. 11: 23), and Hazael of Damascus (1 Kgs. 19: 15; 2 Kgs. 8: 13).235 However, these

233 Jehu’s anointing/election is discussed in detail above (2.3.3). 234 Jehu is quoting the young prophet who is meant to be quoting YHWH (2 Kgs. 9: 12). 235 Niehaus also includes Cyrus II in this list (Isa. 44: 28; 45: 1–7). While the text of Isaiah is probably meant to imply that Cyrus was divinely elected (particularly 44: 28–45: 1), this is never stated explicitly. Since Cyrus’s reference is outside the DH, it will not be examined in this discussion. 74 Righteous Jehu texts say that YHWH raised up (hiphil of zfs) Hadad and Rezon as adversaries (wiU) for Solomon. In contrast, YHWH tells Jeroboam that he will raise˝ ˝ up (hiphil of zfs) a king (1 Kgs. 14: 14). Thus, the raising up of Hadad and Rezon does not imply selection by YHWH to be kings, but merely to be antagonists for Solomon. Therefore, only the references to Hazael speak of divine election.236 Just as with Jehu’s selection, YHWH Wrst tells Elijah to anoint Hazael king over Aram (1 Kgs. 19: 15), then Elisha tells Hazael that YHWH has shown him he is to rule (2 Kgs. 8: 13). For Hazael, one reference is from a third-person context and one is from a second-person context.

2.4.7.3 DH summary and observations Table 2.4B lists the twenty-four divine election references in the DH for these six rulers (Saul, David, Jeroboam, Baasha, Jehu, and Hazael). For each ruler, the number of his references are given, followed by the textual reference, the verb used, the speaker, the listener, the context (1st, 2nd or 3rd person), and Wnally whether or not the reference came from Dtr (see 2.4.7.4 below). Ten references come from third-person contexts, twelve from second-person contexts, and two from Wrst-person contexts. Thus, in stark contrast to the ANE references, only a small percentage of these references occur in Wrst-person contexts (2 of 24 ¼ 8 percent in HB sources versus 74 percent in ANE sources). As was noted above, the third-person narration of Samuel and Kings appears to be more impartial than the claims by many of these ANE kings about their divine election. With the exception of once each for David (2 Sam. 6: 21) and Jehu (2 Kgs. 9: 12), Israelite rulers are not testifying to their own selection by YHWH, therefore the rhetorical impact of their claims would likely be greater than many of their ANE counterparts. Additionally, the Wrst-person claims by David and Jehu only occur in the narrative after a series of references in third and second-person contexts. Three of the rulers with divine election references are also described as divinely anointed (Saul, David, and Jehu).237 These three kings also share the vast majority of the divine election references in

236 For Hazael, see also above 2.4.5.1. 237 See 2.3.2 above. Righteous Jehu 75

Table 2.4B. Divine election references in the DH

Ruler Reference Verb Speaker Listener 1st 2nd 3rd Dtr?

Saul 1 Sam. 9: 16 hWm YHWH Samuel X 1 Sam. 10: 1 hWm Samuel Saul X 1 Sam. 10: 24 thb Samuel People X 1 Sam. 15: 1 hWm Samuel Saul X 1 Sam. 15: 17 hWm Samuel Saul X Dtr David 1 Sam. 13: 14 efr Samuel Saul X Dtr 1 Sam. 16: 1 eat YHWH Samuel X 1 Sam. 16: 12 hWm YHWH Samuel X 1 Sam. 25: 30 efr Abigail David X Dtr 2 Sam. 5: 2 eje People David X Dtr 2 Sam. 6: 21 thb/efr David Michal X Dtr 2 Sam. 7: 8 eje YHWH David X Dtr 2 Sam. 12: 7 hWm Nathan David X Dtr 1 Kgs. 8: 16 thb Solomon People X Dtr Jeroboam 1 Kgs. 11: 31–5 wvn Ahijah Jeroboam X Dtr 1 Kgs. 14: 7 wvn Ahijah Jeroboama X Dtr Baasha 1 Kgs. 14: 14 zfs Ahijah Jeroboam X Dtr 1 Kgs. 16: 2 wvn Jehu Baasha X Dtr Jehu 1 Kgs. 19: 16 hWm YHWH Elijah X 2 Kgs. 9: 3 hWm Elisha prophet X 2 Kgs. 9: 6 hWm prophet Jehu X Dtr 2 Kgs. 9: 12 hWm Jehu oYcers X Hazael 1 Kgs. 19: 15 hWm YHWH Elijah X 2 Kgs. 8: 13 eat Elisha Hazael X Total 24 2 12 10 13 a These words of Ahijah (1 Kgs. 14: 7–16) are given to Jeroboam’s wife as a message to her husband (1 Kgs. 14: 7). the DH (18 of 24): Saul with Wve references, David with nine, and Jehu with four. Jeroboam, Baasha, and Hazael only have two references each. Thus, even among the divinely elected rulers, the text puts greater emphasis on YHWH’s selection of Saul, David, and Jehu. As a result, these three are more strongly associated with YHWH than the other elected rulers. After Saul, the divine election of the new ruler is coupled with the explicit divine rejection of the previous ruler or his house. Saul is replaced by David, Rehoboam by Jeroboam (over Israel), Jeroboam by Baasha, and Ahab’s house by Jehu. Thus, divinely elected kings are deemed more worthy than the divinely rejected king whom they replace. While three of these rulers eventually receive negative evaluations, YHWH’s selection initially reXects positively on a ruler’s righteousness. 76 Righteous Jehu After Baasha’s dynasty ends, Omri becomes the Wrst Israelite dynastic founder without a divine election reference. The pattern of divine election restarts with Jehu, but after Jehu there are no more divinely elected kings of either kingdom, despite the fact that four usurpers (Shallum, Menahem, Pekah, Hoshea) came to the throne in a short period of time. The lack of a tradition associating their accession to divine initiative may have contributed to the transitory nature of their dynasties since election was used to legitimate a ruler’s reign to the people. The absence of divine elections after Baasha, however, makes Jehu’s election more unusual since it stands out in contrast to those who follow him. Even kings that Dtr considers as righteous such as Hezekiah and Josiah are not described as chosen by YHWH.238

2.4.7.4 Dtr and divine election In order to understand how Dtr utilizes divine election references, an examination of their Deuteronomistic character is necessary. Basic Deuteronomistic patterns are observable among many of these references. Six of the references for Saul and David come from source material (1 Sam. 9: 16; 10: 1, 24;239 15: 1; 16: 1, 12), while eight come from Deuteronomistic material (1 Sam. 13: 14; 15: 17; 25: 30; 2 Sam. 5: 2; 6: 21; 7: 8; 12: 7; 1 Kgs. 8: 16).240 Generally, for Saul and David, references that occur earlier in the narrative are from sources while later ones are from Dtr (see Table 2.4A above). The four references for Jeroboam I and Baasha (1 Kgs. 11: 31–5; 14: 7, 14; 16: 2) are all found in Deuteronomistic material, while the two for Hazael (1 Kgs. 19: 15; 2 Kgs. 8: 13) come from source material.241 Of the references for Saul, David, Jeroboam, and Baasha, twelve of eighteen are Deu- teronomistic. Seven of these twelve references come in contexts of

238 See also 2.4.8.2 below. 239 However, Noth thinks that 1 Sam. 10: 24 is from Dtr (1957: 54, ET 1991: 77). 240 All of these references from Samuel are viewed by Veijola as Dtr except 1 Sam. 15: 17 (1975: 47–57, 63–79, 139–140). Reasons are given below (2.4.8.1) for also understanding 1 Sam. 15: 17 as from Dtr. 1 Kgs. 8:16 is generally also viewed as Dtr (e.g. Jones 1984: 197–9; Fritz 1996: 93, ET 2003: 96). 241 For the Deuteronomistic character of the Jeroboam and Baasha references, see Gray (1964: 268–9, 305–6, 325), Dietrich (1972: 9–10, 15–19), and Jones (1984: 241–5, 269–74, 291). Righteous Jehu 77 classic Deuteronomistic phraseology, where prophetic Wgures are condemning the current king for disobeying the word of YHWH (1 Sam. 13: 14; 15: 17; 2 Sam. 12: 7; 1 Kgs. 11: 31–5; 14: 7, 14; 16: 2).242 While the four divine election references for Jehu are more diYcult to categorize, it is reasonable to assume that Dtr added to the repetition he found in his sources (see also 2.3.4 above). The Wrst two references for Jehu (1 Kgs. 19: 16; 2 Kgs. 9: 3) show no evidence of Deuteronomistic redaction. However, the Ahabite judgment (2 Kgs. 9: 7–10a) is generally agreed to be from Dtr (see 2.5.2.5 below). Since this material is part of the same quotation as the third of Jehu’s references (2 Ki. 9: 6) and Dtr repeats divine election references from his sources, it is likely that the reference in 9: 6 was added by Dtr in the style of his source (from 9: 3). If none of Jehu’s four references were from Dtr it would be unusual since the majority of the divine election references for Israelite kings are Deuterono- mistic. Jehu has three references in only ten verses, while most of these other references are widely dispersed. Dtr therefore appears to have added to the repetition he found in his source. Thus, Dtr’s interest in divine election is seen by his frequent repetition of original source references in his own compositions.

2.4.8 Dtr’s preference for divine election over dynastic succession 2.4.8.1 Divine election judgments While Ishida observes that divine election is used to establish a ruler’s authority (1977: 25), four divine election references are used not to legitimate a ruler’s reign, but to condemn him. All of these judgments come in second-person contexts and are pronounced by prophets. Saul is condemned by Samuel (1 Sam. 15: 17), David by Nathan (2 Sam. 12: 7), Jeroboam by Ahijah (1 Kgs. 14: 7), and Baasha by Jehu son of Hanani (1 Kgs. 16: 2).243 Jehu is the only divinely elected king of Israel not judged in this manner. These prophets mention the

242 Four of these will be discussed below (2.4.8.1). 243 These four judgments will also be discussed below in the context of dynastic oracles (see 5.3.2). 78 Righteous Jehu divine election of the four rulers as part of the reason for the indictment against them. Thus, divinely elected kings are expected to be righteous and to remain loyal to YHWH since he selected them. When they do not live up to these expectations they come under divine judgment. Among these judgment texts, the two references in 1 Kings (14: 7; 16: 2) are commonly thought to be Deuteronomistic,244 while the two references in Samuel (1 Sam. 15: 17; 2 Sam. 12: 7) are not.245 However, strong reasons exist for viewing each of these four divine election judgments as coming from Dtr. They all come from a speech by a prophet addressed to a ruler condemning him for disobedience. Noth argues that Dtr typically frames his insertions into speeches (Noth 1957: 5, ET 1991: 18). Dtr values obedience and these judgments condemn disobedience using typical Deuteronomistic language. Saul and David do evil in YHWH’s eyes (1 Sam. 15: 19; 2 Sam. 12: 9).246 Yet Jeroboam is said to be not like David, who always did right in YHWH’s eyes (1 Kgs. 14: 8).247 Baasha walks in the way of Jeroboam, makes the people sin, and provokes YHWH to anger (1 Kgs. 16: 2).248 It is therefore likely that all four of these divine election condemnations are Deuteronomist compositions. Among the Wve Israelite kings with divine election references in the DH, Jehu is the only one without one of these Deuteronomistic judgments. Thus, Dtr’s pro-Jehu attitude is again revealed as Jehu is, in this regard, in a category above other divinely elected rulers. Despite these judgments, each of these four rulers is allowed a successor (Saul to Ishbaal, David to Solomon, Jeroboam to Nadab, and Baasha to Elah). The consequence of actually losing the throne of Israel falls not upon the dynastic founder, but upon his son (or grandson for David).249 Thus, the divinely elected ruler is spared this form of punishment while his dynastic successor experiences the brunt of it.250 Three of these successors are even assassinated in a

244 See Gray 1964: 306, 324; Jones 1984: 272, 291; Fritz 1996: 144, 156, ET 2003: 154, 172. 245 Although both Veijola (1975: 139–40) and Mettinger (1976: 30) think that 2 Sam. 12: 7b–10a comes from Dtr (DtrP for Veijola). 246 See Weinfeld 1972: 339. 247 Weinfeld 1972: 335. 248 Weinfeld 1972: 333. 249 See also 5.4.1.2 below. 250 Other forms of judgment are pronounced upon Saul (1 Sam. 28: 19; 31: 3–4), David (2 Sam. 12: 10, 14), and Jeroboam (1 Kgs. 14: 12). Righteous Jehu 79 conspiracy (Ishbaal: 2 Sam. 4: 5–7; Nadab: 1 Kgs. 15: 27–8; Elah: 1 Kgs. 16: 9–10).251 Why is the judgment for the father’s disobedience deferred to his descendant? Within the text, YHWH’s selection of the ruler as king seems to be viewed as sacred and so it is not rescinded. However, the dynastic selection of his heir is not protected and therefore he falls under judgment. Thus, it appears that Dtr constructs the narrative so that YHWH’s judgment is deXected from the founder that YHWH has chosen and is targeted at the successor, revealing a Deuteronomistic preference for divine election over dynastic succession.

2.4.8.2 Dynastic rulers are not divinely elected Strikingly, no ruler who ascended dynastically is said to be divinely elected within the DH.252 While one might assume dynastic successors did not need to depend on divine election for royal legitimacy since they were heirs, this was clearly not the case in the ANE. Both succession and election were used to legitimate a ruler’s reign (see also 2.4.2 above). The Chronicler mentions Solomon’s divine election (1 Chr. 28: 5) and it was common for ANE kings with royal lineage to claim divine election. Many Mesopotamian kings mention their divine election even though their fathers ruled before them (Shulgi, Hammurabi, Cyrus, Xerxes, and the Wfteen Assyrian rulers listed above).253 Both West Semitic and Egyptian sources refer to the divine election of royal sons (Yahawmilk, Bar-Rakib, Panumuwa, Thutmose III, and Thutmose IV). Therefore, this complete absence of divine election references for Judean and Israelite dynastic successors is unusual within their ANE context. However, this anomaly can be easily explained by a Deuterono- mistic bias against dynastic successors. Dtr does not sanction dynastic succession by giving it the blessing of a divine election, but instead he denigrates the practice.254 After Saul, each of the divinely elected

251 The word ‘conspire’ (tWs) is used only in the deaths of Nadab and Elah, but Ishbaal is killed by two of his own captains (2 Sam. 4: 2, 5–7). 252 However, some scholars argue that Hazael was the son of a king (see 2.5.3.4 below). 253 All the references for these royal princes are given above (2.4.4 and 2.4.5). 254 Dtr’s supposedly positive attitude toward dynastic succession as seen in the dynastic promises of David and Jehu will be discussed below (5.4.1.1). 80 Righteous Jehu rulers only replaces dynastically selected Israelite rulers (David for Ishbaal, Jeroboam for Rehoboam, Baasha for Elah, and Jehu for Jehoram). Similarly, the judgments against the four divinely elected kings are deferred to their dynastic successors. The Deuteronomic preference for divine election is also seen in the mandate that YHWH should choose Israel’s king (Deut. 17: 15).

2.4.8.3 Jehu’s unique divine election For the third time in the history of the northern kingdom, YHWH rejects the dynastically selected king (previously Nadab and Elah and now Jehoram) and replaces him with a man of his own choosing, Jehu. This preference for divine election over dynastic selection creates problems for a royal ideology, since it makes dynastic continuity diYcult. Dtr praises Jehu and includes a long narrative about this divinely selected usurper who slaughters two royal families. Thus, Dtr does not seem concerned about supporting the royal ideology. Rather, it appears that Dtr is attempting to subvert the ideology of dynastic succession by showing how YHWH can choose a new king whenever a dynastic successor proves unworthy to rule. In his letter to the rulers of Jezreel, Jehu gives his own criterion for proper selection of a worthy king (2 Kgs. 10: 3): and select the best and most upright from the sons of your master zk` jn¨D aˇ jn¨b´ m: tWj¸ef´ bFIe zv`ja:Vf ˝ ¯ ¯ This representative would Wght against Jehu and the successor would presumably become king because of his victory. However, the rulers of Jezreel were terriWed by Jehu’s recent exploits so they oVer no one to battle against Jehu and merely make themselves Jehu’s servants. Thus, the narrative is set up to show that Jehu was better and more upright than all of Ahab’s sons, despite the fact that they had a stronger dynastic claim to the throne than he did. The text later emphasizes Jehu’s worthiness to rule, as the words of Jehu’s regnal evaluation echo those of 2 Kings 10: 3: tWj¸e vFUpˇ l v¸Bjie˜ (‘you have ¯ done well to do right’: 2 Kgs. 10: 30). ˝ ¯ ˙ In summary, Dtr values divinely elected rulers since they are thought to be an improvement (at least initially) over their unrighteous predecessor. His third-person testimony to Jehu’s divine election Righteous Jehu 81 appears to be more objective than the majority of the ANE parallel texts that primarily involve rulers claiming to be selected by the gods in Wrst-person language. Dtr emphasizes Jehu’s righteousness in particular with his divine election references in three aspects. First, Dtr includes divine election references for Jehu when only a small minority of Israelite and Judean kings is described as divinely elected. Five of forty-one kings are said to be selected by YHWH,255 and Jehu is the only king in the last hundred and Wfty years of the Israelite monarchy to have a divine election reference. Second, Dtr does not include a condemnation of Jehu among his divine election references, making Jehu unique even among the divinely elected Israelite kings. Third, Dtr repeats Jehu’s divine election reference four times, making him one of only three kings with more than two of these references.256 Dtr portrays Jehu not only as YHWH’s choice to rule, but also as his choice to eliminate the unrighteous house of Ahab, and Jehu’s violent obedience to this commission will be the focus of the following section.

2.5 JEHU’S VIOLENT OBEDIENCE

2.5.1 The problem of a violent Jehu

In the book of Kings, Dtr omits certain data (e.g. Jehu’s relationship to Omri) and highlights other data (e.g. Jehu’s anointing/election) to give a more positive presentation of Jehu. However, the Jehu narrative also portrays him as brutally violent (2 Kgs. 9: 24, 27, 33; 10: 6, 14, 24), which creates a problem for Dtr since this type of behavior is usually attributed to evil rulers (e.g. Judg. 9: 56; 1 Kgs. 21: 19).257 This section therefore begins by discussing the problem of a violent, yet righteous ruler (2.5.1), then argues that Dtr justiWes the bloodshed by emphasizing that Jehu was merely obeying the command of YHWH (2.5.2) and concludes by showing how the Tel Dan Inscription sheds

255 The Wgure of forty-one does not count Tibni and Athaliah. 256 This point is made brieXy here because a similar argument was used in the discussion of the repetition of Jehu’s anointing above (2.3.3 and 2.3.4). 257 For a discussion of the biblical legitimation of violence, see Collins 2003. 82 Righteous Jehu light on Jehu’s violence, particularly in respect of the deaths of Ahaziah and Jehoram (2.5.3).

2.5.1.1 Violence in the ANE Before looking speciWcally at violence within Jehu’s narrative (2.5.1.3), a brief discussion of relevant texts from the ANE (2.5.1.1) and elsewhere in the DH (2.5.1.2) will show that, while shedding innocent blood is condemned, bloodshed in judicial and military contexts is viewed positively, particularly when divinely sanctioned. Hosea’s condemnation of Jehu’s bloodshed will then be examined (2.5.1.4), followed by an analysis of the views of two scholars (Olyan and White) on Jehu’s accession (2.5.1.5). ANE sources speak against violence that is unjust, that causes suVering or that targets the righteous. In a section of the Egyptian ‘Book of the Dead’, as proof of his just behavior, the author claims to have not committed violence to a poor man, killed, or caused suVering (ANET 34c, A9, A14–16). Egyptian wisdom literature (Mer- ikare and Any) warns against bloodshed, ‘Do not kill, it does not serveyou...donotkill a man whose virtues you know’ (COS i. 62d; ANET 415c) and encourages peaceful behavior, ‘Keep away from a hostile man, do not let him be your comrade . . . Don’t rush to attack your attacker, leave him to the god’ (COS i. 112a, 113c). Ancient law codes list appropriate punishments for causing injury or death. The Hittite Laws and the Laws of Eshnunna mandate Wnes for personal injury or manslaughter (COS ii. 107–8 nn. 1–18; 334 nn. 42–8; ANET 162–3; 189–90). For various violent crimes, Hammurabi’s law code authorizes Wnes as well as corporal and capital punishment (COS ii. 344–9 nn. 130, 153, 195–214, 229; ANET 171–6). In the Laws of Ur-Namma, men who commit homi- cide and rape are to be put to death (COS ii. 409d nn. 1, 6). Other ANE inscriptions also prescribe violence to punish the violent: ‘And if you cause bloodshed in my house . . . then I also will make bloodshed in the land of Y’dy’ (Panamuwa Inscription: COS ii. 159a); ‘If they kill m[e], you must come and avenge my blood from the hand of my enemies’ (SeWre Treaties: COS ii. 217a). In several texts, punishment is meted out by the gods for violence: ‘You will see what the god does, when he injures him who injured you’ (Instruction of Any: Righteous Jehu 83 COS i. 112a, 113c); ‘The gods sought (revenge for) the blood of his father’ (Proclamation of Telipinu: COS i. 195, §20; cf. 195–7, §§13, 30). Often in the ANE, the gods are said to authorize warfare.258 The Egyptian rulers Ka-mose and Thutmose III are both commanded to Wght by Amon (ANET 232c, 242a). Mesopotamian rulers are also directed to battle by their gods: Hammurabi by Dagan (COS ii. 337a), Samsu-iluna by An and Enlil (COS ii. 258a), and Tiglath- pileser I by Ashur (ANET 275a). Before going into battle, Hittite rulers would seek out divine support for their cause with oracles and omens (see Kang 1989: 56–62). In West Semitic sources, Kirta is told by the god Ilu to gather an army and march against Udam (COS i. 334c) and Mesha is commanded by Kemosh to attack Nebo and Horonaim (COS ii. 138a, 138d). Divine help in the context of warfare will also be discussed below (2.6.1, 4.3.1.1, and 4.3.2.1), but at this point it is suYcient to note that references to military help from the gods are frequent in ANE texts and divine help suggests a favorable attitude by the gods toward war. Further justiWcation for divinely initiated violence can be found in the Baal Myth, where Anat brutally eliminates the enemies of Baal (COS ii. 250–2). Moore argues that the narrative of Jehu’s purge was written to parody Anat’s purge, in order to ridicule Israel’s enemies (2003). As evidence for his theory Moore cites various parallels between the two stories (2003: 106–7); however, his overall argument is not persuasive. As the inspiration for the slaughter, YHWH represents Baal (2003: 107) and as the perpetrator of the violence, Jehu primarily represents Anat, Baal’s consort. Yet, it is diYcult to imagine these connections being made intentionally in the context of a narrative that is as virulently anti-Baal as Jehu’s (see also 2.5.1.4, and 2.5.2.3 below). About half of Moore’s parallels focus on Jezebel, who is associated more reasonably with Anat since she is a worshipper of Baal.259

258 See also the discussions of divine war in Mesopotamia, Anatolia, Syro-Palestine, and Egypt in Kang 1989. 259 Several of Moore’s parallels (2003: 106–7) do not seem very similar (e.g. Jezebel looks out a window / Anat closes the gates; Jezebel’s blood spatters / Anat plunges her knees into blood). 84 Righteous Jehu 2.5.1.2 Violence in the DH The DH has a similar attitude toward violence in the context of war as the ANE texts cited above. Generally, the DH perspective toward warfare is favorable because much of the bloodshed is mandated by YHWH (e.g. Josh. 6: 2; 8: 2; Judg. 6: 14; 13: 5; 1 Sam. 7: 3; 15: 3; 23: 2; 30: 8).260 Violent acts of martial judgment that are commanded by YHWH are not only acceptable, but are supposed to be carried out to the fullest extent possible. When Saul spared Agag the Amalekite king, Samuel Wrst criticizes him and then proceeds to Wnish the required task (1 Sam. 15). The text does not even condemn certain particularly brutal deeds such as Gideon’s slaughter of the cities of Succoth and Penuel (Judg. 8: 16–17) or David’s slaughter of two- thirds of the Moabites he defeated (2 Sam. 8: 2). Presumably, these acts of violence were justiWed from the perspective of the text because of the lack of hospitality in the former example (Judg. 8: 6, 8) and because of David’s divine military blessing in the latter (2 Sam. 8: 6, 14). Similarly, Elijah’s slaughter of the prophets of Baal, while not explicitly mandated beforehand, or praised afterwards, is also not criticized in the text. Despite this general acceptance of military bloodshed, Deuteron- omy and the DH are both critical of violence against the innocent. jEn¸z0 The shedding of ‘innocent blood’ ( ˙) is repeatedly condemned in Deuteronomy (19: 10, 13; 21: 8, 9; 27: 25). In the book of Samuel, Jonathan pleads with his father not to sin against the innocent blood of David by killing him (1 Sam. 19: 5) and David declares he is innocent of the blood of Abner (2 Sam. 3: 28). One of the primary reasons given in the text for the exile of Judah is that Manasseh shed much innocent blood (2 Kgs. 21: 16; 24: 4(2)). Two speciWc incidents of violent behavior targeting the innocent are condemned within the text. Abimelech’s brutal slaughter of his seventy brothers in his accession to power prompted God to intervene, resulting in his death at the hands of the woman of Thebez (Judg. 9: 23–57). The murder of Naboth, orchestrated by Jezebel and condoned by Ahab, is given as the reason for their deaths and for the eradication of the house of Ahab (1 Kgs. 21). Both of these incidents

260 However, occasionally commands are given not to Wght (e.g. 1 Kgs. 12: 24; 2 Kgs. 6: 22). Righteous Jehu 85 connect to the Jehu narrative, since the Ahabite purge involves the killing of Ahab’s seventy sons (2 Kgs. 10: 1–7).261 David’s rise to power can be contrasted to Abimelech’s since he is portrayed as going to extreme lengths to avoid the appearance of shedding innocent blood during his accession. After his anointing (1 Sam. 16: 13), David does not take advantage of opportunities to kill Saul and usurp the throne (1 Sam. 24: 3–7; 26: 7–12). When he hears about the deaths of Saul and Ishbaal, David pronounces a death sentence against their killers (2 Sam. 1: 1–16; 4: 5–12). However, David’s aversion to violence did not prove to be a suYcient obstacle when he needed to get rid of Uriah (2 Sam. 11: 14–21) and, despite David’s favored status, the text records that YHWH punishes him severely for this crime, only sparing his life because of his repentance (2 Sam. 12: 11–14).262 Therefore, both ANE sources and the DH view the shedding of innocent blood critically, but bloodshed in judicial and military contexts positively, since it is often divinely mandated.

2.5.1.3 Jehu’s violent accession While the DH includes many signiWcant similarities between Jehu and David (see 3.1 below), the contrast in their attitude toward violence as seen in their accessions is remarkable. In this regard, Jehu is more like the slayer of his kinsmen, Abimelech, than David, which is problematic for Dtr’s portrayal of Jehu as a righteous king. After his anointing, the text narrates how Jehu transforms from a reluctant conspirator into a violent usurper of the throne who slays all who come across his path. Jehu’s revolution involves two slaughters, one politically motivated and one religiously motivated.263 Jehu Wrst removes all his political rivals. He orchestrates the killing of

261 A brother of Panamuwa kills his seventy royal brothers (and his father), while Panamuwa escapes (COS ii. 158d; see also 2.2.3.2 above). 262 The text includes two more incidents of David refusing to act violently. David denies Abishai’s request to kill Shimei (2 Sam. 16: 11) and he tells his soldiers to preserve the life of his rebellious son, Absalom (2 Sam. 18: 5). 263 Niditch discusses whether Jehu’s purge was motivated by a desire to bring reform or merely to punish his enemies (1993: 72–3), but she reaches no deWnitive conclusion. While Jehu’s slaughters had elements of a ban, Stern does not discuss 2 Kgs. 9–10, presumably since the word zth does not occur (1991). 86 Righteous Jehu Jehoram and Ahaziah (2 Kgs. 9: 24–7), members of the royal families of both Israel and Judah (Jezebel, Ahab’s 70 sons, all who were left of the house of Ahab, and 42 relatives of Ahaziah: 2 Kgs. 9: 33–10: 17), and other royal Wgures (leaders, close friends, and priests: 2 Kgs. 10: 11). After eliminating these rivals, Jehu purges Israel of Baal worship by killing ‘all the prophets of Baal, all his worshipers and all ¸ his priests’ (2 Kgs. 10: 19: fjn¸eˇ K¯lk¸ f´ fjdbP¯lk¸ lpbe ja¨jb´n¯lk¸). ¨ ¯ The text states that the temple of Baal was completely¯¯ ˙ full of people before the mass execution (2 Kgs. 10: 21). Thus, the text narrates several hundred individuals whose deaths are orchestrated by Jehu (2 kings, 1 queen-mother, 70 sons of Ahab, 42 brothers of Ahaziah, other royal Wgures, and all worshippers of Baal in Israel). The descriptions of Jehu’s slaughters are also shockingly gruesome.264 The causes of death include being shot by an arrow (2 Kgs. 9: 24, 27), being thrown from a tower (2 Kgs. 9: 33), being stabbed by swords (2 Kgs. 10: 25), and being decapitated (2 Kgs. 10: 7). Jehu’s command to pile up the heads of the sons of Ahab in baskets outside Jezreel (2 Kgs. 10: 7–8) seems to be an unusually brutal practice, one that was, however, also performed by Ashurna- sirpal II and Shalmaneser III.265 Jezebel’s death in particular is described in graphic detail, with her blood from the fall spattering on the wall and the horses, the latter of which then proceed to trample on her body, before her carcass is presumably devoured by wild dogs, who then excrete her digested remains in the Weld (2 Kgs. 9: 33–7). Thus, Jehu is described in the text not only as a man responsible for the deaths of hundreds of individuals, but also as one who executes the killings in a brutally vicious manner.

2.5.1.4 Hosea’s condemnation of Jehu’s bloodshed While most scholars conclude that Hosea 1: 4 condemns Jehu (‘I will visit the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu’:

264 According to Miller and Hayes, the narrative ‘does not wince from describing his bloody deeds’ (1986: 284). 265 For Ashurnasirpal II, see Grayson 1991: 197, l. 64; 199, l. 89; 201, ll. 117–18; and for Shalmaneser III, see Grayson 1996: 14, l. 24; ANET 277c; COS ii. 262a. Ahlstro¨m brieXy discusses this practice (1977: 67–8 n. 47). Righteous Jehu 87 afej¨vjb¨ lp lap`Vg´j jm¨5 va` jv5Bqf 266 ¯ : ˙¯ : ¸ ), several scholars argue that this verse does¯ not address Jehu’s violent rise to power. McComiskey concludes that lp dsq (‘visit upon’) refers to the bloody punishment that will come upon the Jehuites at Jezreel but the verse does not give a reason for this judgment (1993: 93). Anderson and Freedman take a diVerent route, but come to a similar conclusion: ‘the text tells us not why Jehu’s house was punished, but how it is to be punished’ (1980: 186).267 They allow that Jehu’s excessive use of force may have laid the foundation for later violence in Jehu’s dynasty, but they place the onus of responsibility for the bloodshed upon Jeroboam II (1980: 175–87). As noted by Anderson and Freedman (1980: 175), the expression ‘visit blood upon’ is only found in Hosea 1: 4, which makes it diYcult to reach deWnitive conclusions about its usage there. However, the only other verse in the Hebrew Bible which includes both dsq (‘visit’) and zd¸ (‘blood’) is Isaiah 26: 21 where dsq connotes punishment resulting from iniquity (wFpˇ), bloodshed (zd¸), and murder (cte). Since dsq does not occur in immediate proximity with lp in this verse, it is ignored in McComiskey’s analysis. However, the¯ preposition does appear in association with dsq with only an intervening construct chain (fjlp yTae¯bW¨JwFpˇ ds˙ q´l:, ‘to visit the iniquity of the inhabitants of the˝ earth˝ ˝ upon˝ them’). Since bloodshed and murder cause the punishment of Isaiah 26: 21, it strengthens the argument that the ‘visitation’ of Hosea 1: 4 is meant to be a punishment caused by the violent deeds of Jehu (contra McComiskey, Anderson, and Freedman). While it is possible that Jeroboam II (or another of Jehu’s descendants) deserves the blame for the impending judgment that Hosea speaks of, it is more likely that the text is blaming Jehu because of the strong connection between Jehu and Jezreel. The name Jezreel (lap` Vg´j:) occurs thirty-six times in the Hebrew Bible—over half of these are in the book of Kings (19), most of which are included in the

266 McComiskey (1993: 93 n. 1) lists these scholars. Knott thinks ‘the blood of Jezreel’ not only refers to Jehu’s revolt but also to the murder of Naboth (1971: 49), but he does not give a convincing explanation for why the house of Jehu would be punished for a crime orchestrated by Jezebel. 267 Gugler also suggests that Hosoa 1: 4 does not target Jehu (1996: 261–5). 88 Righteous Jehu Jehu narrative (14).268 Since Hosea 1: 4 links bloodshed, the house of Jehu, and Jezreel with future punishment, and Jehu’s violent deeds are primarily located in the town of Jezreel, only an extremely compelling reason should cause one to reject the simple conclusion that this house is being punished for the brutality of its founder. It is therefore reasonable to follow the majority of scholars who view Hosea 1: 4 as a condemnation of Jehu. However, Hosea 1: 4 may not be meant to be an indictment of all aspects of Jehu’s bloodshed, merely that he went beyond that which was required by his divine mandate.269

2.5.1.5 The views of Olyan and White on Jehu’s accession The views of two other scholars are relevant for a discussion of Jehu’s violent accession. Olyan (1984) and White (1997) each focus on a key word found in the Jehu narrative in order to assess the attitude of the text toward Jehu. Olyan examines the nine occurrences of the word zFlW (‘welfare’ or ‘peace’) in 2 Kings 9 and concludes that Jehu is portrayed˝ as a violent bringer of zFlW, since he restored the order/ wholeness that had been lacking during˝ the reign of the Ahabites. Five times in the text Jehu is asked the question zFlWeˇ (‘Is it peace?’; 2 Kgs. 9: 11, 18, 19, 22, 31).270 ˝ While Olyan makes a strong case for his theory, his image of a violent peace-bringer does not easily Wt the narrative material. As was

268 See also Williamson 1991 for a discussion of Jezreel. The fourteen references within the Jehu narrative are: 2 Kgs. 8: 29 (2); 9: 10, 15 (2), 16, 17, 30, 36, 37; 10: 1, 6, 7, 11. The Wrst two references come before the beginning of Jehu’s anointing (2 Kgs. 9: 1), but they are connected to the narrative because 8: 29 sets up Jehu’s coup by describing Jehoram’s battle wound. Although the MT has lap` V´jg :, ‘Jezreel’ in 10: 1, the text should probably understood as ‘the city’ (supported by the Luc. and the Vulgate) or ‘Samaria’ (supported by a MS and LXX) since Jehu was writing from Jezreel. 269 For a similar conclusion, see also Hubbard 1989: 62. 270 BHS includes three variants related to the repetitions of this question. In 2 Kgs. 9: 11, one needs to follow other manuscripts and versions for the question to come from Jehu’s oYcers, since the MT has a singular verb (tm` aJf ). In 2 Kgs. 9: 19, when the second messenger speaks to Jehu, it lacks the interrogative¯ particle (zFlW), which is supplied by many manuscripts. In 2 Kgs. 9: 22, in response to Jehoram’s˝ zFlWeˇ, Jehu replies zFl¸We em¸, ‘What? Is it peace?’ The LXX and the Targum reXect a vorlage˝ lacking the initial¯e, thus, ‘What peace?’ However, since the MTmakes sense, it can be kept. ¯ Righteous Jehu 89 noted above (2.5.1.3), the Jehu narrative is particularly gruesome. According to Olyan’s redactional analysis, all nine repetitions of zFlW occur in the source material, but it is still diYcult to locate˝ a justiWcation for Jehu’s bloodshed in the source material. Two of the individuals who ask Jehu, ‘Is it peace?’ he immediately kills (Jehoram and Jezebel). However, as will be discussed below (2.5.2.5), the Deuteronomistic material includes a justiWcation for Jehu’s violence.271 Additionally, Olyan avoids the most brutal actions of Jehu that are described in 2 Kings 10 (e.g. decapitated heads in baskets; the slaughter of Ahab’s 70 sons and all of Jehoram’s oYcials) since he only examines chapter 9 (1984: 653 n. 2). Olyan’s break between these two chapters seems artiWcial since the major motifs of 2 Kings 9 continue into ch. 10 (e.g. the fulWllment of prophecy: 9: 7–10, 26, 36; 10: 10, 17, 30; the slaughter of rivals: 9: 24, 27, 33; 10: 7, 11, 14; conspiracy: 9: 14; 10: 9).272 White examines the word ‘conspire’ (tWs: 2 Kgs. 9: 14; 10: 9)273 and concludes it reveals that Jehu’s revolution was not a popular one as is often argued, but rather a violent military coup, initiated by Jehu (1997: 45–53).274 In the narratives of the coups of Jehu, Baasha, and Zimri, tWs is used, but in each instance, the text attributes the initial impetus for the coup to YHWH via a prophet (1 Kgs. 14: 14; 16: 2–3; 19: 16; 2 Kgs. 9: 1–3). White explains each of these divine oracles as ex eventu prophecies (1997: 54), which allows her to view the conspiracies of Baasha and Zimri as still self-initiated. In these two coups, other than YHWH and a prophet, the text mentions no one else initially involved. However, for Jehu’s coup, his lack of initiative is a major theme of the narrative.275 The text speaks of YHWH, three prophets (Elijah, Elisha, and the young prophet), and all of Jehu’s oYcers acting to

271 While Olyan’s redactional analysis of 2 Kgs. 9 is generally valid (1984: 654–9), there is little connection between this analysis and his discussion of zFlW in the Jehu narrative (660–8). ˝ 272 Barre´ (1988: 6 n. 8) also argues against Olyan’s division. 273 The LXX of 2 Kgs. 10: 34 also speaks of a ıłØ L ıBł, ‘the conspiracies which he made’. 274 Minokami (1989: 167) and Ishida (1999: 73–4) also argue Jehu’s rebellion was not popularly supported. 275 Tomes also argues that Jehu did not primarily initiate the coup (2000: 59). 90 Righteous Jehu make him king before Jehu takes any initiative (2 Kgs. 9: 14).276 He is reluctant to enter into discussion about the topic, Wrst with the young prophet and then with his fellow oYcers (2 Kgs. 9: 5, 11).277 Additionally, in Jehu’s Wrst conspiratorial words, it appears that he is merely deferring to the desires of his oYcers (2 Kgs. 9: 15: ‘If this is your mind/desire . . .’, zk` W´q´n Wj¨¯za:).278 White does not adequately substantiate her argument that¯ Jehu’s coup was self-initiated since she does not address all the textual material that portrays Jehu responding to the initiative of others.279 Despite White’s arguments, a stronger case can be made that Jehu’s revolt was not primarily initiated by him. Since the root tWs is also used in the context of Absalom’s coup (2 Sam. 15: 12, 31), White attempts to explain how his popular conspiracy does not weaken her argument (1997: 48). However, the text repeatedly describes how Absalom’s support was broadly based (2 Sam. 15: 6, 12, 13; 16: 18; 17: 4, 24; 18: 7). Therefore, the use of the verb tWs, ‘conspire’, does not need to imply that Jehu’s rebellion only received narrow support, as argued by White. The narrative of Jehu’s coup strongly suggests that his support was widespread. As has already been noted, his coup was initiated by both religious and military leaders. While one might expect Jehu to be generally supported by his fellow soldiers, this conclusion cannot be assumed since Omri did not support the coup led by his fellow oYcer Zimri (1 Kgs. 16: 9–18). The text, however, explicitly states that Jehu’s oYcers were unanimously in favor of his rebellion (2 Kgs. 9: 13). After the inception of the coup, Jehu experiences no resistance from either soldiers or civilians, strengthening the argument for

276 Since Wu¨rthwein attributes 2 Kgs. 9: 1–13 to later redactors, he argues that in the original narrative the coup was initiated entirely by Jehu (1984: 328). Yet 2 Kgs. 9: 15 can also be cited as evidence for the initiative of others since Jehu speaks of the coup as being the desire of his fellow oYcers and not originally his own. 277 The text of 2 Kgs. 9: 5 makes it clear that the young prophet wanted to speak W tU¸ex¸ jl` a¨ jl tb¸ 0 speci cally to Jehu ( : ˙ , ‘a word, from me, to you (singular), commander’), yet Jehu still asks,¯ fnlkˆm: jm˘ ¯la` , ‘to whom among all of us?’ Josephus omits Jehu’s initial reluctant words in˝ 2 Kgs.˙ 9: 5 and 9: 11 (JA 9. 107, 110). See Begg 2000: 133, 135–6. 278 Jones paraphrases this as, ‘If you are intent on making me king’ (1984: 459). 279 e.g. White only brieXy discusses Jehu’s anointing (1997: 51). Righteous Jehu 91 a popularly based revolt. Jehoram’s two messengers quickly join Jehu’s side (2 Kgs. 9: 17–20). The text records no actions by Ahaziah’s oYcers (2 Kgs. 9: 28) to defend their king against Jehu. The eunuchs also switch to Jehu’s side and promptly throw down Jezebel (2 Kgs. 9: 32–3). The rulers, elders, and guardians in Samaria agree to kill the seventy descendants of Ahab without delay (2 Kgs. 10: 6–7). Jeho- nadab is also supportive of Jehu and his rebellion (2 Kgs. 10: 15–16). Jehu’s eighty soldiers willingly participate in the slaughter of the worshippers of Baal (2 Kgs. 10: 24–7). White attributes the rapid conversions of the messengers, the eunuchs, and the leaders in Samaria to the fear of Jehu’s force and not to his popularity (1997: 46–7). While the text mentions fear as a reason that the city rulers follow Jehu’s request (2 Kgs. 10: 4–7), other concerns must have factored into their decision. Jehu himself did not think that they would be so easily intimidated since he speaks of them as having the position of power; Ahab’s seventy sons were on their side and they possessed chariots, horses, fortiWed cities,280 and weapons (2 Kgs. 10: 2). Armies Wghting defensively from a fortiWed position typically have the military advantage. However, if Jehu had a broad support base, their anxiety would be justiWed, despite their military assets. Jehoram’s messengers should have had nothing to fear as representatives of the standing king and the eunuchs were presumably safe in a tower that was high enough to cause the blood from the body of Jezebel to spatter on the wall after her fall (2 Kgs. 9: 33). No fear is mentioned on the part of the messengers or the eunuchs. Thus, the rapid defection of the elders, the messengers, and the eunuchs appears to be due not to fear of Jehu, but to his popularity.

2.5.2 The solution of an obedient Jehu 2.5.2.1 Jehu and the house of Ahab While the level of bloodshed that characterized Jehu’s reign may appear more disturbing to modern readers than it did during Dtr’s exilic context, Dtr still works hard to explain the violence with

280 MT has a singular (tjp:, ‘city’), but as Montgomery and Gehman observe (1951: 413), the plural has strong textual support (see BHS) and is generally accepted. 92 Righteous Jehu prophetic fulWllments. This section will therefore Wrst discuss how Jehu is described as fulWlling prophecy by slaughtering the houses of both Ahab (2.5.2.1) and Ahaziah (2.5.2.2) as well as all the worshippers of Baal (2.5.2.3). The excessive nature of Jehu’s violence will then be examined (2.5.2.4), before focusing on the portrayal of Jehu’s violence in both Deuteronomistic material (2.5.2.5) and source material (2.5.2.6). According to the text, Jehu acts violently because he was obeying the prophetic word of YHWH. Four times in the narrative, Jehu is described as fulWlling a prophecy (2 Kgs. 9: 26, 36; 10: 10, 17). The material related to these prophecies consists of two texts outside the Jehu narrative (1 Kgs. 19: 15–18; 21: 19–28) and Wve within it (2 Kgs. 9: 6–10, 25–6, 36–7; 10: 10–11, 17). Table 2.5A displays the original prophecy, the object of the prophecy, the main action involved, the cause, and the fulWllment reference. The three primary oracles are subdivided in the table (1 Kgs. 19: 15–18 ¼ 1a, 1b; 1 Kgs. 21: 19–29 ¼ 2a, 2b, 2c; 2 Kgs. 9: 7–10a ¼ 3a, 3b) because they have diVerent objects and therefore separate fulWllments. (References within the Jehu narrative are underlined in the table.) All of these prophecies are oracles of judgment pronounced against Ahab and his relatives, and the primary reason given for the condemnation both within these judgments and elsewhere in the text is the idolatry of the house of Ahab (1 Kgs. 16: 31–2; 18: 18–19; 21: 26; 22: 53).281 While the Wrst two prophecies (1a and 1b) do not explicitly target the Ahabites, the anointing of Jehu as king over Israel would certainly be an indictment against the incumbent Ahabite and a curse directed at the Baal cult would be particularly directed at Ahab’s family since the text attributes these practices to them (1 Kgs. 16: 31–2; 18: 18–19). Additionally, four judgments mention the death of YHWH’s prophets, a crime other texts attribute to Jezebel (1 Kgs. 18: 4, 13; 19: 2), presumably because of her participation in the cult of Baal, just as the slaughter of Baal worshippers was prompted by the zeal of Elijah and Jehu for YHWH (1 Kgs. 18: 40; 19: 10; 2 Kgs. 10: 16, 25). Except for the Wrst prophecy (1a), these judgment oracles are executed by Jehu or someone under his command. Once the narrator

281 However, Jehoram of Israel removed the pillar of Baal (2 Kgs. 3: 2). Righteous Jehu 93

Table 2.5A. Prophecy and fulWllment in Jehu’s narrative

# Prophecy Object Action Cause FulWllment

1a Anointings Hazael, Jehu, Anointed king, Killing prophets,a 1 Kgs. 19: 19–21; 1 Kgs. 19: Elisha king, and prophet Baal worship? 2 Kgs. 8: 7–15; 9: 6 15–16 1b Sword 1 Kgs. Worshippers Killed by sword Killing prophets, 2 Kgs. 10: 25, 32? 19: 17–18 of Baalb of Hazael, Jehu, Baal worship? Elisha 2a Dogs 1 Kgs. Ahab / Dogs lick up Killing Naboth 1 Kgs. 22: 37–8; 21: 19 Jehoram? blood in Naboth’s 2 Kgs. 9: 24–6c vineyard 2b Ahab’s House Ahab’s Strike down the Doing evil, 2 Kgs. 10: 10, 17, I 1 Kgs. 21: House House of Ahab following idols 30 21–2, 24–6, 29 2c Jezebel I Jezebel Dogs will eat Urged Ahab 2 Kgs. 9: 36–7 1 Kgs. 21: 23 Jezebel in Jezreel to do evil 3a Ahab’s House Ahab’s Strike down the Blood of 2 Kgs. 10: 10, 17, II 2 Kgs. 9: House House of Ahab prophets 30 7–9 3b Jezebel II Jezebel Dogs eat Jezebel Blood of 2 Kgs. 9: 36–7 2 Kgs. 9: 10a in Jezreel prophets a Elijah speaks of the death of the prophets in 1 Kgs. 19: 10, 14. b 1 Kgs. 19: 17–18 suggests that the worshippers of Baal are the only people to be killed. c While 2 Kgs. 9: 26 speaks of a fulWllment in Jehoram’s death, the original oracle regarding Naboth’s vineyard focused only on Ahab. However, Ahab’s house is included in the surrounding judgment material (1 Kgs. 21: 21–9). himself notes the fulWllment (2 Kgs. 10: 17) and three times Jehu is reported to have made the announcement (2 Kgs. 9: 26, 36–7; 10: 10). Thus, the text attributes Jehu’s bloodshed to his obedience to these oracles condemning the house of Ahab and their idolatrous practices. Not only does the text not criticize Jehu for his violence, but also his reverence for the word of YHWH elicits praise (2 Kgs. 10: 30).

2.5.2.2 Jehu and the house of Ahaziah While one might think that the slaughter of the Judean royal family was excessive (2 Kgs. 9: 27–8; 10: 12–14), Ahaziah, his sons, and his full-siblings would also be under the Ahabite ban since he was a grandson of Ahab through his mother Athaliah (2 Kgs. 8: 18, 26).282

282 In 2 Kgs. 8: 18, the MT describes Athaliah as a daughter of Ahab (ba h´a¯vb), ˝ ¯ ¯ but 2 Kgs. 8: 26 says she is a daughter of Omri (jt:m´ p¯vb). Several versions harmonize ˝ ¯ 94 Righteous Jehu Wu¨rthwein thinks Jehu killed Ahaziah to prevent him from taking revenge (Rache) for the death of his cousin Jehoram (1984: 332), but as White points out (1997: 46 nn 2, 3; cf. Ishida 1977: 135), even if Ahaziah’s family had not been under the ban, Jehu would have still needed to kill them in order to eliminate all potential rivals to the Israelite throne.283 Since the houses of David and Ahab are related through the marriage of Jehoram of Judah and Athaliah of Israel, a conXict exists between the Davidic promise (2 Sam. 7: 12–16) and these Ahabite judgments.284 If Ahab’s house is to be cut oV completely, as mandated by these prophecies, David’s house could also be cut oV since Ahaziah of Judah was a descendant of both David and Ahab.285 Presumably, David’s ‘eternal dynasty’ could continue through a half-brother of Ahaziah as it did when Jehoahaz was succeeded by his half-brother Jehoiakim (2 Kgs. 23: 31–6), yet thus far in Judah’s history, Davidic kings had always been succeeded by sons.

2.5.2.3 Jehu and the worshippers of Baal Therefore, judgment oracles mandated the massacres of the royal houses of Israel and Judah. While no clear command targeting the Baal cult is given to Jehu, nevertheless, Jehu’s purge of the Baal worshippers fulWlls the prophecy given to Elijah, since both texts explicitly mention the sword and Baal worship (1 Kgs. 19: 17–18; 2 Kgs. 10: 25). White thinks the narrative of Elijah slaying the four hundred prophets of Baal was composed in order to validate Jehu’s brutal elimination of the Baal cult (1997: 26).286 However, the massacres of these (the Syriac of 8: 18 has ‘sister of Ahab’ and the Luc. of 8: 26 has ‘daughter of Ahab’), but as several scholars note (e.g. Gray 1964: 481; Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 98 n. 26; White 1997: 61) this is not necessary as vb can mean daughter or grand- ¯ daughter. 283 Despite White’s claim, not all of Ahaziah’s male relatives would necessarily be in line for the Israelite throne. Any brothers with a diVerent mother (i.e. not Athaliah) would be outside Ahab’s line. 284 Wu¨rthwein brieXy addresses this issue (1984: 339). 285 This conXict will also be discussed in 5.3.6.4 below. 286 Day concludes that the Baal of Jezebel is not Melqart (Baal of Tyre) but Baal- Shamem (2000: 73–7). Righteous Jehu 95 Elijah and Jehu are part of a broader pattern of violence against Baal worshippers. The book of Deuteronomy repeatedly warns that if Israel worships other gods, YHWH will consume them (Deut. 6: 14–15; 7: 4; 8: 19; 11: 16–17, 28; cf. Josh. 23: 16; 24: 20) and it commands those who worship foreign gods to be put to death (Deut. 7: 16; 13: 5–17; 17: 2–7; 18: 20). Baal worship is one of the factors that led to Gideon’s slaughter of the Midianites (Judg. 2: 11– 13; 3: 7; 6: 25–33; 8: 12). Josiah executes all the priests who had worshipped Baal (2 Kgs. 23: 4, 20). Outside the DH, the worship of Baal causes a plague that kills 24,000 Israelites (Num. 25: 3, 9) and prompts a judgment oracle of death by sword, famine, and pestilence (Jer. 32: 35–6). Therefore, it is unlikely that the narrative of 1 Kings 18 was written to justify Jehu’s slaughter. Neither incident would need justiWcation from the perspective of the biblical authors since both are consistent with the pattern found elsewhere of harsh condemnation of foreign cult practices. However, a connection in the text can be made between Jehu’s elimination of the Baal cult and YHWH’s words to Elijah since the oracle states that only those who have not partici- pated in Baal worship will escape the swords of Hazael, Jehu, and Elisha (1 Kgs. 19: 17–18; 2 Kgs. 10: 25).

2.5.2.4 Jehu’s zeal justiWes his excessive violence While judgment oracles are given against all Ahabites and Jehu’s extirpation of the worshippers of Baal is implied in YHWH’s words to Elijah, presumably the extensiveness of his slaughter went beyond the original mandates, particularly in regard to Jehoram’s oYcials. The text, however, suggests that Jehu’s excessive violence can be attributed to his zeal (eańE) for YHWH (2 Kgs. 10: 16). Jehu says he will show Jehonadab˝ his zeal, then he proceeds to slay both the remnant of Ahab’s descendants in Samaria and the Baal worshippers in Israel until they are completely wiped out (2 Kgs. 10: 16–27). Generally, zeal has favorable connotations in the DH, as a study of related terms will show. Verbal forms of ans, ‘to be zealous/jealous’ occur twelve times in Deuteronomy and the DH (Deut. 4: 24; 5: 9; 6: 15; 32: 16; 32: 21(2); 2 Sam. 21: 2; 1 Kgs. 14: 22; 19: 10(2), 14(2)) 96 Righteous Jehu and the noun eańE, ‘zeal/jealousy’ occurs three times (Deut. 29: 19 (ET 29: 20); 2 Kgs.˝ 10: 16; 19: 31). These Wfteen combined occurrences are roughly divided between Deuteronomy (7) and Kings (7) with only one occurrence elsewhere (2 Sam. 21:2). Most of the Kings references (4) involve Elijah repeating a speech verbatim describing how very jealous (jvanË aNB) he has been for YHWH (1 Kgs. 19: 10, ˙ 14)—each time a Wnite verb is preceded by the inWnitive absolute for emphasis. (In a parallel passage, the plague that began because of the worship of the Baal of Peor was stopped by the zeal of Phinehas; Num. 25: 11; cf. 1 Macc 2: 24–6, 49–58.) In general, both the verb and the noun are used primarily in contexts of worship of gods other than YHWH (13 of 15). In these references, foreign cult practices prompt either YHWH or an individual to become jealous. By having Jehu describe himself as zealous for YHWH, the text echoes one of the major themes of the book of Deuteronomy and invokes the precedent of zealous behavior set by Elijah against Baal worship. The question arises why Jehu mentions his zeal to Jehonadab son of Rechab (2 Kgs. 10: 15–16).287 While Jeremiah 35 describes the Rechabite descendants of Jehonadab as zealots (no wine, permanent dwellings, or agriculture), the text never connects this commitment explicitly to YHWH.288 However, several observations about the piety of the Rechabites can be inferred from Jeremiah 35 that might explain Jehu’s desire to be connected to their founder. They take vows similar to the Nazirites, an order the text speaks of as being instituted by YHWH (Num. 6). They are commended by YHWH for their obedience to their ancestor Jehonadab (Jer. 35: 14, 16, 18). They receive a dynastic promise from YHWH that one of their descendants would stand before him for all time (Jer. 35: 19). As Thompson notes (1980: 618), the phrase ‘stand before me’ (jnq¸l´ dm¨P: Jer. 35: 19) is often connected with service to YHWH (e.g. Jer.¯ 7: 10; 15: 19; Deut. 4: 10; 10: 8). Therefore, as a leader of an ascetic movement, Jehonadab

287 For a discussion of the Rechabites, see Frick 1971. 288 Jer. 35 calls the Rechabite founder bd¸n¸Fj, ‘Jonadab’ instead of bd¸n¸ Fej, ‘Jehona- dab’. It is often assumed that the Rechabites refrained from these things in order to avoid practices that were often associated with Canaanite Baalism (cf. Jones 1984: 468; Gray 1964: 505) but Wu¨rthwein emphasizes that this cannot be inferred from Jer. 35 (1984: 339). Righteous Jehu 97 would appreciate Jehu’s zeal for YHWH and, as a public Wgure, he would give a level of credibility to Jehu’s revolt.

2.5.2.5 Dtr and Jehu’s violence As noted above (2.5.2.1), Jehu’s violence against the Ahabite dynasty and the Baal cult is justiWed in the text via the use of prophetic fulWllments. Thus, Jehu’s actions are deemed as appropriate punishments, given the heinous nature of the victim’s crimes. A strong argument can be made that these fulWllments were composed by Dtr in order to portray Jehu more favorably.289 Dtr’s shaping of this material can be seen in his usage of classic Deuteronomistic themes and language. These themes include a value for obedience, a condemnation of idolatrous practices, and fulWll- ments of prophecy (see Weinfeld 1972: 332–41 (obedience), 320–4 (idolatry), 350–2 (fulWllment of prophecy)). Therefore, the textual emphasis on Jehu’s obedience to the oracles condemning Ahabite idolatry appears to come from Dtr. These prophecies and their fulWllments (see Table 2.5A above) contain extensive language that is commonly considered as Deuteronomistic. Table 2.5B lists Deu- teronomistic phrases from these prophetic texts, in both Hebrew and English, followed by references to the biblical text and to Weinfeld’s appendix of Deuteronomic phraseology (1972: 320–65).290 References to the Jehu narrative are underlined. Thus, Table 2.5B reveals that these prophetic texts contain extensive Deuteronomistic terminology, at least according to Weinfeld. SpeciWcally, three of the prophecy-fulWllment texts from the Jehu narrative contain Deuteronomistic phrases listed in Weinfeld’s appendix (2 Kgs. 9: 7–10a, 36–7; 10: 10–11). In order to gain greater clarity on the Deuteronomistic nature of the Wve prophetic texts in 2 Kings 9–10, Table 2.5C summarizes the views of six scholars who have focused on their Deuteronomistic redaction.291

289 Tomes argues that Dtr’s additions to the Jehu story do not radically alter the intended interpretation of the original narrative, yet he acknowledges tensions between Dtr’s message and that of his source (2000). 290 Weinfeld’s appendix is used here as a reference for typical Deuteronomistic terminology. 291 For older views on the redaction of these texts, see Olyan 1984 and Barre´ 1988. 98 Righteous Jehu

Table 2.5B. Deuteronomistic phrases in prophetic texts related to Jehu’s narrative

MT ET Reference Weinfeld 1972

¸ xv´ jt:b fbg´p¯jk they forsook your covenant 1 Kgs. 19: 10, 14 341 n. 13 flk´ aJ zjb¨ l˝ ké˙ the dogs will eat (or lick) 1 Kgs. 21: 19, 23, 351 n. 11, 11a ˙ ˝ ¯ 24; 2 Kgs. 9: 10, 36 v FUpˇ l x¸ Vk`mv´ e sell yourself to do evil in the 1 Kgs. 21: 20, 25 339 n. 1, ef¸ej´ jn¯¨jp¨ b´: pt¯ e˙ eyes of YHWH 341 n. 10 ¸ ¯ ept¸xjl` a¨ aajbm¨ jn: ń e˝ behold, I bring evil upon you 1 Kgs. 21: 21, 29 350 n. 5 ¸ ˙ ˝ xjT hˇ a jv: Vpb˙f I will exterminate utterly 1 Kgs. 21: 21 351 n. 8 ˙ bahál´ ¯jv: t ké¯ ´f I will cut oV from Ahab the 1 Kgs. 21: 21; 352 n. 12 ¯ ˝ ¯tjEb´: wjv: ˙W´m ones who urinate on the wall 2 Kgs. 9: 8 zjl: lˆ ce jS hˇ a vk` l` l¯ to follow after idols 1 Kgs. 21: 26 320 n. 1, ˙ ¯ ¯ ˝ 323 n. 4 jn¸q¸ l´m: bahá pnkń¨ Ahab humbled himself 1 Kgs. 21: 29(2) 351 n. 10 ˝ ¯ ¯ before me zja: jbne j1b¸pˇ my servants the prophets 2 Kgs. 9: 7 351 n. 9

˙ ¯ ¨ e3U¸ejn¨q´¯lp wm`Dk´ like dung on the face of the 2 Kgs. 9: 37 349 n. 22a ¯ ¯ earth ef¸ej´ tb5m: lQj: aL jk not a word of YHWH has 2 Kgs. 10: 10 350 n. 3 ˙ ¯ ˙ fallen jv: l´ b¯dp until he left him no survivor 2 Kgs. 10: 11 344 n. 16a ˙ ¯ djt:U¸Fl¯tja: W´e ˙ a Following the qere in the MT here.

Thus, general agreement exists about the Deuteronomistic nature of the prophetic fulWllment material in the Jehu narrative. However, areas of disagreement can still be found. Olyan, Jones, and Otto think that 2 Kings 9: 7–10a and 9: 36 are Deuteronomistic while Barre´ and McKenzie attribute the anti-Jezebel material (2 Kgs. 9: 7b, 10a, 36b) to a post-Dtr redactor. Wu¨rthwein (1984: 330) writes that 2 Kings 9: 7–10 was probably included by a post-Dtr redactor who echoed Dtr’s words of 1 Kings 21: 21V, but this perspective is not compelling because of the inherent diYculty in distinguishing Dtr from a later redactor who echoes his style. While Olyan and Otto think the Naboth fulWllment notice (2 Kgs. 9: 25–6) is part of the original narrative, the other four generally attribute it to Dtr. Since virtual consensus exists about the Deuteronomistic nature of the Wnal two fulWllment notices (2 Kgs. 10: 10–11, 17ab), only the Naboth text and the Jezebel material require further discussion. Righteous Jehu 99

Table 2.5C. Scholarly views on redaction of prophetic texts in 2 Kings 9–10

Scholar 9: 7–10a 9: 25–6 9: 36–7 10: 10–11 10: 17ab

Olyan 1984: 654–9a Dtr Pre-Dtr Dtr Jones 1984: 450–64 Dtr Dtr Dtr Dtr Dtr Wu¨rthwein 1984: Post-Dtr, but in DtrP DtrP DtrN: 10; DtrP 329–39 Dtr language DtrP: 11 Barre´ 1988: 9–20 Dtr: 7a, 8–9; Dtr: 25, Pre-Dtr: 37; Dtr Dtr Post-Dtr: Jezebel 26b Post-Dtr: Jezebel McKenzie 1991: 70–9 Dtr: 7a, 8–9; Dtr Dtr: 36a, 37; Dtr Dtr Post-Dtr: Jezebel Post-Dtr: Jezebel Otto 2001: 41–7; 2003: Dtr Pre-Dtr Dtr: 36 Dtr Dtr 491–3 a As noted above (2.5.1.5), Olyan only discusses ch. 9.

While the original oracle concerning the blood of Naboth only included Ahab, not his sons (1 Kgs. 21: 19), the notice in 2 Kings 9: 25–6 follows the pattern of fulWllments seen elsewhere in the Jehu narrative and it shares the phrase, ‘word of YHWH’ with the other three notices that come from Dtr so it also appears to be Deuter- onomistic. Therefore, it is reasonable to follow the majority opinion that the Naboth fulWllment notice comes from Dtr. Strong reasons also exist for viewing the anti-Jezebel material as Deuteronomistic and not a post-Dtr addition. The argument that this material is post-Dtr is based partly on the assumption that the text gives two contradictory accounts of Jezebel’s death: by horses (2 Kgs. 9: 33) and by dogs (2 Kgs. 9: 36; cf. 9: 10a).292 However, the most likely cause of death was the initial fall from the tower that caused her blood to spatter (egn) both on the wall and on the horses (2 Kgs. 9: 33). At this point in her life, Jezebel has already been queen or queen-mother during thirty-six years of Ahabite rule in Israel, according to the regnal formulas.293 It is unlikely the text is implying

292 McKenzie implies that Jezebel’s death was caused by the trampling (McKenzie 1991: 75). Wiseman also attributes her death to the horses (1993: 223). Jones says it was a combination of the fall and the trampling, but suggests that the text also refers to the dogs as an additional cause of death (1984: 463). Fritz reasonably concludes that the fall killed her (1998: 54, ET 2003: 287). 293 Assuming Ahab married Jezebel at the beginning of his reign (1 Kgs. 16: 31). The Ahabite regnal years are: 22 (Ahab) þ 2 Ahaziah þ 12 Jehoram ¼ 36 years. 100 Righteous Jehu that an elderly woman could have survived this type of bloody fall in order to be Wnished oV by horses or dogs. The references to trampling by horses and consumption by dogs do not explain how she died, but merely show that her corpse was desecrated.294 Thus, the supposed textual contradiction regarding Jezebel’s method of death disappears. The fact remains that the text does not narrate the dogs actually devouring her Xesh. However, this Wts the pattern seen with all the other dynastic curses that speak of dogs eating Xesh (1 Kgs. 14: 11; 16: 4; 21: 24) since none of the fulWllments mentions actual canine consumption.295 In the case of Jezebel, the text implies that the dogs have consumed the rest of her Xesh, presumably removing larger pieces of meat and bone as is typically done by scavengers to consume them in isolation from their rivals. A fall and a trampling would not cause her remains to consist merely of a head, hands, and feet (2 Kgs. 9: 35). Jehu himself assumed a body remained in a form that could have still been buried (2 Kgs. 9: 34). These Jezebel curses therefore Wt naturally into their Deuteronom- ist contexts and should not be attributed to a later redactor. Add- itionally, the other ‘dog’ judgments are also thought to come from Dtr (e.g. Weinfeld 1972: 351 nn. 11, 11a; Wallace 1986: 34), even by McKenzie (1991: 63–8). Deuteronomy also uses similar terminology, describing corpses as food for wild beasts (Deut. 28: 26).296 Finally, the Jezebel fulWllment notice mentions Elijah, similar to two other fulWllments (2 Kgs. 10: 10, 17). It is therefore likely that the anti- Jezebel material (2 Kgs. 9: 7b, 10a, 36b) and all the other material in these Wve prophetic texts are Deuteronomistic.

