• Like
  • Save
Witness and Perspective; a Quest for the Original Order of the Chapters in 1 Kgs 20-21-22
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Witness and Perspective; a Quest for the Original Order of the Chapters in 1 Kgs 20-21-22


Scriptie Hugo Louter

Scriptie Hugo Louter

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads


Total Views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide


  • 1. Witness and perspectiveA quest for the original order of the chapters in 1 Kings 20-21-22 Hugo Louter s9700145 Doelengracht 4 2311 VM Leiden 06-10233964 1
  • 2. PrefaceMy interest in the textual history of the Bible was raised during a number recent years, and none of them has done it as thoroughly as Schenkerof courses which concentrated on the Qumrān finds and their does.consequences for long-held conceptions of the history of the establishedtext. With this thesis, I finish my eleven-year walk along the academic path. Often, it was a pleasant stroll. Sometimes, it was a sprint. More thanNew light was shed on the textual history of the books of Kings by Prof. once, a walk steep uphill. But it has brought me where I am now. InAdrian Schenker in his 2004 book Älteste Textgeschichte der reaching this destination, the kind and patient guidance by Prof. Arie vanKönigsbücher; die hebräische Vorlage der ursprünglichen Septuaginta als der Kooij have been of great importance for me.älteste Textform der Königsbücher. I started reading this book during avery special (i.e. private) course with Prof. Arie van der Kooij in 2005. Still, Hugo LouterI am impressed by Schenker’s creativity and the new light he manages to LUGD. BAT., MMVIIIthrow on the very well-known material of the books of Kings (orKingdoms in Greek). Not many scholars have touched upon this subject in 2
  • 3. Contents PagePreface 2Chapter 1 Introduction 4Chapter 2 Sources and recensions 5Chapter 3 Synopsis of 1 Kgs 20-22; description of the differences between the witnesses of the text 12Chapter 4 The primary and secondary text of 1 Kgs 20-22 47Chapter 5 Conclusions 64Bibliography 65Appendix Translation 68 3
  • 4. Chapter 1 IntroductionThere is extensive variation among the textual witnesses of the books of means that I will trace Schenker’s evidence, test his hypotheses andKings. It ranges from small, grammatical differences between two Greek compare them to findings by myself and others. I will mainly concentrate onwitnesses to the complete displacement of chapters within the book. part of chapter 4 in Schenker’s book, titled ‘Naboths Weinberg, KönigNotably, variation exists in the order of the chapters 20, 21 and 22 of the Josafat von Juda und der Feldzug gegen Moab, 1 Kön 20-22, 2 Kön 3’1first book of Kings. In some textual witnesses, the so-called Naboth narrativeis located before the accounts of Ahab’s Aramaean wars. In others (amongwhich MT) the Naboth narrative finds its place between the two Aramaeanwar histories. In this thesis all differences between the textual witnesses ofthe chapters 1 Kgs 20, 21 and 22 will be dealt with after an introductorychapter on the basics of the textual history of the books of Samuel andKings.Next to the analytical, there is a critical part to this thesis. From the onset ofthis enterprise it was clear that Prof. Adrian Schenker’s ÄltesteTextgeschichte der Königsbücher; die hebräische Vorlage der ursprünglichenSeptuaginta als älteste Textform der Königsbücher would play an importantrole. The final conclusion of Schenker’s book is already very clear in its title.The basic premise of the book is ‘the Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX of Kings isthe oldest traceable form of these books’. The adstruction of this position isundertaken with textual-historical and exegetical means. And it is with these 1 Schenker, Älteste Textgeschichte, 86-107 4
  • 5. Chapter 2 Sources and recensions2.1 Introduction started to become normative and binding towards the end of the firstOne of the main questions in this thesis is which of the known versions century CE. Some, like Philo, recognized that LXX possesses the same divineoffers the original order and content of three chapters in the books of Kings authority as MT. Others, however, started adapting the LXX text in order to(LXX: Kingdoms). To be able to discuss this question, however, some general adapt it to the current Hebrew text in use. This trend, which was alreadyremarks must be made. Which versions of the LXX books of Kingdoms are evident in the Hebraising corrections of some pre-Christian papyri, wouldextant and what is their meaning in the scholarly context? The stages of become more obvious in /Theodotion and culminated in the newcreation of LXX are difficult to determine but happened between the 2nd Jewish translations by Aquila and Symmachus or in the new translation intocentury BC and the 1st century AD. Extra books emerged and the order of Latin by Jerome. Origen’s Hexapla is the first attempt at a synchronicthe books was still open for revision. From textual criticism, differences in comparison of the different texts in circulation.vocalization and linguistic comprehension of the translators appears. Andafter the formative stage, theological and modernizing interpretations kept Until the middle of the 20th century, differences between LXX and Hebrewcoming and that is complicating literary criticism: how should we deal with were usually explained by resorting to the idiosyncrasy and translationthe many re-editions, expansions, revisions and alterations in both LXX and techniques of the translators, to editorial reworking of the text in favour ofits Hebrew Vorlage? an actual theology or to other tendentious purposes. Two main schools opposed each other on the origins of LXX, the first school following P. deIt is in this context that N. Fernández Marcos2 emphasizes that LXX is not Lagarde’s archetypal theory and the second defending P. Kahle’s theory ofjust a translation of the Hebrew Vorlage, but an ‘autonomous literary work plural origin.organised around a new constellation of meanings within the Greek system’. The Greek finds from Qumrān seem to support Lagarde’s theory on theThe authority of LXX became a problem when the single consonantal text origins of LXX. The texts fit in perfectly with the textual tradition2 represented by the great uncial codices. On the other hand, they reveal a Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context, 68 5
  • 6. new side of the early history of the LXX: the recensional activity did not 2.2 The Old Greekbegin with Origen, nor was it even motivated by Jewish-Christian polemics, Every bible student’s compass is directed to the past: the older, the morebut goes back to a very early period close to the origins of the translation authoritative a textual witness is considered. There is no doubt that theitself, when the LXX was transmitted within the Jewish communities and had original translation from Hebrew, called Old Greek (OG), is the most distant 3not yet ‘cut the umbilical cord that tied it to the Hebrew text’ . Fernández station a LXX scholar can reach on his journey back in time4. This text opensMarcos concludes that thanks to Qumrān we know that the Greek Bible doors to the LXX translators’ Hebrew Vorlage as well as to the later LXXcontains genuine, textual and literary variants from the Hebrew. tradition in all its variation. OG, however, is a postulated text which hasComplicating this picture is the fact that parts of a biblical book or early never been found integrally. Only after removing the recensional andeditions of complete books have been put into writing and circulated before scholarly dust of centuries, OG assumes its shape.the literary editing was complete. This is the case for the LXX translation: itwas completed, but after that, the Hebrew (source) text was again edited The translation of the Hebrew text which we find in LXX is diverse in nature.with expansions, revisions or alterations of a different kind. Early versions of The translation of some books (e.g. Ezechiel) can be considered ratherthe Hebrew text therefore have survived in their LXX transmission. precise and literal, whereas other books (e.g. Jeremiah) differ greatly from any extant Hebrew text version. For the Kingdoms (Hebr. Samuel and Kings),For the textual and literary criticism of LXX Reg under scrutiny in this paper, the situation is even more complicated because differences are visiblethree ‘pillars’ are especially relevant: the Old Greek (OG), the within the books.recension and the Lucianic or Antiochene recension (LXX-Ant). Each of these Henry St. John Thackeray identified several ‘hands’5 on the basis of the textthree constitutes a stream in the literary critical landscape, albeit with many of Kingdoms from MS B (Vaticanus).mutual connections. I will deal with them consecutively in this introductory a 1 Reg (translator 1)chapter. 4 Optimism about reconstructing this text is justified: Rahlfs’s edition and the Göttingen edition (not yet available for Kingdoms) offer trustworthy3 reconstructions. Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context, 71 5 Van der Kooij, De tekst van Samuël, 179 6
  • 7. bb 2 Reg 1-10 (translator 2) As a result of the Nahal Hever findings D. Barthélemy concluded that bc 2 Reg 11-3 Reg 2:11 (translator 3) considerable parts of LXX Old Testament, among which the BC and CD parts cc 3 Reg 2:12-3 Reg 21:43 (translator 4) in the Books of Kingdoms, witness the recension. So the layer cd 3 Reg 22 + 4 Reg (translator 3) in LXX is the adaptation of an older LXX text to bring that LXX text more inVaticanus offers a mixed text, which partly builds on OG and partly on accordance with the then known Hebrew text. Often, is equaled with Thackeray thinks that a, bb and cc are the oldest translations. Bc Theodotion. What is the exact relationship between Theodotion and theand cd share the same translators’ hand and show a close affinity with revision? Fernández Marcos writes that Theodotion equals ,Theodotion’s translation (and must therefore be younger than the other but the opposite is not always true: 6chunks). Theodotion is widely acknowledged for producing the so-called ‘kaige was a project or tradition of non-uniform revisions made by a recension: he edited a revision of the LXX on the basis of the group of authors which was to include a slight Hebraising revision instandardised Hebrew text for a new independent translation. Parts of this favour of proto-MT, without attaining Aquila’s consistency’8revision were found in Nahal Hever in 1952. At least for the books of Kingdoms, we may safely equal Theodotion with .A problem arises when we try to extract OG from the books of Kingdoms. Although from pre-Christian origin, Theodotion’s work was used by aAlthough Codex B preserves OG in the cc section, bc and cd it follows a Christian adoption movement of LXX. The need for translations that(proto-)Theodotionic (= ) recension. How can we detect traces of OG faithfully reflected the Hebrew was sharpened partly by Jewish-Christianin this part of Kingdoms? Scholarly consensus is that the Lucianic or polemic concerning the correct interpretation of scripture. This also 7Antiochene text of LXX offers a text that goes back to OG . contributed to the Jewish abandonment of LXX, who even excluded some LXX books after Yamnia (100 BCE)9. The Rabbinic world went on to use2.3 and Theodotion6 8 On Theodotion: see Chapter 2.3 Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context, 1457 9 On the Lucianic Text: see Chapter 2.4 Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context, 185 7
  • 8. Aquila’s translation from the 2nd century CE onwards, but the Christian thinks that Epiphanius was convinced that Theodotion had to be located inbishop Origenes (3rd century CE) used Theodotion. time after Symmachus, but that collided with a tradition known to him and therefore took his measures. He therefore concludes that Epiphanius knew aThere is not much clarity about the date Theodotion made his translation. Symmachus tradition with a clear date and that he interpreted the order ofInformation about Theodotion comes from Irenaeus and Jerome but the Hexapla (in which Theodotion follows Symmachus) as historical. Theespecially from Epiphanius. According to Epiphanius (De Mensuris et opposite is true: Theodotion must have created his ‘new’ Greek translationPonderibus Liber Ch.17), Theodotion wrote his translation shortly after as head of the movement of the Hebrew Bible before the second 10Symmachus and in the time of the second Commodus (180-192) . There century.are, however, citations from Theodotion from the time before Commodus.But ‘da man im allgemeinen der Datierung durch Epiphanius vertraut, If we trust the statements of Epiphanius and Jerome, Theodotion edited aschreibt man die Theodotion-Zitate aus früherer zeit einem Proto- revision of LXX on the basis of the standardized Hebrew text for a new 11Theodotion zu’ . Another difficulty in this context is the dating of independent translation. In our time, less and less text has been labeledSymmachus by Epiphanius: in the time of emperor Severus (193-211). Did Theodotionic as a result of recent discoveries. Another incident is theTheodotion work before or after Symmachus? Jellicoe (with others) solved exchange of the siglum for both Theodoret and Theodotion. Theodotion’sthis problem by preferring the Syrian translation of Epiphanius, according to presence is proven in Daniel, in the 5th column of the Hexapla of Psalms, inwhich Symmachus created his translation at the time of emperor Verus (M. patristic quotations and the marginal glosses to the LXX. And, according toAurelius) (161-180), that is: before Theodotion. Van der Kooij, however, Barthélemy, in the Greek texts found in Nahal Hever. Little is known aboutthinks that ‘Verus’ in the Syrian translation is the result of harmonization. Theodotion’s style. One significant feature is his inclination to leave difficultMercati chose another solution to the problem by supposing ‘bei den zwei Hebrew words transcribed. It is usually said that his style takes a middleersten namen in Kap.16 *liegt+ eine Verwechslung vor’. Van der Kooij himself course between Aquila’s literalism and the good sense of Symmachus12. The most well-known general characteristics of are cited by Fernández10 This paragraph: Van der Kooij, Die alte Textzeugen, 127-15111 12 Van der Kooij, Die alte Textzeugen, 128 According to Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context, 147 8
