Foreign Women and the Early Kings of Judah

DOI 10.1515/zaw-2014-0014 ZAW 2014; 126(2):193–207

Omer SergiForeign Women and the Early Kings of Judah

Shedding Light on the Historiographic Perception of the Author of Kings

Omer Sergi: Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv POB 39040, Tel Aviv 61390, Israel, e-mail: [email protected]

Introduction

The theological evaluations in the Book of Kings appraise the cultic behavior of the kings of Israel and Judah and are an integral part of the book’s formulaic structure. Hence, they reflect the mind-set of the book’s author-editor and permit us a glimpse into the world of the scribal school, usually identified as »Deuteron-omistic«, that was responsible for its creation. For the sake of convenience, I use here the term »the author of the Book of Kings« to identify the Deuteronomistic Scribes credited with the main compositional phase of the Book which included also the theological evaluations.¹

The author of Kings assessed the Judahite kings who preceded Hezekiah using only two types of theological evaluations that indicated two possible cultic behaviors: (1) Some kings were evaluated as kings »who did what was wrong in the eyes of YHWH«, meaning that they were accused of venerating foreign gods.² (2) Others were considered loyal to the Yhwistic cult and they were assessed as kings who »did what was right in the eyes of YHWH«.³

I would like to thank Profs. Oded Lipschits, Thomas Römer, Gary Knoppers and Jan C. Gertz for reviewing this article and for making useful comments on it. Of course, the ideas presented here are my own. Thanks also to Prof. Manfred Oeming for this generous Hospitality and cooperation during my research stay in Heidelberg.1 For summary of discussion see T. Römer, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociologi-cal, Historical and Literary Introduction, 2005, 13–106, and further literature in note 33 below. 2 Rehoboam (I Reg 14,22–24), Jehoam (II Reg 8,18), Ahaziah (II Reg 8,27) and Ahaz (II Reg 16,3–4) were explicitly accused of practicing forbidden cult. Abiam (I Reg 15,3) is the only king whose accusation is not explicit, but see below. 3 Asa (I Reg 15,11–14), Jehoshaphat (I Reg 22,43–44), Jehoash (II Reg 12, 3–4), Amaziah (II Reg 14,3–4), Azariah (II Reg 15,3–4), Jotam (II Reg 16, 34–35).

Brought to you by | Universität HeidelbergAuthenticated | [email protected] author's copy

Download Date | 6/22/14 4:57 PM

194 Omer Sergi

A unique theological theme is added to the evaluations of Solomon, Abiam and Jehoram, who were assessed negatively as kings who venerated foreign gods. This theological theme mentions a promise made to David by YHWH to grant him »nîr ledāwid« (I Reg 11,36; 15,4; II Reg 8,19). Basically, it is intended to explain why – in direct contrast with the dynasties of Israel – the House of David sur-vived and maintained its rule over Judah even when its kings had sinned. Many regard the nîr theme to be a realization of the »eternal promise« given to David (II Sam 7,1–17),⁴ though the nîr itself is mentioned nowhere before, not even in the Dynastic eternal promise. Moreover, one wonders why it is mentioned only in regard to the sins of these three kings and does not repeat in regard to other Juda-hite kings (Ahaziah, Ahaz or Manasseh) who were also accused of doing »wrong in the eyes of YHWH«.

R.D. Nelson tries to explain this peculiarity by arguing that perhaps the point regarding the nîr had been made by the time the author got to the negative evalu-ations of Ahaziah, Ahaz and Menasseh.⁵ However, The Book of Kings is a work of systematic theological literature in which theological ideas are repeated exhaus-tively (like the cult in the »high places« for the kings of Judah or the »sins of Jero-boam« for the kings of Israel). It is unlikely that literary aesthetics led its author to avoid repeating the idea of the continuity of the Davidic dynasty, which is one of the main theological themes motivating the historiographical narrative in Kings. Other scholars have argued that the nîr theme was raised when the dynasty was threatened, and thus it was not mentioned for Ahas, Manasseh and the last four Judahite kings to indicate that YHWH decided to destroy the kingdom of Judah.⁶ While this argument clearly explains the need for the nîr theme in the days of Solomon or Jehoram, it fails to explain why it was needed in the evaluation of Abiam, as no explicit threat is attributed to his reign.

The main difficulty with all the above suggestions is that they do not address the full peculiarity of the nîr theme, as the problem is not only why it is not

4 M. Noth, Könige. I/1–16 BKAT 9/1, 1968, 261–262; J. Gray, I & II Kings. I/1–16 A Commentary, Second Edition, OTL, 1970, 297; E. Würthwein, Das Erste Buch der Könige Kapitel 1–16, ATD 11, 1, 1977, 144; R.D. Nelson, The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History, JSOTSup 18, 1981, 116–118; I.W. Provan, Hezekiah and the Book of Kings. A Contribution to the Debate about the Composi-tion of the Deuteronomistic History, 1988, 95–98; E. Eynikel, The Reforms of King Josiah and the Composition of the Deuteronomistic History, OS 33, 1996, 116–117. 5 Nelson, Double, 117. For a similar solution see: Provan, Hezekiah, 98, note 16; M. A. O’Brien, The Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis. A Reassessment, OBO 92, 1989, 215; Eynikel, Reforms, 116–117. 6 E. Aurelius, Zukunft jenseits des Gerichts. Eine redaktiongeschichtliche Studie zum Enn-eateuch, BZAW 319, 2003, 52–56, with further literature.



