A Woman's Place is in the House: Royal Women of Judah and their Involvement in the House of David (JSOT Supplement)

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES 349 Editors David J.A. Clines Philip R. Davies Executive...

Author: Elna K. Solvang

12 downloads 567 Views 4MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES

349

Editors David J.A. Clines Philip R. Davies Executive Editor Andrew Mein Editorial Board Richard J. Coggins, Alan Cooper, J. Cheryl Exum, John Goldingay, Robert P. Gordon, Norman K. Gottwald, John Jarick, Andrew D.H. Mayes, Carol Meyers, Patrick D. Miller

Sheffield Academic Press A Continuum imprint

This page intentionally left blank

A Woman's Place is in the House Royal Women of Judah and their Involvement in the House of David

Elna K. Solvang

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 349

Copyright © 2003 Sheffield Academic Press A Continuum imprint Published by Sheffield Academic Press Ltd The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX 370 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10017-6550 www.continuumbooks.com All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Typeset by Sheffield Academic Press Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain by Bookcraft Ltd, Midsomer Norton, Bath

ISBN 0-8264-6213-8

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments Abbreviations Introduction

ix xi 1 Parti

Chapter 1 WHO ARE THE ROYAL WOMEN OF THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST? Access Industry Service to the Kingdom Cult Dynasty Chapter 2 WOMEN' s PLACE IN THE HOUSE The Women of the Palace To What Does 'Harem' Refer? The Middle Assyrian Palace Decrees Gender Segregation and Royal Women's Activity Analogy to Imperial Turkish Harems Gender Segregation and Royal Women's Activity in Turkish Harems Women's Place in the Royal House Women of the House Leaving One Set of Houses and Entering Another

16 21 30 36 40 46

51 51 52 54 57 58 60 62 65 67

vi

A Woman's Place is in the House

Part II Chapter 3

WHO ARE THE ROYAL WOMEN OF THE HEBREW BIBLE? The gebira Mother of... Wife of... Daughter of The Shape of the Regnal Notices What's a Mother to Do? Beyond the Titles

72 73 78 80 83 85

Chapter 4

MICHAL: A ROYAL DAUGHTER A Man's Place Is in the House The Woman of the House Women Between Houses Women of a Fallen House A Woman without a House A Man without a House God's Place Is in the House A Woman's Place Is in the House

87 88 95 99 105 108 113 120 122

Chapter 5

BATHSHEBA: A QUEEN MOTHER One House Only Taking in the Royal House Keeping an Eye on the House A New Woman in the House Dis-placement in the Royal House Re-placement in the Royal House: A Matter of Succession Securing the Royal House A Queen Mother in the House of David

124 125 127 134 13 7 139 144 149 152

Chapter 6

ATHALIAH : A QUEEN AND A KING One House or Two? Missing a Link Emptying Out the House A House within a House Replacing the House

15 4 154 158 159 161 162

Contents Retaking the House The Missing Link: Remembering Athaliah

vii 163 167

CONCLUSION: THE ROYAL WOMEN OF JUDAH AND THE HOUSE OF DAVID

173

Bibliography Index of References Index of Authors

177 189 195


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The beginnings of this project lie in a PhD seminar led by Professor J. J.M. Roberts. Although he was on sabbatical when the dissertation was completed, his teaching and his challenges had a profound influence on this work. Deepest thanks are due to Professor Dennis T. Olson whose gentle guidance as chair of my dissertation committee served to focus my questions, rein in my subjects, and direct my attention, without tempering my enthusiasm for this project. He has continued to provide critical guidance as this project has moved from dissertation to publication. It is a privilege to work with him. Sincere gratitude is expressed to Professor Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, whose expertise in history and feminist inquiry are reflected in this work, and to Professor Jacqueline E. Lapsley, whose contributions in the final stage of the dissertation corrected and improved it in many ways. Remaining weaknesses in the project are mine, not theirs. Six former colleagues lent inspiration to this project through their example of women creatively and powerfully operating within an organization: Mary W. Anderson, Mary D. Pellauer, Charlotte D. Williams, Jan EricksonPearson, Gail Liggett-Watson and Sylvia Pate. My affection and respect for them is boundless. Professor Ralph W. Klein has been a gracious source of encouragement through his scholarship and his enthusiasm for my academic interests and progress. My parents, Arthur and Lillian Sievert Solvang, remained hopeful for the day when this project would be complete. May they be honored for their love and support. My colleagues in the Religion Department at Concordia College, Moorhead, MN, urged this project to completion through their interest, feedback, respect for my designated writing times, and, most of all, through their own accomplishments in scholarship and teaching. With their help I have found that diligence in both brings a double measure of discovery and delight.

x


Special tribute goes to two princely men: William S. Campbell, who has been guide and goad through every step of this process and kept a watchful eye on me during a whole summer of writing and Arthur M. Sutherland, whose cooking, companionship, theological questioning and loving encouragement made life richer and more enjoyable Finally, I thank the editors of Sheffield Academic Press for their interest in this study and for their care in bringing it to publication. May this work be a window into the royal houses of centuries past and a framework for recognizing the women who were actors in and representatives of them.

ABBREVIATIONS AASOR AB ABD ABL

ABRL ADD AfO ALASP ANET

AnOr AOAT AOS ARM ARMT ArOr AS ASOR BA BARev BASOR BDB

BUS Bib BibRes BJS BKAT BMes

Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research Anchor Bible David Noel Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992) R.F. Harper (ed.), Assyrian and Babylonian Letters Belonging to the Kouyunjik Collections of the British Museum (14 vols.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1892-1914) Anchor Bible Reference Library C.H.W. Johns (ed.), Assyrian Deeds and Documents (4 vols.; Cambridge: Deighton, Bell and Co., 1898-1923) Archivfur Orientforschung Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syren-Palastinas und Mesopotamiens James B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 3rd edn, 1969) Analecta orientalia Alter Orient und Altes Testament American Oriental Series Archives royales de Mari Archives royales de Mari, transcrite et traduite Archiv orientalni Assyriological Studies American Schools of Oriental Research Biblical Archaeologist Biblical Archaeology Review Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Francis Brown, S.R. Driver and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907) Biblia hebraica stuttgartensia Biblica Biblical Research Brown Judaic Studies Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament Bibliotheca mesopotamica

Xll BZAW CAD

CBQ

CBQMS ConBOT CRRAI CSJH CT

CTH CTN EA

FOIL HALOT

HAR HSM HSS IBC IEJ JBL JCS

JEA JEOL JHNES JNES JSOT JSOTSup JSS Kbo KlPaitly KTU

KUB LCL

A Woman's Place is in the House BeiheftezurZ4FF Ignace I. Gelb et al. (eds.), The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1956-) Catholic Biblical Quarterly Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Monograph Series Coniectanea biblica, Old Testament Compte Rendu de la Recontre Assyriologique International Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum E. Laroche (ed.), Catalogue des Textes hittites (Paris: Klincksieck, 1971) Cuneiform Texts from Nimrud El-Amarna tablets (J.A. Knudtzon, Die el-Amarna-Tafeln [Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1908-1915; repr.; Aalen: Otto Zeller, 1964]); continued in A.F. Rainey, El-Amarna tablets, 359-379 (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; 2nd rev. edn, 1978) The Forms of the Old Testament Literature L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner and J.J. Stamm, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (trans, and ed. M.E.J. Richardson; 4 vols.; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994-2000) Hebrew Annual Review Harvard Semitic Monographs Harvard Semitic Studies Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching Israel Exploration Journal Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Cuneiform Studies Journal of Egyptian Archaeology Jaarbericht...ex oriente lux Johns Hopkins Near Eastern Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazkoi(Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1916-) Der kleine Pauly M. Dietrich, 0. Loretz and J. Sanmartin (eds.), Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit (AOAT, 24.1; Miinster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1976-) Keilschrifiurkunden aus Boghazkoi Loeb Classical Library

Abbreviations LSI MARI MVAG ND NorTT OBT OLA Or OTL PR U RA RANE RS S AA SAAB SAAS SBS ScrHier TCS TZ UF Ugaritica V

VT VTSup WBC WVDOG ZA ZA W

H.G. Liddell, Robert Scott and H. Stuart Jones, GreekEnglish Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 9th edn, 1968) Mari: Annales de recherches interdisciplinaires Mitteilungen der vorderasiatisch-agyptischen Gesellschaft Nimrud Documents Norsk Teologisk Tidsskrift Overtures to Biblical Theology Orientalia lovaniensia analecta Orientalia Old Testament Library Le palais royal d' Ugarit Revue d 'assyriologie et d 'archeologie orientale Records of the Ancient Near East Ras Shamra State Archives of Assyria State Archives of Assyria Bulletin State Archives of Assyria Studies Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Scripta hierosolymitana Texts from Cuneiform Sources Theologische Zeitschrift Ugarit-Forschungen Ugaritica V: Nouveaux textes accadiens, hourrites et ugaritiques des archives et bibliotheques privees d'Ugarit (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1968) Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum, Supplements Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Veroffentlichungen der deutschen Orientgellschaft Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

Kill


INTRODUCTION ...the interviewer asked. Can you imagine a world where women are absent. (He believed he was joking.)1

Monarchy in the ancient Near East and in Israel is most often represented as a world of men only'. Legitimacy, loyalty, authority and narrative subjectivity are attributed to male members of the royal house and to male pretenders to the throne. The patriarchal structure of ancient society is interpreted as categorically resistant to and suspicious of female leadership and power. Some allowance is made in the discussion for the involvement of queen mothers in matters of succession and co-regency for a minor who inherits the throne, but active leadership on the part of a royal woman is attributed nearly uniformly by scholars to her personality or to her having taken advantage of some weakness or incapacity on the part of the 'legitimate' male ruler. While the representation of monarchy has retained a 'men only' character, over the past 50 years archaeological discoveries and scholarly research have increasingly brought to light evidence of royal women's involvement in this institution. Such results have been reported and discussed in Egyptian, Hittite, Ugaritic, Mari, Assyrian, Sumerian and Baby Ionian research.2 1. A. Rich, The Dream of a Common Language: Poems 1974-1977 (New York: W.W.Norton, 1978), p. 61. 2. B.F. Batto, Studies on Women at Mari (JHNES; Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974); J.-M. Durand, 'L'organisation de 1'espace dans le palais de Mari: Le temoignage des textes', in E. Levy (ed.), Le systeme palatial en Orient, en Grece et a Rome (Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg 19-22 Juin 1985; Travaux du Centre de Recherche sur le Proche-Orient et la Grece Antiques, 9; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1987), pp. 39-110; A. Gotze, 'liber die hethitische Konigsfamilie', ArOr 2.1 (March 1930), pp. 153-63; B.S. Lesko (ed.), Women's Earliest Records from Ancient Egypt and Western Asia: Proceedings of the Conference on Women in the Ancient Near East, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, November 5-7,1987 (BJS,166; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989); H. Lewy, 'Nitokris-Naqi'a', JNES 11.1 (1952), pp. 264-86; S. Pollock, 'Women in aMen's World: Images of Sumerian Women', in J.M. Gero and M.W. Conkey (eds.), Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory (Oxford:

2


Though the evidence of actual practice has produced great changes in perceptions of the role of royal women, it has not fundamentally altered the perception of monarchy as a 'men only' theological, political and social institution.3 This study begins by re-examining ancient monarchies. Chapter 1 presents available data about royal women in the ancient Near East in categories that reflect women's involvement within the central functions of the monarchy: access, industry, cult, service, dynasty.4 The categorizations move beyond traditional dichotomies of public/male versus domestic/ female to identify functional areas in which royal men and women both participate on behalf of the monarchy. This does not imply that men and women necessarily perform the same roles or possess the same forms of power, but that the functioning of monarchy is dependent upon the interaction of these roles and powers. This study takes into account the power dynamics and duties of the dynastic household, an extended family operation requiring leadership and cooperation across gender and generations, and argues for the necessity and legitimacy of royal women's involvement in the various ancient monarchies. Royal women were necessary actors precisely because the palace was the government center and rule was exercised through a dynastic house. Women's roles within the family were the bases for their political activity. To be a mother, wife or daughter was not only to be related to a man, but also to be responsible for the functions of that position within the work and symbols of the royal house. Jehad Aboud's study of the royal family in Ugarit documents the involvement of all family members in international relations, administration and cult.5 Michael Heltzer's examination of governmental organization in Basil Blackwell, 1991), pp. 366-87; G. Robins, Women in Ancient Egypt (London: British Museum Press, 1993); J. Tyldesley, Hatchepsut: The Female Pharaoh (New York: Viking, 1996). 3. Among the notable exceptions are the studies by J. Aboud, Die Rolle des Konigs undseiner Familie nach den Texten von Ugarit (Forschungen zur Anthropologie und Religionsgeschichte, 27; Miinster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1994); M. Heltzer, The Internal Organization of the Kingdom of Ugarit: Royal Service-System, Taxes, Royal Economy, Army and Administration (Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 1982); S.R. Bin-Nun, The Tawananna in the Hittite Kingdom (Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitatsverlag, 1975). 4. The content of these functional categories will be described in detail in Chapter 1. 5. Aboud, Die Rolle des Konigs und seiner Familie.

Introduction

3

the kingdom of Ugarit demonstrates the extended development of the royal economy and the extensive network of officials, servants, 'friends' and 'dependents' connected to the king and to the queen mother.6 Both studies serve to broaden the inquiry from a focus on 'what is the king doing?' to 'how does the royal house rule?' The expanded picture calls for recognition of a variety of actors in monarchy, inclusive of women and men of various statuses. When the historical data are pictured in other than male/public/ autonomous and female/domestic/subordinate categories, other realities of ancient kingdoms come more clearly into view. Among these is the hierarchy that existed among the women of the palace and the significance of this hierarchy for the stability and continuity of the monarchy. The hierarchy is not simply constructed on the basis of sexual relations with the king, as is often presumed. As will be described in Part I of this study, such hierarchies appear to be a product of and in service to a broad range of monarchical concerns including intra- and international relations, national defense, economic development and cultic leadership, in addition to the matter of peaceful succession from one generation of ruler to the next. The woman at the top of the hierarchy is most frequently the mother of the king and it is she, not the king, who appears to exercise authority over the other royal women, as well as young royal men and administrative staff. At the point of transition to a new king, the senior member of the royal family is most frequently the queen mother. Discussion of ancient monarchies needs to take account of the significance of these complex power relations. This broader picture of the activity of monarchy requires a corresponding shift in the way 'power' is defined and the way it is viewed as being exercised. The concept of power operative in this study—and within ancient monarchies—is not restricted to juridical systems, nor to relationships of domination, prohibition or punishment. It is more in keeping with Michel Foucault's observation that power circulates throughout the whole social body, so that individuals 'are always in the position of simultaneously undergoing and exercising this power'.7 While the king remains the chief symbol and senior official of the royal house, it becomes clear that all power does not derive from him. He is also

6. Heltzer, Internal Organization of the Kingdom of Ugarit. 1. M. Foucault, Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 19721977 (trans. C. Gordon, L. Marshall, J. Mepham and K. Soper; New York: Pantheon Books, 1980), p. 98.

4


subject to the power exercised by others.8 Heltzer observes in the organization of the royal bureaucracy in Ugarit 'a number of limitations of royal power and prerogatives'.9 Among these are the recognized power of the queen mother, the vassal status of Ugarit in relationship to other kingdoms, and the existence of a degree of local self-government alongside the state administrative apparatus. Foucault's model of power is useful in examining the question 'how does the royal house rule?' Foucault views power, not as 'a phenomenon of one individual's consolidated and homogeneous domination over others', but as 'employed and exercised through a net-like organisation'.10 Such an approach takes seriously the social nature of the royal house, ignoring artificial oppositions between public and private, male and female, legitimate and illegitimate, in order to explore how 'relations of power are interwoven with other kinds of relations (production, kinship, family, sexuality)'.11 Discussion of ancient monarchies also needs to re-examine perceptions of restrictions upon royal women's movement, interaction and public appearance. Chapter 2 of this study considers whether royal women are limited to a particular space and whether that space determines the limits of their functions within the monarchy. Scholars often use the term 'harem' to describe the ancient references to the 'women of the palace' and the archaeological evidence of clusters of royal apartments. The term 'harem' is an interpretation of the ancient context, since no equivalent term is found in the documents. More importantly, the term 'harem' and its association with the Turkish Ottoman Empire appear to have had a significant effect on scholarly discourse about ancient royal women, emphasizing their seclusion and focusing their activity on sex and succession. Chapter 2 raises cautions about the use of the term 'harem' and the assumption that congregate living in one or more parts of the palace implies that royal women were deliberately cut off from contact and involvement beyond those walls. The ancient

8. Foucault observes that 'the State, for all the omnipotence of its apparatuses, is far from being able to occupy the whole field of actual power relations.. .because the State can only operate on the basis of other, already existing power relations' (Power/ Knowledge, p. 122). 9. Heltzer, Internal Organization of the Kingdom of Ugarit, p. 181. 10. Foucault, Power/Knowledge, p. 98. 11. Foucault, Power/Knowledge, p. 142.

Introduction

5

evidence of royal women's involvement presented in Chapter 1 suggests otherwise. In addition, Chapter 2 draws upon the study by Leslie P. Peirce of harem women in the Ottoman Empire to demonstrate how gender segregation may actually facilitate the power and involvement of women in imperial governance, cult and service.12 Peirce focuses on the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, a period in which there was 'a gradual transition from a state geared to expansion and led by a warrior sultan to a territorially stable bureaucratic state ruled by a sedentary palace sultan'.13 The royal house was 'the premier household of the empire',14 hence, Peirce cautions, it is a mistake to apply 'modern (post-seventeenth century) Western notions of a public/private dichotomy, in which the family is seen as occupying private, nonpolitical space'.15 Peirce notes, The roles played by royal women in the distribution and management of power within the dynastic family, as well as their roles as public exemplars of the dynasty's legitimacy, munificence, and piety, tell us a good deal about the nature of sovereignty and Ottoman claims to legitimacy.16

Peirce's study demonstrates that although in the Ottoman Empire, with the exception of the queen mother, 'women of the imperial harem were inescapably confined to the palace', through 'networks of power' effected by access to wealth and property, and their roles as educators of men and women, administrators of slaves and servants, arrangers of marriages, and sponsors of public projects, royal women 'could work different sectors of public government'.17 Such evidence forces the re-evaluation of common assumptions regarding gendered space and power and their application to ancient monarchies. While this study asserts the necessity and legitimacy of women's involvement in the royal households of the ancient Near East, it does so in the context of the ancient patriarchal social structure and not in terms of 12. L.P. Peirce, The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire (Studies in Middle Eastern History; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993). 13. Peirce, Imperial Harem, p. x. 14. Peirce, Imperial Harem, p. viii. 15. Peirce, Imperial Harem, p. 6. 16. Peirce, Imperial Harem, p. viii. 17. L.P. Peirce, 'Beyond Harem Walls: Ottoman Royal Women and the Exercise of Power', inD.O. Helly and S.M. Reverby (eds.), Gendered Domains: Rethinking Public and Private in Women's History. Essays from the Seventh Berkshire Conference on the History of Women (Ithaca, "NY: Cornell University Press, 1992), pp. 40-55 (48, 54).

6


contemporary Western constructions of gender equality. To argue that women and men are both essential and valid actors in ancient monarchies is not to argue that women had equal access to the same public roles as men (or vice-versa), or that either men or women acted autonomously. These twentieth-century Western criteria, which assign status to extradomestic pursuits and presume power is exercised only from a 'superior' position, are incompatible with the definition of royal household, ancient or modern. One look at the contemporary monarchy in Britain (a predominantly ceremonial royal house) reveals the inseparability of 'public' and 'domestic' matters and the inappropriateness of autonomy as a measure of real power. This study does not assume that ancient royal women were free from gender-based expectations, restrictions and representations, but considers, as has been the case throughout the centuries, that these co-existed with a need, demand and respect for royal women's actual participation. It is the evidence across ancient Near Eastern monarchies of royal women's real power to exercise and influence rule, and of their actual involvement in the monarchical functions of access, industry, cult, service and dynasty that lead to describing royal women's participation as necessary, integral and legitimate. While Part I of this study discusses historical data concerning ancient Near Eastern monarchies, Part II focuses on the women of the monarchy in Judah as presented in the biblical text. It is the thesis of this study that the royal women of Judah are portrayed in the narratives as essential actors in and representatives oftheJudean monarchy. Consequently, any political or theological interpretation of the biblical depiction of the Judean monarchy that fails to consider their contributions and perspective is incomplete. Part I of this study provides a historical-anthropological model of monarchy that will be employed in the reading of the biblical texts in Part II. These historical data in Part I parallel the thesis at the heart of this study but do not prove it. The essential contributions of royal women in the biblical portrayal of Judah's monarchy will be demonstrated on the basis of a narrative reading of the biblical text itself. The focus of attention in Part II will be on the books of Samuel and Kings within the Deuteronomistic History. These texts contain the heart of Judah's royal theology and royal story. Source- and redaction-critical studies have dominated consideration of these texts in the twentieth century. Of particular significance has been Leonhard Rost's argument concerning the unity and original independence

Introduction

1

of a 'throne succession narrative' (2 Sam. 9-20; 1 Kgs 1-2),18 its essentially historical representation of the Davidic monarchy, and its composition during the early years of Solomon's reign. The many subsequent proposals for revision and challenges to Rost's theory have perpetuated the emphasis on the political-historical character of these passages and their ideological purpose in legitimating the reign of Solomon.19 The present study does not begin with questions concerning the origin and construction of these passages; consequently it does not consider a 'History of David's Rise' or a 'Succession Narrative'. Such labels, while convenient and useful for other discussions, compel a political reading of the texts and an emphasis on certain (male) characters over others. While this study is interested in the politics of the royal household, it is not concerned with tracing the political development of the kingdom of Judah. Nor will this study focus on the compositional history of the narrative. The reading will concentrate on the final form of the text.20 The term 'Deuteronomistic History' is adopted in this study and reference is made to the 'writer' and 'Deuteronomistic Historian'. The study recognizes a particular connection among these books in the canon and their narration of a history of the nation of Israel/Judah. It is assumed that the text as it now appears in the books of Samuel and Kings was completed not long after the fall of Jerusalem. The artistry of the narrative is admired and honored, but this study does not pursue questions of the identity, location and political affiliation of the author, nor the overall framework and theme(s) of the 'history'.21 This study also acknowledges the 18. L. Rost, Die Uberlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1926); ET. The Succession to the Throne of David (Historic Texts and Interpreters, 1; trans. M.D. Rutter and D. M. Gunn; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1982). 19. Regina M. Schwartz is critical of biblical scholars for making false assumptions about the nature of 'history' and requiring that the Deuteronomistic History represent development, continuity and thematic coherence. See 'The Histories of David: Biblica Scholarship and Biblical Stories', in J.P. Rosenblatt and J.C. Sitterson, Jr (eds.), 'Not in Heaven': Coherence and Complexity in Biblical Narrative (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991), pp. 192-210. 20. The text to be read will be the MT. Occasionally, where the LXX and Qumra evidence suggest a textual corruption in the MT manuscript the LXX or Qumran will b used. 21. The foundational work identifying Judges-2 Kings as the work of a single author and its theme as the justification of exile because of the relentless apostasy of Judah, is Martin Noth, Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (Tubingen: Max Niemeyer, 2nd edn, 1957).

8


complex nature of the Deuteronomistic History, which combines a proDavidic perspective, focused on the divine election of David and the promise of an eternal dynasty, with less-than-flattering reports of David and the Judean monarchy. The results of this study will not answer the question 'what really happened?' For the nation of Israel/Judah the historical evidence of the monarchy is quite slim and highly contested.22 Instead, the study will focus on the story of Judah's monarchy as it has been constructed in narrative form, attending to the roles and activities of the royal women in that story. A narrative methodology will be adopted for Part II of this study. This is necessitated by the nature of the materials. Though the biblical text of Samuel and Kings has elements of historiography, descriptions of ritual, a synchronic reporting of kings, and other literary forms that correspond to the historical materials unearthed in the remains of the kingdoms of Ugarit, Mari, Egypt, Assyria and Babylon, the biblical text is a unique composition—a unitary text, preserved through time, canonized with other written texts, and claimed for religious purposes. The annals, lists, receipts, inscriptions, seals, treaties, correspondence and other materials from which the histories of other ancient Near Eastern kingdoms are constructed do not share this same degree of unity and continuity. The biblical text is a constructed narrative presentation of the monarchy of Judah. Its ideological purposes are well recognized in historical-critical scholarship and its historical 'accuracy' the subject of intense debate. As a narrative composition, it is amenable to narrative methods of inquiry. While this study does not set out to prove congruity between the Deuteronomistic History and the history of a nation Israel/Judah, it does not dismiss the existence of such a nation. The study assumes that the nation, however large, small, strong or weak it might have been, is 'the historical, biographical, and ideological reality from which the text emerges'.23 The

22. See, e.g., D. Ussishkin, 'Was the "Solomonic Gate" at Megiddo Built by King Solomon?', BASOR 239 (1980), pp. 1-18; A. Biran and J. Naveh, 'An Aramaic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan', IEJ43 (1993), pp. 81-98; P.R. Davies, In Search of 'Ancient Israel'(JSOTSup, 148; Sheffield: JSOTPress, 1992); I. Finkelstein, 'The Archaeology of the United Monarchy: An Alternate View', Levant 28 (1996), pp. 177-87; G.N. Knoppers, 'The Vanishing Solomon: The Disappearance of the United Monarchy from Recent Histories of Ancient Israel', JBL 116.1 (1997), pp. 19-44. 23. M. Bal, 'Introduction', in idem, (ed.), Anti-Covenant: Counter-Reading Women's Lives in the Hebrew Bible (JSOTSup, 81; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1989), pp. 11-24(14).

Introduction

9

text—a constructed history—is a 'figuration of the reality that brought it forth and to which it responded'.24 This study begins with curiosity about the royal women of Judah and reads the biblical passages where these women appear. Methodologically it examines the literary presentation of their presence and involvement in the royal household, focusing on the three fundamental narratological questions: Who speaks! Who seesl Who acts!25 Of particular significance in this reading process is the recognition that 'narrative roles do not coincide with subjective positions',26 meaning that even a character who does not speak or is acted upon may be central to the narrative. In 2 Sam. 11, for example, Bathsheba speaks only two Hebrew words ('I'm pregnant') and is the object of David's desire and summons; nevertheless, her presence in the narrative focuses attention back on David and forces the reader to reevaluate David as chief representative of the 'premier household of the empire'. Likewise Athaliah, though she is defeated by a coup led by the priest Jehoiada (2 Kgs 11), serves to focus attention on and raise questions about the promised 'forever' nature of the Davidic monarchy. Reading the biblical text with narrative techniques does not eliminate the need for historical understandings. As a representation of Judah's monarchy whose content differs greatly from the twenty-first-century context, the biblical text requires some knowledge of history in order to comprehend its story. Regardless of the date of composition of the text, the narrative is set in a particular time and place. Even if the narrative is regarded as a 'didactic' text which does not reflect 'the actual relations of events among groups and individuals of the early Iron Age... Rather the needs of the writers and their audiences...centuries later',27 it is set in Iron Age Palestine and adopts a monarchical form of government which it instructs the reader to view as 'like all the nations' (DîT^DD; 1 Sam. 8.5). 24. M. Bal, Death and Dissymmetry: The Politics of Coherence in the Book of Judges (CSJH; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988), p. 3. 25. See Bal, 'Introduction', p. 17. 26. Bal, Death and Dissymmetry, p. 36. 27. T.L. Thompson, The Bible in History: How Writers Create a Past (London: Jonathan Cape, 1999), pp. 59, 68. Thompson argues that the formation of the biblical narrative 'had its earliest roots in the period of Assyria's domination of Palestine, but the understanding of Israel we know from the tradition first arose during the late Persian or early Hellenistic period and was not fully developed before the time of the Maccabees' (The Bible in History, p. 81). Thompson's argument is against the use of biblical materials in the reconstruction of Israel's history. His argument does not affect the use of history in providing a context for reading the biblical text.

10


The patterns of participation in the functions of monarchy developed in Part I of this study represent those nations from whom Judah may have drawn in constructing (narratively and/or historically) its own monarchy. Knowledge of the variety, depth and particular stories of royal women's involvement in the monarchies of Judah's neighbors assists the reader in imagining the events and dynamics presented in the biblical narrative and recognizing their significance. The biblical writer, for example, clearly assumes the reader's knowledge of the role of kings in temple building and the role of queen mothers in succession. The biblical text does not describe these functions but the functions become self-evident through analogy with other royal houses. Knowledge of customary royal practice also draws attention to the exceptional cases within the biblical text, such as David's failure to build a temple for Yahweh and the regular appearance of the queen mother's name in the notices of Judean royal succession. Familiarity with the historical functioning of monarchies assists the reader in recognizing the subjective role of royal women in the biblical narratives. For example, the writer presumes the reader recognizes the positive leadership royal women were to provide on behalf of the Yahweh cult when reporting that King Asa removed the queen mother Maacah from the position ofgebird for setting up an Asherah (1 Kgs 15.13). There would be no reason to report this action if, unlike Judah's neighbors, the religious activities of Judah's royal women were private, insignificant or consistently unorthodox. Though Maacah never speaks in the passage, her visibility, authority and influence in the kingdom are clearly reflected in the action Asa takes against her. To assist in the interpretation of both the literary texts and the historical information, this study draws upon insights from feminist cultural anthropology. This discipline has expertise in examining the roles of women in patriarchal social structures and in sorting through questions regarding their evaluation. The focus of this study, as a consequence, is not limited to the 'contributions' royal women make to kingship, but is more broadly geared to understanding 'how these women organized their lives and claims'.28 Additionally, it attempts to avoid 'the assumption that society is the simple product of the individuals who compose it',29 by giving close attention to the relationships and expectations that link women and men together as 'partners and/or competitors in an ongoing and constraining 28. M.Z. Rosaldo, 'The Use and Abuse of Anthropology: Reflections on Feminism and Cross-Cultural Understanding', Signs 5.3 (spring 1980), pp. 389-417 (411). 29. Rosaldo, 'Use and Abuse of Anthropology', p. 414 n. 51.

Introduction

11

social process'.30 This approach to cultural analysis helps to make clear that references to women as 'daughter of, 'wife of and 'mother of are indications of social position, power and responsibility within complex networks of 'interdependence, politics and hierarchy'.31 In the social organization examined in the chapters of this study, it appears to twenty-first-century interpreters that there is a clear asymmetry between men and women in 'the nature and organization of obligations and the availability of public reward'.32 It is common practice to assess this asymmetry by speaking of women's relative lack of power, status and value in the ancient society. What this does is to take an interpretation of one expression of social organization and universalize it to all forms of ancient cultural life. It is to assume a pure and consistent standard of evaluative measures across a society and an absolute system of social ranking and authority. This, however, is an over-simplification of social dynamics. It would imply that prophetesses have no authority over kings (contrary to Huldah's prophecy to Josiah in 2 Kgs 22.15-20) and a woman could never act on her own behalf (contrary to Abigail's decision to accept David's marriage offer in 1 Sam. 25.42). Cultural anthropology warns of the tendency of Western interpreters to assess power in terms of personal goals,33 to fail to view women's activities as 'political precisely because they are women's activities and women are not denned as political actors',34 and to make distinctions between 'power' and 'authority' without realizing both may be 'culturally recognized'.35 This study attempts to proceed with the wisdom and lessons of feminist cultural anthropology as guides in examining both the ancient historical data and the biblical narrative. It must be remembered, however, that this study does not propose to do the work of the cultural anthropologist or historian in proving the thesis that the royal women of Judah are portrayed in the narratives as essential actors in and representatives of the Judean monarchy. That royal women were significantly involved in the monar30. Rosaldo, 'Use and Abuse of Anthropology', p. 414. 31. Rosaldo, 'Use and Abuse of Anthropology', p. 412. 32. J.F. Collier and M.Z. Rosaldo, 'Politics and Gender in Simple Societies', in S.B. Ortner andH. Whitehead (eds.), Sexual Meanings: The Cultural Construction of Gender and Sexuality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), pp. 275-329 (218). 33. J. Dubisch, 'Introduction', in idem (ed.), Gender and Power in Rural Greece (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986), pp. 3-41 (27). 34. Dubisch, 'Introduction', p. 24. 35. Dubisch, 'Introduction', p. 18.

12


chies of Judah's neighbors does not prove that they were in Judah. Moreover, at the end this study will not reconstruct, prove or disprove the historical reality of Judah's monarchy and royal women's involvement in it. Instead, it will establish whether or not the literary account of the Judean monarchy as presented in the biblical text depicts royal women as included in and representative of the monarchy of Judah. The historical-anthropological model developed in Part I of this study will bring insight to reading this narrative of'the nature of sovereignty' and 'claims to legitimacy'. The focus of this study is the women of the royal house of Judah. The reference to Judah is adopted to reflect the direction of inquiry after the division of the kingdom. This does not imply that the Northern Kingdom had a different form of monarchy than the South (e.g. a charismatic vs. hereditary understanding of kingship); it simply reflects the emphasis in the narrative on the continuity of the Davidic monarchy through the period of division up to the destruction of Jerusalem. Attention to one kingdom provides a more adequate basis for demonstrating that royal women were presented in the text as integrally involved in and representatives of that royal house. The attention to royal women in Part II of this study begins with the reign of Saul and the royal daughters Merab and Michal. Regardless of the political history of Israel and whatever differences might have existed between the kingdoms of Saul and David, in the biblical narrative Saul's is the first royal household. The text refers to Saul as king, marriage to his daughters makes one a 'son-in-law to the king' (1 Sam. 18.18), and Saul's son Jonathan is expected to follow his father on the throne. Though God rejects Saul as king (1 Sam. 15.26), nevertheless Saul continues to serve in that position and members of his house (male and female) continue to represent a claim to royalty and to rule well into the period of the kingdom of David and long after the divine promise articulated in 2 Samuel 7. Part II of this study begins by exploring 'Who Are the Royal Women of the Hebrew Bible?' Chapter 3 presents the range of categories of royal rank and role that appear in the books of Samuel and Kings. The biblical narrative presents the women of the Judean monarchy as involved in the same functions as their counterparts in neighboring royal households. There is discussion of the relative absence of official titles for women in both the biblical and historical materials. There is also an extended examination of a phenomenon that appears particular to the biblical account of the Judean monarchy, that is, the inclusion of the names of queen mothers in the regnal notices announcing the reign of their sons. The rhetorical

Introduction

13

significance of this inclusion in connection to the promise of an everlasting 'house' (2 Sam. 7.13) is discussed. Chapters 4-6 look closely at three royal women representing different positions within the royal household: Michal, a royal daughter; Bathsheba, a queen mother; and Athaliah, a queen and a king. There is no attempt to reconstruct these characters historically, to discern their personality or to reconstruct their 'story'. It is assumed that the narrative presents them as acting from their positions of relative rank, power and responsibility within the dynamics of the organization of monarchy. In this approach, their actions have a less idiosyncratic character and the purposes and effects of their behavior can be evaluated in the same context as the men in the narrative. These three chapters demonstrate the range and significance of royal women's involvement in the 'premier household' of the kingdom. More importantly, they open for the reader more angles through which to visualize, critique and interpret the narrative of Judah's monarchy. The oracle in 2 Sam. 7 holds a privileged place in discussions of the Judean monarchy. Dennis J. McCarthy argues that this passage is central to the structure of the Deuteronomistic History. It is the 'climax' to the story of David's rise, emphasizing his role as successor to Moses and Joshua, and a 'program for the future', anticipating the construction of the temple and 'the grace of Yahweh' in the generations of Judean kings to follow.36 Frank M. Cross argues that the theme of the passage is the 'house of David',37 expressive of the Judean royal ideology that 'conceived the choice of the Davidic house and the sanctuary of Zion to be by eternal decree',38 and 'pertinent to the Deuteronomistic theology of history'.39 Cross suggests that in the books of Kings, the 'sin of Jeroboam', which brings destruction to the Northern Kingdom because of religious apostasy, is contrasted with the theme of 'hope in the promises to David and his house',40 which are regularly recalled in the phrase 'for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem which I have chosen'.41 36. DJ. McCarthy, 'II Samuel 7 and the Structure of the Deuteronomistic History', JBL 84 (1965), pp. 131-38. 37. F.M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), p. 246. 38. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, p. 260. 39. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, p. 278. 40. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, p. 285. 41. lKgsll.13,32, 34, 36; 15.4; 2 Kgs 8.19; 19.34; 20.6.

14


This study pursues a very different set of questions in connection with 2 Sam. 7. In examining the narratives in which the royal women of Judah appear, the study asks whether royal women are considered part of the 'house' that Yahweh promises David, or is this la world where women are absent'? Are royal women viewed in the text as representatives of the faithfulness and continuity of this promised house or are they excluded from this arena of divine activity? Chapters 4-6 of this study offer a reading of selected biblical passages and their contributions to understanding the theology and politics of the Judean monarchy. Though these chapters make no claim to be the only appropriate reading of these biblical narratives, they are intended to be preferred over so me other readings. More importantly, these chapters and the study as a whole invite dialogue on the perceptions of monarchy and the assumptions about power and gender that guide scholars in interpreting biblical royal narratives and speaking of Judah's royal house. Far from the last word on the subject, this study aims to be a worthy contribution to those conversations.

Parti

Chapter 1 WHO ARE THE ROYAL WOMEN OF THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST?

The chief categories for royal women in the ancient Near East are mother, wife, sister and daughter of the ruler. Within the category of 'wife' there exists a range of designations such as chief wife, favorite wife, mother of the heir apparent, queen consort, great royal spouse, and chief concubine. What will be demonstrated in the pages that follow is that these categories do more than describe the passive relationship of a woman to the male ruler. They relate the position(s) from which a particular woman takes an active role in the administration of the monarchy. A striking feature that appears across cultures of the ancient Near East—including the Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, Assyrians, Babylonians and Israelites—is the lack of consistency with which administrative titles are applied to women. Feminine parallels to the title 'king' do appear in the ancient texts: Sumerogram: Haitian: Hittite: Akkadian: Ugaritic:

SAL.LUGAL parallel to LUGAL kattah parallel to katte/katti1 hassusara parallel to hassusarratu parallel to sarru malkat- parallel to malk-

These parallels appear chiefly in cultic texts, such as the Hattian-Hittite bilingual rituals, and in seals, where they include the name of the particular 'queen'. It appears that administrative titles were not required for royal women to exercise legitimate authority and receive honor. In the Mari texts, Sibtu, who as wife of the king (LUGAL/sarru) Zimri-Lim was actively involved in the administration of the kingdom, is addressed as beltum, 'lady/mistress'. In his study on the women at Mari, Bernard Batto notes that 'Sibtu

1.

Bin-Nun, Tawananna, p. 344.

1. Who Are the Royal Women of the Ancient Near East?

17

is nowhere explicitly named as the queen, but both her parentage and her correspondence leaves no doubt that she was the queen'.2 Her lack of the title SAL.LUGAL did not interfere with her ability to function 'as the quasi-official head of state in place of the king',3 including supervising male administrators, royal workshops and cultic functions, and communicating with provincial leaders and citizens. Sibtu is only one example in the existing documents of a royal woman holding the rank and authority of 'queen' without bearing a title parallel to that of king. The inconsistency also applies to the way in which administrative titles are applied. For example, the title SAL.LUGAL does not allow one to distinguish whether the woman is the chief wife of the king or the mother of the king.4 For as long as she lived, the 'mother of the king' remained the highest-ranking woman of the kingdom and of the royal family. At the passing of the 'queen mother' or in her absence, the chief wife of the king became the most senior woman in the kingdom. Therefore, while it is necessary and appropriate to use the English term 'queen' to refer to the woman identified by the administrative title SAL.LUGAL, it is essential to bear in mind that the most frequent and useful references to royal women are relational titles, such as AMA.LUGAL ('mother of the king'), assat sarri and sinnistum sa ('wife of). The use of relational titles, applied to men as well as women, reveals the ancient conception of a familial foundation to various social groupings and relationships.5 The government was an extension of the organization of the chief royal household and involved assent to the authority of 'father' and 'mother'. In Akkadian, therefore, a male administrative official was known as a mar ekalli, literally 'a son of the palace'. While such a person was not physically a son of the king, in contrast to mar sarri ('son of the king') referring to the crown prince, the term makes clear that the relational lan-

2. Batto, Studies on Women at Man, p. 9. 3. Batto, Studies on Women at Mari, p. 16. 4. In cases of brother-sister marriage, such as are attested during the Eighteenth Dynasty and Ptolemaic periods in Egypt, in pre-Hittite Anatolia, in fourteenth-century BCE Hayasa (see Suppiluliuma's treaty with Huqqana of Hayasa [C77/42]), and among the Achemenides, the chief wife/queen could also be 'daughter of a king' and 'wife of a king'. 5. The 'sons of Hatti', e.g., designates a part of the Hittite population. See BinNun, Tawananna, p. 112 n. 33. In a letter the king and queen of Ugarit address the Hittite king as 'our father' (RS 19.70 [PRU, IV, p. 294]). Groups of prophets are referred to in Hebrew as 'sons of the prophets' (e.g. 1 Kgs 20.35).

18


guage is part of a broader view of administrative functioning, not limited to gender nor based on sexual involvement. The preference for relational titles is not to be underestimated. Cyrus Gordon observes that 'In hieroglyphic Egyptian there is no word for "queen"... [the] wife of the pharaoh was his hmt "wife", "chief woman in his harem"' .6 In Hebrew, where there is a feminine parallel malka (queen) to melek (king), malka is used only in reference to non-Israelite queens (i.e. the Queen of Sheba, Queen Vashti and Queen Esther) and unspecified queens in Song 6.8-9. The only specific title applied to Israelite royal women is gebird, most frequently translated as 'queen mother' and seen in parallel with tnelek/kmg in Jer. 13.18 and 29.2. While relational titles may sound less official, more informal and more focused on female sexual identity, they are the keys to understanding the hierarchically ordered royal families and realms of the second and first millennia BCE. They are positions of authority and ranking essential to the effective functioning and survival of the monarchy. It is also important to note that the strong activity of a queen did not require weakness on the part of the king. Puduhepa and Tawananna of Hatti, Sibtu of Mari, and Naqia/Zakutu of Assyria are among the queens who feature prominently within the iconography and documentation of their husbands' reigns; still, their husbands are not judged to be deficient or inattentive to their responsibilities. 'Queens' are not acting as 'kings' when they are exercising authority as 'queens'. Women who rule as 'kings' receive that title in the ancient texts: Ku-Baba in the Sumerian King List of the third millennium was called LUGAL ('big man') of the city of Kish;7 Hatshepsut, daughter, wife and stepmother of Egyptian kings, also ruled as king of Egypt during the Eighteenth Dynasty (mid-second millennium). Her throne name (Maatkare), her construction of sanctuaries, her claim of divine birth, her serf-jubilee, and her mortuary temple at Deir el-Bahri are evidence of her full accession to the position of king of Egypt. There is also evidence from her life as queen during the reign of her husband Thutmose II and the first seven years of the reign of her stepson Thutmose III. These monumental and inscriptional 6. C.H. Gordon, 'Ugaritic RBT/Rabitu', in L. Eslinger and G. Taylor (eds.), Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical and Other Studies in Memory of Peter C. Craige (JSOTSup, 67; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988), pp. 127-32 (131). See also Tyldesley, Hatchepsut, p. 50, and Robins, Women in Ancient Egypt, p. 27. 7, T. Jacobsen, The Sumerian King List (Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago; AS, 11; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939), p. 104.


19

references emphasize her activity as 'king's principal wife' and as the priestess 'God's Wife of Amun'.8 The description of royal women's status and functioning generally requires more than one relational title. One woman might hold all of these titles, namely, mother, wife, sister and daughter of the king, in a lifetime. This could occur in cases of brother-sister royal marriages (such as those in Egypt and pre-Hittite Anatolia) where a daughter and son of the same king marry each other and their male offspring becomes heir to the throne, or in cases where a daughter of a king, sister of the next heir, is married to a king of another territory and becomes mother of the successor to the throne in that kingdom. In both situations the woman retains the previous title(s) while assuming the new one. Each represents a position of authority, access and responsibility. It is also possible for a woman to lose her position. For example, a first wife who does not bear a male successor to the throne may lose rank to a secondary wife who does bear a son and eventually moves into the position of 'mother of the king'. The mother of the eldest son and presumed heir loses her status and authority if her son dies before assuming power or if the king passes over her son to select another son as successor. The first wife may be displaced from her rank by the arrival of a subsequent wife through a diplomatic marriage if the terms of that marriage stipulate that the arriving princess receive the title 'first wife' and her sons be designated to inherit the throne.9 One woman's loss of ranking was another woman's gain. The ranking was not merely a contest of personal ambition and personalities on the part of the women, however; it was a sign and essential element of the national and international politics and the ongoing preservation of the ruling house. The relational categories of royal women provide the clearest insights into royal politics. While royal uncles and brothers existed and some brothers did succeed each other on the throne through legitimate and 8. G. Robins, Women in Ancient Egypt (London: British Museum Press, 1993), p. 46. 9. In the treaty between Suppiluliuma I of Hatti and Shattiwaza of Mittanni (CTH 51), Suppiluliuma dictates that 'the daughter of the King of Hatti shall be queen in the land of Mittanni. Concubines will be allowed for you, Shattiwaza, but no other woman shall be greater than my daughter.... You shall not degrade my daughter to second rank. In the land of Mittanni she shall exercise queenship'. In G. Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts (Writings from the Ancient World, 7; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2nd edn, 1999), p. 44.

20


illegitimate means, the chief category of royal men in addition to the king is that of 'sons'. Such a category is necessary for designating the possible successors to the king and the appointed heir, and a hierarchy obviously existed within this category. Status changes occurred based on the desires of the king, on the activities of the sons, on treaties, and on the involvement of other nations in the internal politics of the kingdom.10 Royal women—as wives, daughters11 and mothers—also played a part in those status changes. While the titles of royal women reference their relationship(s) to the king, the position of king is not an independent one. Other royal men (e.g. father, brother, kings of other nations) may determine the rank, access and support a man may claim to legitimate and carry out his kingship. A mother may secure the crown prince designation for her son through her relationship with her husband, the king, and/or through her connections to the palace nobles after the death of her husband, as in the pledge of loyalty Naqia/Zakutu obtained for her grandson Ashurbanipal after the death of her son Esarhaddon.12 It was not merely by force of personality that royal women played significant roles in the monarchies of the ancient Near East; they were expected to take part in shaping the monarchy through personal relations and activities. While some women achieved prominence in meeting those expectations or by chance survival of documentation appear to contemporary 10. For example, the Hittite king Tudhaliya IV intervened to support the Ugaritic queen Ahat-milku in a struggle with two of her sons over the succession to the throne. Tudhaliya and Initesub of Carchemish both supported Ahat-milku and the appointment of her younger son Ammistamru III as king (RS 17.352; 17.35; [PRU, IV, pp. 12123]). Tudhaliya IV also authorized Ammistamru to determine his own successor (RS l7.367[PRU,IV,p. 124]). 11. Sometimes the relationship as royal sister would factor in status changes. For example, civil war broke out in the Hittite Old Kingdom when the nobles rejected Hattusili's son Huzziya because he was born of an unfree woman (pahhurzi) and attempted to install Labarna, the son of Hattusili's sister. The sister was clearly a force in this matter. After Hattusili' s victory he banished his sister while allowing Labarna to remain near him. See Bin-Nun, Tawananna, pp. 23-24,71,111. Though the conflict is between siblings, the royal woman's authority, status and network of support derive from being daughter of the former king. 12. SAA 2.8 in S. Parpola and K. Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths (SAA, 2; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1988), pp. 62-64. Sarah C. Melville notes that this is 'the only Assyrian treaty in existence to have been imposed by someone other than the king': The Role ofNaqia/Zakutu in SargonidPolitics (SAAS, 9; Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1999), p. 86.


21

readers as 'exceptional', nevertheless, all royal women, regardless of rank, were participants in an institution that depended on and was affected by their involvement. Their involvement was not limited to the king himself or even the royal home, but extended to contacts with royal parents in other kingdoms, with nobles of the royal court, with industries and properties of the royal house, and with matters of diplomatic, economic and cultic concern. The functions described in the remainder of this chapter are not individual initiatives of royal women beyond the boundaries of royal roles, but expected activities of royal women, alongside those of royal men, intended to achieve effectiveness, stability and continuity in the monarchy (or to disrupt, reverse and establish a new line of rule). The relational titles of royal women provide both a vertical and horizontal mapping of women's arenas of activity. A senior ranking woman not only had status over other women, but authority that extended more broadly across the court and often into the business and international realms, particularly if one of the sources of her status was as daughter of the king of a neighboring land. The criss-crossing relationships and authorities of royal women were significant for the functioning of the monarchy. To account for the vertical and horizontal dimensions of royal women's status and to illuminate women's contributions to the royal administration, one can organize ancient royal women's activity into five functional areas: access, industry, cult, service and dynasty. Access The status and activity of royal daughters are indications of the political boundaries and strength of a kingdom internally as well as externally. Marriages involving royal daughters were one means of establishing, advancing or stabilizing a particular sovereign's reign. They opened or controlled political access. Brother-sister marriages, for example, limited access to and competition for royal rule, as well as eliminated possible obligations to and involvement with non-royal households. While it is not specified in any of the records the degree to which marriage to a princess benefited the noble families of that kingdom, there is good reason to assume that this could bring access to favorable treatment and economic benefits such as release from taxes, gifts of land, and positions within government.13 It would also change that noble family's 13. M. Heltzer concludes from RS 16.276 (PRU, III, pp. 69-70), 'we know that a certain Karkusuh was married with Apapa, the daughter of the king, and this gave him

22


status vis-a-vis others, since that family would appear to have greater access to the king's favor. A noblewoman's marriage to the king might offer similar benefits to her family. They might be expected to visit her at times during her residence in the palace and therefore be in a position to present requests to her as well as signs of their devotion to her husband, the king. Some royal princes fleeing a change in leadership in their nation might sometimes find a royal wife in a neighboring land along with assistance in taking or retaking the throne in their country.14 The change in status that might accompany marriage to a princess can be glimpsed as in a mirror reflection in some of the struggles for royal succession, where a man who would have no claim to the throne seeks to legitimate a claim through his marriage to a sister of the former king. The Hittite New Empire Edict ofTelepinu permitted the husband of a sister of the king to succeed to the throne if there was no 'legitimate' son to follow his father. This edict may be seen as justification of Telepinu's own irregular accession to the throne as a brother-in-law of the former king.15 It should be noted that since the Edict ofTelepinu does not appear to have been followed in the subsequent history of the Hittite New Empire, the sister-and-brother-in-law claim to the throne was not secured. Details regarding marriages of royal daughters or marriages of women to the king involving citizens of the kingdom are scarce in the extant evidence. The overwhelming sources of information concern diplomatic marriages, that is, exogamy. Treaties, marriage contracts, correspondence and ration lists record the purposes, arrangements and destinies of such marriages and the kingdoms connected by them. The most obvious purpose of such marriages was to secure an alliance between two kingdoms. William Ward observes, 'International relations were at a personal level between rulers and marriages were arranged so the rulers became relatives and potential hostilities between them could be better avoided'.16 The marriage of daughters and the exchange of tribute that accompanied such an arrangement signaled the expectation of long-term peaceful relations the privilege of using the income from the village Uhnappu' (Internal Organization of the Kingdom ofUgarit, p. 185). 14. Bin-Nun reports 'Mattiwaza of Mitanni escaped to Suppiluliuma and was given the latter's daughter to wife, Bentesina of Amurru fled to the Hittite court and married the daughter of Hattusili III, and several more' (Tawananna, p. 146 n. 182). 15. Bin-Nun, Tawananna, pp. 217-21. 16. W.A. Ward, Essays on Feminine Titles of the Middle Kingdom and Related Subjects (Beirut: American University of Beirut, 1986), pp. 58-59.


23

between the rulers as well as economic and military collaboration. In some cases, the continuation of positive relations was to be ensured in the heir to the throne who would be related to the two royal households and receive support from both to secure and continue in power. Diplomatic marriages could be established one-directionally or reciprocally. In Egypt there is little evidence of diplomatic marriages of Egyptian royal daughters before the Nineteenth Dynasty, at the time of Ramesses II. The Eighteenth Dynasty ruler, Amenhotep III, who himself was married to two Mitannian princesses as well as to a sister and a daughter of the Babylonian king Kadasman-Enlil I,17 refused to send his own daughter to the King of Babylon, claiming: 'from old, the daughter of an Egyptian king has not been given in marriage to anyone'.18 Whether this was a principle held by the Egyptian Empire or a political position Egypt was able to hold because of its relative strength among the kingdoms of the region and its geographical isolation, it is not possible to determine. When the Hittite New Empire and Egyptian Nineteenth Dynasty, represented by Hattusili III and Ramesses II, established their alliance in the face of the MiddleAssyrian threat (c. 1259 BCE), they sealed this alliance through a diplomatic marriage, with a daughter of Hattusili III and Queen Puduhepa going to Egypt.19 In a slightly different twist on diplomatic marriage, Ankhesenamun, widow of the Eighteenth-Dynasty Tutankhamun, wrote to the Hittite King Suppiluliuma requesting a Hittite prince be sent to marry her and assist her in ruling Egypt.20 This is an attempt to achieve foreign assistance, possibly to defend Egyptian territory, and a male partner for her attempt to rule Egypt after the death of her husband.21 Unfortunately, the prince was killed on the way to Egypt. William Ward's comment that 'the women involved [in foreign marriages] were little more than signatures to treaties between rulers',22 raises 17. EA1;3;4;5. 18. EA 4.6-7. Quoted in A.R. Schulman, 'Diplomatic Marriage in the Egyptian New Kingdom', JNES 38.3 (1979), pp. 177-93 (179). 19. EA 4.6-7. See Schulman, 'Diplomatic Marriage', pp. 180, 185-86; Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, pp. 135-37; and H. Klengel, Syria 3000 to 300 B. C.: A Handbook of Political History (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1992), p. 119. 20. 'Suppiluliumas and the Egyptian Queen' (ANET, p. 319); Schulman, 'Diplomatic Marriage', p. 177. 21. Schulman, 'Diplomatic Marriage', p. 177, citing H.G. Giiterbock, 'The Deeds of Suppiluliuma as Told by his Son, Mursili IF, JCS10 (1956), pp. 41-68,75-98,107130 (94-95, 97-98). 22. Ward, Essays on Feminine Titles, p. 58.

24


a sympathetic concern for daughters who could be dispatched without regard for their own wishes to a foreign nation with strange customs, language, and husbands whom they had not met, but this comment also needs to be challenged. The very success of the treaty and the woman's own future livelihood and well-being depended on how she gained and provided political access. Royal daughters in diplomatic marriages were expected to be seen and heard from in their new courts. They were not only the symbols of the international alliances, but their activity was one way that the alliance became effective. A royal daughter's absence from court could signal a problem for both nations. The Babylonian king Kadasman-Enlil I became suspicious because of a lack of communication from his sister in the Egyptian court and accused Amenhotep III (writing to request a second princess) of doing away with the first.23 The king of Assyria Samsi-Adad warned his son Yasmah-Addu, Zimri-Lim's predecessor in rule at Mari, to bring his wife into his palace: Did not the previous kings... install their spouse in the palace? Yahdun-Lim honoured his women-friends but his own wife he put aside, installing her in the desert. Now perhaps you, in the same manner, wish to install in the desert the daughter of Ishi-Addu. Her father will learn of it and he will be upset. This will not do. There are many rooms in the 'palace of the palms'. Let a room be selected and install her in this room, (but) do not install her in the desert.24

Bernard Batto observes regarding this communique: 'It is reasonable to assume that he did not much care for her. Despised to this extent, his queen could hardly have exerted much influence.'25 Access translated into influence. Lack of access threatened the alliance. At Mari, where diplomatic marriages are well documented among the daughters of Zimri-Lim, marriages were arranged with territories in vassal status to Mari. It is perhaps a sign of the immediate political realities and 23. Schulman, 'Diplomatic Marriage', p. 179 n. 11. 24. A.2548. Batto, Studies on Women at Mari, p. 20, citing translation by G. Dossin, 'Le royaume de Qatna au XVIIIe siecle avant notre ere d'apres les "Archives de Mari"', Bulletin de I 'Academic Royale de Belgique, Classe des lettres et des sciences morales et politiques, Series 5, 40 (1954), p. 417-25 (422). 25. Batto, Studies on Women at Mari, p. 21. J.-M. Durand challenges the assumption that Yasmah-Addu is trying to get rid of his wife by placing her in a palace other than the central one in Mari. Durand argues that there existed a number of royal palaces and the princess might prefer a location other than the city of Mari ('Les dames du palais de Mari a 1'epoque du royaume de Haute-Mesopotamie', in MARI4 [1985], pp. 385-436 [407]).


