Verse-by-Verse Textual Critical Analysis of 1 Kings 21

1

Verse-by-verse Textual Analysis of 1 Kings 21

Clayton H. Bench Department of Religious Studies University of Texas, El Paso

One of the first things to note about 1 Kings 21 generally is that, as pointed out in Jepson’s notes in the critical apparatus of the BHS, 1 Kings 21 and 20 were initially reversed in order. There are several reasons for arguing that 1 Kings 21 should indeed follow 1 Kings 20, and not vice versa. The most compelling evidence is that both the LXXL and the LXXB preserve the two chapters in this way (1 Kgs 21 precedes 1 Kgs 20). Another reason related to the latter is that 1 Kings 21 interrupts the sequence of war reports between Israel and Aram in 1 Kings 20 and 22. As a result, it seems probable that 1 Kings 21, as is preserved in the Greek witnesses, should precede 1 Kings 20, reversing the order of the two chapters as they now stand in the Masoretic Text (MT).

1 Kings 21:1 — אחר הדברים האלה כרם היה לנבות היזרעאלי אשר ביזרעאל אצל היכל אחאב מלך שמרון׃ ויהי

In A. Jepsen’s BHS notes, there are no indications of textual variants in the Hebrew manuscripts. All of his notes are primarily concerned with Greek variants for this verse. De Rossi’s compilation of Hebrew variants also lacks any mention of Hebrew textual variation for v.1. However, there are several Greek variants in v.1. LXXB omits the introductory phrase και εγενετο μετα τα ρηματα ταυτα “And after these things” while LXXL, the Syriac witnesses, the Vetus Latina (VL) as well as TgJon agree with the MT and retain the phrase. According to Origen’s Hexapla, Aquila also omitted the phrase. De Lagarde’s edition of the Syriac Hexapla agrees and the text provided there also retains different wording from the Syriac text of Cod. Ambrosianus. Lagarde’s text reads והוא בתר מלא הלין, “after these words” while TgJon and Cod. Ambr. retain the noun ܦܬܓܡܐ (Syr) or פתגמיא (TgJon) “words.” The other differences between the Aramaic traditions are dialectical in v.1.

One difficulty with the first phrase of v. 1 is that there is no conjunction after it to introduce the new information in the following phrase. To remedy this peculiarity, at least in the LXXL, the conjunction και was used to transition from the first phrase to the next. Naturally, the LXXB also uses the conjunction και, but as stated above, the only Greek witness to retain the initial phrase “after these things” was the LXXL. Thus, the use of the και in that tradition is simply the beginning of v.1. All other witnesses, including the VL, do not insert the conjunction to mark the transition between these two clauses.

Another textual peculiarity with Greek text of 1 Kgs 1:1 is the insertion of the number εις into the phrase και αμπελων εις ην τω Ναβουθαι τω Ισραηλειτη “and Naboth the Jezreelite had a single/certain vineyard.” The MT, Cod. Ambrosianus, the VL and the Vulgate do not retain a corresponding word for εις “one.” The insertion may be due to Greek narration style which

©C. H. Bench, 2015

2

places the catalyst for the story, the vineyard, front and center by inserting the adjective εις meaning “a certain” (see also Judg 13:2 and 2 Sam 12:1). This construction is common in Greek translations of the Hebrew phrase that conveys the same meaning using the word אחד (e.g., היה there was a certain man…”). Its insertion here appears to be a clear expansion by the“ איש אחדtranslator meant to indicate the centrality of the vineyard in the Naboth story or perhaps it was inserted to give the story a more clear starting point and flow.

The next major Greek variant is the omission of the phrase אשר ביזרעאל referring to the vineyard “that was in Jezreel.” Both the LXXB and LXXL omit the phrase. Though the Syro-Hexapla (SyrH) agrees with the Greek witnesses by omitting the phrase, all other Syriac witnesses retain the phrase with an interesting difference from the MT. The Syriac witnesses, though in general agreement with the MT, omit the usual Syriac relative pronoun ܖ “that.” The Syriac text retains the reading ܒܐܝܙܪܥܝܠ ܐܝܙܪܥܠܝܐ ܠܢܒܘܬ ܗܘܐ ܐܝܬ ܟܪܡܐ . Potentially, this could be translated as both “Naboth the Jezreelite had a vineyard in Jezreel” or “Naboth, the Jezreelite in Jezreel, had a vineyard. This reading raises an interesting question: what is the referent of the relative pronoun in the other witnesses? Does the relative pronoun “that” refer to Naboth or to the vineyard? The answer is relevant to the story because of the well-known geographic inconsistencies in the text (Jezreel centered versus Samaria centered). This reading further complicates these problems because it is unclear whether Naboth or the Vineyard is in Jezreel. If Naboth is in Jezreel and not the vineyard, then this reading happens to be more in agreement with the problematic Samaria centered version of this story: Naboth, not the vineyard, was in Jezreel, the vineyard, according to this tradition, was in Samaria next to Ahab’s palace. The VL also agrees with the Syriac witnesses with the reading erat vinea Nabuthe Jezraelitae in Israel “Naboth had a vineyard in Israel.” Though the text reads “Israel,” this is likely a scribal error due to the similarities between the names Israel and Jezreel. The VL text appears to be closely associated with the Syriac reading since both omit any relative clause marker “that.” The Vulgate closely follows the Hebrew text of v.1. It reads vinea erat Naboth Hiezrahelitae, qui erat in Hiezrahel “Naboth the Jezreelite had a vineyard which was in Jezreel.” TgJon also agrees with the Hebrew and Vulgate by inserting a clear relative clause marker דביזרעאל “…which was in Jezreel.” It is tempting to argue that the Greek traditions have retained an earlier version of the text that was more ambiguous about the location of the vineyard. Perhaps later scribes added a clear relative clause maker אשר “that” or “which” to argue, in agreement with the Samaria centered version of the story that argued that Naboth was in his city (implied “in Jezreel”) when he was falsely accused and executed.0F

1 The point is that there are levels of ambiguity. First, the Greek text omits the phrase altogether, leaving the location and referent fully ambiguous. This indicates that this tradition was based on an earlier stage of the reading that did not sense or know about any major geographic contradictions or felt no need to clarify them in this verse if

1 I use the terms Samaria-centered and Jezreel-centered to refer to the places where these two traditions argued that Elijah’s oracle against Ahab was fulfillied. In one tradition, it was fulfilled in Samaria. In another tradition, it was fulfilled in Jezreel when Ahab’s son Joram was murdered by Jehu.

©C. H. Bench, 2015

3

they were perceived at that time. Second, the Syriac and VL added the phrase “in Jezreel” without a relative pronoun. This phrase in the MT as it now stands is an expansion meant to clarify earlier readings, the addition of the relative clause marker as found in the MT, Vulgate and TgJon represent an attempt to make it explicit that Naboth, not the vineyard, was in Jezreel in order to bring this ambiguous phrase or the lack of such a phrase altogether (Greek traditions) into conformity of the latest version of the MT which argued that the fulfillment of Elijah’s oracle took place in Samaria, not Jezreel and that Jezebel had arranged Naboth’s execution in “his city” which was assumed to be Jezreel.

The final phrase אצל היכל אחאב מלך שמרון “next to the palace of Ahab, king of Samaria” is found in all witnesses with a few variations. According to Jepsen’s BHS notes as well as De Rossi’s list of variants, the MT tradition shows no variation for this phrase. The Greek witnesses disagree in a least one way for this phrase. The LXXB reads παρὰ τῷ ἅλῳ Αχααβ βασιλέως Σαμαρείας “next to the garden of Ahab, king of Samaria” while LXXL reads παρὰ τῷ ὂικω Αχααβ βασιλέως Σαμαρείας “next to the house of Ahab, king of Samaria.” The difference is due to a scribal error. Both initially read “house,” but the at some point during transmission the LXXB was mistakenly read as ἅλῳ “garden” probably because the ο and ι of ὂικω were read as an α because they were written so closely together. This mistake could only have taken place during a period when the text was being copied from another miniscule text (a text written in lower case Greek characters in contrast to a majuscule text written in capital Greek letters) or even a late uncial manuscripts (a more flowing type of Majuscule script). It also must be noted that cursive Greek manuscripts came into use in the third-century BCE. Such scribal errors could have resulted from such a cursive script as well. The same ligature is unlikely or impossible when written in strict capital letters (not including uncials and cursive scripts). The confusion between the λ and the κ is explainable through graphic similarity between the two letters. The fact that this erroneous ligature could only have been perpetuated during a time when the text was being transmitted as a miniscule means that this scribal error occurred quite late in the text’s transmission. Due to the content of the story, with its focus on property, the difficult reading could easily be mistaken other agricultural terms such as ἅλῳ “garden” or αλων “threshing-floor.” However, the form of this Greek noun does not conform to the rules of first declension Greek nouns. According to those rules, the dative of αλωη would be αλωῃ. As a result, the form ἅλῳ could also be the dative of αλος “salt/sea.” Though the form of this word as found in LXXB

clearly a dative of the noun αλος, it seems most probable, based on the content of the story, that the scribe interpreting the difficult term read it as “garden” or “threshing-floor” rather than “salt/sea.” This makes much more contextual sense than the latter, even if the form is incorrect. At least two miniscules (n and u) preserve the reading παρὰ τῷ αγρω Αχααβ βασιλέως Σαμαρείας “next to the field of Ahab, king of Samaria.” Though the process by which this reading arose is less clear, it seems probable that it resulted from the difficulties with the term ἅλῳ. Given the context, as mentioned above, terms dealing with types of agricultural land were used to make sense of the difficulties with the term ἅλῳ. There could also be an important cultic

©C. H. Bench, 2015

4

discourse about Ahab, Jezebel, and idolatry guiding and constraining the interpretation of this difficult term. For example, if the reading was indeed intended to mean “garden,” then we must consider its use to mean “grove” in other texts that mention so-called fertility rituals. This term is also closely related to the common Greek term αλσος used to translate the infamous cultic abominations Asherah, asherah, Ashtoreth, and bamah. Given the context, the characters, and their perceived penchant for foreign cultic practices, this connection is worth mentioning.

In the end, all of the interpretations of this difficult term in the LXXB and its derivatives likely resulted from a simple ligature (accidental) of the letters ο and ι resulting in α. Other witnesses including Hebrew manuscripts, the LXXL, the VL, the Vulgate, SA, and TgJon all preserve a reading that agrees with the MT as it now stands. The exception to this is the SyrH which, in agreement with LXXB, preserves the reading דשמריןלות אדרא דאהב מלכא “next to the threshing-floor of Ahab, king of Samaria.” This reading, for obvious reasons (SyrH is simply a Syriac translation of Origen’s critical Hexapla; i.e., it is a translation of different Greek witnesses of the Greek and Hebrew witnesses collected and collated by Origen) is based on the LXXB reading. There are Greek scripts from various periods, from the third-century BCE to the Medieval Period, that could potentially result in this ligature, thus, it is difficult to determine the exact period from which this reading was perpetuated. Origen’s Hexapla, which preserves the reading, is the terminus ante quem. As a result, it is possible to conjecture that the scribal error occurred sometime prior to Origen’s collection of the different witnesses of the biblical text. The terminus post quem is likely the period in which the proto-LXXL was produced. Since the LXXL preserves a Greek reading that agrees with several important Hebrew witnesses from Qumran that are quite different from the MT, it seems likely that the proto-LXXL emerged after (i.e., after the 3rd cent. BCE; Greek texts of the Latter Prophets were known to Ben Sira as well, 2nd cent. BCE). 1F

2

1 Kings 21:2 — וידבר אחאב אל־נבות׀ לאמר׀ תנה־לי את־כרמך ויהי־לי לגן־ירק כי הוא קרוב אצל ביתי

ה׃ואתנה לך תחתיו כרם טוב ממנו אם טוב בעיניך אתנה־לך כסף מחיר ז

As with v.1, there is very little variation in the Hebrew witnesses to v.2. The sole exception is that, according to Jepsen, some manuscripts have a different reading for the final sentence beginning with אם “if.” According to Jepsen’s BHS notes, some Hebrew manuscripts retain a more definite sentence or conjunction marker by reading ואם “and if…” These variants are catalogued in the works of De Rossi, Kennicott, and Ginsberg.3 However, this particular variant is not mentioned in De Rossi’s list of variants. [what about Kennicott and Ginsburg?]. To help clarify this difficulty, the SA inserts a different conjunction, ܐܘ “or.” Though Jepsen’s BHS notes question whether a similar conjunction, או, was initially present in the MT, it seems quite

2 See Tov, Textual Criticism, 136-137. 33 De Rossi, Variae Lectionnes; B. Kennicott, Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum; C. D. Ginsburg, The Old Testament, vols 1-4.

©C. H. Bench, 2015

5

unlikely since only the Syriac witness inserts the conjunction “or” while all others omit it. As a result, it seems most probable that the Syriac witness of this conjunction “or” is an interpretive attempt to make sense of the lack of the conjunction in the MT and other witnesses (see LXX*, VL, Vulgate, TgJon).

The next major textual issue is the omission of a corresponding translation of the prepositional phrase תחתיו “in its place” in the LXXB (as indicated in Field and the SyrH). The LXXL retains the reading and translates this phrase with αντ’ αυτου. The differences between the witnesses are not due to an underlying variant Hebrew Vorlage different from the MT. Rather, these differences result from Greek translation techniques. Some translations were more literal than others in their attempt to convey the meaning of their Hebrew source accurately. In this case, it appears that the LXXL and SA (and likely the VL [dabo tibi pro ea aliam vineam] and Vulgate [daboque tibi pro ea vineam meliorem]) translated the prepositional phrase תחתיו literally while the LXXB conveys the meaning of the Hebrew idiom, “I will give you another vineyard” (i.e., “in its place” is implied by “another”). Another possibility in dealing with the difficulties of the LXXB and LXXL is that LXXB used the adjective αλλον (acc.) to translate תחתיו, which, in this instance, quite literally means “another.” If that was the case, the LXXL appears to have provided a double translation of תחתיו by using both αντ’ αυτου and αλλον. This could have resulted from consulting both the Hebrew text as well as other Greek translations available which resulted in a conflation of both readings attempts to translate תחתיו. However, αντι is by far the more common translation of the Hebrew term תחת, while αλλον is only used once to translate In light of this, it seems best to argue that αλλον was not intended as a term to translate 4.תחת Rather, αλλον was used to convey the sense of the phrase. The LXXL is a more literal .תחתtranslation in this instance, in agreement with VL, the Vulgate, SA, and TgJon.

The next major textual issue is the result of dittography found in LXXB, LXXL, and the VL (showing that the VL is a translation of Greek sources, most often the LXXL). To understand the dittography and explain how it occurred, it is necessary to analyze it in light of all of v.2 and in comparison with the MT (the dittography and its source are in red type).

καὶ ἐλάλησεν Αχααβ πρὸς Ναβουθαι λέγων Δός μοι τὸν ἀμπελῶνά σου καὶ ἔσται μοι εἰς κῆπον λαχάνων, ὅτι ἐγγίων οὗτος τῷ οἴκῳ μου, καὶ δώσω σοι ἀμπελῶνα ἄλλον ἀγαθὸν ὑπὲρ αὐτόν, εἰ δὲ ἀρέσκει ἐνώπιόν σου, δώσω σοι ἀργύριον ἀντάλλαγμα τοῦ ἀμπελῶνός σου τούτου, καὶ ἔσται μοι εἰς κῆπον λαχάνων.