2.5.2.6 Jehu’s obedience within Dtr’s source Jaruzelski concludes that the religious justiWcation for Jehu’s purge was a later addition and not present in the original narrative (2004:

294 MT of 2 Kgs. 9: 33 has singlular (‘he trampled her’), while LXX, Syriac, and Targum have the plural (‘they [the horses] trampled her’). 295 However, the oracle about dogs licking Ahab’s blood (1 Kgs. 21: 19) does have a fulWllment notice (1 Kgs. 22: 38). 296 Esarhaddon’s vassal treaties include similar curses (ANET 538, ll. 426–7, 451; see also Wallace 1986: 35). Righteous Jehu 101 177–82). However, evidence for Jehu’s religious obedience is not limited to the Deuteronomistic material, but it is present also in Dtr’s sources.297 Jaruzelski ignores the elements in the source material that contribute to the portrayal of Jehu as religiously motivated. As argued above (2.3.4), the repetition of Jehu’s anointing appears to be the work of Dtr, but the core of the narrative comes from source material.298 Thus, the original narrative spoke of Jehu’s obedience to the divine call to become king that was given to him at his anointing. Dtr’s source also describes Jehu’s killing of Jezebel and the Baal worshippers as motivated by his hatred of idolatry and his commitment to YHWH. Jehu condemns Jezebel’s idolatry in scathing language (2 Kgs. 9: 22;299 cf. 9: 34) before ordering her execution (2 Kgs. 9: 33) and declares his zeal for YHWH (2 Kgs. 10: 16) before slaughtering the worshippers of Baal (2 Kgs. 10: 18–27). Scholars also generally view these sections as source material (e.g. Olyan 1984: 659; Jones 1984: 454, 464; Barre´ 1988: 29; Tomes 2000: 60–1; Otto 2001: 71–2, 94–5; 2003: 492).300 Strong support therefore exists for the view that the portrayal of Jehu’s zealous dedication to YHWH was present in the original narrative. Thus, it appears that Dtr built upon an important Deuteronomistic theme (exclusive commitment to YHWH) already present in the narrative. In summary, Dtr shaped the prophetic material in the narrative to justify Jehu’s violent accession, expanding source material that supported his concerns. Dtr holds up Jehu as a model of obedience and as YHWH’s method of punishing the families of Jehoram and Aha- ziah, as well as all the participants in the Baal cult. Further justiWca- tion for Jehu’s purge, can be seen in Dtr’s critiques of Ahab, Jezebel,

297 Tomes also argues that YHWH’s support for Jehu’s rebellion was present in the original narrative (2000: 58–61). 298 Most scholars designate Jehu’s anointing (excluding 2 Kgs. 9: 7–10) as source material (e.g. Olyan 1984: 659; Jones 1984: 454; Barre´ 1988: 29). 299 The fornications and sorceries (2 Kgs. 9: 22; see the following note) refer to foreign cult practices (see Jones 1984: 460; Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 110; Tomes 2000: 60). 300 Wu¨rthwein thinks 2 Kgs. 9: 22 is DtrP (1984: 333), however neither the word ‘fornication’ (zjn:fng´), nor the word ‘sorcery’ (ÞW` k`) occur elsewhere in the DH, so his argument is not convincing. (The word, ‘fornication’, (zjn:fng´) occurs twelve times in the HB and the word ‘sorcery’ (ÞW` k`) occurs thirteen times in the HB. In Deuteron- omy, ÞW` k` appears once (Deut. 18: 10), but zjn:fng´ does not.) 102 Righteous Jehu Jehoram, and Ahaziah (1 Kgs. 16: 30–1; 2 Kgs. 3: 2; 8: 27). Thus, Dtr takes this problematic material and uses it to portray Jehu in the best possible light as a divinely selected and zealously obedient revolutionary.

2.5.3 Jehu and the Tel Dan Inscription 2.5.3.1 Who killed Jehoram and Ahaziah? An examination of Jehu’s bloodshed is not complete without a discussion of the Tel Dan Old Aramaic inscription.301 Many scholars think that the inscription was meant to be written by Hazael302 and that the two kings that he claims to have killed are Jehoram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah (ll. 6–9),303 the kings that the biblical text claims were killed by Jehu (2 Kgs. 9: 24, 27).304 Various solutions have been suggested to explain this apparent discrepancy between the book of Kings and the Tel Dan Inscription. This section therefore begins by discussing scholarly opinions regarding the identity of the killer of these two kings (2.5.3.1), before arguing that an alliance between Hazael and Jehu is the most reasonable explanation for the discrepancy (2.5.3.2). The following two subsections show how some of the supposed problems with this theory are overcome by examining both the history of the relationship between Aram and Israel (2.5.3.3) and the references to Hazael’s father (2.5.3.4). Finally, the section concludes by observing that a reference to an alliance between Hazael and Jehu would have undermined Dtr’s righteous portrayal of Jehu, and therefore he omitted it (2.5.3.5).

301 For the text of the inscription, see Biran and Naveh 1995. 302 e.g. see Biran and Naveh 1995; Lemaire 1994, 1998; Sasson 1995a, 1996; Kottsieper 1998; Na’aman 1999, 2000. Lemaire (1994) and Sasson (1995a) both suggested Hazael based on the Wrst fragment only. For a more extensive list of proponents for Hazael, see Becking (1999: 188 n. 6). 303 These line references are based on Biran and Naveh’s arrangement with fragment B to the left of fragment A. I will refer to fragments B1 and B2 collectively as B because of their obvious physical join (see Biran and Naveh 1995: 10, 12). 304 According to the text, Ahaziah was actually shot by one of Jehu’s soldiers, but Jehu gave the command to shoot him (2 Kgs. 9: 27). Josephus says Jehu shot Ahaziah (JA 9. 121; cf. Begg 2000: 144–5; Feldman 1998b: 354). Righteous Jehu 103 Wesselius sees no conXict between the Tel Dan Inscription and the book of Kings since he concludes that the inscription was written from the perspective of Jehu (1999, ET 1999; 2001). While his emphasis on the fragmentary nature of the inscription is helpful in avoiding overly deWnitive conclusions, his argument about Jehu’s authorship is not persuasive. Despite the incomplete form of the inscription, relative clarity exists about two elements of the inscription, both of which are repeated. The author’s father is referred to multiple times (ll. 2, 3, and 4?),305 and the actions of the god Hadad on behalf of the author are mentioned twice (ll. 4 and 5).306 It is unlikely that a usurper like Jehu would mention his father several times and that he, as a zealous YHWH-istic reformer, would speak about Hadad in this manner.307 Despite Wesselius’s attempt to address both of these points, his arguments are not able to overcome the diYculties associated with the theory of Jehu’s authorship.308 Like Wesselius, Athas sees no conXict between the two sources since he dates the inscription much later (796 bce) and attributes it to Bar Hadad, the son of Hazael ( ¼ Ben-hadad: 2 Kgs. 13: 3) (2003: 263; 296).309 For Athas, the Judean king (fragment B, li. 8) is Ama- ziah (from dfdvjb) and the text only speaks explicitly about one king who is killed by the author (2003: 291). He concludes that this slain king is meant to be Jehoahaz of Israel. Athas’s perspective on Bar Hadad’s authorship resolves the problem associated with Hazael’s authorship. For Bar Hadad to refer repeatedly to his father would be reasonable since he was a legitimate dynastic heir of Hazael. Athas bases these conclusions on his alternate theory that fragment B should not be placed alongside fragment A in the alignment initially proposed by Biran and Naveh (1995).310 Athas suggests that fragment B was originally far below fragment A on the stele since the script of B

305 For an argument that the inscription does not mention the author’s father in l. 4, see 2.5.3.4 below. 306 These line numbers are based on Biran and Naveh’s side-by-side arrangement of A and B1/B2. 307 Since Hazael was also a usurper, the interpretation of Hazael’s authorship has the same problem. See discussion below (2.5.3.5). 308 Becking (1999) also disagrees with Wesselius. 309 For a longer discussion of my views on Athas and the Tel Dan Inscription, see Lamb 2004. 310 Athas 2003: 189–91. 104 Righteous Jehu is consistent with a style one would expect for a lower section of the stone (2003: 175–91). With this separated arrangement, one does not need to interpret the two kings as Jehoram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah, which then Wts easily into his later dating scheme. Athas’s argument for a new arrangement is primarily based on the supposed mismatching line slopes of the fragments. However, his argument for a lower positioning of fragment B is not persuasive. In his discussion of the textual slant of fragment A, Athas states (2003: 27) that the shorter lines on fragment A (ll. 1, 2, 12, 13) could be statistically misleading since they have fewer intact characters (5 or less), but by this criterion most of the lines of fragment B could also be misleading (ll. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8). While Athas acknowledges the problem of a small sample size in terms of the number of lines (13 for A, 8 for B), he does not take seriously the problem of a small sample size in terms of letters per line. There are not enough characters per line, particularly for fragment B, to conWdently determine the slope of the line. Athas needs more than Wve characters to make statistically signiWcant conclusions about the trend of line slopes. One cannot conclude that B should be positioned below A based on mismatching line slopes.311 Additionally, in the fourth line of fragment B the author of the inscription claims that Hadad (the Aramean god) made him king (ddex: lme), creating a problem for Athas’s new arrangement, since kings often mention divine election early in their inscriptions for the purpose of royal legitimation.312 Other West Semitic rulers begin their royal inscriptions by mentioning their divine election (e.g. Zakkur, Panamuwa, Bar-Rakib, Azatiwada, and Yehawmilk), as do Assyrian rulers (e.g. Ashurnasirpal II, Shalmaneser III, Adad-nirari III, and Esarhaddon).313 These royal authors want to

311 Athas constructs a graph (2003: 77, Wg. 3.17) to show the trends of the line slopes, but according to his table 3.1 (2003: 27), six of the points are plotted incorrectly and thereby the results are misrepresented. 312 Athas acknowledges this (‘it is quite strange that it appears so far down in the inscription’; 2003: 263) but discounts this fact because he is conWdent about his proposed rearrangement. 313 References for the divine election of these kings are: Zakkur (COS ii. 155a), Panamuwa (COS ii. 156a), Bar-Rakib (COS ii. 161a), Azatiwada (COS ii. 149a), Yehawmilk (COS ii. 151a), Assurnasirpal II (ANET 558c), Shalmaneser III (Grayson 1996: 13, ll. 5–10), Adadnirari III (ANET 281c), and Esarhaddon (ANET 289a). Righteous Jehu 105 emphasize that they have the full support of the gods before they proceed to boast about their accomplishments. Therefore, it is reasonable to follow the majority of scholars who place fragment B alongside A near the top of the inscription. Since many of Athas’s alternative conclusions are based on his positioning of B below A, they are no longer compelling and thus his theory cannot explain the apparent discrepancy between the inscription and the biblical text. Irvine (2001), following Na’aman (2000), suggests that, since the inscription is more likely to be a contemporary source than the book of Kings, it was Hazael and not Jehu who killed the two kings. According to Irvine, Hazael’s killing of Jehoram and Ahaziah prompted Jehu to rebel (2001: 117–18). However, after each of the seven other Israelite regicides, the victim is succeeded on the throne by his slayer (Baasha, Zimri, Omri,314 Shallum, Menahem, Pekah, and Hoshea).315 It is therefore more reasonable to assume that Jehu committed the regicides since neither the inscription nor the book of Kings suggests that Hazael held power over Israel as a result of Jehoram’s death. Lemaire resolves the conXict by suggesting that Hazael is meant to be the inscription’s author, but he is boasting about the two regicides (1998: 11). Unlike Irvine, he believes the biblical account was more contemporary to the actual events and therefore more likely to be accurate than the inscription. While Lemaire himself understands the number of kings reportedly slain by the author as two (a dual: l. 6), the argument for his perspective would be strengthened if he followed other scholars who see seventy slain kings spoken about, since a claim of this magnitude would add to the hyperbolic tone of the inscription.316 Lemaire’s perspective cannot be ruled out, particularly if one understands that Hazael’s boast may have been generated from the context of an alliance between Aram and Israel.

314 Omri’s siege appears to lead to Zimri’s suicide (1 Kgs. 16: 17–18). 315 For the Judean regicides, the king is succeeded by a dynastic heir (except for Athaliah’s succession). 316 Scholars are roughly divided whether the text speaks of seventy kings (e.g. Biran and Naveh 1995; Schniedewind 1996; Kottsieper 1998; Wesselius 1999) or two kings (e.g. Sasson 1995a, 1996; Lemaire 1998; Irvine 2001). 106 Righteous Jehu 2.5.3.2 A Jehu–Hazael alliance The most reasonable explanation for the apparent contradiction between the Tel Dan Inscription and the biblical account is that an alliance existed between Hazael and Jehu that allowed Hazael to take credit for these killings, even though the action was performed by Jehu. A similar phenomenon takes place within the Jehu narrative. Jehu is given credit for the downfall of both kings (2 Kgs. 10: 4, 11), but he did not actually slay Ahaziah, since he only gives the command and the killing was performed by his soldiers (2 Kgs. 9: 27). As the senior partner in the alliance, Hazael may have perceived that Jehu was following his orders. This theory of an alliance receives signiWcant scholarly support.317 Biran and Naveh Wrst asked whether Hazael might have viewed Jehu as his agent in these deaths (1995: 18). Schniedewind suggests there was an alliance between Jehu and Hazael (1996: 83–5). He cites two Neo-Assyrian inscriptions, which claim both that the people of a certain region killed their lord Giammu and that Shalmaneser III himself killed Giammu (cf. Grayson 1996: 22, l. 79; 52, l. 13–15). Kottsieper argues that Jehu’s alliance with Hazael enabled Jehu to defeat Jehoram and succeed in his rebellion (1998: 489–92). Wesse- lius follows Schniedewind’s suggestion that Jehu’s revolt received support from Aram (1999: 179). Otto also explains this apparent discrepancy as due to an alliance between Jehu and Hazael (2001: 101–2). An alliance between these two also makes sense of the biblical account. Jehu’s conspiracy began at Ramoth-gilead in a campaign against Hazael (2 Kgs. 9: 14). Jehu wanted to seize the throne from the Israelite king, Jehoram, who had to leave the battlefront to recover from wounds inXicted by Hazael’s forces. If the enemy of your enemy is your friend, then to include Hazael in his conspiracy seems a likely next step for Jehu. Hazael was presumably positioned nearby so a consultation between the two would have been easily arranged. Hazael could have oVered support to Jehu for his rebellion. Both leaders would beneWt from an agreement, since Hazael gains peace and Jehu acquires the throne.

317 However, Gugler views Hazael as the common enemy of both Shalmaneser and Jehu (1996: 269–70). Righteous Jehu 107 Evidence for an Aram–Israelite alliance can also be seen in YHWH’s words to Elijah that whoever escapes the sword of Hazael, Jehu would kill (1 Kgs. 19: 17).318 The spirit of YHWH’s words are fulWlled as Hazael Wrst wounds Jehoram and then Jehu Wnishes the killing (2 Kgs. 8: 29; 9: 24), which gives Jehu the throne, but since Jehoram and Ahaziah were allies, Jehu needed to kill Ahaziah also. Thus, Hazael’s wounding of Jehoram served as a catalyst for not only the Wrst regicide, but for the second as well. Therefore, according to the book of Kings, both Hazael and Jehu play a role in the two deaths. It is reasonable to assume that the inscription simply abridged the extended version of the account, leaving out Jehu’s role, in order to honor Hazael exclusively.

2.5.3.3 Aram–Israel relations during the monarchy Irvine thinks that cooperation between Jehu and Hazael is doubtful since Jehu supported Shalmaneser and Hazael did not (2001: 115). (Hazael also eventually captured the Transjordan from Jehu: 2 Kgs. 10: 32–3). Irvine assumes a consistent animosity between the two nations during this period. However, throughout the monarchical period, Israel and Aram consistently switch between hostile and friendly relations according to the DH. David married an Aramean princess (2 Sam. 3: 3) presumably to cement an alliance between Israel and Geshur and shortly thereafter defeated two other Aramean city-states (Beth-rehob and Zobah: 2 Sam. 8, 10). Solomon traded with Aramean kings (1 Kgs. 10: 29) and yet Rezon, the king of Damascus, made raids into Israel throughout Solo- mon’s reign (1 Kgs. 11: 23–5). During the early period of the divided monarchy, Israel and Aram shift from being enemies, to allies, then back to enemies (1 Kgs. 15: 19–20).319 In 1 Kings 20 and 22, the king of Israel and Ben-Hadad Wrst engage in conXict (20: 1–33), then make a

318 Schniedewind (1996: 83) also observes that the oracle to Elijah supports the theory of an alliance. 319 1 Kgs. 15: 19–20 refers to three distinct alliances between Aram and either Israel or Judah (1: Tabrimmon of Aram and Abijam of Judah; 2: Ben-Hadad of Aram and Baasha of Israel; 3: Ben-Hadad of Aram and Asa of Judah). For these shifting alliances, the two allied nations oppose whichever nation is excluded from the alliance, since war was consistently waged between Asa and Baasha (1 Kgs. 15: 16). 108 Righteous Jehu treaty (20: 34) lasting three years and eventually start Wghting again (22: 2–3). A similar phenomenon occurs in 2 Kings 5–8, where the king of Aram Wrst sends a gift to the king of Israel (5: 5) and then he attacks Israel (6: 8–9). In response to this attack, Elisha convinces the king of Israel to prepare a feast for the Arameans (6: 22–3), which results in no more Aramean raids. However, some time later Ben-Hadad lays a siege against Samaria (6: 24–5), yet when he becomes ill, he seeks out Elisha, an Israelite prophet (8: 7–8). Israel is at war with Aram under the reigns of Jehoahaz and Jehoash of Israel (2 Kgs. 13: 3–7, 17–24), but by the reign of Pekah, Israel is again allied with Aram (2 Kgs. 15: 37; 16: 5). The Kurkh monolith also speaks of an alliance between Ahab and Hadad-ezer at Qarqar (Grayson 1996: 23, ll. 89–92; COS ii. 263) that presumably did not last long, depending on where one positions the narratives of 1 Kings 20 and 22 historically.320 Thus, for Jehu and Hazael to make an agreement, then to break it shortly thereafter is not unreasonable as Irvine assumes, but actually expected in the light of the pattern seen elsewhere in Samuel and Kings. A chronology for this period could therefore Wrst include an alliance between Aram and Israel that helped Jehu rise to the throne and freed Hazael from Wghting on his southern border so he could concern himself exclusively with the Assyrian threat looming from the north. As Shal- maneser III moves south, he Wrst engages Aram. Jehu does not help his formerallybecauseheisafraidorheispreoccupiedwiththeconsolida- tion of his own kingdom. After Shalmaneser defeats Hazael, Jehu realizes he cannot withstand the Assyrian forces so he gives tribute instead.

2.5.3.4 Hazael’s father The references to the author of the Tel Dan Inscription’s father (ll. 2, 3, 4?) are still problematic for the view that there was a political alliance, since Hazael was probably a usurper (2 Kgs. 8: 7–15; Gray- son 1996: 118, ll. 26; COS ii. 270b; ANET 280d). However, this problem is shared by all interpretations of Hazael’s authorship, yet it is still favored by many scholars.321

320 An argument is given below (4.3.4) for keeping these anonymous ‘king of Israel’ narratives (1 Kgs. 20, 22) in the reign of Ahab. 321 Schniedewind and Zuckerman (2001) think that Hazael’s father, like his son, had a theophoric name with an - el ending. This could be used to argue that Hazael Righteous Jehu 109 Several options exist which could explain these references. It is possible that Hazael is referring to Hadadezer as his father in order to legitimize his reign (see Lemaire 1998: 5–6). Despite the Assyrian reference to Hazael as a ‘son of nobody’, several scholars suggest that the author’s father may have been a royal Wgure.322 If Hazael’s father held an important position in the court of Hadadezer, it would explain the exalted language describing him. One cannot rule out the possibility that the author is not claiming that his father was the king. The text of the inscription does not make this explicit. Of the three references to ‘my father’ (jba ll. 2, 3, 4?) in Biran and Naveh’s translation (1995: 13), the line 4 reference makes the author’s father appear to be the most royal since it refers to his land (sta). However, this third reference is also the most textually uncertain, as Athas observes (2003: 55–7), because the gap between the aleph and the bet is twice as large as it is in lines 2 and 3 (2 cm versus 1 cm). It appears that an additional letter was originally present in line 4, thus the inscription seems to mention the author’s father only twice, not three times, so the problem of the usurper Hazael referring to his father is diminished.

2.5.3.5 An omitted alliance It appears that the author of the inscription is Hazael and he is claiming to have killed Jehoram and Ahaziah, which leads to the likely possibility of an alliance between Israel and Aram that contributed to Jehu’s successful rebellion. The omission of the Hazael alliance in the biblical narrative is not surprising since Jehu’s vassal agreement with Shalmaneser III was also omitted (see 2.7.5 below).323 The most likely reason for the omissions of these two Israelite alliances is that they would have reXected negatively upon and his father were allied against worshippers of Hadad, possibly explaining Hazael’s relationship with Elijah. However, the inscription states that Hadad made the author king and went before him (ll. 4–5), which undermines Schniedewind and Zucker- man’s theory. 322 Sasson 1996: 547; Biran and Naveh 1995: 18 n. 26. 323 Jehu’s tribute to Shalmaneser should not be taken as evidence against this alliance since Israel and Aram had a history of rapidly changing their political policy, as noted above (2.5.3.3). 110 Righteous Jehu Jehu. Therefore, Dtr’s positive perspective on Jehu is revealed by attributing Jehu’s violence to zealous obedience and by omitting alliances to Assyria and Aram and, as the next section shows, by de-emphasizing Jehu’s military losses.

2.6 JEHU’S CONTRACTING BORDERS

2.6.1 Geographic contraction in the ANE

Chapter 2 has shown thus far that Dtr both omits information that reXects negatively upon Jehu and emphasizes other aspects of the narrative that reXect positively upon the ruler. However, the text also includes elements that undermine Dtr’s portrayal of Jehu as a righteous, divinely elected ruler. Despite Jehu’s experience as a military leader and his success in leading a coup, during his reign the borders of Israel dramatically decrease (2 Kgs. 10: 32–3). Since territorial contraction is typically associated with unrighteous kings, Jehu’s losses do not easily Wt into Dtr’s perspective of him as a good king. Geographic expansion and contraction are often explained by both biblical and extra-biblical texts as caused by divine intervention based on human behavior, particularly that of the king. This intervention takes the form of military victories and defeats. Success comes as a divine reward for righteous rulers resulting in expanding borders and failure comes as a divine punishment for unrighteous rulers, resulting in contracting borders. Section 2.6 therefore examines the correlation between royal behavior and geographic contraction in ANE sources (2.6.1), in the books of Deuteronomy through Samuel (2.6.2), and in the book of Kings speciWcally (2.6.3) before arguing that Dtr downplayed Jehu’s border contraction since it reXected negatively upon the ruler (2.6.4). ANE rulers are frequently described as receiving divine assistance in military contexts: Thutmose III by Amon (ANET 237a), Ramesses III by Montu, Seth, Anath, and Astarte (ANET 250a), Samsu-iluna by Inanna (COS ii. 258a), Tiglath-pileser I by Ashur and Shamash (ANET 275c), Ashurbanipal by Ashur (ANET 298d), Hattusˇili III by Isˇtar (COS i. 200c), Mesha by Kemosh (ANET 320c; COS ii. 137b), Righteous Jehu 111 and Zakkur by Ba‘lshamayn (COS ii. 155b). Textual evidence indicates that these divine victories were thought to have been granted because the ruler was viewed favorably by the gods. Sometimes this favor is made explicit as the victories are attributed to the pious behavior of a ruler (e.g. obedience, prayer, or sacriWces). After the battle of Qadesh, Ramesses II is recorded as declaring, ‘I have not disobeyed a(ny) plan that you commanded ...I called upon you, O Amun, while I am amidst multitudes whom I know not . . . Amun I found more help to me than millions of troops’ (COS ii. 34–5). Hammurabi also connects his victories to his piety, ‘[Hammurabi] the pure prince, whose prayers the god Adad acknowledges . . . leader of kings, who subdues the settlements along the Euphrates River by the oracular command of the god Dagan, his creator. . . the pious prince’ (COS ii. 337a). An inscription of Sargon II describes how Asˇsˇur answered the ruler’s prayer for military help against an evil ruler (COS ii. 295a–c). In an oracle of salvation, after hearing Esar- haddon’s prayers, Asˇsˇur declares to him: ‘I slaughtered your enemies and Wlled the river with their blood’ (Parpolo 1997: 24, ll. 14, 22). While Assurbanipal is worshipping Isˇtar, he hears about an Elamite attack, so he prays and Isˇtar hears his ‘desperate signs’, which results in a seer receiving a vision where Isˇtar defeats his enemy (Parpolo 1997: pp. xlvi–xlvii).324 Divine help often leads to expanded borders for a ruler’s kingdom. Amon-Re is said to have overthrown lands for Ramesses III (ANET 263c). Ashurnasirpal II claims to have conquered lands and gained dominion over them because of his obedience to the gods (ANET 558d). Shalmaneser III describes himself as a ruler ‘whose priesthood was pleasing to the gods and (who) subdues all lands at his feet’ (Grayson 1996: 44, ll. 20–4). Mursˇili Wrst lists his acts of piety and then he prays to the Sungoddess of Arinna, ‘The enemy foreign lands ...have been seeking to take away the borders . . . Destroy those enemy lands before me’ and then his request is responded to positively, ‘The Sungoddess of Arinna heard my words and stood by me. After I sat down on my father’s throne, in ten years I vanquished

324 An Ugaritic text for a city under siege advises the people if they make a vow to sacriWce after the victory, ‘Ba lu will drive the strong (foe) from your gate, [the warrior] from your walls’ (COS i. 284c–285c). 112 Righteous Jehu these enemy foreign lands and destroyed them’ (COS ii. 84b). Azita- wadda attributes his success to the gods and his own piety: ‘I enlarged the land of the plain of Adana ...Ihaveadded horse to horse, shield to shield, and army to army, by virtue of Ba’l and the Gods ...every king made me as a father, on account of my righteousness, my wisdom and the goodness of my heart’ (COS ii. 149a; ANET 653d). Conversely, Mesha blames Moab’s oppression by Omri of Israel to Kemosh’s anger at his people (COS ii. 137b; ANET 320c). Thus, within these ANE sources, a positive correlation is found between a ruler’s perceived piety and the size of his empire. Kings that are righteous and pray to the gods are described as receiving divine help in military contexts, which results in the expansion of their borders. One would therefore expect the realm of a ruler who is described as righteous like Jehu to expand.

2.6.2 Geographic contraction in Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, and Samuel

In the book of Deuteronomy, military success and the resulting geographic expansion are blessings to be given for obedience to the laws of YHWH (Deut. 7: 11–24; 11: 22–4; 19: 8–9; 28: 7), while military defeat and geographic contraction are threatened as consequences for disobedience (Deut. 4: 26–7; 28: 25). This Deuteronomic pattern generally holds true for other books of the DH. Under Joshua’s leadership, the Israelites defeat the cities of Jericho and Ai as well as the kings of the Amorites and the northern Canaanites (Josh. 6: 1–21; 8: 1–29; 10: 1–43; 11: 1–15). The book of Joshua lacks typical Deuteronomistic religious assessments found in Judges and Kings (e.g. Judg. 2: 11; 1 Kgs. 11: 6), making it more diYcult to discern reasons for military outcomes. However, Israel’s success appears to be based on their generally righteous behavior, as is seen in their campaign against the city of Ai (Josh. 7–8). Ai initially defeats Israel because of Achan’s sin, but after he is stoned for his crime, the Israelites succeed in their second attempt against the city (Josh. 8: 22). In Judges, the pattern of negative and positive consequences for Israel is seen more clearly than in Joshua. The people commit evil, so YHWH hands them over to a foreign power and when they cry out Righteous Jehu 113 to YHWH, he sends a deliverer who leads them to victory over their oppressors (e.g. Judg. 2: 11–23; 3: 7–30). In the book of Samuel, under the leadership of the unrighteous sons of Eli, Israel loses territory to the Philistines, but after Samuel leads the nation in corporate repentance, the Philistines are defeated (1 Sam. 2: 12–17; 4: 1–22; 7: 3–14). During the early part of his reign, Saul is the beneWciary of YHWH’s favor and he experiences military success (1 Sam. 11: 11; 14: 20–3, 47–8), but when Saul disobeys Samuel’s prophetic word to destroy (zth) the Amalekites, YHWH rejects him (1 Sam. 15: 3–28; cf. 13: 1–15). For the remainder of his reign, his eVorts to kill David are unsuccessful and he dies in Israel’s defeat to the Philistines (1 Sam. 31: 1–13). Initially, David is portrayed as the ideal righteous king, and he enjoys consistent military success, defeating the Philistines, the Moabites, the Ammonites, and the Arameans (2 Sam. 5: 17–25; 8: 1–14; 10: 6–19). During Absalom’s rebellion, David withdraws from Jerusalem, in fear of being routed by his son’s forces, but in the eventual battle, Absalom is defeated (2 Sam. 15–18). While some of these texts focus on the nation (particularly in Judges), a majority focuses on the piety (or lack thereof) of the nation’s rulers. In the DH generally, righteous leaders defeat their enemies and expand their borders, while unrighteous ones lose battles and territory. When adequate information is lacking for a clear moral evaluation, Israel appears to succeed until they commit an act of disobedience.

2.6.3 Geographic contraction in Kings

The pattern observed above in ANE sources and elsewhere in the DH of righteous rulers gaining territory and evil rulers losing territory generally continues in the book of Kings. Solomon’s temple dedication prayer expresses the pattern concisely: defeat and exile come for the nation as a direct result of sin (1 Kgs. 8: 33–4, 46), but when they pray and repent, YHWH is meant to look upon them with mercy and grant them success (1 Kgs. 8: 44–53). According to the criterion of Solomon’s prayer, Israel and Judah were sinful, but not repentant. Their political boundaries gradually erode from their farthest limits 114 Righteous Jehu during the Solomonic period in the beginning of Kings (1 Kgs. 5: 1, 4 (ET 4: 21, 24)) down to the loss of their political independence at the end of the book. Major sections of the population are sent into exile after Assyria Wrst conquers Israel (2 Kgs. 17: 6, 23) and then Babylon conquers Judah (2 Kgs. 24: 1, 7, 10–16; 25: 5–11, 21). In order to compare Jehu’s geographic contraction to other political changes taking place within the book of Kings, conquests that result in both loss of territory and independence will be examined in this section. Tribute and plunder given to foreign nations will not be examined here since they are discussed below (see 2.7.3). Table 2.6A displays these political changes within the book of Kings, listing the ruler, the textual reference, Dtr’s evaluation of the ruler, the territorial loss or gain, and the foreign nation involved. Table 2.6A includes thirteen political changes and the majority of these changes involve losses of land and/or people to foreign powers (10 of 13). Territory is lost by three Judean kings (Rehoboam, Jehoram, and Ahaz) and four Israelite kings (Baasha, Jehu, Jehoahaz, and Pekah). Two kings from each nation have major populations exiled to foreign lands (Israel: Pekah and Hoshea; Judah: Jehoiachin and Zedekiah). Only three kings regain territory previously lost (Amaziah of Judah, Jehoash of Israel, and Jeroboam II of Israel).

Table 2.6A. Political changes of Israel and Judah in 1–2 Kings

Ruler Reference Eval. Losses Gains Nation

Rehoboam of Judah 1 Kgs. 12: 19 Evil 10 tribes of Israela Israel Baasha of Israel 1 Kgs. 15: 20 Evil Naphtali Aram Jehoram of Judah 2 Kgs. 8: 20–2 Evil Edom, Libnah Edom Jehu of Israel 2 Kgs. 10: 32–3 Right. Transjordan Aram Jehoahaz of Israel 2 Kgs. 13: 3, 25 Evil ‘Towns’ Aram Jehoash of Israel 2 Kgs. 13: 25 Evil ‘Towns’ Aram Amaziah of Judah 2 Kgs. 14: 7 Right. Sela Edom Jeroboam II of Israel 2 Kgs. 14: 25, 28 Evil Restored border Aram Pekah of Israel 2 Kgs. 15: 29 Evil Naphtali, exile Assyria Ahaz of Judah 2 Kgs. 16: 6 Evil Elath Edom Hoshea of Israel 2 Kgs. 17: 5–6 Evil Exile Assyria Jehoiachin of Judah 2 Kgs. 24: 10 Evil Exile Babylon Zedekiah of Judah 2 Kgs. 24: 19 Evil Exile Babylon a While Rehoboam’s loss of the ten northern tribes to Jeroboam does not come in the context of a military campaign, it was a signiWcant political transition since most of the land and population are removed from his rule. Righteous Jehu 115 Before the reign of Hoshea of Israel, the changes primarily involve localized changes in political boundaries. After Hoshea, however, the changes aVect the entire nation as Wrst Israel and then Judah lose their political independence to foreign powers. While the Israelite people had experienced subjugation previously, particularly during the period of the judges, they had never experienced national exile on the scale recorded in 2 Kings 17 and 24–5. While the book of Judges records their supernatural deliverance (e.g. Judg. 3: 9–10, 15–30; 4: 23–4), the book of Kings leaves both nations in exile. Dtr blames Israel’s exile on the sins of the people (2 Kgs. 17: 7–23) and Judah’s exile on Manasseh’s sins (2 Kgs. 21: 11–15; 24: 3–4). Based on the pattern seen in ANE sources and other books of the DH, one would expect gains for righteously evaluated kings and losses for evil kings. Generally, the political changes in the book of Kings follow the pattern of the DH since the expected outcomes (10 total ¼ 1 righteous gain þ 9 evil losses) outnumber the unexpected ones (3 total ¼ 1 righteous loss þ 2 evil gains). Therefore, most kings receive expected results: one righteous king expands his borders (Amaziah) and nine kings with evil evaluations experience negative consequences. Only three kings do not Wt the pattern. Two of Jehu’s descendants (Jehoash and Jeroboam II) are the only evil rulers to gain territory (see also 4.3 below) and Jehu is the only ruler with a righteous evaluation to lose territory.325 Thus, one Wnds a correlation between royal unrighteousness and territorial contraction. The book of Kings therefore generally follows the pattern seen elsewhere in the DH, speciWcally that unrighteous kings have their domains reduced. Interestingly, all of the anomalous rulers are from the Jehuite dynasty (Jehu, Jehoash, and Jeroboam II). If one were to exclude these Jehuites, then the results would all be as expected: Dtr’s good kings succeed and his evil ones fail.

2.6.4 Dtr de-emphasizes Jehu’s losses

Jehu is described as a military commander, a leader of a successful rebellion and a righteous king (2 Kgs. 9: 5; 10: 11, 17, 30), and yet he

325 However, four Judean kings with righteous evaluations are plundered or give tribute in the DH (Asa, Jehoash, Amaziah, and Hezekiah; see 2.7.3 below). 116 Righteous Jehu loses the entire Transjordan region (2 Kgs. 10: 32–3). The text reports that YHWH began ‘to cut oV’(vFrBl´) sections of Israel and the people were defeated by Hazael of Aram (2 Kgs. 10: 32). The area conquered by Hazael is extensive, encompassing the eastern side of the Jordan from the southern end to the northern end of Israel’s border (2 Kgs. 10: 33: ‘all the land of Gilead, the Gadites, the Reu- benites and the Manassites’). Since righteously portrayed kings do not generally have their borders reduced, Israel’s signiWcant losses during Jehu’s reign create a tension in the narrative, particularly since the text states that YHWH was one of the primary causes. The Mesha Inscription (l. 7) gives a stark description of Israel’s deterioration during the reign of Jehu:326

mlp.dba.dba.latuj: f 327 And Israel has utterly perished forever. Scholars typically date this inscription after the fall of the Omrides in 841 (e.g. Smelik in COS ii. 137; Miller 1974: 12–13), possibly around 830 (e.g. Albright in ANET 320; Stern 1991: 22), thus situating it during Jehu’s reign. The inscription does not clarify what exactly is meant by this ruin, but the rest of the inscription speaks of national conXicts: Israel oppresses Moab (l. 5) and Moab Wghts Ataroth (l. 11), Nebo (l. 15–16), Jahaz (l. 20), and Horonaim (l. 32). Thus, Israel’s ruin appears to be a military one. While one should assume an anti-Israelite polemic from a Moabite source, possibly contributing to the hyperbolic language, Mesha’s inscription still provides extra-biblical support for understanding Jehu’s territorial contraction (2 Kgs. 10: 32–3) as signiWcant. Scholars generally think most of the section describing Jehu’s contraction (2 Kgs. 10: 32–3) derives from the northern annals.328 This conclusion is reasonable since the section does not include typical Deuteronomistic terminology and the annals are mentioned immediately following (2 Kgs. 10: 34). However, 2 Kings 10: 32a appears to come from Dtr. The phrase ‘in those days’ (ze¨ e zjm: j¸b) ˝ ¯

326 Smelik also suggests this could refer to Israelite decline under Jehu (COS ii, 137 n. 8). 327 From Smelik 1992: 61. 328 e.g. see Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 122 and Gray 1964: 509. Righteous Jehu 117 suggests the hand of a redactor as the events being narrated were chronologically distant and therefore unfamiliar to the period of the writer’s audience.329 Two additional observations also support the view that 10: 32a is Deuteronomistic. First, the minor border trimming implied in 10: 32a does not reconcile easily with the extensive territory described in 10: 33. Second, Dtr typically gives military incidents theological explanations, similar to the one given in 10: 32a (see also 4.3.3.3 below). Therefore, the introduction to the section describing Jehu’s geographical losses (2 Kgs. 10: 32a) appears to be Deuteronomistic. If these defeats by Hazael reXect negatively upon Jehu, why does Dtr not just omit this information (2 Kgs. 10: 32b–33) from his source? While the omissions concerning Jehu’s connection to Omri or his tribute to Shalmaneser could easily go unnoticed by his exilic readers who would have no reason to remember this information, changes in geographic boundaries are much more diYcult to ignore, particularly if they are mentioned in inscriptions (e.g. Mesha above). Since large numbers of people are directly aVected by these types of political transitions, those living in lands that have been conquered or liberated have a long memory of these events. Even distant events like the deliverance from Egypt become a frequent theme of many of Israel’s psalms (e.g. Ps. 78: 12; 106: 21; 114: 1; 135: 9). If Dtr omitted Jehu’s territorial contraction, he would then also need to modify the narrative of Jeroboam II who reclaimed much of the territory lost during Jehu’s reign (2 Kgs. 14: 25). Apparently, Dtr thought eliminating the material describing Jehu’s territorial loses would have been too noticeable an omission. As Noth observes, Dtr had a favorable attitude toward his sources, which meant he included material that did not necessarily support his central ideas.330 However, he often modiWed these materials in order to reconcile some of the problems.331 Dtr resolved the problem of Jehu’s territorial contraction by omitting battle details and by deXecting blame from Jehu to both the nation and Jehu’s son.

329 Cogan and Tadmor consider the phrase an editorial introduction to an entry from Dtr’s source (1988: 117). Geoghegan (2003) attributes the similar expression ‘until this day’ also to a Deuteronomistic redactor (Dtr1). 330 Noth 1957: 95, ET 1991: 128. 331 See Noth 1957: 98, ET 1991: 132. 118 Righteous Jehu Dtr includes almost no narrative material concerning Jehu’s defeats (2 Kgs. 10: 32–3).332 The text omits features that are typically included in the book of Kings: reasons for YHWH’s action (e.g. 2 Kgs. 13: 3, 23; 14: 25; 17: 7; 24: 3), battle details (e.g. 2 Kgs. 3: 4– 27; 6: 8–7: 20; 14: 7–14; 17: 5–6), and the Israelite leader being defeated (e.g. 2 Kgs. 3: 4–7; 8: 28; 13: 3–4; 15: 29). The inclusion of this data would have highlighted Jehu’s involvement in these defeats. The condensed nature of the description of Jehu’s loses and Dtr’s statement that he excluded material concerning Jehu from his source (2 Kgs. 10: 34) together suggest that the northern annals included a longer account of these events. Thus, while Dtr does not completely leave out Jehu’s loss of territory, he appears to omit details that would have implicated Jehu more directly. In the cursory description of Israel’s defeat by Hazael, responsibility for the loss falls on the nation, not on the leader who had just been given a righteous evaluation by Dtr. Jehu is mentioned immediately before and after these verses (2 Kgs. 10: 31, 34), but instead of focusing on Jehu, Hazael’s opponent is ‘them’ (la¨g¸hˇ zk¨ jf ), with Israel as the antecedent (2 Kgs. 10: 32). In contrast, in¯ his¯ later rendering of Israel’s loses to Hazael, Josephus directly implicates Jehu. He includes more typical battle details and he explicitly states Hazael attacked the Israelites ‘and their king, Jehu’ (JA 9. 159: ŒÆd ﬁH ÆØºE ÆPH F).333 Josephus gives two reasons for the defeat: Jehu was not prompt to oppose Hazael and he had become careless in his religious duties (JA 9. 160).334 Thus, Josephus appears to have modiWed his source to make Jehu less righteous in order to reduce the tension of a good ruler failing in warfare. Not only does 2 Kings 10: 32–3 avoid mentioning the current king, Dtr arranges the text so that the blame is partially placed upon Jehu’s son Jehoahaz, to whom he gives an evil evaluation. The Deuterono- mistic introduction (2 Kgs. 10: 32a) reports that during Jehu’s reign, ‘YHWH began to cut oV’(vFrBl´ ef¸ej´ le¨ e¨ ) area from Israel because of Hazael’s attacks. However, during Jehoahaz’s reign, the anger of YHWH was kindled so that he gave them ‘continually’ (zjm: j¸e¯lk¸) into the hands of Hazael (2 Kgs. 13: 3). One could ¯ 332 Conversely, Dtr includes few details from evil Jeroboam II’s victories (2 Kgs. 14: 25, 28; see also 4.3.3 below). 333 See also Begg 2000: 191 n. 13. 334 Begg 2000: 192. Righteous Jehu 119 assume, based on the language, that the territorial losses to Aram under Jehoahaz would be much greater than the losses under Jehu. The phrase ‘YHWH began to cut oV’ (2 Kgs. 10: 32) sounds like minor trimming, in contrast to being handed over ‘continually’ (2 Kgs. 13: 3). However, the territorial losses under Jehu are more signiWcant than those under his son Jehoahaz. The text only records certain unnamed towns (zjt:pe` ) that are taken over by Aram during the reign of Jehoahaz (2 Kgs. 13:˝ 25), but during his father’s reign the entire Transjordan region is lost to Hazael. Similar language is used to describe divine actions that were begun during the reigns of Jehu and Jotham:

la¨ t¸U´ j:b´vFrBl´ ef¸ej´ le¨ e¨ ze¨ e zjm: j¸b (2 Kgs. 10: 32) ˝ ¯ et¸ fejb hjl: W´el´ ef¸ej´ le¨ e¨ ze¨e zjm:j¸b (2 Kgs. 15: 37) ˙ ¯ ¯ ˝ ¯ In those days, YHWH began to cut oV from Israel (2 Kgs. 10: 32) In those days, YHWH began to send against Judah (2 Kgs. 15: 37) In both of these verses, Dtr uses this formula to explain how divine punishments began despite the reign of a righteous father (Jehu and Jotham), but then the punishments understandably increased during the reigns of their unrighteous sons (Jehoahaz: 2 Kgs. 13: 3; Ahaz: 2 Kgs. 16: 5). The text recording the beginnings of these divine actions are positioned in the concluding Deuteronomistic regnal formula for both kings, giving the appearance that the events came late in the reigns of these kings, immediately before they died. Thus, Dtr shifts YHWH’s actions as close as possible to the reigns of the unrighteous sons. In summary, Dtr does not omit problematic information concerning the contraction of Israel’s borders during the reign of righteous Jehu. However, he de-emphasizes Jehu’s role by giving merely a terse account of the campaign and by omitting details that would have implicated Jehu. By not mentioning Jehu is this context, Dtr deXects the blame from righteous’ Jehu, toward both the nation and his ‘evil’ son that succeeded him.

2.7 JEHU’S OMITTED TRIBUTE

While Dtr minimizes Jehu’s military losses, Jehu’s tribute to Shal- maneser III is omitted completely from the book of Kings, despite its 120 Righteous Jehu prominence in Neo-Assyrian sources. Four Assyrian inscriptions refer to Jehu’s tribute to Shalmaneser and therefore it is generally assumed to be historical.335 After observing how both ANE sources (2.7.1) and the DH (2.7.2) view the giving of tribute critically, this section will discuss the details of Jehu’s tribute (2.7.3) and the Black Obelisk’s portrayal of Jehu (2.7.4), before arguing that Dtr appears to have omitted the tribute from his source because it would have undermined his righteous evaluation of Jehu (2.7.5).

2.7.1 Tribute in the ANE

Transfers of goods to a foreign nation can be divided into three categories based on the level of coercion involved: plunder (e.g. Rehoboam’s to Egypt), involuntary tribute (e.g. Hezekiah’s to As- syria), and voluntary tribute (e.g. Asa’s to Aram).336 While tribute can have the appearance of a gift (particularly voluntary tribute), plunder makes no such pretense as it is taken immediately after a military conquest. Involuntary tribute can also occur after a defeat337 and voluntary tribute may be prompted by the threat of defeat, but both forms of tribute can be distinguished from plunder. Tribute appears to be given, not taken (although if expected, and not given, it may be taken). Unlike plunder, tribute could also be established to occur on a regular basis. Suppiluliuma I and Tiglath-pileser III impose annual tributes (Beckman 1995: 55; COS ii. 287c) and Adad-nirari III imposes one ‘forever’ (COS ii. 276a). Tributes also often involve a military alliance. Hittite vassal treaties typically make tribute one of the primary stipulations (Beckman 1995: 3, 55, 60). Plunder may include valuable metals, but frequently also includes military equipment and slaves. Shalmaneser III lists slaves, chariots, and horses he captured as booty (COS ii. 262–3). Tributes primarily involve precious metals (gold, silver, and bronze), but occasionally

335 Grayson 1996: 48, ll. 24’’–27’’; 54, ll. 10–11; 60, ll. 29–30; 149 (A.0.102.88). See also above (2.2.2). 336 All of these tribute and plunder references are given in Table 2.7A below. 337 Thutmose III receives tribute from the Syrian chieftains after the battle at Megiddo (COS ii. 12b). Righteous Jehu 121 include exotic animals, such as those pictured or listed on the Black Obelisk (a hippopotamus, a rhinoceros, elephants, and monkeys; ANEP 120–1, 291b). Tribute is mentioned frequently in sources from the military powers of the ANE, particularly by conquering emperors such as Suppiluliuma I, Shalmaneser III, and Tiglath-pileser III (COS i. 185– 91; ii. 261–4; 287). Outside of the HB, few West Semitic sources mention tribute, primarily because rulers from this region typically are giving the tribute to the surrounding empires and a reference to it would expose their military weakness and therefore reXect negatively upon them.338 By contrast, the rulers of the surrounding empires beneWt politically by mentioning in their own inscriptions the servitude of West Semitic tributaries that they have conquered. In addition to the Assyrian sources that mention Israelite and Judean tributes (see 2.7.2 below), Egyptian sources mention plunder taken from Canaan by Merneptah (COS ii. 41b) and tribute received from the ‘land of Syria’ by Sheshonk I (ANET 263d). In general, references to tribute reXect positively upon recipients and negatively upon tributaries. The recipient, because of his superior military might that necessitated the tribute, is in the position of honor, while the tributary is portrayed as submissive or subservient. Thus, the frequent references to tributes received or plunder taken in royal inscriptions serve as political propaganda for rulers of the ANE.

2.7.2 Tribute in Deuteronomy and the DH

Deuteronomy and the DH also perceive the giving of tribute to foreign rulers negatively. Deuteronomy prohibits making a covenant (vjt:b´) with the people of the land (Deut. 7: 2; cf. Josh. 9), which is often involved when tribute is given (see 2.7.1 above). Dtr repeatedly speaks of YHWH punishing his people by giving them into the hands of foreign plunderers: during the period of the judges (Judg. 2: 14) and in descriptions of the downfalls of both Israel and Judah (2 Kgs. 17: 19–20; 21: 14).

338 However, King Mesha of Moab claims to take vessels of YHWH as plunder from Nebo (COS ii. 138a). 122 Righteous Jehu

Table 2.7A. Tribute and plunder from rulers of Israel and Judah

ANE Foreign Foreign Rulera DH reference Eval. referenceb nation ruler

Rehoboam of Judah 1 Kgs. 14: 25–6 Evil Egypt Shishak I Asa of Judah 1 Kgs. 15: 18 Right. Aram Ben-Hadad Jehu of Israel Right. COS ii. 270ac Assyria Shalmaneser III Jehoash of Judah 2 Kgs. 12: 19d Right. Aram Hazael Jehoash of Israel Evil COS ii. 276ae Assyria Adad-nirari III Amaziah of Judah 2 Kgs. 14: 14 Right. Israel Jehoash Menahem of Israel 2 Kgs. 15: 19–20 Evil COS ii. 285cf Assyria Tiglath-pileser IIIg Ahaz of Judah 2 Kgs. 16: 7–8 Evil COS ii. 289ch Assyria Tiglath-pileser III Hoshea of Israel 2 Kgs. 17: 3 Evil COS ii. 288b Assyria Shalmaneser V Hezekiah of Judah 2 Kgs. 18: 14–16 Right. COS ii. 303c Assyria Sennacherib Jehoahaz of Judah 2 Kgs. 23: 33 Evil Egypt Neco Jehoiakim of Judah 2 Kgs. 23: 35 Evil Egypt Neco Jehoiachin of Judah 2 Kgs. 24: 13 Evil Grayson Babylon Nebuchadnezzar 1975a:2ci Zedekiah of Judah 2 Kgs. 25: 14 Evil Babylon Nebuchadnezzar a The promised gift to Ben-Hadad from the king of Israel (1 Kgs. 20: 4, 7, 9) is not included in this table. It was probably never given because Israel eventually defeated Aram (1 Kgs. 20: 20–1). b All references to Assyrian tributes in this column are given from COS ii. For transliterations of the Assyrian tribute texts, see the references to Grayson 1996 and Tadmor 1994 in 2.2.2.1 above. c For all four references to Jehu’s tribute, see 2.2.2.1. d ET 12: 18. e A second reference to this tribute is probably found in COS ii. 276b, although Jehoash is not mentioned. See also discussions of Jehoash’s tribute in Page 1968 and Cody 1970. f This tribute of Menahem is also mentioned in COS ii. 287a. g The name Pul is a hypocorism for Tiglath-pileser III (Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 171–2). h In this source, Ahaz is called Jehoahaz of Judah. i This reference does not mention Jehoiachin by name. The book of Kings is unique among ANE literature as it records its ‘own’ rulers as tributaries.339 Table 2.7A lists the Israelite and Judean rulers recorded in either the DH or in ANE sources as giving tribute or being plundered. The table includes the ruler giving the tribute, the book of Kings reference, Dtr’s evaluation of the ruler, the ANE reference, the foreign nation, and ruler receiving the tribute.340 The book of Kings includes twelve tribute or plunder references from rulers of Israel and Judah—ANE sources include seven references and Wve references are mentioned both in Kings and in ANE sources.

339 The tributes received by David and Solomon (2 Sam. 8: 6; 1 Kgs. 5: 1 (ET 4: 21)) will not be discussed here since this examination focuses on foreign tribute from rulers of Israel and Judah. 340 The Temple of Amun at Karnak includes Judean and Israelite cities that Shishak I (Sheshonk) conquered (ANET 242–3). Another inscription of Shishak vaguely mentions his ‘tribute of the land of Syria’ (ANET 263d). Righteous Jehu 123 Therefore, Table 2.7A includes foreign tribute or plunder from fourteen rulers of Israel and Judah (6 to Assyria, 3 to Egypt, 2 to Aram, 2 to Babylon, and 1 from Judah to Israel). As expected, most of these rulers are evaluated by Dtr as evil (8 of 12; Rehoboam, Menahem, Ahaz, Hoshea, Jehoahaz of Judah, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zede- kiah). Na’aman (1995b) addresses the problem of the righteous kings who are plundered or give tribute (Asa, Jehoash, Amaziah, and Hezekiah). He argues eVectively that the Deuteronomist (Dtr1 and Dtr2 for Na’aman) focuses his polemic against foreign servitude that is voluntary (see 2.7.5 for a discussion of Jehu’s voluntary tribute). He notes the critical attitude in particular toward Asa,341 Menahem, Ahaz, and Jehoiakim, while Hezekiah, who resisted Assyria, is portrayed favorably. However, Na’aman’s argument would have been strengthened if he had discussed the transfers from the two other righteous kings that he ignores. Amaziah could be used as another example of a king whose reputation was not damaged because he was forcibly plundered (2 Kgs. 14: 13–14). Jehoash of Judah also appears to give involuntary tribute, since he responded to the military ad- vance of Hazael (‘Hazael set his face to go up against Jerusalem’: z: lWftj´¯lp vFlpˇ l fjn¸q¸la¨g¸hˇ zU` j¸f ; 2 Kgs. 12: 17).342 ˝Na’aman˝ ¯ attributes¯ the text’s¯ critical attitude toward voluntary tribute to a national ideology (1995b: 51). While Na’aman’s argument seems generally valid and helps to explain the problem of righteous kings being plundered or giving tribute, additional reasons exist for the text’s negative perspective toward tribute. If tribute is voluntary, it is given to appease foreign kings and therefore displays a lack of dependence on YHWH. Prophetic literature is particularly critical of this practice (e.g. Isa. 31: 1; Jer. 2: 36–7; Hos. 7: 11). If tribute is involuntary, it is typically given because of a military defeat, which could also be viewed as a sign of divine disfavor.343 Addition- ally, the source of the gift (or plunder) for eight of the ten Judean kings is the treasury of the house of YHWH (1 Kgs. 14: 26; 15: 18; 2 Kgs. 12: 19 (ET 12: 18); 14: 14; 16: 8; 18: 15–16; 24: 13; 25: 13).344

341 Na’aman observes that, although Asa was a reformer, his gift to Ben-Hadad was perceived critically (1995b: 45, 51). 342 Cogan and Tadmor (1988: 139) understand this phrase militarily (cf. Dan. 11: 17). 343 See also 2.6 above. 344 Mullen concludes that Dtr uses the despoliation of the treasuries to show how rulers are being punished for cultic impurity or lack of trust in YHWH (1992). 124 Righteous Jehu Gifts that had been dedicated to YHWH are given to foreign kings, who in turn usually dedicate them to their own gods. Therefore, all gifts to foreign rulers, whether voluntary or involuntary, would reXect negatively upon a ruler.

2.7.3 Jehu’s tribute: date, location, and size

The observation that both ANE sources and the DH view giving tribute critically explains why Dtr might have omitted the tribute of Jehu from the DH. The details of Jehu’s tribute can therefore now be discussed. Since the Assyrian inscriptions record Jehu giving tribute in the eighteenth year of Shalmaneser’s reign, it can be safely dated to 841 bce.345 Lambert (1994) argues that Jehu gave tribute immediately after seizing the throne in order to protect himself against Aram (see also 2.5.3.3 above). Jehu is commonly thought to have acceded about 842/841 bce,346 so Lambert’s theory reconciles easily with Assyrian sources. Jehu’s tribute would have been given during Jehu’s early reign when the biblical narrative goes into detail (64 verses: 2 Kgs. 9: 1–10: 27).347 The remainder of his reign is summarized brieXy (9 verses: 2 Kgs. 10: 28–36). Three inscriptions say that Shalmaneser received tribute from Jehu at Mount Ba’li-ra’si, a promontory facing Tyre,348 which can be identiWed with Mount Carmel because it juts outward from the coastline toward Tyre.349 The inscriptions also say that a royal statue (sa-lam MAN-ti-ia) was erected there to honor Shalmaneser. While this ˙ monument has not been discovered, it must have mentioned the tributes given there.350 Presumably, this statue would have survived

345 See also Green 1979: 37. 346 e.g. see Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 341. 347 Even if one follows White, who concludes that Jehu overthrew Jehoram in 842 and presented his tribute in 841 (1997: 55–8), the tribute is still given early in his reign. 348 Grayson 1996: 48, ll. 21’’–27’’; 54, col. 5, ll. 5–11; 60, ll. 26–30. 349 Lipin´ ski concludes that Ba’li-ra’si is Ras en-Naqura (1971), but Aharoni (1967: 341; 1970: 6–7) and Green (1979: 36) argue convincingly for Mount Carmel. 350 In another inscription, Shalmaneser speaks of erecting two similar monuments (sa-lam MAN-ti-a) on which he inscribed his ‘mighty praises’ (Grayson 1996: 58, ll. 10˙ ’–14’). Righteous Jehu 125 at Mount Carmel at least until the end of Shalmaneser’s reign (824 bce), since anyone who destroyed Shalmaneser’s inscription would have incurred his wrath.351 Jehu’s tribute appears to have been substantial in both size and value. The Black Obelisk details the tribute: ‘silver, gold, a golden bowl, a golden tureen, gold vessels, gold pails, tin, the staVs of the king’s hand, (and) spears’.352 In the relief, it takes thirteen individuals to present Jehu’s tribute.353 Jehu’s tribute list includes more items (nine) than the other tribute lists on the Black Obelisk.354 Jehu’s individual gifts also appear to be more valuable than those of the other tributaries. Sua and Qarparunday give only one gift of gold and Marduk-apla-usur gives two, while Wve of Jehu’s gifts are made of gold. While it is diYcult to determine exactly the worth of the Wve Black Obelisk tributes, based on Jehu’s epigraph, one could reasonably conclude that his tribute was the most valuable.

2.7.4 Jehu’s portrayal on the Black Obelisk

While Younger states that the individual on the second relief of the Black Obelisk could be either Jehu or his envoy (COS ii. 269), most scholars conclude that he is meant to be Jehu himself and not a representative because of the corresponding epigraph (e.g. Green 1979: 39; Porada 1983: 15; Lieberman 1985: 88). If the tribute were being presented in Calah (where the Black Obelisk was later discovered), Jehu would presumably have sent an emissary. When sending his tribute to Sennacherib in Nineveh, Hezekiah himself did not go, but instead sent a messenger.355 However, Ahaz of Judah traveled over a hundred miles to Damascus to meet Tiglath-pileser III (2 Kgs.

351 Many royal inscriptions conclude with curses for any who would destroy it (e.g. Grayson 1996: 209, ll. 26–33; COS ii. 150c; see also 5.1.2 below). 352 Grayson 1996: 149, second epigraph (A.0.102.88). 353 See ANEP 120, 122, 290–1. Jehu’s tribute is shown in the second series of epigraphs from the top. The Israelites have beards and wear tasseled caps and pointed shoes. 354 The following are the number of items from the tribute lists on the other four Black Obelisk epigraphs: Sua: 6; from Musri: 7; Marduk-apla-usur: 8, and Qarpar- unda: 7. See Grayson 1996: 149–52. 355 COS ii. 303d; ANET 288b. 126 Righteous Jehu 16: 10). Since Jehu’s tribute was given on Mount Carmel, only about twenty-Wve miles from Jezreel, it is unlikely that Jehu sent someone else, thus it is reasonable to assume that Jehu is actually represented in the relief.356 While several scholars note similarities between Jehu and Sua of Gilzanu, the other Black Obelisk tributary bowed before Shalman- eser,357 several diVerences between their postures on the reliefs can be noted (ANEP 120). Jehu’s upper body supports a greater percentage of his lower body since his thighs go almost straight up, while Sua’s thighs go back at about a 45-degree angle, allowing him to rest more weight on his legs. Despite this, Sua supports his upper body with his hands, arms, and elbows Xat on the ground, while Jehu supports his upper body with only his Wngertips as his forearms extend oV the ground at about a 60-degree angle. As a result, Jehu appears to be much less comfortable than Sua. Jehu is also facing downward, while Sua is looking forwards.358 Therefore, while both kings are in humble positions before the Assyrian monarch, Jehu’s bowed-down face and greater discomfort gives him an appearance of greater subservience. Since reliefs were used as royal propaganda, one cannot be certain they represent the actual incident accurately; nevertheless, Jehu is portrayed in a position of extreme submission before Shalmaneser. He is prostrate both before Shalmaneser and, as Green observes (1979: 39), before the winged sun disc, a symbol of the god Asˇsˇur. Thus, Jehu appears on the Black Obelisk as not only giving tribute to a foreign ruler, but also bowing down to a foreign god.

2.7.5 Dtr’s omission of Jehu’s tribute

The tribute of Jehu to Shalmaneser III is mentioned by four Neo-Assyrian sources, but not by Hebrew Bible sources. This phenomenon Wts the Deuteronomistic pattern observed above of ignoring or de-emphasizing data that denigrates Jehu’s character (see 2.2.3, 2.5.2.5, and 2.6.4).

356 Smith concludes that it is impossible to guarantee a correlation between a name in a text with a relief, but for an epigraph the ‘probability may be high’ (1977: 95). 357 e.g., see Porada 1983: 15; Lieberman 1985: 88. 358 Green also observes this diVerence (1979: 38). Righteous Jehu 127 Dtr’s sources recorded many instances of foreign tribute. The book of Kings mentions twelve rulers of Israel and Judah giving tribute or being plundered, including four of the six Assyrian tributes (see Table 2.7A above). Therefore, one would expect Jehu’s tribute to be included in the DH. The timing, location, and size of Jehu’s tribute also make it diYcult to ignore. Assyrian sources highlight the signiWcance of the incident by mentioning it four times on monuments, as well as representing it pictorially in a relief. An additional Wfth monument recording the event probably stood at the site in northern Israel for an extended period, as described in these inscriptions (e.g. Grayson 1996: 60, ll. 25–30). It is reasonable therefore to conclude that Jehu’s tribute was greater than the tributes of other Israelite kings, since none of theirs were mentioned more than twice in extant Assyrian sources, and that it was greater than the other Black Obelisk tributes, because of the quality and quantity of the items listed. Its absence from Kings is surprising since the tribute was given within the boundaries of Israel and during the early period of Jehu’s reign when the text goes into detail. Thus, it would be unusual for the tribute not to be included in Dtr’s source given its date early in Jehu’s reign, its location on Mount Carmel, and its substantial size. While the tribute from Jehoash of Israel to Adad-nirari III is also not mentioned by the book of Kings,359 this omission is less unusual. The biblical narrative devotes much less space to Jehoash (25 verses) than to Jehu (73 verses) and Jehoash’s tribute does not appear to be as signiWcant as Jehu’s. Jehoash’s name is even omitted from one of the two Assyrian references to the tribute (see Table 2.7A above) and no pictorial representation of it has been found. Jehu’s tribute was probably omitted by Dtr from the book of Kings because it would have reXected negatively upon Jehu.360 If Dtr included Jehu’s tribute, it would have undermined his righteous evaluation of Jehu. These Assyrian tribute references suggest that Jehu relied on Shalmaneser III for assistance, a practice that the

359 See also Table 2.7A n. e. Cogan and Tadmor conclude that Jehoash’s tribute to Adad-nirari III was not due to a victory over Israel, but was prompted by the Assyrian’s victory over Aram, Israel’s rival, in 796 bce (1988: 152). 360 The two other northern kings whose tributes to Assyria were included in the DH were both evil (Menahem and Hoshea). 128 Righteous Jehu books of Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Hosea condemn (see 2.7.2 above). Jehu appears to give his tribute to Shalmaneser voluntarily.361 The inscriptions mention no struggle involving Jehu, in contrast to the narratives regarding Hazael (also from Shalmaneser’s eighteenth year), who is defeated and then has booty captured by Shalmaneser.362 Elat argues that Jehu submitted to Shalmaneser without resistance since he was included with other voluntary tributaries on the Black Obelisk (1975: 32–3).363 Elat also thinks that the staV (hu-ta¯r-tu) that ˙ Jehu gave to Shalmaneser symbolizes a vassal handing˘ over his kingdom to his lord for protection (1975: 33–4), which would expose a lack of trust in YHWH on Jehu’s part. According to the Black Obelisk relief, Jehu is not only depending on a foreign ruler for support, but he is also worshipping a foreign god. Jehu is bowing down to a foreign god (Asˇsˇur) on Mount Carmel, the same mountain where Elijah had previously defeated the prophets of Baal (1 Kgs. 18: 19–20). Jehu’s tribute, particularly as portrayed on the Black Obelisk, is not easily reconciled with the image of a righteous king, therefore Dtr would have had a strong motive for omitting it.364 Dtr himself states that he omits things about Jehu that are included in the book of the kings of Israel (2 Kgs. 10: 34). It is therefore reasonable to assume that Jehu’s tribute was present in Dtr’s source, but it was excluded by Dtr, since it would have undermined his righteous evaluation of Jehu.

2.8 DTR’S POSITIVE PERSPECTIVE ON JEHU

To summarize the conclusions of the second chapter, within the text one discovers a Deuteronomistic bias favoring Jehu. Jehu is the only

361 Smith argues that the term used for Jehu’s tribute, madattu, does not mean only compulsory payments, but could also include voluntary gifts (1977: 86–8). 362 Grayson 1996: 48, ll. 1’’–21’’; 54, col. 3, l. 45 col. 4, l. 5; 60, ll. 21–8; COS ii. 267c, 268c, 268b. 363 Gugler also thinks Jehu’s tribute was voluntary (1996: 269). 364 Lambert suggests that since prophetic circles would have condemned foreign tribute, court circles may have downplayed Jehu’s tribute (2004: 359). While it would have been diYcult to conceal Jehu’s tribute during his reign for reasons just discussed, Dtr would have had a strong incentive to omit it along the lines of Lambert’s suggestion. Righteous Jehu 129 northern king given a righteous evaluation by Dtr (2.1). As an editor, Dtr does not include information that appears in Neo-Assyrian sources describing Jehu’s relationship to the unrighteous Omride dynasty (2.2) and his tribute to Shalmaneser III (2.7), presumably since both of these would reXect negatively upon Jehu. The narrative of his prophetic anointing (2.3) and divine election (2.4) is repeated by Dtr in order to emphasize his legitimacy to rule. While Jehu’s violence is included in the text and even narrated in detail, it is not condemned, but rather Dtr describes it as zealous obedience to the commands of YHWH (2.5). In contrast, Jehu’s contracting borders are only brieXy mentioned, with no record of battle details, which would have highlighted Jehu’s involvement in these losses (2.6). The following chapter will show how Dtr uses features of the narrative that reXect positively upon Jehu to compare him favorably to David, Dtr’s ideal ruler. 3

Jehu and David: Two Charismatic Kings

3.1 PARALLELS BETWEEN JEHU AND DAVID

Because of their unqualiWed righteous Deuteronomistic evaluations (2 Kgs. 18: 3; 22: 2) Hezekiah and Josiah are often discussed in connection with their ancestor David as the ideal rulers of the book of Kings (e.g. Jones 1984: 33; Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 218). How- ever, the king who shares the most favorable similarities with David in the DH is Jehu.1 By portraying Jehu similarly to the model ruler of the book, Dtr elevates Jehu’s status. Dtr’s positive bias toward David and Jehu is seen as he builds on six parallels present in his sources (prophetic anointing, divine election, manifestation of YHWH’s spirit, heroic exploits, popular support, and direct divine speech) and he adds two more parallels from his own material (righteous evaluations and dynastic promises). Since all eight of these parallels reXect positively upon them, David and Jehu are seen to be Dtr’s most favored Israelite kings. These similarities not only contribute to Dtr’s portrayal of David and Jehu as charismatic (3.2), but also reveal Dtr’s positive perspective on charismatic rulers (3.3). Within this section two of the parallels will be discussed on their own (3.1.2 ‘Righteous evaluations’ and 3.1.4 ‘Manifestation of YHWH’s spirit’) while the other parallels will be discussed in three sets of pairs because of textual connections (3.1.3 ‘Prophet anointings and divine election’, 3.1.5 ‘Heroic exploits and popular support’, and

1 While Ash (1998: 18) suggests that initially Jeroboam I shares more similarities to David than any other Israelite or Judean ruler, the parallels between Jehu and David are far more striking, as the remainder of this section shows. Jehu and David: Two Charismatic Kings 131 3.1.6 ‘Direct divine speech and dynastic promise’). Before examining these parallels, a few comments need to be made about the similarities between the respective kingdoms of Jehu and David (3.1.1).