Foreign Women and the Early Kings of Judah 195

repeated after the reign of Jehoram, but also why it does not appear before Solo-mon, even though it is explicitly mentioned as a promise already given to David. Since the nîr theme is restricted to specific historiographic periodization (below), it should be assumed that for the author of Kings, Solomon, Abiam and Jeho-ram shared something in common that demanded its mentioning only in accord-ance with their reigns. Furthermore, implied in the nîr concept is the apologetic theological inference that these kings did not meet the author’s cultic standards. Examination of these cases may therefore shed light not only on the theologi-cal reasoning behind the nîr theme but also on the information available to the author and the way he interpreted it.

The Meaning of nîr

Some scholars consider nîr to be a bi-form of nēr (»lamp«), which stems from the root nwr in the qatil form (nawir > nîr). The »lamp« or »light« symbolizes the liv-ing representative of the House of David in Jerusalem (cf. II Sam 21,17).⁷ Though this term appears in I Reg 11,36; 15,4; II Reg 8,19 and II Chr 21,7 in the same con-text, LXX translates it by three different words, using »lamp« only in II Reg 8,19. The Aramaic Targum translates nîr as a »rule« (malkū) and as a »yoke«.⁸ Hence, P.D. Hanson rejected the identification of nîr with the root nwr and alternatively suggested that it originated from the Akkadian term nîru, interpreted by him as »dominion of the king over a conquered people or his sovereignty over his own subjects«.⁹ Noting the negative meaning of the Akkadian term nîru as opposed to the positive meaning implied by nîr, M. Görg suggested that the origin of nîr should be found in the Egyptian root nr, used to depict royal dominion without a sense of subjugation.¹⁰ Consequently some concluded that nîr should be inter-preted in both its Akkadian and Egyptian usage as a »royal dominion«.¹¹

7 I. e. I. Benzinger, Die Bücher der Könige, KHC 9, 1899, 84; A. Šanda, Die Bücher der Könige. Erster Halbband. Das erste Buch der Könige, EHAT 9, 1911, 320; Noth, Könige, 243–244; Gray, I & II Kings, 297; M. Cogan / H. Tadmor, II Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Com-mentary, AB 1, 1988, 95. 8 J.A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Kings, ICC, 1951, 247. 9 P.D. Hanson, The Song of Heshbon and David’s Nîr, HTR 61 (1968), 297–320, and see especially p. 312. 10 M. Görg, Ein »Machtzeichen« Davids 1 Könige XI 36, VT 35 (1985), 363–368.11 Nelson, Double, 108; Eynikel, Reform, 108; M.J. Mulder, 1 Kings. Historical Commentary on the Old Testament, 1998, 594–595.



196 Omer Sergi

However, while the latter suggestion might explain the Aramaic or Greek translation of nîr in Kings, it is inconsistent with its other occurrences in the Hebrew Bible, where it stands for a cultivated land/field (Hos 10,12; Jer 4,3; Prov 13,23). For this reason, E. Ben Zvi argued that the term nîr should be inter-preted within the context of agricultural metaphors. He suggested that the mean-ing of nîr in the Book of Kings is a land/field granted to the House of David as a royal estate (domain) thus symbolizing its rule over Judah.¹² Ben Zvi’s suggestion seems to be the most plausible, as it fits both the semantics of the term nîr in the Hebrew Bible and the syntax of its appearance within the theological evaluation in the Book of Kings.

The nîr Theme in Context

The nîr as a royal estate granted to David by YHWH is mentioned only before the reign of Athaliah. This observation is meaningful considering the fact that the reign of Athaliah is presented as a break in the Davidic dynastic line. According to the Book of Kings, Athaliah did not inherit the throne from the previous Davidic king; she even tried (but failed) to annihilate the House of David (II Reg 11,1–3). Her story is the only one that is not framed by typical introductory and conclud-ing formulas and she was not even given a theological evaluation, though it is clear that in the eyes of the author of Kings she was a sinner and a usurper (II Reg 11,18).¹³ All this presents Athaliah as an illegitimate sovereign in Judah.

The dynastic break during her reign, therefore, also carried theological impli-cations, expressed through the evaluation formulas: The only two kings before Athaliah who were considered »good« – Asa and Jehoshaphat – were compared by the author to David (I Reg 15,11; 22,43), who stood as the role model for loyalty to YHWH. In marked contrast, the author did not compare the good kings who came after Athaliah with David, but with one another, as is clearly stated in the theological evaluation of Amaziah (II Reg 14,3). That having been said, most of the predecessors of Athaliah were considered »bad« kings who venerated foreign gods (Solomon, Rehoboam, Abiam, Jehoram and Ahaziah), while most of her

12 E. Ben Zvi, Once the Lamp has been Kindled – A Reconsideration of the Meaning of the MT Nîr in 1 Kgs. 11:36; 15:4; 2 Kgs. 8:19 and 2 Chr. 21:7, ABR 39 (1991), 19–30.13 See also Nelson, Double, 33; E. Ben Zvi, The Account of the Reign of Manasseh in II Reg 21,1–18 and the Redactional History of the Book of Kings, ZAW 103 (1991), 355–374; P. Dutcher-Walls, Narrative Art, Political Rhethoric: The Case of Athaliah and Joash, JSOTSup 209, 1996, 69–71; V. Fritz, 1 & 2 Kings – A Continental Commentary, 2003, 296.




successors were considered good kings (Jehoash, Amaziah, Uzziah, Jotam). This pattern may imply that the author of Kings identified an ongoing cultic problem in the history of the kings before Athaliah that did not recur after her execution.