וידבר אחאב אל־נבות׀ לאמר׀ תנה־לי את־כרמך ויהי־לי לגן־ירק כי הוא קרוב אצל ביתי ואתנה לך תחתיו כרם טוב ממנו

אם טוב בעיניך אתנה־לך כסף מחיר זה׃

All witnesses except for LXXB, LXXL, and the VL end with the phrase “I will give you its price in silver.” The LXXB and the LXXL both repeat the phrase καὶ ἔσται μοι εἰς κῆπον λαχάνων “and it will be my herb garden.” Clearly, all witnesses based primarily on the MT omit this final

4 T. Muraoka, A Greek-Hebrew/Aramaic Two-way Index to the Septuagint, 7, 379.

©C. H. Bench, 2015

6

phrase in agreement with the MT itself. The SyrH indicates that the phrase was also missing form Origen’s Hebrew source but was found at that time in the Greek sources available to him. This error may have been perpetuated in two phases. First, both the LXXB and LXXL (the VL in agreement with both) insert the possessive phrase αμπελωνος σου “your vineyard” into the phrase “I will give you its worth in silver” as found in the MT resulting in the reading “I will give you your vinyard’s worth in silver.” The MT, SA, TgJon, and the Vulgate do not preserve this reading and it seems most probable that this additional phrase was either the result of a scribal error or was simply an expansion meant to clarify the difficulties of the MT in the Greek translations. Second, this insertion may have been the catalyst for the dittography found at the end of v.2 in the LXXB and LXXL. This occurred when the scribe completed transcribing or translating this phrase and turned to his/her source to read and copy the next phrase. His eye caught the initial ἀμπελῶνά σου (his eye skipped back because the two phrases are so similar; τὸν ἀμπελῶνά σου versus τοῦ ἀμπελῶνός σου τούτου) closer to the beginning of v.2 and as a result, he/she recopied the following phrase once again, but this time mistakenly and at the end of the verse καὶ ἔσται μοι εἰς κῆπον λαχάνων. The VL perpetuated this error as well.

Et locutus est Achab ad Nabuthe, dicens: Da mihi vineam tuam, & erit mihi in hortum olerum, quoniam propinquat domui meae, & dabo tibi pro ea aliam vineam: si vero placuerit tibi, dabo tibi pecuniam pro vinea ista, & erit mihi in hortum olerum.5

Then Ahab spoke to Naboth saying: Give me your vineyard and it will be my herb garden, for it is near my house. And I will give you a better vineyard for it: if it pleases you, I will give you the vineyard’s price in money and it will be my herb garden.

This clearly shows that in this instance the VL is a translation of the Old Greek witness of the MT and not a translation of a Hebrew Vorlage of its own period.

What is the significance of the agreement here between the LXXB and LXXL? Many scholars contend that these two Greek witnesses are based on two different Hebrew traditions. However, at least in this instance, these two manuscripts have perpetuated a scribal error that could only have been perpetuated from a single Greek witness. This means that sometimes, these two witnesses were made to agree with an older Greek tradition and calls into question the claim that the LXXL is always the main repository of OG readings. At least in this case, an older scribal error was perpetuated from an earlier Greek translation in both the LXXB and LXXL. Jepsen’s BHS notes suggest that perhaps this missing phrase should be considered as original to the MT. However, given the above argument that the insertion of the phrase in these two important Greek witnesses is the result of dittography in an earlier Greek translation, Jepsen’s proposal should be rejected.6

1 Kings 21:3 — ויאמר נבות אל־אחאב חלילה לי מיהוה מתתי את־נחלת אבתי לך

55 Sabatier, Vol 2. 589. 6 See BHS critical apparatus, 612; “d-d > G, add?”.

©C. H. Bench, 2015

7

As with the previous verses, v.3 has no Hebrew variants. The main textual issues result from disagreements between the different Greek translations of this verse. The first issue is the different Greek translations of the prepositional phrase מיהוה “from Yahweh.”7 The LXXB reads

παρὰ θεοῦ μου while the LXXL reads παρα κυριου θεου μου. The individual differences between these and the MT are clear. The MT does not indicate possession, “my God.” Both of the Greek witnesses do retain this possessive reading. The LXXL, by inserting κυριος, retains a more literal translation but appears to retain part of the other Greek translation which results in the expansive “Yahweh, my God” or “the Lord my God.” The LXXL’s insertion of κυριος is in line with the most common tendency to translate the name Yahweh with this term (over two-thousand instances) while the use of θεος to translate the name Yahweh is far less common (less than two-hundred instances). It is also worth noting that the VL, in this instance, does not agree with either Greek tradition for this phrase. It reads non fiat hoc a Deo “this is not from God” (without the possessive “my”). It seems most probable that the LXXL, as in other examples, has retained a double reading resulting from conflation of a Greek tradition that translated the name Yahweh with the term θεος to which it added the term κυριος. In other words, the difficulty in the LXXL did not result from a different Hebrew textual tradition that contained the Hebrew phrase יהוה אלהי “Yahweh my God”; rather, it resulted from a conflation between two Greek traditions that translated the name Yahweh differently. In this instance, as has been the case previously in this chapter, the LXXL is at least partially appropriating a Greek source similar to that of the LXXB (also VL) while at the same time using a more common term, κυριος, to translate the name Yahweh. Furthermore, though Field’s critical edition of the Hexapla doesn’t mention any variation for v.3, Lagarde’s edition of the SyrH does indicate that the possessive “my” was omitted and that the Greek witnesses available to Origen did not contain the term κυριος since the SyrH contains only the translation of the Greek term θεος using ܐܠܗܐ (in Lagarde’s edition, square Aram/Heb type is used to transcribe the Syriac; i.e., אלהא). 7F

8

1 Kings 21:4 — ויבא אחאב אל־ביתו סר וזעף על־הדבר אשר־דבר אליו נבות היזרעאלי ויאמר לא־אתן לך

אבותי וישכב על־מטתו ויסב את־פניו ולא־אכל לחםאת־נחלת

The main issue with the Hebrew text of v.4 is the contradiction between the verb ויסב “and he turned aside his face” and the translation in LXXB καὶ συνεκάλυψεν τὸ πρώσωπον αὐτοῦ “and he covered his face.” Generally, a variety of Greek verbs were used to translate סבב in the qal stem. However, συγκαλυπτω is never used to translate סבב in the qal. Indeed, the phrase is

7 The Greek preposition παρα was used approximately 226 times to translate the Hebrew preposition מן. This accounts for almost half of all uses of παρα in the Septuagint. It is by far the most common Greek preposition used to translate מן. 8 P. de Lagarde, Veteris testament ab Origene recensiti, Gottingae, 1880 (Gottingen, 1880), 291.

©C. H. Bench, 2015

8

awkward as it stands since there are few instances of סבב used in conjunction with the object פנה “face.” Furthermore, all instances where סבב is used with the object פנה do not convey a sense of depression, but actual movements of the face. As a result, Jepsen rightly suggested in his BHS notes that the reading ויסב “and he turned aside/away” is erroneous. Jepsen suggested the reading and the ס and he covered.” This reading likely resulted from an accidental metathesis of the“ ויכס a very common scribal error due to the graphic ,ב was mistaken for a כ after which the כsimilarity between the two letters. In this way, the initial reading ויכס was mistakenly read or transcribed and transmitted as ויסב. This is supported and indicated by the fact that both the LXXB and LXXL retain the reading συνεκάλυψεν “he covered” (from συγκαλυπτω) and that this term is always used to translate primarily two Hebrew verbs: חפש (hitpael, “to hide oneself”) and ”.and he covered“ ויכס 9 Thus, it seems obvious that the MT initially read.(”piel, “to cover) כסה

The next major textual issue is the omission of the first half of the verse in the LXXB. Field’s critical edition of Origen’s Hexapla notes that at least three major Greek witnesses (including LXXB) omit the initial part of the verse. LXXL preserves this initial part of the verse, it reads και ηλθεν Αχααβ προς οικον αυτου συγκεχυμενος και εκλελυμενος επι τω λογω δν (ω) ελαλησε προς αυτον Ναβουθαι ο Ιεζραηλιτης και ειπεν Ου δωσω σοι την κληρονομιαν των πατερων μου σοι “then Ahab went home resentful and angry about what Naboth the Jezreelite had said to him, for he said ‘I will not give you my ancestral inheritance.’” What has likely happened here is not a full omission, but a much shortened interpretation of the first half of the verse in the LXXB και εγενετο το πνευμα Αχααβ τεταραγμενον “and Ahab’s spirit was distressed.” A comparable literal phrase in the MT does not exist. Thus, it must be assumed that the LXXB utilized a shortened and more well-known phrase to help his/her readership understand the thrust of the message. However, this may only apply to his/her translation of the Hebrew word pair סר וזעף “resentful and angry.” It is highly unusual that the LXXB would omit the other parts of the verse since they contain extremely relevant information “and Ahab went to his house” and, the information telling the reader why he was resentful and angry, “because of what Naboth the Jezreelite had spoken to him, for he said ‘I will not give you my ancestral inheritance.’”

Why would the LXXB omit this information? Certainly, the shortened translation only part of the beginning of v.4 conveys the thrust of the message. However, there may be some reasons for why the translator omitted the other parts. For example, if the translator understood the geographic contradictions in 1 Kings 21, then the omission of geographic markers could be associated with an attempt to make sense of these difficulties. The beginning of v.4 contains a geographic statement that was omitted by the translator of LXXB, “then Ahab went to his house.” It appears that the LXXB, by omitting this phrase, may have been arguing that Ahab remained in Jezreel rather than returning to Samaria. This was, of course, an unnecessary omission when it is

9 T. Muraoka, A Greek-Hebrew/Aramaic Two-way Index to the Septuagint, 110.

©C. H. Bench, 2015

9

understood that Ahab had palaces in both locations, but this information was not known to the translator.

The second omission may have occurred because of its contradictions with the previous statement about what Naboth said to Ahab. Immediately before this omission in v.3, Naboth responded to Ahab’s request stating ויאמר נבות אל־אחאב חלילה לי מיהוה מתתי את־נחלת אבתי לך “then Naboth said to Ahab, ‘I would be cursed of Yahweh by giving you my ancestral inheritance to you.’” In v.4, this phrase changes slightly but conspicuously � א־אתן לך את־נחלת אבותיויאמר “and he said ‘I will not give you my ancestral inheritance.’” The first instance in v.3 is far more formulaic and theological while the latter example from v.4 is not. This discrepancy may have prompted the translator of the LXXB to omit it altogether as inaccurate and redundant.

Both of these omissions may also indicate that the translator was not wholly confident in the Hebrew source he/she was utilizing at this point. It also indicates that perhaps the long held consensus about the source divisions for 1 Kings 21 (two general sources divided at v.16) is insufficient. In v.4, it appears that even the translator of the LXXB was uncomfortable with several parts of the beginning of this verse. Intriguingly, both problems sensed by this translator are the central points of discussion for modern discussions of the source division of 1 Kings 21: the geography of the story and its theological background.

These issues raise yet another problem. As has been seen previously, the LXXL appears to be conflating two different witnesses: the MT and the LXXB. The LXXL has inserted the missing information by providing a literal translation of the MT available to him/her followed by the short translation found in the LXXB (in red below) και ηλθεν Αχααβ προς οικον αυτου συγκεχυμενος και εκλελυμενος επι τω λογω δν (ω) ελαλησε προς αυτον Ναβουθαι ο Ιεζραηλιτης και ειπεν Ου δωσω σοι την κληρονομιαν των πατερων μου σοι και εγενετο το πνευμα Αχααβ τεταραγμενον. As has been common with this chapter at least, the LXXL retains a double translation of the verse (at least in part) since LXXB’s translation of סר וזעף “resentful and angry” was και εγενετο το πνευμα Αχααβ τεταραγμενον and LXXL’s was more literal συγκεχυμενος και εκλελυμενος “resentful and angry.” The translator of LXXL didn’t realize that his/her Greek source had already translated the “sense” of the word pair and provided a literal translation while at the same time was unwilling to remove the phrase και εγενετο το πνευμα Αχααβ τεταραγμενον.

Once again, these observations have implications for how the source divisions of this chapter should be approached. In this case, the LXXB reuses this shortened phrase in v.5 when Jezebel asks Τι το πνευμα σου τεταραγμενον מה־זה רוחך סרה “Why is your spirit resentful?” As a result, it must be noted that it is possible that the contradictions between the different statements may have been smoothed out by simply translating the corresponding phrase in v.4 סר וזעף with the idiomatic phrase that was already in use in v.5 using the terms רוח סרה.

©C. H. Bench, 2015

10

Once again, this discrepancy between the witnesses indicates that there are source issues that need to be addressed in this location. It may be that the idiomatic phrase סר וזעף was a later addition based on a theme that presents Ahab as resentful and angry (1 Kgs 20:43). The other instance of this phrase occurs at the end of 1 Kings 20 and is likely a late summarizing addition. Its reappearance here, especially in light of the textual issues and the contradictions between its use in v.4 in contrast to v.5 indicate that it may be a later addition to the text. It certainly creates an editorial link between 1 Kings 20 and 21.

This raises a question about the LXXB’s translation of 1 Kgs 21:4. Is this translation due to summarizing and harmonization? Or, did the LXXB use a Hebrew source with major textual differences? In light of the fact that the MT (and LXXL) contain two difficulties, the likely late idiom סר וזעף as well as the inaccurate restatement of Naboth’s response to Ahab, it seems that the LXXB may have had a Hebrew source that did not include most of these problematic statements. A possible reconstruction of v.4 would be יכס את פניו סרה וישכב על מטתו ו והיתה רוח אחאב and Ahab’s spirit was resentful and he lay on his bed, covered his face, and would“ ולא אכל לחםnot eat food.” This reading is supported by the fact that when Jezebel speaks about Ahab’s sorry mental state, she uses the same phrases. סרה ואינך אכל לחם מה־זה רוחך “Why is your spirit resentful and why do refuse to eat food?” Jezebel’s words to her husband do not use the word pair סר וזעף. Thus, in contradiction to what I have stated above, it is possible that the LXXB preserved a shorter and more preferable reading of v.4. All of the problems surrounding the additional information in LXXL and the MT are related to the contradictions that have led modern scholars to suggest the presence of literary fractures in the text: the geographic inconsistencies, inaccurate restatements of previously given information, as well as the impetus behind Ahab’s murder of Naboth and his sons (who was responsible? Ahab, Jezebel, or both?).

As an aside, it is also important to note that the VL follows the LXXL in v.4. It reads Et turbatus est spiritus ejus, & dormivit in lecto suo, & velavit faciem suam, & non manducavit panem “and his spirit was troubled and he lay on his bed and covered his face and would not eat bread.”10 Again, in this case, the VL, which has been shown in many other cases to agree with LXXL and available texts from Qumran, instead agrees with LXXB, further supporting the possibility that the current MT has omitted, replaced and modified elements of v.4 and that the LXXB may have preserved this reading. Even if most other witnesses (LXXL, SyrH, SA, TgJon) agree with the MT in in v.4, the issues pointed out above (the lateness of the idiom סר וזעף, the insertion of the geographic marker “Ahab went to his house,” as well as the repetition of רוח סרה by Jezebel in v.5, the inaccurate repetition of the curse formula in v.3) suggest that these witnesses have preserved a later tradition in v.4. This obviously has implications for source critical hypotheses of 1 Kings 21.

1 Kings 21:5 — ותדבר אליו מה־זה רוחך סרה ואינך אכל לחם ותבא אליו איזבל אשתו

10 Sabatier, Vol 2. 589.

©C. H. Bench, 2015

11

Jepsen’s BHS notes do not mention any major textual issues for v.5. This is likely due in part to the fact that there is little information about v.5 in other critical editions of various witnesses. For example, Field’s Hexapla contains no entry for v.5, the SyrH contains no indication of major textual variation of the Greek witnesses and Sabatier’s Vetus Italica preserves no witness for this verse from the VL. However, there are several noteworthy variations between the LXXB and the LXXL.

The first issue is basic syntax variation. The LXXB preserves the introductory phrase καὶ

εἰσῆλθεν Ιεζαβελ ἡ γυνὴ αὐτοῦ πρὸς αὐτὸν while the LXXL preserves this phrase as καὶ εἰσῆλθε πρὸς αὐτὸν Ιεζαβελ ἡ γυνὴ αὐτοῦ. Perhaps this variation may indicate a certain dialect or way of speaking in different historical periods. However, the variation has little effect on the meaning.

The next variation in is the use of the verb ἐλάλησεν “she spoke” in the LXXB while LXXL preserves the verb ειπε “she said.” This is not really a problem since both verbs are commonly used to translate the Hebrew verbs אמר (qal) and דבר (piel). The variation, as a result, is not due to a variant Hebrew source between the two witnesses; rather, the difference is a result of translation preference. At best, it may indicate the geographic or temporal distance between the two translations. That is, the difference could be due to a Greek dialect that prefers to translate the text in a certain way because of the Greek dialect in his/her region; or, it may indicate a preference to translate the text a certain way because it was common to do so during a certain historical period (or a combination of both).

