Scriptie Hugo Louter

1. Witness and perspective
A 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. Preface
My 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 Schenker
of courses which concentrated on the Qumrān finds and their does.
consequences for long-held conceptions of the history of the established
text. 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 than
New 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. In
Adrian Schenker in his 2004 book Älteste Textgeschichte der reaching this destination, the kind and patient guidance by Prof. Arie van
Königsbücher; 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 a
very special (i.e. private) course with Prof. Arie van der Kooij in 2005. Still, Hugo Louter
I am impressed by Schenker’s creativity and the new light he manages to LUGD. BAT., MMVIII
throw on the very well-known material of the books of Kings (or
Kingdoms in Greek). Not many scholars have touched upon this subject in
2

3. Contents
Page
Preface 2
Chapter 1 Introduction 4
Chapter 2 Sources and recensions 5
Chapter 3 Synopsis of 1 Kgs 20-22; description of the differences between the witnesses of the text 12
Chapter 4 The primary and secondary text of 1 Kgs 20-22 47
Chapter 5 Conclusions 64
Bibliography 65
Appendix Translation 68
3

4. Chapter 1 Introduction
There is extensive variation among the textual witnesses of the books of means that I will trace Schenker’s evidence, test his hypotheses and
Kings. It ranges from small, grammatical differences between two Greek compare them to findings by myself and others. I will mainly concentrate on
witnesses to the complete displacement of chapters within the book. part of chapter 4 in Schenker’s book, titled ‘Naboths Weinberg, König
Notably, 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 3’1
first book of Kings. In some textual witnesses, the so-called Naboth narrative
is located before the accounts of Ahab’s Aramaean wars. In others (among
which MT) the Naboth narrative finds its place between the two Aramaean
war histories. In this thesis all differences between the textual witnesses of
the chapters 1 Kgs 20, 21 and 22 will be dealt with after an introductory
chapter on the basics of the textual history of the books of Samuel and
Kings.
Next to the analytical, there is a critical part to this thesis. From the onset of
this enterprise it was clear that Prof. Adrian Schenker’s Älteste
Textgeschichte der Königsbücher; die hebräische Vorlage der ursprünglichen
Septuaginta als älteste Textform der Königsbücher would play an important
role. 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 is
the oldest traceable form of these books’. The adstruction of this position is
undertaken with textual-historical and exegetical means. And it is with these 1
Schenker, Älteste Textgeschichte, 86-107
4

5. Chapter 2 Sources and recensions
2.1 Introduction started to become normative and binding towards the end of the first
One of the main questions in this thesis is which of the known versions century CE. Some, like Philo, recognized that LXX possesses the same divine
offers 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 already
remarks must be made. Which versions of the LXX books of Kingdoms are evident in the Hebraising corrections of some pre-Christian papyri, would
extant and what is their meaning in the scholarly context? The stages of become more obvious in /Theodotion and culminated in the new
creation of LXX are difficult to determine but happened between the 2nd Jewish translations by Aquila and Symmachus or in the new translation into
century 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 synchronic
the 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. And
after the formative stage, theological and modernizing interpretations kept Until the middle of the 20th century, differences between LXX and Hebrew
coming and that is complicating literary criticism: how should we deal with were usually explained by resorting to the idiosyncrasy and translation
the many re-editions, expansions, revisions and alterations in both LXX and techniques of the translators, to editorial reworking of the text in favour of
its 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. de
It 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 of
just 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 the
The authority of LXX became a problem when the single consonantal text origins of LXX. The texts fit in perfectly with the textual tradition
2
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 Greek
begin with Origen, nor was it even motivated by Jewish-Christian polemics, Every bible student’s compass is directed to the past: the older, the more
but 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 the
itself, when the LXX was transmitted within the Jewish communities and had original translation from Hebrew, called Old Greek (OG), is the most distant
3
not 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 opens
Marcos concludes that thanks to Qumrān we know that the Greek Bible doors to the LXX translators’ Hebrew Vorlage as well as to the later LXX
contains genuine, textual and literary variants from the Hebrew. tradition in all its variation. OG, however, is a postulated text which has
Complicating this picture is the fact that parts of a biblical book or early never been found integrally. Only after removing the recensional and
editions 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: it
was 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 rather
the 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 visible
three ‘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 text
three 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 trustworthy
3 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 in
Vaticanus 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 the
and 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:
6
chunks). 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 in
standardised Hebrew text for a new independent translation. Parts of this favour of proto-MT, without attaining Aquila’s consistency’8
revision 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 a
Although 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-Christian
in this part of Kingdoms? Scholarly consensus is that the Lucianic or polemic concerning the correct interpretation of scripture. This also