  • 9. Marcos13 from Barthélemy’s groundbreaking work Les dévanciers d’Aquila, Hieronymus15 calls him ‘so diligent in the study of the Scriptures that evenwhich, following the discoveries of Nahal Hever, led to the establishment of now certain copies of the Scriptures bear the name of Lucian’.an earlier date for Theodotion: 1. Translation of the Hebrew particle gam by For the Books of Kingdoms, the Lucianic recension is witnessed in the 2. Translation of by anoki before a verb in the first person manuscripts boc2e2. Rahlfs distinguishes two groups of Lucianic manuscripts for the books of Kings, and concludes that in Psalms, the Lucianic text has 3. General use of for all the occurrences of iš become the official text of the Greek church. After the stratification of the manuscripts by the Göttingen LXX edition, the group of manuscripts of the2.4 The Lucianic text Lucianic recension became much clearer. Now, it is observed in all theIn parts of LXX, a recension with recurring and consistent features can be prophetic books, in the books of Maccabees, in Judith and in 1-2 Ezra anddiscerned which tends to revise the text and make it more readable. The probably in Wisdom of Sira. In Job it occurs in codex Alexandrinus, codexconnection between this layer and the historical Lucian was made in an early Venetus and in the commentaries on Job by Julan the Arian and Chrysostom.stage but is not necessarily historical. The historical Lucian lived in Antioch in In the Octateuch, it is hard to identify the Lucianic text. In Kings, however,the 3th century AD and was excommunicated for unclear reasons. Metzger no one doubted the nature of the Antiochene text. Once the critical text ofsupposes that Lucian was a critical scholar whose views on the Trinity and Theodoret had been established as a control of the Antiochene text in thoseon Christology differed from what was later defined at Nicaea as the books, it was possible to edit critically the Antiochene text from Samuel toorthodox position. Nevertheless, his contemporaries regarded him as an Chronicles.able scholar, entirely competent to undertake a recension of the Greekbible14. The Lucianic text remains valued: the text used by Josephus in his In 1883, Lagarde attached great value to the isolation of the recensions ofAntiquitates Judaicae is Lucianic in type from Samuel to Maccabees. Later, the Greek Old Testament in order to recover the oldest available text. He13 15 Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context, 148 De Viris inlustribus, 77, cited in Metzger, The Lucianic Recension of the Greek14 Metzger, The Lucianic Recension of the Greek bible, 275 Bible, 273 9
  • 10. printed the presumed Lucianic recension from Genesis to Esther, which was reason for the change. Finally, due to the influence of grammarians at thethe only attempt to edit the Lucianic text separately until Fernández Marcos time, LXX-Ant replaces Hellenistic forms with Attic forms.and Busto Saíz published El Texto Antioqueno de la Biblia Griega in 1992.After a century of research from Lagarde onwards, LXX-Ant has reached a Other characteristics of a literary nature (especially in the historical books)solid position in LXX research – at least for the Books of Kingdoms. For most areof the other LXX books, its meaning has been nuanced or its existence 1. Additions of what is unsaid or said only implicitly in the narrativedenied. Fernández Marcos concludes that the Lucianic Text of the Books of chain,Kingdoms is regular and consistent compared to many other parts of this 2. Rewritten phrases, adapting them stylistically to Greektextual witness16. The text stands out from the rest of the Greek tradition hyperbaton18,because of the arrangement of the material, the high number of variant 3. And another series of editorial interventions that are theological,readings and the different interpretation of passages and full verses. LXX- midrashic or simply cultic (Gelehrtenkorrekturen).Ant tends to fill the gaps in LXX in respect of the Hebrew text on the basis of On a grammatical level, a variety of characteristics distinguish LXX-Antadditions taken from the ‘three’, particularly from Symmachus17. Combined from LXX. The most important one, visible in 3 Reg 20-22, is thewith a freedom of handling the text, this gives rise to a series of doublets inclination by the LXX-Ant editors to replace Hellenistic verbs by Atticthat are not in LXX. It also inserts a series of interpolations (proper names verbs. Whereas in the other books of the LXX, the extent and traits ofinstead of the corresponding pronoun, possessive pronouns, articles, LXX-Ant have been nuanced in certain ways and its existence has evenconjunctions, making implicit subjects or objects explicit, etc.) which tend to been denied in some books19, in the historical books it has beenclarify the sense or minimize incorrect grammar. Often, synonyms are increasingly confirmed with more specific characteristics (see ‘Thechanged in LXX-Ant, in most cases without it being possible to discover the Lucianic text in the books of kingdoms’). 18 ‘a figure of speech in which words that naturally belong together are separated16 Fernández Marcos, ‘The Lucianic Text’, 168 from each other for emphasis or effect’ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbaton)17 19 According to Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context, 230 Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context, 231 n.43 10
  • 11. Questions as to whether Lucian’s recension really goes back to the work of support the proto-Lucianic hypothesis. In short, much remains to be done tothe historical Lucian have become less relevant since it became clear that it more precisely define the proto-Lucianic recension.reflects many ancient variants. These were termed ‘proto-Lucianic’, sincethey are also to be found in various sources preceding Lucian by severalcenturies. S.P. Brock20 proved that the Lucianic text in Reg separated fromthe main LXX stream at a very early time, probably the first century CE, withno reciprocal influence hereafter. LXX-Ant therefore must contain ancientreadings, some of them original but lost in the LXX tradition. At the sametime, however, it contains another set of early secondary variants. This so-called proto-Lucianic text is important for the textual history of part of theBooks of Kings, because it mirrors the oldest available text, the Old Greek, inbc and cd (according to Thackeray’s classification).Not everyone, however, is convinced by the idea of OG ‘hiding’ in LXX-Ant.The original LXX is far from recovered in Samuel. There are recensionalelements of a stylistic nature in the Antiochene manuscripts (boc2e2) whichaim to make the Greek text more readable. Emanuel Tov poses that thesubstrate of these manuscripts contains either the ancient LXX or any oldGreek21. According to Tov, there is not enough recensional foundation to20 Unpublished dissertation referred to by Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint inContext, 16721 Tov, ‘Lucian and Protolucian’, 103 11
  • 12. Chapter 3 Synopsis of 1 Kgs 20-22; description of the differences between the witnesses of the text3.1 Synopsis and description of differences in 1 Kgs 20/3 Reg 213.1.1 Synopsis LXX LXX-Ant MT 12
  • 13. 13
  • 14. 14
  • 15. --- --- --- ---15
  • 16. 16
  • 17. 17
  • 18. 18
  • 19. 19
  • 20. 3.1.2 Description of differences between the various textual witnessesv.1 Ben-Hadad’s title ‘king of Aram’ is not mentioned in Rahlfs’s edition horses and chariots) is placed after ‘his entire army’ in theof LXX. The description of Ben-Hadad’s companions (the 32 kings with their Hebrew Bible, whereas both LXX variants have it after . 20
  • 21. Except from some small details, no elements in this verse are different. may seem lacking in Hebrew. However,Further, it must be noted that both LXX witnesses consistently translate Hebrew bēn, if used for a collective, is fully capable of incorporatingHebr. Ben-Hadad with ‘ ’, giving evidence of the fact that they daughters as well as sons. It remains to be established which of the twointerpreted the final dalet in this name as reš. versions is based on the primary reading.v. 2 The onset of this verse, which is phrased abundantly in Hebrew I think this variant is not connected to the minuses in LXX-Ant just( ) shows a minimal translation in Greek. The addition of the mentioned. It does not mirror the same approach but probably originatesobject ‘messengers’( ) is not necessary to transfer the meaning, as from mere translation considerations.we can also see in v.5. Further, LXX-Ant is the only witness which does not v.8 In this verse, only minor variation exists: there is only one small plushave the final phrase ‘into the city’. in MT, where it reads ‘all the elders’.v.3 Again, LXX-Ant is the deviant text witness with (most v.9 In the opening phrase, LXX explicitly mentions the subject of thebeautiful) instead of (children), probably referring to sentence: the king of Israel. The same is the case in the third phrase, atthe women demanded by Ben-Hadad. which point MT has a different reading ‘our lord the king’v.5 In this verse, ‘and your children’ is again not instead of ‘your lord’. Aside from some minor grammaticalpresent in LXX-Ant. So in two instances, LXX-Ant has a reading which is not variation, there are no further differences in this verse.reflected in MT or in LXX and in both cases it concerns children ( ). v.10 MT is equivalent with LXX-Ant ‘foxes’ against allv.6 No differences aside from some minor verbal variation within the other LXX MSS which read ‘handfuls’.Greek witnesses in this verse. This variation may be significant, though, in v.11 In this verse, the exact LXX rendering of the harness metaphorthe process of establishing the over-all signature of the witnesses. Here, diverges from MT, but the meaning remains intact. MT readsLXX-Ant shows more abundant use of prepositions ( ) than LXX. ‘Someone who girds himself, should not boast like someone who takes his armour off’. LXX and LXX-Ant, however, readv.7 LXX has where LXX-Ant reads . Both could serve as ‘Tell him: Onetranslations of the Hebrew ( ). The phrase 21
  • 22. who puts on armour should not brag like one who takes it off’. On a minor found in the last phrase. MT reads ‘and all the sons of Israel, sevengrammatical detail, MT and LXX-Ant agree against LXX. thousand’, whereas both LXX versions read ‘all the strong men, sevenv.12 Here, LXX and LXX-Ant share the same reading which is different thousand’.from MT and which, according to BHS, presupposes a Vorlage different from v.16 In v.16, a significant plus exists in LXX-Ant. Again, the accompanyingMT. king is mentioned:v.13 In this verse, both LXX versions have chosen a slightly different ‘they went out, and the king with them, at noon’.nuance to translate Hebr. sound, roar, crowd’: LXX reads v.17 Another plus in LXX-Ant: ‘the elders’ are added to the‘crowd’ against LXX-Ant ‘sound‘. boys from the heads of the districts (just like they were in v.15). Anotherv.14 The identity of the people who are instrumental in the victory difference is the person sending messengers: in MT, it is Ben-Hadad whoagainst Ben-Hadad seems clear in both recensions. MT initiates the talks. In both LXX versions, the plural ( ) can be appears to point to some kind of special forces serving the district attributed to the heads of the districts. The minor verbal variation at the endgovernors, whereas LXX and LXX-Ant also read of the verse is typical for the differences between the two versions of LXX. v. 18 In this verse, LXX-Ant clarifies the identity of the subject of the initial ‘the boys from the heads of the districts’. Adrian sentence: king Ben-Hadad.Schenker, however, points to the MS B (Vaticanus) reading which is v.19 In the first phrase of v.19, LXX-Ant and MT agree against LXX. In the ‘the boys of the choir second phrase, however, LXX-Ant sports a plus vis-à-vis MT and LXX,leader’. This argument, however, does not hold as MS B does not read resulting in the opposite meaning. in the other occurrences of this phrase in the context (vv. 15, 17, 19). v. 20 In this verse, MT shows more brevity than both LXX variants. Thev.15 In the first phrase, the subject (Ahab) is lacking in MT. There is a plus second phrase, which may well be an unintentional minus, is missing. LXXin LXX-Ant, which counts ‘the elders’ among the groups and MT agree against LXX-Ant reading ‘Syria’ ( , ) instead of ‘thewhich are called in by Ahab. The second variant in v.15 is a plus in LXX-Ant: Syrians’ ( ).‘and the king of Ezer with them’. The fourth and final variant reading can be 22
  • 23. v.21 The only departure from the text can be found in LXX, which reads king of Israel; perhaps he will spare your life’. LXX-however, does not have‘all the horses and the chariots’. this phrase and LXX-Ant only reads ‘perhaps he will spare your life’.v.22 Again no differences except for a verb ( ) deviating vis-à-vis v.32 In v.32, LXX and LXX-Ant sport a slight variation in the way theMT and LXX. Hebrew is translated. As regards content, there are no differences.v.23 MT is different from both LXX variants on two points: it has ‘their v.34 The difference between LXX-Ant on the one hand and MT/LXX ongod’ (possible interpretation because of the perpetual plural : ‘their the other is striking: LXX-Ant reads ‘And the king of Syria said unto Ahab’.gods’) instead of LXX/LXX-Ant ‘the god of Israel’. The second point is a minus MT and LXX just have ‘And he said unto him’, meaning the same.in MT vis-à-vis LXX/LXX-Ant: ‘and not a god of v.38 In the last phrase of v.38, MT reads ‘with ashes’ whereas bothvalleys’. In v.28, however, there is no MT minus of this nature: MT reads LXX versions read ‘bandage’. ‘and he is not a god of valleys’. v.39 LXX-Ant has a plus which mirrors a Hebrew verb (v. 25 Here, MT reads a small plus, which may well have been omitted by or ) not extant in MT.the LXX translators for linguistic reasons. v.40 The final phrase is different for each of the three witnesses.v.31 The next relevant difference can be found in v.31, where MT on the v.41 Repetition of the different readings ‘ashes’ and ‘bandage’, asone hand and both LXX versions on the other hand differ in the distribution mentioned sub v.38.of subject and object: in MT, the servants are speaking to the king, whereas v.43 According to MT, Ahab leaves . This is a plus vis-à-vis bothin LXX and LXX/Ant the king speaks to his servants. A second striking LXX versions. The use of instead of is striking. I will get back to this indifference is found in the final phrase of v.31. MT reads ‘and go out to the ch. 4.3.2 Synopsis and description of differences in 1 Kgs 21/3 Reg 203.2.1 Synopsis 23
