Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
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
A Woman's Place is in
the House
Royal Women of Judah and their
Involvement in the House of David
Elna K. Solvang
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
Part II
Chapter 3
72
73
78
80
83
85
Chapter 4
87
88
95
99
105
108
113
120
122
Chapter 5
124
125
127
134
13 7
139
144
149
152
Chapter 6
15 4
154
158
159
161
162
Contents
Retaking the House
The Missing Link: Remembering Athaliah
vii
163
167
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.
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
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
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:
Introduction
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
Introduction
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).
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 compositiona 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
10
Introduction
11
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
14
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
Eastincluding the Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, Assyrians, Babylonians and Israelitesis 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:
1.
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-
18
19
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
womenas wives, daughters11 and mothersalso 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
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
24
25
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
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 someprobably 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
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
34
35
36
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
40
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
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
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 dynastyparticularly 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 womenwives, mothers and daughtershad 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
46
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
49
tionbetween 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 anomalya positive or negative disturbancein 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
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
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
54
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
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.
57
58
41.
42.
1989).
43.
44.
45.
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
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.
61
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
59.
60.
61.
62.
63
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
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, '^organisation 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 kingnow the queen mothersymbolized
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
69
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 charactersmajor 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
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.
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: MaacahA 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
77
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
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
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^zgs,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
84
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 kingsand possibly the deeds of the queen mothersis 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
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 statusrobe, 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
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, 7P7(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
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
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 returnas 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
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
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
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 themthe king's daughter and king's sonin-lawhad 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
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 faminethree 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
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
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 processionwith 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 56'. 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 locationa 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
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 Davidand the readeroff 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
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
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).
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
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 honorfor
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.
125
2. f*i\\&c(Art of Biblical Narrative, p. 116) identifies these as sources of information in literary characterization.
126
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 kingwhy 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
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 sexas love
or lustbut 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
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
137
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
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:
141
142
143
144
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
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
judgebringing the word of Yahweh in the promise and the failure of
David's kingshipnow 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
150
151
152
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
155
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 leadersthough technically descendents of Davidwere
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.
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
160
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
oppositeJehosheba 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 'Jehoshebaespecially 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
163
164
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 experiencesfrom 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,2Ajg,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 nationhas 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
Davidto 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
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
172
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.
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 Judaha 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
Conclusion
175
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 householdking and
queen motherlead 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 houseand the divine promise made to itbe 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
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
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, 1952Business 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, 1952Part 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: MaacahA 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
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
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
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
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
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
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 910
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