25

relative international insignificance of Mari that diplomatic marriages were not arranged with the major kingdoms of the era, including the Old Babylonian Empire.26 The position of Zimri-Lim as ruler at Mari was, itself, confirmed by a diplomatic marriage. He was re-established on the throne of his father through the efforts of Yarim-Lim, king of Yamhad, and then married to Yarim-Lim's daughter Sibtu. Shortly after her arrival in Mari, Sibtu rose to chief status among the wives of Zimri-Lim, surpassing two other wives, Yataraya and Dam-Hurasi,27 who had previously held primary status. The extensive correspondence between Zimri-Lim and Sibtu, with their daughters and other royal functionaries, provides a broad window on the national and international access achieved by and through royal women. Each married princess reported to her father Zimri-Lim and sometimes Sibtu on the activities of her husband and of his court. At times she revealed the weaknesses of a kingdom or the failures of the vassal king; at other times she appealed for help to support her husband and aid the kingdom. For example, in the one letter attributed to Tizpatum she calls upon her father to send troops to the aid of Suna and its ruler, her husband, IliIstar. Not only is the fate of the city on the line, but the reputation of ZimriLim himself. What would everyone think if Zimri-Lim did not respond to the husband of his daughter, she asks.28 The royal daughters had their own access to royal scribes and messengers. There were at least seven female scribes among the women in the Mari central palace,29 but it is clear that in Mari and in other realms, royal women were also served by male scribes. Sibtu and other royal women had their own seals which they used on some, but not all, of their correspondence.30 At times royal daughters, perhaps suspicious of local scribes, entrusted their communication to be repeated only in verbal form by the messenger. 26. B. Lafont, 'Les filles du roi de Mari', in J.-M. Durand (ed.), Lafemme dans le Proche-Orient Antique (CRRAI, 33; Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1987), pp. 113-21(121). 27. Durand, 'Les dames du palais', p. 402. 28. ARMT 10.98. 29. Durand, 'L'Organisation de 1'espace', p. 85. 30. Simatum, a daughter of Zimri-Lim, requests that he send her an official seal of lapis (ARM 10.95). Cited in J.-M. Durand, Trois etudes sur Mari', in MARI 3 (1984), pp. 127-79 (166). Seven queens appear on Hittite seals. These include seals with their own names and joint seals with their husband or his successor(s). See Bin-Nun, Tawananna, pp. 165-80.

26


It appears that for the most part royal daughters communicated with their parents directly and without interference. A particularly direct and desperate plea was raised by Kiru, who complained in a series of letters that her life was in danger at the court of Ilansura. She claimed her husband HayaSumu would kill her and demanded that Zimri-Lim send someone to bring her back to Mari.31 It appears that at some point she lost confidence in or access to the court scribes of Ilansura. Jean-Marie Durand and others conclude that the 'barbarized Akkadian' of the later letters indicates she had 'to resort to local scribes or that she herself possibly wrote the letters'.32 Reports from royal daughters sustained the confidence or raised the concern of Zimri-Lim regarding the loyalty of his vassal kings. They provided access to strategic military and political information and on occasion the daughters recommended a particular course of action in response to such information. Kiru, offering counsel to her father regarding the Haneen troops, was confident that she spoke 'words from the gods' on this matter.33 The activity of the royal daughters/wives could not be called spying, because their task was far more complex than gathering information for one side. They were involved in building relationships between royal realms, of providing the appropriate attention, counsel or pressure on either 'side' to ensure the well-being of the nation, and each woman was responsible for attending to her own future and the well-being of the royal house(s). Some daughters were able to carry out this access function successfully, while others were not. Some husbands appreciated this connection and some did not. Kiru writes to her father that her husband Haya-Sumu accused her of spending all her time conversing with the servants and telling her father everything in the reports she sent home about Ilansura.34 Perhaps Haya-Sumu had something to hide; perhaps Kiru was inept in her access role. In any case, the outcome was unpleasant for both of them and for Kiru's parents. A royal daughter's access to authority and her ability to broker accessibility were not automatic, even under the stipulations of a diplomatic marriage. It required personal and political skill to establish herself, not only in relation to her husband, but also in relation to other women of the

31. 32. 33. 34.

ARM 10.32,33. Durand, 'Trois etudes sur Mari', pp. 168, 167 and n. 41. ARMT 10.31: rev. 9. A.2518 in Durand, 'Trois etudes sur Mari', p. 178.


27

court, including other wives of her husband. Not all royal women achieved first rank in their new royal residence. Schulman notes concerning Egypt that none of the 'wives of the king who owed their position at the court to a diplomatic marriage [was] more than wives of the second or third rank. None of them ever held the title of principal wife... "great wife of the king", that is to say, "queen" '.35 Daughters would arrive with goods and servants from their home countries, but as foreigners would have to establish contacts and confidences among the members of the royal court and with her own husband. Inib-sarri, who married Ibal-Addu as part of ZimriLim's actions in establishing Ibal-Addu as ruler in Aslakka, arrived in Aslakka to discover that Ibal-Addu's first wife remained there as queen.36 While she may have exaggerated her conditions somewhat, more than personal pride and status were at stake. She was not able to carry out her job. Inib-sarri makes clear that it is the first wife, the 'queen' in Aslakka, who receives the people of the city and the king takes his rest and nourishment in her presence.37 In Ilansura, while Kiru held the position of queen her status in the court was so reduced that Simatum, her own sister and another wife of Haya-Sumu, was removing Kiru's servants from her one by one.38 No single reason can account for the acceptance and rise of any royal daughter in the kingdom of her husband. Nor was giving birth to a male heir to the throne always the decisive factor in determining pre-eminence among women. Though Sibru, wife of Zimri-Lim of Mari, may have given birth to a son as one of a set of twins,39 she is not associated with any male heir. While Zimri-Lim owed Yarim-Lim for protecting him after his father was driven from kingship in Mari by the Assyrians and for restoring him to rule in Mari, Zimri-Lim had at least two primary wives before Sibru joined him in Mari, as well as numerous other women in his house, including wives of the previous ruler Yasmah-Addu. No account is given of Sibru's rise to chief wife or of the details of her relationship with her royal stepdaughters and the other wives in Zimri-Lim's court. Several of the other wives were also correspondents with Zimri-Lim on various matters. The correspondence between Sibru and Zimri-Lim reflects both tenderness and concern for one another, and deep trust. Similar trust, respect and 35. Schulman, 'Diplomatic Marriage', p. 183. 36. ARMT 10.74: 13-14. See B. Lafont, 'Les filles du roi de Mari', pp. 115-16. 37. ARMT 10.74: 22-23. 38. A.2518. Durand assigns this previously unedited text to Kiru ('Trois etudes sur Mari', p. 178). 39. ARM 10.26.

28


affection may be reflected in the deeds and visible partnership of other well-documented royal pairs: Ahat-milku and Niqmepa V of Ugarit; Tawananna and Suppiluliuma and Puduhepa and Hattusili III of Hatti;40 Tiy and Amenhotep III41 and Nefertari and Ramesses II42 of Egypt. That diplomatic marriages represented a down payment on future relations and not closure can be demonstrated by two types of events. First is the occasion of death. When the death of any of the parties in the agreement occurred, a new agreement had to be made. The most obvious example is that of Amenhotep III of Egypt, who 'negotiated a fresh marriage each time a new foreign ruler ascended to the throne in a neighboring state—in Babylon first from Kurigalzu II and then from Kadasman-Enlil I, in Mitanni first from Suttarna and then from Tusratta'.43 Diplomatic marriages were not symbolic connections, but familial bonds in which there was no distinction between the personal and the political, nor could one separate the activity of the royal house from the destiny of the kingdom.44 The second event illustrating the living nature of diplomatic marriages 40. Correspondence in the archives of the royal court in Ugarit contains the joint seals of both Hittite royal couples. The women were active and visible in their husbands' reigns and continued to exercise authority after their husbands' deaths. See J. Nougayrol, Lepalais royal d'Ugarit. IV. Textes Accadiens des archives Sud (Mission de Ras Shamra, 9; Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1956), pp. 30, 60. 41. Queen Tiy's name appears on numerous scarabs and in monumental mortuary art she is presented on an equal scale with her husband. See Robins, Women in Ancient Egypt, p. 52. 42. B.S. Lesko observes that the 'most beautifully decorated of [the tombs in the Valley of the Queens] belonged to the first queen of Ramses II, Nefertari-Merymut' (The Remarkable Women of Ancient Egypt [Providence, RI: B.C. Scribe Publications, 3rd rev. edn, 1996], p. 24). Nefertari also engaged in separate correspondence with King Hattusili III and Queen Puduhepa of Hatti during the development of a treaty of peace and diplomatic relations between the two nations. See E. Edel, 'Zwei Originalbriefe der Konigsmutter Tujain Keilschrift', in H. Altenmiiller andD. Wildung (eds.), Studien zur altdgyptischen Kultur (Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag, 1974), pp. 105146(128-31). 43. Schulman, 'Diplomatic Marriage', p. 192. 44. Schulman ('Diplomatic Marriage', pp. 192-93) argues that 'diplomatic marriages forged bonds between the two rulers, the father- or brother-in-law and the son-inlaw, but not between their respective states'. The distinction cannot be made, however. The iconography, ideology and administration of kingdoms and city-states centered on the ruling family. The state continued not only by means of the external relationships maintained through marriage, but also the internal continuity provided by orderly succession of familial heirs.


29

is the negative example of divorce. Such matters were international incidents requiring delicate negotiations and, in some cases, the intervention of a third party. The prime example is Ammistamru II of Ugarit and his failed marriage to the daughter of Bentesina of Amurru.45 Ugarit was a vassal of the Hittite ruler Tudhaliya IV. Below Tudhaliya, but above Ammistamru in the order of vassals, was Initesub of Carchemish, who was also involved in resolving the conflict at the time of the divorce. It was to Tudhaliya's benefit to maintain peace among the Syrian vassals so as not to have any weakness in the defense against Assyrian aggression.46 While it is not clear exactly what reasons were at the core of the breakup (though adultery on the part of the queen is hinted at in the text), Ammistamru could not summarily do away with his wife. Two immediate issues required attention: (1) property brought into the marriage by the princess; (2) offspring of the marriage. The initial settlement, as determined by Tudhaliya IV, allowed the princess to return to Amurru with her moveable property, that is, that which she brought with her into the marriage. Her son, crown prince Utri-sarrumma, was permitted to remain in Ugarit as heir to the throne; if he chose to return with her he would forfeit his right to succession in Ugarit. The settlement stipulated that if Utri-sarrumma assumed the throne and then were to have his mother return, that would constitute grounds for his removal.47 In this part of the divorce arrangement the status of the son was not to be affected by the loss of status of the mother, but she was not to attain the position of 'queen mother'. The implications of this failed marriage went far deeper than the question of division of assets and custody of offspring. The continued presence

45. Since the texts also refer to divorce proceedings with the 'Daughter of the Great Lady', it was initially assumed that Ammistararu had two unsuccessful marriages with princesses of Amurru. J. Nougayrol published the texts and commentary in this way in PRU, IV, pp. 125-48. The publication of RS 1957.1 as part of The Claremont Ras Shamra Tablets provided confirmation of the equation of the 'Daughter of the Great Lady', the 'Daughter of Bentesina', and the sister of Sausgamuwa. C. Kiihne demonstrates this equation and it has been adopted into more recent discussions of these texts ('Ammistamru und die Tochter der "Grossen Dame'", UF5 [1973], pp. 175-84). See W.H. van Soldt, Studies in the Akkadian of Ugarit: Dating and Grammar (AOAT; Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon & Berker, 1991), p. 15; Aboud, Die Rolle des Konigs und seiner Familie, pp. 31-32. 46. See Aboud, Die Rolle des Konigs und seiner Familie, p. 88. 47. RS 17.159 (PRU, IV, pp. 126-27).

30


of the deposed queen created a problem for both nations. The representative of Amurru was not the woman's father, but her brother, Sausgamuwa, Under the terms of the settlement imposed by Initesub of Carchemish, the woman was to reside somewhere other than the capital city of Amurru, Sausgamuwa was to have no contact with her, and he was forbidden from returning her to Ugarit.48 For some reason Ammistamru was not satisfied with the settlement and pressed for the return of his wife, apparently contemplating taking her by force. Sausgamuwa, getting wind of the plan, took the offensive and compelled Ammistamru to sign a document officially dropping the matter.49 Nevertheless, Sausgamuwa was instructed by Tudhaliya to turn the woman over to Ammistamru for 1400 shekels of gold; Ammistamru received permission to do as he wished to the woman. She disappeared, likely having met a violent end.50 What is striking about this incident is the extent to which the diplomatic relationship between these two kingdoms was threatened not only by the divorce but also by the presence of the former queen. The death of the 'daughter of the Great Lady' can be seen as punishment for her failure in carrying through the work of 'access'. Industry In addition to the networks of access that royal women were involved in maintaining, they also had a key role in the economy of the palace. Those women established in political marriages brought wealth with them in the form of a dowry. The extensive and expensive dowry brought by Ahatmilku into her marriage with Niqmepa V of Ugarit (c. 1314 BCE) is documented in the marriage contract.51 Dowries and the terhatum, 'bride gift', paid to the father or brother of the bride were displays of status and tribute. Dowries also formed the initial capital for the woman's household. In the event of a divorce, the woman was allowed to take her initial investment with her when she left. During the marriage, she and her staff contributed to the overall economy of the royal house. She received regular allotments

48. RS 1957.1: L.R. Fisher, 'An International Judgment', in idem (ed.), The ClaremontRas Shamra Tablets (AnOr, 48; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1971), pp. 11-19(12). 49. RS 16.270 (PRU, IV, pp. 134-36). 50. ki-i hal-qa-at; RS 17.82 line 12 (PRU, IV, p. 147). 51. RS 16.146, 161 (PRU, III, pp. 182-86).


31

of supplies to provide for herself and her staff and she worked to expand her own financial worth. If the third-millennium texts from Ebla cast a light on the centuries to follow, royal women were listed among those involved in textiles, grinding and meal preparation.52 Royal women in Assyria were in regular receipt of wool53 to be turned into clothing items for themselves and other members of the household. Textiles were also one of the major components of tribute sent between nations.54 It is not inappropriate to assume that women had a hand in supervising and preparing these products. The queen herself was generally listed on tribute lists just after the king as a recipient of quantities of textiles or clothing.55 Queen Puduhepa, wife of the Hittite king Suppiluliuma I, wrote to Niqmaddu of Ugarit complaining that she had not received the gold that was to be sent to her as part of the tribute due from Ugarit. The king had received his share, but not she!56 Some texts show royal women carrying out administrative tasks in which their authority supercedes that of the regular managers of an enterprise. For example, Zimri-Lim asks Sibtu to sample jars of red wine and to send some of the wine to him and some—probably as part of a diplomatic gift— to Babylon. Two other wine officials are to assist her in this assignment.57 In another letter, Zimri-Lim instructs Sibtu to take responsibility for dealing with a group of female captives, dividing the priestesses into one group and the weavers (isparatim) into another.58 Again, two officials who normally have responsibility for captives are to be present while she carried out this work. In a letter from Sibtu to Zimri-Lim she reports the details of a shipment of clothing and other supplies that she is sending to him.59 The text demonstrates her initiative to overcome delays in the transport. In 52. M.G. Biga, 'Femmes de la famille royale d'Ebla', in J.-M. Durand (ed.), La femme dans le Proche-Orient Antique (CRRAI, 33; Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1987), pp. 41-47 (42). 53. SAA VII, 115 in P.M. Fales and J.N. Postgate, Imperial Administrative Records. I. Palace and Temple Administration (SAA, 7; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1992), pp. 121-25. 54. D. Pardee, 'The Letter of Puduhepa', AfO 29 (1984), pp. 321-39 (327). 55. E.g.RS 11.732 (/W, ffl, pp. 181-82) lists gifts from Ugarit to the Hittite king and queen. The tributes to king and queen differed in amount, but not in category of gift. 56. Pardee, 'Letter of Puduhepa', pp. 322, 325. 57. ARM 10.133. 58. ARM 10.126. 59. ARM 10.18.

32


another exchange, Sibtu reports her follow-through on a directive from Zimri-Lim to give firm instructions to an official concerning the preparation of batches of dried garlic. She was to seal the suhurru-jars with her own seal.60 In a legal text from Ugarit, the seal of queen Ahat-milku appears at the bottom of a property exchange in the name of Ammistamru.61 Royal women may have regularly supervised palace industries in situations of particular concern, diplomacy or in the king's absence. However unless they used their own seal or reported the act, their involvement is not traceable since shipping records, the sealing of storerooms and the ongoing supervision of palace labor would continue, for the most part, in the names of male palace officials. There are records that depict the activity of royal women in their own enterprises. Business contracts from Ugarit show the involvement of the queen in real estate62 and the production of olive oil and wine.63 She had her own business staff, including a manager64 and a governor (skn. bt.srt= 'governor of the house of the queen'). The title skn. bt.srt is comparable to the skn.bt.mlk, 'the governor of the house of the king'. A third position skn.mt ('governor of the land') functioned as the highest civil official in the country. In all three positions these administrators were to assist the king and queen in managing economic affairs and international politics.65 The size of the queen's holdings and economic activities can be seen in that not only did she have a general manager but she also remained active in her affairs. For example, in a land purchase by the Ugaritic queen Sarelli (Ahat-milku) 'Matenu, the sakinu of the palace of the queen' is listed

60. ARM 10.136. 61. RS 16.197 (PRU, III, pp. 150-51). 62. RS 17.86, 241, 208; RS 17.102; RS 17.325 (Ugaritica V, pp. 261-64). 63. KTU4.143, 4.244, cited in Aboud, Die Rolle des Konigs und seiner Familie, p. 116. 64. RS 17.314, lines 3 and 7 (PRU, IV, p. 189). 65. Key studies on this title include an excursus on 'skn and sknt in den Texten aus Ugarit' in M. Dietrich and O. Loretz, Mantik in Ugarit (ALASP, 3; Munster: UgaritVerlag, 1990), pp. 63-85; MJ. Mulder, 'Versuch zur Deutung von SOKENET in 1 Kon 1 2,4', VT12 (1972), pp. 43-54; O. Loretz, 'Ugaritisch skn-sknt und hebraische sknsknt', ZAW94 (1982), pp. 123-27. Maria Hausl provides a summary of the etymology of this root in Ugaritic, Aramaic, Akkadian and Hebrew in Abischag und Batscheba: Frauen am Konigshofund die Thronfolge Davids im Zeugnis der Texte 1 Kon 1 und 2 (Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im alien Testament, 41; St Ottilien: EOS Verlag, 1993), pp. 240-22.


33

among the witnesses on the contract (RS 17.325).66 The feminine sknt appears on an economic text from Ugarit in which payment of 20 shekels is made to a sknt, but no additional information on her responsibilities is supplied.67 Comparable positions of governorship are viewed in the Assyrian royal court. The male saknu (LU.GAR.MES) appears as commander over the horses of the royal court68 and military troops,69 as governor of various territories,70 and as manager of large households, including the palace at Nuzi.71 The feminine sakintu is applied to the goddess Zarpanitu, 'the Lady of Babylon', who is the governess of the Akitu House,72 and to female administrators associated with various royal palaces and business enterprises. The sakintu of the royal palace73 had money to lend,74 bought slaves75 and property,76 released people,77 could be sued,78 and could forfeit pledged

66. Heltzer, Internal Organization of the Kingdom of Ugarit, p. 149. 67. KTU4.135; M. Dietrich, O.Loretz and J. Sanmartin, The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani andOther Places (ALASP, 8; Munster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2ndedn, 1995), p. 265. 68. SAA 4.142 in I. Starr, Queries to the Sungod: Divination and Politics in SargonidAssyria (SAA, 4; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1990), p. 152 and SAA 5.251 in G.B. Lanfranchi and S. Parpola, The Correspondence ofSargon II, Part II: Letters from the Northern and Northeastern Provinces (SAA, 5; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1990), p. 180. 69. SAA 5.3 2 in Lanfranchi and Parpola, Correspondence ofSargon II, Part II, pp. 25-26. 70. SAA 1.31,63 and 240 in S. Parpola, The Correspondence ofSargon II, Part I: Letters from Assyria and the West (SAA, 1; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1987), pp. 31,59-60, 187. 71. HSS 14 584:17 cited in CAD S 17, p. 190. 72. In the 'Marduk Ordeal—Assur Version', SAA 3.34, in A. Livingstone, Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea (SAA, 3; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1989), p. 84. 73. sakintu sa E M.E. GAL. 74. SAA 6.81 in T. Kwasman and S. Parpola, Legal Transactions of the Royal Court of Nineveh, Part I: Tiglath-Pileser III through Esarhaddon (SAA, 6; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1991), p. 72. 75. SAA 6.90 in Kwasman and Parpola, Legal Transactions I, p. 78. 76. SAA 6.93 in Kwasman and Parpola, Legal Transactions I, pp. 80-81. 77. SAA 6.94 in Kwasman and Parpola, Legal Transactions I, pp. 81-82. 78. SAA 6.93 in Kwasman and Parpola, Legal Transactions I, pp. 80-81.

34


property.79 The responsibilities of the position required management, financial and negotiating skills. Her deputy was the sanitu. The sakintu served as chief administrator of the queen's household, the queen being the highest ranking of the royal women.80 The texts do not refer to the sakintu'?, marital status, but there is a document from Nimrud in which a sakintu gives her daughter in marriage and details the contents of the bridal gift.81 The sakintu apparently communicated with the king on some matters, as in the report of a theft in Nimrud,82 but nowhere does the sakintu have any sexual involvement with the king. The Akkadian terms saknu and sakintu do not describe parallel positions—one for men and one for women. The title saknu is applied to more persons and to persons of a variety of rankings. CAD notes 'saknu could refer to officials on two distinct levels of the administrative hierarchy: provincial governors (appointed by the king), and officials subordinate to provincial governors and other high officials'.83 One factor in the differences in application between men and women, no doubt, is that women did not serve as military commanders, hence the greater number of positions and rankings for men. The sakintu is specifically connected to one of the royal palaces, a framework more parallel with the rab ekalli,M who is 'responsible for the internal organization of the palace',85 exclusive of the activities of the queen's household.86 While not parallel, these three positions all require a base of royal confidence and strong administrative, financial and management skills. Each was necessary in its own location to carry forth the work of the royal house, whether that was through providing 'taxes and labor in peacetime

79. SAA 6.95 in Kwasman and Parpola, Legal Transactions, I, p. 82. 80. For descriptions of the office of Assyrian sakintu see S. Dalley and J.N. Postgate, The Tablets from Fort Shalmaneser (CTN, 3; Oxford: The Alden Press, 1984), pp. 9-14. 81. ND 2307 in B. Parker, 'The Nimrud Tablets, 1952—Business Documents', Iraq 16 (1954), pp. 29-53 (37-39). 82. ND 2703 in H.W.F. Saggs, 'The Nimrud Letters, 1952—Part VII', Iraq 27 (1965), pp. 17-32(29). 83. CADS 17, p. 191. 84. GAL.E.GAL. 85. Dalley and Postgate, Tablets from Fort Shalmaneser, p. 9. 86. Dalley and Postgate report 'There is no evidence that the rab ekalli was involved in administering the queen's house' (Tablets from Fort Shalmaneser, p. 12).


35

and soldiers in time of war',87 'ensuring that the state's employees working in the palace did their work and were supplied with their raw materials, and.. .both humans and birds of the palace were fed',88 or lending money to farmers to help them make it through lean times.89 The pattern of management that emerges is neither a single hierarchical system nor parallel systems (male and female), but a staggered arrangement of officials and areas of responsibility carrying forward the contacts and responsibilities of the king and queen. In Ugarit there is another category of administrative personnel related to the royal house called the 'Friends of the King' (md.sr) and 'Friends of the Queen' (md.srt). Citing RS 16.157 and 16.348, Michael Heltzer reports that the mudu paid the king and the queen (i.e. queen mother) 'from 5-20 shekels of silver yearly for their wwc/w-ship'. This relationship earned them land in exchange for service and freed them from obligation to certain local administrative officials.90 Assyrian royal documents also record food received by royal women (e.g. the Lady of the House/GASAN-E and the queen/MI-E.GAL) from various administrative officials including the governor (LU.NAM), mayor (ha-zani) and village-manager (LU.GAL).91 Sadditu the sister of Esarhaddon and Abi-rami sister of the queen mother are among the female members of the royal family recorded purchasing and leasing land in the Assyrian archives.92 The contract of Sadditu follows the standard form and protects her and her sons and grandsons (DUMU.MES-sa u DUMU-DUMU.MESsa) from subsequent lawsuits. Royal women not only exercised discretion over their resources, but there is evidence that at least some could assign their wealth to their 87. The 'saknu 's were the link between the administrative superstructure and the division of the population into kisru units' (CAD S 17, p. 191). 88. Dalley and Postgate, Tablets from Fort Shalmaneser, p. 9. 89. ND 7088 records a large loan made by the female scribe of the queen's house from the temple of Mulissu to a gentleman from outside the city. Dalley and Postgate conclude on the basis of the timing of other loans that he may be among the farmers needing assistance 'in the lean weeks before harvest' (Tablets from Fort Shalmaneser, pp. 92-93, 13). 90. PRU,lll,pp. 83-84,162-63; Heltzer, Internal Organization of the Kingdom of Ugarit, pp. 161, 162. 91. SAA 7.130,131,132 in Fales and Postgate, Imperial Administrative Records, I, pp. 140-41. 92. SAA 6.251 and 252 in Kwasman and Parpola, Legal Transactions, I, pp. 200-201.

36


children. Ahat-milku, queen of Ugarit and wife of Niqmepa, gave two shares of her assets to two of her adult sons. These two, Hismisarruma and Aradsarruma, were involved in a power struggle with another of Ahatmilku's sons, Ammistamru II. The 'Verdict of Initesub', an intervention decree by the ruler of Carchemish, reports that Ahat-milku provided the older sons with their portion of silver and money, furniture and other items and banished them to Alasia.93 In this way she managed to provide for them while guaranteeing Ammistamru's rise to kingship and her own position as queen mother. The documents not only demonstrate the deep and varied involvement of royal women in economic matters, but portray the royal family as a network of economic enterprises dealing in goods and services, and trading wealth and favors, domestically and internationally. Although the royal house was capable of commanding service and taxes from inhabitants of the kingdom, it was also responsible for payments to various parties, domestic and international, and was involved in producing food and materials for its own existence. While some royal children complained about not receiving their share of rations from the royal palace,94 palace life did not rest on a handout. The evidence points to both small- and large-scale activity on the part of women in administration, production and trade. At the very least they had their own household staffs to manage. Sometimes agricultural centers,95 estates96 and towns97 were in their domain. While the data show the involvement of royal women in the royal economy, this does not suggest independence. Indeed, 'independence' is much too modern a term to be applied to royal women or royal men. Wealth and status provided privilege, release from some obligations, and the 93. RS 17.352 (PRU, IV, pp. 121-22). 94. Erista-Aya, e.g., writes repeatedly to her father Zimri-Lim and her mother inquiring why they have not sent the food and cloth rations and have not provided the promised number of servants (ARM 10.36). See also ARM 10.37-43 for continuing appeals for support. 95. In Ugarit, local units that provided labor and supplies for the royal economy were called gt. Some of these units belonged to the queen—gt mlkt (KTU4.143; KTU 2.21). See Heltzer, Internal Organization of the Kingdom of Ugarit, p. 182. 96. E.MES. See SAA 11.221, 'Schedule of Estates Assigned to Officials', line 18, in P.M. Fales and J.N. Postgate, Imperial Administrative Records. II. Provincial and Military Administration (SAA, 11; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1995), p. 149. 97. URU.2-DUMU.MI-LUGAL. See SAA 11.221 line 4 in Fales and Postgate, Imperial Administrative Records, II, p. 148.


37

opportunity to take from others in the form of taxes or conscripted services. The economy, however, was household-based, not individual. The royal house had a broad responsibility to family members, servants, bureaucratic staff and citizens, and international tribute relationships that demanded the constant production and re-distribution of resources and personnel. Royal women were expected to be productive contributors to this exchange. Service to the Kingdom In the ancient Near Eastern model of monarchy the king was responsible for 'providing peace, justice and security to his realm'.98 Support for his house and its future depended on his ability to provide for the welfare of the people of the land and to appear just in matters of dispute and merciful towards the widow and orphan. The tasks of representing and distributing such service to the kingdom were shared by the women of the royal house. The correspondence of Sibtu and Zimri-Lim demonstrates a variety of ways royal women are in service to the kingdom. First, Sibtu is her husband's confidant and aide. He entrusts her with matters of state and trusts her to assess the loyalty of various officials and the reliability of their messages." Sibtu is the king's link to Mari during his frequent and sometimes lengthy absences. She may have learned this from her own mother, Gasera, wife of Yarim-Lim.100 She communicates on the king's behalf with officers of the palace.101 She alerts the king to potential disasters and carries through on his counsel, as in the case of a sick woman in the palace whose illness could jeopardize a large number of people in a short period of time.102 She administers justice. She receives petitions from those who feel

98. P. Springborg, Royal Persons: Patriarchal Monarchy and the Feminine Principle (London: Unwin Hyman, 1990), p. 9. 99. E.g. ARM 10.134: rev. 1-5. 100. F. Abdallah, 'La femme dans le royaume d'Alep au XVIIIe siecle av. J.C.', in J.-M. Durand (ed.), La femme dans le Proche-Orient Antique (CRRAI, 33; Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1987), pp. 13-15 (14). Cf. G. Bardet et al., Archives abministrative de Mari I (ARMT, 23; Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1984), p. 472. 101. P. Artzi and A. Malamat comment on the 'close ties and the good relations prevailing between Sibtu and the high officials of Mari', in 'The Correspondence of Sibtu, Queen of Mari in ARM X', Or NS 40 (1971), pp. 75-89 (81). 102. ARM 10.14 and 10.129.

38


they have been unfairly accused or misjudged.103 While Sibtu was not an appointed judge, she was an actor in the system of royal justice as a recipient and respondent in such pleas and by passing along other pleas (probably with a recommendation) to the king. It is clear from the correspondence that Sibtu, without benefit of the titles 'deputy', 'chief counselor' or 'aide', actually carried out these functions. Regarding the royal women of Mari, Batto observes, 'Rarely does their power seem to be simply a matter of holding an office or possessing an official title'.104 Sibtu's understanding of the duties of the monarchy both domestically (e.g. providing guidance and support to local administrators, providing food and legal protection to citizens) and internationally (e.g. providing tribute and maintaining a wary eye on borders and troops) make her a valuable and necessary actor on behalf of the royal house of Mari. What is also evident from the correspondence is that Zimri-Lim values her participation. In Sibtu and Zimri-Lim one sees, perhaps, the ideal partnership between king and royal wife/royal daughter. While the Mari archive provides a rare view into the breadth of a royal woman's activities within the structure of monarchy, Sibtu is not the only royal woman to achieve a level of trust and collaboration in her husband's administration. More importantly, she was not the only woman to serve her kingdom as an extension of the royal house through counsel, communication, judicial decision-making and attention to diplomatic and cultic concerns. In the archives of diplomatic correspondence between Egypt and the Hittite Empire during the time of Ramesses II, there are 26 remaining letters from Ramesses II to Hatrusili III and 13 to Puduhepa, Hattusili's wife. Puduhepa also wrote directly to Ramesses. In one letter (KUB 21.38), she handles the delicate matter of calming the king's anger and explaining the delay of his Hittite bride. Gary Beckman observes, 'Despite her occasional resort to sarcasm.. .the Queen is clearly at pains to smooth over the dispute'.105 Her mission was successful. Not only did Puduhepa serve the kingdom during the time of her husband's reign, but she was active during the reign of her son, Tudhaliya IV. RS 17.133 records a judgment she rendered in the name of her son and had delivered to king Ammistamru of Ugarit in a case involving a sunken boat 103. E.g. in ARM 10.114 Sibtu receives an appeal from Taris-Hattu who is accused of stealing earrings and a silver bracelet. In ARM 10.160 Subnalu appeals to Sibtu to intervene with an official to obtain a woman's release. 104. Batto, Studies on Women at Mari, p. 135. 105. Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, p. 132.


39

of Ugarit.106 Naqia/Zakutu, queen mother of Esarhaddon of Assyria, is acknowledged by her son107 and by others108 as exercising influence and patronage. Sarah Chamberlin Melville points to two comments by Esarhaddon's top officials about the queen mother which are unusual in that they are statements generally made about the king.109 One of these is in a letter of Marduk-sakin-sumi, a chief exorcist, to the king that praises Naqia for being 'as capable as Adapa', the ultimate model of wisdom and piety.110 The other official observes that her word 'is as final as that of the gods. What you bless, is blessed; what you curse, is cursed.'111 There is no question that Sibtu, Puduhepa and Naqia/Zakutu were women of exceptional skills. Their documented success in providing service to their kingdoms may be attributed to their personal abilities, but the opportunity and expectations of service were a part of the institution of monarchy. Royal women's proximity to the king, knowledge of politics and the royal court, and understanding of the duties of the monarchy were standard features of every kingdom. Each was part of an institution that did not commission women directly for service to the king and the kingdom, but expected them to participate effectively in such activity. It was up to each royal woman to negotiate her involvement in such service.

106. PRU,IV,pp. 118-19. 107. ABL 303. Translation in Melville, The Role of Naqia, pp. 76-77. 108. SAA 13.154 in S.W. Cole and P. Machinist, Letters from Priests to the Kings Esarhaddon andAssurbanipal (SAA, 13; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1998), p. 126. Cited by Melville, The Role of Naqia, pp. 75-76. 109. Melville, The Role of Naqia, p. 75. While Melville observes in the correspondence of Assyrian officials that 'Naqia [is] elevated to the level of the king and given an unusual measure of respect' (p. 75), Melville attributes this to a calculated campaign on the part of Esarhaddon to raise the public image of his mother through 'careful manipulation of such media as royal inscriptions and dedicatory inscriptions, and by deliberately associating himself with [her]' (p. 37). Melville suggests that 'Esarhaddon needed someone of unquestionable loyalty in a position of authority who could make a show of strength and maintain the status quo when he was disabled' (p. 36). Melville's analysis of the political need for a strong, effective and well-respected queen mother is most convincing. The difficulty is that her argument for Esarhaddon as 'an able and intelligent king who acted decisively and competently' (p. 32) can only accommodate the evidence of Naqia's authority and ability by attributing it to Esarhaddon. 110. SAA 10.244 in S. Parpola, Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars (SAA, 10; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1993), p. 194. 111. SAA 10.17 inParpola, Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars, p. 14.

40

A Woman's Place is in the House Cult

The ideology of kingship in the ancient Near East placed the king at the center of the nation's relationship to the divine. For each nation there was a divine origin of kingship, a corresponding chief divinity to whom the earthly king was most closely bound, and divine involvement in the selection of the king, whether at conception (as in the Egyptian mythology), at the time of ascension to the throne, or sometime in between. The cult was the arena of communication between the divine and the earthly. Divine involvement functioned to legitimate a ruler, but a king also had to prove faithful in building and maintaining temples, offering sacrifices, carrying out the appointed rituals, and inquiring of the gods before undertaking campaigns. In view of the king's loyalty the god(s) provided the benefits of prosperity, justice and peace to the peoples and the land. The rubrics for cultic ceremonies and the artistic representations of such activity from temples and burial sites focus chiefly on the king's role, but in each of these kingdoms royal women were expected to be visible and take part in the activities of the cult. Wives and daughters of the Egyptian royal household, together with the king or in separate scenes, are depicted offering sacrifice.112 In Nineveh, Naqia/Zakutu is represented on a piece of bronze together with her son (Esarhaddon) or grandson (Ashurbanipal). Both are depicted holding ritual objects.113 In the Hittite New Kingdom, the queen assumed an Old Kingdom title, tawananna, and the priestly functions associated with it, in service of a newly elevated deity, the sun goddess of Arinna. Cultic texts from the Hittite New Kingdom present the 'King and Queen as a pair of priests of the sun-goddess of Arinna who was the lady of the land'.114 As priestess of Arinna, some queens used the title SAL AMA.DINGER

112. Lesko (Remarkable Women, p. 40) observes: 'Frequently in the late New Kingdom's tomb paintings and on stelae women are shown confronting the deity directly, making offerings to it or performing rites for deceased family members.... They do not seem to have been relegated to being merely musical accompanists in religious ceremonies.' 113. A. Parrot and J. Nougayrol, 'Assarhaddon et Naqi'a sur un Bronze du Louvre (AO 20.185)', Syria 33 (1956), pp. 147-60; J. Reade, 'Was Sennacherib a Feminist?', in J.-M. Durand (ed.), Lafemme dans le Proche-Orient Antique (CRRAI, 33; Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1987), pp. 139-45 (143-44). 114. Bin-Nun, Tawananna, p. 204.


41

('mother of the god'). On her seal, Puduhepa bore the title 'The servant of the goddess'.115 The elevation of Arinna and the reintroduction of the priestly title tawananna were an expansion of the royal ideology of the Hittite kingdom that included an elevation of the theocratic role of the chief wife. It was as priestly partner with the king in devotion to the chief national deity that queens were politically established in the Hittite New Kingdom. Their identity as queen and priestess is inseparable.116 A chief responsibility of kings in the ancient Near East was temple building. Royal women, including daughters, also play major roles in the construction, decoration and maintenance of temples and statues. There is evidence from Egypt of royal women involved in the construction of cult sites117 and being honored by their husbands in temple monuments and inscriptions.118 The oracle textKUB XXII70 describes gold wreaths dedicated by the Queen Tawananna119 to Hittite deities. Sarah Chamberlin Melville notes the involvement of Naqia/Zakutu 'in religious rites and temple administration in.. .the three main urban centers in Assyria, Assur, Calah, and Nineveh; and two important cities in other parts of the empire, Harran and Borsippa'.120 The queen mother in Assyria is also recorded as having made payments in silver to the temple121 and animal offerings, which included in one month '1 ox, 3 sisalhu-oxen, 4 female calves, 24 sheep, 4

115. Bin-Nun, Tawananna, p. 171. The widow of Suppiluliuma, Tawananna, also has this title in Hattusili's prayer to Arinna (p. 193). 116. In reference to this emphasis on the priestly office of the Hittite New Kingdom queens, Bin-Nun points to two legal cases in which queen mothers were deposed, those of Danuhepa and Tawananna. 'Both the prayers of Mursili II and of Hattusili III mention only their priestly offices without ever hinting at any political power held by the Tawanannas by virtue of their being Hittite queens. They are not said to have lost their queenship. No text states that they were deposed from being queens. Nevertheless, they do not seem to have retained any influence after their "degradation". This fact makes it possible that the Tawananna's power was a consequence of her priesthood to the sun-goddess of Arinna' (Tawananna, p. 193). 117. Ahmose-Nefertari, wife of Ahmose of the Eighteenth Dynasty, carried out projects connected to her role as priestess in the Amon cult. See B.S. Lesko, 'Women's Monumental Mark on Ancient Egypt', BA 54 (March 1991), pp. 4-15 (12). 118. E.g. the stele to Ahmose-Nefertari in the temple of Amun at Karnak. See Robins, 'God's Wife of Amun', pp. 70-73. 119. Cited in Bin-Nun, Tawananna, p. 183. This woman, the wife of Suppiluliuma, was named Tawananna in addition to bearing the title tawananna. 120. Melville, The Role ofNaqia, p. 42. 121. SAA 7.48 in Fales and Postgate, Imperial Administrative Records, I, p. 56.

42


ducks'.122 A bead inscribed with the following text likely once adorned the statue of an Assyrian god: To the god [...], Zakutu, the queen of Sennacherib, king of the land of Assur, for the life of Esarhaddon, king of the land of Assur, her son and for her own life, has donated.123

Through prayer, prophecy and omens, royal women were involved in the connection between cult and politics. Sibtu and her daughters regularly sent reports of omens and prophecies to Zimri-Lim concerning military campaigns and his general health and well-being.124 Naqia/Zakutu, wife of Sennacherib, consulted various oracles during the time of her son Esarhaddon's forced absence from Assur and the attempts within the court to have him removed from being crown prince. One of the oracles she received was from Ahat-abisa and refers to Esarhaddon's absence and assured succession to kingship: I am the Lady of Arbela. To the king's mother: Because you implored me saying, 'You have placed the ones at the (king's) right and left side in your lap, but made my own offspring roam the steppe'—Now fear not, my king! The kingdom is yours, yours is the power! By the mouth of the woman Ahat-abisa of Arbela.125

This is nearly identical to the oracle delivered to Esarhaddon by Issar-latasiyat.126 The 'Prayer of Puduhepa to the Sun-Goddess of Arinna and her Circle'127 includes a plea that her husband, Hattusili, will be healed and that both she and Hattusili will live a long life. The opening section of the prayer, addressed directly to Arinna, provides a theological apologia for the kingship of her husband, who was not the designated successor to Muwatalis, and presents Puduhepa as the devoted servant of Arinna, 'a 122. SAA 7.175, lines rev. 13-16 in Fales and Postgate, Imperial Administrative Records, I, p. 176. 123. M. van de Mieroop, 'An Inscribed Bead of Queen Zakutu', in M.E. Cohen, D.C. Snell and D.B. Weisberg (eds.), The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 1993), pp. 259-61 (259). 124. E.g. ARM 10.4 and 100 in which Sibtu reports prophecies related to military events. 125. SAA 9.1.8 in S. Parpola, Assyrian Prophecies (SAA, 9; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1997), p. 9. 126. SAA 9.1.1 in Parpola, Assyrian Prophecies, p. 4. 127. ANET, pp. 393-94.


43

servant of thine from old, a heifer from thy stable'. The queen expects the necessary political effect to result from modeling perfect devotion to the high goddess of Hatti. Another example of the dynamic interconnection between cult and state politics is the appointment of royal daughters as priestesses. In the late third millennium, Sargon I appoints his daughter Enheduanna as en-priestess of the moon god Nanna at Ur. In so doing, he gains a local presence and visible public leadership for his rule through visible leadership in devotion to the chief local god. Enheduanna's effectiveness in this role is undeniable and her theological positioning of the rule of Akkad in Ur is unmistakable. Her composition, 'The Exaltation of Inanna',128 represents not only the oldest non-anonymous literature in existence, but is an eloquent work of devotion and politics. This 'strategic placement of the king's daughter.. .in a traditional office...', observes Irene J. Winter, 'should be seen in the larger context of a display of ritual continuity with the past that served some of the political ends of the early Akkadian dynasty—particularly divine sanction for its legitimacy'.129 Maintaining the connection of the dynasty to the cult can also be seen in the action of Puduhepa, Queen of Hatti, who commissioned the collection of the New Year Festival tablets.130 The king and queen both have an important role in that festival. The expansion and unification of an empire through royal women's cultic leadership can also be seen in first-millennium Egypt. The position of 'God's Wife of Amun', which had been a major title and primary priestly activity of the queen in the Eighteenth Dynasty and represented the dynasty's roots in Thebes, is revived in the later period by the royal family based in the North. As part of the political effort to link the two parts of the country and to maintain control of temple properties and holdings, royal daughters are appointed 'God's Wife of Amun'. At times this results in the God's Wife having more prominence in the South than the male high priestly dynasty.131 128. 'Hymnal Prayer of Enheduanna: The Adoration of Inanna in Ur' (ANET, pp. 579-82). 129. I.J. Winter, 'Women in Public: The Disk of Enheduanna, the Beginning of the Office of En-Priestess, and the Weight of Visual Evidence', in J.-M. Durand (ed.), La femme dans le Proche-Orient Antique (CRRAI, 33; Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1987), pp. 189-201 (200-201). 130. H. Often, Puduhepa: Ein hethitische Konigen in ihren Textzeugnissen (Mainz: Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, 1975). 131. R.A. Caminos, 'The Nitocris Adoption Stela', JEA 50(1964), pp. 71-101 (97); Robins, 'God's Wife of Amun', pp. 65-78.

44


Among the royal women of Mari appointed to cultic office is ZimriLim's sister mib-sina.132 Her seal appears on a list of spices.133 Erista-Aya, daughter of Zimri-Lim and Sibtu, is also a priestess and resides in a cloister (gagum) at some distance from her parents,134 possibly in Sippar.135 If her temple is in Sippar, her cultic service may be part of an international agreement between Mari and Babylon.136 Royal women—wives, mothers and daughters—had life-long responsibilities in the cult. While there are pictures and texts depicting the involvement of young sons, for example, in Egyptian art, '[k] ing's sons.. .had no ritual role during the reigns of their fathers and are unattested from the reigns of their brothers'.137 The crown prince, however, didhave responsibilities. He is listed as providing offerings to the temple and when he ascends to kingship he is expected to carry out appropriate offerings and honors to his deceased father. The exclusion of royal women from some cultic activities, such as the kispu offerings and the marzeah festival, is not a statement about royal women's cultic effectiveness, but about a crown prince's responsibility as heir to the throne. Only one male was eligible to carry out the rite.138 The cult was one means through which the royal house received and extended its political influence. For at least two royal women, the cult became the court in which their political destinies were cut short. In the Hittite New Kingdom Suppiluliuma's widow, Tawananna,139 was deposed by a legal council after being accused by Mursili, Suppiluliuma's heir, of taking gold and silver from the temple to honor other gods, of introducing foreign customs, and of raising spells against the wife of Mursili and 132. See Batto's discussion of her identity in Studies on Women at Mari, p. 91 n. 38. 133. ARM 21.104. 134. ARM 10.42. 135. See Batto's argument regarding Sippar as the location of the temple mentioned in ARM 10.38 line 10 (Studies on Women at Mari, pp. 94-96). 136. Batto observes: 'Apart from the obvious religious advantage of having a personal representative before Samas, Zimri-Lim may have been influenced by the prestige of having a daughter among the Sippar nadiatum, as did his contemporaries on the throne in Babylon' (Studies on Women at Mari, pp. 98-99). 137. Robins, Women in Ancient Egypt, p. 37. 138. While the Egyptians did not have a kispu ritual, it is interesting to note that when Hatshepsut became king in Egypt she gave honor to the memory of her father, not her husband. This was part of her presentation of the legitimacy of her reign. 139. This queen, who was originally from Babylon, bore the name Tawananna in addition to holding the office oftawananna (Bin-Nun, Tawananna, p. 51).


45

against Mursili himself.140 At one point Mursili had shared a joint seal with his father's widow.141 The accuracy of the charges against Tawananna is difficult to assess and they could be, as Shoshana Bin-Nun suggests, 'excuses in order to get rid of an unwanted old queen' ,142 Guilty or not, the charges reveal that the tawananna had access to temple treasuries. In addition, her cultic activity was so integrated into the life of the nation that it required a political act by a group of leaders other than the king to effect her removal. This procedure and the fact that Tawananna had been very visible in her husband's reign strongly suggest that the accusations were part of a power struggle between the new king, Mursili, and the tawananna. Each had his or her own supporters and treasury. Mursili gained the upper hand, but not unilaterally, and not without cautious construction of the charges against her. Casting spells and introducing foreign elements are highly charged accusations and promote a fear of the queen's legitimate cultic power.143 There is no record of the charges made against the other woman removed from the position of tawananna in the Empire period, that is, Danuhepa who was removed by Hattusili III. Bin-Nun notes, however, that 'the queen had a whole population...and officers...under her command' and later mention is made by Tudhaliya IV of'the cities which had belonged to Danuhepa'.144 Again, at the heart of the conflict appear to be issues of politics and control. These are inseparable, however, from cultic participation and representation. While the involvement of royal women in cultic leadership and service is documented as part of the activity of the various ancient Near Eastern royal houses, it is not represented in the founding mythologies of kingship in any of those lands. As Shoshana Bin-Nun observes about the Hittite documents, The king alone was accepted as ruler without having to share his power with anybody. The theme of the myth is the origin of Hittite

140. Bin-Nun, Tawananna, p. 186. 141. Bin-Nun, Tcnvananna, p. 168. 142. Bin-Nun, Tawananna, p. 187. 143. Whether she used her power legitimately is another question. Bin-Nun (Tawananna, pp. 187-88) argues that the oracle text KUB XXII70 'gives a true picture of the tyranny which this old lady exercised on the king and on his family by her continuous threats with divine anger, and by her demands to punish the daughters of the royal house. Her priestly office enabled her to rule the people with the terror of divine oracles.' 144. Bin-Nun, Tawananna, p. 194.

46


kingship not of Hittite queenship.'145 Nevertheless, the myth alone is not enough to capture how monarchy was perceived and practiced in these ancient kingdoms. In each kingdom the queen is the subject of ritual concern and recognition. The queen is the recipient of prayers for blessing,146 the audience of oracles, as Naqia was in the prophecies concerning Esarhaddon,147 the subject of prayers for recovery,148 the occasion for national mourning upon her demise, and a subject memorialized in funerary monuments. While the founding myths might have excluded her, over time the role of queen (or queen mother) appears to have been worked into the ritual and story of monarchy. As Bin-Nun observes in the Hittite New Kingdom, Suppiluliuma 'addressed the sun-goddess of Arinna as the one who "guided kingship and queenship in the land of Hatti"'.149 This is a major revision in the representation of divine support for the monarchy since neither the sungoddess of Arinna nor the queen were part of the original kingship myth in the Old Kingdom. Further development in the myth can be detected in rituals that Bin-Nun describes as depicting the 'belief of the Hittites that the queens joined the sun-goddess after their death'.150 Royal women, living in their own countries or in other lands, were official and visible participants, sponsors, subjects and leaders in the state cult. This is the case whether or not they had official titles, such as tawananna or God's Wife ofAmun. Their lives as royal women and their activities as actors in state politics appear founded on and integrated into the state cult. Dynasty The hereditary nature of rule is a denning element of monarchy as a form of government.151 Hence, family is the central core of the monarchy. In its 145. Bin-Nun, Tawananna, pp. 152-53. 146. SAA 10.16inParpola, Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars, p. 14. 147. SAA 10.109, 'Omen of the Kingship of Esarhaddon', in Parpola, Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars, pp. 86-88. 148. SAA 10.244, concerning Naqia, in Parpola, Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars,y. 194. 149. Bin-Nun (Tawananna, p. 196) points to the treaty between Suppiluliuma and Shattiwaza of Mittani. See CTH 52 in Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, pp. 44-50 (46). 150. Bin-Nun, Tawananna, p. 201. 151. This is true regardless of the pattern of succession.


47

various forms, family provides for the birth, nurture, training, protection, counsel and installation of leadership from one generation to the next. As demonstrated above, family also provides the networks of individuals, relationships and activities that equip and sustain the individual ruler as well as carry out the broad responsibilities of service to kingdom and cult. Dynastic family rule is intended to ensure constancy and continuity, for the political, social, physical and theological well-being of the land. Even though it takes only one son to carry on the dynasty, it takes a family to provide that son and to conduct the business of royal governance. Though the monarchies of the ancient Near East count women among their chief rulers, co-regents and vice-regents, they nevertheless conduct dynastic succession in terms of male heirs. The family must produce a male heir. While the rule of primogeniture is a general assumption governing succession, the father's favor appears to have provided the legitimating factor. Quite often younger sons inherit the throne; most times there is no explanation of the father's decision. This has led to the suspicion in scholarship that the mothers of these heir-designates have interfered with the process to bring about the upset in the succession order. 'Interfering' is a pejorative word, suggesting that the process was intended to run automatically without decision or confirmation on the part of the king. If the 'interference' of royal mothers were considered a problem for monarchy, then one would expect to see some form of ruling against it. None exists.152 It is safer to assume that part of the responsibility of the king was to select and curry support for his chosen successor. No single factor determined that choice. Royal women legitimately entered into that decision at several points. Some heirs are designated as part of marriage contracts between royal states. For example, in the treaty between Hattusili III of Hatti and Bentesina of Amurru, Hattusili declares: [I have given] Princess Gassuliyawiya to the land of Amurru, to the royal house, to Benteshina, [as] his wife. She now possesses queenship [in the

152. The only rule is that established by Hattusili I against the Old Kingdom tawananna. This forbids the mother of the crown prince from advancing the cause of her son, but her son was, by law, the designee. The king had no say in the matter. To halt the political activity of his own sister during his reign, Hattusili I stripped his sister of her post. As Bin-Nun suggests, however, 'Hattusili's fight against his sister does not appear as a quarrel over the succession... It was the Tawananna's power and influence which were rejected by the king as dangerous to the country' (Tawananna, p. 106).

48

A Woman's Place is in the House land] of Amurru. In the future the son and grandson of my daughter shall [exercise] kingship in the land of Amurru.153

The ranking of a wife could be a significant factor in determining whether a son could inherit the throne. In the Hittite Telepinu Edict, the mothers and sons are ranked as follows: A prince of the first rank was the son of the king's legitimate wife, sometimes called sakuuassar or referred to as DAM = 'wife' of the king. A prince of the second rank was the son of an ESERTU or NAPTARTU woman. These were secondary wives of the king... The sons of the lower rank were the pa/thurzes, who had no right to the throne according to Telepinu and to later documents.154

While ranking was important for discussing succession, it was not completely determinative. In Hattusa, Urhi-Tesup, son of an E§ERTU woman and half-brother of the legitimate heir, succeeded to the throne. Hattusili legitimized his own usurpation of the throne by 'describing Urhi-Tesup's] accession to the throne as in complete accordance with the law'. Hattusili's son Tudhaliya IV 'went further accusing his father of having taken the throne from Urhi-Tesup, the rightful heir'.155 In Egypt, Ahmose-Neferteri, who was very visible in the reign of her husband, was the daughter of a commoner and not a member of the royal family; yet this did not affect the legitimacy of her son. A king's regard for a wife could affect the choice of heir, but a king's disfavor did not automatically exclude her son from inheriting. As noted above, according to the Edict of Tudhaliya IV of Hatti concerning the Divorce of Ammistamru II of Ugarit, Utri-sarruma, the crown prince of Ugarit, was entitled to remain heir when his mother was banished from Ugarit.156 It is clear that within the monarchy it was necessary for the mother and the son—together or separately—to advocate for their own positions in the royal hierarchy and succession order. The rise to power depended on more than the mother's sexual involvement with the king or a son's birth order. Each had to work to gain the confidence of the king and to be effective operators within the functions of the royal house. In Sibtu and Zimri-Lim of Mari we see the confidence and effectiveness within the same genera153. 154. 155. 156.

Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, p. 101. Bin-Nun, Tawananna, pp. 217-18. Bin-Nun, Tawananna, p. 227. Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, p. 181.


49

tion—between the royal pair. In Puduhepa of the Hittite Kingdom, Ahatmilku of Ugarit and Naqia/Zakutu of Assyria, we see that relationship and activity across two generations, with husbands and then with sons. This is the ideal dynamic in the context of dynastic succession. It was for this reason that the status of queen mother was the most elevated position of women in the ancient monarchies. Successful dynastic succession involved not only the transfer of power from father to son, but also the transition from queen-wife to queen mother. Both were intended to confirm the legitimacy of the new reign and to ensure stability and continuity in the power structures. At times the reign of the queen mother extended past her own son to her grandson. At the death of her son Esarhaddon, Naqia/Zakutu used her authority to compel the brothers of Ashurbanipal, the members of the royal court and the citizens of Assyria to enter into a treaty of allegiance to Ashurbanipal.157 This raises the question as to the source of Naqia/Zakutu's authority. It is possible to conclude with Zafrira Ben-Barak that 'in the matter of the exercise of sovereign power, the queen mother had no defined role and function... [I]f a queen mother did attain a position of significant political power, it was entirely the consequence of her own ambitions, and her personal skill in the struggles which she undertook on her behalf.158 This conclusion, however, is based on a familiar but flawed view of monarchy in which the power and involvement of women in state affairs are an anomaly—a positive or negative disturbance—in the existence and activity of royal rule. It is no exaggeration, however, to state that without royal women there would be no dynastic rule. This is not just because there would be no son to inherit, but because the structures of international relations, economic productivity, social service and cultic devotion are dynamic and familial, not exclusively hierarchical and male. Women such as Naqia could function without being viewed as merely the creation of some man or a creature of her own ambitions.159

157. SAA 2.8 in Parpola and Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths, pp. 62-64. 158. Z. Ben-Barak, 'The Queen Consort and the Struggle of Succession to the Throne', in J.-M. Durand (ed.), Lafemme dans le Proche-Orient Antique (CRRAI, 33; Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations 1987), pp. 33-40 (39). 159. Melville appropriately questions common scholarly assumptions about the broad extent of Naqia/Zakutu's authority, particularly the claims that she ruled in Babylonia at some point during the reign of her son Esarhaddon and that her rule grew in light of the perceived 'weakness' of her son. Melville suggests that 'if Naqia

50


As has been demonstrated, monarchy was an interlocking system of (sometimes competing) persons, interests and avenues of access and action. Skill, support and experience were needed to negotiate succession, even in the case of a designated heir. The position of 'queen mother' must be seen as an integral element of the functioning and survival of a royal house.

wielded real power during the reign of her son it can only be because Esarhaddon sanctioned it... She did not, therefore, start her son's reign from an established position of great authority. There was no reason that Esarhaddon would have had to put up with his mother's interference when he was king. If he had not wanted her to be powerful he could simply have confined her to the palace or one of her estates' (The Role of Naqia, p. 32). However, kings were not as free to discard the 'interference' of their mothers, as Murslli III was well aware (see above, nn. 140-42). The system of monarchy itself and the legacy Naqia/Zakutu brought to the position of queen mother as widow of the former king offered initial sanction for her exercise of power.