  • 24. LXX LXX-Ant MT 1. 2. 3. 4. 24
  • 25. 5. --- 6. 7. 8.25
  • 26. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.26
  • 27. 14. 15. --- 16. 17. 18.27
  • 28. 19. --- --- 20. --- 22.28
  • 29. 23. 24. --- 26. ------ --- --- ------29
  • 30. 28. Description of differences between the various textual witnessesv.1 The chapter starts with a rather significant variant: MT and LXX- Greek witnesses agree in not pointing out the precise location ofAnt have the same itinerary phrase ( , Naboth’s vineyard. MT has . This prevents the reader from which is not present in LXX thinking that Naboth’s ancestral inheritance was located outside Jezreel.(which mirrors OG here22). Note that MT connects to the final verse of the v.2 For me, it is not clear whether or not MT may be termedprevious chapter, in which Ahab returns home ‘stubborn and enraged’. ‘plus’. I suppose ‘proximity’ may well cover the meaning of theOne of the two other variants shows an identical pattern: MT and LXX-Ant combination . Further variation concerns the absence ofagree against LXX in the identification of the location of Naboth’s in LXX. Here, LXX-Ant and MT agree against LXX. The lastvineyard: next to Ahab’s palace (MT), his house (LXX-Ant) or next to his phrase of LXX ( ) is lacking in MT. Isthreshing-floor (LXX)? The final variant is Greek versus Hebrew: both the MT text secondary in repeating this phrase which is used earlier in the22 See ch. 2.2, p.5 verse? Or is it LXX/LXX-Ant which (maybe unintentionally) duplicated it? 30
  • 31. v.3 The only variant in v.3 is found in the second phrase, where LXX- MT just reads ‘my vineyard’. This divergence did not occurAnt includes against in LXX and the tetragrammaton in earlier: in vv. 3-4 LXX/LXX-Ant opposesMT. ‘the inheritance of my fathers’.v.4 In this verse, two versions can be discerned: MT and LXX-Ant v.7 LXX has a divergent reading in Jezebel’s speech against Ahab.again agree against LXX with an extensive plus, although both LXX Instead of ‘kingship’ ( ) LXX reads ‘king’ ( ). Further,versions do have one phrase in common. It must be noted that Ahab’s both LXX witnesses have a plus There is a third difference in thishumours are described extensively in both LXX versions as well as in MT. verse: both LXX versions have ( ) ‘be yourself’The similarity of both LXX-Ant and MT with 1 Kgs 20:43/3 Reg 21:43 is against MT ‘let your heart be merry’. Interpretativestriking. Here, however, LXX sports a large minus (about half the text of translation is the best explanation for this difference.v.4). These identical occurrences leave me with the impression that this v.8 The name of Jezebel, subject of the first sentence is made explicitunit must be secondary on one place or the other, supposedly in LXX-Ant only in LXX-Ant. MT sports a plus ‘*the elders+ who were inand MT because of the character of LXX-Ant (harmonizing towards MT). his city’ contra both LXX versions.Especially the repeated occurrence of is important for my v.10 In the accusation of the scoundrels, LXX mentions Naboth’s nameposition at the end of this thesis23. whereas the two other witnesses do not. Along the same line, LXX readsv.5 Except for some minor (verbal) variation, all witnesses agree on where MT and LXX-Ant have blanks.the text of this verse. v.11 In this verse, LXX-Ant seems to oppose MT and LXX on the aspectv.6 Again some verbal variation in the initial phrases of this verse. of location. It reads without further indicationFurther, the LXX translators used , apparently because they link the which city is meant. Grammatically, however, is not necessaryphrase with the previous sentence instead of here, as it becomes clear from the context that the same city is meant.with the next. In the final phrase, both LXX versions have MT and LXX point to ‘his city’, indicating that Naboth was accused and ‘the inheritance of my fathers’, whereas sentenced in his home town of Jezreel. LXX-Ant again has a reading23 See ch.5, p.64 31
  • 32. different from the other witnesses with a large minus, comprising the plus vis á vis MT. As a result, MT does not paint the picture of a grievingfinal two phrases of the verse. king, but of a monarch coolly harvesting the fruit of the evil actions by hisv.13 Just like v.10, MT of v.13 is consequent in explicitly naming the wife. In the second half of the verse, there is some variation in the orderprotagonists of the story. of the three ingredients: Ahab, standing up and leaving (‘going down’) tov.15 In a large plus, LXX-Ant and MT agree against LXX. In a second Naboth’s vineyard. It must be noted that MT is the only witness whichvariant, LXX-Ant and MT share the mentioning of Jezebel’s name. One uses an infinitive ( ).final variant is the occurrence of at the end of the verse in LXX-Ant v.19 The two LXX versions show a slight variation in the use of the verbagainst in LXX (= MT ). . LXX shows a small plus in the way Ahab is addressed. In the secondv.16 In this verse, LXX identifies Naboth as ‘the Jezraelite’. Further, half of v.19, however, variation is more extensive:both LXX editions have the same extensive (although slightly different) --- ---The differences can be described as following, from the most minimal v.20 LXX-Ant explicitly mentions Elijah as the subject of the secondreading (MT) to the most elaborate (LXX): MT reads ‘And he said to him: ‘ ’ sentence. There is a difference in word order between LXX and“Thus says the Lord: In the place where dogs licked up the blood of Naboth, LXX-Ant and the final phrase does not occur in MT.dogs will also lick up your blood.” LXX-Ant adds the swine and the contrast v.21 MT does not have the introducing phrase ‘Thus speaks the Lord’,between the blood that is licked by the dogs and swine (i.e. Naboth’s) and contra both LXX variants (in LXX-Ant, however, this phrase belongs to v.20).the blood in which the prostitutes will wash themselves (i.e. Ahab’s). LXX v.22 The only variation in v.22 is a plus in LXX-Ant: .reads ‘every place where the dogs and swine licked up the blood of Naboth’. 32
  • 33. v.23 The main difference among the three witnesses concerns the way different forms of the verb ‘to sell’ in MT and LXX. MT readsJezebel, the object of the sentence, is rendered. MT indicates ‘the dogs will ‘who sold himself’. LXX reads ’who was sold’ in the passive, whicheat Jezebel within the bounds of Jezreel’, whereas LXX reads ‘the dogs will generates a wholly different perspective on Ahab.eat her ( ) within the bounds of Jezreel’ and LXX-Ant has just ‘the dogs v.27 For this verse, two text variants are extant: MT contra both LXXwill eat within the bounds of Jezreel’. versions. MT readsv.24 There is a slight difference between the rendering of the verb ‘eat’ ‘When Ahab heard those words, he tore his clothes andin the LXX variants; LXX-Ant consistently reads whereas wore a sackcloth over his flesh’. Both LXX versions, however, read ‘And because of the word, when Achaab was smitten with remorse from beforeLXX has . Strangely enough, this is exactly the opposite of the way the Lord, he went weeping, and he tore his tunic and girded himself withthis verb is used in both variants of v.23. sackcloth on his body and fasted and put on sackcloth in the day on whichThe second and most obvious difference between MT on the one hand and he smote Nabouthai the Iezraelite [and his son] (LXX-Ant)’. The commonboth LXX versions on the other is the way in which the fate of Ahab’s element among the text versions is repentance, but LXX and LXX-Ant alsooffspring is described. A minor difference (due to linguistical characteristics) show a seemingly mourning Ahab. LXX-Ant has an interesting extra phrase,exists in the in the way Ahab’s offspring is cursed according to MT and both in which Naboth’s son is mentioned. Also, MT again does not portray Ahab’sLXX versions. MT: ‘ Ahab’s dead will be eaten by the dogs in the city, and the grief as extensively as both LXX versions.dead in the field by the birds of the air’. LXX/LXX-Ant: ‘Ahab’s dead will be v.28 The two LXX versions mention the word of the Lord ‘by Elijah’s hand,eaten by the dogs in the city, and his dead in the field will be eaten by the to Ahab’, whereas MT reads ‘by Elijah the Tisbite’.birds of the air’. v.29 In MT, the fact that Ahab humbles himself is repeated, thusv.25 Here, MT and LXX-Ant agree against LXX on the first phrase: ‘Indeed, constituting a plus vis á vis both LXX versions. The two final words of MTthere was no one like Ahab, who sold himself to do what was evil in the ( ) are also a plus vis-à-vis both LXX versions.sight of the Lord’. This variation, however, is minor compared to the3.3 Synopsis and description of differences in 1 Kgs 22/3 Reg 22 33
  • 34. 3.3.1 Synopsis LXX LXX-Ant MT 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ------ 34
  • 35. --------- 7. 8. 9. 10. --- 11. 12.35
  • 36. 13. 14. 15. 16. ------ 17.36
  • 37. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.37
  • 38. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.38
  • 39. 30. --- --- 31. 32. ------ 33. 34. 35.39
  • 40. 36. 37. 38. --- 39. 40.40
  • 41. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49.41
  • 42. 50. 51. --- --- Description of differences between the various textual witnessesv.1 In this verse, a difference very common for these chapters exists Ant In v.2, a similar pattern occurs: LXXbetween LXX and LXX-Ant. LXX reads against LXX- reads against LXX-Ant reading . In both 42
  • 43. instances, no grammatical anomalies occur, but the differences are v.12/13 In both verses, LXX and MT agree against LXX-Ant on the element ofexemplaric for the relationship between LXX and LXX-Ant on word level.24 word order.v.2 The only significant difference between the three textual witnesses v.14 LXX and LXX-Ant show different interpretations of the second phraseis Ahab’s name being mentioned in LXX-Ant. of this verse. MT reads , LXX translates its Vorlagev.3 In v.3, a different interpretation of the Hebrew Vorlage leads to a ‘those things, which the Lord will say’ but LXX-Ant readssmall and unsignificant difference between LXX and LXX-Ant. ‘whatever the Lord will say’.v.4 LXX reads ‘with us’ versus LXX-Ant/MT ‘with me’. v.15 LXX-Ant again clarifies the subject (Micaiah) against LXX and MT thatFurther, Josaphat’s addressee (i.e. Ahab) is mentioned explicitly only in MT. read ‘And he went to the king’.In Josaphat’s confirmation, LXX-Ant is divergent vis-à-vis MT and LXX, albeit v.16 A small plus occurs in LXX-Ant .not from a content perspective. v.17 Both LXX versions read a plus vis á vis MT. In MT, Micaiah’sv.5 Again, LXX-Ant is the only witness in which Ahab’s name is disagreement is transferred much less strongly. Micaiah as subject of thementioned. LXX and MT both read ‘the king of Israel’. first sentence is not mentioned explicitly, neither is his strongv.6 LXX-Ant reads , the last denouncement ‘Not also!’. Finally, both Greek witnesses use aword of this phrase constituting a plus vis-à-vis LXX and MT. MT does not different word for ‘flock’.even have an explicit subject, but the implied subject is still the king. v.18 In this verse, both LXX versions again diverge on the way a singlev.7 In MT, the addressee of Josaphat’s word (that is: the king of Israel) is Hebrew word from the presumed Vorlage is translated; LXX haslacking. against LXX .v.10 In LXX-Ant of this verse, the order of the protagonists is the opposite v.19 The abovementioned phenomenon also occurs in v.19, whereof the order in LXX and MT. There is a plus in MT vis-à-vis the other (LXX-Ant) and (LXX) are used almost interchangeably.witnesses ‘arrayed in their robes’. v.20 In this verse, LXX-Ant has a minus where the other witnesses read the tetragrammaton. Ahab’s title ‘king of Israel’, however, is missing from24 See Chapter 2.4 on the characteristics of the Lucianic text. MT. At the end of the verse, LXX-Ant reads a considerable plus: 43
  • 44. ‘One said: you shall not 30. The king of Isra]el said to Jehoshaphat [king of Judah, I willprevail. The other said: it is yours’ disguise myself and go into the battle, but you wear] your [robes].v.24 Compared to the other witnesses, LXX has a minus at the end of the So the king of [Israel disguised] himself [and went into battle.penultimate phrase. Contrary to LXX-Ant, the LXX translator has either 31. Meanwhile the] kin[g of Syria gave orders to his thirty-two]chosen to not translate Hebr. or did not encounter this word in his chariot [captains, saying, Fight no one, either small or great, exceptVorlage. the] ki[ng of Israel].v.26 Both LXX variants univocally translate Hebr. with ‘Em(m)er’. In v.30, MT (as opposed to both LXX versions) does not mention Josaphat’sv.27 In LXX and LXX-Ant, part of the MT opening phrase , title ‘King of Judah’. As it appears from pap6QKgs, there is exactly enoughintroducing prophetic speech, is missing from LXX and LXX-Ant. A small plus room for this chunk of text. We can therefore conclude that on this point, pap6QKgs supports LXX and LXX-Ant against MT.occurs in LXX-Ant, where to drink water is made explicit. v.31 A slight difference between both LXX variants occurs where LXXv.28 In MT, this verse ends with an exclamation by Micaiah which is reads and LXX-Ant reads , bothlacking in both LXX variants: ‘And he said: Hear, correct translations of Hebrew .you peoples, all of you’. This is, not by accident, the very exclamation withwhich Micaiah starts ‘his’ prophecy in the book of Micaiah. v.32 Josaphat’s title ‘king of Judah’ is lacking in MT. But a more strikingvv.29-31 For these verses, a fragmentary Qumran reading is available in difference can be found at the end of the verse, where LXX-Ant readspap6QKgs. It was published by Baillet, Milik and De Vaux in Discoveries of ‘and the Lord saved him’. MT and LXX havethe Judaean Desert of Jordan III25. The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible offers a only blanks here.translation: v.34 In this verse, LXX opposes MT and LXX-Ant on the question how this 29. [But] the king of I[srael and Jehoshaphat king of Judah] march[ed bowmen shot his arrow. LXX has ‘well-aimed’ whereas LXX-Ant to Ramoth-Gilead. and MT read / ‘randomly, unknowingly’. v.35 The differences in this verse are extensive. The LXX rendering of the25 Oxford, 1963, 108 events in this verse is much more elaborate than that of MT and LXX-Ant. 44