Solomon, Jehoram and Abiam and the Sin of Foreign Women

Solomon is the first Judahite king whose theological evaluation is negative (I Reg 11, 6). It is narrated within a detailed account of his sins: Solomon mar-ried foreign wives (I Reg 11,1–3), participated in the foreign cult they brought with them to Jerusalem (I Reg 11,4–5) and even erected »high places« for their foreign gods (I Reg 11,7–8). It is clear from this passage, that Solomon was accused of ven-erating foreigner gods because of his relationship with women who introduced foreign cult into Jerusalem.

Many scholars have argued that the account of Solomon’s sins contains an original historical note, subsequently expanded by Deuteronomistic redactions. There is no consensus, however, about the nature, content or length of this his-torical note.¹⁴ This is the result of the so called Deuteronomistic clichés so com-mon in I Reg 11,1–13, which make it almost impossible to penetrate beneath them in order to identify a source with several Deuteronomistic and other redactions. I therefore agree with the more convincing assumption that most, if not all, of the account detailing Solomon’s sins in I Reg 11,1–13 is a unified literary unit, com-posed by the author of the Book of Kings.¹⁵

The attempt to identify a source behind the account of Solomon’s sin stems from the presupposition that the author, who praised Solomon as a wise king (I Reg 3; 5,1–14) and credited him with the building of the Temple in Jerusalem

14 For different suggestions see Montgomery, Critical, 231–232; Gray, I & II Kings, 270–271; Würth-wein, Erste, 130–131; H. Spieckermann, Juda unter Assur in der Sargonidenzeit, 1982, 191–195; G. Vanoni, Literarkritik und Grammatik. Untersuchung der Wiederholungen und Spannungen in 1 Kön 11–12, ATSAT 21, 1984, 254; S.J. De Vries, 1 Kings. Translation and Commentary, WBC 12, 1985, 142–143; O’Brien, Deuteronomistic, 161. 15 H.-D. Hoffmann, Reform und Reformen. Untersuchungen zu einem Grundthema der deu-teronomistischen Geschichtsschreibung, AThANT 66, 1980, 49–53; S. L. McKenzie, The Trouble with Kings. The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History, VTSup 42, 1991, 56; G. N. Knoppers, Two Nations under God. The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies, Volume 1. The Reign of Solomon and the Rise of Jeroboam, Harvard Semitic Museums Monographs 52, 1993, 144–145; J. van Seters, In Search of History. Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History, 1983, 311; B. O. Long, 1 Kings, Form of the Old Testament Literature 9, 1984, 124–125; M. Cogan, 1 Kings. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 10, 2001, 329.



198 Omer Sergi

(I Reg 5,17–19; 6–8), would not have blamed him for foreign marriage unless he had some older information about it. While this conclusion is plausible, there is no need to assume a specific historical source behind the account of Solomon’s sins. Moreover, as noted by Knoppers, no such source is known from other ancient Near Eastern kingdoms.¹⁶ It is commonly held that the information presented in the introductory formulas in Kings, detailing the length of the reign of each king, his age at the time of ascension and the name of his mother, was extracted from a king list composed in Judah.¹⁷ The author of Kings may have learned from such a list that Rehoboam, Solomon’s heir, had an Amonite mother (I Reg 14,21). Hence, he might have concluded that Solomon married foreigner women. It seems to me that such a list may be the only data that can be attributed with some certainty to the sources of the author of Kings, and there is no need to reconstruct a second source dealing exclusively with Solomon’s marriages.

Yet, the account of Solomon’s transgressions in I Reg 11,1–13 raises a problem. Even if the sources available to the author of Kings indicated Solomon’s marriages to foreign women, it is not clear why the author interpreted such marriages as the reason behind the schism of the United Monarchy (I Reg 11,11–13). Dropping the blame of the schism on Solomon does not accord with the author’s earlier ideali-zation of his figure. After exalting Solomon, why should the author downgrade him, especially as it would have been only natural to blame the schism on Reho-boam, Solomon’s incompetent heir (I Reg 12,1–20). Moreover, Knoppers observed that the delay of Solomon’s retribution to the days of his heir (I Reg 11,12) sug-gests that the author of Kings, in fact, strained to hold Solomon culpable for the defection of the northern tribes. Knoppers explains the reason for that by argu-ing that the author subordinates all the political-historical factors (such as the economic oppression and Rehoboam’s lack of political skills) to his theological views expressed by Solomon’s sin.¹⁸ Reasonable as it is, this argument still fails to explain the rationale behind blaming Solomon. Rehoboam was also accused of venerating foreign gods (I Reg 14,22–24, see below) and the author could have easily expressed the same theological views by blaming him and not Solomon for the schism. It should be concluded, therefore, that the author of Kings truly believed that Solomon’s sins, caused by his relationship with women who intro-

16 Knoppers, Two, 144–145. See also: Montgomery, Critical, 234; Würthwein, Erste, 181. 17 Van Seters, Search, 297–298; N. Na’aman, The Temple Library of Jerusalem and the Composi-tion of the Book of Kings, in: A. Lemaire (ed.), Congress Volume Leiden 2004, VTSup 109, 2006, 129–152. 18 Knoppers argued contra Noth who claimed that Solomon was blamed for the schism only because it happened soon after his death (see Noth, Könige, 58; Knoppers, Two, 157–158).




duced foreign cult in Jerusalem, endangered the Davidic rule over the United Monarchy. Further investigation of this issue will clarify my point.