Chapter 2 WOMEN'S PLACE IN THE HOUSE

Chapter 1 described the activities royal women carry out within the functions of monarchy. This chapter explores the space royal women are assigned within reconstructions of ancient palace life. Specifically, this section focuses on the limits of the term 'harem' in representing and interpreting women's places in the royal house. The Women of the Palace While royal women are assigned titles in the ancient texts that describe their individual relationships to the ruler (mother, wife and daughter), they are often collectively referred to as MRS sa ekalli, literally 'women of thepalace\ or bit sinnisti, literally 'house of women'.1 This expression is commonly translated as 'women of the harem''. The term 'harem' evokes images of a collection of women retained for the sexual pleasure of the king locked in a section of the palace accessible only to the king and guarded by eunuchs. The 'women of the harem' are imagined as restricted and powerless within the royal house. The activities of royal women as described in Chapter 1 are often presented as exceptions to the royal-women-as-confmed-and-powerless model of palace life. For example, in discussing the Mari correspondence, Artzi and Malamat conclude that it 'depicts [Sibtu] as a very active and highly influential person in the kingdom of Mari, far-removed from the status of a woman confined to the royal harem' (emphasis mine).2 Batto's Studies on Women at Mari mentions 'The Queen and the Royal Harem', alluding to Sibtu's inclusion among the wives and 'lesser women' who comprise the 1. Hanigalbat writes to the Hittite king:' Greetings to you, to the house of women and to your country'; cf. 4:4 in H.G. Guterbock, Siegel aus Bogazkoy, II (AfO, 7; Osnabriick: Biblio-Verlag, 1967), p. 82. Cited in CAD S 15, p. 292. 2. Artzi and Malamat, 'The Correspondence of Sibtu', p. 75.

52


harem, but maintaining her separation in title, authority and residence.3 Each scholar attempts to account for the activity of Sibtu against the prevailing images of a guarded and inactive 'harem'. In contrast, Stephanie Dalley concludes at Mari 'there is no evidence for an organised harem.4 The term 'harem' is applied to other living arrangements for royal women. For example, the Egyptian settlement Medinet el-Ghurab, in existence throughout the New Kingdom, is referred to as the 'Harem at Miwer'. It was a royal outpost with its own economy, the center of 'a flourishing textile business',5 and 'primarily home to a community of women, their children and their servants'.6 Alan Gardiner observes that '[s]uch royal institutions are known to have possessed fields and herds of their own and must have needed the services of a large staff of scribes, minor functionaries, and workpeople engaged in the most varied occupations'.7 Despite the economic and political domination of this royal institution in the region, Gardiner suggests the pharaohs 'established] harems there for their further delectation', and that '[t]he ladies were placed in the charge of an "Overseer of the Harem" '.8 Joyce Tyldesley concludes, however, that '[t]hese administrators, who were married men rather than eunuchs, were not guards but scribes and accountants charged with the task of trying to help control the considerable business interests of the royal women'.9 To What Does 'Harem' Refer? It must be noted that 'harem' is a term introduced by scholars into the translation and discussion of the ancient texts; no technical equivalent exists in the ancient languages and the term has been used to translate a range of phrases.10 For example, in Egyptian pr-hnr is translated as 3. Batto, Studies on Women at Mari, pp. 8-29. 4. S. Dalley, Mari andKarana: Two Old Babylonian Cities (London: Longman, 1984), p. 100. 5. Tyldesley, Hatchepsut, p. 54. 6. J. Tyldesley, Daughters of his: Women of Ancient Egypt (New York: Viking, 1994), p. 187. 7. A. Gardiner, 'The Harem at Miwer', JNES 12.3 (1953), pp. 145-49 (145). 8. Gardiner, 'Harem at Miwer', p. 145. 9. Tyldesley, Daughters oflsis, p. 187. 10. See the discussion by J.-M. Durand and J. Margueron of the Sumerian and Akkadian terms commonly translated 'harem' in J.-M. Durand and J. Margueron, 'La question du harem royal dans le palais de Mari', Journal des Savants (OctoberDecember 1980), pp. 253-80 (253-63).

2. Women's Place in the House

53

'harem'. 'Women of thepr-hnr' are prominent in the conspiracy to assassinate Ramesses III, according to the report of the Turin Juridical Papyrus.11 It is assumed thatpr-hnr refers to a particular location in the palace since Papyrus Lee, which also speaks of the incident, refers to an entrance facing or approaching the pr-hnr.12 The term ip.t-nsw, however, is also translated as 'royal harem'. The difficulty in representing the ancient models of palace life is evident when both terms appear in the same title, such as 'overseer of the ip.t-nsw ofthepr-hnr' and 'scribe of the ip.t-nsw of the pr-hnr\u William Ward argues: From the Old and Middle Kingdom titles including these terms, a whole hierarchy of harem officials has been created with the corollary that if the officials existed the institution itself must have existed. But ip.t-nsw.t does not mean 'royal harem', therefore the officials attached to the ip.t-nsw.t do not form a hierarchy of harem administrators so that, on the basis of the lexical evidence, the harem as traditionally defined did not exist. The phrase in question can be rendered 'royal counting-house' in some contexts, or '(private) royal apartment' or even 'royal granary' in others... The lexical evidence traditionally proposed for the existence of a harem as an institution is thus capable of quite different interpretations.14

Ward's assertions are highly contested and Ward himself acknowledges that 'royal harems' arising from diplomatic marriages existed from the Eighteenth Dynasty forward.15 His argument is instructive, however, in raising questions about the different types of institutions the term 'harem' is used to represent and about the different assumptions projected on a text when the word 'harem' is used in the translation. A. Malamat has in mind a model quite different than the Harem at Miwer in his search for a Hebrew word for 'royal harem'. His inquiry begins from the following perspective:

11. Ward, Essays on Feminine Titles, p. 81. 12. H. Goedicke, 'Was Magic Used in the Harem Conspiracy Against Ramesses III? (P. Rollin and P. Lee)', JEA 49 (1963), pp. 71-92 (84). 13. Ward, Essays on Feminine Titles, p. 81. 14. W.A. Ward, 'Non-Royal Women and their Occupations in the Middle Kingdom', inB.S. Lesko (ed.), Women's Earliest Records from Ancient Egypt and Western Africa: Proceedings of the Conference on Women in the Ancient Near East, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, November 5—7,1987 (BJS, 166; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), pp. 33-43 (41). 15. Ward, ('Non-Royal Women') in a discussion cited in Lesko (ed.), Women's Earliest Records, pp. 44-45.

54

A Woman's Place is in the House It is rather surprising that the Hebrew Bible has no specific term for the royal women's quarters within the palace, that is, the harem... Now, at least some of the kings of Judah and Israel, such as David, Solomon, and Rehoboam, married many wives... Thus, we may assume that in the palaces of Jerusalem and in the capital cities in the Northern Kingdom special quarters were set aside to accommodate royal ladies, similar to the harems throughout the ancient Near East and later in the Islamic and Ottoman Empires... [W]e need to look for an alternative word in the Bible for harem, one denoting the physical realm of the women's quarters deep within the palace.16

It is not surprising that Malamat finds a term,penimd, 'inside',17 to refer 'to the harem proper' and concludes that 'throughout history until modern times the harem has been a secluded, well-guarded unit'.18 The term, however, gives no indication of how this unit functioned. The Middle Assyrian Palace Decrees A key source in the reconstruction of palace life is the collection of Middle Assyrian Palace Decrees.19 This collation of decrees spanning 300 years is dated to the time of Tiglath-Pileser I (1114-1076 BCE). Of the 23 decrees there are four which are relatively intact and another eight decrees which provide at least partial information for interpretation.20 The decrees are not comprehensive and, as Martha Roth notes, the cumulative nature of the compilation reveals an overlap and repetition of decrees from one ruler to another and suggests that the final compilation may have served as a reference work rather than as (or in addition to) a set of immediately practical rules.21

16. A. Malamat, 'Is There a Word for the Royal Harem in the Bible? The Inside Story', in D.P. Wright, D.N. Freedman and A. Hurvitz (eds.), Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995), pp. 785-87 (78586). In the book of Esther, the king gathers the most beautiful women from the provinces and brings them to the bet hannasim ('the house of women': Est. 2.3). 17. Ps. 45.14 (MT); 2 Kgs 7.11; 2 Chron. 29.18. 18. Malamat, 'Is There a Word for the Royal Harem?', p. 787. 19. English translation in M.T. Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor (Writings from the Ancient World, 6; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), pp. 195-209. 20. E. Weidner, 'Hof- und Harems-Erlasse assyrischer Konige aus dem 2. Jahrtausend v. Chi\AfO 17 (1954-56), pp. 257-93 (265). 21. Roth, Law Collections, p. 196.


55

Ernst Weidner, who first translated and commented on these decrees, observed they provide a 'behind the scenes picture' of the 'life and activity of the Assyrian king's court'.22 As the only collection of court edicts discovered thus far, it has had a major role in shaping views of palace life in the ancient Near East and in discussions of the activity of the 'women of the palace'. The decrees refer to different groups of women: the mother of the king (ummi sarri), the wives of the king (assat sarri), the women of the palace (sinnisdti set ekalli), other women (sinnisdtu mdddtu sa ekalli), maidservants (amtu), and married women (working in the palace) living in the homes of their husbands (sinnisdtu ...sa kiddnu ahhuzdni ina bet mutesina us[bdni\). The difficulty in representing these various rankings and responsibilities becomes apparent in Weidner's commentary on the decrees in which he lists these different groups of women under the heading Der Harem and then in the discussion of the wives of the king (assat sarri) notes that they are ranked ahead of the 'women of the palace' (sinnisati sa ekallim).23 In commenting on the use of the term 'women of the palace' in the decrees Weidner suggests that this refers for the most part to concubines, clarifying in a footnote that this title was later used for Sammuramat the chief wife (sinnisat sa ekallim) of Samsi-Adad V and for Tasmetumsarrat and Naqia, both wives of Sennacherib.24 The collective term 'harem' applied to all the women employed or living in the palace is too broad to capture the complex hierarchy among the women of the palace and too narrow to represent the breadth of application of the ancient titles. Martha Roth observes that the decrees reflect the kings' concern 'with maintaining the order and inviolability of the "Inner Quarters" in which the royal women resided'.25 The decrees, for example, 'forbid the transfer of gold, silver or precious stones to a palace slave',26 require the inspection of '(containers holding) the jewelry, the clothing, [the wool], and the oil rations of the palace personnel who travel with the king',27 forbid 'a palace woman' residing elsewhere from sending to the palace 'for a skirt, white wraps, a travel cloak, [...] leather boots, or anything else without asking permission of the king or of the palace commander',28 require a eunuch 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.

Weidner, 'Hof- und Harems-Erlasse', p. 260. Weidner, 'Hof- und Harems-Erlasse', p. 261. Weidner, 'Hof- und Harems-Erlasse', p. 261 n. 19. Roth, Law Collections, p. 195. Roth, Law Collections, p. 199. Roth, Law Collections, p. 199. Roth, Law Collections, p. 200.

56


sent by the king to the royal women to '(first) report to the palace commander' before delivering a message,29 direct capital punishment for blasphemy on the part of any royal woman,30 and instruct court attendants and royal eunuchs to stay out of earshot of the singing and conversation of royal women, to stand no closer than seven paces when speaking with a palace woman, and not to go near a palace woman who has bare shoulders even when summoned.31 Zones of separation are clearly enforced but there is no label given to a particular palace location. There is mention of women being ina hule ('on the road/way'), translated as 'Processional Residence' and presumed to be 'a residence or private quarters',32 and of sending a messenger 'ana muhhi [ ]', reconstructed as 'to [the quarters of the palace women]'.33 Two different concepts of space appear to be operative in these decrees. One relates to a physical location: the living quarters of women of the palace. The other relates to separation between people on the basis of gender, rank and task. The latter is not limited to a particular location within the palace building. The distinction between the two is important to note since the identification and ranking of women of the palace come not from where they reside in the palace, but from their position in the royal household. In addition, it is possible to preserve sharp boundaries of separation without confining all royal women in one particular location. The decrees themselves depict mobility with separation. The concept of 'harem' as 'forbidden or unlawful... sacred, inviolable, or taboo'34 can best be applied to a class of royal persons and not limited to a corner of the palace structure. The Middle Assyrian Palace Decrees apply to the palace as a whole35 and govern male and female personnel from the overseer of the palace (ukal ekalli) to the baker (nuhatimmu\ from the mother of the king (ummi sarri) to the female servant (amtu). Gender segregation is obvious. The decrees, however, do not provide a picture of the responsibilities, relative status and degree of interaction among these different positions.

29. Roth, Law Collections, p. 201. 30. Roth, Law Collections, pp. 201, 202, 203. 31. Roth, Law Collections, p. 206. 32. Roth, Law Collections, p. 209. 33. Roth, Law Collections, p. 209. 34. F. Meninski, LexiconArabico-Persico-Turcicum (Vienna: Typis losephi Nobilis de Kurzbock, 1780-1802), pp. 464-65. Cited in Peirce, Imperial Harem, p. 4. 35. Weidner, 'Hof- und Harems-Erlasse', p. 258.


57

Gender Segregation and Royal Women's Activity Weidner's reconstruction of palace life draws a sharp distinction between the royal 'court' (comprised of the male officials and servants) and the 'harem' (the various ranks of women of the palace and their servants). He suggests that the women are not only physically segregated and restricted to 'the harem area'36 but also cut off from the 'outside world' and from the administrative and management spheres of the palace.37 Weidner envisions a 'deadly boredom' (Langemveile) among the women of the palace in which 'the most insignificant occasions must satisfy feminine curiosities' and which 'too often' gives rise to 'gossiping, squabbling and fighting'.38 A.K. Grayson also concludes that the 'enforced idleness and seclusion' of the women leads to 'unrest and bitter quarrels'.39 The Assyrian 'harem' Weidner and Grayson reconstruct not only segregates royal women but also renders them inactive in and irrelevant to the functioning of the royal house. It is likely that any 'unrest and bitter quarrels' that did occur among women of the palace40 were directly related to the demands for involvement in the functions of the royal house, including the demands of maintaining one's property and advancing one's position and that of one's sons and daughters. An alternative to the model proposed by Weidner and Grayson must be sought in order to connect the evidence of royal women's activity in the functions of the royal house, as described in Chapter 1 of this study and at Egyptian Medinet el-Ghurab, with the evidence of gender segregation and inviolability as suggested by the Middle Assyrian Palace Decrees. 36. Weidner, 'Hof- und Harems-Erlasse', p. 261. 37. Weidner, 'Hof- und Harems-Erlasse', p. 259. 38. Weidner, 'Hof- und Harems-Erlasse', p. 261. 39. A.K. Grayson, Assyrian Royal Inscriptions. I. From the Beginning to AshurResha-Ishi I (RANE; Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1972), p. 47. 40. The decrees about blasphemy are among those attributed to Ninurta-apal-ekur who came to power by seizing the throne. The threatened punishment against blasphemy uttered in women's quarreling suggests that women's words were considered effective in the Assur cult and therefore warranted the death penalty. Shalom Paul points to a parallel within the Hebrew Bible in Lev. 24.10-23 ('Biblical Analogues to Middle Assyrian Laws', in E.B. Firmage, E.G. Weiss and J.W. Welch [eds.], Religion and Law: Biblical-Judaic and Islamic Perspectives [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990], pp. 333-50 [346-50]). Weidner suggests the Assyrian king is forcibly attempting to curb a 'bad habit' (Unsitte) among the royal women ('Hof- und Harems-Erlasse', p. 279).

58

A Woman's Place is in the House Analogy to Imperial Turkish Harems

The predominant model for understanding the context of ancient royal women by analogy is that of the Imperial Turkish harems. Malamat41 refers readers to Alev L. Croutier's work on the subject.42 Several of Croutier's observations are particularly useful in addressing the connection between activity and gender separation in the royal household. 1. Separation -was not exclusive to women. Croutier notes: From [1666] on the princes were kept secluded in the Karies (Golden Cage), an apartment.. .off-limits to everyone else in the harem. The princes spent their lives in isolation... Life in the Golden Cage was racked by fear and suffused in ignorance of events outside... If a prince lived long enough to ascend to the throne, he was, more often than not, unprepared to rule an empire.43

2. Separation did not exclude royal women from active participation in the functions of the royal house. Croutier reports: Through the chief eunuchs, they communicated to the grand vizier and other important political figures and sometimes even held interviews through a curtain or a latticed window. They gained knowledge not only of the court but also of the rest of the world, at times overthrowing their enemies and elevating allies. They elected governors and even formed intrigues with foreign countries. For example, the Venetian Baffa, who became Sultana Safiye.. .was determined to look after the interests of Venice... Even when Venetian naval vessels offered insult and injury to Turkish shipping, she was able to dissuade the sultan from attacking her native Saint Marks, and to persuade him to give Venice especially favorable commercial advantages.44

3. In the seventeenth through early nineteenth centuries Europe was enthralled by Orientalism, 'the Western version of the Orient, created by the Western imagination and expressed by Western art forms. It is the East of fantasy, of dreams'.45 The explosion of this Orientalism is well docu-

41. 42. 1989). 43. 44. 45.

Malamat, 'Is There a Word for the Royal Harem?', p. 785. A.L. Croutier, Harem: The World Behind the Veil (New York: Abbeville Press, Croutier, Harem, p. 38. Croutier, Harem, p. 106. Croutier, Harem, p. 173.


59

mented in clothing (Turqueries), music (Mozart's The Magic Flute, Rimsky-Korsakoff s Scheherazade}, food (coffee), entertainment (Arabian Nights, Hugo's Les Orientales), painting (nude harem scenes), and fascination with the harem's 'licentious sensuality and sexuality'.46 Leslie P. Peirce observes that ' [p]reoccupied with its own forms of monarchical absolutism, Europe elaborated a myth of oriental tyranny and located its essence in the sultan's harem'.47 4. Turkish harems were not all about sex. Croutier observes: It is common fantasy to imagine sultans actually having sexual relations with hundreds of women in their harem. In some cases, this might have been true... But several sultans chose to take only one kadin... Much to the chagrin of Western minds, there seem to have been no outright orgies involving the sultan and his many women.48

N.M. Penzer made a similar observation: So far from being a palace of women lazing about marble halls awaiting their master's pleasure, the harem was a little world of its own, governed with the utmost deliberation and care, not by a man at all but by a woman. Every member of it had her exact duties to perform, and was forced to comply with all the rules and regulations that in many respects were as strict and rigid as in a convent.49

Peirce notes that sex was not absent from the Turkish harem: It was not a random activity. Sex in the imperial harem was necessarily surrounded with rules, and the structure of the harem was aimed in part at shaping, and thus controlling, the outcome of the sultan's sexual activity. Sexual relations between the sultan and chosen women of the harem were embedded in a complex politics of dynastic reproduction.

Peirce observes that political maturity for women within the Turkish Imperial Household was tied to sexual maturity, particularly motherhood She points out that concubines began to demonstrate their 'political power and wealth (symbolized by their assumption of the privilege of public 46. R. Gost, Der Harem (Cologne: Dumont Buchverlag, 1993), p. 10. See also Croutier, Harem, pp. 173-201. 47. Peirce, Imperial Harem, p. 3. 48. Croutier, Harem, pp. 103, 105. 49. N.M. Penzer, The Harem: An Account of the Institution as It Existed in the Palace of the Turkish Sultans with a History of the Grand Seraglio from its Foundation to the Present Time (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1937), p. 14. 50. Peirce, Imperial Harem, p. 3.

60


building)...only after their sexual role ended, when the sultan either ceased to have sexual contact with them or died'.51 The highest-ranking woman of the Empire was the valide sultan, a position tied to motherhood and achieved after the death of her spouse. The studies by Alev L. Croutier, Roswitha Gost and Leslie Peirce suggest the need for careful re-examination of the data about Turkish harems before making analogies to ancient Near Eastern palace life. The term 'harem', if used at all, must be carefully described and cautiously applied to the ancient monarchies. Analogy cannot be the basis for assuming that such an institution existed in all ancient monarchies and that it was organized in the same manner as that of the Ottoman Imperial House. While caution needs to be exercised in reconstructing ancient monarchies on the basis of analogy to Turkish harems, evidence from the Ottoman Empire may, nevertheless, provide new insights useful in interpreting the ancient data. In particular, data from Turkish harems can challenge the common assumption that gender segregation indicates limited and restricted involvement on the part of women. Gender Segregation and Royal Women's Activity in Turkish Harems Leslie Peirce's study of the Turkish Imperial Harem of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries provides much-needed assistance in exploring the connection between the segregation of women and their involvement within and on behalf of the royal house. Peirce demonstrates that not only did gender segregation necessitate the establishment of a hierarchy among the female members of the royal house, but it also established the valide sultan (queen mother) as the elder member of the dynastic household and 'the link between the dynasty's generations'.52 Peirce traces the increased significance of royal women's involvement and its acceptance as necessary and legitimate to the transition from regional princely governorships to a central royal house and from a system of open succession to one based on seniority.53 When the royal palace became the center of government, the royal family—'made up of women and men, senior and junior generations, blood members, slave servants, and retainers'—became the basis for the political system.54 While the 51. 52. 53. 54.

Peirce, Imperial Harem, p. 23. Peirce, Imperial Harem, p. 17. Peirce, Imperial Harem, pp. 24-25. Peirce, Imperial Harem, p. viii.


61

dynasty remained 'the sons of Osman' and continued to represent a male 'source of political power', royal mothers were custodians of dynastic sovereignty. Peirce explains: Their custodianship involved an understanding of the sources and uses of sovereign power, the duty of training its users, and the responsibility of taking necessary measures for its preservation, including exercising it themselves when suitable male rulers were unavailable. As custodians of sovereign power, royal mothers were also responsible for ensuring that the dynasty reproduced itself, a duty that gave them a legitimate interest in the sexual activity of their sons. It was simply assumed that royal mothers had a high degree of political knowledge.55

Through the management of their wealth and properties, the careers of their administrative personnel and attendants, the selection of sons-in-law, the clientage relationships of ex-slaves, and by means of gifts to individuals and donations to cultic and charitable causes, royal women exercised a great deal of political influence on behalf of the royal house. They were able to build support for themselves and for their sons in spite of being 'for the most part confined to the palace'.56 Their methods of operating were legitimate and comparable to those of royal men since, as Peirce notes, Functionally ascribed authority—authority devolving from one's office— certainly existed, but more important was the web of individual relations— of patronage and clientage, of teacher and student, of kinship and marriage—that brought one to that office and that one used in the exercise of one's official power.57

Though the royal palace was spatially segregated by gender—with the sultan and his male officials and servants occupying one area and the valide sultan, her officials, the other women of the royal house and their servants occupying the harem area—the government was socially and politically united as a dynastic household. This raised motherhood to a source of power and the valide sultan to the position of 'guardianship of the royal family as well as [invested her] with administrative control of the day-to-day functioning of the harem household'.58 It also created the expectation that royal women would play 'a central role in...the public

55. 5 6. 57. 58.

Peirce, Imperial Peirce, Imperial Peirce, Imperial Peirce, Imperial

Harem, p. 17. Harem, p. 143. Harem, p. 149. Harem, p. 126.

62


culture of sovereignty: public rituals of imperial legitimation and royal patronage of monumental building and artistic production'.59 The research conducted by Peirce demonstrates the necessary and legitimate activity of Turkish royal women in the five functional areas of the royal house identified in Chapter 1 of this study: access, industry, cult, service and dynasty. Such activity flourishes in spite of the restricted boundaries of the harem quarters and the segregation of men and women. As an analogy for use in examining ancient Near Eastern royal houses, it forces a revision in the separation frequently made between public/male and domestic/female, drawing attention instead to the 'distinctions between the privileged and the common, the sacred and the profane—distinctions that cut across the dichotomy of gender'.60 Women's Place in the Royal House The incontrovertible evidence of a designated harem space and hierarchy in the Turkish Empire does not resolve the question of their existence in the monarchies of the ancient Near East. The analysis by Peirce suggests the wisdom of re-evaluating the use and assumptions about the term 'harem' as applied in discussing the ancient royal houses. It is more than likely that many or all royal women in the ancient kingdoms lived in apartments clustered in one or more wings or floors of the palace. In the Mari correspondence Zimri-Lim, hearing that a woman who was frequently in the palace was sick with a contagious disease, instructed Sibtu to make sure no one ate or drank from her dishes, nor sat or lay where she had been. This would prevent 'many women' from becoming ill.61 In Sibru's reply she reports that she has isolated the woman in the 'new rooms'.62 Since the correspondence indicates that the disease could easily spread among many women of the palace (and probably among children living with them), it is possible that at least some of the women of the palace lived in contact with one another, perhaps with common dining and seating facilities. The measures employed to protect the women are those any household would follow. Sibtu's reference to the 'new rooms' suggests that there were several residential locations in the palace.

59. 60. 61. 62.

Peirce, Imperial Harem, p. vii. Peirce, Imperial Harem, p. 8. ARM 10.129, 130. ARM 10.14.


63

Cautiously assuming a designated space for female residence in the palace, it becomes appropriate to search for potential locations for such a residence within the archaeological remains at Mari and at other sites. Jean-Marie Durand and Jean Margueron offer the most recent proposal for Mari.63 In their search for 'an architectural form that corresponds to the functions of the harem',64 they locate a sector of the palace including living, storage and administrative space that is 'virtually like [the area they designate as] the House of the King, except that it is not organized around the throne room'.65 A range of activities, not all of them 'residential', appear to have taken place within this sector.66 This space is connected to a set of official rooms in the administrative center of the palace, though not directly to the throne room. Access between the center of the palace and this 'Second House' could be regulated by three doors.67 Durand and Margueron suggest that this sector is the 'harem' at Mari. Since Sibtu had her own quarters,68 they caution that it is not possible to determine whether the location they have designated is the 'House of the Queen' or the 'House of Women'.69 At Fort Shalmaneser (Nimrud) there is also evidence of a Residency with 'two paved corridors.. .allowing free circulation and early [sic] access to the various units within it'. Such corridors are also 'admirably adapted to serve the dual purposes of access and segregation' by closing the doors at their end.70 Indication of a women's residence in the palace does not resolve the question of restrictions on royal women's movement. In a letter to ZimriLim, Inib-sarri complains that her husband Ibal-Addu has made her remain 63. Durand and Margueron, 'La question du harem royal', pp. 253-80. 64. Durand and Margueron, 'La question du harem royal', p. 274. 65. Durand and Margueron, 'La question du harem royal', p. 278. 66. Within this section there are records of Sibtu's food expenditures carrying her seal (Room 40), correspondence of Queen Akatiya (mother of Yasmah-Addu) and Addu-dur (possibly the mother of Zimri-Lim) both in Room 110, letters to Sibtu (Rooms 51 and 52), administrative records relating to female captives (Room 52), records of financial activity and property of chief women (Room 52), and the archives of Inib-sina, sister of Zimri-Lim (Room 52). Other correspondence is found in the area around the workshops, where the women's requests for jewelry and other work were sent. See Durand, 'L'organisation de 1'espace', pp. 81-84. 67. Durand and Margueron, 'La question du harem royal', p. 279. 68. A bit beltim is mentioned in ARM 13.26:9. Cited in Batto, Studieson Womenat Mari, p. 28. 69. Durand and Margueron, 'La question du harem royal', p. 280. 70. M.E.L. Mallowan, Nimrud and its Remains, II (London: Collins, 1966), p. 382.

64


in a corner (tubuqum) and placed her under guard while his other wife publicly receives tribute.71 Though it is tempting to define the purposes and conditions of a women's residence on the basis of Inib-sarri's complaint, she does not indicate that she shares the fate of other palace women. She treats the guard as an exceptional act of provocation. While, no doubt, Inib-sarri's confinement was most unpleasant she was at the same time actively involved in diplomatic negotiations, corresponding with one king and challenging the actions of another. She did not need to be present in the throne room to carry out her royal functions. A women's residence within the central palace is clearly not the only model. It appears that even the smaller kingdoms had more than one royal residence. There is reference, for example, in the Mari texts to the 'Palace/Court of Palms'72 and to four palaces outside of the capital (Terqa, Sagaratum, Dur-Yahdun-Lim, Qattunan).73 The Middle Assyrian Palace Decrees refer to various royal residences in the city (ekalldte sa libit libbi die) as well as the lusmu-house and the river house (bit naru).14 Some palaces were built specifically for queens, such as that dedicated by Sennacherib at Nineveh for Tasmetum-sarrat.75 Some were built by queens, such as the one at Nineveh built for her son Esarhaddon by Naqia/Zakutu, another wife and widow of Sennacherib.76 Some palaces were estates primarily for royal women, such as the Egyptian Harem at Miwer. Each palace was a center of economic, diplomatic, judicial, cultic and dynastic activities in addition to being a residence for the members of the royal family and their staff. Though it may be possible to identify residences in palace floor plans, it is not possible to isolate the activities

71. ARM 10.74. 72. See A.2548, a letter from Samsi-Adad to his son Yasmah-Addu. Cited in Batto, Studies on Women at Mari, p. 20, and Durand, 'Les dames du palais', p. 406. 73. J. Bottero, Textes economiques et administratifs (ARMT, 7; Paris: Imprimerie Nationale,!957), p. 220. 74. Decree 6; Roth, Law Collections, p. 199. 75. Reade, 'Was Sennacherib a Feminist?', p. 141. 76. Melville points to the exceptional nature of this action as she 'know[s] of no other Neo-Assyrian example of anyone building something for a king' (The Role of Naqia, p. 38 n. 44). Moreover, Melville observes, Naqia's dedicatory inscription, though 'considerably shorter and less hyperbolic', corresponds to the form of a royal building inscription and 'much of the text is written with the exact language of one of Esarhaddon's own building inscriptions, Nin B7, that describes his construction of the ekal masarti at Nineveh' (The Role of Naqia, pp. 39, 40).


65

carried out there from the functions of the royal household and, therefore, of the kingdom. Women of the House This chapter began with the observation that behind the collective reference to 'women of the palace' were the hierarchically organized female functionaries of the royal household. As attested in sources such as marriage contracts, tribute lists, ration records, titles of palace officials, artwork and the palace decrees, these women held various ranks and responsibilities and carried out a range of administrative, diplomatic and cultic duties. The numbers of such women were not small even in a kingdom the size of Mari. For the Assyrian ruler Yasmah-Addu who ruled Mari prior to Zimri-Lim the oil ration lists document approximately 44 royal women and their staff.77 Under Zimri-Lim the list increases to at least 232 women, of whom approximately 200 were officials or servants.78 The women in these lists fall under the care of the king. They include women sexually connected to the king, such as wives of various ranks, as well as the king's unmarried daughters and sisters, and other women who have come under his care and control through royal succession and military conquest. Upon the death or defeat of a king the women previously under his care represent the surviving corps of the royal house. Their activity and royal identity do not end with the demise of the king. Some or all of the women are taken into the 'house' of the successor or victor. There is some evidence that victors 'taking over the harem' of another king took women from the vanquished royal house as secondary wives, but no evidence that all women were incorporated into the victor's house for sexual purposes.79 Comparing the ration lists of Yasmah-Addu with those of Zimri-Lim, Durand observes that a significant number of the women in Zimri-Lim's palace appear in the same hierarchical order in the palace of YasmahAddu and notes that some of these women had been princesses of Mari before the conquest of the city by Samsi-Addu.80 This relative stability of the female population and its internal status relationships even in the case 77. Durand, 'ôrganisation de Fespace', pp. 84-85; idem, 'Les dames du palais', pp. 395-96. 78. Durand, 'L'organisation de Pespace', pp. 85-86. 79. There is no evidence that the chief wife or queen mother was incorporated into a victor's house. 80. Durand, 'Les dames du palais', p. 389.

66


of conflicted succession suggests that the status of these women was not solely determined by their relationship (sexual or not) to one or another king. They were also not confined to the palace in Mari, but left it at times to reside elsewhere.81 Was it lack of time, as Durand suggests, that explains why YasmahAddu left his 'harem' behind when Zimri-Lim gained possession of Mari82 or was it political strategy? Could Yasmah-Addu expect to shelter and provide for these women wherever he fled, and how useful would they be to him without their various political and economic networks? The ration lists from Mari demonstrate remarkable stability among the women of the palace in spite of major disruptions in the position of king. Perhaps Yasmah-Addu was hoping to pick up where he left off should he be returned to power at Mari. New kings appear to have made changes at the level of the first wives. Even in cases of internal or external usurpation of the throne, this sometimes involved marrying the daughter(s) of the previous king. After SamsiAddu captured the city of Mari, he established his son Yasmah-Addu as king there. Yasmah-Addu married princesses from Mari. Durand observes that through these marriages Yasmah-Addu became part of the 'House of Mari' and this is why 'Zimri-Lim later considered him as one of his predecessors and not as a usurper'.83 Maria Brosius observes something similar in the Persian Period where Darius I, who followed Cyrus the Mede on the throne but was not himself a member of the royal house, married 'royal daughters of the early Persian kings to ensure that, as his sons, their offspring would support his kingship rather than contest it'.84 This action preserved the continuity of the royal house and provided Darius protection against the more immediate challenges to the legitimacy of his rule. When a royal son succeeded his father to the throne, the women of the father's house came under the son's care. The son was responsible for their provision and for arranging marriages for the unmarried women of that household so as to preserve and continue the dynasty. The son did not marry his father's chief wife. The transfer of women from one generation of leader to the next served as a stabilizing factor in a potentially dangerous period of transition. By offering continuing care for the royal women, 81. Durand, 'Les dames du palais', p. 391. 82. Durand, 'Les dames du palais', p. 389. 83. Durand, 'Les dames du palais', p. 421. 84. M. Brosius, Women in Ancient Persia 559-331 BC (Oxford Classical Monographs; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), p. 63.


67

the new ruler secured continuing benefit from the networks of property, personnel and influence controlled by the women. The continued presence of the chief wife of the former king—now the queen mother—symbolized the continuity of the dynasty and the legitimacy of the new reign. In conclusion, the 'place' of royal women in the ancient Near East is complex and dynamic. Wherever they reside they are engaged in the functions of the royal house. From their individual positions in the hierarchy of women and collectively as an organizational network of women, they participate in shaping and preserving the royal house and extending its work domestically and internationally. As the inherited corps of the royal house from generation to generation, they have a central place in symbolizing and effecting dynastic continuity. Leaving One Set of Houses and Entering Another Having presented in Chapters 1 and 2 a picture of the power and functioning of royal women in the monarchies of the ancient Near East, Part II of this study turns to the women in the monarchy of Judah. The method and focus shift at this point from historical evidence of ancient royal houses to the literary account of Judah's monarchy. The combination of historical and literary methodologies in one study is an odd but necessary undertaking, for the failure to imagine the participation of women in ancient monarchies is a problem shared by historians and literary critics alike. The predominant assumptions operative in both historical and narrative interpretations tend to view monarchy as, by definition, exclusive of women's real power and attribute evidence of involvement to the personality of the individual woman or the weakness of the male monarch. Conclusions about the actual situation of ancient women and the ideological intentions of ancient authors are drawn on the basis of such assumptions. Part I of this study develops a portrait of women's participation in monarchy in ancient Near Eastern kingdoms from the second millennium BCE through the Assyrian period. This is the period both historians and literary critics have turned to in constructing Israel/Judah's history and in interpreting the biblical narrative. If the composition of the narratives about Israel/Judah's monarchy were to be dated to the Persian period, additional historical material could be added to this survey. An examination of the historical evidence from the Persian era shows striking parallels to the portrait developed in Part I. Maria Brosius has looked at royal women in Persia by examining the Persepolis Fortification

68


texts and the neo-BabyIonian texts.85 She observes that 'the Archaemenid court modelled its court structure on practices known from the Neo-Babylonian (and possibly Neo-Elamite) court'86 and 'that the king's mother and the king's wife held an important position at court, that these women represented the top of the hierarchical structure among the royal women, and that they had rights and obligations that belonged with their status and not only allowed but also obliged them to act in a certain way'.87 She sees no evidence of royal women's seclusion or confinement, noting that 'Royal women regularly interacted with male members of the family in the exchange of goods, joint appearances on travels, and other economic activities'.88 She concludes: Royal women enjoyed a position which allowed them free disposition of the produce of their estates reflected in their ability to give their own orders to officials, to use their own seal and to employ their own bureaucratic staff to execute their affairs. These women also had their own centres of manufacture and their own workforce.89

The similarities between Brosius's conclusions and the data examined in Part I of this study should not lead to overgeneralizations about the participation of women—or of men—in monarchies; royal houses develop and change in response to historical conditions within each kingdom. Both studies recognize a problem in scholarly work that cuts across historical periods: the prevailing and unexamined assumption that women did not participate in significant ways in ancient monarchies. Brosius concludes that for the Persian period this problem is related to the uncritical adoption of the prejudices and misunderstandings of ancient Greek depictions of the Persian court.90 The data presented in both Brosius's study and in Part I of this study demonstrate that any discussion of the monarchy—whether historical or literary—that does not account for royal women's participation is inaccurate and anachronistic.

85. Brosius, Women in Ancient Persia, p. 1. 86. Brosius, Women in Ancient Persia, p. 184. 87. Brosius, Women in Ancient Persia, p. 198. 88. Brosius, Women in Ancient Persia, p. 188. 89. Brosius, Women in Ancient Persia, pp. 199-200. 90. Brosius, Women in Ancient Persia, p. 3. Brosius's introduction (pp. 1-12) provides examples. She observes that the preference for the Greek sources 'is most distinct when ancient historians discuss the history of the Hellenistic period following the conquest of the Persian Empire by Alexander III (the Great)' (p. 3).


69

Narrative methods will be used in Part II of this study in reading the account of the Judean monarchy as constructed by the Deuteronomistic Historian. The realities of governing in these other nations, as outlined in the studies by Aboud and Heltzer,91 and as depicted in the historical remains discussed in Part I, assist the reader to imagine more fully the scenes, characters and events in the biblical narrative. Knowledge of the variety of actors, symbols, responsibilities and networks of power in the ancient Near Eastern monarchies directs the reader's close attention to details and characters in the biblical text. The real, necessary and legitimate activity of royal women within the monarchies of ancient history requires the reader's serious consideration of the royal women ofJudah, viewing them not as outsiders to monarchy but as valid participants in and representatives of it. Since the realities of monarchy in the ancient Near East factor royal women into their functioning, that will be the starting point for the reading of the biblical texts. The texts themselves will amend or correct that perception as necessary. Part II of this study is guided by the insights of feminist anthropology to ask: What are the women in Judah 's monarchy doing?92 The readings explore that question, closely following three female characters representing three different royal positions (daughter, mother, king) as they are portrayed in the narrative. Knowledge of the symbols, power and dynamics of ancient royal households is critical for this reading. Not surprisingly, the results of the inquiry identify significant involvement of royal women in the text, as well as asymmetry in cultural evaluation. It is a familiar pattern of 'yes, but'. As Michelle Zimbalist Rosaldo observed, 'Women may be important, powerful, and influential, but it seems that, relative to men of their age and social status, women everywhere lack generally recognized and culturally valued authority'.93 91. Aboud, Die Rolle des Konigs und seiner Familie; Heltzer, Internal Organization of the Kingdom ofUgarit. 92. Sally Slocum notes 'the tendency...to look at culture almost entirely from a male point of view; to search for examples of the behavior of males and assume that this is sufficient for explanation'. She suggests that 'the basis of any discipline is not the answers it gets, but the questions it asks', basing her inquiry on the question: 'what were the females doing while the males were out hunting?' ('Woman the Gatherer: Male Bias in Anthropology', in R.R. Reiter [ed.], Toward an Anthropology of Women [New York: Monthly Review Press, 1975], pp. 36-50 [49]). 93. M.Z. Rosaldo, 'Women, Culture and Society: A Theoretical Overview', in M.Z. Rosaldo and L. Lamphere (eds.), Women, Culture, and Society (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1974), pp. 17-42 (17).

70


In this study, however, the goal of asking 'what are the women in the monarchy doing?' is not to assign them a ranking of status and power relative to the king and other male royal officials. It is, instead, to factor their presence and involvement into the perceptions of Judah's monarchy and into the interpretation of the narratives presenting that monarchy. Consequently, Part II of this study then asks, considering the involvement of royal -women, what does the royal house ofJudah look like? This question pursued in the readings presented in Chapters 4-6 surfaces a variety of thematic, rhetorical, theological, ideological and political insights to inform, challenge and contribute to the discussions and descriptions of the 'house' of Judah.

Part II

Chapter 3 WHO ARE THE ROYAL WOMEN OF THE HEBREW BIBLE? The biblical books of Samuel and Kings regularly and systematically connect women with Judah's monarchy. At the beginning of 1 Samuel a vision for Yahweh's agenda for the nation and relationship to the king is voiced by Hannah (1 Sam. 2.1-10), who in her role as mother shapes the future of her son, ultimately leading to the monarchy in Judah. At the end of Judah's history the king and the queen mother, representing the royal house, head the march of exiles to Babylon (2 Kgs 24.12). In the chapters between there are many female characters—major and minor, royal and non-royal— who factor into the story of Judah's monarchy. In the biblical text royal women appear in two places they do not appear in the historical materials: (1) in the regnal reports (King Lists) located throughout the books of Kings; and (2) in the narratives about the monarchy. The first of these will be considered in this chapter. The second will be raised in Chapters 5 through 7. The profile of royal women in the biblical text resembles in many ways that of their Assyrian, Ugaritic, Hittite and Egyptian neighbors. However different the empires may have been in size and ideology, the monarchy of Judah appears to have functioned 'like the other nations'. Like its neighbors, Judah's royal women are chiefly the mothers, wives and daughters of kings. The biblical text also demonstrates the same lack ofconsistency in applying administrative titles to women as was observed among Judah's neighbors. No woman in Judah's monarchy appears in the biblical text with the title 'queen' (malka). The term is attested in Hebrew and is even used in the Deuteronomistic History, but only in reference to the queen of Sheba (1 Kgs 10.1, 4, 10, 13; 2 Chron. 9.1, 3, 9, 12). It is used in Jeremiah in reference to the 'queen of heaven' (Jer. 7.18; 44.17,18,19,25), in Song of Songs to refer to an unidentified group of' queens '(6.8,9), and in the book of Esther to refer to Vashti and Esther. While the fact that Judah's neighbors also made limited use of feminine royal titles does not explain the

3. Who Are the Royal Women of the Hebrew Bible?

73

absence of the title 'queen' in the biblical text, it does warn against concluding that absence of title is indicative of absence of activity, power and significance. The limited use of royal titles in the biblical text extends to both men and women. The sons of the kings of Judah receive no consistent designation such as 'first-born' or 'prince'. The princely title sar is reserved for royal officials (e.g. 1 Kgs 4.2). The feminine sard is used to refer to queens of other nations (e.g. sdrot parallel to meldkim in Isa. 49.23) and to the royal wives of Solomon (1 Kgs 11.3). The sdrot of Solomon totaled 700 and were joined by 300pilagstm. The term sdrot may do double duty in this passage in referencing their heritage as princesses from foreign kingdoms and their status as royal women in Judah. The gebira A title that does appear in reference to royal women in Israel and Judah is gebira. Technically, the term refers to a woman with servants, a 'lady' or 'mistress'.1 It is used in this way to identify Sarai (Gen. 16.4, 8, 9) and Naaman's wife (2 Kgs 5.3). The gebird's status in society and her ruling authority as parallel to that of the 'master' ('ddori) are demonstrated in Ps. 123.2, Prov. 30.23 and Isa. 24.2. This parallelism is carried onto the political stage in Isa. 47.5, 7 where Babylon is represented as the 'mistress of the nations' (geberet mamldkof). The term also has a specific royal use. Solomon's adversary Hadad the Edomite marries the sister of Tahpenes, the gebird (1 Kgs 11.19). Since Tahpenes is the wife of the pharaoh of Egypt, her status and function are as queen. There are five references to a gebird during the monarchies of Israel and Judah. The reference in each case is to a queen mother. In 1 Kgs 15, King Asa of Judah, carrying out national religious reform, removes his mother Maacah from being gebird because of some 'horrible thing' she made for Asherah. Maacah carries the same title, gebird, in the report of this incident in 2 Chron. 15.16. A second royal woman is called gebird in 2 Kgs 10.13. Jehu encounters the 'brothers' of Ahaziah king of Judah who report that they are on their way to the 'sons of the king' and the 'sons of the gebird'. Here the gebird appears as a royal position parallel to melek. Her 'sons' have a status comparable to the 'sons of the king'. In the context of the revolt in 2 Kgs 10,

1.

At Mari, Sibtu is addressed as beltum, 'lady', 'mistress'.

74


the gebird is likely Jezebel, widow of King Ahab and mother of King Jehoram. If the term 'sons' refers to military officers and not physical brothers, as T.R. Hobbs suggests,2 it would appear that the gebird had a contingent of military forces. The pair melek and gebird is also prominent at the end of the Judean monarchy. In Jer. 13.18 the prophet proclaims the fall of the monarchy: 'Say to the king and the gebird', "Take a lowly seat, for your crown of splendor has come down from your heads'". The particular king and gebird are not identified in this passage; the pair could be Jehoiachin and Nehushta (cf. 2 Kgs 24.8-17) or Zedekiah and Hamutal (2 Kgs 24.18-20). In Jeremiah's report of the first deportation, Jehoiachin and the gebird head the list of those 'sent to Babylon to King Nebuchadnezzar' (Jer. 29.2-3). From the references in 1-2 Kings and Jeremiah it appears that the title gebird was one recognized and applied through at least the major portion of the monarchical period in Judah. It was, apparently, a familiar enough title that it required no explanation in the text when the Deuteronomistic History was composed. The bearers of the title were well known enough that it was possible to refer to the 'king and the gebird' without specific names attached. The gebird is mentioned in connection with the cultic, dynastic and political activity of the monarchy. Since the mother of the king appears to hold the title gebird through successive reigns (e.g. Jezebel through both Ahaziah's and Jehoram's reign), Israel and Judah seem to have followed the pattern of their neighbors allowing the mother of the king to retain her status even after the death of her son. Defining the status of the gebird has engendered much discussion over the past 30 years. G. W. Ahlstrom, for example, argues that gebird 'must have been an office, since its occupant could be dismissed'. Ahlstrom concludes the term 'thus means more than simply being the king's mother'.3 Using the example of Bathsheba, Niels Andreasen concludes that 'the chief function of the position of the queen mother in Jerusalem was that of senior counsellor to king and people'.4 Drawing particularly upon analogies to 2. T. Hobbs, 2 Kings (WBC, 13; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1985), p. 128. 3. G.W. Ahlstrom, Aspects of Syncretism in Israelite Religion (Horae Soederblomianae, 5; trans. E.J. Sharpe; Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1963), p. 61. Ahlstrom emphasizes the gebird's role in cuitic matters, suggesting that 'the queen mother may once, as consort of the king, have symbolized the virgin goddess in the hieros gamos ceremony' (p. 75). 4. N.E.A. Andreasen, 'The Role of the Queen Mother in Israelite Society', CBQ 45 (1983), pp. 179-94(191).


75

Ugaritic and Hittite royal women in reading the biblical text, Ktziah Spanier concludes 'the Queen mother was the most powerful female in the Judean royal family'.5 Moreover, the 'source of each woman's authority was her ancestry, and the extent of her power was determined by the initial terms of her marriage contract and, ultimately, by the agreements which the marriage ratified' .6 Most recently, Susan Ackerman has proposed that within the state and popular cult in Judah many regarded Asherah as consort of Yahweh. If Yahweh were the divine father, Asherah represented the divine mother. If the king represented Yahweh on earth, the queen mother represented Asherah. Ackerman suggests that the queen mother's position within the cult is the basis for her other socio political responsibilities.7 In discussing the gebird in Judah, Ackerman, Spanier and others draw upon Shoshana Bin-Nun's study of the Hittite tawananna. Bin-Nun has shown that in pre-Hittite Anatolia and in the Hittite Old Kingdom the tawananna was a priestess. She was not the queen, but the sister of the king (or his aunt, the sister of his father). An edict by King Hattusili banishing the tawananna, Bin-Nun notes, 'make[s] it quite clear that her office had brought her into close contact with the people and the king's servants and that the prohibition was intended to deprive her of her power and influence' .8 In addition, the tawananna was at one point the 'mother of the heir presumptive to the Hittite throne',9 a remnant of an earlier system of 'brother-succession' and brother-sister marriage that was later outlawed.10 In the period of the Empire the title tawananna was transferred to the queen along with the priestly functions. The tawananna-queen served as high priestess of the highest goddess, the sun-goddess of Arinna who 5. K. Spanier, 'The Northern Israelite Queen Mother in the Judaean Court: Athaliah and Abi', in M. Lubetski, C. Gottlieb and S. Keller (eds.), Boundaries of the Ancient Near Eastern World: A Tribute to Cyrus H. Gordon (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), p. 136. 6. K. Spanier, 'The Queen Mother in the Judaean Royal Court: Maacah—A Case Study', in A. Brenner (ed.), A Feminist Companion to Samuel and Kings (The Feminist Companion to the Bible, 5; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), pp. 186-95 (187). 7. S. Ackerman, Warrior, Dancer, Seductress, Queen: Women in Judges and Biblical Israel (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1998), pp. 138-54; idem, 'The Queen Mother and the Cult in Ancient Israel', JBL 112.3 (1993), pp. 385-401. 8. Bin-Nun, Tawananna, p. 74. 9. Bin-Nun, Tawananna, p. 105 10. Bin-Nun, Tawananna, p. 158

76


guided kingship and queenship.1' As was the practice in the Old Kingdom, there could be only one tawananna at a time. A qneen/tawananna who lived on after her husband the king's death would continue in 'her position for life unless she was deposed by a legal court'.12 In the Empire period, the tawananna appears to have had no involvement in matters of succession. At least three queens (Daduhepa, Tawananna and Danuhepa13) were 'not the mothers of the heir to the throne'.14 Zafrira Ben-Barak objects to any attempt to assign status or rights to the gebira in Judah and Israel.15 She argues that the biblical evidence is so scant that 'no comprehensive theory can be developed.. .in regard to the

11. Bin-Nun, Tawananna, p. 196. Ackerman's proposal for reconstructing the position of gebira on the basis of Canaanite mythology (i.e. the Kirta Epic) and the Hittite tawananna's involvement in the state cult is highly problematic. The 'primacy of religious function' and 'power in determining royal succession' that Ackerman seeks in making the analogy to the Hittite tawananna (Warrior, Dancer, Seductress, Queen, pp. 138, 154) is found during the Old Kingdom. At that time, however, the tawananna was the mother of the heir and a priestess, but not the queen. During the New Empire, the queen assumed the role of priestess in service to the sun-goddess of Arinna and the title tawananna, which had been eliminated during the Old Kingdom, was reintroduced. Both the queen (SAL.LUGAL) and the king are both depicted as priests of the sun-goddess. Though the Hittite cpaeen/tawananna joined the sun-goddess of Arinna after her death (Bin-Nun, Tawananna, p. 201), 'only the king was proclaimed ruler by the god' (Bin-Nun, Tawananna, pp. 203-204). While there is evidence in the Deuteronomistic History of Asherah worship tolerated and promoted by the royal house, the text does not present Asherah as a consort to Yahweh nor does it assign the gebira responsibility for leadership in this cult. If Maacah was removed from the position of gebira for honoring Asherah, presumably the next gebira was responsible for Yahweh worship. Nor is it apparent in the text that royal women's authority to act is based upon their 'identity as the earthly counterpart of Asherah' (Ackerman, Warrior, Dancer, Seductress, Queen, p. 143). Though readers may adopt a hermeneutic of suspicion regarding the uniform practice of exclusive worship of Yahweh, Ackerman's historical reconstruction cannot be adopted for a literary reading. For a study of the connection between the historical evidence of Asherah worship and the exclusivity of devotion in the Deuteronomistic History see P.D. Miller, Jr, 'The Absence of the Goddess in Israelite Religion', HAR 10 (1986), pp. 239-48. 12. Bin-Nun, Tawananna, p. 181. 13. B in-Nun (Tawananna, p. 169) reports 'Danuhepa was queen under three Hittite kings, Mursili II, his son Muwatalli and his grandson Urhi-Tesup' (Mursili III). Danuhepa is represented as queen on seals of each of these kings (p. 193). 14. Bin-Nun, Tawananna, pp. 174-75. 15. Z.Ben-Barak, 'The Status and Right of the Gebira', JBL 110 (1991), pp. 23-34.


77

position of the gebird as an office of the state'.16 Ben-Barak attributes the 'positions of influence and power' attained by the queen mothers Bathsheba, Maacah, Hamutal, Nehushta, Jezebel and Athaliah to the 'force of their personality and command of power and influence in the kingdom'.17 Few in number, these were 'exceptional women' who managed 'to secure the royal succession for their sons, thereby themselves laying claim to a position of power in the realm'.18 Ben-Barak's objections provide additional clues to understanding the title and function of gebird in Judah. Indeed, it is not possible to develop a 'comprehensive theory' of an 'office' associated with the title gebird because it is so rarely used in the biblical text and there is not available in Judah data from seals and decrees comparable to that for the Hittite tawananna. Nevertheless it is precisely because the text does not refer to every queen mother as gebird that attention is drawn to the cases where it is used. In no case is it applied in discussions of succession to the throne. In fact, Bathsheba, who is most clearly involved in changing the course of succession for her son, is never called gebird. Hamutal and Nehushta may or may not have had a role in the rise of a younger son over an elder brother or uncle. Ben-Barak suggests that both were well connected and that Hamutal could 'claim a superior lineage to that of the Galilean mother of Jehoiakim (2 Kgs 23.36)'.19 Any gratitude the sons might feel for the assistance does not explain why the mothers are referred to as gebird at the point of exile. Both women wear the title gebird as part of a royal pair standing before the nation. For Maacah it is particularly difficult to recognize the 'force of [her] personality' in the text. It is possible, however, to recognize the 'command of power and influence' associated with her and with each of the royal women referred to as gebird. It is not necessary to separate personality from power. In analyzing the data on the Hittite tawananna, Bin-Nun reflects on her 'conjecture that the political role played by the Hittite queen even in the New Empire depended on her personality rather than on her status and on her cooperation with the king'.20

16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

Ben-Barak, 'Status and Right of the Gebira', p. 29. Ben-Barak, 'Status and Right of the Gebira', pp. 33-34. Ben-Barak, 'Status and Right of the Gebira', p. 34. Ben-Barak, 'Status and Right of the Gebira', p. 30. Bin-Nun, Tawananna, p. 179.

78


Two paragraphs later Bin-Nun notes: 'Besides her partnership with the king the queen held some independent power as is evident from the seals on which she appears alone'.21 Bin-Nun makes similar observations about the limits and the extent to which the tawananna exercised power at other points in her study.22 She is not being inconsistent; rather she is reflecting the dynamics of power in the ancient monarchies. The king did not have exclusive power over the tawananna. The tawananna exercised legitimate power through cult, wealth, personnel and diplomatic relations. The responsibilities of both the king and the queenJtawananna required the development of expansive networks of power and connections in order to carry out the royal work of governance, economics and cult. The positions of tawananna and of the king were deliberately shaped over time in order to cultivate power and maximize the effectiveness of the royal house. It is as a member of the royal house that the gebira in Judah derives her position. Ben-Barak notes that 'the mere fact of her being a queen mother did not bestow upon her any official political status beyond the honor due to her by virtue of her position as mother'.23 It is impossible, however, to separate the two. All royal mothers had a political status and function, as did royal daughters. Some carried out those functions better than others. Some had forceful personalities and some have survived in memory. A few became queen mother, most did not. Nevertheless, the position of queen mother cannot be discounted or disregarded in discussing the monarchy of Judah. If the king and the gebira were in a position to lead the captives into exile, they must have been in a position at the head of the house of David in the period before the fall of Jerusalem. Mother of... Wife of... Daughter of... The biblical text, in keeping with the pattern of its neighbors, refers to members of the royal family most often in relational terms. These terms function as positional titles, indicating the individual's position within the structure and functions of the royal family. For example, in 2 Sam. 13.18 reference is made to clothing worn by 'the virgin daughters of the king'. 21. Bin-Nun, Tawananna, pp. 179-80. 22. See her discussion of royal seals, the legal action taken to depose two tawanannas, and the priestly responsibility of the tawananna in the New Empire (Bin-Nun, Tawananna, pp. 166-210). 23. Ben-Barak, -'Status and Right of the Gebira', p. 34.