  • 45. LXX has a large plus, in which much stress is placed on the blood dripping on vv.47-50 are missing in LXXAhab’s chariot. The actual plus in LXX consists of the phrase v.52 LXX-Ant is the only witness mentioning the passing away of Ahab on ‘And this location in the text. LXX and MT did so in the onset of v.40:he shed blood from the wound into the hollow of the chariot’, thus The same verseresulting in a rather redundant LXX text. shows some differences in the order of the elements, of which, however,v.38 In v.37, LXX-Ant has a plus mentioning the blood which stained none is lacking in any witness.Ahab’s chariot. Further, LXX reads ‘dogs and swine’ as in the Naboth v.53 In this verse, Ochozias is mentioned explicitly only by LXX-Ant. Butchapter, v.10. In the penultimate phrase, three versions occur: according to LXX also shows a few pluses compared with LXX:LXX-Ant, the prostitutes wash themselves in Ahab’s blood. LXX reads ‘they and . Further,washed themselves in the blood’. MT merely indicates that these events LXX and MT agree on Ochozias walking in the same sinful ways as the housetook place on a location where prostitutes wash themselves. of Jerobeam (versus LXX-Ant omitting before Jerobeam).A final variant is the absence of in LXX-Ant. v.54 LXX does not read like LXX-Ant. Both Greek witnessesvv.40-51 are altogether lacking in LXX-Ant , but see 3 Reg 16. generalize Hebrew ‘fathers’ intov.41 In this account of Josaphat’s kingship, LXX has a not very significant ‘those that went before him’.plus ( ) against MT.v.46 In the summary of Josaphat’s accomplishments, there is noequivalent in LXX for MT ‘and how he waged war’. 45
  • 46. Chapter 4 The primary and secondary text of 1 Kgs 20-224.1 Summary of Schenker‘s chapter IV: ‘Nabots Weinberg, König Hebrew and Greek textual witnesses. His main heuristic principle is ‘theJosafat von Juda und der Feldzug gegen Moab’ greater the difference of a LXX reading from MT, the more plausible it is that LXX mirrors the Old Greek’. Of course this principle is only valid when4.1.1. Introduction three conditions concerning textual variants are met:In his book Älteste Textgeschichte der Königsbücher, Adrian Schenker’s 1. Keine Textverderbnispoint of departure is the fact that LXX sometimes offers readings different 2. Keine innergriechische Veränderungfrom MT. Both versions mirror a very old Hebrew consonantal text (LXX 3. Keine literarische oder redaktionelle Veränderung27via the translation from Hebrew to Greek). But what is the relationshipbetween the MT ‘stream’ and the LXX ‘stream’? For a large part (at least Another remark by Schenker is the fact that he did not deliver a completein the books of Kings) both flow perfectly parallel: and systematic analysis. Dependencies among the textual streams are ‘Sie decken sich auf weite Strecken so genau, dass sie meistens, often reciprocal. But still, most evidence from his ‘repräsentative grob gesprochen in etwa 80% der Gesamtsubstanz, denselben Auswahl’ points in one direction. The chapter I have under scrutiny does Text darstellen. Anders als z.B. in Jeremia gibt es zwischen ihnen not make an exception to this rule. keine nennenswerte quantitative Differenz.26 ‘Richtung der Abhängigkeit zwischen zwei oder drei Textzeugen is nicht immer eindeutig zu bestimmen. Das bringt es mit sich, dassNevertheless, the author approaches the two text versions as different in dieser Studie der Nachweis der Abhängigkeit deswitnesses until definitive proof for the opposite is delivered. Schenker protomassoretischen Textes von der hebräischen Vorlage der LXXobserves a set of principles and preconditions when comparing the nicht an jeder der untersuchten Stellen gleich einleuchtend ist. Wichtig ist demgegenüber aber der Umstand, dass die26 27 Schenker, Älteste Textgeschichte, 1-2 Schenker, Älteste Textgeschichte, 4 47
  • 47. zahlreichen Einzeluntersuchungen, die hier diskutiert werden, positioned at the end of MT 1 Kgs 22. What is the most plausible m.E. praktisch ohne Ausnahme in dieselbe Richtung weisen. explanation for these differences? And, most important, which of the Damit gewinnt die Vielzähl ähnlicher Ergebnisse, von Denen nicht versions is the earliest? And is there any connection between the jedes einzelne die gleich starke Beweiskraft besitzt, ein Gewicht, diverging narratives, ‘Naboth’ on the one hand and ‘Jehoshaphat’ on the dessen Schwerkraft die Plausibilität mit sich führt.‘28 other?Yet a general rule about the dependence of one witness upon the other is According to Schenker, introductions to the Old Testament do notformulated at the end of the book. Throughout the chapters it is always consider this Reihenfolge problem relevant for their ventures. Neither dothe reconstructed Hebrew Vorlage of LXX which is prevalent, be it Codex many commentators consider this problem an issue. Among those whoVaticanus for 1 Kgs 2:12-21:43 or the Antiochene text for 1 Kgs 1:1-2:11 do care to mention the problem, preferences are evenly distributed,and 1 Kgs 22-2 Kgs 2529. For Schenker, the conclusion must be that the although Josephus presupposes the LXX order in his Antiquitates30. ForHebrew Vorlage of LXX preceded the textual form we now know as MT. both positions, however, arguments can be found. Therefore a thoroughBut let us first follow the scholar in his gradual construction of the rote narrative, literary analysis is needed, Schenker argues31.Faden which leads to this conclusion. 4.1.3 Narrative analysis4.1.2 The place of the Naboth narrative in 1 Kgs 20-22 The order in MT is characterised as a narrative triptych, with Ahab’sOne of the important differences between MT Kgs and LXX Reg can be Aramaean wars on both sides and in the centre the Naboth narrative, afound in 1 Kgs 20-22. In MT, the Naboth story directly follows the history crux in which Ahab turns from good to evil: after his awful crimes, he isof Ben-Hadad’s Aramaean war, which it precedes in the old Greek. punished with defeat and indeed with death in his next battle against theAnother passage, the Jehoshaphat narrative of LXX 3 Reg 16:28a-h, is28 30 Schenker, Älteste Textgeschichte, 8 Josephus, Ant. Jud. VIII, 355-362, 363-39329 31 See Ch.2, p.6-7 Schenker, Älteste Textgeschichte, 86-87 48
  • 48. Aramaeans. Minor prophets in the left and the right panel play an But it is not necessarily the oldest layer in LXX which is responsible for theindividual role but in the centre, the great Elijah enters the stage. present order: it is very well possible that the thematic unity between the Naboth narrative and the other Elijah stories has been strengthened by aThe onset of chapter 22 is purposely provided with a time indication to later redaction which is still greifbar in the present LXX.establish the connection between Ahab’s misbehaviour in chapter 21 and Nevertheless, the question whether or not chapters 21 and 22 belongthe defeat in the second Aramaean war in chapter 22. together is significant for the Verhältnisbestimmung between MT andIn LXX, the Naboth narrative precedes the account of the two Aramaean LXX. At the end of Ch. 20, Ahab takes responsibility for rashly releasingwars without a time indicator. But a connection is established between the Aramaean king Ben-Hadad and thereby for the waste (1 Kgs 20:35-43)the accounts of the consecutive wars, developing them into a diptych of of the double victory (20:21-22 and 29-30) which he was given by God.victory and defeat. The Naboth narrative stands separately or may be Ch.22, therefore, does not necessarily build on Elijah’s curse in Ch. 21,linked to the previous chapters in which Elijah also is the protagonist32. because it connects to 20:35-43. This pericope, and not 1 Kgs 21, is the perfect bridge between the victory narrative in 1 Kgs 20 and the defeatExactly that is what some critics do. Those who suppose that the LXX narrative in 1 Kgs 22. It is needed to inform the reader about JHWH’sorder is original, compare the Aramaean war narratives with the Elijah decision to save king Ahab in the first instance but leaves him and bringsnarratives in 1 Kgs 17-19(20). In this view, the Naboth narrative is in the defeat and death in the second33.right position after the other Elijah chapters. The argument, however, canbe inverted, because it is very well possible that the Naboth narrative was But LXX sports some narrative difficulties, too. How can the distance bemoved to the end of the ‘Elijah chapters’ sometime during the explained between Elijah’s prophecy of JHWH’s judgment (3 Reg 20:19-redactional process to collect all the Aramaean war histories and thus 24) and the execution of the verdict to Ahab and his house in chapter 22?enhance the supposed narrative logic of the first book of Kings. In between, we find the anticlimax of the first Aramaean war (won by32 33 Schenker, Älteste Textgeschichte, 88 Schenker, Älteste Textgeschichte, 89 49
  • 49. Ahab). From a narrative viewpoint, Schenker argues, the Naboth story is deeds is brought unto Ahab by prophets: first by an anonymous prophet,not necessary for Ahab’s defeat later on in the chapter. and later by Elijah. Here, we also see the increasing seriousness of the judgment that is to be borne by Ahab and his family.Schenker suggests that it is important to watch the scope and nature of Ahab, however, receives another three years of reprieve (1 Kgs 22:1),the crimes. In 1 Kgs 20:32-34, Ahab fails as a king. In the case of Naboth, it because (according to MT) he shows remorse and mourns over Nabothis a personal error of Ahab versus his neighbour, against local traditions (21:27). Schenker thinks these years fit the redactors, both because ofand against the law of JHWH. Separation of the Aramaean war stories on their theological framework and because of the need to keep thethe one hand and the Naboth narrative on the other hand is justified, chronology of the kings intact.because the punishment for letting go Ben-Hadad (announced in 1 Kgs20:42) and the punishment for eliminating Naboth (announced in 1 Kgs And indeed, MT points out that Ahab reigned 22 years. Josaphat began to21:19-24) are separated as well. reign over Judah in Ahab’s 4th year, which means that Ahab died in Josaphat’s 18th year. But according to 1 Kgs 22:52, Ahab’s son AhaziahSchenker’s conclusion from this paragraph is that his narrative analysis begins to reign over Israel in Josaphat’s 17th year. Maybe Ahaziah wasdoes not suffice to establish the priority of the chapters. He then resorts already governor alongside Ahab? In any case, ‘the days of Ahab’s son’ 34to chronology of the kings of Israel and Juda, which may offer a key . (21:29) had already come.4.1.4 The chronology of Ahab, Jehoshaphat and Ahaziah Consequently, the MT redactors have found a subtle way to deal with theThe 20-22 triptych appears to be stronger in MT than in LXX: the time friction between 1 Kgs 21:29 and 1 Kgs 22 (as well as 1 Kgs 20:42). Theindicators (21:1, 22:1) tie it together more strongly. Step by step, Ahab result: a chronology which pardons Ahab in his days but which leavesadds guilt to his guilt: first by pardoning Ben-Hadad (20:32-34) and after open the possibility to punish him in the days of his son Ahaziah. Thus,that by killing Naboth and taking his vineyard. Judgment for these evil chronology is deployed as a servant of the theological necessity to produce a ‘true history’.34 Schenker, Älteste Textgeschichte, 89-90 50
  • 50. Schenker reiterates on his opinion that MT’s specific chronology was This does not relieve us from the question why God apparently breaks hisapplied as a means to wipe out the contradiction between the execution promise (3 Reg 20:29) to Ahab to not kill him until the days of his sonof the death sentence for Ahab and his pardoning until the days of his would have come. The problem is even more poignant because theson. Naboth narrative precedes both Aramaean wars. Is the pardoning ‘Der MT *hat+ die Erzählung 1 Kön 20-22 durch seine neutralized by the later judgment? Can God’s promises be withdrawn? Königschronologie theologisch und damit auch erzählerisch The facts are that Ahab was sentenced to death (3 Reg 20:19), pardoned kohärent durchdacht und gestaltet’.35 at least for his lifetime (20:29), sentenced again to perish with his people (20:42) and finally executed by a seemingly random act of a foreignWhat can we say about the chronology of the old Greek? When put into soldier (22:34-38)36.an outline, chronology in LXX also appears to be coherent: Jehoshaphat assumes power two years before Ahab and reigns 25 4.1.5 Primary vs. secondary reading years in Jerusalem. (3 Reg 16:28-29) The two alternative readings of the Ahab history differ considerably: on In Ahab’s 22nd year (which is Jehoshaphat’s 24th), Ahab dies and the one hand MT which offers a version satisfactory from a theological is succeeded by his son Ochozias (Ahaziah). and narrative perspective. The LXX Darstellung on the other hand sports Ahaziah reigns only two years and is succeeded by his brother problems of a narrative and theological nature. Schenker’s conclusion is Joram. This is the second year of his namesake Joram of Judah. that the thorough MT version must have been subject to considerable As a conclusion, Ochozias/Ahaziah started to reign in the year of reworking, in order to reach a narrative without the unbearable thought his father’s death. There is no need for a construction like the one MT employs by making Ahaziah governor over Israel two years before his father’s death.35 36 Schenker, Älteste Textgeschichte, 92 Schenker, Älteste Textgeschichte, 93 51