The next difference between the LXXL and the LXXB is in their translation of the phrase why is your spirit resentful?” The LXXB reads Τί τὸ πνεῦμά σου τεταραγμένον“ מה־זה רוחך סרהwhile the LXXL reads Τι το πνευμα τεταρακται. The difference between the two is due to different opinions about the grammatical form of the Hebrew term סרה. The LXXL translated it as a feminine third-person singular verb “(why is) it (f.) resentful?” (e.g., τεταρακται). While the LXXB translated it as a feminine singular participle (e.g., τεταραγμένον).

1 Kings 21:6 — וידבר אליה כי־אדבר אל־נבות היזרעאלי ואמר לו תנה־לי את־כרמך בכסף או אם־חפץ

אתה אתנה־לך כרם תחתיו ויאמר לא־אתן לך את־כרמי

There are several significant problems with v.6. Many of them are directly related to the fact that v.6 is repeating information already given in v.3 with some significant variations. As regards the witnesses of this text, there are several basic issues. First, where the MT reads או Jepsen notes that the SyrH retains the reading ܢܘܐ “and if” this reading also agrees with SA. The LXXB and the LXXL preserve the reading ει δε (μη), the most common translation for the Hebrew conditional ואם. The Greek ει δε is never used to translate the Hebrew conjunction או “or.” Thus, it seems best to accept the various witnesses and explain the MT’s inclusion of the conjunction או as a scribal error. This may have occurred for several reasons. First, as has already been stated, v.6 repeats the information given in v.2. Some of the other peculiarities in v.6

©C. H. Bench, 2015

12

suggest that a later hand may have tried to bring the two verses into some sort of conformity with one another. It seems most probable that v.6 was trying to make sense of the information in v.2 and expanded it and clarified it. Thus, the insertion of the conjunction או could have resulted from a later scribes attempt to clarify the information in v.3. Another possibility is that, for some reason, the conjunction ו “and” was expanded to או. This is supported by the ways that the different witnesses translate אם “if” in both v.2 and v.6. In vv.2 and 6, both the LXXB and the LXXL translate אם the same way they translate ואם in v.6. Thus, whether the conjunction ו “and” is present or not, the same idiomatic Greek translation is used (see 2 Sam 17:6; Job 6:5-6; 9:24; 13:10; 31:5, 19, etc.) to translate both אם “if” and ואם “and if.” Furthermore, the SyrH supports this reading because it explicitly preserves both instances in v.2 and v.6. with and without the conjunction. Showing, in agreement with Jepsen’s BHS notes, that the Hebrew text initially read .או אם and not ואם

The next issue, similar to that of v.2, is the problem of the different Greek witnesses’ translation of the Hebrew preposition תחתיו “in its place.” In this instance, however, the problem is reversed in relation to v.2. The LXXL of v.2 preserved the reading αντ’ αυτου αμπελωνα αλλον while the LXXB read αμπελωνα αλλον. In v.6, the LXXB preserves the reading αμπελωνα αλλον αντ’ αυτου while the LXXL reads only αμπελωνα αντ’ αυτου. In none of these cases does the MT contain the term אחר, most commonly translated with the Greek adjective αλλος “other/another.” It seems best, as a result, to see these issues as resulting from the admixture of different Greek translations that attempted to convey the sense of the prepositional phrase תחתיו using αλλος with the more literal and common translation of this phrase αντ’ αυτου. The main thing to notice with v.6 is that the LXXL, in contrast to its reading in v.2, retains a very strict reading that does not use the uncommon αλλος, but instead, simply αμπελωνα αντ’ αυτου. The SyrH also indicates that αλλος (translated as ܚܪܢܐܐ should be removed from the Greek (אחרנא/witnesses.

The next phrase that v.6 repeats from v.2 also raises some questions about the MT. V.6 repeats some of the information in v.2 but with some changes. V. 6 reads אתנה־לך כרם תחתיו “I will give you a vineyard in its place” while v. 2 reads ואתנה לך תחתיו כרם טוב ממנו “I will give you a better vineyard in its place.” The SA as well as some manuscripts of the Vulgate (including Sabatier’s Vetus Italica and its Vulgata Nova reading for 1 Kgs 21:6) preserve a reading that brings v.6 into conformity with v.2. The SA reads ܡܢܗ ܛܒܖ ܚܠܦܘܗܝ ܟܪܡܐ ܠܟ ܐܬܠ ܐܢܬ “I will give you a vineyard in its place that is better than it.” The Vulgate (as found in Sabatier’s Vetus Italica) reads dabo tibi vineam meliorem pro ea “I will give you a better vineyard for it.” It seems most probable that these variant readings, since they have no basis on any other authoritative witness, are simply indications that some versions attempted to bring v.6 into conformity with v.2 by inserting a translation of the phrase טוב ממנו exactly as it appeared in v.2, the verse being repeated in v.6.

©C. H. Bench, 2015

13

The next major issue with v.6 deals with the variation between the term כרם and נחלה at the end of the verse. The MT, the Vulgate, SA, and TgJon all agree that the reading should be א־� ,I will not give you my vineyard.” However, all extant Greek witnesses preserve“ אתן לך את־כרמיin one form or another, a reading closer to v.3 Οὐ δώσω σοι κληρονομίαν πατέρων μου “I will not give you my ancestral inheritance.” Naturally, the SyrH also preserves this reading in agreement with all of the Greek witnesses. It is highly unlikely that the Greek witnesses have preserved a reading from a Hebrew source different from the MT. Rather, it seems most probable that the Greek witnesses have harmonized this phrase in v.6 with its counterpart in v.3. It is certainly one of the literary features of this text that when Ahab speaks of the plot of ground, he calls it a vineyard; when Naboth speaks of the plot of ground, he refers to it as his “ancestral inheritance.”10F

11 However, this peculiarity may not have been lost on the translators. For example, when Ahab is directly quoting Naboth in v.4 (missing from LXXB), the plot is referred to as Naboth’s “ancestral inheritance.” Even though Ahab was speaking, he was reporting Naboth’s words. Once the matter is repeated once again to Jezbel, the MT refers to Naboth’s plot of ground, though spoken by Ahab, as a “vineyard.” It may be possible that the translators of the Greek tradition harmonized this phrase in v.6 to be consistent with the contrast in vocabulary between Naboth and Ahab (as found in v.3 and 4) by correcting Ahab’s report with by changing the phrase from “He said ‘I will not give you my vineyard’” to “He said ‘I will not give you my ancestral inheritance.’”

Either way, the issues in v.6, as with the previous verses, indicate that there are contradictions or fractures in the text that are highlighted by the various ways that different textual witnesses attempted to deal with the textual inconsistencies. The contradictions in vocabulary, for example here in v.6 between “ancestral inheritance” and “vineyard,” likely indicate that the text has been produced and reproduced over time resulting in shifts in the ideology and vocabulary of this chapter as it was used and reused by different communities of readers over time.

1 Kings 21:7 — ותאמר אליו איזבל אשתו אתה עתה תעשה מלוכה על־ישראל קום אכל־לחם ויטב לבך

אני אתן לך את־כרם נבות היזרעאלי

As with v.5, there is little information given in Jepsen’s BHS notes for v.7. Jepsen noted that the LXX* translates the phrase התה עתא “Now, you…” with Σὺ νῦν οὕτως “Thus, now you …” Though the LXX inserts the conjunction οὕτως, this term is never used to translate the Hebrew term 12.עתה The SyrH which translates οὕτως as ܐܗܟܢ “thus” (הכנא in Lagarde’s edition) also indicates that the term was not found in his Hebrew source and that it should be removed from the his Greek collation.

11 A. Rofe, “The Vineyard of Naboth,” 12 T. Muraoka, A Greek-Hebrew/Aramaic Two-way Index to the Septuagint, 88.

©C. H. Bench, 2015

14

The next issue is the variation between the terms βασιλέα (m. s. acc. “king”) in the LXXB and βασιλειαν (f. s. acc. “kingdom”) in the LXXL. On the one hand, the LXXB, the SA, and partly, the Vulgate, agree that the reading should be “king.” On the other hand, the MT, the LXXL, TgJon, and the SyrH (in this instance, in agreement with LXXL) argue that the reading should be “kingdom.” In the MT, this is the only verse that preserves this difficult form that literally translates as “do you make/do the kingdom over Israel.” Its difficulty, however, should not deter one’s opinions about its originality. This difficulty could in fact be a plausible reason for changing the term “kingdom” to “king” in order to make sense of this phrase. Furthermore, there is a similar phrase in Akkadian that conveys a similar meaning, šarrūta epēšu meaning “to rule as king” or “to exercise kingship.”13 Thus, it seems that the LXXB and the SA contain readings that have attempted to make sense of the older and more difficult reading preserved in the MT, the LXXL, TgJon, and the SyrH (אתה עתה תעשה מלוכה על־ישראל “Do you now exercise

kingship over Israel?”).

1 Kings 21:8 — תכתב ספרים בשם אחאב ותחתם בחתמו ותשלח הספרים אל־הזקנים ואל־החרים אשר ו

בעירו הישבים את־נבות׃

1 Kings 21:8 is the first verse in this chapter for which there is a variant reading suggested in the Qere (also in de Rossi’s list of variants). The MT preserves the reading הספרים while the Qere argues that it should be read ספרים, without the definite article ה. There are further issues with both of these readings. The LXXB, the LXXL, the SyrH, the SA, the VL, and TgJon (in the first instance) all agree that both instances of the plural ספרים should be read as a singular The only readings that support the plural reading in the MT are the Vulgate and the second .ספרinstance of the term in TgJon which reads אגרן (with one variant אגרין). Since the LXXB of v.9, as will be discussed, preserves the next instance of the term as a plural (ספרים), there are several questions to be explored about the source divisions between v.8 and v.9.

The next textual issue in v.8 is the omission of any translation for the phrase אשר בעירו “who were in his city” in LXXB and LXXL. The LXXA (Codex Alexandrinus), the SyrH, SA, Arm (Armenian version of Zohrab), and TgJon all agree with the MT by preserving this phrase while the LXXB, LXXL, and the VL omit it.14 Because this phrase interrupts the text, especially the noun/adjective agreement between אל־הזקנים ואל־החרים “to the elders and to the nobles” and those dwelling,” it seems that the LXXB, LXXL, and the VL have preserved an older“ הישביםreading of this phrase. It could be argued that the insertion of אשר בעירו was the result of a scribal error. As Jepsen points out, the SA preserves a more syntactically probable reading ܖܝܬܒܝܢ ܒܩܪܝܬܐ “who were living in his city.” This reading reverses the wording in the MT and makes much more sense. However, the weighty omission from the LXXB, LXXL, and the VL provides good

13 See HALOT, 587-588; see also CAD, Shin, vol 2, 118, 120. 14 In this phrase, both Aquila and Theodotion omit the preposition προς.

©C. H. Bench, 2015

15

evidence that the reading was initially אל־הזקנים ואל־החרים אשר הישבים את־נבות “to the elders and the nobles living with Naboth.”

There is great geographical tension in this chapter. The insertion of the prepositional phrase בעירו, as with other geographical markers, argues that a certain version of this story is more authoritative than another or that a later scribe felt it necessary to insert the phrase to argue the same. The phrase “in his city” assumes that “his city” (Naboth’s city) was Jezreel. Thus, even though the material narrating Jezebel’s arranged execution of Naboth is much later than the initial versions of the story, this additional material agrees with the tradition that the fulfillment of Elijah’s oracle against Ahab (and his house) would take place in Jezreel. This same tradition is associated with the theme of delayed oracle fulfillment found elsewhere in the Books of Kings, but especially at the end of 1 Kings 21 where Ahab’s punishment is deflected and delayed for a future time when it will be carried out against one of his heirs (and eventually Jezebel) in Jezreel (2 Kings 9). In the end, the insertion of בעירו attempts to clarify this in contrast to other traditions that argue that Ahab’s punishment was not delayed and that the oracle’s fulfillment was carried out when Ahab was wounded in battle and his blood was lapped up by dogs in Samaria.

1 Kings 21:9 — ותכתב בספרים לאמר קראו־צום והושיבו את־נבות בראש העם

There are no critical notes for v.9 in the BHS apparatus. However, there is a major textual issue related to v.8 that must be addressed. As with v.8, several important witnesses support the singular reading בספר instead of בספרים. The LXXL, VL, SA, TgJon, and Arm (and possibly

SyrH) all agree with the reading 15.בספר The LXXB, though it supports the singular reading

”.in the letters“ (בספרים) in v.8, agrees with the MT in v.9 with the reading ἐν τοῖς βιβλίοις ספרThe oscillation between the two forms indicates different perspectives about communication with city elites in different historical periods. If the reading is singular, then a single letter was sent to a council of elders. If the reading is plural, it seems that several letters were sent to individual communal leaders (not a single group of leaders). This is important information for establishing a date for the earlier reading (the reading that preserves the term ספר in the singular). The contradiction is due to different diachronic perspectives about how one is to address city leadership. Are they to be addressed separately by sending multiple letters to different important leaders? Are they to be addressed singularly by sending a single letter to a council? With the exception of Lachish 5 and 6 and one letter from Elephantine (A4.2, Cowley 37; “Report of Conflict and Request for Assistance”), all references to the term “letter” (מכתב, are found in the singular form. Furthermore, the few instances that (אגרא , אגרה ,ספרה ,ספר ,כתב

15 Lagarde’s edition of the SyrH doesn’t preserve plural markers. Since the form of the term כתבא is the same for both singular and plural, the only way to know if the noun was meant to be read as a plural is by the use of the double dot over the end of the word indicating the plural reading. Lagarde’s edition does not preserve such markers from his manuscript.

©C. H. Bench, 2015

16

use the plural “letters” do so in reference to a sequence of letters to a single person. In several important cases from Elephantine, the papyri describe the writing of a single letter to multiple people in one location (Porten, A4.2; A4.7; A4.8; A6.13), as is implied in most of the witnesses of 1 Kgs 21:9. Some letters, for example Ezra 5:16-17, present the reverse of the same type of letter, i.e., a group of elites sending a single letter to a superior.16 The only examples of Hebrew letters from superiors to servants or groups of officials are found in the Bible itself (2 Sam 11:15; 2 Kgs 5:6 [king to king]; 2 Kgs 10:2-3; 2 Kgs 10:6; 2 Chr 2:10-15 [Hiram to Solomon]; 2 Chr 21:12-15). All of these examples, except for the example at hand in 1 Kgs 21:8-9, employ singular terms for “letter” (see Hebrew examples in the above list). With this in mind, it seems likely that the reading ספרים is either out of touch with epistolary norms from the monarchic

period or the term ספרים “letters” is meant to narrate a series of letters sent from Jezebel to a group of elites in Naboth’s city. The latter, however, seems improbable based on the description. Jezebel is distinctly described as having sent ספרים “letters” in one single instance, not as a series of instances (as was the case with some of the examples from Elephantine and elsewhere). The other possibility is that ספרים refers to two separate letters sent to the two different elite groups mentioned, the elders and the free-men (nobles). Yet, even then, there is much epistolary evidence against such a reading since there are examples of descriptions (esp. Elephantine) of multiple letters being sent to different groups but all continue to use the term “letter” in the singular (see especially Porten, A4.7; A4.8, A6.13). Of course, there is no way to tell for certain, but the evidence weighs heavily, both in the Hebrew Bible and without, in agreement with the singular reading “letter” as preserved in LXXL, VL, SA, TgJon, and Arm. One other caution must be raised. If the shift from singular “letter” to plural “letters” in v.8 and v.9 as preserved in the LXXB is based on a variant Hebrew textual tradition that preserved the same, then it is evidence for a source seam in the story of Jezebel’s arrangement for Naboth’s execution. Though this is uncertain and difficult to verify, it is worth mentioning since it challenges the current consensus about past source critical analyses of 1 Kings 21.