79

'Daughters of the king' must be a position title, comparable to 'princess', since no particular daughter or king is mentioned. The terms 'father' and 'mother' are frequently used in the biblical text to refer to positions or persons of leadership and authority. 'My father' is a form of address acknowledging the authority of a king (e.g. David to Saul; 1 Sam. 24.12 MT) or a prophet (Joash to Elisha; 2 Kgs 13.14). In Judg. 5.7 the prominence of Deborah, the prophet and judge, is reflected in the description of her as 'a mother in Israel'. The prominence of the city of Abel is reflected in 2 Sam. 20.19 in the same terms. Both 'father' and 'mother' are used in ways unrelated to biology and personal closeness. The rhetoric of the books of Kings directs the reader to take note of the mothers of the kings of Judah in each generation. A regnal notice announces and assesses the reign of each Judean king, synchronizing it with that of his Israelite counterpart (e.g. 2 Kgs 8.25-27). Each king is identified as 'son of...' and the name of the father is supplied. Parallel to that the formula indicates 'his mother's name was...' and supplies the appropriate name. The name of the mother is supplied for each of the kings of Judah with the exception of Jehoram (2 Kgs 8.16-18) and Ahaz (2 Kgs 16.2-3). Since the writer regularly includes the names of all the other mothers and points to other sources such as annals that may have been consulted in the construction of this text, it is unlikely that the names of the mothers not included have been merely forgotten. In fact, the inclusion of the mother's name in Judah is an innovation in the pattern of royal reporting in the ancient Near East. Neither the regnal reports of the Northern Kingdom which are synchronized with those of Judah, nor the King Lists and Chronicles of Judah's neighbors mention the names of the mothers. While the synchronic reports of the kings of Israel and Judah as they appear in the books of Kings reflect 'two different systems of chronistic records',24 they share the same basic content, except for the inclusion of the name of the mother in Judah. The presentations in the Sumerian King List include epithets, the city the king is from, information about his origin and information about the character or occupation of his father, but no mention is made of mothers.25 The women who appear on the Sumerian King List (Ku-Baba, Nin-metabarre, Bara-irnun) do so as

24. S.R. Bin-Nun, 'Formulas from Royal Records of Israel and Judah', VT 16 (1968), pp. 414-32 (422). 25. Jacobsen, Sumerian King List, p. 28.

80


rulers of Sumerian cities.26 The inscriptions of the Assyrian kings Tiglathpileser, Adad-narari II, Tukulti-Ninurta II and Ashurnasirpal II trace their heritage through their father, grandfather and great-grandfather.27 If the standardized report of the kings of Judah provides 'a framework of "legitimation" within which the activities of the king are placed'28 then the Deuteronomistic Historian has elected to name queen mothers as a part of that framework. The 'legitimation' in the regnal notices does not appear to be related to determining whether the son is a legitimate heir based on his mother's royal status. Information about the birth order of the son and the status of the mother prior to her becoming queen mother is not discussed in the narrative. Additionally, even though candidates for king in neighboring monarchies were rejected for being sons of lower-ranked wives and concubines, 'legitimate' kings did not demonstrate their legitimacy by including their mothers in the King Lists. The Shape of the Regnal Notices The three sections of the regnal notice are (1) accession, (2) assessment and (3) succession. The first part includes the names of the prior king29 and the mother of the present king, the age of the king at accession, and the number of years of the reign. The second part includes an assessment of the reign according to the Deuteronomic worship standards. The final section is a report of the death and burial of the king and notice of his successor. Whether the regnal reports of Judah's kings originally appeared in a separate King List or were constructed for the text of the books of Kings in their present setting, they lend more than historiographic coherence to the narrative materials in which they are imbedded. They provide a means for commentary within the Deuteronomistic History itself.30 The reports 26. W. Hallo and W. Simpson, The Ancient Near East: A History (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1971), pp. 52-53. 27. A.K. Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium B.C. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991), pp. 27, 36, 42, 52,143, 166, 186. 28. Hobbs,2^z«gs,p. 209. 29. The phrase 'son ofX" is part of the pattern of regnal reports of all kings up to Manasseh. The pattern changes at that point. Manasseh and the kings who follow no longer include the name of the father. The mother's name, however, continues to be listed. 30. Meir Sternberg lists genealogies and catalogues among 'the main varieties of


81

begin after the division of the kingdom. Both the Israelite and Judean reports present 'unbroken lines of the kings of both states' that, as Shoshana Bin-Nun observes, 'form a surprising contrast with the author's fragmentary reports' of the history of those kingdoms.31 The Kingdom of Israel begins with the promise of ten tribes and an 'enduring house', only to fumble immediately and never recover in spite of prophetic guidance and divine intervention. The orderliness of the regnal reports harnesses the disorderliness depicted in the narrative in order to portray Israel's persistent and enduring walk 'in the way of Jeroboam'. The Kingdom of Judah begins with judgment, a scaled back kingdom, and Yahweh's promise of continuance 'for the sake of my servant David' and Jerusalem, the city chosen for Yahweh's name (1 Kgs 11.34, 36). The rivalry between the two kingdoms that accompanies this divine division is visible from the outset (1 Kgs 11.40) and reflected throughout the narrative.32 Judah's apparent political weakness is portrayed as peaceseeking33 while Israel's domination and intervention are deplored.34 The mismatch of power between the two nations is disguised in the regnal notices. The synchronisms preserve a separation between the two nations, permitting Judah to appear fully autonomous during periods when the narrative suggests it was most likely a vassal of Israel. The synchronisms also hold the nations in tension with each other, inviting comparisons. The deeds of Solomon and the anger of God against him are not mentioned in his regnal notice (1 Kgs 11.41-43), nor is there any mention of Jeroboam's 'great sin' in the notice of his reign (1 Kgs 14.19-20). The reference to Jeroboam as a legacy of shame and standard of evil begins in the narrator's own discourse' (The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading [Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985], p. 120). 31. Bin-Nun, 'Formulas from Royal Records', p. 423. 32. 1 Kgs 12.20-21; 13.1-3 (prophecy of Josiah); 14.30; 15.6 (continual war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam); 15.7 (war between Abijam and Jeroboam); 15.16-24, 32 (war between Asa and Baasha all their days); 2 Kgs 13.12; 14.15 (Jehoash fought against Amaziah of Judah); 2 Kgs 14.11-12 (Judah defeated by Israel); 2 Kgs 15.37; 16.5 (Rezin and Pekah against Jotham and Ahaz). 33. Jehoshaphat 'made peace with the king of Israel' (1 Kgs 22.45) and Amaziah sought a 'face-to-face meeting' with Jehoash of Israel (2 Kgs 14.8). 34. E.g., Ahab attempts to hide his presence in the battle at Ramoth-gilead (1 Kgs 22.29-34); Jehu slays Ahaziah of Judah (2 Kgs 9.27) and the 42 'brothers of Ahaziah' (2 Kgs 10.14); the reigns of Jehoram, Ahaziah and Athaliah in Judah are extensions of 'the house of Ahab' (2 Kgs 8.18, 27; 11.1).

82


the theological assessment attached to the reign of his son, Nadab (1 Kgs 15.26). Each subsequent king of Israel conforms to this pattern of apostasy. In Judah, however, there is far more suspense in these regnal reports. For example, the report of Rehoboam's reign not only contains the standard phrase that he 'reigned in Jerusalem', but also describes Jerusalem as 'the city which Yahweh chose from all the tribes of Israel to put his name there' (1 Kgs 14.21). This positive attitude toward Jerusalem on the part of Yahweh stands in striking contrast to the theological evaluation of Rehoboam's reign which follows: 'Judah did what was evil in the eyes of Yahweh and vexed him with their sins that they sinned more than all that their ancestors had done' (1 Kgs 14.22). Those sins are enumerated in the regnal report; no details are provided in the narrative. They include building for themselves high places, placing standing stones and ""aserim on every high place and underneath every green tree, the existence of cultic sanctuary personnel, and committing the abominations of the nations that Yahweh had driven out before them. The regnal report deliberately juxtaposes divine promise and national apostasy, inviting consideration of the relationship between the two. The announcement of a successor (1 Kgs 14.31) finally resolves the question of whether the dynasty will continue. Divine promise and national apostasy are examined in subsequent regnal reports. After Rehoboam, Abijam 'walked in all the sins that his father had done before him' (1 Kgs 15.3), nevertheless 'for the sake of David, Yahweh his God gave him a lamp in Jerusalem setting up his son after him and establishing Jerusalem' (1 Kgs 15.4). Abijam's son, Asa, however, 'did what was right in the eyes of Yahweh as his father David had done' (15.11) and his son, Jehoshaphat, 'walked in the path of his father Asa, not turning from it, doing what was right in the eyes of Yahweh' (22.43). Both Israel and Judah are judged 'in the eyes of Yahweh' in the regnal reports on the basis of worship practices, but Judah alone is judged in relation to a promise concerning its continuance.35 This promise has its origin in the dynastic covenant Yahweh makes with David in 2 Sam. 7.13, but it has been shaped by the oracle in 1 Kgs 11.36. It is further shaped by its position within the regnal report. The dynastic 35. For Israel, divine promises and efforts at an enduring house are mentioned in the narrative alone. Commenting on the dynastic promise to Jehu, E.T. Mullen, Jr, observes, 'By establishing the dynastic stability of Israel, the author was able to emphasize the dynastic zw-stability that came to characterize Judah during this same period' ('The Royal Dynastic Grant to Jehu and the Structure of the Books of Kings', JBL 107.2 [1988], pp. 193-206 [206]).


83

promise is never directly qualified or made conditional, but juxtaposed to the assessment of obedience it invites consideration of the possibility— and appropriateness—of its withdrawal. Further, the promise is only mentioned when there is a contradiction between the behavior of the royal house and the favor that Yahweh continues to extend. Not only does this reference to the dynastic promise invite consideration of Judah's appropriate fate, but it also draws the other elements of the regnal report under closer scrutiny. It would seem no accident that the notice of divine persistence 'for David's sake' appears in the middle of the regnal report casting a spotlight on the death and succession notices that follow. God's continuing commitment to the promise to David is confirmed in the succession notice: X slept with his ancestors... and his son Y succeeded him.36 What's a Mother to Do? If the regnal reports are a way of emphasizing divine promise and persistence throughout the Judean monarchy, what purpose does the inclusion of the queen mothers serve? In the Hittite documents 'the names of the kings' mothers are never mentioned with the sole exception of Puduhepa' ,37 If monarchy can be recorded without listing the name of the mother, how does their inclusion shape the reading of the story? Zafrira Ben-Barak suggests 'This may doubtless be regarded as merely an introductory formula'. Since this pattern appears consistently in the reports of Judah and nowhere else, she concludes that 'the hand of the deuteronomic redactor has intervened here in order to mark the ascent of the kings of Judah to the throne with fitting solemnity—possibly with an eye to stressing the uninterrupted dynastic continuity of the house of David'.38 For Ben-Barak the emphasis is on the solemnity since (as noted above) she argues against identifying any office of queen mother (gebira) in Israel and Judah. As part of the accession portion of the regnal report, the queen mother's name is a sign of the continuance of the Davidic monarchy from one generation to the next, but continuity can also be communicated without 36. In several instances, the succession depends on the intervention of the 'people of Judah' (for Azariah: 2 Kgs 14.21) and 'the people of the land' (for Josiah: 2 Kgs 21.24; for Jehoahaz: 2 Kgs 23.30). 37. Bin-Nun, Tawananna, p. 174. 38. Ben-Barak, 'Status and Right of the Gebira', p. 24.

84


mention of her. The announcement of succession (the third part of the regnal report formula) and the frequently inserted reminder of the divine promise could by themselves serve the purposes of 'stressing the uninterrupted dynastic continuity of the house of David'. The inclusion of the name of the queen mother brings a focus on the 'house'. It presents those who headed the royal household in one generation and may suggest their influence on the new generation. The queen mother is named alongside the previous king in the presentation of the new king as 'son of X...his mother's name was Y'. The father and the mother of the new king represent political connections, alliances and influences that come into the new reign from the prior one. The apostasy under Rehoboam's leadership is not surprising given what is said about both of his parents in the narrative. Naamah the mother of Rehoboam is an Ammonite, one of the 'many foreign women King Solomon loved' (1 Kgs 11.1) and likely among those who worshiped 'Milcom the god of the Ammonites' (1 Kgs 11.33) and 'turned [Solomon's] heart after other gods' (1 Kgs 11.4). In the regnal report of Ahaziah, the influence of his mother is specifically acknowledged in the assessment of his reign (2 Kgs 8.26-27). The reference to 'walking in the way of his father' need not exclude the queen mother, though there may be times when the 'way of the mother' differed from the 'way of the father'. Where the report notes improvement over the previous reign (i.e. Asa, Jehoash, Hezekiah, Josiah), the father clearly cannot receive credit. The change might be due to the influence of the queen mother, though it cannot automatically be attributed to her. Asa removes his mother from the position ofgebira for religious practices that are in keeping with his father and grandfather's reigns (1 Kgs 15.13). The inclusion of the mother's name in the accession portion of the regnal report, following information on the king's age and the number of years of his reign, suggests that the mother's significance is not limited to her connection to the previous reign. The entry suggests she was visible, influential and active during her son's reign, at least as long as she lived. It is logical to assume that the two queen mothers whose names are not included in the regnal reports of their sons (Jehoram and Ahaz) did not survive into the reign of their sons and therefore had no public role in it.39 The degree to which a queen mother collaborated with her son (e.g. 39. G. Molin reaches the same conclusions in his analysis of how the office of gebird was passed on from one generation to the next in 'Die Stellung der Gebira im Staate Juda', TZ 10 (1954), pp. 161-75 (164).


85

Ahaziah; 2 Kgs 8.26) or came into conflict with her son's policies (e.g. Asa; 1 Kgs 15.13) cannot be determined from the regnal reports.40 The reports are interested only in the bottom-line assessment, namely, whether the reign was positive or negative in the eyes of Yahweh, and generally provide little or no support for the evaluation. Information about the deeds of the kings—and possibly the deeds of the queen mothers—is said to be found in the Annals of the Kings ofJudah. The Judahite regnal formulas preserve 'the lamp of David' in Jerusalem through the very last king, Zedekiah (2 Kgs 24.18-19), until Judah goes into exile and Jerusalem is destroyed because of Yahweh's anger against them (2 Kgs 24.20). The narrative describes that expulsion. First is Jehoiachin's surrender to the king of Babylon: Jehoiachin goes out to the Babylonian king with his mother, his servants, his captains and his palace officials (2 Kgs 24.12). The beginning of this list is in keeping with the chief figures of the monarchy identified in the regnal formulas: the king and his mother. Then, at the head of the deportees are Jehoiachin, the mother of the king, the wives of the king, the palace officials and the nobles of the land (2 Kgs 24.15). The expulsion of the house of David from Judah and Jerusalem is represented in the same way it has been presented throughout the regnal reports that frame the narrative, that is, as a multigenerational family pair: king and queen mother. If the regnal reports provide a commentary on the narratives they link together, those of the Kingdom of Judah draw attention not only to the divine promise of preservation, 'for the sake of David my servant', but also to the divine promise of a 'house'. Beyond the Titles Despite minimal use of official titles, Judah's queen mothers receive regular attention in the regnal reports. These regnal reports provide a guide to the narrative in 1-2 Kings. It is not surprising then, nor should it be considered exceptional, to read of the involvement of queen mothers and other royal women throughout the narrative, from the beginning of kingship until the fall of Jerusalem. It is not necessary to relativize such involvement as 'a purely individual occurrence which is the direct consequence of the woman's character, ambition, and personal abilities',41 since the involvement is fully regularized by the entries in the regnal reports. 40. Athaliah is the exception. See Chapter 6 of this study. 41. Ben-Barak, 'Status and Right of the Gebira', p. 34.

86


Nor is it necessary to limit royal women's involvement to one or two areas of activity, for example, cult or succession, since a wider range of involvement can be observed in the narrative. This study now moves to focus on three particular royal women: Michal, Bathsheba and Athaliah. Each represents a different position within the royal house: daughter, mother and wife. Each woman is mentioned in more than one passage of the biblical text, providing an opportunity to view different dimensions of her involvement in the monarchy at different points in narrative time. The readings presented in the following chapters are not inclusive of all that could be said about these women. They are intended to illustrate the positions royal women held and the significant roles they played in the Deuteronomistic narrative of the life and symbols of the Judean monarchy.

T MICHAL: A ROYAL DAUGHTER

'And Michal loved David'. Within the Hebrew canon it is explicitly stated only this once that a woman loved a man. One would not assume that a woman's love was absent from all other relationships in the biblical narratives, nor would it be appropriate to assume that women's feelings of love were not recognized or accepted in ancient Israel. Song of Songs, the struggle between Leah and Rachel for Jacob's affection, and the prophets' use of bridal imagery suggest that women's initiative in expressing love and capacity for passion were unquestioned. The announcement of Michal's 'love' in 1 Sam. 18 serves a different purpose. It introduces Michal as a chief actor in the politics of kingship in Israel. She is not the first to 'love' David. Michal's father, Saul, loves David greatly (1KQ irQI'IN'1'!) when David comes to play the lyre in his court and so appoints him as armor-bearer (1 Sam. 16.21). Jonathan, Michal's brother, loves David 'as his own life' (l^SDD 1PK iranK3) and makes a covenant with him that involves turning over to David all the symbols of his royal status—robe, armor, sword, bow and belt (1 Sam. 18.1, 3-4). David's military victories cause 'all Israel and Judah to love' him (1 Sam. 18.16). When Saul entices David to become his son-in-law, Saul sends a message telling David that 'the king takes delight in you and all his servants love you' (1 Sam. 18.22). The language of these passages suggests that Saul, Jonathan, the nation and the servants are prepared to deal with David on the basis of a love that is constitutive of covenant loyalty. As William Moran has demonstrated, the verb 'love' pi"IN) is typical of vassal treaties.1 The sovereign is to love the vassal and the vassal the sovereign. Moran observes that Jonathan's love for David 'as himself 'recalls the oath of the Assyrian vassals to love Ashurbanipal as themselves, ki

1. W.L. Moran, 'The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy', CBQ 25 (1963), pp. 77-87.

88


napsatkunu\2 while the love of Israel and Judah for David 'implies that the people at the [sic] point were already giving David a de facto recognition and allegiance, which his actual leadership and success in a sense justified' .3 J. A. Thompson argues that, with regard to Saul's love for David in 1 Sam. 16.21, 'the verb 'aheb was carefully introduced at this point because of a certain ambiguity of meaning', serving to 'to denote genuine affection' as well as 'preparing [the reader] for the later political use of this term'.4 Subsequent repeated use of the term in the relationship between David and Jonathan and Saul's suspicion that Jonathan's relationship with David will result in the kingship passing directly to David (1 Sam. 20.3031) underscore the political use of the term. It should be no surprise, therefore, that Michal, a member of Saul's house and a citizen of Israel, should also love David. As with the reference to Saul's love (1 Sam. 16.21), the announcement of Michal's love conveys 'a certain ambiguity of meaning'. With Michal's love for David there is also the potential for romantic involvement. However, the reader should not be surprised that Michal subsequently demonstrates covenant loyalty to David in protecting him from an enemy (1 Sam. 19.11-17). Unlike her brother, Jonathan, Michal does not need to be convinced of Saul's intentions towards David (1 Sam. 20.2, 9). Yet, like her brother, Michal advances David's cause over against that of her father (1 Sam. 19.17; 20.13). Michal's actions make clear that her love for David is not blind infatuation, but a conscious decision regarding political loyalty and royal destiny. Her loyalties and the 'ambiguity of meaning' of the verb 'love' are not clarified before Saul has married her to David. A Man's Place Is in the House Two times Saul promises to marry one of his daughters to David if David will fight the Philistines.5 Saul's clear hope is that David will die 'by the 2. Moran, 'Love of God in Deuteronomy', p. 82 n. 33. 3. Moran, 'Love of God in Deuteronomy', p. 81. 4. J.A. Thompson, 'The Significance of the Verb LOVE in the David-Jonathan Narratives in 1 Samuel', VT24 (1974), pp. 334-88 (335). 5. Saul's first offer of marriage to Merab is not included in the Codex Vaticanus (LXXB), indicating its secondary character in the MT. P. Kyle McCarter relocates vv 17-19 to follow v. 11 and to represent payment on the promise Saul supposedly made that is quoted in 17.25. See P.K. McCarter, Jr, I Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary (AB, 8; New York: Doubleday, 1980), pp. 306-308. Ralph W. Klein concurs with McCarter on the redactional character of vv. 17-19 but

4. Michal: A Royal Daughter

89

hand of the Philistines' (1 Sam. 18.17, 25). What Saul offers David is a position as son-in-law, a position that places him within the power circle of the royal family, providing access to wealth, power, prestige and privilege but no access to the seat of kingship. There is no evidence in the accounts of Saul's kingship and other Israelite/Judean kings that the throne was inherited through the king's daughter. The same is true for the monarchies of Israel's neighbors. A king might choose to adopt the son of his sister as his successor6 or marry his daughter.7 In Egypt a daughter might succeed her father on the throne if her brother had died.8 Though her husband might achieve power, kingship would be inherited by her son, not her husband.9 In the Hittite Kingdom, according to the Rule of Telepinu, the daughter's husband could be heir presumptive, but, as Shoshana BinNun notes, 'Telepinu limited this right to the unmarried daughter for whom a royal husband should be chosen, though he himself had ascended the argues that marriage to Merab does not fit with the promise in 17.25 since 'Saul'smotivation according to v. 17b (which McCarter considers redactional), was to do David in through her, and since the king designated her as the reward for future heroics rather than for the past action against the Philistine giant (v. 17a)' (R.W. Klein, 1 Samuel [WBC, 10; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1983], p. 186). While noting the redactional nature of the text, the MT remains the basis for discussion in the present study. The problem of duplicate incidents and 'David's expressed surprise at a possible marriage to Michal, the king's daughter (v. 23)' (Klein, 1 Samuel, p. 187), is removed when one realizes that the purpose of the passage is not to present David's humility but the irony of Saul attempting to deal with a man he fears and who threatens his family and his kingship. 6. Bin-Nun notes that King Hattusili of the Hittite Old Kingdom adopted his sister's son, Labarna, to be his heir and then later disowned him and disqualified him as heir. Bin-Nun finds 'no sister's son followed a Hittite king on the throne' (Tawananna, pp. 70, 214). 7. King Amenhotep III married his daughter Sitamen in addition to her mother Queen Tiy. See Tyldesley, Hatchepsut, p. 66. 8. This is the case, e.g., with Sobekneferu, daughter of Amenemhet III, who succeeded her brother as pharaoh. See L.H. Lesko, 'The Middle Kingdom', in B.S. Lesko (ed.), Women's Earliest Records from Ancient Egypt and Western Asia: Proceedings of the Conference on Women in the Ancient Near East, Brown University, Providence, Rhodelsland, November 5-7, 7P£7(BJS, 166; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), pp. 3132 (32). 9. In Egypt there is the most unusual case of Ankhesenamun, childless widow of pharaoh Tutankhamun who wrote to the Hittite king Suppiluliuma requesting a son of the king to be her husband and to be king in Egypt. See Giiterbock, 'The Deeds of Suppiluliuma', pp. 96-97. This extraordinary plea could be a move on the part of the queen to halt the fighting between the two nations and restore diplomatic relations (Schulman, 'Diplomatic Marriage', pp. 177-79). The intended groom was killed en route to Egypt.

90


throne as Istapariya's husband without being elected'.10 Bin-Nun further observes that Telepinu's law extended no 'further than his own case and that of his daughter Harapseki... [A]fter Harapseki we do not find any Hittite princess whose husband became king through her right in the succession, although there were several kings who died without leaving a legitimate heir'.11 It is clear that the position of son-in-law was the basis for legitimacy primarily in the case of a coup and not in regular succession. Since Saul had three sons (1 Sam. 14.49) who would presumably have sons of their own, David's chances of inheriting the throne through Michal were quite slim, should he even survive the quest for 100 Philistine foreskins set as the bride price (1 Sam. 18.25). David responds to Saul's offer both times with an expression of selfabasement.12 He asks, 'Who am I and who are my kinfolk, the family of my father in Israel, that I should be son-in-law to the king?' (1 Sam. 18.18) and 'Is it a small thing in your eyes to be son-in-law of the king, seeing that I am a poor man and of no honor?' (1 Sam. 18.23). While David has responded in the proper form of social discourse, demonstrating the proper form of deference to Saul, irony abounds in the passage. Before each offer is the announcement of David's military success and the report of the love of Israel and Judah, of Michal and of the servants of Saul. Immediately following each offer is a notice of Saul's insincerity. Though David speaks of the great honor of being son-in-law, the passage emphasizes Saul's desperation in making this offer. His only expressed hope is that David will be killed. Offering David a position as son-in-law could have been a very productive strategy for Saul. A son-in-law might be appointed to powerful positions and carry out duties on behalf of the king, but the marriage tie was a treaty agreement requiring loyalty and service to the king on the part of the son-in-law. Such loyalty and service would be carefully monitored and managed by the royal daughter.13 The son-in-law would become part of 10. Bin-Nun, Tawananna, p. 231. 11. Bin-Nun, Tawananna, p. 228 12. George W. Coats has done a form-critical study of such formulas and notes their common use in court speech. See G.W. Coats, 'Self-Abasement and Insult Formulas', JBL 89 (1970), pp. 14-26. 13. Pierre Marello notes that part of Zimri-Lim's intent in marrying his daughters in political marriages was to have a certain control over information about particularly troublesome allies. See P. Marello, 'Liqtum, reine du Burundum', in MARI8 (1997), pp. 455-535 (457). For additional examples, see Chapter 1 of this study.


91

the family 'business' where his security and well-being depended on contributing to the business and preserving the family. Given Michal's status as a royal daughter and her interest in David, Saul could reasonably expect Michal to keep an eye on David, report difficulties in loyalty to her father, and urge David's full cooperation in the work and stability of the royal house. It is not until after Michal has become David's wife that Saul realizes his miscalculation. He has misread Michal's love for David (1 Sam. 18.20). The Hebrew text notes that 'Saul saw and he knew that Yahweh was with David, and Michal, the daughter of Saul, loved him' (1 Sam. 18.28).14 Too late Saul realizes that David will in no way come under his control. For David, marriage to Michal was a more risky proposition. It places expectations of loyalty upon him and restricts him from publicly opposing Saul. Nevertheless, it also offers significant advantages. Though it will not guarantee him kingship, it gains him access to the royal house. From that position he can cultivate support for himself, exercise leadership on behalf of the royal house, and garner some royal legitimacy should he decide to assert himself as heir to the throne. The union between Michal and David represents a potentially positive solution to the obvious power struggle shaping up between Saul and David, with Michal's involvement potentially serving to bridge the struggle between them. It also provides an opportunity for David to capitalize on Michal's existing royal contacts, resources and prestige. While Jonathan can mediate the royal house symbolically, clothing David in the vestments of royal sonship (1 Sam. 18.3-4) and receiving David's covenant of protection for his heirs (1 Sam. 20.14-15), only Michal can help David build a royal house, politically and through offspring.15 14. LXX has KCXI TT&S 'laparjA, 'and all Israel'. McCarter (ISamuel, pp. 320-21 and Klein (7 Samuel, p. 185) suggest the MT is the later reading that was changed after v. 29b and 30 were inserted into the narrative. The mention of Michal concludes the account of the marriage and connects the passage with the account of her brother Jonathan's loyalty to David in the next chapter. While the evidence of redactional shaping is clear in the passage, the MT remains the base text for this study. The argument that Saul discovers his error in pairing Michal and David is not tied to v. 28 alone, since it becomes all too clear in the next chapter that he is fighting a losing battle against David for the loyalty of both of his children. 15. J. Cheryl Exum observes that 'Kingship over Israel is mediated to David through Jonathan, not Michal; that is, through friendship with the king's son, and not the more common means, marriage to the king's daughter' (Fragmented Women: Feminist [Sub] Versions of Biblical Narratives [JSOTSup, 163; Sheffield: JSOT Press,

92


Since it is clear that Michal loves David, they could build a network of loyalties, manage assets, and distribute benefits to their own advantage. They could begin building a family that would have sufficient connection to the royal house to stage a claim to the throne if they wished to make that claim. Michal's love for David and her subsequent behavior suggest that she is willing to support his rise to kingship. There is no response on David's part. What is startling about the chapters immediately following Michal's and David's marriage is the way in which Michal and Jonathan act on their love for David. They behave totally inappropriately for royal offspring. Both of them preserve David from Saul's violence, deceiving their father and abetting his enemy. Their motivations remain out of the view of the reader; they only love David. Their love for David brings Saul's anger upon them (1 Sam. 19.17; 20.30). Their loyalty to David stands in sharp contrast to Saul's antagonism and pursuit of David, thereby framing Saul's behavior in the narrative as something wild and inappropriate. Though their behavior is irrational in the codes of royal conduct, it appears rational in the narrative's assertion of David's divine election to kingship. David's marriage to Michal makes him a royal 'son', a royal 'brother' and a royal 'husband', though it does not establish him as a legitimate heir to the throne. The marriage identifies him with Saul's house and presumes his loyalty to Saul, Jonathan and Michal. As is indicated in various diplomatic marriage treaties and readily seen in the letters of the royal women of Mari, husbands were expected not only to remain loyal and obedient to the rule of their father-in-law, but also to support their wives' continued activity in economic and political matters, thereby preserving and extending their own. Liqtum, sister of King Zimri-Lim of Mari, who had been married by her brother to Adal-senni, king of Burundum, writes of having 200 women of various rankings under her direction and of the proper respect and position that her husband has provided for her.16 A daughter's approval should bring benefits to the royal house (e.g. protection, favor as a vassal). A daughter's disapproval of her husband's behavior should merit her father's intervention (e.g. Zimri-Lim's daughter Inib-sarri demands to return to Mari because her husband Ibal-Addu has not lived up to his royal

1993], p. 51). While Jonathan attempts to do this and this 'mediation' lends legitimacy to David's claim to the throne, David must ultimately accept or defeat Michal's power of mediation in their encounter in 2 Sam. 6. 16. M.8161 in Marello, 'Liqtum, reine du Burundum', p. 456.


93

duties to her17). Royal daughters not only reported on their husband's behavior, but also addressed their father on other political matters. They expected to be in the loop politically and to have access to trustworthy scribes and messengers.18 If such practical involvement on behalf of the royal house could be expected by the women of Mari who were sent as queens to distant kingdoms, it seems likely that Michal should expect and be expected to play a similar role in the royal house in Gibeah. Jonathan and David cement their royal brotherhood in a pair of covenants that effectively eliminate any rivalry between them. In the first covenant (1 Sam. 18.3), when Jonathan transfers his clothing to David, 'h at the same time gives up and transfers his particular position as heir apparent'.19 Without bloodshed, the 'brothers' have determined who will succeed Saul. The next time they pledge, it is Jonathan who seeks future loyalty (1011) toward his house from 'the house of David' (1 Sam. 20.1516).20 The final time they meet David bows before Jonathan three times. They kiss, weep for each other and recall their covenant before Yahweh (1 Sam. 20.41^2). Though David continues to bow before Jonathan, over the three encounters Jonathan is transformed from rightful heir and potential rival to vassal of the house of David. It is Jonathan, himself, who first makes mention of such a house. Though Jonathan is the first to alert David to Saul's murderous intentions (1 Sam. 19.2), he is reluctant to accept Saul's determination in the matter and David's assessment of the danger (1 Sam. 20.2-3). This con trasts with Michal's swift recognition of the danger and her deliberate action in sending David away. The text provides no glimpse of any farewell kiss or insight into any private thoughts each character might have had at the moment of departure. It is tempting to think that David should 17. ARM 10.74. J. Durand (Trois etudes sur Mari', pp. 170-72) concludes that after a protracted period of pleading and attempts to retrieve another daughter, Kiru, by a messenger, Zimri-Lim himself came to Ilansura and settled the matter (ARM 10.115). The divorce had to be handled carefully in order to ensure Haya-Sumu's continuing support as Zimri-Lim's chief northern ally. 18. Examples of the political, economic and cultic activity of royal daughters are provided in Chapter 1 of this study. 19. T.N.D. Mettinger, King and Messiah: The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings (ConBOT, 8; Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1976), p. 39. 20. Again, both McCarter (I Samuel, p. 337) and Klein (7 Samuel, p. 203) prefer the LXX reading 'may the name of Jonathan not be cut off from the house of David' The MT reads: 'Jonathan cut (a covenant) with the house of David'. The conclusion above take the LXX into consideration and are consistent with both readings.

94


have taken Michal with him. But the scene is Michal's. She is in control. She presents David with the need to save his life. She lets him down through the window. David' s fleeing and escaping (19.12) derive from her actions. She not only determines his departure, but she also orchestrates the cover-up that enables David to get safely out of Saul's reach. It is impossible to know what Michal was thinking that night, but it is unlikely she was thinking about going with David. David was fleeing from the king. Practically, it would be exceedingly difficult if not impossible for her to move into hiding with him.21 As Saul's murderous intent is directed against David and not her, Michal's remaining in the house can be used to disguise David's absence from his house, gaining him time and protection. Politically, Michal's remaining in the Saulide court provides the best basis for David's possible return—as son-in-law or as future king. She can potentially continue her activities and her contacts as a royal daughter, while fanning the expectation of David's return.22 Symbolically and politically, Michal represents David's house within the house of Saul. Michal's insistence that David take flight not only saved his life but also effectively divided the house of David from the house of Saul. Jonathan acknowledges this reality in the next chapter when he speaks of the house of David (1 Sam. 20.16). At this point it becomes clear that the only way that David will return to the royal court is as champion. He will never again re-enter the house of Saul. Jonathan has secured his covenant with David in anticipation of that end. He has surrendered to David and received a promise of protection for his house. Subsequently, Saul, after chasing the elusive David around Judah, secures a promise from David that David will not cut off his offspring and destroy the name of his father's house (1 Sam. 24.22). While Saul calls David 'my son', he acknowledges the inevitability of David's kingship (24.21) and secures protection for his posterity. Michal has launched the house of David through the midnight escape, 21. The life of an outlaw is not one that makes it possible to maintain a family. David turned care of his parents over to King Mizpeh of Moab (1 Sam. 22.3) during his flight from Saul. The diplomatic implications would have been quite different if David had placed Michal under the Mizpeh's care. For a description of bandits within the social structure and conflicts of Palestine see R.B. Coote andK.W. Whitelam, The Emergence of Early Israel in Historical Perspective (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1987), pp. 92-94. 22. It is not clear until 1 Sam. 20.31 that Saul will not turn from pursuing David's life. In the prior verses in this chapter, David attempts to negotiate a return through the efforts of Jonathan. This suggests that David has not yet abandoned his positions as son-in-law to Saul and husband of Michal.


95

but her political situation is different than her brother's and her father's. Her political function as a royal daughter is to represent and manage the joining of two houses. She instructs David to save himself. This leaves unresolved Michal's future role in David's house. She still holds access to power and legitimacy in connection to the Saulide house and the possibility of offspring for the Davidic house. Unlike Jonathan's right to inherit, these are non-transferable. They are endemic to being a royal daughter. David must work with her or oppose her to secure his political future. Thus far, Michal has declared and demonstrated her love for David. David has pledged nothing in return. Though there is every reason to assume that Michal is lying to Saul to cover up her part in David's disappearance, nevertheless she is the one to suggest that David could resort to violence to gain his ways (1 Sam. 19.17). The Woman of the House The threat of violence becomes more ominous several chapters later, where a connection is also made to the destiny of Michal. In chs. 24 and 26, in the wilderness at En-Gedi and in the wilderness of Ziph, David pierces Saul's security and strikes at his dignity, but spares his life. David appears beneficent and Saul appears remorseful, but there is no reconciliation. Nothing changes in the relationship between them. Though David addresses Saul as 'my father' (1 Sam. 24.12) and Saul addresses him as 'my son' (1 Sam. 24.17; 26.21), the use of these terms only serves to highlight their estrangement. While we might expect a king and a loyal official to address each other as 'father' and 'son', these terms are used by Saul and David in the context of distrust, threat and flight. Though it is language we might expect a father and son-in-law to be using, Saul and David are no longer part of the same house. We learn in the chapter between these two scenes that 'Saul had given Michal, his daughter, wife of David, to Palti son of Laish who was from Gallim' (1 Sam. 25.44). In the same chapter (1 Sam. 25), we also learn that David is not always as restrained as he appears with Saul. When Nabal, the wealthy Carmelite sheep and goat owner, rudely refuses to extend hospitality to David and his band in payment for protection services, David is prepared to do battle against him. Though it is Nabal who is repeatedly held up in this passage as the model of foolishness, it is David who is restrained from acting foolishly by taking vengeance into his own hands (1 Sam. 25.26). While all three chapters confirm David's divine destiny (1 Sam. 24.21; 25.30; 26.25),

96


their central concern is the nature of kingship itself: against Saul, kingship should not require vengeance; against David, kingship should not act with vengeance. Vengeance is inappropriate toward and from Yahweh's anointed. Abigail, Nabal's wife, plays the key role in the central chapter (1 Sam. 25). She compensates for the foolishness of her husband through her own initiative in assembling food and intercepting David and his men on their approach. She also highlights the foolishness of David's murderous intents by understanding and articulating the proper confidence in divine protection. It was to Abigail that one of the young men went to announce the danger of Nabal's insult and to seek intervention (1 Sam. 25.14-17). It is she who carries out diplomacy on behalf of her household, instructing David to discount Nabal's rejection, asserting her own authority (1 Sam. 25.25), and addressing David as if he had already decided to abandon his case against Nabal (25.26a). She extends restraint to David's enemies and those seeking to do evil to him (25.26b).23 Abigail convinces David of the inappropriateness of vengeance and secures from him assurance of protection now and in the future (1 Sam. 25.3 Ib, 35). This chapter merges a lesson in kingship with a lesson about good household management. In both, Abigail is the model. Before David is introduced in the story a contrast is made between Nabal and Abigail. The wordplay on nabal, 'foolish', is obvious from the start, directing attention to Abigail, who is described as having 'good sense' (1 Sam. 25.3). Nabal 23. McCarter (/ Samuel, p. 394) observes: 'Verse 26 is clearly out of place. It assumes (1) that David has already been restrained from assaulting Nabal personally, and (2) that Nabal has already met his downfall. It fits most comfortably between w 41 and 42.' In the current arrangement of the MT, however, Abigail's announcement tha Yahweh has restrained David from bloodguilt and vengeance accomplishes that fact. After she speaks, David acknowledges that he has been restrained by Abigail. He blesses her judgment which has kept him from avenging himself (1 Sam. 25.33). It should not be surprising that her good sense/prudence (bjfcrrQICD; 1 Sam. 25.3) calls for overlooking an offense (cf. Prov. 19.11), or that her speech should be clever and persuasive. Though Yahweh will eventually give Nabal his just desserts, David is urged to overlook the offenses not only of Nabal but also of his other enemies. Saul obviously comes to the reader's mind, though he does not appear in this passage, since David has just committed his cause to Yahweh to avenge (1 Sam. 24.16). In the present form of her address to David, Abigail urges that David take no action against Nabal and his other enemies, while assuring him that Yahweh will sling the life of the enemies (1 Sam. 25.29).


97

may be foolish, difficult and mean (1 Sam. 25.3), but he is clearly not without skills and intelligence. He is a quite prosperous landowner and herder. It is, however, Abigail's authority in and on behalf of their household that is demonstrated in the text. It is the wisdom of Abigail's exercise of authority that is contrasted to the behavior of Nabal and\hz initial behavior of David. Abigail's wise exercise of authority brings positive results: she secures the well-being of her household and staff and David is prevented from incurring bloodguilt. (Even Nabal has no word to object to her management of matters, though he reaps the consequences of his own foolishness.24) At the end of their conversation, David sends Abigail back to her house in peace (1 Sam. 25.35). Though the narrative has the characteristics of a wisdom tale and recalls in its present canonical context the Prov. 31 acrostic extolling the 'woman of wealth', the focus of 1 Sam. 25 is not on praising Abigail's efforts as 'capable wife' or 'woman of wealth' alone.25 The praise serves to bring to light three critical issues that connect this passage to the larger narrative of the books of Samuel. First, as noted above, Abigail's exercise of authority is contrasted with that of Nabal and David. In contrast to her behavior, David appears 'difficult and mean'26 in his outburst against Nabal. Abigail's restraint of and restraining from vengeance and violence is the appropriate form of behavior for a king. Second, Abigail's behavior as household manager is connected to David's future role as king: 'Please forgive the transgression of your servant; for Yahweh will most certainly make my lord a sure house' (fTD ]QN]; 1 Sam. 25.28). Though all the social conventions of speech and performance are followed to honor David (e.g. Abigail's bowing and referring to herself as 'your servant'), the passage itself honors Abigail. Her 'transgression' not only preserves David from bloodguilt but also protects her household and maintains peace. Abigail's household management 24. His heart dies (1 Sam. 25.37). Perhaps this is from the shock of discovering what his wife has done. In this chapter, where the foolishness of Nabal is contrasted with the wisdom of Abigail, the death of the fool seems fitting. Abigail's way is confirmed. This contrast and the death of the fool also appear in wisdom collections dated to the Persian period, e.g. Prov. 19.25. 25. It is interesting to note that in Prov. 31.11, 'the heart of her husband trusts in her and he does not lack wealth'. It is not surprising, then, that Nabal suffers a 'heart' attack. 26. The meanness (U~l) of Nabal may be contrasted with the evil (i~!in) that will not be found in David because of his restraint (1 Sam. 25.28).

98


and diplomacy preserve David's future kingship. They also provide a model for wise kingship. Third, there is a clear contrast in this passage between the house of Abigail and Nabal, and David's band of men. David left his house when he fled from Saul. Though Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David (1 Sam. 20.16) and Abigail assures David of Yahweh's intentions to make for him a 'sure house', the reality is that David has no house. He is estranged from the house of Saul and there has been no indication of contact with Michal regarding the future of their house. Toward the end of this chapter David begins to build his own house. This time it will not be connected to Saul's house. It will be a separate house that will eventually rival the house of Saul. The wisdom of Abigail will be the starting point of David's new house. David sends to Abigail after the death of Nabal (1 Sam. 25.39) and she becomes his wife. This chapter closes by juxtaposing Abigail and Michal, Saul and David. When David takes Abigail and also Ahinoam of Jezreel as wives, the narrator informs us that 'Saul had given his daughter Michal, wife of David, to Palti son of Laish from Gallim' (1 Sam. 25.44). The announcement invites comparison between the two wives and the two men in the context of the struggle for kingship. The mention of Michal brings to mind the insight, decisiveness and leadership she displayed in protecting David from his enemy, Saul. He would not be alive if not for her. Her behavior compares favorably to Abigail's behavior as 'woman of the house'. Unlike Abigail, however, Michal did not consider her husband's behavior to be foolish; she loved him. Like Abigail, Michal was in a position to advance her husband's interests and to attempt to negotiate with his royal enemies. Both women delivered David from harm, but only one—Abigail—did David remember (-DT;1 Sam. 25.31). The text is ambiguous with regard to whether or not there is a cause and effect relationship between Saul's and David's actions at the end of this chapter. The juxtaposition of David's marriages to Abigail and Ahinoam and Saul's transfer of'David's wife' draws attention to the politics of marriage involved in the battle for kingship and the establishment of a royal house.27 By marrying Abigail, David completely abandons his position as 27. See J. Levenson,' 1 Samuel 25 as Literature and as History', CBQ 40 (1978), pp. 11-28; and J. Levenson and B. Halpern, 'The Political Import of David's Marriages', JBL 99.4 (1980), pp. 507-518. Levenson and Halpern argue that the Ahinoam whom David marries was formerly Saul's wife (1 Sam. 14.50). They acknowledge the


99

the king's son-in-law. This constitutes a breaking off of the treaty between David and Saul effected by David's marriage to Michal. Michal was more than a token of that treaty; she was to be a chief actor in it. She had already demonstrated to Saul and David the direction in which she was going to carry her loyalties and her activities. Saul's removal of Michal from the royal court is not surprising, therefore. While it may be assumed that Saul gave Michal to Palti as a wife, the narrator describes her as 'David's wife'. While separating David from Michal, Saul appears to be deliberately separating Michal from David. There is no indication that Saul is building a new alliance through this marriage (such as David might be doing with his marriage to Abigail),28 but he has found a way to disable any possible effort on Michal's part to advance David's cause in the royal court. He has also created a potential for a rival to David should David seek to claim the throne of Saul. Though neither a son-in-law nor the son of a royal daughter would be in the line of succession, they have the advantage of appearing more legitimate than other contenders. David's decision to marry Abigail and Ahinoam not only breaks his treaty with Saul but also represents a rejection of Michal's love for him. He has decisively rejected her loyalty. Unlike Jonathan, Michal has secured no assurance of future protection (1 Sam. 20.15) against David's rise and reprisals. David could pose a danger to her in the future. At the same time, she could pose a danger to David. Should David take the kingship, Jonathan has pledged to be second in rank (1 Sam. 23.17). Michal is not only a descendent of the Saulide house but also now unites that house with the house of Palti. The power of a royal daughter to effect linkages between houses, which David may have sought to exploit in marrying Michal in the first place, could work to his detriment in the future depending on the strength of the house of Palti and whether Michal will have any sons to challenge any claim David might make for the throne. Women Between Houses While the evidence from Israel's neighbors documents both successful and failed diplomatic relations effected through the marriage of royal 'highly reconstructive nature of the endeavor' ('The Political Import', p. 507). Their attempt in these essays is to reconstruct the history of Israel from the texts. 28. Levenson ('1 Samuel 25', p. 26) makes the case that through marriage to Abigail David makes claim not only to Nabal's possessions but to his (presumed) position as head of the Calebite clan.

100


daughters, the 'evidence' in the biblical narrative is decidedly negative, as in the case of Solomon's marriages to pharaoh's daughter and other foreign princesses (1 Kgs 11.1-5) and Athaliah's marriage to Jehoram (2 Kgs 8.18). Diplomatic marriage with other nations receives a negative presentation in these texts. The exception is David's marriage to Maacah, daughter of King Talmai of Geshur (2 Sam. 3.3) on which there is no comment. What is striking in the biblical narrative, however, is the number of conflicts over women. These women are caught 'between houses'. Saul's decision to give Michal to Palti is grounds for one such conflict. When that conflict emerges publicly (2 Sam. 3), Michal appears in the narrative parallel to Rizpah, one of Saul's concubines. In the ancient Near East the status of a concubine was not that of a royal wife or daughter; nevertheless she was counted among the women of the royal house. Her son was not automatically disqualified from eligibility for the throne; some concubines were raised to chief wife and their sons did inherit. After the death of the king, she continued to be considered part of his house—along with the other wives, unmarried sisters and other female members of the family. Though she was ranked lower than the other wives, a concubine was still a legitimate member of the royal house. Upon the death of a king, the women of his house were taken into the house of his successor. In the case of a conquest, the women of the defeated king's house were incorporated into the household of the victorious king.29 It would be a mistake, however, to consider the purpose behind this practice to be limited to, or even focused on, the sexual gratification of the king. The women ranged widely in age, physical characteristics and relationship to each other and to the former king. While a king might marry one or more of these women or take one as a concubine (with the attendant adjustments in ranking and position in the new court), most of the women of the royal house were never involved sexually with the king.30 In 29. See Chapter 2, section 'Women's Place in the Royal House'. 30. Sexual involvement had political consequences, nationally and internationally. Offspring with royal blood had particular roles, responsibilities and privileges within the family business. A king could, indeed, control sexual access to the women of the palace, e.g. restricting access to his wives and concubines, arranging the marriages of his daughters and sisters, giving permission for women servants to marry, and protecting widows and other unmarried women residing in the palace. However, the chief function of the royal women collectively was not to satisfy sexual desire, but to advance the politics of the royal house, including economic, cultic and civic involvement. All the royal women, no matter where they were positioned in the royal hierarchy, had a part in this enterprise. The most powerful woman in the royal house was


101

addition, the evidence indicates that these women were not under the primary authority of the king, but of the queen mother or the chief wife.31 The evidence indicates, moreover, that the women of the palace were highly stratified and independently organized for activities significant to the dynasty and unrelated to sexual involvement with the king.32 In the war between the house of Saul and the house of David that followed the deaths of Jonathan and Saul, David's house is represented by six wives and six sons (2 Sam. 3.2-5). Ishbaal has succeeded his father Saul as king upon the appointment of his uncle Abner. The house of Saul is represented by Ishbaal and two women, Saul's concubine Rizpah (3.7) and Saul's daughter Michal (3.13). The first should have passed into the care of Ishbaal along with any other royal women. The second should no longer be directly identified with the Saulide house since any treaty arrangement that her marriage effected would no longer exist after the death of her father.33 Her sons, however, could claim royal blood if they wished to

generally the mother of the king, a relationship independent of sexual involvement, sexual favors, sexual pleasure and a position of power that she continued to hold regardless of age and beauty. For a discussion of sexuality, 'family polities', and organization of royal women's power within the Ottoman Empire see Peirce, Imperial Harem, pp. 3-6. 31. E.g. Adal-senni, king of Burundum, has within his household both the daughters of Isme-Dagan and Mar-Addu of Ya'ilanum. Pierre Marello suggests that when IsmeDagan conquered Ya'ilanum and took the women of the palace, king Mar-Addu's young daughter was among those women. According to Marello, she was not yet of marriageable age and so was in her father's harem ('Liqtum, reine du Burundum', p. 458). Marello proposes that the two women now appear in Adal-senni's palace because he assisted in defeating Isme-Dagan. What is most startling from the records, however, is that these women who are counted in Adal-senni's 'harem' are under the direction of Liqtum, his chief wife and the sister of Zimri-Lim of Mari (p. 456). 32. See the comments in Chapter 1 on the position ofsakintu, the chief administrator of the women of the palace and the discussion of this position in connection to Abishag in Chapter 5. 33. Schulman ('Diplomatic Marriage', p. 183) demonstrates the diplomatic significance of marriage ties between royal courts as a means of ensuring allies and reducing wars. Though the practice of diplomatic marriage was common in times of peace, it was not done lightly and sometimes required repeated appeals on the part of one king to another. 'If the daughter of an Egyptian king were to be given in marriage to a foreign ruler, this.. .would also, though intangibly, elevate such a foreign ruler to the level of Pharaoh' (p. 191). Marriages effected national ties, but they were constructed between families and connected kings through their family roles as fathers or brothers. Schulman observes: 'The fact that Amunhotep III negotiated a fresh marriage each

102


challenge the throne for power. Her husband would have the least claim to the throne. Any success in staging a challenge would be dependent on the political capital that the two of them—the king's daughter and king's sonin-law—had developed in the court during the lifetime of the former king. The house of Saul, now led by Ishbaal, faces two challengers: David, whose house is becoming stronger (2 Sam. 3.1); and Abner who is 'making himself strong' (2 Sam. 3.6). As son-in-law and uncle of the former king, neither David nor Abner has a legitimate claim to kingship. Each attempts, however, to secure legitimacy through a royal woman. The reference to Abner's 'making himself strong', the use of the verb pin which in the hiphil is associated with seizing and grabbing, together with the reality that Rizpah could be very useful in engineering any attempt on Abner's part to take the throne from his nephew or to act as co-regent, suggest that Ishbaal is on target when he accuses Abner of involvement with Rizpah. Abner denies the accusation with anger and turns to make a covenant with David. Here Abner turns from attempting to advance himself through relationship to a woman to advancing himself through relationship to a man. David offers to make a covenant with Abner, providing Abner deliver ' Saul's daughter Michal' (2 Sam. 3.13). Again, the progress toward power is connected with a royal woman. If Abner can command Michal's return, then he and not Ishbaal would have the authority of king. He would have the authority to make a marriage contract such as Saul made with David. But Abner has no legitimate claim to Saul's concubine or Saul's daughter. No law gives Abner the right to cause Michal to come to David. Ishbaal's inadequacies as king are apparent in the incident with Rizpah. Accusing Abner of already having gone to her suggests either Ishbaal does not have Rizpah's vote of confidence in that she has aligned herself with Abner or that Ishbaal has failed to protect her from Abner's advances. Ishbaal has been betrayed from within the royal family, a problem his father Saul also faced. The difficulties within the royal house are political matters. The 'entering' of a concubine is the sure sign of a king's defeat.34 It is an act of sexual violence against a woman who is part of the king's household. It is indicative of a king's inability to protect those closest to time a new foreign ruler ascended to the throne in a neighboring state... suggests that diplomatic marriages forged bonds between the two rulers, the father- or brother-inlaw and the son-in-law, but not between their respective states; thus, if either king or the bride died, then new bonds had to be forged' ('Diplomatic Marriage', pp. 192-93). 34. See 2 Sam. 16.21-22 where Absalom's 'entering' the concubines is intended to strengthen (pTFI) the hands of all who were with him.


103

him, hence his powerlessness in protecting the nation. Once again, the conditions of the royal household are mirrored in the kingdom as a whole. Not only does Ishbaal have to worry about Abner and Rizpah, but David sends messengers to Ishbaal saying 'give me my wife Michal to whom I was betrothed for 100 Philistine foreskins' (2 Sam. 3.14). David no longer has any right to claim Michal; through circumstances he has forfeited his role as Saul's son-in-law and in David's absence Saul gave Michal to Palti.35 In addition, Ishbaal has no right to take Michal from Palti. Ishbaal has no authority to undo the marriage agreement Saul made with Palti and he has no authority over a married sister. When David demands and Ishbaal 'takes' (3.15), they both demonstrate the power kings have, that is, they show what kings can do but Israelite kings were not supposed to do. The taking of women was something that Samuel specifically warned the people about when they asked for a king (1 Sam. 8.11-18). Palti[el]'s pitiful crying (HDD) is a lonely sound of protest, a faint echo of the larger distress (pUT) of a nation ruled by a king who takes (1 Sam. 8.18). The text offers no defense of David's actions. Historical evidence offers no parallels to David's claim. In addition, the letters of the daughters of Zimri-Lim indicate that royal daughters were not merely pawns in a political agreement. While they did not exercise independent control of their lives,36 they could make their will known and could oppose their treatment. 35. Zafiira Ben-Barak's examination of marriage laws, 'The Legal Background to the Restoration of Michal to David', in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Studies in the Historical Books (VTSup, 30; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1979), pp. 15-29, is very helpful in constructing a case for the possible legitimacy of David's claim to Michal after her second marriage. The law codes of Eshnunna, Babylon and Assyria make provision for a husband who has been absent 'by reason of'force majeure' for more than two years to reclaim a wife who after the two-year period was 'without any means of sustenance and in need of assistance' and married another man and had a family with him (Ben-Barak, 'Legal Background', pp. 24-25). The emphasis in the laws is on the inability or the failure of the husband's family to provide for the woman, causing her to seek permission to remarry. The legal background is instructive as an indication of what David might have claimed in presenting his request to Ishbaal. However, David makes no mention of his absence. He also reminds Ishbaal of the brideprice he paid to Saul. That recalls the discussion between David and Saul in which, through marriage to Michal, David became son-in-law to the king (1 Sam.18.18, 21, 22,23, 26, 27). As a royal daughter, Michal did not come under the care of her father-in-law. Saul, therefore, was not acting as a dispassionate ruler looking after the welfare of one of his impoverished subjects when he gave Michal to Palti. David has no case to insist on the return of Michal. 36. No member of a royal family does since all actions and relationships are expressions of the politics of the monarchy.