  • 51. of God not keeping his word. An adaptation in the reverse direction is not From MT 2 Kgs 3, it appears that there is a seven year overlap betweenprobable, Schenker asserts37. Jehoshaphat of Judah and Joram of Israel. In this version, bothSchenker continues to prove the probability of LXX as original version by Jehoshaphat and Joram can possibly be involved in the battle againstmeans of the chronology of the kings. Jehoshaphat’s summary is found on Moab. In LXX 4 Reg 3, there is only one year of overlap between Joramdifferent places in the different versions: in LXX it is placed in a series of and Ahaziah 10 or 11 years after Jehoshaphat’s death38.summaries of kings in 3 Reg 16, but in MT it can be found near the end of1 Kgs 22. The placement of the Jehoshaphat passage is closely connected According to MT, Elisha is appointed Elijah’s successor before the warwith the questions about Ahab’s judgment and pardoning that was dealt against the Moabites (cf. 2 Kgs 3:11). This means that Elijah’s ascension towith in the above chapter. The summary is placed after Ahab’s death in heaven took place during Jehoshaphat’s reign. In LXX, however, theMT and according to Schenker this points to the fact that the summaries ascension takes place after Jehoshaphat’s death and Elisha never has abelong to the same redactional layer as the inversion of positions of chance to meet Jehoshaphat.chapters 20 and 21. The most important aim of this redaction was tocreate a way in which Ahab’s death (22:42) could be reconciled with the Schenker thinks the LXX version of the narrative is much more plausible;promise in 21:29. The truth of the prophet’s words had to remain necessarily, MT is secondary. It is unthinkable that any redaction wouldunchallenged. remove king Jehoshaphat from the Moabite war to replace him by the insignificant and unfavoured (4 Reg 8:24-27) Ahaziah. Another argumentAny king of Judah mentioned in MT 2 Kgs 3 (vv. 7, 11, 14) as ally of Joram, against MT is Elisha’s esteem for the king of Judah in 2 Kgs 3:11, whichking of Israel in the battle against Moab, is identified as Jehoshaphat. In would be very strange in the case of a king of Israel (Ahaziah) who wasLXX, however, Ochozias (Ahaziah), Jehoshaphat’s grandson and Joram of Ataliah’s son and Ahab’s son-in-law. A comparison between 1 Kgs 22:5,7Judah’s son, is the Judaean king who fights alongside Joram of Israel. and 2 Kgs 3:11 shows how much Elisha’s praise fits Jehoshaphat.37 But not without mentioning Gooding’s opposite conclusion (Gooding, Ahab in a 38footnote. Schenker, Älteste Textgeschichte, 94-95 52
  • 52. This also causes a narrative contradiction in LXX to surface: Elisha ignores to LXX, Ahab did not necessarily initiate the battle for Naboth’s inheritedthe kings of Israel and Edom and is only willing to talk to the king of Judah vineyard. Afraid of the consequences, Ahab decided to repent and mourn(4 Reg 3:13-14). In the LXX version, this is Ahaziah! The narrative friction to move God to forgiveness. But this alone did not provide Naboth’sin LXX version leads Schenker to the conclusion that it is not plausible to vineyard with a new owner, because Naboth and his son(s) (3 Reg 21:27,assume that LXX is the primary text on this location. 2 Kgs 9:26) had passed away. Ahab therefore decided to incorporate Naboth’s piece of land into his own land, thereby heaping guilt upon hisSchenker concludes that for narrative reasons, the MT version of 2 Kgs 3 repentance – which may very well have been wholehearted (see 3 Regis the secondary version, to which the Jehoshaphat chronology fits best. 20:16, 27), but which was not consequent enough. Nevertheless, JHWHSo the Jehoshaphat chronology as well as the battle against Moab agree will honour Ahab’s repentance in the future.with the reworked version of the Books of Kings, whereas the unworkedversion of the original narrative has found fixation in LXX39. 4.1.7 Did Naboth have a son? According to 3 Reg 20:27, not only Naboth but also his son died in the4.1.6 Ahab’s grief over the judgment on his dynasty trial which was set up by Izebel and the false witnesses. MT, however,In the MT version of 1 Kgs 21, Ahab shows regret after Elijah had been does not mention sons of Naboth in this chapter, but they (plural)speaking to him about God’s judgment. (1 Kgs 21:17-24, 27-29). In LXX suddenly appear in MT 2 Kgs 9:26. Schenker thinks the mentioning of(20:16, 27-29), the opposite is the case: Ahab starts weeping and Naboth’s son in 20:27 has the appearance of an original textual variant,mourning the moment he hears from Naboth’s death. Meanwhile, Ahab because MT can very well be understood as secondary smoothing out.himself impudently claims ownership of Naboth’s vineyard. The complete ‘Pasting’ Naboth’s son into the LXX version would create an incoherencycrowd of commentators consider LXX as secondary on this point. with MT 2 Kgs 9:26. The son in LXX 20:27 appears suddenly, does notSchenker claims, however, that the end of the LXX narrative is not only receive a name and is gone as suddenly as he came. He does not have amore surprising but also more convincing than the MT version. According clear function in the narrative, although Schenker points to the tradition39 Schenker, Älteste Textgeschichte, 95-97 53
  • 53. of a son taking over his father’s inheritance. This tradition is made The Antiochene version of LXX (which is the oldest for 4 Reg 1)41 reads animpossible by the action against Naboth and his son(s). extensive plus vis á vis Rahlfs’s version in Joram of Israel’s summary at the end of 4 Reg 1:The narrative function of the entry of the son in the LXX version is very ‘explicit and can therefore only be explained as redactional addition,especially because it does not fit in the context of MT 2 Kgs 9:26mentioning of the sons of Naboth. The question remains why theredactors have ‘added’ one son to Naboth’s inventory and not two, inaccordance with MT 2 Kgs 9:26? The absence of Naboth’s son in MT 1 Kgs21 does not pose any problem, neither in the context of the Nabothnarrative nor in the context of the history of the House of Ahab.Schenker thinks that the mentioning of Naboth’s son or sons must beseen as primary reading, mainly because it explains most completely why ‘Ahab ended up with Naboth’s piece of land. The acceptation of thiscourse of events provided Ahab with an extra dose of guilt. According to ‘And Ioram son of Achaab reigns over Israel in Samaria twelveSchenker, MT also offers a ‘fein gesponnen und einleuchtend’ version of years in the eighteenth year of Iosaphat, king of Iouda. And he didthe events. Ahab’s repentance may have been real and honest, but also in what was evil in the sight of the Lord, yet not like his brothers nor 40MT, he shows too much weakness and half-heartedness . like his mother. And he removed the steles of Baal that his father had made and broke them in pieces. Yet, he clung to the sins of4.1.8 Joram the house of Ieroboam who made Israel sin; he did not depart40 41 Schenker, Älteste Textgeschichte, 98-100 See Ch. 2, p.6-7 54
  • 54. from them. And the Lord was inflamed with anger against the leaves no room but to conclude that Ahab house of Achaab’. ‘left confused and weeping over his house and went to Samaria’. This MT plus provide the whole story with a new perspective: the houseMT does not have this phrase, neither in 1 Kgs 1:1-18 nor in 3:1-3. So LXX and family of Ahab, instead of only himself and the people, as one wouldAnt ascribes the guilt of the destruction of the house of Ahab not to Ahab deduce from 21:42 ‘your life shall be for his life, and your people for hishimself, but to his son Joram, contra 1 Kgs 21:21-24, 2 Kgs 9:7-10 and 2 people’. As a result of this Uminterpretation not the people of Israel, butKgs 10:10. According to Schenker, Joram’s surprising appearance is a sign Ahab and his house are threatened. In MT, both chapters (20 and 21)that this version is the primary text42. finish with judgment over Ahab, whereas LXX does not even mention the House of Ahab. 434.1.9 ‘over his dynasty’Near the end of Ahab’s repentance (1 Kgs 21:29), JHWH promises Ahab 4.1.10 The place of the Naboth narrative in the broader context ofnot to execute the sentence until the days of his son. But who will then Ahab’s Aramaean wars (1 Kgs 20-22)receive this sentence? According to MT, ‘the house (dynasty) of Ahab’ In the chapter dedicated to the Naboth narrative (1 Kgs 21/3 Reg 20), thewill. The phrase ‘over his dynasty’ is not contained (in location of the action remains unclear. According to LXX, it is Samaria, next to Ahab’s house, whereas MT calls Naboth an inhabitant of Jezreeltranslation) in LXX Ant. There, the phrase does not who owns a vineyard next to the royal palace.contain those involved in the execution, although one intuitively thinks of The relative phrase ‘which was in Jezreel’ ( ) in MT can bethe House of Ahab. interpreted towards Naboth and towards his vineyard. Both, however,There is an analogous difference between MT and LXX (Ant) at the end of point to the fact that Naboth was an inhabitant of this city. As athe first Aramaean war. In 1 Kgs 20:43 (3 Reg 21:43), the Hebrew reading consequence, it was the Jezreel citizenry who for Jezebel took care of Naboth’s false accusations and wrongful execution. This is emphasized in42 43 Schenker, Älteste Textgeschichte, 100 Schenker, Älteste Textgeschichte, 100-102 55
  • 55. v.19 thanks to a further difference between MT and LXX. In LXX v.19, (2 Sam 12:3). The incomplete symmetry between LXX 3 Reg 20:19 and 3punishment against Ahab is announced by Elijah analogous with the Reg 22:38 is seen by Schenker as proof of LXX as primary text.killing of Naboth: The incongruence between MT 21:1 and LXX 20:1 may have This is what the Lord says: In every place where swine and dogs originated as result of the attempt by MT to shift the place of action from licked up the blood of Naboth, there dogs will lick up your blood, Samaria to Jezreel. According to Schenker, Samaria was the original and the prostitutes will wash themselves in your blood location of Naboth’s vineyard and where he was stoned to death. ByThe MT version, however, does read: subtly applying a few redactional tricks, Jezreel is made the place where it ‘Thus says the Lord: In the place where dogs licked up the blood all happens. LXX originates from the original version, MT is the result of of Naboth, dogs will also lick up your blood.’ redactional elaboration.Not only are the licking swine and the bathing whores absent, the adverb According to Schenker, this redactional elaboration in MT took place for a‘dortselbst’ (‘there’, translation of in LXX) is also lacking. These clear reason: harmony within the books of Kings. In coherence with 2 Kgschanges (redactional, according to Schenker) result in much more 9:15-27 and 30-37, Jezreel was destined as the place where Naboth died.vagueness in MT. There can be no obscurity as to the place that is The MT redactors must have realised that Naboth is called ‘Jezreelite’ andindicated in LXX, but MT leaves the possibility of a non-spatial finally, that Izebel wrote her letters (1 Kgs 21:8) from Samaria –interpretation: instead of Naboth’s blood, the dogs will lick your blood. supposedly to another city. To neutralize the strain in the narrative, MTAccording to 1 Kgs 22:38, Ahab’s chariot was cleaned in Samaria, but this ‘repaired’ these loose ends and created a close-knit narrative. LXX, on thedoes not answer the question where Naboth was killed. opposite, leaves the strains to remain in the narrative and thereby is theSchenker concludes that LXX, which clearly reflects a Hebrew Vorlage, most plausible candidate for the primary version of the narrative.must be the most original version. It indicates that Naboth’s vineyard waslocated in Samaria and that Naboth’s name ‘the Jezreelite’ is a mere Schenker concludes that the LXX order reflects the original order with thenickname, just like Doeg ‘the Edomite’ (1 Sam 21:8) and Uriah ‘the Hittite’ original place of the Naboth narrative (i.e. Samaria). Recensional activity 56
  • 56. in MT has given the Naboth narrative a new place. 1 Kgs 20:43 (3 Reg On the basis of comparison between LXX and MT, Schenker concludes21:43) describes Ahab’s journey to Samaria. In MT, however, the Naboth that in every single instance, differences in MT vis á vis LXX can benarrative following this chapter is situated in Jezreel. The second explained as secondary additions or changes. Secondly, these changesAramaean war following this verse in LXX does in fact have Samaria as build a slick, coherent narrative which is most certainly secondary to theimplied stage. Of course the LXX version is the preferred version because sometimes strange and unsystematic Vorlage which the LXX translatorsit does not pose the reader or scholar with any narrative problems. have used for their Greek version.One might object that this very irregularity is reason to assume that MToffers the primary reading. Not MT, but the seamless change-over from 4.2 Points of discussionchapter 20 to chapter 21 in LXX may raise suspicion. Schenker reacts tothis objection with the remark that the general coherence in LXX is much Schenker’s argumentation is directed to the establishment of LXX asgreater. MT is much more characterised by attempts to reduce strains. primary witness. He claims that the LXX narrative is more surprising but also more convincing than the MT narrative. But what are his arguments?Another objection is that MT is much more balanced on the issue of In this chapter, I will discuss some important choiches Schenker makes inAhab’s punishment. In 1 Kgs 21:19 Ahab’s death is announced as the light of other scholars’ work. I will concentrate on the most strikingpunishment for his treatment of Naboth, and in vv.20-24 the destruction differences between the MT reading and the LXX reading of chapters 20,of his house is announced. And directly after that, Ahab perishes in the 21 and 21. What can we conclude from the internal coherence of bothbattle at Ramot in Gilead. There is enough reason to assume that the MT variants? Which narrative structure is original? Is Schenker right in hisredactors have rearranged the chapters; a final example is the number of preference for LXX as primary witness? It is impossible to deal with thetimes JHWH saves Ahab – who has already been sentenced twice – in LXX very general question about the order of the chapters without askingbefore the verdict is finally executed44. what motivation lies behind any one of the options. Before description and criticism of a few positions in this scholarly debate, I will concentrate on a number of concrete points in Schenker’s argument:44 Schenker, Älteste Textgeschichte, 102-107 57