3.1.1 Two Israelite kings

The territories ruled over by Jehu, Hezekiah, and Josiah are all smaller than that of David since he ruled over an empire that included both Judah and Israel. However, Jehu’s Israel was more similar to the realm of David than Hezekiah’s and Josiah’s Judah.2 Hezekiah and Josiah share David’s bloodline and capital city, but at the beginning of the divided monarchy the realm that was taken away from Solomon’s son and given to Jeroboam (and later ruled over by Jehu) is repeatedly referred to as ‘the kingdom’ (ek¸lm´me: 1 Kgs. 11: 11, 31, 35; 12: 26; 14: 8).3 Thus, the ten tribes that become˝ ¯¯ Israel are thought to epitomize the essence of the nation. This perspective is supported by the fact that the northern kingdom continues to be called by the name ‘Israel’ and it includes the majority of the tribes, the land, and the people.4 David was frequently associated with Judah since he was from the tribe of Judah (1 Sam. 17: 12), he became king over Judah prior to becoming king over Israel (2 Sam. 2: 4; 5: 3), and his name and lineage become exclusively connected to Judah after the reign of his grandson, Rehoboam (1 Kgs. 12: 20). However, the DH also emphasizes David’s kingship in association with ‘Israel’, understood as both northern and southern realms. Of David’s nine divine election references, none mentions Judah, but six speak of YHWH selecting David to be ruler ‘over Israel’ (1 Sam. 25: 30; 2 Sam. 5: 2; 6: 21; 7: 8; 12: 7; 1 Kgs. 8: 16).5 Despite the house of David’s enduring reign over

2 However, the borders of Jehu’s northern kingdom dramatically decreased during his reign (see 2.6 above). 3 YHWH is said to tear (pts) the kingdom away both from Saul (to David; 1 Sam. 28: 17; cf. 2 Sam. 3: 10) and from Solomon/Rehoboam (to Jeroboam; 1 Kgs. 11: 11, 31). 4 During David’s reign, the term ‘Israel’ is also used for merely the northern tribes (e.g. 2 Sam. 2: 9; 5: 3). 5 David’s three other divine election references do not explicitly mention a nation over which he is to rule (1 Sam. 13: 14; 16: 1, 12), but the contexts speak of him replacing Saul who is being rejected as king ‘over Israel’ (1 Sam. 13: 13; 16: 1). 132 Jehu and David: Two Charismatic Kings Judah, the Davidic dynastic promise never mentions Judah, while in the context of Nathan’s oracle and David’s prayer that follows, Israel is mentioned eleven times (2 Sam. 7: 6, 7(3), 8, 10, 11, 23, 24, 26, 27). The context would therefore suggest that David’s descendants are promised an eternal reign over Israel, not Judah.6 While their realms were diVerent, their status as rulers over ‘Israel’ establishes an initial point of similarity for Jehu and David.

3.1.2 Righteous evaluations

Jehu is the only northern ruler to receive a righteous Deuteronomis- tic evaluation (2 Kgs. 10: 30; see also 2.1.3 above). David is also evaluated positively (1 Kgs. 14: 8), although his evaluation does not come in the context of a typical regnal formula and his assessment becomes more favorable as the narrative moves from Samuel to Kings.7 In Samuel, David is generally praised (e.g. 1 Sam. 13: 14; 16: 18),8 but he is also harshly condemned for sins that the text narrates in detail (2 Sam. 11: 1–12: 14; 24: 1–17). Kings, however, repeatedly speaks of David’s loyal obedience (16 times: 1 Kgs. 3: 3, 6, 14; 9: 4; 11: 4, 6, 33, 38; 14: 8; 15: 3, 5, 11; 2 Kgs. 14: 3; 16: 2; 18: 3; 22: 2) and only includes a subtle allusion to the murder of Uriah (1 Kgs. 15: 5), while his adultery with Bathsheba is never mentioned. In 1 Kings 14: 8, Ahijah delivers a message from YHWH criticizing Jeroboam in classic Deuteronomistic terminology for not being like David: who kept my commandments and followed me with all his heart, doing only that which was right in my eyes jnjp¨ b´ tWje st vFUpˇl Fbbl´¯lk¸ b´ jt hˇ a Lle¯tW` aˇ f jeFr´ m: tmW tW` aˇ ˝ ˝ ˝¯ ¯ ¯ ˝ ¯ ¯ ¯ ˝ ¯ ¯ ¯ ˝ However, in 2 Samuel 12: 9, Nathan rebukes David, describing his behavior in the eyes of YHWH in less complimentary terms:

6 Schniedewind also suggests that the Davidic promise is focused on the united monarchy (1999: 34). 7 For elements of David’s regnal formula, see 2 Sam. 5: 4–5 and 1 Kgs. 2: 10–12. 8 The book of Samuel lacks a typical regnal evaluation for David, but King Achish of Philistia speaks positively about him in Deuteronomistic language (1 Sam. 29: 6: jnjp¨ b´ bFif´ eva tWj¯jk. , ‘for you are upright and good in my eyes’). ¯ ˝ ¯ ˝ ˝ Jehu and David: Two Charismatic Kings 133

Why have you despised the word of YHWH to do evil in his eyes? : 9 Fnjp¨ b´ pt e vFUpˇ l efej´ tb5¯va` vjg:b pfdm ¯ ˝ ¯ ˝ ¯ ˝ ˝ ¯ ¯ Thus, one perceives a pro-David bias in Kings, particularly in comparison to the book of Samuel. In many of the passages that praise David, he is held up as the righteous ideal by which other kings are judged.10 Eight kings are explicitly compared to him: three are obedient like David (Asa: 1 Kgs. 15: 11; Hezekiah: 2 Kgs. 18: 3; Josiah: 2 Kgs. 22: 2), four are not obedient like David (Jeroboam I: 1 Kgs. 14: 8; Abijam: 1 Kgs. 15: 3; Amaziah: 2 Kgs. 14: 3; Ahaz: 2 Kgs. 16: 2), and Solomon is described as both like and not like his father (1 Kgs. 3: 3; 11: 4, 6). Dtr’s tendency to compare rulers is seen in his descriptions of Solomon, Hezekiah, and Josiah as superior to all other kings (1 Kgs. 3: 12; 2 Kgs. 18: 5; 23: 25). Knoppers concludes that these incomparability formulas describe how each of the three rulers displays uniquely superlative characteristics (1992: 413): Solomon’s wisdom and wealth, Hezekiah’s trust in YHWH, and Josiah’s reforms. While David lacks an incomparability formula, the explicit textual comparisons between David and each of these ‘incomparable’ rulers should have warranted a discussion by Knoppers. David’s righteousness makes him the ideal ruler to which each of them is compared. Solomon’s unique characteristics seem distinct from the obedience that characterizes the other three, but the diVerence between Heze- kiah, Josiah, and David is not as clear as Knoppers suggests, since the righteous behavior of Hezekiah and Josiah is said to involve doing all (lK) that their ancestor David did (2 Kgs. 18:3; 22:2). Some of the apparent contradiction between the incomparability formulas should be simply attributed to Dtr’s propensity to use hyperbolic language, since his negative assessments of Jeroboam, Omri, Ahab, and Manasseh have a similar superlative tone (1 Kgs. 14: 9, 22; 16: 25, 30, 33; 2 Kgs. 21: 11). Jehu’s lack of comparison to David is explained by the fact that, except for Jeroboam I, only southern kings are compared to

9 As McCarter notes (1984: 295), both the kethib, ‘his eyes’ (supported by LXX and a Targum manuscript) and the qere, ‘my eyes’ (supported by Targum and the Vulgate) could make sense here. 10 Boadt lists the passages in Kings that refer to David as the ‘ideal’ king (1984: 233) and both Wiseman (1993: 125) and Cogan (2001: 295) call him the ‘yardstick’ by which later kings are evaluated. 134 Jehu and David: Two Charismatic Kings David.11 Despite the lack of an explicit comparison, the text includes parallels between David and Jehu that reveal Dtr’s positive bias toward these two kings.

3.1.3 Prophetic anointings and divine elections

Although anointing and divine election are usually distinct phenomena within the DH and the ANE (see 2.3 and 2.4 above), for both David and Jehu, their prophetic anointings and divine elections initially occur simultaneously (1 Sam. 16: 1–13; 2 Kgs. 9: 1–13) and therefore these events will be discussed together.12 Within the DH, Saul, David, and Jehu are the only rulers who are described as anointed by YHWH himself. Jehu is also the only northern king to be anointed. While few kings of Judah or Israel are said to be anointed (7 of 42 kings) and even fewer are said to be divinely elected (5 of 42 kings),13 the anointings and elections of David and Jehu are emphasized by repetition. Within the text, David is anointed three times (by Samuel, by the people of Judah, and by the elders of Israel), he is the object of the verb hWm (‘anoint’) nine times (see 2.3.2 above) and his divine election is also referred to nine times (see 2.4.7.1 above). While David’s election is often mentioned independently of his anointing, all four of Jehu’s anointing and election references are synonymous. David and Jehu share an additional similarity since both their predecessors were still reigning at the point of their anointing and therefore they could have been considered traitors to the throne.14 The two prophets who anoint them both appear to be anxious about possible complicity in a rebellion (1 Sam. 16: 2; 2 Kgs. 9: 10). Several other anointings take place while the current ruler still reigns, but none is performed with divine sanction.15 Interestingly, at the

11 Mullen notes that Jehu’s righteous evaluation implies a comparison between him and David (1988: 199). 12 Since the contribution of Jehu’s anointing to the positive perspective toward him in the text has been discussed above (2.3), it will not be examined here. 13 Tibni and Shallum are included in these totals since both are called king (although they lack typical regnal formulas). 14 See also Gordon 1986: 150. 15 Solomon’s anointing was commanded by his aging father (1 Kgs. 1: 32–4). A secondhand account is given of Absalom’s anointing by the people of Israel (2 Sam. Jehu and David: Two Charismatic Kings 135 anointings of both David and Jehu, the question of who will be selected among a group of brothers arises. David is picked after Samuel does not choose anyone among his seven older brothers (1 Sam. 16: 10, 12). The young prophet is told to take Jehu from among ‘his brothers’ (fjha`: 2 Kgs. 9: 2), and when he arrives, Jehu asks him regarding his message,˝ ‘For which one amongst all of us?’ (fnlkˆm: jm:¯la` : 2 Kgs. 9: 5). One˝ could attribute the lack of anointing or divine election references for Hezekiah and Josiah to their status as legitimate dynastic successors. However, within the DH, three other royal sons are anointed (Solomon, Jehoash of Judah, and Jehoahaz of Judah; see 2.3.2 above) and the Chronicler includes a reference to Solomon’s divine election (1 Chr. 28: 5). Additionally, many Egyptian, Assyrian, and West Semitic sources speak of dynastic successors who are described as divinely elected (see 2.4.3 and 2.4.4 above). Surprisingly, two kings that Dtr praises highly do not share these favorable similarities with David, while Jehu, a northern king, does.

3.1.4 Manifestations of YHWH’s spirit

As a result of his anointing, the text states that the spirit of YHWH (efej´ hft) came upon David (1 Sam. 16: 13) and he is also described ¯ as˝ inspired by the spirit of YHWH to speak words of an oracle (2 Sam. 23: 2). After David, however, no Israelite or Judean king is clearly described as manifesting YHWH’s spirit,16 yet Jehu appears to show a spiritual manifestation. Weisman (1976: 381) suggests that Jehu is portrayed as having the spirit of YHWH based on his mad driving (ce´jn: wFpcc Wb: 2 Kgs. 9: 20).17 Similarly, Olyan also thinks the ˙ ¨ root pcW (‘to˝ be mad’) has positive connotations in the context of this chapter since it symbolizes service of YHWH (1984: 663). The term is used to describe both Jehu and the young prophet who anoints Jehu (2 Kgs. 9: 11, 20).

19: 11, ET 19: 10). Jehoash was anointed while Athaliah ruled (2 Kgs. 11: 12), but his father King Ahaziah was already dead. 16 The term ef¸ej´ h ft (‘spirit of YHWH’) only occurs twice in Kings, both times in connection to prophets¯ (1 Kgs. 22: 24; 2 Kgs. 2: 16). 17 The Targum and Josephus (JA 9. 117) have Jehu driving slowly or calmly. 136 Jehu and David: Two Charismatic Kings The views of Weisman and Olyan receive support from the observation that wild or extraordinary behavior is typically associated with manifestations of the spirit of YHWH (or the spirit of ‘God’, zjeLa˜ ) in the DH: Samson (Judg. 14: 6, 19; 15: 14), Saul (1 Sam. 10: 6, 10;˙ 11: 6), Saul’s messengers (1 Sam. 19: 20), Elijah (1 Kgs. 18: 12; 2 Kgs. 2: 16), and even the King of Assyria (2 Kgs. 19: 7). Additionally, within prophetic literature, the term pcW is associated with prophets and explicitly with a man of the spirit (Jer. 29: 26; Hos. 9: 7). Since all of the DH occurrences of pcW occur either in the Jehu narrative or in descriptions of David this term establishes an additional link between the two rulers.18 It appears that Jehu’s mad driving is meant to be a sign of YHWH’s spirit since the term has prophetic and spiritual connotations elsewhere and wild behavior is often connected to spiritual manifestations. This conclusion is consistent with the pattern for the two other kings with divine anointings (Saul and David), who are both described as manifesting the spirit of YHWH shortly after their anointing (1 Sam. 10: 6, 10; 16: 13).

3.1.5 Heroic exploits and popular support

David and Jehu are both military leaders (1 Sam. 18: 5; 2 Kgs. 9: 5) who have heroic exploits attributed to them and receive extensive popular support. While not as dramatic as David’s slaying of Goliath (1 Sam. 17: 41–51), Jehu kills three unrighteous rulers (Jehoram, Ahaziah, and Jezebel).19 (If Jehu were merely to kill one king, this would not be particularly unusual, since seven other northern usurpers manage this feat.) When Jehu challenges the elders overseeing Ahab’s family to send out a rival king to Wght him, they are intimidated by his reputation and oVer no challenger (2 Kgs. 10: 1–4).20 According

18 In the Wve DH occurrences of pcW (1 Sam. 21: 15, 16(2) (ET 21: 14, 15(2)); 2 Kgs. 9: 11, 20), it always appears in insults towards people that otherwise the text views favorably: David before King Achish of Gath, the young prophet who anoints Jehu, and Jehu himself. Thus, the apparent negative association of the term can be qualiWed by the broader positive context. 19 See also 2.5.1.3 above. 20 Jehu’s challenge is similar to the one given by Goliath to the army of Israel and the response of the elders is identical to that of Saul and his army after they hear Goliath’s invitation: ‘they were greatly afraid’ (dAm´ fat´j f ; 1 Sam. 17: 11; 2 Kgs. 10: 4). ˙¯ Jehu and David: Two Charismatic Kings 137 to the song of the women, Saul killed thousands while David killed ten thousands (1 Sam. 18: 7). No song is recorded about Jehu, but the text narrates the role Jehu plays in the slaughter of hundreds of people (70 Ahabites, 42 relatives of Ahaziah, and all the worshippers of Baal: 2 Kgs. 10: 7, 14, 25; see also 2.5.1.3 above). Based on the large number of deaths attributed to him, one could argue that after Saul and David, no other king is portrayed in the text as heroically as Jehu. The heroic nature of David’s accomplishments contributes to his popular support. The women who sang of David’s conquests over the Philistines (1 Sam. 18: 6) came ‘from all the cities of Israel’ (la¨t¸U´ j: jSp¸¯lk¸m:). The popularity of David and Jehu is also seen in how others take the initiative to make them king.21 The people of Judah and Israel both seek to anoint David as ruler over them (2 Sam. 2: 4; 5: 3). Jehu’s apparent reluctance to rule has to be overcome by the initiative of YHWH, Elijah, Elisha, the young prophet, and Jehu’s fellow soldiers (1 Kgs. 19: 16; 2 Kgs. 9: 1–12). Jehu’s rebellion must have been widely supported since no one resists him and several groups of individuals quickly abandon Jehu’s opponents to join him: Jehoram’s two messengers (2 Kgs. 9: 17–20), Jezebel’s eunuchs (9: 32–3), and the elders overseeing Ahab’s family (10: 1–7). While David’s popularity was diminished during the rebellion of Absalom (2 Sam. 15: 6), he was able to retain enough loyal followers to achieve victory over the rebel forces in the battle of the forest of Ephraim (2 Sam. 15: 19–23; 16: 1–4; 17: 27–9; 18: 6–8).

3.1.6 Direct divine speech and dynastic promises

The narrative also reveals how YHWH uniquely favors both David and Jehu by speaking directly to them and granting them dynastic promises.22 Typically, the DH records YHWH speaking to rulers via a prophet:SamueltoSaul(1Sam.15:10),NathantoDavid(2Sam.7:17), Gad to David (2 Sam. 24: 11), Shemaiah to Rehoboam (1 Kgs.

21 White’s perspective that Jehu’s rebellion was not popularly supported is discussed above (2.5.1.5). 22 Mullen also discusses YHWH’s direct address to Jehu (1988: 196–7). 138 Jehu and David: Two Charismatic Kings 12: 22), Ahijah to Jeroboam I (1 Kgs. 14: 5), Jehu to Baasha (1 Kgs. 16: 1), Elijah to Ahab (1 Kgs. 18: 1), Elijah to Ahaziah of Israel (2 Kgs. 1: 3, 16), and Isaiah to Hezekiah (2 Kgs. 19: 20).23 The DH only mentions YHWH speaking without a prophetic mediator to three kings: David (1 Sam. 23: 2, 4, 11; 30: 8; 2 Sam. 2: 1; 5: 19, 23; 21: 1; 24: 1),24 Solomon (1 Kgs. 3: 5, 11; 6: 11; 9: 3; 11: 11), and Jehu (2 Kgs. 10: 30).25 In the DH, direct divine speech reXects positively on the recipient. In addition to the kings and prophets just listed, YHWH speaks directly in the DH to two other leaders that the text views favorably: Joshua (Josh. 1: 1) and Gideon (Judg. 7: 2).26 While the nature of the message determines whether it should be understood positively or negatively, generally, positive messages from YHWH are spoken directly to kings and negative ones are given through prophets. Of the Wfteen divine messages to kings in the DH, only Solomon’s Wfth and Wnal one includes a word of judgment (1 Kgs. 11: 11–13; cf. 1 Kgs. 3: 5, 11–13; 6: 11–13; 9: 2–9). All other judgment oracles are not given to kings directly from YHWH (1 Sam. 15: 10; 2 Sam. 12: 1–14; 1 Kgs. 11: 31–9; 14: 5–16; 16: 1; 17: 1–2; 19: 15–18; 21: 17–24; 2 Kgs. 1: 3–16; 9: 7–10; 20: 16). Thus, direct speech from YHWH should be understood as a sign of divine favor. David receives more direct messages from YHWH than Jehu does, but they typically concern military guidance, while Jehu’s message involves aYrmation and a reward for his obedience. Despite only hearing directly from YHWH once, Jehu is described as fulWlling the word of YHWH on four separate occasions (2 Kgs. 9: 26, 36; 10: 10, 17).

23 David is the only ruler who is both spoken to directly by YHWH and through a prophetic mediator. 24 Unlike Jehu, David’s oracles from YHWH were usually received via the use of the ephod (1 Sam. 30: 7–8) since in most of these contexts he asks YHWH a question that only requires a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response. However, in three of YHWH’s replies a more complicated (i.e. non-binary) response is given (2 Sam. 2: 1; 5: 23–4; 21: 1), which would be more similar to the word Jehu receives (2 Kgs. 10: 30). 25 Josephus puts this address to Jehu into the mouth of a prophet (JA 9. 139). 26 Moses is also spoken to directly (Deut. 31: 14; Num. 12: 7–8). The Rabshakeh of Assyria claims that YHWH spoke directly to him (2 Kgs. 18: 25), but this speech is not narrated in the text. Jehu and David: Two Charismatic Kings 139 The subject of YHWH’s direct address to Jehu is his four- generational dynastic promise (2 Kgs. 10: 30). The text records only three other kings receiving dynastic promises from YHWH: David (2 Sam. 7: 16), Solomon (1 Kgs. 6: 12; 9: 4–5), and Jeroboam I (1 Kgs. 11: 38).27 The promises given to David and Jehu are distinct from those given to Solomon and Jeroboam as they lack explicit conditional language, indicating an unusual level of divine blessing (see also 5.3.1 below). David and Jehu also become the founders of the longest dynasties in Judah and Israel (see also 5.2.1 below). Since only three Davidides reign over Israel, the Jehuites are the longest reigning Israelite dynasty (5 kings). Four Omride kings rule over Israel, but Jehuite rule lasts more than twice as long according to the regnal years given in the text (102.5 years for the Jehuites compared to 48 years for the Omrides).28 The dynasties of Jeroboam I, Baasha, and Menahem each only survive one generation. David’s Judean dynasty (21 kings) is much longer than Jehu’s Israelite dynasty, but it is not continuous since, after the eighth Davidide (Ahaziah), Athaliah rules for six years over Judah (2 Kgs. 11: 3). Interestingly, Jehu is partly responsible for the break in the Davidic line since his killing of Ahaziah enabled Athaliah to come to the throne. Neither Hezekiah nor Josiah is deemed worthy to receive a dynastic promise. As David’s descendants, one might assume a promise would be unnecessary since their ancestor’s promise would continue through them, but Solomon is given a promise (1 Kgs. 6: 12; 9: 4–5). Possibly the two best examples of Assyrian dynastic promises are given to Esarhaddon (Parpola 1997: 10, ll. 19–30; 16, ll. 11’–14’ ANET 450c), who was the son of Sennacherib and grandson of Sargon II. Malamat sees a dynastic promise in a Mari text that is addressed to Zimri-Lim, who was also the son of a ruler (1980: 69, ll. 11–13).29

27 The text also includes three ‘lamp’ dynastic oracles (see also 5.3.3 below); however, these are not spoken to the relevant ruler (Solomon: 1 Kgs. 11: 36; Abijam: 1 Kgs. 15: 4; Jehoram: 2 Kgs. 8: 19). 28 Regnal years for the Omride Dynasty: 12 (Omri) þ 22 (Ahab) þ 2(Ahaziah)þ 12 (Jehoram) ¼ 48. Regnal years for the Jehuite Dynasty: 28 (Jehu) þ 17 (Jehoahaz) þ 16 (Jehoash) þ 41 (Jeroboam) þ 0.5 (Zechariah) ¼ 102.5. 29 These ANE dynastic promises are discussed below (5.1.2). 140 Jehu and David: Two Charismatic Kings The examples of these other dynastic promises for legitimate heirs, even one whose father already had a promise, show that it would have been reasonable for Hezekiah or Josiah to be granted one. The reigns of Hezekiah and Josiah toward the end of the Judean monarchy might also be understood to explain the absence of a promise since relatively few kings followed them, but Jehu received a promise and he has the same number of reigning descendants as Josiah (4). Despite Hezekiah’s status as a righteous ruler, after revealing his treasures to the Babylonian ambassadors, he even receives a dynastic judgment that his sons would go into exile (2 Kgs. 20: 16–18). Thus, as founders of the longest dynasties in Israel and Judah, and as recipients of distinctively positive dynastic promises, no other kings in the text are as dynastically favored by YHWH as David and Jehu.

3.1.7 Dtr’s positive portrayals of David and Jehu

As has been already observed, the book of Kings is pro-David, seen particularly in the description of him as the ideal king. Thus, the eight parallels between David and Jehu reveal another way that the text is pro-Jehu, portraying him in language similar to the model king. Each of the parallels between David and Jehu (righteous evaluations, prophetic anointings, divine elections, manifestations of YHWH’s spirit, heroic exploits, popular support, direct divine communication, and dynastic promises) contributes to their favored status within the text. In order to determine the role Dtr played in the construction of these parallels, a discussion of their Deuterono- mistic character is necessary. Table 3.1A displays the Deuteronomistic nature of these David and Jehu parallel texts. References are given for the parallel material of each ruler, with Deuteronomistic material underlined. In the three columns on the right of the table, the parallel element is categorized as source, Dtr, or a combination of the two (D ¼ David; David; J ¼ Jehu). Elements are categorized as a combination when the parallel occurs in the source and Dtr repeats a version of it in his own material. Table 3.1A. Deuteronomistic nature of David/Jehu parallel material

Parallel David Jehu Source Comb’n Dtr

Righteous evaluation 1 Kgs. 11: 33, 38; 14: 8a 2 Kgs. 10: 30 D, J Prophetic anointing 1 Sam. 16: 3, 12, 13 1 Kgs. 19: 16; 2 Kgs. 9: 3, 12; 2 Kgs. 9: 6b–10a D J Divine election 1 Sam. 13: 14 1 Kgs. 19: 16 D, J 1 Sam. 16: 1, 12 2 Kgs. 9: 3, 12 1 Sam. 25: 30 2 Kgs. 9: 6b–10a 2 Sam. 5: 2; 6: 21; 7: 8 2 Sam. 12: 7; 1 Kgs. 8: 16 YHWH’s spirit 1 Sam. 16: 13 2 Kgs. 9: 20? D, J Heroic exploits 1 Sam. 17: 41–51; 18: 6–7 2 Kgs. 9: 24, 27, 33; 2 Kgs. 9: 26, 37; 10: 10, 17 D J Popular support 1 Sam. 18: 6–7 2 Kgs. 9: 13, 17–20, 32–3 D, J 2 Sam. 2: 4; 5: 3; 15: 21 2 Kgs. 10: 1–7 Dir. divine comm. 1 Sam. 23: 2, 4, 11; 30: 8 2 Kgs. 10: 30 D J 2 Sam. 2: 1; 5: 19, 23 2 Sam. 21: 1; 24: 1 Dynastic promise 2 Sam. 7: 13–16 2 Kgs. 10: 30 D, J a David does not receive a typical evaluation in Samuel. 142 Jehu and David: Two Charismatic Kings For David, more of the parallels occur in source material. (In the three columns on the right side of the table, the ‘D’s are either to the left of the ‘J’s or the two letters are together.) The references to David’s prophetic anointing, manifestation of YHWH’s spirit, heroic exploits, popular support, and divine communication contain no clearly Deuteronomistic language and therefore appear to be merely source material. Parallel elements that come from Dtr are David’s righteous evaluation, most repetitions of his divine election, and his dynastic promise. The repeated refrain in Kings praising David’s righteousness appears to be written by Dtr since David is compared to other kings as a part of their regnal formulas and the praise is expressed in Deuteronomistic terminology (see 2.1.2 above, e.g. 1 Kgs. 11: 33, 38; 14: 8; 15: 3). Seven of David’s nine divine election references come from Dtr (see 2.4.7.4 and 2.4.8.1 above). While scholars are divided over the Deuteronomistic character of the Davidic promise of 2 Samuel 7, a strong argument can be made for Dtr’s authorship.30 All other dynastic promises occur in Deuter- onomistic material (see 5.3.5 below). In the midst of the promise, YHWH warns that David’s heir will be punished for his disobedience (2 Sam. 7: 14), a primary Deuteronomistic concern. The promise also includes the euphemism of lying down with one’s fathers (2 Sam. 7: 12), which is used in many Deuteronomistic regnal formulas (e.g. 1 Kgs. 1: 10; 11: 43; 14: 20).31 David’s dynastic promise also includes Deuteronomistic language that echoes the Deuteronomistic judgment oracle given to Eli (1 Sam. 2: 27–36).32 Both are extended speeches given from prophetic Wgures (1 Sam. 2: 27; 2 Sam. 7: 4) and, as Noth observes, Dtr often

30 The following scholars view the promise as Deuteronomistic: Carlson 1964: 120–1; McCarthy 1965: 131; Cross 1973: 222 n. 4, 274–5; Veijola 1975: 68–78; Van Seters 1983: 276; McCarter 1984: 8. Other scholars think only minor sections come from Dtr: Noth (1957: 55, ET 1991: 89), Mettinger (1976: 62), LohWnk (1990: 365, ET 2000: 438), and Schniedewind (1999: 36). 31 The Tel Dan Inscription also uses a similar phrase: [?feba:]la:xej:jba: bkujf (Biran and Naveh 1995: 13, l. 3). 32 While Noth (1957: 52, ET 1991: 84) only attributes portions of the Elide oracle to Dtr (1 Sam. 2: 34–5), the following scholars assign the entire oracle to Dtr: Carlson (1964: 44–5), Veijola (DtrH: 1975: 35–9), McCarter (1980: 89–93), and Klein (1986: 26–7). Carlson also links the Elide Oracle and the Davidic promise (1964: 104, 122–3). Jehu and David: Two Charismatic Kings 143 frames his compositions as longer speeches.33 Both include references to YHWH’s deliverance in Egypt (1 Sam. 2: 27; 2 Sam. 7: 6, 23). In both YHWH says, ‘I will raise up’ (jvMjEeˇ f : 1 Sam. 2: 35; 2 Sam. 7: ˙ ¯ 12; cf. Deut. 18: 15, 18) someone who will be ‘faithful’/‘sure’ (niphal forms of wma: 1 Sam. 2: 35(2); 2 Sam. 7: 16). Thus, the parallels to the Elide judgment and the distinctive terminology suggest that the Davidic promise is Deuteronomistic. Jehu’s parallel elements appear to be more Deuteronomistic than David’s since only Jehu’s manifestation of YHWH’s spirit and his popular support are clearly source material. Jehu’s righteous evaluation, direct divine communication, and dynastic promise all occur in a section that scholars generally classify as Deuteronomistic (2 Kgs. 10: 29–31).34 These verses focus on typical Deuteronomistic topics (e.g. idolatry, obedience), which are phrased in classic Deuter- onomistic terminology. The sins of Jeroboam are mentioned twice in 2 Kings 10: 29–31 and Dtr refers to these sins in Wfteen of his eighteen regnal formulas for the northern kings after Jeroboam.35 Dtr’s strict concern for obedience is seen in the language of behaving in complete accordance with all YHWH’s heart (2 Kgs. 10: 30, 31), carefully walking in the Torah of YHWH (10: 31), and doing right in YHWH’s eyes (10: 30).36 The references to the house of Ahab and sitting on the throne of Israel are typical of Dtr exclusively in Kings. The phrase, bah´ a vjb¨, ‘House of Ahab’ occurs in ten other places in Kings and all of˝ these¯ are from Dtr (2 Kgs. 8: 18, 27 (3); 9: 7, 8, 9; 10: 10, 11; 21: 13).37 Of the six other occurrences of the phrase, la¨t¸U´ j: ao¨k´ ¯lp, ¯ ‘upon the throne of Israel’ in Kings, Wve are from Dtr (1 Kgs. 2: 4; 8: 20, 25; 9: 5; 2 Kgs. 15: 12). Thus, Dtr appears to have composed the section including Jehu’s evaluation, his divine communication, and his dynastic promise (2 Kgs. 10: 29–31). The narrative of Jehu’s anointing and election appears to be shaped in part by Dtr, since he makes an insertion in 2 Kings

33 Noth 1957: 5, ET 1991: 18. 34 e.g. see Gray 1964: 508; Jones 1984: 472; Wu¨rthwein 1984: 343 (DtrN); Otto 2001: 114. 35 The only kings that Dtr does not connect to the sins of Jeroboam are Elah, Shallum, and Hoshea. See Weinfeld’s appendix (1972: 337 n. 20). 36 See Weinfeld’s appendix (1972: 334–5 nn. 7, 9a, 15). 37 Arguments are included above for the Deuteronomistic authorship of the two most uncertain of these ten references (2 Kgs. 10: 10, 11; see 2.5.2.5). 144 Jehu and David: Two Charismatic Kings 9: 6b–10a that includes the third repetition of this event (see 2.3.5 above). Most of the other divine election references in the DH come in Deuteronomistic contexts (see 2.4.7.4 above), so it would be unusual for none of the four repetitions of Jehu’s divine election to come from Dtr. While the core narratives of the slayings of Jehoram, Ahaziah, Athaliah, and the worshippers of Baal show no obvious evidence of Deuteronomistic redaction, Dtr has shaped the context of this material. Deuteronomistic notices are included after the deaths of Jehoram, Jezebel, and Ahab’s family showing how Jehu’s exploits fulWlled prophecy (2 Kgs. 9: 25–6, 36–7; 10: 10–11, 17).38 In summary, the righteous evaluations and dynastic promises of both David and Jehu are Deuteronomistic compositions. Their divine election references are a combination of source and Dtr material. Their references to the spirit of YHWH and popular support come from the original narrative. The material of Jehu’s anointing, heroic exploits, and divine communication displays a more Deuteronomis- tic character than the Davidic parallels.39 Thus, Dtr has built upon the existing parallels by repeating elements already present in his source (e.g. divine election) as well as composing others (e.g. dynastic promises). Because of the greater Deuteronomistic character of the parallels in the Jehu narrative, it appears that Dtr is attempting to connect Jehu to David. Since all of these elements reXect positively on the two rulers, the parallels between David and Jehu also contribute to the Deuteronomistic bias in their favor.

3.2 THE TWO MOST CHARISMATIC KINGS

3.2.1 Scholarly deWnitions of charisma

The similarities between David and Jehu discussed above also contribute to their portrayal in the text as charismatic rulers. The

38 For arguments in favor of this Deuteronomistic redaction, see 2.5.2.5 above. 39 The book of Kings is generally thought to contain more Deuteronomistic material than the book of Samuel (see McCarter 1980: 15). Jehu and David: Two Charismatic Kings 145 charisma of a leader is more diYcult to determine objectively than the parallels discussed above (3.1) since it is not explicitly recorded by the text, unlike the other parallels. While assessing something as subjective as a ruler’s charisma can be problematic, the process is still beneWcial since the term ‘charismatic’ provides a helpful theological and sociological construct for evaluating biblical rulers, as evidenced by its frequent appearance in scholarly discussions (e.g. Alt 1951, ET 1966; Thornton 1963; Ahlstro¨m 1968; Malamat 1976; Mettinger 1976; Weisman 1976; Schmidt 1982; Overholt 1984; Kedar-Kopfstein 1999; MinkoV 2002).40 Within these discussions of ‘charismatic’ leadership, scholars focus on a variety of attributes that determine the charisma, often deWning the term narrowly in a way that speciW- cally supports a scholar’s own conclusions. While this phenomenon is diYcult to avoid, an attempt will be made here to achieve a higher level of objectivity by deWning the term more broadly, including any characteristics that contribute to a charismatic portrayal in the text. Scholarly deWnitions will be examined next to determine which characteristics frequently occur in discussions of charisma. Alt, in his attempt to show how the northern monarchy functioned charismatically, considers Jeroboam I and Baasha as charismatic kings (1951: 8., ET 1966: 246) because they were both designated by YHWH and acclaimed by the people.41 Alt also discusses Jehu’s charisma to show how the charismatic idea continued in Israel after Jeroboam I and Baasha (1951: 12, ET 1966: 249–50).42

40 Many of these scholars begin their discussions by referring to Weber’s sociological analysis of charismatic leadership (e.g. Malamat 1976: 157–8; Mettinger 1976: 233–4; Schmidt 1982: 74; Overholt 1984: 289–90; Kedar-Kopfstein 1999: 118 n. 1). 41 Several points can be made about Alt’s thesis regarding the northern monarchy. With the exception of Jeroboam I and Jehu, there is little evidence for a charismatic monarchy in the north. Except for his divine election, there is no charismatic language describing Baasha, so Alt’s conclusion regarding him is not persuasive. As Thornton noted (1963: 5.4), even Alt’s charismatic kings (Jeroboam I, Baasha, and Jehu) attempt to establish a dynasty. However, Thornton overstates his case in suggesting that Judah was as charismatic as Israel (1963: 2). While the north was not particularly charismatic, they were more so than the south. None of the southern kings of the divided monarchy was charismatic, but the northern kingdom had two rulers with charismatic attributes: Jeroboam I and Jehu (see Table 3.2A below). 42 Despite criticizing Alt, Thornton appears to deWne the term ‘charismatic’ similarly (1963: 2). Schmidt rightly criticizes Alt’s deWnition as too bound to divine election (1982: 74), although Schmidt misunderstood Alt, since Alt spoke of not only 146 Jehu and David: Two Charismatic Kings Malamat basically equates the charisma to the presence of the spirit of YHWH (1976: 157), which Wts into his discussion of the judges as charismatic, since the text speaks of four of the judges receiving YHWH’s spirit (Judg. 3: 10; 6: 34; 11: 29; 13: 25). Kedar-Kopfstein designates a charismatic leader as one whose outstanding qualities, abilities, or achievements (‘Eigenschaften, Fa¨higkeiten oder Leistun- gen’) allow the individual to wield power eVectively (1999: 118–19). His deWnition sets up his contrast between spontaneous charismatic authority and conventional institutional authority. However, the deWnitions of Alt, Malamat, and Kedar-Kopfstein are all too narrow. AdeWnition of ‘charismatic’ should include each of these diVerent characteristics (divine and human favor, the presence of the spirit, and outstanding gifts), since they all describe ways an individual is portrayed as favored within the text. Other scholars, while not deWning ‘charismatic’ as narrowly as these three scholars, focus on speciWc aspects of the charisma. For example, Overholt emphasizes the importance of the people’s response to the leader (1984: 290), while Weisman focuses on the crucial role that anointing plays for a charismatic king (1976: 379–82). (Weisman sees the example of Jehu’s anointing as generally Wtting his pattern for charismatic kings.) While it is appropriate to widen the deWnition of what it means to be charismatic, Schmidt’s deWnition is too broad (1982: 75).43 His understanding of charisma is similar to that of Kedar-Kopfstein, focusing on gifts and abilities, except that Schmidt includes any gift that is somewhat unusual, even ones that are not particularly extraordinary. Thus, Schmidt speaks of the charisma of Adonijah’s physical attractiveness and the martial charisma of Zimri (1982: 79, 81). While Schmidt considers success as proof of charisma (1982: 77, 82), based on their very brief ‘reigns’ it is diYcult to argue that Adonijah and Zimri were successful.44 According to Schmidt’s deWnition, each divine election, but also of popular support as evidence of charisma (1951: 8, ET 1966: 246). 43 Schmidt uses the example of Jehu’s charisma to show martial charisma needed to be proven (1982: 81). 44 Despite the fact that David was still alive, Adonijah is referred to as ‘king’ (1 Kgs. 1: 5, 11, 13, 18, 25). Solomon is declared king before Adonijah’s coronation feast had ended (1 Kgs. 1: 32–48), so Adonijah’s ‘reign’ must have been extremely short. Zimri reigns for only seven days (1 Kgs. 16: 15). Jehu and David: Two Charismatic Kings 147 of the four Wnal Israelite usurpers (Shallum, Menahem, Pekah, and Hoshea) could be described as having a martial charisma since they succeed at killing their predecessors. (These four also rule longer than Adonijah and Zimri.) However, none of these kings is portrayed as a recipient of divine favor. The deWnitions of two scholars rightly move toward greater complexity as they include several of these elements. Weisman deWnes a charismatic leader as one who is divinely anointed to rule, receives YHWH’s spirit, and manifests extraordinary gifts (1976: 394). Met- tinger, relying heavily on Weber, deWnes charismas as supernatural gifts that tend to be unstable, that need to be authenticated by heroic deeds, and that can be made transferable by certain rites, such as anointing (1976: 233–4).

3.2.2 Eight charismatic attributes

Thus, one sees a variety of factors used to determine an individual’s charisma. If one deWnes ‘charismatic’ too narrowly, it excludes some of the ways the text speaks of an individual’s favored status. In attempting to determine which factors should be included in a deWnition, Ahlstro¨m establishes an appropriate criterion. He deWnes charisma merely as a ‘gift of favor’ (1968: 95). His deWnition, while simple, accurately reXects the meaning of the word æØÆ (‘gift’ or ‘favor’). Therefore, characteristics which reveal that an individual has received a gift of favor can be included in a deWnition of ‘charismatic’. While generally, all of the ‘charismatic’ attributes discussed above meet this criterion and therefore should be included in a deWnition of ‘charismatic’, this criterion brings a greater element of objectivity to the process. Additionally, if the text describes an individual as favored in a manner that is not typically considered charismatic, then that factor may also need to be included in the deWnition. If one includes all of these charismatic characteristics, the signiWcance of the term might be diminished as the ranks of the charismatic swell. Almost any biblical leader might Wt one of these attributes and therefore could be considered charismatic (e.g. Shallum and Menahem). However, among the rulers with charismatic attributes, some have more attributes than others. 148 Jehu and David: Two Charismatic Kings The Wve characteristics most frequently associated with charismatic individuals are: divine election (Alt, Thornton, Ahlstro¨m), anointing (Mettinger, Weisman, Schmidt), the presence of YHWH’s spirit (Ahlstro¨m, Malamat, Weisman), heroic achievements or unusual gifts (Kedar-Kopfstein, Schmidt, Mettinger), and popular support (Ahlstro¨m, Alt, Overholt). The text also portrays rulers as favored in three additional ways: by giving a righteous evaluation, by having YHWH speak directly, and by the granting of a dynastic promise. The deeds of righteous rulers are viewed favorably in the eyes of YHWH, therefore a righteous evaluation is also a charismatic attribute. Since YHWH speaks directly to individuals the text views favorably and the content is generally positive, divine speech can be considered a sign of charisma. A dynastic promise is a sign of divine blessing given to only four individuals, so it can also be included in this list of charismatic attributes.45 Thus, the list of charismatic attributes expands to include eight elements (see the headings of Table 3.2A below).46

3.2.3 Five charismatic kings

Table 3.2A summarizes the charismatic attributes of the kings of Israel and Judah. Any ruler receiving a designation as charismatic by the scholars discussed thus far is listed.47 An ‘X’ is included in the appropriate box when the king is described in the DH with one of the nine charismatic attributes (righteous evaluation, prophetic anointing, divine election, manifestation of YHWH’s spirit, heroic or gifted portrayal, popular support, direct divine speech, and dynastic promise). The kings have been sorted in order of decreasing number of these characteristics (Total ‘X’s in the far right column). Although it may seem arbitrary to add up the number of ‘X’s to evaluate the charisma of these kings, this method reveals which kings have more charac-

45 Both Ahlstro¨m (1968: 109–10) and Mettinger (1976: 234) speak of a dynastic charisma. 46 None of the four attributes that are added to the scholarly ones relates exclusively to David and Jehu. 47 Hezekiah and Josiah are also included, since their righteousness is emphasized in the text (2 Kgs. 18: 3; 22: 2). Jehu and David: Two Charismatic Kings 149

Table 3.2A. Charismatic attributes of Israelite and Judean kings

Right. Proph. Divine Spirit of Heroic / Popular Divine Dyn. King eval. anoint. elect. YHWH gifted support speech prom. Total

Davida XXX X X X XX8 Jehu X X X X? X X X X 8 Saulb XX X X X 5 Solomonc XXXXX5 Jeroboam Id XXXX4 Absalome XX 2 Adonijahf XX 2 Baashag X 1 Omrih X 1 Hezekiahi X 1 Josiah X 1 Zimri 0 a David’s and Jehu’s references are in Table 3.1A. b References for Saul: prophetic anointing and divine election (1 Sam. 9: 16), YHWH’s spirit (10: 6, 10; 11: 6; 16: 14), heroic deeds and popular support (10: 24; 11: 7–8, 15). c Ahlstro¨m (1968: 102–4) argues for Solomon’s divine election, but none of his references (2 Sam. 12: 24–5; 1 Kgs. 1: 48; 2: 15) makes the divine choice explicit (cf. 1 Chr. 28: 5) and the text emphasizes David’s exclusive role in the selection of Solomon (1 Kgs. 1: 13, 17, 20, 27, 30, 34, 35, 43). Other references for Solomon: prophetic anointing (1 Kgs. 1: 34), unusual gifts (3: 12), popular support (3: 28), and dynastic promise (6: 12; 9: 4–5). d References for Jeroboam I: divine election (1 Kgs. 11: 31–5), unusual gifts (11: 28), popular support (12: 1, 20), and dynastic promise (11: 38). e References for Absalom: unusual gifts (2 Sam. 14: 25) and popular support (15: 6, 12). Absalom is described as being anointed by the people, with no prophetic involvement (2 Sam. 19: 10). f References for Adonijah: unusual gifts (1 Kgs. 1: 6), popular support (1: 7–10). g References for Baasha: divine election (1 Kgs. 16: 2). h References for Omri: popular support (1 Kgs. 16: 16). i The only references for Hezekiah and Josiah are their righteous evaluations (2 Kgs. 18: 3; 22: 2). While the text clearly portrays both Hezekiah and Josiah positively nothing indicates that they are particularly gifted or popular, the two traits that occur most frequently in the table. The people of the land made Josiah king (2 Kgs. 21: 24) simply because he was Amon’s heir. teristics and simpliWes comparisons among the rulers. This method is also less arbitrary than focusing exclusively on one attribute and attempting to make distinctions on that basis. Generally, the more of these attributes a king has, the stronger the argument is that he should be considered charismatic. Since no kings have three, six, or seven total attributes, the list divides itself easily into three groups: rulers with high levels of charismatic attributes (8), those with moderate levels (4–5), and those with low levels (0–2). Two kings have high levels (David and Jehu), three kings have moderate levels (Saul, Solomon, 150 Jehu and David: Two Charismatic Kings and Jeroboam I), and seven have low levels (Absalom, Adonijah, Baasha, Omri, Hezekiah, Josiah, and Zimri). Therefore, based on their high number of these attributes, one could argue that David and Jehu are the most charismatic rulers of the DH, or at least the ones with the most charismatic characteristics. Even if one does not consider Jehu’s wild driving as a manifestation of YHWH’s spirit (see 3.1.4 above), he still has more attributes than anyone except David. Despite the arguments of the scholars discussed above, the charismatic portrayals of the rulers from the last group (0–2 attributes) are much less signiWcant than those of the rulers in the other two groups. While one could argue that Hezekiah and Josiah were highly favored by YHWH because of their righteousness (2 Kgs. 18: 3, 7; 19: 20; 20: 5; 22: 2, 18; 23: 25), only one of these charismatic characteristics is attributed to them in the text and none of the scholars mentioned above designates them as charismatic. Hezekiah and Josiah’s lack of these attributes cannot be merely attributed to their status as dynastic heirs since Solomon’s example shows that one does not need to found a dynasty to be described charismatically. An additional factor distinguishing the Wrst group (8 attributes) from the second (4–5 attributes) is the longevity of the charisma. The charismas given to Saul, Solomon, and Jeroboam are temporary, while those of David and Jehu endure. During the early period of their reigns, Saul, Solomon, and Jeroboam are the recipients of divine favor, but in the later part of their reigns, they are under divine judgment. They are all given evil Deuteronomistic evaluations (1 Sam. 15: 19; 1 Kgs. 11: 6; 14: 9) and the text implies that their unrighteousness has caused their divine favor to be replaced by disfavor. After the text records their negative evaluations, they are no longer described charismatically. The spirit of YHWH departs from Saul (1 Sam. 16: 14). Each of them is divinely rejected as king (1 Sam. 13: 14; 1 Kgs. 11: 11; 14: 10), despite the fact that Saul and Jeroboam were originally divinely elected. As a result of their rejec- tions, each of their heirs (Ishbaal, Rehoboam, and Nadab) lose control of Israel at the beginning of their reigns.48

48 Saul’s son Ishbaal and Jeroboam’s son Nadab each ruled Israel for two years (2 Sam. 2: 10; 1 Kgs. 15: 25). Solomon’s son Rehoboam ruled over Israel for probably less than a year (1 Kgs. 12). Jehu and David: Two Charismatic Kings 151 In contrast to the transitory charismas of these three rulers, David and Jehu continue to receive human and divine favor. They are praised by YHWH and are given righteous evaluations. David is punished for adultery and murder (2 Sam. 11: 27–12: 14), but his repentance saves his life (2 Sam. 12: 13) and his favor in YHWH’s eyes is said to come after these sins (2 Sam. 15: 25; 20: 3). He does not permanently lose the kingdom because of his popularity and his loyal supporters (2 Sam. 15: 19–23; 16: 1–4; 17: 27–28; 18: 7). Additionally, the dynastic promises to Solomon and Jeroboam are framed in conditional language, while those of David and Jehu are expressed unconditionally.49 Thus, the enduring nature of the charismas of David and Jehu suggests a higher level of divine favor relative to Saul, Solomon, and Jeroboam. Therefore, only Wve Israelite or Judean kings should be considered as charismatic in terms of having more than two signs of charisma. If one widens the deWnition of ‘charismatic’ too broadly to include kings with one or two of these attributes, then the signiWcance of what it means to be charismatic becomes diminished. Among these Wve, David and Jehu have the most attributes, followed by Saul, Solomon, and Jeroboam I. Therefore, in addition to the other similarities discussed above (3.1), David and Jehu were the two rulers of Israel and Judah with the most extensive charismatic portrayals.

3.3 DTR’S POSITIVE PERSPECTIVE ON CHARISMATIC RULERS

3.3.1 David and Jehu: a pro-charismatic perspective

Dtr’s bias favoring David and Jehu is primarily seen in how Dtr expands upon the positive charismatic characteristics that come from the original narrative. The charismatic portrayals of David and Jehu originate in Dtr’s sources (anointing, election, YHWH’s

49 While it may seem artiWcial to diVerentiate between the dynastic promise given to David and the one given to his son, the lack of explicit conditionality in the promise expressed to David would suggest greater divine favor. 152 Jehu and David: Two Charismatic Kings spirit, exploits, popular support, and David’s divine communication). Dtr builds upon these charismatic portrayals by repeating the prophetic anointing of Jehu and the divine elections of both kings and by explaining Jehu’s heroic conquests as zealous acts of obedience to YHWH. Dtr’s Wnal contributions to their portrayals are the positive evaluations, YHWH’s speech to Jehu, and the dynastic promises. Dtr is particularly active, expanding the parallels in the Jehu narrative in an apparent attempt to link Jehu to David. The idea of a pro-charismatic Deuteronomistic bias is supported by the fact that charismatic kings are more likely to be evaluated as righteous than non-charismatic kings.50 Two of the Wve charismatic kings are given righteous evaluations (40%) while eight of the thirty- Wve non-charismatic kings are righteous (23%).51 While one might expect a pro-charismatic Dtr to give a higher percentage of charismatic kings righteous evaluations, the two rulers with the most charismatic attributes have unusually positive righteous Deuterono- mistic evaluations. Additionally, during the earlier period of the reigns of Saul, Solomon, and Jeroboam I, Dtr includes positive information about their piety that qualiWes the negative assessments of these three other charismatic rulers. Saul is told God is with him, he prophesies while being possessed with the spirit of YHWH, he sacriWces before YHWH, and he repents for not destroying the Amalekites so that he can worship YHWH (1 Sam. 10: 7, 10–12; 11: 15; 15: 24–31). Solomon is described as loving YHWH, walking in the statutes of his father, pleasing YHWH with his request for wisdom,andhearingdirectlyfromYHWH(1 Kgs.3:3,10,11;6:11–13; 9: 2–9). No other Israelite or Judean king with an evil evaluation is spoken about as piously as are Saul and Solomon. Even Jeroboam, perhaps Dtr’s most despised ruler, is described favorably prior to the judgment of Abijah (1 Kgs. 14: 1–16), as very competent, as fulWlling the word of YHWH, and as receiving a divine healing (1 Kgs. 11: 28,

50 While this correlation can be partly explained by the fact that a ruler’s righteous evaluation is one of the eight charismatic attributes, other factors also need to be considered. 51 Tibni and Shallum are excluded from this total since they have no regnal evaluation. While Elah lacks a regnal evaluation, he is included as an evil ruler since the text speaks about his sins and the sins he caused Israel to commit (1 Kgs. 16: 13). Jehu and David: Two Charismatic Kings 153 31; 12: 15; 13: 6). Therefore, Dtr’s pro-charismatic bias can be seen not only in his positive evaluations of David and Jehu, but even in his portrayals of Saul, Solomon, and Jeroboam despite their negative assessments.52

3.3.2 Dtr’s bias and his historical context

Dtr’s pro-charismatic bias sheds light on his identity as well as his historical context. Since four of the charismatic attributes are mediated by prophets (anointing, divine election, YHWH’s spirit, and dynastic promises), one could assume that Dtr comes from a prophetic circle. Dtr appears to think that YHWH should select and, if necessary, reject leaders, processes that would be directed by a prophet. As argued above (see 1.2), the most reasonable context for Dtr’s redaction is the exile. Since the book of Kings ends with the restoration of Jehoiachin during the exile, the burden of proof falls upon those who argue for a pre-exilic Deuteronomistic redaction. This discussion of charisma gives no reason to assume that a Deuterono- mistic redactor was working during the reign of Josiah (see also 6.1 below). Dtr is concerned about obedience and therefore he views Josiah, Hezekiah, Jehu, and David favorably, but he is also concerned about charisma and Josiah and Hezekiah are not portrayed charismatically. Dtr also does not appear to be pro-monarchy. The vast majority of kings are not charismatic (35 of 40) and they are generally evaluated as evil by Dtr (30 of 40). Even among the righteous minority, most of them only receive qualiWed righteous assessments (7 of 10). A redactor who is biased favorably towards the monarchy would not assess so many rulers negatively. An exilic context would explain both his anti-monarchical perspective and his pro-charismatic perspective.53 Dtr blames the

52 Although Dtr clearly favors rulers who obey the commands of YHWH, royal obedience is not the only factor in his evaluations. David and Jehu both commit signiWcant sins (2 Sam. 11: 2–12:14; 2 Kgs. 10: 29, 31) and yet they are praised by Dtr. 53 Noth also argues for an anti-monarchical, exilic redaction (Noth 1957: 91, 95, ET 1991: 122, 127). 154 Jehu and David: Two Charismatic Kings corrupt institution of the monarchy for the downfall of both Israel and Judah since evil kings lead their nation into sin, which results in punishment by YHWH. Occasionally, leadership selection by dynastic succession yields good rulers like Hezekiah or Josiah, but it is diYcult to predict when this will happen. In his non-monarchical era, Dtr appears to prefer charismatic leadership since leaders selected and favored by YHWH are more likely to be righteous. Their divine election gives stability to their role and their unique gifts make them eVective leaders. While none of the charismatic kings is impeccable, the rulers with the most charismatic attributes are Dtr’s ideal ruler, David, and the best northern ruler, Jehu. 4

Jehu’s Evil Heirs

4.1 UNRIGHTEOUS EVALUATIONS

As the narrative of the DH continues, Dtr’s bias changes from positive toward Jehu to negative toward his heirs (Jehoahaz, Jehoash, Jeroboam II, and Zechariah). Dtr evaluates all of Jehu’s descendants as evil (pt: 2 Kgs. 13: 2, 11; 14: 24; 15: 9), yet Dtr’s source material ¯ portrays three of them favorably (Jehoahaz, Jehoash, and Jeroboam II).1 These three rulers experience long reigns (see 4.2.5 below), a characteristic typically associated with righteous rulers.2 Jehoahaz prays to YHWH in crisis and receives a positive response from YHWH (see 4.3.1 below). Jehoash and Jeroboam II are both supported by prophets and have their borders expanded due to military triumphs (see 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 below). Why do rulers that reign long, pray to YHWH, experience prophetic support, and succeed militarily receive evil evaluations from Dtr? Dtr’s bias against Jehu’s heirs apparently does not prevent him from including source material that does not support his negative evaluations. As will be shown, he minimizes the problem by crediting the success of Jehu’s descendants to the mercy of YHWH, not to any worthiness on the part of the ruler. Instead of examining each of

1 For the names of Jehoahaz and Jehoash, the intervocalic -e- is often apocopated within the preWxed theophoric element (see Cody 1970: 325 n. 1). References for the various forms are: ghaFej´, ‘Jehoahaz’ (2 Kgs. 10: 35; 13: 1, 4, 22), ghaFj, ‘Joahaz’ (14: 1), WaFej´, ‘Jehoash’ (13:˝ 10,˝ 25; 14: 8, 9, 11), WaFj, and ‘Joash’ (13: 9, 12,˝ ˝ 13, 14). A similar phenomenon˝ occurs for Jehoash of Judah (e.g.˝ 11: 2; 12: 1, 2 (ET 12: 2, 3); 13: 1). I will consistently use the longer form to refer to each of these rulers. 2 Despite the example of unrighteous Manasseh’s long reign, righteous kings tend to reign much longer than unrighteous ones (see 4.2.4 below). 156 Jehu’s Evil Heirs Jehu’s heirs separately, Chapter 4 will discuss them topically, beginning with Dtr’s evil evaluations of them (4.1), then their royal longevity (4.2) and their military success (4.3), before summarizing how Dtr’s bias against Jehu’s heirs explains why rulers with positive descriptions are condemned as evil (4.4).

4.1.1 ‘He did evil in the eyes of YHWH’

Unlike Jehu’s unusual regnal formula (see 2.1.3 above), his sons’ formulas follow the typical pattern for northern kings (see 2.1.2 above): synchronism, patronymic, regnal years in Samaria, and regnal evaluation. The evaluation for each of Jehu’s descendants is identical: ‘he did evil in the eyes of YHWH’, ef¸ej´ jn¨jp¨b´pte Upjf ¯ ¯ ¯¯ (2 Kgs. 13: 2, 11; 14: 24; 15: 9). The Wnal four Judean kings (Jehoa-˝ haz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah) are the only other series of four unrighteous heirs from the same house who reign consecutively in the DH (2 Kgs. 23: 31–24: 19). All other dynasties are cut oV before a fourth evil heir ascends. The problem of evil rulers with favorable narratives is diminished by Josephus as he evaluates Jehoahaz, Jehoash, and Jeroboam II less critically. Concerning Jehoahaz, Josephus adds to the account of Kings that ‘God accepted his repentance as a virtue’, › b Łe ŒÆd c ØÆ ‰ Iæc I (JA 9. 176; cf. Begg 2000: 211).3 For Jehoash, Josephus even contradicts the negative evaluation of Kings, by stating that ‘he was a good man’, IªÆŁe q (JA 9. 178; cf. Begg 2000: 213). Apparently, the discrepancy between Dtr’s unrighteous assessment and the source’s righteous portrayal was too great for Josephus not to harmonize. The shift from evil to good in Jehoash’s example is particularly striking since elsewhere Josephus generally follows Dtr’s judgments (see Begg 2000: 213). While Jose- phus criticizes Jeroboam II harshly, he states that, for the people of Israel, ‘he was the cause of innumerable beneWts’, ıæø IªÆŁH ¼ØØ Bæ (JA 9. 205–6; cf. Begg 2000: 251–2). Thus, for these three Jehuites, Jehoash in particular, Josephus modiWes the biblical account of their reigns to make them appear more

3 Josephus’ perspective on Jehoahaz and Jehoash is also discussed below in 4.3. Jehu’s Evil Heirs 157 favorably.4 Apparently, Dtr was unwilling to take the dramatic steps followed by Josephus to portray these Jehuites more favorably to make the narrative more coherent. One might assume that Dtr’s critical attitude toward these Jehuites should be attributed exclusively to an anti-northern polemic. How- ever, since Dtr does not simply categorize all northern rulers as evil, additional factors must have contributed to Dtr’s negative perspective. While Dtr gives the majority of northern kings unrighteous evaluations, he gives two northern rulers no evaluation (Elah and Shallum: 1 Kgs. 16: 8; 2 Kgs. 15: 13), he qualiWes the negative evaluations of two others (Jehoram and Hoshea: 2 Kgs. 3: 2; 17: 2), and he even evaluates Jehu as righteous (2 Kgs. 10: 30). Most of the southern righteous kings receive qualiWed positive evaluations (7 out of 9, see 2.1.3 above) and none of their negative evaluations is qualiWed. However, Jehu’s heirs are all given unqualiWed negative evaluations. Dtr could have qualiWed the evaluations of Jehoahaz, Jehoash, and Jeroboam based on their positive narrative material as he did for Jehoram and Hoshea. The qualiWed evaluations of these latter two are given despite a lack of favorable information about either of them in the source material.5 Therefore, factors other than an anti-northern polemic must have contributed to Dtr’s judgments against these three Jehuites. Since Dtr views Jehu, the founder of the dynasty, favorably and each of Jehu’s heirs negatively, Dtr appears to be biased against dynastic successors. This bias would explain his evil evaluations for Jehu’s heirs despite the positive descriptions of them in the source material. This anti-dynastic attitude of Dtr can also be seen in his portrayal of the dynasties of Gideon, Eli, Samuel, and David (see also 5.4.2.1 below). In the following sections, general observations about each of their narratives will be made (4.1.2–5), followed by an analysis of the explanations for their evil evaluations (4.1.6).

4 Josephus omits any evaluation for the Wnal Jehuite, Zechariah (JA 9. 228), which Begg reasonably attributes to his brief one-month reign (2000: 285). 5 Jehoram’s apparent victory over Moab is attributed within the text to the righteousness of Jehoshaphat and not to any worthiness on Jehoram’s account (2 Kgs. 3: 14). 158 Jehu’s Evil Heirs

4.1.2 Jehoahaz of Israel (2 Kgs. 13: 1–9)

Jehu’s son Jehoahaz succeeds him following Jehu’s long reign of twenty-eight years (2 Kgs. 10: 35–6).6 After devoting an extended section to Jehu, the narrative of Kings focuses on Judah, speciWcally the rebellion of Athaliah and the reign of Jehoash, son of Ahaziah (2 Kgs. 11–12). Following Jehoash’s assassination and the notice of the succession of his son Amaziah, the narrative returns to Israelite kings, looking at the reigns of Jehoahaz and Jehoash (2 Kgs. 13: 1–25). According to his regnal formula, Jehoahaz reigns for seventeen years (see 4.2.5 below). Similarly to other northern kings, an explanation is given for Jehoahaz’s negative evaluation based on his continuing in the sins of Jeroboam I (2 Kgs. 13: 2). Dtr mentions Jeroboam’s sins in the narrative of Jehoahaz more times (4) than he does in any other royal narrative (2 Kgs. 13: 2, 6). While Jehu’s formula uses negative language (2 Kgs. 10: 29: afej¨ to¸¯aL, ‘Jehu did not turn’), Jehoahaz’s explanation returns to the pattern used for earlier rulers (2 Kgs. 13: 2): ‘he walked in the sins of Jeroboam’ (zpbtj vaIh tha Ll` j¨f ), ¨ ¯ ¯ ¯ which implies greater culpability in the sins˝ (see˝˝ 2.1.3 above).¯ The second occurrence also uses negative language (2 Kgs. 13: 2: to¸¯aL, ‘he did not turn’). In the third occurrence, a plural verb is used (2 Kgs. 13: 6: fto¸), thus the people of Israel are accused of not departing from Jeroboam’s sins. For the fourth occurrence, the MT switches back to a singular verb (2 Kgs. 13: 6: Lle), implicating Jehoahaz, while several versions (LXX (except B),˝ Syriac,˝ Targum, and Vulgate) give a plural verb, implicating the people.7 Whether one follows the MT or the versions for the fourth occurrence, the following verse implies that the sins of Jehoahaz led to his diminished military resources (2 Kgs. 13: 7).

6 Jehoahaz shares the same name as a son of Josiah (2 Kgs. 23: 30) and the name also appears on a stamp seal from the 7th cent. bce (Avigad 1969: 9): xlme wb ghafejl, ‘belonging to Jehoahaz, son of the king’. The Chronicler also calls Ahaziah of Judah, ‘Jehoahaz’ (2 Chr. 21: 17; 22: 1). Cogan and Tadmor note that Ahaz of Judah’s name is the hypocoristic form of Jehoahaz (1988: 142). 7 Most scholars (e.g. Jones 1984: 500; Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 142) read the plural from the versions. Jehu’s Evil Heirs 159 The narrative of Jehoahaz is relatively short (9 verses) and outside of the formulaic introduction and conclusion, the only story included makes Jehoahaz appear righteous because of his prayers to which YHWH listens (2 Kgs. 13: 4; see 4.3.1 below). Jehoahaz dies naturally and receives the corresponding death notice about sleeping with his ancestors, as do Jehoash and Jeroboam II (2 Kgs. 13: 9, 13; 14: 29).

4.1.3 Jehoash of Israel (2 Kgs. 13: 10–13þ)

Jehoash succeeds his father Jehoahaz on the throne in Samaria.8 Dtr explains Jehoash’s unrighteous evaluation by repeating the reference to the sins of Jeroboam, using both forms of explanation (2 Kgs. 13: 11: to¸ aL, ‘he did not depart’ and Lle, ‘he walked’). Among Israelite and Judean kings, Jehoash’s narrative˝ is˝ unique because no material is included between his formulaic introduction and conclusion (2 Kgs. 13: 10–13).9 However, after his concluding formula, extensive narrative is included concerning him and various other individuals: Elisha, Hazael, and Amaziah (2 Kgs. 13: 14–19, 24–5; 14: 8–16). Despite the lack of initial narrative material, the text focuses on him far more than any of Jehu’s other descendants. An unusual second formulaic conclusion is included for Jehoash at the end of this material (2 Kgs. 14: 15–16). Even though Jehoash receives a negative Deuteronomistic evaluation, signiWcant positive information is included about him in the source narrative. He appears to have a close relationship to Elisha, whom he visits when the prophet becomes ill. During this encounter, Jehoash receives a prophetic word regarding future victories over Aram (2 Kgs. 13: 14–19). He is described as a recipient of YHWH’s grace, which manifests itself in his recapturing cities from Aram

8 Jehoash of Israel shares the same name as the son of Ahaziah, who reigns over Judah (2 Kgs. 12: 1). Jehoash of Judah began reigning more than thirty years before Jehoash of Israel, but their reigns brieXy overlap (2 Kgs. 13: 10; 14: 1). While the text usually distinguishes between these two kings by including the nation they rule (e.g. ‘Jehoash of Israel’), I will simply refer to the northern ruler as Jehoash. 9 Other royal narratives include at least a short description of their reign or the conspiracy against them (e.g. Elah, Azariah, Shallum, Jotham). 160 Jehu’s Evil Heirs (2 Kgs. 13: 22–5). He even defeats righteous king Amaziah of Judah (2 Kgs. 14: 8–14). Outside of the Deuteronomistic formulaic material, the only criticism directed at him is that he does not strike the ground enough times with his arrows (2 Kgs. 13: 18–19), which appears insigniWcant in comparison to the favorable portrayal of him elsewhere. Like his grandfather Jehu, Jehoash apparently paid Assyrian tribute. On the Tell al-Rimah stele of Adad-nirari III (810–783 bce), a list of tributaries includes, ‘Jehoash of the land of Samaria’ (miu- a-su KUR sa-me-ri-na-a-a) (Page 1968: 142, l. 8; Grayson 1996: 211, l. 8; cf. 213, l. 12). This tribute is not mentioned within the HB (see 2.7.4 above).

4.1.4 Jeroboam II (2 Kgs. 14: 23–9)

After the extended narrative concerning Amaziah of Judah (including his war with Jehoash), the primary focus of the narrative returns to Israel, speciWcally to Jeroboam II, the son of Jehoash.10 Jeroboam reigns forty-one years, longer than any other northern ruler (13 years longer than Jehu; see 4.2.5 below), but minimal information is included between his opening and closing formulas (2 Kgs. 14: 23– 9). Lipin´ ski suggests that an unbiased historiographer would have devoted as many chapters to Jeroboam II as he would have to David and Solomon (1991: 171). For comparison, Menahem reigns for only ten years, but his narrative is approximately the same length as Jeroboam’s (2 Kgs. 15: 14, 16–22). Jeroboam II is the Wrst Jehuite to have only a single reference to the sins of Jeroboam I (2 Kgs. 14: 5). Apart from Dtr’s evaluation and explanation, nothing unfavorable is said about him in the narrative. Despite his negative evaluation, several positive statements are made about him in the source material. He restores the original borders and recovers land for Israel (2 Kgs. 14: 25, 28). He receives a favorable prophecy from the prophet Jonah (2 Kgs. 14: 25). YHWH delivers Israel via the hand of Jeroboam (2 Kgs. 14: 27). He is the last of the Jehuites to die a natural death (2 Kgs. 14: 29).