1 Kings 21:10 — והושיבו שנים אנשים בני־בליעל נגדו ויעדהו לאמר ברכת א�הים ומלך והוציאהו וסקלהו

וימת

There are very few major issues with v.10. The most prominent issue is the disagreement in the conjugation of the verb ברכת “you blessed (cursed).” The issue is more nuanced among the various witnesses. For example, the LXXB agrees with the MT, reading ηυλογηκας “you blessed (cursed).” The LXXL, SA, and the VL preserve the reading “he (Naboth) cursed” (third-person singular). The question is one of form. In standard Hebrew and Aramaic epistolary formulae, are there examples of giving instructions, as Jezebel did, in the first-person singular

16 For a discussion of different letter types and the relations between the senders, see Pardee, ?.

©C. H. Bench, 2015

17

(i.e., “and have them testify, saying you cursed God and the King”) or in third-person singular (i.e., “and have them testify, saying he (Naboth) cursed God and the King”)? [finish]

Another issue with the above reading is that the variant readings likely indicate legal practices from different historical periods. For example, when bringing an accusation against someone, are the accusers to address the accused directly (“you did…”) or are they to address a tribunal (“he did…”). Determining how this narrative compares and contrasts to the the legal practices and norms in Monarchic period Israel/Judah versus later periods will help to determine how Jezebel’s instructions reflect legal practices from different periods in Judahite history.

Among the various textual witnesses, especially the Greek witnesses, there are some serious differences. For example, the LXXB omits most of v.10 as well as vv.11-13a reading only “and sit two men, scoundrels. And they sat opposite him…” This did not occur in the transmission of the Hebrew text, but rather, in the transmission of the Greek text of LXXB. The omission is due to parablepsis or homoioteleuton. This occurred when the scribe transmitting the text read transcribed the phrase καὶ ἐγκαθίσατε δύο ἄνδρας υἱοὺς παρανόμων looked back to the manuscript for the next phrase and erroneously saw the next instance of an almost identical phrase in v.13, δύο ἄνδρες υἱοὶ παρανόμων. At that point, the scribe began copying the text following the second instance of the phrase and accidentally omitted the verses between the two phrases (v.10b-13a; see below; the parablepsis is underlined, the omitted text is found between the two).

10 καὶ ἐγκαθίσατε δύο ἄνδρας υἱοὺς παρανόμων ἐξ ἐναντίας αὐτοῦ, καὶ καταμαρτυρησάτωσαν αὐτοῦ λέγοντες Ηὐλόγησεν θεὸν καὶ βασιλέα, καὶ ἐξαγαγέτωσαν αὐτὸν καὶ λιθοβολησάτωσαν αὐτόν, καὶ ἀποθανέτω. 11 καὶ ἐποίησαν οἱ ἄνδρες τῆς πόλεως αὐτοῦ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι καὶ οἱ ἐλεύθεροι οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐν τῇ πόλει αὐτοῦ καθὰ ἀπέστειλεν πρὸς αὐτοὺς Ιεζαβελ, καθὰ γέγραπται ἐν τοῖς βιβλίοις, οἷς ἀπέστειλεν πρὸς αὐτούς. 12 ἐκάλεσαν νηστείαν καὶ ἐκάθισαν τὸν Ναβουθαι ἐν ἀρχῇ τοῦ λαοῦ, 13 καὶ ἦλθον δύο ἄνδρες υἱοὶ παρανόμων καὶ ἐκάθισαν ἐξ ἐναντίας αὐτοῦ καὶ κατεμαρτύρησαν αὐτοῦ λέγοντες Ηὐλόγηκας θεὸν καὶ βασιλέα, καὶ ἐξήγαγον αὐτὸν ἔξω τῆς πόλεως καὶ ἐλιθοβόλησαν αὐτὸν λίθοις, καὶ ἀπέθανεν.

Among the other witnesses of v.10, there are only a few basic issues to note for the material that was omitted in LXXB. For example, there is disagreement as regards the person (3rd vs 1st person) of the verbs ηυλογησεν (3ps; see also ηυλογηκεν)/ευλογησας (2nd person sg.; see also the perfect form, ευλογηκας found in some various minuscules). Along with this issue, certain Lucianic manuscripts (LXXL) include the subject of the third-person, Naboth (Ναβουθαι). The next disagreement of verbal number is with the verbs εξαγαγετε (“you lead out” or “lead out”2nd person pl.)/εξαγαγετωσαν (“they led out” 3rd person pl.). One thing is certain for v.10, there is a lot of disagreement about the way that Jezebel’s instructions to the elders and elites of Naboth’s city are perceived among the Greek witnesses and their derivatives. As can be seen in the final discrepancy in verb number, λιθοβοληστωσαν αυτον/λιθοβολησατε (LXXL), the LXXL, prefers the 2nd person plural reading “you (all) <verb>. This tendency is in line with the MT since the 2nd person plural Greek form is often identical with the imperative form and the imperative form is ubiquitous in v.10 in the MT. Furthermore, TgJon, VL, SA all agree with the MT in this

©C. H. Bench, 2015

18

instance while the SyrH, and various other minuscules (AN, Arm, Eth) preserve the readings in third person plural (“they”).

1 Kings 21:11 — ויעשו אנשי עירו הזקנים והחרים אשר הישבים בעירו כאשר שלחה אליהם איזבל כאשר

כתוב בספרים אשר שלחה אליהם

There are no Hebrew variants for v.11 but there are some important textual issues that need to be addressed because of their impact on how one is to delineate the sources behind this chapter. The first issue is the problematic repetition of the phrases עירו “his city” and בעירו “in his city.” As was argued in the analysis of v.8, the omission of this phrase in the major witnesses of v.8 raises questions about its function in 1 Kings 21. The problem is that it appears that the construction ים בעירוהזקנים והחרים אשר הישב is both based on and meant to clarify the almost identical (but problematic) phrase in v.8. The result is that the thrust of v.8 was not carried into this secondary construction. The initial intention of the phrase in v.8 (as supported by the omission of בעירו in v.8) was that the elders and the elites were “with Naboth.” The phrase בעירו was only secondarily added due to the arguments about where Elijah’s oracles were supposed to take place. There are several geographic markers similar to this one in 1 Kings 21, but especially in this instance (with its omission in LXXB, LXXL, and the VL) the phrase בעירו is most probably secondary to the phrase אל־הזקנים ואל־החרים אשר הישבים את־נבות “…to the elders and the elites

dwelling with Naboth” (v.8* with the omission of בעירו). Thus, it appears that the repetition of this phrase in v.11 is very different from its predecessor in v.8 since it omits the phrase “with Naboth” and thus loses the initial intention focusing rather on the location, “in his city” בעירו. The shift likely took place when the difficulties of the text were being smoothed out. The addition of בעירו to v.8 attempted to clarify the location but as a result confused the emphasis of the phrase itself. Is it to be read “…who were dwelling with Naboth in his city” or “…who were dwelling in his city, with Naboth”? Though the difference is minor, its affect constitutes a major difference in perspective, especially in one’s analysis of v.11 since it opts for the latter reading and omits “with Naboth” altogether. To make matters even more difficult, the fact that LXXB and LXXL omit the phrase in v.8 while retaining it in v.11 is puzzling. However, the strong evidence that v.8 is the basis of the same phrase in v.11 raises serious questions about the reading preserved in the MT of v.11.

Another issue with a similar phrase must also be addressed. Verse 11 begins ויעשו אנשי

then the men of his city, the elders and the elites, …” This phrase is“ עירו הזקנים והחריםproblematic for several reasons. First, the phrase אנשי העיר is usually used to refer to two different types of people in the Hebrew Bible. In narratives about sin, conflict, and war, the phrase אנשי העיר usually carries a negative connotation. In the story of Lot and similarly the narrative of the Levite and his concubine in Jdg 19, the אנשי העיר “men of the city” are the evil perpetrators attempting to rape visitors under the hospitable care of one of their citizens. The

©C. H. Bench, 2015

19

narrative of Dinah’s rape and Hamor and Shechem’s proposal to their city uses the phrase אנשי to refer to the city’s male citizens or perhaps male elites and administrators (see also Jdg העיר6:28-30). In the story of Samson, אנשי העיר “the men of the city” are the Philistine leaders trying to overcome Samson’s strength and his riddling (Jdg 14:18). In the conquest narratives, אנשי העיר “the men of the city” were the citizens of the cities about to fall before Joshua and the Israelite forces (Jos 8:14. Second, this phrase אנשי העיר “the men of the city” is a legal term. In Dt 21:20-21 and 22:15-21, the construct phrase אנשי העיר is closely associated with “the elders of the town” who officiate in legal cases at the city gate. Both instances are very clear. The case is presented to the elders at the city gate, the elders make a judicial decision about the matter, and then the אנשי העיר “the men of the city” carry out the execution of the guilty party if an execution is in order. Thus, it is possible that, in this legal sense, the phrase אנשי העיר “the men of the city” refers to the executioners of the city’s judicial orders. This is supported by a similar construction in Jdg 8:16-17 (the narrative of Gideon’s attack on Succoth). First, Gideon kills the elders of the city. Second, he killed “the men of Succoth.” Gideon then broke down the tower of Penuel and killed “the men of the city.” In Jdg 8:16, the elders and the “men of Succoth” are the object of Gideon’s attack. In Jdg 8:17, “the men of the city” appear to be associated with “the tower of Penuel,” an indication of their military and/or law-keeping role in the city.

Though it is tempting to associate “the men of the city” mentioned in 1 Kgs 21:11 with the negative examples associated with narratives about Shechem, Sodom, Joshua’s conquered cities, and the Levite in Gibeon, the fact that this phrase אנשי עירו “the men of his city”

immediately precedes the term הזקנים “the elders” indicates that its use in 1 Kings 21 is deuteronomistic and closely associated with ideas about judicial practice as described in Dt 21-22. However, this does not resolve the problem altogether because the use of the phrase אנשי עירו “people of his city” in v.11 does not wholly agree with the way that this phrase is used in the DtrH. As it stands in v.11, the MT should be translated as follows: “Then the men of the city, the elders and the elites, did …” Rather than seeing the phrase אנשי עירו “the men of the city” as those who carry out the verdicts of the elders at the city gate, this instance of this phrase in v.11 argues that “the elders and the elites” are “the men of the city.” It is most probable, based on this erroneous equation between different groups of city functionaries, that this phrase אנשי עירו “the men of his city” is a secondary addition meant to bring this verse up to date with current practices or perhaps even to update the text according to the scribe’s incomplete understanding of older judicial practices. Further support for this is found in the omission of this phrase in the previous instance of the phrase in v.8 when the terms “the elders” and “the elites” first appear. It may be possible to argue that the beginning of v.11 could be translated “Then the men of his city, the elders, and the elites did…” However, as mentioned above, v.8 (which describes to whom Jezebel sent letters) doesn’t mention “the men of the city” as addressees of Jezebel’s epistle; only the elders and the elites are mentioned there. Also, the fact that the removal of the phrase אנשי

©C. H. Bench, 2015

20

does not impinge on the subject verb agreement indicates that the verse remains cohesive עירוwithout it. There is one other possibility that is raise by the reading in the LXXL. Instead of reading οι ανδρες της πολεως αυτου “the men of his city” (in agreement with MT), LXXL reads οι ανδρες της πολεως “the men of the city.” This means that it is possible that the possessive construct noun phrase אנשי עירו “the men of his city” could instead be read אנשי עיר והזקנים

ו the men of the city, and the elders, and the elites.” In other words, the possessive suffix“ והחרים“his” may have initially been the conjunction ו “and.” The problem with this proposal is that the LXXL doesn’t preserve the reading “and the elders.” Rather, it reads much like the MT “Then the men of the city, the elders and the elites, did…” Furthermore, the removal of the possessive also removes the definiteness of the noun resulting in the reading “the men of a city” since there is no precedence for the insertion of the definite article ה. In the end, it appears that all witnesses that preserve this problematic reading support the anachronistic equation of “the men of the city” with “the elders” and “the elites.” Even the omission of the possessive in the LXXL is problematic since it, as just stated, it inserts the definite article της when it is clear that the MT does not preserve the article (עירו is definite because of the possessive pronoun). It seems best to omit the phrase altogether as was the case in v.8 which only mentions the elders and the elites. The addition of the phrase likely occurred in a time when the distinction between “the men of the city” and “the elders” was no longer made or no longer understood.

The most pressing textual issue with v.11 is the repetition of the two clauses beginning with כאשר “just as…” When it is realized that there are many examples of Aramaic and Hebrew letters that do not mention the letter’s genre type (מכתב, כתב ,but rather (אגרא ,אגרה ,ספרה ,ספר ,many letters simply refer to what has been “sent,” then the peculiarity of these two כאשר clauses becomes very clear. The first, כאשר שלחה אליהם איזבל “just as Jezebel had sent to them” is very much in line with actual epistolary formulae that refer to the letter not with a genre type, but on as “that which has been sent” (though examples of both are found). The second כאשר clause ( שלחה אליהםכאשר כתוב בספרים אשר ) is secondary based on at least two pieces of evidence. First, it uses the late and uncommon plural form ספרים discussed above in the analysis of vv.8-9. Second, this כאשר clause is repeating the information from the first in order to clarify the first כאשר clause. Finally, this claim is further supported by the omission of the final clause ( כאשר כתוב ,.in the LXXL (and various other important minuscule manuscripts; e.g (בספרים אשר שלחה אליהםdghi and Eth).17 This observation further supports the previous claims that the form ספרים is secondary to this story as discussed in the analyses of vv.8-9 and must be considered in any source critical conclusions for 1 Kings 21.

For the Greek text of v.11, as mentioned in the analysis of v.10, all of v.11 is omitted in LXXB due to the parablepsis/Homoioteleuton between the two instances of the phrase δύο

17 See Brooke and McClean, The Old Testament in Greek, Vol. <on Kings>, 286, n.11; BHS, 613, n.11 a-a > GL.

©C. H. Bench, 2015

21

ἄνδρες υἱοὶ παρανόμων in v.10 and v.13. The Greek text as preserved in AN and supported by the translations in Arm, Eth, and SyrH is as follows:

Και εποιησαν οι ανδρες της πολεως αυτου οι πρεσβυτεροι και οι ελευθεροι οι κατοικουντες εν τη πολει αυτου καθα απεστειλεν προς αυτους ιεζαβελ καθα γεγραπται εν τοις βιβλιοις οις απεστειλεν προς αυτους.

The main issue with this verse has already been addressed. However, it is important to note that the omission of the last clause of this verse appears to support the claims and observations in the analysis of vv.8-9 that there may be a different Hebrew source or perhaps simply an older one, which preserves the narrative of Jezebel’s communications using the singular “letter” versus the plural “letters.” It is telling that this expansive phrase καθα γεγραπται εν τοις βιβλιοις οις απεστειλεν προς αυτους is omitted in LXXL contains the plural “letters” while clarifying the previous clause. This is strong evidence that the claims above, that the readings that preserve the plural “letters” is secondary, are supported by the Lucianic recension of the LXX.

1 Kings 21:12 — קראו צום והשיבו את־נבות בראש העם

This verse simply reports the fulfillment of Jezebel’s instructions in v.9b. The only difference between the two is the shift from the imperative form in v.9 to the third-person plural form in v.12. There are also some basic differences between the LXXB and the LXXL. For example, the LXXL translates the third-person plural קראו as εντειλαντο “they called.” Most

other Greek witnesses that preserve this verse translate קראו as εκαλεσαν (LXXA reads εκαλεσε).

1 Kings 21:13 — ויבאו שני האנשים בני־בליעל וישבו נגדו ויעדהו אנשי הבליעל את־נבות נגד העם לאמר

ברך נבות א�הים ומלך ויצאהו מחוץ לעיר ויסקלהו באבנים וימת

Verse 13 contains several instances of repeated text from previous verses. This, along with some consistent agreements among the witnesses, shows that the MT of v.13 has some major textual issues. The first problem is found in the first phrase of v.13, או שני האנשים בני־ ויב

then the two men, scoundrels, came in and sat opposite him.” The first instance“ בליעל וישבו נגדוof this phrase was in v.10 which has some major differences with its iteration in v.13. The form of the phrase in v.10 is שים בני־בליעל נגדווהושיבו שנים אנ “seat two men, scoundrels, opposite him.” As with other cases, the difference between the two examples is one of perspective and of following legal norms. In v.10, Jezebel appears to describe the process of bringing charges against Naboth. Those she addresses are described in terms that indicate their control over court proceedings. They are to seat the accusers opposite Naboth. In contrast, v.13 allows much more agency to act in the hands of the accusers; they bring themselves in and sit themselves opposite

©C. H. Bench, 2015

22

Naboth.18 Another issue with this phrase is the use of a different verb, ויבאו, as well as the

oscillation between the numeral שני and שנים. The introduction of the verb ויבאו expands the meaning and scope of the previous instance of this phrase, but all of the witnesses agree with the MT in this instance. If there is something to be said about its use here, it cannot be supported by textual critical observation, but only by source critical analysis. As a result, it is only to be noted here for future reference.