Solomon’s relationship with foreign women is the background for the first appearance of the theological theme of nîr, mentioned in the prophecy of Ahiah the Shilonite delivered to Jeroboam (I Reg 11,29–39). This prophecy foresees the schism during the reign of Rehoboam. Theologically, it provides a divine con-firmation for the reign of Jeroboam over the northern tribes (I Reg 11,31.33.35), all the while, legitimizing the continuous rule of the House of David over Judah (I Reg 11,32.34.36).¹⁹ This is the context for understanding the appearance of the nîr in I Reg 11,36 which reads: »and to his [Solomon’s] son I shall give one tribe that David my servant may have nîr before me in Jerusalem the city I have chosen to me to put my name there«.²⁰ This assertion creates a direct link between the »royal estate« (nîr) granted to David and the one tribe – Judah. Accordingly, it seems that while the theological theme of nîr in I Reg 11,36 reasserts the Davidic rule, it also clarifies that the Davidic eternal promise (II Sam 7,1–17) validates only the rule over »one tribe« (Judah).²¹ Apparently, the cultic influence of Solomon’s foreign women was interpreted by the author of Kings as a danger to the rule of the House of David. The nîr used in this context makes it clear that while the sin of Solomon indeed damaged the rule of the House of David over the United Monar-chy, it did not bring with it a total elimination of the dynasty and the Davidic rule over at least one tribe was maintained.

A similar theological context for the nîr arises from the evaluation of Jehoram (II Reg 8,18–19). Like Solomon, Jehoram was explicitly accused of venerating for-eign gods because of his wife – Athaliah (II Reg 8,18). Athaliah was an Israelite princess from the House of Omri (II Reg 8,18a), considered by the author as the most sinful dynasty (I Reg 16,25–26.30–33). She was also accused for introducing foreign cult into Jerusalem (II Reg 11,18). According to II Reg 8,19 YHWH avoided

19 See also Knoppers, Two, 190–206; G. N. Knoppers, Two Nations under God. The Deuterono-mistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies, Volume II. The Reign of Jeroboam, The Fall of Israel and The Reign of Josiah, Harvard Semitic Museums Monographs 52, 1994, 229–238. 20 For the unity of most of the prophecy in I Reg 11,29–39 and the identification of nîr with the author of Kings (and not with earlier sources) see Montgomery, Critical, 242; Noth, Könige, 245–246, 258–262; Gray, I & II Kings, 279; Van Seters, Search, 311; Long, 1 Kings, 123; McKenzie, Trouble, 58–59; Knoppers, Two, 191–206.21 On this issue see also N. Lohfink, Which Oracle Granted Perdurability to the Davidides? A Textual Problem in 2 Kings 8:19 and the Function of the Dynastic Oracles in the Deuteronomis-tic Historical Work, in G.N. Knoppers / J.G. McConville (eds.), Reconsidering Israel and Judah Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 8, 2000, 421–443.



200 Omer Sergi

destroying Judah in the days of Jehoram only because he promised to grant David’s descendants a »royal estate« (»and YHWH would not wish to destroy Judah for the sake of David His servant for He promised him to grant nîr for his descendants for the rest of days«). Again, like in the case of Solomon, it seems that the presence of a woman who venerated foreign gods in the House of David was interpreted by the author of Kings as an actual threat to the rule of Davidic dynasty.

The theological evaluation of Abiam (I Reg 15,3–4) does not contain the formu-laic phrasing for venerating foreign gods. Rather, it implies that this is exactly what Abiam did as he followed the sins of his father (Rehoboam). Unlike other cases in which Judahite kings were negatively evaluated, the evaluation of Abiam does not contain explicit details of his cultic misdeeds. It only states that his heart »was not entirely with YHWH his God as was the heart of David his father« (I Reg 15,4). This unique statement is repeated only in the account of Solomon’s sins detailing his marriage to foreign wives (I Reg 11,4). Furthermore, the nîr mentioned in the theo-logical evaluation of Abiam (I Reg 15,4) is mentioned only in relation to sins per-formed under the influence of women during the reigns of Solomon and Jehoram. These similarities imply that in the eyes of the author of Kings the sin of Abiam was similar to that of Solomon and Jehoram; he was accused of venerating foreign gods as a result of the fact that during his reign he was related to a woman who prac-ticed foreign cult. Indeed, Abiam’s mother, Maacha, the daughter of Abishalom(I Reg 15,2), was explicitly accused of worshipping the Ashera (I Reg 15,13).