104


Several of Zimri-Lim's daughters demanded to be removed from their husband's kingdom and returned to Mari. In 2 Sam. 3 both David and Ishbaal appear ruthless and non-royal. Why do Rizpah and Michal appear juxtaposed to each other at this point in the text? One purpose is to explain Abner's defection to David and how Michal ended up in David's court. But their appearance also raises serious questions about the direction of the monarchy and the behavior of the royal house. It is conventional in commentary discussion to regard these two women caught between two houses as domestic victims of the politics of men. Indeed, they are. And that is precisely the problem. Their victimization is an indication of the failure of the politics of the royal house in Israel and a suggestion of its dim future prospects under David. What selfrespecting monarchy would behave this way? What other nation would enter into a diplomatic marriage with Israel or trust this royal house? David and Ishbaal are not unlike other kings in victimizing women to reach their own goals. What is unusual is that the narrative makes no attempt to hide the struggle. This is in contrast to the way the divorce of the Ugaritic king Ammistamru from his wife the sister of the Amorite king Sausgamuwa, and the divorce of Haya-Sumu, king of Ilansura, from Kiru, daughter of Zimri-Lim of Mari, are reported. Both cases were international incidents requiring delicate negotiations and face-saving measures to protect the men. Though Kiru's official correspondence presents HayaSumu as cruel and disloyal, the official record concluding the divorce does not mention their dispute. In the case of Ammistamru, other nations had to become involved in settling the dispute and determining the line of succession in order to preserve the royal house of Ugarit and to keep Ugarit and Amurru from going to war against each other. These disruptions in the normal pattern of access and alliance between nations effected through diplomatic marriages were an embarrassment for the nations involved. Both cases had to be settled in an 'honorable' way for the sake of peace in the region. It follows, then, that the dispute between David and Ishbaal is also to be viewed as a sign of trouble. A nation whose royal house cannot marry, bear children, and pass along the throne in peace is not a nation that can carry out diplomacy with other nations nor sustain itself. A nation whose chief women—a former king's concubine and a former king's daughter— are passed between houses in struggle and not in peace is a nation ruled by might and conquest, not a monarchy founded on a royal house. As the first part of this study has demonstrated, women, marriage and offspring are


105

fundamental to the stability, continuity and effective operation of a kingdom. Israel has yet to experience that. Its prospects do not appear bright under either of the two houses in contention in this chapter. Women of a Fallen House It is more than a coincidence that in the final attack of David on the house of Saul (2 Sam. 21), Rizpah and Michal again appear linked. There are many reasons to suggest this chapter is out of sequence and separated from material with which it was originally linked (e.g. ch. 9).37 In its present location, the chapter follows a series of family/political crises within the Davidic house, including rape, fratricide, rebellion and the 'entering' of ten of David's concubines. The chapter begins with the announcement of more trouble. There is famine—three years of famine—'in the days of David' (2 Sam. 21.1). In this notice is an unmistakable critique of the effect of David's reign on the land of Israel. Famine is an indication of the withdrawal of divine favor as a consequence of sin; fertility is a blessing brought to the land through righteous rule. This royal ideology is clearly expressed in Solomon's Temple dedication prayer where God is asked to hear and forgive when there is no rain (1 Kgs 8.35) and when there is famine (8.37), and in Ps. 72 where the petition is that the king may 'be like rain upon the mown grass, like copious showers dripping on the earth' (v. 6). David has a crisis in his kingdom that he must do something about. Yahweh, however, does not criticize David's reign. When David appropriately seeks Yahweh's advice on the matter of the famine, Yahweh merely informs him that there is bloodguilt upon Saul and his house for his killing the Gibeonites. What David does next has no precedent and no parallel elsewhere in or outside of the biblical text. David asks the Gibeonites to name their price so that David may atone to them in order that they may bless the inheritance of Yahweh (2 Sam. 23.3). The text does not question David's inquiry directly, but the choice of verb 'atone' (15D) is striking because the customary direction of appeasement is toward God. It is Yahweh who must be satisfied and who determines the level of atonement required.38 In response to the treaty violation that presumably 37. P.K. McCarter, Jr, IISamuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary (AB, 9; New York: Doubleday, 1984), p. 443. 38. The book of Leviticus contains specific instructions for the types of offerings (animal and financial) necessary to atone for various offenses (e.g. 4.20). Deuteronomy

106


occurred (reading Josh. 9.16, 20 as a possible foundation of the treaty), David makes no attempt to appease Yahweh before whom the treaty recorded in Joshua was sworn (Josh. 9.18, 19). Instead, David turns to those who have 'no portion in the community of Israel' and invites them to bring blessing upon Israel and to determine justice within Israel.39 Politically and theologically David's actions reflect submission to the Gibeonites rather than contrition, diplomacy and justice. The Gibeonites' request for seven sons of Saul suggests that, once again, Yahweh has given David's enemies 'into his hand' (cf. 1 Sam. 24.5; 26.23). Unlike previously, there is no indication that Saul's descendants are pursuing David and now David is 'God's anointed'. Unlike before, David exercises no restraint against the house of Saul, with the exception of honoring the covenant he made with Jonathan, sparing Jonathan's son Mephibosheth(21.7). David hands over the two sons of Rizpah and the five sons of Michal, daughter of Saul (21.8). Michal's name stands out because it has been previously reported that 'Michal had no child until the day of her death' (2 Sam. 6.23) and the father of the sons is listed as ' Adriel son of Barzillai the Meholathite', the same man listed as the husband of Saul's daughter Merab in 1 Sam. 18.19. Various LXX manuscripts list Merab instead of Michal. Michal is certainly the more difficult reading and the confusion cannot be readily explained as a copying error. It may be assumed, then, that an intentional reference is made to Michal who previously appeared paired with Rizpah as a woman caught between two houses in David's bid for kingship. Both women were the chief political symbols of the house of Saul. Both women were dealt with unjustly at that time by Ishbaal. At that time David had pursued an unjust claim for Michal's return to him. Interestingly, both women continue to represent the house of Saul in this passage, even though Michal was returned to David and Rizpah would have come under David's care among the 'wives of Saul' whom David received as victor over the house of Saul (2 Sam. 12.8). In turning over the sons of these women, David does violence to the women of his own house. David's persistent unwillingness to act with any covenant loyalty to the

21.8 directs the expiation of bloodguilt from a community through the sacrifice of a heifer. 39. The community of Israelites is to have no tolerance for the shedding of innocent blood because of the defilement it brings to the land. The life that is required in atonement is limited to 'the one shedding the blood' (Num. 35.33).


107

woman who had been and was his wife and who had saved his life is again displayed in his willingness to give the sons to the Gibeonites. The gruesome death of the sons at the hands of the Gibeonites before Yahweh does not change conditions in the land. The fertility of the land is not redeemed by cutting off the fruits of the fertility of the royal house. There is contained in this narrative both judgment against David and warning against future attempts against the lives of members of the royal house. Judgment against David is also conveyed through Rizpah's mourning. Her protection of the dead members of Saul's house is juxtaposed to David's turning over of the living members of Saul's house. Her vigilance is reported to David. Her attentiveness finally leads David to act with duty not only towards the remains of Saul and Jonathan but towards the sons he, himself, handed over to the Gibeonites. It is not until David acts with respect towards his enemies that God changes the conditions of the land, ending the famine. It is the royal woman Rizpah who initiates the cultic acts that bring the return of divine favor and fertility to the land. Though many commentators attempt to provide a rationale for David's behavior towards the Gibeonites in this chapter,40 they are uniformly suspicious of David's political intents.41 The chapter may serve as political apologia for the destruction of the remaining male heirs of the Saulide house, but it is weak at best. The violence against the remaining members of the house of Saul and the royal women left childless are of one piece with the revolts from within and against David's rule. Such behavior stands in contrast to the claims and evidence of divine protection and success. David's house has thus far not evolved successfully into a royal household. His rule differs little from the warrior mode of leadership that carried him into kingship and expanded Israelite rule over other nations. The same loyal comrades-at-arms who accompanied him in battle before he was

40. On the necessity of a royal sacrifice to restore the fertility of the land see, e.g. A.S. Kapelrud, 'King and Fertility: A Discussion of II Samuel 21:1-14', NorTT 56 (1955), pp. 113-22; and A. Malamat, 'Doctrines of Causality in Biblical and Hittite Historiography: A Parallel', VT5 (1955), pp. 1-12. 41. A.A. Anderson, 2 Samuel (WBC, 11; Dallas: Word Books, 1989), pp. 251-52 notes, 'Many scholars have seen in the events of our pericope a clever political act whereby David got rid of his political rivals from the house of Saul, and at the same time he appeared as the zealous doer of Yahweh's will. David needed a pretext to eliminate Saul's family, and he found it in the famine. In this way he also turned away any possible scrutiny of his own past deeds.'

108


king continue to be his chief advisors and appointed officials. There is a notice that his sons were priests (2 Sam. 8.18), suggesting royal family representation in the national cult, but the narrative emphasizes the separate houses of the royal offspring (2 Sam. 13.7; 14.24) and the competition and bloodshed between them. The difficulties within David's own family have, not surprisingly, taken their toll on the nation. Though the violence within David's family is to be viewed as punishment for David's violence against Bathsheba and Uriah (2 Sam. 12.10), David's actions and those of his sons reflect the opposite of what royal houses are to do. The narrative documents the consistent failure of David's line to act as 'the premier household' of the kingdom.42 This is not just an indication of David's failings as a father, but his failings as a husband and as a politician. The royal household, not just the king alone, is the center of Israel's political and theological legitimacy, efficacy and continuity. The narrative's careful and, at times, critical attention to the development of the Davidic house coexists with the narrative's pro-Davidic stance. The oftentimes discouraging assessment of David is interwoven with the report of his divine selection (1 Sam. 16.7-13), his responsibility for Yahweh's people (2 Sam. 5.12) and Yahweh's commitment to his offspring and the future of his kingdom (2 Sam. 7.10-16). The two truths about David cannot be compromised. The negative realities cannot be buried under the pro-Davidic themes of the text, nor can they be relegated to David's 'private life'. The narrative's attention to the struggles and royal failures of the Davidic house do not deny Yahweh's presence with and promise to David. The text makes it clear that Yahweh agreed to monarchy knowing full well its potential to do harm (1 Sam. 8.11-21). The text also repeatedly demonstrates Yahweh's commitment to thwart harm and ensure blessings through this means of earthly rule. A Woman without a House Two warnings about kingship stand out in the books of Samuel. One is the list of dangers God instructs Samuel to recite to the people demanding a king in 1 Sam. 8.11-21. Samuel warns how the king will destroy their households—taking sons, daughters, male and female slaves—and their household economy—lands, produce and animals—for the king's selfish 42. Peirce (Imperial Harem, p. viii) refers to the Ottoman royal family 'as the premier household of the empire—a family made up of women and men, senior and junior generations, blood members, slave servants, and retainers'.


109

gain. Families will not be raised up to share in the benefits and positions of royal leadership (e.g. he will not make your daughters queens or your sons captains). The potentially devastating effect of kingship on the households of the nation is emphasized in Samuel's speech. The second warning about kingship is delivered by Michal in 2 Sam. 6. Of the six narrative scenes in which she is mentioned,43 this is one of two scenes in which she speaks to David and the only one in which they carry on a conversation with each other. The immediate context for the warning is the arrival of the ark of Yahweh in Jerusalem. Having 'blessed the house of Obed-edom and all that belonged to him', the ark was moved to the 'city of David' (2 Sam. 6.12, 13). The procession in 2 Sam. 5-6, according to C.L. Seow, is a 'religio-political' enactment of the rise of the divine warrior to enthronement as king and the subsequent blessings to the people.44 'All the house of Israel' is involved with David in this procession—with the noted exception of Michal daughter of Saul (2 Sam. 6.16). Seow observes that the liturgical sequence associated with this rise is 'interrupted by the reference to Michal in v. 16. Her presence poses a crux interpretum and so the verse is usually excised and, together with vv. 2023, regarded as secondary.'45 It is important to note that Michal's eruption into the narrative is not directed at Yahweh or the ark, but at David. There is no objection to the power, glory and enthronement of Yahweh.46 Michal looks through the window, sees David leaping and whirling before Yahweh, and she despises him in her heart (2 Sam. 6.16). Two things stand out in this report. First, Michal is identified as 'daughter of Saul'. She had been identified as 'wife of David' after her marriage (1 Sam. 19.11; 25.44) and when David demanded Ishbosheth take her 43. The six scenes include (1) marriage to David (1 Sam. 18.20-29), (2) directing David to escape (1 Sam. 19.11-17), (3) marriage to Palti juxtaposed to David's marriage to Abigail (1 Sam. 25.42-44), (4) David's demand for her return juxtaposed to Ishbosheth's accusation of Abner's involvement with Rizpah (2 Sam. 3.7-16), (5) Michal's feelings during the procession of the ark into Jerusalem and her argument with David afterward (2 Sam. 6.16-23), and (6) the killing of the sons of Rizpah and Michal (2 Sam. 21.1-14). 44. C.L. Seow, Myth, Drama, and the Politics of David's Dance (HSM, 44; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989). See especially ch. 2, 'Religio-Political Drama'. 45. Seow, Myth, Drama, p. 129. 46. Seow (Myth, Drama, p. 129) concludes that 'the sequence of events in Psalm 29 mirrors the drama in 2 Samuel 5—6'. 2 Sam. 6.15-17 is parallel to w. 9c-10 of Ps. 29, with the exception of the reference to Michal.

110


back from Paltiel (2 Sam. 3.14). The reference in v. 16 suggests that she has not been restored to her position as a royal wife of David. That Michal resides in David's house but stands identified 'outside' David's house in this scene is a crucial indication that all is not well with the Davidic monarchy. David may have defeated the house of Saul, but he has not yet established a secure house of his own. Second, Michal despises David. This is the complete opposite of the 'love' that she had for David previously and which was the basis for her directing David's escape. Though she has acted with covenant loyalty toward David in the past, he has never acknowledged or established a covenant with her. Many good 'personal' reasons could be listed for her change of heart, but the text leaves it to the reader to review the relationship between David and Michal: Michal loved David and David agreed to be Saul's son-in-law Michal saved David from Saul's anger David married Abigail and Ahinoam; Michal is married to Paltiel David demanded Michal back from Paltiel Michal appears as 'Saul's daughter' at the window of David's house Their relationship has not been open to the reader for speculation on personal matters. It has been built on the power of her position as a royal daughter from the house of Saul. David achieved entry into Saul's house through marriage to Michal, and he attempted to achieve control over the future of Saul's house through his demand that Ishbosheth return Michal to him. Michal acted wisely and daringly when she directed David's escape through their bedroom window. Now she looks down on him through a different palace window. The reference to the palace window through which (Jlbnn 1172) Michal sees David dance before the ark of Yahweh (2 Sam. 6.16) brings to mind the palace window through which (fibrin lin) Michal let David down to make his escape (1 Sam. 19.12). The reader sees David dance before the divine warrior who delivered the kingdom into his hands from the perspective of the woman who rescued him from certain death. Michal's significance in and for David's life and royal destiny is here clearly illuminated. She, too, has had a hand in David's deliverance. She has done him no harm. The connection between the window scenes confirms Michal's credibility as a character witness. At the same time it invites reflection on why her love has turned to despising.


111

Michal's position at the palace window has been much discussed in connection with the literary depictions of other biblical royal women peering out the window and the figure of the 'woman at the window' observed in ivories found at Samaria, Arslan Tash, Khorsabad andNimrud.47 R.D. Barnett, W.F. Albright, Mitchell J. Dahood and Susan Ackerman are among the scholars who have tied the ivories to goddess forms and linked Michal to the cult of that goddess. Barnett48 and Albright49 to Canaanite Astarte; Dahood50 to the Cypriot Aphrodite; Ackerman51 to Canaanite Asherah. There are difficulties, however, in making a connection between the cultic representation presumed in the 'woman at the window' ivories and the literary convention of the 'woman at the window'. The biblical literary contexts in which women appear 'at the window' do not require nor do they evoke a cultic role for the women characters. Shula Abramsky52 identifies the literary figure of the 'woman at the window' with three royal women: Sisera's mother (Judg. 5.28); Michal; and Jezebel (2 Kgs 9.30). Abramsky concludes that they represent a literary convention in which they are depicted as enemies of Yahweh and are punished by the hand of a man who has been appointed to this task by the hand of Yahweh.53 The figure of the 'woman at the window', however, is not limited to these three examples (see Prov. 7.6 LXX; Song 2.9).54 The window does not function to identify them as 'enemies of Yahweh', nor should the three be over-generalized. The character of Sisera's mother 47. R.D. Barnett, 'The Nimrud Ivories and the Art of the Phoenicians', Iraq 2 (1935), pp. 179-210; idem, Ancient Ivories in the Middle East (Qedem, 14; Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1982); idem, A Catalogue of the Nimrud Ivories with Other Examples of Ancient Near Eastern Ivories in the British Museum (London: British Museum, 2nd rev. edn, 1975), pp. 145-51. 48. Barnett, Ancient Ivories, p. 48. 49. W.F. Albright, 'Canaanite-Phoenician Sources of Hebrew Wisdom', in M. Noth and D.W. Thomas (eds.), Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East, Presented to Professor Harold-Henry Rowley (VTSup, 3; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1960), pp. 1-15. 50. M.J. Dahood, 'Canaanite-Phoenician Influence in Qoheleth', Bib. 33 (1952), pp. 191-221. 51. Ackerman, Warrior, Dancer, Seductress, Queen, pp. 155-62. 52. S. Abramsky, 'The Woman at the Window', Beth Mikra 25 (1980), pp. 114-24 (Hebrew). 53. Abramsky, 'Woman at the Window', p. 114. See also the summary in English prepared by T.C. Eskenazi, 'Michal in Hebrew Sources', in D.J.A. Clines and T.C. Eskenazi (eds.), Telling Queen Michal's Story: An Experiment in Comparative Interpretation (JSOTSup, 119; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), pp. 157-74 (172-73). 54. See comments by P.K. McCarter, Jr, II Samuel, p. 172.

112


functions in the narrative not as the 'enemy who perishes' (Judg. 5.3la) but the one who, in vain, awaits the return of the vanquished, confirming that the enemy does not return home. Jezebel is the enemy, unrepentant to the end, who is struck down by Yahweh's anointed (2 Kgs 9.7,33). Michal never speaks against Yahweh or acts against Yahweh's anointed. She is a part of David's house to which he returns intending to bring blessing after his procession into the city (2 Sam. 6.20). The three women's experiences at the window differ: Sisera's mother awaits news; Jezebel engages in conversation with Jehu and is pushed to her death; Michal despises David. But in each case the window is a clear and visible portal between the royal house and the wider world in which that house is engaged. These three women are not hidden from or mere spectators to that wider political involvement.55 The window frame gives Michal's 'view' of the scene below, not a view of Michal. Like shooting a film, the narrative cuts away from the street level to Michal's view and commentary from above, and then returns to the parade route below. Michal's thoughts weigh heavily over the scene since the description of the events contains no dialogue. The tension is between David's actions and Michal's assessment of him. Robert Polzin points to the difficulty of breaking through the ambiguity in the text in relating the description of David's leadership of the procession at street level to Michal's feelings at the window. He notes, Given the convention of an omniscient narrator and the frequent appearance of unreliable or biased characters the distinction between an action that is directly presented by the narrator and one indirectly shown through the perception of a character can be significant.56 55. Though the 'woman at the window' ivories do not help in assigning literary values to the women at the window in the narratives, it should be noted that the ivories do not hide the face of the woman. She is readily visible in the carvings. She is clearly looking out from some recognizable location—a palace apartment window (Barnett, Ancient Ivories, p. 48) or temple (Barnett cited by Ackerman, Warrior, Dancer, Seductress, Queen, pp. 155 and 175 n. 85)—not hidden within. This visibility is markedly different than, e.g., Ottoman Empire and Muslim iconography which depicts only the eyes or shadows of women hidden behind screens. In both periods, however, the literary and historical evidence documents the active and necessary involvement of royal women in the diplomatic, economic, cultic and political affairs of the dynasty. For documentation of the Ottoman period see Peirce, Imperial Harem. 56. R. Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History. Part Three 2 Samuel (Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993), p. 61.


113

The narrator is not without 'bias'. Michal has not previously proved to be unreliable. Furthermore, David's actions, even in generosity, have not always been above suspicion as they have been reported. The enthronement of Yahweh the divine warrior in Jerusalem concludes with the burnt offerings and peace offerings, and the distribution of food to the citizens. The presence of the deity brings dignity and security to the new capital city. David shares in that security and dignity. He has given leadership to this procession and the blessings; David is the subject of most of the verbs. P. Kyle McCarter observes, David 'appears unambiguously as the patron and founder of the cult of Yahweh in Jerusalem' ,57 But there is ambiguity in the text; Michal's assessment of David has been reported and she awaits him as he returns home. A Man without a House 'David returned to bless his house' and 'Michal daughter of Saul went out to meet him'. Again Michal displays the characteristics of a 'woman of the house'58 that she exercised previously in 1 Sam. 19. She initiates action and she exercises authority. The encounter between Michal and David takes place in public space outside the house.59 David appears to be blocked from entering and blessing his house, but Michal is also presented as blocked from that house. For the second time she is referred to as 'daughter of Saul'. David J.A. Clines concludes: 'Michal is not behaving as David's wife (contrast 1 Sam. 19) but as his opponent: she is acting like a true daughter of Saul'.60 Perhaps the narrator is anticipating David's comments by referring to Michal as 'daughter of Saul' in v. 16 and 20, but there is as yet no evidence of her behaving as his opponent. It would, in fact, be new behavior for Michal to act 'like a true daughter of Saul', since her love for David, like Jonathan's, caused her to act against her father previously. Again, David had claimed Michal back from Paltiel as his wife.61 57. McCarter, IISamuel, p. 182. 58. See prior discussion of Abigail's behavior paralleled with Michal's. 59. This is in contrast to Walter Brueggemann's assertion that 'We move from a public display to a private domestic conversation, a conversation between husband an wife' (First and Second Samuel [IBC; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1990], p. 251). 60. D.J.A. Clines, 'X, X Ben Y, Ben Y: Personal Names in Hebrew Narrative Style', VT22 (1972), pp. 266-87 (272). 61. Clines categorizes the references to Michal as 'Saul's daughter' and 'my wife'

114


The contrast between the ark procession and the encounter between Michal and David in front of the palace is a contrast between the triumph of divine promise and the failure of human politics. God has given David the kingdom; but David cannot bring blessing to his house. David now has the throne through divine gift; his political attempts to secure the throne through acquisition (i.e. taking advantage of and 'taking back' Michal) are here exposed and judged. Michal receives no sympathy in the text (only the reader may dare to provide that), but David may not walk away with the glory. This is Yahweh's day of glory. Though David leads the procession and distributes the blessings and though 'the ark's ascent to Jerusalem mirrors the rise of David to some extent',62 it is Yahweh, not David, whose throne is secured this day. The 'myth, drama and polities' of the ark procession, so carefully patterned after the rituals of legitimation and triumph of other ancient Near Eastern monarchs, encounters an unexpected interruption in the dialogue between David, 'the king of Israel', and Michal, 'the daughter of Saul'. Michal leads off the confrontation, mocking David's performance during the procession of the ark: 'How the king of Israel has been honored [~Q3] today by exposing himself [nba] in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, like one of the riffraff [Dnp~ln 1PIH] would expose himself (2 Sam. 6.20). Michal charges David with stripping the office of king of its weight/ honor by behaving like the 'empty ones'.63 The accusation leaves the (2 Sam. 3.13, 14) as an intentional pattern of naming 'where the relationship (of X to Y) is meaningful in the context' ('Personal Names', pp. 267,271). In this instance it is David's intention, not Michal's behavior, that Clines assumes is the basis for these two different naming patterns. A case similar to 2 Sam. 6 may be found in 2 Sam. 12.10 where Yahweh refers to Bathsheba as 'wife of Uriah the Hittite'. David is married to her by that time and her name has been introduced into the story. The identification 'wife of Uriah the Hittite' does not suggest that Bathsheba has acted against David but makes the point that David has acted against Uriah and against Bathsheba. 62. Seow, Myth, Drama, p. 103. 63. LXX reads TCOV opxou(jevcou ('the dancers') from lp~l, 'skip about', instead of |T~I (hiphil), 'make empty, empty out'. The same root appears in the next verse in a passage missing from the MT: bpxrioo|jai ('and I will dance'). The missing words in the MT v. 21 can be explained by haplography: LXX 'Before Yahweh I will dance. Blessed be Yahweh who chose me...' MT 'Before Yahweh who chose me...' In v. 20, however, the MT D'p'n ('worthless ones') is both the more logical and the more difficult reading. The tone of Michal's speech is clearly sarcastic. Even if her


115

reader struggling to understand the reason for this attack. Commentators generally suggest Michal's behavior derives from a problem she has accepting David's victory over the Saulide house or his worship of Yahweh.64 Her 'personal feelings' about David (i.e. that she despises him; 2 Sam. 6.16) are viewed as clouding her assessment of his political triumph and his humility before Yahweh. Michal's opening words to David smack of elitism as she names his audience: the handmaids of his servants. The remark is permeated with sexual overtones in the ambiguous reference to David's 'exposing' (nb^) himself in the eyes of these women who rank lowest in the social order.65 Speculation about the nature of this 'exposure' turns to the size of David's linen ephod66 and the enthusiasm of his dancing. The focus of Michal's objection were to the zealousness of David's dancing before the ark. to compare David to a dancer is not pejorative. Michal's attack is on David's 'honor', and the contrast she makes is between honor and dishonor/worthlessness. As a text-critical problem, it is more likely that Hebrew Pp"!!! in v. 20 became harmonized with the reference to dancing in v. 21 than that the MT, after losing the reference to dancing in v. 21 due to haplography, then confused a yod with a daleth and substituted D'lp~T in the previous verse. 64. Brueggemann (First and Second Samuel, pp. 252-53) observes 'David's "dishonor" consisted in glad yielding to the gift of Yahweh. David is utterly Yahweh's man, a fact Michal either cannot understand or refuses to acknowledge... Tn David's utter abandonment to dance and in his liturgic, social, royal extravagance, a new order is authorized, wrought out of unrestrained yielding and worship. David is freshly legitimate. The narrative of chapter 6 concerns a shift in power, a risk of worship that embraces Yahwism and permits new order.' 65. David Clines notes, 'Michal does not profess herself troubled by the fact that men and women along the route of the procession have seen David naked, but that women have, that low-class women have, and that David has taken no pains to prevent it... [David] too has been oblivious to the male bystanders and the more modest matrons who have kept their eyes averted. His interest is in being "honoured by the maidservants of whom you have spoken". It is of little consequence that he no doubt deceives himself into thinking that it is his religious ecstasy that everyone thinks so highly of; what he has been advertising to the maidservants of his servants is, it appears, his shamelessness and his sexuality' ('Michal Observed: An Introduction to Reading her Story', in D. J.A. Clines and T.C. Eskenazi [eds.], Telling Queen Michal's Story: An Experience in Comparative Interpretation [JSOTSup, 119; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991], pp. 24-63 [59-60]). 66. Polzin (David and the Deuteronomist. p. 66) notes 'many commentators see David's "revealing himself as a reference to his dancing almost naked, yet nothing in the text, so far as I can see, supports this view. In fact, David is wearing a linen ephod (v. 14), and efforts to describe him as "scantily clad" are difficult to justify.'

116


attack, however, is on David's royal honor and how he 'reveals' it. She shifts the audience assessing David from herself to the servant women, who are on the complete opposite end of the social scale than Michal and have the least direct involvement in political matters. She does not suggest that the women are impressed with David, nor does she indicate that they should be. Michal compares David's behavior to that of rebels and outlaws.67 There is most certainly a sting to that accusation since those who contributed to David's rise were described as malcontents and bitter ones.68 Michal's words catch David—and the reader—off guard. She charges that 'today'69 even those at the very bottom of the social ladder can see through David. What is stunning about Michal's attack is that it is so wounding while at the same time lacking in specificity. It is clear, however, that she does not want David to collect the glory that customarily attends the king who ushers in the gods of the city. She de-sacralizes David's participation in the ark procession. Michal makes a broad accusation against David. Oddly, it is David's response to her that sustains that charge. Though he claims it was 'before Yahweh' that he danced,70 David's response is not about the honor due to Yahweh, but the honor due to David. David says nothing about Yahweh being victorious, but that Yahweh has made David the victor over her father and over all his house (in'Il'bDQ) and has placed David over the people of Yahweh and over Israel. Indeed, David can claim Yahweh's hand in his rise to the kingship he now holds. Michal surely knows that and her assistance to David at the beginning of his rise to power is documented. David's willingness to dismiss her in defense of his 'honor' is therefore quite troubling. Even more troubling is that David does not stop with what Yahweh has done. He promises to make himself'even more dishonorable than this'

67. The term D'p"! is used in Judg. 9.4 to refer to the 'worthless ones' whom Abimelech hired to assist him in killing his brothers and establishing himself as king, and in Judg. 11.3 to refer those who gathered around Jephthah in his outlaw days. It appears also in 2 Chron. 13.7 in reference to the rebels who assist Jeroboam in his revolt against Rehoboam after the death of Solomon. 68. 1 Sam. 22.2: 'everyone who was in distress, everyone who was in debt and everyone who was full of bitterness'. 69. QVn (2x in v. 20) 70. Reading ~Ip~lN with LXX in the section missing from MT and pn'E? in the secon half of the verse.


117

(DKTE TID Tlbp]) and 'to be humiliated' in his eyes (TV2 ^StJ)71 with the expectation that before the maidservants of whom Michal spoke he may be honored (n~QDK; 2 Sam. 6.22). On the day honoring Yahweh's enthronement in Jerusalem, David does not propose acting honorably but being honored. David does not suggest lowliness before God (cf. Ps. 138.6 contrasting the lowly and the haughty) but claims the privilege of acting negatively72 while being esteemed publicly. David boasts of covenant violation. As Saul Olyan observes in his study of honor and shame, Though the vocabulary of honor and shame is somewhat complex, forms of the Hebrew verbs "DD ('to be honored'/'to honor') and Tvp ('to be diminished' or 'dishonored'/'to diminish' or 'dishonor') and their Akkadian cognates kabatu and qalalu are paired frequently in honor/shame discourses and appear to be antonyms.73

David boasts of being able to violate the divine loyalty and protection that has granted him the kingship in the first place.74 His willingness to be regarded as 'slight' (bbp) is not a self-abasement formula75 through which he may demonstrate (or feign) respect before a superior,76 but confirmation that David has his eyes on the 'small things', whether it is the brideprice dangled by Saul that raised him to king's son-in-law or the acknowledgment of those who have the least power to demand anything of him. Though David attempts to deflect Michal's charges, in the 'exchange of whipsaw sarcasms'77 David actually reveals the emptiness that Michal has charged against him. It is David who is prideful and does not understand 71. LXX has 'in your eyes' referring to Michal. 72. McCarter (IISamuel, p. 187) concludes the passage 'suggests not disgrace but rather pious modesty (cf. Prov. 29.23)'. But in Prov. 29 it is 'humbleness of spirit' that will bring glory. To be 'dishonored in your eyes' is to be regarded negatively in Deut. 25.3. The dishonored (nbp^H) are negatively contrasted to the honored (~D3j) in Isa. 3.5. 73. S. Olyan, 'Honor, Shame, and Covenant Relations in Ancient Israel and its Environment', JBL 115.2 (1996), pp. 201-18 (203 n. 6). 74. Olyan observes that 'In 2 Sam. 6.22, the niphal ^bp (Tl'ppjl, "I will abase myself, "be dishonored") is contrasted with hiphal ~nj (miQN, "I will be honored"), though the meaning of the passage is unclear' ('Honor, Shame', p. 205 n. 11). Unfortunately the meaning is clear; it is the motivation that is puzzling. 75. The formula is described in Coats, 'Self-Abasement and Insult Formulas', pp. 14-26. 76. In 1 Sam. 18.23 David remarks 'Is it a small thing [H^pJ] in your eyes to be son-in-law of the king for I am a poor man and of no honor [a small thing; nbpD]'. 77. R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981), p. 124.

118

A Woman's Place is in ihe House

the appropriate worship of Yahweh. It is David who has been raised to such a royal position by Yahweh and who is willing to sink so low. If the 'politics of David's dance' represents not only the enthronement of the divine warrior, but also the preliminary steps to 'the attempt to build a temple/palace for YHWH following the deity's victory and accession in his newly conquered domain',78 then David's words are all the more troubling. He is not prepared to take on that task. It is no surprise, then, that his plans receive divine objection in the next chapter. David's royal intentions to provide a city and a house for the deity are the appropriate and necessary duties of ancient Near Eastern kings. 2 Samuel 6 provides political and sacral legitimation to David's rise. Israel now has a king 'like all the nations' (I Sam. 8.5) and their king is divinely favored. That alone, however, will not secure the future of the kingship nor of the nation. David appears to have the last word in the showdown with Michal. He dismisses Michal's involvement in the royal house verbally and physically The announcement in v. 23 that 'Michal daughter of Saul had no children until the day of her death' underscores the tragedy and finality of David's dismissal of Michal.79 Michal is severed from relationships and involvement as royal daughter and wife and from any future as queen mother. Michal disappears in silence. Walter Brueggemann comments that she 'is dismissed by the narrative as barren and hopeless'.80 But that barrenness and hopelessness are an indictment of David's kingship. The procession of the ark into Jerusalem represents the beginning of a major political and theological shift from warrior nation to bureaucratic state.81 Though David has replaced Saul and danced before Yahweh, he faces the same estrangement from his family members that Saul did. He

78. Seow, Myth, Drama, p. 139. Seow observes that the verbs uncovered (gly), honored (kbd), revelled (shq), and fell (nqlty), around which the dialogue between Michal and David are focused, also appear in Ugaritic texts related to the building of a house for Baal (pp. 137-39). 79. Some interpreters have attributed Michal's childlessness to God's action, but language about God's closing her womb (as one finds in 1 Sam. 1.6) is not found in this passage. 80. Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, p. 253. 81. Peirce observes a change in the Ottoman Empire of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in the 'gradual transition from a state geared to expansion and led by a warrior sultan to a territorially stable bureaucratic state ruled by a sedentary palace sultan' (Imperial Harem, p. x).


119

has a cedar residence (2 Sam. 5.11) and sons and daughters,82 but only Michal comes to meet him at his door. David has provided a place for the ark of Yahweh and blessings for the people of Israel, but the blessings of Yahweh have yet to reach the house of David, and David himself cannot bring them. He is confident that he will be honored by the servant women, but he does not hold the respect of his political partner. He demanded the return of Michal to his house, but now he rejects her.83 David can claim to have been chosen by Yahweh, but the future shape of his house is unclear. Monarchy is a family business. Royal women are an essential part of preserving and promoting that work. Open conflict threatens the family's ability to function, with consequences for the well-being of the nation and the future of its royal house. Motherhood is a key political role, a channel for preserving the future of the monarchy through progeny, education, succession and leadership. To dismiss Michal as a bitter spoilsport trying to rain on David's parade is to deny her prophetic perspective on the past and future of kingship. Her indictment against David brings to focus the struggles that preceded the march into Jerusalem and the emptiness at its core. David has not only received the kingship as a gift, but also uses that power to dismiss the wife he claimed for that kingship. David has not only failed to reciprocate MichaPs covenant loyalty (her 'love'), but also boasts of honor apart from covenant obligations. Her words are also a proleptic rendering of the crises to follow.84 David may have vanquished Michal, but her dismissal is part of the unmasked tragedy of his kingship, not an unmatched confirmation of him. 82. David had other wives and offspring (see 2 Sam. 3.2-3; 5.13-14). If David were sincere in reclaiming Michal on the basis of the marriage contract with Saul (i.e. 100 foreskins) Michal should have ranked as 'chief wife'. 83. McCarter (II Samuel, p. 188) suggests the passage 'answers the question of the presence of Saulid blood in the Davidic line'. The reader may ponder the question, but the text itself does not raise it. The text has kept open the possibility of offspring from David and Michal, particularly when David reclaimed Michal from Paltiel. In addition, thus far in 2 Samuel David has presented himself as attempting to preserve the heirs of Saul's house, punishing the messenger who finished off Saul's life and killing the assassins of Ishbaal. David subsequently acts with kindness toward Mephibosheth and his house. If David were concerned with the Saulid bloodline, Mephibosheth and his son Mica (2 Sam. 9.12) would represent more of a threat than any offspring between David and Michal. 84. Note how David's words to Michal come to life in his treatment of Bathsheba and Uriah. See Chapter 5 of this study.

120


God's Place Is in the House The conflict between David and Michal in 2 Sam. 6—not the victory procession of the ark—shapes Yahweh's dealing with David in 2 Sam. 7. Yahweh addresses the dismissal of the house of Saul and the absence of covenant loyalty. Yahweh speaks to the problem of David's empty house and the absence of someone to instruct and promote a successor to the throne.85 David's intention to build Yahweh a house is the logical next step after the installation of the ark in Jerusalem. Yahweh, however, refuses to permit David, 'a man after his own heart' (1 Sam. 13.14), to do what was 'in his heart' (2 Sam. 7.3). 'Are you to build me a house?', Yahweh asks David.86 David's service to Yahweh is thus rejected. Yahweh displays no modesty in this rebuke. Yahweh's description of a mobile life among the Israelites suggests that David has no real understanding of how God works. So, God proceeds with a series of statements of what Yahweh (T) has done for Israel and for David. Yahweh responds to David's boast to Michal that Yahweh 'chose me over your father and over all his house, to appoint me as prince over the people of Yahweh, over Israel' (2 Sam. 6.21). First, Yahweh speaks of David's election 'from following the sheep to be prince' (2 Sam. 7.8b) in such a way that the honor accrues to God (T), not to David. Then Yahweh links David's election to Yahweh's intentions for the nation. Yahweh's presence, protection and promise of a great name and a house for David are wrapped around Yahweh's creation of a place, peace, protection and justice for the people of Israel: I will be with you everywhere you go and I will cut down all your enemies before you and I will make your name great, like the name of the great ones of the earth. I will make a place for my people, for Israel, and I will plant them and they will dwell in their own place and they will not be shaken again; and the sons of injustice will not be able to afflict them as before, from the time that I appointed judges over my people Israel.

85. While the decision about successor could rest in the hands of the king, the 'viability of each prince's candidacy for the succession' is due chiefly to the activity 'of the prince's mother in his training...and the promotion of his career' (Peirce, Imperial Harem, p. 44). 86. LXX and 1 Chron. 17.4 have 'you shall not build'.


121

I will give you rest from all your enemies...for the LORD will make a house for you (2 Sam. 7.9-11).

These promises reconfirm Yahweh's willingness to participate in the monarchy87 and underscore God's agenda for that monarchy.88 These privileges, protections and responsibilities are asserted over against the claims and intentions of David in 2 Sam. 6 and his plans to build a house for Yahweh. Yahweh's promises raise doubts about the legitimizing and sacralizing benefits of the ark procession and David's plans for temple building. Yahweh then does something most unusual: Yahweh favors David and promises him a house. This would appear to be confirmation of David's boast of chosenness over Saul and his house in 2 Sam. 6.21. It is, however, the tragedy of the dismissal of Saul's house and not the Tightness of David's claim that Yahweh focuses on. Yahweh makes no mention of what David has done. Instead, Yahweh seems determined never again to be in the position of regretting the choice and dismissing the king. Yahweh makes a radical commitment not to withdraw steadfast love (~!0n) from David's successor, as Yahweh's steadfast love had turned from being with Saul (2 Sam. 7.15). God will work against the conditions that favored David's dismissal of Michal. Through this steadfast love (~TDn) Yahweh enters into a covenant relationship with the descendants of David, bringing honor to the Davidic house. Here Yahweh addresses the problem of shame and honor in the Davidic house that led to Michal's dismissal. This covenant loyalty and honor is a most unusual decision on Yahweh's part. It does not fit the covenant 'expectations of reciprocal honor'.89 Yahweh has refused to allow David to bring honor to Yahweh by building a house while at the same time God has refused to diminish David for boasting of his intent to treat himself lightly. The honorable one in this covenant is Yahweh who treats David's house honorably, apart from any honor David has brought to Yahweh. God will work/or the conditions that favor an honorable royal house. Through this covenant Yahweh promises to 'build a house' for David, 'raise up' David's offspring and 'establish his kingdom' (2 Sam. 7.11-13). The identity and future of Israel's monarchy is to take shape as a family. This dynastic house must function politically and theologically as the 87. Yahweh reluctantly agreed to this form of government in 1 Sam. 8.7. 88. This agenda involves protecting and providing for the people and seeing that justice prevails. 89. Olyan, 'Honor, Shame', p. 205. See the full article for a discussion of the political dynamics of honor and shame.

122


vehicle for divine governance and must be capable of passing the throne safely from generation to generation. Yahweh will not only build a house but also enter into it. Yahweh will be as a 'father' and the prince as a 'son'. Yahweh will punish wrongdoing (2 Sam. 7.14), but not withdraw steadfast love ("TOn). Such divine 'sonship' sets expectations for royal behavior90 that Yahweh will teach and reinforce from generation to generation. A Woman's Place Is in the House Does Yahweh's entry into the 'house', however, effect the permanent silencing and disappearance of Michal and the other royal women? Is the dynastic covenant promise to David the ultimate patriarchal construction: a world without women? A full response to these questions requires more evidence than these two chapters in 2 Samuel. These two chapters, however, provide a starting point for that discussion. First, there is no indication that God dismisses Michal or acts against her. Second, in 2 Sam. 7 God takes up Michal's perspective, echoing the charges of Michal and casting doubt on the claims of David. Michal's absence is thus made all the more visible by God's attention to how David has revealed himself to her. Third, in light of all that has gone before, God's promise, 'I will make you a house', points to something that David cannot do alone. God's focus on a 'house' establishes a place and a purpose for each member of that house. Though Yahweh follows the pattern of other ancient Near Eastern divinities in acknowledging Israel's king as 'son', the work of royal preparation and the steadfast loyalty demonstrated in this relationship are characteristic of royal mothers. The royal mothers participate in the divine work. The sad truth related in the chapters following 2 Sam. 7 is that David rarely demonstrates any competence in matters relating to the royal house. He is a notorious house-wrecker, for example, Uriah and Bathsheba (2 Sam. 11), Tamar and Amnon (2 Sam. 13), Absalom (2 Sam. 14-18), the sons of Rizpah and Michal/Merab (2 Sam. 21.8-9). His 'domestic' failings, however, cannot be privatized since they are the very heart of his political fail90. Frank M. Cross observes, 'Kinship obligations are necessarily mutual... Whether one chooses a royal ideology in which the language of divine sonship is used or chooses one using the language of covenant, mutual relations are established between king and Deity. There are no "unilaterial" covenants in a kinship-based society' (From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel [Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998], p. 14).


123

ures, and his house is the governing center of the nation. In 2 Sam. 7 God makes the 'domestic' sphere the center of the dynastic covenant. The house is the model by which God pledges to participate in kingship and through which the kingdom is to endure. God neither turns a blind eye to David's failings nor gives in to despair. God's critique and commitment become apparent, however, only when Michal steps out of the house and challenges David. In response to the crisis she illuminates, God chooses both to convict and to equip David, reining him in and contributing to his reign. In Michal we encounter someone who, like God,91 is willing to face the truth about the frailties of human kingship. And, by God, she is vindicated.

91. Michal's name is a contraction of Michael, which translates 'who is like God?' (^KD'B).

Chapter 5 BATHSHEBA: A QUEEN MOTHER

David had boasted to Michal in 2 Sam. 6, 'I will make myself even more dishonorable than this. I will be debased in my eyes, but before the maidservants of whom you speak I will be greatly honored' (v. 22). This boast of dishonor takes on a deadly seriousness five chapters later in David's adulterous involvement with Bathsheba and the murder of her husband Uriah. Here, the'man after Yahweh's own heart'(1 Sam. 13.14) is charged with despising the word of Yahweh and doing evil in Yahweh's eyes (2 Sam. 12.9). The future of the royal house is jeopardized. As was the case in 2 Sam. 6, the crisis centers on the proper inclusion of women in the royal house. Michal was to have linked two houses in some measure of peace. Instead, she was passed between houses, left out of David's house, and deprived of the sons she had (2 Sam. 21.8).1 Her covenant loyalty turned to despising. As a character in the narrative she draws attention to the composition of and expectations for the royal house. The very mention of her name in connection with David's popularity, honor, daring and victory over the house of Saul is a word of caution: 'Who is like God?' Bathsheba enters the narrative as a victim of royal prerogative. She is taken for the king's sexual pleasure. The attention she receives in 2 Sam. 11-12 draws judgment upon the grasping of the royal house as it reaches into the houses of citizens and brings death. Bathsheba's mourning for her husband and her child signals an irreversible loss of family and honor—for herself and for the nation. Yet it is Bathsheba who emerges through this narrative to shape the future of the royal house, as caretaker, counselor and king-maker for the next generation of leadership.

1. The textual problem in the naming of Michal instead of Merab in the MT is discussed in Chapter 4 in the section titled 'Women of a Fallen House'.

5. Bathsheba: A Queen Mother

125

One House Only By 2 Sam. 11 David has established his capital in Jerusalem (5.6-10), taken more concubines and wives (5.13), located the ark in Jerusalem (6.17), broken connections to the Saulide House (6.21-23), received the divine promise of an eternal dynasty (7.16), vanquished nearly all his enemies (8.1-14; 10.1-19), set a watch over Saul's heir (9.1-13), and appointed his own officials to military, political and religious posts (8.15-18). Fresh from victory over the Aramean coalition (10.17-19) David is at the height of royal power and honor. It is precisely at this point that one would expect in the narrative some notice that the blessings of peace, the rule of justice and the benefits of a powerful and secure kingship are bearing fruit in the kingdom. Instead the king sends the army to battle without him and takes another man's wife for his own pleasure. When she becomes pregnant, he calls her husband home from battle and tries to manipulate the homecoming to cover the pregnancy. When that is unsuccessful, the king sends the husband back to the front and arranges for his death in battle. Then the king marries the woman. No reason is provided for any of these actions, but there is no mistaking their significance or escaping their consequences. The 'motives, the attitudes and the moral nature'2 of David have remained relatively hidden to this point in the narrative. While questions about David's intentions, sincerity and use offeree have lingered in the background since David accepted Saul's offer of marriage to Michal (1 Sam. 18.20-29), nevertheless David has assumed a heroic image in the narratives about his anointing, his flight from Saul, his military victories, his care for the ark of Yahweh, and the divine promise of a 'house'. 2 Samuel 11 exposes a gap between image and deed, promise and performance. Once again, there is nothing in the chapter to reveal the motives and attitudes behind David's actions. Two different approaches to accounting for the sordid portrayal of David in this chapter can typically be observed among scholars: positing a division of authorship and purpose between ch. 11 and the previous material so as to divide one positive presentation of David from other negative stories about him;

2. f*i\\&c(Art of Biblical Narrative, p. 116) identifies these as sources of information in literary characterization.

126

A Woman's Place is in the House dividing between the public (heroic) David and the private (tragic and flawed) David, allowing one to capture the reader's imagination and support, and the other to generate reader sympathy and identification.3

While it may not have been possible on the basis of the presentation of David prior to 2 Sam. 11 for the reader to haveforeseen the adultery and murder, recalling the earlier material aids in closing the perception gap and in linking the narrative pieces. The confrontation between David and Michal in 2 Sam. 6.20-23 is useful in interpreting 2 Sam. 11. The latter episode forces the reader to recall and to take seriously the words by which David rebuked Michal: 'I will make myself even more contemptible than this. I will be debased in my eyes.' This retort was prompted by Michal's charge that 'the king of Israel has revealed himself today before the handmaids of his servants'. The confrontation over the proper behavior of a king led David to reject one wife with the result that she had no children until the day of her death (6.23). In 2 Sam. 11, David 'takes' a wife, leading to the death of her husband and of their first child. In this latter passage David's disregard for appropriate royal behavior is fully disclosed and laid bare. He makes himself contemptible and then recognizes his abasement as he is portrayed in Nathan's parable (2 Sam. 12.7). This narrative resists privatization;4 there is no way to untangle the 'house of David' from the 'house of Israel' or from the 'house Yahweh will make for you'. David Gunn and Danna Nolan Fewell observe the wordplay in 2 Samuel and Kings in the metaphor of the 'house': The house of Israel and the house of Judah. The house of Saul and the house of David. 'House' is the nation, the kingdom; 'house' is the dynasty; 'house' is the extended family... The houses have a way of giving expres-

3. Walter Brueggemann, e.g., suggests that the 'public' story of David's rise encourages the hope that 'the marginal ones can be the legitimate holders of power' while the portrayal of the 'private' side of David has a different 'agenda', one 'that lets David become a model or a paradigm for humanness' (David's Truth in Israel's Imagination and Memory [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985], pp. 23, 46). 4. A number of scholars in addition to Brueggemann make a distinction between David 'the man' and the 'public' David, e.g. D.M. Gunn, The Story of King David: Genre and Interpretation (JSOTSup, 6; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1978); K.R.R.G. Louis, 'The Difficulty of Ruling Well: King David of Israel', Semeia 1 (1977), pp. 15-33; D.M. Gunn and D.N. Fewell, Narrative in the Hebrew Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), p. 166.


127

sion to each other. They are integral parts of the organism that is 'all Israel', the people of YHWH.5

Indeed, David is residing in his house when he has his affair with Bathsheba, cuts off Uriah's house, and adds Bathsheba to his own house. Nathan reminds him that Yahweh has given David 'your lord's [i.e. Saul's] house' and 'the house of Israel and of Judah' (2 Sam. 12.8). Nathan announces divine judgment on the affair that is to be carried out through evil that will rise 'from your house'.6 Any attempt to divide David the 'king' from David the 'man' who gets involved in adultery and murder is foiled by the narrative connection between behavior, punishment and promise, and the interlinking of Davidic, dynastic and national 'houses'. No private space exists. The identity and functions of the houses commingle. The boundaries blur and their inhabitants are bound together in promise, in victory and in struggle. It is from his house that David sends out his army and sends for Bathsheba. The indivisibility of houses is well reflected in Bathsheba. Bathsheba cannot be 'taken' by David without affecting the 'house'—both the inhabitants 'of Israel and of Judah' and 'his seed' after him. She cannot be a part of 'his house' without having a role in the 'house of Israel and of Judah'. Taking in the Royal House Chapter 11 begins with David the king physically set apart from and set above those who have pledged loyalty to him and those for whom he is responsible. David sends Joab, his servants, and all Israel into battle. David has sent Joab into battle once before (2 Sam. 10.7), but the reference to 'all Israel' draws attention to a discontinuity in relation to prior events. David has been closely connected with 'all Israel' since his early days as a commander in Saul's army when 'all Israel and Judah loved David for he 5. Gunn and Fewell (Narrative in the Hebrew Bible, p. 166), however, take away from this organic integration by imposing a public/private division upon David's life. 'David's political and private lives are correlates' (emphasis mine) and 'What happens privately in David's own house (palace and family) will have an impact on the nation'. 6. Regina M. Schwartz suggests that through this judgment 'the text itself claims [the] virtual synonymity' of the public and private spheres of David's life. She sees them as 'so deeply and completely integrated as to be one, and it is anachronistic to even understand them as two different spheres of life' ('Adultery in the House of David: The Metanarrative of Biblical Scholarship and the Narratives of the Bible', Semeia 54 [1991], pp. 35-55 [46]).

128


was the one going out and coming in before them' (1 Sam. 18.16). David now reigned over 'all Israel' (2 Sam. 8.15), and at a critical point in the campaign against the Aramean coalition David had gathered 'all Israel', defeated the army of Hadadezer and subjugated the pro-Ammonite nations (2 Sam. 10.17). As the present narrative begins, however, David now distances himself from 'all Israel'. While his army attacks Rabbah, David remains in Jerusalem (2 Sam. 11.1). This distancing in the narrative draws attention to David and raises interest in what he will do next. What royal duties can require this degree of separation? While the army attempts to take Rabbah by force, David rises from his couch and walks around on his palace roof (11.2). The warfare that is the subject of the start of the narrative is off-site and out of view of the reader. This intensifies the spotlight on David's presence in Jerusalem and his position on the royal rooftop. From that spot, David sees a woman bathing, and 'the woman was very beautiful' (11.2). David's gaze has penetrated the act of bathing. The narrator provides no details about this woman's location. While the narrator has opened the door to questions about David's presence in Jerusalem, there is no information for questioning the woman's bathing spot.7 7. J. Cheryl Exum, exploring the portrayal of Bathsheba by the biblical narrator and by scholars and artists, comments that 'biblical style typically suggests a causal connection by means of simple juxtaposition... Because Bathsheba was seen bathing, she was sent for. It is thus the woman's fault that the man's desire is aroused. Bathsheba is guilty of being desired, but the text hints that she asked for it: she allows herself to be seen' (Plotted, Shot and Painted: Cultural Representations of Biblical Women [JSOTSup, 215; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996], p. 47). George G. Nichol suggests that 'bathfing] in a place so open to the roof of the royal palace and in such close proximity that she could not only be seen, but could be seen to be very beautiful' was part of Bathsheba's plot 'as a clever and resourceful woman who in marrying David evidently achieves her goal' ('The Alleged Rape of Bathsheba: Some Observations on Ambiguity in Biblical Narrative', JSOT73 [1997], pp. 43-54 [51, 53]). Meir Sternberg offers a different evaluation of Bathsheba: 'it is impossible to determine Bathsheba's attitude, though one would not imagine that she showed much resistance. The Bible does not portray her as a very clever woman (see 1 Kgs 2). The rabbis, ideologically committed to David and his line, argued that it was she who had seduced the king—why else would she have bathed naked on the roof?' (Poetics of Biblical Narrative, p. 526 n. 10). Is Bathsheba's 'guilt' textual or ideological? Unfortunately, discussion of Bathsheba is a gap in Steinberg's careful consideration of the 'system of gaps' and irony within this passage so he offers no textual evidence for her guilt. He, apparently, joins with the rabbis in putting her on the roof. Nichol must infer Bathsheba had a carefully constructed and well-timed plot to get pregnant and marry the king. If she is that 'clever and


129

David sends someone to inquire about this woman.8 There is an indeterminable pause in the timing as an unidentified person carries out the assignment and returns with the information: 'Is this not Bathsheba, daughter of Eliam, wife of Uriah the Hittite?' (11.3). It is not clear whether moments, hours or days have passed. The interrogative introduction to the results of the inquiry is strikingly indirect. Information is being passed along through a question, with the suggestion that David knows of this woman, her father and her husband. All three individuals, however, remain a mystery to the reader. The beautiful woman now has a name: Bathsheba. Her family connections are also named: her father and her husband. The mention of her father's name in addition to her husband's suggests that Eliam was a person of some prominence and that Bathsheba received status through that connection. She also clearly has a husband. In spite of this fact, David 'sends messengers and takes her' (11.4).9 The activity of 'sending and taking' is an echo of prior royal behavior. In Gen. 20.2, King Abimelech of Gerar 'sent and took Sarah', thinking she was the sister of Abraham. But Abimelech returned her when he was informed by God in a dream that Sarah was married. David has 'taken' other wives and concubines (2 Sam. 5.13). It is not clear, however, why he is taking Bathsheba, a married woman of some prominence. There is nothing to suggest that his taking resourceful', why would she get herself involved in adultery and pregnancy and then merely 'look|s] to him to solve their problem'? (Nichol, 'The Alleged Rape of Bathsheba', p. 50). Exum's claim against the narrator that 'the withholding of Bathsheba's point of view leaves her open to the charge of seduction' (Plotted, Shot and Painted, p. 23) is well supported, but the causal connection of'simple juxtaposition' is not enough narrative evidence to convict. The narrator maintains David as the subject of the verbs: he rises from his bed, walks around, sees, sends and inquires. Bathsheba is not granted the subjectivity over and against David that would be required to indict her for arousing David's desire or that Nichol and the rabbis assign to her. 8. Randall C. Bailey suggests that David is speaking to himself in this passage. The words are not those of a servant reporting back to him since there is no other subject identified and David is not marked with a lamedh, i.e. as indirect object, receiving this information. See R.C. Bailey, David in Love and War: The Pursuit of Power in 2 Samuel 10-12 (JSOTSup, 75; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), p. 85. 9. Walter Brueggemann observes,' she was, as [David] presumed, the wife of Uriah the Hittite, which means he could move with little risk' (David's Truth, p. 56). The lack of risk, presumably, is because David is in charge. It is true that David has the power to take Bathsheba, but he himself recognizes some level of risk, otherwise he would not have attempted to cover up the consequences of his taking. The narrative emphasizes his lack of risk assessment prior to and in prevention of his taking Bathsheba.

130


goes deeper than a sexual encounter since he makes no provision to keep her or any deal to gain any prominence, favor or connections through her. The language of the narrative is so terse that there is little information for inferring motive or emotion in this passage. In response to David's 'sending' and 'taking', Bathsheba 'came to him'. There is no hint of desire on her part, nor is there any mention of resistance. Modern readers may find Bathsheba's 'passivity' or lack of resistance morally repugnant, but the ancient writer does not contribute a word to that judgment. Again, the story of Sarah's experience in Gerar (Gen. 20) may offer insight into the 'activity' implicit in Bathsheba's coming in response to David's command. Abraham instructed Sarah to pose as his sister; she raised no objection. Abraham feared that if Abimelech knew Sarah was his wife, his life would be in jeopardy.10 Abraham perceived he would have no power to refuse the king if Abimelech wanted to acquire Sarah for himself. Sarah acted, presumably, to protect Abraham. Benefits accrued to Abraham as a result of Sarah's position in the royal court. The active sacrifice of Sarah is acknowledged by Abimelech, and he pays tribute to her by giving money to Abraham to restore her in the eyes of all. He also declares her fully justified (Gen. 20.16). It is plausible to assume that Bathsheba found herself in the same situation, believing that 'no' was not an option and that resistance to the king's taking might result in harm to herself, to her husband, and perhaps to her father. David sent for her. She came to him. He slept with her. Just before the report that 'she returned to her house' is the note that 'she was purifying herself from her uncleanness' (11.4). This establishes a connection between the sexual intercourse just reported and the bathing that David witnessed. It also creates distance, separating Uriah, the husband, from the events that follow. The note directs attention to Bathsheba since only she knows at what time of the month this encounter has taken place. The reader is let in on the information as Bathsheba leaves David's palace. There is no word whether or not Bathsheba has told David. The location of the notice is strikingly out of place. Logically it belongs in the report of her bathing above in v. 2. The two participial forms—bathing (num) and purifying herself (ncnpHQ)11—belong together and offer the reader a functional explanation of her activity. The author, however, has separated them. Bathsheba is introduced, through the eyes of David, as a bathing beauty. The 10. The parallel (J) account in Gen. 12.10-20 comments on Sarah's beauty. One might assume the same basis for fear in Gen. 20. 11. Lev. 15.19-24 instructs such ritual bathing.