There is a fair amount of oscillation between the use of שני and שנים in the HB. Generally speaking, the cardinal number “two” functions as a noun and the form שנים can be used before or after another noun without changing form.19 Another common feature of the masculine form of the number שנים is that it can also appear in the construct form שני when it precedes another noun, though this is not always the case. Most importantly for this analysis of v.13, it seems most common that the construct form שני is used when the following now is definite (this includes all forms of definiteness: the definite article, possessive pronouns, and construct chains). Thus, the oscillation between שני and שנים in vv.10 and 13 is best explained by the above observation since, in the first instance, the plural noun is not definite in any way; it is simply שנים אנשים “two men.” The example in v.13, however, is definite and, following common usage, shortens to the construct form שני האנשים.

The first major problem with the textual witnesses of v.13 deals with the phrase ויעדהו then the scoundrels testified against Naboth opposite the“ אנשי הבליעל את־נבות נגד העם לאמרpeople saying…” The LXX* completely omits the phrase אנשי הבליעל את־נבות נגד העם reading και κατεμαρτυρησαν αυτου λεγοντες. The reading preserved in the LXX* is clearly the preferred reading for the following reasons. First, the form of the phrase אנשי הבליעל is different from the form that has been seen thus far: בני־בליעל. Second, the phrase interrupts the form of the phrase as it was introduced in v.10. In v.10, the form is והושיבו שנים אנשים בני־בליעל נגדו ויעדהו לאמר, while in v.13 the last two verbs, ויעדהו and לאמר are interrupted with the problematic insertion אנשי הבליעל The omission of this problematic phrase in the major witnesses indicates its .את־נבות נגד העםsecondary nature. As far as I can tell, there is no evidence of scribal error to explain the accidental insertion of the phrase as it now stands. As a result, it is likely an insertion meant to explain who the subjects and objects of the verbs are. The problem with the insertion is that it confuses two key forms already seen in the chapter. The first is the phrase בני־בליעל which, in the inserted text becomes אנשי הבליעל. The form “man/men of beli’al” occurs in 1 Sam 25:25 ( אישעל על) 30:22 ,(הבלי ע ובלי יש הבליעל) Sam 16:7 2 ,(כל־איש־ר ים וא יש הדמ על) 20:1 ,(א יש בלי Prov 6:12 ,(א� עקשות פה) ון הול יש א ליעל א ם ב בת) and 16:27 ,(אד ש צר תיו כא פ ה ועל־ ש ה רע ליעל כר יש ב The only .(אtime this form appears with the plural אנשי הבליעל is in the verse under analysis, 1 Kgs 21:13. All other instances (6 out of 12 instances) use the dtr form of the phrase as found in Dt 13:14 [13]:

18 See Dt 17:6 – law of witnesses, uses shnym; 19:15-21 – law of witnesses, uses shney; 19:17 – how to administer court proceedings 19 H. J. van der Merwe, et al. A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar, 266-267.

©C. H. Bench, 2015

23

ה א� ה ונעבד ר נלכ ם לאמ י עיר יחו את־ישב � ויד ים בני־בליעל מקרב ר �א־ידעתם׃יצאו אנש ים אש ים אחר ה “that scoundrels from among you have gone out and led the inhabitants of the town astray, saying, ‘Let us go and worship other gods,’ whom you have not known” (NRSV).20

The second problem in v.13 is the phrase ־נבות נגד העםאת “<verb> Naboth opposite the people.” In all other instances of “the people” and Naboth’s position in relation to them, this phrase reads את־נבות בראש העם “<verb> Naboth before the people” (v.9 and v.12). The phrase as it stands in v.13 restates the preposition בראש using נגד apparently confusing the formulaic language of the court proceedings as instructed by Jezebel and carried out by the elders and elites. The scoundrels were to be opposite נגד Naboth, not the people; Naboth was to be at the “head” of the people בראש, not opposite נגד them.

For various reasons, not the least the omission of this phrase in most major textual witnesses, the phrase אנשי הבליעל את־נבות נגד העם should be seen as a late insertion in the text. The phrase is not a scribal error, but an attempt to clarify who was doing what in the verse. The insertion conflates and confuses two different formulaic constructions found both in 1 Kgs 21 and elsewhere in the HB ( ים בני־בליעל ,In his BHS notes for v.13 .(את־נבות בראש העם and אנשJepsen argues that only the phrase הבליעל את־נבות אנשי should probably be “deleted” indicating that he was unsure about the final part of the phrase 20.נגד העםF

21 However, the evidence above shows that the whole phrase is secondary.

The next textual issue is the verb person/number disagreement in the phrase נבות ברך Naboth cursed God and king” as compared to LXXB and LXXL ηυλογηκας θεον και“ א�הים ומלךβασιλεα “you cursed God and king.” TgJon, SA, SyrH, various Greek minuscule (x, Nefhjmnp-uwzc2), LXXA, and Arm all agree with the MT reading “he (Naboth) cursed God and king.” In the previous instance of this phrase in v.10, the MT preserves the first person singular “you cursed” while, opposite the case here in v.13, the LXXB and LXXL (and other witnesses) preserve the reading “he (Naboth) cursed God and king.” In both cases, the disagreement is due to different interpretations of how court proceedings as well as the narrative perspective should be presented in each instance of this phrase. In the MT of v.13, the perspective is that the accusers are reporting the accusation in third-person singular in front of the tribunal and the accused “he (Naboth) cursed…” In the MT of v.13, the perspective is different since the accusers are instructed to address Naboth directly with “you cursed …” According to the descriptions of legal proceedings (Gen 39:15; Dt 17:2-7; 19:15-21; 21:20; Ex 18:15-16; Ruth 4:1-13; 1 Kgs 3:16-28; Jer 6:10) various types of legal interactions require different types of hearings. For the cases that may result in execution of the accused, there were strict laws of witnesses and protocol. For serious cases that may result in execution, two or more witnesses had to be produced. These witnesses were required to make a public accusation before a judicial figure (king, elders, priests, etc.) and at least with the case of the two prostitutes in 1 Kgs 3:16-28, the

20 2 Chr 13:7 uses the form על ים רקים בני בלי .אנש21 BHS, 613, 13 b-b frt dl cf a-a.

©C. H. Bench, 2015

24

proceedings began with a third-person accusation against the accused. Such is the case for most records of litigation in the ANE. The form of the legal accusation usually begins with a third-person description of or accusation against the illegal actions of the accused before a legal authority.22 Though it is extremely difficult, even impossible, to determine, the readings that preserve the third-person accusation (in v.10, preserved by LXXL and in v.13, preserved by MT) are most likely the older descriptions of the litigation against Naboth since they appear to preserve a more accurate description of common procedures for bringing accusations against another person in the ANE.

The next and final point of discussion in v.13 is the phrase ויצאהו מחוץ לעיר “and they brought him outside the city.” This phrase was first given in Jezebel’s instructions to the elders and elites in v.10 which reads והוציאהו וסקלהו וימת “bring him out and stone him so that he dies.” The insertion of the phrase מחוץ לעיר “outside the city” not only interrupts the flow of the verbs as seen in v.10, but it also has a different understanding of the meaning of the verb ויצאהו/ מחוץ למחנה is mainly used in priestly texts and also appears as מחוץ לעיר The phrase .והוציאהו“outside the camp.” These two phrases deal primarily with the disposal of the remains of special offerings outside the camp or city as well as for the stoning of the blasphemer (Lev 24:14, 23; Num 15:35-36). The stoning of the blasphemer associated with the phrase ץ למחנהמחו uses the Late Hebrew term רגם “to stone”; this phrase is never used with the older term סקל “to stone.” The verb סקל, when used in conjunction with the hifil verb ויצאהו/ והוציאהו , always refers to the city gates (i.e., הוציאו אל שער* or אל פתחהוציאו *; see Dt 17:5; 22:21; 22:24). As a result, it is clear that the phrase מחוץ לעיר is a late addition to v.13 that added a priestly perspective on how stoning should be administered; this priestly perspective appears to have been concerned with stoning/death and the purity of space. The older iteration of this procedure (הוציאו אל שער) was focused on the city gate as the seat of judgment in legal matters and had little to do with purity laws (if at all). As a result, the phrase מחוץ לעיר should be understood as a late insertion meant to update the story and bring it in line with the priestly ideology of the scribes transmitting the text when it was inserted.

1 Kings 21:14 — וישלחו אל־איזבל לאמר סקל נבות וימת

There are no Hebrew variants for v.14. The verse partially repeats and reports Jezebel’s instructions to the elders and the elites of Naboth’s city in vv.10 and 13 (and again in vv.15 and 16). For the Greek versions, there are very few variations for v.14. The most significant variant is the use of απεθανεν in the minuscule g in place of τεθνηκεν which is ubiquitous throughout the other Greek witnesses.

22 R. Westbrook, A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law, vol 1., 29, 32-33, 184, 194-197, 311, 371-373, 442-445, 491-494, etc.; M. P. Maidman, Nuzi Texts and their Uses as Historical Evidence, 81-123, the trial of the mayor of Nuzi, Kušši-harpe.

©C. H. Bench, 2015

25

1 Kings 21:15 — רעאלי זכשמע איזבל כי־סקל נבות וימת ותאמר איזבל אל־אחאב קום רש את־כרם נבות הי הייות׃מאן לתת־לך בכסף כי אין נבות חי כי־מ אשר

Verse 15 is one of four verses in 1 Kings 21 that retain variant Hebrew readings.23 As regards verse 15, various manuscripts retain the reading כי אם מת “…but he is dead.”24 There are two possible reasons for this variant reading. It is quite possible that the reading כי אם מת resulted from the manuscript copying process. Hypothetically, if there existed a period where one scribe read the text as another dictated it, the similarity could be the result of similar sounding phrases. In this case, the אם may have been accidentally dropped from the MT due to elision. For example, ki ‘im meth versus ki meth. When pronounced, there was likely little to no difference in the sound of the two phrases. The shorter of the two phrases is clearly כי מת but the more difficult of the two is by far כי אם מת. This is due to the fact that the construction כי אם is a particularly difficult reading in this location. Normally, כי אם is used to mean “except” as an emphatic alternative to a clause that immediately precedes it. If that is the meaning in the reading preserved in these other manuscripts, the two phrases would possibly be translated as follows. “Arise, take possession of the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite who refused to give [it] to you for money; for Naboth is not living except he is dead.” The difficulty lies in the fact that “except” doesn’t seem to fit as a translation. In my opinion, the best explanation for this difficulty is that כי אם מת is best translated not as “except” but rather an emphatic “but” meant to support the information in the first phrase כי אין נבות חי. Together, the two phrases would then be translated as “for Naboth is not alive, but he is surely dead!”

There is further evidence that the reading כי אם מת is the older reading. For example, the Lucianic manuscripts preserve the reading οτι ουκ εστι Ναβουθαι ζων αλλα τεθνηκεν “for Naboth is not alive, but dead!” The real significance is that the conjunction αλλα is only used to translate three Hebrew conjunctions: אך ,ואולם, and כי אם. From this observation, it is certain that the Vorlage of the Lucianic tradition retained the reading כי אם מת. It is also important to note that all three of these conjunctions that are translated with the Greek αλλα can be used in secondary clauses that provide alternatives to the first clause.25 Their meanings overlap enough that they all fell under the semantic domain of the Greek conjunction αλλα. The Hebrew conjunction כי is never translated with αλλα.

The first major textual issue among the various versions is the omission of the phrase כי־ that Naboth had been stoned and had died” among various witnesses. Some…“ סקל נבות וימתGreek witnesses, like those belonging to the LXXL tradition, retain the reading λεγοντων Κεχωσται Ναβουθαι και τεθνηκεν “saying ‘Naboth has been stoned and is dead.’”25 F

26 The passive

23 See de Rossi, Vol. 2, 224. 24 HALOT, 471; C. Van der Merwe, et al., “A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar,” Sheffield: Sheffield, 1999, 303-304. 25 See HALOT 21-22, 45, 471. 26 Literally, “Naboth has been showered upon [with stones] and is dead”; the form is the passive of χεω and is used to describe objects showering or falling on someone (i.e., spears, earth, etc.); see also LSJ “χεω.”

©C. H. Bench, 2015

26

form of χεω (e.g., κεχωσται “he was stoned”) is found, for the most part, in the Iliad and the Odyssey and Pindar’s Isthmean. However, none of these usages are used in connection with public stoning. [More research needed for the Hellenistic/Roman usages of pass. of xew].

The next major textual issue with v.15 is the variation as regards the inclusion of the second instance of the name Jezebel. The SyrH indicates that Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion all omit the second instance of her name in this verse. However, Jepsen’s BHS apparatus note is misleading (>G*V) since LXXL retains the second instance of Jezebel’s name in v.15. All S versions (with the exception of SyrH) agree with LXXL by also retaining the second instance of her name.

Returning for a moment to the MT, there is at least one important question about some of the issues in the Hebrew text. Why make the changes and additions to the text? Are these peculiarities explicable as scribal errors or were they conscious additions meant to clarify the text?

The addition of the phrase כי־סקל נבות וימת is most likely a conscious insertion into the MT. This claim is supported by the fact that all other instances of this phrase in 1 Kings 21 do not include the relative clause marker כי. This shows that the scribe(s) editing the text made a conscious effort to take elements from the surrounding text (סקל נבות וימת, see v.10, 13-14, and partially in v.16) and work them into v.15 in a grammatically correct fashion (through the use of should be understood as an insertion כי־סקל נבות וימת As a result, the insertion of the phrase .(כיmeant to clarify what exactly Jezebel “heard” (ויהי כשמע “and when she heard”) so as to properly guide the reader through the narrative sequence of this story.

The second instance of the name Jezebel which was lacking in many important witnesses (with the exception of the LXXL) also cannot be explained as a scribal error. There is no evidence for a mistaken insertion of Jezebel’s name a second time. This was likely a conscious insertion that may indicate, in conjunction with the previous insertion, that the scribes inserting these elements were very concerned with clarifying, step by step, the role of Jezebel in this narrative. For the second instance of Jezebel’s name, the verb ותאמר “and she said” would very clearly refer to the only female actant in the narrative, Jezebel. Thus, the insertion of her name is excessive and may indicate the scribes desire to create a completely explicit narrative sequence in connection with Jezebel and her role in the murder of Naboth.

Another important element of v.15 is the phrase קום ורש (imper.) “rise and take possession.” This themes of inheritance and taking possession of an inheritance are found throughout 1 Kings 21. However, the use of the root ירש is only found in a certain redactional layer of this chapter. This redaction is closely associated with a later edition of this story that puts most of the blame for Naboth’s murder on Jezebel. It is only Jezebel that introduces the ideas of “rising” and “taking possession” to Ahab who, as a result, appears to be following her lead throughout. The idea of taking possession is found in v.15, 16, 18, 19 possibly 26 (a clear

©C. H. Bench, 2015

27

priestly usage of the hiphil of ירש which may indicate the provenance of this redactional layer). Perhaps most importantly, this redaction retains the perspective that Naboth’s vineyard was located in Samaria (see v.18 and 1 Kings 22).

