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


Published on

Scriptie Hugo Louter

  • 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

No notes for slide

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

  1. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 13
  14. 14. 14
  15. 15. --- --- --- ---15
  16. 16. 16
  17. 17. 17
  18. 18. 18
  19. 19. 19
  20. 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. 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. 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. 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. 24. LXX LXX-Ant MT 1. 2. 3. 4. 24
  25. 25. 5. --- 6. 7. 8.25
  26. 26. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.26
  27. 27. 14. 15. --- 16. 17. 18.27
  28. 28. 19. --- --- 20. --- 22.28
  29. 29. 23. 24. --- 26. ------ --- --- ------29
  30. 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. 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. 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. 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. 34. 3.3.1 Synopsis LXX LXX-Ant MT 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ------ 34
  35. 35. --------- 7. 8. 9. 10. --- 11. 12.35
  36. 36. 13. 14. 15. 16. ------ 17.36
  37. 37. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.37
  38. 38. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.38
  39. 39. 30. --- --- 31. 32. ------ 33. 34. 35.39
  40. 40. 36. 37. 38. --- 39. 40.40
  41. 41. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49.41
  42. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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