  • 57. a. Whose crime? Which punishment? Ahab’s remorse LXX: b. The chronology in the chapters Ahab does mourn Naboth’s death, but still undertakes the c. The general order of the chapters annexation of the vineyard (v.16) Elijah reprimands Ahab for ‘murdering and taking possession’Ad a. Whose crime? Which punishment? Ahab’s remorse (vv.17-19) and prophesies that dogs will eat Ahab on any placeIn LXX 20:16, Ahab starts mourning the moment he hears from Naboth’s where the swine and dogs licked the blood of Naboth.death. The difference between LXX and MT 21:16 is striking; the MT does Elijah continues to announce the end of Ahab’s dynasty becausenot mention any emotion with Ahab. Despite the demonstration of he has ‘vainly sold himself to do what is evil before the Lord, tomourning in LXX, he does not resist to eat the fruit of a crime and takes provoke him to anger’.over the vineyard. We must conclude that we are presented with two After apparent signs of repentance by Ahab, the Lord speaks todifferent pictures of Ahab’s emotional life. Elijah and decides to reduce punishment: not in Ahab’s days, butMT: in his son’s days disaster will be brought on his house (vv.27-29) Ahab does not mourn Naboth’s death; neither does he hesitate to annex the vineyard (v.16) The main difference between MT and LXX is the plus in LXX v.16, in which Elijah reprimands Ahab for ‘murdering and taking possession’ Ahab mourns Naboth’s death. What effect does this plus have on the end (vv.17-19) and prophesies that dogs will eat Ahab. of the narrative? Not much, because the consequences are the same. It is Elijah continues with an addition to the judgment ‘because you our perspective on Ahab, however, which is influenced by this LXX plus. have provoked me to anger and have caused Israel to sin’ (v.22). Schenker concludes that Ahab’s reaction in LXX counts as extenuation of The execution of this judgment is extended to Ahab’s dynasty. his later punishment: After apparent signs of repentance by Ahab, the Lord speaks to ‘selbst eine halbherzige, zu früh aufgegebene und daher der Elijah and decides to reduce punishment: not in Ahab’s days, but Verlockung des Bösen zuletzt doch weichende Reue hat noch in his son’s days disaster will be brought on his house (vv.27-29) 58
  • 58. ihren Wert bei Gott. Sie mindert die Strafe, wie es ein mildernder For me, it remains unclear why Schenker concentrates on Ahab’s Umstand tut‘45 remorse, because there are no differences between LXX and MT on this point.But does Schenker qualify Ahab’s reaction rightly as ‘Reue‘ (repentance)?Rather than remorse for a sin or crime, Ahab’s reaction must be More must be said about Ahab’s emotions. In 1 Kgs 20:43, they areconsidered as sadness and depression because of the death of Naboth. In described by MT as ‘stubborn and out of humour’47. In LXX 3MT, however, Ahab’s emotion is restricted to 21:27-29: he does not Reg 21:43, this phrase is rendered ,mourn Naboth’s death, but shows repentance after Elijah has confronted ‘troubled and faint’. In MT 1 Kgs 21:4, the exact same phrase returns (nohim with the punishment for the elimination of Naboth. According to doubt secondary48), but does not have a counterpart in LXX (the prevalentSchenker, this turnaround does not discharge him, but moderates his Septuagint version here, see 2.2, p.6-7). Further, in MT v.5, Hebr. ispunishment. But punishment will come, because, sadness or no sadness, translated by LXX . Schenker does not give muchAhab profits from the fruit of the Naboth murder and takes possession of attention to these discrepancies. The asymmetry is hidden behind thethe property. Elijah is sent to Ahab with a message of disaster ( / aspect of Ahab being emotional ‘over his dynasty’49.v.21) for a clear reason. ‘die Erzählung des MT *halt+ die Schuld des Königs für so Ahab’s emotions in 1 Kgs 21:4 must be interpreted as anxiety over his schwerwiegend, dass dessen Umkehr sie nicht mehr aufwiegen dynasty. That this anxiety was justified, appears from 2 Kgs 10-12: so 46 kann. Sie ist unvergebbar!‘ 47 Translated ‘resentful and sullen‘ by the NRSV 48 The words only recur once in the entire Bible, and that is in 1 Kgs 21:4, where they have no counterpart in LXX. See also Burney, Notes on the45 Schenker, ‘Erlasst Umkehr Schuld?’, 353 Hebrew Text, 21046 49 Schenker, ‘Erlasst Umkehr Schuld?’, 354 Schenker, Älteste Textgeschichte, 101 59
  • 59. strong was Jehu’s notion of dynasty that he exterminated all the reading) by hypocritically demonstrating the correct behaviour afterremaining members of Ahab’s family50. Naboth’s death.But what can we conclude from this collection of humours? The general This message of disaster, brought by Elijah is a shared reading betweenpicture which arises from both witnesses is rather different. In MT, we the two textual witnesses. But what disaster ( / ) is meant here?see the angry, fierce Ahab. In LXX, his emotions are more of the The term is used in v.21 as well as in v.27 with the perspective on thetormented sort. The absence of Ahab’s anger in LXX is relevant for the termination of Ahab’s dynasty and not about Ahab’s death. MT is explicitstory, because it provides LXX with its own consistency. If we replace about this at the end of ch.21 ( ), whereas the LXXAhab’s angry reaction to the anonymous prophet (3 Reg 21:43) by a reading keeps without an explicit address.defeated and humble reaction, the course of the events in ch.22 becomesmuch clearer. Apparently, Ahab knew that his end was nigh. When Schenker, continuing on Ahab’s remorse and conviction, suggests that it is important to watch the scope and nature of the crimes, he takes 51Schenker’s idea about ‘inconsequente Reue’ is based on a wrong an elementary step towards the solution of our main question. In 1 Kgsunderstanding of the text. The parallel of LXX 20:16 with David’s sadness 20:32-34, Ahab fails as a king. In the case of Naboth, it is a personal error(2 Sam 12:16-17) is not entirely convincing either, mainly because of the of Ahab versus his neighbour, against local traditions53 and against theannexation which follows Ahab’s remorse. There is no similar narrative law of Jhwh. Separation of the Aramaean war stories on the one hand 52construction in David’s situation, as Cogan claims. David only repents and the Naboth narrative on the other hand is justified, because theupon the visit by Nathan. Ahab, well aware of the possible consequences punishment for letting go Ben-Hadad (announced in 1 Kgs 20:42) and theof his dealings with Naboth, tries to avert these consequences (in the LXX punishment for eliminating Naboth (announced in 1 Kgs 21:19-24) are separated as well. It is here that the text, spoken by the anonymous50 That is wat usurpers of the throne in the northern kingdom usually did,according to Ishida, Royal Dynasties, 17151 53 Schenker, Älteste Textgeschichte, 98 Diverse commentators point to Jezebel, who overthrew Israelite legal and52 Cogan, I Kings, 484 religious traditions in favour of Phoenician ones. 60
  • 60. prophet, comes to mind: ‘Your life shall be for his life, and your people for redactors employ chronology as servant of the theological necessity tohis people’. Personal guilt leads to personal punishment. National guild produce a ‘true history’ is superfluous. There is no need to be relievedleads to national punishment. from the question why God apparently breaks his promise (3 Reg 20:29) to Ahab to not kill him until the days of his son would have come, becauseAd b. The chronology in the chapters the misfortune is reserved for Ahab’s dynasty, not for Ahab personally55.According to Schenker, the efforts of MT on a chronological level arelargely meant to solve a theological problem. From 1 Kgs 22:1, it appears Ad c. The general order of the chaptersthat Ahab has received another three years of reprieve (1 Kgs 22:1), Adrian Schenker, in an article56 published a few years before Ältestebecause (according to MT) he shows remorse. Not long after that, Textgeschichte, argues that those commentators who say that MT has thehowever, Ahab is killed in action at Ramoth in Gilead. The apparent original location of 1 Kgs 21 have not examined the evidence from Ahab’sfriction between 1 Kgs 21:29 and 1 Kgs 22 is dealt with by applying a repentance well enough. But what are the positions taken by otherspecific chronology, which wipes out the contradiction between the (mostly earlier) researchers of this problem? Each of the two versions,execution of the death sentence for Ahab (according to Schenker) and his Cogan observes, has its own logic.pardoning until the days of his son: ‘Older commentators tended to prefer the shorter Greek readings ‘Der MT *hat+ die Erzählung 1 Kön 20-22 durch seine in our chapters above the pleonastic MT. But more recent literary Königschronologie theologisch und damit auch erzählerisch analysis, attending closely to the subtleties of the narrative, has 54 kohärent durchdacht und gestaltet’. restored confidence in the integrity of MT.’ 57But why would Schenker presuppose this reprieve period in the firstplace? In MT as well as in LXX, ch.22:1 connects to the earlier treaty with 55the Aramaeans (1 Kgs 20:34). Schenker’s conclusion that the MT See 4.1.4, p.50 and Schenker, Älteste Textgeschichte, 93 56 Schenker, ‘Erlässt Umkehr Schuld oder vermindert sie Strafe?’, 350 57 Cogan, I Kings, 484. Cogan himself prefers Gooding’s position (MT as primary54 Schenker, Älteste Textgeschichte, 92 text) 61
  • 61. We can conclude that Schenker’s position fits in a tradition. That, Montgomery and Gehman63 took the opposite position and argued thathowever, also applies for the opposite position58. Against Schenker we the Greek translators reversed the order of chapters 20 and 21:may place the position taken by D.W. Gooding in his 1964 article ‘Ahab ‘The Greek translators reversed the order of cc. 20 and 21 (theaccording to the Septuagint’. But before elaborating on his own stance, Hexapla restoring the Hebrew order) and this change has beenGooding59 introduces the positions of a number of commentators. accepted by many critics (e.g. Benzinger, Kittel, Šanda, Landersdorfer, but not by Stade, Eissfeldt). All presumption isLike Schenker in 2005, Burney60 in 1903 thought chapter 21 was clearly against Greek rearrangement in general. In either case the end ofout of place in MT, breaking the connection between chapter 20 and its Ahab (ch. 22) is prefaced by a prophetic doom (20:35ff, 21:17ff),sequel chapter 22, thus making MT the secondary version. He suggests: and the former with its personal reference ‘thy life for his life’ ‘The dislocation may have been due to the desire to bring the may have appeared to the translators as the more appropriate prophecy of Ahab’s death (21:19) closer to the account of its introduction to the final tragedy’64 occurrence (22:35), and perhaps in a minor degree to the description of the king’s mood as in 20:42 as in 21:4’61 In other words, from the translators’ point of view, Montgomery considers the end of ch. 20 as more appropriate before ch.22 than theIn this position, Burney is supported by J. Maxwell Miller, who (on the end of ch.21. Also, the picture of Ahab which is painted in LXX is toobasis of the introductory sentence of the third battle account) states that colourful, according to Gooding. Especially the mitigation of his crimes bych. 22 belongs directly after ch.2062. the LXX translators is striking, for example in 3 Reg 20:25, where LXX reads ‘who was sold’ against MT ‘who sold58 As Schenker himself already concluded, see 4.1.2 himself’65.59 Gooding, Ahab according to the Septuagint, 27060 Burney, Notes on the Hebrew Text, 19061 Burney, Notes on the Hebrew Text, 21062 63 Miller, The Elisha Cycle and the Omride Wars, 443. Miller goes on to argue that In A critical and exegetical commentary on the books of Kings, 1951 64it is not probable that it was Ahab who undertook the third Aramaean war, on Montgomery, Kings, 319 65which see 4.2.2 See Ch. 3, p.28 62
  • 62. In MT the three chapters, taken as a whole, form a neat symmetrical In this context, Gooding’s conclusion is the opposite of Schenker’s.triptych, with Ahab’s wars on both sides and the Naboth narrative in the Gooding concludes that the colours in LXX are much too bright and thatcentre as a crucial moment in which Ahab turns from good to evil66. logic is too important in the LXX sequence of events:According to Schenker, the onset of chapter 22 is purposely provided with ‘Could it be, then, that the LXX’s order is original and has beena time indication to establish the connection between Ahab’s copied from a Hebrew text that was superior to MT in thismisbehaviour in chapter 21 and the defeat in the second Aramaean war respect? Certainly, if logical order is the criterion of originality,in chapter 22. the LXX’s order makes a great show of being logical and might beSchenker aptly concludes that LXX does not have such an architecture. original.’67The two war chapters (LXX 3 Reg 21-22), however, are connected(although loosely) by a time indicator (22:1): I disagree with Gooding on this aspect. It is not LXX, but MT which goes to great lengths to create a running story, for example by the repetition of in 1 Kgs 21:4 after the initial occurrence in 20:43.Do these chapters belong together? This question, according to Schenker,is important for the Verhältnisbestimmung between MT and LXX. Ch.22does not necessarily build on Elijah’s curse in MT Ch. 21, because itconnects to 20:35-43. This pericope, and not 1 Kgs 21, is the perfectbridge between the victory narrative in 1 Kgs 20 and the defeat narrativein 1 Kgs 22. 67 Gooding, ‘Ahab according to the Septuagint’, 271. Later (p.277) Gooding partly66 See 4.1.3, p. 47 retracts this strong stand on the superior logic of LXX. 63