1 Kings 21:16 — רעאלי לרשתוזדת אל־כרם נבות הירויהי כשמע אחאב כי מת נבות ויקם אחאב ל

Verse 16 is closely related to v.15 both by its location and by its content. This verse begins with the exact same phrase as v.15, ויהי כשמע “and when he/she heard” which indicates v.16’s dependence on v.15. As partially indicated by Jepsen’s apparatus note in the BHS, other versions appear to replicate the structure of the phrase כשמע איזבל כי־סקל נבות וימת הייו from v.15 in the construction as it is found in v.16. The MT retains a shortened reading. Rather than relating the information from v.15 verbatim, e.g., “When Ahab heard that Naboth had been stoned and was dead,” it reads ויהי כשמע אחאב כי מת נבות “When Ahab heard that Naboth was dead.” This reiteration of the previous material is different in several ways. First, it changes the order of the verbs and the object Naboth. Second, it omits the passive of סקל “he was stoned.” This change may indicate that v.16 is the older of the two readings and that v.16 may not have initially been a part of the late redaction that links Jezebel to the stoning/murder of Naboth. The reason for this is that it is difficult to argue that the change is the result of a scribal error. Furthermore, the expansionistic material in v.15 is clearly associated with the vilification of Jezebel as the driving force behind the murder of Naboth via a faux trial and execution by stoning. It may be that v.16 is associated with another version of this narrative which sees Ahab as the sole antagonist behind the murder of Naboth and his sons/children (see 2 Kings 9-10 and earlier redactions of 1 Kings 21). This, however, is only hypothetical. There are other elements of v.16 that are clearly associated with v.15 thematically and perhaps redactionally. For example, the idea of “getting up” (קום) is found in verses clearly associated with Jezebel (v.7 and 15).

The different witnesses of v.16 indicate how different versions dealt with this difficulty and perhaps preserved different Hebrew readings. Though Jepsen’s BHS notes indicate that the LXX* retains a longer reading than the MT (G + nonn vb; i.e., the LXX contains additional verbs), this short note does not do justice to the complexity of the additional material found in the LXX and other witnesses.

LXXB retains a full two clause addition to this verse. καὶ ἐγένετο ὡς ἤκουσεν Αχααβ ὅτι τέθνηκεν Ναβουθαι ὁ Ιεζραηλίτης, καὶ διέρρηξεν τὰ ἱμάτια ἑαυτοῦ καὶ περιεβάλετο σάκκον, καὶ ἐγένετο μετὰ ταῦτα καὶ ἀνέστη καὶ κατέβη Αχααβ εἰς τὸν ἀμπελῶνα Ναβουθαι τοῦ Ιεζραηλίτου κληρονομῆσαι αὐτόν. “When Ahab heard that Naboth the Jezreelite was dead, he rent his garment and dressed in sack-cloth. Then, after these things, Ahab arose and went down into/to the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite to take possession of it.” The LXXL is quite similar with a few differences. Και εγενετο ως ηκουσεν Αχααβ οτι τεθνηκε Ναβουθαι διερρεξε τα ιματια αυτου και περιεβαλετο σακκον και εγενετο μετα ταυτα και ανεστη Αχααβ και κατεβη εις τον αμπελωνα Ναβουθαι του Ιεζραηλιτου του κληρονομησαι αυτον. “When Ahab heard that Naboth was dead,

©C. H. Bench, 2015

28

he rent his garment and put on sack-cloth. Then, after these things, Ahab arose and he went down into/to the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite to take possession of it.”

The VL also supports the reading preserved in the LXX*. It translates the additional material as conscidit vestimenta sua & cooperuit se cilicio “he tore his clothes and clothed himself in sackcloth.”

I assume that some would argue that this insertion is closely related to a similar statement about Ahab in v.27. Certainly the Hebrew text of both was quite similar. However, the Greek translations of each are very different indicating that the material preserved in v.16 came from a different scribe from a different historical period. The phrase ויקרע בגדיו “and he rent his garments” is quite stereotypical in Hebrew. The phrase “and he put on/wore/dressed in/etc.” is not stereotypical at all. There are various forms of this phrase. For the purposes of this particular instance in the Greek text of 1 Kgs 21:16, it is important to note that the Greek verb περιβαλλω is never used to translate the Hebrew verb קוישם־ש “and he put on sack-cloth” (as found in v.27). Thus, it is unlikely that the insertion of the phrase “then he rent his clothes and dressed in sack-cloth” (LXX v.16) is dependent on the phrase קוישם־ש and he rent his clothes and“ ויקרע בגדיו put on sack-cloth” (v.27) since the form of the phrase, especially the second half, is quite different from other instances of the phrase elsewhere in the HB and especially, it is different from the usage of the phrase in v.16. As a result, it would be erroneous to argue that the two phrases come from the same redaction or expansion. Instead, the instance of this form in v.16 is associated with the actions of Jezebel that were initially un-known to Ahab while the instance found in v.27 is related to a theme found elsewhere in the Books of Kings (i.e., the repentant king; also related to the idea of pushing judgment for sin into future generations). The LXX retains an aspect of this story that indicates that Ahab didn’t know what Jezebel was up to and, though in the end he went to take possession of Naboth’s vineyard anyway, he initially mourned the death of Naboth and perhaps Jezebel’s secret actions. Naturally, this element of the story is still associated with the vilification of Jezebel and was not initially part of the narrative. [Is this element Jezreel centered or Samaria centered?]

1 Kings 21:17 — שבי לאמרתויהי דבר־יהוה אל־אליהו ה

Verse 17 contains very few textual issues. The main issues revolve around the differences between the different Greek witnesses of this verse, but even then the differences are minor. For example, there are differences in the spelling of the name Elijah (Ηλειου [LXXB] versus Ηλιαν [LXXL]) and the spelling of the gentilic “the Tishbite” שביתה (θεσβειτην [LXXB] versus some minuscules which read θεσβη/υτην [Ngdp]; or mss 44 which omits it altogether). 26F

27

1 Kings 21:18 — מרון הנה בכרם נבות אשר־ירד שם לרשתור בשל אשראום רד לקראת אחאב מלך־ישק

27 See Brooke and McClean, The Old Testament in Greek, 286 n.17.

©C. H. Bench, 2015

29

There are no major issues with the MT of v.18. As with v.17, Jepsen provides no BHS apparatus note. Though there are various differences as regards spelling and verbal tense among the Greek witnesses, these differences are minor. The only major variant is the omission of the prepositional phrase του εν σαμαρεια in mss d (44, Zittau, A I. I.). This omission is significant for two possible reasons. First, this manuscript omits what is a key phrase in the puzzle of the geographic centrality of the Naboth narrative. That is, there are at least two traditions connected with the Ahab/Naboth narrative: one that argues that Naboth’s vineyard was in or near Ahab’s palace in Samaria and another that argues that Naboth’s vineyard was near Jezreel. If it could be shown that mss d (44) contains a true Hebrew variant as regards the location of the vineyard, it would help to understand the development of these two conflicting narratives at an early period in the texts history. Second, and perhaps more plausible, the omission of this significant phrase indicates that those copying mss d (44) were aware of the difficulties between the two claims and modified the text accordingly by removing this phrase so as to smooth out the contradictions between these two conflicting traditions. Either way, one can garner information about the textual history of 1 Kings 21 and the difficulties it presents to the reader.

1 Kings 21:19 — מקום אשר ה בשת ודברת אליו לאמר כה אמר יהורודברת אליו לאמר כה אמר יהוה הרצחת וגם־יהמך גם־אתת־דלבים את־דם נבות ילקו הכלבים אכלקקו ה

Unlike vv.17-18, v.19 has a substantial amount of textual issues. The first issue is the omission of a correlating term for לאמר “saying” in the LXXL, the VL, S, and the Ethiopic versions of 1 Kings 21. The use of לאמר, given the evidence from these witnesses, must be understood as a clarifying gloss by a late scribe meant to bring this statement into conformity with proper language use of his/her time. When one considers the oracular formula so common in the HB, it is clear that this instance of the oracular formula לאמר כה אמר יהוה “saying ‘Thus says Yahweh…’” (see Isa 37:21a; Jer 2:2; 18:11; 26:18; 27:4, 16; 28:11, 13; 29:31; 32:3; 39:16; Zech 1:14, 17; 6:12; 1 Chr 21:10; 2 Chr 21:12; 1 Kgs 13:21; 21:19; 2 Kgs 9:12; 19:20) 28 is quite different from the more common כי כה אמר יהוה “for thus says Yahweh” (Jos 7:13; 1 Kgs 11:31; 17:14; 2 Kgs 3:17; 4:43; Isa 8:11; 18:4; 21:6, 16; 30:15; 31:4; 45:18; 49:25; 52:3, 4; 56:4; 66:12; Jer 4:3, 27; 6:6; 10:18; 16:3, 5; 22:6, 11; 24:8; 25:15; 27:19, 21; 28:14; 29:10, 16; 30:5, 12; 31:7; 32:15, 42; 33:4, 17; 42:18; 48:40; 49:12; 51:33; Ezek 14:2; 16:59; 23:2; 25:6; 26:1, 7; Amos 5:3, 4; Zech 2:12; 8:14; Hag 2:6). There are several differences between the two forms. The form is only used in certain situations such as reports of Yahweh’s instructions to a לאמר כה אמר יהוהprophet, Yahweh’s instructions for another person through a prophet, or the report of a past prophecy (see the report of Mic 3:12 as compared to Jer 26:18). The form כי כה אמר יהוה or simply כה אמר יהוה is most often used in first person prophetic speeches. Thus, the form as it

28 Wildberger, H. A Continental Commentary: Isaiah 28-39. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2002, 415-416; Holladay, William Lee. Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 1–25. Edited by Paul D. Hanson. Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986, 63-64; See also Mic 3:12; Holladay, William Lee. Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 26–52. Edited by Paul D. Hanson. Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1989, 108.

©C. H. Bench, 2015

30

stands in 1 Kgs 21:19 fits clearly within the framework of prophetic oracular instruction from the deity Yahweh to the prophet Elijah who is instructed to deliver a curse/judgment oracle to Ahab.29

The discursive tension between Yahweh’s instruction and the way Elijah carries out this instruction is palpable in the narrative for several reasons. The oracle formula is repeated twice in v.19, an indication that the verse has been reworked at different points in its history. Furthermore, the instruction and Elijah’s fulfillment of the instruction do not agree in content; the initial instruction was expanded and interpreted by a later hand, likely a scribe or group of scribes that attempted to center the narrative in Samaria rather than in Jezreel. There is also a problem with the flow of the oracle since it begins with instruction from Yahweh and jumps immediately into the interaction between Elijah and Ahab without any indication of how or when Elijah began to carry out Yahweh’s instruction. These three tensions in 1 Kgs 21:19-26 (and others that will be addressed later) are strong indicators that this narrative has been produced and reproduced by different communities (predominantly, if not completely, by Judahite/Yehudite communities).

The next textual issue is, in my opinion, one of translation technique. In some witnesses, the Hebrew interrogative ה is translated (e.g., ως συ in LXXB) while in the LXXL, the Vulgate, and S a corresponding interrogative is not provided. The result is that these three witnesses could technically be translated with as an interrogative or as a second person accusation (i.e., “Have you killed…?” versus “You have killed…”). The S comes closest to the second person accusation since it uses the declarative particle ܗܐ “behold!” The Lucianic text and the Vulgate are less explicit and could be taken as either (i.e., an interrogative or a second person singular).

The S also retains another variation in v.19 by omitting the second instance of the phrase “and say to him …” ܘܐܡܪ ܠܗ. This omission is likely the result of a desire to remove perceived redundancy from the Syriac text. It is possible that the omission was the result of scribal error since any time there are two identical phrases in close proximity there is an increased change of accidental omission (i.e., the scribe doesn’t write the second instance of a phrase because he/she thinks it has already been written). Though both explanations are possible, the former seems the most probable since there are many examples of translations that attempt to remove some of the redundancy of the MT in their translation.

The next major textual issue is the difficult repetition of the phrase כה אמר יהוה. Jepsen, in his BHS apparatus note, erroneously proposes that since the minuscule mss d (44) and p (106) omit the second instance of this phrase, it should likely be deleted (i.e., seen as a secondary addition; d-d > G44.106, frt dl).29F

30 This suggestion ignores the fact that all major witnesses support

29 See M. Nissinen, Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East, Atlanta: SBL, 2003, 21, 25, 47, 58-59, 65, 94-95, 183, 203 (note c). 30 See BHS, 613.

©C. H. Bench, 2015

31

the reading as it stands in the MT by translating this phrase in both instances. Though I will argue that there are redactional layers visible in v.19 and that this phrase is one piece of evidence supporting that hypothesis, it seems very improbable that these two minuscules have preserved a Hebrew reading that omits this phrase altogether. Rather, it seems best to resolve the difficulties of v.19 via redaction critical/historical critical methods. In other words, when the text was transmitted (as evidenced by the LXX*, VL, Vulgate, S, etc.) all Hebrew source texts contained a reading similar to the MT. This means that the minuscules d and p likely removed the second instance of the phrase to remove what appeared to be redundant repetition of the “thus says Yahweh” form. Jepsen’s note implies that there was a Hebrew Vorlage, preserved in d and p, which omitted the second instance of the phrase. This conclusion is unfounded.

Various witnesses contain the reading “where the pigs and the dogs licked up Naboth’s blood, …” For example, LXXB reads Εν παντι τοπω ω ελιξαν αι υες και οι κυνες το αιμα Ναβουθαι “In every place where the sows and the dogs licked up Naboth’s blood…” While in the LXXL, it reads Εν τω τοπω ω ελειξαν οι υες και οι κυνες το αιμα Ναβουθαι... “In the place where the pigs and the dogs licked up Naboth’s blood…” The VL also agrees with this reading. In loco, in quo linxerunt canes & sues sanguinem Nabuthai “In the place in which the dogs and the pigs licked up Naboth’s blood…” TgJon, S, and the Vulgate agree with the MT. There are several possibilities to explain the omission of “the pigs” in the MT. First of all, the VL and the SyrH both preserve the reading (note the reverse in order) “the dogs and the pigs…” It is likely that the omission in the MT is the result of either homoioteleuton or homoioarchton. If the error was the result of homoioteleuton, it occurred when the scribe read לקקו הכלבים , he looked from the manuscript to transcribe the text and then when he looked back to the mss his eye moved directly to the –ים of החזירים which he/she mistook for the plural of הכלבים which he had already written. As a result, the scribe accidentally omitted the word altogether. The masculine plural reading agrees with the LXXL, but the order of the phrase in LXXL doesn’t agree with this hypothesis since it retains the reading οι υες και οι κυνες “the boars/pigs and the dogs.” The LXXB retains a similar reading, but in feminine αι υες “the sows.” Interestingly, the VL and the SyrH retain the reading “the dogs and the pigs…” which, if one reads either as the feminine plural החזירות or the masculine plural החזירים could have resulted in similar scribal errors due to confusion with the –ים of הכלבים and also the following את which could have drawn the eye of the scribe due to its similarity to the feminine plural ending of החזירות. Another peculiarity exists with this reading as regards the difficulty with 1 Kgs 22:38 which preserves a different tradition/reading as regards the fulfillment of the oracle against Ahab. 1 Kings 22:38 reads ו קויל

נות רחצוזהכלבים את־דמו וה “the dogs licked up his blood and the whores washed…” There may be a correlation between the two readings in that at some point in the transmission history of this text, scribes could have mistaken החזירות “the sows” (see LXXB) for תהזנו “the prostitutes” (see MT 1 Kgs 22:38).