7
Antiochene 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 use
2.3 and Theodotion
6 8
On Theodotion: see Chapter 2.3 Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context, 145
7 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 in
bishop 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 a
There is not much clarity about the date Theodotion made his translation. Symmachus tradition with a clear date and that he interpreted the order of
Information about Theodotion comes from Irenaeus and Jerome but the Hexapla (in which Theodotion follows Symmachus) as historical. The
especially from Epiphanius. According to Epiphanius (De Mensuris et opposite is true: Theodotion must have created his ‘new’ Greek translation
Ponderibus Liber Ch.17), Theodotion wrote his translation shortly after as head of the movement of the Hebrew Bible before the second
10
Symmachus 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 a
schreibt man die Theodotion-Zitate aus früherer zeit einem Proto- revision of LXX on the basis of the standardized Hebrew text for a new
11
Theodotion zu’ . Another difficulty in this context is the dating of independent translation. In our time, less and less text has been labeled
Symmachus by Epiphanius: in the time of emperor Severus (193-211). Did Theodotionic as a result of recent discoveries. Another incident is the
Theodotion work before or after Symmachus? Jellicoe (with others) solved exchange of the siglum for both Theodoret and Theodotion. Theodotion’s
this problem by preferring the Syrian translation of Epiphanius, according to presence is proven in Daniel, in the 5th column of the Hexapla of Psalms, in
which Symmachus created his translation at the time of emperor Verus (M. patristic quotations and the marginal glosses to the LXX. And, according to
Aurelius) (161-180), that is: before Theodotion. Van der Kooij, however, Barthélemy, in the Greek texts found in Nahal Hever. Little is known about
thinks that ‘Verus’ in the Syrian translation is the result of harmonization. Theodotion’s style. One significant feature is his inclination to leave difficult
Mercati chose another solution to the problem by supposing ‘bei den zwei Hebrew words transcribed. It is usually said that his style takes a middle
ersten 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 Fernández
10
This paragraph: Van der Kooij, Die alte Textzeugen, 127-151
11 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 even
which, 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 the
2.4 The Lucianic text
Lucianic recension became much clearer. Now, it is observed in all the
In 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 and
discerned which tends to revise the text and make it more readable. The
probably in Wisdom of Sira. In Job it occurs in codex Alexandrinus, codex
connection 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 of
supposes that Lucian was a critical scholar whose views on the Trinity and
Theodoret had been established as a control of the Antiochene text in those
on Christology differed from what was later defined at Nicaea as the
books, it was possible to edit critically the Antiochene text from Samuel to
orthodox position. Nevertheless, his contemporaries regarded him as an
Chronicles.
able scholar, entirely competent to undertake a recension of the Greek
bible14. The Lucianic text remains valued: the text used by Josephus in his
In 1883, Lagarde attached great value to the isolation of the recensions of
Antiquitates Judaicae is Lucianic in type from Samuel to Maccabees. Later,
the Greek Old Testament in order to recover the oldest available text. He
13 15
Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context, 148 De Viris inlustribus, 77, cited in Metzger, The Lucianic Recension of the Greek
14
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 the
the 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 are
of the other LXX books, its meaning has been nuanced or its existence 1. Additions of what is unsaid or said only implicitly in the narrative
denied. 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 Greek
textual 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-Ant
additions taken from the ‘three’, particularly from Symmachus17. Combined from LXX. The most important one, visible in 3 Reg 20-22, is the
with 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 Attic
that 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 of
instead of the corresponding pronoun, possessive pronouns, articles, LXX-Ant have been nuanced in certain ways and its existence has even
conjunctions, making implicit subjects or objects explicit, etc.) which tend to been denied in some books19, in the historical books it has been
clarify the sense or minimize incorrect grammar. Often, synonyms are increasingly confirmed with more specific characteristics (see ‘The
changed 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 separated
16
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 to
the 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’, since
they are also to be found in various sources preceding Lucian by several
centuries. S.P. Brock20 proved that the Lucianic text in Reg separated from
the main LXX stream at a very early time, probably the first century CE, with
no reciprocal influence hereafter. LXX-Ant therefore must contain ancient
readings, some of them original but lost in the LXX tradition. At the same
time, however, it contains another set of early secondary variants. This so-
called proto-Lucianic text is important for the textual history of part of the
Books of Kings, because it mirrors the oldest available text, the Old Greek, in
bc 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 recensional
elements of a stylistic nature in the Antiochene manuscripts (boc2e2) which
aim to make the Greek text more readable. Emanuel Tov poses that the
substrate of these manuscripts contains either the ancient LXX or any old
Greek21. According to Tov, there is not enough recensional foundation to
20
Unpublished dissertation referred to by Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in
Context, 167
21
Tov, ‘Lucian and Protolucian’, 103
11

12. Chapter 3 Synopsis of 1 Kgs 20-22; description of the differences between the witnesses of the text