  • 63. Chapter 5 ConclusionsChapters 2 and 3 of this thesis have a preparatory function for chapter 4. In until the days of his son would have come, because it is the dynasty which ischapter 2, I establish which witnesses must be used when comparing the under pressure.Masoretic Text with the Old Greek. In chapter 3, I present this comparisonand elaborate on the differences between the textual witnesses. Finally, in Compared to MT’s neat time indicators (21:1; 22:1), LXX may seemchapter 4, steps can be taken to discover traces of the original order of the unsystematic. But coherence comes from another factor: Ahab’s emotionschapters. play an important role. The mourning Ahab of LXX 20:16 is the same as the ‘troubled and faint’ king of 21:43. It is not LXX, but MT which goes to greatAfter my analysis, I share Mordechai Cogan’s conclusion that both versions lengths to establish a running story, for example by the repetition ofmaintain their own logic. From a strictly narrative point of view, there are in 1 Kgs 21:4 after the initial occurrence in 20:43.arguments for the prevalence of either of the witnesses. Neither LXX nor MTare evidently illogical, ill-constructed or out of place. Apparently, Adrian Despite my criticism of some of Schenker’s conclusions, I share his generalSchenker shares this point of view, when he concludes that narrative position. A narrative analysis is not enough foundation for a definitiveanalysis does not suffice to establish the priority of the chapters. He then conclusion, neither is the chronology of the kings of Israel and Judah. MTresorts to the chronology of the kings and to the theology of the redactors. I strikes me as secondary, especially in 1 Kgs 21:4 where the formulaic use ofam not convinced, however, that these elements offer a key. stands against LXX, which has sensible reading in the larger context of the final three chapters of the first book of Kings. Until furtherThere is no need to presuppose the ‘solution for a theological problem’ for a research, I therefore consider LXX68 to be the most convincing textualflawed chronology, because upon further inspection of the diverse cursing witness of 1 Kgs 20-22.text, God does not break his promise (3 Reg 20:29) to Ahab to not kill him 68 That is, MS B for chh. 20 and 21 and LXX-Ant for ch.22 64
  • 64. BibliographyBible and Bible translations Bogaert, P.-M., ‘Le repentir de Achab d’apres la Bible Hébraïque (1 R Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, Stuttgart, 19975 21) et d’apres la Septante (3 Regnes 20)’; in Elie le prophete, Bible, The New Revised Standard Version (Collins Publishers, Glasgow, tradition, iconographie, Leuven, 1985, 39-57 London etc., 1989) was used extensively for the translation of the Chiesa, B. ‘Textual History and Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Old synopses. Testament’ in The Madrid Qumran Congress; proceedings of the Fernández Marcos, N., El Texto Antioqueno de la Biblia Griega II; 1-2 International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18-21 March, Reyes, Madrid, 1992 1991, Leiden, 1992, 257-272 Pietersma, A. and B.G. Wright, New English Translation of the Cogan, M., I Kings / A New Translation [from Hebrew] with Septuagint, http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/ Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible Commentary Vol.10), Rahlfs, A. Septuaginta; Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX New York, 2001 interpretes, Stuttgart, 19351, 1979 Fernández Marcos, N., ‘The Lucianic Text in the Books of Kingdoms: from Lagarde to the Textual Pluralism’, in Pietersma, A. and C. Cox,Other literature Abegg, M.J., P. Flint and E.C. Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, San De Septuaginta; Studies in Honour of John William Wevers on his Francisco, 1999 Sixty-fifth Birthday, Mississauga, Ontario, 1984 Andersen, F.I., ‘The Socio-Juridical Background of the Naboth Fernández Marcos, N. ‘The Use of the Septuagint in the Criticism of Incident’, in Journal of Biblical Literature 85 (1966), 46-57 the Hebrew Bible’, in Sefarad 47, 1 (1987) 59-72 Baillet M., J.T. Milik and R. de Vaux, Discoveries of the Judaean Fernández Marcos, N., The Septuagint in Context; Introduction to the Desert of Jordan III, Oxford, 1963 Greek Versions of the Bible, Leiden, 2000 Begrich, J., Die Chronologie der Könige von Israël und Juda und die Fernández Marcos, N., Scribes and Translators; Septuagint and Old Quellen des Rahmens der Königsbücher, Tübingen, 1929 Latin in the Books of Kings (VTSup 54), Leiden, 1994 65
  • 65. Gooding, D.W., ‘Ahab according to the Septuagint’, in Zeitschrift für Miller, J.M., ‘The Fall of the House of Ahab’ in Vetus Testamentumalttestamentische Wissenschaft 76 (1964), 269-280 XVII (1967), 307-324Ishida, T., The Royal Dynasties in Ancient Israel, Berlin/New York, Montgomery, J.A. and H.S. Gehman, A critical and exegetical1977 commentary on the books of Kings (International CriticalJones, G.H., 1 and 2 Kings, volume II (New Century Bible Commentary), Edinburgh, 1951Commentary), London/Grand Rapids, 1984 Napier, B.D., ‘The Omrides of Jezreel’ in Vetus Testamentum IXKooij, A. van der, Die alten Textzeugen des Jesajabuches, (1959), 366-378Freiburg/Göttingen 1981 Orlinsky, H.M. ‘The Septuagint and its Hebrew Text’, in CambridgeKooij, A. van der, ‘De tekst van Samuël en het tekstkritisch History of Judaism vol. II, Cambridge, 1989, 534-563onderzoek’, in Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift 36 (1982), 177-204 Schenker, A., ‘Junge Garden oder akrobatische Tänzer? DasMcLean, P.D., ‘To the Reader of the kaige Text of Reigns’, in A New Verhältnis zwischen 1 Kön 20 MT und 3 Reg 21 LXX’, in A. SchenkerEnglish Translation of the Septuagint, (ed.), The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible; The Relationshiphttp://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/10-2reigns-nets.pdf between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the SeptuagintMeer, M.N. van der, Formation and Reformulation; The Redaction of Reconsidered, Atlanta, 2003, 17-34the Book of Joshua in the Light of the Oldest Textual Witnesses, Schenker, A., ‘Erlässt Umkehr Schuld oder vermindert sie Strafe?‘ inLeiden, 2001Metzger, B.M., ‘The Lucianic Recension of the Greek Bible’, in H.M. , Berlin, 2003, 349-357Orlinsky (ed.), Studies in the Septuagint: Origins, Recensions, and Schenker, A., Älteste Textgeschichte der Königsbücher : dieInterpretations, New York, 1974, 33-46 hebräische Vorlage der ursprünglichen Septuaginta als ältesteMiller, J.M., ‘The Elisha Cycle and the Accounts of the Omride Wars’ Textform der Königsbücher, Fribourg, 2004in Journal of Biblical Literature LXXXV (1966), 46-57 Seebass, H., ‘Der Fall Naboth in 1 Reg. XXI’, in Vetus Testamentum 24 (1974), 474-488 66
  • 66. Taylor, Bernard A. ‘The Lucianic Text and the MT in 1 Reigns’, in IX Whitley, C.F., ‘The Deuteronomic Presentation of the House of Omri’Congress of the IOCS, Atlanta, 1997, 1-9 in Vetus Testamentum II (1952), 137-152Tov, E., ‘Lucian and Protolucian; Toward a New Solution of the Würthwein, E., ‘Zur Komposition von I Reg 22:1-38‘ in Das ferne undProblem’, in Revue Biblique 79 (1972), 101-113 das nahe Wort; Festschrift Leonhard Rost, Berlin, 1967, 245-254Tov, E., The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research, Zakovitch, Y., ‘The Tale of Naboth’s Vineyard in I Kings 21‘, in M.Jerusalem, 1981, 295-306 S.GODG 27 3675 Weiss, The Bible from Within; The Method of Total Interpretation,Trebolle, J., ‘The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in the Books of Jerusalem, 1984Kings’, in Cox, VII Congress, pp. 285-299 Zipor, M.A. ‘The Use of the Septuagint as a textual witness; futherWalters, Peter (ed. by D.W. Gooding), The Text of the Septuagint; Its considerations’ in X Congress of the International Organization forCorruptions and their Emendation, Cambridge, 1973 (S.Godg 27 Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Oslo, 1998, 553-5813665)Wevers, J.W., ‘Text History and Textual Criticism of the Septuagint’, Cover photo creditsin Vetus Testamentum Supplements 29 (1978) 392-402 bethmalena, http://www.flickr.com/photos/bethmalena/322894044/ 67
  • 67. Appendix Translationsa. 1 Kings 20/3 Reg 2169 [messengers] for my wives and my children, my silver and my gold, and I did not refuse him ’. 1. And Ben-Hadad the Aramaean king gathered his entire army, 8. All the elders and all the people told him: ‘Do not listen and do not together with thirty-two kings, and horses, and chariots. He went consent’. up, besieged Samaria and attacked it. 9. So he said to the messengers of Ben-Hadad: ‘Tell your lord the king 2. He sent messengers to the city, to Ahab, King of Israel. that I will do everything he has sent for to his servant before; but I 3. He said to him: ‘Thus says Ben-Hadad, your silver and gold are mine, will not obey your word this time’. And the messengers left and as are your wives and your best children’. brought him word again. 4. The king of Israel replied: ‘As you say, my lord the king. I am yours, 10. Ben-Hadad sent to him and said: ‘The gods may do me this, and they together with everyone in my entourage’. may add that, if the dust of Samaria will provide a handful for each 5. The messengers returned and said: ‘Thus says Ben-Hadad, I have of the people on my side’. sent *messengers+ to you and I have said ‘Give me your silver and 11. And the king of Israel replied: ‘Say to him: Someone who girds your gold, and your wives, and your children’. himself, should not boast like someone who takes his armor off’. 6. For tomorrow at this time I will send my servants to you. They will 12. When he [Ben-Hadad] heard these words (he had been drinking in search your house and the houses of your servants, and grab and the tents with the other kings), he ordered his servants: ‘Take your take whatever pleases them’. positions’. And they set up against the city. 7. The king of Israel called al the elders of the land, and said to them: 13. But look, a certain prophet approached Ahab, the king of Israel, and ‘See and know that this *king+ is seeking trouble, for he has sent said ‘Thus speaks Jhwh: Have you seen the whole abundance of this big [army]? Look, I will give it in your hands today. And you will69 know that I am Jhwh’. For variants, see chapter 3 ‘Synopses of 1 Kgs 20-22; description of the differentwitnesses of the text’, pp.11-45 of this thesis 68
  • 68. 14. Ahab said: ‘With whom?’ And he answered: ‘Thus speaks Jhwh: With 22. But a prophet approached the king of Israel and said to him: ‘Go, the young men that serve the heads of the districts’. He said: ‘Who strengthen yourself, and know and see what you have to do, will be starting the battle’. The prophet answered: ‘You’. because in spring [upon the return of the year], the king of Aram will15. So he mustered the young men that serve the heads of the districts, come up against you’. and they were two hundred and thirty-two. After that, he mustered 23. The servants of the king of Aram said to him: ‘Their gods are hill- the whole people; all the Israelites were seven thousand. gods, therefore they were stronger than we. Indeed, let us battle16. They went out at noon, and Ben-Hadad was drinking himself drunk them on the plain; if you don’t prevail then…’ in the tents, he and the thirty-two kings allied with him. 24. ‘And do this thing: remove the kings, each from his function, and17. The servants of the heads of the districts went out first. Benhadad appoint commanders in place of them’. had sent out [messengers+ who told him: ‘Men have left the gates of 25. ‘And you, gather an army like the one you have lost; a horse for a Samaria’. horse and a chariot for a chariot. Fight them on a plain, and surely18. He said: ‘Whether they have come for peace or for war, capture we will be stronger than they’. The king listened to them and acted them alive’. accordingly.19. But these had already come out of the city: the young men that 26. And it came to pass in the spring, that Ben-Hadad mustered Aram, serve the heads of the districts, and the army which was behind and went to Afeq to wage war against Israel. them. 27. The Israelites then mustered themselves, were supplied with food20. Every man killed his man, the Aramaeans fled and Israel chased and marched towards them. The Israelites encamped opposite them, but king Ben-Hadad of Aram slipped away on a horse with the them, like two little flocks. And the Aramaeans filled the country. horsemen. 28. Then the prophet of Jhwh approached [again] and said to the king of21. But the king of Israel went out and attacked horse and chariot, and Israel; he said: ‘Thus speaks Jhwh, because the Aramaeans have said they completely overpowered Aram. ‘Jhwh is a god of the hills, and he is not a god of the plains, therefore 69