10 A stamp seal recovered from Megiddo reads, zpbtj dbp pmWl,‘belonging to Shema, servant of Jeroboam’ (see Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 160). Jehu’s Evil Heirs 161 Presumably, any of these incidents could have been recorded in greater detail (e.g. Jonah’s prophetic message or information concerning his military victories), which would have expanded Jero- boam’s brief narrative and portrayed him more favorably. While Jeroboam’s narrative is short, within his concluding formula the list of the rest of his acts written in the book of the annals (2 Kgs. 14: 28) is longer than that of any other king of Israel or Judah (26 words in Hebrew).11 Thus, it appears that Dtr omitted extensive information recorded in the annals of the kings of Israel concerning Jeroboam, perhaps more than any other king.

4.1.5 Zechariah (2 Kgs. 15: 8–12)

After the death of Jeroboam II, the narrative focuses on Azariah of Judah, before returning to Israel for the Wnal Jehuite, Zechariah son of Jeroboam (2 Kgs. 15: 8–12). After stating that Zechariah had done evil in YHWH’s eyes, the text includes an unusual phrase, ‘like his fathers had done’, fjv¸Baˇ fUp tW` aˇ k, before explaining that he also did not turn from the sins of Jeroboam˝ ¯ I (2 Kgs. 15: 9). While it might appear that this phrase could imply that Jehu also had done evil in YHWH’s eyes, this implication is not necessary. Similar statements are made about Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim, two of Josiah’s sons (2 Kgs. 23: 32, 37), each of whom are said to have done evil in YHWH’s eyes ‘according to all that his fathers had done’ (fjv¸Baˇ fUp¯tW` aˇ lKk´).12 Since Josiah is one of Dtr’s most righteous rulers, it is˝ unlikely that this Deuteronomistic phrase is meant to refer

11 While these lists share similarities, they also display signiWcant variety, particularly in length. After Jeroboam’s, Hezekiah’s list (2 Kgs. 20: 20) is next longest with twenty-four words, but most of the lists are typically much shorter (e.g. Amaziah: 12 words; Azariah: 15 words; Zechariah: 11 words). Two Israelite kings (Jehoram and Hoshea) and four Judean kings (Ahaziah, Jehoahaz, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah) do not have this type of list (or a concluding regnal formula). These six kings include the two who are killed in Jehu’s rebellion and the four who end their reigns going into exile. 12 The NRSV translates the phrase fjv¸ Baˇ fUp ¯tW` aˇ lKk´, which is found in both 2 Kgs. 23: 32 and 37, inconsistently. In 23: 32 it˝ is rendered ‘just as his ancestors had done’ omitting the sense of lK and in 23: 37 it is rendered as ‘just as all his ancestors had done’, suggesting that the ‘all’ refers to the ancestors, not the deeds. This subtle distinction dramatically changes the meaning of the verse, implying that all Davidides had been evil. 162 Jehu’s Evil Heirs to him. If the father of Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim is not meant to be indicted by the statements of 2 Kings 23: 32 and 37, then it is unlikely that Jehu, the great-great-grandfather of Zechariah is implicated by the statement in 2 Kings 15: 9, particularly since this indictment would contradict Dtr’s righteous evaluation for him (2 Kgs. 10: 30). Thus, the phrase, ‘like his fathers had done’ (2 Kgs. 15: 9), appears to refer to the evilness of the dynasty after the founder Jehu. Unlike the previous four Jehuites, the text includes nothing positive about Zechariah, but, apart from his Deuteronomistic evaluation and explanation, it also includes nothing negative about him in the source material. Despite reigning for only six months (2 Kgs 15: 8), he still receives an evil evaluation (2 Kgs. 15: 9).13 Two other kings with short reigns receive no evaluation (Elah: two years; Shallum: one month).14 After Zechariah’s assassination by Shallum (2 Kgs. 15: 10), the northern kingdom’s longest dynasty comes to an end. Zechariah’s narrative concludes with a fulWllment notice regarding the prophecy that four of Jehu’s heirs would sit on the throne of Israel (2 Kgs. 15: 12).

4.1.6 Jehuite explanations

The pattern seen elsewhere in the DH of an unusually righteous father (Samuel, David, Hezekiah, and Josiah) who is succeeded by unrighteous sons is also seen in the Jehuite dynasty. The unrighteousness of Jehu’s sons is emphasized within the Deuteronomistic explanations in three ways. First, while most northern kings have a single reference to the sins of Jeroboam I, for Jehoahaz and Jehoash their complicity in these sins is emphasized since the text includes multiple references.15 Nadab and Baasha are the only non-Jehuite northern kings who have Jero- boam’s sins mentioned twice in connection with them (1 Kgs. 15: 26,

13 Josephus apparently thought the brevity of Zechariah’s reign did not warrant an evaluation (see above, n. 4). 14 However, the king with the shortest reign, Zimri (1 week), also receives an evaluation (1 Kgs. 16: 19). 15 The six references to Jeroboam’s sins in the narratives of Jehoahaz and Jehoash do not appear to be included primarily as anti-Jeroboam polemic since each pair of repetitions mention his name only once (2 Kgs. 13: 2, 6, 11). Jehu’s Evil Heirs 163 30, 34; 16: 2). While Jeroboam’s sins are also mentioned twice in Jehu’s concluding formula, the Deuteronomistic formulas for his son and grandson are more critical (see also 2.1.3 above). Jehu’s Jero- boam references qualify positive statements about him regarding his righteousness, his eradication of Baal worship in Israel, and his purge of the house of Ahab. For Jehoahaz and Jehoash, the references justify their negative evaluations. Additionally, both of Jehu’s references speak merely of him not turning from Jeroboam’s sins, while for his two heirs the slightly more negative form (‘he walked’) is used in one of the repetitions.16 Second, Jehoash and his son Jeroboam are the only two Israelite kings who do not depart ‘from all’ (lkm:) the sins of Jeroboam I (2 Kgs. 13: 11; 14: 24). While most other kings˝ are implicated in these sins, the all-encompassing nature of the involvement of Jehoash and Jeroboam II in the sins of Jeroboam I emphasizes their unrighteousness.17 Third, Zechariah’s explanation states that his evil behavior in the sight of YHWH was just like his fathers. Thus, the negative aspects of the explanations for Jehoahaz, Jehoash, and Jeroboam (multiple references and ‘all’ Jeroboam’s sins), seem to be applied to Zechariah as well. Therefore, the statement connecting Zechariah’s evil to that of his fathers emphasizes the evilness of all Jehu’s heirs, perhaps as an additional justiWcation for the end of the dynasty and Zechariah’s assassination by Shallum. Except for Zechariah, Dtr’s source material portrays Jehu’s heirs positively, yet Dtr appears to abridge this information, particularly for Jehoahaz and Jeroboam (2 Kgs. 13: 1–9; 14: 23–9), presumably to de-emphasize favorable descriptions of rulers he designates as evil. Dtr emphasizes the evilness of Jehu’s heirs by not qualifying their unrighteous evaluations, by repeating references to Jeroboam’s sins and by connecting Jehuites to ‘all’ the sins of Jeroboam I.

16 Jehoash and Jehoahaz are the only two northern kings for whom Dtr uses both forms of this explanation. 17 One could argue that the ‘all’ in these references is meant to imply that they departed from some, but not all of Jeroboam’s sins, thus it makes them appear less negative. However, the second reference to Jeroboam’s sins in Jehoash’s regnal introduction (2 Kgs. 13: 11) rules out this interpretation, since it states that Jehoash walked in them (i.e. ‘all the sins of Jeroboam’). 164 Jehu’s Evil Heirs

4.2 ROYAL LONGEVITY

4.2.1 Longevity in the ANE

In both biblical and extra-biblical sources royal longevity is perceived as a divine blessing. Kings typically pray for long reigns, often basing their appeals upon their obedience and piety (see below). Thus, a correlation is seen between perceived righteousness and longevity. Therefore, the long reigns of the unrighteous Jehuites creates a tension within the narrative (see 4.2.5 below). Before I discuss the relationship between righteousness and longevity in Deuteronomy and Kings (4.2.2–4), ANE texts that mention royal longevity will Wrst be examined (4.2.1). In the ANE, the gods are often described as the source of long life. Despite the fact that pharaohs were thought to be divine, Egyptian inscriptions still state how rulers are granted eternal life by the gods: Ramesses II (COS ii. 33a, 38c; ANET 199b), Ka-mose (ANET 232c), and Thutmose III (COS ii. 8b).18 A treaty between Egypt and the Hittites declares that those who abide by the stipulations of the treaty will be granted life by the gods (ANET 201b). Several Hittite inscriptions speak of how the gods give rulers long life (ANET 128; 357b; COS i. 153c) and the Assyrian ruler Esarhaddon is promised long life from Isˇtar (Parpola 1997: 7, ll. 8–15; cf. 8, ll. 14–19). Prayers are frequently made for royal longevity. Ashurnasirpal II requests that his days might be long and his years many (Grayson 1991: 231, l. 2’). Sennacherib prays that his oVspring live forever (Luckenbill 1921: 139, ll. 58–60).19 The coronation hymn of Ashur- banipal includes a request that his days are prolonged (COS i. 473a). A scribe of the Hittite king Murshili II, prays daily to the god Telipinus on behalf of the king and his family, ‘grant them enduring life, health, long years’ (ANET 397c, 397c). West Semitic sources also include prayers for royal longevity. An inscription on a sheath includes a prayer that the god Rakabel would give long life to Kilamuwa

18 Redford observes that, within Egyptian sources, value is seen in how long an individual lives and length of years becomes ‘almost a cliche´’ (1986: p. xviii). 19 To refer to himself, Sennacherib uses both third-person and Wrst-person language (Luckenbill 1921: 139, ll. 46, 47, 51, 53, 54). Jehu’s Evil Heirs 165 (ANET 655c). Azatiwada prays, ‘May Ba’al . . . give Azatiwada length of days and multitude of years’ (COS ii. 150b). In many ANE texts, royal longevity is connected directly to the righteous behavior of the ruler. Two legal texts speak of divine blessings for following human laws. Hammurabi’s code includes a prayer for a future king who follows the code: ‘may the god Shamash lengthen his reign just as (he has done) for me’ (COS ii. 352b; ANET 178d). A Hittite diplomatic text expresses a divine blessing for Shattiwaza of Mittanni to ‘prolong the life of the throne’ if he observes provisions of the treaty (Beckman 1995: 53; ANET 206d). Various inscriptions speak of rulers that honor the gods being rewarded for their loyalty with longevity. Yahdun-Lim praises the god Shamash in a Mari temple dedication inscription because Sha- mash ‘gives to those who worship him a long-lasting life of happi- ness’ (ANET 556b). Hammurabi’s son Samsu-iluna attributes his divine gift of eternal life to his obedience to the command of An and Enlil (COS ii. 258). Since Sargon II ‘holds fast to the hem’ of the goddess Nanaya’s garment and he walks behind her, a hymn declares that Sargon should have ‘a life of long days’ and a prolonged reign (COS i. 472d).20 Rulers also engage in building projects devoted to the gods in order to engender divine favor for long life. Shalmaneser III prays that the god Adad look favorably upon the statue that Shalmaneser constructed for him: ‘may he be pleased (and) so command the lengthen- ing of my days’ (Grayson 1996: 61, ll. 38–40). Similarly, Hadad-yithi erected a statue to the god Hadad, ‘so that his soul may live and his days be long and to increase his years’ (COS ii. 154a). Two other rulers construct temples so that the gods will deem them worthy to receive long life: Nabonidus for Sıˆn(COS ii. 312b) and the Philistine ruler Akhayus for the goddess PTGYH (COS ii. 164c). Two Phoenician rulers request long life because of their general righteousness. Yehimilk asks, ‘May Ba‘lshamayn . . . prolong the days of Yehimilk in Byblos, for (he is) a righteous king and an upright king before the Holy Gods of Byblos!’ (ANET 653b; COS ii. 146d) and Yehawmilk requests, ‘May the Mistress of Byblos/Gubal bless

20 In the Ugaritic Aqhatu Legend, the goddess Anatu promises to give Aqhatu immortality if he gives her his bow (COS i. 347a; ANET 151d). 166 Jehu’s Evil Heirs Yehawmilk, king of Byblos/Gubal, may she keep him alive, and may she prolong his days and his years upon Byblos/Gubal, for he is a righteous king’ (COS ii. 151c).21 In one of his royal inscriptions, Nebuchadnezzar II includes several reasons why he should receive a long reign. He begins his inscription by listing his various righteous attributes (‘the humble one’, ‘the pious one’, ‘the worshipper of the lord of lords’), then he describes how he rebuilt the temple of Shamash and he concludes with a prayer that Shamash would ‘look joyfully upon the work of my gracious hands and may a life of distant days . . . the long duration of my reign be set (for me) on your lips’ (COS ii. 309a, c). Another inscription of Nebuchadnezzar follows a similar format: righteous attributes, religious renovations, and request for long life (COS ii. 309–10). Thus, within these ANE texts, one Wnds a strong correlation between perceived righteousness and royal longevity. Royal longevity comes as a gift from the gods. A supplicant’s request for long life is granted for various reasons: his obedience, his loyalty to the gods, his construction projects to honor the gods, or his generally righteous behavior. For a ruler, a gift of long life usually involves a long reign.

4.2.2 Longevity in the law of the king

The only Pentateuchal text that directly addresses the topic of monarchy is the law of the king (Deut. 17: 14–20). While several scholars assume a dynasty is spoken about in Deuteronomy 17: 20, the textual evidence for such a claim is inconclusive.22 The verse only speaks clearly about longevity for a ruler and not necessarily a continuing reign for his sons. The context of the law of the king is a hypothetical future situation where Israel states, Ll` m` jlp emjUa, ‘I will set a king over me’ (Deut. ¯ ˙ 17: 14). YHWH grants that˝ they˝ will˝ be able to establish a monarchy,

21 On an Aramaic tomb inscription, Si’gabbar, the priest of Sahar, attributes his longevity to his righteousness: ‘Because of my righteousness in his presence, [Sahar] gave me a good name and prolonged my days’ (COS ii. 185a). 22 The following scholars perceive a royal dynasty in Deut. 17: 20: Ishida (1977: 41), McConville (2002: 296), Mayes (1979: 270), and Nelson (2002: 225). Jehu’s Evil Heirs 167 ¸ with the proviso regarding the ruler, xje`La˜ ef¸ej´ thbj: tW` aˇLl` m`,‘a ¯ ¨ king, whom YHWH, your God will choose’ (Deut. 17: 15). YHWH takes the responsibility for selection away from the people and keeps it for himself. A Deuteronomic preference for the divine election of kings is therefore established (see 2.4.7 above). After listing some limitations on royal possessions (Deut. 17: 16– 20a), the law ends by promising longevity as a blessing for righteous kings (Deut. 17: 20):

la¨ t´Uj: bt`s`b´ fjnbf afeFvk´lm´m¯lp zjm: j Ljt:aˇ j wpml´ ˝ ˝ ˝ ¯ ¯ ¯ ˝ ¯ ¯ ¯ So that he will prolong (his) days in his kingdom, he and his sons, in the midst of Israel. A mistranslation in 17: 20 possibly contributes to the perception of a dynastic promise in the law of the king. The hiphil of Lta with zjm:j is often translated ‘reign long’ (NRSV, REB, TNK; cf. NIV, NJB),˝ though it literally means ‘prolong days’. An examination of similar language in Deuteronomy supports the idea that 17: 20 speaks not necessarily of dynastic succession, but merely long life for a king. In the ten other occurrences in Deuter- onomy of the hiphil of Lta with zjm:j (‘prolong days’; i.e. ‘live long’), the phrase always refers to an extension˝ of one’s life (Deut. 4: 26, 40; 5: 16, 33; 6: 2; 11: 9; 22: 7; 25: 15; 30: 18; 32: 47). While not expressed identically to the reference in 17: 20, Wve of these references to long life also mention sons, descendants, or oVspring in their immediate context (Deut. 4: 40; 6: 2; 11: 9; 30: 18–19; 32: 46–7). Eight of these Deuteronomic usages of the hiphil of Lta also speak of long life ‘in the land’ (emd¸aˇ e¯lp: Deut. 4: 26, 40; 5: 16; 11: 9; 25: 15; 30: 18; 32: ¯ 47; yt`ab: 5:˝ 33).˝ If third-person˝ ˝ plural forms were used in 17: 20 (‘they will prolong’, ‘their kingdom’), the argument in favor of dynastic succession would be strengthened. Since the singular forms (‘he will prolong’, ‘his kingdom’) merely refer back to the one YHWH has selected (Deut. 17: 15), one can conclude that the law of the king does not include an explicit dynastic promise. The primary emphasis is on the king YHWH has chosen; only secondarily are his sons included in the promise of long life, but not necessarily long reigns.23 While the

23 Von Rad thinks the phrase ‘and his sons’ (fjnb¸ f) is secondary (1966b: 119). ˝ 168 Jehu’s Evil Heirs plural (‘sons’) is used in 17: 20, presumably most of the ruler’s descendants will not become king even if his dynasty continues, since only one reigns at a time.24 The idea of long life for an individual in the land is a repeated Deuteronomic theme, so the promise of 17: 20 appears to be merely a slightly modiWed royal version of the promise, without an explicit dynastic component. While dynastic succession is not explicitly stated in the law of the king, one might think that it must be implied. However, a few verses later (Deut. 18: 5) an explicit priestly dynastic promise is made to Levi:

:zjm: j¸e¯lk fjnbf afeef¸ej´¯zW¨ b´vSWl´ ...ef¸ej´ thb Fb jk For YHWH has chosen him¯ ˝ [Levi;˝ ˝ cf. Deut. 18: 1, 6]˝...tominister¯ ˝ in the˙ name of YHWH, him and his sons for all time. With an explicit dynastic promise mentioned in the immediate context, the argument against perceiving one in 17: 20 is strengthened. If a dynastic promise was intended in 17: 20, one would expect it to be expressed in a similar manner to the one given to Levi (Deut. 18: 5) given the repetitive nature of the book of Deuteronomy. Therefore, one can conclude that the law of the king promises righteous kings a long life and thereby a long reign, but not necessarily a long dynasty. While it is diYcult to be conclusive about the absence of a dynastic promise in 17: 20 (it might be implied), given how longevity is spoken about elsewhere in Deuteronomy and the emphasis on the divine election of the king in 17: 15, it is unlikely this was meant to be a dynastic promise. Both Deuteronomy and Kings correlate royal longevity with royal righteousness (on Kings, see 4.2.4 below). Dtr emphasizes the connection between longevity and righteousness in YHWH’s words to Solomon (1 Kgs. 3: 14): ´ x¸ jˆba djfd Lle tW` aˇ k jv Fr´mf jBhˆtMW´ljkt 5b Llv¨zaf´ : ˙ : : ˙ ˝ ˙ ˝ ¯ ˝ ¯ ¯ ¸ ¯ ˝ ˙ ¨ :xjm` j¯va`jvk´taef´ ˝ ˙ ¯¯¯ And if you walk in my ways, keeping my statutes and commandments, as your father David walked, then I will prolong your days. Dtr’s use of the hiphil of Lta with the plural of zFj in the context of a divine blessing for obedience to a king establishes a strong link to

24 Ahab reportedly had seventy sons (2 Kgs. 10: 1). Jehu’s Evil Heirs 169 Deuteronomy 17: 20. (Interestingly, English versions that translate Deut. 17: 20 as ‘reign long’, e.g. NRSV, REB, TNK, render 1 Kgs. 3: 14 merely as long life.) In support of the above conclusion regarding Deuteronomy, no dynastic promise is mentioned in this address of YHWH to Solomon. This is surprising since Dtr has each of the major characters in the surrounding chapters refer to the dynastic promise: David (1 Kgs. 2: 4), YHWH (1 Kgs. 6: 12; 9: 4–5), and Solomon himself (1 Kgs. 8: 25). In none of these other references is the promise expressed as ‘prolong days’ (hiphil of Lta with the plural of zFj) similar to Deuteronomy 17: 20 and 1 Kings 3: 14. Thus, Dtr’s choice of terms in 1 Kings 3: 14 strengthens an argument against viewing Deuteronomy 17: 20 as a dynastic promise.25

4.2.3 Kingship in Deuteronomy and the DH: Knoppers and Levinson

Before examining the relationship between longevity and righteousness in the book of Kings (4.2.4), two scholars need to be discussed at length who see a sharp distinction between the perspectives on kingship in the book of Deuteronomy and the DH. Knoppers (1996b) and Levinson (2001) argue that Dtr did not base his view of kingship on Deuteronomy’s law of the king (Deut. 17: 14–20).26 They emphasize the limitation of power mandated in Deuteronomy and the reversal of this trend in the DH. Knoppers perceives a positive attitude toward horses, wives, and wealth in the narrative of Solomon from Kings and a negative attitude towards these in Deuteronomy (1996b: 337–44). Levinson contrasts the lack of a judicial, cultic, or military role for the king in Deuteronomy with royal portrayals in Kings, particularly that of Josiah (2001: 520–9). While Knoppers and Levinson make several valid points about diVerences of emphasis, it is still reasonable to assume a continuity of thought between Deuteronomy and the DH in regards to kingship.

25 The reward of longevity for righteous rulers found in both Deuteronomy and Kings is also noted by Cogan (2001: 188). 26 Elsewhere Knoppers speciWcally discusses the attitude on kingship in Deuter- onomy and the DH (2001) and Levinson (2006) examines the issue of the balance of oYcial powers in Deut. 12–26. 170 Jehu’s Evil Heirs Both Knoppers and Levinson argue that the law of the king restricts the king’s active responsibilities to reading Torah (Deut. 17: 18–19).27 Knoppers states, ‘Except for the obligation to read the torah, Deuteronomy’s law of the king contains only restrictions on the monarchy and monarchical power’ and ‘the king’s only positive function is to read the torah daily’ (1996b: 330, 335).28 Levinson maintains, ‘There remains for the king but a single positive duty: while sitting demurely on his throne, to ‘‘read each day of his life’’ from the very Torah scroll that delimits his power’ (2001: 522). However, both Knoppers and Levinson seem to ignore the main point that the law of the king makes regarding the Torah. The king’s reading is not intended as an end in itself, but rather to lead to his obedience. He is to read the law ‘in order that’ (wpml´ ) he learn to fear ¯ ¯ YHWH (ef¸ej´¯vaèaVj:l´ ) and obey the law (Deut. 17: 19). While the text states only˝ once that the king is to read the law, the idea of obedience is repeated three times in Deuteronomy 17: 19–20. The king is ‘to observe all the words of this law and these statutes’ (elà¨ e zjs:hê¯va`f´ vaG˙e etFve jSb4¯lk¯va`tMW´l:), he is ‘to ¯ ¯ ¯ ˙¨ do them’ (zv¸Up˝ˇ l) and he is ‘not to˝ turn from˝ the commandment’ ¯ (ef¸r´ m:e¯wm: tfojvl´bl´ f). Thus, the king is meant to do more than ¯ merely read the law˙ ˙ as these two scholars suggest. Despite the claims of these two scholars that the king’s powers are ‘radically curtailed’ (Levinson 2001: 511, 531) or ‘greatly circum- scribed’ (Knoppers 1996b: 329), the limitations placed on royal authority in these verses are restricted to three areas: horses, wives, and wealth in the form of silver and gold.29 The king is not restricted from having reasonable quantities of these, but merely forbidden from acquiring them in excessive amounts. The sense of abundance is communicated by four repetitions of the verb ebt in the hiphil (Deut. 17: 15–16) meaning ‘to multiply’.In terms of wealth, the king is allowed signiWcant amounts, but he is not to multiply wealth for himself ‘greatly’ (dAm´). No limitations are given for many typical

27 Hagedorn seems to share the perspective of Levinson and Knoppers as he speaks of a king ‘who just sits on his throne and reads the Torah’ (2004: 145). 28 Knoppers does speak of royal obedience to the law (1996: 335; 2001: 404), but he focuses speciWcally on aspects that limit royal power. 29 Nelson rightly stresses that the text ‘does not forbid characteristic royal activ- ities’ (2002: 222). Jehu’s Evil Heirs 171 royal possessions (e.g. palaces, slaves, land, soldiers, sheep, cattle, etc.). While royal possessions are certainly curtailed by these restrictions, as Knoppers and Levinson observe, they overstate their case since the limitations mandated are themselves rather limited. Dtr’s attitude toward wealth and wives is not as distinct from the law of the king as Knoppers suggests (1996b: 337–44).30 While wealth is a divine blessing in the DH, it is granted to Solomon only because he does not request it (1 Kgs. 3: 10–13). Thus, not desiring wealth is perceived positively in the DH, a perspective that can be reconciled with the law of the king’s condemnation of multiplying wealth for oneself. Knoppers attempts to set up a contrast between Deuteron- omy’s prohibition against many marriages and Dtr’s condemnation of foreign marriages (Deut. 17: 17; 1 Kgs. 11: 1–8). However, royal polygamy typically involved exogamy since marriages frequently were used to cement foreign treaties.31 While the law of the king does not explicitly forbid foreign marriages, it forbids foreigners from ruling over Israel (Deut. 17: 15) and limits the acquisition of horses in order to sever relationship with Egypt (Deut. 17: 16). Deuteronomy’s limitation on multiple marriages comes in the context of excluding foreign involvements, which is therefore consistent with Dtr’s criticism of Solomon’s foreign marriages. However, the most signiWcant limitation included in the law of the king, beyond restrictions of horses, wives, and possessions, is the one placed upon his lifespan (Deut. 17: 20).32 While it is expressed as a promise (obey the commandment and you and your sons will live long), the implied negative consequences are still clear (disobey and you all will die). A king’s longevity will therefore be limited based upon his obedience to Torah. This correlation between royal obedience and long life is presumably mentioned at the end of the section to emphasize its ultimate signiWcance for the king. As will be shown in the following section (4.2.4), righteous rulers live signiWcantly

30 Knoppers perceptively notes that Dtr does not generally criticize rulers for hoarding possessions, wives, or horses (1996: 337), an absence that is surprising given the restrictions of them in the law of the king. 31 On foreign marriages, see 2 Sam. 3: 3; 1 Kgs. 3: 1; 16: 31; 2 Kgs. 8: 18, 27–8, and the following scholars: Jones 1984: 233; 299; Beckman 1995: 4; Hagedorn 2004: 143. 32 See also above, 4.2.2. 172 Jehu’s Evil Heirs longer than evil ones, so in this regard Deuteronomy 17 and Kings both connect royal longevity to obedience. Therefore, signiWcant similarities exist between the perspectives on kingship in Deuteronomy’s law of the king and the DH: the people request a king ‘like other nations’ (zj:Fce¯lk¸ k´ : Deut. 17: 14; 1 Sam. 8: 4, ¯ 20), the king is divinely elected (Deut. 17: 15; 1 Sam. 9: 16; 16: 1, 12; 1 Kgs. 19: 16; 2 Kgs. 9: 3, 6, 12), foreign inXuence over the throne is condemned (Deut. 17: 15–17; 1 Kgs. 11: 2), the king is evaluated based on hisobedience to the law (Deut. 17: 19–20; 1 Sam. 13: 13; 2 Sam. 12: 9; 1 Kgs. 11: 11; 14: 8), righteous kings are rewarded with long life (Deut. 17: 20; 1 Kgs. 3: 14), and evil rulers and their sons are killed (Deut. 17: 20; 1 Kgs. 14: 10; 16: 3, 18–19; 2 Kgs. 9: 24, 27).33 Therefore, despite the diVerences of emphasis observed by Knoppers and Levinson, in his view of kingship the Deuteronomist is still Deuteronomic.

4.2.4 The DH: righteous rulers reign longer

Dtr’s interest in royal longevity is seen by his recording the regnal years for every king.34 Typically, regnal years come immediately before Dtr’s evaluation for northern kings (e.g. 2 Kgs. 13: 1–2, 10–11) and for southern kings the name of the king’s mother is inserted between the regnal years and the evaluation (e.g. 2 Kgs. 12: 2–3 (ET 12: 1–2); 14: 1–3). One would expect regnal years to be included with the death notice at the end of the narrative and not in the initial formula. However, only four rulers (David, Solomon, Jeroboam, and Jehu) have their regnal years positioned at the end of their narratives (1 Kgs. 2: 11; 11: 42; 14: 20; 2 Kgs. 10: 36). Thus, Dtr appears to link righteousness and longevity because of the unusual position of the regnal years. While the information about regnal years may be merely included as background (like his inclusion of the mothers of the Judean kings), it is more likely that Dtr is intentionally connecting righteousness and longevity. One might assume that a positive correlation between righteousness and longevity would be unlikely because the longest reigning kings

33 Exceptions to this pattern (e.g. Manasseh) will be discussed below (4.2.4). 34 However, for Saul the text is corrupt (1 Sam. 13: 1). Jehu’s Evil Heirs 173 of their respective kingdoms both received unrighteous evaluations: Jeroboam II (41 years: 2 Kgs. 14: 23–4) and Manasseh (55 years: 2 Kgs. 21: 1). Despite the unusually long reigns of these two evil rulers, righteous kings still tend to reign much longer than unrighteous ones.35 The average reign of righteous kings (32.3 years) is almost three times as long as the average reign of evil kings (12.1 years).36 Eight of the ten longest reigning kings of the divided monarchy are given righteous evaluations by Dtr.37 Twenty evil kings reign less than Jotham, the shortest reigning righteous king. Therefore, despite obvious exceptions, a strong correlation exists in the text between righteousness and longevity. Since both regnal years and royal evaluations are included within the Deuteronomistic regnal formula, it appears that Dtr is making this connection intentionally. Assuming regnal years came as given from one of his sources, one way to account for this phenomenon would be that Dtr used the more objective data, regnal years, as one of his criteria for determining the more subjective data, a king’s

35 It is possible that some of these kings reigned as co-regents for a portion of their regnal years. Thiele (1966: 55–74) explains the chronological problems with co- regencies, but Hayes and Hooker think there were no co-regencies (1988: 12). Since Dtr does not record this information any conclusions about co-regencies must be considered speculative. I will therefore not attempt to account for chronological problems in this analysis, but will follow the data given in the text. 36 The regnal years for the nine righteous kings of the divided monarchy are (from greatest to least): Azariah (52), Asa (41), Jehoash of Judah (40), Josiah (31), Amaziah (29), Hezekiah (29), Jehu (28), Jehoshaphat (25), and Jotham (16). Thus, the average reign of these righteous rulers is 32.3 years. The regnal years for the twenty-eight evil kings of the divided monarchy are: Manasseh (55), Jeroboam II (41), Baasha (24), Jeroboam I (22), Ahab (22), Pekah (20), Rehoboam (17), Jehoahaz of Israel (17), Jehoash of Israel (16), Ahaz (16), Omri (12), Jehoram of Israel (12), Jehoiakim (11), Zedekiah (11), Menahem (10), Hoshea (9), Jehoram of Judah (8), Abijam (3), Nadab (2), Elah (2), Ahaziah of Israel (2), Pekahiah (2), Amon (2), Ahaziah of Judah (1), Zechariah (0.5), Jehoahaz of Judah (0.25), Jehoiachin (0.25), and Zimri (0.02). The average reign of evil rulers is 12.1 years. Freedman, in his comparison of royal chronologies, calculates the average reign for both ancient Judah and medieval England to be approximately twenty-four years (1993: 48–52). 37 The divided monarchy is the focus of this analysis since Dtr’s regnal formula is used most consistently during this period. In the regnal formulas for the united monarchy, David and Solomon each reign forty years (1 Kgs. 2: 11; 11: 42). The length of Saul’s reign is uncertain (1 Sam. 13: 1), but according to Acts 13: 21 he also reigned forty years (see also Gordon 1986: 132). Athaliah and Tibni are excluded from this analysis as exceptional cases. 174 Jehu’s Evil Heirs righteousness.38 Regardless of causality, however, the Deuteronomic longevity rule generally applies to the kings of the divided monarchy since righteous rulers tend to reign longer than evil ones.

4.2.5 Jehu’s heirs: evil rulers reign longer

Since Dtr appears to use regnal years as a criterion in evaluating a king’s behavior, Jehu’s long dynasty with four evil rulers creates a problem.39 An examination of Jehuite longevity will show that Dtr appears to be biased against Jehu’s dynastic successors.40 Table 4.2A gives the regnal years for each of the Jehuites, including the ruler, the reference, the number of years from the MT, and the variants in Josephus and the Syriac.41 (For Josephus and the Syriac only diVer- ences from the MT are included.) The Jehuites are the longest northern dynasty both in term of number of years (102.5) and number of generations (5). The next longest northern dynasty, the Omrides, lasts less than half its length (48 years) and they only continue in power for three generations.42 All other northern dynasties survive for only two generations (Jero- boam’s, Baasha’s, and Menahem’s). The endurance of the Jehuites can be attributed to the fact that they include four of the eight longest reigning northern rulers (of 19 total northern kings).43 Jehu’s long reign is not unusual since he is evaluated righteously and northern kings who accede to the throne as usurpers, like Jehu,

38 For Jeroboam II and Manasseh, Dtr must have used factors other than longevity in determining their regnal evaluations. 39 Hobbs also notes that Jeroboam’s long reign is unexpected given his negative assessment (1985: 177). 40 For a helpful table listing the dates from various scholars for Omride and Jehuite rulers, see Gugler 1996: 278. For a discussion of the chronology of the Jehu dynasty, see Knott 1971: 114–24. 41 References for the diVerent regnal years for Jehu and Jeroboam in Josephus are JA 9. 160, 205, 215 (see also Begg 2000: 192 n. 20; 251 n. 4). 42 Omri’s dynasty consists of four kings, but only three generations since Jehoram is the brother of Ahaziah (2 Kgs. 1: 17; 3: 1). 43 Slightly lower regnal years are found for three of the Wve Jehuites in Josephus and the Syriac, which results in shorter Jehuite dynasties in these alternative traditions. Except for the ten days added to the three-month reign of Jehoahaz of Judah, Jehu and Jeroboam are the only two kings of Israel or Judah where Josephus departs from the record of the MT. See also Thiele’s discussion of Josephus’s variant Wgures (1966: 204–27). Jehu’s Evil Heirs 175

Table 4.2A. Regnal years of Jehuite rulers

Ruler Reference MT Josephus Syriac

Jehu 2 Kgs. 10: 36 28 27 Jehoahaz 2 Kgs. 13: 1 17 Jehoash 2 Kgs. 13: 10 16 13 Jeroboam II 2 Kgs. 14: 23 41 40 Zechariah 2 Kgs. 15: 8 0.5 Total 102.5 100.5 99.5

reign longer than their dynastic heirs (usurpers: 13.9 years; dynastic heirs: 11.7). However, the longevity of Jehu’s descendants is unexpected. While the non-Jehuite dynastic heirs of the northern kingdom on average reign only 7.0 years,44 the Jehuite dynastic heirs (Jehoahaz, Jehoash, Jeroboam II, Zechariah) average 18.6 years. The short reign of Zechariah (6 months) is consistent with the prediction in the law of the king about royal longevity, since he is evaluated as unrighteous.45 However, the three heirs who follow Jehu are problematic since they have long reigns (averaging 24.7 years) and are evaluated negatively by Dtr. While much of the anomalous nature of the Wgures for Jehuite longevity can be attributed to Jeroboam’s forty-one year reign, the reigns of Jehoahaz (17 years)46 and Jehoash (16 years) are still longer than the average for a northern king (12.7 years),47 and their reigns are unusually long considering that on either side of them are Israel’s

44 Regnal years for these kings are: Nadab (2), Elah (2), Ahab (22), Ahaziah (2), Jehoram (12), and Pekahiah (2). 45 For Zechariah’s synchronism, the MT has the thirty-eighth year of Azariah, but various LXX manuscripts have the twenty-eighth or the twenty-ninth year of Azariah (see BHS). 46 In his regnal formula, Jehoahaz reigns for seventeen years (2 Kgs. 13: 1), but according to the surrounding synchronisms, he should have only reigned for fourteen years (2 Kgs. 13: 1, 10). Josephus resolves the problem by lowering Jehoahaz’s synchronism from the twenty-third to the twenty-Wrst year of Jehoash of Judah (JA 9. 160; Begg 2000: 208). Several LXX manuscripts correct the problem by raising Jehoash’s synchronism from the thirty-seventh year to the thirty-ninth or fortieth year of Jehoash of Judah (see BHS). However, one LXX manuscript increases the discrepancy by lowering Jehoash’s synchronism to the thirty-sixth year of Jehoash of Judah (see BHS). A co-regency between Jehoahaz and Jehoash would also account for the discrepancy (see Cody 1970: 333–7; Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 143–4). 47 There were nineteen northern rulers in 241.6 total years. 176 Jehu’s Evil Heirs two longest reigning monarchs (Jehu and Jeroboam). Long-reigning kings are typically either preceded or succeeded by rulers with short reigns.48 The only other series of four evil dynastic heirs in the DH is the Wnal four descendants of Josiah who reign for a total of 22.5 years, while the four Wnal Jehuites reign for 74.5 years, over three times as long. Therefore, righteous Jehu’s longevity is consistent with Deuteron- omy’s law of the king, but the long reigns of his three evil successors are unusual. Jehu’s fourth heir, Zechariah, is killed in a conspiracy, thus ending the dynasty, but the four previous Jehuites all die naturally and´ are given Dtr’s death notice for kings who die non-violently (e.g. fjv¸Baˇ zp: afej¨ bkW´ jf ; ‘And Jehu slept with his fathers’). ¯ ¯ While long reigns¯ also˙ characterize the contemporary Judean rulers during this period, they experience other fates more typical of northern kings. Of the four Judean kings who reign during Jehu’s dynasty, three are killed by conspiracies (Ahaziah, Jehoash, and Amaziah; 2 Kgs. 9: 27; 12: 21 (ET 12: 20); 14: 19) and the fourth is struck with leprosy by YHWH (Azariah: 2 Kgs. 15: 5).49 Jehoash of Judah and Amaziah are the only righteous kings in the DH who fall prey to an assassination. Elsewhere in Kings, conspiratorial deaths are limited to evil northern kings (Nadab, Elah, Jehoram, Pekahiah, and Pekah; 1 Kgs. 15: 27; 16: 9; 2 Kgs. 9: 14; 15: 25, 30). Thus, the evil Jehuites have attributes of righteous kings while their southern righteous counterparts begin to resemble evil kings. To summarize, a correlation between a ruler’s righteousness and royal longevity is found in ANE sources, the book of Deuteronomy and the DH. Presumably, Jehu’s Wrst three heirs should have warranted a righteous evaluation from Dtr because of their long reigns, particularly when viewed vis-a`-vis their Judean counterparts. As discussed above (4.1.1), the negative perspective on these Jehuites cannot be merely explained as part of a broader pattern of vilifying northern kings and praising southern kings. However, Dtr’s positive perspective toward Jehu and his negative perspective on Jehu’s heirs

48 Manasseh’s Wfty-Wve-year reign is followed by Amon’s two-year reign. Baasha, the longest reigning northern king after Jehu and Jeroboam (24 years), is preceded and succeeded by kings who reign for only two years (Nadab and Elah). 49 While Jehu did not explicitly conspire against Ahaziah of Judah, his conspiracy against Jehoram (2 Kgs. 9: 14) included the Judean king as well (2 Kgs. 9: 27–8). Jehu’s Evil Heirs 177 can be partly attributed to a Deuteronomistic bias against dynastic successors. According to Dtr, even righteous charismatic founders (David and Jehu) are followed by evil sons. Thus, Dtr shows how dynastic succession as a form of leadership selection is Xawed since it does not generally produce righteous leaders. Dtr’s anti-dynastic bias will continue to be seen in the following discussion of Jehuite military success as Jehu’s unrighteous heirs experience answered prayer, geographic expansion, and prophetic support.

4.3 MILITARY SUCCESS

4.3.1 Jehoahaz, his answered prayer, and divine deliverer

Jehu’s Wrst three heirs experience increasing levels of military success and yet each of them receives an unrighteous Deuteronomistic evaluation. Jehoahaz prays and YHWH sends a savior who delivers them from the Arameans (2 Kgs. 13: 4–5). After receiving a favorable prophecy from Elisha, Jehoash defeats Aram three times (2 Kgs. 13: 14–25) and then proceeds to defeat Amaziah of Judah (2 Kgs. 14: 8–14). According to the word of YHWH from the prophet Jonah, Jeroboam restores Israel’s borders and establishes an empire (2 Kgs. 14: 25–8). Thus, a tension exists in the narrative as these evil rulers are favored by YHWH with answered prayer (4.3.1) and prophetic support (4.3.2 and 4.3.3), leading to the defeat of their enemies. Section 4.3 will conclude by discussing the views of scholars who locate the battles between Israel and Aram described in 1 Kings 20 and 22 during the reign of Jehu’s heirs (4.3.4).

4.3.1.1 Answered prayer for righteous rulers in the ANE Generally, in ANE sources and the DH, rulers who receive prophetic support or favorable responses to prayer are portrayed as righteous. A positive correlation was observed above (2.6.1 and 2.6.2) between a ruler’s perceived righteousness and the size of his empire. In particular, Wve of the rulers listed above (2.6.1) pray for and receive divine help in military contexts similarly to Jehoahaz: Ramesses II, Mursˇili, 178 Jehu’s Evil Heirs Sargon II, Hammurabi, and Ashurbanipal (COS ii. 34d–35b, 84b, 295a–c, 337a; Parpolo 1997: pp. xlvi-xlvii). The piety of these rulers is portrayed in several ways: they pray, they list their righteous attributes, and their prayers are received favorably. In addition to prayers speciWcally for military help, many other ANE texts refer to prayers being answered based on the rulers’ righteousness. For future rulers who repair their inscriptions, many Assyrian rulers proclaim a blessing of favorable responses from the gods to their prayers.50 Adad-nirari III pronounces a curse for those who destroy his stele, ‘may the gods . . . not listen to his prayers’ (Grayson 1996: 204, ll. 13–19).51 Within Assyrian inscriptions, rulers connect other acts of piety to answered prayer. After Itu¯r-Me¯r heard his prayers, Sˇamsˇi-Adad dedi- cates a throne of ebony to the god (Grayson 1987: 57, ll. 4–17). Shalmaneser I prays ‘may he hear my supplications’ when Asˇsˇur sees the temple that is built for him (Grayson 1987: 185, ll. 149–55). Tiglath-pileser states that, since he worked hard to construct a temple for the gods Anu and Adad, ‘may they love my prayers, may they heed my fervent petitions’ (Grayson 1991: 29, ll. 25–30). In addition to inscription restoration, Sennacherib tells future rulers who want their prayers to be heard to oVer a sacriWce (Luckenbill 1921: 116, col. 8, ll. 85–7). Two West Semitic rulers perform acts of piety prior to receiving favorable responses to their petitions. The Melqart Stela mentions the ruler Bir-Hadad making a vow and then Melqart hears his voice (COS ii. 153a). Yehawmilk lists the works of art he made for the goddess, then states, ‘as I called my Lady, Baalat/Mistress of Byblos/ Gubal, and she heard my voice’ (COS ii. 151).52

50 The following Assyrian rulers promise that later rulers will receive divine answers to prayers: Puzur-Asˇsˇur III, Enlil-na¯sir I, Asˇsˇur-be¯l-nisˇe¯sˇu, Asˇsˇur-reˆm- nisˇe¯sˇu, Asˇsˇur-uballit I, Enlil-na¯ra¯rı¯, Arik-dı¯n-ili,˙ Adad-na¯ra¯rı¯ I, Shalmaneser I, Tukultı¯-Ninurta I, As˙ˇsˇur-na¯din-apli, Asˇsˇur-re¯sˇa-isˇi I (Grayson 1987: 90–1, ll. 11–15; 96, ll. 7’–11’; 100, ll. 11–15, 5’–9’; 102, ll. 12–17; 110, ll. 24–9; 119, ll. 7–11; 121, ll. 49–65; 137, ll. 42–5; 186, ll. 158–62; 245, ll. 84–93; 301, ll. 33–6; 311, ll. 11–12), Shalmaneser III (Grayson 1996: 56c; 116, ll. 11–14), Tiglath-pileser III (Tadmor 1994: 116, l. 54), and Sennacherib (Luckenbill 1921: 116, col. 8, ll. 77–82, 85–7). 51 Similarly, Assyrian rulers also pronounce dynastic curses on those who damage their inscriptions (see 5.1.2 below). 52 Ba‘alshamayn tells Zakkur that his prayer is answered because Ba‘alshamayn made him king (COS ii. 155b; ANET 501–2). An Ugaritic prayer tells the citizens of a Jehu’s Evil Heirs 179 Thus, as would be expected, righteously portrayed rulers have their prayers answered, in both military and non-military contexts. This righteousness takes several forms in ANE sources: showing respect for the inscriptions of earlier kings, making vows to the gods, or constructing temples or objects of art for the gods.

4.3.1.2 Answered prayer for righteous rulers in the DH In the DH, individuals who pray are described as more righteous than those who do not and, speciWcally, righteous individuals have their prayers answered.53 During the period of the judges, after being handed into the hands of an oppressor for doing evil, the people of Israel eventually cry out to YHWH (Judg. 3: 9, 15; 4: 3; 6: 6, 7; 10: 10) and he sends them a deliverer. However, when Samuel recalls the judge stories in his farewell address to the nation, he states that, in addition to crying out to YHWH, they confess that they have sinned against YHWH and promise to serve YHWH (1 Sam. 12: 9–11).54 Samuel’s version makes the Israelites more pious and therefore more worthy of having their request granted. Other individuals in the DH who receive favorable responses to prayer are also portrayed positively. Hannah prays for and receives a son (1 Sam. 1: 10, 12, 27). Samuel requests divine help from Philistine oppression and YHWH delivers them (1 Sam. 7: 9–11; cf. 8: 6–9).55 David prays his dynasty endures and it lasts over four centuries city under siege that if they pray and make a vow to sacriWce a bull they will be delivered (COS i. 284d–285c). 53 A variety of verbs is used for praying in the DH. The most frequent is llq ‘pray’ which is used twenty-eight times (e.g. 1 Sam. 1: 10, 12, 26, 27; 2: 1). The two parallel roots spg and spr, ‘cry’ are used a total of fourteen times in addresses to YHWH (e.g. Judg. 3: 9, 15; 4: 3; 6: 6, 7). The verb used for Jehoahaz’s prayer, elh, ‘entreat the favor of’ is used three other times in the DH with YHWH as its object (1 Sam. 13: 12; 1 Kgs. 13: 6(2)). Several individuals are described as merely addressing YHWH with tma, ‘say’ (e.g. 1 Kgs. 8: 23; 17: 20, 21; 2 Kgs. 6: 17). 54 While Samuel does not mention the Othniel narrative (Judg. 3: 7–11), from each of the other major judge narratives (Ehud, Deborah/Barak, Gideon, Jephthah, and Samson) he mentions at least one element (judge, oppressing nation, or oppressing ruler). 55 Saul tells Samuel he had not entreated the favor of (elh) YHWH in his explanation for his premature sacriWce (1 Sam. 13: 12). 180 Jehu’s Evil Heirs (2 Sam. 7: 25, 29).56 He also prays that YHWH would ‘turn the counsel of Ahithophel into foolishness’ (2 Sam. 15: 31) and Absalom follows Hushai’s advice instead of Ahithophel’s (2 Sam. 17: 14).57 Elijah’s answered prayers include the revival of the widow’s son (1 Kgs. 17: 20–2) and divine Wre falling upon both the altar at Mount Carmel and Ahaziah’s Wfty messengers (1 Kgs. 18: 36–8; 2 Kgs. 1: 12). Because of Elisha’s prayers, a boy is revived, the eyes of his servant are opened and the eyes of the Arameans are struck blind (2 Kgs. 4: 33–5; 6: 17–18). In response to his prayers, YHWH delivers Hezekiah from Sennacherib (2 Kgs. 19: 15–34) and restores his health (2 Kgs. 20: 3–5). When Josiah inquires of YHWH, his words are heard by YHWH (2 Kgs. 22: 13, 19). Thus, righteous individuals are divinely favored with answered prayers. The case of Solomon is unique since his temple dedication prayer (1 Kgs. 8: 23–53) provides an example of both answered and unanswered prayer. Similarly to Shalmaneser I and Tiglath-pileser I (see 4.3.1.1 above), Solomon prays immediately after completing construction of a temple. Solomon’s request for YHWH’s name to dwell in the temple for all time is responded to favorably (1 Kgs. 9: 3; cf. 8: 29). However, Solomon also prays that his heirs continue to reign over Israel (1 Kgs. 8: 25–6), but this request is not granted since his son loses Israel because of Solomon’s own evil deeds (1 Kgs. 11: 6, 11, 31–3).58 During his early years, Dtr describes Solomon righteously (1 Kgs. 3: 3), but at the end of his narrative, he receives an unrighteous designation (1 Kgs. 11: 6). Thus, the favorable response to Solomon’s prayer for YHWH’s presence is given prior to his condemnation, but since he turned away from YHWH when he was old (1 Kgs. 11: 4), his prayer for dynastic continuity over Israel is rejected. Although Solomon’s prayer is unusual, it still follows the general pattern seen elsewhere in the DH of only righteous rulers receiving favorable responses to prayer.

56 While David’s prayer mentions Israel (2 Sam. 7: 23, 24, 26, 27), his actual request for dynastic continuity does not include a reference to Israel or Judah (2 Sam. 7: 25, 29). 57 While Ahithophel’s counsel was valid, the spirit of David’s request is fulWlled as Absalom perceived Hushai’s counsel as better (2 Sam. 17: 14). 58 In his prayer, Solomon quotes the Davidic promise, but unlike the version in 2 Sam. 7, Solomon’s version explicitly mentions a successor sitting on ‘the throne of Israel’ (la¨ tU´ j: ao¨ k). ˝ ˙ Jehu’s Evil Heirs 181 In addition to Solomon’s prayer for his dynasty, two other DH texts speak of unanswered prayers for unrighteous individuals. First, when the people ask for a king, Samuel tells them that a king will oppress them, and when they pray, YHWH will not answer them (1 Sam. 8: 18). According to Samuel, since the people are going against the wishes of YHWH to demand a king, he will not listen to them. In a similar manner to how the Assyrian rulers use a curse of unanswered prayer to warn against vandalism (see 4.3.1.1 above), Samuel’s words are intended to inform the Israelites that there will be consequences for requesting a king. Second, when the prophets of Baal pray, no response is given (1 Kgs. 18: 29). According to the text, their prayer is unanswered because they are praying to Baal rather than YHWH. When Elijah prays to YHWH, his prayer is heard and responded to immediately (1 Kgs. 18: 36–8). Thus, the prayers of unrighteous individuals remain unanswered (the Israelites who request a king, late Solomon, and the prophets of Baal), while righteous individuals receive positive responses to their requests (Hannah, Samuel, David, early Solomon, Elijah, Elisha, Hezekiah, and Josiah). In terms of dynastic continuity in particular, David’s prayer is answered since he merely requests that his descendants continue to reign, without specifying a realm (2 Sam. 7: 25, 29), while Solomon’s prayer is not answered since he speciWcally mentions the throne of Israel, which was lost by his son Rehoboam (1 Kgs. 8: 25–6; 12: 20).59 As an unrighteous ruler whose prayer is answered, Jehoahaz is therefore unique.

4.3.1.3 Dtr’s bias against Jehoahaz Scholars observe parallels between the deliverance of Jehoahaz and that of the Israelites in Judges as Israel is handed over into the hands of an oppressing nation until YHWH sends a deliverer in response to prayer (e.g. Jones 1984: 499; Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 143).60

59 For a discussion of ANE dynastic prayers, see 5.1.2 below. 60 The anonymous deliverer of 2 Kgs. 13: 5 has been identiWed as Jehoash of Israel (Cody 1970: 337); Elisha (Gray 1964: 538–9; Hobbs 1985: 167–8); Jeroboam II (Mongomery and Gehman 1951: 433; Briend 1981: 48), and Adad-nirari III of Assyria (Hallo 1960: 42; Mazar 1962: 115; Haran 1967: 267–8; Wiseman 1993: 240). According to 2 Kgs. 13: 2, Jehoahaz’s prayer receives an immediate response 182 Jehu’s Evil Heirs Although in Judges, divine help comes when the people pray, in the Jehoahaz narrative, it comes when the king prays and, unlike Samuel’s version of the judge cycles (1 Sam. 12: 10), Jehoahaz oVers neither a confession nor a promise of loyalty.61 Within the narrative of Jehoahaz’s prayer and YHWH’s deliverance from the Aramaic oppression (2 Kgs. 13: 3–7), it is diYcult to distill with any conWdence Deuteronomistic material from source material. Various scholars argue that 2 Kings 13: 4–6 must be a later Deuter- onomistic insertion based on language and the fact that 13: 7 seems to logically follow from 13: 3 (Montgomery and Gehman 1951: 433; Gray 1964: 535; Dietrich 1972: 34–5; Briend 1981: 42; Jones 1984: 497–8).62 However, none of these scholars gives an adequate reason why a Deuteronomistic redactor would insert a story that makes a ruler with an evil evaluation appear pious. Other scholars give reasons for viewing 13: 4–6 as original (Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 144; Wiseman 1993: 240), but these scholars tend to ignore the Deuteronomistic terminology that is reminiscent of the judge cycles. It is therefore reasonable to assume that Dtr’s source originally included Jehoahaz’s prayer and YHWH’s subsequent deliverance, but Dtr modiWed the narrative, giving it the appearance of a judge cycle. Two components of the judge framework are included verbatim in 2 Kings 13: 3, la¨t U´ j:b´ ef¸ej´ Þa¯thjf , ‘the anger of YHWH was kindled ˝ ¯ ¯ ˙¯ against Israel’ (Judg. 2: 14, 20; 3: 8; 10: 7) and ¯djb´zn¨v´jf , ‘And he ¯ ¯ gave them into the hand of’ (Judg. 2: 14; 6: 1; 13:1).63˙These two phrases give the verse a strong Deuteronomistic Xavor. While not as clearly Deuteronomistic as 2 Kings 13: 3, 13: 4–5 also include terms that Dtr typically uses. The verb yhl, ‘oppress’ (both since the people are able to return to their tents. The most reasonable deliverer for Jehoahaz is therefore Adad-nirari III of Assyria since toward the end of Jehoahaz’s reign he attacks Aram (Grayson 1996: 213, ll. 15–21; ANET 281d; see also Page 1968). Adad-nirari’s campaign would have diverted Aram’s attention toward the north and away from Israel. From the perspective of the text, Adad-nirari plays a similar role to Cyrus (Isa. 45: 1) as a foreign ruler who accomplishes a divinely appointed task. 61 In addition to Jehoahaz’s prayer, YHWH’s concern for Israel’s suVering contributes to his deliverance (see also 4.3.3.3 below). 62 McCarthy thinks 2 Kgs. 13: 4–6 is Deuteronomistic and it explains the delay in judgment against the northern kingdom (1973: 410); however, the dynastic promise to Jehu already gives a Deuteronomistic explanation for this delay (2 Kgs. 10: 30; 15: 12). 63 Judg. 6: 1 and 13: 1 make YHWH the explicit subject of the phrase. Jehu’s Evil Heirs 183 the verb and the noun form are included in 13: 4), occurs eight other times in the DH (Judg. 1: 34; 2: 18; 4: 3; 6: 9; 10: 12; 1 Sam. 10: 18; 2 Kgs. 6: 32; 13: 22), usually in Deuteronomistic contexts (except Judg. 1: 34 and 2 Kgs. 6: 32). The word pjWFm, ‘deliverer’ (13: 5) ¯ ˙ occurs in six other places in the DH (Judg. 3: 9, 15; 6: 36; 12: 3; 1 Sam. 10: 19; 11: 3), half of them in Deuteronomistic contexts (Judg. 3: 9, 15; 1 Sam. 10: 19). However, 2 Kings 13: 4 also uses a term that does not appear to be Deuteronomistic. The verb elh, ‘entreat’ (13: 4) occurs in only two other verses in the DH (1 Sam. 13: 12; 1 Kgs. 13: 6(2)), always in the piel with ef¸ej´ jn¨q´ ‘face of YHWH’. Neither of these contexts is Deuteronomistic.64 Dtr consistently uses spg (or the parallel root, spr) ‘cry’ when people address YHWH in times of crisis. He uses this verb with YHWH seven times in the judge cycles (Judg. 3: 9, 15; 4: 3; 6: 6, 7; 10: 10, 12), and seven times elsewhere in the DH (Josh. 24: 7; 1 Sam. 7: 8, 9; 8: 18; 12: 8, 10; 15: 11).65 If Dtr composed the text describing Jehoahaz’s prayer one would expect him to use spg/spr, not elh. Based on linguistic considerations, Dtr appears to have composed 2 Kings 13: 3 and 13: 4b–5a, but not 13: 4a. The verb for Jehoahaz’s prayer in 13: 4a is not used elsewhere in the DH by Dtr and it is unlikely that Dtr would make an insertion that portrays a ruler he views negatively as pious. Thus, Dtr would have used material from the book of the annals of the kings of Israel as a basis for 13: 3–5. He then heavily redacted 13: 3 giving it the appearance of a judge cycle. His redaction of 13: 4–5 was minor, leaving more of the language of his source, but still giving it some Deuteronomistic elements (‘oppression’,‘deliverer’). Presumably, Dtr did not omit Jehoahaz’s prayer and deliverance as it was a vital part of the story, but since it would have reXected positively upon Jehoahaz, he reiterates the crime of continuing in the sins of Jeroboam (2 Kgs. 13: 6).66 In both the narrative of Jehu and that of his son Jehoahaz, YHWH causes the subjugation by Aram (2 Kgs. 10: 32; 13: 4; see also 2.6.4

64 Saul tells Samuel he had not yet entreated YHWH (1 Sam. 13: 12) and Jeroboam tells the man of God to entreat YHWH for his withered hand (1 Kgs. 13: 6). 65 All of these texts (except possibly 1 Sam. 15: 11) are from Dtr. 66 However, in the third and fourth references to these sins, the indictment focuses on the nation, not merely Jehoahaz. 184 Jehu’s Evil Heirs above). However, the narrative of Jehoahaz in particular emphasizes his culpability in the foreign oppression. During Jehoahaz’s reign, YHWH’s anger leads to the nation being given into the hands of Hazael and Ben-hadad, whereas during Jehu’s reign no reason is given for YHWH’s geographic contraction. Elsewhere in the DH, divine anger is typically provoked by sin (Judg. 2: 14, 20; 3: 8; 10: 7; 2 Sam. 24: 1; 2 Kgs. 23: 26).67 While no national sin is mentioned prior to YHWH’s anger, Jehoahaz’s sin is mentioned in the previous verse (2 Kgs. 13: 2), thus implicating him as the source of the divine displeasure. While YHWH only began to trim Israel’s borders during Jehu’s reign (2 Kgs. 10: 32), during Jehoahaz’s reign YHWH hands Israel over ‘continually’ (2 Kgs. 13: 3: zjm: j¸e¯lk). Thus, the extent of ¯ the subjugation appears more severe under Jehoahaz.˝ However, the extent of the geographic losses was greater under Jehu, since he lost the entire Transjordan region (2 Kgs. 10: 32), while Jehoahaz merely lost some cities (2 Kgs. 13: 25).68 Dtr’s language therefore places a greater share of the blame on Jehoahaz than it does on Jehu for the oppression, despite the fact that the losses were greater under the father. Dtr appears therefore biased in favor of Jehu and against Jehoahaz.

4.3.1.4 Dtr’s bias against dynastic successors Jehoahaz’s continuation of Jeroboam I’s practices explain Dtr’s assessment of him as evil, yet the only non-formulaic biographic information given about Jehoahaz would lead to the opposite conclusion. He prays and YHWH deems him worthy of a positive answer. After narrating Jehoahaz’s prayer and YHWH’s reply, Jose- phus states that God accepts his repentance as virtue (see 4.1.1 above); thus he makes the natural assumption that rulers who pray should be perceived favorably. Similarly to his father, the textual material portrays Jehoahaz both positively and negatively, yet he receives an evil evaluation. The only

67 The Mesha inscription also speaks of divine wrath: ‘Chemosh was angry with his land’ (ANET 320c; COS ii. 137b). 68 While both Jehoahaz and Ahab reportedly had 10,000 foot soldiers, Jehoahaz had only twenty chariots while Ahab had 2,000 (2 Kgs. 13: 7; Grayson 1996: 23, ll. 91–2; ANET 279a). Jehu’s Evil Heirs 185 criticism in the text about Jehoahaz, following in the ways of Jero- boam I, was also true of his father, but Jehu is assessed positively. While righteous Jehu was unable to resist the military advances of Hazael of Aram, unrighteous Jehoahaz begins a process that stops Aram’s territorial conquests and results in the recapture of Israelite land. (Jehoahaz can therefore be viewed as a transition between the defeats of his father’s era and the victories of his two successors: Jehoash and Jeroboam II.) Jehu is portrayed as zealously obedient, but the text never records him praying like his son. What then accounts for their divergent evaluations? An anti- northern polemic cannot explain this phenomenon since they were both Israelite kings (see also 4.1.1 above). One of the primary distinguishing features between Jehu and Jehoahaz is that the father is a divinely elected usurper, but the son is a dynastically selected heir. When the data is mixed for a king, the method of accession therefore seems to be a factor in determining Dtr’s evaluation. Charismatic Jehu is righteous while the dynastic successor Jehoahaz is evil. Thus, Dtr appears to be biased against dynastic succession. This pattern of bias will become more pronounced in the narratives of Jehoash and Jeroboam.

4.3.2 Jehoash, the prophet Elisha, and Israel’s victories over Aram and Judah 4.3.2.1 Prophetic support for righteous rulers in the ANE Similarly to Jehoahaz, both Jehoash and Jeroboam II are evaluated negatively by Dtr, yet the source material speaks about them positively. These two rulers are described as following prophetic guidance and receiving prophetic support. Before I examine their narratives (4.3.2.3, 4.3.2.5, 4.3.3.1, and 4.3.3.2) and Dtr’s redaction of them (4.3.2.4, 4.3.2.6, and 4.3.3.3), I will look at other examples of prophetic support within the ANE and the DH (4.3.2.1 and 4.3.2.2). While the DH includes narratives that describe the actions and words of a prophet, most ANE sources that speak prophetically in support of rulers are oracles from the prophetic Wgures themselves.69

69 For a discussion of ANE prophetic sources, see Nissinen 2003: 4–5. 186 Jehu’s Evil Heirs Various Neo-Assyrian prophetic oracles speciWcally encourage Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal by describing how the gods will destroy their enemies. Isˇtar proclaims to Esarhaddon: ‘I will Xay your enemies and give them to you’ (Parpola 1997: 4, l. 18) and in another oracle he is told, ‘I will vanquish the enemies of my king’ (Parpola 1997: 18, ll. 29–34). A fragment of an oracle informs Ashur- banipal that his enemy will be vanquished (Parpola 1997: 42, l. 4). Other oracles given to these two Assyrian rulers connect the promised deliverance to the ruler’s prayer. An oracle of salvation addressed to Esarhaddon declares, ‘You opened your mouth (and cried): ‘‘Hear me, OAsˇsˇur!’’Iheardyourcry...Islaughteredyourenemies’(Parpola1997: 24, ll. 12–13, 22). Another inscription concerning Ashurbanipal describes an incident where he prays after hearing about an Elamite attack and then a seer tells him about the dream he received in which Isˇtar defeats the Elamites (Parpola 1997:, pp. xlvi–xlvii; ANET 606b–c).70 Several prophecies from Babylon and Egypt are not addressed to speciWc leaders, but still connect royal righteousness and favorable oracles since they speak of future righteous rulers who will restore the fortunes of their lands. The Marduk Prophecy describes an ideal future ruler, who will rule over Babylon, bring religious and political reform and destroy Elam (COS i. 481a, c). The Admonition of Ipuwer appears to prophesy that an ideal pharaoh will restore the devastated country: ‘Men shall say: ‘‘He is the herdsman of all men. Evil is not in his heart’’...hewouldsmite down evil’ (ANET 443b–c; COS i. 97c). The Prophecies of Neferti also speak of an ideal ruler who will rehabilitate Egypt: ‘Then a king will come from the south, Imeny, the justiWed, is his name’ and then evildoers will fear him and he will defeat their enemies (COS i. 109c–d). Thus, Assyrian rulers who pray to the gods receive favorable oracles from prophetic Wgures and the oracles from Babylon and Egypt describe an ideal ruler who acts righteously and is granted victory over his enemies. As would be expected, a connection is seen between royal righteousness and prophetic support within these ANE sources.