3.1 Synopsis and description of differences in 1 Kgs 20/3 Reg 21
3.1.1 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 witnesses
v.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 the
of 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 incorporating
Hebr. Ben-Hadad with ‘ ’, giving evidence of the fact that they daughters as well as sons. It remains to be established which of the two
interpreted 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 originates
object ‘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 plus
have 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 the
beautiful) instead of (children), probably referring to sentence: the king of Israel. The same is the case in the third phrase, at
the 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 grammatical
present 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 all
v.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 metaphor
the process of establishing the over-all signature of the witnesses. Here, diverges from MT, but the meaning remains intact. MT reads
LXX-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, read
v.7 LXX has where LXX-Ant reads . Both could serve as
‘Tell him: One
translations 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, seven
grammatical detail, MT and LXX-Ant agree against LXX. thousand’, whereas both LXX versions read ‘all the strong men, seven
v.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 accompanying
MT. 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). Another
v.14 The identity of the people who are instrumental in the victory difference is the person sending messengers: in MT, it is Ben-Hadad who
against 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 end
governors, 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. The
v.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. LXX
in LXX-Ant, which counts ‘the elders’ among the groups
and MT agree against LXX-Ant reading ‘Syria’ ( , ) instead of ‘the
which 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 the
MT 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 on
god’ (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 both
valleys’. 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’, as
one 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 both
in 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 in
difference 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 20
3.2.1 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.
29.
3.2.2 Description of differences between the various textual witnesses
v.1 The chapter starts with a rather significant variant: MT and LXX- Greek witnesses agree in not pointing out the precise location of
Ant 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 termed
previous chapter, in which Ahab returns home ‘stubborn and enraged’. ‘plus’. I suppose ‘proximity’ may well cover the meaning of the
One of the two other variants shows an identical pattern: MT and LXX-Ant combination . Further variation concerns the absence of
agree against LXX in the identification of the location of Naboth’s in LXX. Here, LXX-Ant and MT agree against LXX. The last
vineyard: next to Ahab’s palace (MT), his house (LXX-Ant) or next to his phrase of LXX ( ) is lacking in MT. Is
threshing-floor (LXX)? The final variant is Greek versus Hebrew: both the MT text secondary in repeating this phrase which is used earlier in the
22
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 occur
Ant includes against in LXX and the tetragrammaton in earlier: in vv. 3-4 LXX/LXX-Ant opposes
MT. ‘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 this
humours 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’. Interpretative
striking. 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 explicit
unit 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 in
and 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 name
position at the end of this thesis23.
whereas the two other witnesses do not. Along the same line, LXX reads
v.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 aspect
v.6 Again some verbal variation in the initial phrases of this verse.
of location. It reads without further indication
Further, the LXX translators used , apparently because they link the
which city is meant. Grammatically, however, is not necessary
phrase 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 reading
23
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 grieving
final two phrases of the verse. king, but of a monarch coolly harvesting the fruit of the evil actions by his
v.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 order
protagonists of the story. of the three ingredients: Ahab, standing up and leaving (‘going down’) to
v.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 which
variant, 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 verb
against in LXX (= MT ). . LXX shows a small plus in the way Ahab is addressed. In the second
v.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 second
reading (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 reads
Jezebel, the object of the sentence, is rendered. MT indicates ‘the dogs will ‘who sold himself’. LXX reads ’who was sold’ in the passive, which
eat 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 LXX
will eat within the bounds of Jezreel’. versions. MT reads
v.24 There is a slight difference between the rendering of the verb ‘eat’ ‘When Ahab heard those words, he tore his clothes and
in 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 before
LXX has . Strangely enough, this is exactly the opposite of the way
the Lord, he went weeping, and he tore his tunic and girded himself with
this verb is used in both variants of v.23.
sackcloth on his body and fasted and put on sackcloth in the day on which
The second and most obvious difference between MT on the one hand and
he smote Nabouthai the Iezraelite [and his son] (LXX-Ant)’. The common
both 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 also
offspring 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’s
LXX 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, thus
v.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 MT
there 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 the
3.3 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.