At this point a note about the status of women in the royal courts of the ancient Near East is in place. The »chief wife« of the palace in ancient Near East-ern courts (also titled »queen mother«) was chosen to bear (and in some cases to adopt) the king’s heir. Therefore she could have been the mother or the wife of a reigning king.²² She represented the dynastic continuity of the royal house and thus also its stability. In most cases she also took an active role in the royal cult, enjoyed an authoritative position over the royal harem, and had some political or administrational tasks in the palace.²³ The fact that the chief wives of the House

22 See C. Smith, »Queenship« in Israel? The Cases of Bathsheba, Jezebel and Athaliah, J. Day (ed.), King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East, JSOTSup 270, 1998, 142–147; N.R. Bowen, The Quest for the Historical Gĕbîrâ, CBQ 64 (2001), 597–618.23 For the status and role of the »chief wife« in ancient Near Eastern kingdoms see, i. e.: S.R. Bin-Nun, The Tawananna in the Hittite Kingdom, Texte der Hethiter 5, 1975, 102–210; L. Troy, Patterns of Queenship in Ancient Egypt–Myth and History, Uppsala Studies in Ancient Mediter-ranean and Near Eastern Civilizations 14, 1986, 5–150; B.M. Bryan, In Women Good and Bad For-tune are on Earth. Status and Roles of Women in Egyptian Culture, in: P. Anbinder (ed.), Mistress of the House, Mistress of Heaven. Women in Ancient Egypt, 1996, 25–46; S. C. Melville, The Role




of David were probably titled g ebîrāh (I Reg 15,13; Jer 13,18; 29,2) together with the fact that their names were mentioned in the introductory formulas of the Judahite kings are an indication to their importance. It is reasonable to conclude that the mother or the wife of a reigning Judahite king held similar positions to those of the chief wives in other ancient Near Eastern courts.²⁴

In light of the all the above, it seems that the nîr is mentioned in the theo-logical evaluations of only three kings not because they shared the same sin (of venerating other gods), a sin attributed to other kings as well, but because these three kings shared the origin of the sin; during the reign of these three kings women who practiced foreign cult gained the status of chief wives in the house of David. As the author felt a need to explain the continuity of the Davidic dynasty in these cases, makes it clear that he interpreted the fact that these women were chief wives as a concrete threat to the Davidic rule. The reason for that may be deduced from the theological evaluation of Ahaziah.

Ahaziah is the only king whose theological evaluation does not mention the nîr theme even though he was the son of Athaliah the Omride, who maintained her position as the chief wife (II Reg 8,26). His theological evaluation blames him for following the sinful Omride dynasty, meaning, of course, veneration of for-eign gods (II Reg 8,27: »and he walked in the way of the House of Ahab and did what was wrong in the eyes of YHWH like the House of Ahab as he was the son in law [Hebrew= ḥātān] of the House of Ahab«). The term ḥātān in II Reg 8,27 indicates a marriage relationship between Ahaziah and the House of Ahab. As we have no further information about this kind of marriage, and considering the fact that the title »House of Ahab« is theological, there is no need to interpret this verse literally.²⁵ The meaning of this phrase was to point to the reason behind the

of Naqiʾa / Zakutu in Sargonid Politics, SAAS 9, Helsinki, 1999, 59–60; E.K. Solvang, A Woman’s Place in the House. Royal Woman of Judah and their Involvement in the House of David, JSOT Sup 349, 2003, 30–51; H. Marsman, Women in Ugarit and Israel. Their Social and Religious Posi-tion in the Context of the Ancient Near East, Old Testament Studies 49, 2003, 327–329, 353–356; G. Robins, Women in Ancient Egypt, 1993, 21–25, 39–40; B.W. Cushman, The Politics of the Royal Harem and the Case of Bath-Sheba, JSOT 30 (2006), 327–340. 24 N. Na’aman, Queen Mothers and Ancestors Cult in Judah in the First Temple Period, I. Kott-sieper et al. (eds.), Berührungspunkte. Studien zur Sozial- und Religionsgeschichte Israels und seiner Umwelt (Festschrift Albertz), AOAT 350, 479–490, with further literature. 25 Ancient Near Eastern Kingdoms in the first millennium BCE were identified with ruling dynasties named after their founder. The Kingdom of Israel is mentioned in many Assyrian docu-ments as »The House of Omri«. The term »House of Ahab« is therefore at odd with the available historical sources. Ishida argued that it was formed by the author of Kings in order to identify the House of Omri with the sinful ways of Ahab (T. Ishida, The House of Ahab, IEJ 25, 1975, 135–137).



202 Omer Sergi

negative evaluation of Ahaziah; he was related to the sinful House of Ahab as he was the son of Athaliah.²⁶

According to the historiographical narrative in Kings, Ahaziah was killed dur-ing Jehu’s revolt against the Omrides (II Reg 9,27–28). His mother, the foreigner Athaliah, ascended the throne of Judah, eliminated the House of David and ruled the kingdom for six years (II Reg 11,1–3). Against this background it becomes clear why the divine promise for nîr was not mentioned in the theological evaluation of Ahaziah. Athaliah was considered an illegitimate queen who did not belong to the royal dynastic line of the Davidides, so her reign means that Ahaziah actually lost the »royal estate« (namely, the nîr) granted to David.