70 A Ugaritic omen gives guidance to a king based on birth deformities of livestock: ‘(If) there is no [ . . . ], the king will seize the lan[d of his enemy and] the weapon of the king will lay it (the land) low. . . (If) [it] has no left ear, the king [will] devastate the land of [his] enemy’ (COS i. 288, ll. 7, 37’). Jehu’s Evil Heirs 187 4.3.2.2 Prophetic support for righteous rulers in the DH A correlation can also be found between righteous rulers and prophetic support in the DH, although the DH includes more exceptions than the ANE sources listed above. In order to examine the relationship between prophets and rulers within the DH, Table 4.3A has been constructed, listing the rulers, their evaluations, and the prophets who support and oppose them. Prophetic support includes anything favorable: anointing (see 2.3.2 above), dynastic promises (see 5.3.1 below), and prophecies of military victory or restored health. Proph- etic opposition includes anything unfavorable: dynastic judgments (see 5.3.2 below) and prophecies of military defeat or death. Proph- etic guidance of a neutral nature is not included in the table.71 Within the table, rulers with both supportive and opposing prophecies are listed Wrst, followed by those with only opposing ones and those with only supportive ones. These DH references display a similar pattern to that which is found in ANE sources since, in general, righteous kings receive more prophetic support than opposition and unrighteous kings receive more opposition (except for Jehoash and Jeroboam II). The two rulers from the table who are opposed by prophets and never supported are both evil (Ahaziah and Manasseh). While prophets support eight evil rulers (Saul, Solomon, Jeroboam I, Baasha, Ahab, Jehoram, Jehoash, and Jeroboam II), except for the two Jehuites, all of these rulers later experience prophetic judgments. The support for the Wrst four of these evil kings comes prior to their reigns to establish their authority (e.g. anointings and pronouncements of divine election) and before their unrighteous behavior is manifested. Most of Ahab’s ‘supportive’ prophecies need to be discounted since they include false ones from Micaiah and the four hundred prophets (Ahab actually dies in the battle) as well as a word from Elijah that merely delays a dynastic judgment (1 Kgs. 21: 29).72 Thus, Ahab’s Wve negative prophecies overshadow his two prophecies with actual favorable fulWllments. Elisha’s comments to Jehoram directly address

71 Examples of neutral prophecies include Gad telling David not to remain in the stronghold (1 Sam. 22: 5) and Shamaiah telling Rehoboam not to Wght Jeroboam (1 Kgs. 12: 22–24). 72 Micaiah’s Wrst prophecy is intentionally meant to deceive Ahab (1 Kgs. 22: 22). 188 Jehu’s Evil Heirs

Table 4.3A. Prophetic support for and opposition to rulers in the DH

Ruler Eval.a Prophetb Support Opposition

Saul Evil Samuel 1 Sam. 10: 1 1 Sam. 13: 13–14; 15: 28–9; 28: 16–19 David Right. Samuel 1 Sam. 13: 14; 16: 13; 28: 17 Nathan 2 Sam. 7: 11–17; 2 Sam. 12: 7–15 12: 24–5 Gad 2 Sam. 24: 12 Solomon Evil Nathan 1 Kgs. 1: 45 Ahijah 1 Kgs. 11: 31–5 Jeroboam I Evil Ahijah 1 Kgs. 11: 31 1 Kgs. 14: 10–14 a man of God 1 Kgs. 13: 6 1 Kgs. 13: 2–3 Baasha Evil Ahijah 1 Kgs. 14: 14 Jehu 1 Kgs. 16: 1–4 Ahabc Evil Elijah 1 Kgs. 21: 29? 1 Kgs. 17: 1; 18: 18; 21: 17–24 a prophet 1 Kgs. 20: 13 1 Kgs. 20: 42 a man of God 1 Kgs. 20: 28 400 prophets 1 Kgs. 22: 6?, 11–12? Micaiah 1 Kgs. 22: 15? 1 Kgs. 22: 19–23 Jehoshaphat Right. 400 prophets 1 Kgs. 22: 6?, 11–12? Micaiah 1 Kgs. 22: 15? 1 Kgs. 22: 19–23 Elisha 2 Kgs. 3: 14–19 Jehoram(Isr.) Evil Elisha 2 Kgs. 3: 14–19; 7: 1?d 2 Kgs. 9: 6–10 Hezekiah Right. Isaiah 2 Kgs. 19: 6–7, 32–4; 2 Kgs. 20: 2, 16–18 20: 5–6 Ahaziah(Isr.) Evil Elijah 2 Kgs. 1: 6, 16 Manasseh Evil the prophets 2 Kgs. 21: 11–15 Jehu Right. Elijah 1 Kgs. 19: 16 Elisha 2 Kgs. 9: 1–3 a young 2 Kgs. 9: 4–10 prophet Jehoash (Isr.) Evil Elisha 2 Kgs. 13: 19 Jeroboam II Evil Jonah 2 Kgs. 14: 25 Josiah Right. Huldah 2 Kgs. 22: 18–20 a Saul and David lack typical regnal evaluations (see also 2.1.2 above). b These individuals are called a prophet, a prophetess, or a ‘man of God’. c I argue below (4.3.4) that the king of Israel in these texts (1 Kgs. 20: 28, 42; 22: 6, 15) is Ahab. d Jehoram is the most reasonable candidate for the king of Israel in 2 Kgs. 6–7 based on the context (see also Jones 1984: 430–1). the problem of an evil ruler with a positive prophetic relationship. He tells Jehoram that the victory over Moab is granted only because of righteous king Jehoshaphat (2 Kgs. 3: 14). The implication of Elisha’s message is that only righteous rulers should expect support from prophets. Jehu’s Evil Heirs 189 Overall, Jehu’s dynasty experiences an unusual level of prophetic support, since of the four rulers with exclusive prophetic support (Jehu, Jehoash, Jeroboam II, and Josiah) three are Jehuites. Excluding Menahem’s dynasty which has no prophetic involvement, Jehuites are the only Israelite or Judean dynasty with no prophetic voice opposing it. As rulers supported by, and never opposed by prophets, evil Jehoash and Jeroboam II are in the elite company of righteous Jehu and Josiah.73

4.3.2.3 Jehoash, Elisha, and Aram Despite the evil evaluation, the narrative portrays Jehoash positively, particularly in his interaction with Elisha, which culminates in Elisha’s prophecy of three victories over Aram.74 While unrighteous rulers tend to have adversarial relationships with prophets (e.g. 1 Kgs. 18: 17; 22: 8; 2 Kgs. 6: 32), Jehoash and Elisha appear to be close friends.75 Begg even suggests that Josephus changed Dtr’s assessment of Jehoash from negative to positive to resolve the problem of a friendship between an evil ruler and a prophet of YHWH (2000: 213–14). Jehoash’s intimate relationship with Elisha is seen in his visit to the dying prophet (2 Kgs. 13: 14). When Jehoash sees Elisha, he weeps and calls him father (2 Kgs. 13: 14). His cry is a direct quotation of Elisha’s words when Elijah ascended into heaven: ‘my father, my father, the chariots of Israel and its horsemen,’ fjWtq¸ f la¨tU´ j: bk`t` jba jba (2 Kgs. 2: 12). After Jehoash’s greeting, Elisha˝ ˝ gives him˝ six commands˙ ˝ ˙ ˝

73 Concerning Jehoash, see also n. 78 below. 74 Hobbs concludes that Elisha and Jehoash had a close relationship (1985: 169) and Gray speaks of ‘the obvious respect of Joash for Elisha’ (1964: 542). 75 Miller suggests that the king of Israel who visits Elisha was Jehoahaz not Jehoash (1966: 442; see also Knott 1971: 35–9). However, Miller’s alternative hypothesis is not persuasive. The text identiWes the king as Jehoash (2 Kgs. 13: 14) and the narrative locates this incident during Jehoash’s reign. The fulWllment of the prophecy of three defeats over Aram is not attributed to Jehoahaz, but to Jehoash (2 Kgs. 13: 25). Miller’s argument is dependent upon his conclusion that the king of Israel in 1 Kgs. 20 and 22 is Jehoahaz, but this perspective is also unconvincing (see below, 4.3.4). It is more reasonable to conclude that Jehoash defeated Aram three times since Jehoahaz was generally a weak king, while Jehoash defeated Judah even after they were victorious over Edom (2 Kgs. 14: 11–14). Miller’s suggestion creates a variety of textual problems for a passage that Wts well into the reign of Jehoash. 190 Jehu’s Evil Heirs involving a bow and arrows, which together comprise two symbolic events concerning Jehoash’s future victories over Aram.76 After Jehoash obeys the Wrst four imperatives, Elisha prophesies total victory over Aram (2 Kgs. 13: 17). However, after Jehoash follows the prophet’s two Wnal instructions, Elisha becomes angry (Þrs) and declares that, instead of total victory, Jehoash will defeat Aram only three times since Jehoash struck the ground only three times with his arrows (2 Kgs. 13: 18–19). From Elisha’s perspective, Jehoash’s action is clearly deWcient and this prevents the king from achieving the complete destruction of his enemy. Scholars suggest various reasons for the prophet’s anger,77 yet Elisha’s rebuke still appears arbitrary, since the text does not mention anything that Jehoash clearly does wrong. The verb Þrs, ‘to be angry’, is used in only one other text in the book of Kings, where Naaman’s anger (Þrs) results from unfulWlled expectations because Elisha’s prescription for his leprosy is not what Naaman anticipated (2 Kgs. 5: 10–11). Similarly, Elisha’s response seems to stem from an unfulWlled expectation. It would be natural for Elisha to express extreme disappointment for the king who had shown compassion to him. Since Elisha still prophesies three victories for Jehoash, it is diYcult to interpret Jehoash’s actions as sinful or disobedient.78 Rather, Jehoash is portrayed in this narrative as dili- gently obedient as he follows all the direct commands given in the passage by Elisha. Thus, in the narrative of 2 Kings 13: 14–19, one concludes that YHWH gives victory because of Jehoram’s compassion for the prophet and his obedience to the prophet’s words. After narrating Elisha’s death and the miracles associated with his body (2 Kgs. 13: 20–1), the text returns to Hazael’s oppression of Israel during Jehoahaz’s reign (2 Kgs. 13: 22) before relating Jehoash’s

76 Barrick views 2 Kgs. 13: 15–17 as a symbolic act with magical elements (1985: 355). He suggests that Elisha helped Jehoash string the bow, in a similar style to an Assyrian relief (1985: 358–9), but it is diYcult to imagine a dying man assisting in the vigorous exercise Barrick describes. 77 Proposed reasons for Elisha’s anger include ‘lack of determination’ (Jones 1984: 503), ‘lack of faith’ (Hobbs 1985: 170), and ‘failure to persevere’ (Wiseman 1993: 242). 78 Since the main point of Elisha’s prophecy involves victory (albeit limited) over Aram, Elisha’s anger should not be interpreted as a sign of prophetic opposition to Jehoash. Jehu’s Evil Heirs 191 victories over Ben-hadad of Aram (2 Kgs. 13: 24–25).79 While no reference to Elisha’s prophecy is given, a fulWllment seems to be intended since the text mentions that Aram is defeated three times (2 Kgs. 13: 25). However, instead of crediting Jehoash (or Jehoahaz) with any role in the victories, Israel’s success is attributed to YHWH’s mercy because of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (2 Kgs. 13: 23).

4.3.2.4 Dtr and Jehoash’s victory over Ben-hadad of Aram The narrative of Jehoash’s interaction with Elisha (2 Kgs. 13: 14–19) includes no Deuteronomistic terminology and therefore appears to come from a source.80 However, following the events associated with Elisha’s death (2 Kgs. 13: 20–1), Dtr gives an alternative explanation for Israel’s success over Ben-hadad of Aram (2 Kgs. 13: 22–3). Dtr is apparently aware of the problem associated with prophetic support for an evil king and is not content merely to attribute the military success to Jehoash or to Jehoahaz’s prayer (2 Kgs. 13: 4). YHWH is described as gracious, compassionate, and turning toward Israel (2 Kgs. 13: 23). While 2 Kings 13: 23 lacks any explicit reference to divine military intervention, the context speaks of oppression and victory (2 Kgs. 13: 22, 25), implying that YHWH’s mercy was responsible for the military deliverance. The text does not clearly state whether YHWH’s assistance to Israel is intended to have occurred during the reign of Jehoahaz or his son Jehoash. YHWH’s compassion toward Israel appears to begin after the reign of Hazael ends (2 Kgs. 13: 22–3), but the text is also unclear about this date.81 According to 2 Kings 13: 3, Hazael died while Jehoahaz still reigned, but 13: 22 implies that Hazael survived into the reign of Jehoash (see Jones 1984: 505) and the Lucianic recension of the LXX positions 13: 23 after 13: 7 during the reign of Jehoahaz. However, 13: 22 suggests that this divine assistance occurred after Jehoahaz and, since it is mentioned in the context of Jehoash’s reign in the MT, Jehoash is more likely to be the intended ruler. Regardless

79 The Stele of Zakkur mentions Bar-Hadad ( ¼ Ben-hadad), the son of Hazael (COS ii. 155a). 80 See also Gray 1964: 540–3 and Jones 1984: 501–4. 81 See Pitard’s discussion of the date of Hazael’s death (1987: 159). 192 Jehu’s Evil Heirs of whether it refers to Jehoahaz’s deliverer or Jehoash’s three victories, YHWH’s compassionate response places the onus of responsibility for Israel’s success over Aram on YHWH and therefore diminishes the role of the evil Jehuite ruler. Scholars typically attribute 2 Kings 13: 22–3 to a Deuteronomistic redactor.82 Clues that 13: 22–3 is a redactional insertion are Wrst seen in the abrupt transition after 13: 21. The Xow of the narrative about Elisha and Jehoash is interrupted with a comment about the days of Jehoahaz (2 Kgs. 13: 22). The Lucianic recension’s alternate location for 13: 23 also betrays this section’s lack of Wt in its current context. However, the strongest argument for the Deuteronomistic character of this insertion (2 Kgs. 13: 22–3) is seen in its language, much of which is found in other Deuteronomistic material in Kings.83 Elsewhere in the book of Kings, vjtb´ , ‘covenant’, occurs twenty-Wve ˙ times. Of the thirteen places in Kings where vjtb´ is used similarly to ˙ 2 Kings 13: 23 for a divine–human covenant,84 nine of them appear to be Deuteronomistic contexts: obedience to YHWH (1 Kgs. 8: 23; 11: 11; 2 Kgs. 17: 15; 18: 12; 23: 3(3)), being brought from Egypt (1 Kgs. 8: 21), and not worshipping other gods (2 Kgs. 17: 35, 38).85 Four of the other Wve references in Kings to wnh, ‘show favor’, occur either in Solomon’s prayer of dedication or YHWH’s response to his speech, both Deuteronomistic compositions (1 Kgs. 8: 33, 47, 59; 9: 3).86 Solomon’s prayer also includes the only other occurrence in Kings of the root zht, ‘to have compassion’ (1 Kgs. 8: 50).

82 Noth concludes that 2 Kgs. 13: 22–5 comes from Dtr (1957: 84, ET 1991: 114). Briend sees 13: 23 as coming from a late, post-exilic Deuteronomistic redaction (1981: 45–6). Wu¨rthwein perceives 13: 22–5 as Deuteronomistic: 22–3 from DtrN and 24–5 from DtrG (1984: 369). 83 2 Kgs. 13: 22 has less Deuteronomistic language, but it is also much shorter. It is also likely to be from Dtr since it includes necessary background to 13: 23. 84 In Kings, six times vjtb is used primarily to distinguish an object: the ark or book of the covenant (1 Kgs.˙ 3:¨ 15; 6: 19; 8: 1, 6; 2 Kgs. 23: 2, 21) and six times it is used in reference to human treaties (1 Kgs. 5: 26 (ET 5: 12); 15: 19(2); 20: 34(2); 2 Kgs. 11: 4). 85 The other three references to vjtb in Kings may also come from Dtr, but they occur in less obviously Deuteronomistic˙ ¨ contexts (1 Kgs. 19: 10, 14; 2 Kgs. 11: 17). 86 Jones states that the dedication of the temple is ‘unmistakably Deuteronomistic’ because of the language and phraseology (1984: 197). See also Gray (1964: 197). Jehu’s Evil Heirs 193 Therefore, because of the high density of Deuteronomistic terminology one can conclude that 2 Kings 13: 22–3 was composed by Dtr. While Dtr’s insertion does not denigrate Jehoash or Jehoahaz, it reduces their role in the defeat of Aram, thereby diminishing the problem of military success being attributed to evil kings.

4.3.2.5 Jehoash and Amaziah of Judah Jehoash not only defeats Ben-hadad of Aram, but he also succeeds against a ruler with a righteous evaluation, Amaziah of Judah (2 Kgs. 13: 25; 14: 3, 11–14). After defeating Edom, Amaziah invites Jehoash of Israel to Wght: ‘Come, let us look at each other in the face’, zjn:q¸ea`tv´n: ek¸l´ (2 Kgs. 14: 8). Jones (1984: 510) and Hobbs (1985: 180) suggest˝ that this expression does not necessarily involve a challenge to battle. However, the views of other scholars who perceive Amaziah’s message as an invitation to Wght are more convincing.87 Jehoash understands Amaziah’s words as a challenge and its repetition three verses later (2 Kgs. 14: 11: zjn:q¸ fat v´jf , ‘they looked at each ¯ other’s face’) clearly occurs in a military context.˝ ˙ Jehoash, however, is reluctant to wage war against his southern neighbor and replies with a parable to discourage Amaziah from his course (2 Kgs. 14: 9).88 Parables elsewhere in the DH are told by individuals who are associated with wisdom and with YHWH.89 Jotham tells the lords of Shechem that if they listen to his parable of the trees God will listen to him (Judg. 9: 7–15). After the incident with Bathsheba and Uriah, the text states that YHWH sent Nathan to David to tell him a story about a rich man and a poor man to convict him of his sin (2 Sam. 12: 1–4). Joab sends the wise woman of Tekoa to David with a story to convince David to take back Absalom and

87 Wu¨rthwein states that Amaziah’s message involves a challenge: ‘sich im Kampfe mit ihm zu messen’ (1984: 371). Cogan and Tadmor argue that, based on its usage in 2 Kgs. 14: 11, the expression in 14: 8 should be interpreted in a belligerent manner (1988: 156). Wiseman considers it a ‘challenge to war’ (1993: 245). 88 For discussions of this parable, see Jenni 1966 and Vater Solomon 1985. 89 Several ANE royal letters include fables or parables: a Mari letter from Shamshi- Addu to his son Yasmah-Addu (ARM 1, 5), an Ugaritic letter between the rulers of Carchemish and Ugarit (Nougayrol 1968: 108–10), a letter from Esarhaddon to the inhabitants of Babylon, and one from Ashurbanipal to Bel-Ibni (Oppenheim 1967: 170). 194 Jehu’s Evil Heirs she tells David he has the wisdom of the angel of God (2 Sam. 14: 1–20). While Jehoash’s parable is not particularly diplomatic, his advice to Amaziah is sound since his warning about being trampled proves to be prophetic. Jehoash’s reluctance to Wght appears not to be caused by a fear of defeat. While Jehoash is aware of Amaziah’s recent conquest over Edom, he is still conWdent of victory (2 Kgs. 14: 9–10). He compares Amaziah to a thistle and himself to either a cedar or a wild animal that tramples the thistle (2 Kgs. 14: 9). His three references to Lebanon in his parable allude to his successful campaign against Aram because Lebanon was controlled by Damascus during this period (2 Kgs. 14: 9).90 The implication of his message is clear: your triumph over Edom is good, but my multiple victories over the empire of Aram are more impressive.91 It is diYcult not to interpret both Jehoash’s reluctance to Wght and his defeat of Amaziah as positive reXections upon the Israelite ruler. Shemaiah’s oracle to Rehoboam expressly forbade civil war between the northern and southern kingdoms (1 Kgs. 12: 22–4).92 Jehoash’s eVort to persuade Amaziah to be content with his victory over Edom complies with Shemaiah’s prophetic prohibition. How- ever, Amaziah ignores Jehoash’s warning and persists, only to lose decisively (2 Kgs. 14: 11–14). As discussed above (2.6.2), righteous rulers generally receive divine help and achieve military success. Based on both their attitudes toward civil war and the results of the battle, one would assume that Dtr incorrectly evaluated these two rulers. Jehoash appears to be righteous and Amaziah unrighteous.93 Within the accounts of the Chronicler and Josephus the tension of a righteous king being defeated by an evil one is diminished by making Amaziah less righteous. The Chronicler adds that Amaziah’s

90 See Pitard’s map of the political boundaries of Aram under Hazael (1987: 157). 91 It is conceivable that the battle between Amaziah and Jehoash occurred before Israel’s defeat of Aram, but given Jehoash’s conWdence and the Xow of the narrative, it is more likely that Israel Wrst defeated Aram, then Judah. 92 Despite Shemaiah’s prohibition, until the reign of Jehoshaphat, Judah and Israel often engaged in warfare (1 Kgs. 14: 30; 15: 6, 16; 22: 44). 93 Jehoash’s plundering the temple (2 Kgs. 14: 14) does not need to be interpreted negatively since Nebuchadnezzar’s plundering is described as divinely ordained (2 Kgs. 20: 16–17; 24: 13). Jehu’s Evil Heirs 195 defeat was ordained by God to punish Judah since they worshipped the gods of Edom (2 Chr. 25: 14–16, 20; cf. Williamson 1982: 330–1). Josephus appears generally to follow the Chronicler’s version of this incident. He describes how Amaziah neglected God, worshipped Amalekite gods, and became arrogant, so YHWH caused the defeat by Jehoash (JA 9. 193–200; see Begg 2000: 237–44). As noted above (4.1.1), Josephus also changes Jehoash’s evaluation from negative to positive.

4.3.2.6 Dtr and Jehoash’s victory over Amaziah of Judah The narrative of the conXict between Amaziah and Jehoash includes no Deuteronomistic language and commentators generally perceive the section to come from one of Dtr’s sources. They observe the pro- Jehoash attitude of the text and therefore attribute this battle narrative to a northern source.94 The positive portrayal of Jehoash is found throughout the non- Deuteronomistic narrative material. With Elisha, Jehoash is compassionate and obedient and therefore he receives a favorable prophecy leading to his victories over Aram. In his interaction with Amaziah, Jehoash acts as a sage with his parable and as a prophet with his prediction of Amaziah’s thistle being trampled. When his advice is ignored, he proceeds to defeat Amaziah. The only criticism against Jehoash within the source material is that he does not strike the ground enough times with his arrows. However, the favorable presentation of Jehoash in the source material conXicts with the critical attitude toward him in the Deut- eronomistic material (following in Jeroboam’s sins and a negative evaluation). To resolve this tension, the Chronicler and Josephus make Amaziah unrighteous and Josephus describes Jehoash as a good man. Dtr, however, gives a theological explanation for Jehoash’s victories (2 Kgs. 13: 22–3). To account for Israel’s success under Jehoash, Dtr emphasizes the mercy of YHWH instead of the worthiness of the ruler, a pattern he repeats in the narrative of Jeroboam.

94 See Gray 1964: 545; Jones 1984: 506; Wu¨rthwein 1984: 371; Hobbs 1985: 177. 196 Jehu’s Evil Heirs

4.3.3 Jeroboam II, the prophet Jonah, and Israel’s expanded borders 4.3.3.1 Jeroboam restores the borders Despite Jeroboam’s status as the longest reigning Israelite ruler, his narrative is limited to only seven verses, four of which are his Deuteronomistic regnal formula (2 Kgs. 14: 23–9). Similarly to his father and grandfather, he is evaluated negatively but the brief narrative material describes him positively. He obeys the prophetic oracle given by Jonah and achieves considerable military success as a divinely appointed deliverer of Israel. The text states that Jeroboam restores the border of Israel from Lebo-hamath to the Sea of the Arabah and he recovers Damascus and Hamath for Israel (14: 25, 28).95 Thus, Israelite border contraction ends under Jehoahaz, then Jehoash retakes cities from Aram and Wnally Jeroboam re-establishes the ideal borders for his empire, equivalent to those of David and Solomon in this region (1 Kgs. 5: 1 (ET 4: 21); 8: 65). Various scholars dispute the conclusions of Haran (1967) regarding the extent of Jeroboam’s borders, the duration of his empire, and the alliances he made. While Haran argues that Jeroboam fully controlled Damascus and Hamath (1967: 280–1), Jones thinks that it is doubtful that Jeroboam subjugated these two lands, but he allows that Israel may have annexed territories from these regions (1984: 516–17).96 Haran contends that Jeroboam’s empire lasted only eight years and was conWned to the end of his reign (1967: 280), but Lipin´ ski thinks that his last years were characterized by a

95 A variety of options have been proposed to solve the crux in 2 Kgs. 14: 28: la¨tU´ jb´ ed¸ fejl vmhˇ va`f´sU` m`d va` bjWe¨ : : ¯ ˙¯ (He restored Damascus and Hamath to Judah˝ in Israel).˝ Na’aman emends¯ ‘Hamath˙ to Judah’ as ‘the war(s) of Judah’, wmlhmwt yhwdh bys´r’l (1993: 231) and Lipin´ ski’s reads ‘to Judah’ as ‘for his glory’, lehoˆdo˙¯ (1991: 171). Knott discusses various options (1971: 31–4), but draws no conclusions. Several scholars (e.g. Montgomery and Gehman 1951: 446 and Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 161) suggest the simple and probably most attractive solution: ‘He restored Damascus and Hamath to Israel’, thus moving the lamed from Judah to Israel and omitting the intervening letters (‘Judah in’). 96 Pitard allows that Israel could have controlled Damascus, but probably not Hamath (1987: 176–7). Jehu’s Evil Heirs 197 deep decline since internal conXicts arose immediately after his death (1991: 176). Haran suggests there was a covenant between Israel and Judah during Jeroboam’s reign (1967: 296), but Lipin´ ski perceives an agreement between Jeroboam II and Shamshi-ilu, the turtanu of Assyria, which allowed Jeroboam to achieve his gains (1991: 175). While certainty regarding the details of Jeroboam’s empire proves elusive, the text clearly portrays Israel’s borders as extensive, equivalent to the maximum levels reached at the end of the united monarchy. David’s exploits are narrated across many chapters (e.g. 1 Sam. 17: 48–54; 18: 5–7; 23: 1–5; 30: 1–20; 2 Sam. 3: 1; 5: 17–25; 8: 1–14; 10: 1–19; 18: 1–8), but Jeroboam’s comparable conquests are conWned to a few verses, with explicit reference to his military exploits limited to one word (zhl´n:, ‘he fought’: 2 Kgs. 14: 28). Although Dtr had access to information˝ about Jeroboam’s battles from the Israelite annals (2 Kgs. 14: 28), no accounts of them are given in the narrative. Dtr omits the details of Jeroboam’s military success from his source, presumably because it would have highlighted Jeroboam’s role in these victories.

4.3.3.2 Jeroboam and the prophets Jonah, Amos, and Hosea Jeroboam’s border restoration took place according to the word of YHWH, which was given by the prophet Jonah (2 Kgs. 14: 25; cf. Jon. 1: 1). While Jeroboam may have been ignorant of Jonah’s prophecy and fulWlled it anyway, it is more reasonable to assume that Jonah spoke the word directly to Jeroboam, who then acted in accordance with it.97 The phrase ef¸ej´ tb5k, ‘according to the word of YHWH’ (2 Kgs. 14: 25), is often used¯ in˙ the DH where an individual hears a word and then chooses to obey it (e.g. Joshua: Josh. 8: 8, 27; Rehoboam: 1 Kgs. 12: 24; Elijah: 1 Kgs. 17: 2–5; Elisha’s servant: 2 Kgs. 4: 43–4; Jehu: 2 Kgs. 9: 7; 10: 17). Since the prophecy primarily involves Jeroboam and the text states that YHWH saved Israel by his hand (2 Kgs. 14: 27), Jeroboam presumably heard the message, was encouraged by it, and then obeyed it.

97 Jones also assumes the message was given to Jeroboam to encourage him in his campaigns (1984: 515). 198 Jehu’s Evil Heirs The portrayal of Jeroboam’s expanding borders in the book of Kings receives support from the book of Amos, which describes the recapturing of Karnaim (in Bashan) and Lo-debar (in Gilead) and the extension of Israelite territory from Lebo-hamath to the Wadi Arabah (Amos 6: 13–14). Scholars observe that a critical perspective toward Jeroboam is given in Amos,98 which is said to be set during Jeroboam’s reign (Amos 1: 1). However, the polemic of Amos never directly targets Jeroboam. The priest Amaziah misrepresents Amos’s words when he tells Jeroboam that Amos said he would die by the sword (Amos 7: 11). Amos’s vision of a plumb line (Lnaˇ ) concludes with a judgment against Jeroboam’s house, which involves˝ the sword (Amos 7: 9), but a similar divine sword judgment is also pronounced against David’s house (2 Sam. 12: 10; see also 5.3.6.4 below) and both he and his dynasty survive.99 Jeroboam does not actually die by the sword, although his son Zechariah does (2 Kgs. 14: 29; 15: 10), which is consistent with Jehu’s four-generational dynastic promise. The text of Amos records no reply by Jeroboam to this treasonous charge by Amaziah against Amos, but Amos himself makes a reply, pronouncing against the priest the only oracle of judgment in the book targeting an individual (Amos 7: 14–17; see also Mays 1969: 134). Apart from the introduction and the context of the plumb line vision (Amos 1: 1; 7: 9–11), Jeroboam is never mentioned in the book of Amos, which raises the question of why his house is condemned (Amos 7: 9). A possible justiWcation for this judgment can be found in the book of Hosea, which also is set during Jeroboam’s reign (Hos. 1: 1). Hosea condemns Jehu’s house for the blood of Jezreel (Hos. 1: 4). As discussed above (2.5.1.4), the only recorded bloodshed committed by the dynasty in Jezreel was performed by Jehu (2 Kgs. 9: 17, 30; 10: 6–7, 11). While the DH never pronounces a judgment against the dynasty of Jehu (see 5.3.2 below), the prophetic books of Amos and Hosea condemn his house and the only textual reason focuses the blame upon righteous Jehu and not his evil sons. Amos criticizes Jeroboam’s nation for unjust practices and he pronounces a judgment against

98 For example, see Montgomery and Gehman 1951: 444; Jones 1984: 515; Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 164. 99 For a discussion of the problematic term L naˇ , often rendered ‘plumb line’, see Anderson and Freedman 1989: 754–9. ˝ Jehu’s Evil Heirs 199 Jeroboam’s house but the individual ruler is never actually criticized in the book. Thus, in terms of Jeroboam’s relationship with prophets, Jonah strongly supports him and the books attributed to Amos and Hosea are surprisingly neutral toward him.100

4.3.3.3 Dtr and Jeroboam Six of the seven verses that comprise Jeroboam’s narrative are typically considered by scholars to be Deuteronomistic. These verses include his regnal formula (2 Kgs. 14: 23–4, 28–9) and a theological explanation for Israel’s deliverance (2 Kgs. 14: 26–7).101 The explanation in 14: 26–7 appears to come from Dtr since typical Deuter- onomistic terminology is used (see Briend 1981: 48). The terms ‘bond’, tfrp, and ‘free’, bfgp (2 Kgs. 14: 26), are used together in only three other˝ places in the˝ DH, all of which are Deuteronomistic contexts (1 Kgs. 14: 10; 21: 21; 2 Kgs. 9: 8; cf. Deut. 32: 36).102 Three of the four other repetitions of the verb ‘blot out’, ehm (2 Kgs. 14: 27) in the DH occur in the Deuteronomistic condemnation of Manasseh (2 Kgs. 21: 13(3)) and the verb is also repeated in Deuteronomy (9: 14; 25: 6, 19; 29: 19).103 Additionally, the language of 14: 26–7 is similar to two other Deuteronomistic passages that speak of YHWH acting on behalf of Israel during Jehuite rule (2 Kgs. 13: 4–5, 22–3; see 4.3.1.3, 4.3.2.4 above). These three Deuteronomistic texts give theological explanations for Jehuite success: Israel is suVering, YHWH notices it, and then acts to alleviate it (2 Kgs. 13: 4–5, 22–3; 14: 26–7).104 Within Jeroboam’s narrative, only 2 Kings 14: 25 appears to come from Dtr’s source, but Jones (1984: 515) and Wu¨rthwein (1984: 375)

100 Hosea’s criticism of the king of Israel (e.g. Hos. 7: 3; 10: 7, 15) could be referring to any of the six Israelite kings after Jeroboam II since these texts do not mention Jeroboam by name and Hosea’s ministry is said to continue until the time of Hezekiah (Hos. 1: 1). 101 The Deuteronomistic nature of regnal formulas is discussed above (2.1.2). The following scholars perceive 2 Kgs. 14: 26–7 as Deuteronomistic: Gray 1964: 557; Briend 1981: 49; Jones 1984: 516 (DtrN); Wu¨rthwein 1984: 375 (DtrN). 102 The Deuteronomistic nature of these dynastic judgments is discussed below (5.3.5). 103 For a discussion of the Deuteronomistic nature of Manasseh’s condemnation, see Jones 1984: 594. 104 Briend also concludes that these three texts come from a Deuteronomistic redactor (1981: 48–9). 200 Jehu’s Evil Heirs view 14: 25b as Deuteronomistic (DtrP) since it speaks of the fulWll- ment of prophecy. However, the perspective of Montgomery and Gehman is more compelling. They think Jonah’s nationalistically focused prophecy must be original, even if Dtr reworded it (1951: 443). The presence of the Deuteronomistic phrase ‘according to the word of YHWH’ (ef¸ej´ tb5k) can be explained by Dtr modifying a fulWllment notice already¯ present˙ within his source. It would be unlikely for Dtr to add a statement showing unrighteous Jeroboam as complying with a prophetic word. His theological explanation for Jeroboam’s success is given in 14: 26–7. As was concluded above (4.3.2.3), the pro-Jehuite prophecy of Elisha was source material, so Jonah’s favorable prophecy to Jeroboam could come from the same source, probably the northern annals (2 Kgs. 14: 28). Dtr therefore appears to modify the pro-Jeroboam prophecy by explaining that it was given simply because of YHWH’s mercy, lest one think that Jeroboam’s success was due to any worthiness on the part of an evil ruler. In the explanation of 2 Kings 14: 26–27, Dtr emphasizes YHWH’s role in Jeroboam’s territorial expansion. Jero- boam’s role is also diminished by the omission of any material narrating his military victories. Thus, Dtr attributes all of Jeroboam’s success to the compassion of YHWH, which is consistent with his two other explanations for Jehuite military success (2 Kgs. 13: 4–5, 22–3; see above 4.3.1.3, 4.3.2.4). While Dtr could have simply omitted any mention of Jeroboam’s empire, it would be diYcult to ignore completely such dramatic changes in Israel’s national boundaries. Instead, he drastically limits the material focused on Jeroboam and then attributes the success to YHWH. For Jehoahaz, Jehoash, and Jeroboam, Dtr’s source portrays them positively and describes how either prayer or obedience to prophetic guidance contributed to their military success, but Dtr evaluates each of them negatively and focuses on YHWH’s role in delivering Israel. Thus, Dtr appears to be biased against these three dynastic successors.

4.3.4 The anonymous king of Israel’s battles against Aram

Before I conclude this examination of Jehu’s heirs, the views of two scholars need to be discussed in detail because of their relevance to Jehu’s Evil Heirs 201 Jehuite military achievements. Miller (1966) and Pitard (1987: 115–25) both argue that the accounts of the Aramean wars in 1 Kings 20 and 22: 1–38 are incompatible with the time of Ahab’s reign as the text claims, but belong to a later period during Jehuite rule, speciWcally either the reigns of Jehoahaz (Miller) or Jehoash (Pitard).105 Despite the arguments of Miller and Pitard, it is more reasonable to keep the narratives of these Aramean wars in the context of the reign of Ahab.106 Since the MT places them during his period and refers to him by name within these narratives (1 Kgs. 20: 2, 13, 14; 22: 20, 39, 40, 41), the burden of proof lies with those who argue against the text. Pitard suggests that Ahab’s name was added later to these texts (1987: 117–18) since it appears only three times in ch. 20 (vv. 2, 13, 14) and once in 22: 1–38 (v. 20), while ‘king of Israel’ (la¨tU´ j: Ll` m`)is repeated twenty-seven times in these two sections.107 Although˝ the explicit references to Ahab are limited in this material, there are connections between the anonymous king of 1 Kings 20 and 22 and Ahab who is mentioned extensively in ch. 21 (vv. 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 15, 16(2), 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, 29). In 1 Kings 20: 43, the king of Israel goes home ‘resentful and sullen’ after the prophetic condemnation and in 21: 4, Ahab goes home ‘resentful and sullen’ after not being able to purchase Naboth’s vineyard:

Þp¨ g¸ f´toFvjb¨¯lp la¨ t´Uj:¯L l` m` Ll` j¨f (1 Kgs. 20: 43) ¯ ¯ ˝ ¯ Þp¨ g¸ f´toFvjb¨¯la`bah´ a aB j¸f (1 Kgs. 21: 4) ¯ and the King of Israel went to his house¯ resentful˝ and¯ sullen (1 Kgs. 20: 43) and Ahab came108 to his house resentful and sullen (1 Kgs. 21: 4)

105 For references to earlier scholars who have advocated a similar position, see Miller 1966: 441. Knott follows Miller’s views on these texts (1971: 36–9). 106 Cogan also argues that these belong to Ahab’s time (2001: 472–4, 496). 107 These twenty-seven references are: 1 Kgs. 20: 4, 7, 11, 21, 22, 28, 31, 32, 40, 41, 43; 22: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 18, 26, 29, 30(2), 31, 32, 33, 34. Pitard mistakenly claims that Ahab appears only once in ch. 22 (1987: 118), when in fact his name occurs six times (but only once in 22: 1–38). Miller does something similar by stating that Ahab’s name only occurs Wve times in these two accounts immediately after having spoken of the accounts of 1 Kgs. 20 and 22 (1966: 446 n. 26). Miller’s total of Wve is also incorrect since he mistakenly counts a reference to ‘Ahab’ in 1 Kgs. 20: 34, possibly because the RSV gives the king’s name as ‘Ahab’ despite its omission in the MT (1966: 446 n. 26). 108 While one could translate the separate verbs in 1 Kgs. 20: 43 and 21: 4 as ‘went’ (e.g. NRSV), I did not want to over-represent the parallel structure of these two phrases. 202 Jehu’s Evil Heirs The parallel structure of these two phrases establishes a strong link between the king of Israel in chapter 20 and Ahab, particularly since these verses are the only places in the Hebrew Bible where the collocation Þp¨g¸f´to(‘resentful and sullen’) is used. While it is ¯ possible this parallelism was added to make a smoother seam, it would have been simpler merely to insert Ahab’s name into the text of chapter 20. Since a despondent response to bad news elsewhere characterizes both the anonymous king of Israel and Ahab (1 Kgs. 20: 7; 21: 27; 22: 18); they appear to be the same person. The ally of the king of Israel, Jehoshaphat of Judah, is referred to thirteen times within 1 Kings 22: 1–38 (vv. 2, 4(2), 5, 7, 8(2), 10, 18, 29, 30, 32(2)), which is problematic for those who argue for a later historical setting. Jehoshaphat reigned for twenty-Wve years (1 Kgs. 22: 42), but he does not overlap with either of the Jehuite kings that Miller and Pitard claim fought these battles (see the synchronisms of Jehoahaz and Jehoash: 2 Kgs. 13: 1, 10). Since the narrative repeatedly refers to Jehoshaphat and occasionally refers to Ahab and these two kings overlap for almost twenty years (1 Kgs. 22: 41, 52 (ET 51)), it is reasonable to assume that the anonymous Israelite king is Ahab. Both Miller (1966: 444) and Pitard (1987: 115–16) contend that extra-biblical sources describe political situations that seem to contradict the contexts of these texts. The Kurkh Monolith portrays a militarily strong Israel during Ahab’s reign (Grayson 1996: 23, ll. 89– 92) while Pitard perceives a weak Israelite ruler in the book of Kings (1987: 115) (1 Kgs. 20: 15, 27; 22: 1). However, this supposedly weak northern ruler successfully defeats Aram twice (1 Kgs. 20: 21, 29–30), with the text calling the Wrst victory a (elFdc´ekm) ‘great slaughter’.The ¯ apparent discrepancy between Kings and˝ the˝ Kurkh Monolith can be explained at least in part by looking at each of them as propaganda. Hyperbolic language is used in 1 Kings 20 to emphasize the role of YHWH as the supernatural deliverer of Israel. The Israelite army is ‘a little Xock of goats’ (zjg p: jq¨ Uhˇ jn¨W´ k) while the Arameans Wll the land (1 Kgs. 20: 27). Similarly,˙ in order˙ to˙ aggrandize his own ‘victory’,109 it

109 While Shalmaneser claims victory, most scholars think it may have been a defeat (see COS ii. 264 n. 35). Jehu’s Evil Heirs 203 would serve Shalmaneser III to exaggerate the size of his opponent’s forces in the battle with the twelve kings. Miller thinks (1966: 444) that the Aram–Israelite alliance that the Kurkh Monolith speaks of (Grayson 1996: 23, ll. 89–92) precludes the battles between these two nations described in chapters 20 and 22. However, the biblical text also mentions an alliance between them (1 Kgs. 20: 34) and, as is shown above (see 2.5.3.3), the relationship between Aram and Israel constantly changed between animosity and collaboration. The narratives of these battles can therefore easily Wt into Ahab’s historical context.110 These two scholars also argue that Ahab’s ‘natural’ death notice (1 Kgs. 22: 40) is incompatible with the description of his death in battle (22: 37) since he is supposedly the only king to die violently with this type of death notice (Miller 1966: 445; Pitard 1987: 122). However, Ahab is not unique in this regard since Amaziah is killed in a conspiracy (2 Kgs. 14: 19) and he receives a natural death notice (2 Kgs. 14: 22).111 While the text does not use his name in 2 Kings 14: 22, Amaziah is the only reasonable antecedent for ‘the king’.112 He is the only singular antecedent in 14: 19–20. After his burial, the focus shifts to his son, Azariah, but Amaziah is mentioned by name again at the end of 14: 21. Most of the elements of Amaziah’s natural death notice are already included in 14: 20, so the repetition of ‘with his ancestors’ in 14: 22 makes a strong connection back to 14: 20 where the text is clearly referring to Amaziah. While it is still unusual for a king killed in battle to receive a ‘natural’ death notice, it is not as anomalous as Pitard and Miller claim. One does not need to conclude that the subject of the regicide of 1 Kings 22: 37 must be someone other than Ahab. In summary, the

110 Miller also notes that the anonymous king has a son named Joash (1 Kgs. 22: 26), as does Jehoahaz (1966: 445). However, it is very possible that Ahab had a son named Joash since he reportedly had seventy sons (2 Kgs. 10: 1) and Joash was a common name. In addition to this royal son and two later kings (Jehoahaz’s son and Ahaziah’s son), the Hebrew Bible mentions Wve other individuals with this name (Judg. 6: 11; 1 Chr. 4: 22; 7: 8; 12: 3; 27: 28). 111 Na’aman argues that the king who slept with his fathers (2 Kgs. 14: 22) was not Amaziah but Jehoash (1993: 229). 112 Several English versions even insert Amaziah’s name into 2 Kgs. 14: 22 (e.g. NRSV, NIV, and TNK). Cogan and Tadmor conclude that the king could not be Amaziah because of the ‘natural’ death notice, but this type of reasoning precludes the straightforward meaning of the text (1988: 158). 204 Jehu’s Evil Heirs arguments of Pitard and Miller are not compelling enough to discount the witness of the text locating these narratives in the reigns of Ahab and Jehoshaphat.

4.4 DTR’S NEGATIVE PERSPECTIVE ON JEHU’S HEIRS

Dtr appears to be biased against Jehu’s heirs because, despite signi- Wcant positive information from his sources about Jehoahaz, Jehoash, and Jeroboam, he evaluates all of them negatively. Deuter- onomy’s law of the king stipulates that righteous rulers will experience longevity, but these three evil Jehuites reign for seventy-four years. In the DH, many righteous individuals pray and receive a favorable response, but Jehoahaz is the only unrighteous ruler whose prayer is answered. Jehoash and Jeroboam follow the guidance of YHWH’s prophets and are the only evil rulers to receive exclusive prophetic support. Each of these three Jehuites achieves military success. Jehoahaz stops the Aramean oppression, Jehoash defeats both Aram and Judah, and Jeroboam re-establishes the borders from the empire of David and Solomon. Except for Jehoash’s insuY- cient arrow strikes, nothing negative is said about them in the non-Deuteronomistic material. Why would Dtr give critical assessments to rulers who are described so positively in the source material? He presumably would have used information from his sources as one of his factors in making regnal evaluations. Dtr gives only one justiWcation for their negative evaluations: they follow in the ways of Jeroboam. However, Jehu was also guilty of this sin and he is deemed righteous. While an anti-northern polemic seems generally to contribute to Dtr’s negative attitude toward Israelite rulers, it does not satisfactor- ily explain Dtr’s pro-founder, anti-heir perspective on Jehu’s dynasty (see 4.1.1 above). If Dtr has an anti-northern bias, he is able to overcome it to give high praise to Jehu despite the ruler’s continuation of Jeroboam’s sins. Jehu’s heirs are criticized more than normal since their pious behavior does not make them worthy to receive even a qualiWed negative evaluation (cf. 2 Kgs. 3: 2; 17: 2). Jehu’s Evil Heirs 205 Thus, it appears that Dtr is biased in favor of Jehu and against his heirs. Dtr’s bias is not only apparent in negative evaluations, but also in how he emphasizes that Jehuite success should not be credited to the evil rulers themselves, but rather to YHWH. In this, he diminishes the tension between positive narratives and negative assessments. Josephus and the Chronicler also attempt to reduce this problem. Josephus modiWes the narratives to portray the Jehuites as more righteous and both he and the Chronicler portray Amaziah, Jehoash’s enemy, as unrighteous and therefore deserving of divine judgment. As discussed above (see 3.3), the positive attitude toward Jehu can be explained by a Deuteronomistic pro-charismatic bias. In the next chapter, the negative attitude toward Jehu’s heirs will be seen as part of a broader pattern of a Deuteronomistic bias against dynastic succession. 5

Jehu’s Dynasty and Dtr’s Perspective on Dynastic Succession

5.1 DYNASTY IN THE ANE

In Chapter 2, Dtr’s bias favoring Jehu was observed: he evaluates Jehu righteously and either omits or compresses negative aspects of the narrative (lineage, violence, military defeats, and tribute) while repeating positive aspects (anointing, election, and obedience). Chapter 3 concluded that Dtr’s pro-Jehu perspective could be explained by his positive bias toward charismatic founders. Chapter 4 discussed how Dtr’s perspective on Jehu’s successors is negative, as Dtr evaluates each heir critically despite the presence of favorable source material. Within this chapter, Dtr’s bias against Jehu’s heirs will be shown to be part of a broader Deuteronomistic pattern of portraying dynastic successors negatively in order to subvert the monarchical status quo. After focusing on the speciWc members of the Jehu dynasty, both founder and heirs, in the previous chapters, it is necessary to broaden the focus to compare both the entire dynasty to other DH dynasties (5.2) and Jehu’s promise to other DH dynastic oracles (5.3). These comparisons will conWrm the hypothesis that Dtr views dynastic successors critically (5.4). The crucial question of why Dtr would give rulers dynastic promises if he is opposed to dynasty also needs to be discussed (5.4.1). First, however, an examination of dynasty in the ANE will provide the necessary background for understanding dynasty in the DH. Jehu’s Dynasty and Dtr on Succession 207

5.1.1 Dynastic succession: typical, but not certain

ANE sources include both examples of royal dynastic continuity and discontinuity similar to those found in Judah and Israel, and dynastic texts (promises, judgments, and prayers) that shed light on parallel versions of these phenomena found in the DH.1 However, the longevity of Davidic rule over Judah and the instability of the northern dynasties as portrayed in the DH were both unusual within their historical context. Within the ANE, dynastic succession was the typical method by which rulers came to power, although a designated heir could not be certain that he would rule in the future. Usurpers, rebellions, and princely succession struggles frequently threatened the monarchies of Mesopotamia, Egypt, Israel, and even Judah (see also 5.2.4 below). In his analysis of ANE monarchies, Ishida concludes that dynastic succession was one of the primary methods of royal legitimation (1977: 25).2 He cites examples of Assyrian and West Semitic rulers who begin their inscriptions by mentioning their royal lineage in their titulary (Ishida 1977: 6–14).3 However, Egyptian inscriptions, instead of mentioning a human father, frequently give rulers a divine lineage (e.g. ‘son of Re’) in their titulary to legitimate their reign (e.g. COS ii. 14b; 18b; 20a; 24b; 31c; 33c; 38b; 43a). Buccellati (1967: 125–7) and Ishida (1977: 22–3) both discount the example of the Edomite non-dynastic monarchy described in Genesis 36: 31–9 since they think these eight ‘kings’ are no more than tribal chieftains. (They appear to be non-dynastic since none of the rulers are related to each other or come from the same location.) However, the text calls them ‘kings’ (zjk:lm´ e: Gen. 36: 31) and uses the verb ‘to become king’ (Llm) with the˝ ¯ same construction found in the DH for Israelite and Judean royal successions: ‘in his place’ (fjvh´ v) ˝ ¯ 1 Ideally a greater focus of these comparisons would be on the dynasties of other West Semitic kingdoms of a comparable size to Israel and Judah, but, unlike the dynasties of Egypt and Mesopotamia, scarce chronological information is available about them. 2 The theory that the Hittite monarchy was elective has been shown to be inaccurate (see Ishida 1977: 14–18; CANE 533–5). 3 Examples include: Ashurnasirpal II (Grayson 1991: 258, ll. 23–5), Shalmaneser III (Grayson 1996: 59, ll. 9–20), Sˇamsˇi-Adad V (Grayson 1996: 183, ll. 34–8), Mesha (COS ii. 137a), Kulamuwa (COS ii. 147a), and Yehawmilk (COS ii. 151a). 208 Jehu’s Dynasty and Dtr on Succession (e.g. 1 Kgs. 11: 43; 14: 20, 31; 15: 8, 25, 28; 16: 6, 10). Rather than engaging in speculative arguments to support the idea that there were no non-dynastic monarchies, Buccellati and Ishida could have merely acknowledged this Edomite example to be an exception to the general rule and then qualiWed their conclusions by stating that monarchies are typically dynastic. While many rulers are succeeded by sons, a dynastic transition was not assured. Mesopotamian king lists reveal both continuity and discontinuity within royal dynasties. In the Babylonian King List A, while one of the dynasties ruled longer than the Davidides, including thirty-six kings (576 years), the dynasties of the Sea Country (21 years), and of Basu (20 years) each lasts for only three generations (ANET 272b–c). The Assyrian King List includes eight usurpers (each a ‘son of a nobody’) who seize power from the previous ruler (ANET 564d–565a). Egyptian king lists are either badly damaged (the Turin Canon: COS i. 71–3) or are selective in whom they include (the Karnak List, the Abydos List, and the Sakkara List: COS i. 69–71). Using the dates from Murnane’s chronology (from CANE 712–14), the thirty-one Egyptian dynasties reign more than three thousand years, averaging just over a century per dynasty (3228 years/31 dynasties ¼ 104.1 years per dynasty).4 Thus, the longest Israelite dynasty, Jehu’s (102.5 years), would only be about average in Egypt. While none of the Egyptian dynasties reigns as long as David’s (see Table 5.2A below), the 18th (15 rulers, 244 years) and the 22nd (10? rulers, 233 years) stand out for their longevity. Most of the shorter Egyptian dynasties come in the Third Intermediate Period or the Late Period (24th, 15 years; 28th, 5 years; 29th, 19 years; 31st, 11 years). Even within a family, succession often involved conXict and even possibly rebellion (see 5.2.4.2 below, on rebellions led by David’s sons).

4 Data are used for the standard thirty-one ‘Egyptian’ dynasties, despite the fact that several of these dynasties are foreign (e.g. Hyksos, 15th; Nubian, 25th; Persian, 27th, 31st). The total number of years for these dynasties (3,228) is longer than the chronological number of years (from about 3000 to 300 bce, 2,700 years) due to dynastic overlap for contemporaneous rulers (e.g. 10th/11th, 13th/14th, 15th/16th/ 17th, 22nd/23rd). Approximations are used for the 14th dynasty (50 years) and the 16th dynasty (107 years). Jehu’s Dynasty and Dtr on Succession 209 The Panamuwa Inscription appears to mention a rebellion led by a prince who commits patricide, but then is later killed by his brother Panamuwa (COS ii. 158–9; Younger 1986: 96–9). An absence of primogeniture also seems to contribute to succession conXicts. Hattusˇili I disinherits his adopted son and names his grandson Murshili I as his heir (COS ii. 79–81; CANE 534). Tudhaliya IV relates how his father deposed his older brother and installed him on the throne instead (COS ii. 103a; CANE 535a). Esarhaddon is the youngest of his brothers, yet he is chosen by his father Sennacherib to rule (ANET 289a). This choice may have contributed to the decision of Esarhaddon’s brothers to rebel and kill their father Sennacherib (2 Kgs. 19: 36–7; Grayson 1975a: 81, ll. 34–5; ANET 309a).5 In an attempt to eliminate the conXict over the throne, the Proc- lamation of Telipinu (COS i. 196–7, §§28–34) and a SeWre treaty inscription (COS ii. 217b) give rules for succession. Similarly, the Contest of Horus and Seth for the Rule shows that proper succession is father to son (Osiris to Horus), not brother to brother (Osiris to Seth; ANET 14–17; CANE 274b–c). This survey of ANE sources has shown that while royal transitions normally occur by dynastic succession, various forms of instability plague ANE dynasties, preventing all but a few from enduring longer than ten generations. Familial struggles for power were frequent enough to warrant the codiWcation of guidelines for proper succession. The persistent threat of usurpation and rebellion contributed to a reliance on divine lineage and divine election (see 2.4.2 above) for royal legitimation. While the dynasties of Israel and Judah were similar to those of the ANE since they included power struggles, rebellions, and usurpations, both Davidide longevity and northern instability were unusual within their ANE context.

5.1.2 Dynastic promises, prayers, and judgments

Within the ANE, the uncertainty associated with a ruler’s dynasty generates various forms of dynastic literature: promises, prayers, and

5 The book of Kings mentions two rebellious sons, while other ancient sources only mention one (Grayson 1975a: 81, l. 35; ANET 309a), but as Cogan and Tadmor point out these can easily be reconciled (1988: 240). 210 Jehu’s Dynasty and Dtr on Succession judgments.6 Just as divine election is used to legitimate a ruler’s reign (see 2.4.2 above), dynastic promises give divine sanction for a dynasty, in an attempt to bring greater stability, by granting that a ruler’s heirs continue to reign.7 Dynastic prayers for continuity or for health are spoken by rulers because of the various threats future heirs will encounter. Authors of inscriptions play upon the fear of instability by threatening to punish undesired behavior with dynastic judgments involving a divine curse of injury, exile, death, loss of power, or the dynasty being cut oV. Several ANE rulers mention eternal dynasties, but none of these references comes in the context of a promise.8 Esarhaddon repeatedly calls himself a descendant of the eternal dynasty of the king of Assyria (Borger 1956: 74, l. 28; 80, l. 35; 97, l. 16; Laato 1997: 253–4). Other Assyrian references mention an eternal priesthood, but not a royal one. Tiglath-pileser I prays for an eternal priestly dynasty (Grayson 1991: 29–30, col. 8, ll. 17–38). Ashurnasirpal II and Esarhaddon do not explicitly refer to a dynasty, but both state that the gods established their priesthood forever (Grayson 1991: 195, l. 25; Laato 1997: 253). Malamat (1980) observes several interesting parallels between a Mari prophecy to Zimri-Lim and the Davidic promise of 2 Samuel 7 (e.g. royal installation, father–son imagery, a tent-shrine, and a sanctuary) and classiWes the Mari text as a dynastic oracle.9 However,

6 For examples of each of these, see below in this section (5.1.2). For a discussion of dynastic dreams in Herodotus, see Niskanen 2004: 95–8. The Babylonian Dynastic Prophecy appears to mention the rise and fall of various dynasties, but since the tablet is badly damaged and includes no names of kings it will not be discussed (see also Grayson 1975b: 24–37). 7 Hypothetically, dynastic promises could involve other forms of blessing (e.g. good health), which would make them more parallel to dynastic judgments, but no examples of this type of promise could be found. (Although Laato includes references where rulers pray for the welfare of their descendants, see the following footnote.) 8 Laato Wnds extensive evidence for the idea of an eternal hereditary dynasty in ANE sources (1997: 248), but since he does not clearly distinguish between long life, long reigns, and long dynasties, some of the evidence he cites needs to be discounted. To support his argument, he lists references that speak about the welfare of the ruler’s seed (1997: 251, 252, 253, 254) or the long life of a ruler (251, 252, 255), concepts that may be, but are not necessarily, related to dynastic continuity. 9 Gakuru (2000: 55–6) discusses Malamat (1980) and notes several diVerences between the Mari prophecies and the Davidic oracle. Jehu’s Dynasty and Dtr on Succession 211 the dynastic element of the Zimri-Lim oracle is not clear, so one can only conclude that it involves a possible dynastic promise.10 However, a clear example of a dynastic promise is given to Esar- haddon. Just as Jehu is given a limited dynastic promise (only 4 generations), Esarhaddon receives a limited two-generational promise from the Lady of Arbela (i.e. Isˇtar), mediated by the prophet La-dagil-ili: ‘Your son and grandson shall rule as kings on the lap of Ninurta’ (Parpola 1997: 10, ll. 19–30; ANET 450c). An identical promise is given in another oracle to Esarhaddon (Parpola 1997: 16, ll. 11’–14’).11 Laato barely mentions these two prophetic texts (1997: 248), but among the texts he includes they are the best examples of dynastic promises. While the limited promises to Esar- haddon and Jehu are similar, unlike Jehu, Esarhaddon did not found a dynasty as he was the son of Sennacherib. Although divine intervention in the form of a dynastic promise is unusual in ANE sources, several Assyrian rulers pray for dynastic continuity (for the dynastic prayers of David and Solomon, see 2 Sam. 7: 18–29; 1 Kgs. 8: 25–6). Shalmaneser I requests an eternal dynasty: ‘for eternity may he (Asˇsˇur) greatly decree with his mighty voice a destiny of well-being for my vice-regency and for the vice- regency of my progeny’ (Grayson 1987: 185–6). Tiglath-pileser I prays that the gods would bless him and his progeny (Grayson 1991: 29–30, col. 8, ll. 17–38). Sennacherib asks that his descendants would live in the palace forever (Luckenbill 1921: 134, ll. 91–3; cf. 139, ll. 58–60). Nebuchadnezzar prays that his descendants would rule forever (Ishida 1977: 13). However, dynastic judgments are more common than dynastic prayers or promises. Most of the judgments target those who damage royal inscriptions.12 Sˇamsˇi-Adad states that whoever destroys his monument, ‘may the gods Sˇamasˇ, Enlil, Adad and Sˇarru-ma¯tim

10 The god Adad addresses Zimri-Lim (c.1775) via a mediator, Nur-Sin: ‘I shall give him throne, upon throne, house (bı¯tum) upon house, territory upon territory’ (Malamat 1980: 69, ll. 19–20). Malamat interprets bı¯tum, ‘house’, to imply ‘dynasty’, but he acknowledges that the text does not include the usual word for dynasty, paluˆ (1980: 82 n. 32). 11 Gakuru discusses the parallels between the two dynastic promises to Esarhaddon and the Davidic promise (2000: 57–67). 12 A curse of the gods not hearing prayers is also pronounced against those who destroy inscriptions (see 4.3.1.1 above). 212 Jehu’s Dynasty and Dtr on Succession pluck the oVspring of that king’ (Grayson 1987: 50, ll. 113–17) and another of his inscriptions includes a similar dynastic curse (Grayson 1987: 54, col. 4, ll. 2–25). For the one who destroys his inscription, Shalmaneser I prays that the gods ‘destroy his name (and) his seed from the land’ (Grayson 1987: 186, ll. 163–7). Shalmaneser pronounces additional judgments against rulers who damage his inscriptions,13 as do many other Assyrian rulers.14 West Semitic rulers also warn those who damage inscriptions that their dynasties will be cursed. Azatiwada states that if another king erases his name from his inscription, the gods will curse that king and his kingdom (COS ii. 150c). The inscription of Yehawmilk includes asimilarcurse(COS ii. 152a–c; ANET 656c). Phoenician inscriptions include curses for whoever desecrates a sarcophagus: ‘may the scepter ofhisrulebeuprooted’,‘mayyouhavenooVspring among the living’, ‘let him have no son to take his place’ (COS ii. 181c, 182c, 183a). Surprisingly, several West Semitic rulers pronounce judgments on their own descendants should they fail to honor their royal ancestor. Kulamuwa warns whoever of his sons reigns after him not to damage his inscription otherwise the gods will ‘strike his head’ (COS ii. 148.c). Panamuwa states that if one of his sons does not remember him, Hadad’s wrath should come upon the son (COS ii. 157b–c). After all of his family perishes (COS i. 333a), Kirta requests sons from Ilu instead of wealth (334a), but later when his son Yassubu asks him to step down and let him rule, Kirta curses him, ‘may Horanu break your head . . . you willsurelyfall...andbehumbled’(342–3).Thus,intheEpicofKirta, one Wnds both a value on an enduring dynasty (more so than wealth) and a willingness to curse one’s own progeny when dishonored. Dynastic judgments also serve as disincentives to break the stipulations of a treaty. A Hittite treaty includes a dynastic curse for not following its agreements (ANET 206c) and a SeWre treaty inscription pronounces a dynastic curse on those who either break the agreement or damage the inscription (COS ii. 215d; 216c).

13 References for Shalmaneser I are: Grayson 1987: 189, ll. 22–4; 191, ll. 42–6; 193, ll. 50–5; 195, ll. 22–6. 14 These Assyrian rulers are: Adad-na¯ra¯rı¯ I, Tikultı¯-Ninurta I, Asˇsˇur-na¯din-apli (Grayson 1987: 134, ll. 48–62; 245, ll. 94–126; 301, ll. 37–40), Tiglath-pileser I (Grayson 1991: 30–1, col. 8, ll. 63–88), Adad-na¯ra¯rı¯ III (Grayson 1996: 209, ll. 26–33), and Sennacherib (Luckenbill 1921: 139, ll. 68–72). Jehu’s Dynasty and Dtr on Succession 213 Therefore, among these ANE sources there are few clear examples of dynastic promises, more prayers for continuity, and even more dynastic judgments. A primary motivation behind all of these references appears to be a concern for an ongoing royal legacy, whether in the form of a dynasty or an inscription. Rulers desire that a record of their praiseworthy deeds endures, so dynastic judgments are included at the end of many royal inscriptions. A value for dynastic continuity can be seen not only in the promise to Esarhaddon and in the dynastic prayers, but also in the dynastic judgments, since it is assumed that potential royal vandals will be deterred by a curse against their own dynasty. In order to ensure the continuity of their legacy, rulers hope to minimize the threats to their dynasties or their inscriptions by appealing for divine help with prayers and curses. Dynastic promises, prayers, and judgments also occur in the DH, but before examining these references (5.3), observations and questions will be discussed regarding the royal dynasties of Israel and Judah (5.2).

5.2 DYNASTY IN THE DH: OBSERVATIONS AND QUESTIONS

5.2.1 The royal dynasties of Israel and Judah

Similarly to those of the ANE, the monarchies of Israel and Judah primarily functioned dynastically (see Ishida 1977: 184). Despite the instability that characterized the northern kingdom, only four of nineteen Israelite kings are not part of a dynasty (Zimri, Shallum, Pekah, and Hoshea). The DH includes seven royal dynasties for Israel and Judah. Table 5.2A displays these dynasties, listing the founder, the heirs (for the sake of brevity, only six of David’s twenty heirs are listed), the realm, the number of rulers in the dynasty, the number of generations, and the number of years the dynasty lasted.15

15 The number of years for the dynasty is calculated using regnal years from the regnal formulas, which may include round numbers, hyperbole, and co-regencies (see also 4.2.4 above). For a discussion of problems related to ‘kingly chronologies’, see Freedman 1993: 41–2. Table 5.2A. The royal dynasties of Israel and Judah

# Founder Heirs Realm Rulers Gen’s Years

1 Saul Ishbaal United, Israel 2 2 4?a 2 David Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijam, United Mon. Judah 21 19 467.5 Asa . . . Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah 3 Jeroboam I Nadab Israel 2 2 24 4 Baasha Elah Israel 2 2 26 5 Omri Ahab, Ahaziah, and Jehoram Israel 4 3 48 6 Jehu Jehoahaz, Jehoash, Jeroboam II, and Zechariah Israel 5 5 102.5 7 Menahem Pekahiah Israel 2 2 12 a Saul’s reign is given in the MTas two years (1 Sam. 13: 1), but the verse appears to be corrupt. It is missing in LXX (B). His regnal years are recorded as forty in Acts 13: 21 and Josephus (JA 6. 378), but Josephus also has twenty (JA 10. 143). Ishbaal reigns two years over Israel (2 Sam. 2: 10). It is likely that the Saulides reigned much longer than the four years recorded in the text. Jehu’s Dynasty and Dtr on Succession 215 Several observations can be made about these dynasties. Long before the division during Rehoboam’s reign, the so-called ‘united monarchy’ is divided after Saul’s death (2 Sam. 2: 10). According to the DH, Davidide rule over the united monarchy only endured just over two generations (about 73 years).16 Thus, the dynasties of both Saul and David lose control over part of their kingdom within two generations of the founder. An early precedent is therefore set for dynastic instability and, unexpectedly, Israel has greater stability initially than Judah since Ishbaal maintains control there (2 Sam. 2: 9). Only two dynasties reign over Judah (Saul’s and David’s), while all seven reign over Israel. The most striking observation to be made, however, is the contrast between the longevity of David’s Judean dynasty and the brevity of other dynasties. Twenty-one Davidides reign over Judah and four founders are succeeded by only one heir (Saul, Jeroboam I, Baasha, and Menahem). However, relative to other northern dynasties, Jehu’s is also exceptionally long. Two questions arise from these observations. Why were northern dynasties so unstable? Why did the dynasties of David and Jehu endure? Historical, political, and sociological factors that contributed to the continuity and discontinuity of these dynasties will be examined in the remainder of section 5.2, before I discuss how Dtr uses dynastic oracles to give theological answers to these questions (5.3).

5.2.2 Why were northern dynasties unstable?

Addressing the question of northern instability, Alt suggests the charismatic nature of the northern kingdom as an explanation (1951: 8, ET 1961: 246). He considers Jeroboam I, Baasha, and Jehu as charismatic rulers and suggests that later usurpers may have perceived themselves as being called by YHWH (1951: 13, ET 1961: 250). However, Ishida (following Thornton 1963 and Buccellati 1967) notes that each of Alt’s charismatic kings attempts to have his son succeed him (1977: 171). Additionally, as was demonstrated above (3.2.3), Baasha should not be considered charismatic and no king after

16 David ruled Israel for thirty-three years (2 Sam. 5: 5), Solomon ruled Israel for forty years (1 Kgs. 11: 42), and Rehoboam lost control of Israel at the beginning of his reign (1 Kgs. 12: 1–19). 216 Jehu’s Dynasty and Dtr on Succession Jehu is described charismatically.17 Therefore, Alt’s thesis does not adequately explain northern instability since only two northern rulers (Jeroboam I and Jehu) can be considered charismatic. The fact that only two northern dynasties last longer than two generations is problematic for the theses of Buccellati and Ishida regarding the dynastic nature of the monarchy in Israel and Judah. Buccellati argues convincingly for the dynastic nature of the northern monarchy (1967: 200–8), yet he does not acknowledge that the dynastic principle was still much weaker in the north than the south. Israelite instability may have been caused by some of the things he suggests,18 but if the dynastic principle was deWnitive and the legitimacy of royal heirs sacred, then fewer usurpers would have succeeded. Ishida argues that the northern kingdom’s short-lived dynasties were caused by three factors: military failures of the kings, tribal rivalries, and popular antagonism toward the monarchy (1977: 174–81). How- ever, none of these factors adequately explains the phenomenon since each of them was also present in longer dynasties such as David’s and Jehu’s. Military failures may have contributed to northern instability, but both Jehu and his son Jehoahaz were defeated by Aram (2 Kgs. 10: 32–3; 13: 3) and their dynasty endured for three more generations. Additionally, Jehu’s great grandson, Jeroboam II, was the northern kingdom’s most successful military ruler (see 4.3.3.1 above), but his son Zechariah lost the throne after only six months (2 Kgs. 14: 25; 15: 8–10). Judean rulers also experienced signiWcant military failures (Rehoboam: 1 Kgs. 14: 25–6; Amaziah: 2 Kgs. 14: 12; Ahaz: 2 Kgs. 16: 6; Jehoahaz: 2 Kgs. 23: 33–4; Jehoiakim: 2 Kgs. 24: 1–2; Jehoiachin: 2 Kgs. 24: 10; Zedekiah: 2 Kgs. 25: 2–7). While tribal rivalry was not as signiWcant a factor in the south as in the north (cf. Ishida 1977: 181), David was adversely aVected by it. He experienced tension with three Benjaminites (Saul, Ishbaal, and Sheba) who were rivals for his throne (1 Sam. 9: 1; 16: 1–2;

17 While Alt refers to the divine election and popular support of Baasha as evidence of his charisma (1951: 8, ET 1966: 246), the text includes no evidence of the latter. No other charismatic attributes apply to him (see 3.2.3 above). 18 Buccellati’s explanations for rebellions include injustice and tribal rivalry for Jeroboam I, the military failure of Nadab for Baasha, political ambition for Zimri, and vindication for the death of Elah for Omri (1967: 203–4). Jehu’s Dynasty and Dtr on Succession 217 2 Sam. 2: 10–11; 20: 1–22), and yet David held on to power, despite these rivalries. Antagonism toward the monarchy also characterized David’s dynasty (see 5.2.4.2 below). The rebellions of Absalom and Jeroboam I both receive popular support (2 Sam. 15: 6; 1 Kgs. 12: 19–20) and three Judean kings (Jehoash, Amaziah, and Amon) are killed in conspiracies (2 Kgs. 12: 21 (ET 12: 20); 14: 19; 21: 24). Thus, Ishida’s three explanations for northern instability (military failures, tribal rivalry, and popular antagonism) are not persuasive, and additional reasons should be considered. A factor not discussed by Ishida that could explain Israel’s short-lived dynasties is the precedent of instability and regicide that was established early in its history. In the Wrst generation, the heirs of Saul, Jeroboam, and Baasha are each killed and Zimri does not survive long enough to have a son succeed him. Potential later usurpers (e.g. Jehu, Shallum) therefore had several examples of successful Israelite ‘role models’ to inspire them to rebel. The text uses similar language to describe these northern rebellions, as six individuals are said to ‘conspire’ (tWs) against the current ruler (1 Kgs. 15: 27; 16: 9; 2 Kgs. 9: 14; 10: 9; 15: 10, 25, 30). Thus, the unstable pattern that began at an early stage in Israel’s history continued, degenerating toward the end of the monarchy into dynastic chaos. For Dtr, the question of northern instability is not a problem: northern dynasties did not last because northern kings were evil (see 5.3.6.3 below). Of the nineteen northern rulers, only Jehu is given a righteous evaluation, sixteen are given unrighteous evaluations, and Elah is also condemned for his sins (1 Kgs. 16: 13). However, the longevity of the dynasties of David and Jehu is more problematic for Dtr.