131

ritual notice of her washing has been relocated where it serves a different purpose: as a shadowy omen following the adulterous act. There is nothing in the text to suggest that Bathsheba told David about the bad timing of their sexual encounter nor that she could have controlled David's behavior by informing him that 'now is not a good time'. By delaying the information about Bathsheba's purification until after the sexual encounter, the author of the story clearly denounces the adultery that has just taken place: 'he slept with her'. The timing is not the issue; adultery is. The information about timing revealed at this point highlights the recklessness and self-centeredness of David's sending and taking. What did he think he was doing? Further, did he think there would be no consequences? The emotional and spatial distance that this chapter has built around David is suddenly threatened by the intimate information about timing. Does Bathsheba's silence about the potential for conception suggest she intended to trap David in fatherhood? Tamar, daughter-in-law of Judah, provides a biblical example of such 'entrapment' in Gen. 38. Her story, though, reveals the difficulty of assuming Bathsheba's goal in going to David was to become pregnant. Tamar's sexual activity and her pregnancy expose her to a death sentence; they do not gain her access to a husband. Tamar was vindicated, but only because she had a prior claim due her from Judah.12 There is nothing in the information about Bathsheba that suggests she would be able to avoid the death sentence for adultery.13 The information about the timing of the sexual encounter clouds Bathsheba's return to her house (11.4b). The act of adultery has been further complicated by the danger of pregnancy. No time is wasted in suspense. The next verse begins: 'The woman conceived'. Immediately she moves into action: she sends, she reports to David, and she says, 'I'm pregnant'.14 Her sending to David (n^KJTI) matches David's sending for her 12. Randall Bailey suggests that the 'illicit relations' between Lot and his daughters and Judah and Tamar serve as 'precedent for portraying situations where women engage in sex as a means of improving their status' (David in Love and War, p. 89). Lot's daughters and Tamar, however, act in desperation to secure their future in the absence of husbands. Their goal is to gain sons, not husbands. This is different from Bailey's proposal of a calculated political 'co-partnership' between David and Bathsheba (p. 8 8) in which pregnancy would precede the removal of the existing husband. 13. E.g. Deut. 22.22: 'If a man is caught sleeping with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who slept with the woman as well as the woman'. 14. Randall Bailey suggests that Bathsheba's pregnancy is a 'desired outcome' since there is no 'indication of distress on the part of Bathsheba once she learns of her

132


(4a). She reports to him the consequences of his taking. There is no discussion of emotions or options. With these two words, 'I'm pregnant', Bathsheba becomes part of the royal house, as mother of the king's son and potential queen mother. Though David initially plans to leave her in her own house and cover up the liaison, he cannot ignore the dynastic implications of this affair for the future of his house. His desperate measures to involve and then to remove Uriah are indications that a king's sexual activity has political significance and is not left unregulated.15 The narrator assumes the reader recognizes those regulations. Bathsheba is a woman belonging to two houses. She is also completely vulnerable. The evidence that she has committed adultery will soon be all too visible. There is no indication when she reports her condition to David that she knows how he will respond or if he will even acknowledge his involvement with her. There is no indication whether her husband knows of her condition or how he might respond if he did. She does not free David from responsibility, however. Bathsheba's 'sending' to David is a call to accountability in perhaps the only way she could issue such a call. The power to act for and against her, however, remains in David's hands. In response to Bathsheba's sending and reporting, David sends to Joab and instructs Joab to send him Uriah the Hittite. Uriah's status as husband should have served to distance David from Bathsheba, but David violated that status. As Uriah returns to Jerusalem, he maintains a distance from his house and from his wife. That distance is reinforced in the four fold

pregnancy' (David in Love and War, p. 88). Since the narrator provides no report on the emotional state of either David or Bathsheba throughout this chapter, the lack of emotion is not indicative of a particular emotion. 15. In a Hittite treaty between Suppiluliuma I and his brother-in-law Huqqana of Hayasa (CTH 42), Suppiluliuma addresses sexual conduct: 'And if on occasion a sister of your wife, or the wife of a brother, or a female cousin comes to you, give her something to eat and drink. Both of you eat, drink, and make merry! But you shall not desire to take her (sexually). It is not permitted, and people are put to death as a result of that act. You shall not initiate it of your own accord, and if someone else leads you astray to such an act, you shall not listen to him or her. You shall not do it. It shall be placed under oath for you'. InBeckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, pp. 31-32. Peirce (Imperial Harem, p. 3) observes of the Ottoman Empire royal house: '[Sex] was not a random activity. Sex in the imperial harem was necessarily surrounded with rules, and the structure of the harem was aimed in part at shaping, and thus controlling, the outcome of the sultan's sexual activity.'


133

announcement that 'he did not go down to his house'.16 Instead Uriah establishes himself in close proximity to David, even sleeping in the doorway of David's house. It is not reported whether or not Bathsheba knew her husband was back in the city. It is possible that she did know since Uriah's behavior is clearly visible to all within the king's court17 and nothing in the chapter thus far has suggested secrecy about the events that have taken place. In either case, Bathsheba does not participate in the attempt to draw Uriah home. The common perception of Bathsheba as a seductress runs into trouble at this point. How is it that her beauty leads David to commit adultery but does not draw her own husband home? Though absent in person from the David-Uriah scenes, Bathsheba is repeatedly brought to the reader's attention in the dialogue between the two men. David commands Uriah to go down to his house and wash (]TI~l) his 'feet' (11.8), an echo of Bathsheba's washing (flitm) and the sexual activity that followed. Uriah protests against going to his house to eat and to drink and to sleep with his wife while the ark and Israel and Judah reside in booths and Joab and his officers camp in the field (11.11). Uriah declares, 'Your life and the life of your soul if I do go to my house'. While the reader may be unsure whether Uriah is aware of the adultery, the attempted cover-up, and the plans for his own demise, the irony of these verses is unmistakable. David's taking of Bathsheba is clearly a betrayal of the nation and of the king's covenant leadership. It becomes clear that the theme underlying this story is not sex—as love or lust—but the royal power to 'take'. There is here a clear echo of Samuel's warning to the elders of Israel about the ways that the king they desire will rule over them. Samuel warned that the king would take (HpV) family members, possessions, fields and flocks for himself, for his purposes and his entourage (1 Sam. 8.11-18). The warning in 1 Sam. 8 provides an interpretive context for the David-Bathsheba-Uriah narrative.18 16. 2 Sam. 11.9, 10 (2x), 13. 17. Brueggemann (David's Truth, p. 58) observes that David's 'advisors...must have known something since they reported "He did not go down" (v. 13)'. 18. The 'taking' of Bathsheba and Uriah's loyalty to principle are paralleled in the story of Naboth' s vineyard in 1 Kgs 21. Again, for no compelling reason, a sacred and legal relationship is transgressed by royal authority. The desire to possess leads to the death of an innocent man who refuses to concede to the king's wishes. The courtiers comply with the plan. Yahweh sends a prophet to condemn the behavior and bring judgment on the house. The king repents and the punishment is delayed a generation.

134


2 Samuel 11 is not about a private affair or a personal flaw in a public figure, but about politics gone bad. The prophet Samuel makes no distinctions between private and public deeds or between personal and political morality; they are one. Ruling is a matter of judgment (BS2JQ; 1 Sam. 8.11), and David's judgment in 2 Sam. 11 brings a reminder of the prophet's words of warning. David responds without remorse or sympathy when hearing of Uriah's death. He sends a message to Joab saying, 'Do not let this thing trouble you for the sword devours this one and another one' (2 Sam. 11.25). In contrast, when 'the wife of Uriah heard that Uriah her husband had died she wailed [ISDP] for her husband' (11.26). Three times Bathsheba's relationship with her husband is mentioned.19 The repetition draws attention to what has happened to her. The notice of her lament is particularly chilling since it is the only direct statement of emotion in the whole chapter. It draws attention to her position as victim of David's sending for her and of his sending Uriah to his death, emphasizing her vulnerability and her isolation. In contrast to Nathan's parable that follows, the lament focuses on her loss, not Uriah's. Like the lament of Rizpah in a subsequent chapter (2 Sam. 21.10-14), Bathsheba's lament functions as a judgment against royal violence directed at women and their families. Like Rizpah's lament it is followed by divine intervention. Keeping an Eye on the House It is Yahweh who shows concern for Bathsheba and for Uriah. Yahweh's view of the situation comes immediately after the notice that David 'gathered Bathsheba to his household, made her his wife, and she bore for him a son. The thing that David did was evil in the eyes of the LORD'1 (2 Sam. 11.27). So Yahweh 'sent' Nathan to David. David's sending had dominated the activity in the previous chapter: David sent for Bathsheba (11.3) and David sent Uriah (11.14). Now Yahweh is sending a prophet to David. The story Nathan tells David is about two men, one wealthy and one poor. When the wealthy man desires to extend hospitality to a stranger, he does not want to touch any of his own flock to provide the meal, so he takes the only lamb of his less fortunate neighbor. This lamb has none of the characteristics of livestock, for it eats and drinks and sleeps with the 19. 'When the wife of Uriah heard that Uriah her husbandvias dead, she lamented concerning her husband' (2 Sam. 11.26).


135

poor man and he treats it as a daughter. Still, the wealthy man takes it (npb). This taking so enrages David that he bursts out that the rich man should restore the lamb fourfold because of what he had done and because he had no pity. David's 'judgment' is not impaired; he can recognize the needless taking of someone else's beloved. 'You are the man!' charges Nathan. Nathan's parable serves to highlight David's recklessness and harm in taking Bathsheba and to portray the relationship between Bathsheba and Uriah as one of closeness and deep affection. Bathsheba's lament (11.26) takes on deeper poignancy. The parable sharpens the tragedy of the narrative events. At the same time, the parable is an uneasy fit with the David-BathshebaUriah story. After all, David was serving his own desires, not extending hospitality when he sent and took Bathsheba. Bathsheba was the wife, not the daughter, of Uriah. Uriah, not Bathsheba, was killed. Replacing a lamb fourfold would not replace the relationship with the one that was killed nor is it applicable to the loss of a spouse. The victims in the parable are the poor man and his lamb. The victims in the narrative are Bathsheba and Uriah. But Nathan declares another victim in his condemnation of David. That victim is Yahweh. Yahweh reminds David of all that he has divinely received: 'I anointed you as king over Israel and I delivered you from the hand of Saul and I gave you the house of your lord and the wives of your lord into your bosom and I gave you the house of Israel and Judah and if that were not enough I would add for you this and more' (2 Sam. 12.7b-8). The prophet makes clear Yahweh's anger over David's taking in light of Yahweh's giving. Robert Polzin observes that Yahweh has already taken kingship from Saul and given it to David.20 The giving of kingship is represented in the divine transfer of royal women ('your master's wives') to David. That they are given 'into your bosom' suggests they are to be received with care, not violence. These women appear to be the surviving corps of Saul's house and the dynastic foundation of David's house. Whereas David in his argument with Michal emphasized the discontinuity of houses (i.e. 'Yahweh chose me over your father and over all his house'; 2 Sam. 6.21), Yahweh emphasizes that David has received Saul's house and wives as apart o/receiving the house of Israel and Judah.

20. Polzin discusses this parable in light of God's beneficence to David' in taking from Saul and giving to David (David and the Deuteronomist, pp. 122-26).

136


David's royal house building through the sword is regarded as an offense against Yahweh. Yahweh as victim is reinforced in the question, 'Why do you despise the word of the LORD and do evil in his eyes?' (2 Sam. 12.9a). The evil is specifically outlined: 'you struck Uriah the Hittite with the sword and you took his wife as your wife, and you killed him with the sword of the Ammonites' (2 Sam. 12.9b). The violence to Uriah is twice mentioned and the taking of his wife is at the center of the violence. Judgment follows: 'Now the sword will never turn away from you' (2 Sam. 12. lOa). This will occur because of what David has done to Yahweh and to the wife of Uriah: 'for you despised me and you took the wife of Uriah the Hittite and you made her your wife' (2 Sam. 12.10b). The divine judgment recalls what happened to Bathsheba when she was sent for and taken at the beginning of ch. 11, and when she was sent for and made David's wife at the end of that chapter (11.27). As a consequence of what David did to Bathsheba, Yahweh will do to David what Yahweh did to Saul, that is, take his wives and give them to his enemy (2 Sam. 12.11). It will not be a peaceful transfer, however. The enemy will act the way David did against Bathsheba, only 'he will lie with [David's] wives in view of the sun' (2 Sam. 12.11). Furthermore, because of David's contempt (ftW) for Yahweh21 David's newborn son will die (2 Sam. 12.14). The term j*N] in the piel is associated almost exclusively with rebellion or rejection of Yahweh and death is the expected punishment.22 For example, the families of Korah, Dathan and Abiram were swallowed up by the ground as punishment for their rebellion (Num. 16.30). Likewise, Yahweh determined to kill the sons of Eli (1 Sam. 2.25) because they treated the offerings of the LORD with contempt 21. MThaslTirP 'D'8,the 'enemies of Yahweh', as the object of David's despising. 4QSama has "Ofl] (contra BHS; see B.C. Ulrich, Jr, The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus [HSM, 19; Missoula, MX: Scholars Press, 1978], p. 138; and McCarter, // Samuel, p. 296), shared only in the Coptic. The Targum, LXX, Old Latinv and Lucianic Recension all have 'enemies' but use different nouns to identify the 'enemies' (T = "WDI; LXX = sxSpous; L = UTTEVOCVTIOIS; 6' = EVOVTIOIS). It is concluded by S.R. Driver (Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1890], p. 225), Ulrich (Qumran Text, p. 138) and McCarter (HSamuel, p. 296) on the basis of textual and postbiblical rabbinical writings that the expression 'enemies of Yahweh' is a euphemism. A similar expression is viewed in MT 1 Sam. 25.22 where the intensity of Nabal's imprecation against David is deflected toward the 'enemies of David'. 22. Num. 14.11,23; 16.30; Deut. 31.20; 1 Sam. 2.17; Isa. 1.4; 5.24; Jer. 23.17; Pss. 10.3, 13; 74.10, 18. Only in Isa. 60.14 is Zion the object of others' despising.


137

(1 Sam. 2.17). }*N3 is a blow against Yahweh's sovereignty; Yahweh strikes back.23 The target of Yahweh's attack is Bathsheba and David's newborn son. David's life has been spared, but 'the child the wife of Uriah bore for David' (2 Sam. 12.15b) receives the punishment. It is interesting to note that although David has brought Bathsheba into his house (2 Sam. 11.27) in this passage she is still identified in connection to Uriah. Though the deed is done, David's marriage to Bathsheba is represented here as a contested matter. David, who had the power to take Bathsheba, is powerless as Yahweh takes their son. The death of the son and the taking of the wives that will follow (2 Sam. 16.21-22) attack the royal house at its very core: in the relationships among husband, wife, daughter and sons. The promise of an eternal house is severely threatened by these actions. A New Woman in the House 'David comforted Bathsheba his wife' (2 Sam. 12.24a). HereBathsheba's name is mentioned for the first time since she was introduced in ch. 11. There she was 'Bathsheba daughter of Eliam, wife of Uriah the Hittite (11.3). This verse marks a new starting point as she is clearly identified with and fully incorporated into David's house as 'his wife'. Bathsheba becomes the center of attention as David comforts her, goes to her, and lies with her. The verbs follow one another in sequence and appear, once again, to place David's sexual desires above the feelings and concerns of Bathsheba. This time, however, the notice he lay with her is preceded by the notice that he comforted her. The mention of 'comfort' gives reason to pause. Thus far David has not distinguished himself as a compassionate man. His last attempt at comfort—sending representatives to King Hunan of the Ammonites—was received with suspicion and led to the humiliation of David's envoys and to war.24 This time David delivers the comfort himself. Also, this time the suffering is as a result of his actions. A second reason to pause is in the nature of the verb itself: the offering of comfort and consolation takes time. Job's inept comforters (2.11, 13) 23. The verb here C]3]) is that used in the description of Yahweh's striking the Egyptians during the Passover (Exod. 12.23, 27). 24. The David-Bathsheba-Uriah story is set into the account of this conflict over the rejection of David's condolences (2 Sam. 10.2, 3).

138


sat with him throughout his distress. Ephriam mourned his father many days and his brothers comforted him (1 Chron. 7.22). Job's concern for the poor, the orphan, the widow, the stranger, and the oppressed (29.12-25)25 is described as a royal work that involves 'dwelling] like a king among the troops, like the one who comforts mourners' (Job 29.25). The desirability and effectiveness of David's comforting cannot be determined in the text, but compassion for Bathsheba marks a change in the way David has previously treated her and brings her to the center of attention. Bathsheba becomes the subject of the verbs that follow. She bears a son and she names him Solomon.26 It is a second beginning; one in which Bathsheba is more clearly identified as royal wife and mother of a potential heir to the throne. This time the birth of the child brings Yahweh pleasure (2 Sam. 12.24b). It may be expected that Bathsheba assumed her royal responsibilities upon entering the palace as one of David's wives. In addition to caring for her son Solomon and his future, she would have to establish her position among the other women of the palace. A closer examination of the list of David's wives suggests that he pursued some strategic alliances through marriage arrangements. Following his marriage to Michal and before he was appointed king in Judah, David married Abigail. Abigail was the widow of a prominent and wealthy Carmelite (2 Sam. 25). She was quite clever and through her David likely gained access to property, wealth and significant social and political contacts in that region of Judah. David's wife Maacah was 'the daughter of Talmai the king of Geshur' (2 Sam. 3.3). This marriage likely sealed some form of peace treaty between the two kingdoms. There is no indication in the text whether the marriage contract gave Maacah's son Absalom any preferential position in the line of succession.27 Maacah's status as a king's daughter, however, might provide her some advantage over other royal wives.

25. See parallels in the prayer for the king in Ps. 72. 26. Reading with MT qere (MT ketib has 'He named'). Women who name their own children include Eve (Gen. 4.25), the daughters of Lot (Gen. 19.37, 38), Leah (Gen. 29.32,33,34,35; 30.11,13,17,20),Rachel (Gen. 30.6,8,24; 35.18), Shua(Gen. 38.4, 5), Samson's mother (Judg. 13.24), Hannah (1 Sam. 1.20), and Maacah the wife of Machir (1 Chron. 7.16). It is interesting to note that it is the name Bathsheba gave her son by which he was to be known, not the name by which he was known to Yahweh (2 Sam. 12.25). 27. It did provide him a place of refuge after killing his brother Amnon (2 Sam. 13.37-38).


139

It is possible that Bathsheba brought family prominence and her own connections to the court of David. It is clear that David knew of her family before he sent for her. Her father Eliam may have been the same Eliam listed among David's elite warriors in 2 Sam. 23.34. If so, it is not known whether this honor preceded or followed Bathsheba's entry into the royal household. If the Eliam of David's special guard is Bathsheba's father, then Eliam's father Ahithophel the Gilonite was also a member of David's inner circle. Ahithophel served as David's counselor before being summoned to aid Absalom in his rebellion (2 Sam. 15.12). If Ahithophel the Gilonite was Bathsheba's grandfather, Bathsheba may have had to work to maintain her own and Solomon's position within the royal house while her relations were participating in the rebellion against David. The politics of the royal house were quite complex and volatile, as the rape of Tamar, the murder of Amnon, Absalom's coup and Sheba's rebellion make clear. Nothing is said about Bathsheba and Solomon during this period. By analogy to ancient Near Eastern monarchies, one might assume Bathsheba and her son took part in the functions of the royal house and negotiated the networks of power and alliances that went with it. One might wonder, for example, if Solomon was among the ' sons of the king' attending Absalom's feast when Amnon was murdered (2 Sam. 13.23). Somehow, Bathsheba managed to reach a position of honor and influence to act as king-maker for her son in David's final days. Dis-placement in the Royal House The time between Bathsheba's first and second entrance in the narrative includes the struggles of the young kingdom, the tensions between different political factions, the emergence of key public figures, and the kingship of David after the initial enthusiasm of his successful gain of the throne over all Israel and all Judah. The divine promise of 2 Sam. 7 looms large as the narrative of 1 Kings begins. Whereas the promise was given when David was at the height of his political and physical glory, David now appears as an invalid in his palace. Emphasis is placed on David's age ('old and advanced in years'), his frailty (he is not able to keep himself warm), and his lack of sexual potency (Abishag was very beautiful, she was brought to the king, but he did not know her). Abishag provides a double commentary on David's physical and political powers. The repeated references to her beauty, her virginity and her

140


role to lie in the bosom of the king are taunting reminders of how David used to be. He used to receive the praise and loyalty of men and women in the land for his beauty and deeds.28 He had been quite capable of acquiring beautiful women on his own.29 He no longer appears to be able to function this way. David's servants come up with a plan that addresses David's failed vigor, but also exposes David's failing leadership. The servants express two desires: to find a young virgin to enter the king's service that she become a H3DD. Subsequently, she 'will lie in [the king's] bosom and he will be warmed' (1 Kgs 1.2). The text in Hebrew is as follows:

This virgin's place in David's bed draws the reader's attention to David's sad condition and away from the other purposes of her appointment. Her duty as bed-warmer is visually prominent to the reader's imagination in contrast to her 'service' and her duties as sokenet. The mixture of terms is most unusual and it is tempting to let the end of the verse determine the beginning. The sequence of waws separates the various duties but the duties—as normally defined apart from this passage—resist being folded into one position. 'Standing before the king' customarily means to be one of the king's servants or officers. The term is used to describe Joseph's position in pharaoh's court (Gen. 41.46), David's place in Saul's court (1 Sam. 16.21), the staff of Solomon's court (1 Kgs 10.8; 2 Chron. 9.7), the elders who advised David, the young men advising Rehoboam (1 Kgs 12.6, 8; 2 Chron. 10.6, 8), and Nebuzaradan, the chief of King Nebuchadrezzar's bodyguard (Jer. 52.12). Joshua is described as 'standing before Moses' (Deut. 1.38), 28. David is described as 'ruddy, with beautiful eyes and good looking' (1 Sam. 16.12). The throngs that welcomed him home from battle sang, 'Saul has killed his thousands and David his ten thousands' (1 Sam. 18.7) and 'Michal loved David' (1 Sam. 18.20). 29. Abigail is described as 'clever and beautiful' (1 Sam. 25.3), Bathsheba as 'very beautiful in appearance' (2 Sam. 11.2).


141

suggesting that this is a close relationship of attending and serving. Nothing, however, hints that this position involves any type of sexual activity.30 Kings and prophets stand before Yahweh,31 and priests stand before Yahweh (or the congregation) to minister (HID).32 That the candidate for the job is to be a young woman or virgin seems to suggest that the servants had other duties in mind than those typical of royal attendants. The betuld falls in a different category than concubines, prostitutes and defiled women. She is a marriageable woman.33 No man has 'known' her.34 What the servants propose to David sounds like marriage, however inconsistent that is with the responsibilities of the royal attendant 'to stand before the king'. The servants also desire that she be a sokenet. The term is a hapax legomenon in the Hebrew Bible. The root is JDD, meaning to 'be of use, service, benefit'.35 The verb appears in the participial form three times.36 The only other occurrence outside 1 Kings is Isa. 22.15 in reference to a man named Shebna in the court of Hezekiah who is 'overseer of the household'. This man is identified as the soken, which appears to be an occupation. The duties of such a position are in keeping with the general category of one 'standing before the king', though he is not identified in that way. The positions of soken and sokenet are well attested in Ugaritic, Aramaic and Akkadian texts. The Akkadian titles are saknu and sakintu. The seniority and administrative duties of these positions are described in Chapter 1 of this study.37 In none of the examples is there any indication of sexual activity as a component of the position. The servants tell David that the woman they seek will 'lie in your bosom'. The image is one of intimacy. Elsewhere in the biblical text the 30. Of the 90 uses of the expression 'to stand before' (^sb T2U) only one appears in a context with any reference to sexual activity. Lev. 18.23 forbids men from lying with any animal and women from 'standing before' an animal to lie down with it. The sexual content is in the expression 'lie down' and not in the expression 'to stand before'. 31. E.g. !Kgs3.15. 32. E.g. Num. 16.9; Deut. 10.8; 18.7. 33. G.J. Wenham, 'Betulah "A Girl of Marriageable Age'", VT 22 (1972), pp. 326-48. 34. This is specifically stated in Gen. 24.16 but completely understood in such texts as Deut. 22.19, 23 and 28. 35. BOB 698. 36. It appears a total of 14 times, 7 in the qal form. 37. See Chapter 1, pp. 49-54.

142


expression refers to family members—a child38 and a wife39—and as a metaphor for a family member in Nathan's parable (2 Sam. 12.3). The servants seek a woman who can get close enough to warm David's body, but they are also suggesting someone to get close to David's heart. 1 Kings begins with the search for an outsider—a marriageable woman of youth, loyalty, administrative ability and sexual attraction—for a king who once possessed all of the above. The text reinforces this contrast by taking time to describe both the search (v. 3) and to reiterate the responsibilities this woman is to fulfill (v. 4). The search surfaces the most beautiful young woman in all of Israel, Abishag the Shunamite, and she is brought to the king. Again, her beauty is extolled: 'she was exceedingly beautiful'. She assumes the responsibilities ofsokenet and ministers to him (inm2Jn). The work of ministering (HIEJ) in the biblical text is also related to administrative duties. Joseph, for example, ministered to Potiphar who appointed him over his house (Gen. 39.4). Joshua was Moses' trusted minister, and Amnon's servant looked after him (2 Sam. 13.17,18). Priests and other officials minister before Yahweh, and King Jehoshaphat had a large army in his 'service'. While these positions cover a range of social statuses, each represents a position of delegated responsibility, loyalty and skill. None of the uses of the verb has any expressed or implied sexual contact. The LXX renders sokenet as SaXirouoa, 'warmer',40 but maintains administrative language for the other terms. The reference to 'ministering' employs the verb XsiToupyEco meaning 'to serve public offices at one's cost, (2) perform public duties, serve the state, (3) serve a master; perform religious service, minister'.41 38. The prostitute with the dead child takes a living child from a sleeping prostitute, lays the dead child on the breast of the sleeping woman and lays the living child on her own (IKgs 3.20). 39. Mic. 7.5: '[She] who lies in your embrace' is included among a list of close family members and is similar to the pattern in Deut. 13.7 and 28.54 of referring to 'the wife of your embrace'. 40. LSJ 783. In Isa. 22.15 the term soken is translated as TOMia?, one who carves and distributes, dispenser, steward; controller of receipts and expenditure, treasurer (LSJ 1754). 41. LSJ 1036. Under the third meaning there is a reference to the serving of a prostitute (AP4.48 Gallus; Tpicnv avSpaoiv). Though this opens the possibility of viewing Abishag's ministering as sexual, the predominant usage of the verb in Greek is unrelated to sexual activity. Moreover, the Hebrew mtD is not used in that way.


143

The combination of administrative terminology (standing before the king, sokenet, and ministering) and expressions implying sexual contact (virgin, lying in your bosom, you will be warm) in the opening verses of this chapter is quite puzzling. The administrative terms might be read as having a dual meaning such as the verbs 'to know' and 'to enter'; however, the only example of a dual meaning for each term would be this one passage. The biblical evidence ofsoken and mesaret as offices within the royal household and extra-biblical evidence of the royal appointments of saknu and sakintu argue against the dual meaning. 1 Kings 1 starts with a crisis: David is old and failing. Verse two introduces the response of his servants. It suggests that they offer to bring in a beautiful woman to comfort him in his physical decline and to play a managing role in David's affairs. Abishag never speaks in the passage, but the text devotes three verses to establishing her place in the royal court. She is positioned with close access to the king and provided some measure of administrative authority. Martin J. Mulder proposes that Abishag is introduced to take Queen Bathsheba's place with King David.42 Mulder suggests that Bathsheba, like David, has become 'old and impotent' and no longer fits the picture of queenship according to the ideals of the time.43 This, Mulder explains, is why Bathsheba 'no longer had access to the king' and Abishag was ministering to him. The first difficulty with this proposal is that the text does not indicate that Bathsheba is too old to carry out her royal duties. Bathsheba's subsequent efforts on behalf of Solomon demonstrate her political persuasiveness, her direct access to David, and her own (as opposed to delegated) involvement in royal administration. A second difficulty with the proposal is that it does not take into consideration the existence of other wives. The reader does not know which wife has emerged as the chief wife since the time of Bathsheba's entry into the palace (2 Sam. 12.24). Mulder's proposal suggests a category of 'surrogate wife' to interpret sokenet; the sokenet would represent the interests of the chief wife. This is logical in that the sakintu acted on behalf of the Assyrian queen in various administrative responsibilities. However, there is no evidence of a sakintu representing the queen in any relationship to 42. He views the soken as someone who represented the king to others and others to the king and interprets Abishag as representing Bathsheba to David. See Mulder, 'Versuch zur Deutung von SOKENET', pp. 43-54. 43. Those ideals being: young, beautiful and 'Intacta1. In Mulder, 'Versuch zur Deutung von SOKENET', p. 53.

144


the king, including domestic matters. There is no evidence of a chief wife relinquishing her place. It is highly unlikely she would replace herself with someone from outside her family. If Bathsheba or any other chief wife were unable to carry out her royal responsibilities, another woman from among the royal wives might rise to chief rank or a new wife could be added to the palace. Mulder's proposal, however, is helpful in that he considers seriously the administrative terminology in the passage and does not attempt to subordinate it to the sexual expectations. He also recognizes the administrative functions connected to the position of queen/chief wife. It is clear that the unidentified servants of David are exercising some degree of guardianship over him in bringing Abishag to minister to him, but their motives and designs are not clear in the text. One might speculate that the servants have introduced Abishag into David's presence and his affairs in order to displace one or more women of the palace. If so, their plan would be an attempt to circumvent the familial structure of the royal house or enter it in a different way. With her publicly recognized beauty, her access to David, her involvement in administrative matters, and the support of the servants who sought her, Abishag could be a contender in the politics of the royal household. While she does not hold a rank as wife, she could grow close to David's heart and perhaps bear an heir to the throne. The possibilities for manipulating David and displacing the chief royal wife exist, but there is no proof of a plan, just suspicion raised by the search for a sokenet for the king. Throughout the proposal (v. 2), preparation (v. 3) and execution (v. 4) of the servants' plan David is completely silent. The plan hints at serious difficulties in David's functioning, but the actual state of David's mental condition and his awareness of what his servants are doing are unknown. The text only says, 'the king did not know her'. Perhaps this is a statement about his diminished sexual capacity, or could it be David's attempt to subvert at least one portion of the servants' plan? Re-placement in the Royal House: A Matter of Succession The introduction of Abishag into the royal palace raises the question of David's successor. While David has had to fight off rebellion in the past, there has been no indication of who his successor will be. David's closest advisor throughout his reign has been Joab. As the final chapter of David's life opens, Joab is not present, nor is there any immediate mention of the members of his family. Servants are acting on David's behalf.


145

The first member of David's family to appear in the narrative is Adonijah. He is introduced as 'son of Haggith', a reminder of his rank as the fourth son of David (2 Sam. 3.4) and of the royal women of the palace. Adonijah puts himself forward as king. He selects 'a chariot, horsemen, and fifty men to run before him' (1 Kgs 1.5), exactly as his half-brother Absalom had done at the start of his coup (2 Sam. 15.1). Like Absalom, Adonijah is exceedingly good looking and begins building his kingship outside of the royal palace. The text acknowledges Adonijah as a legitimate candidate as the eldest surviving son44 and indicates the support he has from prominent and trusted members of David's royal staff, Joab and Abiathar the priest. At the same time the narrative invites questioning of Adonijah's behavior. Adonijah 'exalts himself (NEEDID) and he does not invite the prophet Nathan, the warrior Benaiah or his brother Solomon to his celebration feast. The priest Zadok, Shimei, Rei and David's warriors do not support him. The text is silent on where David stands. Mention of the exclusion of Solomon is immediately followed by Nathan's address to 'Bathsheba mother of Solomon'. He goes to her, apparently anticipating some action on her part since he identifies two issues: (1) Adonijah, son of Haggith, rules; (2) David does not know. The conversation between them is straightforward with no preliminaries or formalities reported. It is as if succession were not an unusual topic for them to be discussing and intervening in. It is Bathsheba mother of Solomon who will attempt to outmaneuver Adonijah son of Haggith. The crisscrossing networks of power and alliances within the royal house become evident in this contest. It is as mother of Solomon that Bathsheba addresses King David. It is also as mother of Solomon that she fears for her life and that of her son should Adonijah be confirmed as king (1 Kgs 1.21). Nathan's words to Bathsheba are the first words directly spoken to her in the text and her first appearance since giving birth to Solomon (2 Sam. 12.24). Indirect speech about Bathsheba has kept her character hidden from the reader, even when she was part of the crisis of the royal house through David's adultery with her, the murder of Uriah and the death of their first son. Since entering the palace Bathsheba and Solomon appear to have progressed nearly to the top of the royal hierarchy, with enough power to challenge Adonijah and enough power to warrant being eliminated should Adonijah succeed David. 44. 'She bore him after Absalom' (1 Kgs 1.6). Somehow the second son Chileab, son of Abigail, has dropped from the list.

146


It is not inappropriate to assume that a royal mother's responsibility included preserving and advancing the life of her son, as well as that of her husband.45 The plan Nathan proposes assumes that David will recognize and respond positively to this responsibility. The plan must also gamble that Bathsheba is a match for whatever influence Abishag may now have on David. Nathan instructs Bathsheba to raise the matter of succession with David through two questions. Bathsheba is to ask David (1) didn't you promise that your son Solomon would rule after you?, and (2) why does Adonijah rule? (1 Kgs 1.13). Nathan proposes to come in while Bathsheba is still speaking and complete her words. The description of the scene in the king's chamber may explain why Bathsheba adopted a different approach: 'David was very old and Abishag was serving him'. Instead of asking questions, Bathsheba makes statements. She does not ask whether David made a promise. She reminds him that he did. For anyone who hears—particularly, perhaps, for Abishag— there is no question in Bathsheba's speech that David had sworn an oath 'by Yahweh your God" that Solomon, his son, would become king after him and sit on his throne. Bathsheba is not dependent on Nathan's words to make her case. Bathsheba then shakes David to attention (mil nnui) with the report of Adonijah's claim to kingship and the charge: 'you, my lord, the king, do not know!' Bathsheba gives a full accounting of the sacrifices Adonijah has offered and the individuals in attendance, noting Solomon ('your servant') was not invited. Bathsheba pushes David to act: 'all Israel' is watching to see whom he will appoint as his successor (1 Kgs 1.20). She winds up her rhetorical assault with the clear intimation that if David does not appoint Solomon, then she and her son Solomon will be killed as soon as David dies (1 Kgs 1.21). Bathsheba's access to David is direct and her address quite forthright. The scene suggests a relationship between Bathsheba and David of respect, not restriction. It also depicts a royal woman adept in the use of political information and in the art of political argument. Having been alerted to Adonijah's actions by Nathan, Bathsheba knows exactly what she needs to do. One may assume that these were skills well practiced through years of

45. Michal rescues David's life when she warns him to flee in the middle of the night from Saul's messengers (1 Sam. 19.11).


147

activity as chief wife,46 engaging in the exchange of information, the identification of loyal and disloyal associates, the development of political alliances and the securing of commitments and advantages. These skills are crucial now in the struggle over the successor to David's throne. Nathan, and most likely Zadok and Benaiah, are counting on Bathsheba to deliver Solomon to that position. When Bathsheba finishes speaking David makes no response. The suspense grows since David has made no comment yet in the chapter. On cue 'while she was still speaking' Nathan arrives. Nathan is more indirect in his address to the king, asking questions as he suggested to Bathsheba. Only, Nathan never mentions an oath to appoint Solomon as heir. Instead, he asks, 'Did you say "Adonijah will rule after me"?' Bathsheba's and Nathan's descriptions of Adonijah's sacrifice are basically the same.47 Nathan adds a description of the feasting and a report of the acclamation of Adonijah as king. To the list of those not invited to the feast Nathan adds Zadok, Benaiah and himself. Nathan poses the question: 'Was this brought about from my lord, the king, and you did not inform your servants who will sit on the throne of my lord the king after him?' (1 Kgs 1.27). Again David does not answer. Nathan had told Bathsheba that he would complete48 her statements after she left her conversation with David. The text makes one unit out of their conversations with the king, by indicating Nathan's arrival 'while Bathsheba was speaking with the king' and not announcing Bathsheba's departure.49 Bathsheba focuses attention on Solomon, the oath David swore, Adonijah's exclusion of Solomon, and the desperate future she and 46. Based on her claim that Solomon is David's designated heir, she would be chief wife. 47. His description of the sacrifice in v. 25 is what she offered in v. 19. In the list of attendees in the MT Nathan omits Joab, but the LXX Lucian has 'the commanders of Joab'. 48. N^Q (piel). BDB suggests 'confirm' for this one occurrence with 'fill', 'satisfy', 'fulfill, accomplish, complete' for the other primary meanings. HALOT likewise suggests 'confirm' for this one occurrence based on Martin Noth's commentary in Konige. Noth suggests that the meaning of the verb in this context does not refer to 'completion' but that an independent 'confirmation' of Bathsheba's report to the king was needed. See Konige (BKAT, 9.1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1968), p. 20. While Nathan 'confirms' Bathsheba's report of the actions of Adonijah, he does not directly confirm the most critical element of Bathsheba's speech, i.e. the oath David swore concerning Solomon. 49. She is called back to the king in v. 28 for David's response.

148


her son will face after David's death. Nathan focuses on Adonijah's celebration of his kingship, the exclusion of Solomon and others, and the absence of David's approval. Together Bathsheba and Nathan deliver David a one-two punch calling David to responsibility and urging Solomon's case directly and indirectly. David has made no response thus far in the chapter to any of the events, charges, complaints and questions. The reader is left wondering what David's physical and mental condition is and whether he is capable of handling the attempts, claims and counterclaims on his throne. Joab, who accompanied David, fended off enemies and directed him when he faltered in the past, is now allied with Adonijah. A new character, Abishag, now serves him. Nathan, who had been David's confidant, confessor and judge—bringing the word of Yahweh in the promise and the failure of David's kingship—now acts deferentially and speaks indirectly. Bathsheba, who spoke only two words ('I'm pregnant') through adultery, murder, marriage, the death of one child and birth of another, now figures prominently as speaker and actor. That there are new characters and that familiar characters behave in new ways heightens the tension and increases the level of suspicion in the text. Adonijah is clouded in suspicion by the parallels drawn to his brother Absalom. There are also nagging suspicions about Nathan and Bathsheba and the oath they claim David swore to Solomon. This is the first the reader has heard of it, although Bathsheba and Nathan speak as if they both heard this promise. Have the two cooked up a memory that their individual visits will help an aged David 'remember'? Neither Bathsheba nor Nathan can be considered disinterested parties.50 There is no way to establish for certain that David did make such an oath prior to 1 Kings. It is only possible to confirm that he took responsibility for having made such a commitment to Bathsheba.51 In their side by side audiences with David, Bathsheba and Nathan ask David to do something he has not done before: make a decision concerning his children. A number of David's children have suffered at the hands 50. This scene represents a return of Nathan to the narrative. He has not spoken since his judgment speech against David (2 Sam. 12). The prophet Gad, David's seer, delivered Yahweh's word after the census (2 Sam. 24). 51. Nathan instructed Bathsheba to say, 'Didn't the king swear to your maidservant. ..' (1 Kgs 1.13); Bathsheba said to David, 'You swore by Yahweh your God to your maidservant...(1 Kgs 1.17); and David addresses Bathsheba by saying, 'as I swore to you by the LORD the God of Israel' (1 Kgs 1.30).


149

of and because of the ambitions of their siblings without interference from David: Tamar at the hands of Amnon; Amnon at the hands of Absalom; and now the conflict between Solomon and Adonijah. The narrator points to David's lack of interference in his own life (1 Kgs 1.6). Is David capable of making a choice? The text's repeated comments about David's age and the presence of Abishag suggest he is not. David's own history speaks against his -willingness to make such hard choices to protect and ensure the future of his house. But he does make a choice. With vigor and surety David responds. He does so in two parts. David emerges from silence to swear to an oath he made to Bathsheba concerning Solomon. Then he instructs Zadok, Nathan and Benaiah to anoint Solomon king immediately. Bathsheba serves as the official audience and public witness to David's proclamation of his successor. She is also designated recipient of the proclamation as David swears, 'Solomonyour son will rule after me' (1 Kgs 1.30). When David announces his decision to Zadok, Nathan and Benaiah, he speaks of having appointed Solomon as leader over all Israel and over all Judah (1 Kgs 1.35), an expression that echoes the divine designation of David as ruler. Finally someone is designated to sit on the throne after him (1 Kgs 1.48). David has prepared his house to continue. Continuity will also occur as Bathsheba continues as queen mother into the reign of her son. Securing the Royal House David has chosen Solomon over Adonijah, but he leaves it to the brothers, and to Bathsheba, to settle the score between them. The text states that Solomon's 'kingdom was firmly established'(l Kgs 2.12), echoing the promise in 2 Sam. 7.12 that Yahweh would establish the kingdom of David's heir. The comment communicates a divine legitimacy for Solomon's reign, but it cannot contain the strife between Solomon and Adonijah. Adonijah begrudgingly acknowledges the priority of divine designation over his own anticipated claim to the throne (1 Kgs 2.15), but he attempts to push through Bathsheba against Solomon. Once again Adonijah the son of Haggith faces off against Bathsheba the mother of Solomon. This time protocol makes clear the power differential between them. Adonijah comes to her, she addresses him first, he asks permission to speak, she grants that permission (1 Kgs 2.13-14). Historical analogies from Judah's neighbors illuminate Bathsheba's position. As queen mother she is a chief broker of information, favors and benefits as

150


an integral part of royal politics. Adonijah seeks to advance his claim through her. The encounter is literally a face-off. Adonijah requests that Bathsheba not reject him; 'do not turn my face'. Where the expression 3-12? + sign of direct object + H1B occurs elsewhere (in 2 Kgs 18.24/Asa. 36.9), the meaning is 'to fight off/to repulse' in a military context. The more common expression before a request is 'if I find favor in your eyes'. Perhaps Adonijah can not imagine finding favor before Solomon and Bathsheba, or, perhaps the speech anticipates the battle that will erupt. Adonijah comes to Bathsheba, he says, because Solomon will not 'repulse' her (1 Kgs 2.17). Adonijah's request is to be allowed to marry Abishag the Shunamite. The description of Abishag's responsibilities within David's reign pointed to a range of activities that involved her in administration and brought her into close contact with David. The text stops short of placing her in any category of 'royal woman', whether as wife or concubine. In fact, the text denies any sexual involvement between Abishag and David. Technically, then, she would be in the category of servants and officers of the court who came into Solomon's possession or care after his father's death, not in the category of David's wives. Solomon could choose to grant Adonijah's request. At the same time, Abishag had been with David, witnessed Bathsheba's and Nathan's audiences with David, and as a result of the servants' search was publicly identified with David and his business. She provided no claim to the throne, but she would have known the claimants. Adonijah, however, mentions nothing of her past role in the palace, referring to her only as 'Abishag the Shunamite'. The reason why Adonijah chose Abishag is not clear, nor does the text indicate why he chose to make his appeal through Bathsheba. In her conversations with Nathan and with David, Bathsheba demonstrated the ability to build an argument to support her appeal on Solomon's behalf. She appealed to David's integrity ('you swore by Yahweh your God to your maidservant'), challenged his effectiveness ('you do not know'), contrasted Solomon's loyalty ('your servant') with the behavior of Adonijah, Abiathar and Joab, asserted this was the critical moment for decision ('the eyes of all Israel are on you'), and concluded by appealing to the king to defend her and her son. Perhaps Adonijah has good reason to assume she will make as convincing an appeal on his behalf and that Solomon will not refuse his mother.


151

Bathsheba agrees to speak to Solomon on Adonijah's behalf (1 Kgs 2.18). Like Adonijah, her motives for pursuing this request remain entirely in the dark. It is unlikely that she was naive about the implications of the request. It is possible that she thought an act of graciousness on Solomon's part toward his brother would help to secure peace in the land. It is also possible that she anticipated Solomon's rejection and anger over his brother's request and intended to provide a legitimate-sounding reason for Solomon to act against his rival by delivering the request. Either way, Bathsheba was in a position to put Adonijah into Solomon's hands. The protocol observed during Bathsheba's audience with Solomon suggests the king's deep respect and affection toward his mother and her position. He rises when she enters the room. He comes to her and bows down to her and sets a throne at his right hand for 'the mother of the king'. Bathsheba's first words echo Adonijah's address to her, with the addition of the modifier 'small' to describe the request she is presenting. It is impossible to tell whether she truly thinks it a small matter, whether she is speaking ironically or whether she is encouraging Solomon to treat the request as 'not such a big thing'. Solomon immediately promises not to refuse her; something Adonijah had counted on (1 Kgs 2.17). Bathsheba proceeds with the request as presented to her by Adonijah.52 Solomon appears truly surprised by the request and her involvement in it. 'Why are you asking. ..for Adonijah?' (1 Kgs 2.21). In a backhanded way he acknowledges the extent of her influence as he interprets the purpose of Adonijah's request: 'ask for the kingdom for him!' (1 Kgs 2.22). The precise nature of the threat Solomon perceives in the request for Abishag remains unclear. Her position differs greatly from royal women who have been contested in previous power plays.53 Solomon's strong reaction, however, imposes a negative reading on the request regardless of any legitimacy it might have had. The real problem for Solomon is Adonijah. Solomon's attention zeroes in on Bathsheba's reference to Adonijah 'your brother' (1 Kgs 2.21). To Solomon, this is no innocent description 'for he is older than F (1 Kgs 2.22). That fact continues to be a legitimate claim to the throne. To do 'for Adonijah' is to do 'for Abiathar the priest and Joab, son of Zeruiah'. 52. She does not develop her own argument as she did in presenting her and Solomon's case before David. 53. E.g. Ishbosheth's accusation that Abner was involved with Saul's former concubine Rizpah (2 Sam. 3.7), David's claim for the return of Michal his wife (2 Sam. 3.14), and Absalom's taking of his father's concubines (2 Sam. 16.22).

152


Solomon refuses his mother's request, contrary to his own assurances. Bathsheba makes no effort to argue with him nor does she attempt to retreat from her involvement in presenting the request. She has done what she promised, 'spoken to the king on [Adonijah's] behalf (1 Kgs 2.19). Solomon finds in her message a sufficiently legitimate-looking excuse to do away with his half-brother once and for all. Bathsheba's communication and Solomon's subsequent actions result in the removal of the three men Bathsheba warned David had made claim to the throne and threatened Solomon and herself. The report of Bathsheba's activity in her son's reign concludes at this point.54 Her prominence and honor coincide with the recognition that Yahweh has 'made a house' for Solomon just as Yahweh had promised (1 Kgs 2.24). She has played her part in caring for and securing the future of that house. A Queen Mother in the House of David 'From on top of the roof he saw a woman bathing and the woman was very beautiful'. These words begin the court history of Bathsheba. From his position 'on the roof of the house of the king' David spies her in her private bath and takes her from her house into his. Like David, she is good looking and is taken from some other activity into public service.55 Like David, her feelings and motives are shielded in the narrative. As the narrative progresses Bathsheba journeys from outsider to a seat at the right hand of the king.56 At her introduction into the narrative, her vulnerability contrasts with David's power; at the end of David's life, his vulnerability contrasts with her power. But Bathsheba is not just a foil to David. Her own actions produce results distinguishable from his actions and she continues after David into the reign of her son, his successor. Her behavior in the royal house is consistent with that of a queen mother, a 54. Maria Hausl (Abischag und Batscheba, p. 299) reads the rejection of Bathsheba's request as a sign of the political direction of the monarchy. She regards it as 'a curtailing of Bathsheba's influence through Solomon, in favor of a centralization of power in the hands of Solomon'. While Bathsheba disappears from the Solomonic story at this point, other queen mothers appear in later narratives and regular mention is made of the names of queen mothers in the regnal notices. 55. Through Nathan, Yahweh declares, 'I took you from the flocks, from behind the sheep to become ruler over my people' (2 Sam. 7.8). 56. 1 Kgs 2.19. This royal image is also depicted in Ps. 45 where the queen (dressed in gold) is located at the right hand of the king (v. 10 MT).


153

role she assumes and one that weights her deeds with public and political significance. David's view into Bathsheba's house and his inquiry after her trigger an extensive narrative insight and inquiry into the Davidic house. 2 Samuel 11 and following paint a disturbing picture of adultery, murder, rape, betrayal and rebellion. This is mixed with prayer, providence and promise, involving an array of royal offspring, spilling beyond the walls of the royal residence, drawing individuals and the whole nation into these events. Through Bathsheba the reader glimpses the activity of a queen mother. She is unique in that she is the only biblical royal woman whose life can be glimpsed from entry into the palace through the birth of her son, through his coronation, to the early period of his reign. She is not, however, exceptional since her responsibilities are part of the body politic, not uniquely assigned to her. Bathsheba participates in the powers, pressures, privileges and choices that are part of the operation and survival of the royal house. Her success and her limits in that endeavor are recognized in the narrative. Bathsheba's activity as queen mother is consistent with her royal counterparts as glimpsed in extra-biblical sources and is paradigmatic for viewing her successors within the biblical text.

Chapter 6

ATHALIAH: A QUEEN AND A KING One House or Two? '[Jehoram] walked in the way of the kings of Israel, as the house of Ahab did, because the daughter of Ahab was his wife, and he did what was evil in the eyes of Yahweh' (2 Kgs 8.18). Through this brief reference in the regnal notice of King Jehoram the reader is introduced to the most powerful royal woman of the southern kingdom. As 'wife' of Jehoram king of Judah and 'daughter' of Ahab1 king of Israel, she not only represents the linking of two kingdoms, but also is charged with causing kingship in Judah to become like the 'house of Ahab'. There is no indication of how she achieved such an effect, though the example of Bathsheba gives indication of the integration, connection and involvement of royal women in various activities and decisions of the royal house. This woman's roles as 'wife' and 'daughter' appear to have positioned her to affect the functioning of the Judean royal house. The notice suggests she acted in concert with her husband, not in his absence or .his weakness. The regnal notice does not describe how she attained and exercised power, nor does it draw distinctions between 'private influence' and 'public policy'. The notice only observes that because of this woman, the house of David now acts as the 'house of Ahab'. The brief statement of introduction is an anomaly in the regnal notices introducing the reigns of the kings of Judah. It is the only mention of a 1. Though it is common for interpreters to draw parallels between Jezebel and Athaliah and though, if historical characters, both women might have played commanding roles in their nations while their husbands were fighting the Assyrians and the Arameans, the text emphasizes Athaliah's connection with the 'house of Ahab'. Both Jezebel and Athaliah were part of that house. Athaliah represented that house so parallels may also be drawn between her and the male members of that house. While Athaliah may be Ahab's daughter, it is not known whether Jezebel is Athaliah's mother.

6. Athaliah: A Queen and a King

155

wife in her husband's notice. The names of women normally appear alongside those of their husbands in their son's regnal notice. The statement about this particular woman fully connects her with and immortalizes her in her husband's reign. Because of her, the king of Judah 'walked in the way of the kings of Israel' and 'did what was evil'. These expressions are shorthand for apostasy and a turning from Yahweh. The notice of apostasy is followed by an act of divine mercy: yet Yahweh did not destroy on account o/the promise Yahweh had made to David and to his sons forever (2 Kgs 8.19).2 This explanatory note in the regnal report proclaims Yahweh's decision to preserve the unrighteous nation during the reign of Jehoram. It might have a proleptic function also, anticipating providential preservation in a subsequent threat to the 'house of David', since it is connected in this passage to the person who will present one of the most serious challenges to Yahweh's promises to that house up to the time of the Exile. The narrator has introduced that person, her power, position and political persuasion without even mentioning her name. This woman's name is subsequently revealed in the regnal formula of her son Ahaziah: 'His mother's name was Athaliah, daughter of King Omri of Israel' (2 Kgs 8.26).3 Her continuing role in shaping the royal house is hinted at in the continuity between her husband's and her son's 2. Four times this promise shapes Yahweh's response to Judah's apostasy: (1) the division of the kingdom after Solomon's death which left one tribe for Solomon's heir (1 Kgs 11.12-13; repeated to Jeroboam in 11.32, 34); (2) the preservation of the kingdom in the reign of Abijam whose heart was not in keeping with Yahweh his God as the heart of David his father had been (1 Kgs 15.3); (3) the preservation of the kingdom during the time of Jehoram on account of the promise to David (2 Kgs 8.19); and (4) the preservation of Jerusalem from Sennacherib's attack during the time of Hezekiah(2Kgsl9.34). 3. The previous notice in 8.18 had identified her as the daughter of Ahab. Josephus identifies her as Ahab's daughter (Ant. 9, p. 75, §140). Various scholarly proposals attempt to establish a chronology to determine whether Athaliah is the daughter or the sister of Ahab. H. J. Katzenstein calculates the reigns of Ahab and Omri and concludes, 'Athaliah was the daughter of Omri...but that she grew up as a young orphan at the court of Ahab' ('Who Were the Parents of Athaliah?', IEJ5 [1955], pp. 194-97 [197]. Christopher Levin favors 'daughter of Omri' because it occurs as part of the regnal formula from the annals source, while 'the daughter of Ahab' is a 'pious insertion by the Deuteronomist' (Der Sturz de Konigin Atalja: Ein Kapitelzur Geschichte Judas im 9. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (SBS, 105; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1982), p. 83. Winfried Thiel also concludes that Athaliah is a daughter of Omri and a sister of Ahab ('Athaliah', ABD, pp. 511-12). For the purposes of this study, it is not necessary to determine from which generation of the dynastic house Athaliah derived.

156


reigns since it is reported that Ahaziah also 'walked in the way of the house ofAhab and did what was evil in the eyes of Yahweh like the house ofAhab, for he was a son-in-law of the house ofAhab' (2 Kgs 8.27). Historically, Judah at the time may have been Israel's vassal and politically subordinate to Ahab. The rhetoric of the text, however, emphasizes that Judah has become identical to the house ofAhab. Its loyalty was not to Yahweh. Its leaders—though technically descendents of David—were related to and identified with a different royal house. The regnal notices convict 'mother' and 'wife', 'husband' and 'son' of replacing one house with another. The evaluative summaries of the reigns of Jehoram and Ahaziah focus the charges against them on apostasy; however, there are no details or examples provided in the text. The narrative focuses on the activities of the king and queen of the Northern Kingdom. King Ahab, who 'in the eyes of Yahweh did more evil than all those before him' (1 Kgs 16.30), was responsible for setting up an altar to Baal in the house of Baal in Samaria and making an "asera (1 Kgs 16.32-33). Ahab and his Phoenician-born wife Jezebel supported the Baal and Asherah cults, actively opposing Elijah and the Yahweh priests and prophets. Of Jehoram, Ahaziah and Athaliah (identified as wife, mother and daughter) it is only indicated that they walk in the ways of this house. At some point a Baal temple is built in Jerusalem (mentioned in 2 Kgs 11.18), but no one is identified as building it. The evidence for the charges of apostasy in the Judean regnal notice is provided indirectly, by inference and by identification with the evil ways of the house ofAhab. It is not difficult to picture Athaliah's participation and leadership in the national cult. Jezebel's sponsorship of priests and prophets is in keeping with extra biblical evidence of royal women's sponsorship of temples, sacrifices and offerings, prophetic inquiries and priestly intercessions.4 Solomon joins his wives in their worship of various gods, building for them high places, and making burnt offerings and sacrifices (1 Kgs 11.8). Maacah, the gebird during the reign of Asa, erected something for Asherah (1 Kgs 15.13). Though the attention Maacah receives is negative, her removal only underscores the visibility and significance of the royal women in the national cult. It does not prove that royal women were exclusively devoted to Asherah as part of the state cult5 or that only women were associated with nonYahwistic practices. Rehoboam builds ' 'asertm on every high hill and 4. 5.

See Chapter 1 of this study. Contra Ackerman, Warrior, Dancer, Seductress, Queen, pp. 138-54.