  • 69. I will give all this great multitude into your hand, and you shall know yourself in Damascus, as my father established in Samaria.’ *The king that I am Jhwh’. of Israel answered:+ ‘I will let you go on those terms’. So he made a29. They encamped opposite one another seven days. Then on the treaty with him and let him go. seventh day the battle began; the Israelites killed from Aram one 35. And a member of the prophet company said to another member by hundred thousand foot soldiers in one day. a word of Jhwh: ‘Strike me’ And the man refused to strike him.30. The rest fled to Afeq, into the city; and the wall fell on twenty-seven 36. Then he said to him: ‘Because you have not listened to the voice of thousand men that were left. Ben-Hadad also fled, and entered the the Lord, as soon as you will leave me, a lion will kill you.’ And when city, deep into hiding. he had left him, a lion encountered him and killed him.31. His servants said to him: ‘Look, we have heard that the kings of the 37. Then he found another man and said: ‘Strike me’. The man hit him, house of Israel are merciful; let us put sackcloth around our waists striking and wounding him. and ropes on our heads, and go out to the king of Israel; perhaps he 38. Then the prophet departed, and waited for the king along the road, will spare your life.’ disguising himself with a bandage over his eyes.32. So they girded themselves with sackcloth and put ropes on their 39. As the king passed by, he cried to the king and said: ‘Your servant heads. They went to the king of Israel, and said: ‘Your servant Ben- went out into the midst of the battle; then a soldier turned and Hadad says: ‘Save my soul.’’ And he said: ‘Is he still alive? He is my brought a man to me, and said, ‘Guard this man; if he is missing, brother.’ your life shall be given for his life, or else you shall pay a talent of33. Now the men were watching for an omen; they quickly took it up silver.’ from him and said: ‘Yes, Ben-Hadad is your brother.’ Then he said: 40. ‘While your servant went on here and there, he was gone.’ The king ‘Go and bring him.’ So Ben-Hadad came out to him; and he made of Israel said to him: ‘So shall your judgment be; you yourself have him come up into the chariot. decided it.’34. And he [Ben-Hadad+ said to him: ‘I will restore the towns that my 41. Then he quickly took the bandage away from his eyes. The king of father took from your father; and you may establish settlements for Israel recognized that he was one of the prophets. 70
  • 70. 42. And he said to him *the king of Israel+: ‘Thus says Jhwh: ‘Because b. 1 Kings 21/3 Reg 20 you have released the man whom I had devoted to destruction, therefore your life shall be for his life, and your people for his 1. Later, it came to pass that Naboth the Jezreelite had a vineyard in people.’’ Jezreel, beside the palace of King Ahab of Samaria.43. The king of Israel set out stubborn and enraged over his house, and 2. Ahab said to Naboth, ‘Give me your vineyard, and it will be a came to Samaria. garden of herbs for me, because it is in the direct proximity of my house; I will give you for it a better vineyard than this; or, if it seems good to you, I will give you its value in money.’ 3. But Naboth said to Ahab, ‘Jhwh forbid that I would give you the inheritance of my fathers.’ 4. Ahab went home resentful and sullen because of what Naboth the Jezreelite had said to him; for he had said, ‘I will not give you the inheritance of my fathers.’ He lay down on his bed, turned away his face, and would not eat bread. 5. His wife Jezebel came to him and said, ‘Why are you so depressed that you will not eat?’ 6. He said to her, ‘Because I spoke to Naboth the Jezreelite and said to him, “Give me your vineyard for money; or, if you prefer, I will give you another vineyard for it”; but he answered, “I will not give you my vineyard.” ’ 71
  • 71. 7. His wife Jezebel said to him, ‘Do you now hold the kingship over 15. As soon as Jezebel heard that Naboth had been stoned and was Israel? Get up, eat some food, and be cheerful; I will give you the dead, Jezebel said to Ahab, ‘Go, take possession of the vineyard of vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite.’ Naboth the Jezreelite, which he refused to give you for money; for8. So she wrote letters in Ahab’s name and sealed them with his seal; Naboth is not alive, but dead.’ she sent the letters to the elders and the nobles in his city who 16. As soon as Ahab heard that Naboth was dead, Ahab set out to go lived with Naboth. down to the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite, to take possession9. She wrote in the letters, ‘Proclaim a fast, and seat Naboth at the of it. head of the people; 17. Then the word of the Lord came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying:10. Make two scoundrels sit opposite him, and have them bring a 18. ‘Go down to meet King Ahab of Israel, in Samaria; he is now in the charge against him, saying, “You have cursed God and the king.” vineyard of Naboth, where he has gone to take possession. Then take him out, and stone him to death.’ 19. You shall say to him, ‘Thus says the Lord: Have you killed, and also11. The men of his city, the elders and the nobles who lived in his city, taken possession?’ You shall say to him,“Thus says the Lord: In the did as Jezebel had sent word to them. Just as it was written in the place where dogs licked up the blood of Naboth, dogs will also lick letters that she had sent to them, up your blood.’12. they proclaimed a fast and seated Naboth at the head of the 20. Ahab said to Elijah, ‘Have you found me, O my enemy?’ He people. answered, ‘I have found you. Because you have sold yourself to do13. The two scoundrels came in and sat opposite him; and the what is evil before the Lord, scoundrels brought a charge against Naboth, in the presence of the 21. I will bring disaster on you; I will consume you, and will cut off from people, saying, ‘Naboth cursed God and the king.’ So they took him Ahab every male, bound or free, in Israel; outside the city, and stoned him to death. 22. and I will make your house like the house of Jeroboam son of14. Then they sent to Jezebel, saying, ‘Naboth has been stoned; he is Nebat, and like the house of Baasha son of Ahijah, because you dead.’ have provoked me to anger and have caused Israel to sin. 72
  • 72. 23. Also concerning Jezebel the Lord said, “The dogs shall eat Jezebel c. 1 Kings/3 Reg 22 within the wall of Jezreel.”24. Anyone belonging to Ahab who dies in the city the dogs shall eat; 1. For three years Aram and Israel continued without war. and anyone of his who dies in the open country the birds of the air 2. But in the third year King Jehoshaphat of Judah came down to the shall eat.’ king of Israel.25. (Indeed, there was no one like Ahab, who sold himself to do what 3. The king of Israel said to his servants, ‘Do you know that Ramoth- was evil in the eyes of the Lord, urged on by his wife Jezebel. gilead belongs to us, yet we are doing nothing to take it out of the26. He acted most abominably in going after idols, as the Amorites had hand of the king of Aram?’ done, whom the Lord drove out before the Israelites.) 4. He said to Jehoshaphat, ‘Will you go with me to battle at Ramoth-27. When Ahab heard those words, he tore his clothes and put gilead?’ Jehoshaphat replied to the king of Israel, ‘I am as you are; sackcloth over his bare flesh; he fasted, lay in the sackcloth, and my people are your people, my horses are your horses.’ went about dejectedly. 5. But Jehoshaphat also said to the king of Israel, ‘Inquire first for the28. Then the word of the Lord came to Elijah the Tishbite: word of the Lord.’29. ‘Have you seen how Ahab has humbled himself before me? 6. Then the king of Israel gathered the prophets together, about four Because he has humbled himself before me, I will not bring the hundred of them, and said to them, ‘Shall I go to battle against disaster in his days; but in his son’s days I will bring the disaster on Ramoth-gilead, or shall I refrain?’ They said, ‘Go up; for the Lord will his house.’ give it into the hand of the king.’ 7. But Jehoshaphat said, ‘Is there no other prophet of the Lord here of whom we may inquire?’ 8. The king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, ‘There is still one other by whom we may inquire of the Lord, Micaiah son of Imlah; but I hate 73
  • 73. him, for he never prophesies anything favourable about me, but him, ‘Go up and triumph; the Lord will give it into the hand of the only disaster.’ Jehoshaphat said, ‘Let the king not say such a thing.’ king.’9. Then the king of Israel summoned an officer and said, ‘Bring quickly 16. But the king said to him, ‘How many times must I make you swear to Micaiah son of Imlah.’ tell me nothing but the truth in the name of the Lord?’10. Now the king of Israel and King Jehoshaphat of Judah were sitting on 17. Then he [Micaiah] said, ‘I saw all Israel scattered on the mountains, their thrones, arrayed in their robes, at the threshing-floor at the like sheep that have no shepherd; and the Lord said, “These have no entrance of the gate of Samaria; and all the prophets were master; let each one go home in peace.” ’ prophesying before them. 18. The king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, ‘Did I not tell you that he11. Zedekiah son of Chenaanah made for himself horns of iron, and he would not prophesy anything favourable about me, but only said, ‘Thus says the Lord: With these you shall gore the Arameans disaster?’ until they are destroyed.’ 19. Then he [Micaiah] said, ‘Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw12. All the prophets were prophesying the same and saying, ‘Go up to the Lord sitting on his throne, with all the host of heaven standing Ramoth-gilead and triumph; the Lord will give it into the hand of the beside him to the right and to the left of him. king.’ 20. And the Lord said, “Who will entice Ahab, so that he may go up and13. The messenger who had gone to summon Micaiah said to him, fall at Ramoth-gilead?” Then one said one thing, and another said ‘Look, the words of the prophets with one accord are favourable to another, the king; let your word be like the word of one of them, and speak 21. until a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord, saying, “I will favourably.’ entice him.”14. But Micaiah said, ‘As the Lord lives, whatever the Lord says to me, 22. “How?” the Lord asked him. He replied, “I will go out and be a lying that I will speak.’ spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.” Then he said, “You are to15. When he had come to the king, the king said to him, ‘Micaiah, shall entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do it.” we go to Ramoth-gilead to battle, or shall we refrain?’ He answered 74
  • 74. 23. So you see, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these 32. When the captains of the chariots saw Jehoshaphat, they said, ‘It is your prophets; the Lord has decreed disaster for you.’ surely the king of Israel.’ So they turned to fight against him; and24. Then Zedekiah son of Chenaanah came up to Micaiah, slapped him Jehoshaphat cried out. on the cheek, and said, ‘Which way did the spirit of the Lord pass 33. When the captains of the chariots saw that it was not the king of from me to speak to you?’ Israel, they turned back from pursuing him.25. Micaiah replied, ‘You will find out on that day when you go in to 34. But a certain man drew his bow and unknowingly struck the king of hide in an inner chamber.’ Israel between the scale-armour and the breastplate; so he said to26. The king of Israel then ordered, ‘Take Micaiah, and return him to the driver of his chariot, ‘Turn around, and carry me out of the Amon the governor of the city and to Joash the king’s son, battle, for I am wounded.’27. and say, “Thus says the king: Put this fellow in prison, and feed him 35. The battle grew hot that day, and the king was propped up in his on reduced rations of bread and water until I come in peace.” ’ chariot facing the Arameans, until at evening he died; the blood28. Micaiah said, ‘If you return in peace, the Lord has not spoken by from the wound had flowed into the bottom of the chariot. me.’ And he said, ‘Hear, you peoples, all of you!’ 36. Then about sunset a shout went through the army, ‘Every man to his29. So the king of Israel and King Jehoshaphat of Judah went up to city, and every man to his country!’ Ramoth-gilead. 37. So the king died, and was brought to Samaria; they buried the king30. The king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, ‘I will disguise myself and go in Samaria. into battle, but you wear your robes.’ So the king of Israel disguised 38. They washed the chariot by the pool of Samaria; the dogs licked up himself and went into battle. his blood, and the prostitutes washed themselves, according to the31. Now the king of Aram had commanded the thirty-two captains of his word of the Lord that he had spoken. chariots, ‘Fight with no one small or great, but only with the king of 39. Now the rest of the acts of Ahab, and all that he did, and the ivory Israel.’ house that he built, and all the cities that he built, are they not written in the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel? 75
  • 75. 40. So Ahab slept with his ancestors; and his son Ahaziah succeeded 47. There was no king in Edom; a deputy was king. him. 48. Jehoshaphat made ships of the Tarshish type to go to Ophir for gold;41. Jehoshaphat son of Asa began to reign over Judah in the fourth year but they did not go, for the ships were wrecked at Ezion-geber. of King Ahab of Israel. 49. Then Ahaziah son of Ahab said to Jehoshaphat, ‘Let my servants go42. Jehoshaphat was thirty-five years old when he began to reign, and with your servants in the ships’, but Jehoshaphat was not willing. he reigned for twenty-five years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name 50. Jehoshaphat slept with his ancestors and was buried with his was Azubah daughter of Shilhi. ancestors in the city of his father David; his son Jehoram succeeded43. He walked in all the way of his father Asa; he did not turn aside from him. it, doing what was right in the sight of the Lord; yet the high places 51. Ahaziah son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria in the were not taken away, and the people still sacrificed and offered seventeenth year of King Jehoshaphat of Judah; he reigned for two incense on the high places. years over Israel.44. Jehoshaphat also made peace with the king of Israel. 52. He did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, and walked in the way45. Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, and his power that he of his father and mother, and in the way of Jeroboam son of Nebat, showed, and how he waged war, are they not written in the Book of who caused Israel to sin. the Annals of the Kings of Judah? 53. He served Baal and worshipped him; he provoked the Lord, the God46. The remnant of the male temple prostitutes who were still in the of Israel, to anger, just as his father had done. land from the days of his father Asa, he exterminated. 76