5.2.3 Why did the dynasties of David and Jehu endure?

The Davidic dynasty with its series of twenty-one rulers provides Ishida with a basis of support for his thesis of a dynastic monarchy and therefore he devotes the majority of his analysis to it (1977: 55–170). Since the three factors upon which Ishida blames northern instability are also present in the south, other factors should be considered that could have contributed to Davidide continuity. 218 Jehu’s Dynasty and Dtr on Succession Just as a precedent of instability was set in the north, Judah gradually establishes itself as a kingdom with dynastic continuity, making it increasingly diYcult for usurpers to gain popular support. The conspirators who kill Jehoash, Amaziah, and Amon do not succeed in preventing a Davidide from retaining the throne (2 Kgs. 12: 21–2 (ET 12: 20–1); 14: 19–21; 21: 24). Even though Athaliah manages to rule for six years, eventually the priest Jehoiada and the royal guards bring Jehoash back to the throne of his father (2 Kgs. 11: 4–12).19 Thus, the pattern of southern continuity gradually becomes established despite various threats to the dynasty. Dtr may have used an earlier version from his sources for the dynastic promises of David and Jehu that could have dated to the time of these two rulers (see 3.1.7 above for scholars who view David’s promise as source material). If earlier traditions of these promises existed they would have brought greater legitimacy to these two dynasties, similar to how a claim of divine election can bring greater stability to an individual ruler (see 2.4.2 above). Poten- tial usurpers may have been reluctant to rebel against a king or a dynasty that was thought to have a divine mandate to rule. Thus, the presence of a dynastic promise could have been another factor contributing to Davidide and Jehuite continuity. However, for Dtr, the longevity of Jehu’s dynasty and particularly David’s dynasty is problematic since both royal lines are generally unrighteous (Jehu’s more than David’s) and therefore do not deserve to maintain power. Each founder is followed by a series of at least three unrighteous kings. Dtr gives all four of Jehu’s descendants (Jehoahaz, Jehoash, Jeroboam II, and Zechariah) evil evaluations (2 Kgs. 13: 2, 11; 14: 24; 15: 9). While a variety of positive statements are made about him, Solomon is also assessed negatively, as are his two successors, Rehoboam and Abijam (1 Kgs. 11: 6; 14: 22; 15: 3).20 Of David’s

19 Liverani argues that Jehoash was not a Davidide, but the story of his royal lineage was created to give legitimacy to Jehoiada’s coup (1974, ET 2004). While Liverani’s theory is possible, why would Jehoiada (Liverani’s de facto ruler) bother to set up a puppet ruler when he already had enough power to seize the throne? Any extra legitimacy gained for Jehoiada would be oVset by the cost of losing power when Jehoash was old enough to rule independently. 20 In the section of Rehoboam’s regnal formula where the evaluation of the king is typically located, instead of mentioning Rehoboam, Judah is said to have done evil in the eyes of YHWH (1 Kgs. 14: 22), but the regnal evaluation of Rehoboam’s son Abijam speaks of how Abijam committed all the sins that his father did (1 Kgs. 15: 3). Jehu’s Dynasty and Dtr on Succession 219 ruling descendants, only two receive unqualiWed positive evaluations (Hezekiah and Josiah) and twelve are given unrighteous evaluations.21 To solve the problem of long unrighteous dynasties, Dtr’s concern for cultic purity and his anti-dynastic bias apparently did not allow him to simply evaluate more heirs righteously. Rather, it appears that he prefers to give theological explanations for these problematic phenomena, just as he explained the unexpected success of Jehu’s evil heirs (see 4.3.3.3 above). Similarly, he accounts for evil Solomon maintaining control over Judah by having YHWH state that even when David’s son commits iniquity, he will not withdraw his mercy (do`h` ) from him (2 Sam. 7: 14–15). Dtr’s method of using dynastic promises to explain the unusual longevity of the dynasties of David and Jehu will be discussed in greater detail below (see 5.3.6.2).

5.2.4 Davidide longevity despite frequent threats 5.2.4.1 Similarites to northern dynasties According to the DH, despite its unusual longevity, Davidide rule was neither continuous nor particularly stable. While David’s descendants reign until the fall of Judah, the dynasty is interrupted, frequently threatened, and surprisingly shares many similarities with the more unstable northern dynasties.22 The longevity of Davidide rule over Judah is remarkable given how many threats the dynasty faced over its history. Davidides experienced eight rebellions, a dynastic purge, at least six deaths of royal princes, three rulers carried into exile, and Wnally the fall and captivity of the nation.

5.2.4.2 Rebellions While David’s dynasty was more stable than the northern dynasties, his house experienced eight rebellions, the same number as the northern

21 In the book of Kings, twelve Davidides have evil evaluations (Solomon, Reho- boam, Abijam, Jehoram, Ahaziah, Ahaz, Manasseh, Amon, Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah) and eight have righteous evaluations (Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoash, Amaziah, Azariah, Jotham, Hezekiah, and Josiah). 22 David’s dynasty covered a longer period of time than the northern dynasties since David and Solomon ruled over the united monarchy. 220 Jehu’s Dynasty and Dtr on Succession kingdom.23 Two usurpers (Jeroboam I and Athaliah) succeed in taking power from a Davidide. Six other movements gain widespread popular support, manage to enthrone a king, or kill the current ruler, and thus also qualify as signiWcant threats to the Davidic dynasty. Absalom’s coup forces David to Xee the capital and is only thwarted by the espionage of Hushai and the sons of Zadok and Abiathar (2 Sam. 15–18). Absalom is not only anointed by the people, but he is also called king by both his own supporters and David himself (2 Sam. 15: 10, 19, 34; 19: 10). Adonijah receives the support of Joab and Abiathar and is repeatedly referred to as king, yet his rebellion is short-lived when David declares Solomon the legitimate successor (1 Kgs. 1: 5–53). While the Davidic line would have been continued by either of his sons, their rebellions add instability since they upset the expected process of succession and create a precedent for insur- rection.24 The rebellion of Sheba the Benjaminite against David is supported by all the people of Israel, yet his coup is quashed when a woman of the city of Abel has him decapitated (2 Sam. 20: 1–22). Jeroboam I leads the most successful revolt against the Davidides since he permanently removes the northern tribes from David’s dynasty (1 Kgs. 12: 19–20). Thus, in the second generation after the founder, the Davidic empire is reduced to a single tribe.25 Add- itionally, Davidic rule was not even continuous over Judah since after Jehu kills Ahaziah of Judah (2 Kgs. 9: 27), Ahab’s daughter Athaliah seizes power for six years until the priest Jehoiada restores Jehoash to the throne (2 Kgs. 11: 1–20). Three Judean conspiracies presumably intended to set a usurper on the southern throne since they involve the assassinations of Davidic rulers: Jehoash, Amaziah, and Amon (2 Kgs. 12: 21 (12: 20); 14: 19; 21: 24). Thus, even though David’s dynasty was more stable than those of the northern kingdom,

23 The eight leaders of rebellions against Davidides were: Absalom, Sheba, Ado- nijah, Jeroboam I, Athaliah, Jehoash’s servants, Amaziah’s enemies, and Amon’s servants. The eight leaders of rebellions against northern kings were: Baasha, Zimri, Omri, Jehu, Shallum, Menahem, Pekah, and Hoshea. 24 Both Sennacherib’s sons and Panamuwa’s brother also unsuccessfully attempt coups against their fathers, yet both succeed in committing patricide (see 5.1.1 above). 25 While some references speak of ten (not eleven) tribes going to Jeroboam (1 Kgs. 11: 31, 35) or Rehoboam keeping both Judah and Benjamin (1 Kgs. 12: 21, 23), other references emphasize that Rehoboam only kept one tribe (1 Kgs. 11: 13, 36; 12: 20). Jehu’s Dynasty and Dtr on Succession 221 rebellions tore away most of David’s empire, interrupted Davidide reign, and added instability to the dynasty.

5.2.4.3 A royal purge According to the narrative of Kings, David’s dynasty is almost cut oV when Ahaziah’s one-year-old son, Jehoash, is the only survivor of a two-part purge of Ahaziah’s family. First, Jehu slaughters forty-two of Ahaziah’s ‘brothers’ (fej¸g´va´ jv¨a´) and then Athaliah kills all the ¯ ¯ ¯ remaining members of the royal family except Jehoash who is hidden by his aunt Jehosheba (2 Kgs. 10: 12–14; 11: 1–2).26 Josephus explicitly states that Athaliah intended to cut oV his line, which seems a reasonable inference.27 Thus, David’s ‘eternal’ dynasty was nearly exterminated in the eighth generation. Dynastic purges are a more frequent northern phenomenon, since the royal families of three northern kings (Jeroboam, Baasha, and Ahab) are wiped out (1 Kgs. 15: 29; 16: 11–12; 2 Kgs. 10: 1–10). Jehu’s house is the Wrst northern dynasty that is not cut oV completely (see 5.3.2 below).28

5.2.4.4 Deaths of princes While not as dramatic as a rebellion, a regicide, or a royal purge, the death of a prince is still unsettling to a dynasty since sons represent the future.29 Conversely, Mowinckel speaks about the birth of a prince as one of the ‘great occasions in the life of the dynasty’ (1956: 100). Apart from royal purges, the DH only includes one death of a northern prince (that of Jeroboam I: 1 Kgs. 14: 17), but the

26 As a female, Jehosheba was probably spared Athaliah’s purge since she was not considered a rival. (Dynastic judgments typically target males: 1 Kgs. 14: 10; 16: 11; 21: 21; 2 Kgs. 9: 8.) Ironically, however, the examples of Jezebel and Athaliah show that women wielded signiWcant power and by rescuing her nephew Jehoash Jehosheba serves as the catalyst for Athaliah’s downfall. 27 JA 9. 140–1; cf. Begg 2000: 167–8. 28 For the rebellions of Shallum, Menahem, Pekah, and Hoshea, the text narrates the regicide of the previous king, but includes no royal purge (2 Kgs. 15: 10, 14, 25, 30). 29 This section includes only princes that are killed independently of a royal purge (see 5.2.4.3 above). 222 Jehu’s Dynasty and Dtr on Succession narrative focuses on the deaths of four of David’s sons (Bathsheba’s Wrst son, Amnon, Absalom, and Adonijah: 2 Sam. 12: 18; 13: 29; 18: 15; 1 Kgs. 2: 25), two of which are fratricides.30 In a particularly gruesome incident, the sons of Zedekiah are slaughtered in his presence, and then the Babylonian ruler has Zedekiah’s eyes put out (2 Kgs. 25: 7).31

5.2.4.5 Exile and captivity Interestingly, the DH mentions the exile of more southern, than northern rulers. Israel’s demise only involves the exile of one king and the narrative includes few graphic details. Hoshea becomes the vassal of Shalmaneser (V) and when he is suspected of treachery he is imprisoned, but the text does not mention his death (2 Kgs. 17: 3–6).32 Davidic rule in Judah is marked by several decades of political turmoil beginning with Josiah’s death in 609 bce (2 Kgs. 23: 29). Josiah’s heirs include three exiled kings (Jehoahaz to Egypt and Jehoiachin and Zedekiah to Babylon; 2 Kgs. 23: 34; 24: 12; 25: 7), Judah’s shortest reigning rulers (Jehoahaz and Jehoiachin, both three months; 2 Kgs. 23: 31; 24: 8), and Judah’s only non-father/son royal successions (Jehoiakim’s and Zedekiah’s; 2 Kgs. 23: 34; 24: 17). Despite its series of twenty-one rulers, the Davidic dynasty has many similarities with the northern dynasties. Its history included numerous events that threatened to end the dynasty (rebellions, a purge, princely deaths, and exiled rulers) before it Wnally lost power over Judah. These observations concerning David’s house heighten the tension behind the question posed above regarding Davidide longevity. How did a dynasty that experienced so much violent turmoil survive, when similar events repeatedly cut short northern

30 On the possibility that Ahaz and Manasseh sacriWced their own sons (2 Kgs. 16: 3; 21: 6), see Cogan and Tadmor (1988: 266–7) and Hobbs (1985: 213). 31 No number of sons is given for Zedekiah, just a plural form (fej¸sd´r jn¨b´:), but he probably had more than two since he ascended to the throne at age twenty-one˙ ˙ and had already reigned eleven years (2 Kgs. 24: 18), and large numbers of wives and sons are often attributed to kings (2 Sam. 3: 2–5; 5: 13–14; 1 Kgs. 11: 1–3; 20: 3, 5, 7; 2 Kgs. 10: 1, 13; 24: 15). For a discussion of Zedekiah’s fate, see Pakkala 2006. 32 One Neo-Assyrian inscription states that Tiglath-pileser III made Hoshea king in place of Pekah (Tadmor 1994: 140–1, ll. 15’–18’) and another appears to mention Hoshea’s tribute (Tadmor 1994: 188–9, ll. 9–12). Tadmor brieXy discusses both of these references (1994: 277–8). Jehu’s Dynasty and Dtr on Succession 223 dynasties? A variety of historical factors have already been discussed that may have contributed to both the longevity and the violence of David’s dynasty (e.g. phase of monarchy, precedents for rebellion and regicide, and political realities). Dtr, however, gives theological explanations for the questions of why dynasties were stable or unstable. His answers are given in dynastic oracles that primarily focus on royal obedience.

5.3 DTR’S EXPLANATION: DYNASTIC ORACLES

5.3.1 Royal dynastic promises

In this section, four types of dynastic oracles will Wrst be discussed by category: royal promises (5.3.1), royal judgments (5.3.2), the so-called ‘lamp oracles’ (5.3.3), and priestly oracles (5.3.4). The Deuteronomistic nature of these oracles will then be examined (5.3.5), followed by a discussion (5.3.6) of Dtr’s use of oracles to answer the questions posed in the previous section regarding dynastic instability and longevity. Jehu is the last of four rulers in the DH to receive a dynastic promise and the only ruler to receive one for a speciWc number of generations (2 Kgs. 10: 30).33 In order to compare Jehu’s promise to other dynastic promises in the DH, Table 5.3A has been constructed, listing the ruler, the textual reference, the speaker of the oracle, whether the promise is conditional or unconditional, its promised length, the number of generations it actually endures and the type of dynasty promised. Of the forty-one kings of Israel and Judah, only four receive promises (David, Solomon, Jeroboam, and Jehu). Two of the promises are unconditionally granted (David’s and Jehu’s) and two are given with conditions (Solomon’s and Jeroboam’s).34 One might think that a Davidide ruler as a beneWciary of Nathan’s oracle would not need a promise, but the text includes four versions of the promise to Solomon. (David, Jeroboam, and Jehu each have a

33 See the discussion of Esarhaddon’s limited dynastic promise above (5.1.2). 34 The promise to Zimri-Lim is also conditional upon satisfying the desires of the god Adad (Malamat 1980: 69, ll. 18–19; see 5.1.2 above). Table 5.3A. Royal dynastic promises

Ruler Reference Speaker Cond’l? Length # Gen. Type of Dynasty

a David 2 Sam. 7: 13,16 YHWH/Nathan Uncond’l zl¸Fp¯dp 3/19 throne of his kingdom ¯ context: people of Israel? Solomon 1 Kgs. 2: 4 David Cond’l vt¨ kj:¯aL 2/18 Davidic, throne of Israel ˝ 1 Kgs. 6: 12 YHWH Cond’l vt¨ kj:¯aL Davidic, (people of Israel) b ˝ 1 Kgs. 8: 25 YHWH Cond’l vt¨ kj:¯aL Davidic, throne of Israel ˝ 1 Kgs. 9: 4–5 YHWH Cond’l zl¸PL´ / vt¨ kj:¯aL Davidic, throne of Israel Jeroboam I 1 Kgs. 11: 38 Ahijah Cond’l wm¸a˜n` vj:b ˝ 2 Davidic, king over Israel ¯ ¯ Jehu 2 Kgs. 10: 30 YHWH Uncond’l zjp: bd´jn¨b´: 5 throne of Israel ˙ a Davidide reign over Israel barely survives into the third generation, since Rehoboam loses power at the beginning of his reign (1 Kgs. 12: 1–19). David’s dynasty in Judah included twenty-one rulers (see above), but only nineteen generations since three of Josiah’s sons reign (Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, and Zedekiah). b In 1 Kgs. 8: 25, Solomon is speaking, but he is quoting YHWH. Jehu’s Dynasty and Dtr on Succession 225 promise spoken to them only once.) The promise to Solomon diVers from David’s since it makes explicit both rule over Israel and its conditional nature.35 Except for the third reference to Solomon’s promise, all of them are spoken directly to the recipient, in contrast to the lamp oracles (see 5.3.3 below).36 Generally, these promises are based on obedience. The oracles to Solomon and Jeroboam are conditioned upon their keeping the commandments (1 Kgs. 2: 4; 11: 38). Jehu’s dynastic grant is attributed to his obedience to the command to cut oV the house of Ahab (2 Kgs. 10: 30).37 The element of obedience is not as explicit in David’s promise, but twice in the early section of the oracle, YHWH calls David his servant (jd.b´p: 2 Sam. 7: 5, 8), thus David’s ¯ promise appears to be given based on his faithfulness.38 Surprisingly, David’s promise also includes a type of dynastic judgment (2 Sam. 7: 12, 14) targeting David’s ‘seed’ (ptg`). This ‘seed’ may have originally referred to David’s oVspring generally,¯ but 2 Samuel 7: 13 focuses speciWcally upon Solomon since this seed is meant to build a temple for YHWH.39 When David’s seed commits iniquity, YHWH’s punishment will not be as severe as it was toward Saul, but YHWH says (2 Sam. 7: 14): I will discipline him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men : : zd¸a¸jn¨b´ jp¨c´n:b´f zjWna´ ib`W¨b´ fjv. h´kEf´ ˙ ˝¯ ¯ This judgment does not imply that the dynasty will be cut oV as it was for Saul, but it does suggest that the Davidic promise will not protect

35 However, an element of continuity exists between the promises of David and Solomon since both kings are part of the same dynasty and continuous rule over Judah is involved. 36 The oracle given to Esarhaddon is addressed to him in second-person language (see 5.1.2 above; Parpolo 1997: 10, ll. 19–30; 16, ll. 11’–14’). In the oracle of Zimri- Lim, third-person language is used for the king, but Nur-Sin, the mediator of the oracle, is meant to deliver this divine message later directly to the king (see 5.1.2 above; Malamat 1980: 69–70). 37 See Mullen 1988: 197. 38 In his comparison of covenants in the Old Testament and the ANE, Weinfeld argues that the grant to David is given as a reward for loyal service, similarly to how grants were distributed elsewhere in the ANE (1970: 185–8). However, Knoppers (1996a) disputes the perspective of Weinfeld. 39 See the discussion in McCarter about the meaning of ‘seed’ in this context (1984: 205). 226 Jehu’s Dynasty and Dtr on Succession his dynasty from any form of divine condemnation when his heirs are unrighteous.

5.3.2 Royal dynastic judgments

Eight kings of Israel and Judah receive dynastic judgments (Saul, David, Solomon, Jeroboam, Baasha, Ahab, Hezekiah, and Mana- sseh). Table 5.3B has been constructed of the twelve royal dynastic judgments in the DH, listing the ruler, the reference, the speaker, the punishments, the fulWllments, and the generation punished.40 The following observations can be made about the table. More rulers receive dynastic judgments (8) than promises (4). Of these twelve judgments, most are spoken by a prophet (except one of Solomon’s: 1 Kgs. 11: 11–13) directly to the ruler (except Mana- sseh’s). Three rulers have judgments that are repeated (Saul, Solomon, and Ahab). Saul’s judgment mentions a possible ‘eternal’ (zlFp¯dp) ¯ dynasty Saul could have had if not for his disobedience (1 Sam.˝ 13: 14). Despite being guilty of the sin prompting the judgment, six of the eight rulers die natural deaths (David, Solomon, Jeroboam, Baasha, Hezekiah, and Manasseh)41 and the consequences primarily aVect only the heirs. Jehu’s uniquely favored position in the text can be seen by the fact that he is the only king with a dynastic promise (see 5.3.1 above) who does not also have a dynastic judgment.42 Mullen perceives within the text a divine judgment against Jehu’s dynasty since ‘none of its members had done ‘‘what was right in the eyes of Yahweh’’’ (1988: 205).43 But the text states that, despite not turning from Jeroboam’s sins, Jehu had still done right in the eyes of YHWH (2 Kgs. 10: 29–31). One might argue an implicit judgment is intended since Jehu’s promise was to endure only for four more generations, but nothing explicit is mentioned about the Wfth generation being cut oV. The judgments

40 Generation 1 is the ruler who receives the judgment and generation 2 is his son. 41 Ahab also receives a natural death notice (see also 4.3.4 above). 42 Although both Hosea and Amos include judgments against his dynasty (Hos. 1:4; Amos 7: 9). 43 In his discussion of the end of the Jehuite dynasty, Mullen incorrectly states that Shallum is the only Israelite king not to receive an evaluation, but Elah also lacks a typical evaluation (1 Kgs. 16: 8–14). Table 5.3B. Royal dynastic judgments

Ruler Reference Speaker Punishments FulWllments Gen.

Saul 1 Sam. 13: 14 Samuel Loss of kingdom and death of sons 1 Sam. 31: 2–6; 1, 2 1 Sam. 15: 28 Samuel 2 Sam. 4: 7 1 Sam. 28: 17–19 Samuel David 2 Sam. 12: 10–14 Nathan Sword never leaves and death of sons 2 Sam. 12: 15–19; 13: 29; 18: 15 2 Solomon 1 Kgs. 11: 11–13 YHWH Kingdom torn from his son 1 Kgs. 12: 19–20 2 1 Kgs. 11: 31–5 Ahijah Jeroboam I 1 Kgs. 14: 7–14 Ahijah Sons’ death and dynasty cut oV 1 Kgs. 15: 27–8 2 2 Baasha 1 Kgs. 16: 1–4, 7 Jehu Sons’ death and dynasty cut oV 1 Kgs. 16: 9–13 2 Ahab 1 Kgs. 21: 20–6 Elijah Sons’ death and dynasty cut oV 1 Kgs. 22: 38; 1, 2 2 Kgs. 9: 7–10 A prophet 2 Kgs. 9: 36 Hezekiah 2 Kgs. 20: 16–18 Isaiah Sons’ exile 2 Kgs. 24: 12–16 5, 6 Manasseha 2 Kgs. 21: 10–15 Prophets National exile 2 Kgs. 24: 2–4 4, 5 a Manasseh’s judgment is dynastic since his descendants are targeted in the judgment against future generations of both Judeans generally and Jerusalemites speciWcally (2 Kgs. 21: 12, 13(2)). 228 Jehu’s Dynasty and Dtr on Succession against Jeroboam I, Baasha, and Ahab make the dynastic purges explicit (1 Kgs. 14: 10; 16: 3; 21: 21), but Jehu’s dynasty is unique as the Wrst northern one not cut oV completely. Unlike the parallel ANE dynastic curses that are invoked for dam- aging inscriptions or dishonoring ancestors (see 5.1.2 above), the dynastic judgments of the DH are given, broadly speaking, because of the ruler’s disobedience to divine commands, expressed in typical Deuteronomistic terminology (see 5.3.5 below). Saul did not keep the commandment of YHWH (1 Sam. 13: 13). David despised the word of YHWH (2 Sam. 12: 9). Solomon did not keep YHWH’s covenant and his statutes (1 Kgs. 11: 11). Jeroboam did evil, worshipped other gods, and was not like David, who kept YHWH’s commandments (1 Kgs. 14: 8–9). Baasha walked in the way of Jero- boam (1 Kgs. 16: 2). Ahab and Manasseh both did evil in the sight of YHWH (1 Kgs. 21: 20; 2 Kgs. 21: 2, 6, 11). Although Jones argues that the text includes no hints that Heze- kiah is to blame for his judgment (1984: 590), several clues indicate that his behavior is being condemned. The oracle mentions the exile and possible castration of Hezekiah’s descendants (2 Kgs. 20: 18) and the complete plundering of his treasury (2 Kgs. 20: 17). Elsewhere in the DH, exile and plunder are Deuteronomistic punishments for evil behavior (2 Kgs. 17: 6–7, 20; 21: 14–15; 24: 20). The consequences of having his sons and his treasure carried oV to Babylon appear to be directly related to Hezekiah’s actions of showing his wealth to the Babylonian ambassadors.44

5.3.3 Lamp oracles

The three so-called ‘lamp (tjn:) oracles’45 of the book of Kings are also often discussed as dynastic promises.46 The three texts are listed in

44 Several scholars suggest that Hezekiah’s sin was that of pride (Wu¨rthwein 1984: 437; Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 262; Fritz 1998: 125, ET 2003: 384). 45 Hanson interprets (tjn:) as ‘yoke’ or ‘dominion’ (1968) and Ben Zvi (1991) makes a convincing argument for understanding nıˆr in these oracles as a domain to rule (from Jer. 4: 3; Hos. 10: 12, and Prov. 13: 23, where it means ‘cultivated Weld’). However, these texts will be referred to as ‘lamp oracles’ here since the term is still most commonly understood as ‘lamp’. 46 e.g. see DeVries 1985: 151; Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 95; LohWnk 1990: 367, ET 2000: 441; Schniedewind 1999: 91. Jehu’s Dynasty and Dtr on Succession 229

Table 5.3C. ‘Lamp’ (tjn:) oracles

Current king Reference Speaker Listener Length?

Solomon 1 Kgs. 11: 36 Ahijah Jeroboam zjm: j¸e lk ¯ ¯ Abijam 1 Kgs. 15: 4 (narrator) (unspoken) ˝ Jehoram 2 Kgs. 8: 19 (narrator) (unspoken) zjm: j¸e¯lk ¯ ˝

Table 5.3C, with headings similar to Tables 5.3A and 5.3B. These oracles, however, are not strictly speaking dynastic promises. Unlike the promises listed in Table 5.3A, none of the lamp oracles is actually spoken to the king who is aVected by it (Solomon, Abijam, or Jehoram). The Wrst oracle is spoken to Jeroboam I in the context of his promise and Solomon’s judgment. The second and third of these oracles are not spoken, but merely narrated.47 In the context of each of the lamp oracles, the current Judean ruler is being criticized for his evil deeds, so it is unreasonable to view them as promises. It would be unusual for a ruler to receive a divine blessing in the form of a promise while being condemned.48 LohWnk argues that the lamp oracles entail a new promise to the Davidides, since the Davidic promise was abrogated because of Solomon’s sin (1990: 367, ET 2000: 441). Rather than being a new promise to David, these oracles merely refer to the original promise to David given by Nathan. Despite LohWnk’s distinction between the two, the lamp oracles have several elements in common with 2 Samuel 7. Both speak of David’s heirs continuing to reign indeW- nitely,49 and both refer to David as YHWH’s servant (2 Sam. 7: 5, 8; 1 Kgs. 11: 36; 2 Kgs. 8: 19).50 While these connections establish a link to the Davidic promise, LohWnk’s perspective has some validity since

47 Although the second and third are not spoken, these three ‘lamp’ texts will still be referred to here as oracles since the Wrst was spoken and all three include the prophecy that a Davidide would continue to reign. 48 All of the dynastic promises discussed above (5.3.1) occur in contexts where the ruler is viewed favorably. 49 Although the temporal language used in the lamp oracles (zjm: j¸e¯lk) is not ¯ ˝ identical to that used in the Davidic oracle (zl¸Fp¯dp), they both convey the idea of permanence. ¯ 50 jdb´p YHWH only calls David ‘my servant’ ( . ) one other time in Samuel (2 Sam. 3: 18) and outside of Ahijah’s oracle (1 Kgs. 11:¯ 31–9) only four other times in Kings (1 Kgs. 11: 13; 14: 8; 2 Kgs. 19: 34; 20: 6). 230 Jehu’s Dynasty and Dtr on Succession the Davidic promise is no longer fully operative as Davidides no longer rule Israel. Schniedewind appropriately calls these oracles an ‘update’ to the Davidic promise since the focus is now limited to Judah (1999: 92). Dtr uses both the lamp oracles and the Davidic promise as explanations (see also 5.3.5 and 5.3.6 below). The lamp oracles mention the Davidic promise to explain why evil kings (i.e. Solomon/Rehoboam, Abijam, and Jehoram) are allowed to remain in power.51 Other evil kings in the early monarchical period have their dynasties cut oV (Saul, Jeroboam I, Baasha, and Ahab),52 but, according to these oracles, Davidides remain in power simply because of the Davidic promise. David’s obedience is emphasized not only in the language of him as YHWH’s servant (1 Kgs. 11: 35; 2 Kgs. 8: 19), but also in the context of the oracles that speak of David keeping YHWH’s commandments (1 Kgs. 11: 33, 38; 15: 3, 5).

5.3.4 Priestly dynastic oracles

The priestly dynastic oracles concerning the Elide dynasty warrant a brief discussion because of their particular relevance to the Davidic promise.53 The speech of the anonymous man of God to Eli (1 Sam. 2: 27–36) refers to three distinct priestly dynastic oracles: a promise given to Eli’s ancestor, a judgment spoken to Eli (repeated to the boy Samuel: 1 Sam. 3: 11–14), and a future promise concerning an unnamed priest that scholars typically attribute to Zadok (for Assyrian priestly dynastic oracles see 5.1.2 above).54 The references for each of these oracles are listed in Table 5.3D. All three of these dynastic oracles are connected to the obedience of the human beneWciaries. The judgment against Eli is based on the

51 Von Rad (1958: 198–9, ET 1966a: 214–15) and LohWnk (1990: 368, ET 2000: 442) come to similar conclusions regarding the Deuteronomistic use of the lamp oracles. 52 Zimri’s seven-day reign apparently did not last long enough to warrant a judgment (1 Kgs. 16: 15–20). 53 The only priestly dynastic oracles of the DH are found in 1 Sam. 2: 27–36 and 3: 11–14, but Deut. 18: 5 contains a priestly dynastic oracle to Levi. 54 For arguments in favor of Zadok, see McCarter 1980: 91–3; Klein 1983: 27; Rooke 2000: 57. Jehu’s Dynasty and Dtr on Succession 231

Table 5.3D. Priestly dynastic oracles

Type of Recipient Reference Speaker Listener Length? Oracle

Eli’s 1 Sam. 2: 27–30 Man of God Eli zl¸Fp¯dp promise ancestor ¯ Eli 1 Sam. 2: 31–6 Man of God Eli judgment 1 Sam. 3: 11–14 YHWH Samuel/Eli Zadok? 1 Sam. 2: 35 Man of God Eli zjm: j¸e¯lk/ wm¸a˜n`vj:b– promise? ¯ ˝ wickedness of his sons (1 Sam. 2: 12–17, 22, 25). While the text does not record the earlier promise to Eli’s ancestor, it is now being revoked on the basis of disobedience (1 Sam. 2: 30). In the promise concerning Zadok, the man of God declares that YHWH will guarantee the priest’s faithfulness and righteousness (1 Sam. 2: 35). The promise to Eli’s ancestor (1 Sam. 2: 27–30) shares several similarities with David’s promise (2 Sam. 7: 1–17). They both are spoken by prophetic Wgures,refer toIsrael’s history inEgypt,mention how YHWH selected the recipient of the promise, and involve a descendant continuing in their roles ‘forever’ (zlFp¯dp). Neither includes an explicit elem- ¯ ent of conditionality. However,˝ the fact that his ancestor received an unconditional, eternal promise does not protect Eli from a dynastic judgment when his sons act wickedly (1 Sam. 2: 12–17, 22–5). The man of God even quotes YHWH referring to the promise (1 Sam. 2: 30). Thus, YHWH’s value for obedience is portrayed as overcoming any concern about appearing unfaithful to an ‘eternal’ promise. If an eternal, unconditional dynastic promise could be rescinded because of the unrighteousness of the Elides, then it would not be unusual for a similar rescission to occur with the Davidides. Dtr’s interest in dynasty is revealed by the fact that the book of Kings basically ends after the Davidic dynasty loses power. Dtr apparently wanted to show that David’s lineage eventually endures the same fate as the Elides and all other Israelite and Judean dynasties.

5.3.5 Deuteronomistic dynastic oracles

Scholars generally attribute dynastic oracles to Dtr. While a review of the many scholars who have examined any of these dynastic oracles is beyond the scope of this analysis, a brief discussion of four scholars 232 Jehu’s Dynasty and Dtr on Succession who have focused particularly on dynastic oracles is warranted.55 Von Rad views the prophecy and fulWllment texts of 1 and 2 Kings as Deuteronomistic, including the judgments against Solomon, Jeroboam, Baasha, Ahab, and Manasseh and the lamp oracles (1958: 189–204, ET 1966a: 205–21). Wallace (1986) and McKenzie (1991: 61–80) also conclude that the oracles against the dynasties of Jeroboam, Baasha, and Ahab come from Dtr, based on the similarity of style between the oracles, the typical Deuteronomistic language, and the concern for royal obedience. LohWnk argues that the promise to David is not Deuteronomistic, but the promise to Solomon and the nıˆroracles (i.e., lamp oracles) are from Dtr1 (1990: 365–8, ET 2000: 438–41). The examinations of LohWnk, Wallace, and McKenzie focus narrowly on subcategories of dynastic oracles (lamps or judgments). Von Rad examines prophetic texts more broadly, including many of these dynastic oracles; however, he ignores the Davidic judgment in his discussion (1958: 193–5, ET 1966a: 209–11). Von Rad’s avoidance of the Davidic judgment may be explained by his focus on 1 and 2 Kings, but this limitation does not prevent him from discussing the Davidic promise. Thus, no scholar has exclusively examined all of the DH dynastic oracles together (promises, judgments, lamp oracles, and priestly oracles). The views of these four scholars concerning the Deuteronomistic nature of these oracles are consistent with the conclusions drawn above.56 To reiterate the primary reasons for these conclusions, the unconditional promises to David and Jehu are given as rewards for obedience, a primary concern for Dtr, and the promise to Jeroboam is conditioned upon obedience. Conversely, dynastic judgments are pronounced because of the ruler’s disobedience to YHWH’s commands. Additionally, all of these oracles are expressed in Deuterono- mistic language. Since the Deuteronomistic character of the oracles to Solomon, Hezekiah, and Manasseh and the lamp oracles was not discussed

55 For surveys of research on 2 Sam. 7, see Mettinger 1976: 48–50 and Schniede- wind 1999: 30–3. 56 Deuteronomistic dynastic oracles are discussed above in the following sections, royal promises: David’s (3.1.7), Jehu’s (3.1.7), and Jeroboam I’s (2.4.7.4); royal judgments: Saul’s (2.4.7.4), David’s (2.4.7.4), Jeroboam I’s (2.4.7.4), Baasha’s (2.4.7.4), and Ahab’s (2.5.2.5); priestly oracles in 1 Sam. 2: 27–35 (3.1.7). Jehu’s Dynasty and Dtr on Succession 233 above, these texts will now be examined in greater detail. For Solomon’s promise speciWcally, each version of it is phrased in classic Deuterono- mistic terminology (1 Kgs. 2: 4; 6: 12; 8: 25; 9: 4).57 These four texts all mention how Solomon iscalled to walk (Lle) in a pious manner: before YHWH (1 Kgs. 2: 4; 8: 25; 9: 4), in YHWH’s statutes, ordinances, and commands (6: 12; 9: 4), like David (8: 25; 9: 4), and in truth or integrity (2: 4; 9: 4). The repetitiveness of these texts is further evidence of their Deuteronomistic character. Solomon’s judgment is also expressed in Deuteronomistic language (‘and you did not keep my covenant and my ´ : statutes that I commanded you’, Mjl` p¸jvj.fr tW` ajvS˙ hˆf´jvjt:b´ vd´mW¸ aLf´) ˙ ¯ ¯ ˙ and it is included in a section that˙ is typically considered˝ ¯ Deuteronomistic (e.g. Gray 1964: 251–2; Jones 1984: 232; Fritz 1996: 123–4, ET 2003: 130–1). Thus, Solomon’s promise and his judgment appear to be Deuteronomistic. Fritz thinks Hezekiah’s judgment (2 Kgs. 20: 16–20) cannot be Deuteronomistic since Dtr praises Hezekiah so highly in his regnal evaluation (1998: 125, ET 2003: 384). Cogan and Tadmor think the judgment comes from the exilic Dtr2, since it contradicts the Josianic Dtr1’s assessment of Hezekiah (1988: 262). Despite these arguments, it is more reasonable to assume that the same Deuteronomist who gave him his righteous assessment was responsible for shaping this judgment. While other dynastic judgments harshly criticize the ruler, this oracle is unusually gracious in its perspective toward Hezekiah to the extent that Jones thinks it includes no hint of Hezekiah’s sin (1984: 590). While Jones’s perspective was shown above to be inaccurate (5.3.2), the fact remains that Hezekiah is not explicitly condemned here, a sign that the redactor of this section viewed him favorably. Thus, it appears that either Dtr composed Hezekiah’s judgment or he modiWed a more negative version of it from his source. Within his evaluation and, ironically, within his judgment a positive perspective can therefore be seen toward Hezekiah, which would be consistent with the authorship of a single Deuteronomist for both. Since other dynastic judgments are Deuteronomistic, it appears that Dtr also was responsible for the current form of Hezekiah’s judgment.

57 Jones concludes these repetitions of the promise to Solomon come from DtrN (1984: 107, 167, 201, 211). 234 Jehu’s Dynasty and Dtr on Succession Most scholars perceive both Manasseh’s judgment and the lamp oracles to be Deuteronomistic.58 In addition to doing evil in the eyes of YHWH, Manasseh commits abominations and, in language reminiscent of Dtr’s condemning refrain against Jeroboam I, he causes the nation to sin (2 Kgs. 21: 2, 6, 11, 15–16). The three lamp oracles come in Deuteronomistic contexts explaining why disobedient kings are not punished immediately. The Wrst occurs in the judgment against Solomon and the conditional promise to Jeroboam. The second and third are connected to Dtr’s negative evaluations of Abijam and Jehoram. Thus, all the dynastic oracles of the DH (promises and judgments, both royal and priestly, as well as the lamp oracles) appear to be Deuteronomistic. Dtr’s active involvement in shaping these promises and judgments belies a signiWcant concern about dynasty. He is not only interested in the righteousness of rulers, but also in how their righteousness aVects their dynasties. He uses promises and judgments to explain how YHWH is behind both the continuity and the longevity of the Judean and Israelite dynasties.

5.3.6 Dtr’s explanations for dynastic longevity and instability 5.3.6.1 Dtr’s answers WhilethedynastiesoftheANEvarywidely intheir typicallength,Davidic longevity and Israelite instability are unusual within their context. The dynasty of Jehu may have been average compared to dynasties of the surrounding nations, but compared to the truncated northern dynasties it was unusually stable. The longevity of Davidide rule over Judah was particularly surprising given how many threats the dynasty faced over its history. These observations led to questions regarding the causes of northern instability and Davidide and Jehuite longevity. Dtr addresses the concerns behind these questions with dynastic oracles. He portrays YHWH as controlling the fates of the Israelite

58 For Manasseh’s judgment, see von Rad 1958: 195, ET 1966a: 211; Gray 1964: 641, 644; Jones 1984: 594. For the lamp oracles, see von Rad 1958: 198–9, ET 1966a: 214–15; Jones 1984: 232, 282, 446; Schniedewind (Dtr1) 1999: 91. Jehu’s Dynasty and Dtr on Succession 235 and Judean dynasties. Promises explain longevity and judgments explain instability. As discussed above (see 3.2.3), dynastic promises are also a sign of divine favor for charismatic rulers. Promises show how this favor is extended even unto the founder’s evil heirs, thus explaining the unusual length of the dynasty. A great deal of scholarship has addressed the question of dynastic longevity, particularly in regard to the Davidic promise. Less has been written about northern instability and how Dtr explains this phenomenon. Relatively little has been written about how Dtr uses oracles to explain why Judah experienced so much dynastic chaos (rebellions, regicides, and royal exile).59

5.3.6.2 Dynastic longevity for David and Jehu Dtr uses the promises given to David and Jehu to explain the unusual longevity of their dynasties.60 David’s promise involves an indeWnite period of time, while Jehu’s promise is limited to four generations. The phrase zlFp¯dp describing the duration of David’s promise (2 ¯ Sam. 7: 13, 16(2))˝ is often translated into English as ‘forever’ (e.g. NRSV, NIV, REB), but both Tsevat (1963: 76) and Carlson (1964: 123 n. 4) argue from other texts in Samuel that zlFp¯dp does not ¯ literally imply eternity, but merely a long duration˝ within certain limits. The phrase zlFp¯dp occurs seventeen times in the book of ¯ Samuel, mainly in contexts˝ of promises and judgments.61 It is used to

59 e.g. von Rad ignores the Davidic judgment in his discussion of prophetic fulWllment texts (see 5.3.5 above). 60 Buccellati thinks that Nathan’s prophecy contributed to the stability of David’s dynasty (1967: 196). Mullen argues that continuity of the Davidides and Jehuites is explained by the promises given to the founders (1988: 200, 206). Mullen thinks that Dtr also needed to explain the length of the Omride dynasty (1988: 193–4), which includes four kings and lasts forty-eight years (see Table 5.2A above). According to Mullen, Dtr attributes Omride endurance to Ahab’s pious response to Elijah’s judgment that shifted the punishment to his son’s days (1 Kgs. 21: 27–9). However, dynastic judgments in the DH are typically focused on the next generation (David’s, Solomon’s, Jeroboam’s, Baasha’s, and Hezekiah’s), so Ahab’s deferred judgment appears not to explain Omride longevity, but merely why Ahab was not killed immediately. 61 References for zl¸Fp¯dp in Samuel and Kings are: 1 Sam. 1: 22; 2: 30; 3: 13, 14; 13: 13; 20: 15, 23, 42; 2 Sam. 3: 28;¯ 7: 13, 16(2), 24, 25, 26; 12: 10; 22: 51; 1 Kgs. 2: 33, 45; 9: 3. 236 Jehu’s Dynasty and Dtr on Succession connote merely the lifetime of an individual for Samuel, David, and Jonathan (1 Sam. 1: 22; 20: 15, 23). Both the priestly promise to Eli’s ancestor and an implied royal promise to Saul are described as lasting ‘forever’ (zlFp¯dp), yet both are revoked because of disobedience ¯ (1 Sam. 2: 30;˝ 13: 13). For David’s ‘eternal’ promise to be rescinded at the end of Kings is therefore not a problem in the context of how the book of Samuel uses the phrase zlFp¯dp. Two previous ‘eternal’ ¯ promises have already been withdrawn˝ and David’s dynasty still lasts over four centuries. While a Wgurative, messianic understanding of David’s promise occurs elsewhere in the HB, and in both later Jewish and Christian traditions,62 the literal meaning of a reigning Davidide in Jerusalem ends after the exile of Zedekiah (2 Kgs. 25: 7). Dtr does not make the expiration of David’s promise explicit, but he gives updates and reminders in the form of the lamp oracles while the promise is still valid to account for its continuity beyond the reigns of evil rulers.63 For Jehu, Dtr states that he will have four generations of heirs who succeed him. After the promised fourth descendant is eventually killed, Dtr gives a fulWllment notice that repeats the entire original promise (2 Kgs. 15: 12; cf. 10: 30). Thus, Dtr gives the longest northern dynasty a promise from YHWH explaining why, despite the unrighteousness of each of Jehu’s heirs, this dynasty is allowed to continue. Dtr’s explanations for the longevity of the Davidides and the Jehuites reveal that he thinks dynastic continuity is not to be assumed as a right, but is rather to be granted only to rulers who have proven themselves loyal to YHWH. If Dtr thought long dynasties were the norm, they would require no special explanation in the form of dynastic promises. The conditional promises to Solomon and Jero- boam also support the idea that Dtr thinks continuity should only be granted to obedient rulers.

62 e.g. see Ps. 89: 3–4; 132: 11–12; Isa. 9:7; 11: 1; Jer. 33: 14–26; Ezek. 37: 24–8; 1 Enoch 48: 10; 52: 4; the Damascus Document 12: 23; 14: 19; 1 QS 9: 11; Matt. 21: 9; 22: 42; Mark 11: 10; Luke 1: 32. 63 Presumably, Dtr thought three lamp oracles were suYcient to explain the pattern, so later evil rulers such as Manasseh did not require one. LohWnk states that Dtr1 creates nıˆr oracles to explain Davidic continuity (1990: 368, ET 2000: 442). Jehu’s Dynasty and Dtr on Succession 237 5.3.6.3 Dynastic instability in Israel Dtr uses four judgment oracles against three evil rulers (Jeroboam, Baasha, and Ahab) to explain northern instability (see 5.3.2 above).64 These dynastic judgments specify that the dynasties of the rulers will be eliminated. Jehu’s dynasty is initially blessed with continuity, but after four unrighteous Jehuite rulers, their dynasty ends as predicted in Jehu’s promise. Thus, Dtr accounts for the lengths of the Wrst four northern dynasties. However, Zimri and the Wnal Wve Israelite rulers receive no oracle explaining their reigns. Why does Dtr not give these six northern kings dynastic judgments? Scholars generally avoid this question. Mullen ignores Zimri, but notes the lack of a judgment for the last Wve without discussing possible reasons for the omission (1988: 21). McKenzie does not mention the Wnal Wve, but brieXy suggests that Zimri does not receive an oracle because his reign was so short (1991: 66). Their status as the rulers with the greatest degree of dynastic instability appears to be the reason for their lack of an oracular explanation. These six rulers include the two shortest reigning rulers (7 days for Zimri and 1 month for Shallum; 1 Kgs. 16: 15; 2 Kgs. 15: 13), the shortest dynasty (12 years for Menahem and Pekahiah; 2 Kgs. 15: 17, 23), and the only kings who are not part of a dynasty (Zimri, Shallum, Pekah, and Hoshea). Thus, Dtr does not give judgments to the kings that are most characterized by royal brevity. Because of their short reigns and evil evaluations, one would expect them to have dynastic judgments. However, Dtr did not seem to think dynastic instability for evil kings required a special explanation because it was to be expected. Only kings with dynasties need oracles: judgments for all except the shortest dynasty and promises for the longer ones. Thus, not only is dynastic continuity not understood by Dtr to be certain, but he also assumes that dynastic upheaval is the norm.

64 In his conclusion to his discussion of the northern judgment oracles, McKenzie states that Dtr shaped the narratives to oVer a ‘comprehensive theological explanation’ (1991: 80). 238 Jehu’s Dynasty and Dtr on Succession 5.3.6.4 Dynastic instability in Judah: David’s ‘eternal’ curse While scholars have discussed northern dynastic instability (e.g. Buccellati 1967; Ishida 1977) as well as the dynastic judgments against Israelite kings (e.g. Wallace 1986; McKenzie 1991), little has been written on the problems the Davidic dynasty encountered in Judah. Perhaps the troubles its twenty-one rulers experienced are thought to be typical, yet its longevity is surprising given how many times the dynasty was threatened (see 5.2.4 above). Dtr uses seven judgments targeting Wve rulers (David, Solomon, Ahab,65 Hezekiah, and Manasseh) to explain the violence among the Davidides (see 5.3.2 above). Surprisingly, David’s judgment shares striking similarities to his promise. Dtr accounts for Davidide reign, Wrst over the united monarchy, then over Judah with these two con- trasting, yet parallel eternal oracles (2 Sam. 7: 12–16; 12: 10–14).66 Both the promise and the judgment come in the context of long speeches from Nathan, the prophet of YHWH, to David the shepherd. In the promise, YHWH reminds David that he was a humble shepherd when chosen to rule (2 Sam. 7: 8) and in the judgment Nathan equates David to a rich owner of many Xocks and herds (2 Sam. 12: 2). Both oracles focus on David’s dynasty (2 Sam. 7: 16; 12: 10: Mv´jb˙¨ , ‘your house’) and the eVects of both are to continue ‘forever’. The same expression for an indeWnite period (zlFp¯dp; see also 5.3.6.2 ¯ above) is used in each of these oracles (2 Sam.˝ 7: 13, 16; 12: 10). Ironically, Dtr has YHWH use parallel language to declare that both his mercy (do`h` ) and the sword (bt`h` ) will never leave David’s family.

fnm` m tfoj¸ aL jdo´vf´ 7: 15: ˙ : ¯ . My mercy will not depart from him ¯ (David’s seed).67 Mv´jb¨mbt`h`tfov¸ aL 12: 10: ˙ : ¯ The sword will not depart from your house. According to the promise, David’s descendants will continue to reign, but according to the curse, this reign will be characterized by 65 The intermarriage of the descendants of Ahab and David (2 Kgs. 8: 18, 26–7) caused Davidides also to be under the Ahabite ban. 66 Carlson brieXy notes similarities between 2 Sam. 7 and 12 (1964: 153, 158). 67 The LXX has a Wrst person future here (cf. 1 Chr. 17: 13), e b º ı PŒ Iø I ÆPF, ‘but my mercy, I will not take away from him’. However, the MTmakes sense and should be kept as lectio diYcilior, understood as a divine passive. The general meaning is the same in either case. Jehu’s Dynasty and Dtr on Succession 239 bloodshed (2 Sam. 7: 16; 12: 10). While neither oracle has any fulWllment notices, the enduring nature of their messages suggests that later oracles may be related to them. The so-called ‘lamp oracles’ explain why YHWH allows evil rulers to remain in power and thus they appear to be based on the Davidic promise (see 5.3.3 above). Similarly, Davidide judgment oracles give divine explanations for the violence in the dynasty and therefore they show how the sword of YHWH never leaves David’s house. David’s judgment is typically discussed as merely an explanation for the violence during his lifetime (e.g. Carlson 1964: 158; McCarter 1984: 300; Baldwin 1988: 238; Anderson 1989: 159, 163), although Hertzberg (1960: 257, ET 1964: 314) and Gordon (1986: 258) brieXy acknowledge that it may refer also to later events. Since the oracle states the sword will never depart from David’s house (2 Sam. 12: 10) and his promise states that his house is to endure indeWnitely (2 Sam. 7: 13–16), the sword curse implies that the Davidides will continue to be troubled by violence, beyond merely the Wrst generation, for the duration of their rule. While the six additional Davidide judgments are each prompted by an act of royal disobedience, since they all include violent punishments mandated by YHWH, they can be understood as a series of fulWllments of the original judgment pronounced against the founder of the dynasty.68 Dtr did not view these judgments as unconnected or as only having one fulWllment. He repeated the oracles against Solo- mon and Ahab’s house and he gave two separate oracles prophesying about the exile (Hezekiah’s and Manasseh’s). Thus, Dtr uses all of these judgments to show that the consequences of David’s sword curse continued for the duration of the dynasty. The sword curse explains the unnatural deaths of four of David’s sons, the rape of his concubines, and the rebellions of Absalom, Sheba, and Adonijah, but violence also characterizes the reigns of his later descendants. The judgment against Solomon (1 Kgs. 11: 11–13) ac-

68 The consequences of Solomon’s judgment also involved violence. The text reports YHWH saying ‘I will utterly tear’ (pRs´a`pTs¸) the kingdom from Solomon (1 Kgs. 11: 11). While Rehoboam’s planned military¯ retaliation against Jeroboam did not initially take place (1 Kgs.12: 22–4), the north–south schism led to warfare between not only Rehoboam and Jeroboam (1 Kgs. 14: 30; 15: 6), but also later Israelite and Judean kings (1 Kgs. 15: 7, 16, 32; 2 Kgs. 14: 11–12, 28; 16: 5). 240 Jehu’s Dynasty and Dtr on Succession counts for the rebellion of Jeroboam I and the judgment against the house of Ahab (1 Kgs. 21: 20–6; 2 Kgs. 9: 7–10) explains the rebellion of Athaliah as well as the purge of Ahaziah’s family. The judgments against Hezekiah and Manasseh (2 Kgs. 20: 18; 21: 10–15) explain the exile of the Wnal Judean kings and the downfall of the nation. Thus, Davidide violence is partially explained by Dtr with judgment oracles, but some of the violence is left unaccounted for, particularly the regicides. If the later problems that plagued the Davidides are meant to be understood as consequences of the sword curse, one might assume that Dtr would explicitly connect them to 2 Samuel 12: 10. However, none of the other commonly assumed consequences receive any type of fulWllment notice linking them to David’s judgment (the deaths, rapes, or rebellions). Thus, the later Davidide judgments are used by Dtr to reveal not only how the targeted rulers are punished for evil behavior, but also how the sword curse continued to be fulWlled. The ongoing tension between David’s two eternal oracles reaches a climax after the marriage of Jehoram of Judah to Athaliah, daughter of Ahab (2 Kgs. 8: 18, 26–7). While the judgment against Ahab’s house primarily targets the reigning Israelite dynasty, the sons of Jehoram and Athaliah are also condemned by the ban against all of Ahab’s male descendants. Since Jehoram’s family descends from one of the DH’s best kings, David, as well as one of the DH’s worst kings, Ahab, a conXict is created between the judgment to kill the Ahabite males and the promise that Davidides are to continue to reign. If the male descendants of Athaliah and Jehoram are all killed as the Ahabite judgment requires, then the Davidic line ends, but if they survive, Ahab’s house is not fully eliminated.69 A compromise within the text is reached between these two conXicting oracles by having all of Jehoram’s sons killed except the infant Jehoash (2 Kgs. 10: 12–14; 11: 1–2). David’s line survived, but only by a single thread. Dtr accounts for the chaos among the Davidides with dynastic judgment oracles. While the conclusion of Ishida and Buccellati regarding the dynastic nature of the Israelite and Judean monarchies seems to be generally valid (see 5.2.2 above), Dtr deconstructs the

69 Ahaziah of Judah could have been succeeded on the throne by a half-brother that had Jehoram as a father, but not Athaliah as a mother. However, the text gives no hint of any such person. Jehu’s Dynasty and Dtr on Succession 241 dynastic principle via his use of dynastic judgments. From Dtr’s perspective, YHWH has the authority to overthrow a corrupt dynasty because royal legitimacy is only maintained by righteous rulers, or in the cases of Jehu and David, dynasties with righteous founders. However, the dynasties of these two rulers are also eventually cut oV after a series of unrighteous rulers and even David’s ‘eternal’ promise did not protect his dynasty from divine punishments. For David’s dynasty, Dtr explains its unusual length with a promise and its numerous crises with a curse, since both the mercy and the sword of YHWH were meant never to leave his house. Thus, Dtr explains both longevity and instability within the dynasties of Israel and Judah with dynastic oracles. Dtr’s particular interest in dynasty can be seen in how he accounts for both continuity and instability with dynastic promises and judgments. Conditional promises provide an incentive for obedience, unconditional promises reward obedience, and judgments punish disobedience. Dtr uses the long dynasties of David and Jehu as well as the short northern dynasties to emphasize that obedience is determinative for dynastic longevity. Dtr also shows that even dynasties with unconditional promises (Eli’s, David’s, and Jehu’s) are cut oV when they persist in unrighteous behavior. Rulers who are disobedient lose the right to be succeeded by their own heirs. Within Dtr’s framework, rulers cannot expect dynastic continuity regardless of their behavior and evil rulers in particular should expect dynastic chaos.

5.4 DTR’S NEGATIVE PERSPECTIVE ON DYNASTIC SUCCESSION

5.4.1 Dtr’s use of oracles is anti-dynasty 5.4.1.1 Dynastic promises do not imply Dtr is pro-dynasty It is simplistic to assume that because Dtr includes dynastic promises he must view dynasties favorably.70 Dtr’s perspective on dynasty

70 Anderson (1989: 123) and Schniedewind (1999: 28) think David’s promise legitimates dynastic succession. 242 Jehu’s Dynasty and Dtr on Succession needs to be determined from all the Deuteronomistic texts that mention dynastic elements. Promises do not necessarily imply Dtr is pro-dynasty, and an examination of dynastic judgments (5.4.1.2) and lamp oracles (5.4.1.3) exposes Dtr’s anti-dynastic perspective. Thus, an analysis of all these texts reveals that Dtr views dynastic succession negatively. Dtr’s willingness to use promises indicates that he does not view dynasty as evil per se. However, it will be shown below that he views dynastic succession as a Xawed institution since it fails to produce righteous leaders. Dtr includes dynastic promises not to validate succession, but as an incentive for righteous behavior and to explain YHWH’s sovereign control over dynasties.71 One of Dtr’s highest values is adherence to divine commands. Dynastic promises provide an incentive to behave righteously, so they support Dtr’s concern for obedience. The incentive to obey is seen both in granting unconditional promises as a reward for righteous rulers (David and Jehu) and in the conditioning of promises upon obedience (Solomon and Jeroboam). Thus, Dtr assumes righteous leaders can expect divine blessings, particularly if they continue to act righteously. While political and religious leadership would look diVerently during Dtr’s exilic context than it did during the monarchy, presumably Dtr thinks that an expectation of divine blessings for righteous leaders should continue. However, unconditional promises can also undermine the motivation for obedience because disobedient rulers are allowed to continue experiencing divine beneWts originally granted to righteous ancestors. Thus, the promises of David and Jehu do not serve as well as the promises to Solomon and Jeroboam as motivators for obedience since the beneWciaries in unconditional promises are not accountable for their actions. While Jehu’s dynastic promise is unconditional, his dynasty is not as problematic as David’s since it only endures for four generations, thus he only requires a limited promise. Dtr addresses the problem of

71 Dtr may have included dynastic promises merely because they were present in his sources. While the discussion above concluded that dynastic promises are Deu- teronomistic, it is possible that Dtr modiWed an earlier version from the narrative tradition that he used. Jehu’s promise shows no obvious signs of an earlier tradition, but several scholars argue that David’s promise is original (see 3.1.7 and 5.3.5 above). Jehu’s Dynasty and Dtr on Succession 243 the continuation of David’s dynasty despite evil heirs with dynastic judgments: the eternal sword, the loss of Israel, and the exile of Hezekiah’s heirs (2 Sam. 12: 10; 1 Kgs. 11: 11–13; 2 Kgs. 20: 18; see 5.3.2 and 5.3.6 above). These judgments punish, but do not completely cut oV the house of David. Why does Dtr include the promises to David and Jehu if they provide less incentive for leaders to behave righteously? As discussed above (5.3.6), these unconditional promises explain why dynasties with so many unrighteous rulers were allowed to continue. Dtr is particularly interested in the fates of dynasties and oracles allow him to show his exilic readers that YHWH is sovereign over the dynasties of Israel and Judah. Longevity is explained by promises and instability by judgments. While unconditional promises are problematic for Dtr because they undermine the motivation of future rulers to behave righteously, they solve the problem of unrighteous rulers not being cut oV immediately. Since the promises to David and Jehu are based on obedience, Dtr can still use them to show YHWH rewarding righteousness. Thus, dynastic promises both encourage obedience and explain royal longevity. Conditional promises are more eVective as a motivation and unconditional ones as an explanation. Neither type of promise necessarily suggests that Dtr views succession itself favorably. His negative perspective toward dynasty will be seen in the following discussions of dynastic judgments and the lamp and priestly oracles.

5.4.1.2 Dynastic judgments reveal Dtr’s anti-dynastic bias Although Wallace thinks dynastic judgments are not a condemnation of dynasty (1986: 37), it is more reasonable to view them anti- dynastically since they oppose dynastic succession and support usurpation. Each time a ruler’s house is condemned, Dtr shows that YHWH’s veto ‘trumps’ the claim of the successor, thus he legitimates the usurpation of the throne of evil rulers. It is diYcult to interpret Dtr’s inclusion of judgments other than as a threat to the status quo because of its subversive message that unrighteous rulers deserve to be overthrown. 244 Jehu’s Dynasty and Dtr on Succession The paradox of the usurper is that the behavior he models is exactly the behavior he wants to discourage in others. He sets a precedent for violent seizures of the throne and then needs to defend himself against individuals who would follow his example. He also devalues the dynastic principle by killing his predecessor, most of whom are dynastic successors, but as he attempts to found his own dynasty he needs to re-establish the dynastic principle to ensure the success of his own heirs. Dtr, however, faces no paradoxical conXict when he includes a dynastic judgment since it is consistent with his values to show that unrighteous rulers should expect short reigns. By condemning a royal house, Dtr legitimates the usurpation of the throne of an evil ruler and he devalues the dynastic principle (e.g. 1 Kgs. 14: 7–14; 16: 1–4). Unrighteous rulers may claim dynastic succession, but for Dtr their claim is invalidated by their wicked behavior. Dtr’s critical attitude toward dynastic succession can be seen in how his judgments primarily target heirs, not founders (see also 2.4.8.1 above).72 Saul continues to reign long after Samuel’s initial judgment (1 Sam. 13: 14; 31: 6), but his heir, Ishbaal, is assassinated after only a short reign (2 Sam. 2: 10; 4: 7). David loses four sons as a consequence of dynastic judgments (see 5.2.4.4 above), but he dies a natural death (1 Kgs. 2: 10). Jeroboam and Baasha both receive judgments, yet they die naturally after long reigns while their sons are killed in conspiracies after only ruling for two years (1 Kgs. 14–16). Each of these kings continues to rule for a period after the judgment and is succeeded by an heir, who then quickly loses power. Dtr has YHWH cut oV the dynastically chosen heir from power, not the divinely chosen founder. From Dtr’s perspective, the reigns of successors are less legitimate. If Dtr included only dynastic promises and no dynastic judgments, then one might assume that he views dynasty favorably, but Dtr’s inclusion of so much material that portrays dynasties negatively leads to the opposite conclusion. When one examines Dtr’s promises and judgments together, his anti-dynastic perspective becomes apparent.

72 See Kaminsky (1995: 124) for a discussion of the problem raised by an exilic redactor including dynastic judgments that give corporate rather than individual consequences for sin (i.e. royal heirs being punished for the sins of their father). Jehu’s Dynasty and Dtr on Succession 245 First, Dtr gives more rulers dynastic judgments than dynastic promises. Eight rulers receive judgments (Saul, David, Solomon, Jeroboam I, Baasha, Ahab, Hezekiah, and Manasseh), while only four rulers have promises (David, Solomon, Jeroboam, and Jehu). Second, only two of the four promises are actually fulWlled. The conditional promises of Solomon and Jeroboam are revoked within one generation by judgments because of the disobedience of the ruler. By contrast, all of the dynastic punishments are meted out (i.e. none were merely warnings). Third, the two promises that are fulWlled are both limited by Dtr. Jehu’s line is meant to end after four generations. Even the unconditional promise to David’s dynasty is severely restricted after only two generations by a dynastic judgment when Rehoboam loses Israel (i.e. ‘the kingdom’: 1 Kgs. 11: 11, 31, 35; 12: 26; 14: 8). David’s dynasty endures until the exile, but its realm, the tribe of Judah, is understood by Dtr merely as a consolation prize (1 Kgs. 11: 13, 32; 12: 20). Thus, by including judgments that rescind Solomon’s promise, restrict David’s promise, and mandate violent punishments against Davidides (see 5.3.6.3 above), Dtr shows he is more interested in cursing David’s dynasty, than blessing it.

5.4.1.3 Lamp and priestly oracles are also anti-dynasty Dtr also uses lamp and priestly oracles to portray dynasty negatively. With each of the lamp oracles (see 5.3.3 above), an unrighteous heir ascends to the throne and, while Dtr implies that they deserve to be cut oV, he acknowledges that YHWH allows them to continue. Dtr does not attribute their continuation to a divine value for dynasty, but to YHWH’s commitment to reward David’s obedience. Rather than being evidence that Dtr views dynasty positively, these oracles are used merely to explain why evil rulers are not cut oV immediately. While the anonymous man of God’s speech mentions two priestly dynastic promises, his primary message is one of judgment against the house of Eli (1 Sam. 2: 27–36; for priestly oracles, see above 5.3.4). Dtr does not include the actual delivery of the two promises to their recipients since he only mentions them to show the extensiveness of the Elide punishments. The earlier promise to Eli’s ancestor is revoked because of the wickedness of Eli’s sons and in the future the 246 Jehu’s Dynasty and Dtr on Succession remnant of Eli’s family will be so desperate they will be forced to beg for food from a member of YHWH’s new priestly dynasty (1 Sam. 2: 36). The judgment against Eli’s dynasty is also repeated in the oracle spoken to the boy Samuel (1 Sam. 3: 11–14).73 Dtr makes the point that even though the house of Eli had an eternal promise they could still be cut oV from the priesthood. Thus, Dtr uses dynastic oracles to oppose dynastic succession. He does not include promises to portray dynastic succession favorably, but to reward obedience and explain longevity. He focuses the consequences of dynastic judgments against successors, not founders. He includes more judgments than promises and he either revokes or restricts all four of the promises given. Dtr’s lamp oracles explain why unrighteous heirs are allowed to continue and his priestly oracles show how wicked successors are cut oV. Dtr’s utilization of oracles is therefore consistent with his bias against dynastic successors in the DH.