The theological evaluation of Ahaziah and the reign of Athaliah clarify the theological-historical perception of the author of Kings. Working not before the late monarchic period, he looked back at the reign of Athaliah, and concluded that when a woman who practiced foreign cult gained the position of a chief wife in the House of David, she posed an immediate threat to its rule over Judah. In this respect the figure of Athaliah embodies the danger of chief wives practicing foreign cult. Thus, we can also explain why Solomon was blamed for the schism of the United Monarchy. The author of Kings learned from his sources (probably, a Judahite king list) that Solomon married at least one foreign wife. As a result of Athaliah’s reign he concluded that just as the marriage of Jehoram to Athaliah brought about the loss of the rule in the days of his son, so did the marriage of Solomon to foreign wives, bring about the loss of most of the monarchical terri-tory in the days of his son.

The Sin of Rehoboam

The theological evaluation of Rehoboam is exceptionally phrased in the plu-ral form, accusing all »Judah« for venerating foreign gods (I Reg 14,22a). Many scholars argue that the aim of this theological evaluation was to hint – already with the first king of Judah – at the sins that would bring about its destruction.²⁷ However, the different phrasing of the evaluation implies a change in the theo-logical world view behind it. In I Reg 14,23 Judah is blamed for the erection of »high places, pillars and Asherim« (bāmôt, maṣṣebôt, ʾašerîm). These cult objects appear in the exact same ordering as sins leading to destruction only in the theo-

26 See also Montgomery, Critical, 396; Gray, I & II Kings, 536; Cogan / Tadmor, II Kings, 99. 27 Noth, Könige, 328–329; Gray, I & II Kings, 342; Würthwein, Erste, 182; Hoffmann, Reform, 74–75; Spieckermann, Juda, 190–191; Long, 1 Kings, 164–165.




logical sermon explaining the fall of Israel (II Reg 17,9–10). It is commonly agreed that this sermon is a later insertion in the Book of Kings by a redactor who shifted the responsibility for the destruction of Israel from its kings (the sins of Jeroboam in II Reg 17,20–23) to the people (II Reg 17,7–20).²⁸ As the theological evaluation of Rehoboam shares similar content and world view it should be regarded as a later insertion, probably by the same redactor.²⁹ Attempting to reconstruct the »earliest« version of Kings, it should be assumed that the theological evaluation of Rehoboam was phrased in singular and negative (»Rehoboam/He did what was wrong in the eyes of YHWH«) and did not include verse 23, which was added with the change of subject from Rehoboam to all Judah.³⁰

Rehoboam is also blamed (I Reg 14,24) for the sin of qdš. The nature of this cultic misdeed is disputed among scholars,³¹ but it is commonly held that verse 24 should be read as a precursor to the reforms of Asa and Jehoshaphat (I Reg 15,12a; 22,47).³² Hence, the qdš cannot reflect information found in an early reliable source describing the cult in the days of Rehoboam. The question arises, there-fore, why Rehoboam was blamed for venerating foreign gods. I believe that Reho-boam, like Solomon, Abiam, Jehoram and Ahaziah, was considered by the author of Kings as a sinner because during his reign women who practiced foreign cult were the chief wives of the Davidic court: He was the son of an Ammonnite woman, and the husband of Maacha, who worshipped the Asherah.

In spite of that, his theological evaluation fails to mention the nîr. Rather, it includes a theological theme regarding the divine election of Jerusalem (I Reg 14,21). This theme is mentioned again in Kings only in the prophecy of Ahiah the Shilonite where it is directly linked with the nîr as the inheritance of Rehoboam (I Reg 11,36). The fact that it is mentioned again, in similar wording,

28 I. e. Cogan / Tadmor, II Kings, 206–207; Ben Zvi, Account, 367–370; B. Becking, From David to Gedaliah. The Book of Kings as Story and History, OBO 228, 2007, 88–122, with further literature. 29 De Vries, 1 Kings, 184–185; Provan, Hezekiah, 74–77; O’Brien, Deuteronomistic, 213–214; Eyni-kel, Reforms, 95–99. 30 For the LXX versions of I Reg 14,22–24 and their contribution for this reconstruction see: Montgomery, Critical, 268–273; Gray, I & II Kings, 341. 31 Many scholars translated qdš as »male prostitution« (i. e., Montgomery, Critical, 268; Noth, Könige, 330; Würthwein, Erste, 182–183; Spieckermann, Juda, 191); others rejected this interpre-tation and argued it was a title of cultic status (i. e., M.I. Gruber, Hebrew Qĕdešā and her Canaan-ite and Akkadian Cognates, UF 18 (1986), 133–148; P.A. Bird, The End of the Male Cult Prostitute. A Literary Historical and Sociological Analysis of Hebrew QADESH-QEDESIM, in: J.E. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Cambridge 1995, VTSup 80, 1997, 37–80). But see also K. van der Toorn, Female Prostitution in Payment of Vows in Ancient Israel, JBL 108 (1989), 193–205.32 Noth, Könige, 330; Würthwein, Erste, 182–183; Hoffmann, Reform, 77; Spieckermann, Juda, 191; Provan, Hezekiah, 74–77.