---
---
54.
3.3.2 Description of differences between the various textual witnesses
v.1 In this verse, a difference very common for these chapters exists Ant In v.2, a similar pattern occurs: LXX
between 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 of
exemplaric 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 phrase
is Ahab’s name being mentioned in LXX-Ant. of this verse. MT reads , LXX translates its Vorlage
v.3 In v.3, a different interpretation of the Hebrew Vorlage leads to a ‘those things, which the Lord will say’ but LXX-Ant reads
small 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 that
Further, 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’s
v.5 Again, LXX-Ant is the only witness in which Ahab’s name is disagreement is transferred much less strongly. Micaiah as subject of the
mentioned. LXX and MT both read ‘the king of Israel’. first sentence is not mentioned explicitly, neither is his strong
v.6 LXX-Ant reads , the last denouncement ‘Not also!’. Finally, both Greek witnesses use a
word 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 single
v.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 has
lacking. 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, where
of 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 from
24
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 will
prevail. 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, except
Vorlage. 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’s
v.27 In LXX and LXX-Ant, part of the MT opening phrase , title ‘King of Judah’. As it appears from pap6QKgs, there is exactly enough
introducing 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 LXX
v.28 In MT, this verse ends with an exclamation by Micaiah which is
reads and LXX-Ant reads , both
lacking 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 with
which Micaiah starts ‘his’ prophecy in the book of Micaiah. v.32 Josaphat’s title ‘king of Judah’ is lacking in MT. But a more striking
vv.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 reads
pap6QKgs. It was published by Baillet, Milik and De Vaux in Discoveries of ‘and the Lord saved him’. MT and LXX have
the 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 the
25
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 LXX
Ahab’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 verse
resulting 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. But
chapter, 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 house
took 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 witnesses
vv.40-51 are altogether lacking in LXX-Ant , but see 3 Reg 16.
generalize Hebrew ‘fathers’ into
v.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 no
equivalent in LXX for MT ‘and how he waged war’.
45

46. Chapter 4 The primary and secondary text of 1 Kgs 20-22
4.1 Summary of Schenker‘s chapter IV: ‘Nabots Weinberg, König Hebrew and Greek textual witnesses. His main heuristic principle is ‘the
Josafat 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 when
4.1.1. Introduction three conditions concerning textual variants are met:
In his book Älteste Textgeschichte der Königsbücher, Adrian Schenker’s 1. Keine Textverderbnis
point of departure is the fact that LXX sometimes offers readings different 2. Keine innergriechische Veränderung
from MT. Both versions mirror a very old Hebrew consonantal text (LXX 3. Keine literarische oder redaktionelle Veränderung27
via the translation from Hebrew to Greek). But what is the relationship
between 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 complete
in 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, dass
Nevertheless, the author approaches the two text versions as different in dieser Studie der Nachweis der Abhängigkeit des
witnesses until definitive proof for the opposite is delivered. Schenker protomassoretischen Textes von der hebräischen Vorlage der LXX
observes 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 die
26 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 not
formulated at the end of the book. Throughout the chapters it is always consider this Reihenfolge problem relevant for their ventures. Neither do
the reconstructed Hebrew Vorlage of LXX which is prevalent, be it Codex many commentators consider this problem an issue. Among those who
Vaticanus 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. For
Hebrew Vorlage of LXX preceded the textual form we now know as MT. both positions, however, arguments can be found. Therefore a thorough
But 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 analysis
4.1.2 The place of the Naboth narrative in 1 Kgs 20-22 The order in MT is characterised as a narrative triptych, with Ahab’s
One of the important differences between MT Kgs and LXX Reg can be Aramaean wars on both sides and in the centre the Naboth narrative, a
found 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 is
of Ben-Hadad’s Aramaean war, which it precedes in the old Greek. punished with defeat and indeed with death in his next battle against the
Another passage, the Jehoshaphat narrative of LXX 3 Reg 16:28a-h, is
28 30
Schenker, Älteste Textgeschichte, 8 Josephus, Ant. Jud. VIII, 355-362, 363-393
29 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 the
individual 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 a
The 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 belong
the defeat in the second Aramaean war in chapter 22. together is significant for the Verhältnisbestimmung between MT and
In LXX, the Naboth narrative precedes the account of the two Aramaean LXX. At the end of Ch. 20, Ahab takes responsibility for rashly releasing
wars 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 defeat
Exactly 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’s
order is original, compare the Aramaean war narratives with the Elijah decision to save king Ahab in the first instance but leaves him and brings
narratives 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, can
be inverted, because it is very well possible that the Naboth narrative was But LXX sports some narrative difficulties, too. How can the distance be
moved 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 by
32 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 Naboth
is a personal error of Ahab versus his neighbour, against local traditions (21:27). Schenker thinks these years fit the redactors, both because of