5.4.2 Dtr’s bias against dynastic successors in the DH 5.4.2.1 Good leaders are succeeded by evil heirs in the DH The Jehuite pattern of a good leader followed by evil successors is repeated frequently in the DH, as an examination of the dynasties of Gideon, Eli, Samuel, and David will show. For each of these dynasties, Dtr has shaped the narrative to reveal his anti-dynastic perspective. The Wrst example of dynastic succession in the DH occurs in the dynasty of Gideon. Gideon is described positively as a charismatic leader (see 5.4.2.3 below), but his son Abimelech is portrayed as his antithesis.74 Gideon is selected by YHWH, but Abimelech gains power by slaughtering his seventy brothers (Judg. 6: 14; 9: 1–6). Gideon is possessed by YHWH’s spirit, but Abimelech is sent an evil spirit (Judg. 6: 34; 9: 23). With three hundred men Gideon

73 However, YHWH’s speech to Samuel does not appear to be from Dtr (1 Sam. 3: 11–14) since it includes less typical Deuteronomistic language. 74 Bluedorn observes extensive parallels and contrasts between Gideon and Abi- melech (2001: 183–5). Jehu’s Dynasty and Dtr on Succession 247 defeats thousands of Midianites, but Abimelech is killed by a woman (Judg. 7: 1–22; 9: 53). While Gideon initially refuses the kingship, he still takes on the trappings of royalty (wealth and many wives) and names his son Abimelech (Ll` m` jba´), which means ‘my father is king’ ˙ ¯ (Judg. 8: 22–32). Thus, it appears that Gideon perceived himself in a royal manner and Abimelech’s comments to the lords of Shechem suggests that dynastic continuity had already been established (Judg. 9: 2). Dtr’s bias against dynastic succession is seen in his inclusion of this negative material concerning the ‘reigns’ of Gideon and Abime- lech,75 and his insertion of Gideon’s emphatic rejection of the Israel- ites’ invitation to establish a dynastic monarchy (Judg. 8: 22–3).76 Eli is portrayed as a weak, but well-intentioned priest, while his two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, are described as evil priests (1 Sam. 1–2). After Wrst rebuking Hannah, Eli blesses her and when she gives birth to Samuel, Eli accepts him as an apprentice (1 Sam. 1: 12–28). He makes an attempt, albeit unsuccessful, to prevent the wicked behavior of his sons (1 Sam. 2: 22–5). Dtr mentions an eternal dynastic promise given to Eli’s ancestor, which is revoked because of the evil behavior of Eli’s sons (1 Sam. 2: 27–36; see above 5.3.4). Similarly to the royal judgments, Eli’s dynastic judgment primarily punishes his heirs, since Eli is allowed to live to age ninety-eight and his sons are killed in battle (1 Sam. 4: 15–18).77 With the Elide dynasty, Dtr again reveals how dynastic succession produces unrighteous leaders. Samuel begins his dynasty when he appoints his two sons, Joel and Abijah, as judges in his place (1 Sam. 8: 1–3). While Samuel is described as a faithful prophet and an ideal judge (1 Sam. 3: 20; 7: 3–17), his sons take bribes and pervert justice (1 Sam. 8: 3). Despite pronouncing judgments on the dynasties of Eli and Saul (1 Sam. 3: 11–18; 13: 13–14), Samuel is unwilling to remove his own sons from power when they prove to be unworthy judges. Because of Samuel’s reluctance to intervene, the elders of Israel complain about the unsuitability of Joel and Abijah and request a king (1 Sam. 8: 5).

75 The Gideon narrative could have naturally ended at either Judg. 7: 22 (see Boling 1975: 149) or at 8: 3 (see Webb 1987: 146). 76 Several scholars think Gideon’s rejection of the invitation for he and his son to rule (Judg. 8: 22–3) is secondary (e.g. Gray 1986: 298; Soggin 1981: 160). 77 However, Eli experiences a violent death after hearing about the fate of the ark (1 Sam. 4: 18). 248 Jehu’s Dynasty and Dtr on Succession McCarter (1980: 16) does not think the condemnation of Joel and Abijah (1 Sam. 8: 3–5) comes from Dtr, but the perspective of McKenzie (1996: 282–3; ET 2000: 301–2) that these verses were composed by Dtr is more compelling. Twice Deuteronomistic phraseology is used to describe how Samuel’s sons did not walk (Lle) in their father’s ways (1 Sam. 8: 3, 5).78 Additionally, connections to Deuteronomy are found in the accusation of taking bribes and perverting justice (1 Sam. 8: 3; Deut. 16: 19; cf. 10: 17; 27: 25) and in the request to have a king like other nations (1 Sam. 8: 5; Deut. 17: 14).79 In these verses, Dtr emphasizes that even Samuel, one of Israel’s best leaders, is unable to raise up sons who are worthy to succeed him. McCarter observes that the examples of Eli and Samuel warn about ‘the danger of hereditary succession’ (1980: 160). Thus, in the crucial transition into the period of Israel’s monarchy, Dtr emphasizes the problematic nature of dynastic succession. Ironically, the corrupt nature of Samuel’s dynasty served as the catalyst for establishing a monarchy consisting of corrupt dynasties. While David is Dtr’s ideal king (see 3.1.2), like Gideon, Eli, and Samuel, he is unable to raise up sons who follow in his ways. David had many sons (2 Sam. 3: 2–5; 5: 14–16; 12: 15, 24), but each of the four who Wgure prominently in the narrative (Amnon, Absalom, Adonijah, and Solomon) is portrayed negatively. Amnon, David’s Wrst-born and the only one of these four sons not called king, rapes his half-sister Tamar (2 Sam. 13: 1–19). When David does nothing to punish Amnon,80 Absalom murders his older brother and Xees, eventually returning to lead a temporarily successful coup against his father (2 Sam. 13–18). Adonijah follows Absalom’s example by proclaiming himself king, but when David pronounces Solomon as the legitimate king, his ‘reign’ ends (1 Kgs. 1: 5–53). While Dtr describes Solomon positively during the early years of his reign (1 Kgs. 3: 3), the only Deuteronomistic formulaic evaluation for him is negative (1 Kgs. 11: 6).

78 While the language of walking (or not walking) in someone’s ways is unusual for the book of Samuel, it occurs frequently in Deuteronomistic contexts in Kings (e.g. 1 Kgs. 2: 3; 3: 14; 8: 25, 36, 58; 15: 26, 34; 16: 2; cf. Weinfeld 1972: 333–4). 79 See also Gordon 1986: 109–10. 80 The MT of 2 Samuel 13: 21 does not state that David did not punish Amnon, but the LXX, with some support from Qumran, makes Amnon’s impunity explicit (see BHS). Jehu’s Dynasty and Dtr on Succession 249 Rost (1926: 82–139, ET 1982: 65–114) concluded that the so-called ‘Succession Narrative’ was written during the reign of Solomon to legitimate his rule and Dtr later used it in his history without making signiWcant changes to it.81 But why would Dtr include such a long narrative legitimizing the reign of a ruler he designates as evil (1 Kgs. 11: 6)? It is more reasonable to assume that Dtr included it not to portray Solomon positively, but to portray his older brothers negatively.82 The only reason that the Succession Narrative could be said to legitimate Solomon’s accession is that it views each of his older brothers so critically. The positive information about Solomon in the Succession Narrative in Samuel is limited to two verses (2 Sam. 12: 24–5). Anderson thinks that readers of the Succession Narrative would have probably asked, ‘Are any of David’s sons Wt to sit on the throne of Israel?’ (1989: p. xxxiii). It portrays them as rapists (Amnon and Absalom), a murderer (Absalom), and usurpers of their father’s throne (Absalom and Adonijah). While Dtr explicitly condemns only Solomon, his inclusion of the lengthy Succession Narrative that portrays David’s other sons so negatively reveals a perspective that is anti-dynasty. Even a ruler as righteous as David is succeeded by evil sons. Because of its primary message, this section of the DH would more appropriately be termed the ‘Anti-Succession Narrative’. While two of David’s descendants, Hezekiah and Josiah, receive unqualiWed positive regnal evaluations from Dtr, the majority of dynastic successors receive negative evaluations.83 Since Dtr portrays the sons of Hezekiah and Josiah highly negatively (Manasseh, Jehoa- haz, Jehoiakim, and Zedekiah), these kings also Wt the pattern of a righteous ruler succeeded by unrighteous sons. In the DH, no ruler with an unqualiWed righteous Deuteronomistic evaluation is followed by a son with even a qualiWed righteous evaluation.

81 See the discussions of Rost’s views in McCarter (1984: 9–16), Gordon (1986: 41–4), and Anderson (1989: pp. xxvi–xxxv). See also the discussions of Frolov (2002) and Barton (2004) concerning the recent scholarly trend to disavow the existence of a Succession Narrative. 82 The Succession Narrative also shows how the sword curse against David’s house is fulWlled (see 5.3.6.4 above). 83 Only six of the other twenty-nine dynastic successors receive even qualiWed positive evaluations (Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoash of Judah, Amaziah, Azariah, and Jotham). Ishbaal receives no evaluation from Dtr (cf. 2 Sam. 2: 8–10). 250 Jehu’s Dynasty and Dtr on Succession According to Dtr, Israel’s and Judah’s best leaders produce some of the worst successors. Dtr’s anti-dynastic critique does not merely target royal dynasties but includes also those of judges (Gideon and Samuel) and a priest (Eli).84 Dtr does not seem to think that righteousness is passed down from father to son. Thus, the dynasties of Gideon, Eli, Samuel, David, and Jehu provide Dtr with ample support for his negative perspective on dynastic succession.

5.4.2.2 Succession: a Xawed institution Dtr appears to view dynastic succession as a Xawed institution for selecting leaders since it leads to instability and encourages royal corruption. While one might expect dynastic succession to lead to political stability (it was the status quo both in the ANE, see 5.1.1 above, and in the DH),85 Dtr emphasizes how the dynasties of Israel and Judah are characterized by instability and chaos. In the DH, the majority of the rulers who are not dynastic successors (i.e. the usurpers plus Saul and David)86 are either unable to found a dynasty (4 out of 11: Zimri, Shallum, Pekah, and Hoshea) or found dynasties with only one heir (4 out of 11: Saul, Jeroboam, Baasha, and Menahem). Even the relatively stable Davidic dynasty encountered continual threats (rebellions, a dynastic purge, deaths of princes, and exiled kings), which Dtr attributes to a series of dynastic judgments against the house of David (see 5.3.6.3 and 5.3.6.4 above). The only rulers whose reigns Dtr does not explain with dynastic oracles are from the shortest dynasty (Menahem’s) or those without an heir. Since all of these rulers are evil, Dtr apparently thinks dynastic chaos should be expected for evil rulers and therefore it requires no special explanation. For the Wnal northern rulers (Zechariah through Hoshea), Dtr’s only textual concern is to show how evil kings are not even followed by one heir.87 This section (2 Kgs. 15: 8–31) consists primarily of Deuteronomistic material (mainly regnal formulas) and almost no narrative material, except

84 While Samuel is also described as a prophet (1 Sam. 3: 20), he appoints his sons to succeed him as judges (1 Sam. 8: 1). 85 Thirty-one of the forty-two rulers of Israel and Judah were dynastic successors. 86 One could argue that David was also a usurper. 87 Only one king during this period, Menahem, is succeeded by an heir. Jehu’s Dynasty and Dtr on Succession 251 for information about the four usurpations of the throne for these rulers (2 Kgs. 15: 10, 14, 25, 30).88 Dtr’s exclusive interest in showing the dynastic instability of their reigns apparently prevented him from including other details from the northern annals (2 Kgs. 15: 11, 15, 21, 26, 31). Another factor contributing to Dtr’s critique of dynastic succession is how it encourages royal corruption. Because of primogeniture, dynastic heirs have less incentive to be pious, which is a problem for Dtr because of his high value on righteousness. The expectation that the oldest prince will succeed his father eliminates the need to prove one’s worthiness to rule.89 Dtr addresses the problem of a lack of accountability by including dynastic judgments that provide a motivation to behave righteously. If Dtr viewed dynastic succession negatively, why does he not condemn it more directly as he does disobedience or idolatry? Whether Dtr wrote in Babylon or Judah, dynastic succession was the status quo.90 Even though Judah and Israel no longer had kings, most political and religious leaders of both the exilic community and Babylon would have been selected based on dynastic succession. Therefore, a blatant anti-dynastic message would be threatening to those in power and its author could be accused of treason. As has been argued above, Dtr made his point that dynastic succession is not an eVective method for producing righteous rulers, but his message needed to be expressed subtly, due to its subversive nature. The period of the early exile (see also 1.2.1 above) would be an appropriate time for Dtr not only to chronicle recent historical events, but also to communicate his anti-dynastic message. The last of Josiah’s four reigning heirs had recently lost power in Jerusalem (2 Kgs. 25: 6–7). Under these Josianic rulers dynastic succession in the DH had reached its nadir. All four rulers were evil (2 Kgs. 23: 32, 37; 24: 9, 19), and two of them led foolish and unsuccessful rebellions (2 Kgs. 24: 1, 20). Their chaotic series of successions included Wrst a

88 For two of these Wnal rulers Dtr brieXy mentions Israel’s involvement with Assyria (2 Kgs. 15: 19–20, 29). 89 Occasionally younger sons are selected by their father to rule (e.g. Solomon and Jehoahaz of Judah). 90 Noth’s suggestion that Dtr wrote in Palestine based on his availability to sources is compelling (1957: 110 n. 1, ET 1991: 145 n. 1). 252 Jehu’s Dynasty and Dtr on Succession younger son (Jehoahaz), then an older brother (Jehoiakim), a son (Jehoiachin), and Wnally an uncle (Zedekiah). The only favorably portrayed ruler in this Wnal section of the DH, Gedaliah, was not chosen to lead dynastically, although his ancestry could be described as righteous. His father rescued the prophet Jeremiah (Jer. 26: 24) and his grandfather was centrally involved in Josiah’s reform (2 Kgs. 21: 3–14). However, Gedaliah’s apparently positive rule was cut short after he was assassinated by Ishmael, a member of Josiah’s royal family (2 Kgs. 25: 25). Immediately following these events, Dtr would have had ample recent examples, in addition to ones examined above, of the problems created by dynastic succession. An anti-dynastic work would have been timely around 580 bce. At that particular point in the exile, readers would have been receptive to Dtr’s message of the tragic consequences of selecting leaders based simply upon a royal lineage.91

5.4.2.3 Charismatic legitimation: Dtr’s alternative to dynastic succession According to Dtr, even righteous leaders (Gideon, Eli, Samuel, David, and Jehu) are succeeded by heirs who do not follow in their righteous ways. Dtr’s bias favoring charismatic over dynastic rulers suggests that charismatic legitimation is Dtr’s preferred alternative to dynastic succession. In addition to charismatic kings (see 3.2.3 above), the DH includes examples of judges and prophets who are portrayed favorably and are described charismatically (divine election, spiritual manifestations, heroic or supernatural deeds, and divine speech; see 5.3.2).92 Table 5.4A has been constructed listing charismatic attributes (from Table 3.2A above) for ten non-royal leaders of the DH. Four attributes from Table 3.2A have been omitted since they do not generally apply to non-royal leaders (evaluation, anointing, popular support, and dynastic promise).93 All of these

91 See also 5.3.6.2 above concerning possible interpretations of the continuation of David’s royal lineage. 92 Priests (e.g. Eli, Ahimelech, and Zadok) are not generally described charismatically. 93 Although Elijah was commanded to anoint Elisha, the text never records this incident (1 Kgs. 19: 16). Table 5.4A. Charismatic attributes of non-royal leaders of the DH

Leader Divine election Spirit of YHWH Heroic/ supern. Divine speech Total

Joshuaa XXXX4 Othnielb XXX 3 Ehudc XX2 Deborahd XX2 Gideone XXXX4 Jephthahf XXX 3 Samsong XXX 3 Samuelh XX?XX4 Elijahi XXX3 Elishaj XXX 3 a References for Joshua: divine election (Josh. 1: 1–9), spirit of YHWH (Deut. 34: 9), heroic deeds (Josh. 6, 8, 10), and divine speech (Josh. 1: 1). b References for Othniel: divine election (Judg. 3: 9), spirit of YHWH (3: 10), and heroic deeds (3: 10). c References for Ehud: divine election (Judg. 3: 15) and heroic deeds (3: 16–30). d References for Deborah: heroic deeds (Judg. 4: 4–24). The Deuteronomistic overview of the book suggests that all of the judges were divinely elected (Judg. 2: 16, 18). e References for Gideon: divine election (6: 14), spirit of YHWH (6: 34), heroic deeds (7: 14–8: 21), and divine speech (6: 23). f References for Jephthah: divine election (1 Sam. 12: 11; cf. Judg. 2: 16, 18), spirit of YHWH (Judg. 11: 29), and heroic deeds (11: 29–33). g References for Samson: divine election (Judg. 13: 3–5), spirit of YHWH (13: 25; 14: 6, 19; 15: 14), and heroic deeds (14: 6, 19; 15: 14; 16: 28–30). h References for Samuel: heroic deeds (1 Sam. 7: 7–11) and divine speech (1 Sam. 3: 10–14). YHWH speech to Samuel as a boy (1 Sam. 3: 2–14) is regarded as a divine calling (Hertzberg 1960: 29, ET 1964: 41; McCarter 1980: 99–101). The spirit of YHWH is not said to come upon Samuel, but he mediates it (1 Sam. 10: 6, 10; 16: 13; 19: 20). i References for Elijah: heroic deeds (1 Kgs. 18: 19–40) and divine speech (1 Kgs. 17: 2, 8; 18: 1; 19: 9; 21: 17). Elijah and Elisha are not said to receive the spirit of YHWH, but others associate Elijah with YHWH’s spirit (1 Kgs. 18: 12; 2 Kgs. 2: 16) and Elijah’s spirit is described as being passed on to Elisha (2 Kgs. 2: 9, 15). j References for Elisha: divine election (1 Kgs. 19: 16), spirit of YHWH (see previous note), and supernatural deeds (2 Kgs. 2: 19–22; 4: 1–8: 6; 13: 14–21). leaders display heroic or supernatural behavior, all except Elijah are selected to lead by YHWH himself, and most are connected to the spirit of YHWH (see also Malamat 1976). Even with only four possible charismatic attributes, eight of ten of these leaders have at least three attributes and the other two have two attributes. Therefore, all of these leaders could be considered charismatic. With a few exceptions (e.g. Gideon’s ephod: Judg. 8: 27; Samson’s involvement with Philistine women: Judg. 14, 16), these ten charismatic leaders are portrayed very favorably in the text. While an 254 Jehu’s Dynasty and Dtr on Succession in-depth examination of the Deuteronomistic character of the narratives associated with these nine individuals is beyond the scope of this work, Dtr’s inclusion of these positive portrayals supports the idea that he favored charismatic leaders.

5.4.3 Summary

An examination of oracles and dynasties in the DH has shown that Dtr’s favorable attitude toward Jehu and his critical attitude toward Jehu’s heirs are not only due to their righteous or evil behavior, but also to Dtr’s negative perspective toward dynastic succession. Dtr includes unconditional dynastic promises for Jehu and David, not because he values succession, but to explain why their long dynasties consisting of many unrighteous rulers were allowed to continue. Dtr uses the three lamp oracles for a similar explanatory purpose, to remind his readers that evil heirs are not cut oV because of their ancestor David’s loyal service to YHWH. Dtr also explains the brevity of Israel’s evil dynasties with judgments. David’s parallel eternal oracles, a promise and a curse, account for the enduring nature of his dynasty despite the frequent threats. Dtr shapes the narratives of the dynasties of Gideon, Eli, Samuel, David, and Jehu to emphasize his message that righteous leaders are typically succeeded by unrighteous heirs. Dtr portrays dynastic succession as a Xawed system for selecting leaders because it fails to produce righteous rulers and for Dtr the righteousness of a ruler is his deWning characteristic. Since dynastic succession was the primary method of leadership transition in the DH and the ANE, Dtr’s subversive message would have been a threat to those in power. Thus, Dtr prefers charismatic rulers to dynastic rulers. Dynastic successors can rely on their status as heirs to legitimate their rule so they tend to be independent of YHWH and unrighteous. According to Dtr, charismatic leaders are more likely to be righteous and dependent upon YHWH because YHWH has selected them, Wlled them with his spirit, worked through them supernaturally, and spoken to them directly. While authority structures would have looked diVerently during Dtr’s exilic context, lessons learned about leadership from the Jehu’s Dynasty and Dtr on Succession 255 monarchical period could still apply. The exilic community would continue to have religious leaders and even perhaps political leaders appointed by their Babylonian rulers. Many of their leaders could have been dynastic successors, since during the Wnal years of Judah, two of the three foreign political appointees were also royal sons (Jehoiakim and Zedekiah).94 Into this context, Dtr’s message would stress that leaders should be chosen by YHWH, not simply because their fathers were leaders, and that all leaders need to be obedient to YHWH’s commands, otherwise YHWH will remove them from power, even if they are dynastic heirs, just as he did to the evil kings of Israel and Judah.

94 Neco selected Jehoiakim to rule and Nebuchadnezzar selected Zedekiah to rule (2 Kgs. 23: 34; 24: 17). Gedaliah was appointed to be over the remnant by Nebu- chadnezzar, but he appears to have no royal blood (2 Kgs. 25: 22). 6

Conclusion

6.1 SUMMARY: DTR’S CRITIQUE OF DYNASTIC SUCCESSION

While dynastic succession was the status quo in the ANE, Dtr’s history of Israel and Judah includes the subversive message that dynastic succession typically produces evil rulers. Dtr’s negative perspective toward dynastic succession is clearly seen in the dynasty of Jehu as he evaluates the founder as righteous and his heirs as evil despite source material that could suggest the opposite conclusion. By stating that additional material from the annals of the kings of Israel and Judah is not included, Dtr makes explicit his role as a redactor in the book of Kings. Within the narrative of Jehu’s dynasty, Dtr shapes his sources, including or excluding material and emphasizing and de-emphasizing various aspects, in order to show how succession is a Xawed system for selecting leaders. The remainder of section 6.1 summarizes the conclusions of each chapter of the book, revealing Dtr’s anti-succession bias as seen in the portrayals of Jehu, his heirs, and the dynasty more broadly. Chapter 1 observed that, despite the uniqueness of Jehu’s dynasty among the dynasties of the northern kingdom (e.g. royal longevity, military success, and prophetic support), scholars have generally avoided examining the dynasty as a whole. The chapter reviewed both the limited scholarship related to the dynasty and the extensive scholarship on the Deuteronomistic History. It concluded that Noth’s perspective of a single redactor working in the exile is still the most reasonable theory, with the modiWcation that Dtr wrote shortly after the fall of Jerusalem (probably before 580 bce), and it deWned the textual limits of the Jehuite narrative. Conclusion 257 Chapter 2 began the actual examination of Jehu’s dynasty by focusing on the founder and concluded that Dtr is biased in favor of Jehu. While Jehu does not turn from the sins of Jeroboam, Dtr still gives him a righteous evaluation, making him unique among rulers of the northern kingdom. Four Neo-Assyrian sources link Jehu to the Omri dynasty and to Shalmaneser III, but Dtr does not mention either of these connections, presumably since it would have reXected negatively on Jehu to be associated with an evil house or portrayed as an Assyrian vassal. While the narratives of only a few rulers of Israel and Judah mention either anointing or election, Dtr repeats Jehu’s anointing and his election, thus emphasizing his legitimacy to rule by giving him both divine and prophetic support. The book of Hosea condemns Jehu’s bloodshed, but Dtr not only narrates the details of Jehu’s slaughter of the worshippers of Baal and the royal houses of Israel and Judah, but he also praises Jehu for his acts of zealous obedience to the commands of YHWH to eradicate evildoers. Generally in the ANE and the DH, righteously portrayed leaders succeed in battle and expand their borders and, while Dtr did not omit Jehu’s defeat and territorial loss to Hazael, he minimizes the problem by narrating the incident brieXy with few of the battle details that he typically includes. Thus, Dtr’s favorable perspective on Jehu is seen as he omits and de-emphasizes negative aspects of Jehu’s narrative (lineage, contracting borders, and Assyrian tribute) and he emphasizes and repeats positive aspects (righteous evaluation, prophetic anointing, divine election, and obedience). In Chapter 3 it was revealed how Dtr’s positive attitude toward Jehu is explained by his bias favoring charismatic rulers. Dtr considers David the ideal monarch and, surprisingly, the DH ruler who shares the most positive similarities to David is not Hezekiah or Josiah, but Jehu. The term ‘charismatic’ was deWned broadly to include any characteristics that suggest divine or human favor, since the root word æØÆ simply means favor or gift. The many favorable parallels between these two rulers contribute to their charismatic portrayals. These portrayals were initially present in Dtr’s sources (anointing, election, spiritual manifestations, heroic exploits, popular support, and David’s divine communication). Dtr’s bias favoring Jehu and David is seen in how he builds upon the charismatic portrayals from his sources. Dtr repeats their elections and anointings, explains Jehu’s heroic exploits as 258 Conclusion acts of obedience to YHWH, and includes their positive evaluations, YHWH’s speech to Jehu, and their dynastic promises. Chapter 4 shifted the focus from Jehu to his four royal heirs, examining Dtr’s negative perspective toward them. Dtr evaluates each of Jehu’s sons as evil, despite signiWcant positive information from his source about three of them (Jehoahaz, Jehoash, and Jeroboam II). Based on Deuteronomy’s law of the king and the pattern seen elsewhere in the ANE and the DH, one would not expect rulers deemed as evil to experience longevity, but these three Jehuites reign for seventy-four years. Within the ANE and elsewhere in the DH, individuals who are portrayed as righteous experience positive responses to their prayers or receive prophetic support. Jehoahaz is unique in the DH as an unrighteous ruler whose prayer is answered. Jehoash and Jeroboam are the only evil rulers in the DH to receive exclusive prophetic support. Addition- ally, these three Jehuites are unusual as unrighteous rulers who succeed militarily. Jehoahaz ends the Aramean oppression begun under his father Jehu, Jehoash defeats not only Ben-hadad of Aram, but also righteous Amaziah of Judah, and Jeroboam re-establishes the borders of the Davidic empire according to the divine word from the prophet Jonah. Dtr’s respect for his sources apparently did not allow him to take the more extreme option chosen by Josephus of changing the biblical account of these three Jehuites to portray them more favorably in order to minimize the tension created by positive narratives for evil kings. The unrighteous designations for Jehu’s heirs cannot be attributed simply to an anti-northern polemic, since Dtr praises Jehu highly. Rather, Dtr appears to target his criticism speciWcally at Jehuite dynastic successors, in stark contrast to his favorable perspective on Jehu. It was argued in Chapter 5 that the bias favoring Jehu and opposing his heirs can be attributed to Dtr’s negative perspective toward dynastic succession in general. While dynastic succession was the primary method of royal transition in both the ANE and the DH, dynastic continuity was not guaranteed. The dynasties of the northern kingdom were particularly unstable and even David’s relatively stable Judean dynasty was frequently endangered. While dynastic promises might seem to suggest that Dtr is pro-dynasty, the promises to Jehu and David are included by Dtr not because he values dynastic succession, but to show that obedience is divinely rewarded and to explain why dynasties with so many unrighteous rulers are allowed to continue to Conclusion 259 rule. Similarly, Dtr includes dynastic judgments as explanations for the brevity of evil dynasties and usurpers who lack successors require no oracular explanations since dynastic chaos should be expected for evil rulers. In the DH, Dtr gives more rulers dynastic judgments than promises and all of the promises either are quickly revoked (Solo- mon’s and Jeroboam’s) or are severely limited (David’s and Jehu’s). Therefore, Dtr’s use of dynastic oracles is consistent with his negative perspective on dynastic succession. Dtr’s anti-dynastic pattern of a righteous founder being succeeded by evil heirs is not only seen in the dynasty of Jehu, but Dtr repeats this pattern in David’s dynasty and in the pre-monarchical dynasties of Gideon, Eli, and Samuel. Thus, Dtr views dynastic succession as a Xawed institution because dynastically chosen leaders are typically evil. He prefers charismatic leaders to dynastic ones since they are more dependent upon YHWH, not only for initial legitimation, but also for guidance and support during their reign. Therefore, Dtr’s favorable attitude toward charismatic rulers explains his positive bias toward Jehu (and David) and his negative perspective on dynastic heirs explains his bias against Jehu’s heirs (and the heirs of Gideon, Eli, Samuel, and David). The intended audience of Dtr’s subversive critique of dynastic succession would have primarily been his early exilic community. Since they would have needed quickly to establish new systems of leadership selection for their religious and even possibly political leaders (perhaps appointed by Babylonian rulers), Dtr communi- cates his message regarding the inherent danger of selecting leaders based simply on dynastic succession. The core of his message is that leaders should be divinely, not dynastically chosen, and that they must remain obedient to YHWH, otherwise YHWH will remove them from power, just as he did to the rulers of Israel and Judah.

6.2 TWO ADDITIONAL IMPLICATIONS AND THREE UNRESOLVED QUESTIONS

In addition to the conclusion regarding Dtr’s critique of dynastic succession, this research suggests two further implications and raises three questions that will need to be fully answered elsewhere. 260 Conclusion The Wrst implication lends support for Noth’s original theory (no Josianic redactor); however, the second implication undermines certain aspects of his theory (a uniWed Samuel–Kings). Building upon the arguments of chapter 1 for a single, exilic Deuteronomistic redactor, the discussions of Chapters 3 and 5 suggest that there was no Josianic, pro-monarchical Deuteronomist layer (Dtr1) theorized by scholars such as Cross. While Josiah is described righteously, based on observations from Chapter 3 it is not necessary to assume, as Cross does (1973: 287), that a redactor was situated during his reign. Dtr’s use of ‘incomparable’ language to describe both the righteousness of rulers (David, Hezekiah, and Josiah) and the evilness of rulers (Jeroboam, Omri, Ahab, and Manasseh) reveals a Deuteronomistic tendency to use rhetorical hyperbole that need not suggest a Josianic setting (see 3.1.2). Even more striking, however, is the almost complete lack of charismatic descriptors used for Josiah (see 3.2.3), which also implies that Dtr is not as interested in this ruler as Cross believes. Chapter 5 (see 5.4.1) reveals that the Davidic promise and the lamp oracles cannot simply be used as evidence that the Deuteronomist viewed the monarchy favorably, as concluded by Cross (1973: 281–5). Rather, Dtr uses these oracles to explain Davidide and Jehuite longevity and, when the dynastic promises are examined in conjunction with the judgments, Dtr’s anti- monarchical perspective becomes apparent. Therefore, the Wndings of this analysis provide additional evidence for a single Deuteronomistic exilic redactor, as theorized by Noth. The argument that the books of Samuel and Kings may have once existed together as a uniWed document, separate from Joshua and Judges, receives support from this examination of Jehu’s dynasty.1 The dynastic focus of the Wnal two books of the DH not only uniWes them, but also makes them distinct from the Wrst two books of the DH, which lack a similar interest.2 This distinction is dramatically

1 Auld also speaks of a shared source for Samuel–Kings and Chronicles (1994). 2 AdeWnitive argument that Samuel and Kings were once separate is not being presented here, but merely some observations that suggest this may have been the case. While Gideon’s dynasty has been cited in support of conclusions drawn above (see 5.4.2.1), since the vast majority of supporting textual references occur in the books of Samuel and Kings, if one were to decide the latter two books were separate, the conclusions drawn above would still be valid. Conclusion 261 evidenced by the occurrence of dynastic oracles. Chapter 5 lists the twenty-six dynastic oracles (promises, judgments, lamp oracles, and priestly oracles) that pervade the books of Samuel and Kings (5.3.1–4). By contrast, however, dynastic oracles are completely absent from the books of Joshua and Judges.3 Further support for a uniWed Samuel–Kings can be seen in the continuity of characters between the books (e.g. David, Joab, Solomon, Bathsheba, Nathan, Zadok, and Abiathar), whereas no major characters from Judges appear in Samuel.4 Additionally, the translators of the LXX considered these books a four-part uniWed series about kingship (´ÆØºØH A, B, ˆ, and ˜) and separated them from Judges by positioning the book of Ruth before them.5 For these two books that chronicle the story of the rise and fall of the nations of Israel and Judah to have been a single work is a reasonable assumption based not only on their unifying concern for monarchy and dynasty, but also on their narrative continuity, which distinguishes them from the material that precedes them. Three questions also arise from this research that can only be brieXy discussed and will need to be investigated more fully elsewhere. First, how would examinations of the other dynasties of Israel and Judah shed light on Dtr’s critique of succession? This discussion was unable to engage in detailed analysis of dynasties other than Jehu’s. David’s dynasty would certainly warrant a more in-depth investigation, as would Israel’s second longest dynasty, that of Omri,6 and perhaps even the shorter dynasties of Saul, Jeroboam, Baasha, and Menahem. Second, Dtr’s critique of succession suggests that he viewed the monarchy negatively, but how did Dtr view power more generally? While the majority of the kings of Israel and Judah were evil, many of

3 The absence of dynastic oracles in the books of Joshua and Judges cannot be merely attributed to the lack of a monarchy during that period. Gideon appears to establish a dynasty (see 5.4.2.1 above) and, after Abimelech’s violent accession to power, Jotham pronounces a judgment oracle that lacks a dynastic focus (Judg. 9: 7–20). Additionally, Joshua and Judges include priestly dynasties (Josh. 21: 4, 13; 22: 13, 30–31; Judg. 17: 12; 18: 30), but no dynastic oracles. By contrast, three of the oracles in the book of Samuel focus on priestly dynasties. 4 See also the discussion on the Succession Narrative (5.4.2.1). 5 See also Jones (1984: 2). 6 See also Timm’s monograph on the Omri dynasty (1982). 262 Conclusion them start their reigns well but have problems later, suggesting that they were corrupted by the power of their oYce. The most obvious examples of this phenomenon are Saul, David, Jeroboam, and Solomon, but even righteous Hezekiah and Josiah experience consequences that may have been due to their own sin (a dynastic judgment and early death in battle). Third, since crusades against societal institutions are often fueled by one’s own experiences, what personal factors contributed to Dtr’s critique of succession? While it is impossible to determine conWdently the initial causes of Dtr’s negative perspective, some speculation can be excused at this point. Dtr could have had a negative experience involving nepotism that contributed to his bias, since selecting one’s own son as a successor is a type of nepotistic behavior. Or more reasonably, Dtr may have come from a prophetic circle, which viewed other, more dynastic forms of leadership, critically. The DH includes almost no evidence that prophets were chosen dynastically, unlike kings and priests.7 Or it may be simply that Dtr identiWed so strongly with the fate of the nation that when the exile occurred, he needed to investigate the historical records to determine the causes of the crisis. He discovered that, by allowing the evil sons of righteous rulers to remain in power, dynastic succession corrupted the monarchy. Evil rulers then led the people into sin,8 and the sin of the rulers and the people eventually caused YHWH to send both nations into exile (2 Kgs. 17: 7–21; 21: 11–16; 24: 3–4). Dtr therefore committed himself to subvert the institution of dynastic succession, since he considered it one of the primary causes of the destruction of the nations of Israel and Judah.

7 The term ‘sons of the prophets’ (zja: jb´en jn¨b´) mentioned in Kings (e.g. 1 Kgs. 20: ˙ ¯ 35; 2 Kgs. 2: 3), simply refers to members¯ of a prophet order (see Jones 1984: 348 and Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 31). 8 For most northern kings, Dtr refers to the sins that Jeroboam caused the people to commit (e.g. 1 Kgs. 15: 26), but he also mentions other rulers causing the people to sin: Baasha, Elah, Ahab, and Manasseh (1 Kgs. 16: 2, 13; 21: 22; 2 Kgs. 21: 11, 16). Bibliography

Abegg, M., Flint, P., and Ulrich, E. C. (1999) The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Abusch,T.,Huehnergard,J.,andSteinkeller,P.,eds.(1990)LingeringoverWords: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Ackroyd, P. R. (1968) Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century B.C. London: SCM Press. —— (1971) The First Book of Samuel [CBC]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. —— (1977) The Second Book of Samuel [CBC]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Aharoni, Y. (1967) The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Phila- delphia, Pa: Westminster Press. —— (1970) ‘Mount Carmel as Border’, Kuschke and Kutsch: 1–7. Ahlstro¨m, G. W. (1968) ‘Solomon, the Chosen One’, HR 8: 93–110. —— (1977) ‘King Jehu: A Prophet’s Mistake’, Merriland and Overholt: 47–69. —— (1988) ‘The Battle at Ramoth-Gilead in 841 B.C.’, Augustin and Schunck: 157–66. Alt, A. (1951) ‘Das Ko¨nigtum in den Reichen Israel und Juda’, VT 1: 2–22. ET 1966: ‘The Monarchy in the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah’, in Essays on Old Testament History and Religion. Oxford: Blackwell, 241–59. Alter, R. (1981) The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books. —— (1999) The David Story: A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel. New York: Norton. Amit, Y. (1999) History and Ideology: An Introduction to Historiography in the Hebrew Bible. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Anderson, A. (1989) 2 Samuel [WBC 11]. Dallas: Word. Anderson, F. I., and Freedman, D. N. (1980) Hosea [AB 24]. Garden City: Doubleday. —— (1989) Amos [AB 24a]. New York: Doubleday. Archi, A. (1979) ‘The Epigraphic Evidence from Ebla and the Old Testament’, Bib 60: 556–66. Arnold, B. T. (1994) ‘The Weidner Chronicle and the Idea of History in Israel and Mesopotamia’, in Millard et al. (1994), 129–48. 264 Bibliography

Arnold, B. T. and Williamson, H. G. M. (2005) Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. Ash, P. (1998) ‘Jeroboam I and the Deuteronomistic Historian’s Ideology of the Founder’, CBQ 60: 16–24. Athas, G. (2003) The Tel Dan Inscription: A Reappraisal and a New Interpret- ation [JSOTSup 360]. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Augustin, M., and Schunck, K.-D., ed. (1988) Wu¨nschet Jerusalem Frieden. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Auld, A. G. (1994) Kings without Privilege: David and Moses in the Story of the Bible’s Kings. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. —— and Eynikel, E., eds. (forthcoming) For and Against David. Story and History in the Books of Samuel. Avigad, N. (1969) ‘A Group of Hebrew Seals’, EI 9: 1–9. Avishur, Y., and Deutsch, R., eds. (1999) Historical, Epigraphical and Biblical Studies in Honor of Prof. Michael Heltzer. Tel Aviv and Jaffa: Archaeological Center. Baldwin, J. G. (1988) 1and2Samuel[TOTC 8]. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. Barr, J. (1962) Biblical Words for Time. London: SCM Press. Barre´, L. M. (1988) The Rhetoric of Political Persuasion. The Narrative Artistry and Political Intentions of 2 Kings 9–11 [CBQMS 20]. Washington: Catholic Biblical Association. Barrick, W. B. (1985) ‘Elisha and the Magic Bow: A Note on 2 Kings 13:15–17’, VT 35: 355–63. —— (2002) The King and the Cemeteries: Toward a New Understanding of Josiah’s Reforms [VTSup 88]. Leiden: Brill. —— and Spencer, J. R. (1984) In the Shelter of Elyon [JSOTSup 31]. Shef- field: JSOT Press. Barton, J. (2004) ‘Dating the ‘‘Succession Narrative’’’,in Day (2004), 95–106. Becking, B. (1999) ‘Did Jehu Write the Tel Dan Inscription?’, SJOT 13: 187–201. Beckman, G. (1995) Hittite Diplomatic Texts [WAW 7]. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Begg, C. (2000) Josephus’ Story of the Later Monarchy [BETL 145]. Leuven: Leuven University Press. Ben Zvi, E. (1991) ‘Once the Lamp has been Kindled . . . A Reconsideration of the Meaning of the MT Nıˆr in 1 Kgs 11: 36; 15: 4; 2 Kgs 8: 19 and 2 Chr 21: 7’, ABR 39: 19–30. Biran, A., and Naveh, J. (1993) ‘An Aramaic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan’, IEJ 43: 81–98. —— (1995) ‘The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Fragment’, IEJ 45: 1–18. Bibliography 265

Birch, B. C. (1976) The Rise of the Israelite Monarchy: The Growth and Development of 1 Samuel 7–15. Missoula: Scholars Press. Bluedorn, W. (2001) Yahweh Versus Baalism: A Theological Reading of the Gideon-Abimelech Narrative [JSOTSup 329]. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Boadt, L. (1984) Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction. New York: Paulist. Boling, R. G. (1975) Judges: A New Translation with Introduction and Com- mentary [AB 6A]. Garden City: Doubleday. Borger, R. (1956) Die Inschriften Asarhaddons Ko¨nigs von Assyrien. Graz: Im Selbstverlage des Herausgebers. Brekelmans, C. and Lust, J., eds. (1990) Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic Studies [BETL 94]. Leuven: Leuven University Press. Briend, J. (1981) ‘Jeroboam II, sauveur d’Israe¨l’, in Caquot and Delcor (1981), 41–9. Brinkman, J. A. (1968) A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylon 1158–722 B.C. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum. —— (1984) Prelude to Empire. Babylonian Society and Politics 747–626 B.C. Philadelphia: University Museum. Brooke, G. J., and Kaestli, J.-D., eds. (2000) Narrativity in Biblical and Related Texts [BETL 149]. Leuven: Leuven University Press. Brueggemann, W. (2000) 1 and 2 Kings. Macon: Smyth & Helwys. —— and Wolff, H. W. (1975) The Vitality of the Old Testament Traditions. Atlanta: John Knox Press. Buccellati, G. (1967) Cities and Nations of Ancient Syria: An Essay on Political Institutions with Special Reference to the Israelite Kingdoms. Rome: University of Rome. Burney, C. F. (1970) The Book of Judges: With Introduction and Notes; Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Book of Kings: With an Introduction and Appendix. New York: Ktav Publishing House. Butler, T. C. (1988) Joshua [WBC 7]. Waco: Word. Campbell, A. F. (1986) Of Prophets and Kings: A Late Ninth Century Docu- ment (1–Samuel–Kings 10) [CBQMS 17]. Washington: Catholic Biblical Association. Campbell, A., and O’Brien, M. (2000) Unfolding the Deuteronomistic History. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Caquot, A., and Delcor, M. (1981) Melanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Henri Cazelles. Kevelaer: Neukirchen-Vluyn. Carlson, R. A. (1964) David, the Chosen King: ATraditio-Historical Approach to the Second Book of Samuel. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. 266 Bibliography

Carreira, J. N. (1991) ‘Charisma und Institution: Zur Verfassung des Ko¨nigtum in Israel und Juda’, in Liwak and Wagner (1991), 39–51. Clements, R. E. (1965) God and Temple. Oxford: Blackwell. Clines, D. J. A. (1972) ‘X, X Ben Y, Ben Y: Personal Names in Hebrew Narrative Style’, VT 22: 266–87. Coats, G. W. (1985) Saga, Legend, Tale, Novella, Fable [JSOTSup 35]. Sheffield: JSOT Press. Cody, A. (1970) ‘A New Inscription from Tell Al-Rimah and King Jehoash of Israel’, CBQ 32: 325–40. Cogan, M. (2001) 1 Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Com- mentary [AB 10]. New York: Doubleday. —— and Eph’al, I., eds. (1991) Ah, Assyria: Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography. Jerusalem: Magnes. —— and Tadmor, H. (1988) II Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 11]. New York: Doubleday. Collins, J. (2003) ‘The Zeal of Phinehas: The Bible and the Legitimation of Violence’, JBL 122: 3–21. Cortese, E. (1975) ‘Lo schema deuteronomistico per i re di Guida e d’Israel’, Bib 56: 37–52. Couturier, G. (2001) ‘Quelques observations sur le bytdwd de la ste`le arame´enne de Tel Dan’, in Daviau et al. (2001), 72–98. Craig, J. A. (1895–7) Assyrian and Babylonian Religious Texts. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs. Crenshaw, J. L., ed. (1983) Theodicy in the Old Testament. London: SPCK. Cross, F. M. (1973) Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays on the History of the Religion of Israel. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. —— Lemke, W. E., and Miller, P. D. (1976) Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Memory of G. Ernest Wright. Garden City: Doubleday. Cundall, A. E., and Morris, L. (1968) Judges and Ruth [TOTC 7]. Leicester: Tyndale. Dalley, S. (1986) ‘The God S.almu and the Winged Disk’, Iraq 48: 85–101. —— (1993) ‘Anointing in Ancient Mesopotamia’, in Dudley and Rowell (1993: 19–25). Daviau, P. M. M., Wevers, J. W., and Weigl, M., eds. (2001) The World of the Aramaeans II [JSOTSup 325]. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Davies, G. H. (1963) ‘Judges viii 22–23’, VT 13: 151–7. Davies, P. R. (1992) In Search of ‘Ancient Israel’ [JSOTSup 148]. Sheffield: JSOT Press. Day, J. (2000) Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan [JSOTSup 265]. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Bibliography 267

—— ed. (2004) In Search of Pre-Exilic Israel [JSOTSup 406]. London: T. & T. Clark. —— ed. (Forthcoming) Prophecy and the Prophets in Ancient Israel. Dearman, J. A., ed. (1989) Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab. Atlanta: Scholars Press. —— and Graham, M. P., eds. (2001) The Land that I will Show You: Essays on the History and Archeology of the Ancient Near East in Honor of J. Maxwell Miller [JSOTSup 343]. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. DeVries, S. J. (1985) I Kings [WBC 12]. Waco: Word. Dever, W. G. (2001) What did the Biblical Writers Know and When did they Know it? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. —— (2003) Who were the Early Israelites and Where did they Come from? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. —— (2004) ‘Histories and Non-Histories of Ancient Israel: The Question of the United Monarchy’, in Day (2004: 65–94). Dietrich, M., and Kottsieper, I., eds. (1998) ‘Und Mose schrieb dieses Lied auf’. Studien zum Alten Testament und zum Alten Orient. Festschrift fu¨r Oswald Loretz zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres.Mu¨nster: Ugarit-Ver- lag. —— and Loretz, O., eds. (1993) Mesopotamica—Ugaritica—Biblica Festschrift fu¨r Kurt Bergerhof zur Vollendung seines 70 Legensjahres am 7 Mai. Kevelaur: Neukirchen-Vluyn. —— —— and Sanmartı´n, J., eds. (1995) The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani, and Other Places (KTU). Mu¨nster: Ugarit- Verlag. Dietrich, W. (1972) Prophetie und Geschichte: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk [FRLANT 108]. Go¨ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. —— (1977) ‘David in U¨ berlieferung und Geschichte’, VF 22: 44–64. —— (1996) ‘Histoire et Loi: Historiographie deute´rono miste et Loi deute´ronomique a` lexemple du passage de lepoque des Juges a` lepoque royale’,(2000), 297–323. ET Deuteronomistic Historiography and Deuteronomic Law Exemplified in the Passage from the Period of the Judges to the Monarchical Period, in de Pury, Ro¨mer and Macchi (2000), 315–42. —— (2001) ‘Jehus Kampf gegen den Baal von Samaria’, TZ 57: 115–34. Dion, P. E. (1997) Les Arame´ens a` l’aˆge de fer: Histoire politique et structures socials. Paris: J. Gabalda. —— (1999) ‘The Tel Dan Stele and its Historical Significance’, in Avishur and Deutsch (1999), 145–56. 268 Bibliography

Diringer, D. (1934) Le inscrizioni antico-ebraiche palestines. Florence: F. Le Monnier. Donner, H., and Ro¨llig, W. (1966–9) Kanaana¨ische und arama¨ische Inscriften. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Dudley, M., and Rowell, G., eds. (1993) Oil of Gladness: Anointing in the Christian Tradition. London: SPCK. Dutcher-Walls, P. (2002) ‘The Circumscription of the King: Deuteronomy 17: 16–17 in its Ancient Social Context’, JBL 121: 601–16. Ehrlich,C.(2001)‘Thebytdwd-InscriptionandIsraeliteHistoriography:Taking Stock after Half a Decade of Research’,in Daviau et al.(2001),57–71. Eisenstadt, S. N., ed. (1968) Max Weber on Charisma and Institution Building. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Eissfeldt, O. (1965) The Old Testament: An Introduction. New York: Harper & Row. Elat, M. (1975) ‘The Campaigns of Shalmaneser III against Aram and Israel’, IEJ 25: 25–35. Emerton, J. A., ed. (1980) Prophecy: Essays Presented to Georg Fohrer [BZAW 150]. Berlin: de Gruyter. Eph’al, I. (1991) ‘‘‘The Samarian(s)’’ in the Assyrian Sources’, in Cogan and Eph’al (1991), 36–45. Eslinger, L. (1983) ‘Viewpoints and Point of View in 1 Samuel 8–12’, JSOT 26: 61–76. —— (1994) House of God or House of David: The Rhetoric of 2 Samuel 7 [JSOTSup 164]. Sheffield: JSOT Press. Eynihel, E. (1996) The Reform of King Josiah and the Composition of the Deuteronomistic History. Leiden: Brill. Fairman, H. W. (1958) ‘The Kingship Rituals of Egypt’,in Hooke (1958: 74–104). Feldman, L. H. (1998a) Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible. London: University of California Press. —— (1998b) Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible. Leiden: Brill. Fensham, F. C. (1977) ‘The Numeral Seventy in the Old Testament and the Family of Jerubbaal, Ahab, Panammuwa and Athirat’, PEQ 109: 113–15. Flanagan, J. (1983) ‘Succession and Genealogy in the Davidic Dynasty’, in Huffman et al. (1983), 35–55. Fleming, D. (1998) ‘The Biblical Tradition of Anointing Priests’, JBL 117: 401–14. Frankfort, H. (1948) Kingship and the Gods: A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the Integration of Society and Nature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Freedman, D. N. (1993) ‘Kingly Chronologies: Then and Later’, EI 24: 41–65. Frick, F. S. (1971) ‘The Rechabites Reconsidered’, JBL 90: 279–87. Bibliography 269

Frisch, A. (1991) ‘Structure and its Significance: The Narrative of Solomon’s Reign’, JSOT 51: 3–14. Fritz, V. (1976) ‘Die Deutungen des Ko¨nigtums Sauls in den U¨ berlieferungen von seiner Entstehung I Sam 9–11’, ZAW 88: 346–62. —— (1996, 1998) Das Erste Buch Ko¨nige, Das Zweite Buch Ko¨nige [ZBK 10]. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag. ET 2003: 1 and 2 Kings [CC]. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Frolov, S. (2002) ‘Succession Narrative: A ‘‘Document’’ or Phantom?’, JBL 121: 81–104. Fuchs, A. (1994) Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad.Go¨ttingen: Cuvillier. Gadd, C. J. (1954) ‘Inscribed Prisms of Sargon II from Nimrud’, Iraq 16: 173–201. Gakuru, G. (2000) An Inner-Biblical Exegetical Study of the Davidic Covenant and the Dynastic Oracle. Lampeter: Edwin Mellen. Galil, G. (2001) ‘ARe-Arrangement of the Fragments of the TelDan Inscription and the Relations between Israel and Aram’, PEQ 133: 16–21. Garrone, D., and Israel, F. (1991) Storia e tradizioni di Israel. Brescia: Paideia Editrice. Gelb, I. J., ed. (1956) The Assyrian Dictionary. Chicago: University of Chi- cago Press. Geoghegan, J. C. (2003) ‘‘‘Until this Day’’ and the Preexilic Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History’, JBL 122: 201–27. Gibson, J. C. L. (1975) Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, ii. Aramaic Inscriptions. Oxford: Clarendon Press. —— (1978) Canaanite Myths and Legends. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Gordon, R. P. (1984) 1 and 2 Samuel [OTG]. Sheffield: JSOT Press. —— (1986) 1 and 2 Samuel: A Commentary. Exeter: Paternoster Press. Gray, J. (1964) I and II Kings: A Commentary [OTL]. London: SCM Press. —— (1965) The Legacy of Canaan: The Ras Shamra Texts and their Relevance to the Old Testament [VTSup 5]. Leiden: Brill. —— (1986) Joshua, Judges, Ruth [NCB]. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott. Grayson, A. K. (1972–6) Assyrian Royal Inscriptions [RANE]. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz. —— (1975a) Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles [TCS 5]. Locust Valley: J. J. Augustin. —— (1975b) Babylonian Historical Literary Texts. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. —— (1987) Assyrian Rulers of the Third and Second Millennia BC (To1114 BC) [RIMA 1]. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 270 Bibliography

Gray, J. (1991) Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC I (1114–859 BC) [RIMA 2]. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. —— (1996) Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC II (858–745 BC) [RIMA 3]. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Green, A. R. (1979) ‘Sua and Jehu: The Boundaries of Shalmaneser’s Conquest’, PEQ 111: 35–9. Gugler, W. (1996) Jehu und seine Revolution: Voraussetzungen, Verlauf, Folgen. Kampen: Kok Pharos. Gunn, D. M. (1978) The Story of King David: Genre and Interpretation [JSOTSup 6]. Sheffield: JSOT Press. Gurney, O. R. (1958) ‘Hittite Kingship’, in Hooke (1958), 105–21. Hagedorn, A. (2004) Between Moses and Plato: Individual and Society in Deuteronomy and Ancient Greek Law [FRLANT 204]. Go¨ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Hallo, W. W. (1960) ‘From Qarqar to Carchemish: Assyria and Israel in the Light of New Discoveries’, BA 23: 34–61. —— and Younger, K. L. (1997–2002) The Context of Scripture (¼ COS). Leiden: Brill, i–iii. Halpern, B. (1987) ‘Yaua, Son of Omri, Yet Again’, BASOR 265: 81–5. —— (1988) The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History. San Francisco: Harper & Row. —— (1994) ‘The Stela from Dan: Epigraphic and Historical Considerations’, BASOR 296: 63–80. —— (2000) ‘The State of Israelite History,’ in Knoppers and McConville, (2000), 540–65. Hanson, P. D. (1968) ‘Song of Heshbon and David’s NIˆR’, HTR 61: 297–320. Haran, M. (1967) ‘Rise and Decline of the Empire of Jeroboam ben Joash’, VT 17: 266–97. Hayes, J. H., and Hooker, P. K. (1988) A New Chronology for the Kings of Israel and Judah and its Implications for Biblical History and Literature. Atlanta: John Knox Press. Hertzberg, H. W. (1960) Die Samuelbu¨cher [ATD 10]. Go¨ttingen: Vanden- hoeck & Ruprecht. ET 1964 I and II Samuel [OTL]. London: SCM Press. —— (1973) Die Bu¨cher Joshua, Richter, Ruth [ATD 9]. Go¨ttingen: Vanden- hoeck & Ruprecht. Hobbs, T. R. (1985) 2 Kings [WBC 13]. Waco: Word. Hoffmann, H.-D. (1980) Reform und Reformen: Untersuchungen zu einem Grundthema der deuteronmistischen Geschichtsschreibung [ATANT 66]. Zu¨rich: Theologischer Verlag. Hoffner, H. A., Jr. (1990) Hittite Myths [WAW 2]. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Bibliography 271

Hoftijzer, J., and Jongeling, K. (1995) Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions. Leiden: Brill. Holstein, J. A. (1975) ‘Max Weber and Biblical Scholarship’, HUCA 46: 159–79. Hooke, S. H., ed. (1958) Myth, Ritual, and Kingship: Essays on the Theory and Practice of Kingship in the Ancient Near East and Israel. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Hubbard, D. A. (1989) Hosea [TOTC]. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press. Huffmon, H. B., Spina, F. A., and Green, A. R. W. (1983) The Quest for the Kingdom of God. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Irvine, S. A. (2001) ‘The Rise of the House of Jehu’, in Dearman and Graham (2001), 104–18. Ishida, T. (1975) ‘The House of Ahab’, IEJ 25: 135–7. —— (1977) The Royal Dynasties in Ancient Israel: A Study on the Formation and Development of Royal Dynastic Ideology [BZAW 142]. Berlin: de Gruyter. —— (1999) History and Historical Writing in Ancient Israel: Studies in Biblical Historiography. Leiden: Brill. Jaruzelska, I. (2004) ‘Les Prophe`tes face aux usurpations dans le royaume du nord’, VT 54: 165–87. Jenni, E. (1966) ‘Distel und Zeder: Hermeneutische U¨ berlegungen zu 2 Ko¨ 14:8–14’, in von Unnik and van der Woude (1966: 165–75). Jepsen, A. (1953) Die Quellen des Ko¨nigsbuches. Halle: Niemeyer Verlag. —— (1970) ‘Ein neuer Fixpunkt fu¨r die Chronologie der israelitischen Ko¨nige’, VT 20: 359–61. Jones, G. H. (1984) 1 and 2 Kings [NCB]. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott. Kaiser, O. (2000) ‘The Pentateuch and the Deuteronomistic History’, in Mayes (2000: 289–322). Kaminsky, J. S. (1995) Corporate Responsibility in the Hebrew Bible [JSOTSup 196]. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Kang, S.-M. (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East [BZAW 177]. Berlin: de Gruyter. Kedar-Kopfstein, B. (1999) ‘Die Wechselbeziehung zwischen Charisma und Institution’, in Lange et al. (1999), 118–26. Kelle, B. E. (2002) ‘What’s in a Name? Neo-Assyrian Designations for the Northern Kingdom and their Implications for Israelite History and Bib- lical Interpretation’, JBL 121: 639–66. Keulen, P. S. F. van (1996) Manasseh through the Eyes of the Deuteronomists: The Manasseh Account (2 Kings 21: 1–18) and the Final Chapters of the Deuteronomistic History. Leiden: Brill. Kinnier Wilson, J. V. (1962) ‘The Kurba’il Statue of Shalmaneser III’, Iraq 24: 90–115. 272 Bibliography

Kitchen, K. (1997) ‘A Possible Mention of David in the Late Tenth Century BCE, and Deity Dod as Dead as the Dodo?’, JSOT 76: 29–44. —— (2003) On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Klein, R. (1983) 1 Samuel [WBC 10]. Waco: Word. Klingbeil, G. (2000) ‘The Anointing of Aaron: A Study of Leviticus 8: 12 in its OT and ANE Context’, AUSS 38: 231–43. Knauf, E. A. (1996) ‘L’ ‘‘Historiographie Deute´ronomiste’’ (DtrG) existe- t-elle?’, in Pury et al. (1996: 409–18). ET: ‘Does ‘‘Deuteronomistic Historiography’’ (DH) Exist?’ in de Pury, Ro¨mer and Macchi (2000). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 388–98. —— (2000) ‘Filling in Historical Gaps: How did Joram Really Die? Or, the Invention of Militarism’, BibInt 8: 59–69. Knoppers, G. (1992) ‘ ‘‘There was None Like Him’’: Incomparability in the Books of Kings’, CBQ 54: 411–31. —— (1993) Two Nations under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Solo- mon and the Dual Monarchies [HSM 52, 53]. Atlanta: Scholars Press. —— (1996a) ‘Ancient Near Eastern Royal Grants and the Davidic Coven- ant: A Parallel?’, JAOS 116: 670–97. —— (1996b) ‘The Deuteronomist and the Deuteronomic Law of the King: A Reexamination of a Relationship’, ZAW 108: 329–46. —— (2000) ‘Introduction’, in Knoppers and McConville (2000), 1–18. —— (2001) ‘Rethinking the Relationship between Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History: The Case of Kings’, CBQ 63: 393–415. —— and McConville, J. G., eds. (2000) Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Knott, J. B. (1971) The Jehu Dynasty: An Assessment Based upon Ancient Near Eastern Literature and Archeology. Emory University, Atlanta (dissertation). Koch, C. (1983) ‘Is there a Doctrine of Retribution in the Old Testament?’, in Crenshaw (1983), 57–87. Kottsieper, I. (1998) ‘Die Inschrift vom Tell Dan und die politischen Bezie- hungen zwischen Aram-Damaskus und Israel in der 1. Ha¨lfte des 1. Jahrtausends vor Christus’, in Dietrich and Kottsieper (1998), 475–500. Kruse, H. (1985) ‘David’s Covenant’, VT 35: 139–64. Kuan, J. (1997) Neo-Assyrian Historical Inscriptions and Syria-Palestine. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Kuschke, A., and Kutsch, E. (1970) Archa¨ologie und Altes Testament: Fs. fu¨r Kurt Galling.Tu¨bingen: Mohr. Kutsch, E. (1963) Salbung als Rectsakt im Alten Testament und im Alten Orient [BZAW 87]. Berlin: A. To¨pelmann. Bibliography 273

Laato, A. (1997) ‘Second Samuel 7 and Ancient Near Eastern Royal Ideology’, CBQ 59: 244–69. Lamb, D. (2004) Review of Athas 2003. RB 113: 423–9. —— (2005) ‘Jehu Dynasty’, in Arnold and Williamson (2005), 534–8. —— (Forthcoming) ‘ ‘‘A Prophet Instead of You’’: Elijah, Elisha and Proph- etic Succession’, in Day (forthcoming). —— (Forthcoming) ‘The Eternal Curse: Seven Deuteronomistic Judgment Oracles against the House of David’ in Auld and Eynited (forthcoming). Lambert, W. G. (1994) ‘When Did Jehu Pay Tribute?’, in Porter et al. (1994), 51–6. —— (2004) ‘Mesopotamian Sources and Pre-exilic Israel’, in Day (2004), 352–65. Lange, A., Lichtenberger, H., and Ro¨mheld, D., eds. (1999) Mythos im Alten Testament und seiner Umwelt [BZAW 278]. Berlin: de Gruyter. Layard, A. H. (1851) Inscriptions in the Cuneiform Character from Assyrian Monuments. London: Harrison & Son. Lemaire, A. (1986) ‘Vers l’histoire de la re´daction des Livres des Rois’, ZAW 98: 221–36. ET: ‘Toward a Redactional History of the Book of Kings’, in Knoppers and McConville (2000), 446–61. —— (1990) ‘Joas, roi d’Israe¨l, et la premie`re re´daction du cycle d’E´ lise´e’, in Brekelmans and Lust (1990), 245–54. —— (1993) ‘Joas de Samarie, Barhadad de Damas, Zakkur de Hamat: La Syrie-Palestine ver 800 av. J.-C.’, EI 24: 148–57. —— (1994) ‘Epigraphie palestinienne: Nouveaux documents. I. Fragment de ste`le arame´enne de Tell Dan (IXe s. av. J. -C. )’, Henoch, 16: 87–93. —— (1998) ‘The Tel Dan Stela as a Piece of Royal Historiography’, JSOT 81: 3–14. —— (2004) ‘Hebrew and West Semitic Inscriptions and Pre-exilic Israel’, in Day (2004), 366–85. Levine, L. D. (1972) Two Neo-Assyrian Stelae from Iran. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum. Levinson, B. (2001) ‘The Reconceptualization of Kingship in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History’s Transformation of Torah’, VT 51: 511–34. —— (2003) ‘You Must Not Add Anything to What I Command You: Paradoxes of Canon and Authorship in Ancient Israel’, Numen, 50: 1–51. —— (2006) ‘The First Constitution: Rethinking the Origins of Rule of Law and Separation of Powers in Light of Deuteronomy’, Cardozo Law Review, 27: 1854–88. Lie, A. G. (1929) The Inscriptions of Sargon II, King of Assyria. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste. Lieberman, S. J. (1985) ‘Giving Directions on the Black Obelisk of Shalman- eser III’, RA 79: 88. 274 Bibliography

Lindars, B. (1965) ‘Gideon and Kingship’, JTS 16: 315–26. Lipin´ ski, E. (1971) ‘Note de topographie historique: Ba’li-Ra’sˇietRa’sˇu Qudsˇu’, RB 78: 84–92. —— (1991) ‘Je´roboam II et la Syrie’, in Garrone and Israel (1991), 171–6. Liverani, M. (1974) ‘L’Histoire de Joas’, VT 24: 438–53. ET: ‘The Story of Joash’, in Myth and Politics in Ancient Near Eastern Historiography (London: Equinox, 2004), 147–59. Liwak, R., and Wagner, S. (1991) Prophetie und geschichtliche Wirklichkeit im alten Israel. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Lohfink,N.(1990)‘WelchesOrakelgabdenDavididenDauer?EinTextproblem in 2 Ko¨n 8, 19 und das Funktionieren der dynastischen Orakel im deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk’, in Abusch et al. 1990: 349–70. ET: ‘Which Oracle Granted Perdurability to the Davidides? ATextual Problem in 2 Kings 8: 19 and the Function of the Dynastic Oracles in the Deuteronomistic Historical Work’,in Knoppers and McConville (2000), 421–43. Long, B. O. (1984) 1 Kings [FOTL 9]. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. —— (1996) Review of Mulzer 1992. JSS 41: 323–4. Luckenbill, D. D. (1921) The Annals of Sennacherib. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. —— (1926–7) Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylon ( ¼ ARAB). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Luukko, M. (1998) ‘Agu¯si’, Radner (1998b), i., 56. McCarter, P. K. (1974) ‘Yaw, Son of ‘‘Omri’’: A Philological Note on Israelite Chronology’, BASOR 216: 5–7. —— (1980) I Samuel [AB 8]. Garden City: Doubleday. —— (1984) II Samuel [AB 9]. Garden City: Doubleday. McCarthy, D. J. (1965) ‘II Samuel 7 and the Structure of the Deuteronomic History’, JBL 84: 131–8. —— (1973) ‘2 Kings 13,4–6’, Bib 54: 409–10. McComiskey, T. E. (1993) ‘Prophetic Irony in Hosea 1: 4: A Study of the Collocation lp dsq and its Implications for the Fall of Jehu’s Dynasty’, JSOT 58: 93–101. McConville, J. G. (1993) Grace in the End: A Study in Deuteronomic Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. —— (2002) Deuteronomy [AOTC 5]. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press. McKenzie, S. L. (1991) The Trouble with Kings: The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History [VTSup 42]. Leiden: Brill. —— (1994) ‘The Books of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History’, in McKenzie and Graham (1994), 281, 307. —— (1996) ‘Cette royaute´ qui fait proble`me’, (1996: 267–95). ET: ‘The Trouble with Kingship.’ in Pury et al. (2000), 286–314. Bibliography 275