204 Omer Sergi

in the theological evaluation of Rehoboam himself, probably meant to note the fulfillment of this prophecy. Rehoboam gained the rule over Judah and Jerusalem in spite of the danger posed by his father’s intermarriage and in spite of his own relationships to women who practiced foreign cult. In this context it functions much like the nîr theme.

It seems therefore that in the eyes of the author of the Book of Kings the early kings of Judah all – except Asa and Jehoshaphat – sinned because during their reigns women who practiced foreign cult were chief wives of the House of David. The presence of these women in the Davidic court was interpreted in light of the reign of Athaliah as an immediate threat to the rule of the House of David and therefore the author felt in need to explain the survival of the Davidic dynasty. For this reason he mentioned the theological theme of the nîr (and the divine election of Jerusalem) within the theological evaluations of all the early kings of Judah, except Ahaziah, in whose days the threat of foreign women was realized with the reign of Athaliah. This conclusion opens the way to discuss the historical percep-tion of the author of Kings regarding the early kings of Judah.

The Early Kings of Judah in the Eyes of the Author of the Book Kings

The theological evaluations have been studied extensively as a way to under-stand the formation of the book Kings.³³ However, their historiographic mean-ing – namely, how the author interpreted and presented the historical informa-tion available to him – has, to date, received little attention.³⁴ How, then, did the author decide if a king was loyal to the Yahwistic cult? What were the criteria he used in order to determine whether a king did »good« or »bad« in the eyes of YHWH?

Some argued that even if the author of Kings did not explicitly link his theological evaluations to historical events the fact that they were presented

33 I. e, H. Weippert, Die »deuteronomistischen« Beurteilungen der Könige von Israel und Juda und das Problem der Redaktion der Königsbücher, Bib 53 (1972), 301–339; B. Halpern / D. Van-derhooft, The Edition of Kings in the 7th–6th Centuries BCE, HUCA 62 (1991), 179–244; Eynikel, Reforms, 50–135. For criticism of these studies and further discussion see: McKenzie, Trouble, 117–134; Knoppers, Two, 42–45; Aurelius, Zukunft, 21–70. 34 But see F. Blanco-Wissman, He Did What Was Right. Criteria of Judgment and Deuterono-mism in the Books of Kings, T.B. Dozeman et al. (eds.), Pentateauch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings, Ancient Israel and Its Literature 8, 2011, 241–259.




together implies this kind of connection. Hence, Shishak’s campaign to Jerusalem (I Reg 14,25–26) was perceived as consequence of Rehoboam’s sins (I Reg 14,21–22) and the subjugation to Assyria (II Reg 16,5–9) as a consequence of Ahaz’s sins (II Reg 16,2–4).³⁵ If indeed the evaluations were merely theological interpreta-tions to historical events, we should have expected negative evaluation to each king who experienced any kind of misfortune. However, this is not always the case: Jehoash suffered subjugation (II Reg 12,18–19), Amaziah suffered defeat in battle (II Reg 14,8–14) and they were both murdered in palace conspiracies (II Reg 12,21–22; 14,19). In spite of that, they earned positive theological evaluations. On the other hand, no historical event – positive or negative – was attributed to Abiam, and yet he was negatively evaluated (I Reg 15,3).

E.T. Mullen argued that negative events that happened during the reigns of the »good« kings were actually considered as a punishment for the ongoing for-bidden cult in the »high places«.³⁶ But the author of Kings was explicit whenever he tied historical consequences to theological interpretation. Thus, the violent end of Israelite royal dynasties and the final destruction of their kingdom were interpreted as a consequence of the ongoing »calves« cult in Dan and Beth-El (I Reg 14,7–17; 15,25–30; 16,1–13; 16,18–19; II Reg 10,29–33; 17,20–23). The same is true for the schism of the united monarchy (I Reg 1,1–13). Furthermore, Mullen’s theory does not explain by which criteria the righteous kings were evaluated. E. Ben-Zvi suggested that the theological evaluations of the kings of Judah do not necessarily indicate any »historical-theological interpretation« but simply a liter-ary pattern formed by the author.³⁷ However, not only the pattern suggested is questionable, it is also inconsistent with the carefully crafted theological themes in the Book of Kings.

In light of the above discussion of the nîr theme it seems that at least in the cases of Solomon, Abiam and Jehoram the author of Kings had to cope with explicit data (probably derived from a Judahite king list) regarding the women practicing foreign cult in their courts. If so, the early kings of Judah were not eval-uated according to some fictive literary pattern or as a consequence of historical

35 Nelson, First, 97–98; E. Würthwein, Die Bücher der Könige: I Kön. 17–II Kön. 25, ATD 11, 2, 1984, 492–495; M. Cogan / H. Tadmor, Ahaz and Tiglath-Pileser in the Book of Kings. Historio-graphic Considerations, Bib 90 (1968), 491–508; N. Na’aman, The Deuteronomist and Voluntary Servitude to Foreign Powers, JSOT 65 (1995), 37–53; R. G. Kratz, The Composition of the Narrative Books of the Old Testament, 2005, 160–162.36 E.T. Mullen, Crime and Punishment. The Sins of the Kings and the Despoliation of the Treas-uries, CBQ 54 (1992), 231–248. 37 Ben Zvi, Account, 355–374.



206 Omer Sergi

events that occurred during their reigns, but according to specific information regarding their cultic habits.