and against the law of JHWH. Separation of the Aramaean war stories on their theological framework and because of the need to keep the
the 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 Kgs
20:42) and the punishment for eliminating Naboth (announced in 1 Kgs And indeed, MT points out that Ahab reigned 22 years. Josaphat began to
21:19-24) 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 Ahaziah
Schenker’s conclusion from this paragraph is that his narrative analysis begins to reign over Israel in Josaphat’s 17th year. Maybe Ahaziah was
does 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’
34
to 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 the
The 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). The
indicators (21:1, 22:1) tie it together more strongly. Step by step, Ahab result: a chronology which pardons Ahab in his days but which leaves
adds 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 his
applied 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 son
of the death sentence for Ahab and his pardoning until the days of his would have come. The problem is even more poignant because the
son. 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 foreign
What 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 between
probable, Schenker asserts37. Jehoshaphat of Judah and Joram of Israel. In this version, both
Schenker continues to prove the probability of LXX as original version by Jehoshaphat and Joram can possibly be involved in the battle against
means 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 Joram
different 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 of
1 Kgs 22. The placement of the Jehoshaphat passage is closely connected According to MT, Elisha is appointed Elijah’s successor before the war
with 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 to
with in the above chapter. The summary is placed after Ahab’s death in heaven took place during Jehoshaphat’s reign. In LXX, however, the
MT and according to Schenker this points to the fact that the summaries ascension takes place after Jehoshaphat’s death and Elisha never has a
belong 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 to
create 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 would
unchallenged. remove king Jehoshaphat from the Moabite war to replace him by the
insignificant and unfavoured (4 Reg 8:24-27) Ahaziah. Another argument
Any 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, which
king 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 was
LXX, however, Ochozias (Ahaziah), Jehoshaphat’s grandson and Joram of Ataliah’s son and Ahab’s son-in-law. A comparison between 1 Kgs 22:5,7
Judah’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
38
footnote. 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 inherited
the 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’s
in 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 his
Schenker concludes that for narrative reasons, the MT version of 2 Kgs 3 repentance – which may very well have been wholehearted (see 3 Reg
is the secondary version, to which the Jehoshaphat chronology fits best. 20:16, 27), but which was not consequent enough. Nevertheless, JHWH
So 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 unworked
version 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 the
4.1.6 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 incoherency
crowd of commentators consider LXX as secondary on this point. with MT 2 Kgs 9:26. The son in LXX 20:27 appears suddenly, does not
Schenker 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 a
more surprising but also more convincing than the MT version. According clear function in the narrative, although Schenker points to the tradition
39
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 an
impossible 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 9:26
mentioning of the sons of Naboth. The question remains why the
redactors have ‘added’ one son to Naboth’s inventory and not two, in
accordance with MT 2 Kgs 9:26? The absence of Naboth’s son in MT 1 Kgs
21 does not pose any problem, neither in the context of the Naboth
narrative nor in the context of the history of the House of Ahab.
Schenker thinks that the mentioning of Naboth’s son or sons must be
seen as primary reading, mainly because it explains most completely why ‘
Ahab ended up with Naboth’s piece of land. The acceptation of this
course of events provided Ahab with an extra dose of guilt. According to ‘And Ioram son of Achaab reigns over Israel in Samaria twelve
Schenker, MT also offers a ‘fein gesponnen und einleuchtend’ version of years in the eighteenth year of Iosaphat, king of Iouda. And he did
the 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
40
MT, 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 of
4.1.8 Joram the house of Ieroboam who made Israel sin; he did not depart
40 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 house
MT 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 would
Ant 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 his
himself, 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, but
Kgs 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. 43
4.1.9 ‘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 of
not 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), the
will. 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 Jezreel
translation) 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 be
the 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 a
the 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 in
42 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 3
punishment 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. By
The 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 Kgs
changes (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’ and
indicated 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, MT
According 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 the
does not answer the question where Naboth was killed. opposite, leaves the strains to remain in the narrative and thereby is the
Schenker 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 was
located in Samaria and that Naboth’s name ‘the Jezreelite’ is a mere Schenker concludes that the LXX order reflects the original order with the
nickname, 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