157

beneath every green tree' (1 Kgs 14.23), and his son 'walked in all the sins which his father had done before him' (15.3). Manasseh sets an image of Asherah in the temple of Yahweh (2 Kgs 21.7) and when Josiah begins his reform he gives orders that 'the vessels made for Baal and for Asherah and for the host of heaven' be removed from the temple (2 Kgs 23.4). The examples suggest that the boundaries of the official cult and the visibility of cult leaders were restricted neither to the temple property nor the male priestly personnel.6 Still, there is an absence of concrete details about Judah's apostasy and specific charges against Jehoram, Ahaziah and Athaliah. In contrast, there is a flood of detail and a lengthy description regarding the house of Ahab in the Northern Kingdom and the Jehu revolt that brings it to an end. The events include the secret anointing of Jehu as 'king over Israel' and the subsequent murders of King Joram of Israel, King Ahaziah of Judah, Queen Jezebel of Israel, 70 'sons of Ahab' (2 Kgs 10.1), 42 'brothers of Ahaziah' (2 Kgs 10.13), everyone remaining who belonged to Ahab in Jezreel (2 Kgs 10.11) and Samaria (2 Kgs 10.17), and all the worshippers, prophets and priests of Baal (2 Kgs 10.19). The account is flowing in blood. All the 'heads' of state are removed and the future generations of the house of Ahab are eliminated. The throne of Israel is granted to a new house. The Jehu revolt begins as a divinely sponsored reform movement to remove the leaders of the house of Ahab and to avenge the deaths of the prophets and servants of Yahweh (2 Kgs 9.7). At the end of the bloodshed and destruction, however, is the somber notice: 'Jehu did not turn from the sin of Jeroboam, which he had caused Israel to sin' (2 Kgs 10.31b). The revolt wiped away the house of Ahab, but it did not change the heart of the nation. Jehu's revolt also threatened the house of David. He slaughtered 42 'brothers of Ahaziah'. The number is sufficiently large to signify a complete devastation of the male population of the Judean royal house and, together with the death of Ahaziah, to create a vacuum in the leadership of the Southern Kingdom. While the events in the Northern Kingdom are being narrated, the reader is likely to inquire: has Jehu's revolt exceeded its bounds, bringing not only punishment to the north but also devastation to the south? Will the religious zeal and reform campaign carried forth in the Northern Kingdom spread to the Southern Kingdom? Who is carrying on the duties of the royal house while Ahaziah and his '42 brothers' are 6. Among the women in cultic leadership exclusively identified with Yahweh is the prophet Huldah to whom the priests turn to interpret the 'Book of the Law' found in the Temple (2 Kgs 22.14).

158


visiting in the Northern Kingdom? Winfried Thiel suggests that 'if, during his brief reign, Ahaziah joined Jehoram of Judah in the campaigns against the Arameans at Ramoth-Gilead (2 Kgs 8.28), we must assume that, already at that time, Athaliah wielded much of the power of government' .7 Unfortunately, the text makes no comment on the subject. Missing a Link When the story of Jehu's reign concludes and the narrative loops back in chronological time to pick up the events in the Southern Kingdom, it is Athaliah's name that is the center of attention. The typical Hebrew word order is altered to bring 'Athaliah mother of Ahaziah' to prominence in the opening verse (2 Kgs 11.1). One would also expect to find at this point the customary regnal report synchronizing the reigns of the southern and northern kings. Its absence highlights the crisis at hand: Athaliah's son is dead. The burial of Ahaziah has been previously reported in 2 Kgs 9.28, followed by a corrected regnal notice synchronizing the beginning of his reign to the eleventh year of Joram son of Ahab (2 Kgs 9.29). However, no indication of Ahaziah's successor is provided. The omission is striking since the standard reporting formula for each of the Judean kings from Rehoboam to Jehoiachin includes the notice that 'his son' succeeded him.8 The next Judean regnal notice is that of Jehoash in 2 Kgs 12.1. This, too, is unusual since it make no mention of his father's name. Customarily the report indicates that 'X son o/Y began to reign'.9 The variation is to begin the regnal report immediately after the notice of the death of the previous king, which includes the announcement that 'his son X succeeded him'.10 The report of the accession of Jehoash fits neither of these patterns. The awkward gap appears as if notice of Athaliah's accession to the throne has been sliced out of the end of Ahaziah's notice in 2 Kgs 9.28. A report on Athaliah's reign would be synchronized with the report of Jehu's accession to power in 2 Kgs 10.28, and evaluated and concluded before 7. Thiel,'Athaliah', p. 512. 8. 1 Kgs 14.31; 15.8,24; 22.51 MT; 2 Kgs 8.24; 12.22 MT; 15.7,38; 16.20;20.21; 21.18; 21.26; 23.34; 24.6. The people of Judah ensure the succession of Azariah (2 Kgs 14.21) and Jehoahaz (2 Kgs 23.30). The report for Jehoiachin indicates that he was succeeded by his uncle (2 Kgs 24.17). 9. E.g. 1 Kgs 14.21; 22.41; 2 Kgs 8.16, 25; 14.1; 15.1, 32; 16.1; 18.1. 10. E.g. 1 Kgs 14.31; 15.8; 2 Kgs 21.18, 26; 23.30; 24.6.


159

the introduction to Jehoash's reign in 2 Kgs 11.20. There is no evidence that a report for Athaliah existed, but there are gaps where such information normally occurs. Between the burial of Ahaziah and the coronation of Jehoash the regnal notices cannot do their customary task of demonstrating the continuity of the Davidic house in light of the divine promise.11 The notices also cannot account for the time that Athaliah ruled Judah. The events of 2 Kgs 11 stand outside of the synchronized reports of kingship in Israel and Judah. Nevertheless, the events are large enough to require re-examination of the promises and future of the house of Judah. Emptying Out the House Though Athaliah is the wife and mother of Davidic kings and, therefore, part of the house of David, she and they are consistently linked with and identified with the house of Ahab. As noted above, the evil that was done in the sight of Yahweh (2 Kgs 8.18) in Judah is not distinguished from the ways of the house of Ahab in Israel. The presentations of the reigns of Jehoram and Ahaziah in the narrative are as if the house of Ahab had replaced the house of David. During the reign of Jehoram, Yahweh chose not to destroy Judah, erasing the future of the house of David (2 Kgs 8.19). Jehu and Athaliah, however, appear willing to carry out the deed. Athaliah begins the process of elimination as soon as she recognizes her son is dead. The text indicates that 'she set about to destroy all the seed of the kingdom' (2 Kgs 11.1). The expression rOÔOn U~lT is an unusual one, used only here and in the parallel passage in 2 Chron. 22.10. It is similar to the expression rDlbon U~1TQ which refers to male members of the royal family in2 Kgs 25.25//Jer. 41.1; Ezek. 17.13; and Dan. 1.3. The second expression appears to include males outside of the royal family, for example, Elishama, whose grandson Ishmael killed Gedaliah and who was not among the members of the royal family and the elite sent into exile. Though the narrative provides no body count for Athaliah's campaign against the royal house (in contrast to the account of Jehu's revolt), the expression 'seed of the kingdom' suggests her extermination work was pervasive and thorough.12 Not thorough enough, however. Just as quickly 11. See the discussion on regnal notices in Chapter 3 of this study. 12. The question of whom Athaliah actually kills is a puzzling one since Jehu has already killed 42 'brothers of Ahaziah'. Levin (Der Sturz de Konigin Atalja, p. 87)

160


as Athaliah acted, so did Jehosheba, daughter of King Joram and sister of Ahaziah. She took Joash son of Ahaziah and kidnapped him and his nurse, and hid him from Athaliah so he was not killed (2 Kgs 11.2). Athaliah's campaign is directed against male members of the house of David. The term 'seed of the kingdom' echoes Yahweh's promise to David in 2 Sam. 7.12 to 'raise up your seed [~|iTlT] after you, who will go out from your inner parts, and to establish his kingdom [Ifa^QO]'. The promise of divine aid and continuity in the royal house appears to be pledged to, contained in and carried on exclusively through men. Mark K. George has examined the rhetoric in the Deuteronomistic History about the bodies of Saul and David as they embody Yahweh's intentions for kingship and as kingship embodies what it means to be an Israelite. He concludes that 'there is no place for women in Israel's national identity, except perhaps as they are figured as bodies in relation to this male body/identity... [Tjhere is no subject position available for women.'13 There is no doubt that the narrative of Judah's monarchy is locked into the symbolic significance of the male heir in its presentation of the Davidic monarchy. But it is also clear that the narrative presents women as significant actors in and symbols o/that same monarchy. Attention to the first should not exclude attention to the second. It is precisely Athaliah's attention only to the significance of the male heir that leads to her destruction. It is Jehosheba who represents the house of Judah in opposing Athaliah. She carries forward the Davidic line, through kidnapping rather than conception. As a royal daughter Jehosheba demonstrates that she does not walk 'in the way of the house of Ahab'. She is unlike her father, her brother and her father's wife Athaliah. She exercises choices that not only require extensive contacts beyond the circle of palace women and the

argues that the Jehu account, while exaggerated, is the more historic account. He suggests that 2 Kgs 11 was intended to legitimate Jehoiada's revolt against Athaliah and the installation of Jehoash on the Davidic throne. To legitimate the murder the text engages in character assassination, which portrays Athaliah as a 'bloodthirsty witch'. Levin suggests parallels with the portrayal of Jezebel. The observations at the beginning of this chapter concerning the depiction of Athaliah in the regnal notices similarly point to the polemic in the way she is portrayed. Levin's examination of different redaction levels in the chapter attempts to address when and why Athaliah's reputation was discredited in this way. 13. M. George, 'Body Works: Power, the Construction of Identity, and Gender in the Discourse on Kingship' (PhD Dissertation, Princeton Theological Seminary, 1995), p. 91.


161

palace space,14 but also result in a different political and theological future for the nation. The conflict between Jehosheba and Athaliah cannot be reduced to 'biological urges', such that 'One gives in to ambition and denies the biological urge to nurture the young; the other surrenders to the opposite—Jehosheba selflessly offers protection to the child, in fact her nephew'.15 The future of Judah as a 'house' linked to Yahweh through a dynastic covenant is preserved by Jehosheba's intervention. She also serves as caretaker for the next generation. Joash remains with her in hiding in the temple for six years.16 A House within a House The mechanics of hiding a child in the temple for six years are difficult to imagine and impossible to reconstruct.17 The significance of this location, however, is clear: members of the 'house of David' take refuge in the 'house of Yahweh'.18 In 2 Chron. 22.11, Jehosheba is introduced as

14. According to the MT Jehosheba had assistance in hiding Jehoash. 2 Kgs 11.2 reads that 'they [3mpl] hid him'. 15. B.O. Long, 2 Kings (FOIL, 10; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), p. 148. 16. The location of the bedchamber in which Jehosheba hid Joash and his nurse has been thought by some to be 'the priests' dormitory within the temple area'. See Hobbs, 2 Kings, p. 138. The text, however, locates him with Jehosheba. 17. Lowell K. Handy considers Samuel to be the only biblical child residing in a sanctuary and finds no evidence of children living in temple complexes in Mesopotamian sources. He concludes that the Joash story is a 'variant of the model [of political propaganda] which Brian Lewis has studied under the name: "Tale of the Hero Who Was Exposed at Birth"', referring to Lewis's study of the legend of Sargon's birth that provided legitimation for a royal usurper. See L.K. Handy, 'Speaking of Babies in the Temple', Eastern Great Lakes and Midwest Biblical Societies Proceedings 8 (1988), pp. 155-65(161), and B. Lewis, The Sargon Legend: A Study of the Akkadian Text and the Tale of the Hero who was Exposed at Birth (ASOR Dissertation Series, 4; Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1980). 18. Hannelis Schulte proposes that 'Jehosheba—especially as a princess!—was a HETIp. In this case she would have been allowed to reside in the temple compound' ('The End of the Omride Dynasty: Social-Ethical Observations on the Subject of Power and Violence' [trans. C.S. Ehrlich]), Semeia 66 (1994), pp. 133-48 (136 n. 3). Unfortunately, Schulte offers no explanation of the position and its role in the Yahweh temple. It is not clear whether this proposal is to be analogous to the 'God's Wife' position in Egypt or the Akkadian naditu or whether those individuals resided in the temple. It is not

162


'daughter of king Jehoram, wife of Jehoiada the priest'. T.R. Hobbs suggests that 'Such a detail might explain why the young prince was hidden in the temple precincts' ,19 Walter Brueggemann observes, 'Because of the care and insight of the faithful priest, Jehoiada, there is yet an heir to the dynasty (vv 4-12).20 2 Kings 11, however, does not link Jehosheba to Jehoiada or credit her actions to his initiative. The text presents the remnant of the Davidic house—royal daughter and her infant nephew— fleeing to the house of Yahweh. Jehosheba's decision to re-align the house of David and the house of Yahweh is the first step in re-establishing the house of Judah in place of the house of Ahab. Replacing the House As noted above, the text says nothing about Athaliah's political policies or cult practices. Athaliah does not appear to persecute the Yahweh cult. Since a Yahweh temple and a Baal temple are both reported in Jerusalem, it is quite possible that Athaliah, as ruler, contributed to and participated in both of them. Nevertheless she is identified with the ways of the house of Ahab. Furthermore, two women and a child hiding in the temple escape her notice for six years. While the remnant of the house of David hides in the temple, Athaliah rules the land. Her activity is that of king' (fHKrrbjJ rO^Q). Though little detail is provided about her reign and far more detail is given to the events leading to her overthrow, one need not conclude that the 'six-year reign of Athaliah is seen as little more than an unfortunate interlude in the progression of the Davidic dynasty' .2' Her significance in and for the Judean monarchy may, in part, be measured by how she came to rule and the degree of effort necessary to remove her from power. Though the manner in which Athaliah consolidated her rule (i.e. murder) casts her in a negative light, her method of eliminating rivals was no different than David (2 Sam. 11.14-21; 1 Kgs 2.5-9) Solomon (2 Kgs 2.25), Baasha (1 Kgs 15.29), and Jehu, and her reasons no less known than those of David, for example. Her kingship could be seen as confirming or necessary to justify Jehosheba's place in the temple, but it is important to recognize that the temple was the place she chose to shelter the house of David. 19. Hobbs, 2 Kings, p. 138. 20. W. Brueggemann, 2 Kings (John Knox Preaching Guides; Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982), p. 39. 21. Hobbs, 2 Kings, p. 138.


163

completing the 'replacement' of the house of Judah with the house of Ahab. Not only does the royal house in the south now 'walk in the ways' of the house of Ahab, but it is also led by the surviving leadership of that house. To view Athaliah as merely an opportunist and her actions as merely a personal grab for power is to miss what the regnal formulas have repeatedly claimed about Athaliah, Jehoram and Ahaziah: through them the house of Judah has been 'Ahab-ized'. The enemy of the house of Judah now rules in and over that house. Burke O. Long describes ch. 11 as 'a scene of coup d'etat and countercoup'.22 While this is true within the structure of the chapter, within the larger narrative of 2 Kings a coup against Yahweh's leadership has already taken place by the time Athaliah establishes herself in rule. Judah's national identity—represented in its royal house—is now defined by a 'daughter of Ahab'. There is no indication in the text (or from extra biblical sources) that Athaliah faced any opposition to her rule, from foreign powers or internally.23 A six-year reign suggests stability, in contrast to the turnover of rulers recorded in the final years of the kingdoms of Israel and of Judah. There is no reference in ch. 11 to her family connections; not only does the house of Ahab no longer exist, but the reference is no longer necessary since the process of replacement is complete. There is no mention of anyone to whom Athaliah might rum for support against Judahite opposition. There is no indication in the text that during her six-year rule she needed to turn outside the land for support. Retaking the House Athaliah was ruling over the territory that Yahweh had given to a different ruling house. For the Davidic monarchy to have a place in Judah, the land would have to be retaken from Athaliah. The battle waged against Athaliah by Jehoiada has little in common with the bloody revolt led by Jehu, not just in terms of casualties (two in contrast to thousands), but in planning and execution. It resembles more the taking of the land at the Battle of Jericho (Josh. 6). The 'battle' takes place in the seventh year on the Sabbath day. There is no strategic advantage to this timing, but it has rich theological significance 22. Long, 2 Kings, p. 148. 23. She does not appear, e.g., as Jehu does on The Black Obelisk offering tribute to the Assyrian Shalmaneser III (ANET, p. 281).

164


as a time of release and a holy time.24 The battle is directed by Jehoiada who is a priest, not a military officer.25 He makes a covenant with each unit of the royal guards,26 switching the person whom they would be guarding. It is reported that they did just as Jehoiada instructed them.27 He arranged28 them to surround the altar, the house and the king.29 The house of Yahweh becomes the staging ground for the battle. The testimony of the law30 is presented to the 'son of the king'. The symbols of Judah's national identity—the law31 and the Davidic heir—are visible to the people. They re-invest this kingship and hail 'long live the king!' They celebrate the victory before engaging in any battle.32 The narrative depicts the house of Yahweh armed and arrayed against the house of the King, where the house of Ahab rules. At stake is who will rule the land. The battle commences when Athaliah hears the noise.33 She goes to the house of Yahweh where her entrance into the temple is 24. The victory at Jericho came on the seventh day (Josh. 6.15). 25. The identification of Jehoiada as priest is not made until the end of v. 9. Before that he emerges in the role of deliverer without introduction. 26. Joshua prepares the Israelites for the taking of the land by circumcising the males (Josh. 5.2-8). 27. The Israelites followed Joshua's instructions at Jericho (Josh. 6.8). 28. Joshua arranged the priests, the warriors and the rest of the Israelites into groups in front of and behind the ark of the covenant (Josh. 6.6-7). 29. Joshua's contingents surrounded the city of Jericho seven times (Josh. 6.15). 30. Mordecai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor favor translating 'edut as 'jewels'. This would represent some type of royal 'insignia' presented to the king along with the crown. The reading fits with royal garments attested in Assyrian ritual texts and avoids the difficulty of there being no evidence in coronation ceremonies of a 'covenant document' 'physically handed over to the king' (II Kings [AB, 11; New York: Doubleday, 1988], p. 128). But if one reads the passage without attempting to reconstruct a coronation event, the symbolic significance of 'testimony', as it appears in this passage and in the parallel passage in 2 Chron. 23.11, becomes clear. David instructs Solomon to observe this testimony as 'written in the Instruction of Moses' (1 Kgs 2.3) and in Ps. 132 Yahweh instructs David's sons to keep 'my covenant and my testimony' (v. 12). It is precisely the restoration of this connection between the Davidic monarchy and Yahweh's instruction that is to be effected in 2 Kgs 11. 31. The attack on Jericho was launched with the ark of the testimony (Josh. 4.16)/ ark of the covenant (Josh. 4.18) at its center. 32. Similarly, at Jericho Yahweh declares victory to Joshua (Josh. 6.2) and Joshua declares victory to the people (6.16) before the walls of the city have even been breached. 33. The beginning of the end at Jericho is when 'the people heard the noise' (Josh. 6.20).


165

unopposed.34 Now the royal house, the king and the people are together in Yahweh's house; only there are two kings! Athaliah 'looked and there was the king standing by the pillar in the customary fashion' (2 Kgs 11.14). The woman who once saw that her son had died and attempted to destroy 'the seed of the kingdom' now sees that seed alive and 'all the people of the land rejoicing and blowing trumpets'. As the two 'kings' face each other across the temple, it is clear that Athaliah now stands alone. The long-standing sacral, political and dynastic power of her house has been brought down by the people's withdrawal. Athaliah responds by tearing her clothing and crying out. The expression of anguish and distress is akin to that demonstrated by other royalty when confronted with a frightening realization, for example, David when he hears of the deaths of Saul, Jonathan and Abner (2 Sam. 1.11; 3.31), Tamar after being raped by Amnon (2 Sam. 13.19), Ahab when he hears Yahweh's judgment on him for killing Naboth (1 Kgs 21.27), and Hezekiah when he hears the report of the Rabshakeh (2 Kgs 19.1). Athaliah's actions are in keeping with the liturgical character of this battle. Clothestearing is a public ritual intended to invoke divine and human sympathy and support.35 David's men join him in tearing their clothes, Tamar is comforted by Absalom, Ahab's sentence is mitigated because he humbles himself, and Hezekiah goes to the temple to inquire about how to respond to the Assyrian threat. Athaliah stands in the Temple and tears her cloth-

34. Boundaries that function in other descriptions of the temple to divide gender and class or separate sacred and pro fane are not strictly observed in this narrative. Both Jehosheba and Athaliah have access to the Temple. The Temple functions as an infant nursery. The soldiers are arranged up to the altar (11.11). The description of the temple resembles a military camp more than the 'public, royal, and sacralized sanctuary (cf. 1 Kgs 1.50-51)' thatB.O. Long describes (2 Kings, p. 150). Robert D. Haak reconstructs the' shoulder' (^fQ) of the temple to refer 'to the sides of the main entrance to the temple', a position from which 'to block Athaliah's access to the temple itself. See 'The "Shoulder" of the Temple', FT33.3 (1983), pp. 271-78 (277,278). The soldiers do not act to block her, however, since she goes to the people in the temple, sees the king at the pillar, and is not killed on the spot so that she does not die in the temple. 3 5. The examples provided cover a range of experiences—from victimizer (Ahab) to victim (Tamar), formal mourning rituals (David) to outbursts of grief at bad news (Hezekiah). The differences in meaning need to be noted. The element of intense distress, the public audience of the behavior and the description of the behavior, however, are the same for all the examples.

166


ing, but no one steps forward. There is no divine response, no comfort and no mitigation. Jehoiada instructs the commanders of the army to lead Athaliah out along the rows. He commands that anyone following after her be killed with the sword. No one follows. The battle has taken place in reverse: starting with the victory, then the acknowledgment of defeat, and now the fight. Jehoiada directs that the deed be done outside of the Temple.35 The soldiers lay hands on her to control her,37 but Athaliah remains in charge of herself until the end. She goes the way of the Horses Entrance38 into the palace and is killed there. She dies in the 'house of the king', a place she has occupied as king, queen mother and wife, and where she has aided the house of Ahab to replace the house of David in the land of Judah. While Athaliah is being killed in the palace, a second battle is taking place outside. As the house of Ahab is being emptied in preparation for the return to sovereignty of the house of David, the house of Baal is being emptied in preparation for Yahweh's return to sovereignty in the land. Again preparations for this second battle involve covenanting. The king and the people covenant to be 'the people of Yahweh' (2 Kgs 11.17). The Baal temple and its priest Mattan are destroyed.39 Then the procession of soldiers and 'all the people of the land' bring king Joash from the 'house of Yahweh' to the 'house of the King' where he is seated on the throne of 36. Perhaps it is to prevent Athaliah from seeking sanctuary by the altar as Adonijah did (1 Kgs 1.50), or perhaps it is to avoid bloodshed in the Temple. It may also be to separate her from any who might come to her aid. 37. The combination C'fc? + T can refer to picking something up (e.g. Judg. 4.21, Jael picks up a hammer), taking something (e.g. 1 Kgs 20.6, the soldiers take from Ahab's possessions) or giving someone control (e.g. Ps. 89.26, God gives the king control over the sea). The emphasis is on power and control. 38. Cogan and Tadmor connect the reference to the 'Horses Entrance' with the Horses Gate of the City of Jerusalem (as in the parallel passage in 2 Chron. 23.15) mentioned in Neh. 3.28 and Jer. 31.40. They conclude that 'through this gate, one reached the Horses Entrance which opened directly into the royal precinct' (IIKings, p. 130.). It is not necessary to assume 'the place of execution is ignominious' (Hobbs, 2 Kings, p. 143) since an entrance for riders could also be used for royal processions. The text emphasizes the palace as the location of her death, not the Horses Entrance (2 Kgs 11.16,20). 39. The move from covenant-making to destruction of the Baal Temple and the murder of the Baal priest is consistent with the instructions Moses gives concerning the destruction of the people of Canaan and their altars when the Israelites occupy the land (Deut. 7.1-5).


167

the kings. The re-taking of the land is now complete: the foreign gods and foreign rulers have been driven from the land, Yahweh's house is secure,40 Yahweh's choice of ruling house is re-established, and Yahweh's covenant with the people and with the king is re-affirmed. The people of the land rejoice and the city is at rest (2 Kgs 11.20).41 The Missing Link: Remembering Athaliah The re-establishment of the house of David and, with it, the 're-settlement' of the land of Judah concludes with everyone and everything restored to its proper position of election and accountability. The victory over Athaliah and the house of Ahab is a theological and political triumph for Yahwism and the house of David. The regnal notice recording and evaluating the reign of Joash (2 Kgs 12.1-3) reinforces the triumph and highlights a problem. The notice contains no mention of Joash's father's name. His mother's name is given (Zibiah of Beersheba), but not his father's. Ahaziah's death notice (2 Kgs 9.28) mentions no successor and Joash's succession notice mentions no predecessor. Joash's Davidic ancestry cannot be derived from the formal elements of the King's List. It is mentioned only in the previous narrative in the notice that 'Jehosheba, daughter of King Joram, sister of Ahaziah, took Joash son ofAhaziah and kidnapped him' (2 Kgs 11.2). 40. Jehoiada set guards in front of the House of Yahweh. 41. The question of the identity of the 'people of the land' who appear in connection with the re-installment of the Davidic dynasty and assure its continuation following the deaths of Amon (2 Kgs 21.24) and Josiah (2 Kgs 23.30) is not taken up in this study. Athaliah and the house of Ahab had supporters in Judah. What is important for the rhetoric of the text is that at the end her house was abandoned by 'all the people of the land' and the military officers. The 'people of the land' didnothave ahand in picking Joash over other royal sons. Having identified the 'people of the land' as a particular political party, some commentators draw a distinction between their reaction to the re-taking of the Davidic house and the notice that 'the city was quiet'. This is the only place in the biblical text where a city is described as quiet. Typically the term applies to the land which is free from war (Josh. 11.23; 14.15; Judg. 3.11,30; 5.31; 8.28; 2 Chron. 14.4, 5), areturnto peace following disaster (e.g. Isa. 32.17; 62.1; Jer. 30.10; 46.27) or freedom from worry (Isa. 7.4; 30.15; Jer. 48. ll;Ezek. 16.49; 1 Chron. 4.40). The evidence of its use suggests that the rejoicing of 'all the people of the land' may be seen in conjunction with 'the city was at rest' (2 Kgs 11.20). Being 'at rest' is the logical conclusion to the campaign to retake the land and the sign that the Davidic dynasty has been re-stablished on the throne.

168


Though Athaliah's reign may have been sliced out of the regnal notices of Judah, leaving a gap where Ahaziah's successor should have been named42 in order to maintain the continuity of Davidic sons on the throne of Judah, the same set of regnal notices later signals discontinuity by making no mention of the connection between Joash and his father. To accept the legitimacy of Joash, the text requires the reader to deal with the illegitimacy of the rule of the house of Ahab in Judah. To accept the continuity of Joash, one must struggle with the discontinuity between father and son, T.R. Hobbs observes: Athaliah's reign is but a brief interlude in the progress of the Davidic monarchy in the Southern Kingdom of Judah. The queen is never given the official trappings of monarchy by the 'deuteronomist'. Her reign ends as it begins, in irregularity, and no attempt is made to introduce the reign or conclude it in a formal way.43

But Athaliah does rule the land (pKH'biJ mbd) and, though she is excised from the King's List of Judah, she is a six-year interruption in the 'progress of the Davidic monarchy'. As John Gray notes, 'the Davidic succession had been broken by Athaliah's usurpation, which necessitated a formal renewal of the Davidic covenant'44 (11.17). If the 'time of Athaliah is treated as an interregnum by Kings',45 it is a time in which the throne of the kingdom was not occupied by David's offspring 'forever'. The extended detail in the presentation of Jehoiada's coup emphasizes the need to 're-take' the house and repair the break. If 'her story is told against the background of God's eternal dynastic promise to David in [2 Kgs] 8.19',46 what is the nature of the eternal dynastic promise? In the structure of the text, the regnal reports insist on the continuity of the divine promise; and the narrative portrays the rupture in dynastic rule that follows from 'walking in the ways of the House of Ahab'. The faithfulness of Yahweh is contrasted with the unfaithfulness of the Judean kings and the nation combined. Yahweh promised David 'your house and your kingdom will be made sure forever before you and your throne will be established forever' (2 Sam. 7.16). What Yahweh promised, 42. After 2 Kgs 9.28. See discussion earlier in this chapter (pp. 144-45). 43. Hobbs,2Aj«g,s,p. 145. 44. J. Gray, / and Kings (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 2nd rev. edn, 1970), p. 579. 45. R.D. Nelson, First and Second Kings (IBC; Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1987), p. 207. 46. Nelson, First and Second Kings, p. 207.


169

Yahweh has done; Yahweh has spared them from destruction (2 Kgs 8.19). But they have walked away from exclusive devotion to Yahweh. Just how far the 'house'—king and nation—has turned away from Yahweh remains hidden under the continuity of Davidic succession until Athaliah. At that point it becomes clear that the royal house installed in Jerusalem has turned against Yahweh's promise, attempting to destroy all Davidic heirs. The whole nation is implicated through the narrative emphasis on the length of Athaliah's reign and the extensive re-covenanting necessary to turn their loyalties from Athaliah. The reign of Athaliah and the re-establishment of a Davidic heir in the royal house of Judah draw attention back to the promises made in 2 Sam. 7. Yahweh's intention is more than mere continuity in male succession. In 2 Samuel 7, it is Yahweh's intention to establish a dwelling place for 'my people, for Israel', free from disturbance and from the 'sons of injustice' who previously afflicted them (2 Sam. 7.10). Yahweh's promises to David—to give you rest from your enemies (2 Sam. 7.11), to build you a house (7.11) and to establish your offspring' s kingdom forever (7.13)—are connected to Yahweh's protection of the people.47 Continuity in leadership is intended to effect continuous divine care and blessings for the land.48 But continuity in leadership and care cannot survive without continuity in the people's faithfulness to Yahweh. Yahweh's promise to David (2 Sam. 7.8-16) is not conditioned, but Yahweh pledges to enforce the conditions that support Yahweh's promise.49 47. In Ps. 132 a similar intertwining of Davidic election ('the fruit of your womb I will set on your throne'; v. 11) and divine protection (' [Zion' s] food I will bless and its poor I will satisfy with food'; v. 15) is evident. The similarities are important to note, even though the Psalm represents the covenant with David as a conditional covenant and the oracle in 2 Sam. 7, modified by 1 Kgs 11.34-36, suggests unconditional rule over Judah. If the Psalm represents an older tradition regarding kingship and is independent of the traditions in the Deuteronomistic History, the persistence of the Davidic election-divine protection theme is all the more evident. See Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, p. 97. 48. J.J.M. Roberts observes 'royal theology's claim [was] that God had chosen David and his dynasty as God's permanent agent for the exercise of the divine rule on earth' ('In Defense of the Monarchy', inP.D. Miller, Jr, P.D. Hanson and S.D. McBride [eds.], Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987], pp. 377-96 [378]). 49. H.W. Wolff observes that 'when the covenant word is abandoned, the Nathan oracle, too, is no longer in force' ('The Kerygma of the Deuteronomic Historical Work' [trans. F.C. Prussner], in W. Brueggemann [ed.], The Vitality of Old Testament Traditions [Atlanta: John Knox Press, 2nd edn, 1982], pp. 83-100 [86]).

170


The Athaliah narrative provides a clear look at those conditions. The narrative presents the loss of Davidic kingship—the sign and intended channel of divine blessing and care—as the consequence of 'walking in the ways of the house of Ahab'. The narrative also presents the restoration of Davidic kingship as the result of a collective return of the people in loyalty to the Davidic house and in rejecting the leader(s) and gods of the house of Ahab. This return begins with Jehosheba's decision to resist Athaliah's claims. Then, under Jehoiada's direction the people rise up and restore the Davidic kingship by recommitting to the covenant expectations Resistance and commitment are the conditions that Yahweh's promises require. Without them, literally, the kingship is lost. That loss and restoration of Davidic kingship in the Athaliah narrative occur without the usual deuteronomistic rhetoric. There is no announcement of judgment followed by divine punishment, no cry of the people followed by divine deliverance. The restoration occurs when there is no 'man after Yahweh's own heart' (1 Sam. 13.14) on the throne, and slim hope of generations of sons to carry on. The monarchy, as anticipated from the beginning (1 Sam. 8.11-18), failed to live up to divine and human expectations. Yahweh's frustration with the apostasy is repeatedly signaled by mentioning Yahweh's decision not to destroy Judah50 and the example of the Northern Kingdom which was finally removed from Yahweh's sight because of Yahweh's anger at their apostasy (2 Kgs 17.18). Martin Noth summarized the Deuteronomistic perspective as 'that God was recognisably at work in [Israel's] history, continuously meeting the accelerating moral decline with warnings and punishments and, finally, when these proved fruitless, with total annihilation. Dtr., then, perceives a just divine retribution in the history of the people.'51 The Athaliah narrative falls outside of this pattern. There is no regnal formula to evaluate her reign and reinforce the theme of 'accelerating moral decline'. There is also no notice that the take-over of the house of David by the house of Ahab is retribution or divine punishment. Yahweh, for the sake of David, has chosen not to punish (2 Kgs 8.18). The house is lost by the people themselves. While Yahweh protected, they defected. Davidic successors—Jehoram and Ahaziah—led them to identify with a different house. The loss of the promised house of David occurred in spite 50. 1 Kgs 11.12, 13, 32, 36; 15.4; 2 Kgs 8.19; 19.34; 20.6. 51. M. Noth, The Deuteronomistic History (trans. J. Doull, et al.; JSOTSup, 15; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981), p. 89.


171

ofYahweh 's loyalty to David. Moreover, in the Athaliah narrative the loss of the house was not delayed until the culmination of the history and the total annihilation of the nation. The narrative of the loss and restoration of the house of David is set apart from the continuous history of the kings of Judah by Athaliah's exclusion from the Kings List. The story is also out of place in the overall salvation scheme of the Deuteronomistic History. Loss and restoration of the house occur before reformation, final judgment and disaster. The Athaliah narrative is a salvation story within a judgment story. Jehoiada's 're-forming' the people by pledging covenant obedience to Yahweh and loyalty to the Davidic house pre-figures the Josianic reformation, and the seating of Joash on the throne of David anticipates Hezekiah and Josiah, who 'did what was right in the eyes ofYahweh' (2 Kgs 12.3 MT; 18.3; 22.2). In this respect, the Athaliah narrative demonstrates the 'promise' theme of the Deuteronomistic Historian, in that '[Judah's] restoration to ancient grandeur depends on the return of the nation to the covenant ofYahweh and on the wholehearted return of her king to the ways of David, the servant ofYahweh'.52 The Athaliah narrative may be useful to the 'platform of the Josianic reform;'53 however, the focus of the Athaliah narrative is not reform, but restoration. For six years Judah was without a Davidic heir representing Yahweh on the throne in Jerusalem. The people return the heir. Implicit in this action is the hope that Yahweh will provide care and blessing through Yahweh's chosen house and that the royal house will lead the people in faithfulness to Yahweh. The Athaliah narrative is a story of loss and restoration set within a story of accelerating progress toward destruction. Of that period of destruction, Ralph W. Klein observes: Midway through the Exile God was still acting for Israel as exemplified by the rehabilitation of Jehoiachin. The task of the hour was for Israel, as part of her turning to Yahweh, to acknowledge God's justice, to listen to his voice, and to do his law. And then, though Dtr even in its final form is short

52. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, p. 284. 53. A large number of scholars attribute the composition of the major portion of the books of Kings to the pre-exilic period. Cross sees this edition 'as a programmatic document of [Josiah's] reform and of his revival of the Davidic state. In this edition the themes of judgment and hope interact to provide a powerful motivation both for the return to the austere and jealous god of old Israel, and for the reunion of the alienated half-kingdoms of Israel and Judah under the aegis of Josiah' (Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, p. 287).

172

A Woman's Place is in the House on details, Israel could hope that Yahweh, in his unpredictable freedom, would act as Savior once more.54

The^brm of the Athaliah narrative echoes the taking of the land under Joshua, in which total loyalty to Yahweh and the removal of all foreign gods were the conditions for possession. The content of the narrative models covenant loyalty and loyalty to the house of David as the people's response to domination by a foreign house. The character of Athaliah is a warning of the power of rulers to turn the nation from Yahweh.

54. R. W. Klein, Israel in Exile: A Theological Interpretation (OBT; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), p. 43.

CONCLUSION: THE ROYAL WOMEN OF JUDAH AND THE HOUSE OF DAVID

The purpose of this study has been to demonstrate that the royal women of Judah are essential actors in and representatives of the Judean monarchy as presented in the Deuteronomistic History. The regnal notices in 1-2 Kings are a regular reminder of the presence of royal women from generation to generation, even when the narrative does not detail their activity. The regnal notices demonstrate the continuity of the divine promise to the Davidic house and name the royal mothers of that house. The basic household unit of the monarchy appears in each notice: father, mother and son. Royal women of various rankings are prominent in the narrative of Judah's monarchy, as subjects and as objects. They appear as mothers of, wives of, and daughters of royal men. The relationship is critical to positioning the women within the royal household. This does not mean, however, that the women are necessarily under the direction of these men. Bathsheba, for example, intercedes on behalf of Solomon and herself in securing the promise of succession from David; she is not directed by Solomon or David. Rizpah, Saul's concubine, is the center of a dispute and her mourning for her sons brings about a change in kingly behavior long after Saul's death. Royal women in Judah are identified in relationship to royal men, but their identity and activity appear to be based on their position within the royal household and how they choose to act in that position. This study has examined the activity of and the actions taken against three royal women of Judah—a daughter, a mother, and a wife who ruled as king. The actions of each bring about significant changes in the development of Judah's monarchy. Michal extends covenant love to David. When Saul threatens David's life, Michal chooses loyalty to David over loyalty to her father. Her actions preserve the very possibility of a Davidic house. Additionally, Michal's actions turn attention to how David responds to her loyalty. He demands her return as 'his wife' in his battle with Ishbaal and then rejects her as 'Saul's daughter' at the entryway to his house (2 Sam. 6.21-22). David's rejection of Michal is a problem for the

174


legitimation of David's 'house'. He must be seen as a usurper unless he can establish his claim to royal status in some way other than through a connection to a royal woman. Michal's rejection of David in 2 Sam. 6 raises the question of David's willingness to act with loyalty. He expresses to her a willingness to act with dishonor in spite of the great honor he has as Yahweh's designated ruler. In 2 Sam. 7.1-17 Yahweh, likewise, hands David a rejection. David will not be allowed to honor Yahweh by building a house for Yahweh. Yahweh becomes specific about the purposes for which David has been chosen leader and the divine punishment to be exercised if David's heirs ignore those purposes. David's kingship will be regularized, but it will be dependent on divine constancy and subject to divine discipline. As the narrative continues it becomes clear that the divinely promised 'house' is to be a house in which royal women play a part. Bathsheba demonstrates such involvement as a royal mother. She acts in alliance with Nathan the prophet to secure David's commitment to Solomon's co-regency. She then presents Adonijah's request for Abishag before Solomon. As royal mother she negotiates a future for herself and her child and brokers appointment and access. She is successful in determining the future leadership of the Davidic house at its first transition point. Intentionally or unintentionally, she ensures the future of Solomon's reign by giving Solomon 'just cause' to eliminate Adonijah. Yahweh's response to the adultery and murder associated with Bathsheba's entry into the Davidic house is to reject David's disfiguration of the royal household. The child of that union will not be allowed to live. Moreover, Yahweh rejects David's 'taking' because Yahweh has already given the wives of his predecessor into his bosom. The implication is that the Davidic house is to care for and be continued through royal women. While Bathsheba acts in the narrative to continue the Davidic house, Athaliah intends a very different result. Her influence on the shape and activity of the Davidic house is clearly expressed in the regnal notices of her husband and her son (2 Kgs 8.18, 26). Because of her connection to the house of Ahab, her husband, her son and Judah itself 'walked in the ways of the kings of Israel' and 'did what was evil'. The assertions about her effect on Judah and the inferences about her religious practices present her as the most powerful of all royal women in Judah. In addition, she rules the nation on her own for six years. There is no report during this time of civil unrest or foreign interference. Judah is a reconfigured house because of Athaliah. Not only do the ways of the house of Ahab direct the

Conclusion

175

royal house of Judah, but also Athaliah is nearly successful in ensuring that the Davidic house does not continue. It is the royal daughter Jehosheba who opposes her and makes possible the restoration of a Davidic heir to the throne. Recognizing Judah's royal women in the text has drawn attention to the theme of the royal 'house' within the Deuteronomistic History. The poetry of kingship (e.g. Pss. 2, 72, 89 and 132) and the oracle of 2 Sam. 7.12-15 concentrate on the king alone, but the narrative depicts a royal house inclusive of both men and women and extending across generations. Moreover, at points where royal women are portrayed as standing overagainst the king they draw attention to the failings of royal prerogative. For example, Abigail's peacemaking and protection of her household stand in contrast to David's desire for vengeance and destructive intent. Bathsheba's grief draws attention to David's lack of mercy. The implicit message is that monarchy is not power alone. The royal house and the conduct of its members are concerns in the narrative long before the promise of a Davidic house in 2 Sam. 7. The covenant love of Jonathan, Michal and Saul for David, and David's position as son-in-law to Saul should have provided the basis for a strong and effective royal house. The kingdom as a whole should have benefited from the alliances. Instead, Saul turns on David and faces rebellion within his household from Michal, Jonathan and David. The kingdom suffers as a result. After the deaths of Saul and Jonathan there is war between the houses of Saul and of David. The battle for kingship is fought over the bodies of the members of Saul's house—over Rizpah and Michal and, finally, over the head of Ishbaal, who is killed sleeping in his own house. David brings his family to Jerusalem and King Hiram of Tyre builds him a house (2 Sam. 5.11), but David is blocked from bringing blessings to his own house. Michal does not fear David, as her father did (1 Sam. 18.29); she despises him. A disturbing division within the royal house is publicly exposed. Even after the promise of an everlasting house is given to David, it is clear that the house is more than an heir. David's house is compromised through a series of events, each of which threatens the kingdom and any one of which could destroy the royal house. These include David's adultery, Amnon's rape of Tamar, Absalom's murder of Amnon, Absalom's flight to his mother's land of Geshur, and Absalom's rape of his father's concubines. When David finally selects an heir he swears it to Bathsheba, his wife and the mother of the heir (1 Kgs 1.29). Royal women of different rankings are both subjects and objects in these events. Both as subjects and

176


as objects they symbolize the royal house and, by extension, the kingdom as a whole. When they are treated as objects, they raise the subject of the well-being of the nation. The contested bodies of Michal, Rizpah, Bathsheba and the ten concubines of David cohere with the conditions in the nation. The behavior of the nation may also be aligned with these royal women, as in the case of Maacah and of Athaliah. The house to be preserved and disciplined by Yahweh is a royal household. Collectively and individually, from generation to generation, its members are to function in accordance with Yahweh's intentions and to bring Yahweh's blessings to the land. The stability of the royal house is connected to the stability of the nation. As the regnal notices report, the faithfulness of the royal house is representative of the faithfulness of the whole nation. As goes the royal house, so goes the nation. At the conclusion of Judah's existence as a nation, the royal household—king and queen mother—lead the procession of captives to Babylon (2 Kgs 24.15). The goals of this study have been quite modest, namely, to demonstrate the functioning of royal women within the narrative account of the Judean royal household. The readings from the biblical text echo many of the patterns of royal women's involvement in the historical data from Judah's neighbors. While the Deuteronomistic History contains features common to other ancient Near Eastern royal stories such as temple building, the selection of a younger son over an older, divine sonship, and god-directed military victories, the theme of the royal house persists throughout the generations of that 'history' and the words, feelings, actions and influences of royal women are woven into that narrative. In the Deuteronomistic History the legitimacy of women's participation in the monarchy is not dependent upon a divine goddess counterpart to Yahweh; it is as part of the composition, accountability and continuity of the royal house. The royal women of Judah are diverse in ranking, character and conduct; nevertheless they are an integral part of the 'nature of sovereignty' presented in the Deuteronomistic History. This study concludes that royal women cannot be properly understood apart from the functions of the house in which they participate. Nor can that house—and the divine promise made to it—be understood apart from serious recognition of these royal women.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Abdallah, F., 'La femme dans le royaume d'Alep auXVIIIe siecle', inDurand (ed.),Lafemme dans leProche-Orient Antique, pp. 13-15. Aboud, J., Die Rolle des Kdnigs undseiner Familie nach den Texten von Ugarit (Forschungen zur Anthropologie und Reiigionsgeschichte, 27; Munster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1994). Abramsky, S., 'The Woman at the Window', Beth Mikra 25 (1980), pp. 114-24. Ackerman, S., 'The Queen Mother and the Cult in Ancient Israel", JBL 112.3 (1993), pp. 385401. —Warrior, Dancer, Seductress, Queen: Women in Judges and Biblical Israel (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1998). Ahlstrb'm, G.W., Aspects of Syncretism in Israelite Religion (Horae Soederblomianae, 5; trans. E.J. Sharpe; Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1963). Albright, W.F., 'Canaanite-Phoenician Sources of Hebrew Wisdom', in M. Noth and D.W. Thomas (eds.), Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East, Presented to Professor Harold-Henry Rowley (VTSup, 3; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1960), pp. 1-15. Alter, R., The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981). Anderson, A.A., 2 Samuel (WBC, 11; Dallas: Word Books, 1989). Andreasen, N.E.A., 'The Role of the Queen Mother in Israelite Society', CBQ 45 (1983), pp. 179-94. Arbeli, S., 'The Removal of the Tawananna from her Position', in M. Heltzer and E. Lipihski (eds.), Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean (c 1500-1000 B.C.) (OLA, 23; Leuven: Uitgeverij Peelers, 1988), pp. 79-85. Artzi, P., and A. Malamat, 'The Correspondence of Sibtu, Queen of Mari in ARM X', OR NS 40(1971), pp. 75-89. Bach, A., 'Signs of the Flesh: Observations on Characterization in the Bible', in eadem (ed.), Women in the Hebrew Bible: A Reader (New York: Routledge, 1999), pp. 351-65 (repr. from Semeia 63 [1993], pp. 61-70). Bailey, R.C., David in Love and War: The Pursuit of Power in 2 Samuel 10-12 (JSOTSup, 75; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990). Bal, M., Lethal Love: Feminist Literary Readings of Biblical Love Stories (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1987). —Death and Dissymmetry: The Politics of Coherence in the Book of.Judges (CSJH; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988). —'Introduction', in idem (ed.), Anti-Covenant: Counter-Reading Women's Lives in the Hebrew Bible (JSOTSup, 81; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1989), pp. 11-24. Bar-Efrat, S., Narrative Art in the Bible (JSOTSup, 70; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1989). Bardet, G. et al., Archives administrative de Mari I (ARMT, 23; Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1984), p. 472. Barnett, R.D., The Nimrud Ivories and the Art of the Phoenicians', Iraq 2 (1935), pp. 179210.

178


—A Catalogue of the Nimrud Ivories with Other Examples of Ancient Near Eastern Ivories in the British Museum (London: British Museum, 2nd rev. edn, 1975), pp. 145-51. —Ancient Ivories in the Middle East (Qedem, 14; Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1982). Barre, L.M., The Rhetoric of Political Persuasion: The Narrative Artistry and Political Intentions of 2 Kings 9-11 (CBQMS, 20; Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1988). Batto, B.F., Studies on Women at Mari (JHNES; Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974). Beckman, G., Hittite Diplomatic Texts (Writings from the Ancient World, 7; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2nd edn, 1999). Ben-Barak, Z., 'The Legal Background to the Restoration of Michal to David', in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Studies in the Historical Books (VTSup, 30; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1979), pp. 15-29. —'The Queen Consort and the Struggle of Succession to the Throne', in Durand (ed.), La femme dans le Proche-Orient Antique, pp. 33-40. —'The Status and Right of the Gebira', JBL 110 (1991), pp. 23-34. Berlin, A., Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1983; repr. WinonaLake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994). Biga, M.G., 'Femmes de la famille royale d'Ebla', in Durand (ed.), La femme dans le ProcheOrient Antique, pp. 41-47. Bin-Nun, S.R., 'Formulas from Royal Records of Israel and Judah', FT16(1968),pp.414-32. —The Tawananna in the Hittite Kingdom (Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitatsverlag, 1975). Biran, A., and J. Naveh, 'An Aramaic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan', IEJ43 (1993), pp. 81-98 Bird, P.A., 'Women in the Ancient Mediterranean World: Ancient Israel', BibRes 39 (1994), pp. 31-45. Bleeker, C., "The Position of the Queen in Ancient Egypt', in TheSacral Kingship, Vlllth International Congress for the History of Religions (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1959), pp. 261-68. Bottero, J., Textes economiques et administratifs (ARMT, 7; Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1957). Brenner, A., The Israelite Woman: Social Role and Literary Type in Biblical Narrative (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985). Brenner, A. (ed.), A Feminist Companion to Samuel and Kings (The Feminist Companion to the Bible, 5; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994). Brosius, M., Women in Ancient Persia 559-331 BC (Oxford Classical Monographs; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996). Brueggemann, W., 2 Kings (John Knox Preaching Guides; Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982). —David's Truth in Israel's Imagination and Memory (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985). —First and Second Samuel (IBC; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1990). —Power, Providence, and Personality: Biblical Insight into Life and Ministry (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1990). Cameron, A., and A. Kuhrt (eds.), Images of Women in Antiquity (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, rev. edn, 1993). Caminos, R.A., 'The Nitocris Adoption Stela', JEA 50 (1964), pp. 71-101. Campbell, A.F., Of Prophets and Kings: A Late Ninth-Century Document (1 Samuel 1-2 Kings 10) (CBQMS, 17; Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1986). Clines, D.J.A., 'X, X Ben Y, Ben Y: Personal Names in Hebrew Narrative Style', VT 22 (1972), pp. 266-87.

Bibliography

179

—'Michal Observed: An Introduction to Reading her Story', in Clines and Eskenazi (eds.), Telling Queen Michal's Story, pp. 24-63. Clines, D.J.A., and T.C. Eskenazi (eds.), Telling Queen Michal's Story: An Experiment in Comparative Interpretation (JSOTSup, 119; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991). Coats, G.W., 'Self-Abasement and Insult Formulas', JBL 89 (1970), pp. 14-26. Cogan, M., and H. Tadmor, IIKings (AB, 11; New York: Doubleday, 1988). Cole, S.W., and P. Machinist, Letters from Priests to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal (SAAS, 13; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1998). Collier, J.F., and M.Z. Rosaldo, 'Politics and Gender in Simple Societies', in S.B. Ortner and H. Whitehead (eds.), Sexual Meanings: The Cultural Construction of Gender and Sexuality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), pp. 275-329. Coote, R.B., and K.W. Whitelam, The Emergence of Early Israel in Historical Perspective (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1987). Cross, P.M., Canaanite Myth andHebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973). —From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998). Croutier, A.L., Harem: The World Behind the Veil (New York: Abbeville Press, 1989). Dahood, M.J., 'Canaanite-Phoenician Influence in Qoheleth', Bib 33 (1952), pp. 191-221. Dalley, S., Mari and Karana: Two Old Babylonian Cities (London: Longman, 1984). Dalley, S., and J.N. Postgate, The Tablets from Fort Shalmaneser (CTN, 3; Oxford: The Alden Press, 1984). Davies, P.R., In Search of 'Ancient Israel' (JSOTSup, 148; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992). DeVries, S.J., 1 Kings (WBC, 12; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1985). Dietrich, M., 'Semiramis, Oder: War die Frau im Alien Orient nur schOn?', in B. Schmitz and U. Steffgen (eds.), Waren sie nur schon? Frauen im Spiegel der Jahrtausende (Kulturgeschichte der antiken Welt, 42; Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1989), pp. 117-82. Dietrich, M., and O. Loretz, Mantik in Ugarit (ALASP, 3; Minister: Ugarit-Verlag, 1990). Dietrich, M., O. Loretz and J. Sanmartin, The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places (ALASP, 8; Minister: Ugarit-Verlag, 2nd edn, 1995). Dormer, H., 'Art und Herkunft des Amtes der Koniginmutter im Alien Testamenl', in R.von Kienle, et al. (eds.), Festschrift Johannes Friedrich zum 65 Geburtstag am 27 August 1958gewidmet (Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universilalsverlag, 1959), pp. 105-45. Dossin, G., 'Le royaume de Qalna au XVIIIe siecle d'apres les "Archives de Mari"', Bulletin de I'Academie Royale de Belgique, Classe des lettres et des sciences morales et politiques, Series 5, 40 (1954), pp. 417-25. —'Archives de Sumu-Iamam, Roi de Mari', RA 64 (1970), pp. 17-44. —Correspondence Feminine (ARMT, 10; Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1978). Driver, S.R., Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1890). Dubisch, J., 'Introduction', in idem (ed.), Gender and Power in Rural Greece (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986), pp. 3-41. Durand, J.-M., Textes Administratifs des Salles 134 et 160 du Palais de Mari (ARMT, 21; Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1983). —'Trois etudes sur Mari', MARI3 (1984), pp. 127-79. —'Les dames du palais de Mari a 1'epoque du royaume de Haute-Mesopolamie', in MARI 4 (1985), pp. 385-435. —'L'organisation de 1'espace dans le palais de Mari: Le te'moignage des textes', in E. Levy (ed.), Le systeme palatial en Orient, en Grece et a Rome (Acles du Colloque de

180


Strasbourg 19-22 Juin 1985; Travaux du Centre de Recherche sur le Proche-Orient et la Grece Antiques, 9; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1987), pp. 39-110. Durand, J.-M, (ed.), Lafemmedans le Proche-Orient Antique (CRRAI, 33; Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1987). —Archives epistolaires deMaril/l (ARM, 26; Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1988). —'Documents pour 1'histoire du royaume de Haute-Mesopotamie II', MARI6 (1990), pp 271-301. Durand, J.-M., and J. Margueron, 'La question du harem royal dans lepalais de Mari', Journal des Savants (October-December 1980), pp. 253-80. Dutcher-Walls, P., Narrative Art, Political Rhetoric: The Case of Athaliah and Joash (JSOTSup, 209; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996). Edel, E., 'Die Rolle der Koniginnen in der agyptisch-hethitischenKorrespondenz von Bogazkoy', Indogermanische Forschungen 60 (1949), pp. 72-85. —'Zwei Originalbriefe der Konigsmutter Tuja in Keilschrift', in H. Altenmiiller and D. Wildung (eds.), Studien zur altagyptischen Kultur (Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag, 1974), pp. 105-46. Emmerson, G.I., 'Women in Ancient Israel', in R.E. Clements (ed.), The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 371-94. Eskenazi, T.C., 'Michal in Hebrew Sources', in Clines and Eskenazi (eds.), Telling Queen Michal's Story, pp. 157-74. Eslinger, L., House of God or House of David: The Rhetoric of 2 Samuel 7 (JSOTSup, 164; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994). Exum, J.C., Tragedy and Biblical Narrative: Arrovts of the Almighty (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). —Fragmented Women: Feminist (Sub) Versions of Biblical Narratives (JSOTSup, 163; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993). —Plotted, Shot and Painted: Cultural Representations of Biblical Women (JSOTSup, 215; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996). Fales, P.M., and J.N. Postgate, Imperial Administrative Records. I. Palace and Temple Administration (SAA, 7; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1992). —Imperial Administrative Records. II. Provincial and Military Administration (SAA, 11; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1995). Finkelstein, I., 'The Archaeology of the United Monarchy: An Alternate View', Levant 28 (1996), pp. 177-87. Fisher, L.R., 'An International Judgment', in idem (ed.), The ClaremontRas Shamra Tablets (AnOr, 48; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1971), pp. 11-19. Flanagan, J.W., 'Social Transformation and Ritual in 2 Samuel 6', in C.L. Meyers and M. O'Connor (eds.), The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of his Sixtieth Birthday (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), pp. 361-72. Fontaine, C.R., 'Queenly Proverb Performance: The Prayer of Puduhepa', in K.G. Hoglund, E.F. Hurwiler, J.T. Glass and R.W. Lee (eds.), The Listening Heart: Essays in Wisdom and the Psalms in Honor of Roland E. Murphy (JSOTSup, 58; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), pp. 95-126. —' "A Heifer from Thy Stable": On Goddesses and the Status of Women in the Ancient Near East', in A. Bach (ed.), The Pleasure of her Text: Feminist Readings of Biblical and Historical Texts (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990), pp. 69-95.