1 Kings 21:20 — הען התמכרך לעשות הרע בעיני יהוי יויאמר אחאב אל־אליהו המצאתני איבי ויאמר מצאת

©C. H. Bench, 2015

32

For the MT there is only one hypothetical issue as noted in Jepsen’s BHS apparatus note for 1 Kgs 21:20. Jepsen rightly notes that the common Dtr form העשות הרע בעיני יהול “to do evil in Yahweh’s eyes” often includes the Hifil verb להכעיס “to provoke/to anger.” (see Dt 4.25; 9:18; 31:29; 2 Kgs 17:17; 21:6, 15; Jer 32:30; 2 Chr 33:6; and some variants Dt 32:16, 21; Jdg 2:12; 1 Kgs 14:9, 15; 15:30; 16:2, 7, 13, 26, 33; 21:22; 22:54; 2 Kgs 17:11; 22:17; 23:19, 26; Isa 65:3; Jer 7:18, 19; 8:19; 11:17; 25:6, 7; 32:29, [30], 32; 44:3, 8; Ezek 8:17; 16:26, 42; 32:9; Hos 12:15; Ps 78:58; 106:29; 2 Chr 28:25; 33:6; 34:25). Since this form is found in 1 Kgs 21:20, Jepsen conjectures that the infinitive להכעיסו “to provoke him to anger” may have initially been included in the formula as it stands in v.20. Though this is probable, there is no indication as to why this could have happened. There is no evidence for scribal error and it would be difficult to explain why a scribe would purposefully omit this element in this instance. It seems best to recognize that this form as shown from the source list above, that there are several variations of this phrase (for the phrase “evil in Yahweh’s eyes” without להכעיסו, see Num 32:13; Dt 17:2; Jdg 3:7, 12; 4:1; 6:1; 10:6; 13:1; 1 Sam 15:19; 2 Sam 12:9; 1 Kgs 11:6; 15:26, 34; 16:19, 25, 30; 21:20, 25; 22:53; 2 Kgs 3:2; 8:18, 27; 13:11; 14:24; 15:9, 18, 24, 28; 17:2; 21:2, 16, 20; 23:32, 37; 24:9; Isa 65:12; 66:4; Jer 7:30; 18:10; Jer 52:2; Mal 2:17; Ps 51:6; 1 Chr 2:3; 2 Chr 21:6; 22:4; 29:6; 33:2, 22; 36:5, 9, 12).

1 Kings 21:21 — לבישראיך והכרתי לאחאב משתין בקיר ועצור ועזוב רנני מבי אליך רעה ובערתי אחה

The first major issue in v.21 is the likely accidental omission of the phrase כה אמר יהוה at the beginning of the verse. Though LXXAB agrees with the MT as it stands (i.e. v.21 without this phrase), other important witnesses retain the reading “thus says Yahweh, behold …” For example, LXXL and the VL preserve this reading. It is likely that the omission of this phrase was the result of a scribal error due to homoteleuton. This occurred when the scribe(s) transmitting the text copied or read to a copyist the final phrase of 1 Kgs 21:20 הבעיני יהו and when his/her eyes returned to the manuscript his/her eyes moved directly to the end of the phrase כה אמר יהוה. Both phrases end with the name יהוה and as a result, the scribe omitted the phrase כה אמר יהוה because he thought he/she was looking at the name יהוה which was the final word of the previous phrase that he/she had already copied. There is further support for this observation in the many instances of the prophetic oracle formulae introducing a word or message from Yahweh using the form כה אמר יהוה הנני “thus says Yahweh, ‘Behold I…’” or כה אמר יהוה הנה “thus says Yahweh, ‘Behold…’” As a result, it seems highly probable that the omission of this phrase was the result of a scribal error and the text of v.21 initially began כה אמר יהוה הנני “Thus says Yahweh, ‘Behold I …’”

The next major textual issue is the correction of the defective reading מבי also at the beginning of v.21. The Qere rightly suggests the corrected reading מביא, the Hifil participial form of the root בוא “I will bring…” The mistake was likely the result of scribal confusion caused by the following preposition which begins with an א, the letter accidentally omitted from the term at

©C. H. Bench, 2015

33

issue מביא. Like the previous omission but on a much smaller scale, the scribe wrote the א once when it should have been written twice (haplography), one א for each word.

1 Kings 21:22 — בית ירבעם בן־נבט וכבית בעשא בן־אחיה אל־הכעס אשר הכעסת ותחטא את־ונתתי את־ביתך כלישרא

As Jepsen notes in his BHS apparatus note for v.22, several important witnesses retain a reading that supports the argument that the phrase אל־הכעס אשר הכעסת “to/for the provocation which you have caused to be provoked…” should read הכעס אשר הכעסתעל “because of the provocation which you have caused to be provoked…” However, the possible reasons for why this may or may not be the case are more complex. One of the sources that Jepsen cites is TgJon and S which do retain the reading על but for a different reasons. As noted in HAL, Aramaic witnesses often translate the Hebrew preposition אל with על which rules out both TgJon and as a witness for the reading על in the MT.31 Furthermore, as noted by Muraoka, the prepositions אל and על both can be translated with the Greek preposition περι (+gen) just as it is found in LXX*.32 As a result, all three witnesses that Jepsen notes as evidence for preferring the reading serve as weak support for this conclusion (see also the variation in the אל instead of עלtranslations for the preposition אל in v.28).

There are other variations in v.22 among the Greek witnesses. However, these variations are mainly differences in the spelling of names. Theses variations are useful, but will not be explored in this work.

There is one other issue that needs to be addressed concerning the use and reuse of the oracle that is initially presented at several important points in the narrative of the Books of Kings.

1 Kings 14:10-11 רבעם והכרתי לירבעם משתין בקיר עצור ועזוב בישראל ובערתי אחרי בית־ירבעם כאשר ית ילכן הנני מביא רעה אל־ב

ר׃אכלו עוף השמים כי יהוה דבה יהמת לירבעם בעיר יאכלו הכלבים והמת בשד ׃יבער הגלל עד־תמו 10 Therefore, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam. I will cut off from Jeroboam every male, both bond and free in Israel, and will consume the house of Jeroboam, just as one burns up dung until it is all gone. 11 Anyone belonging to Jeroboam who dies in the city, the dogs shall eat; and anyone who dies in the open country, the birds of the air shall eat; for the LORD has spoken. (NRSV) 1 Kings 16:3-4

המת לבעשא בעיר יאכלו הכלבים והמת לו ט׃כבית ירבעם בן־נב י בעשא ואחרי ביתו ונתתי את־ביתךרהנני מבעיר אח ם׃בשדה יאכלו עוף השמי

3 Therefore, I will consume Baasha and his house, and I will make your house like the house of Jeroboam son of Nebat. 4 Anyone belonging to Baasha who dies in the city the dogs shall eat; and anyone of his who dies in the field the birds of the air shall eat. (NRSV)

31 HAL, 50. 32 T. Muraoka, A Greek Hebrew Aramaic Two Way Index, 147, 300.

©C. H. Bench, 2015

34

1 Kings 21:22-24

ן־ם בונתתי את־ביתך כבית ירבע ל׃הנני מבי אליך רעה ובערתי אחריך והכרתי לאחאב משתין בקיר ועצור ועזוב בישראאת־וגם־לאיזבל דבר יהוה לאמר הכלבים יאכלו ל׃שא בן־אחיה אל־הכעס אשר הכעסת ותחטא את־ישראנבט וכבית בע

ם׃הכלבים והמת בשדה יאכלו עוף השמי המת לאחאב בעיר יאכלו אל׃איזבל בחל יזרע 21 I will bring disaster on you; I will consume you, and will cut off from Ahab every male, bond or free, in Israel; 22 and I will make your house like the house of Jeroboam son of Nebat, and like the house of Baasha son of Ahijah, because you have provoked me to anger and have caused Israel to sin. 23 Also concerning Jezebel the LORD said, ‘The dogs shall eat Jezebel within the bounds of Jezreel.’ 24 Anyone belonging to Ahab who dies in the city the dogs shall eat; and anyone of his who dies in the open country the birds of the air shall eat.” 2 Kings 9:8-10

יר ועצור ועזוב בישראל׃ ין בק י לאחאב משת ב והכרת ית אחא ד כל־ב ית ונתתי ואב ט וכב ם בן־נב ית ירבע ב כב ית אחא את־בא בן־אחיה׃ ר בעש ין קב אל וא לק יזרע ים בח בל יאכלו הכלב ואת־איז

8 For the whole house of Ahab shall perish; I will cut off from Ahab every male, bond or free, in Israel. 9 I will make the house of Ahab like the house of Jeroboam son of Nebat, and like the house of Baasha son of Ahijah. 10 The dogs shall eat Jezebel in the territory of Jezreel, and no one shall bury her.

Though I will return to the above verses once again when I treat 1 Kings 21:21-24 as a unit, there are some important issues to note as regards v.22. For example, v.21-22 are closely related to the curse against the house of Jeroboam as it is found in 1 Kgs 14:10, but there are important differences. The curse, in its basic form, is ונתתי את־ביתך כבית ירבעם בן־נבט “I will make your house like the house of Jeroboam son of Nebat” (1 Kgs 16:3b). This is a clear reference to 1 Kgs 14:10b “I will cut off from Jeroboam every male, both bond and free in Israel, and will consume the house of Jeroboam, just as one burns up dung until it is all gone.” This oracle tradition is then expanded to include the house of Baasha: “I will make the house of Ahab like the house of Jeroboam son of Nebat, and like the house of Baasha son of Ahijah.” (1 Kgs 21:22 and 2 Kgs 9:9). Through this observation, one can come to some conclusions about how v.22 has been modified or reproduced by looking at the material that is different from the other instances of this oracle. As regards v.22, the basic oracle formula is expanded with the additional phrase אל־הכעס because of the provocation which you provoked and you caused“ אשר הכעסת ותחטא את־ישראלIsrael to sin.” (1 Kgs 21:22b) It appears that this phrase is likely secondary or perhaps, as the oracle was appropriated and reproduced, this new interpretive material was added to the older oracle. Furthermore, this additional material reproduces another form but does so inconsistently, perhaps mixing two different perceptions about kings causing Israel to sin as well as provoking Yahweh to anger.

1 Kings 14:16 ל׃טיא את־ישראויתן את־ישראל בגלל חטאות ירבעם אשר חטא ואשר הח

©C. H. Bench, 2015

35

He will give Israel up because of the sins of Jeroboam, which he sinned and which he caused Israel to commit. 1 Kings 15:26

ויעש הרע בעיני יהוה וילך בדרך אביו ובחטאתו אשר החטיא את־ישראל׃

He did what was evil in the sight of the LORD, walking in the way of his ancestor and in the sin that he caused Israel to commit. 1 Kings 15:30

על־חטאות ירבעם אשר חטא ואשר החטיא את־ישראל בכעסו אשר הכעיס את־יהוה אלהי ישראל׃

Because of the sins of Jeroboam that he committed and that he caused Israel to commit, and because of the anger to which he provoked the LORD, the God of Israel. 1 Kings 16:2

ם׃י בחטאתראל להכעיסניען אשר הרימתיך מן־העפר ואתנך נגיד על עמי ישראל ותלך בדרך ירבעם ותחטא את־עמי יש

Since I exalted you out of the dust and made you leader over my people Israel, and you have walked in the way of Jeroboam, and have caused my people Israel to sin, provoking me to anger with their sins 1 Kings 16:13

וחטאות אלה בנו אשר חטאו ואשר החטיאו את־ישראל להכעיס את־יהוה אלהי ישראל בהבליהם׃אל כל־חטאות בעשא

Because of all the sins of Baasha and the sins of his son Elah that they committed, and that they caused Israel to commit, provoking the LORD God of Israel to anger with their idols. 1 Kings 16:19

ל׃על־חטאתו אשר חטא לעשות הרע בעיני יהוה ללכת בדרך ירבעם ובחטאתו אשר עשה להחטיא את־ישרא

Because of the sins that he committed, doing evil in the sight of the LORD, walking in the way of Jeroboam, and for the sin that he committed, causing Israel to sin. 1 Kings 16:26

ם׃וילך בכל־דרך ירבעם בן־נבט ובחטאתיו אשר החטיא את־ישראל להכעיס את־יהוה אלהי ישראל בהבליה

For he walked in all the way of Jeroboam son of Nebat, and in the sins that he caused Israel to commit, provoking the LORD, the God of Israel, to anger by their idols. 1 Kings 21:22

ונתתי את־ביתך כבית ירבעם בן־נבט וכבית בעשא בן־אחיה אל־הכעס אשר הכעסת ותחטא את־ישראל

And I will make your house like the house of Jeroboam son of Nebat, and like the house of Baasha son of Ahijah, because you have provoked me to anger and have caused Israel to sin.

There are various examples of this form (this list only includes those from 1 Kings). From the list, it appears that initially this form was basically aimed at accusing certain kings of being like Jeroboam who caused Israel to sin which in turn provoked Yahweh to anger. This form was then further interpreted as regards the nature of the sin. In the earlier traditions of the Naboth

©C. H. Bench, 2015

36

narrative, the sin for which Ahab was cursed was ethical and legal. The dtr reinterpretation of this narrative was focused on reframing the sin of Ahab as cultic deviance, i.e., idol worship. To do this, those reproducing the Naboth narrative inserted the oracle tradition found elsewhere (above). These oracles are Judahite in origin and recast Israelite kingship as only legitimate due to Davidide sin. Thus, the above examples, and any example that equates later kings with Jeroboam (the prime example of an idolatrous king) are based on this late Judahite/Yehudite reinterpretation the sins of Ahab which paint him and his infamous wife Jezebel as the prime idolaters in the Books of Kings.

1 Kings 21:23 — אלוה לאמר הכלבים יאכלו את־איזבל בחל יזרעהבר יוגם־לאיזבל ד

The main textual issue with the MT in v.23 is the defective reading אלבחל יזרע . The S, TgJon, and the V all support the reading בחלק יזרעאל “in the field/plot of Jezreel.” Jepsen’s BHS apparatus note implies that he thinks this is the correct reading. However, this does not take into consideration the weight of the various other witnesses that preserve the reading אלבחל יזרע “in/at the wall of Jezreel.” Whether בחלק is the proper reading, the reading אלבחל יזרע has also had an impact on later iterations of the Ahab/Jezebel oracle tradition. For example, 2 Kgs 9:33, though it uses a different term for wall, may have been inspired by the reading אלבחל יזרע since 2 Kgs 9:33 makes an effort to include the gory end of Jezebel ויז מדמה אל הקיר “and her blood splattered on the wall.” This observation must remain only a possibility since all other instances of this form preserve the reading בחלק יזרעאל “in the field of Jezreel” (e.g., related traditions use terms associated with property and fields; חלק ,חלקה ,כרם; see esp. 2 Kgs 9:36).

The next issue with v.23 is the fact that this verse interrupts the oracle formula that was used to incorporate the Ahab/Naboth narrative into the DtrH. The following examples mark the common oracle structure in red. The instance of this oracle as found in 1 Kgs 21:23 will use bold type to highlight how v.23 interrupts this structure.

1 Kings 14:10-11 עצור ועזוב בישראל ובערתי אחרי בית־ירבעם כאשר רבעם והכרתי לירבעם משתין בקיר ית ילכן הנני מביא רעה אל־ב

ר׃אכלו עוף השמים כי יהוה דבה יהמת לירבעם בעיר יאכלו הכלבים והמת בשד ׃יבער הגלל עד־תמו 10 Therefore, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam. I will cut off from Jeroboam every male, both bond and free in Israel, and will consume the house of Jeroboam, just as one burns up dung until it is all gone. 11 Anyone belonging to Jeroboam who dies in the city, the dogs shall eat; and anyone who dies in the open country, the birds of the air shall eat; for the LORD has spoken. (NRSV) 1 Kings 16:3-4

המת לבעשא בעיר יאכלו הכלבים והמת לו ט׃י בעשא ואחרי ביתו ונתתי את־ביתך כבית ירבעם בן־נברהנני מבעיר אח ם׃בשדה יאכלו עוף השמי

3 Therefore, I will consume Baasha and his house, and I will make your house like the house of Jeroboam son of Nebat. 4 Anyone belonging to Baasha who dies in the city the dogs shall eat; and anyone of his who dies in the field the birds of the air shall eat. (NRSV)

©C. H. Bench, 2015

37

2 Kings 9:8-10

ין י לאחאב משת ב והכרת ית אחא ד כל־ב יר ועצור ועזוב בישראל׃ואב ית בק ט וכב ם בן־נב ית ירבע ב כב ית אחא ונתתי את־בא בן־אחיה׃ ר בעש ין קב אל וא לק יזרע ים בח בל יאכלו הכלב ואת־איז

8 For the whole house of Ahab shall perish; I will cut off from Ahab every male, bond or free, in Israel. 9 I will make the house of Ahab like the house of Jeroboam son of Nebat, and like the house of Baasha son of Ahijah. 10 The dogs shall eat Jezebel in the territory of Jezreel, and no one shall bury her. 1 Kings 21:22-24

ן־ם בונתתי את־ביתך כבית ירבע ל׃הנני מבי אליך רעה ובערתי אחריך והכרתי לאחאב משתין בקיר ועצור ועזוב בישראוגם־לאיזבל דבר יהוה לאמר הכלבים יאכלו את־ ל׃נבט וכבית בעשא בן־אחיה אל־הכעס אשר הכעסת ותחטא את־ישרא

ם׃הכלבים והמת בשדה יאכלו עוף השמי המת לאחאב בעיר יאכלו אל׃איזבל בחל יזרע 21 I will bring disaster on you; I will consume you, and will cut off from Ahab every male, bond or free, in Israel; 22 and I will make your house like the house of Jeroboam son of Nebat, and like the house of Baasha son of Ahijah, because you have provoked me to anger and have caused Israel to sin. 23 Also concerning Jezebel the LORD said, ‘The dogs shall eat Jezebel within the bounds of Jezreel.’ 24 Anyone belonging to Ahab who dies in the city the dogs shall eat; and anyone of his who dies in the open country the birds of the air shall eat.