Similarly, it may be concluded that Ahaz was evaluated negatively not because of his diplomatic maneuvers towards Assyria (II Reg 16,7–9), but because of his cultic misdeed with the Temple’s altar (II Reg 16,10–16). Asa was evalu-ated positively because he expelled the queen mother who practiced foreign cult (I Reg 15,13a). As for Jehoshaphat, Jehoash, Amaziah, Uzziah and Jotam, it seems that the author did not have any specific information about their cultic deeds. Since they were all Davidides, he assumed that they were loyal to the Yhwistic cult, even when their reigns ended up with dire historical consequences. It may be concluded that the author of Kings carefully examined the scarce sources he had and reached some theological conclusions, according to which he con-structed the historical interpretation of the reigns of the early kings of Judah.

Conclusions

Most of the kings who reigned before Athaliah were evaluated negatively because for the author of Kings they all (Solomon, Rehoboam, Abiam, Jehoram and Aha-ziah) shared a similar sin: during their reign the chief wives of the House of David practiced foreign cult. In his view, this sin culminated in the reign of Athaliah, a foreigner who ascended the Davidic throne during an attempt to eliminate the dynasty. Her figure therefore became a role model according to which he evalu-ated the place of women in the royal court of Jerusalem. He concluded that chief wife who practiced foreign cult put the Davidic rule in an immediate danger. For this reason he blamed Solomon for the schism of the United Monarchy: Just as the marriage of Jehoram to Athaliah ended with her usurpation and hence with the (temporary) loss of the monarchy, so did the relationship of Solomon with foreign women resulted in the loss of the Davidic rule over part of the kingdom.

In order to explain how and why the Davidic dynasty did not lose its rule entirely, the author adopted the theological theme of the nîr. It was applied to the early kings of Judah who were related to women practicing foreign cult. It may be regarded as a modification of Nathan’s prophecy, promising the rule over Judah (and not all of Israel) as a royal estate granted by YHWH to the Davidides. This reconstruction shed some light on the historiographical setting of the Book of Kings. It demonstrates that the theological evaluations of the kings of Judah were neither arbitrary nor an interpretation of historical events. Rather, the early kings of Judah were evaluated solely on the grounds of their cultic behavior as the author interpreted it from the meager sources he had at his disposal.




Abstract: This study explores the theme of nîr mentioned in the theological evalu-ations of three Judahite kings: Solomon, Abijam and Jehoram (I Reg 11,36; 15,4; II Reg 8,19). Basically, it is intended to explain why the House of David survived and maintained its rule over Judah even when its kings had sinned. However, as the nîr theme is restricted to these kings, it seems that for the author of Kings Solomon, Abijam and Jehoram shared something in common. This essay argues that these kings shared the sin of relationship with women who practised a for-eign cult, which was considered by the author of Kings as an actual threat to the rule of the House of David over Judah. Accordingly, it is argued that examination of these cases may shed light not only on the theological reasoning behind the nîr theme but also on the information available to the author of Kings and the way he interpreted it.

Résumé: Cette étude explore la thématique du nîr dans l’évaluation théologique des trois rois judéens: Salomon, Abiyam et Yoram (I Rois 11,36; 15,4; II Rois 8,19). Il s’agit d’expliquer pourquoi la »maison de David« a pu survivre et maintenir sa souveraineté sur Juda, bien que ses rois aient commis des péchés. Cependant, comme la thématique de nîr est limitée à ces trois rois, il semble qu’ils avaient une caractéristique commune. L’hypothèse avancée ici est la suivante: ces rois partageaient la faute d’être liés à une femme pratiquant un culte étranger, ce qui est considéré par l’auteur du livre des Rois comme une menace grave quant à la souveraineté de la »maison de David« sur Juda. Ainsi, ces cas n’éclairent pas seulement le raisonnement théologique fondant la thématique du nîr, mais éga-lement la nature des informations dont disposait l’auteur du livre des Rois, et la manière dont il les a interprétées.

Zusammenfassung: Thema dieser Studie ist die Funktion des nîr, der in den theo-logischen Beurteilungen dreier judäischer Könige begegnet, bei Salomo, Abia und Joram (I Reg 11,36; 15,4; II Reg 8,19). Zunächst soll damit erklärt werden, warum die Dynastie Davids überlebt hat und ihre Herrschaft über Juda sogar noch andauerte, obgleich ihre Könige sündigten. Da allerdings das nîr-Motiv auf diese Könige beschränkt ist, scheint es, dass für den Verfasser des Königebuchs diese drei Könige etwas gemeinsam hatten. In diesem Beitrag wird dafür plädiert, dass diese Gemeinsamkeit in der Beziehung zu Frauen bestand, die fremden Kult praktizierten, was für diesen Verfasser eine akute Bedrohung der Herrschaft des Hauses Davids über Juda darstellte. Entsprechend wird argumentiert, dass eine Untersuchung dieser Fälle nicht nur auf die hinter dem nîr-Motiv stehende theo-logische Argumentation ein Licht zu werfen vermag, sondern auch darauf, was für Informationen dem Verfasser des Königebuchs zugänglich waren und wie er diese interpretierte.



Foreign Women and the Early Kings of Judah

Documents

Transcript of Foreign Women and the Early Kings of Judah