Bibliography

181

Foucault, M., Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977 (trans. C. Gordon, L. Marshall, J. Mepham and K. Soper; New York: Pantheon Books, 1980). Friedrich, J., Staatsvertrage des Hatti-Reiches in hethitischer Sprache (MVAG, 34.1; Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1930). Gardiner, A., 'The Harem at Miwer', JNES 12.3 (1953), pp. 145-49. Garelli, P. (ed.), Lepalais et la royaute (Archeologie et Civilisation): XIXe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Paris 1971 (Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1974). George, M.K., 'Body Works: Power, the Construction of Identity, and Gender in the Discourse on Kingship' (PhD Dissertation, Princeton Theological Seminary, 1995). Gero, J.M., and M.W. Conkey (eds.), Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1991). Gliick, J.J., 'Merab or MichaP, TAW 11 (1965), pp. 72-81. Goedicke, H., 'Was Magic Used in the Harem Conspiracy Against Ramesses III? (P. Rollin and P. Lee)', JEA 49 (1963), pp. 71-92. Gordon, C.H., 'Ugaritic RBT/Rabitu', in L. Eslinger and G. Taylor (eds.), Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical and Other Studies in Memory of Peter C. Craige (JSOTSup, 67; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988), pp. 127-32. Gost, R., Der Harem (Cologne: Dumont Buchverlag, 1993). G6tze, A., 'Uber die hethitische K6nigsfamilie',^rOr2.1 (March 1930), pp. 153-63. Gray, J., I and II Kings (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 2nd rev. edn, 1970). Grayson, A.K., Assyrian Royal Inscriptions. I. From the Beginning to Ashur-Resha-Ishi I (RANE; Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1972). —Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (TCS, 5; Locust Valley, NY: JJ. Augustin, 1975). —Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium B. C. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991). Gunn, D.M., The Story of King David: Genre and Interpretation (JSOTSup, 6; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1978). Gunn, D.M., and D.N. Fewell, Narrative in the Hebrew Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993). Guterbock, H.G, 'The Deeds of Suppiluliuma as Told by his Son, Mursili IF, JCS 10 (1956), pp. 41-68, 75-98, 107-30. —'The Hittite Palace', in Garelli (ed.), Lepalais et la royaute, pp. 305-14. —Siegel aus Bogazkoy, II (AfO, 7; Osnabruck: Biblio-Verlag, 1967). Haak, R.D., 'The "Shoulder" of the Temple', FT33.3 (1983), pp. 271-78. Hallo, W.W., 'Women of Sumer', in D. Schmandt-Besserat (ed.), The Legacy of Sumer (BMes, 4; Malibu: Undena Publications, 1976), pp. 23-40. Hallo, W., and W. Simpson, The Ancient Near East: A History (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1971). Handy, L.K., 'Speaking of Babies in the Temple', Eastern Great Lakes and Midwest Biblical Societies Proceedings 8 (1988), pp. 155-65. Harvard Semitic Museum, Excavations at Nuzi (HSS, 14; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1929-). Hausl, M., Abischag und Batscheba: Frauen am Kijnigshofund die Thronfolge Davids im Zeugnis der Texte 1 Kdn 1 und 2 (Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament, 41; St Ottilien: EOS Verlag, 1993). Heltzer, M., The Internal Organization of the Kingdom ofUgarit: Royal Service-System, Taxes, Royal Economy, Army and Administration (Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 1982). Hobbs, T., 2 Kings (WBC, 13; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1985).

182


Ishida, T., The Royal Dynasties in Ancient Israel: A Study on the Formation and Development of Royal-Dynastic Ideology (BZAW; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1977). Jacobsen, T., The Sumerian King List (Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago; AS, 11; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939). Kapelrud, A.S., 'King and Fertility: A Discussion of II Samuel 21:1-14', NorTT56 (1955), pp. 113-22. Katzenstein, H.J., 'Who Were the Parents of Athaliah?', IEJ5 (1955), pp. 194-97. Keys, G., The Wages of Sin: A Reappraisal of the 'Succession Narrative' (JSOTSup, 221; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996). Klein, R.W., 1 Samuel (WBC, 10; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1983). —Israel in Exile: A Theological Interpretation (OBT; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979). Klengel, H., Syria 3000 to 300 B.C.: A Handbook of Political History (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1992). Knoppers, G.N., 'The Vanishing Solomon: The Disappearance of the United Monarchy from Recent Histories of Ancient Israel ',JBL 116.1 (1997), pp. 19-44. Koschaker, P., 'Fratriarchat, Hausgemeinschaft und Mutterrecht in Keilschriftrechten', ZA 41 (1933), pp. 1-89. Kupper, J.-R., 'La cite et le royaume de Mari: L'organisation urbaine a 1'Epoque Amorite', in MARI4 (1985), pp. 463-66. Kuhne, C., 'Ammistamru und die Tochter der "Grossen Dame"', UF 5 (1973), pp. 175-84. Kwasman, T., and S. Parpola, Legal Transactions of the Royal Court of Nineveh, Part I: Tiglath-Pileser III through Esarhaddon (SAA, 6; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1991). Lafont, B., 'Les filles du roi de Mari', in Durand (ed.), La femme dans le Proche-Orient Antique, pp. 113-21. Lambert, W.G., 'The Seed of Kingship', in Garelli (ed.), Lepalais et la royaute, pp. 427-39. Landsberger, B., 'Uber die Volker Vorderasiens im dritten Jahrtausend', ZA 35 (1924), pp. 213-38. Lanfranchi, G.B., and S. Parpola, The Correspondence ofSargonll, Part II: Letters from the Northern and Northeastern Provinces (SAA, 5; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1990). Lesko, B.S, 'Women's Monumental Mark on Ancient Egypt', BA 54 (March 1991), pp. 4-15. —The Remarkable Women of Ancient Egypt (Providence, RI: B.C. Scribe Publications, 3rd rev. edn, 1996). Lesko, B.S. (ed.), Women's Earliest Records from Ancient Egypt and Western Asia: Proceedings of the Conference on Women in the Ancient Near East, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, November 5-7, 7P57(BJS, 166; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989). Lesko, L.H., 'The Middle Kingdom', in Lesko (ed.), Women's Earliest Records, pp. 31-2. Levenson, J., '1 Samuel 25 as Literature and as History', CBQ 40 (1978), pp. 11-28. Levenson, J., and B. Halpern, 'The Political Import of David's Marriages', JBL 99 A (1980), pp. 507-18. Levin, C., Der Sturz de Konigin Atalja: Ein Kapitelzur Geschichte Judas im 9. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (SBS, 105; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1982). Lewis, B., The Sargon Legend: A Study of the Akkadian Text and the Tale of the Hero who Was Exposed at Birth (ASOR Dissertation Series, 4; Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1980). Lewy, H., 'Nitokris-Naqi'a', JNES 11.1 (1952), pp. 264-86. Livingstone, A., Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea (SAA, 3; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1989).

Bibliography

183

Long, B.O., 2 Kings (FOTL, 10; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991). Loretz, O., 'Ugaritisch skn-sknt und hebraische skn-sknt', ZAW94 (1982), pp. 123-27. Lott, E., The Governess in Egypt: Harem Life in Egypt and Constantinople (London: Richard Bentley, 1865). Louis, K.R.R.G., 'The Difficulty of Ruling Well: King David of Israel', Semeia 8 (1977), pp. 15-33. Luckenbill, D.D., Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia. I. Historical Records of Assyria from the Earliest Times to Sargon (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1926). Malamat, A., 'Doctrines of Causality in Biblical and Hittite Historiography: A Parallel', VT5 (1955), pp. 1-12. —'Aspects of the Foreign Policies of David and Solomon', JNES 22.1 (1963), pp. 1-1 —'Is There a Word for the Royal Harem in the Bible? The Inside Story', in D.P. Wright, D.N. Freedman, and A. Hurvitz (eds.), Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom (WinonaLake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995), pp. 785-87. Mallowan, M.E.L., Nimrud and Its Remains, II (London: Collins, 1966). Marello, P., 'Liqtum, reine du Burundum', in MARI8 (1997), pp. 455-535. Margueron, J., B. Pierre-Muller, and M. Renisio, 'Les appartements royaux du premier Etage dans le palais de Zimri-Lim', in MARI 6 (1990), pp. 433-51. McCarter, P.K., Jr, / Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary (AB, 8; New York: Doubleday, 1980). —// Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary (AB, 9; New York: Doubleday, 1984). McCarthy, D.J., 'II Samuel 7 and the Structure of the Deuteronomistic History', JBL 84 (1965), pp. 131-38. Melville, S.C., The Role of Naqia/Zakutu in Sargonid Politics (SAAS, 9; Helsinki: NeoAssyrian Text Corpus Project, 1999). Meninski, F., Lexicon Arabico-Persico-Turcicum (Vienna: Typis losephiNobilis de Kurzbock, 1780-1802). Mernissi, F., Dreams of Trespass: Tales of a Harem Girlhood (Reading, MA: AddisonWesley, 1994). Mettinger, T.N.D., King and Messiah: The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings (ConBOT, 8; Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1976). Meyers, C., Discovering Eve: Ancient Israelite Women in Context (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988). Mieroop, M. van de, 'An Inscribed Bead of Queen Zakutu', in M.E. Cohen, D.C. Snell and D.B. Weisberg (eds.), The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 1993), pp. 259-61. Miller, P.O., Jr, 'The Absence of the Goddess in Israelite Religion', HAR 10 (1986), pp. 23948. Molin, G., 'Die Stellung der Gebira im Staate Juda', TZ 10 (1954), pp. 161-75. Moore, H.L., Feminism and Anthropology (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1988). Moran, W.L., 'The Scandal of the "Great Sin" at Ugarit', JNES 18 (January-October 1959), pp. 280-81. —'The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy', CBQ 25 (1963), pp. 77-87. Moran, W.L. (ed. and trans.), The Amarna Letters (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992).

184


Mulder, M.J., 'Versuch zur Deutung von SOKENET in 1 K6n 12,4', VT22 (1972), pp. 43-54. Mullen, E.T., Jr, 'The Royal Dynastic Grant to Jehu and the Structure of the Books of Kings', JBL 107.2 (1988), pp. 193-206. Nelson, R.D., First and Second Kings (IBC; Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1987). Nichol, G.G., 'The Alleged Rape of Bathsheba: Some Observations on Ambiguity in Biblical Narrative', JSOT73 (1997), pp. 43-54. Noth, M., Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (Tubingen: MaxNiemeyer, 2nd edn, 1957). —Konige (BKAT, 9.1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1968). —The Deuteronomistic History (trans. J. Doull, et al.; JSOTSup, 15; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981). Nougayrol, J., Lepalais royal d'Ugarit, HI: Textes Accadiens et Hourrites des archives Est, Quest et Centrales (Mission de Ras Shamra, 6; Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1955). —Lepalais royal d'Ugarit, IV: Textes Accadiens des Archives Sud (Mission de Ras Shamra, 9; Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1956). Olyan, S., 'Honor, Shame, and Covenant Relations in Ancient Israel and its Environment', JBL 115.2 (1996), pp. 201-18. Otten, H., Puduhepa: Bin hethitische Konigen in ihren Textzeugnissen (Mainz: Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, 1975). Otzen, B., 'The Promoting Mother: A Literary Motif in the Ugaritic Texts and in the Bible', in A. LeMaire and B. Otzen (eds.), History and Traditions of Early Israel (Festschrift E. Nielsen; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1993), pp. 104-14. Page, S., 'Adad-Nirari III and Semiramis: The Stelae of Saba'a and Rimah', Or NS 38.3 (1969), pp. 457-58. Pardee, D., 'The Letter of Puduhepa', AfO 29 (1984), pp. 321-29. Parker, B., 'The Nimrud Tablets, 1952—Business Documents', Iraq 16 (1954), pp. 29-53. Parpola, S., 'The Murderer of Sennacherib', in B. Alster (ed.), Death in Mesopotamia: Papers Read at the XXVIe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale (Copenhagen Studies in Assyriology, 8; Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1980), pp. 171-81. —The Correspondence of Sargon II, Part I: Letters from Assyria and the West (SAA, 1; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1987). —'The Neo-Assyrian Word for "Queen"', SAAB 2.2 (1988), pp. 73-76. —Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars (SAA, 10; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1993). —Assyrian Prophecies (SAAS, 9; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1997). Parpola, S., and K. Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths (SAA, 2; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1988). Parrot, A., and J. Nougayrol, 'Assarhaddon et Naqi'a sur un Bronze du Louvre (AO 20.185)', Syria 33 (1956), pp. 147-60. Paul, S.M., 'Biblical Analogues to Middle Assyrian Laws', in E.B. Firmage, B.G. Weiss and J.W. Welch (eds.), Religion and Law: Biblical-Judaic and Islamic Perspectives (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), pp. 333-50. Peirce, L.P., 'Beyond Harem Walls: Ottoman Royal Women and the Exercise of Power', in D.O. Helly and S.M. Reverby (eds.), Gendered Domains: Rethinking Public and Private in Women's History. Essays from the Seventh Berkshire Conference on the History of Women (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1992), pp. 40-55. —The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire (Studies in Middle Eastern History; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993).

Bibliography

185

Penzer, N.M., The Harem: An Account of the Institution as it Existed in the Palace of the Turkish Sultans with a History of the Grand Seraglio from its Foundation to the Present Time (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1937). Perdue, L.G., J. Blenkinsopp, JJ. Collins and C. Meyers, Families in Ancient Israel (The Family, Religion and Culture; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1997). Pfeiffer, R.H., and E.A. Speiser, One Hundred New Selected Nuzi Texts (AASOR, 16; New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1936). Pollock, S., 'Women in a Men's World: Images of Sumerian Women', in J.M. Gero and M.W. Conkey (eds.), Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1991), pp. 366-87. Polzin, R., David and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History. Part Three 2 Samuel (Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993). Postgate, J.N., The Governor's Palace Archive (Hertford: Stephen Austin & Sons, 1973). —'On Some Assyrian Ladies', Iraq 41 (1979), pp. 89-103. Pringle, J., 'Hittite Birth Rituals', in Cameron and Kuhrt (eds.), Images of Women in Antiquity, pp. 128-41. Reade, J., 'Was Sennacherib a Feminist?', in Durand (ed.), Lafemme dans le Proche-Orient Antique, pp. 139-45. Reiter, R.R. (ed.), Toward an Anthropology of Women (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1975). Rich, A., The Dream of a Common Language: Poems 1974-1977 (New York: W.W. Norton, 1978). Roberts, J.J.M., 'In Defense of the Monarchy', in P.D. Miller, Jr, P.D. Hanson, and S.D. McBride (eds.), Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), pp. 377-96. Robins, G., 'The God's Wife of Amun in the 18th Dynasty in Egypt', in Cameron and Kuhrt (eds.), Images of Women in Antiquity, pp. 65-78. —Women in Ancient Egypt (London: British Museum Press, 1993). Rollig, W., 'Semiramis', in KIPauly 5 (Munich: Alfred Druckenmiiller Verlag, 1975), pp. 94-95. Romer, W.H.P., Frauenbriefe uber Religion, Politik undPrivaleben in Mari: Untersuchungen zu. G. Dossin, Archives Royales de MariX(Paris 1967) (AOAT, 12;Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker, 1971). Rosaldo, M.Z., 'Women, Culture and Society: A Theoretical Overview', in M.Z. Rosaldo and L. Lamphere (eds.), Women, Culture, and Society (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1974), pp. 17-42. —'The Use and Abuse of Anthropology: Reflections on Feminism and Cross-Cultural Understanding', Signs 5.3 (Spring 1980), pp. 389-417. Rost, L., Die Uberlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1926); ET The Succession to the Throne of David (Historic Texts and Interpreters, 1; trans. M.D. Rutter and D.M. Gunn; Sheffield: The Almond Press, 1982). Roth, M.T., Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor (Writings from the Ancient World, 6; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995). Rubin, G., 'The Traffic in Women: Notes on the "Political Economy" of Sex', in Reiter (ed.), Toward an Anthropology of Women, pp. 157-210. Saggs, H.W.F., 'The Nimrud Letters, 1952—Part VII', Iraq 27 (1965), pp. 17-32. Sasson, J.M., 'Biographical Notices on Some Royal Ladies from Mari', JCS 25 (1973), pp. 59-78.

186


Schearing, L.S., 'Models, Monarchs and Misconceptions: Athaliah and Joash of Judah' (PhD Dissertation, Graduate School of Religion, Emory University, 1992). Schramm, W., 'War Semiramis assyrische Regentin?', Historia 21.4 (1972), pp. 513-21. Schulman, A.R., 'Diplomatic Marriage in the Egyptian New Kingdom', JNES38.3 (1979), pp. 177-93. Schulte, H., 'The End of the Omride Dynasty: Social-Ethical Observations on the Subject of Power and Violence' (trans. C.S. Ehrlich), Semeia 66 (1994), pp. 133-48. Schwartz, R.M., 'Adultery in the House of David: The Metanarrative of Biblical Scholarship and the Narratives of the Bible', Semeia 54 (1991), pp. 35-55. —'The Histories of David: Biblical Scholarship and Biblical Stories', in J.P. Rosenblatt and J.C. Sitterson, Jr (eds.), 'Not in Heaven': Coherence and Complexity in Biblical Narrative (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991), pp. 192-210. Selms, A. van, Marriage and Family Life in Ugaritic Literature (London: Luzac & Co., 1954). Seow, C.L., Myth, Drama, and the Politics of David's Dance (HSM, 44; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989). Singer, I., 'A Concise History of Amurru', in Shlomo Izre'el (ed.), Amurru Akkadian: A Linguistic Study, II (HSS; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), pp. 135-88. Slocum, S., 'Woman the Gatherer: Male Bias in Anthropology', in Reiter (ed.), Toward an Anthropology of Women, pp. 36-50. Smith, C.,' "Queenship" in Israel? The Cases of Bathsheba, Jezebel and Athaliah', in J. Day (ed.), King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (JSOTSup, 270; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 142-62. Soldt, W.H. van, 'The Queens of Ugarit', JEOL 29 (1985-86), pp. 68-73. —Studies in the Akkadian of Ugarit: Dating and Grammar (AOAT; Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon & Berker, 1991). Spanier, K., 'The Queen Mother in the Judaean Royal Court: Maacah and Athaliah', in Proceedings of the Eleventh World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, June 22-29, 1993 (Jerusalem: The World Union of Jewish Studies, 1994), pp. 75-82. —'The Queen Mother in the Judaean Royal Court: Maacah—A Case Study', in Brenner (ed.), A Feminist Companion to Samuel and Kings, pp. 186-95. —'The Northern Israelite Queen Mother in the Judaean Court: Athaliah and Abi', in M. Lubetski, C. Gottlieb and S. Keller (eds.), Boundaries of the Ancient Near Eastern World: A Tribute to Cyrus H. Gordon (JSOTSup, 273; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 136-49. Springborg, P., Royal Persons: Patriarchal Monarchy and the Feminine Principle (London: UnwinHyman, 1990). Starr, I., Queries to the Sungod: Divination and Politics in Sargonid Assyria (SAA, 4; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1990). Sternberg, M., The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985). Stone, K., Sex, Honor, and Power in the Deuteronomistic History (JSOTSup, 234; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996). Thiel, W., 'Athaliah', in ABD, pp. 511-12. Thompson, J.A., 'The Significance of the Verb LOVE in the David-Jonathan Narratives in 1 Samuel', FT 24 (1974), pp. 334-88. Thompson, R.C., 'An Assyrian Parallel to an Incident in the Story of Semiramis', Iraq 4 (1937), pp. 35-43.

Bibliography

187

Thompson, T.L., The Bible in History: How Writers Create a Past (London: Jonathan Cape, 1999). Todd, J.A., 'Can their Voices Be Heard? Narratives about Women in 1 Samuel 16 through 1 Kings 2' (PhD Dissertation, Graduate Theological Union, 1991). Troy, L., Patterns ofQueenship in Ancient Egyptian Myth and History (Uppsala Studies in Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern Civilizations, 14; Uppsala: Uppsala University, 1986). Tsevat, M., 'Marriage and Monarchical Legitimacy in Ugarit and Israel', JSS 3 (1958), pp. 237-43. Tyldesley, J., Daughters oflsis: Women of Ancient Egypt (New York: Viking, 1994). —Hatchepsut: The Female Pharaoh (New York: Viking, 1996). Ulrich, B.C., Jr, The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus (HSM, 19; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978). Ussishkin, D., 'Was the "Solomonic Gate" at Megiddo Built by King Solomon?', BASOR 239 (1980), pp. 1-18. Vaux, R. de, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. I. Social Institutions (trans. J. McHugh; New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961). Virolleaud, C., Lepalais royal d'Ugarit. II. Textes en cuneiformes alphabetiques des archives est, ouest et centrales (Mission de Ras Shamra, 7; Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1957). Walters, S.D., 'Childless Michal, Mother of Five', in M.E. Cohen, D.C. Snell and D.B. Weisberg (eds.), The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 1993), pp. 290-96. Ward, W.A., Essays on Feminine Titles of the Middle Kingdom and Related Subjects (Beirut: American University of Beirut, 1986). —'Non-Royal Women and their Occupations in the Middle Kingdom', in Lesko (ed.), Women's Earliest Records, pp. 33-43. Weidner, E., 'Hof- und Harems-Erlasse assyrischer Konige aus dem 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr', AfO 17 (1954-56), pp. 257-93. Weinfeld, M., 'Semiramis: Her Name and her Origin', in M. Cogan and C. Eph'al (eds.), Ah, Assyria... Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor (ScrHier, 33; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1991), pp. 99-103. Weiser, A., 'Die Legitimation des Konigs David zur Eigenart und Entstehung der sogen Geschichte von Davids Aufsteig', VT 16 (1966), pp. 325-54. Wenham, G.J., 'Betulah "A Girl of Marriageable Age'", VT22 (1972), pp. 326-48. Wilson, J.V.K., The Nimrud Wine Lists: A Study of Men and Administration at the Assyrian Capital in the Eighth Century, B.C. (London: Stephen Austin & Sons, Ltd, 1972). Wilson, J.A., 'Akh-en-Aton andNefert-iti', JNES32 (1973), pp. 235-41. Winter, I.J., 'Women in Public: The Disk of Enheduanna, the Beginning of the Office of EnPriestess, and the Weight of Visual Evidence', in Durand (ed.), La femme dans le Proche-Orient Antique, pp. 189-201. Wiseman, D., The Vassal-Treaties ofEsarhaddon (London: Harrison & Sons Ltd, 1958). Wolff, H.W., 'The Kerygma of the Deuteronomic Historical Work' (trans. F.C. Prussner), in W. Brueggemann (ed.), The Vitality of Old Testament Traditions (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 2nd edn, 1982), pp. 83-100. Yadin, Y., 'The "House of Ba'al" of Ahab and Jezebel in Samaria and that of Athaliah in Judah', in R. Moorey and P. Parr (eds.), Archaeology in the Levant: Essays for Kathleen Kenyan (Warminster: Aris & Phillips Ltd, 1978), pp. 127-35.

188


Ziegler, N., Florilegium Marianum IV: La population feminine despalais d'apres les archives royales de Man: Le harem de Zimri-Lim (Paris: Societe pour 1'etude du Proche-Orient Ancien, 1999). —'A Questionable Daughter-in-Law', JCS 51 (1999), pp. 55-58.

INDEXES INDEX OF REFERENCES BIBLE

Old Testament Genesis 4.25 12.10-20 16.4 16.8 16.9 19.37 19.38

20 20.2 20.16 24.16 29.32 29.33 29.34 29.35 30.6 30.8 30.11 30.13 30.17 30.20 30.24 35.18

38 38.4 38.5 39.4 41.46

Exodus 12.23 12.27

138 130 73 73 73 138 138 130 129 130 141 138 138 138 138 138 138 138 138 138 138 138 138 131 138 138 142 140

137 137

Leviticus 4.20 15.19-24 18.23 24.10-23

105 130 141 57

Numbers 14.11 14.23 16.9 16.30 35.33

136 136 141 136 106

Deuteronomy 1.38 7.1-5 10.8 13.7 18.7 21.8 22.19 22.22 22.23 22.28 25.3 28.54 31.20 Joshua 4.16 4.18 5.2-8

6 6.2

6.6-7

140 166 141 142 141 106 141 131 141 141 117 142 136

164 164 164 163 164

6.8 6.15 6.16 6.20 9.16 9.18 9.19 9.20 11.23 14.15

Judges 3.11 3.30 4.21 5.7 5.28 5.31 8.28 9.4 11.3 13.24

164 164 164 164 164 106 106 106 106 167 167

167 167 166 79 111 112, 167

167 116 116 138

1 Samuel

1.6 1.20 2.1-10 2.17 2.25

8 8.5 8.7 8.11-21

118 138 72 136, 137

136 133 9,118

121 108

190


1 Samuel (cont.) 8.11-18 103, 133 170 8.11 134 8.18 103 13.14 120, 124 170 14.49 90 14.50 98 15.26 12 16.7-13 108 16.12 140 16.21 87, 88, 140 17.25 88,89 18 87 18.1 87 18.3-4 87,91 18.3 93 18.7 140 18.11 88 18.16 87, 128 18.17-19 88 18.17 89 18.18 12, 90, 103 18.19 106 18.20-29 109, 125 18.20 91, 140 18.21 103 18.22 87, 103 18.23 89, 90, 103, 117 18.25 89,90 18.26 103 18.27 103 18.28 91 18.29 91, 175 18.30 91 19 113 19.2 93 19.11-17 88, 109 19.11 109, 146 19.12 94, 110 19.16 113 19.17 88, 92, 95 19.20 113 20.2-3 93

20.2 20.9 20.13 20.14-15 20.15-16 20.15 20.16 20.30-31 20.30 20.31 20.41-42 21.7 21.8 22.2 22.3 23.17 24 24.5 24.12 24.16 24.17 24.21 24.22 25 25.3 25.14-17 25.22 25.25 25.26 25.28 25.29 25.30 25.31 25.33 25.35 25.37 25.39 25.41-42 25.42-44 25.42 25.44 26 26.21 26.23 26.25

88 88 88 91 93 99 94,98 88 92 94 93 106 106 116 94 99 95 106 79,95 96 95 94,95 94 95-97 96, 97, 140 96 136 96 95,96 97 96 95 96,98 96 96,97 97 98 96 109 11 95, 98, 109 95 95 106 95

2 Samuel 1.11 2.11 2.13 3 3.1 3.2-5 3.2-3 3.3 3.4 3.6 3.7-16 3.7 3.13

3.14 3.15 3.16 3.31 5-6 5.6-10 5.11 5.12 5.13-14 5.13 6

6.12 6.13 6.14 6.15-17 6.16 6.17 6.20-23 6.20 6.21-23 6.21-22 6.21

6.22 6.23

165 137 137 100, 104 102 101 119 100, 138 145 102 109 101, 151 101, 102, 114 103, 110 114, 151 103 110 165 109 125 119, 175 108 119 125, 129 109, 114 115, 118 120, 121 124, 174 109 109 115 109 109, 110 115 125 109, 126 112, 11416 125 173 114,115, 120, 121 135 117, 124 106, 118 126

Index of References 191 7

7.1-17 7.3 7.8-16 7.8 7.9-11 7.10-16 7.10 7.11-13 7.11 7.12-15 7.12 7.13

7.14 7.15 7.16 8.1-14 8.15-18 8.15 8.18 8.26 9-20 9 9.1-13 9.12 10.1-19 10.2 10.3 10.7 10.17-19 10.17 11-12 11

11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.8 11.9

12-14, 120, 122, 123, 139, 169, 175 174 120 169 120, 152 121 108 169 121 169 175 149, 160 13, 82, 169 122 121 125, 168 125 125 128 108, 174 174 7 105 125 119 125 137 137 127 125 128 124 9, 122, 125-27, 134, 136, 137, 153 128 128, 130, 140 129, 134, 137 129-32 133 133

11.10 11.11 11.13 11.14-21 11.14 11.25 11.26 11.27 12 12.3 12.7-8 12.7 12.8 12.9 12.10

12.11 12.14 12.15 12.24 12.25 13 13.7 13.17 13.18 13.19 13.23 13.37-38 14-18 14.24 15.1 15.12 16.21-22 16.22 20.19 21 21.1-14 21.1 21.8-9 21.8 21.10-14 23.3 23.34 24 25

133 133 133 162 134 134 134, 135 134, 136, 137 148 142 135 126 106, 127 124, 136 108, 114 136 136 136 137 137, 138, 143, 145 138 122 108 142 78, 142 165 139 138 122 108 145 139 102, 137 151 79 105 109 105 122 124 134 105 139 148 138

1 Kings 1-2 1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.13 1.17 1.19 1.20 1.21 1.25 1.27 1.28 1.29 1.30 1.35 1.48 1.50-51 1.50 2.3 2.5-9 2.12 2.13-14 2.15 2.17 2.18 2.19 2.21 2.22 2.24 3.15 3.20 4.2 8.35 8.37 10.1 10.4 10.8 10.10 10.13 11.1-5 11.1 11.3 11.4 11.8

7 143 140, 144 142, 144 142, 144 145 145, 149 146, 148 148 147 146 145, 146 147 147 147 175 148, 149 149 149 165 166 164 162 149 149 149 150, 151 151 152 151 151 152 141 142 73 105 105 72 72 140 72 72 100 84 73 84 156

192


1 Kings (cont.) 11.12-13 155 11.12 170 11.13 13, 170 11.19 73 11.32 13, 155 170 11.33 84 11.34-36 169 11.34 13,81, 155 11.36 13,81,82, 170 11.40 81 11.41-43 81 12.6 140 12.8 140 12.20-21 81 13.1-3 81 14.19-20 81 14.21 82, 158 14.22 82 14.23 157 14.30 81 14.31 82, 158 15 73 15.3 82, 155 157 15.4 13, 82, 170 15.6 81 15.7 81 15.8 158 15.11 82 15.13 10, 84, 85, 156 15.16-24 81 15.24 158 15.26 82 15.29 162 15.32 81 16.30 156 16.32-33 156 20.6 166 20.35 17 21 133 21.27 165 22.29-34 81

22.41 22.43 22.45 22.51 2 Kings 2.25 5.3 7.11 8.16-18 8.16 8.18

8.19

8.24 8.25-27 8.25 8.26-27 8.26 8.27 8.28 9.7 9.27 9.28 9.29 9.30 9.33 10 10.1 10.11 10.13 10.14 10.17 10.19 10.28 10.31 11

11.1 11.2 11.4-12 11.9

158 82 81 158

162 73 54 79 158 81, 100 154, 155 159, 170 13, 155 159, 16870 158 79 158 84 85, 155 81, 156 158 112, 157 81 158, 167 168 158 111 112 73 157 157 73, 157 81 157 157 158 157 9, 159 160, 16264 81, 15860 161, 167 162 164

11.11 11.14 11.16 11.17 11.18 11.20 12.1-3 12.1 12.3 12.22 13.12 13.14 14.1 14.8 14.11-12 14.15 14.21 15.1 15.7 15.32 15.37 15.38 16.1 16.2-3 16.5 16.20 17.18 18.1 18.3 18.24 19.1 19.34

20.6 20.21 21.7 21.18 21.24 21.26 22.2 22.14 22.15-20 23.4 23.30 23.34 23.36

165 165 166 166, 168 156 159, 166, 167 167 158 171 158 81 79 158 81 81 81 83, 158 158 158 158 81 158 158 79 81 158 170 158 171 150 165 13, 155 170 13, 170 158 157 158 83, 167 158 171 157 11 157 83, 158 167 158 77

193

Index of References 24.6 24.8-17 24.12 24.15 24.17 24.18-20 24.18-19 24.20 25.25

158 74 72,85 85, 176 158 74 85 85 159

1 Chronicles 4.40 7.16 7.22 17.4

167 138 138 120

2 Chronicles 9.1 9.3 9.7 9.9 9.12 10.6 10.8 13.7 14.4 14.5 15.16 22.10 22.11 23.11 23.15 29.18

72 72 140 72 72 140 140 116 167 167 73 159 161 164 166 54

Nehemiah 3.28

166

Esther 2.3 Job 29.12-25

29.25

138

Psalms 2 10.3 10.13 29 29.9-10 45 45.10 45.15 72 72.6 74.10 74.18 89 89.26 123.2 132 132.11 132.12 132.15 138.6

175 136 136 109 109 152 152 54 138, 175 105 136 136 175 166 73 175 169 164 169 117

Proverbs 7.6 19.11 19.25 29 29.23 30.23 31 31.11

111 96 97 117 117 73 97 97

54

Song of Songs 111 2.9 18 6.8-9 72 6.8 72 6.9

138

Isaiah 1.4

3.5 5.24 7.4 22.15 24.2 30.15 32.17 36.9 47.5 47.7 49.23 60.14 62.1

117 136 167 141, 142 73 167 167 150 73 73 73 136 167

Jeremiah 7.18 13.18 23.17 29.2-3 29.2 30.10 31.40 41.1 44.17 44.18 44.19 44.25 46.27 48.11 52.12

72 18,74 136 74 18 167 166 159 72 72 72 72 167 167 140

Ezekiel 16.49 17.13

167 159

Daniel 1.3

159

Micah 7.5

142

2548

24,64

136

OTHER ANCIENT REFERENCES Josephus Ant. 9

155

Unknown/Other A 2518 26,27

194


ARM

10.4 10.14 10.18 10.26 10.32 10.36 10.37-43 10.38 10.42 10.74 10.95 10.100 10.114 10.115 10.126 10.129 10.130 10.133 10.134 10.136 10.160 13.26.9 21.104 ARMT 10.31.9 10.74.13-14 10.74.22-23 10.98

42 37,62 31 27 26 36 36 44 44 64 25 42 38 93 31 37,62 62 31 37 32 38 63 44

26 27 27 25

CTH

42 51 52

17, 132 19 46

EA 1 3

23 23

4 4.6-7 5

23 23 23

HSS 14.584.17

33

17.241 17.314 17.325 17.352 17.367 19.70 1957.1

32 32 32,33 20,36 20 17 29,30

KTU

4.135 4.143 4.244

33 32 32

KUB

21.38 22.70

38 41,45

M

8161

92

ND 2307 2703

34 34

RS 11.732 16.146 16.157 16.161 16.197 16.270 16.276 16.348

17.35 17.82 17.86 17.102 17.133 17.159 17.208

31 30 35 30 32 30 21 35 20 30 32 32 38 29 32

SAA

1.31 1.63 1.240 2.8 3.34 4.142 5.32 5.251 6.81 6.90 6.93 6.94 6.95 6.251 6.252 7.48 7.115 7.130 7.131 7.132 7.175 10.16 10.17 10.109 10.244 11.221 13.154 9.1.1 9.1.8

33 33 33 49 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 34 35 35 41 31 35 35 35 42 46 39 46 39,46 36 39 42 42

INDEX OF AUTHORS

Abdallah, F. 37 Aboud, J. 2,29,32,69 Abramsky, S. I l l Ackerman, S. 75, 76, 111, 112, 156 Ahlstrom, G.W. 74 Albright, W.F. I l l Alter, R. 117, 125 Anderson, A.A. 107 Andreasen, N.E.A. 74 Artzi,P. 37,50 Bailey, R.C. 129, 131 Bal, M. 8,9 Bardet, G. 37 Barnett,R.D. I l l , 112 Batto, B.F. 1, 17, 24, 38, 44, 50, 52, 63, 64 Beckman, G. 19,23,38,46,48,132 Ben-Barak, Z. 49, 76-78, 83, 85, 103 Biga,M.G. 31 Bin-Nun, S.R. 2, 16, 17, 20, 22, 25, 40, 41,44-48,75-79,81,83,89,90 Biran, A. 8 Botte"ro, J. 64 Brosius, M. 66-68 Brueggemann, W. 113, 115, 118, 126, 129, 133, 162 Caminos, R.A. 43 Clines, D.J.A. 113-15 Coats, G.W. 90, 117 Cogan, M. 164, 166 Cole, S.W. 39 Collier, J.F. 11 Coote, R.B. 94 Cross, P.M. 13, 122, 169, 171 Croutier, A.L. 58-60

Dahood,M.J. I l l Dalley, S. 34,35,52 Davies, P.R. 8 Dietrich, M. 32,33 Driver, S.R. 136 Dubisch, J. 11 Durand, J.-M. 1,24-27,52,63-66,93 Edel,E. 28 Eskenazi, T.C. I l l Exum,J.C. 91, 128, 129 Fales,F.M. 31,35,36,41,42 Fewell, D.N. 126, 127 Finkelstein, I. 8 Fisher, L.R. 30 Foucault, M. 3, 4 Gardiner, A. 52 George, M.K. 160 Goedicke, H. 53 Gordon, C.H. 18 Cost, R. 59,60 Gotze, A. 1 Gray,J. 168 Grayson, A.K. 57,80 Gunn, D.M. 126, 127 Guterbock, H.G. 23, 50, 89 Haak, R.D. 165 Hallo, W. 80 Halpern,B. 98 Handy, L.K. 161 Hausl,M. 32, 152 Heltzer, M. 2-4, 21, 33, 35, 36, 69 Hobbs, T.R. 74, 80, 161, 162, 166, 168 Jacobsen, T. 18,79

196


Kapelrud, A.S. 107 Katzenstein, H.J. 155 Klein, R.W. 88, 89, 93, 171, 172 Klengel,H. 23 Knoppers, G.N. 8 Kiihne, C. 29 Kwasman, T. 33-35 Lafont, B. 25,27 Lanfranchi, G.B. 33 Lesko, B.S. 28,40,41 Lesko, L.H. 89 Levenson, J. 98,99 Levin, C. 155, 159, 160 Lewis, B. 161 Lewy, H. 1 Livingstone, A. 33 Long,B.O. 161, 163, 165 Loretz, O. 32,33 Louis, K.R.R.G. 126 Machinist, P. 39 Malamat, A. 37, 50, 53, 54, 58, 107 Mallowan, M.E.L. 63 Marello, P. 90, 92, 101 Margueron, J. 52, 63 McCarter, P.K. Jr 88, 89, 91, 93, 96, 105, 111, 113, 117, 119, 136 McCarthy, DJ. 13,91 Melville, S.C. 20, 39, 41, 49, 64 Meninski, F. 56 Mettinger, T.N.D. 93 Mieroop, M. van de 42 Miller, P.O. Jr 76 Molin, G. 84 Moran, W.L. 87,88 Mulder, M.J. 32, 143, 144 Mullen, E.T. Jr 82 Naveh, J. 8 Nelson, R.D. 168 Nichol,G.G. 128,129 Noth,M. 7, 147, 170 Nougayrol, J. 28,29,40 Olyan, S. 117, 121 Otten, H. 43 Pardee, D. 31

Parker, B. 34 Parpola, S. 20, 33-35, 39, 42, 46, 49 Parrot, A. 40 Paul, S.M. 57 Peirce, L.P. 5, 56, 59-62, 101, 108, 112, 118, 120, 132 Penzer,N.M. 59 Pollock, S. 1 Polzin,R. 112, 115, 135 Postgate, J.N. 31, 34-36, 41, 42 Reade, J. 40, 64 Rich, A. 1 Roberts, J.J.M. 169 Robins, G. 2, 19,28,41,44 Rosaldo,M.Z. 10, 11,69 Rost, L. 6, 7 Roth,M.T. 54-56,64 Saggs,H.W.F. 34 Sanmartin, J. 33 Schulman, A.R. 23, 24, 27, 28, 89, 101 Schulte,H. 161 Schwartz, R.M. 7, 24, 127 Seow, C.L. 109, 114, 118 Simpson, W. 80 Slocum, S. 69 Soldt, W.H. van 29 Spanier, K. 75 Springborg, P. 37 Starr, I. 33 Sternberg, M. 80, 128 Tadmor,H. 164, 166 Thiel, W. 155, 158 Thompson, J.A. 88 Thompson, T.L. 9 Tyldesley, J. 2, 18,52,89 Ulrich, E.G. Jr 136 Ussishkin, D. 8 Ward, W.A. 22, 23, 53 Watanabe, K. 20,49 Weidner, E. 54-57 Wenham, G.J. 141 Whitelam, K.W. 94 Winter, IJ. 43 Wolff, H.W. 169

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES 200 M. Daniel Carroll R., David J.A. Clines and Philip R. Davies (eds.), The Bible in Human Society: Essays in Honour of John Rogerson 201 John W. Rogerson, The Bible and Criticism in Victorian Britain: Profiles ofF.D. Maurice and William Robertson Smith 202 Nanette Stahl, Law and Liminality in the Bible 203 Jill M. Munro, Spikenard and Saffron: The Imagery of the Song of Songs 204 Philip R. Davies, Whose Bible Is It Anyway? 205 David J.A. Clines, Interested Parties: The Ideology of Writers and Readers of the Hebrew Bible 206 M0gens Miiller, The First Bible of the Church: A Plea for the Septuagint 207 John W. Rogerson, Margaret Davies and M. Daniel Carroll R. (eds.), The Bible in Ethics: The Second Sheffield Colloquium 208 Beverly J. Stratton, Out of Eden: Reading, Rhetoric, and Ideology in Genesis 2-3 209 Patricia Dutcher-Walls, Narrative Art, Political Rhetoric: The Case ofAthaliah and Joash 210 Jacques Berlinerblau, The Vow and the 'Popular Religious Groups' of Ancient Israel: A Philological and Sociological Inquiry 211 Brian E. Kelly, Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles 212 Yvonne Sherwood, The Prostitute and the Prophet: Hosea's Marriage in Literary- Theoretical Perspective 213 Yair Hoffman, A Blemished Perfection: The Book of Job in Context 214 Roy F. Melugin and Marvin A. Sweeney (eds.), New Visions of Isaiah 215 J. Cheryl Exum, Plotted, Shot and Painted: Cultural Representations of Biblical Women 216 Judith E. McKinlay, Gendering Wisdom the Host: Biblical Invitations to Eat and Drink 217 Jerome F.D. Creach, Yahweh as Refuge and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter 218 Harry P. Nasuti, Defining the Sacred Songs: Genre, Tradition, and the PostCritical Interpretation of the Psalms 219 Gerald Morris, Prophecy, Poetry and Hosea 220 Raymond F. Person, Jr, In Conversation with Jonah: Conversation Analysis, Literary Criticism, and the Book of Jonah 221 Gillian Keys, The Wages of Sin: A Reappraisal of the 'Succession Narrative' 222 R.N. Whybray, Reading the Psalms as a Book 223 Scott B. Noegel, Janus Parallelism in the Book of Job 224 Paul J. Kissling, Reliable Characters in the Primary History: Profiles of Moses, Joshua, Elijah and Elisha 225 Richard D. Weis and David M. Carr (eds.), A Gift of God in Due Season: Essays on Scripture and Community in Honor of James A. Sanders

226 Lori L. Rowlett, Joshua and the Rhetoric of Violence: A New Historicist Analysis 227 John F.A. Sawyer (ed.), Reading Leviticus: Responses to Mary Douglas 228 Volkmar Fritz and Philip R. Davies (eds.), The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States 229 Stephen Breck Reid (ed.), Prophets and Paradigms: Essays in Honor of Gene M. Tucker 230 Kevin J. Cathcart and Michael Maher (eds.), Targumic and Cognate Studies: Essays in Honour of Martin McNamara 231 Weston W. Fields, Sodom and Gomorrah: History and Motif in Biblical Narrative 232 Tilde Binger, Asherah: Goddesses in Ugarit, Israel and the Old Testament 233 Michael D. Goulder, The Psalms ofAsaph and the Pentateuch: Studies in the Psalter, III 234 Ken Stone, Sex, Honor, and Power in the Deuteronomistic History 23 5 James W. Watts and Paul House (eds.), Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D. W. Watts 236 Thomas M. Bolin, Freedom beyond Forgiveness: The Book of Jonah Reexamined 237 Neil Asher Silberman and David B. Small (eds.), The Archaeology of Israel: Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present 238 M. Patrick Graham, Kenneth G. Hoglund and Steven L. McKenzie (eds.), The Chronicler as Historian 239 Mark S. Smith, The Pilgrimage Pattern in Exodus 240 Eugene E. Carpenter (ed.), A Biblical Itinerary: In Search of Method, Form and Content. Essays in Honor of George W. Coats 241 Robert Karl Gnuse, No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism in Israel 242 K.L. Noll, The Faces of David 243 Pfenning Graf Reventlow (ed.), Eschatology in the Bible and in Jewish and Christian Tradition 244 Walter E. Aufrecht, Neil A. Mirau and Steven W. Gauley (eds.), Urbanism in Antiquity: From Mesopotamia to Crete 245 Lester L. Grabbe (ed.), Can a 'History of Israel' Be Written? 246 Gillian M. Bediako, Primal Religion and the Bible: William Robertson Smith and his Heritage 247 Nathan Klaus, Pivot Patterns in the Former Prophets 248 Etienne Nodet, A Search for the Origins of Judaism: From Joshua to the Mishnah 249 William Paul Griffin, The God of the Prophets: An Analysis of Divine Action 250 Josette Elayi and Jean Sapin, Beyond the River: New Perspectives on Transeuphratene 251 Flemming A. J. Nielsen, The Tragedy in History: Herodotus and the Deuteronomistic History 252 David C. Mitchell, The Message of the Psalter: An Eschatological Programme in the Book of Psalms

253 William Johnstone, 1 and2 Chronicles, Volume 1:1 Chronicles 1-2 Chronicles 9: Israel's Place among the Nations 254 William Johnstone, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Volume 2: 2 Chronicles 10-36: Guilt and Atonement 255 Larry L. Lyke, King David with the Wise Woman ofTekoa: The Resonance of Tradition in Parabolic Narrative 256 Roland Meynet, Rhetorical Analysis: An Introduction to Biblical Rhetoric 257 Philip R. Davies and David J.A. Clines (eds.), The World of Genesis: Persons, Places, Perspectives 258 Michael D. Goulder, The Psalms of the Return (Book V, Psalms 107-150): Studies in the Psalter, IV 259 Allen Rosengren Petersen, The Royal God: Enthronement Festivals in Ancient Israel and Ugarit? 260 A.R. Pete Diamond, Kathleen M. O'Connor and Louis Stulman (eds.), Troubling Jeremiah 261 Othmar Keel, Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh: Ancient Near Eastern Art and the Hebrew Bible 262 Victor H. Matthews, Bernard M. Levinson and Tikva Frymer-Kensky (eds.), Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East 263 M. Patrick Graham and Steven L. McKenzie, The Chronicler as Author: Studies in Text and Texture 264 Donald F. Murray, Divine Prerogative and Royal Pretension: Pragmatics, Poetics, and Polemics in a Narrative Sequence about David (2 Samuel 5.177.29) 265 John Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan 266 J. Cheryl Exum and Stephen D. Moore (eds.), Biblical Studies/Cultural Studies: The Third Sheffield Colloquium 267 Patrick D. Miller, Jr, Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology: Collected Essays 268 Linda S. Schearing and Steven L. McKenzie (eds.), Those Elusive Deuteronomists: 'Pandeuteronomism' and Scholarship in the Nineties 269 David J.A. Clines and Stephen D. Moore (eds.), Auguries: The Jubilee Volume of the Sheffield Department of Biblical Studies 270 John Day (ed.), King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar 271 Wonsuk Ma, Until the Spirit Comes: The Spirit of God in the Book of Isaiah 272 James Richard Linville, Israel in the Book of Kings: The Past as a Project of Social Identity 273 Meir Lubetski, Claire Gottlieb and Sharon Keller (eds.), Boundaries of the Ancient Near Eastern World: A Tribute to Cyrus H. Gordon 274 Martin J. Buss, Biblical Form Criticism in its Context 275 William Johnstone, Chronicles and Exodus: An Analogy and its Application 276 Raz Kletter, Economic Keystones: The Weight System of the Kingdom ofJudah 211 Augustine Pagolu, The Religion of the Patriarchs 278 Lester L. Grabbe (ed.), Leading Captivity Captive: 'The Exile' as History and Ideology

279 Kari Latvus, God, Anger and Ideology: The Anger of God in Joshua and Judges in Relation to Deuteronomy and the Priestly Writings 280 Eric S. Christiansen, A Time to Tell: Narrative Strategies in Ecclesiastes 281 Peter D. Miscall, Isaiah 34-35: A Nightmare/A Dream 282 Joan E. Cook, Hannah's Desire, God's Design: Early Interpretations in the Story of Hannah 283 Kelvin Friebel, Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's Sign-Acts: Rhetorical Nonverbal Communication 284 M. Patrick Graham, Rick R. Marrs and Steven L. McKenzie (eds.), Worship and the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honor of John T. Willis 285 Paolo Sacchi, History of the Second Temple 286 Wesley J. Bergen, Elisha and the End ofProphetism 287 Anne Fitzpatrick-McKinley, The Transformation ofTorahfrom Scribal Advice to Law 288 Diana Lipton, Revisions of the Night: Politics and Promises in the Patriarchal Dreams of Genesis 289 Jose Krasovec (ed.), The Interpretation of the Bible: The International Symposium in Slovenia 290 Frederick H. Cryer and Thomas L. Thompson (eds.), Qumran between the Old and New Testaments 291 Christine Schams, Jewish Scribes in the Second-Temple Period 292 David J.A. Clines, On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays, 19671998 Volume 1 293 David J.A. Clines, On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays, 19671998 Volume 2 294 Charles E. Carter, The Emergence ofYehud in the Persian Period: A Social and Demographic Study 295 Jean-Marc Heimerdinger, Topic, Focus and Foreground in Ancient Hebrew Narratives 296 Mark Cameron Love, The Evasive Text: Zechariah 1-8 and the Frustrated Reader 297 Paul S. Ash, David, Solomon and Egypt: A Reassessment 298 John D. Baildam, Paradisal Love: Johann Gottfried Herder and the Song of Songs 299 M. Daniel Carroll R., Rethinking Contexts, Rereading Texts: Contributions from the Social Sciences to Biblical Interpretation 300 Edward Ball (ed.), In Search of True Wisdom: Essays in Old Testament Interpretation in Honour of Ronald E. Clements 301 Carolyn S. Leeb, Away from the Father's House: The Social Location ofna 'ar and na 'arah in Ancient Israel 302 Xuan Huong Thi Pham, Mourning in the Ancient Near East and the Hebrew Bible 303 Ingrid Hjelm, The Samaritans and Early Judaism: A Literary Analysis 304 Wolter H. Rose, Zemah and Zerubabbel: Messianic Expectations in the Early Postexilic Period

305 Jo Bailey Wells, God's Holy People: A Theme in Biblical Theology 3 06 Albert de Pury, Thomas Romer and Jean-Daniel Macchi (eds.), Israel Constructs its History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research 307 Robert L. Cole, The Shape and Message of Book III (Psalms 73-89) 308 Yiu-Wing Fung, Victim and Victimizer: Joseph's Interpretation of his Destiny 309 George Aichele (ed.), Culture, Entertainment and the Bible 310 Esther Fuchs, Sexual Politics in the Biblical Narrative: Reading the Hebrew Bible as a Woman 311 Gregory Glazov, The Bridling of the Tongue and the Opening of the Mouth in Biblical Prophecy 312 Francis Landy, Beauty and the Enigma: And Other Essays on the Hebrew Bible 313 Martin O'Kane (ed.), Borders, Boundaries and the Bible 314 Bernard S. Jackson, Studies in the Semiotics of Biblical Law 315 Paul R. Williamson, Abraham, Israel and the Nations: The Patriarchal Promise and its Covenantal Development in Genesis 316 Dominic Rudman, Determinism in the Book of Ecclesiastes 317 Lester L. Grabbe (ed.), Did Moses Speak Attic? Jewish Historiography and Scripture in the Hellenistic Period 318 David A. Baer, When We All Go Home: Translation and Theology in LXX 56-66 319 Henning Graf Reventlow and Yair Hoffman (eds.), Creation in Jewish and Christian Tradition 320 Claudia V. Camp, Wise, Strange and Holy: The Strange Woman and the Making of the Bible 321 Varese Layzer, Signs of Weakness: Juxtaposing Irish Tales and the Bible 322 Mignon R. Jacobs, The Conceptual Coherence of the Book ofMicah 323 Martin Ravndal Hauge, The Descent from the Mountain: Narrative Patterns in Exodus 19-40 324 P.M. Michele Daviau, John W. Wevers and Michael Weigl (eds.), The World of the Aramaeans: Studies in Honour of Paul-Eugene Dion, Volume 1 325 P.M. Michele Daviau, John W. Wevers and Michael Weigl (eds.), The World of the Aramaeans: Studies in Honour of Paul-Eugene Dion, Volume 2 326 P.M. Michele Daviau, John W. Wevers and Michael Weigl (eds.), The World of the Aramaeans: Studies in Honour of Paul-Eugene Dion, Volume 3 327 Gary D. Salyer, Vain Rhetoric: Private Insight and Public Debate in Ecclesiastes 328 James M. Trotter, Reading Hosea in Achaemenid Yehud 329 Wolfgang Bluedorn, Yahweh Verus Baalism: A Theological Reading of the Gideon-Abimelech Narrative 330 Lester L. Grabbe and Robert D. Haak (eds.), 'Every City shall be Forsaken': Urbanism and Prophecy in Ancient Israel and the Near East 331 Amihai Mazar (ed.), with the assistance of Ginny Mathias, Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan 332 Robert J.V. Hiebert, Claude E. Cox and Peter J. Gentry (eds.), The Old Greek Psalter: Studies in Honour of Albert Pietersma 333 Ada Rapoport-Albert and Gillian Greenberg (eds.), Biblical Hebrew, Biblical Texts: Essays in Memory of Michael P. Weitzman

334 Ken Stone (ed.), Queer Commentary and the Hebrew Bible 335 James K. Bruckner, Implied Law in the Abrahamic Narrative: A Literary and Theological Analysis 336 Stephen L. Cook, Corrine L. Patton and James W. Watts (eds.), The Whirlwind: Essays on Job, Hermeneutics and Theology in Memory of Jane Morse 337 Joyce Rilett Wood, Amos in Song and Book Culture 338 Alice A. Keefe, Woman's Body and the Social Body in Hosea 1-2 339 Sarah Nicholson, Three Faces of Saul: An Intertextual Approach to Biblical Tragedy 340 Philip R. Davies and John M. Halligan (eds.), Second Temple Studies III: Studies in Politics, Class and Material Culture 341 Mark W. Chavalas and K. Lawson Younger Jr (eds.), Mesopotamia and the Bible 343 J. Andrew Dearman and M. Patrick Graham (eds.), The Land that I Will Show You: Essays on the History and Archaeology of the Ancient Near East in Honor ofJ. Maxwell Miller 345 Jan-Wim Wesselius, The Origin of the History of Israel: Herodotus' Histories as Blueprint for the First Books of the Bible 346 Johanna Stiebert, The Construction of Shame in the Hebrew Bible: The Prophetic Contribution 347 Andrew G. Shead, The Open Book and the Sealed Book: Jeremiah 32 in its Hebrew and Greek Recensions 348 Alastair G. Hunter and Phillip R. Davies, Sense and Sensitivity: Essays on Reading the Bible in Memory of Robert Carroll 350 David Janzen, Witch-hunts, Purity and Social Boundaries: The Expulsion of the Foreign Women in Ezra 9—10 351 Roland Boer (ed.), Tracking the 'Tribes ofYahweh': On the Trail of a Classic 352 William John Lyons, Canon and Exegesis: Canonical Praxis and the Sodom Narrative 353 Athalya Brenner and Jan Willem van Henten (eds.), Bible Translation on the Threshold of the Twenty-First Century: Authority, Reception, Culture and Religion 354 Susan Gillingham, The Image, the Depths and the Surface: Multivalent Approaches to Biblical Study 356 Carole Fontaine, Smooth Words: Women, Proverbs and Performance in Biblical Wisdom 357 Carleen Mandolfo, God in the Dock: Dialogic Tension in the Psalms of Lament 359 David M. Gunn and Paula N. McNutt, 'Imagining' Biblical Worlds: Studies in Spatial, Social and Historical Constructs in Honor of James W. Flanagan 361 Franz V. Greifenhagen, Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map: Constructing Biblical Israel's Identity

A Woman's Place is in the House: Royal Women of Judah and their Involvement in the House of David (JSOT Supplement)

House of God or House of David: The Rhetoric of 2 Samuel 7 (JSOT Supplement)

King Saul in the Historiography of Judah (JSOT Supplement Series)

Time and Place in Deuteronomy (JSOT Supplement)

The Faces of David (JSOT Supplement Series)

House Of Women

House Of Women

House Of Women

House Of Women

In The House Of Suddhoo

This is the House

This Is the House

This is the House

This is the House

This is the House

A Spy in the House of Love

The House at Royal Oak

A Coyote's in the House

A Coyote's in the House

A Coyote's in the House

A Death in the House

A Death in the House

A Coyote's in the House

A Coyote's in the House

A Spy in the House

A Death in the House

A Coyote's in the House

A Spy in the House

Death in the House, A

Death in the House, A

The House in France

A Woman's Place is in the House: Royal Women of Judah and their Involvement in the House of David (JSOT Supplement)

House of God or House of David: The Rhetoric of 2 Samuel 7 (JSOT Supplement)

King Saul in the Historiography of Judah (JSOT Supplement Series)

Time and Place in Deuteronomy (JSOT Supplement)

The Faces of David (JSOT Supplement Series)

House Of Women

House Of Women

House Of Women

House Of Women

In The House Of Suddhoo

This is the House

This Is the House

This is the House

This is the House

This is the House

A Spy in the House of Love

The House at Royal Oak

A Coyote's in the House

A Coyote's in the House

A Coyote's in the House

A Death in the House

A Death in the House

A Coyote's in the House

A Coyote's in the House

A Spy in the House

A Death in the House

A Coyote's in the House

A Spy in the House

Death in the House, A

Death in the House, A

The House in France

Recommend Documents