As the above examples show, v.23 interrupts the oracles structure as it is found elsewhere. This is an indication that v.23 is either a later insertion in 1 Kgs 21:21-24 or as the text was produced, the oracle formula was used in a modified form which included v.23. Either way, the material is later than the other instances of the oracle and likely it is later than the surrounding verses.

1 Kings 21:24 — םהמת לאחאב בעיר יאכלו הכלבים והמת בשדה יאכלו עוף השמי

There are two Hebrew textual variants in v.24. The first issue with the MT is the disagreement between various Hebrew manuscripts concerning the second instance of the verb ,and the one who dies…” in this verse. Some manuscripts (Kenn. 23, 30, 94, 96, 145, 150“ והמת158, 182, 202, 224, 249 and de Rossi 4, 20, 191, 211, 380, 440, 679, 688, 737) retain the reading .and the one belonging to him [Ahab] who dies…” Other witnesses support this reading“ והמת לוFor example, the LXX*, TgJon, S, and V all retain a possessive pronoun indicating that the Hebrew Vorlagen from which they were translated preserved the reading והמת לו. However, the other instances of this oracle found in 1 Kgs 14:11 (והמת, MT, LXXA while the S reads ܘܖܢܡܘܬ

the one belonging to him who dies…” and the VL may support this reading with & mortui“ ܠܗerunt ei[?] in agro “those of his(?) who die in the field” ) and 16:4 (והמת לו all witnesses support this reading) retain both readings. It seems that the older reading is likely the shorter as it is found in 1 Kgs 14:11 without the לו. There is other evidence that supports this claim. First, all instances where the longer reading occurs are all found in expansions of the oracle as it is initially presented against Jeroboam in 1 Kgs 14:10-11 (this includes 1 Kgs 21:22-24). Second,

©C. H. Bench, 2015

38

the oracle as it is found in 1 Kgs 14:10-11 is shorter and contains fewer elaborations than the other iterations of the oracle found elsewhere.

The second textual issue is the disagreement among some Hebrew manuscripts as regards the number of the verb יאכלו “they will eat…” (see also LXX* and the Vulgate). Some Hebrew manuscripts (Kenn. 224 and de Rossi 440) as well as the S read ܬܐܟܘܠ “it [the bird] will eat.”

1 Kings 21:25 — ורק לא־היה כאחאב אשר התמכר לעשות הרע בעיני יהוה אשר־הסתה אתו איזבל אשת

There are no major textual issues with the MT of v.25. The only issue of note is the variation in pointing of the Hifil perfect ההסת which could also be pointed as תההס .

Though there are no major issues with the Hebrew text of this verse, there are some substantial variations among the various witnesses. For example, the LXXB reads πλὴν ματαίως Αχααβ ὡς ἐπράθη ποιῆσαι τὸ πονηρὸν ἐνώπιον κυρίου, ὡς μετέθηκεν αὐτὸν Ιεζαβελ ἡ γυνὴ αὐτοῦ,

“Yet, Achaab did act foolishly when he sold himself to do what was evil before the Lord, as his wife Iezabel led him astray” (NETS) while the LXXL reads πλην ουκ ην ως Αχααβ ος επραθη του ποιησαι το πονηρον ενωπιον κυριου ως μετεστησεν αυτον Ιεζαβελ η γυνη αυτου “Except/Yet, there was no one like Ahab who sold [himself] to do evil before the Lord while Jezebel his wife mislead him.” The first difference is the inclusion of the adverb ματαίως “frivolously.” Furthermore, both witnesses use different verbs to translate the same basic sense “to mislead” (see μεθίστημι “to change, mislead” [LXXL] versus μετατίθημι “to depart, change” [LXXB]) when describing Jezebel’s role in Ahab’s apostasy.

1 Kings 21:26 — לאשר עשו האמרי אשר הוריש יהוה מפני בני ישרא ויתעב מאד ללכת אחרי הגללים ככל

There are no major issues with the MT of v.26. There are, however, several disagreements among the manuscript witnesses that are worth noting. First, the Lucianic reading preserves the aorist passive infinitive of πορευω (πορευθηναι) while most other Greek witnesses retain the present middle infinitive of πορευω (πορευεσθαι).

The LXXL also preserves a different reading of the relative particle/clause marker as it is found in the LXXB (α). For this particle, the LXXL reads οσα “as much as.” The significance is that the verse in the LXXL would read “and he was very abominable, going before defiling things [idols] according to all [in all things?] he did as much as the Ammorites, who the Lord had destroyed before the sons of Israel.”

Though this is not strictly a textual feature, the fact that the Hifil of ירש is used in v.26 is telling as regards its provenance. In most cases, the Hifil of ירש is associated with the dispossession of the nations that Yahweh drove out before Israel as is the case with this verse. What is important to note is that all of these iterations of this ideology of displacement appear in late texts from the Pentateuch and redactional additions to historical books (see Exod 15:9; 34:24; Num 14:12, 24; 21:32; 32:21, 39, 52; 33:53, 55; Deut 4:38; 7:17; 9:3, 4, 5; 11:23; 18:12;

©C. H. Bench, 2015

39

Josh 3:10; 8:7; 13:6, 12, 13; 14:12; 15:14, 63; 16:10; 17:12, 13, 18; 23:5, 9, 13; Judg 1:19, 20, 27-33; 2:21, 23; 11:23-24; 1 Sam 2:7; 1 Kgs 14:24; 21:26; 2 Kgs 16:3; 17:8; 21:2; Zech 9:4; Ps 44:3; Ezra 9:12; Job 13:26*; 20:15*; 2 Chr 20:7, 11; 28:3; 33:2). Based on this observation, it is highly likely that v.26 is also a very late addition to 1 Kings 21.

1 Kings 21:27 — בשק ויהלך בויהי כשמע אחאב את־הדברים האלה ויקרע בגדיו וישם־שק על־בשרו ויצום וישכטא

Verse 27 is the last of four verses in 1 Kings 21 that retain disputed readings among the various Hebrew manuscripts. For v.27, the disagreement is between the proper stem of the verb ,and he walked.” The MT retains the former reading while various manuscripts (Kenn. 89“ ויהלך150, 224, de Rossi 305, 440, 782) retain the Hitpael ויתהלך “and he walked about dejectedly.”

Due to the distinct differences between the MT, LXXB, LXXL, VL, and the S, it is worth comparing them side-by-side as provided below.

MT LXXB LXXL VL S ויהי כשמע אחאב את־הדברים האלה ויקרע

בגדיו וישם־שק על־בשרו ויצום וישכב בשק ויהלך

אט

καὶ ὑπὲρ τοῦ λόγου, ὡς κατενύγη Αχααβ ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ κυρίου καὶ ἐπορεύετο κλαίων καὶ διέρρηξεν τὸν χιτῶνα αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐζώσατο σάκκον ἐπὶ τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐνήστευσεν καὶ περιεβάλετο σάκκον ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ, ἧ ἐπάταξεν Ναβουθαι τὸν Ιεζραηλίτην και επορευθε

Αλλ’ υπερ του λογου ως κατενυχθη Αχααβ απο προσωπου κυριου και επορευθη κλαιων και δερρηξε τον χιτωνα αυτου και εζωσατο σακκον επι το σωμα αυτου και ενηστευσε και περιεβαλετο σακκον εν τη ημερα η επαταξεν Ιεζαβελ Ναβουθαι τον Ιεζραηλιτην και τον υιον αυτου

...ecce rex commotus est ante faciem Domini, & ibat plorans, & conscidit vestimenta sua, & operuit se cilicio, & erat indutus sacco ex illo die, quo interfecit Nabuthe Jezraelitam.

ܘܟܕ ܫܡܥ ܐܚܒ ܦܬܓܡܐ ܗܢܐ ܨܪܝ ܠܒܘܫܘܗܝ ܘܐܬܟܤܝ

ܤܩܐ ܥܠ ܒܤܪܗ ܘܨܡ ܘܫܟܒ ܒܤܩܐ ܘܗܠܟ

ܝܝܚܦ

As shown in the above table, there are significant additions/omissions in the LXX* and VL of v.27. Both the LXX* and the VL contain a reading indicating that Ahab wept, an element missing from the MT. Furthermore, the Greek and Latin witnesses do not include a translation of the phrase וישכב בשק ויהלך אט “and he slept in sackcloth and walked dejectedly.” Instead, they read (with some variation) “and he work sackcloth on the day that he [or Jezebel] killed Naboth the Jezreelite [and his son].”

The first thing of note is the agreement between this additional element and 2 Kgs 9:36 that both claim that not only was Naboth murdered, but also his son(s). Next, as is the case between the earlier and later traditions associated with the Ahab/Naboth narrative, there is disagreement about who was actually responsible for Naboth’s murder, Ahab or Jezebel. The

©C. H. Bench, 2015

40

LXXL makes it explicit that Jezebel was responsible while the LXXB and the VL argue that Ahab struck down Naboth (and perhaps his son[s]).

It is difficult to explain the omission of this material from the MT based on the supposition that it is due to a scribal error. One reason for this is that the material at hand is disputed elsewhere in the Ahab/oracle traditions (i.e., who was responsible for Naboth’s murder and who was murdered). At this point, a best guess as to why the material in the Greek witnesses is so different from the MT is that the MT was changed to omit any indication that Ahab felt any sorrow for Naboth’s death and the actions of his wife Jezebel which were unknown to him. This portrayal of Ahab was modified in favor of a more sulky or pouty Ahab. In other words, the phrase וישכב בשק ויהלך אט “and he lay in sackcloth and walked dejectedly is possible a late thematic insertion associated with other such statements about Ahab that were meant to portray him as a spoiled and depressed king sad because he didn’t get his way. Furthermore, the information omitted from the MT but found in the LXX and VL seem to fit better with the following verses that cite Ahab’s efforts to repent.

Another possibility is that the verb וישכב initially read וישפך. If this is the case, then in fact the Greek phrase καὶ περιεβάλετο σάκκον “and he dressed in sackcloth” does have a corresponding phrase in the MT וישפך בשק “and he dressed in sackcloth.”33 This would mean that the only phrase found in the Greek and OL witnesses but not in the MT is ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ, ἧ ἐπάταξεν Ναβουθαι τὸν Ιεζραηλίτην “on the day that he killed Naboth the Jezreelite.” A hypothetical reconstruction of the Hebrew Vorlage of these other witnesses would be: וישפך בשק

עכר נבות היזרעאלי\שתר\צרר\מכה\נכה\נגף\מחץ\המית\לכד\לחם\ביום דקק .33F

34

1 Kings 21:28 — רויהי דבר־יהוה אל־אליהו התשבי לאמ

The most pressing textual issue with v.28 is the disagreement between the various witnesses regarding the content of this verse. For example, the LXXB reads καὶ ἐγένετο ῥῆμα κυρίου ἐν χειρὶ δούλου αὐτοῦ Ηλιου [τον θεσβειτην] περὶ Αχααβ, καὶ εἶπεν κύριος “and the word of the Lord was [delivered?] by the hand of his servant Elijah concerning Ahab, and the Lord said.” (additional elements in red; omitted elements in bold) The VL, which commonly supports the LXX readings, preserves a much simpler translation: Tunc sermo Domini ad Heliam “Then the word of the Lord [came] to Elijah.” A hypothetical reconstruction of the hypothetical Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX* would be ביד \אלויהי דבר יהוה

על אחאב ויאמר יהוה עבדואליהו “then the word of Yahweh was in the hand of Elijah his servant concerning Ahab, and Yahweh said…”

Jeremiah 3:8 and 46:13 may shed some light on the enigmatic Greek reading and how the scribes translating the Hebrew text into Greek may have been confused by the text

33 See T. Muraoka, A Greek Hebrew Aramaic Two Way Index, 94 “περιβαλλω” 34 Idem, 92 “πατασσω”

©C. H. Bench, 2015

41

they were translating. Both of these verses from Jeremiah contain the prepositional phrases to it.” Scholars have suggested that, based on the Greek readings of“ אליה to…” and“ אלthese verses initially read as the idiomatic “by the hand…” or “in the hand…” For Jeremiah 3:8 which contains the prepositional phrase אליה, Rudolph (BHS apparatus note) rightly suggests that the MT is defective and should read instead אל יד. This error occurred when a scribe confused the ד for a ה and in doing so thought that the phrase was the prepositional phrase אל with the enclitic particle ה-. The issue is somewhat different for Jer 46:13 where the only indication that the text should include יד is the witness of the LXX* which reads Ἃ ἐλάλησεν κύριος ἐν χειρὶ Ιερεμιου “That which the Lord spoke by the hand of Jeremiah…” Rudolph suggests that the Hebrew text should read ביד, however, in light of these other examples (including now 1 Kgs 21:28, as will be seen), these verses may have preserved a rare form of a prepositional phrase אל יד that is synonymous or nearly so with ביד. If so, it is likely that the LXX preserved a reading that is older than the MT and that the MT of v.28 stands as it does now due to a scribal error similar to those found in Jeremiah noted above. This error may occurred due to haplography when the scribe confused the similarities between אל יד and אליהו and accidentally omitted the יד. Another possibility is that the Greek scribes translating the Hebrew text confused the name אליהו for the prepositional phrase אל ידו “by his hand.” These are simply hypotheses about how the Greek reading may have emerged and I understand that these suggestions only propose solutions for part of the verse. It is difficult, for example, to explain how the term δουλος and the phrase περι Αχααβ found their way into v.28. Yet, the evidence for the confusion between אל יד and אליה (graphically similar to אליהו) in Jeremiah, in my opinion, provides a logical explanation as to how the prepositional phrase εν χειρι made its way into this verse.

1 Kings 21:29 — הראית כי־נכנע אחאב מלפני יען כי־נכנע מפני לא־ אבי הרעה בימיו בימי בנו אביא הרעה על־ובית

The first textual issue with v.29 lies in the difference between the MT and the LXX* for the phrase יען כי־נכנע מפני “Because he humbled himself before me…” The LXX* reads Ἑώρακας ὡς κατενύγη Αχααβ ἀπὸ προσώπου μου; οὐκ ἐπάξω τὴν κακίαν ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις αὐτοῦ, ἀλλ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐπάξω τὴν κακίαν “See how Ahab has humbled [himself] before me? I will not bring evil in his days, but in the days of his son I will bring evil.” A hypothetical reconstruction of the Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX* would be הראית כי נכנע אחאב מלפני לא אביא As Jepsen notes in the BHS apparatus, there is likely a .הרעה בימיו בימי בנו אביא הרעה על ביתוscribal error at the root of the defective MT of this verse (perhaps homoteleuton/dittography?). Another possibility is that the phrase יען כי־נכנע מפני was initially to be read as a variant Hebrew tradition that was written in the margins but eventually made its way into the text itself. I suggest this because of the differences between the two instances of the phrase that is supposedly written twice כי־נכנע אחאב מלפני and יען כי־נכנע מפני. Though the phrases are similar, it seems unlikely that a scribe accidentally rewriting the first phrase would do so with three major differences: 1) the

©C. H. Bench, 2015

42

use of the conjunction יען is missing from the first instance of the phrase; 2) omission of the name Ahab; 3) the use of the term מפני for מלפני.

The next major textual issue is the omission of the final prepositional phrase of v.29, על on his house.” There are several reasons to argue that the phrase was not original to the“ ביתוMT. First, the LXX* omits the phrase altogether. Second, the first instance of the phrase in v.29 doesn’t include the phrase ועל־בית .

©C. H. Bench, 2015