—— (2000) ‘The Divided Kingdom in the Deuteronomistic History and in Scholarship on it’, in Ro¨mer (2000), 135–45. —— (2001) ‘The Typology of the Davidic Covenant’, in Dearman and Graham (2001), 152–78. McKenzie, S. L., and Graham, M. P., eds. (1994) The History of Israel’s Tradi- tions: The Heritage of Martin Noth [JSOTSup 182]. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Malamat, A. (1971) ‘On the Akkadian Transcription of the Name of King Joash’, BASOR 204: 37–9. —— (1976) ‘Charismatic Leadership in the Book of Judges’, in Cross et al. (1976), 152–67. —— (1980) ‘A Mari Prophecy and Nathan’s Dynastic Oracle’, in Emerton (1980), 68–82. Marais, J. (1998) Representation in Old Testament Narrative Texts. Leiden: Brill. Marcus, M. I. (1987) ‘Geography as an Organizing Principle in the Imperial Art of Shalmaneser III’, Iraq, 49: 77–90. Martin, J. (1975) The Book of Judges [CBC]. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press. Mason, R. (1997) Propaganda and Subversion in the Old Testament. London: SPCK. Mattila, R., and Radner, K. (1998) ‘Abi-ra¯mu or A(b)-ra¯mu’, Radner (1998b), i 12–13). Mauchline, J. (1971) 1 and 2 Samuel [NCB]. London: Oliphants. Mayes, A. D. H. (1974) Israel in the Period of the Judges [SBT 29]. London: SCM Press. —— (1978) ‘The Rise of the Israelite Monarchy’, ZAW 90: 1–19. —— (1979) Deuteronomy [NCB]. London: Oliphants. —— ed. (2000) Text in Context: Essays by Members of the Society for Old Testament Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mays, J. L. (1969) Amos: A Commentary [OTL]. Philadelphia: Westminster Press. Mazar, B. (1962) ‘The Aramean Empire and its Relations with Israel’, BA 25: 98–120. Mead, J. K. (1999) ‘Kings and Prophets, Donkeys and Lions: Dramatic Shape and Deuteronomistic Rhetoric in 1 Kings XIII’, VT 49: 191–205. Mendenhall, G. E. (1975) ‘The Monarchy’, Int 29: 155–70. Mercer, S. A. B., ed. (1939) The Tell El-Amarna Tablets. Toronto: Macmillan. Merriland, A. L., and Overholt, T. W., eds. (1977) Scripture in History and Theology: Essays in Honor of J. Coert Rylaarsdam. Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press. 276 Bibliography

Mettinger, T. (1976) King and Messiah: The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings [ConBOT 8]. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup. Millard, A. (1993) ‘Eden, Bit Adini and Beth Eden’, El 24: 173–7. —— and Tadmor, H. (1973) ‘Adad-nirari III in Syria: Another Stele Frag- ment and the Dates of his Campaigns’, Iraq, 35: 57–64. Millard, A. R., Hoffmeier, J. K., and Baker, D. W., eds. (1994) Faith, Tradition and History. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Miller, J. M. (1966) ‘The Elisha Cycle and the Accounts of the Omride Wars’, JBL 85: 441–55. —— (1967a) ‘Another Look at the Chronology of the Early Divided Monarchy’, JBL 86: 276–88. —— (1967b) ‘The Fall of the House of Ahab’, VT 17: 307–24. —— (1968) ‘The Rest of the Acts of Jehoahaz: 1 Ki. 20, 22: 1–18’, ZAW 80: 337–42. —— (1974) ‘The Moabite Stone as a Memorial Stela’, PEQ 106: 9–18. Miller, J. M., and Hayes, J. H. (1977) Israelite and Judean History [OTL]. London: SCM Press. —— (1986) A History of Ancient Israel and Judah. Philadelphia: Westmin- ster Press. Minkoff, H. (2002) ‘Moses and Samuel: Israel’s Era of Charismatic Leader- ship’, JBQ 30: 257–61. Minokami, Y. (1989) Die Revolution des Jehu [GTA 38]. Go¨ttingen: Vanden- hoeck & Ruprecht. Miscall, P. (1986) 1 Samuel: A Literary Reading. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Mitchell, T. C. (1988) The Bible in the British Museum: Interpreting the Evidence. London: British Museum. Montgomery, J. A., and Gehman, H. S. (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings [ICC]. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Moor, J. C. de. (1998) ‘Seventy!’, in Dietrich and Kottsieper (1998: 199–203). —— and Rooy, H. F. van, eds. (2000) Past, Present and Future: The Deuter- onomistic History and the Prophets. Leiden: Brill. Moore, M. S. (2003) ‘Jehu’s Coronation and the Purge of Israel’, VT 53: 97–114. Moran, J. C. (1992) The Amarna Letters. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Mowinckel, S. (1947) ‘Nataforjettelsen 2 Sam. kap. 7’, SEA˚ 12: 220–9. —— (1951) Han som kommer. Copenhagen: G. E. C. Gad. ET He that Cometh (Oxford: Blackwell, 1956). Mullen, E. T. (1988) ‘The Royal Dynastic Grant to Jehu and the Structure of the Books of Kings’, JBL 107: 193–206. Bibliography 277

—— (1992) ‘Crime and Punishment: The Sins of the King and the Despoli- ation of the Treasuries’, CBQ 54: 231–48. Mulzer, M. (1992) Jehu schla¨gt Joram: Text-, literar- und struckturkritische Untersuchung zu 2 Ko¨n 8,25–10,36 [ATSAT 37]. St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag. —— (1996) ‘Die Jehuerzahlung bei Josephus’, BN 83: 54–82. Na’aman, N. (1993) ‘Azariah of Judah and Jeroboam II of Israel’, VT 43: 227–34. —— (1995a) ‘Beth-David in the Aramaic Stela from Tel Dan’, BN 79: 17–24. —— (1995b) ‘The Deuteronomist and Voluntary Servitude to Foreign Powers’, JSOT 65: 37–53. —— (1998) ‘Jehu Son of Omri: Legitimizing a Loyal Vassal by his Overlord’, IEJ 48: 236–8. —— (1999) ‘The Contribution of Royal Inscriptions for a Re-Evaluation of the Book of Kings as a Historical Source’, JSOT 82: 3–17. —— (2000) ‘Three Notes on the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan’, IEJ 50: 92–104. Naveh, J. (2002) ‘Epigraphic Miscellanea’, IEJ 52: 240–53. Nelson, R. D. (1981) The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History [JSOTSup 18]. Sheffield: JSOT Press. —— (1987) First and Second Kings [Interpretation]. Atlanta: John Knox Press. —— (1994) Review of Mulzer 1992. CRBR 7: 129–30. —— (2002) Deuteronomy: A Commentary [OTL]. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. —— (2005) ‘The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History: The Case is Still Compelling’, JSOT 29: 319–37. Nicholson, E. W. (1967) Deuteronomy and Tradition. Oxford: Blackwell. Niditch, S. (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of Violence. New York: Oxford University Press. Niehaus, J. (1994) ‘The Warrior and his God: The Covenant Foundation of History and Historiography’, in Millard et al. (1994), 299–312. Nielsen, F. A. J. (1997) The Tragedy in History: Herodotus and the Deuter- onomistic History [JSOTSup 251]. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Niskanen, P. (2004) The Human and the Divine in History: Herodotus and the Book of Daniel [JSOTSup 396]. London: T. & T. Clark International. Nissinen, M. (1993) ‘Die Relevanz der neuassyrischen Prophetie fu¨r die alttestamentliche Forschung’, in Dietrich and Loretz (1993), 217–58. —— (2003) Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East [WAW 12]. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. Noth, M. (1928) Die israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen gemeinsemi- tischen Namengebung. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. 278 Bibliography

Noth, M. (1957) U¨ berlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien: Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament.Tu¨bingen: Niemeyer Verlag. ET The Deuteronomistic History [JSOTSup 15] and The Chronic- ler’s History [JSOTSup 50]. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987 and 1991. Nougayrol, J. (1968) ‘Textes Sumero-Accadien des Archives et Bibliotheques prive´es d’Ugarit’, in Schaeffer (1968), 108–9. O’Brien, M. (1989) The Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis: A Reassessment [OBO 92]. Freiburg: Universita¨tsverlag. Oldenburg, U. (1969) The Conflict between El and Ba’al in Canaanite Religion. Leiden: Brill. Olyan, S. M. (1984) ‘Ha˘ˇsa¯loˆm: Some Literary Considerations of 2 Kings 9’, CBQ 46: 652–68. —— (1985) ‘2 Kings 9: 31 Jehu as Zimri’, HTR 78: 203–7. Oppenheim, A. L. (1967) Letters from Mesopotamia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Otto, S. (2001) Jehu, Elia, und Elisa: Die Erza¨hlung von der Jehu-Revolution und die Komposition der Elia-Elisa-Erza¨hlungen [BWANT 152]. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. —— (2003) ‘The Composition of the Elijah-Elisha Stories and the Deuter- onomistic History’, JSOT 27: 487–508. Overholt, T. W. (1984) ‘Thoughts on the Use of ‘‘Charisma’’ in Old Testa- ment Studies’, in Barrick and Spencer (1984), 287–303. Page, S. (1968) ‘A Stela of Adad-nirari III and Nergal-Eresˇ from Tell al Rimah’, Iraq, 30: 139–53. Pakkala, J. (2006) ‘Zedekiah’s Fate and the Dynastic Succession’, JBL 125: 443–52. Parker, S. B. (1978) ‘Jezebel’s reception of Jehu’, Maarav, 1: 67–78. —— ed. (1997) Ugaritic Narrative Poetry [WAW 9]. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Parpola, S. (1970) Neo-Assyrian Toponyms. Kevelaur: Butzon & Bercker. —— (1997) Assyrian Prophecies [SAA 9]. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. Person, R. E. (1997) The Kings—Isaiah and Kings—Jeremiah Recensions [BZAW 252]. Berlin: de Gruyter. Pitard, W. (1987) Ancient Damascus: A Historical Study of the Syrian City-State from Earliest Times until its Fall to the Assyrians in 732 B. C.E.WinonaLake: Eisenbrauns. Polzin, R. (1980) Moses and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History.i.Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges. New York: Seabury. Bibliography 279

—— (1989) Samuel and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deutero- nomic History, ii. San Francisco: Harper and Row. —— (1993) David and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deutero- nomic History, iii. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Porada, E. (1983) ‘Remarks about Some Assyrian Reliefs’, AnSt 33: 15–18. Porter, J. R. (1966) ‘Son or Grandson’, JTS 17: 54–67. Porter, S. E., Joyce, P., and Orton, D. E., eds. (1994) Crossing the Boundaries: Essays in Biblical Interpretation in Honour of Michael D. Goulder. Leiden: Brill. Preuss, H. D. (1993) ‘Zum deuteromistischen Geschichtswerk’, TRev 58: 229–64, 341–95. Pritchard, J. B., ed. (1969a) The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament ( ¼ ANEP). Princeton: Princeton University Press. —— (1969b) Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament ( ¼ ANET). Princeton: Princeton University Press. Provan, I. W. (1988) Hezekiah and the Books of Kings: A Contribution to the Debate about the Composition of the Deuteronomistic History [BZAW 172]. Berlin: de Gruyter. —— (1995) 1 and 2 Kings [NIBCOT 7]. Peabody: Hendrickson. Pury, A. de, Ro¨mer, T., and Macchi, J., eds. (1996) Israe¨l construit son histoire. L’Historiographie deute´ronomiste a` la lumie`re des recherches re´centes. Gen- eva: Labor et Fides. ET: Israel Constructs its History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research [JSOTSup 306] (2000), Sheffield: Shef- field Academic Press. Rad, G. von. (1947) Deuteronomium-Studien.Go¨ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ET: Studies in Deuteronomy (London: SCM Press, 1953). —— (1958) Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament. Munich: Kaiser Verlag. ET: The Problem of the Hexateuch (1966), London: Oliver & Boyd. —— (1958–60) Theologie des Alten Testaments. Munich: Kaiser Verlag. ET: Old Testament Theology (1962–5), Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd. —— (1964) Das fu¨nfte Buch Mose: Deuteronomium.Go¨ttingen: Vanden- hoeck & Ruprecht. ET: Deuteronomy: A Commentary. (1966), London: SCM Press. Radner, K. (1998a) ‘Ahuna’, Radner (1998b), i 84–5. —— (1998b) The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Helsinki: Hel- sinki University Press. Rawlingson, H. C. (1861–84) The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia. London: R. E. Bowler. Redford, D. B. (1986) Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals, and Day-Books: A Contribution to the Study of the Egyptian Sense of History. Mississauga: Benben. 280 Bibliography

Rendsburg, G. A. (1995) ‘On the Writing dfdvjb in the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan’, IEJ 45: 22–5. Robinson, J. (1972) The First Book of Kings [CBC]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. —— (1976) The Second Book of Kings [CBC]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ro¨mer, T., ed. (2000) The Future of the Deuteronomistic History [BETL 147]. Leuven: Leuven University Press. —— and Pury, A. de (1996) ‘L’Historiographie deute´ronomiste (HD): Histoire de la recherche et enjeux du de´bat’, in de Pury et al. (1996) 9–120. ET: ‘Deuteronomistic Historiography (DH): History of Research and Debated Ideas’, in Pury et al. (2000), 24–141. Rooke, D. (2000) Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ro¨sel, H. N. (1999) Von Josua bis Jojachin: Untersuchungen zu den deuterono- nomistischen Geschichtsbu¨chern des Alten Testaments [VTSup 75]. Leiden: Brill. —— (2000) ‘Does a Comprehensive ‘‘Leitmotiv’’ Exist in the Deuteronomistic History?’,in Ro¨mer (2000), 195–211. Rost, L. (1926) Die U¨ berlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. ET: The Succession to the Throne of David (1982), Sheffield: Almond Press. Rost, P. (1893) Die Keilschrifttexte Tiglat-Pilesers III nach den Papierabk- latschen und Originalen des Britischen Museums. Leipzig: E. Pfeiffer. Ru¨terswo¨rden, U. (1987) Von der politischen Gemeinschaft zur Gemeinde: Studien zu Dt 16,18–18,22 [BBB 65]. Frankfurt am Main: Athena¨um. Sader, H. (1987) Les E´tats arame´ens de Syrie depuis leur fondation jusqu’a` leur transformation en provinces assyriennes. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner. Safar, F. (1951) ‘A Further Text of Shalmaneser III: From Assur’, Sumer, 7: 3–21. Saggs, H. W. F. (1975) ‘Historical Texts and Fragments of Sargon II of Assyria. 1. The Asˇsˇur Charter’, Iraq, 37: 11–20. Sasson, V. (1995a) ‘The Old Aramaic Inscription from Tell Dan: Philo- logical, Literary, and Historical Aspects’, JSS 40: 11–30. —— (1995b) Civilizations of the Ancient Near East ( ¼ CANE). New York: Scribner. —— (1996) ‘Murders, Usurpers, or What? Hazael, Jehu and the Tell Dan Old Aramaic Inscription’, UF 28: 547–54. —— (1997) ‘Some Observations on the Use and Original Purpose of the Waw Consecutive in Old Aramaic and Biblical Hebrew’, VT 47: 111–27. Bibliography 281

Savran, G. W. (1988) Telling and Retelling: Quotation in Biblical Narrative. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Schaeffer, C. F. A., ed. (1968) Ugaritica V. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. Scharbert, J. (1958) Solidarita¨t in Segen und Fluch im Alten Testament und in seiner Umwelt. Bonn: P. Hanstein. Schmidt, L. (1982) ‘Ko¨nig und Charisma im Alten Testament: Beobachtun- gen zur Struktur des Ko¨nigtums im alten Israel’, KD 28: 73–87. Schneider, T. (1995) ‘Did King Jehu Kill his own Family’, BAR 21: 26–33, 80, 82. —— (1996) ‘Rethinking Jehu’, Bib 77: 100–7. Schniedewind, W. M. (1996) ‘Tel Dan Stela: New Light on Aramaic and Jehu’s Revolt’, BASOR 302: 75–90. —— (1999) Society and the Promise to David: The Reception History of 2 Samuel 7: 1–17. Oxford: Oxford University Press. —— and Zuckerman, B. (2001) ‘A Possible Reconstruction of the Name of Haza el’s Father in the Tel Dan Inscription’, IEJ 51: 88–91. Schulte, H. (1994) ‘The End of the Omride Dynasty: Social-Ethical Observa- tions on the Subject of Power and Violence’, Semeia 66: 133–48. Seux, M.-J. (1967) Epithe`tes royales akkadiennes et sume´riennes. Paris: Letouzey et Ane´. Shea, W. H. (1978) ‘Adad-Nirari III and Jehoash of Israel’, JCS 30: 101–13. Shearing, L., and McKenzie, S. L., eds. (1999) Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism [JSOTSup 268]. Sheffield: Shef- field Academic Press. Simpson, C. A. (1957) Composition of the Book of Judges. Oxford: Blackwell. Smelik, K. A. D. (1990) ‘The Literary Structure of King Mesha’s Inscription’, JSOT 46: 21–30. —— (1992) Converting the Past: Studies in Ancient Israelite and Moabite Historiography [OTS 28]. Leiden: Brill. Smend, W. (1971) ‘Das Gesetz und die Vo¨lker: Ein Beitrag zur deuteronomistischen Redaktionsgeschichte’, in Wolff (1971: 494–509) ET: ‘The Law and the Nations: A Contribution to Deuteronomistic Tradition History’, in Knoppers and McConville (2000), 95–110. —— (1978) Die Entstehung des Alten Testaments. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Smith, C. C. (1977) ‘Jehu and the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III’, in Merriland and Overholt (1977), 71–106. Smith, H. P. (1899) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Samuel [ICC]. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Soggin, J. A. (1970) ‘Ein ausserbiblisches Zeugnis fu¨r die Chronologie des Jehoˆ’a¯sˇ/Joˆ’a¯sˇ Ko¨nig von Israel’, VT 20: 366–8. —— (1972) Joshua: A Commentary [OTL]. Philadelphia: Westminster Press. 282 Bibliography

Soggin, J. A. (1981) Judges: A Commentary [OTL]. London: SCM Press. Stavrakopoulou, F. (2004) King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice: Biblical Dis- tortions of Historical Realities [BZAW 338]. Berlin: de Gruyter. Stern, P. D. (1991) The Biblical Herem: A Window on Israel’s Religious Experience [BJS 211]. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Sweeney, M. (2001) King Josiah of Judah: The Lost Messiah of Israel. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tadmor, H. (1958) ‘The Campaigns of Sargon II of Assur: A Chronological- Historical Study’, JCS 12: 23–40, 77–100. —— (1973) ‘The Historical Inscriptions of Adad-Nirari III’, Iraq, 35: 141–50. —— (1994) The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III King of Assyria. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Taylor, P. M. (1995) Munitions of the Mind: A History of Propaganda from the Ancient World to the Present Era. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Tetley, M. C. (2005) The Reconstructed Chronology of the Divided Kingdom. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Thackeray, H. St J., Marcus, R., Wikgren, A., and Feldman, L. H. (1926–65) Jewish Antiquities ( ¼ JA) of Josephus in The Loeb Classical Library. Cam- bridge: Harvard University Press. Thiele, E. R. (1966) The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. London: Paternoster Press. Thomas, D. Winton, ed. (1958) Documents from Old Testament Times. Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson & Sons. Thompson, J. A. (1980) The Book of Jeremiah [NICOT]. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Thompson, S. (1994) ‘The Anointing of Officials in Ancient Egypt,’ JNES 53: 15–25. Thompson, T. L. (1999) The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel. New York: Basic. Thornton, T. C. G. (1963) ‘Charismatic Kingship in Israel and Judah’, JTS 14: 1–11. Timm, S. (1982) Die Dynastie Omri. Quellen und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Israels im 9. Jahrhundert vor Christus [FRLANT 124]. Go¨ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Tomes, R. (2000) ‘ ‘‘Come and See my Zeal for the Lord’’ Reading the Jehu Story’, in Brooke and Kaestli (2000), 53–67. Trebolle-Barrera, J. C. (1984) Jehu´ yJoa´s: texto y composicion literaria de 2 Reyes 9–11. Valencia: Institucio´n San Jero´nimo. Bibliography 283

Tropper, J. (1993) ‘Eine altarama¨ische Steleninschrift aus Dan’, UF 25: 395–406. Tsevat, M. (1963) ‘Studies in the Book of Samuel III. The Steadfast House: What was Promised in II Sam. 7: 11b–16?’, HUCA 34: 71–82. —— (1965) ‘The House of David in Nathan’s Prophecy’, Bib 46: 353–6. Unnik, W. C. van, and Woude, A. S. van der (1966) Studia Biblica et Semitica in Honor of Th. C. Vriezen. Wageningen: H. Veenman. Van Seters, J. (1983) In Search of History. London: Yale University Press. —— (2000) ‘The Deuteronomistic History: Can it Avoid Death by Redaction?’, in Ro¨mer (2000), 213–22. —— (2006) The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the ‘Editor’ in Biblical Criticism. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Vater Solomon, A. M. (1985) ‘Jehoash’s Fable of the Thistle and the Cedar’, in Coats (1985), 126–32, 152–3. Veenhof, K. R. (1966) Review of Kutsch 1963. BO 5/6: 308–13. Veijola, T. (1975) Die ewige Dynastie: David und die Entstehung seiner Dynastie nach der deuteronomistischen Darstellung [STAT. AASF 193]. Helsinki: Suomaleinen Tiedeakatemia. —— (1977) Das Ko¨nigtum in der Beurteilung der deuteronomistischen His- toriographie. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung [STAT. AASF 198]. Helsinki: Suomaleinen Tiedeakatemia. Vervenne, M., and Lust, J., eds. (1997) Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature [BETL 133]. Leuven: Leuven University Press. Vigano`, L. (2000) ‘Rituals at Ebla II, ı`-gisˇ sag: A Purification Ritual or Anointing of the Head?’, JNES 59: 13–22. Wallace, H. N. (1986) ‘The Oracles Against the Israelite Dynasties in 1 and 2 Kings’, Bib 67: 21–40. Wallis Budge, E. A., and King, L. W. (1902) Annals of the Kings of Assyria. London: Harrison & Sons. Webb, B. G. (1987) The Book of the Judges: An Integrated Reading [JSOTSup 46]. Sheffield: JSOT Press. Weinfeld, M. (1970) ‘The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East’, JAOS 90: 184–203. —— (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon. Weippert, M. (1978) ‘Jau(a) ma¯rHumrıˆ: Joram oder Jehu von Israel?’, VT 28: 113–18. ˘ Weiser, A. (1957) Einleitung in das Alte Testament.Go¨ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Weisman, Z. (1976) ‘Anointing as a Motif in the Making of the Charismatic King’, Bib 57: 378–98. 284 Bibliography

Weissbach, F. H. (1918) ‘Zu den Inschriften der Sa¨le im Palaste Sargon’s II. von Assyrien’, ZDMG 72: 161–85. Wellhausen, J. (1878) Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels. Berlin: Reimer. ET: Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (New York: Meridian Books, 1957) Wesselius, J. -W. (1999) ‘De eerste koningsinscriptie uit het Oude Israe¨l: Een nieuwe visie op de Tel Dan-inscriptie’, NedTT 53: 177–90. ET: ‘The First Royal Inscription from Ancient Israel: The Tel Dan Inscription Recon- sidered’, (1999), SJOT 13, 163–86. —— (2001) ‘The Road to Jezreel: Primary History and the TelDan Inscription’, SJOT 15: 83–103. —— (2002) The Origin of the History of Israel: Herodotus’s Histories as Blueprint for the First Books of the Bible [JSOTSup 345]. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Westermann, C. (1994) Die Geschichtsbu¨cher des Alten Testaments. Gab es ein deuteronomistisches Geschichtswerk? [TB 87]. Gu¨tersloh: Kaiser Verlag. White, M. C. (1994) ‘Naboth’s Vineyard and Jehu’s Coup: The Legitimation of a Dynastic Extermination’, VT 44: 66–76. —— (1997) The Elijah Legends and Jehu’s Coup [BJS 311]. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Williamson, H. G. M. (1982) 1 and 2 Chronicles [NCB]. London: Marshall Morgan & Scott. —— (1991) ‘Jezreel in the Biblical Texts’, TA 18: 72–92. Willis, J. T. (1971) ‘An Anti-Elide Narrative Tradition from a Prophetic Circle at the Ramah Sanctuary’, JBL 90: 288–308. —— (1972) ‘Cultic Elements in the Story of Samuel’s Birth and Dedication’, Studia Theologica, 26: 33–61. Winckler, H. (1889) Die Keilschrifttexte Sargons. Leipzig: E. Pfeiffer. Wiseman, D. J. (1982) ‘ ‘‘Is it Peace?’’: Covenant and Diplomacy,’ VT 32: 311–26. —— (1993) 1 and 2 Kings [TOTC 9]. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press. Wolff, H. W. (1961) ‘Das Kerygma des deuteronomistischen Geschichts- werks’, ZAW 73: 171–86. ET: ‘The Kerygma of the Deuteronomic Histor- ical Work’, in Brueggemann and Wolff (1975), 83–100. —— ed. (1971) Probleme biblischer Theologie: G. von Rad zum 70. Geburtstag. Munich: Kaiser Verlag. Wu¨rthwein, E. (1977) Die Bu¨cher der Ko¨nige. 1 Ko¨nige 1–16 [ATD 11. 1]. Go¨ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. —— (1984) Die Bu¨cher der Ko¨nige. 1 Ko¨n. 17-2. Ko¨n. 25 [ATD 11. 2]. Go¨ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Bibliography 285

—— (1994) Studien zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk [BZAW 227]. Berlin: de Gruyter. Wyatt, N. (1998) Religious Texts from Ugarit: The Words of Ilmilku and his Colleagues. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Younger, K. L. (1986) ‘Panammuwa and Bar-Rakib: Two Structural Ana- lyses’, JANESCU 18: 91–103. —— (1990) Ancient Conquest Accounts: A Study in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical History Writing [JSOTSup 98]. Sheffield: JSOT Press. —— (2002) ‘Yahweh at Ashkelon and Calah? Yahwistic Names in Neo-Assyrian’, VT 52: 207–28. ˘ This page intentionally left blank Index of Hebrew Bible References

Genesis 17: 2–7 95 36: 31–9 207 17: 6 61 36: 31 207 17: 14–20 6, 166–172 17: 14 166, 172, 248 Exodus 17: 15–17 172 23: 2 61 17: 15–16 170 17: 15 6, 72, 166–8, 171–2 Numbers 17: 16–20 167 696 17: 16–17 6 12: 7–8 138 17: 16 171 25: 3 95 17: 17 171 25: 9 95 17: 18–19 170 25: 11 96 17: 19 170 17: 19–20 170, 172 Deuteronomy 17: 20 72, 166–72 1–3 2 18: 1 168 4: 10 96 18: 5 168, 230 4: 24 95 18: 6 168 4: 26–7 112 18: 10 101 4: 26 167 18: 15 143 4: 40 167 18: 18 143 5: 9 95 18: 20 95 5: 16 167 19: 8–9 112 5: 33 167 19: 10 84 6: 2 167 19: 13 84 6: 14–15 95 19: 15 61 6: 15 95 21: 8 84 7: 2 121 21: 9 84 7: 4 95 22: 7 167 7: 11–24 112 25: 6 199 7: 16 95 25: 15 167 8: 19 95 25: 19 199 9: 14 199 27: 25 84, 248 10: 8 96 28: 7 112 10: 17 248 28: 25 112 11: 9 167 28: 26 100 11: 16–17 95 28: 28 43 11: 22–4 112 28: 34 43 11: 28 95 29: 19 96, 199 12–26 169 30: 18–19 167 13: 5–17 95 30: 18 167 16: 19 248 31–4 2 17 172 31: 14 138 288 Index of Hebrew Bible References

32: 16 95 3: 7 95 32: 21 95 3: 8 182, 184 32: 36 199 3: 9–10 115 32: 46–7 167 3: 9 72, 179, 183, 253 32: 47 167 3: 10 253 34: 9 253 3: 15–30 115 3: 15 72, 179, 183, 253 Joshua 3: 16–30 253 1: 1–9 253 4: 3 179, 183 1: 1 138, 253 4: 4–24 253 3: 10 146 4: 23–4 115 6 253 6: 1 182 6: 1–21 112 6: 6 179, 183 6: 2 84 6: 7 179, 183 6: 34 146 6: 9 183 7–8 112 6: 11 203 8 253 6: 14 72, 84, 246, 253 8: 1–29 112 6: 23 253 8: 2 84 6: 25–33 95 8: 8 197 6: 34 246, 253 8: 22 112 6: 36 183 8: 27 197 7: 2 138 9 121 7: 14–8: 21 253 10 253 7: 22 247 10: 1–43 112 8: 3 247 11: 1–15 112 8: 6 84 11: 29 146 8: 8 84 13: 25 146 8: 12 95 21: 4 261 8: 16–17 84 21: 13 261 8: 22–32 247 22: 13 261 8: 22–3 247 22: 30–1 261 8: 27 253 23: 16 95 9: 1–6 246 24: 7 183 9: 2 247 24: 20 95 9: 5 42 9: 7–20 261 Judges 9: 7–15 193 1: 34 183 9: 8 49 2: 4 184 9: 15 49 2: 11–23 113 9: 23–57 84 2: 11–18 17 9: 23 246 2: 11–13 95 9: 56 81 2: 11 112 10: 7 182, 184 2: 14 121, 182 10: 10 179, 183 2: 16 72, 253 10: 12 183 2: 18 183, 253 11: 13 55 2: 20 182, 184 11: 29–33 253 3: 7–30 113 11: 29 253 3: 7–11 17, 179 12: 3 183 Index of Hebrew Bible References 289

13: 1 182 4: 18 247 13: 3–5 253 4: 19 55 13: 5 72, 84 7–12 3 13: 25 253 7: 1–22 247 14 253 7: 3–17 247 14: 6 136, 253 7: 3–14 113 14: 19 136, 253 7: 3 84 15: 14 136, 253 7: 6 49 16 253 7: 7–11 253 16: 28–30 253 7: 8 183 17: 12 261 7: 9–11 179 18: 30 261 7: 9 49, 183 7: 15–17 49 1 Samuel 7: 17 49 1–2 247 8: 1–3 49, 247 1: 10 179 8: 1 250 1: 12–28 247 8: 3–5 248 1: 12 179 8: 3 247–8 1: 21 48 8: 4 172 1: 22 235, 236 8: 5 247–8 1: 26 179 8: 6–9 179 1: 27 179 8: 18 181, 183 2: 1 179 8: 20 172 2: 12–17 113, 231 9: 1 28, 216 2: 18 49 9: 6 49 2: 22–5 231, 247 9: 7 49 2: 22 231 9: 8 49 2: 25 231 9: 9 49 2: 27–36 142, 230, 245, 247 9: 10 49 2: 27–35 232 9: 11 49 2: 27–30 231 9: 16 49, 50, 53, 72, 75–6, 149, 172 2: 27 142–3 9: 18 49 2: 30 231, 235–6 9: 19 49 2: 31–6 231 9: 53 247 2: 34–5 142 10: 1 49, 50, 51, 72, 75–6, 188 2: 35 143, 231 10: 6 136, 149, 253 2: 36 246 10: 7 152 3: 2–14 253 10: 8 49 3: 10–14 253 10: 9–13 43 3: 11–18 247 10: 10–12 51, 152 3: 11–14 230–1, 246 10: 10 136, 149, 253 3: 13 235 10: 19 183 3: 14 235 10: 24 51, 72, 75–6, 149 3: 18 55 11: 3 183 3: 20 49, 247, 250 11: 6 136, 149 4: 1–22 113 11: 7–8 149 4: 2 79 11: 11 113 4: 5–7 79 11: 15 51, 149, 152 4: 15–18 247 12: 8 183 290 Index of Hebrew Bible References

12: 9–11 179 19: 20 49, 136, 253 12: 10 182, 183 19: 24 49 12: 11 253 20: 15 235–6 13: 1–13 113 20: 23 235–6 13: 1 17, 56, 172, 173, 214 20: 42 235 13: 12 179, 183 21: 15–16 43 13: 13–14 56, 59, 188, 247 22: 5 187 13: 13 51, 131, 172, 228, 235–6 23: 1–5 197 13: 14 42, 72, 75–7, 131, 132, 141, 150, 23: 2 84, 138, 141 188, 226–7, 244 23: 4 138, 141 14: 20–3 113 23: 11 138, 141 14: 47–8 113 24: 3–7 85 14: 50 44 25: 30 72, 75–6, 131, 141 15 84 26: 7–12 85 15: 1 49, 50, 72, 75–6 28: 16–19 188 15: 3–28 113 28: 17–19 227 15: 3 84 28: 17 131, 188 15: 10 137, 138 28: 19 78 15: 11 183 29: 6 132 15: 17 49, 50, 72, 75–8 30: 1–20 197 15: 19 17, 51, 56, 78, 150 30: 7–8 138 15: 24–31 152 30: 8 84, 138, 141 15: 24 51 31: 1–13 113 15: 28–9 188 31: 2–6 227 15: 28 227 31: 3–4 78 15: 30 51 31: 6 244 16: 1–13 134 16: 1–2 216 2 Samuel 16: 1 72, 75–6, 131, 141, 172 1: 1–16 85 16: 2–5 49 2: 1 138, 141 16: 2 134 2: 4 49, 131, 137, 141 16: 3 49, 53, 141 2: 7 49 16: 12–13 55 2: 8–10 249 16: 12 49, 50, 53, 72, 75–6, 131, 141, 172 2: 8 44 16: 13 49, 85, 136, 141, 188, 253 2: 9 19, 51, 131, 215 16: 14 149, 150 2: 10–11 217 16: 18 132 2: 10 17, 51, 150, 214–5, 244 17: 11 136 3: 1 197 17: 12 131 3: 2–5 222, 248 17: 41–51 136, 141 3: 3 107, 171 17: 48–54 197 3: 10 131 18: 5–7 197 3: 18 229 18: 5 136 3: 28 84, 235 18: 6–7 141 3: 39 49 18: 6 137 4: 5–12 85 18: 7 137 4: 5–7 79 18: 15 44 4: 7 227, 244 18: 26 55 5: 2 71, 72, 75–6, 131, 141 19: 5 84 5: 3 49, 131, 137, 141 Index of Hebrew Bible References 291

5: 4–5 17, 132 11: 1–12: 14 132 5: 5 215 11: 2–12: 14 153 5: 13–14 222 11: 14–21 85 5: 14–16 248 11: 25 55 5: 17–25 113, 197 11: 27–12: 14 151 5: 17 49 12 138 5: 19 138, 141 12: 1–14 56, 138 5: 23–24 138 12: 1–4 193 5: 23 138, 141 12: 2 238 6: 21 72, 74, 75–6, 131, 141 12: 7–15 188 7 3, 142, 180, 210, 229, 232, 238 12: 7 49, 50, 72, 75–8, 131, 141 7: 1–17 231 12: 9 78, 132, 172, 228 7: 4 142 12: 10–14 6, 227, 238 7: 5 225, 229 12: 10–11 42 7: 6 132, 143 12: 10 78, 198, 235, 238–40, 243 7: 7 132 12: 11–14 85 7: 8 71, 72, 75–6, 131, 132, 141, 225, 12: 13 151 229, 238 12: 14 78 7: 10 132 12: 15–19 227 7: 11–17 188 12: 15 248 7: 11 132 12: 18 222 7: 12–16 56, 94, 238 12: 24–5 149, 188, 249 7: 12 142–3, 225 12: 24 248 7: 13–16 141, 239 13–18 248 7: 13 224–5, 235, 238 13: 1–19 248 7: 14–15 219 13: 21 248 7: 14 142, 225 13: 29 222, 227 7: 15 238 14: 1–20 194 7: 16 139, 143, 224, 235, 238–9 14: 3 55 7: 17 55, 137 14: 25 149 7: 18–29 211 15–18 113, 220 7: 23 132, 143, 180 15: 6 90, 137, 149, 217 7: 24 132, 180, 235 15: 10 49, 220 7: 25 180–1, 235 15: 12 90, 149 7: 26 132, 180, 235 15: 13 90 7: 27 132, 180 15: 19–23 137, 151 7: 29 180–1 15: 19 220 8 107 15: 20 43 8: 1–14 113, 197 15: 21 141 8: 2 84 15: 25 151 8: 6 84, 122 15: 31 90, 180 8: 14 84 15: 34 49, 220 8: 16–7 2 15: 35 49 8: 16 44 16: 1–4 137, 151 9: 6 28 16: 11 85 10 107 16: 16 49 10: 1–19 197 16: 18 90 10: 6–19 113 17: 4 90 11 25 17: 14 180 292 Index of Hebrew Bible References

17: 24 90 1: 48 149 17: 25 44 2: 3 248 17: 27–9 137 2: 4 143, 169, 224–5, 233 17: 27–8 151 2: 10–12 17, 132 18: 1–8 197 2: 10 244 18: 5 85 2: 11 172, 173 18: 6–8 137 2: 15 149 18: 7 90, 151 2: 25 222 18: 15 222, 227 2: 33 235 19: 10 149, 220 2: 45 235 19: 11 49, 134–5 3: 1 171 19: 13 44 3: 3 26, 132–3, 152, 180, 248 19: 24 29 3: 5 138 20: 1–22 217, 220 3: 6 132 20: 3 151 3: 10–13 171 20: 24 2 3: 10 152 21: 1 138, 141 3: 11–13 138 21: 2 95, 96 3: 11 138, 152 21: 7 29 3: 12 133, 149 21: 15 136 3: 14 132, 168–9, 172, 248 21: 16 136 3: 15 192 22: 51 235 3: 28 149 24: 1–17 132 4: 3 2 24: 1 138, 141, 184 5: 1 114, 122, 196 24: 11 137 5: 4 114 24: 12 188 5: 15 49, 50 5: 21 55 1 Kings 5: 26 192 1: 5–53 220, 248 6: 11–13 138, 152 1: 5 43, 146 6: 11 138 1: 6 149, 188 6: 12 139, 149, 169, 224, 233 1: 7–10 149 6: 19 192 1: 10 142 8: 1 192 1: 11 146 8: 6 192 1: 13 146, 149 8: 16 71, 72, 75–6, 131, 141 1: 16 188 8: 20 143 1: 17 149 8: 21 192 1: 18 146 8: 23–53 180 1: 20 149 8: 23 179, 192 1: 25 146 8: 25–6 180–1, 211 1: 27 149 8: 25 143, 169, 224, 233, 248 1: 30 43, 149 8: 29 180 1: 32–48 146 8: 33–4 113 1: 32–4 134 8: 33 192 1: 34 49, 149 8: 36 248 1: 35 149 8: 44–53 113 1: 39 49 8: 46 113 1: 43 149 8: 47 192 1: 45 49, 188 8: 50 192 Index of Hebrew Bible References 293

8: 58 248 12: 26 131, 245 8: 59 192 13: 2–3 188 8: 65 196 13: 6 153, 179, 183, 188 9: 2–9 138, 152 14–16 244 9: 3 138, 180, 192, 235 14: 1–16 152 9: 4–5 139, 149, 169, 224 14: 5–16 138 9: 4 57, 132, 233 14: 5 55, 138 9: 5 143 14: 7–16 75 10: 29 107 14: 7–14 42, 56, 227, 244 11: 1–8 171 14: 7 73, 75–8 11: 1–3 222 14: 8–9 228 11: 2 172 14: 8 57, 78, 131, 132–3, 141–2, 172, 11: 4 132–3, 180 229, 245 11: 6 26, 112, 132–3, 150, 180, 218, 14: 9–20 24 248–9 14: 9 19, 24, 133, 150 11: 11–13 42, 138, 226–7, 239, 243 14: 10–14 188 11: 11 131, 138, 150, 172, 180, 192, 228, 14: 10 150, 172, 199, 221, 228 239, 245 14: 11 100 11: 13 3, 220, 229, 245 14: 12 78 11: 14 73 14: 14 43, 73, 74, 75–7, 89, 188 11: 23–25 107 14: 17 221 11: 23 73 14: 19–20 24 11: 26 19, 24 14: 19 2, 13, 46 11: 28 149, 152 14: 20 142, 172, 208 11: 31–9 138, 229 14: 22 95, 133, 218 11: 31–5 73, 75–7, 149, 188, 227 14: 25–6 122 11: 31–3 180 14: 26 123 11: 31 22, 131, 153, 188, 220, 245 14: 29 2, 20, 29, 46 11: 32 3, 245 14: 30 194, 239 11: 33 57, 132, 141–2, 230 14: 31 208 11: 35 22, 131, 220, 230, 245 15: 3 132–3, 142, 218, 230 11: 36 3, 139, 220, 229 15: 4 3, 139, 229 11: 38 57, 132, 139, 141–2, 149, 15: 5 26, 132, 230 224–5, 230 15: 6 194, 239 11: 41 2, 13 15: 7 13, 46, 239 11: 42 172, 173, 215 15: 8 208 11: 43 142, 208 15: 9 46 12 150 15: 11 132–3 12: 1–19 215, 224 15: 16 107, 914 12: 1 149 15: 18 28, 122 12: 15 153 15: 14 26 12: 19–20 217, 220, 227 15: 16 239 12: 19 114 15: 18 123 12: 20 22, 131, 149, 181, 220, 245 15: 19–20 107 12: 21 220 15: 19 192 12: 22–4 187, 194, 239 15: 20 114 12: 22 137–8 15: 23 13, 46 12: 23 220 15: 25 20, 150, 208 12: 24 55, 84, 197 15: 26 24, 162, 248, 262 294 Index of Hebrew Bible References

15: 27–8 79, 227 17: 2–5 197 15: 27 28, 43, 176, 217 17: 2 253 15: 28 208 17: 8 253 15: 29 28, 221 17: 20–2 180 15: 30 24, 163 17: 20 179 15: 31 13, 46 17: 21 179 15: 32 239 18 95 15: 33 20 18: 1 138, 253 15: 34 24, 163, 248 18: 4 92 16: 1–4 42, 188, 227, 244 18: 12 136, 253 16: 1 138 18: 13 92 16: 2–3 89 18: 17 189 16: 2 24, 73, 75–8, 149, 163, 228, 18: 18–19 92 248, 262 18: 18 188 16: 3 43, 172, 228 18: 19–40 253 16: 4 100 18: 19–20 128 16: 5 13 18: 29 181 16: 6 208 18: 36–8 180–1 16: 7 42, 227 18: 40 92 16: 8–14 226 19: 2 92 16: 8 19, 20, 157 19: 6 137 16: 9–18 90 19: 9 253 16: 9–13 227 19: 10 92, 93, 95–6, 98, 192 16: 9–10 79 19: 14 93, 95–6, 98, 192 16: 9 43, 176, 217 19: 15–18 92, 138 16: 10 208 19: 15–16 55, 93 16: 11–12 221 19: 15 49, 58, 73, 74, 75–6 16: 11 44, 221 19: 16–17 11 16: 13 19, 23, 152, 217, 262 19: 16 29, 43, 49, 53, 58, 73, 75, 77, 89, 16: 14 13 141, 172, 188, 252, 253 16: 15–20 230 19: 17–18 93–5 16: 15 19, 20, 146, 237 19: 17 107 16: 16 44, 149 19: 19–21 55, 93 16: 17–18 105 19: 19 55 16: 18–19 172 19: 21 53 16: 19 162 20 107–8, 177, 189, 200–3 16: 20 13 20: 1–33 107 16: 21–2 18, 23 20: 2 201 16: 23 20 20: 3 222 16: 25 41, 133 20: 4 122, 201 16: 27 13 20: 5 222 16: 29 20 20: 7 122, 201–2, 222 16: 30–1 102 20: 9 122 16: 30 24, 133 20: 11 201 16: 31–2 92 20: 12 55 16: 31 99, 171 20: 13 188, 201 16: 33 133 20: 14 201 17: 1–2 138 20: 15 202 17: 1 188 20: 20–1 122 Index of Hebrew Bible References 295

20: 21 201–2 22: 6 56, 188, 201 20: 22 201 22: 7 202 20: 27 202 22: 8 189, 201–2 20: 28 188, 201 22: 9 201 20: 29–30 202 22: 10 201–2 20: 31 201 22: 11–12 188 20: 32 201 22: 12 56 20: 34 108, 192, 201, 203 22: 15 188 20: 35 262 22: 18 201–2 20: 40 201 22: 19–23 188 20: 41 201 22: 20 201 20: 42 188 22: 22 187 20: 43 201 22: 24 135 21 84, 201 22: 26 201, 203 21: 1 201 22: 29 201–2 21: 2 201 22: 30 201–2 21: 3 201 22: 31 201 21: 4 201 22: 32 201–2 21: 8 201 22: 33 201 21: 15 201 22: 34 201 21: 16 201 22: 37–8 93 21: 17–24 138, 188 22: 37 203 21: 17 253 22: 38 100, 227 21: 18 201 22: 39 13, 201 21: 19–28 92 22: 40 19, 201, 203 21: 19 81, 93, 98–9, 100 22: 41 201–2 21: 20–6 227, 240 22: 42 202 21: 20–4 42 22: 43 26, 201 21: 20 98, 201, 228 22: 44 194 21: 21–9 93 22: 46 13 21: 21–2 93 22: 52 20, 201 21: 21 98, 199, 201, 221, 228 22: 53 92 21: 22 262 21: 23 93, 98 2 Kings 21: 24–6 93 1: 3–16 138 21: 24 98, 100, 201 1: 3 138 21: 25 98, 201 1: 12 180 21: 26 92, 98 1: 16 138 21: 27–9 235 1: 17 19, 52, 174 21: 27 201–2 1: 18 13 21: 29 93, 98, 187, 188, 201 2: 3 262 22 107–8, 177, 189, 200–3 2: 9 253 22: 1–38 201–2 2: 11 53 22: 1 202 2: 12 189 22: 2–3 108 2: 15 253 22: 2 201–2 2: 16 135, 136, 253 22: 3 201 2: 19–22 253 22: 4 201–2 3: 1 20, 174 22: 5 201–2 3: 2 25, 26, 92, 102, 157, 204 296 Index of Hebrew Bible References

3: 3 20, 25, 26 9: 3–12 54 3: 4–27 118 9: 3 49, 53–4, 73, 75, 77, 141, 172 3: 4–7 118 9: 4–10 188 3: 14–19 188 9: 5 90, 115, 136 3: 14 157, 188 9: 6–10 54–5, 92, 141, 143–4, 188 4: 1–8: 6 253 9: 6 49, 53–5, 58, 73, 75, 77, 93, 172 4: 33–5 180 9: 7–10 54, 77, 89, 92, 97–9, 101, 138, 4: 43–4 197 227, 240 5–8 108 9: 7–9 93 5: 5 108 9: 7 98, 100, 143, 197 5: 10–11 190 9: 8 98, 143, 199, 221 6–7 188 9: 9 143 6: 8–7: 20 118 9: 10 88, 93, 98–9, 134 6: 8–9 108 9: 11–13 43 6: 10 55 9: 11 43, 88, 90, 136 6: 17–18 180 9: 12 49, 53–4, 73, 74, 75, 141, 172 6: 17 179 9: 13 90, 141 6: 22–3 108 9: 14–10: 27 15 6: 22 84 9: 14 19, 22, 23, 24, 27, 29, 89, 90, 106, 6: 24–5 108 176, 217 6: 32 183, 189 9: 15 88, 90 7: 1 188 9: 16 88 7: 11 55 9: 17–10: 14 9 8: 7–15 55, 93, 108 9: 17–20 91, 137, 141 8: 7–8 108 9: 17 88, 198 8: 9–14 58 9: 18 88 8: 13 55, 73, 74, 75–6 9: 19 88 8: 18 46, 57, 93–4, 143, 171, 238, 240 9: 20 29, 136, 138, 141 8: 19 139, 229–30 9: 22 88, 101 8: 20–2 114 9: 24–7 86 8: 23 13 9: 24–6 93 8: 25–10: 36 9 9: 24 81, 86, 89, 102, 107, 141, 172 8: 26–7 238, 240 9: 25–6 92, 98–9, 144 8: 26 93–4 9: 25 41 8: 27–8 171 9: 26 89, 92, 93, 138, 141 8: 27 46, 57, 102, 143 9: 27–8 93, 176 8: 28 118 9: 27 81, 86, 89, 101, 106, 141, 172, 8: 29 88, 107 176, 220 9–11 10 9: 28 91 9–10 9, 15, 85 9: 30 88, 198 9 88, 89 9: 31 88 9: 1–10: 36 11 9: 32–3 91, 137, 141 9: 1–10: 27 124 9: 33–10: 17 86 9: 1–15 9 9: 33–7 86 9: 1–13 15, 90, 134 9: 33 81, 86, 89, 91, 99, 100–1, 141 9: 1–12 52, 58, 137 9: 34 43, 100, 101 9: 1–3 89, 188 9: 35 100 9: 1 11, 53, 88 9: 36–7 92, 93, 97, 144 9: 2 19, 22, 23, 24, 27, 29 9: 36 52, 88, 89, 92, 98–9, 100, 138, 227 Index of Hebrew Bible References 297

9: 37 88, 98, 141 10: 35 23, 155 10 89 10: 36 20, 22, 23, 24, 40, 172, 175 10: 1–10 221 11–12 158 10: 1–7 85, 137, 141 11: 1–12: 22 11 10: 1–4 136 11: 1–20 18, 220 10: 1 41, 88, 168, 203, 222 11: 1–2 221, 240 10: 2 91 11: 1 43 10: 3 80 11: 2 155 10: 4–7 91 11: 3 51, 139 10: 4 106, 136 11: 4–12 218 10: 6–7 91, 198 11: 4 192 10: 6 81, 88 11: 6 26 10: 7–8 86 11: 12 49, 135 10: 7 86, 88, 89, 137 11: 17 192 10: 9 89, 217 12: 1 155, 159 10: 10–11 92, 97–9, 144 12: 2–3 172 10: 10 52, 89, 92, 93, 98, 100, 138, 141, 143 12: 2 57, 155 10: 11 86, 88, 89, 98–9, 106, 115, 143, 198 12: 4 26 10: 12–14 93, 221, 240 12: 17 123 10: 13 222 12: 19 122–3 10: 14 81, 89, 137 12: 20 13 10: 15–16 91, 96 12: 21–2 218 10: 15 24 12: 21 176, 217, 220 10: 16–27 95 13 9 10: 16 92, 95, 96, 101 13: 1–25 11, 158 10: 17 52, 89, 92, 93, 98–9, 100, 115, 13: 1–9 18, 158, 163 138, 141, 144, 197 13: 1–2 18, 172 10: 18–27 101 13: 1 18, 20, 155, 155, 175, 202 10: 19 86 13: 2 18, 20, 24, 25, 57, 155–6, 158, 162, 10: 21 86 181, 184, 218 10: 24–7 91 13: 3–7 18, 19, 108, 182 10: 24 81 13: 3–5 183 10: 25–8 9 13: 3–4 118 10: 25 86, 92–5, 137 13: 3 103, 114, 118–9, 182–4, 191, 216 10: 28–36 124 13: 4–6 182–3 10: 28–33 9, 26 13: 4–5 177, 182–3, 199–200 10: 28 25 13: 4 155, 159, 183, 191 10: 29–31 143, 226 13: 5 181, 183 10: 29 20, 24, 26, 153, 158 13: 6 20, 158, 162, 183 10: 30 15, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 57, 80, 89, 13: 7 158, 182, 191 93, 115, 132, 138, 139, 141, 143, 157, 13: 8–9 18 162, 182, 223–5, 236 13: 8 13, 18 10: 31 20, 24, 25, 26, 118, 143, 153 13: 9 18, 155, 159 10: 32–3 15, 107, 110, 114, 116–18, 216 13: 10–13 159 10: 32 93, 116–19, 183, 184 13: 10–11 172 10: 33 116–17 13: 10 20, 155, 159, 175, 202 10: 34–6 23 13: 11 24, 25, 57, 155–6, 159, 162–3, 218 10: 34 13, 23, 89, 116, 118, 128 13: 12 13, 155 10: 35–6 158 13: 13 155, 159 298 Index of Hebrew Bible References

13: 14–25 177 14: 23–4 173, 199 13: 14–21 253 14: 23 20, 175 13: 14–19 159, 190–1 14: 24 155–6, 163, 218 13: 14 155, 189 14: 25–8 177 13: 15–17 190 14: 25–6 216 13: 17–24 108 14: 25 114, 117, 118, 160, 188, 196–7, 13: 17 190 199–200, 216 13: 18–19 160, 190 14: 26–7 199–200 13: 19 188 14: 26 199 13: 20–1 190–1 14: 27 160, 197, 199 13: 21 192 14: 28–9 199 13: 22–5 160, 192 14: 28 13, 114, 118, 160–1, 196–7, 13: 22–3 191–3, 195, 199–200 200, 239 13: 22 155, 183, 190–2 14: 29 159, 160, 198 13: 23 118, 191–2 15: 1–7 11 13: 24–5 159, 191–2 15: 4 26 13: 25 114, 119, 155, 184, 189, 191, 193 15: 5 176 14: 1–8 11 15: 6 13 14: 1–3 172 15: 8–31 250 14: 1 28, 155, 159 15: 8–12 1, 9, 11, 161 14: 3–4 26 15: 8–10 216 14: 3 57, 132–3, 193 15: 8 20, 162, 175 14: 5 160 15: 9 155–6, 161–2, 218 14: 7–14 118 15: 10 162, 198, 217, 221, 251 14: 7 114 15: 11 13, 251 14: 8–29 9, 11 15: 12 11, 143, 162, 182, 236 14: 8–16 159 15: 13 19, 20, 23, 157, 237 14: 8–14 160, 177 15: 14 160, 221, 251 14: 8–9 20 15: 15 13, 251 14: 8 28, 155, 193 15: 16–22 160 14: 9–10 194 15: 17 20, 237 14: 9 20, 155, 193–4 15: 19–20 122, 251 14: 11–14 189, 193–4 15: 21 13, 251 14: 11–12 239 15: 23 20, 237 14: 11 55, 155, 193 15: 25 176, 217, 221, 251 14: 12 216 15: 26 13, 251 14: 13–14 123 15: 27 20, 28 14: 13 28 15: 29–30 40 14: 14 122–3, 194 15: 29 28, 114, 118, 251 14: 15–16 159 15: 30 176, 217, 221, 251 14: 15 13 15: 31 13, 251 14: 18 13 15: 35 26 14: 19–21 218 15: 36 13 14: 19–20 203 15: 37 108, 118 14: 19 176, 203, 217, 220 15: 38 46 14: 20 203 16: 2 132–3 14: 21 203 16: 3 222 14: 22 203 16: 5 108, 118, 239 14: 23–9 160, 163, 196 16: 6 114, 216 Index of Hebrew Bible References 299

16: 7–8 122 20: 17 228 16: 8 123 20: 18 228, 240, 243 16: 10 125–6 20: 20 13, 161 16: 19 13 21: 1 173 17 115 21: 2 228, 234 17: 1 20 21: 3–14 252 17: 2 26, 157, 204 21: 6 222, 228, 234 17: 3–6 222 21: 10–15 227, 240 17: 3 122 21: 11–16 262 17: 5–6 114, 118 21: 11–15 115, 188 17: 6–7 228 21: 11 133, 228, 234, 262 17: 6 114 21: 12 227 17: 7–23 115 21: 13 143, 199, 227 17: 7–21 262 21: 14–15 228 17: 7 118 21: 14 121 17: 15 192 21: 15–16 234 17: 19–20 121 21: 16 84, 262 17: 20 228 21: 17 13 17: 23 114 21: 24 149, 217, 218, 220 17: 35 192 21: 25 13 17: 38 192 22: 1–2 26 18: 1–7 26 22: 2 24, 130, 132–3, 148–50 18: 3–4 24 22: 3 2, 28, 192 18: 3 130, 132–3, 148–50 22: 8 28 18: 5 133 22: 9 28 18: 7 150 22: 10 28 18: 12 192 22: 20 28 18: 14–16 122 22: 12 28 18: 15–16 123 22: 13 180 18: 15 25 22: 14 28 18: 18 2 22: 18–20 188 18: 25 138 22: 18 150 19: 6–7 188 22: 19 180 19: 7 136 23: 2 192 19: 15–34 180 23: 4 95 19: 20 138, 150 23: 20 95 19: 31 95 23: 21 192 19: 32–4 188 23: 24–5 24 19: 34 229 23: 25–26 25 19: 37 7 23: 25 4, 133, 150 20: 2 188 23: 26–25: 30 4 20: 3–5 180 23: 26 184 20: 5–6 55, 188 23: 28 13 20: 5 150 23: 29 222 20: 6 229 23: 30 49, 158 20: 13 25 23: 31–24: 19 156 20: 16–20 233 23: 31–6 94 20: 16–18 26, 140, 188, 227 23: 31 51, 222 20: 16–17 194 23: 32 161–2, 251 300 Index of Hebrew Bible References

23: 33–4 216 31: 1 123 23: 33 122 44: 28–45: 1 71, 73 23: 34 52, 222, 255 23: 35 122 Jeremiah 23: 36 51 2: 36–7 123 23: 37 161–2, 251 4: 3 228 24–25 115 7: 10 96 24: 1–2 216 15: 1 49 24: 1 114, 251 15: 19 96 24: 2–4 227 26: 24 252 24: 3–4 115, 262 29: 26 43, 136 24: 3 118 32: 35–6 95 24: 4 84 33: 14–26 236 24: 5 13 35 96 24: 7 114 35: 14 96 24: 8 222 35: 16 96 24: 9 251 35: 18 96 24: 10–16 114 35: 19 96 24: 10 114, 216 52: 30 8 24: 12–16 227 24: 12 222 Ezekiel 24: 13 122–3, 194 37: 24–8 236 24: 14 122 24: 15 222 Hosea 24: 17 52, 222, 255 1: 1 11, 198, 199 24: 18 222 1: 4 9, 11, 86–8, 198, 226 24: 19 114, 251 7: 3 199 24: 20 228, 251 7: 11 123 25: 1 3, 8 9: 7 43, 136 25: 1–26 8 10: 7 199 25: 2–7 216 10: 12 228 25: 2 8 10: 15 199 25: 3 3 25: 5–11 114 Amos 25: 6–7 251 1: 1 198 25: 7 222, 236 6: 13–14 198 25: 8 3, 8 7: 9–11 11, 198 25: 13 123 7: 9 198, 226 25: 21 114 7: 11 198 25: 22 255 7: 14–17 198 25: 25 3, 28, 42, 43, 252 25: 26 8 Jonah 25: 27 8 1: 1 197 25: 27–30 3, 4 Haggai Isaiah 2: 23 71 9: 7 236 11: 1 236 Zechariah 26: 21 87 12: 4 43 Index of Hebrew Bible References 301

Psalms 11: 3 71 78: 12 117 12: 3 203 78: 70 71 17: 7 71 89: 3–4 236 17: 13 238 106: 21 117 27: 28 203 114: 1 117 28: 4 71, 72 132: 11–12 236 28: 5 58, 61, 65, 71, 135: 9 117 79, 149

Proverbs 2 Chronicles 13: 23 228 6: 6 71 11: 18–22 51 Daniel 21: 17 51, 158 11: 17 123 22: 1 51, 158 22: 7–9 11 1 Chronicles 22: 7 29 2: 13–17 44 23: 11 49 4: 22 203 25: 14–16 195 7: 8 203 25: 17–24 11 11: 2 71 25: 20 195 Index of Modern Authors

Aharoni, Y. 124 Dever, W. G. 12 Ahlstro¨m, G. 43, 86, 145–8 Dietrich, W. 4, 5, 76, 182 Alt, A. 59, 145–8, 215–6 Dion, P. E. 27, 40, 41, 43 Anderson, A. 239, 241, 249 Anderson, F. I. 87, 198 Elat, M. 128 Arnold, B. T. 63 Ash, P. 130 Fairman, H. W. 69 Athas, G. 103–5, 109 Feldman, L. H. 25, 43, 102 Auld, A. G. 260 Fensham, F. C. 42 Avigad, N. 158 Freedman, D. N. 87, 173, 198, 213 Frick, F. S. 96 Baldwin, J. G. 239 Fritz, V. 26, 76, 78, 99, 228, 233 Barre´, L. M. 9, 10, 89, 97, 98, 99, 101 Frolov, S. 249 Barrick, W. B. 190 Fuchs, A. 33 Barton, J. 249 Becking, B. 102, 103 Gadd, C. J. 31, 33 Beckman, G. 68, 120, 165, 171 Gakuru, G. 210, 211 Begg, C. 23, 25, 43, 90, 102, 118, 156, Gehman, H. S. 43, 91, 181, 182, 196, 157, 174, 189, 195, 221 198, 200 Ben Zvi, E. 228 Geoghegan, J. C. 117 Biran A. 66, 102, 103, 105, 106, 109, 142 Gordon, R. P. 134, 239, 248, 249 Bluedorn, W. 246 Gray, J. 29, 43, 49, 76, 78, 94, 96, 116, Boadt, L. 133 143, 181, 182, 189, 191, 192, 195, 199, Boling, R. G. 247 233, 234, 247 Borger, R. 210 Grayson, A. K. 16, 17, 30, 31, 32, 36, 37, Briend, J. 181, 182, 192, 199 38, 39, 62, 63, 64, 86, 104, 106, 108, Buccellati, G. 207–8, 215–6, 235, 238, 240 111, 120, 122, 124, 125, 127, 128, 160, 164, 165, 178, 182, 184, 202, 203, 207, Carlson, R. A. 13, 142, 235, 238, 239 209, 210, 211, 212 Clines, D. J. A. 28 Green, A. R. 124, 125, 126 Cody, A. 122, 155, 175, 181 Gugler, W. 9, 36, 87, 106, 128, 174 Cogan, M. 28, 30, 36, 39, 41, 49, 51, Gurney, O. R. 67 54, 94, 101, 116, 117, 122, 123, 124, 127, 130, 133, 158, 160, 169, 175, 182, Hagedorn, A. 170, 171 193, 196, 198, 201, 203, 209, 222, 228, Hallo, W. W. 12, 181 233, 262 Halpern, B. 12, 30 Collins, J. 81 Hanson, R. D. 228 Cortese, E. 25 Haran, M. 181, 196–7 Cross, F. M. 4–7, 19, 21, 142, 260 Hayes, J. H. 43, 86, 173 Hertzberg, H. W. 239 Davies, P. R. 12 Hobbs, T. R. 174, 181, 189, 190, 193, Day, J. 94 195, 222 DeVries, S. J. 228 HoVman, H.-D. 7 Index of Modern Authors 303

Hooker, P. K. 173 Mattila, R. 37 Hubbard, D. A. 88 Mayes, A. D. H. 166 Mays, J. L. 198 Irvine, S. A. 105, 107 Mazar, B. 181 Ishida, T. 10, 11, 40, 42, 51, 59, 61, Mettinger, T. 47, 48, 50, 51, 78, 142, 77, 89, 94, 166, 207–8, 211, 215–7, 145–8, 232 238, 240 Millard, A. 39 Miller, J. M. 9, 43, 86, 189, 201–4 Jaruzelska, I. 53, 100, 101 MinkoV, H. 145 Jenni, E. 193 Minokami, Y. 9, 10, 43, 89 Jepsen, A. 3 Montgomery, J. A. 43, 91, 181, 182, 196, Jones, G. H. 49, 54, 76, 78, 90, 96, 98, 99, 198, 200 101, 130, 143, 158, 171, 182, 190, 191, Moor,J.C.de42 192, 193, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199–200, Moore, M. S. 83 228, 233, 234, 261, 262 Moran, J. C. 47 Mowinchel, S. 211 Kaminsky, J. S. 244 Mullen, E. T. 123, 134, 137, 225, 226, Kang, S.-M. 83 235, 237 Kedar-Kopfstein, B. 145–8 Mulzer, M. 9 Kelle, B. E. 35 Kitchen, K. 12 Na’aman, N. 27, 44, 45, 102, 105, 123, Klein, R. 142, 230 196, 203 Knauf, E. A. 7 Naveh, J. 51, 66, 102, 103, 105, 106, Knoppers. G. 7, 133, 169–72, 225 109, 142 Knott, J. B. 9, 11, 87, 174, 196, 201 Nelson, R. D. 4, 6, 166, 170 Kottsieper, I. 102, 105, 106 Niditch, S. 85 Kutsch, E. 47, 48 Niehaus, J. 73 Niskanen, P. 16, 210 Laato, A. 210, 211 Nissinen, M. 185 Lamb, D. 103 Noth, M. 2–8, 13, 21, 22, 43, 76, 78, 117, Lambert, W. G. 124, 128 142, 143, 153, 192, 251, 256, 260 Lemaire, A. 6, 42, 102, 105, 109 Nougayrol, J. 193 Levinson, B. 169–72 Lieberman, S. J. 125, 126 O’Brien, M. 6, 7 Lipin´ ski, E. 124, 196, 197 Olyan, S. M. 43, 82, 88, 89, 97, 98, 99, Liverani, M. 218 101, 135–6 LohWnk, N. 142, 228, 229, 230, 232, 236 Oppenenheim, A. L. 193 Luckenbill, D. D. 164, 178, 211, 212 Otto, S. 9, 10, 29, 54, 98, 99, 101, 106, 143 Luukko, M. 39 Overholt, T. W. 145–8

McCarter, P. K. 30, 45, 133, 142, 144, Page, S. 122, 160, 182 225, 230, 239, 248, 249 Pakkala, J. 222 McCarthy, D. J. 142, 182 Parker, S. B. 67 McComiskey, T. E. 87 Parpola, S. 111, 139, 164, 178, 186, 211, McConville, G. 166 225 McKenzie, S. L. 3, 4, 7, 8, 98, 99, 100, Pitard, W. 37, 191, 194, 196, 201–4 232, 237, 238, 248 Polzin, R. 7 Malamat, A. 31, 145–8, 210, 211, 223, Porada, E. 125, 126 225, 253 Porter, J. R. 29 304 Index of Modern Authors

Provan, I. W. 7, 17–18, 26 Thompson, J. A. 96 Pury, A. de 3, 5 Thompson, S. 47 Thompson, T. L. 12 Rad, G. von 3, 167, 230, 232, 234, 235 Thornton, T. C. G. 145–8, 215 Radner, K. 37 Timm, S. 261 Redford, D. B. 164 Tomes, R. 89, 97, 101 Ro¨mer,T.3,5,7 Tsevat, M. 235 Rooke, D. 230 Ro¨sel, H. N. 7 Van Seters, J. 7, 16, 60, 62, 142 Rost, L. 249 Vater Solomon, A. M. 193 Veenhof, K. R. 47 Sader, H. 38 Veijola, T. 5, 76, 78, 142 Safar, F. 30 Vigano`,L.48 Saggs, H. W. F. 33 Sasson, V. 27, 43, 45, 102, 105, 109 Wallace, H. N. 100, 232, 238, 243 Schmidt, L. 145–8 Webb, B. G. 247 Schneider, T. 27, 28, 31, 36, 40, 42, 45 Weinfeld, M. 6, 8, 21, 22, 78, 97, 100, Schniedewind, W. M. 45, 105, 106, 143, 225 107, 108, 109, 132, 142, 228, 230, 232, Weippert, M. 30 234, 241 Weisman, Z. 47, 48, 135–6, 145–8 Smelik, K. A. D. 116 Wellhausen, J. 3, 4 Smend, W. 4–7 Wesselius, J.-W. 103, 105, 106 Smith, C. C. 126, 128 White, M. C. 9, 10, 42, 43, 82, 88, 89, 90, Soggin, J. A. 247 91, 94, 137 Stern, P. D. 85 Williamson, H. G. M. 88, 195 Sweeney, M. 22 Wiseman, D. J. 28, 99, 133, 181, 182, 190, 193 Tadmor, H. 28, 30, 32, 33, 36, 39, 41, 51, WolV,H.W.3 54, 94, 101, 116, 117, 122, 123, 127, Wu¨rthwein, E. 4, 7, 90, 94, 96, 98, 99, 130, 158, 160, 175, 178, 181, 182, 193, 101, 143, 192, 193, 195, 199–200, 228 196, 198, 203, 209, 222, 228, 233, 262 Taylor,P.M.46 Younger, K. L. 125, 209 Thiele, E. R. 173, 174 Thomas, D. Winton 30 Zuckerman, B. 108, 109

REVELATION